United States Soybean Quality...Foreign material (FM) found in 2015 US samples was, on average, very...

United States Soybean Quality

Dr. Jill Miller‐Garvin and Dr. Seth L. Naeve

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 ................ 11

Table 2a: Quality Survey, Protein & Oil Data ....................................... 12

Table 2b: Quality Survey, Protein & Oil As‐Is Moisture Basis Data ..... 13

Table 3: Quality Survey, Seed Data ..................................................... 14

Table 4: Quality Survey, Amino Acid Data ........................................... 15

Table 5: Historical Summary of Yield & Quality Data ‐ US Soybeans ... 16

Contact Information ............................................................................ 17

QUALITY REPORT: 2015

1

SUMMARY

The American Soybean Association and the US Soybean Export Council have supported a

survey of the quality of the US soybean crop since 1986. This survey is intended to provide

new crop quality data to aid international customers with their purchasing decisions.

2015 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 2014. 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 108.5 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


2

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 Corn Belt 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 Corn Belt were lower in

protein than usual, and their protein concentration was very similar to the national average.

Nearly every state in the Eastern Corn Belt region produced much lower protein soybeans

than in 2014. 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 Corn Belt 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 Corn Belt, 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 2014. In fact,

average moisture levels of incoming samples were lower in every region compared with last


3

year (Table 2b). The average moisture of samples received in 2015 was 11.6%, down 0.8

percentage points from 2014. Western Corn Belt 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 Corn Belt 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 Corn Belt 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.


4

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 14.5. Regional differences alone do not fully explain amino acid

concentration differences in the samples; when we evaluated the samples based on protein


5

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 8th

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 2014.


6

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.


7

References

Bootwalla, S. 2009. 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:

http://www.asaimsea.com/index.php?language=en&screenname=_docs_Technical Bulletins|AnimalNutrition.

Federal Grain Inspection Service. 2004. Test Weight. In Grain Inspection Handbook II (Chapter

10). Washington DC: USDA‐GIPSA‐FGIS.

Medic, J., C. Atkinson, and C.R. Hurburgh Jr. 2014. Current knowledge in soybean

composition. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 91(3):363‐384.

Midwest Climate Watch. 2015. Available at: <mcc.sws.uiuc.edu/cliwatch/watch.htm>

National Agricultural Statistics Service: NASS. 2015. Available at: <nass.usda.gov>

Park, H.S. and C.R. Hurburgh. 2002. Improving the US position in world soybean meal trade.

MATRIC working paper 02‐MWP7. Available at: http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/02mwp7.pdf

Thakur, M. and C.R. Hurburgh. 2007. Quality of US soybean meal compared to the quality of

soybean meal from other origins. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 84:835‐843

Weekly Weather and Crop Bulletin. 2015. 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/


8

Figure 1

US Soybean Planting and Harvest Progress

Day of the Year4/25 5/2 5/95/16

5/235/30 6/66/13

6/206/27 7/48/22

8/29 9/59/129/19

9/2610/3

10/1010/17

10/24

% o

f US

Cro

p Pl

ante

d or

Har

vest

ed b

y da

te

0

20

40

60

80

100

2015 Planting Progress'10-'14 Average2015 Harvest Progress'10-'14 Average

source: USDA NASS


9

Figure 2

Soybean, Corn, and Wheat in the US (planted ha)

19881990

19921994

19961998

20002002

20042006

20082010

20122014

2016

Plan

ted

area

(ha)

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

SoybeanCornWheat


10

Figure 3


11

Table 1. Soybean production data for the United States, 2015 crop

Region StateYield

(MT ha-1)

Area Harvested (1000 ha)

Production (M MT)

Iowa 3.8 3,977 15.0Kansas 2.6 1,580 4.0Minnesota 3.4 3,070 10.3Missouri 2.9 1,871 5.4Nebraska 3.8 2,106 7.9North Dakota 2.2 2,337 5.2South Dakota 3.1 2,070 6.4

Western Corn Belt 3.1 17,010 54.350.0%

Illinois 3.8 3,981 15.0Indiana 3.4 2,260 7.8Michigan 3.2 826 2.7Ohio 3.4 1,940 6.5Wisconsin 3.4 753 2.5

Eastern Corn Belt 3.4 9,761 34.531.8%

Arkansas 3.4 1,280 4.4Kentucky 3.5 737 2.6Louisiana 2.8 571 1.6Mississippi 3.1 923 2.9Oklahoma 1.9 154 0.3Tennessee 3.2 701 2.2Texas 2.2 47 0.1

Midsouth 2.9 4,412 14.012.9%

Alabama 2.8 198 0.6Georgia 3.0 130 0.4North Carolina 2.3 733 1.7South Carolina 1.9 188 0.4

Southeast 2.5 1,249 3.02.7%

Delaware 2.9 68 0.2Maryland 3.0 205 0.6New Jersey 2.3 42 0.1New York 3.1 122 0.4Pennsylvania 3.1 241 0.7Virginia 2.5 251 0.6

East Coast 2.8 928 2.62.4%

US 2015 3.2 33,384 108.5US 2014 3.2 33,778 107.8

Source: United States Department of Agriculture, NASS 2015 Crop Production Report (November 2015)

East Coast (EC)

Western Corn Belt (WCB)

Eastern Corn Belt (ECB)

Midsouth (MDS)

Southeast (SE)


12

Protein Oil

(%)* (%)*

Iowa 245 34.3 1.1 19.6 0.8

Kansas 59 34.8 1.1 19.4 0.8Minnesota 267 33.8 1.1 19.8 0.6Missouri 82 34.5 1.2 19.6 0.7Nebraska 133 34.1 1.1 19.5 0.8North Dakota 73 33.7 1.1 19.6 0.7South Dakota 89 34.0 1.0 19.5 0.7

Averages† Western Corn Belt 948 34.1 1.1 19.6 0.7

Illinois 309 34.1 1.2 19.8 0.8

Indiana 114 34.4 1.1 19.7 0.9Michigan 54 34.9 1.0 19.4 0.6Ohio 136 34.7 1.1 19.7 0.9Wisconsin 29 34.2 1.4 19.5 0.8

Averages† Eastern Corn Belt 642 34.4 1.2 19.7 0.8

Arkansas 38 34.8 1.1 20.0 0.7

Kentucky 28 34.6 1.5 19.8 1.0Louisiana 17 35.5 1.1 20.4 0.7Mississippi 32 34.5 1.4 20.3 0.9Oklahoma 5 35.4 1.3 19.0 0.6Tennessee 16 34.2 1.2 20.1 0.8Texas 1 35.3 19.9

Averages† Midsouth 137 34.7 1.3 20.1 0.8

Alabama 3 34.9 0.9 19.6 0.8

Georgia 3 34.1 0.5 20.2 0.3North Carolina 16 34.8 1.7 20.1 1.1

South Carolina 4 32.7 1.6 21.0 0.6

Averages† Southeast 26 34.4 1.4 20.2 0.9

Delaware 3 35.0 1.3 19.9 1.1

Maryland 10 35.2 1.1 19.8 0.9New Jersey 5 35.6 1.3 20.5 0.9New York 5 35.5 0.3 19.1 0.5Pennsylvania 8 35.2 0.8 19.3 0.2Virginia 5 34.0 1.8 20.3 1.1

Averages† East Coast 36 34.9 1.1 19.8 0.7

US Averages 1,789 34.3 19.7

Average of 2015 Crop† 34.3 1.1 19.7 0.8US 1986-2015 avg. 35.1 1.5 18.7 0.9

* 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)


Midsouth (MDS)

Southeast (SE)

East Coast (EC)

Table 2a. USSEC 2015 Soybean Quality Survey Data

Region State Number of Samples


Std. Dev. Std. Dev.


13

Moisture Protein Oil

(%) (%)* (%)*

Iowa 245 11.8 34.8 19.9

Kansas 59 10.5 35.9 19.9Minnesota 267 11.5 34.4 20.1Missouri 82 11.5 35.1 19.9Nebraska 133 11.0 34.9 20.0North Dakota 73 10.9 34.5 20.1South Dakota 89 11.1 34.8 19.9

Averages† Western Corn Belt 948 11.3 34.8 20.0

Illinois 309 11.9 34.5 20.1

Indiana 114 12.1 34.8 19.9Michigan 54 13.5 34.7 19.3Ohio 136 12.3 35.0 19.9Wisconsin 29 12.8 34.3 19.6

Averages† Eastern Corn Belt 642 12.2 34.7 19.9

Arkansas 38 11.4 35.4 20.3

Kentucky 28 11.5 35.2 20.1Louisiana 17 11.3 36.2 20.8Mississippi 32 11.2 35.2 20.7Oklahoma 5 9.4 36.9 19.8Tennessee 16 11.1 34.9 20.6Texas 1 8.7 37.1 20.9

Averages† Midsouth 137 11.2 35.4 20.4

Alabama 3 12.4 35.1 19.7

Georgia 3 13.0 34.1 20.2North Carolina 16 12.5 35.0 20.2

South Carolina 4 14.5 32.1 20.6

Averages† Southeast 26 12.8 34.5 20.2

Delaware 3 13.5 34.8 19.8

Maryland 10 12.7 35.3 19.8New Jersey 5 13.9 35.3 20.3New York 5 12.6 35.7 19.2Pennsylvania 8 11.9 35.7 19.5Virginia 5 12.3 34.2 20.4

Averages† East Coast 36 12.5 35.1 19.8

US Averages 1,789 11.7 34.8 20.0

Average of 2015 Crop† 11.6 34.9 20.0

* As-is moisture basis† Regional and US average values w eighted based on estimated production by state as



Midsouth (MDS)

Southeast (SE)

East Coast (EC)

Table 2b. USSEC 2015 Soybean Quality Survey Data As-Is Basis




14

Seed Foreign

Weight Material

g 100 seeds-1 (%)

Iowa 245 16.2 1.5 0.1 0.3

Kansas 59 15.9 1.9 0.1 0.2Minnesota 267 16.7 1.5 0.1 0.3Missouri 82 15.1 1.5 0.1 0.3Nebraska 133 16.4 1.3 0.2 0.5North Dakota 73 15.4 1.8 0.1 0.2South Dakota 89 16.0 1.3 0.1 0.3

Averages† Western Corn Belt 948 16.0 1.5 0.1 0.3

Illinois 309 15.9 1.6 0.1 0.3

Indiana 114 15.7 1.7 0.2 0.6Michigan 54 16.8 1.7 0.1 0.2Ohio 136 16.6 1.6 0.1 0.2Wisconsin 29 16.6 1.9 0.1 0.2

Averages† Eastern Corn Belt 642 16.1 1.7 0.1 0.3

Arkansas 38 14.6 1.8 0.3 0.4

Kentucky 28 14.6 1.2 0.1 0.1Louisiana 17 14.6 2.0 0.4 0.5Mississippi 32 14.5 2.4 0.8 1.2Oklahoma 5 14.8 1.8 0.2 0.3Tennessee 16 14.2 0.9 0.3 0.3Texas 1 13.0 0.0

Averages† Midsouth 137 14.5 1.7 0.4 0.5

Alabama 3 13.8 3.3 0.1 0.1

Georgia 3 16.1 2.4 0.1 0.2North Carolina 16 14.4 1.7 0.3 0.9

South Carolina 4 13.4 1.3 0.1 0.1

Averages† Southeast 26 14.3 2.0 0.2 0.6

Delaware 3 15.0 1.3 0.0 0.0

Maryland 10 15.7 0.8 0.2 0.2New Jersey 5 15.2 2.0 1.5 3.4New York 5 16.5 1.7 0.0 0.0Pennsylvania 8 16.4 1.9 0.1 0.1Virginia 5 14.3 1.9 0.1 0.1

Averages† East Coast 36 15.5 1.6 0.2 0.2

USA Averages 1,789 16.0 0.2

Average of 2015 Crop† 15.8 1.6 0.2 0.3† Regional and US average values w eighted based on estimated production by state as


Table 3. USSEC 2015 Soybean Quality Survey Seed Data

Region StateNumber of Samples Std. Dev. Std. Dev.


Midsouth (MDS)

Southeast (SE)

East Coast (EC)



15

Protein

(%)*

Iowa 245 34.3 6.7 14.6

Kansas 59 34.8 6.7 14.6Minnesota 267 33.8 6.7 14.7Missouri 82 34.5 6.6 14.6Nebraska 133 34.1 6.7 14.6North Dakota 73 33.7 6.7 14.7South Dakota 89 34.0 6.7 14.7

Averages† Western Corn Belt 948 34.1 6.7 14.6

Illinois 309 34.1 6.7 14.6

Indiana 114 34.4 6.7 14.6Michigan 54 34.9 6.7 14.6Ohio 136 34.7 6.7 14.6Wisconsin 29 34.2 6.7 14.6

Averages† Eastern Corn Belt 642 34.4 6.7 14.6

Arkansas 38 34.8 6.6 14.6

Kentucky 28 34.6 6.7 14.6Louisiana 17 35.5 6.6 14.5Mississippi 32 34.5 6.7 14.6Oklahoma 5 35.4 6.6 14.4Tennessee 16 34.2 6.7 14.6Texas 1 35.3 6.6 14.5

Averages† Midsouth 137 34.7 6.7 14.6

Alabama 3 34.9 6.6 14.6

Georgia 3 34.1 6.6 14.6North Carolina 16 34.8 6.6 14.5

South Carolina 4 32.7 6.8 14.7

Averages† Southeast 26 34.4 6.6 14.6

Delaware 3 35.0 6.7 14.5

Maryland 10 35.2 6.6 14.5New Jersey 5 35.6 6.7 14.5New York 5 35.5 6.6 14.4Pennsylvania 8 35.2 6.7 14.5Virginia 5 34.0 6.7 14.7

Averages† East Coast 36 34.9 6.7 14.5

USA Averages 1,789 34.3 6.7 14.6

Average of 2015 Crop† 34.3 6.7 14.6

* 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


Midsouth (MDS)

Southeast (SE)

East Coast (EC)

Table 4. USSEC 2015 Soybean Quality Survey Amino Acid (AA) Data



Lysine (%18 AAs)

5 EAAs‡

(%18 AAs)


16

Year Yield Protein* Oil* Sum† Harvested Production Protein Oil

(kg ha-1) (%) (%) (%) (M ha-1) (M MT) Std. Dev. Std. Dev.

1986 2237 35.8 18.5 54.3 23.6 52.9 1.4 0.7

1987 2278 35.5 19.1 54.6 23.2 52.8 1.6 0.7

1988 1814 35.1 19.3 54.4 23.2 42.2 1.5 0.8

1989 2170 35.2 18.7 53.9 24.1 52.4 1.5 0.8

1990 2291 35.4 19.2 54.6 22.9 52.5 1.2 0.7

1991 2298 35.5 18.7 54.1 23.5 54.0 1.4 0.9

1992 2526 35.6 17.3 52.8 23.6 59.6 1.4 1.0

1993 2190 35.7 18.0 53.8 23.2 50.9 1.2 0.9

1994 2782 35.4 18.2 53.6 24.6 68.6 1.4 0.9

1995 2372 35.5 18.2 53.6 24.9 59.2 1.4 0.9

1996 2526 35.6 17.9 53.5 25.7 64.9 1.3 0.9

1997 2614 34.6 18.5 53.0 28.0 73.2 1.5 1.0

1998 2614 36.1 19.1 55.3 28.5 74.6 1.5 0.8

1999 2452 34.6 18.6 53.2 29.4 72.1 1.9 1.1

2000 2553 36.2 18.7 54.9 29.6 75.6 1.7 0.9

2001 2647 35.0 19.0 54.0 30.0 79.6 2.0 1.1

2002 2486 35.4 19.4 54.8 29.1 72.2 1.6 0.9

2003 2284 35.7 18.7 54.3 29.4 67.2 1.7 1.2

2004 2822 35.1 18.6 53.7 30.0 84.6 1.5 0.9

2005 2889 34.9 19.4 54.3 29.2 83.4 1.5 0.9

2006‡ 2869 34.5 19.2 53.7 30.2 86.8 1.6 1.0

2007‡ 2802 35.2 18.6 53.8 26.0 72.9 1.2 0.8

2008‡ 2641 34.1 19.1 53.2 30.1 79.6 1.4 0.8

2009‡ 2956 35.3 18.6 53.9 30.9 91.5 1.2 0.9

2010‡ 2950 35.0 18.6 53.6 31.1 91.9 1.4 1.2

2011‡ 2788 34.9 18.1 53.0 29.8 83.4 2.2 1.8

2012‡ 2674 34.3 18.5 52.8 30.8 82.6 1.6 0.9

2013‡ 2956 34.7 19.0 53.7 30.9 91.5 1.6 0.9

2014‡ 3192 34.4 18.6 53.0 33.8 107.8 1.3 0.9

2015‡ 3245 34.3 19.7 54.0 33.4 108.5 1.1 0.8

Averages (1986-2015) 2597 35.1 18.7 53.8 27.8 73.0 1.5 0.9

Sources: United States Department of AgricultureIowa State UniversityUniversity of Minnesota

*Protein and oil concentrations expressed on a 13% moisture basis†Sum represents sum of protein and oil concentrations‡2006 - 2015 quality estimates are weighted by yearly production estimates by state

Table 5. Historical Summary of Yield and Quality Data for US Soybeans


17

ContactInformation

DR. SETH L. NAEVE

SOYBEAN EXTENSION AGRONOMIST

DR. JILL MILLER‐GARVIN

SCIENTIST

[email protected] [email protected]

UniversityofMinnesotaDepartmentofAgronomy&PlantGenetics411BorlaugHall1991UpperBufordCircleSt.Paul,MN55108Tel612‐625‐4298Fax612‐624‐3288www.ussec.org/resources/statistics.htmlwww.soybeans.umn.edu

FundingprovidedbyUnitedStatesSoybeanExportCouncil(USSEC)

United States Soybean Quality...Foreign material (FM) found in 2015 US samples was, on average, very...

Documents

Transcript of United States Soybean Quality...Foreign material (FM) found in 2015 US samples was, on average, very...