Effects of degree of milling, drying condition, and final moisture contenton sensory texture of cooked rice

Citation
Bg. Lyon et al., Effects of degree of milling, drying condition, and final moisture contenton sensory texture of cooked rice, CEREAL CHEM, 76(1), 1999, pp. 56-62
Citations number
14
Categorie Soggetti
Agricultural Chemistry
Journal title
CEREAL CHEMISTRY
ISSN journal
00090352 → ACNP
Volume
76
Issue
1
Year of publication
1999
Pages
56 - 62
Database
ISI
SICI code
0009-0352(199901/02)76:1<56:EODOMD>2.0.ZU;2-0
Abstract
Different cultures have different preferences for cooked rice flavor and te xture characteristics. These differences provide opportunities for U.S. ric e varieties to fit into global markets to meet consumer demands worldwide. It is important to assess the properties of U.S. rice varieties and determi ne the factors that influence their eating quality. Cooked rice texture att ributes can be affected by postharvest handling practices, such as degree o f milling, drying condition, and final moisture. This article reports the e ffects of postharvest handling parameters on the texture of cooked medium- and short-grain rice varieties grown in Arkansas (AR) and California (CA), as measured by descriptive sensory analysis. The rice samples were Bengal ( AR), Koshihikari (AR), Koshihikari (CA), M-401 (AR), M-401 (CA), and M-202 (CA). The six rice varieties were regular- or deep-milled and dried under o ne of five drying conditions to achieve final moisture levels of 12 or 15% (n = 120). A trained sensory panel developed a lexicon of 16 sensory attrib utes that described cooked rice texture at different phases of evaluation, beginning with manual adhesiveness and ending with mouthfeel characteristic s after swallowing. Rice varieties differed in some physicochemical and sen sory properties. Significant differences (P < 0.05) in adhesive properties, such as manual and visual adhesiveness and stickiness to lips, were observ ed. Rice samples also differed in mouthfeel properties. Factor analysis of sensory data grouped attributes into four groups that explained 68.5% of th e variation in data. Primary sensory differences were due to adhesive prope rties assessed in the early stages of evaluation.