German farmers’ perceptions of soybean cultivation – A Q-methodology analysis

German farmers’ perceptions of soybean cultivation – A Q-methodology analysis | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article German farmers’ perceptions of soybean cultivation – A Q-methodology analysis Marius Michels, Thido Oldewurtel, Hendrik Wever, Oliver Mußhoff This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7367959/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Despite growing interest in domestic protein production, soybean cultivation in Germany remains limited. This study employs Q-methodology to investigate farmers' perceptions of soybean cultivation in Germany. Through factor analysis of 28 farmers' Q-sorts collected in 2024, we identify three distinct perspectives: Opportunity-Focused, Skepticism, and Market-Oriented yet Risk-Averse. The Opportunity-Focused perspective emphasizes agronomic benefits and rotation improvements, while the Skepticism perspective highlights manure management challenges and operational constraints. The Market-Oriented perspective recognizes future potential but remains cautious about current uncertainties and risks. Areas of consensus include climate change, plant breeding benefits, and marketing challenges. Our findings demonstrate that the gap between potential and actual soybean cultivation extends beyond agronomic limitations to encompass farmers' attitudes, experiences, and market realities. We recommend differentiated approaches combining infrastructure development and tailored knowledge transfer initiatives addressing perspective-specific concerns. These strategies could enhance domestic protein production while contributing to more sustainable agricultural systems in Germany. Agricultural Economics & Policy German farmers Soybean cultivation Typology Q-Method Domestic Protein Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1 Introduction European agricultural policy has increasingly emphasized the domestic production of protein crops to enhance food security, reduce reliance on imports, and support more sustainable farming systems (European Commission, 2023; EPRS, 2023). One of the objectives of this plant protein strategy is to make cultivation of soybean and other protein crops in Europe more competitive (Ferreira et al., 2021; Nendel et al., 2023). Despite these policy efforts, the European Union (EU) remains structurally dependent on external protein sources, producing only 75% of its feed protein needs (European Commission, 2024) and reaching just 29% self-sufficiency in high-quality protein inputs (European Parliament, 2023). As a globally important oilseed and protein crop (Sudarić, 2020; Fang and Kong, 2022), soybeans ( Glycine max ) as a legume offer considerable potential for diversifying European cropping systems, owing to their high protein content, nitrogen-fixing capabilities, and environmental co-benefits (Reckling et al., 2016; Klaiss et al., 2020; Ferreira et al., 2021; Toleikiene et al., 2021; Rotundo, 2024). Nevertheless, EU soybean production remains limited. In 2024, only 3.05 million tons were harvested from 1.12 million hectares, primarily in southern regions such as Italy, Romania, and France (Eurostat, 2025). The shortfall is offset by substantial imports amounting to 15.3 million tons in 2023, including 3.2 million tons to Germany alone (FAO, 2025; Statista, 2025). Furthermore, Germany has launched a “protein transition” strategy including targeted funding for plant-based and alternative proteins (Systemiq, 2025; WBAE, 2025). In Europe, soybean is still a relatively new crop in terms of cultivation. While agronomic conditions in Europe, especially in central and northern parts, resemble those of established soybean-growing areas such as Canada’s southern prairies (Karges et al., 2022), adoption has proceeded slowly. While an increase in soybean cultivation areas is observable, especially in northern and eastern Europe, many suitable areas remain underutilized (Zimmer & Böttcher, 2021; Nendel et al., 2023). This is also the case for Germany. Although soybean cultivation expanded to 44,800 hectares nationwide by 2023, largely concentrated in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2024s), large areas with agronomic potential remain underutilized (Miersch, 2023; Roßberg and Recknagel, 2017). Lower Saxony, for example, has been identified as the federal state with the highest potential for soybean expansion, with approximately 1.39 million hectares – around 71% of its arable land – classified as suitable for soybean cultivation (Miersch, 2023). However, only 1,536 hectares were actually planted in 2023, accounting for just 3.4% of the national soybean area, of which 71.4% were grown under organic management (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2024b). This puzzling gap between potential and practice raises critical questions about the factors beyond agronomic suitability that influence farmers' cultivation decisions. While numerous studies have examined the technical aspects of soybean production in European contexts (e.g. Zeipina et al., 2022; Karges et al., 2022; Nendel et al., 2023; Rotundo et al., 2024) and general legume cultivation across Europe (e.g., Zimmer et al., 2016; Ferreira et al., 2021), the subjective perceptions of farmers specifically toward soybean cultivation have received remarkably little attention 1 . Against this background, this paper investigates German farmers' perceptions of soybean cultivation and develops a typology of their viewpoints. To accomplish this, we conducted an online survey with 28 farmers in Lower Saxony during 2024 and employed Q-methodology to analyze their perspectives. Lower Saxony was chosen as the study region due its highest potential for soybean cultivation expansion. Q-methodology was selected because it systematically identifies distinct subjective viewpoints and develops typologies that reflect different ways of understanding novel issues by combining qualitative and quantitative analysis (Brown, 1980) (e.g. soybean cultivation in Germany). Given that soybean cultivation is relatively new for European farmers and scientific evidence on farmers' perceptions remains limited, this method provides an appropriate framework for conducting the first systematic assessment of how German farmers view soybean cultivation prospects. Thus, through factor analysis of the Q-sorts, we identified three distinctive perspectives on soybean cultivation opportunities and barriers, providing insights into decision-making factors beyond agronomic suitability that influence cultivation choices. This paper makes several important contributions to the existing literature on soybean cultivation and agricultural innovation adoption which are of interest for several stakeholders. First, by applying Q-methodology to investigate German farmers' perceptions, we provide a nuanced typology of viewpoints. The identification of distinct perspectives shows that cultivation decisions go beyond agronomic site factors but are influenced by farm structural and regional characteristics, personal attitudes, and perceived barriers. Second, our research bridges the gap between agronomic potential and actual implementation by highlighting how subjective farmer perceptions mediate the relationship between objective cultivation potential and adoption behavior. Third, by identifying areas of consensus across otherwise divergent perspectives, this study offers practical insights for developing targeted interventions to promote sustainable protein crop production in Germany. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 details our application of the Q-method. Section 3 presents and discusses our empirical findings. We conclude by acknowledging limitations and suggesting directions for future research in Section 4. 2 Material and Methods This study employed Q-methodology, combining qualitative and quantitative approaches to identify distinct perspectives on soybean cultivation among German farmers (Brown, 1996). In this method, participants rank statements on a standardized scale, and these Q-sorts are analyzed using factor analysis to identify shared viewpoints (Watts and Stenner, 2005). 2.1 Development of the Q-Sample The Q-sample constitutes a collection of heterogeneous statements that participants evaluate and sort during Q-sorting (Watts and Stenner, 2005). Following McKeown and Thomas's (2013) approach, we developed a representative collection of statements from scientific and grey literature on opportunities and barriers for soybean cultivation in Germany, which is in line with most studies applying Q-methodology (Dieteren et al., 2023). To ensure balanced representation, we created two thematic categories ("opportunities" and "barriers"), each containing an equal number of statements. All statements were formulated for clarity and comprehensibility. Five expert evaluations and six pretests were conducted with farmers from Lower Saxony, including two with soybean cultivation experience. Minor adjustments improved comprehensibility, and two experts each added one opportunity and one barrier statement. Big 5 personality statements previously included were dropped due to the length of the survey. The final Q-sample consisted of 40 statements (20 opportunities, 20 barriers), within Brown's (1980) recommended range. The statements are shown in Table 1 and 2. Table 1 : Statements from the Q-Sample on Opportunities of Soybean Cultivation No. Statement Sources 1 The increasing demand for non-GMO, locally produced soybeans for human consumption and feed opens new markets and sales opportunities. Zimmer and Böttcher, 2021; Bundesinformationszentrum Landwirtschaft 2023; Deutscher Sojaförderring e. V., 2024b; Kreikenbohm and Mücke, 2022 2 High demand, stable prices, and good market opportunities make soybean cultivation lucrative. Weiher et al., 2025; Kreikenbohm and Mücke, 2022 3 Organizations such as the German Soy Promotion Association and government programs support soybean cultivation by disseminating knowledge, improving sales and utilization opportunities, and providing financial incentives within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Recknagel, 2015; Weiher et al., 2025 4 Climate change makes soybean cultivation more attractive as cultivation risks decrease, potential cultivation areas shift northward due to warming, and later maturing, higher-yielding varieties become viable. Roßberg and Recknagel, 2017; Nendel et al., 2023 5 Modern plant breeding develops varieties with better traits (yield, adaptation to cool climates, pod set, suitability for human consumption), making cultivation feasible and more profitable. Döttinger et al., 2023; Roßberg and Recknagel, 2017; Aigner, 2017; Coleman et al., 2021; Kreikenbohm and Mücke, 2022 6 Symbiotic nitrogen fixation by soybeans reduces the need for nitrogen fertilizers (for soybeans and subsequent crops), lowering costs. Watson et al., 2017; Schmidt et al., 2019; Unsleber, 2015 7 Soybeans have high preceding crop value, improve soil structure, and thus increase the profitability in crop rotations. Zimmer and Böttcher, 2021; Wilbois et al., 2015; Unsleber et al., 2018 8 Including soybeans in the crop rotation mitigates rotation problems (herbicide resistance, weed, pest, and disease pressure), reducing costs and pesticide use. Zimmer and Böttcher, 2021; Unsleber, 2015; Unsleber et al., 2018 9 Entering soybean cultivation is easy, as machines from other arable crops (e.g., cereals, rapeseed, other legumes) can be used. Fogelberg and Recknagel, 2017 10 Using specialized machinery (e.g., precision planters, flex headers) improves the cultivation system and enables cost and loss reductions while increasing yields and revenues. Zimmer and Böttcher, 2021; Fogelberg and Recknagel, 2017 11 With rising production volumes, sales opportunities for soybeans will improve, leading to more collection and processing points. This will ease entry into soybean cultivation and marketing. Recknagel, 2015 12 Forming producer groups can improve the economic conditions for soybean cultivation by pooling small batches into larger harvests, reducing transaction and transport costs, and achieving better farm-gate prices. Zimmer and Böttcher, 2021 13 Marketing and utilization through own initiatives is economically attractive, as higher producer prices can be obtained through sales to the food industry and GMO-free feed programs with in-farm use. Schmidt et al., 2019; Recknagel, 2015 14 Including soybeans in crop rotations spreads production risks and contributes to greater economic stability in arable farming. Schmidt et al., 2019 15 Soybean cultivation is attractive because it helps to level labor peaks. Boenisch and Sobko, 2022 16 Soybean cultivation helps fulfill requirements of the nutrient flow balance and regulations in red and eutrophic zones. Raiffeisen Warendorf eG, 2024 17 When extending the crop rotation, soybeans outperform other domestic legumes (field beans, peas) in economic terms, share in rotation, pest and disease pressure, yield stability, protein yield, and protein quality. Zimmer and Böttcher, 2021; Unsleber, 2015; Aigner, 2017; Roßberg and Recknagel, 2017 18 Digitalization in agriculture offers opportunities to optimize soybean cultivation. Gerhardt, 2022 19 Soybean cultivation is interesting because it allows farms to produce their own high-quality protein feed. Expert Evaluation 20 Soybean cultivation is an interesting way to improve the image of agriculture by demonstrating adaptability to developments and changes. Expert Evaluation Table 2 : Statements from the Q-Sample on Barriers to Soybean Cultivation (continued numbering from Table 1) No. Statement Sources 21 There is a lack of experience and knowledge regarding soybean cultivation, variety selection, and related topics. Roßberg and Recknagel, 2017; Weiher et al., 2025; Reckling et al., 2020 22 Marketing is difficult due to limited collection infrastructure and low harvest volumes, increasing costs and effort. Recknagel, 2015; Rieckmann, 2025; Zimmer and Böttcher, 2021 23 Lack of on-farm drying and storage facilities hinders cultivation when no nearby collection point exists. Recknagel, 2015; Weiher et al., 2025 24 Despite superior traits, other domestic legumes may be a better option for diversified cropping systems. Zimmer and Böttcher, 2021; Nendel et al., 2023 25 Failures and poor experiences of other farmers discourage soybean cultivation. Weiher et al., 2025 26 Soybeans are not economically competitive with other farm crops. Zimmer and Böttcher, 2021 27 Specialization, labor considerations, and crop rotation restrictions hinder soybean cultivation. Recknagel, 2015; Reckling et al., 2016 28 Seed reproduction restrictions increase seed costs and reduce profitability. Unsleber et al., 2018; Zimmer and Böttcher, 2021 29 Inadequate climatic conditions (cool and wet) may prohibit soybean cultivation. Sobko et al., 2020 30 Wet and cool conditions during harvest increase risks and may cause total losses. Kreikenbohm and Mücke, 2022; Unsleber et al., 2018; Nendel et al., 2023; Schmidt et al., 2019 31 Soybean cultivation involves more uncertainties and yield variability compared to familiar crops. Bavarian State Research Center For Agriculture, 2017 32 Low water retention soils, low summer rainfall, or lack of irrigation limit yield due to drought sensitivity. Karges et al., 2022; Schmidt et al., 2019 33 Weed control is challenging due to slow juvenile growth, limited herbicides, and poor competitiveness. Weiher et al., 2025; Fogelberg and Recknagel, 2017; Unsleber et al., 2018 34 Bird damage (e.g., pigeons) during emergence can lead to total crop failures. Lamichhane et al., 2020; Unsleber et al., 2018 35 High opportunity costs arise because no manure can be applied and has to be disposed of expensively. Zimmer and Böttcher, 2021 36 Due to fertilizer regulations, nitrogen savings on soybeans cannot benefit other crops, making it uneconomical. Zimmer and Böttcher, 2021 37 Antinutritional components and lack of thermal processing facilities hinder in-farm use of the harvest. Fogelberg and Recknagel, 2017; Recknagel, 2015 38 Soybean cultivation is internationally uncompetitive due to lack of access to GMO varieties. Dietrich, 2024 39 Soybean cultivation for human food competes with on-farm livestock production. Expert Evaluation 40 On-farm use of soybeans is unattractive if selling prices exceed the cost of purchased equivalent feed. Expert Evaluation 2.2 Participant Selection and Survey Implementation The P-sample in Q-methodology represents strategically selected participants who are relevant to the research question and can offer diverse viewpoints on the topic (McKeown and Thomas, 2013). Participants were farmers from Lower Saxony with arable farming operations, including both soybean cultivators and non-cultivators. To ensure this pre-defined target group membership, control questions were included in the survey to verify that all participants were farmers with arable land in Lower Saxony, Germany. The survey was conducted online in 2024 using QMethod software (Lutfallah and Buchanan, 2019). Participants accessed the survey through a provided link. The implementation followed the procedural steps recommended by McKeown and Thomas (2013), as outlined below. A complete representation of the entire survey is presented in Appendix I. Prior to data collection, all participants received a brief introduction to the research and its objectives, as well as the methodological approach. They were informed about participation conditions and data protection provisions, which required their active consent. Participants first completed a pre-sorting categorization of all statements of the Q-Sample (Table 1 and 2) according to agreement, disagreement, or neutrality in relation to their farm. The final Q-sorting instruction read: "In the Q-sorting, you should rank the statements according to the importance of opportunities and barriers for soybean cultivation on your farm. Read all statements carefully and evaluate each statement on a scale from 'strongly disagree for my farm' (-5) through 'neutral' (0) to 'strongly agree for my farm' (+5). Ensure that the ranking reflects the importance of opportunities and barriers for your farm. There are no incorrect or correct answers or perspectives." In the Q-sorting phase, participants began with statements they most strongly disagreed with. They were asked to place those statements first at the extreme negative positions, then proceeded toward neutral positions. The same approach was then applied to statements they agreed with, beginning at the extreme positive position. This approach assumed that participants are typically more certain in evaluating extreme statements than middle or neutral assessments (McKeown and Thomas, 2013). Lastly, neutral statements were placed. The applied Q-sort grid is shown in Figure 1. The Q-sorting was followed by a post-sorting phase which consisted of a questionnaire capturing participants' interpretations of their rankings and demographic information. Additionally, attention check items were integrated. Risk attitude and innovativeness were assessed both generally and specifically regarding the cultivation of new crops. These were measured using an 11-point self-assessment scale adapted from Dohmen et al. (2011) and based on the wording by Michels et al. (2024) (Appendix I). Survey received ethical approval (German Association for Experimental Economic Research e.V. Institutional Review Board Certificate No. zDP7g9JK; 06/04/2024). 