Skip to main content

Full text of "Maize production and marketing in Argentina"

See other formats 


NOTICI::  Return  or  renew  all  Library  Materials!  The  Minimum  Fee  tor 
each  Lost  Book  la  $50.00. 

The  person  charging  this  material  is  responsible  for 
its  return  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  withdrawn 
on  or  before  the  Latest  Date  stamped  below. 
Thert,  mutilation,  and  underlining  of  books  are  reasons  tor  discipli- 
nary action  and  may  result  in  dismissal  from  the  University. 
To  renew  call  Telephone  Center,  333-8400 
UNIVERSITY    OF    ILLINOIS    LIBRARY    AT    URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


L161— O-1096 


0  q  1997 

^'CULTURE  LIBRARy 


aize 


I  Production  and  Marketing 

*  -gentina 


ell  D.  Hill 
iarvin  R.  Paulsen 


Q 
XL 


Maize 

Production  and  Marketing 
in  Argentina 


Lowell  D.  Hill 
Marvin  R.  Paulsen 


Agricultural  Experiment  Station 

College  of  Agriculture 

University  of  Illinois 

at  Urbana-Champaign 

Bulletin  785 


Abstract 


Key  Words:  Corn,  Maize,  Argentina,  Corn  Quality,  Grading  Standards,  Exports 

The  maize  production,  marketing,  exporting,  and  quality  control  practices  in 
Argentina  are  compared  with  those  in  the  United  States.  Technology  of  production, 
marketing,  and  grading  were  found  to  be  similar  in  both  countries.  Quality 
deterioration  due  to  high-temperature  drying  and  mechanical  handling  was  also 
similar.  Incentives  for  blending  diverse  qualities  and  moisture  levels  were  found 
to  be  less  under  the  Argentine  pricing  and  grading  systems.  Moisture  content  in 
the  market  channel  was  lower  in  Argentina  as  a  result  of  setting  the  base  moisture 
at  14.5  percent.  There  are  some  differences  in  chemical  and  physical  properties 
of  U.S.  and  Argentine  maize,  but  no  evidence  that  either  source  was  consistently 
superior  for  all  uses. 


Lowell  D.  Hill  is  Professor,  Department  of  Agricultural  Economics,  and  Marvin  R. 
Paulsen  is  Professor,  Department  of  Agricultural  Engineering,  University  of  Illinois 
at  Urbana-Champaign. 


Acknowledgments 


The  data  in  this  report  were  obtained 
with  the  assistance  of  many  people  and 
agencies.  Funds  were  provided  by  a 
State-Federal  matching  grant  from  the 
Illinois  Department  of  Agriculture  and 
Agricultural  Marketing  Service,  USDA. 
Additional  funds  were  provided  by  the 
College  of  Agriculture  and  Illinois  Ag- 
ricultural Experiment  Station,  University 
of  Illinois  at  Urbana-Champaign.  The 
research  is  a  contribution  to  the  North 
Central  Regional  Research  Project  NC- 
151,  entitled  "Marketing  and  Delivery 
of  Quality  Cereals  and  Oilseeds  in  Do- 
mestic and  Foreign  Markets." 

The  authors  express  their  appre- 
ciation for  the  cooperation  of  many 
employees  of  La  Plata  Cereal  Company, 
Buenos  Aires,  several  country  elevator 
personnel  in  the  Pergamino  area,  and 
the  Junta  Nacional  de  Granos  for  their 
advice,  data,  assistance,  and  hospitality. 
A  special  thanks  to  Dr.  James  McGrann, 
Texas  A  &  M  University,  whose  assis- 
tance extended  far  beyond  his  fluency 


in  Spanish.  His  communication  skills 
were  a  major  factor  in  the  success  of 
this  research.  Dr.  Adolfo  Coscia  pro- 
vided valuable  assistance  and  advice 
through  his  published  work  and  per- 
sonal correspondence.  Betty  E.  Hill  pro- 
vided the  photographic  description  of 
the  Argentine  production  and  market- 
ing system. 

Numerous  research  assistants  have 
contributed  to  the  study  through  their 
analysis  of  samples,  library  research, 
and  statistical  analyses.  These  individ- 
uals include  Beth  Mullens,  Jeanne  Bai- 
ley, Gabriela  Serrano  Aguero,  and  Rod- 
erick Bunge.  We  also  express  our 
appreciation  to  the  many  friends  we 
made  in  the  Argentine  production  and 
marketing  sector  of  the  Pergamino  re- 
gion for  their  assistance  and  hospitality. 
Finally,  we  wish  to  acknowledge  the 
assistance  of  Dee  Lambert  and  Mar- 
garet Pepper  for  their  patience  in  typing 
the  many  versions  of  the  manuscript 
and  Carolyn  Evans  and  Robert  Heister 
for  their  artistic  and  editorial  expertise. 


Contents 


Introduction 1 

Research  Objectives 1 

Production  and  Utilization  of  Maize  in  Argentina 3 

Production 3 

Utilization 5 

Exports 6 

Organization  of  the  Argentine  Markets 7 

Market  Channel 7 

The  Role  of  Cooperatives  in  Grain  Marketing 9 

Pricing  Policies  and  Practices  for  Argentine  Maize 10 

Pricing  at  the  Country  Elevator 10 

Price  Competition  in  Argentina 11 

Quality  Control  in  Argentine  Maize 12 

Grade-Determining  Factors 12 

Inspection  Procedures 13 

Quality  Changes  from  Farm  to  Export  Vessel  in  Argentina 14 

Location  of  Samples 14 

Analysis  of  Samples 17 

Results  of  the  Sample  Analysis 18 

Physical  Properties  of  Argentine  Maize 18 

Quality  at  the  Farm 18 

Quality  at  the  Country  Elevator 19 

Quality  in  the  Export  Vessel 21 

Chemical  Properties  of  Argentine  Maize 22 

Quality  Incentives  in  the  Argentine  Market 23 

Comparison  of  U.S.  and  Argentine  Quality 24 

Summary 25 

Conclusions 26 

References 26 

Tables . .  .28 


Urbana,  Illinois  8M  Grouse  rah       July  1987 

The  Illinois  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  provides  equal  opportunities  in  programs  and 
employment. 


The  Junta  Nacional  de  Granos  owns  storage  and  export  facilities  at  several  ports. 


Introduction 


Argentina  has  always  been  an  impor- 
tant force  in  world  grain  trade,  but 
recent  increases  in  production  and 
changes  in  government  policies  place 
it  as  the  number  one  competitor  with 
the  United  States  for  feed  grain  sales 
in  international  markets.  The  impor- 
tance of  grain  exports  to  the  Argentine 
economy,  policy  changes  encouraging 
farmers  to  use  more  fertilizers,  and 
responsiveness  of  Argentine  farmers  to 
profit  incentives  all  guarantee  that  Ar- 
gentina will  continue  to  provide  a  sig- 
nificant share  of  the  world's  feed  grain 
needs,  especially  maize. 


Information  about  the  Argentine 
maize  industry,  its  current  and  potential 
production,  marketing  practices,  and 
maize  quality  is  important  not  only  for 
planning  marketing  strategies  and  iden- 
tifying market  opportunities  for  the 
United  States,  but  also  as  an  aid  to 
Argentina  in  developing  production  and 
marketing  strategies  to  meet  policy  goals 
and  better  serve  their  markets.  Maize 
production  and  marketing  practices  are 
similar  in  the  United  States  and  Argen- 
tina but  there  are  also  important  differ- 
ences in  maize  quality  characteristics. 
Understanding  these  relationships  will 
enable  each  country  to  develop  its  pro- 
duction and  marketing  strategies  more 
efficiently  and  to  seek  those  markets 
where  their  grain  has  the  greatest  com- 
parative advantage. 


Research 
Objectives 


The  objectives  of  the  research  reported 
in  this  publication  are  (1)  to  describe 
the  production  and  marketing  system 
of  Argentina  with  some  comparisons 
to  that  of  the  United  States;  (2)  to 
measure  quality  characteristics  of  Ar- 
gentine maize  at  each  point  in  the 
market  channel  from  farm  to  export 
elevator  and  ocean  vessel;  and  (3)  to 
compare  the  incentives  in  the  two  coun- 
tries for  changes  in  marketing  and  pro- 
duction practices  that  could  influence 
quality. 


Maize  Production  and  Marketing 


in  Argentina 


Production 
and  Utilization 
of  Maize 
in  Argentina 

Production 


The  production  of  maize  in  Argentina 
during  the  past  four  decades  has  ranged 
from  a  low  of  836,000  metric  tons  in 
1949  [10,  p.  43]  to  a  high  of  12.9  million 
metric  tons  (mmt)  during  the  record 
crop  of  1981/82. '  Crop  size  has  in- 
creased from  the  2-mmt  to  5-mmt  range 
in  the  1950s  to  a  6-mmt  to  10-mmt 
range  in  the  1970s  (Table  1).  Generally, 
there  has  been  an  upward  trend  in 
production  but  with  extreme  year-to- 
year  variability  as  a  result  of  weather 
conditions.  The  1980/81  production  of 
only  6.4  mmt  was  followed  by  a  record 
crop  of  12.9  mmt  in  1981/82.  Produc- 


1  In  this  discussion,  references  to  literature 
cited  will  be  indicated  within  brackets.  The 
first  number  within  brackets  refers  to  the 
source  as  numbered  in  the  reference  list. 
References  to  specific  pages  within  the  source 
will  be  preceded  by  the  letter  "p"  followed 
by  the  page  number(s)  in  question.  For  pur- 
poses of  clarifying  measurements,  "tons" 
refers  to  metric  tons  and  "mmt"  to  million 
metric  tons. 


tion  returned  to  more  normal  levels 
during  the  next  three  years,  with  an 
average  production  of  9.37  mmt  for  the 
three  years  1982/83,  1983/84,  and 
1984/85  (Table  1). 

In  comparison  with  production  in 
the  United  States,  Argentina  has  had 
greater  year-to-year  variation  and  a 
slower,  overall  rate  of  growth,  but  Ar- 
gentina's share  of  total  world  production 
of  maize  has  remained  relatively  stable, 
representing  1.98  percent  of  world  pro- 
duction in  1951  and  2.11  percent  in  1984 
[10,  pp.  42,  51;  9,  p.  116].  During  this 
same  period,  the  United  States'  share  of 
world  production  fluctuated  from  a  high 
of  58.7  percent  in  1952  to  a  low  of  30.5 
percent  in  1983.  The  historical  pattern 
for  the  U.S.  has  been  one  of  slow  but 
steady  growth  between  1951  and  1974, 
followed  by  rapid  growth  until  1982, 
when  the  U.S.  harvested  a  record  crop 
of  209  mmt.  In  1983,  production  was  cut 
almost  in  half  by  the  government's  Pay- 
ment-in-Kind  program  (PIK).  Production 
returned  to  normal  levels  of  194  mmt  in 
1984  [32,  33,  34]. 

The  area  of  maize  harvested  in 
Argentina  has  fluctuated  around  the 
1975/76  to  1984/85  ten-year  average 
of  2.9  million  hectares  (7.2  million 
acres).2  Between  1965/66  and  1984/85 
the  greatest  change  in  any  two  consec- 
utive years  was  a  36.3  percent  increase 
from  2.5  million  hectares  (6.2  million 
acres)  in  1980/81  to  3.4  million  hec- 


2  These  are  FAS  marketing  years,  which  lag 
one  year  behind  the  production  years  used 
in  Argentine  publications. 


Figure  1.  Production  density  for  maize 
in  Argentina.  The  production  of  maize 
is  concentrated  in  the  provinces  of  San- 
ta Fe  and  Buenos  Aires.  (Adapted  from: 
[14,  p.  9]) 


tares  (8.4  million  acres)  in  1981/82  [32]. 
In  contrast  to  the  relatively  stable  area 
that  was  harvested,  the  average  pro- 
duction of  8.8  million  metric  tons  be- 
tween 1975/76  and  1984/85  comprises 
annual  changes  as  great  as  102  percent 
from  one  year  to  the  next  (Table  1). 


Harvesting  maize  in  Argentina  is  a  fully  mechanized  operation,  as  shown  by  this  Vassalli 
combine  with  a  5-row  Manerio  header. 


Maize  production  in  Argentina  is 
concentrated  in  a  relatively  small  pro- 
portion of  the  total  geographical  area 
because  of  climate,  topography,  and  soil 
conditions.  The  Maize  Belt  consists  of 
the  five  provinces:  Buenos  Aires,  Santa 
Fe,  Cordoba,  La  Pampa,  and  Entre  Rios 


(Figure  1).  In  1980/81,  Buenos  Aires, 
alone,  accounted  for  37.5  percent  of  the 
area  planted  to  maize  and  47.1  percent 
of  total  production  in  Argentina.  Dur- 
ing the  five-year  period  from  1980/81 
through  1984/85  the  three  provinces 
of  Buenos  Aires,  Santa  Fe,  and  Cordoba 


Only  a  few  Argentine  farmers  use  dryers,  usually  a  batch  type. 


accounted  for  84.6  percent  of  the  total 
production  and  72.3  percent  of  the  area 
planted  to  maize  (Table  2). 

Production  technology  in  both  the 
United  States  and  Argentina  has  de- 
veloped in  a  somewhat  parallel  man- 
ner. The  use  of  maize  combines  has 
grown  rapidly  in  both  countries:  as  in 
the  U.S.,  the  maize  combine  is  used  on 
nearly  all  of  the  commercial  acreage  in 
Argentina.  Harvesting  by  combines  at 
moisture  levels  above  14.5  percent  in 
Argentina  requires  artificial  drying  in 
order  to  meet  the  base  moisture  for 
pricing.  Some  drying  may  be  done  at 
the  farm,  but  a  large  proportion  is  done 
at  the  country  elevator. 

One  distinction  between  harvest- 
ing technology  in  Argentina  and  the 
United  States  is  that  on  the  large  farms 
in  Argentina,  maize  is  often  harvested 
by  custom  operators  who  move  from 
north  to  south  as  harvest  progresses, 
much  as  custom  harvesters  move 
through  the  wheat  country  of  North 
America  from  Texas  to  Canada.  It  is 
not  unusual  to  see  three  to  five  com- 
bines in  the  same  field  or  as  many  as 
sixteen  or  more  combines  on  one  farm 
where  they  can  be  efficiently  distrib- 
uted among  several  fields.  The  smaller 
Argentine  farms,  less  than  200  hectares 
of  maize  (about  500  acres),  often  own 
their  combines,  just  like  their  U.S. 
counterparts. 

Inadequate  moisture  during  the 
growing  and  pollination  periods  often 
limits  yields  regardless  of  fertilizer  use, 
and  under  stress,  yield  response  to  ni- 
trogen applications  on  flint  varieties  is 
uncertain.  Combined  with  high  prices 
on  imported  fertilizer,  these  factors  have 
discouraged  application  of  fertilizer  by 
maize  producers.  Soil  fertility  has  been 
maintained  through  crop  rotations  with 
legumes  such  as  soybeans  and  alfalfa, 
which  have  been  major  sources  of  ni- 
trogen for  maize  production.  Because 
moisture  is  often  a  limiting  factor  during 
the  growing  season,  herbicides  used  to 
control  weeds  would  conserve  moisture 
and  increase  yields;  but  the  lack  of 
domestic  supplies,  import  restrictions, 
and  high  prices  have  reduced  the  eco- 
nomic incentives  for  the  use  of  herbi- 
cides as  well  as  fertilizers  in  Argentina. 

Before  1977,  import  taxes  in  the 
form  of  ad  valorem  tariffs  were  60  per- 
cent for  fertilizer  and  65  percent  for 
agricultural  chemicals  [15].  In  1977/78, 
the  government  began  a  gradual  re- 
duction in  the  tariff  schedule,  and  in 
1983/84,  the  new  government  encour- 
aged the  use  of  fertilizer  through  an 
exchange  system  where  credit  ad- 
vanced for  fertilizer  purchases  can  be 


repaid  with  a  portion  of  the  harvest. 
The  effectiveness  of  this  strategy  is 
demonstrated  in  fertilizer  consumption 
data.  Nitrogen  consumption  increased 
from  48  mmt  in  1982  to  91  mmt  in 
1984  [20].  Although  this  program  has 
been  quite  popular  with  wheat  pro- 
ducers, the  Junta  is  extending  the  pro- 
gram to  other  crops,  and  it  holds  prom- 
ise for  increasing  maize  yields. 

Genetic  improvements  in  maize 
have  generated  many  new  varieties  in 
Argentina.  Most  major  seed  companies 
are  represented  in  Argentina  and  have 
provided  significant  improvement  in 
yields  through  the  introduction  of  new 
genetic  traits.  An  emphasis  upon  higher- 
yielding  varieties  and  higher  response 
to  nitrogen  largely  dictates  the  produc- 
ers' choice  of  variety.  These  same  fac- 
tors also  influence  the  choice  of  genetic 
material  by  plant  breeders.  The  seed 
industry  is  relatively  concentrated  with 
two  international  companies  providing 
over  50  percent  of  the  seed  maize  sold 
in  1983  [13].  Although  Argentina  has 
been  recognized  for  many  years  as  the 
primary  source  of  flint  corn  (also  called 
Duro  Colorado  or  Plate  Maize)  plant 
breeders  have  introduced  dent  genetic 
classes,  resulting  in  semident  or  pure 
dent  varieties  in  some  local  areas.3 


Most  country  elevators  use  oil-fired  dryers 
to  lower  the  moisture  level  in  freshly  har- 
vested maize. 


1  For  information  on  farmers'  preferences  for 
flint  varieties,  see  "Porque  Argentina  Pro- 
duce Maiz  Flint"  [6]. 


Producers  with  large  farms  often  use  custom  harvesters  who  operate  several  combines  in 
the  same  field. 


Utilization 

The  Argentine  maize  crop  is  distributed 
among  several  industries  including  wet 
milling,  dry  milling,  livestock  feed,  and 
exports.  The  primary  industrial  use  of 
maize  is  in  the  wet  milling  industry  for 
the  production  of  starch,  although  small 
quantities  are  also  used  by  dry  millers 
who  grind  maize  along  with  other  grains 
for  human  consumption.  Industrial  use 
of  maize  has  shown  a  steady  increase 
from  233,500  tons  in  1960/61  to 
1,543,000  tons  in  1983/84  (Table  3). 
This  represents  an  increase  from  a  4.8 
percentage  of  production  in  1960/61 
to  a  16.2  percentage  in  1983/84  —  not 
much  different  from  the  U.S.  percent- 
age of  production  used  by  wet  and  dry 
milling  industries.  The  use  of  maize  for 
livestock  feed  in  Argentina  is  much  less 
than  in  the  United  States  —  approxi- 
mately 33.7  percent  of  1982/83  total 
utilization  in  Argentina  [7,  p.  2],  com- 
pared with  62.0  percent  in  the  United 
States  [31,  p.  22].  Although  maize  is 
an  important  ingredient  for  the  rela- 
tively large  Argentine  broiler  industry 
and  the  increasingly  important  swine 
industry,  these  livestock  classes  con- 
sume only  a  small  percentage  of  the 


total  volume.  It  is  important  to  recog- 
nize that  industrial  use  in  the  Argentine 
statistics  includes  some  maize  used  by 
processing  firms  in  the  production  of 
complete  feeds  for  broilers  and  hogs. 
In  addition,  very  little  maize  is  fed  to 
beef  cattle  even  though  cattle  are  used 
to  glean  maize  fields  after  harvest.  The 
majority  of  Argentine  maize  production 
moves  into  the  export  market.  The  five- 
year  average  for  the  period  from 
1980/81  to  1984/85  is  62.5  percent. 


