OPTIMIZING QUALITY

ASSESSMENT OF INDIAN
WHEAT FLOUR FOR ATTA
AND MAIDA PRODUCTS

Arnaud Dubat
Applications & Mktg Director
January 18th, 2012
 Some facts
1. India is one of the largest wheat producer in the world

2. Most of India’s wheat is consumed by its population of more than

one billion.

3. India produces mostly soft and medium hard wheat, which is

used for making the staple "chapattis" or flat breads.

4. Just 15% of India wheat is processed in industrial mills. The

remaining 85%, which is retailed as whole wheat, is ground into
"atta" or wholemeal flour at small local stone-grinding mills.

5. With consumption patterns changing in favor of processed foods,

the milling and baking industries have a big opportunity to meet
that demand.

• But what about flour quality?

 Challenge of the day…
• Highlight Indian flours quality by answering
4 key questions in 10 minutes:

– What are the main differences between Atta and

Maida flour?
– Are Maida flour all similar?
– Are Atta flour all similar?
– What are the best testing tools for Atta and Maida
Flour?
 SAMPLING AREAS
Chandigarh, Punjab

Mumbai, Maharashtra

Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh

Bangalore, Karnataka Chennai, Tamil Nadu

Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu

MAIN DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN ATTA & MAIDA
FLOUR
 Differences in
composition
(Infraneo & SDmatic)
Hydration Proteins (d.b)
70% 69% 12.35%
12.4%
65% 63% 12.2%
12.0% 11.90%
60%
11.8%
55% 11.6%
Maida Flour Atta Flour Maida flour Atta flour

Maida Flour Atta Flour

Starch Damage (UCD)
27.5 27.3
27.0
26.5 26.4
26.0
25.5
Maida flour Atta flour
 Plastic properties with the
Alveograph

MAIDA ATTA
100 140

80 120
P (mm H2P%)

100
60

P (mm H2O)
80

40 60

40
20
20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 50 100 150 200 250

L (mm)
L (mm)
Dfkjmklfj mklj mk mdklfj mklfj mkflj msfjlmk fkldj kj
buns and bakery (Coimbatore)
South India Parottas (Coimbatore)
Soft Noodles and Biscuits (Bangalore)
Multipurpose Maida (Bangalore)
 Mixing and cooking properties
with the Mixolab (Chennai)
MAIDA ATTA
Absorption Absorption
9
8 8
7
6 Retrogradation 6 Mixing
Retrogradation Mixing
5
4
4
3 2
2
1 0
0

Amylases Gluten +
Amylases Gluten +

Viscosity
Viscosity
 Proofing properties with
the Rheofermentometer
Maximum dough development
62.5
1900
Total gas volume produced (ml)
65 1854
(mm) 53.4

Total volume(mL)
55 49.6 1840
Hm (mm)

41.7
45 1780 1731
1714
1699
35 1720
1657
21
25 1660

15 1600
Maida, Maida, Maida, Banga- Maida, Banga- Atta, Banga- Maida, Maida, Maida, Banga- Maida, Banga- Atta, Banga-
Coimbatore Coimbatore lore lore lore Coimbatore Coimbatore lore lore lore

Beginning of porosity (min) Gas holding potential (%)

Rentention coefficient (%)

60 57 57 57 90
87.4 87.4
88
55 52 86.1
Tx (min)

85.1
86
50
45 84
81.8
45
82

40 80
Maida, Maida, Maida, Banga- Maida, Banga- Atta, Banga- Maida, Maida, Maida, Banga- Maida, Banga- Atta, Banga-
Coimbatore Coimbatore lore lore lore Coimbatore Coimbatore lore lore lore
ARE MAIDA FLOUR ALL
SIMILAR?
 It exists huge difference
between MAIDA flour
Min value Max value
Proteins% (NIR – Infraneo) 11.5 (Chandigar) 12.4 (Mumbai)
Starch damage (UCD) (SDmatic) 25 (Coimbatore) 28 (Chennai)
W (Alveograph) 175 (Chandigar) 234 (Chennai)
P (Alveograph) 78 (Coimbatore) 137 (Chennai)
L (Alveograph) 38 (Chandigar) 82 (Coimbatore)
Water absorption % (Mixolab) 60.5 (Hyderabad) 65.1 (Mumbai)
Mixing properties (Mixolab) 2 (Chandigar) 6 (Chennai)
Amylase activity (Mixolab) 6 (Hyderabad) 8 (Chennai)
Starch Retrogradation (Mixolab) 6 (Mumbai) 8 (Chandigar)
Maximum dough Dvlpt (mm) (RheoF) 38.7 (Chennai) 62.5 (Coimbatore)
Gas production (ml) (RheoF) 1384 (Chennai) 1854 (Coimbatore)
% gas retention (RheoF) 81.8 (Coimbatore) 91.7 (Hyderabad)
 Comparing MAIDA flour
on the Alveograph
120 Coimbatore Chennai
dough
Stif f Proteins 12.16 11.62
100
Starch damage 24.6 28

80 Absorption 61.1 64
P (mm H2P%)

60
6269 (Coimbatore)
6273 (Chennai)
40
ug h
e d o
20 sib l
t en
Ex
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
L (mm)
 Comparing MAIDA flour
on the Mixolab Absorption
3.5
9
8
7

prop starch
Retrogradation 6 Mixing
5
3

erties
4
3
2
ixing

e
1

S am
0

2.5
ng m

h Amylases Gluten +
Torque (Nm)

2
doug
Stro

Viscosity

1.5
Stiff

Maida-Coimbatore
1
Maida-Chennai

0.5
Coimbatore Chennai

Proteins 12.16 11.62

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Starch damage 24.6 28
Time (minutes)
Absorption 61.1 64
ARE ATTA FLOUR ALL
SIMILAR?
 It exists huge difference
between ATTA flour
Min value Max value
Proteins% (NIR-INFRANEO) 11.23 (Bangalore) 14.72 (Chandigarh)

Starch damage (UCD) (SDmatic) 23.7 (Chandigarh) 29.6 (Chennai)

Water absorption % (Mixolab) 64.7 (Chandigarh) 72.5 (Chennai)
Mixing properties (Mixolab) 2 (Chennai) 5 (Mumbai)
Viscosity (Mixolab) 2 (Chennai) 4 (Chandigarh)
Amylase activity (Mixolab) 3 (Chennai) 8 (Chandigarh)
Starch Retrogradation (Mixolab) 4 (Chennai) 6 (Chandigarh)
Maximum dough Dvlpt (mm) (RheoF) 15.5 (Mumbai) 23.7 (Hyderabad)
Gas production (ml) (RheoF) 1627 (Chennai) 1747 (Hyderabad)
% gas retention (RheoF) 86.7 (Chennai) 89.2 (Chandigarh)
 Different ATTA flour on
peak
the Mixolab Absorption

2.5 Retrogradation 6 Mixing

4

2
n

0
rptio

2
Amylases Gluten +
Abso

Lo
w Viscosity
re
Stiff dough

1.5
tro
Torque (Nm)

g ra
Hi d ati
g on
ac h a
tiv mi
1 ity las
ic
Atta-Chenai
Atta-Chandigarh
0.5
Chandigarh Chennai

Proteins 14.72 11.91

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Starch
45 damage 23.7 29.6
Time (minutes)
Absorption 64.7 72.5
WHICH ARE THE BEST SUITED
TOOLS TO CONTROL ATTA OR
MAIDA FLOUR QUALITY?
 Best testing tools

Tool Information Wheat Grain MAIDA ATTA

Infraneo Composition (H20%,
Prot%...)   
SDmatic Starch damage
 
Alveograph Plastic properties
 (after milling) 
Mixolab Mixing/cooking
properties  (grounded)  
Rheofermentometer Proofing properties

CONCLUSIONS
 Atta & Maida flour deserve good
quality control
• Atta and Maida flour are definitely different in terms of
composition and dough properties.
– This is in relation with the milling process (including wheat
tempering) but also the type of wheat processed.

• According to the type of flour tested one could

recommend:
– Basic set to analyze both ATTA & MAIDA flour quality:
• Infraneo + Mixolab
– To control the mill performance for ATTA & MAIDA production:
• SDmatic
– To specifically control ATTA flour for proofed products:
• Alveograph + Rheofermentometer.
 Atta & Maida flour deserve good
quality control
• Maida flour quality are seen to be very different
– In our example the “Chennai” sample showed a very stiff dough
resulting in very bad proofing properties. Maida flour must be
adapted according to the final product (bread, noodles…).

• Atta flour quality are seen to be very different

– The studied showed important difference from ATTA flour from
the northern and southern parts of India. ATTA flour from
Chennai showed lower protein content, higher starch damage
(indicating a “finer” flour) which might results in a softer final
product texture.
– Atta flour from the same area (south) also revealed to be very
different.
 Final remarks
• Maida flour is not only used to produce roti or naan type of
bread. Other uses are also to consider:
– Pan bread
– Noodles
– Cakes and biscuit
– Pizza, hamburgers…

• Every product needs a specific and adapted flour.

• Indian wheat diversity and different climates allows to find

adapted wheat on the market.

• More industrialisation creates the need to more flour

consistency.

• With goods control tools and good support Indian millers

and bakers will easily challenge these future changes.
Thank you very much for your
attention
Special acknowledgement to the AGARAM Company for
providing the samples and to the CHOPIN Technologies
application team and particularly Aurélien Desverges for
analyzing the flour and providing the data.