Submitted by Lesley WJ Nernberg, Lighthouse Agri-Solutions and Matthew Clark, FeedGuys Resources 

Global soybean buyers are constantly reviewing quality, reliability and risk when deciding where to source soybeans and soybean meal. The July 4, 2026 USSEC U.S. & Brazil Soybean Quality Report provides a timely comparison of U.S. and Brazilian soybean export quality, while also introducing preliminary data from Argentina and Uruguay. For northern soybean growers and the customers evaluating northern-grown soybeans the report offers a useful reminder that quality is not defined by one number alone. It is the overall balance of nutrient value, kernel soundness, moisture and consistency that helps determine how soybeans perform in storage, in the crush plant and ultimately in the feed mill. 

The report draws on U.S. soybean quality data from the FGIS public database and Brazilian data gathered from different surveyors. While the report does not cover every export cargo, it represents a significant portion of the market and provides an ongoing picture of how the major origins compare. The quality metrics followed in the report include moisture, protein, oil, foreign material, heat damage, total damage and splits. Each of these characteristics has practical meaning for buyers. Protein and oil point to nutrient and economic value, while moisture and physical condition can influence storage management, handling characteristics, processing efficiency and buyer confidence. 

Looking at cumulative 2025/26 bulk soybean export data, Brazil showed higher average protein and oil than the United States. The Brazilian presented averages were 34.63% protein and 21.64% oil, compared with 33.74% protein and 19.50% oil for the U.S. Brazil also showed lower foreign material and fewer splits than the U.S. in this summary. At the same time however, Brazilian soybeans carried meaningfully higher moisture, higher heat damage, and much higher total damage. Average moisture was 12.16% for Brazil compared with 10.91% for the U.S.; heat damage was 0.34% versus 0.02% and total damage was 5.93% compared with just 1.01% for U.S. soybeans. 

That contrast is important. On paper, higher protein and oil can attract attention, especially when buyers are comparing nutrient density by origin. But commercial purchasing decisions are not made on crude composition alone. Buyers also need to know how soybeans will store, how they will move through receiving and processing systems, and whether the physical quality of the beans support consistent meal production. The latest USSEC figures suggest that U.S. soybeans continue to offer a strong profile in terms of lower moisture and substantially lower kernel damage, even when South American soybeans may appear richer in protein and oil.  

For northern soybean growers, this matters because origin reputation is built not only on nutrient profiles but also on quality and agronomic conditions. Many export customers operate in climates where heat and humidity create a narrow margin for storage and handling problems. In those conditions, lower incoming moisture can reduce risk and provide more flexibility. Similarly, lower total damage can mean fewer concerns over degraded kernels, more predictable processing behavior and greater confidence that the material arriving is close to the cargo that was purchased.  

The quality of the soybean strongly shapes the quality of the soybean meal that crushers and feed mills ultimately use. Processing conditions matter, but the real foundation of nutrient value lies in the physical condition and nutrient profile of the beans themselves. When those beans are sound and consistent, the meal that follows is more reliable. For U.S. soybean growers, this remains an important and encouraging message.   

Why damage matters in the feed mill
For a feed mill or integrator, damaged soybeans are not just a grading issue. They can become a practical cost and performance issue. Heat-damaged kernels may reflect exposure to excessive temperature at post-harvest (drying), storage or handling where severe damage can make nutrients, such as essential amino acids, less available after processing and reduce feeding value. Meanwhile, total damage is a broader indicator of physical deterioration that can affect the uniformity and flow of raw material through the plant.  

From a practical standpoint, buyers of soybeans and soybean meal want raw materials that behave consistently. Soybeans with higher damage levels may create more uncertainty around storage, crush recovery and final meal quality. In animal feed manufacturing, inconsistency can ripple through the system. Nutritionists may need to build in extra safety margins, purchasing managers may face more risk around cargo acceptance, and mill operators may see less predictable outcomes in handling or processing. That is why the U.S. advantage in low heat damage and low total damage deserves attention alongside the nutrient discussion.   

Quality and consistency: The northern U.S. soy advantage
This is also where northern-grown soybeans provide value. A buyer may accept a modest difference in crude protein or oil if the trade-off is a more dependable shipment with lower damage risk. In many real-world commercial settings, dependable performance can be worth as much as, or more than, a small change in nutrient concentration. That is especially true when the soybean meal is part of a production system where feed ingredient consistency supports inventory planning, feed quality, and purchasing confidence. 

The July 4 USSEC report also looks at U.S. soybean quality week-to-week, and the picture that emerges is one of steady, predictable performance rather than sharp swings. Across the mid-June comparison, the changes in moisture, protein, oil, foreign material and kernel condition were all modest, with the key indicators of damage and splits remaining low. For growers and buyers alike, this kind of quiet, steady movement is good news, because crushers and feed manufacturers build their programs around expected quality ranges, not surprises. When U.S. soybeans stay within those ranges from shipment to shipment, it supports smoother storage, more efficient processing, and more dependable feed production and animal performance – an advantage that often translates into lower risk and better value in global procurement.  

Emerging information and data importance
The report also begins to add quality information for soybean shipments from Argentina and Uruguay, with early data on moisture, protein, oil, foreign material and kernel damage. Although the current volumes are still limited, this new information signals that buyers will increasingly compare all major origins on measured quality as well as price and freight. For northern U.S. growers, access to credible, independently gathered data is important because it allows the value of U.S. soybeans – especially their strength in physical integrity and handling quality – to be observed clearly against emerging alternatives. 

The table below summarizes the weighted-average quality of whole soybean exports reported by USSEC for the recent 2025/26 period, comparing key parameters for U.S., Brazilian and Argentina/Uruguay (combined at this time) origins.  

Summary of Whole Soybean Export Quality by Origin (USSEC July 4, 2026) 

Parameter	USA	BRA	ARG/URU
Moisture (%)	10.91	12.16	12.82
Protein (%)	33.74	34.63	32.71
Oil (%)	19.50	21.64	20.37
Foreign Material (%)	1.29	0.64	0.44
Splits (%)	8.50	5.84	4.20
Heat Damage (%)	0.02	0.34	0.68
Total Damage (%)	1.01	5.93	2.83

 

With the quality data in mind, it is reasonable to suggest that U.S. soybeans support better nutrient contribution in the final soybean meal as lower levels of pre-processing damage helps preserve the value of the beans through crushing and handling. When the starting material is sound the end product is more likely to deliver the nutrients that nutritionists expect.  

This principle is illustrated in recent work by Aguirre et al., 2024, where broiler feed intake, growth performance and nutrient intake from U.S. soybean meal outperformed results from South American origins. We will explore these findings in more detail in future newsletters and technical articles. Furthermore, experience in overseas markets such as China, Pakistan and Malaysia also shows that even the best processing cannot fully compensate for compromised bean quality, which is one reason why many buyers express a clear preference for U.S. soybeans when long-term performance and consistency are the goal.   

Looking ahead: The value story for northern U.S. soy 
Overall, the USSEC quality comparisons highlight that U.S. soybeans, including those grown in the northern region, compete not just on nutrient value but on reliability, quality and consistent customer performance. As more data from South America is added, the origin conversation will increasingly move from “who can supply” to “who can supply with the best balance of quality, risk, and value.” 

For northern soybean growers, this is an encouraging message. The care invested in producing, handling and storage of each crop continues to show up in the national data and helps buyers to recognize the broader value of U.S. origin. Keeping the quality story at the forefront and explaining what stability, low damage and dependable performance means in real crush plant conditions and feed mills will remain an important part of building long-term demand of northern grown soybeans.  

“Better beans – better soybean meal – better animal performance!” 

For more detailed data, analysis, and technical support, contact Northern Soy Marketing or visit soyquality.com for the latest research and resources.