U.S. Containerized Grain and Oilseed Exports

- Industry Profile: Phase I -

Prepared by

Kimberly Vachal

Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute

North Dakota State University

and

Heidi Reichert

Shipper and Exporter Assistance

United States Department of Agriculture

November 2001
i

Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Introduction ..................................................................1

Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Intermodal Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Shipper Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Grain Container Shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Commodity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Seasonality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Marketing Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

U.S. Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Foreign Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Appendix A: Rail Grain Container Freight by BEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Appendix B: Harmonized Shipping Codes and Classification Considered

in the PIERS Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Appendix C: Grain Container Shipments from All U.S. Ports, Average 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . 45

Appendix D: Destination for Grain Container Shipments from All U.S. Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
ii

Figures

Figure 1. Intermodal Terminal Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 2. Container Origination, Chicago .........................................6

Figure 3. Container Origination, Seattle ..........................................7

Figure 4. Container Origination, Portland .........................................8

Figure 5. Container Origination, Los Angeles ......................................8

Figure 6. Location of Leading Container Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 7. Location of Grain Container Shippers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 8. Trend in Rail Container Shipments of Farm Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 9. Grain Container Shipments, Average 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 10. Composition of Grain Container Shipments Handled by Railroads . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 11. Composition of Containerized Grain and Oilseed Exports, Annual Average

1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 12. Monthly Containerized Shipments, Waybill Average from 1990 to 1998 . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 13. Sample Rates for Containerized Soybeans in Major U.S./Asian Trade Routes . . . . 24

Figure 14. Sample Rates for Containerized Soybeans in Major U.S./Asian Trade Routes . . . . 26

Figure 15. Sample Rates for Containerized Corn in Major U.S./Asian Trade Routes . . . . . . . 26

Figure 16. Average Rates for Containerized Corn from the United States to Selected Ports,

July 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 17. Average Rates for Containerized Soybeans from the United States to

Selected Ports, July 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
iii

Tables

Table 1. Grain Container Shipments by PIERS Shipper Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 2. Grain Container Freight by BEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 3. Export Grain Product Container Shipments, 1999 and 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 4. Top 10 U.S. Grain and Grain Product Container Ports, Average Volume

1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 5. U.S. Port Origins for Grain Container Shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table 6. Composition of Grain Container Shipments for Five Largest Volume U.S. Ports . . 35

Table 7. Destination for U.S. Grain and Grain Product Container Exports, 1999-2000 . . . . . 37

Table 8. Top 10 Volume Foreign Port Destinations for U.S. Grain Container Shipments . . . 38

Table 9. Distribution of Grain Container Shipments Among Foreign Ports by Commodity . 39
iv

Executive Summary

Diversification of production agriculture has received much attention over recent years. As

producers and customers adapt to technologically advanced production and marketing systems, it

is important to consider opportunities available for adding value to raw grain through alternative

handling and transportation options. One such opportunity that has been more widely

recognized in recent years is marketing grain products via container. It has been estimated that

this option is currently used in marketing about 1 percent of U.S. grain production, with growth

to 3 percent expected over the next five years. 

The objective of this report is to develop a profile of the U.S. containerized grain and oilseed

export industry, including marketing activities, future expectations, information needs, and

business practices. This report forms Phase I in a proposed two-phase analysis of the grain

container industry. Information developed in this report regarding shipment origins, commodity

volumes, and market destinations provides a base for conducting a survey of industry

participants that might be used as a tool in development, planning, and enhancement of

opportunities for containerized marketing of grain products.
1

Introduction

Competitive access to an array of agricultural markets is critical to agricultural shippers and rural

economies. As producers and customers adapt to technologically advanced production and

marketing systems, it is important to consider the potential the system offers for adding value to

raw grain through alternative handling and transportation options. One sector that has garnered

some attention in recent years is the sector delivering grain and oilseed products via container. 

Technological advancements in commodity shipping, grain production, crop handling, and

communications, along with sophistication of buyer expectations and producer merchandising,

and increasing container industry capacity may lend themselves to continued expansion of this

sector.

It has been estimated that, currently, approximately 1 percent of the U.S. grain and oilseed

production is marketed via container. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics reported that in

1997, 13.6 percent of freight shipments and 1.5 percent of grain shipments included multiple

mode marketing channels. It also reports that, for the same year, 1.1 percent of all commodity

shipments and cereal grain shipments were marketed via the truck/rail combination. The

truck/rail combination would include container shipments (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999). 

Domestic and international grain container trade is expected to grow. A recent survey of grain

industry experts suggested that the volume of grain marketed via container could increase from

the current estimate of less than 1 percent of all grain marketed to 3 percent of all grain over the

next 5 years--an increase of more than 300 percent (Vachal, 2000). Survey respondents
1

This estimate includes barley, cottonseed, corn, flaxseed, oats, rye, sorghum, soybeans, sunflowers,

and wheat (National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA). 

2

TEU (20-foot equivalent unit)–commonly describes a 20-foot container.

2

attributed their outlook to an expected increase in use of the container marketing system to meet

growth in demand for specialty products. Trends in Canada support survey results. Transport

Canada estimates that 814,000 tons of fodder and feed including soybeans, 17 percent of total

fodder and feed volume, was marketed via container in 1998. This volume represents a 107

percent increase in volume, compared to 1990 (Transport Canada, October 2000).

Although still rather small in comparison to overall grain movements1

 (considering major grains

and soybeans) of more than 15 billion bushels per year, this volume may have important

implications for future demands of the grain market infrastructure and public policy. This

container volume converts to an expected increase in grain container traffic from 225,225 TEUs2

per year to 675,676 TEUs per year. These shipments navigate a logistical system that is

typically separate and unique from the traditional grain marketing channels. 

Objective

Limited and rather disjointed information exists for profiling the grain container industry and

identifying trends for regional and national logistical planning. The goal of this project is to

develop a profile of the U.S. containerized grain and oilseed export industry, including

marketing activities, future expectations, information needs, and business practices. This profile

will be completed for a planned two-phase project. The first phase, to be completed in this
3

report, provides an environmental scan of the grain container industry. The information is based

on secondary data sources. Important characteristics, such as location of grain container

shippers, commodity spectrum, export volumes by port and destination, and rates, are considered

in the scan. The second stage of the project will be a survey of the industry. The survey will be

used to enhance and update the industry profile created in this project.

Data

Several secondary data sources were employed to develop this preliminary profile of the U.S.

grain container industry. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics databases provided the primary

source of data regarding intermodal infrastructure. Journal of Commerce importer and exporter

directory and database information provided information regarding the location of companies

exporting grain via container. Two databases were used to assess the activity of shippers

marketing grain by container, the U.S. Public Use Waybill and Journal of Commerce Port Import

Export Reporting Services (PIERS). 

Organization

The following report is composed of three sections. The initial section provides an overview of

the U.S. container marketing network, considering infrastructure and market flows. The second

section specifically addresses grain container shipping activities, considering volumes,

commodities, origins, and destinations. The final section of the report summarizes the grain

container industry profile developed in the report and makes recommendations regarding

continuation into the second phase of the project.
4

Intermodal Network

Intermodal, as defined by Jones, et. al., is “the shipment of cargo and the movement of people

involving more than one mode of transportation during a single, seamless journey” (Jones, et. al.,

1999). For the purposes of this paper, intermodal will be more narrowly defined as

containerized freight shipments. Approximately 13 percent of the world’s trade volume was

shipped by container in 1997; this represents a 44-percent increase in share of total volume since

1990 (Mueller, 1999). The prevalence of containers is consistent with industry investment as

ocean container numbers grew from 3.8 million TEUs in 1983 to 10.9 million TEUs in 1999. 

These shipments may include movements on truck, rail, barge, and ocean vessel. As U.S. grain

producers seek to access these marketing lanes, it is important to understand the related

infrastructure. A network of intermodal facilities provides access for producers. Proximity to

and capacities of these terminals are fundamental elements in understanding economics of

marketing grain via container. 

