Economic Aspects of Using Grain Alcohol, As a Motor Fuel, with Emphasis on By-Product Feed Markets R

ISU Economic Report Series Economics

6-1977 Economic Aspects Of Using Grain Alcohol, As A Motor Fuel, With Emphasis On By-Product Feed Markets R. N, Wisner Iowa State University

J. O. Gidel Iowa State University

Follow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/econ_las_economicreports Part of the Agribusiness Commons, Agricultural and Resource Economics Commons, Growth and Development Commons, and the Management Sciences and Quantitative Methods Commons

Recommended Citation Wisner, R. N, and Gidel, J. O., "Economic Aspects Of Using Grain Alcohol, As A Motor Fuel, With Emphasis On By-Product Feed Markets" (1977). ISU Economic Report Series. 23. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/econ_las_economicreports/23

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Economics at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in ISU Economic Report Series by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Economic Aspects Of Using Grain Alcohol, As A Motor Fuel, With Emphasis On By-Product Feed Markets

Abstract The ce onomic feasibility of a grain alcohol motor fuel program is affected by relative prices of grain and gasoline, alcohol manufacturing costs, and the impact of increased by-product feed production on soybean meal and soybean prices. This study examined potential impacts on corn, soybean and soybean meal prices from use of alcohol-gasoline motor fuel blends at six different state, regional and national levels-...

Disciplines Agribusiness | Agricultural and Resource Economics | Growth and Development | Management Sciences and Quantitative Methods

This article is available at Iowa State University Digital Repository: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/econ_las_economicreports/23 ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF USING GRAIN ALCOHOL AS A

MOTOR FUEL, WITH EMPHASIS ON BY-PRODUCT

FEED MARKETS

R* N» Wlsner and J« 0« Gldel

No. a

June 1977 11

CONTENTS Section Page !• Background and General Objectives 1 — Description .of'By-Product Feeds from Alcohol Fermentation 3 -- Review of Prwious Research 4 — Scope of Present Study j - ' 6

II. Present and Projected Domestic Markets for High-Protein Feeds .... 7 " Level of Alcohol' Prodtjctioii that Could be Supported by Growth in Meal Demand -.., 13 -- potential Growth in Demand for High-Protein Feeds in Iowa and Neighboring States 15

III. Gasoline Requirements in Agriculture — Present and Future 17 — Gasoline Usage Trends" for Agriculture in Iowa land Neighboring States 22

IV. Gasoline Usage Trends — Non-Agricultural '11.-. ,. 24 — Gasoline Usage in the Five^State Area l." *28 — Sunmary' of 1980 and 1985 Gasoline Usage Prajections, Com Requirements and By-Product Feed Production Under Various Levels of "Gasohol" Programs 30

V. Com Requirements and Impact on Cora Prices 31

VI, Increase in High-Protein Feed Supplies 33 — Effect of increased Distillers pried Grains Supply on High-Protein Feed Prices 33 — Effect on Distillers Dried Grain Prices 36 — Effect on Soybean Meal Prices 37 — Summary of Potential Effects on Protein Meal Markets 38

VII. Potential Export Markets for Distillers Dried Grains 41

VIII. Relationship Between Com Prices, Gasoline Prices, Distillers Dried Grain Prices and Economic Feasibility of a Gasoline- Alcohol Fuel Program 46

IX. Possible Acreage Adjustments 48 X. Conclusions, Limitations and Developments that Might Alter "Gasohol" Feasibility 49 — Areas for Potential Future Research 51' — Limitations of the Study 52 ili

CONTENTS (cont.)

gage Appendix I Shares of U.S. Livestock tod Poultry Production in the Five-State Area, and Projected Shares by State in 1980 and 1985 54 Appendix II Estimates of Agricultural Gasoline Usage by States in the Study Region 56 Appendix III Trends in Total Gasoline Usage, U.S. and the Five-State Study Region, 1956 to 1973 and Regression Analysis of Trends in Usage 62 Appendix IV Price Forecasting Equation for Distillers Dried Grains 73 Appendix V U.S. Exports of Corn By-product Feeds to Selected Countries 1950 to 1973 and Projected Trends to 1980 75 Appendix VI. Matrix of Gasoline-Alcohol Blended Fuel Costs Under Alternative Corn, Gasoline and By-product Feed Prices i 82

Bibliography 107 IV

TABLES

Table No. Page

1 Estimated Use of Selected High-Protein Feed Ingredients for Domestic Feeding in ^ousands of Tons, Numbers of High-Protein Consuming Animal Units Fed Annually, and Approximate Protein Feeding Rates-in Pounds of 44 Percent Protein Soybean Meal Equivalent per Animal Unit, 1952 to 1974 . . ... 9

2 Projected U.S. Livestockand Poultry Production, and High-Protein Consuming Animal. Units in 1980 and 1985, a,nd Comparisons with 19,60 and 1972; 12 3 Projected U.S. High-Protein Feed Requir^ents in 1980 and 1985, and Comparisons with 1973, in 44 Percent ,Protein Equivalent 14

i ' I • 4 Prpjected High-Protein Consuming Animal Units and Soybean Meal. Requirements in 1980 and 1985, and Comparisons with 1973 in the Five-State Study Region 16

5 U.S. Farm Use of Petroleum Fuels in Millions of Gallons, 1947 to 1970, by Types of Use 17

6 Percentage Shares of Total U.S. Tractor Sales by Horsepower Range, 1966 to 1973 and Projections to 1980 18

7 . Percentage Shares of Total Iowa Tractor Sales by •. Horsepower Category,r l964rl973 20 8 Inventory of U.S. Wheel Tractors by Age ,and Fuel Type, 1970 and Projected to 1980 21 9 Estimated Fuel Consumption in Millions of Gallons by Types of Power Unit, the Cornbelt and U.S., 1973 ...... 22

10 Trends in Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Usage in Farm Production in the Five-State Midwest Region, and Projections to 1980 and 1985 in Millions of Gallons .. 25

H U.S. Domestic Gasoline Usage by Type of Use, 1956- 1974, in Millions of Gallons per Year 27

Total Annual Gasoline Usage in Iowa and Neighboring States, 1953 to 1973, in Millions of Gallons 29 TABLES (cont.)

Table No« Page

13 Summary of Projected 1980 and 1985 Gasoline Usage for Agricultural and All Purposes in Iowa, the Five-State Region and the United States 30

14 Projected Quantities of Alcohol Required for Selected Levels of "Gasohol" Programs, Amoiint of Corn Needed, and Percentages of the Potential Corn Crop Required for Alcohol Fuel Production 32

15 Projected Quantities of By-Product Feeds Produced in 1980 and 1985 Under Alternative Levels of "Gasohol" Programs, In Thousands of Tons and Percentages of 1973-74 Domestic High-Protein Feed Usage 34

16 Potential Impact of Alternative Levels of "Gasohol" Programs on Prices for Distillers Dried Grains, Soybean Meal and Soybeans in 1980, Before Including Growth in Demand for High- Protein Feeds 39

17 U.S. Corn By-Product Exports, 1950 Through 1972 42

18 Approximate U.S. Exports of Com Distillers Dried Grains, 1967-68 Through 1972-73 43

19 U.S. Export Shares of Corn By-Product Feeds by Area of Destination, Selected Years 43

20 Millions of Head of Cattle and Hogs in Italy, West Germany, United Kingdom, Belgium and the Netherlands, Selected Years, and Projections to 1980 by Linear Regression 45

FIGURES

Estimated and Projected Sales of Diesel-Powered Combines as a Percent of the U.S. Total ...... 19 ABSTRACT

The economic feasibility of a grain alcohol motor fuel program is affected by relative prices of grain and gasoline, alcohol manufacturing

costs, and the impact of increased by-product feed production on soybean meal and soybean prices. This study examined potential impacts on corn, soybean and soybean meal prices from use of alcohol-gasoline motor fuel blends at six different state, regional and national levels- With a rapid shift to diesel powered farm equipment, alcohol fuel programs only for agri* cultural production would be expected to have slight to moderate effects on com and soybean prices. Such programs for both agricultural and non- agricultural gasoline usage would be expected to cause moderate to large effects on com and soybean markets, with corn prices rising and soybean prices declining. At prices prevailing in 1974-75, a subsidy of 8 to 11

cents per gallon was estimated to be needed to make 10 percent alcohol- 90 percent gasoline blends equal in cost to regular grade gasoline. A matrix was developed showing alcohol-gasoline blended fuel costs at alternative gasoline, corn and by-product feed prices. This information should aid decision makers in determining what sets of conditions would make an alcohol fuel program economically feasible. ECONOMIC .ASPECTS OF USING.GRAIN ALCOHOL,AS A MOTOR FUEL,

WITH EMPHASIS ON BY-PRODUCT FEED MARKETS

Report .on a Research Project Sponsored by the Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station and the Iowa Development Commission

I. BACKGROUND AND GENERAL OBJECTIVES

With increasing concern over the adequacy of domestic energy supplies in

the last few years and with a desire to expand.markets •for farm products,

attention has .recently been focused on the potential for converting corn or

other grains into alcohol to.be used as, a blend with gasoline. Such a blend

is technically feasible and if used commercially, would expand available .

supplies of motor fuel for agricultural and/or non-agricultural purposes. It would., also shift a portion of the total fuel supply from non-renewable to re newable sources. Groups from, several midwestern states have expressed interest

in exploring, this alterative, either as a means of assisting the nation in becoming more self-sufficient in_ energy or as a way of helping to assure that agriculture has adequate motor fuel supplies.

The possibilities of using.grain alcohol as-a motor fuel in the U.S. were studied.-extensively .in the.l930's, partly due-,to concern over dwindling petroleum reseip/es but more importantly-as a way of utilizing surplus grain production, Economc conditions have changed dramatically since the 1930's, with sharply higher prices of petroleum and other fuels as-well as .grain, and with greatly increased demands for energy. In view of the 1973-75 energy situation, it seemed appropriate to re-examine certain economic impacts of - 2 -

utilizing grain alcohol as a motor fuel. The primary focal point of this study

was to analyze the potential impact of expanded by-product feeds (distillers

dried grains and solubles) produced in the alcohol fermentation process upon

markets for soybean meal and hence soybeans. If alcohol were produced in large

volumes, the distillers dried grains and solubles would compete to some extent

with soybean meal and thus could affect soybean prices. This is an economic

impact that had not been studied extensively since the 1930's. Prices at which

increased supplies of by-product feeds could be sold would also affect the

economics of a "gasohol" program directly. Prices at v^ich these, by-products

could be sold would provide a credit against other expenses of alcohol pro

duction and would lower the net cost per gallon.

The exact economic impact of a grain alcohol fuel program (hereafter

referred to as a "gasohol" program) on soybeans and soybean meal would depend

on several conditions including (1) whether or not the gasoline-alcohol blend

is to be used for both agricultural and non-ftgricultural motor fuels, (2) whether

it is used nationwide or in a limited geographical area, (3) likely fuel re

quirements in future years and (4) probable growth in the demand for by-product

feeds during the period required for establishment of such a program. For this

reason, the study involved an intensive look at present and potential growth

in U.S. and midwest livestock feeding, trends in exports of grain by-product

feeds, and trends in agricultural and non-agricultural gasoline usage. The

study also involved development of a matrix showing approximate costs per gallon

for an alcohol-gasoline fuel mixture at varying levels of gasoline, com and by-product feed prices. The matrix is intended to assist decision-makers in evaluating the economic potential for a "gasohol program" under alternative economic conditions. 3 -

' Description• of BY"Product Feeds from AlcoKol Fenneritatioii —^ In recent'years^ around 33 million bushels of com (less than one percent

ofia normal crop) have been used domestically in the production of alcohol.

The production process involves fermentation of starch from the com into, alcohol through the action of certain yeasts. Nearly all of the resulting alcohol currently is used in the beverage and pharmaceutical industries. ' When the fermentation'process is completed, the remaining products are known com mercially as distillers dried grains," distillers dried solubles, or distillers dried grains and solubles; They-are commonly used as protein concentrates in livestock and^poultry feeding.

The distillers dried grains are obtained by screening off the solid materials from the stillage -and drying them. The remaining stillage then is evaporated to obtain"distillers dried solubles. Distillers dried grains and solubles are the material that results if the two products are not separated, and is often identified by the trade term, "distillers dried grains (dark),"

Distillers-dried grains produced from com contain approximately 22 to 24 percent digestable protein, with-fat and fiber contients of 10 to 11 percent. They are satisfactory as a protein supplement for dairy and beef cattle as well as sheep, and can be -used to a limited extent as a grain substitute for these classes of livestock,- When mixed with dried solubles, distillers dried grains can be used in limited amounts as protein supplements for swine. High fiber content and limited availability of certain amino-acids somewhat limit the use of either distillers dried grains or dried grains ^th solubles for poultry feed, although the dried grains with solubles can provide an, important source

1/ Technical information in this section is based on Rudolph Seiden, . Handbook of Feedstuffs (Springer Publishing Co,)'New York, 1957, pp. 158-160, and Morrison, Feeds and Feeding (Morrison Publishing ' Co., Ithaca, N.Y.), 1956. - 4 -

of vitamins and unidentified growth factors when used in recommended amounts. Distillers dried solubles are relatively high in vitamin content, with less fat and fiber than distillers dried grains, and nearly the same protein content. The dried solubles can be used effectively as feed for poultry and hogs, as well as other types of livestock.

Review of Previous Research In 1932 the Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station established an Iowa Corn Research Institute, with one of its assignments being to study the potential for use of gasoline-alcohol fuel blends utilizing grain alcohol. One con clusion from the studies of the 1930's was that gasoline-alcohol blends would not be competitive with conventional gasoline unless they were subsidized in some way, or unless price relationships changed considerably. These conclusions were based on extensive studies of operating and overhead costs in fermentation plants, retail prices for regular grade gasoline and prevailing com prices. The studies also indicated that increased by-product feed production, with a 10 percent gasoline-alcohol blend being used nationally for agricultural and non-agricultural motor fuel would double the nation's supply of high-protein feeds. However, because of a very rapid growth in demand for such feeds, it was estimated that the impact on high protein feed prices would not be too serious. 3/ At that time, soybean meal was only a very minor source of high-

2/ R. H. Harms, "The Use of Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles in Feeds for Egg Production," Proceedings. Distillers Feed Research Council. Vol. 25, March 31, 1970, pp. 34-40 and J. R. Couch, "Current Status of Unidentified Growth Factors in Distillers Feeds," Proceedings, Distillers Feed Research Council, Vol. 26, March 31, 1971. 3/ Geoffrey Shepherd, William K. McPherson, Lynn T. Brown and Ralph M, Hlxon, "Power Alcohol from Farm Products: Its Chemistry, Engineering and Economics," Contributions from Iowa Corn Research Institute. Iowa Agricultural Experi ment Station, April 2, 1940. John J. Dalton, "Some Economic Aspects of a Corn-Alcohol Fuel Program," Master of Science Thesis (Iowa State College: Ames, Iowa), 1933, - 5 -

protein feed. These same basic conclusions were confirmed by other studies of the 1930's and early 1940's, —^

More recent estimates of the cost of producing gasoline-alcohol blends have been developed by Kremer, —^ Lionel Arnold, —^ Dwight L. Miller and others. —^ These studies note that by-product feed prices would be a significant influence

on the net cost per gallon of gasoline-alcohol produced and that gasoline-

alcohol blends are technically feasible as a motor fuel in conventional gasoline

engines•

Costs for processing and dehydration of alcohol from com grain, exclusive of raw materials and by-product credits, were estimated at 10,3 to 14,6 cents

per gallon in 1933, 15 to 22 cents for new plants in 1948, 32 cents in 1960, ~ and 40.1 cents in 1972. —^ These and other studies noted that alcohol could be made from a wide

range of agricultural products in addition to com. The list includes molasses, the whole corn plant, wheat, barley, wood wastes, com cobs, sugar

4/ Leo M, Christensen (From the Chemical Foundation of Kansas City), "The Use of Com in the Fermentation Industries," Contribution from Iowa Corn Research Institute. Vol. I, pp. 192-201. 5/ L. A. Kremer, "Economics of the Production of Ethanol," Master of Science thesis (Iowa State College; Ames, Iowa) 1949, and L. K. Arnold and L. A. Kremer, "Corn as a Raw Material for Ethyl Alcohol," Iowa Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin 167 (Iowa State College; Ames, Iowa), March 15, 1950. 6/ L. K. Arnold, "Use Surplus Corn for Alcohol?", Iowa Farm Science, Vol. 14, No. 8, February 1960, pp. 15-16. 2J D. L. Miller, "Com and Its Uses," Paper presented at the National Com Growers Association Annual Meeting, Des Moines, Icwa, April 5, 1972. 8/ J, J. Dalton, op. cit»^ p. 40 9/ L. K. Arnold and L. A. Kremer, op^ cit., pp. 37-46 12/ L. K. Amold, op. cit. .11/ D. L. Miller, op. cit. p. 20 - 6 -

Cane, oat hulls, cotton seed hulls, potatoes and grain sorghum. Pro cessing expenses as well as costs of the raw materials were estimated to vary

widely among these materials.

Scope of Present Study To estimate the impact of a "gasohol" program on markets for soybean meal and soybeans, it was first necessary to determine how extensive such a program would be, including the gallons of alcohol required and the tons of by-product feeds that would be produced under the program. The impacts frcsn six alternative levels of "gasohol" programs were examined in this study; (1) "gasohol" used only in Iowa agriculture, (2) "gasohol" used for all agri cultural and non-agricultural gasoline uses in Iowa, (3) "gasohol" used in agriculture in a five-state midwestem region including Iowa, (4) "gasohol" used for all agricultural and non-agricultural gasoline uses in a five-state midwestem region (5) "gasohol" used for all gasoline needs of U.S. agricul ture and (6) "gasohol" used for all gasoline needs of the United States. "Gasohol" was defined here as a 10 percent alcohol-90 percent gasoline blend,

since this appears to be about the minimum alcohol content that would be technically feasible. The five-state midwestem region included in the analysis was composed of Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri and Nebraska.

The analysis involved estimation of current gasoline usage in agriculture

/"MaT.t v«^i.\ * .... 1 r. PH y reeascocKs, Journal of Commerce searched. Journal? n' of CommerceSkartvedt,(New York,"MethanolMay 21 Use1974-as"Uaet-iaAuto Fuelr Become Fuel for Vehicl^Q " j o -i ' Waste Could

Conference, Manhattan, Kansas, November 1971, - 7 -

in the selected geographic areas and projections of expected future gasoline

needs, taking into account potential expansions in agricultural output and trends toward greater use of diesel-powered farm equipment. It also required

an analysis of present and potential markets for high-protein feeds, and the

pontential impact of specified percentage changes in distillers dried grain

supplies on soybean meal prices. For analytical purposes, it was assumed that five to ten years would be required for a "gasohol" program to reach full

production levels. The time lag would be due partly to lags in construction of additional fermentation plants. Thus, fuel needs and potential by-product feed market demands were projected to 1980 and 1985 for analytical purposes#

II. PRESENT AND PROJECTED DOMESTIC MARKETS. FOR HIGH-PROTEIN FEEDS

Table 1 shows the trend in domestic use of various bigh-protein feeds since 1952, the approximate amount fed per animal unit, and the total number of high-protein consuming animal units fed annually. The animal unit series is a weighted total of all classes of livestock and poultry, and is designed to convert the various classes into the approximately equivalent number of dairy cows, for feed demand purposes* Livestock categories accounting for the lar gest numbers of animal units in series, in order of importance are; (1) hogs, (2) layers, (3) broilers, (4) cattle on feed and (5) dairy cows. In recent years, percentages of total high-protein feed consumption accounted for by various classes of livestock have been as follows: hogs, 23 percent; layers, 18 percent; broilers, 14 percent; dairy cows, 11.5 percent; cattle on feed, 10 percent; turkeys, 6 percent; other classes of livestock and use in pet foods, 18 percent.

The high-protein consuming animal units series is explained and weighting coefficients for various livestock and poultry classes are given in George L. Allen, Earl F. Hodges and Margaret Devers, Livestock-Feed RelaM'on^hinQ National and State, Statistical Bulletin No. 53, U.S. Department of ^ Agriculture; Washington, D.C., June 1974. - 8 -

Numbers of high-protein consuming animal units increased irregularly from the mid-1950's until 1970. In the 1971-74 period (as shown in Table 1) animal units declined moderately due to a cyclical downturn in both cattle and hog feeding, and a slight decline in the nation's dairy cow herdProtein feeding rates per animal rose sharply from 1954 through 1969, as the cattle and poultry feeding industries became commercialized and as hog and dairy producers adjusted rations to near-optimum protein levels. Average feeding rates per head rose approximately 56 percent during this period. Since 1969, protein feeding rates have dec lined slightly in response to the higher level of soybean meal prices and other factors. Soybean meal's share of the total tonnage of high-protein feeds was about 65 percent in 1954 and has remained near this level in recent years. Its share of the total tonnage, in 44 percent protein meal equivalent.would be somewhat higher due to the lower protein content of several other feed ingredients including grain by-product feeds. Feeding of distillers dried grains, as shown in Table 1, has more than doubled since 1952. Projected feed use for 1974-75 is nearly 2.6 times the level of 22 years earlier. Even so, the portion of the total high-protein feed supply accounted for by distillers dried grains is only 1.5 percent at the present time. The current level of feeding represents a slight gain from its 0.8 percent share in 195-2. Domestic feeding of other oilseed meals de clined moderately over the past 22 years, due to reduced supplies of cotton seed meal, linseed meal and copra meal. Animal protein meal supplies such as meat meal and tankage have exhibited a cyclical supply pattern corresponding to cyclical changes in livestock production. Thus, the increase in avail ability of domestic feed supplies over the last two decades has come primarily from soybean meal and grain protein meals. Exact data are not available on —1976-77 but high-proteinremained considerablyconsuming belowanimalpeakunitslevels increasedof themodestlyearly 1970*s.in 1975-76 and ( f Table 1. Estimated Use of Selected High-Protein Feed Ingredients for Domestic Feeding in Thousands of Tons, Numbers of High-Protein Consuming Animal Units Fed Annually, and Approximate Protein Feeding Rates in Pounds of 44% Protein Soybean Meal Equivalent per Animal Unit, 1952 to 1974

Year .Soybean Distillers Other Other Grain Animal Millions •• Approxii Beginning Meal • Dried Oilseed Protein Protein of Feeding October 1 Grains Meals Meals ^ Ingredients a/ Animal • Pounds i (000 tons') (000 tons) (000 tons) (000.. tons) (000 tons) Units , ! Animal 1 1952 5,510 186 3,406 1,179 2,797 • , 96.1 240 ' 1953 . 4,965 - 244 J 3,711 1,229 3,156 97.0 * 240 1954 5,428 251 3,093 1,272 - '2,999 97,1 239 1955 6,042 286 3,137 1,318 - 3,234 99,6 253 1956 7,093 290 2,931 1,246 3,004 : 97.1 ' 272 1957 7,962 280 2,804 1,255 '2,823 96.7 286 1958 . 8,938 . 342 2,836 1,277 • 2,965 . 99.5 ' 304 1959 8,450 , 359 -• 2,827 1,381 ,3,002 97,5 • 302 ' 1960 8,837 352 - 3,li3 1,347 '• 3,135 99.2 312 • 1961 9,232 380 3,144 '1,503 3,215 . 99,4 325 1962 - 9,556 362 3,083 1,546 3,310 100.9 329 1963 . 9,138 382 3,195 1,644 3,463 100.4 329 1964 9,236 409 3,18'6 ,1,701 3,308 98.8 335 1965 10,274 426 3,064 ,1,785 3,317 100.0 350 • 1966 10,820 425 2,208 1,810 3,575 103,4 344 VO 1967 10,753 • 447 1,897 1,389 3,792 102,9 341. 1968 11,525 437 2,529 1,296 , 3,476 104.1 352 1969 13,582 ' 428 2,181 1,361 3,161 105.2 375 1970 13,467 382 ' 2,223 1,597 - 3,238 107,6 369 1971 13,173 404 2,423 1,436 3,281 106,9 369 1972 . 11,972 428 2,717 1,596 2,881 105,2 348 1973 13,853 • 456 2,412 1,658 2,867 ' 103,9 362 Proj. 1974 12,200 475 2,365 1,600 •2,800 94,0 370 a/ Tankage,.meat meal, fish meal and dried milk products. Sources: U.S Department of Agriculture, Feed Statistics Through 1966, Statistical Bulletin No. 410; Washington, D.C;, September 1967; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Supplement for 1971 to Feed Statistics; Washington, D.C,, July 1972; George C. Allen-and Earl F, Hogdes and Margaret Devers, Livestock-Feed Relationships -- National and State, Statistical Bulletin No, 530, U,S. Department of Agriculture; Washington, D.C., June 1974; and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Feed Situation; Washington, D.C., November 1974, 10 -

the use of urea as a source of protein for xuminants, but it appears that use of this ingredient in cattle feeding has increased substantially since 1970. Urea also is used as a nitrogen fertilizer ingredient, and sharply higher prices since 1973 as a result of increased fertilizer demand are expected to curtail further expansion in its use as livestock feed in the years ahead.

In the next five to ten years, it seems reasonable to expect a leveling off of the upward trend in protein feeding rates per animal unit. With computer ized ration formulations being used extensively in the feed manufacturing industry and with the nutritional knowledge of today's livestock producers, it appears that average protein feeding rates are close to optimum levels. It also appears that the downward trend in supplies of other oilseed meals is approaching an end, due to an anticipated stabilizing of demand for products from which those oilseed meals are made. For these reasons, the main source of growth in domestic demand for soybean meal, distillers dried grains and other high-protein feeds in the years ahead is expected to come from expanded livestock and poultry production.

To obtain an estimate of potential growth in demand for protein meals in

1980 and 1985, recent U.S. Department of Agriculture projections of demand for livestock and poultry products were used as a base. Demands for the finished products were converted into equivalent production of live animals and birds, using procedures developed in a recent Iowa State University study,

The U.S. Department of Agriculture projections were based on an analysis of the demand for agricultural products at the national level and likely

C. P. Baumel, R. N. Wisner,V. E. Fenton, D. L. Lifferth and J. J. Miller, "Projected Quantities of Grain and Fertilizer Requiring Transportation Services in Iowa in 1979-80 and 1984-85, by Counties," CARD Report 51. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, (Ames, Iowa), November 1974. - 11 -

demand levels in 1980 and 1985. —^ The projections were developed just before the 1974-75 business recession and energy shortage situation emerged. Prob

ably the most important assimption behind the projections is that the down

turn in business activity is a temporary cyclical development and that energy

supplies will be adequate to permit a resumption of the upward trend in em

ployment, gross national product and real consumer income in the next 5 to 10 years at rates only slightly less than those of the 1960's and early 1970's.

That assumption seems reasonable in view of current world petroleum supplies

and policy measures being taken to stimulate the U.S. economy.

Other important assxmiptions behind the projections include: (1) a U.S. population of 233.7 million people by 1985> compared with approximately 210 - million in calendar year 1974, (2) absence of major wars and (3) approximately normal weather patterns in important UlS, and non-U.S. grain producing regions. •TheLU.S. Department of Agriculture projections are based on two alternative levels of export demand for grains and oilseeds: (1) a low export alternative in which corn exports, would.recover to the peak 1972-73' and 1973-74 levels by 1985, and soybean exports would rise from 1973-74 levels by 38 percent, and (2) a high export , level in which com exports in 1980 and 1985 would exceed 1973-74 exports by 27 and 33 percent, respectively and-soybeans by 71'and 114 percent.. Given these export demand:levels, potential domestic grain supplies were believed to be adequate to meet the projected demands for livestock and poultry

production. , . j -r • - 15/ David W'. Culver, '.'Possible Directions For Farm Production, Prices and Income, paper presented at the 1973 National Agricultural Outlook Conference; Washington, D;C., February 21, 1973; George W. Kromer, U.S. Soybean Economy in the 1980's,"Fats and Oils Situation. Economic Research Service, U.S.- Department of Agriculture; Washington, D.C., at the 1973 National Agricultural Outlook"OutlookConference;for Feed,"Washington,paper presentedD.C., ?QQnu * "United States and World Fertilizer Outlook, Afir.IIIEcon. ^Report ' EconomicNo. 257:Research-Service,Washington, D.C.,U.S.MayDepartment1974. of Agriculture, - 12 -

Projected levels of U.S. livestock and poultry production, high protein

consuming animal units in 1980 and 1985, and comparisons with 1972 are shown

in Table 2.

Table 2. Projected U.S. Livestock and Poultry Production, and High-Protein Consuming Animal Units in 1980 and 1985, and Comparisons with 1960 and 1972 a/

1960 1972 1980 1985 (millions of head)

Dairy Cows 19.3 11.7 11,5 11.5 Beef Cows 26.3 41.1 52.5 58.6 Hogs Marketed 88.4 91.5 93.4 101.1 Fed Cattle Marketed 13.0 27.8 34.0 38.0 Hens 6t Pullets 295.3 305.4 307.7 319.3 Broilers 1,794.9 3,074.7 3,708.0 4,126,2 Turkeys Raised 84.5 128,8 158.8 175.2 Sheep and Lambs 22.6 14,4 6.1 5.2 High-Protein Consuming Animal Units 99.2 105.2 118.6 128,1

a/ Based on Baumel, Wisner, Fenton, Lifferth and Miller, "Projected Quantities of Grain and Fertilizer Requiring Transportation Services, in Iowa in 1979-80 and 1984-85, by Counties," CARD Report 51, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University (Ames, Iowa), November 1974. Projected fed cattle marketings were lowered moderately in the present study to reflect a trend toward increased non-fed marketings.

The projections reflect a leveling off of the nation's dairy cow herd

after a substantial decline in the 1960*s, a modest increase in the laying

flock and pork production, a further decline in the nation's sheep herd, and a sharp increase in broiler, turkey and fed beef production. The fed cattle projection should be considered as having the greatest range of uncertainty of any of these classes of livestock, due to severe losses in the cattle feeding Industry in the late 1973 through mid-1977 period, a sharp decline in the cow herd and in numbers being fed during.this period. The projections call for 1980 fed cattle marketings at 22 percent above 1972 levels, with a 37 percent increase by 1985. While a substantial recovery in cattle feeding seems likely as grain supplies recover from the short 1974 crop, the 1980 and 1985 projections of fed 13 -

cattle marketings could be viewed as being somewhat optimistic. If

so, the growth in demand for high-protein feeds indicated by these projections

could over-state actual growth possibilities.

Table 3 shows the potential impact of this growth in animal nvmibers on

the domestic demand for soybean meal in the absence of a gasoline-alcohol

fuel program. Feeding rates of cottonseed meal and linseed meal are projected

to decline slightly to 1980, due to a constant level of supply being spread

over a growing livestock and poultry population. After 1980, feeding rates

of these ingredients are projected to stabilize# Feeding rates of other non-

soybean protein meals are projected at approximately constant levels per animal unit through 1985.

Total high-protein feeding rates per animal unit were, projected to 1980 and 1985 under two alterantive assumptions: (1) feeding rates remaining constant at 1973 levels through 1980, then increasing 5 percent between 1980 and 1985, and (2) feeding rates increasing 5 percent during each of the 1973 to 1980 and 1980 to 1985 periods. Soybean meal feeding rates per animal unit were projected tp increase more rapidly than total protein feeding rates, to offset the slight decline in feeding" rates of other oilseed meals.

Level of Alcohol Production that Could be Suported by Growth in Meal Dem^d

Under these assumptions, soybean meal feeding rates per animal unit would increase 9 and 16 percent respectively, between 1973 ^d 1985. Total soybean meal requirements would increase by 3,957 to 5,077 thousand tons, or the meal equivalent of from 170 to 210 million bushels of soybeans. From another per spective, the projected growth in high-protein feed requirements could be supplied by distillers dried grain by-products from the production of 2.3 Table 3. Projected U.S. High-ProteinFeedRequirementsin 1980and 1985,and Comparisonswith 1973 in 44 Percent Protein Equivalent xu

Distillers Other High-Protein Year Soybean Meal Dried Grains Feeds Beg. Feeding Total Feeding Total Feeding Total Million of All Protein Ingredients, Oct. 1 Rate, lbs. (000) Rate, lbs. (000) Rate lbs• (000) Animal Feeding Rate, lbs. per per Animal Tons per Animal Tons per Animal Tons Units Animal Unit Unit Fed Unit Fed Unit Fed 1973; 262.0 13,853 4.4 228 95.6 4,913 103.9 362 1980:

Alt. 1 267.9 a/ 15.460 a/ 4.4 a/ 255 89.7 5,180 115.4 362

Alt. 2 285.9 a/ 16,500 a/ 4,4 a/ 255 89.7 5,180 115.4 380 45- 1 1985:

Alt. 1 285.9a/ 17,810a/ 4.4 a/ 275 89.7 5,590 124.6 380

Alt. 2 303.9 a/ 18,930 a/ 4.4 a/ 275 89.7 5,590 124.6 398 a/ Assumes absence of a gasoline-alcohol fuel program.

in 15 -

16 / billion to 3,0 billion gallons of grain alcohol. — The projected growth

to 1980 could be supplied by distillers dried grains and solubles from the production of 0,9 billion to 1.6 billion gallons of grain alcohol, —^ In other words, if domestic soybean meal supplies remain constant, it appears

that distillers dried grains and solubles supplied from these levels of

increased alcohol production could be absorbed with only a slight impact on

soybean meal prices. Larger increases in distillers dried grain prices would

be expected to place some downward pressure on prices of soybean meal and

other high-prptein feed ingredients.

Potential Growth in Demand for High-Protein Feeds in Iowa and Neighboring States •'

To determine the potenti^ growth in-demand for high-protein feeds in

Iowa and its four neighboring'midWestem states, an analysis was made of trends in livestock-and poultry production in-the five-state region. Shares - of national production of various livestock and poultry classes were computed by state from 1960 to 1973, arid were projected to 1980 and 1985 based on a continuation of trends' during the•preceding 13-year period.

In most cases, state shares of national livestock production were pro- . jected to 1980 md 1985 by linear regression methods. However, two types of exceptions were made: cases where linear regression from the 1960-73 period would cause 1980 or 1985 shares to become negative and (2) cases where past trends clearly were, non-linear. These exceptions-were generally handled by

• ^ \ ' •I * using the preceding, five-year, average .share of U.S. production. Once the state shares were projected to,1980 and 1985, these shares were used to allocate

Based on a-yield of 6,8 pounds of distillers dried grains and solubles per gallon of alcohol produced. , These calculations are based on two pounds of distillers dried grains and solubles being required to replace each pound of soybean meal, due to the lower protein content of the former ingredient,. - 16 -

production of various classes of livestock and poultry to individual states.

Livestock production was then converted to high-protein consuming aniioal units*

and U.S. average protein feeding rates per animal were used to estimate protein 18/ meal requirements by state. — Projected 1980 and 1985 shares of U.S. livestock

and poultry production by states in the study reation and comparisons with 1965

and 1970 are shown in Appendix Table lA.

Table 4 shows 1973, and projected 1980 and 1985 numbers of animal units and soybean meal requirements by states, in the absence of a "gasohol" program.

The number of high-protein consuming animal units is projected to increase

18.8 percent from 1973 to 1985, with the slowest percentage growth rates being in the major cash-grain states of Iowa and Illinois, and with the most rapid growth being in Nebraska. The five states together are projected to feed about 28 percent of the nation's high-protein consuming animal units in 19859 approximately the same percentage as in 1973. Soybean meal requirements are projected to increase by 1,135 to 1,440 thousand tons by 1985, the equivalent

Table 4. Projected High-Protein Consuming Animal Units and Soybean Meal Requirements in 1980 and 1985, and Comparisons with 1973 in the Five-State Study Region

Mlllionsof High Protein Consuming AniTnal Unifs Soybean Meal Requirements (000 tons) Est. Proj. Proj. Est. Proi. 1980 Proj_. 1985 1973 1980 1985 1973 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 1 Alt. 2

Iowa 10.5 10.6 11.4 1,375 1,420 1,515 1,630 1,730 Nebraska 4.1 4.8 5.4 540 640 690 770 820 Missouri 4.0 4.6 5.0 525 620 660 715 760 Minnesota 5.4 6.3 6.8 710 840 900 970 1,030 Illinois 5.3 5,6 6.2 690 750 800 890 940 Total, five states 29.3 31.9 34.8 3,840 4,270 4,585 4,975 5,280

18/ U.S. average feeding rates per animal unit were used since individual state feeding rate data are not available.1 Use of the U.S. average feed ing rates may over or under-state current usage in Individual states, but should not greatly distort the potential for future demand growth which is the. main concern here. 17 -

of the meal from 48 to 60 million bushels of soybeans. This growth in demand

for high-protein feeds would absorb the by-product feeds from the production

of 670'million to 850 million gallons of alcohol. Projected 1980 growth in

demand for high-protein feeds in the five-state region would absorb the by

product feeds- from 2^ million to 440 million gallons of alcohol.

III. GASOLIME REOUXREMEHTS IN AGRICULTURE — PRESENT AKD FUTURE

Motor fuel consumption in U.S. agriculture trended gradually upward

' -from the end of World War II until 1973, due to increased mechanization and

expanded^ farm production. Table-"5 shows the tjrpes of fami petroleum

fuel use and general trends since 1947 in combined use of gasoline, diesel

fu^ls and LP gas. Total fuel usage nationally increased by an estimated 35

percent between 1947 arid 1970, with the largest- percentage increases being,;

in usage by motor trucks, power units such as self-propelled combines, crop

drying and household use. In addition to the .increase in consumption of all

fuels, a shift in relative importance of various fuels also has taken place. Table 5. "U.S. Farm Use-of-Petroleum Fuels in Millions of Gallons, 1947 to 1970, 6y Types of Use a/ "

Tractors Auto,-, ,- Motor - Other Crop Drying . Household Total mobiles• " Trucks Power and Use Units Misc* Uses 1947 - 2,820 ' 1,695'^ 845 ' 278 ^ n.a. 1,459 7,097 1953 3,271 2,073 1,069 362 456 1,577 8,808 1959 • 3,370 1,639 1,064 - 379 421 1,737 8,610 1970 3,342 1,637 1,420 446 810 . 1,947 9,602 Percent Change,

-- 1947 to 1970 +18.5 . - 3.4 +68.0 +60.4 n.a. +33.4 +35.3 n.a. s= not available a/ Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic. 'Research Service. tTip tt q ^'"77 'T '' SubcS^ and Forestry^ UnitedCreditStatesand RuralSenateElectrification,(U.S. GovernmentCommitteePrinting onomceAgriculture ' Washington, D.C.) September 20, 1974. rjrinuing uirice. - 18 -

In the late 1940's, a shift from distillate-powered tractors to increased use of gasoline powered equipment occurred, although exact data on the extent of this shift are not available. Then in the mid-1960's a shift from gasoline to diesel-powered tractors and combines began. This shift has accelerated sharply in the past five to seven years, with rapidly rising sales of large horsepower tractors and combines. Industry sales reports *indicate that in 1974, 90 percent of the new farm tractors sold were diesel-powered. —^ Sales of diesel-powered combines increased from about 22 percent in 1971 to an estimated 63 percent of the total in 1974, and are projected to increase to nearly 90 percent by 1975 as shown in Figure 1.

Table 6, Percentage Shares of Total U.S. Tractor Sales by Horsepower Range, 1966 to 1973 and Projections to 1980 a/

Horsepower 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 Proj. Ranee 1980

100 & over 5.5 7.6 9.2 17.3 18.8 25.0 29.4 36.2 56.2 80-99 26.5 26.8 26.8 21.4 21.1 20.6 17.4 11.6 7.7 60-79 22.8 21.3 21,6 21.7 19.6 16.3 15,9 13,9 9.0 40-59 24.2 22.2 20.1 19.5 17,0 16.6 16.2 14.5 9.0 Under 40 21.0 22.2 22.2 21.6 23.5 21.4 21.1 20.5 18.1 a/ Source: 1966 to 1973 data are based on Farm and Industrial Equipment Institute, Unit Retail Sales of Wheel Tractors and Selected Farm Machinery, 1966-1973 (Chicago, Illinois).

Table 6 reveals one of the reasons for the pronounced shift to diesel-

powered tractors. Sales of over 100 horsepower tractors have risen from al most insignificant levels in the mid-1960's to about 36 percent of total U.S.

19/ Source: Farm and Industrial Equipment Institute, 1974 Special Information Report, 1974 Unit Retail Sales (Chicago, Illinois) April 17, 1975. . 19

Figure 1. Estimates and Projected. Sales of-jDiesel-Powered" Combines as a Percent of the U.S.-Total a/

PROPORTlOfJ C? ALL SSlF-PilOPELlED COMQIME SALES P0VVE8ED BY DlISEt ' PERCENT

1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 " (•' < ;;*• <11 i#i c<;'5»iCM.r rr'.f i»c>' %ri'vift

Source: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, "The U.S. Food and Fiber Sector: Energy Use and Outlook," op, cit.

'• ' I" . - 20 -

tractor sales in 1973, Sales of tractors over 60 horsepower accounted for approximately two-thirds of all sales, and diesel is the predominant type of power unit for these tractors. Sales shares of tractors under 40 horsepower, which are largely gasoline powered, have remained relatively steady and likely have been concentrated in areas of predominantly small farms outside the cornbelt, By 1980, nearly three-fourths of the total tractor sales are projected

to come from tractors of 60 horsepower or more.

Tractor sales in Iowa have shown a more pronounced trend toward larger horsepower units than the national average, as indicated in Table 7. In 1973, over 68 percent of all Iowa tractor sales were rated at 90 horsepower or more* Practically all tractors in that category were diesel powered. The under 40 horsepower category represented only 2.45 percent of all Iowa tractors sales.

Table 7. Percentage Shares of Total Iowa Tractor Sales by Horsepower Category, 1964-1973 a/

Horsepower Range Year 9*39 40-89 90 & over

1964 4.12 77.90 17.91 1965 2.70 69.03 28.28 1966 2.73 65.66 31.61 1967 3.91 58.25 37.84 1968 3.70 57.18 39.12 1969 3.01 48.81 48.18 1970 2.13 43.72 54.15 1971 1.93 34.03 64.04 1972 2.15 29.19 68.66 1973 2.45 29.01 68.54 a/ Source: 1966 to 1973 data are based on Farm and Industrial Equipment Institute, Unit Retail Sales of Wheel Tractors and Selected Farm Machinery 1966-1973 (Chicago, Illinois). While sales of diesel-powered equipment is one factor influencing the relative demands for gasoline and diesel fuel for use in agriculture, the other important variable is the composition of the present farm machinery in ventory by age and type of fuel. Individual state data were not available. - 21 -

on inventories by age and fuel type, but table 8 shows recent U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates "for "the United States and projections to 1980.. —

Table 8. Inventory of U.S. Wheel Tractors by Ag^ and Fuel Type,, 1970 and Projected 1980 a/

1970 Gasoline & LP Gas Diesel Total Percent Percent Percent Number of Total Number of Total Number

100.0 All ages 3,445.625 78.0 970,375 22.0 4,416,000 6 yrs. or 945,236 - 21.4 - less - 385,973 11.2 559,263 -:57.6 7 to 11 . 16.3 years [, -430,464 12.5 286,942 29.6 717,406 12 years ' 2,753,358 61.6 or more 2,629,188 76.3 124,170 12.8

1980

All ages 1,517,765 43,0 2,014,235 57.0 3,532,000 100.0 10 yrs, " or less 307,993 20.2 1,214,994 60.3 1,522,987 43.1 11 to 16 24.4 years 363,602 24.0. 499,055 24.8.- 862,657 17 to 21 538,452. 15.3 years :. 321,103 /, 21.2 217,350 10.8 22 yrs, or older .525,068 . 34.5 82,836 - 4.1 -607,904 17.2

a/ Source: - Economic Research .Service j U.S. Department of Agriculture, "The U.S. Food and Fiber Sector: Energy Use and Outlook," op, cit.. with corrections in,1970 data obtained through personal corirespondence with USDA statf.

Numbers of gasoline-powered tractors on farms .are expected to decline by 56 percent dijring the 1970 to 1980'period, due to declining purchases of replace ments and gradually, increased scrappage rates over time. Numbers-of diesel- powered tractors, on the other hand, are projected to more than double during

the.same period. In Iowa and neighboring,states, "the rise in diesel tractor

inventories seems, likely to. occur even .more rapidly due to greater predominance

of diesel sales in recent years. -

The relative importance of tractors, combines, trucks and other equipment in gasoline and diesel fuel usage in combelt-and U.S. agriculture is shown

a/ Since this study was completed,, Iowa inventory data by age and fuel type have been published in Iowa Farm Fuel and Equipment, Iowa Department of Agriculture, Des Moines, Iowa 1976. - 22 -

in Table 9, In 1973, cornbelt farmers were estimated to have used about 2.5 times as much gasoline as diesel fuel, with about 29 percent of the total gasoline usage accounted for by trucks and cars, and the rest used for farm machinery. Nationally, nearly 42 percent of all farm gasoline is estimated

to be used in cars and trucks.

Table 9. Estimated Farm Fuel Consumption in Millions of Gallons by Types of Power Unit, the Cornbelt and U.S. 1973 a/

Cornbelt U.S. Power Unit Gasoline Diesel Fuel Gasoline Diesel Fuel

Tractors 637 391 1,903 2,304 Combines 76 4 291 25 Other farm machines 20 0 158 58 Automobiles 88 0 362 0 Trucks 206 10 1,309 54 Total 1,027 405 4,023 2,477 a/ Source: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, "The U.S. Food and Fiber Sector: Energy Use and Outlook," o£^ cit. Taking into account this usage pattern, the trend toward diesel powered equip ment and increased crop and livestock production, U.S. Department of Agriculture projections call for agricultural gasoline usage of 3.9 to 4.0 billion gallons in 1980, compared with 4.4 billion in 1973. —^ Continuation of these trends would reduce usage to 3.0 billion gallons or less by 1985, with much of the total being used in automotive equipment. Gasoline Usage Trends for Agriculture in Iowa and Neighboring States Several sources of gasoline usage data for farm production in Iowa and neighboring states are available, with estimates varying considerably depend ing on the underlying assumptions and analytical procedures. The general trend in usage is shown in Table 10. Iowa gasoline usage for farm production declined

20/ Source: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, The U.S. Food and Fiber Sector: Energy Use and Outlook, prepared for the Sub committee on Agricultural Credit and Rural Electrification, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate (U.S. Government Printing Office; Washington, D.C.) September 20, 1974. - 23 -

from an estimated 294 million gallons in 1964 to an estimated 191 to 263 million

gallons iii 1974, ah 11 to 35 percent decline despite a moderate increase in

total acreage being cropped; The upper end of the 1974 range represents an esti-

mate developed by the Federal Energy Office, —21/ assuming 50 percent of the

total agricultural work-load is performed by gasoline-powered equipment. The

lower figure, which'may be more consistent with the rapid shift to diesel

powered equipment, assumes 36 percent of the total work-load in farm production 22/ is met by gasoline, — Using the same gasoline percentage shares for Nebraska,

indicated•1974 Nebraska farm gasoline usage declined by 38 to 46 percent from

1964 levels. Sharp increases in diesel fuel usage are estimated to have inore

than offset the declining trend•-in gasoline usage.• —23/ Similar• trends also are

evident in Minnesota and Illinois^ Usage for 1974 in these two states was

estimated by using past-relationships between their farm fuel consvmption and

Iowa usage. ' A more detailed breakdown of estimated" gasoline and diesei usage in these five states is shown in Appendix II, Fuel requirements were estimated by applying standard engineering data to acres of major crops grovm, and live stock and poultry raised. - The resulting total fuel requirements were then converted to gasoline and diesel'fuel needs, based on a projected trend toward

_^/ Based on personal correspondence of the authors with Wilbur M, Jenney of the Federal Energy Office in Kansas Cityw These figures include an allowance for marketing transportation and management needs. _^/ A 30 percent gasoline share for the 1973 Iowa farm work-load was reported in the Iowa Energy Policy Council, Quarterly Energy Report, April 1975, Vol. I, No. 3. .• Dale 0. Hull and Harvey J. Hirning, Estimating Farm Fuel Requirements for » Crop Production and Livestock Operations, Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University, Pm-587, February 1974, indicates about .72 gallons of diesel fuel are required to do the work of one gallon of gasoline. 2kl Fuel requirement coefficients were obtained from Ibid, for Iowa, Illinois and Minnesota, and from the Federal Energy Office in Kansas City for Missouri and Nebraska, - 24

increased use of diesel-pov/ered equipment. Due to a relatively high concen tration of small-horsepower tractor sales in Missouri, it was assumed that 50 percent of Missouri*s farm work-load needs were supplied by gasoline in 1974. The gasoline share was projected to decline to 35 percent by 1980 and 30 percent by 1985. For the other four states, current gasoline shares were projected to decline to 23 percent by 1980 and 20 percent by 1985. Acreage being cropped was expected to increase by only a small percentage as some marginal land is brought into production. Fuel use in livestock operations was projected to increase modestly through 1985, but was assttmed to be offset by increased use- of minimum tillage and other energy conservation measures in crop production. Thus, while total farm motor fuel needs were projected to show little change, diesel fuel requirements were projected to rise sharply. Gasoline heeds for farm production in the 5-state area were placed at 1.1 to 1,2 billion gallons in the 1960's, compared to 719 to 819 million gallons in 1974. For 1980 and 1985, they are projected to decline to the 400 to 500 million gallon level. Iowa gasoline needs for farm fuel in 1980 and 1985 are projected at 122 and 106 million gallons, respectively. These usage esti mates and projections should not be interpreted as precise figures, but rather as approximate levels that should be useful in analyzing the potential for a

gasoline-alcohol fuel program.

