Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Soybean Production, Versatility, and Improvement

Written By

Zachary Shea, William M. Singer and Bo Zhang

Submitted: November 22nd, 2019 Reviewed: February 16th, 2020 Published: March 19th, 2020

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.91778

Chapter metrics overview

1,017 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Soybean is one of the most widely planted and used legumes in the world due to its valuable seed composition. The many significant agronomic practices that are utilized in soybean production are highlighted with an emphasis on those used during the pregrowing season and growing season. The various pests of soybeans and the pest management strategies used to control them are described with special attention to insects, weeds, bacteria, fungi, and nematodes. The multitude of soybean uses for livestock and human consumption, and its industrial uses are discussed in this chapter. Additionally, the conventional breeding and genetic engineering attempts to improve soybean protein, oil, and sucrose content as well as eliminate the antinutritional factors, such as trypsin inhibitors, raffinose, stachyose, and phytate, are examined. In this chapter, the various management practices, uses, and breeding efforts of soybean will be discussed.


  • agronomic practices
  • pest management
  • soybean uses
  • breeding
  • genetic engineering

1. Introduction

Soybean (Glycine max) is one of the most valuable, versatile, and nutritionally important legumes globally. It can be grown in a multitude of environments, using a variety of management practices, and for diverse end-user purposes. In 2018, roughly 398 million tons of soybeans were produced worldwide which accounted for 61% of overall oilseed production and 6% of the world’s arable land use [1, 2, 3]. The United States, Brazil, and Argentina constituted approximately 81% of international soybean production, producing 34, 32, and 15%, respectively [4, 5]. Soybean seed composition and its main components, meal and oil, are the driving forces behind crop production that has increased nearly 350% since 1987 [5]. Soybean meal is intricately connected to the food supply through direct food consumption and indirect consumption as a large source of livestock feed. Soy oil provides great versatility with uses in food and beverage, wax, construction, cosmetics, plastics, and fuel.

Soybean originated in East Asia and has been cultivated in China for millennia. It is estimated that the domestication event from wild soybean (Glycine soja) occurred during the Shang Dynasty, 1700–1100 B.C. [6]. While no longer the largest producer, China and other Asian countries continue to incorporate large quantities of traditional and innovative soy foods into their diet. In 2018, China was the largest customer for United States whole soybeans, importing over $3 billion worth [7]. The United States and western countries mainly utilize soybean indirectly in the food supply as livestock feed and food ingredients such as textured vegetable protein and protein isolates. However, as more consumers are looking for plant-based protein in their diet, soy foods will become a globally viable alternative to animal protein. As the soybean appetite has increased and transformed, scientific developments have also improved soybean production through agronomic, management, and genetic methods to meet demand.


2. Agronomic practices

2.1 Pregrowing season practices

Soybeans are one of the most flexible crops in terms of production methods, geographical growing regions, and end use versatility. Therefore, there are multiple agronomic practices to consider when preparing a field for soybean production. While tillage and fertilization practices are common among producers, technique specifications can vary greatly due to preferences, environmental conditions, and cost. Historically, mechanized and non-mechanized tillage was considered a vital practice to maximize crop yield and value [8]. While tillage is still a useful tool, contemporary research has corroborated the dangers of over-tilling and the potential benefits from soil conservation and no-till operations. No-till practices and conservation tillage for soybean are wide-spread in areas of highly-erodible soil, and some research has shown that soybean yields remain the same or increase with decreased tillage [9, 10, 11, 12]. However, other research has shown that rotational tillage practices will provide higher crop value than no-till practices, specifically because of herbicide costs and equipment requirements [13, 14, 15]. Given the need for proper soil maintenance, conservation tillage (<30% crop residue left on the soil surface) is a popular compromise, especially in herbicide tolerant soybean production [16, 17]. Research has further elucidated the benefits of conservation tillage and no-till practices on soil health by showing positive correlations with rhizobia and nematode populations [18, 19].

Pre-plant fertilization for a variety of macro and micronutrients is another common practice in soybean production. Soil fertility programs are designed to provide sufficient nutrients for a crop’s needs which maximizes crop yield and farm efficiency while also minimizing environmental impact. To prepare a field for soybean planting, a farmer must start by determining what nutrients are already present in the soil; this can be accomplished by a variety of soil sampling and analysis methods [20]. The primary macronutrients, nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), and potassium (K), should be examined first alongside critical secondary macronutrients and micronutrients such as sulfur (S), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), boron (B), iron (Fe), and copper (Cu). General field nutrient requirement guidelines for soybean production are summarized in Table 1. While soybeans require a large amount of nitrogen, fertilization is usually unnecessary because of the symbiotic relationship with Bradyrhizobium japonicum, a bacterium that performs nitrogen fixation and provides plant available nitrogen [9, 21, 22]. Depending on field conditions, 25–75% of nitrogen in mature soybeans can originate from symbiotic nitrogen fixation [24]. Excess nitrogen has been linked to negative plant physiological conditions and inhibited rhizobia activity [25]. Thus, the best solution to limited field nitrogen is sometimes soil or seed-applied bacterial inoculation [21, 22, 25]. Soil pH is also a vital component of field management. It is well-documented that all nutrients have varying availability to plants depending on pH [22, 26, 27]. Generally, soybeans prefer a slightly acidic soil ranging from 6 to 7 pH [9, 22]. Liming a field is the optimum technique to raise pH, while the most common practice for lowering pH is elemental sulfur application.

Table 1.

Estimated nutrient uptake and accumulation for 3500 kg/ha−1 (52 bu/ac) soybean yield [21, 22, 23].

While yield is the driving factor for fertilization, recent market changes have adjusted soybean valuation with increased focus on seed composition quality. Amino acid profiles as descriptors for protein quality in human food and livestock feed as well as high oleic acid soybeans for increased functionality and performance are just two examples of possible premiums producers can receive through soybean seed composition. Research has shown that agronomic practices coupled with location-dependent, environmental variables can directly impact those premiums [28, 29, 30]. Nitrogen fertilization plays a limited role in seed composition as it is rarely needed due to the bacterial nitrogen fixation. However, excess nitrogen has been shown to decrease the levels of sulfur-containing amino acids and has an inconsistent effect on fatty acid concentrations [31, 32]. Phosphorous applications can increase protein quantity without adjusting the amino acid profile but also has a positive correlation with higher phytic acid and isoflavone concentrations [33, 34, 35]. Additionally, phytic acid has been shown to increase alongside zinc concentrations [33]. Pre-plant potassium applications have limited return on investment in regard to yield and seed composition; however, potassium deficient soybean plants are at a greater risk to insect pests, specifically aphids [36, 37]. Limited yield response is observed with sulfur applications. Although researchers have found the use of sulfur fertilizers to be economically viable, particularly on coarse soils, sulfur fertilization is rarely recommended [9, 21, 38]. Soil sulfur levels have also been shown to greatly impact the ratio between 11S and 7S seed storage proteins [39]. As markets continue to change and value differing soybean seed compositions, it will be critical for producers to fertilize with both yield and seed components in mind.

2.2 Growing season practices

Soybean producers make decisions throughout the year that impact final yield, value, and profit from their annual crop. Many of the most critical decisions occur at the beginning of and throughout the growing season. From the moment a soybean seed is planted to harvest, producers choose (or decide against) a multitude of practices including crop rotation, row spacing, population density, irrigation, post-emergence fertilization, and pest management. Maximizing a potential soybean crop is directly connected to previous field usage. Crop rotation or the process of growing different crops in sequenced seasons within the same field is a common practice in soybean production. Corn (Zea mays) and soybean rotations are advantageous because of corn’s high nitrogen demand which can be alleviated through Bradyrhizobium japonicum nitrogen fixation in soybean nodules. Corn and soybean rotations also exhibit beneficial energy balance and grain yield improvement [13, 40]. Rotations including corn and soybeans as well as wheat (Triticum), oats (Avena sativa), barley (Hordeum vulgare), cotton (Gossypium), and forageable pasture have also shown potential for economic and environmental gains [22, 41, 42]. Although depending on crop sequences, new management practices may be needed. For example, alfalfa or clover following soybeans would require liming for maximum production as those crops prefer a slightly higher pH [43].

Protecting and revitalizing the soil through non-harvested crops planted between soybean growing seasons or cover cropping is also beneficial. Cover crops protect the soil that would otherwise be farrow and replenish nutrients assimilated into the soybean plant [9, 22, 43]. Furthermore, cover crops can beneficially reduce weed pressure, lessen soil compaction, and improve water conservation [44, 45, 46]. However, cover crops increase annual cost and have not been shown to increase soybean yield which can negatively impact certain producer’s net profit [47]. Many farmers who receive enough growing degree units throughout the year also limit farrow fields by double cropping with soybean. Soybean and wheat double crop systems have exhibited high economic returns for producers in both field and modeling research [48, 49]. Double cropped soybeans exhibit lower yield due to late planting and decreased leaf-area-index potential, but this can be mitigated with early maturing varieties [50, 51]. Intercropping or growing at least two crops simultaneously is another, less-common option for soybean production. Corn and soybean intercropping can increase yields for both crops with the proper seeding rates [52, 53]. Wheat and soybean intercropping also displays positive yield response [54, 55]. Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) and soybean interspecific relationships increase sugarcane yield and improves rhizospheric activity while reducing soybean yield [56]. While intercropping can enhance value for soybean producers, it is unsuitable for most large-scale production systems.

After choosing a cropping system, soybean producers must then determine the proper row spacing and population density for their environment. The appropriate balance between row space and plant density is critical for maximum soybean production and reliable economic returns. Narrow rows and high plant densities both correlate with quickened canopy closure and weed suppression [57, 58, 59, 60]. Increased plants per field also increase cost; however, subsequent increased yield and profit overcomes the cost [61, 62, 63]. As soybeans emerge and grow, the next consideration for producers is irrigation. This localized decision can be based upon historical precipitation records, predicted forecasts, day-to-day weather events, or a combination of factors. In the absence of natural precipitation, irrigation is vital to soybean production as water deficiencies inhibit yield potential [64, 65, 66, 67]. Irrigation can also be optimized spatially throughout a field with variable rate techniques and temporally across the growing season by targeting specific growth stages [68, 69]. Fertigation applications can be used to combine applications of post-emergent fertilizer with irrigation. Other methods of post-emergent fertilization including foliar spray and direct-to-soil applications are more common solutions for growing season nutrient issues. Plant tissue sampling and analysis can be coupled with soil samples to determine in-season soil deficiencies and to prescribe further applications [9, 21, 26]. As soybean increases nitrogen uptake during reproductive stages when bacterial fixation may be diminishing, soil or foliar nitrogen applications are typical yet usually ineffective. While limited yield increases can be seen from supplemental nitrogen applications or various nutrient combinations, the economic returns generally fail to cover the cost of application [70, 71, 72, 73]. Foliar nutrient applications have shown minor impacts on seed protein and oil content; however, these results are inconsistent amongst experiments [74, 75]. A location-specific, comprehensive nutrient management plan that accounts for all other agronomic practices is the best method for maximizing yield and economic returns in soybean production.


3. Pest management

3.1 Insect pests

Insect and insect-like pests of soybean vary greatly ranging from aphids to stinkbugs to loopers to beetles. Which insects are the major pests and potential pest impact on soybean varies significantly from year to year and depends on the region the soybean crop is grown. Total damage by insects is a little ambiguous but yield losses of up to 80% have been reported [76]. Some prominent insect pests include soybean aphids (Aphis glycines), Japanese beetle (Popillia japonica Newman), Mexican bean beetle (Epilachna varivestis Mulsant), two-spotted spider mites (Tetranychus urticae), brown marmorated and red banded stinkbug (Halyomorpha halys and Piezodorous guildinii), bean leaf beetle (Cerotoma trifurcata), and kudzu bug (Megacopta cribraria Fabricius) [76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81].

Insecticides constitute a large portion of insect management as they are used to control most insect pests and in some cases are the primary method of control [80]. Integrated pest management (IPM) is becoming more common among growers due to its ability to reduce pesticide use, non-pests affected, workers’ exposure to pesticides, and the likelihood insecticide resistance [82, 83]. Additionally, it has been found to be effective at reducing damage done by pests equivalent to conventional methods [84]. IPM works similarly for all pests. It involves monitoring fields to determine which pests are present, determining which pesticides can and should be used, and incorporating cultural management practices [83]. For insects, trap cropping and sweep nets are used to monitor and determine which insect pests are present [85, 86]. The cultural practices used in insect management include altering planting date and row spacing, using no-till fields, and using resistant soybean cultivars [76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81].

3.2 Weeds

Weeds are considered one of the most damaging, if not the most damaging pests, in soybean [87]. About 37% of global production of soybean is affected by soybean, while 23% of global production is affected by other pests [88]. In the United States alone, it has caused losses of several million US dollars each year [87]. Weeds pose a problem for soybean crops since they compete for nutrients, space, and other resources [89]. There are many different weed pests that compete with soybean, some of which include common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis), Canadian horseweed (Conyza canadensis), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), ivy-leaf morning glory (Ipomea hederacea), common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), and pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) [90, 91]. It is important to note that which weeds are found in a particular field depends largely on where the soybean crops are grown.

Management of weeds is largely done through integrated pest management. This involves using herbicides along with herbicide resistant soybean varieties and cultural practices [87, 92]. There are many different classes of herbicides that include enzyme inhibitors, lipid synthesis inhibitors, photosystems diverters, nucleic acid inhibitors, and auxin inhibitors [93]. Historically, herbicides have been a large part of weed management and will most likely remain significant due to effectiveness and limited efficiency through other individual methods [87]. Furthermore, herbicide effectiveness can be improved by using herbicide resistant soybean, such as glyphosate resistant Roundup Ready soybean. Although since weeds can develop resistance to herbicides, it is important to incorporate other management practices [87]. One such method is herbicide spray timing. A common management practice involves pre- and postemergence herbicide applications. This involves spraying herbicides before and a few days after the soybean plants have emerged to reduce any damage to the soybean plants [94]. Additionally, cultural control practices are used including crop rotations, planting in narrow rows and proper fertilization to promote crop competition, and cultivation [92]. Crop rotations allow for different herbicides to be used which in turn helps to prevent the development of herbicide resistant weeds [92]. Promoting crop competition through planting density allows soybean plants to grow enough to create a canopy to maximize shading of weeds [92]. Cultivation is an effective and economical way to control weeds to help minimize herbicide use [92]. All of the aforementioned management practices are parts of integrated weed management and will continue to play a significant role in control of weeds.

3.3 Diseases

Similar to the insect pests, there is a wide variety of diseases in soybean. Most diseases are caused by fungal and bacterial diseases and can be vectored by nematodes. Fungal diseases have been known to reduce yield up to 50%, while bacterial diseases have been known to cause yield loss of anywhere between 15 and 60% [76]. Which disease is the most devastating depends on the region and the year, but the most prevalent diseases include Heterodera glycines, Phytophthora sojae, Colletotrichum truncatum, Septoria glycines, and Phakopsora pachyrhizi [76]. Of these five diseases, Heterodera glycines, or soybean cyst nematode is the most economic damaging disease being found in all countries that grow soybean and causing up to 90% yield reduction in some areas [76]. Table 2 provides an overview of some of the main soybean diseases.

Table 2.

Overview of 7 prevalent diseases in soybean [95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102].

From Table 2, it is evident that chemical pesticides still play a large role in treatment strategies against all major diseases in soybean. However, there has been a rising interest to incorporate other methods that prevent and treat diseases in soybean due to the harmful environmental and health effects of pesticides. Some other methods to control soybean diseases are seen in cultural control practices, such as increasing or decreasing tillage and crop rotation, drainage, and using resistant cultivars [103]. While the treatments listed in the above table are usually effective, there is continual research to find innovative ways to improve the control of plant diseases. One such example is the development of using hyperspectral bands for early detection of charcoal rot in soybean [104]. These researchers developed a method that involves analyzing spectral and spatial information of infected and healthy soybean in order to find wavebands that signify a soybean plant that is infected with charcoal rot [104]. This process identified six wavebands that were specific to plants infected with charcoal rot and can potentially allow for the detection of charcoal rot in crops in three days [104]. By being able to identify disease earlier, growers can minimize the damage done by that disease by removing infected plants and incorporating treatment strategies, such as pesticides or cultural controls.

The research above shows that there is interest in developing early detection for soybean pathogens. One of the other major areas of research for soybean diseases, is identifying resistance genes to promote resistant cultivars. Given that soybean cyst nematode is one of the most devastating soybean diseases there has been a lot of research done to identify genes involved with resistance to soybean cyst nematode. The main resistance gene in soybean to cyst nematode is the Rhg1 gene, which encodes an amino acid transporter [105, 106]. This gene confers partial resistance and has been shown to reduce reproduction of soybean cyst nematode and improve yield in fields that are infected with soybean cyst nematode [78]. Even though there are resistant cultivars available, they do not permanently stop diseases. For soybean cyst nematode, it is advised to utilize cultural practices, such as using multiple resistant cultivars and rotating with non-host crops that are resistant to cyst nematode, and other methods [107]. This is a classic example of how integrated pest management involves continuously incorporating new methods to control diseases to prevent the disease from overcoming any pesticides and resistant cultivars.


4. Soybean utilization and products

4.1 Livestock feed

Soybean is a valuable crop worldwide mainly because of soybean meal’s nutritional efficacy as a food and feed ingredient. A high protein content, balanced essential amino acid profile, and the presence of other beneficial nutrients all contribute to its economic and nutritional value. Soybean meal constitutes 70% of seed value while only being roughly 35% of seed dry weight [108, 109]. Furthermore, in the United States, 97% of soybean meal is used for livestock feed [109]. This overwhelming usage rate as a livestock protein source is mainly due to the presence of essential amino acids. While some livestock require other amino acids, most livestock need nine essential amino acids: histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, and valine [110]. All nine of these amino acids are found in some quantity in soybean meal [111]. For this reason, soybean meal can maximize livestock production in cattle, swine, poultry, and aquaculture. Generally, soybean meal and other soy byproducts use are limited to a supplementary or finishing role for cattle due to feed ration complications from other seed components [110, 112, 113]. Soybean meal use is highly prevalent in monogastric livestock production such as swine and poultry and is increasing in popularity for aquaculture [114, 115]. However, soybean as feed has two main obstacles: methionine deficiency and trypsin inhibitor proteins. Albeit present in soybean, methionine content is deficient for livestock needs, is considered the first limiting amino acid for soybean meal and requires producers to supplement with synthetic methionine [116, 117, 118, 119, 120]. This has a variety of negative economic and environmental impacts, including increased cost and poor nitrogen-use efficiency [121, 122]. Trypsin inhibitor proteins are an antinutritional factor present in raw soybean that decreases feed efficiency and can harm the livestock. There are a variety of industrial processing methods used to overcome trypsin inhibitors in soybean such as thermal and infrared treatment [123]. In the future, soybean methionine deficiencies and trypsin inhibitor levels may both be solved via breeding and transgenic efforts.

4.2 Human food

Soybean as human food exists to two different extents that are derived from geography and cultural tradition. Eastern hemisphere populations incorporate whole soybeans and processed soy foods into their lives on a daily basis, whereas Western hemisphere populations generally utilize processed soybeans as food ingredients. Eastern soy foods are divided into two main categories: fermented and non-fermented. Non-fermented soy foods include whole seed options such as whole dry soybeans, soy nuts, and edamame, processed items such as soy flour and soy milk, and vegetative soy sprouts [115, 124]. Soy milk in its simplest form is a water extract from soybean that when further processed can make tofu and tofu byproducts such as okara (soy pulp) and yuba (tofu skin). Fermented soy products include miso, soy sauce, tempeh, natto, and sufu, and each product has a specific bacterial species that enables proper fermentation. For example, natto is associated with Bacillus subtilis, and soy sauce is associated with Aspergillus sp. [115, 124]. Western cultures have assimilated many soy food products, and they are becoming more popular as consumers seek plant-based protein sources. However, the vast majority of soybeans in western diets consists of food ingredients made from soybean meal and soy oil. Soybean meal can be processed into ingredients such as soy flour, protein concentrates, and protein isolates that are used in bakery mixes, breakfast cereals, baby food, and exercise supplements [114]. Soybean oil is widely used in vegetable oil and margarine mixes for a variety of cooking purposes. The importance of traditional and innovative soy food uses has perpetuated because of the potential health benefits from soy consumption. Soy foods have been shown to play a role in chronic human disease prevention for conditions such as heart disease, osteoporosis, and cancer [125, 126, 127]. However, isoflavones, one of the most common seed components linked to disease prevention, is also negatively linked to hormonal health as a phytoestrogen. While large population subsets are concerned about isoflavones negatively impacting fertility, summarized data has shown inconsistent results [128, 129, 130]. As consumers continue to seek plant-based protein, soybeans will be the premier source for historically and culturally significant recipes as well as healthy, novel animal meat alternatives.

4.3 Industrial uses

Even though soybean is classified as an oilseed, soybean oil has historically been an afterthought for soybean producers and processors. When markets for soybean meal would falter, researchers and other stakeholders would turn to soybean oil for added value or seek alternative uses for meal components. Modern sustainability and industrial goals have stimulated soy-based product usage in a variety of fields, as summarized in Table 3. Soybean oil as biodiesel has experienced the largest growth with United States consumers using over 2 billion gallons in 2017 [131]. Current biodiesel production methods can create soy-based fuel that perform nearly equal or equivalent to standard diesel fuels and have the potential to become a truly renewable resource when coupled with sustainable farming practices [132, 133, 134]. Constantly improving processing methods will continue to augment soybean seed component versatility and create new opportunities for soy-based products.

Table 3.

Industrial uses for soybean products [114, 115].


5. Soybean seed composition improvement

5.1 Breeding efforts

Soybean seed has many beneficial traits, such as high protein, oil, and soluble sugar content [135]. While soybean seed value is defined by these favorable qualities, past and present breeding attempts have sought further improvement. With regards to protein content, breeders have worked with soybean to increase total protein content as well as the amount of sulfur containing amino acids, methionine and cysteine [135]. Methionine and cysteine are of interest since the seed protein is naturally deficient, and these two amino acids can improve the nutritional value of soybean meal [135, 136]. However, some research indicates that total protein content is negatively correlated with other favorable seed qualities, including yield, oil content, and potentially methionine and cysteine content [137, 138]. So far, most breeding efforts to improve protein quality have involved identifying quantitative trait loci (QTL) that are associated with the amino acid content [139]. QTLs are regions of DNA that are associated with a particular trait and allow breeders to select for particular cultivars that have the trait of interest [140]. The composition of soybean seed oil primarily includes linolenic, steric, palmitic, linoleic, and oleic acid [141]. There have been breeding attempts mainly to increase oleic acid in soybean seed while keeping linolenic acid relatively low, due to respective human health impacts [141, 142]. Lastly, soluble sugar levels, specifically sucrose content, has also been an area of interest in soybean breeding [135]. While sucrose is the main sugar found in soybean, fructose and glucose are also present but in trace amounts [143]. Similar to protein content, multiple QTLs have been identified associated with high sucrose [144]. Sucrose is a desirable seed composition trait due to soy food flavor improvement for human consumption [144]. Overall, conventional breeding has been used to improve protein quality, oil content, and sucrose content in soybean seed.

While soybean does have numerous profitable seed traits, it also contains several unfavorable traits that include trypsin inhibitors (TIs), indigestible carbohydrates, and phytate [145, 146]. There are two trypsin inhibitors found in soybean, the Kunitz and Bowman-Birk trypsin inhibitor, and they are antinutritional factors due to their ability to interfere with protein digestibility and reduce the health of animals that are fed soybean meal containing these proteins [147, 148]. Currently, processors can heat the soybean meal in order to inactivate the trypsin inhibitors, but this step is costly [149]. Due to TIs negatively affecting animal health and increased cost for inactivation, more breeding efforts are being made to develop low-TI soybean lines [150]. Indigestible carbohydrates, raffinose and stachyose, that are found in soybean seed are also a target for soybean breeding since they can cause flatulence and diarrhea when consumed [144]. There has been progress made in lowering these carbohydrates, which include identifying QTLs associated with raffinose and stachyose [144]. Lastly, while phytate is an antinutritional factor found in soybean, there is not a lot of work being done anymore to breed low phytate soybean lines since phytase supplements are an effective, inexpensive way to reduce the phytate found in soybean meal [151].

5.2 Genetic engineering efforts

Genetic engineering involves the process of artificially and intentionally manipulating the DNA of an organism with the purpose of modifying that organism [152]. Some of the methods used to transform plants include Agrobacterium, electroporating plant protoplasts, and microparticle bombardment [153]. One relatively new field within genetic engineering is gene editing which involves using clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats or CRISPR/Cas9 system [154]. Genetic engineering works by introducing a gene from one organism into another organism so that it can now express that gene product or by causing frameshifts or deletions to knockout a particular gene in an organism [152]. CRISPR/Cas9 has been gaining a lot of attention due to its promising ability to efficiently and effectively improve agronomic traits in crops [155, 156]. Genetic engineering in soybean was first successfully accomplished in the 1990s [157]. Since this time, genetic engineering has been used frequently in soybean with about 90.7 million hectares of genetically modified/GM soybean being planted in 2014 [157]. Most of this genetic engineering has been done to create Roundup Ready soybean that is resistant to glyphosate herbicides [158]. Roundup Ready soybean is prevalent because it allows growers to spray herbicides to kill any weeds in the field while not killing the soybean [158]. Genetic engineering has been used to additionally improve the protein quality of soybean by altering biosynthetic feedback pathways to increase lysine and by expressing zein proteins from corn to increase sulfur containing amino acids [115, 159]. Besides these examples, genetic engineering has been used to manipulate soybean oil content by increasing oleic acid content and decreasing linolenic acid content and to delay flowering time in soybean [160, 161]. Given the ability of genetic engineering, especially gene editing, to successfully improve qualities of soybean, it will likely be used to improve soybean through removing and/or modifying expression of antinutritional factors. This can be accomplished through genetic engineering by knocking out particular genes responsible for the antinutritional factors preventing them from being expressed.


6. Conclusions

Soybean is an essential crop that is grown globally due to its various and diverse uses. Given its importance, there are many pre-growing practices to prepare the field for the growing season, including tillage, pre-plant fertilization, and monitoring soil pH. Many agronomic aspects must be considered during growing season to ensure successful soybean growth including crop rotations, double cropping, cover crops, irrigation, row spacing, plant density, and post-emergence fertilization. Additionally, integrated pest management involving the use of pesticides, resistant soybean cultivars, and cultural practices are vital to control the numerous pests of soybean. While soybean is highly used in livestock feed due to its high protein content, it’s methionine deficiency and presence of antinutritional factors still present problems that need to be solved. Soybean versatility is represented by the many uses in human consumption, biofuels, and other industrial uses. Traditional and conventional breeders have been working to increase protein and oil content, while eliminating antinutritional factors. Genetic engineering and gene editing show promise to help improve soybean by introducing genes to improve protein and oil quality and knocking out genes to remove antinutritional factors.



The authors would like to acknowledge Virginia Tech’s Open Access Subvention Fund for funding the publishing fee.


Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. 1. International: World Oilseed Production [Internet]. Available from:
  2. 2. Goldsmith PD. Economics of soybean production, marketing, and utilization. In: Johnson LA, White PJ, Galloway R, editors. Soybeans [Internet]. Urbana, Illinois: AOCS Press; 2008. pp. 117-150. Available from:
  3. 3. Hartman GL, West ED, Herman TK. Crops that feed the World 2. Soybean—Worldwide production, use, and constraints caused by pathogens and pests. Food Security. 2011;3(1):5-17
  4. 4. International: World Soybean Production [Internet]. Available from:
  5. 5. World Soybean Production [Internet]. Soy Meal Info Center; 2018. Available from:
  6. 6. Hymowitz T, Singh RJ. Taxonomy and speciation. In: Soybeans: Improvement, Production, and Uses. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, SSSA; 1987. (Agronomy)
  7. 7. U.S. Exports: Soy Exports by Customer [Internet]. Available from:
  8. 8. History of Tillage and Tillage Research [Internet]. Available from:
  9. 9. NC State Extension. North Carolina Soybean Production Guide. North Carolina State University; 2018
  10. 10. No-Till Research [Internet]. Available from:
  11. 11. Al-Kaisi M, Licht M. Is tillage needed for your soybean crop? [Internet]. Intergrated Crop Management. Available from:
  12. 12. Yusuf RI, Siemens JC, Bullock DG. Growth analysis of soybean under no-tillage and conventional tillage systems. Agronomy Journal. 1999;91(6):928-933
  13. 13. Rathke G-W, Wienhold BJ, Wilhelm WW, Diepenbrock W. Tillage and rotation effect on corn–soybean energy balances in eastern Nebraska. Soil and Tillage Research. 2007;97(1):60-70
  14. 14. Popp MP, Keisling TC, McNew RW, Oliver LR, Dillon CR, Wallace DM. Planting date, cultivar, and tillage system effects on dryland soybean production. Agronomy Journal. 2002;94(1):81-88
  15. 15. Vetsch JA, Randall GW, Lamb JA. Corn and soybean production as affected by tillage systems. Agronomy Journal. 2007;99(4):952-959
  16. 16. Pedersen P, Lauer JG. Corn and soybean response to rotation sequence, row spacing, and tillage system. Agronomy Journal. 2003;95(4):965-971
  17. 17. Fernandez-Cornejo J, Hallahan C, Nehring R, Wechsler S, Grube A. Conservation tillage, herbicide use, and genetically engineered crops in the United States: The case of soybeans. AgBioForum. 2012;15(3):231-241
  18. 18. Ferreira MC, Andrade DS, Chueire LMO, Takemura SM, Hungria M. Tillage method and crop rotation effects on the population sizes and diversity of bradyrhizobia nodulating soybean. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2000;32(5):627-637
  19. 19. Okada H, Harada H. Effects of tillage and fertilizer on nematode communities in a Japanese soybean field. Applied Soil Ecology. 2007;35(3):582-598
  20. 20. Carter MR, Gregorich EG, editors. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2007
  21. 21. Ferguson RB. EC06-155 nutrient management for agronomic crops in Nebraska. In: Historical Materials from University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension. 2006. pp. 121-126
  22. 22. Orf JH, Diers BW, Boerma HR. Managing inputs for peak production. In: Soybeans: Improvement, Production, and Uses. 3rd ed. Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, SSSA; 2004. pp. 451-525. (Agronomy)
  23. 23. Bender RR, Haegele JW, Below FE. Nutrient uptake, partitioning, and remobilization in modern soybean varieties. Agronomy Journal. 2015;107(2):563-573
  24. 24. Varco JJ. Nutrition and fertility requirements. In: Soybean Production in the Mid-South. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1999. pp. 53-70
  25. 25. Zhou X-J, Liang Y, Chen H, Shen S-H, Jing Y-X. Effects of rhizobia inoculation and nitrogen fertilization on photosynthetic physiology of soybean. Photosynthetica. 2006;44(4):530-535
  26. 26. Brann DE, Abaye AO, Azenegashe O, Peterson PR, Paul R, Chalmers DR, Whitt DL, Chappell GF, et al. Agronomy Handbook. 2009. Available from:
  27. 27. Troeh FR, Thompson LM. Soils and Soil Fertility. 6th ed. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing Professional; 2005
  28. 28. Carrera CS, Reynoso CM, Funes GJ, Martínez MJ, Dardanelli J, Resnik SL. Amino acid composition of soybean seeds as affected by climatic variables. Brazilian Agricultural Research. 2011;46(12):1579-1587
  29. 29. Goldflus F, Ceccantini M, Santos W. Amino acid content of soybean samples collected in different Brazilian states: Harvest 2003/2004. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science. 2006;8(2):105-111
  30. 30. Wolf RB, Cavins JF, Kleiman R, Black LT. Effect of temperature on soybean seed constituents: Oil, protein, moisture, fatty acids, amino acids and sugars. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society. 1982;59(5):230-232
  31. 31. Krishnan HB, Bennett JO, Kim W-S, Krishnan AH, Mawhinney TP. Nitrogen lowers the sulfur amino acid content of soybean (Glycine max [L.] Merr.) by regulating the accumulation of Bowman−Birk protease inhibitor. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2005;53(16):6347-6354
  32. 32. Kaur G, Serson WR, Orlowski JM, McCoy JM, Golden BR, Bellaloui N. Nitrogen sources and rates affect soybean seed composition in Mississippi. Agronomy. 2017;7(4):77
  33. 33. Raboy V, Dickinson DB. Effect of phosphorus and zinc nutrition on soybean seed phytic acid and zinc. Plant Physiology. 1984;75(4):1094-1098
  34. 34. Kapoora AC, Gupta YP. Changes in proteins and amino acids in developing soybean seed and effect of phosphorus nutrition. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 1977;28(2):113-120
  35. 35. Vyn TJ, Yin X, Bruulsema TW, Jackson C-JC, Rajcan I, Brouder SM. Potassium fertilization effects on isoflavone concentrations in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2002;50(12):3501-3506
  36. 36. Myers SW, Gratton C, Wolkowski RP, Hogg DB, Wedberg JL. Effect of soil potassium availability on soybean aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) population dynamics and soybean yield. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2005;98(1):113-120
  37. 37. Walter AJ, DiFonzo CD. Soil potassium deficiency affects soybean phloem nitrogen and soybean aphid populations. Environmental Entomology. 2007;36(1):26-33
  38. 38. Devi KN, Singh LNK, Sumarjit Singh M, Basanta Singh S, Khamba Singh K. Influence of sulphur and boron fertilization on yield, quality, nutrient uptake and economics of soybean (Glycine max) under upland conditions. The Journal of Agricultural Science. 2012;4(4):1
  39. 39. Gayler KR, Sykes GE. Effects of nutritional stress on the storage proteins of soybeans. Plant Physiology. 1985;78(3):582-585
  40. 40. Wilhelm WW, Wortmann CS. Tillage and rotation interactions for corn and soybean grain yield as affected by precipitation and air temperature. Agronomy Journal. 2004;96(2):425-432
  41. 41. Karlen DL, Hurley EG, Andrews SS, Cambardella CA, Meek DW, Duffy MD, et al. Crop rotation effects on soil quality at three northern corn/soybean belt locations. Agronomy Journal. 2006;98(3):484-495
  42. 42. Balota EL, Colozzi-Filho A, Andrade DS, Dick RP. Microbial biomass in soils under different tillage and crop rotation systems. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 2003;38(1):15-20
  43. 43. Hoeft RG, Nafziger ED, Johnson RR, Aldrich SR. Modern Corn and Soybean Production. 1st ed. Champaign, IL: MCSP Publishing; 2000
  44. 44. Mirsky SB, Curran WS, Mortenseny DM, Ryany MR, Shumway DL. Timing of cover-crop management effects on weed suppression in no-till planted soybean using a roller-crimper. Weed Science. 2011;59(3):380-389
  45. 45. Williams SM, Weil RR. Crop cover root channels may alleviate soil compaction effects on soybean crop. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2004;68(4):1403-1409
  46. 46. Davis AS. Cover-crop roller–crimper contributes to weed management in no-till soybean. Weed Science. 2010;58(3):300-309
  47. 47. Reddy KN. Effects of cereal and legume cover crop residues on weeds, yield, and net return in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technology. 2001;15(4):660-668
  48. 48. Shapiro BI, Brorsen BW, Doster DH. Adoption of double-cropping soybeans and wheat. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 1992;24(2):33-40
  49. 49. Kelley KW. Double-cropping winter wheat and soybean improves net returns in the eastern great plains. Crop Management. 2003;2(1)
  50. 50. Jones BP, Holshouser DL, Alley MM, Roygard JKF, Anderson-Cook CM. Double-crop soybean leaf area and yield responses to mid-atlantic soils and cropping systems. Agronomy Journal. 2003;95(2):436-445
  51. 51. Egli DB, Bruening WP. Potential of early-maturing soybean cultivars in late plantings. Agronomy Journal. 2000;92(3):532-537
  52. 52. Hayder G, Mumtaz SS, Khan A, Khan S. Maize and soybean intercropping under various levels of soybean seed rates. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences. 2003;2(3):339-341
  53. 53. Muoneke CO, Ogwuche MAO, Kalu BA. Effect of maize planting density on the performance of maize/soybean intercropping system in a guinea savannah agroecosystem. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2008;2(12):667-677
  54. 54. Li L, Sun J, Zhang F, Li X, Rengel Z, Yang S. Wheat/maize or wheat/soybean strip intercropping: II. Recovery or compensation of maize and soybean after wheat harvesting. Field Crops Research. 2001;71(3):173-181
  55. 55. Zhang F, Li L. Using competitive and facilitative interactions in intercropping systems enhances crop productivity and nutrient-use efficiency. Plant and Soil. 2003;248(1):305-312
  56. 56. Li X, Mu Y, Cheng Y, Liu X, Nian H. Effects of intercropping sugarcane and soybean on growth, rhizosphere soil microbes, nitrogen and phosphorus availability. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum. 2013;35(4):1113-1119
  57. 57. Hock SM, Knezevic SZ, Martin AR, Lindquist JL. Soybean row spacing and weed emergence time influence weed competitiveness and competitive indices. Weed Science. 2006;54(1):38-46
  58. 58. Knezevic SZ, Evans SP, Mainz M. Row spacing influences the critical timing for weed removal in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technology. 2003;17(4):666-673
  59. 59. Arce GD, Pedersen P, Hartzler RG. Soybean seeding rate effects on weed management. Weed Technology. 2009;23(1):17-22
  60. 60. Holshouser DL, Whittaker JP. Plant population and row-spacing effects on early soybean production systems in the mid-Atlantic USA. Agronomy Journal. 2002;94(3):603-611
  61. 61. Cox WJ, Cherney JH. Growth and yield responses of soybean to row spacing and seeding rate. Agronomy Journal. 2011;103(1):123-128
  62. 62. De Bruin JL, Pedersen P. Effect of row spacing and seeding rate on soybean yield. Agronomy Journal. 2008;100(3):704-710
  63. 63. Lambert DM, Lowenberg-DeBoer J. Economic analysis of row spacing for corn and soybean. Agronomy Journal. 2003;95(3):564-573
  64. 64. Specht JE, Chase K, Macrander M, Graef GL, Chung J, Markwell JP, et al. Soybean response to water. Crop Science. 2001;41(2):493-509
  65. 65. Heatherly LG. Soybean irrigation. In: Soybean Production in the Mid-South. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1999. pp. 119-142
  66. 66. Specht JE, Hume DJ, Kumudini SV. Soybean yield potential—A genetic and physiological perspective. Crop Science. 1999;39(6):1560-1570
  67. 67. Arora VK, Singh CB, Sidhu AS, Thind SS. Irrigation, tillage and mulching effects on soybean yield and water productivity in relation to soil texture. Agricultural Water Management. 2011;98(4):563-568
  68. 68. Karam F, Masaad R, Sfeir T, Mounzer O, Rouphael Y. Evapotranspiration and seed yield of field grown soybean under deficit irrigation conditions. Agricultural Water Management. 2005;75(3):226-244
  69. 69. Nijbroek R, Hoogenboom G, Jones JW. Optimizing irrigation management for a spatially variable soybean field. Agricultural Systems. 2003;76(1):359-377
  70. 70. Mallarino AP, Haq MU, Wittry D, Bermudez M. Variation in soybean response to early season foliar fertilization among and within fields. Agronomy Journal. 2001;93(6):1220-1226
  71. 71. Freeborn JR, Holshouser DL, Alley MM, Powell NL, Orcutt DM. Soybean yield response to reproductive stage soil-applied nitrogen and foliar-applied boron. Agronomy Journal. 2001;93(6):1200-1209
  72. 72. Salvagiotti F, Specht JE, Cassman KG, Walters DT, Weiss A, Dobermann A. Growth and nitrogen fixation in high-yielding soybean: Impact of nitrogen fertilization. Agronomy Journal. 2009;101(4):958-970
  73. 73. Haq MU, Mallarino AP. Soybean yield and nutrient composition as affected by early season foliar fertilization. Agronomy Journal. 2000;92(1):16-24
  74. 74. Haq MU, Mallarino AP. Response of soybean grain oil and protein concentrations to foliar and soil fertilization. Agronomy Journal. 2005;97(3):910-918
  75. 75. Popović V, Glamočlija Ð, Sikora V, Ðekić V, Červenski J, Simić D, et al. Genotypic specificity of soybean [Glycine max (L) Merr.] under conditions of foliar fertilization. Romanian Agricultural Research. 2013;(30):259-270
  76. 76. Xiaoming Z, Qiong L. A brief introduction of main diseases and insect pests in soybean production in the global top five soybean producing countries. Plant Diseases & Pests. 2018;9(1):17-21
  77. 77. Lahiri S, Reisig DD. Ecology and management of Kudzu Bug (Hemiptera: Plataspidae) in southeastern soybeans. Journal of Integrated Pest Management. 2016;7(1). Available from:
  78. 78. Mexican Bean Beetle—Epilachna varivestis Mulsant [Internet]. Available from:
  79. 79. USDA APHIS | Japanese Beetle [Internet]. Available from:
  80. 80. Managing Spider Mite on Soybean [Internet]. Available from:
  81. 81. Leskey T, Hamilton G, Nielsen A, Polk D, Rodriquez-Saona C, Christopher J, et al. Pest Status of the Brown Marmorated Stink Bug. Halyomorpha Halys in the USA: Outlooks Pest Manag; 2012
  82. 82. Sustainable Solutions to Pest Problems [Internet]. Integrated Pest Management. 2019. Available from:
  83. 83. Norris R. Integrated pest management. In: Encyclopedia of Biological Invasions [Internet]. 2004. Available from:
  84. 84. Motaphale AA, Bhosle BB. Validation of integrated pest management modules on defoliating insect pests of soybean. Agricultural Science Digest. 2016;36(4):303-306
  85. 85. Hokkanen HMT. Trap cropping in pest management. Annual Review of Entomology. 1991;36:119-138
  86. 86. Soybean Insect Management | Extending Agricultural Information [Internet]. Mississippi Crop Situation. 2017. Available from:
  87. 87. Vivian R, Reis A, Kálnay PA, Vargas L, Ferreira ACC, Mariani F. Weed Management in Soybean—Issues and Practices. Soybean—Pest Resist [Internet]. 2013. Available from:
  88. 88. Oerke EC, Dehne HW. Safeguarding production—Losses in major crops and the role of crop protection. Available from:
  89. 89. Hartzler B. Managing weeds to protect crop yields. In: Integrated Crop Management [Internet]. Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. Available from:
  90. 90. Prins A. Identifying troublesome broadleaf weeds in soybeans [Internet]. IL Soy Advisor. 2018. Available from:
  91. 91. Identifying Weeds in Field Crops. Integrated Pest Management. 2015
  92. 92. Cultural Weed Management [Internet]. NC State Extension. 2013. Available from:
  93. 93. Sprague C. Herbicide Classification Guide. Soy Checkoff; 2016
  94. 94. Postemergence Herbicide Applications in Soybean [Internet]. Available from:
  95. 95. Hemmati P, Zafari D, Mahmoodi SB, Hashemi M, Gholamhoseini M, Dolatabadian A, et al. Histopathology of charcoal rot disease (Macrophomina phaseolina) in resistant and susceptible cultivars of soybean. Rhizosphere. 2018;7:27-34
  96. 96. Malvick D. Charcoal Rot on Soybean [Internet]. University of Minnesota Extension. 2018. Available from:
  97. 97. Giesler LJ, Broderick KC. Management of Phytophthora Root and Stem Rot of Soybean. Univ Neb-Linc Ext; 2017. p. 5
  98. 98. Giesler LJ. Bacterial Diseases of Soybean. Univ Neb-Linc Ext; 2011. p. 2
  99. 99. Malvick D. Soybean Rust [Internet]. 2018. Available from:
  100. 100. Malvick D. Anthracnose on Soybean [Internet]. 2018. Available from:
  101. 101. Malvick D. Septoria Brown Spot [Internet]. 2018. Available from:
  102. 102. Giesler LJ. Soybean Cyst Nematode. Univ Neb-Linc Ext [Internet]; 2015. Available from:
  103. 103. Athow KL. Soybean pest management. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society. 1981;58(3):130-135
  104. 104. Nagasubramanian K, Jones S, Sarkar S, Singh AK, Singh A, Ganapathysubramanian B. Hyperspectral band selection using genetic algorithm and support vector machines for early identification of charcoal rot disease in soybean stems. Plant Methods. 2018;14(1):86
  105. 105. Brucker E, Niblack T, Kopisch-Obuch F, Diers B. The effect of rhg1 on reproduction of heterodera glycines in the field and greenhouse and associated effects on agronomic traits. Crop Science. 2005;45:1721-1727
  106. 106. Guo W, Zhang F, Bao A, You Q , Li Z, Chen J, et al. The soybean Rhg1 amino acid transporter gene alters glutamate homeostasis and jasmonic acid-induced resistance to soybean cyst nematode. Molecular Plant Pathology. 2019;20(2):270-286
  107. 107. Niblack TL. Soybean cyst nematode management reconsidered. Plant Disease. 2005;89(10):1020-1026
  108. 108. Heuze V, Tran G, Kaushik S. Soybean Meal. Feedipedia [Internet]. Update by hand. Available from:
  109. 109. Soybean Meal [Internet]. United Soybean Board. Available from:
  110. 110. Buttery PJ, D’Mello JPF. Amino acid metabolism in farm animals: An overview. In: Amino Acids in Farm Animal Nutrition. Wallingford, United Kingdom: CAB International; 1994. pp. 1-10
  111. 111. Kuiken KA, Lyman M. Essential amino acid composition of soy bean meals prepared from twenty strains of soy beans. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 1949;177(1):29-36
  112. 112. Wolawek-Potocka I, Bah MM, Korzekwa A, Piskula MK, Wiczkowski W, Depta A, et al. Soybean-derived phytoestrogens regulate prostaglandin secretion in endometrium during cattle estrous cycle and early pregnancy. Experimental Biology and Medicine. 2005;230(3):189-199
  113. 113. McNiven MA, Duynisveld J, Charmley E, Mitchell A. Processing of soybean affects meat fatty acid composition and lipid peroxidation in beef cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2004;116(3):175-184
  114. 114. Lusas EW. Soybean processing and utilization. In: Soybeans: Improvement, Production, and Uses. 3rd ed. Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, SSSA; 2004. pp. 949-1036. (Agronomy)
  115. 115. Liu K. Soybeans: Chemistry, Technology, and Utilization. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall; 1997
  116. 116. Berry TH, Becker DE, Rasmussen OG, Jensen AH, Norton HW. The limiting amino acids in soybean protein. Journal of Animal Science. 1962;21(3):558-561
  117. 117. Boisen S, Hvelplund T, Weisbjerg MR. Ideal amino acid profiles as a basis for feed protein evaluation. Livestock Production Science. 2000;64(2):239-251
  118. 118. Fernandez SR, Aoyagi S, Han Y, Parsons CM, Baker DH. Limiting order of amino acids in corn and soybean meal for growth of the chick. Poultry Science. 1994;73(12):1887-1896
  119. 119. Bunchasak C. Role of dietary methionine in poultry production. The Journal of Poultry Science. 2009;46(3):169-179
  120. 120. Han Y, Suzuki H, Parsons CM, Baker DH. Amino acid fortification of a low-protein corn and soybean meal diet for chicks. Poultry Science. 1992;71(7):1168-1178
  121. 121. Managing Nutrient and Pathogens from Animal Agriculture. Ithaca, NY: Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Enegineering Service; 2000
  122. 122. Control Feed Costs with Amino Acids [Internet]. Drovers. Available from:
  123. 123. Vagadia BH, Vanga SK, Raghavan V. Inactivation methods of soybean trypsin inhibitor—A review. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 2017;64:115-125
  124. 124. Golbitz P. Traditional soyfoods: Processing and products. Journal of Nutrition. 1995;125(suppl_3):570S-572S
  125. 125. Birt DF, Hendrich S, Alekel DL, Anthony M. Soybean and the prevention of chronic human disease. In: Soybeans: Improvement, Production, and Uses. 3rd ed. Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, SSSA; 2004. pp. 1047-1103. (Agronomy)
  126. 126. Messina MJ. Soyfoods: Their role in disease prevention and treatment. In: Soybeans: Chemistry, Technology, and Utilization. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall; 1997
  127. 127. Messina M. Soy foods, isoflavones, and the health of postmenopausal women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2014;100(suppl_1):423S-430S
  128. 128. Messina M. A brief historical overview of the past two decades of soy and isoflavone research. The Journal of Nutrition. 2010;140(7):1350S-1354S
  129. 129. Xiao Y, Zhang S, Tong H, Shi S. Comprehensive evaluation of the role of soy and isoflavone supplementation in humans and animals over the past two decades. Phytotherapy Research. 2018;32(3):384-394
  130. 130. Zhong X, Ge J, Chen S, Xiong Y, Ma S, Chen Q. Association between dietary isoflavones in soy and legumes and endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. 2018;118(4):637-651
  131. 131. Biodiesel [Internet]. United Soybean Board. Available from:
  132. 132. Cavalett O, Ortega E. Integrated environmental assessment of biodiesel production from soybean in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2010;18(1):55-70
  133. 133. Özener O, Yüksek L, Ergenç AT, Özkan M. Effects of soybean biodiesel on a DI diesel engine performance, emission and combustion characteristics. Fuel. 2014;115:875-883
  134. 134. Pradhan A, Shrestha DS, McAloon A, Yee W, Haas M, Duffield JA, et al. Energy life-cycle assessment of soybean biodiesel. Agricultural Economic Report. 2009;845:31
  135. 135. Sudarić A, Kočar MM, Duvnjak T, Zdunić Z, Kulundžić AM. Improving seed quality of soybean suitable for growing in Europe. Soybean Hum Consum Anim Feed [Internet]. 2019. Available from:
  136. 136. Zarkadas C, Voldeng H, Yu Z, Choi V. Assessment of the protein quality of nine northern adapted yellow and brown seed coated soybean cultivars by amino acid analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 1999;47(12):5009-5018
  137. 137. Kurasch AK, Hahn V, Leiser WL, Starck N, Würschum T. Phenotypic analysis of major agronomic traits in 1008 RILs from a diallel of early european soybean varieties. Crop Science. 2017;57(2):726-738
  138. 138. Wilcox JR, Shibles RM. Interrelationships among seed quality attributes in soybean. Crop Science. 2001;41(1):11-14
  139. 139. Vaughn JN, Nelson RL, Song Q , Cregan PB, Li Z. The genetic architecture of seed composition in soybean is refined by genome-wide association scans across multiple populations. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics. 2014;4(11):2283-2294
  140. 140. Gupta PK, Kulwal PL, Mir RR. QTL mapping: Methodology and applications in cereal breeding. In: Cereal Genomics II [Internet]. New York City, New York: Springer; 2013. pp. 275-318. Available from:
  141. 141. Fehr WR. Breeding for modified fatty acid composition in soybean. Crop Science. 2007;47:S-72-S-87
  142. 142. Lopez S, Bermudez B, Pacheco YM, Ortega A, Varela LM, Abia R, et al. Chapter 154—Oleic acid: The main component of olive oil on postprandial metabolic processes. In: Preedy VR, Watson RR, editors. Olives and Olive Oil in Health and Disease Prevention [Internet]. San Diego: Academic Press; 2010. pp. 1385-1393. Available from:
  143. 143. Hou A, Chen P, Alloatti J, Li D, Mozzoni L, Zhang B, et al. Genetic variability of seed sugar content in worldwide soybean germplasm collections. Crop Science. 2009;49(3):903-912
  144. 144. Wang Y, Chen P, Zhang B. Quantitative trait loci analysis of soluble sugar contents in soybean. Plant Breeding. 2014;133(4):493-498
  145. 145. El-Shemy H, Abdel-Rahim E, Shaban O, Ragab A, Carnovale E, Fujita K. Comparison of nutritional and antinutritional factors in soybean and fababean seeds with or without cortex. Soil Science & Plant Nutrition. 2000;46(2):515-524
  146. 146. Refstie S, Sahlström S, Bråthen E, Baeverfjord G, Krogedal P. Lactic acid fermentation eliminates indigestible carbohydrates and antinutritional factors in soybean meal for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Aquaculture. 2005;246(1):331-345
  147. 147. Barrows FT, Stone DAJ, Hardy RW. The effects of extrusion conditions on the nutritional value of soybean meal for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture. 2007;265(1):244-252
  148. 148. Becker-Ritt AB, Mulinari F, Vasconcelos IM, Carlini CR. Antinutritional and/or toxic factors in soybean (Glycine max (L) Merril) seeds: comparison of different cultivars adapted to the southern region of Brazil. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2004;84(3):263-270
  149. 149. Snowdon M. Full-fat soybeans for livestock—Agriculture [Internet]. Agriculture, Aquaculture, and Fisheries. 2012. Available from:
  150. 150. Hymowitz T. Genetics and breeding of soybeans lacking the kunitz trypsin inhibitor. In: Friedman M, editor. Nutritional and Toxicological Significance of Enzyme Inhibitors in Foods [Internet], Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. Boston, MA: Springer US; 1986. pp. 291-298. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4757-0022-0_18
  151. 151. Lei XG, Porres JM. Phytase: An enzyme to improve soybean nutrition. In: Soybean and Nutrition [Internet]. 2011. Available from:
  152. 152. Augsutyn A. Genetic engineering | Definition, Process, & Uses [Internet]. Encyclopedia Britannica. 2019. Available from:
  153. 153. National Academies of Science. Methods and mechanisms for genetic manipulation of plants, animals, and microorganisms. In: Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approachers to Assessing Unintended Health Effects [Internet]. National Academies Press; 2004. Available from:
  154. 154. What are genome editing and CRISPR-Cas9?—Genetics Home Reference—NIH [Internet]. Genetics Home Reference. 2020. Available from:
  155. 155. Arora L, Narula A. Gene Editing and Crop Improvement Using CRISPR-Cas9 System [Internet]. Frontiersin. 2017. Available from:
  156. 156. Wang T, Zhang H, Zhu H. CRISPR technology is revolutionizing the improvement of tomato and other fruit crops. Horticulture Research [Internet]. 2019. Available from:
  157. 157. Biotech Crop Highlights in 2018 | [Internet]. Available from:
  158. 158. Roundup Ready Soybeans—SourceWatch [Internet]. Available from:
  159. 159. Falco SC, Locke M, Guida T, Sanders C, Ward RT, Webber P. Transgenic canola and soybean seeds with increased lysine. Nature Biotechnology. 1995;13:577-582
  160. 160. Clemente T, Cahoon E. Soybean oil: Genetic approaches for modification of functionality and total content. Plant Physiology [Internet]. 2009. Available from:
  161. 161. Cai Y, Chen L, Guo C, Sun S, Wu C, Jiang B, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted mutagenesis of GmFT2a delays flowering time in soya bean. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 2017;16(1):176-185

Written By

Zachary Shea, William M. Singer and Bo Zhang

Submitted: November 22nd, 2019 Reviewed: February 16th, 2020 Published: March 19th, 2020