Argentine  beef  cattle   receive  little   grain, 
except  when  gleaning  fields  after  harvest. 


Exports 

World  markets  were  important  to  Ar- 
gentine maize  producers  as  early  as  the 
beginning  of  the  twentieth  century.  Av- 
erage annual  maize  exports  from  Ar- 
gentina in  the  1911/12  to  1913/14 
period  were  4.82  mmt,  accounting  for 
54.9  percent  of  the  world  trade  (Table 
4).  The  United  States'  exports  were 
small  by  comparison,  with  an  annual 
average  during  this  period  of  1.21  mmt 
or  13.8  percent  of  world  trade. 

During  the  next  forty  years,  how- 
ever, the  trade  balance  began  to  shift. 
Between  the  1951  to  1955  period  and 
the  1976  to  1980  period,  average  Ar- 
gentine maize  exports  increased  from 
0.92  mmt  to  6.4  mmt,  while  the  average 
U.S.  maize  exports  increased  from  2.6 
mmt  to  53.6  mmt.  During  the  next 
thirty-year  period,  Argentina's  export 
market  share  decreased  by  50  percent, 
dropping  from  17.8  percent  in  the  1951 
to  1956  period  to  8.9  percent  in  the 
1977  to  1980  period.  In  contrast,  the 
U.S.  export  market  share  increased  by 
50  percent,  growing  from  50.6  percent 
in  1951  to  1955  to  74.5  percent  in  1977 
to  1981  (Table  4). 

Production  and  exports  increased 
rapidly  in  both  countries,  but  the  United 
States  continued  to  gain  its  market  share 
at  the  expense  of  Argentina.  Through- 
out the  decade  of  the  1970s,  the  U.S. 
market  share  increased  steadily  'from 
40.9  percent  in  1970/71  to  78.8 
percent  in  1979/80.  In  contrast,  Argen- 
tina's share  dropped  from  20.5  percent 
in  1970/71  to  7.6  percent  in  1979/80. 
However,  Argentine  market  shares  re- 
bounded to  10.9  percent  after  the  United 
States  suspended  grain  sales  to  the  USSR 
in  January  1980.  The  U.S.  market  share 
dropped  to  71.5  percent  in  1980/81  and 
to  69.5  percent  in  1981/82.  Both  Ar- 
gentina and  the  United  States  lost  mar- 
ket shares  in  1981/82  as  a  result  of 
increased  production  and  exports  by  both 
Thailand  and  South  Africa  [25,  p.  23]. 

The  major  Argentine  ports  for  ex- 
porting maize  are  Buenos  Aires,  Rosario, 
Villa  Constitucion,  Bahia  Blanca,  and 
San  Nicolas  (Figure  2).  Two  ports  han- 
dled 71.8  percent  of  the  total  exports  in 
1980/81:  Buenos  Aires  handled  27.4 
percent,  and  Rosario  handled  44.4  per- 
cent (Table  5).  Both  ports  have  generally 
lost  their  market  share  since  1970,  de- 
clining from  80.0  percent  in  1970/71  to 
60.2  percent  in  1984/85.  Most  other 
ports  showed  relative  gains  during  this 
period,  with  especially  dramatic  in- 
creases in  Bahia  Blanca  and  San  Nicolas. 
Years  of  large  exports  from  Argentina 
tend  to  benefit  the  minor  ports,  as  ca- 


Figure  2.  Major  Argentine  ports  expor- 
ting grain.  The  major  Argentine  ports 
for  exporting  grain  are  Buenos  Aires, 
Rosario,  Villa  Constitucion,  Bahia  Blan- 
ca, and  San  Nicholas.  (Adapted  from: 
(3,  p.  2]) 


pacity  constraints  limit  volume  at  Bue- 
nos Aires  and  Rosario  during  high-vol- 
ume periods. 

A  major  explosion  at  the  export 
elevator  in  Bahia  Blanca  in  1985  caused 
a  drop  in  its  market  share  from  nearly 
8  percent  in  1984/85  to  only  0.5  per- 
cent in  the  first  six  months  of  1986. 
Proposals  by  Italy,  the  Soviet  Union, 
and  the  World  Bank  to  remodel  and 
expand  the  Bahia  Blanca  port  are  being 
considered,  but  as  of  1987,  no  construc- 
tion has  been  initiated.  The  higher  vol- 
ume accompanying  expansion  would 
also  require  the  reorganization  of  rail 
facilities  and  the  modernization  of  as- 
sembly and  discharging  operations, 
which  may  shift  the  relative  shares 
among  the  ports  as  well  as  alter  the 
relative  profitability  and  production  of 
maize  in  the  hinterland  serving  the 
Bahia  Blanca  port  [19,  p.  24B]. 

The  destination  of  Argentine  ex- 
ports has  shifted  over  time  in  response 
to  economic  incentives  and  government 
policies  affecting  international  trade.  In 
1973/74  Italy  and  Spain  received  65.9 
percent  of  all  maize  exported  from  Ar- 
gentina (Table  6).  The  Netherlands, 
United  Kingdom,  People's  Republic  of 
China,  and  USSR  were  also  important 
destinations,  each  receiving  from  2.3  to 
4.9  percent  of  Argentine  exports. 

Major  shifts  in  destinations  oc- 
curred between  1973/74  and  1974/75. 
The  percentage  going  to  the  USSR  in- 


creased to  19.7  percent,  Mexico  entered 
the  market  taking  12.4  percent,  and  the 
People's  Republic  of  China  purchased 
473,000  tons  for  8.1  percent  of  the  mar- 
ket. Over  the  next  two  years  the  USSR 
dropped  to  4.2  percent,  Mexico  to  0.1 
percent,  and  the  People's  Republic  of 
China  to  zero.  Spain  increased  its  share, 
receiving  more  than  one-fourth  of  Ar- 
gentina's exports  of  maize  in  1976/77. 

From  1974/75  to  1979/80  there 
was  a  general  downtrend  in  the  share 
of  Argentine  maize  exports  delivered 
to  Mexico,  Spain,  and  Italy.  The  Italian 
preference  for  Argentine  Plate  maize 
appeared  to  be  weakening  throughout 
this  period,  as  evidenced  by  their  de- 
clining share  in  every  year  except 
1975/76,  when  Italy  maintained  pur- 
chases of  1.5  mmt  in  the  face  of  a  major 
decline  in  Argentine  exports:  from  5.8 
mmt  in  1974/75  to  only  2.6  mmt  in 
1975/76  (Table  6).  In  contrast,  the  USSR's 
share  grew  erratically,  fluctuating  from  a 
low  of  4.2  percent  in  1976/77  to  60.6 
percent  in  1979/80.  The  rapid  growth  of 
the  USSR's  share  in  the  late  1970s  pre- 
pared the  stage  for  the  near  Soviet  dom- 
inance of  Argentine  exports  in  the  early 
1980s. 

In  late  1980  and  early  1981,  polit- 
ical events  dramatically  altered  the  des- 
tinations of  Argentine  maize  exports. 
After  the  1980  invasion  of  Afghanistan 
by  the  USSR,  the  United  States  re- 
sponded by  suspending  American  grain 
sales  to  the  Soviet  Union.  Conse- 
quently, Argentine  shipments  to  the 
USSR  increased  to  2.97  mmt  in  1980 
and  jumped  to  8.0  mmt  in  1981  (84.1 
and  87.7  percent  of  Argentine  exports, 
respectively).  Shipments  to  the  United 
Kingdom  had  already  dropped  to  nearly 
zero  in  calendar  years  1980  and  1981 
as  a  result  of  the  price  premium  being 
paid  by  the  USSR,  but  the  Falkland 
Islands  incident,  starting  April  2,  1982, 
resulted  in  a  "total  ban  on  imports  from 
Argentina"  on  April  10,  1982,  [1,  p.  1] 
and  the  United  Kingdom's  share  of 
Argentine  maize  exports  remained  at 
zero  through  1984.  Shipments  to  Spain 
and  Italy  continued  to  drop,  with  es- 
pecially dramatic  decreases  in  1980  and 
1981  (Table  6)  as  the  price  premiums 
offered  by  the  USSR  directed  the  export 
flow  away  from  Western  Europe.  Re- 
sumption of  normal  grain  trade  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  the  Soviet 
Union  reduced  Argentine  exports  to  the 
USSR  in  1982,  1983,  and  1984,  but 
price  relationships  shifted  the  flow  back 
to  the  USSR  in  1985.  Spain  and  Italy 
also  regained  some  of  their  former  rel- 
ative importance  in  1985. 


Maize  Production  and  Marketing 


in  Argentina 


Organization 
of  the  Argentine 
Markets4 


The  handling  and  transportation  system 
for  Argentine  maize  is  organized  around 
the  export  market,  with  facilities  designed 
to  move  maize  as  needed  from  the  pro- 
duction areas  into  the  major  ports  in 
order  to  meet  export  demand. 


Market  Channel 

Country  elevators  provide  the  market- 
ing services  of  transporting,  storing, 
drying,  cleaning,  and  fumigating,  as 
well  as  the  merchandising  functions  of 
pricing,  buying,  and  selling. 

Most  of  the  storage  and  drying  ser- 
vices are  provided  by  commercial  facili- 
ties. Chiang  and  Blaich  reported  that  the 
total  country  elevator  storage  capacity  in 
Argentina  in  1976  was  9.8  mmt,  of  which 
5.3  mmt  were  located  in  the  Buenos  Aires 
province  [4,  p.  6].  Approximately  90  per- 
cent of  the  5.3-mmt  storage  capacity  was 


4  Much  of  the  information  in  this  section 
was  derived  from  Coscia  [5],  Country  ele- 
vators also  serve  the  exporters  and  proces- 
sors by  storing  supplies  at  harvest  and  de- 
livering maize  into  the  market  as  prices  and 
consumption  require. 


owned  by  private  and  cooperative  firms. 
The  remainder  was  owned  by  the  Junta. 
Total  storage  capacity  at  the  country  el- 
evator had  increased  to  11.6  mmt  by 
1981;  9.5  percent  was  owned  by  the 
Junta  Nacional  de  Granos  [4,  p.  6].  The 
average  storage  capacity  of  the  62  ele- 
vators owned  by  the  Junta  Nacional  de 
Granos  was  only  5,500  mt  (about  200,000 
bushels);  privately  owned  facilities  were 
similar  in  size. 

Very  little   farm   storage   was   re- 
ported in  the  1960  and  1969  studies 


summarized  by  Chiang  and  Blaich. 
Their  estimate  for  1980  was  5  mmt,  up 
from  1.4  mmt  in  1960  [4,  p.  3].  Esti- 
mates for  1986  show  a  slow  upward 
trend  to  6.3  mmt  on  farms;  over  two- 
thirds  are  located  in  the  province  of 
Buenos  Aires  [14]. 

Throughout  the  marketing  year, 
grain  is  transported  by  truck  and  rail 
from  storage  locations  in  the  country 
to  the  port  elevators.  The  rail  system 
in  Argentina  is  often  reputed  to  be 
inefficient  and  poorly  coordinated:  for 


A  unit  train  of  hopper  cars  carries  Argentine  maize  to  one  of  several  port  elevators  along 
the  Parana  River. 


The  manager  of  a  country  elevator  in  Per- 
gamino  weighs  and  records  deliveries  of 
maize  from  local  farmers. 


A  sample  of  maize  is  weighed  carefully  as 
part  of  the  grading  process  at  the  country 
elevator. 


High-temperature  dryers  and  metal  storage  bins  provide  drying  and  storage  services  for 
Argentine  farmers. 


Trained  inspectors  check  samples  for  dam- 
aged kernels  at  the  inspection  department 
of  the  Junta  Nacional  de  Granos  in  Buenos 
Aires. 

example,  there  are  three  different  gauges 
of  track.  However,  modern  covered 
hopper  cars  are  in  common  use  and 
often  move  in  units  of  10  to  50  cars 
between  several  origins  and  the  major 
ports.  Barges  are  also  used  to  move 
maize  from  river  elevators  to  the  ports, 
usually  to  be  unloaded  directly  onto 
ocean  vessels.  Barges  are  particularly 
important  in  completing  the  loading  of 
vessels  at  Buenos  Aires  that,  when  fully 
loaded,  cannot  cross  the  silt  and  bed- 
rock bar  at  the  mouth  of  the  Parana 
River.  During  periods  of  heavy  volume, 
trucks  may  also  be  unloaded  directly 
into  vessels. 

Port  elevators  are  primarily  load- 
out  facilities,  but  they  also  provide  some 
storage  capacity.  Total  storage  capacity 
at  the  14  major  port  elevators  was  1.155 
mmt  in  1980.  More  than  half  of  this 
storage  was  located  at  the  two  ports  of 
Rosario  and  Bahia  Blanca  (Table  7). 
Buenos  Aires  was  a  distant  third  in  the 
1980  list  but  has  since  added  additional 
space. 

Ownership  of  port  elevator  storage 
space  is  divided  among  private  firms 
and  the  Junta  Nacional  de  Granos.  De- 
livery to  the  ports  from  country  ele- 
vators is  about  equally  divided  between 
truck  and  rail,  with  barge  transportation 
appearing  only  in  the  data  for  Buenos 
Aires.  Buenos  Aires  is  heavily  depen- 
dent upon  rail  services  (62  percent  of 
the  1979  deliveries  were  by  rail).  Ad- 
ditionally, the  rails  carry  the  majority 
of  grain  coming  to  Bahia  Blanca  (Table 
7).  Based  upon  the  volume  of  all  grains 
handled,  the  port  of  Bahia  Blanca  is 
nearly  tied  with  Rosario  for  first  place. 
However,  these  data  reflect  large  vol- 
umes of  wheat  moving  into  Bahia 
Blanca,  a  port  which  is  a  distant  sixth 
in  relative  volume  of  maize  exports 


(Table  5).  Rail  share,  when  considering 
transport  to  all  ports,  has  generally 
declined  from  55.7  percent  in  1974,  to 
28.6  percent  in  1985  and  an  estimated 
20  percent  in  1986  [2,  p.  17]. 

The  services,  procedures,  and 
equipment  of  the  country  elevators  in 
Argentina  are  quite  similar  to  those  of 
the  country  elevators  in  the  United 
States.  As  trucks  and  tractors  pulling 
wagons  arrive  from  the  farm,  they  are 
weighed  and  a  sample  is  taken  to  es- 
tablish any  quality  grade  discounts. 
Samples  are  tested  for  moisture,  foreign 
material,  broken  maize,  and  damaged 
kernels.  Not  all  of  the  elevators  test  for 
all  of  the  factors  all  of  the  time.  Many 
elevators  keep  a  file  sample  from  each 
farmer's  deliveries  to  enable  an  appeal 
of  grade  by  the  farmer  to  the  official 
inspection  service  —  The  Junta  Nacional 
de  Granos  inspection  department. 

Because  nearly  all  of  the  maize  in 
Argentina  is  harvested  at  moisture  lev- 
els above  the  14.5  percent  maximum 
established  as  the  base  for  pricing, 
heated  air  dryers  are  used  at  most 
country  elevators.  These  grain  dryers 
are  generally  fuel-oil  fired.  They  are 
similar  in  design  (sometimes  identical) 
to  the  cross-flow  type  dryers  operating 
in  the  United  States.  The  use  of  both 
low-temperature  drying  methods  and 
dryeration  techniques  will  increase  in 
importance  as  Argentine  elevator  op- 
erators become  more  sensitive  to  the 
breakage  problems  that  occur  during 
handling.  Because  of  the  price  incentive 
to  deliver  No.  1  maize  into  the  market 
system,  elevators  operate  cleaners  and 
aspirators  both  before  and  after  the 
dryer.  These  screenings  are  generally 
returned  to  local  feeders.  There  is  little 
incentive  for  returning  any  of  the  fine 
material  back  into  the  grain  itself  be- 
cause increasing  the  broken  kernels  or 
foreign  material  would  lower  the  grade 
and  therefore  lower  the  price. 


The  Role 

of  Cooperatives 

in  Grain  Marketing 

The  marketing  channel  for  maize  in 
Argentina  is  focused  upon  the  export 
destinations.  The  structure  of  the  in- 
dustry is  a  mixture  of  private  firms, 
cooperatives,  and  governmentally 
owned  facilities.  At  the  port  elevators, 
the  multinationals  provide  most  of  the 
facilities,  although  the  Junta  Nacional 


de  Granos  owns  facilities  in  all  major 
ports,  including  one  of  the  largest  port 
elevators  located  at  the  port  of  Buenos 
Aires. 

Cooperatives  serve  an  important 
function  in  the  Argentine  grain  mar- 
keting system.  A  major  characteristic 
of  Argentine  grain  production  is  that 
very  few  farmers  have  grain  storage 
and  drying  facilities.  Therefore,  the 
farmer  sends  his  maize  to  country  el- 
evators for  drying,  storage,  and  mar- 
keting. In  Argentina,  approximately  48 
to  50  percent  of  all  grain  harvested 
goes  to  cooperatives,  with  the  rest  being 
handled  by  private  firms.  Although  Ar- 
gentine cooperatives  provide  many  dif- 
ferent services  for  the  farmer,  including 
drying,  storing,  exporting,  and  process- 
ing grain,  the  cooperative's  most  im- 
portant function  is  marketing  the  farm- 
er's grain.  Cooperatives  also  offer  the 
farmer  agricultural  production  inputs, 
credits,  household  goods,  and  food 
items  at  wholesale  prices. 

The  first  Argentine  agricultural  co- 
operatives were  formed  by  European 
immigrants  in  the  1900s.  Primitive 
transport  systems,  combined  with  the 
unfair  trade  practices  of  country  ele- 
vators, provided  incentives  for  farmers 
to  support  the  cooperative  movement. 
Although  Argentine  cooperatives,  to- 
day, provide  many  services  as  well  as 
exert  political  influence  on  behalf  of 
agriculture,  the  early  cooperative 
movement  was  intended  to  help  farm- 


The  premiums  paid  for  No.  1  maize  generate 
the  incentive  for  removing  broken  kernels 
and  foreign  material. 


ers  both  market  their  grain  more  effi- 
ciently and  obtain  supplies  at  lower 
prices. 

Since  the  1960s,  Argentine  coop- 
eratives have  accounted  for  15  to  20 
percent  of  the  annual  grain  exports. 
Although  most  cooperatives  export  on 
a  FOB  basis,  they  are  working  towards 
exporting  under  CIF  conditions,  which 
would  allow  cooperatives  to  participate 
in  the  shipping  business.  In  1984,  a 
change  in  Argentine  law  allowed  farm- 
ers to  create  export  consortia  or  coop- 
eratives for  facilitating  exports.  This 
important  transition  in  Argentina's  grain 
marketing  structure  provides  Argenti- 
na's producers  with  a  larger  role  in 
grain  exports. 


High-speed  harvest  and  lack  of  on-farm  storage  put  pressure  on  the  receiving  capacity  of 
country  elevators.  Trucks  wait  their  turn  at  the  scales. 


Maize  Production  and  Marketing 


in  Argentina 


Pricing  Policies 
and  Practices 
for  Argentine 
Maize 


Since  the  majority  of  Argentine  maize 
moves  to  export,  prices  are  closely  tied 
to  world  markets.  Prices  at  each  of  three 
major  ports  are  established  daily  at  the 
Bolsa  —  the  grain  exchange  located  at 
Buenos  Aires,  Rosario,  and  Bahia  Blanca. 
Members  of  the  exchange  establish  both 
cash  and  futures  prices  through  the 
interaction  of  buyers  and  sellers  in  an 
open  bidding  process  similar  to  the 
procedures  at  the  Chicago  Board  of 
Trade.  The  cash  and  futures  prices  are 
not  fixed  but  are  a  reflection  of  demand 
and  supply  conditions  both  locally  and 
worldwide. 


Pricing 

at  the  Country 

Elevator 


Following  the  close  of  the  market,  a 
committee  representing  the  various 
participants  in  the  market  meets  to 
evaluate  the  day's  trading  and  to  agree 
upon  a  representative  price  for  maize 


and  other  grains  that  were  traded.  Prior 
to  the  opening  of  the  market  the  fol- 
lowing morning,  this  price,  which  rep- 
resents the  market  price  for  maize 
delivered  to  each  port,  is  circulated  by 
radio  and  becomes  the  base  price  for 
the  industry  for  that  day.  The  price 
differs  among  the  three  port  cities,  in 
part  owing  to  transportation  differences 
among  the  geographical  locations  but 
also  in  response  to  the  market  forces 
in  the  national  and  local  areas.  Export 
elevators  use  this  price  as  a  base  for 
bidding  on  maize  delivered  to  their 
plants.  The  actual  price  may  differ 
slightly  among  buyers  as  well  as  among 
sellers.  Most  of  the  maize  delivered  to 
the  export  elevator  is  purchased  from 
country  elevators  and  is  delivered  to 
the  port  by  trucks  or  railcars. 

The  elevator  pays  the  freight  to 
the  port  and  generally  selects  the  mode 
of  transport,  based  upon  freight  rates 
and  the  availability  of  railcars.  From 
most  locations,  rail  freight  is  generally 
cheaper  than  trucks,  but  railcars  for 
grain  are  in  short  supply  and  often 
unavailable  during  the  required  time 
schedule.  Price  quotations  to  producers 
are  the  prices  established  by  the  Bolsa 
at  the  closest  port  area.  The  Bolsa  price 
functions  as  a  base  for  bid  price  much 
as  the  Chicago  cash  market  might  func- 
tion as  a  base  price  for  No.  2  maize  in 
the  United  States. 

Prices  to  producers  are  quoted  on 
the  basis  of  No.  2  yellow  maize  (see 
Table  8  for  a  description  of  No.  2  grade 
factors).  However,  actual  payment  to 
the  producer  is  determined  by  subtract- 


ing the  necessary  charges  and  discounts 
from  this  base  price.  These  charges 
include  freight  from  the  farm  to  the 
elevator,  freight  from  the  elevator  to 
the  port,  a  charge  for  loading  and  un- 
loading, a  drying  charge  for  any  grain 
above  14.5  percent  moisture,  and 
charges  for  fumigation  and  storage.  If 
any  noxious  weed  seeds  are  present, 
farmers  are  also  charged  for  cleaning. 
Most  of  these  charges  are  established 
for  the  season  and  remain  fairly  con- 
stant regardless  of  variations  in  daily 
market  prices.  In  addition,  there  is  a 
commission  charge  which  is  usually 
calculated  as  a  percentage  of  the  base 
price. 

Transportation  from  the  farm  is 
often  arranged  by  the  elevator  manager, 
and  the  cost  is  included  as  a  marketing 
charge  to  be  deducted  from  the  pay- 
ment to  the  farmer.  A  few  farmers  have 
their  own  trucks,  and  farmers  located 
near  the  elevator  may  use  tractors  and 
wagons. 

The  transportation  charge  from  the 
elevator  to  the  port  is  also  included  as 
a  marketing  charge  to  farmers,  regard- 
less of  the  eventual  destination  and 
disposition  of  the  maize.  The  freight 
charge  varies  among  elevators,  de- 
pending upon  the  distance  from  the 
port,  the  port  selected  for  delivery,  and 
whether  or  not  the  manager  uses  a  rail 
rate  or  a  truck  rate  for  calculating  the 
cost. 

The  unloading  charge  at  the  ele- 
vator represents  operating  costs  asso- 
ciated with  grain  handling.  Storage  rates 
are  generally  a  fixed  charge  for  an  initial 


10 


period  plus  a  monthly  rate  thereafter. 
The  farmer  also  pays  for  fumigation 
and  cleaning  when  insects  and  weed 
seeds  are  present.  The  drying  charge  is 
frequently  based  upon  a  fixed  rate  plus 
an  additional  charge  per  point  of  mois- 
ture above  14.5  percent.  In  addition  to 
the  drying  charge,  the  industry  uses 
standard  shrink  tables  for  adjusting  the 
weight  of  grain  to  equivalent  weight 
when  dried  to  the  base  moisture  of  14.5 
percent.  Although  shrink  tables  pro- 
vided by  the  Junta  Nacional  de  Granos 
are  calculated  from  the  standard  formula 
for  calculating  weight  loss  during  drying, 
the  values  in  the  official  table  are  equal 
to  the  actual  water  loss  when  drying  to 
13.5  percent  —  not  14.5  percent.  Be- 
cause the  official  base  moisture  is  14.5 
percent,  using  the  table  of  shrink  factors 
results  in  a  graduated  scale  on  a  per 
point  basis.  For  example,  the  table  shows 
a  shrink  factor  of  2.31  percent  for  one 
percentage  point  of  moisture  when  ad- 
justing the  weight  of  15.5  percent  maize 
to  the  equivalent  weight  at  14.5  percent. 
At  23  percent  moisture,  the  table  value 
of  10.98  percent  is  equivalent  to  a  shrink 
factor  of  1.29  percent  for  each  percent- 
age point  above  14.5  percent  [12].  In 
addition  to  water  shrink,  an  additional 
0.2  to  0.25  percent  shrink  is  allowed  for 
handling  losses,  and  0.3  percent  is  per- 
mitted for  weight  loss  incurred  during 
screening.  These  additional  shrink  fac- 
tors are  approximately  equal  to  the  0.5 
percent  "invisible"  shrink  shown  in  the 
Minary  Charts,  commonly  used  by  U.S. 
elevators. 


A  truck  driver  uses  a  grain  probe  to  sample 
each  load. 


Price  Competition 
in  Argentina 

Although  prices  to  producers  are  uni- 
formly quoted  on  the  basis  of  prices  at 
the  major  ports,  elevators  compete  for 
farmers'  grain  through  their  charges  for 
services.  This  can  be  illustrated  by  com- 
paring the  prices  and  charges  of  four 
elevators  located  in  the  province  of 
Buenos  Aires.  These  elevators  provided 
prices  and  charges  for  the  same  quan- 
tity and  quality  on  a  given  day.  As 
shown  in  Table  9,  charges  for  cleaning, 
transportation,  and  commission  differ 
among  firms.  Freight  charges  from  the 
farm  to  the  elevator  varied  depending 
upon  distance.  Local  transportation  rates 
quoted  by  the  elevator  were  often  those 
established  by  local  trucking  firms,  but 
in  many  cases  farmers  provided  their 
own  tractors  and  wagons,  thus  avoiding 
the  commercial  trucking  charge.  Freight 
charges  to  the  port  elevator  also  varied, 
depending  upon  the  distance  and  the 
mode  of  transport.  On  the  day  of  the 


Each  sample  is  emptied  onto  the 
by  elevator  employees. 


canvas,  and  then  mixed  and  bagged  for  quality  analysis 


interview,  Elevator  A  was  subtracting 
a  charge  of  27,878  pesos/100  kilos  from 
each  farmer's  payment  based  upon  the 
rail  rate  to  Rosario.5  Elevator  C,  a  co- 
operative, was  delivering  maize  to  the 
port  area  of  San  Nicolas  by  truck  and 
used  a  freight  charge  of  23,000  pesos/ 
100  kilos. 

Loading  and  unloading  charges 
among  the  4  elevators  varied  from  7,500 
pesos/ 100  kilos  at  Elevator  A  to  10,000 
pesos/100  kilos  at  Elevator  B.  Differences 
in  elevator  design,  handling  efficiency, 
and  volume  influenced  costs,  and  these 
cost  differences  influenced  charges.  Fu- 
migation charges  also  varied  among 
elevators.  Published  shrinkage  tables  rec- 
ommended 1.3  percent  shrink  for  screen- 
ing when  weed  seeds  were  present  at  a 
level  that  necessitated  screening.  All  el- 
evators reported  the  same  factor  for  cal- 
culating screening  losses.  Charges  in  ad- 
dition to  shrinkage  varied  from  4,000 
pesos  to  7,000  pesos/ 100  kilos.  Elevator 
C  reported  no  charge  for  cleaning,  but 
had  the  highest  fumigation  charge.  Drying 
charges  for  18.5  percent  moisture  maize 
varied  from  10,500  pesos  for  Elevator  C 
to  14,250  pesos  at  Elevator  B.  All  ele- 
vators reported  using  standard  shrink 
tables  including  0.25  percent  per  point 
of  moisture  for  handling  losses. 

All  of  the  elevators  that  were  in- 
terviewed reported  commission  charges 
calculated  as  a  percentage  of  the  base 
price.  This  commission,  varying  from 
2.5  percent  to  5.5  percent,  could  be 
considered  similar  to  the  merchandis- 
ing charge  common  in  the  U.S.  grain 
trade.  Elevators  B  and  D  each  included 
a  1  percent  capitalization  charge  in  their 
commission,  to  be  retained  by  the  el- 
evator for  future  growth  and  invest- 
ments. Although  all  of  the  elevators 
quoted  identical  prices,  the  net  pay- 
ments to  farmers  differed  significantly 
among  elevators.  These  differences  re- 
sulted from  differences  in  charges  for 
services.  The  effects  of  these  differences 
depend,  in  part,  upon  the  quality  of 
the  maize  delivered  by  the  farmer. 

In  addition  to  the  differences  in 
charges,  there  are  also  several  addi- 
tional factors  that  influence  the  farmer's 
choice  of  market.  These  include  waiver 
of  drying  charges  or  shrink  at  process- 
ing plants  where  the  wet  maize  does 
not  present  a  problem  in  storage  and 
processing,  and  differences  in  waiting 
time  for  delivery  and  unloading  at  dif- 
ferent elevators. 

5  Prices  are  given  in  1983  pesos-.  The  ex- 
change rate  in  March  of  1983  was  70,000 
pesos  per  U.S.  dollar.  Inflation  and  deval- 
uations since  1983  make  the  absolute  values 
of  little  significance. 


11 


Maize  Production  and  Marketing 


in  Argentina 


Quality  Control 
in  Argentine 
Maize 


Grade-Determining 
Factors 


Argentine  maize  is  purchased  on  the 
basis  of  numerical  grades,  with  price 
discounts  for  quality  below  No.  2  on 
any  of  the  three  grade  factors  included 
in  official  standards.  There  are  three 
numerical  grades  for  both  dent  and  flint 
types  —  grade  Nos.  1,  2,  and  3.  The 
limits  for  each  grade  (Table  8)  are  based 
on  three  factors  --  damage,  broken 
grain,  and  foreign  material  [16].  Dam- 
aged grain  is  defined  as  those  grains 
or  pieces  of  maize  grain  that  exhibit  a 
significant  alteration  in  their  appear- 
ance. Types  of  damage  include  kernels 
or  pieces  of  kernels  that  are  fermented, 
sprouted,  or  moldy.  Broken  grain  is 
defined  as  those  pieces  of  maize  that 
pass  through  a  screen,  excluding  pieces 
of  damaged  maize.  The  screen  specified 
by  the  Junta  is  to  be  constructed  of 
hard  aluminum  with  circular  holes  that 
are  4.76  mm  (12/64  inch)  in  diameter. 
This  is  the  same  specification  as  used 
for  the  Broken  Corn-Foreign  Material 
sieve  in  USDA  standards.  Foreign  ma- 
terial is  defined  as  those  grains  or 


pieces  of  grain  that  are  not  maize  as 
well  as  all  other  inert  material.  The 
standards  further  specify  that  14.5  per- 
cent shall  be  the  maximum  moisture 
content.  The  grading  tolerance  for  live 
insects  is  zero.  Punctured  grains  re- 
sulting from  insect  infestation  must  be 
less  than  3  percent,  and  the  sample 
must  not  contain  more  than  2  seeds  of 
the  weed  Datura  Ferox  (Jimsonweed) 
per  100  grams.  A  sample  that  exceeds 
any  of  the  preceding  tolerances  is  con- 
sidered to  be  outside  of  the  standard. 


Moisture  is  not  a  grade-determin- 
ing factor,  but  14.5  percent  is  set  as  the 
maximum  value  for  any  grade.  This 
moisture  limit  establishes  the  base  for 
adjusting  the  quantity  of  maize  con- 
taining excess  moisture  to  the  equiva- 
lent number  of  bushels  at  14.5  percent, 
and  this  limit  is  specified  as  the  maxi- 
mum allowable  on  an  export  certificate. 

In  addition  to  the  three  numerical 
grades,  the  Junta  has  established  a 
fourth  grade  for  those  years  when  har- 
vesting and  storage  conditions  result  in 


Modern  export  facilities  using  high-speed  belts  and  bucket  elevators  provide  efficient  loading 
and  inspection. 


12 


maize  with  damage  beyond  the  limit 
for  No.  3  (8  percent).  Grade  No.  4  has, 
in  the  past,  been  identical  to  grade  No. 
3  except  that  the  maximum  limit  for 
damaged  kernels  was  increased  to  12 
percent. 


Inspection  Procedures 

When  maize  is  delivered  by  farmers  to 
the  elevator,  it  is  priced  on  the  basis  of 
its  quality  characteristics.  Quality  is  de- 
termined by  obtaining  samples  from 
each  truck  through  the  use  of  grain 
probes  or  from  the  equivalent  of  an 
end-gate  sample  during  unloading.  In 
addition  to  recording  truck  weights, 
elevator  employees  determine  the 
moisture  content  and  the  percentage  of 
broken  kernels,  foreign  material,  and 
damage.  The  sample  is  also  inspected 
for  Crotalaria  (Rattlebox)  seeds,  Datura 
Ferox  seeds  (Jimsonweed),  and  insect 
damage.  Duplicate  samples  of  produc- 
ers' grain  are  available  for  appeal  to 
the  Junta  inspection  laboratory  in  case 
of  disputes.  The  Junta  requires  that  all 
inspectors  be  trained  and  licensed,  in- 
cluding those  at  the  country  elevator. 
The  thoroughness  of  the  sampling  and 
analysis  differs  among  elevator  man- 
agers, and  not  all  of  the  factors  are 
always  examined  for  each  truck.  How- 
ever, because  the  selling  price  of  the 
maize  is  determined  by  quality,  with 
premiums  paid  for  No.  1  maize,  the 
elevator  manager  has  an  incentive  to 
determine  the  quality  and  to  assign 
appropriate  discounts  to  all  maize  being 
delivered. 

The  grain  is  also  priced  according 
to  quality  as  it  is  received  at  the  port 
elevator  or  processing  plants.  Inbound 
trucks  and  railcars  are  sampled  by  probe, 
and  those  port  facilities  with  sufficient 
bin  space  will  do  some  segregation  by 
quality  factors.  Outbound  shipments 
from  the  port  elevator  are  inspected  by 
representatives  of  the  Junta  and  by  the 
representative  of  the  seller.  Inspections 
within  the  vessel  may  also  be  made  by 
representatives  of  the  buyer.  Outbound 
maize  may  be  sampled  from  the  grain 
stream  on  the  belt  or  from  the  down- 
spouts in  the  export  elevator.  The  Junta 
Nacional  de  Granos  records  the  quality 
on  the  export  certificate.  When  export 
volume  exceeds  the  loading  capacity  of 
the  export  house,  the  Junta  permits 
direct  transfer  from  truck  to  vessel.  In 
this  case,  the  grade  is  established  from 
truck  samples  and  is  determined  at  the 
original  shipping  point  or  by  probe 
sample  at  the  port.  The  direct  truck-to- 


Samples  are  drawn  at  frequent  intervals  from  a  downspout  in  the  export  elevator.  Composites 
of  these  samples  are  used  to  determine  the  numerical  grade  for  the  export  certificate  issued 
by  the  Junta  Nacional  de  Granos. 


vessel  technology  is  also  used  for  spe- 
cial contract  sales  requiring  identity 
preservation  from  the  origin  elevator 
to  the  vessel. 

The  Junta  Nacional  de  Granos  in- 
spection laboratory  provides  official 
grading  services  for  all  export  purchases 
and  sales.  A  modern  laboratory  in  Bue- 
nos Aires  contains  equipment  for  all 
quality  measurements  and  standardiza- 
tion of  the  various  tests.  The  laboratory 
also  serves  as  an  appeal  board  for  of- 
ficial grades  upon  request  of  buyers  or 
sellers  throughout  the  market  channel. 
The  Board  provides  educational  pro- 
grams for  the  training  and  licensing  of 
official  inspectors.  The  training  includes 
practical  experience  in  grading  and  lab- 
oratory analysis. 


Samples  of  maize  taken  from  farm  trucks 
and  wagons  during  unloading  averaged  57.6 
pounds  per  bushel,  94.3%  whole  kernels, 
and  13%  stress-cracked  kernels  prior  to 
drying. 


The  Junta  Nacional  de  Granos  provides 
classroom  instruction  and  laboratory  facili- 
ties for  training  grain  inspectors. 


Samples  of  flint  maize  taken  from  farmers' 
fields,  combines,  and  trucks  were  air-dried 
immediately  to  prevent  deterioration  and 
minimize  the  development  of  stress  cracks. 


13 


Maize  Production  and  Marketing 


in  Argentina 


Quality  Changes 
from  Farm 
to  Export  Vessel 
in  Argentina 


In  order  to  determine  the  quality  char- 
acteristics of  Argentine  maize  and  the 
factors  that  alter  its  quality,  a  study  was 
organized  to  identify  quality  at  repre- 
sentative points  in  the  market  channel. 
These  points  included  a  random  selec- 
tion of  farms  in  the  Pergamino  area  of 
the  Buenos  Aires  Province,  a  random 
sample  of  cooperative  and  private  firms 
from  the  area,  and  samples  taken  from 
an  ocean  vessel  being  loaded  with  old- 
crop  maize  at  Buenos  Aires.  The  Per- 
gamino area  was  selected  because  it  is 
representative  of  the  province  of  Bue- 
nos Aires,  the  largest  maize-producing 
province  in  Argentina. 


Location  of  Samples 

Maize  samples  were  collected  from 
either  combines  or  trailers  at  each  of 
five  farms.  At  five  country  elevators, 
samples  of  incoming  maize  were  also 
collected  with  probes  or  by  cutting  the 
grain  stream  during  the  unloading  of 
trucks  and  trailers.  Dry  maize  was  sam- 
pled either  at  the  dryer  discharge,  from 


storage  bins,  or  by  probing  at  truck 
load-out  points.  All  of  the  grain  was 
new-crop  (1983)  maize,  representing 
the  average  quality  found  at  the  five 
different  locations  during  the  harvest. 
Samples  of  old-crop  (1982)  maize  were 
taken  by  probe  in  the  hold  of  an  ocean 
vessel  at  Buenos  Aires.  Any  samples 
above  15  percent  moisture  were  al- 
lowed to  air-dry  naturally  in  open  con- 
tainers before  shipment  to  the  United 
States  for  analysis. 

