## 3 Results and Discussion
### Thermal Properties of the Crumb
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **Day** & **Hardness (N)** & **Resilience** & **Springiness** & **Cohesiveness** & **Chewiness (N)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Control} & 1 & 2.14 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.50 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 1.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.91 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 2.03 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\  & 2 & 4.89 \(\pm\) 0.62 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.33 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.77 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 3.60 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\  & 3 & 7.90 \(\pm\) 1.47 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.96 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.71 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.33 \(\pm\) 0.83 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\  & 1 & 3.29 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.48 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 0.99 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.89 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{de}}\) & 2.91 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\
5\% KP & 2 & 6.02 \(\pm\) 0.40 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.96 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.80 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 4.60 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\  & 3 & 9.60 \(\pm\) 0.71 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 0.95 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 0.73 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 6.63 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{e}}\) \\  & 1 & 6.46 \(\pm\) 0.36 \({}^{\text{de}}\) & 0.45 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.85 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) & 5.36 \(\pm\) 0.35 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\
10\% KP & 2 & 11.7 \(\pm\) 0.96 \({}^{\text{g}}\) & 0.34 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) & 0.96 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 0.75 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 8.49 \(\pm\) 1.30 \({}^{\text{f}}\) \\  & 3 & 14.9 \(\pm\) 0.94 \({}^{\text{g}}\) & 0.31 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{abc}}\) & 0.94 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.72 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 10.0 \(\pm\) 1.51 \({}^{\text{f}}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{Two-way ANOVA-\(p\)} \\ Factor A (level) & \textless{}0.001 & 0.055 & 0.001 & 0.235 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Factor B (time) & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 \\ Factor A \(\times\) Factor B & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.326 & 0.413 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{Mean value of three replications \(\pm\) standard deviation. Means in columns marked with the same letters do not differ statistically at a 0.05 level of confidence.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Texture parameters of the investigated wheat and wheat-kale (KP) composite bread. out based on the results of farinograph analysis. On the other hand, the decrease in freezable water content during storage is presumably due to the loss of crumb moisture, which moves toward the crust, and the incorporation of water molecules into the crystalline structure of starch, which forms during the staling of the bread. Similar results on changes in freezable water content during bread storage were obtained by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [32]. During the heating of the samples, the melting of recrystallized amylopectin occurs connected with endothermic transformation, the presence of which is associated with the retrogradation of starch polymers [49]. The onset temperature of this transformation ranged from 50.7-54.1 \({}^{\circ}\)C, while the temperature values at the maximum ranged from 63.1 to 65.2 \({}^{\circ}\)C, with no significant variation between the samples studied. In turn, the values of the final transformation temperature ranged from 70.0 to 77.6 \({}^{\circ}\)C, with only the time of storage having a significant (\(p<0.05\)) effect on its values. The determined temperature ranges confirm the previous literature data [48,49]. The two-factor analysis of variance performed showed that only time of storage had a significant (\(p<0.05\)) effect on the determined values.