## 3 Results and Discussion
### Crumb Texture  
The increase in the proportion of CP in the bread recipe resulted in a significant increase in the bread's crumb hardness. This trend was observed after both 24 and 72 h of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & **Water** & **Development** & **Stability of** & **Degree of Softening** \\  & **Absorption [\%]** & **Time [min]** & **Dough [min]** & **(FU) after 12 min of** \\  & & & & **Mixing** \\ \hline CD & 59.07 \(\pm\) 0.35 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.00 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.83 \(\pm\) 0.25 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 63.33 \(\pm\) 1.15 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ CDP1 & 59.37 \(\pm\) 0.78 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 2.23 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.00 \(\pm\) 0.53 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 64.67 \(\pm\) 2.89 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ CDP2 & 59.47 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 2.17 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.63 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 77.00 \(\pm\) 2.65 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ CDP3 & 59.77 \(\pm\) 0.49 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 2.17 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.93 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 89.33 \(\pm\) 3.06 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ CDP4 & 60.23 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 2.03 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.67 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\text{ba}}\) & 94.67 \(\pm\) 2.31 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) \\ CDP5 & 60.37 \(\pm\) 0.59 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 2.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.27 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{ba}}\) & 98.67 \(\pm\) 2.89 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ CDP6 & 60.97 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 2.10 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.13 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 99.67 \(\pm\) 1.53 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} CD–control dough, CDP1, CDP2, CDPS, CDP4, CDP5, CDP6–dough enriched with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6% of chokeberry powder, respectively; the values designated by the different letters \({}^{\text{a}}\)* are significantly different (\(p\) < 0.05).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Physical properties of control dough and dough enriched with chokeberry powder. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & **Baking Loss [\%]** & **Bread Yield [\%]** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Bread Volume** \\ **[cm\$3 100 g$ $-$1]** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Crumb Density** \\ **[kg m\$ $-$3]** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline C & 13.6 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 137.8 \(\pm\) 0.6 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 349.0 \(\pm\) 42 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 0.32 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ CP1 & 12.9 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 139.4 \(\pm\) 0.6 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 338.3 \(\pm\) 2.6 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ CP2 & 12.8 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 139.7 \(\pm\) 0.8 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 318.7 \(\pm\) 3.8 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 0.39 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ CP3 & 12.4 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) & 141.1 \(\pm\) 0.8 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 303.1 \(\pm\) 3.7 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.45 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ CP4 & 12.2 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 142.2 \(\pm\) 0.8 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) & 265.3 \(\pm\) 6.2 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.52 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ CP5 & 11.1 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 142.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\text{de}}\) & 252.6 \(\pm\) 4.9 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.53 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ CP6 & 10.7 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 144.1 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 237.9 \(\pm\) 4.7 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.59 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{e}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} C–control bread, CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP6–bread enriched with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6% of chokeberry powder, respectively; the values designated by the different letters \({}^{\text{a}}\)* are significantly different (\(p\) < 0.05).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Basic properties of control and enriched bread samples. -bread storage. However, storage itself had a relatively minor impact on this parameter. The crumb hardness of the bread changed from 7.77 to 21.36 N and from 8.43 to 22.54 N after one and three days of storage, respectively (Table 3).