Farm  1  was  a  700-hectare  (1,730- 
acre)  family  farm  located  18  km  north- 
west of  Pergamino.  About  240  hectares 


Samples  requiring  official  grades  (including 
appeals  from  the  country  elevators)  are  ana- 
lyzed by  technicians  at  the  Junta  Nacional 
de  Granos  inspection  laboratory  in  Buenos 
Aires. 


^••••i^^^^HHHHM^^^^^^^^MM^^^^^^  -    •  

Samples  of  maize  taken  from  elevator  storage  bins  after  drying  showed  stress  cracks  in  24 
to  82  percent  of  the  kernels. 


14 


High  prices  for  herbicides  make  grass  control  uneconomical  in  maize  fields. 


(593  acres)  were  in  maize,  with  no  com- 
mercial fertilizers  being  used.  The  maize 
was  being  harvested  by  custom  opera- 
tors using  two  Vassalli  Ideal  3-166  com- 
bines with  5-row  Manerio  maize  heads 
spaced  on  70-cm  rows.  The  maize  va- 
riety was  Morgan  400,  which  was  esti- 
mated to  yield  about  6,000  kg/ha  (96 
bu/acre)  on  this  farm.  This  was  the  only 
farm  that  was  visited  which  had  drying 
and  storage  facilities.  The  grain-han- 
dling facilities  consisted  of  four  storage 
bins,  each  with  a  150-t  capacity,  a  short 
bucket  elevator  to  elevate  maize  for 
overhead  cleaning  before  drying,  and  a 
second  taller  bucket  elevator  to  elevate 
maize  to  a  holding  bin  above  a  Margaria 
batch-type  dryer.  After  drying,  the  maize 
was  screened  to  remove  the  broken 
kernels  before  storage. 

Farm  2  was  a  tenant  farm  located 
19  km  northwest  of  Pergamino.  The 
maize  was  a  Continental  variety  and, 
on  this  farm,  was  estimated  to  yield  80 
bu/acre.  The  need  for  herbicide  weed 
control  was  more  evident  here  than  on 
some  of  the  other  farms.  No  commer- 
cial fertilizer  had  been  applied.  Custom 
operators  were  harvesting  with  three 
Daniel  D66  combines.  Maize  moisture 
was  about  22  percent.7  The  maize  was 

6  Trade  names  are  used  in  this  publication 
solely  for  the  purpose  of  providing  specific 
information.  Mention  of  a  trade  name,  pro- 
prietary product,  or  specific  equipment  does 
not  constitute  a  guarantee  or  warranty  and 
does  not  imply  approval  of  the  named  prod- 
uct to  the  exclusion  of  other  products. 

7  All  moisture  contents  in   this  study  are 
expressed  in  percent  wet  basis. 


hauled  by  wagon  to  a  Tamequa  portable 
grain  bin  for  temporary  storage  until 
trucks  could  return  from  the  local  ele- 
vator. The  truck  loading  time  was  min- 
imized by  simultaneously  unloading 
from  the  holding  bin  and  from  wagons. 

Farm  3  was  a  220-hectare  (544- 
acre)  family  farm  near  Alfonso.  The 
variety  was  Continental  77,  which  ap- 
peared to  have  both  dent  and  flint 
characteristics.  Differences  in  maize 
color,  kernel  crown  indentation,  and 
red  and  white  cobs  on  adjacent  plants 
indicated  the  varied  genetic  makeup. 
No  commercial  fertilizer  had  been  used. 
The  farmer  owned  a  Guiberge  combine 
with  a  5-row  Manerio  maize  head. 


Maize  from  the  combines  was  delivered  by 
truck  to  a  Tamequa  portable  grain  bin  until 
the  commerical  hauler  returned  from  the 
elevator  for  the  next  load. 


The  commercial  trucker  empties  the  maize 
from  the  temporary  bin  for  transport  to  the 
drying  and  storage  facilities  at  the  country 
elevator. 


Farm  wagons  were  unloaded  by  auger  into 
commercial  trucks  while  keeping  ahead  of 
the  two  combines  operating  in  the  field. 


The  genetic  diversity  in  ears  from  the  same  field  shows  a  gradual  shift  in  emphasis  of  plant 
breeders  from  flint  to  dent  varieties. 


15 


Argentine  gauchos  at  Sol  de  Mayo  separate  calves  from  the  breeding  herd  at  weaning  time. 


Maize  was  hauled  by  wagon  to  the 
farmstead  where  it  was  transferred  by 
auger  from  wagon  to  commercial  truck 
and  then  hauled  to  a  cooperative  ele- 
vator for  sale. 

Farm  4  was  another  family  farm 
near  Alfonso.  No  commercial  fertilizer 
had  been  used  here,  but  fertility  was 
enhanced  by  a  crop  rotation  that  in- 
cluded alfalfa.  Weed  control  methods 
included  the  use  of  2-4D.  The  maize 


was  DeKalb  4F34  and  was  being  har- 
vested by  custom  operators  who  used 
both  a  Vassalli  Ideal  3-16  combine  and 
a  Bernadine  combine. 

Farm  5  was  a  3,200-hectare  (7,907- 
acre)  farm  located  southwest  of  Rojas 
which  was  operated  by  a  farm  manager 
for  an  absentee  owner.  About  1,200 
hectares  (2,965  acres)  were  in  maize. 
The  rest  were  in  alfalfa  and  permanent 
pasture  that  supported  both  a  cattle 


Many  of  the  smaller  elevators  did  not  have  truck  hoists  so  trucks  were  unloaded  by  hand. 


feeding  and  a  cow-calf  operation.  The 
maize  ground  had  been  fertilized  with 
ammonium  phosphate,  and  2-4D  had 
been  applied  for  weed  control.  Several 
different  varieties  of  maize  had  been 
planted,  but  samples  were  obtained 
from  only  two  fields:  one  planted  with 
Cargill  155  and  the  other  with  DeKalb 
4F34.  The  estimated  yield  from  these 
fields  was  8,000  kg/ha  or  128  bu/acre. 
The  maize  was  quite  high  in  moisture, 
and  the  combines  were  harvesting 
quickly  to  reduce  potential  field  losses 
due  to  stalk  lodging,  which  were  esti- 
mated at  10  bu/acre.  The  manager  was 
anxious  to  complete  the  harvest  be- 
cause of  these  potential  losses.  As  many 
as  16  custom  operators  were  harvesting 
simultaneously.  The  number  varied 
from  day  to  day,  and  combines  were 
sometimes  idled  because  of  truck  short- 
ages or  delays  at  the  elevator.  The 
combines  that  were  operating  included 
a  New  Holland  TR85  with  an  8-row 
Manerio  head,  a  Vassalli,  a  John  Deere 
975  with  a  6-row  642  head,  and  a 
Senor.  The  farm  had  neither  drying  nor 
storage  facilities. 

Five  country  elevators  provided 
samples  of  inbound  and  outbound 
maize.  Two  of  the  elevators  were  owned 
by  international  grain  firms  and  three 
were  cooperative  firms. 

Elevator  1  was  a  cooperative  with 
350  members.  The  elevator  had  a 
22,000-t  storage  capacity  and  received 
900  to  1,000  t/day  during  harvest.  Typ- 
ically, maize  came  in  on  trucks  or  wa- 
gons from  a  10-km  radius.  The  coop- 
erative had  three  dryers,  each  with  a 
capacity  of  20  t/hr  when  drying  maize 
from  19  percent  to  14.5  percent  mois- 
ture. The  temperature  of  the  drying  air 
was  125°C.  The  cooperative  had  several 
bucket  elevators  but  no  truck  hoists. 
Trucks  with  numerous  openings  were 
unloaded  by  hand.  Typically,  grain  from 
this  elevator  was  transported  by  truck 
or  rail  to  San  Nicolas  or  Villa  Consti- 
tucion  for  export  shipment  on  the  Parana 
River. 

Elevator  2  was  a  cooperative  with 
a  30,000-t  storage  capacity.  They  had 
five  dryers,  each  with  a  drying  capacity 
of  20  t/hr.  The  dryers  were  Iradi  and 
Eureka  brands,  which  were  manufac- 
tured in  Argentina,  and  were  cross- 
flow  types  that  burned  fuel  oil. 

Elevator  3  was  a  cooperative  with 
600  members.  The  storage  capacity  was 
20,000  tons.  The  elevators  had  two  dryers: 
an  80  t/hr  Eureka  and  another  dryer  of 
unknown  brand  with  a  40-t/hr  capacity. 


16 


The  elevator  did  not  have  truck  hoists, 
but  handling  and  cleaning  operations 
were  highly  mechanized,  with  bucket 
elevators  and  mechanical  cleaners. 

Elevator  4  was  privately  owned 
and  had  a  total  storage  capacity  of 
17,000  t.  A  typical  storage  bin  had  a 
1,750-t  capacity,  with  four  7.5  kw  axial 
flow  fans  for  aeration.  Their  Iradi  dryer 
burned  fuel  oil  and  had  a  capacity  of 
70  t/hr.  Maize  was  received  direct  from 
the  field  at  moisture  levels  as  high  as 
29  percent,  but  22  percent  was  more 
typical  in  this  area  at  the  beginning  of 
harvest.  The  Iradi  dryer  reduced  mois- 
ture to  approximately  16.5  percent  with 
air  temperatures  of  110°C.  At  16.5  per- 
cent moisture,  maize  was  aspirated  to 
remove  beeswings  and  placed  in  stor- 
age, where  additional  moisture  was  re- 
moved by  aeration.  Before  load  out  the 
dry  maize  was  screened  on  a  4.76-mm 
sieve  to  remove  broken  kernels.  The 
elevator  was  well  equipped  with  bucket 
elevators  having  capacities  ranging  from 
40  t/hr  to  150  t/hr.  Maize  could  be 
loaded  on  trucks  or  railcars  for  ship- 
ment to  the  port. 

Elevator  5  was  owned  by  a  multi- 
national grain  company.  Its  8,000-t  stor- 
age capacity  consisted  of  six  1,500-t  bins, 
each  equipped  with  three  7.5  kw  fans  at 
the  bottom  of  each  bin  and  three  3  kw 
fans  on  top  of  the  bins.  Their  Iradi  dryer 
had  a  capacity  of  50  t/hr.  The  screenings 
were  removed  before  the  loading  of  rail- 
cars  or  trucks  for  export  destinations  and 
were  returned  to  local  feeders. 


All  elevators  that  were  visited  used 
cross-flow  dryers  heated  by  fuel  oil. 
Many  elevators  were  using  multiple- 
pass  drying  if  the  maize  was  extremely 
wet.  At  some  elevators,  maize  was  re- 
moved from  the  dryer  at  about  16.5 
percent  moisture  content,  and  aeration 
was  used  to  cool  and  remove  an  ad- 
ditional two  percentage  points  of  mois- 
ture to  meet  the  14.5  percent  maximum. 

It  would  have  been  desirable  to 
trace  maize  from  the  country  elevators 
through  each  point  in  the  market  chan- 
nel to  export  ship  loading.  However, 
this  was  not  possible  for  numerous 
reasons.  Nonetheless,  systematic  probe 
samples  were  taken  in  three  layers  from 
an  export  vessel  being  "topped  off"  in 
Buenos  Aires.  Probe  samples  from  the 
first  layer  represented  maize  that  was 
loaded  onto  the  vessel  at  Rosario,  the 
major  export  location.  The  two  upper 
layers  represented  maize  from  a  Buenos 
Aires  port  elevator  used  to  top  off  the 
partially  loaded  vessel.  Owing  to  the 


shallow  draft  at  the  mouth  of  the  Par- 
ana River,  most  ocean  vessels  are  par- 
tially loaded  at  upriver  ports  and  then 
brought  to  the  deeper  port  of  Buenos 
Aires  for  topping  off.  The  hold  of  each 
ship  was  divided  into  four  quadrants: 
in  this  way,  one  sample  could  be  taken 
from  each  quadrant,  for  each  hold,  and 
for  each  layer.  Each  sample  consisted 
of  three  probes  randomly  spaced  in  the 
quadrant  (Figure  3). 


Analysis  of  Samples 

The  maize  samples  were  returned  to 
the  Agricultural  Engineering  Grain 
Quality  Laboratory  at  the  University  of 
Illinois  for  the  following  analyses. 

Test  weight  was  performed  in  du- 
plicate. A  pint  cup  was  used  because 
of  the  limited  sample  size. 

Percent  of  broken  maize  was  de- 
termined on  one-half  of  the  original 
sample  through  the  use  of  30  cycles  on 
a  Garnet  sieve  shaker  with  4.76-mm 
and  6.35-mm  sieves.  The  other  half  of 
the  divided  sample  was  used  for  physi- 
cal separations. 

Whole  kernels  were  determined 
by  sorting  whole  kernels  from  a  50-g 
sample  taken  from  the  maize  that  was 
retained  on  top  of  the  6.35-mm  sieve. 

Stress  cracks  were  determined  by 
candling  100  kernels  from  the  whole 
kernel  sample  and  sorting  them  into 
categories  of  none,  one,  or  multiple 
stress  cracks. 

Vitreous  endosperm  thickness 
was  determined  by  sanding  off  about 
one-third  of  the  crown  end  of  the  kernel 
and  sorting  the  samples  into  categories 
of  thick,  thin,  or  negligible  vitreous 
endosperm. 

Breakage  susceptibility  was  deter- 
mined with  a  Wisconsin-type  breakage 
tester  [21].  Samples  were  equilibrated  to 
approximately  13.7  percent  moisture 
content  before  testing.  A  200-g  sample 
was  selected  from  the  maize  retained  on 
a  6.35-mm  sieve.  After  the  kernels  were 
impacted  in  the  breakage  tester,  they 
were  resieved  on  the  6.35-mm  sieve.  The 
sample  portion  retained  by  the  sieve  was 
weighed  and  divided  by  the  -original 
sample  weight  to  calculate  the  percentage 
of  breakage. 

Moisture  Content  at  the  time  the 
breakage  test  was  run  was  determined 
with  a  100-g  sample  that  was  oven- 
dried  at  103°C  for  72  hours.  The  sam- 
ples had  been  previously  equilibrated 
to  approximately  13.7  percent  moisture 
to  minimize  the  effect  of  moisture  on 
the  test  for  breakage  susceptibility. 


FLINT 


DENT 


Cross-sections  of  Argentine  flint  and  U.S. 
dent  show  a  contrast,  with  the  flint  having 
a  higher  proportion  of  hard  vitreous  endo- 
sperm. 


One  hundred-kernel  weights  were 
determined  by  weighing  two  samples  of 
100  kernels  each.  Kernel  weights  were 
adjusted  to  oven-dried  weights,  and  the 
two  observations  were  averaged. 

Floaters  test  is  an  indication  of 
kernel  hardness  and  was  determined 
by  placing  100  kernels  into  a  solution 
of  tetrachlorethylene  and  deodorized 
kerosene  that  was  adjusted  to  a  specific 
gravity  of  1.275.  The  number  of  lower 
density  kernels  that  floated  was  des- 
ignated as  the  percentage  of  floaters. 

Ethanol  column  test  was  used  to 
indicate  true  density.  One  hundred  pre- 
weighed  kernels  were  placed  in  a  grad- 
uated cylinder  containing  ethanol,  and 
the  density  of  the  kernels  was  calculated 
by  measuring  the  displaced  volume. 

Physical  separations  were  per- 
formed to  sort  the  samples  into  the 
following  categories:  maize,  grains  other 
than  maize,  weed  seeds,  and  inert  ma- 
terial such  as  cobs,  husks,  insects,  dust, 
and  miscellaneous  material  less  than 
1.4  mm  in  diameter. 


17 


Maize  Production  and  Marketing 


in  Argentina 


Results 

of  the  Sample 

Analysis 


Physical  Properties 
of  Argentine  Maize 

The  analysis  of  the  samples  at  the 
University  of  Illinois  Agricultural  En- 
gineering Grain  Quality  Laboratory 
provided  a  description  of  the  physical 
properties  of  the  samples  obtained  at 
each  point  in  the  market  channel. 

Quality  at  the  Farm.  The  sam- 
ples had  an  average  test  weight  of 
773  kg/m3  (60.1  Ib/bu),  indicating  a 
high  density  (Table  10).  Density  was 
also  measured  by  the  ethanol  column 
test,  which  gave  an  average  value  of 
1.29  g/cm3,  and  by  the  floaters  test, 
which  averaged  only  16  percent  floaters 
for  farm-level  samples.  These  results 
confirm  that  flint  maize  is  very  hard 
and  very  dense  with  a  high  proportion 
of  vitreous  endosperm.  One  hundred- 
kernel  dry  weights  on  samples  from 
the  five  farms  averaged  24.5  g.  The 
high  density  of  flint  kernels  was  offset 
by  the  small  kernel  size.  Since  this 
maize  had  not  been  artificially  dried, 


stress  cracks  (combinations  of  one  or 
more  cracks)  were  only  13  percent,  and 
the  test  for  breakage  susceptibility  gen- 
erated only  11.7  percent  breakage  when 
samples  were  equilibrated  to  13.7  ± 
0.6  percent  moisture  content.  The  per- 
cent of  whole  kernels  was  relatively 
high  —  94.3  percent.  The  percentage 
of  broken  corn  and  foreign  material 
(BCFM)  as  determined  with  a  standard 
USDA  4.76-mm  sieve  was  relatively 
low  —  only  0.7  percent.  Only  2.9  per- 
cent of  the  sample  passed  through  a 
6.35-mm  screen.  Thus,  maize  breakage 
and  breakage  susceptibility  at  the  farm 
level  were  quite  low  and  were  com- 
parable to  values  found  in  similar  stud- 
ies of  U.S.  maize  [11]. 

Several  samples  of  the  flint  vari- 
eties grown  in  Argentina  were  rated 
visually  for  thickness  of  vitreous  en- 
dosperm. Because  all  of  these  samples 
rated  very  high  in  vitreous  endosperm 
thickness,  the  test  was  discontinued, 
and  it  was  concluded  that  Argentine 
flint  and  semident  maize  have  a  very 
thick  layer  of  vitreous  endosperm.  Based 
upon  previous  experience  [23],  maize 
with  a  high  test  weight  generally  has 
a  thick  layer  of  vitreous  endosperm. 

Additional  samples  of  freshly  har- 
vested maize  were  obtained  from  farm 
trucks  and  wagons  as  they  arrived  at 
five  country  elevators.  Three  composite 
samples  were  also  obtained  from  all  of 
the  trucks  delivered  during  a  12-hour 
period  at  selected  elevators.  These  sam- 
ples were  representative  of  the  maize 
delivered  from  farms  in  the  area  sur- 


rounding each  of  the  elevators.  The 
results  of  the  tests  are  quite  similar  to 
the  information  obtained  from  the  sam- 
ples on  the  farms.  For  example,  stress 
cracks  were  only  11.1  percent  and 
breakage  susceptibility  was  13.6  per- 
cent (Table  11),  quite  close  to  the  values 
of  the  on-farm  samples.  The  percentage 
of  whole  maize  was  95.1  percent,  and 
screenings  through  the  4.76-mm  sieve 
were  1.1  percent,  which  was  slightly 
higher  than  the  value  obtained  from 
combines  and  wagons  at  the  farm.  Many 
of  the  trucks  that  were  sampled  had 
been  loaded  at  the  farm  with  augers 
and  temporary  storage  bins.  This  extra 
handling  probably  explains  the  in- 
creased BCFM  relative  to  the  samples 
at  the  farm. 

