See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/222663795

The Effects of Bread Making Process and Wheat

Quality on French Baguettes
Article in Journal of Cereal Science July 2000
DOI: 10.1006/jcrs.2000.0320

CITATIONS

READS

40

1,200

5 authors, including:
Knut Kvaal

Per Lea

Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU)

Norwegian Institute of Food, Fisheries and

46 PUBLICATIONS 747 CITATIONS

65 PUBLICATIONS 1,242 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Ellen Frgestad Mosleth

Norwegian Institute of Food, Fisheries and
70 PUBLICATIONS 1,209 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Per Lea

Retrieved on: 13 September 2016

Journal of Cereal Science 32 (2000) 7387

doi:10.1006/jcrs.2000.0320, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

The Effects of Bread Making Process and Wheat

Quality on French Baguettes
P. Baardseth, K. Kvaal, P. Lea, M. R. Ellekjr and E. M.
Frgestad MATFORSK, Norwegian Food Research Institute, Osloveien

1, N-1430

A s, Norway Received 10 June 1999

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

Keywords: sensory analysis, image analysis, French baguette quality.

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.

An important aspect of traditional French bread

production is the adjustment of the flour:water
ratio to give soft dough1,2. Mechanical dough handling in industrial processing, however, requires a

stier dough to avoid adhesion of dough to the

machinery.
To obtain the characteristic pore structure of
the crumb of a typical French bread, the dough
should be fully expanded with numerous large,
gas-filled bubbles at the end of the mixing and
fermentation process1,2. In general, the mixing

: ICC=International Association
time necessary to obtain optimum dough defor Cereal Science and Technology; ISO=Intervelopment is dependent on flour quality and as
national Association for Standardisation; AACC=
well as the mixing equipment, mixing intensity,
American Association for Cereal Chemists; SDSPAGE=sodium dodecyl sulphate polyacrylamide gel
dough recipe, etc. Magnus3 found that the optielectrophoresis; HMW=high molecular weight; WA=
mum fermentation time with respect to loaf volwater absorption; DU=dough development; DS=
ume, form ratio, loaf weight, pore size,
firmness dough stability; BU=Brabender unit; ANOVA=anaand colour of small hearth loaves
also varied lysis of variance; PCA=principal component analysis;
widely amongst wheats of dierent
qualities, and component; PCR=principal comPC=principal
according to the mixing process used. In addition
ponent regression; AMT=angle measure technique;
to producing a light dough capable of retaining
P1=traditional French process; P2=modified ingas produced by the yeast, the fermentation produstrially process.
Corresponding author: P. Baardseth.
cess also leads to the production of aromatic
07335210/00/070073+15 $35.00/0

2000 Academic Press

74

74

Baguette P.
making
Baardseth
and et
wheat
al. quality

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.

milling. The two Norwegian flours were from the

same wheats as used by Frgestad et al.10 The
commercial baguette flours also contained 30 ppm
ascorbic acid.
Protein content was analysed by Kjeldahl N
(ICC Standard no 105, N57, presented on a
dry weight basis). Water absorption and reological
properties of the flours were determined using a
Farinograph11 and Mixograph12 using water addition according to the ISO standard11. The Zeleny
sedimentation test was performed according to the
AACC procedure13. HMW glutenin subunits were
determined by sodium dodecyl sulphate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE)14.
Tjalve flour and baguette flour B had similar
protein contents, 127% and 121%, respectively,
and both flours contained the HMW glutenin
subunits 5+10 that are correlated with strong
protein quality15 (Table I). Baguette flour B also
contained the HMW glutenin subunits 2+12 and
in addition subunits 5+10. Baguette flour A and
Folke flour had low protein contents (102% and
90%, respectively), and both contained HMW
glutenin subunits 2+12, associated with poor protein quality. The sedimentation volume and mixograph peak times were higher for the baguette
flour B and Tjalve flour compared with the baguette flour A and Folke flour (Table I).
Baguette flour A from soft wheat had a lower
water binding capacity than the other flours, due
to the lower damaged starch1,2.
Experimental design

Flour

A full factorial experimental design16 without replicates was set up and 32 baguette productions were
performed in random order. The main experiment
consisted of two factors, namely the four flour
qualities and the industrial versus the traditional
process. The two other factors, mixing and
proofing time were nested within each process,
both at two levels.

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

Experimental baking
Figure 1 shows scheme for the traditional French
baking process (P1) and the modified industrial
process (P2).
The flour temperature (8 C), water temperature
(12 C for 2+4 min mixing times, 04 C for
2+8 min mixing times) and completion of mixing
dough temperature (24 C) were recorded together

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Table I Characteristics of the wheat flours

Farinogram
Mixograph
Parameters
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

2, 7+9, 6+8, 5+10,

2+12

39

606

20

80 564

WA=water absorption, DU=dough development, DS=dough stability, BU=Brabender unit.

Process 1
Traditional French
process

Process 2
Industrial modified
process

Recipe
0.9% yeast
1% salt
soft dough conditions 500 BU 6%
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

Gentle dividing and moulding

by hand

Rough dividing
treatment

15 min pre-proofing

Figure 1
2).

Gentle sheeting of the dough

to final form

Moulding and sheeting

to final form

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

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 Definition of the sensory attributes

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

with the energy input (Table II). The doughs were

mixed in a Bearmixer (Varimixer Programmable
Control System MK III, Wodschow & Co, Copen-

hagen, Denmark). The doughs were proofed at

25 C and 70% RH in a proofing cabinet (Lillnord
A/S, Odder Denmark). The baguettes were pre-

baked for 10 min in a rotating hearth oven

equipped with a fan (Bago-line Type BEX 1.0,
Fjellbroen A/S, Faaborg, Denmark). Live steam
was injected during the first 35 s of baking, and
the temperature was reduced from 270 C (P1)
or 250 C (P2) to 220 C, immediately after the
baguettes were put in the oven. The baguettes
were packed in a modified atmosphere (80% N2
and 20% CO2) and stored at room temperature
(20 C) for a maximum of 10 days prior to sensory
and image analysis.

were performed. Between tasting, panellists

cleaned their mouth with tap water (20 C) and
salt free crackers.

Preparation of samples for sensory and image

analyses

eras and gives a good separation of crominance

and intensity signals. The baguette slices were
illuminated at a 45 angle from both sides using
four tungsten lamps, two on each side. The recorded images were converted from true colour
images (512 by 512 pixels) to 256 level grey
scale. Images were centred using a thresholding
tech- nique together with calculations of the
centre of gravity of the image. A central
rectangular cut- out and a resizing to obtain a
256256 greyscale image was performed to
ensure that no baguette was smaller than the
quadrate. The images were enhanced with the
33 mask, unsharp, con- volution, and the
porosity calculated. The area of the baguette
slices was calculated from images by counting the
number of pixels covering the bread sample.

Pre-baked baguettes were finally baked (220 C,

11 min and live steam during the first 15 s of
baking) and left for 30 min at room temperature
prior to testing. Each panellist was given half a
baguette on a white dish. The other half was used
for textural analysis.
Sensory evaluation
Baguettes were analysed by conventional sensory
profiling using 10 trained panellists. Members were
selected and trained according to guidelines in
ISO/DIS 85861:198917 and the method for sensory profiling according to ISO 6564:1985-E18.
Panellists developed a lexicon by describing
dierences between extreme samples and developed a consensus list of 13 sensory attributes
for profiling. These were glossiness, crackles on
the crust, porosity (grain) scored according to
Dallmanns pore table19, area of cut surface, elasticity, odour intensity, fresh odour, flavour intensity, fresh flavour, salt flavour, firmness,
moistness and crispness of crust. Panellists were
trained in use of definitions of sensory attributes
(Table III) and rating anchors by pre-testing extreme samples. A continuous non-structured scale
was used for evaluation. The left side of the scale
corresponded to the lowest intensity (value 1.0)
and the right side corresponded to the highest
intensity (value 9.0). Evaluations were performed
in laboratory equipment as described in ISO 8589:
1988-E20. Each panellist evaluated the samples at
their own pace using a computerised system for
direct recording of data (CSA Compusense, version 4.2, Canada). Samples were served in a randomised order. Five to six samples were served
each session (two sessions per day). No replicates

