Paper · 2023 · Foods

Effect of Fertilization Regime of Common Wheat (Triticum aestivum) on Flour Quality and Shelf-Life of PDO Tuscan Bread

Alessandro Bianchi; Chiara Sanmartin; Isabella Taglieri; et al.

8
claims
16
verbatim quotes
11
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The shelf-life of bread is influenced by flour components, such as starch, composed of amylose and amylopectin. The aim was to test the effect of different balances of N (45, 90, 135 kg/ha) and P (48, 96 kg/ha) fertilizers on the flour characteristics and consequently the shelf-life of PDO Tuscan bread, stored in different modified atmosphere packaging (Ar, N2, Air). The amylose and phytochemical compounds were increased by N and decreased by the addition of P, but excessive doses of N (135 kg/ha) had a negative effect on flour quality. In the bread, the study highlighted the tendency of N2 and Ar, as storage filler gases, to reduce water loss, slow down the staling process, and prolong shelf-life. However, the most significant influence on shelf-life was related to the different fertilizations of wheat. In fact, when N was present in equal dose to P (90/96 or 45/48 kg/ha) or slightly higher (90/48 kg/ha), the bread tended to last longer over time. Instead, when these ratios were unbalanced in favor of N (135/48 or 135/96 kg/ha) and in favor of P (45/96 kg/ha), the shelf-life decreased considerably.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

N increased flour amylose.

Taxon
Common WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
Ne0
Outcome
amylosee0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The amylose and phytochemical compounds were increased by N”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 370–429 · show in text ↑
t0

“Common Wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–66 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

N increased flour phytochemical compounds.

Taxon
Common WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
Ne0
Outcome
phytochemical compoundse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The amylose and phytochemical compounds were increased by N”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 370–429 · show in text ↑
t0

“Common Wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–66 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

P decreased flour amylose.

Taxon
Common WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
addition of Pe0
Outcome
amylosee0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The amylose and phytochemical compounds were increased by N and decreased by the addition of P”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 370–464 · show in text ↑
t0

“Common Wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–66 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

P decreased flour phytochemical compounds.

Taxon
Common WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
addition of Pe0
Outcome
phytochemical compoundse0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The amylose and phytochemical compounds were increased by N and decreased by the addition of P”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 370–464 · show in text ↑
t0

“Common Wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–66 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Excessive N reduced flour quality.

Taxon
Common WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
N (135 kg/ha)e0
Outcome
flour qualitye0
Direction
negativee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“excessive doses of N (135 kg/ha) had a negative effect on flour quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 470–541 · show in text ↑
t0

“Common Wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–66 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Balanced N and P fertilization tended to prolong bread shelf life.

Taxon
Common WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
N was present in equal dose to P (90/96 or 45/48 kg/ha) or slightly higher (90/48 kg/ha)e0
Outcome
bread tended to last longere0
Direction
longere0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“when N was present in equal dose to P (90/96 or 45/48 kg/ha) or slightly higher (90/48 kg/ha), the bread tended to last longer over time”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 825–961 · show in text ↑
t0

“Common Wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–66 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

N dominant fertilizer ratios considerably reduced bread shelf life.

Taxon
Common WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
unbalanced in favor of N (135/48 or 135/96 kg/ha)e0
Outcome
shelf-lifee0
Direction
decreasede0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“when these ratios were unbalanced in favor of N (135/48 or 135/96 kg/ha) and in favor of P (45/96 kg/ha), the shelf-life decreased considerably”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 972–1115 · show in text ↑
t0

“Common Wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–66 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

P dominant fertilizer ratio considerably reduced bread shelf life.

Taxon
Common WheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
in favor of P (45/96 kg/ha)e0
Outcome
shelf-lifee0
Direction
decreasede0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“when these ratios were unbalanced in favor of N (135/48 or 135/96 kg/ha) and in favor of P (45/96 kg/ha), the shelf-life decreased considerably”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 972–1115 · show in text ↑
t0

“Common Wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–66 · show in text ↑

nitrogen · quality: sugar starch · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

42 papers: 28 positive, 14 negative or no effect

27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

38 papers more in this group

See all 42 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.