Properties and bread‐baking performance of wheat flour composited with germinated pulse flours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and objectives Germination of pulse seeds can effectively improve the functional and nutritional properties of resultant flours for broader food applications to deliver multiple health benefits. However, there is a lack of understanding on the performance of germinated pulse flours in bakery goods, particularly in bread. This study aimed to determine the flour quality, dough properties, and baking performance of composite flours prepared by blending raw or germinated pulse flours and hard wheat flour at 10:90 and 20:80 ratios ( w / w ). Findings The incorporation of both raw and germinated yellow pea and faba bean flours reduced the starch level but increased the protein level of the flours. The inclusion of the pulse flours progressively decreased the pasting viscosities of the composite flours—with more noticeable changes being observed with the germinated samples, corresponding well with the decreases in their falling numbers. The incorporation of the raw and germinated pulse flours diminished the solvent retention capacity with 5% lactic acid and gluten performance index, and thus, the generated doughs showed shortened dough development time, poorer dough stability, and less elastic structure than the control. The breads baked from the wheat–pulse flour blends—despite the addition of 2% wheat gluten—exhibited decreased loaf volumes and smaller numbers of cells per slice but greater crumb firmness, and the use of 20% germinated pulse flours showed the most significant impact. Conclusions The inclusion of germinated yellow pea and faba bean flours into hard wheat flour weakened the dough structure and caused poorer bread‐baking performance. Significance and novelty The findings from this research greatly advanced our understanding of the roles that germinated pulse flours played in the flour and dough systems after being composited with hard wheat flour as well as their influence on the quality attributes of the baked bread products.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".