RTRS Calculadora PDF ENG

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) —1
This report was commissioned by Round Table on Responsible Soy

Association (RTRS) (“RTRS”) to 3Keel LLP, and shall not be copied,
displayed, distributed, printed, licensed, modified, published, reproduced,
sold, transmitted, used to create a derivative work, or otherwise used for
public or commercial purposes without the prior written consent of RTRS.

Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 4
Selecting soy conversion factors ..................................................................... 6
Calculating soybean equivalent ........................................................................ 8
References ........................................................................................................ 10
Appendix I: Austral University Study ................................................................. 12
Appendix II: Publicly available sources of conversion factors ............................ 57

Introduction
As awareness of the environmental and social impacts of soy production has risen
amongst the general population, organisations are taking a more active interest in
ensuring that the soy used in their supply chains is sourced sustainably.
However, unlike other commodities, such as timber and palm oil, soy is often not visible in the final
product or used directly in the product manufacturing process, making usage more difficult to quantify.
Downstream users of soy often have limited understanding of the volume of soy used in their products
as they are far removed from the primary producers and traders that handle soy. Instead, they often
buy different soy products, or composite products that either are pre-mixed with soy (e.g. feed) or have
embodied soymeal in their livestock production (e.g. meat, eggs, milk). Even direct users of soy often
purchase soy products (e.g. oil, meal, hull) which have undergone processing and may not be aware of how
many soybeans are produced in order to meet their needs.
The RTRS Conversion Factor System exists as a tool to increase understanding of soy usage and can be
used by actors in the soy sector and the interested public. A set of conversion factors are used, based
on academic research into soybean processing into multiple products and livestock supply chains for an
average soybean equivalent footprint regardless of where it is produced. These conversion factors specify
how many units of soybean equivalent have been used as an input in the production of one unit of a
product. Conversion factors are available for different soy products, livestock feed or food.
In calculating the soy conversion factor for a product, two separate challenges exist:
1. How much soy is used in the production of soy products (e.g. soy oil, soy meal), livestock feed or
food?
2. How can this requirement be reflected at an organisation level when production occurs in multiple
supply chains around the world?
To address the first challenge RTRS commissioned research from Universidad Austral, in Argentina,
assessing the soybean requirements and uses for different soy products. For the second challenge, RTRS
commissioned research into existing publicly available studies that could best reflect the average use of
soy for various products and livestock products.
This paper provides the technical details regarding the selection of the factors presented in the RTRS
Conversion Factor System and put it in a tool, the Soy Footprint Calculator. It addresses the main decisions
and sources reviewed in compiling the dataset to improve transparency regarding this important step in
increasing the understanding of how many soybeans are required to satisfy market demand.
Two conversion factors are presented based on the way in which soybean demand can be understood to
occur:
Economic Allocation – Under this method it is recognised that there are multiple uses of soybeans and any
one use will have associated byproducts that will be applied in other sectors (e.g. lecithin production will
result in soy oil, meal and hulls in addition to the lecithin). The allocation method therefore occurs by
aligning the demand to value of the various outputs to fairly represent how soybean demand is not always
driven by one particular output.
Demand Allocation – Under this method the physical volume of soybeans needed to supply enough
materials for the product is presented. This does not account for the use of any by/sub-products from the
manufacturing process (e.g. to have a tonne of soy lecithin a certain volume of soybeans are needed).

Type Product Tonnes soy per tonne of product
Soybean equivalent Soybean equivalent Primary source

(economic) (demand)
Soy product Soymeal (high-pro) 0.870 1.389 Austral University

Soymeal (low-pro) 0.870 1.274 Austral University
Soy crude oil (with gums) 1.720 5.000 Austral University
Soy hull 0.430 15.385 Austral University
Soy crude oil (degummed) 1.660 5.155 Austral University
Soy lecithin 2.470 166.667 Austral University
Biodiesel 1.900 6.369 Austral University
Glycerol 0.900 58.824 Austral University
Refined oil 1.990 5.848 Austral University
Livestock feed Cattle (Beef) 0.076 0.10 Hoste (WUR)

Cattle (Dairy) 0.113 0.16 Hoste (WUR)
Farmed fish 0.295 0.34 Profundo
Poultry (laying) 0.121 0.14 Hoste (WUR)
Poultry (meat) 0.235 0.26 Hoste (WUR)
Pork 0.083 0.10 Hoste (WUR)
Livestock Beef 0.292 1.546 Profundo

product Pork 0.345 1.536 Profundo
(carcass weight)
Chicken 0.666 1.108 Hoste (WUR & IDH)
Livestock Beef 0.451 2.377 Profundo

product Pork 0.507 2.257 Profundo
(retail weight)
Chicken 0.756 1.257 Hoste (WUR & IDH)
Eggs 0.533 0.881 Profundo
Milk 0.037 0.311 Profundo
Butter 0.241 2.034 Profundo
Cheese 0.182 1.532 Profundo
Chocolate 0.064 1.123 Profundo
Yoghurt 0.040 0.335 Profundo
Cream 0.108 0.909 Profundo

Selecting soy
conversion factors
There are a number of studies identifying conversion factors for soy, but the
factors given vary significantly. RTRS commissioned 3Keel LLP – a specialist
sustainability consultancy – to conduct a structured literature review process -
including the RTRS commissioned soybean product study undertaken by Austral
University - to identify the most appropriate factors existing publicly available
factors for RTRS based on the need to have a single set of global factors applicable
to all actors of the soy value chain. This five-step process is described in greater
detail in this section.
Identify Select Assess Select factors Calculate

suitable appropriate quality from studies additional
sources studies factors
Identifying sources
Searches were conducted using a range of academic and public search engines (e.g. Academic Search
Complete) using relevant key words in various combinations, such as “soy conversion”, “footprint”, “feed
mix”. Each source was reviewed and a judgement was made as to whether that source was relevant and
could contain an appropriate soy conversion factor for use by RTRS. References in the bibliography were
also assessed so that additional relevant sources could be included.
Selecting sources for assessment

Papers which did not include novel data or sources (i.e. they only referenced another literature source for
the factors presented), or which had later been replaced by more updated versions, were deselected from
the review process.
Assessing sources
A scoring method was created in order to provide an objective method for assessing the suitability of each
source. Scores, on a scale of 1-4 were given for the following indicators in light of the requirements for the
RTRS Soy Footprint Calculator:

Indicator Description
Transparency of method Are the method and significant assumptions explained?

Reliability of method Are data and calculations used conducive to accurate factors?
Reliability of sources Are sources used conducive to accurate factors?
Geographical applicability Does data used cover a wide range of countries?
Frequency of use How often are factors cited by other sources?
Range of proteins studied How many factors does the source provide for RTRS Soy Footprint Calculator use?
A summary of each source reviewed and the accompanying scoring is provided in the Appendix.
Selecting factors for use in RTRS calculator

Two approaches were applied in selecting sources once they have been scored:
1) Limited factor availability - Where there is only one existing conversion factor for a protein type, this has
been used.
2) Multiple factor availability - The two sources which score most highly in the quality review process
were compared for similarities and differences and a decision made on the basis of this. Although an
objective process was applied to short list these factors, a subjective judgement was applied in some
scenarios where expert judgement indicated that one value may be more appropriate than another.
In general, there is not an existing widely available dataset that is comparable or a single representative
factor for the various products being reviewed. The variability of production systems, feed rations,
and species types all contribute to not being able to be fully captured in having just one factor for the
world. However, in the interests of the users and the availability of information that users are likely to
have on these matters themselves, the selected factors are considered fit for purpose. Organisations are
encouraged to engage their supply chains to understand their specific soy footprints as part of their wider
engagement approaches for supporting sustainable soybean production.
Calculating additional factors

For some products, no factors could be selected from the existing research available. This was either
because factors did not exist (e.g. chocolate) or because the existing research used assumptions when
calculating the conversion factor for a dairy product (e.g. cheese, butter) which were deemed to be not
representative of actual production practices.
In the first case, a conversion factor was found using the average volume of livestock and soy ingredients
within a unit of the product, based on product specifications of different chocolate varieties. This
information was then combined with existing conversion factors (i.e. for milk) in order to find a conversion
factor for chocolate.
In the latter case, guidelines from Dairy UK, DairyCo and the Carbon Trust (2010) were used for allocating
impacts to different dairy products. This allocation is based on the dry mass percentage of each dairy
product, which correlates with economic value. Under this method, dairy products with a high dry mass
percentage have a higher soy footprint compared to those with a low dry mass percentage.

Calculating soybean
equivalent
Conversion factors found from the existing literature showed that most livestock
feed used multiple soy products in their production. Soy meal, hull, oil and whole
soybean were most commonly used. Each has their own specific qualities and
uses, so whilst existing research into conversion factors regards each equally
(with the exception of hull, which is often discounted as being a byproduct itself),
the factors in the RTRS Soy Footprint Calculator go beyond this to reflect the
differences between each soy product.
To address the matter of what is a byproduct – and thus a driver of soybean

production –two different footprints are provided.
Demand allocation
The demand model for allocation of soy products is useful for understanding demand when a soy product
makes up only a small proportion of the output of the processing of soybeans, but a large amount of soy
is used. This approach shows the actual soybean demand and is helpful in illustrating the actual volume of
soybeans needed to be produced to create a product.
Crude oil Crude oil Biodiesel

0.200 tonnes 0.194 tonnes 0.157 tonnes
Soymeal (high pro) Lecithin Glycerol

0.720 tonnes 0.006 tonnes 0.017 tonnes
OR
1 tonne soybeans Hull pellets Refined oil
0.065 tonnes 0.171 tonnes
Figure 1. Soy products derived from processing (high-pro process). Reproduced from ‘Soybean conversion
factors’ by Austral University.
To inform the soybean equivalent for different soy products, a model on the volumes of soy product
produced per 1 tonne soybean was commissioned by RTRS to Austral University. The outputs from this
model were used to calculate soybean equivalent for each soy product by dividing 1 by the volume of each
soy product which can be obtained after processing one unit of soybeans. Values are mostly used from the
high-pro process rather than low-pro process, as this includes hull. These values are shown in Figure 1.

Soy product Tonnes soy product Tonnes soybean equivalent
per tonne soybean per tonne soy product
High-pro soybean meal 0.72 1.39

Low-pro soybean meal 0.79 1.27
Soy crude oil (with gums) 0.20 5.00
Hull 0.07 15.38
Soy lecithin 0.01 166.67
Soy crude oil (without gums) 0.19 5.15
Soy refined oil 0.17 5.85
Biodiesel 0.16 6.37
Glycerol 0.02 58.82
A user of the calculator may wish to use this model because it is transparent and shows a clear link to
how many soybeans are needed to produce a soy product. However, this model may be seen to show a
disproportionately large demand requirement for both low value products (e.g. hulls) or those that produce
very little product on a per soybean basis (e.g. lecithin). It also ignores the value of other parts of the
soybean which can be used after processing.
Economic allocation
Two principles sit behind the economic model of allocation of soy products:
1. Soybean production is driven by the soy products which have the highest share of the value of production
outputs from one tonne of soybeans.
2. The soybean equivalent of all the products derived from one tonne of soybean should sum up to one
tonne of soybean equivalent.
To inform the model, information on how much of each soy product can be produced per tonne of soybean
was used from the Austral University model. A number of different sources were used to provide an
economic value for each product, as shown in the table below, and these allocations will vary from time to
time as the market fluctuates.
The method for calculating economic soybean equivalent is shown below using the equation below. The
value of outputs after processing of one tonne soybeans varies depending on the soy product because the
outputs may vary depending on the production process used, as shown in Figure 1.
Value of one ton soy product

Soybean equivalent pf soy product =
Value of output after processing one ton soybeans

Soy product Source $ / ton soy $ / ton soybeans $ / ton soybeans
product after processing after processing
Soy crude oil (with gums) IMF Commodity Index 705 410 1.72
Soybean meal IMF Commodity Index 357 410 0.87
Soy hull Kroes & Kuepper 185 410 0.43
Soy lecithin EU Merger Procedure 1,000 405 2.47
Crude oil (degummed) Indexmundi 671 405 1.66
Biodiesel Neste 761 417 1.90
Glycerol Oleoline 360 400 0.90
Refined oil Agriwatch 830 400 1.99
A user of the calculator may wish to use this model because it recognizes the value of different soy
products used. However, there is the possibility that this model could lead to misleading demand
requirements for soy when high value outputs are not demand drivers.
References
Agriwatch (2019) Soy oil. Available at: http://www.agriwatch.com/edible-oils/soyoil-soybean-oil/.
Austral University (2019) Soybean conversion factors.
CGF (2016) Calculation guidelines for the measurement of embedded soy usage in consumer goods
businesses. Available at: https://www.theconsumergoodsforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/201605-
CGF-and-KPMG-Soy-Measurement-Guidance-Final-1.pdf.
Commission of the European Communities (2006) REGULATION (EC) No 139/2004

MERGER PROCEDURE. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/
m3975_20060329_20682_en.pdf.
Dairy UK, DairyCo and Carbon Trust (2010) Guidelines for the Carbon Footprinting of Dairy Products in the
UK. Available at: https://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/resources-library/research-development/environment/carbon-
footprinting-dairy-products-in-the-uk/#.Xt4jwmhKjZs.
ECVC and Eco Ruralis (2018) The trouble with soy. Available at: https://www.eurovia.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/08/Report-The-trouble-with-soy-2018-compressed.pdf.
Efeca (2018) UK Roundtable on Sustainable Soya: Baseline study 2018. Available at: http://www.efeca.com/
wp-content/uploads/2018/11/UK-RT-on-Sustainable-Soya-baseline-report-Oct-2018.pdf.
FAO (2006) Livestock’s long shadow. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-a0701e.pdf.
Friends of the Earth (2008) What’s feeding our food? Available at: https://friendsoftheearth.uk/sites/default/
files/downloads/livestock_impacts.pdf.
Hoste (Waginengen Economic Research & IDH) (2016) Soy footprint of animal products in Europe. Available
at: https://edepot.wur.nl/391055.
Hoste (Waginengen Economic Research) (2014) Sojarverbruik in de Nederlandse diervoederindustrie 2011-

2013. Available at: https://edepot.wur.nl/316027.
Hoste and Bulhuis (Waginengen Economic Research) (2010) Sojaverbruik in Nederland. Available at: http://
edepot.wur.nl/157676.
IDH (2019) European Soy Monitor. Available at: https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/uploaded/2019/04/

European-Soy-Monitor.pdf.
IMF (2019) Commodity Prices. Available at: https://www.imf.org/en/Research/commodity-prices.
ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) — 10

Indexmundi (2019) Commodity price indices. Available at: https://www.indexmundi.com/
commodities/?commodity=soybean-oil.
Jennings, Sheane and McCosker (3Keel) (2017) Deforestation and social risks in the UK’s commodity supply
chains. Available at: https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2017-10/Risky%20Business%20-%20
October%202017.pdf.
Kroes and Kuepper (Profundo) (2015) Mapping the soy supply chain in Europe. Available at: https://wwfeu.
awsassets.panda.org/downloads/mapping_soy_supply_chain_europe_wwf_2015.pdf
Neste (2019) Biodiesel prices (SME & FAME). Available at: https://www.neste.com/corporate-info/investors/
market-data/biodiesel-prices-sme-fame.
Oleoline (2018) Glycerine market report. Available at: http://www.hbint.com/datas/

media/590204fd077a6e381ef1a252/sample-quarterly-glycerine.pdf.
Schreiber, Villa Garcia & Allen (3Keel) (2019) Moving to deforestation free animal feed. Available at: https://
www.3keel.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/3keel_soy_report_2019.pdf
Sustainable Food Trust (2017) Are dairy cows and livestock behind the growth of soy in South America?
Available at: https://sustainablefoodtrust.org/articles/dairy-cows-livestock-behind-growth-soya-south-
america/.
Van Gelder, Kuepper & Vrins (Profundo) (2014) Soy barometer 2014: A research report for the Dutch Soy
Coalition. Available at: https://www.bothends.org/uploaded_files/inlineitem/1Background_research_
report_Soy_Barometer_2014.pdf.
WWF (2014) The Growth of Soy. Available at: http://awsassets.wwfdk.panda.org/downloads/wwf_soy_

report_final_jan_19.pdf.

