Objectives
As Gillespie & Ahlborn’s article’s objectives, it is essential to state the comparison of ketogenic, oat bran fiber, and gluten-free breads to analyze their textural properties, sensory attributes, and consumer acceptance. The authors tend to explore the clients’ reactions profoundly and construct score systems concerning different bread types. In addition, per the study’s objectives, one should stress the finding of the most proper flour to understand how bread can be made to obtain ketogenic, oat bran fiber, and gluten-free pieces of bread.
Methods
Testing was conducted in Brigham Young University Bread. Such aspects as loaf volume, moisture, and crumb quality were evaluated. To assess the obtained data and construct a scoring system, the quantitative-descriptive analysis (QDA) was chosen for the study. It allowed the authors to examine the results regarding each bread type’s peculiarities qualitatively. In addition, consumer acceptance testing was necessary due to the direct collaboration with people. The test was mainly conducted 24 hours after baking. Moreover, the evaluation of mechanical endpoints was implemented to provide texture analysis. Such aspects as cohesion, springlessness, and breadcrumb firmness were explored.
Results
The results obtained demonstrated different scores regarding each bread type. For example, almond flour (AF) and oat bran fiber (AOB) breads obtained higher preferences from the audience compared to almond flour (OBA) and oat bran fiber (OB) breads. Different breads showed specific characteristics influencing customers’ preferences based on various factors. As the study’s results show, AF and AOB showed lower cell density per centimeter squared. This means that they consisted of a more significant number of cells, between one and four millimeters squared, than OBA and OB.
This issue resulted in understanding a less dense and more open crumb of AF and AOB. In addition, such bread types as almond flour and oat bran fiber were evaluated as suitable ingredients, including the flour itself, for producing ketogenic, gluten-free slices of bread. Another aspect of the results was the moisture and texture considerations. The researchers identified that AF was less moist in comparison with OB. However, although these data were obtained after 24 hours from the experiment, further observations after 120 hours did not depict significant differences.
Conclusions
Among crucial conclusions from the study, it is essential to stress the influence of higher levels of oat bran fiber on denser and firmer bread. According to (Gillespie & Ahlborn, 2021), more excellent scores of the audience towards oat bran fiber resulted “in a bread that was less moist, firmer in texture, and chewier with trained panelists” (p. 3327). Consequently, the study’s conclusions stated the possibility of practical implications based on the results while implementing specific flour into bread production.
Method and Strategy for the Future Research
As the chosen research strategy will be crucial in my future research, it is vital to highlight the qualitative comparison of the different breadth types. Notably, the authors chose to conduct the study at the university. It brought vast scientific possibilities to the process and increased the study’s efficiency.
In addition, the primary benefit of the research’s method was the use of the quantitative-descriptive analysis. Implementing particular frames and theories that have been proven and used many times before is essential. Consequently, in my future research, I will use the abovementioned aspects to construct a qualitative study, allowing me to have functional, practical outcomes as the research’s conclusions.
Reference
Gillespie, R., & Ahlborn, G. J. (2021). Mechanical, sensory, and consumer evaluation of ketogenic, gluten-free breads. Food Science & Nutrition, 9, 3327-3335. Web.