Next Article in Journal
Reliability, Validity, and Sensitivity of Spatiotemporal Parameters in Bandy Sprint Skating Using Skate-Mounted Inertial Measurement Units
Next Article in Special Issue
Plant Management and Soil Improvement in Specialty Crop Production
Previous Article in Journal
Numerical and Experimental Investigation on Performance of Thermal Energy Storage Integrated Micro-Cold Storage Unit
Previous Article in Special Issue
Optimum Transplanting Date for Rape Forage and Grain Yields in the Ridge Culture Place Planting System on the Yangtze River Delta
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 12
10.3390/app14125167
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Quality of Winter Wheat Flour from Different Sowing and Nitrogen Management Strategies: A Case Study in Northeastern Poland

by
Krzysztof Lachutta
and
Krzysztof Józef Jankowski
*
Department of Agrotechnology and Agribusiness, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Oczapowskiego 8, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(12), 5167; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14125167
Submission received: 15 May 2024 / Revised: 6 June 2024 / Accepted: 12 June 2024 / Published: 14 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant Management and Soil Improvement in Specialty Crop Production)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The study analyzed the effect of nitrogen (N) management and different sowing parameters of winter wheat on the flour quality, rheological properties of flour, and bread quality. Flour was obtained from winter wheat grain produced during a field experiment conducted in 2018–2021. The experiment involved three factors: (i) the sowing date (early (3–6 September), delayed by 14 days, and delayed by 28 days), (ii) sowing density (200, 300, and 400 live grains m−2), and (iii) split application of N fertilizer in spring (40 + 100, 70 + 70, and 100 + 40 kg ha−1 in the full tillering stage and the first node stage, respectively). A 28-day delay in sowing increased the total protein content of the flour, water absorption capacity of the flour, dough development time and stability, and degree of softening. When sowing was delayed by 14 or 28 days, the crumb density decreased without affecting the loaf volume. A sowing density of 400 grains m−2 had a positive impact on the flour color, dough stability, and loaf volume. The flour color and dough stability were enhanced when N was applied at 100 + 40 kg ha−1, respectively. In turn, the total protein content of flour peaked when it was applied at 40 + 100 kg N ha−1. The quality of flour improved when winter wheat was sown at a density of 400 live grains m−2 with a delay of 14 or 28 days and supplied with 100 kg N ha−1 in the full tillering stage and 40 kg N ha−1 in the first node stage.

1. Introduction

The global population continues to increase, which generates a higher demand for food, mainly plant-based food [1,2,3,4]. The global cereal-equivalent food demand is projected to increase by around 10% in 2030 and around 62% in 2050 due to growing social, economic, and demographic pressures [5]. Wheat is one of the most important cereal crops around the world [3,6,7]. The aim of modern crop breeding practices and wheat production technologies is not only to increase grain yields but also to improve grain quality [8,9,10]. The technological quality of grain produced for baking purposes is determined based on the chemical composition and physicochemical properties of flour [11,12,13,14,15]. The main quality attributes of wheat flour include its color, total protein content, and crude ash content. Wheat flour with desirable quality parameters is obtained by milling high-quality grain or by blending grains from batches with different technological qualities to achieve an end product with specific properties [16]. Color is a very important quality attribute of wheat flour, in particular in flour intended for the production of bread and pasta, because it affects consumer acceptability and the market value of cereal products [17]. The color of flour is influenced mainly by lutein, xanthophyll, β-carotene, and crude ash minerals (phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, and calcium) [18,19]. The processing suitability of flour is partly determined by its crude ash content [20,21,22,23]. The crude ash content could be low in flour for baking light cakes and higher in bread flour [24]. In Poland, flours are classified into types based on their crude ash content (for example, type 450 is light cake flour, type 750 is bread flour, and 2000 is whole-wheat flour) [16]. The color of flour is influenced by the coarseness of the grind and ash content (the lower the ash content, the lighter the flour). White flour is produced mainly from the endosperm, the central part of the kernel, where ash content does not exceed 5 g kg−1 dry matter (DM). The bran layer (seed coat) surrounding the endosperm is also partly ground during milling. The crude ash content of the seed coat ranges from 60 to 100 g kg−1 DM. Therefore, the finer the grind, the more ash is transferred to flour, resulting in its darker color [16]. Protein content is one of the key factors for classifying wheat grain [25]. Flours intended for various purposes differ in their protein content. Flours with a higher protein content (>125 g kg−1 DM) are used in bread production, whereas flours with a lower protein content (<95 g kg−1 DM) are best suited for baking cakes and biscuits [26]. The rheological properties of flour determine its suitability for the production of various types of baked goods, and these properties are measured with the use of a farinograph [27,28]. A farinograph supports the dynamic measurements of the consistency of dough made from wheat flour and water, as well as changes in the dough properties during mixing. The following rheological properties are measured with a farinograph: the water absorption capacity of flour, dough development time, dough stability, and degree of softening. The water absorption capacity of flour is defined as the amount of water needed to bring the dough to maximum consistency [29,30]. Flours with a high water absorption capacity are used in the production of light and puffy cakes or breads, and they enhance the end products’ taste, increase crumb softness, and delay bread staling [30,31]. In turn, flours with a lower water absorption capacity are used in the production of cakes and biscuits [32]. Elastic dough with a low viscosity absorbs more water during mixing than weak dough [30]. Based on flour’s water absorption capacity, changes in the dough consistency during development and the degree of dough softening during mixing are registered by the farinograph [28]. The dough development time is influenced by gluten stability [25,33]. A long dough development time is undesirable in the baking industry, because it increases energy consumption during dough mixing. In turn, a very short dough development time is indicative of flour with low gluten quality [34,35]. Dough stability is defined as the time during which dough retains its shape during proofing. A high dough stability is indicative of a high dough strength and tolerance to mixing [33,34]. The degree of dough softening is also an important technological parameter in the baking industry. A high water absorption capacity and low degree of dough softening testify to the high quality of flour. In turn, a high degree of dough softening is indicative of low-quality flour [36], and it inhibits dough fermentation [37]. The baking quality of wheat flour can be comprehensively assessed based on the crumb density and bread loaf volume in a laboratory baking test [38]. These parameters determine the quality and sensory attributes of bread [38,39]. A dense crumb and low bread loaf volume are undesirable from the consumers’ point of view [40].
The technological quality of wheat grain is a complex trait that is determined by genetic factors, agroecological conditions, and agronomic practices, including the level of agricultural inputs [41,42,43,44]. Nitrogen fertilization is regarded as the key determinant of the technological quality of wheat grain [13,43,44,45,46]. Grain quality is affected not only by the N rate but also by the N application method [47]. In Poland, the optimal rate of N fertilizer in winter wheat for achieving grain yields of 8 Mg ha−1 is 160–180 kg ha−1, and 40–50% of that rate should be applied in the full tillering stage (FT), 30–40% in the first node stage (FN), and 20–25% in the “flag leaf just visible, but still rolled” stage [13]. Rapid synthesis of gluten proteins begins around 12 days after wheat flowering and ends 35 days after flowering despite the fact that the substrate (amino acids) is still present. For this reason, the total N rate has to be skillfully split into several applications to promote optimal wheat growth [13]. Nitrogen affects mainly the grain yield when applied in the early stages of wheat development, but it improves the quality of grain and flour when applied in successive growth stages [48,49,50]. The ash content of flour is determined mainly by weather conditions and cultivar, and it is less influenced by the N rate, N splitting, and date of N application [8,18,51,52]. The color of flour is negatively correlated with the ash content, and it is also weakly influenced by N fertilization [8,18,53,54,55,56,57,58,59]. An increase in the N rate increases the protein content of flour [60,61,62]. In turn, the water absorption capacity of flour, rheological properties of dough (development time, stability, and degree of softening), and bread quality (mainly loaf volume) tend to improve when N is applied in the later growth stages of wheat [18,52,56,60,62,63,64,65,66,67,68].
The technological quality of wheat grain is also affected by the sowing date [69] and sowing density [66,70,71,72,73]. Global climate change has prompted researchers to redefine the agronomic requirements in wheat production, including the optimal sowing dates [74,75,76,77,78]. However, most studies have examined the effects of delayed sowing mainly in the context of winter wheat yields, whereas the impact of delayed sowing on the quality of grain and flour remains insufficiently investigated [79,80,81,82,83]. According to the limited number of studies on the subject, delayed sowing increases the ash content of wheat grain [84,85]. In late-sown stands, grain ripening occurs at higher temperatures, which promotes crude ash accumulation [84]. The ash content is negatively correlated with the color of flour [18], which suggests that delayed sowing could also affect this attribute [86]. The grain of late-sown wheat (and the resulting flour) had a higher protein content [87,88], probably because wheat plants were exposed to higher temperatures during grain ripening, which promoted protein accumulation [89,90,91,92]. There is also limited evidence to indicate that the sowing date is associated with the water absorption capacity of flour, dough stability, and bread loaf volume. Delayed sowing decreases the water absorption capacity of flour and dough stability and increases the bread loaf volume [92,93]. The optimal sowing density in wheat production also needs to be redefined due to global climate change. The sowing density is a product of the sowing date and agricultural inputs in the production technology [13]. In Poland, 250–350 grains m−2 should be sown between 15 and 20 September [13]. The influence of N management under different sowing strategies on the quality of wheat flour and bread has not been examined in the literature to date. The present study was undertaken to fill in this knowledge gap.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of the sowing date, sowing density, and split application of N fertilizer in the spring on the flour quality (crude ash content, flour color, and total protein content), rheological properties of flour (water absorption capacity, dough development time, dough stability, and degree of softening), and bread quality (loaf volume and crumb density). The present study can contribute to the development of climate-resilient sowing and N management strategies for the production of high-quality winter wheat flour in northeastern Poland.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Field Experiment

Flour was obtained from winter wheat cv. ‘Julius’ in a field experiment conducted during three growing seasons (2018–2021) at the Agricultural Experiment Station (AES) in Bałcyny (53°35′46.4″ N, 19°51′19.5″ E, northeastern Poland) owned by the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn. The experiment involved three factors. The first factor was the sowing date: early (6 September 2018, 5 September 2019, and 3 September 2020), delayed by 14 days (17–20 September), and delayed by 28 days (1–4 October). The second factor was the sowing density: 200, 300, and 400 live grains m−2. The third factor was the split application of N fertilizer in the spring in the full tillering stage (FT; BBCH 22–25) and in the first node stage (FN; BBCH 30–31) at 40 + 100, 70 + 70, and 100 + 40 kg ha−1 (Pulan, Grupa Azoty SA, Puławy, Poland; ammonium nitrate, 34% N). The third split of N fertilizer (40 kg ha−1) was applied in the “flag leaf just visible, but still rolled” stage (BBCH 37) (Pulan, Grupa Azoty SA, Puławy, Poland; ammonium nitrate, 34% N). In the spring, N was applied on 6–12 March (FT), 7–10 May (FN), and 21–30 May (flag leaf just visible, but still rolled).
The experiment had a split-split-plot design (sowing date was assigned to whole plot treatments, sowing density was assigned to subplot treatments, and the split spring application of N fertilizer was assigned to sub-subplot treatments) with three replications. The plot size was 15 m2 (10 m by 1.5 m). The preceding crop was winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). All field treatments that did not constitute the experimental variables were consistent with the agronomic requirements of winter wheat and good agricultural practices. The experimental conditions (soil type and content of plant-available nutrients) and the production technology of winter wheat were described in detail by Lachutta and Jankowski [94] (Tables S1 and S2).

2.2. Flour Quality

Flour was obtained by grinding wheat grain in a laboratory mill (Brabender, Quadrumat Junior, Duisburg, Germany) according to the procedure described by Lachutta and Jankowski [95]. The crude ash content was determined with an NIR System InfratecTM 1241 grain analyzer (FOSS, Hillerod, Denmark) by measuring near-infrared transmittance in the wavelength range of 570–1050 nm. The flour color was evaluated with the use of a MB-3M whiteness meter (Zakład Badawczy Przemysłu Piekarskiego sp. z o. o., Bydgoszcz, Poland) that measured illuminance, i.e., the density of a luminous flux reflected from the flour surface at a wavelength of 565 nm. The total protein content of flour was determined with an AgriCheck instrument (Bruins Instruments, Puchheim, Bayern, Germany) by measuring near-infrared transmittance in the wavelength range of 730–1100 nm.

2.3. Rheological Properties of Dough and Bread Quality

The water absorption capacity and rheological properties of flour (dough development time, dough stability, and degree of softening) were measured with a Brabender farinograph with head type 50 according to Polish Standard PN-EN ISO 5530–1:2015–01 [96]. The bread quality was assessed in a laboratory baking test according to the method described by Klockiewicz-Kamińska and Brzeziński [97]. The dough was prepared in the Teddy Varimixer (Brøndby, Denmark) by mixing 500 g of flour with a moisture content of 15%, water (the amount of water was determined based on the water absorption capacity of flour at 27–28 °C), yeast (3% relative to the amount of water), and salt (1.5% relative to the amount of flour). Water was added in the amount required to achieve a dough temperature of 30 °C. The dough was fermented at a temperature of 30 °C and a relative humidity of 75–80% for 1 h in a proofing cabinet of the DC 32E electric oven (Sveba-Dahlen, Glimek AB, Fristad, Sweden). Dough portions were placed in baking tins and kept in the proofing cabinet at 35 °C for 20–40 min, i.e., the time required for optimal dough development. Bread was baked in the DC 32E electric oven (Sveba-Dahlen, Glimek AB, Fristad, Sweden) at 230 °C for 35 min. The bread loaf volume and crumb density were determined 24 h after baking. The bread loaf volume was determined by the seed displacement method with the use of millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) seeds and a 1200 cm3 Sa-Wy general-purpose volume scanner (Zakład Badawczy Przemysłu Piekarskiego sp. z o. o., Bydgoszcz, Poland). The amount of millet seeds displaced by the bread sample was equal to its volume. The crumb density was determined with the use of a crumb cutter (Zakład Badawczy Przemysłu Piekarskiego sp. z o. o., Bydgoszcz, Poland). A crumb sample with a volume of 27 cm3 was cut from the center of a bread loaf, at a distance of minimum 1 cm from the crust. The crumb density was calculated using Equation (1).
D c = W c V w
where the following is true:
Dc—crumb density (g cm−3);
Wc—crumb weight (g);
Vw—volume of the cylinder (27 cm3).
The flour quality, rheological properties of dough, and bread quality were assessed by Zakład Badawczy Przemysłu Piekarskiego sp. z o. o. in Bydgoszcz, Poland.

2.4. Weather Conditions

Weather conditions in the growing seasons of winter wheat (2018/2019, 2019/2020, and 2020/2021), with special emphasis on the grain ripening stage (mean daily temperature, precipitation, growing degree days, and the Selyaninov hydrothermal index), were described by Lachutta and Jankowski [94] and Lachutta and Jankowski [95] (Tables S3 and S4). In all growing seasons, the mean daily temperature exceeded the long-term average by 1.6–2.3 °C. In each year of the study, the mean daily temperatures exceeded the long-term averages in June, July, and August (by 2.1–5.3, 0.5–4.2, and 0.1–1.6 °C, respectively). In the first (2018/2019) and second (2019/2020) growing season, the total rainfall approximated the long-term average (595.8 mm) (Table S3). The highest grain yields (10.57–10.90 Mg ha−1) were noted in these growing seasons [94]. In the growing season of 2020/2021, the precipitation exceeded the long-term average by 13% (Table S3), and grain yields were 15–18% lower relative to the remaining years of the study [94].
The quality of winter wheat grain is influenced mainly by weather conditions between the milk stage to the fully ripe stage [13]. During the entire field experiment (2018–2021), the temperature and precipitation during grain ripening (BBCH 73–89) differed across years (Table S4). During grain ripening in 2019, 2020, and 2021, the growing degree days (GDDs) were determined at 251–273, 260–299, and 305–354 °C, respectively. In the 2018/2019 season, delayed sowing increased the GDDs by 22 °C during grain ripening (a particularly high increase of 25–94 °C in the GDDs was observed between the dough stage and the fully ripe stage). In turn, in the 2020/2021 season, delayed sowing decreased the GDDs by 31–49 °C during grain ripening. The precipitation levels during grain ripening were determined at 62.3–79.6 mm (2018/2019), 16.2–33.0 mm (2019/2020), and 75.5–97.9 mm (2020/2021). In the 2018/2019 season, winter wheat plants were exposed to higher precipitation (62.3 vs. 76.3–79.6 mm) during grain ripening. In turn, in the 2019/2020 season, precipitation was lower (33 vs. 19.1–16.2 mm) during grain ripening in late-sown stands. In the third year of the study (2020/2021), late-sown stands were exposed to higher precipitation in the milk stage (BBCH 73–83) but lower precipitation during grain ripening (BBCH 83–89). In general, the first and third growing seasons were characterized by the most favorable values of the Selyaninov hydrothermal index during grain ripening (humid spell). In the second growing season, grain ripening occurred during a dry spell (K = 0.40–0.79) (Table S4).

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The results of the conducted measurements (crude ash content, flour color, total protein content, water absorption capacity, dough development time, dough stability, degree of softening, bread loaf volume, and crumb density) were analyzed using the ANOVA with Statistica software, ver. 13 [98]. Post hoc multiple comparisons were performed with the use of Tukey’s HSD test at p ≤ 0.05. The results of the F-test for fixed effects in the ANOVA are presented in Table S5. The relationship between meteorological variables and the studied agronomic parameters was evaluated using the linear regression method. The values of Pearson’s correlation coefficient (R) were considered significant at p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.05 (Table S6).

