Publications

Accessibility


Soybean Trade Report: Trend and Risk Analysis (EC1992, Dec. 2020)

Trends and the descriptive statistics are useful to producers in identifying variations in demand for soybeans and their products. For decision makers, this information is helpful in the development of risk management tools for potential export losses due to risky events like politically driven tariffs and uncertain events.

Saleem Shaik, Professor and Director

Kwame Asiam Addey, PhD. Candicate; Kekoura Sakouvogui, PhD.

Availability: Web only


Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies
Agribusiness and Applied Economics
North Dakota State University
Fargo, N.D., 58108

 

Glossary

Average/mean -- This is the sum of a collection of numbers divided by the count of numbers in the collection.
For past historical data as in this report, this gives an idea of what the producer or decision maker should expect.

Coefficient of variation -- This is also known as the relative standard deviation. It is a statistical measure of the dispersion of data points around the mean. While it performs a similar function to the standard deviation, it is advantageous because it can be used to compare dispersion of data between distinct series of data. Furthermore, it is a unitless measure. Generally, a decision maker seeks a lower value because it provides an optimal risk-to-reward ratio with low volatility but high returns.

Descriptive statistics -- These are brief descriptive coefficients that summarize given data sets. These are classified into the measures of central tendency (mean/average) and measures of variability (minimum, variance/standard deviation and maximum variables).

Ex-ante -- These are inferences based on forecasts.

Export -- Goods or services that are sent out of a specific geographical location to another spatially demarcated jurisdiction. This is represented as nominal dollars.

Ex-post -- These are inferences based on actual results.

Harmonized system code -- Commonly represented as harmonized system (HS) code. This is a standardized numerical method of classifying traded products. Primarily, it is used by customs authorities around the world to identify products when assessing duties/taxes and for collecting data for statistical analysis.

Import -- Goods or services that are brought into a specific geographical location from another spatially demarcated jurisdiction. This is represented as nominal dollars.

Net farm income -- Net farm income refers to the return to farm operators for their labor, management and capital after all production expenses have been paid. This is the gross farm income minus production expenses.

Period -- A period is defined as a five-year interval in this report.

Prices -- Price is computed as the ratio of export value and quantity. This is represented as nominal dollars per metric ton ($/MT).

Production efficiency -- Production efficiency is concerned with producing goods and services with the optimal combination of inputs to produce maximum output for the minimum cost.

Production -- Quantity of commodity produced. This is measured as bushels for both commodities (corn and soybeans).

Productivity -- Productivity is the measure of output from a production process per unit of input.

Risk -- A risk is the possibility of loss or gain of an event with known probabilities.

Shares -- Representative proportion of the total of a variable/indicator.

Standard deviation -- This is a quantification of the amount of variation or dispersion of a set of data values. This is most often a complementary information to the mean. Given any mean, there are chances of gain or a loss. Hence, knowing the possible variation can allow the decision maker or producer to plan with bounds.

Trade -- This is basically computed as the sum of imports and exports. However, in this report, trade is used generically to represent either imports or exports.

Trend -- A general course or prevailing tendency to take a particular direction or move in some indicated direction. In this report, the trend defines the direction of growth of the respective variable.

Uncertainty -- Uncertainty refers to the occurrence of an event for which probabilities cannot be assigned.

Executive Summary

This report presents organized and structured information on soybean trade indicators across geographical space and through time. The indicators considered are exports, imports and prices. These also are presented at the byproduct level.

The levels of aggregation are global, U.S. and North Dakota. The information is presented in the form of trends and descriptive statistics. The former reveals the direction of the growth, while the latter reveals the magnitude of expectations. The descriptive statistics are represented by the mean, standard deviation, coefficient of variation and share contribution to the total.

The report is presented in six sections: (I) global temporal soybean trade, (II) global spatial soybean export, (III) global spatial soybean import, (IV) U.S. temporal soybean export, (V) U.S. spatial soybean export and (VI) U.S. state level soybean export. At the global level, the trends of the indicators are presented in addition to the descriptive statistics of the top 15 exporting and importing countries. The trends and descriptive statistics for the top 15 exporting states also are provided at the U.S. level.

This report is important because it serves as an informational guide on exports, our competitors for exports and potential markets for soybeans to our producers. In the current environment, the success (productivity and net farm income stability) of agricultural business depends on accurate prediction of potential demand for soybeans and their products to help producers in making decisions for domestic or foreign markets. Hence, having a comprehensive and accurate database on exports and imports at the global, national and state levels will enable producers in decision-making with confidence.

To formulate trade policies related to the international market, the trends and the descriptive statistics are useful to producers in identifying variations in demand for soybeans and their products. For decision makers, this information is helpful in the development of risk management tools for potential export losses due to risky events such as politically driven tariffs and uncertain events such as COVID-19. Finally, in the years of decline, identifying sources of variation or risk in changing consumer preferences, genetically modified restrictive index, trade facilitation and prosperity indexes is important. The study reveals that:

Global Trade

  • The soybean market has shifted to processed products.
  • Soybean grain, residue and crude oil are primary with an increase in flour.
  • Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Canada are the major competitors with the U.S. for soybean grains.
  • China, Japan, Netherlands, Spain and Germany are the major destinations for soybean grain.
  • Soybean grain prices have been on the decline in recent years.

U.S. Trade

  • China, Mexico, Japan, Indonesia and Netherlands are the major destinations for U.S. soybean grains.
  • Turkey, Russia, Argentina and Italy are among the top 15 importers of soybean grains but not part of the top 15 U.S. export destinations.

U.S. State Trade

  • Our state-level estimates of trade are consistent with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS) exports. In contrast, the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) under- and overestimates state exports because they are based on the location of the port.
  • Our production-adjusted state export estimates suggest the major exporters of soybeans are Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, South Dakota, North Dakota and Kansas.

North Dakota Trade

  • North Dakota soybean exports are underestimated by the USDA FAS.

– For instance, the production adjusted export value predicts a value of $885,365,842 in 2018, while the ERS method predicted $887,896,380 for North Dakota. On the other hand, the FAS presents a value of $62,543,314.

Future Research

Exports are particularly important for every economy. In the case of North Dakota, where production mostly exceeds domestic consumption, the need to explore foreign market potentials is essential. From this report, we observed that the current trends of soybean trade for North Dakota have been increasing. We must not only evaluate the determinants of North Dakota soybean exports but also explore potential markets.

  • The next stage of this research seeks to evaluate the efficiency of U.S. state agricultural exports and its determinants. Of particular interest are the impact of the genetically modified restrictive index, tariffs and other transportation costs. The expected outcome of the estimation is to provide the requisite knowledge that will give North Dakota soybean farmers a comparative advantage in the international markets, given that these variables have become very instrumental drivers of international trade in recent years.
  • The second objective will be to examine the determinants of commodity price volatilities and their impact on North Dakota production and exports.

About the Center

Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies

The vision of the Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies (CAPTS) is to enhance the sustainability of the net farm income of North Dakota producers through in-depth trade and agricultural policy research. After carefully considering stakeholder inputs, interests, risks and uncertainties, the concept of efficiency, technology assessment and productivity growth1 also are embedded into the center’s research.

To address this vision, the center aims to develop a “model of farm economy” to conduct ex-post and ex-ante evaluations for North Dakota. The model will evaluate agricultural and trade policies with its implications on North Dakota producers’ net farm income. Additionally, the implications of policy on North Dakota producers’ efficiency, technology assessment and productivity growth also will be evaluated.

model of farm economy

The model of farm economy based on multiple theoretical frameworks will not only evaluate the implications of existing agricultural and trade policies (Title I, II, III and XI) but also future policies to meet efficiency, productivity and net farm income sustainability goals of North Dakota producers. Our perception of the challenges and the choices made at this juncture in history will determine how to protect farmers in our state and secure our future. The center keeps detailed records of all activities and publishes the information that will be of value to the clientele, including commodity groups and decision makers of the state and region.

Center and Current Project

The center, in collaboration with North Dakota Soybean and Corn councils, is evaluating measures of improving net farm income sustainability for producers in the state. The project is in three dimensions; these are the production indicator report, trade report and policy report.

The phase 1 outcomes of the project include detailed and comprehensive development of databases and the presentation of trends and risks in the production indicator, trade and policy reports. These reports are useful to the producers, commodity groups and decision makers.

Also, this information will form the basis for the development of the “model of farm economy” to evaluate the implications of agricultural and trade policies on North Dakota producers’ net farm income. Additionally, the implications of technology and policies on North Dakota producers’ efficiency and productivity growth will be evaluated.

About the North Dakota Soybean Council

The North Dakota Soybean Council (NDSC) was established in 1985 by the North Dakota Legislature. In 1991, the NDSC became a qualified state soybean board (QSSB) under the federal Soybean Promotion, Research and Consumer Information Act, when the United Soybean Board (USB) was established. Today, the NDSC serves more than 10,000 soybean farmers in North Dakota.

The NDSC is charged as the administrator of the North Dakota soybean checkoff. The checkoff is one-half of 1% of the price of each bushel of soybeans contributed at the first point of sale. Fifty percent of the funds collected remains in North Dakota for initiatives in the state. The remaining 50% is sent to the USB for national programs for the betterment of U.S. soybean farmers.

The NDSC consists of a board of 12 soybean producers elected by their peers. Board members are charged with determining how to invest the soybean checkoff into programs that support and expand research, market development, promotion and education to the benefit of the North Dakota soybean producers. In addition to the 12-member board, the office is managed by a team of six professionals to help oversee the investments as directed by the board.

Soybean production in North Dakota has grown tremendously since the mid-1980s, and soybeans are grown on farm operations statewide. Thanks to the investment in research, farmers have access to varieties that do well in our northern climate.

Because of our soy checkoff investments in transportation infrastructure and market development around the globe, North Dakota soybeans are a high-value export crop. The NDSC board strives to foster and grow strong market demand in traditional and new expanding markets, invest in research to meet the changing needs of farmers each year to ensure a quality crop, and work to ensure the tools and resources are available to help farmers remain profitable.

The soybean industry is a key piece of the North Dakota economy, helping support communities, rural and urban, creating job opportunities and sustaining healthy land that has been part of North Dakota’s heritage for generations.

The North Dakota Soybean Council is committed to growing a legacy of successful farmers. To learn more about the NDSC, visit www.ndsoybean.org, or follow it on social media.

Trade Report

Rationale for This Report

In recent years, discussions on global trade have become a delicate topic among world leaders. Each country seems to seek out its interest at the expense of others. However, a theoretically established fact is that international trade is a positive-sum game rather than a zero-sum game for partner countries involved. What also is well known is that governments are more likely to form free trade areas if the benefits outweigh the costs.

The U.S. has been at the center of many of these trade disputes in recent times. This can be primarily attributed to its efficiency of production. The U.S. agricultural sector consistently has produced more than its domestic needs. Hence, international trade and food aid supplies have been the two major outlets for excess agricultural produce of the U.S.

Considering this, the recent turn of geopolitical events has been unfavorable for farmers in the U.S. To remedy this issue, we have a need to understand the factors that hinder or promote U.S. agricultural exports. Several studies have been conducted on the determinants of U.S. agricultural exports. Meanwhile, crop production is spatially specialized in the U.S. For instance, the Midwestern states are the major producers of U.S. grains and oilseeds.

To formulate policies concerning current trade events, the understanding of the determinants of U.S. agricultural exports alone may not be sufficient. We have a need to dissect the determinants of state-level agricultural exports. However, research on U.S. state-level agricultural exports is limited, attributed to the nature of available data.

The current data on state-level exports do not reflect the major production states. This is because of the dual problem of the absence of ports of exit in these states and the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service’s method of reporting state-level exports based on the ports of exit rather than state of origin.

As part of its commitment to help mitigate the effects of these challenges faced by producers in North Dakota on the international markets, the CAPTS frequently performs research. This report is the output of a collaboration between the CAPTS and NDSC with the aim of overcoming challenges of soybean trade in North Dakota.

To evaluate the possible effects of these challenges and propose plausible solutions, the need exists for accurate and up-to-date data at different levels of aggregation. The objective of this study is to develop a statistical-based method to estimate the soybean exports by the individual states within the U.S.

Obtaining this estimate will be useful to examine the actual determinants of the soybean exports at the state level. Knowing this can help Congress formulate policies with emphasis on states that are major producers of soybeans.

This report, as part of a series of research in line with the collaborative objective, presents data on soybean trade indicators. This trade indicator report presents data on the following variables through time (temporal) and across geographical space (spatial):

  • Export value
  • Import value
  • Price

Why is This Report Important?

This report presents systematically aggregated trade information for soybean producers. First, it is important because it contains details of exports and imports based on soybean byproducts through time. This information reveals the shifting demand for these byproducts through time.

For U.S. soybean producers, this information is relevant for them to identify major competitors and potential new markets. Identifying the competitors will aid in policy formulation to increase market dominance, while identifying new markets will help increase total market share (and subsequently revenue) through exploring these new destinations.

Secondly, the report presents information on soybean prices during the period in addition to statistical risk. The financial markets (prices) form the bedrock of profit maximization and income sustainability. These trends and statistical risks are important because they reveal the volatilities and possible losses or gains. For North Dakota soybean producers, this report presents a set of accurate state-level exports that eliminates the port bias problem.

Typically, the demand for state production incentives can be boosted with higher historic exports. However, under situations where the exports for certain states are underestimated due to the port bias problem, the representatives have difficulty in obtaining the necessary incentives for their producers. These accurate state-level exports can be used for negotiations by state representatives or commodity groups for incentives for soybean producers in North Dakota.

Data and Methods

The U.S. national and state-level exports and imports from the world and individual countries are available from Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA-FAS). These trade data are presented at bulk and byproduct levels identified by their harmonized system (HS) codes. The soybean trade data were obtained from this website at the byproduct level. The groups (with their HS codes) obtained are:

  • Whole soybeans (120100 and 120190)
  • Soybean seeds (120110)
  • Soybean flour (120810)
  • Soybean residue (230400)
  • Soybean crude oil (150710)
  • Soybean refined oil (150790)

To compute the production-adjusted state-level exports, production data were obtained from the USDA National Agricultural Statistical Services (NASS). The Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software is used in the generation of tables and graphs. These are presented at:

  • World (aggregate and countries)
  • U.S. (aggregate and states)

The empirical framework for this report includes annual trends, five-year changes and summary statistics (mean, risk/deviations and coefficient of variation) and intensity of trade (market share) among countries and states. The results presented at various levels would help the soybean producers not only evaluate their options for the present but also develop strategies for the future based on the market trends and risks.

  • Annual trends: The annual trends of global exports, imports and prices of soybeans are presented in the report. The export and import values also are presented by trends for the top 15 countries. At the U.S. level, the trends of these indicators are presented for the whole country and top 15 states. At the North Dakota level, the trends are presented and compared for our computed production-adjusted exports, USDA FAS exports and ERS exports. Presenting these trends in the report will provide a framework to gauge the changes through time across countries and states. Furthermore, it will help reveal the extent of bias accumulation attributed to the current USDA FAS method of computing state exports. Knowing these trends can serve as a basis for estimating the volatilities and their sources. This can help forecast future possibilities for desired horizons for advance decision-making.
  • Five-year changes: This report further presents histograms of the five-year sums of the trade indicators at the various levels of aggregation and product group level. Having the indicators for five-year periods in the report will provide a framework to evaluate the increase/decrease or shifts across periods.
  • Summary statistics: The summary statistics are provided for the various levels of aggregation for all the trade indicators enumerated. This will provide a framework to evaluate the magnitude of the variables using totals, averages, risks, coefficient of variation and intensity of the trade variables in the form of market share.

Key Findings

Global Trend and Risk

Global soybean export quantity and value increased steadily during the period (Figure 1). Between 2014 and 2018, whole soybeans accounted for 60.2% of the global export share of soybean products. Soybean residue accounted for 28.5% of the share in this period. The third important byproduct in this period was crude soybean oil (8%).

Figure 7 presents the global export share of soybean products from 2014 to 2018. The trends of export value, quantity and price for the six byproducts are presented in Figures 8, 9 and 10.

The top 15 exporters of whole soybeans (export value share) based on the period between 2014 and 2018 are:

  1. Brazil (45.1%)
  2. U.S. (38.3%)
  3. Argentina (5.63%)
  4. Paraguay (2.89%)
  5. Canada (2%)
  6. Uruguay (1.95%)
  7. Ukraine (1.61%)
  8. Netherlands (0.75%)
  9. India (0.25%)
  10. Russia (0.21%)
  11. China (0.19%)
  12. Belgium (0.16%)
  13. Croatia (0.12%)
  14. Romania (0.11%)
  15. France (0.08%)

The trends of the export values for the top 15 countries are presented from Figure 11 to Figure 13. Figures 14 to 28 present trends for the top 15 exporters for the other byproducts. The details for the descriptive statistics can be found in the appendix.

The top 15 importers of whole soybeans (import value share) based on the period between 2014 and 2018 are;

  1. China (60.7%)
  2. Japan (3.33%)
  3. Netherlands (2.99%)
  4. Spain (2.97%)
  5. Germany (2.50%)
  6. Indonesia (2.22%)
  7. Turkey (2.06%)
  8. Mexico (2.86%)
  9. Taiwan (1.88%)
  10. Thailand (1.86%)
  11. Russia (1.66%)
  12. Argentina (1.44%)
  13. South Korea (1.31%)
  14. Italy (1.24%)
  15. Vietnam (1.23%)

The trends of the import values for the top 15 countries are presented from Figure 29 to Figure 31. Figures 32 to 46 present trends for the top 15 importers for the other byproducts. The details for the descriptive statistics can be found in the appendix.

U.S. States Trend and Risk

The trends of the share of U.S. soybean exports relative to the world is presented in Figure 47. This figure shows that the U.S. global share of whole soybean exports has declined through time. The implication of this phenomenon suggests that U.S. soybean exports are shifting to processed soybean products in recent times.

The top 15 U.S. export destinations are:

  1. China (25.4%)
  2. Mexico (3.97%)
  3. Japan (2.41%)
  4. Indonesia (2.29%)
  5. Netherlands (1.84%)
  6. Taiwan (1.64%)
  7. Germany (1.38%)
  8. Egypt (1.12%)
  9. Spain (1.03%)
  10. Thailand (0.95%)
  11. Vietnam (0.84%)
  12. Bangladesh (0.76%)
  13. South Korea (0.70%)
  14. Pakistan (0.69%)
  15. Colombia (0.50%)

The trends of the import values for the top 15 U.S. export destination countries are presented from Figure 48 to 50. Figures 51 to 65 present trends for the top 15 U.S. exporting destinations for the other byproducts. The details for the descriptive statistics can be found in the appendix.

The production-adjusted export trends of the top 15 states are:

  1. Illinois (14.5%)
  2. Iowa (13.%)
  3. Minnesota (8.56%)
  4. Nebraska (7.66%)
  5. Indiana (6.89%)
  6. Ohio (6.27%)
  7. Missouri (6.14%)
  8. South Dakota (5.51%)
  9. North Dakota (5.07%)
  10. Arkansas (4.01%)
  11. Kansas (3.98%)
  12. Mississippi (2.80%)
  13. Michigan (2.36%)
  14. Wisconsin (2.29%)
  15. Kentucky (2.29%)

The trends of the indicators for the top 15 exporting states are presented from Figure 66 to Figure 71. The details for other indicators at the global level can be found in the appendix.

North Dakota Whole Soybean Exports

The USDA FAS reports state export values are based on reported port values. Hence, the data obtained from the USDA FAS website do not reflect the actual performance of the individual states in terms of their export and production. To that effect, state representatives have difficulty negotiating for incentives and farm programs for domestic farmers. To solve this problem, this report employs a production accounts method to estimate North Dakota soybean exports.

For consistency, the cash-receipts based method that is employed by the USDA ERS to estimate state level exports also is obtained. The export value for these three methods is presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3. A comparison of the three data types is shown in Table 4 for the total export value during the period.

You can see that the production accounts method and cash-receipts method yield similar results. The data from USDA FAS underestimates North Dakota soybean exports by about 10 times relative to the production accounts method. For instance, the production adjusted export value predicts a value of $885,365,842 in 2018 while the ERS method predicted $887,896,380 for North Dakota. On the other hand, the FAS presents a value of $62,543,314.

Future Research Proposal

Exports are particularly important for every economy. Furthermore, in the case of North Dakota, where production mostly exceeds domestic consumption, the need to explore foreign market potentials is essential. From this report, we can observe that the current trends of soybean trade for North Dakota have been increasing. Evaluating the determinants of North Dakota soybean exports is essential.

  • The next stage of this research seeks to evaluate the efficiency of U.S. state agricultural exports and its determinants. Of particular interest are the impact of genetically modified restrictive index, tariffs and other transportation costs. The expected outcome of the estimation is to provide the requisite knowledge that will give North Dakota soybean farmers a comparative advantage on the international markets, given that these variables have become very instrumental drivers of international trade in recent years characterized by geopolitical disputes.
  • The second objective will be to examine the determinants of commodity price volatilities and their impact on North Dakota production and exports.

Section I: Global Temporal Soybean Trade

Figure 1: Global Soybean Exports, Annual Trends

line graph

 

Figure 2: Global Soybean, Seed Exports, Annual Trends

Figure 2: Global Soybean, Seed Exports, Annual Trends (line graph)

 

Figure 3: Global Soybean Oil Crude Exports, Annual Trends 

Figure 3: Global Soybean Oil Crude Exports, Annual Trends (line graph)

 

 

Figure 4: Global Soybean Oil Refined Exports, Annual Trends

Figure 4: Global Soybean Oil Refined Exports, Annual Trends

 

Figure 5: Global Soybean Residue Exports, Annual Trends

Figure 5: Global Soybean Residue Exports, Annual Trends

 

 

Figure 6: Global Soybean Flour Exports, Annual Trends

Figure 6: Global Soybean Flour Exports, Annual Trends

 

Figure 7: Global Export Share of Soybean Products, 2014-2018

Figure 7: Global Export Share of Soybean Products, 2014-2018

 

Figure 8: Global Export Value of Soybean Products, Annual Trends

Figure 8: Global Export Value of Soybean Products, Annual Trends

 

Figure 9: Global Export Quantity of Soybean Products, Annual Trends

Figure 9: Global Export Quantity of Soybean Products, Annual Trends

 

Figure 10: Global Export Price of Soybean Products, Annual Trends

Figure 10: Global Export Price of Soybean Products, Annual Trends

Section II: Global Spatial Soybean Export

Figure 11: Top 5 Countries Soybean Export Value, Annual Trends

Figure 11: Top 5 Countries Soybean Export Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 12: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean Export Value, Annual Trends

Figure 12: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean Export Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 13: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean Export Value, Annual Trends

Figure 13: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean Export Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 14: Top 5 Countries Soybean, Seed Export Value, Annual Trends

Figure 14: Top 5 Countries Soybean, Seed Export Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 15: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean, Seed Export Value, Annual Trends

Figure 15: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean, Seed Export Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 16: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean, Seed Export Value, Annual Trends

Figure 16: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean, Seed Export Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 17: Top 5 Countries Soybean Oil Crude Export Value, Annual Trends

Figure 17: Top 5 Countries Soybean Oil Crude Export Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 18: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean Oil Crude Export Value, Annual Trends

Figure 18: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean Oil Crude Export Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 19: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean Oil Crude Export Value, Annual Trends

Figure 19: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean Oil Crude Export Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 20: Top 5 Countries Soybean Oil Refined Export Value, Annual Trends

 Figure 20: Top 5 Countries Soybean Oil Refined Export Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 21: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean Oil Refined Export Value, Annual Trends

Figure 21: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean Oil Refined Export Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 22: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean Oil Refined Export Value, Annual Trends

Figure 22: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean Oil Refined Export Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 23: Top 5 Countries Soybean Residue Export Value, Annual Trends

Figure 23: Top 5 Countries Soybean Residue Export Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 24: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean Residue Export Value, Annual Trends

Figure 24: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean Residue Export Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 25: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean Residue Export Value, Annual Trends

Figure 25: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean Residue Export Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 26: Top 5 Countries Soybean Flour Export Value, Annual Trends

Figure 26: Top 5 Countries Soybean Flour Export Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 27: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean Flour Export Value, Annual Trends

Figure 27: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean Flour Export Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 28: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean Flour Export Value, Annual Trends

