Premium
A Comparative Study of the Inter‐Relationships Between Mixograph Parameters and Bread‐ Making Qualities of Wheat Flours and Glutens
Author(s) -
Khatkar Bhupendar S,
Bell Alan E,
Schofield J David
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
journal of the science of food and agriculture
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.782
H-Index - 142
eISSN - 1097-0010
pISSN - 0022-5142
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1097-0010(199609)72:1<71::aid-jsfa625>3.0.co;2-4
Subject(s) - gluten , bread making , food science , mixing (physics) , wheat flour , chemistry , volume (thermodynamics) , cultivar , agronomy , biology , physics , quantum mechanics
The mixing characteristics and bread‐making qualities of flours, reconstituted flours and glutens from a diverse range of wheat cultivars obtained from Canada, France and the UK, were investigated. Simple correlations were calcu‐lated among Mixograph parameters, loaf volume, Glu ‐ 1 quality scores, protein content, SDS‐sedimentation volume and baking absorption. The results indicate that the mixing properties of flours from cultivars in the medium–strong range are significantly influenced by their protein contents. On the other hand, the mixing properties of ‘extra strong’ or weak flours are relatively less affected by their protein contents, and it appears that the protein quality primarily controls their behaviour during mixing. Gluten samples, other than weak glutens from cvs Riband and Corin, required a longer time to mix to peak dough resistance (PDR) than their corresponding flour or reconstituted flour samples. However, the differences in mixing time were more pronounced between ‘extra strong’ glutens and their corresponding flours or reconstituted flours. The Mixograph parameter PDR showed highly significant ( P< 0·001) correlations with loaf volume for flour, reconstituted flour and gluten samples. In each case, variation in PDR explained more than 65% of the variation in loaf volume, reaching about 83% for glutens. PDR was also significantly correlated with Glu ‐ 1 quality scores. However, the mixing times for flours, reconstituted flours and glutens demonstrated no simple correlations with loaf volume. On the basis of the results, it appears that the 2 g Mixograph PDR value for flour or gluten may be used to assess flour or gluten bread‐making quality. It may be used as a viable alternative to the baking test for the evaluation of the baking potential of flour or gluten, as well as an alternative to currently used ‘gel protein’‐based pro‐cedures for differentiating between ‘strong’ and ‘extra strong’ wheats.