Bread Assesment

FST 202 FOOD QUALITY CONTROL TITLE

: BREAD ASSESSMENT

NAME

: NURFADHILAH BINTI JAAFAR

MEMBER’S NAMES: MUNAIM

SITI FATIMAH BT SHAIKH ABDUL

RAFIDAH BT MUHAMAD SHAHRUN WAFA ATIQAH BT AMAN MAAMOR NURSABRINA BT ROSLI ID NUMBER GROUP SUBMITION DATE LECTURER’S NAME ZABIDI

: 2013698078 : AS 1165A2 : 12TH AUGUST 2015 : MADAM MARDIANA BT AHAMAD

INTRODUCTION Wheat is the primary materials used for bread making due to its wheat-baking properties to give the best quality texture of bread. The change in protein content and protein quality of the flour influences the loaf volumes obtained at the end of baking process. The increasing in loaf volume and softer bread texture can be obtained by increasing the protein content of the flour and vice versa. Bread assessment of the loaf quality is determined by its shape, crust colour, crumb firmness, crumb springiness, evenness of colour, stability of crumb, crumb cell size, cell wall thickness, loaf volume, eating quality, flavour and the aroma. The storage of bread can be extended when it is being refrigerated. However, the texture of the bread may not be the same after it is being thawed from the refrigerator and it is not recommendable. The breads can keep its freshness when it is stored at room temperature in a cool, dry place. After all, the shelf life of the bread depends on the ingredients inside. The commercialized bread in the market with the addition of permitted preservatives can extend the shelf life compared to the homemade bread. The objective measurement of is the most commonly method use for the bread assessment but, subjective description of the sensory properties can also be used. Subjective assessment of product crumb cell structure is the common method that is being used with some form of reference material. The subjective assessment for the eating quality is usually carried out by individuals or groups with the scoring system based on the descriptive system. In many standard works, the application of taste panel technique for assessing the eating quality is received much attention. There are also numerous of the objective methods which have been applied in the bread assessment. The application of compression test can be applied as the testing methods to measure the firmness, softness, recovery and resiliency. Objective methods for assessing eating quality in mouth are quite difficult, even though the application of electromyography has been applied to the several of food.

RESULT Loaf Volume Measurement Brand Gardenia

Net Weight (g) 54.18

Volume/Weight 200ml/54.18

Ratio 3.691/3.691

Daily’s

54.89

=3.691 344 / 54.89

=1 6.267/3.691

=6.267

=2

DISCUSSIONS The bread assessment of the loaf characteristics is conducted in this practical to better match the consumer awareness to consume the best quality bread by comparing both Gardenia and Daily’s brand. The important characteristic of bread to rate the freshness of the product is through the observation of crumb firmness. Score achieved for the crumb firmness of Gardenia is 10 while for Daily’s is 9. The high firmness of the loaves is related to the decreasing value of moisture. It is caused by the formation of cross-links between the solubilised starch and gluten protein. The breads will firm faster when the moisture decreasing over time. The availability of the crumb to recover is much easier to measure for the crumb springiness. Fresh crumb springiness is expected to be springy with the removal of any compressing force. Gardenia scored 8 points while Daily’s scored 7 points for the crumb springiness. Crumb springiness is closely related to the strength of the crumb cell wall network. The springiness characteristics of the breadcrumbs may lose during the storage due to the underlaying staling process. The best colour of crusts comes from well fermented dough, good raw material with proper baking temperature. Both Gardenia and Daily’s scored 5 points which is refer to the colour of golden brown and the evenness of the colour for both brand are 10 points. The pale dull coloured of the bread is commonly caused by the absence of sugar while the resulted red brown colour of bread is due to the under fermented dough. The poor crust colour is shown when the skin of the bread is dried out. After that, the stability of the crumb is determined by cutting the loaf accurately in the middle to produce the perfectly flat surface. Gardenia and Daily’s scored 10 points and 8 points respectively. The loaf of Gardenia has the small, regular crumb texture, compared to Daily’s with the mixture of the air cells of the all sizes and strong air cell. The high protein content flour, lead to air cell stability and small air cell with regular crumb. Gardenia scored 19 points for the crumb

cell size, cell wall thickness and evenness of cells while Daily’s brand only scored 17 points. Next, the loaf volume is measured by seed displacement method. The fair volume of the bread structure with a small open air cells is required for a common bread quality. The score achieved by Daily’s for loaf volume is 9 points while Gardenia scored 8 points. The best eating quality with the nice flavour and aroma is given to Gardenia with 10 points, while Daily’s bread scored only 7 points. The well-developed flavour and aroma is come from the proper processing and baking process and the use of yeast. When the time of fermentation is being extend it will give a fuller taste of bread. Overall, the flavour, aroma and the loaf shape for both Gardenia and Daily’s are normal without any presence of contamination.

CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, Gardenia is the best quality of bread compared to Daily’s as it score most of high target points for the loaf characteristics. However the measurement of loaf volume shown that Daily’s bread has higher points than Gardenia. Overall, the eating quality, flavour, aroma and loaf shape of both bread are normal without any faulty.

REFERENCES 1. Cauvain, S. (2007). Bread: The Product. In Technology of Bread making (2nd ed., p. 17). New York: Springer. 2. Taub, I. (1998). Food Storage Stability (p. 443). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 3. Cauvain, S. (2012). Bread Making. In Breadmaking improving quality (2nd ed., pp. 231232). Philadelphia, Pa: Woodhead Pub.