IV. GASOLINE USAGE TRENDS -- NON-AGRICULTURAL Trends in gasoline usage for non-agricultural purposes are being influenced by a wide range- of factors including (1) automotive equipment required by air pollution control regulations, (2) changes in the average weight of vehicles, (3) changes in average vehicle horsepower, (4) trends toward or away from autb- motive air conditioning and power assisted options, (5) highway speed regulations, (6) fuel prices, (7) consumer income levels, (8) the trend toward increased use Table10. Trendsin GasolineandDieselFuelUsagein FarmProductionin theFive-StateMidwestRegion and Projections to 1980 and 1985 in Millions of Gallons '

Gasoline Usage Diesel Fuel Usage Proj, Proj. Proj, 1964 ; . 1969 Proj. - 1974'b/ 1980 1985 , 1964 bJ 1969 1974 b/ . 1980 i985

Iowa 294 .0 282 .3 191-263 122 106 41. .4 94, .0 190- •243 292 303 Nebraska-' . 159, .6 150 ,0. 71-99 45 39 54. .7 100. .1 ^ 117-•137 d/ 165 d/ 171 d/ Missouri 184. .8 183 ,0 93 65 57 22. ,9 52. .6 67 87 94 . Illinois c/ 310. .5 298 202 .1 129 112 53, ,0 95. ,9 137- •243 292 303 Minnesota c/ 238, ,3 212, .1 162 104 90 50, ,5 83, .9 103- •182 219 228 to Total 1,187, 2 1,125. .5 719-819 465 404 222. 5 ,426.,5 , 614- 872 1,055 1,099 Source: Unpublished.U.S. Department of Agriculture data, c// 1974estimatesonassumeFederalfarm.EnergyfuelOfficeusage estimates.closely paralleled Iowa trends, d/ Includes an allowance for diesel fuel used in irrigation. 26 -

of jet-powered aircraft, (9) trends toward increased use of diesel-powered

trucks, (10) possible federal legislation requiring minimuDi levels of fuel mileage per gallon on new cars, and (11) policies toward mass transportation in large metropolitan areas. This combination of economic and political factors complicates the task of projecting total domestic gasoline needs to 1980 and

1985.

Table 11 shows the trend in U.S. gasoline usage since 1956. Total gasoline

-usage increased every year during this period, except 1974. The average annual rate of increase during the 1956 through 1967 period was approximately 2.7 percent, compared with an average rate of increase of 4.9 percent during the

1968-1973 period. All of the increase in gasoline usage was in the highway use category: use for aviation fuel and non-highway purposes (construction and agriculture) dropped sharply during the 19-year period. While final esti mates are not available, preliminary data indicate total U.S. usage in 1974 dropped by 3.7 percent from the preceding year, Iowa gasoline usage droppped by an estimate 9.5 percent in 1974, compared with a 5.3 percent decline in the 25/ combined five-state area. —

Highway usage doubled from 50 billion gallons in 1957 to over 100 billion gallons in 1973. During the same period aviation gasoline usage declined by

78 percent, falling from 3.1 billion gallons to 0.7 billion. Gasoline usage for other non-highway uses ^mainly agricultural) as indicated by Table 11 de clined by 71 percent during the 1956 to 1973 period, with the rate of decline in the past 6 years being somewhat larger than indicated by data from U.S.

25/ U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Monthly Motor Gasoline Reported by States, Year-End 1974 (Washington, D.C.), May 1974. Total usage data for prior years in this report differ slightly from those of the American Petroleum Institute, as well as an alternative data series in U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, "Mineral Industry Surveys; Crude Petroleum, Petroletjm Products^ and i^fjftiral-nafi-T.irjuids/' 1973 (Washington, D.C.) February 14, 1975, and earlier editions. 27 -

Table 11. U.S. Domestic Gasoline Usage by Type of Use, 1956-1973, in Millions of Gallons per Year a/

'Total Highway Aviation Other Domestic Usage Usage Non-Highway Usage Usage b/

1973 ia2,986'.'9 ' 100,641.5 689.9 1,655.6 1972 98,464.6 94,853.0 698.4 1,471.7 1971 • 92,945-8 90,049.3 751-.5 2,152.0 1970 89,512.6 85,596.4 835.9 3,080.2 1969 -85,786.9 81,791.1 1,073.1 2,922.7 1968 82,152.0 77,249.4 1,286.2 3,616.4 1967 77,392.8 72,640.3 1,382.0 3,370.5 1966 75,322.0- 69,937.9 1,614.9 3,769.2 1965 72,248,4 '66,978.5 1,843.7 3,426,2 1964 69,632.1 64,268.7 1,955,4 3,408.0 1963 • 68,548.3 ^ 61,275.0 2,106,6 5,166.8 1962 65,045.0 58,746.4 2,187.5 5,623.2 1961 64,393.3 56,607.6 2,416.1 5,369.5 1960 63,490.1 55,429.0 2,478.6 5,582.6 1959 ' .62,381.6' 54,102;3 3,248.3 5,031.0 1958 60,307.7 51,563.2 3,422.4 5,322.0 1957 58,504;0 . " 50,229.7 3,083.5 5,190.9 1956 57,699.3 48,805.1 3,133.3 5,730.9

a/ Sourcej American Petroleum Institute, Annual Statistical Review, Petroleum Industry Statistics, Division of Statistics,-American Petroletim Institute (Washington, D.C.) September 1974 and April 1973. b/ - Includes allowances to adjust-total use to equal total reported demand.

Department•of'Agricultiire arid Federal Energy Office Sources. Indicated usage in this category dropped by 54" percent between 1968 and 1973.

For analytical purposes, U.S. gasoline usage'in 1980 and 1985 was projected under three alternative assumptions: (1) total usage remaining constant at esti mated 1974 levels, (2) total usage increasing 5 percent by 1980 and 10 percent by 1985, and (3) total usage decreasing 5 percent by 1980 and 10 percent by 1985-. Under these conditions, total U.S. gasoline usage in 1980 would be 99.2, 104.1 and 94.2 billion gallons. The projected 1985 usage would be 99.2, 109,1 and 89.3 billion gallons, respectively. Appendix FiguresIII A through III D show - 28 -

the trend in U.S. gasoline usage since 1956, and comparisons with levels indi cated from a linear regression of usage during the 1956-1973 period.

Total Gasoline Usage in the Five-State Area

Total gasoline usage in Iowa ami neighboring states has exhibited trends similar to those at the national level over the last two decad.es. The most rapid growth rates were in Minnesota and Illinois, with increases of 112 to 113

percent during the past two decades. Iowa and Nebraska showed the smallest percentage increases during the same period, with 1973 usage 92 and 83 percent respectively above twenty years earlier. Preliminary data, as noted in the pre ceding section, indicate 1974 usage declined modestly in the five-state area, due to lower speed limits, higher fuel prices and other factors. Total gasoline usage in the region in 1973 as shown in Table 12 was approximately 12.8 billion gallons, nearly four times as much as used in U.S. farm production. Gasoline usage was projected to 1980 and 1985 using the same assumptions as at the national level, and assuming that 1974 gasoline usage in the five states was 5.3 percent below 1973 levels. These conditions would provide 1980 gasoline usage levels of 11.5, 12.1 and 12.7 billion gallons in the five-state region in 1980, and 10,9, 12.1 and 13.3 billion gallons in 1985. Iowa gasoline usage would range from 1.6 to 1.7 billion gallons in 1980, and from 1.5 to 1.8 billion gallons in 1985. Trends in gasoline usage by states during the 1953- 73 period and linear regression analysis of the trend in the five-state area are shown in Appendix Figures III E through III J. - 29

Table 12. Total Annual Gasoline Usage in Iowa and Neighboring States, 1953 ^ to 1973, in Millions of Gallons a/

Iowa Illinois Missouri Nebraska Minnesota Five-State Total

1973 1,821.0 5,063.4 ' 2,742.3 968.0 • 2,155.9 12,750.6. 1972 1,673.9 . .4,852.1 2i667.9 922.5 • - 2,109.9 12,226.3 1971 1,618.0 4,612.4 2,547.4 890.5 2,007.9 11,676.2 1970 1,526.7 4,423.6 2,394.7 849.4 . 1,907.3 11,101.7 1969 1,519,7 ' 4,328.8 2,291.8' 838.9" 1,838.6 10,817.8 1968 1,476.0 4,187.2 2,181.4 796.4 1,726.0 10,367.0 1967 1,440.3 3,917.7 2,082.9 764.0 1,634.2 9,839.1 1966 1,389.9" ,3,863.9 2,025.7" 740.4 1,600.3 9,620.2 1965 1,311.9' > 3,687.4 1,956.3 708.6 -1,521.5 9,185.7 1964 - 1,279.6 - 3,556.2 1,897.7 - 695.1 1,479.1 -8,907.7 1963 1,259.3 3,442.6 1,847.3 672.5 1,442.6 8,664.3 1962 1,221.1 3,344.4 1,804.3 652.0 1,400.5 8,422.3 1961 1,212.2 . 3,121.2-. 1,763.2 630.2 1,373.5 8,100.3 1960 1,211.1 3,090.8 1,758.3 628.7 1,382.5 8,071.4 1959 1,191.9 3,033.3 1,733.4. 618.3 1,328.0 7,904.9 1958 1,17517 2,951.0 1,650.2 597.0 1,304.5 7,678.4 1957 1,126.9 2,909.9 " 1,603.4 . 581.4- 1,239.7 7,461.3 1956 1,118.5 ' 2,814.2 1,601.9 569.0 1,202.3 7,305.9 1955 1,107.6 2,719.6 1,544.2 568.3 1,152.3 7,092.0 1954 1,064.8 2,634.7 1,466.1 550.0 1,092.1 6,807.7 1953 1,028.2 2,545.0 1,401.9 531.7 . 1,044.4 - 6,551.2 a/ Source: American Petroleum Institute, Petroletm Facts and Figures. 1971 Edition (Washington, D.C,), May 1971 and personal correspondence with . the American Petroleum Institute. - 30

Summary of 1980 and 1985 GaBoline Usage Projections, Com Requirements and By- Product Feed Production Under Various Levels of "Gasohol" Programs Table "13 summarizes 1980 and 1985 projections of annual gasoline usage at various agricultural and non-agricultural levels, and provides comparisons with recent usage rates* Agricultural gasoline usage currently accounts for an estimated 4 percent of U.S. total requirements, and is projected to decline sub stantially at all three geographic levels in the next five to ten years. Trends in non-agricultural gasoline usage, however, are much more uncertain and will depend heavily on a wide range of public policy alternatives. For that reason, total gasoline usage projections range from modestly above to modestly below

recent usage levels.

Table 13. Summai^ of Projected 1980 and 1985 Gasoline Usage for Agricultural and All Purposes in Iowa, The Five-State Region and the United States

Geographic Area of "Gasohol" Usage 1974 Proi. 1980 Proj. 1985 Agricultural Usage: (Millions of gallons)

Iowa 191-263 122 106 Five-state region 719-819 465 404 United States 4,350 a/ 3,900-4,000 2,500-3,000

Total Usage: 1973 Proj. 1980 Proj. 1985 (Billions of gallons)

Iowa 1.98 1.6-1.7 1.5-1.8 Five-state region 13.38 11.5-12.7 10,9-13.3 United States 102.99 94.2-104.1 89.3-109.1 a/ 1973 usage. •t

Table 14 shows the projected quantities of alcohol required in 1980 and

1985 for a 10 percent gasoline-alcohol fuel blend at various levels of agri cultural and total gasoline usage, the quantities of com required to produce - 31 -

Che projected alcohol volumes, and percentages of the potential U.S. com crop

required for alcohol production.

V. CORN REQUIREMENTS AND IMPACT ON CORN PRICES

If a "gasohol" program were developed for farm fuel needs only, corn

requirements for alcohol production in 1980 would range from 4.5 million bushels

to about 150 million bushels, depending on whether such a program was limited to

Iowa or was applied nationwide. Using 6.2 billion bushels as an estimate of

potential 1980 U.S. com production, alcohol production for farm fuel would

absorb from 0.1 percent to 2.3 percent of the total crop. Potential impacts

on corn prices are outside the main purpose of this study and have been analyzed 26/ elsewhere. — However, it should be noted that a one percent decrease in

U.S. supplies of com is generally believed to increase corn prices by about

2 percent, if all other price*^aking influences remain unchanged. Thus, a

"gasohol" program for Iowa agriculture would be expected to raise com prices

by less than one percent, if Iowa were the only state with such a program. A

"gasohol" program for U.S. agriculture might be expected to raise com prices

by approximately five percent from levels that would otherwise exist. These

price projections are based on normal weather conditions; in years of short

crops the price impact would likely be somewhat larger.

Under a program requiring 10 percent gasoline-alcohol blends for all gasoline usage in Iowa, 1980 com prices might be Increased by about 2 percent over levels that would otherwise prevail. Such a program for the five-state region would be expected to raise corn prices by 14 to 16 percent in 1980. A mandatory "gasohol" program for both agricultural and non-agricultural use at the national level would utilize over half of the potential 1980 com crop 26/ These aspects of a "gasohol" program have recently been studied by Dr. James G. Kendrick, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, Table 14. Projected Quantities of Alcohol Required for Selected Levels of "Gasohol" Programs, Amount of Corn Needed, and Percentages of the Potential Com Crop Required for Alcohol Fuel Production a/

Level of Million Gallons "Gasohol" of Alcohol Needed ComRequired—^ Program: 1980 1985 1980 7o or Poten 1985 % of Poten tial 6.2 tial 6.5 !• Agricultural billion billion Usage Only: (mil. bu.) bushel crop (mil, bu.) bushel crop Iowa 12,2 10.6 4.5 0.073 3.9 0.06 Five-state region 46.5 40.4 17.2 0.28 14.9 0.23 United States 390-400 250-300 144-148 2.30 92,6-111 1.4-1.7 u> to II. Total Gasoline Usage:

Iowa 160-170 150-180 59.2-62.9 0.95-1.0 55.5-66s6 0.9-1.0 Five-state region 1,150-1,270 1,090-1,330 425.5-469.9 6.9-7.6 403,3-492,1 6.2-7.6 United States 9,420-10,410 8,930-10,910 3,485.4-3,851.7 56.2-62.1 3,304.1-4,036.7 50.8-62.1 a/ Assumes 10 percent alcohol, 90 percent gasoline blends in "gasohol" programs, b/ Based on 2.7 gallons of 200 proof alcohol per bushel of com. - 33 -

and could result in more than a doubling of corn prices. Such a program would

require greatly curtailed- livestock feeding and exports of feed grains, and could

reduce earnings from agricultural exports. On the other hand, it would also

reduce the total cost of imported petroleiam, compared with levels that would

otherwise exist. -- '

VI. INCREASE IN HIGH-PROTEIN FEED SUPPLIES

Table 15 shows projected production of distillers dried grains under alter

native levels of "gasohol" usage, and the percentage increases in distillers dried grains .and potal high-protein supplies that would result from projected production levels,^ using 1973-74 supplies as a base. A "gasohol" program for farm production use would increase total 1980 high-protein feed supplies only slightly from 1973-74 levels, with the increase being about one-tenth/Of one

percent for an Iowa progr^, and slightly over three percent for a national program. Total supplies of distillers dried grains under the national program, however, would be nearly three times the 1973-74 production level. If a ten percent gasoline-alcohol blend were required for all U.S. gasoline usage, 1980 distillers dried grain supplies would increase by 69-fold to 77- fold from recent levels, and total U.S. high-protein feed supplies would in crease by a projected 80 to 88 percent. At the five-state level, such a pro gram would increase U.S. high-protein feed supplies by about ten percent, A gasohol" program for agricultural and non-agricultural uses at the Iowa level only would increase total U.S. high-protein feed supplies by about one percent but would expand U.S. distillers dried grain production by 119 to 126 percent from recent,levels." Effect of Increased^Distillers Dried Grains Supply on High'-Protein Feed Prices In analyzing the potential economic impact of a "igasohol" fuel program, two important questions about the relationship between high-protein feed supplies Table 15. Projected Quantities of By-Product Feeds Produced in 1980 and 1985 Under Alternative Levels of "Gasohol" Programs, in Thousands of Tons and Percentages of 1973-74 Domestic High Protein Feed Usage

1980 1985 Distillers Percent of Percent of Distillers Percent of Percent of Dried Grains 1973-74 1973-74 Dried Grains 1973-74 1973-74 Prod., Thous. High-Pro Distillers Prod•, Thous High-Pro- Distillers Level of tons tein Feed Dried of Tons tein Feed Dried "Gasohol" Supply a/' Grain Supply a/ Grain Program Supply Supply I. Agricultural Usage Only;

Iowa 41.5 0.1 9.1 36.0 0.1 7.9 OJ Five-state region 158.1 0.4 34.5 137.4 0.3 30.0 United States 1,326.0-1,360.0 3.3-3.4 289.5-296.5 850.0-1,020.0 2.1-2.5 185.6-222.7

II. Total Gasoline Usage:

Iowa 544.0-578.0 1.36-1.44 118.8-126.2 510.0-612.0 .1.3-1.5 111.4-133.6 Five-state region 3,910.0-4,318.0 9.8-10.8 853.7-942.8 3,706.0-4,522.0 9.3-11.3 809.2-987.3 United States 32,028.0- 80.0-88.4 6,993.0- 30,362.0- 75.9-92.7 6,629.3- 35,394.0 7,727.9 37,094.0 8,099.1 a/ Computed as percentages of total supply in 44 percent protein soybean meal equivalent. - 35

and prices need to be answered. First, "what is the impact of a given per

centage increase in distillers dried grain supplies on soybean meal prices?"

and second, "what is the impact of such an increase on.prices for distillers

dried grains?" Several previous studies have estimated the sensitivity of soy

bean meal prices to changes in the total supply of high protein feeds. However, very little previous work has. been done in estimating the relationship of dis-

tillers dried grains supplies to prices of distillers dried grains. —'27/

To estimate these relationships, approximately 32 different multiple re gression statistical analysis equations were developed in the study reported here. Half of these equations were formulated with soybean meal prices as.the dependent variable to be forecastj with distillers dried grain prices being the forecast variable in the other half. Variables used in forecasting prices of these two feed ingredients included (1) an index of prices received by farmers for livestock prices (2) numbers of high-protein consuming animal {•' units in the United States, (3) the quantity of U.S. produced oilseed meals, (4) quantities of other grain protein ingredients produced, (5) the quantity of animal by-product feeds (mea& meal, tankage, ,etc.)\ produced, (6). com prices, (7) exports of high-protein feeds, (8) cattle numbers in five major high-protein importing countries and (9) a time-trend to reflect longer-term changes in protein feeding practices. The equations were, computed using two different time periods as a base: 1950 to 1972 and 1960 to 1972. Results from,the latter time period provided a slightly better statistical fit than when ear lier years were included. This observation suggests that price relationships

27/ Limited work in this, area is reported in R* J. Foote, J. W. Klein and M. Clough, "The D^and and Price Structure for Com and Total Feed Concentrates," U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin, No. 1061 (Washington, D.C.) October 1952; and G. A. King, "The Demand iand Price Structure for By-Product Feeds," U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin No. 1183 (Washington, D.C») August 1958. - 56 -

in the high-protein feed market have changed somewhat in recent years as compared with the decade of the 1950*s, Such a change would seem logical considering the commercialization of poultry and cattle feeding industries

and increased emphasis on animal nutrition.

Effect on Distillers Dried Grain Prices

Results from the best equations of distillers dried grain prices indicate a 10 percent increase in supplies of distillers dried grains (from average levels of the last few years) would reduce prices of this ingredient by about 1,5 to 2,0 percent. The R *s of these equations were in the .90*8, indicating 90 percent or more of the variation in prices was related to or "explained" by the independent variables in the equations* Durbin-Watson tests revealed no problems with serial correlation of the residuals, and other statistical tests indicated most or all of the regression coefficients were significantly different from zero at the 95 percent level of probability. One of the better equations in the distillers dried grain groups is shown in

Appendix IV.

These results indicate the demand for distillers dried grains is elastic* In other words, sizable increases in supplies can be absorbed with only a small decrease in price. With distillers dried grains accounting for less than 2 percent of the total domestic high-protein feed supply over the past two and one-half decades, such a conclusion seems reasonable. A large per centage change in distillers dried grain supplies would create only a very small change in total supplies of high-protein feed ingredients and thus could be absorbed with only a small decline in prices of distillers dried grains relative to other high-protein ingredients. Results from the forecasting equations probably would be reasonably reliable in estimating the impact of moderate increases in distillers dried grain supplies on prices of - 37 -

that ingredient. But with large-scale national ''gasohol" programs that could increase distillers dried grain supplies .69-fold to 88-fold, it would seem logical to expect a stronger price-quantity relationship than indicated by the regression equations* Under these conditions, distillers dried grains would become a much more important part of the total high-protein feed supply than in the past. Although there is no way of knowing for certain what the new price-quantity relationship might be under such conditions, one could conclude from subjective judgments that distillers dried grain prices might decline by about the same percentage as prices for soybean meal and other major high-protein feeds. Previous studies indicaf^e a 10 percent imcrease in domestic soybean meal supplies and/or an equivalent change in supplies of total high-protein feeds would decrease soybean meal prices by 20 to 30 percent, if all other influences on soybean prices r^ain constant. —^

Effect on Soybean Meal Prices Greater difficulty was experienced in developing a satisfactory fore casting equation for soybean meal prices than for distillers dried grain prices. This difficulty probably reflects the wide range of economic and psychological factors affecting world soybean meal markets in recent years. Originally the authors had hoped to estimate the relationship between changes in supplies of distillers dried grains and changes in soybean meal prices. However^ over the past two decades variations in distillers dried grain supplies have been relatively small and do not appear* to have been a major influence on soybean

Malcolm Clough, "Major Factors Influencing High-Protein Feed Prices," Feed Situation, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (Washington, D-C.), FdS-213, April 1966, pp. 26-32; Roger J. Vandenborre, "Demand Analysis of the Markets for Soybean Oil and Soybean Meal," Journal of Farm Economics-, Vol. 48, No, 4, Part I,, November 1966; and J. P. Houck- and J. S. Mann, An Analysis of Domestic and Foreign Demand for U.S. Soybeans and Soybean Products. University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin 256 (St. Paul, Minn.) 1968. - 38

meal prices. For this reason, a satisfactory estimate of the soybean meal- distillers dried grain price relationship was not possible. As an alternative, grain protein meal supplies were substituted for distillers dried grains supplies; but with similar difficulties.

