Miller Magazine Issue: 141 September 2021

86 ARTICLE MILLER / september 2021 tance the ball moves, as well as the force which is nec- essary to break the cone. In order to carry out the texture analysis for every flour, 10 visually inspected cones were tested. The obtained results are summarized and evalu- ated afterwards. 3-Results and Discussion 3.1 Comparison GlutoPeak “Rapid Flour Check” with Standard Analysis The GlutoPeak method “Rapid Flour Check” was de- veloped for flours destined for baked goods, which re- quire medium till high gluten level quality behaviours. Although flours for waffle production do not require high standards in regards to protein content, the method should be verified for its applicability. Comparing the results of the “Rapid Flour Check” with the results obtained with the standard analysis, in prin- ciple the correlation of all relevant parameters (protein content, wet gluten, and water absorption) is good (pic. 4 – 6), however showing relatively high deviations. Brabender states, that the correlated protein content is varying by +/- 0.8 within a range of 10.5 to 15 %. Test- ing the flour samples, similar results are obtained (apart from W700 having a high protein content). The wet glu- ten numbers should range within +/- 2.3 in comparison to the standard analysis, which was nearly reached for the flour samples tested. In both cases the GlutoPeak method underestimat- ed the results of the standard measurements, and was somewhat lower in protein content by around 3.5 %, and 11 % by wet gluten content. The GlutoPeak method, however, overestimated the water absorption by around 2 % (see pic. 6). Brabender specifies a deviation in water absorption of +/- 2.8, which the Bühler results confirm nearly. It is clearly recognis- Pic. 13: Texture analysis set-up Pic. 14: Waffle rim (steam vent zone) flour B1 Pic. 15: Steam flow vent flour M04 (left) / Steam flow vent flour W700 (right)