Figure 28: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean Flour Export Value, Annual Trends

 

Section III: Global Spatial Soybean Import

Figure 29: Top 5 Countries Soybean Import Value, Annual Trends

Figure 29: Top 5 Countries Soybean Import Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 30: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean Import Value, Annual Trends

Figure 30: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean Import Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 31: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean Import Value, Annual Trends

Figure 31: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean Import Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 32: Top 5 Countries Soybean, Seed Import Value, Annual Trends

Figure 32: Top 5 Countries Soybean, Seed Import Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 33: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean, Seed Import Value, Annual Trends

Figure 33: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean, Seed Import Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 34: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean, Seed Import Value, Annual Trends

Figure 34: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean, Seed Import Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 35: Top 5 Countries Soybean Oil Crude Import Value, Annual Trends

Figure 35: Top 5 Countries Soybean Oil Crude Import Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 36: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean Oil Crude Import Value, Annual Trends

Figure 36: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean Oil Crude Import Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 37: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean Oil Crude Import Value, Annual Trends

Figure 37: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean Oil Crude Import Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 38: Top 5 Countries Soybean Oil Refined Import Value, Annual Trends

Figure 38: Top 5 Countries Soybean Oil Refined Import Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 39: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean Oil Refined Import Value, Annual Trends

Figure 39: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean Oil Refined Import Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 40: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean Oil Refined Import Value, Annual Trends

Figure 40: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean Oil Refined Import Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 41: Top 5 Countries Soybean Residue Import Value, Annual Trends

Figure 41: Top 5 Countries Soybean Residue Import Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 42: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean Residue Import Value, Annual Trends

Figure 42: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean Residue Import Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 43: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean Residue Import Value, Annual Trends

Figure 43: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean Residue Import Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 44: Top 5 Countries Soybean Flour Import Value, Annual Trends

Figure 44: Top 5 Countries Soybean Flour Import Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 45: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean Flour Import Value, Annual Trends

Figure 45: Top 6 to 10 Countries Soybean Flour Import Value, Annual Trends

 

Figure 46: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean Flour Import Value, Annual Trends

Figure 46: Top 11 to 15 Countries Soybean Flour Import Value, Annual Trends

 

Section IV: U.S. Temporal Soybean Export

Figure 47: U.S. Share of Exports Relative to the World, Annual Trends

Figure 47: U.S. Share of Exports Relative to the World, Annual Trends

Section V: U.S. Spatial Soybean Export

Figure 48: U.S. Soybean Export Value to Top 5 Countries, Annual Trends

Figure 48: U.S. Soybean Export Value to Top 5 Countries, Annual Trends

 

Figure 49: U.S. Soybean Export Value to Top 6 to 10 Countries, Annual Trends

Figure 49: U.S. Soybean Export Value to Top 6 to 10 Countries, Annual Trends

 

Figure 50: U.S. Soybean Export Value to Top 11 to 15 Countries, Annual Trends

Figure 50: U.S. Soybean Export Value to Top 11 to 15 Countries, Annual Trends

 

Figure 51: U.S. Soybean, Seed Export Value to Top 5 Countries, Annual Trends

Figure 51: U.S. Soybean, Seed Export Value to Top 5 Countries, Annual Trends

 

Figure 52: U.S. Soybean, Seed Export Value to Top 6 to 10 Countries, Annual Trends

 Figure 52: U.S. Soybean, Seed Export Value to Top 6 to 10 Countries, Annual Trends

 

Figure 53: U.S. Soybean, Seed Export Value to Top 11 to 15 Countries, Annual Trends

Figure 53: U.S. Soybean, Seed Export Value to Top 11 to 15 Countries, Annual Trends

 

Figure 54: U.S. Soybean Oil Crude Export Value to Top 5 Countries, Annual Trends

Figure 54: U.S. Soybean Oil Crude Export Value to Top 5 Countries, Annual Trends

 

Figure 55: U.S. Soybean Oil Crude Export Value to Top 6 to 10 Countries, Annual Trends

Figure 55: U.S. Soybean Oil Crude Export Value to Top 6 to 10 Countries, Annual Trends

 

Figure 56: U.S. Soybean Oil Crude Export Value to Top 11 to 15 Countries, Annual Trends

Figure 56: U.S. Soybean Oil Crude Export Value to Top 11 to 15 Countries, Annual Trends

 

Figure 57: U.S. Soybean Oil Refined Export Value to Top 5 Countries, Annual Trends

Figure 57: U.S. Soybean Oil Refined Export Value to Top 5 Countries, Annual Trends

 

Figure 58: U.S. Soybean Oil Refined Export Value to Top 6 to 10 Countries, Annual Trends

Figure 58: U.S. Soybean Oil Refined Export Value to Top 6 to 10 Countries, Annual Trends

 

Figure 59: U.S. Soybean Oil Refined Export Value to Top 11 to 15 Countries, Annual Trends

Figure 59: U.S. Soybean Oil Refined Export Value to Top 11 to 15 Countries, Annual Trends

 

Figure 60: U.S. Soybean Residue Export Value to Top 5 Countries, Annual Trends

Figure 60: U.S. Soybean Residue Export Value to Top 5 Countries, Annual Trends

 

Figure 61: U.S. Soybean Residue Export Value to Top 6 to 10 Countries, Annual Trends

Figure 61: U.S. Soybean Residue Export Value to Top 6 to 10 Countries, Annual Trends

 

Figure 62: U.S. Soybean Residue Export Value to Top 11 to 15 Countries, Annual Trends

Figure 62: U.S. Soybean Residue Export Value to Top 11 to 15 Countries, Annual Trends

 

Figure 63: U.S. Soybean Flour Export Value to Top 5 Countries, Annual Trends

Figure 63: U.S. Soybean Flour Export Value to Top 5 Countries, Annual Trends

 

Figure 64: U.S. Soybean Flour Export Value to Top 6 to 10 Countries, Annual Trends

Figure 64: U.S. Soybean Flour Export Value to Top 6 to 10 Countries, Annual Trends

 

Figure 65: U.S. Soybean Flour Export Value to Top 11 to 15 Countries, Annual Trends

Figure 65: U.S. Soybean Flour Export Value to Top 11 to 15 Countries, Annual Trends

 

Section VI: U.S. State Level Soybean Export

Figure 66: U.S. Soybean Export Value of Top 5 States, Annual Trends

Figure 66: U.S. Soybean Export Value of Top 5 States, Annual Trends

 

Figure 67: U.S. Soybean Export Value of Top 6 to 10 States, Annual Trends

Figure 67: U.S. Soybean Export Value of Top 6 to 10 States, Annual Trends

 

Figure 68: U.S. Soybean Export Value of Top 11 to 15 States, Annual Trends

Figure 68: U.S. Soybean Export Value of Top 11 to 15 States, Annual Trends

 

Figure 69: U.S. Soybean Export Value of Top 16 to 20 States, Annual Trends

Figure 69: U.S. Soybean Export Value of Top 16 to 20 States, Annual Trends

 

Figure 70: U.S. Soybean Export Value of Top 21 to 25 States, Annual Trends

Figure 70: U.S. Soybean Export Value of Top 21 to 25 States, Annual Trends

 

Figure 71: U.S. Soybean Export Value of Top 26 to 30 States, Annual Trends

Figure 71: U.S. Soybean Export Value of Top 26 to 30 States, Annual Trends

 

Table 1: NDSU Estimate of U.S. State Soybean Grain Export Value, Annual Trends.

Reporter

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Alabama

49,392,902

53,381,418

124,668,707

119,458,101

113,582,129

96,466,269

72,386,119

77,762,651

52,786,085

Arkansas

596,148,177

709,761,752

1,109,898,433

914,056,087

1,014,409,247

788,347,767

801,265,558

906,182,168

661,862,886

Florida

3,765,225

2,171,448

6,185,430

7,185,457

8,554,909

4,729,801

5,127,140

2,189,143

1,666,539

Georgia

38,481,192

16,421,572

66,680,298

61,334,317

73,586,720

66,152,300

40,815,062

31,491,863

18,800,466

Illinois

2,728,267,437

2,475,450,182

3,175,558,000

3,097,558,770

3,371,591,259

2,683,744,235

3,254,794,085

3,052,350,584

2,700,661,679

Indiana

1,474,741,783

1,396,830,689

1,875,803,109

1,746,689,864

1,860,562,277

1,351,448,409

1,760,623,814

1,601,719,182

1,386,513,407

Iowa

2,757,085,048

2,736,858,741

3,417,212,339

2,729,554,351

2,998,307,820

2,646,814,660

2,969,181,259

2,723,238,639

2,158,279,331

Kansas

800,110,250

571,713,986

711,663,210

830,007,923

817,903,101

682,485,202

1,000,375,934

896,143,182

741,156,947

Kentucky

267,268,449

327,055,092

482,939,366

538,290,444

527,318,931

439,661,201

493,030,458

518,241,349

400,970,328

Louisiana

217,832,388

193,456,234

431,714,713

360,356,070

519,043,748

297,803,111

321,665,569

339,166,519

254,198,597

Maryland

94,115,735

100,271,342

179,567,233

116,393,117

137,820,435

100,683,175

111,921,500

120,682,953

92,058,190

Michigan

488,642,826

477,331,416

678,573,424

545,655,117

529,045,017

468,368,347

555,271,743

470,720,365

433,760,729

Minnesota

1,778,711,499

1,555,721,518

2,466,440,332

1,775,678,238

1,815,490,713

1,772,133,000

2,017,685,179

1,831,024,795

1,459,259,490

Mississippi

393,285,906

384,938,425

720,713,084

598,207,869

756,819,477

544,529,091

540,935,397

582,072,569

485,039,235

Missouri

1,221,212,188

1,086,209,507

1,298,515,539

1,309,796,844

1,568,853,765

889,670,988

1,462,660,953

1,441,065,787

1,020,369,381

Nebraska

1,461,070,892

1,433,155,369

1,653,922,321

1,604,512,966

1,691,944,169

1,420,129,242

1,618,625,340

1,538,223,634

890,089,246

New Jersey

12,815,654

18,069,350

28,863,642

21,338,540

26,969,714

15,277,966

18,989,780

21,528,741

15,632,374

New York

75,735,585

66,946,111

110,560,035

84,559,572

85,192,034

63,189,736

70,471,088

57,379,144

63,843,819

North Carolina

239,902,855

229,349,092

494,913,724

315,029,866

426,440,479

257,802,599

319,572,057

333,697,558

207,935,000

North Dakota

748,253,829

624,472,118

1,294,063,389

866,901,586

1,161,115,671

846,756,197

1,251,508,675

1,122,286,931

885,365,842

Ohio

1,256,900,466

1,294,533,668

1,708,147,360

1,430,415,391

1,532,221,716

1,164,702,811

1,430,163,251

1,259,449,514

1,132,158,630

Oklahoma

67,156,429

18,733,304

31,810,784

65,256,268

61,127,727

54,884,149

71,910,167

87,761,107

61,430,211

Pennsylvania

124,792,643

123,149,223

200,761,395

168,717,642

169,718,888

120,005,292

140,179,420

140,937,595

109,397,886

South Carolina

61,259,065

50,338,102

103,322,742

58,173,785

95,831,901

45,502,340

68,211,443

73,310,579

40,359,805

South Dakota

850,666,949

839,515,795

1,157,917,084

1,147,883,455

1,301,743,034

1,079,088,366

1,297,029,929

1,120,602,335

927,471,897

Tennessee

240,687,153

224,777,720

386,535,016

463,868,931

474,287,556

394,342,345

402,629,473

418,343,046

308,128,457

Texas

28,633,567

9,376,705

23,651,907

14,634,292

29,991,120

13,474,783

23,109,452

31,655,542

14,959,919

Virginia

83,579,059

121,641,274

193,175,746

148,669,751

151,204,397

100,986,835

113,958,886

126,798,837

95,318,044

West Virginia

3,214,579

4,629,405

7,937,969

6,533,449

8,011,165

5,891,864

6,995,585

6,857,895

5,637,313

Wisconsin

441,013,478

428,764,012

566,204,774

383,065,956

475,836,623

433,542,933

563,429,704

493,329,387

411,719,410

Table 2: FAS Estimate of U.S. State Soybean Grain Export Value, Annual Trends.

