No abstract

No abstract

Cereal Chem. 92(5):449-454Undermixing or overmixing the dough results in varied experimental loaf volumes. Bread preparation requires a trained baker to evaluate dough development and determine the stop points of the mixer. Instrumentation and electronic control of the dough mixer would allow for automatic mixing. This study used a 200 g mixer that provided an output signal during dough mixing to evaluate potential mixing stop points. The effect of varied mixing time on the baked loaf volume was tested by using three flours with protein contents of 10.6, 12.4, and 13.8%. Dough samples were undermixed, mixed to peak, and overmixed. Overmixing by 0.6 min reduced the loaf volume in all flours tested, by 16-50 cm 3 at 90 rpm and by 29-68 cm 3 at 118 rpm. When the high-protein flour sample was undermixed, the largest baked loaves were produced, with an average volume of 922 cm 3 . A second objective studied the similarities and differences between a 200 g mixer and a 35 g mixograph. The same flours were mixed on both units. The mixing peaks for the 200 g mixer were normalized with the 35 g mixograph peaks. When flour and water were used, the mixing times for the 200 g mixer averaged 0.7, 1.2, and 1.6 min shorter than the 35 g mixograph, at 90, 104, and 118 rpm, respectively. Although both the 200 g mixer and the 35 g mixograph system look mechanically similar, they both have unique mechanical motion, speeds, and sample sizes. Their results may show similar trends, but their measured values are usually different. However, when other baking ingredients were included in the 200 g mixer at 90 rpm, the mixing times were within 0.2 min of the 35 g mixograph times for three of four flours.