## 3 Results and Discussion
### The Flour Baking Quality Assessment
The lack of a significant impact of the N\({}_{2}\) dose as compared to the N\({}_{1}\) on the assessment of bread volume, the Dallmann porosity index of crumb, and the crumb moisture content from hybrid cultivars suggest the possibility of obtaining flour of very good baking value with a lower N dose used [4]. A study by [PERSON] et al. [43] showed that it is possible to modulate the wheat grain and flour for bread according to the nitrogen regime, although it is necessary to understand the genotype-environment relationship. Increasing the content of protein in the grain under the impact of nitrogen fertilisation does not directly affect the increased volume of the bread made from flour obtained from such grain [4]. It is important to minimise the environmental issues associated with late N usage, thus it is significant to know what dosage and fertiliser form, as well as date of N fertilisation would be necessary to obtain the desired baking traits of wheat cultivars [43]. Among the assessed characteristics of the baking process, the application of the N\({}_{2}\) dose increased only in the case of the dough yield. The assessed quality indicators for bread were characterised by high stability and the values of the coefficient of variation (CV) were the lowest for bread yield and crumb moisture content. The use of the N\({}_{1}\) dose increased the stability of baking loss while the N\({}_{2}\) dose increased the stability of bread volume and the Dallmann porosity index of crumb. Photographs of the bread crumb of selected cultivars are shown in Figure 1.  
Figure 1: Crumb porosity of bread obtained from the flours of selected wheat cultivars with various levels of fertilisatio: N\({}_{1}\)—110 kg/ha, N\({}_{2}\)—150 kg/ha. \({}^{1}\) Population cultivars. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Cultivar** & **Nitrogen** & **Doough Yield [\%]** & **Baking Loss [\%]** & **Bread Yield [\%]** & **Bread Volume [cm\({}^{3}\)/gl]** & **Dallmann Porosity Index** & **Crumb Moisture** \\  & & & & & & **of Crumb [Scores]** & **Content [\%]** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Hyghen} & N\({}_{\rm i}\) & 148.8\({}^{\circ}\) + 0.3 & 15.1\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.9 & 148.1\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 1.6 & 3.2\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.2 & 100\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0 & 43.9\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.4 \\  & N\({}_{\rm i}\) & 145.5\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.1 & 15.1\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.1 & 148.1\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.1 & 3.3\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.1 & 100\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0 & 45.0\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.4 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Hyrena} & N\({}_{\rm i}\) & 148.6\({}^{\circ}\) + 0.0 & 15.9\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.5 & 146.5\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.8 & 2.9\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.0 & 95\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.7 & 43.1\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.6 \\  & N\({}_{\rm i}\) & 149.3\({}^{\circ}\) + 0.5 & 16.2\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.4 & 0.96\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.4 & 162.9\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.0 & 90\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.0 & 44.3\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.3 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Hyfi} & N\({}_{\rm i}\) & 146.2\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.4 & 17.1\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.5 & 144.5\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.9 & 2.9\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.0 & 90\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0 & 43.6\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.3 \\  & N\({}_{\rm i}\) & 149.6\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 1.2 & 14.8\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.5 & 148.5\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 1.2 & 3.0\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.1 & 90\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0 & 44.2\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.6 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Hyking} & N\({}_{\rm i}\) & 148.9\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.4 & 16.0\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.4 & 146.4\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.6 & 3.0\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.4 & 85\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 7 & 43.9\({}^{\circ}\) \(\pm\) 0.7 \\  & N\({}_{\rm i}\) & 15