1 .

. C .l. ,
tinny...) var
\- all

.7

{515. at 5:!

('1‘!) If:
L53? , 1.5.?

1.3.2.21. . 9
t: a...

 

51‘ 9 9.35... V
1x23... r! .r -1?
W .1 (z .‘!=’~

.
NE: .8...

filiv.) \

9..
02 .iumfuawi in
u .. in . :3! i
,u: 2

. 15.
.p 31.5.1:
1|. 17?. 1.1.. 2..

II: .I
,l! tuna .
\..l.l..ut

A,» a.

 

 

.TL. nfltfi ifrnbtgtrfinufiskt

71)....» .I. i. b.

Ill‘l'il‘lil’i'l‘il'il WI]liiflifliifiiililiiliiflifiil

3 1293 010191835

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

PLACE N RETURN BOX to romovo this chockout from your rooord.
TO AVOID FINES rotum on or bdoro dot. duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

i
l
i
i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Io An Afflmotivo Action/Ema! Opportunity Institution
. Wyn-9.1

 

 

FUNCTIONALITY OF OAT-WHEAT COMPOSITE FLOURS IN SUGAR-SNAP
COOKIES: EFFECT OF METHOD OF MILLING, PROCESSING,
OAT CULTIVAR AND WHEAT CULTIVAR

Volume II
By

Ethel Miriam Nettles

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition

1993

137

Efiect of Millinion Cookie Guam!

The effect of milling on cookie quality was determined by
comparing cookies made from oat-wheat composite flours of
Caldwell soft wheat flour combined with the hammer and roller
milled flours of Mariner, Ogle and Porter groats. The composites
contained oat flours substituted by weight at two levels (15 and 30
percent) for soft wheat flour. The analysis of variance model had
three main effects; type of mill, oat cultivar and level of oat flour
substitution. The ANOVA tables for the dependent variables; cookie
diameter, surface color, protein content, ash content, lipid content,
moisture retention, shear compression, breaking strength and
alkaline water retention capacity of the composite flours are
located in Appendix. The correlation matrices for the dependent
variables by main effect are located in the Appendix. The Caldwell
soft wheat cultivar was chosen for the milling study based on
results of a preliminary study using commercial whole oat flour

which is also provided in the Appendix.

i i m r n r in ore :

Analysis of variance means for the main effect of mill was
influenced by significant interactions of mill x level of oat flour and
mill x oat cultivar. The interaction of mill x level was highly
significant for sugar-snap cookie diameter as shown in Figure 27a
and Table 103 The effect associated with substituting an additional
15 percent hammer milled groat flour to oat-wheat composite flours
was an increase in cookie diameter. The opposite effect, a decrease

in cookie diameter, was associated with roller milled groat flours.

138

Figure 27. Interactions for Cookie Diameter: a) Type of Mill x Level
of Hammer and Roller Milled Groat Flour Substitution
b) Oat Cultivar x Type of Mill

COOKIE DIAMETER (CM)

Mill

COOKIE DIAMETER (CM)

139

 

17.8

17.7 '1

17.6 '

17.5 '1

17.4 ‘

17.3 '

——.— HAMMER
——*—— ROLLER

 

 

1 7.2

10

20

1

30

OAT FLOUR(%)

 

40

X Level of Cat Flour Interaction for Cookie Diameter

 

18.0

17.8 "

17.6 ‘

17.4 1

17.2 "

 

+ MARINER
+ OGLE

+ PORTER

 

 

17.0

Oat

HAMMER

MILL

ROLLER

Cultivar x Mill Interaction For Cookie Diameter

140

The interaction of oat cultivar x mill was also significant for
cookie diameter and is illustrated in Figure 27b. Roller milled groat
flours of the Porter and Ogle cultivars produced cookies with
smaller diameters than hammer milled groats flours of the same
cultivar. Cookies prepared from Mariner roller milled groat flours
had diameters equivalent to cookies prepared from hammer milled
groat flours.

F099 and Tinklin (1972) had reported cookie spread for cotton
seed-wheat composite flours was dependent upon the interaction of
particle size (fine vs coarse) and level of flour. Particle Size Index
(PSI) values previously reported in Table 5 indicated the difference
in relative flour particle size between hammer milled groat flours
and roller milled groat flours of the Mariner and Ogle cultivars was
similar. There was a greater difference between flour particle size
of hammer milled groat flours and roller milled groat flours of the
Porter cultivar. The interaction of mill x cultivar had not been
significant for PSI of oat flours.

Table 32 contains the mean diameters of cookies prepared
from composites of hammer and roller milled groat flours. The mean
diameter of two sugar-snap cookies prepared with 100 percent
Caldwell wheat flour was 17.05 cm. Cookies containing hammer
milled groat flour composites had significantly larger diameters
than cookies prepared with rolled milled groat flour composites.

In contrast, Oomah (1983) previously reported cookies made
' with hammer milled groat composite oat flours had a smaller cookie
spread (width to thickness ratio) than cookies made with roller

milled groat flour composites. Mailhot and Paton (1988) stated the

141

desired width to thickness ratio for sugar snap cookies was from 8.0
to 9.5. In the Oomah study, only cookies containing 5% hammer
milled groat flour and 25% roller milled groat flour had a width to

thickness ratio of at least 8.0.

Table 32. Effect of milling: Means for diameters of cookies made
with oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

Cookie diameter Level of
Main Effect Classes n (cm) Significance
Mill Type Hammer 1 2 17.61 8
Roller 12 17.38b 0.01
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 17.443!)
Ogle 8 17.39b
Porter 8 17.653 0.01
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 1 2 17.453
3 0 1 2 17.533l ns

 

Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

Oomah (1983) theorized that differences in cookie spread of
sugar-snap cookies made with oat-wheat composite flours may have
been due to differences in cat flour composition as well as viscosity
differences observed during pasting. This study milled the three oat
cultivars by both methods in an attempt to remove the effect of
cultivar on the milling process. The lack of agreement with the
published results may be due to the 1983 study utilizing a

commercial hammer milled oat flour which can be a blend of oat

142

cultivars and comparing it to a oat flour prepared by roller milling
groats from a single cultivar.

The initial pasting temperature of roller milled groat flours
was significantly lower than that of hammer milled groat flours
used in this study. This result was previously shown in Table 6. The
smaller diameter Of sugar-snap cookies made with roller milled
groat composite flours may have been partially due toan increase in
viscosity at a lower temperature than in cookies made with hammer
milled groat composite flours.

Table 32 shows there was a cultivar related difference in
cookie diameter. Sugar-snap cookies made with composite flours of
hammer and roller milled Porter oat flour had a significantly larger
mean cookie diameter than cookies made with Ogle hammer and
roller milled composite flours. Particle size index results and
Hunter Color Difference values of the cat flours as shown in Table 5
had indicated that Ogle flours contained finer flour particles than
flours ground from the other two oat cultivars. Flour particle size
may have contributed to the smaller sugar-snap cookie diameter by
providing an increased surface area for water absorption. However,
the influence of viscosity during heating is not clear. Ogle hammer
and roller milled oat flours had a significantly higher initial paste
temperature than flours from the other two cultivars. Porter oat
flours had an increase in viscosity at'a lower temperature than Ogle
oat flours yet cookies prepared with Porter hammer and roller
milled groat composite flours apparently spread more during the

baking process.

 

143

Proximate analysis of the Porter oat flours had determined
that they contained a significantly higher percentage of fat than the
other two oat cultivars. Flour lipids have been reported to influence
sugar-snap cookie spread. Wheat flour lipids have been shown to
increase cookie diameter (Cole et al, 1960; Klssel et al, 1971;
Yamazaki and Donelson, 1976). Tsen et al (1973) found that full fat
soy flour containing 22.2% crude lipid did not reduce cookie spread
as much as defatted soy flours when wheat flour was fortified with
soy flour at 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 30, 40 and 50 percent.

Two levels of oat flour (15 and 30 percent) were blended with
Caldwell soft wheat flour to produce composite flours. Sugar-snap
cookies made with hammer milled oat-wheat composite flours had
larger diameters as increasing amounts of oat flour was present in
the composite flour. As increasing amounts of roller milled oat
flours were added to the composite, the cookie diameters decreased.
This was in agreement with the previously reported results by
Oomah (1983) for cookies baked from roller milled groat flour
composites. Sugar-snap cookies prepared with thirty percent oat-
wheat composite flours had larger diameters than cookies made
with 15 percent composite flours as shown in Table 32.

The results were opposite those found for composites using
oat bran and soy products. Oat bran substituted at the 20% level in
sugar snap cookies by Jeltema et al (1983) resulted in significantly
reduced cookie spread when compared to the control. Tsen et al
(1973) found that soy products (soy flour and soy protein isolates)
progressively reduced sugar-snap cookie spread as more soy product

was blended into soft wheat flour.

 

144

The mean diameters and top grain scores of cookies made with
hammer milled and roller milled flours are given in Table 33. The
top grain scores of cookies made with hammer milled groat flours
were higher than scores for cookies made with roller milled groat
flours. Cookies made with 100 percent soft wheat flour fail to
develop the desired top grain if cookie spread or diameter is
restricted. McWatters (1978) reported cookies of soybean flour
with restricted cookie spread did not develop the typical top grain.
When comparing cookies made with hammer milled groat flour to
cookies made with roller milled groat flour, top grain development
may have been a function of cookie diameter and particle size

related properties.

Alkaline water retentien eegeeity:

Analysis of variance means were influenced by the significant
interaction of mill x cultivar for alkaline water retention capacity
(AWRC) as shown in Figure 28 and Table 104. There was a smaller
difference in AWRC between hammer milled groat composite flours
and roller milled groat composite flours of the Mariner cultivar than
between the composite flours of the two other cultivars.

Hammer milled oat-wheat composite flours had a significantly
lower alkaline water retention capacity (AWRC) than composite
flours made with rolled milled oat flours as shown in Table 34.
Particle Size Index and Hunter Color Difference L-values had
indicated roller milled groat flours contained smaller flour
particles than hammer milled groat flours. This result for AWRC

agreed with previous reports that decreased particle size was

145

Table 33 Means and standard deviations of cookie diameter and top
grain scores of cookies measuring the effect of milling on
cookie quality.

 

 

 

Oat-wheat Oat flour Cookie Top
composite flour (%) diameter1 Grain
(cm) Score2
Hemmer milled
Mariner-Caldwell 30 17.68 1 0.26 8.7
15 17.14 1 0.03 8.0
Ogle-Caldwell 30 17.81 1 0.01 8.5
15 17.41 1 0.05 8.3
Porter-Caldwell 30 17.88 1 0.05 9.0
15 17.72 1 0.18 8.2
Reller milled
Mariner-Caldwell 30 17.33 1 0.02 6.5
15 17.58 1 0.05 7.5
Ogle-Caldwell 30 17.13 1 0.19 7.0
15 17.21 1 0.15 6.0
Porter-Caldwell 30 17.35 1 0.07 6.0
15 17.64 1 0.03 7 0
Caldwell 0 17.05 _t 0.42 7.0
1 n= 2

2n=6

146

 

   
  

 

 

 

so
3 1 —I— MARINER
Z 781 + OGLE
o —O— PORTER
E
m 76 '
'—
Ill
m
m 74 "
Ill
,—
<
3 72 4
ll]
5 '1
2‘ 7o -
x
-I 1
<

68 1

HAMMER ROLLER

MILL

Figure 28. Interaction of Oat Cultivar x Type of Mill for Alkaline
Water Retention Capacity of Hammer and Roller Milled
Groat Composite Flours

147

thought to contribute to increased water retention in rice flours
(Nishita and Bean, 1982) and in wheat flours (Scalon et al, 1988).
Kurimoto and Shelton (1988) suggested that water may penetrate
into the core of a finer flour particle faster than a larger sized flour

particle and result in a more uniform gel.

Table 34. Effect of milling: Means for alkaline water retention
capacity of oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

Alkaline water Level of
Main Effect Classes n retention‘ Significance
(°/°)
Mill Type Hammer 12 70.380
Roller 12 76.503 0.01
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 72.71b
Ogle 8 71.95b
Porter 8 75.663 0.05
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 1 2 67.58b
30 12 79.303 0.01

 

1 14% moisture basis
Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

The alkaline water retention capacity of soft wheat flours is
highly negatively correlated to cookie diameter without needing to
correct for protein and ash content (Yamazaki, 1953). The Pearson
correlation coefficient between alkaline water retention capacity
and diameter of cookies made with hammer milled groat composite
flours was positive and highly significant (r= 0.77, p<0.003). The

correlation between alkaline water retention capacity and cookie

148

diameter for cookies made with roller milled groat composite flours
was negative and not statistically significant (r= -0.27, p<0.39).

The Oomah study (1983) used centrifuge water retention which
does not use water that has been pH adjusted to match the
conditions during the cookie mixing process. Centrifuge water
retention results were that increasing the proportion of oat flour
decreased the water absorption of the resulting composite. The
alkaline water retention results in the current study were that
increasing the proportion of oat flour increased the water
absorption of the resulting composite flour. The importance of pH in
measuring water absorption properties of oat-wheat composite
flours has not been reported in the literature.

The ability of commercially hammer milled oat flour to entrap
larger amounts of water than roller milled oat flour was theorized
by Oomah (1983) to be partially due to steam heat treatment during
manufacturing of the commercial oat flour product. All groats in
this study that were subsequently milled had been subjected to the
identical steam heat treatment during the oat lipase inactivation
process. Hammer milling has been documented (Nishita and Bean,
1982; Haque, 1991) as generating a larger amount of heat than roller
milling. The hammer milled groat flours in this study contained a
significantly lower moisture content than their roller milled
counterparts. lf heat was a major factor in determining the ability
of composite flours to entrap water, the hammer milled groat flours
had been exposed to a greater amount of heat than the roller milled

groat flours.

149

There was a significant difference in alkaline water retention
capacity at the p<0.05 level when comparing hammer and roller
milled Porter groat composite flours to the other two composite
flours as seen in Table 34. The Porter oat flours had been
determined to contain a significantly higher percentage of total
dietary fiber and fi-glucan than the two other oat cultivars. The
presence of a higher percentage of total dietary fiber probably
contributed to the ability of the Porter hammer and roller milled
groat composite flours to entrap water in a gel structure.

The correlations between cookie diameter and AWRC of the
composite flours by oat cultivar were relatively small and
statistically not significant. The correlations between cookie
diameter and AWRC for Mariner, Ogle and Porter composite cookies
were respectively; r= 0.27 (p<0.51), r=0.06 (p<0.87), r=-0.57
(p<0.13).

While there was no significant difference in cookie diameter,
the alkaline water retention capacity of 15 and 30 percent
composite flours was significantly different at the p<0.01 level.
Therefore, the correlations between cookie diameter and AWRC by
level of oat flour was small and statistically not significant. The
correlation between cookie diameter and alkaline water retention
capacity at the 15 percent substitution level was (r=0.35, p< 0.25)
while the correlation for the 30 percent substitution level was
(r=-0.45, p<0.13).

Thirty percent oat-wheat composite flours required less water
addition to produce a desirable dough consistency than 15 percent

oat-wheat composite flours. The lower level of water addition

150

required by oat-wheat composite dough is the opposite of water
addition requirements for defatted soybean flours. (McWatters,
1978) reported that addition of soybean flour increased the amount
of water required to produce a desirable dough consistency.

Table 35 contains the mean and standard deviations of alkaline
water retention capacities of the composite flours. Oat-wheat
composite flours of roller milled oat flours consistently had larger
alkaline water retention capacities than their hammer milled
counterparts. The roller milled oat wheat composites also had the

largest standard deviations for AWRC.

Analysis of variance means for Hunter Color Difference L-
value, a-value and b-value were influenced by significant
interactions for cultivar x level of oat flour as seen in Tables 105,
106 and 107. Figures 29a-c illustrate the interactions for the color
parameters of the cookies. Substitution of 30 percent Mariner
hammer milled groat and roller milled groat flour did not decrease
L-values for cookie surface color as much as substitution of 30
percent Porter and Ogle groat flours. Figure 029b shows that
substitution of 30 percent Porter hammer and roller milled groat
flour had no effect on a-values (redness) for cookie surface color.
The same level of substitution of Mariner flours in sugar-snap
cookies decreased a-values while substitution of Ogle flours
increased a-values or redness. Figure 290 shows that the difference

in b-values (yellowness) among cookies made with 15 percent

151

Table 35. Means and standard deviations of alkaline water
retention capacity measuring the effect of milling on cookie

 

 

quality.
Alkaline Water
Oat-wheat Oat flour Retention1
composite flour (%) (%)
Hemmer milled
Mariner-Caldwell 30 74.58 1 0.71
15 63.05 1 1.17
Ogle-Caldwell 30 75.98 1 0.25
15 65.46 1 0.87
Porter-Caldwell 30 77.08 1 0.18
15 66.15 1 0.77
W
Mariner-Caldwell 30 83.06 1 2.00
15 70.12 1 2.07
Ogle-Caldwell 30 77.01 1 1.83
15 69.35 1 2.86
Porter-Caldwell 30 88.08 1 3.94
15 71.34 1 2.62
Caldwell 0 58.81 1 1.05

 

1 n= 3 14% moisture basis

152

Figure 29. Interaction of Cat Cultivar x Level of Hammer and Roller
Milled Groat Flour Substitution for Hunter Color
Difference Values of Cookie Surface Color

153

 

 

 

 

54
‘ —0— MARINER
—t— OGLE
a? -—I— PORTER
m 53 «
1.1.1
2
p—
I
9
=1. 52 -
1.1.1
3 .
J
§
_5 51 «
1 .
so . . . . .
1o 20 so 40

OAT FLOUR (%)
Oat Cultivar x Level of Oat Flour Interaction for Cookie L-value

 

6.3

+ MARINER
—i— OGLE

+ PORTER

l___
6.1 "
,
6.0 "
5.9 ‘
5.8 1

5.7

6.2 '

 

A-VALUE (REDNESS)

 

 

 

1o 20 so 40
OAT FLOUR (%)

Oat Cultivar x Level of Oat Flour Interaction for Cookie a-value

 

 

 

 

19.3
—o— MARINER

8 19.6 ~ “ 061-5
d, —I— PORTER
m 1
z
3 19.4 4
O
.1 1
1"" 19 2 -
t 0
g 4
.1 19.0 ‘
<
>. 1
D

19.9 .

18.6 . . . . .

1o 20 so 40

OAT FLOUR (%)

Oat Cultivar x Level of Oat Flour Interaction for Cookie b-value

154

hammer and roller milled groat flours did not exist at the 30 percent
substitution level.

Table 36 contains the mean Hunter color difference L-values
for cookies prepared from composites of hammer and roller milled
groat flours. Analysis of variance results indicated a significant
difference at the p< 0.05 level in the L-values (lightness vs
darkness) of sugar-snap cookies prepared with composite flours
containing hammer milled groat flours when compared to cookies

prepared with roller milled groat flours.

Table 36. Effect of milling: Means for Hunter Color Difference L-
values of cookies made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

Level of
Main Effect Classes n L-value1 Significance
Mill Type Hammer 12 52.0811
Roller 12 51.271) 0.05
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 51.52311
Ogle 8 52.333
Porter 8 51.191) 0.05
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 12 52.478
30 12 50.88b 0.01

 

1 L values = 0 (black) to 100 (white)
Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

There was a significant difference at the p<0.05 level in the
Hunter Color Difference L-value for sugar snap cookies prepared

with the three different oat cultivar hammer and roller milled

155

composite flours as shown in Table 36. Cookies prepared with
composites of Ogle hammer and roller milled groat flour had higher
L-values than cookies from other oat-wheat composite flours. There
was a significant difference between the L-values of Ogle and

Porter cookies but not Ogle and Mariner cookies. Analysis of
variance indicated that the L-values (darkness to lightness) of
cookies significantly decreased as more oat flour was blended into
the composite flours.

Mean a-values for cookie surfaces are contained in Table 37.
There was a significant difference in the a-value (redness) of the
two types of cookies. The baked cookies prepared from roller milled
flours had a stronger reddish hue than cookies prepared with hammer
milled oat flours. There was no statistically significant difference
between the a-values of sugar snap cookies prepared with
composites of the three oat cultivars as seen in Table 37. However,
cookies prepared from Porter hammer and roller milled groat
composite flours were measured as having a more reddish hue than
the other cookies.

Table 38 shows there was no significant difference in b-
values (yellowness) of sugar-snap cookies prepared with hammer
milled groat flours compared to those made with roller milled groat
flours. Ogle cookies were measured as having a more yellow hue
than cookies baked from composites containing the other two oat
cultivars. Kissel et al (1971) had reported that an increase in wheat
flour lipids produced a more intense yellow hue in sugar snap
cookies made from soft wheat. There have been no published reports

of the influence of oat flour lipids on sugar-snap cookie color.

156

Table 37. Effect of milling: Means for Hunter Color Difference a-
values of cookies made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

Level of
Main Effect Classes n a-value1 Significance
Mill Type Hammer 12 5.63b
Roller 12 6.403 0.01
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 5.9961
Ogle 8 5.948
Porter 8 6.11a ns
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 1 2 6.05a
30 1 2 5.990 ns

 

1 a values = positive values indicate redness
Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

Table 38. Effect of milling: Means for Hunter Color Difference D-
values of cookies made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

Level of
Main Effect Classes n b-value1 Significance
Mill Type Hammer 12 19.136‘
Roller 12 19.043 ns
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 18.98a
Ogle 8 19.21a
Porter 8 19.083 ns
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 1 2 19.483
30 12 18.70b 0.01

 

1 b values = positive values indicate yellowness
Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

157

There was also a significant decrease in b-values (i.e. less
yellow), as the percentage of oat flour increased. At the end of the
eleven minute baking period, cookies made with 30 percent oat flour
exhibited a greater degree of dough expansion than sugar-snap
cookies made with 15 percent oat flour. The surface of the cookie
containing 30 percent oat flour was always elevated higher than the
surface of a cookie containing 15 percent oat flour. Wade (1988)
observed that the raised portions of the cookie surface will always
be darker than the surrounding cookie surface.

Table 39 contains the means and standard deviations of Hunter
Color Difference values for cookies prepared with hammer milled
and rolled milled oat flours. At the 15 and 30 percent level of oat
flour in the composite, cookies made with hammer milled oat flours
were consistently lighter in color or had larger L-values. Com-
parison of a-values shows that cookies made with composites
containing roller milled oat flours had consistently higher a-values
(more redness) than their hammer milled counterpart. There was no

comparable trend found in b-values or yellowness.

ki r xim n l i :

There were no significant interactions for cookie protein or
fat content. The difference between cookie protein means was
substantially due to the main effects of mill, cultivar and level as
seen in Table 108. Table 109 and Figure 30 shows there was a
significant interaction between oat cultivar x level for cookie ash

content. Substitution of 30 percent Porter hammer and roller milled

158

Table 39. Means and standard deviations of Hunter color difference
values of cookies measuring effect of milling on cookie

 

 

 

quality.1

Oat Henterlae Celer Differenee

Oat-wheat flour

composite flour (%) L2 a3 b4

Hemmer millee

Mariner-Caldwell 30 50. 82 1 1.17 5.57 1 0.32 18.46 1 0.56
15 51.97 1 1.24 5.87 1 0.67 18.97 1 0.11

Ogle-Caldwell 30 51.40 1 0.07 6.02 1 0.46 18.55 1 0.07
15 54.00 1 0.28 5.20 1 0.07 19.97 1 0.03

Porter-Caldwell 30 50.30 i 0.14 5.80 1 0.00 18.70 1 0.07
15 53.00 1 0.28 5.65 1 0.07 19.80 1 0.21

Reller milleg

Mariner-Caldwell 30 50.78 1 0.37 6.19 1 0.03 18.82 1 0.25
15 51.49 1 0.87 6.66 1 0.20 19.32 1 0.42

Ogle-Caldwell 30 51.03 1 0.80 6.22 1 0.17 18.73 1 0.09
15 52.87 1 1.06 6.30 1 0.28 19.57 1 0.28

Porter-Caldwell 30 49.95 1 0.85 6.40 1 0.28 18.59 1 0.19
15 51.49 1 0.38 6.59 1 0.11 19.22 1 0.14

Caldwell 0 56.67 1 0.18 5.67 1 0.25 20.15 1 0.64

1 n = 2

2 L values = 0 (black) to 100 (white)

3 a values = positive values indicate redness

4 D values = positive values indicate yellowness

159

 

 

 

 

1.5
+ MARINER
—-— OGLE
—I— PORTER
$141
I
(I)
<
E
X
8
o 1.3 1
1.2 - . . 4 -
1o 20 30 4o

OAT FLOUR (%)

Figure 30. Interaction of Cat Cultivar x Level of Hammer and Roller
Milled Groat Flour Substitution for Ash Content of Sugar-
Snap Cookies

160

groat flours increased cookie ash content to a greater degree than
substitution of the two other cultivars at the same level.

Analysis of variance results for protein content of the sugar
snap cookies are listed in Table 40. Cookies made with composites
of hammer milled groat flours contained a significantly higher
percentage of protein than cookies made from composites of roller
milled groat flours. This agrees with the previously reported
protein levels in comparisons of roller and hammer milled groat

flours.

Table 40. Effect of milling: Means for protein content of cookies
made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

 

Protein1 Level of
Main Effect Classes n (%) Significance
Mill Type Hammer 12 6.703
Roller 12 6.460 0.01
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 6.688
Ogle 8 6.370
Porter 8 6.69a 0.01
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 1 2 6.42b
30 12 6.748 0.01
1 Dry basis

Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

Analysis of variance also compared sugar-snap cookies made
with the three different oat cultivars. Sugar-snap cookies made
Mariner and Porter composite flours contained a significantly higher

percentage of protein than cookies made with Ogle composite flours.

161

Cookies prepared from 30 percent oat-wheat composite flours
contained a significantly higher percentage of protein than cookies
prepared from 15 percent composite flours as shown in Table 40.

The higher percentage of protein in the hammer milled cookies
was expected to influence the Hunter Color Difference L-values of
the cookies due to higher amounts of amino acids available to take
part in the Maillard reaction. The correlation between percentage
protein and L-value was negative and highly significant for cookies
made with composites of hammer milled (r= -0.73, p<0.006) and
roller milled flours (r= -O.78, p<0.002). However, sugar snap cookies
prepared with roller milled composite oat flours that contained a
lower percentage of protein were slightly darker in color.

The higher percentage of protein in sugar-snap cookies made
with Mariner and Porter hammer and roller milled groat composite
flours may have influenced the Hunter Color difference L-values.
Sugar-snap cookies made with Mariner and Porter composite flours
containing more protein and more oat lipid were darker in color
according to Hunter color difference L-values.

Table 41 reports there was no significant difference in ash
content when cookies made with hammer milled oat flour were
compared to cookies made with roller milled oat flour. There was
not a significant difference between means of ash content for Porter
and Ogle cookies but Mariner did contain a higher percentage of ash
than Ogle cookies. Cookies prepared from 30 percent oat-wheat
composite flours contained a significantly higher percentage of
protein and ash compared to cookies with 15 percent composite

flours as shown in Table 41.

