## 3 Results and Discussion
### The Water Absorption and Rheological Properties
DT was positively correlated with parameters such as PC (r = 0.62) and WG (r = 0.63), as shown in Figure 1.  
According to the classification given by [PERSON] [55], very strong wheat flour is characterised by a DT longer than 10 min, which is not desirable from a technological point of view. The DT of none of the flours tested exceeded this value. The longest DT was characterised by the dough made from flour from Mandaryna cultivar grown in CONV in 2019 (8.2 min), while the shortest was made from flour from Kandela cultivar grown in ORG in 2019 (1.6 min, Table S2). Stability of dough (SD) depended significantly on the year of grain harvest, genotype (cultivar), and farming system (Table 2). The longest SD was characterised by the dough of flour from grain harvested in 2020 (mean 12.4 min), it was significantly longer compared to samples from 2021 by 28.6%. The variation in SD depending on the year of grain harvest was also shown by [PERSON] [27] and [PERSON] [37]. In our study, the longest SD was found for dough made from flour from grain of the Serenada and Mandaryna cultivars (mean 12.6 and 12.3 min, respectively). The significantly lowest SD was found for dough made from grain flour of the Kandela cultivar (mean 10.0 min). Cultivar variation in SD is also indicated by the literature data [27; 37]. In the present study, the longest SD was significantly characterised by flour from grain from CONV (mean 15.1 min). The value of this parameter was 38.4% higher compared to samples from INT \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Source of** \\ **Variation** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{**WA [\%]**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Properties of Dough**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **DT** & **SD** & **DS** & **QN** \\  & & **[min]** & **[min]** & **[FU]** & **[—]** \\ \hline
**Year** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** \\ \hline
2019 & 57.2 \(\pm\) 2.12 b & 3.5 \(\pm\) 2.23 ab & 12.0 \(\pm\) 6.06 b & 35 \(\pm\) 21.77 b & 93 \(\pm\) 42.25 b \\ \hline
2020 & 56.4 \(\pm\) 3.46 a & 4.2 \(\pm\) 2.25 b & 12.4 \(\pm\) 4.90 b & 28 \(\pm\) 15.78 a & 97 \(\pm\) 55.53 c \\ \hline
2021 & 58.2 \(\pm\) 2.67 c & 3.0 \(\pm\) 1.19 a & 9.5 \(\pm\) 4.80 a & 41 \(\pm\) 21.10 c & 82 \(\pm\) 40.16 a \\ \hline
**Cultivar** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** \\ \hline Harenda & 56.5 \(\pm\) 1.17 b & 2.3 \(\pm\) 0.56 a & 10.5 \(\pm\) 7.17 a & 48 \(\pm\) 23.72 b & 69 \(\pm\) 52.68 a \\ \hline Kandela & 55.5 \(\pm\) 1.67 a & 3.5 \(\pm\) 1.58 b & 10.0 \(\pm\) 4.76 a & 37 \(\pm\) 22.55 b & 90 \(\pm\) 36.95 b \\ \hline Mandaryna & 55.9 \(\pm\) 2.36 a & 4.3 \(\pm\) 2.81 c & 12.3 \(\pm\) 5.24 b & 27 \(\pm\) 16.56 a & 112 \(\pm\) 50.17 c \\ \hline Serenada & 61.1 \(\pm\) 1.77 c & 4.2 \(\pm\) 1.78 c & 12.6 \(\pm\) 3.71 b & 27 \(\pm\) 8.34 a & 92 \(\pm\) 36.90 b \\ \hline
**Farming system** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** \\ \hline ORG & 56.5 \(\pm\) 3.07 a & 2.6 \(\pm\) 1.25 a & 9.6 \(\pm\) 5.54 a & 45 \(\pm\) 21.70 b & 64 \(\pm\) 41.33 a \\ \hline INT & 57.8 \(\pm\) 2.88 b & 3.2 \(\pm\) 1.99 b & 9.3 \(\pm\) 4.73 a & 40 \(\pm\) 18.24 b & 81 \(\pm\) 37.07 b \\ \hline CONV & 57.5 \(\pm\) 2.56 ab & 4.9 \(\pm\) 1.95 c & 15.1 \(\pm\) 3.72 b & 20 \(\pm\) 10.47 a & 128 \(\pm\) 34.95 c \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Data are reported as means \(\pm\) standard deviations; abbreviations: **–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: WA—water absorption; DT—development time; SD—stability of dough; DS—degree of softening; QN—quality number; ORG—organic; INT—integrated; CONV—conventional.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: The water absorption of flour and rheological properties of wheat dough depending on the harvest year, cultivar, and farming system. and 36.4% higher than samples from ORG. A significant effect of the farming system on SD is also indicated by [PERSON] et al. [37].