Key fact: USDA reported US corn stocks of 2.10 billion bushels on 1 September 2026, up 35% year on year, while soybean stocks were down 3%. The figures were published on 30 September, not measured on that date. USDA NASS release
The new evidence
Feed procurement begins October with a fresh reminder that a single grain headline cannot describe the whole ingredient market. On 30 September 2026, USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service reported that US corn stocks held on 1 September totalled 2.10 billion bushels, 35% above a year earlier. Soybean stocks moved in the opposite direction, declining 3%. These are September inventory estimates, not October shipment offers. USDA NASS
The corn total also contains a location distinction: 787 million bushels were held on farms and 1.31 billion off farms. NASS collected its on-farm and off-farm surveys during the first two weeks of September. Publication at the end of the month makes the findings newly available information, but does not turn the reference date into a live warehouse balance. USDA NASS
For a separate, forward-looking perspective, USDA's Economic Research Service market outlook, updated on 18 September, put forecast US soybean crushing for marketing year 2026/27 at 2.78 billion bushels, unchanged from its previous forecast. That projection predates the new stocks release. It should not be presented as a subsequent USDA assessment of the 30 September results. USDA ERS
Transport has its own evidence base. USDA's Grain Transportation Report published on 24 September recorded higher second-quarter wheat transport costs on the US routes to Japan it examined, compared with both the previous quarter and a year earlier. That is route-specific historical evidence, not a quotation for a European feed shipment. USDA AMS, pages 4-5
GT interpretation for buyers
Our commercial reading is to separate three questions: what raw material exists, what finished ingredient is available, and what can actually be delivered against the buying programme. The latest figures inform the first question. They do not, by themselves, settle the other two. We would not translate the corn increase into an assumed increase in available corn gluten meal, nor use the soybean decline alone to conclude that a particular protein shipment cannot be supplied.
The practical response is a more precise enquiry, not an automatic change of ingredient. Ask whether the offered tonnes are already produced, allocated from an identified production period, or only indicative. Request the loading location, earliest realistic dispatch window and quotation validity. Record those answers beside the quantity and price rather than leaving them in separate email threads. An attractive offer should still have a clearly defined physical delivery behind it.
Compare the ingredient rather than the headline
For a protein requirement, start with the nutrition team's approved specification and intended application. Ask for the analytical basis of the protein declaration, moisture, relevant amino-acid information and the other parameters required by that formulation. Have the nutrition team assess any proposed alternative before commercial approval. This is a suggested buying discipline, not a claim that the ingredients in a catalogue can replace one another on a tonne-for-tonne basis.
For example, an enquiry for corn gluten meal should remain an enquiry for that specified ingredient. If vital wheat gluten or another protein source is considered, open a separate technical and commercial comparison. A wheat-bran requirement should likewise retain its own formulation purpose. Do not merge protein and fibre purchases into one generic response to a grain-stock headline, or let a common raw-material name obscure different finished-product specifications.
Make delivery assumptions visible
Use the transport report as a reason to examine the route behind an offer, not to import its freight figures into an unrelated calculation. Request a current quotation for the actual origin, destination, transport mode and shipment size. State whether the comparison is ex-works, at the loading port or delivered to the receiving site, and identify which handling and inland legs are included.
We recommend keeping product value, inland movement, ocean freight where applicable, handling and other quoted charges separate in the purchase comparison. Label unquoted components as pending rather than filling them with an old estimate. If two suppliers quote different delivery bases or loading months, resolve that mismatch before describing one offer as cheaper. The objective is a comparable purchasing file, not a forecast of where prices will move.
Build a decision file for the next purchase
For each shortlisted lot, assemble a compact record containing the specification version, representative analysis and proposed lot-testing arrangements, available quantity, production or stock status, delivery window, commercial basis and offer expiry. Add the source and date for every material update. Keep a supplier's statement of availability distinct from a confirmed allocation, and a proposed dispatch date distinct from an accepted booking.
Finally, ask the buyer and nutrition team to review the same record before commitment. If the offered specification, quantity or delivery window changes, reopen the affected comparison instead of carrying the previous approval forward automatically. September's inventory release is useful context for that conversation. The purchasing decision should remain tied to a defined ingredient, documented terms and a delivery plan that matches the buyer's actual requirement.