## 3 Results and Discussion
### Quality Indicators of Braad crumb
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \begin{tabular}{c} **Source** \\ **of Variation** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **DP** \\ **[Score]** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **CD** \\ **[g (cm\({}^{3}\))\({}^{-1}\)]** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **RS** \\ **[–]** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **SP** \\ **[N]** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**Year** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** \\ \hline
2019 & 63 \(\pm\) 13.81  & 0.26 \(\pm\) 0.02  & 0.34 \(\pm\) 0.06  & 0.83 \(\pm\) 0.22  & 7.01 \(\pm\) 1.42  \\ \hline
2020 & 66 \(\pm\) 7.72  & 0.32 \(\pm\) 0.02  & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.20  & 0.85 \(\pm\) 0.23  & 8.76 \(\pm\) 1.39  \\ \hline
2021 & 56 \(\pm\) 12.96  & 0.28 \(\pm\)0.02  & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.03  & 0.93 \(\pm\) 0.03  & 7.58 \(\pm\) 1.02  \\ \hline
**Cultivar** & **n.s.** & ** & ** & ** & **n.s.** \\ \hline Harenda & 60 \(\pm\) 12.33  & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.04  & 0.42 \(\pm\) 0.22  & 0.80 \(\pm\) 0.25  & 7.91 \(\pm\) 1.96  \\ \hline Kandela & 58 \(\pm\) 9.62  & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.02  & 0.33 \(\pm\) 0.05  & 0.92 \(\pm\) 0.04  & 7.67 \(\pm\) 1.00  \\ \hline Mandaryna & 56 \(\pm\) 10.43  & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.04  & 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.05  & 0.95 \(\pm\) 0.02  & 7.66 \(\pm\) 1.32  \\ \hline Serenada & 71 \(\pm\) 12.38  & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.03  & 0.33 \(\pm\) 0.12  & 0.80 \(\pm\) 0.25  & 7.90 \(\pm\) 1.50  \\ \hline
**Farming system** & ** & **n.s.** & ** & ** \\ \hline ORG & 61 \(\pm\) 13.93  & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.03  & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.10  & 0.87 \(\pm\) 0.18  & 7.44 \(\pm\) 1.34  \\ \hline INT & 59 \(\pm\) 11.94  & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.03  & 0.39 \(\pm\) 0.15  & 0.85 \(\pm\) 0.21  & 7.47 \(\pm\) 1.50  \\ \hline CONV & 64 \(\pm\) 11.03  & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.03  & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.13  & 0.89 \(\pm\) 0.17  & 8.44 \(\pm\) 1.38  \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* Data are presented as means \(\pm\) standard deviations; n.s.--not significant (different letters on the top of data: \({}^{\text{a, b, c}}\) are significantly different at \(\alpha\) = 0.05) between means according to [PERSON]’s test. Abbreviations: DP—Dallman porosity, CD—crumb density; RS—resilience; SP—springiness; HD—hardness; ORG—organic; INT—integrated, CONV—conventional.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: The quality indicators of bread crumb depending on the harvest year, cultivar, and farming system. Figure 1). The CD of the bread samples tested ranged from 0.23-0.34 g (cm\({}^{3}\))\({}^{-1}\) (Table S4). The lowest CD was characterised by the Mandaryna flour from CONV grain harvested in 2019, and the highest by the Harenda flour from INT and CONV grain harvested in 2020. Resilience (RS) of bread crumbs depended significantly on grain year and genotype (cultivar) (Table 4). Interactions were also found between cultivar and farming system (Figure S4c). The bread crumbs obtained from flour of grain harvested in 2020 had the highest significantly RS (mean 0.43), while the crumbs from 2021 had the lowest significantly RS (mean 0.30). The crumb with the significantly highest RS was characterised by breads baked from flour of the Harenda cultivar (mean 0.42). The crumb RS of breads made from flour of the other wheat cultivars ranged from 0.33 to 0.35. No significant effect of the farming system on bread crumb RS was found. Elasticity is a bread crumb parameter that depends on its recipe composition and the technological process [60]. The RS of the bread crumb samples tested was in the range 0.24-0.83 (Table S4). This parameter was positively correlated with DP (r = 0.39, Figure 1). Bread baked from Kandela flour from the ORG harvest in 2019 had the lowest RS value, while bread baked from Harenda flour from the harvest in 2020 from INT had the highest (Table S4). Springiness (SP) of the bread crumbs depended significantly on the year of grain harvest, genotype (cultivar), and farming system used (Table 4). Interactions were also found between the cultivar and farming system (Figure S4d). The bread crumbs made of flour from grain from the 2021 harvest had the significantly highest SP (mean 0.93).