One  'hundred-kernel  dry  weights 
indicate  size  and  density  values  ranging 
from  a  low  of  19.8  g  to  a  high  of  30.6  g, 
compared  with  a  range  of  values  from 
24.8  g  to  30.7  g  found  in  an  analysis 
of  359  samples  of  maize  taken  from  a 
midwest  milling  facility  [22]. 

The  presence  of  other  grains  in  the 
maize  was  extremely  low  —  0.002  per- 
cent at  the  elevators  and  0.0  percent  at 
the  farms.  The  percentages  of  weed 
seeds  at  the  farms  (0.012  percent)  and 
on  inbound  trucks  at  the  country  ele- 
vators (0.015  percent)  were  also  low 
but  higher  than  at  any  other  place  in 
the  market  channel.  Cobs,  husks,  in- 
sects, dust,  and  fine  material  passing 
through  a  1.4-mm  sieve  were  0.173 
and  0.183  percent  at  the  farm  and  on 
inbound  trucks,  respectively. 


18 


Quality  at  the  Country  Eleva- 
tor. Most  high-moisture  maize  in  Ar- 
gentina is  dried  artificially  in  cross-flow 
dryers  at  the  country  elevator.  The 
drying  techniques  ranged  from  gentle 
to  severe,  with  several  elevators  using 
some  form  of  multiple-pass  drying  fol- 
lowed by  dryeration  techniques  to  re- 
duce breakage  and  stress  cracks  during 
drying.  Despite  these  efforts,  stress 
cracks  in  the  vitreous  endosperm  of  the 
kernels  were  present  in  all  samples  of 
maize  that  were  artificially  dried.  The 
percentage  of  stress  cracks  from  indi- 
vidual dryers  ranged  from  24  to  82 
percent  with  an  average  of  52  percent 
for  all  samples  (Table  12).  Because 
breakage  susceptibility  is  influenced  by 
the  percentage  of  stress  cracks,  it  was 
not  surprising  to  find  breakage  suscep- 
tibility values  averaging  46  percent  on 
samples  of  maize  with  more  than  50 
percent  of  the  kernels  showing  stress 
cracks. 

Breakage  susceptibility  values  for 
commercial  U.S.  dent  maize  can  be 
predicted  with  the  equation:  BS  = 
1392.5e-(:87)1MC),  where  BS  is  the  break- 


Directly  under  the  spouting,  breakage  (as  measured  by  USDA-BCFM  sieves)  reached  12.1 
percent.  Samples  from  the  vessel  clearly  showed  extensive  breakage  during  loading. 


Loading  of  the  ocean  vessel  caused  breakage  when  stress-cracked  kernels  impacted  the  spouting. 


19 


age  susceptibility  value  determined  by 
the  Wisconsin  Breakage  tester  using  a 
6.35-mm  sieve  and  where  MC  is  the 
wet  basis  moisture  in  percent  [22].  Us- 
ing this  equation,  the  predicted  break- 
age susceptibility  for  samples  of  U.S. 
dent  maize  obtained  from  over  1,000 
trucks  across  2  crop  years  was  31.5 
percent  when  adjusted  to  a  comparable 
moisture  level  of  13.2  percent.  This 


average  value  for  U.S.  dent  is  slightly 
below  the  average  breakage  suscepti- 
bility value  of  the  maize  obtained  from 
the  dryers  at  the  Argentine  elevators. 
Given  the  small  number  of  samples, 
this  difference  is  not  statistically  sig- 
nificant. The  importance  of  the  com- 
parison is  to  illustrate  that  the  effect  of 
high-temperature  drying  is  similar  for 
dent-  and  flint-type  corn.  The  impor- 


The  premium  paid  for  No.  1  clean  corn  is  an  incentive  for  using  extra  cleaners  on  the 
combine. 


The  screenings  are  collected  and  bagged  for  feeding  or  disposal,  rather  than  including  the 
foreign  material  in  the  maize  delivered  to  the  market. 


tance  of  drying  temperature  and  tech- 
nology in  determining  breakage  is  ev- 
ident in  a  comparison  of  breakage 
susceptibility  and  stress  cracks  for  the 
various  dryers  that  were  tested  (Table 
12).  The  data  did  not  permit  an  analysis 
of  drying  methodology  on  these  dryers, 
but  it  is  evident  that  there  exists  a  wide 
range  in  the  severity  of  drying  at  the 
different  elevators. 

An  analysis  of  all  samples  taken 
from  the  elevators  after  drying  and 
cleaning  for  storage  showed  only  a  slight 
decline  in  quality  when  compared  with 
the  samples  taken  from  the  farmers.  The 
percentage  of  floaters  after  drying  was 
28.3  percent  (Table  13):  a  significantly 
higher  percentage  than  in  the  farm-level 
samples,  which  indicates  reduced  den- 
sity as  a  result  of  high-temperature 
drying.  The  test  weight  of  765.2  kg/m3 
(59.4  Ib/bu)  was  slightly  lower  than  in 
the  farm  samples,  but  based  upon  a 
two-tailed  "t"  test,  this  was  not  a  sig- 
nificant difference  at  the  95  percent  level 
of  probability.  The  percentage  of  screen- 
ings passing  through  a  4.76-mm  sieve 
increased  to  1 .6  percent,  compared  with 
1.1  percent  in  farm  truck  receipts.  Based 
upon  physical  separations,  the  percent- 
age of  cobs,  husks,  insects,  dust,  and 
fine  materials  passing  through  a  1.4-mm 
sieve  increased  to  0.3  percent.  Weed 
seeds  were  insignificant  in  these  sam- 
ples. The  range  in  BCFM  (as  defined  in 
U.S.  standards)  indicated  significant  dif- 
ferences between  elevators  and  the  ways 
in  which  they  were  handling  their  maize. 
One  elevator  showed  an  average  BCFM 
value  of  0.5  percent  while  another 
showed  a  high  of  3.1  percent. 

Nearly  all  of  the  elevators  that 
were  interviewed  used  cleaners  both 
before  and  after  drying  in  order  to 
reduce  the  amount  of  broken  maize 
and  foreign  material  in  outbound  ship- 
ments. There  was  no  evidence  of  blend- 
ing once  the  material  had  been  re- 
moved, although  larger  elevators  were 
able  to  separate  quality  in  different  bins 
and  then  commingle  them  by  drawing 
from  more  than  one  bin  during  load 
out.  The  screenings  removed  before 
and  after  drying  were  generally  sold 
back  to  local  feeders  at  a  price  of  ap- 
proximately 70  percent  of  the  value  of 
maize  purchased  from  the  farmer. 

Samples  of  inbound  and  outbound 
maize  from  one  elevator  were  used  to 
indicate  the  changes  in  quality.  Samples 
taken  from  13  inbound  trucks  were 
compared  with  samples  taken  with  grain 
probes  from  eight  outbound  trucks.  The 
most  significant  differences  were  in 
those  factors  related  to  breakage  and 
drying.  Broken  maize  through  the 


20 


6.35-mm  (16/64-inch)  and  4.76-mm 
(12/64-inch)  sieves  were  6.02  percent 
and  2.55  percent,  respectively,  com- 
pared with  3.73  and  1.14  percent  in 
the  inbound  samples  (Table  14).  The 
percentage  of  whole  kernels  was  94.3 
percent  in  the  outbound  samples  com- 
pared with  96.1  percent  in  the  inbound. 
Foreign  materials  (material  other  than 
maize)  were  quite  low  in  both  inbound 
and  outbound  samples,  but  there  was 
a  significant  increase  in  the  percentage 
of  dust  and  inert  materials,  ranging 
from  0.21  percent  inbound  to  0.55  per- 
cent outbound.  The  percentage  of  ker- 
nels showing  stress  cracks  increased 
from  10.2  to  60.5  as  a  result  of  high- 
temperature  drying.  The  percentage  of 
floaters  increased,  whereas  one 
hundred-kernel  weight  and  true  den- 
sity decreased,  also  the  result  of  drying. 

Quality  in  the  Export  Vessel.  A 

vessel  of  Argentine  maize  destined  for 
Singapore  was  loaded  with  19,124  mt 
at  Rosario  and  topped  off  with  an  ad- 
ditional 4,953  tons  in  Buenos  Aires. 
Samples  were  taken  in  holds  1,  3,  and 
5  when  the  vessel  arrived  in  Buenos 
Aires. 

The  sampling  procedure  was  to 
combine  three  probe  samples  from  each 
quadrant  into  a  single  composite  sam- 
ple for  each  quadrant  of  holds  1,  3, 
and  5  (Figure  3).  The  probes  were  52 
inches  long  so  samples  were  obtained 
in  fairly  shallow  layers.  Only  the  top 


1 


36 


8 


7110 


11 


12 


ill 


IV 


Figure  3.  Sampling  pattern  for  the 
ocean  vessel  in  Buenos  Aires.  The 
numbers  in  each  quadrant  represent  the 
placement  of  the  three  probes.  These 
probes,  in  turn,  were  combined  to 
produce  a  sample  of  approximately 
1,000  grams. 


Flint  maize  that  was  subjected  to  high  temperatures  during  drying  showed  internal  frac- 
tures .  . 


.  .  as  does  U.S.  dent  corn. 


52  inches  could  be  sampled  from  the 
Rosario  maize.  As  the  4,000  tons  of 
maize  were  being  loaded  into  the  three 
holds  at  Buenos  Aires,  samples  were 
taken  from  three  layers  in  hold  1,  two 
layers  in  hold  3,  and  three  layers  in 
hold  5.  These  samples  represented  ap- 
proximately 1,500  tons  in  hold  1,  1,000 
tons  in  hold  3,  and  2,500  tons  in  hold 
5.  All  of  the  maize  that  was  loaded  was 
from  the  1982  crop,  and  the  official 
certificate  reported  that  the  maize  in 
the  bottom  layer  was  graded  as  No.  1 


and  the  top-off  maize  was  graded  as 
No.  2.  The  top-off  maize  was  of  lower 
quality  with  respect  to  all  quality  factors 
with  the  exception  of  measures  of  den- 
sity (Table  15).  Test  weight  was  slightly 
higher  in  the  Buenos  Aires  top-off  maize 
than  in  the  maize  loaded  at  Rosario. 
One  hundred-kernel  weights  and  true 
densities  were  essentially  the  same. 
However,  other  measures  of  quality 
related  to  breakage  and  foreign  material 
were  significantly  worse  in  the  top-off 
maize. 


21 


Because  it  was  not  possible  to  ob- 
tain samples  from  the  export  house 
during  loading  at  the  two  locations,  the 
reason  for  the  difference  could  not  be 
established.  Whether  or  not  the  maize 
being  delivered  to  the  Buenos  Aires 
port  was  of  lower  quality  than  that 
delivered  to  Rosario  or  the  handling 
practices  and  blending  procedures  at 
Buenos  Aires  resulted  in  increased 
damage  could  not  be  ascertained. 

Broken  maize  (material  passing 
through  a  6.35-mm  sieve)  was  5.1  per- 
cent in  the  maize  loaded  at  Rosario  but 
9.9  percent  in  the  maize  loaded  at 
Buenos  Aires.  BCFM  (through  the 
12/64-inch  sieve)  also  was  significantly 
higher  in  Buenos  Aires  maize  than  in 
the  Rosario  maize  (5.0  compared  with 
1.7  percent).  The  percentage  of  whole 
kernels  was  lower,  and  the  percentages 
of  stress  cracks,  breakage  susceptibility, 
and  floaters  were  higher  in  the  Buenos 
Aires  maize.  The  Buenos  Aires  maize 
also  contained  a  higher  percentage  of 
other  grains  (0.29  percent  compared 
with  0.05  percent)  and  inert  materials 
(0.66  percent  compared  with  0.31  per- 
cent) than  the  Rosario  maize. 

The  loading  procedure  was  such 
that  breakage  increased  during  loading, 
and  fine  materials  were  segregated 
within  the  hold.  Much  of  the  loading 
was  accomplished  with  the  use  of  de- 
flector spouts  rigged  with  ropes  to  di- 
rect the  grain  stream  into  the  corners 
and  under  the  deck.  In  many  cases, 
this  meant  that  maize  from  the  elevator 
loading  spout  hit  the  metal  deflector 
surface  at  nearly  a  90°  angle.  Breakage 
was  evident  in  the  dust  arising  from 
the  holds  as  well  as  in  the  samples 
being  taken.  A  special  sample  taken 
under  the  deflector  spout  (not  included 
in  the  analysis  because  it  was  not  in 
the  probing  pattern)  contained  12.1 
percent  BCFM  as  measured  with  the 
4.76-mm  sieve.  Much  of  the  loading 
procedure  resulted  in  pockets  of  fines 


beneath   the  spout   that  were  in   the 
range  of  6  to  12  percent  BCFM. 

Although  University  of  Illinois  per- 
sonnel were  not  allowed  to  take  sam- 
ples inside  the  export  elevator,  the  cer- 
tificate issued  by  the  Junta  Nacional  de 
Granos  based  on  samples  from  the 
outbound  belt  showed  an  average  of 
0.8  percent  broken  kernels  through  the 
4.76-mm  sieve  in  the  elevator  com- 
pared with  the  average  of  5.0  percent 
for  the  top-off  maize  in  the  vessel  (Table 
16).  Assuming  that  both  sets  of  samples 
were  representative,  there  was  an  in- 
crease of  4.2  percentage  points  in  bro- 
ken maize  during  the  loading  process 
between  the  export  elevator  and  the 
ocean  vessel. 

Other  quality  factors  (test  weight 
and  damage)  were  similar  for  both  sets 
of  samples,  indicating  that  the  samples 
taken  without  university  supervision 
were  at  least  representative  on  these 
factors.  It  would  appear  that  loading 
procedures  in  Argentina  create  addi- 
tional breakage  much  as  they  do  in 
loading  ocean  vessels  in  the  United 
States.  The  sampling  variability  in  the 
vessel  indicated  that  some  segregation 
had  taken  place  during  loading,  al- 
though the  sampling  pattern  did  not 
permit  a  systematic  analysis  of  segre- 
gation. 

Broken  maize  through  the  4.76-mm 
sieve  ranged  from  2.4  percent  to  8.9 
percent  among  samples  taken  in  the 
top-off  maize.  Similar  variation  was 
found  in  other  factors  related  to  break- 
age and  breakage  susceptibility.  The 
range  and  standard  deviation  on  the 
factor  of  breakage  susceptibility  were 
higher  than  those  found  in  similar  sam- 
pling programs  on  U.S.  maize,  indicat- 
ing that  the  blending  procedures  in  the 
U.S.  market  channel  may  generate  a 
more  uniform  load  with  respect  to  fac- 
tors other  than  particle  size.  Segregation 
problems  caused  by  spout  lines  and  fines 
appear  to  be  similar. 


Chemical  Properties 
of  Argentine  Maize 

A  chemical  analysis  of  17  samples  of 
the  Argentine  flint  maize  provided  a 
limited  comparison  with  average  values 
for  U.S.  dent  (Table  17).  The  analysis 
included  eight  samples  selected  at  ran- 
dom, representing  four  different  vari- 
eties from  six  different  fields.  Six 
samples  from  elevators  were  also  ana- 
lyzed. Three  additional  samples  ana- 
lyzed were  composites  from  the  ocean 
vessel.  Two  samples  of  U.S.  yellow 
dent  were  composites  from  trucks  re- 
ceived at  a  central  Illinois  processing 
plant  in  the  fall  of  1983.  Even  from 
this  limited  number  of  samples,  it  is 
evident  that  the  protein  content  of  flint 
maize  varies  with  the  variety  (Table 
17).  The  percentage  of  protein  ranged 
from  8.65  to  11.74  in  the  Argentine 
samples,  but  in  general,  it  was  slightly 
higher  than  in  the  U.S.  dent  varieties. 
Two  composite  samples  from  an 
Argentine  export  silo  and  from  truck 
deliveries  to  an  Illinois  maize  processor 
provide  a  broader  base  for  comparison 
(Table  18).  A  comparison  of  sample  3 
(Argentina)  with  sample  4  (Illinois) 
shows  Argentine  maize  to  have  a  higher 
content  of  fat,  protein,  and  ash  than 
U.S.  maize,  but  a  lower  content  of  fiber 
and  nitrogen-free  extract.  Samples  1 
and  2  from  individual  varieties  grown 
in  Argentina  show  the  range  of  varia- 
bility. Any  comparison  of  chemical 
properties  between  U.S.  and  Argentine 
maize  requires  recognition  of  a  signif- 
icant degree  of  variability  within  the 
varieties  and  geographical  regions  of 
both  countries. 


22 


Maize  Production  and  Marketing 


in  Argentina 


Quality  Incentives 
in  the  Argentine 
Market 


Argentine  farmers  and  grain  handlers 
respond  to  the  economic  incentives 
present  in  their  system.  These  incen- 
tives include  the  price  level  and  price 
differentials  associated  with  grade  fac- 
tors. The  incentive  of  world  market 
prices  has  clearly  stimulated  increased 
acreage  and  production  of  maize  as  well 
as  increased  exports  by  Argentine  farms 
and  marketing  firms.  Higher  prices  and 
the  adoption  of  lower  cost  technology 
have  increased  the  profitability  of  maize 
production.  However,  opportunities  for 
double  cropping  with  soybeans  and 
wheat  have  shifted  some  land  into  soy- 
bean production  that  would  have  been 
used  for  maize.  Reduction  of  import 
tariffs  and  increased  domestic  produc- 
tion of  fertilizer  and  herbicides  may 
increase  production  in  the  future. 

A  base  moisture  of  14.5  percent 
for  pricing  maize  and  as  a  grade  re- 
quirement for  exporting  maize  provides 
an  incentive  to  dry  maize  to  a  safe 
storage  level.  Most  elevators  were  tar- 
geting their  final  moisture  content  near 
14.5  percent  either  through  direct  drying 
or  through  partial  drying  followed  by 
aeration  and  sometimes  dryeration  in 
storage.  No  evidence  was  found  that 
high  moisture  maize  was  being  blended 


with  overly  dried  maize.  Targeting  final 
moisture  at  the  base  moisture  of  14.5 
percent  provided  little  opportunity  for 
an  economic  benefit  from  blending.  Ap- 
parently, overdrying  in  storage  occurs 
frequently,  and  delivery  to  the  export 
elevator  of  maize  with  moistures  below 
12  percent  is  not  uncommon.  Although 
export  elevators  draw  maize  from  sev- 
eral bins  during  the  loading  of  vessels, 
there  was  no  evidence  of  a  supply  of 
high-moisture  maize  to  use  in  blending 
with  maize  at  moisture  levels  below 
14.5  percent. 

Processors  who  offer  relatively 
higher  prices  for  high-moisture  maize 
(that  is,  low  discounts  or  a  low  shrink 
factor)  provide  an  incentive  to  farmers 
for  delivering  maize  a  greater  distance. 
Farmers  often  passed  several  country 
elevators  in  order  to  reach  a  processor 
offering  to  purchase  wet  maize  without 
a  drying  charge. 

A  price  differential  is  also  estab- 
lished for  No.  1  maize  over  No.  2  and 
for  No.  3  below  No.  2.  No.  1  maize 
normally  receives  a  1.0  percent  increase 
in  price  and  No.  3  maize  a  1.5  percent 
decrease  in  price,  relative  to  the  No.  2 
base  [12,  p.  126].  These  price  differ- 
entials are  an  incentive  for  farmers  to 
set  their  combines  to  reduce  the  amount 
of  weed  seeds  and  foreign  material  in 
the  maize.  Some  of  the  combines  that 
were  observed  had  separate  cleaners, 
with  baggers  on  the  combine  to  collect 
weed  seeds  and  small  pieces  of  maize 
that  would  be  counted  as  foreign  ma- 
terial in  the  grades  at  the  country  ele- 
vator. This  same  incentive  is  present  at 


the  country  elevator,  encouraging  the 
removal  of  foreign  material,  fine  ma- 
terial, and  small  broken  pieces  before 
shipment.  Most  elevators  were  using 
aspirators  and  cleaners.  The  No.  1  price 
premium  is  a  deterrent  to  blending 
foreign  material  and  screenings  to  re- 
duce No.  1  maize  to  the  No.  2  base. 

