https://doi.org/10.29312/remexca.v17i6.4195

elocation-id: elocation-id: e4195

Juárez-Fernández, Guerrero-Rodríguez, Antonio-López, Jaramillo-Villanueva, and Gómez-Montaño: Soybean grain conditioning and its effect on antinutrients, protein and lipids

Journal Metadata

Journal Identifier: remexca [journal-id-type=publisher-id]

Journal Title Group

Journal Title (Full): Revista mexicana de ciencias agrícolas

Abbreviated Journal Title: Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agríc [abbrev-type=publisher]

ISSN: 2007-0934 [pub-type=ppub]

ISSN: 2007-9230 [pub-type=epub]

Publisher

Publisher’s Name: Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias

Publisher’s Location: México

Article Metadata

Article Identifier: 10.29312/remexca.v17i6.4195 [pub-id-type=doi]

Article Grouping Data

Subject Group [subj-group-type=heading]

Subject Grouping Name: Article

Title Group

Article Title: Soybean grain conditioning and its effect on antinutrients, protein and lipids

Contributor Group

Contributor [contrib-type=author]

Name of Person [name-style=western]

Surname: Juárez-Fernández

Given (First) Names: Ana Karen

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=aff; rid=aff1]

Superscript: 1

Contributor [contrib-type=author; corresp=yes]

Name of Person [name-style=western]

Surname: Guerrero-Rodríguez

Given (First) Names: Juan de Dios

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=aff; rid=aff1]

Superscript: 1

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=corresp; rid=c1]

Superscript: §

Contributor [contrib-type=author]

Name of Person [name-style=western]

Surname: Antonio-López

Given (First) Names: Pedro

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=aff; rid=aff1]

Superscript: 1

Contributor [contrib-type=author]

Name of Person [name-style=western]

Surname: Jaramillo-Villanueva

Given (First) Names: José Luis

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=aff; rid=aff1]

Superscript: 1

Contributor [contrib-type=author]

Name of Person [name-style=western]

Surname: Gómez-Montaño

Given (First) Names: Francisco Javier

X (cross) Reference [ref-type=aff; rid=aff2]

Superscript: 2

Affiliation [id=aff1]

Label (of an Equation, Figure, Reference, etc.): 1

Institution Name: in an Address: Colegio de Postgraduados-Campus Puebla. Boulevard Forjadores de Puebla núm. 205, Santiago Momoxpan, Puebla. CP. 72760. (karenfdz73@gmail.com; palopez@colpos.mx; jaramillo@colpos.mx). [content-type=original]

Institution Name: in an Address: Colegio de Postgraduados [content-type=orgname]

Institution Name: in an Address: Campus Puebla [content-type=orgdiv1]

Address Line

Named Special (Subject) Content: Boulevard Forjadores de Puebla núm. 205 [content-type=street]

Named Special (Subject) Content: Santiago Momoxpan [content-type=city]

Named Special (Subject) Content: Puebla [content-type=state]

Country: in an Address: México [country=MX]

Postal Code: 72760

Email Address: karenfdz73@gmail.com

Email Address: palopez@colpos.mx

Email Address: jaramillo@colpos.mx

Affiliation [id=aff2]

Label (of an Equation, Figure, Reference, etc.): 2

Institution Name: in an Address: Tecnológico Nacional de México-Campus San Martín Texmelucan. Camino a la Barranca de Pesos s/n, San Lucas Atoyatenco, San Martín Texmelucan de Labastida, Puebla, México. CP. 74120. (franciscogm@smartin.tecnm.mx). [content-type=original]

Institution Name: in an Address: Tecnológico Nacional de México [content-type=orgname]

Institution Name: in an Address: Campus San Martín Texmelucan [content-type=orgdiv1]

Address Line

Named Special (Subject) Content: Camino a la Barranca de Pesos s/n, San Lucas Atoyatenco [content-type=street]

Named Special (Subject) Content: San Martín Texmelucan de Labastida [content-type=city]

Named Special (Subject) Content: Puebla [content-type=state]

Country: in an Address: México [country=MX]

Postal Code: 74120

Email Address: franciscogm@smartin.tecnm.mx

Author Note Group

Correspondence Information: [§] Autor para correspondencia: rjuan@colpos.mx [id=c1]

Publication Date [date-type=pub; publication-format=electronic]

Day: 01

Month: 09

Year: 2026

Volume Number: 17

Issue Number: 6

Electronic Location Identifier: e4195

History: Document History

Date [date-type=received]

Day: 01

Month: 05

Year: 2026

Date [date-type=accepted]

Day: 01

Month: 08

Year: 2026

Permissions

License Information [license-type=open-access; xlink:href=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/; xml:lang=es]

Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons

Abstract

Title: Abstract

Soybeans are a strategic source of plant protein for animal nutrition; however, the presence of antinutritional factors such as trypsin inhibitors, phytates and saponins limits their utilization when the grain is used unprocessed. The research was conducted in 2025 and evaluated the effects of four postharvest conditioning methods (soaking, boiling, germination and roasting) on antinutritional factors, crude protein and lipid concentrations in six soybean varieties grown in Puebla (HSO, RGNA, BM2, HSVA, Varita and Tamesí). Crude protein, total lipids, phytates, trypsin inhibitors, and saponins were determined and analyzed using a completely randomized design with a two-factor (variety x method) factorial arrangement and Tukey’s multiple comparisons (α= 0.05). The results showed differences between varieties and conditioning methods. The Hoja Seca Original variety stood out for having the highest crude protein content, intermediate and stable total lipid values, and an efficient reduction of the main antinutritional factors after treatments. In contrast, the BM2 variety had the lowest protein content and the greatest sensitivity to heat treatment. Raw grain had the highest concentrations of antinutritional factors. Roasting and boiling achieved the greatest reductions in trypsin inhibitors, while germination and soaking decreased phytates and saponins with less impact on protein content. The varieties differ in chemical composition, but this variation is less than the effect produced by the conditioning method, with roasting being the one that best reduced antinutrients.

Keyword Group [xml:lang=en]

Title: Keywords:

Keyword: family livestock farming

Keyword: phytates

Keyword: trypsin inhibitors

Counts

Figure Count [count=0]

Table Count [count=6]

Equation Count [count=0]

Reference Count [count=31]

Abstract

Soybeans are a strategic source of plant protein for animal nutrition; however, the presence of antinutritional factors such as trypsin inhibitors, phytates and saponins limits their utilization when the grain is used unprocessed. The research was conducted in 2025 and evaluated the effects of four postharvest conditioning methods (soaking, boiling, germination and roasting) on antinutritional factors, crude protein and lipid concentrations in six soybean varieties grown in Puebla (HSO, RGNA, BM2, HSVA, Varita and Tamesí). Crude protein, total lipids, phytates, trypsin inhibitors, and saponins were determined and analyzed using a completely randomized design with a two-factor (variety x method) factorial arrangement and Tukey’s multiple comparisons (α= 0.05). The results showed differences between varieties and conditioning methods. The Hoja Seca Original variety stood out for having the highest crude protein content, intermediate and stable total lipid values, and an efficient reduction of the main antinutritional factors after treatments. In contrast, the BM2 variety had the lowest protein content and the greatest sensitivity to heat treatment. Raw grain had the highest concentrations of antinutritional factors. Roasting and boiling achieved the greatest reductions in trypsin inhibitors, while germination and soaking decreased phytates and saponins with less impact on protein content. The varieties differ in chemical composition, but this variation is less than the effect produced by the conditioning method, with roasting being the one that best reduced antinutrients.

Keywords:

family livestock farming, phytates, trypsin inhibitors.

Introduction

Soybeans are the most important plant protein source for the livestock industry because of their high protein and energy content, essential amino acid profile, and highly digestible oil. In Mexico, their use is strategic in animal nutrition, particularly for poultry, cattle, and pigs, whose diets require crude protein concentrations between 11 and 23% (INIFAP, 2019).

Nonetheless, the country is dependent on imports, since domestic production meets between 4 and 8% of domestic consumption, being subject to international price fluctuations, which limits the profitability of small livestock producers (SADER, 2023).

A second obstacle to the use of grain is the presence of antinutritional factors, mainly trypsin inhibitors, saponins and phytates, which reduce protein digestibility and mineral bioavailability (De la Luna, 2006). Therefore, it is necessary to apply inactivation processes before use in animal nutrition.

The variation in the response of soybeans to conditioning methods is known to depend on both the nature of the antinutritional factor and the characteristics of the genotype (Singer et al., 2023). Heat treatments favor the reduction of thermolabile compounds, particularly trypsin inhibitors, through protein denaturation; however, intense treatments can affect amino acid availability due to side reactions such as the Maillard reaction (Kong et al., 2022).

On the other hand, processes such as soaking and germination can reduce phytates through solubilization and enzymatic activation, representing alternatives with lower technological demand for production systems with limited resources (Sharma, 2021; Kong et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022).

Despite the agricultural relevance of soybeans, information is incomplete regarding variation in antinutrient content among varieties adapted to rainfed conditions in temperate zones and dry tropics subject to easy-to-apply and low-cost inactivation methods, and how they can affect the composition of grain used in family livestock production systems.

Therefore, the objective of the research was to evaluate the variation in the contents of crude protein, lipids and antinutritional factors in soybean varieties subjected to inactivation conditioning.

Materials and methods

Varieties

The commercial varieties Tamesí and BM2 were used, along with the experimental varieties Hoja Seca Original (HSO), Hoja Seca Vainas Abundantes (HSVA), Varita and RGNA, which are grown under rainfed conditions in Atlixco, Puebla, Mexico. The climate is subhumid temperate, with an average annual temperature of 16.1-21.8 °C, average rainfall of 906 mm and sandy loam soil.

The crop was established with conventional management practices in a completely randomized experiment with four replications, from which the grain was obtained, keeping each replication separate.

Inactivation treatments

The harvested grain, in its raw form, was dehydrated in a forced-air oven at 40 °C for 72 h until it reached a constant weight, then pulverized in an electric mill. Soaking lasted 5 h at 20 °C, using three times the mass of water relative to the grain weight; later, the grain was sun-dried, spread on metal trays.

Germination consisted of soaking for 48 h in purified water, after which the grain was placed on plastic trays in the shade, maintaining moisture for five days when the radicle emerged. The grain was then removed and placed on metal trays for sun-drying.

Boiling lasted 30 min; the grain was drained through a strainer and placed on trays for sun-drying. Roasting was carried out in an electric oven at 150 °C for 20 min, with the grain spread evenly on metal trays.

All the grains were dehydrated in a forced-air oven at 40 °C for 72 h to be pulverized in an electric mill at 30 000 rpm.

Variables

Crude protein (CP) was determined by Kjeldahl (method 2001.11; AOAC, 2012a); total lipids by Soxhlet (method 920.39; AOAC, 2023); saponins by sequential extraction with ether, 80% ethanol and n-butanol (Hostettmann et al., 1995); trypsin inhibitors by spectrophotometry using BAPNA as a substrate [Welham and Domoney, 2000; AACC 22-40, 2009; AOCS (2017) Ba 12/12a; ISO 14902 (ISO, 2001)], and phytates by the method of Wheeler and Ferrel (1971), quantifying iron by colorimetry (AOAC 2012b, method 986.11).

Experimental design

The design was completely randomized with a 6 x 5 factorial arrangement (variety x grain conditioning method), with four replications. An analysis of variance was performed using the GLM procedure in SAS, and means were compared with Tukey’s test (α= 0.05).