The network of intermodal facilities, as defined by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics of the

U.S. Department of Transportation, includes 2,965 locations (figure 1). The facilities are

designated by primary mode: highway, port, rail, or water. Considering rail ramps for

intermodal shipments specifically, approximately 370 facilities remain from the more than 1,700

that were operating in the late 1970s (Mueller, 1999). 
5

Intermodal Terminals

Primary Mode Designation

Data Source: NTAD 1999, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation

$

$ #

$

r

#

r

$

r$

r$

$

$#$rr rrrr r $$

$ $ $$

$

$

rr

#$$$##

#

#

#$$

r

$$#

#

$

# #$

$

#$#$#

r$r#

$

r$

#$

$#r $

$

#

$ $

$

$ r$# rrr$#$

$#

#

r

r

rr$$#$

#

#

$###

$

$# r$#$$

r# $ rr

##$$

r#

r

$ $

rr$#$

r%Ur

$

$#$rrrrr

r

r

$#rr

$

# $r#$

r

#rr$#$

$#$

r

$#$#$$

$

$$$

$

rr$$$##

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$

#$$#

#$$## rr#$$$$

r

r r

%U$#

#$

$

$

$r

r$

r

$#r#$#$

r

r

$# r

$

r

#

rr$$$ $

$

$

r$$

r

r

$$

#$

$##

%U%U

$$

rr

$#$#$

$$r

$##r$#r

$$#$r$$rr

r

$

$

$r#$$r

##$$#

$$#$#

#

$#

#

$#

#

#$$#

#$#

$

#

# $#

#

$# #

$

#$$$#

$$

r$

$

#

$

#$$$$

r

r

$

#$

$$ #

#$

$$#

#%U

%U

%U#

r$

#

#

#

##$

#

#

$#

%U%Ur %U

r

r$$r

r

$%U

%U%U#%U$$

$$

$$ rr$r r$

$

#$

####

##$##$$####rr

$$$

#$

#$##$

#

rr#

r#r

# r

$$%U

$

r

r

$

$

$$

$

$$$

$$$

$#

#

r

$#

$#$$#$%U#

r #

rr

r$#$#

$#$#$$

$$

r

$

#$

##

#

#

##$#

#

%U r

%U%U

r

r

r

$#

##

$

#

##

$#$#

#

#

$ #

#

rrr

r%U$$%U

r

rr%U $$%U%U##

#

%U

$

$

$#%U

#

#

$

#

#

#

$

$

$

$

$ $ r$rr$

r$#r

r

r

r r

r$

rr

#$$$

#$

$##

#$

rr$$##$

$

rr

$

$

#

##$

##

rr

r

$

#$

#

##r

rr

r

r

rr r rr #$r

#$#$r

####

# #

#

#

#

#

#

####

#

#r

$#

$

$

rr

rr

##r

$$# r r

r

r$#

$

#

r

r

$ #$$

#$$

$$$#$#$$#

rr$$

rr

r%Ur%U r rr

$$%Ur%U%U

#

$

#$

#$#

#

rr

rr$%Ur%U

r

$

$#$

#r

#

##$

$

# $#

r

###

#$$

$ r

$rrr

$rr$r

$

#$

#

#$rr$#$r$#$

$

$

$$$ r rrr rrr

$r r###r r

$

$$

r

rr$#$%U

$

$

$

##$$

$ r r

$

$

#$

$

$$

$ $

#$rrr

$r

$#$$###$#

# ##r ## ## r###r

$# r

$ r#$

#

r $

r

rrr

$#$$ $#$# r#

rr

$

r

#$#

$#

# $

# #$##

# ###r

r r

r r

r$#

$

#$#

$#

$#

$

#

r

r

$$

#rr rr r#

rr#$

$

#

#

#$#$r

r$r

$

##$$r

r

#

$#$#

r

$#$$rrr$$$

$

r

$

#$

$

#r

r r$ rr

#$$

$

$

$

r

$$#rrr

$#$r

r$$##

#$#$

#

$

rr

$#

$#

$

$ $

#

$ $$$

r$

r r

#

r$$#

$

#

$

#

#$

$#

$#rr$

$#$##$

$$#

#$

#$

$$#

$

$

#$#rr$# $ #

$#

$

r # $# r r$r

$

$$

$$

$$

$

$$

$

$

r

$##$#

r

r

$#$

##

$#

$#

$$$#$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$$$$

%U$#$#$%U#

#

#$

$

$###$$

$r$

$

r

$

r $

$$

rr

$$

$#$#

$##$#

r

#$#$#$

#$

rrrr

rr

$%U#$$$$ $

$

$%U$$rr$

$

$$$$#

#$

$

#

$$rr

#$$$#

r##$

r

r

#$

%U%U##$$%U$

r

rrrr$#%U###

#

r

r

r

$$

rr#

r

rr

$ rr$

r

r$

#$

#$#$

#$

r

$$

$

##

$ $

#

r

r

rr #

$

# # rr r #$ #

$##

r

%U#$$#$%U#

#

$$

#$$

#$$

#

#

#$#$rr

$ r

$$r$#r rr

$

rr

#$##

#

#

r$rr

$r

%U$$##$#%U#r

$ r

r

$

# rrr

$

#

$$ r r r$rr#$$#$#$

#

$

$

# $#$ #

rr$#

##

r##$

# $$$

$

$

$$$##

$#

$#

$

#$#$ ##$

r#%U%U$$$

rr

%U

%Ur %U

r

%U

r

%U

r$##$ #

#

# $

$

$ r

$$ r

$$

$$#

rrrr$$####$ # $ # #$

rr $$#$$$$rr$

#

$#$$$$r$

$ r

$$$#$ #

$# $# $#$# $

#

$

# $# rrr

#

r#

rr

$#

$

$$ $$

$

$$$#$##$#$$

#$$ #$

rr

#$$

#

$

rr

##$$$#$

#

$

##$

$#

$ $# $

#$##$#r

#r

#$#$#

$

#

r

$$

$#$$rr

#

#

r #

r$

$ $$## $

$r rr$

r$

r r

r

$

$ $

$

$$ $$

$$$$$##$rrrr#$$rr$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$$

$$ $

#$

%U r $

$$ $

#

#

#r

$$#$

# rr

r

$$# #

$#$#$rrr$#%U$r

$#%U###$$$$$$$$r#$#$ $#$$#

$

$

#$

#

r

$#rr

$#$

$$

r##$$ # r

r $ #

$#

$#

$$

#$##r r

r

r

$##

#

$##$

#

#$

#

$# #

$

##$ #

r $

$

$# r

rr

$#$#

r

$#$

rr #$rrr$$$$ rr$

# r

r $

#

r#$$ #

#$#

#$ $ #

#$# #$#

$

##r

r

rr

r$$$##%U

%U$

r r

r$##rr$r

r

#

rr

$#$ #

r$#r

$

$

$#

rr#$ $

r#

rr$ $

r

#$

r

r

$

$

#$$#$#$$

#

#$$$ $$$

$

$

$$$

$

r$#

r

rr$#$#$

$ r

#r$$

r

r

$

rr$$# r

$

#

r

r#$#$

##$$

r $

# $

# $ #

$

#

$ Highway

%U Port

# Rail

r Water

Figure 1. Intermodal Terminal Locations

Over a million tons of U.S. grain production is marketed via container. Much of the grain

production area in the United States is located some distance from export facilities. Thus, the 

least cost route for participating in this specialized grain export market may be entry into the

network at some inland container handling facility. Proximity to container handling centers

provides inherent information regarding shipping rates, equipment supply, drayage costs, and

longer term viability. 
3

BEAs are regions defined by the U.S. Census Bureau for economic analysis.

6

Chicago

Los Angeles

Portland

Seattle

1990 327,618

1994 377,986 15%

1998 577,539 53%

TOTAL CHICAGO OUTBOUND

1990 84,171

1994 95,533 13%

1998 151,377 58%

1990 191,538

1994 214,523 12%

1998 365,809 71%

1990 51,909

1994 67,929 31%

1998 60,353 -11%

Container Origination, Chicago

Volume in Tons, Percent Change from Previous Shipment Period

Source: U.S. Public Use Waybill

Figure 2. Container Origination, Chicago

The container system operates within major corridors and incidental feeder lanes. Primary

markets for rail origin in container traffic, based on rail shipment information in the U.S. Public

Use Waybill, are Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)3

 regions including Chicago, IL; Portland,

OR; Seattle, WA; and Los Angeles, CA (figure 2). These BEAs accounted for an average of 47

percent of the all rail container originations in 1990, 1994, and 1998. The share for the four

BEAs increased from 44 percent in 1990 to 50 percent in 1998 (U.S. Public Waybill, various

years). The single largest terminal for container shipments is Chicago. Among the four largest

facilities, Chicago accounted for approximately 43 percent of rail container originations in 1998

(U.S. Public Use Waybill). The primary destination for container rail shipments originating in
7

Chicago

Los Angeles

Portland

Seattle

Container Origination, Seattle

Volume in Tons, Percent Change from Previous Shipment Period

Source: U.S. Public Use Waybill

1990 105,024

1994 103,514 -1%

1998 201,966 95%

1990 2,912

1994 494 -83%

1998 1,242 151%

1990 9,188

1994 18,735 104%

1998 21,356 14%

1990 117,124

1994 122,744 5%

1998 224,564 83%

Total Seattle Outbound

Figure 3. Container Origination, Seattle

Chicago is Los Angeles. The proportion of traffic bound for Los Angeles grew significantly

between 1990 and 1998.