Because  only  three  grade  factors 
are  used  to  determine  the  numerical 
grade  (that  is,  damage,  broken  kernels, 
and  foreign  material),  it  is  relatively 
easy  for  both  the  farmer  and  the  ele- 
vator to  control  the  numerical  grade  of 
freshly  harvested  maize.  Because  farm 
deliveries  seldom  have  high  damage 
levels,  only  routine  cleaning  is  required 
to  produce  No.  1  maize  and  generate 
the  higher  price.  Incentives  for  drying 
to  14.5  percent  moisture  reduce  the 
incidence  of  mold  damage  relative  to 
the  15.5  percent  base  established  by 
the  grade  for  No.  2  maize  in  the  United 
States.8 


8  Moisture  was  removed  from  U.S.  grades 
in  September  1985,  and  many  elevators 
changed  their  base  to  15.0  percent. 


23 


Maize  Production  and  Marketing 


in  Argentina 


Comparison  of 
U.S.  and  Argentine 
Quality 


The  production  and  marketing  tech- 
nology in  Argentina  and  the  United 
States  are,  in  fact,  quite  similar  with 
respect  to  combines,  grain  dryers,  stor- 
age bins,  and  weighing  and  grading 
equipment.  Pricing  strategies  are  some- 
what different,  particularly  in  terms  of 
charges  for  services  and  commission 
charges  at  Argentine  elevators  in  lieu 
of  elevator  handling  margins.  In  the 
United  States,  the  elevator  covers  op- 
erating costs  through  a  variable  margin 
determined  by  the  difference  between 
the  selling  price  and  the  bid  price  of- 
fered to  the  farmer.  This  margin  is 
supplemented  by  charges  for  specific 
services  such  as  drying  or  storage.  The 
country  elevator  in  Argentina  gives  the 
farmer  a  price  bid  equal  to  the  prices 
established  by  their  Board  of  Trade 
(Bolsa),  reflecting  prices  in  the  export 
market.  In  both  countries  the  cost  for 
services,  the  elevator's  cost  of  opera- 
tion, and  the  transportation  costs  are 
then  assessed  as  charges  against  the 
farmer.  Competition  among  Argentine 
elevators  is  not  based  upon  the  bid 
price  to  producers  but  upon  the  charges 
for  services  and  the  elevator  merchan- 
dising commission. 


Shrink  factors  for  adjusting  maize 
to  base  moisture  quantities  are  similar 
in  both  the  United  States  and  Argen- 
tina. The  actual  water  loss  calculated 
mathematically  is  used  in  constructing 
tables,  and  either  a  rule-of-thumb  shrink 
factor  or  a  table  has  been  instituted 
that  does  not  correspond  exactly  to  the 
actual  water  loss.  In  both  countries,  the 
factors  and  tables  used  at  various  mois- 
ture levels  often  exceed  the  actual 
weight  loss  due  to  evaporation  of  water. 
In  Argentina,  the  adjustment  factor  for 
drying  from  15.5  percent  to  14.5  per- 
cent moisture  is  equivalent  to  the  loss 
when  drying  to  13.5  percent.  In  the 
United  States,  many  elevators  use  a 
shrink  factor  of  1.3  percent  to  cover 
actual  losses  of  1.18  percent.  These 
higher  factors  provide  income  to  cover 
handling  losses.  "Invisible  shrink"  is 
explicitly  recognized  in  both  countries. 

The  grading  standards  of  the  two 
countries  are  similar  with  respect  to  the 
use  of  numerical  grades  and  the 
identification  of  some  of  the  important 
factors.  For  example,  both  countries 
identify  damaged  kernels,  although  the 
United  States  has  a  subset  for  this 
identification  called  heat  damage.  Both 
countries  identify  broken  maize  and 
foreign  material  as  grade-determining 
factors,  but  the  United  States  combines 
both  into  one  measurement,  whereas 
Argentina  keeps  them  separate.  Argen- 
tina does  not  use  moisture  as  a  grade- 
determining  factor  but  sets  a  base  of 
14.5  percent  as  the  maximum  moisture 
for  all  grades.  The  United  States  has 
recently  removed  moisture  as  a  grade 


factor,  but  15.0  or  15.5  percent  was 
commonly  used  as  the  base  for  estab- 
lishing price  until  1986.  A  comparison 
of  grade  standards  in  the  two  countries 
(Table  8)  shows  the  differences  in  grade 
factors  and  factor  limits.  With  some 
adjustment  one  can  determine  the  sim- 
ilarity or  differences  between  the  effec- 
tive quality  generated  by  the  two  sets 
of  standards. 

The  use  of  high-temperature  dryers 
has  resulted  in  breakage  and  stress 
cracks  in  both  countries,  despite  some 
worldwide  belief  that  Argentine  maize 
neither  experiences  breakage  nor  con- 
tains stress  cracks.  The  results  of  this 
study  indicate  that  this  is  not  true. 
High-temperature  drying  of  flint  vari- 
eties resulted  in  stress  cracks  and  break- 
age just  as  it  does  in  dent  varieties. 
Argentina  has  moved  rapidly  toward 
combine  harvesting  at  high-moisture 
levels,  and  the  high-temperature  dryers 
that  must  accompany  this  technology 
have  generated  an  increasingly  serious 
problem  of  breakage.  The  tests  con- 
ducted in  this  research  indicate  that  the 
percentage  of  stress  cracks  in  Argentine 
flint  varies  with  variety  and  drying 
temperature.  Similar  results  have  been 
found  when  testing  U.S.  maize  [23]. 
The  high-density,  vitreous  endosperm 
found  in  the  flint  varieties  in  Argentina 
is  highly  susceptible  to  stress  cracks 
during  drying.  Both  U.S.  and  Argentine 
producers  and  government  agencies 
may  need  to  focus  on  practices  and 
incentives  for  reducing  the  problems 
associated  with  high-temperature 
drying. 


24 


Density  and  thickness  of  vitreous 
endosperm  is  much  greater  for  flint 
varieties  than  in  most  commercial  va- 
rieties of  U.S.  dent  maize.  The  value 
of  this  for  dry  milling  purposes  is  offset 
by  the  smaller  size  of  kernels.  There- 
fore, the  yield  of  large  flaking  grits  may 
not  be  much  greater  in  Argentine  maize 
that  is  free  of  stress  cracks  than  in  some 
varieties  of  dent  maize  that  are  free  of 
stress  cracks. 

Chemical  analysis  of  the  Argentine 
samples  indicates  a  slightly  higher  pro- 
tein content  than  in  average  U.S.  dent 
varieties  but  with  significant  variability. 
For  wet  milling  purposes  the  hardness 
and  the  high  density  actually  lengthen 
steeping  time  and  may  decrease  the 
yield  of  starch  relative  to  dent  varieties 
of  similar  characteristics.  Thus,  it  is  not 
clear  that  flint  has  a  unique  advantage 
over  U.S.  dent  maize  for  wet  milling: 
its  unique  advantage  has  been  the  high 
content  of  carotene  which  produces 
dark  yellow-skinned  broilers  and  dark 
yellow  egg  yolks.  The  introduction  of 
dent  genetic  material  into  Argentine 
commercial  seed  maize  varieties  may 


Flint-type  maize  is  distinguished  from  dent-type  by  kernel  shape  and  dark  red  color. 


reduce  the  advantages  of  flintiness, 
density,  and  carotene  content  that  have 
generated  premiums  in  the  past.  The 
gradual  shift  from  Spain  and  Italy  as 
primary  markets  for  Argentina  to  a 


wider  range  of  geographical  destina- 
tions suggests  that  customers  may  be 
reducing  the  importance  that  they  have 
previously  attached  to  these  high  caro- 
tene factors. 


Summary 


The  research  reported  in  this  publica- 
tion has  been  based  upon  a  limited 
number  of  samples  with  restricted  ac- 
cess to  data  and  sampling  locations. 
The  research  covers  a  relatively  small 
number  of  locations  and  sampling 
points  and  should,  therefore,  be  con- 
sidered as  a  case  study  rather  than  as 
a  complete  representation  of  the  entire 
Argentine  maize  industry.  However,  the 
data  provide  the  basis  for  several  con- 
clusions about  the  chemical  and  phys- 
ical characteristics  of  Argentine  maize 
with  comparison  to  U.S.  maize.  The 
following  points  summarize  the  more 
important  characteristics: 

1.  The  test  weight  of  Argentine  maize 
was  higher  than  that  of  U.S.  dent  va- 
rieties, ranging  from  778  to  797  kg/m3 
(60.5  to  61.9  pounds  per  bushel)  on 
the  samples  collected  from  the  vessel 
in  Buenos  Aires.  True  kernel  density 
was  also  high,  ranging  from  1.24  to 
1.31  g/m3.  The  test  weight  for  U.S. 
dent  corn  inspected  for  exports  in  1985 
ranged  from  664  to  761  kg/m3  (51.6  to 
59.1  pounds  per  bushel). 

2.  The  percentage  of  kernels  floating  in 
a  1.275  specific  gravity  solution  indi- 


cates that  Argentine  maize  is  very  hard 
and  dense,  and  the  endosperm  thick- 
ness test  indicates  a  very  thick  layer  of 
vitreous  endosperm  in  true  flint  vari- 
eties. Dent  varieties  contain  a  higher 
proportion  of  soft  starch. 

3.  The  number  of  kernels  with  stress 
cracks  on  freshly  harvested  maize  av- 
eraged 13  percent.  After  artificial  drying 
this  increased  to  52  percent.  Breakage 
susceptibility    values    on    a    6.35-mm 
(16/64-inch)  sieve  after  artificial  drying 
to  approximately  13.7  percent  moisture 
averaged  32  to  40  percent.  With  natural 
air-drying,  breakage  susceptibility  val- 
ues averaged  12  to  14  percent.  These 
values  are  very  similar  to  those  found 
in  dent  corn  subjected  to  similar  stress. 

4.  One  hundred-kernel  weights  indi- 
cated Argentine  maize  was  of  higher 
density  on  the  average  but  with  a  wider 
range  among  samples  than  U.S.  maize, 
owing  to  the  difference  in  kernel  size. 

5.  Throughout    the    market    channel, 
whole-kernel  percentages  remained 
quite  high,  from  93  to  95  percent.  The 
effects  of  additional  handling  during 
the  discharge  of  maize  from  the  ocean 
vessel  have  not  been  established.  Sim- 
ilar studies  of  U.S.  marketing  showed 
similar  results,  with  the  percentage  of 
whole  kernels  decreasing  during  the 
discharge  of  the  vessel. 


6.  BCFM  increases  through  the  market 
channel,  averaging  0.7  percent  at  the 
first  point  of  measurement  on  the  farm. 
At  the  incoming  elevators,  the  average 
was  1 . 1  percent.  After  drying  and  clean- 
ing, BCFM  had  increased  to  1.6  percent, 
and  after  loading  on  one  ocean  vessel 
using  old  crop  maize,  the  hold  averages 
for  BCFM  were  5.0  percent.  Weed  seeds 
are  highest  at  the  farm  and  incoming 
country  elevator  level.  The  proportion 
of  weed  seeds  in  the  total  sample  was 
near  zero  at  the  export  elevator.  Other 
grains,  inert  materials,  and  fines  less 
than  1.4  mm  are  highest  in  the  export 
elevator  and  were  higher  in  the  top-off 
maize  at  Buenos  Aires  than  in  the  maize 
loaded  at  Rosario.   These  results  are 
similar  to  those  found  in  studies  of  U.S. 
exports. 

7.  Nearly  all  Argentine  maize  is  har- 
vested by  combine  and  artificially  dried. 
Most  of  it  is  trucked  directly  to  country 
elevators  at  harvest  because  there  is 
little  on-farm  storage.  Typically,  maize 
is  artificially  dried  from  moistures  of 
22  percent  or  greater  to  14.5  percent. 
Dryeration  or  tempering  techniques  are 
frequently  used  in  an  attempt  to  reduce 
stress   cracks,   breakage   susceptibility, 
and    breakage.    U.S.    technology    and 
practices  are  similar  except  that  about 
50  percent  of  drying  and  storage  takes 
place  on  the  farm. 


25 


Conclusions 


1.  Argentine  and  U.S.  producers  are 
competing   for  a   world   market   with 
maize  that  exhibits  similar  quality  char- 
acteristics. The  genetic  differences  are 
becoming   less    pronounced    as    plant 
breeders  strive  for  higher  yields. 

2.  The  technology  of  production,  har- 
vesting, and  drying  is  similar  for  Ar- 
gentine and  U.S.  maize.  The  quality 
problems  (especially  breakage)  associ- 
ated  with   this   technology   present   a 
similar  challenge  to  both  countries. 


3.  As  the  quality  distinctions  between 
U.S.  and  Argentine  maize  decrease,  the 
extent  of  overlap  between  importing 
customers  will  increase,  and  the  shifts 
among  trading  partners  will  become 
more  frequent,  responding  primarily  to 
the  delivered  price. 


4.  The  quality  differentiation  within 
either  Argentina  or  the  United  States 
can  provide  new  market  opportunities 
to  specific  industries  or  firms,  but  only 
if  a  more  discriminating  grading  and 
marketing  system  is  developed  to  allow 
price  differentials  to  direct  each  quality 
to  its  highest  valued  use  and  to  provide 
the  necessary  incentives  to  producers. 


References 


1.  Apple,  R.  W.  1982.  "Europeans  Ending  Argentine  Imports"  in  The  Neiv  York 
Times,  April  11:  1,  12. 

2.  Bolsa  de  Cereales  de  Buenos  Aires.  1986.  Numero  Estadistico:  17. 

3.  Bolsa  de  Cereales  de  Buenos  Aires.  1982.  Unpublished  tables. 

4.  Chiang,  S.  W.  and  Blaich,  O.  P.  1983.  Argentina's  Grain  Marketing  System.  ERS 
Staff  Report  No.  AGE  5830916.  USDA-ERS,  International  Economics  Division. 
Washington,  D.C.:  November. 

5.  Coscia,  Adolfo  A.  1980.  Comercializacion  de  Granos.  Buenos  Aires:  Editorial 
Hemisferio  Sur  S.A. 

6.  Coscia,  Adolfo  A.  1980.  Porque  Argentina  Produce  Maiz  Flint.  INTA.  Estacion 
Experimental  Regional  Agropecuaria  Pergamino.  Boletin  de  Divulgation  Tecnica 
50.  September. 

7.  Doane-Western.  1982.  World  Agriculture  Profile  Alert.  May  28:  2. 

8.  Duval,  L.  1916.  "The  Production  and  Handling  of  Grain  in  Argentina."  In: 
USDA,   Yearbook  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture  1915.   Washington,  D.C.: 
Government  Printing  Office;  281-298. 

9.  FAO.  1985.  2984  FAO  Production  Yearbook.  Vol.  38.  Rome. 

10.  FAO.  1966.  World  Crop  Statistics.  Area,  production,  and  yield,  1948-64.  Rome. 

11.  Hill,  L.  D.,  Paulsen,  M.  R.,  and  Early,  M.  1979.  Corn  Quality:  Changes  During 
Export.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  College  of  Agr.  Univ.  of  Illinois,  Sp.  Publ.  58. 

12.  INTA  (Institute  Nacional  de  Technologia  Agropecuaria).  1980.  El  cultivo  del 
maiz.  Buenos  Aires:  September. 


26 


13.  Jacobs,  Eduardo,  and  Gutierrez,  Marta.  1986.  La  Industria  De  Semillas  En  La 
Argentina,  Centra  De  Investigaciones  Sociales  Sobre  El  Estado  Y  La  Administration, 
Proyecto  Organization  De  La  Investigation  Agropecuaria  (Proagro),  Documento 
CISEA  N°85,  Marzo  de  1986.  Buenos  Aires:  43,  Table  2. 

14.  Junta  Nacional  de  Granos.  1986.  Capacidad  de  Almacenaje.  Buenos  Aires. 

15.  Mielke,  Myles  F.  1984.  Argentine  Agricultural  Policies  in  the  Grain  and  Oilseed 
Sectors.  Foreign  Agricultural  Economic  Report  No.  206.  USDA-ERS,  Interna- 
tional Economics  Division.  Washington,  D.C.:  September. 

16.  Ministerio  de  Agricultura  y  Ganaderia.  Junta  Nacional  de  Granos.  1982.  Nuevas 
Normas  Para  la  Clasificacion  de  Sorgo  y  Mais.  Buenos  Aires. 

17.  Ministerio  ....  N.D.  Anuario  1982.  Buenos  Aires. 

18.  Ministerio  ....  N.D.  Anuario  1981.  Buenos  Aires. 

19.  Morgan,  J.   1985.   "USSR,  Italy  Back  Plan  for  Argentine  Port."  Journal  of 
Commerce,  October  16:  24B. 

20.  Office  of  the  Agricultural  Counselor,  Argentina.   1987.  Annual  Agricultural 
Situation  Report.  AR-7020,  CERP  0400.  Buenos  Aires:  February  27;  Table  27. 

21.  Paulsen,  M.  R.  1983.  Corn  Breakage  Susceptibility  as  a  Function  of  Moisture 
Content.  ASAE  Paper  No.  83-3078.  St.  Joseph,  Michigan:  American  Society  of 
Agricultural  Engineers. 

22.  Paulsen,  M.  R.  and  Hill,  L.  D.  1985.  "Corn  Quality  Factors  Affecting  Dry 
Milling  Performance."  /.  Ag.  Engr.  Res.,  31:255-263. 

23.  Paulsen,  M.  R.,  Hill,  L.  D.,  White,  D.  G.,  and  Sprague,  G.  F.  1983.  "Breakage 
Susceptibility  of  Corn-Belt  Genotypes."  Transactions  of  ASAE,  26(6):  1830- 1836, 
1841. 

24.  Secretary  of  State,  Agriculture,  Livestock  and  Fishery.  1985.  Buenos  Aires. 
Unpublished  data. 

25.  South  Africa  Maize  Board.  1985.  Report  on  Maize,  1935-1985.  Pretoria:  October. 

26.  U.S.  Agricultural  Attache  in  Buenos  Aires.  Grain  and  Pulses  Data  Sheet. 
December  15,  1982. 

27.  USDA.  Agricultural  Statistics.  Washington,  D.C. 

28.  USDA-ERS.  1984.  Corn  Background  for  1985  Farm  Legislation.  Washington,  D.C. 

29.  USDA-ERS.    1983.    Feed   Outlook  and  Situation   Report.   Washington,    D.C.: 
May;  18. 

30.  USDA-ERS.  1968.  World  Trade  in  Selected  Agricultural  Commodities  1951-65. 
Volume  II:  Food  and  Feed  Grains:  Wheat,  Rice,  Maize,  Barley,  and  other 
cereals.  Foreign  Agricultural  Economic  Report  No.  45.  Washington,  D.C. 

