I.B R.A-RiY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 OF ILLINIS 
 
 630.7 
 
 zui 
 
 
NON CIRCULATING 
 
 CHECK FOR UNBOUND 
 CIRCULATING COPY 
 
EFFECTS OF MOISTURE LOSSES 
 ON COSTS OF STORING EAR CORN 
 
 By R. J. Mutti 
 
 Max R. Langham 
 
 Bulletin 653 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 
 
CONTENTS 
 SOURCES OF DATA AND METHODS OF ANALYSIS 3 
 
 MOISTURE CONTENT OF CORN 5 
 
 Average monthly moisture content 5 
 
 Year-to-year variations 8 
 
 Relation to weather 1 
 
 COSTS OF STORING EAR CORN 15 
 
 Costs due to moisture loss 15 
 
 Variable costs 17 
 
 Effect of NSA on variable costs 19 
 
 Fixed costs 20 
 
 RETURNS FROM STORED EAR CORN COMPARED WITH 
 
 STORAGE COSTS 22 
 
 Within the crop year 22 
 
 Among crop years 26 
 
 SUMMARY 27 
 
 APPLICATION OF FINDINGS 29 
 
 APPENDIX. ..30 
 
 Special acknowledgment is due August E. Bader, Maurice D. 
 Campbell, Andrew Homan, Bert Hopkins, Raymond McWard, 
 Dale Sands, Harold B. Steele, and Homer G. Sturm for their 
 helpful cooperation in making this study possible. These men 
 were the managers or proprietors of the elevators from which 
 data were secured. 
 
 Urbana, Illinois February, 1960 
 
 Publications in the Bulletin series report the results of investigations made 
 or sponsored by the Experiment Station 
 
Effects of Moisture Losses on Costs 
 of Storing Ear Corn 
 
 By R. J. MUTTI and MAX R. LANGHAM* 
 
 NEW METHODS OF HARVESTING AND STORING CORN and government 
 price-support programs offer alternatives to farmers in ways of 
 marketing corn. This study presents information concerning costs of 
 storing ear corn that should help farmers in deciding which alternative 
 to select. 2 
 
 Two-thirds of the sales of corn made by Illinois farmers have taken 
 place after January 1, and more than one-third after May I. 3 Farmers 
 thus have large investments in stored corn and storage facilities. Cash- 
 grain farmers make these investments in an effort to maximize returns 
 from their corn crop, hoping that the costs involved in holding the 
 corn will be lower than the seasonal increase in price. Among the 
 costs of storing ear corn are those related to loss of moisture during 
 the storage period. The purpose of this study was to analyze such 
 moisture losses and to determine their effect on storage costs. 
 
 SOURCES OF DATA AND METHODS OF ANALYSIS 
 
 The basic data on moisture content of corn were secured from offi- 
 cial inspection certificates of all corn shipments made by eight firms 
 located in important corn-producing areas in Illinois (Fig. I). 4 Cash- 
 
 *R. J. MUTTI, Professor of Agricultural Marketing; MAX R. LANGHAM, 
 Fellow in Agricultural Economics. 
 
 2 For a recent study of management and costs of field-shelling and artificial 
 drying of corn, see Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 638. 
 
 8 Computations from data published by the Illinois Cooperative Crop Re- 
 porting Service for the period 1948-49 through 1957-58 show that the average 
 percent of total corn sales made in each month by Illinois farmers was: Octo- 
 ber, 12.0; November, 15.2; December, 7.9; January, 8.8; February, 6.3; March, 
 8.0; April, 7.6; May, 7.7; June, 7.2; July, 6.5; August, 7.0; September, 5.8. 
 
 4 It is assumed that the moisture recorded on the inspection certificate is 
 representative of that of corn sold from farms in the area. Although elevator 
 blending and mixing operations eliminate the extreme variations in moisture 
 content of corn brought in by individual farmers, carlot sales from the elevator 
 should be representative of corn in the area. Firms from which data were 
 secured did not use artificially dried or CCC corn during the period studied. 
 
 On individual farms, moisture content of corn at harvest may differ from 
 the average because of differences in date of planting, maturity requirements 
 for different seed varieties, type of soil and its fertility balance, and protection 
 of the field from prevailing winds. The rate of shrinkage after harvest may 
 also differ from the average on individual farms because of differences in the 
 cleanliness of the corn that is stored, and the design, size, condition, and loca- 
 tion of the crib. 
 
BULLETIN No. 653 
 
 [February, 
 
 Location of elevator firms from 
 which moisture content data were 
 secured. (Fig. 1) 
 
 grain farms predominate in every area except the western, where they 
 rank second in number to livestock farms. Data were secured for as 
 many different crop years as records at each point permitted. 
 
 Computations of the average monthly moisture content of corn at 
 each location were made for individual crop years for periods of eight 
 to fourteen years, depending on the records that were available. The 
 years studied ranged from 1942-43 through 1956-57. A nine-year 
 average, 1947-48 through 1955-56, was computed for all locations. 
 The average accumulated percentage loss in weight of corn from har- 
 vest to succeeding months of the crop year was calculated for each of 
 the eight locations, as was the "net shrinkage allowance" (the amount 
 by which the value of the reduction in moisture discount exceeded the 
 value of the loss in weight of the corn). 
 
 Data on temperature and precipitation from U. S. Weather Bureau 
 records were used to observe the relation of these weather factors dur- 
 ing the growing season to the moisture content of corn at harvest at 
 Dorans. In a correlation analysis, temperature and relative humidity 
 were used as independent variables to determine the relation of these 
 two weather factors to changes in the moisture content of corn stored 
 in the Fisher area. 
 
1960] EFFECTS OF MOISTURE LOSSES ON COSTS OF STORING EAR CORN 
 
 Table 1. Average Monthly Moisture Content of New-Crop Corn 
 
 Shipped From Eight Selected Locations in Illinois, 
 
 1947-48 through 1955-56 
 
 Month 
 
 Earlville 
 
 Peotone 
 
 Fisher 
 
 El Paso* 
 
 Swan 
 Creek 
 
 Palmer 
 
 Dorans 
 
 West 
 Salem 
 
 Oct. 
 
 20 7 
 
 22.1 
 19.9 
 19.9 
 20.0 
 19.7 
 18.9 
 17.0 
 15.0 
 13.9 
 13.2 
 13.1 
 12.7 
 
 17.3 
 17.1 
 17.6 
 17.6 
 17.5 
 17.1 
 16.1 
 14.7 
 13.5 
 13.2 
 12.9 
 12.6 
 
 percent 
 17.6 17.9 
 16.9 17.3 
 17.7 17.6 
 16.9 17.7 
 17.3 17.7 
 16.9 17.1 
 15.6 16.1 
 13.9 14.8 
 13.5 14.3 
 13.3 13.8 
 12.5 13.7 
 12.2 13.0 
 
 17.5 
 16.9 
 16.9 
 17.0 
 17.2 
 16.7 
 15.8 
 14.8 
 13.5 
 13.2 
 13.2 
 12.6 
 
 17.3 
 17.1 
 17.3 
 17.3 
 17.3 
 17.0 
 16.2 
 15.0 
 14.2 
 13.8 
 13.4 
 12.9 
 
 17.8 
 17.8 
 17.7 
 17.7 
 17.6 
 16.5 
 15.4 
 15.0 
 14.6 
 14.4 
 13.4 
 12.1 
 
 
 .. 19.5 
 
 Dec 
 
 ... 19.4 
 
 
 19.6 
 
 Feb 
 
 ... 19.5 
 
 Mar 
 
 ... 18.8 
 
 Apr 
 
 .. 16.9 
 
 May 
 
 . . . 15.0 
 
 June 
 
 ... 13.6 
 
 July 
 
 .. 13.3 
 
 Aug 
 
 ... 13.2 
 
 Sept. . . 
 
 13 2 
 
 
 
 Data cover 1947-48 through 1954-55. 
 
 Estimated costs of storing corn were developed from the data on 
 moisture losses given in this report, from earlier research studies, and 
 from data obtained from the trade and other sources. An index of 
 seasonal price variations in No. 3 yellow corn at Chicago for the 
 period 1947-48 through 1955-56 and price changes in individual crop 
 years from harvest until May were computed. Cumulative costs of 
 storing corn were compared with market price rises to ascertain the 
 profitability of storing corn at the selected locations. 
 
 MOISTURE CONTENT OF CORN 
 Average monthly moisture content 
 
 During the crop years 1947-48 through 1955-56, the average mois- 
 ture content of corn shipped at harvest from the two northern loca- 
 tions was considerably higher than that from the other six areas, and 
 the greatest reduction in corn moisture occurred at these two locations 
 (Table 1). Earlville is located slightly farther north than Peotone, 
 but the corn shipped from Peotone averaged somewhat higher in mois- 
 ture. Farmers in the Peotone area feel that fogs from Lake Michigan 
 are largely responsible for the high moisture content of corn there. 
 
 By May the moisture content of corn differed by only 0.3 percent 
 among seven of the eight locations. At all locations, it averaged less 
 than 15.5 percent. 1 Moisture content dropped to 13.2 percent or below 
 by September at all locations. 
 
 1 Since moisture discounts end when corn moisture reaches 15.5 percent, loss 
 of moisture beyond 15.5 percent is a direct cost of storing corn, no longer offset 
 by a reduction in moisture discounts. 
 
BULLETIN No. 653 
 
 [February, 
 
 Table 2. Average Monthly Moisture Content of New-Crop Corn 
 
 Shipped From Eight Selected Locations in Illinois 
 
 in Individual Crop Years 1 
 
 Crop year 
 
 Oct. 
 
 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 
 
 June 
 
 July 
 
 Aug. 
 
 Sept. 
 
 Earlville, 1946-47 through 1955-56 
 
 
 
 
 percent 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1946-47... 
 
 
 
 ... 20.3 20.3 19.5 17.2 16.0 
 
 15 
 
 ,4 
 
 14 
 
 .5 
 
 13 
 
 .2 
 
 12 
 
 ,7 
 
 1947-48 
 
 
 
 21.1 21.5 21.1 21.4 19.7 16.8 15.2 
 
 13 
 
 .2 
 
 13 
 
 .2 
 
 13 
 
 .3 
 
 12 
 
 ,9 
 
 1948-49 
 
 23 
 
 8 
 
 23.1 21.3 21.7 22.1 21.6 18.0 15.4 
 
 13 
 
 S 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 <, 
 
 2 
 
 1 < 
 
 ? 
 
 1949-50 
 
 18 
 
 7 
 
 17 4 15 8 17.2 17.6 17.2 16.1 16.0 
 
 1 > 
 
 s 
 
 12 
 
 8 
 
 12 
 
 8 
 
 1 } 
 
 ? 
 
 1950-51 
 
 2.5. 
 
 8 
 
 20.5 20.0 21.6 20.8 20.3 18.6 16.1 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 .5 
 
 13 
 
 .<> 
 
 13 
 
 ,9 
 
 1951-52 
 
 
 
 23.9 22.9 23.4 22.9 21.9 18.6 15.0 
 
 14 
 
 ? 
 
 13 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 ? 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 1952-53 
 
 18 
 
 8 
 
 16.1 17.6 17.3 17.0 17.0 16.6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1953-54 
 
 18. 
 
 3 
 
 16.5 16.3 16.4 16.2 15.7 15.3 13.8 
 
 13 
 
 .2 
 
 12 
 
 .9 
 
 13 
 
 .5 
 
 13 
 
 1 
 
 1954-55 
 
 ) > 
 
 6 
 
 19 7 21 20 7 19.7 19 17.9 14.5 
 
 13 
 
 (, 
 
 13 
 
 () 
 
 12 
 
 1 
 
 12 
 
 6 
 
 1955-56 
 
 18. 
 
 9 
 
 17.4 17.9 17.4 17.4 16.6 14.5 14.0 
 
 13. 
 
 2 
 
 13 
 
 ,0 
 
 13 
 
 .0 
 
 
 
 Average 
 
 20 
 
 7 
 
 19.5 19.4 19.7 19.5 18.8 17.0 15.1 
 
 13 
 
 .8 
 
 13 
 
 .5 
 
 13.2 
 
 13 
 
 .1 
 
 
 6 
 
 S7 
 
 8.16 6.41 5.87 5.50 4.59 1.90 .75 
 
 
 8S 
 
 
 44 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 If. 
 
 
 ? 
 
 Sfi 
 
 2 86 2 53 2 42 2 35 2 14 1 38 87 
 
 
 04 
 
 
 C>6 
 
 
 SS 
 
 
 40 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Peotone, 1942-43 through 1955-56 
 
 1942-43 . . . 
 
 
 
 19.8 19.6 20.3 20.9 17.8 15.4 14.9 
 
 13 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 .3 
 
 13 
 
 .3 
 
 1943-44 
 
 26 
 
 6 
 
 25 3 25 1 23 5 21.9 20 9 22.8 17.2 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 1 
 
 1 S 
 
 1 
 
 1944-45 
 
 21 
 
 8 
 
 20.3 19.8 21.1 20.7 19.9 17.2 16.3 
 
 15.4 
 
 13 
 
 .0 
 
 13 
 
 .3 
 
 
 
 1945-46 
 
 25 
 
 8 
 
 23.9 23.3 23.4 22.2 20.3 18.2 13.5 
 
 14 
 
 4 
 
 12 
 
 ? 
 
 11 
 
 8 
 
 12 
 
 1 
 
 1946-47 
 
 2S 
 
 5 
 
 23.4 20.9 20.6 20.6 20.7 19.0 16.8 
 
 15 
 
 .7 
 
 14 
 
 .5 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 .6 
 
 1947-48 
 
 26 
 
 ,3 
 
 22.1 23.1 22.0 20.8 20.9 17.6 15.5 
 
 13 
 
 .5 
 
 12 
 
 .9 
 
 12 
 
 .4 
 
 12 
 
 .1 
 
 1948-49 
 
 27 
 
 6 
 
 24.9 23.7 23.3 23.1 21.9 18.5 15.5 
 
 14 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 <) 
 
 13 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 ? 
 
 1949-50 
 
 19 
 
 7 
 
 17.2 17.4 18 18 6 18.0 17.0 15.1 
 
 12 
 
 9 
 
 12 
 
 6 
 
 12 
 
 6 
 
 1 s 
 
 S 
 
 1950-51 
 
 23 
 
 7 
 
 21.3 22.3 21.4 21.4 20.5 18.7 16.7 
 
 15 
 
 .0 
 
 13 
 
 .8 
 
 14 
 
 .2 
 
 13 
 
 .7 
 
 1951-52 
 
 24 
 
 9 
 
 25 4 24.3 24 7 23 2 21 6 19 2 15 5 
 
 14 
 
 6 
 
 14 
 
 2 
 
 1S 
 
 4 
 
 1 ? 
 
 <) 
 
 1952-53 
 
 20. 
 
 Q 
 
 17.4 17.0 17.7 18.1 16.8 16.0 14.6 
 
 1 s 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 <) 
 
 1 1 
 
 n 
 
 11 
 
 (S 
 
 1953-54 
 
 16.4 
 
 14.2 14.4 15.3 15.4 15.3 14.5 14.3 
 
 13 
 
 .2 
 
 12.0 
 
 12 
 
 .5 
 
 12.8 
 
 1954-55 
 
 ^0 
 
 1 
 
 18.8 19 19 2 19.1 18 5 16 1 13 5 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 s 
 
 12 
 
 o 
 
 1 } 
 
 ? 
 
 11 
 
 8 
 
 1955-56 . 
 
 1<> 
 
 
 
 17.8 17.9 18.1 17.8 17.0 15.3 14.4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 1 
 
 1 S 
 
 1 
 
 1 ' 
 
 S 
 
 Average 
 
 22 
 
 2 
 
 20.8 20.6 20.6 20.3 19.3 17.5 15.3 
 
 14 
 
 .3 
 
 13 
 
 .2 
 
 13 
 
 .0 
 
 12 
 
 .8 
 
 Variance 
 
 12 
 
 40 
 
 12.20 10.24 7.29 4.87 4.16 4.54 1.38 
 
 
 81 
 
 
 S> 
 
 
 32 
 
 
 45 
 
 Standard deviation 
 
 3 
 
 ,54 
 
 3.49 3.20 2.70 2.20 2.04 2.13 1.18 
 
 
 .'JO 
 
 
 .70 
 
 
 .56 
 
 
 .67 
 
 Fisher, 1944-45 through 1955-56 
 
 1944-45... 
 
 
 
 19.7 19.3 19.9 19.2 16.9 15.6 
 
 15 
 
 .2 
 
 14 
 
 .8 
 
 14 
 
 .6 
 
 13 
 
 .2 
 
 1945-46 
 
 
 
 19.2 19.0 19.0 18 16 9 15 8 14 2 
 
 1 1 
 
 f, 
 
 12 
 
 4 
 
 12 
 
 <) 
 
 1 ' 
 
 4 
 
 1946-47 
 
 20 
 
 6 
 
 19.9 19.0 18.8 18.6 18.2 17.0 15.6 
 
 15 
 
 .0 
 
 14 
 
 .5 
 
 12 
 
 .9 
 
 12 
 
 .8 
 
 1947-48 
 
 
 
 20.4 22.3 20.7 19.4 18.8 17.1 15.3 
 
 13 
 
 .2 
 
 13.6 
 
 13.3 
 
 12 
 
 6 
 
 1948-49 
 
 1<> 
 
 .7 
 
 19.1 19.8 18.6 18.3 17.9 16.6 14.7 
 
 13 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 .4 
 
 12 
 
 .9 
 
 1949-50 
 
 17 
 
 .1 
 
 15.9 15.8 16.6 16.5 16.9 16.1 14.2 
 
 12 
 
 .6 
 
 12 
 
 .<> 
 
 12 
 
 .9 
 
 13 
 
 .2 
 
 1950-51.. 
 
 
 
 17.5 18.5 19 18 7 18 4 16 9 17 
 
 1 } 
 
 8 
 
 14 
 
 1 
 
 1 S 
 
 s 
 
 1 } 
 
 S 
 
 1951-52 
 
 18 
 
 .8 
 
 19.5 18.9 19.2 19.0 18.4 17.4 15.5 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 .0 
 
 12 
 
 .5 
 
 12 
 
 .5 
 
 1952-53 
 
 17 
 
 .7 
 
 16.4 16.8 16.8 16.9 16.3 15.6 14.6 
 
 13 
 
 .9 
 
 12 
 
 .8 
 
 12 
 
 .5 
 
 11 
 
 .7 
 
 1953-54 
 
 1 < 
 
 T, 
 
 12.5 13.6 13 9 14 6 14 5 14 2 13 6 
 
 l } 
 
 1 
 
 12 
 
 S 
 
 1 1 
 
 7 
 
 1 1 
 
 6 
 
 1954-55 
 
 17 
 
 .0 
 
 16.6 16.6 17.6 17.4 16.5 15.8 13.9 
 
 13 
 
 .8 
 
 13 
 
 8 
 
 12 
 
 .6 
 
 12 
 
 .0 
 
 1955-56 
 
 17 
 
 5 
 
 15.9 16.4 16.4 16.8 16.6 14.8 13.7 
 
 13 
 
 .6 
 
 13 
 
 .0 
 
 13 
 
 .5 
 
 13 
 
 .2 
 
 Average 
 
 17 
 
 .7 
 
 17.5 18.0 18.0 17.8 17.4 16.2 14.8 
 
 13 
 
 .8 
 
 13 
 
 .4 
 
 13 
 
 .0 
 
 12 
 
 .6 
 
 Variance 
 
 4 
 
 .81 
 
 5.58 5.26 3.30 2.19 1.79 .97 1.01 
 
 
 .53 
 
 
 .04 
 
 
 .52 
 
 
 .39 
 
 Standard deviation 
 
 2 
 
 .20 
 
 2.36 2.29 1.82 1.48 1.34 .98 1.00 
 
 
 .73 
 
 
 .80 
 
 
 .70 
 
 
 .62 
 
 El Paso, 1947-48 through 1954-55 
 
 1947-48... 
 
 18 
 
 .5 
 
 21.1 20.9 20.1 21.0 20.5 16.5 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1948-49 
 
 20 
 
 .0 
 
 18.3 17.9 17.5 17.7 15.7 14.0 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 .1 
 
 12 
 
 .8 
 
 12 
 
 .4 
 
 1949-50 
 
 17 
 
 .3 
 
 15.8 16.4 16.9 16.6 15.6 14.2 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 .9 
 
 12 
 
 .5 
 
 12 
 
 .6 
 
 1950-51 
 
 18 
 
 .4 
 
 17.0 18.2 16.9 17.4 16.9 15.6 14.7 
 
 14 
 
 .?. 
 
 14 
 
 4 
 
 17 
 
 .8 
 
 
 
 1951-52 
 
 
 
 17.5 19.1 17.2 17.7 15.2 15.3 13.4 
 
 13 
 
 .2 
 
 13 
 
 .2 
 
 11 
 
 .9 
 
 12 
 
 .2 
 
 1952-53 
 
 17 
 
 .1 
 
 15.6 13.5 16.0 15.6 15.9 15.9 14.5 
 
 14 
 
 A 
 
 13 
 
 .3 
 
 13 
 
 .0 
 
 12 
 
 .0 
 
 1953-54 
 
 14 
 
 .6 
 
 13.9 14.2 14.7 14.8 14.4 12.6 
 
 13 
 
 .2 
 
 12 
 
 <) 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 .2 
 
 1 954-55 
 
 17 
 
 6 
 
 16.2 16.7 16.4 17.6 15.9 13.8 
 
 12 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 .5 
 
 12 
 
 1 
 
 Blank spaces indicate that no corn was shipped during the month. 
 (Table is concluded on next page) 
 
1960] EFFECTS OF MOISTURE LOSSES ON COSTS OF STORING EAR CORN 
 Table 2. Concluded 
 
 Crop year 
 
 Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. 
 
 El Paso concluded 
 
 percent 
 
 Average 17.6 16.9 17.7 16.9 17.3 16.9 15.6 13.9 13.5 13.3 12.5 12.2 
 
 Variance 2.36 4.04 6.22 2.49 3.39 2.81 .32 .44 .46 .24 .15 .04 
 
 Standard deviation 1.54 2.01 2.49 1.58 1.84 1.68 .57 .66 .68 .49 .39 .20 
 
 Swan Creek, 1946-47 through 1955-56 
 
 1946-47 
 
 20.4 
 
 22.4 
 
 20.8 
 
 20.7 
 
 19.0 
 
 18.5 
 
 17.8 
 
 15.7 
 
 15.9 
 
 14.4 
 
 
 
 1947-48 
 
 19.6 
 
 18.0 
 
 19.5 
 
 18.5 
 
 17.7 
 
 
 17.0 
 
 
 
 14.2 
 
 
 12.4 
 
 1948-49 
 
 19.3 
 
 18.4 
 
 17.9 
 
 18.8 
 
 
 16.7 
 
 16.6 
 
 
 13.8 
 
 14.3 
 
 13.9 
 
 13.5 
 
 1949-50 . 
 
 . . . . 16.9 
 
 14.2 
 
 
 15.4 
 
 16.1 
 
 16.7 
 
 15.4 
 
 14.5 
 
 14.3 
 
 13.0 
 
 13.1 
 
 13.2 
 
 1950-51 
 
 
 18.3 
 
 18.1 
 
 18.3 
 
 18.8 
 
 17.5 
 
 17.4 
 
 15.0 
 
 15.3 
 
 14.6 
 
 14.4 
 
 13.9 
 
 1951-52 
 
 
 22.4 
 
 21 .4 
 
 23.0 
 
 21.5 
 
 18.8 
 
 17.4 
 
 15.7 
 
 15.8 
 
 15.0 
 
 14.4 
 
 12.8 
 
 1952-53 
 
 19.3 
 
 15.5 
 
 16.2 
 
 17.6 
 
 16.8 
 
 16.9 
 
 16.3 
 
 14.7 
 
 14.1 
 
 13.4 
 
 12.7 
 
 11.9 
 
 1953-54 
 
 13.7 
 
 14.3 
 
 13.8 
 
 14.4 
 
 14.7 
 
 
 15.0 
 
 13.8 
 
 12.6 
 
 
 14.0 
 
 14.2 
 
 1954-55 . . 
 
 . .. 18.6 
 
 17.4 
 
 17.2 
 
 
 
 17.1 
 
 16.0 
 
 16.0 
 
 
 
 14.0 
 
 12.1 
 
 1955-56 
 
 18.1 
 
 17.4 
 
 16.5 
 
 15.9 
 
 18.4 
 
 15.9 
 
 13.4 
 
 13.6 
 
 
 12.2 
 
 13.1 
 
 12.6 
 
 Averaee. . 
 
 18.2 
 
 17.8 
 
 17.9 
 
 18.1 
 
 17.9 
 
 17.3 
 
 16.2 
 
 14.9 
 
 14.5 
 
 13.9 
 
 13.7 
 
 13.0 
 
 Variance 4.48 8.71 5.68 7.19 4.28 .94 1.68 .80 1.41 .88 .42 .64 
 
 Standard deviation 2.12 2.95 2.38 2.68 2.07 .97 1.29 .89 1.19 .94 .65 .80 
 
 Palmer, 1946-47 through 1955-56 
 
 1946-47 
 
 20.8 
 
 20.1 
 
 19.2 
 
 19.4 
 
 18.9 
 
 17.9 
 
 17.4 
 
 17.2 
 
 16.2 
 
 15.3 13 
 
 4 13.3 
 
 1947-48 
 
 25.0 
 
 22.9 
 
 22.2 
 
 21 A 
 
 20.6 
 
 22.0 
 
 19.0 
 
 
 11.8 
 
 13.4 14 
 
 
 
 1948-49 
 
 19.1 
 
 18.3 
 
 17.8 
 
 18.2 
 
 20.5 
 
 
 16.0 
 
 18.0 
 
 15.3 
 
 14.3 14 
 
 13.4 
 
 1949-50 
 
 16.4 
 
 15.6 
 
 14.8 
 
 16.6 
 
 18.3 
 
 19.0 
 
 16.6 
 
 15.4 
 
 13.0 
 
 13.4 13 
 
 7 13.0 
 
 1950-51 
 
 17.3 
 
 17.0 
 
 18.5 
 
 17.8 
 
 18.0 
 
 17.2 
 
 16.9 
 
 16.0 
 
 14.3 
 
 
 
 1951-52 
 
 18.1 
 
 18.7 
 
 18.9 
 
 18.4 
 
 18.4 
 
 17.7 
 
 17.2 
 
 
 14.4 
 
 
 
 1952-53 
 
 15.6 
 
 14.2 
 
 14.4 
 
 15.0 
 
 15.6 
 
 15.4 
 
 14.4 
 
 13.8 
 
 12.9 
 
 12.5 12 
 
 6 ii.9 
 
 1953-54 
 
 13.8 
 
 13.3 
 
 13.2 
 
 14.6 
 
 14.1 
 
 14.0 
 
 13.9 
 
 13.3 
 
 12.7 
 
 12.1 12 
 
 ,2 12.4 
 
 1954-55 
 
 15.5 
 
 15.5 
 
 15.1 
 
 15.4 
 
 14.3 
 
 13.9 
 
 13.6 
 
 13.5 
 
 13.4 
 
 12.7 12 
 
 ,5 12.1 
 
 1955-56 
 
 17.1 
 
 16.6 
 
 17.6 
 
 16.0 
 
 14.9 
 
 14.7 
 
 14.2 
 
 13.9 
 
 13.3 
 
 14.0 13 
 
 ,8 12.9 
 
 Average 
 
 17.9 
 
 17.2 
 
 17.2 
 
 17.3 
 
 17.4 
 
 16.9 
 
 15.9 
 
 15.1 
 
 13.7 
 
 13.5 13 
 
 .2 12.7 
 
 Variance 
 
 10.16 
 
 8.27 
 
 7.57 
 
 3.47 
 
 6.03 
 
 7.08 
 
 3.28 
 
 3.24 
 
 1.74 
 
 1.11 
 
 ,69 .34 
 
 Standard deviation 
 
 3.19 
 
 2.88 
 
 2.75 
 
 1.86 
 
 2.46 
 
 2.66 
 
 1.81 
 
 1.80 
 
 1.32 
 
 1.05 
 
 .83 .58 
 
 Dorans, 1947-48 through 1955-56 
 
 1947-48 . 
 
 21.3 
 
 21 .2 
 
 22.3 20.9 
 
 20.6 
 
 20.0 
 
 18.7 
 
 16.3 
 
 14.4 
 
 14.4 
 
 13.9 
 
 13.1 
 
 1948-49 
 
 18.8 
 
 18.3 
 
 18.2 18.1 
 
 17.7 
 
 17.6 
 
 17.0 
 
 15.2 
 
 14.6 
 
 14.5 
 
 14.4 
 
 13.5 
 
 1949-50 
 
 16.3 
 
 15.7 
 
 15.8 16.6 
 
 17.0 
 
 16.5 
 
 16.4 
 
 14.5 
 
 13.9 
 
 13.5 
 
 13.9 
 
 13.8 
 
 1950-51 . ... 
 
 17.7 
 
 17.6 
 
 18.9 18.6 
 
 18.2 
 
 18.1 
 
 17.1 
 
 16.0 
 
 14.8 
 
 14.4 
 
 14.4 
 
 14.3 
 
 1951-52 
 
 19.2 
 
 19.7 
 
 19.4 19.2 
 
 19.3 
 
 18.0 
 
 17.5 
 
 15.1 
 
 14.7 
 
 13.7 
 
 13.4 
 
 13.0 
 
 1952-53 
 
 14.5 
 
 14.4 
 
 14.8 15.5 
 
 15.5 
 
 15.1 
 
 14.6 
 
 14.6 
 
 14.0 
 
 11.4 
 
 12.6 
 
 11.6 
 
 1953-54 
 1954-55 
 
 14.0 
 16.6 
 
 14.5 
 16.8 
 
 14.5 14.2 
 16.6 16.4 
 
 14.5 
 16.5 
 
 14.3 
 17.0 
 
 14.0 
 15.9 
 
 13.5 
 15.0 
 
 13.5 
 14.3 
 
 14.7 
 
 11.2 
 13.2 
 
 11.2 
 12.3 
 
 1955-56 . 
 
 17.0 
 
 16.1 
 
 15.8 16.4 
 
 16.5 
 
 16.0 
 
 15.1 
 
 14.5 
 
 13.7 
 
 13.7 
 
 13.6 
 
 13.2 
 
 Average 
 
 17.3 
 
 17.1 
 
 17.3 17.3 
 
 17.3 
 
 17.0 
 
 16.2 
 
 15.0 
 
 14.2 
 
 13.8 
 
 13.4 
 
 12.9 
 
 Variance 
 
 5.29 
 
 5.30 
 
 6.48 4.23 
 
 3.54 
 
 1.85 
 
 2.27 
 
 .71 
 
 .21 
 
 1.13 
 
 1.01 
 
 .88 
 
 Standard deviation 
 
 2.30 
 
 2.30 
 
 2.55 2.06 
 
 1.88 
 
 1.36 
 
 1.51 
 
 .84 
 
 .46 
 
 1.06 
 
 1.00 
 
 .94 
 
 West Salem, 1947-48 through 1956-57 
 
 1947-48 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 14.8 
 
 14.1 12.8 
 
 1948-49 
 
 
 18.4 
 
 17.8 
 
 17.7 
 
 17.8 
 
 17.0 
 
 16.2 
 
 H 
 
 .5 14.2 
 
 14.4 
 
 12.8 12.8 
 
 1949-50 
 1950-51 
 1951-52 
 1952-53 
 
 18.0 
 17.7 
 17.5 
 
 16.2 
 19.6 
 17.9 
 17.1 
 
 15.7 
 20.6 
 17.5 
 
 16.9 
 20.4 
 18.2 
 
 17.5 
 20.0 
 17.4 
 
 16.3 
 16.2 
 
 14.7 
 
 is. 7 
 
 14 
 15 
 
 .6 15.1 
 
 .4 
 
 13.3 
 15.1 
 
 
 1953-54 
 1954-55 
 1955-56 
 
 18.6 
 17.4 
 17.6 
 
 19.5 
 16.5 
 17.2 
 
 16.8 
 
 15.5 
 
 16.3 
 16.6 
 
 
 is '.2 
 
 is 
 
 .5 '.'.'.'. 
 
 
 ii'.a 
 
 11.4 
 
 1956-57 . 
 
 17.1 
 
 17.5 
 
 17.4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average. . 
 
 17.7 
 
 17.8 
 
 17.6 
 
 17.7 
 
 17.6 
 
 16.5 
 
 15.4 
 
 15 
 
 .0 14.6 
 
 14.4 
 
 13.4 12.1 
 
 Variance 20 1.30 2.22 2.60 1.42 .13 .32 .20 .20 .46 .42 .53 
 
 Standard deviation .45 1.14 1.49 1.61 1.19 .36 .57 .45 .45 .68 .65 .73 
 
BULLETIN No. 653 
 
 [February, 
 
 23 
 22 
 21 
 
 H 
 
 20 
 
 UJ 
 Q. 
 
 I" 
 
 8 16 
 
 15 
 
 14 
 
 1.3 
 
 12 
 
 15.5% (DISCOUNTS END) 
 
 OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT 
 
 Regardless of moisture content at harvest, at all locations maximum mois- 
 ture loss occurred between March and June, and moisture content declined 
 below 15.5 percent by May. (Fig. 2) 
 
 Four similar characteristics occurred in the average changes in corn 
 moisture (Fig. 2) : 
 
 1. A decrease from October to November was common to all 
 locations except West Salem. 
 
 2. Between November and February, the change in moisture level 
 was small at all locations. 
 
 3. Maximum shrinkage occurred at all locations except West Salem 
 between March and June. 
 
 4. After June, corn continued to become drier, varying among areas 
 in the rate of moisture loss. 
 
 Year-to-year variations 
 
 Year-to-year variations from the average corn moisture content 
 were generally greater during the months October through March 
 than during the following months (Table 2). The variations at two 
 
1960] EFFECTS OF MOISTURE LOSSES ON COSTS OF STORING EAR CORN 
 
 23 
 22 
 
 21 
 
 20 
 
 19 
 
 18 
 
 17 
 
 16 
 
 t- 15 
 
 5 
 
 g 14 
 
 UJ 
 
 a. 
 z . 13 
 
 
 
 8 12 
 
 u. 
 o 
 
 i- 
 S 23 
 
 8 22 
 U 
 
 ^ 21 
 
 i 
 
 O 20 
 19 
 18 
 17 
 16 
 15 
 14 
 13 
 12 
 
 EARLVILLE 
 
 1946-47 THROUGH 1955-56 
 
 . 15.5% 
 
 
 
 MINIMUM 
 
 MAXIMUM 
 
 FISHER 
 
 1944-45 THROUGH 1955-56 
 
 "^^.^ 15.5% 
 
 - \ 
 
 / 
 
 MINIMUM- 
 
 OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT 
 
 The year-to-year variations from average monthly corn moisture levels 
 at Earlville and Fisher represent those at the six other locations. The 
 greatest variations from the average occurred during October through 
 March. (Fig. 3) 
 
10 BULLETIN No. 653 [February, 
 
 locations, one (Earlville) having a relatively high moisture content at 
 harvest and the other (Fisher) having a relatively low moisture con- 
 tent at harvest, are illustrated in Fig. 3. 
 
 Moisture had dropped to 15.5 percent or below by the middle of 
 May in 7 out of 7 years of record at El Paso, 7 out of 9 at Dorans, 
 
 4 out of 4 at West Salem, 6 out of 9 at Earlville, 9 out of 12 at Fisher, 
 
 5 out of 8 at Swan Creek and Palmer, and 10 out of 14 at Peotone. 
 
 Relation to weather 
 
 Weather conditions are mainly responsible for corn moisture levels 
 at harvest and during the storage period. Relative humidity, hours of 
 sunshine, wind velocity, temperature, and precipitation during the 
 growing season and the storage period all affect the moisture content 
 at harvest and the rate of drying while corn is in storage. The much 
 greater loss of moisture during the spring than during the winter can 
 be attributed to more hours of sunshine, lower relative humidity, higher 
 temperature, and greater wind velocity. 
 
 In this study weather data for two selected locations were analyzed 
 to determine the extent to which certain weather conditions affect corn 
 moisture content at harvest and during storage. 
 
 Moisture content at harvest. To observe the relation of moisture 
 content of corn at harvest to precipitation and temperature during the 
 growing season, weather data for a nine-year period, 1947-1955, from 
 a single weather station (Mattoon) near one grain shipping point 
 (Dorans) were analyzed (Table 3). 1 
 
 Relation to precipitation. During three years 1947, 1950, and 
 1951 the moisture content of corn at harvest was above the nine- 
 year average and precipitation prior to harvest (April through Octo- 
 ber) was above normal. However, high-moisture content at harvest was 
 not always related to above-normal precipitation during the growing 
 season; in 1948 corn moisture was above average but precipitation was 
 considerably below normal. Moreover, in 1947, when corn moisture 
 content at harvest was highest for the nine years, precipitation for the 
 entire growing season averaged only 5 percent above normal. In that 
 year precipitation was 50 percent above normal during the land- 
 preparation and planting season (April, May, and June), but 15 per- 
 cent below normal during August, September and October. Delayed 
 planting, due to the heavy spring rainfall, and an early frost were 
 major reasons for the high moisture in the 1947 corn crop. 
 
 'The weather station at Mattoon is about five miles from Dorans, and 
 weather data from the Mattoon Station should closely represent weather at 
 Dorans. 
 
1960] EFFECTS OF MOISTURE LOSSES ON COSTS OF STORING EAR CORN 11 
 
 Table 3. Deviation of Temperature and Precipitation From Normal 
 During Growing Season, Mattoon, Illinois, 1947-1955" 
 
 Year 
 
 Average 
 corn 
 moisture 
 content at 
 
 Deviation of 
 temperature from 
 normal during 
 growing season 
 
 Deviation of pre- 
 cipitation from 
 normal during 
 growing season 
 
 
 harvest b 
 
 Above Below 
 
 Above Below 
 
 1947 d .. 
 
 percent 
 213 
 
 percent 
 
 2 4 
 
 percent 
 5 1 
 
 1948 
 
 .... 18 8 
 
 6 
 
 18 
 
 1949 
 
 . 16 3 
 
 5 
 
 8 7 
 
 1950 
 
 17 7 
 
 2 1 
 
 13 8 
 
 1951 
 
 19.2 
 
 1.7 
 
 25.9 
 
 1952 
 
 14.5 
 
 8 
 
 17.2 
 
 1953 
 
 14 
 
 24 
 
 27.1 
 
 1954 
 
 16 6 
 
 41 
 
 18.9 
 
 1955 
 
 17 
 
 3 2 
 
 40 
 
 Average 
 
 17 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Source: U. S. Department of Commerce. Weather Bureau, Ciimatological Data, Illinois 
 Section, Vol. 52-60, No. 13. 1947-1955. 
 
 b Corn harvested in October and shipped from Dorans. 
 
 c Growing season is April through October. 
 
 d No weather data for 1947 were available from the Mattoon Weather Station. Data for 
 this year were taken from the record of Charleston, Illinois, which is about ten miles from 
 Dorans. 
 
 The moisture content of corn at harvest was below the nine-year 
 average during five years. In four of these five years, precipitation 
 during the growing season was below normal. In 1953, corn averaged 
 the driest and precipitation averaged the lowest among the nine years 
 of record. In 1955, the moisture content of corn was also below 
 average but precipitation was above normal; early planting, due to 
 below-normal precipitation and above-normal temperature during April, 
 May, and June, was the main reason for the lower moisture that year. 
 
 Observations of as short a period as reported here are inadequate 
 to draw positive conclusions concerning the effect of precipitation 
 during the growing season on the moisture content of corn at harvest. 
 The data indicate that high precipitation is associated with high- 
 moisture corn, but other factors can offset this relationship. 
 
 Relation to temperature. During seven of the nine years studied, 
 the temperature during the growing season averaged above normal. 
 In five of these seven years, the moisture content of corn at harvest was 
 below the 1947-1955 average. In the two years when temperature dur- 
 ing the growing season was below normal, the October moisture content 
 was above average. These findings suggest that an above-normal 
 temperature during the growing season is more conducive than a 
 below-normal temperature to a low corn moisture content at harvest. 
 
12 BULLETIN No. 653 [February, 
 
 But other factors may be of overriding importance, for in 1947, with 
 an above-normal temperature during the growing season, the corn 
 moisture content in October was by far the highest in any of the nine 
 years analyzed. 
 
 Moisture content during storage. The relation of moisture content 
 of corn during storage to temperature and relative humidity was 
 studied, using data for Dorans and for Fisher. 
 
 In the Dorans study, changes in corn moisture content were related 
 to average monthly temperatures. In the Fisher study, corn moisture 
 content was related to average trimonthly temperature and relative 
 humidity, taking into account the moisture content during the first 
 three months of storage. 
 
 Relation to temperature. In the Dorans study, average temperatures 
 for the months December through September during the period 1947- 
 48 through 1955-56 were related to month-to-month changes in corn 
 moisture content (Fig. 4). The results are summarized below: 
 
 ri . . Months when mean temperature was: 
 
 from preceding month 
 Increases 
 
 Below 37 F. 
 (percent) 
 42 
 
 Above 37 F. 
 (percent) 
 8 
 
 No changes 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 Decreases 
 
 . . . 50 
 
 83 
 
 Less than half of a percentage point. . . 
 
 (42) 
 
 (27) 
 
 Half of a oercentaee ooint or more . . 
 
 (8) 
 
 (56) 
 
 When monthly temperatures were below 37 F. increases in mois- 
 ture content occurred almost as often as decreases. At temperatures 
 above 37 F. decreases in moisture content occurred more than four- 
 fifths of the time. Monthly decreases in moisture content not only 
 occurred a greater percent of the time at temperatures above 37 than 
 below, but they also exceeded half of a percentage point much more 
 frequently. 1 
 
 In the Fisher study, four correlation analyses were made using 
 temperature and relative humidity as independent variables. Two 
 analyses were made for eight years when the average moisture content 
 of corn exceeded 18 percent during November, December, and Jan- 
 uary ("wet" years); in one, temperature was the only independent 
 
 1 Data in Fig. 4 show wide differences in corn moisture changes at a given 
 temperature, indicating that other factors also affect corn moisture changes. 
 Correlation analyses yielded correlation coefficients of 0.348 with a linear fit and 
 0.426 with a curvilinear (parabolic) fit. The estimating equations are given in 
 the appendix (page 32). 
 
1960] EFFECTS OF MOISTURE LOSSES ON COSTS OF STORING EAR CORN 
 
 13 
 
 IN CORN MOISTURE 
 DEVIOUS MONTH 
 > ro o 
 
 '/ . . 
 
 - v 
 
 UJ -5 
 2 
 
 *% J. ' . . . ~ >i 2 
 
 PERCENT CHAN 
 
 CONTENT FRC 
 i i 
 
 M fM 
 
 * *; * . 
 
 i i i i i i i i i 11*1 
 
 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 
 MONTHLY MEAN TEMPERATURE, F. 
 
 75 80 
 
 When monthly mean temperatures were below 37 F., corn moisture con- 
 tent increased from the previous month almost as often as it decreased, 
 whereas at temperatures above 37 F. increases in moisture content were 
 relatively infrequent. The data shown are for Dorans for the months Decem- 
 ber through September for the period 1947-48 through 1955-56. (Fig. 4) 
 
 variable, and in the other, temperature and relative humidity were both 
 used as independent variables. Two similar analyses were made for 
 six years when the average moisture content was less than 18 percent 
 from November through January ("dry" years). The estimating 
 equations and data are given in the appendix (pages 30-32). 
 
 The analyses showed that, insofar as temperature was concerned: 
 
 (1) A rise in temperature had a greater influence in reducing the 
 moisture content of corn in "wet" years than in "dry" years. During 
 the "wet" years the corn lost 0.13 to 0.14 percent moisture with each 
 increase of 1 degree in temperature, whereas during the "dry" years 
 the corn lost 0.06 to 0.08 percent moisture with each increase of 1 de- 
 gree in temperature. 1 
 
 (2) Differences between "wet" and "dry" years in the moisture 
 content of corn averaged 2.2 percent when temperature was 34 F., 
 1.4 percent when temperature was 52 F., and only 0.4 percent when 
 temperature was 71 F. The difference between "wet" and "dry" years 
 had nearly disappeared by summer (Fig. 5). 
 
 Relation to relative humidity. In a laboratory study made in 1926, 
 
 1 No significant difference in temperature was found between "wet" and 
 "dry" years; thus the differences in the rate of moisture loss may be attributed 
 to differences in the November-January moisture content of the corn stored. 
 
14 BULLETIN No. 653 [February, 
 
 20 
 
 19 
 
 gie 
 
 OL 
 
 o 16 
 fc 
 
 H.5 
 
 LU 
 
 '< 
 
 UJ 
 
 12 
 
 "DRY "YEARS 
 
 A 
 I I I J I 1 I I 
 
 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 
 MEAN TEMPERATURE, F. 
 
 In years when corn moisture averaged above 18 percent during November 
 through January ("wet" years) average corn moisture losses in the Fisher 
 area were more rapid as temperatures increased than in years when 
 November- January corn moisture content averaged below 18 percent ("dry" 
 years). (Fig. 5) 
 
 Alberts 1 found the moisture content of corn exposed to different levels 
 of humidity to be as follows: 
 
 Relative humidity, perct. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 
 Corn moisture, perct. 7 8 9 10 11.5 13 15 17 20 
 
 In the present study, the two correlation analyses using two inde- 
 pendent variables (see the appendix, page 32) showed that, insofar as 
 relative humidity was concerned: 
 
 (1) An increase in relative humidity had a greater influence in 
 increasing the moisture content of corn in "dry" years than in "wet" 
 years. A 1 -percent increase in relative humidity appeared to have 
 about twice as much effect in increasing the moisture content of "dry" 
 corn in storage than of "wet" corn. 
 
 1 H. W. Alberts, Moisture Content of Corn in Relation to Relative Humidity 
 and Temperature of the Atmosphere, Jour. American Society of Agronomy, 
 Vol. 18, November, 1926, p. 1033. 
 
1960] EFFECTS OF MOISTURE LOSSES ON COSTS OF STORING EAR CORN 15 
 
 (2) Changes in the moisture content .of corn were affected more by 
 changes in temperature than by changes in relative humidity when corn 
 was "wet," but in "dry" corn, a change in relative humidity had a 
 slightly greater effect than a change in temperature. 
 
 COSTS OF STORING EAR CORN 
 Costs due to moisture loss 
 
 Loss of moisture through natural drying of stored ear corn de- 
 creases the weight, leaving a smaller amount to be sold at the end of 
 the storage period (Table 4). Loss of moisture is also accompanied by 
 a decrease in moisture discounts, resulting in an increase in the value 
 of corn. 1 Shrinkage due to moisture loss will be a cost of storage only 
 if the value of the loss in weight exceeds the value of the decrease in 
 moisture discounts. 
 
 Table 4. Average Accumulated Percentage Loss in Weight of Corn 
 Shipped From Eight Selected Locations in Illinois" 
 
 Fr0m untu" N V ' Earlville 
 
 Peotone 
 
 Fisher 
 
 El Paso 
 
 Swan 
 Creek 
 
 Palmer 
 
 Dorans 
 
 West 
 Salem 
 
 Dec 
 
 
 .87 
 .50 
 .75 
 .60 
 .73 
 .89 
 .31 
 .63 
 .95 
 .06 
 
 1.14 
 1.14 
 1.51 
 2.73 
 4.85 
 7.32 
 8.40 
 9.56 
 9.77 
 9.98 
 
 -.49 
 -.49 
 -.24 
 .24 
 1.67 
 3.29 
 4.41 
 4.85 
 5.29 
 5.70 
 
 percent 
 -.61 
 .36 - 
 -.12 
 .36 
 1.90 2 
 3.83 3 
 4.24 4 
 4.50 4 
 5.37 4 
 5.69 5 
 
 .12 
 .12 
 .12 
 ,85 
 .15 
 ,64 
 09 
 ,76 
 98 
 .75 
 
 .48 
 .36 
 .24 
 .84 
 2.02 
 2.94 
 4.52 
 4.74 
 5.07 
 5.61 
 
 -.12 
 -.12 
 -.12 
 .24 
 1.19 
 2.59 
 3.50 
 3.94 
 4.39 
 4.94 
 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 5 
 6 
 
 .24 
 .12 
 .24 
 .56 
 .84 
 .29 
 .75 
 .97 
 .08 
 .48 
 
 
 
 Feb 
 
 
 Mar 
 
 1 
 
 Apr. . . . 
 
 . . 3 
 
 May 
 
 5 
 
 June. . 
 
 7 
 
 July 
 
 7 
 
 Aug 
 
 7 
 
 Sept. . 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 average percent of dry matter content 
 of corn shipped during Oct. and Nov. 
 
 Calculated as follows: 100 percent The percent of dry 
 
 average percent of dry matter content 
 
 of corn shipped during each month. 
 
 matter content was determined by subtracting the average moisture content shown in Table 2 from 
 100 percent. 
 
 Since moisture loss may or may not be a cost of storage, the term 
 "net shrinkage allowance" (NSA) has been applied to the positive 
 or negative cost resulting from moisture loss. When NSA is positive, 
 shrinkage is a negative cost, or a credit to the storage operation. When 
 NSA is negative, shrinkage due to moisture loss is an actual cost of 
 storage. Maximum accumulated NSA represents the maximum gain 
 from natural drying. 
 
 1 The discount schedule used in this report is the same, except where other- 
 wise indicated, as that used by the Illinois grain trade in 1958-59: 1 cent for each 
 0.5 percent or fraction thereof above 15.5 percent moisture. 
 
16 BULLETIN No. 653 [February, 
 
 Table 5. Average Accumulated Net Shrinkage Allowance on Corn 
 Shipped From Eight Selected Locations in Illinois" 
 
 From Oct.- Earl- 
 Nov. until ville 
 
 Peo- 
 tone 
 
 Fisher 
 
 El 
 Paso 
 
 Swan 
 Creek 
 
 Palmer 
 
 Dorans 
 
 West 
 Salem 
 
 Dec 
 
 .... 1 
 
 .20 
 .54 
 .31 
 .51 
 .38 
 .11 
 .69 
 .37 
 .05 
 .94 
 
 -!oi b 
 
 .64 
 1.49 
 3.34 
 4.68 
 3.60 
 2.44 
 2.23 
 2.02 
 
 .47 
 .47 
 .23 
 .77 
 1.36 
 1.71 
 .59 
 .15 
 -.29 b 
 -.70" 
 
 cents per bushel 
 -.42 b .lib 
 .65 -.89 b 
 .12 -.lib 
 .65 .18 
 1.12 .89 
 .17 1.36 
 - .24 b .91 
 -.50 b .24 
 -1.37 b .02 
 -1.69 b -.75 b 
 
 .54 
 1.11 
 .77 
 1.19 
 2.00 
 2.06 
 .48 
 .26 
 -.07 b 
 -.61b 
 
 .12 
 .12 
 .12 
 .77 
 .83 
 1.41 
 .50 
 .06 
 -.39 b 
 _ 94b 
 
 -.23> 
 
 -!23 b 
 1.47 
 2.16 
 1.71 
 1.25 
 1.03 
 - .08 b 
 -1.48 b 
 
 
 
 Feb 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 Apr 
 
 3 
 
 May 
 
 4 
 
 June 
 
 2 
 
 July 
 
 2 
 
 
 . . 2 
 
 Sept 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 a Net shrinkage allowance was computed with the formula: NSA= PtQt PbQb. 
 
 NSA = Net shrinkage allowance from the beginning of storage (October-November) until the 
 middle of a subsequent month. 
 
 Pt = Price at the termination of storage. This price is equal to the base price of 1.00 per bushel 
 (assumed for all locations for No. 2 yellow corn during October and November) minus the discount for 
 corn moisture content at the termination of storage. The discount schedule used was 1 cent for each 
 0.5 percent or fraction thereof above 15.5 percent moisture. The average moisture contents given 
 in Table 2 were used for calculating moisture discounts. 
 
 Qt = Quantity of corn at the termination of storage. This quantity is equal to 100 percent minus 
 the percent loss in weight (Table 4) times 1 bushel. 
 
 Pb = Price at the beginning of storage. This price is equal 'to the base price of 1.00 per bushel 
 minus the discount for corn moisture content at the beginning of storage (October-November average, 
 Table 2). 
 
 Qb = One bushel of corn at the beginning of storage. 
 
 Example of computation of NSA for May at Peotone: 
 
 Pt = 3l.OO. Since the moisture content is 15.3 percent (Table 2) there is no discount. 
 
 Qt = 100 percent-7.32 percent (Table 4)X1 bushel = .9268X1.0 = .9268 bushel. 
 
 Pb = $1.00 $.12 discount (based on October-November average moisture content of 21.5 percent 
 [Table 2]) = 3.88. 
 
 Qb=l bushel. 
 
 NSA = (?1 .00 X .9268) - (.88 X 1 ) = 3.0468. 
 
 b Negative amounts indicate either that moisture content had increased from the previous month 
 or that the moisture discount was no lower, even though some shrinkage had occurred. 
 
 NSA at the selected locations. At six of the locations, accumulated 
 NSA is highest in May (Table 5). (At the other two, maximum gain 
 occurs in April.) The pattern of corn moisture losses is the main 
 reason why maximum gain from natural drying generally occurs in 
 May; average moisture content for the period studied drops below 15.5 
 percent by May at all locations (Table 1), and since discounts end 
 when a moisture content of 15.5 percent is reached and benefits no 
 longer accrue due to a decrease in discounts, any shrinkage below 
 15.5 percent becomes a direct cost of storage. 
 
 Regardless of the price of corn on which NSA is based, maximum 
 gain from natural drying at the six locations would occur in May as 
 long as the discount schedule bore the same relation to the base price. 1 
 If the base price were lower and the discount schedule remained the 
 same, an even greater gain would be realized from allowing corn to 
 dry down to 15.5 percent moisture, since the discount would represent 
 a larger percent of the corn's value. If the base price were higher and 
 the discount schedule remained the same, a smaller gain than that 
 
 1 In this report, the assumed base price is $1.00. 
 
1960] EFFECTS OF MOISTURE LOSSES ON COSTS OF STORING EAR CORN 17 
 
 Table 6. Net Shrinkage Cost of Storing. Ear Corn After It Has Dried 
 Below 15.5 Percent Moisture at Eight Selected Locations in Illinois" 
 
 Month 
 
 Earl- 
 ville 
 
 Peo- 
 tone 
 
 Fisher 
 
 El 
 Paso 
 
 Swan 
 Creek 
 
 Palmer 
 
 Dorans 
 
 West 
 Salem 
 
 Apr 
 
 1 
 
 .45 
 .87 
 .19 
 .51 
 .62 
 
 !26 
 1.30 
 2.46 
 2.67 
 2.88 
 
 -1 
 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 
 .80 
 .92 
 .36 
 .80 
 .21 
 
 cents per bushel 
 
 l'.76 '.6& 
 2.17 1.13 
 2.43 1.80 
 3.30 2.02 
 3.62 2.79 
 
 !45 
 2.03 
 2.25 
 2.58 
 3.12 
 
 '.58 
 1.49 
 1.93 
 2.38 
 2.93 
 
 .18 
 .63 
 1.09 
 1.31 
 2.42 
 3.82 
 
 May. . 
 
 
 June 
 
 1 
 
 July 
 
 2 
 
 Aug 
 
 2 
 
 Sept 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 Net shrinkage cost was computed from a moisture content of 15.5 percent rather than from 
 moisture content at harvest. The average moisture contents given in Table 2 were used in calculating 
 the net shrinkage cost. A base price of #1.00 was used in the calculation. 
 
 b Negative costs are gains. 
 
 shown in Table 5 would be obtained from natural drying, since the 
 discount would represent a smaller percent of the corn's value. 
 
 A given moisture discount is equal to a larger percent of the value 
 of high-moisture corn than of low-moisture corn; hence NSA is higher 
 for high-moisture corn. At Earlville and Peotone, the two locations 
 having highest-moisture corn at harvest, NSA by May is 4.11 and 
 4.68 cents a bushel, respectively (Table 5). At the other locations, 
 NSA by May ranges from 0.17 to 2.06 cents a bushel. 
 
 After May at six of the locations (and after April at the other 
 two) NSA steadily declines (Table 5). The decrease in NSA be- 
 tween two periods is a cost of storage due to shrinkage. The costs of 
 shrinkage (i.e. the decrease in NSA) after the maximum gain from 
 natural drying has been reached are given in Table 6. The price rise 
 necessary to cover the costs of shrinkage from April to September can 
 be estimated from this table. 
 
 Variable costs 
 
 Variable costs are those costs that could be avoided if the grain 
 were not stored; such costs are often referred to as "out-of-pocket" 
 costs. The relative importance of different items comprising variable 
 storage costs is shown in Table 7, where two levels of assumed cost 
 rates are totaled for each month after harvest. Changes in the price 
 of corn and in the cost rates for items shown in Table 7 will result 
 in different total variable costs. Each farmer considering storage must 
 determine the costs that apply in his particular situation. 
 
 Normal variable costs shown in Table 7 represent costs that are 
 typical for many farms in Illinois. A cost of about 4 cents a bushel 
 is incurred the first month that corn is held on a farm. Over three- 
 fourths of this cost is due to the extra labor, equipment, and hauling 
 
18 
 
 BULLETIN No. 653 
 
 [February, 
 
 o 
 O 
 
 u 
 co 
 W 
 bJO 
 
 CO ^ 
 
 MH <7l 
 
 O H 
 U 
 
 3 1 
 
 to ^5 
 
 '< 
 > 
 
 I" 
 ^g 
 
 T3 43 
 C 00 
 CO ^_, 
 
 13 4i 
 S 2 
 
 *-H bA 
 
 o c 
 
 ^ -S 
 
 T3 ,5 
 4) O 
 
 M 
 
 S 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 RJ 
 
 H 
 
 3 C 
 
 a8 
 
 c e 
 
 ,-5 
 
 o 
 
 ^^ 
 
 -oooooo 
 
 42 
 
 1-1 T-I >rt TH CS CS 
 
 ^-H ^-l ^-l v-l CS CS C-l 
 
 o o o o o o o o o 
 
 *| -go| 
 
 Jl ill 
 
 O "> V-T3~C > 
 
 
 lo-gca 
 
 SS 
 
 w'OO-'-'C "tngrtd. 
 O CS O S S O ' O o 
 
 OCOH fc <H M^-U 
 
1960] EFFECTS OF MOISTURE LOSSES ON COSTS OF STORING EAR CORN 19 
 
 involved in putting the corn into cribs and then removing it instead 
 of moving it directly from the field to the country grain firm. The 
 actual cash cost would be less if unpaid labor were used in moving 
 the corn. On some farms it is not possible to have the corn shelled in the 
 field or at the country grain firm at harvest-time; on these farms the 
 cost of moving the corn can be considered a cost of production rather 
 than of storage. 
 
 After the first month, variable costs of nearly 1 cent a bushel 
 accrue each month the corn is held. Because of the tax assessment of 
 grain on hand on April 1, the increase from March to April averages 
 2.5 cents. 
 
 Low variable costs. Some Illinois farmers have considerably lower 
 costs for certain items than those represented as normal in Table 7. 
 With the assumed low variable-cost rates (Table 7), a total cost of 
 about 1.5 cents a bushel occurs the first month. Variable costs accrue 
 each month thereafter at the rate of nearly 0.5 cent a bushel, except 
 for a 1.5-cent increase from March to April. 
 
 Effect of NSA on variable costs 
 
 Net shrinkage allowance may properly be considered when deter- 
 mining total variable costs, since it is a cost that would not occur if 
 the corn were not stored. Table 8 shows normal variable costs when 
 NSA is included for the eight areas in this study. The difference 
 between variable costs when NSA is included and when it is excluded 
 is illustrated for one area in Fig. 6. In Fig. 6, variable costs including 
 NSA have the following relation to variable costs excluding NSA: 
 
 December to February nearly constant amount below. 
 February to May progressively greater amount below. 
 May to July progressively smaller amount below. 
 July to September progressively greater amount above. 
 
 Table 8. Accumulated Normal Variable Costs of Storing Ear Corn, 
 Including Net Shrinkage Allowance, at Eight Selected Locations 
 
 in Illinois" 
 
 From Nov. 
 until 
 
 Earl- 
 ville 
 
 Peo- 
 tone 
 
 Fisher 
 
 El 
 Paso 
 
 Swan 
 Creek 
 
 Palmer 
 
 Dorans 
 
 West 
 Salem 
 
 Dec.. . 
 
