© The Authors, 2025, Published by the Universidad del Zulia*Corresponding author: guillermo.ninomd@uanl.edu.mx
Keywords:
Triticum aestivum L.
Agronomic performance
Industrial quality
Flour
Bread
Agronomic performance and industrial quality of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes
cultivated in the northeast of Mexico
Comportamiento agronómico y calidad industrial de genotipos de trigo para panicación (Triticum
aestivum L.) cultivados en el Noreste de México
Comportamento agronômico e qualidade industrial de genótipos de trigo panicável (Triticum
aestivum L.) cultivados no Nordeste do México
Nydia del Carmen Ramírez-Cortez
1
José Elías Treviño-Ramírez
1
Jesús Andrés Pedroza-Flores
1
Vania Urías-Orona
2
Lidia Rosaura Salas-Cruz
1
Guillermo Niño-Medina
1*
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2025, 42(2): e254228
ISSN 2477-9407
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47280/RevFacAgron(LUZ).v42.n2.XII
Crop production
Associate editor: Dra. Evelyn Pérez Pérez
University of Zulia, Faculty of Agronomy
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
1
Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de
Agronomía, Francisco Villa S/N, C.P. 66050, Col. Ex-
hacienda El Canadá, General Escobedo, Nuevo León,
México.
2
Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Salud
Pública y Nutrición, Av. Dr. Eduardo Aguirre Pequeño y
Yuriria, C.P. 64460, Col. Mitras Centro, Monterrey, Nuevo
León, México.
Received: 08-10-2024
Accepted: 17-04-2025
Published: 28-05-2025
Abstract
Wheat is one of the main crops worldwide, it is distributed
in dierent climatic, ecological and geographical regions around
the world, being a basic food for human nutrition. The search for
genotypes that have to dierent environments is a common practice
in agriculture. The objective of this study was to evaluate the
agronomic performance and industrial quality of four genotypes
of bread wheat (BW), namely, BW1 (Control) (San Isidro NL
M-2012), BW2 (Floreña NL M-2012), BW3 (Norteña F2007), and
BW4 (Conatrigo F2015). Wheat genotypes were evaluated using a
complete randomized block design with four replicates. Based on
results, BW4 (Conatrigo F2015) had better agronomic performance
with higher results in spike length (11.10 ± 0.38), number of
spikelets per spike (18.78 ± 0.91), number grains per spike
(55.65 ± 7.13), grain yield per hectare (6.42 ± 1.29), forage per
hectare (12.25 ± 1.30), and L* in the our (88.74 ± 0.15). BW4
(Conatrigo F2015) also had the lower weight loss (10.15 ± 1.30)
and the higher L* in crust (68.55 ± 0.09). In conclusion, genotypes
evaluated in the present work had similar or better results in most
of the agronomic performance and industrial quality compared with
BW1 (Control) (San Isidro NL M-2012), being BW4 (Conatrigo
F2015) the outstanding genotype.
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2025, 42(2): e254228 April-June. ISSN 2477-9409.
2-7 |
Resumen
El trigo es uno de los principales cultivos a nivel mundial, se
distribuye en diferentes regiones climáticas, ecológicas y geográcas
alrededor del mundo, siendo un alimento básico para la nutrición
humana. La búsqueda de genotipos que se adapten a diferentes
ambientes es una práctica común en la agricultura. El objetivo de este
estudio fue evaluar el desempeño agronómico y la calidad industrial
de cuatro genotipos de trigo para panicación (BW), llamados, BW1
(Testigo) (San Isidro NL M-2012), BW2 (Floreña NL M-2012), BW3
(Norteña F2007) y BW4 (Conatrigo F2015). Los genotipos de trigo
se evaluaron mediante un diseño de bloques completos al azar con
cuatro repeticiones. Con base en los resultados, BW4 (Conatrigo
F2015) tuvo mejor desempeño agronómico con mayores resultados
en longitud de espiga (11.10 ± 0.38), número de espiguillas por
espiga (18.78 ± 0.91), número de granos por espiga (55.65 ± 7.13),
rendimiento de grano por hectárea (6.42 ± 1.29), forraje por hectárea
(12.25 ± 1.30) y L* en la harina (88.74 ± 0.15). BW4 (Conatrigo
F2015) también tuvo la menor pérdida de peso (10.15 ± 1.30) y el
mayor L* en corteza (68.55 ± 0.09). En conclusión, los genotipos
evaluados en el presente trabajo tuvieron resultados similares
o mejores en la mayor parte del comportamiento agronómico y
calidad industrial en comparación con BW1 (Testigo) (San Isidro NL
M-2012), siendo BW4 (Conatrigo F2015) el genotipo sobresaliente.
Palabras clave: Triticum aestivum L., desempeño agronómico,
calidad industrial, pan.
Resumo
O trigo é uma das principais culturas mundiais, está distribuído
em diferentes regiões climáticas, ecológicas e geográcas ao redor
do mundo, sendo um alimento básico para a nutrição humana.
A busca por genótipos adaptados a diferentes ambientes é uma
prática comum na agricultura. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar o
desempenho agronômico e a qualidade industrial de quatro genótipos
de trigo panicável (BW), denominados BW1 (Testigo) (San Isidro
NL M-2012), BW2 (Floreña NL M-2012), BW3 (Norteña F2007)
e BW4 (Conatrigo F2015). Os genótipos de trigo foram avaliados
em delineamento experimental de blocos casualizados com quatro
repetições. Com base nos resultados, o BW4 (Conatrigo F2015)
apresentou melhor desempenho agronômico com maiores resultados
em comprimento de espiga (11.10 ± 0.38), número de espigas
por espiga (18.78 ± 0.91), número de grãos por espiga (55.65 ±
7.13), produtividade de grãos por hectare (6.42 ± 1.29), forragem
por hectare (12.25 ± 1.30) e L* em farinha (88.74 ± 0.15). BW4
(Conatrigo F2015) também apresentou menor perda de peso (10.15 ±
1.30) e maior L* em casca (68.55 ± 0.09). Concluindo, os genótipos
avaliados neste trabalho tiveram resultados semelhantes ou melhores
na maior parte do comportamento agronômico e qualidade industrial
em comparação com BW1 (Testigo) (San Isidro NL M-2012), sendo
BW4 (Conatrigo F2015) o genótipo de destaque.
Palavras-chave: Triticum aestivum L., desempenho agronômico,
farinha, qualidade industrial, pão.
Introduction
Wheat is a very important crop with a production of 808.44 million
tons in the 2022 agricultural year according to data from the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The main producers
of this crop were China, India and Russia which contributed 17.03,
13.32, and 12.89 %, respectively (FAO, 2024). This crop is one of
the main crops worldwide together with maize, rice, barley, sorghum,
oat and rye, and it is distributed in dierent climatic, ecological,
and geographical regions around the world; and is a basic food for
humans, animal feed, and industrial raw materials (Le et al., 2019).
Within the genus Triticum, there are dierent species of great
interest mainly for human consumption, this is the case of bread
wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes, which is mainly used in
baking because it is a very elastic and extensible gluten (Hernández
et al., 2011). Bread wheat is hexaploid, which is the result of crossing
a tetraploid wheat (2n = 4x = 28, AABB) and a wild one (2n = 2x
= 14, DD) followed by spontaneous chromosome duplication. The
evolution of wheat is distinguished by domestication and natural
hybridization (Li et al., 2014).
Wheat can be evaluated in external and internal aspects. The rst
one is based on freedom from foreign material and weather damage,
type, and purity of color. The second one based on weight test,
moisture content, milling behavior and end-use of our (Khalid et
al., 2023).
The main products obtained from wheat are whole our and white
our. Whole our is obtained from the entire wheat grain and the
principal anatomical components (starchy endosperm, germ and bran)
are present in the same relative proportions as they exist in the intact
caryopsis with extraction yield of 100 % (Pagani et al., 2014). On the
other hand, white our classied in: straight our, which is obtained
by removing most of the bran and germ, using mainly endosperm
with extraction yield of 72 %; patent our, which is obtained from
the innermost part of the endosperm and is essentially free of bran
and germ with extraction yield between 45 and 65 %; and clear our,
obtained from the outer part of the endosperm with high content of
bran with extraction yield between 65 to 72 % (Finnie and Atwell,
2018; Figoni, 2010).
Quality can have dierent meanings depending on the link in the
wheat value chain. For the farmer, a high-quality wheat crop could
require the least inputs and has the highest grain yield, and a good
price in the market. However, for the miller, quality is based on the
our yield, along with the energy needed to obtain it. For the industry,
quality is based on the characteristics of dierent products (Guzmán et
al., 2022).
Recommendation of wheat cultivars requires the knowledge of their
response to environmental conditions in particular locations or zones.
The best performing cultivars should be preferred for recommendation
in locations of similar environmental conditions (Iwańska et al., 2020).
The environmental conditions, determined by the altitude and
temperate-cold climate of the northeast region of Mexico, make
wheat cultivation viable, making it a productive option for this region.
Furthermore, the search for new wheat genotypes that adapt to new
production areas with improved development, yield, and industrial
quality characteristics is always a challenge. In this regard, the main
objectives of this work were as follows: evaluate the agronomic
performance of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L) genotypes grown in
northeastern Mexico and determine the our and bread quality obtained
from Triticum aestivum L. genotypes grown in northeastern Mexico.
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Ramírez-Cortez et al. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2025, 42(2): e254228
3-7 |
Materials and methods
Characterization of the study site
Location of the study area was the experimental agricultural
campus of La Ascensión Academic Unit, Agronomy College, within
Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, in Ejido La Ascensión,
Aramberri (24°19.5‘ N, 99°54.5’ W) Nuevo León, Mexico, at
an altitude of 1963 m, with an average annual temperature and
precipitation of 19.9 °C and 425 mm, respectively (INEGI, 2023). The
soil characteristics were obtained by an external laboratory analysis
with next results: loam soil (33 % clay, 33 % silt and 33 % sand), pH
8.1, 3.24 % of organic matter content, electrical conductivity of 1.97
dS.m
-1
, rich in potassium (1026 ppm), optimum levels of nitrogen
(169 ppm) and poor in potassium (25 ppm).
Genetic material
The genotypes of bread wheat (BW) were BW1 (San Isidro
NL M-2012) (control), BW2 (Floreña NL M-2012), BW3 (Norteña
F2007), and BW4 (Conatrigo F2015). BW1 and BW2 genotypes were
developed by Dr. Ciro G. S. Valdés Lozano in the Agronomy College,
within the Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, while BW3 y
BW4 were developed by Villaseñor et al. (2012; 2020), respectively
at National Institute for Forestry, Agriculture and Livestock Research
(Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y
Pecuarias, INIFAP).
Wheat genotypes are registered in National Catalogue of Plant
Varieties (Catálogo Nacional de Variedades Vegetales [CNVV],
2024) as: TRI-136-190712, TRI-132-190712, TRI-102-260608, TRI-
174-231117 for BW1, BW2, BW3 and BW4, respectively. General
description of genotypes is presented in table 1.
Table 1. General description of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum
L.) genotypes.
Genotype Overview
BW1
Resistant to leaf rust, 65 cm plant height, 7.5 cm spike length,
good grain yield and good industrial quality.
BW2
Resistant to leaf rust, 80 cm plant height, 9.5 cm spike length,
good grain yield and good industrial quality.
BW3
Resistant to moderately susceptible to leaf rust, 86 cm plant
height, 15 cm spike length, high yield and good industrial
quality.
BW4
Resistant to rust, 89 cm plant height, high yield and good indus-
trial quality.
Experimental design and eld distribution
The genotypes were distributed in a randomized block design with
four replicates. Each experimental unit consisted of four furrows, 5
m length and 1.8 m width each, with a separation of 0.45 m among
them, resulting in an area of 9 m
2
. There was a gap of 2 m between
each block (gure 1).
Land preparation for planting
To ensure proper crop establishment, it is necessary to undertake
a harrowing and crossing process, resulting in a more manageable
planting bed. Sowing was conducted manually on May 25, 2021,
with a sowing density of 100 kg.ha
-1
of seed three relief irrigations
were conducted in a sprinkler irrigation system, and they consisted of
8160 L per irrigation (1020 L.h
-1
, 4 h, 2 irrigation lines). In addition,
a commercial bio-stimulant (auxins, gibberellins and cytokinins at
0.09, 0.10 and 1.50 g.L
-1
, respectively) of organic origin containing
macronutrients (N, P
2
O
5
, K
2
O, Ca and Cu at 6.6, 13.3, 13.3, 2.0 and
4.0 g.L
-1
, respectively) and micronutrients (Cu, Fe, Mn and Zn at
13.3, 17.2, 13.3 and 26.5 g.L
-1
, respectively) in chelated form at a
dose of 2 mL.L
−1
(25 L of water). Weed control was conducted by
giving an application with 2,4-D (480 g.L
-1
) at a dose of 2 L.ha
−1
(35 L
of water), when the plant was 10 to 20 cm high, and then weed control
was conducted manually.
Harvesting
The harvest was carried out when crop reached 18 weeks of
development on September 28. The plants of each experimental unit
were harvested manually cutting plants from the base of the stem
using sickles. The plants were harvested in 3 m of two central furrows
with a separation of 0.45 m between them, resulting in an area of
1.35 m
2
. Samples were placed in kraft paper bags, identied and then
transported to the multipurpose agronomic laboratory, where they
were evaluated for development and performance traits.
Development and performance traits
Plant height
The measurement was made in 10 plants per replicate using a
exometer. The height was taken from the base of the stem to the tip
of the inorescence and reported in centimeters (cm).
Number of leaves per plant
Total number of leaves were counted in ten plants per replicate
from the stem to the inorescence including the ag leaf.
Number of tillers per plant
The tillers were counted in ten plants per replicate counting the
number of secondary stems. The determination was carried out when
owering exceeded 50 %.
Spike length
The length of the spikes of ten plants per replicate were measured
from the base to the apex of the terminal spikelet using a ruler and
reported in centimeters (cm).
Number of spikelets per spike
The number of spikelets in ten spikes per replicate were counted.
Figure 1. Experimental eld layout of wheat crop.
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2025, 42(2): e254228 April-June. ISSN 2477-9409.
4-7 |
Number of grains per spike
The number of grains in ten spikes per replicate were counted.
Thousand grain weight
One thousand grains clean and free of damage were counted per
replicate, the weight was recorded using a balance (Truper® model
102317, Mexico) and the results were expressed in grams (g).
Forage Yield
Plants from 1 m
2
of central furrow per replicate were cut and
weighted in a balance (Torrey® model L-EQ 10/20, Mexico), data
were converted and reported as (t.ha
-1
).
Grain yield per hectare
Plants used in forage yield were threshed using a craft electric
thresher and the clean grains were weighed in a balance (Torrey®
model L-EQ 10/20, Mexico), data were converted and reported as
(t.ha
-1
).
Days to physiological maturity
It was determined counting from the day of sowing until the day
where 90 % of the plants per replicate lost chlorophyll and turned
yellow.
Grain moisture
The evaluation of grain moisture was carried out according to
Gutheil et al. (1984) using a electronic moisture tester (Steinlite®
model RCT, USA) and results were reported as percentage (%).
Production and physical characterization of wheat our
Production of wheat our
One kilogram of grain free of impurities was considered. Grains of
each bread were milled using an electric experimental mill by passing
the material through the mill twice. Subsequently, each sample was
passed through a physical testing sieve with #30 mesh (595 µm) and
our yield was reported as percentage (%).
Flour color
Flour color parameters were obtained using a colorimeter
(Minolta® model CR-20, Japan). A petri dish was lled with 100 g of
wheat our and chromatic parameters were obtained using CIELAB
(L*, a*, b*) and CIELCH (L*, C*, h) color systems, where L* denes
lightness (0= black, 100= white), a* indicate red (positive a*) or
green value (negative a*) and b* indicate yellow (positive b*) or blue
value (negative b*). In addition, C* (chroma) saturation level of h and
h (hue angle 0°= red, 90°= yellow, 180°= green and 270°= blue) were
also reported, according to Commission Internationale De L’ecleirage
(CIE, 2004). Color view was obtained by online software ColorHexa
(ColorHexa, 2023) color converter using L*, C* and h values.
Dough extensibility
Dough extensibility was measured using a texturometer (TA.XT
plus Stable Micro Systems, UK) and the Kieer dough and gluten
extensibility kit according to Dunnewind et al. (2003). Maximum
force (N) and distance (mm) of extensibility test were obtained at 30,
60 and 90 min after preparation of dough.
Industrial quality evaluation of bread wheat
Breadmaking process
The Bread preparation was done by using 200 g of our, 6 g of
yeast and 3 g of salt, while water used was 140 mL for BW1, 145
mL for BW3 and 150 mL for BW2 and BW4. Solid ingredients were
mixed in a mixer (KitchenAid model KSM7586PSR, USA) at speed
1 for 1 min, after that, water was added and mixed for 10 min at speed
4. Later, dough was divided in 4 pieces of 85 g and they were placed
in steel mini loaf pans (9.5 x 5.7 x 3.2 cm), left for fermentation at
35.5 °C for 30 min, afterwards baking at 200 °C for 30 min in a rotary
gas oven (Century Model 20, Mexico) and nally bread pieces were
cooled at room temperature.
Physicochemical evaluation of bread
Physicochemical evaluations were conducted according to
according to Niño-Medina et al. (2017) with minor modications.
The height of bread was measured with a Vernier caliper (Steren
model HER-411, Mexico) on the central part of the bread pieces,
and it was reported in millimeters (mm). The weight loss (WL) was
obtained with the next equation (Eq. 1):
(Eq. 1)
where: WBB= weight before baking and WAB= weight after
baking. Hardness was evaluated with a texture analyser (Stable
Micro Systems TA.XT.Plus, UK) using a compression plate of 75
mm diameter and a compression distance to 30 % of the bread height.
Chromatic evaluation was done in the bread crust of the bread pieces
using a colorimeter (Minolta model CR-20, Japan) and chromatic
parameters were obtained using CIELAB (L*, a*, b*) and CIELCH
(L*, C*, h) color systems where L* denes Lightness (0= black and
100= white), a* indicate red (positive a*) or green value (negative
a*) and b* indicate yellow (positive b*) or blue value (negative b*).
In addition, C* (Chroma) saturation level of h and h (hue angle 0°=
red, 90°= yellow, 180°= green and 270°= blue) were also reported
according to Commission Internationale De L’ecleirage (CIE, 2004).
Color view was obtained by online software ColorHexa (ColorHexa,
2023) color converter using L*, C* and h values.
Statistical analysi
s
The statistical analysis was conducted using Minitab software
14.0 (Minitab, 2023). In addition, comparison among genotypes
was conducted using a randomized complete block design model. A
multiple comparison of means was performed using the Tukey test
(p≤0.05).
Results and discussion
Development and performance traits parameters in bread wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes are shown in table 2. The PH and
NLP per plant are critical variables that impact the yield. There
was no statistical dierence between genotypes for PH and NLP
variables. Our results show plant heights below the range of 84 to105
cm observed by Noriega-Carmona et al. (2019) whom evaluated the
eect of sowing date in 34 wheat genotypes developed in Guanajuato,
Mexico. The NTP showed statistically signicant dierence (p≤0.05)
among the genotypes. Our results are similar with those reported by
Huanca et al. (2016) whom also reported an average of four tillers per
plant in 15 wheat bread genotypes in Totora, Peru.
Signicant statistical dierence (p≤0.05) between genotypes were
observed in SL, which is below the 13.74 to 15 cm range reported
by Plana et al. (2006) for two bread wheat genotypes cultivated in
La Habana, Cuba. The NSS data indicates a signicant statistical
dierence (p≤0.05) between bread wheat genotypes, but our results
are below to those reported by Ortega et al. (2004) whom found values
between 19 and 22 NSS in 16 wheat bread genotypes developed in
Cordoba, Argentina. The NGS resulted with a signicant statistical
dierence (p≤0.05) among genotypes and are closely resemble to
those reported by Solis-Moya et al. (2004) with 42 to 57 grains per
spike in 6 genotypes developed in Guanajuato, Mexico.
WL =
WBB
− WAB
WBB
∗ 100 1
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Ramírez-Cortez et al. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2025, 42(2): e254228
5-7 |
Table 2. Growth parameters in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes.
Genotype PH NLP NTP SL NSS NGS
BW1 73.63 ± 1.16
a
3.58 ± 0.22
a
3.08 ± 0.33
b
9.63 ± 0.30
b
15.98 ± 0.43
b
43.50 ± 2.85
b
BW2 74.30 ± 5.45
a
3.79 ± 0.41
a
2.68 ± 0.22
b
9.06 ± 0.31
b
15.33 ± 1.19
b
44.98 ± 4.16
b
BW3 70.93 ± 10.72
a
3.88 ± 0.13
a
2.60 ± 0.44
b
9.00 ± 0.27
b
15.70 ± 1.56
b
42.10 ± 3.16
b
BW4 66.58 ± 4.92
a
3.90 ± 0.15
a
4.48 ± 0.44
a
11.10 ± 0.38
a
18.78 ± 0.91
a
55.65 ± 7.13
a
PH = plant height (cm), NLP = number of leaves per plant, NTP = number of tillers per plant, SL = spike length (cm), NSS = number of spikelets per spike, NGS = number of grains per spike.
Dierent letters in columns indicate statistical dierence p≤0.05 (n= 4).
Yield parameters and phenology of bread wheat are shown in
table 3. The WTG showed a signicant statistical dierence among
genotypes, BW3 was 1.17, 1.14 and 1.10 fold higher than BW1,
BW2 and BW4, respectively in WTG. The WTG data obtained in this
present study is higher than those reported by Martinez-Cruz et al.
(2020), whom recorded 31 to 43 g in eight genotypes of wheat bread
cultivated in Guanajuato, Mexico. The FH did not show signicant
statistical dierence (p≥0.05) between genotypes.
In the GYH of bread wheat no signicant dierences were
observed among genotypes. A study by Suaste-Franco et al. (2013)
in Guanajuato, Mexico using two wheat bread genotypes showed
a yield of 4.73 to 6.16 t.ha
−1
which is similar to that was found in
the present study. Regarding the DPM, the results indicated ranges
between 111.75 and 118 days, nding a signicant dierence among
the genotypes, where the BW2 genotype stood out for obtaining the
fewest number of days to reach maturity, followed by the control
genotype BW1. Santa-Rosa et al. (2016) found dierent results in
wheat cultivars planted under rainfed conditions in Coatepec, Mexico
with data ranging from 120.6 to 132.2 in DPM.
The moisture and our yield of bread wheat are shown in table
4. Moisture inuences the wheat industrial performance, a range
from 13.61 to 13.76 % obtained in this study did not show signicant
dierence (p≥0.05) among genotypes (table 3).
Table 3. Yield parameters and phenology of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes.
Genotype WTG FH GYH DPM
BW1 48.25 ± 2.37
b
9.35 ± 2.43
a
4.89 ± 1.15
a
116.75 ± 1.26
a
BW2 49.75 ± 3.84
b
11.76 ± 0.64
a
5.04 ± 1.21
a
111.75 ± 1.26
b
BW3 56.75 ± 2.54
a
9.73 ± 1.14
a
4.62 ± 1.01
a
117.00 ± 0.82
a
BW4 51.25 ± 0.99
ab
12.25 ± 1.30
a
6.42 ± 1.29
a
118.00 ± 0.82
a
WTG = weight of a thousand grains (g), FH = forage per hectare (t.ha
−1
), GYH = grain yield per hectare (t.ha
−1
), DPM = days to physiological maturity. Dierent letters in columns indicate statistical
dierence p≤0.05 (n= 4).
Table 4. Moisture and our yield of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes.
Genotype Grain moisture (%) Flour yield (%)
BW1 13.61 ± 0.30
a
93.16 ± 0.40
c
BW2 13.76 ± 0.25
a
97.28 ± 0.66
a
BW3 13.72 ± 0.37
a
88.75 ± 0.79
d
BW4 13.61 ± 0.37
a
95.29 ± 0.67
b
Dierent letters in columns indicate statistical dierence p≤0.05 (n= 4).
According to Castillo and Chamorro (2009), the ideal grain
moisture levels for producing high-quality wheat our are between
13 % and 15 %, therefore, the grains produced in this study meet this
range for storage and our production.
The our yield varied between 88.75 % to 97.28 %, showing a
signicant statistical dierence (p≤0.05) among the genotypes (table
3). In addition, BW2 showed the highest yield, followed by BW4,
BW1 and BW3. Although BW3 had the lowest yield, its average
value is higher than our yield reported by Rozo-Otega et al. (2021),
whom obtained our yield of 69 to 64 % in four genotypes developed
in Argentina.
The chromatic parameters in bread wheat ours are shown in
table 5. Regarding our color, luminosity (L*) values ranged from
83.49 to 88.74, with the BW4 genotype having the highest value,
indicating a signicant dierence (p≤0.05) between genotypes. The
values on the a* ranged from 2.64 to 3.53, indicating a signicant
statistical dierence between genotypes (p≤0.05). In addition, the
b* axis values ranged from 11.10 to 13.43, indicating a signicant
dierence between genotypes (p≤0.05).
The chroma C* factor ranged from 11.41 to 13.75 with a
signicant dierence (p≤0.05) between genotypes, with the BW3
genotype obtaining the highest value. Moreover, the Hue angle h* has
Table 5. Chromatic parameters in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) ours.
Genotype L* a* b* C* h* Color view
BW1 86.69 ± 0.50
b
2.88 ± 0.13b
c
11.38 ± 0.21
b
11.74 ± 0.21
b
75.91 ± 0.34
ab
BW2 86.43 ± 0.39
b
2.94 ± 0.11
b
11.38 ± 0.19
b
11.75 ± 0.20
b
75.50 ± 0.36
b
BW3 83.49 ± 0.56
c
3.53 ± 0.13
a
13.43 ± 0.19
a
13.78 ± 0.09
a
75.15 ± 0.40
b
BW4 88.74 ± 0.15
a
2.64 ± 0.05
c
11.10 ± 0.17
b
11.41 ± 0.19
a
76.56 ± 0.11
a
Dierent letters in columns indicate statistical dierence (p≤0.05) (n= 4). L*=Lightness (0=black, 100=white), a*=red (positive a*) or green (negative a*), b*=yellow (positive b*) or blue (negative
b*). C*=saturation level of h*, h*=hue angle, 0°=red, 90°=yellow, 180°=green, 270°=blue.
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2025, 42(2): e254228 April-June. ISSN 2477-9409.
6-7 |
values ranging from 75.15 to 76.56, indicating a signicant dierence
(p≤0.05) between genotypes (table 4).
In this study, these ranges are dierent from those reported by
Montoya-López et al. (2012), who evaluated the color in commercial
wheat ours with prior bleaching, obtaining an average luminosity L*
of 92.01, an average C* of 9.79, and average h* of 86.74. Moreover,
Oliver et al. (1992) used two colorimeters to measure our from white
spring wheat and observed minimal variations in the measurements.
The average L* value obtained using the HunterLab colorimeter
(D25-9SM) was 91.73, ranging from 90.95 to 92.95. The Minolta
colorimeter (CR 200) yielded an average value of 91.33, with values
ranging from 90.35 to 92.55. These results are also higher than our
data.
According to Rodriguez-Sandoval et al. (2005), food texture is
crucial for consumer acceptance and approval. The textural properties
of a food are the group of physical characteristics that depend on the
structural elements of the material and are related to deformation,
integration, and ow owing to the application of a force.
An important property of the food that is associated with the
texture is the rheological behavior; therefore, when conducting this
analysis on the dough extensibility, the strength results at 30 min
did not show a signicant statistical dierence among genotypes,
obtaining data from 0.17 N to 0.25 N, whereas at 60 min, there was a
signicant statistical dierence (p≤0.05) where BW1 required a force
of 0.42 N, unlike BW4 that required 0.30 N. At 90 min, values ranged
from 0.39 to 0.65 N, showing statistical dierence (p≤0.05) with the
genotypes being BW4 the lower in this parameter (table 6).
Table 6. Bread wheat dough extensibility (Triticum aestivum L.).
Parameter
Time
(min)
Genotype
BW1 BW2 BW3 BW4
Force
(N)
30 0.25 ± 0.06
a
0.25 ± 0.04
a
0.23 ± 0.05
a
0.17 ± 0.02
a
60 0.42 ± 0.09
a
0.37 ± 0.02
ab
0.32 ± 0.06
ab
0.30 ± 0.03
b
90 0.65 ± 0.10
a
0.52 ± 0.07
b
0.53 ± 0.08
ab
0.39 ± 0.04
c
Rupture
(mm)
30 75.13 ± 12.49
ab
61.29 ± 17.67
ab
57.97 ± 18.19
b
76.10 ± 14.57
a
60 68.22 ± 9.15
a
48.70 ± 7.88
b
61.53 ± 7.00
ab
67.34 ± 8.05
ab
90 42.21 ± 4.14
b
36.46 ± 3.17
b
41.81 ± 6.69
b
65.06 ± 9.38
a
Dierent letters in rows indicate statistical dierence p≤0.05 (n= 4).
Table 7. Baking attributes and texture of bread obtained from Triticum aestivum L. genotypes.
Genotype Height (mm) Weight loss (%) Hardness (N)
BW1 49.66 ± 0.39
a
10.74 ± 1.30
a
31.88 ± 0.79
a
BW2 49.91 ± 0.43
a
11.03 ± 1.30
a
31.86 ± 1.93
a
BW3 52.19 ± 2.13
a
12.50 ± 0.29
a
33.26 ± 0.18
a
BW4 49.47 ± 2.39
a
10.15 ± 1.30
a
32.43 ± 6.69
a
Dierent letters in columns indicate statistical dierence p≤0.05 (n= 4).
Table 8. Chromatic parameters of bread crust obtained from Triticum aestivum L. genotypes.
Genotype L* a* b* C* h* Color view
BW1 65.43 ± 2.38
b
7.94 ± 1.77
a
24.25 ± 1.96
ab
25.53 ± 2.39
ab
72.04 ± 2.51
a
BW2 65.43 ± 0.33
b
7.99 ± 0.82
a
25.29 ± 1.46
a
26.55 ± 1.62
a
72.50 ± 0.75
a
BW3 67.54 ± 0.78
ab
7.14 ± 0.36
a
23.14 ± 0.58
ab
24.25 ± 0.62
ab
72.80 ± 0.47
a
BW4 68.55 ± 0.09b
a
6.05 ± 0.51
a
21.93 ± 1.03
b
22.76 ± 1.13
b
74.63 ± 0.56
a
Dierent letters in columns indicate statistical dierence p≤0.05 (n= 4). L*= Lightness (0= black, 100= white), a*= red (positive a*) or green (negative a*), b*= yellow (positive b*) or blue
(negative b*). C*= saturation level of h*, h*= hue angle, 0°= red, 90°= yellow, 180°= green, 270°= blue.
A good average height and texture of the bread are possible
because wheat has a group of proteins (gliadins and glutenins) that, in
the presence of water, hydrate and interact to form gluten, allowing the
dough to retain the gas produced during the fermentation. Therefore,
a strong and extensible gluten allows the preparation of doughs with
good gas retention capacity during fermentation, which can expand,
giving rise to breads with a high volume, soft, and spongy crumb
(Robles-Sosa et al., 2005).
Table 7 presents the results of height (mm), percentage of weight
loss during baking, and bread hardness (N) where the genotypes did
not show a signicant dierence however, genotype BW3 is the one
with the highest average in the three variables evaluated, reaching
52.19 mm in height, 12.50 % weight loss during baking, and 33.26 N
in bread hardness.
The color of the bread crust
The weight loss results in baking are similar to the ndings by
Calvo-Carrillo et al. (2020), who reported an 11.84 % loss in wheat
our bread, and is lower than Vega et al. (2015), who reported a
higher loss of 15.54 %.
During the bread-baking process, the color of the crust develops
owing to caramelization, giving it a crispy and shiny texture.
According to Mohammed et al. (2012), the luminosity value (L*)
plays a vital role in determining the commercial value owing to its
direct impact.
BW4 presented the greatest range of luminosity, chroma, and
hue angle. In addition, the genotype that showed the lowest ranges
in the a* and b*, resulting in a lighter visible shade compared with
BW1 (Table 8). Our research ndings align with those of Domínguez
Zarate et al. (2019), who reported similar values in boxed bread made
from wheat our, with a luminosity of 67.80.
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Ramírez-Cortez et al. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2025, 42(2): e254228
7-7 |
Conclusions
BW4 had the highest values in yield and most of the yield
components as spike length, number of spikelets per spike, number
grains per spike, grain yield per hectare, forage per hectare. Regarding
to the industrial quality, BW4 also had the lower weight loss and the
higher luminosity in our and bread crust, being the outstanding
genotype among genotypes evaluated and a good option for producers
of bread wheat aimed to industrial purposes.
Acknowledgements
Nydia del Carmen Ramírez-Cortez acknowledges to Consejo
Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT) for the Master of
Science scholarship. Thanks to Programa de Apoyo a la Investigación
Cientíca y Tecnológica 2022 de la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo
León (PAICYT-UANL) for the Project 64-CAT-2022 (Evaluación
de las propiedades tecnológicas y nutraceúticas de trigos harineros
(Triticum aestivum L.) y trigos cristalinos (Triticum durum L.)
cultivados en La Ascensión Aramberri Nuevo León) awarded to
Guillermo Niño-Medina.
Literature cited
Calvo-Carrillo, M.D.L.C., López-Méndez, O.X., Carranco-Jáuregui, M.E., &
Marines, J. (2020). Evaluación sicoquímica y sensorial de un pan
tipo baguette utilizando harinas de trigo (Triticum spp.) y chícharo
(Pisum sativum L.). Biotecnia, 22(3), 116-124. https://doi.org/10.18633/
biotecnia.v22i3.1227
Castillo, G.M.V., & Chamorro, R.A.M. (2009). Evaluación de algunas
características sicoquímicas de harina de trigo peruano en función a su
calidad panadera. Revista de Investigación Universitaria, 1(1), 18-24.
https://doi.org/10.18633/biotecnia.v22i3.1227.
Catálogo Nacional de Variedades Vegetales (CNVV). (2023). Servicio Nacional
de Inspección y Certicación de Semillas, Secretaría de Agricultura.
https://www.gob.mx/snics/articulos/catalogo-nacional-de-variedades-
vegetales-cnvv-2023?idiom=es
ColorHexa. (Feb 1, 2023). Color Encyclopedia: Information and Conversion.
Computer Software. www.color hexa.com.
Commission Internationale De L’ecleirage (CIE). (2004). Technical Report.
Colorimetry. (CIE 15:2004, 3rd Edition). https://cielab.xyz/pdf/
cie.15.2004%20colorimetry.pdf
Domínguez Zárate, P.A., García Martínez, I., Güemes-Vera, N., Totosaus, A., &
Pássaro Carvalho, C.P. (2019). Textura, color y aceptación sensorial de
tortillas y pan producidos con harina de ramón (Brosimum alicastrum) para
incrementar la bra dietética total. Ciencia y Tecnología Agropecuaria,
20(3), 699-719. https://doi.org/10.21930/rcta.vol20_num3_art:1590
Dunnewind, B., Sliwinski, E.L .Grolle, K., & Van Vliet, T. (2003). The
Kieer dough and gluten extensibility rig - An experimental
evaluation. Journal of Texture Studies, 34(5-6), 537-560. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1745-4603.2003.tb01080.x
Figoni, P.I. (2010). How Baking Works: Exploring the fundamentals of baking
science. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Finnie, S., & Atwell, W.A. (2016). Wheat Flour. AACC International Press. https://
doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-891127-90-8.50002-4
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2024). FAO
Cereal Supply and Demand Brief. https://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/
csdb/es/#:~:text=El%20pron%C3%B3stico%20de%20la%20FAO
Gutheil, R.A., Krause, G.F., Brooker, D.B., & Anderson, M.E. (1984). Eect
of corn cultivar and sample variance on the performance of three
electronic moisture meters. Cereal Chemistry, 61, 267-269. https://
www.cerealsgrains.org/publications/cc/backissues/1984/Documents/
chem61_267.pdf
Guzmán, C., Ibba, M.I., Álvarez, J.B., Sissons, M., & Morris, C. (2022). Wheat
Quality. In M.P. Reynolds, & H.J. Braun (Eds.), Wheat Improvement
Food Security in a Changing Climate (pp. 177-193). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-90673-3_11
Hernández, B., Alvarado, I., & Valenzuela, A. (2011). Descripción de las
variedades de trigo para el valle de Mexicali BC y norte de Sonora.
Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias
(INIFAP). Folleto técnico (18), 1-2. https://www.compucampo.com/
tecnicos/descripcionvars-trigo-mexicali.pdf
Huanca, N., Quispe, G., & Marza, F. (2016). Evaluación de 15 genotipos de
trigo harinero (Triticum aestivum L.), a través de análisis de estabilidad.
Revista Cientíca de Investigación INFO-INIA, 1(8), 63-72. http://www.
revistasbolivianas.ciencia.bo/pdf/rciii/v1n8/v1n8_a09.pdf
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). (2023). Mapa digital de
México. https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/temas/mapadigital/doc/
musua_mdmlinea.pdf
Irfan Ullah, M., Mahpara, S., Bibi, R., Ullah Shah, R., Ullah, R., Abbas, S., Ihsan
Ullah, M., Hassan, A.M., El-Shehawi, A.M., Brestic, M., Zivcak, M., &
Ifnan Khan, M. (2021). Grain yield and correlated traits of bread wheat
lines: Implications for yield improvement. Saudi Journal of Biological
Sciences, 28, 5714–5719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.06.006
Iwańska, M., Paderewski, J., Stępień, M., & Rodrígues, P.C. (2020). Adaptation of
winter wheat cultivars to dierent environments: A case study in Poland.
Agronomy, 10(632), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10050632
Khalid, A., Hameed, A., & Tahir, M.F. (2023). Wheat quality: A review on chemical
composition, nutritional attributes, grain anatomy, types, classication,
and function of seed storage proteins in bread making quality. Frontiers
in Nutrition, 10, 1053196. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2023.1053196
Le, T.D.Q., Alvarado, C., Girousse, C., Legland, D., & Chateigner-Boutin, A.L.
(2019). Use of X-ray micro computed tomography imaging to analyze
the morphology of wheat grain through its development. Plant Methods,
15(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-019-0468-y
Li, J., Wan, H.S., & Yang, W.Y. (2014). Synthetic hexaploid wheat enhances
variation and adaptive evolution of bread wheat in breeding processes.
Journal of Systematics and Evolution, 52(6), 735-742. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jse.12110
Martínez-Cruz, E., Espitia-Rangel, E., Villaseñor-Mir, H., & Santa-Rosa, R.
(2020). La productividad del trigo harinero bajo diferentes condiciones de
riego. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas, 11(6), 1349-1360. https://
doi.org/10.29312/remexca.v11i6.2050
Minitab 17.0 statistical software [Computer software]. (2010). State College, PA:
Minitab Inc. http://www.minitab.com
Mohammed, A., Maxime, S.G., & Joyce, I.B. (2012). Pea, lentil and chickpea
protein application in bread making. Journal of Food Research, 1(4), 160-
173. https://doi.org/10.5539/jfr.v1n4p160
Montoya-López, J., Giraldo-Giraldo, G.A., & Lucas-Aguirre, J.C. (2012).
Determinación del índice de blancura en harina de trigo comercial. Vitae,
19(1), S415-S416. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.vitae.12016
Niño-Medina, G., Gutiérrez-Soto, G., Urías-Orona, V., & Hernández-Luna, C.E.
(2017). Eect of laccase from Trametes maxima CU1 on physicochemical
quality of bread. Cogent Food and Agriculture, 3, (1), 1328762. https://
doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1328762
Noriega-Carmona, M.A., Cervantes-Ortiz, F., Solís-Moya, E., Andrio-Enríquez, E.,
Rangel-Lucio, J.A., Rodríguez-Pérez, G., Mendoza-Elos, M., & García-
Rodríguez, J.G. (2019). Efecto de la fecha de siembra sobre la calidad de
semilla de trigo en el Bajío, México. Revista Fitotecnia Mexicana, 42(4),
375-384. https://revistatotecniamexicana.org/documentos/42-4/6a.pdf
Oliver, J.R., Blakeney, A.B., & Allen, H.M. (1992). Measurement of our color in
color space parameters. American Association of Cereal Chemists, 69(5),
546-551. https://www.cerealsgrains.org/publications/cc/backissues/1992/
Documents/69_546.pdf
Ortega, D., Manera, G., Astol, G., Argenti, R., & Maich, R. (2004). Progreso
genético en trigo cultivado en secano. Agriscientia, 21(2), 89-92. https://
doi.org/10.31047/1668.298x.v21.n2.2672
Pagani, M.A., Marti, A., & Bottega, G. (2014). Wheat milling and our
quality evaluation. In W. Zhou, Y.H. Hui, I. De Leyn, M.A. Pagani,
C.M. Rosell, J.D. Selman, & N. Therdthai (Eds.), Bakery Products
Science and Technology (pp. 17-53). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.
org/10.1002/9781118792001.ch2
Plana, R., Álvarez, M., & Varela, M. (2006). Evaluación de una colección del
género Triticum: Trigo harinero (Triticum aestivum ssp. aestivum),
trigo duro (Triticum turgidum ssp. durum) y triticale (X Triticum secale
Wittmack) en las condiciones del occidente de Cuba. Cultivos Tropicales,
27(4), 49-52. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1932/193215912008.pdf
Robles-Sosa, S.D., Peña-Bautista, R.J., & Fuentes-Dávila, G. (2005). Efecto de la
molienda de trigo harinero (Triticum aestivum L.) y trigo duro (Triticum
durum Desf.) sobre la germinación de teliosporas de Tilletia indica
Mitra.
Revista Mexicana de Fitopatología, 23(2), 119-123. https://www.redalyc.
org/articulo.oa?id=61223202
Rodríguez-Sandoval, E., Fernández-Quintero, A., & Ayala-Aponte, A. (2005).
Reología y textura de masas: Aplicaciones en trigo y maíz. Ingeniería e
Investigación, 25(1), 72-78. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/643/64325110.
pdf
Rozo-Ortega, G.P., Serrago, R.A., Valvo, P.J.L., Fleitas, M.C., Simón, M.R.,&
Miralles, D.J. (2021). Grain yield, milling and breadmaking quality
responses to foliar diseases in old and modern Argentinean wheat
cultivars. Journal of Cereal Science, 99, 103211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jcs.2021.103211
Santa-Rosa, R., Espitia, E., Martínez, E., Villaseñor, H., Huerta, J., & Mariscal, L.
(2016). Productividad y calidad industrial de trigos harineros en relación a
enfermedades. Agrociencia, 50(8), 1027-1039. https://www.redalyc.org/
pdf/302/30249305007.pdf
Solis-Moya, E., Hernández-Martínez, M.H., Borodanenko, A., Aguilar-Acuña,
J.L., & Grajeda-Cabrera, Ó.A. (2004). Duración de la etapa reproductiva
y el rendimiento de trigo. Revista Fitotecnia Mexicana, 27(4), 323-332.
https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/610/61027404.pdf
Suaste-Franco, M., Solís-Moya, E., Ledesma-Ramírez, L., de la Cruz-González,
M., Grageda-Cabrera, O., & Báez-Pérez, A. (2013). Efecto de la densidad y
método de siembra en el rendimiento de grano de trigo (Triticum aestivum
L.) en El Bajío, México. Agrociencia, 47(2), 159-170. https://www.
agrociencia-colpos.org/index.php/agrociencia/article/view/1009/1009
Vega Castro, Ó.A., De Marco, R., & Di Risio, C. (2015). Propiedades físicas
y sensoriales de un pan fresco, con la adición de las enzimas lacasa,
xilanasa y lipasa. Revista EIA, 24, 87-100. https://doi.org/10.24050/reia.
v12i24.876
Villaseñor M., H. E., Huerta E., J., Solís M., E., Espitia R., E., Ireta M., J., &
Galván L., R. (2012). Norteña F2007, nueva variedad de trigo para
siembras de riego en la región norte y El Bajío de México. Revista
Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas, 3(1), 207-211. https://cienciasagricolas.
inifap.gob.mx/index.php/agricolas/article/view/1495/1326
Villaseñor M., H.E., Huerta E., Julio, H.E., Hortelano S., R., Martínez C., E.,
Rodríguez G., M.F., & Alvarado P, J.I. (2020). Conatrigo F2015: nueva
variedad de trigo harinero para zonas de riego en México. Revista Mexicana
de Ciencias Agrícolas, 11(8), 1993-1997. https://cienciasagricolas.inifap.
gob.mx/index.php/agricolas/article/view/2616/3671