162

Table 41. Effect of milling: Means for ash content of cookies made
with oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

 

Ash1 Level of
Main Effect Classes n % Significance
Mill Type Hammer 12 1.32a
Roller 12 1.358 ns
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 1.368‘
Ogle 8 1.31b
Porter 8 1.3331) 0.05
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 1 2 1.30b
30 12 1.378 0.01
1 Dry basis

Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

The development of the surface color of a sugar snap cookie is
partially due to Maillard type reactions between reducing sugars and
amino acids (Wade, 1988). However, correlations between protein
content and L-value by oat cultivar were negative and statistically
not significant. The Pearson correlation coefficients between
protein content and L-value for Mariner, Ogle and Porter composite
cookies were respectively; r= -0.03 (p<0.94), r=-0.42 (p<0.29), r=-
0.58 (p<0.12). '

There was no significant difference in fat content of cookies
when cookies made with hammer milled oat flour were compared to
cookies made with roller milled oat flour as seen in Table 42. There
was also not a significant difference in lipid content of cookies

made from composite flours of the three different oat cultivars.

163

Ogle hammer and roller milled groat flour contained a significantly
lower percentage of lipid than flours of the other two oat cultivars.
The fat used to prepare the cookie sheets may have influenced these
results. There was not a significant difference in lipid content of

cookies made from 15 or 30 percent oat-wheat composite flour.

Table 42. Effect of milling: Means for fat content of cookies made
with oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

 

Fat1 Level of
Main Effect Classes n % Significance
Mill Type Hammer 1 2 17.31 3
Roller 12 17.018 ns
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 16.903
Ogle 8 17.24a
Porter 8 17.34a ns
Oat Flour
Percent 15 12 17.01 a
3 0 1 2 17.31a ns
1 Dry basis

Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

Oat-wheat composite flours contained a higher percentage of
protein than Caldwell soft wheat flour. An increase in Maillard type
browning reaction due to increased amounts of amino acids may have
contributed to the baked sugar-snap cookie color. However, the
correlations between cookie protein percent and Hunter Color
Difference L-value (lightness) and b-value (yellowness) by level of

oat flour were small and not statistically significant. For the 15

164

percent level, the correlations for L- and b-value were respectively;
r=-0.08 (p<0.78), r=0.27 (p<0.38). For the 30 percent level, the
correlations for L- and b-value respectively were; r= 0.33 (p<0.28),
r=0.12 (p<0.70). The correlations between Hunter Color Difference
values and lipid content were not significant at either level.

Table 43 contains the means and standard deviations for
protein, ash and fat content of sugar-snap cookies prepared from
hammer milled and roller milled oat-wheat composite flours.
Cookies prepared with hammer milled oat composite flours
contained a higher percentage of protein (on a dry basis) than the
comparable cookies prepared with roller milled composite flours.
This was in agreement with proximate analysis results for the oat
flours. Cookies made with 30 percent oat flour were expected to
contain a higher percent of lipid than cookies made with 15 percent
oat flour. Table 43 shows that fat extraction of cookies made with
Porter-Caldwell hammer milled groat flour composites and Ogle-
Caldwell roller milled groat flour composites did not produce

expected results.

i r r ni n'

Moisture retention percent was calculated by dividing the
percent moisture in cookie crumbs by the percent moisture in the
respective cookie dough. There were no significant interactions for
cookie moisture retention. Table 44 shows that cookies baked from
hammer milled groat flours retained a slightly higher percentage of
moisture than cookies made with roller milled groat flours but the

difference was not significant at the p<0.05 level. The larger

165

Table 43. Means and standard deviations of protein, ash and fat
content of cookies measuring the effect of milling on cookie

 

 

 

qualityl

Oat-wheat Oat

composite flour flour Protein2 Ash2 Fat2
(%) (%) (%) (%)

Hemmer milled

Mariner-Caldwell 30 7.00 1 0.01 1.36 1 0.05 17.23 1 0.25
15 6.64 1 0.09 1.31 1 0.01 16.91 1 0.01

Ogle-Caldwell 30 6.57 1 0.12 1.33 1 0.05 18.00 1 0.82
15 6.37 1 0.02 1.29 1 0.01 16.77 1 0.82

Porter-Caldwell 30 7.00 1 0.07 1.40 1 0.00 17.36 1 0.05
15 6.59 1 0.11 1.24 1 0.02 17.57 1 0.49

Reller milled

Mariner-Caldwell 30 6.72 1 0.17 1.39 1 0.01 17.04 1 1.02
15 6.36 1 0.02 1.36 1 0.02 16.42 1 0.47

Ogle-Caldwell 30 6.41 1 0.10 1.35 1 0.01 16.70 1 0.31
15 6.12 1 0.09 1.29 1 0.01 17.49 1 0.30

Porter-Caldwell 30 6.76 1 0.01 1.41 1 0.00 17.50 1 0.08
15 6.40 1 0.01 1.28 1 0.06 16.90 1 0.38

Caldwell 0 6.04 1 0.03 1.12 1 0.02 15.81 1 0.46

1n = 2 2 Dry basis

166

particle size of the hammer milled flours may have retained more
moisture through out the baking process because of the presence of a
residual matrix structure in the remnants of the aleurone and
subaleurone cells. Cadden (1987) concluded that a residual matrix
structure in particles physically entraps water while the outer
surfaces of the particle provide additional sites for water

adsorption.

Table 44. Effect of milling: Means for moisture retention of
cookies made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

 

Moisture
Main Effect Classes n Retention Level of
(%) Significance
Mill Type Hammer 1 2 19.7851
Roller 12 19.603 ~ns
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 20.113
Ogle 8 19.7315‘
Porter 8 19.223 ns
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 1 2 17.301)
30 1 2 22.073 0.05
1 Dry basis

Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

Sugar-snap cookies made with Mariner hammer and roller
milled groat composite flours retained a higher percentage of
moisture than cookies prepared from Ogle and Porter hammer and

roller milled groat composite flours, however the difference was

167

not significant as shown in Table 44. Cookies containing 30 percent
oat flour retained a significantly higher percentage of moisture than
cookies containing 15 percent oat flour.

F099 and Tinklin (1972) had concluded that finely ground
glandless cotton seed flour had less ability than coarse cotton seed
flour to absorb or bind moisture in a sugar-snap cookie during baking
Wade (1988) divided the baking process into three stages. The first
stage entails expansion of the dough and the beginning of the loss of
moisture. During the second stage, dough expansion and moisture
loss reach their maximum rate and color development starts on the
high spots on the dough surface. The last stage consists of a
decrease in the rate of moisture loss and rapid color development on
the cookie surface. Cookies prepared with roller milled composite
oat flours may have contained less moisture than cookies made from
hammer milled composite flours during the last third of baking. The
lower percentage of moisture may have facilitated browning of the

cookie surface.

hr rinnrkin rnh:

The interaction of oat cultivar x level was significant for
cookie tenderness or shear compression as shown in Table 112 and
Figure 31. Cookies made with Mariner oat-wheat composites
developed a softer texture as increasing levels of Mariner oat flours
were incorporated than cookies compared to the two other
composites. There were no significant interactions for cookie

breaking strength.

168

 

24

—O— MARINER
_+_ OGLE

22 " + PORTER

201

18‘

16‘

SHEAR COMPRESSION (lb/gm)

 

 

 

14 . T . e .
1o 20 30 4o

OAT FLOUR (%)

Figure 31. Interaction of oat cultivar x level of hammer and roller
milled groat flour substitution for cookie shear
compression

169

Table 45 Shows cookies baked from hammer milled groat
flours had higher shear compression values than cookies made with
roller milled groat flours but the difference was not significant at
the p<0.05 level. The highest shear compression values were
measured for sugar-snap cookies made with Ogle composite flours.
The Ogle cookie shear compression values were significantly higher
than shear compression values for cookies made with Mariner and
Porter composite flours. Cookies made with Ogle composite flours
contained the lowest percentage of oat protein and a higher
percentage of wheat protein which may have affected shear
compression There was no difference between shear compression
values for Mariner and Porter cookies. Shear compression values
were significantly higher for cookies containing 15 percent oat

flours compared to cookies containing 30 percent oat flour.

Table 45. Effect of milling: Means for shear compression of cookies
made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

Shear Compression Level of

 

Main Effect Classes n (lb/gm) SLanificance
Mill Type Hammer 1 2 19.17a
Roller 12 19.303 ns
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 18.261)
Ogle 8 20.733
Porter 8 19.52311 0.01
Oat Flour _
Percent 15 12 21 .17a
30 1 2 17.831) 0.01

 

Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

170

There was a Significant difference in the breaking strength of
cookies made with hammer milled groat flour composites compared
to cookies containing roller milled groat flour composites. Sugar-
snap cookies made from the three oat composite flours did not differ
significantly in breaking strength. More force was required to break
cookies containing the smaller percentage of oat flour (15%) than

the larger percentage (30%) of oat flour.

Table 46. Effect of milling: Means for breaking strength of cookies
made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

Breaking Strength Level of

 

Main Effect Classes n (lb/cm?) ignificance
Mill Type Hammer 1 2 11.20a
Roller 12 9.5711 0.05
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 11.31a
Ogle 8 10.3711
Porter 8 9.4821 ns
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 1 2 11.2011
30 1 2 9.57b 0.05

 

Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

The results agreed with findings reported by Vratanina and
Zabik (1978) for wheat brans substituted in sugar-snap cookies. As
the level of substituted wheat brans increased from 10 to 30
percent, there was an incremental decrease in Shear compression
and breaking strength. The shear compression and breaking strength

values for sugar-snap cookies substituted with navy bean flour also

17]

decreased as increasing levels of navy bean flour were blended into
the composite (Hoojjat and Zabik, 1984).

Table 47 contains the means and standard deviations for
moisture retention, shear compression and breaking strength for the
sugar-snap cookies. The large standard deviations influenced the
analysis of variance results for moisture retention percentage.
Cookies made with 15 percent Porter oat flour had smaller shear
compression readings than 15 percent roller milled Porter oat flour.
For the other two 15 percent composite flours, cookies made with
hammer milled oat flours had larger shear compression readings
than roller milled oat flours. Cookies prepared with hammer milled
oat composite flours had larger breaking strength measurements
than the comparable cookies prepared with roller milled composite

flours.

ff f Pr in

The effect of processing on cookie quality was determined by
comparing cookies made from oat-wheat composite flours of
Caldwell soft wheat flour combined with the hammer milled flours
ground from Mariner, Ogle and Porter groats and flakes. The
composites contained oat flours substituted by weight at two levels
(15 and 30%) for soft wheat flour. The analysis of variance model
had three main effects; oat form, oat cultivar and level of oat flour
substitution. The ANOVA tables for the dependent variables; cookie
diameter, surface color, protein content, ash content, lipid content,
moisture retention, shear compression, breaking Strength and

alkaline water retention capacity of the composite flours are

172

Table 19. Means and Standard deviations of shear compression and
breaking strength of cookies measuring the effect of processing on

cookie quality1

 

 

 

Shear Breaking
Oat-wheat Oat flour Compression Strength
composite flour (%) (lb/gm) (lb/cm?)
groats
Mariner-Caldwell 30 16.80 30 1 3.01 10.64 a 1 0.27
' 15 20.98 a131 0.22 12.96 a 1 1.88
Ogle-Caldwell 30 18.87 3° 1 0.71 10.01 a 1 1.82
15 21.85 ab 1 1.07 12.21 a 1 1.09
Porter-Caldwell 30 19.39 ac 1 0.26 10.54 a 1 0.42
15 20.32 ab 1 0.07 10.82 a 1 0.12
Elam
Mariner-Caldwell 30 17.36 80 1 1.08 10.72 a 1 3.50
15 20.25 ab 1 0.44 12.16 a 1 1.46
Ogle-Caldwell 30 17.84 30 1 2.02 13.25 a 1 0.35
15 20.95 31’ 1 0.65 9.78 a 1 0.89
Porter-Caldwell . 30 16.86 30 1 1.06 11.47 a 1 0.31
15 20.69 ab 1 3.16 14.26 a 1 0.01
Caldwell 0 28.501: 2.76 13.78 1 2.90
1 n=2

Means in the same column having a different superscript are
significantly different at p<0.01.

173

located in the Appendix. The correlation matrices for the dependent
variables by main effect are located in the Appendix. The Caldwell
soft wheat cultivar was chosen for the processing study based on
results of a preliminary study using commercial whole oat flour

which is provided in the Appendix.

ki i m r n t r in re :

There were no significant interactions for cookie diameter as
seen in Table 114. There was a significant difference (p<0.01) in the
diameter of cookies made with oat flour hammer milled from flakes
compared to cookies made with oat flour from groats as shown in
Table 48. Cookies made from oat flour milled from flakes had a
smaller diameter. The mean diameter of two sugar-snap cookies

prepared with 100 percent Caldwell wheat flour was 17.05 cm.

Table 48. Effect of processing: Means for diameters of cookies
made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

Cookie diameter Level of
Main Effect Classes n (cm) SiLnificance
Oat Form Groat 1 2 17.618
Flake 12 17.281) 0.01
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 17.301)
Ogle 8 17.39311
Porter 8 17.643 0.05
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 1 2 17.341)
30 1 2 17.548 0.05

 

Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
Significantly different.

174

Viscosity difference observed during pasting oat flours may
have contributed to the difference in cookie diameter. AS earlier
reported in Table 6, oat flours hammer milled from flakes had a
significantly lower initial pasting temperature and a higher peak hot
viscosity than oat flours hammer milled from groats. An increase in
viscosity at a lower temperature may have facilitated setting of the
cookie structure at a point where a lesser degree of dough expansion
had occurred.

Cookies made from Mariner hammer milled groat and hammer
milled flake flour composites were significantly (p<0.05) smaller in
diameter than cookies from Porter groat and flake flour composites
as shown in Table 48. Hammer milled Mariner groat and flake flours
had increased in viscosity at a lower temperature during pasting
than Ogle or Porter oat flours as Shown in Table 6. Viscoamylograph
properties of the oat flour did not appear to influence the average
diameter of cookies made from Porter oat flour composites as much
as cookies made from Mariner oat flours.

Cookies prepared from composites containing 30 percent
hammer milled groat and flake flour had significantly larger cookie
diameters than cookies made from composites containing 15 percent
oat flour at the p<0.05 level as seen in Table 48. This is the
opposite effect of oat bran which when substituted at the 30
percent level by Jeltema et al (1983) decreased the diameter of
sugar-snap cookies.

The mean diameters and top grain scores of cookies made with
composites of oat flours ground from groats and oat flours ground

from flakes are given in Table 49. With the exception of cookies

175

made from Mariner flours, cookies made from groat flours had larger
diameters than cookies made from oat flake flours. This may have
been the influence of the lower initial pasting temperature of
Mariner oat flours.

Sugar-snap cookies made from hammer milled groat flour
composites had slightly higher top grain scores than cookies made
with hammer milled oat flake flour. Development of top grain may
have been a function of cookie spread during baking, chemical

components of oat flours and particle size related properties.

Alkaline weger retengien eepecity:

Analysis of variance means for the main effects were
influenced by significant interactions between oat cultivar x form
and oat cultivar x level as seen in Table 115. The interactions are
illustrated in Figure 32a and b. The lines are not parallel and
indicate a difference in the level of response to flaking of Ogle
flours. The flaking process did not increase the AWRC of Ogle
hammer milled flours to the same degree as it did hammer milled
flours from Mariner and Porter cultivars. There was also a
difference among cultivars in the level of response to doubling the
percentage of hammer milled groat or flake flour in the composite.
Porter composite flours had the largest increase in' AWRC when
compared to the two cultivars. Cultivar x form influenced AWRC of
the hammer milled composite flours at the p<0.001 level while oat

cultivar x level influenced AWRC at the p<0.03 level.

176

Table 49. Means and standard deviations of cookie diameter and top
grain score measuring the effect of processing on cookie

 

 

quality.

Oat-wheat Oat Cookie Top

composite flour flour diameter1 Grain
(%) (cm) Score

519315

Mariner-Caldwell 30 17.68 1 0.26 8.7
15 17.14 1 0.03 8.0

Ogle-Caldwell 30 17.81 1 0.01 8.5
15 17.41 1 0.05 8.3

Porter-Caldwell 30 17.88 1 0.05 9.0
15 17.72 1 0.18 8 2

Flakee

Mariner-Caldwell 30 17.13 1 0.02 8.5
15 17.23 1 0.05 6.8

Ogle-Caldwell 30 17.26 1 0.27 8.0
15 17.07 1 0.49 7 3

Porter-Caldwell 30 17.47 1 0.00 8.8
15 17.48 1 0.26 8.0

Caldwell 0 17.05 1 0.42 7.0

 

1 n=2

177

Figure 32. Interaction for AWRC of Hammer Milled Groat and Flake
Composite Flours. a) Oat Form x Oat Cultivar b) Oat
Cultivar x Level of Hammer Milled Groat and Flake Flour

Substitution

178

 

 

 

 

90
—-I— MARINER
85 ' + OGLE
J —o—— PORTER
80 1
g
g 75 -
3 J
<
70 -
65 -
60 r - T
GROAT FLAKE
OAT FORM

Oat Cultivar x Form Interaction for AWRC of Composite Flours

 

 

 

 

90
85 ~
1
. so 1
5’
v 1
g 75 -
3
<
70 ‘ —o—- MARINER
4 —.-— OGLE
—I— PORTER
65 u
60 . . 1 1 .
1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o

OAT FLOUR (%)

Oat Cultivar x Level of Oat Flour Interaction for AWRC of Composite Flours

179

Table 50 shows the alkaline water retention capacity (AWRC)
of hammer milled flake flour composites was significantly higher
than that of hammer milled groat flour composites. Hunter Color
Difference L-values previously given in Table 5 indicated that oat
flours hammer milled from oat flakes had a finer particle size than
oat flours hammer milled from groats. This is in agreement with
the findings of Nishita and Bean (1982) that rice flour with the
finest particle Size had the highest alkaline water retention
capacity. Kurimoto and Shelton (1988) related flour particle size
with the rate at which water penetrates into the core of the
particle. A small flour particle was theorized to absorb water
faster and more easily form a uniform gel. Scalon et al (1988)
reported that the fine fraction of hard spring wheat flour produced
by roller milling absorbed a greater amount of water than the coarse
fraction.

Composite flours containing oat flour ground from groats or
flakes required approximately the same amount to water to be added
for desirable dough consistency. Oat-wheat composite flours
required less water to be added for desirable dough consistency than
the 100% Caldwell soft wheat flour.

There was a highly significant correlation (r=0.76, p<0.003)
between cookie diameter and alkaline water retention capacity for
cookies made with hammer milled groat composite flours. The
correlation for cookies made with hammer milled flake composite
flours was not as strong and not statistically significant (r=0.26,
p<0.39).

180

Table 50. Effect of processing: Means for alkaline water retention
capacity of oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

Alkaline water Level of
Main Effect Classes n retention1 Significance
(%)
Oat Form Groat 1 2 70.391)
Flake 12 76.813 0.01
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 74.66311
Ogle 8 73.261)
Porter 8 77.373 0.01
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 1 2 69.041)
30 1 2 81.153 0.01

 

1 14% moisture basis
Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

Cookies made from Porter hammer milled groat and flake flour
composites had the largest average cookie diameter while the
composite flours had the largest alkaline water retention capacity
as seen in Table 50. Alkaline water retention capacity of Porter oat
flour composites were significantly larger than AWRC of the other
two oat flours composites at the p<0.05 level. The correlations
between cookie diameter and AWRC by oat cultivar were not strong
and not statistically Significant. The correlations for Mariner, Ogle
and Porter cookie diameters and AWRC were respectively; r=-0.2
(p<0.95), r: 0.16 (p<0.69) and r=-0.37 (p<0.36).

Table 50 also shows that composites of thirty percent oat
flours had significantly higher alkaline water retention capacities

than composites of fifteen percent oat flour at the p<0.01 level.

181

Chang and Sosulski (1985) reported that oat flour will hydrate 110%
of its weight in water compared to a water hydration capacity of
93% for wheat flour. Kissel and Yamazaki (1975) added wheat gluten
and soy flour derivatives to sugar snap cookies and concluded that
the increased water retention properties of these ingredients
competed for the limited free water present in cookie dough and
increased dough viscosity. Sugar within the cookie dough system
was theorized to not be fully dissolved. Reduced cookie spread and
limited top grain formation was the outcome.

Sugar-snap cookie diameter and AWRC were not significantly
correlated (r=-0.009, p<0.97) when hammer milled groat and flake
flours were substituted at the 15 percent level. The correlation
became stronger and statistically significant (r=-0.57, p<0.05) when
hammer milled groat and flake flours were substituted at the 30
percent level in sugar-snap cookies.

The means and standard deviations of alkaline water retention
capacities are given in Table 51. The alkaline water retention
capacities of composites containing oat flour ground from flakes
were consistently larger than their groat counterparts. Cadden
(1987) reported that processes that alter the physical
characteristics of certain food fibers can affect the total amount of
water held by the fiber and how the water is held. Oat bran that was
ground to further reduce particle size had an increased ability to
hold water. However, the grinding to reduce particle size eliminated
the ”multilayer region” where water is loosely held within the pores

or matrix structure of the fiber.

182

Table 51. Means and standard deviations of alkaline water
retention capacity measuring the effect of processing on
cookie quality.

 

Alkaline Water

 

Oat-wheat Oat flour Retention1
composite flour (%) (%)
915m;
Mariner-Caldwell 30 74.58 1 0.71
15 63.05 1 1.17
Ogle-Caldwell 30 75.98 1 0.25
15 65.46 1 0.87
Porter-Caldwell 30 77.08 1 0.18
15 66.15 1 0.77
Flekee
Mariner-Caldwell 30 85.91 1 0.39
15 75.11 1 0.64
Ogle-Caldwell 30 80.84 1 0.10
15 70.77 1 1.88
Porter-Caldwell 30 92.53 1 2.05
15 73.71 1 0.95
Caldwell 0 58.81 1 1.05

 

1 n=3 14% moisture basis

183

Chang and Morris (1990) heat processed (autoclaved for 15
minutes at 121°C) samples of apple fiber, corn fiber, oat bran and
soy fiber and then evaluated physical structural changes in the
fibers with a Scanning Electron Microscope. The results were an
increase in the surface area of the fibers due to increased furrowing
and/or cracking. The oat bran exhibited a rougher and more irregular
surface after the heat treatment. The increased water holding
capacity of oat flours ground from flakes may have been influenced

by the heat processing involved in rolling groats into flakes.

kie rfa color:

Analysis of variance means were influenced by Significant
interactions between cultivar x form and cultivar x level. There was
a highly significant p<0.001 interaction between oat cultivar x form
for Hunter L-value which is illustrated in Figure 33a. Processing
the groats into flakes appeared to have a different effect on the
lightness or L-value of cookies prepared from the composite flours.
Cookies made from hammer milled oat flake flour from the Ogle
cultivar had darker surfaces than cookies made from hammer milled
groat flour. The opposite effect was seen for cookies made with
Mariner and Porter oat flours.

The interaction of oat cultivar x level was also significant for
a-value of sugar snap cookies and is shown in Figure 33b. Increasing
the percent of oat flour two fold in the composite had a different
level of response for each cultivar in the resulting redness or a-
value of the cookie. Cookies made with Ogle hammer milled groat or

flake flour composites had an increased reddish hue while

184

Figure 33. Interaction for Hunter Color Difference Values for
Cookies made with Hammer Milled Groat and Flake Flours.
a) Oat Form x Oat Cultivar Interaction for L-value.
b) Oat Cultivar x Level of Hammer Milled Groat and Flake

Flour Substitution for a-value.

185

 

 

L-VALU E (LIGHTN ESS)

 

 

 

 

 

 
   
  
     

54
—l— MARINER
+ OGLE
—O— PORTER
53 -
52 -
1 F A
51 1
50 1 . .
GROAT FLAKE
OAT FORM
Oat Cultivar x Oat Form Interaction for L-value of Cookie
5.8
3’, 5.6 1
m
z
B —o— MARINER
E 54 . + OGLE
m —-l— PORTER
:1
.1
<
>.
< 5.2 -
5.0 1 .

 

 

 

1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0
OAT FLOUR (%)

Oat Cultivar x Level of Oat Flour Interaction for a-value

186

cookies made with Mariner composites had a decreased reddish hue.
No interactions were significant for b-values. There was no
Significant difference in a-values (redness).

Table 52 provides the mean Hunter Color Difference L-values
of sugar-snap cookies prepared with hammer milled oat flour
composites from groats and flakes. There were no significant
differences at the p<0.05 level in the L-values of oat groat flour
composites when compared to oat flake flour composites. The oat
cultivar did not appear to effect the L-values of the sugar snap
cookies baked with their composite hammer milled groat and flake
flours. However, cookies prepared with thirty percent oat groat and
flake flour composites had significantly lower Hunter Color
Difference L-values (darkness vs lightness) than cookies prepared

with fifteen percent oat flour composites.

Table 52. Effect of processing: Means for Hunter Color Difference
L-values of cookies made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

Level of
Main Effect Classes n L-value1 Significance
Oat Form Groat 12 52.08a
' Flake 12 519311 ns
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 52.5811
Ogle 8 51.7711'
Porter 8 51.673 ns
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 12 52.691:1
30 12 51.351) 0.01

 

1 L values = 0 (black) to 100 (white)
Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
Significantly different.

187

Cookies made with oat groat flour composites had a more
reddish hue than cookies made with oat flake composite flours as
seen in Table 53. The difference in a-value (redness) was
Significant at the p<0.05 level. There were no significant
differences at the p<0.05 level in the a-value of cookie surfaces
when compared according to oat flour cultivar or level of oat flour

in the composite.

Table 53. Effect of processing: Means for Hunter Color Difference
a-values of cookies made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

Level of
Main Effect Classes n a-value1 Significance
Oat Form Groat 12 5.633
Flake 1 2 5.34111 0.05
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 5.41at
Ogle 8 5.373
Porter 8 5.6751l ns
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 1 2 5.543
30 1 2 5.423 ns

 

1 a values = positive values indicate redness
Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
Significantly ‘ different.

There were no significant differences at the p<0.05 level in
the b-values (yellowness) of cookies prepared with oat groat flour
composites when compared to cookies prepared with oat flake flour
composites as seen in Table 54. The oat cultivar did not appear to
effect the surface color of the sugar snap cookies. There was no

significant difference at the p<0.05 level in b-values. Table 54

188

Shows that cookies prepared with thirty percent oat groat and flake
flour composites had significantly lower Hunter Color Difference b-
values (yellowness) than cookies prepared with fifteen percent oat
flour composites. Sugar-snap cookies prepared with 30 percent oat

flours could be described as not as yellow or slightly browner.

