## 3 Results and Discussion
### Farinograph Properties of Doug
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline
**Sample** & **WA [\%]** & **DDT [min]** & **ST [min]** & **DS [FU]** & **FQN** \\ \hline CON & 56.9 \(\pm\) 0.1 g & 4.1 \(\pm\) 0.4 ef & 7.3 \(\pm\) 0.2 g & 61.5 \(\pm\) 3.5 bc & 77 \(\pm\) 2 g \\ \hline BO25 & 59.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 e & 3.8 \(\pm\) 0.3 f & 8.2 \(\pm\) 0.1 ef & 57 \(\pm\) 1 cde & 89.3 \(\pm\) 1.5 def \\ BO50 & 61.7 \(\pm\) 0.3 c & 4.1 \(\pm\) 0.2 ef & 8.6 \(\pm\) 0.1 cde & 55.7 \(\pm\) 2.1 cde & 93 \(\pm\) 2 cde \\ BO75 & 63.6 \(\pm\) 0.2 ab & 5.3 \(\pm\) 0.2 bc & 9.0 \(\pm\) 0.1 bcd & 57 \(\pm\) 1 cde & 100 \(\pm\) 2 bcd \\ BO100 & 64.5 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 5.8 \(\pm\) 0.1 ab & 9.3 \(\pm\) 0.1 bc & 55 \(\pm\) 2 def & 108 \(\pm\) 3 b \\ \hline BS25 & 60.6 \(\pm\) 0.8 de & 4.7 \(\pm\) 0.2 d & 8.5 \(\pm\) 0.6 de & 53.7 \(\pm\) 4.5 ef & 88.3 \(\pm\) 11 defg \\ BS50 & 61.5 \(\pm\) 0.2 cd & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0 ed & 8.3 \(\pm\) 0.2 def & 54 \(\pm\) 1 def & 96 \(\pm\) 2 bcde \\ BS75 & 63.1 \(\pm\) 0.4 b & 5.6 \(\pm\) 0.2 abc & 9.6 \(\pm\) 0.1 b & 56.3 \(\pm\) 1.5 cde & 103 \(\pm\) 3 bc \\ BS100 & 63.8 \(\pm\) 0.2 ab & 5.9 \(\pm\) 0.1 a & 10.6 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 49.3 \(\pm\) 1.5 f & 125 \(\pm\) 5 a \\ \hline BM25 & 58.9 \(\pm\) 0.3 f & 3.9 \(\pm\) 0.2 f & 7.2 \(\pm\) 0.1 g & 68 \(\pm\) 1 a & 79 \(\pm\) 2 fg \\ BM50 & 60.2 \(\pm\) 0.1 e & 4.1 \(\pm\) 0.1 ef & 7.6 \(\pm\) 0.2 fg & 66 \(\pm\) 2 ab & 84 \(\pm\) 3 efg \\ BM75 & 61.8 \(\pm\) 0.1 c & 5.0 \(\pm\) 0.2 cd & 8.3 \(\pm\) 0.2 def & 60 \(\pm\) 1 bcd & 91 \(\pm\) 2 cdef \\ BM100 & 63.9 \(\pm\) 0.2 ab & 5.6 \(\pm\) 0.1 ab & 9.4 \(\pm\) 0.1 bc & 57 \(\pm\) 2 cde & 102 \(\pm\) 4 bc \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
CON—control sample; BO—dough with oat beverages; BS—dough with spelt beverages; BM—dough with millet beverages (25–100 the numbers indicate the percentage of water substituted with plant-based beverages); mean values (\(n\geq 3\)) \(\pm\) SD; different lowercase letters (a–g) within a column indicate statistically significant differences (Tukey’s test, \(p\leq 0.05\)); WA—water adsorption; DDT—dough development time; ST—Stability time; DS—Dough softening; PQN—Farinograph Quality Number.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Farinograph parameters of wheat dough with partial water substitution by cereal-based plant beverages (0–100%). gluten network formation. This effect may be explained by the presence of non-gluten proteins, fiber, and lipids in the beverages, which interfere with gluten matrix formation. Among the tested beverages, spelt had the most pronounced impact on extending DDT. ST increased proportionally with beverage content, with the highest value noted for BS100 (10.6 min), indicating improved dough resistance to mechanical stress. Similar, though less marked, trends were observed in oat and millet-based doughs. Such increases suggest that cereal-based beverages may reinforce the dough structure, potentially through water redistribution or interactions with gluten proteins. Soluble dietary fibers, such as \(\beta\)-glucans, are known to interact with gluten in several ways: they can compete with proteins for water, delaying hydration and gluten alignment; they may also physically disrupt the continuity of the gluten network, reducing its cohesiveness and elasticity. Moreover, viscous fiber gels can influence dough consistency by increasing the viscosity of the continuous phase and modifying gas retention properties. These interactions likely contribute to the longer development and stability times observed, particularly in formulations with higher fiber content [24; 25]. These physicochemical effects may also involve structural rearrangements at the molecular level. Soluble fibers may promote the formation of hydrogen bonds with gluten proteins, leading to partial dehydration and a shift in protein conformation toward more polymerized and stable structures. In some cases, this includes an increase in \(\beta\)-sheet and \(\beta\)-turn structures, which are associated with stronger, more ordered gluten matrices.