The role of soy products in sustainable

poultry meat production

Kees Geerse (MSc)

USSEC consultant
nutritionist monogastrics
(NL)

Xth USSEC Poultry Round Table for the Feed industry

in Maghreb, December 12, 2023
 “Europe doesn’t like agriculture anymore”

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) newest proposal

proposal at present

broiler growth rate max 50 grams per day 65-70 grams per day

stocking density max 30 kg per m2 max 40 kg per m2

data taken from GLEAM, by the FAO (2017).
carbon footprint per gram of protein retained
Gaillac & Marbach (2021)
Feed production represents 45% of the carbon
footprint of livestock products globally (FAO, 2013)
Feed is mainly to blame for CO2 emission
- 70% of total carbon footprint in poultry meat -

‘the good, the bad and the ugly’

soy is often blamed for its adverse effect on feed

sustainability, but actually it could be part of the solution
carbon footprint of individual feedstuffs

Global Feed LCA Institute (GFLI)

‘the good, the bad and the ugly’

 Global Feed LCA Institute (GFLI)

‘LAW’ on sustainability of feed ingredients:

Independent animal nutrition and food industry non-profit institute with the
purpose of developing a publicly available Animal Nutrition Life Cycle Analysis
(LCA) database

GFLI database to be recognized as the global reference for Feed

LCA Data by the public and private sectors

https://globalfeedlca.org/gfli-database/
The updated GFLI 2.0 database was issued in October 2022
Database allows feed, livestock and aquaculture sectors
to:
1. use data based on a harmonized methodology;
2. calculate the environmental footprint of products in
a transparent and trustworthy manner; and
3. marketing and communication of results of own
company based on data calculated using a
transparent and harmonized methodology
carbon footprint of individual feedstuffs

SBM RSM SFM

‘the good, the bad and the ugly’

 SOYBEAN MEAL
Sustainability facts based on GFLI 2.0

87%
reduction
SBM origin
matters
‘the good, the bad and the ugly’

Pork meal (PAP)

Comparison of Carbon Footprint of
Oil Processing (kg CO2 eq/kg product)*

Source: Blonk Consultants, Agri-footprint

*Results based on default emission modelling, including land use change emissions, according to the rules of the PEFCR-Feed guidance document (European Commission,
2018) as implemented in the Agri-Footprint5.0 database. Input data rely on country average FAO statistics and other secondary sources. Supplier specific information would
improve data quality and may provide differing results. Comparisons have not been reviewed in the context of ISO 14040/14044 compliance.
 Sustainability and feed formulation

Ingredient supply

Nutritional requirements Sustainability

 Bestmix - Opteinics™ :
Integrated platform for feed formulation
and environmental impact calculation and evaluation

Ingredient supply

Nutritional requirements Sustainability

LEAST-COST AND LEAST-IMPACT FEED FORMULATION
Illustrations of this new innovative tool
demonstrating the CFP (CO2 kg eq.)
data in broiler meat production for some
practical scenarios:
u the effect of country origin of
soybean meal (US versus
BRAZIL)

u the effect of partial replacement

of SBM by rape- and
sunflowermeal
Scenario studies soybean meal origin
and CO2 footprint broilers
4 phase feeding program total feed (g) %
Starter, d 1-10 280 7
Grower I, d 11-20 735 18
Grower II, d 21-30 1415 35
Finisher, d 31-41 1650 40

origin of soybean meal

average SBM inclusion 26.0 %
Scenario I SBM 100% from Brazil (incl. LUC)
Scenario II SBM 100% from USA (incl. LUC)
 Sustainable poultry meat production:
It is all about the soybean meal origin

kg CO2-eq per ton of broiler liveweight*

dietary SBM
broiler studies
inclusion
SBM Brazil SBM US % reduction

USSEC study - 2022 26% 3522 1981 44

Lemme study_I - 2023 22% 2954 1814 39
Lemme study_II - 2023 22% 2788 1715 38

deforestation versus non-deforestation

* applying BASF - Opteinics™ database

Partial replacement of SBM-US by rape- & sunflowermeal
will increase the carbon footprint by 10%
+10%
100% soy-based broiler diets Soy-rape-sunflower broiler diets
CFP
feed related kg CO2-eq per ton
3000 of broiler liveweight
2618
2500 2258
2000

1500
1216
1027
1000

500

scenario I 100% SOY B razil

scenario II 100% SOY US

scenario III SOY Brazil + RSM+SFM (10-15%)

scenario IV SOY US + RSM+SFM (10-15%)

 Moving towards 100% soy-free diets
to improve sustainability ?

Partial replacement of soy by other vegetable protein sources often

reduces animal performance and a significant increase in costs

Partial replacement of soy from Arg/Brazil by other vegetable protein

sources reveals a reduction of the CFP by 15%

Partial replacement of soy from USA by other vegetable protein

sources reveals an increase of the CFP by 18%

soy is often blamed for its adverse effect on feed

sustainability, but actually it could be part of the solution
 Strategies to reduce CO2 emissions
in broiler diets

1. Sourcing lower carbon footprint raw materials (origin of soy)

2. Reducing dietary protein levels/higher inclusions of synthetic amino acids

3. Applying feeding programmes with more feeding phases (precision nutrition)

4. Feed efficiency improvements by genetics, farm and health management

 Sourcing lower carbon footprint
raw materials
u GFLI 2.0. database is the global reference for independent sustainability data of
feedstuffs

u Facts on sustainability of ingredients should be leading, not the mainstream myths

u The carbon footprint of soybean meal depends heavily on the geographic origin

u US soybean meal is the most superior protein source available for the feed market
based on the amount in kgs of essential amino acids per ton of product
Definition of carbon footprint
of livestock production varies
greatly without clarification

a) kg CO2-eq per ton of feed

b) kg CO2-eq per ton of broiler liveweight
c) kg CO2-eq per ton of broiler meat

b) often calculated as: FCR * kg CO2-eq per ton of feed

- is farming (manure emissions) included ?
- is slaughter process included ?
- how to deal with phase feeding ?
 five different values for one parameter:
carbon footprint of broiler production

incl.
Dutch broiler and feed production feed only non-
feed*
a) kg CO2-eq per ton of broiler feed** 1290 n.a.
b) kg CO2-eq per ton of broiler liveweight 2060 2965
c) kg CO2-eq per ton of broiler meat 2750 3955
** based EU average for SBM origin * Including farming and
slaughter process
 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
GFLI 2.0. database is the global reference for independent sustainability data
of feedstuffs

The carbon footprint of soybean meal depends heavily on the geographic origin;
kg CO2 eq. from US Soy is only 13% of Soy Brazil mainly caused by the huge impact
of LUC = Land Use Change on SOY Brazil (US SOY is actually conversion-free)

The best ranked origins for SBM, RSM, SFM and animal proteins (MBM) have about
similar CO2 eq. values per ton of product; SBM US is however superior if based on
amount of essential amino acids per ton of product
 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
Technologies are available (e.g. Bestmix-Opteinics™ platform) which integrate
feed formulation and environmental impact calculations

Illustrations of this new innovative tool have been given demonstrating the
quantitative CFP (CO2 kg eq.) data in broiler meat production for some practical
scenarios:
• the effect of country origin of soybean meal (US versus BRAZIL)
• the effect of partial replacement of SBM by rape- and sunflowermeal

Improving the carbon footprint of diets by reducing soybean inclusion is not a fact
but a myth

“A (sustainability) myth unchallenged becomes

the unquestioned truth”
 Thank you!
USSOY.org | USSEC.org

While the U.S. Soybean Export Council (USSEC) does not guarantee the forecasts or statements of USSEC Staff or Contractors, we have taken care
in selecting them to represent our organization. We believe they are knowledgeable and their presentations and opinions will provide listeners
with detailed information and valuable insights into the U.S. Soy and U.S. Ag Industry. We welcome further questions and always encourage
listeners to seek a wide array of opinions before making any financial decisions based on the information presented. Accordingly, USSEC will not
accept any liability stemming from the information contained in this presentation.