3. Results

3.1. Flour Quality

The flour color was negatively correlated with the crude ash content (Table S6). The crude ash content of flour was positively correlated with weather conditions during grain ripening (Selyaninov index in BBCH 73–89) (Figure 1a). In turn, a negative correlation was noted between the flour color and the Selyaninov hydrothermal index during grain ripening (Figure 1b). A dry spell during grain ripening decreased the crude ash content of flour, which had a positive impact on the flour color. As a result, significantly lighter flour (79.9% of the whiteness standard) with a lower crude ash content (6.3 g kg−1 DM) was obtained from winter wheat grain produced in a growing season with the least favorable weather conditions during grain ripening (2019/2020) (Table 1 and Table S4).
The total protein content and water absorption capacity of flour were positively correlated with the crude ash content (Table S6). Therefore, the total protein content and water absorption capacity of flour were higher in years when weather conditions promoted crude ash accumulation (humid and wet spells during grain ripening). The highest total protein content (135 g kg−1 DM), the highest crude ash content (7.4 g kg−1 DM), and the highest water absorption capacity (62.2%) were noted in flour obtained from grain harvested in the first growing season (2018/2029) (Table 1).
The color of flour was significantly influenced by the sowing density and split spring N rate (Table S5). Lighter flour (78.2%) was obtained from grain grown in plots with the highest sowing density (400 grains m−2) (Table 1). Dense sowing exerted the most beneficial effect on the flour color in the first growing season (Figure 2). A lighter color was also obtained in 70 + 70 and 100 + 40 kg N ha−1 (Table 1).
The effect of the sowing date on the total protein content of flour varied depending on weather conditions in the years of the study. Delayed sowing had a particularly positive effect on the total protein content of flour in the first growing season (Figure 3), which was characterized by the most favorable weather conditions during grain ripening (highest values of the Selyaninov index, Table S4). In this year, grain ripening in late-sown stands took place under more supportive weather conditions (humid spell to wet spell, Table S4), which increased the total protein content of flour by 3.8–8.5% (Figure 3). In the remaining growing seasons (year 2 and 3), the sowing date had no effect on the total protein content of flour. An increase in the N rate at FT with a simultaneous decrease in the N rate at FN (100 + 40 kg ha−1) decreased the total protein content of wheat flour by 2.3% (Table 1).

3.2. Rheological Properties of Dough and Bread Quality

The dough stability was negatively correlated with the crude ash content of flour (Table S6) and weather conditions during grain ripening (Figure 4a). In turn, the degree of dough softening was positively correlated with the crude ash content and weather conditions from the milk stage to the fully ripe stage (Figure 4b).
Flour in the second growing season was characterized by more desirable rheological properties, including the longest dough development time (3.7 min), the highest dough stability (9.0 min), and the lowest dough mixing tolerance index (38.4 jB). In this growing season, a dry spell during grain ripening (K = 0.40–0.79) improved the rheological properties of flour (Table S4). The values of dough development time (3.5 min), dough stability (6.3–7.4 min), and degree of softening (48.2–53.5 jB) were least desirable when winter wheat was sown in August (sown early and sown with a delay of 14 days). Delayed sowing (+28 days) had a positive impact on the dough development time and stability (increase of 6% and 14–33%, respectively) and the degree of softening (the dough mixing tolerance index decreased by 12–21%), regardless of weather conditions (Table 2). Delayed sowing improved the rheological properties of flour, because grain ripening took place under less favorable weather conditions (Table S4), which increased the dough stability (negative correlation) and decreased the degree of dough softening during mixing (positive correlation) (Figure 4). The sowing density and split spring N rate exerted a significant effect only on the dough stability (Table S5). The dough stability was highest when winter wheat was sown at a density of 400 grains m−2 (7.8 min) and when N fertilizer was applied at 100 and 40 kg ha−1 (7.7 min). A decrease in the sowing density to 200–300 grains m−2 and the application of 40 + 100 kg N ha−1 decreased the dough stability by 8–10% and 8%, respectively (Table 2). An increase in the sowing density to 400 grains m−2 had a particularly beneficial influence on the dough stability when sowing was delayed +28 days (Figure 5). The effect of the sowing density and split spring N rate on dough stability did not vary depending on weather conditions in the years of the study (Table S5).
The analysis of the flour quality also involved a direct assessment of the baking quality in a laboratory baking test. It was assumed that the baking test would reveal specific quality traits that could not be determined with the use of indirect measurement methods. The bread loaf volume and crumb density were influenced by the ash content of the flour. An increase in the ash content decreased the bread loaf volume and increased the crumb density (Table S6). The bread loaf volume was negatively correlated with precipitation in the dough stage (BBCH 83–89). In turn, the crumb density was negatively correlated with the mean daily temperature during grain ripening (BBCH 73–89) (Figure 6). Bread baked from grain harvested in the second and third growing seasons was characterized by the largest loaf volume (347–350 cm3) and a low crumb density (0.23–0.24 g cm−3). These growing seasons were characterized by the lowest precipitation in the dough stage and the highest mean daily temperatures during grain ripening (Table S4).
A sowing delay of 14 and 28 days decreased the crumb density by 4% (to 0.24 g cm−3) but had no effect on loaf volume (Table 2). The crumb density was not affected by the sowing date only in the second growing season (Figure 7). Delayed sowing decreased the crumb density due to higher mean daily temperatures during grain ripening (Table S4). A high sowing density (400 grains m−2) increased the loaf volume by 1.5% (Table 2). A higher sowing density in the second and third growing seasons induced the greatest improvement in the flour quality (loaf volume increased by 2%) (Figure 8). The loaf volume and crumb density were not affected by the split spring N rate (Table S5).

4. Discussion

4.1. Flour Quality

The ash content denotes the concentration of minerals in flour [20,21,22,23]. The ash content not only affects the nutritional value of flour, but it also determines its technological quality and suitability for the production of various baked goods (for example, ash content does not exceed 5 g kg−1 DM in cake flour, ranges from 7.0 to 7.8 g kg−1 DM in bread flour, and exceeds 20 g kg−1 DM in graham flour) [16]. The ash content of wheat grain is determined mainly by weather conditions, including temperature and precipitation [71,99,100,101]. This observation was corroborated by the present study, which revealed a positive correlation between the crude ash content of flour and weather conditions during grain ripening. Unfavorable weather conditions during grain ripening decreased the accumulation of crude ash in the flour. The ash content of wheat flour was not influenced by the sowing date, sowing density, or split spring N rate, which is consistent with the findings of other authors [8,18,43,51,52,102,103,104]. In turn, Adeel et al. [101] and Caglar et al. [71] found that the ash content of flour decreased when sowing was delayed and when the sowing density was increased by 20% and 15%, respectively. According to Caglar et al. [71], Alignan et al. [84], and Adeel et al. [101], delayed sowing decreased the crude ash content of flour because winter wheat was exposed to high temperatures during grain ripening. In the current study, the flour color was very light (77–80%) due a low crude ash content (6.3–7.4 g kg−1 DM). Significantly lighter flour was obtained from the grain sown at the highest density of 400 grains m−2. The flour color was also correlated with the sowing density in the work of Caglar et al. [105]. In the present study, the split spring N rate affected the color of flour. Higher N rates applied in FT (100 + 40 kg ha−1) increased flour lightness (78.1%). The application of a portion of the split spring N rate in the FN stage with a simultaneous decrease in the N rate applied in the FT stage (70 + 70 and 40 + 100 kg ha−1) decreased flour lightness by 0.3 percent points (%p). In a study by Jankowski et al. [43], an increase in the N rate combined with systemic fungicide treatment decreased flour lightness by 0.5%p. In turn, the N rate had no effect on the color of wheat flour in the works of Jaskulska et al. [8] and Rodrighero et al. [18].
The protein content of flour determines its baking quality by improving the dough viscosity, extensibility, strength, and elasticity [65,106]. In this study, the total protein content was highest (132 g kg−1 DM) in flour obtained from the grain of late-sown winter wheat (+28 days). A similar relationship between the sowing date and protein content of flour was reported by Bagulho et al. [107], Knapowski et al. [92], and Adeel et al. [101]. The observed increase in the protein content of flour can be attributed to the fact that late-sown wheat is exposed to higher temperatures in the ripening stage, which promotes protein accumulation [90,91,108]. In the works of Geleta et al. [109], Mikos-Szymańska and Podolska [110], and Hao et al. [111], and in the present study (Table 1), an increase in sowing density decreased the protein content of flour by 12%, 2%, 6%, and 2%, respectively. In contrast, in a study by Madan and Munjal [112], the protein content of flour was not affected by the sowing density. Xue et al. [65] demonstrated that an increase in the N rate applied at the beginning of stem elongation decreased the protein concentration in flour by 6%. A reverse relationship was noted in this study, where the protein content of flour increased by 2% in response to a higher N rate at the beginning of stem elongation. These differences could be attributed to nutrient dissolution with an increase in grain yields [13]. In the work of Xue et al. [65], an increase in the N rate at the beginning of stem elongation increased the wheat grain yields by 2% and decreased the total protein content of flour. In turn, in our previous study [94], an increase in the N rate applied in the FN stage decreased the grain yield and increased the total protein content of flour. Johansson et al. [113] and Rossmann et al. [114] also found that late N application increased the protein content of wheat grain by 11% and 10%, respectively. In turn, Luo et al. [115], Madan and Munjal [112], and Haile et al. [116] found that the protein content of flour was influenced by the N rate but not by N splitting.
The water absorption capacity of flour is an important parameter that affects the quality of baked goods [117,118]. In the present study, delayed sowing increased the water absorption capacity of flour (by 1.1%p), and similar results were reported by Zhang et al. [119] (increase of 3.4%p). The observed increase in the water absorption capacity of flour could be due to the fact that late-sown wheat plants were exposed to high temperatures during grain ripening, which contributed to protein accumulation at the expense of the synthesis and storage of carbohydrates [99,120]. According to Huang et al. [121], delayed sowing modifies the starch quality by affecting its crystallinity and improving its pasting characteristics, but this effect may be reversed by an excessive delay in sowing [122]. In the works of Knapowski et al. [92] and Caglar et al. [105], delayed sowing decreased the water absorption of flour by 1.1 and 3.9%p, respectively. The sowing density has a weak influence on the water absorption capacity of flour [[123,124,125,126] and present study, Table 1], most likely due to the minor effect of this agronomic practice on the protein and starch contents of grain [127,128,129]. The only study where a higher sowing density increased the water absorption capacity of flour (by 2%) was conducted in northeastern China by Hao et al. [111]. The increase in the water absorption capacity observed by the cited authors [111] could be due to a beneficial influence of a higher seeding rate on the starch content of wheat grain. The higher the starch content of wheat flour, the greater its ability to absorb water during dough mixing [130,131]. Therefore, more water may be required to achieve the optimum dough consistency when using wheat flours with a higher starch content [120]. Split and late N applications can increase the water absorption capacity of flour [64,65,123]. Xue et al. [65] found that the water absorption capacity of flour increased by 3%p when the total N rate was applied in three splits (BBCH 00, BBCH 30, and BBCH 45) rather than two splits (BBCH 00 and BBCH 30). In turn, Blandino et al. [64] reported that foliar N application during flowering (5 kg ha−1) and soil N application at the beginning of heading (40 kg ha−1) increased the water absorption capacity of flour by 2% and 4%, respectively. In the current study and in the work of Warechowska et al. [52], split N application had no effect on the water absorption capacity of flour. In the work of Warechowska et al. [52] and in the present study, the absence of correlations between N splitting and the water absorption capacity of flour could be attributed to the relatively low total protein content of winter wheat grain (128–139 and 129–132 g kg−1 DM, respectively) as well as the weak effect of N fertilization on the protein content of grain (±3–5 and 2%, respectively). In a study by Blandino et al. [64], the total protein content of wheat grain was 4–9% higher, and N fertilization induced much greater differences in this parameter (±8%) than in the work of Warechowska et al. [52] and the present study.

4.2. Rheological Properties of Dough and Bread Quality

In the present study, delayed sowing (+28 days) increased the dough development time by 6%. A similar relationship between the sowing date and dough development time was reported by Zhang et al. [119] in China. The influence of sowing density on the dough development time appears to be more ambiguous. Gawęda et al. [126] did not observe changes in the dough development time in response to an increase in the sowing density. In the current study, conducted in northeastern Poland, the sowing density of winter wheat did not induce significant differences in the time of dough development. In turn, Han and Yang [124] and Hao et al. [111] found that a higher sowing density shortened the dough development time. In the work of Zhang et al. [119], the dough development time was influenced by the interaction between the sowing density and N rate. In their study, an increase in the sowing density shortened the dough development time in the absence of N fertilization, but the N rate of 240 kg ha−1 prolonged dough development. Jankowski et al. [43] also found that an increase in the spring N rate prolonged dough development by 38%. Blandino et al. [64] demonstrated that late N application had a positive impact on dough development. In their study, a supplemental N rate of 40 kg ha−1 applied at the beginning of heading prolonged dough development by 49%, whereas foliar N applied during full flowering prolonged dough development by 32%. In the present study, splitting the N fertilizer rate had no significant influence on the dough development time. According to Jankowski et al. [43] and Blandino et al. [64], N fertilization prolonged the dough development time mainly due to an increase in the total N rate. In the present study, the spring N rate was constant (140 kg ha−1), but N was applied in different splits, which could explain the absence of variations in the dough development time.
In the current experiment, the dough stability was strongly influenced by the sowing date, sowing density, and split spring N rate. The dough stability was highest when winter wheat was sown late (+ 28 days) at the highest density (400 grains m−2) and supplied with 100 + 40 kg N ha−1. In the work of Zhang et al. [119], the dough stability increased by 17% when sowing was delayed by 50 days. In turn, Dong et al. [93] reported that early sowing, a high sowing density, and a high N rate applied in FN had a positive impact on dough stability. Contrary to Zhang et al. [119] and the present study, Hao et al. [111] and Soofizada et al. [73] found that an increase in the sowing density had a negative effect on the dough stability. In the work of Zhang et al. [132], the effect of the sowing density on dough stability was determined by the N rate. The cited authors found that the dough stability increased with a rise in the sowing density only in response to a high N rate (240 kg ha−1). The dough stability was also affected by the sowing density in the experiment performed by Han and Yang [124], where an increase in the sowing density from 90 to 270 grains m−2 decreased the dough stability time by 16%. Zhang et al. [119] reported that the dough stability time was prolonged by 42% in response to an N rate of 240 kg ha−1 relative to the treatment without N fertilization. Jankowski et al. [43] also demonstrated that the dough stability was nearly three times higher in a high-input production technology of winter wheat. In contrast, Rodrighero [18], Blandino et al. [64], Souza et al. [56], Xue et al. [65], Keres et al. [62], and Cesevičienė et al. [68] did not report any correlations between N fertilization and dough stability.
Zhang et al. [119] found that the degree of dough softening decreased with a delay in sowing, which was also observed in the present study. A relationship between the sowing density and degree of dough softening was not noted in this experiment. The degree of dough softening was not affected by the sowing density in the work of Biel et al. [104] either. Gawęda et al. [123] observed that the degree of dough softening was strongly influenced by the interaction between the sowing density and weather conditions. In their study, a higher sowing density increased the degree of dough softening only in a year characterized by low total precipitation in June. The effect of N fertilization on the degree of dough softening is ambiguous [[62,133,134]; present study, Table 2]. In the work of Keres et al. [62] and in this study, N fertilization did not affect the degree of dough softening. In turn, Kunkulberga et al. [134] reported an increase in the degree of dough softening with an increase in the N rate, whereas Fleitas et al. [133] found that the degree of dough softening decreased in response to higher N rates. In a study by Jankowski et al. [43], the degree of dough softening decreased by 27% in a high-input production technology of winter wheat grain.
The crumb density and bread loaf volume are largely responsible for the taste of bread [38,39]. Consumers have a preference for bread with a large loaf volume and low crumb density [40]. Crumb density is a parameter that describes bread porosity, and it is associated with the properties of gluten [135]. In the present study, bread quality evaluated based on the crumb density and loaf volume was influenced significantly only by the sowing date and sowing density. The crumb density was lower (0.24 g cm−3) when winter wheat was sown in mid-September (+14 days). Delayed sowing decreased the crumb density, because wheat plants were exposed to higher mean daily temperatures during grain ripening. In turn, the loaf volume peaked (347 cm3) when winter wheat was sown at 400 grains m−2. Knapowski et al. [136] found no relationship between the bread loaf volume and the sowing date of wheat. In contrast, Dong et al. [93] demonstrated that bread made from flour obtained from the grain of early-sown wheat was characterized by the largest loaf volume (808 cm3). The loaf volume decreased by 11% when sowing was delayed by 21 days. In a study by Zhang et al. [132], the bread loaf volume increased by 7% when the sowing density was increased from 120 to 240 grains m−2. The wheat sowing density had a beneficial influence on the bread loaf volume in the work of Dong et al. [93], whereas no correlation between these parameters was noted by Guerrini et al. [66]. Nitrogen fertilization of wheat increases the bread loaf volume [93,137] but has an undesirable effect on the crumb density (by decreasing porosity) [66]. In the present study, split spring N application had no effect on the bread quality. The study demonstrated that the ash content of flour influences the bread quality. An increase in the ash content decreased the bread loaf volume and increased the crumb density. Nitrogen splitting did not induce differences in the ash content of flour, which could explain why this parameter had no effect on the bread quality.

5. Conclusions

The baking quality of flour was determined mainly by the sowing date, which influenced the highest number of the analyzed quality parameters. The quality attributes of wheat flour were less affected by the sowing density and split spring N rate. Flour of a higher baking quality was obtained from the grain of winter wheat sown between mid-September and early October (with a delay of 14 and 28 days). Delayed sowing increased the total protein content and water absorption capacity of flour and improved the dough development time, dough stability, and degree of softening. Delayed sowing decreased the crumb density (a desirable trait) without compromising the bread loaf volume. The highest sowing density of 400 grains m−2 improved the color of flour (without decreasing the crude ash content), dough stability, and bread loaf volume. The total protein content of flour peaked when a portion of the split spring N rate was 40 + 100 kg ha−1. In turn, an increase in the N rate in FT (100 + 40 kg ha−1) had the most beneficial influence on the color of flour and dough stability. The flour quality, rheological properties of dough, and bread quality were determined mainly by the crude ash content of the flour. A low ash content was accompanied by a decrease in the total protein content and water absorption capacity of flour. However, a low crude ash content had a positive effect on the flour color, dough stability, degree of dough softening, bread loaf volume, and crumb density. Therefore, agronomic treatments that decrease the ash content of flour may contribute to improving bread quality by exerting a beneficial influence on the rheological properties of dough. Sowing winter wheat at 400 grains m−2 with a delay of 14 or 28 days and the application of 100 + 40 kg N ha−1 in the FT stage and in the FN stage, respectively, decreased the crude ash content of flour.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app14125167/s1, Table S1. Chemical properties of the analyzed soil; Table S2. Production technology of winter wheat; Table S3. Weather conditions during the growing seasons of winter wheat in 2018–2021 and the long-term average (1981–2015) at the experimental site in the AES in Bałcyny (PM Ecology automatic weather station; PM Ecology Ltd., Gdynia, Poland); Table S4. Phenological development of winter wheat and weather conditions (2018/2019, 2019/2020, and 2020/2021); Table S5. F-test statistics in ANOVA; Table S6. Pearson’s correlation coefficients denoting the relationships between wheat flour parameters.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.L. and K.J.J.; methodology, K.L. and K.J.J.; software, K.L.; validation, K.L.; formal analysis, K.L.; investigation, K.L.; resources, K.L.; data curation, K.L.; writing—original draft preparation, K.L.; writing—review and editing, K.L. and K.J.J.; visualization, K.L.; supervision, K.J.J.; project administration, K.L. and K.J.J.; funding acquisition, K.J.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The results presented in this paper were obtained as part of a comprehensive study financed by the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn (grant No. 30.610.013–110), funded by the Minister of Science under “the Regional Initiative of Excellence Program”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the staff of the AES in Bałcyny for their technical support during the experiment.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Godfray, H.C.J.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J.F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.; Thomas, S.M.; Toulmin, C. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 2010, 327, 812–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Foley, J.A.; Ramankutty, N.; Brauman, K.A.; Cassidy, E.S.; Gerber, J.S.; Johnston, M.; Mueller, N.D.; O’Connell, C.; Ray, D.K.; West, P.C.; et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 2011, 478, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ray, D.K.; Mueller, N.D.; West, P.C.; Foley, J.A. Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e66428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Fischer, E.M.; Sedláček, J.; Hawkins, E.; Knutti, R. Models agree on forced response pattern of precipitation and temperature extremes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2014, 41, 8554–8562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Islam, S.M.F.; Karim, Z. World’s demand for food and water: The consequences of climate change. In Desalination-Challenges and Opportunities; Farahani, M.H.D.A., Vatanpour, V., Taheri, A., Eds.; IntechOPen: London, UK, 2019; pp. 225–240. [Google Scholar]
  6. Shiferaw, B.; Smale, M.; Braun, H.J.; Duveiller, E.; Reynolds, M.; Muricho, G. Crops that feed the world 10. Past successes and future challenges to the role played by wheat in global food security. Food Secur. 2013, 5, 291–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bernas, J.; Koppensteiner, L.J.; Tichá, M.; Kaul, H.P.; Klimek-Kopyra, A.; Euteneuer, P.; Moitzi, G.; Neugschwandtner, R.W. Optimal environmental design of nitrogen application rate for facultative wheat using life cycle assessment. Eur. J. Agron. 2023, 146, 126813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jaskulska, I.; Jaskulski, D.; Gałęzewski, L.; Knapowski, T.; Kozera, W.; Wacławowicz, R. Mineral composition and baking value of winter wheat grain under varied environmental and agronomic conditions. J. Chem. 2018, 2018, 5013825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jarecki, W.; Czernicka, M. Yield and quality of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) depending on multi-component foliar fertilization. J. Elem. 2022, 27, 559–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jarecki, W. Effects of sowing date variation on winter wheat (Tritium aestivum L.) quality and grain yield. J. Elem. 2023, 28, 1089–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Šramková, Z.; Gregova, E.; Šturdik, E. Chemical composition and nutritional quality of wheat grain. Acta Chim. Slovaca 2009, 2, 115–138. [Google Scholar]
  12. Al-Saleh, A.; Brennan, C.S. Bread wheat quality: Some physical, chemical and rheological characteristics of Syrian and English bread wheat samples. Foods 2012, 1, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Budzyński, W. Common wheat. In Wheats—Common, Spelt, Durum. Cultivation and Uses; Budzyński, W., Ed.; PWRiL: Poznań, Poland, 2012; 328p. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  14. Barak, S.; Mudgil, D.; Khatkar, B.S. Biochemical and functional properties of wheat gliadins: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015, 55, 357–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Podolska, G.; Aleksandrowicz, E.; Szafrańska, A. Bread making potential of Triticum aestivum and Triticum spelta species. Open Life Sci. 2020, 15, 30–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rothkaehl, J. Wheat grain for human consumption—Marketing and processing. In Wheats—Common, Spelt, Durum. Cultivation and Uses; Budzyński, W., Ed.; PWRiL: Poznań, Poland, 2012; pp. 235–264. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  17. Zhai, S.; Liu, J.; Xu, D.; Wen, W.; Yan, J.; Zhang, P.; Wan, Y.; Cao, S.; Hao, Y.; Xia, X. A Genome-wide association study reveals a rich genetic architecture of flour color-related traits in bread wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Rodrighero, M.B.; Caires, E.F.; Lopes, R.B.; Zielinski, A.A.; Granato, D.; Demiate, I.M. Wheat technological quality as affected by nitrogen fertilization under a no-till system. Acta Sci. Technol. 2015, 37, 175–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yildirim, A.; Atasoy, A. Quality characteristics of some durum wheat varieties grown in the Southeastern Anatolia Region of Turkey (GAP). Harran J. Agric. Food Sci. 2020, 24, 420–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wei, Y. Cereal and Food Quality; Shanxi People Press: Taiyuan, China, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kulkarni, S.D.; Acharya, R.; Nair, A.G.C.; Rajurkar, N.S.; Reddy, A.V.R. Determination of elemental concentration profiles in tender wheatgrass (Triticum aestivum L.) using instrumental neutron activation analysis. Food Chem. 2006, 95, 699–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Piironen, V.; Salmenkallio-Marttila, M. Micronutrients and phytochemicals in wheat grain. In Wheat: Chemistry and Technology; American Association of Cereal Chemists: St Paul, MN, USA, 2009; pp. 179–222. [Google Scholar]
  23. Czaja, T.; Sobota, A.; Szostak, R. Quantification of ash and moisture in wheat flour by Raman spectroscopy. Foods 2020, 9, 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhygunov, D.; Barkovska, Y.; Yehorshyn, Y.; Zhyhunova, H.; Barikian, K. Type 600 wheat-spelt, flour with improved bakery properties. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 14, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, Y.Q.; Zhu, R.J.; Tian, J.C. Influence of wheat protein contents and fractions on dough rheological properties as determined by using a reconstitution method. Agric. Sci. China 2008, 7, 395–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Trevisan, S.; Khorshidi, A.S.; Scanlon, M.G. Relationship between nitrogen functionality and wheat flour dough rheology: Extensional and shear approaches. Food Res. Int. 2022, 162, 112049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Cichoń, Z.; Ptak, M. Analysis of the quality of selected wheat flour types. Zesz. Nauk. Akad. Ekon. Krakowie 2005, 678, 89–102. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  28. Simón, M.R.; Fleitas, M.C.; Castro, A.C.; Schierenbeck, M. How foliar fungal diseases affect nitrogen dynamics, milling, and end-use quality of wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 569401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ellmann, T. Effect of plant protection, nitrogen fertilization and date of harvest on yield of winter wheat. Fragm. Agron. 2011, 28, 15–25. [Google Scholar]
  30. Fu, B.X.; Wang, K.; Dupuis, B. Predicting water absorption of wheat flour using high shear-based GlutoPeak test. J. Cereal Sci. 2017, 76, 116–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Puhr, D.P.; D’appolonia, B.L. Effect of baking absorption on bread yield, crumb moisture, and crumb water activity. Cereal Chem. 1992, 69, 582. [Google Scholar]
  32. Guttieri, M.J.; Bowen, D.; Gannon, D.; O’Brien, K.; Souza, E. Solvent retention capacities of irrigated soft white spring wheat flours. Crop Sci. 2001, 41, 1054–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, J.; Zhu, Y.; Yadav, M.P.; Li, J. Effect of various hydrocolloids on the physical and fermentation properties of dough. Food Chem. 2019, 271, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Marchetti, L.; Cardós, M.; Campaña, L.; Ferrero, C. Effect of glutens of different quality on dough characteristics and breadmaking performance. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Amjid, M.R.; Shehzad, A.; Hussain, S.; Shabbir, M.A.; Khan, M.R.; Shoaib, M. A comprehensive review on wheat flour dough rheology. Pak. J. Food Sci. 2013, 23, 105–123. [Google Scholar]
  36. Aydoğan, S.; Şahin, M.; Akçacık, A. Relationships between farinograph parameters and bread volume, physicochemical traits in bread wheat flours. Crop Sci. 2015, 3, 14–18. [Google Scholar]
  37. Menkinoska, M.; Blazhevska, T.; Stamatovsk, V. Determination of rheological properties with farinograf and extensigraf of bio-fortified flour. Proc. Univ. Ruse 2018, 57, 22–25. [Google Scholar]
  38. Różyło, R.; Laskowski, J.; Dziki, D. Physical properties of wheat bread baked from dough with different parameters. Acta Agrophys. 2011, 18, 421–430. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  39. Dziki, D.; Siastała, M.; Laskowski, J. Changes in physical properties of wheat bread as a result of soy flour addition. Acta Agrophys. 2010, 15, 91–100. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  40. Sahi, S.S.; Little, K.; Ananingsih, V.K. Quality control. In Bakery Products Science and Technology; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2014; pp. 489–509. [Google Scholar]
  41. Švec, I.; Hrušková, M. Modelling of wheat, flour, and bread quality parameters. Sci. Agric. Bohem. 2009, 40, 58–66. [Google Scholar]
  42. Muste, S.; Modoran, C.; Man, S.; Mureşan, V.; Birou, A. The influence of wheat genotype on its quality. J. Agroaliment. Process. Technol. 2010, 16, 99–103. [Google Scholar]
  43. Jankowski, K.J.; Budzyński, W.S.; Kijewski, Ł.; Dubis, D.; Lemański, M. Flour quality, the rheological properties of dough and the quality of bread made from the grain of winter wheat grown in a continuous cropping system. Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2014, 13, 3–18. [Google Scholar]
  44. Jankowski, K.J.; Kijewski, L.; Dubis, B. Milling quality and flour strength of the grain of winter wheat grown in monoculture. Rom. Agric. Res. 2015, 32, 191–200. [Google Scholar]
  45. Szafrańska, A.; Cacak-Pietrzak, G.; Sułek, A. Influence of nitrogen fertilization and retardants on the baking value of winter wheat. Electron. J. Pol. Agric. Univ. EJPAU Agron. 2008, 11, 28. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sułek, A.; Cacak-Pietrzak, G.; Wyzinska, M.; Nieróbca, A. influence of nitrogen fertilization on the yields and grain quality of winter wheat under different environmental conditions. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2019, 13, 127–133. [Google Scholar]
  47. Geisslitz, S.; Longin, C.F.H.; Scherf, K.A.; Koehler, P. Comparative study on gluten protein composition of ancient (einkorn, emmer and spelt) and modern wheat species (durum and common wheat). Foods 2019, 8, 409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Andersson, A.; Johansson, E.; Oscarson, P. Nitrogen redistribution from the roots in post-anthesis plants of spring wheat. Plant Soil 2005, 269, 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Andersson, A.; Johansson, E. Nitrogen partitioning in entire plants of different spring wheat cultivars. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2006, 192, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Stankowski, S.; Rutkowska, A. Winter wheat grain and flour quality traits as affected by the nitrogen fertilization dose and date. Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2006, 5, 53–61. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  51. Rozbicki, J.; Ceglińska, A.; Gozdowski, D.; Jakubczak, M.; Cacak-Pietrzak, G.; Mądry, W.; Golba, J.; Piechociński, M.; Sobczyński, M.; Studnicki, M.; et al. Influence of the cultivar, environment and management on the grain yield and bread-making quality in winter wheat. J. Cereal Sci. 2015, 61, 126–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Warechowska, M.; Stępień, A.; Wojtkowiak, K.; Nawrocka, A. The impact of nitrogen fertilization strategies on selected qualitative parameters of spring wheat grain and flour. Pol. J. Nat. Sci. 2019, 34, 199–212. [Google Scholar]
  53. Souza, E.J.; Martin, J.M.; Guttieri, M.J.; O’brien, K.M.; Habernicht, D.K.; Lanning, S.P.; McLean, R.; Carlson, G.R.; Talbert, L.E. Influence of genotype, environment, and nitrogen management on spring wheat quality. Crop Sci. 2004, 44, 425–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Dennett, A.L.; Trethowan, R.M. Milling efficiency of triticale grain for commercial flour production. J. Cereal Sci. 2013, 57, 527–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Joubert, M.; Lullien-Pellerin, V.; Morel, M.H. Impact of durum wheat grain composition on semolina yield and pasta quality. In Proceedings of the 15th European Young Cereal Scientists and Technologists Workshop (EYCSTW), Milan/Bergamo, Italy, 26 April 2016. [Google Scholar]
  56. Souza, T.M.; Prando, A.M.; de Miranda, M.Z.; Hirooka, E.Y.; Zucareli, C. Kernel chemical composition and flour quality of wheat in response to nitrogen sources and doses. Rev. Agrar. 2019, 12, 528–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Siddiqi, R.A.; Singh, T.P.; Rani, M.; Sogi, D.S.; Bhat, M.A. Diversity in grain, flour, amino acid composition, protein profiling, and proportion of total flour proteins of different wheat cultivars of North India. Front. Nutr. 2020, 7, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Banach, J.K.; Majewska, K.; Żuk-Gołaszewska, K. Effect of cultivation system on quality changes in durum wheat grain and flour produced in North-Eastern Europe. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0236617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Hong, S.; Park, J.; Lee, G.E.; Yoon, Y.M.; Kang, C.S.; Park, C.S. Effects of nitrogen fertilization on o-free, Korean wheat cultivar reduced ω-5 gliadin, on agronomic traits and noodle properties. Korean Soc. Breed. Sci. 2023, 55, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Saint Pierre, C.; Peterson, C.J.; Ross, A.S.; Ohm, J.B.; Verhoeven, M.C.; Larson, M.; Hoefer, B. White wheat grain quality changes with genotype, nitrogen fertilization, and water stress. Agron. J. 2008, 100, 414–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Valdés Valdés, C.; Estrada-Campuzano, G.; Martinez Rueda, C.G.; Domínguez López, A.; Solis-Moya, E.; Villanueva Carvajal, A. Grain and flour wheat quality modified by genotype, availability of nitrogen, and growing season. Int. J. Agron. 2020, 2020, 1974083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Keres, I.; Alaru, M.; Koppel, R.; Altosaar, I.; Tosens, T.; Loit, E. The combined effect of nitrogen treatment and weather conditions on wheat protein-starch interaction and dough quality. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Majewska, K. Classification and synthesis of wheat grain gluten proteins. Żyw. Nauk. Technol. Jakość 1999, 6, 15–25. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  64. Blandino, M.; Marinaccio, F.; Reyneri, A. Effect of late-season nitrogen fertilization on grain yield and on flour rheological quality and stability in common wheat, under different production situations. Ital. J. Agron. 2016, 11, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Xue, C.; Matros, A.; Mock, H.P.; Mühling, K.H. Protein composition and baking quality of wheat flour as affected by split nitrogen application. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Guerrini, L.; Napoli, M.; Mancini, M.; Masella, P.; Cappelli, A.; Parenti, A.; Orlandini, S. Wheat grain composition, dough rheology, and bread quality as affected by nitrogen and sulfur fertilization and seeding density. Agronomy 2020, 10, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Jańczak-Pieniążek, M.; Buczek, J.; Jarecki, W.; Bobrecka-Jamro, D. Effect of high nitrogen doses on yield, quality, and chemical composition of grain of winter wheat cultivars. J. Elem. 2020, 25, 1005–1017. [Google Scholar]
  68. Cesevičienė, J.; Gorash, A.; Liatukas, Ž.; Armonienė, R.; Ruzgas, V.; Statkevičiūtė, G.; Jaškūnė, K.; Brazauskas, G. Grain yield performance and quality characteristics of waxy and non-waxy winter wheat cultivars under high and low-input farming systems. Plants 2022, 11, 882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Zende, N.B.; Sethi, H.N.; Karunakar, A.P.; Jiotode, D.J. Effect of sowing time and fertility levels on yield and quality of durum wheat genotypes. Res. Crops 2005, 6, 194–196. [Google Scholar]
  70. Otteson, B.N.; Mergoum, M.; Ransom, J.K. Seeding rate and nitrogen management on milling and baking quality of hard red spring wheat genotypes. Crop Sci. 2008, 48, 749–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Caglar, O.; Bulut, S.; Karaoglu, M.M.; Kotancilar, H.G.; Ozturk, A. Quality response of facultative wheat to winter sowing, freezing sowing and spring sowing at different seeding rates. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 2011, 10, 3368–3374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zecevic, V.; Boskovic, J.; Knezevic, D.; Micanovic, D. Effect of seeding rate on grain quality of winter wheat. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2014, 74, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Soofizada, Q.; Pescatore, A.; Guerrini, L.; Fabbri, C.; Mancini, M.; Orlandini, S.; Napoli, M. Effects of nitrogen plus sulfur fertilization and seeding density on yield, rheological parameters, and asparagine content in old varieties of common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Agronomy 2022, 12, 351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wilcox, J.; Makowski, D. A meta-analysis of the predicted effects of climate change on wheat yields using simulation studies. Field Crops Res. 2014, 156, 180–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Pakrooh, P.; Kamal, M.A. Modeling the potential impacts of climate change on wheat yield in Iran: Evidence from national and provincial data analysis. Ecol. Model. 2023, 486, 110513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Farooq, A.; Farooq, N.; Akbar, H.; Hassan, Z.U.; Gheewala, S.H. A critical review of climate change impact at a global scale on cereal crop production. Agronomy 2023, 13, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zahra, N.; Hafeez, M.B.; Wahid, A.; Al Masruri, M.H.; Ullah, A.; Siddique, K.H.; Farooq, M. Impact of climate change on wheat grain composition and quality. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2023, 103, 2745–2751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Nóia Júnior, R.d.S.; Deswarte, J.