31.  USDA-FAS.  1985.  Grains,  World  Grain  Situation,  and  Outlook.  FG-1-85.  Wash- 
ington, D.C.:  January. 

32.  USDA-FAS.    1985.   Grains.   Foreign   Agriculture  Circular.   Washington,   D.C.: 
February. 

33.  USDA-FAS.   1982.  Grain  Exports   by  Selected  Exporters.   Foreign  Agriculture 
Circular.  Washington,  D.C.:  March. 

34.  USDA-FAS.   1978.  Grain  Exports   by  Selected  Exporters.   Foreign  Agriculture 
Circular.  Washington,  D.C.:  March. 

35.  USDA-FAS.  1970.  Grain  Production  and  Marketing  in  Argentina.  FAS-M222. 
Washington,  D.C.:  December. 

36.  USDA.  FGIS.  1985.  Official  United  States  Standards  for  Grain.  Revised  May  25, 
1985.  Revised  pages,  effective  September  9,  1985. 


27 


Tables 


Table  1.         Area  Harvested,  Production,  and  Exports  of  Argentine  Maize,  1951/52  to  1984/85 

Area 

harvested  Production  Exports 

Year1  (1,000  hectares)  (1,000  metric  tons)  (1,000  metric  tons) 

1951/52  (50) 1,714 2,670 480 

1952/53  (51) 1,431 2,040 633 

1953/54  (52) 2,856 3,550 1,150 

1954/55  (53) 2,414 4,450 2,050 

1955/56  (54) 1,863 2,546 268 

1956/57  (55) 2,240 3,870 1,206 

1957/58  (56) 1,957 2,698 793 

1958/59  (57) 2,448 4,806 2,093 

1959/60  (58) 2,361 4,932 2,728 

1960/61  (59) 2,415 4,108 2,068 

1961/62  (60) 2,744 4,850 1,838 

1962/63  (61) 2,757 5,220 2,889 

1963/64  (62) 2,645 4,360 2,590 

1964/65  (63) 2,971 5,350 3,442 

1965/66  (64) 3,062 5,140 2,667 

1966/67  (65) 3,274 7,040 3,855 

1967/68  (66) 3,450 8,000 4,117 

1968/69  (67) 3,378 6,560 3,229 

1969/70  (68) 3,556 6,860 3,765 

1970/71  (69) 4,017 9,360 5,559 

1971/72  (70) 4,066 9,930 6,441 

1972/73  (71) 3,147 5,860 2,537 

1973/74  (72) 3,565 9,000 4,702 

1974/75  (73) 3,486 9,900 5,716 

1975/76  (74) 3,070 7,700 3,485 

1976/77  (75) 2,766 5,855 3,238 

1977/78  (76) 2,532 8,300 5,231 

1978/79  (77) 2,660 9,700 5,916 

1979/80  (78) 2,899 9,000 5,965 

1980/81  (79) 2,490 6,400 3,417 

1981/82  (80) 3,394 12,900 9,098 

1982/83  (81) 3,170 9,600 5,765 

1983/84  (82) 2,970 9,000 6,056 

1984/85  (83) 3,025 9,500 ' 5,800 

•'  Years  in  parentheses  denote  production  years  used  for  aggregating  world  crops.  Split  years  (e.g.,  1982/83)  are  Foreign  Agricultural  Service 

marketing  years  which  are  lagged  1  year  behind  the  production  years  used  in  Argentine  publications. 

Source:  Data  from  1951/52  to  1959/60  are  taken  from  [35,  p.  35];  data  from  1960/61  to  1984/85  are  taken  from  [32,  p.  6). 


28 


Table  2. 

Area  Planted  and  Production  of  Maize  in  Argentine  Provinces,  1978/79  to 

1984/85 

Buenos 
Aires 

Santa 
Fe 

Cordoba 

La 
Pampa 

Entre 
Rios 

Other 
provinces 

Total 

1978/79.  .  . 

(1,000  hectares) 

220 
(6.7) 

300 
(9.1) 

338 
(8.5) 

290.8 
(7.9) 

280 
(8.1) 

276 
(7.9) 

310 

(8.2) 

i  nnn  k  „,-*,..,-.,-»  . 

1,330 

519 
(15.7) 

460 
(13.9) 

541 
(13.5) 

530 
(14.3) 

523 
(15.2) 

465 
(13.3) 

440 
(11.6) 

700 
(21.2) 

700 
(21.1) 

855 
(21.4) 

874.8 
(23.7) 

820 
(23.8) 

848 
(24.3) 

1,060 
(27.9) 

148 
(4.5) 

135 
(4.1) 

246.9 
(6.2) 

169.1 
(4.6) 

195.5 

(5.7) 

121 
(3.5) 

NA 
(0) 

383 
(11.6) 

473 
(14.3) 

519.1 
(13.0) 

549.3 
(14.9) 

546.5 
(15.9) 

579 
(16.6) 

690 
(18.1) 

3,300 
3,310 
4,000 
3,695 
3,440 
3,484 
3,800 

1979/80... 

(40.3)" 
1,242 

1980/81... 

(37.5) 
1,500 

1981/82... 

(37.5) 
1,281 

1982/83... 

(34.7) 
1,075 

1983/84... 

(31.3) 
1,195 

1984/85... 

(34.3) 
1,300 

1978/79... 

(34.2) 

3  670 

2,100 
(24.1) 

1,515 
(23.7) 

2,505 
(19.4) 

2,000 
(20.8) 

1,630 
(18.1) 

1,270 
(13.4) 

1,680 
(13.2) 

1,918                        310 
(22.0)                       (3.6) 

1,220                        221 
(19.1)                        (3.5) 

2,723                        259 
(21.1)                       (2.0) 

1,900                         185 
(19.8)                       (1.9) 

2,650                        180 
(29.4)                        (2.0) 

2,540                         270 
(26.7)                        (2.8) 

4,110                         390 
(32.3)                       (3.1) 

126 
(1.4) 

104 
(1.6) 

570 
(4.4) 

299 
(3.1) 

232.6 
(2.6) 

127 
(1.3) 

NA 
(0) 

576 
(6.6) 

820 
(12.8) 

770 
(6.0) 

1,056 
(11.0) 

1.027.4 
(11.4) 

1,163 
(12.3) 

1,720 
(13.5) 

8,700 
6,400 
12,900 
9,600 
9,000 
9,500 
12,720 

1979/80... 

(42.2)a 
2  520 

1980/81.... 

(39.4) 
6,073 

1981/82.... 

(47.1) 
4,160 

1982/83.... 

(43.3) 
3,280 

1983/84.... 

(36.5) 
4,130 

1984/85.... 

(43.5) 
4,820 

(37.9) 

'  Number  in  parentheses  represent  each  province 
Sources:  The  data  for  1978/79  and  1979/80  are 

Note:  Table  3  appears  on  page  33. 

's  percentage  of  the  total, 
from  [17,  p.  8].  Data  for  1980/81  to  1984/85  are  from  [3,  24]. 

29 


Table  4.        Annual  Maize  Exports  for  the  United  States,  Argentina,  and  the  World,  and  Comparison  of 
Market  Shares,  1911  through  1983/84 

Export  volume,  mmt 

Market  share,  % 

Year1 

World" 

Argentina 

U.S. 

Argentina 

U.S. 

1911-13  average  

8.78    

4.82         

.  1.21     .. 

54.9  

13.8 

.62.0 

477 

1951/52  

4.478  

.  .  .  .     0.480      

.  2.776  .. 
.  2.224  .. 

10.7  
13.6  

1952/53  

4.666  

0.633      

1953/54  

5.609  

1.150      

.  3.603  .. 
.  1.701  .. 

20.5  
40.0  

.64.2 
.33.0 

1954/55  

5.148  

.  .  .  .     2.050      

1955/56  

5.817  

.  .  .  .    0.268      

.  2.718  .. 

4.6  

.46.7 

1951-55  average  

5.144  

0.916      

.  2.604  .. 

17.8  

506 

1956/57  

6.643  

.  .  .  .     1.206      

.  2.885  .. 
.  4.233  .. 

18.2  
10.8  

.43.4 

.57.7 

1957/58  

7.338  

0.793      

1958/59  

9.511  

2.093      

.  4.409  .. 
.  5.288  .. 

22.0  
27.4  

.46.4 
.53.1 

1959/60  

9.960  

.  .  .  .     2.728      

1960/61  

12.083  

.  .  .  .     2.068      

.  5.142  .. 

17.1  

.42.6 

1956-60  average  

9.107  

1.778      

.  4.391  .. 

19.5  

.48.2 

1961/62  
1962/63  

19.900  
20.001  

.  .  .  .     2.914      

.10.481  .. 

14.7  

.52.7 

2.614      

.10.069  .. 

13.1  

.50.3 

1963/64  

21.800  

3.422       

.12.068  .. 

15.7  

.55.4 

1964/65  

23.900  

2.667      

.14.240  .. 
.16.737  .. 
.12.719  .. 

11.2  
23.1  
15.9  

.59.6 
.60.2 
.56.1 

1965/66  

27.800  

.  .  .  .    6.421      

1961-65  average  

1966/67  
1967/68  

22.680  

26.300  
29.000  

.  .  .  .     3.610       

....     4.118       
.  .  .  .    3.229      

.12.137  .. 
.15.546  .. 
.13.300  .. 

.15.548  .. 

15.7  
11.1  
14.3  
18.0  

.46.1 
.53.6 
.50.6 
.50.3 

1968/69  

26.300  

.  .  .  .     3.764      

1969/70  

30.900  

5.558       

1970/71  

31.401  

6.442      

.12.853  .. 

.13.877  .. 

20.5  
16.1  

.40.9 

.48.2 

1966-70  average  
1971/72  

28.780  
34.899  

4.622       

2.538      

.19.869  .. 

7.3  

.56.9 

1972/73  

44.501  

4.702      

.31.536  .. 
.31.241  .. 
.29.186  .. 
.43.459  .. 

10.6  
10.7  
7.5  
5.3  

.70.8 
.58.4 
.63.0 
.71.7 

1973/74  

53.500  

5.715      

1974/75  

46.299  

3.485      

1975/76  
1971-75  average  

60.599  
47  960  

.  .  .  .     3.239      

3  936                     .   .  . 

.31.058  .. 

.42.773  .. 
.49.479  .. 
.54.181  .. 
.61.801  .. 
.59.820  .. 
.53.611  .. 

.49.964  .. 
.47.501  .. 

8.2  

8.6  
9.0  
8.4  
7.6  
10.9  
8.9  

8.0  
9.1  

.64.8 

.70.6 
.74.9 
.76.2 
.78.8 
.71.5 
.74.5 

.69.5 
.71.0 

1976/77  
1977/78  

60.599  
66.099  

.  .  .  .     5.230      
.  ...     5.916      

1978/79  

71.101  

5.964      

1979/80  

78.399  

5.957      

1980/81  

83.700  

9.099      

1976-80  average  
1981/82  

71.980  
71.901  

.  .  .  .     6.433      
5.766      

1982/83  

66.899  

6.056      

1983/84C  

66  099        

.   .     5.999      

.48.260  .. 

.48.575  .. 

9.1  
8.7  

.73.0 
.71.1 

1981-83  average  

68.300  

.  .  .  .     5.940      

0  Argentine  crop  years  have  been  shifted  forward  one 
is  recorded  as  1957/58  marketing  year). 
''  Includes  intra-EC  trade. 
'  Forecast  as  of  August  13,  1984. 
Sources:  1911  to  1913  data  from  [8,  p.  289].  1951/52 
[35,  p.  35].  1961/62  to  1982/83  data  from  [28,  pp.  48 

year  to  correspond  with  U.S. 

to  1960/61  data:  World  and 
50]:  1961/62  to  1978/79  are 

marketing  years  (i.e.,  1956/57  crop  year  for  Argentina 

^- 

U.S.  data  from  [30,  pp.  125-134].  Argentine  data  from 
July/June  years,  thereafter  October/September. 

30 


Table  5. 

Volume 

of  Maize  Exported  from  Argentina  by  Port  of  Origin,  1970-1985, 

in  Thousand  Tons 

Calendar 
year 

Buenos 
Aires 

Villa 
Rosario           Constitucion 

Bahia 
Blanca 

San 
Nicolas 

Quequen 

Other 
ports 

Total 

1970  

.  .  1  956  7 

2,236.3 
(42.7) 

2,524.5 
(41.3) 

1,373.3 
(45.2) 

1,757.1 
(40.6) 

1,808.7 
(32.2) 

1,311.5 
(32.8) 

880.3 

(28.8) 

1,990.4 
(36.4) 

1,908.2 
(31.9) 

1,885.7 
(31.6) 

1,564.2 
(44.4) 

2,907.8 
(31.9) 

1,599.4 

(30.7) 

2,468.3 
(38.1) 

1,708.7 
(30.7) 

2,123.0 
(42.5) 

339.8 
(6.5) 

492.1 
(8.0) 

279.7 
(9.2) 

404.6 
(9.4) 

544.7 
(9.7) 

338.1 
(8.4) 

302.0 
(9.9) 

683.4 
(12.5) 

960.8 
(16.1) 

936.2 
(15.7) 

483.0 
(13.7) 

934.6 
(10.3) 

585.8 
(11.2) 

596.9 
(9.2) 

562.8 
(10.1) 

357.7 
(7.2) 

64.3 
(1.2) 

66.0 
(1.1) 

1.5 
(0.05) 

118.5 
(2.7) 

376.0 
(6.7) 

207.6 
(5.2) 

191.5 
(6.3) 

249.5 
(4.6) 

331.3 

(5.5) 

368.4 
(6.2) 

141.7 
(4.0) 

961.5 
(10.6) 

354.9 
(6.8) 

435.5 
(6.7) 

431.8 
(7.8) 

26.8 
(0.5) 

140.5 
(2.7) 

152.5 
(2.5) 

96.0 
(3.2) 

99.3 
(2.3) 

209.6 
(3.7) 

197.8 
(4.9) 

137.3 
(4.5) 

67.0 
(1.2) 

289.9 
(4.8) 

598.2 
(10.0) 

225.7 
(6.4) 

716.4 
(7.9) 

382.7 
(7.3) 

579.8 
(9.0) 

711.9 
(12.8) 

565.2 
(11.3) 

67.9 
(1.3) 

28.1 
(0.46) 

0.2 
(0.01) 

0.0 
(0.0) 

44.9 
(0.80) 

14.1 
(0.40) 

10.0 
(0.30) 

49.1 
(0.90) 

58.1 
(1.0) 

20.5 
(0.34) 

0.01 
(0.0) 

102.2 
(1.1) 

0.0 
(0.0) 

21.0 
(0.3) 

109.4 
(2.0) 

43.0 
(0.9) 

436.2 
(8.3) 

471.8 
(7.7) 

124.4 
(4.1) 

186.0 
(4.3) 

644.5 
(11.5) 

291.4 
(7.3) 

162.8 
(5.3) 

344.0 
(6.3) 

309.3 
(5.2) 

412.7 
(7.0) 

144.0 
(4.1) 

1,515.6 
(16.6) 

988.7 
(19.0) 

672.7 
(10.4) 

722.3 
(13.0) 

998.7 
(20.0) 

5,241.7 
(100) 

6,113.3 
(100) 

3,039.2 
(100) 

4,325.6 
(100) 

5,613.9 
(100) 

4,001.4 
(100) 

3,058.6 
(100) 

5,474.0 
(100) 

5,984.5 
(100) 

5,964.1 
(100) 

3,524.6 
(100) 

9,112.1 
(100) 

5,214.2 
(100) 

6,476.5 
(100) 

5,558.4 
(100) 

4,997.5 
(100) 

1971  

(37.3)a 
..  2,378.3 

1972  

(38.9) 
..  1,164.1 

1973  

(38.3) 
..  1,760.1 

1974  

(40.7) 
.  .  1  985  5 

1975  

(35.4) 
..  1,640.5 

1976  

(41.0) 

..  1,374.7 

1977  

(44.9) 
.  .  2  090  5 

1978  

(38.2) 
..  2,127.0 

1979  

(35.5) 
.  .  1  742  4 

1980  

(29.2) 
.  .      966.1 

1981  

(27.4) 
.  .  1  973  9 

1982  

(21.7) 
..  1,302.8 

1983  

(25.0) 
..  1,702.2 

1984  

(26.3) 
..  1  311  5 

1985b  .... 

(23.6) 
.  .      883.1 

(17.7) 

J  Numbers  in  parentheses  represent  individual  port's  percentage  of  total  export 
b  1985  data  includes  data  for  January  through  July. 
Sources:  1970  to  1981  data  from  [17,  p.  74];  1982  to  1985  data  from  [3,  24]. 

volume. 

31 


Table  6.        Export  Volume  in  1,000  metric  tons  and  Market 
Destination,  1973/74  through  1985' 

Shares  of 

Argentine  Maize  by  Country  of 

Peoples 

Total 

Nether- 

United 

Republic           Argentine 

Year 

Italy 

Spain 

USSR 

lands 

Kingdom 

Mexico 

of  China 

exports 

1973/74 

2,772 

600 

246 

115 

120 

1 

252 

5,111 

(54.2) 

(11.7) 

(4.8) 

(2.3) 

(2.3) 

(0.02) 

(4.9) 

1974/75 

2,056 

556 

1,148 

59 

5 

723 

473 

5,831 

(35.3) 

(9.5) 

(19.7) 

(1.0) 

(0.09) 

(12.4) 

(8.1) 

1975/76 

1,520 

225 

213 

68 

1 

289 

2,595 

(58.6) 

(8.7) 

(8.2) 

(2.6) 

(0.04) 

(11.1) 

(0) 

1976/77 

1,893                 1 

,109 

184 

126 

133 

25 

4,384 

(43.2) 

/**'•' 

(25.3) 

(4.2) 

(2.9) 

(3.0) 

(0.6) 

(0) 

1977/78 

1,381                 1 

,069 

1,608 

142 

94 

48 

59 

5,997 

(23.0) 

(17.8) 

(26.8) 

(2.4) 

(1.6) 

(0.8) 

(1.0) 

1978/79 

1,838                 1 

,573 

1,387 

147 

53 

21 

131 

6,664 

(27.6) 

(23.6) 

(20.8) 

(2.2) 

(0.8) 

(0.3) 

(2.0) 

1979/80 

709 

314 

2,461 

55 

21 

4,060 

(17.5) 

(7.7) 

(60.6) 

(1.4) 

(0.51) 

(0) 

(0) 

1980b 

328 

1 

2,965 

74 

3,525 

(9.3) 

(0.4) 

(84.1) 

(2.1) 

(0) 

(0) 

(0) 

1981 

300 

225 

7,989 

98 

3,525 

(3.3) 

(2.5) 

(87.7) 

(1.1) 

(0) 

(0) 

(0) 

1982 

227 

397 

3,301 

92 

132 

5,214 

(4.4) 

(7.6) 

(63.3) 

(1.8) 

(0) 

(0) 

(2.5) 

1983 

395 

697 

2,002 

102 

49 

6,477 

(6.1) 

(10.8) 

(30.9) 

(1.6) 

(0) 

(0) 

(0.8) 

1984 

335 

591 

1,090 

62 

5,558 

(6.0) 

(10.6) 

(19.6) 

(1.1) 

(0) 

(0) 

(0) 

1985 

502 

956.4 

2,038.7 

107.4 

197.4 

3,238.2 

(7.1) 

(13.6) 

(29.0) 

(1.5) 

(0) 

(2.7) 

(0) 

7,040.8 

'  Market 

shares  are  in  parentheses 

and  indicate  a 

volume  less 

than  1,000  mt. 

b  1980  to 

1985  reporting  period  has  been  shifted 

to  a  calendar 

year. 

