To determine the lethal dose (LD) and growth-reducing dose (GR), the exposures were from gamma activity rates such as low activity rate by multipurpose panoramic 70 Ci and high activity rate by Gamma Cell 3 kCi. The study material was sourced by Cobalt-60 (⁶⁰Co) with variant doses, i.e., 10Gy, 20Gy, 30Gy, 40Gy, 50Gy, and 60Gy for each gamma activity rate. The study was performed at the Center for Isotope and Radiation Application, National Nuclear Energy Agency of Indonesia (CIRA-NNEA). Data were analyzed using non-parametric tests and analysis of variance. The lethal dose (LD₅₀) and growth reduction (GR₅₀) were identified based on regression analysis. The analysis of variance revealed that highly significant differences among irradiation treatments in number of leaves, survival rate, and plant height. A linear regression model was developed to determine the mean LD₅₀ and GR₅₀ of Super Napier grass. The highest variability of mutants was observed in gamma-ray irradiated mutants with lethal doses (LD₅₀). LD₅₀, 35.82Gy-55.71Gy, at a low activity rate (Multipurpose panoramic irradiator 70 Ci) is higher than the high activity rate (Gamma Cell 3 kCi), 28.98-28.99. In general, the survival rate of Super Napier grass decreased along with increasing irradiation dose. The generated LD₅₀ and GR₅₀ were identified as optimal dosages for the radiosensitivity of Super Napier grass. This study becomes preliminary mutagenesis breeding to generate genetic diversity of grass, specifically in Super Napier grass.

Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] cultivar ‘Chookdu 1’ (registration number: No. 7159) and ‘Chookdu 2’ (registration number: No. 6758) were developed as forage soybean cultivars at Kyungpook National University, Republic of Korea. They were grown in tests over three years and compared with a commercial seed cultivar for seed yield and forage productivity planted in the same row in mixed plantings with corn. Chookdu 1 and Chookdu 2 are tall, indeterminate growth habit selections from a cross between wild soybean (Glycine soja Sieb. & Zucc.), ‘PI 483463’, and cultivated soybean, ‘Hutcheson’ (PI 518664). The plant height of Chookdu 1 and Chookdu 2 were 80.9 cm and 81.4 cm, respectively, compared to 54.7 cm for the ‘Pungsannamul’ commercial seed check. The three-year seed yield of Chookdu 1 and Chookdu 2 was 2.0 and 2.2 t/ha, respectively, and not significantly different from Pungsannamul at 2.4 t/ha. Of the two cultivars Chookdu 2 averaged the most total forage fresh weight (65.0 t/ha). The three year mean forage yield of mixed-planting of corn and Chookdu 2 and Chookdu 1 was 10.4% and 3.8% greater, respectively, than corn monoculture. Results show Chookdu 1 and Chookdu 2 are suitable soybean cultivars for mixed planting in the same row with corn to improve forage yield. They should be useful as parents to use in breeding to develop forage-type soybeans of high quality and yield for use in livestock feed.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  

• Forage yield, nutritional value, soil chemical composition, and soil microbial abundance under maize–legume intercropping systems in a paddy field
  Yowook Song, Sang-Hoon Lee, Jae Hoon Woo, Ki-Won Lee
  Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology.2023; 26(3): 285.     CrossRef
• Chemical Composition of Soybean Harvested in Different Stages of Maturity and Its Suitability for Forage Production
  Vita Sterna, Imants Jansons, Inga Jansone, Margita Damskalne
  Rural Sustainability Research.2023; 50(345): 67.     CrossRef
• Comparison of Yield and Yield Components of Several Crops Grown under Agro-Photovoltaic System in Korea
  Hyun Jo, Sovetgul Asekova, Mohammad Amin Bayat, Liakat Ali, Jong Tae Song, Yu-Shin Ha, Dong-Hyuck Hong, Jeong-Dong Lee
  Agriculture.2022; 12(5): 619.     CrossRef

Soybeans have a long history as a nutritious hay and silage crop. Early research extensively investigated forage yield, adaptability to various maturity zones, and nutritional values. Evaluation and breeding with diverse soybean accessions continued to optimize soybean forage yield and quality. There is still interest by breeders in developing more desirable forage soybeans, depending on market demand, and the existing interests of crop and livestock producers. In this review, we provide an update compiled from recent publications on the use and development of soybean as a forage crop.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  