Reporter

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Alabama

428,913,454

210,782,592

59,364,625

29,503,499

221,409,827

264,969,749

287,981,379

209,525,965

154,048,982

Alaska

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

60,000

Arizona

.

5,944

.

.

304,842

221,509

.

.

.

Arkansas

38,577,159

58,469,109

36,998,625

45,311,903

26,953,714

8,637,979

7,101,822

22,123,753

15,149,539

California

17,730,485

6,354,428

1,249,508

2,772,092

9,757,607

16,410,061

36,936,831

22,134,534

4,262,074

Colorado

.

.

10,777

.

.

.

553,055

4,836,963

.

Connecticut

244,936,851

132,411,400

14,435,138

2,508

.

.

.

7,323

5,400

District of Columbia

58,193,233

.

.

.

369,651

.

.

.

.

Florida

287,302

17,291

101,050

260,338

143,577

388,841

317,075

359,325

620,082

Georgia

39,443,574

16,296,170

15,122,056

22,077,697

49,213,718

15,762,389

15,198,326

16,054,456

4,089,106

Idaho

226,711

541,449

158,434

92,755

170,847

29,683

.

261,338

717,598

Illinois

814,243,258

1,625,854,587

1,362,897,365

2,214,293,471

1,817,716,871

1,545,176,493

2,332,596,018

2,066,582,523

1,085,258,241

Indiana

14,686,144

28,699,888

6,213,448

7,537,154

14,734,668

17,513,467

13,326,299

49,528,290

19,149,433

Iowa

540,983,969

320,972,852

407,828,629

233,301,810

514,585,104

384,733,628

254,397,650

181,208,717

446,017,735

Kansas

129,478,630

109,464,637

610,325,254

850,842,098

395,292,804

167,803,856

241,910,523

403,491,950

489,182,199

Kentucky

2,080,386

5,007,883

1,972,876

1,177,347

6,195,332

1,019,129

2,623,310

957,863

8,283,346

Louisiana

8,764,338,491

8,291,470,163

12,843,402,733

9,511,056,196

10,670,343,934

8,989,056,848

10,929,406,459

10,612,210,335

8,586,069,559

Maine

110,354

165,257

554,568

665,455

866,142

262,116

462,777

209,331

176,307

Maryland

4,843,312

2,869,428

469,815

5,811,169

37,242,724

16,142,674

13,152,113

21,694,528

11,704,377

Massachusetts

.

.

70,029

.

33,603

13,264

39,032

20,739

.

Michigan

78,735,580

113,914,680

141,246,383

124,641,629

155,154,577

109,425,060

112,277,996

146,249,414

178,533,566

Minnesota

262,182,677

209,823,377

115,791,483

141,262,415

227,452,759

174,401,674

188,308,175

162,289,202

160,168,898

Mississippi

69,377,998

76,123,598

9,324,240

27,928,050

43,824,384

.

7,997,369

109,695,163

24,833,770

Missouri

175,253,679

120,381,361

155,468,801

138,178,418

161,337,031

164,373,988

215,189,400

190,678,016

150,160,873

Montana

174,848

.

.

.

.

.

7,046

.

168,027

Nebraska

359,487,907

560,407,597

639,226,332

422,040,296

518,221,910

314,912,665

337,945,415

335,468,101

505,992,006

Nevada

8,223

.

.

6,276,392

.

.

.

.

.

New Hampshire

.

.

.

.

59,000

.

.

9,511

.

New Jersey

74,843,698

77,469,875

90,107,061

76,090,588

73,649,989

60,990,057

92,267,379

79,923,599

101,438,203

New York

51,339,692

62,575,399

153,853,141

117,226,800

178,929,758

142,133,404

120,591,915

106,098,708

80,713,587

North Carolina

78,469,848

33,453,452

60,915,957

87,611,219

70,583,803

41,636,904

23,954,134

43,863,346

38,068,885

North Dakota

31,812,886

53,376,277

19,991,108

48,847,042

108,537,241

45,280,399

24,666,687

53,903,787

62,543,314

Ohio

341,798,999

530,788,095

884,125,989

1,216,348,179

1,728,523,660

1,702,615,896

2,078,849,724

1,755,642,873

1,520,681,385

Oklahoma

11,092,775

62,186,818

504,738

.

.

84,010

13,358,244

.

11,702,737

Oregon

388,110,204

182,637,110

402,945,102

381,553,051

278,127,532

35,292,036

166,150,223

54,831,859

100,464,378

Pennsylvania

11,151,344

11,133,835

3,824,207

.

69,929

.

92,349

239,090

241,921

Puerto Rico

.

2,833

.

.

.

.

.

.

12,000

South Carolina

4,412,186

10,266,898

12,730,788

17,710,192

30,981,211

34,984,700

22,038,202

41,847,137

44,359,662

South Dakota

4,526,024

139,056

17,845

12,721,442

27,691,643

19,720,204

34,289

4,996,254

43,312,266

Tennessee

41,219,134

24,745,148

9,321,634

5,057,994

3,254,442

6,833,051

10,898,192

2,361,000

649,837

Texas

864,505,095

501,918,706

435,627,903

380,427,005

227,044,932

170,329,849

351,426,337

123,319,547

23,003,627

Utah

.

.

.

.

.

.

12,081

.

.

Vermont

1,403,564

1,028,806

594,035

264,175

269,353

254,319

437,689

429,682

454,567

Virgin Islands

.

.

.

242,054

133,217

.

.

.

.

Virginia

427,597,503

327,187,228

699,793,313

726,250,755

784,315,854

586,236,529

698,594,949

595,598,525

699,439,644

Washington

4,136,462,553

3,691,428,435

5,477,640,695

4,637,625,695

5,382,152,728

3,775,920,088

4,048,962,755

3,787,834,446

2,388,833,273

West Virginia

.

.

.

.

203,220

.

.

6,826,399

.

Wisconsin

73,071,333

108,828,252

91,798,122

77,187,578

105,296,113

80,361,162

166,470,178

251,734,968

97,865,999

Table 3: ERS Estimate of U.S. State Soybean Grain Export Value, Annual Trends.

Reporter

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Alabama

73,954,793

49,880,016

100,062,807

118,202,214

121,590,926

95,129,081

92,216,032

74,298,255

58,119,228

Arkansas

656,092,494

667,771,548

1,152,546,130

940,414,269

916,393,282

785,441,985

865,448,375

870,569,562

647,443,142

Florida

4,036,807

2,483,538

4,594,726

6,555,230

8,268,136

5,948,273

5,431,108

3,334,028

1,686,045

Georgia

61,774,041

25,405,273

45,494,532

61,742,843

70,200,264

63,459,255

58,536,299

34,597,922

22,484,895

Illinois

2,554,986,187

2,527,639,054

3,398,123,200

2,727,309,735

3,548,909,304

2,709,289,088

3,120,453,270

3,031,785,096

2,580,703,101

Indiana

1,523,260,747

1,450,088,039

1,971,017,449

1,633,199,461

2,005,419,264

1,505,921,700

1,669,883,295

1,648,609,538

1,313,500,996

Iowa

2,815,191,908

2,562,979,009

3,572,049,324

2,874,983,078

3,057,640,118

2,459,174,009

3,239,975,779

2,750,615,573

2,161,213,295

Kansas

903,962,842

578,026,928

686,912,168

760,958,611

791,467,166

625,146,168

1,000,108,456

896,886,997

707,570,180

Kentucky

322,737,838

306,157,628

396,887,192

508,286,156

544,727,467

449,025,120

481,443,407

458,572,572

401,368,894

Louisiana

245,762,017

202,695,127

413,118,148

370,329,977

464,737,281

355,171,808

313,242,546

356,290,982

243,526,731

Maryland

100,644,748

89,329,281

152,026,467

134,034,197

129,302,126

103,549,726

113,928,474

112,077,039

91,821,259

Michigan

467,952,282

483,227,066

677,407,600

540,205,249

537,774,238

463,530,158

559,896,674

511,953,226

398,267,086

Minnesota

1,679,340,585

1,561,243,877

2,344,476,592

2,010,695,810

1,912,360,654

1,566,283,798

2,071,758,552

1,839,744,706

1,468,819,668

Mississippi

459,058,852

389,375,792

711,713,581

625,237,467

687,432,296

538,833,562

587,601,480

564,757,415

460,410,514

Missouri

1,236,163,204

1,251,885,693

1,303,713,754

1,299,608,358

1,461,805,669

1,072,389,199

1,193,439,972

1,427,604,018

1,089,777,361

Nebraska

1,248,904,459

1,601,787,258

1,789,207,269

1,480,422,594

1,712,132,436

1,367,513,294

1,717,768,259

1,548,854,368

1,218,671,884

New Jersey

15,793,422

14,323,363

25,714,741

22,838,294

24,409,352

18,185,403

18,472,958

19,622,087

15,329,284

New York

67,455,851

66,266,797

96,575,196

91,148,007

87,536,000

64,093,153

71,893,653

59,613,716

53,152,044

North Carolina

311,485,890

248,756,891

384,247,762

391,873,231

380,345,371

337,575,309

273,837,455

354,968,176

229,042,615

North Dakota

669,967,641

695,879,713

1,146,629,155

933,591,300

1,165,768,640

771,725,190

1,272,664,285

1,053,397,508

887,896,380

Ohio

1,243,966,767

1,092,616,889

1,760,589,088

1,606,358,670

1,498,114,639

1,212,274,421

1,389,462,795

1,301,332,017

1,063,309,023

Oklahoma

69,354,261

39,161,395

28,394,061

48,691,072

64,952,907

52,593,577

69,967,399

79,912,523

65,642,938

Pennsylvania

118,894,400

114,019,661

177,057,054

175,045,246

172,166,347

126,586,469

138,611,215

135,445,312

105,340,083

South Carolina

71,052,952

54,267,104

86,065,742

74,986,201

81,555,217

62,829,914

62,617,123

70,079,757

51,127,503

South Dakota

836,118,289

766,202,177

1,176,848,188

1,087,858,191

1,300,941,680

1,041,864,717

1,363,891,852

1,172,612,686

899,135,824

Tennessee

267,913,182

249,894,559

322,762,121

395,358,683

487,978,412

424,184,076

370,266,723

396,135,014

299,397,470

Texas

28,720,975

16,132,372

19,080,472

17,368,085

24,156,890

18,162,622

20,623,714

28,042,931

18,797,904

Virginia

97,855,652

94,783,928

173,307,690

156,845,329

151,542,174

109,733,219

115,564,291

116,139,028

96,696,633

West Virginia

3,781,251

3,554,284

6,813,451

6,867,591

7,605,423

6,116,857

6,625,548

6,577,270

5,522,764

Wisconsin

417,306,169

352,698,466

595,204,686

424,123,118

402,902,749

413,427,748

536,137,009

495,676,864

379,483,339

Table 4: NDSU, FAS and ERS Soybean Grain Export Value for North Dakota.

Year

NDSU

FAS

ERS

2004

176,417,880

16,537,825

172,576,480

2005

206,445,024

14,995,466

176,105,139

2006

246,560,080

15,204,638

249,537,724

2007

388,443,847

26,299,636

378,063,952

2008

539,176,689

31,871,809

557,316,513

2009

550,721,268

24,744,387

573,534,627

2010

748,253,829

31,812,886

669,967,641

2011

624,472,118

53,376,277

695,879,713

2012

1,294,063,389

19,991,108

1,146,629,155

2013

866,901,586

48,847,042

933,591,300

2014

1,161,115,671

108,537,241

1,165,768,640

2015

846,756,197

45,280,399

771,725,190

2016

1,251,508,675

24,666,687

1,272,664,285

2017

1,122,286,931

53,903,787

1,053,397,508

2018

885,365,842

62,543,314

887,896,380


1 The efficiency concept allows producers to evaluate input resources (cost) to produce output (revenue). The producers’ efficiency will improve through time with adoption of innovative technologies to minimize cost and maximize revenue.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to the North Dakota Soybean Council and North Dakota Soybean Growers’ Association for their support, suggestions, comments and several days of discussion during the project. Thanks to Ellen Crawford for editorial changes, Deb Tanner for formatting and NDSU Extension publication team. All views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions and interest of the supporting organizations or NDSU.

Creative Commons License
Feel free to use and share this content, but please do so under the conditions of our Creative Commons license and our Rules for Use. Thanks.