xt722804zh6g https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt722804zh6g/data/mets.xml   Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky 1974 journals kaes_research_rprts_23 English University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 23 : October 1974 text Research Report 23 : October 1974 1974 2014 true xt722804zh6g section xt722804zh6g  I   GRAIN FLOWS IN KENTUCKY: l97O
 l By l
  Harry H. Hall and D. Milton Shuffett
  •
I RESEARCH REPORT 231 October I974 ~
  University of Kentucky : : College of Agriculture
  _ Agricultural Experiment Station :: Department of Agricultural Economics
V? Lexington

 J x
x * a
’

 CONTENTS
Pm
 4 List of Tables ...................   ..................   . 2
List of Figures ........................................ 3
Summary ........................................... 4
Grain Production and Use in Kentucky ........................... 5
{ The Survey .......................................... 9
  Grain Receipts by Source .................................. 11
1 Grain Shipments by Destination ............................... 14
Grain Receipts by Month .................................. 17
Grain Shipments by Month ................................. 19
Grain Movements by Type of Firm ............................. 19
Receipts by Type of Firm ............................... _ 19
Shipments by Type of Firm .............................. · 22
Methods of Transporting Grain ............................... 22
Receipts by Mode of Transportation .......................... 22
Shipments by Mode of Transportation ......................... 25
References .......................................... 27
P Appendix .......................................... 29
  1
1

 A LIST OF TABLES
Table Pm M
1 Production and Use of Grain in Kentucky by SM—42 Area, 1970 ............ 8 1
2 Production of Grain in Kentucky by SM-42 Area, 1969 ................ 10 2
4 3 Types and Numbers of Firms Surveyed ......................... 11
4 Expanded 1970 Grain Receipts in Kentucky from Out—oi`·Statc Sources by Origin . . . I2
I 5 Expanded 1970 Grain Receipts in Kentucky by Area by Origin ............ l {B
6 Expanded 1970 Out—of-State Grain Shipments from Kentucky by Destination ..... 15
7 Expanded 1970 Grain Shipments from Kentucky by Area by Destination ....... 16
8 Expanded 1970 Grain Receipts in Kentucky by Month ................ 13
9 Expanded 1970 Grain Shipments from Kentucky by Month .............. 20
10 Expanded 1970 Grain Receipts in Kentucky by Type of Firm ............. 21
11 Expanded 1970 Grain Shipments from Kentucky by Type of Firm .......... 23
12 Expanded 1970 Grain Receipts in Kentucky by Mode of Transportation ....... 24
13 Expanded 1970 Grain Shipments from Kentucky by Mode of Transportation ..... 26
I
1   ` 2
  T y
a
L   t
te, ` Q

   A LIST OF FIGURES
W Figure No. .Pagc ~
8 F 1 Map of SM-42 Areas .................................. 6
10 2 SM-42 Areas of Kentucky ............................... 7
11
12
lf?
15
16
18 "
20 1
21
23
24
26
3

 I 1 SUMMARY
l This publication reports grain ilows—receipts and shipments——in Kentucky for the 1970
calendar year. Information on these flows constitutes a portion of the results of a survey,
conducted in 1971, of grain marketing firms. Consequently, only the flows of grain through
commercial channels are reported. The quantity estimates reported here are expanded. That is,
they are estimates of the results that would have been obtained if all grain marketing firms had
been surveyed.
There are few surprises in the results, but the estimates have not been available heretofore.
e Most of the grain not produced in Kentucky comes from the corn belt; most of the surplus grain
goes to states to the south and east of Kentucky. The largest concentration of flows—both
receipts and shipments—occurs at harvest time, although the flow of shipments is more uniform {
. than receipts. In western Kentucky (Area 18), country elevators account for most of the grain g;
' movements; in central Kentucky (Area 19), terminal elevators and soybean processors account lg!
for most of the movements; in eastern Kentucky (Area 20), feed mills and independent poultry lh
processors account for all the grain movements. A majority of the grain receipts in all areas is by SI.
truck; a majority of the grain shipments is by rail, except in eastern Kentucky, where very little
grain is shipped. Sh
st
( m
i st
SI
er
gl
ai
ir
t1
h
f1
tl
K
l
|
· 1 1
r l 2 I 2
, 1 1
i   4
l   .
  `
 ` R
 —. 1
 1   A i