Image analysis
Images of the baguettes were produced using a
Canon EX2 video camera. The images were recorded with the Screen Machine II frame grabber.
The signal from the camera was composed of
luminance and chrominance signals (Y/C or Hi8).
This signal is common in semi-professional cam-

Statistical analysis
Several ANOVA models were employed to investigate the eects of the dierent factors. First,
an overall model including: Process, Assessor and
Flour was used. Of these, Assessor and all interaction
terms involving the Assessor were regarded as random eects, whereas the remaining eects were
regarded as fixed. Mixing time and Proofing time were
nested within the Process eect. Since these factors
cannot be compared for the two processes. Thus
a given mixing time will act dierently on a soft
dough vs a stier dough as seen by the dierent
mixing energies (Fig. 1). In addition, for proofing
time there were dierent time settings for the two
processes. Separate models for each Process were
employed using the following factors: Assessor,
Flour, Mixing time, Proofing time. For the attributes
with a significant Flour eect, the dierences were
studied in more detail by Tukeys Multiple Comparison Test. As the fixed eects were on two
levels only, it was not necessary to apply for these

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
com- ponent regression (PCR)24 was performed
to pre- dict the baking process and sensory
property (Y- variables) from image analyses (Xvariables). PCR combines PCA and traditional
multiple regression analyses. First PCA is
performed among the X- variables (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

scores together with the sensory reference values

to graph the relationship between process and
sensory variables22.

RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
PCA of sensory attributes
Principal component analysis (PCA) of the sensory attributes of baguettes showed that 56% of
the variations could be explained by the two
first principal components (PCs), 40% by the
first factor and 16% by the second factor. The
loadings plot of the two firsts PCs [Fig. 2(a)]
showed that texture attributes explained the
main variation among the baguettes tested in
this study. PC1 in the loadings plot separated
firmness and elasticity i.e. internal characteristics.
The corresponding scores plot [Fig. 2(b)] showed
that PC1 separated the two processestraditional
French at the right and industrially modified at
the left. Thus, baguettes made by the industrial
adapted process with rough mixing and handling
and sti dough (P2) were firmer, but less elastic
than baguettes made by the traditional French
process made with soft dough (P1) and gentle
mixing and handling. Baguettes with high intensity of elasticity also had a high porosity,
moistness and low firmness. Fresh odour and
flavour were also associated with the traditional
French process [Fig. 2(a)].
PC2 in the loadings plot separated the external
characteristics, glossiness and area of cut surface.
The cutting of the dough surface after final
proof is an integral part of processing French
bread. The two other external quality characteristics, crispness and crackles on the crust,
were highly correlated with the area of cut
surface. The eects of crust crackles were more
complex, but the scores plot shows flour quality
to be important [Fig. 2(b)]. High glossiness was
obtained on baguettes baked with Tjalve flour
(1), whereas baguettes with a high area of cut
surface were obtained with baguette flour A (3),
from French soft wheat.

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).

(a)
0.6

glossiness

0.5
0.4

elasticity

porosity

odour intensity
flavour intensity

PC2

0.2

moistness
salt flavour

firmness

0.1

fresh flavour
fresh odour

0.2
crispness of the crust
crackles
on the crust

Area of
cut surface

0.4
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
PC1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

(b)
4
1121

3
1122

4121

1222
1212 1112

PC2

1111

4122

4111

2121

1211
2111 4211
4221

3111
4112 2221 3221
4222

3112
2112

1221

2122
2222

3122

3211
3121

4212

2211

3222
2212

3
4
3212

5
5

0
PC1

4
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

MT4

crackles
on the crust

0.05

area of
P1

PC2

salt flavour

cut surface
F1

crispness of the crust

elasticity
porosity

0.05

PT1

moistness

PT2
glossiness

firmness
flavour intensity

P2

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).

9
7

3
1

3
1

P2

P1
p = 0.0224
Fresh flavour

9
7

3
1

3
1

P2

P1
p = 0.0001

11

p = 0.0099

P1

P2

11

P2
p = 0.0001

5000
4000
2

9
Area mm

Elasticity

7
5

11

Crispness of the crust

P1

p = 0.0001

11

Porosity

Crackles on the crust

p = 0.0028

11

7
5
3
1

3000
2000
1000
P1

P1

P2

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).

Correlation coefficient between porosity

measured by image analysis and by sensory
analysis
Figure 3 shows slices of 32 baguettes used in
image analysis based on a multivariate feature
extraction. The porosity was well predicted from
image ana- lysis using modelling with AMT
extracted features. The correlation coecient
between porosity predicted from images and porosity evaluated by the

sensory panellist was 0.93 with a corresponding

root mean square error of prediction (RMSEP) of
0.62. This indicates that image analysis may be
used as a reference method for describing bread
porosity. The correlation coecient between
area of baguette slices and sensory porosity was
0.73.
The prediction of all sensory attributes and
process variables (Y-variables) based on AMT
feature vectors from image analysis (X-variables)

p = 0.0086

Porosity

9
7

Area of cut surface

Process 1 (traditional)
(a)

5
3
1

p = 0.0005

9
7
5
3

2+4

2+8

2+4

2+8

p = 0.0005

Porosity

9
7

Area of cut surface

Mixing time (min)

3
1

3
65

80

p = 0.0001

65

80

Proofing time (min)

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).

by using principal component regression (PCR)modelling is shown in Figure 4.

The loading plot shows the relationship between
texture attributes and process variables and flour
qualities. Porosity, elasticity and juiciness correlated with the traditional French process and
firmness correlated with the industrial process.
Thus, the texture attributes could also be predicted
by AMT from the image analysis.
Effect of process on baguette quality
Baguettes produced by the traditional French process had significantly higher porosity measured
both by sensory analyses (Fig. 5) and image analyses (Fig. 4). This is also clearly seen in Figure
3. The area of the slices i.e. volume was also
significantly larger for baguettes produced by the

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

p = 0.0001

9
7
5

3
2+8

2+4

p = 0.0001

9
7
5

Crispness of the crust

3
1

7
5

Crispiness of the crust

Area of cut surface

3
1

p = 0.0001

9
Porosity

Crackles on the crust

Process 2 (industrial)

(b)

2+4

2+8

p = 0.0001

9
7
5
3

2+8

2+4

2+4

2+8

Mixing time (min)

p = 0.0012

9
7
5
3
1

165

150
Proofing time (min)

Figure 6(b)

03%) and longer fermentation time4,5. Mixing

time aected significantly the sensory attribute
porosity and area of cut surface for both
processes
[Fig. 6(a,b)]. For the industrial process mixing time
also aected crackles on the crust and crispness of
the crust [Fig. 6(b)]. Fermentation/proofing time
aected significantly porosity and area of cut surface of the baguettes baked with the traditional
process [Fig. 6(a)], whereas crispness of the crust

was aected by proofing time when the industrial

process was used [Fig. 6(b)].

Effects of flour quality on baguette quality

Slice area i.e. volume was significantly larger for
baguettes produced using baguette flour B (4)
than baguettes produced using Tjalve flour (1) or
baguette flour A (3), which again was significantly

(a)

Area mm

P1
P2

2000

Porosity (image)

3000

1000

(b)
8
P1

6
4

P2

10

15

10

Protein %

3000

15

Protein %

(c)

Area mm

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.

