Evaluation of baking procedures for incorporation of barley roller milling fractions containing high levels of dietary fibre into bread
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND: Roller milling of hull‐less barley generates fibre‐rich fractions (FRF) enriched in non‐starch polysaccharides from the endosperm cell walls (β‐glucans and arabinoxylans). This investigation was initiated to compare the suitability of different baking processes and to determine the optimal conditions for incorporation of barley FRF into pan bread. RESULTS: Addition of FRF from waxy and high‐amylose starch hull‐less barley genotypes was evaluated in pan bread prepared from Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS) and Canada Western Extra Strong (CWES) wheat flour. Three bread processes were used: Canadian short process (CSP), remix‐to‐peak, and sponge‐and‐dough. Addition of 20% FRF (equivalent to enrichment with 4.0 g of arabinoxylans and β‐glucans per 100 g of flour) disrupted dough properties and depressed loaf volume. CSP was not suitable for making FRF‐enriched bread because dough could not be properly developed. FRF‐enriched remix‐to‐peak bread was better, especially for the stronger CWES flour. The better bread quality compared to CSP was probably due to redistribution of water from non‐starch polysaccharides to gluten during fermentation prior to remixing and final proof. The sponge‐and‐dough process produced the best FRF‐enriched bread because of the positive effect of sponge fermentation on gluten development and hydration. FRF was added at the dough stage to fully developed dough. CONCLUSION: The method of bread production strongly influences bread quality. Pre‐hydration of FRF improved bread quality. CWRS and CWES flour produced comparable FRF‐enriched sponge‐and‐dough bread. Addition of xylanase to the sponge‐and‐dough formula improved the loaf volume, appearance, crumb structure and firmness of FRF‐enriched bread. Copyright © 2007 Society of Chemical Industry
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".