RESUMEN
Buckwheat is returning to the countries of Central Europe; there are several reasons for this: firstly, due to its interesting chemical composition (proteins, fibre, and phenolic compounds), which is reflected in its nutritional value and potential health benefits. Secondly, because buckwheat, and buckwheat flour especially, are suitable raw materials for the production of gluten-free foods. Buckwheat flours are classified similarly to wheat flours, but the different anatomy of wheat grains and buckwheat seeds makes this classification partly misleading. While wheat flours are largely produced by one standard process, the production process for buckwheat flours is more varied. For wheat and wheat flours, the basic quality parameters and their required ranges for different types of primary and secondary processing are clearly defined. This is not the case for buckwheat and buckwheat flours, and the definition of the parameters and their ranges that characterize its technological quality remain unclear. The standardization of quality parameters and production processes is likely to be necessary for the potential expansion of the use of buckwheat for food production and, in particular, for bakery products.
RESUMEN
With a suitable milling system, it is achievable to produce wholegrain flours that match the granulation and technological properties of refined flours while maintaining a complete nutritional profile. This process also minimizes the generation of additional industrial waste. This study aimed to characterize wholemeal flours with a fine granulation size of less than 160 µm: wheat (MWF), rye (MRF), spelt (MSF), barley (MBF), buckwheat (MBWF), and sorghum (MSGF). For comparison, the plain wheat flour type 530 (T530) was analyzed. The flours were assessed in terms of their chemical compositions and alpha amylase activities (the Falling Number assay), pasting properties (amylograph and a Rapid Visco Analyser (RVA)), water absorption using a farinograph, and technological quality based on their water (WRC) and sodium carbonate solvent retention capacity (SRC) profiles. Among the micronized wholemeal flours, wheat flour (MWF) exhibited the highest nutritional value, greatest water absorption, and highest final gelatinization temperature, but had the lowest energy value, carbohydrate content, water SRC, and sodium carbonate SRC. Wholemeal rye flour (MRF) displayed the lowest nutrient content and the highest amylolytic activity, water absorption, and sodium carbonate SRC. The plain wheat flour type 530 (T530) had the lowest water absorption. Special buckwheat flour (MBWF) showed the highest energy value due to its elevated carbohydrate content, along with the lowest sugar and TDF contents, amylolytic activity, and pasting temperature.
RESUMEN
The mixolab, a rheological device developed recently, combines approved farinograph and amylograph test procedures. Analysing wheat flour composites with hemp, teff, or chia in terms of all three mentioned rheological methods, correspondence of farinograph, and amylograph versus mixolab features was examined by principal component analysis. The first two principal components, PC1 and PC2, explained 75% of data scatter and allowed a satisfying confirmation of presumed relationships between farinograph or amylograph and mixolab parameters. Dough development time and stability were associated with gluten strength (C1 torque point) and also dough softening (mixing tolerance index) had a link to protein weakening (C1-C2 difference). In the second mentioned case, amylograph viscosity maximum and amylase activity (C3-C4) closeness was verified. Starch and starch gel properties during mixing (C3, C3-C2, and C4) affect dough viscosity (C1) and rheological behaviour (dough development time and stability). Another important finding is unequivocal distinguishing of the composite subsets (of hemp, teff, and chia ones) by the used rheological methods and statistical treatment of multivariable data.