 . 2.79 
 
 4.00 
 4.91 
 5.16 
 5.14 
 5.83 
 5.38 
 7.28 
 9.31 
 10.40 
 11.46 
 
 3.52 
 4.43 
 5.57 
 5.86 
 7.81 
 8.35 
 10.29 
 11.60 
 12.92 
 14.18 
 
 cents per bushel 
 4.41 4.10 
 4.25 5.79 
 5.68 5.91 
 5.98 6.45 
 8.05 8.28 
 9.89 8.70 
 11.12 9.97 
 12.25 11.51 
 14.00 12.61 
 15.17 14.23 
 
 3.45 
 3.79 
 5.03 
 5.44 
 7.17 
 8.00 
 10.40 
 11.49 
 12.70 
 14.09 
 
 3.87 
 4.78 
 5.68 
 5.86 
 8.34 
 8.65 
 10.38 
 11.69 
 13.02 
 14.42 
 
 4.22 
 5.01 
 6.03 
 5.16 
 7.01 
 8.35 
 9.63 
 10.72 
 12.71 
 14.96 
 
 Jan. 
 
 .. 4.36 
 
 Feb 
 
 .. 4.49 
 
 Mar 
 
 .. 5.12 
 
 Apr 
 
 . . 5 . 79 
 
 May 
 
 .. 5.95 
 
 June 
 
 .. 8.19 
 
 July 
 
 .. 9.38 
 
 Aug 
 
 .. 10.58 
 
 Sept 
 
 .. 11.54 
 
 
 
 Based on data in Tables 5 and 7. 
 
20 BULLETIN No. 653 [February, 
 
 VARIABLE COSTS OF STORING EAR CORN (FROM NOVEMBER) 
 
 16 
 14 
 
 12 
 
 m 
 
 K 8 
 tf 
 
 UJ 
 
 o 
 4 
 
 I I I I I I I I 
 
 DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT 
 
 Variable costs increase steadily with time. The greatest reduction in variable 
 costs due to net shrinkage allowance (NSA) usually occurs in May. Data 
 shown are for the Fisher area. (Fig- 6) 
 
 By May, normal variable costs including NSA range from 5.38 
 cents a bushel at Peotone to 9.89 cents a bushel at El Paso, compared 
 with 10.06 cents a bushel before accounting for NSA. 
 
 Fixed costs 
 
 The fixed costs of storing ear corn include interest, depreciation, 
 maintenance reserves, taxes, and insurance on the storage facilities. 
 Only taxes and insurance are cash costs that must be paid each year. 
 Maintenance reserves are estimated to allow for repairs that eventually 
 must be made. Only when the cost value has been completely de- 
 preciated can a property owner ignore interest and depreciation as 
 cost items (these two are usually the highest items in fixed costs). 
 
 Once a storage facility is provided, fixed costs accrue even though 
 the facility is not put to use, and they are the same each crop year 
 regardless of the length of time corn is left in storage. The per-bushel 
 cost of providing storage space naturally increases as the percentage 
 of space used decreases. 
 
 The effect of size and type of storage facility on annual per-bushel 
 costs is illustrated in Table 9. With the cost rates assumed, the wooden 
 crib has the highest costs and the metal bar-mesh crib the lowest. 
 
1960] EFFECTS OF MOISTURE LOSSES ON COSTS OF STORING EAR CORN 
 
 2\ 
 
 Individual farmers provide for storage in a variety of ways. Some 
 farmers insist that automatic unloading devices, which save time in 
 emptying the crib, be provided when a new crib is built. Such devices 
 cannot be installed with equal ease in every facility; they may therefore 
 
 Table 9. Estimated Construction Costs and Annual Fixed Costs 
 of Providing Storage Space for Ear Corn, 1959 
 
 Capacity of storage facility, bushels 
 
 700 
 
 1,400 
 
 2,100 
 
 4,200 
 
 Construction cost, total 
 
 Wooden crib* $665 #1,190 $1,785 $3,570 
 
 Metal bar-mesh crib b 399 644 819 1,638 
 
 Snow fence 126 252 378 756 
 
 Construction cost per bushel 
 
 Wooden crib .95 .85 .85 .85 
 
 Metal bar-mesh crib .57 .46 .39 .39 
 
 Snow fence .18 .18 .18 .18 
 
 Annual cost, per bushel d cents cents cents cents 
 
 Wooden crib 
 
 Depreciation 3.17 2.83 
 
 Interest f 2 . 95 2 . 63 
 
 Taxes* 1.42 1.28 
 
 Insurance 11 80 .71 
 
 Total 8.34 7.45 
 
 Metal bar-mesh crib 
 
 Depreciation 8 2.85 2.30 1.95 1.95 
 
 Interest' 1.80 1.45 1.40 1.40 
 
 Taxes* 86 .69 .58 .58 
 
 Insurance 11 16 .13 .11 .11 
 
 Total 5.67 4.57 4.04 4.04 
 
 Snow fence 
 
 Depreciation 6 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 
 
 Interest' 65 .65 .65 .65 
 
 Taxes* 27 .27 .27 .27 
 
 Insurance 11 15 .15 .15 .15 
 
 Erection' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 
 
 Total.. 5.67 5.67 5.67 5.67 
 
 2.83 
 
 2.63 
 
 1.28 
 
 .71 
 
 7.45 
 
 2.83 
 
 2.63 
 
 1.28 
 
 .71 
 
 7.45 
 
 * Wooden crib is assumed to have concrete pier foundation. A single crib is assumed 
 for 700- and 1,400-bushel sizes, a double crib for 2,100-bushel size, and two double cribs for 
 4.200-bushel size. (Additional cost of providing a driveway for double cribs assumed to be 
 charged against machinery storage, and additional cost of providing a bin between double 
 cribs assumed to be charged against small-grain storage.) 
 
 b Metal bar-mesh crib is assumed to have a concrete foundation. One crib is assumed 
 for 700-, 1,400-, and 2,100-bushel sizes, and two cribs for 4,200-bushel size. 
 
 c Including polyethylene cover and wooden platform. 
 
 d Assuming that facility is used to capacity. 
 
 e Depreciable life is estimated at 30 years for wooden crib, 20 years for bar-mesh crib, 
 and 5 years for snow fence. Although these facilities might have a longer life, no maintenance 
 charges which would extend usable life were included. An amount below total possible life is 
 also justified to account for possible obsolescence. 
 
 * Based on an assumed rate of 6 percent per year on average undepreciated value. 
 
 s Based on an assumed assessment rate of 3 percent, with assessed value assumed to be 
 50 percent of cost. 
 
 h Based on assumed rates of 84 cents per $100 valuation for wooden crib for fire and 
 extended coverage, 28 cents per $100 valuation for metal crib for wind and tornado insurance, 
 and 84 cents per $100 valuation for snow fence (even though not insured) as a risk cost. 
 
 1 It is assumed that snow fence would have to be erected each year. 
 
22 BULLETIN No. 653 [February, 
 
 determine the type of facility that is provided. Some farmers who 
 store corn for a short time in a temporary facility such as a snow fence 
 provide neither a platform nor a cover and thereby reduce their fixed 
 costs significantly. The platform and cover for the snow fence in 
 Table 9 comprise 14 cents of the 18-cent-a-bushel construction cost, 
 and approximately 4 cents of the total annual cost of 5.67 cents a 
 bushel. On some farms, this 4-cent annual cost for platform and cover 
 may exceed the per-bushel value of the additional loss of corn that 
 would occur if these two items were not provided. 
 
 On a farm where an existing facility is completely depreciated, the 
 cost of providing a place to hold corn might involve no expense other 
 than taxes, and could be less than 1 cent a bushel. In another situation 
 a new facility used to only 60 percent of its capacity could involve 
 annual costs exceeding 14 cents a bushel. Thus, in practice, fixed costs 
 will vary even more from farm to farm than variable costs. 
 
 RETURNS FROM STORED EAR CORN COMPARED 
 WITH STORAGE COSTS 
 
 Corn prices usually increase during the crop year while corn is held 
 in storage. Farmers who place ear corn in storage hope that the price 
 rise will cover their storage costs. A comparison of the storage costs 
 estimated in this report with computed gross returns (based on actual 
 price changes of corn in recent years) indicates the profitability of 
 storing ear corn. 
 
 Within the crop year 
 
 If the seasonal price index shown in Table 10 is converted to 
 dollars per bushel, using an assumed price at harvest (Oct.-Nov.) of 
 $1.00 a bushel for No. 2 corn at country points, the accumulated 
 monthly increase in price of corn from harvest to September is as 
 follows: 
 
 Accumulated Accumulated 
 
 From Oct.-Nov. increase (cents From Oct.-Nov. increase (cents 
 
 until per bushel) until per bushel) 
 
 Dec. 6.2 May 9.5 
 
 Jan. 6.2 June 9.8 
 
 Feb. 3.2 July 11.5 
 
 Mar. 5.2 Aug. 8.9 
 
 Apr. 8.1 Sept. 8.5 
 
 Relation to NSA. The above increases in price do not reflect net 
 shrinkage allowance; that is, the value of moisture loss of corn held 
 in storage in relation to moisture discounts prevailing at harvest and 
 
1960] EFFECTS OF MOISTURE LOSSES ON COSTS OF STORING EAR CORN 
 
 
 W) 
 
 o 
 
 bJD 
 rt 
 
 43 
 o 
 
 o 
 U 
 
 00 . \O 00 t^ <*" O 00 00 ts 
 l "5 ^i 80 ift ^I* 10 
 
 CN CS H i-l H 
 
 -HC-4O< 
 ) *O ^ fO v 
 
 00 O 00 W5 CO"/) 00 t- ' 
 
 Cl ' 
 ? .^ t 
 
 ^E-< Q 
 
 rt-oS 
 
 o > 
 |S5| 
 
24 BULLETIN No. 653 [February, 
 
 Table 11. Average Gross Returns From Storing Ear Corn 
 at Eight Selected Locations in Illinois* 
 
 From Oct.- Earl- 
 Nov. until ville 
 
 Peo- 
 tone 
 
 Fisher 
 
 El 
 Paso 
 
 Swan 
 Creek 
 
 Palmer 
 
 Dorans 
 
 West 
 Salem 
 
 Dec 
 
 . 7, 
 
 42 
 78 
 ,58 
 64 
 27 
 12 
 86 
 99 
 27 
 76 
 
 6.18 
 6.18 
 3.88 
 6.56 
 11.14 
 13.55 
 12.66 
 12.84 
 10.29 
 9.68 
 
 6 
 6 
 3 
 5 
 9 
 10 
 10 
 11 
 8 
 7 
 
 ,77 
 .77 
 .53 
 .97 
 ,42 
 ,97 
 .04 
 .09 
 .17 
 .32 
 
 cents per bushel 
 5.89 6.15 
 6.90 5.39 
 3.41 3.17 
 5.84 5.35 
 9.15 8.91 
 9.37 10.58 
 9.23 10.40 
 10.48 11.19 
 7.08 8.51 
 6.34 7.27 
 
 6.78 
 7.28 
 4.05 
 6.35 
 10.02 
 11.35 
 9.92 
 11.21 
 8.41 
 7.42 
 
 6 
 6 
 3 
 5, 
 8, 
 10 
 10 
 11 
 8 
 7 
 
 39 
 39 
 ,41 
 96 
 93 
 73 
 ,04 
 .11 
 .15 
 .15 
 
 6.03 
 6.15 
 3.05 
 6.60 
 10.12 
 10.97 
 10.77 
 12.07 
 8.40 
 6.48 
 
 
 ... 6, 
 
 Feb. 
 
 4 
 
 Mar 
 
 6 
 
 
 . ... 11 
 
 
 13, 
 
 June 
 
 11, 
 
 July 
 
 . ... 12, 
 
 
 10 
 
 Sept 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 Gross returns were computed with the formula: GR = PQt VCt>. 
 
 GR = Gross returns from the beginning of storage (October-November) until the middle of a 
 subsequent month. 
 
 P = Average yearly price multiplied by seasonal index at the termination of storage minus the 
 discount for corn moisture content at the termination of storage. The average yearly price of corn was 
 obtained by dividing the assumed base price of 21.00 per bushel for No. 2 yellow corn by the seasonal 
 price index for the harvest period (average of October and November indexes = 94 [Table 10]) and 
 
 Si 00 
 multiplying by 100. (^-57- X 100 = 51.0638.) The discount schedule used was 1 cent for each 0.5 
 
 percent or fraction thereof above 15.5 percent moisture. The average moisture contents given in 
 Table 2 were used for calculating moisture discounts. 
 
 Qt = Quantity of corn at the termination of storage. This quantity is equal to 100 percent minus 
 the percent loss in weight (Table 4) times 1 bushel. 
 
 VCb = Value of corn at the beginning of storage. This value is equal to the base price of 21.00 per 
 bushel minus the discount for the moisture content of corn at the beginning of storage (October-Nov- 
 ember average, Table 2). 
 
 Example of computation of gross returns for May at Peotone: 
 
 P = 2l.0638X103 percent (Table 10) =21.0957. Since the moisture content is 15.3 percent (Table 
 2) there is no discount. 
 
 Qt = 100 percent-7.32 percent (Table 4)X1 bushel = .9268X1.0 = .9268 bushel. 
 
 VCb = 21.00 .12 discount (based on October-November average moisture content of 21.5 per- 
 cent [Table 2]) =2.88. 
 
 GR = (21. 0957 X. 9268) -2.8800 = 2.1355. 
 
 at the time of sale. Since these differ among locations, the gross 
 returns from storing corn will likewise differ. Table 11 shows the 
 differences in monthly gross returns among locations when NSA is 
 taken into account. 1 
 
 Gross returns average highest in May at three locations and in 
 July at the five other locations; they average lowest in February at 
 all locations. Gross returns at either Earlville or Peotone exceed those 
 at all other locations in all but one month (January) of the crop year; 
 the higher gross returns at these two northern locations is due, of 
 course, to the higher NSA in these two areas. 
 
 Relation to variable-cost levels. The amount remaining after 
 
 1 The gross returns shown in Table 11 are for corn sold on the open mar- 
 ket. Farmers storing corn under CCC price guarantees have realized greater 
 returns than farmers storing open-market corn (because of lower interest costs, 
 premiums for corn meeting certain specified standards, and the fact that the 
 loan price has usually been higher than the market price). The availability of 
 storage programs and the disposal policies with respect to CCC grain holdings 
 are additional factors (not covered in this study) which farmers must consider 
 when deciding whether to store corn. 
 
1960] EFFECTS OF MOISTURE LOSSES ON COSTS OF STORING EAR CORN 25 
 
 variable costs are deducted from gross returns represents the amount 
 available to provide storage space (that is, to cover fixed costs). 
 
 Assuming normal variable costs, in three months (February, 
 August, and September) gross returns are less than variable costs at 
 all locations (Table 12). In March normal variable costs are covered 
 at only one point (Peotone) and in June and July they are covered at 
 only the two northern locations (Peotone and Earlville). 
 
 The maximum amount available for fixed costs during the storage 
 period at any of the eight locations is less than 4 cents a bushel. At 
 six locations, this maximum is reached in December; at one location 
 it is reached in January; and at one location, in May. 
 
 If low variable costs are assumed, gross returns cover variable 
 costs in all months at all locations (Table 12). An amount greater than 
 8 cents a bushel is available for fixed costs at only the two northern 
 points in only one month (May). Less than 4 cents a bushel is avail- 
 able at all locations in three months (February, March, and Septem- 
 ber) and at six locations in August. The maximum amount available 
 for storage space is less than 7 cents a bushel at the six locations 
 outside northern Illinois; the maximum is reached in May at six points, 
 and in April and July at two other points. 
 
 Table 12. Amount Available to Pay for Storage Space after Variable 
 
 Costs are Deducted from Gross Returns at Eight Selected 
 
 Locations in Illinois* 
 
 From Oct.-Nov. Earl- Peo- FUhpr E1 Swan Palmpr r>nran<i West 
 
 until ville tone Paso Creek Salem 
 
 When variable costs are normal" 
 
 cents per bushel 
 
 Dec 
 
 3 
 
 ,43 
 
 2 
 
 19 
 
 2.78 
 
 1.90 
 
 2.16 
 
 2, 
 
 79 
 
 2.40 
 
 2.04 
 
 Jan 
 
 1 
 
 89 
 
 1 
 
 ,28 
 
 1.87 
 
 2.00 
 
 .49 
 
 2, 
 
 38 
 
 1.49 
 
 1.25 
 
 Feb 
 
 -1 
 
 ,22 
 
 -1 
 
 ,92 
 
 -2.27 
 
 -2.39 
 
 -2.63 
 
 -1 
 
 75 
 
 -2.39 
 
 -2.75 
 
 Mar 
 
 
 ,01 
 
 
 
 ,07 
 
 -.66 
 
 -.79 
 
 -1.28 
 
 . 
 
 28 
 
 -.67 
 
 -.03 
 
 Apr 
 
 2 
 
 10 
 
 1 
 
 .97 
 
 .25 
 
 -.02 
 
 -.26 
 
 
 85 
 
 -.24 
 
 .95 
 
 May 
 
 3 
 
 06 
 
 3 
 
 .49 
 
 .91 
 
 -.69 
 
 .52 
 
 1 
 
 29 
 
 .67 
 
 .91 
 
 June 
 
 
 ,98 
 
 1 
 
 .78 
 
 -.84 
 
 -1.65 
 
 -.48 
 
 , 
 
 96 
 
 -.84 
 
 -.11 
 
 July 
 
 1 
 
 .24 
 
 1 
 
 .09 
 
 -.66 
 
 -1.27 
 
 -.56 
 
 , 
 
 ,54 
 
 -.64 
 
 .32 
 
 Aug 
 
 -2 
 
 .36 
 
 -2 
 
 .34 
 
 -4.46 
 
 -5.55 
 
 -4.12 
 
 -4 
 
 .22 
 
 -4.48 
 
 -4.23 
 
 Sept 
 
 -3 
 
 .72 
 
 -3 
 
 .80 
 
 -6.16 
 
 -7.14 
 
 -6.21 
 
 -6 
 
 ,06 
 
 -6.33 
 
 -7.00 
 
 When variable costs are low b 
 
 Dec 
 
 5.96 
 
 4.72 
 
 5.31 
 
 4.43 
 
 4.69 
 
 5.32 
 
 4.93 
 
 4.57 
 
 Jan. 
 
 4.84 
 
 4.24 
 
 4.83 
 
 4.96 
 
 3.45 
 
 5.34 
 
 4.45 
 
 4.21 
 
 Feb 
 
 2.17 
 
 1.47 
 
 1.12 
 
 1.00 
 
 .76 
 
 1.64 
 
 1.00 
 
 .64 
 
 Mar 
 
 3.83 
 
 3.75 
 
 3.16 
 
 3.03 
 
 2.54 
 
 3.54 
 
 3.15 
 
 3.79 
 
 Apr 
 
 6.90 
 
 6.77 
 
 5.05 
 
 4.78 
 
 4.54 
 
 5.65 
 
 4.56 
 
 5.75 
 
 May 
 
 8.29 
 
 8.72 
 
 6.14 
 
 4.54 
 
 5.75 
 
 6.52 
 
 5.90 
 
 6.14 
 
 June 
 
 6.64 
 
 7.44 
 
 4.82 
 
 4.01 
 
 5.18 
 
 4.70 
 
 4.82 
 
 5.55 
 
 July... 
 
 7.33 
 
 7.18 
 
 5.43 
 
 4.82 
 
 5.53 
 
 5.55 
 
 5.45 
 
 6.41 
 
 Aug 
 
 4.16 
 
 4.18 
 
 2.06 
 
 .97 
 
 2.40 
 
 2.30 
 
 2.04 
 
 2.29 
 
 Sept 
 
 3 . 65 
 
 3.57 
 
 1.21 
 
 .23 
 
 .16 
 
 1.31 
 
 1.04 
 
 .37 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 See Table 1 1 for gross returns. 
 b See Table 7 for variable costs. 
 
26 BULLETIN No. 653 [February, 
 
 Among crop years 
 
 Price changes and gross returns during the crop year vary from 
 year to year. To illustrate the variations among crop years, gross 
 returns from harvest (Oct.-Nov.) to May at Fisher were estimated 
 for each year during the ten crop years 1946-47 through 1955-56. The 
 gross returns were derived from actual prices of No. 3 yellow corn at 
 Chicago (Table 10), taking into account corn moisture content each 
 year at Fisher (Table 2) and the prevailing moisture discounts. 1 The 
 price changes and gross returns by May at Fisher were as follows: 
 
 Price Gross 
 
 Year change returns 
 
 (cents per bushel) 
 
 1946-47 17.5 22.7 
 
 1947-48 -10.0 -4.5 
 
 1948-49 -6.5 -1.2 
 
 1949-50 32.5 30.9 
 
 1950-51 22.0 22.0 
 
 1951-52 3.5 6.1 
 
 1952-53 1.5 .4 
 
 1953-54 12.5 13.7 
 
 1954-55 -3.0 -4.5 
 
 1955-56 34.0 32.2 
 
 Relation to NSA. Yearly differences in corn moisture content at 
 harvest, moisture loss during storage, and prevailing moisture dis- 
 counts result in differences in NSA, which in turn affect gross returns. 
 As shown in the price changes and gross returns listed above, in some 
 years NSA caused gross returns to exceed the price change, while in 
 other years the effect of NSA was to make gross returns less than the 
 price change. 
 
 Relation to variable-cost levels. Assuming normal variable costs 
 of 10.1 cents a bushel and low variable costs of 4.8 cents a bushel by 
 May (Table 7), 2 gross returns at Fisher exceeded normal variable 
 costs in 5 of the 10 years and exceeded low variable costs in 6 of the 
 
 10 years. In 2 years gross returns exceeded both normal and low 
 variable costs by more than 20 cents and in 2 other years by more than 
 
 11 cents. 
 
 The average amount by which gross returns exceeded variable costs 
 (that is, the amount available to provide storage space) in this period 
 
 1 Obtained from grain dealers in Champaign. 
 
 3 Variable costs actually would change slightly from year to year and, under 
 the assumed costs rates, would generally be higher than those assumed in this 
 study, because the price of corn during the years covered by this study was at 
 a higher level than that used in estimating costs. 
 
1960] EFFECTS OF MOISTURE LOSSES ON COSTS OF STORING EAR CORN 27 
 
 was 1.7 and 7.0 cents a bushel, with normal and low costs, respec- 
 tively. If grain had been held beyond May every year, an even smaller 
 amount would have been available to provide for storage space. 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 The purpose of this study was to secure and analyze data relating 
 to the moisture losses of corn stored in different areas of Illinois and 
 to determine the effects of such losses on storage costs. Data on mois- 
 ture content were secured from official inspection certificates of corn 
 shipments made by eight elevator firms in important corn-producing 
 areas of Illinois. Moisture data on corn shipments at the selected ele- 
 vators were assumed to be representative of the moisture content of 
 corn on farms in the area. 
 
 Average moisture content of corn shipped from the eight locations 
 during October in the period 1947 through 1955 exceeded 20.6 percent 
 at the two northern locations; at the six other locations the moisture 
 content ranged from 17.3 to 17.9 percent. By May the moisture con- 
 tent at all locations averaged less than 15.5 percent and the difference 
 among locations was 1.1 percent or less. 
 
 Average corn moisture content was lower in November than in 
 October and was fairly constant from November to February. Maxi- 
 mum decrease occurred between March and June, with shrinkage 
 continuing throughout the summer. 
 
 Year-to-year variations from the average corn moisture content 
 were generally much greater during October through March than 
 during the following months. 
 
 Weather data covering nine years at one location indicate that 
 high precipitation during the growing season is associated with high- 
 moisture corn, although other factors can offset this relationship. 
 Above-average temperature during the growing season appeared con- 
 ducive to a below-average corn moisture content at harvest. 
 
 During the storage period, decreases in moisture content from the 
 preceding month occurred over 80 percent of the time when the tem- 
 perature was above 37 F. Decreases were not only more common than 
 when temperatures were below 37 F., but they also exceeded half of 
 a percentage point more frequently. 
 
 Correlation analyses of weather data at one location for a fourteen- 
 year period showed that corn with higher moisture content during 
 November through January ("wet" corn) lost more moisture with 
 each given rise in temperature during the storage period than corn 
 having lower moisture content during November through January 
 
28 BULLETIN No. 653 [February, 
 
 ("dry" corn). A change in relative humidity during the storage period 
 had more of an effect on moisture content of "dry" corn than on 
 moisture content of "wet" corn. 
 
 Among the eight locations, weight loss of corn due to a decrease 
 in moisture content ranged from 2.6 to 7.3 percent from harvest to 
 May and from 4.9 to 10.0 percent from harvest to September. 
 
 The term "net shrinkage allowance" (NSA) was applied to the 
 amount by which the value of the decrease in moisture discount 
 exceeded the value of the weight loss in a given quantity of corn 
 over a given period of time. As such, NSA may be either a cost or a 
 credit to the storage operation. 
 
 Accumulated NSA was greater in May than in any other month 
 at six locations and in April at the other two; by these dates the corn 
 moisture content had dropped below 15.5 percent, the percentage at 
 which moisture discounts end and weight loss adds directly to the 
 cost of storage. Among locations, maximum accumulated NSA ranged 
 from 1.1 to 4.7 cents a bushel; the locations having the highest- 
 moisture corn at harvest had the highest net shrinkage allowances. 
 
 The average cost of shrinkage of corn due to moisture loss after a 
 given lot reached 15.5 percent moisture ranged from 1.3 to 2.5 cents 
 a bushel by the middle of July and from 2.6 to 3.8 cents by the middle 
 of September at the eight locations. 
 
 Variable costs of storing corn are those costs that could be avoided 
 if corn were not stored. Such costs vary among farms, but estimates 
 typical for many farms showed that they approximate 4 cents a bushel 
 when corn is held only one month and accrue thereafter at the rate of 
 about 1 cent a bushel each month (except in April, when, because of 
 the annual tax assessment, the increase in 2.5 cents). Farmers with 
 low variable costs can anticipate costs of 1.5 cents a bushel the first 
 month and from March to April, and an accrual of nearly 0.5 cent a 
 bushel in each of the other months. 
 
 From harvest until May, normal variable costs including NSA 
 ranged from 5.4 to 9.9 cents a bushel at the eight locations, compared 
 with 10.1 cents a bushel excluding NSA. 
 
 Size and type of storage facility and percent of storage capacity 
 used determine the per-bushel fixed costs of storing ear corn. As 
 illustrated in this report, two farms with different facilities could have 
 annual fixed costs of 1 cent and 14 cents a bushel, respectively. 
 
 Gross returns for the eight locations were estimated on the basis 
 of the average moisture content and seasonal price index prevailing in 
 the period 1947-1956 and on an assumed harvest price of $1.00 a 
 bushel. These estimates showed that gross returns cover assumed low 
 
1960} EFFECTS OF MOISTURE LOSSES ON COSTS OF STORING EAR CORN 29 
 
 variable costs in all months at all locations but fail to cover normal 
 variable costs at any location in three months. If variable costs are 
 deducted from the assumed gross returns, the amount remaining for 
 fixed costs, which pay for storage space, is less than 4 cents a bushel 
 at all locations, assuming normal variable costs; the maximum is 
 reached in December at most of the points. If low variable costs are 
 assumed, the maximum amount remaining for storage space is more 
 than 8 cents a bushel at the two locations with the highest NSA and 
 less than 7 cents a bushel at the other points; at most locations the 
 maximum is reached in May. 
 
 Gross returns by May during the ten crop years 1946-47 through 
 1955-56, computed for one location, varied considerably from year to 
 year because of differences each year in price changes, moisture con- 
 tent at harvest and during storage, and moisture discounts. Gross 
 returns by May exceeded assumed normal variable costs in 5 of the 
 
 10 years and exceeded low variable costs in 6 of the 10 years. In 
 four years the amount available to pay for storage space exceeded 
 
 11 cents. The average amount available for storage space was 1.7 
 cents a bushel with normal variable costs and 7.0 cents a bushel with 
 low variable costs. 
 
 APPLICATION OF FINDINGS 
 
 The greatest gains from storing ear corn will be realized by storing 
 corn that has the highest moisture content possible without going out 
 of condition. Differences among farms in average moisture content of 
 corn at harvest indicate that some farmers have a chance to realize 
 greater gains than others from holding corn. 
 
 If no greater average price rises occur in the future than in the 
 period 1946-1958, farmers who hold ear corn for later sale on the open 
 market can recover the fixed costs of newly constructed storage facili- 
 ties only if they have low variable costs. Assuming no change in cost 
 rates or price rises, normal variable costs on the average could be cov- 
 ered on corn held until May, but gains from storing would be maxi- 
 mized by holding corn only until December; farmers who have held 
 corn beyond May each year have not received an open-market price rise 
 in this period adequate to cover variable costs. 
 
 Even though holding ear corn for later sale on the open market 
 appears to have been unprofitable in recent years, many farmers have 
 continued storage operations because it has given them more alterna- 
 tives in the disposition of their crop (for example, using grain for 
 feed or for government loan or purchase) or because of the oppor- 
 tunity to benefit from occasional sharp price increases. Storage at 
 
30 BULLETIN No. 653 [February, 
 
 harvest-time may also have been more convenient or practical than 
 selling direct from the field. 
 
 Grain storage and sales activities of the federal government and 
 the consequent increase in feed-grain supplies in the 1946-1958 period 
 have affected the price behavior of open-market corn; should these 
 policies and practices be changed, the profitability of storing corn for 
 sale in the open market would likewise change. 
 
 Farmers individually must appraise the expected rate of moisture 
 loss, the price prospects, the opportunities for storing grain for the 
 federal government, and the cost rates that apply in their particular 
 situations when trying to decide on the profitability of storing ear corn. 
 It is hoped that this record of previous moisture content changes at 
 different locations in Illinois over a period of years and their effect on 
 costs will help farmers make this decision. 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 Table 13. Moisture Content of Corn, Average Mean Temperature, 
 
 and Average Relative Humidity at Fisher, Illinois, 
 
 1944-45 through 1957-58 
 
 Crop year 
 
 Portion 
 of crop 
 year* 
 
 Average 
 moisture 
 content 
 of corn 
 
 Average 
 mean 
 temperature 1 " 
 
 Average 
 relative 
 humidity 
 
 Years when moisture content averaged above 18 percent 
 during November through January 
 
 1944.45 
 
 1 
 
 percent 
 19.4 
 
 F. 
 
 percent 
 
 1945-46 
 
 2 
 3 
 
 4 
 5 
 1 
 
 19.6 
 16.2 
 15.0 
 13.9 
 19.1 
 
 35.6 
 53.3 
 66.2 
 71.0 
 
 72 
 62 
 60 
 
 58 
 
 1946-47 
 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 1 
 
 17.4 
 15.0 
 13.0 
 12.6 
 19.2 
 
 38.0 
 55.1 
 68.3 
 70.6 
 
 65 
 59 
 60 
 59 
 
 1947-48 
 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 1 
 
 18.4 
 16.3 
 14.8 
 12.8 
 21.1 
 
 30.1 
 48.0 
 66.6 
 73.7 
 
 63 
 62 
 59 
 
 51 
 
 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 
 19.1 
 16.2 
 13.4 
 13.0 
 
 30.9 
 52.3 
 70.0 
 72.5 
 
 68 
 59 
 
 57 
 57 
 
 a Each crop year is divided into five parts: 1 = November, December, and January; 
 2 = February and March; 3 = April and May; 4 rr June and July; 5 = August and September. 
 ' b Average mean temperature is the average of the two-month period for which it is 
 listed plus the preceding month as reported by the Urbana Weather Station. 
 
 c Average relative humidity is the average of the two-month period for which it is 
 listed plus the preceding month as reported by the Springfield Weather Station. The average 
 relative humidity was the 12:00 noon reading. Springfield was the closest location to Fisher 
 for which midday relative humidity was reported. The Springfield data should closely repre- 
 sent the conditions in the Fisher area, since the same air mass normally covers both areas. 
 Deviations between the two locations would be negligible, especially in a three-month average. 
 
 (Table is concluded on next page) 
 
1960} 
 
 EFFECTS OF MOISTURE LOSSES ON COSTS OF STORING EAR CORN 
 
 31 
 
 Table 13. Concluded 
 
 Crop year 
 
 Portion 
 
 of crop 
 
 year 
 
 Average 
 moisture 
 content 
 of corn 
 
 Average 
 
 mean 
 temperature 
 
 Average 
 relative 
 humidity 
 
 Years when moisture content averaged above 18 percent 
 during November through January 
 
 percent F. percent 
 
 1948-49... 1 19.2 
 
 2 18.1 34.5 68 
 
 3 15.6 52.5 55 
 
 4 13.6 73.1 58 
 
 5 13.1 71.9 58 
 1950-51 1 18.3 
 
 2 18.6 32.4 72 
 
 3 17.0 50.2 60 
 
 4 14.0 69.0 59 
 
 5 13.5 69.6 60 
 1951-52 1 19.2 
 
 2 18.7 34.9 67 
 
 3 16.4 51.3 57 
 
 4 13.5 72.2 53 
 
 5 12.5 72.3 49 
 1957-58 1 20.5 
 
 2 19.4 29.1 63 
 
 3 16.5 50.8 52 
 
 Average 15.57 55.53 60.07 
 
 Standard deviation 2.26 15.72 5.48 
 
 Years when moisture content averaged below 18 percent 
 during November through January 
 
 1949-50... 1 16.1 
 
 2 16.7 33.7 69 
 
 3 15.2 49.1 57 
 
 4 12.8 69.5 56 
 
 5 13.0 69.5 61 
 1952-53 1 16.7 
 
 2 16.6 37.1 66 
 
 3 15.1 51.9 57 
 
 4 13.4 72.5 51 
 
 5 12.1 73.0 43 
 1953-54 1 13.3 
 
 2 14.6 36.1 61 
 
 3 13.9 51.4 53 
 
 4 12.7 71.5 47 
 
 5 11.6 74.7 50 
 1954-55 1 16.9 
 
 2 17.0 33.3 66 
 
 3 14.8 54.7 56 
 
 4 13.8 70.8 57 
 
 5 12.3 75.4 49 
 1955-56 1 16.2 
 
 2 16.7 33.0 63 
 
 3 14.2 51.1 49 
 
 4 13.3 70.1 54 
 
 5 13.4 70.5 51 
 1956-57 1 15.3 
 
 2 15.7 32.5 65 
 
 3 15.4 51.4 60 
 
 4 14.0 70.2 58 
 
 5 13.1 71.9 55 
 
 Average 14.22 57.29 56.42 
 
 Standard deviation 1.53 15.70 6.51 
 
32 BULLETIN No. 653 
 
 Estimating Equations for Analyses of Relation of Corn Moisture 
 Content to Temperature and Relative Humidity 
 
 At Fisher, Illinois 
 
 "Wet" years (corn moisture content from November through January above 18 percent): 
 
 Two- variable analysis: 
 
 Xi = 23.3545 - .1401 Xj 
 
 r u = .9727 ffba = .0063 
 
 Si = .5255 
 
 Three-variable analysis": 
 
 Xi = 20.9410 - .1317 X 2 + .0324 Xs 
 Ri.23 = .9741 ffbu.3 = .0093 
 
 SI.M = .5118 ffbi3.i = .0268 
 
 "Dry" years (corn moisture content from November through January below 18 percent): 
 
 Two-variable analysis: 
 
 Xi = 19.3096 - .0888 Xt 
 ru = .9111 (rbu = .0086 
 
 Su = .6303 
 Three-variable analysis': 
 
 Xi = 13.5673 - .0644 Xj + .0771 Xj 
 Ri.23 = .9355 o-bi2.j= .0116 
 
 81.13 = .5404 ffbu.t = .0280 
 
 At Dorans, Illinois 
 
 Xi = .3244 - .0139 Xi Sis = .068 
 
 (.001)b 
 
 Xi = 2.3717 - 1.0168 Xj + .0829 X< 81.4 = .066 
 
 (.005)>> (.020)b 
 
 Explanation of symbols 
 
 Xi = moisture content of corn 
 Xi = average mean temperature 
 Xs = average relative humidity, 12:00 noon CST 
 Xi = square of average mean temperature 
 ru = coefficient of correlation 
 Ri.is = coefficient of multiple correlation 
 
 Sis, Si.is, and Si.4 = standard error of the estimate for the estimating equation 
 <7bi2, o-bij.s, and crbia.2 = standard error of the regression coefficients 
 
 a In the three-variable analyses, there is uncertainty as to whether the differences in the coefficients 
 of Xs (0.0324 and 0.0771) were due to differences in the moisture content of the corn during November, 
 December, and January, or to relative humidity during the two periods, since there was a significant 
 difference at the 0.05 level between the relative humidity data in "wet" years and in "dry" years. 
 
 In both the "wet" and "dry" years, the temperature coefficients were significantly different 
 from zero at a very high level of significance. The relative humidity coefficient is not significantly 
 different from zero in the "wet" years, but is significant at the 0.02 level during the "dry" years. 
 
 b The regression coefficients are all significantly different from zero at the level indicated in 
 parentheses. 
 
 6M 2-60 69643 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA