c & m seeds industry day 2011
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
ONTARIO WHEAT QUALITY
Michael ReimerTechnical Specialist, Ontario Wheat
June 30, 2011
Technical Services & Customer Support
• Participate in technical missions• Gather market information for future
exports• Provide technical support to industry• Respond to customer inquiries• Coordinate product testing with
customers
CIGI Technology Departments
• Milling• Analytical Services• Baking• Noodles and Asian End Products• Pasta and Extrusion• Pulse Processing
BUHLER LAB MILLING
Pike Lake Golf & Country Club Resort9606 Pike Lake Road,Minto, Ontario
DEHULLING GRADER
Ontario Wheat
Quality
Wheat Marketing and Market
Development
Technical & Prof. Assoc. Committees
ONTARIO WHEAT QUALITY
ONTARIO QUALITY SCOOP
SMART Plots Wheat Quality STUDY
Timely and accurate
assessment of new wheat crop
Provides valuable information to
end-users
Crop management information to improve
wheat quality
MIXOLAB STUDY
Exploring new technology to more
accurately and efficiently
determine quality
Understanding wheat quality issues
WHEAT MARKETING & MARKET
DEVELOPMENT
MARKET DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
C & M SEEDS
Promoting and marketing new Ontario Wheat
Classes
Eastern Hard White Winter & Eastern Durum
DOMESTIC AND EXPORT WHEAT
QUALITY SURVEY
Understanding end-users wheat quality
needs
Setting better quality guidelines
Publications for existing and
potential customers
ONTARIO WHEAT QUALITY
INFORMATION
ARABIC BREAD
Using CESRW to make Arabic flat
bread
New market opportunities
ALVEOGRAPH – PeakAssociated with Gluten Strength
Lower P Value= Weaker Gluten
2010 SW 2009 SW 2010 NIA 2009 NIA 2010 NIA 2009 NIA10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18
2120 20 20 20
YEAR/REGION
Alv
eo
gra
ph
Pe
ak
OCCC
SURVEY
Survey Mean
Data from the 2009 and 2009 Ontario Quality Scoop Programs
Market Development: Arabic Bread Project
C & M SEEDSWheat Market Development
• Characterizing the quality of new Eastern wheat classes– Eastern Hard White Winter wheat– Eastern Amber Durum
• Matching quality characteristics with end-products– Lab and Pilot Scale Analysis and Processing
• Whole grain baked goods• Whole grain pasta products
• Assisting in identifying new markets for Ontario-grown wheat
TECHNICAL & PROF. ASSOC. COMMITTEES
Representing the Interests of the Ontario Wheat Industry as a member of committees & professional associations
ONTARIO CEREAL CROP COMMITTEE
SMART PlotsWheat Quality
Canadian Eastern Soft Red Winter Wheat
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityBackground
• Industry feedback: – Declining Eastern Soft Wheat end-use quality
• Decreasing protein content & gluten strength
• Flour Protein Content– Common end-use quality specification– Crude protein content
• Gluten– The dough-forming protein of wheat flour
• Gliadin and Glutenin • Form a continuous viscoelastic network when flour is mixed
with water to form dough
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityBackground
Soft Wheat Flour End-Products
Range of requirements for GLUTEN STRENGTH
GLUTEN STRENGTH
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityBackground
• Possible reasons for declining protein levels and gluten strength:
• Inverse relationship between yield and protein• Variety selection• Crop Management • Lack of premiums for quality
PROTEIN vs. YIELD
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20106.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
Gra
in P
rote
in,
%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 201065
70
75
80
85
90
Yie
ld,
bu
/ac
re
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20116.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
9.3
10.1
9.6
9.2
10.6
9.2
9.4 9.4
8.7
9
GR
AIN
PR
TO
EIN
(1
3.5
% m
.b.)
GRAIN PROTEIN: Historical Data
OCCC Survey Range
Historical data courtesy the Canadian Grain Commission Eastern Canadian Harvest Survey
OCCC SURVEYFLOUR PROTEIN
SURVEY RESULTS
PARAMETER MEAN MED. MAX. MIN.
Flour Protein (14% m.b.) 8.0 7.9 9.0 7.0
2010 SW 2009 SW 2010 NIA 2009 NIA 2010 NIA 2009 NIA6
6.57
7.58
8.59
9.510
6.97.1
7.8
7.17.5
6.7
YEAR/REGION
Flo
ur
Pro
tein
Survey Mean
Data from the 2009 and 2010 Ontario Quality Scoop Programs
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityA unique look at the impact of N and Fungicide on Soft
Wheat Quality
OBJECTIVES:
• To examine the effect of standard and high nitrogen rates on soft wheat gluten strength.
• To examine the effect of fungicide application on soft wheat gluten strength.
• To evaluate the gluten strength of six commonly grown soft red winter wheat varieties in Ontario.
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityWheat Samples
96 CESRW samples were obtained from the OMAFRA Managed Field Scale Trials
Varieties (6) TREATMENTS (4) *LOCATIONS (4)25R39
25R47
25R51
E1007R
Emmit
RO45
No Fungicide + 100 kg/ha Nitrogen
No Fungicide + 170 kg/ha Nitrogen
T1 + T3 Fungicide + 100 kg/ha Nitrogen
T1 + T3 Fungicide + 170 kg/ha Nitrogen
100kg/ha = 89 lbs/acre170kg/ha = 150 lbs/acre
Belmont
Ilderton
Lucan
Ridgetown
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityAnalysis of Flour Protein By Location
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
Flou
rPr
otei
n (1
4%)
Bloc
k Ce
nter
ed
BELM
ONT
ILD
ERTO
N LUC
AN
RIDG
ETO
WN
Loc
All Pairs
Tukey-Kramer
0.05
A
BB
C
Levels not connected by the same letter are significantly different
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityLocations
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityPROTEIN QUANTITY
PARAMETERS:
• Flour Protein – total amount of crude protein• Wet Gluten – wash away starch and soluble protein
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityPROTEIN QUANTITY
• Findings:
– Variety is a significant factor of both flour protein and wet gluten• Genetics play a significant role in determining
protein content
– High Nitrogen application significantly increased both flour protein and wet gluten
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityFlour Protein: Nitrogen Within Variety
Each error bar is constructed using 1 standard error from the mean.
100170
100170
100170
100170
100170
100170
25R39
25R47
25R51
E1007R
EMMITT
RO45
NITR
OG
EN w
ithin
VAR
IETY
5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.510
Mean(Flour Protein (14%))
OPTIMAL RANGE
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
Flou
rP
rote
in (
14%
)B
lock
Cen
tere
d
25R39 25R47 25R51 E1007R EMMITT RO45
VARIETY
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityFlour Protein
BC CABC
ABA
ABC
Levels not connected by the same letter are significantly different
170 kg/ha
100 kg/ha
Mean
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityPROTEIN QUALITY
• Describes the functionality/suitability of the protein as it relates to producing specific end products
PARAMETERS:• Alveograph P• Alveograph L• Alveograph W• Lactic Acid Solvent Retention Capacity
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityMethods – Alveograph
• P: The amount of pressure required to inflate the dough.• L: Measure of dough extensibility.• W: The amount of work required to inflate the dough bubble.
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityMethods – Alveograph
CANADA EASTERN SOFT RED WINTER WHEAT
CANADA WESTERN HARD RED SPRING WHEAT
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityPROTEIN QUALITY
• Findings:
– Both Variety and Nitrogen significantly affected all protein quality parameters
– Fungicide application significantly affected Alveograph P and W values
– There was a significant Variety*Fungicide interaction for Alveograph P values• Varieties responded differently to fungicide treatment
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
PBl
ock
Cen
tere
d
25R39 25R47 25R51 E1007R EMMITT RO45
VARIETY
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityAlveograph P
Weak gluten flour has low P value
A
D
BBC
D CD
Levels not connected by the same letter are significantly different
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityAlveograph P: Nitrogen Within Variety
Each error bar is constructed using 1 standard error from the mean.
100170
100170
100170
100170
100170
100170
25R39
25R47
25R51
E1007R
EMMITT
RO45
NITR
OGE
N wi
thin
VAR
IETY
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Mean(P)
OPTIMAL RANGE
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityAlveograph P: Fungicide Within Variety
Each error bar is constructed using 1 standard error from the mean.
NONET1 + T3
NONET1 + T3
NONET1 + T3
NONET1 + T3
NONET1 + T3
NONET1 + T3
25R39
25R47
25R51
E1007R
EMMITT
RO45
FUNG
ICID
E wi
thin
VARI
ETY
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Mean(P)
OPTIMAL RANGE
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
WB
lock
Cen
tere
d
25R39 25R47 25R51 E1007R EMMITT RO45
VARIETY
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityAlveograph W
Levels not connected by the same letter are significantly different
C
B
AA
A
C
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityAlveograph W: Nitrogen Within Variety
Each error bar is constructed using 1 standard error from the mean.
100170
100170
100170
100170
100170
100170
25R39
25R47
25R51
E1007R
EMMITT
RO45
NITR
OGEN
with
in VA
RIET
Y
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Mean(W)
OPTIMAL RANGE
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityAlveograph W: Fungicide Within Variety
Each error bar is constructed using 1 standard error from the mean.
NONET1 + T3
NONET1 + T3
NONET1 + T3
NONET1 + T3
NONET1 + T3
NONET1 + T3
25R39
25R47
25R51
E1007R
EMMITT
RO45
FUNG
ICID
E wi
thin
VAR
IETY
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Mean(W)
OPTIMAL RANGE
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
LA S
RC
Blo
ck C
ente
red
25R39 25R47 25R51 E1007R EMMITT RO45
VARIETY
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityLactic Acid Solvent Retention Capacity
Levels not connected by the same letter are significantly different
CD
BB
C
A
D
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityLA SRC: Nitrogen Within Variety
Each error bar is constructed using 1 standard error from the mean.
100170
100170
100170
100170
100170
100170
25R39
25R47
25R51
E1007R
EMMITT
RO45
NITR
OG
EN w
ithin
VARI
ETY
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Mean(LA SRC)
CRACKERS
SMART Plots: Wheat QualitySummary
• CAUTION: CONCLUSIONS SHOULD NOT BE DRAWN UNTIL FURTHER RESEARCH IS CONDUCTED
• Current CESRW varieties are quite variable in quality
• HIGH NITROGEN RATES (170 kg/ha)– Increased protein quantity in all Varieties– Protein quality was improved only in some Varieties
• FUNGICIDE APPLICATION– Appears to have some impact on Alveograph P and W values in certain
Varieties
• Protein quantity was not necessarily indicative of protein quality– Varieties that demonstrated good protein functionality were not
necessarily those highest in protein content
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityMoving Forward
• Manageable number of samples
• Examine other wheat classes (HRW, HRS, SWW)
• Economic feasibility study
• Create a Eastern wheat quality database– Agronomics– End-use quality
Acknowledgments
• Grain Farmers’ of Ontario• Dr. David Hooker, Ridgetown Campus, U of Guelph • Peter Johnson, OMAFRA• Dr. Koushik Seetharaman, University of Guelph • CIGI Technology Section
– Milling, Baking, and Analytical Services
Questions ?
MANAGED FIELD SCALE TRIALSStatistical Analysis
• MIXED MODEL
– Fixed Variables• Nitrogen
– 100 kg/ha– 170 kg/ha
• Fungicide– None– T1 & T2
– Random Variable• Variety
– 25R39, 25R47, 25R51, E1007R, Emmit, R045
15
20
25
30
Wet
Glut
en
BELM
ONT
ILDER
TON LU
CAN
RIDG
ETOW
N
Loc
All Pairs
Tukey-Kramer
0.05
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityAnalysis of Wet Gluten By Location
A
B BB
Levels not connected by the same letter are significantly different
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
PBl
ock
Cen
tere
d
BELM
ON
T
ILD
ERTO
N LUC
AN
RIDG
ETOW
NLoc
All Pairs
Tukey-Kramer
0.05
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityAnalysis of Alveograph P By Location
ABB
AA
Levels not connected by the same letter are significantly different
102030405060708090
100110120130
WBl
ock
Cen
tere
d
BELM
ON
T
ILDE
RTO
N
LUCA
N
RIDG
ETO
WNLoc
All Pairs
Tukey-Kramer
0.05
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityAnalysis of Alveograph W By Location
ABB
AAB
Levels not connected by the same letter are significantly different
0
50
100
150
200
LBl
ock
Cen
tere
d
BELM
ON
T
ILDE
RTO
N
LUC
AN
RID
GET
OW
NLoc
All Pairs
Tukey-Kramer
0.05
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityAnalysis of Alveograph L By Location
AA
ABB
Levels not connected by the same letter are significantly different
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
LA S
RCBl
ock C
ente
red
BELM
ONT
ILDE
RTON LU
CAN
RID
GETO
WN
Loc
All Pairs
Tukey-Kramer
0.05
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityAnalysis of Lactic Acid SRC By Location
ABCAB
C
Levels not connected by the same letter are significantly different
MANAGED FIELD SCALE TRIALSMethods – Protein Quantity
PARAMETER METHOD
FLOUR PROTEIN•Dumas method (combustion nitrogen analysis orCNA) •Nitrogen in wheat is almost all in the form of protein
WET GLUTEN
•Wet gluten is washed from flour by an automatic gluten washing apparatus (Glutomatic) and centrifuged on an especially constructed sieve under standardized conditions. •Expressed as a total percentage of the flour sample.
GLUTOMATIC
100170
100170
100170
100170
100170
100170
25R39
25R47
25R51
E1007R
EMMITT
RO45
N wi
thin
CUL
TIVA
R
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Mean(Wet Gluten)
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityWet Gluten: Nitrogen Within Variety
Each error bar is constructed using 1 standard error from the mean.
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Wet
Glu
ten
Blo
ck C
ente
red
25R39 25R47 25R51 E1007R EMMITT RO45
CULTIVAR
All Pairs
Tukey-Kramer
0.05
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityWet Gluten
Levels not connected by the same letter are significantly different
C C BC
AB
A
C
50
100
150
200
LB
lock
Cen
tere
d
25R39 25R47 25R51 E1007R EMMITT RO45
CULTIVAR
All Pairs
Tukey-Kramer
0.05
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityAlveograph L
D
AB
CD
BA
BC
Levels not connected by the same letter are significantly different
SMART Plots: Wheat QualityAlveograph L: Nitrogen Within Variety
Each error bar is constructed using 1 standard error from the mean.
100170
100170
100170
100170
100170
100170
25R39
25R47
25R51
E1007R
EMMITT
RO45
N wi
thin
CULT
IVAR
0 50 100 150
Mean(L)
MANAGED FIELD SCALE TRIALSMethods - Quality
PARAMETER DESCRIPTION
SOLVENT RETENTION CAPACITY (SRC) – Lactic Acid
•SRC is the weight of solvent held by flour after centrifugation – expressed as a %•Associated with gluten protein characteristics
ALVEOGRAPH P-value•The force required to blow the bubble of dough. •It is indicated by the maximum height of the curve and is expressed in millimeters (mm)
ALVEOGRAPH L-value
•The extensibility of the dough before the bubble breaks. •It is indicated by the length of the curve and is expressed in millimeters (mm).
ALVEOGRAPH W-value•The area under the curve. •It is a combination of dough strength (P value) and extensibility (L value) and is expressed in joules.