Bread-making potential of selected spring wheat species depending on crop year and production technology intensity

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of different levels of production technology intensity on grain quality of four species of spring wheat: common wheat (Triticum aestivum ssp. aestivum L.), durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.), spelt wheat (Triticum aestivum ssp. spelta [L.] Thell) and dicoccum wheat (Triticum dicoccum [Schrank] Schübler). Two levels of production technology intensity were applied in the experiment: medium mineral fertilisation (N -70, P -30.5 and K -99.6 kg ha -1 ), seed priming and weed control; high mineral fertilisation (N -140, P -30.5 and K -99.6 kg ha -1 ), seed priming, weed control, two treatments against diseases, insecticide and growth regulator. Tested wheat grains were collected from the crop years 2011-2013. To assess the baking quality of tested wholegrain flour, gluten quantity and quality, falling number and Mixolab parameters were determined. Rheological properties of wholegrain wheat dough were affected mostly by wheat species and crop year. Among the analysed species, spelt wheat was characterised by the highest wet gluten content, amylolytic activity (C4) and starch retrogradation (C5). Dicoccum wheat was characterised by the lowest gluten content and the lowest resistance time of dough (T1) and stability. Dicoccum wheat had also the highest protein weakening (the lowest Cs and C2). Crop year had a significant effect on starch gelatinisation (C3), amylolytic activity (C4), retrogradation (C5) and gelatinisation time (T3-T2). Wheat cultivated under high level of production technology intensity was characterised by higher gluten content and lower final temperature of starch gelatinisation (D3).

Flour from Triticum polonicum L. as a potential ingredient in bread production

“…Water absorption is an indicator of baking quality, and it ranged from 60.6% to 69.2% in the examined samples of wholemeal flour (Table ). Similar values were reported by Rachoń et al () in T. aestivum, T. spelta, T. durum , and T. dicoccum. High‐protein flour is characterized by high water absorption which contributes to baking performance by increasing product yield and extending the shelf life of products.…”

“…Significant negative correlations were noted between dough stability versus ash ( r = −0.712) and protein content ( r = −0.661). Rachoń et al () demonstrated that emmer was characterized by the shortest T1 (1.3 min) and stability time (1.1 min) relative to other wheat species, which is indicative of the poor quality of T. dicoccum flour. Rachoń et al () did not observe significant differences between farinograph stability times of common and durum wheat, and noted the longest stability time in spelt.…”

“…Triticum polonicum grain with the highest α‐amylase activity in the FN test was characterized by the lowest stability during heating (C4) and retrogradation (C5) and greater variation in these parameters than T. aestivum . Low values of C4 and C5 (below 0.2 and 0.4 Nm, respectively) are typical for sprouted grain (Rachoń et al, ). Significant positive Pearson's correlations were found between FN and C3 ( r = 0.849), C4 ( r = 0.824), and C5 ( r = 0.737), and similar results were reported by Rachoń et al () and Konvalina et al ().…”

“…Kohajdová and Karovičová (2009), Konvalina et al (2017) and Rachoń, Szumiło, and Stankowski (2011) demonstrated that gluten content was lower in common wheat than in durum wheat, einkorn, emmer, and spelt. In the work of Rachoń et al (2016), gluten content was lowest in T. dicoccum and highest in T. spelta.…”

“…The lowest values of GI were found in samples with higher ash content (r = −0.629). Rachoń et al (2016) found that gluten quality was lower in T. polonicum than in T. dicoccum and T. spelta, which renders T. polonicum unsuitable for yeast-based products (Konvalina, Capouchová, Stehno, & Moudrý, 2010). The gluten of T. polonicum appears to be less elastic and more extensible compared to common wheat, but it is similar to T. spelta in this respect (Pruska-Kędzior, Kedzior, & Klockiewicz-Kaminska, 2008).…”