2.3 Data Processing and Analysis In total, 44 participants began the study and answered questions about current soybean cultivation on their farms. Of these, 30 participants completed the Q-sorting. Among these, 29 completed the post-sorting questionnaire and provided information for the control variables. All participants indicated that their farms were located in Lower Saxony, and all passed the attention checks. One participant was excluded due to reporting difficulty with the mobile interface and self-reported time constraints, leaving 28 participants for final analysis. Analysis was conducted using the qmethod package in R (Zabala, 2014). For the analysis, we performed Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation which is currently the most common approach (Dieteren et al., 2023). A parallel analysis helped evaluate factor retention by examining eigenvalues and comparing them to random data simulations. A two-factor structure was selected based on the parallel analysis. The factor loadings were examined with the loa.and.flags () function to identify Q-sorts associated with each factor. Special attention was given to Q-sorts with negative loadings, which indicated an inverse relationship to the factor perspective and a potential bipolar factor. Defining statements for each perspective were identified by sorting z-scores, and visualizations were created to illustrate the differences and similarities across all three viewpoints. The distinguishing and consensus statements were identified using the qdc () function, revealing which statements differentiated between factors and which were similarly ranked across perspectives. The data and code are stored in the online supplementary material. 3 Results and Discussion 3.1 P-Sample Description The sample comprised 28 farmers (25 male, 3 female) with an average age of 46.37 years and 18.14 years of farm management experience. Educational backgrounds included certified master farmer or two-year vocational school (7 farmers each) and bachelor's degrees (6 farmers). Most participants (23) operated full-time farming operations, while 5 were part-time farmers. On a scale from 1 to 11 (1-5 = risk-averse, 6 = risk-neutral, 7-11 = risk-seeking), farmers rated their general risk willingness at an average of 6.25 and their risk willingness regarding the cultivation of new crops on their farm at 6.67. An average risk-neutral self-assessment corresponds to the observation of European Farmers by Garcia et al. (2024). On a scale from 1 to 11 (1-5 = innovation-averse, 6 = innovation-neutral, 7-11 = innovation-seeking), farmers rated their general innovativeness at an average of 7.67 and their willingness to innovate regarding the cultivation of new crops on their farm at 7.13. This aligns with the observation of Michels et al. (2024) labeling farmers as innovation-seeking on average using a self-assessment task. The majority practiced conventional farming (22), with 6 following organic principles. Arable farming was the primary operation for 17 participants, followed by dairy farming (6). Farms averaged 100.07 hectares of arable land (min. 30; max. 232) with a soil quality index of 53.57 (min. 23; max. 95), plus 17.28 hectares of grassland (min. 0; max 123). Leased land constituted 41.57% of total farm area. Eleven farms had land in designated "red zones" under German Fertilizer Regulation (Rote Gebiete, DüV §13a) with more strict nitrogen management regulations, while 17 had no affected areas. Average annual precipitation was 712.68 liters per square meter across farm locations. Ten farms had irrigation capabilities, while 18 did not. Eight farmers actively cultivated soybeans, with one additional farmer having prior soybean cultivation experience. Among those with soybean experience, the average cultivation period was 4.67 years. 3.2 Factor extraction and selection To determine the optimal number of factors to extract from the Q-sorts, both statistical and interpretative approaches were applied. Initial factor extraction was conducted using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation. The eigenvalues from the correlation matrix of Q-sorts provided the first indication for factor retention. The first seven eigenvalues were 6.48, 3.14, 2.11, 1.71, 1.63, 1.50, and 1.41, all exceeding the commonly applied Kaiser criterion of 1.0. These seven factors cumulatively explained 64.21% of the total variance. Parallel analysis was conducted, comparing the eigenvalues from the actual data against those generated from random data with the same dimensions. The parallel analysis strongly suggested a two-component solution, as only the first two eigenvalues from the actual data exceeded those from the simulated random data (Figure 2). 3.3 Factor Analysis Results The two-factor solution explained 26.20% of the total variance, with Factor 1 accounting for 16.10% and Factor 2 for 10.10%. Both factors demonstrated high reliability, with composite reliability coefficients of 0.96 and 0.95 respectively. The standard errors of factor scores (0.20 for Factor 1 and 0.22 for Factor 2) indicated good measurement precision. Further examination revealed Factor 1's bipolar structure, evidenced by both positive and negative loadings from different respondents. This bipolarity indicates that Factor 1 represents two opposing viewpoints on the same dimension. Respondents with negative loadings (Factor 1b) hold perspectives that are essentially inverse to those with positive loadings (Factor 1a). In practical terms, statements ranked positively by Factor 1a adherents are ranked negatively by Factor 1b adherents, and vice versa. The distribution of respondents across these perspectives is presented in Table 3. The correlation coefficient between factors Factor 1 and Factor 2 is 0.26, indicating a weak positive correlation between these two perspectives, highlighting that these perspectives are distinct. Table 3 : Factor Loading by Participant (ID) Factor Loading respondents (Q-Sorts) Total Factor 1 ID1, ID2, ID3, ID8, ID10, ID18, ID21, ID22, ID24, ID25, ID27, ID28, ID5 a , ID7 a 14 Factor 2 ID4, ID6, ID12, ID13, ID15, ID17, ID19, ID20, ID26 9 No Load ID9, ID11, ID14, ID16, ID23 5 a Negative Loading Several key consensus areas emerged across perspectives. Farmers from all groups agreed on the increasing demand for non-GMO, locally produced soybeans (Statement (S) 1, +0.77/+0.76) and recognized the benefits of modern plant breeding (S5, +1.18/+1.11). They moderately supported the notion that rising production volumes would improve marketing opportunities (S11, +0.61/+0.33). The perspectives also converged in their disagreement with statements suggesting other domestic legumes as better alternatives (S24, -0.80/-0.58) and concerns about seed reproduction restrictions (S28, -0.34/-0.42). Notably, all groups viewed weed control challenges neutrally (S33, -0.03/+0.30), neither emphasizing nor dismissing this potential barrier. Additional areas of consensus included disagreement with statements about opportunity costs from manure application restrictions (S35, -1.61/-1.45) and potential competition with livestock production (S39, -1.72/-1.68) (Table 4). Figure 3 illustrates these patterns, with convergence points representing shared viewpoints and divergent lines highlighting distinguishing statements between Factor 1 and Factor 2. Table 4 : Z-scores for Statement on Opportunities and Barriers of Soybean Cultivation Opportunities Barriers Statement Factor 1 Factor 2 Statement Factor 1 Factor 2 1 (C) 0.77 0.76 21 -1.01 a 0.55 b 2 0.44 a -1.64 b 22 -0.49 a 1.39 b 3 0.77 a -0.41 b 23 -0.77 a 1.67 b 4 0.97 a 1.98 b 24 (C) -0.80 -0.58 5 (C) 1.18 1.11 25 -0.82 a 0.90 b 6 1.49 a 1.04 b 26 -1.52 a 0.15 b 7 1.61 a 1.17 b 27 -1.15 a 0.20 b 8 0.93 a 0.28 b 28 (C) -0.34 -0.42 9 0.22 a 1.06 b 29 -1.65 a -0.62 b 10 0.86 a 0.13 b 30 -0.55 a 1.14 b 11 (C) 0.61 0.33 31 -0.40 a 1.97 b 12 1.27 a -0.23 b 32 0.01 a -1.33 b 13 0.86 a -0.50 b 33 (C) -0.03 0.30 14 1.47 a 0.44 b 34 0.42 a -0.15 b 15 -0.13 a -0.57 b 35 (C) -1.61 -1.45 16 0.15 a -0.85 b 36 -1.80 a -0.79 b 17 1.55 a -0.82 b 37 -0.17 a -1.33 b 18 0.17 a -0.32 b 38 -0.65 a -0.18 b 19 -1.05 a -1.58 b 39 (C) -1.72 -1.68 20 0.90 a -0.67 b 40 0.02 a -0.42 b Characteristics Factor 1 Factor 2 Percentage of variance explained 20.59 13.73 Number of loading Q-Sorts 14 9 Composite reliability 0.98 0.97 Standard error of factors scores 0.13 0.16 Z-scores represent the relative importance of each statement within a factor perspective. Different superscript letters (ᵃ,ᵇ) within a row indicate distinguishing rankings between factors. Statements marked (C) represent consensus viewpoints with similar rankings. Perspective 1a: Opportunity-Focused Perspective on Soybean Cultivation (n = 12) Perspective 1a represents farmers who view soybean cultivation primarily through an opportunity lens rather than focusing on constraints. This perspective emphasizes agronomic benefits, economic advantages, and crop rotation improvements while dismissing concerns about climate limitations, economic viability, and regulatory constraints. Farm Structure and Sociodemographic Characteristics This perspective is held by twelve male farmers (average age 46.91 years) with considerable farming experience (17.58 years). They manage substantial agricultural operations (121.88 ha arable land, soil quality index 50.50) predominantly as full-time farmers. These operations have balanced exposure to regulatory constraints, with nearly half having land in designated "red zones" under German Fertilizer Regulation (DüV). Most farms (7 of 12) have irrigation capabilities, and eight actively cultivate soybeans with an average experience of 5.13 years. These farmers demonstrate risk-seeking behavior (6.91 general, 8.25 for new crops) and strong innovation orientation (8.58 general, 8.66 for new crops). Agronomic Benefits The defining feature of this perspective is the strong recognition of soybeans' agronomic advantages. These farmers particularly value soil structure improvements (S7, z-score +1.61) and consider soybeans superior to other domestic legumes in multiple dimensions (e.g. economic returns, yield stability) (S17, z-score +1.55). One farmer explicitly highlights that among all legumes, soybeans are among the most attractive for their farm. They appreciate nitrogen fixation capabilities (S6, z-score +1.49) for reducing fertilizer requirements and costs. Risk diversification represents a key motivating factor, with strong agreement that soybeans contribute to greater economic stability in arable farming (S14, z-score +1.47). One farmer identified this as their primary cultivation reason, noting how soybeans help mitigate both weather-related risks and input cost fluctuations. These farmers also view producer group formation positively (S12, z-score +1.27), recognizing efficiency benefits through collective marketing approaches. One farmer reports trying to establish a fine cleaning process for edible products with their cooperative in order to achieve higher added value for their farming community. Climate and Economic Outlook These farmers firmly reject the notion that climatic conditions in Lower Saxony prohibit soybean cultivation (S29, z-score -1.65) They also see value in modern plant breeding developments (S5, z-score +1.18) and climate change adaptations (S4, z-score +0.97), which make cultivation more feasible and profitable. Technologies such as precision planters and flex headers offer substantial potential to improve efficiency by lowering input costs and harvest losses, while increasing yields and farm income (S10, z-score +0.86). One farmer notes that flex headers, although not yet widely available, are highly beneficial. They also emphasize the placement accuracy of precision planters, which leads to a more uniform crop stand and promotes faster, more synchronized emergence due to consistent sowing depth. Farmers with this perspective strongly disagree that soybeans lack economic competitiveness with other crops (S26, z-score -1.52). They dismiss concerns about fertilizer regulations (S36, z-score -1.80) and manure application restrictions (S35, z-score -1.61). They also strongly disagree that soybean cultivation for human food competes with on-farm livestock production (S39, z-score -1.72). One farmer reported economic advantages, with one finding soybeans competitive on sandy soils when participating in the EU's Common Agricultural Policy eco-scheme 2, while another achieved better profitability per unit of irrigation water compared to alternative crops. Knowledge These farmers believe there is sufficient knowledge and experience regarding soybean cultivation (S21, z-score -1.01). They are not deterred by others' negative experiences (S25, z-score -0.82) and do not perceive specialization, labor considerations, or crop rotation restrictions as barriers (S27, z-score -1.15). One farmer says that networking with other soybean farmers and advisors is extremely important and helpful. Balanced Considerations Despite their generally positive outlook, they maintain realistic awareness of challenges, including weed control difficulties (S33, z-score +0.03). They are neutral regarding whether soybean cultivation involves more uncertainties compared to familiar crops (S31, z-score -0.40). Interestingly, they do not view soybeans as particularly valuable for on-farm feed production (S19, z-score -1.05), suggesting their interest lies primarily in market opportunities and agronomic benefits rather than livestock integration. Perspective 1b: Skeptical Perspective on Soybean Cultivation (n = 2) This perspective represents farmers who hold fundamentally opposite views to Perspective 1a, demonstrating skepticism toward soybean cultivation in Lower Saxony. This viewpoint emerged from two farmers who loaded negatively on Factor 1, indicating a mirror-image perspective on the same statements. Farm Structure and Sociodemographic Characteristics These farmers are considerably older (average age 62) with extensive farming experience (37 years) than the farmers of the other factors. They operate conventional, full-time farms with moderate land holdings (61 hectares) characterized by lower soil quality (26.5 index points) and no irrigation infrastructure. Both manage land in designated "red zones" under German Fertilizer Regulation (DüV). One previously attempted soybean cultivation without success. Their risk and innovation profiles differ markedly from Factor 1a farmers. While moderately risk-neutral generally (6.5), they demonstrate risk aversion specifically toward new crops (4.0) and low innovation orientation in general (6.5) and especially for new crop cultivation (3.5). Both farmers are engaged in livestock farming. Manure Management The central barrier identified by these farmers involves manure management challenges. Their operations generate substantial manure that cannot be applied to soybeans and must be disposed of at high expense. The German Fertilizer Regulation (DüV) compounds this issue by preventing nitrogen reallocation to other high-demand crops when growing nitrogen-fixing legumes which have no nitrogen requirement, further reducing economic viability. Negative Experiences Direct negative experiences reinforce their skepticism. One farmer's complete crop failure due to adverse weather and poor soil conditions substantiates their belief that Lower Saxony's climate makes soybean production excessively risky. This contrasts sharply with Factor 1a's confidence in regional climatic suitability. Operational Barriers Practical operational constraints further limit adoption potential. The farmers note that simultaneous cultivation of corn and soybeans would create unmanageable labor demands during critical periods. Additionally, they cannot reduce corn acreage because it provides essential livestock feed. This highlights how existing farm systems can create path dependencies that inhibit diversification. Multiple Challenges These farmers identify a comprehensive set of barriers spanning multiple domains: Marketing infrastructure: Perceived inadequate regional collection networks create market access uncertainty Weed management: Concerns about soybeans' competitive weakness against problematic weeds, particularly nutsedge/nutgrass Rotation impacts: Belief that soybean cultivation would increase rather than decrease overall weed pressure in their crop rotations Technological skepticism: Limited confidence in digitalization's potential to improve soybean cultivation outcomes Despite their predominant skepticism, these farmers recognize limited potential advantages in soybean cultivation for on-farm protein production and acknowledge that climate change might improve future cultivation prospects. Perspective 2: Market-Oriented, yet Risk-averse Perspective (n = 9) Perspective 2 represents a cautiously pragmatic viewpoint that balances current uncertainties against future opportunities. These farmers evaluate soybean cultivation primarily through market and infrastructure realities while maintaining openness to future possibilities as conditions evolve. Farm Structure and Sociodemographic Characteristics This perspective is held by nine farmers (eight male, one female) with an average age of 46.44 years and 16.33 years of management experience. Most operate full-time farms managing 91.56 hectares of arable land with superior soil quality (70.78 soil quality points). These operations face less regulatory constraints regarding nitrogen fertilization, with only one farm having land in designated "red zones" under German Fertilizer Regulation (DüV). Notably, none of these farmers have irrigation capabilities or soybean cultivation experience. Their risk and innovation profiles indicate slight risk aversion (5.98 general, 5.44 for new crops) and moderate innovation orientation (6.89 general, 6.22 for new crops). Livestock Considerations Most of these farmers do not have livestock operations, which influences their perspective on certain aspects of soybean cultivation. They strongly disagree that soybean cultivation for human consumption competes with livestock production (S39, z-score -1.68). One farmer in this group, who does have livestock, adds that production for human consumption is not competitive but complementary. Due to the absence of livestock, these farmers do not view soybeans as valuable for producing on-farm protein feed (S19, z-score -1.58), but also note that this means no opportunity costs arise from manure application restrictions (S35, z-score -1.45). Current Barriers and Uncertainties The defining feature of this perspective is strong recognition of cultivation uncertainties compared to familiar crops (S31, z-score +1.97). These farmers express concerns about wet and cool harvest conditions potentially causing crop failures (S30, z-score +1.14) and acknowledge that others' negative experiences discourage their interest (S25, z-score +0.90). One farmer explicitly states that unsuccessful soybean cultivation in neighboring farms has deterred him from attempting it himself, and another farmer similarly bases his decision on others' negative experiences. However, an additional farmer cautions against relying solely on others' failures, noting that the underlying causes are rarely known. Infrastructure and marketing challenges represent important barriers. They identify lack of on-farm drying and storage facilities as problematic when soybean-accepting agriculture traders are distant (S23, z-score +1.67) and recognize marketing difficulties due to limited infrastructure (S22, z-score +1.39). One farmer noted that as a cash crop operation, marketability is essential, but local agricultural traders do not accept soybeans. Another farmer adds that local processing and marketing are critical for successful soybean cultivation. These farmers strongly disagree that current market conditions make soybean cultivation lucrative (S2, z-score -1.64). Future Opportunities Despite current barriers, these farmers strongly agree that climate change enhances soybean cultivation prospects (S4, z-score +1.98). They anticipate opportunities through the combined effects of climate change and plant breeding advancements (S5, z-score +1.11). One farmer explicitly noted that plant breeding has historically improved cultivation viability for various crops. These farmers appreciate practical considerations like the ability to use existing machinery (S9, z-score +1.06) and value soybeans' agronomic benefits including nitrogen fixation (S6, z-score +1.04) and preceding-crop value (S7, z-score +1.17). They do not anticipate drought-related yield reductions (S32, z-score -1.33). Non-Loading Respondents: Mixed Perspectives on Soybean Cultivation (n = 5) Five farmers (17.9% of respondents) did not align strongly with any identified factor, displaying hybrid perspectives that combined elements from multiple viewpoints. This suggests additional complexity in farmers' evaluations of soybean cultivation beyond the three clearly identified perspectives. 