Taro Flour Essay

Table 5. Chronological order of production of taro flour

S. No. Steps involved in production and various conditions opted Reference

1 Selection of raw material, peeling, slicing (5 mm), drying (60°C/9 h), freeze drying (10 h), solar drying (12 h), grinding (40-60 mesh) Moy et al. (1979)

2 Selection of raw material, peeling, slicing, soaking (overnight in water), immersion (in 0.25% sulphurous acid for 3 h), blanching (in boiling water for 4-5 min), drying (at 57-60°C), milling FAO (1990)

3 Selection of taro corms, peeling, trimming, slicing (using food processor equipped with a 0.1-cm

Ultrathin blade), drying ( in mechanical convection oven at 60°C for 20 hr), milling (using a

Cross-Beater mill equipped with a 0.5 mm Screen), packaging

Properties of taro flour The processing can affect physico-chemical and functional properties of taro flour. Taro flours possessing higher water absorption capacity and higher water solubility index give gels with higher consistency index (Mbofung et al., 2006). The chemical composition and functional properties of taro flour differed significantly from flours of different botanical sources (Table 6). Taro flours produced at pilot level showed similar physiochemical properties to the cereal conventional flours. Heat processing affects the functional properties of taro flour, therefore, blanching may also induce changes in different properties. Water and fat absorption capacities of raw and blanched taro flours are higher than wheat flour. The blanching reduces the oil absorption capacity (OAC) of taro (Kinsella, 1976). Water absorption capacity is desirable in food systems to improve yield and consistency and give body to the food (Osundahusi et al., 2003). The decrease in protein solubility due to heat can impair the foaming and emulsion ability. As a consequence, raw taro flours exhibit relatively higher foaming capacity than the gelatinized ones. Further the foam capacity, foam stability, whippability are generally inferior compared to wheat flour. Addition of salt up to 2% concentration in the flour suspension increases the foam capacities of taro and wheat flours (Godoy et al., 1992). Blanching can affect on the swelling capacity of taro. Reduction in swelling capacity upon blanching is attributed to starch degradation into dextrin which does not swell. Taro flours display higher gelatinization temperatures and lower paste viscosities than those of their starch