Results and discussion

The factors variety, method of inactivation, and their interaction generated significant differences in most of the three sources, except for total lipids (Table 1). The variety factor had a greater effect on CP and total lipids (60 and 90% of the total variation explained, respectively); by contrast, the method-of-inactivation factor was decisive for trypsin inhibitors, phytates and saponins, explaining 99, 97 and 99%, respectively. On the other hand, the interaction contributed little, explaining at most 6% in the CP variable.

Table 1

Table 1. Mean squares and parameters of the analysis of variance for chemical variables of soybean grain as a function of variety and inactivation method.

Variable Variety Method of inactivation Variety x Method Error R2 CV (%) Mean
CP 108.49*** 60.59*** 10.75*** 0.374 0.97 2.12 28.81 108.49***
Lipids 3.62*** 0.09 ns 0.33 ns 0.204 0.58 2.12 21.29 3.62***
TIU 1.15×106*** 5.40×109*** 4.26×105*** 8.22×104 1 2.47 11589 1.15×106***
Phytates 0.738*** 25.72*** 0.086*** 0.00043 1 1.43 1.46 0.738***
Saponins 0.00061* 0.176*** 0.00056** 0.000214 0.97 3.57 0.41 0.00061*

[i] ns= not significant; *= p≤ 0.05; **= p≤ 0.01; ***= p≤ 0.001; CP= crude protein.

Crude protein

The varieties differed in CP content p< 0.0001 (Table 2). HSO had the highest concentration (32.6%). RGNA ranked second (30.3%); Tamesí, Varita and HSVA were similar, with intermediate values (28% on average), and BM2 had the lowest concentration (25.9%).

Table 2

Table 2. Mean crude protein values (%) of soybean grain by variety and grain conditioning.

Method Tamesí Variety Mean
BM2 RGNA HSO HSVA HSVA
Raw 28.56c 29.23c 32.31a 33.23a 30.37b 28.84c 30.42A
Soaking 28.28c 27.17d 32.97a 33.35a 27.77cd 27.75cd 29.55AB
Boiling 28.07c 27.69cd 32.15a 33.07a 27.54d 27.78cd 29.38B
Germination 28.21c 26.18d 28.29c 31.48b 29.14c 27.3d 28.43C
Roasting 26.52d 19.14e 26.14d 31.71ab 26.37d 27.7cd 26.26D
Mean 27.93D 25.88D 30.37B 32.57A 28.24C 27.87CD

[i] Means with the same lowercase letter are statistically equal (Tukey, α= 0.05); equal uppercase letters for the comparison of the respective factor are not statistically different (Tukey, α= 0.05).

The difference between HSO and BM2 was 6.7%, which was a significant variation. These differences were consistent with reports by several authors (Rotundo and Westgate, 2009; Panthee et al., 2016), who attribute the variation to the genetic basis and the relative protein-to-oil ratio in soybeans.

Usually, in soybean seeds, protein concentration can present an inverse relationship with lipid concentration, because both components share metabolic pathways during reserve accumulation in the grain.

Likewise, breeding programs can prioritize increases in protein or oil, depending on the productive objective of the varieties developed, which can also lead to differences among genotypes.

The CP concentration varied with the inactivation method (p< 0.0001). Raw grain had the highest value (30.4%). There was a 0.9% decrease with the soaking and boiling methods; germination caused a 2% reduction, and roasting had the lowest value (26.3%), with a 4.1% reduction compared with raw grains.

According to Liu (2019), roasting can slightly reduce CP content, an aspect related to Maillard reactions, which influence CP quantification. The other losses occur due to solubilization (Sharma et al., 2013) and the use of reserves. Although roasting presented the greatest reduction in antinutritional factors, its application implies availability of thermal equipment and energy consumption, factors that may limit its adoption in family livestock production units.

In contrast, methods such as soaking and germination require less infrastructure and may be low-cost alternatives, although they have less capacity to reduce trypsin inhibitors. Therefore, selecting the conditioning method should consider not only inactivation efficiency, but also the availability of resources, the scale of production and the grain’s final destination.

Regarding the variety x treatment interaction, the RGNA and BM2 varieties showed the greatest combined effect (p≤ 0.05). In both cases, the roasting treatment produced the most pronounced decreases in protein compared with the other methods, an aspect that Liu (2019) related to genetic differences in the protein fraction and the protein-oil ratio.

Total lipids

The varieties were different (p< 0.0001) in total lipid concentration (Table 3), but with a reduced range (20-22%). The RGNA variety had the highest concentration (21.4%), whereas HSO and Varita had the lowest values (20%).

Table 3

Table 3. Mean total lipid values (%) of soybean grain by variety and grain conditioning.

Method Tamesí Variety Mean
BM2 RGNA HSO HSVA HSVA
Raw 21.68ab 21.89a 21.75a 20.96b 21.12b 20.51b 21.32A
Soaking 21.55ab 21.39ab 21.73ab 20.79b 21.25ab 21.42ab 21.36A
Boiling 21.18b 21.52ab 22.19a 20.79b 21.03b 20.87b 21.26A
Germination 20.68b 21.35ab 22.42a 20.7b 21.15b 20.91b 21.2A
Roasting 21.37ab 21.64ab 21.8a 21.13b 21.1b 20.81b 21.31A
Mean 21.29BC 21.56AB 21.98A 20.87C 21.13BC 20.9C

[i] Means with the same lowercase letter are statistically equal (Tukey, α= 0.05); equal uppercase letters for the comparison of the respective factor are statistically equal (Tukey, α= 0.05).

According to Hou and Chang (2004); Rotundo and Westgate (2009); Liu (2019), these small differences are due to the lipid content in soybeans presenting moderate genetic variability, but it can be influenced by factors of accumulation efficiency during maturation and the composition of the integument or as Wilson (2004) points out, it can be due to differences in fatty acid biosynthesis pathways.

Inactivation methods did not affect lipid concentration (p= 0.7955). Hu et al. (2002) point out that, in soybeans, lipids are not very susceptible to losses due to moderate heating (≤ 150 °C) or short soaking because of their location in the seed.

Trypsin inhibitors

The varieties differed in trypsin inhibitor concentration p< 0.0001 (Table 4). Varita and Tamesí differed from HSO and HSVA by having 3.8% more on average (402 TIU g-1). Kakade et al. (1973); Liener (1994) describe that variation in inhibitor concentration is mainly attributable to genetic factors of the seed.

Table 4

Table 4. Mean values of trypsin inhibitory units (TIU g-1) of soybean grain by variety and treatment.

Method Tamesí Variety Mean
BM2 RGNA HSO HSVA HSVA
Raw 38306a 38216a 38907a 38238a 37736b 38520a 38321A
Soaking 6375c 6447c 5504d 6093c 6480c 6391c 6215B
Boiling 5453d 4635e 4649e 4595e 4348e 5239fd 4820C
Germination 5971c 5506d 6234c 5515d 5438d 6023c 5781B
Roasting 3259f 2384g 3084f 2519f 2584f 3028f 2810D
Mean 10873A 10238BC 10876AB 10192CB 10117C 10240AB

[i] Means with the same lowercase letter are statistically equal (Tukey, α= 0.05); equal uppercase letters for the comparison of the respective factor are not statistically different (Tukey, α= 0.05).

Inactivation methods significantly reduced (p< 0.0001) the concentration of trypsin inhibitors. Raw grain had the highest value (38 321 TIU g-1), whereas conditioning treatments reduced the inhibitory activity by 71-121%. Boiling had an effective reduction of 5 700 TIU g-1 (89%), and roasting was more efficient, with a reduction of 2 509-3 431 TIU g-1 (91-94% less than raw grain).

The variety x conditioning interaction was not uniform (p< 0.0001) among varieties, with RGNA showing the greatest variation in the soaking, boiling, and germination methods. Panthee et al. (2016); Liu (2019) mention that, among varieties, there are certain genotypes that vary in the relative proportions of Kunitz and Bowman-Birk inhibitors and in their thermal stability, which could be related to this variety.

Phytates

The varieties showed differences in phytate content p< 0.0001 (Table 5). RGNA had a higher concentration than Varita, HSO and BM2; the latter had the lowest value (1.17 ppm). This variability is attributable to genetic differences, which aligns with observations by Lott et al. (2000); Raboy (2001), who observed that phytate levels in soybean seeds vary among genotypes due to differences in the accumulation of phytic phosphorus during grain filling and to the proportion of cotyledon relative to the total seed.

Table 5

Table 5. Mean phytate values (ppm) of soybean grain by variety and treatment.

Method Variety Mean
H500 BM2 RGNA HSO HSVA Varita
Raw 3.36c 2.94d 3.56b 3.32c 3.68a 2.95d 3.3A
Soaking 1.11g 0.6m 1.2e 0.8j 1.06gh 1.25e 1.02B
Boiling 1.04h 0.72l 1.24e 0.84jk 0.97i 1.17f 1B
Germination 1.05h 0.81k 1.25e 0.85jk 1.25e 0.96i 1.03B
Roasting 1.11g 0.7l 1.16f 0.8k 0.87j 0.8k 0.91C
Mean 1.53AB 1.15C 1.7A 1.32BC 1.57AB 1.43BC

[i] Means with the same lowercase letter are statistically equal (Tukey, α= 0.05); equal uppercase letters for the comparison of the respective factor are statistically equal (Tukey, α= 0.05).

Inactivation methods, on the other hand, had a differentiated effect (p< 0.0001) on phytate concentration. Raw grain presented the highest value (3.3 ppm); in contrast, soaking, boiling and germination showed similar reductions (1-1.1 ppm). This is related to the partial solubilization of phytates in water during soaking, the activation of endogenous phytases at the beginning of germinative metabolism, and the diffusion of phytic acid into the water.

Roasting recorded the lowest concentration (0.9 ppm), indicating that dry heat contributes both to the partial denaturation of phosphorus complexes and to the thermal degradation of phytic acid. These results coincide with reports by Sandberg et al. (1999); Luo et al. (2009), who point out that thermal and biological processes effectively reduce phytates through enzymatic hydrolysis, solubilization or heat decomposition.

In the interaction, the most pronounced changes were observed in HSVA in germination; Tamesí showed greater stability and Varita had abrupt reductions.

Saponins

The varieties were different (p< 0.05) in saponin content (Table 6), although the range was narrow (0.4-0.42%). This aligns with Shimoyamada et al. (1990), who indicated that the total saponin content in soybeans remains relatively stable among yellow-type genotypes, varying mainly with culture conditions and physiological maturity, rather than with genetic factors.

Table 6

Table 6. Mean saponin values (%) of soybean grain by variety and grain conditioning.

Treatment Tamesí Variety Mean
BM2 RGNA HSO HSVA Varita
Raw 0.53a 0.50b 0.53a 0.56a 0.52a 0.52a 0.53a
Soaking 0.44c 0.45c 0.44c 0.44c 0.45c 0.44c 0.44B
Boiling 0.38d 0.38d 0.37d 0.38d 0.38d 0.37d 0.38C
Germination 0.36d 0.39d 0.39d 0.39d 0.37d 0.37d 0.38C
Roasting 0.31e 0.3e 0.31e 0.3e 0.29e 0.3e 0.3D
Mean 0.41AB 0.41AB 0.41AB 0.42A 0.4B 0.4B

[i] Means with the same lowercase letter are statistically equal (Tukey, α= 0.05); equal uppercase letters for the comparison of the respective factor are statistically equal (Tukey, α= 0.05).

For their part, the inactivation methods reduced the concentration (p< 0.0001) compared with the raw grain. Soaking reduced the value to 0.09%, but roasting had the greatest reducing effect, reaching 0.23 percentage units. The variety x conditioning interaction was highly significant (p= 0.0011). Although all varieties followed the same general trend, the intensity of the decline was not uniform.

HSO had the largest drop, and raw grain had the greatest variation. Water conditioning methods had intermediate values. This aligns with the findings of Gu et al. (2002), where water causes partial degradation of DDMP saponins by oxidation associated with the initial metabolism of seed germination.

Conclusions

The varieties differ in the concentrations of CP, lipids and inhibitors; however, the ranges of variation are small.

Grain conditioning reduces the concentrations of trypsin inhibitors, phytates and saponins, without affecting lipid concentration, with roasting being more effective in reducing antinutrients but significantly decreasing crude protein.

Nonetheless, the implementation of roasting must be assessed considering protein loss, energy requirements and technological availability. In family production systems, methods such as soaking or germination can represent practical alternatives; nevertheless, they require optimizing their capacity to reduce antinutrients.

The variety x conditioning method interaction is small; however, it confirms that there are specific biochemical and structural characteristics of each genotype whose response depends on the method of conditioning applied.

Therefore, the choice of variety and processing type can be decisive for the use of grain in animal nutrition. Roasting was the most effective at reducing antinutritional factors.

Bibliography

1 

AACC. 2009. International Approved Methods of Analysis. 11th. Edition. Method 22-40.01: Measurement of trypsin inhibitor activity of soy products-spectrophotometric method. AACC International. St. Paul, MN, USA.

2 

AOAC. 2012a. International. Official Method 2001.11: protein (crude) in animal feed, forage (plant tissue), grain and oilseeds: block digestion method using copper catalyst and steam distillation into boric acid. In: official methods of analysis of AOAC international. AOAC International. Gaithersburg, MD, USA.

3 

AOAC. 2012b.International. AOAC Official Method 986.11: Phytate in foods. In: Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. AOAC International. Gaithersburg, MD, USA.

4 

AOAC. 2023. International. AOAC Official Method 920.39: fat (crude) or ether extract in animal feed. In: Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC international. 22th. Edition. Oxford University Press. Oxford, UK.

5 

AOCS. 2017. American Oil Chemists’ Society. Official methods and recommended practices of the 7th. Edition. Method Ba 12-75: trypsin inhibitor activity. AOCS Press. Urbana, IL, USA.

6 

De la Luna, J. A. 2006. Valor nutritivo de la proteína de soya. México. Investigación y Ciencia-Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes (UAA). 14(36):29-34. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=67403606.

7 

Gu, L.; Tao, G. and Gu, W. 2002. Changes of saponins during soybean germination. Food Chemistry. 78(4):497-501. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-8146(02)00214-7.

8 

Hostettmann, K. and Marston, A. 1995. Saponins. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511565113.

9 

Hou, H. J. and Chang, K. C. 2004. Storage conditions affect soybean color, chemical composition and tofu quality. Journal of Food Science. 69(4):C293-C300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2004.tb06337.x.

10 

Hu, J.; Webster, D. E.; Brauer, D. and Thompson, L. U. 2002. Quantification of group B soyasaponins by high-performance liquid chromatography. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 50(9):2587-2594. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf011181r.

11 

INIFAP. 2019. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias. Tablas de requerimientos nutricionales de especies pecuarias. INIFAP. Ciudad de México, México.

12 

ISO. 2001. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14902:2001. Animal feeding stuffs-determination of trypsin inhibitor activity of soya products. ISO. Ginebra, Suiza. http://higiene.unex.es/Bibliogr/ISO-BS-USDA/ISO-BS/BS%20EN%20ISO/BS%20EN%20ISO%2014902-2001.pdf.

13 

Kakade, M. L.; Rackis, J. J.; McGhee, J. E. and Puski, G. 1973. Determination of trypsin inhibitor activity of soy products: a collaborative analysis of an improved procedure. Cereal Chemistry. 51(3):376-382.

14 

Kong, X.; Li, Y. and Liu, X. 2022. A review of thermosensitive antinutritional factors in plant-based foods. Journal of Food Biochemistry. 46(9):e14199. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfbc.14199.

15 

Liener, I. E. 1994. Implications of antinutritional components in soybean foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 34(1):31-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408399409527649.

16 

Liu, K. 2019. Soybeans: chemistry, technology, and utilization. 2nd. Edition. Wiley-Blackwell. Hoboken, NJ, USA. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119383956.

17 

Lott, J. N. A.; Ockenden, I.; Raboy, V. and Batten, G. D. 2000. Phytic acid and phosphorus in crop seeds and fruits: a global estimate. Seed Science Research. 10(1):11-33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960258500000039.

18 

Luo, Y.; Xie, W. and Cui, Q. 2009. Effects of phytase, germination, and cooking on the total phosphorus and phytic acid contents of brown rice. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 57(20):9600-9606. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf901628q.

19 

Panthee, D. R.; Pantalone, V. R.; Saxton, A. M.; West, D. R. and Sams, C. E. 2016. Quantitative trait loci controlling soybean seed protein and oil content. Agronomy Journal. 108(3):1134-1142. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2015.0386.

20 

Raboy, V. 2001. Seeds for a better future: ‘low phytate’ grains help to overcome malnutrition and reduce pollution. Trends in Plant Science. 6(10):458-462. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1360-1385(01)02054-5.

21 

Rotundo, J. L. and Westgate, M. E. 2009. Meta-analysis of environmental effects on soybean seed protein and oil concentration. Field Crops Research. 110(2):147-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2008.07.012.

22 

SADER. 2023. Secretaría de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural. Panorama agroalimentario 2023. Soya. Ciudad de México, México. https://nube.agricultura.gob.mx/panorama-dgsiap/.

23 

Sandberg, A. S.; Larsen, T. and Sandström, B. 1999. High dietary phytate intake is associated with low mineral absorption in humans. The Journal of Nutrition. 129(10):1910-1914. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/129.10.1910.

24 

Sharma, A. 2021. A review on traditional technology and safety challenges with regard to antinutrients in legume foods. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 58(8):2863-2883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-020-04883-8.

25 

Sharma, S.; Goyal, R. and Barwal, S. 2013. Domestic processing effects on physiochemical, nutritional and anti-nutritional attributes in soybeans (Glycine Max L. Merill). International Food Research Journal. 20(6):3203-3209.

26 

Shimoyamada, M.; Ikedo, S.; Ootsubo, R. and Watanabe, K. 1990. Effects of soybean saponins on chymotryptic hydrolysis of proteins. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 38(3):717-722. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf00093a015.

27 

Singer, W. M.; Lee, Y. C.; Shea, Z.; Vieira, C. C.; Lee, D.; Li, X.; Cunicelli M.; Kadam, S. S.; Khan, M. A. W.; Shannon, G.; Mian, M. A. R.; Nguyen, H, T. and Zhang, B. 2023. Soybean genetics, genomics, and breeding for improving nutritional value and reducing antinutritional traits in food and feed. The Plant Genome. 16(4):e20415. https://doi.org/10.1002/tpg2.20415.

28 

Wang, N.; Hatcher, D. W. and Gawalko, E. J. 2022. Legume seed protein digestibility as influenced by traditional and emerging physical processing technologies. Foods. 11(15):2202.

29 

Welham, T. and Domoney, C. 2000. Temporal and spatial activity of a promoter from a pea enzyme inhibitor gene and its exploitation for seed quality improvement. Plant Science. 159(2):289-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9452(00)00358-7.

30 

Wheeler, E. L. and Ferrel, R. E. 1971. A method for phytic acid determination in wheat and wheat fractions. Cereal Chemistry. 48(3):312-320.

31 

Wilson, R. F. 2004. Seed composition. In: Soybeans: Improvement, production and uses. Boerma, H. R. and Specht, J. E. (Eds.). 3th. edition. American Society of Agronomy. Crop Science Society of America and Soil Science Society of America. Madison, WI, USA. 621-677 pp. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr16.3ed.c13.