Wheat hardness and baking properties of wheat flours

Pomeranz, Y.; Bolling, H.; Zwingelberg, H.

doi:10.1016/s0733-5210(84)80027-2

Cited by 24 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the damaged starch content in wheat flours ranged from 2.2 SD% for W2 to 7.0 SD% for W6 measured with the enzymatic method ( Figure 1a). These values correspond to the ranges of values reported in the literature for soft (2.6-6.0 SD%) and hard (3.5-9.9 SD%) wheat flours (Barrera, Pérez, Ribotta, & León, 2007;Choi & Baik, 2013;Moiraghi, Hera, Pérez, & Gómez, 2013;Pomeranz, Bolling, & Zwingelberg, 1984). In the present study, all the wheat flours were made from soft wheat and were mostly destined for cakes and pastries except W4, which is a bread flour (6.4 SD%).…”

Section: Calibration Of the Amperometric Methods (Sdmatic) For Legumsupporting

confidence: 88%

Damaged starch in pea versus wheat flours: Fragmentation behavior and contribution of fine and coarse fractions

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectives Particle size distribution and damaged starch content have a major impact on flour quality because they influence the behavior of flour during hydration in processing. Particle size distribution and starch damage of legume flours and their relationship during grinding have not been evaluated. The standard enzymatic method for the measurement of damaged starch content (AACC 76‐31) was used to find a new calibration equation for the rapid amperometric method (SDmatic, AACC 76‐33.01) for legume flours. Changes in particle size distribution and starch damage during regrinding in a commercial pea flour were compared with those in a commercial wheat flour. Findings Legume flours had a smaller damaged starch content (0.8–4.7 SD%) than wheat flours (2.2–7.0 SD%). The bimodal particle size distribution of flours was linked to structural elements as confirmed by environmental scanning electron microscopy and laser granulometry. Particle size distribution and starch damage varied concomitantly during regrinding in the commercial pea flour as in the commercial wheat flour. The main factor responsible for the increase in damaged starch content was an increase in the proportion of the fine fraction in the flour. Fine fractions contained higher damaged starch contents than coarse fractions. Conclusions Hypotheses concerning differences in fragmentation mechanisms in the two flours were formulated, suggesting that pea flour has a higher likelihood for fracture but less tendency to produce damaged starch than wheat flour. Significance and novelty The amperometric method (AACC 76‐33.01) can be used for a rapid estimation of the damaged starch content in legume flours. Furthermore, the results suggest a lower hardness of pea flour material compared to wheat flour material that would have a significant impact on milling strategies.

show abstract

Section: Calibration Of the Amperometric Methods (Sdmatic) For Legumsupporting

confidence: 88%

Damaged starch in pea versus wheat flours: Fragmentation behavior and contribution of fine and coarse fractions

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Wheat endosperm hardness is an important characteristic in the quality of wheat for bread making (Pomeranz et al, 1984;Slaughter et al, 1992;Ohm et al, 1998). Hardness of the endosperm affects the milling performance of wheat.…”

Section: Relationship Between Chemical Composition Of the Wheat And Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hard wheats shatter when milled and the flour is fine, with regular particle sizes and large surface areas. They yield angular endosperm particles in which starch granules are often mechanically damaged, and the plane of fracture of the endosperm frequently passes through the starch granules (Pomeranz et al, 1984;Sulaiman et al, 1993). Soft wheats tend to give flour with irregular particle sizes, lower surface areas and with relatively little starch granule damage.…”

Section: Relationship Between Chemical Composition Of the Wheat And Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chemical composition and the nutritive quality of different wheat cultivars for broiler chickens

Pirgozliev

Birch

Rose

et al. 2003

British Poultry Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Different wheat cultivar samples were grown in replicated trials on a single site in three harvest years. A total of 23 wheat samples were harvested. Nutritionally complete, meal-form diets that included each wheat sample at 650 g/kg were used to compare broiler growth performance and determine apparent metabolisable energy (AME). The relationships were examined between these variables of nutritive value for broilers and the chemical composition and tests of quality on the wheat samples. 2. The total starch contents of the wheat samples ranged from 594 to 732 g/kg dry matter (DM). The mean total non-starch polysaccharide (NSP) content was 100g/kg DM comprising 73.5 g/kg DM of insoluble material. Endosperm hardness ranged between 10 and 77 relative units and Beaver was the softest cultivar in two of the batches of samples. The AME of the wheat-based diets had a maximum range of 0.5 MJ/kg within each of the three batches of wheat that were tested. 3. Endosperm hardness of the wheat grains, within a harvest year, was positively correlated with broiler weight gain and the 1000-grain weight was negatively correlated with feed conversion efficiency (FCE). Starch content and gross energy were positively correlated with determined AME, and DM, 1000-grain weight and water holding capacity were negatively correlated with AME. 4. A step-wise regression technique indicated that endosperm hardness and ash content of the wheat were the explanatory variables that, within harvest years, significantly reduced the unexplained variation in broiler growth rate, feed intake and FCE. The contents of total starch, crude protein and ether extract were the explanatory variables that, within harvest years, significantly reduced the unexplained variation in AME.

show abstract

“…In particular, the recrystallization of the branched amylopectin fraction of the starch was thought to be responsible for crumb firming [1]. However, various authors [2][3][4][5] argued that starch recrystallization and bread firming are not synonymous. More recent studies [6,7] have suggested that changes involving non-starch flour fractions such as gluten, non-starch polysaccharides, lipids and water may be important as well.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Keeping qualities of white pan bread upon storage: effect of selected enzymes on bread firmness and elasticity

Gil

Callejo

Rodríguez

et al. 1999

Zeitschrift f�r Lebensmitteluntersuchung und -Forschung A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several different types of enzymes and their blends were added to dough with the object of improving the shelf-life of white, lidded-pan bread during storage. Bread firmness and elasticity were determined at 24, 48 and 72 h to determine the influence of the enzymes. Addition of bacterial a-amylase, specially to blends of enzymes also containing lipase and pentosanase, improved white, lidded-pan bread quality by increasing elasticity and lowering firmness of crumb, and enhanced the keeping quality over time by providing a significant 2-day increase in the shelf life.

show abstract

Wheat hardness and baking properties of wheat flours

Cited by 24 publications

References 0 publications

Damaged starch in pea versus wheat flours: Fragmentation behavior and contribution of fine and coarse fractions

Damaged starch in pea versus wheat flours: Fragmentation behavior and contribution of fine and coarse fractions

Chemical composition and the nutritive quality of different wheat cultivars for broiler chickens

Keeping qualities of white pan bread upon storage: effect of selected enzymes on bread firmness and elasticity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About