Table 54. Effect of processing: Means for Hunter Color Difference
b-values of cookies made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

Level of
Main Effect Classes n b-valuet Significance
Oat Form Groat 12 19.13111
Flake 1 2 18.993 ns
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 19.16a
Ogle 8 192231
Porter 8 18.813 ns
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 1 2 19.3511I
30 1 2 18.7713 0.01

 

1 b values = positive values indicate yellowness
Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

Table 55 contains the means and standard deviations of Hunter
Color Difference values of cookies prepared with composites of oat
flours ground from groats and cat flours ground from flakes.
Cookies made with oat flours ground from Mariner groats had
smaller L-values than cookies made with oat flours ground from
mariners flakes. The opposite trend was seen for cookies made with
Ogle composite flours. Cookies made from oat groat composite

flours had larger L-values than cookies made from oat flake

189

Table 55 Means and standard deviations of Hunter Color Difference
values of cookies measuring the effect of processing on cookie

 

 

 

quality1
Oat
Oat-wheat flour Hunterlab Celor Difference
composite flour (%)
L2 a3 b4
r ts
Mariner-Caldwell 30 50.82 1 1.17 5.22 1 0.32 18.80 1 0.56
15 51.97 1 1.24 5.87 1 0.67 18.97 1 0.11
Ogle-Caldwell 30 51.40 1 0.07 6.02 1 0.46 18.55 1 0.07
15 54.00 1 0.28 5.20 1 0.07 19.97 1 0.03
Porter-Caldwell 30 50.30 1 0.14 5.80 1 0.00 18.70 1 0.07
15 53.00 1 0.28 5.65 1 0.07 19.80 1 0.21
Flekee
Mariner-Caldwell 30 52.72 1 0.03 5.20 1 0.07 19.12 1 0.03
15 53.80 1 0.07 5.32 1 0.11 19.72 1 0.25
Ogle-Caldwell 30 50.40 1 0.07 5.45 1 0.35 18.87 1 0.81
15 51.27 1 0.18 4.82 1 0.11 19.50 1 0.92
Porter-Caldwell 30 51.47 1 0.81 5.56 1 0.33 18.60 1 0.56
15 51.90 1 0.28 5.67 1 0.32 18.15 1 0.00
Caldwell 0 56.67 1 0.18 5.67 1 0.25 20.15 1 0.64
1 n=2

2 L values = 0 (black) to 100 (white)
3 a values = positive values indicate redness

4 D values =

positive values indicate yellowness

190

composite flours. With the exception of sugar snap cookies made
from 15% Porter groat flour, cookies made from groat composite
flours had a Stronger reddish hue as measured by a-values. Cookies
made from 30% composite flours were less yellow than the cookie
containing 15% of the same oat cultivar flour with the exception of

Porter oat flake flour.

Ceekie Preximete Anelyeee

Analysis of variance means were influenced by Significant
interactions between cultivar x level of oat flour as seen in Tables
119 and 120. The interaction of oat cultivar and level of oat flour
was significant for cookie ash content. The interactions for cookie
protein and ash content are shown in Figures 34a and b. Cookies
made from the high protein oat cultivars, Mariner and Porter, had a
greater increase in protein content when twice as much oat flour
was included in the composite flours than cookies made from Ogle
composite flours. The same effect was seen for ash content of
cookies made with Mariner and Porter composite flours.

Table 56 Shows there was no significant difference at the
p<0.05 level for. protein percentage when cookies made from oat
flour hammer milled from groats were compared to cookies made
with oat flour hammer milled from flakes. The correlations between
sugar-snap cookie protein content and Hunter Color Difference
values for cookie surface color were not significant for cookies
prepared with hammer milled groat or hammer milled flake
composite flours. The correlations for Hunter L-value, a- value and

b-values of cookies made with hammer milled groat composite

191

Figure 34. Interaction for Protein and Ash Content of Cookies made
with Hammer Milled Groat and Flake Flours.
a) Cookie Protein Content b) Cookie Ash Content.

PROTEIN (%)

ASH (%)

192

 

 

 

 

7.2
——0— MARINER
—*— OGLE
7-0 1 ——I— PORTER
6.8 -
,
6.6 1
6.4 -
6.2 - r . , .
1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o

OAT FLOUR (%)

Oat Cultivar x Level of Oat Flour Interaction
for Cookie Protein Content

 

 

 

 

1.4
1.3 ‘
—".— MARINER
1 —*— OGLE
+ PORTER
1.2 . 1 . . .
1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0

OAT FLOUR (%)

Oat Cultivar x Level of Oat Flour Interaction
for Cookie Ash Content

193

flours were respectively; r=-0.54 (p<0.06), r=-0.03 (p<0.90), =-0.37
(p<0.23).

Table 56. Effect of processing: Means for protein content of
cookies made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

 

Level of
Main Effect Classes n Protein1 Significance
(%)
Oat Form Groat 1 2 6.623
Flake 1 2 6.69a ns
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 6.69211
Ogle 8 6.481)
Porter 8 6.783 0.05
Oat Flour
Percent 15 w 12 6_41b
30 1 2 6.898 0.01
1 Dry basis

Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

The sugar-snap cookies made with composite flours of Porter
hammer milled groat and flake flours contained a Significantly
higher percentage of protein than cookies made with composites of
Ogle hammer milled groat and flake flours. The percentage of
protein in cookies made with composite of Porter hammer milled
groat and flake flours was negatively correlated (r=-0.75, p<0.03)
with Hunter Color L-values. The same correlation was smaller and
not statistically significant (r=-0.54, p<0.15) for cookies made with
Ogle composite flours and for cookies made with Mariner composite

flours (r=-0.12, p<0.77). The only significant correlation for protein

194

content and a-value (redness) (r=0.81, p<0.01) was for cookies made
with Ogle composite flours. There were no significant correlations
between protein content and b-value (yellowness) for cookies made
with any of the three oat cultivar composite flours.

Sugar-snap cookies made with 30 percent oat groat and flake
composite flours contained a significantly higher percentage of
protein than cookies prepared with 15 percent composite flours as
shown in Table 56. All of the oat groat and flake flours contained a
higher percentage of protein than the Caldwell soft wheat flour that
they replaced in the composite flour.

The correlations between sugar-snap cookie protein content
and Hunter Color Difference values for cookie surface color were not
significant for cookies prepared with 15 percent or 30 percent
hammer milled groat or hammer milled flake composite flours. The
correlations for Hunter L-value, a- value and b-values of cookies
made with 15 percent hammer milled groat or flake composite
flours were respectively; r=0.13 (p<0.68), r=-0.11 (p<0.71), r=0.05
(p<0.86). The correlations for Hunter L-value, a- value and b-values
of cookies made with 30 percent hammer milled groat or flake
composite flours were respectively; r=0.25 (p<0.42), r=-0.19
(p<0.54), r=0.45 (p<0.14). There were also no significant
correlations between Hunter Color Values and lipid content.

Table 57 Shows there was no significant difference at the
p<0.05 level for ash percentage when cookies made from oat flour
hammer milled from groats were compared to cookies made with oat
flour hammer milled from flakes. There was not a significant

difference in ash content of cookies made with composites of the

195

three different oat cultivars. Sugar-snap cookies made with 30
percent oat groat and flake composite flours contained a
significantly higher percentage of ash than cookies prepared with 15

percent composite flours.

Table 57. Effect of processing: Means for ash content of cookies
made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

 

Ash1 Level of
Main Effect Classes n % Significance
Oat form Groat 12 1.323
Flake 12 1.313 ns
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 1.323
Ogle 8 1.318
Porter 8 1.323 ns
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 1 2 1.271)
30 12 1.36al 0.01
1 Dry basis

Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

Table 58 shows there was no significant difference in lipid
content when cookies made from oat flour hammer milled from
groats were compared to cookies made with oat flour hammer milled
from flakes. The large standard deviations for fat content shown in
Table 59 affected analysis of variance results. Cookies made with
oat flour hammer milled from flakes did contain a higher percentage
of lipid than cookies made with oat flour hammer milled from

groats. Particle Size effect may have influence the lipid results.

196

The AACC method required the cookie sheets be lightly greased with

shortening which also may have influenced the cookie lipid content.

Table 58. Effect of processing: Means for fat content of cookies
made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

 

Fat1 Level of
Main Effect Classes n % Significance
Oat Form Groat 1 2 17.31a
Flake 1 2 17.743 ns
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 17.76a
Ogle 8 17.46a
Porter 8 17_35a ns
Oat Flour
Percent 15 12 17.1 SD
30 1 2 17.893 0.01
1 Dry basis

Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

There was not a significant difference in lipid content of
cookies made with composite flours of the three different oat
cultivars. Sugar-snap cookies made with 30 percent oat groat and
flake composite flours contained a significantly higher percentage
of lipid than cookies prepared with 15 percent composite flours as
shown in Table 58. There were no significant correlations between
Hunter Color L-values and lipid content for cookies prepared with
hammer milled groat or hammer milled flake composite flours.

Table 59 contains the means and standard deviations for
protein, ash and fat content of cookies made with oat flours ground

from groats or from flakes. The percent protein was consistently

197

Table 59. Means and standard deviations of protein, ash, and fat
content of cookies measuring the effect of processing on
cookie quality1

 

 

 

Oat-wheat Oat Protein2 ASh2 Fat2

composite flour flour (%) (%) (%)
(%)

mats

Mariner-Caldwell 30 6.99 1 0.03 1.36 1 0.05 17.23 1 0.25
15 6.16 1 0.20 1.31 1 0.00 16.91 1 0.01

Ogle-Caldwell 30 6.58 1 0.11 1.33 1 0.05 18.00 1 0.82
15 6.38 1 0.03 1.29 1 0.01 16.77 1 0.82

Porter-Caldwell 30 7.00 1 0.07 1.40 1 0.00 17.36 1 0.05
15 6.59 1 0.11 1.24 1 0.03 17.57 1 0.49

E13835

Mariner-Caldwell 30 7.13 1 0.37 1.37 1 0.00 19.23 1 0.90
15 6.48 1 0.15 1.22 1 0.02 17.68 1 0.37

Ogle-Caldwell 30 6.62 1 0.13 1.33 1 0.01 17.74 1 0.15
15 6.32 1 0.02 1.29 1 0.01 17.31 1 0.20

Porter-Caldwell 30 7.02 1 0.38 1.37 1 0.01 17.76 1 0.13
15 6.51 1 0.05 1.25 1 0.02 16.71 1 0.18

Caldwell 0 6.04 1 0.03 1.12 1 0.02 15.81 1 0.46

1 n=2 2 Dry basis

 

198

higher in cookies prepared from oat flour ground from flakes.
Proximate analysis results had previously reported a significantly
higher percentage of protein in oat flake flours.

Fat content of cookies made with oat-wheat composite flours
was higher than the 100 percent Caldwell soft wheat cookies.
Cookies prepared with 30 percent oat-wheat composites contained a
higher percentage of fat than cookies made with 15 percent oat
wheat composite flours with the exception of Porter-Caldwell
hammer milled groat cookies. The large standard deviations for fat

content affected analysis of variance results.

Meiegere regengien:

Moisture retention percent was calculated by dividing the
percent moisture in cookie crumbs by the percent moisture in the
respective cookie dough. There were no significant interactions for
the characteristic of moisture retention.

Table 60 contains analysis of variance means which indicated
there were no significant differences in the attribute of moisture
retention when cookies made from oat hammer milled flake
composite flours were compared to cookies made from hammer
milled groat composite flours. Oat cultivar also did not appear to
influence the moisture retention capability of sugar-snap cookies
prepared with hammer milled groat and flake flour composites.

Moisture retention was higher for cookies made from thirty
percent hammer milled groat or flake flour composites than cookies
made from fifteen percent oat flour composites but the difference

was not significant. Moisture retention had large Standard

199

deviations from the means. There was a time related trend observed
during baking in the moisture retention percentage that was thought

to be caused by undefinable experimental conditions.

Table 60. Effect of processing: Means for moisture retention of
cookies made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

 

Moisture
Main Effect Classes n Retention Level of
(%) flgnificance
Oat Form Groat 12 19.603
Flake 1 2 18.59111 nS
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 18.97a
Ogle 8 19.11al
Porter 8 19.20111 ns
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 1 2 18.92a
30 12 19.27111 ns
1 Dry basis

Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

hr mr inndrki rnh:

There were no significant interactions for the characteristics
of shear compression or breaking strength as shown in Table 123 and
124. Analysis of variance indicated there were no significant
differences in the mean values of shear compression when cookies
made from oat hammer milled flake composite flours were compared
to cookies made from hammer milled groat composite flours as seen

in Table 61. The size of the standard deviations for shear

200

compression influenced analysis of variance results. There was no
significant difference between cookies made from composites of the
three different oat cultivars at the p<0.05 level in shear

compression.

Table 61. Effect of processing: Means for shear compression of
cookies made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

Shear Compression Level of

 

Main Effect Classes n (lb/Lm) Sfiignificance
Oat Form Groat 1 2 19.71a
Flake 1 2 18.99a ns
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 18.85.11
Ogle 8 19.883
Porter 8 19.32a ns
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 12 20.848
30 1 2 17.86b 0.01

 

Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

Analysis of variance results provided in Table 61 indicated
there was a Significant difference in shear compression or
tenderness at the p<0.01 level between cookies containing 15 and 30
percent oat flour. Increased levels of hammer milled groat or flake
flours increased the tenderness of the cookies or decreased the
pounds/gram required to Shear the sample. This was in agreement
with results reported by Vratanina and Zabik (1978), Jeltema et al
(1983), and Hoojjat and Zabik (1984). Red and white wheat brans

substituted at the 10, 20 and 30 percent level progressively

201

increased cookie tenderness (Vratanina and Zabik,1978) Jeltema et
al (1983) substituted 20 percent oat bran in sugar-snap cookies and
increased the tenderness. Substitution of 20 and 30 percent navy
bean flour increased tenderness of sugar snap cookies (Hoojjat and
Zabik,1984).

Comparison of mean breaking strength of cookies made from
hammer milled flake composite flours with cookies made from
hammer milled groat composite flours found no significant
difference as seen in Table 62. There also was no significant
difference between cookies made from composites of the three
different oat cultivars at the p<0.05 level in the breaking strength
of the cookies. There was a wide variation in these three values
which contributed to the lack of a statistically significant

difference.

Table 62. Effect of processing: Means for breaking strength of
cookies made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

Breaking Strength Level of

 

Main Effect Classes n (lb/cm2) Significance
Oat Form Groat 1 2 11.202
Flake 1 2 11.943 n5
Oat Cultivar Mariner 8 11.62a
Ogle 8 new
Porter 8 11.778 ns
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 1 2 12.03a
30 1 2 11.113 ns

 

Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
Significantly different.

202

There was no significant difference in breaking strength for
cookies prepared with the two levels of hammer milled groat or
flake flour. Vratanina and Zabik (1978) reported that increasing red
and white wheat bran in sugar-snap cookies reduced breaking
Strength or cookie crispness. That trend was also found for navy
bean flour (Hoojjat and Zabik,1984)

Table 63 contains the means and standard deviations for
moisture retention, shear compression and breaking strength of
cookies made with hammer milled groat and flake composite flours.
All three attributes had large standard deviations which influenced
analysis of variance results. No clear trend in the effect of oat
form, oat cultivar or level of oat flour was demonstrated. There
was a time related trend in the moisture retention percentage that

was thought to be caused by undefinable experimental conditions.

lngeraegion with WMt Q_u_lti_vm

The effect of wheat cultivar on cookie quality was determined
by comparing cookies made from oat-wheat composite flours of
Becker, Caldwell and Compton soft wheat cultivars combined with
the hammer milled oat flours of Mariner, Ogle and Porter groats. The
composites contained oat flours substituted by weight at two levels
(15 and 30%) for soft wheat flour. The experimental design was
outlined in Figure 4. The analysis of variance model had three main
effects; wheat cultivar, oat cultivar and level of oat flour
substitution. The ANOVA Tables for the dependent variables; cookie
diameter, surface color, protein content, ash content, lipid content,

moisture retention, shear compression, breaking strength and

203

Table 63 Means and standard deviations of moisture retention,
shear compression and breaking strength of cookies measuring
the effect of processing on cookie quality1

 

 

Moisture Shear Breaking
Oat-wheat Oat retention Compression Strength
composite flour flour (%) (lb/gm) (lb/cm2)
(%)
groats
Mariner-Caldwell 30 19.70 1 3.44 16.80 1 3.01 10.64 1 0.27
15 21.12 1 8.77 20.98 1 0.22 12.96 1 1.88
Ogle-Caldwell 30 20.08 1 1.51 18.87 1 0.71 10.01 1 1.82
15 14.68 1 0.10 21.85 1 1.07 12.21 1 1.09
Porter-Caldwell 30 22.67 1 8.37 19.39 1 0.26 10.54 1 0.42
15 19.33 1 3.31 20.32 1 0.07 10.82 1 0.12
Flekee
Mariner-Caldwell 30 13.42 1 1.38 17.36 1 1.08 10.72 1 3.50
15 21.65 1 4.55 20.25 1 0.44 12.16 1 1.46
Ogle-Caldwell 30 20.70 1 0.00 17.84 1 2.02 13.25 1 0.35
15 20.97 1 3.46 20.95 1 0.65 9.78 1 0.89
Porter-Caldwell 30 19.02 1 1.68 16.86 1 1.06 11.47 1 0.31
15 15.77 1 0.50 20.69 1 3.16 14.26 1 0.01
Caldwell 0 21.23 1 0.65 28.50 1 2.76 13.78 1 2.90

 

1 n=2

204

alkaline water retention capacity of the composite flours are
located in the Appendix. The correlation matrices for the dependent
variables by main effect are located in the Appendix.

The USDA. Soft Wheat Quality Laboratory at Wooster, Ohio
provided the chemical and physical analyses results listed in Table
64. Becker, a red soft wheat cultivar, had been milled into a flour
that contained the highest percentage of protein, the smallest
average particle size and the lowest percentage of damaged starch
among the three soft wheat flours. Compton, also a red soft wheat
cultivar, had the lowest percentage of protein, the highest
percentage of ash, the largest average particle size and the highest
percentage of damaged starch. Caldwell, a white soft wheat
cultivar, had the lowest percent of ash. Starch damage is an
indicator of wheat kernel hardness and severity of milling (Abboud
et al, 1985b). Starch damage increases water absorption thereby

influencing baking quality of soft wheat flours.

Table 64 Chemical analysis and particle size of soft wheat flours
as furnished by Soft Wheat Quality Lab1

 

 

Particle Starch
Protein2 Ash2 Size Damage2
Cultivar (%) (%) (microns) (%)
Becker 10.1 0.43 48.8 3.0
Caldwell 9.3 0.40 49.0 3.2
Compton 8.6 0.49 52.3 3.9

 

1 Number of determinations and standard deviations were not
provided
2 14% moisture basis

205

o ki i m ter and to rain score:

There were no significant interactions between main effects
for cookie diameter. Sugar-snap cookies made with oat-wheat
composites of Caldwell soft wheat had the smallest average
diameter as shown in Table 65. Analysis of variance indicated their
diameter was significantly (p<0.05) smaller than the diameter of
cookies from Becker soft wheat flour composites. The mean
diameter of two sugar-snap cookies made with 100 percent Caldwell
wheat flour was 17.05 cm. Cookies prepared with composites of
Becker soft wheat had the largest average diameter. The mean
diameter of two sugar-snap cookies made with 100 percent Becker

soft wheat flour was also 17.05 cm.

Table 65. Effect of wheat cultivar: Means for diameters of cookies
made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

Cookie diameter Level of
Main Effect Classes n Jcm) Significance
Wheat
Cultivar Becker 1 2 17.8911
Caldwell 12 17.610
Compton 1 2 17.71 ab 0.05
Oat Cultivar Mariner 1 2 17.651)
Ogle 1 2 17.6413
Porter 12 17.933 0.05
Oat Flour
Percent 15 18 17.569
3 0 1 8 17.91 a 0.01

 

Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

206

Substitution of oat flour hammer milled from groats increased
the diameter of sugar-snap cookies prepared from the composite
flours. The largest increase in cookie diameter was for cookies
made from composites of Compton soft wheat flour. The mean
diameter of two sugar-snap cookies made with 100% Compton soft
wheat was 16.72 cm and was increased in oat-wheat composite
cookies to 17.71 cm. The level of damaged starch in Compton soft
wheat flour probably contributed to the relatively small cookie
diameter.

Table 65 also Shows that sugar-snap cookies made with
composites containing Porter oat flour had a significantly larger
mean diameter than cookies made with composites of the other two
oat cultivars. There was no significant difference in the diameter
of cookies made with Mariner hammer milled groat oat flour and
Ogle hammer milled groat oat flour.

Abboud et al (1985a) theorized that cookie diameter is a
function of the rate of cookie dough spread and the setting time of
the cookie dough. The influence of viscoamylograph properties on
diameter of sugar-snap cookies prepared with oat wheat composite
flours is not clear. Figure 35 shows that among hammer milled
groat flours, Mariner groat flour did have the lowest initial pasting
temperature which could have contributed to increased dough
viscosity at an early stage of the baking process. There was no
difference in the initial pasting temperatures of Ogle and Porter
hammer milled groat flours. However, Ogle hammer milled groat
flours did have the highest peak hot viscosity of the three flours and

the ability to entrap a high percentage of free water may have

207

Figure 35. Viscoamylograph Properties of Hammer Milled Groat
Flours. a) Initial Paste Temperature of Oat Flour
Slurries. b) Peak Hot Viscosity of Oat Flour Slurries..

INITIAL PASTE TEMP ( C)

10

208

 

 

 

 

58.3

      

\
‘5
\
\
\
\
I
\

\

\

\
IIIIIIII:II

\

II
IIII
II
\

\
\
\
\
\
‘5
\

\\\\\\
IIIIIII
\\\\\\\
IIIIIIIII

 

 

E] INITIAL PASTE TEMP

 

 

 

OAT VARIETY

 

Initial Paste Temperature of Oat Flour Slurries (11% db)

PEAK HOT VISC (BU)

15m

1000

 

 

“VV““““‘V\4
\
\

 

     

I
\I
I
I
I
I
I

IIIII
\\\\\\

\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\

\\
\\

\

\
\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\'\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\

\
\
\\\\\\\\\\\

\
\

\\\\\
\\\\\

 

  

\\\\L\

1315

\
\

\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\
\L\\\

\\\\
\\\\
\\\\\\\\

\\\\\ \\
\\\\\\\\
\\\
\\\\\\\\

\
\

\‘V“\““Vifi\“\
\ \
\

\

\
\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\‘h\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

\
\

 

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 

IIIIII
\\\
III
\\\
IIII
\\\
IIIIII

\
I

\
I

\

IIII
IIIII
\\\\\
IIII
\'\\\\

 

 

      
    
  

\
\\
\\
\‘s

[3 PEAK l-lOT me

I

\\\

 

 

”HG

OAT VARIETY

O
3

Peak Hot Viscosity of Oat Flour Slurries (11%

 

db)

209

contributed to cookie dough viscosity at later point in the baking
process.

The Abboud et al (1985a) study had conclusions that could
support this theory. One conclusion was that a change occurs at low
temperatures (30-400C) in cookie doughs made from hard wheat
flour that make the hard wheat cookie doughs set at a lower
temperature than the soft wheat flours. The second conclusion was
that cookie diameter increases linearly with baking time in the
early and middle Stages of baking. After 8.5 minutes into the baking
period, cookie diameter was fixed and no changes could be measured
by time lapse photography. Sugar-snap cookies made with oat-
wheat composite flours exhibited a greater degree of dough
expansion at the end of the eleven minute baking period. The cookie
surface was not set and tended to collapse after removal from the
oven.

Table 65 shows that addition of increasing levels of oat flour
significantly increased the diameters of sugar-snap cookies. Each
level of oat flour addition produced cookies with significantly
different diameters. Sugar-snap cookies made with oat-wheat
composite flours had larger diameters than the 100 percent soft
wheat flour cookie.

Table 66 contains the means and standard deviations of cookie
diameter and top grain scores. Substitution of hammer milled groat
flour at the 15 and 30 percent level improved the top grain scores of
cookies when compared to controls with few exceptions. The top
grain score of a cookie prepared with 15 percent Mariner-Becker

was less than the control despite having an increased diameter. The

210

Table 66 Means and standard deviations of cookie diameter and top
grain scores of cookies measuring the effect of wheat cultivar
on cookie quality

 

 

Oat-wheat Oat flour Cookie Top
composite flour (%) diameter1 Grain
(cm) Score

Mariner-Becker 30 18.17 1 0.25 8.0
15 17.66 1 0.01 6.0

Ogle-Becker 30 17.96 1 0.01 7.0
15 17.38 1 0.16 7.0

Porter-Becker 30 18.15 1 0.12 8.2
15 18.02 1 0.03 7.5

Mariner-Caldwell 30 17.68 1 0.26 8.7
15 17.14 1 0.03 8.0

Ogle-Caldwell 30 17.81 1 0.01 8.5
15 17.41 1 0.06 8.3

Porter-Caldwell 30 17.88 1 0.05 9.0
15 17.72 1 0.18 8 2

Mariner-Compton 30 17.67 1 0.67 8.0
15 17.55 1 0.28 8 0

Ogle-Compton 30 17.74 1 0.32 8.7
15 17.52 1 0.25 7.7

Porter-Compton 30 18.15 1 0.00 8.5
15 . 17.62 1 0.13 7.5

Becker 0 17.05 1 0.07 7.0
Caldwell 0 17.05 1 0.42 7.0
Compton 0 16.72 1 0.14 6.0

 

1 n=2

211

independence of top grain and diameter is also seen in cookies made
with Ogle-Becker composite flours. The top grain scores of 15 and
30 percent Ogle-Becker cookies were the same as the control. Only
composites of Porter hammer milled groat flour were able to
produce cookies with better top grain scores than the Becker
control. Incorporation of Porter hammer milled groat flour into a
oat-wheat composite flour consistently improved top grain scores

of sugar-snap cookies.

Alkeline Wa1er Retentien Ceeecity:
Analysis of variance means for the main effects were

influenced by the interaction between wheat cultivar and level of
oat flour. There was a significant interaction for alkaline retention
capacity of composite flour for wheat cultivar x level of oat flour as
Shown in Table 126 and illustrated in Figure 36. Increasing the
level of oat flour in the composite from 15 to 30 percent had a
lesser effect on oat-wheat composites containing Becker soft wheat
flours. The lines appear to be parallel for composites of Caldwell
and Compton soft wheat.

Table 67 shows the alkaline water retention capacity (AWRC)
of Becker composite flours was significantly (p<0.05) higher than
AWRC of Caldwell composite flours. The Becker composite flours
had the highest AWRC and produced cookies with the largest
diameters. The Caldwell composite flours had the smallest alkaline
water retention capacities and prepared cookies with the smallest

diameters.

212

 

 

 

 

80
l —O— BECKER
J —i— CALDWELL
. —I— COMPTON
75 '1
2.3
g .,
70 1
3 .
< .
65 1
.I
60 . u . u r
1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0

OAT FLOUR (%)

Figure 36. Interaction of Wheat Cultivar and Level of Oat Flour for
Alkaline Water Retention Capacity of Composite Flours
of Becker, Caldwell and Compton.

213

Table 67. Effect of wheat cultivar: Means for alkaline water
retention capacity of oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

Alkaline water Level of
Main Effect Classes n retention1 Significance
(%)
Wheat 72.073
Cultivar Becker 12
Caldwell 12 70.381)
Compton 1 2 71 .71ab 0.05
Oat Cultivar Mariner 12 71.4631)
Ogle 12 69.621)
Porter 12 73.08111 0.01
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 1 8 66.481)
30 18 76.293 0.01

 

1 14% moisture basis
Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

Abboud et al (1985b) prepared sugar-snap cookies with flours
from forty-four wheat cultivars with the objective of determining
why flour from one cultivar produces larger cookies than flour from
another cultivar. The alkaline water retention capacities of the
wheat flours ranged from 53.8 to 67.8% for the samples. Yamazaki
(1953) had reported a high negative correlation (r= -0.85) between
cookie diameter and AWRC of 100% wheat flours. Abboud et al
(1985b) did not find as high a correlation (r= -0.63 to -0.78) but did
conclude AWRC gave a better correlation than protein percent,
starch damage percent, pentosan percent or MacMichael viscosity.

Yamazaki (1959) had earlier concluded that flour factors other than

214

granularity were more influential in determining cookie spread or
diameter.

The correlations between cookie diameter and alkaline water
retention capacity for the oat-wheat composite flours were all
positive with a minimum level of significance of p<0.06. Figure 37
illustrates the correlations by wheat cultivar for cookie diameter
and alkaline water retention capacity.

Table 67 shows Porter oat-wheat composite flours had the
highest mean alkaline water retention capacity. It was not
significantly different from the AWRC of Mariner oat-wheat
composite flours at the p<0.01 level but it was significantly
different at the p<0.05 level. The AWRC of Porter composite flours
was also significantly different at the p<0.01 level from the mean
alkaline water retention capacity Of Ogle oat-wheat composite
flours. The relative degree of AWRC of the composite flours was
identical to that measured for the oat flours which indicated the
influence of oat cultivar on the composite flour.

The correlation between cookie diameter of Porter composite
cookies and alkaline water retention capacity was r=0.80 (p<0.01).
The correlations for the two other oat flour composites were also
positive and were respectively for Mariner r=0.69 (p<0.02) and for
Ogle r=0.74 (p<0.01).

Table 67 also Shows the mean alkaline water retention
capacity of the composite flours significantly increased as
increasing amounts of oat flours were added to the composites. The

cookie doughs prepared with 30 percent oat flours had a lower

215

Figure 37. Correlation by Wheat Cultivar of Cookie Diameter and
Alkaline Water Retention Capacity

AWRC (°/o)

AWRC (o/o)

AWRC (%)

216

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BECKER COOKIES
80
. o
F O
o
75 1' o
9 o
. o
70 r
O
55 - y = 199.82 + 15.195): 862 = 0.744
’ o
m l l l 1 1
17.2 17.4 17.6 17.8 18.0 18.2 18.4
DIAMETER (CM)
CALDWELL COOKIES
80
y = - 199.82 + 15.195! R52 = 0.744
. . .
.0
75 P 9
70 -
P o
. O
65 - O
O
17.0 171.2 171.4 171.6 171.8 18.0
DIAMETER (CM)
COMPTON COOKIES
90
y = - 199.82 + 15.1951: 8‘12 = 0.744
85 I'
80 _ o

 

 

 

 

DIAMETER (CM)

217

requirement for added water to obtain the desirable dough '
consistency.

Chang and Sosulski (1985) reported that oat flour will hydrate
110 percent of its weight in water. The alkaline water retention
capacities of hammer milled groat flours of the three cultivars used
in this study were previously reported in Table 9 and ranged from
111.610 132.6 percent.

Materials that are capable of absorbing large amounts of water
generally reduce sugar-snap cookie diameter. Yamazaki (1955)
studied purified tailings and Sollars (1959) reported that the
straight grade wheat flour non-starchy polysaccharides with a high
pentose content would greatly reduce cookie diameter.

Kissel and Yamazaki (1975) added chemically modified and
toasted soy flour to sugar-snap cookies. The alkaline water
retention capacities of these soy derivatives ranged from 178-188
percent and contained about 51 percent protein. The conclusion was
that increased water retention properties of these ingredients
contributed to a reduction in cookie diameter. Jeltema et al (1983)
substituted 20 percent oat bran in sugar-snap cookies and reported a
significant decrease in cookie diameter. The sugar-snap cookie
dough system is characterized as containing a limited amount of
free water for which sugar and wheat flour compete.

The correlation between cookie diameter and alkaline water
retention capacity was positive and highly Significant for
composites containing 15 percent oat flour (r= 0.77, p<0.001),

However, the correlation between the same two parameters was

218

greatly reduced and insignificant for cookies made with 30 percent
composite flours.

Table 68 contains the means and standard deviations of
alkaline water retention capacity for composite flours of each of
the three soft wheat cultivars combined with each of the three oat
cultivars. Oat wheat composite flours containing 30 percent
hammer milled groat flour always had a higher alkaline water
retention capacity than composites containing 15 percent oat flour.
Soft wheat flours from all three cultivars had the highest alkaline
water retention capacity when combined with Porter hammer milled

groat flour.

ki rf color:

There were no Significant interactions between the main
effects for cookie surface color. Table 69 contains the Hunter Color
Difference L-values of cookies. Sugar-snap cookies made with
Compton composite flours had Significantly higher L-values
(lightness vs darkness) than cookies made with Becker composite
flours. L-values for cookies made with Caldwell composite flours
were not significantly different at the p<0.01 level from those
determined for Becker or Compton cookies. There was no significant
difference in Hunter color difference L-values for cookies made with
any of the three oat-wheat composites. Porter oat-wheat composite
cookies had the lowest L-values while Ogle oat-wheat composite
flours had the highest L-values.

As the percentage of oat flour increased in sugar-snap cookies,

there was a significant difference in Hunter color difference L-

219

Table 68 Means and standard deviations of alkaline water
retention capacity measuring the effect of wheat cultivar
on cookie quality

 

 

Oat-wheat Oat flour Alkaline Water Retention1
composite flour (%) (%)
Mariner-Becker 30 77.08 1 0.81
15 70.41 1 2.02
Ogle-Becker 30 72.60 1 2.92
15 62.62 1 0.34
Porter-Becker 30 78.45 1 0.15
15 71.24 1 0.52
Mariner-Caldwell 30 74.58 1 0.71
15 63.05 1 1.16
Ogle-Caldwell 30 75.98 1 0.25
15 65.46 1 0.87
Porter-Caldwell 30 77.08 1 0.18
15 66.15 1 0.77
Mariner-Compton 30 75.98 1 0.83
15 67.62 1 0.37
Ogle-Compton 30 75.17 1 1.34
15 65.88 1 1.87
Porter-Compton 30 79.68 1 1.38
15 65.90 1 0.42
Becker 0 57.64 1 0.42
Caldwell 0 58.81 1 1.05
Compton 0 60.48 1 0.76

 

1 n= 3 14% moisture basis

220

values (darkness to lightness) as shown in Table 69. Cookies from
15 percent oat-wheat composite flours had significantly higher L-
values (lighter) than cookies containing 30 percent oat-wheat

composite flours.

Table 69. Effect of wheat cultivar: Means for Hunter Color
Difference L-values of cookies made with oat-wheat composite
flours

 

 

Level of
Main Effect Classes n L-value1 Significance

Wheat Cultivar Becker 12 50.89b
Caldwell 12 52.08311

Compton 1 2 52.64a 0.01
Oat Cultivar Mariner 12 51.9261
C)9le 1 2 52.148

Porter 12 51.558 ns

Oat Flour

Percent 1 5 1 2 52.878

30 1 2 50.871’ 0.01

 

1 L values = 0 (black) to 100 (white)
Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
Significantly different.

Table 70 shows there was no significant difference in a-
values (redness) among cookies made with the three wheat cultivars.
Analysis of variance of a-values of cookies made with the three
different oat cultivars indicated there was no significant difference
between the means. AS the percentage of oat flour increased in
sugar-snap cookies, there was no significant difference in a-values

or redness when the cookies were compared.

221

Table 70. Effect of wheat cultivar: Means for Hunter Color
Difference a-values of cookies made with oat-wheat composite
flours

 

 

Level of
Main Effect Classes n a-value1 Significance

Wheat Cultivar Becker 1 2 5.82a
Caldwell 12 5.6311

Compton 1 2 5.918 ns
Oat Cultivar Mariner 1 2 5.733
Ogle 1 2 5_74a

Porter 12 5.88a ns

Oat Flour

Percent 1 5 1 8 5_74a

30 1 8 5333: ns

 

1 avalues = positive values indicate redness
Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

There was no significant difference in b-values (yellowness)
among cookies made with the three wheat cultivars as shown by
Table 71. There were also no Significant differences in any of the
Hunter color difference values for cookies made with any of the
three oat-wheat composites. The b-values (yellowness) of cookies
made from 15 percent oat-wheat composite flours were
significantly more yellow than cookies made with 30 percent oat-
wheat composite flours.

The same effect on Hunter L- and b-values was reported for
cookies made with oat bran (Jeltema et al, 1983). The L-value or
lightness of the cookie was significantly reduced by the addition of

20 percent oat bran. The yellowness or b-value of cookies was

222

significantly reduced by addition of oat bran. However, oat bran also

effected the a-value or redness of sugar-snap cookies.

Table 71. Effect of wheat cultivar: Means for Hunter Color
Difference b-values of cookies made with oat-wheat composite
flours

 

 

Level of
Main Effect Classes n b-value1 Significance
Wheat Cultivar Becker 12 19.173
Caldwell 12 19.1951
Compton 1 2 19.81a ns
Oat Cultivar Mariner 12 19.16a
Ogle 12 19.19a
Porter 12 19.14111 ns
Oat Flour .
Percent 1 5 1 8 19.603
30 18 18.731) 0.01

 

1 b values = positive values indicate yellowness
Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

’ Table 72 contains the means and standard deviations of color
difference of cookie surfaces measuring the effect of wheat cultivar
on cookie quality. Cookies made with oat flour composites
containing 30 percent oat flour were consistently darker (smaller L-
values) than cookies containing 15 percent oat flour. The same
relationship was seen for b-values (yellowness) when cookies
containing 30 percent oat flour were compared to cookies containing

15 percent oat flour.

223

Table 72. Means and standard deviations of Hunter color difference
values of cookies measuring effect of wheat cultivar on
cookie quality 1

 

 

Oat
Oat-wheat flour Hun erl b ol r Differ n
composite flour (%)
L a b
Mariner-Becker 30 50.07 1 1.92 5.73 1 0.44 18.65 1 1.22
15 51.91 1 0.20 5.77 1 0.18 19.28 1 0. 37
Ogle-Becker 30 50.07 1 0.11 5.85 1 0.07 18.36 1 0.93
15 51.93 1 0.47 5.78 1 0.21 18.93 1 0.80
Porter-Becker 30 48.97 1 0.46 6.15 1 0.42 18.06 1 0.65
15 52.38 1 1.46 5.63 1 0.30 19.38 1 0.97
Mariner-Caldwell 30 511.82 111.17 5.22 1 0.32 18.80 1 0.56
15 511.97 111.24 5.87 1 0.67 18.97 1 0.11
Ogle-Caldwell 30 51.40 1 0.07 6.02 1 0.46 18.55 1 0.07
15 54.00 1 0.28 5.20 1 0.07 19.97 1 0.03
Porter-Caldwell 30 50.30 1 0.14 5.80 1 0.00 18.70 1 0.07
15 53.00 1 0.28 5.65 1 0.07 19.80 1 0.21
Mariner-Compton 30 52.26 1 0.30 5.77 1 0.49 19.31 1 0.27
15 53.51 1 0.37 6.02 1 0.07 20.17 1 0.35
Ogle-Compton 30 51.61 1 1.00 5.87 1 0.35 19.27 1 0.32
15 53.85 1 1.41 5.72 1 0.07 20.07 1 0.14
Porter-Compton 30 51.31 1 2.32 6.01 1 0.34 19.02 1 0.67
15 53.31 1 0.44 6.09 1 0.30 19.85 1 0.49
Becker 0 54.96 1 0.13 5.78 1 0.23 20.71 1 0.01
Caldwell 0 56.67 1 0.18 5.67 1 0.25 20.15 1 0.64
Compton 0 55.72 1 0.18 6.12 1 0.11 20.98 2‘. 0.16

 

1n=2

224

Preximete analyses ef coekies:
Analysis of variance means for the main effects were

influenced by the interaction of wheat cultivar x level of oat flour
and oat cultivar x level of oat flour. From Table 130 and Figure 38a
it can be seen that the interaction of wheat cultivar x level of oat
flour was Significant for cookie protein content. Incorporation of an
addition 15 percent oat flour had a greater influence on protein
content of cookies made with Compton composite flours. Compton
soft wheat flour did contain the lowest percentage of protein among
the wheat flours used in this study.

The interaction of oat cultivar and level of oat flour was
significant for cookie protein content as shown in Figure 38b. The
lines appear parallel and the slopes are steeper for cookies made
with the two high protein oat cultivars, Mariner and Porter. The
incorporation of high protein hammer milled groat flours had a
greater effect on the protein content of cookies made from the
composite flours than of oat flour containing a significantly lower
percentage of protein.

Cookie ash had a significant interaction for wheat cultivar x
level of oat flour as shown in Table 131 and illustrated in Figure 39.
The steeper slope for cookie ash content of cookies made with
Compton composites is due to the fact that Compton contained the
highest percent of ash.

Analysis of variance results for protein, ash and fat content of
cookies by wheat cultivar are contained in Tables 73-75. Cookies
prepared with the three soft wheat flour composites contained

significantly different levels of protein. The Becker composites

225

Figure 38. Interactions of Wheat Cultivar, Oat Cultivar and Level of
Oat Flour for Cookie Protein Content.

PROTEIN (%)

PROTEIN (%)

226

 

8.0
1

7.5 ‘

7.0 ‘

1

6.5 ‘

6.0 '

5.5 ‘

Z»

+ BECKER

+ CALDWELL

+ COMPTON

 

 

 

5.0
1 0

20

30

OAT FLOUR (%)

Wheat Cultivar x Level of Oat Flour Interaction
‘ for Cookie Protein Content

40

 

7.2

7.0 "

6.8 1

6.6 ‘

6.4 ‘

 

+

' +

+

MARINER
OGLE
PORTER

 

 

6.2
1 0

20

30

OAT FLOUR (%)

Oat Cultivar x Level of Oat Flour Interaction
for Cookie Protein Content

40

227

 

 

 

 

1.5
—o— BECKER
—-— CALDWELL
+ COMPTON
1.4 1
25
I
(D
<
1.3 ~
12 . . - , .
1 o 2 o 3 o 4 0

CAT FLOUR (%)

Figure 139. Interaction of Wheat Cultivar and Level of Oat Flour for
Cookie Ash Content.

228

contained the highest percentage and Compton composites contained
the lowest percentage of protein. Cookies prepared with composites
of Mariner and Porter oat flours contained a significantly higher
percentage of protein than cookies made from composites of Ogle
oat flour. The percentage of protein significantly increased in
sugar-snap cookies as increasing levels of oat flours were

incorporated into the composites.

Table 73. Effect of wheat cultivar: Means for protein content of
cookies made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

 

Level of
Main Effect Classes n Protein1 Significance
(%)
Wheat Cultivar Becker 12 7.13a
Caldwell 12 6.701’
Compton 1 2 6.306 0.01
Oat Cultivar Mariner 12 6.83a
Ogle 1 2 6.511)
Porter 12 6.78al 0.01
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 18 6.491’
30 1 8 6.93a 0.01
1 Dry basis

Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

Hunter color values for sugar-snap cookies may have been
influenced by composite flour protein content along with other
factors. The correlation between L-value and cookie protein content

for Becker composite cookies was r=-0.75 with p<0.01. The

229

correlation for cookies made with Caldwell soft wheat composites
was r=-0.74 with p<0.01 and comparable to the values for Becker
cookies However, the correlation was neither strong nor
significant for cookies made with Compton composite flours. These
correlations are illustrated in Figure 40.

The correlations between protein content and Hunter
difference L-values for Mariner, Ogle and Porter composite cookies
were respectively r=-0.73 (p<0.01); r=-0.71 (p<0.01); r=-0.72
(p<0.01) and are illustrated in Figure 41. When compared with the
same correlations by wheat cultivar as shown in Figure 40, it could
be concluded that oat protein may have influenced sugar-snap cookie
color more than wheat protein.

The correlations between protein content and Hunter Color
Difference L- and b-values are negative and statistically significant
for both levels of hammer milled groat flour substitution. The
Pearson correlation coefficients between protein content and L- and
b-values for cookies made with 15 percent oat-wheat composite
flours are respectively; r= -0.69 (p<0.001) and r= -0.56 (p<0.01). The
correlation coefficients between protein content and L- and b-
values for cookies made with 30 percent oat wheat composite flours
are respectively; r=-0.50 (p<0.03) and r=-0.48 (p<0.04).

Table 74 shows Becker composite cookies contained
significantly higher levels of ash than cookies made with Compton
soft wheat composite flours. Ash or mineral content indicates the
level of areas of the kernel adjacent to the bran and bran coat that
were incorporated into the flour during milling (Mailhot and Patton,

1988). Becker soft wheat flour did not contain the highest

230

Figure 40. Correlation between Protein Content and Hunter
Color Difference L-values for Cookies Made with
Composites of Becker, Caldwell and Compton Soft Wheat
Flours

PROTEIN (%)

PROTEIN (%)

231

 

7.6

 

R‘2 = 0.575

13.673 - 0.12856!

 

 

 

6.6
4 5

50 51
L - VALUE

49

PROTEIN

Correlation Between Protein Content and Hunter Color

L-value of Becker Cookies

 

7.2

7.0 "

 

 

y = 13.794 - 0.13625! R02 = 0.539
0

 

 

6.2
5 0

52 53 55

L - VALUE

51

PROTEIN

Correlation Between Protein Content and Hunter Color

PROTEIN (%)

L-value of Caldwell Cookies

 

7.2

7.0 "

 

13.531 - 0.137351 R’12 = 0.219

 

 

 

5.8

49

52 55

L - VALUE

50 51

' PROTEIN

Correlation Between Protein Content and Hunter Color

L-value of Compton Cookies

232

Figure 41. Correlation between Protein Content and Hunter Color
Difference L-Values for Cookies made With Composites
of Mariner, Ogle and Porter Hammer Milled Groat Flours

PROTEIN (%)

PROTEIN (%)

PROTEIN (%)

233

MARINER COOKIES

 

8.0

7.5

7.0

 

  

20.070 -

0.25498! R02 = 0.533

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6'5 - PROTEIN
I
6.0 '- . o
5.5 F
5.0 ‘ 4 . - - - , A
4 8 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4
L-VALUE
OGLE COOKIES
7.5
E y = 16.508 - 0.19166x F122 = 0.498
- PROTEIN
5.5 n 1 1 - 1 g l A
4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5
L-VALUE
PORTER COOKIES
8.0
_ = 16.262 - 0.18390x R42 = 0.525
0 PROTEIN

 

 

 

 

6.0

48

49

L-VALUE

234

percentage ash but substitution of oat flour for the wheat flour
markedly increased ash content of the resulting composite. There
was not a Significant difference in percentage of ash when cookies
made from flours of the three oat cultivars were compared. The
percentage of ash significantly increased in sugar-snap cookies as
increasing levels of oat flours were incorporated into the

composites.

Table 74. Effect of wheat cultivar: Means for ash content of
cookies made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

 

Ash1 Level of
Main Effect Classes n % Significance
Wheat Cultivar Becker 12 1.343
Caldwell 12 1.32%
Compton 1 2 1.30b 0.01
Oat Cultivar Mariner 12 1.33a
Ogle 12 1.3113l
Porter 12 1.323 ns
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 1 8 1.26b
30 18 1.3881 0.01
1 Dry basis

Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

Cookies made with Caldwell composite flours contained a
Significantly higher percentage of lipid than cookies made with
Becker composite flours as seen in Table 75. There was no
Significant difference in lipid content of cookies made from

composites of the three oat cultivars. The percentage of lipid

235

significantly increased in sugar-snap cookies as increasing levels of

oat flours were incorporated into the composites.

Table 75. Effect of wheat cultivar: Means for fat content of
cookies made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

 

Fat1 Level of
Main Effect Classes n % Significance
Wheat Cultivar Becker 1 2 16.3711
Caldwell 12 17.3181
Compton 12 17.10313 0.01
Oat Cultivar Mariner 1 2 16.82a
Ogle 1 2 16.948
Porter 12 17.023 ns
Oat Flour
Percent 15 18 16.67b
3 0 1 8 17.19a 0.01
1 Dry basis

Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

Table 76 contains the means and standard deviations for
protein, ash and fat content for cookies prepared with composites of
the three wheat cultivars and three oat cultivars. Cookies prepared
with oat-wheat composite flours had significantly higher protein
content than the 100 percent soft wheat flour control. The ash or
mineral content of sugar-snap cookies was also increased by
substitution of hammer milled groat flours at the 15 and 30 percent
level. The increased lipid content of cookies made with composite
flours was expected to be related to levels of oat flour substitution.

However, a higher percent of lipid was not always extracted from

236

 

 

 

Table 76. Means and standard deviations of protein, ash and. fat
content of cookies measuring the effect of wheat
cultivar on cookie quality.1

Oat-wheat Oat Protein2,3 Ash2 Lipid 2

composite flour flour (%) (%) (%)

(%)
Mariner-Becker 30 7.37 1 0.01 1.44 1 0.01 17.09 1 0.49
15 7.06 10.05 1.29 10.03 14.81 10.67
Ogle -Becker 30 7.14 10.01 1.39 10.02 16.10 11.01
15 6.82 1 0.27 1.30 1 0.04 16.70 1 0.24
Porter-Becker 30 7.46 1 0.17 1.36 1 0.01 16.14 1 0.84
15 6.92 1 0.01 1.27 1 0.01 17.36 1 0.54
Mariner-Caldwell 30 7.00 10.02 1.36 10.06 17.23 10.25
15 6.63 1 0.11 1.31 1 0.00 16.91 1 0.01
Ogle-Caldwell 30 6.58 10.11 1.33 10.05 18.00 10.82
15 6.38 1 0.03 1.29 1 0.01 16.77 1 0.82
Porter-Caldwell 30 7.00 10.07 1.40 10.00 17.36 10.05
15 6.59 1 0.11 1.24 1 0.03 17.57 1 0.49
Mariner-Compton 30 6.95 1 0.27 1.38 1 0.01 18.06 1 0.59
15 6.00 1 0.03 1.25 10.01 16.80 1 0.18
Ogle-Compton 30 6.23 10.06 1.36 10.02 17.27 10.30
15 5.93 1 0.01 1.21 1 0.01 16.83 1 0.05
Porter-Compton 30 6.68 1 0.16 1.39 1 0.01 17.40 1 0.20
15 6.03 1 0.02 1.23 1 0.00 16.26 1 0.24

Becker 0 6.63 1 0.02 1.24 1 0.01 15.31 1 0.02

Caldwell 0 6.04 1 0.03 1.12 1 0.02 15.81 1 0.46

Compton 0 5.62fi1 0.12 1.23 10.00 14.021069

1 n= 2

2 Dry basis 3 (N x 6.25)

Means in the same column having a different superscript are
significantly different at p<0.01

237

cookies containing 30 percent composite flours compared to cookies

containing 15 percent composite flours.

i r R ni n: 1

Moisture retention percent was calculated by dividing the
percent moisture in cookie crumbs by the percent moisture in the
respective cookie dough. There were no significant interactions
among the main effects for moisture retention. There was no
significant difference in moisture retention percentage among
cookies made with composite flours of the three soft wheat
cultivars as seen in Table 77. The large standard deviations in
moisture retention percentage influenced analysis of variance
results.

The difference in moisture retention was not significant at the
p<0.05 level between the oat flour composite cookies. Cookies made
with Ogle composite flours retained a higher percentage of moisture
than cookies made with other composite flours.

There was no significant difference at the p<0.05 level
between means of cookies made with 15 and 30 percent oat-wheat
composite flour for moisture retention as shown in Table 77.
Cookies that were made of 30 percent oat-wheat composite flours
had the highest moisture retention. Less water was required to
obtain optimum dough consistency with 30 percent oat-wheat
composite flours than for 15 percent oat-wheat composite flour.
The sugar-snap cookie formula contains a high percentage of sugar
(60 percent of flour weight) and a relatively low percentage of

water (depending on flour about 23 percent of flour weight). The

238

added water may have been more tightly held by hydrophillic
materials and sites within cookie doughs containing 30 percent

hammer milled groat flours.

Table 77. Effect of wheat cultivar: Means for moisture retention of
cookies made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

 

 

Moisture
Main Effect Classes n Retention Level of
(%) Significance
Wheat Cultivar Becker 12 19.861:1
Caldwell 12 19.60a
Compton 1 2 20.26a ns
Oat Cultivar Mariner 12 18.868
Ogle 1 2 20.623
Porter 12 20.248 ns
Oat Flour
Percent 1 5 1 8 19.43a
30 1 8 20.393 "S
1 Dry basis

Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

hr rsinn rkin trenh:

There were no significant interactions between the main
effects for shear compression or breaking strength. Cookies made
with Becker soft wheat composite flours did have significantly
higher shear compression values than cookies made from composites
of Caldwell and Compton flour as seen in Table 78. The most force

was required to shear cookies made with Becker composite flours

239

while the least amount of force was required to shear cookies made
with Caldwell composite flours.

Table 78 shows the mean Shear compression value of cookies
made with Ogle composite flours was significantly higher than those
for cookies made from Mariner composite flours. Mariner composite
cookies had the lowest mean Shear compression score but it was not

significantly different from Porter cookies.

Table 78. Effect of wheat cultivar: Means for shear compression of
cookies made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

Shear Compression Level of

 

Main Effect Classes n (lb/gm) Siflificance

Wheat Cultivar Becker 1 2 22.51 a
Caldwell 12 19.711)

Compton 1 2 21 .45a 0.01
Oat Cultivar Mariner 1 2 20.681)
Ogle 1 2 22.141:1

Porter 12 20.84ab 0.01

Oat Flour

Percent 1 5 1 2 22.3981

30 1 2 20.03b 0.01

 

Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
significantly different.

Shear compression was used as an indicator of cookie
tenderness. Table 78 also contains mean shear compression values
for cookies made with hammer milled groat flours substituted at the
two levels. Incorporation of increasing higher levels of oat flours in

sugar-snap cookies significantly decreased the shear compression

240

values or increased cookie tenderness. Each levels of oat flour
substitution had Significantly different shear compression values.

Breaking strength was an indicator of cookie crispness.
Cookies made with Becker composites had breaking strength scores
close in value to the 100 percent Becker soft wheat cookie. Cookies
made with Caldwell composite flours had a significantly higher
mean breaking strength or were more crisp than cookies made with
Compton composite flours as seen in Table 79. There was no
significant difference in breaking strength scores of cookies made
with composite oat-wheat flours of the three oat cultivars. There
was also no Significant difference for breaking strength or

crispness of cookies made with the two levels of oat flour.

Table 79. Effect of wheat cultivar: Means for breaking strength of
cookies made with oat-wheat composite flours

 

Breaking Strength Level of

 

Main Effect Classes n (Ib/cm2) Significance
Wheat Cultivar Becker 12 10.03ab
Caldwell 12 11.20a
Compton 1 2 9.651’ 0.05
Oat Cultivar Mariner 1 2 10.652
Ogle 1 2 10.19111
Porter 12 10.04111 ns
Oat Flour .
Percent 1 5 1 8 10.353l
30 1 8 10.233 ns

 

Means in the same main effect having a different superscript are
Significantly different.

241

Jeltema et al (1983) repOrted that substitution of 20 percent
oat bran in sugar-snap cookies did not significantly effect the shear
compression or breaking strength. Sugar-snap cookies made from 20
and 30 percent navy bean flour became more tender as higher
amounts of navy bean flour was substituted in the composite
(Hoojjat and Zabik, 1984). Vratanina and Zabik (1978) incorporated
red and white wheat brans into sugar-snap cookies to increase fiber
content. The cookies became more tender as wheat bran levels were
increased from 10 to 20 to 30 percent.

Table 80 contains the means and standard deviations moisture
retention percentage, shear compression and breaking strength of
cookies measuring the effect of wheat cultivar. The large standard
deviations in moisture retention percentage influenced analysis of
variance results. Cookies made with Becker sofl wheat flours had a
wide range in moisture retention so no meaningful comparison could
be made with composite cookies. Moisture retention percent of
Caldwell composites had large standard deviations at the 15 percent
level for Mariner composites and the 30 percent level for Porter
composites. Among cookies containing Compton soft wheat flour,
only Ogle-Compton 30 percent composite cookies had a wide range of
moisture retention. Cookies prepared from the other Compton
composites were comparable in moisture retention to the control
cookies.

