Chapter 2

The Importance 

of Freight 

Transportati on 

to Agriculture
19

Chapter 2: The Importance of Freight 

Transportation to Agriculture 

The global economy experienced a period of unprecedented growth and relatively low inflation 

from the 1990’s through 2007. At the same time, U.S. agriculture also experienced strong 

growth. In 2007, the market value of agricultural products sold was more than $297 billion—83 

percent higher than in 1992.13 U.S. agriculture is increasingly dependent on transportation to 

deliver agricultural and food products to urban centers and coastal export facilities, most of 

which are distant from the producing regions.*

 Raw agricultural products also need to be 

moved to agricultural processing facilities such as grain mills, fruit and vegetable processors, 

and meat processors. The agricultural sector is the largest user of freight transportation in the 

United States. 

Adequate and efficient transportation is especially critical to successful marketing of U.S. 

agricultural products, which depends on transportation to deliver goods. This chapter reviews 

how agriculture uses transportation in the context of all freight transportation moving along 

major transportation corridors. It also examines the characteristics of agricultural supply and 

demand that make transportation critical to successful marketing and analyzes the supply and 

demand characteristics of several agricultural commodities for transportation implications. 

 

Figure 2-1: Peas 

being harvested 

directly into a field 

truck. Trucks are 

often the first and 

last steps in the 

transportation 

chain. 

 

 

Source: USDA 

 

*

 According to the 2000 Census, over 36 percent of the U.S. population resides in the East Coast States, 20 

percent in the West Coast States, and almost 12 percent in the Gulf Coast States. 
20

How Agriculture Uses Transportation

Agricultural freight moves by truck, rail, and barge along the nation’s vast network of highways, 

rail lines, and navigable waterways, competing with other freight for capacity. Maps in Figures 

2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 show the magnitude of agricultural shipments relative to other freight traffic 

moving along the critical transportation corridors. Colors on the maps indicate the type of 

shipment and the width indicates its volume. Orange represents all commodity movements 

and yellow indicates food and farm products as a component of all commodity movements—

areas where food and farm products predominate are mostly yellow. 

Highways 

Trucks moving food and agricultural products compete for capacity along the major interstate 

highways crossing the United States (Figure 2-2). Agriculture and food movements comprise 

most of the commodities on highways crossing several States. For example, the lines are mostly 

yellow in parts of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Idaho, and Washington, indicating 

that agricultural commodities make up most of the shipments on those highways. 

Figure 2-2: Agricultural and total freight moving on U.S. interstate system, 2002 
21

Railroads 

Agricultural traffic competes with other freight along key rail corridors. It plays an important 

role in several major corridors; agricultural movements are significant along many east-west 

corridors, as well as along the West Coast and parts of the Midwest (Figure 2-3).

Seven Class I railroads are in operation in the United States today, and each is important to 

agricultural movements:*,14 

• BNSF Railway (BNSF) operates in the Western corridors.

• CSX Transportation (CSX) operates in the Eastern corridors.

• Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS) operates in the South-Central region.

• Norfolk Southern Combined Railroad Subsidiaries (NS) operates in the East. 

• Union Pacific Railroad (UP) operates in the West. 

• Canadian National (CN, through its U.S. subsidiary, Grand Trunk Corporation) operates 

mainly in the central North-South corridors.

• Canadian Pacific (CP, through its U.S. subsidiary, Soo Line Railroad) operates in the 

corridors between the Northern Upper Great Plains to the Northern Midwest and 

Northeast.

Figure 2-3: Agricultural and total freight moving on U.S. rail lines, 2006 

 

*

 Class I Railroads are line haul freight railroads with 2007 operating revenue in excess of $359.6 million each. 

 
22

Waterways 

The Mississippi River system is the primary waterway for moving agricultural products by barge. 

It is especially important for transporting bulk grains and oilseeds from the Midwest to export 

ports in the New Orleans region. Other important rivers include the Columbia River in the 

Pacific Northwest, which also moves some bulk grains and oilseeds, and coastal waterways that 

supply poultry and hog operations in the mid-Atlantic region. 

Figure 2-4: Agricultural and total freight moving on U.S. waterways 

Relative Modal Importance 

Every 5 years, the U.S. Census Bureau conducts the Commodity Flow Survey (CFS), which 

collects information about the value, tons, and ton-miles moved by the U.S. transportation 

system, as well as modal share information.*

 Modal shares are modal characteristics that 

 

*

 When the analysis for this study was conducted, only the 2002 CFS detailed data (5-digit commodity code level) 

data and the 2007 preliminary general commodity data (2-digit) were available. The 2007 CFS complete report, 

with the updated detailed 5-digit data, was released in December 2009, but is not included in this report. 
23

represent those portions of total tonnages or ton-miles that move by a specific mode of 

transport—truck, rail, barge, multimodal, or other. 

In 2007, agriculture represented 22 percent of all tons and 31 percent of all ton-miles moved by 

the transportation system in the United States—almost the same as it was in 2002.*

 The 

movement of coal, in comparison, accounted for 9 percent of all tons and 21 percent of all tonmiles. Agriculture is the largest user of the U.S. transportation system. 

According to the preliminary 2007 CFS data tables, the value of all commodities transported 

grew by 41 percent, the tons by 12 percent, and the ton-miles by 11 percent in 5 years. The 

value, tons, and ton-miles of agricultural commodities moved grew by 34, 5, and 5 percent, 

respectively, from 2002 to 2007†

 (Table 2-1). 

Modal shares vary by commodity based on the quality of service and other factors, such as 

rates, availability, and customer needs. Commodities high in value or susceptible to 

deterioration or spoilage are more sensitive to handling procedures and to speed of delivery 

than less perishable commodities. For example, fresh fruits and vegetables require speed and 

careful handling above all. Trucks dominate movements of fresh fruit and vegetables, livestock, 

meats and poultry, dairy products, and bakery and confectionary products. Rail and barges 

lend themselves to bulk and lower-value products such as wheat and soybeans. Many 

commodities depend heavily on railroads, particularly grain and oilseed, alcohols, and 

fertilizers. The higher ratio of ton-miles for rail and barge indicates their efficiency at moving 

commodities longer distances, such as moving grains and oilseed to ports for export and to 

distant feedlot locations (Tables 2-2 and 2-3). 

CFS data show that in 2002 trucks were the primary mover of agricultural products, claiming 70 

percent of all agricultural tonnages and 46 percent of all agricultural ton-miles (Table 2-2). 

Railroads followed with 18 percent of tonnages and 36 percent of ton-miles (although railroads’ 

share is much higher in the heavier bulk commodities such as grains and oilseeds, milled grain 

products and animal feed, alcohols, fertilizers, and lumber). Barges have a 9 percent share of 

agricultural tonnages and a 12 percent share of agricultural ton-miles—most of which is 

accounted for by movements of grain, animal feed, and fertilizers on the Mississippi River and 

its tributaries.

 

*

 Includes movements of raw agricultural commodities (grains, livestock, timber, fruit, and vegetables), processed 

products (feedstuffs, dairy, canned foods, lumber, pulp, and paper), and agricultural inputs (fertilizer and 

pesticides). †

 The CFS data are estimated with coefficients of variance, which makes this comparison inexact. 
24

Commodity description (2-digit)

 Value 

(billion $)

Tons 

(Million)

TonMiles 

(Billion)

Average 

Miles per 

Shipment

 Value 

(billion $) 

Tons 

(Million) 

TonMiles 

(Billion) 

Average 

Miles per 

Shipment Value Tons

TonMiles 

All Commodities 8,397 11,668 3,138 546 11,832 13,017 3,491 580 41 12 11

Agricultural Products: Live animals and live fish 7 6 2 530 15 9 4 725 98 43 146

 Cereal grains 54 561 264 138 110 673 280 153 104 20 6 Other agricultural products 129 259 109 481 158 271 122 374 22 5 11

 Animal feed and products 52 228 51 167 82 231 71 383 58 2 38

 Meat, fish, seafood 201 85 41 162 259 90 44 243 28 7 7

 Grain, alcohol, and tobacco products 113 109 49 189 137 115 50 262 21 5 3

 Other prepared food; fats and oils 356 449 162 179 490 462 160 230 38 3 (1)

 Alcohol and alcoholic beverages 109 89 26 55 157 117 33 87 44 31 29

 Tobacco products 70 4 1 334 81 3 1 414 16 (23) (34)

 Fertilizers 34 264 88 157 42 137 52 162 23 (48) (41)

 Logs and Wood products 164 346 128 242 225 414 145 290 37 20 13

 Paper Pulp 102 137 78 206 129 145 80 250 26 6 3

 Paper or paperboard articles 104 69 23 282 118 82 30 392 14 18 27

Agricultural Products Sub-Total 1,497 2,607 1,022 2,002 2,749 1,072 34 5 5

 % of All Commodities 18% 22% 33% 17 21 31Coal 23 1,240 686 120 33 1,235 722 115 46 (0.4) 5

 % of All Commodities 0.3% 11% 22% 0.3% 9% 21%

2002 2007 % Change from 2002

Table 2-1: Transportation characteristics of agricultural commodities, 2002 and 2007

Source: DOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau, CFS, 2002 <http://www.bts.gov/publications/commodity_flow_survey/>
25

Commodity Groups Truck

(%) All 

Modes Rail

(%) All 

Modes Water

(%) All 

Modes

MultiModal (%) All Modes Other* (%) All Modes All Modes Total

 -- Million Tons --

Ag. and Food Products

Grains (Incl. Seeds) & Soybeans 286.3 40 197.1 27 208.5 29 15.3 2 11.4 2 719 100

Other Oilseeds 5.7 75 1.3 17 0.5 7 8 100

Fruit & Veg (incl. potatoes) 73.0 94 1.0 1 0.5 1 3.4 4 78 100

Livestock and live fish 7.0 95 - 0.4 5 7 100Meat and poultry, fresh or frozen 75.8 98 0.4 1 0.1 0.1 1.4 2 78 100

Dairy products 95.1 98 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.7 2 97 100

Processed veg., fruit, or nuts 54.6 90 2.6 4 1.5 2 2.0 3 61 100

Milled grain products; animal feed 94.8 76 23.5 19 1.2 1 0.7 1 4.1 3 124 100

Bakery products and preparations 58.0 97 0.3 0.5 0.6 1 1.0 2 60 100

Animal or vegetable fats and oils 31.6 57 17.4 31 3.1 6 3.5 6 56 100

Sugar (beet or cane); corn syrup 15.9 42 20.0 53 0.8 2 1.0 3 38 100

Confectionery, incl. cocoa 5.6 91 0.4 7 0.1 2 0.0 0 6 100

Beverages 218.3 97 2.4 1 0.5 0 4.2 2 225 100

Misc. food products 46.5 92 1.9 4 0.8 2 1.1 2 50 100

Alcohols (bev. and industrial) 7.9 64 3.6 29 0.2 2 0.7 5 12 100Fertilizers 151.2 57 95.9 36 10.6 4 6.7 3 264 100

Lumber & wood products 284.6 82 48.5 14 0.4 0.1 2.6 1 9.9 3 346 100

Paper, pulp, paperboard articles 160.8 78 38.5 19 3.0 1 3.9 2 206 100

 Farm machinery and equipment** 9.5 89 1.2 11 11Other ag. products 151.4 88 16.3 9 4.2 2 -- -- 172.5 100

-

Ag. And Food Products Total 1,824.1 70 471.2 18 228.0 9 32.7 1 51.4 2 2,607.4 100

% of All Commodities, by mode 23% 25% 33% 15% 5% 22%

Coal 149.8 12 839.5 68 39.7 3 58.3 5 152.5 12 1,239.9 100

% of All Commodities, by mode 2% 45% 6% 27% 14% 11%

All Commodities 7,842.8 67 1,873.9 16 681.2 6 216.7 2 1,053.3 9 11,667.9 100

**Unpublished estimates. May contain high levels of sampling and nonsampling error. Not included in Ag and Food Products Subtotal.*Includes suppressed modal data, other single modes (air, parcel post, or pipepines), and other and unknown modes. For additional information about the CFS, 

please see, www.census.gov/cfs.

Table 2-2: Modal transportation characteristics of agricultural commodities by volume, 2002 Source: DOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau, CFS, 2002 
26

Table 2-3: Modal transportation characteristics of agricultural commodities, by ton-miles, 2002 

Commodity Groups Truck

Source: DOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau, CFS, 2002 

(%) All 

Modes Rail

(%) All 

Modes Water

(%) All 

Modes

MultiModal (%) All Modes Other* (%) All Modes All Modes Total

 -- Billion Ton-Miles --

Ag. and Food Products

Grains (Incl. Seeds) & Soybeans 28.0 9 158.3 50 113.8 36 16.3 5 2.4 1 318.9 100

Other Oilseeds 2.9 63 1.1 24 0.6 13 4.5 100

Fruit & Veg (incl. potatoes) 33.1 81 2.1 5 1.2 3 4.4 11 40.7 100

Livestock and live fish 5.8 95 0.3 5 6.1 100

Meat and poultry, fresh or frozen 36.4 97 0.6 2 0.1 0.4 0.3 1 37.4 100

Dairy products 20.1 98 0.3 1 0.1 0.4 0.2 1 20.6 100

Processed veg., fruit, or nuts 31.5 78 5.2 13 3.1 8 0.6 2 40.4 100

Milled grain products; animal feed 19.2 39 22.4 46 0.7 1 0.6 1 5.9 12 48.7 100

Bakery products and preparations 23.8 90 0.4 2 1.0 4 1.2 5 26.5 100

Animal or vegetable fats and oils 9.7 39 12.4 49 2.4 10 0.5 2 25.0 100

Sugar (beet or cane); corn syrup 4.8 19 18.6 75 1.1 4 0.4 1 24.9 100

Confectionery, incl. cocoa 3.2 83 0.2 5 0.5 12 3.9 100

Beverages 34.3 83 2.1 5 0.8 2 4.2 10 41.4 100

Misc. food products 23.4 83 2.5 9 0.1 0 2.3 8 28.2 100

Alcohols 1.3 25 3.2 61 0.2 5 0.4 9 5.1 100

Fertilizers 45.0 50 35.2 39 6.5 7 3.2 4 89.9 100

Lumber & wood products 70.3 55 51.3 40 4.1 3 2.3 2 127.9 100

Paper, pulp, paperboard articles 64.1 63 32.4 32 3.5 3 1.5 2 101.5 100 Farm machinery and equipment** 4.2 91 0.4 9 4.6 100

Other ag. products 21.8 62 4.7 13 8.9 25 35.4 100

Ag. And Food Products Subtotal 468.3 46 360.2 36 126.7 12 38.9 4 20.1 2 1,014.3 100

% of All Commodities, by mode 37% 29% 45% 17% 18% 32%

Coal 11.7 2 590.4 86 11.8 2 72.4 11 686.3 100

% of All Commodities, by mode 1% 47% 4% 65% 22%

All Commodities Total 1,255.9 40 1,261.6 40 282.7 9 225.7 7 112.0 4 3,137.9 100

**Unpublished estimates. May contain high levels of sampling and nonsampling error. Not included in Ag and Food Products Subtotal.*Includes suppressed modal data, other single modes (air, parcel post, or pipepines), and other and unknown modes. For additional information about the CFS, 

please see, www.census.gov/cfs.
27

Moving Agricultural Commodities to Market 

Transportation demand is frequently referred to as a derived demand, suggesting that it is 

required to deliver products from producers to consumers. As such, it is an essential part of 

marketing; any change in supply or demand can affect the transport system’s efficiency by 

bringing about either shortages or surpluses in transportation capacity. Additional factors that 

impact agricultural transportation demand include weather, the seasonality of the agricultural 

cycle and the resulting commodity price fluctuations that can translate into unexpected shifts in 

transportation patterns. America’s agricultural producers depend on transportation as the 

critical link between the fields of growers and the tables of consumers, both here and abroad. 

This section presents select transportation “profiles” to show overarching transportation 

characteristics and relationships. These profiles portray the supply and demand characteristics 

of the commodities and reveal some significant transportation implications. The groups of 

profiles are: 

• Grains and Oilseeds 

o Corn 

o Soybean 

o Wheat 

o Rice 

• Livestock and Livestock Products 

o Cattle and Beef 

o Hogs and Pork 

o Poultry 

o Dairy 

• Fruits and Vegetables 

o Apple 

o Lettuce 

o Potatoes 

• Fertilizers 

The list above includes commodity groups for which transportation profiles were developed. 

The transportation profiles provide details of industry trends and transportation implications 

for each commodity. Where possible, the location of processing facilities is included in the 

profile. 

Grains and Oilseeds Profile 

The largest users of freight transportation in agriculture are the grains and oilseeds. In 2002, 

grains and oilseeds comprised 28 percent of all agricultural tons and 31 percent of ton-miles 

moved by all modes of transportation (Tables 2-2 and 2-3). 
28

Industry Trends 

Global agricultural supply and demand has changed rapidly since 1990. Table 2-4 shows 

changes in the eight major U.S. agricultural commodities between 1990/91 and 2007/08. Corn 

and soybeans have increased the most in production and demand since 1990. It is not 

surprising that they have also dominated the growth in transportation demand and account for 

most of the grain modal share. Between 2000 and 2006, corn accounted for 60 percent and 

soybeans 20 percent of all U.S. grain movements. 

U.S. rice production, domestic use, and exports have also grown over the last 17 years. 

Production and domestic demand of wheat and the other feedgrains (sorghum, barley, and 

oats) have declined since 1990. Wheat production has declined because of the slow growth in 

global demand, causing farmers to switch to more profitable crops such as soybeans and corn. 

Sorghum production has declined because many farmers have shifted to growing more 

profitable corn and soybeans. Cotton domestic use has declined as a result of the movement of 

the U.S. textile sector to Asia and because of increased cotton production in China and India.

Exports of corn and soybeans grew strongly during this time, increasing by 44 and 69 percent, 

respectively. Rice, cotton, and sorghum exports also rose. Transportation demand was the 

strongest for the three major commodities; corn, soybean, and wheat exports accounted for 89 

percent of exports of the 8 major crops. 

Transportation is impacted most by changes in crop production and export demand; domestic 

demand for the major crops tends to be relatively stable. A look at the previous 17 years and 

USDA’s long-term projections—until the 2018/19 marketing year—shows that production and 

exports for the three major grains return to a more stable growth, contrasted with the dramatic 

changes of the past 17 years (Table 2-4).15

Production Outlook for Grains and Oilseeds 

Corn production is expected to grow, but at a slower pace, increasing 12 percent by 2018/19, 

compared with the 58 percent growth over the previous 17 years. The expected growth 

reflects high levels of domestic corn-based ethanol production and gains in exports that keep 

corn demand strong and grower returns high. 

Soybean production is expected to grow rapidly, increasing 22 percent by 2018/19 compared 

with the 28 percent growth over the previous 17 years. 

Declines in the livestock sector initially reduce demand for soybean meal for livestock feed, 

lowering the domestic soybean crush in the near term. However, once meat production gains 

resume, the soybean crush will follow; long-term growth in the domestic soybean crush is 

mostly driven by domestic soybean meal demand. 

Despite an expected decrease in wheat acreage, wheat production is expected to increase by 

13 percent over the projected period. 
29

Export Outlook for Grains and Oilseed 

Following a year of record U.S. corn exports in 2007/08, exports are expected to drop in 

2008/09 but rise in the long term in response to a strengthening global demand for feed grains 

to support growth in meat production. The U.S. share of the global corn trade is expected to 

hold at around 55–60 percent. 

U.S. wheat exports also reached recent record high levels in 2007/08 but are projected to drop 

in 2008/09 and then increase slowly as competition from the European Union (EU), Canada, 

Argentina, Australia, and the Black Sea region limits further gains. 

U.S. soybean exports will hold fairly flat, increasing by 3 percent over the projection period. 

Competition from South America limits growth in U.S. exports. Consequently, the U.S. market 

share of global soybean trade is forecast to decline from 40 percent in 2009/10 to about 30 

percent at the end of the projections. 

Table 2-4: Key supply and demand indicators: U.S. major eight field crops, (million 

metric tons)

Sources: Economic Research Service, Commodity Yearbooks; USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand 

Estimates; USDA Long-term Projections to 2018 

 

----------5-year averages------------

USDA 

Long-term 

Projections 

% 

Change 

1990-94 

% 

Change 

2007/08

 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2018/19 

to 

2007/08 

to 

2018/19

Production 

Corn 209.7 228.8 255.4 282.3 267.5 331.2 370.3 58 12 

Wheat 64.7 64.1 56.0 57.2 49.2 55.8 62.9 (14) 13 

Soybeans 57.1 68.8 76.1 83.4 87.0 72.9 88.7 28 22 

Sorghum 16.3 15.3 11.2 10.0 7.0 12.6 10.3 (23) (19)

Barley 9.2 7.6 5.9 4.6 3.9 4.6 5.4 (50) 19 

Oats 3.9 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.5 (66) 11 

Rice 7.7 8.3 9.5 10.1 8.8 9.0 10.8 17 20 

Cotton 3.7 3.8 4.2 5.2 4.7 4.2 4.0 13 (4)

Domestic Use 

Corn 165.8 180.3 207.2 232.0 230.7 261.7 312.3 58 19 

Wheat 33.5 34.7 32.7 31.3 30.9 28.6 36.8 (15) 29 

Soybeans 34.8 41.2 44.5 47.3 49.2 49.0 51.6 41 5 

Sorghum 10.9 9.9 6.0 4.8 4.0 5.1 5.0 (53) (2)

Barley 8.5 7.3 5.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 5.4 (49) 23 

Oats 5.1 3.7 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.9 (45) 2 

Rice 4.3 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 5.6 6.6 30 18 

Cotton 2.2 2.3 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 (58) (8)

Exports 

Corn 43.1 48.0 46.5 54.2 54.0 61.9 56.5 44 (9)

Wheat 33.3 29.5 29.0 27.3 24.7 34.4 29.3 3 (15)

Soybeans 18.7 23.9 27.7 25.6 30.4 31.6 32.7 69 3 

Sorghum 6.2 5.4 5.3 4.9 3.9 7.1 5.3 13 (24)

Barley 1.69 0.98 0.68 0.61 0.44 0.90 0.5 (47) (40)

Oats 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.0 16 3 

Rice 3.61 3.85 4.67 5.21 4.12 4.89 5.9 36 20 

 Cotton 1.56 1.44 2.52 3.82 2.83 2.61 3.1 67 20 
30

Mode of Transportation of U.S. Grains, 1978-2006* 

The term “modal share” means the portion of the total tonnages of grain moved by each mode 

of transport—rail, barge, or truck. Almost all grain moves off the farm by truck to its first 

destination. However, this analysis looks only at the final mode used. Grain is frequently 

shipped by more than one mode. For example, corn may travel to St. Louis by rail and then be 

loaded on a barge to be shipped to New Orleans for export. 

Barges, railroads, and trucks compete to transport grain. Despite this competition, the modes 

also complement each other. This balance between competition and integration provides 

farmers with an efficient and low-cost transportation system. 

The most remarkable trend in grain transportation is the nearly constant annual increases in 

the amount of grain transported each year. Total grain movements increased 84 percent from 

1978 to 2006. During those 28 years, there were only 8 years in which annual grain movements 

decreased. The decreases in 1989 and 1994 are notable. The 1989 decline reflected 

production losses due to the widespread 1988 drought. The 1994 decrease was caused by 

production losses due to massive flooding in 1993. 

Grain movements have two distinct patterns, depending upon whether the final destination is 

domestic or foreign. From 1978 to 2006, all growth in grain transportation was a result of 

increases in the domestic market. During this time, the export market peaked in 1980 and 

1981, with record levels for corn in 1980 and wheat in 1981 (Figure 2-5). The trucking sector 

experienced the largest growth in grain movements from 1978 to 2006, when tonnage 

increased from 74 million to 227 million tons—growing at a compound annual growth rate 

(CAGR) of 4.1 percent. During this period, rail movements increased from 117 million to 158 

million tons (1.1 percent CAGR), and barge movements from 51 million to 60 million tons (0.6 

percent CAGR) (Figure 2-6). 

 

*

 Information for this section was developed through a preliminary update of the October 2006 report, 

Transportation of U.S. Grains: A Modal Share Analysis, 1978-2004 to include the years 2005 and 2006. This 

report is periodically updated by AMS. 
31

Figure 2-5: Grain movements by type of movement, 1978 to 2006 

Source: AMS, Transportation of U.S. Grains: A Modal Share Analysis, 1978-2006 (not yet published as of printing) 

Figure 2-6: Grain movements by mode, 1978 to 2006 

Source: AMS, Transportation of U.S. Grains: A Modal Share Analysis, 1978-2006 (not yet published as of printing) 
32

Location of Elevators 

The location of agricultural storage facilities—mainly grain elevators and warehouses—has 

played a key role in the development of the United States. As Eastern cities expanded and 

Midwest farms increased their capacity, an efficient system of transportation and storage was 

introduced to prevent spoilage and reduce transportation costs. In 1842, a retail merchant 

named Joseph Dart constructed what is believed to be the first grain elevator on Buffalo Creek, 

near Buffalo, NY. Since then, storage facilities have evolved to highly mechanized modern 

operations that include the grain-barge and ocean-vessel loading facilities of today. 

Two key factors play a role in the location of elevators and warehouses. The first is the need to 

store grain, oilseeds, and other agricultural products immediately after harvest to prevent 

spoilage and infestation. The second factor is the need to efficiently gather and load the 

quantities required to fill a tow of barges or an ocean-going vessel. As can be seen in Figure 2-

7, the highest concentrations are in the Midwest and West Coast—near major grain and oilseed 

producing and/or consuming areas—and the port regions of the Gulf and Pacific Northwest. 

Storage capacity is also located near the poultry and swine operations of the Mid-Atlantic and 

the dairy farms of the Northeast, West, and Southwest. 

Elevator and warehousing operations in the United States fall into two categories: those with a 

Federal license issued under the United States Warehouse Act (USWA) and those licensed by 

States. Many of these facilities also have storage agreements with USDA’s Commodity Credit 

Corporation (CCC). Either State or Federal licensing is required by many States and under some 

of the CCC storage agreements. 

The USWA authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to license warehouse operators who store 

agricultural products. Warehouse operators must meet USDA standards established by 

Congress within the USWA and its regulations. Application is voluntary and applicants who 

agree to be licensed under the USWA observe the rules for licensing and pay associated user 

fees. The CCC enters into storage agreements with private individuals and companies to allow 

warehouse operators to store commodities owned by CCC or pledged as security to CCC for 

marketing assistance loans. Typically, these agreements are in the form of the Uniform Grain 

and Rice Storage Agreement (UGRSA). Warehouse operators that enter into these agreements 

must meet standards established by USDA, agree to comply with the terms and conditions of 

the agreement, and pay any associated user fees. In some agreements, the warehouse 

operators are required to be licensed either by the USWA or by a State authority. 
33

Transportation Implications 

Agricultural processing facilities are usually located in close proximity to the raw agricultural 

products they use, in part due to the economic advantages that include lower transportation 

costs. This is also the case with the grain and oilseed milling facilities. As the map in Figure 2-8 

shows, the processing facilities that use wheat, corn, rice, and soybeans to manufacture flour, 

vegetable oil, and other products are concentrated in the same areas as the storage facilities. 

Figure 2-7: Location of elevator storage capacity, with rail and barge systems*

Source: Farm Service Agency USWA/UGRSA database (as of January 2009) 

 

*

 This map includes storage operations that warehouse several commodity groups. Each warehouse may hold 

different commodities at different times of the year or, in multi-silo elevators, different commodities at the 

same time. However, the vast majority of the elevators on this map primarily handle grains. This map is 

estimated to represent more than 80 percent of total storage capacity. 
34

Figure 2-8: Grain and oilseed milling facilities, 2000 

Source: Econ 02 Report Series, 2002, Economic Census, U.S. Census Bureau 

Corn Profile 

 Corn produced in the United States is used mainly as animal feed, with smaller portions 

exported and used for ethanol, human food, and seed. 

Supply and Demand

Supply and demand patterns in the U.S. corn market 

have shifted dramatically since 1990. Domestic and 

export shares have decreased and the share used by 

industry has grown substantially. Feed use has 

decreased from 59 percent in the 1990/91 growing 

season to 47 percent in 2007/08; exports decreased 

from 22 to 19 percent. During the same period, 

industrial use increased from 18 percent to 34 percent 

(Table 2-5). Most of the change occurred after the rapid expansion of the ethanol sector. 

 

Table 2-5: Corn usage by sector, 

percentage 

Feed Exports Industrial

1990/91 59 22 18

2007/08 47 19 34
35

Domestic demand for feed corn has grown by only 29 percent between 1990/91 and 2007/08 

marketing years (Table 2-6). But demand for corn for food, seed, and industrial products, 

including ethanol, has surged by 206 percent. About a third of the corn used to make ethanol 

ends up as distiller grains, which are used as animal feed. Corn exports peaked in 2007/08 at a 

record 2.4 billion bushels—41 percent higher than in 1990/91. Corn exports are expected to 

decrease to 1.75 billion bushels in 2008/09 due to reduced global demand for corn feeding as a 

result of the current economic downturn. USDA projects that by 2018/19, corn exports will 

recover to 2.25 billion bushels. 

Table 2-6. U.S. corn supply and use for various marketing years, million bushels 

Source: USDA/ERS, Feedgrains database. <http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/feedgrains> 

Supply Use

Marketing Yeara

Beginning 

Stocks Production Imports Total

Food, 

seed, and 

alcohol Feed Exports Total

1990/91 1,344 7,934 3 9,282 1,425 4,609 1,727 7,761 

2000/01 1,718 9,915 7 11,639 1,957 5,842 1,941 9,740 

2001/02 1,899 9,503 10 11,412 2,046 5,864 1,905 9,815 

2002/03 1,596 8,967 14 10,578 2,340 5,563 1,588 9,491 

2003/04 1,087 10,087 14 11,188 2,537 5,793 1,900 10,230 

2004/05 958 11,806 11 12,775 2,687 6,155 1,818 10,661 

2005/06 2,114 11,112 9 13,235 2,982 6,152 2,134 11,268 

2006/07 1,967 10,531 12 12,510 3,490 5,591 2,125 11,207 

2007/08 1,304 13,038 20 14,362 4,363 5,938 2,436 12,737 

2008/09b 12,101 1,624 15 13,740 4,900 5,300 1,750 11,950 

2009/10c 12,365 1,790 15 14,170 5,400 5,200 1,850 12,450 

a Marketing Year: September 1-August 31

b Projected, WASDE, February 10, 2009

c Preliminary, February 27, 2009
36

Corn Transportation Characteristics 

In 2007, more than 60 percent of U.S. corn was harvested in five states: Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, 

Minnesota, and Indiana. Demand for corn, however, was more diverse, creating areas of deficit 

throughout the West, Texas, the Southeast, and Northeast. Corn is also shipped to export port 

regions in the Gulf, the Pacific Northwest, the Atlantic Coast, and the Great Lakes. Figure 2-9 

demonstrates that this imbalance of surplus and deficit creates the need for long distance 

transportation. 

