article · Asian Food Science Journal
This research investigates the nutritional, functional, and sensory effects of enriching wheat bread with orange-fleshed sweet potato flour and edible cricket powder. Formulations substituted wheat flour with five to twenty-five percent sweet potato flour alongside a fixed five percent cricket powder component, comparing these against an all-wheat control. Incorporating sweet potato and cricket powder significantly increased the levels of crude protein, fat, crude fibre, and ash in both the raw flour blends and the baked loaves, while decreasing total carbohydrate content. The composite loaves also exhibited higher levels of amino acids, as well as measurable amounts of vitamins A, B6, and B12, alongside reduced anti-nutrient levels compared to the flour blends. Although the standard wheat control achieved the highest marks across sensory testing, the enriched bread loaves achieved favourable comparisons in their physical and sensory characteristics.
Bread is a widely consumed staple, but conventional wheat bread often lacks high levels of protein and vital micronutrients. Supplementing wheat flour with nutrient-dense root crops and insect powder provides a potential route to enhance everyday diets, delivering increased dietary fibre, essential vitamins, and protein while maintaining acceptable physical and sensory qualities for everyday consumers.
The findings could enable food manufacturers and commercial bakeries to develop nutritionally fortified bread products using alternative protein and crop blends. The research is currently at an applied and tested stage within a laboratory environment. Additional formulation work may be necessary to overcome the sensory gap between these composite breads and conventional all-wheat alternatives before direct commercial adoption.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
Aim: This study evaluated the effect of orange-fleshed sweet potato (OFSP) flour and edible cricket powder on wheat-based bread's chemical, functional, physical, and sensory quality. Study Design: Three flour blends were formulated and denoted as Samples B to D. Sample A was the control with 100% wheat flour. At the same time, samples B to D had orange-fleshed sweet potato flour added in increasing order of 5 to 25 % and cricket powder at a constant level of 5 %. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Chemistry, Center for Food Technology and Research, Benue State University, Makurdi, between July 2022 and October 2023. Methodology: We made three blend formulations using different constituents of wheat flour, cricket powder, and orange-fleshed sweet potato flour. This was followed by an evaluation of the chemical, functional, physical, and sensory qualities of the blend formulations. Results: The proximate composition of the flour blends and bread samples showed that crude protein, fat, crude fibre, and ash increased significantly (p≤0.05) with values from 8.13 % to 16.84, 2.56 to 3.77 %, 0.64–2.03 %, 4.47 to 6.40 % and 12.62–19.53 %; 6.02–8.62 %; 6.02–7.97%; 5.02–6.03 % respectively. While the moisture content of the flour blends and bread samples was not significantly (p≤0.05) different, the carbohydrate content decreased significantly (p<0.05) with values from 78.76 to 65.89 % and 51.72–64.40% respectively. Higher levels of amino acids were observed in the bread samples made from composite flours. Vitamin A, B6, and B12 values ranged from 0.01-0.05 mg/100 g, 0.16-0.48 mg/100g, and 0.25–0.76 mg/100 g respectively. The result showed a low level of anti-nutrients in the bread samples compared to the flour blends. Results of the sensory properties showed that the 100 % wheat bread recorded the highest scores in all the parameters. Conclusion: The bread produced from composite flour had a favorable comparison with the control bread in terms of physical and sensory attributes.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.9734/afsj/2025/v24i3775
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