Appendix I
Austral University Study
Soybean
conversion factors
Professors Roberto Feeney and Sergio Grossman
April 4, 2019

This document is an exclusive property of Round Table on Responsible
Soy Association (RTRS) “(RTRS).”
The information and materials contained in the document shall not be

copied, displayed, distributed, printed, otherwise licensed, modified,
published, reproduced, sold, transmitted, used to create a derivative work,
or otherwise used for public or commercial purposes. Any reproduction,
copy, alteration, modification or undue use of the information and material
contained herein without prior written consent of RTRS is forbidden and
constitutes a criminal offence. All charts, tables, graphs, information,
materials, contents, pictures, texts included or displayed or related to this
document are duly registered and the exclusive property of RTRS. Total or
partial reproduction by any means is, therefore, forbidden.
RTRS’s exclusive property on this document is protected by Copyright

Law No. 11,723. Total or partial alteration or distortion, reproduction or
public display of this work without the express written consent of RTRS
constitutes a criminal offence as typified by the legislation in force, as well
as by international Copyright conventions and treaties.

Table of contents
Introduction and objectives 15
Chapter I: key elements in soybean conversion 17
The soybean 17
Soy composition 19
Soy industrial quality 20
Key elements in soybean conversion 25
Chapter II: soybean processing 23

First soybean processing 25
Reception 25
Preparation 30
Extraction 33
Second soybean processing 34
Neutralization 34
Transesterication 34
Chapter III: conversion factors 36
Measurement of the conversion factors 36
Keys of the conversion factors 36
Process losses 27 37
Yield drivers 37
Chapter IV: soybean by-products and their uses in the
food, cosmetic, pharmaceutical and energy industries 40
Crude oil 40
Soybean meal 40
Soybean hull pellet 41
Soy lecithin 41
Biodiesel 42
Glycerol 43
Refined soybean oil 44
Summary 45
Annexes 47
Annex 1: About Austral University 47
Annex 2 : About the authors 49
Glossary 51
Sources of information 52
References 52
Other sources of information 56

Introduction
and objectives
Soybean has become one of the most important and profitable world crops,
ranking fourth based on planted area and production¹ (FAOSTAT, 2019).
Soybeans are a significant and cheap source of protein, oil and metabolizable energy. Oil and soybean meal
are the two main economical components of soybean (Patil et al., 2017). Its value lies in the fact that it is
a raw material for balanced feed fed to poultry, pigs, and bovines. Besides, it is also an ingredient of food
products and a raw material for the production of biofuels and oils (USDA, December 2018).
World soy production has increased significantly in the past ten years, from 212 million tons produced in
2008 to 360 million in 2018. Soybean is grown in approximately 125 million hectares worldwide. Production
increase results from soybean primary uses as a good protein-content and low-price component of animal
diets. Besides, soybean is a raw material for the production of biofuels and oils (USDA, December 2018).
The United States is the largest producer of soybeans, accounting for, approximately 35% of the total
production (120 million tons a year, on average). Meanwhile, Mercosur, the Southern Common Market
established by Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, and Uruguay produces almost 55% of the total
world production.
Brazil is the leading producer, with almost 115 million tons, followed by Argentina with 55 M, Paraguay with
10 M, Uruguay with 5 M, and Bolivia with 2.7 M (USDA, December 2018).
Most of the world’s soybeans are crushed (soybean crushing) to produce, in this first processing, soy oil and
soybean meal². China, the United States, Brazil, and Argentina are the world leaders in soy oil and soy meal
production. China ranks fourth as a soy producer with 16 M tons and, in 2019, crushed about 90 M tons. It
means that China is the number one buyer and importer of soybeans for crushing.
The first stage of the soybean crushing results in the extraction of crude oil, meal, hull pellet, and lecithin.
Biodiesel, glycerol or refined oil are the products of the second industrial processing. Lecithin and
glycerol are used as ingredients in over 1,000 food products. These by-products also have industrial and
pharmaceutical uses.
This report researches and analyses the soybean conversion factors in the different by-products, that is, the
different yields of industrial soybean processing, expressed as percentages.
Each stage of the production processes (Chapter II) was analyzed, and the conversion factors (Chapter III)
were estimated. This report ends by summarizing the main characteristics and uses of the different
by-products of soybean (Chapter IV).
¹ Maize, wheat and rice production volumes are larger than soybean volumes.
² We are using oil and meal as generic terms. The report further explains the different
technical characterizations of oil and meal.

The methodology included collecting information from different sources, consultations with industry
experts and professors offering diverse views and located in various geographical points, mainly Argentina,
Brazil, the United States, and some European countries. Interviews were held with technical experts
specialized in seed quality and soybean crushing facilities, as well as in biofuels refining and extraction.
The analysis was completed with a thorough review of the literature on seed quality, oil extraction and
processing technologies, and uses of soybean by-products.
Finally, data obtained by crossing information from the literature review and the empirical knowledge
gathered in the interviews with industry experts were duly validated.
This report concludes strongly sustained by five fundamental pillars: the references, the academia, the
experts, the crushing industry and the intermediate institutions3 that supplied the information required to
make a rigorous and representative estimation of each soybean conversion factor.
As this report clearly explains, soybean processing is standardized worldwide, and the crushing facilities
are equipped with similar equipment.
However, it was necessary to consider the impact of geographical diversity, since it affects soybean
industrial quality and yield of the different by-products. Conclusive data are, therefore, average and
representative values that summarize the results obtained in different regions of the planet.
3
See in Information Sources/Other sources consulted.

Chapter I
Key elements in soybean conversion
The soybean
Soybean is a plant of the pea family, which is in turn formed by a large number of species characterized
by their pod-type fruits, where the seeds (or beans) are located. When mature, the pod opens up
longitudinally into two valves to allow for the dispersal of seeds. Legumes, which attract the nitrogen
present in the air (thus aiding in plant growth) are soil-enrichening crops. Best known legumes are peas,
chickpeas, lentils, peanuts, and soybeans. The soybean is rich in proteins, essential amino acids, oil, and
metabolizable energy, so it is considered a unique legume (Bureau of Plant Industry).
The plant develops over 80-150 days between sowing and harvest (depending on the seed variety), to a
height of approximately 1 m. Harvesting takes place when the right conditions are in place, and the plant
has reached maturity, which is evident by the color of pods, that changes from green to brownish-gray.
This variation occurs gradually, from the lower to the top pods, over just a few days. When ripening starts,
leaves start to turn yellow and fall off the plant, and only the pods remain. During the ripening process,
beans stop growing and their moisture content drops from 60% to approximately 13-15%, which is the
appropriate level to start with harvesting operations (Biblioteca de la Agricultura, 1997).

The pod (fruit) is wide, flat and hairy, 6-10 cm long, with its color going from yellow to brown when wholly
ripe and dry. The pod contains 1 to 5 seeds, while the most common varieties include 2 to 3. Seed colors
may be yellow, black or green (Bureau of Plant Industry).
The soybean Pod
The seeds are round and feature a small brown scar or hilum, a mark that remains after they have been
released from the pod. They weigh approximately 120-180mg and are 5-11mm in size. The bean consists
of the hull and the nucleus. Hull weight accounts for 7-8% of total seed weight. The nucleus includes the
storage tissues, consisting of cells that are predominantly filled with oil and protein (Bair, 1979).
The soybean

Soy composition
The soybean consists of 20% oil, and 40% protein. Most of the oil and protein content is stored in
organelles called protein storage vacuoles and oil bodies (Campbell, 2011). The oil inside a soybean contains
thousands of small oil bodies located in the cell wall and outside the protein storage vacuoles. These are
relatively large (2 to 10 microns in diameter), roundish in shape, while oil bodies are far smaller (with a
diameter of approximately 0.2 - 0.5 microns) (Bair, 1979).
Structure of a soybean (Kemper, 2005)
1 Cell wall CW: Cell wall

PSV: Protein storage vacuoles
2 Protein storage vacuoles OB: Oil bodies
N: Nucleus
3 Carbohydrates, ashes UN: Nucleolus
*: Intercellular spaces
4 Oil bodies

Soy industrial quality
The industrial grade of soybean is defined by the oil and protein content measured as a percentage of total
weight (Francioni, 2010).
The protein content bears a negative correlation to soybean yield (this is positive in the case of the oil
content). Thus, there generally is an inverse relationship between oil and protein content, which makes it
difficult to develop beans that are both oil- and protein-rich (Rotundo, 2009; Da Silva Rodrígues et al., 2014;
Dhungana et al., 2017). In summary, the higher the yield, the lower the protein content and the higher the
oil content (inversely, the lower the yield, the higher the protein content and the lower the oil content).
Oil and protein concentrations are the result of different variables affecting the plant during the crop cycle.
Soybean production is governed by environmental, genetic and crop management factors; the latter is the
only one that is likely to be modified or controlled by the farmer (Bellaloui, 2011).
Environmental factors
Temperature mostly affects oil (rather than protein content).

As temperature rises, this is expected to translate into an increase in oil content during grain filling (i.e., the
last stages in plant growth), with the ideal being 25-28° C.
The protein percentage also decreases when temperatures drop below 20° C, and increases during
the grain filling stage as temperature rises (Francioni, 2010; Thuzar et al., 2010; Dardanelli et al., 2006;
Cuniberti et al.2004).
Water stress bears a negative impact on both yield and the amount of protein and oil found inside the bean.
A plant affected by water stress has a more abundant protein content, with oil content being not as plenty
(Rotundo, 2009; United Soybean Board, 2018).
Latitude is another environmental factor. The lower the latitude, the higher the oil and protein content, as
compared to the percentages found in plants grown at higher latitudes.
Light also bears a positive impact on the amount of oil accumulated inside the bean during maturation.
Nitrogen availability is a critical factor for the amount of protein to be stored in the protein storage
vacuoles during grain filling. Nitrogen uptake takes place through a process whereby the plant captures the
nitrogen found in air through a symbiotic association between plant roots and the bacteria present in the
soil (Rotundo & Westgate, 2009).
Genetic factors
The varieties grown in many countries are the result of plant breeding programs that, rather than aiming at
improving oil and protein content, are intended to increase the yield per hectare and develop resistance to
pests. Improved yields have therefore translated into a substantial decrease in protein content.

Crop management factors
The sowing date is particularly relevant among soybean crop management factors. As sowing is delayed
(November to January in the Southern Hemisphere; April to June in the Northern Hemisphere), positive
correlations in the protein content have been identified, but negative correlations as far as oil content is
concerned.
Another infuential factor is the soybean maturity group, this being understood as the length of the crop
cycle (from planting to physiological maturity). Maturity groups usually range from II-III to the upper ranges
(VIII-IX). The lower groups grow earlier, while crops in the upper range have a longer growth cycle. The
choice of the maturity group is a function of the latitude at which the crop is sown, the planting date,
and the potential of the surrounding environment. Generally speaking, the longer maturity groups yield
more protein and less oil (Dardanelli et al., 2006).
These three factors (genetics, environment, crop management) combined cause the protein and oil
content in the bean to vary depending on the geographical location of crops, with genetics being the most
important factor. By way of example, studies that perform a comparative analysis of soybean quality among
soy producing countries show that the United States soybean and soybean meal feature a lower protein
percentage compared to those from Brazil, but higher than Argentina’s (Thaku et al., 2010; Karr-Lilienthal et
al., 2004).
According to data from the United Soybean Board (2018) in United States soybean from 2008-2017, protein
accounted for 34.56% of the bean (with a 13% moisture content), while oil concentration amounted to
18.87%, on average. As for the quality of Argentine soybean in the period 2008-2018, the average oil and
protein content was 22.98% and 32.58%, respectively (with a 13% moisture content in the case of protein)
(Cuniberti, 2018). Average values in Brazil for the years 2012/13 and 2016/17 were 37.10% protein and
20.12% oil. The table below presents these comparative values.
Soybean quality - comparative figures
Crop Year Argentina United States Brazil*

Protein Oil Protein Oil Protein Oil
2008 (2008/09) 34,28 22,00 34,10 19,10

2009 (2009/10) 33,58 22,90 35,30 18,60
2010 (2010/11) 34,02 23,30 35,00 18,60
2011 (2011/12) 32,32 22,70 34,90 18,10
2012 (2012/13) 32,28 22,20 34,30 18,50 38,00 38,00
2013 (2013/14) 32,36 21,70 34,70 19,00 37,50 37,50
2014 (2014/5) 32,45 23,90 34,40 18,60 37,00 37,00
2015 (2015/16) 32,53 24,40 34,30 19,80 36,50 36,50
2016 (2016/2017) 31,84 23,30 34,50 19,30 36,50 36,50
2017 (2017/18) 30,10 23,40 34,10 19,10
Average for the past 5 years 31,86 23,34 34,40 19,16 37, 10 20, 12
Average for the past 10 years 32,58 22,98 34,56 18,87
(Moisture content: 13%) Sources: Based on Braga (2017), Cuniberti (2018), and USCC (2018)
Approximate values, based on Braga et al., APROSOJA (2017)

*

Key elements in soybean conversion
The amount of soybean meal, oil, hull pellets, and lecithin resulting from the first processing in the crushing
plant is affected by several factors, which are summarized below.
The three most important elements affecting the soybean conversion factors are: 1) the industrial process;
2) the operations management; 3) the amount of seed planted and, consequently, the quality of the raw
material (bean) for processing.
The first variable (the industrial process) is a function of the technology used and of the environment,
as well as of the market quality requirements for the different by-products. Technology breakthroughs,
process automation, and the use of equipment and specific machinery have led to significant developments
in this industry, which in turn affect the reliability and standardization of processes and end products.
These parameters bear a direct impact on the end quality of the industrial products obtained (Bailey, 1996).
The second high-impact factor is the way operations are managed. The implementation of decisions taken
by plant management about equipment maintenance and processes is, of course, the most influential
element. In this connection, quality management departments must also see to safety certificates,
to remove any physical, chemical and biological risks (metals, contaminants, and salmonella (mainly
introduced by doves), respectively). They are also responsible for complying with the customer’s
commercial standards, namely moisture and protein content, amino acid profile, fiber content, and
carbohydrate composition, among others. Quality Assurance Departments must also observe the standards
established by the Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA) (in the case of meals), and the Federation of
Oils, Seeds and Fats Associations (FOSFA) (oils).
The last variable - seed quality - is dependent upon the decisions made by the grower at the time of
planting. The selected seed genetics is of the essence for the final content of basic by-products such as
meal and oil.

Chapter II
Soybean processing
Soybean processing includes two main stages:
The products from the first processing or crushing are oil, meals, hull pellets, and lecithin. The second
processing produces biodiesel as the main by-product and glycerol or refined oil as secondary by-products.
Reception
Preparation
Extraction
FIRST PROCESSING
Crude oil Lecithin Meal Hull pellet

degumming
High Pro or Low Pro

SECOND PROCESSING
Preparation
(Neutralization)
Biodiesel Glyserol or Refined oil
Soybean Crushing Facility - Terminal 6

Reception
Soybean
Delivery and sampling
Weighing and unloading
First storage
Pre-cleaning
Second storage
in buffer bin
Preparation
Conditioning
Aspiration
Breaking and aspiration Hull pelleting
Breaking
Flaking
FIRST PROCESSING
Extrusion*
First storage
Pre-cleaning
Extraction
Miscella** Solid material
Evaporation Dissolventizing and toasting
Degumming Drying
Drying Crushing
Degummed Lecithin*** Meal Hull pellet

crude oil
High Pro or Low Pro
Preparation
(Neutralization)
SECOND PROCESSING
Transesterification Bleaching
Biodiesel Glycerol Deodorization
Refined oil
*
Extrusion and expansion are alternative processes, not required steps. They increase the efficiency of the extraction process.
**
Miscella is a mix of oil and hexane (solvent).
***
Lecithin is an optional product.

First soybean processing
Crushing involves three steps: reception, preparation and extraction.
Reception
Reception is the process of receiving the soybean at the crushing facility. Reception includes delivery,
sampling, weighing and unloading the grain, first storage, and pre-cleaning followed by a second
storage in a buffer bin (Bailey, 1996).

Soybean reception starts when the person responsible for transporting the grain completes the delivery
administrative steps. Required documents are submitted, and the grain quality is controlled. Sampling the
trucks, railcars, barges or vessels is a requirement to monitor the quality of the soybeans. The number of
samples is important since the final results will be applied to the total volume of grain delivered. The result
of tests performed on samples is the basis to determine the economic value of the lot. The grain is sampled
with a grain probe, that is, a probe sampler is introduced in the truck, railcar, barge or vessel to collect a
representative sample, that is, a sample that has the same quality characteristics as the lot. By resorting
to tables and standard calculation methods, the test results are applied to the lot and, when appropriate,
discounts are applied.
Sampling is a fundamental practice in the post-harvest since, unless the grain quality is well established,
crushing results more difficult (Abadía, 2012).
Every country has soybean trading standards that set slight variations in terms of impurities percentages
but keep the same quality monitoring tests at reception. Trade value is based on test weight, foreign matter
content, black grains, broken grains, damaged grains, green grains, fruits or leaves from foreign plants
(chamico) and live insects or spiders (Abadía, 2012; Rosario Board of Trade, 2008; Guinn, 2002).
One of the most critical parameters monitored at grain delivery is moisture content, estimated as the ratio
between water mass and grain mass (Abadía, 2012). Natural moisture content of soybeans ranges from
12 to 15% (Dorsa, 2008). Soybeans are usually delivered at 13 to 13.5% moisture content (Rosario Board of
Trade, 2008) though this percentage slightly varies depending on the trading standard set by each country.
Losses at the end of the process largely depend on the moisture content of soybeans at reception; that is
why strict compliance with standards is a must. Grain drying before delivery to the crushing facilities is an
additional cost for farmers. However, excessive moisture leads to significant discounts. Therefore, farmers
have to find a delicate balance between costs and quality.
A grading expert verifies compliance with the standards, following a pre-established sampling protocol.

These two steps are required to determine the exact number of tons of soybeans received. The weighing
and unloading process depends upon the transport mode that brings the soybeans to the facility and upon
the reception infrastructure. There could be from traditional scales to continuous flow weighing systems.
Traditional scales are static, and the systems are dynamic; grains can be weighed while being unloaded.
When soybeans arrive at the facility by truck, unloading is by gravity. Conveyor belts convey the grain from
and to the bins and processing units. River or ocean carriers are unloaded with aspiration systems or ship
unloaders that mechanically capture the grain and take it to the unloading hopper. The hopper is connected
to conveyor belts that take the raw material to storage bins.
First storage
There are two types of storage: vertical bins and flat warehouses. There are also some temporary solutions
such as silo bunkers and silo bags. Flat warehouses look like a warehouse and, depending on their design,
they can have underground storage.
Soy can be stored in flat warehouses. Carriers bring the soybean to the facility; belts convey it to the flat
warehouses where the filling equipment build the piles.
When soy arrives with a high moisture content due to rains or high relative humidity at harvest, before
storage, it should be kept in bins for some time to allow moisture to migrate to the surface and stabilize. It
is common practice to dry the grain to get the right moisture level before storage (Dorsa, 2008).
Pre-cleaning
Before processing, all foreign matter including sand, dust, stones, sticks and others should be removed to
avoid damaging the facility equipment. Potential pollutants, such as grass seeds, are removed to avoid a
negative impact on the final quality of any by-product (Dorsa, 2008). There are different engineering solution
for pre-cleaning: densimetric screens that sieve by weight differences or classiffiers that sieve by size.
Second storage in a buffer bin

Before extraction, soy is stored in a buffer bin where aeration systems air the grain by creating an airflow
inside the bin. The goal is to keep soy temperature low, preferably under 17°C, to avoid the development
of any kind of insects. Before extraction, it is also essential to remove the heat caused by grain and
microorganisms breathing and keep the temperature consistent (Carpaneto, 2010; Abadía, et al, 2012).
Below, the graph illustrates the different steps involved in reception.

First soybean Reception
processing
Reception Soybean grain
First storage
Pre-cleaning
Second storage
in Buffer bin
Preparation
At preparation, soy is prepared to extract oil and obtain meal (Bailey, 1996). Preparation for extraction may
vary depending on the raw material characteristics (Dorsa, 2008). To better understand this process, it
is appropriate to separate it in four steps: Soybean conditioning, cracking and aspiration, flaking, and
extrusion. The broken material (grain core) goes into flaking and extrusion, but the aspired material (the
hull) is processed in parallel to obtain hull pellet.
Conditioning
In any preparation process, soybeans are conditioned to take their moisture content to optimum levels. The
conditioning step should take moisture content from 13/13.5% (storage temperature) down to 10.5%, which
is appropriate for processing (Bailey, 1996). 10.5% is a standard for the global oil crushing industry4.
Cracking and aspiration

The goal is to separate the core of the seed, that contains the oil, the proteins, and the hull, that is rich in
fiber. Soybeans are cracked by passing through roller mills. The beans are cracked into 2, then 4, and finally
into 6 or 8 pieces. The cracked beans are conveyed together with the removed hull to heating and cleaning.
The soybean hulls are separated from the cracked beans. A flow of hot air heats the cracked soybeans to
60°C, before flaking and oil extraction (Dorsa, 2008).
The beans go through a multi-aspirator that removes the dust. A cyclonic separator separates the hull by
aspiration; part of the hot air is recovered and re-introduced to the heating sector to increase beans
temperature with no additional energy consumption.
The cracked bean is flaked, and the hull goes into the pelleting process.
4
Data from interviews with industry experts.

Hull pelleting
After aspiration, the material goes to pelleting where it is pressed and passed through small cavities
that shape it into small, long cylinders that, while they do not affect the characteristics of the material,
significantly improve its handling and transport because they essentially prevent pollution.
Hull pellet
Pelleting soybean hulls requires a critical control point, since the pellet quality may vary in certain
parameters, including increased temperature, moisture, etc. (Behnke, 2001). The pellets are dried and
cooled of. Then, they are conveyed to the storing bins or shipped, as appropriate.
Hull pellets are, on average, 6.5% of the total volume of soybean received and
processed.
Flaking
Flaking follows cracking and aspiration. The goal is to increase the specific contact surface exponentially,
to provide the grain a larger volume by optimizing flake thickness. A flake of approximately 38 mm is ideal
for oil extraction and meal production (Dorsa, 2008). Soybeans go through rollers that distort their cell
wall, making it easier to extract the oil and separate it from the solid material that will give the meal (Bailey,
1996).

Soybean flake
12 mm diameter
0,38 mm
Cellular structure of the soybean

0,38 mm
Approx. Thickness,
18 cells
Extrusion
Soybean flakes are passed through an extruder-like device known as an expander. Expansion facilitates
extracting the oil from flakes with solvent. This is not a required step in the process, but it is commonly
found in the industry, depending the equipment and operation set by the different facilities.
Flakes are pressed with water and steam injected into the product that is pressed against a die that
compacts the mass. An auger turning at a certain speed helps the product through the die (Valls Porta,
1993). At ambient temperature and pressure, the product that comes out of the die expands into a very
porous, spongy structure that breaks the cellular walls and allows easier access to the oil (Dorsa, 2008).
During soybean extrusion, temperature reaches 140 and 170ºC, in short periods that do not exceed 90
seconds.
The result is a mas with an apparent higher density and higher solvent percolation, which clearly increases
the extractor capacity and efficiency. The product is dried and cooled off, bringing temperature down to 58
and 60°C (Dorsa, 2008).
The next step in soybean processing is oil extraction and meal production.
Below, the different steps involved in preparation.

Preparation
Preparation
Conditioning
Aspiration Hull pelleting
Breaking and aspiration
Breaking Hull pellet
Flaking
Extrusion*
Extraction
Extraction separates the oil from the meal and minimizes the amount of oil remaining in the meal at the end
of the process. This step is critical for the success of the conversion factors.
During extraction, the flaked/extruded material is processed to obtain a solid and a liquid matter that will
finally transform into meal and oil, respectively.
Crude oil
Miscella
Solvent (hexane) is used to extract the oil. The solvent-extraction process separates the liquid from the
solid material. The solvent is colorless, easily flammable and with the characteristic smell of a dissolvent.
Hexane is poured in a counter-current on the solid material in the extractor. Percolation allows the hexane
to penetrate and extract the oil kept in the expanded material. At the end of this step, the expanded
material becomes partly in a white meal with a low content of oil, below 1% (Dorsa, 2008) and partly in an
oil-rich extract called miscella (Paraiso et al., 2003).
The oil-rich miscella (25 to 30% oil) is distilled and solvent is recovered (Bailey, 1996).
*
Extrusion and expansion are alternative processes, not required steps. They increase
the efficiency of the extraction process.

Evaporation
The oil-rich miscella goes to the evaporation unit where oil and hexane are separated (Dorsa, 2008). The
distillation of miscella allows recovering almost all the solvent, that is recycled into the process. The oil will
be removed in two consecutive stages.
First, miscella is heated at 45-55°C allowing oil to increase concentration from 25% up to 80% or more.
Second, miscella is heated at 95-105°C. Heat transfer increases oil concentration to 95 to 98%. Only 2 to
5% of the solvent remains (Bailey, 1996).
So far, solvent recovery was achieved by heat transfer. Oil cannot be heated up again to remove more oil
without affecting quality. Therefore, stripping is used to remove residual solvent without overheating the
oil. Stripping produces crude oil, a mix of oil and phospholipids, also called gums that should be removed
in a later step, called degumming.
The crude oil (with gums) represents, on average, 20% of the total volume of
soybean received and processed.
Degummed crude oil
Degumming
The purpose of degumming is removing the phospholipids5 from the oil. Dry phospholipids, or lecithin, are
an emulsifying agent that damages the oil quality and makes the second processing more difficult (Dorsa,
2008). However, lecithin has other uses that will be explained later in this report.
2% of hot water is added to the crude oil coming from the extractor to hydrate the phospholipids. A watery
gum is therefore obtained. Water degumming is effective only with phospholipids soluble in water, as is the
case in soybean (Bailey, 1996).
After hydration, the oil and gums are separated with a centrifuge. All the phospholipids are removed from
the gum. The degummed oil is dried in a flash-type drier at controlled temperature and pressure. After
drying, the oil is cooled before storage or transport (Bailey, 1996).
The degummed soybean oil presents, on average, the following characteristics: 1% acidity, expressed as
oleic acid; .1% moisture, 200 ppm of phosphorus and .05% of insoluble impurities (meals) that can be
stored in tanks to be shipped or treated to obtain other by-products (Bailey, 1996).
The commercial use of the degummed oil may be biodiesel and glycerol production or further refining to
produce edible oil (refined oil). The degummed oil can also be traded as such, though it is not common.
The degummed crude oil represents, on average, 19.4% of the total volume of
soybean received and processed.

Lecithin
Centrifugation produces a wet gum that, after drying, results in lecithin. Lecithin that comes out of the
extractor is not suitable for human consumption. It needs to be filltered off and become suitable by
temperature exchange, during drying.
This is how dry phospholipids, or lecithin, are obtained.
Lecithin represents, on average, 0.6% of the total volume of the soybean received
and processed.
Meal
Solids
After extracting the oil, the solids that remain should be processed to become meal, either High Pro or Low
Pro meal.
Dissolventizing and toasting

The meal that comes out of the extractor is a white product not suitable for the food industry because it
still contains undrained solvent that has to be removed. Meals require dissolventizing.
Besides, meals contain proteins, a series of difficult-to-digest antinutrients for many animal species.
Considering that the balanced feed industry is the main market for meals, such antinutrients must be
eliminated.
The meal is heated, cooked and toasted to improve digestibility.
Drying
After dissolventizing and toasting, the meal goes to drying and cooling. Moisture is stabilized at
approximately 12%; meal is ready for the final grinding where waste will be removed by magnetization
(Dorsa, 2008).
Grinding
The dry meal is ground and screened. The final product is soybean meal.
Soybean meal is stored in flat warehouses or vertical bins. Temperature and humidity must be controlled.
The meal international market currently requires a moisture content below 12.5%.
Grinding final product is two different quality meals, depending on the protein content of the raw material:
a low-protein content meal or Low-Pro or a high-protein content meal or High-Pro6.
High-Pro meals represent, on average, 72% of the total volume of the soybean
received and processed. Low-Pro meal may represent 78.5%, after adding the
previously removed hull. In Low-Pro meals, hull pellet will be 0%.
*
5 Phospholipids are a class of lipids that contain phosphoric acid. They consist of an
alcohol molecule (glycerol), two fatty acids and a phosphate group (Devlin, 2004).

So far, this reports has detailed the by-products from the first soybean processing.
First, crude oil with gums (20%), meals (High-Pro, 72% and Low Pro, 78.5%) and
soybean hull pellet (6.5%). Crude oil with gums is the source of degummed crude
oil (19.4%) and lecithin (6%).
Meals production ends here. Meals should now be transported to their different commercial destinations.
Degummed crude oil goes to the second processing to become suitable for the requirements of the
oil market. Two options are available, further processing to obtain edible oils (refined) or biodiesel and
glycerol.
Below, the different steps involved in extraction.

Extraction
Extraction
Miscella** Solid material
Evaporation Dissolventizing and toasting
Degumming Drying
Drying Crushing
Degummed Lecithin*** Meal Hull pellet

crude oil
High Pro or Low Pro
Miscella is a mix of oil and hexane (solvent).

**
Lecithin is an optional product.

***

Second soybean
Processing
It comes after crushing.

The degummed crude oil will now become either refined oil, biodiesel or glycerol.
The first step is neutralization, where oil is prepared. This is a common step for both refined oil, biodiesel
and glycerol production.
Neutralization
Free fatty acids that are responsible for oil acidity are neutralized by an alkaline separation and subsequent
centrifugation of the insoluble material. The fatty acids are physically removed. No chemical reactions
happen and a neuter oil is obtained.
The product of this step is a neutralized degummed oil.

Neutralization produces a loss of about 2%. If 100 kg are degummed, only 98 kg will remain after
neutralization7.
Extracting refined soybean oil

Processing should remove the components of edible oils that may have negative effects, such as bad color
and odor. Bleaching adsorb coloring components and deodorizing removes those that produce smell.
Bleaching resorts to activated minerals to remove color and other impurities. Deodorizing resorts to
distillation at high temperature to eliminate the rancid smell of soybean oil. These processes do not modify
the chemical characteristics of the oil.
This step accounts for a .3% of the losses that, added to the loss of the neutralizing step, results in a total
loss of 2.3%.
Refined oil represents, on average, 17.1% of the total volume of the soybean
received and processed.
Transesterification
Obtaining biodiesel and glycerol

The transesterification is the process behind biodiesel. The oil reacts with an alcohol and separates glycerol
from the fatty acids that combine back with another alcohol (methanol). The new chemical structure is a
methyl ester called biodiesel. Glycerol is widely used in other industries (Kouzo. 2012; Busic et al., 2018).
There are no losses (unwanted or unused material) in biodiesel production: a ton of degummed oil
produces .90 ton of biodiesel and .10 ton of glycerol.
On average, biodiesel accounts for 15.7% and glycerol, 1.7% of the total volume of
the soybean received and processed.
So far, this report has described the processes involved in the second soybean processing and their by-
products: refined oil, biodiesel and glycerol. The following figure illustrates the processes:
Data from interviews with industry experts

7

Second soybean
processing
Reception
Preparation
FIRST PROCESSING
Extraction
Crude oil Lecithin Meal Hull pellet

degumming
High Pro or Low Pro
Preparation
(Neutralization)
SECOND PROCESSING
Transesterification Bleaching
Biodiesel Glycerol Deodorization
Refined oil

Chapter III
Convertion factors
Measurement of the conversion factors

Conversion factors are defined as the amount of byproducts obtained during the first and second
industrialization stage (oil, meal, hull pellets, and lecithin on the one than; refined oil, or biodiesel, on the
other) from a given amount of soy beans.
The outcome of these conversion factors is mainly a result of the composition of soybean - the content of
moisture, protein, fat, carbohydrates and other elements - as well as the physical and chemical processes
used to transform the oilseed. The vegetable oil processing industry adequately call the conversion factors
determination “mass balance studies” (a more suitable term than “conversion factor determination studies”
to refer to the chemical analysis). All industrial calculations, and chemical operations carried out to
determine yield in an oilseed crushing plant are included in such studies.
The mass balance may be defined as the accounting of material entering and leaving a given industrial
process or part of it. Mass balance calculations are practically always a prerequisite for the financial
viability of a soybean crushing plant (Deiana, 2018).
Brumm & Hurburgh (1990), and Wagner (2017) have published papers on the mass balance in soybean
processing. The Brumm & Hurburgh model (1990) was developed to determine the estimated economic
value of products obtained during the solvent extraction of oil and meal, based on the commercial rules
applicable to these products. Wagner (2017) expanded the above model to include various nutrition
compositions of soybean and their potential impact on the economic value of byproducts.
Also worth mentioning is the paper published by Chenga (2017), which determines the financial viability of
a soybean crushing plant producing crude oil, soybean meal and hull pellets as end byproducts.
This paper presents the wet weight conversion factor values (i.e., the moisture content in the beans sold
by the grower)8. The wet weight is what determines the commercial value of the beans, and the factor
that both farmers and the food industry are most interested in. These values result from engaging in
consultation with industry experts, equipment manufacturers, consultants in industrial associations, the
pertinent literature, and exchanges with university professors in Argentina and abroad.
Keys of the conversion factors

Summarizing the information provided so far, the three main factors in the soybean transformation process
that determine yields are the effciency of the industrial process, proper operations management, and the
industrial grade of soybeans.
Industrial processes are global and standardized, so they are similar in different countries. Proper
management of operations is also similar among crushing companies throughout the world. The industrial
grade of beans is, however, a key factor that differentiates soybean crushing plants performance across
different geographies.
8
As explained in chapter II, farmers usually deliver soybean with
a moisture content that ranges from between 13 to 13.5%.

As regards quality, different studies have determined that Chinese and Brazilian soybean protein content
is higher than the concentration found in soybean grown in the United States. Protein concentration of US
soy is consistently higher than protein levels of soybeans produced in Argentina, characterized by their low
protein content. Having said that, the soybean produced in China has a lower oil content than that from
other regions (Brumm & Hurburgh, 1990; Wilson, 2004; Medic, 2014).
Process losses
The material entering a processing plant generally contains 2% of foreign matter. Part of it will be fed into
the process, while the remainder will constitute a loss (Wagner, 2017).
Losses means the loss of raw material during the production process, consisting mainly in foreign matter
and water (moisture) that remains. They include improper elements such as plastics, wood, dust, etc.,
which may damage the equipment and must, therefore, be removed. Metal is generally the first foreign
matter being removed using magnetic force (Kemper, 2005).
Water is a major source of loss. The industry receives the raw material with a moisture content on the
order of 13%. The bean must be dried to reduce this value to 10% to remove the hull and obtain protein-rich
meals, improve the effectiveness of operations in subsequent processes, and minimize degradation during
storage (Kemper, 2005).
Once foreign material (e.g. plastics, stones, wood) has been removed, other impurities such as pods, sticks,
(that do not constitute a loss in and for itself) may be crushed and processed.
In this paper, we have considered that total losses during the first processing may amount to 1.5%
(including moisture and foreign matter being removed).
Yield drivers
The conversion factors for each of the by-products resulting from the soybean transformation process are
used to determine yields.
Crude oil (both degummed and not degummed), High Pro and Low Pro meals, hull pellets, and lecithin are
analyzed during the first processing.
Crude oil (with gums): A fat-rich raw material will define the yield of the crude oil produced during the
transformation process. The higher the fat content in the bean, the more oil will be produced. Still, it is also
necessary to consider that fatty matter may be lost both in the meal and in the hull pellets. Generally
speaking, this loss is very low (less than 1%). Considering oil production in different regions, we may
conclude that the average yield is 20% of crude oil, including the phospholipids or gums (crude oil, not
degummed). Once gums have been separated and dried, they become lecithin, so the degummed oil
content is reduced to 19.4%.
Degummed crude oil: After gums and phospholipids have been separated and dried, they become lecithin,
so the degummed oil content is reduced to 19.4% of the oil received and processed.
Meal: The calculation of meal yield is more complex than that used for oil, since consideration must be given
to other parameters (such as protein, fiber, and moisture content as per GAFTA standards governing the
commercialization of High Pro y Low Pro meals). Depending on the regions where soybeans are grown, the
yields may range from 74% to 75% in countries like Paraguay and Brazil, and 70%-71% in Argentina. As a general
average, and based on consultations with industry experts, the yields for High Pro and Low Pro (including
hulls) soybean meals has been set at 72% and 78.5%, respectively, as an international standard. As discussed in
Chapter IV, the varying composition of meals makes then suitable to feed different animal species.

Hull pellets: According to industry estimates and to literature (Medic et. al., 2014; Liu & Li, 2017; Barbosa et
al. 2008), hulls account for 7-8 % of bean weight. The majority of that percentage may be removed, while a
remaining 1% is left, so as not to damage the nucleus, which concentrates most of the protein content. In
other words, 6-7% of the hull may be removed, while 1% remains attached to the nucleus. 6.5% would be
the reference yield value of hull pellets.
This may be sold on the market as a by-product, or (as noted in the preceding Chapter), be used for the
production of Low Pro meal.
Lecithin: Lecithin is another secondary product obtained after degumming the crude soybean oil, via
centrifugal separation. The result of this process is gums (wet lecithin) that may be dehydrated to obtain
food-grade dry lecithin.
If 20% of the crude oil is degummed, we have a lecithin yield of 0.6% of the total bean weight.
As explained above under “Process losses”, total losses during this first processing may amount to 1.5%
(including moisture and foreign matter being removed).
The second processing results in refined oil, biodiesel and glycerol.
Refined oil: It is obtained from degummed oil which is subject to neutralization, bleaching and
deodorization. The total loss is 2.3% of the degummed oil entering the refining process. The amount of
refined oil obtained from the 19.4% of degummed oil fed into the process totals 17.1%.
Alternatively, biodiesel and glycerol may be obtained by processing degummed raw oil.
Biodiesel: Transesterification makes it is possible to obtain biodiesel and glycerol (90% and 10%,
respectively). It is worth noting that a 2% loss is generated during the neutralization phase, while no
additional losses are generated by the transesterification process. Some 17.4% of biodiesel and glycerol are
obtained from the 19.4% degummed oil received, with biodiesel amounting to 15.7% of the total soybean
received at the plant.
Glycerol: This is a by-product of biodiesel production used in the food and pharmaceutical industries. A 10%
of glycerol is obtained from degummed oil that accounts for 1.7% of the total soybean received at the plant.
The chart below shows the conversion values for all by-products obtained during the first and second
processing.
By products obtained during the first and second processing: with high pro meal and soybean hull pellet
FIRST PROCESSING SECOND PROCESSING

(With gums) (Degummed)
15,7%
20% 19,4% Loss
2,0%
High Pro Glycerol
Lecithin
Meal
1,7%
72% 0,6%
soybean
100% OR
Hull pellets
Refined oil Loss
6,5%
2,3%
17,1%
Loss
1,5%

By products obtained during the first and second processing: with low pro meal and
without soybean hull pellet

15,7%
20% 19,4% Loss
2,0%
Glycerol
Lecithin
1,7%
0,6%
soybean
100% OR
Hull pellets
Refined oil Loss
6,5%
2,3%
17,1%
Loss
1,5%
These conversion values may be also expressed as the soybean tonnage required to obtain one ton of any
of the by-products.
Soybean tonnage required to obtain one ton of any of the by-products.
Yield Soybean tonnage

(as a %) (in ton)
Crude oil
With Gums 20,00% 5,00

Degumming 19,40% 5,15
High Pro Meal 72,00% 1,39

Low Pro Meal 78,50% 1,27
Hull Pellets 6,50% 15,38
Lecithin 0,60% 166,67
Biodiesel 15,70% 6,37
Glycerol 1,70% 58,82
Refined Oil 17,10% 5,85

Chapter IV
Soybean by-products and their uses in

the food, cosmetic, pharmaceutical and
energy industries
Market globalization and the growing level of environmental awareness have caused some primary
by-products of soybean processing to undergo a longer process to match the food and environmental
requirements of the world demand. Refined oil and biodiesel are the by-products of soybean second
processing. Other by-products are glycerol and crude glycerin that leads to the production of refined
glycerin. Figure 1 shows the different soybean by-products.
By-products from the first and second soybean processing

High Pro Glycerol

Lecithin
Meal
soybean
OR
Hull pellets
Refined oil
Crude oil
Soybeans contain 20 % of oil that is extracted and separated from the meal with organic solvents, such a
hexane. The oil fraction is called crude oil. To use crude oil as a raw material in industrial processes, it is
degummed (gums and phospholipids are removed) and then treated with alkaline substances to reduce its
acidity. In very few markets, degummed crude oil is used for human consumption.
Soybean meal
Extraction produces a crude oil with a high content of solid particles that, after further processing, result in
soybean meal. Soybean meal is mainly used in animal feeds thanks to its high digestibility (the fitness for
digestion). It is a source of protein in diets (Thoenes, 2006; Karr-Lilienthal, 2004).
Soybean meal nutritional value is based on its nutritional quality, measured in amino acid content. Animal
growth and performance depend on proteins with the ideal proportion of essential amino acids. The US
Soybean Export Council defines essential amino acids as those animals cannot produce in sufficient
amounts to match their metabolic needs. Essential amino acids deficiencies lead to biological inefficiency
and disease (Paige, 2017).

Low Pro meals have a low protein content and high fiber content. Fiber comes from adding hulls previously
separated at cracking and aspiration. NOPA standard specifications for Low Pro meals are a minimum of
44% of protein, a maximum of 7% of fiber and a maximum of 12% moisture. High Pro meals have a high
protein content and low fiber content. Standard specifications are a minimum of 47.5-49% of protein, a
maximum of 3.5% of fiber and a maximum of 12% moisture (El-Shemy, 2011).
High Pro meal is frequently used to feed monogastric animals such as poultry and pigs to produce meat and
eggs because High Pro meals do not degrade the fiber contained in the soybean hull. This meal is highly
digestible due to its lack of fiber and the characteristics of amino acids in the proteins. It is challenging to
think of cattle farming monogastric animals without the proteins of soybean meal.
Low Pro meal, on the other hand, is more appropriate to feed ruminants, such as bovines, that can digest
fiber more efficiently (El-Shemy, 2011).
Soybean hull pellet

Soybean hull is the skin that covers the soybean. It is removed during oil extraction. Hulls are usually heat
treated to remove unwanted enzyme activity and milled to the desired size (Lackey, 2011).
Hull pellets are a by-product of soybean hulls. Pellets reduce transport volumes and costs. Pellets are
the physical presentation of the soybean hull (compressed pellet) used for animal feeds. The purpose of
pelleting is taking finely ground foods, sometimes dusty, unpleasant and hard to handle and turn them
into larger and homogeneous particles. These larger particles are easier to handle and, generally, perform
better when compared to unprocessed feeds (Blasi et al., 2000).
Hull pellets nutrients are highly digestible, rich in fiber, low in proteins, very unpleasant but cattle find
them extremely tasty. The low lignin content of soybean hull allows a wide range of uses. Soybean pellets
are used to manufacture feeds. They are also an excellent source of energy for ruminants as a replacement
for corn. Several studies show the benefits of including soybean hull pellets in the diets of horses, sheep,
and goats. However, monogastric species such as pigs and poultry have problems converting the protein
content of this by-product (Liu & Li, 2017; Blasi et al., 2000).
Soy lecithin
Lecithin is a fatty substance occurring in the soybean tissue. It is removed together with the solvent when
extracting the oil. Lecithins are a mixture of different chemical structures called phospholipids (they
contain phosphorus). The physical and chemical properties of lecithins make them suitable as emulsifiers,
nutritional ingredient and for different technical applications (SOPA, 2011).
Lecithin is an excellent emulsifier since it attracts both fatty substances and water in any mix of ingredients.
Feed formulations can, therefore, be adequately integrated and remain mixed over time. Phospholipids
such as lecithin perform important functions in human and animal tissues: they are part of the cell
membrane structure. Lecithin helps the cell membrane stay fluid and allow the passage of nutrients into
the cells (OECD, 2012).
Feed and food industry take advantage of this quality to manufacture good quality products. Bakeries
add lecithin to bread to control moisture content and improve the dough, monitor the added fat, volume,
symmetry and shelf life. When added to cakes, puddings, energy bars, crackers and cookies, lecithin
improves the texture, the addition of fat and facilitates separation from molds (Knightly, 1989).
Mayonnaise, seasonings, salad dressings, non-dairy creams, and margarine are fatty foods that include
lecithin as an emulsifier. Lecithin also has antioxidant properties; in the presence of air, it protects food
color and prevents the darkening of products (Fellows, 1994).

Powders to prepare juices, soups, powdered milk or cocoa formulated with fibers and reconstituted with
water include lecithin. Lecithin channels the additives that give aroma and favor to mixtures (Sander, 1989).
Lecithin is used in confectionery as an emulsifer to integrate the diferent ingredients and prevent stickiness
in candies, chewing gums, jellies, and marshmallows (Appl, 1989). Chocolates and bonbons manufacturing
uses lecithin to modify viscosity and improve the characteristics of the product (Böt y Floter, 2013).
The dairy industry uses soybean lecithin to emulsify processed cheese, cheese, and powdered creams and
to prevent serum separation in yogurts and spread cheese with high moisture content (Bernardes, 2010).
Fish, shrimps and lobster aquaculture production has largely increased in recent years. Feed is the most
significant cost for fisheries. New formulations with better performance is, therefore, a must. Soybean
lecithin is an ingredient in the diets of shrimps and lobsters (Tacon, 2008).
Besides the known uses in the food and feed industries, the emulsifying properties of lecithin are used
in other technical applications. In yeast fermentation that produces alcohol and gaseous carbon dioxide,
lecithin controls the foam produced by the gas. In oil-based or latex paints, lecithin spreads and stabilizes
pigments, facilitates brushing applications and improves coverage. Something similar happens with
printing inks. Lecithin is an active ingredient in insecticide formulations to control mosquitoes. Lecithin
forms a layer on the water surface that prevents pupas from breathing. In pesticides, lecithin increases
adhesion and penetration.
Lecithin is also used by paper mills; in gums production, it has plasticizing properties that facilitate the
handling of the material and improves vulcanization (the process in which the rubber is heated with sulfur
to make it harder and weather resistant). The spreading and moisturizing properties of lecithin are very
significant for the cosmetic industry, in the manufacturing of skin oils and lipsticks. Proteins and fats are
added to these cosmetic products to keep the skin soft; lecithin spreads the fats and the ingredients
responsible for the smell and color of these personal care products (SOPA, 2011).
Biodiesel
Biodiesel is a diesel fuel derived from renewable raw materials, such as vegetable oils and animal fats.
Vegetable sources may be edible and non-edible plants. Soybean, canola, sunflower, palm, and peanut
oil are suitable vegetable sources for biodiesel production. Also, jatropha, dates and wild mustard seeds.
Biodiesel from these raw materials is used for diesel engines (Knothe, et al. 2004; Patel et al., 2015).
Biodiesel is sold in different markets where a series of specifications apply, mainly, acid value, moisture
content, monoglyceride, diglyceride and triglyceride content, total free glycerin and methanol. These
parameters are measured and control at the biodiesel plant and mark the conversion process9 Biodiesel
quality specification in Europe are detailed in EN 1421410 whereas in the US ASTM 675111; in Argentina
Resolution 828/2010 issued by the Federal Secretary of Energy12, and in Brazil Resolution No. 45/2014 and
resolution No. 30/2016 issued by the ANP13 (National Petroleum Agency).
9
Data from interviews with industry experts.
10
Refer to https://www.transportpolicy.net/standard/eu-fuels-biofuel-specifications.
11
Refer to https://www.astm.org/Standards/D6751.htmf.
12
Refer to http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/170000-174999/171944/norma.htm.
13
Refer to http://www.lex.com.br/legis_25883261_RESOLUCAO_N_45_DE_25_DE_AGOSTO_DE_2014.aspx
http://www.lex.com.br/legis_27160107_RESOLUCAO_N_30_DE_23_DE_JUNHO_DE_2016.aspx

Biodiesel is an oxygenated fuel. It contains a significant amount of oxygen, is low in aromatics and has a
higher volume of ketones14 compared to a traditional diesel motor. Therefore, biodiesel hydrocarbons and
carbon monoxide emissions are lower than those of any traditional diesel motor. An engine running 100%
on biodiesel would emit 4.5% fewer greenhouse gases than any engine running on gasoline and three times
less than an engine running on diesel. Besides, it is less flammable than diesel, therefore, very useful in
mining operations. Diesel engines do not require any modification to run on this fuel15 (Busic, 2018).
While engines can run 100% on biodiesel, most other applications are B5, B10, and B20, that is they run on a
5%, 10% and 20% blend. World production of biodiesel is expected to reach 39 billion liters in the period
2024-2027, while bioethanol production will be 131 billion liters in the same period. The European Union is
expected to continue being the major biodiesel producer at 12.9 M liters by 2027. The biodiesel produced in
the European Union represents 70% of the total fuel sold for transport in member countries. The European
Union is followed by the US, Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia, and Thailand, with 85% of the worldwide
production (OECD-FAO, 2018).
It is essential to mention that biodiesel cost is currently 30% higher than conventional diesel. Estimates are
that 60 to 80% of the biodiesel production cost result from the price of its raw material. This fuel meets
veryimportant goals: environmental benefits, development of new markets for agricultural products,
creation of different economic circuits and new jobs (Busic, 2018).
Glycerol
Glycerol, also called glycerin, when purified, is a colorless, odorless, sweet-tasting alcohol (The Soap and
Detergent Association, 1990).
Potential uses of crude glycerol are under study. It is used in animal balanced feed formulations because it
is a good source of energy and its absorption speed is high. As a pure fuel, it produces little heat. Mixtures
of biodiesel and crude glycerol are being tested in fruit growing areas for frost protection since it can
increase ambient temperature. Another promising use for crude glycerol are genetically modiFIed bacteria
that may transform glycerol into high economic value molecules. Bioplastics synthesis is just one example.
These compounds, unlike most petroleum-based plastics, are biodegradable. Tests are being carried out
on the use of bacteria for biogas production (methane and other gases) from a mix of crude glycerol and
organic waste. Such biogas contains less sulfur and pollutes less.
Purified glycerol is a biodegradable and renewable compound that currently has 2,000 uses in the food,
pharmaceutical and chemical industries (Tan, 2013). Crude glycerol purification results in glycerin of
different quality grades. Glycerin can be liquid or powdered, depending on their future use. It is chemically
stable under normal conditions of use and storage and does not change color, odor or taste over time.
USP-grade glycerin16 is a safe, no taste substance with no unpleasant odor, suitable for consumption. It is
used in food formulations to keep candies, cigarettes, baked products, sausage casings and cheeses moist
and soft. Glycerin is a useful solvent for aromatizers and dyes, and is used as filler in commercially prepared
low-fat foods; synthetic glycerin is a natural food emulsifier.
Pharmaceutical products, personal care products, and health products benefit from glycerin moisturizing
and plasticizing properties that keep products smooth, lubricated and extend their shelf-life.
Pharmaceutical uses of glycerin include cough pills, toothpaste, excipients, medical coatings, otic, topic
and parenteral solutions, capsules, and suppositories. Since glycerin does not irritate the skin, it is an
ingredient in creams, deodorants, lotions, and shampoos.
14
Medida de calidad de ignición del motor, cuanto mayor es el número, más fácil arrancar el motor del vehículo.
15
See a comprehensive study on gases emissions of vehicles running on biodiesel in EPA.
https://archive.epa.gov/ncea/biofuels/web/pdf/p02001.pdf.
16
USP-grade glycerin glycerol content is 99.7%.

Glycerin is used in a large number of industrial compounds. The first use of glycerin was in nitroglycerin,
a compound of gunpowder. Glycerin is currently an ingredient in formulations of dissolvents, cellophane,
corks, adhesives, printing inks, alcohols, paints, antifreeze agents, polyurethane foams, and plastics
(Rodrigues et al., 2017).
Refined soybean oil

Refined soybean oil is used in foods for its excellent nutritional quality. It is a source of natural antioxidants
and an adequate raw material for by-products such as margarine and spreads. Refined soybean oil is ideal
for frying because of its high smoke point.
Other oils do not have the high content of essential substances that the human body cannot synthesize and
should be included in diets, that is, linoleic and linolenic acids.
Soybean oil neutral odor and taste allow many food applications: mixed oils, frying oils and fats,
mayonnaise, seasonings and salad dressings, artificial and fake creams, pastries, and pastry products.
Refined soybean oil is also used in pharmaceutical product formulations, as a component of anticorrosive
and antistatic agents, electric insulators, plasticizers, fillers, lubricants, printing inks, green fuels,
disinfectants, linoleum floors, paints, rubber, fungicides and pesticides, soaps, shampoos, and detergents.

Summary
Soybean is the most important source of low-cost, high-quality vegetable protein for animal feed
manufacturing. Soybeans have value due to their high-quality oil. Food world demand is expected to
increase in the coming decades. Soybeans can supply the global demand for proteins worldwide.
Besides their essential role as raw material for livestock feeding, soybean by-products have multiple
applications as ingredients in food products. Other applications include industrial, pharmaceutical and
energy uses. Although not as meaningful in volume, soybeans can also be consumed by humans as beans
or sprouts.
This report explains that soybean processing can be split into two. First processing results in crude oil,
meal, hull pellet, and lecithin. Second processing results in refined oil for human consumption or in
biodiesel and glycerol.
The report points out three main factors that determine the performance of soybean processing for
industrial uses: the industrial process, operations management, and soybean quality. While the two first
factors are similar in most countries, soybean quality is a differential factor that varies from one world
region to the next.
All sources consulted in various countries agreed to the fact that soybean processing is standardized
worldwide. Industrial equipment suppliers sell their products globally; the same technologies are used
everywhere with some implementation differences. The scale and size of operations, as well as the focus
on operation costs, have been the only significant changes implemented in recent years. Operational
efficiency shows no differences while management is slightly different from one company to the next.
It is an entirely different situation when it comes to soybeans quality. On average, soybean protein content
is 40%, and the oil content is 20%. Soybeans oil and protein content define by-products such as edible oil,
meals, hull pellets, lecithin, biodiesel, and glycerin. It is worth mentioning that protein and oil content may
signifficantly vary according to the industrial quality of beans in every country.
Soybean oil and protein content depend on environmental, genetic and crop management factors. The
environmental factors that impact the most are temperature, latitude, nitrogen availability and water stress.
Planting date and maturity group are crop management decisions of high relevance. The goal of seed
breeding programs is finding a variety with a higher yield, less protein and more tolerant to diseases or at
breeding a seed with higher protein and oil content.
Therefore, Argentine, Brazilian, Chinese or US soybeans do not feature the same oil and protein content,
which affect the by-products resulting from the industrial processing.
The results of conversion factors detailed in this report are international average values, following
the different oil and protein percentages in different regions/countries. Crude oil values are directly
proportional to the oil content of soybeans. Based on a yield average from various regions, before removing
phospholipids and gums, standard crude oil extraction (with gums) is 20% of the soybean delivered
and processed.
High Pro meal yield is 74-75% in Paraguay and Brazil, 70-71% in Argentina and in-between values in the US .
Industry experts interviewed set a 72% High Pro yield as an international parameter, and 78.5% for
Low Pro meal.

Current yields in soybean hull pellet are 6.5%, with slight differences across industrial facilities and
countries. Crude oil values are directly proportional to the oil content of soybeans. Based on a yield
average in very different regions, before removing phospholipids and gums, standard crude oil extraction
(with gums ) is 20% of the soybean delivered and processed.
After degumming (phospholipids removal), .6% of lecithin is obtained, so, the final yield of degummed
crude oil is 19.4%. Here ends the first soybean processing.
Crude oil degumming results in the by-products of the second processing: refined oil, biodiesel, and
glycerol. Neutralization comes before oil preparation, with a loss that may range 2.0%. Once the oil is
neutralized, transesterification results in biodiesel and a by-product called glycerol. Considering the 2%
loss mentioned in the preparation of degummed crude oil, 17.4% of biodiesel and glycerol may be obtained:
15.7% biodiesel and 1.7% glycerol.
Oil for human consumption, after neutralization (with a 2% loss) is refined by deodorization and bleaching,
with an additional loss of .3%. Refined oil yield can be defined at 17.1% with a total loss that can reach 2.3%.
These are reference values estimated after a large number of consultations with academic experts,
industrial chambers, crushing facilities managers and equipment suppliers. These estimates are consistent
with those in the international literature.
Conversion factors for soybean by-products are global average values that vary across countries or regions.

Annexes
Annex 1: About Austral University
As a higher education institution, Austral University intends to serve society by seeking the truth in all its
dimensions, advancing and disseminating knowledge with a universal outlook.
Austral University’s mission focuses on the individual as the center of all its teaching, research, transfer,
medical assistance, and university extension undertakings.
Austral University ranks among Argentina´s top two universities and leads the Argentine ranking among
private universities at the QS World University Rankings. Other outstanding rankings include:
• No. 1 in Latin America under 50 years (QS Top 50 Under 50)

• No. 1 in Argentina in terms of graduate employability (QS Graduate Employability Rankings)
• No. 11 university in Latin America
The university has three campuses (Pilar, Buenos Aires, and Rosario).
The Rosario Campus houses the Centro de Agronegocios y Alimentos (CEAg, Agribusiness and Food
Center), an expert institution with a high academic level. From there, and through research and applied
training, it seeks to promote the strengthening of agrifood value chains

In furtherance of this objective, the CEAg works along four lines of action:
• An MBA course in Agribusiness ranked amongst the top three in the world and No. 1 in Latin America
according to the most prestigious Eduniversal ranking.
• An area dedicated to Agribusiness and Foods Studies that promotes applied research projects and
provides a forum for thought and analysis of the major challenges the agribusiness sector is facing.
• Executive training programs, seminars and courses on the most relevant agribusiness topics.
• Outreach activities for Senior Management development, targeted at SMEs in the agribusiness sector.
Thus, the Center contributes to capacity-building in the food and agribusiness sectors, allowing them to
develop and lead opportunities and trends, from Argentina to the rest of the region and the world at large.
Why a Food and Agribusiness Center in Rosario?

Thanks to its strategic location and regional projection, Rosario stands out as one of the key decision-
making centers in Argentina. Some reasons underlying this statement are:
• Grain, oilseed, oil and other exports leaving the ports in the Greater Rosario and Parana River areas
amount to 75% of total exports.
• The so-called Central Region (encompassing the provinces of Cordoba, Entre Rios and Santa Fe)
concentrates 20% of Argentina’s population and represents 19% of the country’s GDP.
• The Rosafe area accounts for 70% of the agricultural products and by-products being produced and
exported by Argentina.
• This region also has the largest share in meat and dairy exports, as it is the location of the most
important milk producing area in Latin America.

Annexes
Annex 2: About the authors
Roberto J. Feeney
Roberto holds a graduate degree in Economics (equivalent to a BA)
(UBA, 1985), an MBA (IAE, 1989), and a PhD in Business Administration
(specialized in innovation management) (UQUAM, Montreal, Canada 2004).
He is currently a professor and director of applied research at the CEAg
of Universidad Austral. His research work mainly focuses on Innovation
Management, Strategic Innovation, Innovation, and Natural Resources. He
leads the “Encuesta Nacional de las Necesidades del Productor Agropecuario”
(Survey of Argentine Farmers’ Needs) conducted by the Universidad Austral
in partnership with Purdue University (USA). Mr. Feeney has led a research
effort titled “Comer saludable y exportar seguridad alimentaria al mundo:
Aportes para una Política Nacional de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional.”
(Eating Healthy and Exporting Food Safety to the World. Contributions to
a National Policy on Food and Nutritional Safety). He has also authored
numerous academic research papers, including the following: “Analyzing
Value Chains In Agribusiness: A Literature Review” Mac Clay-Feeney, IFAMR,
January 2019. “Food Security in Argentina: A Production or a Distribution
Problem?” International Food and Agribusiness Management Review Journal,
(2016), Volume 19, Issue 2., “Seed Market Segmentation in Argentina: How
Do Farmers Buy Their Expendable Inputs?,” IFAMA Journal, Vol. 16, Issue
1, 2013, “Agricultural Capital Equipment Segmentation in Argentina,” IAMA
conference 2012, Shanghai, China, “Agricultural Financial Market Segments in
Argentina”, IAMA conference 2012, Shanghai, China. He
is also the author of several business cases. Worth noting are the following:
“Bioceres, Ag Biotechnology from Argentina”.
As part of his career path, he has acted in the following capacities: Director
of the project called “Necesidades del productor agropecuario argentino”
(Needs of the Argentine Cattle and Crop Farmer) (2009-2018), Academic
Director of the Centro de Agronegocios Universidad Austral, CEAg (2004-
2009), Vice-chair of the Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales (Business
School) at Universidad Austral (2004-2006), Co-Director of the MBA Program
– Universidad Austral (2004-2006), Innovation Management Professor –
Universidad Austral (2004-2009), Visiting
Professor IEEM Business School-Montevideo, Uruguay (2004-2006), Director
of the Business Administration Course (1990-1998), Professor of Economics
– Universidad Austral (1990-1998), Professor of Economics -Universidad de
Buenos Aires (1985-1990).

Sergio Grossman
A graduate Civil Engineer (Universidad Nacional de Rosario (1990), Sergio also
holds an MBA from the IAE Business School at Universidad Austral (2007), and
a PhD in Public Administration from AIU (United States – 2014). He also holds
a postgraduate degree in Environmental Management from the Engineering
School of Universidad Austral (2004).
Mr. Grossman is also a regular professor of Economics and Organization and
Legal Engineering at the National University of Rosario. He also teaches at the
Postgraduate Course in Structural Engineering at said School. At Universidad
Austral, he is responsible for the course on Agroindustrial Operations (Levels I
and II) which is a part of the curriculum for the Degree in Agribusiness. He is
also a professor in the Masters Degree in Agribusiness (Business Case
Analysis, and Entrepreneurship in Agribusiness). In 2017 he led the Diploma in
Sustainable Fruit Production Management for growers offered by the ARCOR
Group.
His professional career path includes the following capacities: Director
General of Public Works at the Municipality of Rosario, Operations Manager
at Aguas Provinciales (Sta. Fe Province Water Utility Company), and
Production, Quality and Environment Manager at Aguas Santafesinas S.A.
He has also been Director for Operations at Ondeo Service America Latina,
a company of the Suez Environment Group, where he led several projects
carried out in Chile, Bolivia, Mexico, and Argentina. Today, he works as a
consultant for companies in the agribusiness sector, specialized in processes,
corporate management, and quality.

Glossary
Crude oil: oil extracted from soybeans crushing that contains phospholipids or gums.
Degummed crude oil: oil resulting from crushing after removing phospholipids or gums.
Soybean refined oil: oil resulting from neutralization, deodorization and decoloring of the degummed crude
oil to make it suitable for human consumption.
Soybean refined oil: oil resulting from neutralization, deodorization and decoloring of the degummed
crude oil to make it suitable for human consumption.
Biodiesel: Fuel derived from renewable fatty raw materials, either animal fats or vegetable oils. Canola,
sunflower, palm, peanut and soybean oils are suitable vegetable sources for biodiesel production. Soybean-
based biodiesel derives from the degummed crude oil and results from a process called transesterification.
Glycerol: Also called glycerin or glycerin for commercial purposes; when purified, it is a colorless,
odorless, sweet-tasting alcohol.
Soybean: Soybean fruit when used as a raw material for subsequent transformation in food, industrial, and
pharmaceutical products.
High Pro Meal: A type of meal with high protein content and low fiber content. 47.5 - 49% of protein
content, a maximum of 3.5% of fiber and 12% moisture, following National Oilseed Processors Association
(NOPA) specifications. Meals used for monogastric animals feeding diets, such as chicken and pigs.
Low Pro Meal: A type of meal with low protein content and high fiber content. 44% of protein content,
a maximum of 7% of fiber and 12% moisture, following National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA)
specifications. Low Pro meals are mainly used to feed bovine cattle.
Lecithin: a lipid that contains phosphorus (phospholipid) Extracted together with crude oil and removed at
degumming. It is an emulsifier used in the food industry. It attracts both fatty substances and water in any
mix of ingredients.
Miscella: a mix of oil and solvent (hexane) that results from oil extraction and meal production. Soybean
crushing: Industrial process where soybean is crushed to produce crude oil, meals, hull pellets, and
lecithin.
Neutralization: A process that removes the free fatty acids responsible for oil acidity, before the second
soybean processing.
Soybean hull pellets: Small cylindrical portions of agglomerated soybean hull, used for livestock feeding,
due to their high fiber content.
Soybean: the fruit of the soy when cropped to produce new soy plants.
Transesterification: chemical process to produce biodiesel and glycerol, during the second soybean
processing.

Sources of information
References
Abadía, B. & Bartosik, R. 2012. Manual de Buenas Prácticas en Post-cosecha de Granos (Grain Post-harvest
Good Practices Manual). INTA, Argentina. Available at:
inta.gob.ar/sites/default/files/inta_manual_de_buenas_practicas_en_poscosecha_de_granos_
reglon_48-2.pdf. Recovered December 20, 2018.
Appl, R. C. 1989. “Lecithin in confection applications”. En Szuhaj, B. (Ed.). Lecithins Sources, manufacture &
uses. Illinois, United States of America: American Oil Chemists’ Society Champaign.
ASTAM, “Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blend Stock (B100) for Middle Distillate Fuels”. Available
at: https://www.astm.org/Standards/D6751.htm. Recovered Thursday, December 13, 2018.
Bailey, A.1996. Bayley´s Industrial Oil & Fat Products. Fifth Edition. United State of America. Y. H. Hui
(editor). A Wiley-Interscience Publication, ISBN-13: 978-0471594246.
Bair, C. W. 1979. “Microscopy of soybean seeds: cellular and subcellular structure during germination,
development and processing with emphasis on lipid bodies”. Doctoral Thesis Dissertation, Iowa State
University.
Barbosa F F.; Tokach, M.; De Rouchey, J.; Goodband, R. 2008. “Variation in chemical composition of
soybean hulls”. Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports: Vol. 0: Issue 10. https://doi.org/
10.4148/2378-5977.700.
Bernardes, P. R. 2010. “Lecitina de soja: el emulsionante versátil” (Soybean lecithin: the versatile emulsifier).
Énfasis Alimentación. (Focus: Foods) Available at:
http://www.alimentacion.enfasis.com/articulos/16222-lecitina-soja-el-emulsionante-versatil.
Behnke, K. 2001. “Processing Factors influencing pellet quality”. AFMA Forum 2001, February 2001, South
Africa. Published in FeedTech 2001 Vol. 5 No. 4.
Bellaloui, N.; Reddy, K.; Bruns, H; Gillen, A.; Mengistu, A; Zobiole, L.; Fisher, D.; Abbas, H.; Zablotowicz, R
& Kremer, R. 2011. “Soybean Seed Composition and Quality: Interactions of Environment, Genotype, and
Management Practices” In: Soybeans: Cultivation, Uses and Nutrition ISBN: 978-1-61761-762-1 Editor: Jason
E. Maxwell.
Biblioteca de la Agricultura (Agriculture Library), 1997. Técnicas Agrícolas en Cultivos Extensivos

(Agricultural Techniques for Extensive Crops). La soja. (The soybean) Editorial Idea Books.
Blair, R. 2008. Nutrition and Feeding of Organic Poultry. Oxfordshire, England: CAB International.
Blasi, D.A.; Brouk, M. J.; Drouillard, J.; Paisley, S.; Titgemeyer, E. C. 2000. “Soybean Hulls: Composition and
Feeding Value for Beef and Dairy Cattle”. Kansas State University. Available at:
https://www.bookstore.ksre.ksu.edu/ pubs/MF2438.pdf. Recovered Thursday, December 13, 2018.
Bolsa de Comercio de Rosario (Rosario Board of Trade) 2008. Normas de comercialización para el mercado
internacional de granos. (Trading Standards for Grain International Market) Resolution N° 158 – 2008

Bot, A., Flöter, E. 2013. Application of Edible Oils. In W. Hamm, R. J. Hamilton, Calliauw, G. (Ed.). Edible Oil
Processing (242-245). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Available at:
https://zodml.org/sites/default/files/Edible_Oil_Processing %2C_2nd_Edition.pdf.
Braga Caneppele, M. A.; Caneppele, C; Andrade, P.; Carneiro Guimarães, S; dos Santos, K; Barboza da
Silva, G. 2017. “Avaliação da qualidade nutricional e comercial de soja em Mato Grosso” (Evaluation of the
Nutritional and Commercial Soybean Quality in Matto Grosso). CUIABÁ/MT, APROSOJA.
DECEMBER 2017
Brumm, T.J., Hurburgh, C.R., 1990. “Estimating the processed value of soybeans”. Journal of the American
Oil Chemists’ Society. Vol. 67, Pages 302-307.
Bureau of Plant Industry, Available at: http://bpi.da.gov.ph/bpi/images/Production_guide/pdf/SOYBEAN.
pdf. Recovered Sunday, January 21, 2018.
Bušic, A., Kundas, S., Morzak, G., Belskaya, H., Marðetko, N., Šantek, M. I., Šantek, B. 2018. “Recent trends
in biodiesel and biogas production”. Food Technology and Biotechnology, Vol. 56, Issue 2, Pages 152-173.
Campbell, K. A.; Glatz, C. E.; L. A. Johnson; S. Jung; J. M. N. de Moura; V. Kapchie; Murphy, P. 2011.
“Advances in Aqueous Extraction Processing of Soybeans”. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society,
Vol. 88: Pages 449-465.
Carpaneto, B. 2010. “Caracterización y manejo integrado de plagas en granos almacenados”

(Characterization and Comprehensive Pests Management of Stored Grains). Final paper to be granted the
degree of Vegetable Production Expert. School of Farming Sciences, National University of Mar del Plata.
Chenga, M. and Rosentrater, K. 2017. “Economic feasibility analysis of soybean oil production byhexane
extraction”. Industrial Crops & Product Vol. 108: Pages 775-785.
Cuniberti, M. y Herrero, R. 2018. “Problemática de la baja proteína de la soja.” (Issues Relative to Low
Protein Content in Soybean). INTA, Soja 2018 Informe de Actualización Técnico en línea, número 12 -
Septiembre 2018 (Technical Update Report, online, number 12, September 2018).
Cuniberti, M., R. Rossi, R. Herrero, and B. Ferrari. 2004. “Industrial quality of soybean in Argentina”. Pages
961–970 In Proc. of the VII World Soybean Res. Conf., IV Int. Soybean Processing and Utilization Conf. y III
Congreso Mundial de Soja, Foz de Iguazu´ - Brasil. 1–5 March. 2004. Embrapa Londrina PR Brazil.
Dardanelli, J.L., M. Balzarini, M.J. Martinez, M. Cuniberti, S. Resnik, S.F. Ramunda, R. Herrero, and H.
Baigorri. 2006. “Soybean maturity groups, environments, and their interaction define mega-environments
for seed composition in Argentina”. Crop Science. Issue 46, Pages 1939–1947.
Da Silva Rodrigues, J. I.; Klever, M. A.; Cruz, C.D.; Piovesan, N. D.; Gonçalves de Barros, E & Alves Moreira,
M. 2014.
“Biometric analysis of protein and oil contents of soybean genotypes in different environments”, Pesquisa
Agropecuária Brasileira, Vol. 49, Issue 6, Page 475.
Delvin, T. 2004. Bioquímica (Biochemistry) Libro de texto con aplicaciones clínicas, 4ª Edición, Editorial
Reverté S.A. (Textbook with Clinical Applications, 4th edition).
Dhungana, S. K.; Kulkarni, K.; Kim, M.; Bo-Keun Ha; Sungtaeg Kang, Jong Tae Song, Dong-Hyun Shin,
Jeong-Dong Lee12017. “Environmental Stability and Correlation of Soybean Seed Starch with Protein and
Oil Contents”. Plant Breed. Biotech. 2017 (December), Issue 5, Vol. 4, Pages 293-303.
Deiana, A. C.; Granado, D. L.; Sardella, M. F. 2018. Balance de Masa (Mass Balance). Departamento de
Ingeniería Química – FI – UNSJ. (Chemical Engineering Department)
Introducción a la Ingeniería (Introduction to Engineering). Study Courses: Chemical Eng. - Food Eng.

Dorsa, R. 2008. Tecnología de los Aceites Vegetales (Vegetable Oils Technology). Riberao Preto: Maxicolor.
El-Shemy, H. (Ed.). 2011. Soybean and nutrition. Janeza, Croatia: Available at www.intechopen.com
Recuperado el 10 de diciembre de 2018.
EPA. 2002. “A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust Emissions”. Draft Technical Report.
Assessment and Standards Division O&ce of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Available at: https://archive.epa.gov/ncea/biofuels/web/pdf/p02001.pdf. Recovered December 20,
2018.
FAOSTAT 2019. FOA. Available at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC. Recovered Monday, January

21, 2019.
Fellows, P. 1994. Tecnología del procesado de los alimentos (Food Processing Technology). Principios y
prácticas (Principles and Practices). Zaragoza, Spain: Acribia S. A.
Food and Drug Administration FDA. 2016. Qualified Health Claim Petition – Soybean Oil and Reduced Risk
of Coronary Heart Disease. Docket No. FDA-2016-Q-0995.
FOSFA. The federation of oils and fats associations. Available at: https://www.fosfa.org/contracts.
Recovered Monday, December 10, 2018.
Fox, D. J. 2012. “Industrias aceiteras procesadoras del grano de soja en la República Argentina” (Soybean
Crushing Oil Industries in the Argentine Republic). Final paper of Farming Production Engineering Course.
School of Farming Sciences. Universidad Católica Argentina. Available at:
http://bibliotecadigital.uca.edu.ar/repositorio/tesis/industrias-aceiteras-procesadoras-grano-soja.pdf.
Recovered December 20, 2018.
Francioni, C. 2010. “Harina de Soja: El Desafío de Producir Cantidad y “Calidad” (Soybean Meal. The
Challenge of Producing Quantity and Quality), Agribusiness Master Degree Thesis, Universidad Austral,
Argentina. GAFTA. The grain and feed trade association. Available at: www.gafta.com. Recovered Monday,
December 10, 2018.
Guinn J. 2002. “State for Soybean Council. Domestic Quality Standards and Trading Rules and
Recommended Export Contract Specifications for U.S. Soybeans and Products”. United State for Soybean
Council.
Karr-Lilienthal, L. K., Grieshop, C. M., Merchen, N. R., Mahan, D. C., & Fahey, G. C. 2004. “Chemical
Composition and Protein Quality Comparisons of Soybeans and Soybean Meals from Five Leading
Soybean-Producing Countries”. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 52(20), Pages 6193-6199.
Kemper, T. G. 2005. “Oil Extraction”. Chapter 2. Bailey’s Industrial Oil and Fat Products, Sixth Edition, Six
Volume Set.
Edited by Fereidoon Shahidi. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Knightly, W. H. 1989.” Lecithin in baking applications”. En Szuhaj, B. (Ed.). Lecithins Sources, manufacture &
uses.
Illinois, United States of America: American Oil Chemists’ Society Champaign.
Knothe, G, Van Gerpen J, Krahl j. Ed. et.2004. The biodiesel handbook. Illinois, UDSA: AOCS Press.
Kouzu; Masato; Jyu-suke Hidaka. 2012. “Transesterification of vegetable oil into biodiesel catalyzed by
CaO: A review”. Fuel. Volume 93, March 2012, Pages 1-12.
Lackey, Ron.2011. Ministry of agriculture, food and rural affairs of Ontario, Canada. OMAFRA. Available at:
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/beef/news/vbn1111a2.htm. Recovered Monday, December
17, 2018.

Liu, H. & Li, H. 2017. “Application and Conversion of Soybean Hulls”. DOI: 10.5772/66744. Intechopen.
Available at: https://www.intechopen.com/books/soybean-the-basis-of-yield-biomass-and-productivity/
application -and-conversion-of-soybean-hulls Recuperado el 23 de diciembre de 2018.
Medic, J.; Atkinson, C.; Hurburgh Yr., Ch. 2014. “Current Knowledge in Soybean Composition”. Journal of
the American Oil Chemists’ Society. Vol. 91, Pages 363-38.
NOPA. National Oilseed Processors Association. www.nopa.org. Recovered Friday, December 21, 2018.
OECD-FAO, 2018. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2018. http://www.fao.org/docrep/i9166e/i9166e_
Chapter9_Biofuels.pdf. Recovered Thursday, December 13, 2018.
OECD. 2012. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD. “Revised Consensus
Document on Compositional Considerations for New Varieties of SOYBEAN [Glycine max (L.)
Merr]: Key Food and Feed Nutrients, Anti-nutrients, Toxicants and Allergens”. Series on the Safety
of Novel Foods and Feeds (25). Paris, Francia. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/o&cialdocuments/
publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2012)24&doclanguage=en. Recovered Saturday, December
15, 2018.
Paige, K. 2017. “A mass balance-based model to evaluate the impact of amino acid profiles on the feeding
and processed value of soybeans”. Graduate Thesis Dissertation. Iowa State University.
Paraíso P.; Andrade C.; Zemp R. 2003. “Destilação da Micela I: modelagem e simulação da evaporação do
hexano” (Miscella Distillation: Modelling and Simulation of Hexane Evaporation). Ciênc. Tecnol. Aliment.
vol.23 no.3 Campinas Sept./Dec. 2003 Food Science and Technology Print version ISSN 0101-2061On-line
version ISSN 1678-457X.
Patel, N. & Shailesh S. 2015. “Food Energy and Water”. Science Direct. Available at: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800211-7.00011-9. Recovered Tuesday, December 11, 2018.
Patil, G.; Mian, R.; Vuong, T.; Pantalone, V.; Song, Q.; Chen, P. Nguyen, H. T. 2017. “Molecular mapping
and genomics of soybean seed protein: A review and perspective for the future”. Theoretical and Applied
Genetics, 130 (10), 1975-1991. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00122-017-2955-8.
Rodrigues, A.; Bordado, J. C.; Galhano dos Santos, R. 2017. “Upgrading the Glycerol from Biodiesel
Production as a Source of Energy Carriers and Chemicals—A Technological Review for Three Chemical
Pathways”. Energies Vol. 10, Page 1817. doi:10.3390/en10111817.
Rotundo, J. L. 2009. “Physiological bases of environmental and genotypic effects on soybean seed
composition”. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Iowa State University. Paper 12113.
Rotundo, J. L. & Westgate, M. E. 2009. Meta-analysis of environmental effects on soybean seed

composition. Field Crop Research, Volume 110, Pages 147-156.
Knightly, W. H. 1989. “Lecithin in beverage applications”. En Szuhaj, B. (Ed.). Lecithins. Argentina Secretary
of Enery. 2010. COMBUSTIBLES Resolución 828/2010 Especificaciones de calidad del biodiésel. (FUELS.
Resolution 828/2010. Biodiesel Quality Specifications) Modificase la Resolución N° 6/10. (Modifies
Resolution No. 6/ 10). Available at: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/170000-174999/
171944/norma.htm. Recovered Monday, December 10, 2018.
SOPA. The Soybean Processors Association of India. 2011. “La soja y sus múltiples usos” (Soybean and its
Multiple Uses) (Yanina M., Trad.). Rosario, Argentina: Asociación Argentina de Grasas y Aceites (ASAGA).
Tacon, A. G. J. 2008. “Nutrición y alimentación de peces y camarones cultivados manual de capacitación”

(Cultured Fish and Shrimps Nutrition and Feeding Training Manual). Italy: FAO. Available at: http://www.-
fao.org/docrep/field/003/AB492S/AB492S02.htm#ch3.3. Recovered Sunday, December 9, 2018.

Tan, H. W., Abdul Aziz, A. R., Aroua, M. K. 2013. “Glycerol production and its applications as a raw
material: A review”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 27, 118–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2013.06.035. The Soap and Detergent Association, Glycerine & Oleochemical Division (Ed.). 1990.
Glycerine: an overview. New York.
Thoenes, P. 2006. “Soybean International Commodity Profile”. Background paper for the Competitive
Commercial Agriculture in Sub–Saharan Africa (CCAA) Study, World Bank.
Thuzar, M; Puteh, A. B.; Abdullah, N. A. P.; Mohd. Lassim, M. B.; Kamaruzaman J. 2010. “The Effects of
Temperature Stress on the Quality and Yield of Soya Bean”; Journal of Agricultural Science, Vol. 2, No. 2.
Transport Policy Net. “Collaboration between the International Council on Clean Transportation and
DieselNet”. Available at: www.transportpolicy.net/standard/eu-fuels-biofuel-specifications. Recovered
December 14, 2018.
United Soybean Board, 2018. “Could weather affect your soybean quality?” Available at:
https://unitedsoybean.org/article/could-weather-affect-your-soybean-quality, Recuperado el 7 de
diciembre de 2018.
USDA 2018. “World Agriculture Production”. United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural
Service. December 2018. Available at: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/production.pdf.
Recovered Monday, January 21, 2019.
USCC. Ed. 2018.U.S. Soybean Export Council. Available at: https://ussec.org.
Valls Porta, A. 1993. IX Curso de Especialización FEDNA (IX FEDA Specialization Course), Barcelona,
España. Wagner, K. 2017.” A mass balance-based model to evaluate the impact of amino acid profiles on
the feeding and processed value of soybeans”. Graduate Thesis Dissertation. Iowa State University.
Wilson, R. F. 2004. Seed composition. In: Soybeans: Improvement, production, and uses. 3rd edition, H. R.
Boerma, & J. E. Specht, (Eds.), 621-669. ASA Monogr. 16. ASA, Madison, WI.
Other sources of information
- ACSOJA (Asociación Civil de la Cadena de la Soja)

http://www.acsoja.org.ar
- APROBIO (Asociación de Productores de Biodiésel de Brasil)
https://aprobio.com.br
- ASA (Asociación de Semilleros Argentinos)
www.asa.org.ar
- ASAGA (Asociación Argentina de Grasas y Aceites)
www.asaga.org.ar/index.php
- Bolsa de Comercio de Rosario
www.bolsarosario.com
- Departamentos de Bioingeniería Agrícola Principales Universidades USA y Europa
(Purdue, Illinois, Iowa, Texas A&M, Ohio, North Dakota, Lasalle)
- INTA (Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria)
https://www.argentina.gob.ar/inta
- The American Oil Chemists´ Society
www.aocs.org
- U.S. Soybean Export Council
https://ussec.org/

Appendix II
Public available sources

of conversion factors

Hoste (IDH & WUR)
Uses supply chain data? Uses peer review?

✓ □
Source name: Soy footprint of animal products in Europe Indicator Score (1-4)
Author(s): Robert Hoste (WUR) Transparency of method 2
Funder(s): Sustainable Trade Initiative Netherlands (IDH) Reliability of method 3
Published: Wageningen University website Reliability of sources 3
Year published: 2016 Geographical applicability 2
Geographical coverage: Uses data from 10 European countries Frequency of use 1
Range of proteins studied 3
Overview
What was the purpose and scope of the data source?
The research is not intended to be comprehensive and refers to itself as a ‘quick scan’ to give a country-
specific estimate of the soy footprint of four different protein types. The results of the study are intended
to inform retailers of the soy footprint of the animal protein products they are selling. However, the
information can also be used to raise awareness among individual consumers, as a per capita estimate
of soy footprint is given by country. Ten different European countries are included in the study: Holland,
Sweden, Denmark, Germany, United Kingdom, Ireland, Belgium, France, Spain and Italy.
Method
How were these factors reached?
Country-specific conversion factors were reached by using Netherlands-specific data from Hoste 2014
and adjusting this to account for differences in feed conversion factors and feed efficiency by country. A
list of resources used to calculate these adjustments is given, including correspondence with industry and
datasets from Eurostat and FEFAC. It is not clearly explained how these are used to calculate the country-
specific conversion factors, or which resources are used to calculate a conversion factor for a specific
country. However, it is stated that the calculations are based on data from 2012-2014 for total soy use, eggs
and poultry meat, and 2013-2015 otherwise.
Results
kg of soy used per unit of product
Product Unit kg soy/unit*

Feed (pork) kg 0.094 *These figures have been calculated by 3Keel as a non-weighted
average of the figures for the 10 European countries studied by
Feed (meat poultry) kg 0.260 Hoste. The same method is used by IDH to summarise the data in
the European Soy Monitor report.
Feed (laying poultry) kg 0.154
Feed (dairy cattle) kg 0.154
Pork kg 0.440
Chicken kg 0.822
Egg kg 0.394
Milk kg 0.036

Application to RTRS
Are the results useful, valid and reliable?
• The conversion factors are calculated for soy as one product, rather than being separated into soybeans,
soybean meal and soy oil. Soy hulls are not accounted for.
• Soy hull used in feed is excluded from calculations, as its ‘role as a commodity is negligible’.
• Data specific to ten European countries is found. This may be of relevance if RTRS wishes to design a
feature in the calculator whereby a footprint can be made specific to individual countries. However, this
is not of use to any businesses whose production is based outside of these 10 countries.
• The method for adjusting Netherlands-specific data is not made clear by the author.
• A relatively small selection of animal proteins are studied (4 of the 10 requested by RTRS), but
conversion factors for other dairy products can be easily calculated using the conversion factor for
milk. This is also the only study giving conversion factors for animal feed which are not specific to the
Netherlands or the UK.
• The conversion factors calculated are referenced in the European Soy Monitor
Hoste (WUR)
✓ □
Source name: Sojaverbruik in de Nederlandse Indicator Score (1-4)

diervoederindustrie 2011-2013
Transparency of method 3
Author(s): Robert Hoste (WUR)
Reliability of method 3
Funder(s): Stichting Ketentransitie Verantwoorde Soja
Reliability of sources 3
Published: Wageningen University website
Geographical applicability 1
Year published: 2014
Frequency of use 4
Geographical coverage: Uses supply chain data from the Netherlands
Overview
The purpose of the research is to determine how much soy is used by the Dutch animal feed industry from
2011-2013. It is intended as an update from earlier research conducted by Hoste & Bulhuis (WUR), replacing
data from 2008-2010 with more recent data and collecting data from a larger number of animal feed
companies. Only data from the Netherlands is used.
Method
10 major feed manufacturers, covering 65% of Dutch feed production, (plus some additional feed
manufacturers for specific animals) in the Netherlands were contacted and asked for information on the
animal feed produced. The reported soy content of compound animal feeds was then averaged out to
find a conversion factor for animal feed by animal type.
Data from the feed industry association (Nevedi) was used to calculate the amount of compound feed
produced in the Netherlands by animal type. This was combined with the conversion factors for animal
feed (specified above) to find the volume of soy present in compound feed produced in the Netherlands
by animal type. This data was adjusted to account for export of compound feed, which is estimated to be
around 5% of domestic production in the absence of statistical information. Data from the LEI Business
Information Network was also used to calculate the amount of simple soy product fed to animals by animal

type. Hoste does not explicitly explain how the conversion factors are reached, but it can be assumed that
a conversion factor for each animal protein has been created by calculating a sum of soy consumed as
compound feed for that protein (soy in compound food production multiplied by 0.95) and soy consumed
as simple feed for that protein, then dividing this by the total amount of the animal protein produced in the
Netherlands.
Results
Product Unit kg soy/unit

Feed (dairy cattle) kg 0.101
Feed (meat cattle) kg 0.077
Feed (pork) kg 0.082
Feed (laying poulttry) kg 0.137
Feed (meat poulttry) kg 0.256
Feed (other) kg 0.065
Milk kg 0.026
Beef and veal kg 0.295
Pork kg 0.276
Eggs kg 0.321
Poultry meat kg 0.665
Application to RTRS
• The conversion factors are calculated for soybeans, soybean meal, soy oil and soy hull. The conversion
factors for soy product (excluding hull) are deemed to be most applicable, although values for soybean
equivalent are given in some instances. No detailed explanation is given for this.
• Conversion factors are calculated for carcass weight. If retail weight is more useful for users of the
calculator, further calculations will be necessary to convert the factors from carcass to retail weight.
• Data is specific to the Netherlands and so findings may not be applicable elsewhere.
• A relatively small selection of animal proteins are studied (5 of the 10 requested by RTRS), but
conversion factors for other dairy products can be easily calculated using the conversion factor for milk.
• Other papers, including Kross & Kuepper (Profundo) and Hoste (WUR and IDH) use these feed
conversion factors as a baseline for their conversion factors.
• The earlier version of this paper is well cited, so this has been considered in the score for ‘Frequency of
use’. The conversion factors have been referenced by Jennings, Sheane & McCosker (3Keel), WWF and
CGF in addition to the two papers above.

Kroes & Kuepper
✓ ✓
Source name: Mapping the soy supply chain in Europe Indicator Score (1-4)
Author(s): Hassel Kroes and Barbara Kuepper Transparency of method 3
Funder(s): WWF (Netherlands) Reliability of method 3
Published: WWF (Netherlands) website Reliability of sources 3
Year published: 2015 Geographical applicability 3
Geographical coverage: Uses data for the EU-28 Frequency of use 3
Overview
This research was commissioned by WWF (Netherlands) in order to inform a WWF infographic showing the
soy footprint of the average EU consumer. This infographic was intended to raise awareness of how much
soy is embedded within the products which are consumed by consumers and companies. Data is provided
on soy production and trade worldwide, and soy use within the EU-28. This includes soy production data
by country, land area used for soy production globally, soy export data by country and soy import data by
country.
Method
Data from Hoste (WUR) was used as an estimate for soy conversion factors for different animal feeds. Hoste
did not provide an estimate for soy content in farmed fish feed, so an estimate was formed based on data
from the Norwegian branch of a global aquafeed company, Skretting.
In order to calculate the soy content in different animal proteins, three different sets of data were used:
- The animal feed conversion factors based on the workings above.

- Data from FEFAC on the volume of soybean meal used as a simple feedstuff in the EU-28.
- Data on the volume of compound livestock feed produced (by type) in the EU-28 in 2013 (based on data
from FEFAC).
- A multiplication factor. When the authors compared the sum of compound feed and simple feed
produced (based on FEFAC data) with trade data from Eurostat on soy consumed in the EU-28, they find
that the FEFAC data shows significantly less soy produced than would be expected, and have therefore
calculated a multiplication factor of 1.73 to correct for this.
- Data on the volume of livestock product produced in the EU-28 in 2013 (from Eurostat)
The volume of compound livestock feed produced (volumes of compound feed produced according to
FEFAC multiplied by the multiplication factor) is multiplied by the feed conversion factor in order to find
the volume of soy used in livestock feed for each protein type. The volume of soymeal used as simple feed
is then added to this, and the sum is divided by the volume of livestock product in order to calculate the
conversion factors for protein type. This gives a conversion factor based on carcass weight which is then
converted into a factor based on retail weight using information from Meat Suite and the USDA foreign
agriculture service. For dairy products, a conversion factor for kg milk per kg of dairy product is used to
calculate the soy conversion factors. It is not clear what the source of these dairy conversion factors is.

Results

Beef kg 0.456
Pork kg 0.508
Chicken kg 1.089
Other meat kg 1.436
Eggs units 0.035
Milk kg 0.033
Cheese kg 0.246
Butter kg 0.040
Condensed milk kg 0.073
Milk powder kg 0.311
Other dairy kg 0.033
Farmed fish kg 0.738
Farmed fish feed kg 0.339
Application to RTRS
• The conversion factors are calculated separately for soybeans, soybean meal and soy oil. This creates
the potential for a calculator which differentiates between these products.
• The conversion factor for farmed fish feed (and by consequence also farmed fish) is stated by the author
to be ‘not generally applicable’ due to differences in feed content for different breeds of fish, and the
specific nature of the data used.
• Data specific to the Netherlands is used to estimate conversion factors for animal feed. These
conversion factors may not apply across the rest of the EU-28, and it is acknowledged that this is the
case by the authors, who explain that there is a lack of detailed figures on the average soy content in
feed across the EU-28.
• All data used is specifically from the EU-28, so may not be applicable outside of Europe.
• These cover most products for which conversion factors have been requested by RTRS, with the
exception of lamb, salmon, yoghurt, crème fraiche, cream and chocolate. It would be possible for CFs
to be calculated for dairy based on the CF for milk, but chocolate would be more complicated as soy
lecithin could not be accounted for based on this data.
• It is not explained how the factors used for converting milk into dairy products are found. They
therefore may not be valid.
• Although conversion factors are given by a sum of soy products rather than soybean equivalent, a
method for calculating soybean equivalents is given in Appendix 2, which includes soy hulls. This is
based on both crushing ratio and market value.

Schreiber, Villa Garcia, Allen
(3Keel)
✓ □
Source name: Moving to deforestation free animal Indicator Score (1-4)

feed: 2018 Retail Soy Initiative
Author(s): Schreiber, Villa Garcia and Allen (3Keel) Reliability of method 3
Funder(s): Seven major UK retailers Reliability of sources 4
Published: 3Keel website Geographical applicability 1
Year published: 2019 Frequency of use 1
Geographical coverage: Uses data specifically for products sold Range of proteins studied 3
in the UK
Overview
This report is intended to provide an overview of soy usage in United Kingdom retail livestock supply
chains. It seeks to:
1. Quantify the amount of soymeal present in animal feed used in 2018
2. Identify where the soy was reduced
3. Determine what share of soymeal used carried a recognised deforestation free production certification
Whilst conversion factors from other studies were used where primary data on soy use was not available,
information was also collected on how much soy was contained in animal feed. This information has been
used to provide the soy conversion factors for feed given below.
Method
Feed data was obtained from producers, covering 59% of the soy included in this study. Given that the
retailers in the study account for approximately 78% of the UK food retail market, this feed data therefore
covers around 46% of the soy sold by retailers in the UK.
No calculations were carried out with this data, and a range is given using the minimum soy content in feed
given by a supplier as well as the maximum.
Results

Feed (beef) kg 0 – 0.18
Feed (dairy) kg 0 – 0.23
Feed (laying poultry) kg 0.10 – 0.21
Feed (pork) kg 0.05 – 0.18
Feed (meat poultry) kg 0.15 – 0.26

Application to RTRS
• The ranges given for soy content in feed are very wide, so even using a mid-range estimate for this
could mean that the soy conversion factor calculated from this is inaccurate.
• Conversion factors given include soymeal, soy oil, soybean and soy hull content.
• Conversion factors given are specific to food sold in the United Kingdom, although some may have been
produced in other countries. This means that they cannot necessarily be applied to other countries.
• The conversion factors are based on data from a large range of protein producers across the United
Kingdom. They may therefore be more accurate (in the United Kingdom context) than conversion
factors that are based on data from a more limited range of producers.
• Findings show that soy has been removed from the diets of beef cattle in some British and Irish supply
chains, which means that the conversion factor for beef produced in the United Kingdom may be lower
than for other countries.
Young (SFT)

✓ □
Source name: Are dairy cows and livestock behind the Indicator Score (1-4)
growth of soya In South America?
Author(s): Richard Young (SFT) Reliability of method 2
Funder(s): SFT (Sustainable Food trust) Reliability of sources 1
Published: SFT website Geographical applicability 1
Geographical coverage: Uses United Kingdom specific data Range of proteins studied 1
Overview
This article was produced by SFT after another SFT article entitled ‘Milk: The Sustainability Issue’ raised
questions from readers around soy usage in milk, which was not fully addressed in the original article.
Questions raised and addressed are:
1. How much soya is used in producing milk and other dairy products and what proportion of total soya use
is this?
2. Does producing soya milk use less soya beans than producing milk from cows?
3. Is soya in livestock production a major driver of soya production, as we’ve been led to believe?
The focus is on soy usage in the United Kingdom. It is stated that soy milk production uses more soy per
litre than dairy milk production, and that demand for soy oil rather than soybean meal determines how
much land is used to grow soybeans.

Method
Three different sets of information were used to calculate the conversion factor for milk:
- A figure from DEFRA giving the total volume of soymeal used in livestock feed in 2016
- An estimate for what share of this is used in dairy cow feed, given via an email from Defra’s statistics
department. This is given as a range from 8-15%
- An estimate for how many litres of milk was produced in the United Kingdom in 2016 (based on an
unknown source for liquid milk sold, data from AHDB Dairy on the amount of cheese produced and a
factor for calculating how much milk is required to produce 1 kg of cheese)
The total volume of soymeal used in dairy production is calculated by multiplying the volume of soy used
in livestock feed by the percentage used in dairy cow feed (using both the highest and lowest figures in the
range). This is then divided by the estimate for litres of milk produced in order to find a conversion factor
for litres of milk produced/kg soy used.
Results
Product Unit kg soy/unit*
Milk Litre 0.0128 *This is based on the conversion factor given by Richard Young as litres milk/kg soy.
Two conversion factors have been given by Richard Young (a high estimate and a
low estimate), so these have both been divided by 1 to give a conversion factor for
kg soy/litres milk. An average has then been taken to give a mid-range estimate.
Application to RTRS
• The statistics given for the use of soy meal in the United Kingdom, stating that 35% of total soy imports
and 48.7% soy meal is fed to animals, appears to be inconsistent with other research based on soy usage
(e.g. Jennings, Sheane & McCosker (3Keel) state that approximately 90% of soy in Europe and 70% soy
in the world is used in animal feed production and it is generally assumed that almost all soymeal is used
to produce animal feed). The figures given by SFT figures are attributed to data from DEFRA
• The email from DEFRA giving an estimate of 8-15% for share of soymeal in animal feed being used for
dairy cattle feed leaves a large margin for error, so even using a mid-range estimate for this could mean
that the soy conversion factor calculated from this is inaccurate.
• Only data on soymeal is used for this calculation, ignoring soy oil, soybean and soy hull content.
• Many of the links given to data sources do not work, and so the statistics used are not traceable.
• All data used is specific to the United Kingdom (which the author acknowledges may use less soy in
dairy production due to the suitability of the United Kingdom and Ireland to grass production).
• A conversion factor is given for only one product, although a conversion factor could easily also be
calculated for cheese based on the estimate given that approximately 10 litres of milk are used to
produce 1kg of cheese. Further dairy conversion factors from external sources could also be used to
estimate soy conversion factors for additional dairy products.

Van Gelder, Kuepper &
Vrins (Profundo)
✓ □
Source name: Soy Barometer 2014: A research report for the Indicator Score (1-4)
Dutch Soy Coalition
Author(s): van Gelder, Kuepper & Vrins (Profundo) Reliability of method 3
Funder(s): Dutch Soy Coalition Reliability of sources 3
Published: Both Ends website Geographical applicability 1
Geographical coverage: Uses supply chain data from the Netherlands Range of proteins studied 3
Overview
The report is created for the Dutch Soy Coalition, a collaboration of NGOs in the Netherlands, including
Both Ends, OxfamNovib and WWF-Netherlands. The Dutch Soy Coalition aims to encourage stakeholders
in the supply chain to produce soy responsibly and replace soy in animal feed with other proteins, and
the report has been created with these goals in mind. It covers global production of soy, soy use in the
Netherlands and sustainability standards.
Method
In order to calculate the soy content in different animal proteins, four different sets of data were used:
• The animal feed conversion factors based on conversion factors calculated by Hoste (WUR). The method
for this is explained separately.
• Data from FEFAC on the volume of soybean meal used as a simple feedstuff in the Netherlands.
• Data on the volume of compound livestock feed produced (by type) in the Netherlands in 2013 (based on
FEFAC statistics).
• A multiplication factor. When the authors compared the sum of compound feed and simple feed
produced (based on FEFAC data) with trade data from Eurostat on soy consumed in the Netherlands,
they find that the FEFAC data shows significantly less soy produced than would be expected, and have
therefore calculated a multiplication factor of 1.27 to correct for this.
• Data on the volume of protein product produced in the Netherlands (data was used from Product
Boards, from 2013 for poultry and dairy production, and from 2012 for other livestock sectors with
adjustments made based on 2013 data from the Dutch Statistical Office).
The volume of compound livestock feed produced (volumes of compound feed produced according to
FEFAC statistics multiplied by the multiplication factor) is multiplied by the feed conversion factor in
order to find the volume of soy used in livestock feed for each protein type. The volume of soymeal used
as simple feed is then added to this, and the sum is divided by the volume of livestock product in order to
calculate the conversion factors for protein type. This gives a conversion factor for meat proteins based on
carcass weight. For dairy products, a conversion factor for kg milk per kg of dairy product is used to
calculate the soy conversion factors. It is not clear what the source of these dairy conversion factors is.

Results
Feed kg 0.400
Pork kg 0.336
Chicken kg 0.605
Other meat kg 0.261
Eggs Units 0.036
Milk kg 0.034
Milk products (e.g. yoghurt) kg 0.023
Cheese kg 0.301
Butter kg 0.034
Condensed milk kg 0.073
Milk Powder kg 0.286
Other dairy kg 0.034
Application to RTRS
• The conversion factors are calculated separately for soybeans, soybean meal and soy oil. This creates
the potential for a calculator which differentiates between these products.
• Data specific to the Netherlands is used throughout and the research is intended for use primarily
by stakeholders in the soy supply chain in the Netherlands. The factors therefore may not be widely
applicable to those seeking to calculate the soy footprint of animal proteins produced elsewhere.
• These cover most products for which conversion factors have been requested by RTRS, with the
exception of lamb, farmed fish, salmon, yoghurt, cream and chocolate. It would be possible for CFs
to be calculated for dairy based on the CF for milk, but chocolate would be more complicated as soy
lecithin could not be accounted for based on this data.
• It is not explained how the factors used for converting milk into dairy products are found. They therefore
may not be valid.
• Conversion factors are given for carcass weight. However, estimates from Meat Suite are offered for
conversion to retail weight as desired.
• Although conversion factors are given by a sum of soy products rather than soybean equivalent, a
method for calculating soybean equivalents is given in Appendix 2, which includes soy hulls. This is
based on both crushing ratio and market value.
• The conversion factors are referenced by Both Ends and the UKRT.

UTOQUAI 29/31 | 8008 ZURICH, SWITZERLAND
info@responsiblesoy.org
responsiblesoy.org

RTRS Calculadora PDF ENG

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RTRS Calculadora PDF ENG

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) —1

This report was commissioned by Round Table on Responsible Soy

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) —2

Selecting soy conversion factors ..................................................................... 6

Calculating soybean equivalent ........................................................................ 8

Appendix I: Austral University Study ................................................................. 12

Appendix II: Publicly available sources of conversion factors ............................ 57

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) —3

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) —4

Soybean equivalent Soybean equivalent Primary source

Soy product Soymeal (high-pro) 0.870 1.389 Austral University

Livestock feed Cattle (Beef) 0.076 0.10 Hoste (WUR)

Livestock Beef 0.292 1.546 Profundo

Livestock Beef 0.451 2.377 Profundo

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) —5

Identify Select Assess Select factors Calculate

Selecting sources for assessment

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) —6

Transparency of method Are the method and significant assumptions explained?

Selecting factors for use in RTRS calculator

Calculating additional factors

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) —7

To address the matter of what is a byproduct – and thus a driver of soybean

Crude oil Crude oil Biodiesel

Soymeal (high pro) Lecithin Glycerol

1 tonne soybeans Hull pellets Refined oil

0.065 tonnes 0.171 tonnes

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) —8

High-pro soybean meal 0.72 1.39

Value of one ton soy product

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) —9

Austral University (2019) Soybean conversion factors.

Commission of the European Communities (2006) REGULATION (EC) No 139/2004

FAO (2006) Livestock’s long shadow. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-a0701e.pdf.

Hoste (Waginengen Economic Research) (2014) Sojarverbruik in de Nederlandse diervoederindustrie 2011-

IDH (2019) European Soy Monitor. Available at: https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/uploaded/2019/04/

IMF (2019) Commodity Prices. Available at: https://www.imf.org/en/Research/commodity-prices.

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) — 10

Oleoline (2018) Glycerine market report. Available at: http://www.hbint.com/datas/

WWF (2014) The Growth of Soy. Available at: http://awsassets.wwfdk.panda.org/downloads/wwf_soy_

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) — 11

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) — 12

The information and materials contained in the document shall not be

RTRS’s exclusive property on this document is protected by Copyright

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) — 13

Chapter I: key elements in soybean conversion 17

Chapter II: soybean processing 23

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) — 14

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) — 15

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) — 16

Key elements in soybean conversion

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) — 17

The soybean Pod

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) — 18

Structure of a soybean (Kemper, 2005)

1 Cell wall CW: Cell wall

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) — 19

Temperature mostly affects oil (rather than protein content).

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) — 20

Soybean quality - comparative figures

Crop Year Argentina United States Brazil*

2008 (2008/09) 34,28 22,00 34,10 19,10

Approximate values, based on Braga et al., APROSOJA (2017)

ROUND TABLE ON RESPONSIBLE SOY ASSOCIATION (RTRS) — 21