TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
1994 COOPERATING AGENCIES AND STATIONS
INTRODUCTION
SOURCE OF THE 1994 CROP SAMPLES
UNIFORM REGIONAL NURSERY TRIALS
ENTRIES IN THE UNIFORM REGIONAL HARD RED SPRING WHEAT PERFORMANCE NURSERY
METHODS
DISCUSSION
UNIFORM REGIONAL NURSERY SAMPLES - 1994 CROP
TITLE PAGE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
in cooperation with
STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
QUALITY EVALUATION OF HARD RED SPRING WHEAT CULTIVARS
1994 CROP1/
by
G.A. Hareland, W.J. Newell, J.G. Wear,2/, and M. Skunberg3/
___________________________________________________________________________
1/ This report represents cooperative investigations on the quality of Hard
Red Spring Wheat cultivars from the 1994 crop. Some of the results presented
have not been sufficiently confirmed to justify varietal release. Confirmed
results will be published through established channels. Cooperators
submitting samples for analysis have been given analytical data on their
samples prior to release of this report. This report is primarily a tool for
use by cooperators and their official staff and to those individuals having
direct and special interest in the development of agricultural research
programs.
This report was compiled by the Agricultural Research Service, U. S.
Department of Agriculture. Special acknowledgment is made to the North Dakota
State University for use of their facilities and the services provided in
support of these studies. The report is not intended for publication and
should not be referenced in either literature citations or quoted in publicity
and advertising. Use of the data may be granted for certain purposes upon
written request to the agency or agencies involved.
2/ Research Food Technologist and Physical Science Technicians, USDA/ARS Hard
Red Spring & Durum Wheat Quality Laboratory, NDSU, Fargo, ND.
3/ Food Technologist, Dept. of Cereal Science & Food Technology, NDSU, Fargo,
ND.
1994 COOPERATING AGENCIES AND STATIONS
The cooperative agencies and stations conducting the varietal plot and nursery
experiments from which the 1994 spring wheat samples were received are listed
below:
Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station
Aberdeen, Tetonia
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station
Morris, St. Paul
Montana Agricultural Experiment Station
Bozeman, Havre, Sidney
North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station
Minot, Langdon, Dickinson, Casselton,
Carrington, Prosper, Williston
South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station
Brookings, Groton, Selby
Washington Agricultural Experiment Station
Pullman
Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station
Madison
Wyoming Agricultural Experiment Station
Powell
A complete list of all cooperating agencies, stations, and personnel for the
year will be found in the report by R. H. Busch, et al., Wheat Varieties Grown
in Cooperative Plot and Nursery Experiments in the Spring Wheat Region in
1994.4/
_____________________________________________________________________________
4/ Busch, R. H. Wheat Varieties Grown in Cooperative Plot and Nursery
Experiments in the Spring Wheat Region in 1994. Agricultural Research
Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture and State Agricultural Experiment
Station, St. Paul, MN.
INTRODUCTION
Samples of standard cultivars and new selections of hard red spring wheat
grown in cooperative experiments in spring wheat regions of the United States
are milled each year by the USDA/ARS, Wheat Quality Laboratory. Wheat and
their corresponding flours are evaluated for physical and chemical properties,
and the flours are baked to determine bread characteristics. The purpose of
this report is to make available to the cooperators and other interested
parties, quality data on the standard varieties and new selections of hard red
spring wheat from the 1994 crop.
The evaluation of a wheat sample involves the analysis of kernel
characteristics, milling performance, and baking performance. A brief
description of testing methods employed is shown on pages 9-12. No specific
comments are made regarding mixogram patterns derived from samples. However,
reference mixograms, shown on page 17, illustrate ranges from which sample
mixograms may be compared.
SOURCE OF THE 1994 CROP SAMPLES
Tests were performed on 1211 samples which were received from 24 stations in
10 states. However, data on 625 samples is excluded from this report, because
the information was of interest only to plant breeders at specific experiment
stations.
Data presented in this report represents the evaluation of spring wheats
received from Field Plot Nurseries and Uniform Regional Nurseries. The
following stations were cooperators:
Idaho: Aberdeen, Tetonia
Minnesota: Morris and St. Paul
Montana: Bozeman, Havre, Sidney
North Dakota: Minot, Langdon, Dickinson, Casselton,
Williston, Carrington, Prosper
South Dakota: Brookings, Groton, Selby
Washington: Pullman
Wisconsin: Madison
Wyoming: Powell
UNIFORM REGIONAL NURSERY TRIALS
The geographical areas from which the samples were received are shown on page
7. Spring wheat cultivars and experimental lines included in the Uniform
Regional Nursery trials are listed on page 8. The Northeast area included 4
stations; the Southeast area included 6 stations; the Midwest area included 4
stations; and the West area included 5 stations.
ENTRIES IN THE UNIFORM REGIONAL HARD RED SPRING WHEAT PERFORMANCE NURSERY
The 32 entries in the 1994 URHRSWPN are listed below:
Entry Cross or CI No. or Year
No. Variety Selection No. Entered Source
1. Marquis 3561 1929 Canada
2. Chris 13751 1969 USDA-MN
3. Era 13986 1972 USDA-MN
4. Stoa 1987 ND
5. Butte 86 1987 ND
6. SD0007 MN7663/SBY354A 1994 SD
7. SD0010 YW352/SBZ004A 1993 SD
8. SD0014 YW352/SBZ004A 1994 SD
9. SD3151 SD3036//SD8052/SD2971 1994 SD
10. SD3156 Butte 86/SD8061 1994 SD
11. SBE0437 MN7663/SBY354A 1993 USDA-MN
12. MN90138 MN86400/MN86033 1994 USDA-MN
13. MN91227 MN87003/MN86497 1994 USDA-MN
14. MN91309 SBI0037 1994 USDA-MN
15. MN91324 SBI0072 1994 USDA-MN
16. MN92006 Marshall/MN88076 1994 USDA-MN
17. SBE0050 W8814/Norak 1994 USDA-MN
18. ND673 Grandin/Stoa 'S' 1992 ND
19. ND674 Grandin*2/ND6453 1993 ND
20. ND677* ND622*2/Cutless 1993 ND
21. ND678 Stoa'S'/3/IAS20*4/H567.71 1993 ND
//Amidon
22. ND686 Grandin'S'/3/Colonia 1994 ND
S/Amidon//Grand
23. N90-0671 Bergen/N86-0111 1993 AGPRO
24. N90-0666 Bergen/N86-0111 1993 AGPRO
25. N90-0700 Prospect/Amidon 1993 AGPRO
26. N89-0562 CNO'S'/7C/3/B.RE//BA 1994 AGPRO
PET/ANB
27. N91-0059 HS85-510/Success 1994 AGPRO
28. N90-0392 HS85-0476/HS84-0700 1994 AGPRO
29. N91-3057 B85-1525/Krona 1994 AGPRO
30. BW688 BW608/Norseman 1994 AGCAN
31. BW173 COL*2//Saric/NEP/3/COL*5//Saric/NEP 1994 AGCAN
32. BW174 COL*2//Saric/NEP/3/COL*5//Saric/NEP 1994 AGCAN
* Solid stem lines for sawfly resistance,
METHODS
Following are the variables and testing methods used in the evaluation
process:
Test Weight Per Bushel - The weight per Winchester bushel of cleaned, dry
wheat subsequent to passing the sample through a Carter-Day dockage tester.
1000-Kernel Weight - The weight of 1000 kernels was determined by counting,
using a Seedburo seed counter, the number of kernels in 10 g samples of
cleaned, hand- picked wheat.5/
Kernel Size - The percentages of the size of kernels (large, medium and small)
were determined using a wheat sizer as described by Shuey6/.
The sieves of the sizer were clothed as follows:
Top Sieve - Tyler #7 with 2.92 mm opening
Middle Sieve - Tyler #9 with 2.24 mm opening
Bottom Sieve - Tyler #12 with 1.65 mm opening
Milling - The samples were cleaned by passing the wheat through a Carter-Day
dockage tester and through a modified Forster scourer (Model 6). The clean,
dry samples were pretempered to 12.5% moisture for at least 72 hours, then
tempered to 15.5% moisture and allowed to stand overnight prior to milling.
____________________________________________________________________________
5/ Mention of a trademark name or a proprietary product does not constitute a
guarantee or warranty of the product by the U. S. Department of Agriculture,
and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products that may
also be suitable.
6/ Shuey, William C. A Wheat Sizing Technique for Predicting Flour Milling
Yield. Cereal Science Today 5:71-72,75 (1960).
The Uniform Regional Nursery spring wheat samples were milled in Brabender
Quadrumat Senior mill heads. The stock from the Break head was sifted for 60
sec on a strand sifter using #35 and #80 Tyler sieves. The throughs of the
#80 sieve were classified as break flour; the overs of the #35 sieve
classified as bran; and the overs of the #80 sieve were passed through the
reduction head of the mill. The reduction stock was sifted for 60 sec on a
#80 Tyler sieve. The throughs were classified as reduction flour and the
overs as shorts. The break and reduction flours were combined and classified
as patent flour.
The Field Plot Nursery samples were milled in a Buhler continuous experimental
mill. The Buhler mill had been slightly modified for better comparison with
commerical milling operations. Break scalping sieves were clothed with #54
stainless steel wire. Reduction scalping sieves were clothed with #58, #66
and #105 stainless steel wire for the first, second and third reductions,
respectively. All flour sieves were clothed with #135 stainless steel wire.
The six flour streams obtained from the Buhler-milled wheat were combined and
classified as patent flour. The extraction of a good milling wheat using this
flow is approximately 68% and is comparable to a commercial "long patent"
extraction flour. At a 68% flour extraction, changes in flour ash are most
sensitive to changes in percent extraction.
Hardness Test - Wheat hardness scores were determined according to AACC Method
39-70A. The procedure involved grinding the wheat samples in a Udy grinder
and obtaining reflectance data from a Technicon 450 near infrared analyzer.
Wavelengths used were 1680 nm and 2230 nm. This procedure was developed by
Mr. Karl Norris, USDA, Beltsville through a co-operative research project in
which the Hard Red Spring and Durum Wheat Quality Laboratory also
participated. Hard red spring wheats generally have NIR scores between 60 and
85.
SKWCS Hardness Index - The single kernel wheat characterization system (SKWCS)
instrument (developed by the GMRL, Manhattan, KS) was used to determine the
hardness index and the percent distribution of kernels that were classified as
soft, semi-soft, semi-hard, and hard.
Protein Content - Wheat and flour proteins were determined from NIR
reflectance data, the Kjeldahl procedure, or Leco Nitrogen determinations.
Nitrogen values, as determined the Kjeldahl procedure or Leco, were multplied
by 5.7 to calculate protein values. Values were reported on a 14%mb.
Mineral or Ash Content - Wheat or flour ash was determined by measuring the
residual weight of minerals remaining after incinerating the sample for
approximately 16 hours at 575 deg. C. The results were reported as
percentages of the sample weights. Values were reported on a 14%mb.
Mixograph Analysis - Mixograph data was determined on each flour sample by
using 30 g of flour (as is mb) and adding 20 cc of water. The sensitivity
spring setting was set at 10. All mixograms were run with constant weight of
flour and volume of water. Water absorptions were adjusted according to the
peak heights of the mixograms. Correction factors were determined from a
series of flours by varying the amount of absorption.
Mixogram Patterns - Reference mixogram patterns shown on page17 illustrate
different dough charactistics. A single number is assigned each pattern to
characterize and simplify the classification of the curves. The larger
numbers indicate stronger curve characteristics.
Baking Procedure and Formula - Following is the baking formula used:
100% flour 3% Non-fat Dry Milk
2% salt 3% yeast
5% sugar 2% shortening (Crisco, melted) - 100 g loaves
1% shortening (Crisco, melted) - 25 g loaves
Samples were mixed to optimum dough development in National Manufacturing
mixers, the micro mixer for 25 g samples and the 100 g special mixer for 100 g
samples. Bromate (10 ppm) for oxidation and Fungal Amylase (Doh-Tone)(15SKB
units) for enzymatic supplement were added to each sample. All doughs were
moulded in a Roll-Er-Up moulder. Samples undergo 3 hour fermentation, 1 hour
proof and 20 minute bake time.
Absorption - The amount of water, expressed as percent of flour, required for
optimum dough consistency.
Dough Characterictics (DC) - Emperical scores ranging from 0-6 were used to
classify dough as sticky-weak (0), pliable (2), elastic (3), or bucky (6).
The most favorable rating for optimum bread characteristics would be elastic.
Crumb Color (CC) - A value was determined by comparing the internal crumb
color of the sample bread with the crumb color of a baking standard. The
standard flour was an equal blend of the variety Grandin grown at Casselton
and Minot, ND, and Crookston, MN, and Brookings, SD. Emperical scores ranging
from 0-6 were used to classify crumb color as yellow (0), grey (2), dull (3),
creamy (5), or bright white (6).
Crumb Grain (CG) - Emperical scores ranging from 0-6 were used to classify
crumb grain as irregular, thick (0), open, thick (3), or fine (6).
Crumb Texture (CT) - Emperical scores ranging from 0-6 were used to classify
crumb texture as harsh (0), coarse (3), or silky (6).
Loaf Volume - The volume (cc) of the baked loaf as determined by rapeseed
displacement.
DISCUSSION
The following discussion presents the basic techniques and criteria used in
the quality evaluation of the Hard Red Spring Wheat cultivars.
For the Uniform Regional Nursery samples, each quality variable (except for
bake absorption, mix time, and CG) per sample was averaged within each hard
red spring wheat region (Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, and West). Values
that are bolded/underlined indicate that averages are higher than the standard
(Butte 86). For wheat and flour ash, bolded/underlined values are lower than
the standard.
All samples were compared with a milling and baking standard representative of
the crop year. Agronomic and climatic conditions of the individual locations
can affect the quality of the wheat such that the evaluation of all samples,
including commercial cultivars, harvested from these locations may be
classified as questionable to unsatisfactory. For example, an area may
produce low protein wheat with large and plump kernels, good milling
performance, and good kernel characteristics, but with low flour protein and
unsatisfactory baking performance such as short mixing time, low loaf volume,
and weak dough characteristics. The wheat from this area could not be
considered a strong spring wheat and would not maintain the quality expected
from the spring wheat producing area. An acceptable variety should have
tolerance to a wide range of environmental conditions.
Kernel Characteristics are important in determining the initial value of
wheat. Poor kernel characterisitics could disqualify a new variety from
further consideration. Because of the present wheat grading system, high test
weight is desirable. Plump kernels are desirable because of their high ratio
of endosperm to bran. Low 1000-kernel weight and small kernel size
distribution affect milling performance due to their high ratio of bran to
endosperm. Wheat ash is an important factor when comparing one cultivar
against other standard cultivars. Wheat with a high mineral content may yield
flour with a high ash content. Wheat protein quality and quantity must be
considered as important characteristics when comparing cultivars grown at the
same location. Wheats with low protein values are undesirable since protein
affects baking performance.
Milling Performance is a very important characteristic of spring wheats. Low
extraction and high flour ash are major factors that are unacceptable under
commercial milling operations. As a general rule, an increase of 0.01% in ash
content is equivalent to an increase of approximately 2% in flour extraction.
Milling characteristics: Wheat comprising soft kernels requires different
milling techniques when compared with wheat of uniform hard kernels. With
commercial mills flowed for hard vitreous spring wheats, the introduction of
soft wheats into the mill will result in milling problems. Likewise, a sample
which is extremely hard and vitreous will mill differently. Both types of
wheat (soft and vitreous) require different roll pressures, clothing, sifter
surface, and temper to be milled properly. The blending of normal bread
wheats with soft wheats or extremely hard, vitreous wheats is undesirable
since they are not compatible in the milling operation. Adjustments would
either have to be made in the milling flow or in tempering procedures to
compensate for differences in kernel hardness. Properties of soft wheat may
or may not be compatible with other wheats. Therefore, maintaining pure
varieties with uniform milling characteristics is important.
The amount of protein recovered in flour from wheat is important. High
protein wheats yielding low protein flours are not desirable. Such wheats
would contain much of the protein distributed in the outer portion of the
kernels resulting in excessive protein in the feed streams. Therefore, higher
protein wheat would be necessary to yield a flour with protein content
comparable to that of a wheat that yields optimum flour protein.
Mixogram patterns are important in estimating the strength and mixing
tolerance or potential mixing tolerance of a flour. From the standard
mixogram patterns (page 17), patterns 6 - 8 indicate flours with optimum
mixing tolerance and gluten strength. Mixogram patterns 9 - 11 indicate flour
samples with long mixing times, and strong gluten characteristics, whereas,
patterns 1 - 5 indicate flours with weak gluten characteristics and short
mixing times. Both the pattern and length of the curve are important, and
both must be considered in the evaluation. Abnormal curves, such as sway-back
or long initial times to incorporate water, indicate undesirable
characteristics.
Baking evaluation takes into account the flour water absorption, mixing time,
dough characteristics, loaf volume, crumb texture, and machinability. Flour
samples with low water absorptions would be unsatisfactory. Samples with
extremely short mixing times would relate to weak gluten characteristics and
be considered undesirable.
The crumb grain or appearance of the interior of the loaf indicates the
sturctural integrity during baking. Crumb grain is likely related to gluten
protein properties (quantity and quality).
Bread loaf volume indicates potential strength of doughs in a different manner
than mixing time or dough characteristics. Optimum loaf volume demonstrates
the capacity, or lack thereof, for the dough to expand under pressure and to
contain the entrapped gases during expansion. Weak doughs tend to collapse
and yield breads with low loaf volumes, or yield breads with extremely large
volumes containing large holes in the interior. Low protein flours produce
extensible doughs that do not expand adequately during fermentation or baking
and thus produce bread with low loaf volumes. Tough and very bucky doughs are
bound too tightly and impede expansion of the gases resulting in breads with
low loaf volume. Loaf volume is a characteristic probably related to gluten
functionality in the dough.
UNIFORM REGIONAL NURSERY SAMPLES - 1994 CROP
A total of 586 samples were received from 19 stations in 8 states.
Twenty-seven selections were experimental lines and the remainder were
commercial cultivars. Commercial cultivars included Butte 86 (used as the
standard for comparison), Chris, Era, Marquis, and Stoa. Each sample was
evaluated for kernel characteristics, milling performance, and breadmaking
properties.