Between the Pacific Northwest ports, Portland has become a less important destination for

Chicago while Seattle has expanded its share as a recipient of Chicago-originated traffic. Los

Angeles is second in volume among rail container origins, handling approximately one-third of

the volume among the four leading volume facilities. Chicago was the destination for more than

half of the containers that the railroads carried out of this origin region. The volume from Los

Angeles to Portland was nearly eight times the volume from Los Angeles to Seattle. The volume

to Seattle has increased significantly as compared from 1994 to 1998, while the shipments from

Los Angeles to Portland declined slightly between 1994 and 1998 (Figures 3, 4, and 5).
8

Chicago

Los Angeles

Portland

Seattle

Container Origination, Portland

Volume in Tons, Percent Change from Previous Shipment Period

Source: U.S. Public Use Waybill

1990 11,687

1994 14,950 28%

1998 32,382 117%

1990 11,872

1994 17,107 44%

1998 20,787 22%

1990 50,511

1994 50,332 0%

1998 39,801 -21%

1990 74,070

1994 82,388 11%

1998 92,970 13%

Total Portland Outbound

Figure 4. Container Origination, Portland

Chicago

Los Angeles

Portland

Seattle

Container Origination, Los Angeles

Volume in Tons, Percent Change from Previous Shipment Period

Source: U.S. Public Use Waybill

1990 186,441

1994 218,590 17%

1998 455,721 108%

Total Los Angeles Outbound

1990 176,728

1994 189,908 7%

1998 425,787 124%

1990 7,293

1994 27,385 275%

1998 26,704 -2%

1990 2,420

1994 1,297 -46%

1998 3,230 149%

Figure 5. Container Origination, Los Angeles
4

Based on a summary of commodities included in the “011 Field Crops” Standard Commodity

Classification Code (STCC). The STCC is used for the commodity designation in the U.S. Public Use Waybill.

9

Among the four largest rail container origin regions, Seattle and Portland handle substantially

less of the volume than the other two. Seattle is attributed an average of 16 percent of the

volume for the 3 years considered: 1990, 1994, and 1998, with Portland picking up the

remaining 9 percent. Rail container shipments from the Seattle BEA nearly doubled between

1990 and 1998. Chicago is the primary termination region for shipments originating in Seattle,

as it was the recipient of nearly 90 percent of the traffic originated in the Seattle region in 1998. 

The rail container volume originated from the Portland BEA expanded by 26 percent between

1990 and 1998. In relative terms, the volume railroads originated from this BEA remains small

and is growing at a slower pace than volume from the other three major rail container origins. 

The relative strength of each hub, and the volumes among the major corridors, have important

implications for shippers considering grain container marketing because the future viability,

stability, equipment supply, and rate structures may be favorable for routes with greater traffic

density.

Based on container field crop volume,4

 major BEA origins for grain container shipments are

Memphis, TN; Lubbock, TX; Portland, OR.; Dallas, TX; and Los Angeles, CA (figure 6). Three

of these origins coincide with locations identified as the five largest volume container origins,

considering all commodities, as Memphis, Portland, and Los Angeles are important origin

regions for grain and for the larger rail-container industry.
10

Figure 6. Location of Leading Container Origins

Shipper Population

A fundamental piece of information in discussing any product is identification of the suppliers

and buyers that define the market. This project is concerned with the supplier component

marketing grain via container in the export market. Two information sources were used in

compiling information regarding the location of grain container shippers, the Journal of

Commerce 1999 Mid-Year Reference Directory of United States Importers and monthly

information received from PIERS for 2000. 

Based on information from these sources, more than 2,000 companies from 743 cities were

identified as active grain container shippers. Active grain container shippers were those shippers

that originated more than 10 TEUs during the year (1999 or 2000, depending on the source). 
11

#

# ## #

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#######

### ## #

#######

#

###

#

#

# # ##

##

#

# ###

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# # # ##

####

# #

#

####

#

######

#

#

#

## #

#

##

##

# #### #

#

###

# #

#

#

####

#

#

# #

# #

#

##

#

#

# ##

##

# ###

#

#

#

#

#

## #

##

#

### # #

##

## #

#

# # #

#

#

# # # ##

## # ##

#

#

##

####

##

###

#

###

#### ##

#

####

# ##

# # ##

#

#####

## #

# # # #

###

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

# # #

#

###

#

#

### #

#

#

# # #

#

#

####

#

# # ### #

#

####

#

#

# #

#

# #

#

#

##

###

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

## #

#

#

#

#

# # ##

# # #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

# # #

## #####

#####

#

###

### ##

#

#

#

#

### #

##

#

## #

#######

##

## # # # # #### ##

#

#

#

#

#### ##

# # #

##

##

### #

#

# #

##

#

######

#

# #

# ###

#

####

#

# # # ####

###

# ###

#

#### # #

#

#

#

##

#

##

# #

# ##

###

#

#

#

#

#

###

# #

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#### #

##

# # ## #

#

###

###

##

#

#

#

#

# #

#

# #

#

#

#

##

###

# #

# # ##

#

#

# ##

#

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$ $

$$$

$

$

$ $

$ $

$

$

$

$ $

$$

$ $

$ $

$

$$

$

$$$$

$

$

$ $ $

$

$$

$

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$$$

$

$

$

$

$

$$

$$

$$ $

$

$ $

$$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$

$$$

$$

$$

$$

$

$ $

$

$

$$$$

$

$$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$

$$

$$$$

$ $$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $

$

$ $

$

$$

$

$

$$

$

$

$

$$

$$

$

$$

$$$$ $

$

$

$

$

$ $ $$$$$ $$

$$ $$$

$

$

$

$ $

$ $ $ $$

$

$ $

$ $

$

$

$$$

$

$

$

$$$

$

$$

$

$

$

$ $

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$

$$

$$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$

$$

$

$

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$ $ $ $

$

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$$$

$

$

$$

$

$ $ $

$

$

$$

$

$$

$

$

$ $

$

$ $

$

$

$$$ $$ $

$$$$ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $

$ $

$$$

$ $

$$

$

$

$$

$

$

$$

$ $

$ $

$$

$

$

$

$$$

$

$ $

$$$$ $

$$

$$

$

$

$

$$

$

$

$$

$

$

$

$ $

$$ $

$

$ $ $ $

$

$ $ $$

$ $

$ $$

$$$

$

$ $

$ $

$

$

$

$$$ $

$

$

$

$

$

$

$$$

$

$ $

$

# Grain Container Origin

$ Rail Intermodal Terminals

Figure 7. Location of Grain Container Shippers

The location of grain container shippers identified through the two data sources is provided in

the map illustrated in figure 7. The map includes locations of rail intermodal facilities to show

the proximity of shippers accessing the existing intermodal infrastructure from inland grainproducing regions.
12

Grain Container Shipments

The grain container business seems to be a global industry. The aforementioned Canadian

volume, along with reports with reference to wheat container exports from Argentina, Australia,

and the European Union, suggest suppliers are dispersed globally (Lyons, 2000). Identifying and

quantifying U.S. producer participation in the market is not a simple task. Two data sources

were used to estimate total volume, trends, and timing of shipments. These data sources were

the Journal of Commerce PIERS reporting data and the U.S. Public Use Waybill. The U.S.

Census Bureau was contacted regarding information from the Shipper Export Document (SED),

but data were not publicly available to distinguish grain container shipments from bulk grain

shipments. 

Each of these data sources has limitations. One limitation for all sources is that the shipper listed

in the documentation may refer to either the address of the originating shipper or the address of a

third-party marketing firm. In addition, rebilling of a shipment for a portion of the trip may

cause some double counting of shipments, particularly in the rail Waybill data. For instance, if a

shipment originated in Wisconsin and was bound for Oregon, it may be billed to Chicago and

then rebilled to Oregon, thus appearing as originating in both Chicago and Oregon. In

considering comparisons between the two data sets, note that the commodity designation for the

two databases uses different classification systems. The U.S. Public Use Waybill data utilize the

Standardized Transportation Commodity Classification code, while the PIERS data are based on

Harmonized Shipping codes. Understanding limitations and unique characteristics of each data

source, these were determined to be the most consistent, yet economical, sources of market data. 
13

These data are valuable in comprehending the scope and activity of the grain container export

market at aggregate and dissaggregate levels.

Volume

U.S. Public Use Waybill data are employed to estimate trends in farm product container

shipments. Although the Waybill information does not provide the best source for estimating

export grain container shipments, due to domestic deliveries and deliveries of containers to port

via truck, it does provide information regarding trends in this shipment type. A strong upward

trend exists, as expected, in total rail container shipments (figure 8). The trend in rail farm

product container shipments appears to be declining over recent years. Between 1990 and 1994,

the volumes averaged more than 840,000 tons, compared to an average 584,000 over the 5 most

recent years for which data were available, 1994 to 1998. The decline in grain container

volumes may be attributed to factors such as its relative sensitivity to container shipping rates,

due to the relative low value of the commodity compared to products such as automobiles,

increasing foreign competition, or changes in the rail container rates/access.
14

Trends in Rail Container Shipments

Volume in Tons

-

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

199019911992199319941995199619971998

All Commodities, Thousands

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

Farm Product, Thousands

Total Farm Products

Source: U.S. Public Use Waybill

Figure 8. Trend in Rail Container Shipments of Farm Products

Origins

PIERS and U.S. Public Use Waybill data are used to gather information regarding the origin of

grain container shipments. The PIERS data identify shipper location as the origin for the

physical shipment. The Waybill and many other data sources use the billing address (i.e.,

broker) as the shipment origin. 

Based on a summary of PIERS data for grain product shipments in 1999 and 2000, California

leads all states in origination of container exports, averaging 17,122 containers per year for the

past 2 years (figure 9). Washington, New York, and Minnesota form the next tier of States in

volume of grain containers shipped during 1999 and 2000. These States each shipped more than

8,000 containers, individually accounting for 8 percent market shares in the grain 
15

TX

CA

AZ

ID

CO

IL

OR

UT

KS

IA NE

SD

MN

ND

OK

FL

MO

WI

AL GA

WA

AR

LA

MI

IN

NY

PA

NC

MS

TN

KY

VA

OH

SC

ME

NH

MD

NJ

MA

CT

1 - 200

200 - 500

500 - 1,600

1,600 - 3,200

3,200 - 4,700

4,700 - 6,400

Over 6,400 

Figure 9. Grain Container Shipments, Average 1999-2000

container export market and accounting for 22 percent of total grain container shipments, as

reported by PIERS. Florida, Kansas, and New Jersey each shipped around 4,000 containers per

year. Their market shares were 6, 5, and 5 percent, respectively, in the grain container market. 

Oregon, Nebraska, and Illinois each attributed 4 percent to the market, shipping 3,236, 3,223,

and 2,974 containers, respectively. The remaining 21 percent of the grain container market is

distributed among 37 States. The volumes and market share for each of the States are presented

in table 1.
16

Table 1. Grain Container Shipments by PIERS Shipper Origin

State

Average TEUs

1999-2000

Share of Grain 

Container Traffic

California 17,122 22%

Washington 6,434 8%

New York 6,421 8%

Minnesota 6,028 8%

Florida 4,736 6%

Kansas 4,227 5%

New Jersey 3,881 5%

Oregon 3,236 4%

Nebraska 3,223 4%

Illinois 2,974 4%

Ohio 2,607 3%

Missouri 2,203 3%

Texas 1,648 2%

Pennsylvania 1,380 2%

Iowa 1,198 2%

District of Columbia 1,144 1%

Idaho 1,047 1%

Louisiana 915 1%

Indiana 884 1%

Georgia 783 1%

Wisconsin 732 1%

Virginia 698 1%

North Dakota 539 1%

Michigan 494 1%

Colorado 358 <1%

Maryland 357 <1%

Oklahoma 355 <1%

Tennessee 348 <1%

Massachusetts 280 <1%

North Carolina 257 <1%

Connecticut 255 <1%

Kentucky 220 <1%

Arkansas 197 <1%

Arizona 154 <1%

Utah 106 <1%

South Carolina 91 <1%

Alabama 72 <1%

Hawaii 38 <1%

South Dakota 19 <1%
17

Delaware 11 <1%

Nevada 4 <1%

Mississippi 3 <1%

New Hampshire 3 <1%

Rhode Island 2 <1%

Vermont 2 <1%

Maine 1 <1%

West Virginia 1 <1%

Montana - 

New Mexico - 

Wyoming - 

The U.S. Public Use Waybill also provided an estimate of container originations at the BEA

level. Between 1990 and 1998, an average 34,968 TEUs of grain container shipments were

carried annually by U.S. railroads. Considering the U.S. Public Use Waybill summary, the BEA

origins the five largest volume grain container shipments, Memphis, TN.; Lubbock, TX; Dallas,

TX; Portland, OR; and Los Angeles, CA, supplied an average 35 percent of the rail grain

container shipments between 1990 and 1998. Among these markets, Memphis was the largest

supplier, attributing more than 35 percent of the grain container shipments among the five BEAs

between 1990 and 1998. The two Texas BEAs are second and third, with Lubbock and Dallas

BEAs accounting for 21 and 16 percent of the top five market share, respectively. Two BEAs

that encompass the West Coast ports of Portland and Los Angeles complete the top five. These

BEA regions contributed 15 and 12 percent, respectively, of the grain container shipments

among the five largest volume BEAs.

In 1994, two trends can be identified in the BEA data provided in Appendix A and the summary

in table 2. Shipments declined in the most recent 5 years, and shipments became more
18

concentrated among the origins. This concentration is reflected in fewer BEA origins identified

as having originated grain containers, more than 20 BEAs in 1993, compared to just 7 in 1998. 

The “Other” BEA accounts for shipments must be combined as a region to protect

confidentiality of shippers due to the limited number of competitors in the market. This volume

grew as a proportion of total shipments, accounting for 29 percent of the shipments in 1990 and

69 percent of the shipments in 1998, making origin identification more difficult in recent years.

Table 2. Grain Container Freight by BEA, Volume in TEUs

Market Share of Origin Rail BEAs: Five Largest Volume, 1990-1998 = 35%

Market Share

1990-1993 1994-1998 1990-1998 Among Top 5

Memphis, TN 6,902 2,750 4,595 37%

Lubbock, TX 1,655 3,405 2,627 21%

Dallas, TX 2,985 692 2,002 16%

Portland, OR 1,195 2,197 1,821 15%

Los Angeles, CA 2,992 276 1,483 12%

Other - Origin Specified 15,480 2,002 7,992

Other - Origin Unspecified 11,211 18,131 15,055

42,420 29,453 35,577

Source: Bureau of Transport Statistics, U.S. Public Use Waybill

Commodity

Regarding the composition of the grain container industry, the U.S. Public Use Waybill and

PIERS data were employed to determine estimates of container shipping among commodities. 

Within the larger context of field crops, the U.S. Public Use Waybill data suggest that the cotton

industry was the single largest user of containers based on average annual shipments between

1990 and 1998. The cotton industry accounted for approximately 29 percent of all field crop

container shipments. Corn and hay comprised 22 percent of the total, each attributing 11 percent
19

of the annual volume of field crop container shipments handled by the major U.S. railroads. 

Including the 9 percent of field crop container volume credited to the potato industry, the five

largest volume field crop commodities accounted for 50 percent of the total field crop volume

between 1990 and 1998. The remaining field commodities with discernible container volumes

are sorghum, wheat, lawn grass seed, field seed, and barley. Each of these commodities

accounted for 4 to 7 percent of the average annual total field crop container shipments handled

by U.S. rail carriers between 1990 and 1998.

Of specific interest is activity in the sector of field crops typically marketed as commoditybased, bulk grain shipments. The U.S. Public Use Waybill and PIERS data sets are considered. 

As mentioned earlier, both provide conservative estimates of activity in the grain container

industry. Corn is the single largest volume commodity in terms of grain container shipments,

based on U.S. Public Use Waybill data from 1990 to 1998 (figure 10). It accounted for more

than one-third of the total grain container shipments. Sorghum and wheat container volumes are

similar, attributing 22 and 20 percent, respectively, of the grain container shipments reported by

U.S. railways. These three grains accounted for over three-quarters of the grain containers

handled by railroads annually between 1990 and 1998. Barley, fourth among commodity grains,

was the commodity in 13 percent of the rail grain container shipments. Rice, soybeans, and oats

complete the commodity grains picture, accounting for 5, 5, and 1 percent, respectively, of

annual rail grain container shipments.
20

Source: U.S. Public Use Waybill

Rice

5%

Corn

34%

Wheat

20%

Barley

13%

Oats

1%

Soybeans

5%

Sorghum

22%

Figure 10. Composition of Grain Container Shipments Handled by

Railroads

PIERS data summaries provide the best source of grain container marketing information that can

be identified. Table 3 provides an estimate of export container shipments, considering field

commodities and related animal feed products. The average annual containerized exports of

field commodities through U.S. ports were 91,328 TEUs or approximately 1,826,000 tons for

1999 and 2000. Prepared animal feed (not including retail packaged dog and cat food) was the

largest export commodity among the field commodity and feed products. It was attributed with

more than one-third of the total grain product container shipments. Soybeans constituted the

single largest volume among the field grain commodities, traditionally marketed from field to

customer through the traditional bulk marketing system. 
21

Table 3. Export Grain Product Container Shipments, 1999 and 2000

Harmonized Shipping Classification

Average

TEUs

Animal Feed Prep. (Except Dog or Cat Food, Retail Package) 33,584 

Soybeans, Whether or Not Broken 14,967 

Residues of Starch Manufactured and Similar Residues 6,881 

Beans Nesoi, Dried Shelled, Including Seed 6,075 

Corn, Other than Seed Corn 5,763 

Wheat or Meslin Flour 4,744 

Lentils, Dried Shelled, Including Seed 3,936 

Peas, Dried Shelled, Including Seed 3,649 

Wheat (Other than Durum Wheat) and Meslin 3,364 

Groats and Meal of Corn (Maize) 2,085 

Kidney Beans and White Pea Beans, Dried Shelled, Including Seed 1,053 

Malt, Not Roasted 993 

Corn (Maize) Flour 914 

Oats 576 

Grain Sorghum 517 

Buckwheat 459 

Barley 329 

Groats and Meal of Wheat 326 

Cereals (Not Corn) in Grain Form, Prepared 275 

Rye in the Grain 230 

Hop Cones, Ground, Powdered, or in Pellets; Lupulin 166 

Wheat Gluten, Whether or Not Dried 134 

Groats and Meal of Oats 120 

Groats and Meal of Cereal 106 

Grains of Cereal, Worked 44 

Bran Sharps and Othet Residues Derived from Milling Corn 20 

Cereal Flours, Nesoi 15 

Grains Worked (Hulled, Pearled, Sliced, Kibbled) of Barley 3 

Total 91,328 

Source: Journal of Commerce, PIERS
22

Source: Journal of Commerce, PIERS

Barley

1%

Oats

2%

Rye

1%

Sorghum

2% Soybeans

57%

Wheat

13%

Corn

22%

Figure 11. Composition of Containerized Grain and Oilseed Exports, Annual Average

1999-2000

Specifically considering the grains and oilseeds, approximately 18 million were delivered to

foreign ports via container, based on PIERS data summaries. Eight commodities are considered

to comprise grain and oilseed shipments. The commodities include: barley, buckwheat, corn,

oats, rye, sorghum, soybeans, and wheat. Among these commodities, soybeans comprise a

majority, 57 percent, of the grain container export shipments. Based on the PIERS data for 1999

and 2000, approximately 14,967 TEUs or nearly 10 million bushels of soybeans were marketed

via container. Corn is second among field commodities marketed via container, accounting for

22 percent of all grain container shipments. Wheat provides the other notable volume, with more

than 2 million bushels marketed internationally via container. Smaller quantities of oats,

sorghum, barley, and rye combine to form the remaining 6 percent of the containerized grain and

oilseed export volume identified in PIERS analysis (figure 11).
23

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

10,000,000

11,000,000

12,000,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Tons

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Tons

Monthly Grain 

Container Shipments

Average 1990-1998

Monthly Container 

Shipments, 

All Commodities

Average 1990-1998

Source: U.S. Public Use Waybill

Figure 12. Monthly Containerized Shipments, Waybill Average from

1990 to 1998

Seasonality

Beyond volume and commodity, another important characteristic in understanding a market is

the distribution of shipments across time. The Waybill and PIERS data are summarized to

illustrate temporal distribution of shipments. The Waybill distribution is illustrated in figure 12. 

It is based on Public Use Waybill information from 1990 to 1998. Monthly shipments of all

commodities trends upward from February to November, then falls off after the holiday season. 

Although grain container shipments spike in January and December, a statistically significant

variation (t=2.29, %=.02) in the temporal aspect of grain container shipments was not found.
24

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

$/TEU

Los Angeles/Long Beach to Busan

Los Angeles/Long Beach to Keelung/Kaohsiung

Seattle/Tacoma to Keelung/Kaohsiung

Seattle/Tacoma to Tokyo/Yokohama

Source: Etransport.com and Individual Shipping Line Websites

Figure 13. Sample Rates for Containerized Soybeans in

Major U.S./Asian Trade Routes

According to a summary of more recent PIERS data from 1994 to 2000, export shipments of

containerized grain tend to peak in the winter months (November-February) and drop off during

the summer months (figure 13). The trend for all containerized agricultural commodities differs

mainly in that during the holiday season, a more prominent decline in exports is evident. This

peak season for shipping containerized grain is not surprising, as it coincides with the harvest

and shipping season of the grain industry as a whole.

Rates

Container rates are based on factors such as activity and capacity within trade lanes, carrier

competition, and commodity value. Although some market controls, such as antitrust immunity,

still exist in the ocean shipping industry, recent shipping laws have been passed to further

encourage ocean container freight rates to fluctuate according to market demand. Certain rates
25

for agricultural commodities, such as higher valued refrigerated commodities, may fluctuate in

response to peak seasons and demand. However, since the containerized grain industry holds

only a minute market share in the ocean shipping industry, rates for grain are based more on the

ocean industry as a whole than for this particular commodity.

In recent years, rates for U.S. exports to Asia have been most heavily affected by the Asian

economic crisis. When economic difficulties began in 1997, demand for U.S. agricultural

products also declined. As the imbalance between imports from Asia and U.S. exports to Asia

increased, so did the imbalance in container supply. Ocean carriers had to ship many containers

back to Asia empty, absorbing their repositioning costs to meet demand. To avoid moving

empty containers to Asia, ocean carriers dropped rates dramatically, hoping to increase container

shipments to this market. 

Due to the low volume of exports, much of the competition between carriers was for lower

valued, agricultural commodities, such as hay, cotton, feed, grain, and oilseeds, which typically

are moved at lower rates than other agricultural commodities, such as fruit and meat. As a result,

ocean container rates for grain exports fell from 1997 to 1999 by as much as 50 percent (figures

14 and 15). U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Ocean Transportation Trends

Report, June 2000, reported that rates had “hit bottom” and have now begun to recover. As the

Asian economies continue to improve, so does the demand for U.S. exports of agricultural

products. Thus, as of July 2001, many container rates had bounced back to and, in some cases,

above the rates reported nearly five years ago.
26

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

$/Container

Los Angeles/Long B each to B usan

Los Angeles/Long B each to Tokyo/Yokohama

Seattle/Tacoma to B usan

Seattle/Tacoma to Keelung/Kaohsiung

Seattle/Tacoma to Tokyo/Yokohama

Source: Etransport.com and Individual Shipping Line Websites

Figure 14. Sample Rates for Containerized Corn in

Major U.S./Asian Trade Routes

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

$/TEU

Los Angeles/Long Beach to Busan

Los Angeles/Long Beach to Keelung/Kaohsiung

Seattle/Tacoma to Keelung/Kaohsiung

Seattle/Tacoma to Tokyo/Yokohama

Source: Etransport.com and Individual Shipping Line Websites

Figure 15. Sample Rates for Containerized Soybeans in

Major U.S./Asian Trade Routes
27

When imports exceed exports, rates for U.S. exports also may respond. The case of the

imbalance in container supply mentioned above is a good example of this. In addition, the

utilization of capacity in the westbound trade to Asia was only at 51 percent in the first quarter of

2001. This is down from 57.78 percent in 1999 (Dekker, 2001). However, eastbound cargo is at

75 percent utilization. With capacity so high and utilization so low, rates are not expected to

increase during the peak season of 2001. Further, the U.S. peak period for imports from Asia is

late summer/early fall (July-October), when retailers are preparing for the holiday shopping

season. During this period, the trade imbalance is the greatest for the calendar year, and ocean

carriers struggle to supply containers to the Asian market. Often ocean carriers will charge

peak-season surcharges to importers to make up the cost of supplying empty containers. They

also may charge reduced rates to exporters to avoid moving empty containers overseas.

Activity in trade lanes is another factor that affects ocean rates for containerized shipments. A

trade lane where activity and competition among carriers is greater will find rates to be lower. 

For example, shipments to Asia from the West Coast of the United States are significantly lower

than rates for the same commodity from the East Coast. Since traffic to Asia is busier along the

West Coast and trips to Asia more frequent, carriers can offer lower rates, as seen for soybeans

to Japan (figure 16). This also explains the slight difference that generally exists in rates from

Seattle and Tacoma, WA, verses Los Angles and Long Beach, CA, for soybean and corn (figures

16 and 17). Los Angeles and Long Beach are the two busiest ports in the United States with a

combined traffic volume of 9.48 million TEUs; whereas, Seattle and Tacoma had a combined

volume of only 2.86 million TEUs in 2000 (Journal of Commerce
28

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

Busan Keelung/Kaohsiung Tokyo/Yokohama

Long Beach/Los Angeles Seattle/Tacoma

Source: Etransport.com and Individual Shipping Line Websites

Figure 16. Average Rates for Containerized Corn from

the United States to Selected Ports, July

2001

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$/Container

Busan Keelung/Kaohsiung Tokyo/Yokohama

 Long Beach/Los Angeles Seattle/Tacoma Chicago Norfolk 

Source: Etransport.com and Individual Shipping Line Websites

Figure 17. Average Rates for Containerized Soybeans

from the United States to Selected Ports,

July 2001
29

 Week, 2001). Although Seattle and Tacoma handle more containerized grain shipments than

Los Angeles and Long Beach (table 4), overall activity at the ports seems to be a more

significant determinant for rates. Rates from intermodal points, such as Chicago, are not much

higher than those from the major West Coast ports to markets such as Japan and Taiwan (figure

17). Despite the extra inland transportation costs incurred by the carrier, rates for inland points

of departure typically do not vary much from those rates offered for ocean port departures. This

is most likely due to the ocean carriers’ desire to increase utilization of empty slots on outbound

ships. Unlike the traditional channel for marketing bulk grain, ocean container rates can dictate

the containerized grain export market. Since the value of grain and oilseeds is relatively low,

high freight rates can be prohibitive for container shipments. 

Marketing Channels

The final topic considered in the profile of the U.S. grain container industry is marketing

channels. Recognizing that there may be some efficiencies gained through the clustering of 

activities, understanding current distribution networks may be beneficial in predicting and

participating in the future of this sector. Origin information was provided in previous sections. 

This section will concentrate on the distribution networks employed to deliver containerized

products to foreign buyers. Analysis of PIERS data was conducted to generate information

included in this section.
5

Refer to Appendix B for a list of the commodities included in the summation of grain and grain

products.

30

Containerized products are delivered to port via truck or rail, depending on the cost effectiveness

of the modal alternatives, considering factors such as time, product integrity, and equipment

availability. For the purposes of this report, a discussion of the inland segment of grain container

marketing is not expanded beyond origin identification. The economics of the inland portion

should be carefully addressed for disaggregate analysis of containerized grain shipping. This

analysis may be used in conjunction with the broader port to foreign market information

provided in this report. 

U.S. Ports

Field products (grain and grain products) typically are a backhaul commodity for shipments with

the alternative product having a higher value, such as automobile parts or furniture. Therefore,

identifying ports where grain and grain product containers currently are part of the commodity

mix may offer insights into the relative feasibility of such shipments among ports.5

 Several U.S.

ports were identified as being active in the grain container industry. Among these ports, four

West Coast ports--Seattle, WA; Long Beach, CA; Los Angeles, CA; and Tacoma, WA--were

attributed with 45 percent of the grain and grain product container shipments originated by U.S.

ports during 1999 and 2000 (tables 4 and 5).
31

Table 4. Top 10 U.S. Grain and Grain Product Container Ports,

Average Volume 1999-2000

U.S. Port Average TEUs

Share of Total

U.S. Port

Volume

Seattle, WA 23,332 18%

Long Beach, CA 13,993 11%

Los Angeles, CA 11,159 8%

Tacoma, WA 10,299 8%

Norfolk, VA 10,267 8%

New York, NY 9,073 7%

Charleston, SC 8,982 7%

Oakland, CA 7,402 6%

Portland, OR 7,173 5%

Jacksonville, FL 5,721 4%

Source: Journal of Commerce, PIERS, 1999-2000
32

Table 5. U.S. Port Origins for Grain Container Shipments

U.S. Port 1999 2000 Average Bushel Equivalent1

TEUs Bushels

Seattle 7,027 8,892 7,960 5,306,333

Tacoma 2,671 4,019 3,345 2,230,000

Long Beach 2,624 2,160 2,392 1,594,667

Los Angeles 2,441 1,779 2,110 1,406,667

Norfolk 1,308 1,890 1,599 1,066,000

Houston 1,055 1,398 1,227 817,667

Oakland 1,226 1,146 1,186 790,667

Portland 933 1,174 1,054 702,333

Charleston 1,490 469 980 653,000

New York 1,056 800 928 618,667

New Orleans 567 333 450 300,000

Lake Charles 658 16 337 224,667

Miami 225 352 289 192,333

Jacksonville 256 265 261 173,667

Gulfport 197 233 215 143,333

Freeport 131 200 166 110,333

Pt. Everglades 111 122 117 77,667

Newport News 34 135 85 56,333

Baltimore 41 78 60 39,667

Pennsauken 12 77 45 29,667

Savannah 23 55 39 26,000

San Francisco 4 55 30 19,667

Wilmington 18 35 27 17,667

1

 Estimate based on commodity weight of 60 pounds per bushel.

Source: Journal of Commerce, PIERS, 1999-2000
33

Seattle accounted for the largest share of containerized grain shipping, with 23,332 TEUs or

approximately 39 million tons. Long Beach was second in ports, considering volume of

containerized grain and grain product handled, originating 11 percent of the volume. Los

Angeles and Tacoma were third and forth among U.S. ports in containers of grain and grain

products, with each port accounting for 8 percent of total U.S. port containerized grain

shipments.

Three East Coast ports fill the fifth, sixth, and seventh spots for containerized agricultural

products. Norfolk, Vir., handled an average 10,267 TEUs annually during 1999 and 2000. New

York and Charleston, S.C., each accounted for 7 percent of the grain container shipments made

from U.S. ports. Two ports from each coast are included in the four ports that round out the top

10 U.S. ports for container grain shipments. Charleston, NC; Oakland, CA; Portland, OR; and

Jacksonville, FL, originated nearly 20 million TEUs per year for 1999 and 2000. The ports are

attributed with 7, 6, 5, and 4 percent, respectively, of average annual grain container shipments

handled by U.S. ports. A complete overview of the volumes of containerized grain handled by

each of the U.S. ports shipping more than one TEU per year for 1999 and 2000 are provided in

Appendix C.

Activities of individual U.S. ports are identified by adding commodities totals for the five largest

volume handlers of grain containers (table 6). As expected, soybeans are an important grain

container commodity for a majority of the ports. Four of the five largest volume grain container

handling ports attribute their largest grain container commodity to soybean shipments. Soybeans
34

account for 79 percent of the commodity shipments originated from the Port of Seattle. Corn is

second in volume among the grain container shipments handled at Seattle, with the remaining

container shipments composed of wheat, buckwheat, and oats. Eighty-seven percent of the grain

containers originated by Tacoma contain soybeans, with 7 and 4 percent of the containers

containing corn and wheat, respectively. An average of 1,842 TEUs of soybeans were exported

through the Port of Long Beach during 1999 and 2000. The second California port in the top

five, Los Angeles, exported an average of 973 TEUs of soybeans over the two-year period. 

Norfolk, the lone East Coast port among the five, attributed a majority of its grain shipments to

corn.
35

Table 6. Composition of Grain Container Shipments for Five Largest

Volume U.S. Ports

U.S. Port Commodity1 1999 2000 Average Composition

TEUs

Seattle

Soybeans 5,672 6,915 6,294 79%

Corn 980 986 983 12%

Wheat 90 684 387 5%

Buckwheat 231 219 225 3%

Oats 23 64 44 1%

Tacoma

Soybeans 2,193 3,652 2,923 87%

Corn 179 290 235 7%

Wheat 253 22 138 4%

Long Beach

Soybeans 2,096 1,588 1,842 77%

Corn 460 370 415 17%

Wheat 18 174 96 4%

Sorghum 36 5 21 1%

Los Angeles

Soybeans 1,012 933 973 46%

Corn 313 717 515 24%

Wheat 840 66 453 21%

Rye 140 - 70 3%

Sorghum 45 49 47 2%

Oats 85 4 45 2%

Norfolk

Corn 299 1,145 722 45%

Soybeans 783 466 625 39%

Oats 2 256 129 8%

Wheat 220 - 110 7%

1

Commodities averaging at least 20 TEUs per year are reported.

Source: Journal of Commerce, PIERS, 1999-2000
6

Source: Journal of Commerce, PIERS, 1999-2000

36

Foreign Ports

The foreign port provides another important piece of information in understanding the flow of

containerized grain and grain product trade. The flexibility and wide application of container

shipping is evident in viewing distribution of containerized grain and grain products. 

Considering those foreign ports receiving an average of at least 20 TEUs for 1999 and 2000, 320

foreign ports were identified as destinations for U.S. shipments of grain and grain products.6

Thirty-one ports received at least 1,000 TEUs from U.S. port origins for the years considered. 

These largest volume foreign port recipients handled 62 percent of the total containerized U.S.

grain and grain product shipments for 1999 and 2000. The largest single port is Tokyo, Japan. It

imported 10,963 or 8 percent of containerized grain and grain products from U.S. ports. San

Juan, Puerto Rico, and another Japanese port, Yokohama, are the second and third largest

volume receivers, handling 6 and 5 percent, respectively. The distribution of the grain and grain

product container shipments among other foreign ports is presented in table 7. Table 8 lists the

top 10 destinations for container shipments by volume.
37

Table 7. Destination for U.S. Grain and Grain Product

Container Exports, 1999-2000

Foreign Port Country TEUs

Tokyo Japan 10,963 8%

San Juan Puerto Rico 7,210 6%

Yokohama Japan 6,108 5%

Kobe Japan 5,034 4%

Busan Korean Republic 4,162 3%

Kaohsiung Taiwan 3,810 3%

Nagoya Japan 3,765 3%

Osaka Japan 3,153 2%

Taichung Taiwan 2,736 2%

Bangkok Thailand 2,434 2%

Port Kelang Malaysia 2,154 2%

Hakata Japan 2,139 2%

Nassau Bahamas 2,101 2%

Haina Dominican Republic 2,035 2%

Hong Kong China 1,965 2%

Yamato Japan 1,800 1%

Manila Philippines 1,797 1%

Buenos Aires Argentina 1,686 1%

Santos Brazil 1,489 1%

Puerto Cabello Venezuela 1,406 1%

Callao Peru 1,335 1%

Rotterdam Netherlands 1,329 1%

Felixstowe United Kingdom 1,260 1%

Valencia Spain 1,203 1%

Bremerhaven Germany 1,196 1%

Antwerp Belgium 1,182 1%

Tomakomai Japan 1,165 1%

Guatemala City Guatemala 1,143 1%

Bar Yugoslavia 1,112 1%

Thessaloniki Greece 1,106 1%

Keelung Taiwan 1,088 1%

Source: Journal of Commerce, PIERS, 1999-2000
38

Table 8. Top 10 Volume Foreign Port Destinations for U.S. Grain Container

Shipments

Foreign Port 1999 2000 Average

Bushel

Equivalent1

Share of Total

U.S. Grain

Container Exports

TEUs Bushels

Yokohama 3,060 3,406 3,233 2,155,333 15%

Tokyo 3,075 3,232 3,154 2,102,333 15%

Kobe 1,669 2,235 1,952 1,301,333 9%

Nagoya 1,242 2,038 1,640 1,093,333 8%

Busan 1,572 1,191 1,382 921,000 7%

Tomakomai 417 897 657 438,000 3%

Osaka 648 664 656 437,333 3%

Calcutta 831 431 631 420,667 3%

Hong Kong 537 649 593 395,333 3%

Kaohsiung 390 626 508 338,667 2%

1

 Estimate based on commodity weight of 60 pounds per bushel.

Source: Journal of Commerce, PIERS, 1999-2000

Regarding shipments of traditional bulk grain commodities via container, a subset of the

previous grain and grain product summary shows the distribution of U.S. ports’ container grain

shipments among foreign ports. Two Japanese ports, Yokohama and Tokyo, account for nearly

one-third of the grain containers received from U.S. ports among the foreign port destinations. 

Yokohama and Tokyo each received more than 2 million bushels via container from U.S. ports

annually, on average, during 1999 and 2000. The distribution of U.S. container grain shipments

among foreign ports is presented in appendix D. To gain greater insight into the flows for

individual commodities, the leading volume foreign port destinations are identified for each of

the grains (table 9).
39

Table 9. Distribution of Grain Container Shipments Among Foreign Ports

by Commodity

Barley Tokyo 160 Rye Tokyo 74 

Osaka 75 Busan 60 

Buckwheat Yokohama 199 Hakata 25 

Tokyo 53 Jebel Ali 23 

Tomakomai 52 Sorghum Rio Grande Do Sud 22 

Nagoya 42 Port Kaiser 81 

Novosibirsk 26 Puerto Cabello 59 

Corn Busan 761 Buenos Aires 51 

San Juan 300 Arica 29 

Guatemala City 200 Soybeans Yokohama 2,878 

Tokyo 193 Tokyo 2,615 

Puerto Cabello 191 Kobe 1,775 

Kaliningrad 185 Nagoya 1,553 

Bangkok 182 Tomakomai 580 

San Salvador 163 Osaka 565 

San Jose 145 Busan 545 

Manila 143 Kaohsiung 447 

Puerto Cortes 142 Hakata 425 

Dubai 122 Novgorod 319 

Hong Kong 119 Taichung 258 

Aarhus 115 Moji 238 

Port Limon 111 Singapore 171 

Kobe 106 Bangkok 135 

Yokohama 100 Port Kelang 135 

Oats Kaliningrad 126 Sissa 131 

Kingston 81 Chinnampo 104 

Haina 48 

San Juan 39 

Puerto Cabello 30 

Source: Journal of Commerce, PIERS, 1999-2000
40

Summary

Approximately 13 percent of the world’s trade volume was shipped by container in 1997. U.S.

grain producers participate in this market, as it is estimated that over a million tons of U.S. grain

production is marketed via container annually. As U.S. grain producers seek to access logistical

resources in growing this value-added marketing option, it is important to understand the

existing infrastructure and market flow patterns. This information will be valuable in using

existing resources and in future policy and investment decisions related to the grain container

sector. 

The goal of this two-phase project is to develop a profile of the U.S. containerized grain and

oilseed export industry, including marketing activities, future expectations, information needs,

and business practices. The first phase, completed in this report, is an environmental scan of the

U.S. grain container industry based on secondary data sources. This information provides the

background for developing and applying an industry survey in Phase Two of the project. 

Fundamental to understanding the grain container industry is definition of the market in terms of

suppliers, product, and marketing patterns. This market is considered in terms that are broad in

that the economics of the container industry depend heavily on marketing channel synergies of

unrelated products and, specifically, in the unique characteristics of the grain container sector. 

More than 2,000 companies from 743 cities were identified as active grain container shippers. 

California leads all States in origination of container exports. Washington, New York, and

Minnesota are next among the States as origins for grain container shipments. Corn is the single
41

largest volume commodity in terms of grain container shipments, accounting for more than onethird of the total grain container shipments. Sorghum and wheat container volumes are next in

the grains marketed via container.

Container shipping rates are based on factors such as activity and capacity in trade lanes, carrier

competition, and commodity value. Since the containerized grain industry volume is tiny in the

scope of ocean shipping activities, rates for grain are based more on the industry as a whole than

on this particular commodity. Four U.S. ports were identified as particularly active in grain

containers, these ports--Seattle, WA; Long Beach, CA; Los Angeles, CA; and Tacoma, WA--

were attributed with 45 percent of the grain and grain product container shipments originated by

U.S. ports during 1999 and 2000. Regarding the destinations for grain containers, two Japanese

ports, Yokohama and Tokyo, account for nearly one-third of the grain container volume

originated by U.S. ports.

The basic industry information included in this report provides a profile of the U.S. grain

container industry. It is useful in identifying data voids that exist in addressing future needs and

interests of this sector of the U.S. grain market. As U.S. producers seek to add value to their

product through logistics and marketing, the container market provides many opportunities and

challenges. Phase Two of this project will provide an opportunity to integrate the industry into

data collection and distribution efforts with regard to the grain container industry. The

communication between the industry, policy authors, and investment makers is critical in

ensuring efficient and effective resource allocation for this sector of the grain industry.
42

Appendix A: Rail Grain Container Freight by BEA TonsBEA Region 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Other 196,529 199,214 238,675 262,436 309,600 424,440 310,836 440,497 Memphis, TN 158,563 120,040 146,693 126,882 72,960 63,169 53,968 57,167 Lubbock, TX 24,317 30,840 46,643 30,600 57,360 71,335 92,354 83,111 Portland, OR 18,560 19,759 33,360 45,444 2,720 36,360 60,233 Dallas, TX 15,601 179,318 24,956 18,920 9,840 31,176 Los Angeles, CA 62,713 87,048 52,635 36,980 3,320 9,368 8,866 3,521 Wichita, KS 62,594 51,158 39,420 89,303 3,120 3,777 Houston, TX 88,365 13,840 69,439 23,113 2,652 Grand Island, NE 6,234 129,031 Sioux City, IA 119,096 Chicago, IL 88,252 1,639 920 Grand Forks, ND 3,040 4,640 38,702 18,359 10,118 7,361 1,761 Lincoln, NE 71,016 Amarillo, TX 52,559 4,720 5,242 2,721 Omaha, NE 44,651 760 400 Yakima, WA 920 2,760 960 38,880 Peoria, IL 42,730 Fargo, ND 6,238 13,240 5,680 8,833 3,637 1,800 925 Kansas City, MO 38,510 Houston, TX 5,000 4,201 19,847 5,160 Minot, ND 5,523 24,945 Pocatello, ID 11,120 9,080 7,360 1,320 Minneapolis, MN 720 800 21,946 1,760 Chicago, IL 20,039 Salt Lake City, UT 19,882 Rochester, MN 13,789 Richland, WA 1,840 1,680 1,880 3,640 920 Brownsville, TX 600 6,040 Great Falls, MT 5,695 
43

Norfolk, VA 3,840 800 Albany, GA 2,640 Spokane, WA 1,840 800 Jackson, MS 1,842 Philadelphia, PA 800 Detroit, MI 924 Columbus, OH 921 Sacramento, CA 882 Little Rock, AR 880 Phoenix, AZ 800 St. Louis, MO 600 

Total 680,281 773,977 757,883 1,157,577 605,159 617,162 564,620 657,740 

Source: Bureau of Transport Statistics, U.S. Public Use Waybill
44

Appendix B: Harmonized Shipping Codes and Classification Considered 

in the PIERS Summaries

HS Code Classification

071310 Peas, Dried Shelled, Including Seed

071333 Kidney Beans and White Pea Beans, Dried Shelled, Including Seed

071339 Beans Nesoi, Dried Shelled, Including Seed

071340 Lentils, Dried Shelled, Including Seed

100190 Wheat (Other than Durum Wheat) and Meslin

100200 Rye in the Grain

100300 Barley

100400 Oats

100590 Corn (Maize), Other than Seed Corn

100700 Grain Sorghum

100810 Buckwheat

110100 Wheat or Meslin Flour

110220 Corn (Maize) Flour

110290 Cereal Flours, Nesoi

110311 Groats and Meal of Wheat

110312 Groats and Meal of Oats

110313 Groats and Meal of Corn (Maize)

110319 Groats and Meal of Cereal, Nesoi

110421 Grains Worked (Hulled, Pearled, Sliced) of Barley

110429 Grains Worked, Etc., of Cereal, Nesoi

110710 Malt, Not Roasted

110900 Wheat Gluten, Whether or Not Dried

120100 Soybeans, Whether or Not Broken

1210 Hop Cones, Fresh or Dried; Lupulin

121020 Hop Cones, Ground, Powdered, or in Pellets; Lupulin

190490 Cereals (Not Corn) in Grain Form, Prepared

230210 Bran Sharps and Other Residues Derived From Milling Corn

230310 Residues of Starch Manufactured and Similar Residues

230990 Animal Feed Prep. Except Dog or Cat Food, Retail Packaged

(HS Code: Harmonized Shipping Codes)
45

Appendix C: Grain Container Shipments from All U.S. Ports,

Average 1999-2000

U.S. Port Average TEUs Share

Seattle, WA 23,332 18%

Long Beach, CA 13,993 11%

Los Angeles, CA 11,159 8%

Tacoma, WA 10,299 8%

Norfolk, VA 10,267 8%

New York, NY 9,073 7%

Charleston, SC 8,982 7%

Oakland, CA 7,402 6%

Portland, OR 7,173 5%

Jacksonville, FL 5,721 4%

Houston, TX 5,684 4%

Miami, FL 3,263 2%

West Palm Beach, FL 3,046 2%

Port Everglades, FL 2,339 2%

New Orleans, LA 1,632 1%

Pensauken, NJ 1,582 1%

Gulf Port, LA 1,386 1%

Lake Charles, LA 878 1%

Philadelphia, PA 859 1%

Savannah, GA 807 1%

Baltimore, MD 761 1%

Newport News, VA 446 <1%

San Juan, PR 364 <1%

Freeport, TX 328 <1%

San Francisco, CA 309 <1%

Fernandna Beach, CA 293 <1%

Ponce, PR 269 <1%

Wilmington, DE 240 <1%

Salem, NJ 238 <1%

Wilmington, NC 223 <1%

Honolulu, HI 127 <1%

Gloucester, NJ 99 <1%

Tampa, FL 95 <1%

Mobile, AL 90 <1%
46

Boston, MA 31 <1%

Mayaguez, PR 23 <1%

Brownsville, TX 16 <1%

Texas City, TX 15 <1%

Pascagoula, MI 10 <1%

Dutch Harbour, AK 7 <1%

Fajardo, PR 3 <1%

Chester, PA 2 <1%

Sandy Point, ME 1 <1%

Galveston, TX 1 <1%

Source: Journal of Commerce, PIERS, 1999-2000
47

Appendix D: Destination for Grain Container Shipments from

All U.S. Ports

Foreign Port 1999 2000 Average Share

TEUs

Yokohama, Japan 3,060 3,406 3,233 15%

Tokyo, Japan 3,075 3,232 3,154 15%

Kobe, Japan 1,669 2,235 1,952 9%

Nagoya, Japan 1,242 2,038 1,640 8%

Busan, S. Korea 1,572 1,191 1,382 7%

Tomakomai, Japan 417 897 657 3%

Osaka, Japan 648 664 656 3%

Calcutta, India 831 431 631 3%

Hong Kong, China 537 649 593 3%

Kaohsiung, Taiwan 390 626 508 2%

Hakata, Japan 471 529 500 2%

Mumbai, India 836 110 473 2%

San Juan, Puerto Rico 296 507 402 2%

Bangkok, Thailand 311 365 338 2%

Novgorod, Croatia - 637 319 2%

Kaliningrad, Russia - 622 311 1%

Puerto Cabello, Venezuela 184 395 290 1%

Taichung, Taiwan 177 349 263 1%

Manila, Philippines 273 236 255 1%

Moji, Japan 236 241 239 1%

Guatemala City, Guatemala 359 102 231 1%

Haina, Dominican Republic 225 224 225 1%

Singapore 301 141 221 1%

San Salvador, Honduras 213 132 173 1%

Port Kelang, Malaysia 153 174 164 1%

Vishakhapatna, India 114 203 159 1%

Santo Domingo, D.R. 306 7 157 1%

Puerto Cortes, Honduras 280 27 154 1%

San Jose, Costa Rico 151 151 151 1%

Mombasa, Kenya 296 2 149 1%

Sissa, Indonesia 145 121 133 1%

Inchon, S. Korea 190 71 131 1%

Aarhus, Denmark 25 220 123 1%

Dubai, United Arab Emirates 95 149 122 1%

Jakarta, Indonesia 166 76 121 1%

Keelung, Taiwan 118 120 119 1%

Puerto Limon, Costa Rica 110 128 119 1%

Buenos Aires, Argentina 98 134 116 1%

Tegucigalpa, Honduras 159 57 108 1%

Callao, Peru 126 83 105 <1%
48

Ashdod, Israel 80 128 104 <1%

Chinnampo, N. Korea 208 - 104 <1%

Douala, Cameroon 205 - 103 <1%

Naha, Japan 60 143 102 <1%

Sendai, Japan 94 104 99 <1%

Felixstowe, United Kingdom 55 138 97 <1%

Abidjan, Ivory Coast 188 - 94 <1%

Buenaventura, Colombia 62 118 90 <1%

Kingston, Jamaica 102 70 86 <1%

Managua, Nicaragua 81 85 83 <1%

Constanza, Romania 162 - 81 <1%

Port Kaiser, Jamaica - 161 81 <1%

Corinto, Nicaragua 156 - 78 <1%

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia 38 114 76 <1%

Cartagena, Colombia 48 90 69 <1%

Nanjing, China 2 135 69 <1%

Penang, Malaysia 65 71 68 <1%

Shimizu, Japan 79 55 67 <1%

Santo Tomas, Guatemala 39 93 66 <1%

Arica, Chile 36 94 65 <1%

Surabaya, Indonesia 94 29 62 <1%

Kwangyang, S. Korea 121 - 61 <1%

Colombo, Sri Lanka 120 - 60 <1%

Rotterdam, Netherlands 64 53 59 <1%

Conakry, Guinea 115 - 58 <1%

Turku, Finland 60 50 55 <1%

Panama City, Panama 58 47 53 <1%

Tamatave, Madagascar - 99 50 <1%

Hodeida, Yemen 35 62 49 <1%

Tocoa, Honduras 91 - 46 <1%

Pasir Gudang, Malaysia 53 36 45 <1%

Antwerp, Belgium 40 44 42 <1%

Port of Spain, Trinidad 46 37 42 <1%

Bremerhaven, Germany 38 44 41 <1%

Guayaquil, Ecuador 21 57 39 <1%

Damman, Saudi Arabia 23 51 37 <1%

Pago Pago, Samoa 45 29 37 <1%

Hiroshima, Japan 65 7 36 <1%

Vizagapatam 72 - 36 <1%

Laem Chabang, Thailand 2 69 36 <1%

Sydney, Australia 45 22 34 <1%

La Guaira, Venezuela 45 19 32 <1%

Reykjavik, Iceland 30 29 30 <1%

Barranquilla, Colombia 26 30 28 <1%

Tema, Ghana 55 1 28 <1%
49

Kotka, Finland 26 28 27 <1%

Haifa, Israel 50 3 27 <1%

Novosibirsk, Iceland - 52 26 <1%

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 10 41 26 <1%

Freetown, Sierre Leone 2 48 25 <1%

Jebel Ali, U.A.E. 4 46 25 <1%

Mersin, Greece 21 29 25 <1%

Nassau, Bahamas 28 22 25 <1%

San Pedro Sul, Honduras 19 31 25 <1%

Oslo, Norway 25 24 25 <1%

Piraeus, Greece 14 35 25 <1%

Cape Town, S. Africa 21 26 24 <1%

Hamburg, Germany 31 15 23 <1%

Rio Grande, Brazil 31 15 23 <1%

La Spezia, Italy 44 1 23 <1%

Hsinkang, China 24 20 22 <1%

Istanbul, Turkey 5 39 22 <1%

Papeete, French Polynesia 37 6 22 <1%

Xiamen, China 10 33 22 <1%

Beirut, Lebanon 21 21 21 <1%

Source: Journal of Commerce, PIERS, 1999-2000
50

REFERENCES

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, United States Census Bureau, 1997 Commodity Flow 

Survey, Washington, DC, 1999.

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, United States Census Bureau, Public Use Waybill Statistics,

Washington, DC, various years.

Dekker, N., 2001, “Cold Turkey,” Containerisation International, London, U.K., August.

Jones, Brad. W., C. Richard Cassady, Royce O. Bowden, 1999, Developing a Standard

Definition of Intermodal Transportation, National Center for Intermodal Transportation,

Mississippi State University, Electronic Publication, www.ie.msstat.edu/ncit.

Journal of Commerce, 1999, Directory of United States Importers and Exporters, 1999 MidYear Reference Edition, Journal of Commerce, Phillipsburg, NJ.

Journal of Commerce, 1999-2000, Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS), New York,

NY.

Journal of Commerce Week, 2001, “World’s Top 50 Container Ports,” July 9-15.

Lyons, Mark, November 2000, “Diversify Your Wheat Markets, How to Establish Identity

Preserved Channels Using Containers: Wheat Markets in Asia,” Washington Wheat
51

Commission, Idaho Wheat Commission, and U.S. Department of Agriculture Conference

presentation, Spokane, WA.

Muller, Gerhardt, 1999, International Freight Transportation, 4th Edition, ENO Transportation

Foundation, Washington, DC.

National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington,

DC, Online Data Retrieval.

Transport Canada, Surface and Marine Transport Section, Statistics Canada, October 2000,

Statistic Canada Cat. 54-205, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, www.tc.gc.ca.

Vachal, Kimberly and John Bitzan, 2000, “The Long-Term Availability of Railroad Services for

U.S. Agriculture,” Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, North Dakota State University,

Fargo, MPC Report No. 01-116.