Soy is widely used in livestock diets worldwide, therefore its sustainability credentials and nutrient contribution are often under close scrutiny.
In this Industry Perspectives, we hear from Tom D’Alfonso, Director for Animal and Aquaculture at the US Soybean Export Council (USSEC) about recent research focussing on the differences between US Soy and soy from other origins.
Dr D’Alfonso discusses the findings, and the potential impacts that selecting US Soy would have on sustainability, nutrition and quality of livestock diets. He also explains the analysis behind USSEC’s recent claim that ‘livestock farms using 100% US soybeans in their feed formulations can unlock $3 million in profits’.
[Feedinfo] You have recently completed a range of research projects looking at US Soy and soybean meal (SBM) in terms of their nutrient content in livestock diets compared to soy from other origins. What prompted you to do this, and can you talk us through the research and the results?
|
[Tom D’Alfonso] Our research was driven by the need to better understand the differences in nutrient content and overall quality of soybean meal (SBM) made from various global sources, because these differences can significantly impact livestock nutrition and feed efficiency. As the global demand for high-quality animal feed grows, it is essential to identify the most reliable and nutrient-rich source of soy for the SBM. |
Tom D’Alfonso, Director for Animal and Aquaculture, US Soybean Export Council (USSEC) |
To address this, we reviewed several third-party, peer-reviewed studies that generally compared SBM made from US Soy with meal made from soy of Brazilian and Argentian origin. Some of these studies also included SBM from other South American countries and Indian soybeans. Additionally, the US Soybean Export Council (USSEC) has been actively collecting and analysing samples of soybeans, SBM, and soybean oil from various origins to assess nutrient composition and the types and levels of damage.
The results from these studies highlight significant differences in nutrient content, consistency, and sustainability. For example, soybeans from Brazil exhibit higher moisture levels, increased heat damage, and five times more overall damage compared to US soybeans. This damage is largely due to the necessity of drying the beans with fire in Brazil, which negatively affects the digestibility of calories and essential amino acids.
[Feedinfo] How do these nutrient content results translate into financial performance on-farm? What is the difference compared with soy or SBM from sources other than the US?
[Tom D’Alfonso] The higher digestibility of essential amino acids found in soybean meal (SBM) derived from US Soy can add an estimated value of $3-$5 per metric ton (MT) of SBM. Additionally, the greater availability of digestible calories, such as metabolisable energy for poultry and net energy for swine, contributes an additional $9-$10 per MT. Even more noteworthy is the consistency of these nutrients, which, when considering the safety margins often applied in feed formulation, can be worth an additional $9-$10 per MT.
Altogether, these factors contribute to SBM made from US Soy being valued at $20-$25 more per MT compared to SBM produced from soybeans of other origins.
[Feedinfo] In relation to sustainability, you have said that the Global Feed LCA Institute’s database indicates an approximate 20% reduction in the carbon footprint of feed when SBM is made from 100% US soybeans. What are the factors which help achieve this, and what would this reduction translate to in terms of overall carbon footprint impact on a livestock farm?
[Tom D’Alfonso] Sourcing soybean meal (SBM) made from US Soy is one of the most effective and straightforward ways to reduce the carbon footprint of livestock feed. SBM derived from US Soy is approximately 90% less carbon-intensive than SBM produced from soybeans in other origins. The substantial reduction is due to sustainable agricultural practices, more efficient supply chains, and lower land use change rates associated with US soybean production. If a livestock diet includes 25% SBM, using US SBM can reduce the overall carbon footprint of the feed by 22.5%.
Additionally, businesses can benefit from the verification of US soy's sustainability efforts through transferable US Soy Sustainability Assurance Protocol (SSAP) certificates, which provide valuable data for reporting and demonstrating commitment to sustainability.
[Feedinfo] There is a lot of competition from other countries in the soybean and SBM markets, but for buyers such as feed mills, you state that US soy and SBM offers advantages such as consistency and a better nutrient profile. What are the factors contributing to this, and are these advantages consistent year-in, year-out?
[Tom D’Alfonso] We have been monitoring the quality of soybeans, SBM, and soybean oil for more than 10 years.
Consistently, US soybeans show five times less damage, particularly heat damage, compared to soybeans from other origins. This is largely due to better post-harvest handling practices and supply chain management. For example, the use of fires to dry beans in certain South America countries can lead to significant heat damage, which adversely affects quality.
Additionally, other forms of damage can occur throughout the supply chain, such as when soybeans are transported in small quantities by truckloads, leading to physical damage.
The types of damage we continue to review, include:
- Damaged kernels: These are soybeans or soybean pieces that are compromised by factors such as ground damage, weather, disease, frost, germination issues, heat, insects, mould, sprouting, or stinkbug stings, among other causes.
- Heat-damaged kernels: These are soybeans or pieces that are materially discoloured and damaged due to excessive heat.
Year-after-year, US Soy consistently exhibits fewer of these issues, contributing to their superior nutrient profile and reliability in feed formulations. This consistency of US Soy is what unlocks the profit potential of our clients and users of SBM made from US Soy.
[Feedinfo] For feedmills and feed manufacturers considering using US soy and SBM, what particular benefits could they offer their customers as a result compared with using soy from other sources? And are there any drawbacks?
[Tom D’Alfonso] There are no drawbacks to higher nutrient composition and digestibility! Using SBM made from US Soy translates to lower feed costs and reduced costs per kilogram of animal protein produced.
Customers also benefit from greater consistency in their animal protein products, knowing that the animals were fed with sustainably produced US Soy. This supports the health and performance of the animals and also aligns with the growing demand for sustainability from consumers, investors, and the planet.
[Feedinfo] You recently held your global Soy Connext event in California, and one of the eye-catching statistics you talked about was that it is possible that ‘livestock farms using 100% US soybeans in their feed formulations can unlock $3 million in profits’. How did you calculate this, and can you explain more about achieving this in practice on-farm?
[Tom D’Alfonso] This was a fun analysis! We drew from a range of animal performance trials that compared soybean meal (SBM) made from US Soy with SBM made from with soy of other origins.
On average, these trials showed a five-point improvement in feed conversion ratio (FCR)—for example, from 1.65 to 1.59, as noted in the 2013 paper by Serrano, et. al. This improvement was largely due to the higher levels of metabolisable energy and essential amino acids present in US SBM.
To estimate the financial impact, we modelled the effects for a medium- to large-sized broiler operation, processing 50 million birds per year and producing 240,000 metric tons of feed, with at least 25% of that feed being SBM. The higher nutrient digestibility resulted in lower feed costs, saving approximately $1.25 million annually.
We then explored how this operation could capture additional value through improved FCR. The operation could either produce the same number of broilers with 6,500 metric tons less feed or increase production by 1.5 million broilers. In both scenarios, the additional value was estimated to be between $2 million and $2.5 million. This led us to conclude that such an operation could then realise $3 million more in profits per year, depending on the chosen strategy.
What we do know is the superior nutrient bundle, the incomparable consistency and verified sustainability of US Soy unlocks the profit potential of any producers in the value chain. I encourage anyone reading this article to connect with us at USSEC and we can partner with them on how to start unlocking this value while adding to food security and nutrition in a growing world.
