The effect of dried distillers graions particle size on volume and alkalizing agents on pH and
acceptability in dried distillers grains baked products
by Jill Kathleen Abbott
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Home Economics
Montana State University
© Copyright by Jill Kathleen Abbott (1986)
Abstract:
The addition of sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) to baked products containing DDG has shown an
increase in product pH and volume to the standard product level in some products. Those products
remaining with low volumes may have been the result of particle size of the DDG. Additionally, the
extra sodium was considered a concern to those with hypertension. The sieving of ten bourbon DDG
samples showed significant differences in particle size distributions (P<0.05). DDG sieve fractions in
the ground and unground form were baked in quick breads and yeast breads at the 36% level and 33%
level respectively. Four of the DDG samples were incorporated at these levels into quick and yeast
breads in the unfractionated form both ground and unground. No significant difference was found
among baked product volumes due to particle size distribution, sieve fraction size, or grinding of the
DDG. Oatmeal muffins and yeast rolls containing 36% DDG and 33% DDG respectively in the ground
and un ground form were rated in a consumer taste panel. Consumers found products with DDG
acceptable whether the DDG was ground or not. Grinding or milling of the DDG may not be necessary
to improve baking properties or to be acceptable by consumers.
Titration of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) against a DDG-distilled water slurry caused pH to rise only
after excessive amounts of CaCOg had been added. The use of CaCOg in quick breads did not result in
an acceptable final product. Four quick breads and four yeast breads were judged by a trained taste
panel containing either full NaCl, reduced NaCl1 no salt, or KCl substitute. The products with KCl salt
were unacceptable to panelists. The other three were similar in ratings and in preference and so were
included in a consumer taste panel along with a standard bread with no DDG. The product with full
NaCl was rated significantly lower than the other three products (P<0.05). Consumers may prefer DDG
baked products containing reduced salt levels, particularly if extra sodium was added in the form of a
neutralizing agent to the formula. THE EFFECT OF DRIED DISTILLERS’ GRAINS’ PARTICLE SIZE
ON VOLUME AND OF ALKALIZING AGENTS ON PH AND ACCEPTABILITY
IN DRIED DISTILLERS’ GRAINS BAKED PRODUCTS
I
by
J i l l K ath leen A bbott
A th e s i s su b m itte d in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t
o f th e re q u ire m e n ts f o r th e degree
of
M aster of S cience
\
in
Home Economics
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
May 1986
■
MAIN LiBi
A/37&
7) M3
ii
APPROVAL
o f a t h e s i s su b m itte d by
J i l l K athleen A bbott
T his t h e s i s has been re a d by each member of th e t h e s i s com m ittee
and h a s been fo u n d to be s a t i s f a c t o r y r e g a r d i n g c o n t e n t , E n g lis h
usage, fo rm a t, c i t a t i o n s , b ib lio g r a p h ic s t y l e , and c o n s is te n c y , and i s
ready f o r su b m issio n to the C ollege o f G raduate S tu d ie s .
//
C h a i r p e r s o n , G r a d u a t e C o m m itte e
ft -
Date
A
J
-
Approved f o r
Date
(]
^
' 1U . /
HeaS, Major Department
/
Approved f o r the I
^ ^ /y
Date
/ 'f < P ^
G raduate Dean
ill
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE
In
p re s e n tin g
th is
th e s is
in
p a rtia l
f u l f i l l m e n t o f th e
r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a m a s t e r 's d e g re e a t M ontana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,
I
a g r e e t h a t th e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t a v a i l a b l e to b o r r o w e r s u n d e r
r u l e s o f th e L ib ra ry .
B r ie f q u o ta tio n s from t h i s t h e s i s a re a llo w a b le
w ith o u t s p e c ia l p e rm is sio n ,
p ro v id ed t h a t a c c u ra te acknow ledgm ent of
so u rce i s made.
P e rm issio n f o r e x te n s iv e q u o ta tio n from or re p ro d u c tio n o f . t h i s
t h e s i s may be g ra n te d by my m ajor p ro f e s s o r , o r i n h e r ab sen ce, by the
D ire c to r of L i b r a r ie s when, i n th e o p in io n o f e i t h e r , th e proposed use
o f th e m a te r ia l i s f o r s c h o la r ly p u rp o ses.
m a te ria l
i n t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a in s h a l l n o t be a llo w e d
w ith o u t my w r itt e n p e rm issio n .
S ig n a tu re
Date
Any copying or use of th e
'ML
& Ikhlfr&bt'
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I
w ish to e x p re s s s in c e r e a p p r e c ia tio n to Dr. Jacq u ely n n O'Palka,
my m ajor p ro f e s s o r , f o r h e r c o n tin u a l p r o f e s s io n a l a d v ic e and guidance
d u r in g my g r a d u a te p ro g ram .
A s p e c i a l th a n k s i s e x te n d e d t o Dr.
C h arles McGuire, my g ra d u a te com m ittee member, f o r p ro v id in g knowledge
and d ir e c tio n on my re s e a rc h p r o je c t.
I w ould a ls o l i k e to th an k Dr.
R osem ary Newman f o r h e r s u p p o r t an d f o r s e r v i n g on my c o m m itte e .
E x c e p tio n a l
g ra titu d e
is
e x p re sse d
to
L a r r y B lack w o o d f o r
s t a t i s t i c a l e x p e r tis e , alo n g w ith Dr. R ichard Lund.
h is
Genuine th an k s i s
g iv e n t o Dr. L a rry J a c k s o n and t o Dr. Bob B a r t e l t f o r t h e i r p a tie n c e
in p ro v id in g knowledge and h e lp w ith th e l i p i d w o rk
A n o te of thanks
goes t o Dr. S te p h a n C u s te r f o r h i s a i d i n t h e u se o f s i e v e s .
I w ish to thank Don B ateson f o r h is c o n s id e ra te a s s is ta n c e w ith
com puters, and f o r h i s s p e c ia l fr ie n d s h ip .
P a r t i c u l a r a p p r e c ia tio n i s
f e l t f o r P e t r e a H o fe r f o r h e r c h e m ic a l a n a l y s e s w o rk an d f o r h e r
generous guidance,
and to Kim H eintzm an f o r sh a rin g h e r i n s p i r a t i o n
and f r ie n d s h ip .
My p a re n ts , Floyd and V ir g in ia A bbott d e se rv e my d e e p e st
a p p r e c ia tio n f o r always bein g th e re w ith lo v e , s u p p o rt and co n fid e n ce .
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES...............................
v iii
LIST OF F IG U R E S ............................................................................................ .
xi
ABSTRACT .................................................................. ......................... ' ...................
x ii
INTRODUCTION................................................ .... . . . . . . . . . .
. .
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................ . . . . . . . . . .
DDG U t i l i z a t i o n ............................................................................................
S ources o f DDG .............................................................
N u tr it io n a l Value of DDG . . . . ' ........................................; . . .
P ro d u cts Form ulated With DDG ..............................................................
O b je c tiv e s o f R e s e a r c h ............................... .... . . . ......................
MATERIALS AND METHODS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I
4
4
4
5
7
16
17
D i s t i l l e r s ' D ried G ra in s . ............................................ . . . . .
17
P a r t i c l e S ize D e te r m in a tio n .................................................................
17
DDG G rin d in g ....................................................
18
Chemical A n a ly sis of DDG ....................................
18
T i t r a t i o n o f A lk a liz in g A gents .........................................................
19
P roduct P re p a ra tio n . . ...................................
20
Yeast B re a d s ........................
20
Quick B reads ................................................ . . . . . . . . . .
21
P h y sic a l A n a ly sis o f Baked P ro d u c ts
24
Volume ................................................
24
p H ..............................................................................................................................24
P e rc e n t Color R e fle c ta n c e ................................... . . . . . .
24
Dough S t a b i l i t y ...............................................
25
O rg a n o le p tic E v a l u a t i o n ............................................................
25
T rain ed T a ste Panel ...........................................................................
25
Consumer P a n e l s ......................................................
26
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..............................
P a r t i c l e S iz e D i s t r i b u t i o n .........................................................
Chemical A n a ly sis o f DDG . . . . . . . .
...................... . . .
Proxim ate A n a ly sis
L ip id C om position ..................................................... . . . . . .
B atch v a r i a b i l i t y ..............................
E f f e c ts o f fro z e n s t o r a g e ......................
28
; 28
29
29
32
32
38
VX
TABLE OF CONTENTS -
c o n tin u e d
P age
T i t r a t i o n o f A lk a liz in g A g e n t s .....................................................
Sodium b ic a rb o n a te t i t r a t i o n ............................................ ....
Calcium c arb o n ate t i t r a t i o n .....................................................
P a r t i c l e S iz e E f fe c t on V o l u m e .........................................................
Quick B r e a d s ..................................................
Quick breads w ith 36% DDG sample K .........................
Quick b read s w ith 5% and 15% DDG sample K .....................
Quick breads w ith 36% DDG sam ples A,B, andI . . . .
Y east B reads ....................................................
Yeast b read s w ith 33% DDG sam ple K ..................
Yeast b re a d s w ith 33% DDG
sam ples A,Bf and I .
.
Volume and P a r t i c l e S iz e D is tr ib u tio n . .........................................
Sodium A djustm ents i n P roduct Form ulas ........................................
Quick b r e a d s ............................................................................................
Yeast b r e a d s ............................................................................................
P e rc e n t Color R e fle c ta n c e ......................................................................
C olor R e fle c ta n c e i n DDG Samples .................................................
DDG sample K f r a c t i o n s ..................................................................
DDG sam ples A, Bf and I ..............................................................
C olor R e fle c ta n c e i n Quick B reads ............................................
Oatmeal m u ffin s w ith DDG
sample K f r a c t i o n s . .....
Oatmeal m u ffin s w ith DDG
sam ples Af Bf
and
I
Oatmeal m u ffin s w ith s a l t v a r i a t i o n s ..............................
Color R e fle c ta n c e i n Yeast B reads ............................................
Y east r o l l s w ith DDG sample K f r a c t i o n s ...........................
Y east r o l l s w ith 33% DDG
sam ples Af Bf
and
I
Y east r o l l s w ith s a l t v a r i a t i o n s ........................................
Dough S t a b i l i t y ............................................................................................
30% DDGf 70% B read F l o u r ................................................
S a lt V a r ia tio n s and 30% DDGf 70% Bread F lo u r . . . . . .
O rg a n o le p tic E v a l u a t i o n ...........................................................................
P a r t i c l e S iz e E f f e c t ....................................................
Consumer t a s t e p a n e l, q u ick b re a d s ...................................
Consumer t a s t e p a n e l, y e a s t b read s ...................................
S a l t V a r i a t i o n s ....................................................................................
T rained t a s t e p a n e l, qu ick b r e a d s ........................................
T rain ed t a s t e p a n e l, y e a s t b re a d s ........................................
Consumer t a s t e p a n e l, qu ick b read s ...................................
Consumer t a s t e p a n e l, y e a s t b re a d s ...................................
C o n c lu s io n s ...................... ^.............................................................................
REFERENCES CITED ...................... . . . . .....................................................
I
40
40
42
43
43
43
46
46
47
47
.
.49
.
.
.
.
.
.
49
51
51
52
53
53
53
54
55
55
57
57
57
59
59
59
63
64
64
64
66
67
67
69
72
72
7.4
77
v ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS -
c o n tin u e d
Page
APPENDICES............................... .... .....................................................
Appendix A ...................... .... . ................... ...............................................
T aste Panel R ecording S h e e ts ........................................ . . . .
Appendix B
T i t r a t i o n Curves and Quick B reads U sing Calcium
C arbonate
83
84
84
89
v iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1
Y east r o l l fo rm u la tio n s w ith NaHCOg v a r i a t i o n s
. . . .
2
Y east r o l l fo rm u la tio n s w ith s a l t v a r i a t i o n s ..................
21
3
Oatmeal m u ffin fo rm u la tio n s w ith NaHCOg v a r i a t i o n s
22
4
Oaftmeal m uffin fo rm u la tio n s W ith a l k a l iz in g a g en t
v a r i a t i o n s .......................................
. .
20
23
5
Oatmeal m uffin fo rm u la tio n s w ith s a l t v a r i a t i o n s
. . .
23
6
P a r t i c l e s iz e com position, o f bourbon DDG ...........................
29
7
A n a ly sis o f DDG s a m p l e s .......................................
30
8
T r ia c y lg ly c e r o l q u a lity changes i n r e l a t i v e p e rc e n ta g e
o f f a t t y a c id com p o sitio n o f DDG sam ples B-3 and K-3 .
38
F ree f a t t y a c id q u a lity changes i n r e l a t i v e p e rc e n ta g e
o f f a t t y a c id co m p o sitio n o f DDG sam ples i n B-3 and K-3
39
L e v e ls o f NaHCOg added to o b ta in s ta n d a rd p ro d u ct pH
i n DDG baked p r o d u c t s .........................................................................
%2
The e f f e c t of s ie v e f r a c t i o n and g rin d in g on volume and
pH i n oatm eal m u ffin s c o n ta in in g 36% DDG sample K . . .
45
Volumes of oatm eal m u ffin s u t i l i z i n g 5% and 15% DDG
sample K ground and ung r o u n d .......................................................
46
Volume and pH of oatm eal m u ffin s u t i l i z i n g DDG sam ples
A, B, and I a t th e 36% rep lacem en t l e v e l ground and
un g r o u n d ............................
^7
The e f f e c t o f s ie v e f r a c t i o n and g rin d in g on volume and
pH i n y e a s t r o l l c o n ta in in g 33% DDG sample K ..................
48
Volume and pH o f y e a s t r o l l s u t i l i z i n g 33% DDG sam ples A,
B, and I , ground and u n g r o u n d .....................................................
49
Oatmeal m u ffin volum es and p a r t i c l e s iz e d i s t r i b u t i o n i n
s ie v e f r a c t i o n s 16 and 80 f o r DDG sam ples A ,B ,I, and K
50
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
ix
L IS T OF TABLES -
c o n tin u e d
T a b le
17
18
P age
Y east r o l l volumes and p a r t i c l e s iz e d i s t r i b u t i o n i n
s ie v e f r a c t i o n s 16 and 80 f o r DDG sam ples A ,B, I and K .
51
Volume and pH i n DDG oatm eal m u ffin s w ith s a l t
v a r i a t i o n s ......................................................... . ...................... .... .
52
19
Volume and pH i n DDG y e a s t r o l l s w ith s a l t v a r i a t i o n s
.
53
20
P e rc e n t c o lo r r e f le c ta n c e
of DDG sample K f r a c t i o n s .
.
54
21
P e rc e n t c o lo r r e f le c ta n c e
o f DDG sam ples A1 B, and I
.
54
22
P e rc e n t c o lo r r e f le c ta n c e of oatm eal m u ffin s c o n ta in in g
36% DDG sample K f r a c t i o n s ........................................................
55
P e rc e n t c o lo r r e f le c ta n c e of oatm eal m u ffin s c o n ta in in g
36% A8 B8 and I DDG samples unground and ground . . . .
56
P e rc e n t c o lo r r e f le c ta n c e of oatm eal m u ffin s c o n ta in in g
DDG sample K w ith s a l t v a r i a t i o n s ..............................................
57
P e rc e n t c o lo r r e f le c ta n c e o f y e a s t r o l l s c o n ta in in g 33%
DDG sample Kf r a c t i o n s .....................................................................
58
P e rc e n t c o lo r r e f le c ta n c e o f y e a s t r o l l s c o n ta in in g 33%
DDG sam ples A8 B8 and I 8 un ground and g r o u n d ..................
59
P e rc e n t c o lo r r e f le c ta n c e of y e a s t r o l l s c o n ta in in g 33%
DDG sample K and fo u r s a l t v a r i a t i o n s ...................................
60
F a rin o g rap h v a lu e s f o r y e a s t r o l l dough components o f
70% b read f lo u r and 30% DDG a t v a rio u s p a r t i c l e s i z e s .
61
F a rin o g ra p h 8 DDG com p o sitio n , and baked p ro d u c t v a lu e s
o f y e a s t r o l l dough components u t i l i z i n g DDG sample K
o f f i v e p a r t ic le s iz e s . . ..................................................... ....
63
F arin o g rap h v a lu e s f o r y e a s t r o l l dough components o f
th r e e s a l t ty p e s and l e v e l s .........................................................
64
R e s u lts o f c o v a ria n c e a n a ly s is o f m u ffin s r a t i n g ty p e
se x and age i n t e r a c t i o n s ............................... ...........................
65
R e s u lts o f c o v a ria n c e a n a ly s is o f y e a s t r o l l s r a t i n g
ty p e , sex and age i n t e r a c t i o n s .................................................
66
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
X
L IS T OF TABLES - c o n t i n u e d
T a b le
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Page
A n a ly sis o f v a ria n c e r e s u l t s o f p a ire d com parison t e s t s
of oatm eal m u ffin s w ith DDG and s a l t v a r i a t i o n s . . . .
67
Tukey*s m u ltip le com parison t e s t r e s u l t s o f p a ire d
com parison t e s t s o f oatm eal m u ffin s with. DDG and s a l t
v a r i a t i o n s ................................................................................... .... •
^7
H edonic r a t i n g s o f oatm eal m u ffin s c o n ta in in g v a ry in g
ty p e s and l e v e l s o f s a l t ......................................................... ....
68
Judge e f f e c t on h ed o n ic r a t i n g s o f oatm eal m u ffin s
c o n ta in in g v a ry in g ty p e s and l e v e l s o f s a l t ......................
69
A n a ly sis o f v a ria n c e r e s u l t s o f Schfeffe 's model f o r
p a ir e d com parison t e s t s o f y e a s t r o l l s w ith DDG and s a l t
v a r i a t i o n s ............................................................................................
70
Hedonic r a t i n g s o f y e a s t r o l l s c o n ta in in g v a ry in g ty p e s
and l e v e l s of s a l t ...........................................................................
70
Judge e f f e c t on h ed o n ic r a t i n g s o f y e a s t r o l l s c o n ta in in g
v a ry in g ty p e s and l e v e l s of s a l t ............................................
71
R e s u lts o f co v arian c e a n a ly s is o f m u ffin s r a t i n g ty p e ,
sex and age i n t e r a c t i o n s .......................................
72
Mean r a t i n g s o f oatm eal m u ffin s w ith s a l t v a r i a t i o n s by
consumer t a s t e p a n e l i s t s ............................... • ......................
73
R e s u lts o f co v arian c e a n a ly s is o f y e a s t r o l l s r a t i n g
ty p e , sex and age i n t e r a c t i o n s .................................................
7^
Mean r a t i n g s o f y e a s t r o l l s w ith s a l t v a r i a t i o n s by
consumer t a s t e p a n e l i s t s ...................... ....................................
74
Volume and pH of oatm eal m u ffin s c o n ta in in g v a ry in g
l e v e l s o f NaHCOg and CaCOg ..........................................................
93
XL
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
F ig u re
I
Q u a n tita tiv e p e rc e n ta g e s o f l i p i d f r a c t i o n s o f DDG
2
T r ia c y lg ly c e r o l q u a lity changes i n r e l a t i v e p e rc e n ta g e
of f a t t y a c id co m p o sitio n o f DDQ sam ples B, K and I • •
35
3
F ree f a t t y a c id q u a lity changes i n r e l a t i v e p e rc e n ta g e
of f a t t y a c id co m p o sitio n o f DDG sam ples B, K and I . .
36
4
T i t r a t i o n o f baking soda (NaHCOg) a g a in s t DDG
5
T i t r a t i o n o f calcium carb o n ate (CaCOg) i n dry gram
w e ig h ts a g a in s t 112 g DDG sam ple K i n 400 ml room
te m p e ratu re d i s t i l l e d w a te r ................................... ..................
6
33
41
90
T i t r a t i o n o f calcium c a rb o n a te (CaCOo) i n dry gram
w e ig h ts a g a in s t 20 g DDG sample D i n d i s t i l l e d w a te r
91
7
T i t r a t i o n o f .IN calcium c a rb o n ate (CaCOg) a g a in s t
50 g DDG sample K i n 200 ml d i s t i l l e d w a ter ......................
92
x ii
ABSTRACT
The a d d i t i o n o f sodium b i c a r b o n a t e (NaHCOg) t o bak ed p r o d u c ts
c o n ta in in g DDG h a s shown an in c r e a s e in p ro d u ct pH and volume to the
s ta n d a rd p ro d u c t le v e l in some p ro d u c ts. Those p ro d u c ts re m a in in g w ith
lo w v o lu m e s may have b een th e r e s u l t o f p a r t i c l e s i z e o f th e DDG.
A d d itio n a lly , th e e x tr a sodium was c o n sid e re d a concern to th o se w ith
h y p e rte n s io n .
The s i e v i n g o f t e n b o u rb o n DDG s a m p le s show ed
s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s i n p a r t i c l e s iz e d i s t r i b u t i o n s (P<0.05). DDG
s i e v e f r a c t i o n s i n th e g ro u n d and u n g ro u n d fo rm w e re b ak ed i n q u ic k
b re a d s and y e a s t b r e a d s a t t h e 3.6% l e v e l and 33% l e v e l r e s p e c t i v e l y .
Four of th e DDG sam ples w ere in c o rp o ra te d a t th e s e l e v e l s i n t o q u ic k
and y e a s t breads i n th e u n f r a c tio n a te d form both ground and unground.
No s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e was found among baked p ro d u c t volum es due to
p a r t i c l e s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n , s i e v e f r a c t i o n s i z e , o r g r i n d i n g o f th e
DDG. O atm eal m u ffin s and y e a s t r o l l s c o n ta in in g 36% DDG and 33% DDG
r e s p e c tiv e ly i n th e ground and un ground form w ere r a t e d i n a consumer
t a s t e p an el. Consumers found p ro d u c ts w ith DDG a c c e p ta b le w hether th e
DDG w as g ro u n d o r n o t.
G rin d in g o r m i l l i n g o f th e DDG may n o t be
n e c e s s a r y t o im p ro v e b a k in g p r o p e r t i e s o r to be a c c e p t a b l e by
consum ers.
T i t r a t i o n o f c a lc iu m c a r b o n a te (CaCOg) a g a in s t a D D G -d istille d
w a te r s lu r r y caused pH to r i s e o n ly a f t e r e x c e s s iv e am ounts of CaCOg
had b e en a d d ed . The u se o f CaCOg i n q u ic k b r e a d s d id n o t r e s u l t i n an
a c c e p t a b l e f i n a l p r o d u c t. F o u r q u ic k b r e a d s an d f o u r y e a s t b re a d s
w e re ju d g e d by a t r a i n e d t a s t e p a n e l c o n t a i n i n g e i t h e r f u l l N aCl,
red u ced NaCl, no s a l t , o r KCl s u b s t i t u t e . The p ro d u c ts w ith KCl s a l t
w e re u n a c c e p ta b le t o p a n e l i s t s .
The o t h e r t h r e e w e re s i m i l a r i n
r a t i n g s an d i n p r e f e r e n c e and so w e re i n c l u d e d i n a co n su m er t a s t e
panel along w ith a s ta n d a rd bread w ith no DDG. The p ro d u ct w ith f u l l
NaCl w as r a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y lo w e r th a n th e o t h e r t h r e e p r o d u c ts
(P<0.05). Consumers may p r e f e r DDG baked p ro d u c ts c o n ta in in g red u ced
s a l t l e v e l s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f e x tr a sodium was added i n th e form o f a
n e u t r a l i z i n g a g en t to th e form u la.
I
INTRODUCTION
The m ain b y - p r o d u c ts o f th e b e v e ra g e a lc o h o l i n d u s t r i e s an d o f
c o m m e rc ia l e th a n o l p r o d u c tio n a r e d i s t i l l e r s ' d r i e d g r a i n s (DDG) o r
b r e w e r s ' s p e n t g r a i n s (BSG).
d is p o s a l problem .
T hese b y - p r o d u c ts c o n s t i t u t e a m a jo r
The m a jo r ity o f DDG and BSG a re used i n an im al feed
w ith th e re m a in d er t r e a t e d a s r e fu s e .
Corn or b a rle y a re th e prim ary fe e d sto c k s used f o r f u e l a lco h o l
p ro d u c tio n , a lth o u g h w heat may be used, depending on th e re g io n of th e
U n ite d S t a t e s .
The b re w in g i n d u s t r y u s e s b a r l e y w h ile t h e l i q u o r
d i s t i l l e r s use a g ra in o r f r u i t m ix tu re .
Bourbon,
one o f th e m ajo r
t y p e s o f w h isk y p ro d u c e d i n t h e U.S. (P a c k o w s k i, I 963)
m u st c o n t a i n
a t l e a s t 51 p e r c e n t c o rn i n c o m b in a tio n w ith ry e and b a r l e y m a lt
( Schoeneman,
e t a l.
1971).
D uring th e f e r m e n ta tio n o f th e se g r a in s , most o f th e c arb o h y d rate
i s hydrolyzed from the g r a in s , le a v in g behind a s o l i d w et re s id u e (th e
"sp e n t" g r a in ) .
These r e s id u e s a r e washed and d rie d i n a g r a in d ry e r
to p ro d u c e DDG o r BSG.
N u t r i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s o f DDG h a s show n t h a t
d u rin g th e fe rm e n ta tio n p ro c e ss, s ta r c h re d u c tio n r e s u l t s i n n e a rly a
th r e e f o ld c o n c e n tra tio n o f p r o te in ,
in d ic a te d th a t d ie ta ry
d is e a s e s
as
f i b e r and ash.
R esearch h a s
f i b e r i n hum ans may h e lp t o p r e v e n t su ch
d iv e rt i c u l o s i s ,
a rte rio s c le ro s is ,
fa t,
v a ric o s e
c o lo n
v e in s ,
c a n c e r,
h e m o rrh o id s ,
and a p p e n d i c i t i s ( B u r k i t t and
2
Trow e l l ,
1975).
T h e re fo re , r e s e a r c h e r s have ex p erim en ted w ith th e use
o f DDG i n human food p r o d u c ts ,to in c r e a s e p r o te in and f i b e r c o n ten t.
Some su c c e ss h as been a ch ie v e d u s in g DDG i n c h e m ic a lly leav en ed
an d y e a s t le a v e n e d b ak ed p r o d u c ts a t low f l o u r r e p l a c e m e n t l e v e l s ,
h o w e v e r,
a b o v e 5 p e r c e n t r e p la c e m e n t,
t e x t u r e h a v e been m a jo r p ro b le m s .
c o lo r,
fla v o r,
volum e and
P a r t o f th e d i f f i c u l t y i s due to
t h e a c i d i c n a t u r e o f th e DDG, w ith pH 's a s low a s 4 .1 .
The u se o f
h ig h e r than norm al l e v e l s of sodium b ic a rb o n a te (baking soda, NaHCOg)
in
q u ic k
b r e a d s and t h e
a d d itio n
of
NaHCOg to y e a s t
b re a d s t o
n e u tr a liz e th e a c id i c DDG b a t t e r s and doughs h as p a r t i a l l y h e lp ed to
i n c r e a s e l o a f volum e and t o im p ro v e t h e t e x t u r e s and f l a v o r s .
l e v e l s o f sodium b ic a rb o n a te may n o t be d e s ir a b le how ever,
High
because i n
some p e o p le sodium c o n t r i b u t e s t o t h e d e v e lo p m e n t o f h y p e r te n s io n
(U.S. D ept, o f H e a lth an d Human S e r v i c e s , 1980).
S u b s titu tin g o th e r
a l k a l i z i n g a g e n ts such as calcium and p o ta ssiu m
s a l t s o r d e c re a sin g
s a l t l e v e l s w ould re d u c e th e in c re a s e d sodium l e v e l s i n th e se p ro d u c ts
and i n t h e c a s e o f c a lc iu m , may c o n t r i b u t e an a d d i t i o n a l i m p o r ta n t
n u trie n t.
A n a ly s is h a s show n t h a t th e h ig h a c i d i t y o f th e DDG i s n o t th e
o n ly f a c t o r
c o n trib u tin g
e s s e n t i a l i n y e a s t b re a d s,
op tim u m v o lu m e .
t o low v o lu m e .
G lu te n d e v e lo p m e n t i s
and i s v ery im p o rta n t i n q u ic k b read s f o r
F i b e r i n th e dough o r b a t t e r may c u t th e g l u t e n
s t r a n d s and i n t e r f e r e w ith i t s d e v e lo p m e n t.
v a r i e s w id e ly fro m c o a r s e ,
flo u r-s iz e p a rtic le s .
P a r t i c l e s i z e i n DDG
a lm o s t i n t a c t g r a i n s t o f i n e l y g ro u n d
What e f f e c t t h e p a r t i c l e s i z e ra n g e h a s on
p ro d u c t q u a lity i s unknown.
3
In d u s try
has
c re a te d
a
s u rp lu s
of
DDG.
T h is
e c o l o g i c a l c o n c e rn and c o n t r i b u t e s t o i t s low c o s t.
human n u t r i t i o n a l v a lu e ,
be im proved.
an
I t s ap p aren t
p a r t i c u l a r l y as a f i b e r source h a s prom oted
the e x p e rim e n ta tio n w ith DDG i n human food p ro d u c ts.
to th e consumer,
p re s e n ts
To be a c c e p ta b le
th e f u n c tio n a l q u a l i t i e s o f DDG such as volum e m ust
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
DDG U t i l i z a t i o n
At th e p re s e n t tim e , th e m ajor p o r tio n o f DDG and BSG a re used a s
a n im a l f e e d a s a f i b e r an d p r o t e i n s o u r c e f o r b o th r u m i n a n t s and
n o n r u m in a n ts ,
su ch
as
s w in e
(Newman an d G ra s ,
1 9 8 3 ).
S m a lle r
q u a n t i t i e s o f s p e n t g r a i n a r e u s e d i n m ushroom co m p o st p r o d u c t i o n
b e c a u s e o f i t s h ig h p r o t e i n c o n te n t (T o w n sle y e t a l .
1 9 7 9 ).
The
n u t r i t i o n a l v a lu e of DDG and BSG h a s le a d t o e x p e rim e n ta l t e s t i n g of
both p ro d u c ts i n th e human food supply.
in to
v a rio u s
m u f f in s ,
p r o d u c ts ,
c a k e s , c o o k ie s ,
in c lu d in g :
Both have been in c o rp o ra te d
yeast
b re a d s,
s n a c k fo o d , p a s t a ,
q u ic k
c e re a ls ,
b re a d s,
g r a n o l a and
b le n d e d f o o d s (T o w n sle y , 1979, F in l e y , e t a l . , 1976, Dawson, e t a l . ,
1984, W all e t a l . I 98 4 ).
S ources o f DDG
D rie d d i s t i l l e r s ’ g r a i n s (DDG) a r e th e m a jo r b y - p r o d u c t o f th e
l i q u o r d i s t i l l i n g an d f u e l a lc o h o l i n d u s t r i e s , w h ile b r e w e r s s p e n t
g r a i n s (BSG) a r e th e m ain b y - p r o d u c ts o f th e b re w in g i n d u s t r y .
The
p r o p e r tie s o f DDG depend on th e p a r t i c u l a r p ro c e ss in g te c h n iq u e s and
th e g r a i n m ix tu r e u se d ( S a t t e r l e e , I 976).
I n th e U n ite d S t a t e s , th e
c h o ic e o f g r a i n and p r o c e s s i n g m e th o d s d e p en d s on e a c h d i s t i l l e r s '
p re fe re n c e
as
s p e c ific a tio n s .
an d
to
th e
d e s ire d
p ro d u c t
w ith in
W h is k ie s a r e a b le n d o f c o rn ,
s o m e tim e s w h e a t.
M ost b o u rb o n w h isk y
ry e ,
g o v e rn m e n ta l
m a lte d b a r le y
d is tille rs
c h o o se
5
p r o p o r t i o n s o f 60% c o r n , 28% r y e , and .12% b a r l e y m a lt.
from b a rle y , w h ile
B eer i s made
f u e l a lc o h o l may be p ro c e sse d from b a rle y or corn
o r o c c a s i o n a l l y w h e a t, d e p e n d in g on g r a i n a v a i l a b i l i t y and m a rk e t
p r ic e .
P ro c e s sin g m ethods v ary in h e a tin g and d ry in g te m p e ra tu re s used,
a c i d i t y l e v e l s , and c o n ta m in a n ts .
F u e l a lc o h o l DDG may n o t h a v e a s
hig h a m ic ro b io lo g ic a l q u a lity as b r e w e r / d i s t i l l e r d rie d g r a in s due to
s tr in g e n t p ro c e s s in g re q u ire m e n ts s i n c e th e f e r m e n te d l i q u i d i s n o t
in te n d e d f o r human consum ptioh (Townsley,
1974, Dawson e t a l.
1984).
The v a rio u s i n d u s t r i e s a ls o produce a w ide v a r i a t i o n i n DDG c o lo r, pH,
m o i s t u r e l e v e l and n u t r i t i o n a l c o n te n t (T se n e t a l . 1982, T o w n sley ,
1979).
N u tr it io n a l Value o f DDG
F ib e r c o n te n t o f DDG r e f e r s t o th e a c i d d e t e r g e n t o r n e u t r a l
d e te rg e n t
fib e r
d e p e n d in g on a n a l y s i s
m eth o d
c h o se n .
N e u tr a l
d e te r g e n t f i b e r r e p r e s e n ts more of th e cru d e f i b e r and so i s g e n e r a lly
c o n sid e re d to
1984).
be more r e p r e s e n ta tiv e of t o t a l d ie ta r y f i b e r (V e tte r,
A n a ly s is o f DDG h a s show n t h a t th e f i b e r
b e tw e e n 29
and 77 p e r c e n t
(P o m eran z ,
e t a l.
c o n te n t ra n g e s
1976 P r e n t i c e
D’A ppolonia, 1977, F in le y and Hanamoto, 1980, R anhotra e t a l .
P ro te in
p ro c e ss in g ,
c o n te n t
v a rie s
d e p e n d in g on t h e
and on th e p ro c e s s in g m ethods.
g ra in
and
1982).
used in
D uring p r o te in a n a ly s is ,
in c o m p le te r e c o v e r i e s o f am ino a c i d s o c c u r r e d c a u s in g lo w e r " t r u e "
p r o te in v a lu e s in corn based DDG a c c o rd in g to R anhotra e t a l . (1982).
T h e ir s a m p le s w e re fo u n d t o c o n t a i n an a v e r a g e o f 27.5% p r o t e i n (N X
6
6 .2 5 ),
An a l l m i l o sa m p le c o n ta i n e d 34.9/6 p r o t e i n .
R a n h o tra e t a l .
( 1982) su g g e ste d th a t n o n p ro te in n itro g e n o u s compounds, p r im a r ily from
y e a s t,
may have in c re a s e d th e t o t a l n itr o g e n c o n te n t r e s u l t i n g i n an
o v e re s tim a tio n of the p r o te in c o n te n t.
These compounds may a ls o have
c h u se d lo w e r th a n s a t i s f a c t o r y p r o t e i n e f f i c i e n c y r a t i o s (PER). The
am ount o f y e a s t
(and o t h e r
p r o d u c ts fro m
th e t r u b ,
w h ic h i s
a
p r e c i p i t a t e , c o n s i s t i n g m a in ly o f p r o t e i n , p h e n o lic com pounds, and
l i p i d s t h a t i s a d d ed to s p e n t g r a i n f o r d i s p o s a l ) i n th e DDG v a r i e s
d e p e n d in g on p r o c e s s i n g m e th o d s ( P r e n t i c e and D 'A p p o lo n ia ,
1977,
F in le y and Hanamoto, 1980).
R a ts f e d
10% p r o t e i n d i e t s h a d p o o r p r o t e i n d i g e s t i b i l i t i e s
(75.6%) when c o rn d i s t i l l e r s g r a i n s (CDG) s u p p l i e d th e p r o t e i n . T h is
was th o u g h t t o
be due t o
t h e h ig h
fib e r
c o n te n t o f
th e d i e t s .
D i g e s t i b i l i t i e s w e re a s h ig h a s 93% when o t h e r p r o t e i n s s u c h a s so y
f l o u r and non f a t dry
m ilk w ere added to th e d ie t.
CDG had low PERs
b u t n o t a s low a s c o rn m e a l p r o t e i n . (W a ll e t a l . 1984).
O th e r m ix ed
g r a in BSG have been r e p o r te d to c o n ta in o v er 25% p r o t e i n (Pomeranz e t
a l . 1976, P r e n tic e and D’A ppolonia, 1977, K is s e ll and P r e n tic e ,
On a w e ig h t b a s is ,
1979).
th e e s s e n t i a l amino a c id c o n te n t h a s compared
fa v o ra b ly w ith foods such a s whole w heat f lo u r d e s tin e d f o r s im ila r
fo o d u s e s ( P r e n t i c e and
1977).
R e f s g u a rd , 1 9 7 8 , P r e n t i c e and D 'A p p o lo n ia,
Wu e t a l . (1984) fo u n d th e p r o t e i n c o n t e n t s o f h a r d w h e a t
f e r m e n t a t i o n p r o d u c ts t o be h i g h e r th a n th o s e p r o d u c ts fro m c o rn ,
w h ile th e f a t c o n t e n t w as lo w e r .
S ig n if ic a n t in c re a s e s in ly s in e ,
t h r e o n i n e and i s o l e u c i n e w e re o b s e r v e d f p r w heat d i s t i l l e r s * g r a in s
compared w ith w heat, which i s d e f i c i e n t i n ly s in e and low i n th re o n in e
7
and i s o l e u c i n e .
F e r m e n ta tio n d o e s n o t seem to im p ro v e n u t r i t i o n a l
q u a l i t i e s i n c o rn DOG.
W all e t a l .
(1 9 8 4 ) fo u n d c o rn d i s t i l l e r s
g r a i n s (CDG) t o be low i n l y s i n e and tr y p t o p h a n b u t t h e l y s i n e l e v e l
was s im ila r to th a t o f whole corn p r o te in . In o th e r a n a ly s e s o f corn
d i s t i l l e r s ' d rie d g r a in s w ith s o lu b le s (CDDGS) amino a c id c o m p o sitio n
was s im ila r to th a t o f corn (Wu e t a l . 1981).
R anhotra e t a l. ( 1982) found c a rb o h y d ra te s (m ainly s ta r c h e s ) l e f t
i n th e s p e n t g r a i n s a t l e v e l s o f up t o 25.3%. F a t c o n te n t r a n g e d fro m
6.3 to
11 i5%.
B re w e rs s p e n t g r a i n s h a v e b een fo u n d , t o be low i n
h ig h ly s o lu b le m in e ra ls (ash m easurem ent), such a s p o tassiu m and low
i n B v i t a m i n s due to l e a c h i n g o u t d u r in g w o r t p r o d u c t i o n and d u r in g
d r y in g o f th e w e t s p e n t g r a i n s ( P om eranz e t a l . I 976).
R a n h o tra e t
a l . ( 1982) h o w e v er, fo u n d h ig h l e v e l s o f n u t r i t i o n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t
m in e ra ls such a s p o ta ssiu m ,
phosphorus,
chrom ium .
some v i t a m i n s ,
H igh l e v e l s o f
r i b o f l a v i n and n ia c in w ere a ls o found.
magnesium, z in c ,
p a rtic u la rly
copper and
th ia m in ,
The v a lu e s of th e se n u t r i e n t s
a re s i m i l a r to th o se found i n bran f r a c t i o n s o f g ra in s .
P ro d u c ts F o rm u la ted W ith DDG
DDG have been in c o rp o ra te d i n a number o f food ite m s , e s p e c ia lly
baked p ro d u c ts in c lu d in g y e a s t b r e a d s , q u ic k ( c h e m ic a lly le a v e n e d )
b r e a d s and c o o k ie s .
At l e v e l s a b o v e 5%, DDG r e p la c e m e n t o f f l o u r
s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r s th e c o lo r, f la v o r and baking p erform ance i n th e se
p ro d u c ts .
The h ig h f i b e r c o n te n t o f DDG i n c r e a s e s i t s w a t e r a b s o r p t i o n
c a p a c i t y ( D re e se e t a l . 1982).
Work i n o u r l a b o r a t o r y w i t h b o u rb o n
v
8
DDG showed t h a t u n le s s th e fo rm u la chosen a lre a d y In c o rp o ra te d whole
g r a i n s , a n i n c r e a s e i n a b s o r p t i o n w as n e c e s s a r y t o a c h ie v e a m ore
d e s ir a b le p ro d u ct.
In q u ic k b read s, 0.5 ml. o f w a te r p er gram of DDG
used was added to s u c c e s s fu l fo rm u la tio n s .
I n c o rp o ra tio n o f DDG i n baked p ro d u c ts h a s r e s u l t e d i n a d a rk e r
c o l o r o f th e ite m e v e n a t l e v e l s a s low a s 6% ( F in le y an d H anam oto,
1980).
D eg ree o f d a r k e n in g d e p e n d s on t h e c o l o r o f th e DDG w h ich i s
d eterm in ed by the s t a r t i n g m a te r ia ls and th e p ro c e ss in g m ethods (Tsen,
e t a l . I 982). D i f f e r e n c e s i n c o lo r w e re n o te d by t a s t e p a n e l i s t s i n
t o a s t e d b re a d w i t h 5% and 10$ DDG l e v e l s ,
b u t w e re n o t c o n s id e r e d
o b je c tio n a b le .
DDG h a s been m ore s u c c e s s f u l l y
i n c o r p o r a t e d i n q u ic k b re a d s
because they a re o f te n h ig h ly c o lo re d and fla v o re d p ro d u c ts.
F in e ly
m i l l e d s p e n t g r a i n w as a c c e p t a b l e a t 10$ and 15$ f l o u r r e p la c e m e n t
l e v e l s i n m u ffin s c o n ta in in g a h ig h ly pronounced fla v o rin g , component
( P r e n t i c e , I 978, B id e t e t a l . I 9 8 4 a ).
B ourbon DDG a t a l e v e l o f 40$
w as fo u n d a c c e p t a b l e i n a h i g h ly f l a v o r e d q u ic k b re a d ( O1P a lk a and
B id e t, 1986). Tsen e t a l. (1982) found t h a t two d i f f e r e n t DDG r e s u lte d
i n d i f f e r i n g a c c e p t a b i l i t i e s in c o o k ies w here f l o u r was re p la c e d w ith
15$ and 25$ DDG.
H ig h ly f l a v o r e d c o o k ie s ( b a r , s p ic e and c h o c o la te
c h ip ) w e re a c c e p t a b l e by p a n e l i s t s w ith th e DDG, a lth o u g h a v e r a g e
c o o k ie d ia m e te r w as re d u c e d .
W h ite sorghum DDG w as a c c e p t a b l e i n
m o lasses co o k ies a t f lo u r s u b s t i t u t i o n l e v e l s up to 50$, and up to 15$
re p la c e m e n t was a c c e p ta b le i n su g ar c o o k ies (Morad e t a l . 1984).
Oatmeal co o k ies w ith 15$ d e f a tte d b a rle y DDG w ere found e q u a lly
a c c e p ta b le to c o n tro l oatm eal co o k ies (Dawson e t a l . 1984), su g g e s tin g
9
t h a t t h e f a t c o n te n t o f DDG may h a v e c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e f l a v o r .
F u r th e r q u a n t i t a t i v e and q u a l i t a t i v e a n a ly s is of t h i s b a rle y DDG l i p i d
show ed t h a t e x t e n s i v e h y d r o l y s i s an d d e c o m p o s itio n o f u n s a t u r a t e d
f a t t y a c id s o c c u rre d d u rin g DDG p ro c e ss in g (Dawson e t a l . 1984, E id et
e t a l.
lip id
1984b).
Subsequent work in d ic a te d t h a t d e g ra d a tio n o f n e u tra l
o c c u r r e d th r o u g h o u t p r o c e s s i n g
(o f i n d u s t r i a l
e th a n o l).
T r ia c y lg ly c e ro l l e v e l s w ere d e crea se d and f r e e f a t t y a c id l e v e l s w ere
in c re a s e d .
U n s a tu r a te d f a t t y a c i d s , e s p e c i a l l y l i n o l e i c a c i d w e re
d e g ra d e d .
T h is h y d r o l y s i s o f t r i a c y l g l y c e r o l s t o f r e e f a t t y a c id s
(FFA) i s u n d e s i r a b l e .
The FFA may h a v e co m b in ed w ith th e c h e m ic a l
le a v e n i n g a g e n t i n t h e baked p r o d u c t s w h ic h may h a v e c a u s e d so a p
fo rm a tio n ,
c au sin g some o f th e o f f f la v o r s i n th e se DDG p ro d u c ts.
co n su m e r t a s t e
panel
A
fo u n d g r a n o l a s c o n t a i n i n g 7.5% b a r l e y DDG,
d e f a tte d DDG, or th e p a re n t b a rle y to be e q u a lly a c c e p ta b le (Dawson e t
a l . 1984).
G ra n o la c o n t a i n s no l e a v e n i n g a g e n t.
B o o k w a lte r e t a l .
(1984) a ls o found im proved f la v o r i n blended foods c o n ta in in g CDG from
which th e l i p i d had been e x tr a c te d .
W ater w ashing th e CDG to remove
r e s i d u a l s o l u b l e s p ro d u c e d im p ro v e d f l a v o r r a t i n g s o f th e b le n d e d
foods c o n ta in in g CDG.
Bourbon d i s t i l l e r s o f te n use c a r e f u l low te m p e ra tu re p ro c e ss in g
and good s a n i t a t i o n s ta n d a rd s w hich may p re v e n t l i p i d d e g ra d a tio n i n
th e r e s u l t a n t DDG.
Work i n o u r l a b o r a t o r y show ed m in im a l l i p i d
d e g ra d a tio n i n bourbon DDG (O'Palka and E id e t,
1986).
Sm all amounts
o f n e u tr a l l i p i d degraded but th e m ajor p o r tio n o f l i p i d i n DDG was i n
th e t r i a c y l g ly c e r o l (TAG) form .
S m a ll a m o u n ts o f m o n o a c y lg ly c e r o l s
(MAG) an d d i a c y l g l y c e r i d e s (DAG) and f r e e f a t t y a c i d s w e re p r e s e n t .
10
T h e re fo re ,
th e l i p i d r a t i o s w e re s i m i l a r to th o s e fo u n d i n i n t a c t
cerea l g ra in s .
R e c e n t w ork i n o u r l a b o r a t o r y h a s show n t h a t c o n su m er t a s t e
p a n e ls fo u n d c a r r o t - c o c o n u t b re a d s c o n t a i n i n g 40$ b o u rb o n DDG and
y e a s t and n u t r o l l s c o n ta in in g 33% DDG a c c e p ta b le (0*P alk a and B id e t,
1986).
The b r e a d s w e re ju d g e d a c c e p t a b l e o n ly w hen th e t y p i c a l l y
a c i d i c (pH 4 .1 ) l e v e l s w e re n e u t r a l i z e d w ith i n c r e a s e d a m o u n ts o f
sodium
b ic a rb o n a te
b ic a rb o n a te ,
in
th e f o r m u l a t i o n s .
W ith o u t a d d e d
th e a c id i c pH l e v e l s caused so u r,
sodium
u n a c c e p ta b le f la v o r s .
In c r e a s in g the pH to s ta n d a rd c o n tro l l e v e l s a ls o im proved o th e rw is e
low l o a f v o lu m e s w h ic h h a s been a m a jo r p ro b le m w ith DDG i n baked
goods.
The f i n a l a c i d i t y o r a lk a l a n ity o f a b a tte r or dough a ff e c te d
t h e p e rfo rm a n c e o f p r o t e i n s .
I f to o a c i d i c ,
te x t u r e s and sour t a s t e s r e s u lte d .
low v o lu m e s ,
I f to o a lk a lin e ,
c lo s e
h ig h e r volum es,
c o a rs e r te x tu r e s , and b i t t e r t a s t e s r e s u lte d .
Adding sodium b ic a rb o n a te to y e a s t and c h e m i c a lly le a v e n e d DDG
p ro d u c ts b rin g s th e pH to an a c c e p ta b le l e v e l but m arkedly in c re a s e s
th e sodium c o n te n t of th e p roduct.
T h is may be u n d e s ir a b le f o r some
consum ers sin c e in c re a s e d sodium in ta k e i s a s s o c ia te d w ith some fo rm s
o f h y p e r t e n s i o n (U.S. D ept, o f H e a lth an d Human S e r v i c e s , 1980).
Of
th e average t o t a l in ta k e of) sodium c h lo rid e (NaCl), 26% i s s u p p lie d i n
th e fo rm o f s a l t fro m baked good s an d m ix e s (SC0G S-102, 1979)» O th e r
a l k a l i z i n g a g e n ts b e s id e s sodium b ic a rb o n a te e x i s t but many a re to o
e x p en siv e ,
c o n tr ib u te u n d e s ira b le f la v o r s ,
cause te c h n o lo g ic a l problem s (V e tte r,
1981).
c o n tr ib u te more sodium or
11
S a lt i s needed i n bakery p ro d u c ts f o r more th a n i t s f la v o r v alu e.
S a l t s t r e n g t h e n s th e g l u t e n i n b re a d dough, c o n t r o l s f e r m e n t a t i o n
r a t e s , a c t s a s a p r e s e r v a t i v e , and r e d u c e s t h e w a te r a b s o r p t i o n i n
bread doughs.
An a l k a l i z i n g a g en t o r a s a l t s u b s t i t u t e i s needed th a t
when i n c o m b in atio n w ith th e e x i s t i n g le a v e n e r of sodium b ic a rb o n a te
o r y e a s t w i l l h e lp to n e u tr a liz e th e a c i d i t y of th e baked p ro d u c t, n o t
d is r u p t baking p r o p e r tie s , and w i l l n o t c o n tr ib u te e x c e ss sodium.
B re a d s c o n t a i n i n g p o ta s s iu m s a l t s may be b e n e f i c i a l t o th o s e
s e n s i t i v e to sodium (P arfey e t a l.
1981).
Potassium b ic a rb o n a te may
be a v ia b le s u b s t i t u t i o n f o r sodium b ic a rb o n a te .
France a t an e x tre m e ly high c o st (V e tte r,
I t i s im p o rte d from
1981).
P otassium c h lo rid e
(KCl) a lo n e has been r e p o r te d to im p a rt u n a cc e p tab le b i t t e r f la v o r s ,
and so h a s been mixed w ith sodium c h lo rid e (NaCl).
i s u se d by th o s e who w is h to
s u b je c te d to
su c c e ss has
d e c r e a s e so d iu m i n t a k e ,
a b la n d ( s a l t l e s s ) o r b i t t e r
b e en r e p o r t e d
T h is s a l t m ix tu re
u s in g
th e s e
y e t n o t be
t a s t i n g p r o d u c t.
s a l t m ix tu re s
M ick elsen, 1969, S tro h e t a l. 1985, W yatt and Honan, 1982).
Some
(F ra n k an d
The e x tr a
i n t a k e o f p o ta s s iu m r e s u l t i n g fro m th e u se o f th e NaCl an d KCl s a l t
m ix tu re s does n o t exceed norm al l i m i t s (Frank and M ick elsen , 1969).
E x p e r im e n ts w i t h N aCl-K Cl m i x t u r e s an d w ith KCl a lo n e h a v e
produced bread doughs w ith s h o r te r p ro o f and m ixing tim e s o v er NaCl
a lo n e (AIB, 1984, S tr o h e t a l . 1985). No s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on dough
rh eo lo g y or baking perform ance was n o te d when NaCl was re p la c e d w ith
40% KCl i n w heat y e a s t b read s (S a lo v a a ra , 1982a) and l o a f volum es w ere
n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d by v a r y in g s a l t ty p e s o r m i x t u r e s i n t h e
w ork done by AIB (1 9 8 4 ).
S tr o h e t a l . (1 9 8 5 ) d id f i n d h i g h e r v o lu m e s
12
in w h ite pan breads w ith KCl-NaCl m ix tu re s. R ese arch e rs have r e p o rte d
u n d e s i r a b l e b i t t e r f l a v o r s when u s in g KCl a lo n e o r i n m i x t u r e s . AIB
( 1984) however, re p o rte d a d im in is h in g o f th e o f f - f l a v o r s w ith aging
of th e bread.
B reads w ith KCl w ere p r e f e r r e d by t a s t e p a n e l i s t s over
breads w ith o u t any s a l t (AIB, 1984).
Frank and M ick elsen (1969) found
th a t KCl c o n trib u te d a s much of a s a l t y f la v o r a s th e NaCl p o rtio n of
th e m ix tu re ,
but KCl alone was r e p o r te d ly b i t t e r .
S a lo v a a ra (1982b)
show ed t h a t r e p l a c e m e n t l e v e l s o f s a l t a t 5 and I 0% o f KCl i n y e a s t
b re a d s
d id
not
a ffe c t
th e
fla v o r
of
th e
b re a d s.
re p la c e m e n t s i g n i f i c a n t o f f - f l a v o r s w ere re p o rte d .
At 40$ s a l t
No d if f e r e n c e i n
b re a d o d o r w as n o t i c e d w hen 20% o f th e NaCl w as r e p l a c e d w ith KC1.
W y att an d
Ronan
(1 9 8 2 ) r a t e d
b re a d s
g e n e ra lly
c o n ta in e d 1$ KCl which re p la c e d 50$ o f th e NaCl.
a c c e p ta b le
th a t
The o f f - f l a v o r s o f
p o tassiu m c h lo rid e may be masked when used i n h ig h ly fla v o re d p ro d u c ts
o r i n th o se c o n ta in in g th e s tr o n g - f la v o r e d DDG.
.
Many s t r i n g e n t re q u ire m e n ts e x i s t f o r gas r e l e a s e r a t e d u rin g th e
le a v e n in g p ro c e ss .
In c h e m ic a lly leav en ed p ro d u c ts , only a few s o lid
a c id s a re commonly used as chem ical le a v e n in g a g e n ts w hich m eet th e se
re q u ire m e n ts .
The g e n e ra l r e a c tio n i s :
HX
+
(a c id ic s a l t )
NaHCOo
(s o d a ;
--------------------->
m o is tu re , h e a t
NaX;
+ HgO + CO2
(n e u tr a l s a l t )
C o m b in a tio n s o f tw o o r m ore d i f f e r e n t ty p e s o f l e a v e n e r s a r e
f r e q u e n tly used s in c e no s in g le le a v e n e r can supply th e optimum r a t e
in
a ll
cases
( K ic h lin e e t a l .
1970).
S e v e r a l c a lc iu m
s a lts
a re
com m only u s e d b u t m o st a r e v e ry a c i d i c an d th u s w o u ld n o t h e l p t o
13
n e u t r a l i z e a lre a d y a c id ic DDG p ro d u c ts.
D icalcium phosphate d ih y d ra te
i s one a g e n t t h a t i s s l i g h t l y a l k a l i n e a t room te m p e r a t u r e b u t i t
r e a c t s to o l a t e
i n t h e b a k in g c y c l e f o r m o st p r o d u c ts .
C alciu m
c arb o n a te i s a r e a d ily a v a ila b le , in e x p e n s iv e , and w e ll ab so rb ed b a s ic
s a lt.
In y e a s t le a v e n e d p r o d u c t s , th e r e a c t i o n i s d e p e n d e n t on y e a s t
fe rm e n ta tio n :
SUGAR +
YEAST--------- — >
ALCOHOL
+
CO2
I n th e s e p r o d u c ts , c a lc iu m an d p o ta s s iu m s a l t s w o u ld f u n c t i o n a s a
n e u t r a l i z i n g a g e n t by r a i s i n g th e pH. ■
B esid es f a c i l i t a t i n g gas p ro d u c tio n , le a v e n e rs a ls o c o n trib u te to
th e i n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e o f baked goods by t h e i r c a t i o n i c o r a n i o n i c
e f f e c t on t h e o t h e r i n g r e d i e n t s .
v i s c o s i t y (D ubois,
1981).
C alciu m s a l t s may i n c r e a s e dough
Calcium c a tio n s c o n trib u te t o f in e g ra in ,
t h i n c e l l w a l l s , and i n c r e a s e r e s i l i e n c y i n baked g o o d s.
C alciu m
c a tio n s a re used a s dough c o n d i t i o n e r s w h ic h s t r e n g t h e n s th e g l u t e n
c r o s s lin k in g .
An added b e n e f it o f calcium s a l t in c o r p o r a tio n would be
t o i n c r e a s e th e l e v e l s o f c a lc iu m i n th e d i e t .
Low c a lc iu m i n t a k e s
have been im p lic a te d i n trie developm ent o f o s te o p o r o s is (Whedon, 1959,
Chinn, 1981).
R anhotra (1981) found t h a t i n y e a s t le av e n e d b read s fe d
t o r a t s , th e c a lc iu m i n t h e fo rm o f c a lc iu m s u l f a t e o r i n n o n f a t d ry
m ilk w as r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e an d a b s o r b e d .
The f i b e r an d p h y t i c a c i d
d id n o t have an ad v erse e f f e c t oh a b s o rp tio n , sin c e much o f th e p h y tic
a c id in w heat f lo u r i s
breadm aking.
b ro k e n down d u r in g trie v a r i o u s
s te p s in
14
Q uick b r e a d s can t o l e r a t e h ig h e r l e v e l s o f DDG th a n can y e a s t
le a v e n e d p ro d u c ts because they do n o t r e q u ir e w e ll developed g lu te n .
G lu te n i s
a p ro te in in w heat f lo u r
fo rm a tio n i n y e a s t b read s.
th a t i s n e ce ssa ry
f o r dough
G lu ten i s r e s p o n s ib le f o r th e fo rm a tio n of
g a s c e l l s f o r s h a p e , volum e and t e x t u r e o f b r e a d s .
G lu te n a b s o r b s
w a te r as do s ta r c h g ra n u le s which h e lp s keep baked p ro d u c ts s o f t and
fre sh .
D u rin g b a k in g , g a s c e l l s s t r e t c h and e x p a n d , and t h e s t a r c h
g e l a t i n i z e s an d a b s o r b s w a t e r fro m th e g l u t e n to p r e v e n t c e l l w a l l
c o lla p s in g .
s tra in
A d d itio n a l f i b e r i n y e a s t b re a d s c a u s e s a n i n c r e a s e d
on th e g l u t e n .
P bm eranz (1 9 7 7 ) fo u n d t h a t a t h ig h f i b e r
l e v e l s , volum es i n bread lo a v e s w ere s i g n i f i c a n t l y lo w er due to g lu te n
d ilu tio n .
lo a v e s .
The f i b e r
d i s r u p t e d th e crum b s t r u c t u r e
o f th e b re a d
Bread lo a v e s w ere a c c e p ta b le a t a f l o u r re p la c e m e n t le v e l of
7% w i t h w h e a t b ra n an d c e l l u l o s e .
tritic a le
L o re n z (1 976) fo u n d t h a t f i n e
b ra n p ro d u c e d a b e t t e r g r a i n th a n c o a r s e b r a n b u t l o a f
volum es w ere n o t a ffe c te d .
P r e v io u s w o rk h a s show n t h a t a s p e r c e n t DDG i n c r e a s e d ,
volume d ecrea se d ( P re n tic e and D 'A ppoloia,
1977,
lo a f
D reese and Hoseney,
I 982, F in l e y and H anam oto, I 980, Pom eranz e t a l . 1 9 7 6 , M orad e t a l .
1984).
At f i v e , t e n an d f i f t e e n p e r c e n t l e v e l s o f DDG s u b s t i t u t i o n
l o a f v o lu m e d e c r e a s e d 0, 11 and 17% f o r P r e n t i c e and D1A p p o lo n ia
(1977).
This could p a r tly be th e r e s u l t o f d e crea se d pH due to a c id i c
DDG, or to in c re a s e d v i s c o s i t y due to w a te r b in d in g
T sen e t a l .
by th e DDG.
(19 7 1 ) fo u n d t h a t a d d in g dough c o n d i t i o n e r s t o
p r o t e i n - r i c h y e a s t bread f o r m u la tio n s im proved lo a f volum es.
Sodium-
S te a ro y 1 -2 - L a c ty la te (SSL) was more e f f e c t i v e th an C alciu m -S te aro y 1 -2 -
15
L a c ty la te (CSL).
The a d d itio n o f 0.1 to 0.2 p e rc e n t soybean l e c i t h i n
(based on f l o u r w e ig h t) to y e a s t doughs h a s im proved baking p r o p e r tie s
(B ichberg,
1952).
L e c ith in ,
a c ti o n o f s h o rte n in g ,
i n a d d itio n t o en hancing th e l u b r i c a t i n g
a ls o d i r e c t l y l u b r i c a t e s the g lu te n s tr a n d s and
enhances dough e l a s t i c i t y
in p ro d u c ts made w ith s tro n g w in te r w heat
f l o u r s and s h o rte n s th e h igh e x t e n s i b i l i t y o f s p rin g w heat f lo u r s .
P r e n t i c e e t a l . (1978) s u c c e s s f u l y in c o rp o ra te d 15$ m ille d DDG
i n cbokies.
They found t h a t adding 1$ soy l e c i t h i n w ith 15$ DDG and 2$
l e c i t h i n w ith 20$ DDG im p ro v e d c o o k ie d i a m e t e r s .
( 1969) fo u n d
th a t
s u c ro e s te rs
added
to
a y east
Pom eranz e t a l .
b re a d
f o r m u la
c o u n t e r a c t e d t h e l o a f v o lu m e - d e p r e s s in g e f f e c t o f h ig h p r o t e i n soy
p ro d u c ts .
Pom eranz e t a l .
(1976) fo u n d t h a t w h e a t b ra n d e c r e a s e d l o a f
volum es o f y e a s t b re a d s,
b u t BSG d e c re a se d volum es even more.
g r a i n w as a l s o im p a i r e d w ith b o th f i b e r ty p e s .
Crumb
D re e se an d H oseney
(1982) fo u n d v o lu m e s an d m ix in g ti m e s t o i n c r e a s e w hen SSL an d
s h o r t e n i n g w e re ad d ed t o y e a s t b r e a d s w ith DDG.
T h is w as due to
d e la y e d l o a f s e t t i n g tim e s . When th e m i l l e d BSG w as s o a k e d i n w a te r
firs t,
m ixing tim e d e creased .
P r e n tic e e t a l .
(1978) su g g e ste d t h a t
s u i t a b l e m illi n g and f r a c t i o n a t i o n o f BSG m ig h t h e lp to o p tim iz e f i b e r
(and n itr o g e n ) c o n te n ts o f p a r t i c l e s i n th e f l o u r - f in e n e s s range and
t h a t u n if o r m ly f i n e p a r t i c l e s i z e m ig h t im p ro v e a c c e p t a b i l i t y i n
c o o k ie s.
Wu an d S t r i n g f e l l o w
(19 8 2 ) fo u n d t h a t a f t e r s i e v i n g CDG, th e
p r o t e i n c o n te n t o f CDG i n c r e a s e d a s p a r t i c l e s i z e d e c r e a s e d .
Fat
c o n te n ts w ere h ig h e s t i n th e s m a lle s t p a r t i c l e s iz e f r a c t i o n th ro u g h
16
an 8.0 mesh scree n .
Ash c o n te n t was n o t a l t e r e d w ith s ie v in g .
H igher
f i b e r c o n te n ts were o b serv ed i n th o se f r a c t i o n s w ith l a r g e r p a r t i c l e
s iz e .
Volume i n baked p ro d u c ts i s in flu e n c e d by many f a c t o r s in c lu d in g
b a t t e r pH, l e a v e n i n g a g e n t s and f i b e r
I n v e s tig a tin g th e in flu e n c e
c o n te n t o f f l o u r o r g r a i n .
o f t h e s e and o t h e r f a c t o r s i n baked
p ro d u c ts u s in g DDG w i l l h e lp to d e term in e optimum l e v e l s n e c e ssa ry to
produce a c c e p ta b le p ro d u cts.
O b je c tiv e s o f R esearch
1.
To d e te r m in e p a r t i c l e s i z e
c o m p o s itio n o f te n b o u rb o n d r i e d
d i s t i l l e r s ’ g r a in sam ples by s ie v in g
2.
To d e te r m in e th e e f f e c t s o f p a r t i c l e s i z e i n d r i e d d i s t i l l e r s ’
g r a in s on volume i n y e a s t and c h e m ic a lly leav en ed p ro d u c ts
3.
To d e te r m in e a u n ifo rm optim um ra n g e o f p a r t i c l e s i z e o f d r i e d
d i s t i l l e r s ’ g r a in s r e q u ir e d f o r optimum volume i n y e a s t and
ch em ically
4.
leav en ed p ro d u c ts
To d e term in e consumer a cc ep tan ce of y e a s t and c h e m ic a lly leav en ed
p ro d u c ts c o n ta in in g d rie d d i s t i l l e r s ’ g r a i n s an d h a v in g d e f in e d
p a r t i c l e s iz e s
5.
To d e term in e .-th e re p la c e m e n t l e v e l of a l k a l iz in g a g e n ts f o r baking
so d a n e c e s s a r y t o n e u t r a l i z e th e pH o f d r i e d d i s t i l l e r s ’ g r a i n s
in
6.
y e a s t and c h e m ic a lly leav en ed p ro d u c ts
To red u ce sodium c o n te n t so t h a t i t i s no g r e a te r th a n th e s ta n d a rd
y e a s t and c h e m ic a lly leav en ed p ro d u c ts , and to d e te rm in e consumer
acc e p tan c e of th e se p ro d u c ts
17
MATERIALS AND METHODS
D i s t i l l e r s ' D rie d G ra in s
Nine d i f f e r e n t sam ples o f bourbon DDG (A -I) were s u p p lie d by th e
D i s t i l l e r s Feed R e s e a rc h C o u n c il (DFRC).
o b ta in e d i n Kentucky by th e re s e a rc h team .
The t e n t h s a m p le (K) was
A ll i n i t i a l w ork was
done
w ith K and t h e n e x te n d e d t o in c l u d e A, B, and I s a m p le s i n p h y s ic a l
and chem ical t e s t s and i n some o f th e b aking t r i a l s .
DDG sam ples t e s t e d w ere d e sig n a te d B - I , K-I and 1 -1 .
These o r ig in a l
Data o b ta in e d on
th e o r i g i n a l s a m p le s a f t e r one and one h a l f y e a r s o f f r o z e n s t o r a g e
a r e r e f e r r e d to a s DDG sam ples B -2, K-2 and 1 -2 .
A d d itio n a l sam ples
o f B, K and I w ere o b ta in e d i n F a l l , 1985 and were d e s ig n a te d B-3, K-3
and 1 -3 .
Midway th ro u g h th e re s e a rc h , i t was le a r n e d t h a t DDG sam ples
B and K w e re from th e same p l a n t .
They w e re c o n tin u e d t o be t r e a t e d
a s s a m p le s fro m d i f f e r e n t p l a n t s , h o w ev er t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n m u st be
c o n sid e re d when a n a ly z in g th e r e s u l t s .
P a r t i c l e S iz e D e te rm in a tio n
To d e te r m in e th e p a r t i c l e s i z e c o m p o s itio n o f e a c h DDG, a 100 g
sam ple of DDG was s e p a ra te d on a n e s t o f s ie v e s (U.S. S tan d ard T e s tin g
S e r i e s ) a t 1-6, 2 5 , 3 5 , 6 0 , 80 and 100 m esh s i z e s by s h a k in g f o r t e n
m in u te s on a T y le r Ro-Tap m e c h a n ic a l s h a k e r (W.S. T y le r Co., M en to r,
Ohio) . 1
I M ention o f f ir m nam es o r p ro d u c ts d o es n o t c o n s t i t u t e e n d o rse m e n t by
■M ontana S t a t e U n iv e r s ity o v er o t h e r s o f a s i m i l a r n a tu r e .
18
The p a r t i c l e
s i z e f r a c t i o n r e f e r s t o t h a t p o r t i o n o f th e sa m p le
re m a in in g on to p of th e s ie v e .
M u ltiv a r ia te a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e was
u s e d t o t e s t f o r p a r a l l e l i s m o f p a r t i c l e s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n b e tw e e n
s a m p le s (SPSS, I n c . , I 983).
DDG G rinding
U n fra c tio n a te d DDG sam ple K and i t s s e le c te d s ie v e s iz e f r a c t i o n s
o f 16, 35, 6 0 , and 80 mesh w ere ground th ro u g h a 1 /2 m illim e te r sc re e n
on a C y clo n e S am ple
C o llin s ,
M i l l (Type KCL-24A2),
UD C o r p o r a tio n ,
F o rt
Colorado. U n fra c tio n a te d DDG sam ples A, B and I w ere ground
f o r baking t r i a l s i n the same manner.
Chemical A n a ly sis o f DDG
The f o l l o w i n g t e s t s w e re p e rfo rm e d on u n f r a c t i o n s t e d DDG an d
s ie v e f r a c t i o n s iz e s 16, 35, 60 and 80 fo r th e two b a tc h e s o f B, I and
K an d f o r th e one b a tc h o f u n f r a c t i o n a t e d DDG sa m p le A: n e u t r a l
d e t e r g e n t f i b e r (NDF) a c c o r d in g t o R o b e r ts o n and Van S o e s t ( 1977) a s
m o d if ie d by R oth e t a l . ( I 9 8 2 ); a c i d d e t e r g e n t f i b e r (ADF) a c c o r d in g
to t h e A s s o c i a t i o n o f O f f i c i a l A n a l y t i c a l C h e m is ts (AOAC) m eth o d s
( 19 8 0 ); p r o t e i n c o n te n t u s in g th e K je ld a h l m eth o d (N X 6 .2 5 ) (A0AC,
1970); l i p i d c o n te n t by e t h e r e x t r a c t (A0AC, I 980); an d a s h c o n te n t
a c c o rd in g to AOAC (1980).
w ere perform ed on
Q u a n tita tiv e and q u a l i t a t i v e l i p i d a n a ly s e s
w hole DDG sam ples used i n p ro d u c ts t h a t underw ent
baking perform ance t e s t s (B, I , and K).
o b ta in e d f o r
T r i p l i c a t e m easurem ents w ere
b a tc h e s 2 and 3 o f DDG s a m p le s B,
I an d K i n t h e
q u a l i t a t i v e m easurem ents.
S in g le m easurem ents were o b ta in e d f o r a l l
o th e r a n a ly s e s .
w e re e x t r a c t e d u s i n g h e x a n e
L ip id s
by vacuum
19
filtra tio n
and e v a p o r a t i o n u n d e r a n i t r o g e n s tr e a m .
T h in -la y e r
chrom atography (TLC) was used to s e p a ra te th e l i p i d s i n t o f iv e bands
(Dawson e t a l. 1984), and th e f a t t y a c id p r o f i l e was d e term in e d u s in g
g a s - liq u id chrom atography (GLC) (B id e t,
1984b).
A n a ly sis o f v a ria n c e
(MSUSTAT, Lund, 1983, Snedecor and Co ch ar an, 1980) was used to compare
d i f f e r e n c e s i ll FFA cbm p o s i t i o n b e tw e e n th e two b a tc h e s (2 and 3) o f
DDG s a m p le s B, I , and K.
T i t r a t i o n o f A lk a liz in g Agents
S e v e r a l m e th o d s w e re u s e d to
d e te r m in e
th e am ount o f e a c h
a l k a l i z i n g a g e n t r e q u ire d to n e u t r a l i z e th e a c id i c DDG.
I).
Calcium
carb o n ate (100 mg - 50 g p o rtio n s ) o r NaHCOg (100-300 mg p o rtio n s ) was
ad d ed i n i n c r e m e n t s t o a s l u r r y o f one cup (1 1 2 -1 3 8 g ra m s ) o f DDG
s a m p le s A, B, I and K m ix ed w i t h 400 m i l l i l i t e r s o f d i s t i l l e d w a te r
to d e term in e th e amount needed to n e u t r a l i z e th e a c i d i t y o f th e DDG to
pH 7 .0 .
2).
A s o lu tio n
o f .IN
m i l l i l i t e r in c re m e n ts a g a in s t
CaCOg w as
titra te d
in
50-200
a m i x t u r e o f 50 g ra m s o f DDG and 200
m i l l i l i t e r s o f d i s t i l l e d w a te r. 3).
In c re m e n ts o f 300 m illig ra m s - 10
gram s o f CaCOg was t i t r a t e d a g a in s t a m ix tu re of 20 gram s o f sam ple K
DDG and 75 m i l l i l i t e r s o f d i s t i l l e d w a te r a t b o ilin g te m p e ra tu re o f
9 3 .5 ° C e n tig r a d e ( a d j u s t e d f o r a l t i t u d e ) . The a p p ro p ria te am ounts o f
a l k a l i z i n g a g e n ts (NaHCOg o r CaCOg) w e re
fo r m u la tio n s
th e n ad d ed
i n a d d itio n to th e norm al le a v e n in g system .
to
p ro d u c t
20
P ro d u c t P r e p a r a t io n
Y east B read s
DDG s a m p l e s
A,
B,
I,
and
K w e re
in c o rp o ra te d
u n f r a c tio n a te d s t a t e i n both th e unground and ground
in
th e
fo rm s (T able I).
DDG sam ple K was in c o rp o ra te d a t each s ie v e f r a c t i o n i n th e unground
and
g ro u n d
fo r m s
(T a b le
I).
Four
s a lt
i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o th e y e a s t r o l l s (T a b le 2).
ty p e s
and l e v e l s
w e re
The r e d u c e d s a l t l e v e l
i n r o l l C w as u s e d t o c o m p e n s a te f o r th e e x t r a sodium ad d ed by th e
n e u t r a l i z i n g a g e n t, NaHCOg.
T a b le I .
Y east r o l l f o r m u la tio n s w ith NaHCOg v a r i a t i o n s .
R o ll Types
I n g r e d ie n t
Bread f l o u r (g)
Whole w heat f l o u r (g )
DDG (g)
N onfat dry m ilk (g)
S h o rten in g (g)
Sugar (g)
S a lt (g)
B aking soda ( g ) a
Yeast (g)
W ater (ml)
W ater te m p e ratu re (d e g re e s C)
C o n tro l
33% DDG
59
29
59
———
29
5.25
3.125
3.125
1.375
1.05
1.31
70
49
5.25
3.125
3.125
1.375
1.31
55
49
——
a Amount o f soda in gram s f o r each DDG sam ple i s a s f o llo w s : K = 1.05;
A = 1 .4 5 ; B = .8 7 ; I = .8 7 .
The s t r a i g h t dough m eth o d w as u s e d t o make t h e d in n e r r o l l s ,
r e p la c in g 33% of th e t o t a l f l o u r w e ig h t w ith th e v a rio u s fo rm s o f th e
DDG s a m p le s . In t h e e x p e r im e n t a l r o l l s , th e DDG, s h o r t e n i n g , 75% o f
th e w a te r, and the baking soda (NaHCOg) w ere mixed w ith th e p ad d le f o r
f i v e m in u te s a t power 2 u sin g a K itch en Aid M ixer (Type K5SS, H obart
21
C o r p o r a t i o n , Troy, O hio). Then t h e r e s t o f t h e w a t e r , f l o u r and t h e
re m a in in g
dry i n g r e d i e n t s
w ere added.
f e r m e n t a t i o n o f t h i r t y m in u tes,
F o llo w in g
th e
first
dough was shaped i n t o 22 gram (Table
I) o r 44 gram (Table 2) r o s e t t e s and allo w ed to p roof a g a in f o r t h i r t y
m inutes.
The r o l l s w ere baked i n a c o n v en tio n al oven a t 204° c.
Table 2.
Yeast r o l l f o r m u la tio n s w ith s a l t v a r i a t i o n s .
R o ll Types a
C ontrol
A
In g red ien t
470
232
Bread f l o u r (g)
Whole wheat f l o u r (g)
DDG (G)
N onfat dry m ilk (g)
S h o rten in g (g)
Sugar (g)
S a l t / s a l t s u b s t i t u t e (g)
Baking soda (g)
Yeast (g)
Water (ml)
Water te m p e ra tu re (d e g re e s C)
42
25
25
11
———
10.5
440 .
49
a R oll ty p e s a s f o l l o w s : A - S a lt; B-No s a l t ;
s u b s t i t u t e (K C l).
33% DDG
B
C
D
470 470 470 470
——— ——— ——— —
232 232 232 232
42
42
42
42
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
—
11
5.7 11
8. 4 8.4 8.4 8.4
10. 5 10.5 10.5 10.5
560 560 560 560
49
49
49
49
C-Reduoed s a l t ; D -S a lt
Quick Breads
Oatmeal m u ff in s
(C harley,
w ere mixed u s in g the s ta n d a rd m u ff in method
1982) and baked a t 204° C
i n a c o n v en tio n al oven. The DDG,
baking soda, a n d /o r calcium s a l t and m ilk were soaked f o r 15 m in u tes,
and w ere added t o th e o a t s and creamed i n g r e d i e n t s b e fo re adding th e
f l o u r and r e s t of the dry i n g r e d i e n t s .
out in e ith e r
or
16 g p o r t i o n s
The m u ffin b a t t e r was weighed
i n t o 4.5 X 4.5 cm m u f f i n cu p s ( T a b le 3)
60 g p o r t i o n s i n t o 7.6 X 3.17 cm m u f f i n cu p s ( T a b l e s 4 and 5).
22
DDG sam ples A, Bf I and K w ere in c o r p o r a te d a t a 36% rep lacem en t
l e v e l f o r the o a t s and f l o u r (Table 3).
effect
on v o lu m e ,
u n fra c tio n a te d
a d d itio n ,
th ese
sta te
To t e s t f o r the p a r t i c l e s i z e
DDG s a m p l e s
u sin g
b o th
w e re i n c o r p o r a t e d i n
u n g ro u n d and
th e
g ro u n d f o r m s .
In
DDG sample K was in c o r p o r a te d a t each s ie v e f r a c t i o n i n th e
u n g ro u n d and g ro u n d f o r m s a n d i n
th e u n f r a c t i o n a t e d
sta te
b o th
unground and ground a t 5% and 15% re p la c e m e n t l e v e l s (Table 3).
Table 3 .
Oatmeal m u ff in f o r m u la t io n s w ith NaHCOg v a r i a t i o n s .
M uffin Types
I n g r e d ie n t
C ontrol
5% DDG
15% DDG
36% DDG
Egg (ml)
Brown s u g a r (g)
Milk (ml)
S h o rte n in g (g)
Quick r o l l e d o a ts (g)
White a l l - p u r p o s e f l o u r (g )
Baking powder (g)
S a l t (g)
Baking soda (g)
DDG (g)
12
26.5
62.5
15.75
18
31.25
1.6
1.5
■——
12
26.5
69.6
15.75
26.5
2 9.5
.8
1.5
.64
3
12
26.5
69.6
15.75
20.5
29.5
.8
1 .5
.64
9
12
26.5
69.6
15.75
12
29.5
.8
. 1.5
a
a » __ ^ ^
„ _ ,.
a Amount of soda i n grams f o r each DDG sample
A = I .065; B = .8 9 ; I = . 89.
17.75 .
as f o ll o w s : K = .64,
DDG sample K was in c o r p o r a te d a t th e 36% re p la c e m e n t l e v e l i n th e
u n f r a c t i o n a t e 4 u n g ro u n d fo rm t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e f f e c t o f a l k a l i z i n g
a g e n t s o t h e r th a n NaHCOg and t h e e f f e c t o f s a l t l e v e l and s a l t ty p e
v a r i a t i o n s on th e b aked p r o d u c t .
B a t c h e s w e re baked t o i n c l u d e no
NaHCOg, to i n c l u d e t h r e e l e v e l s o f s a l t (NaCl) and
l e v e l of p o tassiu m c h lo r id e (KCl) (T ab les 4 and 5).
t o i n c l u d e one
The red u ced s a l t
l e v e l i n m u ff in C was used t o compensate f o r th e e x t r a sodium added by
the n e u t r a l i z i n g a g e n t, NaHCOg.
23
A fte r c o o lin g , m u ffin s and r o l l s w ere p laced i n
f r e e z e r bags and
f r o z e n f o r 24 h o u r s b e f o r e p h y s i c a l t e s t s w e re p e r f o r m e d , o r f r o z e n
u n t i l needed f o r t a s t e panel e v a lu a tio n .
T a b le 4.
O a tm e a l m u f f i n f o r m u l a t i o n s w i t h a l k a l i z i n g a g e n t
v a ria tio n s.
M uffin Types
I n g r e d ie n t
Egg (ml)
Brown sugar (g)
Milk (ml)
S h o rte n in g (g)
Quick r o l l e d o a ts (g)
White f l o u r (g)
Baking powder (g)
Baking soda (g)
Calcium carb o n ate (g)
S a l t (g)
DDG (g)
Table 5.
No NaHCOg
NaHCOg
24
53
139
31.5 .
24
59
1.6
——
24
53
139
31.5
24
59
1.6
1.3
———
3
35.5
3
35.5
CaCOg
24
53
139
31.5
24 .
59
1.6
——
1 . 3 , 2 . 6 , o r 3 .9
3
35.5
Oatmeal m u ffin f o r m u la tio n s w ith s a l t v a r i a t i o n s .
M uffin Typesa
C ontrol
A
In g red ie n t
Egg (ml)
Brown s u g a r (g)
Milk (ml)
S h o rten in g (g)
Quick r o l l e d o a t s (g)
White f l o u r (g)
Baking powder (g)
S a l t / s a l t s u b s t i t u t e (g)
Baking soda (g)
DDG (g)
96
212
500
126
144
250
12.8
12
96
212
556
126
95
237
6.4
12
5
142
36% DDG
B
C
96
212
556
126
95
237
6.4
—
5
142
96
212
556
126
95
237
6.4
•8.5
5
142
D
96
212
556
126
95
237
6.4
12
5
142
aM uffin ty p e s were a s f o ll o w s : A - S a lt; B-No s a l t ; C-Reduced s a l t ; D - S a l t ,
s u b s t i t u t e (K C l).
24
P h y s ic a l A n a ly sis o f Baked P ro d u cts
Volume
Product volume was measured 24 h o u rs a f t e r rem oval from th e oven
u s in g th e ra p e seed d is p la c e m e n t m e th o d .
( Cath c a r t a n d C o le , I 938).
A n a l y s i s o f c o v a r i a n c e , m u l t i - f a c t o r and m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f
v a r i a n c e m e th o d s (MSUSTAT, Lund, 1983, S n e d e c o r a n d C o c h a ra n , 1980)
w ere used t o a n a ly z e th e e f f e c t s o f p a r t i c l e s i z e and s a l t ty p e s and
l e v e l s on volume.
pH
A s l u r r y was made by b l e n d i n g t e n g ra m s o f e a c h m u f f i n o r r o l l
w i t h 40 ml. o f d i s t i l l e d w a t e r i n a W a rin g C o m m e rc ia l B l e n d o r (Type
SJT, New H a r t f o r d , Conn.) f o r 30 s e c o n d s .
The pH o f t h i s s l u r r y was
d e term in e d u s in g a pH m e te r (Corning S c i e n t i f i c In s tr u m e n ts ,
d istrib u te d
by Van W a t e r s a n d R o g e r s ,
In c .,
Model 7,
M e d fie ld ,
MA.).
T r i p l i c a t e m easurem ents were perform ed on each batch.
P e rc e n t Color R e fle c ta n c e
The p e r c e n t r e f l e c t a n c e o f c o l o r f o r e a c h m u f f i n a n d r o l l a n d
whole or f r a c t i o n a t e d DDG was d e term in e d u s in g an A gtron r e f l e c t a n c e
s p e c tro p h o to m e te r (M-500-A Magnuson E n g in ee rin g , In c .,
San Jo se ,
CA.).
Each baked p ro d u ct was blended f o r 30 seconds i n an O s t e r i z e r ( G alaxie
Type,
O ster C o rp o ra tio n ,
d e te r m in a tio n s w ere made.
each b a tc h .
M ilw a u k e e ,
W isc o n sin )
b efo re
c o lo r
T r i p l i c a t e measurem ents w ere perform ed on
25
Dough S t a b i l i t y
S t a b i l i t y o f t h e y e a s t b r e a d dough c o m p o n e n ts w as d e t e r m i n e d
u s in g a f a r in o g r a p h (B rabender C o r p o r a t i o n , R o c h e l l e P a rk , N.J. Type
FT3, No. 4 3 8 ).
A s i n g l e m e a s u re m e n t o f s t a b i l i t y was made f o r each
fo rm u la t h a t used ground or unground, u n f r a c t i o n a t e d and f r a c t i o n a t e d
DDG sample K a t 30% f l o u r re p la c e m e n t l e v e l s . S t a b i l i t y was d eterm in ed
once f o r each fo rm u la t h a t in c o r p o r a te d 30% whole unground DDG sample
K w ith s k i t , w ith d e c re a se d s a l t , and w ith th e s a l t s u b s t i t u t e of KC1.
M u ltip le re g re s s io n a n a ly s is
Co char an,
(MSUSTAT, Lund, 1983,
S n e d e c o r and
1980). was p e rfo rm ed t o d e term in e r e l a t i o n s between p e rc e n t
w a t e r a b s o r p t i o n a n d p a r t i c l e s i z e ; p e r c e n t w a t e r a b s o r p t i o n and
p r o t e i n c o n t e n t o f t h e DDG f r a c t i o n and v a l o r i m e t e r dough q u a l i t y
s c o r e v a lu e s and baked p ro d u c t volumes a t each p a r t i c l e s i z e f r a c t i o n .
O rg a n o le p tic E v a lu a tio n
T rained T aste Panel
The y e a s t r o l l s and o a t m e a l m u f f i n s c o n t a i n i n g 33% and 36%
u n g ro u n d b o u rb o n DDG s a m p le K and e i t h e r s t a n d a r d s a l t l e v e l s ,
no
s a l t , reduced s a l t or a p o ta s s iu m - c h lo r id e s a l t s u b s t i t u t e w ere judged
i n a s c r e e n in g t a s t e p anel by t e n t r a i n e d judges.
A p a ir e d comparison
t e s t and a n i n e - p o i n t h e d o n i c t e s t w e r e u s e d f o r r a t i n g t h e s a m p le s
(A p p e n d ix A).
J u d g e s r a t e d coded s a m p l e s i n i n d i v i d u a l b o o th s i n a
darkened room under*
25 w a tt blue c o lo re d l i g h t s .
Room te m p e ra tu re
d i s t i l l e d w a te r was p ro v id e d f o r r i n s i n g p a l a t e s between samples. The
ju d g e s c o n s is te d o f 7 fe m a le s and 3 males.
w ith
a mean ag e o f 30.8 y e a r s .
Ages ranged from 21 to 37,
The Schfeffe m odel f o r
p a ire d
26
com parison p re fe re n c e t e s t s w ith Tukey1S m u l t i p l e com parison t e s t was
u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e e f f e c t s o f t r e a t m e n t on p r e f e r e n c e (G a c u la and
S in g h ,
1984).
T h is m o d el a l l o w s f o r e f f e c t s due t o t h e o r d e r o f
p re s e n ta tio n of ite m s of a p a ir.
M u ltifa c to r a n a ly s is of v a ria n c e
(MSUSTAT, Lund, 1983, Snedecor and Cocharan, 1980) was used t o a n a ly z e
judge and tr e a tm e n t e f f e c t on h ed o n ic r a t i n g s .
Consumer P an els
Two c o n su m e r t a s t e
p a n e l s w e re
c o n d u c te d i n
S h o p p in g C e n t e r i n Bozeman, M ontana.
th e
Main M all
U ntrained p a n e l i s t s
re c o rd e d
t h e i r a g e and s e x and r a t e d t h e y e a s t and q u i c k b r e a d s u s i n g a n in e
p o in t h edonic s c a l e (Appendix A).
The r o l l s and m u ff in s w ere s l i c e d
and p l a c e d on coded t r a y s . ■ Room t e m p e r a t u r e d i s t i l l e d w a t e r , was
p r o v i d e d t o r i n s e p a l a t e s b e tw e e n s a m p l e s . Only p r o p e r l y c o m p le te d
h ed o n ic fo rm s w ere ta b u la te d .
I, 1 9 8 5 ,ra te d
The f i r s t p anel conducted on December
y e a s t breads and q u ic k b read s (oatm eal m u ffin s) where
33%' and 36% o f t h e f l o u r and o a t s w e re r e p l a c e d w i t h
s a m p l e K, b o th g ro u n d and u n g ro u n d .
b o u rb o n DDG
J u d g e s w e re r e q u i r e d t o t a s t e
e i t h e r t h e p a i r o f m u f f i n s o r th e p a i r o f y e a s t r o l l s , b u t n o t b o th ,
u n le s s th e y d e s ir e d .
The y e a s t r o l l s w ere r a t e d by 94 ju d g es, of whom
63 w ere fe m a le s and 31 w ere males.
w ith
a mean ag e o f 26.9 y e a r s .
Ages ranged from 6 to 70 y e a r s o ld
The m u f f i n s w e re r a t e d by 102
ju d g e s o f whom 66 w ere f e m a le s and 36 w ere male.
to 82 y e a r s o ld ,
w ith a mean age of 29.4
The second t a s t e panel on December 7,
y e a s t r o l l s and q u ic k breads
Ages ran g ed from 5
years.
1985 was conducted t o t e s t
(oatm eal m u ffin s) where 33% and 36% o f
27
th e f l o u r and o a t s w ere r e p la c e d w ith th e unground bourbon DDG sample
K a n d e i t h e r s a l t , no s a l t , o r r e d u c e d s a l t w e re a d d e d . T h ese w e re
compared a g a i n s t a s ta n d a rd c o n tr o l w ith no DDG and w ith a normal s a l t
l e v e l . Judges were r e q u i r e d t o t a s t e e i t h e r a l l fo u r of th e y e a s t r o l l
sam ples o r a l l fo u r of th e m u ffin sam ples,
a l l e i g h t s a m p l e s i f th e y d e s i r e d .
and w ere a llo w e d t o t a s t e
The y e a s t r o l l s w e re r a t e d by 96
ju d g e s, of whom 59 were fe m a le s and 37 were males.
Ages ran g ed from 5
t o 74 y e a r s o l d , w i t h a mean age o f 30.13 y e a r s . The m u f f i n s w e re
r a t e d by 100 judges,
of whom 6.1 were fe m a le s and 39 were males.
The
a g e s o f t h e . j u d g e s r a n g e d fro m 3 t o .80 y e a r s w i t h a mean ag e o f 31.47
years.
M u ltiv a ria te
and
c o v a ria n c e
a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e m e th o d s
(MSUSTAT, Lund, 1983, S n e d e c o r and C o c h a ra n ,
1980) w e re u s e d t o
d e t e r m i n e t h e e f f e c t s o f age and s e x on r o l l o r m u f f i n p r e f e r e n c e .
M u l t i v a r i a t e and c o v a r i a n c e a n a l y s i s m e th o d s (MSUSTAT, Lund, 1983,
Snedecor and Cocharan,
1980) were a l s o perform ed t o d e te rm in e i f type
of r o l l o r m u ffin , age or sex a f f e c t e d th e r a t i n g of the p ro d u cts.
28
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
P a r t i c l e S ize D i s t r i b u t i o n
As shown i n T a b le 6, m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e f o u n d
s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s (P<0.0 5) i n p a r t i c l e s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n among
a l l t e n s a m p l e s o f DDG ( A -I).
As s i e v e s i z e num ber i n c r e a s e d ,
mesh opening and th u s t h e p a r t i c l e s i z e decreased.
been ground,
Sample C may have
as i t appeared much f i n e r than the o th e r samples,
w o u ld e x p l a i n t h e
la rg e
th e
p e r c e n t a g e of m a t e r i a l
which
in th e s ie v e 3 5
fra c tio n s iz e .
The same t e s t of p a r a l l e l i s m was perform ed to compare d i f f e r e n c e s
between two b a tc h e s from the same p l a n t f o r DDG sam ples B-I v e rsu s
B -3 ,
K-I v e r s u s K -3 , and I - 1
v e r s u s 1 -3 .
S ta tis tic a lly sig n ific a n t
d i f f e r e n c e s (P<0.05) were found in p a r t i c l e
s iz e d i s t r i b u t i o n in a l l
t h r e e com parisons, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r sam ple K, although th e d i f f e r e n c e s
may be of minor p r a c t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e .
The p e r c e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n o f e ach s i e v e f r a c t i o n w as a v e r a g e d
am ong DDG s a m p l e s
A,
B, a n d I a n d
com pared
to
DDG s a m p l e
K
d i s t r i b u t i o n , The a v e r a g e of A, B, and I p a r t i c l e s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n
was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (P<0.05) from sample K as shown in Table
6.
These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t v a r i a t i o n i n g r a i n c o m p o s i t i o n and
p ro c e s s in g methods among producers, of bourbon,
v a ry in g p a r t i c l e s iz e .d is tr ib u tio n s .
b a tc h e s i n the same p la n t.
r e s u l t e d in DDG w ith
D i f f e r e n c e s may e x i s t among
29
Table 6.
P a r t i c l e s i z e com position o f bourbon DDG.
P ercen t DDG on Top o f Sieve
S ieve S iz e 16
Mesh S iz e 14
DDG
Sample
A
B-I
B-3
C
D
E
F
G
H
I-I
1-3
K-I
K-3
A ,B ,I
mean
25
24
35 ±2
19 ±1
22 +3
2 +
7 ±1
17 +
26 +
2 +
15+
7 +
7 ±
13 ±1
8 ±
.2
.4
.6
.4
.3
.2
.7
.5
12
31
36
39
10
26
31
32
20
28
20
17
30
25
35
32
+ .8
+2
+ .5
+ .1
+2
+ .5
+3
+ .9
+ .4
+ .2
+ .9
±1
± .4
21
60
60
1 6 + . .2
22 + .4
18 + .6
24 + .8
26 + .3
13
19
14
12
34
24
17
38
28
35
33
27
31
13
18
22 +1
71 +3
28 + .3
24 + .§
22 +1
26 + .2
25 + .3
20
+
.2
+1
+1
+2
+4
±2
+ .4
± .8
+ .4
+2
+2
+ .7
+ .8
± .3
80
80
2 ± .3
4 ± .1
I ± .3
I + .8
5 ± .5
5 ± .2
.6± .5
11 + .5
4 ±1
13 + .8
24 ± .8
7 + .3
7 ±. .6
6
100
100
th ro u g h s
> 100
.2 +.3
.3 ±_.4
tra c e
•
I ±,.2
.6 ± .2
trace
trace
2 .0 +.3
trace
.8 +.3
.6 +.6
trace
.9 ± .3
.3
.5 ± .9
.5 + .8
tr a c e
1
+. 8
.2 ± .4
tra c e
trace
2
+1
trace
2
±2
.1 ± . 2
trace
2
±.4
.7
Chemical A n a ly sis o f DDG
Proximate A n a ly sis
The chem ical co m p o sitio n o f th e u n f r a c t i o n a t e d DDG sam ples were
q u i t e s i m i l a r , e x c e p t f o r th e f i b e r c o n te n t, based on two a n a ly s e s per
s a m p le ( T a b le 7 ).
Sam ple I h ad a much h i g h e r f i b e r c o n t e n t (NDF and
ADF) than did the o th e r samples.
same p l a n t ,
tim e s.
h o w e v e r,
Samples K and B were produced a t the
a lth o u g h they may have undergone d i f f e r e n t f e r m e n ta tio n
B a tc h K-I i s known t o h av e u n d e rg o n e a 4 -d a y f e r m e n t a t i o n ,
it
h ad
th e
h ig h e r
pH.
The o r i g i n a l
g ra in s
u se d and
d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r o c e s s i n g may h a v e r e s u l t e d i n DDG s a m p l e s w i t h
v a ry in g pH's and chem ical com position.
30
Table 7. A n a ly sis pf DDG samplesa .
Dry
m a tte r
DDG Sample
B-I
u n frac tio n a ted
s ie v e 16
s i e v e 35
s ie v e 60
s ie v e 80
B-3
u n frac tio n a ted
s ie v e 16
s i e v e 35
s ie v e 60
s i e v e 80
K=I
unf r a c t i ona te d
s ie v e 16
s i e v e 35
s ie v e 60
s i e v e 80
K=3.
unf r a c t i ona te d
s ie v e 16
s i e v e 35
s ie v e 60
s i e v e 80
I= I
u n frac tio n a ted
s ie v e 16
s i e v e 35
s ie v e 60
s i e v e 80
1=3.
u n frac tio n a ted
s ie v e 16
s ie v e 35
s ie v e 60
s i e v e 80
A
u n frac tio n a ted
S m ,. _
^
,
,
,
P r o te in
E th e r
e x tra c t
NDF
ADF
Ash
pH
%
%
%
%
%
%
88.5
89.6
89.8
89.7
91.1
26.6
25.6
2 6.7
27.2
29.7
7 .7
10.8
8.1
6 .8
5.3
36.4
30.7
32.5
33.2
30.9
11.1
8 .8
10.0
11.5
b
4.0
4 .0
4.0
4 .0
b
4.05
91 .3
91.3
91.7
91.6
91.4
26.4
24 .5
26.6
27.8
27.7
9.8
10.7
9.1
8.1
6.5
29.8
30.0
30.4
30.5
35.0
9 .8
10.2
11.0
10.3
14.8
3.8
3 .8
3.8
3 .8
4.0
4.05
90.9
90.2
90.2
90.1
90.4
26 .9
24.0
25.4
26.9
30.7
7 .3
11.7
8.1
7 .2
6.6
35.2
32.1
34.1
34.5
27.6
13.1
1 1 .4
11.9
12.8
10.7
4.1
3 .9
4.0
3 .9
4.3
4.30
91.8
91.6
91.7
91.6
91.6
25.4
23.2
24.7
27.9
29.0
8.1
9 .3
8.3
7 .0
6 .9
35.5
33.6
38.0
36.7
32.8
12.9
11.2
11.9
12.9
12.1
3.5
3.6
3.5
3 .5
3.9
4.0
93.1
93.9
92.8
91.6
90.7
25.5
16.0
25.8
33.1
34.3
8.9
5.1
1 0.7
9.7
8.1
46.7
60.5
46.7
34.2
20.9
19.3
. 21.0
18.2
15.0
10.5
3.3
1.6
2 .7
4 .0
5.8
4.05
92.8
94.0
93.3
92.1
91.4
26.4
1,2.9
22.9
32.3
3 3 .4
9.8
5 .8
9.8
10.9
10.6
46.7
63.7
48.6
33.1
19.4
19.1
22.7
15.8
13.6
13.3
3.8
1.7
2.8
4 .0
5.6
3.83
88.2
24.4
8.3
33.3
12.2
3.8
3.86
a The s ta n d a rd d e v ia t io n was 2.0% fo r th e NDF and ADF1 and 0.5% f o r a l l
o th e r a n a l y s e s .
There was n o t enough sample f o r a n a ly s e s .
31
S ie v in g o f DDG sam ples i n t o f o u r p a r t i c l e s i z e f r a c t i o n s showed
some c o n s i s t e n t tr e n d s i n chem ical com p o sitio n between sam ples, based
on tw o a n a l y s e s p e r f o r m e d on e a c h s a m p l e (T a b le 7 ) . S a m p le s B and K
were produced a t the same p la n t,
so can be c o n sid e re d a s r e p l i c a t e s .
In a l l sam ples, as p a r t i c l e s i z e d e c re a se d from s ie v e number 16 to 80,
th e p r o t e i n p e r c e n t i n c r e a s e d .
f r a c t i o n s o f th e DDG I sam ples
i n th e o t h e r DDG s a m p l e s .
The p r o t e i n c o n t e n t o f th e s i e v e
had a g r e a t e r sp read th a n t h a t found
I n s a m p l e s B and K, l i p i d p e r c e n t ( e t h e r
e x tr a c t) d ecreased as p a r t i c l e s iz e decreased.
In sam p le I, l i p i d
p e r c e n t v a r i e d s l i g h t l y among s ie v e f r a c t i o n s of both b a tc h e s of I - I
and 1 - 3 .
NDF v alu e v a r i e d among sam ples.
p ercen t in c re a se d as p a r tic le
f r a c tio n siz e ,
In sam ples K -I, K-3, and B-I NDF
siz e
s i e v e 80 when i t d e c r e a s e d .
f i n e s t s ie v e 80 f r a c t i o n of sample B-3.
p a r t i c l e s i z e i n both I - I
sim ila rly
decreased,
by p a r t i c l e
th e f i n e s t
in c re a s e d in th e
NDF d e c re a se d w ith d e c r e a s in g
and 1-3 sam ples.
siz e .
NDF
u n til
ADF v a lu e s w ere a f f e c t e d
S a m p le B-3 seem s t o h a v e a. h i g h e r
p e rc en ta g e of f i b e r i n t h e f i n e s t s i e v e f r a c t i o n .
Dry m a t t e r s i n a l l s a m p l e s a p p e a r e d o n ly s l i g h t l y a l t e r e d by
s i e v i n g t h e DDG, a l t h o u g h th e y s l i g h t l y d e c r e a s e d w i t h d e c r e a s i n g
p a r t i c l e s i z e i n th e I - I and 1 -3 s a m p l e s . Ash c o n t e n t s w e re q u i t e
s i m i l a r among s i e v e f r a c t i o n s f o r a l l DDG samples,
ex cep t i n sam ples
I - I and 1-3, where ash p e rc e n ta g e s i n c r e a s e d w ith d e c r e a s in g p a r t i c l e
siz e .
32
L ip id Composition
Batch v a r i a b i l i t y
A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e (TLC) p e r c e n t a g e s o f l i p i d
f r a c t i o n s was made between the two b a tc h e s (I and 3) o b ta in e d f o r each
of th e t h r e e DDG sam ples (B, I and K), assum ing an e x p e r im e n ta l e r r o r
of
+ 5%.
F ig u re
I
show s
c o n sid e ra b le
t r i a c y l g l y c e r o l (TAG) p o r t i o n i n a l l samples.
known to be from the same p l a n t ,
d iffe re n c e s
in
th e
DDG sam ples B and K a r e
a lth o u g h were t r e a t e d a s d i f f e r e n t .
B oth DDG b a t c h e s B-3 and K-3 had a h i g h e r p e r c e n t a g e o f TAG t h a n t h e
DDG b a t c h e s o f B-2 o r K-2.
C o n c o m ita n t d e c r e a s e s i n t h e f r e e f a t t y
a c i d (FFA) and s t e r o l e s t e r bands w e r e n o t e d i n B-3 and K-3 b a t c h e s .
DDG sam ples B and K were o b ta in e d from a p l a n t t h a t u t i l i z e s e i t h e r a
3-day or a 4-day f e r m e n ta tio n p e rio d ,
f o r DDG sample K -I.
which was no t s p e c i f i e d ex cep t
I t was produced i n a 4-day f e r m e n ta tio n period.
The 4.3 pH of K-I i s h ig h e r th an th e o th e r B or K sam p les, which would
n o t le n d to s p e c u l a t i o n t h a t lo n g e r f e r m e n t a t i o n tim e s r e s u l t i n more
a c i d i c DDG s a m p l e s .
However, o t h e r f a c t o r s i n p r o c e s s i n g may h ave
c a u s e d a more a c i d i c DDG.
The more a c i d i c DDG may be m ore p ro n e t o
a c i d h y d r o l y s i s . The FFA c o n t e n t w as 9% lo w e r i n K-3 (pH 4 .0 ) t h a n i n
K-I (pH 4.3),
which may i n d i c a t e a c i d h y d r o ly s is o c c u rre d w ith in the
FFA o f K-3 d u rin g p ro c e ss in g .
N o t i c e a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s o c c u r r e d b etw een th e two b a tc h e s o f DDG
s a m p le I.
The TAG p o r t i o n w as Q% l o w e r i n th e 1 -3 b a t c h t h a n i n t h e
I - I batch.
I n c r e a s e s w ere seen i n t h e monoacyI g l y c e r o l - d i a c y ! g l y c e r o l
(MAG-DAG) and s t e r o l e s t e r b a n d s.
No a p p r e c i a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s w e re
o b s e r v e d i n t h e FFA band, e v e n th o u g h t h e pH o f 1 -3 (3 .8 3 ) was l o w e r
Percent
33
B-I
B-Z
B-3
K-I
K-Z
K-3
I-I
I-Z
1-3
DDG Samples
F ig u re I.
Q u a n t i t a t i v e p e rc e n ta g e s o f l i p i d f r a c t i o n s o f DDG sam ples
B, K and I .
Standard d e v i a t i o n o f each f r a c t i o n = ± 5.0$
D
= M o n o -d ia cy lg ly ce ro ls
|||J = M ethyl-E thyl E s te r s
= F ree F a tty Acids
H
ffll = T r i a c y l g l y c e r o l s
= S t e r o l E s te r s
34
th a n t h e pH o f I - I
(4 .0 5 ) .
These d i f f e r e n c e s may be due t o t h e
o r i g i n a l g r a i n u s e d or s u b t l e v a r i a t i o n s i n p r o c e s s i n g .
G iven t h e
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 5% v a r i a b i l i t y due t o e x p e r i m e n t a l e r r o r i n t h e TLC
te c h n iq u e , th e s e r e s u l t s must be t r e a t e d w ith c au tio n .
Comparison o f th e q u a l i t a t i v e l i p i d c o m p o sitio n i n t h e TAG band
among t h e s e two d i f f e r e n t b a t c h e s (I and 3) o f e a c h o f B, I and K DDG
sam ples
show ed no
c o n siste n t
d e v i a t i o n o f + 1.0% ( F i g u r e 2).
tre n d s,
a s s u m in g a mean s t a n d a r d
T h e re w as v i r t u a l l y no d i f f e r e n c e
f o u n d among t h e tw o b a t c h e s o f s a m p le B.
l i n o l e i c a c i d ( 1 8 :2 ) th a n K-I and I - I
K-3 and 1 -3 had l e s s
by 8% a n d 9% r e s p e c t i v e l y .
T h e re w as 5% more o l e i c a c i d (1 8 :1 ) i n B -3 t h a n i n I - I . I n t h e FFA
band, s l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e s were ob serv ed o n ly among DDG samples K and I
(F ig u re 3).
L i n o le ic a c id was lo w e r by 5% and 12% i n sam p les K-3 and
1-3 r e s p e c t i v e l y .
The l o w e r l e v e l s o f l i n o l e i c a c i d f o u n d i n b o th t h e TAG and FFA
b an d s o f 1-3 and K-3 b a t c h e s co m p ared t o I - I and K-I may be a r e s u l t
o f p ro c e s s in g v a r i a t i o n s between batches.
A h ig h e r o x id a tio n r a t e i n
th e sec o n d b a t c h e s may h a v e r e s u l t e d i n i n c r e a s e d
b reak d o w n o f
l i n o l e i c a c i d fro m t h e TAG band t o fo rm s e c o n d a r y r e a c t i o n p r o d u c t s
s u c h a s s h o r t - c h a i n e d a l d e h y d e s , k e t o n e s and h y d r o x y l compounds.
P e rc e n t dry m a tte r of a m a t e r i a l in f l u e n c e s th e degree of o x id a tio n .
Very dry food p ro d u c ts (ie .
p ro n e t o o x i d a t i o n .
p e r c e n t m o is tu r e s of ab o u t 2-5%) a r e more
A s l i g h t in c re a se in p ercent m o istu re r e ta rd s
o x id a tio n , w h ile f u r t h e r i n c r e a s e s a c c e l e r a t e th e p r o c e s s ( Fennema,
I 985).
The p e r c e n t m o i s t u r e s o f t h e s e DDG s a m p l e s v a r i e d s l i g h t l y
b e tw e e n b a t c h e s , b u t w e re p r o b a b l y s i m i l a r enough so t h a t p e r c e n t
Percent
35
B-I
F ig u re 2.
B-2 B - 3 K - I K - 2 K - 3 I - I
DDG Samples
1-2
1-3
T r ia c y lg ly c e r o l q u a l i t y changes i n r e l a t i v e p e rcen tag e of
f a t t y a c id com position of DDG samples, B, K, and I .
Stan d ard d e v i a t i o n o f each f r a c t i o n = ± I .0$
gg
= P a lm itic (1 6 :0 )
I I = S t e a r i c (1 8 :0 )
HU
= O leic (1 8 :1 )
gjg] = L i n o le ic (1 8 :2 )
H
= L in o le n ic (18:3)
Percent
36
B - 1 B-Z
B-3
K-I
K-Z
K-3
I-I
I-Z
1-3
DDG Samples
F ig u re 3.
Free f a t t y a c id q u a l i t y changes i n r e l a t i v e p erc en ta g e of
f a t t y a c id com position of DDG samples B1 K, and I .
Standard d e v i a t i o n o f each f r a c t i o n = ± I .0$
ggg = P a lm itic (16:0)
||] =
L i n o le ic (1 8 :2 )
I I = S t e a r i c (1 8 :0 )
H
L in o le ic (18:3)
{JJJ = O leic (1 8 :1 )
=
37
m o is tu r e d i f f e r e n c e s w ere not a f f e c t i n g th e o x id a tio n r a t e of th e
f a t t y a c id s.
A ll s a m p l e s w e re h e l d i n f r o z e n s t o r a g e w h ic h s h o u ld
h a v e p r e v e n t e d them fro m b e in g s u s c e p t i b l e t o o x i d a t i o n fro m h ig h
te m p e ra tu re exposure.
P r o c e s s i n g v a r i a t i o n s a t th e p l a n t may h a v e
c a u s e d t h e s l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e s shown i n f r e e f a t t y a c i d c o m p o s i t i o n
between the two DDG batches, from the same p la n t.
The p l a c e m e n t o f a s p e c i f i c f a t t y
a c id a t each of th e th r e e
p o s i t i o n s on th e TAG m o lecu le i s a l s o im p o r ta n t because f a t t y a c id s i n
t h e o u t e r p o s i t i o n s o f t h e TAG m o l e c u l e a r e m ore s u s c e p t i b l e t o
o x i d a t i o n (B arnes, 1983). The c o n v e n tio n a l s t e r e o s p e c i f i c numbering of
g ly c e r o l i s a s f o l l o w s (Fennema, 1985):
CHpOH
I
I
I
HO-C-H
2
I
I
CH2 OH
3
B ourbon DDG c o n s i s t p r i m a r i l y o f c o rn .
In corn o i l , l i n o l e i c
a c i d o c c u p i e s e i t h e r p o s i t i o n I or 2 o f t h e TAG m o l e c u l e , w hich i s
d e t e r m i n e d by random d i s t r i b u t i o n (F ennem a, 1985).
The v a r i a t i o n s
show n i n l i n o l e i c a c i d l e v e l s i n t h e TAG bands c o u l d be due t o i t s
v a r i a t i o n s i n p l a c e m e n t on t h e TAG m o l e c u l e .
I t may be t h a t l o w e r
l e v e l s o f l i n o l e i c a c id r e s u l t e d when i t was p re s e n t i n t h e number I
p o s i t i o n on t h e TAG a n d w as t h u s
lim ita tio n s
of
v a r i a t i o n s shown.
p re fe re n tia lly
o x id iz e d .
The
t h e TLC and GLC t e c h n i q u e s may a l s o e x p l a i n t h e
38
T r e a t i n g s a m p l e s B and K a s d i f f e r e n t b a t c h e s fro m t h e same
p lan t,
a n a l y s i s o f v a r ia n c e was perform ed to compare FFA p e rc en ta g e
d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e FFA band and i n t h e TAG band b e tw e e n s a m p l e s B-3
a n d K-3 ( T a b l e s 8 and 9).
C o m p a ris o n s c o u ld n o t be made b e tw e e n B-I
and K-I due t o l a c k o f tr e a tm e n t r e p l i c a t i o n .
w e re shown i n
S ig n ific a n t d ifferen c es
p a l m i t i c a c i d , 16:0 (P<0.05) and l i n o l e i c a c i d , 18:2
(P < 0 .0 1) i n t h e TAG band (T a b le 8 ). B a tc h K-3 c o n t a i n e d l e s s l i n o l e i c
a c i d a t t a c h e d t o a c y l g l y c e r o l s th a n
b a t c h B-3.
I n t h e FFA band,
s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s w ere shown between p a l m i t i c a c i d (P<0.01) and
b e tw e e n o l e i c a c i d , 18:1 (P < 0 .0 1) ( T a b le 9).
B a tc h K-3 h a d h i g h e r
l e v e l s o f p a l m i t i c a c id and l e s s f r e e o l e i c a c id th a n b atch B-3. These
r e s u l t s s u g g e s t t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s may o c cu r i n FFA c o n te n t between two
b a tc h e s o f DDG from th e same p la n t,
but g iv en te c h n iq u e l i m i t a t i o n s ,
the d i f f e r e n c e s may ho t be of p r a c t i c a l s ig n if ic a n c e .
Table 8.
T r ia c y lg ly c e r o l q u a l i t y changes i n r e l a t i v e p e rc en ta g e of
f a t t y a c id com position of DDG samples B-3 and K-3.
F a tty Acid P e rc e n t
DDG Sample
P a lm itic
(16:0)
S te a ric
(18:0)
O leic
(1 8 :1 )
B-3
K-3
12 + I .Oa
14 + .6 b
I ± .02
I + .9
26 + .4
28 + 2.6
L i n o le ic
(18:2)
L in o le n ic
(1 8 :3 )
58 ± .7 b
52 ± I .4 a
3 ± .1
3 + .2
a b V a lu e s i n th e same co lu m n t h a t do n o t s h a r e a common s u p e r s c r i p t
d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y , P<0.05 f o r p a l m i t i c , and P<0.01 f o r l i n o l e i c .
)
E f f e c t s o f fr o z e n s to r a g e
E x a m in in g t h e e f f e c t s o f .1 1 /2 y e a r s o f f r o z e n s t o r a g e on t h e
q u a n t i t a t i v e l i p i d c o m p o sitio n of the DDG samples (I and 2) r e v e a le d a
c o n s i s t e n t tr e n d o n ly i n t h e TAG band (F ig u re I). I n c r e a s e s i n th e TAG
39
band over s to ra g e tim e w ere of 6% i n sample B, 3% i n sam ple K, and 6%
i n s a m p le I.
s a m p le B
T hese i n c r e a s e s i n TAG w e re o f f s e t by d e c r e a s e s i n
by p r i m a r i l y
samples K and I
t h e MAG-DAG and s t e r o l e s t e r b a n d s, and i n
by p r i m a r i l y
the FFA band. These d i f f e r e n c e s may be
s m a ll enough to be c o n sid e re d a r e s u l t of th e exp ected 5% e x p erim en tal
error.
Table 9.
Free f a t t y a c id q u a l i t y changes i n r e l a t i v e p e rc en ta g e of
f a t t y a c id com position of DDG samples B-3 and K-3.
'
F a tty Acid P e rc e n t
DDG Sample
B-3
K-3
P a lm itic
(1 6 :0 )
26 ± .3 a
■ 29 ± .8 b
S te a ric
(1 8 :0 )
4 ± .1
4 + .1
O leic
(1 8 :1 )
L i n o le ic
(18:2)
23 + .Bb 41 + 1.5
20 + . I a 44 + .3
L in o le n ic
(1 8 :3 )
2 ± .6
I + .5
a ^lV a lu e s i n t h e same colum n t h a t do n o t s h a r e a common s u p e r s c r i p t
d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y , P<0.01.
Comparison o f th e q u a l i t a t i v e l i p i d co m p o sitio n i n t h e TAG band
showed a c o n s i s t e n t d e c r e a s i n g t r e n d i n l i n o l e i c a c i d among DDG
s a m p l e s (I and 2) a f t e r s t o r a g e t i m e ( F i g u r e 2 ). D e c r e a s e s o f 5% i n
s a m p le B -2 , 135» i n s a m p le K-2 and 4% i n s a m p le 1 -2 o c c u r r e d .
In
sample K-2 an 8% in c r e a s e i n o l e i c a c id and a 3% i n c r e a s e i n p a l m i t i c
acid
were a ls o noted.
O leic a c id c o n te n t in c re a s e d by k% i n sample
1- 2 .
Comparison o f th e q u a l i t a t i v e l i p i d c o m p o sitio n i n t h e FFA band
showed no a p p r e c ia b le d i f f e r e n c e s i n FFA com p o sitio n a f t e r I 1/2 y e a r s
f r o z e n s t o r a g e b e tw e e n DDG s a m p l e s
I - 1 and 1 -2 ( F i g u r e 3 ).
sample B, a 4% i n c r e a s e i n p a l m i t i c a c i d
I n DDG
and a tw o - f o ld i n c r e a s e i n
l i n o l e n i c a c i d (1 8 :3 ) w e re o b s e r v e d . A 7% d e c r e a s e i n l i n o l e i c a c i d
40
was shown a f t e r
s t o r a g e t i m e i n s a m p le K-2.
L i n o l e n i c a c i d w as
d ecreased by I 1/2 tim e s , alth o u g h , a s i n the o th e r DDG sam ples,
r e p r e s e n t s only a minor d e c re a se ,
th is
s in c e l i n o l e n i c a c i d i s p re s e n t i n
such sm all amounts.
I t i s l i k e l y t h a t those d i f f e r e n c e s found o f 5% o r l e s s w ere due
to te c h n iq u e l i m i t a t i o n s and t h a t th e q u a n t i t a t i v e l i p i d
co m p o sitio n
o f t h e DDG s a m p l e s r e m a i n e d q u i t e s t a b l e d u r i n g t h e f r o z e n s t o r a g e
t i m e i n a l l t h r e e DDG s a m p le s .
The l a r g e r p e r c e n t a g e d i f f e r e n c e s
shown i n f r e e f a t t y a c id s may be r e a l .
The d e c re a s e s o f l i n o l e i c a c id
may be th e r e s u l t of i t s o x id a tio n d u rin g s to ra g e . Some p r e f e r e n t i a l
o x id a tio n o f l i n o l e i c a c id
may have o c c u rre d i f i t was p r e s e n t i n th e
n u m b er I p o s i t i o n on t h e TAG m o l e c u l e .
I t may h av e b e e n f u r t h e r
o x id iz e d t o form secondary r e a c t i o n p ro d u cts.
T i t r a t i o n of A lk a liz in g Agents
Sodium b ic a r b o n a te t i t r a t i o n
As i n d i c a t e d i n F i g u r e 4 , DDG s a m p l e s v a r i e d i n t h e am ount o f
baking soda (NaHCOg) needed t o r a i s e t h e i r pH's.
However, the grad u al
i n c r e a s i n g t r e n d was f a i r l y c o n s i s t e n t among sam ples.
NaHCOg needed (112-138 g) t o n e u t r a l i z e each DDG
to pH
The amount
of
7*0 was 5,640
mg f o r s a m p le K, 8 ,4 0 0 mg f o r s a m p le I , 10,800 mg f o r s a m p le B, and
12,000 mg f o r
s a m p le A.
The a m o u n ts a p p e a r e d d e p e n d e n t on th e
s t a r t i n g pH o f th e DDG sample b e fo re NaHCOg was added.
That w ith th e
l o w e s t s a m p le pH (A) r e q u i r e d t h e m o s t NaHCOg1 a n d t h a t w i t h t h e
h ig h e s t
sample pH (K) r e q u i r e d t h e l e a s t NaHCOg.
The s t a r t i n g sam ple
pH's w e r e 3,7 f o r A, 4.0 f o r B, 4.05 f o r I , and 4.3 f o r K.
41
O
2000
4000
6000
6000
10000
12000
14000
NqHCOj(mg)
F ig u re 4.
T i t r a t i o n o f baking soda (NaHCOg) a g a i n s t DDG sam ples A, B,
I , and K.
O=B
♦ = A
A
= K
A = I
42
B ased on t h e t i t r a t i o n c u r v e s , t h e am ount o f NaHCOg n e e d e d t o
a c h ie v e a product pH c lo s e to the s ta n d a r d was d e te rm in e d f o r each DDG
s a m p le p e r gram o f DDG i n t h e f o r m u l a ( T a b le 1 0 ).
Those baked
p r o d u c t s i n c o r p o r a t i n g DbG w i t h l o w e r pH's r e q u i r e d m o re NaHCOg t o
b rin g t h e i r
p roduct
pH up t o
th e
s t a n d a r d p r o d u c t pH.
Amounts
r e q u i r e d ranged from .03 t o .06 g NaHCOg/g DDG.
Table 10.
Levels o f NaHCOg added t o o b t a i n s ta n d a rd p ro d u c t pH i n DDG
baked p ro d u c ts .
Weight of NaHCOg added to p ro d u c t
per gram of DDG
DDG Sample
Quick Breads
(pH 6 .5 7 )
Yeast Breads
(pH 5 .9 2 )
A
B
I
Ka
.06
.0 5
.05
.03
.05
.03
.03
.02
g
g
g
g
NaHCOo
NaHCOg
NaHCOg
NaHCOg
s NaHCO3
S NaHCOg
g NaHCOg
g NaHCOg
a For s a m p le K, .05 g NaHCOg p e r g DDG w as a c t u a l l y i n c o r p o r a t e d i n
both p ro d u c ts based on d e c is io n by p re v io u s r e s e a r c h e r s .
Calcium c a rb o n a te t i t r a t i o n
Calcium c a rb o n a te (CaCOg) i s a known n e u t r a l i z e r of a c id s ,
as i t
i n c r e a s e s pH, a lth o u g h i t may d e c re a se th e volume of a baked p roduct
(Ja c k e l,
I 969).
I t i s i n e r t i n b a k in g a n d d o e s n o t a d d a v a i l a b l e
c a r b o n d i o x i d e t o a b a k in g p o w d er (Conn, 1965). I t w as t h e r e f o r e ,
c o n s i d e r e d a s a p o s s i b l e a l k a l i z i n g a g e n t f o r use i n b ak ed p r o d u c t s
u tiliz in g
th e t y p i c a l l y
a c id ic
DDG.
I t was d i s c o v e r e d t o
be an
i n e f f e c t i v e a l k a l i z i n g a g e n t f o r DDG due t o t h e l a r g e a m o u n ts fo u n d
n e c e s sa ry t o r a i s e the pH of DDG.
43
CaCOg was t i t r a t e d i n t h r e e fo rm s a g a i n s t DDG sample K (Appendix
B). The a d d i t i o n i n the dry gram w e ig h t form r e q u ir e d 7.7 g of CaCtig/
g DDG to o b t a i n t h e s ta n d a rd p ro d u ct pH i n a y e a s t b read form ula.
In
a b o i l i n g w a te r medium, the CaCOg was f a i r l y i n s o l u b l e , r e q u i r i n g 26.8
g o f CaCOg to r a i s e t h e pH o f 20 g o f DDG from 4.7 5 t o 5 .2 5 .
The
t h i r d t i t r a t i o n of DDG u s in g .IN CaCOg r e q u ir e d 50 g / g DDG which a ls o
was u n a cc e p tab le .
P a r t i c l e S iz e E f f e c t on Volume
Quick B reads
Quick b re a d s w ith 36% DDG sample K
Oatmeal m u ffin s w ere baked t o d e term in e th e e f f e c t s
of p a rtic le
s i z e t r e a t m e n t s ( s i e v e f r a c t i o n ) and g r i n d on v o lu m e ( T a b le 11).
G r i n d i n g t h e DDG had no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on v o lu m e .
The mean
volumes among th e f i v e f r a c t i o n s w ere 22.29 cc ± 1.52 f o r th e m u ffin s
baked w ith unground DDG f r a c t i o n s ,
and 22.35 cc ±. 1.12 f o r th e m u ffin s
baked w ith ground DDG f r a c t i o n s .
The p a r t i c l e s i z e (s ie v e f r a c t i o n ) o f DDG was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y
a sso c ia te d
w ith
t h e v o lu m e
of
th e
baked m u ff in
( P X 0 5 ).
No
s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between volum es o f any
o f th e p r o d u c t s b ak ed w i t h DDG o r b e tw e e n th e s t a n d a r d w i t h no DDG
(P >0.1).
S u b j e c t i v e a n a l y s i s o f t h e v o lu m e m eans d i d i n d i c a t e t h e
p ro d u c ts w ith DDG had l e s s e r a p p a re n t volumes than the sta n d a rd .
The
v o lu m e s r a n g e d fro m 20 cc i n t h e m u f f i n baked w i t h u n f r a c t i o n a t e d ,
un g ro u n d DDG t o 26 c c i n th e s t a n d a r d m u f f i n .
The a p p e a r a n c e of t h e
s t a n d a r d m u f f i n w as m ore a c c e p t a b l e , a s i t w as r o u n d e d , w i t h ev en
44
crumb and t e x t u r e .
All "muffins w ith DDG had a dense t e x t u r e and w ere
fla t-to p p ed .
Reduced volum es i n p ro d u c ts w ith 36% DDG may be due t o
'r
some o th e r v a r i a b l e b e s id e s p a r t i c l e s i z e of th e DDG. I t could be th e
r e s u l t o f l e s s g lu te n a v a i l a b l e due t o re p la c e m e n t of th e f l o u r w ith
DDG.
The pH’s w ere w i t h i n a narrow range, s in c e th ey had been a d ju s t e d
by th e a d d i t i o n of the n e u t r a l i z i n g a g en t (NaHCOg) to. be c lo s e to the
sta n d a rd
p ro d u c t.
N e i t h e r NDF n o r
p ro te in
c o n t e n t o f t h e DDG
f r a c t i o n had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t bn volume.
The l i p i d c o n te n t o f each f r a c t i o n was shown t o have a m a rg in a lly
s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t (P= .044) on th e volume of the baked m u ffin product.
A l i n e a r c o n t r a s t o f l i p i d e f f e c t on v o lu m e f o r e ac h f r a c t i o n was
perform ed to a cc o u n t f o r
th e
d isc re p a n c ie s
in
th e
num ber
o b s e r v a t i o n s b e tw e e n l i p i d c o n t e n t and v o lu m e m e a u r e m e n ts .
c o n t r a s t found l i p i d t o have no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on volume.
of
T h is
L ip id s
a r e known t o in f l u e n c e th e gas c e l l s t r u c t u r e and s t a b i l i t y i n b a t t e r s
and doughs (B arnes, 1983).
L ip id co m p o sitio n of th e f l o u r , a s w e ll as
th e p ro p o r tio n of l i p i d to p r o te in c o n te n t h e lp s to d e term in e th e
n a tu re of th e gas c e l l s t r u c t u r e .
v o lu m e o f t h e b aked p r o d u c t .
T h i s e f f e c t may i n f l u e n c e t h e
No c o n s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s h a v e b een
found between l i p i d c o n te n t o f f l o u r s and baking perform ance, probably
b e c a u s e o f t h e d o m in a n t e f f e c t o f p r o t e i n q u a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e s .
In
o a t m e a l m u f f i n s , l i p i d a d d e d t o th e p r o d u c t f o r m u l a i n t h e fo rm o f
s h o r te n in g may have overcome any d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t th e l i p i d c o n te n t of
the DDG and f l o u r may have had (B arnes,
1983).
45
Table 11.
The e f f e c t of s ie v e f r a c t i o n and g r in d in g on volume and
pH i n o atm eal m u ffin s c o n ta i n in g 36$ DDG sample K.
Volumea
(cc)
DDG Sample
I
Combined
mean pHa
6.49 + .06
CO
CU
+1
U n fra c tio n a te d ,
unground
U n fra c tio n a ted ,
ground
Combined
S iev e 16, unground
S ieve 16, ground
Combined
S ieve 35, unground
S iev e 35, ground
Combined
S ie v e 60, un ground
S iev e 60, ground
Combined
S ieve 80, unground
S iev e 80, ground
Combined
S ta n d a rd , no DDG
Combined
mean volume3
(cc)
6.42 ± • 1
21 ± I .5
6.45ab
21a
6.50 ± .02
6.46 + .06
23 + 3.7
24 + 2 .9
6 .4 8 a
24a
6.46 + .05
6.46 ± .04
22 + 6.1
22 + 4.7
6 .4 6 a
22a
6.47 + .02
6 .36 + .08
24 + 3 .3
22 + 4 .0
6.42ab
23 a
6.32 + .01
6.25 + .09
22 ± . 1 . 9
23 ± 1.2
22a
26 a + 1 .6
6.28b
6 .5 9 a + .05
aVolume and pH v a lu e s a r e t h e means o f t h r e e b a tc h e s . Values i n
the same column t h a t do n o t sh are a common l e t t e r (a,b ) d i f f e r
s i g n i f i c a n t l y , P<0.05.
The s i e v e f r a c t i o n o f DDG
i n c o r p o r a t e d h ad a s t a t i s t i c a l l y
s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on th e pH of the baked m u ffin (P<0.01). The lo w e s t
p r o d u c t pH was fo u n d w i t h t h a t u s i n g t h e s m a l l e s t DDG p a r t i c l e s i z e
( s i e v e 80).
G r i n d i n g e a c h s i e v e f r a c t i o n p ro d u c e d a s t a t i s t i c a l l y
sig n ific a n t
effect
on pH (P<„05).
The mean pH o f
a ll
ung ro u n d
f r a c t i o n s was 6.45 and t h e mean pH o f a l l g ro u n d f r a c t i o n s was 6.39.
A lth o u g h
s ta tistic a lly
sig n ific a n t,
t h e m a g n i t u d e o f t h e pH
d i f f e r e n c e s was n o t c o n s i d e r e d t o be l a r g e enough t o s i g n i f i c a n t l y
a f f e c t p roduct q u a l i t y .
46
Quick b re a d s w ith 5% and 15% DDG sample K
O atm eal m u f f i n s w e r e baked w i t h DDG s a m p le K a t t h e 5% and 15%
re p la c e m e n t l e v e l s i n the unground and ground s t a t e s .
Mean volumes
w ere an aly z e d t o see i f a t lo w e r l e v e l s o f DDG re p la c e m e n t,
s i z e in f l u e n c e d volume (Table 12).
DDG i n
th e
m u ffin s
by
Reducing the p a r t i c l e
g rin d in g
d id
not
change
p a rtic le
s iz e of th e
m u ffin
v o lu m e
s i g n i f i c a n t l y when co m p ared t o m u f f i n s b ak ed w i t h t h e un g ro u n d DDG
sample (P>.05).
Mean volumes ranged from 102 cc t o 103 cc.
Table 12. Volumes of oatm eal m u ffin s u t i l i z i n g
K g ro u n d and unground.
and 15% DDG
DDG Level and Form
Volumea (cc)
5% unground
5% ground
15% unground .
15% ground
102
103
102
101
sample
+ 5.4
±. 4 .2
± .4 .1
± 6 .8
a Volume v a l u e s . a r e th e means o f t e n sam ples.
Quick b re a d s w ith 36% DDG samples A. B. and I
The p a r t i c l e s i z e e f f e c t o f DDG on volume was t e s t e d i n oatm eal
m u ffin s u s in g th r e e a d d i t i o n a l DDG sam ples (A, B and I ) r e p l a c i n g 36%
o f t h e f l o u r i n b o th g ro u n d a n d un g ro u n d f o r m s .
V olum es w e re n o t
d i f f e r e n t b e tw e e n m u f f i n s b aked w i t h g ro u n d and u n g ro u n d DDG when
u s i n g any o f t h e t h r e e s a m p l e s
( T a b le 13).
The g r i n d i n g t r e a t m e n t
d i d n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r pH i n m u f f i n s baked w i t h any o f t h e s e
t h r e e DDG sam ples (Table 13).
47
Table 13. Volume and pH of oatm eal m u ffin s u t i l i z i n g DDG sam ples A, B,
and I a t th e 36% re p la c e m e n t l e v e l ground and unground.
A
A
B
B
I
I
PHa
.Volumea (cc)
DDG sample
unground
ground
unground
ground
unground
ground
35
33
33
32
35
34
6.33
6.2 9
6.53
6.50
6.67
6.66
±. .7
± .9
± .2
± 4 .4
+ 2 .2
± 2.0
±.
±
+
±
±.
±
.01
.10
.08
.09
.03
.08
aVolume and pH v a lu e s a r e th e means o f th r e e b a tc h e s.
Yeast B reads
Yeast b re a d s w ith 33% DDG samnle K
Y e ast r o l l s w e re a n a l y z e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e f f e c t o f p a r t i c l e
s i z e ( s i e v e f r a c t i o n ) and g r i n d on v o lu m e (T a b le 14).
DDG f r a c t i o n s d id n o t produce s t a t i s t i c a l l y
volumes.
G rin d in g th e
sig n ific a n tly
d iffe re n t
The mean volumes among th e f i v e f r a c t i o n s w ere 42 ± 5.3 cc
f o r th e y e a s t r o l l s baked w ith unground DDG f r a c t i o n s and 44 ±. 5.5 cc
f o r th e y e a s t r o l l s baked w ith ground DDG f r a c t i o n s .
Yeast r o l l volumes w ere not a f f e c t e d by th e s ie v e f r a c t i o n o f DDG
t h a t was in c o rp o ra te d . A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was measured between
t h e v o lu m e s o f t h e r o l l s u s i n g f r a c t i o n s o f DDG and o f t h e s t a n d a r d
r o l l (P<0. 1).
lo w e st
The s t a n d a r d r o l l v o lu m e w as 55 cc c o m p ared w i t h th e
DDG r o l l
v o lu m e
o f 42 cc made w i t h
siev e
fra c tio n
16.
S u b je c tiv e e x a m in a tio n of the s ta n d a rd y e a s t r o l l s showed them t o have
h i g h e r a p p a r e n t v o lu m e s t h a n t h o s e r o l l s u s i n g DDG.
A lth o u g h n o t
s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , a l l r o l l s u s i n g g ro u n d DDG h a d s l i g h t l y
h ig h e r volumes th a n a l l r o l l s u s in g t h e same f r a c t i o n o f DDG unground,
48
ex cep t w ith r o l l s u sin g th e c o a r s e s t s ie v e f r a c t i o n 16. No c o n s i s t e n t
tr e n d i n volumes was found however, from coarse t o f i n e s t f r a c t i o n .
Table 14. . The e f f e c t of s ie v e f r a c t i o n and g rin d in g on volume and pH
i n y e a s t r o l l s c o n ta in in g 33% DDG sample K.
Volumea
(cc)
DDG sample
6.31
44 + 9.0
d\
O
41 ± 5 .2
+1
6.28 ± .06
6 . 29a
43a
6.27 ± .06
6.26 ± .05
43 ± 3.5
41 ± 1.2
6.27 a
. ' 42a
6.32 ± . 08
.6.31 ± • I
40 + 8 .5
46 ± 6 . 8
6 .3 1 a .
43a
43 ± 8 . 1
44 ± 4 .9
6.34 ± .03
6.25 ± .05
44a
6.14b
43a
5.92
1+
O
55
6 .2 9 a
6.15 ± .04
6.12 ± .14
41 ± 3 .3
45 ± 6 . 2
1+
CO
-<
U h fractio n ated ,
unground
U n fra c tio n a ted ,
ground
Combined
S iev e 16, unground
S iev e 16, ground
Combined
S ieve 35, unground
S iev e 35, ground
Combined
S ie v e 60, unground
S iev e 60, ground
Combined
S iev e 80, unground
S iev e 80, ground
Combined
S ta n d a rd , no DDG
Combined
mean pH3
pHa ,
Combined
mean volume3(cc)
aVolume and pH v a lu e s a r e th e means o f t h r e e b a tc h e s . Values i n
the same column t h a t do no t sh are a common l e t t e r (a,b) d i f f e r
s i g n i f i c a n t l y , P<0.05.
Since no volumes w ere s i m i l a r betw een y e a s t r o l l s i n c o r p o r a t i n g
th e v a r io u s DDG f r a c t i o n s , no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s were found on volume
due t o p r o t e i n ,
l i p i d o r f i b e r c o n te n t o r pH.
D i f f e r e n c e i n pH due t o g r i n d i n g t h e DDG w ere n o t s i g n i f i c a n t ,
b u t f r a c t i o n s i z e o f DDG d i d c a u s e a d i f f e r e n c e (P < .0 1).
Among t h e
f i v e DDG f r a c t i o n s , t h e f i n e s t o f s i e v e 80 h ad t h e l o w e s t pH (6.1 4)
and i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t fro m a l l o t h e r s i n t h e LSD m u l t i p l e
com parison t e s t .
As w ith q u ick b read s, in c o r p o r a tio n of ground DDG or
•: .
49
;
o f t h e f i n e s t s i e v e f r a c t i o n r e s u l t e d i n a s l i g h t d e c r e a s e i n t h e pH
of th e b aked p r o d u c t , b u t th e pH’ s w e re n o t c o n s i d e r e d low enough t o
a f f e c t p ro d u ct q u a l i t y .
Yeast b read s w ith ^3% DDG samples A. B. and I
The p a r t i c l e s i z e e f f e c t of DDG on y e a s t r o l l volume was t e s t e d
u s i n g t h r e e a d d i t i o n a l DDG s a m p le s (A, B and I ) r e p l a c i n g 33% o f th e
flo u r
in
b o th
g round and u n g ro u n d fo rm s .
V o lu m e s w e r e n o t
s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t betw een y e a s t r o l l s
baked w ith
g ro u n d and u n g ro u n d DDG when u s i n g any o f t h e s a m p l e s A, B, o r I
(Table 15).
th e
th re e
pH did n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t p ro d u ct volume i n any of
DDG s a m p l e s .
a d ju s t e d by th e NaHCOg
As p r e v i o u s l y n o te d ,
t h e pH v a l u e s w e re
n e u t r a l i z i n g . a g e n t to be w i t h i n a range c lo se
to t h e s ta n d a rd p ro d u ct.
The g rin d in g t r e a t m e n t d id n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y
a l t e r pH i n y e a s t r o l l s baked w ith any of th e se th re e DDG samples.
Table 15.
Volume and pH of y e a s t r o l l s u t i l i z i n g 33% DDG sam ples A,
B, and I, ground and unground.
DDG Sample
Volumea (cc)
A
A
B
B
I
I
45
49
46
47
45
44
unground
ground
unground
ground
unground
ground
+ .9.
±. 2 .8
± .6 .4
± 5.7
+ .7
± 4.6
pHa
5.83
6 .1 2
6.17
6.09
6.00
5.97
±
±
+
+
+
+
.6
.02
.1
.08
.1
.04
aVolume and pH v a lu e s a r e th e means o f two b a tc h e s f o r sample A,
and th r e e b a tc h e s f o r sam ples B and I.
Volume and p a r t i c l e s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n
A n a ly sis o f v a ria n c e of th e volumes o f o atm eal m u ffin s made w ith
DDG s a m p l e s A, B, I , a n d K fo u n d o n l y m u f f i n s baked w i t h s a m p le K t o
50
be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from th e o t h e r s (Table 16).
s a m p le ,K had th e l o w e s t volumes.
M uffins w ith
This DDG sample K c o n ta in e d a h ig h e r
p e rc en ta g e of th e c o a r s e r p a r t i c l e s i z e th a n did sam ple I , but i t a ls o
coritaihed more of th e f i n e p a r t i c l e s i z e th a n was found i n samples A
and B.
• Table 16.
Oatmeal m u ffin volumes and p a r t i c l e s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n i n
s ie v e f r a c t i o n s 16 and 80 f o r DDG samples A,B ,I , and K.
DDG Sampleb
Volumea
(cc)
35
33
35
20
A
B
I
K
+ .7b
+ .2b
+ 2.2b
+ 2 .3 a
P e rc e n ta
s ie v e 16
P e rc e n ta
s ie v e 80
35 + 2 . Od
1 9 + 1 .4c
7 + .2 a
13 + 1.1b
2
4
13
7
+
±.
±
±
.5 a
.Ia
.8 c
.3b
aVolume and p e rc e n ta g e s a re th e means of th r e e b a tc h e s and
s i e v i n g s . Values i n th e same column t h a t do n o t s h a r e th e same l e t t e r
( a , b , c ,d ) d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y , P<0.01.
bDDG samples were in c o r p o r a te d a t th e 36% l e v e l i n th e unground form.
A n a ly sis o f v a ria n c e of th e volumes o f y e a s t r o l l s made w ith DDG
sam ples A, B, I , and K found no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s
among any o f t h e f o u r y e a s t r o l l s ,
alth o u g h
th e
p a rtic le
siz e
d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e f o u r s a m p l e s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y ( T a b le 17).
As was shown i n Table 6, sample K was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from th e
a v e r a g e o f s a m p l e s A, B, and I i n p a r t i c l e s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n .
These
d i f f e r e n c e s h o w e v e r, do n o t show a c o n s i s t e n t a s s o c i a t i o n b e tw e e n
p a r t i c l e s i z e and volume.
DDG a r e
a c o n ce n tra te d
source
of
fib e r
w h ic h
may c a u s e
a
w e a k e n in g i n th e p r o d u c t o f t h e g l u t e n t h a t i s p r e s e n t i n t h e w h e a t
flo u r.
These i n f l u e n c e s on th e g lu te n p r o t e i n s a r e t h e r e r e g a r d l e s s
of the p a r t i c l e s iz e of the DDG. Bourbon DDG a re composed p r i m a r i l y of
51
c o r n w h ic h c o n t a i n s no g l u t e n p r o t e i n s (B e n n io n , I 9 8 0 ), b u t i f t h e
g r a in c o m p o sitio n of the DDG c o n tr ib u te d some g lu te n p r o t e i n s ,
may have been d e n atu red d u rin g p ro c e s s in g .
they
The la c k o f g l u t e n and t h e
w e a k e n in g e f f e c t o f t h e DDG f i b e r on t h e g l u t e n p r o t e i n s p r e s e n t i n
th e w heat f l o u r
p ro d u cts.
th e
may be p r e v e n t i n g h i g h e r v o lu m e s i n
DDG baked
The l a c k of s t a r c h i n DDG may p o s s ib ly have c o n tr ib u te d to
d e v e lo p m e n t
of
poor
dough
s tru c tu re ,
w hich may a l s o
have
c o n tr ib u te d t o th e lo w e r volumes found i n th e DDG baked p ro d u c ts (Paul
and Palm er,
Table 17.
1972).
Yeast r o l l volumes and p a r t i c l e s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n i n s ie v e
f r a c t i o n s 16 and 80 f o r DDG samples A,B ,I and K.
DDG Sample*3
Volumea
(cc)
Per c e n ta
s ie v e 16
A
B
I
K
45 + .9 a
4 6 + 6 .4 a
45 + .7 a
41 + 5 .2 a
35
19
7
13
+ 2 . Gd
± 1 .4c
+ .2 a
± 1.1b
P e r c e n ta
s i e v e 80
2
4
13
7
+.
+
+
+
.5 a
.Ia
.8 c
.3b
aVolume and pH v a lu e s a r e th e means o f two b a t c h e s f o r s a m p le A,
and o f th r e e b a tc h e s f o r sam ples B, I, and K, and p e r c e n ta g e s a r e th e
m eans o f t h r e e s i e v i n g s f o r a l l s a m p l e s . V a lu e s i n t h e same colum n
t h a t do n o t s h a r e t h e same l e t t e r ( a , b , c , d ) d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y ,
P<0.01.
bDDG samples were in c o r p o r a te d a t t h e 33% l e v e l i n t h e unground form.
Sodium Adjustments i n P ro d u ct Formulas
Quick Breads
The type and l e v e l of s a l t i n c o r p o r a te d i n o atm eal m u ff in s w ith
DDG s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d t h e p r o d u c t v o lu m e and pH (P < 0 .0 1 ), a s
shown i n T a b le 18. Tukey1s m u l t i p l e c o m p a r is o n t e s t f o u n d t h a t t h e
volumes o f a l l m u ffin s w ith DDG w ere c o n sid e re d t h e same, but m u ffin s
w ith DDG w ith a f u l l sodium c h lo r id e (NaCl) l e v e l and m u f f in s w ith DDG
52
w i t h an e q u a l r e p l a c e m e n t o f p o t a s s i u m c h l o r i d e (KCl) w e re a l s o n o t
found s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from the s ta n d a rd m u ffin s.
The
pH’ s o f
d iffe re n t,
a ll
a lth o u g h
m u ffin s
a ll
w ith
except
DDG w e re
th o se
w ith
not
s ta tistic a lly
no
sa lt
had
pH’ s
s t a t i s t i c a l l y low er th an t h a t of th e s ta n d a rd m uffin.
Table 18.
Volume and pH i n DDG oatmeal m u ffin s w ith s a l t v a r i a t i o n s .
PHa
Volumea
S a l t Type and Level
F u ll NaCl, DDG
No S a l t , DDG
Reduced NaCl, DDG
F u ll KCl, DDG
S ta n d a rd , no DDG, f u l l NaCl
105
90
90
105
112
6 • 23
6.33
6.27
6.05
6.58
±.
.Oab
± 1 3 .2 a
+. 5 .0 a
+
.Oab
± 5.8 b
±.
±
±
i.
±.
• 06 a,
.03ab
.03a
*2a
.2b
aVolumes and pH v a lu e s a r e th e means of th re e batch es.
s a m e c o l u m n t h a t do n o t s h a r e t h e s a m e l e t t e r
s i g n i f i c a n t l y , P< 0 .0 1.
V alues i n th e
(a , b) d iffe r
Y east B read s
Tukey’ s m u l t i p l e c o m p a r is o n t e s t i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e DDG y e a s t
r o l l w ith no s a l t had
a s ta tistic a lly
s i g n i f i c a n t l y (P<0.05) h ig h e r
v o lu m e t h a n t h e y e a s t r o l l s w i t h r e d u c e d s a l t , f u l l NaCl o r KCl, and
a l s o had a volume a s high a s the s ta n d a r d r o l l w ith no DDG (Table 19).
A ll p r o d u c t pH’ s i n c l u d i n g t h e s t a n d a r d r o l l w e re n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y
sig n ific a n tly
in d ic a te
a
d i f f e r e n t fro m one a n o t h e r .
c o n c lu siv e r e la tio n s h ip
T hese r e s u l t s
b e tw e e n t h e
do n o t
am o u n t o f
NaCl
i n c o r p o r a t e d a n d t h e v o lu m e i n a DDG y e a s t b r e a d p r o d u c t . I t d o e s
appear t h a t i n p ro d u c ts which in c lu d e NaHCOg as a n e u t r a l i z i n g ag en t,
le av in g out
th e
sa lt
can r e s u l t i n
a c c e p ta b le
p r o d u c t v o lu m e s .
S u b s t i t u t i n g KCl fo r NaCl a p p ears t o have s i m i l a r e f f e c t s a s u s in g a
f u l l NaCl l e v e l on volumes i n DDG y e a s t bread p roducts.
53
Table 19.
Volume and pH i n DDG y e a s t r o l l s w ith s a l t v a r i a t i o n s .
PHa
Volumea
(cc)
S a l t Type and Level
87
103
90
. 87
F u ll NaCl
No S a l t
Reduced NaCl
KCl
S ta n d a rd , no DDG,
f u l l NaCl
± 15 .3 a
± 2 .9 a b
± 5 .Oa
± 10 .4 a
5.93
6.00
5.85
5.82
±.
±
±
+
.03
.0
.05
.03
5.97 ±. .2
127 ± 18.9b
aVolume and pH v a l u e s a r e t h e m eans o f t h r e e b a t c h e s . V a lu e s i n t h e
sam e c o l u m n t h a t do n o t s h a r e t h e s a m e l e t t e r ( a , b ) d i f f e r
s i g n i f i c a n t l y , P<0.05.
P e rc e n t Color R e fle c ta n c e
Color R e f le c ta n c e i n DDG Samples
DDG sample K f r a c t i o n s
As recommended by Agtron (1970),
re d and yellow w ere chosen f o r
p e rc e n t c o lo r r e f l e c t a n c e a n a l y s i s , a s they most c l o s e l y re sem b le th e
c o l o r o f t h e DDG s a m p l e s . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s (PCO.OI) i n t h e
p e rc en t c o lo r r e f l e c t a n c e
o ccu rred
among u n f r a c t i o n a t e d
and
f r a c t i o n a t e d DDG K s a m p l e s i n b o th t h e u n g ro u n d a n d g ro u n d s t a t e
( T a b le 20).
Each f r a c t i o n
when g ro u n d ,
in c re a s e d p e rc en t r e f le c ta n c e
w as l i g h t e r
of re d and y e llo w .
P e rc e n t co lo r
r e f l e c t a n c e in c r e a s e d l i n e a r l y from the c o a r s e s t f r a c t i o n
to th e f i n e s t f r a c t i o n
un g ro u n d s t a t e .
or had an
(s ie v e 16)
( s i e v e 80) o f t h o s e l e f t i n t h e o r i g i n a l
G r i n d i n g c a u s e d a l l f r a c t i o n s t o be m ore a l i k e i n
p e rc e n t r e f l e c t a n c e i n both th e r e d and yellow mode.
G en erally ,
th e
f i n e r p a r t i c l e s i z e s o f DDG a p p e a r e d t o be h i g h e r i n r e f l e c t a n c e ,
e x c e p t i n t h e f i n e s t f r a c t i o n ( s i e v e 80)
lo w e r r e f l e c t a n c e of the sample.
w h e re g r i n d i n g c a u s e d a
54
Table 20. P ercen t c o lo r r e f l e c t a n c e of DDG sample K f r a c t i o n s
P e rc e n t R efleC ta n c e a
Red
DDG Sample
.5b
.5 fg
.6 a
I .Of
.3b
.Sg
.6c
.3 fg
.9d
.S e
25.0
40.0
22.0
39.0
25.0
40.0
27.0
39.5
31 .0
37.0
JO
±.
±.
±.
±.
±_
±.
±.
±.
dh
+
on
34.5
49.0
29.0
48.0
34.0
50.0
36.0
49.0
40.5
46.0
-H
U n f r a c tio n a te d , unground
U n f r a c tio n a te d , ground
S ie v e 16, unground
S ie v e 16, ground
S iev e 35, unground
S iev e 35, ground
S iev e 60, unground
S iev e 60, ground
S iev e 80, unground
S ie v e 80, ground
Yellow
±.
+.
±.
±.
±.
±_
±
±.
i
.Od
1 .0a
I .5d
.6ab
.6d
.6b
.5d
.6c
.3d
a P e r c e n t a g e s a r e t h e m eans o f t h r e e s a m p l e s .
V a lu e s i n t h e same
co lu m n t h a t do n o t s h a r e a common l e t t e r ( a , b , c , d , e , f , g ) d i f f e r
s i g n i f i c a n t l y , P<0.01.
nnn Ramnles A. B. and I
G r i n d i n g t h e DDG c a u s e d s i g n i f i c a n t c o l o r d i f f e r e n c e s i n DDG
sam ples A, B, and I (P<0.01) i n both r e d and yellow r e f l e c t a n c e (Table
21).
All ground sam p les had h ig h e r r e f l e c t a n c e v a lu e s i n both modes
over the unground sam ples, a s was found w ith DDG sample K.
Table 21. P e rc e n t c o lo r r e f l e c t a n c e of DDG samples A, B, and I .
P e rc e n t R e f le c ta n c e a
DDG Sample13
A
A
B
B
I
I
unground
ground
unground
ground
unground
ground
Yellow
Red
25.0
43.0
36.0
49.0
29.0
35.0
+
±.
+
+
±
+
.09
.6 a
.4
.0 a
.7
. 9a
17.0
33.0
27.0
39.0
20.0
26 .0
±. .01
±. .3 a
±. .5
±.- . I a
± .3
±. . 3 a
^ P e rc e n ta g e s a r e th e means of th re e batch es.
Ground sample w ith th e
l e t t e r a i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t t h a n t h e un g ro u n d s a m p l e o f t h e
same DDG, P<0.05.
55
Color R e fle c ta n c e i n Quick Breads
Oatmeal m u ffin s w ith nnc sample K f r a c t i o n s
T a b le 22 show s
t h a t n e i t h e r g r i n d i n g n o r s i e v i n g t h e DDG'had a
s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on y e l l o w or r e d c o l o r r e f l e c t a n c e o f t h e baked
m u ffin .
A s ta tistic a lly
sig n ific a n t
c o l o r d i f f e r e n c e w as fo u n d
b e tw e e n t h e s t a n d a r d m u f f i n w i t h no DDG and any m u f f i n c o n t a i n i n g a
DDG f r a c t i o n .
The s ta n d a rd c o n tro l m u f f in was ob serv ed a s l i g h t e r i n
c o lo r thaA th o se m u ff in s w ith DDG, p ro b ab ly due to t h e d ark c o lo r of
the DDG.
ground,
Although th e raw DDG sam ples were s i g n i f i c a n t l y l i g h t e r when
once in c o r p o r a te d i n t o a m u ff in t h e c o lo r d i f f e r e n c e was no t
e v id e n t.
Table 22.
P e rc e n t c o lo r r e f l e c t a n c e of oatm eal m u ffin s c o n ta in in g 36%
DDG sample K f r a c t i o n s .
P e rc e n t R e f le c ta n c e a
.9 a
P
in
CU
U n fra c tio n a ted ,
unground
U n f r a c tio n a te d ,
ground
S iev e 16, unground
S iev e 16, ground
S ieve 35, unground
S ieve 35, ground
Sieve 60, unground
S ieve 60, ground
S ieve 80, unground
Sieve 80, ground
S ta n d a rd , no DDG
Yellow
Red
DDG F r a c t i o n Used
+. I .0 a
83
± 1 .9 a
+. 1 .6 a
±. «7a
±. I .Ta
+.3«0a
+. .6 a
± I .T a
+. I .8a
± 2.6b
25.0
26 .0
26.0
26.0
25.0
24.0
26.0
26.0
25.5
34.0
+
+
+
+.
±.
+
±
±
+
±
32.5 +
33.0
34.0
34.0
34.0
33.0
31 .0
32.0
33.0
33.0
42.0
+
e
I .2 a
I .9 a
I .4 a
I .0 a
I .Ta
2 .3 a
I .5 a
2 .9 a
I o8a
1 .4b
^ P e r c e n t a g e s a r e t h e m eans o f t h r e e b a t c h e s .
V a lu e s i n th e same
co lu m n t h a t do n o t s h a r e a common l e t t e r , a , b d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y ,
P<0.05.
56
Oatmeal m u ffin s w ith nnn samples Ar B. and I
A n a ly sis o f v a ria n c e of re d and y ello w c o lo r r e f l e c t a n c e means i n
m u ffin s c o n ta in in g e i t h e r A, B, or I u n f r a c t i o n a t e d DDG sam ples i n the
g ro u n d and u n g ro u n d s t a t e show ed a s i g n i f i c a n t (P<0.05) d i f f e r e n c e
only i n m u ff in s w ith DDG sample R,
Table 23 shows m u f f in s w ith ground
DDG sample B to have s l i g h t l y (P<0.05) h ig h e r yellow r e f l e c t a n c e th a n
m u ff in s w ith sample B i n the unground s t a t e .
O th erw ise,
g rin d in g the
DDG d o e s n o t a p p e a r to a l t e r t h e q u i c k b r e a d p r o d u c t c o l o r . A ll raw
DDG sam ples had s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r r e d o r yellow r e f l e c t a n c e when
ground, but in c o r p o r a t i o n i n t o a m u ffin product only a l t e r e d t h e c o lo r
o f t h e m u f f i n w i t h s a m p le B. I n c r e a s e d y e l l o w n e s s w as shown i n t h e
I
m u f f i n w i t h g ro u n d DDG s a m p le B, a s w as shown i n t h e raw g ro u n d DDG
sample.
Table 23.
P ercen t c o lo r r e f l e c t a n c e of oatm eal m u ffin s c o n ta in in g 36%
A, B, and I DDG samples un ground and ground.
P e rc e n t R e f le c ta n c e 3
DDG Sample Usedb
A
A
B
B
I
I
unground
ground
unground
ground
unground
ground
Red
28.5 ±. .1
27.0 ± 1 . 4
3 2 .0 + 1 „ 8
32.5 ± I .0
27.0 ±. .4
27.0 ± .8
Yellow
21.0
19.5
23.0
24.5
19.0
19.0
±. .2
± 1 .1
± .4
± .8 a
±. .6
+. .2
^ P e r c e n t a g e s a r e t h e m eans o f two b a t c h e s f o r DDG s a m p l e A, and o f
t h r e e b a t c h e s f o r DDG s a m p l e s B a n d I.
The g ro u n d s a m p le w i t h t h e
l e t t e r a i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , P<0.0 5 th a n t h e un ground sam ple
of the same DDG.
bA ll DDG samples a r e i n t h e u n f r a c t i o n a t e d form.
57
Oatmeal m u ffin s w ith s a l t v a r i a t i o n s
A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e fo u n d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s (P < 0 .0 5) i n
r e d and y ello w r e f l e c t a n c e among th e f i v e m u ffin s shown i n Table 24.
The s t a n d a r d m u f f i n h a d h i g h e r r e d and y e l l o w r e f l e c t a n c e o v e r a l l
m u ff in s w ith DDG.
M u ffin s w ith equal l e v e l s of sodium c h lo r id e (NaCl)
or p otassium c h lo r id e (KCl) were d i f f e r e n t from each o th e r i n p e rc e n t
re d and y e llo w r e f l e c t a n c e but were n o t d i f f e r e n t from m u ff in s w ith
reduced NaCl or w ith no s a l t .
Comparing t h e m u ffin s w ith DDG, those
w i t h a f u l l NaCl l e v e l h a d t h e l o w e s t c o l o r r e f l e c t a n c e ,
and t h e
m u ffin w ith th e same l e v e l of KCl had t h e h i g h e s t c o lo r r e f l e c t a n c e .
Table 24.
P e rc e n t c o lo r r e f l e c t a n c e o f o a t m e a l m u f f i n s c o n t a i n i n g
DDG sample K w ith s a l t v a r i a t i o n s .
P e rc e n t R e f le c ta n c e a
S a l t Type and
F u l l NaCl
Reduced NaCl
No S a l t
F u ll KCl
S ta n d a rd , n o ' DDG
Yellow
Red
Level
33.0
33.5
33.5
37.0
44.0
+ 1 .8 a
± I .3ab
±. 0 .9 a b
+ 0.9b
+ 2 .3 c
24.0
24.0
24.5
27.5
33.0
+
±
+
+
+
1 .8 a
I .Oab
0 .5 a b
1.2b
I .9 c
a P e r c e n t a g e s a r e t h e m eans o f t h r e e b a t c h e s .
V a lu e s i n t h e same
column t h a t do no t sh a re a common l e t t e r (a ,b ,c ) d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y ,
P<0.05.
Color R e fle c ta n c e i n Yeast Breads
Yeast r o l l s w ith DDG sample K f r a c t i o n s
T a b le 25 show s t h a t n e i t h e r g r i n d i n g n o r s i e v i n g t h e DDG had a
s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t o n y e l l o w o r r e d c o l o r r e f l e c t a n c e o f t h e baked
yeast ro ll.
The s t a n d a r d y e a s t r o l l w i t h no DDG had s i g n i f i c a n t l y
h ig h e r (P<0.05) y ello w or r e d r e f l e c t a n c e
th an any r o l l
c o n ta in in g a
58
DDG f r a c t i o n .
O b serv atio n o f th e baked p ro d u c ts found t h a t ex cep t f o r
s i e v e 80, a l l r o l l s w i t h g ro u n d DDG f r a c t i o n s w e re s l i g h t l y d a r k e r
th a n th o se r o l l s w ith unground DDG, u n lik e th e c o lo r d i f f e r e n c e s found
i
i n t h e raw DDG f r a c t i o n s . The r o l l s b aked w i t h t h e f i n e s t p a r t i c l e
s i z e of s ie v e f r a c t i o n 80, were s l i g h t l y l i g h t e r when ground th a n when
un ground.
D if f e r e n c e s observed among
r e f l e c t a n c e v a lu e s i n th e raw
ground DDG were no t s i g n i f i c a n t when t h e DDG was i n c o r p o r a te d i n t o a
y e a s t r o l l p ro d u c t a t th e 33% l e v e l .
Table 25.
P e rc e n t c o lo r r e f l e c t a n c e of y e a s t r o l l s c o n ta i n in g 33%
DDG sample K f r a c t i o n s .
P e rc e n t R eflectance" a
DDG F rac tio n . Used
Yellow
34.0
35.0
35.0
34.0
33.0
35.0
35.0
34.5
34.5
54.0
-
+
±
±
+
+
±
+
+
+
+
.6 a
.5 a
. Ia
2 .5 a
.5 a
1 .0 a
I .4 a
.5 a
I .3 a
3.6b
O
34.5 ± I .6 a
CXJ
U n fra c tio n a ted ,
unground
U n fra c tio n a te d ,
ground
S ieve 16, unground
S ieve 16, ground
S ieve 35, unground
S iev e 35, ground
S iev e 60, unground
S ieve 60, ground
S ieve 80, unground
S ieve 80, ground
S ta n d a rd , no DDG
Red
26.5
28.5
28.0
26.5
25.5
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
45.5
+ 2 .2 a
±
+
±.
±
±
+
±
±.
+
±
2 .1 a '
.2 a
.3 a
2 .1 a
.4 a
.8 a
1 .3 a
.5 a
1 .5 a
1 .6b
" ^ P e rc e n ta g e s a r e t h e m eans of t h r e e b a t c h e s .
V a lu e s i n th e same
column t h a t do n o t s h a r e th e same l e t t e r (a,b) d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y ,
P<0.05.
Yeast r o l l s w ith 33% DDG samples A. B. and I
G rin d in g
re fle c ta n c e
DDG s a m p l e s B o r
d iffe re n c e s
in
th e
I
d id
red
or
not
s ig n ific a n tly
y e llo w
mode
affect
(T a b le 2 6 ).
G rin d in g DDG sample A produced a y e a s t r o l l w ith s i g n i f i c a n t l y lo w e r
59
r e d and y e l l o w r e f l e c t a n c e . The raw DDG s a m p le A w as l i g h t e r when
g ro u n d , b u t o n ce b ak ed i n t o a y e a s t b r e a d , th e g ro u n d DDG p ro d u c e d a
ro ll
t h a t w as d a r k e r
T h erefo re,
th a n th e r o l l
c o n t a i n i n g u n g r o u n d DDG.
some DDG when g ro u n d , may a l t e r t h e f i n a l y e a s t b r e a d
p r o d u c t co lo r.
Table 26.
P e rc e n t c o lo r r e f l e c t a n c e of y e a s t r o l l s c o n ta in in g 33/6
DDG samples A, B, and I , unground and ground.
P e rc e n t R e f le c ta n c e a
DDG Sample. Used
A
A
B
B
I
I
unground
ground
unground
ground
unground
ground
Yellow
' Red
30.0
26.0
3 3.0
31.5
28.5
28.5
22.0
18.0
26 .0
24.0
20.5
20.5
+ .7
+. e8&
+ .5
+ 1.2
+ I .0
± I .5
+
+
+.
+
+
±
.4
• 7a
.8
I .7
I .1
I .3
^ P e r c e n t a g e s a r e t h e m eans o f two b a t c h e s f o r DDG s a m p le A and o f
t h r e e b a t c h e s f o r DDG s a m p l e s B and I.
The g ro u n d s a m p le w i t h t h e
l e t t e r a i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t t h a n t h e ung ro u n d s a m p le o f t h e
same DDG sample (P<0.05).
Yeast r o l l s w ith s a l t v a r i a t i o n s
No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
(P>0.1) was fo u n d i n r e d o r y e llo w
r e f l e c t a n c e b e tw e e n any o f t h e m u f f i n s w i t h DDG i n c o r p o r a t i n g s a l t
v a r i a t i o n s ( T a b le 2 7 ).
The s t a n d a r d y e a s t r o l l had s i g n i f i c a n t l y
in c r e a s e d r e d and y ello w r e f l e c t a n c e
over a l l o th e r s (P<0.01).
Dough S t a b i l i t y
30% DDG, 70% Bread F lo u r
The e f f e c t s o f s ie v i n g and g r in d i n g o f th e DDG on dough s t a b i l i t y
a s measured by fa rin o g ra m v a lu e s was determ ined. Comparisons w ere made
60
among s i e v e f r a c t i o n s fro m c o a r s e t o f i n e p a r t i c l e s i z e , and w i t h i n
each s ie v e f r a c t i o n i n the ground and unground s t a t e s .
Table 27.
P ercen t c o lo r r e f l e c t a n c e of y e a s t r o l l s c o n ta in in g 33%
DDG sample K and fo u r s a l t v a r i a t i o n s .
P e rc e n t R e f le c ta n c e 3
Red
S a l t Type and Level
F u ll NaCl
D ecreased NaCl
No NaCl
F u ll KCl
S ta n d a rd , no DDG,
f u l l NaCl
Yellow
+. I . 5
38.5 + 2 .0 a
37.0 ±_ .8 a
37.5 ± 1 .4 a
28.0 ± I .0 a '
3 0 e0
+ 2 -a6 328.5 ±. .5 a
29.0 + I .3 a
56.0 + 2.4 b
47.0 + 2 .4 b
36 .0
ei
^ P e r c e n t a g e s a r e t h e m eans o f t h r e e b a t c h e s .
V a lu e s i n t h e same
column t h a t do no t sh are a common l e t t e r (a,b) d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y ,
PCO.OI.
P a r t i c l e s i z e of th e DDG,
a n e a rly s ig n if ic a n t e f f e c t
a b s o r p tio n ,
as r e p r e s e n te d by s ie v e f r a c t i o n , had
( P = .0 5 4 ) b n
th e
p ercen t
of w a te r
as d eterm in ed u s in g fa rin o g ra m v a lu e s (Table 28). F r a c tio n
s i z e m ig h t have been more s i g n i f i c a n t
l a r g e r (n = 5 ).
had the number of sample been
I n t h e u n g ro u n d f r a c t i o n s , p e r c e n t w a t e r a b s o r p t i o n
in c r e a s e d l i n e a r l y as p a r t i c l e s iz e d e c re a se d from f r a c t i o n 16 to 80.
In th e ground f r a c t i o n s ,
fra c tio n s.
p e rc e n t w a te r a b s o r p tio n was s i m i l a r among
G rin d in g th e s ie v e f r a c t i o n s in c r e a s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y
(P<0.05) t h e p e rc e n t w a te r a b s o rp tio n .
Each ground f r a c t i o n r e q u ir e d
more w a te r th an i t s c o rre sp o n d in g unground f r a c t i o n ,
but th e i n c r e a s e
was n o t dependent on th e s ie v e f r a c t i o n ( p a r t i c l e ) s i z e .
A r riv a l tim e m easures th e r a t e a t which th e w a te r i s tak en up by
th e flo u r .
A r r i v a l t i m e s w e re l o n g e r i n t h e un g ro u n d f r a c t i o n s o f
s i e v e 16 and 35 t h a n i n t h e i r c o r r e s p o n d i n g g ro u n d f r a c t i o n s ( T a b le
61
28).
L arger p a r t i c l e s i z e s ta k e lo n g e r to h y d ra te .
The s i m i l a r i t i e s
i n a r r i v a l t i m e s i n s i e v e f r a c t i o n n u m b e rs 60 and 80 u n g ro u n d and
g ro u n d a r e p r o b a b l y b e c a u s e o f t h e i r a l r e a d y f i n e u n g ro u n d p a r t i c l e
siz e .
The d i f f e r e n c e s i n a r r i v a l t i m e s shown fro m c o a r s e t o f i n e
fra c tio n s
i n t h e u n g ro u n d s t a t e
in d ic a te s
t h a t DDG composed o f
e x t r e m e l y c o a r s e p a r t i c l e s may c a u s e l o n g e r h y d r a t i o n t i m e s when
in c o r p o r a te d i n t o y e a s t bread doughs.
Table 28.
F a rin o g rap h v a lu e s f o r y e a s t r o l l dough components o f 70%
bread f l o u r and 30% DDG a t v a r i o u s p a r t i c l e s i z e s .
F a rin o g rap h Values
P ercen t A rriv a l
time
w ater
a b s o r p tio n 3 (m in .)
DDG Formb
U n fra c tio h a te d ,
unground
U n f r a c tio n a te d ,
ground
S iev e 16 unground
S iev e 16 ground
S iev e 35 unground
S iev e 35 ground
S ieve 60 unground
S ieve 6 0 .ground
S ieve 80 unground
S iev e 80 ground
Peak S t a b i l ­
ity
time
(min. ) (m in.)
D e p a r­ Val c r ­
ime t e r
tu re
( m i n .)
7 0 .9 a
6.5
8.5
3.0
9.5
70
73.4
7 1 .Bab
76.8
74.4bc
78.9
76 .2 b c
78.9
7 8 .0 c
78.3
4.5
7.5
4 .8
5 .5
4 .8
5 .0
5.3
5.3
5.5
6.5
9.0
6 .5
6 .5
6.0
6 .5
6 .3
6 .5
6 .8
4.0
4 .0
3:8
3.0
3.3
■ 4 .3
2.8
3.0
3.0
.5
11.5
8.5
8 .5
8.0
9 .3
8.0
8 .3
8.5
62
72
60
62
60
62
60
62
62
aValues t h a t do n o t s h a r e a common l e t t e r (a,b, c) d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y
(P<0.1) among unground s ie v e f r a c t i o n s .
bDDG sample K-2 used i n a l l measurements.
Peak tim e o r m ix in g tim e i s an i n d i c a t i o n of dough s t a b i l i t y .
i s th e p o in t j u s t b e fo re th e dough b e g in s t o weaken.
It
Peak tim e s te n d
t o i n c r e a s e a s p a r t i c l e s iz e d e c r e a s e s and a s p e rc e n t w a te r a b s o r p tio n
i n c r e a s e s (DtAppolonia and K unerthf 1984). R e s u lts i n Table 28 show no
s ta tistic a lly
s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e o f p e ak t i m e s w i t h d e c r e a s i n g
i
62
p a r t i c l e s iz e .
Longer d e p a r tu r e tim e s o f t e n in d ic a te , s tr o n g e r f l o u r s
(D1Appolonia and Kunert h ,
1984). No c o n s i s t e n t tr e n d s among f r a c t i o n s
w hether ground o r unground i n d e p a r tu r e or s t a b i l i t y tim e s w ere shown.
No s t a t i s t i c a l l y
s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p w as shown b e tw e e n
p e r c e n t w a t e r a b s o r p t i o n and t h e v o lu m e o f t h e baked p r o d u c t ( T a b le
29) a t
e a c h DDG f r a c t i o n ,
w h e t h e r g ro u n d o r n o t.
A sig n ific a n t
r e l a t i o n was shown between p e rc e n t p r o t e i n o f each s ie v e f r a c t i o n and
th e p e r c e n t w a t e r a b s o r p t i o n i n t h e un g ro u n d f r a c t i o n s (P = 0 .0 6 8 ).
Had s a m p l e s i z e (4) b e e n l a r g e r , t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p m i g h t h a v e b een
s t a t i s t i c a l l y more s i g n i f i c a n t . P e r c e n t w a t e r a b s o r p t i o n i n c r e a s e d
. l i n e a r l y w ith p r o t e i n i n c r e a s e s i n a l l unground f r a c t i o n s
g ro u n d f r a c t i o n s
and i n th e
w i t h th e e x c e p t i o n o f s i e v e s i z e 80. G r i n d i n g t h e
f r a c t i o n s produced s i m i l a r p a r t i c l e s i z e s among t h e s ie v e f r a c t i o n s ,
y e t w a te r a b s o r p tio n in c r e a s e d n e a r ly l i n e a r l y i n th e s e f r a c t i o n s from
\
co arse to f i n e s ie v e f r a c t i o n s i z e s .
These r e s u l t s s u g g e st t h a t th e
p e r c e n t w a t e r a b s o r p t i o n i n c r e a s e s may
h ave been due m ore t o t h e
p r o t e i n d i f f e r e n c e s i n each f r a c t i o n th a n from th e change i n p a r t i c l e
size .
No s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between volumes
of yeast ro lls ,
so comparisons between volume and fa rin o g ra m v a lu e s
c a n n o t be made T a b le 2 9 ).
Some p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n h a s b een fo u n d
between l o a f volumes and v a l o r i m e t e r v a lu e s u s in g p ro d u c ts made w ith
w h e a t (D'A p p o lo n ia and K u n e rth ,
q u a lity
score
b a s e d on t h e
1984). The v a l o r i m e t e r v a l u e i s a
dough’s
d e v e lo p m e n t
(peak)
t o le r a n c e t o m ixing ( in d i c a te d by th e d e p a r tu r e tim e ).
ti m e and
No c o n s i s t e n t
change i n v a l o r i m e t e r v a lu e s w ere o b s e r v e d b e tw e e n s i e v e f r a c t i o n s .
63
The h i g h e s t v a l o r i m e t e r v a l u e was o b s e r v e d w i t h s i e v e f r a c t i o n 16,
unground.
!
Based on a s m a ll number of o b s e r v a tio n s ,
as p a r t i c l e s i z e of DDG
d e c r e a s e d , p r o t e i n c o n t e n t i n c r e a s e d a n d m ore w a t e r w as a b s o r b e d .
N e ith e r of th e se p a ra m e te rs a f f e c t e d e i t h e r dough s t a b i l i t y nor dough
q u a l i t y . B ourbon DDG a r e low o r l a c k i n g i n g l u t e n , w h ic h p r o b a b l y
in flu e n c e d f a r i nograph d a ta and baking v a lu e s .
Table 29.
Farin o g rap h ,
DDG c o m p o sitio n , and baked p ro d u c t v a lu e s o f
■y e a s t r o l l dough components u t i l i z i n g DDG sample K o f f i v e
p a rtic le s iz e s .
U n fra c tio n a te d ,
unground
U n fra c tio n a ted ,
ground
S iev e 16, unground
S ieve 16, ground
S ieve 35, unground
Sieve 35, ground
S ieve 60, unground
S ieve 60, ground
S ieve 80, unground
S ieve 80, ground
V a lo ri­
meter
P e rc e n t w a te r
a b s o r p tio n
26.9
70.9
O
DDG Forma
Baked p ro d u c t
volume (c c )
P ercen t
p ro te in
70
26.9
2 4.0
24.0
25 .4
25.4
26.9
26.9
30.7
30.7
73.4
71.3
76.8
74.4
78.9
76.2
78.9
78.0
78.3
44.0
43.0
41 .0
40.0
46.0
43.0
44.0
41.0
45.0
62
72
60
62
60
62
60
62
62
a DDG sample K-2 was used i n a l l measurements.
S a l t V a r i a t i o n s and 30% DDG, 70% Bread F lo u r
Comparison o f y e a s t r o l l volumes w ith f a rin o g r a p h p e rc e n t w a te r
a b s o r p tio n s showed no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p based on
amount or type of s a l t used, nor was t h e r e a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e among volumes compared t o v a l o r i m e t e r v a l u e s (T a b le 30).
The v a l o r i m e t e r v a lu e i n th e 2% NaCl fo rm u la was c o n s id e ra b ly h ig h e r
th a n
i n the o th e r two fo rm u las.
These d a ta a re th e r e s u l t of a sm a ll
64
number of o b s e r v a tio n s but may i n d i c a t e t h a t NaCl in c o r p o r a te d a t th e
2% l e v e l produces a more s t a b l e h ig h q u a l i t y dough. NaCl may produce
improved lo a v e s over those u s in g KCl s a l t .
Table 30.
F a rin o g rap h v a lu e s f o r y e a s t r o l l dough components3 of th r e e
s a l t ty p es and l e v e l s .
F a r in o g r a p h v a l u e s
S a lt
V a ria tio n
2% NaCl
1% NaCl
2% KCl
Yeast r o l l P ercen t A rriv a l
tim e
v o l ume ( c c ) w a t e r
a b s o r p tio n (min)
73.1
72.6
71.3
86.7
90.0
86.7
7 .5
6.75
7.2 5
Peak S t a b i l - Depar- V alortu re
im e te r
tim e i t y
(min)
(min) (min)
12.0
9 .5
9.0
8.0
6.75
6 .75
15.5
13.5
14.0
82
72
70
aDough components c o n s is te d o f 70% b read f l o u r and 30% DDG sample K
i n the u n f r a c t i o n a t e d form. '
O r g a n o le p t ic E v a l u a t i o n
Q u ic k and y e a s t b r e a d s w e re e v a l u a t e d by t r a i n e d and c o n su m e r
ta ste
p a n e l i s t s t o d e t e r m i n e d i f f e r e n c e s and a c c e p t a b i l i t y on a
p a r t i c l e s i z e v a r i a b l e and on a s a l t v a r i a b l e .
P a r t i c l e S ize E ffe c t ‘
Consumer t a s t e p a n e l , q u ic k b r e a d s
O atm eal m u f f i n s c o n t a i n i n g 36% u n g ro u n d DDG o r 36% g ro u n d DDG
were sampled by 102 u n tr a in e d p a n e l i s t s .
A la r g e number o f ju d g es ( a t
l e a s t 50-100) i s r e q u i r e d i n a consumer panel due t o t h e in e x p e r ie n c e
of
th e
j u d g e s and
th e
p resen ce
o f many u n c o n t r o l l e d
v a ria b le s
(C a m p b e ll e t a l . 1979).
D ata a n a l y z e d by c o v a r i a n c e m e th o d s show ed t h a t t h e ty p e o f
m u f f i n and t h e s e x o f t h e j u d g e h a d no e f f e c t on t h e r a t i n g b u t t h e
65
age o f t h e ju d g e d i d s i g n i f i c a n t l y (P<0.05) a f f e c t r a t i n g r e s u l t s
( T a b le 31).
The mean r a t i n g s w e re h i g h f o r
b o th m u f f i n
ty p e s.
M u ffin s w ith unground DDG had a mean r a t i n g o f 7.13 +.1.5 and m u ffin s
w i t h g ro u n d DDG h a d a mean r a t i n g o f 7.08 ± 1.5, on a s c a l e o f 1 -9 ,
w h e re i = d i s l i k e e x t r e m e l y , and 9 = l i k e e x t r e m e l y (A p p e n d ix A).
R atin g of th e m u ffin s d ecreased by .1 f o r each i n c r e a s e i n age group.
Ages w ere grouped a s f o ll o w s : 5-10, 11-14, 15-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49,
g0-59, 60-69, 70-79, and 80-89.
Table 31.
R e s u lts o f co v arian c e a n a l y s i s o f m u ffin s r a t i n g ty p e , sex
and age i n t e r a c t i o n s .
P r o b a b i l i t y of a L arg er F-Value
R ating
Type
Sex
Age
0.8432
0.3893
0 .0 2 1 3 s
^ S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e P<0.05 l e v e l .
The
lite ra tu re
in d ic a te s
th a t
you n g c h i l d r e n
are
a b le
to
d i s c r i m i n a t e among t a s t e s r e l i a b l y (Thomas and M u rra y , 1980) w h ic h
s u g g e s t s t h a t r a t i n g s o f p r o d u c t s by young c h i l d r e n s h o u l d n o t be
d i f f e r e n t th an r a t i n g s by a d u l t s .
The c o r r e l a t i o n found h e re between
d e c r e a s e d age and i n c r e a s e d r a t i n g
may be due t o t h e f a c t t h a t
c h i l d r e n and th e younger members of the p o p u la tio n p r e f e r whole g r a in
p ro d u c ts.
R ec e n t i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o t h e m a r k e t p l a c e o f w h o le g r a i n
p ro d u c ts may have e n a b le d th e younger people a g r e a t e r exposure,
and
th u s an in c r e a s e d p re fe re n c e f o r them a s compared t o t h e o ld e r people.
66
Consumer t a s t e p a n e l, veasfc breads
Y e ast r o l l s c o n t a i n i n g 33% u n g ro u n d DDG o r 33% g ro u n d DDG w e re
s a m p le d
by 94 u n t r a i n e d p a n e l i s t s .
D ata a n a l y z e d by c o v a r i a n c e
methods showed t h a t m u ff in type and age of judge had no e f f e c t on t h e
ra tin g ,
b u t t h e s e x o f t h e ju d g e s i g n i f i c a n t l y
r a t i n g r e s u l t s (T a b le 3 2 ).
r o l l ty p es.
(P < 0 .0 1 ) a f f e c t e d
The mean r a t i n g s w e re m o d e r a t e f o r b o th
R o l l s w i t h u n g ro u n d DDG h a d a mean r a t i n g o f 6.43 + 1.7
and r o l l s w i t h g ro u n d DDG had a mean r a t i n g o f 6.35 ±. 1.7. The mean
r a t i n g by fe m a le s was 6.492 and th e mean r a t i n g by m ales was 6.177.
Table 32.
R e s u lts o f co v arian c e a n a l y s i s o f y e a s t r o l l s r a t i n g ty p e,
sex and age i n t e r a c t i o n s . ■
P r o b a b i l i t y of a L a rg e r F-Value
R atin g
.
Type
Sex
Age
.7655
.0054*0
.5974
s s S i g n i f i c a n t a t the P<0.01 l e v e l .
C o n su m ers d i d n o t p r e f e r baked p r o d u c t s w i t h DDG i n t h e g ro u n d
form.
P ro d u cts w ith ground DDG had a s l i g h t l y s t i c k y m o u th feel.
b o th q u i c k and y e a s t
s lig h tly
h ig h e r,
sig n ific a n t.
b read s they
a lth o u g h
th e
ra te d
t h o s e w i t h u n g ro u n d DDG
d i f f e r e n c e w as n o t
sta tistic a lly
This s u g g e s ts t h a t DDG may be s u c c e s s f u l l y in c o rp o ra te d
i n t o a le a v e n e d p ro d u c t w ith o u t g r in d in g o r m illin g .
in d ic a te d
In
th a t
c o n s u m e rs l i k e
T h ese r e s u l t s
baked p r o d u c t s w i t h DDG a t l e a s t
s l i g h t l y o r m o d e ra tely and t h a t q u ic k b re a d s w ith DDG may be p r e f e r r e d
o v er y e a s t b read s w ith DDG.
67
S a l t V a r ia tio n s
Trained t a s t e p a n e l, q u ic k b read s
The Schfeffe m odel
in d ic a te d
a
s ig n ific a n t
for
p a ire d
d iffe re n c e
co m p ariso n d i r e c t i o n a l
(P < 0 .0 1 ) among m u f f i n s
v a r i a t i o n s o f s a l t type and l e v e l (Table 33).
te sts
w ith
Panel members could n o t
t e l l th e d i f f e r e n c e betw een th o s e m u ff in s t h a t c o n ta in e d e i t h e r f u l l
NaCl l e v e l s , r e d u c e d NaCl l e v e l s , o r no s a l t .
P a n e l i s t s c o u ld t e l l
t h e d i f f e r e n c e a n d s i g n i f i c a n t l y p r e f e r r e d (P<0.05) e a c h o f t h o s e
m u ff in s over m u ffin s c o n ta in in g a f u l l l e v e l of KCl s a l t re p la c e m e n t
( T a b le 34).
Table 33.
A n a ly sis o f v a ria n c e r e s u l t s o f p a ir e d com parison t e s t s o f
oatmeal m u ffin s w ith DDG and s a l t v a r i a t i o n s .
V ariance
DF
SS
Order e f f e c t s
Main e f f e c t s
T o ta l
E rro r
I
3
60
56
.0162
43.648
106.0
62.336
MS
.0162
14.549
1.767
1.113
F -R a tio
13.072OO
^ S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e P<0.01 l e v e l .
T a b le 34.
P a irsa
A, B
A, C
A, D
B, C
B,D
C, D
Tukey’s m u l t i p l e c o m p a r is o n t e s t r e s u l t s o f p a i r e d
com parison t e s t s of oatm eal m u ff in s w ith DDG and s a l t
v a ria tio n s.
Observed main e f f e c t s d i f f e r e n c e
.2
•375
.975°
.175
1.175^
1.350b
a S a m p le s i n p a i r s a r e a s f o l l o w s : A = f u l l N aCl; B = no s a l t ;
C = red u ced s a l t ; D = f u l l KCl.
b D if f e r e n c e s g r e a t e r th a n th e c r i t i c a l v a lu e of .6322 a r e s i g n i f i c a n t
a t th e P<0.05 l e v e l .
68
The h ed o n ic ( l i k e - d i s l i k e ) r a t i n g s o f th e fo u r m u ff in ty p e s were
sig n ific a n tly
(P < 0 .0 1).
d iffe re n t
due
to
m u ffin
ty p e
(P<0.0 5)
and
ju d g e
T a b le 35 show s t h e mean r a t i n g s f o r t h e m u f f i n s and t h e
d i f f e r e n c e s due t o m u ff in type,
by Tukey1S m u l t i p l e com parison t e s t .
M u f f i n s w i t h r e d u c e d NaCl and m u f f i n s w i t h KCl d i f f e r e d fro m e ach
o th e r but n e i t h e r d i f f e r e d from th o s e w i t h f u l l NaCl o r w ith no s a l t .
The h i g h e s t r a t i n g was 5.25 f o r th e m u ff in s w ith reduced NaCl and t h e
l o w e s t r a t i n g w as 4.0 f o r t h e m u f f i n s w i t h f u l l KCl.
s c a l e r a n g e d fro m 1 - 9 ,
e x tre m e ly (Appendix A).
The h e d o n i c
w h e re I = d i s l i k e e x t r e m e l y and 9 = l i k e
The mean r a t i n g f o r a l l m u ff in s was 4.8 which
i n d i c a t e s a low a c c e p t a b i l i t y of th e p ro d u c ts.
t e s t show ed t h a t t h e m u f f i n w i t h f u l l
The p a ir e d com parison
KCl s a l t r e p l a c e m e n t w as
s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from th e o th e r th re e , m u ffin ty p e s ,
h ed o n ic t e s t ,
alth o u g h r a t e d lo w e s t,
but i n th e
i t was only found s i g n i f i c a n t l y
lo w e r th an t h e m u ffin w ith reduced NaCl.
T a b le 35.
H e d o n ic r a t i n g s o f o a t m e a l m u f f i n s c o n t a i n i n g v a r y i n g
ty p e s and l e v e l s o f s a l t .
Muffin Type
F u ll NaCl
Reduced NaCl
No S a l t
F u ll KCl
Hedonic R atin g 3
4 .8
5 .3
5.1
4 .0
aV a lu e s a r e t h e m eans o f t e n r a t i n g s .
same l e t t e r (a ,b ) d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y ,
±.
±
±
±
2 .3 ab
1.7b
I .8ab
1.9a
V a lu e s t h a t do n o t s h a r e t h e
P<0.05.
Four s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t groups o f ju d g e s w ere found based on
h ed o n ic r a t i n g s (Table 36).
Some ju d g e s, on t h e av erag e, d i s l i k e d a l l
s a m p l e s ( j u d g e s I and 2) and some j u d g e s l i k e d a l l s a m p l e s ( j u d g e s 9
69
and 10).
T h e re was a
tre a tm e n t
e ffe ct,
sig n ific a n t.
s i g n i f i c a n t ju d g e e f f e c t and a s i g n i f i c a n t
but th e i n t e r a c t i o n
b e tw e e n th e
tw o w as n o t
These r e s u l t s show t h a t e v e n th o u g h some p a n e l i s t s
d i s l i k e d o r l i k e d a l l sam ples, m u f f i n s s t i l l d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y
due t o th e s a l t type and l e v e l in c o rp o ra te d .
T a b le 36.
Judge e f f e c t . o n h e d o n ic r a t i n g s of o a tm e a l m u ff in s
c o n ta in in g v a ry in g ty p e s and l e v e l s o f s a l t .
judge
Hedonic R atin g a
2.3 ± .5a
3.1 ±. 1 .2ab
3 .9 ± . 1 . 5 ab.c
5 .0 ±. .Sbcd
5 .3 + .Tbcd
5 .3 ± 3 . Ibcd
5 . 3 + 1 .2bcd
5 .4 + 2.4bcd
5 .9 ±. I .Tod
6 .5 ±. .Td
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
aV a lu e s a r e t h e m eans o f f o u r r a t i n g s . V a lu e s t h a t do n o t s h a r e t h e
same l e t t e r (a ,b ,c ,d ) d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y , P<0.05.
T rained t a s t e p a n e l, y e a s t b read s
■i
'
-
'
The Schfeffe m odel
for
p a ire d
co m p ariso n d i r e c t i o n a l
te sts
i n d i c a t e d an i n s i g n i f i c a n t F - r a t i o f o r y e a s t r o l l s c o n ta in in g th e fo u r
s a l t l e v e l v a r i a t i o n s ( T a b le 3 7 ).
P a n e l m em bers c o u ld n o t t e l l t h e
d i f f e r e n c e between any of th e y e a s t r o l l s .
Although no d i f f e r e n c e between r o l l s was i n d i c a t e d by th e p a ire d
c o m p a r is o n t e s t ,
a n a l y s i s of t h e mean h e d o n i c r a t i n g s i n d i c a t e d
d iffe re n c e s in lik e - d is lik e .
The ty p e o f y e a s t r o l l and t h e ju d g e
s i g n i f i c a n t l y (P<0.01) a f f e c t e d th e h e d o n ic r a t i n g s of th e fo u r ty p e s
of yeast ro lls .
The mean r a t i n g s f o r t h e r o l l s and t h e d i f f e r e n c e s
70
due to type of r o l l by Tukey1s m u l t i p l e com parison t e s t a r e shown i n
T a b le 38.
R o lls w ith
r e d u c e d NaCl a n d r o l l s
w ith
KCl w e r e
s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from each o th e r but each w ere not d i f f e r e n t
fro m th e o t h e r two r o l l s .
The r o l l w i t h r e d u c e d NaCl w as r a t e d t h e
h i g h e s t , a t 5 .7 5 , and t h e r o l l w i t h KCl w as r a t e d t h e l o w e s t , a t 4 .1 .
The mean r a t i n g o f a l l r o l l s w as 5.0 i n d i c a t i n g no s t r o n g l i k e s o r
d islik e s.
Table 37.
A n a ly sis o f v a ria n c e r e s u l t s o f Schfeffe1S model f o r p a ire d
comparison t e s t s o f y e a s t r o l l s w ith DDG and s a l t
v a ria tio n s.
F -R a tio
V ariance
DF
SS
MS
Order e f f e c t s
Main e f f e c t s
T o ta l
E rro r
I
3
60
56
.4163
8.5
90.0
81.08
.4163
2.833
1.5
1 .447
Table 38.
1.96
Hedonic r a t i n g s o f y e a s t r o l l s c o n ta in in g v a r y in g ty p e s and
l e v e l s of s a l t .
Yeast R oll Type
F u ll NaCl
Reduced NaCl
No S a l t
F u ll KCl
Hedonic R atin g a
4 .6
5 .7 5
5.4
4.1
aV a lu e s a r e t h e m eans o f t e n r a t i n g s .
same l e t t e r (a,b) d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y ,
±
+
+
±_
1 .8ab
I .8b
1 .7ab
1 .6 a
V a lu e s t h a t do n o t s h a r e t h e
P<0.05.
Tukey1-S m u l t i p l e c o m p a r is o n t e s t f o u n d t h a t y e a s t r o l l h e d o n ic
r a t i n g s w e re s i g n i f i c a n t l y (P<0.05) g ro u p e d by two t y p e s o f j u d g e s
(Table 39). One s i g n i f i c a n t group r a t e d t h e p ro d u c ts low ( judge I) and
a n o th e r s i g n i f i c a n t group r a t e d the p ro d u c ts m o d erately h ig h (ju d g es
8, 9, and TO).
Although, on t h e av erag e, some ju d g e s d id n o t l i k e any
71
s a m p l e s and some l i k e d a l l
sam ples,
t h e ty p e and l e v e l
of s a l t
in c o r p o r a te d was s i g n i f i c a n t enough t o a f f e c t th e r a t i n g .
Table 39.
Judge e f f e c t on h edonic r a t i n g s o f y e a s t r o l l s c o n ta in in g
v a ry in g ty p e s and l e v e l s of s a l t .
Judge
'
Hedonic R atln g a
a V a lu e s a r e t h e m eans o f f o u r r a t i n g s .
same l e t t e r (a,b) d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y ,
dL .9 a
±. .8ab
on
+1
3 .0
4.0
4.1
4.4
5.1
5.1
5 .3
6.0
6 .3
6.4
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
±.
±.
+
+
+
±;
±
I *6ab
2.2 ab
I .5ab
I .6ab
1.1b
I . 2b
.5b
V a lu e s t h a t do n o t s h a r e t h e
P<0.05.
The r e s u l t s from both t r a i n e d t a s t e p a n e ls su g g est t h a t DDG baked
p r o d u c t s w i t h r e d u c e d NaCl o r w i t h no s a l t may be p r e f e r r e d o v e r
p ro d u c ts w ith f u l l fo rm u la NaCl l e v e l s .
b e tw e e n
Recent concern o v er th e l i n k
h ig h sodium c o n s u m p tio n a n d h y p e r t e n s i o n may h a v e c a u s e d
c o n s u m e rs t o d e c r e a s e NaCl i n t a k e .
C o n su m ers may be l e a r n i n g t o
a d j u s t t o a n d p r e f e r l o w e r sodium o r NaCl l e v e l s i n t h e i r d i e t .
KCl
does n o t ap p ear to be an a c c e p ta b le s a l t re p la c e m e n t a t a f u l l l e v e l
i n DDG baked p ro d u cts.
T h e re fo re , q u ic k b read s and y e a s t b read s w ith
KCl w ere not in c lu d e d i n t h e consumer t a s t e p an els.
The o th e r th r e e
t y p e s w e re r a t e d s i m i l a r l y enough t o be i n c l u d e d i n t h e consum er
p a n e l.
72
Consumer t a s t e p a n e l, q uick breads
Three oatm eal m u ffin s c o n ta in in g 36% unground DDG and e i t h e r f u l l
NaCl, r e d u c e d NaCl o r no s a l t , and a f o u r t h s t a n d a r d o a t m e a l m u f f i n
c o n ta in in g no DDG and a f u l l NaCl l e v e l w ere sampled by 100 u n tr a in e d
p a n e lists.
C o v a ria n c e a n a l y s i s
show ed t h a t
ty p e
of m u ffin
s i g n i f i c a n t l y (P<0.01) a f f e c t e d t h e r a t i n g o f th e m u ffin s, but n e i t h e r
age nor sex of th e ju d g e had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t (P>0.1), a s i s shown
i n T a b le 40.
Table 40.
R e s u lts o f co v arian c e a n a l y s i s o f m u ffin s r a t i n g ty p e , sex
and age i n t e r a c t i o n s .
P r o b a b i l i t y of a L a rg e r E-Value
Type
R atin g
Sex
.0015**
.1070
Age
.3331
^ S i g n i f i c a n t a t the P<0.01 l e v e l .
The mean r a t i n g s by m u f f i n ty p e a r e shown i n T a b le 41. The DDG
m u ffin w ith f u l l NaCl s a l t was r a t e d s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t l y lo w e r
th a n th e o th e r th r e e m u ff in s by th e LSD m u l t i p l e com parison method a t
t h e 0 .0 5 l e v e l .
The m o re c o n s e r v a t i v e
T u k e y 's t e s t f o u n d no
s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e among m u ffin ty p e s.
Consumer t a s t e p a n e l, v e a s t b read s
Three y e a s t r o l l s c o n ta in in g 33% unground DDG and e i t h e r a f u l l
NaCl l e v e l , red u ced NaCl, or no s a l t , and a f o u r th s ta n d a r d r o l l w ith
no DDG and a f u l l NaCl l e v e l w e re s a m p le d by 96 u n t r a i n e d p a n e l i s t s .
C o v a r ia n c e a n a l y s i s show ed t h a t t y p e o f y e a s t r o l l and s e x o f t h e
judge s i g n i f i c a n t l y (P<0.01) a f f e c t e d t h e r a t i n g r e s u l t s ,
but age did
73
n o t ( T a b le 4 2 ).
The mean r a t i n g s by ty p e a r e shown i n T a b le 43.
Again, th e r o l l w ith red u ced s a l t had th e h i g h e s t r a t i n g ,
alth o u g h i t
w as o n ly r a t e d s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t fro m t h e r o l l
w ith f u l l
NaCl s a l t .
The r o l l
w ith
fu ll
NaCl
s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the. r o l l w ith no s a l t ,
from the o th e r two r o l l s .
s a lt
was n o t
but was d i f f e r e n t
This s u g g e s ts t h a t y e a s t r o l l s w ith no s a l t
and f u l l NaCl s a l t may n o t be a s d e s i r a b l e .
The a v e r a g e r a t i n g by
fe m a le s f o r a l l f o u r y e a s t r o l l ty p e s was 6.84, and th e av erag e r a t i n g
by m ales was 6.12.
These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t q u i c k b r e a d s and y e a s t b r e a d s w i t h
DDG a r e l i k e d a s w e l l a s , o r b e t t e r t h a n t h o s e w i t h o u t DDG.
i n c o r p o r a t i n g DDG may be more a c c e p ta b le i f
B reads
th e s a l t (NaCl) l e v e l i s
r e d u c e d t o p r o v i d e a s o d iu m l e v e l t h a t c o m p e n s a te s f o r t h e e x t r a
sodium added by th e n e u t r a l i z i n g a g e n t, NaHCOg.
Table 41.
Mean r a t i n g s of oatm eal m u f f in s w ith s a l t v a r i a t i o n s by
consumer t a s t e p a n e l i s t s .
Oatmeal Muffin Type
Mean R atin g
F u ll NaCl
Reduced NaCl
No S a l t
S ta n d a rd , no DDG, f u l l NaCl
6 .2 9 *
7 . Olb
7.07b
7 .0 6 b
abValues t h a t do no t sh a re the same s u p e r s c r i p t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y ,
P<0.05.
74
Table 42.
R e s u lts o f co v arian c e a n a l y s i s o f y e a s t r o l l s r a t i n g type,
sex and age i n t e r a c t i o n s .
P r o b a b i l i t y of a L arger F -R a tio
Type
.0000«»
R atin g
Age
Sex
.0095««
.6955
^ ^ S i g n i f i c a n t a t th e P<0.01 l e v e l .
Table 43.
Mean r a t i n g s o f y e a s t r o l l s w ith s a l t v a r i a t i o n s by consumer
ta ste p a n e lists.
Yeast R oll Type
Mean R ating
F u ll NaCl, DDG
Reduced NaCl, DDG
No S a l t , DDG
S ta n d a rd , no DDG, f u l l NaCl
5 .7 8 *
7 . 1 35b
6.125ab
7 .0 3 1 b
abValues t h a t do not s h a re th e same s u p e r s c r i p t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y ,
P<0.05.
C o n c lu s io n s
The a d d i t i o n of NaHCOg to baked p ro d u c ts w ith DDG have r e s u l t e d
i n im p r o v e d v o lu m e s by i n c r e a s i n g t h e pH t o t h e l e v e l fo u n d i n t h e
s t a n d a r d p r o d u c t w i t h o u t DDG, b o th i n t h i s s tu d y and by OsP a lk a and
Bidet,. (1986).
P r o te in ,
l i p i d and f i b e r (NDF) c o n te n t d id n o t a f f e c t
p ro d u c t volumes.
Q u a n t i t a t i v e and q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s o f l i p i d c o m p o s i t i o n o f
t h r e e o f th e DDG s a m p le s (B, I , and K) u s e d i n b a k in g i n d i c a t e d o n l y
m in o r d e g r a d a t i o n o f l i p i d c o n t e n t i n DDG h e l d i n f r o z e n s t o r a g e .
L i n o l e i c a c i d w as s l i g h t l y r e d u c e d i n t h e TAG b a n d s o f a l l s a m p l e s ,
and i n t h e FFA band o f one sample (K), p ro b a b ly due t o some o x id a tio n .
M a r g in a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n l i p i d
d iffe re n t
c o m p o s i t i o n w e re o b s e r v e d i n
b a t c h e s o f DDG from t h e same p l a n t ,
tw o
w ith d i f f e r e n c e s
75
o c c u r r in g i n t h e TAG p e rc en ta g e and i n t h e l i n o l e i c a c id p e rc e n ta g e of
t h e TAG and FFA ban d s.
These d i f f e r e n c e s w e re fo u n d i n two o f t h e
t h r e e DDG sam ples t e s t e d ,
in h e re n t in
( I and K) and may be due to th e l i m i t a t i o n s
TLC and GLC t e c h n i q u e s o r t o
su b tle
d iff e r e n c e s in
o r i g i n a l g r a i n used and i n p ro c e s s in g betw een batches.
The p a r t i c l e
p roducers.
siz e
d i s t r i b u t i o n o f b o u rb o n DDG v a r i e s
The d i s t r i b u t i o n
and p e r c e n t a g e
of coarse
among
and f i n e
p a r t i c l e s w i t h i n a DDG sample was n o t a s s o c i a t e d w ith f i n a l volumes of
q u i c k and y e a s t b r e a d s .
P r o d u c t s baked w i t h f o u r d i f f e r e n t s i e v e
f r a c t i o n s o f one DDG (K) d i d n o t v a r y s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n v o lu m e ,
d i d p r o d u c t s b aked w i t h
nor
t h e s i e v e f r a c t i o n s i n t h e g ro u n d fo rm .
I n c o r p o r a t i n g f o u r d i f f e r e n t u n f r a c t i o n a t e d DDG (A, B, I , and K) i n
t h e g ro u n d fo rm p ro d u c e d p r o d u c t s w i t h no s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t
volumes than p ro d u c ts u t i l i z i n g the DDG i n the unground form.
G r i n d i n g t h e DDG p ro d u c e d an i n c r e a s e d p e r c e n t r e f l e c t a n c e (a
l i g h t e r c o lo r of th e raw m a t e r i a l ) , but once in c o r p o r a te d i n t o a baked
p ro d u c t,
g r i n d i n g h ad l i t t l e
e f f e c t on t h e p r o d u c t c o l o r .
Q uick
b r e a d s and y e a s t b r e a d s b ak ed w i t h DDG w e re d a r k e r i n c o l o r t h a n a
s ta n d a r d bread w ith no DDG.
T h e re w6s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e among r a t i n g s o f q u i c k and
y e a s t b read s c o n ta in in g u n f r a c t i o n a t e d DDG i n the ground or unground
form by a co n su m e r t a s t e p a n e l .
b o th p r o d u c t s .
C onsum ers i n d i c a t e d a c c e p t a n c e o f
T hese r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t c o n s u m e rs a c c e p t DDG i n
baked p ro d u c ts r e g a r d l e s s o f d i f f e r e n c e s i n p a r t i c l e s i z e of DDG used
o r o f p r o d u c t volum e o r c o l o r .
ap p ear n e c e s sa ry .
G r i n d i n g o r m i l l i n g o f DDG d o es n o t
76
Calcium c a rb o n a te was i n e f f e c t i v e i n r a i s i n g t h e pH of DDG both
i n t i t r a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s and when b ak ed i n t o q u i c k b r e a d s .
Q uick o r
y e a s t breads in c o r p o r a t i n g DDG and baked w ith KCl s a l t s u b s t i t u t e to
d e crea se sodium c o n te n t were n o t found a c c e p ta b le i n f l a v o r by t r a i n e d
t a s t e p a n e l i s t s , a l t h o u g h t h e p r o d u c t s d i d h a v e a c c e p t a b l e pH's and
volumes.
Baked p ro d u c ts c o n ta in in g red u ced NaCl l e v e l s to produce a
sodium l e v e l which compensated f o r th e sodium i n NaHCOg were found to
be more a c c e p ta b le by t r a i n e d p a n e l i s t s and by consumers th an p ro d u c ts
c o n ta in in g a f u l l amount o f NaCl.
Consumers r a t e d baked p ro d u c ts w ith
DDG a n d r e d u c e d s a l t o r w i t h o u t s a l t a s a c c e p t a b l e a s t h e s t a n d a r d
p r o d u c t w i t h no DDG and a f u l l NaCl l e v e l ,
p r o d u c t s h a d s l i g h t l y i n c r e a s e d v o lu m e s .
a lth o u g h th e s ta n d a rd
Y e ast b r e a d s may be more
d e s i r a b l e w ith reduced s a l t l e v e l s th a n w ith no s a l t .
These r e s u l t s
i n d i c a t t h a t th e volumes i n c h e m ic a lly and y e a s t le av e n e d DDG p ro d u c ts
d id n o t in f l u e n c e t a s t e panel r a t i n g s .
I f NaHCOg i s u s e d t o n e u t r a l i z e t h e o t h e r w i s e a c i d i c p r o d u c t
b aked w i t h DDG, i t may be n e c e s s a r y t o d e c r e a s e th e o v e r a l l sodium
co n ten t
by r e d u c i n g t h e am ount o f NaCl s a l t i n t h e f o r m u l a f o r
in c r e a s e d p ro d u c t a c c e p t a b i l i t y .
REFERENCES CITED
78
REFERENCES CITED
A g t r o n , o f M agnuson E n g i n e e r s , I n c . I 970. " I n s t r u c t i o n s , O p e r a t i o n
and M ain ten an ce M anual," San J o s e , CA.
AIB (A m e ric a n I n s t i t u t e o f B a k in g ). 1984. AIB s t u d y e v a l u a t e s t h e
use of KCl i n breads.
Food E n g in ee rin g . 56(2): 134.
AOAC.
1 980.
" O f f i c i a l M e th o d s o f A n a l y s i s . " 1 3 t h e d i t i o n .
A s s o c ia tio n of O f f i c i a l A n a ly tic a l Chemists. Washington, D. C.
B a r n e s , P.J. 1983.
New York, N.Y.
B e n n ion, M.
1980.
San F r a n c is c o .
" L i p i d s i n C e r e a l T e c h n o lo g y ," A c ad e m ic P r e s s ,
"The S c i e n c e
o f Food." H a rp e r and Row,
B o o k w a l t e r , G.N., W arn er, K., W a ll, J .S ., and Wu, Y.U. 1984. Corn
d i s t i l l e r s * g r a i n s and o t h e r b y - p r o d u c t s o f a l c o h o l p r o d u c t i o n
i n blended foods. I I . Sensory, s t a b i l i t y , and p r o c e s s in g s t u d i e s .
C e r e a l Chem. 6 1 (6 ): 509«
B u r k i t t , D.P. and T r o w e l ! , H.C. 1 975. "R efin ed C a r b o h y d r a t e Foods
and D isease", Academic P re ss, New York, N.Y.
C a m p b e l l , A.M. , P e n f i e l d , M.P. , a n d G r i s w o l d , R. M. 1 97 9. "The
E x p erim en tal Study of Food," Houghton M if f li n Co., Boston, MA.
Cathc a r t , W.H. and Cole, L.C. 1938. Wide-range volume-measuring
a p p a r a tu s f o r bread. C ereal Chem. 15: 69.
C h a r le y , H.
1982.
Q uick b r e a d s . I n "Food S c i e n c e , " p .1 8 9 .
Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, NY.
John
C hinn, H.I. I 981. E f f e c t s o f d i e t a r y f a c t o r s i n s k e l e t a l i n t e g r i t y
i n a d u l t s : calcium , phosphorus, v i t a m i n D and p r o t e i n . L ife
S c ie n ce s Research O ffic e , FASEB. Bethesda, MD.
Conn, J .
1965.
Baking powders. Bakers D ig e st: 3 9 (2 ): 66.
D'A p p o lo n ia, B.L. and K u n e r t h , W. 1984. "The F a r i n o g r a p h H a n d b o o k ,"
3 r d e d ., r e v i s e d and e x p a n d e d , AAOCC,. S t. P a u l, MN.
Dawson, K.R., O 'P a lk a , J . , H ether,N .W ., J a c k s o n , L. and G ra s , .W.
1984. T a s te p a n e l p r e f e r e n c e c o r r e l a t e d w i t h l i p i d c o m p o s i t i o n
o f b a r l e y d r i e d d i s t i l l e r s g r a i n s . J Food S c i . 49(3): 787.
79
D r e e s e , P.C. and H oseney, R.C. 1982. B ak in g p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e b r a n
f r a c t i o n from b re w er's s p e n t g r a in s .
C ereal Chem. 59(2): 89.
Dubois, D.K.
1981.
Chemical le a v e n in g . AIB Tech. B u ll. 3 ( 9 ) : I .
E ichberg, J .
1952.
L e c i t h i n a i d s the b ak er. Soybean D ig e s t. 1 2 (7 ): 18.
E i d e t , I .S . , G ra s, P.W., Lund, R.E., and Newman, R.K. 1 984a. Q uick
b re a d s made w ith b a rle y d i s t i l l e r s ' d r ie d g r a i n f l o u r . Bakers
D i g e s t . 58: 14.
E i d e t . I.S . 1 984b. Q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s o f b a r l e y l i p i d s t h r o u g h t h e
e t h a n o l p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s . M.S.t h e s i s , M ontana S t a t e
U n iv e r s ity , Bozeman, MT.
Fennema, O.R.
1985.
New York, N.Y.
L ip id s. In nFood C hem istry." Marvel Dekker,
Inc.
F i n l e y , J.W., W a lk e r, C.E., and H a u t a l a, E. 1 976. U t i l i z a t i o n o f
p r e s s w a te r from b re w e r's s p e n t g r a in s . J o u rn a l of th e S cience
o f Food and A g r ic u ltu r e . 27: 655.
F in le y , J.W. and Hanamoto, M.M. 1980.
M illin g and baking p r o p e r t i e s
o f d r ie d b re w e r's s p e n t g r a in s . C ereal Chem. 57(3): 166.
F r a n k , R.L., and M i c k e l s e n , 0. .1969.
S o d iu m -p o tassiu m c h l o r i d e
m ix tu re s a s t a b l e s a l t . Am. J . of C lin . N utr. 2 2 (4 ) : 464.
G a c u la , J r . , M.C., and S in g h , J .
1984.
The m e th o d o f p a i r e d
c o m p a r is o n s i n s e n s o r y t e s t s . I n " S t a t i s t i c a l M ethods i n Food
and Consumer R esearch ," p. 401. A cadem ic P r e s s , I n c .
H a r c o u r t - B r a c e Jovanovich P u b li s h e r s . Orlando, FL.
J a c k e l, D. 1969. F a c to rs i n f l u e n c i n g dough s tr e n g th .
Today. 1 4 (9 ): 312.
K ic h l i n e , T.P., and Conn, T.F.
36: 36.
1970.
C ereal S cience
L e a v e n in g a g e n t s .
B a k e rs Dig.
K is s e l I , L.T. and P r e n ti c e , N. 1979. P r o t e i n and f i b e r enrichm ent of
c o o k ie f l o u r w i t h b r e w e r 's s p e n t g r a i n .
C e r e a l Chem. 56 ( 4 ) :
2 61 .
Lorenz, K.
27.
1976.
T r i t i c a l e bran i n f i b e r breads. Bakers Dig. 50 (6):
Morad, M.M., D o h e rty , C.A., Rooney, L.W. 1984. U t i l i z a t i o n o f d r i e d
d i s t i l l e r s g r a i n s from sorghum i n baked food sy stem s.
Cereal
Chem. 6 1 (5 ) : 409.
80
MSUSTAT by Lund, R.E.
1983. CP/M V e r s i o n 2 .2 0 ,
Montana S t a t e ' U n i v e r s i t y , Bozeman.
S e ria l
# 52281.
Newman, C.W. and G ra s , P.W. 1983. U t i l i z a t i o n o f b a r l e y d i s t i l l e r s
d r i e d g r a i n s i n s w in e g r o w in g d i e t s . P r o c e e d i n g s , W e s te r n
S e c tio n American S o c ie ty of Animal Science 34.
OfP a lk a , J.M., a n d B i d e t , I . S . 1986. U n p u b lis h e d d a t a . D ept, o f Home
Economics, Montana S t a t e U n iv ., Bozeman.
P a c k o w s k i, G.W.
1963.
" K irk -O th m e r E n c y c l o p e d i a o f C h e m ic a l
T echnology," 2nd e d i t i o n , volume I . I n t e r s c i e n c e P u b li s h e r s , John
Wiley and Sons, In c. New York, NY.
P a r f r e y , P.S., W rig h t, P., Goodwin, F .J ., V a n d en b e rg , M.J., H o lly ,
J.M.P., and E v an s, S.J.W. 1981. B lood p r e s s u r e a n d h o rm o n a l
changes f o l l o w i n g a l t e r a t i o n i n d i e t a r y sodium and p o tassiu m i n
m ild e s s e n t i a l h y p e rte n sio n . The L a n c e t . 1: 59.
P a u l,
P.C. and P a lm e r , H.H. 1972. "Food T h eo ry and A p p l i c a t i o n s , ”
John Wiley and Sons, I n c . , New York, NY.
Pomeranz, Y.
1977.
F ib e r
i n breadmaking. Bakers Dig. 51: 94.
P o m eran z, Y., S h o g re n , M.D., and F in n e y , K.F. 1969. I m p r o v in g
b re a d m a k in g p r o p e r t i e s w i t h g l y e o l i p i d s . L Im proving
b y -p ro d u c ts w ith s u c r o e s t e r s . C ereal Chem. 46: 503.
Pomeranz, Y., Shogren, M.D., and Finney, K.F. 1976. White w heat bran
and b re w er’s sp en t g r a i n s i n h i g h - f i b e r bread. Bakers Dig. 50
(6 ): 35.
P r e n ti c e , N. 1978. Brewers’ sp en t g r a i n i n high f i b e r m u ffin s. Bakers
Dig. 5 2 (5 ): 22.
P r e n ti c e , N., and D’Appolonia, B.C.
1977. H ig h -f ib e r bread c o n ta in in g
b r e w e r ’s s p e n t g r a i n . C e r e a l Chem. 54(5): 1084.
P r e n ti c e , N. and R efsg u ard, J.M. 1978. Enzymic h y d r o l y s i s o f b re w e rs ’
s p e n t g r a i n . J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 36 (4 ): 196.
P r e n t i c e , N., K i s s e l l , L.T., L in d s a y , R.C., and Y am azak i, W.T. 1978.
H ig h - f ib e r cookies c o n ta in in g b re w ers’ s p e n t g ra in . C ereal Chem.
5 5 (5 ): 712.
Ranhotra, G.S.
1981. A n u t r i t i o n e x p e rim e n t: how good i s calcium i n
bread? AIB. 1 11(12): I .
R a n h o t r a , G.S., G e l r o t h , J.A ., T o r r e n c e , F.A., Bock, M.A., W i n t e r r i n g e r ,
G.L., and B a te s , L.S.
1982. N u t r i t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f
d i s t i l l e r ’ s s p e n t g r a i n . J . Food S c i . 47: 1184.
81
R o b e rtso n , J.R and Van S o e s t , P.J.
1977. D i e t a r y f i b e r - e s t i m a t i o n i n
c o n c e n t r a t e and f e e d s t u f f s. J. Aninn S c i . 4 5 (S u p p l 1): 245.
R o th , N.J.L., W a tt s , G.H., and Newman, C.W. 1982. B e t a - g l u c a n a s e a s
an a id i n m easu rin g n e u t r a l d e te r g e n t f i b e r i n b a rle y k e rn e ls .
C e r e a l Chem. 58: 245.
S a lo v a a ra, R
1982a.
E f f e c t o f p a r t i a l sodium c h lo r id e re p la c e m e n t
by o th e r s a l t s on wheat dough rh eo lo g y and breadmaking. C ereal
Chem. 5 9 (5 ) : 426.
S a l o v a a r a , H. 1 982b. S e n s o ry l i m i t a t i o n s t o r e p l a c e m e n t o f sodium
w ith potassium and magnesium i n bread. C ereal Chem. 5 9 (5 ) : 327.
S a t t e r l e e , L.D. 1 976. The c h e m i c a l , f u n c t i o n a l , and n u t r i t i o n a l
c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f p r o t e i n c o n c e n t r a t e s fro m d i s t i l l e r ' s
g r a i n s . C e r e a l Chem. 53 ( 5 ) : 739.
Schoenem an, R.L., D yer, R.H. a n d E a r l , E.M. 1971. A n a l y t i c a l p r o f i l e
o f s t r a i g h t bourbon w h is k ie s : a l c o h o l i c beverages. J. Assoc. Off.
A g r i c. Chem. 5 4 (6 ): 1247.
SCOGS-102. 1979. E v a lu a tio n o f th e h e a l t h a s p e c ts o f sodium c h lo rid e
and p o t a s s i u m c h l o r i d e a s f o o d i n g r e d i e n t s . B u re a u o f F oods,
FDA, D ept, o f H e a lth , E ducation and W elfare, Washington, D.C.
S n e d e c o r , G.W. and C o c h a ra n , W.G. 1980. " S t a t i s t i c a l
e d . , Iowa S t a t e U n iv e r s ity P re ss, Ames, Iowa.
M e th o d s ," 7 th
SPSS, In c . 1983. " S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r th e S o c ia l S c ie n c e s, U sers
G u id e ," McGraw-Hill Book C o ., New York, NY.
S t r o h , M., S e t s e r , C.S., B r u i n s m a, B., S h o g r e n , M., a n d R e d l i n g e r ,
P1A. I 985. S e n s o ry i n t e r a c t i o n s o f f o r m u l a t i o n s t o mask
p o tassiu m c h lo r id e f l a v o r u s in g Morton L i t e S a l t m ix tu r e i n w h ite
p an b r e a d s . C e r e a l Chem. 62(2): 103.
T o w n sle y , P.M. 1974. U se s f o r b re w e r y w a s t e p r o d u c t s . M a s te r Brew.
Assoc. Am. Tech. Q. 4 ( 2 ) : 262.
Townsley, P.M. 1979. P r e p a r a tio n of commercial p ro d u c ts from
b r e w e r 's w a s t e g r a i n and t r u b . M a s te r Brew. A ssoc. Am.Tech. Q.
16(3): 130.
Tsen, C.C., H oover, W.J. and P h i l l i p s , D. 1971. H i g h - p r o t e i n b r e a d s .
Use of sodium s t e a r o y l - 2 - l a c t y l a t e and calcium s t e a r o y l - 2 l a c t y l a t e i n t h e i r p ro d u c tio n . Bakers Dig. 45(2): 20.
T se n ,
C.C., E y e s to n e , W., a n d We v e r , J.L .
1982.
E v a lu a tio n o f
t h e q u a l i t y of co o k ies supplem ented w ith d i s t i l l e r s ' d r ie d g r a i n
f l o u r s . J. Food S c i . 47(2): 684.
82
Thomas, M.A., Murray, F.S.
Food Tech. 3 4 (3 ): 38.
1980.
Taste p e r c e p tio n i n young c h ild r e n .
U.S. Dept, o f H e a lth and Human S e r v i c e s .
1980. Prom oting h e a l t h /
p r e v e n t i n g d i s e a s e ; o b j e c t i v e s f o r t h e n a t i o n . G o v e rn m e n t.
P r i n t i n g O f f ic e , W a s h in g to n , D.C. F a l l ; 73.
V e t t e r , J . L . 1981.
64.
Technology of sodium. C ereal Foods World. 2 6 (2 );
V e t t e r , J.L. 1984. F i b e r a s a fo o d i n g r e d i e n t . Food Tech.
3 8 (1 ); 64.
W a ll, J .S ., Wu, Y.V., Kwolek, W.F., Bookwa l t e r , G.N., and W a rn e r, K.
1984.
Corn D i s t i l l e r s * g r a i n s a n d o t h e r b y - p r o d u c t s o f
a lc o h o l p ro d u c tio n i n blended foods. I. C om positional and
n u t r i t i o n a l s t u d i e s . C ereal Chem. 6 1 (6 ) ; 504.
Whedon, G.P. 1959. E f f e c t s o f high calcium in t a k e s on bones, blood
and s o f t t i s s u e : r e l a t i o n s h i p o f c a l c iu m in ta k e to b a la n c e in
o steo p o ro sis.
Fed. Proc. 18; 1112.
Wu, Y.V., S e x s o n , K.R., and W a ll, J .S . 1981. P r o t e i n - r i c h r e s i d u e
from c o r n a l c o h o l d i s t i l l a t i o n L f r a c t i o n a t i o n and
c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n . C ereal Chem. 5 8 (4 ) ; 343.
Wu,
Y.V., and S t r i n g f e llo w , A.C. 1982. Corn d i s t i l l e r s ' d r ie d g r a i n s
w ith s o l u b l e s and corn d i s t i l l e r s ' d r ie d g r a in s : dry
f r a c t i o n a t i o n and c o m p o sitio n . J. Food Sci. 47: 1155.
Wu, Y.V., S e x s o n , K.R., a n d Lagoda, A.A. 1984. P r o t e i n - r i c h r e s i d u e
from w heat a lc o h o l d i s t i l l a t i o n : f r a c t i o n a t i o n and
c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n . C ereal Chem. 6 1 (5 ) : 423.
Wyatt, C.J., and Ronan, K. 1982.
a s a l t s u b s t i t u t e i n bread.
E v a lu a tio n o f p o tassiu m c h lo r id e as
J . Food S c i . 47: 672.
83
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
T a ste Panel R ecording S h e e ts
85
PAIRED COMPARISON
DIFFERENCE TEST
DATE
KAtC
Product ___________________
Esamine theoe two samples for
I.
Yes ___________
2.
between the two oaaploo?
Io there o difference in
No__________ _
Indicate the degree of difference in ,
-------------------two oampleo by checking one of the following statem ents:
between the
Check One
is extremely b e tte r than
is much b e tte r than
is s lig h tly b e tte r than
Ho difference
is s lig h tly b e tte r than
is much b e tte r than
is extremely b e tte r than
3.
of the samples.
Rate the
Comments:
Good
Good
F a ir
F a ir _
Poor
Poor
86
Booth Number
Food Evaluation T est
Product
Check the appropriate block:
SAMPLE NUMBER
Like Extremely
Like Very Much
Like Moderately
Like S lightly
N either Like nor D islike
D islike S lig h tly
D islike Moderately
D islike Very Much
D islike Extrm ely
Oanments:
Name
Date
87
PRODUCT:
DATE:
DIRECTIOiIS:
PLEASE PLACE A CUECR (✓ ) USXT TO THE PHRASE THAT BEST DESCRIBES
IIOU YOU FEEL ABOUT EACB OF THE PRODUCTS.
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
LIKE EXTREMELY
LIKE EXTREMELY
LIKE VERY IiUCU
LIKE VERY IMCU
LIKE IiODEEATELY
LIKE IiODERATELY
LIKE SLIGHTLY
LhaS SLIGHTLY
IIEITUER LIKE IlOR DISLIKE
HEITilEIi LIKE KOR DISLIKE
DISLIKE SLIGHTLY
DISLIKE SLIGHTLY
DISLIKE IiODERATELY
DISLIKE MODERATELY
DISLIKE VERY IMCU
DISLIKE VERY IMCH
DISLIKE EXTREMELY
DISLIKE EXTREMELY
SEX:
AGE:
88
PRODUCT:
DATE:_________________________________
DIRECTIOWD:
PLEASE PLACE A CHECK (V ) WEXT TO THE PHRASE THAT BEST DESCRIBES
UOU YOU FEEL ABOUT EACH OF THE PRODUCTS.
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
PRODUCT
LIKE EXTREMELY
LIKE VERY MUCH
I
LIKE MODERATELY
I
LIKE SLIGHTLY
HEITHER LIKE HOR DISLIKE
DISLIKE SLIGHTLY
.
DISLIKE MODERATELY
DISLIKE VERY IKJQl
I
DISLIKE EXTREMELY
SEX:.
AGE:.
APPENDIX B
T i t r a t i o n Curves and Quick B reads U sing Calcium C arbonate
90
7.0
6.0
- '
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
CQC03 (g)
F ig u re 5.
T i t r a t i o n o f calcium carb o n ate (CaCO?) in dry gram
w e ig h ts a g a in s t 112 g DDG sam ple K i n 400 ml room
te m p e ratu re d i s t i l l e d w a te r.
•Added 100 ml d i s t i l l e d w a te r.
1000
91
7.0 T
coco j (g)
F ig u re 6.
T i t r a t i o n o f calcium c a rb o n ate (CaCO3) in dry gram
w e ig h ts a g a in s t 20 g DDG sam ple K i n d i s t i l l e d w a te r
a t b o ilin g te m p e ra tu re .
•Added 50 ml d i s t i l l e d w a te r.
+Added 25 ml d i s t i l l e d w a te r.
92
OOO
3000
JN CcCOi (ml)
F ig u r e 7.
T i t r a t i o n o f .IN c a lc iu m c a r b o n a te (CaCOo) a g a i n s t
50 g DDG sam ple K i n 200 ml d i s t i l l e d w a te r.
Table 44.
Volume and pH of oatm eal m u ffin s c o n ta in in g v a ry in g le v e l s
o f NaHCOg and CaCOg.
A lk a liz in g Agent
1 .3 g NaHCOg
1 . 3 s CaCOg
2 .6 g CaCOg
3 .9 S CaCOg
No a g e n t
Volumea
100
90
98
100
90
±5.0
±5.0
± 2 .8
± 5.0
± 5.0
pH
6.5 5
5.47
5 .4 8
5 .4 8
5.4 0
aVolume and pH v a lu e s a re th e means o f th r e e m u ffin s.
±
±
±
±
±
.05
.03
.04
.1,
.0
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
stks N378.Ab23
The effect of dried distillers' grains'
RL
3 1762 00512057 9
M a in
>7375
A"bP3
AVHott, Jill Kathleen
The effect of dried
c o n i?
d is tille rs ' rrain s'...
DATE
IS S U E D
TO
M a in
N37%
Ab?9
cop .2