Comparison of methods for gluten strength assessment

Five methods that employed very different testing principles and procedures for assessing gluten quality were compared for 33 North American soft red and white wheats. The three methods analyzed flour (alveograph work, lactic acid solvent retention capacity, and mixograph peak time) and two methods...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cereal chemistry 2006-05, Vol.83 (3), p.284-286
Main Authors: Gaines, C.S, Fregeau Reid, J, Vander Kant, C, Morris, C.F
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Animal, plant, fungal and microbial proteins, edible seaweeds and food yeasts
artificial selection
baking quality
Biological and medical sciences
breadmaking quality
Cereal and baking product industries
crop quality
dough
Food industries
food quality
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
grains
measurement
measuring devices
plant breeding
screening
soft red winter wheat
soft white wheat
strength (mechanics)
Triticum aestivum
wheat flour
wheat gluten
wheat meal
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Five methods that employed very different testing principles and procedures for assessing gluten quality were compared for 33 North American soft red and white wheats. The three methods analyzed flour (alveograph work, lactic acid solvent retention capacity, and mixograph peak time) and two methods employed ground wheat meal (Glutomatic gluten index and SDS sedimentation volume). Compared against the normalized mean of all five assessments, the ability of the assessment methods to evaluate gluten quality decreased in the order: alveograph work, lactic acid solvent retention capacity, mixograph peak time, Glutomatic gluten index, and SDS sedimentation volume. The methods utilizing flour were substantially superior predictive methods; however, the two meal-based methods could be sufficient for early generation screening when flour is not available.
ISSN:0009-0352
1943-3638
DOI:10.1094/CC-83-0284