As a way around these analytical problems, projected levels of distillers dried grain supplies were converted to equivalent tons of 44 percent protein 29/ meal, — and the relationship between high-protein meal supplies and soybean meal prices from previous studies was used to assess potential impacts on soy- 30/ bean meal markets. —

Summary of Potential Effects on Protein Meal Markets

Data in Table 16 summarize the potential impact of various levels of

"gasohol" programs on high-protein feed markets and soybean prices. Prices and percentage changes in the table should not be interpreted as exact figures but as indications of relative impacts if all other price-influencing vari- • ables remain unchanged. It should also be noted that certain technical develop ments such as increased use of synthetic amino acids or expanded use of high- lysine corn could scnnewhat alter past relationships between prices and quantities of distillers dried grains and soybean meal.

Estimates in Table 16 indicate "gasohol" programs for Iowa agriculture or for farm production in the five-state area would have negligible effects on prices for soybeans and soybean meal, and would depress distillers dried grain prices only slightly. "Gasohol" programs for projected total U.S. farm produc tion needs would be expected to place considerable downward pressure on distillers dried grain prices, and would moderately depress soybean meal and soybean prices

29/ A conversion factor of two tons of distillers dried grains and solubles equals one ton of 44 percent soybean meal was used here. 30/ High-protein supply-soybean meal price relatioaships were obtained frc^ Ibid. Table 16. Potential Impact of Alternative Levels of "Gasohol" Programs on Prices for Distillers Dried Grains, Soybean Meal and Soybeans in 1980, Before Including Growth in Demandfor High-Protein Feeds

Level of "Gasohol" Potential Impact on Potential Impact on Potential Impact on Program: Distillers Dried Soybean Meal Prices Soybean Prices a/ Grains I. Agricultural Usage Only:

Iowa 1.47o to 1.8% decrease 0.37o decrease negligible Five-State region 5.2% to 7.0% decrease 1.0% decrease 3<:/bu. decrease United States 43% to 58% decrease 7% to 107o decrease 21c to 30c/bu, decrease

II. Total Gasoline Usage:

vo Iowa 18% to 257o decrease 3% to 4% decrease 7c to lOc/bu. decrease Five-State region y 207b to 327o decrease 60c to 95c/bu. decrease United States b/ b/ over 70% decrease b/ over $2.00/bu. decrease

Based on initial soybeanmeal price level of $125 per ton and soybean meal yield of 47.6 poundsper bushel. Higher initial soybeanmeal price levels would lead to greater impacts on soybean prices. b/ Price decrease would be very large but is impossible to estimate precisely. Past price-quantity relationships suggest prices would become negative with the large supply increases involved, although this seems unlikely. ® - 40 -

compared to levels that would exist without a "gasohol" program. Using $110

per ton as a base price for distillers dried grains and solubles, the decrease

in price of this ingredient might increase costs of producing alcohol under

a U.S. agriculture "gasohol" program by 16 to 22 cents per gallon over an Iowa-

only "gasohoT'program.

A "gasohol" program for all of Iowa's projected gasoline needs would be

expected to place moderate downward pressure on prices for distillers dried

grains and only slight downward pressure on prices for soybean meal and soy

beans, For the five-state region, such a program would be expected to sharply

depress prices for distillers dried grains and to lower soybean prices by

approximately 60 to 95 cents per bushel. At the national level, such a pro

gram would sharply depress prices for both distillers dried grains and soybean

meal, and would be projected to lower soybean prices by more than $2,00 per

bushel, asstaning other price-influencing factors remain constant. The pro

jected decrease in distillers dried grain prices could increase alcohol pro

duction costs by 20 cents or more per gallon, over an Iowa-only program. This

would raise the cost of a 10 percent alcohol-90 percent gasoline blend by

about 2 cents per gallon.

The above comparisons relate to high-protein feed and soybean prices in 1980

with and without "gasohol" programs, before taking potential demand growth into

account. They indicate that "gasohol"programs for all gasoline needs of the

five-state region and for the entire United States would tend to place substantial

downward pressure on soybean prices provided soybean production remains constant.

When the projected growth in domestic demand for high-protein feed ingredients

developed earlier in this report is taken into account, it appears that this

conclusion would hold only under the alternative of using gasoline-alcohol blends

for the entire U.S. gasoline needs. With the other five levels of "gasohol" programs, - 41 -

projected growth in U.S. demand for high-protein feeds would be sufficient to

absorb most or all of the increased production of distillers dried grains.

Projected growth in high-protein feed demand in the five-state area would be sufficient to absorb the by-product feeds from a U.S. agricultural "gasohol"

program, and one-fourth to one-third of the projected by-product feed supplies from a combined agricultural and non-agricultural "gasohol" program in the

region.

VII, POTENTIAL EXPORT MARKETS FOR DISTITT.F.RS DRIED GRAINS Potential growth in export demand for distillers dried grains is an im portant influence on the economics of a "gasohol" program, through its effect on prices of by-product feeds. Any analysis of export potential, however, is somewhat limited by the lack of published data on distillers dried grain exports To overcOTie the data problem three U.S. Census Bureau data series on exports of related grain by-products were examined. These sources provided data on exports of: (1) corn by-product feeds, including combined exports of com gluten meal, distillers dried grains and other miscellaneous com by-products, (2) corn gluten meal alone and (3) brewers, distillers and starch by-products. Table 17 shows the trend in combined U.S. exports of the various com by product feeds since 1950, Exports of these products have shown an irregular upward trend, with a rapid rate of increase during the 1960's and early 1970's. Exports in the 1972-73 marketing year (October 1972-Septeinber 1973) were more than six times as large as ten years earlier. A separate data series on exports of com gluten feed and meal is avail able from the Census Bureau from 1967-68 through 1973-74. This series was de ducted from combined exports of all corn by-products to obtain an approximation of corn distillers dried grain exports during the 1967-72 period. The approxi- - 42

Table 17. U.S. Corn By-Product Exports, 1950 Through 1972 a/

Year Beginning Thousands Year Beginning Thousands October 1 of Tons October 1 of Tons

1950 23.86 1962 152.78 1951 15.46 1963 177.95 1952 10.71 1964 287.60 1953 10.11 1965 383.25 1954 14.41 1966 354.50 1955 12.46 1967 565.30 1956 14,46 1968 721.15 1957 16.18 1969 709.60 1958 47.30 1970 651.22 1959 41.70 1971 867.41 1960 35.20 1972 998.80 1961 81.83 a/ Source; U,S, Exports, Commoditv by Country, U.S. Department of Cuuuierce, Bureau of Census (U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C*)* matlon series is shown in Table 18, and is believed to moderately overstate actual exports of com distillers dried grains. The approximation series indi cates one-third or more of domestic production has been exported since the late

1960's, while personal coninunication with trade sources indicates exports nor mally absorb only about 10 to 15 percent of domestic production. The difference between the approximation series and informal trade estimates of the amount ex ported could be accounted for by exports of corn germ meal, hominy feed and other miscellaneous by-products included in the approximation series. Based on the limited data available, export markets for distillers dried grains appear to be much smaller than donestic markets. However, exports appear to be a grad- 31/ ually growing outlet for such feed ingredients.

31/ An alternative data series on Brewers, Distillers and Starches By-Product Exports also is available from the Census Bureau for the years 1970, 1971 and 1972. Total exports of these products,which include production from other grains as well as corn, were reported at 32.9, 25.2 and 49.5 thousand tons, respectively for the three years. These levels of exports would average less than 10 percent of the total domestic production of com distillers dried grains. - 43

Table 18. Approximate U.S. Exports of Corn Distillers Dried Grains, 1967-68 Through 1972-73 a/

Year Thousands of Percent of U.S, Beginning Tons Distillers October 1 Exported Dried Grains Production

1967 98.3 22 1968 134.2 31 1969 135.6 32 1970 127.2 33 1971 134.4 33 1972 183.8 43 •

a/ Compiled from data in U.S. Exports, Commodity by Country^ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census (Washington, D.C.), and com gluten feed ' arid meal export data obtained through personal correspondence with the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.'C.

To examine the growth potential in export markets for distillers dried grains, corn by-product exports were anlyzed by country of destination and by historical trend pattems. It seems reasonable to expect the pattern of dis

tillers dried grain exports to resemble that of total com by-product exports, even though the absolute level is lower. Western Europe consistnetly has been the

largest U.S. export market for corn by-product feeds and has taken 75 to 97 percent of our exports of these ingredients over the past 22 years as shown

in Table 19. The Caribbean area was a sizable market in the early 1960's,

but later declined in importance.

Table 19. U.S. Export Shares of Com By-Product Feeds by Area of Destination, Selected Years

Area 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1972 (percentage share of U.S. total) -

Canada 2 2 3 3 6 0.3 Caribbean 5 3 16 2 2 1

-- Western Europe 83 90 75 • 94 88 97 Pacific 10 0 5 1 1 1 Other 0 5 1 • 0 3 0.7 44 -

Among European nations, Netherlands, West Germany, Belgium, United Kingdom and Italy usually have been the largest purchasers of corn by-product feeds

in approximately that order, Canada represented a large market for these in

gredients in the late 1960*s, but has fallen off sharply in the last few years.

Appendix Figures VA through VFshow U.S. exports of com by-product feeds

to these countries during the past 22 years and linear regression analysis of

the trends, projected to 1980,

Growing consumer demand for meat and increased livestock numbers in

Western Europe appear to have been an important factor behind the long-term up ward trend in corn by-product exports. Numbers of hogs and cattle in major western European countries for selected years are shown in Table 20. Hog

numbers in these countries rose by 48,3 percent from 1950 to 1960, with an

additional 54,4 percent increase from 1960 to 1970, Cattle numbers grew much more slowly, with a 15.7 percent Increase in the first decade and a 7.5 per cent increase in the 1960 to 1970 period.

Projections of livestock numbers in these countries in 1980, assuming the trend of the past twenty years continues, show a further 17.7 percent increase over 1970 levels in hog numbers and a 7.8 percent increase in cattle numbers.

Several regression equations were developed for forecasting com by-product feed exports, using European livestock numbers, corn prices, European milk prices and a time trend variable* Results from these equations indicated

European cattle numbers are one of the more important influences on by-product feed exports. With the long-term trend toward increased cattle feeding in

Europe, this analysis suggests further growth in the potential export market for distillers dried grains is likely. The minimum average annual growth rate to be expected in the next five to ten years would appear to be around one percent, paralleling the projected growth in the European cattle population. Table 20. Millions of Head of Cattle and Hogs in Italy, West Germany, United Kingdom, Belgium and the Netherlands, Selected Years, and Projections to 1980 by Linear Regression a/

1950 1955 ' 1960 1965 1970 Pro j. 1980 Cattle Hogs Cattle Hofis . Cattle Hogs Hoks Hogs • Cattle Cattle Cattle Hogs

Italy 8.33 4.05 8.67 3.76 9.40' 4.15 9.23 5.41 9.61 9.22 9.93 9.11 W« Germany 10.88 9.70 11.52 14.53 12.48 14.88 13.05 18.15 ,14.29 19.32 15.63- 23.62 United Kingdom 10.62 2.99 10.67 5.84 11.77 5.72 . 11.69 7.98 12.30- 8.09 13.41 10.16 Belgium 1.90 1.27 2.39 1.42 2.70 1.75 2.52 1.85 2.71 3.20 2.97 3.68 Netherlands 2.72 1.86 3.00 2.38 3.51 2.96 3.32 3.75 3.95 5.65 4.27 6.94 Total 34.45 19.87 36.25 27.93. 39.86 , 29.46 39.81 .37.14 42.86 45.48 46.21 53.51 4>

Source: United Nations Food and.Agricultural Organization, Production Yearbook of Food and Agricultural Statistics, (Rome, Italy), various issues. 46

With an export market development program for this ingredient, a considerably

more rapid growth rate might be achieved.

VIII, RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CORN PRICES, GASOLINE PRICES, DISTIT.T,F.RS DRIED GRAIN PRICES AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF A GASOLINE-ALCOHOL FUEL PROGRAM A second phase of this study incorporated varying levels of com prices, gasoline prices and distillers dried grain prices into a matrix showing po tential blended fuel costs. The purpose of the matrix is to assist public decision-makers in detemining what sets of conditions would make a "gasohol" program economically feasible, what size of tax credit might be needed to en

courage gasoline-alcohol fuel blends and/or what degree of increase in gasoline

prices would be needed to make grain alcohol competitive as a fuel extender. The matrix that was developed is shown in Appendix VI. A separate page of the matrix is shown for each wholesale gasoline price ranging from 35 cents

per gallon to $li.50 per gallon in 5 cent Increments. The extreme left-hand column of each page represents com prices, varying from $1.20 per bushel to $4,90 per bushel. Each succeeding column represents the cost of a 10 percent alcohol-90 percent gasoline blend, at varying prices of distillers dried grains and com prices.

Important coefficients used in developing the matrix include: (1) 6.8 pounds of distillers dried grains and solubles produced per gallon of alcohol, (2) 2.7 gallons of 200 proof alcohol produced per bushel of com» (3) an alcohol processing cost of 47.3 cents per bushel. Including fixed and variable components and (4) a dehydration cost of 2.7 cents per bushel. Processing and dehydration costs were taken from 1972 estimates by Miller and were updated to approxi mate 1975 levels using the general rate of inflation in the U.S. economy since

1972. —

32/ Miller, "Com and Its Uses" Op. cit. The GNP price deflator was used as a measure of the general rate of inflation and was obtained from U.S. Commerce Department, Social and Economic Statistics Administration, Survey of Current Business (Government Printing Office; Washington, D.C.) various issues. This index measures inflation at all levels of the economy and consequently differs slightly fran the rate of inflation indicated by the more ccanmonly used Consumer Price Index. - 47 -

As an example of likely costs for a gasoline-alcohol blend, Iowa corn

prices during the 1974-75 marketing year ranged from about $2.60 to $3.40

per bushel. -Wholesale gasoline prices in mid-1975 were about 35 cents

per gallon, before taxes and retail merchandising margins, and wholesale prices

for distillers dried grains and solubles ranged from $100 to $120 per ton in the mid-west that season. Using the mid-point of the distillers dried grains and solubles prices, this set of conditions would provide blended fuel costs of 42.9 cents to 46;0 cents per gallon for a 10 percent alcohol-90 per cent gasoline blend. To make the blended fuel comparable in cost to regular grade gasoline, a subsidy of approximately 8 cents to 11 cents per gallon would be required under these conditions. If com prices fell to $1.60 per bushel and distillers dried grains and solubles prices dropped to $70 per ton, a sub sidy of approximately 5 cents per gallon would be needed at 35 cents wholesale gasoline prices. Alternatively, at $1.60 com prices, 90 cent gasoline prices and $70 per ton distillers dried grain prices^ gasoline-alcohol blends would be competitive with regular grade gasoline without any subsidy. This level of gasoline prices would represent an increase of slightly over 150 percent from levels prevailing during the first five months of 1975 and would bring retail prices to slightly over $1.00 per gallon. If com and distillers dried grain prices were to re main at the lower end of the 1974-75 range, wholesale gasoline prices would need to be $1.20 per gallon qt higher to make 10 percent gasoline-90 percent alcohol blends fully competitive without some form of subsidy. Using $100 per ton distillers dried grain prices as a base, each $20 per ton decrease in price at $2.60 com prices and $1.20 gasoline prices would in crease blended fuel costs by approximately 0.7 cents per gallon. Using these - 48-

same prices as a base, a "gasohol" program for all gasoline needs in the five-

state region would be expected to raise com prices by around 16 percent or 42

cents per bushel, and to lower distillers dried grain prices by at least 70

percent or $70 per ton. These price combinations would raise the cost of

gasoline-alcohol blends by 4 cents per gallon, compared with base levels,

IX. POSSIBLE ACREAGE ADJUSTMENTS

The analysis so far has examined the potential impact of "gasohol" pro

grams on soybean prices, assuming soybean acreage remains constant. An alter

native way of analyzing the potential economic impact of such programs would

be to determine how many acres could be diverted from soybeans to com produc

tion while maintaining a constant high-protein feed supply, and to examine the

resulting impact on com prices. Using this analytical approach and taking

into account projected growth in demand for high protein feeds to 1980, about

22 million acres theoretically could be shifted from soybeans to corn produc- 34/ tion under a "gasohol" program for total U.S. gasoline needs. — This acreage^rea] 35/ would produce 54 to 60 percent of the corn needed for alcohol production,

but still would permit com prices to rise by nearly 50 percent above levels

36 / that would exist without a "gasohol" program. — Under these circumstances , such a program would clearly be advantageous to mid-west cash grain producers.

However, it is doubtful that such a shift in acreage could be accomplished

for at least two reasons. The first and probably most important reason is

that three-fourths or more of the domestic high-protein feed supply would consist

of distillers dried grains and solubles if such a shift occurred. Given the

amino acid composition and other nutritional aspects of this feed ingredient,

34/ Based on U.S. average soybean yield of 28 bushels per acre and meal yields of 47.6 pounds per bushel. 35/ Based on a U.S. acreage com yield of 95 bushels per acre. 36/ These calculations do not take into account the use of distillers dried grains as a partial substitute for corn for certain classes of livestock, but only consider its use as a protein source. If the former effect were incltjded, the potential rise in com prices could be some^^t smaller than indicfited here. - 49 it is questionable whether -that High a percentage of distillers dried grains and solubles would be acceptable to the total livestock and poultry feeding industry. The second reason is that such a shift would sharply reduce domestic soybean oil supplies and would greatly curtail exports of vegetable oils. Re duced vegetable oil supplies'would strengthen soybean oil and soybean prices enough to prevent the full acreage shift," if distillers"dried grains were fully substitutable for soybean meal. ' It appears that the first of these two possibilities would be the dominant one and would discourage a large-scale shift of acreage from soybeans to com under a national "gasohol" program.

X. CONCLUSIONS. LIMITATIONS AMD DEVELOaiE^S'THAT MIGHT ALxfe "GASOHOL" FEASIBILITY With a projected decline in farm use of gasoline, it appears that gasoline- alcohol blended fuel programs for farm production needs in Iowa and the five- state study region would have' a negligible effect on soybean and soybean meal prices. At the five-state level, such a progf^"would slightly depress prices for distillers dried grains and solubles; The five-state study'region included

Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri and Nebraska. Such a program for U.S. farm production needs would be expected to place sharp downward pressure on distillers dried grain prices and moderate downward pressure ^20 to 30 cents per bushel at

1974-75 soybean meal prices) ori soybean prices. '

Such a program for farm and non-farm gasoline needs in Iowa alone would likely place moderate downward pressure on prices of distillers dried grains and only slight downward pressure on soybe^ prices.' At the five-state levelj combined farm and non-farm "gasohol" programs' would place substantial downward pressure on soybean prices if livestock feeding remains at 1973-74 levels, but would be expected to result in only slight downward pressure if the general economy recovers from its ; 1974-75 slump and resumes its growth trend at rates only slightly less than those of the "late i960's and early 1970's. - 50 -

At the national level, a blended fuel program for all farm and non-farm gasoline needs would be expected to place sharp downward pressure on prices for both distillers dried grains and soybeans, since total high-protein feed supplies would be increased by 80 to 88 percent over 1973-74 levels. Limiting

factors in amino acid composition and other nutritional characteristics of dis tillers dried grains under present feeding technology likely limit the amount of acreage under such a program that could be shifted fran- soybean to coim produc

tion.

A "gasohol" program for fuel needs in farm production in 1980 would be expected to utilize less than one-tenth percent to slightly over two percent of the

U.S. corn crop, depending on whether the program was applied only in Iowa or at the national level. At these levels of usage^ only a slight increase in

corn prices would be expected, compared with levels that would exist without a "gasohol" program. Similar conclusions hold for a gasoline-alcohol fuel program for all of Iowa*s gasoline needs. However, if such a program were extended to all gasoline needs in the five-state region, corn prices might be strengthened by 12 to 16 percent over levels that would otherwise prevail. At the national

level, a gasoline-alcohol fuel program for all projected gasoline needs in 1980 would require over half of the U.S. corn crop for alcohol production and

would be expected to cause a more than doubling of com prices.

At com, gasoline and distillers dried grain prices prevailing during the 1974-75 crop marketing year, a subsidy or tax credit of approximately 8 to 11 cents per gallon would be needed to make a 10 percent alcohol-90 percent gasoline

blend equal in cost to regular grade gasoline. At $1.60 com prices, 90 cents wholesale gasoline prices and $70 per ton distillers dried grain prices, gasoline- alcohol blends would be competitive with regular grade gasoline without any

subsidy. These gasoline prices would be equivalent to retail gasoline prices - 51 -

of slightly over $1.00 per gallon. Alternatively, if com and distillers dried

grain prices were to remain at the lower end of the 1974-75 range, wholesale

gasoline prices would need to be approximately $1.20 per gallon to make gasoline-

alcohol blends fully competitive with regular grade gasoline without tax credits

or subsidies.

Areas For Potential Future Research

The breakeven^price of gasoline-alcohol blends could be altered by several developments including: (1) new technology that would reduce alcohol production costs or (2) an Intensive effort to develop new high-value materials from the by-products of the fermentation process. As a possibility in the latter area, one researcher indicates.he believes there is a good potential for separating corn into its basic components and using these components, for developing ."engineered products" designed to meet specific industrial applications. Processing portions of the by-product material into human food represents another alternative that could alter the economic feasibility of gasoline-alcohol fuel blends. An alternative outlet for grain alcohol that may be more attractive economi cally than use for motor fuel is use as a replacement for synthetically produced industrial alcohol* Trade sources indicate demand for .and prices of industrial alcohol are expected to increase considerably in the years ahead. —^ Such alcohol presently is produced largely from ethylene which in turn is derived from

natural gas. Use of grain alcohol as a replacement for this material would tend to release natural gas supplies for use in crop drying, fertilizer production and other uses important to midwest agriculture.

37^/ Based on comments by Dr. Wayne E." Henry, Vice President, Far-Mar-Co., Inc. at the Grain Alcohol Fuel Study Conference, Indianapolis, -Indiana, November 20 and 21, 1974. —/ Based on Grain Alcohol Autcmotive Fuel Study Conference Report, to Indiana Department of Commerce and Lieutenant Governor of Indiana, Report of November 20-21 Blended Fuel Conference at Indianapolis, Indiana (Longardner & Associates, Inc., Indianapolis, Iiri .) p. 29. • 52 '

Limitations of the Study

Limitations of this study center around two main areas: (1) fuel usage

projections and (2) price-quantity relationships in high-protein feed markets.

Agricultural fuel requirement estimates used here are those for farm production

needs, transportation of products to the first point in the marketing chain

and management needs in the farm business. Some other data sources show higher

gasoline purchases by farmers, but probably include use of gasoline for personal

needs of farm families as well as farm production requirements. If personal

farm family fuel needs were included, the potential downward pressure on soy

bean prices and upward pressure on com prices in the agricultural "gasohol"

alternatives would be higher than indicated in this study. Also, major develop ments in fuel conservation or in improved automotive fuel mileage per gallon

by 1980 would lessen the downward impact on soybean prices from a national

"gasohol" program for total gasoline needs.

The other major area of limitations is in application of historical re

lationships between changes in quantities of high-protein feeds and changes in

their respective prices. For small or moderate changes in supplies of high- protein feeds, these relationships should provide reasonable indications of potential price impacts. But with large-scale "gasohol" programs for total gasoline needs at the five-state or national level, the supply of distillers dried grains would be Increased far beyond any levels previously experienced.

Under such circumstances, the direction and relative size of price changes can be predicted accurately, but historical data provide no way of determining the exact impact on prices of distillers dried grains, soybean meal and soybeans.

One final point should be noted, A wide variety of grains, crop residues, wood wastes and other agricultural and forestry products can be used as raw 53 -

materials for alcohol production^ If an intensive program were developed to uitilize other materials in addition to corn for alcohol production, the impact on corn prices would be reduced. Downward pressure on soybean and soybean meal prices might also be reduced, depending on what specific quantities and types of other raw materials were used. - 54 -

APPENDIX I

SHARES OF U.S. LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY PRODUCTION IN THE FIVE-STATE AREA, AND PROJECTED

SHARES BY STATE IN 1980 AND 1985 - 55 -

Appendix Table lA, Percentage Shares of U.S..Livestock and Poultry Production by States in the Study Region in 1965 and 1970, and Projections of Shares to 1980 and 1985.

Milk Other Fed Other Sheep Hogs Layers Turkeys Cows Dairy Cattle Beef and AnimaXs Marketings Cattle Lambs (percent of U.S. animal numbers)

Iowa:

1965 5,01 4.07 17.34 5.91 8.23 25.25 4.83 6.48 1970 4.37 3.41 16.03 5.40 6.67 23.51 3.42 4.98 1980 4.23 3.42 15.64 5.64 6.61 23.49 3.30 5.19 1985 4.23 3.42 15.64 5.64 6.61 23.49 3.30 5.17

Nebraska:

1965 1.63 1.19 11.46 7.37 2.76 6.01 1.71 0.95 1970 1.39 0.91 10.95 6.48 2.11 6.47 1.22 0.75 1980 1.13 0.61 11.30 6.35 1.41 7.31 1.14 0.30 1985 0.98 0.43 11.59 6.05 1.03 7.77 1.14 0.08

Missouri: -

1965 3.01 1.79 3.96 3.89 2.54 6.96 1.88 7.63 1970 2.78 2.05 2.56 4.03 1.84 7.43 2.05 5.84 1980 1.95 1.64 2.23 4.41 1.17 8.08 2.05 6.08 1985 1.55 1.53 1.87 4.55 0.82 8.41 2.05 6.08

Minnesota;

1965 8.42 12.36 5.23 2.55 5.30 5.97 3.47 12.76 1970 8.23 11.59 4.40 2.75 5.04 5.76 3.49 16.80 1980 9.59 13.47 3.97 2.89 4.50 5.17 3.28 19.14 . 1985 10.08 14.07 3.97 2.99 4.35 4.84 3.28 19.84

Illinois:

1965 2.75 3.58 7.68 2.75 3.62 14.55 2.77 1.15 1970 2.39 2.84 5.09 2.33 2.93 12.77 2.63 0.59 1980 1.52 1.41 4.78 1.86 2.59 10.89 2.45 0.60 1985 1.10 0.68 4.78 1.57 2.28 9.79 2.45 0.60 - 56 -

APPENDIX II.

ESTIMATES OF AGRICULTURAL GASOLINE USAGE

BY STATES IN THE STUDY REGION f •

•

Appendix Table IIA, Farm Motor Fuel Utilization Estimates for Iowa, 1968, 1970 and 1972

1972 1970 1968 Production Required Thousands Total Fuel Thousands Total Fuel Thousands Total Fuel Activity Diesel of Required of Required of Required Fuel Planted (000 gal.) Planted (000 gal.) Planted (000 gal.) Gallons/ Acres Acres Acres Acre Corn 6.8 11,255 76,534 10,760 73,168 10,346 70,353 Soybeans 6.5 6,050 39,325 5,709 37,109 5,576 36,244 Oats 3,0 2,350 7,050 2,751 8,253 2,535 7,605 Hay 8.7 2,300 20,010 2,460 21,402 2,560 2i,m Misc. crops 4.3 92 396 81 348 105 452 Livestock & Poultry a/ 42,982 3/ 44,000 3/ 42,557 Ui Total 22,047 186,297 21,761 184,280 21,122 179,483 •sj

Market Transportation 36,341 34,585 33,436 Management & Business 65,112 65,112 65,112 Total, in Thousands of Gallons of Diesel Fuel Equivalent 287,750 283,977 278,031 Est, Diesel Fuel Use, Thousands of Gallons b/ 161,140 136,309 122,334 Est. Gasoline Use, Thousands of Gallons c/ 175,735 204,963 216,108 b/ Diesel assinned to be 56%of total power needs in 1972, 487oof total power needs in 1970, and 44% of total power needs in 1968. c/ Gasoline equivalent of balance estimated by the converstion factor, 1.388 gallon of gasoline « 1 gallon of diesel. Appendix Table IIB, Farm Motor Fuel Utilization Estimates for Illinois, 1968, 1970 and 1972

1972 1970 1968 Production Required Thousands Total Fuel Thousand: Total Fuel Thousands Total Fuel Activity Diesel of Required of Required of Required Fuel Planted (000 gal.) Planted (000 gal.) Planted (000 gal.) Gallons/ Acres Acres Acres Acre Com 6.8 9,540 64,872 10,310 70,108 10,379 70,577 Soybeans 6.5 7,600 49,400 6,848 44,512 6,717 43,661 Wheat 3.0 1,265 3,795 1,075 3,225 1,461 4,383 Oats 3.0 1,250 3,750 935 2,805 1,115 3,345 Hay 8.7 1,150 10,005 1,230 10,701 1,305 11,354 Hisc• crops 4.8 85 408 30 144 24 115 Livestock & Poultry a/ a/ 21,706 22,220 21,491 00 Total 2Q,890 153,936 20,428 153,715 21,001 154,926

Market Transportation 35,994 36,032 35,902 Management & Business 53,270 53,270 53,270 Total, in Thousands of Gallons of Diesel Fuel Equivalent 243,200 243,017 244,098 Est. Diesel Fuel Use Thousands of Gallons b/ 136,192 116,648 107,403 Est. Gasoline Use» Thousands of Gallons c/ 148,527 175,400 189,732 a/ Not applicable. b/ Same as in footnote b of Appendix Table IIA. c/ Same as in footnote c of Appendix Table IIA, Appendix Table IIC. Farm Motor Fuel Utilization Estimates for Minnesota, 1968, 1970 and 1972

1972 1970 1968 Production Required Thousands Total Fuel Thousands Total Fuel Thousands Total Fuel Acitvity Diesel of Required of Required of Required Fuel. Planted (000 gal.) Planted (000 gal.) Planted (000 gai.) Gallons/ Acres Acres Acres Acre Corn 6.8 5,652 38,434 5,220 35,496 5,400 36,720 Soybeans 6.5 3,250 21,125 . 3,060 19,890 3,286 21,359 Wheat 3.0 1,522 4,566 873 2,619 1,077 3,231 Oats 3.0 2,590 7,770 3,510 10,530 3,655 10,965 Hay 8.7 3,020 26,274 3,160 27,492 3,277 28,510 Misc. crops 3.0 968 2,904 1,032 3,096 1,383 4,149' Livestock & Ln Poultry a/ a/ 22,093 a/ • 22,616 • a/" 21,874. rsc Total 17,002 123,166 16,855 121,739 18,078 126,808 Market Transportat^n 24,133 24,759 25,916

Management & Business 43,355. 43,355 ' 43,355' Total, in Thousands of Gallons of Diesel Fuel • Equivalent 190,654 189,853 196,079

f Est. Diesel Fuel Use, Thousands of Gallons b/ 106,766 91,129 86,274 Est. Gasoline Use, Thousands of Gallons c/ • U6,436 137,028 152,408 a/ Not applicable. b/ Same as footnote b of Appendix Table 11^. _c/' Same as footnote c of Appendix Table IIA, Appendix Table IID. Farm Motor Fuel Utilization Estimates for Nebraska, 1968, 1970 and 1972

1972 1970 1968 Production Required Thousands Total Fuel Thousands Total Fuel Thousands Total Fuel Activity Diesel of Required of Required of Required Fuel Planted (000 gal.) Planted (000 gal.) Planted (000 gal.) Gallons/ Acres Acres Acres Acre Corn 5.2 5,680 29,536 5,443 28,304 4,839 25,163 Soybeans 6.3 715 4,505 824 5,191 801 5,046 Wheat 4.3 2,742 11,791 2,565 11,030 3,240 13,932 Sorghum 5.2 1,900 9,880 1,695 8,814 1,980 10,296 Hay 7.0 4,050 28,350 4,150 29,050 4,170 29,190 Misc. crops 4.3 513 2,206 702 3,019 632 2,718 Livestock & Poultry a/ a/ 10,505 10,754 • a/ 10,401 ON o Total 15,600 96,773 15,379 96,162 15,662 96,746

Market Transportation 13,066 12,630 12,698

Management & Business 24,408 24,408 24,403 Total, in Thousands of Gallons of Diesel Fuel Equivalent 134,247 133,200 133,852

Eat. Diesel Fuel Use, Thousands of Gallons b/ 75,178 63,936 58,895 Est. Gasoline Use, Thousands of Gallons c/ 81,987 96,138 104,040 a/ Not applicable, b/ Same as in footnote b of Appendix Table IIA. c/ Sames as in footnote c of Appendix Table IIA. r (

Appendix Table IXE. Farm Motor Fuel Utilization Estimates for Missouri, 1968, 1970 and 1972

1972 1970 1968 Production Required Thousands Total Fuel Thousands Total Fuel Thousands Total Fuel Activity Diesel of Fequired . of Required of Required Fuel Planted (000 gal.) Planted (000 gal.) Planted (000 gal.) Gallons/ Acres Acres Acres Acre Com 6.0 2,720 16,320 3,114 18,684 3,189 19,134 Soybeans 6.0 4,050 24,300 3,546 21,276 3,695 22,170 Wheat 4.5 1,075 25,230 975 4,388 1,350 6,075 Sorghum 6.0 430 4,838 298 1,788 298 1,788 Hay 8.7 2,900 2,580 3,060 26,622 2,869 24,960 Misc. crops 4.5 250 1,125 312 1,404 351 1,580 Livestock & Poultry a/ a/ 15,640 ' a/' 16,011 15,486 Total 11,425 90,033 11,305 90,173 11,752 91,193

Market Transportation 14,217 13,986 14,456 Management & Business 22,951 22,951 22,951 Total, in Thousands of Gallons of Diesel Fuel • Equivalent 127,201 127,110 128,600 Est, Diesel Fuel Use, Thousands of Gallons b/ 54,696 45,760 39,866 Est. Gasoline Use, Thousands of Gallons c/ 100,636 112,914 123,163 a/ Not applicable, b/ Diesel assumed to be 43%of total power needs in 1972, 36%of total power needs in 1970, and 31% of total power needs in 1968. • _c/ Gasoline equivalent of balance estimated by the conversion factor, 1.388 gallon of gasoline = 1.00 gallon of diesel. - 62

APPENDIX III

TRENDS IN TOTAL GASOLINE USAGE, U.S. AND THE FIVE-STATE STUDY REGION, 1956 to 1973 AND REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF TRENDS IN USAGE - 63 -

Bil. of gal,

APPENDIX FIGURE 111 A. TOTAL GASOLINE USAGE IN THE ' UNITED STATES, 1956 TO 1973, AND REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF TRENDS IN USAGE

Regression Projectlon

1956.00 1360.00 1.964.00 " 1968.00 1972.00 1976.00 L980'.00 1984.00 L988.00 64 -

811. of gal.

APPENDIX FIGURE 111 B. HIGHWAY GASOLINE USAGE IN THE UNITED STATES, 1956 TO 1973, AKD REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF TRENDS IN USAGE

Regression Projection

19SS.0Q 1980.00 1964.00 1958.00 1972.00 1976.00 1980.00 l98»i.OO 1988.00 - 65 -

Bil. of gal. APPENDIX FIGURE III C. AVIATION GASOLINE USAGE IN THE UNITED STATES, 1956 TO 1973, AND REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF TRENDS IN USAGE

Regression Projection

1956.00 1960.00 196^^.00 1968.00 1372.00 1976.00 1380.00 1381.00 1988.00 - 66 -

HI K ri r {(a I

AI'l'KNDIX 111 I>. NON-HtniWAY fJASOt.INK IWAUK IK THK (JNirr.lJ STATKS, I95f» TO ANII RECRESSinN ANALYSIS OF TRKNDS IN IISACK

Regression Projection

\ \ 1 1 ; ; \ I 1955.00 1960.00 iSffiU.OO 1968,00 1972.00 1975.00 1380.00 1984.00 1988.00 67

Bll. of gal.

APPENDIX FIGURE III E. TOTAL GASOLINE USAGE, ICWA

Regression Projection

•T > I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1952.00 1956.00 1960.00 196M.Q0 19G8.0Q 1972.00 1976.00 1980.00 19811.00 TIME TREND - 68 -

Bll. of Gal. APPENDIX FIGURE Z£I F. TOIAl. OASOLIttE USAGE, IIXINOIS

Regression ProJecClon

o -

T T 1 r T ISSS.OQ 1956.00 1960.00 196I1.0Q 1968.00 1972.00 1976.00 1980.00 LSBU.QO TIME TREND - 69 -

Bil. of gal.

APPENDIX FIGURE III G. TOTAL GASOLINE USAGE, MINNESOTA

Regression Projection

I I I I I I r 1952.00 1955.00 1960.00 196U..00 1988.00 1972.00 1978.00 1980.00 198(1.00 TIME TREND - 70 -

BIL. of C«l. APPENDIX FIGURE III J. TOTAL GASOLINE USAGE, FIVE-STATK T

Regression Frojeccion

T I I 1 1 1 1 r L35£,00 1.956.00 1960.00 igSk-OO 1968.00 1972.DO 1976-00 1980-00 198'i 00 TIME TREND 71 -

Bil. of gal. APPENDIX"FIGURE III H. TOTAL GASOLINE USAGE, MISSOURI

Regression Projection

T I n—^—I —I 1 T r 1952.00 - LS56.QQ 1960.00 198U.00 1968.00 1972.00 1976.00 1980.00 1984.00 .- TIME TREND 72 -

Mil. of gal. APPENDIX FIGURE III I. TOTAL GASOLINE USAGE, NEBRASKA

degression Prejeccion

I952.a0 L9S8.Q0 19S0.00 L96>1.00 1968.00 L97Z.OO L97S.0Q 1980.00 198U.00 TIME TREND - 73 -

APPENDIX IV

PRICE FORECASTING EQUATION

FOR DISTILLERS DRIED GRAINS - 74 -

Computer Regression Equation for Forecasting

Distillers Dried Grain Prices

DDGp = 3,3325 - 0,022227 (DDG^) + 0.265566 (SBMp) + 0.148753 (C^) + 0.518949 (EC^)

(-3.21) (12.81) (2.92) (1.98)

R bar squared = 0.9333

Durbln-Watson D «= 2,4494

The data in parentheses are t values of the respective regression coefficients.

Variables in the equation are as follows: DDG^ ^ Distillers Dried Grain Price in dollars per ton at Cincinnati

DDG - U.S. Distillers Dried Grains Supply in thousands of tons

SBMp = Price of 44% Protein Soybean Heal at Decatur

C = Com Price in Cents per Bushel P ^ EC^ = Cattle Numbers in Five Major European Protein Feed Importing Countries - 75 -

APPENDIX V

U.S. EXPORTS OF CORN BY-PRODUCT FEEDS TO SELECTED COUNTRIES, 1950 TO 1973 AND PROJECTED TRENDS

TO 1980 APPENDIXFIGUREV A, EXPORTSOF CORNBY-PRODUCTSTOWESTGERMANY, 1950-1972, AND LINEAR RE(aiESSION TREND ANALYSIS

Thous, tons

150

130

110

•vi Linear ON Regression

-30 .

"50 5^ 54 56 5860 626^ ' 66 ' 68 ' 7^ ' 72 ' 74 ' 76 ' 7^ ' 80 ( APPENDIXFIGUREVB, EXPORTSOFCORNBY-PRODUCTSTOTHENETHERLANDS, 1950-1972, ANDLINEARREGRESSIONTRENDANALYSIS

Thous. tons

700 -

Linear Regression

200 -

100 -

-100 H

1950 52 54 56 58 ^0 62 64 66 68 70 72" 74 76 78 APPENDIXFIGUREV C. EXPORT^ CORNBY-PRODUCTSTOCANADA Thous. tons 1950-1972, AND LINEAR REGRESSION TREND ANALYSIS

Linear •vl Regression 00

72 74 76 78 80 APPENDIXFIGUREV D. EXPORTS^ CORNBY-PRODUCTSTOITALY, Thoub. tons 1950-1972, AND LINEAR REGRESSION TREND ANALYSIS

VO Linear Regression

1950 52 54 56 58 60 62 76 78 80 APPENDIXFIGUREV E, EXPORTSOF CvKNBY-PRODUCTSTOUNITEDKINGDOM, 1950-1972, AND LINEAR REGRESSION TREND ANALYSIS Thous. tons

CO o

Linear Regression

1950 52 54 56 58 60 lit i I , 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 APPENDIX FIGURE V F. EXPORTS 0^=*CORN BY-PRODUCTS TO BELGIUM r 'hous. tons 1950-1972, AND LINEAR REui

Linear Regression - 82 -

APPENDIX VI

MATRIX OF GASOLINE-ALCOHOL BLENDED FUEL COSTS UNDER ALTERNATIVE CORN,

GASOLINE AND BY-PRODUCT FEED PRICES y

• S ^ 6/S PRlCt » .35

CORN dY PRDOUCT PAIfEi PRICE

30 .00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 tC.CC 90.00 KC.CC llC'.OO ^ 1.20 0.4031 120.00 130'.00 ' 140.CO 0.3995 0.3960 6.3924 0.3dB9 0.3d53 0.3dl7 0.3762 C.3746 1.40 0.4109 e.3710 0.3675 0.3639 0.4073 0.4037 0.40C2 0.3966 0.3931 0.3d95 0.3859 0.3d24 0.378d 1 .f.Q 0.4166 0.3752- 0.3717 0.4151 6.4115 0.4079 0.4044 0.4006 C. 297i C . 3 S3 7 C 1 »%0 .3901 0.3666 0.3630 0.3794 0.4264 0.4226 0.4193 0.4157 0.4121 0.4ue6 0.4050 0.4014 2.CC C-.3979 0.3943 0.3907 0.3672 0.4 341 0.4306 0.4270 0.4234 0.4199 0.4163 0.412b 2.20 C.4C9< C .4056 C .^021 0.3965 0.3949 0.4419 0.43d3 0.4346 0.4312 0.4276 0.4241 0,4205 0.4169 2 .40 C-.4134 C.409d 0.4063 0.4027 0.4496, 0.4461 0.4425 0.4390 0 .43S<« 0.4316 0.4263 2-6C 0.4247 0.4211 0.4176 0.4140 0.4104' 0-;4574 0.453d 0.4503 0.4467 0.443x 0.439t> 0.^360 2.do 0 .42 6S C .^253 0.421d 0.4182 00 0.4652 0.4616 0.4580 Lo 0.4545 C.4509 0 .4473 0.443d 3.00 C.440(1 0.4366 C-.4"331 0.4295 0^4260 0.4729 0 .4693 0.4658 0.4622 0.4567 0.4S51 C.4515 3.20 0.44d0 C .4>«44 0 .4iOd 0^4337 0.4807 0.4771 0.4735 0.4700 0 .4664 0 .4o2d 0.4593 0.4373 3.40 0.4557 0.4522 0.4t66. 0.4415 0.4684 0.4349 0.4613 0.4777 0.4742 0.4706 0.4b7Q 0.4450 3,60 0.4635 C.4599 0 .4564 0.4526 0.4492 0.4962 0.4926 0.4690 0.4655 0.4619 0.4764 C. <74(: 3.60 0 0 .4677 0 .4641 0.4605 0.4570 0.5039 0.5004 0.4966 0.4932 0.4697 0.4661 0.4626 0.4790 <^.C0 C.4754 0.471^ 0.4663 0.4647 0.5117 0.:50B1 0.5046 0.5010 0.497h 0.4939 0.4903 4.20 0.4667 0.4632 0.4796 0.4761 0.4725 0.5194 0.5159 C.5123" 0.506d 0.5052 0.5016 0.4981 4.4C 0.4945 C.4V09 0.4d7^ 0.4636 0^4802 0.5272 C.5236 0.5 201 0.5165 0.5129 0 .5094 0.5i)56 4.60 0.5023 C.4967 0.4951 0.4916 0.4O8C 0 .5350 0 .5314 0.5276 0.5243 0. 5207 0.5171' 0.5136 4.SO 0.5100 C .5U64 0.5029 0.4956 0.5427 0.5391 0.5356 0.5320 0.5265 0.5249 0.5213 0.4993 0>517e C.5142 0.51C6 0.5071 0.5035 bAiPtcKE * 0.40

ey PkDDUCr PKlCEi P»

30.OC 40.00 50.00 • 60.00 70.00 eO.OO 40.00 100.00 no.00 X20.00 130.00 140.00 1 .^0 0.4481 0.4445 0.4410 0.437<* 0.4339 0.4303 0.4267 0.4232 0.4196 0.4160 0.4125 0.4089 1 .4 0 0.4&5V 0.4523 0.4487 0.4452 C.4416 0.4itfl C.£245 0 .430% C.4274 C.4230 0.4202 0.4167 1.60 0.4t36 C.4601 0.4565 0.4529 0.4494 0.4458 0.4422 0.4387 C.4351 C.4316 0.428C 0.4244 i.eu 0.4714 0.467U 0.4643 0.46C7 0.457* 0.4536 0.4500 0.4464 0 .4<*29 0.4i93 0.4357 0.4322 2.00 0.4191 0.4756 0.4720 0.4684 C.4649 0«4bl3 0.4S7e 0.4542 C.4506 0 .4<*7i 0.4435 0.4399 2 .20 0.4B69 0.4B33 0.4793 C.4762 C.47 26 C.4b9 I C.4t55 0 .461 '> C.4584 0.4546 0.4513 0.4477 2.4C 0 .4946 0.4911 0.4a75 0.4840 C.4a04 0.4 760 0.4 733 C.4fc97 C .4t61 0 .462b 0.4590 0.4554 2.60 0.5024 0.4y88 0.4953 0.4917 0.4d61 0 .40 0.554<* 0.5508 0.5473 0.5437 0.5401 0.5366 0.533C 4.60 0.5800 0.5764 0.5720 0.5b93 0.5657 0.5621 0.558O 0.5550 0.5514 0.5479 0.5443 0.5408 4.bO 0.5b77 0.5841 0.5e06 0.5770 0.5735 0.5694 0.5663 0.5628 C.5592 C.55S6 0.5521 0.5485 o o

G tSPRl Li --' 0.45

CORN dY PKLDULT PKKE6 PRICE .

30 .00 40.00- 50.00 60.00 7C.00 dC.CC 90.00 ICC.CC lie .00 120 .00 130.00 14O.C0 1.20 0.4931 0.4895 0.4b60, - 0.4»24' 0.4799 0.4753 0.4717 0.4662 C.4646 C.4610 0.4575 0.4539 1 .40 0.5009 0.4^^73 0.4937 0.4902 0.'4b6o 0.4O31 0.4795 0.4759 0.4724 0.4686 0.4652 0.4617 1 .60 0.5096 C.5051 0.5015 0.4979 0 .494<* 0 .4906 0.4672 0.4837 C .4801 0.4766 0.4730 0.4694 1.8C 0.5164 0.512a 0.5093 0.5057 0.5021 0.4986 0.4950 C.491<. C .4 079 0.4643 0.4607 0.4772 2.00 0.5^41 0.5206 0.5170 0.5134 0 .5099 0.5063 0.5026 0.4992 C.495b 0.4921 0.4b85 0.4849 £ .20 0.5319 0.52ti3 0.5246 0.5^12 0.5176 0.5141'" 0. 5105 0 .5069 0.5034 0.4996 0.4963 0.4927 2.40 0.5396 0.5361 0.5325 0.5290 0.5254 0.5216 0.5163 0.514? C.5111 0.5b7b 0.5040 0.5004 2.^0 0.5474 C.543(» 0.5403 0.5367" 0.5331 0 .5296 0.5260 C.5189 00 0.5225 0.5153 C.5118 0.5082 «-n 2 .to 0.555^ 0.5516 0.5480' 0.5<»45 C.5*»09 C.5J72 C. 5336 0 .5302 0.5266 0.5231 0.5195 0.5160 3.00 0.5629 0.5593 C.555d 0.552.i 0.54b7 0.5«*5l 0.5h15 0.5380 C.5344 C.53C6 0.5273 0.5237 3.20 . 0.5707 0.5671 0,.5b35 0.5600 0.5564 0.552tt 0.5 0.61^9 0.6113 0.6C76 C.6Q42 0.600 b 0.5971 0.5935 0A6Pk]CE 0.^0

CCkK o* PRCOUtT PklCEb PRICE

30.00 40.00 se.ou 60*00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 no.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 1.26 0.5301 0.5345 0.5310 0.5274 0.5i39 0.5203 0.5167 0.513^ C.5J96 0.5060 0.5025 0.4v6S 1 1^0 0.5459 0.5423 0.5367 0.535^ 0.5316 0.5281 C.5i45 0 .52CS C.5174 C.513a 0.5102 0.5067 1 • f>0 0.5536 C.5S01 C.5<*65 0.5<*29 0.5394 0.5358 0.532-e 0.5267 C.5251 C.5216 0.5160 0.5144 1 • 60 0 .56K 0.557d 0.5543 0.55C7 C.S'i?! U.5436 C.S400 C.53fc<. C .5329 0.529J 0.5257 0.5222 2.00 0.5691 0.5t»5b 0.5<»2J 0.558<* 0.5549 0.5513 0.5^7b 0.5442 0.5406 0.5371 0.5335 0.S299 2 .20 0.5764 C.5733 0.569ti 0 . 5t>6£ 0.562o C.559 i C.£555 C .55 li C.5h84 0 .544 0 0.5413 0.5377 2.<.0 0.5b4b C.58U 0.5775 0.574J 0.5704 0.5bod 0.5633 0.5597 C.5561 C.5320 0.5490 0.5454 2.ftO 0.592., 0.5e9S 0.5dS3 C.5817 C.5781 0.57h6 0.571U C.5fc7S C .5639 C.5 oC J 0.5568 0.5532 00 2.1)0 OS 0 .6D02 C•5V 6o 0.5930 0.58'>5 C.5o59 C.5d2d 0.5788 0.5752 C.5716 C .5681 0.5O45 0.5bl0 3.00 0.6079 0.6043 0.6008 0.597^ 0.59 3 / O .5901 0 .5865 0.5«30 C.579t 0.5758 0.5723 0.56B7 3.K 0.6 157 0.6121 0.6l<&5 Q.605U C.601^ 0 .5978 0.5943 C.59C7 C.5e72 C.5 d3 o C.S800 0.S765 3.<»0 0.6234 C .6199 0.6 163 0*6127 0.6092 0 .6056 0.6020 0.5985 C.5949 0 vS^l-* 0.5i»78 O.S042 3. f^O 0.6312 0.62 76 0.6240 0.6205 0.616>^ 0.6134 0.6098 0.606.; C.6027 C.5'*Si 0.5955 0.5920 3.«0 0.6399 C.63S4 0 .^.llB 0.628^ 0.6247 0.6211 0.6175 0.6140 0.6104 0 . 6 06 9 0.6033 0.5997 4.Ct 0 .6467 0.6H3i 0.6396 0.6 36 wi 0 .63^4 C.628'4 U.62 53 t.6 2 17 C .6162 0>6i 0.t33i 0.6295 C.6259 0.622<« 0.6168 0.615« 4.40 0.6622 0.6566 0.6551 0.6515 0.6'*79 0.6444 C.6408 0.6373 C.6 337 C.630 i 0 .6266 0.623U 4.60 O.67C0 0 • 6o64 C.6628 0.659^ 0.6557 0.6521 0.6466 0.6450 C.64l4 0.6374 0.6343 0.63C6 4.8C 0 .6777 0 .6741 0.6706 0.6670 C.6b35 0.6599 0.6563 C.652b C. 64 92 0.6^5 6 0.6421 0.63Bd >

OlSPRKE 0.55

CORN • OY PkODucr PRUEi Pitice

jO .00 ^0.00 50.00' 60.00 7C.00 bO.CC,- 90.00 , 1.20 0.5&31 icc-cc 110 .06 120.00 0.5795 0.5760 0.5724 130.00 140.CO 0.5689 0.5653 0.5617 1.^0 0.5904 0.5582 C.5546 C.5510 0.5(173 0.5O37 0.5802 0.5475 0.5439 0.5766 0.5731 0.5b9S 1 »fC. 0.5986 0.5659 0.5624 0.558O 0.5951 0.5915 0.5879 0.5552 0.5517 0.5844 0.5d0d C.577Z l.BC 0 .6C64 0 . 5 73 7 C.5701 C .5666 0.602a 0.5993 0.5630 0.5594 0.5957 0.5921 C.5o86 2.00 0.61<»1 0.5e50 C.581< 0 .5i7S 0.6106 0.6070 C .5743 0.5707 0.5672 0.6034 C.599V 0.5963 2 .20 0.5926 0.5b92 C.5b56 0.6219 0.6183 0.6148 0.5821 0.5785 0.5749 C.6076 C.6C4i 2.40 0.6112 0.6005 0 .5969 0.5934 .0.629b C.6261 0.6225 0.5898 0.5863 0.5827 0.6190 0.615^ 0.6118 2.60 0.6083 0.6047' C.6011 0.637^ C .633o C.6303 C.5976 0.5940 0.5904 a> 0.6267 C.6231 0.6196 •vi 2.80 0.6160 0.6125 C.6C89 0.6<»52 0.6<*16 C.6380 0.6053 0.6018 0.S9B2 0.6345 0.6309 C.6273 3 .CO 0.6238 0.6202 C.6166 0.6529 , 0.6i»93 0.6458 0.6131 0.6095 0.6060 0.642^ C.6387 0.6J51 3.20 0.£315 C- .6280 0.62^ 0.66C7 0.65 71 0.6535 0.6208 0.6173 0.6i37 0.6500 0.6464 0.642d 3.40 0.6393 0.6357 C.6322 0.668<» 0.6649 0.6613 C.6286 0.6250 0.6215 0.6577 0.654<: 0.6506 3 .60 0.6470 0.6435 C.6d99 0.6762- 0.6726 0.6690 C.636 j 0.6328 0.6655 C.661^ 0.6584 3.60 C.6548 0.6512 0.6477 0.6292 0.6()39 0.6d0<* 0.67bd 0.6-«41 0.6405 0.6732 0.6697 0.6661 . 4-CC 0.6625 0.6590 C.6554 0.6370 0 .6917 0.6adl 0.6o46 C.6519 0.6483 O.60IO 0.67 7h 0.673V A.20 0.6703 C.6667 0 .6632 0.6447 0.e>99(» 0.69 5'^ 0.6923 0.6596 0.6561 0.6525 0.6687 0.6852 0.6816 <* .

CbkK oY PRCUJCT fUCEi PRHE

30 .00 40.CO 50.00 60.00 7C.00 8C .CG 90.OU uc.cc 1.20 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.CO ' 9.6281 J.6245 0.6210 0.6174 0.6139 0.6103 0.6067 0.6032 1.40 C.5996 0.5960 0.5925 0.5889 0.63S9 C.6i23 G.6287 0.62 52 0.6216 0.61dl 0.6145 0.6109 C.6074 C.603e 0.6002 0.5947 1.6C 0 .6 4 36 0.6401 0.6365 0.6i29 C.6294 C.6258 0.6222 C.6181 0 .6151 C.611t 0.6080 1.BQ 0.6514 0.6476 0.6U44 0.6443 0.6407 0.6j 0.6336 0.6i00 0.6264 C.6229 0.6193 0.6157 2.00 0.6591 0.6556 0.6122 0.6520 0.646<* 0.6449 0.6'*li 0.6378 • 0.6342 C.6 306 C.6271 2.20 0.6669 0.6235 0.6199 L.6633 C.6598 U.6562 0.t>526 0.6491 0 .6455 C.6419 G .6384 2.*C 0.644» 0.6313 0.6277 0.6711 0.6675 0.664U 04 0.66 0.6568 C.6533 L .6'49 7 0.6146 C .6461 0.642 b 0 .6390 2 .60 0 .6e24 D.678d 0.6354 0.6753 0.6717 C.6681 0 .66<*6 C.6610 0 .6575 C.6539 CD P.650J 0.6468 0.6432 00 2.6C 0.69C2 0 .6466 C.6i30 0.6795 0,6759 0.6723 C.6660 C.6e52 C .6616 C .65dl 3.P0 0.6979 0.6545 0.6510 0.6943 0.69Ct( U. 6tl7^ C.6037 0.6tfCl 0.6765 0.6730 C >6o94 0«6&5o 0.6623 3.20 0.7C57 0.7021 0.6587 0.6985 0.6950 0 •6-« 1<« 0 •<»tt7d 0.6043 0.6tt07 C.6772 C.6736 3 .40 0.6700 0.6665 0.7134 0.709V 0.7U63 C.7027 C.6992 C.6956 C.e92C 0 .tU5 0 .6049 0 .6{}13 0.6776 0.674« 3.6C 3.72U C.717b 0.7140 0.7105 0.706V 0.7034 0.6996 0.6962 C.6V27 C.6a9i 0.6855 0.6820 3.60 0.7289 0.725** 0.713^ 0.7i47 0.7111 0.7C75 C 0.7214 .7041/ C.7L.04 0.6969 C.6933 4.00 0.7367 0.7331 0.6897 C.7296 0.7260 0.7224 0.7189 0.7153 0.7117 C.7082 0.704b 0.7011 0.6975 4.20 0.7«*4<« Q.7«i09 C.7373 0.7J37 C.7302 C.7266 0.7231 0.7195 C.7159 0.7124 0.7088 0.7052 4.4C 0 .7522 0.748O C.7«.51 0. 7m 5 0.7379 0 .7344 0.73C8 c.7i 0 .723 7 0.7201 0.7166 4.60 0.7599 0.7564 0.7130 0.752d 0.7h93 0.7457 0.7421 0.7366 0.7350 C.73l<» C .727* 0.7243 4.60 0.7677 'J.7641 0.7208 Q.76C6 0.7570 C.753S 0.7^99 0. 7463 0.74.28 e.7392 0.7356 0.7321 0.7285

t* V OAiPklCE s 0.65 CChN bV PRCtUCT PklLfci PMCE

33.00 <»0.00 SO.00 60.00 7U.00 80 .00. 1.20 90.00 100.00 1IC.OO 0.6731 0.6695 120.00 130.00 140.00 C t b660 0. 662** 0.6589 C.6553 0.6Sn U .6482 l.^C 0.6446 0:. 641U 0.6375 0.6b09 C.677i C.6737 0.6339 0.6702 0 *666b 0.6631 0*6595 l.hO 0.6559 C.6524 0 .6488 0.6660 0.6d51 0.6452 0.6417 0.6S15 0.6779 0.6744 0.6708 0.6672 0.6637 C .6601 i .EO 0.6V6 0.6840 0.6604 0.7^03 0.7167 .C.7131 0.7C96 C. iCtC 0 . <025 CD i»ao 0.735^ C .69 89 0.6953 0.6918 0.6082 0.7316 0.7280 0.7245 C.7209 0 .7172 U.713a 0 — .7102 0.7066 t.7031 3.00- 0.7<,29 0.73 93 0.6995 0.6960 0.7358 0.7322 0.7267 0.7251 3.20 0.7215 0.718C C.7144 C.7108 0.7073 0.7S07 j.7<»71 C.7<»3S 0.7037 0.7400 C .736^ 0.7328 0.7293 3.<.0 0.7257 C.7222 0.716o 0.7150 0.7S64 C.75C9 0.7913 0-7115 0.7'*77 0.7442 0.7«t06 0.7370 3.60 0.7335 C*7^99 C.726 3 0*722 6 0.7662 0 .7o2o 0.739U 0.7192 0.7555 C.7bl9 0 .748 4 0.7448 3.60 C.7412 0 .7377 0 * 734i 0*7305 0.7270 6.7739 0.770<» 0 .7660 0.7632 0.7597 0*7561 0.7525 <*.00 0.7490 C,7'*54 C.7419 0*7383 0.7347 0.7617 0.7781 0.7746 0.7710 0.767'* 0.7639 0.7603 <*.20 0.7567 C *7532 C.749b 0.7t61 0.7t25 0.7e94> C.7659 C.7823 0.77,8 7 C.7752 0*7716 0.7661 C.cC 0.7645 0.7609 C.7574 8 0.797 2 0.7v3o 0.753 0.75C2 P.7901 0*7865 C.7829 0.7794 0.775b C.772i C .7667 4.60 C.7fc51 0.7616 0.7 5B C 0.30CV 0.801'* 0.7978 0.7943 0.7907 0'.7871 0 .7836 4 .80 0.7800 0^7764 C.7729 0.9127 0.809a 0.7693 0*7656 0.8056 0.8020 0.7<»e5 0.7949 C* 7913 0 .7£76 C.7o42 0 .7806 0.7771 0.7735 <»A5Pk1CE • 0.70

CORib bY PRCUUCI PHICEi PKU£

JO.00 40.00 &0.00 60.00 70.00 BO.CC 1.20 9C.CC 100 .00 liO.OO 120.00 0.7181 C.7145 0.7110 130.00 140.CO 0.7074 0.7039 0.7003 ] .<>0 0.6967 0.6932 C .6896 0.7259 0.7223 C .6660 0.6025 0.6789 0.7187 J.7i 52 0.7Ut> 0.7081 0.7045 0.700V l.f>C 0.7336 0.6V7«» C.693a 0.6V02 0.7301 0.7265 0.7229 0.6067 0.719<. 0.7158 7122 C. C.7C87 0 .7051 1.80 0.741 2.20 0.75fe9 0.7S33 0.7171 C.7135 0.7099 0.7<*9d 0 . 7<*62 0.7«*26 0.7391 0.7J55 0.7319 C .7^a*« 2.<>0 0.7646 C.7611 C* 7244 0»7213 0.7177 0.7575 0.7540 0.7304 0.7«t66 0.7^.33 0.7397 0.7jJ6l 2.^0 0.772«i c.76a() 0.7653 0.7326 0.7290 0.7253 0 .7 bCo 0.7772 0.7737 0.7^10 0.7701 0.7665 0.7630 C.759«» 3 .2 0 0.7957 0.7921 C.755d a.?523 0.7«.87 1 0.7685 0.7850 C. 7olt. 0.7776 C. 774 • 3.

ff'SPRKE « 0.75

COkN 6* PRDOUCr PkiCES PKUf

iO.OO 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 1.20 0.7631 100.00 lie.00. 0.7595 0.7560 120.00 130.00 140.00 0.7524 0.7«*69 0.7453 1 .40 0 .7417 0.7362 C.7346 0.7709 0.7673 0.7637 0.7^10 0.7275 >0.7239' 0.7602 0.7 566 0.7531 1.60 0.7495 0.7455 C,7^2i. 0.7786 0-7751 0-7715 C.7366 0.7352 0.7317 0.7679 0.7644 0.7606 1.80 >0 . 7864 0.7572 0.7537 C.75OI C.782ci 0.7793 0.7 <16o 0.743,0 0.7394 0.775 7 0.77'2i. 0.766(> 2.00 0.7b5 0 0.7614 C.7579 0.7941 y 0.7906 0.7870 0.7543 0.7507 0.7472 0.7834 C.7799 0.7763 2.2c 0.7726 0.7692 C *7650 0.8019 0.7983 0.7621 0.7585 0.7549 0^946 0.7912 0.7676 2.40 0.7641 0 . 76 05 C.7769 0.6096 0.8061 0 .1 734 C.7t96 0..7 o63 0.6 025 0.7990 U;762 7 I 0.7^5^ O.v-yid 0.7a63 2.60 0.617<* 0.7647 0.7,611 0.7776 0.8136 0.6103 0.7740 0.7704 vo 0.8067 0.6031 0.799b 2.80 0.7960 0.7925 C .7689 0.S252 0.621b C.6160 0.7,65 3 0.7618 0.7782 0.8145 0.6109 0.6073 3.00 0.603d 0.8002 C.7^66 C.793i 0.8329 0.6293 0.6256 0 .7660 0.6222 0.6187 0.6151 0.7695 3 .2 0 0.8115 0.8080 0.6044 0.8407 0.8371 0.8335 0.600b 0.7973 0.7937 0.6300 C.826<» 0.6226 3.40 C.6193 0 .6157 C .8L2<: 0.8484 0.8449 C..606 o 0.8050 0.8015 0.8413 0.9377 0.6342 3.60 0.63C6 0.82 70 0.8235 0.6562 0.652O 0.8199 0.6163 0.8128 0.8092 0.8490' 0.6455 0.6^19 3.60 0.6364 0.834b 0.8312 0.d(>39 0.6604 C.8i77 C.6241 0.6205 0.8170 0.6566 0.6532 0.6497 4.00 0 .6461 0.8425 0,.8390 0-8717 0.6681 0.8354 . 0.631^ 0.8263 0.8247 0.6646 0.6610 0.857^, 0.6539 0.8503 . 4.20 0.8467 C.8<»32 C.<8396 0.8794 0.8759 C.6723 0.6361 0.8325 0.8667 0.8652 0.6616 4.40 0.8581 0.6545 , C.850.9 0.6672 0.88 36 C.6'^7^ 0.8436 0.8402 O.BbOl 0.8765 0.8729 4 .60 0.6694 0.665 0 0.6623 0.6949 o.e9i«* 0.8567 C.8551 0.6516 0.8460 0.8676 0.6643 0.8607 4.BG 0.6771 C.8736 0 .6700 0.9027 0.8991 0.8664 C .8029 0.6593 0.8558 0.895b 0.892 0 0.6665 0.8649 0.8613 0.8776 C.8742 C .670o 0.6671 0.B635 OASPKlCf « n.ao

CORN 8Y PkQuUCr PRICE5 pftice

30 .CO •*0 .00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 uc.oo 121.OC 130.00 140.00 1.20 0.8C81 0.8UA1> 0.8Q1C C.797*. C.7939 0.7903 0.7867 0.783^ 0.7796 0.7760 C.7725 0.7689

Q,6\5^ 0.6123 0.0087 0.805^ C.8OI0 C.7981 0.7945 C-79C9 0 .7c74 C.7038 0.7»02 0.7767

1 .6C 0.5^36 U.8201 C.8165 0.812 9 C.809^ C.dC5o C.eC2 2 0 .7^67 €.7-^51 C.7^l6 0.7880 0.7844

I.bO 0.831^ C.e276 0.82A3 0.84.37 C .8171 0.ai36 0.8100 a.606^ C.8029 C.7993 0.7957 0.7922

2.00 0.4391 0 .6356 0.8^20 0.8284 C.S249 C.8213 0.817e 0.8142 0 .8106 0.807i 0.8035 0.7999

2.20 0.SA69 0.8<>33 0.8398 0.8;)62 C.dj26 0 .8

2 .AC 0.85A6 0.8^11 0 .8<*7S 0.8^4o C .8HU«t J .8360 C.8223 3 .E2«7 C .8261 C .8226 0.8190 0.8154

O.S62<* C 2.f0 .6;>8o 0.85^3 0.8517 0 .8^81 0.844o 0.8410 0.6375 C.8339 C.83C3 0.8268 0.8232 vo N> 2.BC 0.67C2 0.8666 C.8630 u.8^91> C .9 3 5*y C .8523 0.8488 C.84S< C .8416 C .83eA 0 .8345 U.831C 3.CO 0-B779 0.87<»3 0.870tf D.8672 0.8637 0.8601 0.8565 0.853C C.8h94 C.845e 0.8423 0.8387

3.2C 0.8toS7 C.Be21 0.87SS 0.8750 C.871<. 0 •867d 0 .8643 0.86C7 C.8572 C.8536 C.a50C 0.8465

3.AC 0 .893A 0 .8d9<^ 0.8863 0.8^27 C.879^ C.^756 0.8720 C.8685 C .6t4 9 (1.6613 0.8578 0.8542

3.60 0.9C12 0.8^76 0.8940 0.8905 0.8869 Q .8634 0.8798 0.876<: C.8727 C.6o9X 0.8655 0.8620

3. to 0.9C89 0.905<» 0.V018 0.896^ 0.8947 0.891 1 C.8d75 0 .6t4Q C .8 804 C.tt76V 0.8733 0.8697

4.CO 0.9167 C.913i (J.9096 0.9060 0.902^ C .6989 0 .8953 0.8917 C .8882 0.8846 O.60II 0.8775

A.2C 0 0 .9

A .40 0.932ii o.92Bt> C.9251 C.9215 e.917y 0 .9144 0.9108 0.9073 C.9037 0.9001 0.8966 0.8930

A. 60 0.9399 G.936'* 0 .9328 0.94:93 0.9i57 a.9c21 C.9 186 0.515c C.9114 u.907'ai 0.9U43 0.900s A.AU 0.9^77 C.9<»<.1 0.9405 0.9370 0.9335 C.9299 0.9263 0.9226 C.9 192 C.9i56 0.9121 0.9085

(1^ VT bASPRlCE =s 0.65

CDRK bY PRCUJCT PRICES P(<1CE

30 .00 40.00 50.00 60.00 7C.00 80.CO ^0.00 ICC.CC lie .00 ' 120.00 130.00 140.CO

1.20 0.3531 0.8493 0.6460 0.6424 0.6^89 0.6353 0.8317 0.8282 . C.6246 0.6210 0.6175 0.8139

1 .CO • 0.;)fa09 0.8573 C.6537 0.6502 0.8466 0.8431 0.6395 0.8359 0.8324 C.828d 0.6252 0.8217

1 .60 0.8686 0.6651 0.8615 0.8579 0.65<*4 0.650a 0.8^72 0 .84 37 C.8401 0 .8366 0.8330 0.8294

1 .BU 0.6764 C.672d 0.B693 U.e657 0.8621 0 .8586 0.6550 0.6514 C.8479 C.8^43 0.8407 0.8372 2.00 0.6641 0.6d06 0.6770 0.8734 0.8699 0.8663 0.662b 0.6592 C.8556 0.8521 0.8465 0.8449

2 .20 . 0.8919 0.6d83 0.6646 0.8812 C.&776 0.8741 0.6105 0 .8669 0.8634 0.8598 0.8563 0.8527 0.8604 2.40 0.6996 0 .6961 0.6925 O.6V96 0.8854 6.8818 0.6763 0.8747 C.8711 C. 8676 0.8640 O.8062 2.6C 0 .9C74 0.903O C.90C3 0.8967 C.8931 C .8896 0.66 60 C.B82S C .818^ 0 .8753 0.8718 vo CO 2.SO 0.9152 0.911o 0.9060 0.9045 0.9009 0.6973 0 .8936 0.8902 C.6066 C.6031 0.8795 0.8760 0.8b37 3 .CO 0.9229 0.9193 0.9158 0.9122 C.9U67 0.9C5 1 C.9C15 0.E9E0 0.69«>4 0.6908 0.6873 3.20 0.9307 C.9271 0.9235 0.9200 0.9164 0.9126 0.9093 0.9057 C.9022 0.8986 0.6950 0.8915 3.40 0.9364 0.934V 0.9313 0.9277 C.92

4.00 0.9617 0.9561 0.9546 0.9510 C.9

C 0.9571 0.9535 4.60 0.9927 0.9B91 0 .9656 U.9n2i> C.976b 0.97A9 0.9713 0.967e C .9o42 .9606 bASPkice « 0.90

BY PRCOUtr PA1CE6 PR ICE

30.00 <«0.00 5C.00 60.00 7C.0J bC.CC. 90.00 ICC.CC 110.00 12C.00 130.00 140 .00 1 • 20 0.8S81 0.89^5 0.«910 0.S^7^ 0.8H39 0.0803 0.8767 0.8732 C.6696 C. Bob 0 O.Sb25 0.8589 1 ,2 C.6>16 0.dd81 c. ee8099 2 .20 0.9369 0,9333 C,9298 0.9262 C.9£2c> t.919i 0 (..9155 .911^ 0 .9084 Q.9 04e 0.9013 0.8977 2.<40 0 .9<»<>6 a.9<»li 0.9375 0.9J(«v: C.930«i 0 .9^64 C.9233 C.9197 C .9161 C.912b 0.9090 0.9e5«. 2.60 0.9i2t* 0.9<»8(> 0.9*i53 0 .9<*1 7 0.9JI61 0.9346 0.9310 0.9275 vO C.9239 C.92CJ 0.916d 0.9132 4> 2.tt0 0.9602 0.9566 C.9S30 0.9«»^;> O.S-'tS'tf 0 .9>*23 0 .938b 0.9352 0.9316 0.9281 0.9245 0.9210 3.0C 0 .9679 0.96<«j C.9b08 0.957< 0.9337 0.95C1 0 .9<»6& 0.9«.3t C.9394 0.935d 0.9323 0.9287 3.20 0.9757 0.972i C.9Db5 0.9b5L 0.9o]* 0 9966'i 0.9a53 0.9617 C.9782 0.9746 0.9711 0.9673 <• .20 1 .01<.<* 1.0109 1.UC73 1.0037 1 .0U02 0 .9966 C.993i 0.9 b ^5 D.9e59 C .9d24 0.9788 0.9752 4.40 1.0222 I .0l3o 1.0151 1.0115 1 .Du79 1 .004<* l.COOtt 0.9973 C.9937 0.9901 0.9d66 0.9o30 4.60 1 i .0^99 .026<» 1 .022il 1.019J 1.0i57 I .C121 1 .0086 1 .0C5O 1 .0014 0.9979 0.9943 0.990e 4.BCi I .0377 1 .03

Ub. 6/SPR] (t « 0.95

CCR^ dY PRCUUCT PftlCEi

30.00 o 50.00 60.00 o 70.00 80.00 1.20 0.9431 o 90.00' 100.00 110.00 120.00 0.9395 0.9360 0.9324 130.00 140.00 0.9289- ' 0.9253- 0.9217 1.40 0 .9509 0.918£ 0.9146 0.9473 C.9437 0.9110 0.907s' 0.9039 0.940^ C.9366 C.9331 1.60 0.92 95 C.9259 0 0.9566 0.9551 .9224 0.9188 0.9152 0.9515 0.9479 b .9444 0.9117 1 0.9408 0.9372 .60 0.9b64 0.9337 C.9 301 0.9266 0.'962d 0.9S93 0.955?" 0.9230 0.9194 0.9S21 0 .9486'- 0 .9450' 2.00 0.9741 0 .9414 0.9379 C.9706 C.9670 0.9343 0.9307 0.9272 0.9634 0.9599 0.9563 2.2G *0.9528 0.9492 C.9456 0.9bl9 0.9783- 0.9748 C.9'»21 0.9385 0.9349 0.971i 0.9ci76 0.9b^l 2.40 0.96C5 C.9S69 0.9534 0.9896 0.9861 C .9 49d 0 .9463 0.9427 0.9825 0.9790 0.9754 2. 60 0.9718 0.9b83 0.9647 0.9974 0.9938 C.9bll C.9576 0.9540 0.9903 0.9d67 0.9o3i 0i9504 vo 0.9796 C.976C 5 •525 t/i 2.30 1.0052 p. C.9689 C .9b53 1 .OOlo 0.9960. 0.9945 0.9blb 0.9^82 0.9909 0.9873 0.983O 3.CC 1 0.9802 C.9766 C.9731 .012^ 1 .0093 1.0058 0.9695 0.9660 1.0022 C.9967 C.9951 3-20 0.9915 C.96BC C .9e44 1.0207 1.0171, 1.0135 C .9 80 8 0.9773 0.9737 1.0100 1 .0064 1 .CC2d 3.40 0.9993 0 .9957 0.9922 1.0284 1 .0249. 1.0213 0.986b 0.9850 0.9813 1.0177 1.0142 1 .010b 3.60 1.0070 1.0035 C ,9999 1.U362 1.0326 1.0290 C.9963 0.9928 0.9892 l-025b 1.021-4 1 .0184 3.BC 1.0148 1.0112 1 .0077 1 .0439 1 .0404 1.0368 1.0041 1.0005 0.997C 1.033c 1 .0297 1 . C(!6 1 <•.00 1.0225 1.CJ9C 1 .0154 1 .0119 1-0517 1.0481 1.044b 1 .0083 1 .0047 1.0410 1.0374 1 .0339 4.20 1.0303 ' 1 .0267 1.0232 1.0594 1.0559 1.0523 1.0196 1.0161 1.C125 1.0467 1.0

Cl/kN dv pRCiuucr PRICES PRIC E 12c .00 130.00 mo.oo JO.00 <•0.00 30.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 lie.00 0.9703 0.9667 U.9632 0.9596 0.9560 0.9525 0.9489 1 .20 0.9b&l 0.964^ C.9dlQ 0.917-4 C.97i9 C.9781 0.9745 C .97C9 0 .9674 C.9t3 6 0.9602 0.9567 1.4C 0 0.9923 C.9d87 0.985£ C.9o 16 0.985<1 0.9622 0.9787 C.9751 C.9716 0.9o80 0.9644 1.60 1.0036 1 .0001 0.9965 0.9924 0.969<* C,9'#71 0. 99 36 C.99C0 0 .9t6'* C .9629 0.979J 0.9757 0.9722 1 .eo l.CJl't 1.0076 1.J042 1.0007 0.9635 0.9799 1 1.0013 0.9976 0.9942 C.9906 C.9671 2-00 I .0191 1.015o 1.0120 1.0064 .0049 0.9677 1 I .0091 1.0055 1.0019 C.996<* 0.9S4a 0.9'yl3 2.20 I .0269 1.0233 1 .0198 1.0162 .0126 1 0.9990 0.9954 1*C20h 1 .Ci66 1.013J I .0097 1 .0061 .0026 2 .4 0 1 .0346 1.0311 1.0275 1.0^40 1.0210 1.0175 1.0139 1.01C3 1.0068 1.CC32 2.6C 1.0424 1.03a50 l.OSlH 1.0413 1.0378 1.Cj42 1.U59£ 1 .0556 1 .0520 1 .0465 1 .Oh49 3.40 I .0734 1.0699 1.0663 1.0627 1.0420 1 .06J<* 1.0596 l«05t2 1.0527 1 .0491 1.0455 3.#>0 1 .OeU 1 .0776 U0740 1.0705 1.066S 1.C497 1 1.0675 1 .0640 1 .0o04 1.C569 1.0533 3.BO 1.0d69 1.0(1-54 1 .0816 1.0782 1 .0747 .0711 1 .064o 1.0611 1.C575 1 .062** 1 .0789 1.C7S3 1 .0717 1.0682 4 .CC 1 .0967 1.0931 1.0896 1.0660 1 .C72* 1.0688 i.Co52 1 .0902 1 .0666 1.0831 1.0795 1.0759 f*. 20 1 .104«* 1.1009 1.0973 1.0937 1 1.0601 1.0766 1.07 30 1 .0^79 1.0944 1 .0906 1.0673 .0637 4.40 1 .1122 1 .1006 1.1051 1.1015 1.0^14 1 .0679 1.0643 1.0806 1 .11:193 l.lJ57 1.1C21 l.C9fa6 1 .0^5C 4 .6C 1.1199 1 .1164 1.1126 1.0921 1.C685 1.1135 1.1099 1 .1063 1.1026 1.0992 1.0956 4.>)0 1.1277 1.1241 1•1^06 1.117U r' 1 (

G6SPRICE >' 1-05

CCRN 6* PRODUCT PklCE6 PKl CE 130.00 UO.CC 9C*00 100.00 liC.OO 120.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 60.00 1.OOlU 0.9975 0.9939 1.0169 1.C153 i.oin i.cce2 1 .0009 . 1 .0373 1 .0337 1.0302 .0266 - 1.0166 1.0130 . l.C09^ 1.0379 1.0344 1.C3C6 i.027Z 1 .0237 1.0201 1 .60 1.0<>86 1.0451 1.0415 1.0207 1.0172 1.0366 1.0350 1.031 1.05^^7 1.0511 1.C476 1.0<^^0 1 .0654 1.06la 1.05B3 2.<>0 1.079t) 1.0761 1.0725 1.0690 1.0589 1.055.1 1.0516 1.C482 1.0767 1 .0731 1 .0696 1 .0660 1 .0625 • 2.60 1 •0b7<. 1 .0636 1.0603 1.0595 1.0560 1.0773 1.0736 1.0702 .1.0666 1.0631 1 .0916 1 .0t>60 1 .0645 1 .0609 2.60 1.0952 1.C0 37 1.07<»«» 1.07Co ,1.0673 1 .C651 1.0615 1 .0760 1 1.0993 1.0956 1.0922 1.0667 3 .00 .1029 1.C715 I 1.07do. 1.075C 1.0926 1.0693 1.0657 1.0622 1 .1071 1.1035 1.1000 1 .09 64 3.20 1.1107 1.C792 1 .0699 1.CB63 1.0626 1.1042 1 .1U06 1.C97U 1.0935 3.^0 1 .118<» 1.1149 1.1113 1.1077 r l.Co70 1.1012 1.0977 1.09^1 1.0905 1 .1119 1 .1064 1.10<»d 3.60 1 .1262 1.1226 1.1190 1.1155 1.0963 1.09<»7 1 .1C9G 1 ,105U 1.1019 1.1304 1.1266 1.1232 1. 1197 1.116 1 1.1125 3 .60 1 .1339 1.1025 1.1167 1.1132 1 .1096 1.1061 1.1346 1.1310 1.127'* 1.1239 1 .1^03 <*.00 i.i<.n 1 .1381 1.1102 1.12

CCRK oY PkCOUCT PMCES PAKE

30.OG 4C.00 &C.00 60.00 70.00 80 .00 100.00 liC.OO 120.00 130.00 140 CO

1.2C 1 .Oldl 1.0745 1.0710 1 .0674 1.0639 1 .C6C3 1 .0567 1.C532 1 .04 96 1 .046U 1 .0425 1 C389

U<>0 1 .3I>59 1.0»23 1.0787 1.0752 1 .0716 1.0660 1.0645 1.0609 1.0574 1 .053b 1.0502 1 0467

1 .60 1 .0^36 1.0-^Ol 1.0^65 1.CS29 1.07Sh 1 .C75d 1.0 722 1 .0e67 1.0o51 1•Obl6 1.0580 1 0544

1 .90 1 .1014 1.09 7b 1 .0S42 1.0907 1.0071 1 .0436 1 .0800 1 .0764 1 .0729 l.Ce9j 1.0657 1 C622

2.CC 1 .1C91 1 .1056 1.1020 i.0V8t. 1.09<>9 i .C913 1.0^78 1. Cd <•2 1 .0fe06 1 .0771 1 .0735 1 0«99

2.20 1.1169 1 .1133 1.1096 1.106^ 1.1026 1 .0991 1.0955 1.0919 1.0e84 1 .Ot>4

2 .<*0 1 .1^46 1 .1211 1.1175 1. 114U I.UOh 1 . 1C60 1. 1033 1 .0997 1.0961 1 .0926 1 .0890 1 Co54

2 • 60 1 1.12d0 1 .1^53 1.1217 1 .1Itfi 1 .1146 1 .lllU 1.1075 1.1039 1.1003 1.0968 1 C932 \o 00 2.60 1.1402 1 .1366 1.1330 1.1295 1 .USv 1.12^3 1 .1188 1.115^ 1.1116 1.1081 1.10<*5 1 1010

3 .DC 1 .1479 l.l44i 1.140

3.20 1.1&S7 1 .li>21 1. U8S 1.14S0 1 .l4iH 1.137fl 1 .1343 1.1307 1.1272 1 .1236 1.1^00 1 1165

3. AC 1 .1634 1.1599 1 .1!>63 1 .1527 1.1492 1 a456 1.14 o 20 1. 1385 1 .1349 1.1313 1 .1^70 1 1242 o 3.60 1-1712 1.167b 1 .1640 1.1d05 1 .1569 1 • Isit o1 .1496 1 .1462 1.1427 1. 139 1 1.1355 1 1320

3.90 1 .17S9 i.l754 :.1718 1.16B2 1.1647 1 . 16 11 1.1575 1 .1540 1 .1504 1 .l46i 1.1433 1 139 7

CO 1 .U67 1 •U31 1.1796 1.1760 1.1724 1 .1689 1.1&53 1.1617 1 .1582 1. 154e 1.1511 1 1475

2C 1 .1S44 1 .i-^o-^ 1 .lt>73 1 .1637 1.U02 1.1766 1.1731 1. 1695 1 .1659 1 .1624 1 .1566 1 1552

<^.<»0 1.2C22 1.1986 1 .1451 1.1915 l.lo79 1 .le44 1 .1608 1.1773 1.1737 1.1701 1.1666 1 1630

<1. 60 1.209'* i .2064 1.202tt 1.1993 1.1957 1.1921 1.1886 1.1 5 0 1.1814 1 .1779 1.1743 1 170B

4.80 1 .2177 1.2141 1 .2106 1. 2070 1 .2335 1 .1V99 1.1963 1.1928 1 .ls92 1.185o 1.1921 1 1785

W> OASPklCE > 1.15

CCRK bY PRCUUC r PliiCEi PRICE

30.00 ' 4C.00 • £>C.OO 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00: liC.OO 120.CO 130.00 1/40.CC^ 1.2C 1 .1231 l.li9!> 1.1160 1.1124 1.1089 1.1C53 l.lUl 1 1 .C98< 1 .0$46 ' 1.0910 1 .0875 1.0839 l.<>0 1.1309 1.1273 1.12^7 1.1202 1.1166 1 .1130 1 .1095 1.1059 1.1024 1.0988 1.0952 J 1.C917 1.60 ' 1.1386 1 .1351 1 .1315 1.1279 1.1244 1.1208 1.1172 1.1137 1.1101 1 .1066 1.1030 1.0994 1.60 1 .1464 1 .I42ti 1.1392 1.1357 1.1321 1.1286 1.1250 1.121<» 1.1179 1.1143 1.1107 1. 1072 2.0C 1 .1541 1.1506 1.1470 1 .143^ 1 .139<:^ 1. 1363 1.1328 1.1292 1 .1256 1.1221 1 .1165 1.1149 2 .2C 1 .161^ 1.1383 1.1548 1.1512 1.1476 1 .1441 1.1405 1 .136V 1.1334 . 1 .1296 1.1263 1.1227 2.40 1.1696 1 .1661 1.1625 1.1584 1.1554 1.1518 1.1483 1.1447 1.1411 1.1376, 1.1340 1.1304 2.60 1 .1774 1 .1736 1 .1703 1.1667 l.l63i 1 .1596 1.1560 1.1525 1 .1489 l«145i 1.1418 1.1382 2.6C vo l.lb52 1.1816 1.1780 1.1743 1 VO 1.1709* .lo73 1.1630 1. ltd 1 .1566 1.1531 1 .1495 1 .1460. 3.00 1 .1929 1.1893 1.1858 1.1822 1.1787 1 .1751 1 .1715 1.1680 1.1644 1.I60o 1.1573 1.1537 3.20 1.2007 1.197i 1.1935 1.1900 1.1U64 1.1828 1.1793 1.1757 1 .1722 1.1686 1.1650 1.1615 3.40 1.2064 1.2049 1 .2013 1.1977 1 .1942 1 .1906 1.U70 1.1035 1.1799 1 .1763 1.1728 1.1692 3.60 1.2162 ' 1.2126 1.2090 1.2055 1 .2019 1 .1984 1.1948 1.1912 1.1B77 1.1841 1.1605 1-1770 3.B0- 1.2239 1.2204 1 .2168 1.2132 1 .2097 1 .2061 1.2025 1.1990 1.1«<54 1 .1919 1.1683 , 1.1841 <».00 1 .2317 1.2281 1.2246 1.2210 1.2174 1 .2139 1.21C3 1 .2067 1 .2032 1.1996 1.1960 1.1925 4.20 1.2394 1.2359 1.2323 1 .2287 1.2252 1.2216 1 .2181 1.2145 1.2109 1 .2074 1.2038 1 .2002 r» • , i 4.40 1 .2472 1.2436 1.2401 1.2365 1. 2329 1 .2294 1.2258 1 .2222 1.2187 1.2151 1.2116 1.2080 4.60 1.2549 1.2514 1.2478 1.2443 1 .2<»07 1.2371 1 .2336 1.2300 1.2264 1.2229 1.2193 1.2158 4.6C 1 .2627 1.259i 1.2556 1.2521 1.2484 1.2449 1.2413 1.2378 1 .2342 1 .230c» 1.2271 1.2235 GA^PRICE ' 1.20

CDRN OV PKOOUCT PklCES PR tCE

30.CC <•0.00 50 .00 60.00 7C.OO dO.CO 90.00 ICC .CC UO .00 1C 1 .175v 1 .1723 1.1687 1.165< l.Ule 1 .158C 1.1545 1 .15C9 1*1474 1.1438 1.1402 1.1367

1.60 1.1836 1.1801 1 .1765 1.172^ l.lo94 l.lt>5d 1.1622 1.1587 1.1551 1 .1516 1.1460 1 .144(1 1 .1)0 1 .1914 1 .l»7d l.la42 1.18C7 1.1771 l.UJt) 1.1700 1.1664 1.1629 1 . 159J 1.1557 1.1524!

2.00 1.1991 1 .1956 1.1V20 1.1864 l.le49 1 .Ibli 1 .1778 1.1742 1.1706 1.1671 1.1635 1.1599

2 .2 0 1 .2069 1.2033 1.1998 1.196< 1.W26 1 .ltf91 1. ldS5 1 .1 US 1.1784 1.174« 1*1713 1.1677 2. AO 1.214(> 1 .2111 1.2075 1.203 9 1 .2u0*« 1 .1968 1.1933 1.1897 1.1861 1.18c6 1.1790 1.1754

2.6C 1 1 .2224 .2lati 1.2153 1.2117 1.2031 1.2046 1.2010 I. 197S 1 .J ^3 9 1 .1903 1 .1068 1 .1832 o o 2.60 1.2302 1 .226o 1.2230 1.2195 1 .2159 1 .2123 1 .2088 1 .2052 1.2016 1.1981 1.1^45 1.1910

3 .00 1.2379 i.2343 1.230b 1.2272 1.223} i .22C1 1.21t5 1 .2130 1.2094* 1 .205tt 1.2023 1.1987

3.20 1.2457 1 .2<*21 1.2385 1.2350 1 .2314 1 .227d 1.2243 1 .2i7^ 1.2136 1.2100 1.2065

3.4C 1 .2534 1 .2^99 1.2463 1.2427 1.^39^ 1 •<:356 1.2i20 1.2<8E 1 .2249 1.2213 1 .2178 1.2142

3. 1 .2612 1 .2576 1.2540 1.2503 1 .2469 1 .2434 1. <298 1 .2362 1.2327 1 .2291 1.2255 1.2220

3.SO 1.2699 1 .2b54 1 .26ld 1.2582 1.2547 1 .2511 1.2475 1.2440 1.2<*C<» 1.2369 1.2333 1*2297

«.CC I .2767 1.2731 i.2696 1.266b 1.2b24 1 .2dS9 1.2553 1.2511 1 .2 4 82 1 .24«e 1 .2410 1.2375

4.20 1 .2e4<. 1 .2<109 1.2773 1.2737 1.270£ 1 .2666 1.2631 1 .2595 1.2559 1.2524 1.2488 1.2452

4.40 1.2922 1 .2()dt> 1.2d51 1.2dl5 1.2779 1.2744 1 .2708 1.2672 1.2637 1.2601 1 .2566 1.2530

4.60 1.2999 1.29 64 1.2928 1.2a93 1 .2d57 1 .2821 1 .2786 1.2750 1 .2714 1.2679 1.2643 1.2608

4.60 1.3077 1.3041 1.3006 1.2970 1.2934 1 .28*^9 1.2863 1 .2e2o 1.2792 1 .2756 1.2721 1 .2685 *

0/SPKIce » 1.25

PRUE PhCbUCTPKlCEi

30.00 40.00 50,00 • 60.00 70.00 60 .00 1 90.00 ioo.bo .20 1 .2131 110.00 120 .00 1.2095 , 130.00 140.00 1.2060 1.2024 1 .1989 1 .1953 1.1917 1 .1682 1.40 1 .2209 1^1 l.ldlO 1.1775 1 .2173 1.2137 1.210<* 1 .250fi 1.2907 1.2871 1.2635 1 .2473 1.2437 1.2600 1 .2764 1.2726 3 .40 1.2693 1.2657 1 .2622 1 .2984 1.25S6 1.2550 1.2515 1.2949 1.2913 1.2077 1 .20 42 1 .2dC6 1.<770 3.60 1 .2735 1 .2699 1 .2663 1.2628 1.3062 1 .302t, 1 1.2592 .2990 1.295^ 1 .2919 1 .2884 1 .26<*6 3.80 1.26U 1.2777 1.2741 1.2705 1.3139 l.310'-» 1 .3068 1.2670 1.3032 1.2997 1 .2961. .CO 1 .2^25 1.2690 1.2ti5<» 1.2019 1 .3217 1.3161 1.3146 1 .2783 1.2747 1.3111} 1.307h 1 .3C39 1.3CC3 1 .2967 4.20 1.3294 1.2932 1 .2690 1.2860 1 .32 59 1 .3223 1.2625 ,1.3187 • 1.315*J 1 .3116 4 1.3061 1.3045 .40 1.3372 1.3009 1 .2974 1.2934 1.2902 1.33 36 1.3301 1 .3265 1.3^29 1.319 4 1.3156 4.60 1 .3122 1 .3087 1 .3051 1 .3449'. 1-3414 1.3016 1 .2980 1 .3376 1 .3343 1.3307 1 .3271 1 4 .ec .3236 1.3200 1.3164 1 .3527 1.3'»91 1.3129 1.3093 1.30 56 1.3456 1.342 0 1.3364 1.33<«9 1.3313 1.3276 1.32<»2 1 .3206 1.3171 1.3135 GASPklCE « 1.30

CDRN BY PkDOUCr PRICED »'KICc

iO.OC 40.00 SO.00 60.00 7C.C0 ttO.CC 9C.CC 100 .00 liO.OO 120 .00 130.00 140.00

1.20 1.2S81 I .254^ 1 .2510 1 .2h74 1.2439 1.2403 1.2367 1.233^ 1.2^96 1 .2260 1.2225 1.2189

1 .<.0 1 .26S9 1 .2623 1.2b87 1.255^ 1.2516 1 .24d0 1.2445 1.2409 1 .2374 1.2330 1.2302 1.2267 l.fiC 1 .2726 1.2701 1.266.5 1.262<« 1.2594 1 .2950 1.2522 1.2487 1 .2451 1.241b 1 .2380 1.23t9 J 1.2457 1.2422

1 .2^91 1.2656 1.2520 1 .27(i4 1.2749 1.2713 1.2677 1.2642 1 .2606 1.2571 1.2535 1.2499

2.20 1 .2V6S 1 .2'^3J 1.2898 1.2e62 1.2a26 1 .2791 1 .2755 1.2719 1 .2684 l«264e 1 .2613 1.2577

2 .40 1.3046 1 .3011 1.2975 1.2939 1 .2904 1 .2o6o 1. iii2l 1 .2 • S j 1 .2761 1 .2726 1.2690 1.2654

2.60 1 .3124 1 .3086 1.3053 1.3017 1 .2981 1 .c;946 1 .2910 1.2075 1.2839 1 .28Ci 1.2768 1.2732 o ro 2. BO 1 .3201 1 .3166 1 .3i30 l.3o95 1.3o5v 1 .>023 1 .2968 1 .2952 1 .2916 1.208 1 1.2845 1.2810

3.00 1 .3279 i.324i 1.320(» 1 .317

3 .20 1 .3357 1.3321 1.32«(S 1 .3<5U 1. 32l

3.<*G 1.3434 1 .339'^ 1 .3363 1.332 / 1.3292 1 .3£5o 1.3^20 1.3U5 1.314^9 1.3113 1.3078 1.304<

3.60 1-3512 1 .347b 1.3440 1.3405 1 .3369 1.3334 1 .32*90 1.3262 1.3227 1.3191 1.3155 1.3120

3.80 1.3589 1 .355h 1.351tt 1.3'«82 1 .3441 1.3411 1.3375 1.3340 1.3i04 1.32&9 1.3233 1.3197

4 .CO 1 .3667 1 .3631 1 .3596 1.3b60 1.352h 1.34S9 1. 345- 1 .3417 1 .3382 1 .3346 1.3310 1.3275

<1.20 I .3744 1 .370-i 1 .367J 1.3637 1 .3602 1>3366 1.3531 1.3495 1.3459 1.3424 1.3388 1.3352

4.4C 1.3ai2 1 .3760 1.3751 1.3715 1 . 3679 1.3o44 i.3eot> 1 .3 53 7 1. 3 so 1 1 .3466 1.3430

4.60 1 .5699 1.3064 1 .3tt

4.fiC 1.3977 1.3941 1 .3906 1 .3670 1 .3o34 1.3799 1 .376i 1.372e 1.3692 1.3656 1.3621 1.3585

V«

o o 'V

GtSPKICB ' 1,35

CDkN BV PRODUCTPRICES "K ICE

30.00 40 .00 50.00 ' 60.00 70.00 60.00 90.00' 100.00 lie.00 120.99 1.20 1.303i 130.00 140.00 1 .2995 1 .2960 1.2924 i .26d9 1.2653 1 .2617 1.27d<: l.^C 1.2746 1.271U 1.2675 l.<629 - 1,.3K^ 1.3073 1 .3037 1.300^ 1.2960 1 .295C 1.2£95 1.2659 1 1.60 .2 (24 1 .2786 1 .2752 1.2 717 1 .3166 . 1.3151 1.3115 1.3079 '1.3044 1.3CC6 1.2972 1 .2937 1 .2901 1 .2665 1.2630 1.2794 1.60 1,.326<* 1.3226 1.3192 1.3157 1 .3121 1.3066 1.305U 1.3014 1.2979 1 .2943 1.2907 1.2672 2.CO 1.3341 1.330b 1.3270 1.3234 i .3199. 1 .3163 1.3127 1.3092 1 2.20 .3056 1.3021 1.2985 1.2949 1.3419 1 .3363 1.3346 1.3312 1 .3276 1 .3241 1 .3205 1.3169 1.3134 1.309O .1.3062 1.3027 2.<»0 , 1.3496 '1.3461 1.3425 1.3369 1.3354 1 .3316 1 .3283 1 .3247 1 .3211 1.3170 1.3140 2.60 1.3574 1.3104 1^3536 1.3303 1.346 7 1.3431 1 .3396 1.3360 1 .3324 1 .34^69 1.325J 1.3216 2 2.BO 1.316 O 1.3651 1 .3616 1 .3560 1.3545 1 .3^09 1.3473 1.3436 O) 1.3402 1.3366 1,.3j31 .1.3295 1.3260 3.00 1.3729 •1.3693 1.3b5a i.3622 1 .3566 1 .3551 1.3515 1.3460 1 .3444 .1.3t06 1.3373 1.3337 3.20 1.3ttC7 1 .3771 1.3735 1.37CQ 1 .^664 1.3626 1 .3593 1.3557 3.40 1.3522 1 .3466 1.3450 1.3415 1 .3084 1.3t^4b 1.3dl3 1.3777 1.374^ 1 .37C6 1 * 36 70 1.3b3S 1 .35 99 1.356J 1.3528 1.3492 3.60 1.3962 1.3926 1.3690 1 .3655 K3b1v 1 .3764 1.3746 1.3712 3.60 1.3o77 1.3641 1.3605 1.3570 , 1 .4039 1 .4004 1 .3966 1.393^ 1 .3697 1 .3661 1.3625 1.379C 1.3754 1 .371^ _ 1.3663 . 1.3647 <».C0 1 .4117 1.4091 1 .4046 • Ii40i0 1 .3974 1.3939 1.3903 1.3667 1 .3632 A.ZC 1.3790 1.3760 1.3725 1 .4194 1 .4159 1.4123 1.4U6 9 1 .405^ 1 .4016 1.3961 4 5 1.39 1 .3S09 1 .3674 1.3636 1.3602 1.4272 1.4236 1.4201 1.4165 1 .4x29 1 .4094 1^4050 1.4022 1.3987 1.3951 1.3916 <» .60 1.3680 1.4349 1.4314 1.4278 1.4243 1.4^07 1.^171 1. 41.36 1 .4100 1 .4u6<* 1 .4029 1.3993 1.3957 4.80 1.4427 1.4391 1.4356 1 .4320 1 .4264 1 .4249 1.4213 1^4176 1 .4142 1.410b 1.4071 1.4035 ' 1.40

CLKN t>Y PRCUUC r PUCES PRICE

JO.OC 4C.00 SO.00 bC.OO 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 1 IC.OO 120.00 130.00 140.CO 1.2C 1 .34dl 1 .3443 1.3410 1 1.3374 1.3339 1.3267 1.3 c :• < 1 .3196 1 .3U0 1 .3125 1.3GB9 1.40 1.3559 1.3523 1.3487 1.345^ 1 .3<*16 1 .3380 1.3345 1.3309 1.3274 1.3230 1.3202 1.3167 1.60 1 .3b3b 1.3601 1.3365 1. 352'^ 1.349H 1 .34541 1.3422 1 .3387 1.3351 1.3313 1.3280 1.3^44 1 .BO 1 .3714 1.3b 7 4 1.36^2 1.3607 1.3571 1 .3336 1.3300 1.3464 1 .3429 1.339J 1.3357 1.3322 2.CC 1 .3791 1 .3756 1.3720 1 . 364-* 1.364^ 1.3b]3 1.3577 1.354< 1 .3506 1 .3471 1 .3435 1.3399 2.20 1 .3b6S 1.3d33 1 .379d 1.3764: 1.3726 1.3691 1.3655 1.3619 1 1 .3940 1.3512 1.3471 2 .40 1 .3946 l.S-^ll 1.3a7S 1.3639 i l.JoOt .3760 1.2733 1 .3697 1 .3ci61 1 . 362o 1.3590 1.3554 «.fO 1 .4024 1 .39So 1.3V53 1.3917 1 .3ctdi 1 .3ii46 1.3(110 1.3 774 1.3739 1.37C3 1.366S 1.3632 2.BQ 1.4101 1 .4060 1.4030 1.3995 1 .3^59 1 .3'9'23 1 .3cie<] 1.363^ 1.3016 1.3781 1.3745 1.3710 g 3.CC 1 .4179 1.4143 1.4108 1.4074! 1.40 36 1.4CC1 1.3965 1 .3930 1 .3 «94 1.3d5e 1.3b23 1.3787

3.20 1.4^57 1 .4^21 1 .4185 1 1 .4150 .4114 1 .4J7tf 1 .4i}43 i.4007 1 .3972 1 .3936 1.390C 1.3^65

3.4C 1 .4334 1.429b 1 .h263 1 1.4227 .4192 1 .41So 1.4120 1.418S 1.404 9 1.4013 1 .3978 1.9942 3.60 1 .4412 1.4376 1.4340 1.4303 1.4^69 1 .4<234 1.4198 1 .4162 1.4127 1.4091 1.4055 1.4020 3 .eo 1.4489 1.4454 1 .4h18 1.4347 l.>*311 1.«275 1 .4^(.C 1.4204 1 .416*^ 1 .4133 1.4097

4.00 1 .4567 1.4531 1 1 .4496 .446C 1.4424 1 .4389 1.4353 1.4317 1 .44^82 1 .42<*o 1.4210 1.4175 4.20 1.4644 1.4609 1 .4573 1.4537 1.4502 1.4466 1 .4431 1.4395 1.4359 1 .4 32^ 1.4288 1 .4252 4.40 1 .4722 1.46d6 1.4651 1.4615 1.4579 1 •454«« 1 .4308 1 .44741 1 .4437 1.4401 1.4366 1.4330

1.4799 1.4764 1 1 4.60 .4720 .4693 1.4657 1.4o21 1 .4386 1.4551. 1.4514 1 .4^79 1 .4f43 1.4

1 . ' H 4 •! GASPklCE 1,^5

CCRK OY PRCOUCT FUCeS PAKE

30.OC 40.00 50.00 bO.OO 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 1iC.OO 12C.00 130,00'. 140.CO 1.20 1 .3931 1 .3895 1.3660 1.3621 1.3789 1 .3753 1.3717 1.3682 1 .36 46 1.3610 1.3575 1.3 539 1.^0 1.4009 1.3973 1.3937 1.3902 1 .3866 1.3630 1.3795 1.3759 1.3724 1.3668 1.3652 1.3617 1.60 1.4066 1 .4051 1.4015 1.3979 1.3944 1.3906 1.3872 1.3037 1.3b01 1 .3765 1.3730 1.3694 1 .SO 1.4164 1.4126 1 .4092 1.4057 1.4021 1 .3966 ,1.3950 1.3914 1.3679 1.3643 1.3807 1.3772 2.CC 1 .4241 1.4206 1.4170 1.4134 1.4099 1 J .406 1. 4027 1.399i 1 .3S5b .1.3921 1 ^3885 1.3849 2.20 1 .4319 1.4263 1.4£48 1.4212 1.4170 1 .4141 1.4105 1 .4C69 1.4034 I .3996 1.3962 1.3927 2.40 1.4396 1 .4361 1.4325 1 .42a<:/ 1 .<>^54 1 .4216 1 .4183 1.4147 1.4111 1 .4076 1.4040 1.400'» 2.60 1.4474 1 .443d 1 .4403 1.4367 1.43il^ 1 .4290 1 .4260 1.4224 1 .4169 1.4153 1.4118 1.4082 o 2.BC 1/1 1.4551 1 .4516 i.4<»eo 1 .4<»45 1 .4<.09 1 .4373 1.4330 1.43C< 1 .4^66 1 .4231 1 .4195 1.4160 3.GO 1.4629 1.4593 1.4556 1.4522 1.4h86 1 .4451 1 .4415 1.4360 1 .4344 1.4306 1.4273 1.4237 3.20 1.4707 1 .4671 1 .4635 1 .46CU 1 .4564 1 .4526 1.4493 1.4457 1 .4422 1.4386 1.4350 1.4315 3.40 1.4784 1 .47i»tf 1.4713 1.4677 1 .4b<»2 1 ••«60b 1.4^70 1.4535 1.4499 1 .446^ 1.442B 1.4392 3.60 1.4662 1.4d26 1.4790 1.4755 1.4719 1.4684 1.4646 1.4612 1 .4577 1,4541. - 1.4505 1.4470 3.60 1 .4939 1 .4904 1.4668 1.4632 1.4797 1.4761 1.4725 1.4690 1 .4054 1 .4619 1.4583 1.4547 4.CC 1 .5017 1 .496i 1 .4946 1.491C 1.4d7H 1 .4639 1.4603 1 .4767 1 .4 732 1 .4696 1.4660 1.4625 4.20 1.5094 1.5059 1.5023 1.4<»87^ 1 .4952 1 .4^16 1.4d81 1.4845 1.4t)09 l,.477f» 1.4736 1.4702 4.40 1 .5172 1.5136 1.5101 1.506^ 1 1.5029 .4994 1. 495(1 1 .4S22 1.4067 1 .4651 1.4616 1.4760 4.60 1.5249 .1 .521H 1.5176 1.5143 1 .5107 , 1 .5071 1.5036 1.5000 1.4964 1.4929 1.4093 1.4857 4.60 1.5327 1.5291 1.5256 1.5^^20 1.5164 1 .5149 1.5113 1 .5078 1.5042 1 .5006 1.4971 1.4935 G*SPHICf - 1. 50

COKfNt bY PkODUlT Pil)C£6 PRICE

^0 .00 40.00 50.UO 60.00 7C.C0 oO.CC 90.00 UC .Cl WC .00 120.00 130.00 140.CO

1.20 1.43)91 1.4343 1 .4310 1 .427h 1.4239 1 .420i 1.4167 1.4132 1.409b 1 .4060 1.4025 1 .3989

1 .feO 1 .44^59 1.4423 1.4307 1.4352 1.4316 1.4^dO 1 .4245 1 .4174 1 .4l3t> 1.4102 1.4C67 1.4209 1 .fO 1.4536 1 .4501 1.4465 1.4429 1 .439«. 1 .435tJ 1. ^ ^ 2 < 1 .42(7 1 .4251 1 .4215 1.4180 1.414«t use 1 .4614 1 .4976 1 .^542 1.4507 1 .4t.7i I. 4<. JC 1 .4400 1 .4364 1.4329 1 .4293 1.4257 l.

2.00 1 .4691 i.4o 56 1 .4620 1.4534 1 .43i.-^ 1.45 13 i .4«»77 1.4h06 1 .4371 1.4299 1.4335 2 .20 1 .476'» 1.4733 1 .4696 1.4b6£ 1. 4e2o 1 .439 1 1 . 4555 1 .4519 1 .4484 1.4tf4t> 1.4412 1.4377

2.<>0 1.4646 1.4oll 1 .4775 1.473^ 1 .470'. 1 .466d 1 .4b3J 1.4597 1.4561 1 .452o 1.4^90 1 •4<<5<*

2.hC 1 .4S24 1.4tfe» 1 .<.o5j 1. 47fii 1 .474b 1.4710 1 .467'' 1 .4639 1 •4&0 3 1 .4560 1.4532

1 1 .4-^66 1 1 1 .4

3 .00 1 .5079 1.5043 1.5 oOd 1.4'rf72 1.4^ 3o 1 .>»9 C i 1.

3.20 1.S157 1.512i 1 .5085 1 .5050 I .SOU 1 .'.97a 1 .4943 1.4^07 1 .407^ 1 .4030 1 .4765 1.4800 3.<»0 1 ,S234 i .S19» 1.5a63 1.5127 1 .509c 1 .5JS6 1 .50^0 1 .4965 1 .4^49 1 .491^ 1.4678 1.4e42

3 .6 0 1 .531^ i.52 76 1•5£40 1.5^05 i.Sibv i.5124 1.509b 1 .5 C6 2 1.5027 1 .4991 1.4920 1.4955 3.60 1.53s9 1 .5354 1 .5318 1.5282 1.5247 1 .5211 1.5175 1.514U 1.5104 1 .5069 1.5033 1.4997

<..00 I .5467 1 .543i 1.5396 1.5360 1.5324 1 .52!(9 1 .5253 1.5217 1.5162 1.5 i4b 1.5110 1.5075

<».20 1.5544 1 .550>* 1.5473 1.5437 1.5mO«: i .5360 1 .5331 1.5295 1.5^59 1.522«* 1.5186 1.5152 W .40 1 .5622 i.5!>dt 1.5551 1.5515 1.5h79 i .5-»4'» 1. StCd * .5 372 1.5337 1.5301 1 .5266

1 .5699 X 1 .5628 I.5557 1 .5521 1 .54b6 1.Sh50 1.5414 1 .5379 1.5343 1.5307 4.^0 .566^ 1.5230 4.<^C 1 .5777 1 .5741 1.3 VC>6 1.56701.5593 1.5o3'. 1.55*9 1.5563 1. 55 eo 1.54 92 1 .5456 1 .5421 1 .5385

V) - 107 -

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, George C., Earl F., Hodges, and Margaret Devers, Livestock-Feed Relationships — National and State, Statistical Bulletin No. 530, U.S. Department of Agriculture,. Washington, D.C. , Jime 1974.

American Petroleum Institute, Annxial Statistical Review, Petroleum Industry Statistics, Division of Statistics, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C., September,' 1974 and April, 1973. .

American Petroleum Institute, Petroleum Facts and Figures, 1971 Edition, Washington, D.C., May, 1971. Arnold, L. K. and L. A. Kremer, "Corn as a Raw Material for Ethyl Alcohol," Iowa Engineering Experijaent Station Bulletin 167» Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa, March 15, 1950. Arnold, L. K., "Use Surplus Corn for Alcohol?", Iowa Farm Science, Vol. 14, No. 8, February, I960..

Baumel, C. P., R.-N. ^Wisner, ,T. E. Fenton, D. L. Lifferth and J. J. Miller, "Projected Quantities of Grain and Fertilizer Requiring Transportation Services in Iowa in 1979780 and 1984-85,.by Counties," CARD Report 51a Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, (Ames, Iowa), November 1974.

Business Week, "A Fuiigus That Can Make Fuel or Food," June 8, 1974.

Christensen, "The Use of Corn in the Fementation Industries," Contributions from Iowa. Corn Research Institute, Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station, Vol. I., June, 1940.

Chi-Ya Wu,, Charles, "Ethyl Alcohol as Tractor Fuel in China," Master of Science Thesis, Iowa State College (Ames, Iowa), 1947* dough, Malcolm, '^ajor Factors Influencing High-,Protein Feed Price," Feed Situation, Economic Research Service, U.S.. Department of Agriculture (Washington, D.C.), FdS-213, Ajpril, 1966.

Committee on Motor Fuels, Power Alcohol, History and Analysis. American Petroleum Institute (Chicago, Illinois), 1940.

Couch, J. R., "Current Status of Unidentified Growth Factors in Distillers Feeds," Proceedings, Distillers Feed Research Council. Vol. 26, March 31, 1971. Crops and Soils Magazine, "Waste. Could Become Fuel for Vehicles," American Society of Agronomy,. AprilrMay, 1975. - 108 -

Culver, David W., "Possible Directions for Farm Production, Prices, and Income," paper presented at the 1973 National Agricultural Outlook Conference; Washington, D.C., February 21, 1973.

Dalton, John T,, "Some Economic Aspects of a Corn-Alcohol Fuel Program," 5 Master of Science Thesis. Iowa State College (Ames, Iowa), 1933. Farm and Industrial Equipment Institute, 1974 Unit Retail Sales, Tractor ^ Sales by Fuel Type (Chicago, Illinois) April, 1975.

Farm and Industrial Equipment Institute, Unit Retail Sales of Wheel Tractors and Selected Farm Machinery, 1966-1973 (Chicago, Illinois).

Foote, R. J,, J. W. Klein and M. Clough, "Demand and Price Structure for Corn and Total Feed Concentrates," U.S, Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin, Ho. 1061, (Washington, D.C.) October, 1952.

Harms, R, H,, "The Use of Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles in Feeds for Egg Production," Proceedings. Distillers Feed Research Council, Vol. 25, March 31, 1970.

Houck, J, P. and J, S. Mann, An Analysis of Domestic and Foreign Demand for U,$. Soybeans and Soybean Products, University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin 256 (St. Paul, Minn.) 1968.

Hopkins, C. P., Revised Report on the Use of Grain Alcohol in Motor Fuel in Canada. National Research Council (Ottawa, Canada) May, 1934.

Hull, Dale 0. and Harvey J. Hirnlng, Estimating Farm Fuel Requirements for Crop Production and Livestock Operations. Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa State University, Pm-587, February, 1974.

Inglett, G. E., Corn; Culture, Processing. Products, The Avi Publishing Company, Inc. (Westport, Connecticut) 1970,

Iowa Energy Policy Council, Quarterly Energy Report. Vol. I No. 3 (Des Moines, Iowa), April, 1975.

Kenning, C. F.,"Distillation of Whole Corn Plant for Preparation of Motor Fuel and Feed," Unpublished Bachelor of Science Thesis, Iowa State College (Mies, Iowa) 1933.

King, G. H., "The Demand and Price Structure for By-Product Feeds," U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin No. 1183 (Washington, D.C.) ^ August 1958.

Kremer, L. A., "Economics of the Production of Ethanol," Master of Science ^ Thesis. Iowa State College (Ames, Iowa) 1949.

Kromer, George W., "U.S. Soybean Economy in the 1980's," Fats and Oils Situation, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (Washington, D.C.) February 21, 1973. 109 -

Lander, William H., "Timber Can Supply Feedstocks," Journal of Commerce (New. York) April 9, 1975. .

Longardner and Associates, Inc, Grain Alcohol Automotive Fuel Study Conference Report, to Indiana Department of Commerce and Lieuten^t Governor of Indiana, Report of November 20-21, 1974, Blended Fuel Conference at Indianapolisj Indiana.

Miller, D. L., "Com and Its Uses," Paper presented at the National Com Growers Association Annual Meeting, Des Moines, Iowa April- 3, 1972.

Miller, D. Ij. "Fuel Alcohol from Wheat," Paper presented'at the Seventh National Wheat' Utilization-Research Conference, Manhattan, Kansas, November, 1971.

Monieri G. W. -Williams, Power Alcohol'.'Its Production and Utilisation, Oxford Techincal Publications (London, England) 1922,'

I Morrison, Feeds and Feeding.Morrison I^blishihg Co., (Ithaca, New York), 1956.

Ross, Jack S., "Outlook for Feed," Paper preiserited at the 1973 National Agri cultural, Outlook Conference; Washington, D.C., February 21, 1973.

Seiden, Rudolph, Handbook of Feedstuffs. Springer ^blishing Co., (New York), 1957. ' Shepherd, Geoffrey, William R. McPh'ersbn,'Lynn T. Brown and Ralph M. Hixbn, "Power Alcohol from Farm Products: Its Chemistry, Engineering and Economics," Contributions from Iowa Corn Research Institute, Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station, June 1940.

Skartvedt, Dan, "Methanol Use as Auto Fuel Researched," Journal of Commerce, (New York), May 21, 1974. Subcommittee on Agricultural Production, Marketing and Stabilization of Prices, of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate, "U.S. Agricultural Fuel and Energy Requirements," The American System: Domestic and Foreign Elements Affecting U.S. Agricultural Policy, U.S. Government Printing Office (Washington, D.C.), October 23, 1973. United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, Production Yearbook of Food and Agricultural Statistics. (Rome, Italy), various; Editions.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Feed Situation, (Washington, D.C.), November, 1974. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Feed Statistics Through 1966, Statistical Bulletin No. 410, (Washington, D.C.), September, 1967.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Supplement for 1971 to Feed Statistics, (Washington, D.C.) July, 1972. - 110 -

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, The U.S. Food and Fiber Sector; Energy Use and Outlook, prepared for the Subconmittee on Agri cultural Credit and Rural Electrification, Comnittee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, ir D.C.) September 20, 1974.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, "United States and i* World Fertilizer Outlook, 1974 and 1980," Aar. Econ, Report No« 257, (Washington, D.C.) May, 1974.

U.S. Department of Conmerce, Bureau of Census, U.S. Exports, Ccanmodity by Country. (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.) various editions.

U.S. Department of Conmerce, Social and Economic Statistics Administration, Survey of Current Business (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C,)- various issues.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, "Mineral Industry Surveys; Crude Petroleum, Petroleum Products, and Natural-Gas-Liquids," (Washington, D.C.) February 14, 1975, and earlier editions.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Hi^way Administration, ^'Monthly Motor Gasoline Reported by States, Year-End 1974," (Washington, D«C«), May 1975,

Vandenborre, Roger J., "Demand Analysis of the Markets for Soybean Oil and Soybean Meal," Journal of Farm Econcnaics, Vol. 48, No, 4, Part I, November, 1966.

Willkie, H. F. and P. J. Kolachov, Food for Thought, Indiana Fam Bureau, Inc. (Indianapolis, Indiana) 1942.