 I GRAIN FLOWS IN KENTUCKY: 1970
I
n by
I
Harry H. Hall and D. Milton Shuffett*
1
I Historically, Kentucky has been a Figure l shows SM-42 areas ofthe U.S.
I grain—deficit statc—it uses more grain than it Figure 2 shows SM-42 areas of Kentucky,
I produces. According to projections by with county detail. All area boundaries follow
I Browning ct al. of trends in both crop and crop reporting district (CRD) boundaries.
I livestock production [1, 2], Kentucky will Area 18 includes Kentucky CRD’s 1 and 2,
V still use more grain than it produces in 1980.I which include much of Kentucky’s cash—grain
E Despite its grain·deficit status, Kentucky area, and generally produces a surplus of
ships substantial quantities of grain to other grain. Area 19 includes Kentucky CRD’s 3, 4,
states. Moreover, large quantities of grain and 5; this is primarily a livestock-producing
move through Kentucky from the area and generally uses more grain than it
grain—surplus states to the north to other produces. Area 20 coincides with Kentucky
ain—deficit states to the south or to forei CRD 6, which includes the foothills and
EY sn
t export. mountains of eastem Kentucky. Although
The purpose of this report is to examine livestock production in Area 20 is light, more
grain movements in Kentucky: the sources grain is used than is produced.
and destinations of grain, monthly variations _ A
in receipts and shipments, the modes of
transportation, and the types of firms that GRAIN PRODUCTION AND
handle grain. Results reported here are taken USE IN KENTUCKY
from a survey, conducted in 1971 as part of
the SMA-2 cooperative regional project, of Table 1 compares the production and
Kentucky grain marketing firms.? use of whole grain in Kentucky. The use
estimates are for whole grain used in livestock
*ASSlStant Professor of Agricultural Economics and Professor f€€d’ hulnau fOO_d’ dlstlued SPHRISI and
of Agricultural Economics, respectively. The research soybeans fO1` CI`L1Sl'11I`1g. The largest S1DgI€ US€
ftportcd here was conducted under Hatch Project 87, · · ·. ‘ h
"Pr•:dicted effects of selected policy and technology Olgrélns is {Pr hx Cstéck f€€d’ md Com IS t C
changes on the grain marketing sy5tem," pr1nc1pal grain used 1n feed. For the state as 3.
1N\1mb¢rs in parentheses refer to items in the list of \vhO1€’   producuon Exceeds use Only for
references. Wllezit.
2St¤\¤S cooperating in the project: Alabama, Arkansas, The use Cstunatcé are for whole graln
G¢0|’§i&, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Qnly,   do 110t 1IlC1Ll(l€, for CXBITIPIC, .
Ohio, South Carolina, and Tennessee. `
5

 ’\ (3 I
`&> Q I
. II U
m  `x mg {
`° ~; xi
\ m 2 .-"  
 » ~—~ 4 ¤ =
°' , 2 I
·s· ' : I
. vi
I v2 .-»--·¤ I
3 ° * I
G _ r 6.
§¤n :4  
I ¤* S U  
J \ (1
· A
I h§ " I ’ I Q
"’ ~ ` —§ .. ¤
I _ .;¤•.¤[ ,* IQ * = ·~
· . on U
' 6.*7** v En EA. S .~
Q *2 ‘ .·¢$ Y;
\ & i 3
V.
B. ` P
C u
  I "
v N2 ·7‘
¢§  
, E
' 0
r. I~
V In C
‘ n '° v.
I-·
C)
E
 
·4
er
I
F
1/.
X ¤..
I "
I ?
I _ I
I   g I *
I ¤b
= LL
    I " {E3
I I · "#
I _ r
I l r~£ j '
I— i Vg
I   "’
I
I .
I 1
I , I I  

   '£§ \  
    ¤%%&3§$§  
  %@}§§0_?#§    
  9 q Qs  
   a°%%&%'  
  _p?%”   
  ?€s ¤  
  §A‘$E  
    E owl  
      @%      
&      mq  

 8
I
A I   bi
I -4 IN N M M oo 0 I
,9 I 0 0 IN LO M M IN I 01
qui I 0 0 M IN IN I-·I M E I
0 I I-I N N -:1- N 00 IGO • I P
I gn I-I C gl I
I ·~ I
3 I IDG.} ··-I   il
45 I 4-*%- ..C I
4..) I (UG.) U} 1 .
Ines I 0 .-I N 0 0 cn IN 0;: E I II
O . I 0 N N 00 <1· 00 0 3 I “
ICT, *3 I .
I I N 3 I ·~ I-IDC. 0 .
E I oo 0000 In C
gg I ><···I 1
0 I II-I0+.» *¤
>» $-4 I O F-I C
.¤ ~ U 0 q N O I M IN OOO — I
.-1 O ..C M I-I .-I ·I-IUI-I In
0 5.. uu .. IJ Q. I-I
B I1. ,*3 M UO ·I·I
.·¤ DI-IC I-I
gg wg ·I-I ·I-4
ID O Og Q.
M O E1 In In
O ·r·I
$.4 I O m I
A gg gu I gi ·.-I
 I ·I: -0 I
LI-I $-4 I r·I·v‘I
O <•;I¤ I In .-I .-I N IN  U ·
0 ·¤ I 0 IN IJ7 N .-I 00 04-I 8 .
In O I . .. In0¢I3 ·
3 E I .-I .—-I :5-IU I4-
I N CGCKSO
I U I 0 ·—I C `
C I .¤¤¤.—I IIS ~
cd I >x{:CG E
I OO :5
C1 I InE0 J:
O I LO »
·I-I .0 I IN oo M LO N IN 0 ·¤ I- ~
I-I ID I M OI IN M 00 N »0
E I 00In .>A
IIS I .-I.-Ip 8
I I1) I Pr-4CU
I ' H ' CQCGO 4-*
I · <¤3 I Ov O 00 
ID 0 I . . ·. •~ ·I->,.¤0 ~.-I
‘ I I-I F-I I <1‘  I-I
I E-• 3InIn O
· , IG LH
Z ·~¤
· Q·r··|l/I 0
· E ;.IcI$--I UI
D OH :1
` *2.% “’°°€ I.
S in ...·.-I 0 I
I   ..r-{J 4.; 1
I C In Q 000 GS ,
. I •r—1 >\ (_)I..I_·j E
I _ :6 I-I ID C ID 5-I U ·.-I I
F-I C <¤ ··I ··-I In .¤ 300 0 I
I I " S 2 *‘ I2 *:.2 ‘; EI .%:*.1 ”’
I · LL]
k L U 3 I2 LD O 05 CD cc .¤
I I
I4 ;
I 2
I I I
I 2
 . I
. `

 i 9 (
barley malt used by distilleries and breweries Table 3 reports the types of firms
or corn grits used by breweries since these surveyed, the estimated number of each type
products have undergone some processing. in the state and the number of each type
Because of the southern corn leaf blight interviewed. Firms were first stratified
in 1970, the comparisons in Table 1 for corn (grouped) by type and size. Groups with large
may be misleading. Corn production in 1970 firms (large country elevators or large feed
was 36% less than in 1969, 35% less than the mills) and groups with small numbers of firms
average in 1965-69, and 48% less than in (soybean processors and integrated poultry
1971. At least up to harvest time, corn used operations) were sampled completely, apart i
, in 1970 had to be taken from production in from refusals. In most groups, however, only
é 1969 or earlier. Table 2 reports 1969 grain a random sample of firms in the group was
  production. Corn use in Table 1 should be surveyed.
  compared with production between that of Unless otherwise stated, all results in
i 1969 and that of 1970. Changes in subsequent sections of this report are
production between 1969 and 1970 were "expanded" results. That is, they are .
modest for all grains except corn. estimates of the results that would have been
obtained if all firms had been interviewed.
The expansion factors depend on the
THE SURVEY information available. Expansion factors for
feed mills, for example, are reciprocals of the
Kentucky grain marketing firms were sampling fractions; if one-half of the firms
surveyed by personal interview in 1971 about were sampled, the expansion factor is two.
their operations in the 1970 calendar year. For elevators, estimates of storage capacity
Information was collected on the following were available, and the expansion factors use
grains: corn, wheat, oats, barley, rye, grain that information. If the firms interviewed in a
sorghum, and soybeans. group account for two-thirds of the storage
Flows of grain in 1970 may have been capacity in the group, the expansion factor is 9
atypical because of the corn blight. Corn 1.5. Some sampling errors are inevitable in a
yields in Kentucky and in many other survey of this kind. If the firms within a
southern states were reduced, drastically in group are similar and if the number of firms
some cases, by the blight. Only the flows of interviewed is reasonably large, however, the
corn were affected, however, and only those sampling errors should be small.
corn flows for the months following corn As Table 3 indicates, only commercial
harvest (October-December, primarily). The grain marketing firms were interviewed. Thus,
€llf€Cti0n of grain flows should not have been the grain flows reported estimate only grain
materially affected although the quantities moving through commercial channels. Grain
flowing undoubtedly were affected. retained on farms where it is produced, direct
Only firms that either receive or ship raw shipments to farmers from outside the state,
grain were surveyed. l·`irms that deal only in and direct shipments by farmers to
( processed grain or in grain products were not destinations outside the state are not included
) surveyed. For example, feed stores which sell in the flow estimates. .
feed manufactured by other firms and (
breweries, which receive no completely raw
grain, were not surveyed.
1

 10
a C
Table 2.——Production of Grain in Kentucky by SM-42 Area, 1969
4  
.........................................................-.... 1
Grain Area 18 Area 19 Area 20 State I
’  
1,000 Bushels
Corn 41,517 30,532 4,797 76,846 1
Wheat 4,425 1,651 146 6,222 (
Barley 1,344 598 108 2,050 1
Grain sorghum 226 166 —— 392 _
Oats 548 244 44 836 »
Rye 115 51 9 175
Soybeans 12,776 731 73 13,580
 
i aSource: Corn, wheat, barley, and soybeans [4]. State
production of grain sorghum, oats, and rye [6]; grain
SO1`gh`L1IIl allocated 3.mOI1g 81635 1.11 pI`OpOI`tI1OI\ to COI`l'1
Z except Area 20, where no production is assumed; oats
] and rye allocated among areas in proportion to barley.
5
1 .
i  
i   ‘

 11
_ Table 3. Types and Numbers of Firms Surveyed
Staté Number
Type of Firma Total Interviewed
 
Country elevators
Less than 300,000 bu. storage 23 7
300,000 bu. storage or more 12 11
Terminal elevators 4 2
l~`eed mills
Less than 10,000 tons feed 114 40
10,000 tons feed or more 8 8
Flour mills 5 3
Soybean processors 2 2
Integrated poultry operations 1 1
Distilleries 35 10
aDefinitions of the types of firms are given in the Appendix. A list of firms is given in [3] .
GRAIN RECEIPTS BY SOURCE corn receipts only in Area 18, where 79% of
the total receipts was from local farmers. In
Table 4 reports expanded grain receipts Area 19, only 1% of the receipts was from
from out—of-state sources in 19703 Table 5 local farmers and in Area 20, 6% was from
reports expanded receipts from local farmers local farmers. For the state, nearly all
as well as from out-of-state sources. To avoid out-of-state corn came from the corn belt,
double-counting, shipments between 84% from Indiana. In Area 18, all out-of-state
grain-handling firms in the same area (from corn came from the corn belt: 60% from
country elevators to terminal elevators, for Illinois, 36% from Indiana, and -1% from
example) are excluded from both tables. Missouri. In Area 19, practically all
Except for oats and grain sorghum, most out-of-state corn came from the corn belt;
out-of-state grain came from the com belt 93% of the corn belt corn was from Indiana
(Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio; no with small amounts from Illinois and Ohio. In
receipts of any grain were reported from Area 20, all out-of-state corn came from the
Iowa). Most out-of-state oats came from corn belt: 59% from Ohio, 41% from Indiana. `
Minnesota; most out-of-state grain sorghum S0vbe·mzs»Receipts of soybeans from
came from Tennessee (Table 4). local farmers occurred only in Area 18, where
C0rn——Corn from local farmers they constituted 52% of total receipts. Of the
constituted a substantial proportion of the out-of-state soybeans in Area 18, 96% came

 12
4
4
4000‘*•NO&mO1
’Ur-4|©l\¢l\v-1®I\
gqjz/100m»-44-4»-4OO
{J;-·4•4n nqq
· Hcomm »-i<'\II\
::4 wr-·.c:m .-4
-4-4 un
bb 3
.,.4 .. Q
Fl .-¤E•
O ur/¤C:~.-4¤4.n¤x¤C>N
-4-4·4-4-4-4O<4·4»-44·:rt\»-4
‘ >» 22304-4 ~Om¤O
,,43 ..
4-4
m ..4
41) 4n;;;4<4·4-4O0Oc0¤~D
0 mg! NO4\14r\
4
$5 EB4 .-4 rn
4 O
ub
+4**3
0 Citi
4-> can-4 »0Ommc0r~c>
qj Ugm ..-4...
+-> $-4LD+-> 0¤Ox04\Os<\4m
W ¤.>O G·»O4\mr¢>4\O*»
I CM'4-494 4-4
LH O
°?
4-> 4-4 4.nO‘»·:©m.-4 ~ 4
,x 44_n4444.n4»9
U O¤<~14444~n4c>
:1 4-• -4-44n<4· 4-4 0
p r-1 ,;:,-4-4
>¢ cn
IJ
Ci E .0
-4-4 O . \OI\|l\|II
L) OOI\U7lr-4444
W ZC-4
+4 O
Q., -4
-4-4 .-4
¤> ¤4\m uv
_ *0
_ CD
4 4 E
E i §` 5
4 .C
» tm
4 · S Ul
4 3 - *7 I: 4/4
4 ‘ ···* >` g
4 ¤> eu 4-404: cp
4 · _ ···• $-4 ¢:.‘<¤·-4--44n ,¤
  ?¤ U ‘6°’§a‘§3*;‘;€
4 4 ¥·* uémwoxm
4 .
I `
 .1
4 E
44 ;
b Q

 I gn-~ I
S x-II I\II|I I IIIIIII IIIIII
I
I
   
U , ·!`1I¤••¤¤•m...-••·o¤m¤<:-IIIII
E >_¤¤¤a IIIIIII vv Iv ILDIIIII
:¢•-I.Fh (Nl •-I
>~ ZJ
..D .0
U ___, §__ Ln'~hII\c\II\ <*<2‘¤*I\£lf><* *01 I I•—<|I
E ,,¤•.».., W'W'I•-IQFILD mg-<<* »-em I\III·-III
E   •-I N •-I f\‘7LDI\ ®
QJ | - » A- -·.
g FU;} <:- an gw ..4*0
¤ I
3 {
D.
  P; IIIIII\0gIII<:*II‘OIII·-III
U BI IIIIlI8 c`IIIf\IIIL7I)III•-1II
GJ OI *·• .
¤f. ' 7
u I U ‘
E "‘ ' "J
  g •: ¥OI\II’\III IIIIIII IIIIIII .2
l· OI I\If>I•-4III IIIIIII IIIIIII U
¤ E 2· ·· gg
0 0 '
x\ L) ' 0
=¤ I :=
"" I tx-~IINI—·4 8  
E ’ 5
' :5
I I Q)
an r\ r\ u·> vacuo TJ
W _!&'¤¤Il..iS~lIl¤¤»{!}I}}I ¤
,..   I\·-¢ W N <‘O‘x _,_,
ig "`I N V »-I  
E-·
 
u-I
DO
l.h¤Dm ¤O OGIN Q' *0 I
U ION} •-4 ¢ WIPO v-I ..5
BE I\`f*1 0 fj
u. "‘ "‘ .¤
é .
 
N
2%
S E S 5
-° §° aa %° 2 I? 2 §
R 8 (I In cv ,_, ”* N I.:
G $,%;:1 ¤> °¤€§`¤ ¤> ¤¤s§`¤ B .0
¤¤a.-·····=¤q,-¤ ¢v...··-·=~~-¤ ¤».-.··-·3~
8 ·,;2‘.:>; §:;2t$>`&; 8§:;B~>$` *3
L) ¤¤OO¤dm L) ¤¤OO¤dv> U ¤¤OO¤1v> 0
E
N  
JI
2 co cx O W
 I - " "' ~ ' N
In I— I R (NI-` °‘.
l thc I ‘°
I0
unly Tg
VJ
{I] :I 8 rx I I I
g é VI N ’ I I I I
)N C':
E I Q : I I rn I I_I.I
gl I 00 IJ-I I I -4 I O
I A
. I3 I N v_
gI`L111`1 m
s lu g ___
Its U ° M
U) S E lg g   F:     I\ I oo
stzue g g E 0 E2 3 8 8 qi ' G:
Iv I— U I" ... __, O1 In
(myc Q g
firms 5
bOIh 5 I I-I 1 8% :2 g M ~ . ..
U 8 Q I "' ·-< ·a· {Q I cu
E E-· In I Q" N" m__
CI I 5 = ‘“ M
0 x I
1 uml E I
r · ly 2 . '
I1 smj : S I E Q Q rn : I In
1 " ii
lm 0 I-I III I - _ "" ·-I ° [T,
I ca E-· I '~`I' I-I
g()l1lg EI I II';
nous. gg I *,:3
(/j 0-I
*""“Y .5 I; E $8 3 I I 3 I 2
other 5 UI I I`} ' "‘  
I I:
aa ' D
10111 II-; I III
wcm *55 -EI , IIT IQ, I: I I In I _I_ EI
I g U ··< Q' N I I I0 I ,,4 Q
$111 to 3 VI   g In. .§
I1 arc E jg IQ
loud E-hd § M I II.
' I | .
were E   -4. "' ' I I I I §  
· I ¤ E ~r . °°
lI)I)LCl 5 I __,  
Ithcm S I E
).l11(lC1` I , I S? Q 1* I N I II., 3
III I N "` I In
I , ' I .. A "‘ I N ..
Jl th; ‘° I-7 I ,I. ¤¤__ I.,
I QJ I ··-·
;1 85% § I "‘  
I I I4
» 28% F II : Ia; I I I I . . S
0% to I ' ' In.
' III
;l thc I ><
QJ
C21 l9, II; I IY; 3 `°° I I I I l"
I-I I m I I I A
I local <2 I N"  
Sd out O _ ·
. . Z*"
2 ol ll Q 5 {II
. L)
ments, E _§I _
O I-I
I g IF
*5 >~ ·°
g Iv ,2 .¤ U E
I-I H B Iv ··¤
U A8 G °° >` >` 8
O Iz Ig II
.·I_II.•.~ . X;

 16
·¤-—• ""<2·,,,m
ng glgol '|»-•
U ·-·"‘ 2. ~>£'}g2$·¤
c~?.: "‘~¤¤‘>l:;.,_
§‘§%:n,I_‘
¢3.1<~`m IIIH §"‘•¤
ID KI
`F (6, ,..II,.‘:€;. =:III  
· nd _ I I
§>¤~ ¤. "·% Q
. •l\|'|I
gzm '|I::Om an
,.gI
,,,, '::'¤ C0
,..4 I I
¤¤(__.,§ N, '•}{¤,‘
UgZ.'·¥t;·. '··I
r II gil" rc
% §% "·¥I ·.
»-aw ()
kg ug ·n€?.;.,I ‘·}{g:, L
2 lll: IIII '  
. 'I|'l. 1
Q ,.. In, nl E
¤¤»5U'> nl';
8 gs $§§":;~ , "°*¤ W
>~ V) "•• l\"‘|
,3 my-( S,.    
(G "•»
E :__‘ Nq   7]
. $0
3 g2z$I·'"¤ [ Qc
cu `rmm ¤:"° .
>~ l_4 ·~ NSC.
J N7 I.DOlh"•·4I .
Q) Lf, I,...I In
I I
E J *" ' •'¤¤ w
5 I|'::: _5 IO
- x • II 3 O
E ;»,=:::l co .¤ L
2 '§·¤I:¤..,, § (P
"" "‘I II ·. C
n I X
Q · mn M ‘°':}'· :
Q, U .,`,;.,_ ·· 0 sh
_. III
E Z "§$}¤¤¤ 3 (P
‘ N Im'<‘ g
5 J '* I·· H
¤ g ...4 "::'|  
·.-· 3-•"¤ '¤ Sh
N 3   '¤,:¤N 2
as ‘2 =:;·., ·· <¤
[Q _ J I": In, *3 T1
Q *2 . '·¥I·· ¤
·-• hd ':¤·,II 1,
'U nl':
N '» 'n *6 3.I
’U Illl Q,
gp n':
= Q ,,;;g$L;·,_ "·} g., E th
Lg r.n__,||O l,'• ···*
I >< - •¤~ Nm ¤.'¤ v T
Lu N < '
n ; €~'·mI$ . Q T
K •-• ¢ |::;'I 2 I
A G, ¤i;g», "¤} "’ G
; ’ *3 i2¤o'¤{:¤,© S
 Z m '¤q,¤,I za SC
V , P 'l|:a|
I. ill E O]
,~ nl
2 "£*·. '·¥l· ~ m
_  |I:%O` I un ·
·~ n
N ··*¤{:=:. {2; m
, I
I E II:=::|I    
I » ~ £$~~ " § W
. ,¢(\,|I
R · End?     I¤ ·
. » mn; mu O
v (\] I(\] •-1
, ¤—¤ ~'¤¤ ¤
e » mr e .,.. O
I ‘ m|'I| .-4
I f ‘··=: 2 va
gg ru
  I Q E #r »
I   E &° E E2   .
  » LD nggz E an § go Ig IIT
`.    r.¤U,_._ ¤ "‘ .
e : 8§¤E“~g ¤>8 E % ~ E S
[ pqU“’>.>· Euuc: N *·· tu ,_
  I =¤ O¤:° 0,.¤"" °’ ° > <¤
, ` x.•§3 4-rm E
"’ ¢v·° ¤s>~ 5 ¤
  . - Em U3,2(5é¤>`>~ E¤,_·y__g g ig =¤
. _ m3 8;;~¤~D E
  cx ¤¤5é’>~g` QB
  __. gm lv K
 
