Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ABSTRACT
The quality of baguettes can be evaluated by defined sensory attributes and image analyses. The
eect of flour quality, production process (traditional French and industrially modified), mixing and
proofing time were studied. Process accounted for 40% of the variation in baguette quality whereas
flour quality accounted for 16% of the variation when principal component analysis was applied on
the sensory attributes. Baguettes produced using a soft dough and gentle treatment (traditional French
process) had a higher sensory score for porosity, elasticity, crispness of crust, crackles on the crust,
and porosity and volume as measured by image analysis, than baguettes produced using a sti dough
and rough treatment (modified industrial process). Mixing and proofing time also aected the porosity
and area of the cut surface. Porosity, crackles on the crust, glossiness and volume were related to
flour quality.
2000 Academic Press
INTRODUCTION
French bread (baguettes or pain Parisian) is typically characterised by a crisp eggshell crust
34 mm thick, an open and random crumb cell
structure, a full-bodied flavour, a high specific
volume (mL/g) and a relatively high crust:crumb
ratio due to the diameter and the length of the
loaves1,2.
: ICC=International Association
for Cereal Science and Technology; ISO=International Association for Standardisation; AACC=
American Association for Cereal Chemists; SDSPAGE=sodium dodecyl sulphate polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis; HMW=high molecular weight; WA=
water absorption; DU=dough development; DS=
dough stability; BU=Brabender unit; ANOVA=analysis of variance; PCA=principal component analysis;
PC=principal component; PCR=principal component regression; AMT=angle measure technique;
P1=traditional French process; P2=modified industrially process.
Corresponding author: P. Baardseth.
07335210/00/070073+15 $35.00/0
74
P. Baardseth et al.
substances that contribute to the taste of the baguettes4,5. However, there are no published studies
on the eect of mixing and fermentation time
on volume, pore structure and texture of French
bread.
Critical phases of French bread production follow fermentation. In this phase it is important to
avoid degassing the dough if an open and random
pore structure in the crumb is to be achieved1,2.
This is unlike most other bread baking processes,
which aim to obtain an even, fine pore structure
in the crumb. A further increase in gas and consequent enhancement of bubble size occurs during
the proofing stages which is the time from dough
dividing to baking in the oven. Aromatic substances also build up during the proofing stage46.
The cutting of the dough surface after the final
proof is an integral part of processing of French
bread and leads to a characteristic product. Cutting releases stresses in the dough during baking,
i.e. increases crust area during dough expansion
and in the bake out, gives an attractive appearance
to the loaf and improves the flavour7.
In determining the baking potential of flour,
both protein content and protein quality are important. Although protein quality is complex, it is
known that a major factor in determining the
protein quality is the composite of the high molecular weight (HMW) glutenin subunits8,9.
The present study focuses on how the baking
process and flour quality aect the characteristics
of French baguettes produced by traditional and
industrially modified methods. The following factors were investigated using a full factorial design:
flour quality, a modified industrial process versus
a traditional French process, mixing time and
proofing time. Baguette quality was assessed by
sensory and image analysis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Flour
Four wheats of dierent qualities were used: Tjalve
(a Norwegian spring wheat), Folke (a Norwegian
winter wheat) and two commercial baguette flours
(A: 100% French soft wheat; B: 20% American
wheat, 25% French wheat, 20% Norwegian spring
wheat, 35% Norwegian winter wheat). The wheats
were milled on a commercial mill (Simon, England
with Miag rollers). Extraction rates were 757%
for Tjalve and 775% for Folke. Ascorbic acid
(30 ppm) was added to the flour immediately after
Table I
75
Id.
No
1
2
3
4
Wheat variety
%
flour source protein
Tjalve
Folke
Baguette flour
A
Baguette flour
B
HMW glutenin
subunits
Zeleny
WA DU
sedimentation (%) (BU)
DS Peak
(BU) time
(min)
127
90
102
2, 7+9, 5+10
2, 6+8, 2+12
2, 7+8, 2+12
48
28
12
624
609
560
25
17
17
60 536
110 262
70 280
121
39
606
20
80 564
Process 1
Traditional French
process
Process 2
Industrial modified
process
Recipe
0.9% yeast
1% salt
soft dough conditions 500 BU6%
0.8 ascorbic acid
Recipe
0.3% yeast
1% salt
stiff dough conditions 500 BU +5%
0.8 ascorbic acid
Mixing time:
2 + 4 min (125 wh)
2 + 8 min (300 wh)
Mixing time:
2 + 4 min (180 wh)
2 + 8 min (400 wh)
20 min fermentation
Rough dividing
treatment
15 min pre-proofing
Figure 1
2).
Proofing time:
65 min
80 min
Proofing time:
150 min
165 min
Baking
270C
220C
10 min
Baking
250C
220C
10 min
Flow sheet of the two processestraditional French process (process 1) and modified industrial process (process
76
P. Baardseth et al.
Table II
Average energy input (Wh) used for doughs from four flours and two processes
Mixing
time
Tjalve
Folke
Baguette flour A
Baguette flour B
Process 1
(soft dough)
2+4 min
2+8 min
110
290
115
255
145
355
130
280
Process 2
(sti dough)
2+4 min
2+8 min
160
385
160
360
215
440
180
440
Table III
Sensory attributes
Glossiness
Crackles on the crust
Porosity
Area of cut surface
Elasticity
Odour intensity
Fresh odour
Flavour intensity
Fresh flavour
Salt flavour
Firmness
Moistness
Crispness of the crust
Definition
Glossiness on the crust surface
No intensity=non-glossy (matt) on the crust
High intensity=high glossiness on the crust
Crackle formation on the crust (after baking a fine network of cracks appears on the crust
like in pottery)
No intensity=no crackles, smooth, even crust
High intensity=crackles and uneven crust
Pore structure in the crumb measured using Dallmanns pore table19
No intensity=dense pore structure
High intensity=open and random pore structure
Cuts on the crust so the dough can expand to increase the crust area of the bread
No intensity=little expansion of the crumb
High intensity=high expansion of the crumb
Slices able to retain the shape after squeezing
No intensity=no elasticity, slices do not retain shape after squeezing
High intensity=high elasticity, slices retain shape after squeezing
Total odour intensity of the sample
No intensity=no odour
High intensity=strong odour
Fresh odour
No intensity=no fresh odour
High intensity=distinct fresh odour
The strength of total flavour in the sample
No intensity=no flavour
High intensity=strong flavour
Fresh flavour
No intensity=no fresh flavour
High intensity=distinct flavour
Related to the flavour of sodium chloride
No intensity=no salty flavour
High intensity=distinct salty flavour
Relates to the force needed to bite through the crust and the crumb
No intensity=little force needed to bite through
High intensity=high force needed to bite through
Fluid feeling in the mouth after 3 to 4 bites
No intensity=no moistness, no fluidity after 3 to 4 bites
High intensity=distinct moistness, much fluidity after 3 to 4 bites
Mechanical texture properties related to the ability of samples to retain the shape
No intensity=no crispness, tough
High intensity=distinctly crisp, fragile
77
78
P. Baardseth et al.
eects. The multivariate Principal component analysis (PCA) that treats all variables simultaneously21, was performed to obtain an overview
of the sensory data using the Unscrambler software
(CAMO A/S, Trondheim, Norway). In PCA, the
information in the data is projected down to a
small number of new variables called principal
components (PCs), which are linear combinations
of the original data. The dierent PCs are orthogonal to each other, and are estimated to give,
in decreasing order, the best description of the
variability in the data. The first few PCs will
contain most of the relevant information in the
data. The PCs are described by loadings for the
variables and scores for the samples. The data are
modelled in terms of significant factors, plus errors
or residuals.
Image analysis using the angle measure technique (AMT)22 has been shown to be feasible for
modelling sensory porosity23. The images of the
baguette slices from 32 doughs presented to three
random panellists giving a total of 96 data sets were
vectorized by AMT and modelled with sensory
attributes and process variables (Y-variables) using
principal component regression (PCR). The feature extraction method of AMT provides a data
vector (X-variables) for each image. Principal component regression (PCR)24 was performed to predict the baking process and sensory property (Yvariables) from image analyses (X-variables). PCR
combines PCA and traditional multiple regression
analyses. First PCA is performed among the Xvariables (the image variables). Thereby, the few
first significant PCs from the PCA analyses are used
as X-variables in a traditional multiple regression
analyses. In this way the multicollineary problem
among the original X-variables is solved. The
reference values were represented by the mean
sensory attributes over all panellists. Each of the
three data sets consisted of 32 images, and the
mean sensory attributes (Y) were the same for each
of the three data sets. Two of the data sets were
used as calibration sets and one was the test set.
Cross validation among the three data sets shows
similar results. We also used a test set validation,
and plotted the designed variable loading and
Figure 2 Loading (a) and score plots (b) for the two first factors obtained by PCA for sensory attributes of baguettes
formulated from wheat flours of four dierent qualities and made by two dierent processes. The first number is flour quality
1 (Tjalve), 2 (Folke), 3 (Baguette flour A), 4 (Baguette flour B), the second number indicates the mixing time 1 (2+4 min), 2
(2+8 min), the third number indicates the proofing time 1 (65/180 min), 2 (80/165 min) and the fourth number 1 (traditional
process) and 2 (modified industrial process).
79
(a)
0.6
glossiness
0.5
0.4
elasticity
0.3
odour intensity
porosity
PC2
0.2
flavour intensity
moistness
salt flavour
0.1
firmness
0
fresh flavour
fresh odour
0.1
0.2
crackles
on the crust
Area of
cut surface
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
PC1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.3
(b)
4
1121
3
1122
4121
1222
1111 1221
1212 1112
4122
PC2
2122
2222
3122
1211
4211
2111
4221
3111
4112
3221
2221 4222
3211
4212
3121
0
3112
2112
4111
2121
2211
3222
2212
4
3212
5
5
0
PC1
80
P. Baardseth et al.
Process 2
Process 1
Figure 3 Images of slices of baguettes produced with four dierent flours (from top to bottomTjalve (1), Folke (2), baguette
flour A (3) and baguette flour B (4)) and two dierent processes (from left to rightprocess 2, mixing time 2+4 min and
2+8 min at proofing time 150 min, mixing time 2+4 min and 2+8 min at proofing time 165 min, process 1, mixing time
2+4 min and 2+8 min, fermentation time 20 min, pre-proofing time 15 min and proofing time 65 min, mixing time 2+4 min
and 2+8 min, pre-proofing 20 min+15 min and proofing time 80 min, see Fig. 1)
0.10
odour intensity
F2
F3
0.05
MT4
crackles
on the crust
P1
0
PC2
0.05
area of
cut surface
salt flavour
F1
PT2
PT1
firmness
flavour intensity
P2
glossiness
moistness
MT8
fresh odour
fresh flavour
area
0.10
F4
0.15
50
150
PC1
250
Figure 4 The PCR-modelling of sensory attributes and process variables based on features extracted from images. The
symbols in the loading plot are the four factors: Process P1 and P2; flour quality (F1=Tjalve, F2=Folke, F3=baguette flour
A, F4=baguette flour B), mixing time (MT4=2+4 min, MT8=2+8 min), proofing time (PT1=65/150 min, PT2=80/
165 min).
p = 0.0028
p = 0.0001
11
9
Porosity
11
81
7
5
3
7
5
3
1
P1
P2
P1
P2
p = 0.0099
11
Fresh flavour
Elasticity
p = 0.0224
11
7
5
3
5
3
1
P1
P2
P1
p = 0.0001
11
P2
p = 0.0001
5000
4000
Area mm2
7
5
3
3000
2000
1000
1
P1
P2
P1
P2
Figure 5 Sensory attributes (crackles on the crust, porosity, elasticity, fresh flavour and crispness of the crust) and slice area
(mm2) aected significantly by process (P1 (traditional French) and P2 (modified industrial).
