## 3 Results and Discussion
### Chemical Characteristic of Mashes and Fermentation Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameter**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Wheat Bead-Based Mashes**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Wheat-Rye Bead-Based Mashes**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & **PLS-SSF** & **PLS-SHF** & **NSH-N/A** & **PLS-SSF** & **PLS-SHF** & **NSH-N/A** & **NSH-A** \\ \cline{2-13}  & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** \\ \hline \hline Apparent extract & 0.71 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 0.07 & 1.11 \({}^{\text{s}}\) & 0.06 & 0.70 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 0.01 & 0.63 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.02 & 0.78 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 0.01 & 0.76 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 0.02 & 0.75 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 0.02 \\ Ethanol [g/L] & 71.42 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.32 & 70.95 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.02 & 85.68 \({}^{\text{s}}\) & 0.02 & 72.50 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 2.53 & 72.54 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.64 & 81.52 \({}^{\text{s}}\) & 2.25 & 80.95 \({}^{\text{s}}\) & 2.11 \\ Total reducing & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ sugars expressed & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ as glucose [g/L], & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ incl: & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ Malottose & 0.16 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 0.06 & 0.21 \({}^{\text{s}}\) & 0.07 & 0.07 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 0.00 & 0.09 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 0.00 & 0.02 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.00 & 0.07 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 0.00 & 0.07 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 0.00 \\ Maltose & 0.14 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.01 & 0.31 \({}^{\text{s}}\) & 0.05 & 0.72 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.09 & 0.18 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.03 & 0.14 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.02 & 0.80 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.07 & 0.90 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 0.01 \\ Glucose & 0.01 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.00 & 3.79 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.42 & 2.07 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.15 & 0.02 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.01 & 0.05 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.01 & 0.08 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.02 & 0.07 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.02 \\ Dextrin [g/L]In distilleries, the parameter used to assess the degree of fermentation is apparent extract, which is measured in the presence of ethanol. In the case of well-fermented distillery mashes with an initial extract of approximately 18% \(w\)/\(w\), the apparent extract should not exceed (1.0-1.5)% \(w\)/\(w\)[42]. After completion of the fermentation process, the apparent extract of the tested mashes ranged from 0.63 \(\pm\) 0.02 to 1.11 \(\pm\) 0.06% \(w\)/\(w\), with the tendency towards higher values observed in mashes prepared by the PLS-SHF method in comparison to those prepared by the PLS-SSF and NSH methods. The ethanol concentration of the mashes prepared by both the PLS-SSF and PLS-SHF methods did not exhibit a statistically significant difference (\(p\)\(\geq\) 0.05), with values ranging from 70.95 \(\pm\) 1.02 to 72.54 \(\pm\) 1.64 g/L. Furthermore, no differences were observed when the type of bread used was taken into account. The highest concentration of ethanol was determined in the mashes prepared via the native starch hydrolysis method, with values ranging from 80.95 \(\pm\) 2.11 to 85.68 \(\pm\) 0.02 g/L. No statistically significant impact of the starch 'activation' process was observed (\(p\)\(\geq\) 0.05). [PERSON] et al. [17], during fermentation of bread-waste medium (with a solids concentration of 150 g/L) by fungi _Neurospora intermedia_, found significantly lower ethanol yield of 32.2 g/L. In turn, the conversion of waste bread to ethanol by _S. cerevisiae_ with the application of granular starch hydrolysing enzyme at the same substrate concentration (150 g/L) resulted in an ethanol yield of 55 g/L [16]. The aforementioned results of ethanol production are significantly lower than those obtained in the present study. It is noteworthy that the ethanol content after fermentation of waste bread-based mashes tested in this study, irrespective of the type of bread and the method of mash preparation, was comparable to the values obtained after processing traditional starchy raw materials, such as rye, barley and cereal mals, to ethanol [36; 37; 38; 43].