History of Soybean Crushing: Soy Oil and Soybean Meal - Part 9
A Special Report on The History of Soy Oil, Soybean Meal, & Modern Soy Protein Products
A Chapter from the Unpublished Manuscript, History of Soybeans and Soyfoods: 1100 B.C. to the 1980s
by William Shurtleff and Akiko AoyagiCopyright 2007 Soyinfo Center, Lafayette, California
World Hunger. Since ancient times people living in densely populated areas have generally consumed diets containing relatively little meat or dairy products. They could not afford to feed their precious grains (and in Asia soybeans) to livestock, nor could they afford to use farmland for grazing. As early as 1911, King, while studying agriculture in China, had cited statistics from the Rothamsted experiments in Europe showing that cattle, in consuming 100 kg (dry weight) of fodder, used 57.3% for metabolism, excreted 36.5%, and stored 6.5% as body weight gain, less than two-thirds (4%) of which was edible. For hogs, 17.6% was stored as body weight gain, and 11% was edible. He concluded that it was not surprising that the Chinese had long ago discarded cattle as milk and meat producers, used hogs as transformers of coarse substances (refuse, etc.) into human food, but generally adopted a vegetarian diet.
In the United States, it will be recalled, the feedlot system evolved during the 1950s as a way of transforming large quantities of low-cost food into small quantities of high-cost animal products. It is well known that livestock are relatively inefficient converters of basic foods into animal products. If 100 kg of feed protein are fed to livestock, only 31% will be returned in the form of milk protein, 27% in the form of egg protein, 18% in the form of chicken or broiler protein, 9% in the form of pork protein, and 7% in the form of beef protein (Pimentel et al. 1975). Even the most efficient converter of feed protein into flesh foods, the modern broiler chicken, still required about 4.3 to 5.0 kg of feed protein to make one kg of edible chicken protein. Fed 200 kg of feed containing 20% (40 kg) of protein, a broiler will gain 100 kg live weight, of which 45 kg is edible meat (after viscera, bones, and feathers are discarded), containing 18% protein, or 8.1 kg protein. Thus 40 kg feed protein produced 8.1 kg chicken protein. About 80% of the original protein, mostly from corn and soybeans, was lost in the process (Patrick and Schaible 1980). Still a broiler weighing 1.36 kg (3 lb) can be raised in only 45 days and only 1.7 to 2 kg of feed are required to produce each kg of meat. By contrast, 15-20 kg of feed protein are required to produce 1 kg of protein in the form of a feedlot steer.
Simple arithmetic shows that in 1981 some 87,628,000 tonnes of soybeans were produced in a world of 4,500 million people; this works out to 19.5 kg (42.8 lb) of soybeans for every man, woman, and child. Containing 38% protein, those soybeans could provide each person with 7,410 gm of protein. Given a Recommended Daily Allowance for protein of 65 gm (actually the figure should be more like 50 gm to include the RDA for children and small statured adults in Third World countries), the average adult would need 23,725 gm of protein a year. If all the soybeans were consumed directly as food, allowing a 10% processing loss (as when cooking whole soybeans or making soy flour), the 6,669 remaining grams of soy protein could provide at least 28% of the protein requirements of every person on the planet, and at a price that the great majority of people could afford. Thus this soy protein could easily fill the protein gap, eliminating deficiencies. Clearly, there is no shortage of world protein supply.
By contrast, in the form of chicken, these soybeans could be used indirectly to provide about 5.6% of the world's protein needs if they were fed in scientifically formulated feeds to modern hybrid chickens raised under carefully controlled conditions . . . which the world's poor could not afford. It is also important to recall (Fig. 7.6) that soybeans are one of the world's few basic crops with a strong growth in per capita production. Worldwide, this figure grew from 7.24 kg in 1950 to 11.3 kg in 1970, up to 19.5 kg in 1981. By the late 1970s, per capita fish and beef production were declining.
Since soybeans were introduced to the West, soy protein supplies have moved largely in response to livestock rather than to human needs. The percentage of the world's soybean crop that is fed to animals has steadily increased from an estimated 10% in 1920 to about 70% in 1980 (USDA/FAS 1980 Ref??). This is largely because of a shift of the world's center of soybean production from East Asia (where soybeans were traditionally used as food) to the US (where most of the protein has always been fed to animals), and because of rapid increases of livestock populations and of the use of soybean meal in livestock feeds.
It is generally agreed that in today's world, where farmland is used intensively at full production, the growing trend to feeding soybeans and grains to livestock tends to aggravate the problems of food shortages, inflation, malnutrition, and the rapidly growing gap between the rich and the poor. While food production worldwide since World War II has just managed to keep up with population growth, it has not managed to keep up with the demand to use the food for livestock, which the charts do not show. Thus while two-thirds of the increased demand for food comes from population growth, the remaining one-third comes from affluence and the feedlot system (Brown 1978). Livestock tend to absorb local or world grain supplies and reduce the quantity of grains that would otherwise be available to the poorest and most poorly nourished people. Soybeans for feed are increasingly grown on land that once grew basic human foods. This decreases the supply and raises the price of the remaining food crops. Worldwide, the proportion of grain consumed by livestock doubled from about 20% in 1960-61 to about 40% in 1981. In the US more than 50% of all farmland is used to grow crops that are fed to animals.
According to World Bank statistics, half of all grain exports go to feed livestock. In 1980-81, more grain was fed to animals than was consumed by the 1,400 million people in countries with per capita incomes of less than $250. Also in 1981 about 28% of the world's fish catch was fed to livestock as fish meal. In a market economy, the middle and upper classes will always be able to outbid the poor for food resources. As land nears its productive capacity, and especially in times of food scarcity, the poor must either produce their own food or perish. Already massive amounts of basic grains and soybeans are shipped around the world to feed livestock, while some 20 million people, three-fourths of them children, die each year of malnutrition and malnutrition-caused diseases. In 1981 the average American consumed 120 kg (265 lb) of soybeans, that half of the crop that was not exported; 97% of this was consumed indirectly as meat and dairy products. By contrast, the average Chinese that year consumed about 8 kg (17.6 lb) of soybeans; an estimated 95% was consumed directly as tofu and other soyfoods.
While this general situation is critical as far as basic grains are concerned, it is difficult to extend the same logic to soybeans, since (except in East Asia), they are not yet widely in demand as a food source. Yet soybeans and soyfoods are now readily available worldwide in a diversity of forms at prices almost everyone can afford. In Brazil, for example, soybeans have begun to be planted in place of black beans, a traditional protein staple of the people. Some see this as undercutting basic food supplies. Yet if the people learned to use soybeans as extenders for black beans (as is gradually being done), the change would represent an improvement in diets. Moreover, an expansion of the soybean producing industry in any country usually leads to a reduction in the real price of soybeans, as was historically the case in the US (Fig. 7.5). Thus, the soyfoods industry maintains that the appropriate response is not to lament the growing use of soybeans and grains as fodder, but to teach low-income people in both Third World and developed countries how to make direct use of the increasingly available supplies of low-cost, high-quality soyfoods, and also to teach meat consumers worldwide that a shift to using more soyfoods as a protein source will lower their food bills, provide a healthier diet, free up more farmland to grow food for people, be more respectful of the rights of animals, and in short effectively reduce the total demand for food. At the same time we have every reason to expect that the rise in animal protein prices because of the relative inefficiencies of the feedlot system and the increasing scarcity of food producing resources (land, water, energy, fertilizer), and the rise in degenerative diseases associated with substantial consumption of animal products, will lead to a gradual shift from indirect animal protein to direct plant protein consumption. In Third World countries, where relatively little is known of nutrition or of soyfoods, educational work must proceed post haste, before food prices rise to levels that cause much more widespread malnutrition and starvation.
One partially redeeming characteristic of the feedlot system is that it tends to serve (at least for the middle and upper classes) as a sort of food reserve system, a shock absorber, surge tank, or buffer in times of famine. At those times, the people that can afford it (which is never the ones who need food most), eat the livestock and then eat the crops the livestock would otherwise have eaten. If everyone in the US suddenly were to start consuming less grain-and-soy fed meat, would that mean that the grains and soybeans so spared would then be consumed by hungry people in Third World countries? Probably not, since the poor could not afford the price of imported grain and would not know how to use the soybeans as food, even if they could afford them. Consequently, US farmers would simply reduce their production. The solution to the problem lies in people in Third World countries learning to grow their own soybeans and to use them as food.
What recommendations, then, could be made for using soybeans to help solve problems of world hunger and malnutrition. First, help Third World countries to grow their own soybeans and to use them (in any form, including defatted soybean meal) in human foods. Excellent work in this area is now being done by INTSOY (see Chapter 44) in countries such as Sri Lanka (Chapter 54) and India (Chapter 6). The American soyfoods movement (Chapter 51) is also having important repercussions worldwide. Second, encourage groups such as the American Soybean Association to spend more of their funds in Third World countries promoting human food uses of soy protein and less promoting increased consumption of meat and fat. Such a shift in emphasis would probably not lead to the most rapid expansion of American soybean exports, but in the long run it might well lead to a greater total demand and it would certainly be more beneficial to the majority of the people.
Third, educate people everywhere on the many benefits of moderate consumption of animal fats and total fats. Fourth, reduce feeding of grains and soybeans to livestock. As Milner, Scrimshaw, and Wang reported in 1978:
If grain feeding to ruminants were to be eliminated, the beef, dairy, and other ruminant industries could adjust to rations with higher levels of forages and to feed sources not consumed by humans such as food industry by-products and crop wastes . . . Approximately one-half of the land area in the US, about 1 billion acres, is now producing forages for ruminant consumption. Most of this land area will still be available for growing forages by the year 2000 . . . In 1968, 72% of the feed units consumed by beef cattle and 68% of those consumed by dairy cattle came from pasture, grassland crops, and forages . . . Grain constitutes a higher percentage of the ration for swine and poultry. Rations for these monogastric animals can include less grain and more industrial by-product feeds, food wastes, and forages if necessary.
Note that the planet could support more people on a diet containing meat from livestock grazed on forage land unsuited for agriculture or fed scraps, animal wastes, or food processing by-products, than on a complete vegetarian diet. (Weak ending, confusing??)
Pollution. Feedlots, especially those containing tens of thousands of cattle, cause considerable pollution. The wastes work their way into water supplies, causing pollution and eutrophication. The stench for several miles around is unpleasant. Increasingly, however, we can expect to see these wastes recycled for use in methane production or as manure for cropland to partially replace chemical fertilizers. Most poultry wastes are already sold for manure.
Waste of Energy, Water, Land, Labor, and Soil. Only since the 1970s has it been clearly recognized that the feedlot system and animal protein production are very wasteful of basic resources. Pimentel et al. (1975) and Lappe^ (1982) have shown that while it takes 13 calories of total energy to produce 1 gram of usable protein in the form of soybeans, it takes 141 calories to produce the same amount of protein in the form of eggs, 252 calories in the form of chicken, 322 calories in the form of milk, 597 calories in the form of pork, 1,039 calories in the form of range-fed beef, and 1194 calories in the form of feedlot beef. For most of these animal products (except range-fed beef) about half of the calories come from feed energy input and the other half from fossil fuel energy input for feed and animal husbandry. Thus, it takes 92 times more total energy and 36 times more fossil fuel energy to produce 1 gram of protein from feedlot beef than from soybeans (Fig. ??).
Animal protein production is also wasteful of water, a resource that will soon be more limiting than land. It takes only 1,065 gallons of water to produce 1 lb of protein in the form of soybeans. But it takes 1,490 gallons to produce the same amount of protein in the form of corn, 15,000 gallons in the form of chicken, and a whopping 50,000 gallons in the form of beef (Pimentel 1980, personal communication). (What is it all used for??) Thus to produce only one lb of beef protein takes the total amount of water used by an average person at home for one year !
Turning now to land. One acre of land will produce, on average, 356 lb of protein in the form of soybeans, but only 265 lb of protein in the form of rice, 211 lb as corn, 82 lb as milk, 78 lb as eggs, and 20 lb as feedlot or grain-fed beef (Shurtleff and Aoyagi 1975).
How about labor? One hour of labor can produce 30 kg of usable protein in the form of oats, 26 kg in the form of soybeans, and 23 kg in the form of wheat, but only 22 as range-fed beef, 17 as feedlot beef, 16 as pork, 11 as chicken, 7 as milk, and 4 as eggs (Pimentel et al. 1975; Lappe^ 1982).
And finally soil. The extremely intensive monoculture row cropping, caused in part by the surging worldwide demand for grain-fed livestock products, is causing extensive loss of topsoil, as discussed in Chapter 2.
At a time when basic resources are becoming increasingly scarce due to population pressures, the feedlot system and production of animal proteins greatly aggravates those scarcities and the environmental problems associated with them, thus undercutting our basic biological support systems.
Animal Factories and Animal Rights. The notion that animals have basic rights is age old in India and some Buddhist countries of East Asia. In 1824 the English Parliament passed the first law "to prevent the cruel and improper treatment of cattle," and several months later the first Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was formed in London. Animal anti-cruelty laws were passed in the US by various states after New York after 1828, and America's first SPCA was formed in 1866. Starting in the 1970s a new wave of animal rights activists arose in the US and England calling attention to two major new abuses of animals; biomedical research and factory farming. In 1975, in the midst of human rights and women's liberation movements, Peter Singer published a book called Animal Liberation , that soon became a credo for the new movement. In 1980 Jim Mason and Peter Singer published an even more important work, Animal Factories , describing the intensive new confinement systems as "one more example of misguided technology in America." They emphasized that the animals were routinely raised inside huge machines, isolated from the natural world, often in cramped solitary confinement, and receiving antibiotics, growth hormones, and other chemicals that appeared in the finished meat and were hazardous to human health. Chickens, for example, were routinely debeaked and sometimes made to wear red-filter contact lenses to prevent pecking and cannibalism in the confined conditions. As protein sources, they were fed ground feathers and wastes of other chickens.
In the early 1980s the larger, more established vegetarian movement joined forces with the small but rapidly growing animal rights movement and by 1982 they were getting extensive media coverage for their critique of the feedlot system and the consumption of animal products. They urged people who loved (or even liked) animals not to eat them, and pointed out that every one percent reduction of meat consumption in America saved the lives of 50 million animals. Children, too, were remarkably receptive to this simple message of reverence for all life.
Effect on Meat Consumption . The increasing public awareness of the problems with the meat centered diet and the feedlot system, combined with historically very high inflation rates (average 9.4% from 1974-1981) led to a sharp decline in per capita beef consumption (it fell from 128 lb in 1976 to 105 lb in 1980) and a switch to more consumption of lower cost chicken and pork. In September 1981 average nationwide meat prices per pound were: beef $2.45, pork $1.54, and chicken $0.75. Polls showed that price factors were the main reason for the decline and shift, with health concerns for fat running a strong second. Cattlemen nationwide had lost money for 5 years and were deeply in debt. Was this just another swing in the old cattle cycle or a basic new trend? Perhaps in a resource-short world, there would be a permanent shift to more chicken and less total meat. Worldwide, per capita beef consumption peaked in 1976 at 11.58 kg (25.48 lb) and had fallen to 10.53 kg (23.17 lb) by 1980, but worldwide per capita chicken consumption had grown 24% during the same period, and chicken was being touted as "the meat of the future" (Brown 1981; Lindsey 1981; Crittenden 1981).
New Protein Models . One clear alternative to the meat centered diet and the feedlot system is the traditional protein model, based on whole grains and legumes, including oilseed proteins such as defatted soybean meal. This low-cost, healthful, high-quality protein has great potential to truly
improve diets around the world. Defatted soy flour, made by simply grinding soybean meal, could be used to fortify breads, tortillas, chapatis, noodles, soups, and a host of other widely accepted foods around the world at little extra cost and no loss in palatability. In protein deficient areas, it could eliminate these deficiencies.
The Future . For soy oil, some of the following developments (a number of which were suggested by Dutton in 1981) seem likely and important: (1) Leveling off or possible decrease in per capita fat consumption in developed countries, but rise in most Third World countries in times of economic prosperity. (2) Increased competition from palm, sunflower, and rapeseed oils. (3) Greater use of liquid and unsaturated oils including liquid shortenings and margarines especially by foodservice institutions. (4) Development of hybrid dairy products such as butter-margarine blends to lower prices and cholesterol levels, and increase spreadability with no loss of flavor. (5) New energy saving processing technologies that use lower temperatures during hydrogenation and refining. (6) Increased concern (especially if the suspected causal relationship between high fat and cholesterol consumption and coronary heart disease is confirmed) with health problems related to high consumption of fats, saturated fats, and cholesterol, and perhaps with trans fatty acids and with pesticide and hexane residues in edible oils. (7) Techniques (such as interesterification) to minimize trans fatty acid formation during hydrogenation. (8) Nonflammable, nontoxic, nonpetroleum alternatives to hexane solvent, such as water or carbon dioxide. (9) Expansion of soy oil into traditional industrial markets (e.g. paints and varnishes) formerly invaded by petroleum products, whose prices are now rising faster than those of soy oil. (10) And eventual selling of soybeans on a protein and oil content basis. Oil prices will stay low as surpluses rise.
For soybean meal: (1) increased use for both livestock feeding (with the greatest expansion in poultry feeding overseas) and as defatted soy flour in foods (especially in Third World countries). (2) Growing concern over the problems with the meat centered diet and the feedlot system, especially in affluent countries. (3) Demand for meal will continue to increase relative to oil.
HISTORY OF SOYBEAN CRUSHING IN THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES SOY OIL AND SOYBEAN MEAL
It was not until the 1970s that Third World countries outside of East Asia began to use large amounts of soy oil and related products. There were basically three ways that such countries could obtain this oil: (1) They could import the oil from a soybean producing and crushing nation, in either degummed or fully refined form, then use this oil to make cooking or salad oils, margarines, or shortenings, alone or blended with local oils. In 1980 leading Third World importers of US soy oil were India (366,405 tonnes), Pakistan (150,221 tonnes), China (66,657 tonnes), Colombia (79,301 tonnes), and Africa (52,844 tonnes). Most of these countries had only limited facilities for crushing soybeans. (2) They could import whole soybeans and crush them at local mills to yield soybean oil and meal. In 1980 leading Third World importers of US soybeans were Mexico (931,000 tonnes), Taiwan (936,000 tonnes), China (606,000 tonnes), and Korea (564,000 tonnes). Or (3) they could grow the soybeans domestically and crush them at local mills. Brazil and Argentina were the leaders in this category. They then exported much of their oil and meal. A typical country might start with option (1), then proceed to (2) and (3). Third World countries may have one advantage in growing soybeans for oil, in that soybeans grown in a warm climate generally have a higher oil content than those grown in a temperate climate, although the free fatty acid content may be a little higher, which is not desirable.
Although Brazil and Argentina are major soybean producers and major exporters of soy oil and meal, net imports of soy oil and meal for Latin America as a whole quadrupled from 500,000 tonnes in 1970 to nearly 2,000,000 tonnes in 1980.
Brazil . Latin America leads the Third World in soybean production and crushing and Brazil is the top in both these fields. As soybean production in Brazil began its rapid expansion in the early 1970s, the country started a parallel expansion of its soybean crushing industry. In less than a decade, Brazil went from being a minor soybean crusher to being the second largest soybean producer and crusher in the world. Brazil's soybean crush grew dramatically from a mere 640,000 tonnes in 1969 to 13.8 million tonnes in 1981, a compound growth rate of 25.4% a year (Fig. ??.??). In 1981 Brazil produced 20% of the world's soy oil, second only to the US (39.8%). Argentina was third with 14.3%. Brazil's crushing industry expanded both because of a strong world market for soybean products and because of strong crushing and export incentives from the Brazilian government (Thompson 1978).
Brazil's crushing industry began its period of most rapid growth after 1973, when high world soybean prices and a US soybean embargo encouraged a number of multinational corporations to build large crushing plants in Brazil, using their own outside capital. In 1975, in order to stimulate exports to balance petroleum import payments and because soy oil and meal reserves were large, the Brazilian government reduced export controls and taxes on soybean oil and meal, and set policies to stimulate domestic soybean crushing and exports of oil and meal, rather than soybeans. From 1969-1977 Brazil crushed an average of 62% of its domestic soybean production yearly. Soybeans exports peaked in 1975 and have since declined, while oil and meal exports increased dramatically (Fig. ??.??). In 1977 Brazil exported as much oil and meal as the US, the world leader. By 1982 Brazil was exporting 7.6 million tonnes of soybean meal and 950,000 tonnes of soy oil and was the world's leader in both export categories, although not in soybean exports. In 1977 Brazil's crushing capacity first exceeded the size of its soybean crop and in 1980 Brazil's crush passed that of the ten European Economic Community (EEC) nations. Moreover, Brazilian meal was sold at a premium since it generally contained about 8% more protein than US meal (47.5 vs. 44%) and because it was generally pelleted for livestock feed use at the crushing plant. The oil however was considered of slightly inferior quality since it had a higher free fatty acid content than US crude oil; this resulted in larger refining losses.
Thompson (1978) reported that in 1977 the Brazilian crushing industry consisted of 132 firms. Of these, only nine had a crushing capacity of more than 1,000 tonnes a day, but they accounted for 35% of the industry's total capacity. And 110 firms had a daily capacity of less than 500 tonnes, and they accounted for 43% of the industry's total capacity. The largest plants, with capacities of up to 2,000 tonnes a day, were located mostly in the States of Rio Grande do Sul and Parana, which had the greatest soybean production and greatest crushing capacity.
As soy oil production in Brazil increased, Brazilians began using more of it in their diet. Domestic consumption increased from 52,000 tonnes in 1965 to 162,000 tonnes in 1970, up to 1,600,000 tonnes in 1981, or an almost ten-fold increase in a decade. By 1981 soy oil was the most popular oil in Brazil. In 1982 Brazil exported 38% of the soy oil it produced and 74% of its meal.
The rate and magnitude of Brazil's soybean crushing industry growth is unprecedented in history, even in the US. It promises to be a major contender in world markets in the foreseeable future.
Mexico and Argentina . These two countries have developed their soybean crushing industries to very different ways. Mexico's industry, the seventh largest in the world and the third largest in the Third World (after Brazil and China), is run largely on imported soybeans, with most of the imports coming from the US. Mexico's crushing capacity increased from 913,000 tonnes in 1978 (69% of these soybeans were imported) to 1,750,000 tonnes in 1982 (63% of these soybeans were imported).
Argentina grew most of the soybeans it crushed. Its crush grew from 726,000 tonnes in 1978 to 1,575,000 tonnes in 1982. Of the 263,000 tonnes of soy oil produced in 1982 in Argentina, 77% was exported, whereas of the 315,000 tonnes of soy oil produced in Mexico, none was exported and an additional 50,000 tonnes were imported.
India . A good example of a country trying to make the progression from a soy oil importer to a producer is India. In 1980 India was by far the world's largest importer of soy oil, and the country was actively developing its own soybean production and crushing capabilities. Soy oil dominated India's oil and fat imports, accounting for 44% of total oil equivalent imports in 1981.
India first began substantial use of imported soy oil in the 1960s when oil technicians from the US Soybean Council helped Indian oil processors to develop a small-grained type of vanaspati (a cooking margarine) and a large-grained vegetable ghee (or "buffalo butter"), both from soy oil. Starting in the mid-1970s, India's imports of soy oil shot upward, reaching 440,000 tonnes by 1977 and 662,000 tonnes by 1980. In the latter year, 55% of this oil was imported from the US and 38% from Brazil. But in 1981 India shifted its allegiance to a fellow Third World country, purchasing 86% of soy oil imports from Brazil and only 14% from the US. Most of India's soy oil was consumed either as a cooking oil (in place of the more popular peanut oil) or as vanaspati. The Vanaspati Manufacturers Association, however, maintains that, compared to peanut oil, soy oil is more difficult to process, since it must undergo degumming before refining and since, being more unsaturated, it requires more hydrogen for hydrogenation.
During the 1970s India was also rapidly increasing its production of soybeans from 35,000 tonnes in 1974 to a remarkable 500,000 tonnes in 1981. Most of these used for oilseeds had their oil extracted in local oil mills, primarily those using expellers to extract peanut oil. This was considered more economical than to build a special solvent plant for soybeans, since the smallest cost-effective solvent plant required 100-300 tonnes (the latter figure is probably more realistic) of soybeans a day (33,000-102,000 tonnes per 340-day year). Thus one small plant would require about one-fifth of India's entire soybean crop. Moreover, the initial cost of a solvent plant was extremely high and investment capital was scarce. An expeller plant can operate economically on 6,000 tonnes a year, has a much lower startup cost, and requires less skilled labor (S.W. Williams et al. 1974; Von Oppen 1974).
Sri Lanka . Sri Lanka is an example of a small Third World country that has built a solvent crushing plant as a way of becoming more self sufficient in foodstuffs. The plant is expected to play a major role in expanding domestic soybean acreage and reducing imports of oil and proteins. The plant, which will also process other oilseeds (such as coconut) is expected to play a major role in expanding domestic soybean acreage, increasing oil supplies to allow more coconut oil to be exported, and reducing protein imports. The defatted soybean meal will be extrusion cooked to make soy flour to fortify Thriposha weaning food and some baked goods, extruded to make textured soy flour, drum dried to make soymilk, and also used in mixed poultry feeds.