Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background and Objectives The nutritional and technological properties of bulgur are strongly influenced by wheat genotype and processing. The effects of cultivar, debranning and particle size were assessed on protein, dietary fiber, phytic acid, yellow pigment, total phenolic content, 1,1‐diphenyl‐2‐picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) antioxidant activity, mineral content and in vitro mineral bioaccessibility. Findings There were significant genotype‐ and processing‐dependent differences ( p ≤ 0.01). Featuring the highest protein, fiber, antioxidant, and mineral contents, Eminbey was identified as the cultivar with the highest nutritional value, supported by its strong gluten structure. Debranning reduced phytic acid by maximum 37.7% and mineral contents by 12.5%–21.7%. Many traits were higher in fine bulgur, mostly due to bran contamination. The mineral bioaccessibility varied between 23% and 49%, with the highest values mostly observed in whole fine bulgur. A 120 g cooked serving of bulgur contributed up to 34% (Zn), 27% (Mg), 3.7% (Ca), 41% (Fe), and 47% (Cu) of the daily requirements. Conclusion Both genotype and processing methods significantly affected the nutritional quality of bulgur. Selecting nutrient‐dense cultivars and employing whole‐grain processing are the most effective strategies to preserve dietary fiber, bioactive compounds, and achieve superior mineral bioaccessibility in bulgur. Significance and Novelty The main strategies for the improvement of nutritional and health‐related quality of bulgur are pointed to bran retention and the selection of nutrient‐dense cultivars.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Asuman Kaplan Evlice (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: