# Evaluation of the Possibilities of Using Out Malt in Wheat Beadmaking
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Characteristics of Nutritional Value and Antioxidant Potential of Bread
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Indictors/Sample** & **WB** & **OB** & **OMB** & **SMB** \\ \cline{2-5}
**Codes** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Nutritional Value**} \\ \hline P (\% d.m.) & 12.82 \(\pm\) 0.04 a & 12.92 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 13.08 \(\pm\) 0.05 b & 13.11 \(\pm\) 0.07 b \\ F (\% d.m.) & 0.16 \(\pm\) 0.00 a & 0.25 \(\pm\) 0.03 b & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.01 b \\ C (\% d.m.) & 82.18 \(\pm\) 0.09 c & 81.44 \(\pm\) 0.00 b & 81.30 \(\pm\) 0.08 a & 81.18 \(\pm\) 0.04 a \\ TDF (\%) & 1.91 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 2.19 \(\pm\) 0.01 b & 2.18 \(\pm\) 0.01 b & 2.28 \(\pm\) 0.03 c \\ TDF (\% d.m.) & 3.29 \(\pm\) 0.03 a & 3.88 \(\pm\) 0.03 b & 3.80 \(\pm\) 0.02 b & 3.78 \(\pm\) 0.04 b \\ including: IN-DF (\% d.m.) & 2.49 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 2.79 \(\pm\) 0.00 b & 2.81 \(\pm\) 0.01 b & 2.91 \(\pm\) 0.01 c \\ S-DF (\% d.m.) & 0.80 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 1.09 \(\pm\) 0.03 c & 1.00 \(\pm\) 0.04 b & 0.88 \(\pm\) 0.05 a \\ EV (kcal/100 g) & 226 \(\pm\) 1 c & 219 \(\pm\) 1 a & 221 \(\pm\) 0 b & 222 \(\pm\) 0 b \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Antioxidant potential**} \\ \hline TP (mg GAE/100 g d.m.) & 49.3 \(\pm\) 2.2 a & 60.2 \(\pm\) 3.8 a & 60.6 \(\pm\) 5.0 a & 89.8 \(\pm\) 1.8 b \\ DPPH (\(\mu\)M Trolox/g d.m.) & 0.54 \(\pm\) 0.00 a & 0.67 \(\pm\) 0.04 a & 0.76 \(\pm\) 0.03 b & 1.63 \(\pm\) 0.04 c \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Explanations: P—protein content of bread; F—fat content of bread; C—carbohydrate content of bread; TDF—total dietary fiber content of bread; IN-DF—insoluble dietary fiber of bread; S-DF—soluble dietary fiber of bread; EV—energy value of bread; TP—total polyphenol content of bread; DPPH—antioxidant activity by DPPH assay of bread; \({}^{\approx}\)—homogeneous groups when the confidence level was \(p\leq 0.05\); the same letters in rows mean no statistically significant differences between the analyzed values of indicators according to [PERSON]’s test sample codes are described in Table 1.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: The nutritional value and the antioxidant potential of control and enriched bread. down by cytolytic enzymes (mainly beta-glucanases) [15; 22; 23]. [PERSON] et al. [52] observed a decrease in the beta-glucan and the S-DF contents in oat malt as the germination time was extended and the germination temperature was increased. In the study by [PERSON] et al. [16], the beta-glucan content in the obtained oat malt samples used as a standard scheme for brewing barley ranged from 0.04 to 0.10% d.m., and in barley malt sample was 0.42% d.m. Therefore, lower beta-glucan content was expected in oat malt flour (MF). It should be mentioned that from a health point of view, the soluble dietary fiber (S-DF) fraction is more desirable, as it has a beneficial effect on the intestinal microbiome, regulates glucose levels, and lowers blood cholesterol levels. On the other hand, the insoluble fiber fraction (IN-DF) increases the feeling of satiety and binds bile acids, thus inhibiting their transformation into carcinogenic compounds [63; 72; 73; 76]. The results of the energy value (EV) of the tested bread, presented in Table 5, indicate that the EV ranged from 219 kcal/100 g (for OB) to 226 kcal/100 g (for WB). The bread samples supplemented with MF flour, i.e., OMB and SMB, showed lower EV than control bread (WB). The EV of the tested bread samples consisted of energy coming mainly from carbohydrates, which provide the body with approx. 84% of energy, and to a lesser extent proteins, whose share was approx. 13.5%. [PERSON] et al. [10] showed an increase in the energy value of bread during its storage. The observed changes were caused by processes occurring during the staling of bread. On the one hand, changes in the starch structure, including through slow retrogradation of amylopectin to resistant starch, reduce the energy value of bread, because RS is part of the dietary fiber [9].