Abstract
Organic agriculture imposes strict limitations on the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and as a result, is generally characterized by a reduced availability of nutrients (especially N and P), higher risk of weed infestation and disease or insects attack. All of these can affect the yield level and/or quality. We compared protein concentration and rheological parameters of several wheat cultivars grown under organic, conventional and low input systems for two years in Romania. All analyzed quality parameters were strongly influenced by the environmental conditions. The effect of agricultural systems was significant for protein concentration, dough strength and breakdown, as well as for estimated bread volume, while the cultivar effect was significant only for dough breakdown, elasticity, and speed of formation, as well as for bread volume. The interaction between agricultural systems and cultivars was not significant for any of the analyzed parameters, and this suggests that breeding for high bread-making quality can be efficient for improving quality in all agricultural systems. On average, with the management practices used in our tests, organic wheat had about 30% lower protein concentration, 8% longer mixing time, 23% lower dough strength, 51% lower breakdown and 44% lower bread volume. Most of the differences in rheological parameters seem to be related with the difference in protein concentration, and this suggest that special measures to increase nitrogen availability in the organic system are necessary in order to improve bread-making quality of wheat produced in this system. Cultivar differences in quality parameters were too small to counteract the effects of the management practices.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 14
Claim · model-written summary
Organic wheat had about 30% lower protein concentration.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Treatment
- organice4
- Outcome
- protein concentratione4
- Direction
- lowere4
- Value
- about 30%e4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“BAKING QUALITY OF WHEAT CULTIVARS, GROWN IN ORGANIC, CONVENTIONAL AND LOW INPUT AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS”
e4“organic wheat had about 30% lower protein concentration, 8% longer mixing time, 23% lower dough strength, 51% lower breakdown and 44% lower bread volume”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic wheat had 8% longer mixing time.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“BAKING QUALITY OF WHEAT CULTIVARS, GROWN IN ORGANIC, CONVENTIONAL AND LOW INPUT AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS”
e4“organic wheat had about 30% lower protein concentration, 8% longer mixing time, 23% lower dough strength, 51% lower breakdown and 44% lower bread volume”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic wheat had 23% lower dough strength.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“BAKING QUALITY OF WHEAT CULTIVARS, GROWN IN ORGANIC, CONVENTIONAL AND LOW INPUT AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS”
e4“organic wheat had about 30% lower protein concentration, 8% longer mixing time, 23% lower dough strength, 51% lower breakdown and 44% lower bread volume”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic wheat had 51% lower breakdown.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“BAKING QUALITY OF WHEAT CULTIVARS, GROWN IN ORGANIC, CONVENTIONAL AND LOW INPUT AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS”
e4“organic wheat had about 30% lower protein concentration, 8% longer mixing time, 23% lower dough strength, 51% lower breakdown and 44% lower bread volume”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic wheat had 44% lower bread volume.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“BAKING QUALITY OF WHEAT CULTIVARS, GROWN IN ORGANIC, CONVENTIONAL AND LOW INPUT AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS”
e4“organic wheat had about 30% lower protein concentration, 8% longer mixing time, 23% lower dough strength, 51% lower breakdown and 44% lower bread volume”
Claim · model-written summary
The agricultural system had a significant effect on protein concentration, dough strength and breakdown.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- agricultural systemse1
- Outcome
- protein concentration, dough strength and breakdowne1
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“BAKING QUALITY OF WHEAT CULTIVARS, GROWN IN ORGANIC, CONVENTIONAL AND LOW INPUT AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS”
e1“The effect of agricultural systems was significant for protein concentration, dough strength and breakdown, as well as for estimated bread volume”
Claim · model-written summary
The agricultural system had a significant effect on bread volume.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- agricultural systemse1
- Outcome
- bread volumee1
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“BAKING QUALITY OF WHEAT CULTIVARS, GROWN IN ORGANIC, CONVENTIONAL AND LOW INPUT AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS”
e1“The effect of agricultural systems was significant for protein concentration, dough strength and breakdown, as well as for estimated bread volume”
Claim · model-written summary
The cultivar had a significant effect on dough breakdown, elasticity and speed of formation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- cultivare2
- Outcome
- dough breakdown, elasticity, and speed of formatione2
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“BAKING QUALITY OF WHEAT CULTIVARS, GROWN IN ORGANIC, CONVENTIONAL AND LOW INPUT AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS”
e2“the cultivar effect was significant only for dough breakdown, elasticity, and speed of formation, as well as for bread volume”
Claim · model-written summary
The cultivar had a significant effect on bread volume.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- cultivare2
- Outcome
- bread volumee2
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“BAKING QUALITY OF WHEAT CULTIVARS, GROWN IN ORGANIC, CONVENTIONAL AND LOW INPUT AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS”
e2“the cultivar effect was significant only for dough breakdown, elasticity, and speed of formation, as well as for bread volume”
Claim · model-written summary
The agricultural system by cultivar interaction was not significant for any analyzed parameter.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- agricultural systems and cultivarse3
- Outcome
- any of the analyzed parameterse3
- Direction
- not significante3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“BAKING QUALITY OF WHEAT CULTIVARS, GROWN IN ORGANIC, CONVENTIONAL AND LOW INPUT AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS”
e3“The interaction between agricultural systems and cultivars was not significant for any of the analyzed parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Most differences in rheological parameters seem related to the difference in protein concentration.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- difference in protein concentratione5
- Outcome
- rheological parameterse5
- Qualifier
- related with the difference in protein concentratione5
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“BAKING QUALITY OF WHEAT CULTIVARS, GROWN IN ORGANIC, CONVENTIONAL AND LOW INPUT AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS”
e5“Most of the differences in rheological parameters seem to be related with the difference in protein concentration”
Claim · model-written summary
Breeding for high bread-making quality can be efficient for improving quality in all agricultural systems.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- breeding for high bread-making qualitye7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“BAKING QUALITY OF WHEAT CULTIVARS, GROWN IN ORGANIC, CONVENTIONAL AND LOW INPUT AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS”
e7“breeding for high bread-making quality can be efficient for improving quality in all agricultural systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Special measures to increase nitrogen availability are needed in the organic system to improve bread-making quality of wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- organic systeme6
- Outcome
- bread-making qualitye6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“BAKING QUALITY OF WHEAT CULTIVARS, GROWN IN ORGANIC, CONVENTIONAL AND LOW INPUT AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS”
e6“special measures to increase nitrogen availability in the organic system are necessary in order to improve bread-making quality of wheat produced in this system”
Claim · model-written summary
Analyzed quality parameters were strongly influenced by environmental conditions.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- environmental conditionse1
- Outcome
- analyzed quality parameterse1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“BAKING QUALITY OF WHEAT CULTIVARS, GROWN IN ORGANIC, CONVENTIONAL AND LOW INPUT AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS”
e1“All analyzed quality parameters were strongly influenced by the environmental conditions”
The same questions in other papers
cultivation system · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.