Impact of Ferment Processing Parameters on the Quality of White Pan Bread
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A controlled fermentation process using straight-grade wheat flour, commercially milled from a grist of Canada Western Red Spring (CWRS) wheat and English wheat, and fresh yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) was found to be effective for developing a naturally derived product (ferment) that could be used for processing bread with the minimum use of dough improvers. The effects of ferment storage, fermentation time, and fermentation temperature on the quality of ferment and bread were evaluated to establish optimal conditions to produce a mature ferment. Trials were conducted on a pilot scale for greater relevance to industrialized bakeries. Ferment was assessed for total titratable acidity (TTA), pH, and viscosity. Breads made with ferment were evaluated for processing parameters, dough properties, and bread quality and compared to a control prepared without ferment. During fermentation, maximum TTA levels in the ferment were achieved at 100 min, then decreased by the end of fermentation, and increased by 24 h of storage at 4 °C. Viscosity was stable during fermentation but decreased by 24 h of storage. Inclusion of ferment resulted in reduced mixing times and improved dough extensibility and crumb softness. Specific loaf volume was not impacted; a slight reduction in crumb brightness and crumb structure was detected. Fermentation for 240 min at 35 °C was determined as optimal with a storage time for 24 h.
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 | 0.001 | 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".