82
P. Baardseth et al.
Process 1 (traditional)
(a)
p = 0.0086
Area of cut surface
Porosity
9
7
5
3
1
2+4
7
5
3
1
2+8
p = 0.0005
2+4
2+8
p = 0.0005
Area of cut surface
Porosity
9
7
5
3
1
65
7
5
3
1
80
p = 0.0001
65
80
Figure 6 Sensory attributes aected significantly by mixing time and proofing time within each process. (a) Process 1 mixing
time 2+4 min (125 wh) and 2+8 min (300 wh), and 20 min fermentation time, 15 min pre-proofing, proofing time 65 min and
80 min. (b) Process 2 mixing time 2+4 min (180 wh) and 2+8 min (400 wh), and proofing time 150 min and 165 min (see Fig. 1).
traditional French process compared with baguettes baked with the industrial adapted process
(Figs 35). Good French baguette quality is normally characterised by large volume and open
porosity25,26, which were obtained by baking with
the traditional French process. These results confirmed the importance of avoiding degassing of
the dough (gentle treatment) to achieve the open
and random pore structure of the crumb1,2. Baguettes produced by the traditional French process
also had significantly higher elasticity, crust crispness and crackles on the crust compared with
baguettes produced using the industrial adapted
process with sti dough and rough treatment (Figs
4 and 5). Furthermore, baguettes produced by the
traditional French process had significantly higher
fresh flavour (Fig. 5) which is due to higher concentration of yeast used in the recipe (09% vs
Process 2 (industrial)
p = 0.0001
Porosity
7
5
3
7
5
3
2+4
2+8
p = 0.0001
9
7
5
3
1
p = 0.0001
2+4
(b)
83
2+8
p = 0.0001
9
7
5
3
1
2+8
2+4
2+4
2+8
p = 0.0012
9
7
5
3
1
150
165
Proofing time (min)
Figure 6(b)
84
P. Baardseth et al.
Area mm 2
(a)
P1
2000
P2
1000
Porosity (image)
3000
15
10
(b)
P1
6
4
P2
2
0
15
10
Protein %
Protein %
(c)
3000
Area mm 2
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
P1
P2
Figure 7 (a) Eect of flour quality on area of the baguette slices, measured in mm2 by image analysis, Tjalve (), Folke
(), baguette flour A () and baguette flour B (), (b) Eect of flour quality on porosity, measured by image analysis, and
(c) interaction between flour quality and process on slice area.
6
ab
5
4
ab ab
a
b
b
a
ab
b b b
ab
a a a
ab
b b b
ab ab b
a
b
a
b
bc c
c bc
3
2
1
Glossiness
Crackles
Porosity
Surface
Elasticity
Fresh
odour
Fresh
flavour
Firmness
Juiciness
Crispness
Figure 8 Average values of each sensory attribute that were significantly dierent between baguettes baked from flours from
wheats of four dierent qualities. () Tjalve, (C) Folke, (C) baguette flour A, () baguette flour B. attributes, with no
significant level dierence according to Tukeys test are indicated by similar letter (ac).
85
Table IV ANOVA for each sensory attribute aected by the interaction between flour
quality and process, flour quality and mixing time, flour quality and fermentation/proofing
time. The p-value gives the lowest significance value at which the two groups are dierent
(i.e. if the p-value is less than 005, the two groups are significantly dierent at the 005
level)
Glossiness
Crackles on the crust
Porosity
Area of cut surface
Elasticity
Odour intensity
Fresh odour
Flavour intensity
Fresh flavour
Salt flavour
Firmness
Moistness
Crispness of crust
Flour
qualityprocess
Flour
qualitymixing
time
Flour
qualityfermentation
/proofing time
00020
00003
00001
00002
00074
03921
00679
01662
00369
01183
01414
04389
00003
00782
00112
00003
00002
02113
01585
01416
01974
00538
03129
02544
00243
00001
04600
01142
00323
02754
00642
08692
05884
06362
02198
05907
00036
07071
00001
Acknowledgements
Technical assistance from the bakers Alf O. Nielsen
and Leif A. Fardal is greatly appreciated. We also wish
to thank Grethe Enersen and Bjrg Narum Nilsen for
skilful technical assistance during image recording.
86
P. Baardseth et al.
7
Crackles on the crust
Glossiness
6
5
4
3
2
1
P1
4
3
2
7
Area of cut surface
Porosity
P2
6
5
4
3
2
1
P2
P1
P2
P1
P2
6
5
4
3
P1
P2
5
4
5
4
P1
Elasticity
P1
P2
P1
P2
Fresh flavour
11
9
7
5
3
Figure 9 Average values of the sensory attributes showing significant interaction (Table IV) between flour quality (()
Tjalve, () Folke, () baguette flour A, () baguette flour B) and process (P1 (traditional French) and P2 (modified industrial).
REFERENCES
1. Collins, T.H. Chorleywood process for French bread.
British Baker 16 (1978) 1118.
2. Tweed, A.R. A look at French Baguettes. Cereal Foods
World 28 (1983) 397399.
3. Magnus, E.M., Brathen, E., Sahlstom, S., Frgestad,
E.M. and Ellekjr, M.R. Eects of wheat variety and
processing conditions in experimental bread baking
studied by univariate and multivariate analyses. Journal
of Cereal Science 25 (1997) 289301.
4. Zehentbauer, G. and Grosch, W. Crust aroma of baguettes I. Key odorants of baguettes prepared in two
dierent ways. Journal of Cereal Science 28 (1998) 8192.
5. Zehentbauer, G. and Grosch, W. Crust aroma of baguettes II. Dependence of the concentrations of key
odorants on yeast level and dough processing. Journal of
Cereal Science 28 (1998) 9396.
6. Stear, C.A. Handbook of Bread Making Technology.
Elsevier Applied Science, London and New York (1990).
7. Kamel, B.S. and Stauer, C.E. Advances in baking.
Blackie Academic & Professional (Chapman & Hall)
Glasgow, England (1993).
8. Payne, P.I., Corfield, K.G. and Blackman, J.A. Identification of a high-molecular-weight subunit of gluteinin
whose presence correlates with bread making quality in
wheat of related pedigree. Theoretical Applied Genetic 55
(1979) 153159.
9. Payne, P.I., Nightingale, M.A., Krattiger, A.F. and Holt,
L.M. The relationship between HMW glutenin subunit
composition and the bread-making quality of British
grown wheat varieties. Journal of Science Food & Agriculture
40 (1987) 5165.
10. Frgestad, E.M., Magnus, E.M., Sahlstom, S. and Ns,
T. Influence of flour quality and baking process on hearth
bread characteristics made using gentle mixing. Journal
of Cereal Science 30 (1999) 6170.
11. International Organization for Standardization. International Standard. Wheat flourPhysical characteristics
of doughsPart 1: Determination of water absorption
and rheological properties using a Farinograph. ISO
5530-1: 1988 (E).
12. Finney, K.F. and Shogan, M.D. A 10 g mixograph for
determining and prediction functional properties of wheat
flour. Bakers Digest 46 (1972) 3235, 3842, 77.
13. American Association of the Cereal Chemists (AACC).
Approved Methods of the AACC, 8th ed. American
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
87