may receive grain and oilseeds by rail for consumption purposes. For example, Arkansas receives large quantities of corn and wheat by rail but ships virtually none of these crops by rail. Arkansas also has no major export ports. However, Arkansas is the eighth largest producer of animals and poultry. Therefore, Arkansas may receive these grains for feed purposes. With the information presented here, movements of grain and oilseeds by rail throughout the United States are clearly described. When changes in the transportation system occur, or our transportation network is asked to adapt to unforeseen events, the information and data within this report will provide an expedient overview of what might be expected. If any questions or issues regarding railroads arise, hopefully the information collected in this analysis can help bring clarity to the situation, or at least provide relevant background information. Data and Methodology Data from the Surface Transportation Board's (STB) Confidential Waybill Samples 1 over the period 1996-2010 were used to measure grain and oilseed shipments by rail. The data were aggregated and sorted by a number of characteristics, the major categories being shipment origin, destination, and type of grain or oilseed. This information was then organized by origin and destination State. The data were also sorted by shipment size for each State, showing the relative frequencies of grain and oilseed shipments of different sizes. Data having less than 30 observations are excluded, as well as States having data for only 1 or 2 years of the 5-year period. Thus, the summary tables have differing numbers of States listed. Despite these precautions, States with relatively low volumes are more subject to year-to-year variation than are States with higher volumes due to the number of available observations used to calculate totals. This is a result of the sampling techniques used in the Waybill Samples. Thus, higher volumes are less likely to suffer from sampling limitations and be more representative of actual rail movements for any given year than are lower volumes. Grain Consuming Animal Units (GCAUs) were calculated for each State using information on animal populations and the levels of feed necessary to maintain the populations. These calculations included meat and poultry for consumption and production purposes. Cows, sheep, turkeys, hogs, and chickens were included. A grain consuming animal unit is a standard unit used to compare actual numbers of livestock and poultry. The standard unit is based on the dry-weight quantity of feed consumed by an average milk cow in the base year. Different rates are used to convert each type of livestock and poultry into the standard unit. GCAU units consumed are reported in the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) Feed Grains Yearbook, 2 but are only reported for the entire United States. Thus, the authors had to estimate the number of GCAU units consumed by each State. Cattle data were obtained from USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) pu...

The share of the grain and oilseed harvest moved by rail has been declining since 1980, when the Federal Motor Carrier Act and the Staggers Rail Act were passed. Large structural changes associated with these acts affected the decline over the following two decades. Yet, even though the large structural changes had already taken place by 2000, the rail market share of grain and oilseed transportation has continued to decline. This paper develops a state-level statistical model for 21 of the top grain-producing states (which produce 86.6% of all grain and oilseeds) to investigate which major factors have been responsible for the decrease in the rail market share of grain and oilseed transportation since 2001. Twenty variables are tested in the model, and 10 are found to have a statistically significant impact on rail market share. Of these, three are most important in the decrease of rail market share: ethanol production, biodiesel production, and the concentration of animal feeding.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html. If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form.

No abstract

Transportation costs have a direct impact on agricultural producers' profits. Agricultural producers in remote areas have few transportation alternatives, and the price they receive for their products is net of transportation and other marketing and handling costs. When producers and marketers of agricultural products believe the rates they are paying for transportation are too high or uncompetitive, they need access to a dispute-settlement mechanism that is fair, easily understood, accessible, and affordable. Agricultural shippers believe the formal procedures for challenging unreasonable rail freight rates available through the Surface Transportation Board (STB) are too lengthy and expensive, with the risk not being worth the reward, effectively preventing them from accessing meaningful rate relief. Also, although affected by rail rates, agricultural producers do not have access to STB rate-challenge procedures because they typically do not ship their products to the ultimate consumer, but rather sell them to agribusinesses that arrange for transportation to the final customer. Mediation and arbitration of agricultural rail rates offer alternatives to formal STB procedures. A less formal rail rate mediation/arbitration system could potentially provide a fairer and lower cost approach to challenging rail rates. The Montana Grain Growers Association, Montana Farm Bureau Federation, and BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) have developed rail rate mediation/arbitration procedures that can be accessed by producers. Although this system is a step forward, it is limited to only one State and one railroad; no other major railroad thus far has been willing to arbitrate rail rates. A national-level rail rate mediation/arbitration system that is simple and cost-effective is needed to provide a fair and impartial forum for all grain producers and shippers.