Sources: 

1973/74  to  1979/80  data 

from  [33,  34] 

Data  for  1980  to  1985  are  from  government 

publications  [24]. 

Estimates  vary 

by  source; 

so  do  the  time  periods  used  for  crop  years,  marketing  years,  and  calendar  years 

No  consistent 

sources  were  found  that  covered 

the  entire 

period. 

—- 

32 


Table  3.         Industrial  Use  of  Argentine  Maize  1960/61  to 

1983/84 

Production 
YearJ                                   (1,000  mt) 

Industrial  use 

(1,000  mt) 

(Percent) 

1960/61                                 4  850 

.     ...      234   

4.8 

1961/62    5  220  

231    

4.4 

1962/63  4,360  

209   

4.8 

1963/64                               5  350 

206   

3.9 

1964/65                               5  140             

284  

5.5 

1965/66                               7  040 

422   

6.0 

1966/67                               8510             ... 

379   

4.5 

1967/68  6  560  

452  

6.9 

1968/69  6,860  

559   

8.1 

1969/70                                 9  360 

623  

6.7 

1970/71                               9  930 

749         

7.5 

1971/72                                 5  860 

1  016  

17.3 

1972/73                        .        9700            

1,181   

12.2 

1973/74  9,900  

1,145   

11.6 

1974/75  7,700  

1,603  

20.8 

1975/76  5,855  

1,378  

23.5 

1976/77  8,300  

1,372  

16.5 

1977/78                                 9  700         

1,169  

12.1 

1978/79                                8  700  

1,035  

11.9 

1979/80  6,400  

1,350  

21.1 

1980/81                             12  900  

1,299  

10.1 

1981/82                   9600  

1,366  

14.2 

1982/83  9,000  

1,496  

16.6 

1983/84  9,500  

.  1,543  . 

.  16.2 

•'  Argentine  crop  year  March  1  through  February  28. 
Source:  1960/61  to  1978/79  from  [17,  18];  1979/80  to  1983/84  from  [24]. 

Table  7.         Grain  Storage  Capacity 
Argentine  Ports 

and  Volume  of  Grain 

Handled  at 

Storage              T 
capacity,  1980 
Port                                        (1,000  tons) 

7nl,,mP  nf  grain*      Transport 

share,  1979,  %' 

handled,  1979          Rail 
(1,000  tons)              (%) 

Truck       Barge 

(%)           (%) 

Rosario                                   391 

4,009                  57 
3,984                  48 
2,381                  62 
778                   6 
1,028                   1 
801                  22 
1,527                 29 
770 

43             0 
52             0 
36            1 
94            0 
99            0 
78            0 
71             0 

Bahia  Blanca  206.1 

Buenos  Aires  170 

San  Nicolas  67.5 

Queouen  93 

Santa  Fe  64 

Villa  Constitution                 55 

Others  110.5 

Total  1  157.1 

15,278                  42 

58            2 

"  Figures  do  not  always  add  up  to  100%  due 
Source:  [4,  pp.  10-15]. 

to  rounding. 

33 


Table  8.        Comparison  of  U.S.  and  Argentine  Grading  Standards  for  Maize 

Test 
%  Total                      weight                       %  Heat 
%  Moisture             %  BCFM11           %  Brokens           %  FMC                damage                     (Ib/bu)                     damage 

Grade                    U.S.'         Arg.               U.S.                     Arg.                  Arg.             U.S.          Arg.          U.S.          Arg.          U.S.          Arg. 

1  14.0         14.5               2.0                     2.0                   1.0               3.0 

3.0         56.0           nfe           0.1            nf 
5.0         54.0           nf           0.2            nf 
8.0         52.0           nf           0.5            nf 
12.0         49.0           nf            1.0            nf 
46.0           nf            3.0            nf 

2  15.5         14.5               3.0                     3.0                   1.5               5.0 

3  17.5         14.5               4.0                     5.0                   2.0               7.0 

4d  20.0         14.5               5.0                      5.0                   2.0             10.0 

5  23.0          ...                7.0                     ...                  ...            15.0 

a  Moisture  as  a  grade-determining  factor  was  removed  from  U.S.  standards  effective  September  9,  1985. 
b  Broken  corn  and  foreign  material. 
c  Foreign  material. 
d  Grade  No.  4  is  established  by  Junta  Nacional  de  Granos  in  those  seasons  where  high  damage  levels  make  it  impossible  to  reach  Grade 
No.  3  for  export  contracts.  It  differs  from  Grade  No.  3  only  in  the  percent  of  total  damage. 
'  Not  a  factor. 
Source:  [12,  p.  122;  36]. 

Table  9.         Comparison  of  Charges  in  Pesos  for  Maize  Delivered  by 
Argentine  Farmers  to  Four  Elevators  in  the  Pergamino  Area3 

Elevator  codeh 

Services                                                 A                         B                         C                        D 

Commission  15000               33,000               24,000               27,000 

Drying  14,000               14,250               10,500               12,750 

Loading  and  unloading  7,500               10,000                 9,000                 9,000 

Screening  4  000                 6  000                        0                 7,000 

Freight  to  nearest  port  27  878               21  558               23  000               21  558 

Fumigation  5,000                 6,000                 9,000                 7,000 

73,378                 90,808                 75,500                 84,308 
Price/Quintal..                                   /^n                     ttn                     ttn                     (.(.n 

bbO                      bbU                      bbU                      bbU 

a  Charges  are  given  in  1983  pesos.  As  a  result  of  inflation  and  devaluation,  actual  numbers 
have  little  significance  except  to  show  the  relative  difference  at  a  point  in  time.  All  charges 
were  provided  for  the  same  day  for  a  truck  sale  of  100  kg  of  No.  2  flint  corn  at  18.5  percent 
moisture  containing  sufficient  weed  seeds  to  require  screening. 
b  Elevator  A  was  privately  owned.  Elevators  B,  C,  and  D  were  cooperatives. 
Source:  Personal  interviews  with  four  managers  at  four  country  elevators,  1983. 

34 


Table  10.        Quality  Characteristics  for  Six  Samples  of  Argentine  Maize 
Collected  from  Combines  on  Five  Farms 


Quality  measure 


Mean 


deviation 


Low 


High 


Test  weight,  kg/m3 773.0  21.0  736.0  793.0 

lb/bu 57.6  1.6  54.9  59.1 

Broken  corn  <  16/64"  sieve,  % 2.9  0.7  2.0  3.9 

BCFM  <  12/64"  sieve,  % 0.7  0.4  0.3  1.3 

Whole  kernels  in  50  g,  % 94.3  3.1  90.4  98.2 

Stress  cracks,  % 13.0  8.7  4.0  24.0 

Breakage  susceptibility,  % 11.7  3.1  9.7  17.8 

Floaters,  % 16.0  14.4  2.0  41.0 

100-kernel  dry  weight,  g 24.5  1.9  21.1  26.1 

Density,  g/cm3 1.29  0.03  1.23  1.33 

Physical  separations 

Other  grains,  % 0  0  0  0 

Weed  seeds,  % 0.012  0.018  0  0.046 

Cobs,  husks,  insects,  dust, 

and  material  <  1.4  mm,  % 0.173  0.080  0.096  0.311 

Table  11.  Quality  Characteristics  for  Twenty-Six  Samples  of  Argen- 
tine Maize  Collected  from  Incoming  Trucks  and  Trailers 
at  Five  Country  Elevators 

Quality  measure  Mean  deviation  Low  High 

Test  weight,  kg/m3 769.0  15.8  719.4  789.5 

lb/bu 59.7  1.2  55.9  61.3 

Broken  corn  <  16/64"  sieve,  % 3.6  1.0  2.4  5.8 

BCFM  <  12/64"'  sieve,  % 1.1  0.6  0.4  2.5 

Whole  kernels  in  50  g,  % 95.1  2.4  87.6  98.2 

Stress  cracks,  % 11.1  4.0  4.0  20.0 

Breakage  susceptibility,  % 13.6  3.2  8.6  21.6 

Floaters,  % 12.5  8.0  2.0  37.0 

100-kernel  dry  weight,  g 24.4  1.9  19.8  30.6 

Density,  g/cm3 1.29  0.02  1.25  1.33 

Physical  separations 

Other  grains,  % 0.002  0.009  0  0.045 

Weed  seeds,  % 0.015  0.042  0  0.210 

Cobs,  husks,  insects,  dust, 

and  material  <  1.4  mm,  % 0.183  0.180  0.025  0.809 


35 


Table  12.         Breakage  Characteristics 

of  Argentine  Maize  after  Drying 

Sample                     Dryer 
no.                        identification 

%  BCFM 

%  Stress 
cracks 

%  Breakage 
susceptibility 

035  A 

1.47 
1.04 
1.34 
0.88 
0.88 
1.11 
1.11 
1.67 
0.59 
0.65 
1.55 
2.15 
0.85 
1.18 

82 
82 
70 
24 
70 
26 
46 
78 
36 
40 
36 
32 
50 
52 

43.30 
46.80 
49.40 
13.25 
44.90 
22.85 
48.05 
45.25 
25.15 
25.50 
29.20 
26.45 
29.75 
34.60 

036  A 

037  A 

065  B 

069  C 

070  C 

071  D 

072  E 

074  F 

078  G 

079  H 

081  I 

082  I 

Average  

Table  13.        Quality  Characteristics  for  Twenty-three  Samples  of  Artifi- 
cially Dried  Argentine  Maize  Loaded  Out  of  Five  Country 
Elevators 

Quality  measure 

Mean 

Standard 
deviation 

Range 

Low               High 

Test  weight,  kg/m3  

765.2 

10.0 
0.8 

1.1 
0.8 
1.9 
17.0 
9.5 
13.5 
0.86 
0.02 

0.152 
0.012 

0.295 

744.5            786.7 
57.8               61.1 

3.2               7.1 
0.5               3.1 
91.0              98.2 
24.0              82.0 
13.3              49.4 
2.0              57.0 
21.2              25.3 
1.24              1.30 

0                  0.583 
0                  0.056 

0.033            1.118 

Ib/bu  

59.4 

Broken  corn  16/64"  sieve,  % 
Bro'ken  corn  12/64"  sieve,  % 
Whole  kernels  in  50  g,  %  ... 

..     .        49 

1.6 

94.6 

Stress  cracks,  %  

554 

Breakage  susceptibility,  %.  .  . 

37.2 

Floaters,  %  

28.3 

100-kernel  dry  weight,  g  .  .  .  . 

23.4 

Density,  g/cm3  

1.28 

Physical  separations 
Other  grains,  %  

0.085 

Weed  seeds,  %  

0.008 

Cobs,  husks,  insects,  dust, 
and  material  <  1.4mm,  %  0.298 

36 


Table  14.         Quality  Characteristics  of  Receipts  and  Shipments  of  Maize  at  an  Argentine  Elevator,  1983 


Quality  measure 


No.  of 
samples 


Mean 


Standard 
deviation 


Range 


Low 


High 


Outbound  truck  shipments' 

Test  weight,  kg/m3 8 

Ib/bu 8 

Broken  corn  <  16/64"  sieve  % 8 

BCFM  <  12/64"  sieve,  % 8 

Whole  kernels  in  50  g,  % 8 

Stress  cracks,  % 8 

Breakage  Susceptibility,  % 8 

Floaters,  % 8 

100-kernel  dry  weight,  g 8 

Density,  g/cm3 8 

Physical  separations 

Other  grains,  % 8 

Weed  seeds,  % 8 

Dust  and  inert  material,'  % 8 

Inbound  truck  receipts'" 

Test  weight,  kg/m3 13 

Ib/bu 13 

Broken  corn  <  16/64"  sieve,  % 13 

BCFM  <  12/64"  sieve,  % 13 

Whole  kernels  in  50  g,  % 13 

Stress  cracks,  % 13 

Breakage  susceptibility,  % 13 

Floaters,  % 13 

100-kernel  dry  weight,  g 13 

Density,  g/cm3 13 

Physical  separations 

Other  grains,  % 13 

Weed  seeds,  % 13 

Dust  and  inert  materials,  % 13 


767.06 
59.59 

6.02 

2.55 

94.25 

60.50 

39.82 

31.13 

23.50 

1.27 


0.09 
0.01 
0.55 


766.34 
59.54 

3.73 

1.14 

96.09 

10.15 

14.68 

11.15 

24.51 

1.29 

0 

0.01 

0.21 


5.59 
0.43 

0.71 
0.43 
1.53 
6.02 
1.49 
9.14 
0.65 
0.01 


0.05 
0.02 
0.36 


9.96 
0.77 

1.02 
0.55 
1.75 
4.20 
2.14 
5.96 
2.48 
0.02 


0 

0.02 

0.16 


758.62 
58.94 

5.26 

2.01 

92.40 

54.00 

38.05 

13.00 

22.19 

1.25 

0 
0 
0.16 


747.54 
58.08 

2.42 

0.41 
92.80 

4.00 
10.00 

2.00 
19.85 

1.26 


0 
0 
0.08 


744.05 
60.14 

7.08 

3.10 

97.20 

72.00 

42.90 

42.00 

24.33 

1.28 


0.15 
0.06 
1.12 


779.87 
60.59 

5.39 

2.10 

98.20 

20.00 

18.20 

24.00 

30.60 

1.33 


0 

0.06 

0.63 


•'  After  drying,  the  maize  was  loaded  on  eight  trucks  for  shipment  to  the  port.  Representative  samples  were  taken  from  each  truck. 
'"  Representative  samples  were  taken  from  each  of  13  trucks  delivering  corn  from  farms. 


37 


Table  15.        Comparison  of  Quality  Characteristics  of 
Rosario  and  Buenos  Aires 

Maize  Loaded  at 

Mean 

Quality  measure                                                             Rosario 

Buenos  Aires 

Test  weight  kg/m3  778.0 

785.0 
58.5 

9.9 
5.0 
92.7 
53.3 
40.4 
22.7 
24.8 
1.29 

0.29 
0.01 

0.66 

Ib/bu  58.0 

Broken  corn:  16/64"  sieve,  %  5.1 

Broken  corn:  12/64"  sieve,  %  1.7 

Whole  kernels  in  50  g   %        94.7 

Stress  cracks,  %  42.8 

Breakage  susceptibility,  %  31.7 

Floaters  %.                             16.1 

100-kernel  dry  weight,  g  24.1 

Density,  g/cm3  1.29 

Physical  separations 
Other  grains,  %  0.05 

Weed  seeds,  %  0.01 

Cobs,  husks,  insects,  dust, 
and  material  <  1.4  mm,  %  0.31 

Table  16.         Variability  of  Quality  Characteristics  for 
of  Export  Vessel  Loaded  at  Buenos  Aires 

Sixteen  Samples  of  Argentine  Maize  from  Top 

Layers 

Quality  measure                                                                           Mean 

Standa 
deviati 

ra                                           RanSe 

on                                  Low 

High 

Test  weight,  kg/m3  785.0 

4.7                                    778.0 
0.4                                      58.0 

3.0                                        6.0 
2.0                                        2.4 
2.2                                      87.8 
11.8                                    28.0 
5.3                                    31.1 
7.0                                    16.0 
0.72                                  23.4 
0.02                                    1.24 

G> 

0.368                                  0.012 
0.005                                  0 

0.391                                  0.257 

797.0 
59.4 

15.0 
8.9 
95.6 
76.0 
49.7 
39.0 
26.6 
1.31 

1.431 
0.017 

1.864 

Ib/bu  58.5 

Broken  corn  <  16/64"  sieve,  %  9.9 

BCFM  <  12/64"  sieve,  %  5.0 

Whole  kernels  in  50  g,  %  .    92.7 

Stress  cracks,  %  53.3 

Breakage  susceptibility,  %  40.4 

Floaters,  %  22.7 

100-kernel  dry  weight,  g  24.8 

Density,  g/cm3  1.29 

Physical  separations 
Other  grains,  %  0.291 

Weed  seeds,  %  0.009 

Cobs,  husks,  insects,  dust, 
and  material  <  1.4  mm,  %  0.659 

38 


Table  17.        Chemical  Properties  of  Maize  From  Argentine  and  United  States  Origins,  by  Percent' 


Origin 


Sample  no.b 


Moisture 


Fat 


Fiber 


Ash 


Protein 


NFEC 


Argentine  farm . 


Argentine  elevator. 


Argentine  export  elevator 

U.S.  processor 

U.S.  exporter 


.  1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

.  9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 

.15 
16 
17 

.18 
19 
20 

.21 


11.01 
11.28 
14.23 
13.54 
13.16 
12.60 
13.60 
12.60 

16.87 
14.22 
14.43 
15.81 
12.56 
14.77 

12.53 
12.54 
13.06 

14.41 
14.00 
13.95 

12.67 


5.41 

5.48 
5.04 
4.96 
6.30 
5.77 
4.76 
5.33 

5.28 
6.17 
6.01 
5.59 
4.96 
5.48 

5.75 
5.18 

5.27 

3.60 
4.42 
4.96 

6.11 


1.75 
1.93 
2.03 
1.86 
1.84 
1.81 
2.09 
1.84 

2.01 
1.75 
1.87 
1.91 
2.06 
1.95 

1.97 
1.94 
2.02 

2.09 
2.00 
1.85 

1.60 


1.67 
1.68 
1.75 
1.58 
1.68 
1.52 
1.55 
1.65 

1.54 
1.52 
1.45 
1.52 
1.51 
1.55 

1.44 
1.37 
1.51 

1.34 
1.43 
1.48 

1.55 


9.05 

8.65 

8.65 

11.15 

11.09 

11.74 

10.22 

11.45 

10.65 
10.55 
10.37 
10.74 
10.14 
10.72 

9.61 
9.25 
9.62 

8.95 
8.48 
9.05 

10.05 


82.12 
82.27 
82.53 
80.44 
79.09 
79.16 
81.38 
79.72 

80.52 
80.02 
80.31 
80.24 
81.32 
80.30 

81.23 
82.25 
81.59 

84.02 
83.67 
82.66 

80.68 


'  Samples  were  analyzed  by  Analytical  Bio-Chemistry  Laboratories,  Missouri.  All  analyses  are  on  a  dry  matter  basis. 

b  Samples  1  to  8  were  from  Argentine  farms.  Samples  9  to  14  were  from  Argentine  elevators  during  1983  harvest.  Samples  15  to  17  were  from 

Argentine  export  elevators.  Samples  18  to  20  were  randomly  selected  from  truck  deliveries  at  an  Illinois  processing  plant  during  1983  and  1984. 

Sample  21  was  a  composite  obtained  by  diverter  sampler  at  a  U.S.  export  elevator. 

c  Nitrogen  free  extract. 


Table  18.         Chemical  Analysis  of  U.S.  and  Argentine  Composite 
Samples 


Argentine 
field  samples 

Characteristic         (No.  1)         (No.  2) 


Argentine  composite, 

export  house 

(No.  3) 


Illinois  composite, 

mill  receipts 

(No.  4) 


Moisture,  %'...  12.60  11.28 

Fat,  % 5.77  5.48 

Fiber,  % 1.81  1.93 

Protein,  % 11.74  8.65 

Ash,  % 1.52  1.68 

NFE,  o/o" 79.16  82.27 


12.67 
6.11 
1.60 

10.05 
1.55 

80.68 


13.95 
4.96 
1.85 
9.05 
1.48 

82.66 


"  All  data  have  been  converted  to  a  percent  of  dry  matter  in  the  sample. 
h  NFE  =  nitrogen  free  extract. 


39 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA