Have you Checked your Soybean´s Pedigree Lately?:

Evaluating the Nutritive Value of SBM in Poultry

Diets

Gonzalo G. Mateos

gonzalo.gmateos@upm.es

UP Madrid

Others1

17%

SBM65%

RSM13%

CSM6%

SFM6%

PKM+Copra3%

1999/20021Fish, peanut, etc meals

Others 6%

SBM68%

RSM13%

CSM5%

SFM5%

PKM+Copra3%

2014/2016Total 310 Mt

World protein meals supply% of total

Protein ingredient balance, 2013/2014EU-281

Production Consumption Self Suffic, %

Soya 497 14,752 3

Rapes + Sunseed 5,680 7,379 77

Pulses 417 393 106

Dried forages 613 570 108

Other veg protein2 786 1,276 62

Fish meal 270 351 77

Total of proteins3 8,263 24,721 33

1 Protein equivalents (1,000 t) Terves Univia, 20152 Palm, cotton, gluten feed, copra3 Stable for last 5-10 years

World feed productionSpecies (2016)

Broilers34%

Layers9%

Turkeys5%

Pigs26%

Beef10%

Dairy9%

Others1

7%

Total: 1 US billion tons1Aquaculture (4%), pets (2%), horses (1%)

World protein production, x 106 t

2014 2015 2050

Bovine 68 68 107

Poultry 110 112 202

Pigs 118 119 150

Aqua 74 78 114

Milk 789 806 1,120

Total 1,159 1,182 1,693

FAO, 2016

World feed production, 2015/2016Total production: 1 US billion tons

Several sources

18%

17%

16%

7%

India3%

Mexico3%

Russia3%

33%

China

USA

EU-28

Rest

world

Brazil

Feed production, 2016World (x 106 Mt)

Company Country X 106 Mt

CP Group Thailand 27.6

Cargill USA 19.5

New Hope Group China 18.7

Purina Animal Nutrition1 USA 13.5

Wen´s Food Group China 12.0

BRF2 Brazil 10.4

Tyson Foods USA 10.0

1Land o Lakes Statistic, 20172Banvit not included Feed Manage, 2016

World top producers

Poultry, 2016

Company CountryBirds

(x 106)

Tyson Foods USA 1,737

BRF1 Brazil 1,724

JBS Aves Brazil 1,675

Pilgrim´s USA 1,500

New Hope Group China 800

Wen´s Food Group China 744

Perdue Foods USA 675

Bachoco Mexico 672

1 Without new purchase of Benvit (Turkey and Romania)

Poult. Int., 2016

Feed production, 2016Europe (x 106 Mt)

Company Country X 106 Mt

ForFarmers B.V. Netherlands 9.1

Agrifirm Netherlands 7.1

Deheus Netherlands 6.0

Nutreco Netherlands 5.9

DLG Group Denmark 4.5

Agrovis Raiffeisen Germany 4.1

Avril/Sanders France 3.4

Veronesi Italy 3.2

Feed Int., 2016

Europe top producers

Poultry, 2016

Company CountryBirds

(x 106)

LDC France 460

Plukon Food Group Netherlands 360

AIA Italy 350

PHW Group Germany 350

2 Sisters Food Group UK 320

MHP Ukraine 312

Moy Park Ltd UK 260

Amadori Italy 250

Poult. Int., 2016

Crude protein in dietsNon-ruminants

Future trend: “↓CP content of the feeds”

✓ Environmental concerns

Sustainability

✓ Wet litter problems

Carcass quality

✓ Animal health

✓ Feed cost

Ideal protein concept

↓ Relative cost of crystalline AA

Enzymes (protease) and additives

Lys content of SBM, % as fed

Instit. Country Year CP (%) Lys (%)

INRA France 2002 47.2 2.89

NARO Japan 2009 47.0 3.05

Viçosa Brazil 2011 47.1 2.86

NRC USA 2012 47.7 2.96

RPRI Russia 2014 47.0 3.04

Premier UK 2014 47.0 2.93

Evonik1 Germany 2016 47.5 2.87

CVB Netherlands 2016 46.8 2.90

Fedna Spain 2017 47.0 2.90

1 Brazil

Soybean meal, 47% CPAmino acid profile, % CP

Instit. Country Year Lys TSAA Thr

INRA France 2002 6.10 2.90 3.90

NARO Japan 2009 6.41 2.82 3.91

Viçosa Brazil 2011 6.14 2.81 3.90

NRC USA 2012 6.20 2.85 3.90

RPRI Russia 2014 6.46 2.94 4.00

Premier UK 2014 6.08 2.82 3.91

Evonik1 Germany 2016 6.04 2.72 3.87

CVB Netherlands 2016 6.20 2.90 3.90

Fedna Spain 2017 6.17 2.87 3.90

1 Brazil

Soybean meal, 47% CPEnergy content, broilers

Instit. Country Year CP (%)AMEn

(Mcal/kg)

NRC USA 1994 47.2 2.38

INRA France 2002 47.2 2.32

NARO Japan 2009 47.0 2.45

Viçosa Brazil 2011 47.0 2.32

Feedipedia France 2012 47.1 2.32

RPRI Russia 2014 47.0 2.55

Premier UK 2014 47.0 2.42

CVB Netherlands 2016 46.8 2.16

Evonik Germany 2016 46.6 2.33

Fedna Spain 2017 47.0 2.33

European Tables, 1989AMEn, SBM (kJ/kg DM)1

“15.69 × CP + 29.51 × EE + 6.236 × NFE”

✓ Crude protein vs. digestible protein

✓ EE vs. HCl EE

✓ NFE: sugar vs. ADF

1 Data on g/kg DM

Same chemical

values. But, same

energy content?

Soybean meal, 47% CPProximal analyses, %

INRA

(2002)

Japan

(2009)

Brazil

(2011)

NRC

(2012)

Russia

(2014)

CVB

(2016)

Evonik2

(2016)

Fedna

(2017)

Moist. 12.4 11.0 11.0 10.0 11.0 11.3 12.0 12.0

NDF1 8.9 11.6 14.5 8.2 12.1 8.6 10.7 9.2

CP 47.2 47.0 47.0 47.7 47.0 46.8 46.6 47.0

EE 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.6 2.1 1.8

Ash 6.3 6.4 5.8 6.3 6.3 6.4 6.6 6.2

∑ 76.3 77.6 79.9 73.7 77.8 74.7 77.0 76.2

What is missing?

1Estimated from CF for Russia2 Avge of USA and BRA meals

Amino acid digestibility trials

Growth performance trials

Field trials

Feed formulation, SpainBroilers, 20-35 d

✓ Diet profile

Corn/SBM diet

AMEn: 3,140 kcal/kg

SID Lysine: 1.06% (Ideal protein)

✓ AMEn content of SBM, 47% CP (kcal/kg)

CVB (2016): 2,160

Fedna (2017): 2,330

Russia (2014): 2,550

✓ Other nutrients including AA

Same for all SBM

Feed formulation, SpainCost of ingredients, €/ton

✓ Corn 185

✓ SBM, 47% CP 382

✓ Soy oil 855

✓ L-Lys, 78% 1,540

✓ DL-Met, 99% 2,250

✓ L-Threonine, 99% 1,600

✓ Dicalcium phosphate 385

SBM matrix and formula costBroilers, December 2016

SBM, 47% CP, matrix used

CVB

(2016)

Fedna

(2017)

Russia

(2014)

AMEn of SBM (kcal/kg) 2,160 2,330 2,550

SBM in diet, % 30.9 30.7 30.5

Soy oil in diet, % 5.0 3.9 2.9

SBM relative value, €/t 361 382 409

Diet cost, €/ton 289 282 274

n = 515

USA35%

ARG33%

BRA32%

EU survey, 2007-2015Origin of the samples

Animal Feed Science Technology, 2016

SBM survey, SpainLaboratory analyses

✓ Samples collected from 2007 to 2015

Country of origin (60%) and European ports (40%)

✓ Analyzed in duplicate

Proximal, fiber, sugars, and minerals

Amino acids (NIR and wet chemistry)

TIA, KOH, PDI, urease, HDI (AminoRed)

✓ Same lab, same technician

SBM by origin, 88% DMEuropean survey (%)

n CP NDF Sucrose1 Oligo.2

ARG 170 45.5b 9.0b 6.8b 6.2b

BRA 165 46.8a 10.4a 5.6c 6.0b

USA 180 46.8a 7.9c 7.4a 6.6a

SEM 0.11 0.14 0.08 0.05

P *** *** *** ***

1 Stachyose + raffinose

SBM survey, 2007-2015Amino acid profile1, % CP

n Lys TSAA Thr Trp

ARG 170 6.11b 2.87a 3.94a 1.37a

BRA 165 6.07c 2.81b 3.89b 1.35c

USA 180 6.17a 2.88a 3.92a 1.37B

SEM 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.002

P *** *** *** ***

1 88% DM

SBM, all origins (n=515)LYS vs. CP content

2,90

3,00

3,10

3,20

3,30

3,40

3,50

3,60

48,0 50,0 52,0 54,0 56,0 58,0

Lys

(% D

M)

CP of the SBM (% DM)

ARG

BRA

USA

y = 0.061x + 0.024

R2 = 0.853; P<0.001

RSD = 0.040

SBM by origin, Lys vs. CP content

2,90

3,00

3,10

3,20

3,30

3,40

3,50

3,60

48,0 50,0 52,0 54,0 56,0 58,0

Lys

(%

DM

)

CP of the SBM (% DM)

y = 0.069x - 0.418

R2 = 0.879; P<0.001

RSD = 0.039

2,90

3,00

3,10

3,20

3,30

3,40

3,50

3,60

48,0 50,0 52,0 54,0 56,0

Lys

(%

D

M)

CP of the SBM (% DM)

y = 0.059x + 0.083

R2 = 0.914; P<0.001

RSD = 0.029

2,90

3,00

3,10

3,20

3,30

3,40

3,50

3,60

48,0 50,0 52,0 54,0 56,0 58,0

Lys

(% D

M)

CP of the SBM (% DM)

y = 0.049x + 0.650

R2 = 0.834; P<0.001

RSD = 0.028

USA (n = 180) BRA (n = 165)

ARG (n = 170)

SBM by origin, Lys profile (% CP)

5,80

5,90

6,00

6,10

6,20

6,30

6,40

48,0 50,0 52,0 54,0 56,0 58,0

Lys

(%

CP

)

CP of the SBM (% DM)

y = − 0.023x + 7.40

R2 = 0.237; P<0.001

RSD = 0.052

5,80

5,90

6,00

6,10

6,20

6,30

6,40

48,0 50,0 52,0 54,0 56,0 58,0

Lys

(%

CP

)

CP of the SBM (% DM)

y = 0.015x + 5.27

R2 = 0.088; P<0.001

RSD = 0.074

5,80

5,90

6,00

6,10

6,20

6,30

6,40

48,0 50,0 52,0 54,0 56,0

Lys

(%

CP

)

CP of the SBM (% DM)

NS (P>0.10)

USA (n = 180)BRA (n = 165)

ARG (n = 170)

SBM protein qualityIndustry standards

KOH solubility, % 75-85

PD index, % 15-30

Urease activity, mg N/g 0.00-0.10

TI activity, mg/g < 2.2-3.5

“Poor agreement between Research

Institutions and Industry for suitable values for

protein quality of SBM”

SBM survey, 2007-2015Protein quality

nTIA

(mg/g)

PDI

(%)

KOH

(%)

HDI

AminoRed2

ARG 170 2.6b 16.0b 81.2c 12.5b

BRA 165 2.7b 15.0b 82.0b 15.6a

USA 180 3.5a 19.5a 86.1ª 9.0c

SEM 0.08 0.40 0.23 0.37

P *** *** *** ***

1 Urease < 0.03 mg N/g for all origins (P < 0.01)

2 Evonik index

Soybean meal color

✓ Heating and processing

✓ Particle size

✓ Country of origin (Fe content)

India vs. Brazil vs. Argentina vs. USA

nLightness

L*

Redness

a*

Yellowness

b*

ARG 128 67.1b 7.1b 27.7b

BRA 108 65.5c 8.2a 27.7b

USA 169 69.3a 6.8c 28.6a

SEM 0.28 0.10 0.14

P *** *** ***

1 Minolta

Soybean meal colour1

Samples ground at 1 mm

Average particle size by SBM origin

7 Sieves (μm) : 2500, 1250, 660, 330, 80, 40, and residue

n GMD1 SD

ARG 91 1363b 472

BRA 92 1522a 474

USA 85 856c 168

SEM 50.4

P < ***

1GMD: Geometric mean diameter

Average particle size by SBM origin

n GMD1 SD

ARG 41 1295b 258

BRA 13 1645ª 215

USA 21 1381b 319

SEM 50.4

P < ***

7 Sieves (μm) : 2500, 1250, 660, 330, 80, 40, and residue

1GMD: Geometric mean diameter

324 samples

NIRS 5000 (1.100-2.500 nm)

As received

Validation set 1/3 of samples

Training set 2/3 of samples origins

n = 255 n = 69

Soybean mealQualitative analysis (NIRS)

NIRS external validation

ORIGIN N = 69 ARG BRA USA % True

Argentine 20 19 0 1 95.0

Brazil 13 0 13 0 100

USA 36 2 0 34 94.4

True = 96% USA

BRA

ARG

Soybean mealQuality control

✓ Quality of the original beans

Bean grade and crop and harvest conditions

✓ Crude protein content and quality

Amino acid profile and availability

KOH, PDI, HDI, urease?

TI vs. Maillard reactions

✓ Energy content

Digestible protein

Sucrose, oligosaccharides, EE

Sandy

Broken & Splitted Greenish

Moldy

Soybean grades

Toasted Burnt

Sprouted

Soybean grades

Soybeans storage, Argentina

SBM in broilers, in vivo trialSID of Cys (%)

Adapted from FEDNA (2010) for SBM, 47%CP

76

78

80

82

84

86

%CP (88% DM)

ARG

USABRA

Frikha et al., 2012

Energy content by origin of the beanSBM (kcal/kg as fed)

USA BRA ARG Reference value3

(n = 180) (n = 165) (n =170) NRC Fedna

CP, % 47.1 47.0 45.8 47.7 47.0

AMEn1, poultry 2,308a 2,292b 2,267c 2,332 2,330

AMEn2, pigs 3,469a 3,359c 3,422b 3,294 3,240

NE2, pigs 2,098a 2,033c 2,067b 2,087 2,025

1 WPSA European Tables, 1986 (88% DM, kcal/kg)

2 Noblet et al., 2003 (kcal/kg)

3 NRC (1994) and Fedna (2017)

AME of SBM by origin of the beanEnergy content, poultry

n CP (%)AME

(kcal/kg)

AME

(range)

USA 16 47.3 2,375 2,130-2,541

ARG 16 46.9 2,227 1,796-2,417

BRA 10 48.2 2,317 2,003-2,531

India 13 46.4 2,000 1,567-2,299

P value ** ***

1 In vitro trial Ravindran et al., 2014

Massey U.2 (2014)

(In vivo)

UP Madrid3 (2016)

(Predicted)

ARG 2,227b 2,267c

BRA 2,317ab 2,292b

USA 2,375a 2,308a

1 Book values ≈ 2,300-2,350 kcal AMEn/kcal

2 Ravindran et al., 2014 (n = 55)

3 García-Rebollar et al., 2016 (WPSA, 1986) (n= 515)

SBM by origin of the beansAMEn content1, poultry (kcal/kg)

SBM by bean origin1

Argentina Brazil USA

AMEn, kcal/kg 2,252 2,292 2,347

CP, % 45.5 46.8 46.8

SID Lys, % 2.44 2.52 2.63

SBM in diet, % 33.1 31.7 31.6

∑ AA (Lys + Met + Thr) in diet, % 0.53 0.55 0.47

Soy oil in diet, % 4.9 4.5 4.1

SBM relative value, €/ton 355 370 382

Diet cost €/ton 292 287 283

SBM matrix and fomula costBroilers, January 2017

1 AFST, 2016. Considering digestible CP and sugar contents in the estimation of

the AMEn content.

General commentsUSA SBM vs. other origins

✓Brazil vs, USA meal ↓ Sucrose, K and P and ↑ CF and Fe

↓ KOH, PDI and TI, and ↑ HDI (↓ AA digestibility?)

↓ Indispensable AA per unit of CP and AMEn

✓ Argentina vs. USA meal

Less CP, intermediate AA profile

↓ KOH, PDI, and ↑ HDI (↓ AA digestibility?)

Less AMEn

India ↑ Ash, CF, and Fe and ↓ fat, sucrose

↑ KOH, PDI, and ↑ HDI (↓ AA digestibility?)

↓ Indispensable AA (% CP) and AMEn

General conclusions

✓ The chemical composition and protein quality of the SBM

vary with the country of origin of the beans

✓ Current methods used by the industry to evaluate protein

quality and nutritive value of SBM do not detect existing

differences among SBM

✓ Different matrices should be used for SBM of different

origins. NIR technology proved to be useful

While the U.S. Soybean Export Council (USSEC) does not guarantee the forecasts or statements of USSEC Staff or Contractors, we have taken care

in selecting them to represent our organization. We believe they are knowledgeable and their presentations and opinions will provide listeners with

detailed information and valuable insights into the U.S. Soy and U.S. Ag Industry. We welcome further questions and always encourage listeners to

seek a wide array of opinions before making any financial decisions based on the information presented. Accordingly, USSEC will not accept any

liability stemming from the information contained in this presentation.

Thanks