## 3 Results and Discussion
### Nutritional Composition of Soybean Seeds
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Year**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Treatment**} & **Crude Protein** & **Oil Content** & **Water** & **Bulk Density** & **Admixture** \\  & & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(kg hL\({}^{-1}\))** & **(\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{2021} & P1\({}^{\text{z}}\) & 33.14 \(\pm\) 1.12 \({}^{\text{a,*}}\) & 18.97 \(\pm\) 0.67 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 13.23 \(\pm\) 0.42 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 69.70 \(\pm\) 4.70 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.01 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\  & P2 & 33.32 \(\pm\) 1.30 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 18.65 \(\pm\) 0.72 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 13.37 \(\pm\) 0.37 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 65.52 \(\pm\) 5.10 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.66 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{2022} & P1 & 32.00 \(\pm\) 0.96 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 20.11 \(\pm\) 0.55 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 13.31 \(\pm\) 0.34 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 69.85 \(\pm\) 6.11 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.15 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\  & P2 & 32.64 \(\pm\) 1.06 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 19.50 \(\pm\) 0.60 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 13.05 \(\pm\) 0.27 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 69.52 \(\pm\) 5.80 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.12 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{2023} & P1 & 33.51 \(\pm\) 1.07 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 19.28 \(\pm\) 0.64 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 12.97 \(\pm\) 0.30 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 70.86 \(\pm\) 6.95 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.10 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\  & P2 & 34.12 \(\pm\) 1.32 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 18.90 \(\pm\) 0.69 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 12.60 \(\pm\) 0.32 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 70.48 \(\pm\) 7.14 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.13 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{2024} & P1 & 32.52 \(\pm\) 1.14 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 20.02 \(\pm\) 0.58 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 12.46 \(\pm\) 0.33 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 71.13 \(\pm\) 8.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.09 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\  & P2 & 32.53 \(\pm\) 1.17 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 20.05 \(\pm\) 0.62 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 11.78 \(\pm\) 0.33 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 70.03 \(\pm\) 7.80 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.06 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
\({}^{\text{a}}\) P1--post-emergence mechanical weeding with rotary harrow, P2—conventional herbicide-based weed control without mechanical weeding. \({}^{\text{a}}\)—small superscript letters (a, b) indicate significant differences between P1 and P2 within each year according to [PERSON]’s HSD test (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Composition (mean \(\pm\) SE) of raw soybean seeds (cv. ‘Abaca’) under two weed control systems from 2021 to 2024. Green Deal and Farm to Fork policy objectives. The convergence of results between the current experiment and our earlier field phenotyping study [23] reinforces the suitability of 'Abaca' as a robust cultivar for Central European non-GMO soybean production. The chemical composition of the processed soy products, full-fat soy (FFS), and expanded soybean cake (ESC), obtained from the hydrothermal and press-assisted processing system, is summarized in Table 5. The pressing stage significantly altered the nutrient profile of the products, yielding two distinct matrices suitable for different food and feed applications. Crude protein (CP) content was significantly higher in ESC, ranging from 37.40% to 38.98%, compared to 32.40% to 34.48% in FFS (\(p<0.05\)). This increase reflects the protein concentration effect resulting from partial fat removal during the mechanical pressing stage. Similar protein concentration patterns have been reported in previous processing studies on plant-based protein concentrates [15; 27]. Oil content (OC) was strongly reduced in ESC due to the press-assisted processing step, ranging from 11.56% to 13.33%, while FFS retained oil levels between 20.79% and 22.40% (\(p<0.05\)). The oil reduction in ESC supports its applicability for protein-rich formulations where excessive lipid content is undesirable, such as extruded protein snacks or feed pellets. Total sugar content was moderately higher in ESC (10.75-10.98%) compared to FFS (7.80-9.23%).