# Dandelion Flowers as an Additive to Wheat Bread: Physical Properties of Dough and Bread Quality
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Basic Characteristics of Control and Enriched Bread  
The yield of bread linearly increased with the addition of DF (r = 0.983, \(p\) < 0.001) from 143% (CS) to 147.9% (D6) (Table 3). It was caused by higher water absorption of DF-enriched flour. In addition, moisture content of crumb increased with DF percentage in the bread recipe from 43.7% (CS) to 46.8% (D6) (r = 0.900, \(p\) = 0.006). The addition of DF had a negative influence on bread volume as a result of weakening the gluten network structure. Bread volume decreased linearly with the level of DF in bread (r = \(-\)0.989, \(p\) < 0.001). Consequently, the crumb density increased from 0.273 g/cm\({}^{3}\) for CS to 0.352 g/cm\({}^{3}\) for D6. The volume of a loaf is an important quality parameter because it influences final gas retention in the loaf and affects consumer preference [27]. Although consumers usually prefer higher volume and low-density crumb with soft texture, the reduction in bread volume influences the glycemic response and causes a reduction in glycemic index [28]. Interestingly, farinograph data (Table 2) showed that DF strengthened the dough and increased water absorption of flour \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Ash (\%)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Fiber (\%)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Protein (\%)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Fat (\%)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Carbohydrates**} \\  & & & & & & **(\%)** \\ \hline WF & 0.71 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.93 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 12.56 \(\pm\) 0.90 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.73 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 81.77 \(\pm\) 87 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ DF & 6.15 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 19.53 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 15.75 \(\pm\) 0.72 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 7.54 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 54.03 \(\pm\) 0.54 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline CS & 0.73 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.99 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 12.59 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.68 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 82.74 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{e}}\) \\ D1 & 0.81 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 3.15 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 12.62 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 1.72 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 81.78 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ D2 & 0.93 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 3.32 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 12.66 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 1.76 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 81.45 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) \\ D3 & 1.02 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 3.49 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 12.69 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 1.80 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 81.10 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) \\ D4 & 1.07 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 3.66 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 12.73 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.82 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 80.77 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ D5 & 1.15 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 3.89\(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 12.78 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.86 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) & 80.32 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ D6 & 1.23 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 4.12 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\text{g}}\) & 12.83 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.90 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 79.92 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} DM—dry mass; WF—wheat flour; DF—dandelion flour; CS, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6—control bread and bread with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6% of DF, respectively. Data are presented as means with standard deviations (_n_ = 3). Values of each parameter with different superscript letters \({}^{\text{a}}\)= 8 in the columns are significantly different (_p_ < 0.05).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Basic chemical composition of WF, DF and bread (% DM). blends, development time and stability of dough, especially for D5 and D6 samples. However, these changes had no positive effect on bread volume.