• Crossing latitude introduction delayed flowering and facilitated dry matter accumulation of soybean as a forage crop
  Dong An, Xingfa Lai, Tianfu Han, Jean Marie Vianney Nsigayehe, Guixin Li, Yuying Shen
  Journal of Integrative Agriculture.2025; 24(4): 1436.     CrossRef
• Intercropping of Soybean and Common Millet—A Rational Way of Forage Biomass Quality Enhancement
  Milena Šenk, Milena Simić, Dušanka M. Milojković-Opsenica, Milan Brankov, Jelena Trifković, Vesna Perić, Vesna Dragičević
  Agriculture.2025; 15(19): 2029.     CrossRef
• Comparative Analysis of Compositional Equivalence in Drought-Tolerant Genetically Modified Soybeans
  Ha-Jung Kang, Hyoun-Min Park, Sung-Dug Oh, Ye-Jin Jang, Jong-Chan Park, Seon-Woo Oh, Sang-Gu Lee, Soo-Yun Park, An-Cheol Chang
  Korean Journal of Breeding Science.2025; 57(4): 445.     CrossRef
• Seed quality under elevated CO2 differs in soybean cultivars with contrasting yield responses
  Anthony Digrado, Christopher M. Montes, Ivan Baxter, Elizabeth A. Ainsworth
  Global Change Biology.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
• Contribution of Photosynthetic, Root and Phenotypic Traits to Soybean Plant Height
  Rongzhen Suo, Mingjiu Wang, Tianqi Zhao
  Sustainability.2024; 16(7): 2886.     CrossRef
• Effect of Growth Stage on Nutrition, Fermentation Quality, and Microbial Community of Semidry Silage from Forage Soybean
  Kexin Wang, Shengnan Sun, Yilin Zou, Yongqi Gao, Zifeng Gao, Bo Wang, Yi Hua, Yalin Lu, Guofu Hu, Ligang Qin
  Plants.2024; 13(5): 739.     CrossRef
• Effects of Harvesting Stages and Additives on the Chemical Composition, Fermentation Quality and Relative Feed Value of Soybean Silages Varieties
  Ahmet Korhan Şahar, Sibel Erdoğan, Şeyda Zorer Çelebi
  Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi.2024; 30(2): 325.     CrossRef
• Chemical Composition of Soybean Harvested in Different Stages of Maturity and Its Suitability for Forage Production
  Vita Sterna, Imants Jansons, Inga Jansone, Margita Damskalne
  Rural Sustainability Research.2023; 50(345): 67.     CrossRef
• Deep associations: the symbiotic relationships between amphipods and large invertebrates from bathyal of the Sea of Okhotsk
  I. N. Marin
  Invertebrate Zoology.2023; 20(1): 108.     CrossRef
• Genome-wide association study for biomass accumulation traits in soybean
  Xin Wang, Shaodong Zhou, Jie Wang, Wenxin Lin, Xiaolei Yao, Jiaqing Su, Haiyang Li, Chao Fang, Fanjiang Kong, Yuefeng Guan
  Molecular Breeding.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
• Seeds of n-GM Soybean Varieties Cultivated in Poland and Their Processing Products as High-Protein Feeds in Cattle Nutrition
  Barbara Niwińska, Kamil Witaszek, Gniewko Niedbała, Krzysztof Pilarski
  Agriculture.2020; 10(5): 174.     CrossRef
• Utilization of Thinned Sunflower and Soybean Intercrops as Forage: A Useful Strategy for Small Scale Farms in Intensive Agricultural Systems
  Heba Sabry Attia Salama, Hassan El-Sayed Khalil, Ali Issa Nawar
  International Journal of Plant Production.2020; 14(3): 487.     CrossRef
• Agronomic Traits and Forage Production in a Mixed-Planting with Corn for Forage Soybean Cultivars, Chookdu 1 and Chookdu 2
  Jin-Dong Seo, Hyun Jo, Minsu Kim, Jong Tae Song, Jeong-Dong Lee
  Plant Breeding and Biotechnology.2019; 7(2): 123.     CrossRef
• Nutritive value and fatty acid content of soybean plant [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] during its growth cycle
  Pier Giorgio Peiretti, Giorgia Meineri, Erica Longato, Sonia Tassone
  Italian Journal of Animal Science.2018; 17(2): 347.     CrossRef
• Harnessing the Potential of Forage Legumes, Alfalfa, Soybean, and Cowpea for Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security
  Krishnanand P. Kulkarni, Rupesh Tayade, Sovetgul Asekova, Jong Tae Song, J. Grover Shannon, Jeong-Dong Lee
  Frontiers in Plant Science.2018;[Epub]     CrossRef
• Analysis of Various Quality Attributes of Sunflower and Soybean Plants by Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy: Development and Validation Calibration Models
  Uttam Saha, Dinku Endale, P. Glynn Tillman, W. Carroll Johnson, Julia Gaskin, Leticia Sonon, Harry Schomberg, Yuangen Yang
  American Journal of Analytical Chemistry.2017; 08(07): 462.     CrossRef
• Genetic analysis of shoot fresh weight in a cross of wild (G. soja) and cultivated (G. max) soybean
  Sovetgul Asekova, Krishnanand P. Kulkarni, Gunvant Patil, Minsu Kim, Jong Tae Song, Henry T. Nguyen, J. Grover Shannon, Jeong-Dong Lee
  Molecular Breeding.2016;[Epub]     CrossRef
• Evaluation of crude protein, crude oil, total flavonoid, total polyphenol content and DPPH activity in the sprouts from a high oleic acid soybean cultivar
  
