United States Soybean Quality

Transcription

1 United States Soybean Quality Dr. Jill Miller Garvin and Dr. Seth L. Naeve

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2015 Quality Report... 1 References... 7 Figure 1 US Soybean Planting and Harvest Progress... 8 Figure 2 US Soybean, Corn, Wheat Planted Hectares... 9 Figure 3 US Protein and Oil State/Regional Summary...10 Table 1: Production Data for the United States, 2015 Crop Table 2a: Quality Survey, Protein & Oil Data Table 2b: Quality Survey, Protein & Oil As Is Moisture Basis Data Table 3: Quality Survey, Seed Data Table 4: Quality Survey, Amino Acid Data Table 5: Historical Summary of Yield & Quality Data US Soybeans Contact Information... 17

3 SUMMARY The American Soybean Association and the US Soybean Export Council have supported a survey of the quality of the US soybean crop since This survey is intended to provide new crop quality data to aid international customers with their purchasing decisions ACREAGE, YIELDS, AND TOTAL PRODUCTION According to the November 2015 United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS) Crop Production report, area harvested and yields will change only slightly from The total US soybean harvested area decreased by 1% to 33.4 million hectares (Table 1). Average yield remained at 3.2 MT per hectare. Together, 2015 yield and area harvested will result in a US crop that is about 0.65% higher than the record 2014 crop. The USDA expects the US crop to be million MT. QUALITY OF THE 2015 US SOYBEAN CROP Sample kits were mailed to 5,094 producers that were selected based on total land devoted to soybean production in each state, so that response distribution would closely match projected soybean production. By 4 December, 2015, 1,789 samples were received. These were analyzed for protein, oil, and amino acid concentration by near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) using a Perten DA7250 diode array instrument (Huddinge, Sweden) equipped with calibration equations developed by the University of Minnesota in cooperation with Perten. Regional and national average quality values were determined by computing weighted averages using state and regional soybean production data, so that average values best represent the crop as a whole. Results are in Tables 2a through 5. INTERPRETATION OF PROTEIN AND OIL RESULTS Overall, the 2015 US soybean crop quality, as measured by protein and oil concentration, increased significantly from that of the excellent 2014 crop. Although protein concentrations were similar to those in 2014, oil concentration was higher in every region of the US. Due to a unique set of weather conditions, there tended to be less variation in both protein and oil 1

4 than is evident in most years. Compared with the long term average, 2015 US soybeans were 0.8 of a point lower in protein, but 1.0 percentage points higher in oil. Average US soybean protein concentration was only 0.1 percentage points lower in 2015, at 34.3%; however, average US oil concentration was 1.1 percentage points higher at 19.7% when compared with 2014 (Table 5). This oil level represents a record high for US soybeans, and will allow soybean processors to simultaneously achieve both high soybean oil yields and good protein concentrations in soybean meal produced. As is noted in most years, Western states showed lower protein concentrations than the US crop as a whole (Table 2a) but differences were much smaller in 2015; Western Corn Belt oil was near the US average. Soybeans grown in the Eastern were lower in protein than usual, and their protein concentration was very similar to the national average. Nearly every state in the Eastern region produced much lower protein soybeans than in The Midsouth, Southeast, and East Coast had higher protein concentrations than the US average. Regional oil levels increased over 2014 levels from 0.6 percentage points in the Midsouth to 1.5 percentage points in the East Coast region. In the Western region, where proteins were similar to 2014, average oil values increased by 1.1 percentage points. Oil levels increased by 1.3 points (a 7% increase) in the Eastern, covering some of the losses from lower protein values in this region. A dramatic example of this is Wisconsin, where oil increased by 1.7 points while protein dropped by 0.6 points. Another extreme example is North Dakota where protein increased by 0.3 points and oil increased by 1.5. This change will make these normally protein challenged soybeans quite valuable to processors. Warm and dry late season conditions resulted in a drier soybean crop than in In fact, average moisture levels of incoming samples were lower in every region compared with last 2

5 year (Table 2b). The average moisture of samples received in 2015 was 11.6%, down 0.8 percentage points from Western and Midsouth soybeans tended to be the driest of all of the regions, so protein and oil levels on an as is basis tended to increase the most in those regions. For Western soybeans, an as is composition of 34.8% protein and 20.0% oil is quite extraordinary for a region that generally produces low protein soybeans. INTERPRETATION OF SEED SIZE AND FOREIGN MATERIAL RESULTS While seed size may not be important for most commodity soybean purchasers, seed size does provide some insight into the environmental conditions present during the production season. Seed size can also be correlated with changes in protein and oil concentration due to these same environmental conditions. In general, environmental stresses such as drought in the early seed filling period (late July and early August) tend to reduce the number of seeds on individual plants; if conditions return to normal; these remaining seeds can expand, resulting in larger than average seed size. Alternatively, stresses at the end of the seed filling period (late August through September) reduce the energy available for each seed and seed size may be smaller than average. In 2015, seed size was similar to that in 2014, with the average seed size decreasing slightly from 16.0 grams per 100 seeds in 2014 to 15.8 in 2015 (Table 3). As is normally noted when there are hot conditions during the latter part of the growing season, seed size tended to be smallest in the Midsouth and Southeast regions. Although the Eastern tends to produce much larger seeds, on average, 2015 seed size there was only slightly above average. Seed size decreased by more than 7% in Indiana where a late season drought restricted seed growth and ultimately yields. Foreign material (FM) found in 2015 US samples was, on average, very low at 0.2%, with regional averages ranging from 0.1 to 0.4%. Of the 1,789 samples, 97.6% of them (1,747 samples) had FM values below 1%, 1.6% (28 samples) had 1 2% FM, and only 0.8% of them (14 samples) had >2% FM. 3