Substitution of 15 and 30 percent hammer milled groat flour
into sugar-snap cookies increased the tenderness or lowered the
shear compression of the oat-wheat composite cookies compared to

cookies made with 100 percent soft wheat flour. Breaking strength

242

Table 80 Means and standard deviations of moisture retention,
Shear compression and breaking strength of cookies measuring
the effect of wheat cultivar1

 

 

Oat - wheat Oat
composite flour flour Moisture Shear Breaking
and mill (%) Retention Compression Strength
(%) lblg lblcm2
Mariner-Becker 30 18.05 1 6.21 20.72 1 0.85 11.38 1 2.75
15 17.82 1 7.16 23.22 1 0.30 8.38 1 0.62
Ogle-Becker 30 24.85 1 3.96 22.51 1 0.11 10.23 1 0.00
15 17.57 1 0.19 24.65 1 1.54 10.65 1 0.64
Porter-Becker 30 21.27 1 2.37 21.40 1 0.99 9.00 1 0.30
15 19.65 1 2.33 22.54 1 0.13 10.52 1 0.52
Mariner-Caldwell 30 19.70 1 3.44 16.80 1 3.01 10.64 1 0.27
15 21.12 1 8.77 20.98 1 0.22 12.96 1 1.88
Ogle-Caldwell 30 20.08 1 1.51 18.87 1 0.71 10.01 1 1.82
15 14.68 1 0.10 21.86 1 1.07 12.21 1 1.09
Porter-Caldwell 30 22.67 1 8.37 19.39 1 0.26 10.54 1 0.42
15 19.33 1 3.31 20.32 1 0.07 10.83 1 0.12
Mariner-Compton 30 13.50 1 0.68 19.93 1 0.43 11.63 1 0.38
15 23.00 1 0.61 22.45 1 1.09 8.88 1 0.53
Ogle-Compton 30 23.97 1 10.98 21.34 1 0.73 8.37 1 0.18
15 22.59 1 3.62 23.58 1 2.00 9.64 1 1.02
Porter-Compton 30 19.43 1 3.99 19.33 1 0.11 10.25 1 1.56
15 19.06 1 1.42 22.05 1 0.06 9.10 1 0.90
Becker 0 25.02 1 10.22 31.69 1 2.77 10.79 1 0.17
Caldwell 0 21.23 1 0.65 28.50 1 2.76 13.60 1 2.90
Compton 0 23.39 1 1.19 25.24 1 2.11 15.72 1 2.13

 

1n=2

243

scores or crispness did not have a similar trend. Cookies made with
Becker composites had breaking strength scores close to the value
of the 100 percent Becker soft wheat cookie. At the 15 percent
level of substitution, cookies made with Caldwell soft wheat flour
had scores close in value to the control with the exception of
Caldwell-Porter cookies. Sugar-snap cookies made with Compton
composites at both levels of substitution were significantly less

crisp than the 100 percent Compton soft wheat flour cookie.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The objective of the study was to observe the functionality of
oat-wheat composite flours in sugar-snap cookies. The study was
divided into three parts. Part one was the production of whole grain
oat flour from three oat cultivars; Mariner, Ogle and Porter. Part
two was the evaluation of chemical and physical properties of the
oat flours. Part three was measuring the functionality of oat flours
in sugar-snap cookies when substituted at two levels for soft wheat
flours from three wheat cultivars; Becker, Caldwell and Compton.

Half of the groats from each oat cultivar were steamed and
flaked into rolled oats. The groats and flakes from each oat cultivar
were divided in half and separately milled into flour by hammer
milling and by roller milling.

There were mill related differences in the proximate analyses
results, flour particle size, alkaline water retention capacity of oat
flour, viscoamylograph properties of flour and starch. Roller milled
oat flours contained a significantly lower percentage of protein than
hammer milled oat flours. Hammer milled oat flours had a
Significantly lower moisture content than roller milled oat flours.
A higher percentage of fat was extracted from roller milled oat
flours than from hammer milled oat flours. A higher percentage of
total dietary fiber was measured for roller milled oat flours than
for hammer milled oat flours.

Particle sizing of oat flours by Particle Size Index and Hunter

Color (Difference values (L-, a- and b-values) for cat flour color

244

245

indicated that roller milling produced a higher percentage of finer
oat flour particles than hammer milling. The Hunter Color
Difference values measured for oat flours were influenced by the
mill type interacting with oat form. Roller milled oat flours had
significantly higher alkaline water retention capacities (AWRC) and
lower initial pasting temperatures than hammer milled oat flours.
These functional results agreed with the physical measures of
relative particle size that roller milled oat flours had a finer
average particle size.

Alkaline extracted oat starches from hammer milled flours had
higher initial pasting temperatures than oat starches from roller
milled flours but the difference was not statistically significant.
Oat starches from hammer milled oat flours also had significantly
higher 30 minute hot viscosities and peak cold viscosities than
starches from rolled milled flours.

There were oat form related differences in proximate
analyses, flour particle size, alkaline water retention capacity of
oat flours and viscoamylograph properties of flour. The protein
content of oat flours milled from oat flakes was significantly higher
than oat flours milled from oat groats. There was no significant
difference between ash content of oat flours milled from groats and
from flakes. A higher percentage of fat was extracted from oat
flours milled from flakes than from oat flours milled from groats.
Oat flours milled from flakes were determined to contain a higher
percentage of total dietary fiber than oat flours milled from groats.

There was no significant difference in particle size index

when oat flours milled from groats were compared to oat flours

246

milled from flakes. Hunter Color Difference L-, a- and b-values
indicated oat flours milled from flakes contained a higher
percentage of fine flour particles than oat flours milled from groats.
Oat flours milled from flakes had significantly higher AWRC than oat
flours milled from groats.

Oat flours milled from groats had an higher initial paste
temperature than oat flours milled from flakes. There was no
significant difference in peak hot viscosity, 15 minute viscosity or
peak cold viscosity between flours milled from groats or flakes.
There was no significant difference between the viscoamylograph
properties of oat starch extracted from oat flours milled from
groats or flakes. Scanning electron micrographs showed alkali
extracted oat starches contained compound starch granules with
varying degrees of individual granule loss. Oat starches extracted
from oat flours milled from flakes contained a significantly higher
percentage of protein than oat starches extracted from flours milled
from groats.

There were oat cultivar related differences in proximate
analyses, flour particle Size, alkaline water retention capacity of
oat flour, viscoamylograph properties of oat flour and starch.
Mariner and Porter oat flours were higher in protein and ash content
than Ogle oat flours. Each of the three oat cultivars contained a
significantly different percentage of fat. Porter oat flours
contained the highest percentage of fat. There were no significant
differences between oat cultivars for any of the three classes of
lipids. Porter oat flours contained a significantly higher percentage

of B-glucan than oat flours from the two other oat cultivars.

247

There was no significant difference in particle size index
among the three oat cultivars. Hunter Color Difference values
indicated Ogle flours had a finer average particle Size than flour
from the two other cultivars. The Hunter Color Difference values for
oat flours were influenced by oat cultivar interacting with oat form.
There was a significant difference in AWRC among the three oat
cultivars. Porter had the highest AWRC while Ogle had the lowest
AWRC. The functional results disagreed with the physical measures
of Particle Size Index and Hunter L-values (lightness). The AWRC of
the Porter cultivar may have been influenced by the presence of an
intact aleurone layer in the coarse flour fraction that trapped
additional water inside the physical structure.

Ogle oat flours had a Significantly higher initial paste
temperature and 15 minute viscosity than flours from Mariner or
Porter oats. Oat flours from the Mariner cultivar had a significantly
lower 15 minute viscosity and peak cold viscosity than flours from
Ogle and Porter oats. Oat starches from Ogle flours had
significantly lower initial pasting temperatures than oat starches
from Mariner and Porter flours. Mariner oat starches had
significantly lower 30 minute viscosities than Ogle and Porter
starches. There was a Significant difference in peak cold
viscosities among the oat starches.

Oat flour protein content was influenced by interactions
between all three of the main effects; mill x form, mill x cultivar,
cultivar x form. Oat flour ash content was effected by the
interactions between oat form and oat cultivar and between mill

type and oat form. The percentage of lipid extracted from oat flours

248

was influenced by mill type and oat form. The oat flour moisture
content was effected by the oat form and the mill type.

The method of milling effected oat flour properties primarily
because of particle size related factors. The difference in
proximate analyses results were most likely due to the flour
particle size produced by roller milling or hammer milling.
Reduction of flour particle size by roller milling most likely
facilitated the loss of the spherical oat protein bodies located along
aleurone and endosperm cell walls. The fat determination method
was based on the ability of solvents to penetrate and form bonds
'with chemical components in the oat flour. Flour particle size
influenced the ability of heated water in the viscoamylograph and
alkaline water at room temperature to hydrate oat flour.

The processing of oat groats into oat flakes subjected the
chemical constituents to elevated temperatures and pressures. The
bond between the oat protein bodies and the cell wall material may
have been modified by the steam treatment prior to rolling into
flakes. The pressure of heated rollers during the flaking process
probably reduced the resistance of oat cell wall materials to impact
forces during hammer milling.

The effect of milling and processing groats into flakes was not
the same on the three oat cultivars used in the study. Flours from
the three separate oat cultivars appeared to have different particle
size ranges. Scanning electron micrographs indicated the aleurone
cell walls of Porter oats may have been more resistant to milling

forces. Chemical constituents such as total dietary fiber and 8-

 

249

glucan may have also contributed to viscosity and hydration capacity
in oat flours from different cultivars.
Milling Summary

The effect of milling on cookie quality was determined by
comparing cookies made from oat-wheat composite flours of
Caldwell soft wheat combined with hammer and roller milled flours
of Mariner, Ogle and Porter groats. There were mill related differ-
ences in cookie diameter, alkaline water retention capacity of com-
posite flours, Hunter Color DifferenCe L- and a-values, protein con-
tent and breaking strength of cookies.

Sugar-snap cookies made from hammer milled groat (HMG)
flours had significantly larger diameters than cookies made from
roller milled groat flours (RMG). Composite flours containing ham-
mer milled groat flours had significantly lower alkaline water re-
tention capacities (AWRC) than composites of roller milled groat
flours. The correlation between cookie diameter and AWRC was
positive and highly significant for cookies made with composite
flours containing HMG flours.

Hunter Color Difference L-values (lightness) were signifi-
cantly higher fOr cookies made with hammer milled groat composite
flours compared to cookies made with roller milled groat composite
flours. Cookies made with RMG composite flours had significantly
larger a-values (redness) than cookies made with HMG composite
flours.

Protein content of cookies made from hammer milled groat
composite flours was significantly higher than protein content of

cookies made from roller milled groat composite flours. The corre-

250

Iation between protein content and Hunter Color Difference L-values
was negative and highly Significant for cookies made with both
types of composite flours. Breaking strength or crispness was
significantly higher for cookies made with HMG composite flours
than cookies made with RMG composite flours.

There were cultivar related differences in cookie diameter,
alkaline water retention capacity of composite flours, Hunter Color
Difference L-values (lightness), protein content and shear compres-
sion. Composite flours containing hammer and roller milled groat
flours of the Porter cultivar made cookies with significantly larger
diameters than cookies made with Ogle composite flours. Porter
composite flours also had a significantly higher alkaline water
retention capacity (AWRC) than composite flours of the two other
oat cultivars.

Hunter Color Difference L-values (lightness) were signifi-
cantly higher for cookies made with Ogle composite hammer and
roller milled groat flours than cookies made with composite flours
of the two other oat cultivars. Protein content was significantly
higher in cookies made from composites of Mariner and Porter flours
than in cookies made with Ogle composite flours. Shear compression
was significantly higher for cookies made from Ogle hammer and
roller milled groat composite flour than for cookies made with com-
posite flours of Mariner and Porter groat flours.

There were level of oat flour related differences in cookie
diameter, alkaline water retention capacity of composite flours,
Hunter Color Difference L- and b-values, protein content, ash

content, moisture retention, shear compression and breaking

251

strength of cookies. The response of cookie diameter to increasing
the level of oat flour substitution in sugar-snap cookies depended on
the method of milling. Composite flours containing 30 percent
hammer or roller milled groat flours did have a significantly higher
alkaline water retention capacity (AWRC) than composites
containing 15 percent oat flours.

Hunter Color Difference values were higher and statistically
significant for L-values (lightness) and b-values (yellowness) when
cookies made with 15 percent oat-wheat composite flours were
compared to cookies made with 30 percent oat-wheat composite
flours. The type of oat cultivar and level of oat flour substitution
interacted to influence the Hunter L-, a- and b-values for surface
color of cookies made with composites of hammer or rolled milled
groat flours. Protein and ash content was significantly higher in
sugar-snap cookies prepared from 30 percent oat-wheat hammer or
roller milled groat composite flours than in cookies made from 15
percent composite flours. The oat cultivar and level of substitution
influenced cookie ash content.

Moisture retention was significantly higher for cookies made
from 30 percent oat-wheat hammer or roller milled groat composite
flours than for cookies made from 15 percent composite flours.
Shear compression and breaking Strength was significantly higher
for cookies made with 15 percent oat-wheat hammer or roller
milled groat composite flours compared to cookies made with 30
percent composite flours. The oat cultivar and level of substitution

influenced Shear compression.

252

Pr sin mmar

The effect of processing on cookie quality was determined by
comparing cookies made with oat-wheat composite flours of
Caldwell soft wheat flour combined with the hammer milled flours
ground from Mariner, Ogle and Porter groats and flakes. There were
oat form related differences in cookie diameter, alkaline water re-
tention capacity of composite flours and Hunter a-value.

Cookies made from oat-wheat composites containing oat flour
hammer milled from flakes (HMF) had significantly smaller diame-
ters than cookies made from oat-wheat composites containing oat
flour hammer milled from groats (HMG). Alkaline water retention
capacity (AWRC) of hammer milled flake composites was signifi-
cantly higher than AWRC of hammer milled groat composite flours.
The correlation between cookie diameter and AWRC was positive and
highly significant for cookies made with HMG composite flours.

There was a significant difference in the Hunter Color
Difference a-value (redness) when sugar-snap cookies made with the
two types of composite flours were compared. Cookies made with
hammer milled groat composite flours had a Significantly stronger
reddish hue than cookies made with hammer milled flake composite
flours.

There were oat cultivar related differences in cookie diame-
ter, alkaline water retention capacity of composite flours and pro-
tein content. Sugar-snap cookies made from Mariner hammer milled
groat and hammer milled flake composite flours had significantly
smaller diameters than cookies made from Porter composite flours.

Cookies made from Porter HMG and HMF composite flours had the

253

largest mean cookie diameter and the largest mean alkaline water
retention capacity. Alkaline water retention capacity of Porter oat
flour composites was significantly larger than AWRC of composite
flours of the other two oat cultivars. The oat form from which the
flour was milled in combination with the oat cultivar effected alka-
line water retention capacity of the composite flours.

Protein content of cookies made with hammer milled groat or
hammer milled flake flours from the Porter cultivar was signifi-
cantly higher than protein content of cookies made from Ogle com-
posite flours. The correlation between cookie protein content and
Hunter Color Difference values was not the same for all oat culti-
vars. There was a negative highly significant correlation between
cookie protein content and L-value for cookies made with Porter
composite flours. The correlations were negative but not statisti-
cally significant for cookies made with Mariner and Ogle composite
flours.

Oat form in combination with oat cultivar had a significantly
different effect on Hunter L-value for cookies made with composites
of hammer milled groat or flake flours. The a-value or redness of
cookies made with Ogle composite flours was large and Significant.

When the main effect of level of oat flour substitution was
averaged over oat form and oat cultivar, there were level of oat
flour substitution related differences in cookie diameter, alkaline
water retention capacity of composite flours, protein content and
shear compression. Sugar-snap cookies made from composites of 30
percent hammer milled groat or flake flours had a Significantly

larger mean diameter and alkaline water retention capacity than

 

254

cookies made from 15 percent composite flours. Oat cultivar in
combination with level of oat flour substitution also effected AWRC
of composite flours. The correlation between cookie diameter and
AWRC was negative and statistically significant for cookies made
with composites of 30 percent hammer milled groat or flake flours.

Hunter Color Difference L- and b-values were significantly
lower for cookies made with composites of 30 percent hammer
milled groat or flake flours. Oat cultivar in combination with level
of oat flour substitution had a significantly different effect on a-
value (redness) of cookies.

Protein, ash and fat content were significantly higher in
cookies made with 30 percent HMG or HMF flours compared to cook-
ies made with 15 percent composite flours. Oat cultivar in combi-
nation with Ievel of oat flour substitution had a significantly dif-
ferent effect on protein content and ash content of cookies.

Cookies containing 30 percent HMG or HMF flours had signifi-
cantly lower shear compression than cookies containing 15 percent
percent hammer milled groat or flake flours. There was no Signifi-
cant difference in breaking strength between cookies containing the
two levels of HMG or HMF flours.

Wh Itiv m

The effect of wheat cultivar on cookie quality was determined
by comparing cookies made from oat-wheat composite flours of
Becker, Caldwell and Compton soft wheat cultivars combined with
the hammer milled groat flours of Mariner, Ogle and Porter oat cul-
tivars. There were wheat cultivar related differences in cookie

diameter, alkaline water retention capacity of composite flours,

255

Hunter Color Difference L-values, protein content, ash content, fat
content, shear compression and breaking strength of cookies.

Cookies made with Becker soft wheat composite flours had a
significantly larger mean cookie diameter than cookies made with
Caldwell composite flours. Cookies made with Caldwell soft wheat
composites had the smallest average diameter. Becker soft wheat
composite flours had a significantly higher alkaline water retention
capacity than Caldwell composite flours. The correlations between
cookie diameter and alkaline water retention capacity of composite
flours were all positive with a minimum Significance level of
p<0.06.

Sugar-snap cookies made with Compton soft wheat composite
flours had significantly larger Hunter Color Difference L-values than
cookies made with Becker soft wheat composite flours. Cookies
made with Becker soft wheat composite flours contained a signifi-
cantly higher level of protein than cookies made with the other two
sofl wheat composite flours. The ash content of cookies containing
Becker soft wheat composite flours was significantly higher com-
pared to ash content of cookies prepared with Compton composite
flours. The fat content of cookies made with Caldwell composite
flours was significantly higher than fat content of Becker composite
flour cookies. The correlations between protein content and Hunter
Color L-value were both positive and statistically significant for
cookies made with Becker and Caldwell soft wheat composite flours.

Shear compression was Significantly higher for cookies con-
taining Becker or Compton soft wheat composite flours compared to

cookies containing Caldwell composite flours. Cookies made with

256

Caldwell composite flours had a significantly higher breaking
strength than cookies made with Compton composite flours.

There were oat cultivar related differences in cookie
diameter, alkaline water retention capacity of composite flours,
protein content, shear compression and breaking strength of cookies.
Sugar-snap cookies made with composite flours containing Porter
hammer milled groat flour had a significantly larger mean diameter
than cookies made with composites Containing groats flours of the
other two oat cultivars. The alkaline water retention capacity
(AWRC) of Porter oat-wheat composite flours was Significantly
higher compared to the AWRC of Ogle oat-wheat composite flours.
The correlations between cookie diameter and AWRC of composite
flours of the three different oat cultivars were all positive and
statistically significant.

Protein content was Significantly higher in cookies made with
Mariner and Porter hammer milled groat composite flours than in
cookies made with Ogle composite flours. The correlations between
Hunter Color Difference L-value and protein content for Mariner,
Ogle and Porter composite cookies were all negative and statisti-
cally Significant. The mean Shear compression score of cookies
made with Ogle hammer milled groat composite flours was Signifi-
cantly higher compared to shear compression for cookies made with
Mariner and Porter composite flours.

There were level of oat flour substitution related differences
in cookie diameter, alkaline water retention capacity of composite
flours, Hunter Color Difference L-values, protein content, ash con-

tent, fat content and shear compression of cookies. The diameter of

 

257

cookies containing 30 percent hammer milled groat flours was
significantly larger than cookies containing 15 percent hammer
milled groat flours. Composite flours containing 30 percent hammer
milled groat flours had significantly higher alkaline water retention
capacities (AWRC) compared to composite flours containing 15 per-
cent hammer milled groat flours. Alkaline water retention capacity
of composite flours was effected by wheat cultivar and the level of
oat flour substitution. The correlation between cookie diameter and
AWRC of 15 percent composite flours was positive and highly
significant.

Hunter Color Difference L-values (lightness) for cookies con-
taining 15 percent hammer milled groat flours were significantly
higher than L-values for cookies containing 30 percent hammer
milled groat flours. Cookies containing 15 percent hammer milled
groat flours had significantly higher b-values (yellowness) com-
pared to cookies containing 30 percent hammer milled groat flours.

Protein, ash and fat content of cookies all significantly
increased as an; additional 15 percent of hammer milled groat flour
was incorporated into the composite flours. Protein content and ash
content of cookies was effected by wheat cultivar and the level of
oat flour substitution. Protein content of cookies was also effected
by oat cultivar and the level of oat flour substitution.

The Pearson correlation coefficients between protein content
and L- and b-values for cookies made with 15 percent and 30 percent
oat wheat composite flours were all negative and statistically
significant. The coefficients were larger and the level of signifi-

cance higher for cookies made with 15 percent oat-wheat composite

258

flours. Cookies made with 15 percent hammer milled groat flours
had significantly higher mean shear compression than cookies made
with 30 percent hammer milled groat flours.

The significance of the study is that whole grain oat flour is
one of the few non-wheat flours that can be incorporated into sugar-
snap cookies without lowering cookie quality. Other flours
containing higher levels of protein and dietary fiber than soft wheat
flours have required the use of surfactants to improve cookie spread.
Whole grain oat flours from specific oat cultivars could be used to
improve the baking quality of marginal quality soft wheat flours.
Preeeeal fer Fegure Reeeareh:

The role of oat flour in composite flours used for chemically
leavened baked goods should be further investigated. Oat cultivars
that contain relatively high levels of protein, lipid and dietary fiber
should be selected for study.

This current research effort left many questions unanswered.
More sophisticated equipment for flour particle sizing Should be
used such as a Coulter Counter or Microtrac Particle Size Analyzer.
The purpose would be to determine there is a flour particle Size
range associated with oat cultivars that contributes to flour
functionality.

Whole grain oat flour should be fractionated to determine the
functionality of oat globulins, lipids and specific classes of lipids in
cookie Spread and development of baked cookie color. The role of p-
glucan in composite flours could be clarified. This soluble fiber

absorbs large amounts of water which contributes to cookie dough

259

viscosity during baking also exhibits a loss of viscosity at elevated
temperatures.

Time lapse photography could be used to study the rheological
properties of oat-wheat composite doughs during baking. Analysis
of the kinetics of the three dimensional expansion that occurs in
cookie dough during baking could determine the point at which
maximum diameter is reached and if oat-wheat composite doughs

exhibit controlled elastic shrinkage or structural collapse.

APPENDIX

260

Commercial Processing of Oats

The following procedures were used to process oats into
groats and flakes by the Quaker Oats Company. The raw oats are
first dehulled and then heated to inactivate oat lipase enzymes. lf
groats or dehulled oat kernels are to be flaked, the second stage is
to adjust the moisture content and to use heated rollers to make oat
flakes.

Pan I.
Dehelling:

A 17 lbs portion of raw oats was passed through an impact
huller twice to break groats from hulls. The huller speed was
monitored via rpm measurements of a top motor spindle adjacent to
the huller itself. A rpm reading of 1632 on the spindle-which
corresponds to 1800 rpm was used to dehull the groats. The first
pass of the 17 lb portion of the groats was done with the funnel
shaped feed tube opened 1/2 turn CCW from the closed (fully CW)
point. This material was then gathered in a cloth sack and is passed
through the huller once again with the feed tube in the 1 we turn
CCW position. A cloth sack was then used to collect the material
which was a mixture of hulls, oats and groats.

Pn m i e r r:

A Sortex model pneumatic separator was next used on the oat
mixture to remove the hull material. The Sortex has a cycling,
surging air pattern that is created by a fan system and air pressure.
The control should be set at 18. The hopper was filled with the oat
mixture after checking that the flow path led to the left side. The

261

motor was then turned on and the vibration intensity dial was set to
5. The vibrating feeder was activated to move the mixture past the
separator tube. The separator tube removed the lighter weight hulls
and allowed the heavier groats and whole oats to pass through for
collection. The separation process was monitored by spot checking
the collected portion for presence of oat hulls.

Oven Dm‘ng and Quick Cooling:

A Proctor and Schwartz batch oven, a gas fired forced air oven,
was used to dry and toast the groats. The oven temperature had been
equilibrated at 265°C for 1 hour prior to use with the reducer plate
inside the oven. The groats were spread 1-1'21 inches on metal
screens and were placed inside the heated oven for 7.5 minutes.
After the heating period, the screens containing the groats were
immediately removed from the oven and placed on a blower
apparatus which pulled room temperature air through the warm
groats at a very high volume. Air was continually blown through the
groats until they reached room temperature. The groats were placed
in a plastic bag, labeled, moisture samples collected and then stored
in plastic bins.

Ban ll
Mejatere Adjeetment

Groats that are to be flaked should contain a 10% H20 level. A
calculated amount of water was added to the groats while they are
tumbling in a small ribbon mixer. The additional water was allowed

to equilibrate in the groats during a minimum 48 hour holding period.

 

Flaking:
The oats were flaked using a Ross rolling machine. The rollers

are heated with gas and required a warm-up period of three to four
hours to equilibrate the rollers’ temperatures. A 20 pound portion of
groats were weighed into the steamer portion of the rolling machine.
The groats were exposed to atmospheric pressure steam for 15
minutes. A small sample of groats was rolled into flakes and
measured to determine if the standard for thickness for oat flakes

was met. Oat flakes should be from 0.021 to 0.025 inches. The ,
roller gap was adjusted to meet this standard. A setting of 1121 -

12% is required. The remainder of the oats were then rolled by

pulling the closure plate out to allow the groats to slowly be fed
onto the rollers. The flaked oats were collected on clean sanitized
trays.
Flake Drying

The target value for the oat flake moisture is between 9.5 to
10%. The flakes could be dried by using the Proctor and Schwartz
batch oven at 110°F or by the high volume air blower. The dried oat
flakes were placed in double plastic bags, moisture, microbial and
enzyme activity samples taken and the bags were sealed.
Enzyme Aegivily

The heat treatment in part one was designed to inactivate
lipase found in oats. Commercial processors test heat treated oats
for tyrosinase activity as an indicator of residual lipase activity.
Tyrosinase enzyme is more heat stable than lipase and provides a

rapid analytical test for oat processors.

EFFECT OF OAT FLOUR FRACTION

ON SUGAR-SNAP COOKIE QUALITY

by

E.M. Nettles, M.S., R.D.
and

M.E. Zabik, Ph.D.

Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition
Michigan State University

East Lansing, Michigan, 48824, USA

 

ABSTRACT

The functionality'of unfractionated (total) fine (< 249 microns), or
coarse (> 368 microns) oat flour fractions used at 15 and 30%
substitutions levels in soft wheat flour composite of Becker, Compton or
Caldwell cultivars was determined in sugar-snap cookies. A balanced
complete block design was used in preparing the cookies. Dough handling
properties were similar to the 100% wheat control when water was adjusted
on the basis of wheat and total oat flour protein. Composite flour cookie

quality was evaluated on the basis of diameter and top grain score.

INTRODUCTION

Whole grain oat flour is produced by grinding oat flakes or dehulled
oat kernels into flour. Oat flour is high in protein and has a higher fat:
content than other cereal grains‘. An increased market for oat bran, which
is the outer layers Of the oat kernel, has developed since reports of the
ability of soluble fiber found in oat bran to lower serum cholesterol’.

Relatively few'research.studies have been.published.on functionality
of oat flour in baked products. Dodok3 concluded that up to 15 percent 'of
oat flour can be substituted for wheat flour in a biscuit formula.
McKechnie‘ reported that oat flour can be substituted for up to 30 percent
wheat flour in breads. The primary effect was increased moisture
retention and freshness. Oomah5 substituted roller milled oat flour and
commercial hammer milled oat flour at the S, 10, 15, 20 and 25 percent
level in cookies. There was no significant difference in cookie spread
except at the 5 percent substitution level. Cookie spread increased as an
increasing amount of oat flour was substituted in the formula.

The objective of this study was to measure the functionality of oat
flour fractions when substituted for wheat flour at two levels in sugar
snap cookies. The second purpose was to measure the interaction Of oat

flour fractions with three soft wheat cultivars in sugar snap cookies.

METHODS

Three soft wheat cultivars (Becker, Caldwell and Compton) were
combined with commercial oat flour and oat flour fractions to make
composite flours. The soft wheat flours were grown in 1989 and donated by
the U.S.D.A. Soft Wheat Quality Lab in Wooster, Ohio. A commercial oat
flour, Quaker Oat flour No. 1, was donated by Quaker Oats Company,
Barrington, Illinois. Oat flour fractions were prepared by sieving using
a Sampl-Sifter (Great Western Mfg. Co., Leavenworth, Kansas) equipped with
No. 40, S4, 74 and 94 screens. The contents of the No 40. (470 micron)
and 54 (368 micron) screens were combined to make the coarse fraction.
This coarse fraction might well be described as oat bran since commercial

oat bran is the overs of a No. 60 screen. The oat flour that came through

 

the No. 74 screen (<249 micron) was used as the fine oat flour fraction.
The oat flour fractions were combined with the three soft wheat flours on
the basis of dry weight to make composite flours of 15 and 30 percent oat
flour. Sugar-snap cookies were prepared without composite or 100% wheat
flours using AACC method 10-52‘. ‘Water addition to the formula was based
on the protein content of wheat flour and total oat flour along with
desirable dough consistency.

Protein content of flours and cookies was determined using AOAC
Method 47.021, 24.0387. Moisture content of flours was determined by using
AACC Method 44-40: Modified Vacuum Oven Method‘. Fat content of flours
was measured by the nethod of Price and Parsons' using chloroform and
:methanol extraction. Total dietary fiber was measured using the method of
Prosky et al?. Alkaline water retention capacity'was determined using AACC
method 56-10‘.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The effect of composite flour on cookie quality was evaluated on the
basis of diameter and top grain score. Diameter is considered an
important characteristic due to the level of automation involved in
commercial cookie production and packaging; The top grain of a sugar snap
cookie should be comprised of a numerous amount of surface cracks or
islands. Top grain. is a 'visual representation of the rheological
properties of the cookie dough.

Control cookies were prepared with 100% wheat flour from each soft
wheat variety. The average diameter of the two control cookies made from
either 100 percent Caldwell or Compton soft wheat flours was 17 cm.
Cookies made from 100 percent Becker soft wheat flour had an average
diameter of 18.26 cm. The control cookies made from 100 percent soft
wheat flour irregardless of the wheat variety had an average top grain

score of 3 on a scale of 9.

Effect Of Course Oat Flour Fraction
Substitution of course oat flour fractions at the 15 and 30 percent

level lead to increased cookie diameters for all wheat varieties used in

 

I

the composite flours (Table 1). However the increase was not
statistically significant. Composite oat-wheat flours containing coarse
oat flour fraction also improved the top grain scores of cookies made with
all three types of soft wheat flours.

TABLE 1

Cookie diameters, top grain scores and alkaline water retention capacity
(AWRC) for cookies prepared with composite Of coarse oat flour fraction

 

 

Oat Cookie
Soft Wheat Fraction Diameter Top Grain AWRC
(%) (cm) Score (%)
Becker 0 (control) 18.26 3.0 56.7
15 18.38 4.0 86.1
30 18.23 5.5 114.3
Caldwell 0 17.94 3.0 55.0
15 17.97 4.5 81.2
30 18.17 5.5 109.2
Compton 0 17.91 3.0 57.0
15 18.05 4.0 83.1
30 18.11 6.5 116.7

 

Effect of Fine Flour Fraction

Cookie diameter decreased Significantly (p < 0.01) when prepared
from composites of 15 and 30 percent fine oat flour fraction combined with
Becker soft wheat flour (Table 2). Fine oat flour fraction in
combinations with Caldwell and Compton soft wheat flours did not cause a
significant (p < 0.01) decrease in cookie diameter until substituted at
the 30 percent level. Incorporation of the fine oat fraction in composite

flours did not result in a clear trend on cookie top grain scores.

TABLE 2
Cookie diameters, top grain scores and alkaline water retention capacity
(AWRC) for cookies prepared with composites of fine oat flour fraction

 

 

Oat Cookie
Soft Wheat Fraction Diameter Top Grain AWRC
(%) (cm) Score (%)
Becker 0 (control) 18.26 3.0 56.7
15 17.90 2.5 65.9
30 17.75 3.0 75.5
Caldwell 0 17.94 3.0 55.0
15 17.75 4.0 62.6
30 17.38 4.5 70.9
Compton 0 17.91 3.0 57.0
15 17.76 4.0 63.9
30 17.33 3.5 76.4

 

Effect of Total Oat Flour

Composite oat-wheat flours made from 15 and 30 percent total, i.e.,
unfractionated.oat flour combinedwwith Becker or Compton soft wheat flours
produced sugar snap cookies with decreased cookie diameters (Table 3). In
addition, cookies prepared from 30 percent composite flour for any of the
three wheat varieties had smaller diameters than the cookies prepared from
15 percent composite flour. Cookies made from composites of 15 percent
total oat flour and Caldwell soft wheat flour had larger diameters than
the control made from 100 percent Caldwell soft wheat, however the
difference was not significant. At the 30 percent level of substitution,
cookie diameter for cookies prepared with this wheat variety was slightly
smaller than the control. As had been true for cookies prepared with
composites containing fine oat bran, composites of total oat flour did not

produce cookies which exhibited a clear trend for influencing top grain

scores .

 

TABLE 3
Cookie diameters, top grain scores and alkaline water retention capacity
AWRC for cookies prepared with composites of total oat flour fraction

 

 

Oat Cookie -
Soft Wheat Fraction Diameter pr Grain AWRC
(%) (cm) Score (%)
Becker 0 18.26 3.0 56.7
15 17.96 3.0 71.9
30 17.69 4.0 82.5
Caldwell 0 17.94 3.0 55.0
15 18.03 3.5 67.7
30 17.84 4.5 80.7
Compton 0 17.91 3.0 57.0
15 17.64 3.5 70.1
30 17.51 3.5 84.7

 

Alkaline Water Retention and Cookie Quality

The alkaline water retention capacity (AWRC) of the composite flours
increased significantly (p < 0.01) with increasing levels of oats (Tables
1, 2, 3), but the degrees of magnitude of AWRC increase was greatest for
composites with coarse oat fractions. The alkaline water retention
capacity of soft wheat flours is highly negatively correlated with sugar
snap cookie diameter without needing to adjust for protein or ash
content”. Becker and Compton had similar AWRC which could contribute to
the similarity of their interactions with total oat flour (Tables 1 and
4). The AWRC of fine oat flour fraction in combination with all three
soft wheat flours was negatively correlated with cookie diameter. There
was a.positive correlation between cookie diameter and AWRC for coarse oat
flour fraction combined with Caldwell and Compton but not Becker.

TABLE 4

Correlations between cookie diameter and.a1kaline water retention capacity

Oat Flour Fraction

 

 

Soft Wheat Coarse Fine Total
Becker ’ -o.11 -o.93 -0.96
Caldwell 0.77 -0.97 -0.34
Compton 0.78 -0.97 -0.91

 

 

Proximate Analyses of Oat Flour Fraction
Chemical analysis of the oat flour fractions showed that coarse oat
flour fraction contained significantly higher levels of protein, and total

dietary fiber than total oat flour and fine oat flour fraction (Table 5).

 

 

TABLE 5
Chemical analysis of oat flour fractions

Total

Dietary
Oat Flour Protein Lipid Fiber
Fraction (%) (%) (%)
Coarse 24.3 8.6 20.10
Fine 15.37 7.2 6.23
Total 17.42 8.5 10.84

 

Oat flour lipids in the composite flours may have contributed to the
increase in top scores and cookie diameter. Sahasrabudhe11 found that
phosphatidyl-choline was the major phospholipid in groat lipids in all
groat fractions. Cole et a1”, Kissel et a1”, and Yamazaki and Donelson“
concluded that the restoration of three to four times the lipid level of
defatted wheat flour resulted in a larger cookie diameter with improved
top grain scores. Soy lecithin has been usednde‘, to improve baking
performance of protein fortified cookies. However, a particle size effect
along with decreased solubility of oat protein may have also influenced

sugar snap cookie quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The results have commercial, nutritional and economic significance.
The coarse oat flour fraction could be used by commercial automated
bakeries because the effect on cookie diameter was not significant.
Composite oat wheat flours increased the nutrient value of a cookie
because the coarse oat flour fraction contained at least twice the
percentage of protein and dietary fiber as the soft wheat flour it
replaced. The interaction with soft wheat cultivars to improve the

rheological characteristic of cookie dough may lead to some 'wheat

 

cultivars being considered more valuable because they can be successfully
combined with oat flour or oat flour fractions to produce high protein.

high fiber cookies.

 

 

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

REFERENCES

Kent NL: Chemical composition of cereals. In Technology of
Cereals. Third edition. Pergamon Press Inc., Maxwell House,
Elmsford, NY, 1983.

Anderson JW, Chen WJL: Cholesterol lowering properties of oat
products. In Oats, Chemistry and Technology, FH, Webster, ed. Am.
Assoc. Cereal Chem. St. Paul, MN, 1986.

Dodok L, Morova E, Gallovaadaszova M: Influence of inactivated oat
flour on gluten, dough and biscuit quality. Bull. Potravinarskeho
Vyskuma, 21:45; 1982.

McKechnie R: Oat products in bakery foods. Cereal Foods World 28,
635, 1983.

Oomah BD: Baking and related properties of wheat oat composite
flours. Cereal Chem. 59, 46, 1983.

AACC: Approved methods of the AACC 8th Ed. The Association, St.
Paul, MN, 1983.

AOAC: Official Methods of Analysis (14th Ed.). Association of
Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC, 1984.

Price PB, Parsons JG: Lipids of six cultivated barley (Hordeum
vulgare L.) Lipids, 9, 560, 1974.

Prosky L, Asp NG, Furda I, Devries JW, Schweizer TF, Harland BF:
Determination of total dietary fiber in foods, food products and
total diets: Interlaboratory study; J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 67,
1044, 1984.

Yamazaki WT: An alkaline water retention capacity test for the
evaluation of cookie baking potentialities of soft winter wheat
flours. Cereal Chem. 30, 242, 1953.

Sahasrabudhe MR: Lipid composition of oats (Avena sativa L.)
J.A.Oil Chem. Soc. 56, 80, 1979.

 

Cole EW, Mecham DK, Pence JW: Effect of flour lipids and some lipid
derivatives on cookie baking characteristics of lipid-free flours.
Cereal Chem. 37, 109, 1960.

Kissel LT, Yamazaki WT: Protein enrichment of cookie flours with
whet gluten and soy flour derivatives. Cereal Chem. 52, 638, 1975.

Yamazaki WT, Donelson JR: Effects of Interactions among flour
lipids, other flour fractions and water on cookie quality. Cereal
Chem. 53, 998, 1976.

Badi SM, Hoseney RC: Use of sorghum and pearl millet flours in
cookies. Cereal Chem. 53, 733, 1976.

Badi SM, Hoseney RC: Corn flour: Use in cookies. Cereal Chem. 55,
495, 1978.

273

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 81. Analysis of variance for protein content of oat forms1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value
C 2 7.28 3.643 16.22 0.0004
F 1 0.83 0.827 3.69 0.0790
CxF 2 0.91 0.457 2.04 0.1730
Error 12 2.69 0.225
1 C: Oat Cultivar , F = Oat form
Table 82. Analysis of variance for ash content of oat lorms1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
variation Freedom Squares Value
C 2 0.50 0.251 19.20 0.0002
F 1 0.13 0.127 9.68 0.0090
CxF 2 0.04 0.019 1.48 0.2658
Error 12 0.16 0.013
1 C= Oat Cultivar , F = Oat form
Table 83. Analysis of variance for moisture content of oat forms1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
variation Freedom Squares Value
C 2 0.88 0.444 15.93 0.0004
F 1 13.40 13.398 60.97 0.0001
CxF 2 0.44 0.221 11.68 0.0064
Error 12 0.33 0.028
1 C: Oat Cultivar , F = Oat form
Table 84. Analysis of variance for protein content of oat flours1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom was Value
C 2 22.58 11.29 128.62 0.0001
F 1 5.35 5.35 60.97 0.0001
M 1 0.41 0.41 4.72 0.0392
CxF 2 2.05 1.30 11.68 0.0002
CxM 2 1.14 0.57 6.51 0.0051
FxM 1 1.00 1.00 11.39 0.0023
Error 26 2.28 0.09

 

1 C: Oat Cultivar , F = Oat form . M= Mill type

274

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 85. Analysis of variance for ash content of oat flours1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value
C 2 0.55 0.28 32.83 0.0001
F 1 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.6280
M 1 0.02 0.02 2.50 0.1262
CxF 2 0.07 0.00 3.95 0.0319
CxM 2 0.01 0.01 0.80 0.4621
Fx M 1 0.07 0.07 8.76 0.0065
Error 26 0.95 0.01
1 C: Oat Cultivar . F = Oat form , M= Mill type
Table 86. Analysis of variance for fat content of oat flours1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value
C 2 18.59 9.30 950.75 0.0001
F 1 0.25 0.25 25.91 0.0001
M 1 0.43 0.43 43.65 0.0001
CxF 2 0.03 0.01 1.48 0.2468
Cx M 2 0.03 0.01 1.51 0.2386
FxM 1 0.19 0.19 19.20 0.0002
Error 26 0.25 0.01
1 C= Oat Cultivar , F = Oat form , M= Mill type
Table 87. Analysis of variance for moisture content of oat flours1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Frwdom Squares Value
C 2 1.87 0.93 9.19 0.0010
F 1 17.24 17.24 169.62 0.0001
M 1 1.05 1.05 10.34 0.0035
CxF 2 0.49 0.25 2.42 0.1087
Cx M 2 0.20 0.01 0.99 0.3844
FxM 1 0.53 0.52 5.17 0.0314
Error 26 2.64 0.10

 

1 C: Oat Cultivar , F = Oat form , M= Mill type

 

 

275

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 88. Analysis of variance for total dietary fiber content of oat flours1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

C 2 38.79 19.39 21.54 0.0001

F 1 28.39 28.39 31.53 0.0001

M 1 11.14 11.14 12.38 0.0016
CxF 2 2.48 1.24 1.38 0.2705
CxM 2 3.12 1.56 1.73 0.1966
FxM 1 26.16 26.16 29.05 0.0001
Error 26 23.41 0.90

1 C: Oat Cultivar , F = Oat form , M= Mill type

Table 89. Analysis of variance for L-value of oat flours1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

C 2 12.71 6.36 94.71 0.0001

F 1 7.11 7.11 105.95 0.0001

M 1 7.84 7.84 116.80 0.0001
CxF 2 0.16 0.08 1.18 0.3231
CxM 2 0.26 0.13 1.98 0.1587
FxM 1 6.33 3.17 94.36 0.0001
Error 26 1.74 0.07

1 C= Oat Cultivar , F = Oat term . M= Mill type

Table 90. Analysis of variance tor a-value of oat ilours1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

C 2 0.06 0.03 1.13 0.3382

F - 1 0.23 0.23 8.62 0.0069

M 1 0.12 0.12 4.52 0.0431
CxF 2 0.34 0.17 6.36 0.0057
Cx M 2 0.05 0.02 0.85 0.4374
Fx M 1 0.02 3.17 0.66 0.4252
Error 26 0.70 0.03

 

1 C= Oat Cultivar , F = Oat form , M= Mill type

276

 

 

Table 91. Analysis of variance for b-value of oat l‘lours1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
variation Freedom Squares Value
C 2 8.13 4.06 196.59 0.0001
F 1 0.42 0.42 20.43 0.0001
M 1 2.15 2.15 104.03 0.0001
CxF 2 0.09 0.05 2.39 0.1117
CxM 2 0.04 0.02 0.93 0.4072
F x M 1 0.67 0.67 32.25 0.0001
Error 26 0.54 0.02

 

1 C: Oat Cultivar . F = Oat form , M= Mill type

 

 

 

 

 

Table 92. Analysis of variance for alkaline water retention capacity of oat flours1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom mares Value

C 2 12174.92 6087.46 115.28 0.0001

F 1 15053.24 15053.24 285.07 0.0001

M 1 17420.92 17420.92 329.91 0.0001
CxF 2 141.65 53.14 1.34 0.2790
Cx M 2 383.58 191.79 3.63 0.0406
FxM 1 107.64 107.64 2.04 0.1653
Error 26 1372.93 52.80

1 C= Oat Cultivar , F : Oat form , M: Mill type

Table 93. Analysis of variance for particle size index oi oat flours1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Varfln Freedom Squares Value

C 2 12.49 6.36 0.54 0.5946

F 1 5.41 7.11 0.47 0.5051

M 1 231.88 7.84 20.03 0.0005
CxF 2 8.48 0.08 0.37 0.6998
CxM 2 31.96 0.13 1.38 0.2836
FxM 1 123.31 3.17 10.65 0.0057
Error 14 162.04 11.57

 

1 C= Oat Cultivar , F : Oat torm , M: Mill type

277

 

 

 

 

 

Table 94. Analysis of variance for initial paste temperature of oat flours1
Source 01 Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

C 2 144.89 72.44 17.59 0.0002
F 1 245.76 245.76 59.67 0.0001
M 1 812.01 812.01 197.15 0.0001
CxF 2 0.83 0.41 0.10 0.9051
CxM 2 51.49 25.74 6.25 0.0115
FxM 1 126.04 126.04 30.60 0.0001
Error 14 57.66 4.12
1 C= Oat Cultivar , F = Oat form , M= Mill type
Table 95. Analysis of variance for peak hot viscosity of oat flours1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Scyares Value
C 2 131002.58 65501.29 10.79 0.0015
F 1 24130.04 24130.04 3.97 0.0661
M 1 47615.04 47615.04 7.84 0.0142
Cx F 2 14893.58 7446.79 1.23 0.3230
Cx M 2 10902.08 5451.04 0.90 0.4297
FxM 1 18648.37 18648.37 3.07 0.1016
Error 14 85012.25 6072.30

 

1 C= Oat Cultivar , F : Oat form , M: Mill type

 

 

Table 96. Analysis of variance for 15 minute viscosity of oat flours1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value
C 2 142684.75 71342.37 74.43 0.0001
F 1 181.50 181.50 0.19 0.6701
M 1 1232.67 1232.67 1.29 0.2758
CxF 2 10920.25 5460.12 5.70 0.0155
CxM 2 346.08 173.04 0.18 0.8367
FxM 1 7210.67 7210.67 7.52 0.0159
Error 14 13418.58 958.47

 

1 C= Oat Cultivar , F : Oat form , M: Mill type

278

 

 

Table 97. Analysis Of variance for peak cold viscosity of oat flours1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value
C 2 190596.58 95298.29 36.09 0.0001
F 1 42.67 42.67 0.02 0.9007
M 1 322.67 322.67 0.12 0.7319
Cx F 2 4111.58 2055.79 0.78 0.4780
Cx M 2 336.58 168.29 0.06 0.9385
FxM 1 11792.67 11792.67 4.47 0.0530
Error 14 36968.58 2640.61

 

1 C= Oat Cultivar , F : Oat form , M: Mill type

 

 

Table 98. Analysis of variance for initial paste temperature of oat starches1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

C 2 45.61 22.81 34.17 0.0001

F 1 3.08 3.08 4.62 0.0496

M 1 0.43 0.43 0.64 0.4374
CxF 2 0.76 0.38 0.57 0.5762
CxM 2 0.92 0.92 0.69 0.5198
FxM 1 2.28 2.28 3.42 0.0857
Error 14 9.34 0.67

 

1 C= Oat Cultivar , F : Oat form . M: Mill type

 

 

Table 99. Analysis of variance for peak hot viscosity of oat starches1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom guares Value
C 2 4713.58 2356.79 3.85 0.0001
F 1 1066.67 1066.67 1.74 0.9007
M 1 620.17 620.17 1.01 0.7319
CxF 2 6315.08 3157.54 5.15 0.4780
Cx M 2 669.08 169.54 0.55 0.9385
Fx M 1 384.00 384.00 0.63 0.0530
Error 14 8581.25 612.95

 

1 C= Oat Cultivar , F : Oat form , M: Mill type

 

279

 

 

Table 100. Analysis of variance for 30 minute viscosity of oat starches1
Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Source of Freedom Squares Value
Variation
C 2 24054.33 12027.16 111.74 0.0001
F 1 590.04 590.04 5.48 0.9007
M 1 1218.37 1218.37 11.32 0.7319
CxF 2 741.33 370.67 3.44 0.4780
CxM 2 271.00 135.50 1.26 0.9385
Fx M 1 70.04 70.04 0.65 0.0530
Error 14 1506.83 107.63

 

1 C: Oat Cultivar , F = Oat form , M= Mill type

 

 

 

Table 101. Analysis of variance for peak cold viscosity of oat starches1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value
C 2 137187.25 68593.62 36.03 0.0001
F 1 3978.37 3978.37 2.09 0.1703
M 1 22878.37 22878.37 12.02 0.0038
Cx F 2 992.25 496.12 0.26 0.7743
CxM 2 1617.25 808.62 0.42 0.6621
FxM 1 4788.37 4788.37 2.52 0.1351
Error 14 26654.75 1903.91

 

1 C= Oat Cultivar , F : Oat form , M: Mill type

Table 102. Analysis of variance for protein content of alkaline extracted oat starches 1

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Vafition Freedom Squares Value

M 1 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.6308
C 2 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.8715
F 1 0.62 0.62 42.55 0.0001
MXC 2 0.01 0.00 0.30 0.7473
MXF 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.9867
CXF 2 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.9423
Error 14 0.20 0.01

 

1 M : Mill, c : Oat cultivar ,F : Oat form

 

280

 

 

Table 103. Analysis of variance for cookie diameter: Effect of mill 1

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

C 2 0.31 0.15 10.17 0.0019
M 1 0.33 0.33 21.58 0.0004

L 1 0.04 0.04 2.54 0.1335
CXM 2 0.25 0.12 8.24 0.0043
CXL 2 0.06 0.03 2.17 0.1515
MX L 1 0.49 0.49 32.58 0.0001
Error 14 0.21 0.015

 

1 c : Oat cultivar . M : Mill, L : Level of oat flour substitution

Table 104
flours: Eiiect of mill1

Analysis of variance for alkaline water retention capacity of composite

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares \Lalue

C 2 61.61 30.80 6.71 0.0091
M 1 224.05 224.05 48.77 0.0001

L 1 823.80 823.80 179.30 0.0001
MXC 2 40.09 20.04 4.36 0.0337
CXL 2 23.26 11.63 2.53 0.1152
MXL 1 3.19 3.19 0.69 0.4187
Error 14 64.32 4.59

1 C : Oat cultivar , M : Mill, L : Level oi oat flour substitution

Table 105. Analysis of variance for cookie L-value: Effect of mill1

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

C 2 5.50 2.75 5.20 0.0205
M 1 3.97 3.97 7.50 0.0160

L 1 15.14 15.14 28.61 0.0001
MXC 2 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.9635
CXL 2 4.07 2.03 3.85 0.0467
MX L 1 0.31 0.31 0.59 0.4547
Error 14 7.41 0.529

 

1 C = Oat cultivar . M = Mill, L = Level of oat flour substitution

281

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 106. Analysis of variance for cookie a-value: Effect of mill1

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

C 2 0.13 0.06 1.99 0.5222
M 1 3.53 3.53 5.33 0.0001
L 1 0.03 0.03 0.41 0.5930
MXC 2 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.7622
CXL 2 0.87 0.43 1.78 0.0278
MXL 1 0.19 0.19 0.08 0.1792
Error 14 1.31 0.094

1 C = Oat cultivar , M = Mill, L = Level of oat flour substitution

Table 107. Analysis of variance for cookie b-value: Effect oi mill1

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

C 2 0.21 0.10 1.44 0.2708
M 1 0.05 0.05 0.68 0.4229
L 1 3.63 3.63 49.93 0.0001
MXC 2 0.28 0.14 1.96 0.1777
CXL 2 0.66 0.33 4.52 0.0306
MXL 1 0.09 0.09 1.24 0.2843
Error 14 1.02 0.073

 

1 C = Oat cultivar , M = Mill, L = Level of oat flour substitution

Table 108. Analysis of variance for cookie protein content: Effect of mill1

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

C 2 0.52 0.26 39.14 0.0001
M 1 0.33 0.33 49.05 0.0001
L 1 0.64 0.64 95.94 0.0001
MXC 2 0.01 0.00 0.47 0.6322
CXL 2 0.02 0.01 1.68 0.2214
MXL 1 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.8640
Error 14 0.09 0.01

 

1 c : Oat cultivar , M : Mill, L : Level of oat flour substitution

282

 

 

 

 

 

Table 109. Analysis of variance for cookie ash content: Effect of mill1.

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

C 2 0.01 0.00 4.10 0.0398
M 1 0.00 0.00 4.53 0.0515
L 1 0.03 0.03 37.48 0.0001
MXC 2 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.5822
CXL 2 0.01 0.00 6.99 0.0078
MXL 1 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.6957
Error 14 0.01 0.00

1 C = Oat cultivar , M = Mill, L = Level of oat flour substitution

Table 110. Analysis of variance for cookie lipid content: Effect of mill1.

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom _Sc_Hares Value

C 2 0.84 0.42 1.07 0.3710
M 1 0.54 0.54 1.36 0.2628
L 1 0.52 0.52 1.33 0.2679
MXC 2 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.9930
CXL 2 0.09 0.04 0.12 0.8913
MXL 1 0.14 0.14 0.35 0.5658
Error 14 5.52 0.39

 

1 c : Oat cultivar , M : Mill, L : Level of oat flour substitution

 

 

Table 111. Analysis of variance for cookie moisture retention: Effect of mill 1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Sgares Value

C 2 3.17 1.58 0.07 0.9322
M 1 0.19 0.19 0.01 0.9275

L 1 136.28 136.28 6.07 0.0273
MXC 2 69.84 34.92 1.55 0.2456
CXL 2 39.46 19.73 0.88 0.4371
M X L 1 32.36 32.36 1.44 0.2499
Error 14 314.43 22.46

 

1 C = Oat cultivar , M = Mill, L = Level of oat flour substitution

283

 

 

Table 112. Analysis of variance for cookie shear compression: Effect of mill1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

C 2 24.31 12.15 10.07 0.0019
M 1 0.98 0.98 0.81 0.3828
L 1 66.83 66.83 55.37 0.0001
MXC 2 4.14 2.07 1.71 0.2159
CXL 2 11.68 5.84 4.84 0.0253
MXL 1 2.41 2.41 2.00 0.1792
Error 14 16.90 1.21

 

1 C = Oat cultivar , M = Mill, L = Level of oat flour substitution

 

 

Table 113. Analysis of variance for cookie breaking strength: Effect of mill1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

C 2 13.36 6.68 2.64 0.1063
M 1 15.86 15.86 ' 6.27 0.0253

L 1 15.99 15.99 6.32 0.0248
MXC 2 2.07 1.03 0.41 0.6719
CXL 2 3.49 1.74 0.69 0.5175
MXL 1 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.9608
Error 14 35.41 2.53

 

1 C = Oat cultivar , M = Mill, L = Level of oat flour substitution

 

 

Table 114. Analysis of variance for cookie diameter: Effect of oat processing1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom nges Value

C 2 0.37 0.18 6.17 0.0120
F 1 0.03 0.03 1.00 0.3351
L 1 1.37 1.37 45.29 0.0001
CXF 2 0.08 0.04 1.32 0.2988
CXL 2 0.26 0.13 4.33 0.0345
FXL 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.9724
Error 14 0.42 0.03

 

1 C = Oat cultivar , F = Form, L = Level of oat flour substitution

284

Table 115. Analysis of variance for alkaline water retention capacity of composite
flours: Effect of oat processing1

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom guiares Value

C 2 69.67 34.83 13.36 0.0006
F 1 533.17 533.17 204.55 0.0001

L 1 879.91 879.91 337.58 0.0001
CXF 2 56.65 28.33 10.87 0.0014
CXL 2 23.65 11.83 4.54 0.0303
FXL 1 7.55 7.55 2.90 0.1109
Error 14 36.49 2.61

 

1 c : Oat cultivar, F : Fenn, L : Level of oat flour substitution

 

 

 

Table 116. Analysis of variance for cookie L-value: Effect of oat processing1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom mes Value

C 2 4.01 2.00 4.13 0.0389
F 1 0.14 0.14 0.29 0.5961
L 1 10.20 10.20 21.05 0.0004
CXF 2 10.51 5.25 10.84 0.0014
CXL 2 1.46 0.73 1.51 0.2545
FXL 1 1.57 1.57 3.25 0.0930
Error 14 6.79 0.48

 

1 C = Oat cultivar . F = Form, L = Level of oat flour substitution

 

 

Table 117. Analysis of variance for cookie a-value: Effect of oat processing1I

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

C 2 0.43 0.21 2.25 0.1418
F 1 0.50 0.50 5.29 0.0374
L 1 0.08 0.08 0.90 0.3595
CXF 2 0.14 0.07 0.72 0.5034
CXL 2 1.27 0.63 6.67 0.0092
FXL 1 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.9326
Error 14 1.33 0.09

 

1 C = Oat cultivar , F = Form, L = Level of oat flour substitution

 

285

 

 

Table 118. Analysis of variance for cookie b-value: Effect of oat processing1

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

C 2 0.78 0.39 1.67 0.2231
F 1 0.11 0.11 0.49 0.4973
L 1 2.01 2.01 8.62 0.0109
CXF 2 2.01 1.00 4.30 0.0351
CXL 2 0.60 0.30 1.28 0.3074
FXL 1 0.62 0.62 2.64 0.1262
Error 14 3.27 0.23

 

1 C = Oat cultivar , F = Form. L = Level of oat flour substitution

 

 

 

Table 119. Analysis of variance for cookie protein content: Effect of oat processing1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom guares Value

C 2 2.00 1.00 6.98 0.0079

F 1 0.03 0.03 0.21 0.6538

L 1 1.83 1.83 12.77 0.0031
CXF 2 0.43 0.21 1.49 0.2584
CXL 2 0.11 0.05 0.38 0.6922
FXL 1 0.54 0.54 3.79 0.0720
Error 14 2.01 0.14

 

1 C = Oat cultivar , F = Form, L = Level of oat flour substitution

Table 120 . Analysis of variance for cookie ash content: Effect of oat processing1.

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom guares Value

C 2 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.9138
F 1 0.00 0.00 1.11 0.3109
L 1 0.05 0.02 52.25 0.0001
CXF 2 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.4150
CXL 2 0.01 0.00 5.50 0.0173
FXL 1 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.5217
Error 14 0.01 0.00

 

1 c : Oat cultivar. F : Form, L : Level of oat flour substitution

 

286

 

 

Table 121. Analysis of variance for cookie lipid content: Effect of oat processing1.
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

C 2 0.72 0.36 1.23 0.3228
F 1 1.12 1.12 3.79 0.0719
L 1 3.18 3.18 10.79 0.0054
CXF 2 2.87 1.43 4.86 0.0249
CXL 2 0.29 0.14 0.50 0.6196
FXL 1 0.48 0.48 1.61 0.2246
Error 14 4.13 0.29

 

1 C = Oat cultivar , F = Form. L = Level of oat flour substitution

 

 

Table 122. Analysis of variance for cookie moisture retention: Effect of oat
processing1

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares . Value

C 2 0.20 0.10 0.01 0.9936
F 1 6.09 6.09 0.38 0.5461
L 1 0.72 0.72 0.05 0.8349
CXF 2 60.34 30.17 1.90 0.1868
CXL 2 80.59 40.30 2.53 0.1152
FXL 1 26.40 26.40 1.66 0.2186
Error 14 222.12 15.91

 

1 C = Oat cultivar , F = Form, L = Level of oat flour substitution

 

 

Table 123. Analysis of variance for cookie shear compression: Effect of oat
processing1

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

C 2 4.28 2.14 0.92 0.4203
F 1 3.04 3.04 1.31 0.2708
L 1 53.61 53.61 23.14 0.0003
CXF 2 1.19 0.60 0.26 0.7764
CXL 2 1.34 0.67 0.29 0.7533
FXL 1 0.49 0.49 0.21 0.6526
Error 14 32.44 2.32

 

1 C = Oat cultivar , F = Form, L = Level of oat flour substitution

Table 124.
processing1

287

Analysis of variance for cookie breaking strength: Effect of oat

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

C 2 0.87 0.44 0.15 0.8613
F 1 3.32 3.32 1.15 0.3022
L 1 5.16 5.16 1.78 0.2032
CXF 2 6.78 3.39 1.17 0.3386
CXL 2 7.44 3.72 1.28 0.3074
FXL 1 2.71 2.71 0.94 0.3495
Error 14 40.54 2.89

 

1 C = Oat cultivar , F = Form. L = Level of oat flour substitution

 

 

Table 125. Analysis of variance for cookie diameter: Effect of wheat cultivar1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

W 2 0.49 0.25 4.65 0.0207
C 2 0.64 0.32 6.06 0.0080

L 1 1.13 1.13 21.27 0.0001
WXC 4 0.20 0.05 0.93 0.4634
WXL 2 0.02 0.01 0.20 0.8215
CXL 2 0.03 0.01 0.29 0.7508
Error 22 1.17 0.05

 

1 W = Wheat cultivar, C = Oat cultivar , L = Level of oat flour substitution

 

 

Table 126. Analysis of variance for alkaline water retention capacity of composite
flours: Effect of wheat cultivar1

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

W 2 18.84 9.42 4.71 0.0198
C 2 72.16 36.08 18.04 0.0001
L 1 865.63 865.63 432.90 0.0001
WXC 4 76.13 19.03 9.52 0.0001
WXL 2 15.83 7.91 3.96 0.0340
CXL 2 4.85 2.42 1.21 0.3167
Error 22 43.99 2.00

 

1 W = Wheat cultivar, C = Oat cultivar , L = Level of oat flour substitution

288

 

 

Table 127. Analysis of variance for cookie L-value: Effect of wheat cultivar1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

W 2 19.16 9.58 10.37 0.0007
C 2 2.20 1.10 1.19 0.3229
L 1 36.18 36.18 39.17 0.0001
WXC 4 1.19 0.30 0.32 0.8607
WXL 2 0.59 0.29 0.32 0.7282
CXL 2 4.19 2.09 2.27 0.1268
Error 22 20.32 0.92

 

1 W = Wheat cultivar, C = Oat cultivar , L = Level of oat flour substitution

 

 

Table 128. Analysis of variance for cookie a-value: Effect of wheat cultivar1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom guares Value

W 2 0.50 0.25 2.18 0.1373
C 2 0.18 0.09 0.80 0.4640
L 1 0.05 0.05 0.47 0.5022
WXC 4 0.05 0.01 0.10 0.9807
WXL 2 0.09 0.04 0.39 0.6793
CXL 2 0.72 0.36 3.13 0.0638
Error 22 2.54 0.11

 

1 W = Wheat cultivar. C = Oat cultivar , L = Level of oat flour substitution

 

 

Table 129. Analysis of variance for cookie b-value: Effect of wheat cultivar1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

W 2 4.55 2.27 8.14 0.0033
C 2 0.02 0.01 14.11 0.9680
L 1 6.94 6.94 34.10 0.0001
WXC 4 0.65 0.16 1.01 0.7122
WXL 2 0.01 0.00 0.92 0.9803
CXL 2 0.33 0.16 0.00 0.5845
Error 22 6.69 0.30

 

1 w : Wheat cultivar, c : Oat cultivar , L : Level of oat flour substitution

289

 

 

Table 130. Analysis of variance for protein content: Effect of wheat cultivar1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom mes Value

W 2 4.15 2.07 123.70 0.0001
C 2 0.69 0.34 20.50 0.0001

L 1 1.77 1.77 105.40 0.0001
WXC 4 0.02 0.00 0.37 0.8301
WXL 2 0.14 0.07 4.26 0.0273
CXL 2 0.13 0.06 3.95 0.0342
Error 22 0.37 0.02

 

1 W = Wheat cultivar, C = Oat cultivar , L = Level of oat flour substitution

Table 131. Analysis of variance for cookie ash content: Effect of wheat cultivar1.

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

W 2 0.01 0.00 5.04 0.0158
C 2 0.00 0.00 2.44 0.1105
L 1 0.12 0.12 121.46 0.0001
WXC 4 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.4903
WXL 2 0.01 0.00 3.48 0.0486
CXL 2 0.00 0.00 1.54 0.2371
Error 22 0.02 0.00

 

 

 

-1 W = Wheat cultivar, C = Oat cultivar , L = Level of oat flour substitution

Table 132. Analysis of variance for cookie lipid content: Effect of wheat cultivar1.

 

 

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

W 2 5.83 2.91 6.14 0.0076
C 2 0.25 0.12 0.26 0.7727
L 1 2.40 2.40 5.06 0.0349
WXC 4 2.12 0.53 1.12 0.3732
WXL 2 0.97 0.48 1.02 0.3781
CXL 2 2.98 1.49 3.13 0.0635
Error 22 10.45 0.47

 

1 W = Wheat cultivar, C = Oat cultivar . L = Level Of oat flour substitution

290

 

 

Table 133. Analysis of variance for moisture retention: Effect of wheat cultivar1
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Squares Value

W 2 2.68 1.34 0.06 0.9383
C 2 20.65 10.32 0.49 0.6174
L 1 8.34 8.34 0.40 0.5345
WXC 4 90.20 22.55 1.08 0.3920
WXL 2 56.99 28.49 1.36 0.2774
CXL 2 105.42 52.71 2.52 0.1037
Error 22 460.86 20.95

 

1 W = Wheat cultivar. C = Oat cultivar , L = Level of oat flour substitution

 

 

Table 134. Analysis of variance for cookie shear compression: Effect of wheat
cultivar1

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Mas Value

W 2 48.11 24.05 21.81 0.0001
C 2 15.22 7.61 6.90 0.0047
L 1 50.74 50.74 46.01 0.0001
WXC 4 2.82 0.70 0.64 0.6401
WX L 2 0.97 0.48 0.44. 0.6485
CXL 2 3.26 1.63 1.48 0.2493
Error 22 24.26 0.57 1.0000

 

1 W = Wheat cultivar, C = Oat cultivar , L = Level of oat flour substitution

 

 

Table 135. Analysis of variance for breaking strength of cookies: Effect of wheat
cultivar1

Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Square F Probability
Variation Freedom Sgares Value

W 2 15.68 7.84 4.97 0.0166
C 2 2.39 1.19 0.76 0.4803
L 1 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.7712
WXC 4 4.34 1.08 0.69 0.6086
WX L 2 10.22 5.11 3.24 0.0585
CXL 2 8.97 4.48 2.84 0.0799
Error 22 34.73 1.58

 

1 W = Wheat cultivar, C = Oat cultivar , L = Level of oat flour substitution

 

 

291

qucw

 

 

oood

004 3932.0
cord oood

ovd oo; 23on
mmmd 3vd oood

omd- omd- 8.: 93322
mood Fond owed oood

one. «to. owe 8.: 2a:
momd mmvd wood wood oood

mod- mmd- omd mad ooé cm<
Sod Fmod ommd oood mnod oood

mod. mod. 5d mad mmd oo; 5205
wood mmod memo owed god mood oood

mod- cod- Ed vvd mod and oo; o¢>><
oood oofio mood ommd mood ammo mod oood

omd 3d omd- mod- to. mod. mod- ooé o2w>o
oood ind oowd owed opod oood Bod std oood

mpd- mad med mmd mod cod. «Pd Ned- oo; 03:2,...“
word momd food vmmd mood oood Cod oood mood oood

mod and mod- omd- Ed- mod- nod- mod mod. ooé o:_m>.4
Sod oood mmmd owed owed mood vood mmvd mood ommd oood

mod- mod- 3d 3d mud Ed Rd cud- mod mod. 84 88:65
$2320 2258... 2230.2 29.. cm< £22m o¢>>< o:_m>-n o:.m>-m mag-.. LoLmEmE

 

.830: 23388

booed oo=_E LoEEm: 5;: oomE 8308 .2 32.3306 ocm 3:20:63 cos—29:8 comemoa do: oBm...

292

 

 

 

000.0
ooé mmocomto
03.0 000.0

8.0 00.: 93on
000.0 «00.0 000.0

00.0- :00- 00.: 9230.2
000.0 000.0 $0.0 000.0

00. 2.0- 00.0 00.: 20:
{0.0 000.0 «00.0 «00.0 000.0

30 E0- 80 3.0 00.. fi<
000.0 «00.0 040.0 000.0 30.0 000.0

80. 20. 0:0 .80. 2.0 00.: 5205
02.0 000.0 03.0 000.0 0.00 80.0 000.0

«4.0- 2.0- :00 00.0 060 :00 00.: om>><
040.0 N000 09.0 000.0 000.0 «00.0 30.0 000.0

00.0 «0.0 0:0- 0:0 :0. 20. 0A0- 00.: 029-0
000.0 $00 09.0 000.0 80.0 0K0 0.8.0 000.0 000.0

00.0 00.0 04.0. 00.0- 00.0- 3.0- 00.0- 40.0 00.: 00.9-:
004.0 80.0 004.0 000.0 0.0.0 «00.0 80.0 000.0 000.0 000.0

8.0 30 3.0. 00.0 00.0- 05.0- 2.0- 2.0 3.0. 00.: 029-..
:00 0.0.0 020 004.0 400.0 000.0 000.0 :80 03.0 03.0 000.0

00.0 3.0 04.0- 00.0. 2.0. 00.0 3.0- 00.0 04.0 0.0 00.: $8520
mmocdmto 22on 23322 203 cm< £205 om>>< 2:970 o:_m>-m o:_m>-._ LoLoEmE

 

.050: 9.0.3060 .

Sacco ooEE 6:2 2:3 oomE 3:08 .2 35.3390 new 3:20:68 0020.950 comtmoa No: 200...

293

 

 

 

NP uc _.
oood
ooé 000000.00
omnd oood
Cd ooé 0.30.00.
wood wood oood
mad- opd ooé 0.30.05.
90d 03d oid oood
0:0- 30. 04.0. 00.: 20...
oood oood Nomd oeod oood
00d- mud- mod- 00d 8.: 00<
ted Eod 00rd mood oood oood
omd- 00d- med- mod mud ooé 0.0.05
000d wood vmmd mood wood wood oood
ood- mud. and. cod ood mud ooé om>><
momd 000d mkod mned ommd 000d oood oood
mod- mod mmd mud td- ood- mud- ooé 00.0?0
ovod oomd 0:..o :mmd Bod mmmd 000d memd oood
omd mod- «To- med- mod omd omd 00d- 8.: 0:.0>-0
End, «who «mod owed owed mood 02d 000d End oood
mod- Cd 3d- mud 3d- ood- ood- omd mod- ooé 00.0.74
Food oood mevod mood Kmd mend oood hood :od 50d oood
Rd :od vmd- mmd- mod- oFd 3d 00d- and 3d- 8.: 00.0E0E
000000.00 0508... 0500.05. 0.0... 0m< 0.0.0.0 Om>>< 00.0?0 0:.0>.0 0:_0>-.. 0000E05

 

F050: 2.000E00

9.0.. 00:00 0.0000... £05 000E 000.000 to. 00.530020 000 0.00.0.0000 0000.00.60 000000a .009 0.00..

294

 

 

000.0
8.: 000000.00
000.0 000.0

00.0. 00.: 0508:
000.0 00.0 000.0

00.0- 00.0- 00.: 0:00.22
000.0 :000 000.0 000.0

:00 00.0. 00.0- 00.: 0.0...
00:0 000.0 40:.0 00:.0 000.0

00.0 00.0- 3.0- 00.0 00.: 000
000.0 004.0 040.0 000.0 000.0 000.0

:0 00.0. 00.0. 00.0- 0....0 00.: 0.0.20
000.0 00.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0

00.0- 00.0- 00.0- 00.0 E0 00.0 00.: 0030
000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 08.0 0:0.0 400.0 000.0

:00- 00.0 00.0- :00- 00.0. 00.0- 00.0- 00.: 020:0
0:0.0 000.0 :00 0:00 000.0 04.0 2.00 0.00.0 000.0

00.0- 00.0 :00 0:.0- 3.0- 00.0- :00- 00.0 00.: 030:0
000.0 000.0 004.0 000.0 0:0.0 000.0 02.0 00:.0 000.0 000.0

00.0- :00 00.0 00.0. :00. 00.0- 3.0- 04.0 0:.0 00.: 020:-..
000.0 :00 :20 000.0 0.0:.0 000.0 00.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0

00.0- 0:.0- 00.0- 00.0 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.0- 00.0- 00.0- 00.: 8.00.0.0
000000.00 05:0... 0030.05. 0.0... 00< 0.0.0.0 o¢>>< 00.0?0 00.0?0 0:_0>-.. 00.0E05

 

:050: 00.000E00
.0000 00.00. .05E00 00000.2 5.; 0008 000.000 .0. 00.:...00020 000 0000.00.08 00.00.0000 000.000. .00: 0.000

295

 

 

 

 

N_. u: :
oood
8.: 00000000
000d oood
ood oo.: 0500..
vood 000d oood
00d- vod- 8.: 0.20.0.2
Nomd 0m:.o 000d oood
0:.0- 0:..0- 00.0- 00.: 0.0...
ommd mood 000d mood oood
00d- 00d- and mod 8.: 00<
000d ommd mmod oomd mwod oood
mmd mod ood- 00d- 00d oo... 0.0.0.0
00:.o oood o0:.o 03d Nvod ovmd oood
00d- 0md- med :vd 00d o:.o 8.: 0.0.50.
mmmd 0o0d 30d omod :mod mmod oo:d oood
0:.o 00d :md. 0:.o mod- 00d- ovd- oo.: 00.0>-0
000d woed mood :mmd 000d 000d oood 03d oood
00d- 00d- 00d ood 00d 00d 00d 00d- 8.: 00.0>-0
momd momd 03d wood wood o:o.o «mod mood o:o.o oood
:md 00d 00d- mod mmd- :md- :0d- mmd 00d- 8.: 00_0>-..
movd m0:.o 000d 0:0.o :mod ofwd oood 00:.o 00:.o m:o.o oood
00d- med- m:.o mod mmd oomd wmd 00d- and mod- 8.: 0.00.0.0
00000000 0.00.0... 0.30.0.2 0.0... 00< 0.0.0.0 00.3.... 00.0?0 00.0.70 00.0>... 6.00.0.0

 

:.0.00= 000000.00
000.0 00...... .0EE00 0.00 00.3 0000.. 000.000 .0. 00.....00005 000 0.00.0.0000 00.00.0000 000.000 d0: 0.00-.-

296

 

 

 

E

N.. u: :
oood
09: 00000000
mmmd oood
wod. ooé 0.00.0...
mowd mmod oood
wmd Ed. 8.: 0.30.0.2
wood momd oomd oood
:00 :00- 0:0. 00.: 0.0...
:ood :mod oowd oood oood
:90 mod. mud wod oo.: 00<
wmmd wood NNwd oood :ood oood
ood- 9d- omd 3.? mod 8.: 0.0.0.0.
oomd o:...o mowd 03.0 oood oood oood
mod- owd- mmd mod- odd mod oo... 00.2.0.
owod wad :mod o:o.o o:o.o mood w:o.o oood
ood- omd omd- and mod. omd- mod. 8.: 00.0>-0
:mwd oomd oFod oood oowd omod oowd oofio oood
mud- mod mod- mud- «Nd :md- «Nd :wd- oo.: 00_0>-0
oood ond omfio ooFd oood oood mood mood omod oood
mod omd owd- :wd :md. ommd- omd- omd :od- 00.: 00_0>-0
oood oood mood oood Cod oood mood omod mwmd owod oood
ood- m:.o- o:.o 2d- mod wmd ood ood- mod ood- ooé 0.0.00.0
00000000 0.00.0... 0.0.0.05. 0.0... 00< 0.0.0.0. 012?. 00.0>-0 00.0>.0 00_0>--.. .0.0E0.0

 

:.0.00= 000000.00
.020 00.00. 00.0.00 .0000 00.; 0000. 000.000 .2. 00.....00000 000 0000.00.08 0000.008 000.000 .3: 0.00.0

 

297

 

 

 

 

8.0

ooé 00000000
000.0 8.0

3.0 8.. 0.3me
000.0 000.0 80.0

00.0- 00.0- 8.. 0.30.22
000.0 00:. 50.0 80.0

00.0 8.0- 2.0- 8.. 0......
3.0.0 0.5.0 «Rd 000.0 80.0

00.0 00.0- 8.0 2.0 8.. 02
30.0 08.0 000.0 000.0 08.0 08.0

00.0- 00.0- 2.0 8.0- 00.0 8.. 0.220
3.0.0 80.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 80.0 80.0

00.0- 00.0- 8.0 8.0 .0... 00.0 8.. 0022
000.0 03.0 000.0 000.0 02.0 2.0 30.0 80.0

3.0 00.0 00.0- 00.0 00.0- 3.0- 00.0- 8.. 020.70
000.0 0:... 50.0 00.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 80.0

00.0- 8.0- 9.0 8.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0. 8.. 020.70
000.0 0000 .000 000.0 000.0 30.0 05.0 000.0 0:... 80.0

0.0- 00.0 00.0- 3.0 00.0- 00.0- $0. 0.0 3.0- 8.. 0.02.0
000.0 80.0 000.0 000.0 03.0 30.0 08.0 82. 0:3 03... 80.0

8.0- 00.0- 00.0 5.0 00.0 0:. 00.0 3.0- 00.0 0...? 8.. 8.00.0.0
00000000 0.0.x0... 0.0.0.0.). 0E... 00< 0.0.0.0 00>>< 00.0?0 00_0>-0 00.0>-._ .0.0E0.n.

 

00.00.. 000000.00 .0xo0m 5.3 0000. 000.000 .0. 00.....00000 000 0.00.0.0000 0000.0..00 000.000 .03 0.00...

298

 

qucw

 

 

888.8

ooé 00000000
88 888.8

80.8 88.. 0.808.
000.8 30.8 888.8

00.8- 00.8- 88.. 0.8.0.8.).
088.8 80.8 000.8 888.8

00.8. 0.8- 00.8 88.. 20...
000.8 03.8 800.8 000.8 888.8

00.8- 00.8- 00.8 0.8 88.. 03.
80.8 008.8 0.1.8 000.8 08.8 888.8

00.8- 00.8- .38 08.8 00.8 88.. 0.0.8.0
008.8 008.8 08.8 00.8 08.8 008.8 888.8

00.8- 8.8- .08 3.8 00.8 00.8 88.. 00.5...
88.8 80.8 000.8 000.8 088.8 008.8 08.8 888.8

80.8 8.8 80.8- 00.8- :8- 8.8. 00.8- 88.. 08.0.10
000.8 30.8 08.8 000.8 80.8 00.8 30.8 02.8 888.8

0.8- 0.8 00.8 00.8 08.8 8.8 0.8 00.8- 88.. 020?...
00.8 080.8 88.8 000.8 88.8 088.8 28.8 888.8 008.8 888.8

00.8 00.8 00.8- 00.8- 00.8- E8- 88- 008 00.8- 88.. 029,...
38.8 008.8 2.08 00.8 80.8 00.8 88.8 000.8 08.8 000.8 888.8

00.8- 80.8- 2.8 8.8 00.8 3.8 :8 00.8- 08.8 00.8- 88.. 8.00.0.0
00000000 0.00.0... 0.0.0.0.). 0.0... 00< 0.0.0.0 005.? 00.0?0 00_0>.0 00_0>-.. 8.00.0.0

 

00.00.. 000000.00 =0.s0_00 0...... 0000. 000.000 .0. 00.....00000 000 0.00.0...000 00..0.0..00 000.000 .03 0.00...

2299

N..n0.

 

 

008.8

00.. 00000000
008.0 088.8

00.8. 80.. 0.3.8.
00.0 000.0 880.8

00.0- .00 08.. 0.20.8.2
0...8 008.0 000.0 008.0

00.0 00.0. 00.8. 80.. 0.0:
000.0 .880 0.0.8 008.8 080.8

00.0 .00- 00.0- 0.0 80.. 00<
000.0 088.8 .80 000.8 000.0 880.8

000 0.0- 00.8- 0.0 00.0 88.. 50.8...
000.8 888.0 000.8 008.8 888.0 880 080.8

00.0 00.8- 00.0- 0.0 .00 00.0 80.. 00.5..
0.8.8 088.0 .000 00.0 008.0 000.0 80.0 000.8

00.0- 0.0 .00 00.8- 0.0- 00.8- 0.0- 80.. 020.70
000.8 08.0 0.0.8 008.0 000.8 080.0 000.8 ..0.0 088.8

0.0 0.0- 00.0 80.0- 00.0- 00.0- 08.8- 00.0. 00.. 020.70
03.0 .880 080.8 000.8 .80 00.0 008.8 880.8 00.0 088.0

00.8- 0.0 00.8- 00.0. 0.0- .00- ...8- .00 8.8. 08.. 030.3
800.8 008.8 0.0.8 00.0 00.0 0.0.8 000.0 .000 0.0.0 ..00 808.0

00.8 .00- 00.0 00.8 3.0 .00 .00 00.8- 00.0. 00.0- 00.. 8.0505
00000000 0.0.x0._. 0.0.0.05. 0.0... 00< 0.0.0.0 0¢>>< 00_0>-0 00_0>-0 00_0>... 0.00.0.0

 

.0500 000000.00 020.000 5.3 0000. 000.000 .0. 00.....00000 000 0.00.0...000 0000.0..00 000.000 .3. 050..

300

Figure 42 Sugar-snap cookies made with composites of Mariner,
Ogle and Porter whole grain hammer milled groat flour
and Caldwell soft wheat flour

15 'h HAMMER MIG FLOUR
.5 ‘h CALDWELL
AVE OIAHETER = I1.“
YO? GRAIN : 0.0

 

 

 

 

 

302

Figure 43. Sugar-snap cookies made with composites of Mariner,
Ogle and Porter whole grain roller milled groat flour and
Caldwell soft wheat flour

Is 9‘ HAMMER HG FLOUR
I 96 CALMLL
AVE DIAMETER I 17.58
GRAIN = 7.5

IlfitOGLEmFLM

AVI "Am“ I 11.21
TOP “A. = 0.0

 

 

304

Figure 44. Sugar-snap cookies made with composites of Mariner,
Ogle and Porter whole grain hammer milled flake flour
and Caldwell soft wheat flour

305

15 96 HAMMER HMF FLOUR
I! *0 CALDWELL
AV! DCAIETEI = 17.21
TOP CHAIM I II

 

    
 

I! 5‘ DOLE IMF FLOUR
‘ ' ' 85 9': CALDWELL
' AVE DIAMETER = 17.07
TOP CHAIM = 7.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

an « mama In: noun
70 as c

AVE man - 17.13

10? can: = u

 

 

 

306

Figure 45. Sugar-snap cookies made with composites of Mariner,
Ogle and Porter whole grain hammer milled groat flour
and Becker soft wheat flour

 

308

Figure 46. Sugar-snap cookies made with composites of Mariner,
Ogle and Porter whole grain hammer milled groat flour
and Compton soft wheat flour

309

30 '0 MAME! m H.”
”I"

70
AVE D'AIETER I ".01
TOP OMAN! = l.

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

I. 9‘ MOM IS “5 MARINER HMG FLOUR
I IPTOM
AVE BIA-ET. . 10.71 AVE DIAMETER = 17.55
TOP OW I LO TOP GRAIN = 0.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IS 98 OOLE MIG FLOUR

.5 98 FTC”!

AVE D‘AMETER = 17.52
TOP GRAIN = 7.1

 

    

 

 

 

 

310

Figure 47. Sugar-snap cookie t0p grain score standards from U.S.D.A.
Soft Wheat Quality Laboratory at Wooster, Ohio

 

REFEFENCES

REFEFENCES

A.A.C.C. 1989. Approved methods of the A.A.C.C. 8th ed. The
Association. St. Paul, Mn.

A.O.A.C. 1984. Official Methods of Analysis (14th Ed.). Association
of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.

Abboud, AM. and Hoseney, RC. 1984. Differential scanning
calorimetry of sugar cookies and cookie dough. Cereal Chem.
61:34.

Abboud, A.M., Hoseney, RC. and Rubenthaler, G.L. 1985a. Factors
affecting cookie flour quality. Cereal Chem. 62:130

Abboud, A.M., Rubenthaler, G.L. and Hoseney, R.C. 1985b. Effect of
fat and sugar in sugar-snap cookies and evaluation of tests to
measure cookie flour quality. Cereal Chem. 62:124.

Alsberg, C. L. and Griffing, ER 1925. Effect of fine grinding upon
flour. Cereal Chem. 2:325.

Anderson, J.W. and Chen, W.J.L. 1986. Cholesterol lowering
properties of oat products. In: Oats, Chemistry and Technology.
F.H. Webster, ed. Am. Assoc. Cereal Chem. St. Paul, Mn.

Autio, K., Myllymaki, O. and Malkki, Y. 1987. Flow properties of
solutions of oat B-Glucans. J. Food Science 52:1364-1366.

Badi, SM. and Hoseney , RC. 1976. Use of sorghum and pearl millet
flours in cookies. Cereal Chem. 53:733.

Badi, SM. and Hoseney , RC. 1978. Corn flour: Use in cookies. Cereal
Chem. 55:495.

312

 

 

313

Bechtel, DB. and Pomeranz, Y. 1981. Ultrastructure and cyto-
chemistry of mature oat (Avena sativa L.) endosperm, the
aleurone layer and starchy endosperm. Cereal Chem. 58:61.

Branson, CV. and Frey, K. J. 1989. Recurrent selection for groat oil
content in cat. Crop Sci. 29:1382.

Brenneis, LS. 1965. Qualitative factors in the evaluation of cookie
flours. Baker's Digest 39:65.

Burkitt, DP 1971. Epidemiology of cancer of colon and rectum.
Cancer. 28:3

Burrows, V.D. 1986. Breeding oats for food and feed: Conventional
and new techniques and materials. In: Oats, Chemistry and
Technology. F.H. Webster, ed. Am. Assoc Cereal Chem. St.
Paul, Mn.

Bushuk, W. 1966. Distribution of water in dough and bread. Bakers
Digest. 40:38.

Cadden, AM. 1987. Comparative effects of particle size reduction on
physical structure and water binding properties of several
plant fibers. J. Food Sci. 52:1595.

Campbell, AM. 1972. Flour. In: "Food theory and applications”. P.C.
Paul, and H.H. Palmer, Eds. p.616. John Wiley and Sons. N.Y.

Carr, J.M., Glatter, S., Jeraci, J.L and Lewis, B. A. 1990. Enzymic
determination of fi-glucan in cereal-based food products.
Cereal Chem. 67:226.

Chang, M. C. and Morris, W. C. 1990. The effect of heat treatment on
dietary fiber as assessed by scanning electron microscopy. J.
Food Processing and Preservation. 14:335.

Chang, P.R. and Sosulski, PW. 1985. Functional properties of dry
milled fractions from wild oats. J. Food Science. 50:1143.

Chaudhary, V.K., Yamazaki, WT. and Gould, WA 1981. Relation of
cultivar and flour particle size distribution to cake volume.
Cereal Chem. 58:314.

 

 

314

Clements, R.L. 1980. Note on the effect of removal of free flour
lipids on the internal structure of cookies as observed by a
resin-embedding method. Cereal Chem. 57:445.

Clements, BL and JR. Donelson. 1981. Functionality of specific
flour lipids in cookies. Cereal Chem. 58: 204.

Cluskey, J.E., Wu, Y.V., Wall, J.S. and lnglett, GE. 1979. Food
applications of oat, sorghum and triticale protein products. J.
Am Oil Chem. Soc. 56:481.

Cole, E. W., Mecham, D.K. and Pence, J. W. 1960. Effect of flour lipids
and some lipid derivatives on cookie baking characteristics of
lipid-free flours. Cereal Chem. 37:109.

DeBuckle, TS 1988. Composite flours; Prospects for their
application in developing countries - The case of the Andean
pact countries. Food Reviews international 4:237.

de Ruiter, D. 1978. Composite Flours. ln: Advances in Cereal Science
and Technology. Vol II. Am. Assoc. of Cereal Chemists, St.
Paul, MN

Doescher, LC. and Hosney, RC. 1985. Effect of sugar type and flour
moisture on surface cracking of sugar-snap cookies. Cereal
Chem. 62:263

Donelson, JR. 1990. Flour fraction interchange studies of effects of
chlorination on cookie flours. Cereal Chem. 67:99.

Donaldson, DH. and Yamazaki W.T. 1972. Soft wheat flour particle
size analysis by integrated sieve and coulter counter
procedures. Cereal Chem. 49:641

Doublier, J.L., Paton, D., Llamas, G. 1987. A rheological
investigation of oat starch pastes. Cereal Chem. 64:21.

Ewers, F.W. 1982. Secondary growth in needle leaves of pinus
Iongaeva (bristlecone pine) and other conifers: quantitative
data. Amer. J. Bot. 69:1952.

Fellers, DA. and Bean, MM. 1988. Composite flours. Food Reviews
International, 4:213.

 

 

 

315

Finney, K.F., Morris, V.H. and Yamazaki, W.T. 1950. Micro verses
macro cookie baking procedure for evaluating the cookie
quality of wheat varieties. Cereal Chem.27:42.

Finney, K.F., Pomeranz, Y. and Hosney, RC. 1976. Effect of solvent
extraction on lipid composition, mixing time and bread loaf
volume. Cereal Chem. 59.449.

Fogg, NE. and Tinklin, G.L. 1972. Influence of glandless cotton seed
flour on quality, acceptability and amino acid content of sugar
cookies. Cereal Science Today. 17:70.

Freed, R.D. Leep, R.H., Copeland, LC. and Wolfe, D. 1986. Cat Variety
Performance in Michigan Cooperative Extention Bulletin E-
889. Cooperative Extention Service. Michigan State
University.

Frey, K. J., Hammond, E.G. and Lawrence, PK. 1975. Inheritance of oil
percentage in interspecific crosses of hexaploid oats. Crop
Sci. 15:94.

Frolich, W. and Nyman, M. 1988. Minerals, phytate and dietary fibre
in different fractions of oat grain. J. of Cereal Science. 7:73.

Fuhr. FR 1962. Cookie spread: Its effect on production and quality.
Baker's Digest. 36:56.

Fulcher, R.G. 1986. Morphological and chemical organization of the
oat kernel. In: Oats, Chemistry and Technology. F.H. Webster,
ed. Am. Assoc Cereal Chem. St. Paul, Mn.

Fulcher, RS. and Wong, SJ. 1980. Inside cereals - a fluorescence
microchemical view. In: Cereals for Food and Beverages, G.E.
lnglett, L. Munk ,ed. Recent Advances in Chemistry and
Technology. p.1. Academic Press New York.

Fulcher, RC. and Wood, P.J. 1983. Identification of cereal
carbohydrates by florescence microscopy. In: New Frontiers in
Food Microstructure. D.B. Bechtel, ed. p. 111. Am. Assoc Cereal
Chem. St. Paul, Mn.

 

316

Gaines, CS. 1985. Association among soft wheat flour particle
size, protein content, chlorine response, kernel hardness,
milling quality, white layer cake volume and sugar snap cookie
spread. Cereal Chem. 62:290.

Gaines, CS. 1990. Influence of chemical and physical modification
of soft wheat protein on sugar-snap cookie dough consistency,
cookie size and hardness. Cereal Chem. 67:73.

Gaines, CS. and Kwolek, W.F. 1982. Influence of ambient
temperature, humidity and flour moisture content on
stickiness and consistency in sugar-snap cookie doughs.
Cereal Chem. 59:507.

Gaines, C.S., Donelson, JR and Finney, P.L. 1988. Effects of damaged
starch, chlorine gas, flour particle size and dough handling
time and temperature on cookie dough handling properties and
cookie size. Cereal Chem. 65:384.

Gates, P.J. and Oparka, K.J. 1982. The use of the fluorescent probe 9-
anilino-1-napthalene sulphonic acid (ANS) as a histochemical
stain in plant tissues. Plant Cell Environ. 5:251.

Gill, J. 1985. Design and analysis of experiments in the animal and
medical sciences. Vol. One. 1st ed. Iowa State Univ. Press.
Ames, Iowa.

Glover, J. M. 1985. The functionality of sorghum flour components
as compared to those of a wheat in a high ratio cake Ph.D
Thesis University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Gorczyca, CG. and Zabik, M. E. 1979. High fiber sugar snap cookies
containing cellulose and coated cellulose products. Cereal
Chem. 56:537.

Greenwood, CT. 1976. Starch. Pages 119-157 in Advances in Cereal
Science and Technology, Vol. I Y. Pomeranz, ed. Am. Assoc,
Cereal Chem. St. Paul, MN.

Gullord, M. 1980. Oil and protein content and its relation to other
characters in cats. Acta Agric. Scand. 30:216

 

317

Haque, E. 1991. Application of size reduction theory to roller mill
design and operation. Cereal Foods World. 36:368.

Hirsch, J. and Ahrens, EH. 1958. The separation of complex lipide
mixtures by the use of silicic acid chromatography. J. Biol.
Chem. 233:311.

Hoojjat, P. and Zabik, ME. 1984. Sugar-snap cookies prepared with
wheat-navy bean-sesame seed flour blends. Cereal Chem.
61:41.

Irani, RR. 1961. Particle size distribution data. Cereal Sci. Today.
6:35.

Jeltema, MA. and Zabik, ME. and Thiel, L.J. 1983. Prediction of
cookie quality from dietary fiber components. Cereal Chem.
60:227.

 

Karow, K.S., Forsberg and Peterson, D.M. 1984. A comparison of two
rapid oat lipid extraction procedures in terms of fatty acid
profile. Cereal Chem. 61:196.

Kent, N.L. 1983. Chemical composition of cereals. In: Technology of
Cereals. Third edition. Pergamon Press Inc., Maxwell House,
Elmsford, N.Y.

le, S.|., Pernollet, J. C. and Mosse, J. 1979. Evolution des proteins
de l'abumen et de I'ultrastructure du caryopse d'avena sativa au
cours de la germination. Physiol. Veg. 17:231

Kirby, R.W., Anderson, J.W., Sieling, B., Rees, E.D., Chen, W.J.L., Miller,
RE. and Kay, RM. 1981. Oat bran intake selectively lowers
serum low-density lipoproteins concentrations of
hypercholesterolemic men. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 34:824.

Kissel, L.T., Pomeranz and Yamazaki, W.T. 1971. Effects of flour
lipids on cookie quality. Cereal Chem, 48:655.

Klssel, LT, and Yamazaki, W.T. 1975. Protein enrichment of cookie
flours with wheat gluten and soy flour derivatives. Cereal
Chem. 52: 638.

318
Kurimoto, Y. and Shelton, DR. 1988. The effect of flour particle

size on baking quality and other flour attributes. Cereal Foods
World. 33:429.

Lineback, DR. and Wongsrikasem, E. 1980. Gelatinization of starch
in baked products. J. Food Science. 45:71.

Lockhart, H.B. and Hurt, H.D. 1986. Nutrition of Oats. In: Oats,
Chemistry and Technology. F.H. Webster, ed. Am. Assoc Cereal
Chem. St. Paul, Mn. '

Lockhart, G.L., Albers, L. and Pomeranz, Y. 1986. The effects of
commercial processing on some chemical and physical
properties of oat groats. Cereal Chem. 63:280.

MacArthur, LA. and D'Appolonia, BL. 1979. Comparison of cat and
wheat carbohydrates. II. Starch. Cereal Chem. 56:458.

MacMurray, TA. and Morrison, WA. 1970. Composition of wheat-
flour lipids. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 21:520.

MacRitchie, F. 1977. Flour lipids and their effects in baking. J. Sci.
Food Agric. 28:53.

MacRitchie, F. 1981. Flour lipids: Theoretical aspects and
functional properties. Cereal Chem. 58:156.

Mailhot, WC and Patton, JC. 1988. Criteria of flour quality. In.
Wheat Chemistry and Technology, Y. Pomeranz, ed. p. 69. Am.
Assoc. Cereal Chem. St. Paul, Mn.

Matz, SA. and Matz, TD. 1978. Cookie and Cracker Technology. 2nd
edition. AVI Publishing Company, Inc. Westport, Conn. p. 3-
26, 151-153

McKechnie, R. 1983. Oat products in bakery foods. Cereal Foods
World. 28: 635.

McMasters, M.M., Hinton, J.J.C. and Bradbury, D. 1971. Microscopic
structure and composition of the wheat kernel. In: Wheat
Chemistry and technology, 2nd ed. Ed. Y. Pomeranz, ed. Am
Assoc. Cereal chem. St. Paul, Minn. p 51.

319

McWatters, K.H. 1978. Cookie baking properties of defatted peanut,
soybean and field pea flours. Cereal Chem. 55:853.

Miller, G.A., Youngs, V.L. and Oplinger, E. S. 1980. Environmental and
cultivar effects on oat phytic acid concentration. Cereal Chem.
57: 189

lehita, K. D. and Bean, MM. 1982. Grinding methods: Their impact
on rice flour properties. Cereal Chem. 59:46.

Oomah, B.D. 1983. Baking and related properties of wheat oat
composite flours. Cereal Chem. 59:46.

Oomah, B.D. 1987. Characteristics of commercially heat treated oat
groats. International Journal of Food Sci. and Tech. 22:299.

Painter, NS. and Burkitt, DP. 1971. Diverticular disease of the
colon: A deficiency disease of Western Civilization. Br. Med. J.
2:450.

Paton, D. 1977. Oat starch. Part 1. Extraction, purification and
pasting properties. Starke. 29:149

Paton, D. 1986. Oat starch: Physical, chemical and structural
properties. Pages 93 -120. In: Oats, Chemistry and Technology.
F .H. Webster, ed. Am. Assoc Cereal Chem. St. Paul, Mn.

Paton, D. 1987. Differential scanning calorimetry of oat starch
pastes. Cereal Chem. 64:394.

Pomeranz, Y. 1972. Scanning electron microscopy of the cat kernel.
Cereal Chem. 49: 20.

Pomeranz, Y. 1973. A review of proteins in barley, oats and
buckwheat. Cereal Sci. Today. 18:310.

Pomeranz, Y, 1988. Composition and functionality of Wheat flour
components. In: Wheat Chemistry and Technology. Y, Pomeranz,
ed. p. 219. Am. Assoc. Cereal Chem. St. Paul, Mn.

Pomeranz, Y. and Meloan, CE. 1987. Ash and minerals. In: Food
Analysis; Theory and practice. p 612. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
NY.

 

 

 

320

Price, PB. and Parsons, J.G. 1974. Lipids of six cultivated barley
(Hordeum vulgare L.) Lipids 9:560.

Price, PB. and Parsons, J.G. 1975. Lipids of seven cereal grains.
J.O.A.C.S. 52: 490.

Proslw, L., Asp, N.G., Furda, I., Devries, J.W., Schweizer, T.F. and
Harland, B.F. 1984. Determination of total dietary fiber in
foods, food products and total diets: Interlaboratory study. J.
Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 67:1044.

Prosky, L., Asp, N.G., Furda, l., Devries, J.W., Schweizer, T.F. and
Harland, B.F. 1985. Determination of total dietary fiber in
foods and food products: Collaborative Study. J. Assoc. Off.
Anal. Chem. 68:677.

Pulkki, L.H. 1938. Particle size in relation to flour characteristics
and starch cells of wheat. Cereal Chem. 15:749.

Rendleman, J.A. and Grobe, C. A. 1982. Cereal complexes: Binding of
zinc by bran and components of bran. Cereal Chem. 59:310

Robbins, G. S., Pomeranz, Y. and Briggle, L.W. 1971. Amino acid
composition of oat groats. J. Agric. Food Chem. 19:536.

Saastamoinen, M., lfimpulainen, J. and Nummela, S. 1989. Genetic
and environmental variation in oil content and fatty acid
composition of oats. Cereal Chem. 66:296.

Saigo, R.H., Peterson, D.M., Holy, J. 1983. Development of protein
bodies in cat starchy endosperm. Canadian J. of Botany.
61 :1206.

Sahasrabudhe, MR. 1979. Lipid composition of cats (Avena sativa L.).
J. A. Oil Chem. Soc. 56:80.

Scalon, M.G., Dexter, J.E. and Biliaderis, C. G. 1988. Particle-size
related physical properties of flour produced by smooth roll
reduction of hard red spring wheat farina. Cereal Chem.
65:486.

321

Shellenberger, J.A.. 1977. Advances in milling technology. Pages
227 - 270. In: Advances in Cereal Science and Technology, Vol
III. Y. Pomeranz, ed. Am. Assoc. Cereal Chem. St. Paul, Mn.

Schrickel, DJ. 1986. Oats production, value, and use. Pages 1 -11.
In: Oats, Chemistry and Technology. F.H. Webster, ed. Am.
Assoc Cereal Chem. St. Paul, Mn.

Shabakov, M.S., Melnikov, MS. and Melnikov, E. M. 1980. Mucilaginous
substances of cats in hydrothermal treatment. Izvestia
Vysshihkh Uchebnykh Zavedenii. Pishchevaia Tekhnologia.
2:119.

Sievert, D., Pomeranz, Y and Abdelrahman, A. 1990. Functional
properties of soy polysaccharides and wheat bran in soft
wheat products. Cereal Chem. 67:10.

Simons, MD. and Murphy, H.C. 1961. Cat diseases. Pages 330 - 386.
In: Cats and Oat Improvement. F.A. Coffman, ed. Am. Society of
Agronomy, Madison, WI.

Sollars, W.F. 1956. Evaluation of flour fractions for their
importance to cookie quality. Cereal Chem. 33:121.

Sollars, W.F. 1959. Effects of the water-soluble constituents of
wheat flour on cookie diameter. Cereal Chem. 36:498.

Sollars, W.F. and Rubenthaler, G.L. 1971. Performance of wheat and
other starches in reconstituted flours. Cereal Chem. 48:397.

Sosulski, F.W. and Wu, K.K. 1988. High-fiber breads containing field
pea hulls, wheat, corn and wild cat brans. Cereal Chem.
65:186.

Sullivan, 8., Engebretson, W.E., and Anderson, ML. 1960. The relation
of particle size to certain flour characteristics. Cereal Chem.
37:436

Tipples, K.H. 1969. The relationship of starch damage to the baking
performance of flour. Bakers Digest. 43:28.

Trowel, H. 1972. Fiber: A natural hypocholesterolemic agent. Am.
J. Clin. Nutr. 25:464.

322

Tsen, CC. 1976. Regular and protein fortified cookies from
composite flours. Cereal Foods World. 21:663.

Tsen, C.C., Bauck, L.J. and Hoover, W. J. 1975. Using surfactants to
improve the quality of cookies made from hard wheat flours.
Cereal Chem. 52:629..

Tsen, C.C., Peters, E.M., Schaffer, T. and Hoover, W. J. 1973. High
protein cookies. I. Effect of soy fortification and surfactants.
Baker’s Digest. 47:34.

Vecchionacce, L.M. and Setser, CS. 1980. Quality of sugar cookies
fortified with liquid cyclone processed cottonseed flour with
stabilizing agents. Cereal Chem. 57:303.

Vetter, J.L. 1984. Fiber as a food ingredient. Food Technology.
38:64.

Vratanina, D.L. and Zabik, ME. 1978. Dietary fiber sources for baked
products: bran in sugar snap cookies. J. Food Sci. 4321590.

Wade, P. 1988. Biscuits, Cookies and Crackers. Vol. 1. The
Principles of the Craft. Elsevier Applied Science, London.

Walker, A.R.P., Richardson, B.D., Walker, BF. and Woolford, A. 1973.
Appendicitis, fiber intake and bowel behavior in ethnic groups
in South Africa. Post Grad. Med. 49:243.

Weaver, C.M., Chen, P.H. Rynearson, S.L. 1981. Effects of milling on
trace elements and protein content of oats and barley. Cereal
Chem. 58:120.

Weber, E.J. 1973. Structure and composition of cereal components
as related to their potential industrial utilization. In:
Industrial Uses of Cereals. Y. Pomeranz., ed Am Assoc. Cereal
Chem. St. Paul, Mn.

Webster, F.H. 1986. Oat Utilization: Past, present and future. In:
Oats, Chemistry and Technology. F.H. Webster, ed. Am. Assoc
Cereal Chem. St. Paul, Mn.

323

Webster's New World Dictionary of the English Language. 1986. D. B.
Guralnik, ed. Prentice Hall Press. New York, NY

Welch, R.W, Leggett, J.M. and Lloyd, JD. 1991. Variation in the
kernel (1-3)(1-4)-8-D-Glucan content of oat cultivars and Wild
Avena species and its relationship to other characteristics. J.
of Cereal Science. 13:173.

Welch, R.W. and Lloyd, JD. 1989. Kernel (1-3)(1-4) - p-D-Glucan
content of oat genotypes. J. of Cereal Science. 9:35.

Wood, P.J. 1980. Specificity in the interaction of direct dyes with
polysaccharides. Carbohydrate Research. 85:271.

Wood, P.J. 1981. The use of dye-polysaccharide interactions in (SD-
glucanase assay Carbohydrate Research. 94:19.

Wood, P.J. 1982. Factors affecting precipitation and spectral
changes associated with complex formation between dyes and
p-D-Glucans. Carbohydrate Research. 102:282.

Wood, P.J. 1986 Cat B-Glucan: Structure, location and prOperties.
In: Oats, Chemistry and Technology. F.H. Webster, ed. p.121.
Am. Assoc Cereal Chem. St. Paul, Mn.

Wood, P.J. and Fulcher, R. G. 1978. Interaction of some dyes with
cereal p-glucans. Cereal Chem. 55:952.

Wood, P.J., Fulcher, R. G. and Stone, 8. A. 1983. Studies on the
specificity of Interaction of cereal cell wall components with
Congo red and Calcofluor. Specific detection and histo-
chemistry of (1-3)(1-4) fi-D-glucan. J. Cereal Sci. 1:95

Wright, DJ. 1983. Application of scanning calorimetry to the study
of protein behavior in foods. In: Development of Food Proteins-
1. B.J.F. Hudson, ed. p. 61. Applied Science Publishers, London

Wu, Y.V. and Stringfellow, AC. 1973. Protein concentrates from oat
flours by air classification of normal and high-protein
varieties. Cereal Chem. 50:489.

324

Yamazaki, W.T. 1953. An alkaline water retention capacity test for
the evaluation of cookie baking potentialities of soft winter
wheat flours. Cereal Chem. 30:242.

Yamazaki, W.T. 1955. The concentration of a factor in soft wheat
flours affecting cookie quality. Cereal Chem. 32:26

Yamazaki, W.T. 1959a. Flour granularity and cookie quality. I.
Effect of wheat variety on sieve fraction properties. Cereal
Chem. 36:42.

Yamazaki, W.T. 1959b. Flour granularity and cookie quality. II.
Effect of changes in granularity on cookie characteristics.
Cereal Chem. 36:52.

Yamazaki, W.T. and Donelson, JR 1976. Effects of interactions
among flour lipids, other flour fractions and water on cookie
quality. Cereal Chem. 53:998.

Yamazaki, W.T. and Andrews, L.C. 1982a. Experimental milling of
soft wheat cultivars and breeding lines. Cereal Chem. 59:41.

Yamazaki, W.T. and Andrews, L.C. 1982b. Small scale milling to
estimate the milling quality of soft wheat cultivars and
breeding lines. Cereal Chem. 59:270.

Yamazaki, W.T., Donelson, JR. and Kwolek, W.F. 1977. Effects of
flour fraction composition on cookie diameter. Cereal Chem.
54:352.

Yiu, S.H. , Wood, P.J. and Weisz, J. 1987. Effects of cooking on
starch and B-Glucan of rolled oats. Cereal Chem. 64:373.

Yiu, SH. 1986. Effects of processing and cooking on the structural
and microchemical composition of cats. Food Microstructure.
5:219.

Youngs, V.L. 1972. Protein distribution in the cat kernel. Cereal
Chem. 49:407.

Youngs, V.L. 1986. Oat lipids and lipid related enzymes. P. 205 -
226. In: Oats, Chemistry and Technology. F.H. Webster, ed. Am.
Assoc Cereal Chem. St. Paul, Mn.

 

325

Youngs, V.L. and Forsberg, RA. 1979. Protein - oil relationships in
cats. Crop Sci. 19:798.

Youngs, V.L. and Gilchrist, K.D. 1976. Note on protein distribution
within oat kernels of single cultivars that differ in protein
concentration. Cereal Chem. 53:947.

Youngs, V.L.and Peterson, D.M. 1973. Protein distribution in the cat
(Avena sativa L) kernel. Crop Sci. 13:365.

Youngs, V.L.,Peterson, D.M. and Brown, CM. 1982. Oats. P. 49-105 In:
Advances in Cereal Science and Technology. Vol V. Y.
Pomeranz, ed. Am. Assoc. Cereal Chem. St. Paul, Mn.

Youngs, V.L., Puskulcu, M. and Smith, RR. 1977. Oat lipids l.
Composition and distribution of lipid components in two oat
cultivars. Cereal Chem. 54: 803.

Zarkadas, C.G., Hulan, H.W. and Proudfoot, PG. 1982. A comparison of
the amino acid composition of two commercial oat groats.
Cereal Chem. 59:323.

nrcnrcnn STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
IIIIIWIIIWIlll1111111WWIIIIWII1111111111
31293010191835