  Korean Journal of Agricultural Science.2016;[Epub]     CrossRef
• Determination of forage quality by near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy in soybean
  Sovetgul ASEKOVA, Sang-Ik HAN, Hong-Jib CHOI, Sang-Jo PARK, Dong-Hyun SHIN, Chan-Ho KWON, J. Grover SHANNON, Jeong-Dong LEE
  TURKISH JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY.2016; 40: 45.     CrossRef
• Novel Quantitative Trait Loci for Forage Quality Traits in a Cross between PI 483463 and ‘Hutcheson’ in Soybean
  Sovetgul Asekova, Krishnanand P. Kulkarni, Minsu Kim, Jeong‐Hwa Kim, Jong Tae Song, J. Grover Shannon, Jeong‐Dong Lee
  Crop Science.2016; 56(5): 2600.     CrossRef

Wild soybeans (Glycine soja Sieb. & Zucc.) are generally higher in protein and lower in oil with potential advantages as forage than cultivated soybeans. This study was conducted to evaluate forage yield and quality of wild soybeans. Three wild soybeans were compared to three cultivated soybeans for forage yield and quality at the full bloom stage, full pod stage, and full seed stage (R6) of development. The wild soybeans had significantly lower forage yield than cultivated soybeans at R6 which was determined to be the best stage to harvest based on forage quantity and quality. Wild soybean also had lower crude fat (2.0%) and crude protein (17.7%) concentration than cultivated soybean (5.7 and 21.3%, respectively) at the R6 stage. There were no significant differences for neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber and relative feed value among growth stages between cultivated and wild soybean. The neutral detergent fiber was 40.2 and 40.4%, acid detergent fiber was 26.1% and 27.5%, and relative feed value was 161 and 158 at R6 stage for cultivated and wild soybean, respectively. Wild soybean had less forage yield at harvest time but had similar forage quality comparable to cultivated soybean. However, wild soybeans have smaller and softer stems for potentially improved palatability and feed intake than cultivated soybeans. Therefore, it will be a good genetic source to improve forage characteristics of soybean.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  

• Comparative Analysis of Compositional Equivalence in Drought-Tolerant Genetically Modified Soybeans
  Ha-Jung Kang, Hyoun-Min Park, Sung-Dug Oh, Ye-Jin Jang, Jong-Chan Park, Seon-Woo Oh, Sang-Gu Lee, Soo-Yun Park, An-Cheol Chang
  Korean Journal of Breeding Science.2025; 57(4): 445.     CrossRef
• Contribution of Photosynthetic, Root and Phenotypic Traits to Soybean Plant Height
  Rongzhen Suo, Mingjiu Wang, Tianqi Zhao
  Sustainability.2024; 16(7): 2886.     CrossRef
• Selection of Soybean Germplasm for Mixed Cropping with Corn on the Same Row to Produce Better Yield and Value-Added Forage
  Jin-Dong Seo, Minsu Kim, Yowook Song, Danim Jo, Jong Tae Song, Jong Duk Kim, Chan Ho Kwon, Hyun Jo, Jeong-Dong Lee
  Korean Journal of Breeding Science.2019; 51(1): 1.     CrossRef
• Effects of soybean silage on feeding behavior, performance, and meat quality of lambs
  V.M. Protes, C. Costa, C.M. Pariz, A.M. Castilhos, P.R.L. Meirelles, V.Z. Longhini, R.O. Roça, H.A. Ricardo, V.F.P. Melo
  Small Ruminant Research.2018; 164: 64.     CrossRef
• Genetic analysis of shoot fresh weight in a cross of wild (G. soja) and cultivated (G. max) soybean
  Sovetgul Asekova, Krishnanand P. Kulkarni, Gunvant Patil, Minsu Kim, Jong Tae Song, Henry T. Nguyen, J. Grover Shannon, Jeong-Dong Lee
  Molecular Breeding.2016;[Epub]     CrossRef