Instrumental and Sensory Textural Properties of Fura Made from Different Cereal Grains

Figures & data

Figure 1 Fura production process.

Table 1 Sensory texture profile procedure for fura (panel techniques and definition of terms)

Characteristics, scoring criteria, and guidelines for evaluation		Scale anchora
Stage 1	Place a piece of fura in the mouth; chew the fura once between molars. Evaluate for:
Hardness—Force required to compress the sample between molar teeth.	Soft to hard
Springiness—The rate at which fura returns to its original condition after pressure is released.	Stays compressed to quickly returns
Stage 2	Place one fura ball in mouth and chew until ready to swallow. Evaluate for:
Cohesiveness—Extent to which sample falls apart during chewing.	Not cohesive to very cohesive
Chewiness—Number of chews to reach final swallowing point.	Low to high
Gumminess—Denseness and cohesion persisting during mastication.	Not gummy to very gummy
Starchiness—Feeling of free starch.	Not starchy to very starch

^aFirst term anchors left end of scale; second term anchors right.

Table 2 Proximate composition of the cereal flours on dry-weight basis* ,#

Proximate composition (%)
Cereal	Moisture	Crude protein (N 2 × 6.25)	Crude fat	Ash	Carbohydrate	Energy (kJ/100 g)
Rice	10.97 ± 0.08	9.87^a	4.43 ± 0.01^a	0.741 ± 0.001^a	73.99^a	1,576^a
Millet	11.04 ± 0.06	11.43^b	8.32 ± 0.01^b	0.852 ± 0.003^a	68.36^b	1,655^b
Acha	10.17 ± 0.24	9.25^a	2.93 ± 0.01^c	0.700 ± 0.001^a	76.95^a	1,559^a
Maize	8.97	11.43^b	1.80 ± 0.01^c	0.404^b	77.40^a	1,560^a
Sorghum	9.44 ± 0.02	15.73^c	7.64^b	1.031 ± 0.001^c	66.16^b	1,665^b

*Mean standard deviation.

^#Any two values not followed by the same letter in the same column are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 3 Proximate composition of fura from the different cereals on dry-weight basis* ,#

Proximate composition (%)
Cereal	Moisture	Crude protein (N 2 × 6.25)	Crude fat	Ash	Carbohydrate	Energy (kJ/100 g)
Rice	47.49 ± 0.01	9.31^a	5.06 ± 0.01	0.510 ± 0.014^a	37.63^a	980
Millet	50.66 ± 0.24	11.25^b	5.15	0.633 ± 0.011^a	32.31^b	927
Acha	47.13 ± 0.01	9.25^a	6.15	0.701 ± 0.001^b	36.77^a	1,006
Maize	45.35	11.06^b	6.20	0.445^c	36.95^a	1,041
Sorghum	50.22 ± 0.31	12.50^b	4.47	0.766 ± 0.028^b	32.04^b	917

*Mean standard deviation.

^#Any two values not followed by the same letter in the same column are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 4 Cooking yield and water added cooking yield of flour from the cereal grains

Cereal	Cooking yield (%)	Water-added cooking yield (%)
Rice	105	172
Millet	108	174
Acha	106	176
Maize	122	177
Sorghum	113	178

Figure 2 Force deformation curve for the different cereal fura.

Table 5 Strength and firmness of fura samples from different cereals*

Strength			Firmness
Cereal	Breaking stress (N/m^2)	Deformation at failure (%)	Gradient	Firmness (kN/g)	EPM (J/g)	Hardness (kN)
Rice	30.4^a	15.8^a	199^a	0.408^a	3.377^a	41.0^a
Millet	27.8^a	15.4^a	210^a	0.453^a	ND	45.5^a
Acha	24.6^a	10.0^b	236^a	0.304^a	1.842^b	29.5^b
Maize	50.9^b	14.7^a	314^b	0.689^b	5.581^c	67.7^c
Sorghum	22.4^c	15.8^a	153^c	0.309^a	2.709^a	30.2^b

ND—Not determined.

*Any two values not followed by the same letter in the same column are significantly different (p ± 0.05).

Table 6 Mean sensory scores of textural attributes of fura from different cereal grains

Sensory texture attributes* ,#
Fura sample	Hardness	Springiness	Cohesiveness	Chewiness	Gumminess
Rice	4.4^a	4.2^a	3.6^a	4.9^a	4.4^a
Millet	2.2^a	4.1^a	4.7^a	5.2^a	4.5^a
Acha	3.9^a	3.2^a	4.5^a	5.4^a	4.4^a
Maize	3.6^a	2.8^b	3.3^a	5.1^a	2.3^b
Sorghum	2.8^a	4.2^a	3.4^a	4.3^a	2.7^b

*The maximum full scale of score is 10 cm (0 the weakest and 10 the strongest).

^#Different letters in the same column designate statistical differences (p ≤ 0.05) among samples.

Table 7 Relationship between sensory and instrumental textural characteristics of furaa

Texture parameter	Breaking stress	Deformation at failure	Gradient	Firmness	EPM	Instrumental hardness
Sensory hardness	0.229	−0.321	0.279	0.022	0.023	0.016
(0.711)	(0.598)	(0.649)	(0.972)	(0.977)	(0.980)
Springiness	−0.688	0.576	−0.903b	−0.564	−0.454	−0.537
(0.199)	(0.309)	(0.036)	(0.322)	(0.546)	(0.351)
Cohesiveness	−0.466	−0.488	−0.097	−0.355	−0.727	−0.343
(0.429)	(0.404)	(0.877)	(0.557)	(0.273)	(0.571)
Chewiness	0.255	−0.640	0.631	0.255	0.033	0.256
(0.679)	(0.245)	(0.254)	(0.679)	(0.967)	(0.677)
Gumminess	−0.546	−0.297	−0.298	−0.486	−0.657	−0.462
(0.341)	(0.628)	(0.626)	(0.406)	(0.343)	(0.434)
Breaking stress	1.000	0.161	0.880b	0.968b	0.954b	0.960b
—	(0.796)	(0.049)	(0.007)	(0.046)	(0.009)
Deformation at failure	0.161	1.000	−0.298	0.294	0.489	0.316
(0.796)	—	(0.626)	(0.631)	(0.511)	(0.604)
Gradient	0.880	−0.298	1.000	0.822	0.697	0.808
(0.049)	(0.626)	—	(0.088)	(0.303)	(0.098)
Firmness	0.968	0.294	0.822	1.000	0.975b	0.999b
(0.007)	(0.631)	(0.088)	—	(0.025)	(0.000)
EPM	0.954	0.489	0.697	0.975b	1.000	0.978b
(0.046)	(0.511)	(0.303)	(0.025)	—	(0.022)
Instrumental hardness	0.960	0.316	0.808	0.999b	0.978b	1.000
(0.009)	(0.604)	(0.098)	(0.000)	(0.022)

^aFigures in parentheses are significant probability values; EPM = energy per unit mass.

^bCorrelation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).