| Literature DB >> 35205972 |
Marco Spaggiari1, Mia Marchini2, Luca Calani1, Rossella Dodi3, Giuseppe Di Pede1, Margherita Dall'Asta4, Francesca Scazzina1, Andrea Barbieri5, Laura Righetti1, Silvia Folloni2, Roberto Ranieri2, Chiara Dall'Asta1, Gianni Galaverna1.
Abstract
Plant biodiversity preservation is one of the most important priorities of today's agriculture. Wheat (Triticum spp. L.) is widely cultivated worldwide, mostly under a conventional and monovarietal farming method, leading to progressive biodiversity erosion. On the contrary, the evolutionary population (EP) cultivation technique is characterized by mixing and sowing together as many wheat genotypes as possible to allow the crop to genetically adapt over the years in relation to specific pedoclimatic conditions. The objective of this study was to assess the nutritional, chemical and sensory qualities of three different breads obtained using different organic EP flours, produced following a traditional sourdough process and compared to a commercial wheat cultivar bread. Technological parameters, B-complex vitamins, microelements, dietary fibre and phenolic acids were determined in raw materials and final products. Flours obtained by EPs showed similar characteristics to the commercial wheat cultivar flour. However, significant differences on grain technological quality were found. The breads were comparable with respect to chemical and nutritional qualities. Overall, the sensory panellists rated the tasted breads positively assigning the highest score to those produced with EPs flours (6.75-7.02) as compared to commercial wheat cultivar-produced bread (cv. Bologna, 6.36).Entities:
Keywords: bread composition; consumer perception; evolutionary populations; sourdough bread; wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)
Year: 2022 PMID: 35205972 PMCID: PMC8871435 DOI: 10.3390/foods11040495
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Pictures of the slices of the different breads. (a) BB, bread produced using Bio2 EP; (b) BI, bread produced using ICARDA EP; (c) BG, bread produced using Grossi EP; (d) BBo, bread produced using cv. Bologna.
Grain quality parameters of EPs and cv. Bologna.
| Wheat | Test Weight (kg/hL) | Thousand Kernel Weight (g) | Protein Content (% d.m.) | Alveograph | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W (10−4 J) | P | L (mm) | P/L | ||||
| Bio2 EP | 74 a | 44 b | 16.82 b | 130.5 b | 67.5 d | 134.0 b | 0.5 a |
| ICARDA EP | 78 a | 45 b | 16.39 b | 152.5 c | 59.0 c | 129.5 b | 0.5 a |
| Grossi EP | 77 a | 47 c | 16.93 b | 106.5 a | 55.0 b | 108.5 a | 0.5 a |
| Bologna | 79 a | 32 a | 13.27 a | 288.0 d | 48.5 a | 98.5 a | 0.5 a |
Results are reported as mean (n = 3). Protein content is expressed as g/100 g on dry matter (d.m.). Standard deviation is reported in Table S2. Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences among samples (
Nutritional and chemical composition of the bread formulated using the wheat evolutionary population (BB, BI and BG) and bread produced using flour from cv. Bologna wheat (BBo).
| BB | BI | BG | BBo | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Energetic value (kJ) * | 1005.0 | 1058.1 | 1041.1 | 961.6 |
| Energetic value (kcal) * | 240.2 | 252.9 | 248.8 | 229.8 |
| Carbohydrates (g/100 g) | 48.3 a | 49.7 a | 47.7 a | 46.2 a |
| Total dietary fibre (g/100 g) | 4.55 a | 4.22 a | 4.64 a | 5.18 b |
| Lipids (g/100 g) | 0.83 a | 1.0 b | 1.20 c | 1.22 c |
| SFA (%) | 31.8 a | 32.2 a | 31.7 a | 31.0 a |
| MUFA (%) | 42.9 a | 45.2 b | 45.2 b | 42.7 a |
| PUFA (%) | 25.3 c | 22.6 a | 23.0 b | 26.3 d |
| Ω-6/Ω-9 | 0.53 b | 0.45 a | 0.45 a | 0.55 b |
| Proteins (g/100 g) | 12.4 a | 11.3 a | 12.1 a | 11.3 a |
| Mg (mg/100 g) | 24.5 a | 22.1 a | 24.1 a | 31.6 b |
| Zn (mg/100 g) | 0.85 b | 0.75 a | 0.82 a | 0.82 a |
| Fe (mg/100 g) | 1.37 c | 0.86 a | 1.09 b | 1.38 c |
| Se (µg/100 g) | 8.07 a | 8.11 a | 8.95 b | 8.77 b |
| Thiamine (mg/100 g) | 0.24 b | 0.18 a | 0.20 a | 0.43 c |
| Nicotinic acid (mg/100 g) | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ |
| Folic acid (µg/100 g) | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ |
| Nicotinamide (mg/100 g) | 1.77 b | 1.75 ab | 1.62 a | 2.18 c |
Results are reported as mean (n = 3). Standard deviation is reported in Table S3. Different superscipts letters a–d in the same row indicate significant differences among samples (
Figure 2Classes of dietary fibres found in flours (A) and breads (B), together with resistant starch (C) determined in breads. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation and expressed as g/100 g dry matter. * Indicates a significant difference
Micronutrients content in flours.
| FB | FI | FG | FBo | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mg (mg/100 g) * | 29.2 a | 26.1 a | 28.5 a | 44.2 b |
| Zn (mg/100 g) * | 1.13 b | 0.97 a | 1.08 a | 1.17 b |
| Fe (mg/100 g) * | 1.80 c | 1.02 a | 1.29 b | 1.85 c |
| Se (µg/100 g) ** | 2.66 a | 2.40 a | 3.39 b | 3.96 b |
| Thiamine (mg/100 g) * | 0.29 b | 0.22 a | 0.33 bc | 0.36 c |
| Nicotinic acid (mg/100 g) * | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ |
| Nicotinamide (mg/100 g) * | 0.43 a | <LOQ | 0.51 ab | 0.56 b |
| Folic acid (µg/100 g) ** | 21.8 b | <LOQ a | <LOQ a | <LOQ a |
Results are expressed as mean (n = 3). Standard deviation is reported in Table S4. Different superscripts letters a–c in the same column indicate significant difference (
Total phenolic content (TPC) and phenolic acid (PA) profile in their free (soluble) and bound (insoluble) forms.
| Sample | TPC | 4-HB | p-C | Caff | t-Fer | c-Fer | Sin | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Free | Bound | Free | Bound | Free | Bound | Free | Bound | Free | Bound | Free | Bound | ||
| mg GAE/Kg d.m. | mg/Kg d. m. | ||||||||||||
| FB | 256.22 a | 895.95 a | 0.07 a | <LOQ | <LOQ | 0.11 a | 0.21 b | 0.25 a | 1.53 b | 2.48 b | 0.59 a | 0.90 b | 1.25 b |
| FI | 217.70 a | 838.51 a | 0.09 a | <LOQ | 0.07 a | 0.12 a | 0.17 a | 0.25 a | 1.56 b | 2.21 a | 1.10 b | 0.80 a | 0.99 a |
| FG | 221.76 a | 912.84 a | <LOQ | <LOQ | 0.08 a | 0.12 a | 0.23 b | 0.32 b | 1.33 a | 3.25 c | 1.05 b | 0.96 b | 1.32 b |
| FBo | 390.49 b | 855.41 a | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | 0.18 b | 0.37 c | 0.52 c | 1.73 b | 2.66 ab | 0.91 b | 0.82 a | 1.17 b |
| Breads | |||||||||||||
| BB | 343.81 a | 217.97 a | <LOQ | 0.51 a | <LOQ | 1.47 b | <LOQ | 0.37 a | 1.32 a | 44.25 a | 21.47 a | <LOQ | 4.07 b |
| BI | 480.93 c | 182.89 a | <LOQ | 0.45 a | <LOQ | 1.21 a | <LOQ | 0.29 a | 1.86 a | 42.16 a | 15.96 a | 0.34 a | 3.73 a |
| BG | 414.83 b | 186.81 a | <LOQ | 0.73 b | 0.11 a | 1.79 c | <LOQ | 0.32 a | 2.29 ab | 47.23 a | 26.76 a | 0.38 a | 6.12 c |
| BBo | 490.29 c | 355.86 b | 0.21 a | 0.94 c | 0.11 a | 2.31 c | <LOQ | 0.63 b | 2.41 b | 73.64 b | 25.52 a | <LOQ | 6.19 c |
Results are expressed as mean (n = 3). Standard deviation is reported in Table S5. Different superscripts letters a–c in the same column indicate significant difference (
Figure 3Correspondence analysis of the bread samples and sensory attributes. BB, bread produced using Bio2 EP; BI, bread produced using ICARDA EP; BG, bread produced using Grossi EP; BBo, bread produced using cv. Bologna.
Sensory scores of breads obtained from acceptability test.
| Bread | Texture | Colour | Appearance | Aroma | Taste | Overall Acceptability | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crust | Crumb | Crust | Crumb | |||||
| BI | 6.95 b | 7.05 a | 6.81 a | 6.78 ab | 7.05 a | 6.51 a | 6.69 a | 7.02 b |
| BB | 6.71 b | 6.92 a | 6.78 a | 6.97 b | 7.00 a | 6.46 a | 6.42 a | 6.73 ab |
| BG | 6.85 b | 6.78 a | 6.88 a | 7.10 b | 7.15 a | 6.27 a | 6.15 a | 6.75 ab |
| BBo | 6.08 a | 6.41 a | 6.83 a | 6.39 a | 6.59 a | 6.24 a | 6.08 a | 6.36 a |
Results are expressed as mean (n = 59). Standard deviation is reported in Table S6. Different superscripts letters a–c in the same column indicate significant differences among samples (