## 3 Results and Discussion
### Sensory Evaluation of Bread
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **Appearance** & **Colour** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Elasticity** \\ **and Porosity** \\ \end{tabular} & **Smell** & **Taste** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Overall** \\ **Acceptability** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline CON & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.3 a & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.5 a & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.3 a & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.3 a & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.3 a & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.2 a \\ \hline BO25 & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 4.3 \(\pm\) 0.8 abc & 4.7 \(\pm\) 0.5 a & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0.8 a & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0.4 ab \\ BO50 & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 4.7 \(\pm\) 0.5 a & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0.7 abc & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0.5 a & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0.6 a & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0.3 ab \\ BO75 & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 4.7 \(\pm\) 0.5 a & 4.1 \(\pm\) 0.7 bc & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 4.7 \(\pm\) 0.6 a & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0.3 ab \\ BO100 & 4.7 \(\pm\) 0.6 a & 4.4 \(\pm\) 0.5 a & 3.9 \(\pm\) 0.8 c & 4.7 \(\pm\) 0.5 a & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0.6 a & 4.4 \(\pm\) 0.3 b \\ \hline BS25 & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.3 a & 4.7 \(\pm\) 0.5 a & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0.5 abc & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 4.7 \(\pm\) 0.3 ab \\ BS50 & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.3 a & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.3 a & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.2 a \\ BS75 & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.3 a & 4.4 \(\pm\) 0.5 a & 4.7 \(\pm\) 0.5 ab & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.3 a & 4.7 \(\pm\) 0.2 ab \\ BS100 & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.3 a & 4.4 \(\pm\) 0.5 a & 4.4 \(\pm\) 0.5 abc & 4.7 \(\pm\) 0.5 a & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 4.7 \(\pm\) 0.2 ab \\ \hline BM25 & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0.5 a & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0.7 a & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0.5 ab & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 4.7 \(\pm\) 0.4 ab \\ BM50 & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 4.7 \(\pm\) 0.5 a & 4.7 \(\pm\) 0.5 a & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.3 a & 5.0\(\pm\) 0.0 a & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.2 a \\ BM75 & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0.5 a & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0.5 abc & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.3 a & 5.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 a & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.2 a \\ BM100 & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0.5 a & 4.3 \(\pm\) 0.7 a & 4.1 \(\pm\) 0.7 bc & 5.0 \(\pm\) 0 a & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0.3 ab \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* CON—control sample; BO—head with oral beverages; BS—head with spelt beverages; BM—head with spelt beverages; BM—head with millet beverages (25–100 the numbers indicate the percentage of water substituted with plant-based beverages); mean values (\(n=12\)) \(\pm\) SD; different lowercase letters (a–c) within a column indicate statistically significant differences (Tukey’s test, \(p\leq 0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Sensory evaluation of bread with increasing levels of water substitution using cereal-based plant beverages (0–100%). sensory profiles closely resembling the control, suggesting that moderate incorporation of these beverages does not compromise the gluten network. Conversely, breads made with oat-based beverages (BO) exhibited a gradual decline in elasticity and porosity with increasing substitution level. This trend was confirmed by Pearson correlation coefficients between substitution level and the sensory score for elasticity and porosity, which were \(-0.90\) for BO, \(-0.91\) for BM, and \(-0.55\) for BS. These results indicate a stronger negative impact on crumb structure in the oat- and millet-based variants compared to the spelt-based ones. The most pronounced effect was observed in BO100, where porosity dropped to \(3.9\pm 0.8\). This reduction is likely due to the high content of soluble fibre and \(\beta\)-glucans in oat beverages, which may disrupt gluten matrix formation and alter water distribution, as reported by [PERSON] et al. [10]. A similar observation was made in breads enriched with oat drink residue flour, where high inclusion levels led to excessive water absorption and reduced crumb elasticity, highlighting the role of both composition and particle size in the physical quality of the final product. Although the beverages used were commercially available and required no further preparation, broader industrial application may depend on cost structure, supply chain stability, and formulation scalability.