Figure 2-9: Corn surplus/deficit map with the transportation system 

Because of the projected trend in supply and demand, long-term transportation demand for 

corn exports can be expected to grow at a stable rate. Domestic corn transportation patterns 

will continue to be dominated by the dynamics of corn used for ethanol and distillers grain 

because the growth of the ethanol industry in the Corn Belt introduced additional 

transportation needs. More than 90 percent of ethanol production capacity is located within a 

50-mile radius of the corn producing areas, so trucks have been the primary mode of 

transportation for inbound corn. However, the newer and larger bio-refineries are able to 

receive corn shipments by rail. Chapter 4 provides more information on transportation of 

biofuels. 
37

Corn Modal Shares 

During 2000 to 2006, corn accounted for 60 percent of all grain movements. It dominates the 

bulk transportation market because of its large production volumes; it usually has the largest 

harvested acreage of any crop, although soybean acreage has risen in the last several years and 

sometimes surpasses the number of corn acres. However, the high yield-per-acre of corn 

makes it a driver in the transportation market. Corn yields can be more than three times those 

of soybeans or wheat. 

Corn is transported to distant markets in two patterns—one for domestic use and the other for 

export. Trucks supply most of the transportation for the domestic market, and barges supply 

the export market. From 2000 to 2006, trucks transported, on average, about 68 percent of the 

corn used by the domestic market (Table 2-7). During the same period, barges transported 64 

percent of the corn exports. Rail handled about 33 percent of the export market and 30 

percent of the domestic market. Barges continue to be the main mode of transportation for 

corn moving to port regions for export. But the modal share trend for exported corn has seen 

an increase in the rail share and a decrease in barges. By 2006, rail’s share of export corn 

increased to 44 percent—15 points higher than in 2000. At the same time, barge’s share had 

decreased to 50 percent after peaking at 73 percent in 2002 (Table 2-7 and Figure 2-10). 

 

 
38

Table 2-7: Corn modal shares 

CORN

Year & Type of Movement Rail Barge Truck

1,000 Tons Percent 1,000 Tons Percent 1,000 Tons Percent

TOTAL

2000 68,984 30% 37,831 16% 122,531 53%

2001 73,633 31% 38,864 16% 125,340 53%

2002 72,615 31% 41,598 18% 119,713 51%

2003 71,443 30% 36,488 15% 127,916 54%

2004 77,377 32% 37,302 15% 126,588 52%

2005 77,908 30% 31,739 12% 150,519 58%

2006 91,552 32% 34,587 12% 159,086 56%

Average 76,216 31% 36,916 15% 133,099 54%

EXPORT

2000 15,213 29% 35,150 66% 2,594 5%

2001 15,822 30% 35,904 68% 1,306 2%

2002 14,327 27% 38,125 73% Not available * 

2003 14,371 30% 32,872 69% 364 1%

2004 17,422 33% 33,974 64% 1,978 4%

2005 20,251 40% 28,778 57% 1,600 3%

2006 28,145 44% 31,941 50% 3,342 5%

Average 17,936 33% 33,821 64% 1,598 3%

DOMESTIC

2000 53,771 30% 2,681 2% 119,936 68%

2001 57,811 31% 2,960 2% 124,034 67%

2002 58,288 32% 3,473 2% 119,835 66%

2003 57,072 30% 3,616 2% 127,552 68%

2004 59,955 32% 3,328 2% 124,611 66%

2005 57,657 28% 2,961 1% 148,918 71%

2006 63,407 29% 2,646 1% 155,744 70%

Average 58,280 30% 3,095 2% 131,519 68%

Source: AMS, Transportation of U.S. Grains: A Modal Share Analysis, 1978-2006 (not yet published as of printing) 

 
39

Figure 2-10: Modal shares of corn exports, 2000-2006 

Source: AMS, Transportation of U.S. Grains: A Modal Share Analysis, 1978-2006 (not yet published as of printing) 

Corn Exports by Port Region 

• Most corn exports are shipped 

through the Mississippi Gulf 

region—63 percent of all corn 

volumes exported in 2007 

(Figure 2-11). 

• The Pacific Northwest accounted 

for 17 percent of all corn exports 

in 2007.

• The top five destinations—Japan, 

Mexico, Korea, Taiwan, and Egypt 

accounted for 64 percent of all 

U.S. exports in 2007/08.

• The port share of corn exports 

depends on the ocean rate 

spread (the difference between 

the cost of shipping from the Gulf to Japan and the cost of shipping from the Pacific 

Northwest). 

Figure 2-11: Corn export inspections by port region, 2007 

Source: FGIS, 2007
40

Soybean Profile 

Soybeans are used to produce soybean meal used as animal feed, soybean oil, and other 

soybean products used in food manufacturing. 

Supply and Demand 

The 65 percent growth in the global economy since 1990 has contributed to the rise in world 

demand for meat, milk, and eggs,16 which has translated into demand for U.S. soybeans and 

soymeal used as a high-protein livestock feed. Between 1990 and 2008, domestic demand for 

soybeans grew by 52 percent and soybean exports increased by 108 percent. USDA’s 

preliminary projections indicate that U.S. soybean exports could reach a record level in 

2009/10, but then continue a more stable long-term growth. A continuing demand for soybean 

exports will require efficient and reliable rail and barge transportation. 

Table 2-8: U.S. soybean supply and use for various marketing years (in million bushels) 

Source: USDA/ERS, Soybean and Oil Crops Recommended Data 

<http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/SoybeansOilcrops/data.htm> 

Supply Use

Marketing Yeara

Beginning 

Stocks Production Total Crush Exports

Seed, 

Feed, 

Residual Total

1990/91 239 1,926 2,165 1,187 557 96 1,840 

2000/01 290 2,758 3,048 1,640 996 168 2,804 

2001/02 248 2,891 3,138 1,700 1,064 169 2,933 

2002/03 208 2,756 2,964 1,615 1,044 131 2,791 

2003/04 178 2,454 2,632 1,530 887 109 2,525 

2004/05 112 3,124 3,236 1,696 1,097 193 2,986 

2005/06 256 3,063 3,319 1,739 940 194 2,873 

2006/07 449 3,197 3,646 1,808 1,116 157 3,081 

2007/08 574 2,677 3,251 1,801 1,161 93 3,055 

2008/09b 2,959 205 3,164 1,650 1,150 163 2,963 

2009/10c 3,240 210 3,450 1,675 1,225 172 3,072 a Marketing Year: September 1-August 31

b Projected, WASDE, February 10, 2009

c Preliminary, February 27, 2009
41

Soybean Transportation Characteristics 

As with corn, the top soybean producing states are Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, Ohio, and 

Nebraska. However, demand for soybean products in feed rations is distributed around the 

U.S. markets and port regions for export (Figure 2-12). 

Figure 2-12: Soybean surplus/deficit map with transportation system 
42

Soybean Modal Share 

From 2000 to 2006, soybeans accounted for 20 percent of all grain movements. Their 

transportation pattern resembles that of corn; barges provide most of the transportation for 

export, and trucks serve most of the domestic markets. With a domestic modal share for truck 

of more than 80 percent, the domestic soybean market uses more trucks than corn, the latter 

having a modal truck share of under 70 percent (Tables 2-7 and 2-9). Soybeans used in the 

domestic market are more likely to be trucked to a crushing facility, so more trucked soybeans 

appear in the domestic market. Since 2004, the share of soybeans moved for export by rail has 

been rising, while the share of soybean export movements by barge has slowly decreased. In 

fact, by 2006, the share of export soybean movements by barge was only 3 percent above that 

moved by rail (Figure 2-13 and Table 2-9). 

Figure 2-13: Modal shares of soybean exports, 2000-2006 

Source: AMS, Transportation of U.S. Grains: A Modal Share Analysis, 1978-2006 (not yet published as of printing) 

 
43

Table 2-9: Soybean modal shares, 2000-2006 

SOYBEANS

Year & Type of Movement Rail Barge Truck

1,000 Tons Percent 1,000 Tons Percent 1,000 Tons Percent

TOTAL

2000 17,257 22% 20,174 26% 41,225 52%

2001 20,662 24% 19,872 23% 44,813 53%

2002 19,120 22% 21,399 25% 44,848 53%

2003 20,216 24% 20,167 24% 44,409 52%

2004 16,346 22% 17,053 23% 39,337 54%

2005 17,655 22% 16,332 21% 45,501 57%

2006 21,858 25% 16,221 19% 49,557 57%

Average 19,016 23% 18,745 23% 44,242 54%

EXPORT

2000 8,591 29% 18,665 63% 2,442 8%

2001 11,711 37% 18,689 59% 1,262 4%

2002 10,602 35% 19,642 64% 263 1%

2003 12,479 37% 18,632 55% 2,878 8%

2004 9,322 34% 15,412 56% 2,977 11%

2005 11,273 40% 15,030 53% 1,815 6%

2006 14,169 46% 15,240 49% 1,654 5%

Average 11,164 37% 17,330 57% 1,899 6%

DOMESTIC

2000 8,666 18% 1,510 3% 38,783 79%

2001 8,950 17% 1,183 2% 43,552 81%

2002 8,518 16% 1,758 3% 44,586 81%

2003 7,737 15% 1,535 3% 41,531 82%

2004 7,024 16% 1,641 4% 36,361 81%

2005 6,382 12% 1,302 3% 43,686 85%

2006 7,688 14% 982 2% 47,903 85%

Average 7,852 15% 1,416 3% 42,343 82%

Source: AMS, Transportation of U.S. Grains: A Modal Share Analysis, 1978-2006 (not yet published as of printing) 
44

Soybean Exports by Port Region 

• Most soybean exports are shipped through the Mississippi Gulf region—52 percent in 

2007 (Figure 2-14).

• The Pacific Northwest accounted for 27 percent of all soybean exports in 2007.

• The top 5 destinations—China, Mexico, Japan, EU, and Taiwan—accounted for 80 

percent of all U.S. soybean exports in 2007.

Figure 2-14: Soybean exports by port region 

Source: FGIS grain inspections, 2007 annual 

Wheat Profile 

Wheat is the most important food grain produced in the United States. Annual production 

exceeded 2 billion bushels in 4 out of the last 5 years (Table 2-10). 

Supply and Demand 

Wheat production in the United States has declined since 1990/91 because of slow growth in 

global demand, and also because farmers have found it more profitable to grow soybeans and 

corn. U.S. wheat exports surged in 2007/08 due to a weather-related shortfall in production by 

other major exporters. This reduced available world wheat supplies and resulted in importing 

countries buying more U.S. wheat than they have done in the recent past. 

 
45

Various types of wheat are grown in highly concentrated production areas of the United States 

and the grain must be dispersed for use throughout the United States. Seasonality of the types 

of wheat can affect its transportation. The harvest seasons of the two major types of wheat—

winter and spring—grown in the United States take place in May–June and August–September, 

respectively. As in the case of corn and soybeans, export demand necessitates shipping both 

winter and spring wheat to the major export regions. 

Table 2-10: U.S. wheat supply and use, (million bushels) 

Source: USDA/Economic Research Service, Wheat Yearbook Tables. <http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Wheat> 

Supply Use

Marketing Yeara

Beginning 

Stocks Production Imports Total Food

Feed, 

Seed, 

Residual Exports Total

1990/91 536 2,730 36 3,302 790 575 1,069 2,434 

2000/01 950 2,228 90 3,268 950 379 1,062 2,391 

2001/02 876 1,947 26 2,849 926 265 962 2,153 

2002/03 777 1,606 77 2,460 919 200 850 1,969 

2003/04 491 2,344 63 2,899 912 283 1,158 2,353 

2004/05 546 2,157 71 2,774 910 259 1,066 2,235 

2005/06 540 2,103 81 2,725 917 234 1,003 2,154 

2006/07 571 1,808 122 2,501 938 199 908 2,045 

2007/08 456 2,051 113 2,620 947 103 1,264 2,314 

2008/09b 2,500 306 110 2,916 950 310 1,000 2,260 

2009/10c 2,120 655 105 2,880 950 316 950 2,216 a Marketing Year: June 1 - May 31

b Projected, WASDE, February 10, 2009

c Preliminary, February 27, 2009
46

Wheat Transportation Characteristics 

In 2007, almost 83 percent of U.S. wheat was grown in 10 states: North Dakota, Kansas, 

Montana, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Oklahoma, Colorado, Nebraska, and Idaho.17 

However, the demand for wheat is dispersed throughout the population centers of the 

United States. In addition, almost 45 percent of the U.S. wheat crop is exported through the 

major U.S. port regions to overseas destinations (Figure 2-15). 

Figure 2-15: Wheat surplus/deficit map with a transportation system overlay 
47

Wheat Modal Shares 

From 2000 to 2006, wheat accounted for 15 percent of all grain movements. The major wheat 

production region is in the Plains States, where rail is the dominant mode of transportation. 

Most classes of wheat are produced in areas where barge transportation is not accessible, so 

rail is the leading provider of transportation for both the domestic and export market (Figure 2-

16 and Table 2-11). 

Figure 2-16: Modal shares of wheat exports, 2000-2006 

Source: AMS, Transportation of U.S. Grains: A Modal Share Analysis, 1978-2006 (not yet published as of printing) 

 
48

Table 2-11: Wheat modal shares, 2000-2006 

WHEAT

Year & Type of Movement Rail Barge Truck

1,000 Tons Percent 1,000 Tons Percent 1,000 Tons Percent

TOTAL

2001 33,269 52% 11,534 18% 19,668 31%

2002 32,702 56% 9,876 17% 16,081 27%

2003 34,181 53% 10,180 16% 20,428 32%

2004 37,302 56% 11,937 18% 17,625 26%

2005 39,287 63% 8,312 13% 14,759 24%

2006 38,596 67% 8,068 14% 11,302 19%

Average 35,889 58% 9,984 16% 16,644 26%

EXPORT

2000 17,934 56% 11,975 38% 1,871 6%

2001 16,549 56% 11,099 38% 1,762 6%

2002 16,988 62% 9,367 34% 1,225 4%

2003 17,983 61% 9,726 33% 1,681 6%

2004 21,045 61% 11,370 33% 2,294 7%

2005 22,452 74% 7,938 26% Not available* 

2006 18,922 71% 7,868 29% Not available 

Average 18,839 63% 9,906 33% 1,262 4%

DOMESTIC

2000 17,446 46% 416 1% 20,267 53%

2001 16,720 48% 435 1% 17,906 51%

2002 15,714 51% 509 2% 14,856 48%

2003 16,198 46% 454 1% 18,747 53%

2004 16,256 51% 566 2% 15,330 48%

2005 16,835 53% 375 1% 14,759 46%

2006 19,674 63% 200 1% 11,302 36%

Average 16,978 51% 422 1% 16,167 48%

* The methodology used in this analysis calculates the truck portion as a residual value after barge and rail values 

are derived. In the case of 2005 and 2006, wheat exports where truck values are not available as total exports 

were apportioned to only barge and rail. Values are assumed to be zero for calculating modal shares and averages. 

There were obviously some minor quantities of wheat trucked directly to export facilities but that cannot be 

calculated using current methodology. There may be a case of overcounting of railed wheat due to traffic 

disruptions that began in 2005 and continued into 2006. During that time, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita rattled the 

Gulf Coast and caused some re-routing and diversion of rail shipments, possibly causing double-counting of some 

railed wheat shipments. Also in 2006, there were high grain car loadings and higher-than-normal grain 

movements. 

Source: AMS, Transportation of U.S. Grains: A Modal Share Analysis, 1978-2006 (not yet published as of printing) 
49

Wheat Exports by Port Region 

• In 2007, most wheat was exported through the Pacific Northwest region—37 percent, 

followed by the Texas Gulf at 27 percent, and the Mississippi Gulf at 19 percent (Figure 

2-17).

• In 2007, the major destinations of wheat exports were Japan, Egypt, and Nigeria. Wheat 

was also shipped to many other destinations in Asia, South America, Africa, and the 

Middle East. 

 Figure 2-17: Wheat exports by port region 

Source: FGIS Grain Inspections, 2007 Annual 

Rice Profile 

U.S. rice farming is a high-cost, large-scale operation that depends on the global market for 

about half its annual sales. Although domestic use of rice continues to increase, the outlook for 

rice farm incomes is tempered by rising production costs, only modest increases in farm prices, 

and strong competition in international markets from lower-cost Asian exporters. 

 
50

Although the United States produces less than 2 percent of the world’s rice, it is a major 

exporter, accounting for 12–14 percent of the annual volume of global rice trade. The 

United States is regarded as a consistent, reliable, and timely supplier of high-quality rice in 

global rice markets. By class, 75–80 percent of U.S. exports are long grain. The United States 

exports rough rice, parboiled rice, brown rice, and fully milled rice. Milled rice—including brown 

rice—typically accounts for around two-thirds of U.S. rice exports. Rough rice accounts for the 

remainder.18 

Figure 2-18: Rice being harvested into a bankout truck. 

Source: Grain Harvesters Association 

Supply and Demand 

U.S. rice production, domestic use, and exports all have grown over the last 18 years (Table 2-

12). Demand in the United States and around the world for rice has contributed to the growth 

of the rice sector. USDA forecasts the United States will be the fourth largest exporter of rice in 

2008/09 after Thailand, Vietnam, and Pakistan. Exports will account for half of U.S. rice 

production in 2008. 
51

Table 2-12: U.S. rough and milled rice (rough equivalent) supply and use (million 

hundredweights) 

Source: USDA/Economic Research Service: Rice Yearbook Tables, <http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rice> 

Rice Transportation Characteristics 

Virtually the entire U.S. rice crop is produced in four regions: 

 

• The Arkansas Grand Prairie. 

• The Mississippi Delta (parts of Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and Louisiana). 

• The Gulf Coast (Texas and Southwest Louisiana). 

• The Sacramento Valley of California. 

The Mississippi Delta is the largest producing region (Figure 2-19). Arkansas contains more than 

45 percent of U.S. rice acreage and is the largest producing State. California is the second 

largest producing State, achieving the highest yields. Louisiana is the third largest producing 

State, usually planting the second or third largest area. Mississippi is usually the fourth largest 

rice-producing State. Along with Missouri and Texas, these six States account for more than 99 

percent of U.S. rice production. Florida accounts for most of the rice grown outside these six 

States, but it is not included in USDA’s area and production estimates. The domestic rice 

market consumes more than 50 percent of total use and has more than doubled in the past 25 

years. 

Supply Use

Marketing Yeara

Beginning 

Stocks Production Imports Total

Domestic 

and 

Residual Exports Total

 - Million cwt - 

1990/91 26.3 156.1 4.8 187.2 91.2 71.4 162.6 

2000/01 27.5 190.9 10.9 229.2 117.5 83 200.7 

2001/02 28.5 215.3 13.2 256.9 123.3 95 218.0 

2002/03 39.0 211.0 14.8 264.8 113.4 125 238.0 

2003/04 26.8 199.9 15.0 241.7 115.0 103 218.0 

2004/05 23.7 232.4 13.2 269.2 122.7 109 231.5 

2005/06 37.7 223.2 17.1 278.1 120 115 235.1 

2006/07 43.0 194.6 20.6 258.2 128 91 218.9 

2007/08 39.3 198.4 23.9 261.6 124 108 232.1 

2008/09b 203.7 29.4 18.0 251.1 127 98 225.0 

2009/10c 206.5 26.2 22.0 254.7 128 101 229.0 a Marketing Year: August 1 - July 31

b Projected, WASDE, February 10, 2009

c Preliminary, February 27, 2009
52

About half of the United States rice crop is exported each year. Mexico, Central America, 

Northeast Asia, and the Middle East are the largest export markets, based on quantity shipped. 

The Caribbean, the European Union, and Sub-Saharan Africa make up the next largest tier of 

U.S. export markets. The highest-valued single-country market is Japan. Mexico is usually the 

second highest valued. The rough rice share of exports has more than doubled since the mid1990s. The United States is the only major exporter that ships rough rice. None of the major 

Asian exporters allow rough rice to be exported, preferring to keep the value added from 

milling the rice. Rough rice accounts for a very small share of global trade, typically around 4 

percent of annual quantity shipped. 

Although a major exporter, the United States regularly imports rice. Imports account for almost 

15 percent of domestic use, and this share has been rising for 25 years. The bulk of U.S. rice 

imports are aromatic (fragrant) varieties. Thailand supplies about three-fourths of U.S. rice 

imports, India and Pakistan most of the rest. Italy ships a small amount of rice to the 

United States, much of it Arborio rice used in risotto. 

Rail transportation is important to the rice industry in maintaining its competitive advantage in 

international trade. In 2006, rail moved 4.1 million short tons of major categories of rice,19* 

about 42 percent of the U.S. rice produced that year. During the same year, barges moved 

approximately 1.9 million short tons of rice—about 20 percent of the crop. 

 

 

*

 Including rough, milled, cleaned, and brewers rice, in 2006 rough equivalent basis. 
53

Figure 2-19: Rice surplus/deficit map with transportation system overlay 

Rice Exports by Port Region 

• In 2007, most waterborne rice exports were shipped through the Mississippi Gulf—

73 percent—followed by Northern California at 16 percent and the Texas Gulf at 8 

percent (Figure 2-20).

• In 2007, major destinations of rice exports included Mexico, Japan, Haiti, Canada, 

and Iraq, accounting for about 54 percent of 2007 rice exports. Other major 

markets include countries of Latin America, East Asia, Middle East, and Sub-Saharan 

Africa.20

 
54

Figure 2-20: 2007 waterborne rice exports by port region 

Source: Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS) 

Livestock and Livestock Products Profile 

The four major industries of the U.S. livestock agriculture sector include beef cattle, hogs, 

broilers, and milk. The livestock industry has undergone striking transformations over the last 

few decades, several of which have changed the transportation picture. The industry trends 

can be categorized into three areas: 

• Changed Regional Concentration: Cattle feeding, hog production, and the dairy sectors 

have experienced geographical changes, concentrating in fewer States than in previous 

decades due changes in the production systems. 

• Increased Concentration and Industrialization: Strong financial pressures have driven a 

shift toward large-scale industrialized production systems, resulting in increased 

productivity and lower production costs. 

• Increased International Trade: Domestic production continues to provide most meat 

and dairy products in the United States, but international trade—especially exports—

has grown rapidly in recent years and is expected to continue. 
55

Most of the domestic changes have occurred during the previous several decades, but the longterm growth in international trade is expected to continue. This creates the critical need for 

reliable and efficient domestic trucking and international ocean freight transportation. 

Recent Trends in the Livestock Industry 

The transportation needs of U.S. livestock operations depend on their location. The map in 

Figure 2-21 shows that livestock inventories in 2007 were concentrated in the Great Plains, the 

Corn Belt, parts of California and the Pacific Northwest, and areas of the mid-Atlantic. Not 

surprisingly, most of the meat slaughtering/processing facilities are located near the animal 

population. Meat and poultry consumption, however, is concentrated in the states with higher 

populations of people (Figures 2-22, 2-27, and 2-30). The meat processing locations are usually 

far removed from population centers, so the industry relies on long-haul truck transportation of 

finished products to market. 

Figure 2-21: Estimated grain-consuming animal units per county 

Source: NASS, Census of Agriculture, 2007 

 
56

Figure 2-22: Livestock processing facilities, 2002 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Econ 02 Report Series, 2002

Transportation Implications 

As Tables 2-2 and 2-3 at the beginning of this chapter show, almost all (95–98 percent) of 

livestock, meat, poultry, and dairy products are shipped by truck to domestic markets from the 

highly concentrated production areas. 

The trucking data in the CFS are divided into two categories: private trucks and for-hire trucks. 

Private trucks Trucks operated by employees of the establishment or the buyer/receiver of 

the shipment, including trucks providing dedicated services to the surveyed establishment. 

For-hire trucks Shipments made by common or contract carriers under a negotiated rate. 

 
57

The livestock and livestock products industry relies on independent motor carriers for most of 

the long-haul movements in the United States. The data in Table 2-13 show that in 2002, forhire trucks carried most of the ton-miles; this mode was preferred for long-distance hauling. 

For-hire trucks dominated meat and poultry hauling in both tons and ton-miles, despite the 

vertical integration trend in the industry over the past decade.

Table 2-13: Share of private vs. for-hire truck activity, 2002 

Livestock and Livestock Products 

 Tons Ton-Miles Activity 

Live animals and fish 

 For-hire truck 32% 52% Long haul 

 Private Truck 68% 48% Short haul 

Meat and Poultry 

 For-hire truck 59% 82% Short and Long haul 

 Private Truck 41% 18% 

Dairy 

 For-hire truck 39% 72% Long haul 

 Private Truck 60% 27% Short haul 

Source: DOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2002 CFS, Table 14 

Recent Trends in Meat Consumption 

U.S. consumer preferences began to shift in the mid-1980’s away from red meats and towards 

poultry. Per capita chicken consumption surpassed that of pork in 1986 and that of beef by the 

mid 1990’s. Chicken consumption is expected to continue to outpace that of red meat over the 

long term, with just a slight slowdown in consumption due to the recessionary conditions in 

2009 (Figure 2-23). 

 
58

Figure 2-23: U.S. per-capita meat consumption21

International Trade 

U.S. exports of beef, pork, and poultry have increased dramatically since 1990. Factors driving 

the international trade growth were not only rising incomes, but also the preference of 

United States and foreign consumers for a greater variety of red meat cuts, facilitated by the 

expansion of free trade agreements. Changes in currency values, including the recent 

depreciation of the dollar against the currencies of trading partners, have also helped expand 

trade in red meat products. Domestic production continues to provide most beef and pork 

consumed in the United States, but imports of lamb have increased. Although the meat and 

poultry markets have been troubled by animal disease problems over the last few years, the 

recovery and integration of trade is expected to continue. 

 
59

Figure 2-24: U.S. meat exports 

Projections for Livestock and Livestock Products 

USDA projects that high grain and soybean meal prices in 2007 and 2008 will continue to ripple 

through the livestock sector for the next several years. Demand is also expected to somewhat 

weaken due to the domestic recession and global economic slowdown. Total U.S. meat and 

poultry production is expected to decline through 2011. Production adjustments, combined 

with strengthening meat exports, are expected to reduce domestic per-capita consumption 

through 2012. The result is lower production at higher prices, with improving net returns 

providing economic incentives for moderate expansion in the sector toward the end of the 

projection period (Figure 2-26). 

Figure 2-25: U.S. red meat and poultry production 
60

Meat and Poultry Exports Outlook Although the domestic market remains the dominant source of total meat demand, exports 

account for a growing share of U.S. meat production. The economic slowdown and higher meat 

prices reduce overall meat and poultry exports in 2009 and 2010. Exports rise through the rest 

of the projection period as global economic growth resumes and the dollar remains relatively 

weak. 

Beef

Exports reflect demand for high-quality fed beef, with most U.S. beef exports going to Mexico, 

Canada, and markets in Pacific Rim nations. These projections assume a gradual recovery in 

beef exports to Japan and South Korea—export markets that were lost following the first U.S. 

case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in December 2003. 

Pork 

Despite rising feed costs, increased efficiency is expected to enhance the competitiveness of 

U.S. pork products. Nonetheless, long-term gains in exports will be determined by costs of 

production and environmental regulations relative to competitors; production costs are lower 

in countries that are developing integrated pork industries, such as Brazil. Pacific Rim nations 

and Mexico are expected to remain key markets for long-term growth. 

Poultry

After declining in 2009 and 2010, broiler exports are expected to rise through the rest of the 

projection period (Figure 2-26). Major export markets include China, Russia, and Mexico. Longterm gains in these markets are dependent on their economic growth and increasing consumer 

demand. Demand for poultry also remains strong because it costs less than beef and pork. 

Producers continue to face strong competition from other exporters, particularly Brazil. For 

most of the projection period, exports from avian influenza-affected countries are expected to 

be limited to fully cooked products. 

 
61

Figure 2-26: Long-term projections of U.S. meat and poultry exports 

Source: USDA Agricultural Projections to 2018 
62

Table 2-14. U.S. beef, pork, chicken, and turkey supply and use long-term projections Source: USDA, Agricultural Projections to 2018 (only major supply and use items selected) 
63

Cattle and Beef Profile 

The United States has the largest fed-cattle industry in the world, and is the world's largest 

producer of high-quality, grain-fed beef. With its abundant grasslands and large grain supply, 

the United States has developed a beef industry that is largely separate from its dairy sector. 

The industry is divided into two production sectors: cow-calf operations and cattle feeding.22

Supply and Demand

Cow-calf operations are located throughout the United States, typically on land not suited for 

crop production. Beef cows harvest forage from grasslands to maintain themselves and raise 

calves. Cows are maintained on pasture year-round; the calf remains with its mother until it is 

weaned, then is sold. The sold calves are transported by truck to cattle feeding operations 

concentrated in the Great Plains. 

Cattle operations (feeding, slaughtering, and packing) have undergone a structural change since 

the early 1970’s and are currently concentrated in the Great Plains, but are also important in 

parts of the Corn Belt, Southwest, and Pacific Northwest. In 1990, 80 percent of cattle 

slaughtering operations were located in ten States, but by 2007 just seven States are home to 

more than 80 percent of cattle slaughter operations (Table 2-15). Most livestock slaughtering 

and processing facilities are west of the Mississippi River and usually far removed from 

population centers, whereas meat consumption takes place in highly populated areas. This 

situation shows the importance of interstate highways to meat transportation (Figures 2-21 and 

2-27). 

Table 2-15: Major U.S. cattle slaughter States, 2007 

KS NE TX CO WI CA WA 7-State U.S. 

Slaughter (million head) 7.7 7.1 6.1 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.1 27.5 34.3 

Share of U.S. Total 23% 21% 18% 6% 5% 5% 3% 80% 100%

Source: NASS Quick Stats, Slaughter Annual, 2007 

 
64

Figure 2-27: U.S. red meat surplus-deficit 

Recent Trends in Beef 

In 2003, the United States had its first case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), widely 

referred to as "mad cow disease.” Subsequently, the markets for U.S. beef slammed shut. In 

2004, beef exports dropped from more than 1 million metric tons per year to just over 200,000 

metric tons. By 2008, however, they had gradually recovered, surpassing 800,000 metric tons 

(Table 2-16). The reentry of Japan and Korea as significant markets for U.S. beef was critical to 

the recovery. Growth in sales to Canada and Mexico has been largely due to market integration 

as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and, more recently, the 

lower-value dollar. Beef exports to Canada, for example, are higher than before the BSE 

episode. Rising incomes, the preference of domestic and foreign consumers for a greater 

variety of red meat cuts and the expansion of free trade agreements also have helped expand 

trade in red meat.23 

 
65

U.S. beef imports are usually of lean trimmings and processed beef used in fast food and frozen 

dinner preparations; they have fluctuated between 1.15 and 1.66 million metric tons annually. 

For the first time in more than a decade, the USDA forecast for 2009 predicts a drop in the 

global meat trade. Deterioration of global economic conditions, increases in restrictive trade 

policies, and the rise in U.S. dollar value are among the reasons for falling demand in major 

importing countries such as Russia, Mexico, and South Korea.24

Table 2-16: U.S. beef supply and use, 1999-2009 

Production Imports Domestic Use Exports

1999 12,124 1,303 12,325 1,094

2000 12,298 1,375 12,502 1,120

2001 11,983 1,435 12,351 1,029

2002 12,427 1,459 12,737 1,110

2003 12,039 1,363 12,340 1,142

2004 11,261 1,669 12,667 209

2005 11,318 1,632 12,664 316

2006 11,980 1,399 12,833 519

2007 12,096 1,384 12,829 650

2008 12,163 1,151 12,452 856

2009 (f) 12,105 1,256 12,554 826

(f) = Forecast, April 2009. 

Source: Production, Supply and Distribution Online, Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA 

<http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/> 
66

Exports and Transportation Needs 

U.S. beef exporters rely on refrigerated containers to ship their products overseas and 

refrigerated trucks for cross-border movements. In 2007, more than 99 percent of waterborne 

beef exports moved in containers.25 

Figure 2-28: Port regions moving beef exports, 2007 

Source: Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS) 

Beef Exports by Port Region 

• Most waterborne beef exports are shipped through California ports—50 percent in 2007 

(Figure 2-28). 

• The second-most exports were shipped out of Texas Gulf ports—20 percent in 2007.

• The top five destinations—Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, and 

Japan—accounted for 86 percent of the total export volume in 2007.
67

Hogs and Pork Profile 

The United States is the world's largest exporter of pork and pork products. It is also the third 

largest producer and consumer and the fifth largest importer. Pork accounts for about a fourth 

of domestic meat consumption, with imports accounting for more than 4 percent. About 14 

percent of domestic production is exported. The U.S. hog herd stands at nearly 64 million 

animals, with about 68 percent of them in the Corn Belt area, where they have access to that 

region's abundant supplies of feed grains and soybean meal. Another 20 percent of hogs are 

produced in the Southeast.26

Geographical shifts in hog production have accompanied the structural and organizational 

changes in the industry.27 Historically, hog production was concentrated in Corn Belt States, 

where an abundant supply of corn provided a cheap source of feed. During the 1980s and 

1990s, however, hog production grew dramatically in nontraditional areas, driven mainly by the 

growth of large contract operations. For example, in North Carolina the inventory of hogs and 

pigs more than doubled between 1987 and 1998, pushing the State’s rank in total hog 

inventory from seventh in 1987 to second by 1998 (Table 2-17). Rapid growth in the North 

Carolina hog industry ended after a State law enacted in August 1997 placed a moratorium on 

building or expanding hog operations. Restricted growth in North Carolina may explain some of 

the particularly rapid recent growth of the industry in Iowa, Minnesota, and Oklahoma. 

Table 2-17: Hogs and pigs inventory in major States on December 1, 1987-2007 

 1987 1992 1998 2007 1987 Rank 2007 Rank

 Million Head 1=Highest; 8=Lowest 

Iowa 13.9 14.9 15.3 19.4 1 1

North Carolina 2.58 4.5 9.7 10.2 7 2

Minnesota 4.5 4.7 5.7 7.7 4 3

Illinois 5.4 5.9 4.85 4.35 2 4

Indiana 4.5 4.55 4.05 3.7 3 5

Nebraska 4.05 4.6 3.4 3.35 5 6

Missouri 3 2.85 3.3 3.15 6 7

Oklahoma 0.2 0.24 1.92 2.35 8 8

Top 8 States 38.1 42.2 48.2 54.2 

Top 8 States as % of U.S. Total 70% 73% 78% 79% 

U.S. Total 54.4 58.2 62.2 68.2 

Source: USDA, NASS Quick Stats, Hogs and Pigs Inventory by Class, Dec 1 
68

Supply and Demand 

As does the beef industry, the pork industry relies on trucking to move its product to market. 

The importance of the Nation’s highways is highlighted once again because of the 

concentration of pork production in a handful of States that are long distances from urban 

population centers. 

Recent Trends in Pork 

From 2004 to 2008, domestic consumption of pork in the United States grew at a relatively slow 

rate of 6 percent. The growth in the pork trade surplus, however, has been tremendous—

exports grew by 71 percent and imports decreased by 16 percent (Table 2-18). Factors driving 

this trade growth are the same as those for beef: rising incomes, the preference of 

United States and foreign consumers for a greater variety of red meat cuts, expansion of free 

trade agreements, and the recent depreciation of the dollar against the currencies of key 

trading partners.28

Table 2-18: U.S. pork supply and use, 2004-2008 

 Production Imports Domestic Use Exports 

(million pounds) 

2004 20,529 1,099 19,437 2,181 

2005 20,705 1,024 19,112 2,666 

2006 21,074 990 19,048 2,995 

2007 21,962 968 19,763 3,138 

2008 23,554 925 20,686 3,735 

5-year growth 15% -16% 6% 71% 

Source: ERS. Agricultural Outlook, Table 10 
69

Exports and Transportation Needs 

U.S. exporters of pork rely on refrigerated containers to ship their products overseas and 

refrigerated trucks for cross-border movements. In 2007, more than 99 percent of U.S. pork 

waterborne exports moved in containers.29 

Figure 2-29: Port regions moving pork exports, 2007 

Source: Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS) 

Pork Exports by Port Region 

• Most waterborne pork exports are shipped through California ports—42 percent of pork 

exports in 2007 (Figure 2-29).

• The other key ports include the Pacific Northwest and the Southeast, accounting for 24 

and 20 percent, respectively, of pork exports in 2007.

• The top 5 destinations—Japan, Mexico, Canada, South Korea, and Russia—accounted 

for 76 percent of total U.S. pork export volume in 2007. 
70

Poultry Profile 

The U.S. is the world's largest producer and second-largest exporter of poultry meat, which is 

mostly chicken (broilers). The United States is the world's second-largest exporter of broilers 

behind Brazil. Annual broiler exports average between 5 and 6 billion pounds, about 15 

percent of U.S. production. Demand for broilers has fluctuated over the last several years due 

to changing economic conditions and currency exchange rates in major importing countries. 

Supply and Demand 

The U.S. poultry industry is concentrated in the Southeast. The top seven States account for 68 

percent of the total chicken slaughter but, of these, only Texas (7 percent) and Missouri (5 

percent) are outside of the Southeast region (Table 2-19). The rest of the poultry production is 

distributed among Mid-Atlantic States, Minnesota, and Oklahoma. The surplus-deficit map in 

Figure 2-30 indicates that most of the West is a deficit region, and demonstrates the 

importance of the U.S. interstate system to the concentrated poultry production area. 

 

Table 2-19: Major U.S. chicken slaughter States, 2007 

 GA AR AL MS NC TX MO 7-State U.S.

Slaughter 

(million head) 

 

1,321 

 

1,135 

 

1,059 

 

783 

 

718 

 

648 

 

412 6,076 8,903 

States as percent 

of U.S. 

 

15% 

 

13% 

 

12% 

 

9% 

 

8% 

 

7% 

 

5% 68% 100% 

Source: NASS, 2008 Poultry Slaughter Annual, February 2009 

 
71

Figure 2-30: U.S. poultry meat surplus-deficit 

Recent Trends in Poultry 

From 2004 to 2008, domestic consumption of chicken and turkey has increased by 6 and 9 

percent, respectively. U.S. exports of chicken and turkey, however, increased at a much higher 

rate—25 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Although turkey exports grew at a faster rate, 

total turkey export volumes were only 10 percent of total chicken exports in 2008. 

 
72

Table 2-20: U.S. poultry supply and use, 2007 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

5-yr 

growth 

Broilers (million pounds) 

 Production 33,699 34,986 35,120 35,739 36,505 8% 

 Domestic 

Use 

28,837 29,607 30,139 30,034 30,629 6% 

 Exports 4,783 5,203 5,205 5,772 6,000 25% 

Turkeys (million pounds) 

 Production 5,383 5,432 5,607 5,880 6,084 13% 

 Domestic 

Use 

5,010 4,952 5,060 5,292 5,477 9% 

 Exports 442 570 547 554 605 37% 

Source: ERS <http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/poultry> 

Exports and Transportation Needs 

U.S. exporters of poultry use refrigerated containers and bulk refrigerated vessels to ship their 

products overseas, and refrigerated trucks for cross-border movements. In 2007, 58 percent of 

waterborne exports moved in containers and 42 percent in bulk refrigerated vessels.30 

Figure 2-31: Top ten ports moving poultry exports, 2007 

Source: Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS) 
73

Poultry Exports by Port Region 

• Most waterborne poultry exports are shipped through Southeastern ports (including 

Savannah, GA, Jacksonville, FL, and Charleston, SC)—45 percent of poultry exports in 

2007 (Figure 2-31). 

• The other key ports include Mississippi and East Gulf ports: Mobile, AL, New Orleans, 

and Pascagoula, MS, accounting for 34 percent of poultry exports in 2007.

• The largest importers of U.S. broiler products are Russia, China (including Hong Kong), 

and Mexico. Together, these markets accounted for more than half the exports, on a 

quantity basis. 

Dairy Profile 

Milk has a farm value second only to beef among livestock industries and equal to corn. Dairy 

products include cheese, fluid milk, yogurt, butter, and ice cream, as well as dry and condensed 

milk and whey products, which are used mostly as ingredients in processed foods. 

Key factors that have dramatically altered the U.S. dairy industry and changed the context for 

dairy policies and the sector as a whole include: 

• Shifts in consumer demands. 

• Shifts in the location and structure of milk production due to industry concentration.31

• Growth in international markets and in trade agreements. 

In the future, the U.S. dairy industry is likely to become more fully integrated with international 

markets. At the same time, dairy products such as fluid milk, butter, and cheese are likely to be 

increasingly used as ingredients for restaurants and in processed foods, as well as being sold in 

their traditional forms. 

Government policies and programs play an important role in the U.S. dairy sector. Both 

national and State dairy programs support the industry. U.S. dairy policy rests on two 

fundamental concepts—price and income support, and orderly marketing. Price and income 

support is primarily a Federal responsibility. Orderly marketing objectives, as embodied in milkmarketing orders, are pursued at both the Federal and State levels. 

Regional Changes in Milk Production

The structure and location of dairy processing and manufactured product firms depend on the 

products they make. Fluid milk processing is dominated by proprietary firms, and the fluid 

plants tend to be located near major population (consumer) centers. Production of storable 

manufactured products occurs near milk production areas, and the cooperatives play a large 

role. A geographic pattern for perishable manufactured products is more difficult to discern, 

although most are produced by fluid milk processors. However, some storable manufacturedproduct plants operate lines for the perishable products and some firms (and plants) specialize 

solely in these products (Figure 2-33).32
74

During the past few decades, many States and even some regions have reversed longestablished trends. In the 1970s, dairies in several western States (particularly California) grew 

dramatically larger than those in the rest of the country. These dairies had developed business 

organizations capable of operating large dairies, resulting in low costs. 

Figure 2-32: Dairy farms have been getting larger, driven by economies of scale.

Source: North Dakota Department of Agriculture 

The price impacts of this growth began to put pressure on higher-cost producers, resulting in a 

decline in output and a shift away from the higher-cost producing regions. Thus began a 

westward shift of milk production that still continues. Recently, however, large modern dairy 

farms similar to those built by western producers have been appearing in the Midwest and 

Northeast, where they are helping to stem the long-term decline in production. In 2007, more 

than 70 percent of U.S. milk production occurred in just 9 states (Table 2-21). California and 

New Mexico accounted for more than 26 percent of the nation’s total milk production. 

Environmental issues, such as water and air quality, traffic impacts, and odors concern the milk 

production industry. Environmental regulation, zoning, and animal nuisance laws have become 

increasingly important, particularly for large dairy farms. Except for a few areas of high animal 

density, these regulations have not yet had major effects on industry growth. However, the 

time needed to bring a new dairy farm or expansion into full production has lengthened, and 

location is increasingly likely to be affected by environmental issues and regulations. 
75

Table 2-21: Major milk producing States, 2007 

 Milk Production 

(Million pounds) 

Major States as 

Percent of Total 

California 40,683 22%

Wisconsin 24,080 13%

New York 12,103 7%

Idaho 11,549 6%

Pennsylvania 10,682 6%

Minnesota 8,656 5%

Michigan 7,625 4%

Texas 7,384 4%

New Mexico 7,290 4%

9-States 130,052 70%

U.S. 185,654 100%

Source: NASS, Quick stats, Dairy Annual 

Figure 2-33: U.S. dairy surplus-deficit, U.S. highway system 
76

Supply and Demand 

The surplus-deficit map in Figure 2-33 demonstrates the importance of the interstate system to 

the dairy industry. Most fluid milk and other dairy processing plants are located on or near the 

interstates in the milk-producing areas. The dairy sector depends on trucks for transportation 

of fluid milk. Food-grade but unrefrigerated tanker trucks transport raw milk to fluid milk 

plants; the finished products are distributed in refrigerated trucks. Cheese and other dairy 

products are shipped by refrigerated rail cars to population centers or to ports for export. In 

addition, geographic concentration of the dairy industry, as discussed above, has contributed to 

increased demand for trucking services. 

Trade and Transportation 

The United States exports large amounts of cheese and non-fat dry milk (NFDM). In 2007, the 

largest importers of U.S. cheese were Japan, Canada, South Korea, United Kingdom, and 

Dominican Republic. The largest importers of U.S. NFDM were Mexico, Philippines, Indonesia, 

Vietnam, and Thailand. USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation and the Foreign Agricultural 

Service administer the Dairy Export Incentive Program, a policy tool that assists international 

marketing of U.S. dairy products. West Coast ports account for the majority of dairy exports 

(Figure 2-34). Dairies at a distance from a port rely on highways and railroads to get their 

products to port. 

Figure 2-34: U.S. port regions used to move dairy exports, 2007 

Source: Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS) 
77

Dairy Production and Export Outlook 

Strong farm-level milk prices in 2007 encouraged milk producers to increase cow numbers in 

2008, despite increased feed costs. Combined with an upward trend in output per cow, milk 

production rose relatively strongly into 2008.33 USDA’s long-term agricultural outlook for dairy 

products indicates that the number of milk cows will resume the more typical yearly declines 

after 2008 (Table 2-22). However, annual reductions are expected to be lower than in past 

decades as increasing specialization of dairy farms slows exit rates from milk production. Milk 

output per cow is projected to increase, although some slowing is expected in 2008-10 in 

response to higher feed costs. 

Domestic commercial use of dairy products is forecast to increase faster than the growth in U.S. 

population over most of the next decade. Cheese demand should benefit from the greater 

consumption of prepared foods and increased away from-home eating. However, consumption 

of fluid milk is expected to continue to decline slowly. Exports of dairy products are projected 

to decline from the levels reached in 2008, but remain high by historical standards. Global 

demand for dairy products has grown as incomes in developing countries have risen. 
78

Table 2-22: U.S. dairy supply and use long-term projections Source: USDA, Agricultural projections to 2018 (only major supply and use items selected) 
79

Fruit and Vegetables Profile 

The national debate on diet and health frequently focuses on the nutritional role of fruit and 

vegetables; this continued emphasis on the benefits of eating produce may provide 

opportunities to the industry. In the domestic market, Americans are eating more fruit and 

vegetables than they did 20 years ago, but consumption remains below recommended levels. 

The United States consumed approximately 174 pounds per capita of vegetable and melons 

(excluding potatoes) and nearly 270 pounds per capita of fresh and processed fruits in 2007. 

The top five vegetables were potatoes, tomatoes, lettuce, sweet corn, and onions.* The top 

five fruits are oranges, grapes (including wine grapes), apples, bananas, and pineapples.34 

Recent Fruit Trends

The industry faces a variety of trade-related issues, including competition with imports. 

Despite year-to-year fluctuations, fruit production in the United States during the 1990s and 

early 2000s averaged 10–20 percent higher than the 1980s. This growth was in response to 

several factors: 

• Increased domestic consumption. 

• Expanding export markets. 

• Technical changes in production, such as the adoption of close-density planting. 

• New propagation methods that decrease the time needed for new trees to reach 

bearing age from 5–6 years to 2–3 years. 

• Use of disease- and pest-resistant, high-yielding varieties. 

• Greater use of early- and late-season varieties that extend marketing seasons so 

growers can take advantage of marketing windows. 

Production declines in recent years may be attributed to weather and disease problems, mostly 

affecting citrus production. 

Total fruit production in 2007 was 29.5 million tons, down 2 percent from 2006, and the 

smallest crop since 1991. Citrus production alone was down 11 percent. Florida’s citrus 

industry is still coping with the effects of the hurricanes in 2004 and 2005. In addition, diseases 

such as citrus canker and citrus greening plague the industry. Production of fruit other than 

citrus rose 1 percent in 2007 from 2006, with 17 million tons produced. Bigger peach, pear, 

grape, sweet cherry, apricot, fig, strawberry, avocado, nectarine, and papaya crops contributed 

to the increase in non-citrus production. 

 

 

*

 Per capita consumption expressed on a fresh-weight basis. 
80

Figure 2-35: Loading oranges in California. Most fresh oranges in the United States are grown 

in California, Arizona, and Texas. Florida raises most of the juice oranges. 

Source: USDA 

The value of the 2007 fruit and tree nut crops reached $18.5 billion, 9 percent above 2006 and 

the sixth consecutive year of record high values. The value of the crop rose for citrus and noncitrus fruit, as well as for tree nuts. In 2007, record high crop values were set: $3.1 billion for 

citrus and $11.4 billion for non-citrus. The value for tree nuts was the second highest on 

record, at almost $4 billion.35 

The Nation's largest fruit-producing States are California, Florida, and Washington. California 

accounts for about half of the harvested fruit acreage, Florida almost one-fourth, and 

Washington around one-tenth. Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Pennsylvania are also 

important fruit-producing States; together they account for one-tenth of the Nation's fruit 

acreage. 

Annual per capita fruit and nut consumption averaged 271 pounds in 2007—down 2 percent 

from 2006, and the lowest level since 1992. The decline was led by reduced consumption of 

apple and orange products, two of the most popular fruits in the American diet. Contributing 

to the lower use of these fruits was lower production in 2007, which was not fully compensated 

for by imports. 
81

Recent Vegetable Trends 

U.S. production of all vegetables, potatoes, melons, and pulse crops increased 5 percent in 

calendar year 2007. Fresh and processed imports for these crops were greater than the 

previous year, plus inventories of processed vegetables coming into the year were greater. As a 

result, total vegetable and melon supplies available for domestic use and export were up 5 

percent to about 181 billion pounds in 2007. 

Larger supplies encouraged the use of all vegetables, potatoes, melons, and pulse crops, which 

increased 2 percent in 2007 to 444 pounds (on a fresh-weight basis). Potatoes (including 

potato products) remained the top vegetable crop in the United States, with 28 percent of total 

use. This was followed by tomatoes at 20 percent, lettuce at 8 percent, sweet corn at 6 

percent, and onions at 5 percent. 

State Production 

Fruit and vegetables are produced throughout the United States, with the largest acreage 

(excluding potatoes and dry beans) being in California and Florida. The Upper Midwest 

(Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin) and the Northwest (Washington and Oregon) report the 

largest vegetable acreage for processing; California, Florida, and Texas harvest the largest share 

of fresh vegetable and melon acreage. 

The eastern seaboard States (from Georgia to New York) also report substantial vegetable 

acreage. With its strong output of cool-season crops, such as lettuce, broccoli, and celery, 

California remains the major producer of fresh vegetables during the winter. Florida is the top 

producer of warm-season crops (such as tomatoes, peppers, and snap beans). Potato 

production is concentrated in the Northwest (Idaho, Washington, and Oregon), but Colorado, 

North Dakota, California, Wisconsin, and Maine are also key suppliers. 

California, Florida, Washington, Texas, Michigan, New York, and Oregon have the most acreage 

in fruit orchards. California alone accounts for about half of U.S. fruit and tree nut acreage 

(including berries). Florida accounts for more than one-tenth and Washington almost onetenth. California’s mild climate gives it an advantage over other fruit-producing States. It is the 

Nation’s largest producer of grapes, strawberries, peaches, nectarines, avocados, fresh-market 

oranges, and kiwifruit. It also leads in tree nut production, including virtually all almonds, 

pistachios, and walnuts. 

Florida is the primary citrus producer, and Washington is the largest apple producer for both 

fresh use and processing. California is the leading producer of grapes for wine, juice, and raisin 

production. Midwestern and Northeastern States are key producers of processed fruit 

products, such as canned tart cherries and apple sauce, and Florida leads in the production of 

oranges for juice, and grapefruit and tangerines. 
82

Fruit and Vegetable Processing 

Commodities within the fruit and vegetable industries may be classified according to their end 

use: fresh market or processing. Processing can be further subdivided into canning, freezing, 

juicing, and dehydrating. Other than the production of certain commodities with varieties 

suitable for both uses (apples, grapes, broccoli, cauliflower, and asparagus), growing for 

processing is distinct from growing for the fresh market. Occasionally, some fruit and 

vegetables harvested for fresh use do not meet quality standards and are sold for processing 

but, in general, substitution between the markets is uncommon, even in years when crop 

output is severely reduced due to bad weather or pests. 

Most vegetable varieties grown for processing are better adapted to mechanical harvesting and 

often lack characteristics desirable for fresh market sale (for example, processing tomatoes are 

generally smaller and possess different internal attributes than fresh varieties). Most fruit 

varieties grown for processing are harvested by hand. In spite of that, strong demand for 

processed fruit products establishes the processing sector as the primary marketing outlet. 36

More than half of U.S. fruit and vegetable production is processed. Approximately 60 percent of 

non-citrus fruit production moves into processing channels, and more than 70 percent of citrus 

production is processed. Tomatoes and potatoes are the top two vegetable crops processed, 

and oranges and grapes are the top two fruit crops processed. Most citrus fruit—especially 

oranges—is processed into juice. Grapes are processed into juice, wine, and raisins. The grapes 

made into wine make up more than one-third of all fruit processed; raisins make up well more 

than half the dried fruit production.37 

The map below shows the location of fruit and vegetable processors (Figure 2-36). Most 

processing facilities are located in production centers to allow the freshest products available 

for processing. Fruit and vegetable processors are located across the country, with only a 

handful of States (Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, New Hampshire and Vermont) having 

none. The major fruit and vegetable growing States, such as California, Florida, Texas, and the 

Pacific Northwest States, are also major processing States. 

 
83

Figure 2-36: Fruit and vegetable processors per State 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Econ 02 Report Series, 2002 

International Trade 

In 2007, fruit, vegetables, and tree nuts accounted for 14 percent of the value of U.S. 

agricultural exports, totaling more than $12.4 billion. However, the country is becoming 

increasing more reliant on fruit and vegetable imports which, in some cases, provide direct 

competition for domestically grown products. 

The vegetable and melon trade deficit widened in 2007, as the value of imports increased more 

than the value of exports. Nearly 17 percent of all the vegetables and melons consumed 

domestically were imported. Thirty-two percent of frozen vegetables were sourced from other 

nations, up significantly from 18 percent a decade earlier.38

Imports of all vegetables, melons, pulse crops, and seed rose 9 percent in 2007 to $7.9 billion. 

The increase was led by gains in fresh vegetables, melons, and dehydrated vegetables. Mexico 

remained the top foreign source, with 45 percent of import value (the same as a year earlier). 

This was followed by Canada at 23 percent, China at 6 percent, Peru at 4 percent, and Spain at 4 

percent. 
84

Exports of all vegetables, melons, pulse crops, and seed rose 9 percent in 2007 to $4.6 billion. 

The increase was led by gains in mushrooms, dry peas and lentils, and frozen vegetables. 

Canada remained the top foreign market with 47 percent of export value. This was followed by 

Mexico at 11 percent, Japan at 11 percent, Taiwan at 2 percent, and South Korea at 2 percent. 

About 9 percent of total U.S. vegetables and melons were exported in 2007—little changed 

from a decade earlier.39 

Although growth in U.S. fruit exports has been strong, the country remains a net fruit importer. 

Not only have imports expanded for commodities already produced domestically, creating 

competition for U.S. growers, but imports also have increased for nontraditional fruits, 

especially many tropical fruits. 

Imported fruit is increasing in importance in domestic consumption. Relative to the 1990s, 

import shares of domestic consumption rose for all fruit categories in recent years. Imports' 

role grew most rapidly for frozen fruit, but fresh and canned fruit were the most dependent on 

imports to meet domestic demand during the mid- to late-2000s. Currently, nearly half the 

fresh fruit and two-fifths the canned fruit consumed are from imports. 

Fresh fruit imports rose, as a share of domestic consumption, from 35 percent in 1990 to nearly 

50 percent during the mid- to late-2000s. Bananas claim more than 50 percent of the volume of 

fresh fruit imports. Excluding bananas, fresh fruit imports rose from 12 percent of domestic 

consumption in 1990 to more than 28 percent during the mid- to late-2000s. 

Mexico is the largest supplier of fresh and frozen fruit to the United States, accounting for more 

than 30 percent of both the volume and the value of fresh and frozen fruit imports (excluding 

bananas). Mexico ships mostly limes, tangerines, mangoes, grapes, pineapples, papayas, 

avocados, and strawberries. U.S. production of these commodities—except for tangerines, 

grapes, strawberries, and avocados—is minimal. Geographic proximity and NAFTA provide 

Mexico with a competitive advantage over other countries, with lower transportation costs and 

lower or no tariffs. 

Chile also is a major supplier of fresh fruit, with more than a 20 percent share of the U.S. import 

market. Chile enjoys the advantage of having a counter-seasonal production schedule with the 

United States. Its location in the southern hemisphere means it can provide fresh fruit at times 

when the United Sates produces little, particularly from November through March. Expanded 

trade with Chile—beginning in the mid- to late-1980s—extended the availability of certain fruits 

in the market without direct competition with domestic production and provided U.S. 

consumers with fruit choices beyond the traditional domestic winter fruits of citrus, apples, and 

pears. Important fruit imports from Chile are grapes, stone fruit, avocados, and kiwifruit. 

 
85

U.S. exports of fresh-market fruit account for about 15 percent of available supplies. Freshmarket fruit exports were valued at $3 billion each year during 2005-07, capturing more than 

half of total fruit exports. The leading fresh fruit exports are apples, grapes, and oranges 

(including tangerines), with combined sales averaging more than $1 billion annually, or about 

half the value of fresh fruit exports. Apples and grapes averaged more than $500 million each 

in annual export sales during 2005-07 and oranges averaged more than $300 million. Export 

sales of fresh berries, led by strawberries, nearly tripled between 2000 and 2007, for a 

combined value of more than $400 million. Canada is the leading destination for U.S. fresh 

fruit, generally accounting for more than one-third of all fresh fruit exports. Other major 

markets are Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. 

Transportation of Fruit and Vegetable Products

Fresh and processed fruit and vegetables require transportation to move the products between 

the producer and the packing shed, then to wholesalers, retailers, farmers markets, or the 

export market. 

Domestic fruit and vegetables are transported from growing areas to markets via truck and rail. 

Import and export shipments are moved by truck and rail to cross-border consumers and by 

ship and air to overseas markets. Many major shipping areas for U.S. fruit and vegetables are 

located on the coastal rim of the United States in California, Florida, Texas, and the East Coast; 

different regions are active at different times of the year.40 

Trucks account for the vast majority of the domestic movement of fresh and processed 

produce. Tables 2-2 and 2-3 show that 94 percent of fresh and 90 percent of processed fruits 

and vegetables are moved by truck. In terms of ton-miles, trucks move around 80 percent and 

the railroads 5 percent of fresh products and 13 percent of processed products. 

Transporting products to market can be difficult and costly. Moving fruit and vegetable 

products often requires quick and efficient transportation because of their perishable nature, 

and fresh material needs to be kept at the correct temperature and/or humidity to ensure it 

arrives in the best condition possible. 

Some of the major transportation challenges facing fruit and vegetable shippers are: 

• A long-term decline in rail shipments and availability. 

• Frequent truck shortages in some growing areas. 

• Escalating costs for diesel fuel and labor.*

 

 

*

 Fruit and Vegetable Backgrounder, ERS 
86

The industry’s reliance on truck service leaves it vulnerable to changes in the trucking industry. 

For example, truck rates experienced a sharp increase in 2008 when faced with record-high oil 

and diesel fuel prices; the average rates increased 44 percent between the first and third 

quarter. 

Processed fruit and vegetable products (canned, frozen, dried, and juice) may be moved to 

other processing firms, which add further value by repackaging the products into consumer 

packs, combining them with meats or other products to be sold as meals, or further refining 

them into final products. Final products may be exported or stored for later sale by the 

processor, or they may be transported to warehouses after purchase by buyers, brokers, or 

buying groups. 

Fruit and vegetable trade markets rely heavily on the ocean transportation system to move 

their commodities. U.S. waterborne exports of fruits and vegetables are moved both in bulk 

and in shipping containers. In 2007, 99 percent of fruit exports and 85 percent of vegetable 

exports were moved in containers. Containers conserve quality by controlling temperature or 

humidity during transit. Commodities such as beans, peas, lentils, and potatoes as well as some 

citrus fruits and melons, may be shipped in the cargo holds of a bulk vessel. In fact, nearly 33 

percent of fruit imports and 15 percent of vegetable exports were moved in refrigerated bulk 

vessels in 2007. However, the mode of transit preferred by most fruit and vegetable exporters 

and importers is containerized transportation. 

The pie charts below show the use of U.S. ports for waterborne fruit and vegetable imports and 

exports. Because of heavy reliance on Latin and South American countries to supply our offseason fruits and vegetables, nearly 55 percent of fruit imports and 66 percent of vegetable 

imports enter through East Coast ports. Conversely, 69 percent of fruit and 66 percent of 

vegetable exports are shipped from West Coast ports close to the growing areas. 

 
87

Figure 2-37: U.S. ports used to export vegetables, 2007 

Source: Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS) 

Figure 2-38: U.S. ports used to import vegetables, 2007 

Source: Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS) 
88

Figure 2-39: U.S. ports used to export fruit, 2007 

Source: Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS) 

Figure 2-40: U.S. ports used to import fruit, 2007 

Source: Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS) 
89

Apple, Lettuce, and Potato Profiles 

The fruit and vegetable industry comprises a diverse group of agricultural commodities. The 

Census of Agriculture reports more than 100 separate fruit and vegetable commodities or 

groups of commodities. For the purposes of this study, the transportation of apples, lettuce, 

and potatoes are described as examples of the complexities of these markets and the ways 

transportation serves the industry. They are among the highest-volume fruits and vegetables 

grown in the United States. 

Table 2-23 shows historical production, import, domestic use, and export data for apples, 

lettuce and potatoes. These commodities have each experienced an increase in trade volumes 

since the early 1990s, particularly in import traffic. Fresh apple imports have increased 44 

percent since the early 1990s; lettuce imports 642 percent, and fresh and processed potatoes 

81 and 480 percent, respectively. Apple production decreased 12 percent, lettuce production 

increased by 34 percent, and potato production increased by 4 percent. 

Table 2-23: Supply and demand of apples, lettuce and potatoes 

*Calculated by adding production to imports, then subtracting exports. Stocks are not accounted for. 

Source: USDA/Economic Research Service, Yearbook 2007 
90

Apple Profile 

As the largest apple-producing State, Washington supplies 65 to 75 percent of all the apples 

sold in the fresh market. New York, Michigan, California, and Pennsylvania are also major appleproducing States, but a larger share of each of these States’ production is sold to processors. 

Together, these four States supply 15 to 20 percent of fresh-market apples and 40 to 50 

percent of processing apples. Although three-quarters of Washington’s production is for fresh 

use, it also supplies the largest quantity to processors. 

It’s no surprise that the map in Figure 2-41 below shows concentrated areas of surplus apples in 

parts of Washington and Oregon. Counties in New York and Pennsylvania also show surpluses. 

Most of the Nation experiences a slight deficit, but significant deficits appear in highly 

populated areas such as southern California, southern Florida, Chicago, and major cities in 

Texas, such as Dallas and San Antonio. 

Figure 2-41: U.S. apple surplus/deficit map with transportation overlay 
91

Trade and Transportation Needs

U.S. apples exporters use refrigerated containers almost exclusively to ship their products 

overseas. In 2007, more than 99 percent of waterborne apple exports were moved in 

containers.41 They use refrigerated trucks for cross-border movements.

Apple Export Ports 

• Most waterborne apple exports are shipped through Pacific Northwest ports (mostly 

Seattle and Tacoma, WA)—82 percent of apple exports in 2007 (see Figures 2-42 and 2-

43). 

• Other key ports include Los Angeles and West Palm Beach, FL, which together account 

for 8 percent of apple exports in 2007.

• The largest importers of U.S. apples are Mexico, Canada, Taiwan, and the United 

Kingdom. Together, these markets account for more than half the fresh apple exports. 

Figure 2-42: Ports used to export U.S. apples, 2007 

Source: Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS) 
92

Apple Import Ports 

• Most waterborne apple imports arrive at northeastern ports (including New York, 

Philadelphia, and Wilmington, DE)—49 percent of apple imports in 2007 (see Figure 2-

43). 

• Other key ports include Los Angeles and Long Beach, CA, accounting for 20 percent of 

apple imports in 2007. 

• The largest suppliers of U.S. apple imports are Chile, New Zealand, and Canada, which 

combined account for more than 90 percent of fresh and dried apple imports. 

Figure 2-43: Ports used to import U.S. apples, 2007 

Source: Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS) 

Lettuce Profile 

The top lettuce-producing States in 2006 were Arizona, California, and Colorado. Domestic 

demand for lettuce is strong. The demand for export is also strong, with more than 7 percent 

of U.S. production being exported. Both domestic use and imports have increased since the 

early 1990s—37 and 642 percent, respectively. 

 
93

Based on U.S. production and consumption rates, strong increases in domestic demand over 

the past decade have resulted in a deficit of lettuce across most of the country. Surplus 

supplies are found in California and Arizona, where significant production takes place. Lettuce 

production has increased 34 percent since the 1990s. Increased domestic production combined 

with growing but relatively small levels of imports to meet U.S. demand. 

Figure 2-44: U.S. lettuce surplus/deficit map with transportation network 

 

Trade and Transportation Needs 

Lettuce movements need both temperature and humidity control to keep the product at its 

peak quality during transportation. Its highly perishable nature requires quick and efficient 

truck transportation and the use of containers for overseas markets. More than 99 percent of 

U.S. waterborne lettuce exports were moved in refrigerated containers. 
94

Lettuce Export Ports 

• Most waterborne lettuce exports are shipped through California ports (including 

Oakland, Los Angeles, and Long Beach)—73 percent of lettuce exports in 2007 (see 

Figure 2-45). 

• Other key ports include Jacksonville and West Palm Beach, FL, accounting for 25 percent 

of lettuce exports in 2007.

• The largest importers of U.S. lettuce are Mexico, Canada, Taiwan, and the United 

Kingdom. Together, these markets accounted for more than half of U.S. fresh apple 

exports, on a quantity basis. 

Figure 2-45: Ports used to export U.S. lettuce, 2007 

Source: Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS) 
95

Lettuce Import Ports 

• Most waterborne lettuce is imported through the ports at Los Angeles and Tacoma—53 

percent of lettuce imports in 2007 (see Figure 2-46). 

• Other key ports include Port Everglades and Miami, FL, which accounted for 27 percent 

of lettuce imports in 2007.

• Most U.S. lettuce imports are from Mexico, Canada, Israel, and Peru. Together, these 

markets accounted for more than half of U.S. fresh lettuce imports. 

Figure 2-46: Ports used to import U.S. lettuce, 2007 

Source: Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS) 

Potato Profile 

The top potato-producing States in 2007 were Idaho, Washington, and Wisconsin. Though U.S. 

production has increased only minimally (4 percent) since the early 1990s, imports have grown 

significantly; processed potato imports increased by 480 percent and fresh potato imports by 

81 percent. Exports of processed potato products have also increased significantly, by 181 

percent. Most processed potato exports are frozen products. 

 
96

Potatoes are one of the most popular vegetables in the United States. Production is 

concentrated in the northwest, but pockets of production are also found in Maine, North 

Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Colorado. Based on production and consumption 

rates, most of the nation experiences a slight deficit, with significant deficits seen where the 

populations are dense in Southern California, Arizona, Southern Florida, the Northeast, and 

Texas. 

Figure 2-47: U.S. potato surplus/deficit map with transportation overlay 

Trade and Transportation 

Fresh and frozen potatoes are more versatile in their transportation needs than most other 

vegetables. The hardy nature of the potato allows the use of truck or rail to move them 

domestically or across borders. Most potato exporters prefer the use of containers when 

shipping overseas to keep the potatoes frozen during transit. 
97

Potato Export Ports 

• Most waterborne potato exports are shipped through Pacific Northwest ports (including 

Tacoma, Seattle, and Portland, OR)—77 percent of potato exports in 2007 (see Figure 2-

48). 

• Other key ports include Los Angeles, CA and West Palm Beach, FL which accounted for 8 

percent of potato exports in 2007.

• The largest importers are Japan, Canada, Mexico, and China. 

Figure 2-48: U.S. ports used to export potatoes, 2007 

Source: Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS) 
98

Potato Import Ports 

• Most waterborne potato imports are shipped through East Coast Ports (including West 

Palm Beach, FL and New York)—86 percent of potato imports in 2007 (see Figure 2-49). 

• Other key ports include Oakland, CA, Long Beach, CA, and Seattle, WA, which accounted 

for 7 percent of potato imports in 2007.

• Most potato imports are from Canada and Mexico. Together, they accounted for more 

than 99 percent of potato imports in 2007.

Figure 2-49: Ports used to import U.S. potatoes, 2007 

Source: Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS) 

Trends in Fruit and Vegetable Consumption 

With the increasing national concern about diet and obesity, Americans are realizing the need 

to increase fruit and vegetable consumption. This realization, combined with industry 

promotional efforts, Federal dietary emphasis, an aging and health-conscious population, and 

positive news reports on the benefits of eating fruit and vegetables, indicates that gains in fruit 

and vegetable consumption may be expected in the future. 

 
99

The economic slowdown, however, will have an impact on farm income for fruit and vegetables 

in 2009; the average annual price for fruit and tree nuts is expected to decline by 8.2 percent 

from 2008. Although the quantities sold were relatively stable from 2008 to 2009 for most fruit 

and tree nut commodities, fewer fresh oranges and grapefruit were available. Overall, fruit and 

tree nut receipts are expected to account for 10.4 percent of 2009 crop receipts. 

Vegetable and melon receipts are expected to decline more than 4 percent from 2008 as freshmarket vegetable acreage and production decline. Because of the smaller 2008 fall crop (which 

is marketed through the following summer), potatoes also are expected to decline a bit in sales 

volume, with higher prices during the first half of the year giving way to lower values later in 

2009. Cash receipts from the sale of vegetables for processing may increase in 2009 as 

processors offer higher contract prices to secure delivery. Dry bean quantities are expected to 

exceed their 2008 levels by about 1 percent but at reduced prices. In 2009, vegetables and 

melons are expected to account for 12.8 percent of total crop receipts.42

Farm sales of horticultural crops are projected to grow by 2.1 percent annually over the next 

decade, reaching $71.6 billion in calendar year 2018, up from $58 billion in 2008. U.S. 

horticultural trade continues to become increasingly important, both in terms of the export 

share of production and the import share of consumption. 

Figure 2-50: Value of horticulture trade 

Source: USDA Agricultural Projections to 2018, February 2009 

USDA, ERS
100

Fruit and Vegetable Outlook 

Here are some highlights for fruit and vegetable products from USDA’s Agricultural Projections 

to 2018: 

 

• Within horticultural products, vegetables and melons continue to rank first in farm sales 

value over fruits and nuts. Annual growth over the next 10 years is expected to be 

fastest for fruits and tree nuts, at 2.6 percent, followed by vegetables at 2.0 percent. 

• Total vegetable production volume is projected to expand at 0.6 percent annually. Fruit 

production is forecast to decline by 0.1 percent in the next decade. The gradual 

increases in vegetable production hold gains in grower prices for vegetables at an 

annual 1.3 percent through the next decade. Combined with average price increases of 

2.7 percent for fruits and nuts, farm produce prices are estimated to increase by 1.9 

percent annually during the projection period. 

• The average growth of the value of U.S. horticultural imports is forecast at 3.7 percent 

from fiscal year (FY) 2009 to 2018. The value of exports is forecast to grow at 3 percent, 

with both fruits and vegetables averaging 2.8 percent in the next 10 years. Import 

growth and export growth of fresh-market vegetables and fruits exceed that of their 

processed products. The trade deficit in horticulture crops and products increases from 

$14 billion in FY 2008 to more than $21 billion in FY 2018. Of the total $28 billion U.S. 

horticultural products exports in FY 2018, fruits and nuts contribute $12.8 billion and 

vegetables represent $6.5 billion. Total imports of $50.5 billion in FY 2018 include $16 

billion worth of fruits and nuts, and $12 billion of vegetables and vegetable products. 

• Imports will increasingly supplement the domestic supply of horticulture crops and 

products. The share of imports in the U.S. consumption of horticulture crops and 

products (based on the dollar value) is projected to climb from 48 percent in 2008 to 54 

percent by FY 2018. Horticultural exports are projected to increase their share of U.S. 

production value from 36 percent in FY 2008 to 39 percent in FY 2018. The import and 

export shares of fruits and nuts are about twice as large as the corresponding import 

and export shares of vegetables.43

 
101

Table 2-24: Fruit and vegetable long-term supply and use projections

2/ Includes melons, sweet potatoes, fresh mushrooms, and California specialty vegetables. 3/ Major processing vegetables and agaricus mushrooms. 

4/ Includes edible dry beans and peas, lentils, and other peas. 5/ Calculated by adding farm weight production to imports, then subtracting exports. 

Stocks are not accounted for. Source: USDA Long-Term Projection Tables, February 2009
102

Fertilizer Profile 

For centuries, arable land was replenished by simple fertilizers and fallowing. Fallowing is the 

practice of allowing a field to remain unplanted for one or more seasons to regain nutrients. 

Until early in the 20th century, fertilizers were limited to animal manure and scrap organic 

material. These methods had their limits because, as the manure needs increased, the land 

needed to produce livestock reduced the land available to produce crops. 

During the westward expansion of the United States and throughout much of the 19th century, 

a vast amount of land was available, but there was limited transportation infrastructure; 

manure and other simple fertilizer methods were not economically viable at the scale needed. 

When settlers noticed depleted soil fertility, they simply moved on. By the 1930s, this process 

left large parts of the Plains as depleted “dust bowls.” 

At the beginning of the 19th century, the relationship of soil nitrogen, potassium, and other 

organic minerals to plant health and yield was discovered. This discovery, coupled with a 

developing transportation infrastructure, led to the development of the modern commercial 

fertilizer industry. Since the very beginning of fertilizer use, its ability to reduce famine by 

increasing yields led to nearly immediate international acceptance and the global search for 

fertilizers began. Shortly after the first manufacture of economically viable superphosphate 

fertilizer in the 1840s, sodium nitrate from Chile entered the market. At the dawn of the 20th

century, ammonia synthesizing was developed and nitrogen fertilizers were produced through 

chemical reactions controlled by humans. Today’s crop production in the United States, and 

the high yields achieved, require large amounts of nutrients and other inputs. These nutrients 

fuel the American agricultural exports that help feed the world. 

The three primary commercial fertilizers in use today are nitrogen based (urea, ammonia, etc.), 

phosphates, and potash. However, animal manure and other organic materials are still used to 

replace nutrients. In most areas, fertilizers are applied to replace nutrients withdrawn by crops 

as they grow. In other areas, fertilizers are used to make the land more arable. Potash, urea, 

anhydrous ammonia, and other commercial fertilizers are used to replace depleted nutrients. 

The application of commercial fertilizer is a widespread and accepted practice in the 

United States and globally because of the economic benefits. 

Trends in Fertilizer Markets 

As with any industry, the fertilizer industry has had many successes and faces several 

challenges. The U.S. fertilizer industry has recently implemented changes that allow for more 

production, more security, and a greater economic viability. Some of the problems facing the 

industry are: 

• Volatility in U.S. fertilizer prices. 

• Transportation policies and procedures. 

• Long-term increases in fertilizer use. 
103

Fertilizer Price Volatility 

The prices of nitrogen, phosphate, and potash, as well as other fertilizers, have been rising since 

2002. In 2008, fertilizers reached historic highs at the same time as grain and oilseeds reached 

their own record-setting highs. Between April 2007 and April 2008, nitrogen prices increased 

32 percent, phosphate prices increased by 93 percent, and potash prices increased by 100 

percent. The price surge in 2008 was due to strong domestic and global demand for fertilizers, 

low fertilizer inventories, and the inability of fertilizer production to be ramped up quickly 

enough to meet demand.44

 

In any business, volatility in prices creates a difficult operating environment; extreme 

fluctuations make planning and inventory management difficult. Late in 2008, the fertilizer 

price environment quickly changed again, as prices fell precipitously. The price retreat had 

several causes, but chief among them was the response to the record high prices of 2007 and 

2008, which caused global fertilizer demand to fall as declining crop prices provided less of an 

incentive for farmers to boost yields. In addition, U.S. producers delayed fertilizer applications 

because of high prices, and tighter credit markets slowed fertilizer purchases.

Transportation Policies and Procedures 

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attack, the transportation of hazardous materials and the security 

environment of Toxic by Inhalation Hazards (TIH) or Poison by Inhalation Hazards (PIH) 

materials has become ever more scrutinized. TIH and PIH are toxic gases, such as ammonia, 

which are harmful if inhaled. In many cases, on their way to a distribution center or a 

manufacturing facility, fertilizer rail cars containing ammonia or other chemicals pass through 

or are delivered to high threat urban areas. Because of the dense population of these areas 

and the potential for high physical and economic loss, insuring TIH or PIH rail shipments 

through high threat urban areas has become increasingly costly, and some say uneconomical. 

Most of the debate over fertilizer transportation policies centers on the rail industry, though 

fertilizers move by other modes, such as pipeline, truck, barge, and ocean-going vessel. This 

issue was recently considered by the Surface Transportation Board (STB) in the proceeding STB 

Ex Parte 677 (Sub-No. 1) Common Carrier Obligation of Railroads – Transportation of Hazardous 

Materials. Several interested parties, including USDA and the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT), submitted testimony in the hearing. 

The railroads proposed a solution modeled on the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity 

Act of 1957, which required Congressional action to implement. The Price-Anderson Act is 

designed to partially indemnify the nuclear industry in the event of a catastrophic nuclear 

accident. If an accident occurs, the first $10 billion in liability claims are paid from insurance 

carried by the nuclear industry. The remainder of the claims are paid by the federal 

government. The act includes other provisions that alter normal civil court proceedings, and 

requires nuclear companies to agree they cannot defend actions for damages by claiming it was 

not their fault. Action has not yet been taken on the railroads’ proposal, and the Common 

Carrier Obligation hearing is still active with the STB.45
104

The fertilizer industry forwarded a proposal to Class I railroads that would require fertilizer 

producers to pay for an extended insurance pool. The new insurance would increase the 

coverage for TIH or PIH incidents, and payouts would become available if claims grew beyond 

the amount of insurance railroads carried. In return for the expanded coverage, the fertilizer 

industry asked for new rate negotiations. As this report is published, the industry’s insurance 

plan is still under discussion, but there has been no significant movement recently. 

Long-Term Increases in Fertilizer Use 

As can be seen in Figure 2-51, U.S. fertilizer consumption increased rapidly from 1960 to 1980, 

by more than 300 percent. Since that time, the rate of increase has slowed, although still 

increasing more than 1 percent a year. The growth is due to several reasons, such as increases 

in acreage planted and higher-yielding crop varieties that require more nutrition. These 

domestic increases, combined with increases in developing countries—which resemble the 

rapid growth the United States experienced from 1960 to 1980—could put pressure on global 

fertilizer prices for years to come. 

Figure 2-51: Fertilizer use from 1960 to 2007 

Source: ERS 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

196019621964196619681970197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006

1000's of Nutrient Tons

Year

Nitrogen (N) Phosphate (P2O5) Potash (K2O) Total
105

Fertilizer Production 

Fertilizer production is, in most cases, based on the resources available. Nitrogen fertilizers can 

be produced in nearly every country of the globe, and are currently produced in more than 78 

countries. The primary raw material for nitrogen production is natural gas, but nitrogen can 

also be produced from coal, fuel oil, and naphtha. In the United States, 30 companies make 

nitrogen fertilizer in 29 States.46 Figure 2-52 identifies States that make nitrogen, potash, and 

phosphate fertilizers. 

Phosphate and potash are mined, so fertilizer is produced where ore is found. The raw 

materials for phosphate fertilizer are phosphate rock and sulfur. In the United States, these 

reserves are found in 14 States and are mined by 11 companies. Globally, phosphate rock is 

found in 32 countries, but only a few countries are able to extract it economically. The top 

three phosphate-producing countries account for 68 percent of global production. The top 12 

countries account for 94 percent. Potash ore reserves are identified in 21 countries worldwide, 

but extraction occurs in only 12 countries. In the United States, three companies in three States 

conduct potash ore mining and extraction (Figure 2-52).47

Production figures for fertilizers are confidential due to the nature of the business and the few 

companies that produce fertilizers. For this study, the best estimate for fertilizer production is 

domestic consumption and exports. Although it is possible to store fertilizers for long periods, 

storage is costly and demand is high enough that domestically produced fertilizers are either 

quickly utilized domestically (discussed in the next section) or exported (discussed in a later 

section). 

 
106

Figure 2-52: Fertilizer production facilities 

Fertilizer Use 

As discussed previously, the use of fertilizers increased rapidly during the early 20th century as 

farmers and producers assimilated new fertilizers and fertilizing techniques. The acceptance 

grew as evidence mounted of their economic benefits. Since then, the ever-increasing nature of 

fertilizer utilization—that acts as a proxy for the increased demand placed on the U.S. food 

supply—requires a high level of complexity in fertilizer creation and transportation. Figure 2-52 

shows the wide range of fertilizer use across the country. Every State in the contiguous 48 

States except Nevada reported some fertilizer use.48

For 2007, the most recent year with available data, the United States consumed more than 13.2 

million tons of nitrogen fertilizer, 5.1 million tons of potash, and about 4.6 million tons of 

phosphate, for a grand total of more than 22.9 million tons of fertilizer. The total amount of 

fertilizer consumed was 7.5 percent greater than 2006. The increase had two causes: higher 

commodity prices, which gave an incentive for farmers to increase their yields, and an increase 

in planted acreage. Over the past 10 years—from 1998 to 2007—the use of fertilizers has 

increased more than 2.3 percent. The small increase over the 10-year period may be due to 

what is described as “precision agriculture,” techniques that allow producers to reduce 

amounts of fertilizers used by careful placement around the plant. 
107

Over the 5-year span from 2003 to 2007, corn was the largest single user of all three major 

fertilizers. Corn accounted for 40 percent of nitrogen use and 39 percent each of phosphate 

and potash use. Several factors determine amounts used for corn, such as the percentage of 

the crop fertilized, the number of acres fertilized, and the amount applied per crop. Usually, 

more than 90 percent of corn acreage receives nitrogen, 80 percent receives phosphates, and 

60 percent receives potash. 

Wheat application rates are close to those of corn, with more than 87 percent of planted acres 

receiving nitrogen, 63 percent phosphate, and 32 percent potash. However, corn is fertilized at 

a higher rate, and more acres are fertilized. 

Illinois is the largest user of nitrogen, phosphate, and potash, and Iowa is the second largest 

user. Five other states—Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Missouri, and Wisconsin—are also included 

in the top ten of all three fertilizer usage categories. Most of these States are in the Corn Belt, 

and include some of the heaviest-producing corn States in the country (Figures 2-53, 2-54, and 

2-55).49

Figure 2-53: Nitrogen fertilizer use, top 10 States 

Source: USDA/NASS 

 
108

Figure 2-54: Phosphate fertilizer use, top 10 States 

Source: USDA/NASS 

Figure 2-55: Potash fertilizer use, top 10 States 

Source: USDA/NASS 
109

International Trade 

In 2008, the United States exported more than $7.5 billion worth of fertilizer to the rest of the 

world, more than twice that exported during 2007 ($3.7 billion).50 As shown in Figure 2-56 

below, fertilizer exports have steadily increased by value every year since 2000, with the only 

exception being 2006. Despite the increase in exports, the United States has a trade deficit in 

fertilizers. Over the 16-year period from 1989 to 2004, the United States had a surplus trade in 

fertilizers with the rest of the world. Between 2004 and 2005 the United States fertilizer trade 

balance switched to a deficit and has remained so since. For 2008, the deficit was $940 million, 

the second highest deficit to 2007 at $1.29 billion. 

Figure 2-56: U.S. international fertilizer trade – 10-year history 

Source: Foreign Trade Division, U.S. Census Bureau 

As also can be seen in Figure 2-52, a close relationship exists between U.S. fertilizer imports and 

exports. This is due to the United States being the largest importer of fertilizer intermediaries, 

the building blocks of finished commercial fertilizers, which are classified as fertilizers.51 This 

phenomenon makes the United States the second largest exporter and the largest importer of 

fertilizers. China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) had a significant impact on 

fertilizer trade, especially urea. In one year—between 2006 and 2007—China increased its 

imports of U.S. fertilizers by more than 330 percent, or $155 million. 

Canada has been the largest single source of fertilizer imports into the U.S. for at least the past 

20 years, with some $4.378 billion in 2008 (Figure 2-57). In 2008, the United States exported 

the largest amount of fertilizer products to India (Figure 2-58), nearly four times as much as to 

Brazil. India has been the largest U.S. fertilizer export customer for the last five years. 
110

Figure 2-57: U.S. fertilizer imports, top 10 supplying countries, 2008 

Source: Foreign Trade Division, U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 2-58: U.S. fertilizer export customers, top 10 countries, 2008 

Source: Foreign Trade Division, U.S. Census Bureau 
111

Fertilizer Transportation 

Fertilizers are transported by all major transportation modes, including pipeline, barge, rail, truck, 

and ocean vessels. Most ton-miles in the U.S. are shipped by truck (Figure 2-59). Domestically 

produced fertilizers are usually railed from the origination plant to larger distribution centers. 

They may be delivered by truck directly to end users or sent to smaller cooperatives for sale to 

local farmers. This structure helps to explain why truck transportation has such a large share of 

ton-miles; several truck shipments originate from each railcar. For example, a typical ammonia 

railcar carries 80 tons of material, which can fill four trucks. 

Figure 2-59: Fertilizer modal share 

Source: U.S. DOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau, Commodity Flow Survey 2002 

Fertilizers and raw materials imported from Canada and Mexico enter the country by truck or 

rail. These products from other international sources enter the United States by vessel. The 

next step depends on whether the product is finished or not. As can be seen in Figure 2-52, 

several fertilizer manufacturing plants are located in or near the port regions of New Orleans, 

Galveston, TX, and the Tampa Bay–St. Petersburg area. Two ammonia pipelines in the 

United States help safely distribute ammonia from production sites to manufacturing plants. 

One pipeline runs from the Texas production area into Minnesota and the other from the 

Louisiana production area to Nebraska and Indiana. 

Nitrogen fertilizer production areas are not only destinations for imported raw materials but 

are also points of departure for fertilizer exports. Phosphate and potash are tied to mining 

operations, so these materials are moved by rail or truck to export destinations. In 2007, more 
112

than 23.014 million tons of chemical fertilizer moved by rail, up 2 percent from 2006. Barges 

carried more than 8.477 million tons, up 13 percent from the previous year. These increases 

were due to the increase of 1.2 percent in the number of acres planted in the United States 

during the same period. 

Table 2-25: Chemical fertilizer movements for rail and barge 

All Chemical Fertilizer Movements (Tons) 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 5-year 

average 

Rail 26,331,106 22,124,653 24,339,134 22,540,141 23,014,227 23,669,852 

Barge 9,260,622 8,472,700 8,116,279 7,497,594 8,477,613 8,364,962 

 

Source: Rail: STB, Carload Waybill Sample, Barge: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, OMNI Reports 

Fertilizer Outlook 

In 2008, the U.S. economy entered a recessionary period, which slowed output and reduced 

pressures on fertilizer demand in two significant ways: by lowering incomes and increasing 

unemployment and by making credit harder to find. 

Despite the recent economic recession, the increases in incomes throughout the developing 

world over the last ten years have triggered diet changes that include more meat, fish, fruits, 

and vegetables.52 More meat products in the diet require the developing countries to use 

larger amounts of animal feed (e.g. corn, soybean meal, etc.) resulting in an increased use of 

fertilizer to boost yields for animal feed production. If this trend continues for the next ten 

years—and the signs are that it will—the need for foodstuffs and fertilizers will continue to 

grow. 

Fertilizer Demand 

The United States needs to increase agricultural production to meet growing food and biofuel 

requirements. The newly enacted Renewable Fuel Standard will increase the need for energyproducing crops such as corn and sorghum, which will increase the demand for fertilizer. 

However, the increase in biofuels production may decelerate until new technologies such as 

cellulosic ethanol become commercially viable. The new biofuels technologies may not totally 

negate an increase in fertilizer demand. For example, a new biofuels feedstock crop such as 

switch grass may require some form of fertilization to meet the needs of biofuels producers. 

These needs, combined with food diversification in the developing world, will increase the 

demand for fertilizers. According to the International Fertilizer Association, average global 

consumption will increase by 3.1 percent annually between 2008 and 2012. 
113

Fertilizer Supply Outlook 

In 2007, the U.S. fertilizer industry entered a demand-driven period caused by high 

consumption and a global supply shortage. Fertilizer companies tried to quickly increase 

production to capitalize on high prices. However, increases in energy prices, especially natural 

gas, combined with the fertilizer price increase created a difficult operating environment. This 

lasted into 2008 when the recession took hold, reducing fertilizer and natural gas demand. 

Also, in 2008, several fertilizer exporting countries implemented export taxes, which further 

decreased the already-low supply. These taxes helped U.S. fertilizer producers compete more 

effectively on the world stage. Many of the new export taxes are expected to remain in place 

for at least the near future. 

Despite the recession, fertilizer demand is expected to grow in the long term throughout the 

world, and supply is expected to increase with it as producers try to capitalize on new and 

increasing markets in the U.S. Since transportation demand is derived, the global demand for 

transportation services for fertilizers is expected to increase in the next several years. 

Conclusions 

America’s transportation system carries the food from our farms to our tables and to a hungry 

world. That system is based on four principal modes of transportation—trucks, trains, barges, 

and ocean vessels—that make up a seamless network. They cooperate and compete with one 

another to make a balanced and flexible system that moves our food and farm products 

efficiently and economically. 

The transportation system is more heavily used by agriculture than any other business sector; 

in 2007, 31 percent of all ton-miles carried were agricultural products or inputs. Many of these 

products are bound for export. During the past 5 years, half of the U.S. wheat crop, 36 percent 

of the soybean crop, and 19 percent of the corn crop moved from farms to ports for export on 

an unbroken transportation chain. 

As the world develops, eating patterns change, with demand rising for high-quality food 

products and bulk commodities. These changes increase America’s needs for transportation. 

Domestically, during the last decade, the livestock, poultry, and dairy industries have become 

more concentrated and experienced geographic shifts. The production and consumption areas 

are geographically dispersed, creating the need for efficient long-distance transportation from 

the highly concentrated producing areas to the growing domestic and international markets. 

Raising concerns for the safety of urban areas are making fertilizer transportation more 

regulated, even as the need for fertilizers grows, increasing the demand for rail, barge, and 

trucks to transport it. 

The need for agricultural transportation will continue to increase, based on projected growth in 

demand for U.S. agricultural products domestically and overseas. 

 
114