7
a b

6
ab

b b

ab

c bc

a
b b b

a
b

5
4

ab ab

b ab ab
ab

b b b

ab

a a

a
b

a
bc c

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).

larger than baguettes produced using Folke flour

(2) [Figs 3, 4, 7(a)]. Baguettes produced using
baguette flour B (4) also had a significantly more
open crumb structure (higher crumb porosity) than
Tjalve flour. Baguette flour A and Folke flour had
the densest crumb structure [Figs 3, 4, 7(b) and
8]. Baguette flour B (4) and Tjalve flour (1) have

both stronger protein quality and higher protein

content than the remaining flours (Table I). The
reason for the dierent quality of baguettes produced with flour B compared with Tjalve is not
known. Further experiments are needed to identify
more precisely optimum level of protein and protein quality for baguettes.

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

The area of cut surface was significantly higher

for baguettes produced using baguette flour A (3)
than with other flours (Figs 2 and 8). Dough made
from this flour was stable during mixing (70), but
had short development time (1.7) (Table I). On
the other hand, higher energy input during mixing
was recorded for these doughs compared to the
others (Table II). The moistness of baguettes produced with baguette flour A was also low (Fig. 8).
It is possible that this property relates to the quality
of the soft wheat, although water was added,
based on the water uptake determined using the
Farinograph.
Interaction between process and flour qualities
on baguette quality
The eect of flour depends on the process (Table
IV). Baguettes made from flours of all qualities
had a denser crumb structure when produced by
the modified industrial process compared with the
more traditional process, but there were small
dierences among the flours used in the modified
industrial process (Fig. 9). Despite these small
dierences, baguette flour B still gave the most
open crumb structure (Figs 3 and 8). Slice area of
the baguettes produced using flours of all qualities
also decreased significantly in the modified industrial process compared with the traditional
French process, but baguettes from baguette flour
B retained a relatively high slice area [Fig. 7(c)].

Crackles on the crust, crispness of the crust and

elasticity were significantly higher in baguettes
produced using traditional process compared with
industrial process for all flours. The dierences
between these attributes from process 1 to process
2 was, however, somewhat dierent for the various
flours (Fig. 7).
For the area of cut surface the interaction plots
(Fig. 9) were complex. This study also demonstrated (Table II) that the mixing time necessary
to obtain optimum dough development varies
among dierent flours and varies according to
mixing equipment, mixing intensity and recipe3.
When making the dough, the four flour qualities
behaved dierently using a fixed mixing time
(Table II). Interactions between flour quality and
mixing time was also found for the following
sensory attributes crackles on the crust, porosity,
area of cut surface, moistness and crispness of the
crust (Table IV). Porosity, firmness and crispness
of the crust were aected by interactions between
flour quality and fermentation/proofing time
(Table IV).

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.

Crackles on the crust

6
5
4

2
1
P1

P2

7
6
5

2
1
P2

5
4

2
1
P2

P1

P2

P2

P1

P1

P2

P1

P1

P2

P1

Elasticity

Porosity

Crispness of the crust

Fresh flavour

Area of cut surface

Glossiness

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.
2.
3.

4.
5.

6.
7.
8.

9.

10.

11.

12.
13.

Association of Cereal Chemists. Inc., St Paul, Minnesota.

Vol 2 (1995) 5661 A pp 14.
Collins, T.H. Chorleywood process for French bread.
14. Uhlen, A.K. The composition of high molecular weight
British Baker 16 (1978) 1118.
glutenin subunits in Norwegian wheat and their relation
Tweed, A.R. A look at French Baguettes. Cereal Foods
to bread-making quality. Norwegian Journal of Agricultural
World 28 (1983) 397399.
Science 4 (1990) 117.
Magnus, E.M., Bra then, E., Sahlsto m, S., Frgestad,
15. Finney, K.F. An optimized, straight-dough, breadmak- E.M. and Ellekjr, M.R. Eects of wheat variety and
ing method after 44 years. Cereal Chemistry 61
(1984) processing conditions in experimental bread baking
2027.
studied by univariate and multivariate analyses. Journal
16. Box, G.E.P., Hunter, W.G. and Hunter, J.S.Statistics for
of Cereal Science 25 (1997) 289301.
experiments. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1978).
Zehentbauer, G. and Grosch, W. Crust aroma of ba17. International Organization for Standardization. Draft
guettes I. Key odorants of baguettes prepared in two
International Standard. Sensory analysisMethoddierent ways. Journal of Cereal Science 28 (1998) 8192.
ologyGeneral guidance for the selection, training and
Zehentbauer, G. and Grosch, W. Crust aroma of bamonitoring of assessors. Part 1: Selected assessors. ISO/
guettes II. Dependence of the concentrations of key
DIS 8586-1: 1989.
odorants on yeast level and dough processing. Journal of
18. International Organization for Standardization. InterCereal Science 28 (1998) 9396.
national
Standard.
Sensory
analysisMethodStear, C.A. Handbook of Bread Making Technology.
ologyFlavor profile methods. 1st ed. 1985-10-15,
Elsevier Applied Science, London and New York (1990).
Geneve. ISO 6564-1985 (E).
Kamel, B.S. and Stauer, C.E. Advances in baking.
19. Dallmann, H.Porentabelle. Scha fer Inc., Detmold,
Ger- Blackie Academic & Professional (Chapman & Hall)
many (1958).
Glasgow, England (1993).
20. International Organization for Standardization. InterPayne, P.I., Corfield, K.G. and Blackman, J.A. Idennational Standard. Sensory analysisGeneral guidance
tification of a high-molecular-weight subunit of gluteinin
for the design of test rooms. ISO 8589: 1988 (E).
whose presence correlates with bread making quality in
21. Mardia, K.V., Kent, J.T. and Bibby, J.M.Multivariate
wheat of related pedigree. Theoretical Applied Genetic 55
Analysis. Academic Press, London (1980).
(1979) 153159.
22. Kvaal, K., Wold, J.P., Indahl, U.G., Baardseth, P. and
Payne, P.I., Nightingale, M.A., Krattiger, A.F. and Holt,
Ns, T. Multivariate feature extraction from textural
L.M. The relationship between HMW glutenin subunit
images of bread. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Syscomposition and the bread-making quality of British
tems 42 (1998) 141158.
grown wheat varieties. Journal of Science Food & Agriculture
23. Kvaal, K, Baardseth, P., Indahl, U.G. and Isaksson,
40 (1987) 5165.
T. Relationships between sensory measurements and
Frgestad, E.M., Magnus, E.M., Sahlsto m, S. and Ns,
features extracted from images. In Multivariate
Analysis T. Influence of flour quality and baking process on hearth
of Data in Sensory Science. (T.Ns and
E.Risvik eds), bread characteristics made using gentle mixing. Journal
Elsevier Science B. V. (1996) pp 135
157.
of Cereal Science 30 (1999) 6170.
24. Martens, H. and Ns, T.Multivariate Calibration. John
International Organization for Standardization. InterWiley and Sons (1989).
national Standard. Wheat flourPhysical characteristics
25. Mani, K., Eliasson, A-C., Lindahl, L. and Tra ga rdh,
C. of doughsPart 1: Determination of water absorption
Rheological properties and bread making quality of
wheat
and rheological properties using a Farinograph. ISO
flour doughs made with dierent dough mixers. Cereal
5530-1: 1988 (E).
Chemistry 69 (1992) 222225.
Finney, K.F. and Shogan, M.D. A 10 g mixograph for
26. Payne, P.I., Corfield, K.G., Holt, L.M. and Blackman,
determining and prediction functional properties of wheat
J.A. Correlations between the inheritance of certain highflour. Bakers Digest 46 (1972) 3235, 3842, 77.
molecular weight subunits of glutenin and bread-baking
American Association of the Cereal Chemists (AACC).
quality in progenies of six crosses of bread wheat. Journal
Approved Methods of the AACC, 8th ed. American
of Science Food and Agriculture 32 (1981) 5160.