3 E 6
2 F
u> E!
. m ....
.¤

 17
46% went to North Carolina, 27% to South grain-handling firms in the same area are
I Carolina, 14% to Georgia, 9% to Tennessee, excluded.
I and small amounts elsewhere. In Area 20, all Although Kentucky is a grain-deficit
corn shipments were to local farmers. state, receipts over the year are largest at
S0ybearzs—Almost no soybeans were harvest time and relatively uniform over the
returned to local farmers as soybeans. Of the remainder of the year, except in Area 20.
t out-of-state shipments, 51% were to other There, grains are used primarily as feed
southern states and 49% to export. In Area ingredients and local production is limited.
18, 49% of the shipments was to other The demand for feed over the year is t
· southem states (Georgia, Mississippi, and apparently fairly uniform, and so is the inflow
Tennessee) and 51% to export. In Area 19, of grain.
71% of the soybean shipments was to other Area 18—Nearly 53% of the year’s corn
southern states, primarily to Georgia, and receipts was in September, October, or
29% to export. November, an average of nearly 18% per
Wheat—Some wheat is returnedaswheat month. (Although data to support the
to local farmers but most shipments went contention are not available, the A
out-of-state—80% to other southern states September-November figures would probably
(primarily Georgia and Tennessee) and 19% to have been higher except for the corn blight.)
export. In Area 18, 74% of the out-of-state Among the remaining 9 months, the largest
shipments went to other southem states single month was February with 9%. More
(primarily Georgia and Tennessee) and 25% to than 45% of the year’s soybean receipts was
export. In Area I9, 87% of the out-of-state in October or November; the largest single
shipments went to other southem states remaining month was December with 8%.
(primarily Georgia, North Carolina, and june and july accounted for 68% of the
Tennessee) and 12% to export. year’s wheat receipts. june accounted for 77%
Other Graz`ns——Small amounts of barley of the year’s barley receipts.
and oats were shipped out-of-state. Most of Area 19—Except for October, when 15%
the barley went to either Georgia or of the year’s receipts occurred, monthly corn
Tennessee. Most of the oats went to receipts were fairly uniform. Although the
Tennessee, but small amounts also went to blight apparently reduced com production
Georgia and North Carolina. Very little grain less in Area 19 than in Area 18 (compare
sorghum was shipped, either to local farmers Tables 1 and 2), data are not available for
or out—of-state; most of the grain sorghum determining whether the monthly distribution
received in Kentucky is apparently processed of receipts was affected. October and
into feed. Except for a small quantity of rye November accounted for 46% of the year’s
shipped to local farmers, no rye shipments soybean receipts, the same as in Area 18, but
were reported. this coincidence is completely unrelated to
local production (see Tablel). Together,_]une
and july accounted for 60% of the year’s
GRAIN RECEIPTS BY MONTH wheat receipts. The remaining grains follow
no obvious pattern. i ` i
Table 8 reports expanded grain receipts, Area 20—Only small amounts of grain . ‘
including receipts from local farmers, by are produced locally, and imported grain is
SM-42 area by month. As in the two apparently used primarily as afeed ingredient.
PY€ceding sections, shipments between Only corn and wheat are received in sizable

 18
I
Isco 00 O Nm N ©<°II*¥II I
· 7; $&°mco&°InZI° I¤$0<:·BI~$ <·mII·-•II I
I6 NO~I¤0·-•NmO rx-IN ·-!\t\ Ox-• I un-
[-. IGI-··;` O" 0"N ·-I-··r~ ·
N N cn   rd
Y i
I
cons N g; Q-IIIII: IU
, •-·l v-ll
ck: gxidx-Im IS ©U'JN|’_‘m_0 ull
0 . .. ..
M5 va:  I
E I 00§:I<1* 00-IOINUJCA rhmurunu
U __¤ mIn»-I IN O(\l¢l•·*¢\|v-4 l\·-••¤lll in
YI Ig Q GOO *0 NUI ·-I-IN It
  ,5 ’—-5 "7 of Sh
8 ¤ .¤
.9 ° P"
Q E § $Ot~00mI*O O¤¤¤0INNL/‘> Ch-IIIIII  
U GQ U\I® I-4¤0mI<2·¤-0% I-n*·*II||I 5·
[2 gd- nm I\ ·-em Y
¤ ——`r J N" ·'
"" I Iv
E I ‘
O I of
O I Ln¤0N¤0l\% O\l!>*¤n·-~, hu':.-I ·-• ON-I Ir¤Mt\ •·¢IIIII wg
E III, rx cn .-Im Q,
I "° 2: J E sh
'U I *3 `
Iv I X
E I w bt
III com In 0 coco ¤\ I0 cx
cx. .I HWNQS 235 3 Imgco ¤¤l£IImII 95 ur
{5   O GN LD Nm K1 lh
I <: I-I N w
· I " D~
oc I W
qg I Q) OI
"" ' v-4¢D©®W‘I\f0 l\\D¤·OIO»—1OI $·—<|I|II E
-2, ,,:' O¤¤-• -II-n moo Im.-IN ..II,... N _
[__ N: N7 N LD •—•»-ILO In IC
I E' •-T .-T N" 0: ~
I I 11]
I : .5
I E III
· mNN N 
_ ·} mmm:-IIm Ixw II\0Ic QCIIIIII E 01
_ Q, cx-I N I\ .-I,-Im _
g , [L: __‘ __. C; ··-I m
I , , no
 I . I .¤
: ' I I
I I <1*¤0OO<•I mv-IIIIII ru I
'   WN d' --4 -a-Ich J: I
r I "'*| ·-• »-4 N é  
I , · I
I I · ¤ E 5 5 § I ty
· ' J2 .-¤
I ? g %° 2 %° 2 g° 2 E I
’ I ··>~'” 3 •-·>~"' "’ ·-·>~8 “‘ B `
I I Eg°·*.¤vI ,0 $***.5 ,2 E'°¤>.E B B I
- I O,;?,§·.:‘&5 E $2%;; ¤‘”T;=:€‘;g ¤ I
A U c¤OO¤d¤n U§¤¤OO¤dv> Ur§c¤UO¤du> Iél ;
* E _ N .
  2 00 ca 0 5
|~ E ; < -1 I-I N Ig
 . I
:.3 I   M .2 I.I.   ·-I»· I -·»—·- ··

 19 V
amounts, and the receipts ol` both are shipments between grajn—handling firms in the
relatively uniform over the year. same area, are included. Consequently, some
grain is counted two or more times, but the
results give a clearer picture of the relative
GRAIN SIIIPMISNI S BY MONTH importance of the different types of firms.
Table 9 reports expanded grain
shipments, including shipments to local Receipts by Type of Firm
farmers, by area by month. Shipments r
between grain-handling firms in the same area Table 10 reports expanded grain receipts I
are again excluded l·`ewer grains are shipped by type of firm. Some firm types have been
than are received and the quantrties shipped combined to avoid disclosing confidential
are, of course, smaller than the quantities information. Total receipts in Table 10 equal
received. Although shipments vary some from or exceed those in Tables 5 and 8. That is,
monthAto—month, they are more uniform than everything included in Table 5 or 8 is also
l receipts. Corn is the principal grain shipped. included in Table 10. The only substantial l
) Area 18A-Approximately 14% of the double-counting is for com in Area 18, and
corn shipments occurred in january, the corn and rye in Area 19.
l largest single month Only 5% of the Area 18—Receipts from local farmers
l shipments occurred in December, one of the constituted a substantial proportion of total
l smallest months. l'he_]anuary shipments were grain receipts in Area 18 (Table 5). Most of
l from 1969 production, whereas the December those receipts went first to country elevators
) shipments, presumably, were from 1970 (CE`s). Consequently, CE’s received more
, production. More than 5+% of the soybean grain than any other type of firm in Area 18.
  shipments was in either October or They received 70% of t