Improving Quality, Nutrition and Health:
Impacts of inclusion of HQCF in Bread
formulations in West Africa (Ghana and
Nigeria) – The Ghanaian focus
Recipe standardization of
Ghanaian bread types using
cassava-wheat composite flour
with commercial bread bakers
Presentation Outline
Background
Problem statement
Specific Objectives
Methodology
Findings
On-going Studies
Conclusion
3
Background
• The use of High Quality Cassava Flour (HQCF) in the
bread industry has great potential to
- Promote the indigenous crop
- Improve livelihoods
- Boost national economies especially through job
creation along the value chain
• Studies on cassava-wheat composite bread has been
done in Ghana with acceptable substitution up to 20%
(Eriksson, 2013; Komlega et al., 2012; Apea-Bah et al., 2011)
5
PROBLEM STATEMENT
However, there is dearth of information on a
culturally acceptable recipe of cassava-wheat
composite bread by stakeholders
6
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
1. Determine the physicochemical characteristics
of HQCF, wheat and composite flours
2. Develop a standard recipe for 2 types of bread
in Ghana using cassava-wheat composite flour
3. Determine characteristics of the two bread
types
7
Materials and Methods
Materials
• HQCF (bankye esam variety)
– JOSMA processing limited
• Other ingredients for baking
– Retail markets, Kumasi
9
Materials…
5kg each of,
• 100% wheat flour
• 10 and 20% cassava-wheat composite flours
10
Methods
• Proximate analysis (AOAC, 2004)
– % moisture, ash, protein and fiber
• Bulk density
• Water activity (Hygrometer)
• Colour determination (Minolta chromameter)
• Pasting properties (RVA)
11
Concept
“Learning to learn”
Create/ Generate Knowledge with the bakers
Transfer
Ownership
12
Methods…
Recipe development
• Survey
– 29 bakers interviewed from 5 towns in 2 Regions,
Ghana
• Sugar Bread (N=13)
• Tea Bread (N=16); N= Number of recipes
13
Methods…
• Averages of each basic ingredient was then
determined and used as the test recipe
14
Methods…
Using two bakers,
Each presented with 5 kg of three blind
coded flour samples (0%, 10%, 20%
HQCF) plus other weighed ingredients
Baker divides the given ingredients
into two equal parts (one-half for Tea
bread & the other for sugar bread)
Baker bakes bread using the
traditional method
Swiss oven
15
Methods…
16
Methods…
• Determination of bread characteristics (AACC,
2000)
•
•
•
•
Loaf weight
Loaf volume (modified rapeseed displacement method)
Specific volume
Density
17
Methods…
• Sensory Evaluation
– Bench top studies using
bread bakers and distributors
18
Methods…
Statistical analysis
• Data obtained was analysed and presented as mean ± stdev
Using SPSS software (version 20.0)
• Two-way ANOVA was used to determine the effect of the bread type
and level of substitution on the physical characteristics of bread
• One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test were used to obtain any
significant differences in all determinations at 95% confidence level
• Pearson’s correlation was also used to assess the relationship
between level of substitution and physical characteristics of bread
19
Findings
Findings
(Objective 1)
Table 1: Some physicochemical properties of the flours
Flour Sample
% Moisture % Ash
% Protein
% Fiber
100% WF
10.22±0.51b 0.88±0.00a
12.34±0.00a 0.1±0.00a
10% HQCF+90% WF 10.00±0.33b 0.65±0.01b
10.58±0.63b 0.20±0.00ab
20% HQCF+80% WF 8.89±0.51ab
0.99±0.04c
8.59±0.31c 0.35±0.07bc
1.69±0.01d
1.32±0.00d 0.43±0.04c
100% HQCF
8.22±0.84a
Values are represented as mean ± stdev
Values in the same column with different superscripts are significantly different at p<0.05
21
Findings
(Objective 1)
• Increased fiber content with increasing substitution
• Depending on the starting moisture of the HQCF
and wheat, it had implication on the overall moisture
content of the composite
22
Findings
(Objective 1)
Table 2: Bulk density, water activity and pH of flours
Bulk density
(g/mL)
Water
activity
100% WF
0.72±0.01a
6.14±0.01a
10% HQCF+90% WF
0.73±0.01ab
Higher bulkc
0.70±0.01
densities
preferredabin
0.68±0.00
baking flours
20% HQCF+80% WF
0.75±0.01b
0.69±0.00bc
5.87±0.01c
100% HQCF
0.71±0.01a
0.68±0.00a
8.40±0.01d
Flour Sample
pH
(10mins; 25.0±2.0C)
6.45±0.01b
Values are represented as mean ± stdev
Values in the same column with different superscripts are significantly different at p<0.05
23
Findings
(Objective 1)
Table 3: Pasting properties of flours
Flour Sample
100% WF
10% HQCF
20% HQCF
100% HQCF
Pasting temp. (°C)
75.65±0.21b
75.38±0.46ab
88.30±0.00c
74.45±1.41a
Peak time (min)
7.00±0.00a
7.00±0.00a
7.00±0.00a
4.20±0.00b
Peak viscosity(RVU) 2255.50±2.12a 2512.50±20.51b 1961.00±65.05c 4086.00±4.24d
Breakdown (RVU)
523.00±15.56a 488.50±28.99a 514.00±53.74a 2404.00±4.24b
Setback (RVU)
734.50±2.12b
768.00±46.67bc 559.00±56.57a 906.50±4.95c
Values are represented as mean ± stdev
Values in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different at p<0.05
24
Findings
(Objective 1)
• No significant differences observed in the setback
and breakdown viscosities of the composite flours
and 100% wheat flour
Staling of bread from the composite flours, expected
not to be significantly different from that of bread
from 100% wheat flour
25
Findings
(Objective 1)
Table 4: Colour of flours
a
b
Chroma
(Color
intensity)
SAMPLE
L
100%WF
97.67±0.15a
4.00±0.05a 1.90±0.05a
1.90±0.05a
10%HQCF
98.73±0.02b
0.35±0.03b 1.27±0.03b
1.32±0.02b
20%HQCF
96.97±0.19c
-0.07±0.06c 3.08±0.18c
3.08±0.18c
100%HQCF 101.08±0.02d 1.02±0.01d -1.30±0.05d 1.65±0.04a
Values are represented as mean ± stdev
Values in the same column with different superscripts are significantly different at p<0.05
26
Findings
(Objective 2)
Reduced salt, yeast and margarine content in
the test recipe
Table 5: Test recipe of the two bread types and that from FRI (per 2.5
kg flour)
Ingredient
#FRI
Tea Bread
Sugar bread
140
290
207.5
18.42
11.87
22.5
Margarine (g)
190
190
415
Yeast (g)
0.67
5.53
15
Nutmeg (g)
1.13
1.08
5
Water (L)
1.670
1.500
1.090
Sugar (g)
Salt (g)
# source:
Recipe
(Eriksson, et al., 2014)
27
Findings
(Objective 2)
tea bread
Sugar bread
Cross sectional view of sliced tea bread
28
Findings
(Objective 3)
Physical properties of bread samples
Bread type
Tea bread
Sugar bread
FRI bread
Loaf weight
Loaf
(g)
volume(cm3)
Density
(g/cm3)
Specific volume
(cm3/g)
0% HQCF
485.00±13.24a 2016.00±28.87a
0.24±0.01a
4.16±0.10a
10% HQCF
533.00±5.99b 1860.00±14.14b
0.29±0.01b
3.49±0.06b
20% HQCF
500.00±4.02ab 1475.00±35.35c
0.34±0.01c
2.94±0.05c
0% HQCF
561.00±23.79ab 2425.00±35.35a
0.23±0.01a
4.32±0.25a
10% HQCF
590.00±0.34b 2280.00±113ab
0.26±0.01a
3.86±0.19a
20% HQCF
518.00±5.89a 1900.00±141.42b
0.27±0.02a
3.66±0.23a
Flour formulation
0% HQCF
-
-
0.29
3.46
10% HQCF
-
-
0.29 – 0.33
3.07 – 3.43
20% HQCF
-
-
0.31 – 0.36
2.74 – 3.25
Values are represented as mean ± stdev
Values with different letters in the same column per type of bread are significantly different at 95% confidence level
29
Findings
(Objective 3)
Implication of physical characteristics of bread samples
• Substituting WF with HQCF in tea bread significantly
increased (p<0.05) its density
- It will be more filling per unit bread
- This may be preferred by the Ghanaian consumer who looks out
for heavy bread loaf
• Specific volume of tea bread samples significantly
decreased (p<0.05) with increasing substitution of HQCF
– The Ghanaian consumer also prefers bigger loaves, thus the need to
create the balance between the specific volume and density
30
Findings
(Objective 3)
• However, this was not observed in the sugar bread
– No significant differences (p<0.05) in the bread samples with
respect to density and specific volume
31
Findings
(Objective 3)
Correlation between substitution level and specific volume,
density
Tea Bread
• A strong positive significant correlation (r = +0.994,
p<0.01) observed between level of substitution and
density but negative (r = -0.991, p<0.01) for specific
volume
Sugar bread
• A strong positive significant correlation (r = +0.847,
p<0.05) observed between substitution level and density
for sugar bread but negative (r = -0.846, p<0.05) for
specific volume
32
Findings
(Objective 3)
Influence of bread type and ingredients on specific
volume and density
• A significant difference was observed between bread
types with respect to specific volume and density
- This may be due to the variation in quantity of ingredients
used
33
Findings
(Objective 3)
Some comments from bakers and
distributors
34
Findings
(Objective 3)
Comments: dough
characteristics
Baker1: “Slight differences observed in dough
characteristics… Not sure whether this will
have an impact on bread quality though”
35
Findings
(Objective 3)
Comments:
Sugar bread
“Prefer A: tastes like it has
more margarine. Texture
also good”
 2 preferred
20% HQCF (A2)
“Like A2 best
the
 on
1 preferred
whole” 10% HQCF (A1)
 1 preferred 0%
HQCF (A)
“Like A1 best on the
whole”
“Like A2 best. Loaf
volume too Ok. However,
appearance not
appetizing: colour looks
pale”
36
Findings
(Objective 3)
Comments:
Sugar bread
“Size of sugar bread may have resulted from the high
yeast”
37
Findings
(Objective 3)
Comments:
Tea bread
A1= 10% HQCF
A2= 20% HQCF
“Tastes cassava in bread
but love it”
“A1 slightly lighter, hard and
fibrous. However taste not
bad”
“A2 quite heavy and may be
well appreciated by the older
generation who grew up with
heavier loaves”
38
Findings
(Objective 3)
Benchtop studies on tea bread (11 panelists)
Overall
acceptability
Aroma
3
2.5
2
Crumb
Texture
0%HQCF
1.5
10%HQCF
1
Taste
Crust Texture
Crumb Colour
20%HQCF
Crust Colour
Scale: 1 – most preferred; 3 – least preferred
39
Findings
(Objective 3)
Benchtop studies on sugar bread (11 panelists)
Overall
acceptability
Taste
Crust Texture
Aroma
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
Crumb Texture
0%HQCF
Crumb Colour
10%HQCF
20%HQCF
Crust Colour
Scale: 1 - most preferred; 3 – least preferred
40
Findings
(Objective 3)
Implication of benchtop studies
Tea bread
• 10% substitution was more comparable to the 0% HQCF
in all sensory attributes
– Therefore consumers may prefer 10% substituted tea bread to
the 20%
Sugar bread
• With the exception of crust texture and colour (for 20%),
the trend was not same, as both 10% and 20% showed
differences from the 0% HQCF
41
Observed challenges
(pointers for further work)
• Inconsistent baking parameters from different
commercial sites
• Variation in yeast quantities for the two bread types
- Variation in yeast type from different commercial sites
42
Way forward
• Use 6-10 bakers from 2 regions to test the recipe
• Final recipe modification based on comments from
bakers and consumers
• Fine tune the baking process parameters in the lab
43
Further work
• Glycemic index and load
• Draft of manuscripts/report
44
Conclusion
• No significant difference observed between the
wheat flour and composites in terms of their
breakdown and setback viscosities
• Recipe has been developed
– This had reduced salt and margarine compared with composite
bread from FRI
– Bread from the recipe has a potential for consumer acceptability
45
Conclusion…
• Heavier tea bread produced as substitution levels
increased, although loaf volume was reduced
– Bread type had an influence on the density and specific volume
• No significant difference observed in sugar bread but opposite was
true for tea bread
– Benchtop study indicated that 10% substituted tea bread was
more comparable to 100% wheat flour tea bread
46
THANKs to YOU
47
References
•
Apea-Bah, F.B., Oduro, I., Ellis W.O. and Safo-Katanka, O. (2011). Factor
analysis and age at harvest effect on the quality of flour from four cassava
varieties. World Journal of Dairy Food Science, 6:43–54
•
Eriksson, E. (2013). Flour from three local varieties of Cassava (Manihot
Esculenta Crantz): Physico-chemical properties, bread making quality and
sensory evaluation. Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of a Master degree in
Agronomy Program – Food Science at the Sweden University of Agricultural
Sciences, Sweden
•
Eriksson, E., Koch, K., Tortoe, C. and Akonor, P. T. (2014). Evaluation of the
Physical and Sensory Characteristics of Bread Produced from Three Varieties of
Cassava and Wheat Composite Flours. Food and Public Health, 4 (5), 214–222.
doi:10.5923/j.fph.20140405.02
•
Komlaga, G. A, Glover-Amengor, M., Dziedzoave, N.T., Hagan, L.L. (2012).
Consumer acceptability of wheat/cassava composite bread. World Rural
Observations, 4 (2):78 - 81
48
Sample Questionnaire used
The Ghanaian Team, KNUST
49
The Ghanaian Team, KNUST
50