Evaluation of baking conditions for frozen doughs
- 19 Downloads
The baking performance of fresh, non-fermented, pre-fermented and pre-rested doughs were investigated using different types of flours. Effect of protein content in wheat flour and effect of oat and barley supplementation on wheat dough and baked bread was evaluated. Effect of mixing speed, yeast concentration and two different proofing methods were also studied. Wheat flour with higher protein content gave a higher volume and specific volume. The substitution of wheat flour with increasing concentrations of oat and barley flour progressively decreased loaf and specific volume significantly. Prolonging the proofing time after thawing resulted in a good bread quality whereas high mixing speed did not affect the bread quality. The operating conditions for the proofing step were at 35 °C temperature and 80% relative humidity for 30 min. Higher concentration of baking yeast results in low quality crust in baked bread. Yeast concentration of 1.3% showed the best option for bread preparation, at which the bread moisture content was the highest. The results also showed that wheat flour with 13.3% protein content yielded higher volume than bread made from 10% protein content. The dough was stored at − 20 °C and the baking conditions were at 215 °C temperature for 25 min. Sensory studies did not yield significant variation in different bread preparations. The pre-rested frozen dough, gave the best baked bread compared to the pre-fermented and non-fermented breads.
KeywordsFrozen dough Fermentation Organoleptic Pre-resting
The authors of this study thanking Professor Kaisa Poutanen for her valuable comments after reading our manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- 13.V. Sterna, S. Zute, L. Brunava, Agric. Agric. Sci. Proc. 8, 252–256 (2016)Google Scholar
- 17.C. Dowd. D. Domingues, Ref. Module in Food Sci. (2016).Google Scholar
- 20.Association Analytical Chemists, AOAC Official Methods of Analysis, 16th edn. (AOAC, Arlington, 1995)Google Scholar
- 29.S. Shahabi, Z.M. Hassan, M. Mahdavi, M. Dezfouli, M.T. Rahvar, M. Naseri, N.H. Jazani, J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 9, 227–234 (2007)Google Scholar
- 30.A. Czubaszek, Z. Karolini-Skaradziñska, Pol. J. Food. Nutr. Sci. 14(55), 281–286 (2005)Google Scholar
- 40.S.B. Swami, N.J. Thakor, P.R. Murudkar, J. Food Res. Technol. 3(4), 131–141 (2015)Google Scholar
- 41.P. Schieberle, Adv. Food Sci. 18(5/6), 237–244 (1996)Google Scholar
- 43.D.N. Yadav, P.E. Patki, G.K. Sharma, A.S. Bawa, J. Food. Sci. Technol. Mysore 46, 12–20 (2009)Google Scholar
- 47.P.D. Ribotta, A.L. Bail, Food Sci. Technol. 40, 879–884 (2007)Google Scholar
- 48.A. Kawka, D. Górecka, Żywn. Nauka. Technol. Jakość 3, 44–55 (2010)Google Scholar
- 49.P.G. Krishnan, K.C. Chang, G. Brown, Cereal Chem. 64, 55–58 (1987)Google Scholar
- 50.G. Peymanpour, K. Rezaei, B. Sorkhilalehloo, B. Pirayeshfar, G. Najafian, J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 14, 339–348 (2012)Google Scholar
- 51.V. Francisco-Ásquez, V. Samuel, A.R. Islas, J.M. Barat, R. Grau, Cogent. Food. Agric 2, 1–12 (2016)Google Scholar