6 AMINO ACIDS Amino acids are the building block organic compounds linked in various combinations to form unique proteins. In human diets, amino acids are supplied by the variety of plant and animal proteins ingested. In animal feed, amino acids come from feed proteins such as soybean meal, or from synthetic amino acid supplements. Soybean meal is the major feed protein source in poultry, swine, and cultured fish diets because of its high nutritional quality including its balanced amino acid profile. Optimal animal performance occurs when the feed protein contains an ideal amount and proportion of all essential amino acids (those amino acids which cannot be formed by animals) this is an ideal protein. Preferably, the use of a high quality protein source with an excellent balance of amino acids to meet the most limiting amino acid requirements at a lower protein concentration is a far more efficient option than using a lower quality protein source. In a comparison of soybean meal from US and other origins, US soybean meal had lower protein content than Brazilian soybean meal, but better quality of protein higher concentrations of essential amino acids (Park and Hurburgh, 2002; Thakur and Hurburgh, 2007; Bootwalla, 2009). In whole soybeans, lower crude protein beans have a higher proportion of the five most critical essential amino acids (lysine, cysteine, methionine, threonine, and tryptophan), indicating that meal made from those soybeans will likely be of higher feed quality for a given feed ration than meal made from higher crude protein soybeans (Thakur and Hurburgh, 2007; Medic et al., 2014; Naeve unpublished data). The 2015 amino acid results were similar to those found in 2014, in that there was little regional variation for lysine (expressed as a percent of the 18 primary amino acids) (Table 4). Additionally, in 2015 there was little regional variation for the five most limiting amino acids (cysteine, lysine, methionine, threonine, and tryptophan), with the WCB, ECB, MDS, and SE at 14.6 and the EC at Regional differences alone do not fully explain amino acid concentration differences in the samples; when we evaluated the samples based on protein 4

7 level rather than region, we found that the protein in lower protein samples is more concentrated in the five critical amino acids than is the protein in higher protein samples. Thus, protein concentration differences may account for amino acid concentration differences across regions, rather than region per se. WEATHER AND CROP SUMMARY Plan ng: In late April and early May, northern parts of the US Midwest were dry and warm, allowing growers to complete fieldwork and planting earlier than average; soybean planting in Minnesota and Wisconsin was nearly 20% ahead of the 5 year average for those states. However, in late May, heavy rainfall moved into the upper Midwest (Weather Figure 1), and in June lingered in parts of the ECB, WCB, EC, and the MDS, leading to flooding and delays in fieldwork in parts of those regions. The contiguous US experienced its wettest May on record (Weather Figure 1). By June 7, 79% of the nation's soybean crop was planted, 7% behind 2014, likely due to the excess rainfall. Mid Season: July was cooler and wetter than average for many soybean growing states, particularly in the middle of the US soybean growing region; the Midwest region had its 8 th wettest July on record. August was cooler than average, and the excessive rainfall ended, but conditions then became much drier than normal, especially in the ECB and EC, further stressing plants that had earlier been flooded. Harvest: September temperatures for the Midwest were among the warmest on record; those higher than average September temperatures, combined with dry conditions in most areas west of the Mississippi River (Weather Figure 1), led to rapid harvest progress. By October 25, growers harvested 87% of the US soybean crop, 19% points more than the same time period in

8 Overall, weather during the 2015 growing season was generally wetter than normal in some large soybean producing states, then turned drier and warmer than average in September, though some states did experience near ideal growing conditions. 6

9 References Bootwalla, S Apparent metabolizable energy and amino acid variation in soybean meal and its implication on feed formulation. American Soybean Association Technical Bulletin AN38 Bootwalla pdf. Available at: Bulletins AnimalNutrition. Federal Grain Inspection Service Test Weight. In Grain Inspection Handbook II (Chapter 10). Washington DC: USDA GIPSA FGIS. Medic, J., C. Atkinson, and C.R. Hurburgh Jr Current knowledge in soybean composition. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 91(3): Midwest Climate Watch Available at: <mcc.sws.uiuc.edu/cliwatch/watch.htm> National Agricultural Statistics Service: NASS Available at: <nass.usda.gov> Park, H.S. and C.R. Hurburgh Improving the US position in world soybean meal trade. MATRIC working paper 02 MWP7. Available at: Thakur, M. and C.R. Hurburgh Quality of US soybean meal compared to the quality of soybean meal from other origins. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 84: Weekly Weather and Crop Bulletin Jointly prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Available at: usda.gov/oce/weather/pubs/weekly/wwcb/ 7

10 8 QUALITY REPORT: US Soybean Planting and Harvest Progress % of US Crop Planted or Harvested by date 4/25 5/25/9 5/16 5/235/30 6/6 6/136/20 6/27 7/48/22 8/29 9/59/12 9/19 9/2610/3 10/10 10/17 10/ Planting Progress '10-'14 Average 2015 Harvest Progress '10-'14 Average Day of the Year source: USDA NASS Figure 1

11 9 QUALITY REPORT: Soybean, Corn, and Wheat in the US (planted ha) Soybean Corn Wheat Planted area (ha) Figure 2

12 Figure 3 10

13 Table 1. Soybean production data for the United States, 2015 crop Region State Yield (MT ha -1 ) Area Harvested (1000 ha) Production (M MT) Western (WCB) Eastern (ECB) Midsouth (MDS) Iowa 3.8 3, Kansas 2.6 1, Minnesota 3.4 3, Missouri 2.9 1, Nebraska 3.8 2, North Dakota 2.2 2, South Dakota 3.1 2, Western , % Illinois 3.8 3, Indiana 3.4 2, Michigan Ohio 3.4 1, Wisconsin Eastern 3.4 9, % Arkansas 3.4 1, Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Southeast (SE) Midsouth 2.9 4, % Alabama Georgia North Carolina South Carolina East Coast (EC) Southeast 2.5 1, % Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Virginia East Coast % US , US , Source: United States Department of Agriculture, NASS 2015 Crop Production Report (November 2015) 11

14 Table 2a. USSEC 2015 Soybean Quality Survey Data Region State Number of Samples Protein Oil Std. Dev. (%)* (%)* Std. Dev. Western (WCB) Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota Averages Western Eastern (ECB) Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin Averages Eastern Midsouth (MDS) Arkansas Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Averages Midsouth Southeast (SE) Alabama Georgia North Carolina South Carolina Averages Southeast East Coast (EC) Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Virginia Averages East Coast US Averages 1, Average of 2015 Crop US avg * 13% moisture basis Regional and US average values w eighted based on estimated production by state as estimated by USDA, NASS Crop Production Report (November 2015)

15 Table 2b. USSEC 2015 Soybean Quality Survey Data As-Is Basis Region State Number of Samples Mois ture Protein Oil (%) (%)* (%)* Western (WCB) Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota Averages Western Eastern (ECB) Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin Averages Eastern Midsouth (MDS) Arkansas Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Averages Midsouth Southeast (SE) Alabama Georgia North Carolina South Carolina Averages Southeast East Coast (EC) Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Virginia Averages East Coast US Averages 1, Average of 2015 Crop * As-is moisture basis Regional and US average values w eighted based on estimated production by state as estimated by USDA, NASS Crop Production Report (November 2015) 13

16 Table 3. USSEC 2015 Soybean Quality Survey Seed Data Region Western (WCB) State Number of Seed Foreign Samples Weight Std. Dev. Material Std. Dev. g 100 seeds -1 (%) Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota Averages Western Eastern (ECB) Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin Averages Eastern Midsouth (MDS) Arkansas Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Averages Midsouth Southeast (SE) Alabama Georgia North Carolina South Carolina Averages Southeast East Coast (EC) Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Virginia Averages East Coast USA Averages 1, Average of 2015 Crop Regional and US average values w eighted based on estimated production by state as estimated by USDA, NASS Crop Production Report (November 2015) 14

17 Table 4. USSEC 2015 Soybean Quality Survey Amino Acid (AA) Data Region State Number of Samples Protein (%)* Lysine (%18 AAs) 5 EAAs (%18 AAs) Western (WCB) Iowa Kansas Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota Averages Western Eastern (ECB) Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin Averages Eastern Midsouth (MDS) Arkansas Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi Oklahoma Tennessee Texas Averages Midsouth Southeast (SE) Alabama Georgia North Carolina South Carolina Averages Southeast East Coast (EC) Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Virginia Averages East Coast USA Averages 1, Average of 2015 Crop * 13% moisture basis Regional and US average values w eighted based on estimated production by state as estimated by USDA, NASS Crop Production Report (November 2015) Five essential amino acids: cysteine, lysine, methionine, threonine, and tryptophan 15

18 Table 5. Historical Summary of Yield and Quality Data for US Soybeans Year Yield Protein* Oil* Sum Harvested Production Protein Oil (kg ha -1 ) (%) (%) (%) (M ha -1 ) (M MT) Std. Dev. Std. Dev Averages ( ) Sources: United States Department of Agriculture Iowa State University University of Minnesota *Protein and oil concentrations expressed on a 13% moisture basis Sum represents sum of protein and oil concentrations quality estimates are weighted by yearly production estimates by state 16

19 Contact Information DR. SETH L. NAEVE SOYBEAN EXTENSION AGRONOMIST DR. JILL MILLER GARVIN SCIENTIST University of Minnesota Department of Agronomy & Plant Genetics 411 Borlaug Hall 1991 Upper Buford Circle St. Paul, MN Tel Fax Funding provided by United States Soybean Export Council (USSEC) 17