3.4 Discussion Our analysis identifies three distinct perspectives among Lower Saxony farmers regarding soybean cultivation: Opportunity-Focused (Factor 1a), Skepticism (Factor 1b), and Market-Oriented yet Risk-Averse (Factor 2). These perspectives provide important insights into why, despite increasing potential cultivation areas in in Germany, actual soybean acreage remains limited. Contrasting Perspectives on Agronomic Benefits Farmers with the Opportunity-Focused and Skepticism perspectives hold diametrically opposed views on soybean cultivation, stemming from Factor 1's bipolar structure. While Perspective 1a farmers perceive numerous advantages and minimal barriers, Perspective 1b farmers emphasize constraints, particularly related to manure management and operational limitations. The divergent views on nitrogen fixation benefits exemplify this contrast. Perspective 1a farmers value the cost reduction potential of symbiotic nitrogen fixation, aligning with findings from Schmidt et al. (2019) that fixed nitrogen becomes available to subsequent crops, reducing fertilizer costs (Unsleber, 2015). However, Perspective 1b farmers cannot realize these benefits due to excess manure on their farms, reflecting Zimmer and Böttcher's (2021) observation that farms with high livestock density face economic constraints in crop rotation due to fertilizer regulations. Similar contrasts exist regarding crop rotation benefits. Perspective 1a farmers appreciate soybeans' preceding-crop value, which increases the profitability of subsequent crops (Zimmer and Böttcher, 2021). They view soybeans as valuable for diversifying crop rotations, supporting findings by Zander et al. (2016) and Reckling et al. (2016). Perspective 1b farmers, again constrained by manure management issues, do not share this perspective. The economic competitiveness of soybeans also divides farmers. Perspective 1a farmers consider soybeans competitive with other crops, while Perspective 1b farmers disagree. Perspective 2 farmers maintain a neutral position. According to Zimmer and Böttcher (2021), soybeans in northern Germany struggle to compete with crops like rapeseed. Zander et al. (2016) frame farmers' decisions to grow legumes as economic trade-offs between net yield and alternative crops, with the evaluation of non-marketable benefits depending on factors including plant protection costs, fertilizer costs, and farmers' personal valuations. Areas of Consensus Despite their differences, all three perspectives show agreement on several important aspects. Climate change represents a notable area of consensus, with all groups recognizing its potential benefits for soybean cultivation. This aligns with Roßberg and Recknagel's (2017) findings that climate change makes soybean cultivation in Germany increasingly attractive. Nendel et al. (2023) note that warming extends potential cultivation areas northward, increases viability of higher-yielding varieties, and reduces cultivation risks. Farmers in Perspective 1a and 2 agree on the importance of plant breeding advancements. Recent years have seen the development of early-maturing varieties with good yield potential, improving economic viability (Aigner, 2017). Breeding has produced varieties adapted to shorter growing periods and colder conditions (Döttinger et al., 2023), as well as varieties with higher pod attachment points that are easier to harvest (Coleman et al., 2021). Regarding barriers, all three perspectives acknowledge the uncertainties associated with soybean cultivation compared to familiar crops, though with varying emphasis. According to Reckling et al. (2020), soybean yields fluctuate in ways that agricultural methods can only partially mitigate. These fluctuations are often greater than for other crops (Bayerische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft, 2017). Soybean cultivation in cool, humid regions like Lower Saxony is not without risk, as it is not always warm enough for timely ripening (Kreikenbohm and Mücke, 2022). The risk of extended periods of poor weather increases the later the harvest occurs (Unsleber et al., 2018). Weed control represents another shared concern. Weiher et al. (2025) note that soybeans' slow juvenile development and low competitiveness until row closure make weed management challenging. Chemical weed control options are limited to the few approved herbicides, making it difficult to control field bindweed, creeping thistle, and black nightshade (Fogelberg and Recknagel, 2017). Mechanical weed control is especially challenging on fields with high weed pressure (Unsleber et al., 2018). Marketing challenges are emphasized by Perspective 1b and 2, and acknowledged by some Factor 1a farmers. Recknagel (2015) notes that soybeans are not yet comprehensively collected, which Rieckmann (2025) identifies as the main reason for the slow expansion of conventional soybean cultivation in Lower Saxony. Currently, there is only one collector for soybeans in Lower Saxony, alongside some supra-regional collectors (Deutscher Sojaförderring e.V., 2024a). Small harvest volumes increase the effort required for inspection, acceptance, storage, and transport, all of which raise costs (Zimmer and Böttcher, 2021). Factor-Specific Considerations Some considerations are unique to specific perspectives. Perspective 1a farmers emphasize that soybean cultivation in Lower Saxony is fundamentally possible, contradicting Zimmer and Böttcher's (2021) assertion that cultivation north of German highway 2 (A2) is feasible only in exceptional cases. Seven of the eight Perspective 1a farmers who grow soybeans are located north of this line, demonstrating that cultivation is viable in more northern areas of Lower Saxony. Factor 1a farmers also value specialized machinery, such as precision planters that can reduce seeding rates by 10% and lower costs (Zimmer and Böttcher, 2021). Flex headers are appreciated for reducing losses by adapting to ground contours and cutting soybeans close to the soil surface, making it easier to harvest lower pods (Zimmer and Böttcher, 2021). Own-initiative marketing represents another opportunity recognized by Perspective 1a farmers. Schmidt et al. (2019) recommend active marketing, price hedging through forward contracts, production for food markets, and on-farm utilization. Recknagel (2015) notes that marketing to GMO-free feed manufacturers is also interesting. Perspective 1b farmers uniquely express skepticism about digitalization's potential to optimize soybean cultivation. This contrasts with Gerhardt's (2022) view that digitalization will positively transform agriculture by improving cost structures, increasing yields, and enhancing product quality through greater efficiency and effectiveness. Implications for Expanding Soybean Cultivation Our findings reveal that the discrepancy between potential and actual soybean cultivation area cannot be explained by natural site factors alone. Farmers' attitudes, experiences, farm conditions, market realities, and future expectations regarding opportunities and barriers play decisive roles. Q-methodology has been particularly valuable in uncovering these diverse perspectives, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of adoption barriers and opportunities. The consensus and contrasting perspectives identified provide valuable insights for developing targeted measures to promote soybean cultivation. For policy interventions, we recommend a balanced approach combining infrastructure development and targeted knowledge transfer. Infrastructure development should prioritize supporting regional processing facilities for both feed and food-grade soybeans, addressing marketing challenges acknowledged across all farmer perspectives. These facilities would reduce transportation costs and improve farm-gate prices while creating necessary market access points. Complementing this, knowledge transfer initiatives should develop perspective-specific advisory services tailored to farmers' distinct needs: agronomic optimization for Perspective 1a farmers to build on their positive experiences, and risk management strategies with demonstration farms for Perspective 2 farmers to address their uncertainties while showcasing viable practices. Producer cooperatives and fixed-price contracts could further stabilize the market environment, providing volume advantages for processing and reducing price uncertainty for risk-averse farmers. This multi-faceted approach respects market mechanisms while creating enabling conditions for farmers to make informed cultivation decisions based on their specific circumstances and perspectives. 4 Concluding Remarks Based on a Q-Method survey with 28 farmers conducted in 2024, this study revealed three distinct farmer perspectives regarding soybean cultivation in Germany: Opportunity-Focused, Skepticism, and Market-Oriented yet Risk-Averse. This sample size is consistent with standard Q-methodology practice, which typically employs smaller samples to identify subjective viewpoints rather than generalizing to populations. The regional focus on Lower Saxony represents a limitation that future studies could address through multi-regional or national investigations. Nevertheless, this research offers valuable insights into cultivation barriers and opportunities that can inform targeted interventions. Our findings demonstrate that the gap between potential and actual cultivation extends beyond agronomic limitations to encompass farmers' attitudes, experiences, farm conditions, and market realities. Despite divergent viewpoints, important areas of consensus emerged around climate change opportunities, plant breeding benefits, and shared challenges in marketing and weed control. These provide common ground for developing targeted interventions. Still, expanding sustainable soybean production in Germany requires differentiated approaches addressing specific barriers identified by each farmer perspective. Effective strategies should combine policy interventions establishing regional cultivation targets, infrastructure development supporting regional processing facilities, and knowledge transfer initiatives offering tailored advisory services. By addressing the complex factors influencing farmer decision-making, policymakers and agricultural organizations can develop more effective strategies that enhance domestic protein production while contributing to more sustainable agricultural systems in Germany. Ultimately and on a larger scale, this potentially supports greater agricultural resilience and reduced environmental impact through diversified cropping systems. Declarations The authors report there are no competing interests to declare. References Bayerische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft (2017): 9. Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der Sojabohne gegenüber Vergleichsfrüchten 2017. Retrieved from https://www.lfl.bayern.de/mam/cms07/iba/dateien/wettbewerbsf%C3%A4higkeit_der_sojabohne_gegen%C3%BCber_vergleichsfr%C3%BCchten_2017.pdf. Abruf: 14.6.2025. Bundesinformationszentrum Landwirtschaft (2023): Marktrecherche Hülsenfrüchte (inkl. Sojabohnen). Retrieved from https://www.ble.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/BZL/Daten-Berichte/OeleFette/JaehrlicheErgebnisse/2022_Bericht_Marktlage_Huelsenfruechte.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 Boenisch, A., & Sobko, O. (2022): Sojaanbau aus Überzeugung - mit kritischem Blick. Praxisnah. Retrieved from: https://www.praxisnah.de/index.cfm/article/11433.html?longversionDownloads/SD_praxisnah_LeguminosenSoja-VFinale.pdf. Brown, S. R. (1980). Political Subjectivity. Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. Yale University Press. Deutscher Sojaförderring e.V. (2024a): Erfasser und Dienstleister - Partner für die Landwirtschaft. Retrieved from https://www.sojafoerderring.de/nach-der-ernte/erfasser-und-dienstleister/ Deutscher Sojaförderring e.V. (2024b): Herstellern von Lebensmitteln aus Soja. Retrieved from https://www.sojafoerderring.de/nach-der-ernte/soja-verarbeitung/hersteller/ Dieteren, C. M., Patty, N. J., Reckers-Droog, V. T., & van Exel, J. (2023). Methodological choices in applications of Q methodology: A systematic literature review. Social Sciences & Humanities Open , 7 (1), 100404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100404 Dietrich, M. (2024): Sojaanbau in Deutschland: Nische oder handfeste Option? Top Agrar . Retrieved from https://www.topagrar.com/perspektiven/news/sojaanbau-in-deutschland-nische-oder-handfeste-option-a-20000890.html?upgrade=true Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the european economic association , 9 (3), 522-550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.x Döttinger, C. A., Hahn, V., Leiser, W. L., & Würschum, T. (2023). Do we need to breed for regional adaptation in soybean?—Evaluation of genotype-by-location interaction and trait stability of soybean in Germany. Plants , 12 (4), 756. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12040756 European Commission. (2023). Reducing the plant protein deficit in the EU . Retrieved from https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/farming/crop-productions-and-plant-based-products/cereals/reducing-plan-protein-deficit-eu_en European Commission. (2024). Feed protein: overview of EU production and options to diversify sources . Retrieved from https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/media/news/feed-protein-overview-eu-production-and-options-diversify-sources-2024-05-24_en European Parliament. (2023). European Parliament resolution of 19 October 2023 European protein strategy . Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0375_EN.html Eurostat. (2025). Crop production in EU standard humidity . Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/apro_cpsh1__custom_17133830/default/table DOI: 10.2908/apro_cpsh1 EPRS. (2023). EU protein strategy: Towards sustainable and resilient food systems . European Parliamentary Research Service. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/751426/EPRS_BRI(2023)751426_EN.pdf Fang, C., & Kong, F. (2022). Soybean. Current Biology , 32 (17), R902-R904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.06.054 FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2025). FAOSTAT: Crops and livestock products . Fogelberg, F., & Recknagel, J. (2017): Developing Soy Production in Central and Northern Europe. In: Murphy-Bokern, D., C. Watson and F. Stoddard (Hrsg.): Legumes in Cropping Systems. CABI, United Kindom: 109–124. Ferreira, H., Pinto, E., & Vasconcelos, M. W. (2021). Legumes as a cornerstone of the transition toward more sustainable agri-food systems and diets in Europe. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems , 5 , 694121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.694121 Garcia, V., McCallum, C., & Finger, R. (2024). Heterogeneity of European farmers’ risk preferences: an individual participant data meta-analysis. European Review of Agricultural Economics , 51 (3), 725-778. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbae012 Systemiq (2025). A Taste of Tomorrow. How protein diversification can strengthen Germany’s economcy. Retrieved from: https://www.systemiq.earth/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/A-Taste-of-Tomorrow-How-protein-diversification-can-strengthen-Germanys-economy_Systemiq_English_Final_17.02.2025.pdf Karges, K., Bellingrath-Kimura, S. D., Watson, C. A., Stoddard, F. L., Halwani, M., & Reckling, M. (2022). Agro-economic prospects for expanding soybean production beyond its current northerly limit in Europe. European Journal of Agronomy , 133 , 126415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2021.126415 Klaiss, M., Schmid, N., Betrix, C. A., Baux, A., Charles, R., & Messmer, M. M. (2020). Organic soybean production in Switzerland. OCL , 27 , 64. https://doi.org/10.1051/ocl/2020059 Kreikenbohm, C., & Mücke, M. (2022): Ergebnisse der Landessortenversuche Sojabohnen im Ökologischen Landbau 2022. Landwirtschfaftskammer Niedersachsen. Retrieved from https://www.lwk-niedersachsen.de/services/download.cfm?file=38883. Lamichhane, J. R., Constantin, J., Schoving, C., Maury, P., Debaeke, P., Aubertot, J. N., & Dürr, C. (2020). Analysis of soybean germination, emergence, and prediction of a possible northward establishment of the crop under climate change. European Journal of Agronomy , 113 , 125972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2019.125972 Liu, S., Zhang, P., Marley, B., & Liu, W. (2019). The factors affecting farmers’ soybean planting behavior in Heilongjiang Province, China. Agriculture , 9 (9), 188. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9090188 Lutfallah, S., & Buchanan, L. (2019). Quantifying subjective data using online Q-methodology software. The Mental Lexicon , 14 (3), 415-423. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.20002.lut Michels, M., Rieling, J. A., & Musshoff, O. (2024). Risk attitude, innovativeness, and financial literacy—A cross-occupational comparison of German farmers and foresters. Q Open , 4 (1), qoae007. https://doi.org/10.1093/qopen/qoae007 Miersch, M. (2023): Anbaueignung von Sojabohnen in Deutschland. Deutscher Sojaförderring e.V., Emmendingen. Retrieved from: https://www.sojafoerderring.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Anbaueignung-von-Sojabohnen-in-Deutschland_Soja-Fachinfo-2023.pdf. Nendel, C., Reckling, M., Debaeke, P., Schulz, S., Berg‐Mohnicke, M., Constantin, J., ... & Battisti, R. (2023). Future area expansion outweighs increasing drought risk for soybean in Europe. Global Change Biology , 29 (5), 1340-1358. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16562 Nget, R., Aguilar, E. A., Cruz, P. C. S., Reaño, C. E., Sanchez, P. B., Reyes, M. R., & Prasad, P. V. (2021). Overview of farmers’ perceptions of current status and constraints to soybean production in Ratanakiri province of Cambodia. Sustainability , 13 (8), 4433. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084433 Raiffeisen Warendorf eG (2024): Deutsche Sojabohne. Regionales Eiweiß – gute Erträge – ohne Gentechnik. Retrieved from https://www.raiffeisen-warendorf.de/pflanzenbau/sojabohnen-anbau.html. 26.4.2024. Reckling, M., Bergkvist, G., Watson, C. A., Stoddard, F. L., Zander, P. M., Walker, R. L., ... & Bachinger, J. (2016). Trade-offs between economic and environmental impacts of introducing legumes into cropping systems. Frontiers in plant science , 7 , 669. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00669 Recknagel, J. (2015). „Soja-Anbaupotentiale und Absatzmöglichkeiten in Deutschland “. Soja-Tagung 2015 , 14. Rieckmann, C. (2025). Landessortenversuche 2020: Sojabohnen. Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen. Retrieved from https://www.lwk-niedersachsen.de/lwk/news/36915_Landessortenversuche_2020_Sojabohnen. Rotundo, J. L., Marshall, R., McCormick, R., Truong, S. K., Styles, D., Gerde, J. A., ... & Rufino, M. C. (2024). European soybean to benefit people and the environment. Scientific reports , 14 (1), 7612. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-57522-z Roßberg, D., & Recknagel, J. (2017). Untersuchungen zur Anbaueignung von Sojabohnen in Deutschland. Journal of Cultivated Plants/Journal für Kulturpflanzen , 69 (4). Doi: 10.1399/JfK.2017.04.02 Schmidt, H., Langanky, L., Wolf, L., & Schätzl, R. (2019). Soja-Anbau in der Praxis: Ackerbau & Ökonomie – ökologisch und konventionell . Verlag Dr. Köster. Sobko, O., Stahl, A., Hahn, V., Zikeli, S., Claupein, W., & Gruber, S. (2020). Environmental effects on soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr) production in central and South Germany. Agronomy , 10 (12), 1847. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10121847 Statista (2025). Importmenge von Sojabohnen nach Deutschland in den Jahren 2008 bis 2024. Retrieved from: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1139068/umfrage/importmenge-von-sojabohnen-nach-deutschland-seit-2008/ Statistisches Bundesamt (2024a). Anbaufläche, Erntemenge, Ertrag je Hektar (Feldfrüchte und Grünland): Bundesländer, Jahre, Fruchtarten. Code: 41241-0010. Retrieved from: https://www-genesis.destatis.de/datenbank/online. Statistisches Bundesamt (2024b): Anbaufläche, Erntemenge, Ertrag je Hektar (Feldfrüchte und Grünland): Deutschland, Jahre, Fruchtarten. Code: 41241-0005. Retrieved from: https://www-genesis.destatis.de/datenbank/online Sudarić, A. (2020). Introductory chapter: soybean-quality and utilization. Soybean for Human Consumption and Animal Feed , 1-5. Toleikiene, M., Slepetys, J., Sarunaite, L., Lazauskas, S., Deveikyte, I., & Kadziuliene, Z. (2021). Soybean development and productivity in response to organic management above the northern boundary of soybean distribution in Europe. Agronomy , 11 (2), 214. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020214 Unsleber, J. (2015). Sojaanbau – Chance oder Risiko. Wochenblatt für Landwirtschaft und Landleben 43/2015. Retrieved from https://www.sojafoerderring.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Sojananbau-F4315.pdf Unsleber, J., Kreikenbohm, C., Schätzl, R., Braun, S., Nadler, C., & Reindl, A. (2018). Soja – Anbau und Verwertung. Bayerische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft. Retrieved from https://www.lfl.bayern.de/mam/cms07/schwerpunkte/dateien/handreichung_soja_-_anbau_und_verwertung_komprimiert.pdf. Watson, C. A., Reckling, M., Preissel, S., Bachinger, J., Bergkvist, G., Kuhlman, T., ... & Stoddard, F. L. (2017). Grain legume production and use in European agricultural systems. Advances in agronomy , 144 , 235-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2017.03.003 Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q Methodology: Theory, Method and Interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2 (1), 67–91. Doi: 10.1191/1478088705qp022oa. WBAE (2025). Mehr Auswahl am gemeinsamen Tisch: Alternativprodukte zu tierischen Lebensmitteln als Beitrag zu einer nachhaltigeren Ernährung. Wissenschaftlicher Beitrat für Agrarpolitik, Ernährung und gesundheitlichen Verbraucherschutz. Retrieved from: https://www.bmleh.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/_Ministerium/Beiraete/agrarpolitik/alternativprodukte-tierische-lebensmittel.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4 Weiher, N., Tschigg, S., Schätzl, R., Wolf, L., Gain, A., Pfeiffer, T., Mayus, M., & Miersch, M. (2025). Schlussbericht zum Thema “Modellhaftes Demonstrationsnetzwerk zur Ausweitung und Verbesserung des Anbaus und der Verwertung von Sojabohnen in Deutschland“. Retrieved from https://www.sojafoerderring.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Abschlussbericht-Projekt-Sojanetzwerk-2013-2018.pdf. Zander, P., Amjath-Babu, T. S., Preissel, S., Reckling, M., Bues, A., Schläfke, N., ... & Watson, C. (2016). Grain legume decline and potential recovery in European agriculture: a review. Agronomy for sustainable development , 36 (2), 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0365-y Zimmer, Y. & Böttcher, T. (2021): Mit Sojaanbau profitabel Fruchtfolgen erweitern? Thünen Working Paper 169. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, Braunschweig. Retrieved from https://literatur.thuenen.de/digbib_extern/dn063361.pdf Zimmer, S., Liebe, U., Didier, J. P., & Heß, J. (2016). Luxembourgish farmers’ lack of information about grain legume cultivation. Agronomy for Sustainable Development , 36 (1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0339-5 Zeipiņa, S., Vågen, I. M., & Lepse, L. (2022). Possibility of vegetable soybean cultivation in North Europe. Horticulturae , 8 (7), 593. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8070593 Footnotes It should be noted that there are several studies paying attention to farmers’ perception of soybean cultivation with a focus on low- and middle-income countries (e.g. Nget et al., 2021 ; Liu et al., 2019 ), but comparable research in a European context remains scarce. Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7367959","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":500160042,"identity":"8d64c95d-6e40-4693-b63b-d59ca509b6e2","order_by":0,"name":"Marius Michels","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4391-4457","institution":"Georg-August-Universität Göttingen","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marius","middleName":"","lastName":"Michels","suffix":""},{"id":500160043,"identity":"9d5a38db-c1d2-4e00-884f-c45ea5951e07","order_by":1,"name":"Thido Oldewurtel","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Georg-August-Universität Göttingen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Thido","middleName":"","lastName":"Oldewurtel","suffix":""},{"id":500160044,"identity":"a1cd99b6-e84a-4e2f-b96f-5228e3c9b7ad","order_by":2,"name":"Hendrik Wever","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Georg-August-Universität Göttingen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hendrik","middleName":"","lastName":"Wever","suffix":""},{"id":500160045,"identity":"bef241b9-e755-4c11-88d9-f118ccc00c59","order_by":3,"name":"Oliver Mußhoff","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Georg-August-Universität Göttingen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Oliver","middleName":"","lastName":"Mußhoff","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-13 20:26:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7367959/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7367959/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":89266547,"identity":"5303fb54-48c8-4be1-8264-cef03666e03e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-18 08:16:03","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":9709,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQ-Sort grid\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7367959/v1/7a7e40fe8f1883b0599ebab7.png"},{"id":89268172,"identity":"e4bfcc6c-cbf1-48c9-b3e5-e8dccfbbbdc3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-18 08:24:03","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":14508,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParallel Analysis.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7367959/v1/6a281191226a39d978f4bc14.png"},{"id":89266549,"identity":"4eb3be51-a68d-49fa-8af4-9003911b3ba0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-18 08:16:03","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":30271,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eComparison of Z-scores across Factors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7367959/v1/4b9c8015bb4f33c647c3b33a.png"},{"id":89268920,"identity":"7838b2a6-9f3c-4da1-bee8-46bf7078aa7f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-18 08:32:04","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":977971,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7367959/v1/42cec287-82bf-43ae-9893-94ea5778be95.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGerman farmers’ perceptions of soybean cultivation – A Q-methodology analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eEuropean agricultural policy has increasingly emphasized the domestic production of protein crops to enhance food security, reduce reliance on imports, and support more sustainable farming systems (European Commission, 2023; EPRS, 2023). One of the objectives of this plant protein strategy is to make cultivation of soybean and other protein crops in Europe more competitive (Ferreira et al., 2021; Nendel et al., 2023). Despite these policy efforts, the European Union (EU) remains structurally dependent on external protein sources, producing only 75% of its feed protein needs (European Commission, 2024) and reaching just 29% self-sufficiency in high-quality protein inputs (European Parliament, 2023).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a globally important oilseed and protein crop (Sudarić, 2020; Fang and Kong, 2022), soybeans (\u003cem\u003eGlycine max\u003c/em\u003e) as a legume offer considerable potential for diversifying European cropping systems, owing to their high protein content, nitrogen-fixing capabilities, and environmental co-benefits (Reckling et al., 2016; Klaiss et al., 2020; Ferreira et al., 2021; Toleikiene et al., 2021; Rotundo, 2024). Nevertheless, EU soybean production remains limited. In 2024, only 3.05 million tons were harvested from 1.12 million hectares, primarily in southern regions such as Italy, Romania, and France (Eurostat, 2025). The shortfall is offset by substantial imports amounting to 15.3 million tons in 2023, including 3.2 million tons to Germany alone (FAO, 2025; Statista, 2025). Furthermore, Germany has launched a \u0026ldquo;protein transition\u0026rdquo; strategy including targeted funding for plant-based and alternative proteins (Systemiq, 2025; WBAE, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Europe, soybean is still a relatively new crop in terms of cultivation. While agronomic conditions in Europe, especially in central and northern parts, resemble those of established soybean-growing areas such as Canada\u0026rsquo;s southern prairies (Karges et al., 2022), adoption has proceeded slowly. While an increase in soybean cultivation areas is observable, especially in northern and eastern Europe, many suitable areas remain underutilized (Zimmer \u0026amp; B\u0026ouml;ttcher, 2021; Nendel et al., 2023). This is also the case for Germany. Although soybean cultivation expanded to 44,800 hectares nationwide by 2023, largely concentrated in Bavaria and Baden-W\u0026uuml;rttemberg (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2024s), large areas with agronomic potential remain underutilized (Miersch, 2023; Ro\u0026szlig;berg and Recknagel, 2017). Lower Saxony, for example, has been identified as the federal state with the highest potential for soybean expansion, with approximately 1.39 million hectares \u0026ndash; around 71% of its arable land \u0026ndash; classified as suitable for soybean cultivation (Miersch, 2023). However, only 1,536 hectares were actually planted in 2023, accounting for just 3.4% of the national soybean area, of which 71.4% were grown under organic management (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2024b).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis puzzling gap between potential and practice raises critical questions about the factors beyond agronomic suitability that influence farmers\u0026apos; cultivation decisions. While numerous studies have examined the technical aspects of soybean production in European contexts (e.g. Zeipina et al., 2022; Karges et al., 2022; Nendel et al., 2023; Rotundo et al., 2024) and general legume cultivation across Europe (e.g., Zimmer et al., 2016; Ferreira et al., 2021), the subjective perceptions of farmers specifically toward soybean cultivation have received remarkably little attention\u003ca href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\" title=\"\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAgainst this background, this paper investigates German farmers\u0026apos; perceptions of soybean cultivation and develops a typology of their viewpoints. To accomplish this, we conducted an online survey with 28 farmers in Lower Saxony during 2024 and employed Q-methodology to analyze their perspectives. Lower Saxony was chosen as the study region due its highest potential for soybean cultivation expansion. Q-methodology was selected because it systematically identifies distinct subjective viewpoints and develops typologies that reflect different ways of understanding novel issues by combining qualitative and quantitative analysis (Brown, 1980) (e.g. soybean cultivation in Germany). Given that soybean cultivation is relatively new for European farmers and scientific evidence on farmers\u0026apos; perceptions remains limited, this method provides an appropriate framework for conducting the first systematic assessment of how German farmers view soybean cultivation prospects. Thus, through factor analysis of the Q-sorts, we identified three distinctive perspectives on soybean cultivation opportunities and barriers, providing insights into decision-making factors beyond agronomic suitability that influence cultivation choices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis paper makes several important contributions to the existing literature on soybean cultivation and agricultural innovation adoption which are of interest for several stakeholders. First, by applying Q-methodology to investigate German farmers\u0026apos; perceptions, we provide a nuanced typology of viewpoints. The identification of distinct perspectives shows that cultivation decisions go beyond agronomic site factors but are influenced by farm structural and regional characteristics, personal attitudes, and perceived barriers. Second, our research bridges the gap between agronomic potential and actual implementation by highlighting how subjective farmer perceptions mediate the relationship between objective cultivation potential and adoption behavior. Third, by identifying areas of consensus across otherwise divergent perspectives, this study offers practical insights for developing targeted interventions to promote sustainable protein crop production in Germany.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 details our application of the Q-method. Section 3 presents and discusses our empirical findings. We conclude by acknowledging limitations and suggesting directions for future research in Section 4.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 Material and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employed Q-methodology, combining qualitative and quantitative approaches to identify distinct perspectives on soybean cultivation among German farmers (Brown, 1996). In this method, participants rank statements on a standardized scale, and these Q-sorts are analyzed using factor analysis to identify shared viewpoints (Watts and Stenner, 2005).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Development of the Q-Sample\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Q-sample constitutes a collection of heterogeneous statements that participants evaluate and sort during Q-sorting (Watts and Stenner, 2005). Following McKeown and Thomas\u0026apos;s (2013) approach, we developed a representative collection of statements from scientific and grey literature on opportunities and barriers for soybean cultivation in Germany, which is in line with most studies applying Q-methodology (Dieteren et al., 2023). To ensure balanced representation, we created two thematic categories (\u0026quot;opportunities\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;barriers\u0026quot;), each containing an equal number of statements. All statements were formulated for clarity and comprehensibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFive expert evaluations and six pretests were conducted with farmers from Lower Saxony, including two with soybean cultivation experience. Minor adjustments improved comprehensibility, and two experts each added one opportunity and one barrier statement. Big 5 personality statements previously included were dropped due to the length of the survey. The final Q-sample consisted of 40 statements (20 opportunities, 20 barriers), within Brown\u0026apos;s (1980) recommended range. The statements are shown in Table 1 and 2.\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e: Statements from the Q-Sample on Opportunities of Soybean Cultivation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNo.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStatement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSources\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe increasing demand for non-GMO, locally produced soybeans for human consumption and feed opens new markets and sales opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZimmer and B\u0026ouml;ttcher, 2021; Bundesinformationszentrum Landwirtschaft 2023; Deutscher Sojaf\u0026ouml;rderring e. V., 2024b; Kreikenbohm and M\u0026uuml;cke, 2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh demand, stable prices, and good market opportunities make soybean cultivation lucrative.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeiher et al., 2025; Kreikenbohm and M\u0026uuml;cke, 2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrganizations such as the German Soy Promotion Association and government programs support soybean cultivation by disseminating knowledge, improving sales and utilization opportunities, and providing financial incentives within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRecknagel, 2015; Weiher et al., 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClimate change makes soybean cultivation more attractive as cultivation risks decrease, potential cultivation areas shift northward due to warming, and later maturing, higher-yielding varieties become viable.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRo\u0026szlig;berg and Recknagel, 2017; Nendel et al., 2023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModern plant breeding develops varieties with better traits (yield, adaptation to cool climates, pod set, suitability for human consumption), making cultivation feasible and more profitable.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD\u0026ouml;ttinger et al., 2023; Ro\u0026szlig;berg and Recknagel, 2017; Aigner, 2017; Coleman et al., 2021; Kreikenbohm and M\u0026uuml;cke, 2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSymbiotic nitrogen fixation by soybeans reduces the need for nitrogen fertilizers (for soybeans and subsequent crops), lowering costs.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWatson et al., 2017; Schmidt et al., 2019; Unsleber, 2015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSoybeans have high preceding crop value, improve soil structure, and thus increase the profitability in crop rotations.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZimmer and B\u0026ouml;ttcher, 2021; Wilbois et al., 2015; Unsleber et al., 2018\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncluding soybeans in the crop rotation mitigates rotation problems (herbicide resistance, weed, pest, and disease pressure), reducing costs and pesticide use.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZimmer and B\u0026ouml;ttcher, 2021; Unsleber, 2015; Unsleber et al., 2018\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEntering soybean cultivation is easy, as machines from other arable crops (e.g., cereals, rapeseed, other legumes) can be used.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFogelberg and Recknagel, 2017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUsing specialized machinery (e.g., precision planters, flex headers) improves the cultivation system and enables cost and loss reductions while increasing yields and revenues.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZimmer and B\u0026ouml;ttcher, 2021; Fogelberg and Recknagel, 2017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWith rising production volumes, sales opportunities for soybeans will improve, leading to more collection and processing points. This will ease entry into soybean cultivation and marketing.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRecknagel, 2015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eForming producer groups can improve the economic conditions for soybean cultivation by pooling small batches into larger harvests, reducing transaction and transport costs, and achieving better farm-gate prices.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZimmer and B\u0026ouml;ttcher, 2021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarketing and utilization through own initiatives is economically attractive, as higher producer prices can be obtained through sales to the food industry and GMO-free feed programs with in-farm use.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchmidt et al., 2019; Recknagel, 2015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncluding soybeans in crop rotations spreads production risks and contributes to greater economic stability in arable farming.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSchmidt et al., 2019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSoybean cultivation is attractive because it helps to level labor peaks.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBoenisch and Sobko, 2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSoybean cultivation helps fulfill requirements of the nutrient flow balance and regulations in red and eutrophic zones.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRaiffeisen Warendorf eG, 2024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhen extending the crop rotation, soybeans outperform other domestic legumes (field beans, peas) in economic terms, share in rotation, pest and disease pressure, yield stability, protein yield, and protein quality.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZimmer and B\u0026ouml;ttcher, 2021; Unsleber, 2015; Aigner, 2017; Ro\u0026szlig;berg and Recknagel, 2017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDigitalization in agriculture offers opportunities to optimize soybean cultivation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGerhardt, 2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSoybean cultivation is interesting because it allows farms to produce their own high-quality protein feed.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExpert Evaluation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSoybean cultivation is an interesting way to improve the image of agriculture by demonstrating adaptability to developments and changes.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExpert Evaluation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e: Statements from the Q-Sample on Barriers to Soybean Cultivation (continued numbering from Table 1)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" class=\"fr-table-selection-hover\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNo.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStatement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSources\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThere is a lack of experience and knowledge regarding soybean cultivation, variety selection, and related topics.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRo\u0026szlig;berg and Recknagel, 2017; Weiher et al., 2025; Reckling et al., 2020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarketing is difficult due to limited collection infrastructure and low harvest volumes, increasing costs and effort.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRecknagel, 2015; Rieckmann, 2025; Zimmer and B\u0026ouml;ttcher, 2021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLack of on-farm drying and storage facilities hinders cultivation when no nearby collection point exists.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRecknagel, 2015; Weiher et al., 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDespite superior traits, other domestic legumes may be a better option for diversified cropping systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZimmer and B\u0026ouml;ttcher, 2021; Nendel et al., 2023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFailures and poor experiences of other farmers discourage soybean cultivation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeiher et al., 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSoybeans are not economically competitive with other farm crops.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZimmer and B\u0026ouml;ttcher, 2021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSpecialization, labor considerations, and crop rotation restrictions hinder soybean cultivation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRecknagel, 2015; Reckling et al., 2016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSeed reproduction restrictions increase seed costs and reduce profitability.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnsleber et al., 2018; Zimmer and B\u0026ouml;ttcher, 2021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInadequate climatic conditions (cool and wet) may prohibit soybean cultivation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSobko et al., 2020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWet and cool conditions during harvest increase risks and may cause total losses.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKreikenbohm and M\u0026uuml;cke, 2022; Unsleber et al., 2018; Nendel et al., 2023; Schmidt et al., 2019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSoybean cultivation involves more uncertainties and yield variability compared to familiar crops.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBavarian State Research Center For Agriculture, 2017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow water retention soils, low summer rainfall, or lack of irrigation limit yield due to drought sensitivity.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKarges et al., 2022; Schmidt et al., 2019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeed control is challenging due to slow juvenile growth, limited herbicides, and poor competitiveness.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWeiher et al., 2025; Fogelberg and Recknagel, 2017; Unsleber et al., 2018\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBird damage (e.g., pigeons) during emergence can lead to total crop failures.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLamichhane et al., 2020; Unsleber et al., 2018\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh opportunity costs arise because no manure can be applied and has to be disposed of expensively.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZimmer and B\u0026ouml;ttcher, 2021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDue to fertilizer regulations, nitrogen savings on soybeans cannot benefit other crops, making it uneconomical.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZimmer and B\u0026ouml;ttcher, 2021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAntinutritional components and lack of thermal processing facilities hinder in-farm use of the harvest.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFogelberg and Recknagel, 2017; Recknagel, 2015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSoybean cultivation is internationally uncompetitive due to lack of access to GMO varieties.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDietrich, 2024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSoybean cultivation for human food competes with on-farm livestock production.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExpert Evaluation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOn-farm use of soybeans is unattractive if selling prices exceed the cost of purchased equivalent feed.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExpert Evaluation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e2.2\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Participant Selection and Survey Implementation\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe P-sample in Q-methodology represents strategically selected participants who are relevant to the research question and can offer diverse viewpoints on the topic (McKeown and Thomas, 2013). Participants were farmers from Lower Saxony with arable farming operations, including both soybean cultivators and non-cultivators. To ensure this pre-defined target group membership, control questions were included in the survey to verify that all participants were farmers with arable land in Lower Saxony, Germany.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe survey was conducted online in 2024 using \u003cem\u003eQMethod\u003c/em\u003e software (Lutfallah and Buchanan, 2019). Participants accessed the survey through a provided link. The implementation followed the procedural steps recommended by McKeown and Thomas (2013), as outlined below. A complete representation of the entire survey is presented in Appendix I.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to data collection, all participants received a brief introduction to the research and its objectives, as well as the methodological approach. They were informed about participation conditions and data protection provisions, which required their active consent. Participants first completed a pre-sorting categorization of all statements of the Q-Sample (Table 1 and 2) according to agreement, disagreement, or neutrality in relation to their farm. The final Q-sorting instruction read: \u0026quot;In the Q-sorting, you should rank the statements according to the importance of opportunities and barriers for soybean cultivation on your farm. Read all statements carefully and evaluate each statement on a scale from \u0026apos;strongly disagree for my farm\u0026apos; (-5) through \u0026apos;neutral\u0026apos; (0) to \u0026apos;strongly agree for my farm\u0026apos; (+5). Ensure that the ranking reflects the importance of opportunities and barriers for your farm. There are no incorrect or correct answers or perspectives.\u0026quot;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the Q-sorting phase, participants began with statements they most strongly disagreed with. They were asked to place those statements first at the extreme negative positions, then proceeded toward neutral positions. The same approach was then applied to statements they agreed with, beginning at the extreme positive position. This approach assumed that participants are typically more certain in evaluating extreme statements than middle or neutral assessments (McKeown and Thomas, 2013). Lastly, neutral statements were placed. The applied Q-sort grid is shown in Figure 1.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Q-sorting was followed by a post-sorting phase which consisted of a questionnaire capturing participants\u0026apos; interpretations of their rankings and demographic information. Additionally, attention check items were integrated. Risk attitude and innovativeness were assessed both generally and specifically regarding the cultivation of new crops. These were measured using an 11-point self-assessment scale adapted from Dohmen et al. (2011) and based on the wording by Michels et al. (2024) (Appendix I). Survey received ethical approval (German Association for Experimental Economic Research e.V. Institutional Review Board Certificate No. zDP7g9JK; 06/04/2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e2.3\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Data Processing and Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn total, 44 participants began the study and answered questions about current soybean cultivation on their farms. Of these, 30 participants completed the Q-sorting. Among these, 29 completed the post-sorting questionnaire and provided information for the control variables. All participants indicated that their farms were located in Lower Saxony, and all passed the attention checks. One participant was excluded due to reporting difficulty with the mobile interface and self-reported time constraints, leaving 28 participants for final analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalysis was conducted using the \u003cem\u003eqmethod\u003c/em\u003e package in R (Zabala, 2014).\u0026nbsp;For the analysis, we performed Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation which is currently the most common approach (Dieteren et al., 2023). A parallel analysis helped evaluate factor retention by examining eigenvalues and comparing them to random data simulations. A two-factor structure was selected based on the parallel analysis. The factor loadings were examined with the \u003cem\u003eloa.and.flags\u003c/em\u003e() function to identify Q-sorts associated with each factor. Special attention was given to Q-sorts with negative loadings, which indicated an inverse relationship to the factor perspective and a potential bipolar factor. Defining statements for each perspective were identified by sorting z-scores, and visualizations were created to illustrate the differences and similarities across all three viewpoints. The distinguishing and consensus statements were identified using the \u003cem\u003eqdc\u003c/em\u003e() function, revealing which statements differentiated between factors and which were similarly ranked across perspectives. The data and code are stored in the online supplementary material.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3 Results and Discussion","content":"\u003ch2\u003e3.1 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; P-Sample Description\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe sample comprised 28 farmers (25 male, 3 female) with an average age of 46.37 years and 18.14 years of farm management experience. Educational backgrounds included certified master farmer or two-year vocational school (7 farmers each) and bachelor\u0026apos;s degrees (6 farmers). Most participants (23) operated full-time farming operations, while 5 were part-time farmers. On a scale from 1 to 11 (1-5 = risk-averse, 6 = risk-neutral, 7-11 = risk-seeking), farmers rated their general risk willingness at an average of 6.25 and their risk willingness regarding the cultivation of new crops on their farm at 6.67. \u0026nbsp;An average risk-neutral self-assessment corresponds to the observation of European Farmers by Garcia et al. (2024). On a scale from 1 to 11 (1-5 = innovation-averse, 6 = innovation-neutral, 7-11 = innovation-seeking), farmers rated their general innovativeness at an average of 7.67 and their willingness to innovate regarding the cultivation of new crops on their farm at 7.13. This aligns with the observation of Michels et al. (2024) labeling farmers as innovation-seeking on average using a self-assessment task.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe majority practiced conventional farming (22), with 6 following organic principles. Arable farming was the primary operation for 17 participants, followed by dairy farming (6). Farms averaged 100.07 hectares of arable land (min. 30; max. 232) with a soil quality index of 53.57 (min. 23; max. 95), plus 17.28 hectares of grassland (min. 0; max 123). Leased land constituted 41.57% of total farm area. Eleven farms had land in designated \u0026quot;red zones\u0026quot; under German Fertilizer Regulation (Rote Gebiete, D\u0026uuml;V \u0026sect;13a) with more strict nitrogen management regulations, while 17 had no affected areas. Average annual precipitation was 712.68 liters per square meter across farm locations. Ten farms had irrigation capabilities, while 18 did not. Eight farmers actively cultivated soybeans, with one additional farmer having prior soybean cultivation experience. Among those with soybean experience, the average cultivation period was 4.67 years.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.2 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Factor extraction and selection\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo determine the optimal number of factors to extract from the Q-sorts, both statistical and interpretative approaches were applied. Initial factor extraction was conducted using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation. The eigenvalues from the correlation matrix of Q-sorts provided the first indication for factor retention. The first seven eigenvalues were 6.48, 3.14, 2.11, 1.71, 1.63, 1.50, and 1.41, all exceeding the commonly applied Kaiser criterion of 1.0. These seven factors cumulatively explained 64.21% of the total variance. Parallel analysis was conducted, comparing the eigenvalues from the actual data against those generated from random data with the same dimensions. The parallel analysis strongly suggested a two-component solution, as only the first two eigenvalues from the actual data exceeded those from the simulated random data (Figure 2).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.3 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Factor Analysis Results\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe two-factor solution explained 26.20% of the total variance, with Factor 1 accounting for 16.10% and Factor 2 for 10.10%. Both factors demonstrated high reliability, with composite reliability coefficients of 0.96 and 0.95 respectively. The standard errors of factor scores (0.20 for Factor 1 and 0.22 for Factor 2) indicated good measurement precision.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurther examination revealed Factor 1\u0026apos;s bipolar structure, evidenced by both positive and negative loadings from different respondents. This bipolarity indicates that Factor 1 represents two opposing viewpoints on the same dimension. Respondents with negative loadings (Factor 1b) hold perspectives that are essentially inverse to those with positive loadings (Factor 1a). In practical terms, statements ranked positively by Factor 1a adherents are ranked negatively by Factor 1b adherents, and vice versa. The distribution of respondents across these perspectives is presented in Table 3. The correlation coefficient between factors Factor 1 and Factor 2 is 0.26, indicating a weak positive correlation between these two perspectives, highlighting that these perspectives are distinct.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e: Factor Loading by Participant (ID)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactor\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLoading respondents (Q-Sorts)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFactor 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eID1, ID2, ID3, ID8, ID10, ID18, ID21, ID22, ID24, ID25, ID27, ID28, ID5\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e, ID7\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFactor 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eID4, ID6, ID12, ID13, ID15, ID17, ID19, ID20, ID26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo Load\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eID9, ID11, ID14, ID16, ID23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003ea\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003eNegative Loading\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeveral key consensus areas emerged across perspectives. Farmers from all groups agreed on the increasing demand for non-GMO, locally produced soybeans (Statement (S) 1, +0.77/+0.76) and recognized the benefits of modern plant breeding (S5, +1.18/+1.11). They moderately supported the notion that rising production volumes would improve marketing opportunities (S11, +0.61/+0.33).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe perspectives also converged in their disagreement with statements suggesting other domestic legumes as better alternatives (S24, -0.80/-0.58) and concerns about seed reproduction restrictions (S28, -0.34/-0.42). Notably, all groups viewed weed control challenges neutrally (S33, -0.03/+0.30), neither emphasizing nor dismissing this potential barrier. Additional areas of consensus included disagreement with statements about opportunity costs from manure application restrictions (S35, -1.61/-1.45) and potential competition with livestock production (S39, -1.72/-1.68) (Table 4). Figure 3 illustrates these patterns, with convergence points representing shared viewpoints and divergent lines highlighting distinguishing statements between Factor 1 and Factor 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e: Z-scores for Statement on Opportunities and Barriers of Soybean Cultivation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 321px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOpportunities\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 283px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBarriers\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStatement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactor 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactor 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStatement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactor 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactor 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (C)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.01\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.55\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.64\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.49\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.39\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.77\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.41\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.77\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.67\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.97\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.98\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24 (C)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 (C)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.82\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.90\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.49\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.04\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.52\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.61\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.17\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.15\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.93\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.28\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28 (C)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.06\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.65\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.62\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.86\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.55\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.14\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11 (C)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.40\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.97\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.27\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.23\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.33\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.86\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.50\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33 (C)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.47\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.42\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.15\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.13\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.57\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35 (C)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.85\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.80\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.79\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.55\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.82\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.17\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.33\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.32\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.65\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.18\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.05\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.58\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39 (C)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.90\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.67\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 75px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.42\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCharacteristics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactor 1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 283px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFactor 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePercentage of variance explained\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 283px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of loading Q-Sorts\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 283px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComposite reliability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 283px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandard error of factors scores\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 283px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZ-scores represent the relative importance of each statement within a factor perspective. Different superscript letters (ᵃ,ᵇ) within a row indicate distinguishing rankings between factors. Statements marked (C) represent consensus viewpoints with similar rankings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerspective 1a: Opportunity-Focused Perspective on Soybean Cultivation (n = 12)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePerspective 1a represents farmers who view soybean cultivation primarily through an opportunity lens rather than focusing on constraints. This perspective emphasizes agronomic benefits, economic advantages, and crop rotation improvements while dismissing concerns about climate limitations, economic viability, and regulatory constraints.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eFarm Structure and Sociodemographic Characteristics\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis perspective is held by twelve male farmers (average age 46.91 years) with considerable farming experience (17.58 years). They manage substantial agricultural operations (121.88 ha arable land, soil quality index 50.50) predominantly as full-time farmers. These operations have balanced exposure to regulatory constraints, with nearly half having land in designated \u0026quot;red zones\u0026quot; under German Fertilizer Regulation (D\u0026uuml;V). Most farms (7 of 12) have irrigation capabilities, and eight actively cultivate soybeans with an average experience of 5.13 years. These farmers demonstrate risk-seeking behavior (6.91 general, 8.25 for new crops) and strong innovation orientation (8.58 general, 8.66 for new crops).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eAgronomic Benefits\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe defining feature of this perspective is the strong recognition of soybeans\u0026apos; agronomic advantages. These farmers particularly value soil structure improvements (S7, z-score +1.61) and consider soybeans superior to other domestic legumes in multiple dimensions (e.g. economic returns, yield stability) (S17, z-score +1.55). One farmer explicitly highlights that among all legumes, soybeans are among the most attractive for their farm. They appreciate nitrogen fixation capabilities (S6, z-score +1.49) for reducing fertilizer requirements and costs. Risk diversification represents a key motivating factor, with strong agreement that soybeans contribute to greater economic stability in arable farming (S14, z-score +1.47). One farmer identified this as their primary cultivation reason, noting how soybeans help mitigate both weather-related risks and input cost fluctuations. These farmers also view producer group formation positively (S12, z-score +1.27), recognizing efficiency benefits through collective marketing approaches. One farmer reports trying to establish a fine cleaning process for edible products with their cooperative in order to achieve higher added value for their farming community.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eClimate and Economic Outlook\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese farmers firmly reject the notion that climatic conditions in Lower Saxony prohibit soybean cultivation (S29, z-score -1.65) They also see value in modern plant breeding developments (S5, z-score +1.18) and climate change adaptations (S4, z-score +0.97), which make cultivation more feasible and profitable. Technologies such as precision planters and flex headers offer substantial potential to improve efficiency by lowering input costs and harvest losses, while increasing yields and farm income (S10, z-score +0.86). One farmer notes that flex headers, although not yet widely available, are highly beneficial. They also emphasize the placement accuracy of precision planters, which leads to a more uniform crop stand and promotes faster, more synchronized emergence due to consistent sowing depth. Farmers with this perspective strongly disagree that soybeans lack economic competitiveness with other crops (S26, z-score -1.52). They dismiss concerns about fertilizer regulations (S36, z-score -1.80) and manure application restrictions (S35, z-score -1.61). They also strongly disagree that soybean cultivation for human food competes with on-farm livestock production (S39, z-score -1.72). One farmer reported economic advantages, with one finding soybeans competitive on sandy soils when participating in the EU\u0026apos;s Common Agricultural Policy eco-scheme 2, while another achieved better profitability per unit of irrigation water compared to alternative crops.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eKnowledge\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese farmers believe there is sufficient knowledge and experience regarding soybean cultivation (S21, z-score -1.01). They are not deterred by others\u0026apos; negative experiences (S25, z-score -0.82) and do not perceive specialization, labor considerations, or crop rotation restrictions as barriers (S27, z-score -1.15). One farmer says that networking with other soybean farmers and advisors is extremely important and helpful.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eBalanced Considerations\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite their generally positive outlook, they maintain realistic awareness of challenges, including weed control difficulties (S33, z-score +0.03). They are neutral regarding whether soybean cultivation involves more uncertainties compared to familiar crops (S31, z-score -0.40). Interestingly, they do not view soybeans as particularly valuable for on-farm feed production (S19, z-score -1.05), suggesting their interest lies primarily in market opportunities and agronomic benefits rather than livestock integration.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerspective 1b: Skeptical Perspective on Soybean Cultivation (n = 2)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis perspective represents farmers who hold fundamentally opposite views to Perspective 1a, demonstrating skepticism toward soybean cultivation in Lower Saxony. This viewpoint emerged from two farmers who loaded negatively on Factor 1, indicating a mirror-image perspective on the same statements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eFarm Structure and Sociodemographic Characteristics\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese farmers are considerably older (average age 62) with extensive farming experience (37 years) than the farmers of the other factors. They operate conventional, full-time farms with moderate land holdings (61 hectares) characterized by lower soil quality (26.5 index points) and no irrigation infrastructure. Both manage land in designated \u0026quot;red zones\u0026quot; under German Fertilizer Regulation (D\u0026uuml;V). One previously attempted soybean cultivation without success. Their risk and innovation profiles differ markedly from Factor 1a farmers. While moderately risk-neutral generally (6.5), they demonstrate risk aversion specifically toward new crops (4.0) and low innovation orientation in general (6.5) and especially for new crop cultivation (3.5). Both farmers are engaged in livestock farming.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eManure Management\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe central barrier identified by these farmers involves manure management challenges. Their operations generate substantial manure that cannot be applied to soybeans and must be disposed of at high expense. The German Fertilizer Regulation (D\u0026uuml;V) compounds this issue by preventing nitrogen reallocation to other high-demand crops when growing nitrogen-fixing legumes which have no nitrogen requirement, further reducing economic viability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eNegative Experiences\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDirect negative experiences reinforce their skepticism. One farmer\u0026apos;s complete crop failure due to adverse weather and poor soil conditions substantiates their belief that Lower Saxony\u0026apos;s climate makes soybean production excessively risky. This contrasts sharply with Factor 1a\u0026apos;s confidence in regional climatic suitability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eOperational Barriers\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePractical operational constraints further limit adoption potential. The farmers note that simultaneous cultivation of corn and soybeans would create unmanageable labor demands during critical periods. Additionally, they cannot reduce corn acreage because it provides essential livestock feed. This highlights how existing farm systems can create path dependencies that inhibit diversification.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eMultiple Challenges\u0026nbsp;\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese farmers identify a comprehensive set of barriers spanning multiple domains:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMarketing infrastructure: Perceived inadequate regional collection networks create market access uncertainty\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWeed management: Concerns about soybeans\u0026apos; competitive weakness against problematic weeds, particularly nutsedge/nutgrass\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRotation impacts: Belief that soybean cultivation would increase rather than decrease overall weed pressure in their crop rotations\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTechnological skepticism: Limited confidence in digitalization\u0026apos;s potential to improve soybean cultivation outcomes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite their predominant skepticism, these farmers recognize limited potential advantages in soybean cultivation for on-farm protein production and acknowledge that climate change might improve future cultivation prospects.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerspective 2: Market-Oriented, yet Risk-averse Perspective (n = 9)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePerspective 2 represents a cautiously pragmatic viewpoint that balances current uncertainties against future opportunities. These farmers evaluate soybean cultivation primarily through market and infrastructure realities while maintaining openness to future possibilities as conditions evolve.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eFarm Structure and Sociodemographic Characteristics\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis perspective is held by nine farmers (eight male, one female) with an average age of 46.44 years and 16.33 years of management experience. Most operate full-time farms managing 91.56 hectares of arable land with superior soil quality (70.78 soil quality points). These operations face less regulatory constraints regarding nitrogen fertilization, with only one farm having land in designated \u0026quot;red zones\u0026quot; under German Fertilizer Regulation (D\u0026uuml;V). Notably, none of these farmers have irrigation capabilities or soybean cultivation experience. Their risk and innovation profiles indicate slight risk aversion (5.98 general, 5.44 for new crops) and moderate innovation orientation (6.89 general, 6.22 for new crops).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eLivestock Considerations\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost of these farmers do not have livestock operations, which influences their perspective on certain aspects of soybean cultivation. They strongly disagree that soybean cultivation for human consumption competes with livestock production (S39, z-score -1.68). One farmer in this group, who does have livestock, adds that production for human consumption is not competitive but complementary. Due to the absence of livestock, these farmers do not view soybeans as valuable for producing on-farm protein feed (S19, z-score -1.58), but also note that this means no opportunity costs arise from manure application restrictions (S35, z-score -1.45).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eCurrent Barriers and Uncertainties\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe defining feature of this perspective is strong recognition of cultivation uncertainties compared to familiar crops (S31, z-score +1.97). These farmers express concerns about wet and cool harvest conditions potentially causing crop failures (S30, z-score +1.14) and acknowledge that others\u0026apos; negative experiences discourage their interest (S25, z-score +0.90). One farmer explicitly states that unsuccessful soybean cultivation in neighboring farms has deterred him from attempting it himself, and another farmer similarly bases his decision on others\u0026apos; negative experiences. However, an additional farmer cautions against relying solely on others\u0026apos; failures, noting that the underlying causes are rarely known.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInfrastructure and marketing challenges represent important barriers. They identify lack of on-farm drying and storage facilities as problematic when soybean-accepting agriculture traders are distant (S23, z-score +1.67) and recognize marketing difficulties due to limited infrastructure (S22, z-score +1.39). One farmer noted that as a cash crop operation, marketability is essential, but local agricultural traders do not accept soybeans. Another farmer adds that local processing and marketing are critical for successful soybean cultivation. These farmers strongly disagree that current market conditions make soybean cultivation lucrative (S2, z-score -1.64).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eFuture Opportunities\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite current barriers, these farmers strongly agree that climate change enhances soybean cultivation prospects (S4, z-score +1.98). They anticipate opportunities through the combined effects of climate change and plant breeding advancements (S5, z-score +1.11). One farmer explicitly noted that plant breeding has historically improved cultivation viability for various crops. These farmers appreciate practical considerations like the ability to use existing machinery (S9, z-score +1.06) and value soybeans\u0026apos; agronomic benefits including nitrogen fixation (S6, z-score +1.04) and preceding-crop value (S7, z-score +1.17). They do not anticipate drought-related yield reductions (S32, z-score -1.33).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNon-Loading Respondents: Mixed Perspectives on Soybean Cultivation (n = 5)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFive farmers (17.9% of respondents) did not align strongly with any identified factor, displaying hybrid perspectives that combined elements from multiple viewpoints. This suggests additional complexity in farmers\u0026apos; evaluations of soybean cultivation beyond the three clearly identified perspectives.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3.4 \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Discussion\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur analysis identifies three distinct perspectives among Lower Saxony farmers regarding soybean cultivation: Opportunity-Focused (Factor 1a), Skepticism (Factor 1b), and Market-Oriented yet Risk-Averse (Factor 2). These perspectives provide important insights into why, despite increasing potential cultivation areas in in Germany, actual soybean acreage remains limited.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eContrasting Perspectives on Agronomic Benefits\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFarmers with the Opportunity-Focused and Skepticism perspectives hold diametrically opposed views on soybean cultivation, stemming from Factor 1\u0026apos;s bipolar structure. While Perspective 1a farmers perceive numerous advantages and minimal barriers, Perspective 1b farmers emphasize constraints, particularly related to manure management and operational limitations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe divergent views on nitrogen fixation benefits exemplify this contrast. Perspective 1a farmers value the cost reduction potential of symbiotic nitrogen fixation, aligning with findings from Schmidt et al. (2019) that fixed nitrogen becomes available to subsequent crops, reducing fertilizer costs (Unsleber, 2015). However, Perspective 1b farmers cannot realize these benefits due to excess manure on their farms, reflecting Zimmer and B\u0026ouml;ttcher\u0026apos;s (2021) observation that farms with high livestock density face economic constraints in crop rotation due to fertilizer regulations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimilar contrasts exist regarding crop rotation benefits. Perspective 1a farmers appreciate soybeans\u0026apos; preceding-crop value, which increases the profitability of subsequent crops (Zimmer and B\u0026ouml;ttcher, 2021). They view soybeans as valuable for diversifying crop rotations, supporting findings by Zander et al. (2016) and Reckling et al. (2016). Perspective 1b farmers, again constrained by manure management issues, do not share this perspective.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe economic competitiveness of soybeans also divides farmers. Perspective 1a farmers consider soybeans competitive with other crops, while Perspective 1b farmers disagree. Perspective 2 farmers maintain a neutral position. According to Zimmer and B\u0026ouml;ttcher (2021), soybeans in northern Germany struggle to compete with crops like rapeseed. Zander et al. (2016) frame farmers\u0026apos; decisions to grow legumes as economic trade-offs between net yield and alternative crops, with the evaluation of non-marketable benefits depending on factors including plant protection costs, fertilizer costs, and farmers\u0026apos; personal valuations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eAreas of Consensus\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite their differences, all three perspectives show agreement on several important aspects. Climate change represents a notable area of consensus, with all groups recognizing its potential benefits for soybean cultivation. This aligns with Ro\u0026szlig;berg and Recknagel\u0026apos;s (2017) findings that climate change makes soybean cultivation in Germany increasingly attractive. Nendel et al. (2023) note that warming extends potential cultivation areas northward, increases viability of higher-yielding varieties, and reduces cultivation risks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFarmers in Perspective 1a and 2 agree on the importance of plant breeding advancements. Recent years have seen the development of early-maturing varieties with good yield potential, improving economic viability (Aigner, 2017). Breeding has produced varieties adapted to shorter growing periods and colder conditions (D\u0026ouml;ttinger et al., 2023), as well as varieties with higher pod attachment points that are easier to harvest (Coleman et al., 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding barriers, all three perspectives acknowledge the uncertainties associated with soybean cultivation compared to familiar crops, though with varying emphasis. According to Reckling et al. (2020), soybean yields fluctuate in ways that agricultural methods can only partially mitigate. These fluctuations are often greater than for other crops (Bayerische Landesanstalt f\u0026uuml;r Landwirtschaft, 2017). Soybean cultivation in cool, humid regions like Lower Saxony is not without risk, as it is not always warm enough for timely ripening (Kreikenbohm and M\u0026uuml;cke, 2022). The risk of extended periods of poor weather increases the later the harvest occurs (Unsleber et al., 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWeed control represents another shared concern. Weiher et al. (2025) note that soybeans\u0026apos; slow juvenile development and low competitiveness until row closure make weed management challenging. Chemical weed control options are limited to the few approved herbicides, making it difficult to control field bindweed, creeping thistle, and black nightshade (Fogelberg and Recknagel, 2017). Mechanical weed control is especially challenging on fields with high weed pressure (Unsleber et al., 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMarketing challenges are emphasized by Perspective 1b and 2, and acknowledged by some Factor 1a farmers. Recknagel (2015) notes that soybeans are not yet comprehensively collected, which Rieckmann (2025) identifies as the main reason for the slow expansion of conventional soybean cultivation in Lower Saxony. Currently, there is only one collector for soybeans in Lower Saxony, alongside some supra-regional collectors (Deutscher Sojaf\u0026ouml;rderring e.V., 2024a). Small harvest volumes increase the effort required for inspection, acceptance, storage, and transport, all of which raise costs (Zimmer and B\u0026ouml;ttcher, 2021).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eFactor-Specific Considerations\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSome considerations are unique to specific perspectives. Perspective 1a farmers emphasize that soybean cultivation in Lower Saxony is fundamentally possible, contradicting Zimmer and B\u0026ouml;ttcher\u0026apos;s (2021) assertion that cultivation north of German highway 2 (A2) is feasible only in exceptional cases. Seven of the eight Perspective 1a farmers who grow soybeans are located north of this line, demonstrating that cultivation is viable in more northern areas of Lower Saxony.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFactor 1a farmers also value specialized machinery, such as precision planters that can reduce seeding rates by 10% and lower costs (Zimmer and B\u0026ouml;ttcher, 2021). Flex headers are appreciated for reducing losses by adapting to ground contours and cutting soybeans close to the soil surface, making it easier to harvest lower pods (Zimmer and B\u0026ouml;ttcher, 2021).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOwn-initiative marketing represents another opportunity recognized by Perspective 1a farmers. Schmidt et al. (2019) recommend active marketing, price hedging through forward contracts, production for food markets, and on-farm utilization. Recknagel (2015) notes that marketing to GMO-free feed manufacturers is also interesting.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePerspective 1b farmers uniquely express skepticism about digitalization\u0026apos;s potential to optimize soybean cultivation. This contrasts with Gerhardt\u0026apos;s (2022) view that digitalization will positively transform agriculture by improving cost structures, increasing yields, and enhancing product quality through greater efficiency and effectiveness.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eImplications for Expanding Soybean Cultivation\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur findings reveal that the discrepancy between potential and actual soybean cultivation area cannot be explained by natural site factors alone. Farmers\u0026apos; attitudes, experiences, farm conditions, market realities, and future expectations regarding opportunities and barriers play decisive roles. Q-methodology has been particularly valuable in uncovering these diverse perspectives, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of adoption barriers and opportunities. The consensus and contrasting perspectives identified provide valuable insights for developing targeted measures to promote soybean cultivation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor policy interventions, we recommend a balanced approach combining infrastructure development and targeted knowledge transfer. Infrastructure development should prioritize supporting regional processing facilities for both feed and food-grade soybeans, addressing marketing challenges acknowledged across all farmer perspectives. These facilities would reduce transportation costs and improve farm-gate prices while creating necessary market access points. Complementing this, knowledge transfer initiatives should develop perspective-specific advisory services tailored to farmers\u0026apos; distinct needs: agronomic optimization for Perspective 1a farmers to build on their positive experiences, and risk management strategies with demonstration farms for Perspective 2 farmers to address their uncertainties while showcasing viable practices. Producer cooperatives and fixed-price contracts could further stabilize the market environment, providing volume advantages for processing and reducing price uncertainty for risk-averse farmers. This multi-faceted approach respects market mechanisms while creating enabling conditions for farmers to make informed cultivation decisions based on their specific circumstances and perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4 Concluding Remarks","content":"\u003cp\u003eBased on a Q-Method survey with 28 farmers conducted in 2024, this study revealed three distinct farmer perspectives regarding soybean cultivation in Germany: Opportunity-Focused, Skepticism, and Market-Oriented yet Risk-Averse. This sample size is consistent with standard Q-methodology practice, which typically employs smaller samples to identify subjective viewpoints rather than generalizing to populations. The regional focus on Lower Saxony represents a limitation that future studies could address through multi-regional or national investigations. Nevertheless, this research offers valuable insights into cultivation barriers and opportunities that can inform targeted interventions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur findings demonstrate that the gap between potential and actual cultivation extends beyond agronomic limitations to encompass farmers' attitudes, experiences, farm conditions, and market realities. Despite divergent viewpoints, important areas of consensus emerged around climate change opportunities, plant breeding benefits, and shared challenges in marketing and weed control. These provide common ground for developing targeted interventions. Still, expanding sustainable soybean production in Germany requires differentiated approaches addressing specific barriers identified by each farmer perspective. Effective strategies should combine policy interventions establishing regional cultivation targets, infrastructure development supporting regional processing facilities, and knowledge transfer initiatives offering tailored advisory services. By addressing the complex factors influencing farmer decision-making, policymakers and agricultural organizations can develop more effective strategies that enhance domestic protein production while contributing to more sustainable agricultural systems in Germany. Ultimately and on a larger scale, this potentially supports greater agricultural resilience and reduced environmental impact through diversified cropping systems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe authors report there are no competing interests to declare.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBayerische Landesanstalt f\u0026uuml;r Landwirtschaft (2017): 9. Wettbewerbsf\u0026auml;higkeit der Sojabohne gegen\u0026uuml;ber Vergleichsfr\u0026uuml;chten 2017. Retrieved from https://www.lfl.bayern.de/mam/cms07/iba/dateien/wettbewerbsf%C3%A4higkeit_der_sojabohne_gegen%C3%BCber_vergleichsfr%C3%BCchten_2017.pdf. Abruf: 14.6.2025.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBundesinformationszentrum Landwirtschaft (2023): Marktrecherche H\u0026uuml;lsenfr\u0026uuml;chte (inkl. Sojabohnen). Retrieved from https://www.ble.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/BZL/Daten-Berichte/OeleFette/JaehrlicheErgebnisse/2022_Bericht_Marktlage_Huelsenfruechte.pdf?__blob=publicationFile\u0026amp;v=2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoenisch, A., \u0026amp; Sobko, O. (2022): Sojaanbau aus \u0026Uuml;berzeugung - mit kritischem Blick. Praxisnah. Retrieved from: https://www.praxisnah.de/index.cfm/article/11433.html?longversionDownloads/SD_praxisnah_LeguminosenSoja-VFinale.pdf. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, S. R. (1980). Political Subjectivity. Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. Yale University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeutscher Sojaf\u0026ouml;rderring e.V. (2024a): Erfasser und Dienstleister - Partner f\u0026uuml;r die Landwirtschaft. Retrieved from https://www.sojafoerderring.de/nach-der-ernte/erfasser-und-dienstleister/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeutscher Sojaf\u0026ouml;rderring e.V. (2024b): Herstellern von Lebensmitteln aus Soja. Retrieved from https://www.sojafoerderring.de/nach-der-ernte/soja-verarbeitung/hersteller/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDieteren, C. M., Patty, N. J., Reckers-Droog, V. T., \u0026amp; van Exel, J. (2023). Methodological choices in applications of Q methodology: A systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eSocial Sciences \u0026amp; Humanities Open\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 100404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100404\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDietrich, M. (2024): Sojaanbau in Deutschland: Nische oder handfeste Option? \u003cem\u003eTop Agrar\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved from https://www.topagrar.com/perspektiven/news/sojaanbau-in-deutschland-nische-oder-handfeste-option-a-20000890.html?upgrade=true\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., \u0026amp; Wagner, G. G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the european economic association\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(3), 522-550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01015.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eD\u0026ouml;ttinger, C. A., Hahn, V., Leiser, W. L., \u0026amp; W\u0026uuml;rschum, T. (2023). Do we need to breed for regional adaptation in soybean?\u0026mdash;Evaluation of genotype-by-location interaction and trait stability of soybean in Germany. \u003cem\u003ePlants\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(4), 756. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12040756\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEuropean Commission. (2023). \u003cem\u003eReducing the plant protein deficit in the EU\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved from https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/farming/crop-productions-and-plant-based-products/cereals/reducing-plan-protein-deficit-eu_en\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEuropean Commission. (2024). \u003cem\u003eFeed protein: overview of EU production and options to diversify sources\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved from https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/media/news/feed-protein-overview-eu-production-and-options-diversify-sources-2024-05-24_en\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEuropean Parliament. (2023). \u003cem\u003eEuropean Parliament resolution of 19 October 2023 European protein strategy\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0375_EN.html\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEurostat. (2025). \u003cem\u003eCrop production in EU standard humidity\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/apro_cpsh1__custom_17133830/default/table \u003cbr\u003e DOI: 10.2908/apro_cpsh1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEPRS. (2023). \u003cem\u003eEU protein strategy: Towards sustainable and resilient food systems\u003c/em\u003e. European Parliamentary Research Service. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/751426/EPRS_BRI(2023)751426_EN.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFang, C., \u0026amp; Kong, F. (2022). Soybean. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Biology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(17), R902-R904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.06.054\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFAO \u0026ndash; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2025). \u003cem\u003eFAOSTAT: Crops and livestock products\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFogelberg, F., \u0026amp; Recknagel, J. (2017): Developing Soy Production in Central and Northern Europe. In: Murphy-Bokern, D., C. Watson and F. Stoddard (Hrsg.): Legumes in Cropping Systems. CABI, United Kindom: 109\u0026ndash;124.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFerreira, H., Pinto, E., \u0026amp; Vasconcelos, M. W. (2021). Legumes as a cornerstone of the transition toward more sustainable agri-food systems and diets in Europe. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e, 694121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.694121\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarcia, V., McCallum, C., \u0026amp; Finger, R. (2024). Heterogeneity of European farmers\u0026rsquo; risk preferences: an individual participant data meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Review of Agricultural Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e(3), 725-778. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbae012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSystemiq (2025). A Taste of Tomorrow. How protein diversification can strengthen Germany\u0026rsquo;s economcy. Retrieved from: https://www.systemiq.earth/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/A-Taste-of-Tomorrow-How-protein-diversification-can-strengthen-Germanys-economy_Systemiq_English_Final_17.02.2025.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarges, K., Bellingrath-Kimura, S. D., Watson, C. A., Stoddard, F. L., Halwani, M., \u0026amp; Reckling, M. (2022). Agro-economic prospects for expanding soybean production beyond its current northerly limit in Europe. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Agronomy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e133\u003c/em\u003e, 126415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2021.126415\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKlaiss, M., Schmid, N., Betrix, C. A., Baux, A., Charles, R., \u0026amp; Messmer, M. M. (2020). Organic soybean production in Switzerland. \u003cem\u003eOCL\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e, 64. https://doi.org/10.1051/ocl/2020059\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKreikenbohm, C., \u0026amp; M\u0026uuml;cke, M. (2022): Ergebnisse der Landessortenversuche Sojabohnen im \u0026Ouml;kologischen Landbau 2022. Landwirtschfaftskammer Niedersachsen. Retrieved from https://www.lwk-niedersachsen.de/services/download.cfm?file=38883. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLamichhane, J. R., Constantin, J., Schoving, C., Maury, P., Debaeke, P., Aubertot, J. N., \u0026amp; D\u0026uuml;rr, C. (2020). Analysis of soybean germination, emergence, and prediction of a possible northward establishment of the crop under climate change. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Agronomy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e113\u003c/em\u003e, 125972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2019.125972\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, S., Zhang, P., Marley, B., \u0026amp; Liu, W. (2019). The factors affecting farmers\u0026rsquo; soybean planting behavior in Heilongjiang Province, China. \u003cem\u003eAgriculture\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(9), 188. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9090188\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLutfallah, S., \u0026amp; Buchanan, L. (2019). Quantifying subjective data using online Q-methodology software. \u003cem\u003eThe Mental Lexicon\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(3), 415-423. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.20002.lut\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMichels, M., Rieling, J. A., \u0026amp; Musshoff, O. (2024). Risk attitude, innovativeness, and financial literacy\u0026mdash;A cross-occupational comparison of German farmers and foresters. \u003cem\u003eQ Open\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), qoae007. https://doi.org/10.1093/qopen/qoae007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiersch, M. (2023): Anbaueignung von Sojabohnen in Deutschland. Deutscher Sojaf\u0026ouml;rderring e.V., Emmendingen. Retrieved from: https://www.sojafoerderring.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Anbaueignung-von-Sojabohnen-in-Deutschland_Soja-Fachinfo-2023.pdf. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNendel, C., Reckling, M., Debaeke, P., Schulz, S., Berg‐Mohnicke, M., Constantin, J., ... \u0026amp; Battisti, R. (2023). Future area expansion outweighs increasing drought risk for soybean in Europe. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Change Biology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1340-1358. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16562\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNget, R., Aguilar, E. A., Cruz, P. C. S., Rea\u0026ntilde;o, C. E., Sanchez, P. B., Reyes, M. R., \u0026amp; Prasad, P. V. (2021). Overview of farmers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of current status and constraints to soybean production in Ratanakiri province of Cambodia. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(8), 4433. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084433\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRaiffeisen Warendorf eG (2024): Deutsche Sojabohne. Regionales Eiwei\u0026szlig; \u0026ndash; gute Ertr\u0026auml;ge \u0026ndash; ohne Gentechnik. Retrieved from https://www.raiffeisen-warendorf.de/pflanzenbau/sojabohnen-anbau.html. 26.4.2024.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReckling, M., Bergkvist, G., Watson, C. A., Stoddard, F. L., Zander, P. M., Walker, R. L., ... \u0026amp; Bachinger, J. (2016). Trade-offs between economic and environmental impacts of introducing legumes into cropping systems. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in plant science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e, 669. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00669\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRecknagel, J. (2015). \u0026bdquo;Soja-Anbaupotentiale und Absatzm\u0026ouml;glichkeiten in Deutschland \u0026ldquo;. \u003cem\u003eSoja-Tagung 2015\u003c/em\u003e, 14.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRieckmann, C. (2025). Landessortenversuche 2020: Sojabohnen. Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen. Retrieved from https://www.lwk-niedersachsen.de/lwk/news/36915_Landessortenversuche_2020_Sojabohnen.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRotundo, J. L., Marshall, R., McCormick, R., Truong, S. K., Styles, D., Gerde, J. A., ... \u0026amp; Rufino, M. C. (2024). European soybean to benefit people and the environment. \u003cem\u003eScientific reports\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 7612. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-57522-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRo\u0026szlig;berg, D., \u0026amp; Recknagel, J. (2017). Untersuchungen zur Anbaueignung von Sojabohnen in Deutschland. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cultivated Plants/Journal f\u0026uuml;r Kulturpflanzen\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e69\u003c/em\u003e(4). Doi: 10.1399/JfK.2017.04.02\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchmidt, H., Langanky, L., Wolf, L., \u0026amp; Sch\u0026auml;tzl, R. (2019). \u003cem\u003eSoja-Anbau in der Praxis: Ackerbau \u0026amp; \u0026Ouml;konomie \u0026ndash; \u0026ouml;kologisch und konventionell\u003c/em\u003e. Verlag Dr. K\u0026ouml;ster.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSobko, O., Stahl, A., Hahn, V., Zikeli, S., Claupein, W., \u0026amp; Gruber, S. (2020). Environmental effects on soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr) production in central and South Germany. \u003cem\u003eAgronomy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1847. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10121847\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStatista (2025). Importmenge von Sojabohnen nach Deutschland in den Jahren 2008 bis 2024. Retrieved from: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1139068/umfrage/importmenge-von-sojabohnen-nach-deutschland-seit-2008/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStatistisches Bundesamt (2024a). Anbaufl\u0026auml;che, Erntemenge, Ertrag je Hektar (Feldfr\u0026uuml;chte und Gr\u0026uuml;nland): Bundesl\u0026auml;nder, Jahre, Fruchtarten. Code: 41241-0010. Retrieved from: https://www-genesis.destatis.de/datenbank/online. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStatistisches Bundesamt (2024b): Anbaufl\u0026auml;che, Erntemenge, Ertrag je Hektar (Feldfr\u0026uuml;chte und Gr\u0026uuml;nland): Deutschland, Jahre, Fruchtarten. Code: 41241-0005. Retrieved from: https://www-genesis.destatis.de/datenbank/online\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSudarić, A. (2020). Introductory chapter: soybean-quality and utilization. \u003cem\u003eSoybean for Human Consumption and Animal Feed\u003c/em\u003e, 1-5.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eToleikiene, M., Slepetys, J., Sarunaite, L., Lazauskas, S., Deveikyte, I., \u0026amp; Kadziuliene, Z. (2021). Soybean development and productivity in response to organic management above the northern boundary of soybean distribution in Europe. \u003cem\u003eAgronomy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(2), 214. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020214 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnsleber, J. (2015). Sojaanbau \u0026ndash; Chance oder Risiko. Wochenblatt f\u0026uuml;r Landwirtschaft und Landleben 43/2015. Retrieved from https://www.sojafoerderring.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Sojananbau-F4315.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnsleber, J., Kreikenbohm, C., Sch\u0026auml;tzl, R., Braun, S., Nadler, C., \u0026amp; Reindl, A. (2018). Soja \u0026ndash; Anbau und Verwertung. Bayerische Landesanstalt f\u0026uuml;r Landwirtschaft. Retrieved from https://www.lfl.bayern.de/mam/cms07/schwerpunkte/dateien/handreichung_soja_-_anbau_und_verwertung_komprimiert.pdf. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWatson, C. A., Reckling, M., Preissel, S., Bachinger, J., Bergkvist, G., Kuhlman, T., ... \u0026amp; Stoddard, F. L. (2017). Grain legume production and use in European agricultural systems. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in agronomy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e144\u003c/em\u003e, 235-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2017.03.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWatts, S., \u0026amp; Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q Methodology: Theory, Method and Interpretation. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research in Psychology,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(1), 67\u0026ndash;91. Doi: 10.1191/1478088705qp022oa.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWBAE (2025). Mehr Auswahl am gemeinsamen Tisch: Alternativprodukte zu tierischen Lebensmitteln als Beitrag zu einer nachhaltigeren Ern\u0026auml;hrung. Wissenschaftlicher Beitrat f\u0026uuml;r Agrarpolitik, Ern\u0026auml;hrung und gesundheitlichen Verbraucherschutz. Retrieved from: https://www.bmleh.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/_Ministerium/Beiraete/agrarpolitik/alternativprodukte-tierische-lebensmittel.pdf?__blob=publicationFile\u0026amp;v=4 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeiher, N., Tschigg, S., Sch\u0026auml;tzl, R., Wolf, L., Gain, A., Pfeiffer, T., Mayus, M., \u0026amp; Miersch, M. (2025). Schlussbericht zum Thema \u0026ldquo;Modellhaftes Demonstrationsnetzwerk zur Ausweitung und Verbesserung des Anbaus und der Verwertung von Sojabohnen in Deutschland\u0026ldquo;. Retrieved from https://www.sojafoerderring.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Abschlussbericht-Projekt-Sojanetzwerk-2013-2018.pdf.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZander, P., Amjath-Babu, T. S., Preissel, S., Reckling, M., Bues, A., Schl\u0026auml;fke, N., ... \u0026amp; Watson, C. (2016). Grain legume decline and potential recovery in European agriculture: a review. \u003cem\u003eAgronomy for sustainable development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(2), 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0365-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZimmer, Y. \u0026amp; B\u0026ouml;ttcher, T. (2021): Mit Sojaanbau profitabel Fruchtfolgen erweitern? Th\u0026uuml;nen Working Paper 169. Johann Heinrich von Th\u0026uuml;nen-Institut, Braunschweig. Retrieved from https://literatur.thuenen.de/digbib_extern/dn063361.pdf \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZimmer, S., Liebe, U., Didier, J. P., \u0026amp; He\u0026szlig;, J. (2016). Luxembourgish farmers\u0026rsquo; lack of information about grain legume cultivation. \u003cem\u003eAgronomy for Sustainable Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0339-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZeipiņa, S., V\u0026aring;gen, I. M., \u0026amp; Lepse, L. (2022). Possibility of vegetable soybean cultivation in North Europe. \u003cem\u003eHorticulturae\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(7), 593. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8070593\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e It should be noted that there are several studies paying attention to farmers\u0026rsquo; perception of soybean cultivation with a focus on low- and middle-income countries (e.g. Nget et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), but comparable research in a European context remains scarce.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"German farmers, Soybean cultivation, Typology, Q-Method, Domestic Protein","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7367959/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7367959/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eDespite growing interest in domestic protein production, soybean cultivation in Germany remains limited. This study employs Q-methodology to investigate farmers' perceptions of soybean cultivation in Germany. Through factor analysis of 28 farmers' Q-sorts collected in 2024, we identify three distinct perspectives: Opportunity-Focused, Skepticism, and Market-Oriented yet Risk-Averse. The Opportunity-Focused perspective emphasizes agronomic benefits and rotation improvements, while the Skepticism perspective highlights manure management challenges and operational constraints. The Market-Oriented perspective recognizes future potential but remains cautious about current uncertainties and risks. Areas of consensus include climate change, plant breeding benefits, and marketing challenges. Our findings demonstrate that the gap between potential and actual soybean cultivation extends beyond agronomic limitations to encompass farmers' attitudes, experiences, and market realities. We recommend differentiated approaches combining infrastructure development and tailored knowledge transfer initiatives addressing perspective-specific concerns. These strategies could enhance domestic protein production while contributing to more sustainable agricultural systems in Germany.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"German farmers’ perceptions of soybean cultivation – A Q-methodology analysis","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-18 08:15:59","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7367959/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4df35fa5-9c0c-406f-b491-e1db362fba24","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 18th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":53133446,"name":"Agricultural Economics \u0026 Policy"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-08-18T08:15:59+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-18 08:15:59","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7367959","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7367959","identity":"rs-7367959","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}