-C.; Cohan, J.-P.; Martre, P.; van Der Velde, M.; Lecerf, R.; Webber, H.; Ewert, F.; Ruane, A.C.; Slafer, G.A.; et al. The extreme 2016 wheat yield failure in France. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2023, 29, 3130–3146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Ainsworth, E.A.; Ort, D.R. How do we improve crop production in a warming world? Plant Physiol. 2010, 154, 526–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Xiao, D.; Tao, F.; Liu, Y.; Shi, W.; Wang, M.; Liu, F.; Shuai, Z.; Zhu, Z. Observed changes in winter wheat phenology in the North China Plain for 1981–2009. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2013, 57, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Xiao, D.; Moiwo, J.P.; Tao, F.; Yang, Y.; Shen, Y.; Xu, Q.; Liu, J.; Liu, F. Spatiotemporal variability of winter wheat phenology in response to weather and climate variability in China. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2015, 20, 1191–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kusunose, Y.; Rossi, J.J.; van Sanford, D.A.; Alderman, F.D.; Anderson, J.A.; Chai, Y.; Gerullis, M.K.; Jagadish, S.V.K.; Paul, P.A.; Tack, S.B.; et al. Sustaining productivity gains in the face of climate change: A research agenda for US wheat. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2023, 29, 926–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Qiao, S.; Harrison, S.P.; Prentice, I.C.; Wang, H. Optimality-based modelling of wheat sowing dates globally. Agric. Syst. 2023, 206, 103608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Alignan, M.; Roche, J.; Bouniols, A.; Cerny, M.; Mouloungui, Z.; Merah, O. Effects of genotype and sowing date on phytostanol–phytosterol content and agronomic traits in wheat under organic agriculture. Food Chem. 2009, 117, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ahmed, M.; Hassan, F. Response of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) quality traits and yield to sowing date. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0126097. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  86. Guzmán, C.; Autrique, J.E.; Mondal, S.; Singh, R.P.; Govindan, V.; Morales-Dorantes, A.; Posadas-Romano, G.; Crossa, J.; Ammar, K.; Peña, R.J. Response to drought and heat stress on wheat quality, with special emphasis on bread-making quality, in durum wheat. Field Crops Res. 2016, 186, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Tahir, I.S.; Nakata, N.; Ali, A.M.; Mustafa, H.M.; Saad, A.S.I.; Takata, K.; Ishikawa, N.; Abdalla, O.S. Genotypic and temperature effects on wheat grain yield and quality in a hot irrigated environment. Plant Breed. 2006, 125, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Li, Y.F.; Wu, Y.; Hernandez-Espinosa, N.; Peña, R.J. Heat and drought stress on durum wheat: Responses of genotypes, yield, and quality parameters. J. Cereal Sci. 2013, 57, 398–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Johansson, E.; Kuktaite, R.; Andersson, A.; Prieto-Linde, M.L. Protein polymer build-up during wheat grain development: Influences of temperature and nitrogen timing. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2005, 85, 473–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Labuschagne, M.T.; Elago, O.; Koen, E. The influence of temperature extremes on some quality and starch characteristics in bread, biscuit and durum wheat. J. Cereal Sci. 2009, 9, 84–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Hrušková, M.; Švec, I. Wheat hardness in relation to other quality factors. Czech J. Food Sci. 2009, 27, 240–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Knapowski, T.; Ropińska, P.; Kazek, M.; Wenda-Piesik, A. Flour and bread quality of spring wheat cultivars (Triticum aestivum L.) sown at facultative and spring sowing dates. Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2018, 17, 133–142. [Google Scholar]
  93. Dong, S.; Zhang, X.; Chu, J.; Zheng, F.; Fei, L.; Dai, X.; He, M. Optimized seeding rate and nitrogen topdressing ratio for simultaneous improvement of grain yield and bread-making quality in bread wheat sown on different dates. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2021, 102, 360–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lachutta, K.; Jankowski, K.J. An agronomic efficiency analysis of winter wheat at different sowing strategies and nitrogen fertilizer rates: A case study in northeastern Poland. Agriculture 2024, 14, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Lachutta, K.; Jankowski, K.J. The quality of winter wheat grain at different sowing strategies and nitrogen fertilizer rates: A case study in northeastern Poland. Agriculture 2024, 14, 552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. PN-EN ISO 5530-1:2015-01; Wheat Flour—Physical Characteristics of Doughs. Part 1. Determination of Water Absorption and Rheological Properties Using a Farinograph. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warszawa, Poland, 2015. (In Polish)
  97. Klockiewicz-Kamińska, E.; Brzeziński, W.J. Method of evaluation and quality-based classification of cultivars. Wiadomości Odmianozn. 1997, 67, 3–18. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  98. TIBCO Software Inc. Statistica (Data Analysis Software System), Version 13; TIBCO Software Inc.: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  99. Ozturk, A.; Aydin, F. Effect of water stress at various growth stages on some quality characteristics of winter wheat. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2004, 190, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Egesel, C.O.; Kahriman, F.S.T.L.; Baytekin, H. Interrelationships of flour quality traits with grain yield in bread wheat and choosing suitable cultivars. Anadolu J. Agric. Sci. 2009, 24, 76–83. [Google Scholar]
  101. Adeel, M.; Nazir, A.; Aziz, H. Impact of sowing dates and terminal heat stress on wheat grain flour physical and chemical properties. Jammu Kashmir J. Agric. 2022, 2, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Garrido-Lestache, E.; López-Bellido, R.J.; López-Bellido, L. Effect of N rate, timing, and splitting and N type on bread-making quality in hard red spring wheat under rainfed Mediterranean conditions. Field Crops Res. 2004, 85, 213–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Munsif, F.; Arif, M.; Ali, K.; Jan, M.T.; Khan, M.J. Influence of planting dates on grain quality of different wheat cultivars in dual-purpose system. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2015, 17, 945–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Biel, W.; Stankowski, S.; Sobolewska, M.; Sadkiewicz, J.; Jaroszewska, A.; Pużyński, S. Effect of selected agronomic factors on the baking quality of winter spelt strains and cultivars (Triticum aestivum ssp. spelta L.) in comparison with common wheat (Triticum aestivum ssp. vulgare). Rom. Agric. Res. 2016, 33, 251–258. [Google Scholar]
  105. Caglar, O.; Yildiz, G.; Karaoglu, M.M.; Ozturk, A.; Bulut, S. The effects of sowing times and seeding rates on the farinograph parameters and color of facultative kirik wheat. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2023, 32, 2918–2924. [Google Scholar]
  106. Wieser, H. Chemistry of gluten proteins. Food Microbiol. 2007, 24, 15–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Bagulho, A.S.; Costa, R.; Almeida, A.S.; Pinheiro, N.; Moreira, J.; Gomes, C.; Coco, J.; Costa, A.; Coutinho, J.; Maçãs, B. Influence of year and sowing date on bread wheat quality under Mediterranean conditions. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2015, 27, 186–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Balla, K.; Veisz, O. Changes in the quality of cereals in response to heat and drought stress. Acta Agron. Óvar. 2007, 49, 451–455. [Google Scholar]
  109. Geleta, B.; Atak, M.; Baenziger, P.S.; Nelson, L.A.; Baltenesperger, D.D.; Eskridge, K.M.; Shipman, M.J.; Shelton, D.R. Seeding rate and genotype effect on agronomic performance and end-use quality of winter wheat. Crop Sci. 2002, 42, 827–832. [Google Scholar]
  110. Mikos-Szymańska, M.; Podolska, G. The effects of sowing date and seeding rate on spelt and common wheat protein composition and characteristics. Qual. Assur. Saf. Crops Foods 2016, 8, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Hao, R.; Noor, H.; Wang, P.; Sun, M.; Noor, F.; Ullah, S.; Gao, Z. Combined effects of starch sucrose content and planting density on grain protein content of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J. Food Nutr. Res. 2022, 10, 321–331. [Google Scholar]
  112. Madan, H.S.; Munjal, R. Effect of split doses of nitrogen and seed rate on protein content, protein fractions and yield of wheat. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2009, 4, 26–31. [Google Scholar]
  113. Johansson, E.; Prieto-Linde, M.L.; Svensson, G. Influence of nitrogen application rate and timing on grain protein composition and gluten strength in Swedish wheat cultivars. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2004, 167, 345–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Rossmann, A.; Pitann, B.; Mühling, K.H. Splitting nitrogen applications improves wheat storage protein composition under low N supply. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2019, 182, 347–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Luo, C.; Branlard, G.; Griffin, W.B.; McNeil, D.L. The effect of nitrogen and sulphur fertilisation and their interaction with genotype on wheat glutenins and quality parameters. J. Cereal Sci. 2000, 31, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Haile, D.; Nigussie, D.; Ayana, A. Nitrogen use efficiency of bread wheat: Effects of nitrogen rate and time of application. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2012, 12, 389–410. [Google Scholar]
  117. Linlaud, N.E.; Puppo, M.C.; Ferrero, C. Effect of hydrocolloids on water absorption of wheat flour and farinograph and textural characteristics of dough. Cereal Chem. 2009, 86, 376–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Sapirstein, H.; Wu, Y.; Koksel, F.; Graf, R. A study of factors influencing the water absorption capacity of Canadian hard red winter wheat flour. J. Cereal Sci. 2018, 81, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Zhang, Z.; Jia, D.; Wang, D.; Zhou, N.; Xing, Z.; Xu, K.; Wei, H.; Guo, B.; Zhang, H. Starch and dough-related properties of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) exposed to varying temperatures and radiances after anthesis. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Maningat, C.C.; Seib, P.A.; Bassi, S.D.; Woo, K.S.; Lasater, G.D. Wheat starch: Production, properties, modification and uses. In Starch; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009; pp. 441–510. [Google Scholar]
  121. Huang, X.; Zhou, X.; Liu, X.; Zhong, W.; Wang, X.; Ju, Z.; Yin, Y.; Xin, Q.; Liu, N.; Liu, X.; et al. Structural and physicochemical effects on the starch quality of the high-quality wheat genotype caused by delayed sowing. Front. Nutr. 2024, 11, 1389745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Zang, Y.; Yao, H.; Ran, L.; Zhang, R.; Duan, Y.; Yu, X.; Xiong, F. Physicochemical properties of wheat starch under different sowing dates. Starch-Stärke 2022, 74, 2100290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Chen, Y.; Yang, P.; Li, H. Simulation study on effects of planting density and sowing date on grain quality of winter wheat. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2023, 24, 143–153. [Google Scholar]
  124. Han, H.; Yang, W. Influence of uniconazole and plant density on nitrogen content and grain quality in winter wheat in South China. Plant Soil Environ. 2009, 55, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. de Pelegrin, A.J.; Carvalho, I.R.; Ferrari, M.; Nardino, M.; Szareski, V.J.; Meira, D.; Wartha, C.A.; Follman, D.N.; de Pelegrin, C.M.G.; Gutkoski, L.C.; et al. Evaluation of solvent retention capacity of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) flour depending on genotype and different timing of nitrogenous fertilizer application. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2016, 11, 4389–4394. [Google Scholar]
  126. Gawęda, D.; Gawęda, M.; Chojnacka, S.; Sobolewska, M.; Łukasz, J.; Hury, G.; Wesołowska-Trojanowska, M. Evaluation of the technological quality of grain and flour of two spelt wheat (Triticum aestivum ssp. spelta L.) cultivars grown under different conditions of crop protection and seeding rate. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019, 17, 4377–4395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Nakano, H.; Morita, S. Effects of seeding rate and nitrogen application rate on grain yield and protein content of the bread wheat cultivar ‘Minaminokaori’ in southwestern Japan. Plant Prod. Sci. 2009, 12, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Gaile, Z.; Ruza, A.; Kreita, D.; Paura, L. Yield components and quality parameters of winter wheat depending on tillering coefficient. Agron. Res. 2017, 15, 79–93. [Google Scholar]
  129. Mosanaei, H.; Ajamnorozi, H.; Dadashi, M.R.; Faraji, A.; Pessarakli, M. Improvement effect of nitrogen fertilizer and plant density on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) seed deterioration and yield. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2017, 29, 899–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Shevkani, K.; Singh, N.; Bajaj, R.; Kaur, A. Wheat starch production, structure, functionality and applications—A review. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 52, 38–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, G. Starch content and physicochemical properties of green wheat starch. Int. J. Food Prop. 2019, 22, 1463–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Zhang, Y.; Dai, X.; Jia, D.; Li, H.; Wang, Y.; Li, C.; Xu, H.; He, M. Effects of plant density on grain yield, protein size distribution, and breadmaking quality of winter wheat grown under two nitrogen fertilisation rates. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 73, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Fleitas, M.C.; Schierenbeck, M.; Gerard, G.S.; Dietz, J.I.; Golik, S.I.; Campos, P.E.; Simón, M.R. How leaf rust disease and its control with fungicides affect dough properties, gluten quality and loaf volume under different N rates in wheat. J. Cereal Sci. 2018, 80, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Kunkulberga, D.; Linina, A.; Ruza, A. Effect of nitrogen fertilization on protein content and rheological properties of winter wheat wholemeal. In Proceedings of the 3th Baltic Conference on Food Science and Technology “FOOD, NUTRITION, WELL-BEING”, Jelgava, Latvia, 2–3 May 2019; pp. 88–92. [Google Scholar]
  135. Lagrain, B.; Wilderjans, E.; Glorieux, C.; Delcour, J.A. Importance of gluten and starch for structural and textural properties of crumb from fresh and stored bread. Food Biophys. 2012, 7, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Knapowski, T.; Ralcewicz, M. Evaluation of qualitative features of Mikon cultivar winter wheat grain and flour depending on selected agronomic factors. Electron. J. Pol. Agric. Univ. EJPAU Agron. 2004, 7, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  137. Knapowski, T.; Ralcewicz, M. Estimation of the quality parameters of winter wheat grain and flour in response to different nitrogen rates. Ann. UMCS Sec. E 2004, 59, 959–968. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
Applsci 14 05167 g001
Figure 1. Linear regression between the crude ash content (a) and color of flour (b) vs. the Selyaninov hydrothermal index during winter wheat grain ripening. * significant at p ≤ 0.05; ** significant p ≤ 0.01.
Figure 1. Linear regression between the crude ash content (a) and color of flour (b) vs. the Selyaninov hydrothermal index during winter wheat grain ripening. * significant at p ≤ 0.05; ** significant p ≤ 0.01.
Applsci 14 05167 g001
Applsci 14 05167 g002
Figure 2. The effect of the sowing density on the color of wheat flour. Means with the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s test.
Figure 2. The effect of the sowing density on the color of wheat flour. Means with the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s test.
Applsci 14 05167 g002
Applsci 14 05167 g003
Figure 3. The effect of the sowing date on the total protein content of wheat flour. Means with the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s test.
Figure 3. The effect of the sowing date on the total protein content of wheat flour. Means with the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s test.
Applsci 14 05167 g003
Applsci 14 05167 g004
Figure 4. Linear regression between dough stability (a) and the degree of softening (b) vs. the Selyaninov hydrothermal index during winter wheat grain ripening. * significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 4. Linear regression between dough stability (a) and the degree of softening (b) vs. the Selyaninov hydrothermal index during winter wheat grain ripening. * significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Applsci 14 05167 g004
Applsci 14 05167 g005
Figure 5. The effect of the sowing date and sowing density on dough stability. Means with the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s test.
Figure 5. The effect of the sowing date and sowing density on dough stability. Means with the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s test.
Applsci 14 05167 g005
Applsci 14 05167 g006
Figure 6. Linear regression between (a) bread loaf volume and total precipitation in the dough stage; (b) crumb density and mean daily temperature during winter wheat grain ripening. * significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 6. Linear regression between (a) bread loaf volume and total precipitation in the dough stage; (b) crumb density and mean daily temperature during winter wheat grain ripening. * significant at p ≤ 0.05.
Applsci 14 05167 g006
Applsci 14 05167 g007
Figure 7. The effect of the sowing date on crumb density. Means with the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s test.
Figure 7. The effect of the sowing date on crumb density. Means with the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s test.
Applsci 14 05167 g007
Applsci 14 05167 g008
Figure 8. The effect of the sowing density on bread loaf volume. Means with the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s test.
Figure 8. The effect of the sowing density on bread loaf volume. Means with the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s test.
Applsci 14 05167 g008
Table 1. Quality parameters of winter wheat flour.
Table 1. Quality parameters of winter wheat flour.
ParameterCrude Ash Content
(g kg−1 DM)		Color (% Whiteness Standard)Total Protein Content
(g kg−1 DM)		Water Absorption
Capacity (%)
Growing season
2018/20197.4 a76.9 b135 a62.2 a
2019/20206.3 c79.9 a127 c57.7 c
2020/20216.6 b77.1 b129 b59.2 b
Sowing date, mean for 2018–2021
Early6.878.0129 b59.2 b
Delayed (+14 days)6.777.9130 b59.5 ab
Delayed (+28 days)6.777.9132 a60.3 a
Sowing density (live grains m−2), mean for 2018–2021
2006.877.9 b132 a59.6
3006.877.8 b130 ab59.4
4006.778.2 a129 b60.0
Split spring N rate (kg ha−1), mean for 2018–2021
40 + 1006.877.8 b132 a59.7
70 + 706.778.0 ab130 ab60.0
100 + 406.778.1 a129 b59.3
Means with the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s test. Means without letters indicate that the main effect is not significant.
Table 2. Rheological properties of dough and bread quality.
Table 2. Rheological properties of dough and bread quality.
ParameterDevelopment Time (min)Stability (min)Degree of
Softening (jB)		Bread Loaf Volume (cm3)Crumb Density
(g cm−3)
Growing season
2018/20193.5 b5.2 c60.5 a333 b0.27 a
2019/20203.7 a9.0 a38.4 c350 a0.24 b
2020/20213.5 b7.8 b45.2 b347 a0.23 c
Sowing date, mean for 2018–2021
Early3.5 b7.4 b48.2 a3430.25 a
Delayed (+14 days)3.5 b6.3 c53.5 a3430.24 b
Delayed (+28 days)3.7 a8.4 a42.4 b3440.24 b
Sowing density (live grains m−2), mean for 2018–2021
2003.67.2 b49.5342 b0.25
3003.57.0 b47.9342 b0.25
4003.57.8 a46.7347 a0.24
Split spring N rate (kg ha−1), mean for 2018–2021
40 + 1003.67.1 b48.93450.24
70 + 703.57.3 ab48.73430.25
100 + 403.57.7 a46.53430.25
Means with the same letters do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s test. Means without letters indicate that the main effect is not significant.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lachutta, K.; Jankowski, K.J. Quality of Winter Wheat Flour from Different Sowing and Nitrogen Management Strategies: A Case Study in Northeastern Poland. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5167. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14125167

AMA Style

Lachutta K, Jankowski KJ. Quality of Winter Wheat Flour from Different Sowing and Nitrogen Management Strategies: A Case Study in Northeastern Poland. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(12):5167. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14125167

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lachutta, Krzysztof, and Krzysztof Józef Jankowski. 2024. "Quality of Winter Wheat Flour from Different Sowing and Nitrogen Management Strategies: A Case Study in Northeastern Poland" Applied Sciences 14, no. 12: 5167. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14125167

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop