Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture J Sci Food Agric 88:1194–1200 (2008)

Use of durum residue flour, a

lower value product of durum milling, by
incorporation into wheat flour dough without
deterioration in baking quality
Mike J Sissons,1,2∗ Ian L Batey,2,3,† Sue Balfe,1 Ray Hare1,2 and
Finlay MacRitchie2,3,‡
1 Tamworth Agricultural Institute, NSW Department of Primary Industries, 4 Marsden Park Road, Calala NSW 2340, Australia
2 ValueAdded Wheat CRC Locked Bag 1345, North Ryde, NSW 1670, Australia
3 CSIRO Plant Industry, Grain Quality Research Laboratory, PO Box 7, North Ryde, NSW 1670, Australia

Abstract

BACKGROUND: During the milling of durum wheat to semolina, about 10–15% of total products produced is
residue flour, a lower value product than the semolina. This study investigated the potential for using the durum
residue flour as an additive in bread-making to improve its potential commercial value.

RESULTS: Incorporation of residue durum flour from 102 breeding lines into a low protein flour and standard
bakers’ flour at 20% incorporation improved the bake loaf volume with minimal change in Mixograph dough
mixing time and peak resistance in many of the lines tested. Loaf yellow b was always increased even with only a
10% incorporation. Baking flours can tolerate 20% incorporation with no deleterious affects on loaf volume and
bake score.

CONCLUSION: The results show a potential for using the lower value durum residue flour for baking bread of
acceptable quality with a slightly higher yellow colour. This would improve the profitability for the miller and
provide alternative ingredients to the baker for preparing specialty breads.
 2008 Crown in the Right of the State of New South Wales and Society of Chemical Industry.

Keywords: durum wheat; semolina; durum clear flour; bread; rheology

INTRODUCTION may be useful to improve the baking quality of a

The best raw material for pasta is durum wheat
semolina and, for millers, a high yield of quality
semolina is important. During the milling of durum
wheat to semolina about 10–15% of total products
is residue flour also called durum clear flour. This
is a lower value product than the semolina and
has been used for sausage filler, combined with
semolina to make lower grade pasta or noodles, and
in pet food and stock-feed formulations. From an
economic perspective, a study of the utilisation of
durum residue flour in bread-making could increase
its value and offset the cost of producing semolina.
Quaglia1 described the extensive use of durum wheat
in the preparation of breads in southern Italy having
a distinct flavour, yellow colour, fine and uniform
porosity and prolonged storage life. Given the typically
high protein content of durum flour (11–16%), it
low protein bakers’ flour or to use it as a cheaper
flour replacement. Increased usage of the durum flour
residue in bread making would increase the value of
this material and improve the profitability of milling
durum wheat. Dekov et al.2 found that by adding
durum flour to a strong soft wheat flour, both the
output and quality of the bread made from this mixture
(15:85) was improved. Also, Ozen3 reported that up to
5% addition of durum residue flour had no deleterious
impact on bread quality. More recent work has found
that durum wheat cultivars with strong gluten were
milled and the durum residue flour was added to wheat
flour at a 25% incorporation rate which produced
bread with acceptable quality.4,5 Recent interest has
focused on using durum wheat varieties to make pan
breads and to investigate ways to overcome the high
gluten tenacity which limits the loaf volume of durum

∗
Correspondence to: Dr Mike J Sissons, Tamworth Agricultural Institute, NSW Department of Primary Industries, 4 Marsden Park Road, Calala NSW
2340, Australia
E-mail: mike.sissons@dpi.nsw.gov.au
†
Present address: Food Science Australia, P.O. Box 52, North Ryde, NSW 1670, Australia
‡
Present address: Department of Grain Science and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506-2201, USA
(Received 28 August 2007; revised version received 28 November 2007; accepted 29 November 2007)
Published online 28 March 2008; DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.3197

 2008 Crown in the Right of the State of New South Wales and Society of Chemical Industry. J Sci Food Agric 0022–5142/2008/$30.00
 Effects of incorporating durum residue flour into wheat flour dough
bread compared to that made with selected hexaploid
wheats.1 Several workers5 – 10 have shown that the
baking performance of durum wheat improves as
gluten becomes stronger but inferior baking potential
of durum wheat is still obtained. Acceptable bread
properties were achieved by blending durum wheat
at a 60% incorporation at the sponge stage of dough
development in the sponge-dough baking method.10
In more recent work, Sapirstein et al.11 found that
when semolina is ground, starch damage is increased
and this increases the farinograph water absorption
but loaf volume is unaffected by the particle size of the
granulars, assuming there is sufficient gassing power
to sustain gas production throughout fermentation.
The purpose of this work was to investigate the
potential for using the durum residue flour from the
milling of semolina on a laboratory scale as an additive
in bread-making.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Flour samples
Set 1
Set 1 comprised grain from 102 fixed durum breeders’
lines grown at five sites in NSW, Australia in the
1996–1997 season. Grain was milled into semolina
using a Buhler Laboratory Mill MLU 202 (Buhler,
Uzwill, Switzerland).12 The three break fractions
containing durum residue flour were pooled and
used in mixing and baking studies. Throughout this
study, this fraction is referred to as durum residue
flour. Two bread wheat control flours were used
for the incorporation of durum residue flour; a
standard bakers’ flour with 11.9% protein content
(George Weston Milling, Enfield, Australia) and a
low protein (10.3%) flour (BRI Ltd, North Ryde,
Australia).
Set 2
Set 2 was durum residue flour was obtained from the
milling of durum wheat into semolina as described
above from three Australian cultivars, Yallaroi,
Wollaroi and Kamilaroi. These were from the same
field trials as in set 1 and the residue flour was
incorporated into three different bread wheat control
flours with varying protein content: (1) standard
bakers’ flour (SP, 11.9%, 14%mb); (2) proline-rich,
high-protein flour (HP, 13.8%, 14%mb); (3) low
protein flour (LP, 10.3%, 14%mb) as used in
set 1.
Set 3
Set 3 was durum residue flour prepared from
a selection of eight advanced breeding lines and
two registered Australian varieties, Kamilaroi and
Wollaroi. These were selected based on their varying
pasta-making performance. They were grown in the
1996–1997 season from one site in NSW, Australia.
J Sci Food Agric 88:1194–1200 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa
Blending study
Blends consisted of durum residue flour from durum
wheat (sets 1 and 3) mixed with two bread wheat
flours (set 1) and a standard bakers’ flour (set 3). The
blending was undertaken with a replacement level of
20% of the bread wheat flour with durum residue
flour. The flours were blended before analysis and
mixed well to obtain a homogeneous sample. For set
2, each of the three bread wheat flours were replaced
with durum residue flour from the three cultivars at
replacement levels of 10, 15 and 20%.
Physical dough tests and baking procedures
Dough mixing was carried out using a Mixograph
(National Manufacturing, Lincoln, NB, USA) on a
35 g scale. Water absorption was calculated using
a formula which considered protein and moisture
contents of the flour.12 Baking was carried out on
a 35 g scale on set 1 samples.13 For baking, doughs
were mixed for the optimum time as determined by
duplicate measurements in the Mixograph. A subset
of samples from set 1 was baked on a larger scale
(100 g) in duplicate for more detailed analysis to
provide both loaf volume and quality information. The
determination of the bake mixing time and amounts
of water to be added were derived from relationships
established in our laboratory with Farinograph dough
development time and corrected water absorption,
respectively.14 Bake score (BS) was a visual assessment
score (0–10) consisting of external appearance, crust
colour and texture. Using a procedure developed in-
house, the BS was determined as loaf volume/30+
weighted scores for the three visual measures. Colour
of the bread was measured using a Minolta hand-
held meter (Minolta Chroma Meter model CR-310,
Osaka, Japan) calibrated against a white tile as per
manufacturers’ instructions. The Chroma Meter was
placed at two different locations on the freshly cut face
of a loaf and the L, a and b parameters were recorded.
Data analysis
An analysis of variance was performed on all data to
calculate a least significance difference (LSD). Data
presented in the tables are mean values. Statistical
Analysis System procedures and programs (SAS
Institute, Cary, NC, USA) were used for data analysis.
RESULTS
Effect of incorporation of residue flour from a
range of durum genotypes into a commercial
and low protein bakers’ flour on dough mixing
properties
The most obvious change in the mixing characteristics
of a bakers’ flour (11.9% protein) when durum residue
flour was incorporated was a tendency for the mixing
time to be increased. There was a mean increase in mix
time of 9 s when durum residue flour was incorporated.
However, while there were many durum flours that
1195
M J Sissons et al.
caused a decrease in the mixing time (31 out of 102
samples), only 10 samples caused the mixing time
to decrease by more than 5% (Fig. 1). There were
more which increased the mixing time by at least 5%
(38 samples), and 20 which increased it by 10% or
more. The increase in mixing time appeared to be
unrelated to protein content. On the other hand, none
of the samples caused a significant increase in the peak
resistance, but 21 samples caused a reduction of at
least 5% (data not shown).
With the low protein flour, almost all of the samples
showed an increase in mixing time. Most of these
increased mixing time by at least 5% (Fig. 2). With
peak resistance, most of the samples changed this
parameter by less than 5%, but in contrast with the
standard bakers’ flour, peak resistance also increased
by more than 5% with five of the durum flour samples
(data not shown). A smaller proportion of samples
showed a significantly lower peak resistance. Typical
Mixograph curves of wheat flour and wheat flour with
durum residue flour are shown in Fig. 3.
The effects on the mixing time and peak resistance
are independent of durum protein content (Fig. 4).
An increase in the mixing time is just as likely to
occur in a low protein durum flour as in a high
protein one. Similar observations were made with the
50
Bakers’ flour
40
Frequency
30
20
10
0 Each of a selected set of 10 durum residue flours
230-250 250-270 270-290
Mixing time range (sec)
Figure 1. Distribution of mix time in bakers’ flour blends with different
durum genotypes added at 20% incorporation.
30
25
20
Frequency
15
10
Bakers’ flour
0
260-290 290-320 320-350 350-380 380-410 410-440 440-470 470-500
Figure 2. Distribution of mix time in low protein wheat flour blends with different durum genotypes added at 20% incorporation.
1196
peak resistance, although with this parameter, most of
the samples were not very different from the values
obtained for base wheat flour (data not shown).
Effect on baking properties
During the milling of durum grain using the Buhler
laboratory mill, three break flour fractions are
produced. It is possible that there may be slight
compositional differences between these fractions and
when added to a bakers’ flour, have a different effect
on loaf quality. This was tested by preparing an 80:20
mixture of bakers’ flour and durum break fraction.
There were no significant differences in loaf volume
(LV) and bake score (data not shown) between
the three durum flour break fractions (Table 1).
Therefore, it was acceptable to pool the three break
fractions and this helped to provide sufficient sample
for baking.
Loaf volume is one of the main characteristics of
bread quality although colour and textural properties
are also important. When incorporated into the
standard bakers’ flour, almost all of the durum residue
flour samples produced an increase in LV (Fig. 5).
Most of these increased the LV by more than 5%,
some by more than 10%. Only six samples of durum
residue flour decreased the LV by more than 5%. Full
loaf scoring was not carried out on the 35 g loaves, but
the crumb colour and texture were inspected visually
and judged to be acceptable. There was a trend for
the change in LV to be affected by the protein content
of the durum flour, but the relationship was poor
(r = 0.25, P < 0.05); clearly other factors are also
involved.
A more detailed analysis was performed to look at
the effects on LV and BS using 100 g pup loaves on
samples from set 3. This set contained a range of
durum with varying pasta quality (data not shown).
290-320 320-350
was incorporated into a standard bakers’ flour (11.9%
protein) and a low protein flour (10.3%). There were
highly significant affects on LV and Minolta b∗ due
to sample (Table 2). For the standard bakers’ flour,
Mixing time ranges (sec)
J Sci Food Agric 88:1194–1200 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa
 Effects of incorporating durum residue flour into wheat flour dough

1200 1200
(A) (C)
1000 1000
800 800
600 600
400 400
200 200
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time (min) Time (min)

1200 1200
(B) (D)
1000 1000
800 800
600 600
400 400
200 200
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time (min) Time (min)

Figure 3. Mixograph curves of each control wheat flour with the same durum residue flour incorporated at 20%: (A) bakers’ flour, (B) bakers’ flour
plus durum flour, (C) low protein flour, and (D) low protein flour plus durum residue flour. The units on the Y axis are arbitrary units from the output
of the Mixograph.

600 60
Bakers’ flour
50
500 40
Frequency

30
400 20

10
300
0
140-160 160-180 180-200 200-220
LV range (cc)
200
8 12 16 20 Figure 5. Distribution of loaf volume in bakers’ flour blends with
different durum genotypes added at 20% incorporation.
Figure 4. Plot of mixing time (
, in seconds) and peak resistance (,
in arbitrary units) against protein content of durum residue flours
incorporated into doughs with bakers’ flour. control, 27.6) to the control flour and only bread made
from 100% durum residue flour (Wollaroi) had a much
Table 1. Effects of the incorporation of 20% durum residue flour from
reduced LV and BS (18.9) compared to the control
each break on the volume of loaves prepared from a bakers’ flour baker flour, having an external appearance with rough
edges, a dark crust and coarse texture. The crumb
Sample Loaf volume (cm3 ) yellow colour of loaves made with durum residue flour
100% bread wheat flour 718 were all significantly higher than the standard bakers’
80% bread flour:20% durum first break 715 flour. This is due to the higher xanthophyl content
80% bread flour:20% durum second break 725 of durum endosperm compared to hexaploid wheat.
80% bread flour:20% durum third break 718 With the standard bakers’ flour, the 100% wheat flour
loaves had yellowness (Minolta b-value) of 18.9, while
the loaves with durum flour ranged from 20.8 to 23.0.
six of the ten durum residue incorporated flours The increase was relatively small, compared with the
had significantly greater LV compared to the 100% yellowness of a 100% durum loaf (33.0) but may still
standard bakers’ flour (Table 2). Only bread made be unacceptable to the baker. This would be one of
from 100% durum residue flour had significantly lower the main drawbacks in using durum residue flour for
LV. These results confirmed the 35 g trials in that bread baking although it would be possible to bleach
generally loaf volume was improved. All of the durum out the yellow pigment if acceptable on health and
incorporated flours had a similar BS (26.6–28.1 vs. safety grounds.

J Sci Food Agric 88:1194–1200 (2008) 1197

DOI: 10.1002/jsfa
M J Sissons et al.

Table 2. Effect of durum residue flour incorporation into a standard

bakers’ flour (11.9% protein) upon loaf quality

Sample Loaf volume (cm3 ) Crumb Minolta b

100% Control flour 708 18.92

Kamilaroi 733 21.56
Wollaroi 720 20.84
930132 725 22.24
930433 738 22.29
930614 708 21.89
930983 733 21.92
940293 730 21.8
940844 753 23.04
940955 743 22.55
940996 740 22.65
100% Wollaroi flour 655 33.01
P value 0.0001 <0.0001
LSD 23 1.12

Table 3. Effect of durum residue flour incorporation into a low protein

flour (10.3%) upon loaf quality

Sample Loaf volume (cm3 ) Crumb Minolta b

100% Control flour 698 18.03

Kamilaroi 695 21.88
Wollaroi 700 21.77
930132 673 22.45
930433 730 22.31 Figure 6. Pup loaves (100 g) prepared from standard bakers’ flour
930614 690 21.98 (panel A) and a low protein flour (panel B). Panel A: Bread made from
930983 680 22.27 bakers’ flour (16); bakers’ flour with a 20% incorporation of durum
940293 688 22.82 residue flour (from selected genotypes), loaves 14 (940955), 24
940844 715 22.71 (930614) or 100% Wollaroi residue flour (6). Panel B: low protein
baker flour (15); low protein flour with a 20% incorporation of durum
940955 688 23.18
residue flour, loaves 7 (930433), 10 (930132) or 100% Wollaroi
940996 700 22.95
residue flour (6). Corresponding loaf volumes (in cm3 ) are 16 = 710,
100% Wollaroi flour 668 33.87 14 = 755, 24 = 700, 6 = 665; and lower panel: 6 = 660, 15 = 695,
P value 0.0195 <0.0001 7 = 740, 10 = 655.
LSD 28 0.45
evident from these photographs that there is much
Loaf volume for the lower protein bakers’ flour was visual difference between the 20% durum residue
only slightly lower than the standard bakers’ flour incorporated breads despite differences in LV, unless
(698 vs. 708 cm3 ) (Table 3). Although there was a a trained eye scores the loaves. From a consumer’s
significant effect of sample on LV as determined viewpoint, these loaves might be quite acceptable.
by ANOVA, there were no changes in the LV of Flavour was not considered in the analysis.
durum residue incorporated flours except for an
increase using 930 433. The LV of 100% durum Effect of incorporation of different rates of durum
flour bread was inferior to the control and five of residue flour on bakers’ flour performance
the durum residue incorporated samples. Bake score Durum residue flour was incorporated into high
for the durum incorporated flours ranged from 23.4 to (13.8%), standard (11.9%) and low (10.3%) protein
26.4 (cf. control flour, 24.8) while bread made from bakers’ flours at three different rates of incorporation
100% durum flour had a very low bake score (19.3). (10, 15, 20%) to determine the optimum incorpo-
Once again, bread made with the durum residue flour ration rate. The ANOVA found that the base flour
always had a higher yellow colour, highest for the protein level and the durum residue flour rate used
100% durum bread sample. Yellow colour for the were significant for LV (Table 4). As the protein level
20% durum residue flour loaves ranged from 21.8 to went from high to medium to low, LV of all the samples
23.2. Figure 6 shows selected breads (Tables 2 and 3) declined significantly. LV of the bread made from the
made from bakers’ flour and with 20% incorporated low protein flours were lower than the corresponding
durum residue flour or made from 100% durum flour samples from the SP and HP base flours. Comparing
(Wollaroi). It is clear from these pictures that the 100% the effect of durum residue rate on LV within each base
durum flour has a lower loaf height, a different crust flour class, the results did not show a consistent trend
and is more yellow in appearance than the control despite a significant effect. For example, for Wollaroi
and 20% incorporated loaves. However, it is less in the HP flour, increasing amounts of the durum flour

1198 J Sci Food Agric 88:1194–1200 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/jsfa
 Effects of incorporating durum residue flour into wheat flour dough

Table 4. Effect of durum residue flour incorporation at three different rates and from three cultivars into a high, standard and low protein bakers’
flour upon loaf quality

Loaf volume (cm3 ) Minolta b value

Sample HP SP LP HP SP LP

100% Baker’s flour 800 745 728 19.45 19.61 18.90

Y @ 10% 770 728 718 21.13 21.04 21.36
Y @ 15% 803 715 688 21.54 21.69 21.88
Y @ 20% 750 716 700 22.34 22.53 22.32
W @ 10% 785 743 708 21.31 20.93 21.24
W @ 15% 785 750 718 22.01 24.45 21.41
W @ 20% 770 740 718 22.37 22.69 22.70
K @ 10% 755 743 703 21.24 20.88 20.79
K @ 15% 788 738 708 21.57 21.80 21.70
K @ 20% 785 730 713 22.55 22.93 22.86
LSD protein level (P value from ANOVA) 7.3∗∗∗ (<0.001) 0.20 (0.91)
LSD durum flour rate 13.4∗∗∗ (<0.001) 0.36∗∗∗ (<0.001)
LSD sample 23∗ (0.023) 0.63 (0.34)

Protein percentages: HP = high protein baker’s flour with 13.8% protein; SP = standard bakers’ flour 11.9% protein; LP = low protein flour, 10.3%.
Y = Yallaroi residue flour; W = Wollaroi residue flour; K = Kamilaroi residue flour. Significance at ∗ = 5% and ∗∗∗ = 0.1%.

only lowered LV at the 20% rate while for Kamilaroi
in the LP base, LV actually increased with increas-
ing durum flour addition. In no case was the LV of
the durum incorporated flours higher than the control
flour. In the HP base flour, two samples had equivalent
LV to the control and seven flours were significantly
lower in LV. For the SP base, five flours had equiva-
lent LV to the control and four flours were lower and
for the LP base, three flours had equivalent LV to the
control while six flours had lower LV. The BS of the
durum incorporated flours ranged from 27.9 to 29.0
(cf. control flour, 28.9) showing that loaves of equiv-
alent appearance to the control flour were produced.
There were no differences between the 100% base
flour samples and those with added durum residue
flour for whiteness (L) and redness (a) values of the
crust (data not shown). The base flours had similar
yellow colour. The addition of durum residue flour at
any dose and source, significantly increased yellowness
(b) values of the loaves in all situations. As the dosage
of durum residue flour was increased, the b value
increased, as to be expected and so levels below 10%
incorporation would be needed to avoid this change.
The data shows that there can be a negative impact on
LV using some combinations of these durum residue
flours while in other cases no reduction in LV was
obtained. However, in all situations, the yellow colour
of the bread was significantly increased by the durum
flour addition even at a low 10% incorporation.
DISCUSSION
The analysis of many different durum genotypes (set 1)
found that the substitution of 20% bread wheat flour
in a baking mixture with durum residue flour from
semolina milling in general, increased loaf volume
with no change in bake score but an increase in
crust and crumb yellowness. The effects on dough
mixing as measured using the Mixograph showed
a tendency for a slight increase in mixing time
although some samples decreased this while others
had no affect. Generally peak resistance was only
increased slightly. In another study using much higher
incorporation rates (25, 50, 75%), Farinograph mixing
time and extensograph resistance were decreased in
flour blends.5 The improvement in our studies in
LV was not obtained with a low protein base flour
substituted with 20% durum residue flour and again,
crust b was increased significantly. Thus it seems
that the durum flour addition cannot overcome the
deficiency of the base flour. Durum wheat has naturally
higher levels of xanthophylls in the endosperm which
account for a higher Minolta b-value in semolina
compared to wheat flour. The durum residue flour
also has a yellow appearance because it is derived
from the endosperm. Thus it is no surprise that
addition of durum residue flour to a wheat base flour
increased b, as observed. The improvement in LV is
presumably due to the high gluten strength of the
durum residue flour. Indeed, Joesephdes et al.7 stated
that the durum genotype contributes to the effect of
durum residue flour on bread quality when used in
combination and ascribed this to the gluten strength.
Harris and Sibbitt15 found that when common wheat
flour was substituted with durum flour below a 20%
incorporation, there was no impact on loaf volume,
mixing requirements or crumb colour indicating this
dosage can be tolerated. Our results show there is a
difference in crumb colour. However, Boggini and
Pogna6 reported an increase in loaf volume of a
25% durum flour addition to flours with poor bread-
making quality. Similarly, Dekov et al.2 used durum
residue flour in a soft wheat flour blend (15%) which
improved bread-making quality. Our results show that
loaf volume changes are dependent on the source of the
durum residue flour, there being differences between
cultivars. Possible reasons are differences in protein
content of the durum residue flours and differences in

J Sci Food Agric 88:1194–1200 (2008) 1199

DOI: 10.1002/jsfa
M J Sissons et al.
the gluten strength and amount of insoluble glutenin
which are linked to loaf volume.11 Results in Table 4
show that no improvements in LV and BS were
obtained using the three durum varieties compared to
the wheat flour control loaves but increases were noted
with other sources (Tables 2 and 3). At the lowest
incorporation rate used, all the breads had significantly
higher b-values compared to the control. Whether this
increase in yellowness is unacceptable would depend
upon the market and there would always be the option
to bleach the flour if acceptable for health and safety.
Ozen3 reported the use of up to 5% durum residue
flour in a baking formula had no deleterious effects
on dough properties and bread quality. In our work,
there was no attempt to measure the effect of durum
residue flour on staling.
Using three Australian durum wheat cultivars and
incorporation into a high, standard or low protein bak-
ers’ flour, there was no improvement in LV and, in
some cases, a lowered volume. Bake score was gener-
ally lower for the durum flour additions which could
be viewed as negative when scoring against 100% good
quality bakers’ flour. However, a characteristic such
as flavour of the bread offers a unique product more
suited to the small-scale bakery which could be advan-
tageous. Boyacioglu and D’Appolonia4 reported that
adding durum flour obtained by grinding semolina at
25% addition to a bakers’ flour did not affect loaf
volume, whereas adding the first clear flour (flour pro-
duced from the milling of semolina or residue flour as
referred to in this discussion) decreased loaf volume
and bake score. This effect was thought to be due to
a different protein composition between the two mill
streams. In a related study, they went on to show5
that acceptable bread can be made using 25% substi-
tution of bread wheat flour with durum residue flour
using sodium stearoyl lactylate (0.5%) and ascorbic
acid (75 ppm) ingredients.
CONCLUSION
The changes in the mixing and baking properties
of wheat flours demonstrate a potential for the
incorporation of durum residue flour at up to 20%
of the total weight. At this level, loaf volume was
improved using some durum breeding lines but not
others or with durum varieties Kamilaroi, Wollaroi
and Yallaroi. Yellow pigment level was increased
even with only a 10% incorporation which might
be unacceptable. Some of the durum residue flours
increased mixing time which might be a disadvantage
although most flours showed less than 5% change
in the mixing time compared with the base bakers’
flour. Many of the higher protein flours showed no
change in mixing requirements, which contrasts with
the incorporation of gluten into wheat flours, where
mixing time is usually increased. Addition of a higher
protein durum residue flour may allow an increase
in protein content of the bread without significant
changes in the mixing requirements.
1200
Overall, there appears to be merit in studying further
the use of durum residue flour as an additive in the
production of the normal range of wheat breads to
improve the value of this by-product to the durum
miller. Providing loaf volume is not adversely affected,
the baker could reduce costs by decreasing the amount
of flour, since the durum residue is likely to be a
cheaper ingredient. However, the additional yellow
colour might require a different market.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by a grant (DAN 238) from
the Grains Research and Development Corporation.
REFERENCES
1 Quaglia GB, Other durum wheat products, in Durum Wheat
Chemistry and Technology, ed. by Farbriani G and Lintas C.
American Association of Cereal Chemists, St Paul, MN,
pp. 263–282 (1988).
2 Dekov D, Zhelev ZG and Lalev T, Possibilities for using durum
wheat in the improvement of bread from weak soft wheats.
Rasteniev-D. Nauki 23:3–6 (1986).
3 Ozen H, Effect on bread quality of addition of durum clear
flour to bread flour. PhD thesis. University of Ankara, Turkey
(1986). (In Turkish.).
4 Boyacioglu MH and D’Appolonia BL, Characterisation and
utilisation of durum wheat for breadmaking. I. Comparison
of chemical, rheological and baking properties between bread
wheat flours and durum wheat flours. Cereal Chem 71:21–28
(1994).
5 Boyacioglu MH and D’Appolonia BL, Characterisation and
utilisation of durum wheat for breadmaking. II. Study of
flour blends and various additives. Cereal Chem 71:28–34
(1994).
6 Boggini G and Pogna NE, Use of durum wheat to improve
the breadmaking quality of soft wheat. Tec Molitoria
41:1025–1030 (1990).
7 Joesephdes CM, Jopps LR and Youngs VL, The effect of
chromosome 1B on gluten strength and other characteristics
of durum wheat. Crop Sci 27:212–216 (1987).
8 Dexter JE, Preston KR, Martin DG and Gander EJ, The effects
of protein content and starch damage on the physical dough
properties and bread-making quality of Canadian durum
wheat. J Cereal Sci 20:139–151 (1994).
9 Hareland GA and Puhr DP, Baking performance of durum and
soft wheat flour in a sponge-dough breadmaking procedure.
Cereal Chem 75:830–835 (1998).
10 Marchylo BA, Dexter JE, Clarke FR, Clarke JM and Pre-
ston KR, Relationships among bread-making quality, gluten
strength, physical dough properties and pasta cooking quality
for some Canadian durum wheat genotypes. Can J Plant Sci
81:611–620 (2001).
11 Sapirstein HD, David P, Preston KR and Dexter JE, Durum
wheat breadmaking quality: Effects of gluten strength, protein
composition, semolina particle size and fermentation time.
J Cereal Sci 45:150–161 (2007).
12 American Association of Cereal Chemists, Approved Methods of
the AACC, 10th edition. Methods 54-40A, 26–41. AACC, St
Paul, MN, USA (2000).
13 MacRitchie F and Gras PW, The role of flour lipids in baking.
Cereal Chem 50:292–302 (1973).
14 Barnes WC, Dough un-mixing time, and the sticky dough
problem associated with Sr31 wheats. Euphytica 47:49–55
(1990).
15 Harris RH and Sibbitt LD, Effects on baking quality of blending
durum flour with bread wheat flour. Bakers’ Dig 24:61–66
(1950).
J Sci Food Agric 88:1194–1200 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa