Next Article in Journal
Design and Experimental Assessment of 3D-Printed Soft Grasping Interfaces for Robotic Harvesting
Previous Article in Journal
Genome-Wide Identification and Expression Analysis of the Pepper β-1,3-gucanase Gene Family in Response to Phytophthora capsici Stresses
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/agronomy15040803
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Influence of Production Technology Intensity on the Yield and Amino Acid Profile of the Grain Protein of Different Sowing Oat (Avena sativa L.) Cultivars

by
Alicja Sułek
1,
Grażyna Cacak-Pietrzak
2,*,
Marcin Różewicz
1,*,
Anna Nieróbca
3,
Marcin Studnicki
4 and
Grażyna Podolska
1
1
Department of Crops and Yield Quality, Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation—State Research Institute, 8 Czartoryskich Street, 24-100 Pulawy, Poland
2
Department of Food Technology and Assessment, Institute of Food Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Science (WULS), 159C Nowoursynowska Street, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland
3
Department of Bioeconomy and Agrometeorology, Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation—State Research Institute, 8 Czartoryskich Street, 24-100 Pulawy, Poland
4
Department of Biometry, Institute of Agriculture, Warsaw University of Life Science (WULS), 159 Nowoursynowska Street, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(4), 803; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040803
Submission received: 28 February 2025 / Revised: 20 March 2025 / Accepted: 22 March 2025 / Published: 24 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Plant-Crop Biology and Biochemistry)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The biological value of protein is mainly determined by its amino acid composition, and primarily depends on the optimal content of individual exogenous amino acids. The synthesis of these compounds in oat grain is influenced by genetic factors, habitat conditions and the agrotechnology used in cultivation. The aim of this study was to assess the influence of production technology (integrated, intensive) on the yield, content and amino acid profile of protein in the grain of hulled and naked oats. Field studies were conducted at the Agricultural Experimental Station Kępa—Pulawy, Osiny farm of IUNG—PIB (Poland) during two growing seasons (2019 and 2020). It was found that the total protein content of oat grain and its amino acid composition significantly depended on genotype and production technology. Naked oat grain was characterised by significantly higher protein content. The higher the intensity of production, the higher the content of total protein and exogenous and endogenous amino acids. Lysine was the amino acid that limited the biological value of protein in the grain of both oat cultivars. Its deficit was more frequent in grain from intensive production technology.

1. Introduction

The sowing oat (Avena sativa L.) has been known and cultivated for almost three thousand years, when intentional cultivation began in the Middle East [1]. In 2023, the global area used for oat cultivation was 17.9 million ha, representing 3% of the acreage devoted to cereal crops. The largest area of oat cultivation was in Russia (2190 thousand ha), while Poland, with a cultivated area of 527 thousand ha, ranked fourth. The oat grain harvest in 2022 was 5.23 billion tonnes [2]. Leading oat producers include Canada, Russia, Australia, and Poland [3].
Oats have low soil and heat requirements, but among cereals, they stand out as having the highest water requirements [4]. Oats have the advantage of being highly tolerant of low soil pH, hence, they can be grown on acidic and neutral soils. In addition, they are recommended as a phytosanitary crop in cereal rotations, as they are not infested and do not transmit pod diseases [5].
In Poland, oat grain is used primarily for feed (80%) and industrial purposes (17%), with only 2–3% of the harvest being used for consumption purposes [6]. In the internal market of the European Union, 9.4% of the oat grain harvest is used for consumption, 79.4% for feed purposes, and 11.2% for other purposes, including industrial purposes [7].
Oats are one of the most valuable cereals due to the chemical composition of the grain, which differs from other cereals primarily in its lower carbohydrate content and higher fat and protein content [8]. Compared to other cereals, oats are also distinguished by their high levels of non-starchy carbohydrates, especially β-glucans and pentosans, which are classified as dietary fibre [9]. Oats contain significant amounts of B vitamins and fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, and K). Oat grain is also rich in macronutrients (K, Ca, Mg) and micronutrients (Cu, Zn, Fe, Mn, Bo, Mo, Co, Se) [10].
Oat grain contains between 14 and 17% protein [11], with naked cultivars having a protein content of around 15% [12]. Compared to other cereals, oat protein has a higher biological value due to its better amino acid composition [13,14,15,16]. In oat protein, exogenous amino acids account for 41% of the total amino acids, while in wheat and rye protein, their share is only 33% [17]. In oat protein, the content of lysine (4.2%), threonine (3.3%), phenylalanine, and tyrosine (in total over 8.8%) is higher than in other cereals. Tryptophan (1.3%) and methionine (over 3%) contents are also higher. A high content of branched-chain amino acids, i.e., leucine and isoleucine (16.6% in total), was also observed [18]. Gibiński et al. [17] showed that the consumption of 100 g portions of oatmeal covers the daily requirement of the human body for seven exogenous amino acids. Oats rank first in terms of the nutritional value of protein, assessed on the basis of protein biological indices, followed by rye, barley, and wheat [19,20]. This is due to the exceptionally high (over 70%) proportion of albumin and globulins, which have a favourable amino acid composition. In contrast, oat grain is poorer in proteins of the avenins (prolamins) and glutelins types, which account for about 20–30% of total protein. In grains of other cereals, prolamins and glutelins account for 75 to 94% [19]. Oat protein has a high biological value as it shows structural similarity to soybean glycinin and has the potential to be used as a new functional ingredient in food processing. In addition, globulin protein, which accounts for about 70–80% of oat protein content, shows higher heat stability than most plant proteins, so it can be widely used in food production where high temperature is used [21]. The nutrient content of oat grain, similar to that of other cereals, depends on the cultivar, but can also be modified by habitat and agrotechnical factors [22]. Nitrogen fertilisation has a strong influence on the content and nutritive value of oat grain protein [23]. In a study by Noworolnik [24], a higher level of nitrogen fertilisation increased the total protein content of oat grain and changed its fractional composition. There was an increase in the proportion of glutelins with a decrease in the proportion of albumins and prolamins. Not only are there few studies in the literature on the effect of nitrogen fertilisation on the amino acid composition of oat protein, but additionally, the available results are outdated and do not unequivocally indicate the formation of the amino acid composition of oat protein under conditions of differentiated nitrogen supply to the plants. Bartnikowska and Lange [25] showed that moderate nitrogen fertilisation increases the protein content of oat grain, but does not affect its amino acid composition. In contrast, studies by other authors [26] indicate that more intense nitrogen fertilisation increases the proportion of lysine, methionine, and arginine in the protein, but does not affect the content of other exogenous amino acids.
Intensive production technologies require large rates of nitrogen fertiliser. Integrated production technology, which is based on sustainable fertilisation and the rational use of pesticides, appears to be an alternative to this production system. The main objective is to minimise the negative impact on the environment while maintaining high productivity. Both integrated and intensive farming use plant protection products, but the way they are used is different. Integrated farming implements the principles of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which include monitoring pest populations, using natural enemies of pests and minimising the use of pesticides. In intensive farming, chemical pesticides are used systematically and often in excessive amounts, which leads to the development of pathogen resistance and the bioaccumulation of chemicals in ecosystems [27].
The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of the intensity of production technology on the yield, protein content, and amino acid composition of the grain of two forms of oats (hulled and naked). The scientific hypothesis assumed that increasing the intensity of production technology would increase oat yield and grain protein content, as well as potentially have an impact on its amino acid composition.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Material

2.1.1. Site Characteristics, Experimental Design, and Agronomic Practices

Oat grains came from field experiments carried out in 2019 and 2020 at the Kępa-Pulawy Agricultural Experimental Station, Osiny farm (145 m above sea level, φ = 51°47′ N, λ = 22°05′ E), owned by IUNG—PIB in Pulawy, Poland. The experiment was set up using the randomised sub-block method, in three replications, on pseudo-polylic soil classified as good wheat complex, of bonitation classes II and III b. The size of plots at sowing was 6 m × 15 m = 90 m2. In 2019, the sowing was performed on 11th April, while in 2020, on 6th April. The harvest dates were 4th August in 2019 and 8th August in 2020. The size of plots for harvest was 1.5 m × 15 m = 22.5 m2. The grain was collected with a plot harvester, and the harvest was assessed using the gravimetric method. The soil was characterised by a neutral reaction (pHKCl 6.77) and contained 19.3 mg P2O5 and 16.3 mg K2O per 100 g. Assimilable phosphorus (as P2O5) was determined using the spectrometric method, standard [28]. Assimilable potassium (as K2) was determined using the FAES method, standard [29]. On the other hand, P2O5 and K2O rates were calculated based on the soil abundance with bioavailable forms of these elements.
The first experimental factor was two production technologies: integrated and intensive. In the intensive technology, a lower amount of N, P, and K was used, and no growth regulator was applied. The number of fungicide treatments depended on the susceptibility of the cultivars to diseases. The oat field was monitored, and treatments were applied only after exceeding the economic damage threshold. In the case of integrated technology, fungicides were applied only once. The second experimental factor was two oat cultivars: the hulled cultivar, Zuch, and the naked cultivar, Siwek. The characteristics of the oat cultivars are shown in Scheme 1.
The agrotechnical treatments applied in the different production technologies are given in Table 1. The first rate of nitrogen was applied prior to sowing oats in the amount of 50 kg∙ha−1 (integrated technology, intensive technology). The second rate of nitrogen was applied at the shooting stage, in the amounts of 40 kg∙ha−1 (integrated technology) and 70 kg∙ha−1 (intensive technology).

2.1.2. Meteorological Conditions

The course of weather conditions was described on the basis of monthly values of air temperature and precipitation totals, which were compared to climatic norms determined on the basis of 1981–2018 averages (Table 2). Meteorological data came from the Automatic Agrometeorological Station, which is located in the vicinity of the experimental fields of the IUNG—PIB Experimental Station in Osiny (φ = 51.469 N, λ = 22.052 E). The years covered by the study saw different thermal conditions and rainfall amounts.
In 2019, weather conditions were characterised by low rainfall and significant temperature fluctuations. Spring was exceptionally warm, with an average temperature of 4.5 °C in March, which was 3.2 °C higher than the multi-year average (1981–2018). After an exceptionally warm start to spring, May turned out to be cool (average temperature of 12.9 °C) and exceptionally wet (total rainfall of 86 mm). June was hot with little rainfall, with an average temperature of 21.7 °C, which was 5.1 °C higher than the multi-year average. The total rainfall in this month was only 38.7 mm, 62% of the multi-year norm.
The 2020 growing season was characterised by large fluctuations in precipitation. Spring saw little rainfall, with March and April bringing a total rainfall of only 34 mm, which was 54% of the multi-year average. Following this dry period, May and June brought record-high rainfall. In May, the total rainfall was 112 mm, while in June it reached 189 mm, which was 201% and 306% of the 1981–2018 norm, respectively. Thermal conditions in May were below normal, with an average temperature of 11.1 °C, which was 2.8 °C lower than the multi-year average, while June was 1.8 °C warmer than normal.

2.2. Methods

2.2.1. Determination of Total Protein Content

Total protein content was determined using the Kjeldahl method (N∙6.25) on a Kjeltec 8200 (Foss, Hillerød, Sweden) according to AACC Method 46-11.02 [30]. The grain samples for laboratory analysis were collected in accordance with the methodology provided in the norm [31]. The samples were taken from different locations within the batch of grain, and then mixed together to create a single smaller sample. Prior to analysis, the samples were ground in an A11 laboratory grinder (IKA Works GmbH & Co, Staufen, Germany) to a particle size of less than 1.0 mm. The analyses were performed in two replications.

2.2.2. Determination of Amino Acids

Amino acids were determined with the methodology described in detail by Sułek et al. [32].

2.2.3. Determination of the Biological Value of Protein

The biological value of protein was determined with the so-called limiting amino acid (CS) index. Hen egg white was used as a standard. The limiting amino acid of the biological value of the protein (CS) was calculated by comparing the amount of individual exogenous amino acids in the protein under study according to the methodology used by Sułek et al. [32].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The results were statistically processed in Statistica ver. 13.1 (StatSoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA) using Microsoft® Excel 2020, Microsoft 365 software package (Addinsoft, Inc., Brooklyn, NY, USA). The ANOVA method of analysis of variance was used in order to compare the effect of the experimental factors on the total protein content and its amino acid profile. The differences were then estimated using a Tukey’s test at the significance level of α = 0.05. In addition, in order to determine to what extent the tested oat grain samples differed from one another and which analysed factor had the biggest influence on this difference, a principal component analysis (PCA) of the results was performed.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Grain Yield

Oat grain yield depended on the genetic factor and weather conditions during the growing season (Figure 1). A significantly higher grain yield was obtained in 2020, and this was 26.7% higher compared to the 2019 yield (averages, respectively: 5.61 and 4.11 t∙ha−1). The differences in grain yield were due to unfavourable moisture conditions in 2019, with lower rainfall in June and July. Yield variability between years was also found in a study by Zhang et al. [33], who showed that yields were 40% lower in years that experienced drought stress. In our study, the hulled cultivar Zuch yielded 22.2% higher compared to the naked cultivar Siwek (respectively: 6.04 and 4.70 t∙ha−1). Other authors [34,35] also reported that hulled oat cultivars yield higher than naked cultivars. According to Batalova et al. [36], grain yields of naked oat cultivars can be in a wide range (2.75–5.63 t∙ha−1), so the grain yield of the naked cultivar Siwek obtained in our study can be considered satisfactory. Comparing the yields of seven naked oat cultivars, Zobnina et al. [37] obtained an average yield of 3.9 t∙ha−1. Güngör et al. [38] showed that the pleached oat cultivars yielded between 4.1 and 5.3 t∙ha−1. A study by Ju et al. [39] showed that an application rate of 90 kg N∙ha−1 could offset drought stress and reduce grain yield loss. Mantai et al. [40] indicated that under optimum rainfall distribution conditions, an application rate of 86 kg N∙ha−1 was sufficient for high oat grain yield, and further increases did not increase grain yield.
In our study, the applied production technologies did not significantly affect oat yielding; however, there was a tendency for higher oat grain yield (by 7.4%) when grown with intensive technology (Figure 1). Studies by Świderska-Ostapiak and Stankowski [41] indicate that an increase in nitrogen fertilisation from 40 to 89 kg N∙ha−1 resulted in a slight increase in grain yield (by 0.27 t∙ha−1), while a further increase in dose to 100 kg N∙ha−1 had no effect on yield. According to Bibi et al. [42], the effective use of increased nitrogen rate (above 100 kg N∙ha−1) may depend on varietal factors. Furthermore, other authors [42,43,44] indicate that individual oat genotypes show different requirements in terms of nitrogen utilisation. According to many authors [45,46,47,48], oats respond with an increase in grain yield up to an application rate of 60–70 kg N∙ha−1. In contrast, Said et al. [49] showed a 22% increase in oat grain yield when the nitrogen rate was doubled from 40 to 80 kg N∙ha−1. In a study by Tomple and Hawan [50], the optimum nitrogen fertilisation rate for oats was 50 kg N∙ha−1. According to Joshi et al. [51], the highest oat yield is given by the application of a nitrogen dose of 90 kg∙ha−1. In addition, the mentioned authors recommend dividing this dose into three applications. On the other hand, Błażewicz et al. [52] found no significant effect of increasing the nitrogen dose (40; 60; 80 kg N∙ha−1) on the yield of naked and hulled cultivars of oats, which is consistent with the results obtained in our study. According to Khan et al. [53], high doses of nitrogen in mineral form are not efficiently utilised by oats due to their leaching into deeper soil layers and the short vegetative growth period of oats, and this may explain the lack of effect on yield.

3.2. Protein Content and Amino Acid Composition

There was a trend towards slightly a higher protein content in grain harvested in 2019 than in 2020, by 1.6 percentage points (p.p.) (Figure 2). Literature data [54,55] indicate that more protein is accumulated in oat grains in dry and warm years. Noworolnik [24] obtained oat grain with high protein content under drought conditions lasting from tillering to full grain maturity. According to Howarth et al. [56], varying weather conditions due to different crop locations have a significant effect on protein synthesis in grains of the same oat cultivar. Differences can be up to four p.p.
The influence of the genetic factor on the total protein content of oat grain was found in our study. The grain of the naked cultivar Siwek contained 20.1 p.p. more protein than the grain of the hulled cultivar Zuch (respectively: 123.5 and 98.8 g∙kg−1 d.m.) (Figure 2). In a study by Biel et al. [57], the grain of naked oats had a significantly higher total protein content than that of hulled oats (respectively: 163 and 131 g∙kg−1 d.m.). Brand et al. [58] determined an average of 144 g∙kg−1 protein in oat grain grown in South Africa for the hulled cultivars and 159 g∙kg−1 in grain of the naked cultivar. Sunilkumar et al. [59] indicate that there is a very large variation in total protein content in the grain of different oat cultivars, ranging from 120–240 g∙kg−1.
In this study, the use of intensive production technology positively influenced the total protein content in oat grain, but this change was not statistically significant (Figure 2). The protein content in oat grain from intensive and integrated farming differed by about four p.p. (respectively: 112.4 and 108.3 g∙kg−1 d.m.). Research results on the effect of agronomic level, including nitrogen fertilisation, on the protein content of oat grain are inconclusive. Podolska et al. [60], on the other hand, found that increasing the nitrogen rate from 60 to 90 kg N∙ha−1 had no effect on the content of this component in oat grain, which is consistent with the results obtained in our study.
When analysing the amino acid profile of the protein, there was no significant effect of harvest year on the total content of exogenous amino acids and endogenous amino acids in oat grain. Yet, there was a tendency for a slightly higher total amino acid content in oat grain from the 2019 harvest. The summed endogenous amino acid content of the 2019 oat grain averaged 57.67 g∙kg−1 and that of the 2020 grain was 53.49 g∙kg−1 (Table 3). Even smaller differences were found in the total content of endogenous amino acids. In the grain harvested in 2019, the content of endogenous amino acids was 42.48 g∙kg−1 and in the 2020 grain 40.75 g∙kg−1. A study by Sterna et al. [61] showed that the total content of exogenous amino acids in the grain of oats of naked cultivars is in the range of 45 g∙kg−1, and that of hulled cultivars is 38.5 g∙kg−1. In contrast, Ibrahim et al. [62] indicate that the total content of exogenous amino acids in oat grain ranges from 34.06 to 37.41 g∙kg−1. The amino acid profile of cereal protein can be modified by weather conditions, as shown by many authors [63,64,65,66,67]. Jaśkiewicz and Szczepanek [67] investigated the amino acid profile of winter triticale protein and found a significant influence of weather conditions, especially at the grain-filling stage. Optimal rainfall distribution during this period increased the content of exogenous amino acids in the grain.
The grain of the oat forms tested differed significantly in amino acid content. The grain of the hulled oat cultivar Zuch contained 50.17 g∙kg−1 of endogenous amino acids and 38.36 g∙kg−1 of exogenous amino acids, while in the grain of the naked cultivar Siwek the content of these compounds was, respectively: 60.99 and 44.87 g∙kg−1 (Table 3). The grain of the naked oat cultivar Siwek contained 21.6% more endogenous amino acids and 17.0% more exogenous amino acids than the grain of the hulled oat cultivar Zuch. In our study, statistically significant differences were found in the content of all analysed exogenous amino acids in favour of the grain of the naked cultivar Siwek (Figure 3). In a study by Biel [68], the content of endogenous amino acids in naked oat grain was 95.87 g∙kg−1 and in hulled oat grain was 90.07 g∙kg−1. Ibrahim et al. [62] indicated a lower amino acid content in total oat grain (from 64.49 to 68.26 g∙kg−1). Shewry et al. [69] showed that the lysine content of the grain protein of naked oats was higher than that of hulled oats.
Analysis of the content of individual endogenous amino acids showed significant statistical differences between the grains of the tested oat cultivars (Figure 4). The grain protein of the naked cultivar Siwek contained more asparagine, proline, glycine, tyrosine, and cysteine than the grain protein of the hulled cultivar Zuch. In contrast, there were no significant differences between the above cultivars in the content of amino acids, such as serine, glutamine, and alanine. Witkowicz et al. [70] and Zorovski and Georgieva [71] showed that the amino acid composition of protein in the grain of different oat cultivars varies, indicating that it is determined by a genetic factor. Zorovski and Georgieva [71] found that the grain protein of the Mina naked oat cultivar was characterised by a higher proportion of cysteine compared to the pleached oat cultivars.
When analysing the effect of cultivation technology on the amino acid profile of oat protein, it was found that significantly more endogenous amino acids were contained in grain from intensive cultivation than in integrated cultivation. In oat grain grown under intensive production technology, the total content of endogenous amino acids was 43.81 g∙kg−1, while in grain from integrated cultivation, it was 39.42 g∙kg−1 (Table 3). The total content of endogenous amino acids in oat grain did not depend significantly on production technology. However, there was a trend towards a higher content of endogenous amino acids in oat grain grown according to intensive technology compared to integrated technology (respectively: 101.53 and 92.86 g∙kg−1).
The application of intensive production technology significantly increased the content of exogenous amino acids, such as valine (by 10 p.p.), isoleucine (by 9.1 p.p.), leucine (by 11.5 p.p.) and phenylalanine (by 12.7 p.p.), and lisine by (6.9 p.p.) in the grain of the oat cultivars studied (Figure 5). The intensive technology also increased the content of endogenous amino acids such as proline (15 p.p.), glysine (11.6 p.p.) and alanine (17.7 p.p.) (Figure 6). Ralcewicz and Knapowski [72] found that increasing the level of nitrogen fertilisation from 40 to 60 kg N∙ha−1 increased the content of arginine and leucine and decreased the proportion of histidine, lysine, threonine, alanine, glycine, and glutamic acid in oat protein. A further increase in nitrogen fertilisation to 120 kg N∙ha−1 resulted in a significant increase in glutamic acid and a decrease in phenylalanine, methionine, glycine and aspartic acid. A study by Vilmane et al. [73] showed that even a high nitrogen rate (160 kg N∙ha−1) did not significantly modify the exogenous amino acid content of oat protein of the naked and hulled cultivars, except for methionine and phenylalanine, whose content increased.
According to Zhang et al. [74], increased nitrogen fertilisation has a beneficial effect on the leucine and phenylalanine content of grain. It has also a positive influence on the arginine content of the grain. In their study on the amino acid composition of spelt grain protein, Nowak et al. [75] found that applying a nitrogen dose of 100 kg∙ha−1 reduced the content of arginine, tyrosine, and valine. On the other hand, Biel et al. [76] reported no effect of a higher level of agrotechnology (application of higher nitrogen doses) on the content of amino acids in spelt protein. A study by Jaśkiewicz and Szczepanek [67] showed that intensive production technology with higher nitrogen fertilisation and intensive plant protection resulted in a significant increase in the content of most exogenous amino acids except lysine, methionine, and tryptophan. However, within the endogenous amino acids, there was a significant increase in serine, glutamine, and glisine. In a field study with oats, Ralcewicz and Knapowski [72] found that nitrogen applications of up to 60 kg∙ha−1 increased the content of arginine and isoleucine in the grain.

3.3. PCA Analysis

The first two principal components (PC1 and PC2) explain 96.5% of the variation in the content of exogenous amino acids in oat grain protein depending on the cultivar and the intensity of production (Figure 7). The grain protein of the naked cultivar Siwek (naked) from cultivation with intensive technology was characterised by the highest content of all such amino acids, while in grain from cultivation with integrated technology, the content of exogenous amino acids was at a similar level as in the protein of the hulled cultivar Zuch. Most of the exogenous amino acids had a relatively strong correlation among themselves. The exceptions were leusine and isoleusine belonging to the branched amino acids. The biosynthetic pathways of these two amino acids are similar, their synthesis begins with common precursors and enzymes [77].
The first two principal components (PC1 and PC2) explain 80.01% of the variation in the content of endogenous amino acids in oat grain protein depending on the cultivar and production technologies used (Figure 8). The grain protein of the naked cultivar Siwek was characterised by the highest content of all amino acids from this group, compared to the hulled cultivar Zuch, in both production technologies used in the experiment. The PCA analysis shows that intensifying the production technology increased the content of endogenous amino acids. In particular, asparagine and glycine showed a strong correlation with each other. The most dissimilar in terms of correlation was glutamine.

3.4. Biological Value of Oat Protein

Determination of the nutritional quality of the protein based on the amino acid profile of the reference protein to the amino acid content of the test protein. The resultant amino acid ratio allows the evaluation of the biological quality expressed by the limiting amino acid index (CS) [78]. Differences in the content of exogenous amino acids in the grain of the two oat cultivars studied, due to genetic factors and the production technology used, influenced the biological value of the protein, assessed by the value of the CS index. The limiting amino acids for the biological value of the protein contained in the grain of the two oat cultivars studied were lysine and isoleucine (Table 4). The proportions of these two amino acids are disturbed in relation to the substances in the grain, which makes it difficult to use the maximum potential of the protein [78]. The grain protein of the oat cultivar Zuch was additionally deficient in threonine and valine. On the other hand, the protein of oat grain of the naked cv. Siwek was characterised by a higher content of these amino acids, exceeding the reference values by 7 and 11 p.p., respectively. The difference in amino acid composition between the proteins of the two different forms of oats was probably due to genetic differences. This was confirmed by Bai et al. [79] who showed that the protein of different wheat varieties differed in their amino acid profile. The intensification of production technology improved the amino acid profile of oat protein. The grain from intensive technology was deficient in isoleucine, lysine, and valine, while the grain from integrated technology was deficient in five exogenous amino acids (isoleucine, leucine, lysine, threonine, and valine). The CS value for lysine in oat grain protein from the integrated technology was nearly five p.p. lower than in the intensive technology (Table 5). Mineral nitrogen fertilisation increased the synthesis of amino acids, which in turn increased the protein content in grain, as well as improved its quality [80].

4. Conclusions

The study showed a significant effect of genotype and applied production technology on the content, amino acid composition, and biological value of oat grain protein. A significantly higher total protein content was found in the grain of the naked oat cultivar Siwek compared to the grain of the hulled cultivar Zuch. The genetic factor played a greater role in shaping the content of both exogenous and endogenous amino acids than the production technology used in the crop. A significant increase in the content of both exogenous and endogenous amino acids of the naked oat cultivar Siwek indicated its stronger response to intensified production technology. The amino acid limiting the biological value of the protein contained in the grain of both forms of oats was lysine. The grain protein of the naked oat cultivar Siwek was characterised by a slightly lower deficiency of this amino acid than that of the hulled oat cultivar Zuch. It should be emphasised that lysine deficiency was significantly lower in the grain protein from intensive compared to integrated cultivation technology, which partly justifies the use of more intensive agrotechnology when growing oats, especially naked oats. In conclusion, the results of our study indicate that naked oat grain is better for consumption due to its higher content and higher biological value of protein and, in addition, the possibility of eliminating the hulling process during its processing.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, A.S. and G.C.-P.; methodology, A.S., G.C.-P., A.N., M.S. and M.R.; software, A.S., G.C.-P., M.R. and M.S.; validation A.S., G.C.-P., M.R., M.S. and A.N.; formal analysis A.S., G.C.-P. and M.R.; investigation, A.S. and G.C.-P.; resources, A.S.; data curation, A.S. and M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.S. and G.C.-P.; writing—review and editing, G.C.-P. and M.R.; visualisation, A.S., G.C.-P. and G.P.; supervision, A.S. and G.C.-P.; project administration, A.S. and G.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the first author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
p.p.percentage points
ArgArginine
HisHistidine
IleIsoleusin
LeuLeusine
LysLysine
MetMethionine
PhePhenylalanine
ThrThreonine
TrpTryptophan
ValValine
AlaAlanine
AspAsparagine
CysCysteine
GluGlutamine
GlyGlysine
ProProline
SerSerine
TyrTyrosine

References

  1. Murphy, J.P.; Hoffman, L.A. The Origin, History, and Production of Oat. In Oat Science and Technology; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1992; pp. 1–28. ISBN 978-0-89118-225-2. [Google Scholar]
  2. FAOSTAT. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL (accessed on 17 January 2025).
  3. Available online: https://globaltopstats.com/how-much-oat-is-produced-globally/ (accessed on 17 January 2025).
  4. Jia, H.; Zhang, T.; Yin, X.; Shang, M.; Chen, F.; Lei, Y.; Chu, Q. Impact of Climate Change on the Water Requirements of Oat in Northeast and North China. Water 2019, 11, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pecio, A.; Bichonski, A. Nitrogen fertilization and fungicide application as elements of oat production. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2010, 19, 1297–1305. [Google Scholar]
  6. Łaba, S.; Cacak-Pietrzak, G.; Łaba, R.; Sułek, A.; Szczepański, K. Food Losses in Consumer Cereal Production in Poland in the Context of Food Security and Environmental Impact. Agriculture 2022, 12, 665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Singh, S.; Koli, P.; Ahmed, S.; Kumar, N.; Rana, M.; Singhal, R.; Ren, Y. Exploring the genetic variability in yield, nutritional and digestibility traits in oat grains through ruminant nutrition. Heliyon 2024, 10, 31451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Alemayehu, G.F.; Forsido, S.F.; Tola, Y.B.; Amare, E. Nutritional and Phytochemical Composition and Associated Health Benefits of Oat (Avena sativa) Grains and Oat-Based Fermented Food Products. Sci. World J. 2023, 2023, 2730175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sinkovič, L.; Rakszegi, M.; Pipan, B.; Meglič, V. Compositional Traits of Grains and Groats of Barley, Oat and Spelt Grown at Organic and Conventional Fields. Foods 2023, 12, 1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Leszczyńska, D.; Wirkijowska, A.; Gasiński, A.; Średnicka-Tober, D.; Trafiałek, J.; Kazimierczak, R. Oat and Oat Processed Products –Technology, Composition, Nutritional Value, and Health. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 11267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ruja, A.; Cozma, A.; Cozma, B.; Horablaga, N.M.; Dinulescu, C.; Alexa, E.; Buzna, C.; Cocan, I.; Berbecea, A.; Dossa, S.; et al. Nutritional, Phytochemical, and Rheological Profiles of Different Oat Varieties and Their Potential in the Flour Industry. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ginter, A.; Zarzecka, K.; Gugała, M.; Mystkowska, I. Nutritional properties of oats and their products. Herbalism 2024, 10, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Biel, W.; Kazimierska, K.; Bashutska, U. Nutritional value of wheat, triticale, barley and oat grains. Acta Sci. Pol. Zootech. 2020, 19, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Boukid, F. Oat proteins as emerging ingredients for food formulation: Where we stand? Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2021, 247, 535–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kumar, L.; Sehrawat, R.; Kong, Y. Oat proteins: A perspective on functional properties. LWT 2021, 152, 112307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kaur, S.; Seem, K.; Kaur, P.; Rahaman, S.; Kumar, K.; Singh, N.; Singh, B.K. Application of Oats and Their Components in Diverse Functional Food Products. In Oat (Avena sativa); CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2024; pp. 271–331. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gibiński, M.; Gumul, D.; Korus, J. Prozdrowotne właściwości owsa i produktów owsianych. Żywn Nauka Technol Jakość 2005, 4, 49–60. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  18. Gąsiorowski, H. Oats—Chemistry and Technology; PWRiL: Poznań, Poland, 1995. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  19. Jurga, R. Chemical composition, feeding value and using possibilities of oats and its products przetworów. Przegląd Zbożowo-Młynarski 2011, 5, 28–31. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  20. Kawka, A.; Achremowicz, B. Oats—The plant of the 21st century. Nutritional and industrial use. Nauka Przyr. Technol. 2014, 8, 32–41. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  21. Mel, R.; Malalgoda, M. Oat protein as a novel protein ingredient: Structure, functionality, and factors impacting utilization. Cereal Chem. 2022, 99, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gil-González, A.B.; Sjögren, L.L.; Bernfur, K.; Olsson, O.; Zambrano, J.A. Genomic identification of expressed globulin storage proteins in oat. Front. Plant Sci. 2024, 15, 1418658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mantai, R.D.; da Silva, J.A.G.; Scremin, O.B.; Carvalho, I.R.; Magano, D.A.; Fachinetto, J.M.; Lautenchleger, F.; da Rosa, J.A.; Peter, C.L.; Berlezi, C.J.D.; et al. Nitrogen levels in oat grains and its relation to productivity. Genet. Mol. Res. 2020, 19, GMR18569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Noworolnik, K. Yielding and grain quality of oat depending on soil moisture and nitrogen rate. Żywn Nauka Technol. Jakość 2010, 3, 190–196. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  25. Bartnikowska, E.; Lange, E. The grain of oats—An underestimated source of nutrients and biologically active substances. Part I. General characteristics of oats. Proteins, fats. Biul. IHAR 2020, 215, 209–222. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  26. Barczak, B.; Kozera, W.; Nowak, K.; Majcherczak, E. Effect of fertilization with ammonium nitrate with micronutrients on grain and protein yield of oats of the Komes cultivar. Biul. IHAR 2006, 239, 19–25. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Strażyński, P.; Tratwal, A.; Sosnowska, D.; Mrówczyński, M. Integrated pest management–status and identification of risks in the context of challenges related to the implementation of the new European Union perspective for 2023–2027. Prog. Plant Prot. 2024, 64, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. PN-R-04023:1996; Chemical and Agricultural Analysis of Soil—Determination of the Content of Available Phosphorus in Mineral Soils. Polish Standards Committee: Warsaw, Poland, 1996.
  29. PN-R-04022:1996/Az1:2002; Chemical and Agricultural Analysis of Soil—Determination of the Content of Available Potassium in Mineral Soils. Polish Standards Committee: Warsaw, Poland, 1996.
  30. AACC Method 46-11.02; Crude Protein–Improved Kjeldahl Method, Copper Catalyst Modyfication. AACC: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2010; p. 39.
  31. PN-ISO 24333:2010; Cereal Grains and Cereal Products—Sampling. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.
  32. Sułek, A.; Cacak-Pietrzak, G.; Różewicz, M.M.; Nieróbca, A.; Grabiński, J.; Studnicki, M.; Sujka, K.; Dziki, D. Effect protein technology intensity on the grain yield, proteincontent and amino acid profile in common and durum wheat grain. Plants 2023, 12, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Zhang, X.; Liu, W.; Lv, Y.; Li, T.; Tang, J.; Yang, X.; Zhou, H. Effects of drought stress during critical periods on the photosynthetic characteristics and production performance of Naked oat (Avena nuda L.). Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 11199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Krajewski, W.T.; Szempliński, W.; Bielski, S. Yielding of naked and hulled varieties of spring barley in variable nitrogen fertilization. Ann. UMCS Sect. E 2013, 68, 18–29. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  35. Hackett, R. A comparison of husked and naked oats under Irish conditions. Ir. J. Agric. Food Res. 2018, 57, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Batalova, G.A.; Shevchenko, S.N.; Tulyakova, M.V.; Rusakova, I.I.; Zheleznikova, V.A.; Lisitsyn, E.M. Breeding of naked oats having high-quality grain. Russ. Agric. Sci. 2016, 42, 407–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zobnina, I.V.; Korelina, V.A.; Batakova, O.B. Assessment of stability and plasticity of hulless spring oat varieties by yield and 1000 seed weight in the Northern Russia. RUDN J. Agron. Anim. Ind. 2024, 19, 76–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Güngör, H.; Çakır, M.F.; Dumlupınar, Z. Determination of grain yield and agricultural traits of some oat cultivars at different locations. Black Sea J Agric. 2023, 6, 350–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ju, Z.; Liu, K.; Zhao, G.; Ma, X.; Jia, Z. Nitrogen Fertilizer and Sowing Density Affect Flag Leaf Photosynthetic Characteristics, Grain Yield, and Yield Components of Oat in a Semiarid Region of Northwest China. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mantai, R.D.; da Silva, J.A.; Carbonera, R.; Carvalho, I.R.; Lautenchleger, F.; Pereira, L.M. Technical and agronomic efficiency of nitrogen use on the yield and quality of oat grains. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agric. E Ambient. 2021, 25, 529–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Świderska Ostapiak, M.; Stankowski, S. The effect of nitrogen sulphur fertilization on yield and yield components of hulied and naked oats. Zesz. Probl. Post. Nauk Roln. 2002, 484, 711–717. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  42. Bibi, H.; Hameed, S.; Iqbal, M.; Al-Barty, A.; Darwish, H.; Khan, A.; Anwar, S.; Mian, I.A.; Ali, M.; Zia, A.; et al. Evaluation of exotic oat (Avena sativa L.) varieties for forage and grain yield in response to different levels of nitrogen and phosphorous. Peer J. 2021, 9, e12112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Allwood, J.W.; Martinez-Martin, P.; Xu, Y.; Cowan, A.; Pont, S.; Griffiths, I.; Sungurtas, J.; Clarke, S.; Goodacre, R.; Marshall, A.; et al. Assessing the impact of nitrogen supplementation in oats across multiple growth locations and years with targeted phenotyping and high-resolution metabolite profiling approaches. Food Chem. 2021, 355, 129585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wang, Y.; Liu, K.; Liang, G.; Jia, Z.; Ju, Z.; Ma, X.; Zhou, Q. Comprehensive Evaluation of Low Nitrogen Tolerance in Oat (Avena sativa L.) Seedlings. Agronomy 2023, 13, 604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pan, J.; Ju, Z.; Ma, X.; Duan, L.; Jia, Z. Genome-wide characterization of TCP family and their potential roles in abiotic stress resistance of oat (Avena sativa L.). Front. Plant Sci. 2024, 15, 1382790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bednarek, W.; Tkaczyk, P.; Dresler, S.; Jawor, E. Relationship between oat yield and some soil properties and nitrogen fertilization. Acta Agroph. 2013, 20, 29–38. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  47. Da Silva, J.A.G.; Neto, C.J.G.; Fernandes, S.B.V.; Mantai, R.D.; Scremin, O.B.; Pretto, R. Nitrogen efficiency in oat on grain yield with stability. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agric. E Ambient. 2016, 20, 1095–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sponchiado, J.C.; Souza, C.A.; Sangoi, L.; Coelho, C.M.M.; Stefen, D.L.V. Late nitrogen topdressing increases nutritional and industrial quality of white oat (‘Avena sativa’) grain. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2020, 14, 1355–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Said, M.S.; Hameed, R.M.; Majeed, H.A. Effect of nitrogen fertilizer and seeding rates on growth and grain yield in oats (Avena sativa L.). Plant Arch. 2019, 19, 1554–1558. [Google Scholar]
  50. Tomple, B.M.; Hawan, J.I. Enhacing seed productivity and feed value of oats (Avena sativa L.) with different seeding rate and nitrogen fertilizing levels in gyeongbuk area. J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 52, 61–72. [Google Scholar]
  51. Joshi, R.V.; Patel, B.J.; Patel, K.M. Effect of nitrogen levels and time of application on growth, yield, quality, nitrogen, phosphorus content and uptake for seed production of oat (Avena sativa L.). Forage Res. 2015, 41, 104–108. [Google Scholar]
  52. Błażewicz, J.; Kawa-Rygielska, J.; Leszczyńska, D.; Grabiński, J.; Gasiński, A. Influence of Variety and Nitrogen Fertilization on the Technological Parameters of Special Malts Prepared from Naked and Hulled Oat Varieties. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Khan, T.A.; Nadeem, F.; Chen, L.; Wang, X.; Zeng, Z.; Hu, Y. Enhancing naked oat (Avena nuda L.) productivity with minimal indirect nitrogen loss and maximum nitrogen use efficiency through integrated use of different nitrogen sources. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0213808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gąsiorowska, B.; Cybulska, A.; Makarewicz, A. The influence of sowing density on content of selected plant nutrients in oats grain. Biul. IHAR 2011, 28, 16–24. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  55. Yan, W.; Frégeau-Reid, J.; Pageau, D.; Martin, R. Genotype-by-environment interaction and trait associations in two genetic populations of oat. Crop Sci. 2016, 56, 1136–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Howarth, C.J.; Martinez-Martin, P.M.J.; Cowan, A.A.; Griffiths, I.M.; Sanderson, R.; Lister, S.J.; Langdon, T.; Clarke, S.; Fradgley, N.; Marshall, A.H. Genotype and Environment Affect the Grain Quality and Yield of Winter Oats (Avena sativa L.). Foods 2021, 10, 2356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Biel, W.; Bobko, K.; Maciorowski, R. Chemical composition and nutritive value of husked and naked oats grain. J. Cereal Sci. 2009, 49, 413–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Brand, T.S.; Cruywagen, C.W.; Brandt, D.A.; Viljoen, M.; Burger, W.W. Variation in the chemical composition, physical characteristics and Energy values of cereal grains producted in the Western Cape area of South Africa. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2003, 33, 117–126. [Google Scholar]
  59. Sunilkumar, B.A.; Leonova, S.; Öste, R.; Olsson, O. Identification and characterization of high protein oat lines from a mutagenized oat population. J. Cereal Sci. 2017, 75, 100–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Podolska, G.; Nita, Z.; Mikos, M. Effect of sowing rates and nitrogen fertilization on grain yield and chemical composition of naked short-shoot oat (STH 5630). Fragm. Agron. 2009, 26, 100–107. [Google Scholar]
  61. Sterna, V.; Zute, S.; Brunava, L. Oat grain composition and its nutrition benefice. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016, 8, 252–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ibrahim, M.S.; Ahmad, A.; Sohail, A.; Asad, M.J. Nutritional and functional characterization of different oat (Avena sativa L.) cultivars. Int. J. Food Prop. 2020, 23, 1373–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hospodarenko, H.; Karpenko, V.; Liubych, V.; Novikov, V. Characterization of amino acid content of grain of new wheat varieties and lines. Agric. Sci. Pract. 2018, 5, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Johansson, E.; Henriksson, T.; Prieto-Linde, M.L.; Andersson, S.; Ashraf, R.; Rahmatov, M. Diverse wheat-alien introgression lines as a basis for durable resistance and quality characteristics in bread wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 1067. [Google Scholar]
  65. Besaliev, I.N.; Panfilov, A.L.; Karavaytsev, Y.A.; Reger, N.S.; Kholodilina, T.N. Content of prolin and exogenous amino acids in spring wheat grain in dry conditions. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 848, 012116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wan, Y.; Wang, Y.; Shi, Z.; Rentsch, D.; Ward, J.L.; Hassall, K.; Sparks, C.A.; Huttly, A.K.; Buchner, P.; Powers, S.; et al. Wheat amino acid transporters highly expressed in grain cells regulate amino acid accumulation in grain. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0246763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Jaśkiewicz, B.; Szczepanek, M. Amino acids content in triticale grain depending on meteorological, agrotechnical and genetic factors. Agric. Sci. Crop Sci. Anim. Sci. Res. Rural Dev. 2008, 2, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Biel, W. Chemical Composition and Nutritious Value of Protein from Various Oat Forms, with a Particular Consideration Goven to Short-Shoot Forms with the DW6 Dwarfness Gen Introduced; West Pomeranian University of Technology: Szczecin, Poland, 2013; p. 71. ISBN 978-83-7663-159-2. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  69. Shewry, P.R.; Piironen, V.; Lampi, A.M.; Nystrom, L.; Li, L.; Rakszegi, M.; Ward, J.L. Phytochemical and fiber components in oat varieties in the HEALTHGRAIN diversity screen. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 9777–9784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Witkowicz, R.; Pisulewska, E.; Kidacka, A.; Mickowska, B. Composition of amino quality of proteins in grains of oats with yellow and brown glume (Avena sativa). Żywn Nauka Technol. Jakość 2016, 23, 125–140. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zorovski, P.; Georgieva, T. Exogenous amino acid contents of winter and spring oat cultivars (Avena sativa L.) grown in Central South Bulgaria. In Proceedings of the AGRISAFE Final Conference, Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities in Agriculture, Budapest, Hungary, 21–23 March 2011; Veisz, O., Ed.; Budapest Agricultural Research Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences: Budapest, Hungary, 2011; pp. 481–484. [Google Scholar]
  72. Ralcewicz, M.; Knapowski, T. The effect of some agrotechnical factors on grain yield and amino acid composition of protein of oat. Biul. IHAR 2006, 239, 193–204. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Vilmane, L.; Zute, S.; Straumīte, E.; Galoburda, R. Protein, Amino Acid and Gluten Content in Oat (Avena Sativa L.) Grown in Latvia. Proc. LAS. Sect. B. Nat. Exact Appl. Sci. 2015, 69, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zhang, M.; Ma, D.; Wang, C.; Zhao, H.; Zhu, Y.; Guo, T. Responses of amino acid composition to nitrogen application in high-and low—Protein wheat cultivars at two planting environments. Crop Sci. 2016, 56, 1277–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Nowak, K.; Spychaj-Fabisiak, E.; Barczak, B.; Knapowski, T.; Kozera, W. Preliminary study of the amino acid composition of spelt grain fertilised with nitrogen and micronutrients. Inż. Ap. Chem. 2015, 54, 265–266. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  76. Biel, W.; Hury, G.; Maciorowski, R.; Kotlarz, A.; Jaśkowska, I. Effect of nitrogen fertilization on chemical composition of spelt wheat (Triticum aestivum ssp. spelta L.) two varieties. Acta Sci. Pol. Zootech. 2010, 9, 5–14. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  77. Pátek, M. Branched-chain amino acids. In Amino Acid Biosynthesis—Pathways, Regulation and Metabolic Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, 2007; pp. 129–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gaudichon, C. Evolution and significance of amino acid scores for protein quality. Front. Nutr. 2024, 11, 1437853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Bai, Y.; Khoddami, A.; Messina, V.; Zhang, Z.; Tan, D.K.Y. Response of Wheat Genotypes Stressed by High Temperature in Terms of Yield and Protein Composition Across Diverse Environments in Australia. Agriculture 2025, 15, 514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zyukin, D.A.; Glushkov, I.A. Comparative assessment of fertilizer systems and intensification levels in crop production. In Proceedings of the BIO Web of Conferences, EDP Sciences. International Scientific and Practical Conference “Agriculture and Food Security: Technology, Innovation, Markets, Human Resources” (FIES 2024), Kazan, Russia, 28–29 November 2025; Volume 161, p. 00002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 15 00803 sch001
Scheme 1. Characteristics of the oat cultivars used in the study.
Scheme 1. Characteristics of the oat cultivars used in the study.
Agronomy 15 00803 sch001
Agronomy 15 00803 g001
Figure 1. Oat yield as a function of crop year, grain form (hulled or naked), and production technology. * a,b—same letter labelling indicates no statistically significant differences at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 1. Oat yield as a function of crop year, grain form (hulled or naked), and production technology. * a,b—same letter labelling indicates no statistically significant differences at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05.
Agronomy 15 00803 g001
Agronomy 15 00803 g002
Figure 2. Total protein content of oat grain in relation to harvest year, grain form (hulled or naked), and production technology. * a,b—same letter labelling indicates no statistically significant differences at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 2. Total protein content of oat grain in relation to harvest year, grain form (hulled or naked), and production technology. * a,b—same letter labelling indicates no statistically significant differences at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05.
Agronomy 15 00803 g002
Agronomy 15 00803 g003
Figure 3. Content of exogenous amino acid in oat protein according to grain form (on average for the period). * a,b—same letter designation means no statistically significant differences at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05. Explanation of abbreviations: Arg: arginine, His: histidine, Ile: isoleusine, Leu: leusine, Lys: lysine, Met: methionine, Phe: phenylalanine, Thr: threonine, Trp: tryptophan, Val: valine.
Figure 3. Content of exogenous amino acid in oat protein according to grain form (on average for the period). * a,b—same letter designation means no statistically significant differences at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05. Explanation of abbreviations: Arg: arginine, His: histidine, Ile: isoleusine, Leu: leusine, Lys: lysine, Met: methionine, Phe: phenylalanine, Thr: threonine, Trp: tryptophan, Val: valine.
Agronomy 15 00803 g003
Agronomy 15 00803 g004
Figure 4. Content of endogenous amino acid in oat protein according to grain form (on average for the period). * a,b—same letter designation means no statistically significant differences at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05. Explanation of abbreviations: Ala: Alanine, Asp: Asparagine, Cys: cysteine, Glu: glutamine, Gly: glysine, Pro: proline, Ser: serine, Tyr: tyrosine.
Figure 4. Content of endogenous amino acid in oat protein according to grain form (on average for the period). * a,b—same letter designation means no statistically significant differences at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05. Explanation of abbreviations: Ala: Alanine, Asp: Asparagine, Cys: cysteine, Glu: glutamine, Gly: glysine, Pro: proline, Ser: serine, Tyr: tyrosine.
Agronomy 15 00803 g004
Agronomy 15 00803 g005
Figure 5. Content of exogenous amino acids in oat protein in relation to production technology (on average for the period). * a,b—same letter designation means no statistically significant differences at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05. Explanation of abbreviations: Arg: arginine, His: histidine, Ile: isoleusine, Leu: leusine, Lys: lysine, Met: methionine, Phe: phenylalanine, Thr: threonine, Trp: tryptophan, Val (valine).
Figure 5. Content of exogenous amino acids in oat protein in relation to production technology (on average for the period). * a,b—same letter designation means no statistically significant differences at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05. Explanation of abbreviations: Arg: arginine, His: histidine, Ile: isoleusine, Leu: leusine, Lys: lysine, Met: methionine, Phe: phenylalanine, Thr: threonine, Trp: tryptophan, Val (valine).
Agronomy 15 00803 g005
Agronomy 15 00803 g006
Figure 6. Content of endogenous amino acids in oat protein according to production technology (on average for the period). * a,b—same letter designation means no statistically significant differences at the significance level p ≤ 0.05. Explanation of abbreviations: Ala: Alanine, Asp: Asparagine, Cys: cysteine, Glu: glutamine, Gly: glysine, Pro: proline, Ser: serine, Tyr: tyrosine.
Figure 6. Content of endogenous amino acids in oat protein according to production technology (on average for the period). * a,b—same letter designation means no statistically significant differences at the significance level p ≤ 0.05. Explanation of abbreviations: Ala: Alanine, Asp: Asparagine, Cys: cysteine, Glu: glutamine, Gly: glysine, Pro: proline, Ser: serine, Tyr: tyrosine.
Agronomy 15 00803 g006
Agronomy 15 00803 g007
Figure 7. Principal component analysis for exogenous amino acids. Explanation of abbreviations: Arg: arginine, His: histidine, Ile: isoleusine, Leu: leusine, Lys: lysine, Phe: phenylalanine, Thr: threonine, Val: valine.
Figure 7. Principal component analysis for exogenous amino acids. Explanation of abbreviations: Arg: arginine, His: histidine, Ile: isoleusine, Leu: leusine, Lys: lysine, Phe: phenylalanine, Thr: threonine, Val: valine.
Agronomy 15 00803 g007
Agronomy 15 00803 g008
Figure 8. Principal component analysis for endogenous amino acids. Explanation of abbreviations: Ala: Alanine, Asp: Asparagine, Cys: cysteine, Glu: glutamine, Gly: glysine, Pro: proline, Ser: serine, Tyr: tyrosine.
Figure 8. Principal component analysis for endogenous amino acids. Explanation of abbreviations: Ala: Alanine, Asp: Asparagine, Cys: cysteine, Glu: glutamine, Gly: glysine, Pro: proline, Ser: serine, Tyr: tyrosine.
Agronomy 15 00803 g008
Table 1. Characterisation of applied technologies for oat production.
Table 1. Characterisation of applied technologies for oat production.
TechnologyFertilisation (kg∙ha−1)Sowing Protection
NP2O5K2OHerbicidesFungicidesInsecticidesRetardants
Integrated9070100Mustang 306 SE (florasulan)
0.8 l∙ha−1 		Seguris 215 S.C. (isopyrazole, epoxiconazole)
1.0 l∙ha−1		Fury 100 EW
(zeta-cypermethrin)
0.1 l∙ha−1		-
Intensive12080105Mustang 306 SE (florasulan)
0.6 l∙ha−1 		Seguris 215 S.C. (isopyrazole, epoxiconazole)
1.0 l∙ha−1
Amistar 250 SC (azoxystrobin) 0.6 l∙ha−1
Artea 330 EC
(propiconazole + cyproconazole) 0.5 l∙ha−1		Fury 100 EW
(zeta-cypermethrin)
0.1 l∙ha−1		Modus 250 EW (trinexapac ethyl)
0.4 l∙ha−1
Table 2. Meteorological conditions at the experimental station in Osiny. Monthly average air temperature (°C) and total monthly precipitation (mm) during the study years and long-term averages 1981–2018.
Table 2. Meteorological conditions at the experimental station in Osiny. Monthly average air temperature (°C) and total monthly precipitation (mm) during the study years and long-term averages 1981–2018.
MonthTemperature (°C)Precipitation (mm)
201920201981–2018201920201981–2018
March5.54.52.3232533
April9.68.58.3351236
May12.911.113.98611356
June21.718.416.63918962
July18.618.618.9345078
Table 3. Amino acids content of naked and hulled oat grains.
Table 3. Amino acids content of naked and hulled oat grains.
FactorsAmino Acids Content (g∙kg−1)
Total ContentEndogenousExogenous
Growing Season
2019100.14 a *57.67 a42.48 a
202094.24 a53.495 a40.75 a
Grain Form
Hulled88.53 a50.17 a38.36 a
Naked105.86 b60.99 b44.87 b
Production Technology
Integrated92.86 a53.44 a39.42 a
Intensive101.53 a57.72 a43.81 b
* a,b—the same letter designation in the columns indicates no statistically significant differences at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05.
Table 4. Biological value of proteins in hulled and naked oats (on average for the period).
Table 4. Biological value of proteins in hulled and naked oats (on average for the period).
Exogenous Amino AcidAmino Acid Content PergAmino Acid Score CS [%]AASDF
[%]		Biological Value
[%]
Reference ProteinStudied Specimen
Hulled
Isoleucine
Leucine
Lysine
Methionine + Cysteine
Phenylalanine + Tyrosine
Threonine
Tryptphan
Valine		4.0
7.0
5.5
3.5
6.0
4.0
1.0
5.0		3.22
6.74
3.94
3.74
7.95
3.64
1.11
4.76		80.5
96.3
72.0
106.8
132.5
91.0
111.0
95.2		19
3
28
0
0
9
0
4		81
97
72
107
133
91
111
96
Naked
Isoleucine
Leucine
Lysine
Methionine + Cysteine
Phenylalanine + Tyrosine
Threonine
Tryptphan
Valine		4.0
7.0
5.5
3.5
6.0
4.0
1.0
5.0		3.52
7.52
4.24
4.83
9.80
4.26
1.72
5.51		88.0
107.4
77.1
138.0
163.3
106.6
172.0
110.2		12
0
23
0
0
0
0
0		88
108
77
138
164
107
172
111
Table 5. Biological value of proteins according to the intensity of production technology (on average for the period).
Table 5. Biological value of proteins according to the intensity of production technology (on average for the period).
Exogenous Amino AcidAmino Acid Content PergAmino Acid Score CS [%]AASDF
[%]		Biological Value
[%]
Reference ProteinStudied Specimen
Integrated technology
Isoleucine
Leucine
Lysine
Methionine + Cysteine
Phenylalanine + Tyrosine
Threonine
Tryptphan
Valine		4.0
7.0
5.5
3.5
6.0
4.0
1.0
5.0		3.21
6.70
3.95
4.14
8.32
3.73
1.38
4.86		80.2
95.7
71.8
118.3
138.7
93.3
138.0
97.2		20
4
18
0
0
7
0
3		80
96
72
118
139
93
138
97
Intensive technology
Isoleucine
Leucine
Lysine
Methionine + Cysteine
Phenylalanine + Tyrosine
Threonine
Tryptphan
Valine		4.0
7.0
5.5
3.5
6.0
4.0
1.0
5.0		3.53
7.56
4.23
4.25
9.45
4.17
1.45
5.41		88.3
108.0
76.9
121.4
157.5
104.3
145.0
82.0		12
0
23
0
0
0
0
18		88
108
77
121
156
104
145
82
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sułek, A.; Cacak-Pietrzak, G.; Różewicz, M.; Nieróbca, A.; Studnicki, M.; Podolska, G. Influence of Production Technology Intensity on the Yield and Amino Acid Profile of the Grain Protein of Different Sowing Oat (Avena sativa L.) Cultivars. Agronomy 2025, 15, 803. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040803

AMA Style

Sułek A, Cacak-Pietrzak G, Różewicz M, Nieróbca A, Studnicki M, Podolska G. Influence of Production Technology Intensity on the Yield and Amino Acid Profile of the Grain Protein of Different Sowing Oat (Avena sativa L.) Cultivars. Agronomy. 2025; 15(4):803. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040803

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sułek, Alicja, Grażyna Cacak-Pietrzak, Marcin Różewicz, Anna Nieróbca, Marcin Studnicki, and Grażyna Podolska. 2025. "Influence of Production Technology Intensity on the Yield and Amino Acid Profile of the Grain Protein of Different Sowing Oat (Avena sativa L.) Cultivars" Agronomy 15, no. 4: 803. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040803

APA Style

Sułek, A., Cacak-Pietrzak, G., Różewicz, M., Nieróbca, A., Studnicki, M., & Podolska, G. (2025). Influence of Production Technology Intensity on the Yield and Amino Acid Profile of the Grain Protein of Different Sowing Oat (Avena sativa L.) Cultivars. Agronomy, 15(4), 803. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040803

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop