Hard Red Spring Wheat - Kansas State University · Hard Red Spring Wheat Hard Red ... Executive Summary ... Hard red spring —a specialty wheat grown primarily in the Northern Plains

Program by

Hard RedSpringWheat

Hard RedSpringWheat

Overseas Varietal Analysis Project2009 Crop

Overseas Varietal Analysis Project2009 Crop

Cover 4.qxd 12/14/2010 12:44 PM Page 1

Microspore Plantlets photo courtesy ofWashington State University

Greenhouse photo courtesy ofShutterstock/Washington Grain Alliance Wheat Life Magazine

Trial Field photo courtesy ofIdaho Wheat Commission

1

OVERSEAS VARIETAL ANALYSIS PROJECT

HARD SPRING WHEAT – 2009 CROP

Sponsored by:

USDA/FAS U.S. Wheat Associates

North Dakota Wheat Commission South Dakota Wheat Commission

Montana Wheat and Barley Committee Minnesota Wheat Research and Promotion Council

Milling, flour and bake analysis and packaging support provided by:

NDSU – Department of Plant Sciences

HRS Wheat Quality Laboratory Fargo, North Dakota

Northern Crops Institute Fargo, North Dakota

October 2010

2

Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 5

Overview of U.S. Hard Red Spring wheat ....................................................................................................................... 7

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Project Timeline and Scope of Work ............................................................................................................................... 9

Section A: Summary of Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 11

2009 HRS OVA Cooperator Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 12

2009 HRS OVA Cooperators – Listed by Country ................................................................................................ 13

Discussion of Individual Varieties ............................................................................................................................. 14

Pacific Northwest Varieties: .................................................................................................................................... 14

Table 1: PNW Variety Quality ranking: ............................................................................................................... 17

Gulf/Great Lakes Varieties ............................................................................................................................................... 18

Table 2: Gulf/Great Lakes Variety Ranking: ..................................................................................................... 21

Cooperator Control Flour Information .................................................................................................................... 22

End Products Used by Cooperators .......................................................................................................................... 24

Table 3: PNW Variety Ranking Summary ............................................................................................................... 25

Table 4: G/GL Variety Ranking Summary ............................................................................................................... 26

PNW Variety Sample Evaluation Rating Charts ................................................................................................... 27

G/GL Variety Sample Evaluation Charts ................................................................................................................. 32

Cooperator Ratings and Comments on Individual Varieties .......................................................................... 34

HRS PNW Variety Sample Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 34

HRS G/GL Variety Sample Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 51

Section B: Wheat Sample Milling and Kernel Grading Information.................................................................. 57

Methods and Procedures – Milling and Tests for Kernel Characteristics ................................................. 58

Kernel Characteristics Results .................................................................................................................................... 59

Official Wheat Grade Information (FGIS) ........................................................................................................... 59

Additional Kernel Quality Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 60

Milling Results .................................................................................................................................................................... 61

Milling Extraction ........................................................................................................................................................... 61

Section C: Flour, Rheological and Product Analysis ................................................................................................ 62

Methods and Procedures ‐ Flour, Dough and End Product Analysis ........................................................... 63

3

Flour Characteristics .................................................................................................................................................. 63

Dough Characteristics ................................................................................................................................................ 63

Baking Procedure ........................................................................................................................................................ 63

Flour Analysis Results .................................................................................................................................................... 64

Flour Characteristics .................................................................................................................................................. 64

Dough Analysis Results .................................................................................................................................................. 65

Dough Rheology Characteristics‐ Farinograph and Mixograph ............................................................... 65

Reference Farinogram Chart ................................................................................................................................... 66

Farinogram Images ..................................................................................................................................................... 67

HRS PNW FARINOGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................ 67

HRS GULF/GREAT LAKES FARINOGRAMS ........................................................................................................ 68

Reference Mixogram Chart ...................................................................................................................................... 69

Mixogram Images ......................................................................................................................................................... 70

HRS PNW Mixograms ................................................................................................................................................. 70

HRS G/GL Mixograms ................................................................................................................................................. 71

Dough Rheology Characteristics‐ Extensograph and Alveograph .................................................................. 72

Reference Extensogram Chart ................................................................................................................................ 73

Extensogram Images .................................................................................................................................................. 74

HRS PNW Extensograms ........................................................................................................................................... 74

HRS G/GL Extensograms .......................................................................................................................................... 75

Alveogram Images ....................................................................................................................................................... 76

HRS PNW Alveograms................................................................................................................................................ 76

HRS G/GL Alveograms ............................................................................................................................................... 77

End Product Quality Results ........................................................................................................................................ 78

Bread making Characteristics ................................................................................................................................. 78

C‐Cell Analysis of Bread Loaves ............................................................................................................................. 79

C‐Cell Images of Bread Loaves ................................................................................................................................ 80

HRS PNW C‐Cell Images ............................................................................................................................................ 80

HRS G/GL C‐Cell Images ............................................................................................................................................ 82

C‐Cell Bread Descriptor Definitions ..................................................................................................................... 84

Cooperator Bread Photos (Electronic/CD Version Only) ..................................................................................... 85

PNW Cooperator Bread Photos .................................................................................................................................. 85

4

Korea – White Pan Bread .......................................................................................................................................... 85

Thailand – Open Top Bread ..................................................................................................................................... 86

Malaysia – Open Top Bread ..................................................................................................................................... 88

Indonesia – Open Top Bread ................................................................................................................................... 90

Philipines‐1 – Open Top Bread .............................................................................................................................. 92



Guatemala – Loaf Bread ............................................................................................................................................ 98

G/GL Cooperator Bread Photos .................................................................................................................................. 99

Spain – Pan Bread ........................................................................................................................................................ 99

UK‐1 – Single Piece Unlidded .................................................................................................................................. 99

5

Executive Summary The Overseas Varietal Analysis (OVA) project is conducted each year to collect feedback from cooperators around the world on individual Hard Red Spring (HRS) wheat varieties currently grown by producers across the four‐state region. This feedback provides valuable insight into the export market needs for quality, functionality and end‐product performance. Seventeen cooperators evaluated six varieties grown in the western half of the four‐state growing region, known as the Pacific Northwest (PNW) exportable region. Six cooperators evaluated six varieties grown in the eastern half of the region, known as the Gulf/Great Lakes (G/GL) exportable region. Of the ten varieties evaluated by cooperators, there is one pre‐release variety tested in the 2009 OVA project; ND 808 was evaluated by the PNW cooperators. PNW Comments: 1. Glenn received the most #1 rankings and no #7 rankings and tied with Barlow for the top average ranking of 2.8. Seven of the cooperators ranked Glenn as #1. Glenn tied with Barlow for the most top rankings with twelve 3 1, 2 or 3 rankings. Glenn was preferred over the other varieties by many cooperators for its excellent wheat and flour quality, dough quality and baking performance. See Table 1 on Page 17 and Table 3 on Page 25. 2. Barlow was also highly preferred by PNW cooperators, receiving three #1 rankings and tied with Glenn for the most top rankings (twelve). Barlow did not receive any #6 or #7 rankings. Barlow had good wheat and flour quality, and the cooperators liked the dough handling and end product performance. 3. Vida and Choteau received the lowest average rankings and had relatively poor ratings overall. Vida was given the most #7 rankings among the varieties. Both Vida and Choteau did not receive any #1 rankings and received the lowest average rankings (6.4 and 5.8) Vida had low protein, high ash and somewhat poor gluten quality. The cooperators did not like Vida’s dough handling or baking performance. Choteau had high protein but cooperators did not like the gluten quality, dough handling or baking performance. 4. The cooperators’ control flours received the second most top three rankings (ten # 1, 2 or 3). The cooperators’ control flours received the second most # 1 rankings and the second best average ranking (2.9)

Gulf/Great Lakes Comments: 1. Six G/GL cooperators took part in this year’s OVA project, less than half the number for the PNW. 2. Glenn received the best average ranking of the G/GL flours, as well as, the most top rankings. However it did not receive the most #1 rankings. Glenn had good wheat and flour characteristics. The cooperators liked the dough handling and loaf volume. See Table 2 on Page 21 and Table 4 on Page 26. 3. Brick had the most #1 rankings (2), and tied with Breaker and the cooperators’ control flour for the second most top three rankings. Brick received an average ranking of 3.5 making it the third most preferred of the G/GL varieties. According to cooperators, Brick produced strong dough and had good baking performance.

4. Brennan received the most #6 and #7 rankings and had an average ranking of 5.0, making it the least preferred by the G/GL cooperators. Brennan had the poorest wheat quality of the G/GL varieties. Although, cooperators liked the gluten quality and water absorption; they did not like the low falling number or mixing characteristics.

6

The HRS varieties chosen for the 2009 OVA project provide a wide range of gluten strength from extra‐strong to mellow. “Mellow” refers to gluten functionality that is characteristic of HRS wheats, which exhibits less strength in bread making, and when analyzed using dough testing equipment such as the Farinograph, Mixograph, Extensograph and Alveograph. In this project, Barlow and Glenn were grown in both regions. The results from Farinograph and Mixograph analysis indicate that Barlow and Glenn had weaker gluten strength when grown in the G/GL region. Extensograph analysis showed lower resistance and higher extension for Barlow, and higher resistance for Glenn in the PNW region. The 2009 growing season began late because of delayed planting, because of cool conditions, heavy snowfall and flooding. Planting was two to four weeks behind the average schedule. The moisture levels improved across the area compared to the previous year, especially in western areas. However, some areas in the east experienced excessive moisture levels. Temperatures remained cooler than average in June and July, with adequate moisture leading to ideal growing conditions. The 2009 crop also benefited from limited disease pressure, which increased yield potential. Harvest was behind average due to late planting and lack of warm dry weather. The majority of the crop was harvested in mid to late August and was completed at a slower pace. The growing conditions in 2009 allowed for the wheat crop to overcome the late planting, and a regional record was set for yield. The record yields led to below average protein content in the crop but the wheat grade quality was enhanced because of the lack of disease and very high test weights caused by an extended grain fill period. Overall, the growing conditions allowed for high yields, exceptional test weight and improvement in thousand kernel weights despite the late planting. Summary: The most preferred variety by the 2009 cooperators was Glenn. Barlow was the second most preferred flour of both the PNW and G/GL varieties. Each of the varieties received different scores and rankings from each cooperator. The end‐product quality expectations that must be met are different for each cooperator, and so different flour qualities will be needed to meet these expectations. Different products or processing methods may be better suited to certain varieties which have the specific qualities needed. HRS is very versatile because the wide range in protein quality and dough characteristics provide for different functionality depending on the customer’s needs. Senay Simsek, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Plant Sciences

7

Overview of U.S. Hard Red Spring wheat Hard red spring —a specialty wheat grown primarily in the Northern Plains of the United States stands out as the aristocrat of wheat when it comes to baking bread. The high protein content and superior gluten quality of hard red spring wheat make it ideal for use in some of the world’s finest baked goods. Yeast breads, hard rolls, hearth breads, whole grain breads, bagels and pizza crusts look and taste their best when baked with top quality spring wheat flour. Many customers prefer hard red spring flour for their frozen dough products and in the production of some Asian noodles. In addition to stand‐alone applications, many customers in both the United States and around the world extensively use hard red spring wheat in a blend with other wheat to increase the gluten strength and performance qualities in a batch of flour. Adding hard red spring to lower protein or inferior quality wheat improves dough handling characteristics, mixing strength and water absorption. Production of hard red spring wheat is concentrated in the four‐state region of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota. These states account for 92 to 95 percent of the U.S. crop annually with most of the remaining production found in Idaho.

8

Introduction

Project Objective: The objective of the Overseas Varietal Analysis Project is to give international customers an opportunity to evaluate the quality of individual Hard Red Spring (HRS) wheat cultivars and communicate their assessment back to U.S. wheat producers and wheat breeders, enhancing our ability to develop, produce and market those varieties that best meet customer needs. U.S. wheat variety development Hard Red Spring wheat varieties that are commercially grown in the United States are developed by both private and public breeding programs. Public breeding programs are generally conducted through public universities with financial support provided from federal, state and producer sources, in addition to the sale of seed. Private breeding programs are largely self‐sufficient through seed sales, but they also receive some support from federal or state grants for screening of broad based disease threats such as stem and leaf rust. A breeder’s goal is to release cultivars with improved yield and end‐use product quality as compared to current varieties. It typically takes ten years of development and testing before a variety enters commercial production in the United States. Varieties are evaluated in‐house for milling and baking quality prior to release. In addition to in‐house testing, most breeders will submit advanced experimental lines to regional trials for comparison of agronomic and end‐use quality traits against lines from competing breeding programs and popular varieties already in commercial production. The results of which are open for public discernment. In addition, many of the elite lines of hard red spring wheat are entered into the Wheat Quality Council testing program which distributes the respective flour from each line to major domestic milling and baking companies in the United States. The results of this testing are very useful in the final release decisions of breeders and the variety release committees they must gain approval from. The Wheat Quality Council’s annual program provides enormous benefit to the U.S. wheat industry in ensuring new varieties meet the end‐use quality demands of our domestic market. U.S. Wheat Overseas Varietal Analysis (OVA) Program The U.S. Wheat OVA program was started to allow input from our international customers into U.S. breeding programs. Considering that one‐half of U.S. wheat production is exported, it is imperative that international millers and bakers have input into our wheat breeding programs. Through the OVA program, international customers of U.S. wheat are allowed access to specific varieties for quality evaluation and comparison to control flour in their market. In return, producers, wheat breeders and other industry participants in the United States gain valuable insight into the specific and dynamic needs of our international customers.

9

Project Timeline and Scope of Work October 2009 ‐‐ Base samples of each variety were collected and sent to the Northern Crops Institute in Fargo, North Dakota. January 2009 ‐‐ The samples were screened for quality and blended into respective variety composites. Composites were then cleaned and milled by Northern Crops Institute in Fargo, ND. February 2010 ‐‐ The flour from each composite was evaluated for flour, dough and bake quality by the NDSU Department of Plant Sciences, Wheat Quality Lab in Fargo. Portions of each variety composite were distributed to the international cooperators based on a Pacific Northwest or Gulf/Great Lakes export geographical perspective. March‐May 2010 – Samples were evaluated by participating cooperators, rating each for overall quality and in comparison to the cooperators’ “control” flour. August‐September 2010 ‐‐ Results from this evaluation were returned to U.S. Wheat Associates and Dr. Senay Simsek, Wheat Quality Specialist, North Dakota State University to be reviewed and summarized. October 2010 ‐‐ Final summary and report developed. 2009 growing season The 2009 growing season began later than normal with planting being delayed due to cool conditions, heavy snowfall and flooding in the region. Some fields were not planted because of the adverse weather conditions. During May, planting progress remained slow and was not complete until June. This is two to four weeks behind the average planting schedule. The subsoil and topsoil moisture levels had improved across the area compared to the previous year, especially in western areas. However, some areas in the east experienced excessive moisture levels. During the growing season temperatures remained cooler than average in June and July, which along with adequate moisture lead to ideal growing conditions. The yield potential was improved throughout the season due to the cooler temperatures, because heat stress was not an issue. The 2009 crop also benefited from limited disease pressure. Harvest was behind averaged to the late planting and lack of warm dry weather. The majority of the crop was harvested in mid to late August and was completed at a slower pace. The slow harvest was due to the cool humid conditions which delayed the crop maturity. September began with wet conditions but became warm and dry. This allowed for most of the harvest to be completed by the beginning of October. These growing conditions, allowed for yields to be high across the region. The growing conditions in 2009 allowed for the wheat crop to overcome the late planting and a regional record was set for yield because of the cooler than normal summer and timely precipitation. The record yields resulted in below average protein content in the crop but the wheat grade quality was enhanced because of the lack of disease and very high test weights caused by an extended grain fill period. The extended grain fill period also improved the thousand kernel weights. Overall, the growing conditions allowed for high yields, exceptional test weight and improvement in thousand kernel weights despite the late planting.

10

The 2009 US HRS wheat OVA project involved the evaluation of ten hard red spring wheat varieties by twenty‐three international cooperators. The samples were grown in the states of Montana, Minnesota, and North Dakota, and represent the leading varieties in commercial production, as well as recently released varieties. HRS Varieties Included in the 2009 OVA Project

Variety Agent1 or Origin Year Released SOURCE WHERE SAMPLE WAS PRODUCED

Barlow ND 2009 Wheat Quality Council Test Plots2

Breaker WestBred 2007 Wheat Quality Council Test Plots

Brennan AgriPro 2009 Wheat Quality Council Test Plots

Brick SD 2009 Wheat Quality Council Test Plots

Choteau MT 2004 Montana Commercial Production

Glenn ND 2005 Wheat Quality Council Test Plots

Mott ND 2009 Wheat Quality Council Test Plots

ND 808 ND Pre‐Release Wheat Quality Council Test Plots

Sabin MN 2009 Wheat Quality Council Test Plots

Vida MT 2005 Montana Commercial Production

1 ND=North Dakota State University (Public), MN=University of Minnesota (Public), MT=Montana State University (Public), AgriPro (Private) and WB=Westbred (Private)

2 Wheat Quality Test Plots were located at Williston, Minot and Casselton, ND; Crookston, MN and Watertown, SD.

Commercial production trends of Project varieties 2008‐2010 growing seasons ‐‐ % of Planted Acres

(Data based on direct producer surveys)

NORTH DAKOTA MONTANA

VARIETY 2008 2009 2010 VARIETY 2008 2009 2010

Barlow 0 0 0.9 Choteau 21.6 22.7 22.7

Breaker 0 0.3 1.4 Glenn 0 0 0.6

Brennan 0 0 1.9 Vida 0 5 12.6

Choteau 1.7 1.2 2.8

Glenn 27.9 23.6 25

MINNESOTA

VARIETY 2008 2009 2010

Barlow 0 0 0.4

Breaker 0 0.4 1.7

Brennan 0 0.1 1.4

Brick 0 0.1 1.0

Glenn 9.9 6.8 5.4

11

Section A: Summary of Analysis

12

2009 HRS OVA Cooperator Evaluation Overview The Summary and Analysis Report of the Overseas Varietal Analysis project is presented in two parts. Part 1 discusses the varieties tested by cooperators that are primarily tributary to the U.S. Pacific Northwest ports (PNW). Part 2 discusses the varieties tested by cooperators that are primarily tributary to the U.S Gulf and Great Lakes ports (G/GL). Varieties Evaluated: As discussed earlier in this report, ten Hard Red Spring wheat varieties (one is an experimental line) were selected to give the cooperators in each export region a cross section of the varieties that have recently been released for production or have been in production for a number of years. These varieties were grown during the 2009 crop year at controlled test sites across the region to provide multiple production locations. In order to minimize the impact of extreme weather and growing conditions, the wheat samples from the different locations were blended together by variety at North Dakota State University prior to milling. The flour samples were individually packaged and shipped to the cooperators around the world. Two varieties (Glenn and Barlow) were tested by both the PNW and G/GL cooperators; however, the samples were grown within the individual regions (western ND and MT for PNW and eastern ND, MN and SD for G/GL).

Pacific Northwest (PNW) Exportable Varieties

No. Variety Name Location where samples were grown

900 Cooperator control ‐

901 Mott Western North Dakota

902 Barlow Western North Dakota

903 Choteau Montana

904 Vida Montana

905 ND 808 Western North Dakota

906 Glenn Western North Dakota

Gulf of Mexico/Great Lakes (G/GL) Exportable Varieties

No. Variety Name Location where samples were grown

910 Cooperator control ‐

911 Brick Eastern North Dakota/ Minnesota

912 Barlow Eastern North Dakota/ Minnesota

913 Brennan Eastern North Dakota/ Minnesota

914 Breaker Eastern North Dakota/ Minnesota

915 Sabin Eastern North Dakota/ Minnesota

916 Glenn Eastern North Dakota/ Minnesota

13

2009 HRS OVA Cooperators – Listed by Country

PNW Cooperators were from the following countries: China (4 cooperators) Japan Taiwan Korea Thailand Malaysia Indonesia Philippines (3 cooperators) Guatemala Dubai Oman Tanzania G/GL Cooperators were from the following countries: Spain UK (2 Cooperators) Italy Mexico Dominican Republic Cooperators received flour samples for their evaluation. After the evaluation was complete, the varieties were ranked in order of performance (1 being best) and rated for dough handling, end‐product performance, and overall acceptability on a scale of 1 to 9 , with 1 being very poor and 9 being very good. The cooperators were asked to provide comments listing their likes and dislikes for the varieties tested. Those comments are listed by variety starting on page 34. Differences in performance and quality indicated by the rankings and results are due to the differences in dough mixing equipment and techniques, which can greatly affect what the cooperators, are looking for in flour quality and gluten strength.

14

Discussion of Individual Varieties

Pacific Northwest Varieties: Mott (901) is adapted to the western growing regions, and has resistance to sawfly and other diseases. Mott generally has good baking characteristics. Mott had one of the lowest test weights (61.0 lb/bu) and the second to lowest percent dark hard vitreous kernels (72%). Mott had the lowest falling number and the second highest sedimentation value, 345 seconds and 62 cc respectively. Mott had the highest milling extraction (66.8%), lowest flour ash (0.42%, 14% mb) and along with Choteau the lowest starch damage (5.4%, as is) of the PNW varieties. The protein content was in the mid range for the PNW varieties, at 14.7% on a 14% mb. Mott also had the second highest wet gluten content (45.2%). The farinograph analysis showed that Mott is a medium strength flour with a peak time of 9.0 minutes, mixing stability of 15.5 minutes and a classification of 6. This is also shown by the extensograph and alveograph analysis where the values for Mott fall within the mid range for the PNW flours. During bread making Mott had the second highest mix time and gave good overall scores for dough handling and bread characteristics. Cooperator Ratings: Mott tied with Barlow as the second highest rated flour for dough handling (7.1), just below the cooperator control flour (7.3). Mott was the fifth highest rated flour for end product performance at 6.7 and the fourth highest rated flour for overall acceptability at 6.9. For the variety ranking Mott was given an average ranking of 3.8. Mott tied with ND 808 for the third most preferred flour among the cooperator controls and PNW varieties. Cooperator comments: Cooperators generally liked the good dough handling, acceptable volume and bread texture. The wheat and flour quality as well as the high protein and low ash were also liked by cooperators. Some cooperators found Mott to produce good oven spring and acceptable baking quality where others found low oven spring and baking quality. Most cooperators disliked the gluten quality, low test weight and yellow color. Barlow (902) has a high yield potential and good disease resistance. The protein is good and the milling and baking quality is superior to ‘Reeder’. Barlow had the highest test weight, and no defects. The falling number and zeleny sedimentation values were 401 sec. and 53 cc respectively, which fall in the mid range for the PNW varieties. Barlow had the highest 1000 kwt (36.5g) and the largest amount of large kernels (73%). Barlow had the second highest starch damage (6.7%) and along with Vida the second lowest wet gluten (40.5%). The farinograph analysis showed that Barlow had the highest farinograph absorption (67.7%), but is a medium strength flour with a farinograph classification of 5. Barlow had the highest dough extensibility, 23.5 and 19.3 cm for the 45 and 135 minute extensions respectively. Barlow also had good dough handling with a score of 10.0 and good loaf volume (1065 cc). Cooperator Ratings: Barlow received an average rating of 7.1 for dough handling, an average rating of 7.4 for end product performance and an average rating of 7.5 for overall acceptability. Barlow received the second highest rating for end product performance and the top rating for overall performance. In the cooperator variety ranking Barlow received an average ranking of 2.8, which ties with Glenn for most preferred flour of the cooperator control and PNW flours. Cooperator comments: Cooperators generally liked the wheat and flour quality and high water absorption. Cooperators also liked the dough handling characteristics, as well as, the end product quality. Cooperators found that Barlow produced good oven spring and bread with a fine texture and good loaf volume. Some cooperators found that Barlow had slightly poor wheat quality and they did not like the low milling extraction. Cooperators also found that Barlow resulted in sticky dough with poor dough handling and bread with slightly weak side walls.

15

Choteau (903) had good wheat quality overall, with no defects and the second highest percent DHV (83%). Choteau was one of the two varieties from the PNW that was graded #1 DNS. Choteau had the highest wheat protein, wheat ash, falling number and 1000kwt of the PNW varieties (15.9, 1.73, 500 and 35.8 respectively). Choteau also had the highest wet gluten with 45.7%, however it had the lowest gluten index at 83.5. The mixing stability was 25.5, which was the second highest of the PNW varieties. With a farinograph classification of 8, Choteau is fairly strong flour. Choteau had the second highest extensibility and the second lowest resistance to extension. Choteau had the highest bake absorption (66.4%), but also had the shortest mix time (2.25 minutes) and the poorest loaf symmetry score (8.0). Choteau is one of the leading spring wheat varieties planted in Montana. It has tolerance to sawfly and Hessian fly as well as resistance to stem rust. Cooperator Ratings: Choteau had the second lowest rating for dough handling (6.2), end product performance (5.6) and overall acceptability (6.0). Cooperators gave Choteau an average ranking of 5.8, which is the second least preferred of the cooperator control flour and PNW varieties. Cooperator comments: The PNW cooperators liked Choteau’s wheat and flour quality, as well as, the high protein. Some cooperators liked the water absorption, dough handling and bread texture. The cooperators disliked the low milling extraction, high ash and low gluten quality. Cooperators also disliked the poor mixing tolerance, sticky dough, small volume and open rough grain. Vida (904) had near average kernel quality for of the PNW varieties. The test weight was 61 lb/bu and the percent DHV was 74.Vida had the lowest protein, 13.7% on 12% mb, and the second highest ash (1.68) for wheat among the PNW varieties. The zeleny sedimentation value for Vida was 39 cc, which was the lowest among the PNW varieties. Vida had the second highest milling extraction (62.3%), which was only lower than Mott. Vida also had the highest starch damage, at 6.9 percent. The farinograph data shows that Vida is somewhat weak for spring wheat flour, having a farinograph classification of 6. The farinograph absorption is 64.9, the peak time is 6.5 minutes and the stability is 12.0 minutes. Vida had good dough handling (10.0) but poor loaf volume (970 cc). Vida is a high yielding wheat variety with moderate resistance to leaf and stripe rust. Vida is the third leading wheat variety planted in Montana during 2010. Cooperator ratings: Vida received an average rating of 5.9 for dough handling. It also received ratings of 5.2 and 5.7 for end product performance and overall acceptability. Vida received the lowest ratings of the PNW varieties. The average variety ranking for Vida is 6.4, making it the least preferred flour of the PNW varieties. Cooperator comments: Some of the PNW cooperators liked Vida’s wheat and flour quality. They also commented on the good water absorption, good mix time, nice dough handling and the good bread symmetry. The cooperators disliked the low protein, high ash and poor gluten quality. Other comments included poor mixing tolerance, sticky dough, poor extensibility, small volume and poor grain. ND 808 (905) had the highest number of total defects (0.4%), most of which came from broken kernels (0.3%). ND 808 also had the lowest percent DHV (63%) of all the PNW varieties. This variety had a flour protein of 12.9% (14.0% mb) which tied it with Vida for the lowest flour protein of the PNW varieties. ND 808’s flour ash was 0.47%, which was the average for the PNW varieties and the percent starch damage was just above average (6.6%). The wet gluten content was the lowest for the PNW varieties, at 38.2%. ND 808 had the lowest mixing stability, 11.0 minutes, of the PNW varieties. The mix time for ND 808 was 2.75 minutes which was near average. During test baking ND 808 received a dough handling score of 10.0 and the loaf volume was 1065 cc. ND 808 is a hard red spring wheat variety in pre‐release, being developed by North Dakota State University. Cooperator ratings: ND 808 had average ratings of 6.5, 7.1 and 6.8 for dough handling, end product performance and overall acceptability. Overall, ND 808 was rated near the middle of the varieties for quality by the PNW cooperators. ND 808 was given an average ranking of 3.8, which tied it with Mott for the third most preferred flour among the PNW varieties.

16

Cooperator comments: In general, the PNW cooperators liked the dough handling and end‐product quality of ND 808. The cooperators liked the low ash, extensibility, dough handling, and short mix time. The oven spring, loaf volume and fine grain were also liked by cooperators. The cooperators commented about the slightly poor wheat and flour quality, low test weight and low protein. The low milling extraction was also disliked. Cooperators found that ND 808 had a long proof time, soft dough and slightly stick bread; which were also disliked. Glenn (906) had good wheat quality overall, having above average test weight (62.0 lb/bu), the highest percent DHV (89%) and receiving a grade of #1DNS. Glenn had the second highest wheat protein of the PNW varieties (15.8 %, 12% mb) and the highest Zeleny sedimentation value (69 cc). However, the high proportion of medium size kernels (63%) the 1000 kwt for Glenn was only 29.9 g, the lowest of the PNW varieties. The wet gluten content was 41.1%, which was near the average for the PNW varieties. Glenn also had the second highest gluten index (97.3). Glenn is a strong flour with 11.0 minute peak time, 33.0 minute stability and a farinograph classification of 8. Glenn had the largest resistance to extension of all the PNW varieties, at 748 and >1000 BU, for the 45 and 135 extensions respectively. Glenn also had the highest P/L ratio (0.75) and W (469 10‐4 J) of the PNW varieties. Glenn had the longest mix time (3.75 minutes) and received a score of 9.0 for dough handling. The loaf volume was the highest of all the PNW varieties (1075 cc). Glenn is the top wheat variety grown in North Dakota, comprising 25.0% of the total spring wheat acres grown in 2010. Glenn was released in 2005 by NDSU and has high test weight and good milling and baking characteristics. Cooperator rankings: Glenn received average cooperator ratings of 7.0, 7.6 and 7.4 for dough handling, end product performance and overall acceptability. Glenn was the third highest rated for dough handling, the highest rated for end product performance and the second highest rated for overall acceptability. Among the PNW variety ranking, Glenn received a ranking of 2.8 which tied with Barlow for the highest ranked flour of the PNW varieties. Cooperator comments: Overall, the PNW cooperators liked the wheat and flour quality of Glenn. The high protein and low ash, as well as the elasticity were also liked by cooperators. Cooperators also liked the oven spring, loaf volume and fine grain. The low test weight was disliked by some cooperators. The cooperators also disliked some of the dough handling and baking characteristics, such as, long mix time, stiff too strong dough, difficult dough development and open grain.

17

Table 1: PNW Variety Quality ranking: All 17 cooperators were asked to rank the varieties and their control flours from 1 to 7 with 1 being the top choice. At the bottom the table the rankings were grouped into

three combined rankings to see which varieties the cooperators considered their top (1‐3), middle (4‐5) and

bottom (6‐7) varieties.

900 901 902 903 904 905 906Cooperator Ranking (1‐7) Control Mott Barlow Choteau Vida ND 808 Glenn

China‐1 3 5 2 6 7 4 1China‐2 3 5 4 6 7 2 1China‐3 4 2 1 6 7 5 3China‐4 1 4 2 ‐ 6 5 3Japan 1 4 2 7 6 3 5Taiwan 2 5 4 6 7 3 1Korea 1 2 3 6 7 4 5

Thailand 1 5 4 7 6 3 2Malaysia 5 2 3 6 7 4 1Indonesia 4 5 3 7 6 2 1Philipines‐1 3 2 1 6 7 4 5Philipines‐2 1 2 4 7 6 5 3Philipines‐3 6 4 3 5 7 2 1Guatemala 2 5 3 7 4 1 6

Dubai 4 2 5 3 6 7 1Oman 4 6 1 3 5 7 2

Tanzania 4 ‐ 2 5 7 3 6

Combined Rankings* Number 1 Rankings 5 0 3 0 0 1 7Number 2 Rankings 2 6 4 0 0 3 2Number 3 Rankings 3 0 5 2 0 4 3

Subtotal (top) 10 6 12 2 0 8 12

Number 4 Rankings 5 3 4 0 1 4 0Number 5 Rankings 1 6 1 2 1 3 3Subtotal (middle) 6 9 5 2 2 7 3

Number 6 Rankings 1 1 0 7 6 0 2Number 7 Rankings 0 0 0 5 9 2 0Subtotal (bottom) 1 1 0 12 15 2 2

*Combined rankings have a maximum score of 17 which is equal to the number of cooperators

The cooperator control flour was ranked number 1 by five of the cooperators.

Glenn was ranked number one by seven of the cooperators.

Barlow and ND 808 received 3 and 1 number one rankings.

Mott, Choteau and Vida did not receive any number one rankings.

Barlow and Glenn had the highest score (12 points) for top rankings (The top scores being the

combination of #1, #2 and #3 rankings).

Vida had the worst scores of the PNW varieties, having a score of 0 points for top rankings, 2 points for

middle rankings and 15 points for bottom rankings.

18

Gulf/Great Lakes Varieties: Brick (911) had a test weight of 63.0 lb/bu, 76 percent DHV and a grade of #1 DNS. Brick had the lowest wheat protein of the G/GL flours, at 13.7 % (12% mb). The 1000 kwt was slightly above average for the G/GL varieties, at 32.2g. Brick also had the highest milling extraction of the G/GL varieties (58.9%). Brick’s flour protein was also the lowest of the G/GL varieties (12.6%, 14.0% mb). Brick had 7.4% starch damage which was above average for the G/GL varieties. Although the wet gluten was low (35.5%), Brick had a gluten index of 97.5. The farinograph analysis showed Brick as a medium strength flour with a peak time of 7.5 min., mixing stability of 15.5 min. and a classification of 6. Brick had the second lowest extension for both 45 and 135 minutes (17.9 and 14.9 cm). Brick had good dough handling and a long mix time (4.25 minutes), but low bake absorption (62.5%). Brick had a loaf volume of 920 cc, which is the lowest of the G/GL varieties. Brick is a high yielding variety which has good scab resistance, and is moderately resistant to leaf rust. Brick generally has good test weight and average protein content. Cooperator ratings: Brick received average cooperator ratings of 7.0, 7.3, and 7.3 for dough handling, end product performance and overall acceptability. Brick was rated as second to last among G/GL varieties for dough handling and end product performance. For overall acceptability Brick was rated as last, tied with breaker, for the least preferred flour of the G/GL varieties. Brick received an average ranking of 3.5, which put it as the third best ranked flour of the G/GL varieties. Cooperator comments: Cooperators commented that Brick has good oven spring and good bread texture. Some cooperators liked the dough strength and loaf volume where others thought the dough was too strong and the loaf volume was too low. Cooperators commented on the poor mixing quality, low absorption and poor baking performance. Barlow (912) had a grade of #1 DNS and good test weight (63.0 lb/bu). Barlow had a wheat protein of 15.0, but also had high wheat ash, at 1.54% (14% mb). Barlow had the highest amount of large kernels (61%) of the G/GL varieties. The flour falling number (380 s) was the second lowest of the G/GL varieties and the starch damage (7.2%) was the second highest of the G/GL varieties. Barlow’s wet gluten was just above average, at 40.9%. Barlow had high farinograph absorption (67.4%, 14% mb), and is a medium strength flour. Barlow had the highest extension at 45 minutes (17.9 cm) and the lowest extension at 135 minutes (13.4 cm) of the G/GL varieties. The alveogram results for Barlow were near average for the G/GL varieties. Barlow had a mix time of 3.0 minutes and the third highest loaf volume (1010 cc). Barlow has good yield potential and good disease resistance. Barlow has good protein and good milling and baking characteristics. Cooperator ratings: Barlow received average ratings of 7.4, 7.7 and 7.9 for dough handling, end product performance and overall acceptability. Barlow received the top ratings for all three categories. Barlow was given an average ranking of 3.3, making it the second most preferred flour of the G/GL varieties. Cooperator comments: Cooperators liked the balanced gluten characteristics, dough strength and absorption. Cooperators also liked the oven spring. Some cooperators liked the loaf volume and crumb structure but others did not. Cooperators disliked the mixing characteristics and low dough development time. Brennan (913) had the poorest wheat quality of the G/GL varieties. The test weight (60 lb/bu) and percent DHV (57%) were the lowest of the G/GL varieties. Brennan had the second highest wheat protein (15.1%, 12% mb) and the lowest wheat falling number (294 sec.). Brennan had a milling extraction of 51.9%, which was the second lowest for the G/GL varieties. Brennan had 6.2% starch damage and 41.1% wet gluten. The starch damage was the lowest and the wet gluten was the second highest for the G/GL varieties. Brennan also had the lowest amylograph viscosities at 295 and 821 BU for the 65g and 100g amylograph. Brennan was one of the weaker flours, having a peak time of 8.0 minutes, mixing stability of 8.5 minutes and MTI of 60 BU. Brennan had average dough handling

19

and bread making characteristics, having a mix time of 3.0 minutes and a loaf volume of 1000 cc. Brennan was released in 2009 and has resistance to stem rust and moderate resistance to leaf rust. Cooperator ratings: Brennan received average cooperator ratings of 6.8, 7.3 and 7.7 for dough handling, end product performance and overall acceptability. Brennan received the lowest average rating for dough handling and the second lowest rating for end product performance. Brennan tied with Glenn for the second highest rating for overall acceptability. Brennan was given an average cooperator ranking of 5.0 which is the highest ranking of the G/GL flours, making it the least preferred flour. Cooperator comments: The G/GL cooperators liked Brennan’s gluten quality, water absorption, oven spring, and loaf volume. The cooperators disliked the low falling number, low mixing stability, short development time and tight mixing characteristic. Breaker (914) had a test weight of 62.0 lb/bu, 1.7% total defects and 68% DHV. Breaker had the highest total defects and the second lowest DHV of the G/GL varieties. Breaker had the highest Zeleny sedimentation value (69 cc) and 1000 kwt (33.3 g) of the G/GL varieties. The flour protein and ash were near the average for the G/GL varieties, 13.5% and 0.54% (14% mb) respectively. Breaker had the highest gluten index of the G/GL varieties at 97.9. The farinograph analysis showed that Breaker was the strongest of the G/GL varieties. Breaker had a peak time of 11.0 minutes and a mixing stability of 18.0 minutes. Breaker had the highest extension at 45 minutes (20.3 cm) but only the fourth highest extension at 135 minutes (16.7 cm). Breaker has a long mix time (4.25 minutes), good dough handling (10.0) and high loaf volume (1075 cc). Breaker is a high yielding variety with high test weight, medium protein and good protein quality. Breaker is resistant to stem rust and moderately resistant to scab. Cooperator ratings: Breaker received average cooperator ratings of 7.3, 6.8 and 7.3 for dough handling, end product performance and overall acceptability. Breaker was rated as the second most preferred flour for dough handling, and the least preferred flour for end product performance and overall acceptability. Breaker received an average cooperator ranking of 3.8, making it the fourth most preferred flour overall. Cooperator comments: The cooperators generally liked the absorption, dough handling and development time. Some cooperators liked the dough strength, oven spring and loaf volume. However, other cooperators thought Breaker had too strong gluten, and low loaf volume and thought the baking performance was moderate to poor. Sabin (915) had a test weight of 61.0, 0.5% total defects and 93% DHV. Sabin was given a grade of #1 DNS. Sabin had the highest wheat protein and wheat ash of the G/GL varieties, at 15.3 and 1.66% respectively (12 and 14% mb). Breaker also had the highest wheat falling number (452 sec.) and the lowest Zeleny sedimentation (49 cc). Sabin had the lowest 1000 kwt (27.9 g) due to the low percentage of large kernels (36%). Sabin had the lowest milling extraction of the G/GL varieties at 51.6%. Sabin had near average starch damage (7.1%) and above average wet gluten (41.5%). The farinograph showed Breaker as a medium strength flour with a absorption of 66.7, peak time of 7.0 minutes, mixing stability of 10.5 minutes and a classification of 5. The baking performance was near the average of the G/GL varieties. Sabin had a mix time of 3.0 minutes, dough handling score of 10.0 and a loaf volume of 1000 cc. Sabin is resistant to scab and stem rust and moderately resistant to leaf rust. Sabin has high yield and good test weight and protein. Cooperator ratings: Sabin received average cooperator ratings of 7.1, 7.6 and 7.6 for dough handling, end product performance and overall acceptability. Sabin was the third highest rated flour for dough handling, the second highest rated flour for end product performance and the third highest rated flour for overall acceptability. Sabin received an average ranking of 4.8, making it the fifth most preferred flour by the G/GL cooperators. Cooperator comments: The cooperators liked Sabin’s gluten quality, dough strength and absorption. Cooperators also liked the oven spring, loaf volume and baking performance. The G/GL cooperators disliked the low milling extraction, low development time, low stability and poor mixing quality.

20

Glenn (916) had a test weight of 63.0 lb/bu and 94% DHV, which was the highest of the G/GL varieties. Glenn’s wheat quality characteristics were near average for the G/GL varieties. The Zeleny sedimentation value was 63cc and the wheat falling number was 420 seconds. The flour had a protein of 14.2% and 0.55% ash (14.0 mb). Glenn had one of the highest starch damage at 7.4%. Glenn had 39.2% wet gluten, which was at the G/GL average, and above average gluten index at 97.5. Glenn was one of the stronger G/GL flours with a peak time of 9.0 minutes, mixing stability of 17.0 minutes and a classification of 6. Glenn had the highest resistance at 45 minutes (588 cm2) and the second lowest resistance at 135 minutes (594 cm2). Glenn had lower than average P value (87 mm) and higher than average L value (162 mm). Glenn had good baking characteristics, with a dough handling score of 10 and a loaf volume of 1025 cc. Glenn is the top wheat variety grown in North Dakota, comprising 25.0% of the total spring wheat acres grown in 2010. Glenn was released in 2005 by NDSU and has high test weight and good milling and baking characteristics. Cooperator ratings: Glenn had average ratings of 7.4, 7.6 and 7.7 for dough handling, end product performance and overall acceptability. Glenn had the top rating for dough handling and the second best ratings for end product performance and overall acceptability. Glenn received an average ranking of 3.2, making it the most preferred of the G/GL flours. Cooperator comments: The cooperators liked the absorption, dough handling characteristics and loaf volume. Some cooperators liked the dough strength and oven spring while other cooperators did not. Cooperators disliked the inconsistent crumb and moderate baking performance.

21

Table 2: Gulf/Great Lakes Variety Ranking: All six G/GL cooperators were asked to rank the varieties and their control flours from 1 to 7 with 1 being the top choice. At the bottom the table the rankings were grouped

into three combined rankings to see which varieties the cooperators considered their top (1‐3), middle (4‐5) and

bottom (6‐7) varieties.

910 911 912 913 914 915 916Cooperator Ranking (1‐7) Control Brick Barlow Brennan Breaker Sabin Glenn

Spain 3 1 2 6 5 7 4UK‐1 ‐ 3 4 6 2 5 1UK‐2 2 5 4 3 7 1 6Italy 2 1 4 7 5 6 3

Mexico 7 5 4 1 3 6 2Dominican Republic 5 6 2 7 1 4 3

Combined Rankings* Number 1 Rankings 0 2 0 1 1 1 1Number 2 Rankings 2 0 2 0 1 0 1Number 3 Rankings 1 1 0 1 1 0 2

Subtotal (top) 3 3 2 2 3 1 4

Number 4 Rankings 0 0 4 0 0 1 1Number 5 Rankings 1 2 0 0 2 1 0Subtotal (middle) 1 2 4 0 2 2 1

Number 6 Rankings 0 1 0 2 0 2 1Number 7 Rankings 1 0 0 2 1 1 0Subtotal (bottom) 1 1 0 4 1 3 1

*Combined rankings have a maximum score of 6 which is equal to the number of cooperators

Brick received the most number one rankings (2), while Brennan, Breaker, Sabin and Glenn each received one

number one ranking.

None of the G/GL cooperators gave their own control flours or Barlow a number one ranking.

Glenn received the highest top score (4 points) (The top scores being the combination of #1, #2 and #3

rankings).

The cooperator control flours, Brick and Breaker each received a top score of three points. Barlow and

Brennan each received a top score of two points and Sabin scored one point for top scores.

Brennan and Sabin had the highest bottom scores at four and three points respectively.

Barlow was not given a six or seven ranking by any of the G/GL cooperators.

22

Cooperator Control Flour Information PNW China‐1: Lam Soon Flour Mill

Wheat Class(es): CWRS 100%

Flour Protein (14% mb): 13.6%

Other Information: Ash: 0.48%

Farinograph absorption: 65.5% China‐2: Shunde Baiyan

Wheat Class(es): +APH



Farinograph absorption: 63.6% China‐3: COFCO, Pangthai Flour Mill

Wheat Class(es): CWRS


Other Information: Ash: 0.45‐0.48%

Farinograph absorption: 66.0% China‐4: Yuhai

Wheat Class(es): CWRS+DNS


Wet Gluten: 37.0% Japan: Flour Millers Association

Wheat Class(es): HRS


Other Information: Buhler Mill Extraction: 60% Taiwan: Chia Fha Enterprise Co., LTD

Wheat Class(es): HRS Grade 1 DNS

Flour Protein (14% mb): 12.25% Korea: Daehan Flour Mills Co., LTD

Wheat Class(es): DNS +CWRS (80:20)


Other Information: Ash: 0.42% Thailand: United Flour Mill Public Co. Ltd.

Wheat Class(es): DNS

Flour Protein (14% mb): 13.59% Malaysia: Sabah Flour & Feed Mills

Wheat Class(es): 80% Hard Red Sping wheat + 20% Hard White


Other Information: Local market commercial bread flour Indonesia: PT. Sriboga Ratuaya

Wheat Class(es): 80CWRS

Flour Protein (14% mb): 12.34% Philippines‐1: Philippine Formost Milling Corporation



Other Information: Straight run

23

Philippines‐2 Republic Flour Mills

Wheat Class(es): HRW+NS


Other Information: Strait grade flour Philippines‐3 Pilmico Foods Corporation


Flour Protein (14% mb): 12.5% Guatemala: Molinos Modernos

Wheat Class(es): DNS

Flour Protein (14% mb): 12.05% Dubai: National Flour Mills Co


Flour Protein (14% mb): 12.5% Oman: Oman Flour Mills Co

Wheat Class(es): Australian hard wheat flour


Other Information: White wheat Tanzania: Said Salim Bakhresa % Co. Ltd

Flour Protein (14% mb): 13.0% Gulf/Great Lakes Spain: Fills de Moretó SA

Wheat Class(es): HRS

Flour Protein (14% mb): 11.57% UK‐1: Rank Hovis

No control information was provided UK‐2: Allied Mills

Wheat Class(es): #1 US HRS

Flour Protein (14% mb): 14.0% Italy: Grandi Molini

Wheat Class(es): German A6, Austrian, Kazack

Flour Protein (14% mb): 15.3% Mexico: Molinera de Mexico

Wheat Class(es): Group 1 Regional Kronstand


Other Information: FN = 405, Sedimentation 34 Dominican Republic: Molinos Modernos

Wheat Class(es): Strong Flour


24

End Products Used by Cooperators PNW China‐1 Loaf bread China‐2 Loaf bread and Rolls China‐3 Pan bread China‐4 Pan bread Japan Pan bread and Chinese noodles Taiwan Pan bread and Bun Korea White pan bread Thailand Open top bread Malaysia Open top bread Indonesia Open top bread Philippines‐1 N/A Philippines‐2 Open top bread Philippines‐3 Open top bread Guatemala Loaf bread Dubai Pan Bread Oman N/A Tanzania Tin bread Gulf/Great Lakes Spain Pan bread UK‐1 N/A UK‐2 CBP 800g Open top bread Italy N/A Mexico Pan bread Dominican Republic Loaf bread

25

Table 3: PNW Variety Ranking Summary

China‐1 China‐2 China‐3 China‐4 Japan Taiwan Korea Thailand Malaysia Indonesia Philipines‐1 Philipines‐2 Philipines‐3 Guatamala Dubai Oman Tanzania Average

Dough Handling (1‐9, with 9 being best)*

900‐CONTROL 8.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.5 7.0 9.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 7.3

901‐MOTT 8.0 7.5 8.0 7.0 5.0 6.5 6.0 6.5 9.0 8.0 6.0 7.5 7.0 7.0 9.0 6.0 6.5 7.1

902‐BARLOW 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.5 6.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 6.5 7.5 6.0 4.0 7.5 8.0 8.0 7.8 7.1

903‐CHOTEAU 6.0 6.5 8.0 6.0 4.0 5.5 3.0 7.0 7.5 5.5 6.5 7.0 5.0 6.0 8.0 6.0 7.5 6.2

904‐VIDA 6.0 6.0 8.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 5.5 8.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 7.0 5.9

905‐ND 808 7.0 6.5 8.0 5.0 5.0 7.5 4.0 6.5 8.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.0 8.0 7.0 5.0 8.0 6.5

906‐GLENN 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 4.0 6.0 8.5 7.5 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.5 9.5 9.0 6.5 7.0

End Product Performance (1‐9, with 9 being best)*

900‐CONTROL 8.5 7.5 7.5 8.0 6.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.5 9.0 7.0 8.5 8.0 7.3

901‐MOTT 7.5 7.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 8.0 6.5 8.0 6.5 5.0 8.0 9.0 8.0 5.0 6.7

902‐BARLOW 8.5 7.5 8.0 8.0 5.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 8.0 7.5 8.5 8.0 6.5 7.5 8.0 9.0 7.0 7.4

903‐CHOTEAU 5.0 6.5 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 4.5 8.0 8.0 7.0 5.5 5.6

904‐VIDA 5.0 6.5 5.5 4.5 3.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 5.5 3.0 8.0 7.0 5.5 4.0 5.2

905‐ND 808 8.5 8.0 7.5 4.5 5.0 6.5 5.0 7.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 6.0 7.5 7.5 7.1

906‐GLENN 9.0 8.0 7.5 7.0 4.0 8.5 5.0 7.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 8.5 8.5 6.5 9.0 7.5 7.0 7.6

Overall Acceptability (1‐9, with 9 being best)*

900‐CONTROL 8.5 8.5 8.0 8.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.6 4.0 8.5 7.0 8.0 7.3 7.3

901‐MOTT 7.5 8.0 8.3 6.0 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.0 8.0 6.5 7.5 7.5 5.0 7.5 9.5 7.0 6.5 6.9

902‐BARLOW 8.5 9.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.5 7.5 8.5 7.3 6.5 7.5 9.0 9.0 7.7 7.5

903‐CHOTEAU 6.0 7.0 8.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.9 4.5 6.0 8.0 8.0 6.9 6.0

904‐VIDA 5.0 6.0 7.2 4.5 4.0 5.0 3.0 5.5 7.0 5.5 6.0 7.0 3.0 7.0 7.5 7.5 6.4 5.7

905‐ND 808 8.5 8.0 7.5 4.5 5.0 6.5 5.0 6.5 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 8.0 6.0 5.0 7.6 6.8

906‐GLENN 9.0 9.0 8.3 7.5 4.0 8.0 5.0 6.5 8.0 8.5 7.0 7.4 7.0 6.5 9.5 8.5 6.9 7.4

Variety Ranking (1‐7, with 1 being best)**

900‐CONTROL 3 3 4 1 1 2 1 1 5 4 3 1 6 2 4 4 4 2.9

901‐MOTT 5 5 2 4 4 5 2 5 2 5 2 2 4 5 2 6 ‐ 3.8

902‐BARLOW 2 4 1 2 2 4 3 4 3 3 1 4 3 3 5 1 2 2.8

903‐CHOTEAU 6 6 6 ‐ 7 6 6 7 6 7 6 7 5 7 3 3 5 5.8

904‐VIDA 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 4 6 5 7 6.4

905‐ND 808 4 2 5 5 3 3 4 3 4 2 4 5 2 1 7 7 3 3.8

906‐GLENN 1 1 3 3 5 1 5 2 1 1 5 3 1 6 1 2 6 2.8

* Dough Handling, End‐Producte Performance and Oveall Acceptability Ratings above are rated independently from 1 (Poor) to 9 (Excellent)

** Based on all quality information, cooperators were asked to rank the varieties from 1 (Highest) to 7 (Lowest)

2009 Overseas Varietal Analysis Program

PNW Cooperator Quality Rating and Ranking Summary

26

Table 4: G/GL Variety Ranking Summary 2009 Overseas Varietal Analysis Program

Gulf/Great Lakes Cooperator Quality Rating and Ranking Summary

Spain UK‐1 UK‐2 Italy Mexico Dominican Republic Average

Dough Handling (1‐9, with 9 being best)*

910‐CONTROL 9.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 3.0 7.0 7.0

911‐Brick 9.0 6.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.0

912‐Barlow 9.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 7.5 7.4

913‐Brennan 9.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 6.8

914‐Breaker 9.0 7.5 4.0 7.0 8.0 8.5 7.3

915‐Sabin 9.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 8.0 6.5 7.1

916‐Glenn 9.0 7.5 4.0 8.0 9.0 7.0 7.4

End Product Performance (1‐9, with 9 being best)*

910‐CONTROL 9.0 ‐ 8.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 7.4

911‐Brick 9.0 8.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 6.5 7.3

912‐Barlow 9.0 8.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 7.7

913‐Brennan 8.5 7.5 7.0 6.0 9.0 6.0 7.3

914‐Breaker 8.0 8.0 3.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 6.8

915‐Sabin 8.5 8.0 8.0 6.0 8.0 7.0 7.6

916‐Glenn 8.5 7.5 4.0 8.0 9.0 8.5 7.6

Overall Acceptability (1‐9, with 9 being best)*

910‐CONTROL 9.0 ‐ 8.0 8.0 5.0 7.0 7.4

911‐Brick 9.0 7.5 4.0 8.5 8.0 7.0 7.3

912‐Barlow 9.0 7.5 6.5 7.5 8.0 9.0 7.9

913‐Brennan 8.5 8.0 7.0 6.0 9.0 7.5 7.7

914‐Breaker 8.5 8.0 4.0 7.0 8.0 8.5 7.3

915‐Sabin 8.5 7.5 7.0 6.5 8.0 8.0 7.6

916‐Glenn 9.0 8.0 4.5 8.0 8.0 8.5 7.7

Variety Ranking (1‐7, with 1 being best)**

910‐CONTROL 3 ‐ 2 2 7 5 3.8

911‐Brick 1 3 5 1 5 6 3.5

912‐Barlow 2 4 4 4 4 2 3.3

913‐Brennan 6 6 3 7 1 7 5.0

914‐Breaker 5 2 7 5 3 1 3.8

915‐Sabin 7 5 1 6 6 4 4.8

916‐Glenn 4 1 6 3 2 3 3.2

* Dough Handling, End‐Product Performance and Overall Acceptability Ratings above are rated independently from 1 (Poor) to 9 (Excellent)

** Based on all quality information, cooperators were asked to rank the varieties from 1 (Highest) to 7 (Lowest)

27

PNW Variety Sample Evaluation Rating Charts

28

29

30

31

32

G/GL Variety Sample Evaluation Charts

33

34

Cooperator Ratings and Comments on Individual Varieties

HRS PNW Variety Sample Evaluation

Dough Handling End‐Product Performance Overall Acceptability China 1 Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments

900‐ CONTROL 8.0 Liked Good dough handling

8.5 Liked Good volume, fine grains Soft bread

8.5 Liked Good baking performance

901‐Mott 8.0 Liked

Good dough handling quality

7.5 Liked

Acceptable volume Acceptable texture

7.5 Liked

Acceptable for milling bread flour

902‐Barlow 8.0 Liked Good dough handling quality 8.5 Liked Good volume, fine grains, soft bread, good oven spring

8.5 Liked

Good baking performance

903‐Choteau 6.0 Disliked Easy to overmix Mixing tolerance not good

5.0 Disliked Small volume, soft dough, open grains, not smooth grains

6.0 Disliked Oven spring not good Extensibility need to be improved Resistant need to be improved

904‐Vida 6.0 Disliked Easy to overmix Mixing tolerance not good

5.0 Disliked Small volume, soft dough, open grains, not smooth grains

5.0 Disliked Oven spring not good Extensibility need to be improved Resistant need to be improved

905‐ND808 7.0 Disliked Soft dough

8.5 Liked Good volume, fine grains, soft bread, good oven spring

8.5 Liked

Good baking performance Good oven spring

906‐Glenn 8.0 Liked Good dough handling quality 9.0 Liked Good volume, fine grains, soft bread, good oven spring

9.0 Liked

Good baking performance Good oven spring

35


900‐ CONTROL 7.0 Liked Disliked

Good handling Slightly sticky dough

7.5 Liked Good volume and appearance Good oven spring Fine texture

8.5

801‐Mott 7.5 Liked Good handling Easy to make up

7.0 Liked Disliked

Good volume and appearance Good oven spring Acceptable texture Light Yellow

8.0

902‐Barlow 8.0 Liked Good handling Easy to make up

7.5 Liked Good volume and appearance Good oven spring Fine texture

9.0

903‐Choteau 6.5 Liked Disliked

Acceptable dough handling Slightly sticky dough

6.5 Disliked Flat bread Yellow color texture

7.0

904‐Vida 6.0 Disliked Sticky dough Wet dough

6.5 Disliked Flat bread Open grain

6.0 Disliked

Gluten quality needs to be improved

905‐ND808 6.5 Liked Acceptable dough handling 8.0 Liked Good volume and appearance Good oven spring Fine texture Good eating quality

8.0

906‐Glenn 8.0 Liked Good dough handling 8.0 Liked Good volume and appearance Good oven spring Fine texture Good eating quality

9.0

36


900‐ CONTROL 8.0 Liked

Good handling

7.5 Liked

Acceptable bread volume Good appearance Fine texture

8.0 Liked

Nice wheat and flour quality


Good handling 8.0 Liked

Good volume Good appearance Fine texture

8.3 Liked


902‐Barlow 8.0 Liked


Good volume Good appearance Fine texture

8.0 Liked


903‐Choteau 8.0 Liked

Good handling

5.0

8.0 Liked


904‐Vida 8.0 Liked

Good Handling

5.5

7.2 Liked


905‐ND808 8.0 Liked

Good handling

7.5 Liked


7.5 Liked


906‐Glenn 8.0 Liked



8.3 Liked


37


900‐ CONTROL N/A 8.0 Liked Good volume Good texture

8.0 Liked

Good flour quality

901‐Mott 7.0 Liked Disliked

High protein Low test weight

6.0 Disliked

Small volume Oven spring not good enough

6.0 Disliked

Gluten needs to be improved

902‐Barlow 7.5 Liked High test weight 8.0 Liked Good volume Good appearance Good oven spring

8.0 Liked

Good flour spec. Good baking performance

903‐Choteau 8.0 Liked High protein Low test weight

5.0 Disliked Small volume Sticky texture

5.0 Disliked

Gluten quality need to be improved

904‐Vida 6.0 Disliked Low protein High ash

4.5 Disliked Small volume Sticky texture Open grains

4.5 Disliked Gluten quality need to be improved

905‐ND808 6.0 Disliked Low test weight Low protein

4.5 Disliked Sticky texture 4.5 Disliked

Gluten quality need to be improved

906‐Glenn 8.0 Liked Disliked

High protein Low ash Low test weight

7.0 Liked Disliked

Good volume Good appearance Good oven spring Open grains

7.5 Liked

G

38

Dough Handling End‐Product Performance Overall Acceptability Japan Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments 900‐ CONTROL 7.0 Liked Handles well 7.0 Liked Good loaf volume 7.0

901‐Mott 5.0 4.0 5.0

902‐Barlow 6.0 Liked High water absorption 5.0 Liked Disliked

Good for Chinese noodle Poor loaf volume

6.0

903‐Choteau 4.0 Disliked Sticky dough 3.0 Disliked Poor loaf volume Less yellowish (Chinese noodles)

4.0 Disliked High ash Dough property End product quality

904‐Vida 4.0 Disliked

Slightly sticky dough A little weak dough

3.0 Disliked Poor loaf volume 4.0

905‐ND808 5.0 5.0 Liked Good for Chinese noodle 5.0

906‐Glenn 4.0 Disliked Hard to develop 4.0 4.0 Disliked Dough property

39

Dough Handling End‐Product Performance Overall Acceptability Taiwan Score Comments Score Comments Scor

e Comments


Handles well Elasticity slightly stronger

8.0 Liked Good oven spring Acceptable texture

7.0 Liked Disliked

Nice flour quality Protein slightly low

901‐Mott 6.5 Disliked Slightly sticky 6.5 Liked Disliked

Acceptable texture Poor oven spring and texture

5.5 Disliked

Baking quality slightly poor


Handles well 6.5 Liked Disliked

Acceptable texture Poor oven spring and volume

6.0 Disliked

Wheat quality slightly poor

903‐Choteau 5.5 Disliked Softer 5.0 Disliked

Very low volume Very poor oven spring Poor texture

5.0 Disliked Poor flour quality Poor baking quality

904‐Vida 5.0 Disliked Softer Weak

4.5 Disliked Very low volume Very poor oven spring Unacceptable texture

5.0 Disliked Poor flour quality Poor baking quality

905‐ND808 7.5 Liked

Good extensibility 6.5 Liked Disliked

Acceptable texture Slightly poor oven spring Lower volume specific

6.5 Disliked Slightly poor quality of wheat and flour

906‐Glenn 8.0 Liked Good mixing tolerance Good elasticity and extensibility

8.5 Liked

Good oven spring Good texture Whiter color

8.0 Liked Nice wheat quality Good baking performance

40

Dough Handling End‐Product Performance Overall Acceptability Korea Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments 900‐ CONTROL 7.0 Liked Good dough handling

Good elasticity and extensibility 7.0 Liked Good volume

Good crumb color 7.0 Liked Good dough handling

Good volume and shape Good wheat flour quality

901‐Mott 6.0 Liked Good dough handling High water absorption content

6.0 Disliked

Too large volume 6.0 Liked Disliked

Good texture and crumb color Good grains Good mouth feel Too large volume

902‐Barlow 6.0 Liked Disliked

Good dough handling Poor proofing time (short proof time)

6.0 Disliked Too large volume 6.0 Liked Disliked

Good texture and crumb color Good grains Too large volume

903‐Choteau 3.0. Liked Disliked

High water absorption content Poor dough handling (strong elasticity) Dark dough color

4.0 Disliked Slightly small volume Dark crumb color Foreign aroma

3.0 Disliked Too high protein High ash content Poor volume Poor grains

904‐Vida 3.0 Disliked

Poor dough handling (weak elasticity) Poor proofing time (long proof time)

4.0 Disliked Very small volume Dark crumb color

3.0 Disliked High ash content Too poor volume Poor grains

905‐ND808 4.0 Disliked Poor dough handling (weak) Longer mixing time than control Low water absorption content

5.0 Liked

Good volume

5.0 Disliked Low water absorption Sticky mouth feel

906‐Glenn 4.0 Disliked Poor dough handling (very strong) 5.0 Disliked Too large volume Unpleasant aftertaste

5.0 Disliked Too high protein Poor shape Too large volume Poor texture

41

Variety Dough Handling End‐Product Performance Overall Acceptability

Thailand Score Comments Score Comments

Score Comments

900‐ CONTROL

7.0

Disliked

Slightly low absorption

7.0

Liked Disliked

Good dough property Acceptable bread volume Acceptable texture Good oven spring Slightly low absorption

7.0 Liked Nice wheat and flour quality

901‐Mott

6.5

Disliked

Slightly low water absorption Slightly too long peak time

5.5

Liked Disliked

Good water absorption Good dough property Fine grain Slightly too long proofing time Poor oven spring

6.0 Liked Disliked

High protein content Low ash content Low extraction rate Prefer strong gluten

902‐Barlow

7.0

Liked Disliked

Good water absorption Slightly too long peak time

6.0

Liked Disliked

Good dough property Fine grain Poor oven spring Long proofing time

6.0 Liked Disliked

Good protein and ash content Very low extraction rate Prefer stronger gluten

903‐Choteau

7.0

Liked Disliked

Acceptable water absorption Slightly too long peak time

5.0

Liked Disliked

Good dough property Acceptable texture Proof over spring and volume Long proofing time Coarse grain

5.0 Disliked Very low extraction rate Prefer stronger gluten

904‐Vida

5.5

Disliked

Slightly low water absorption

5.0

Liked Disliked

Good water absorption Good dough property Proof over spring and volume Long proofing time Coarse grain

5.5 Disliked Low extraction rate Prefer stronger gluten

905‐ND808

6.5

Disliked

Slightly low water absorption

7.5

Liked Disliked

Good water absorption Good dough property Fine grain Long proofing time

6.5 Liked Disliked

Nice bread quality Low extraction rate

906‐Glenn

6.0

Liked Disliked

Acceptable water absorption Too long peak time

7.5

Liked Disliked

Good water absorption Good dough property Fine grain Too long mixing time Long proofing time

6.5 Liked Disliked

Nice bread quality Low extraction rate

42

Variety Dough Handling End‐Product Performance Overall Acceptability Malaysia Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments 900‐ CONTROL 7.0 Liked

Disliked Acceptable absorption Slightly sticky dough, shorter dough development time

6.5 Liked Disliked

Good oven spring Coarser texture

6.5 Liked Disliked

Customer preference Prefer longer dough mixing time

901‐Mott 9.0 Liked Good dough handling and absorption 8.0 Liked Disliked

Good oven spring and volume Coarser texture and slightly unstable side

8.0 Liked Disliked

Strong flour with good allowance for blending with other economical wheat varieties Prefer higher gluten index


Good absorption and mixing time Slightly sticky dough

8.0 Liked Disliked

Good oven spring and volume Coarser texture and slightly unstable side

7.5 Liked Disliked

Good absorption and mixing tolerance Prefer higher flour yield from lab mill


Good absorption and mixing time Slightly soft and sticky dough

6.0 Disliked Poor oven spring 6.0 Disliked Low flour yield, yet high ash and lack of baking performance

904‐Vida 8.0 Liked Disliked

Ideal mixing time Slightly sticky dough

6.0 Disliked Poor oven spring 6.0 Disliked Low flour yield, yet high ash and lack of baking performance

905‐ND808 8.0 Liked Disliked

Ideal mixing time Slightly softer dough

8.0 Liked Disliked

Good oven spring and texture Slightly unstable side

7.0 Liked Disliked

Low ash Prefer higher flour yield from lab mill


Good absorption Tougher dough and rather long mixing time

9.0 Liked

Excellent oven spring and texture

8.0 Liked Disliked

Strong flour with good allowance for blending with other economical wheat varieties Prefer higher flour yield from lab mill

43


Indonesia Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments


Good mixing time Good proofing time Slightly soft Low water absorption

7.0 Liked Disliked

Acceptable bread Slightly yellow crumb color Shrunken side

7.0 Liked Disliked

Low protein Others: standard Slightly yellow crumb color Shrunken side Low water absorption


Good water absorption Good dough consistency Good farinograph stability Good proofing and mixing time Low P alveograph

6.5 Liked Disliked

Good color crumb Bread almost the same with CTRL Slightly low volume

6.5 Liked Disliked

High water absorption and flour yield Good crumb color Good dough consistency Low ash content High protein Low gluten index Low amylograph viscosity Slightly low volume


High water absorption High P value Slightly sticky Long mixing time

7.5 Liked

Good crumb color Good cell structure

7.5 Liked Disliked

High protein High 1000 KW and kernel size Good cell structure Good crumb color Long mixing time Slightly sticky dough


High water absorption Low R extensograph Very long farinograph stability Soft and slightly sticky Proofing time, slightly long

6.0 Liked Disliked

Good crumb color No shrunken side Small volume and oven spring Poor cell structure Poor texture

6.0 Liked Disliked

High protein and water abs Good sedimentation No shrunken side High FN Sticky dough Small volume and oven spring Poor cell structure and volume

904‐Vida 5.0 Disliked Low R extensograph Slightly sticky Long proofing time

5.5 Liked Disliked

Good crumb color No shrunken side Very poor volume and oven spring Poor cell structure Poor structure

5.5 Liked Disliked

Good kernel size and flour yield Good flour yield No shrunken side Poor bread Very high starch damage Protein slightly low


Short mixing time Low area of extensograph (sq cm) Very long proofing time Slightly soft

8.0 Liked Disliked

Very good crumb color Good cell structure Good texture Slightly low volume (light weight)

8.0 Liked Disliked

Good bread Very good crumb color Good texture Slightly low volume (light weight)


Good W value Very good water absorption Good area of extensograph (sq cm) Very good dough handling Very long farinograph stability Very long mixing time

8.5 Liked

The best

8.5 Liked Disliked

Very good bread performance Very good texture Long mixing time

44

Dough Handling End‐Product Performance Overall Acceptability

Philippines‐1 Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments

900‐ CONTROL 6.5 Like Disliked

Very good water intakeGood mixing Soft dough

6.5 Like Acceptable characteristics 6.5 Like Dislike

Acceptable flour qualityAcceptable baking quality Prefer good dough handling Prefer low ash Prefer higher stability and resistance

901‐Mott 6.0 Like Dislike

Good mixingSlightly soft dough

8.0 Like

Slightly close cell structureGood crumb color Slightly soft texture

7.5 Like Dislike

Good flour qualityGood end product result Prefer good handling

902‐Barlow 7.5 Like

Good water intakeGood mixing Normal dough handling

8.5 Like Good oven and spring volume Slightly close cell structure Good crumb color Slightly soft texture

8.5 Like Good flour qualityAcceptable processing Good end product result

903‐Choteau 6.5 Like Dislike

Good water intakeGood mixing Slightly soft dough

6.0 Like Slightly good crumb color 6.0 Dislike Prefer low stabilityPrefer good handling

904‐Vida 6.0 Liked Dislike

Good mixingSlightly soft dough

6.0 Like Slightly good crumb color 6.0 Dislike Prefer slightly higher peak timePrefer good dough handling

905‐ND808 6.0 Like

Very good mixing 8.0 Like Good oven spring and volume Slightly close cell structure Good crumb color Soft texture

7.0 Like Good end product resultAcceptable flour quality

906‐Glenn 6.0 Like

Good mixing 8.0 Like

Good oven spring and volume Slightly close cell structure Good crumb color Soft texture

7.0 Like Dislike

Good end product result Prefer slightly low stability Prefer slightly longer extensibility

45



900‐ CONTROL 7.5 Liked Good water absorption Good dough handling

7.0 Liked Disliked

Good volume Good oven spring Slightly open grain

7.6 Liked Disliked

Good flour extractionGood water absorption Good dough handling Prefer an optimum flour ash result


Good dough handling Good stability value Sl. longer development time

6.5 Liked Disliked

Good volume Good crust color Slightly open grain

7.5 Liked Disliked

High flour extractionGood protein value Good dough handling Good volume Prefer a good grain profile Prefer strong gluten index Sl. Longer development time

902‐Barlow 6.0 Disliked Shorter stability Sl. Short stability Very high water absorption Poor dough handling

8.0 Liked Disliked

Good volume Good oven spring Slightly dry texture

7.3 Liked Disliked

Good wheat profileGood volume Good oven spring Prefer high water absorption Prefer good rheological profile


Long stability Slightly high water absorption

5.0 Disliked Low volume Low oven spring Coarse crumb texture Very open grain

6.9 Liked Disliked

Long stabilityGood wheat profile High wheat gluten index Prefer good grain and bread volume


Short development time Good dough handling Short stability

5.5 Disliked Low volume Low oven spring Coarse crumb texture Very open grain

7.0 Liked Disliked

Good flour colorGood water absorption Good flour extraction Prefer a good bread profile


Good dough handlingGood water absorption Short stability

7.5 Liked Good volume Good texture and crumb color Good oven spring Good grain

7.1 Liked Disliked

Good volumeGood texture and crumb color Good oven spring Good grain Prefer high water extraction Prefer good rheological profile


Good dough handling Long stability Slightly high water absorption Long development time

8.5 Liked Good volume Good texture and crumb color Good oven spring Good grain

7.4 Liked Disliked

Good VolumeGood texture and crumb color Good oven spring Good grain Prefer good rheological profile

46



900‐ CONTROL 7.0 Liked

Short mixing timeFaster dough development

4.5 LikedDisliked

Acceptable volumeSlightly open grain

4.0 Liked Disliked

High flour yieldGood dough processing Not so good end product results


Slightly high water absorption Slightly stiff dough

5.0 Liked

Acceptable volume 5.0 Liked

High wet gluten in flourAcceptable baking results

902‐Barlow 4.0 Disliked Low water absorptionSlightly poor dough handling

6.5 Liked Disliked

Good volume Good crumb color Very good bread performance Slightly open grain

6.5 Liked Disliked

Good baking quality Not so good dough processing performance Low flour yield

903‐Choteau 5.0 Liked Handles well 4.5 Liked Disliked

Acceptable volumeAcceptable crumb color Poor grain

4.5 Liked Disliked

Good dough processing performance Good dough handling Poor grain Low flour yield


High water absorptionStiff dough

3.0 Disliked Poor texture Poor grain Poor bread performance Low volume

3.0 Liked Disliked

High water absorptionHigh wet gluten in flour Stiff dough Poor baking qualities



8.0 Liked

Very good volumeVery good bread performance Good crumb color Good grain and texture

7.0 Liked Disliked

Very good baking qualities Low flour yield



8.5 Liked Very good volume Very good bread performance Good crumb color Very good grain and texture

7.0 Liked Disliked

Very good baking qualities Low flour yield

47


Guatamala Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments 900‐ CONTROL 9.0 Liked

Disliked Good absorption and W valueSlightly high P/L

9.0 Liked

Good volume and colorVery good texture and crumb

8.5 Liked

Good flour quality and end product


Good stability and absorption Very high L value

8.0 Liked Disliked

Good volume and crumb texture Slightly open grain

7.5 Liked Disliked

Acceptable flour quality Gluten index could be slightly higher


Good absorption and W valueSlightly high L value

7.5 Liked Disliked

Uniform and tight grain, excellent volume and oven spring Symmetry and uniformity

7.5 Liked Disliked

Acceptable flour quality Very low gluten index


Good absorption Slightly low W value

8.0 Liked Disliked

Good crumb texture Bubbly crust

6.0 Liked Disliked

Good amount of proteins Extremely low gluten index


Good absorption Very low stability and slightly low W value

8.0 Liked Disliked

Good symmetry and acceptable volume Crumb and crust texture

7.0 Liked Disliked

Very good amount of wet gluten Extremely low gluten index


Good absorption Slightly low P value

8.5 Liked Disliked

Good grain and excellent volume Brittle crust

8.0 Liked

Good gluten index


Good absorptionVery high development time and stability

6.5 Liked Disliked

Excellent volume and oven spring Bad symmetry and uniformity

6.5 Liked Disliked

Excellent gluten indexVery strong flour‐very high rheological properties

48


Dubai Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments 900‐ CONTROL 7.0 Liked

Disliked

Good handlingGood water absorption Less extensible dough

7.0 Liked Disliked

Golden yellow crustEven and dense structure Poor oven spring and volume

7.0 LikedDisliked

Moderate quality wheatPrefer stronger gluten with its desirable characteristics


Good in handling, Very strong doughCan be used less amount in blend Slightly yellowish

9.0 Liked Disliked

Good in appearanceGolden yellow crust Even dense structure Poor oven spring and volume Rough texture

9.5 Liked



Good in handling, strong dough

8.0 Liked Disliked

Good in appearanceEven structure, soft bright texture Moderate volume

9.0 Liked



Good in handling, shiny doughPliable after resting Too extensible

8.0 Liked Disliked

Good in appearanceLess volume with open structure Rough texture, dull crumb

8.0 Liked



Good in handling, Normal in appearance Slightly sticky after resting

7.0 Liked Disliked

Good in appearanceEven dense structure Less volume, Open structure Rough texture, dull crumb

7.5 Liked Nice wheat and flour quality

905‐ND808 7.0 Liked

Good in handling, bright dough 6.0 Liked Disliked

Good in appearance with golden yellow crust Brighter crumb Dense structure Good texture Moderate volume

6.0 Liked



Good in handling, strong excellent extensible dough Excellent fermentation tolerance

9.0 Liked

Good in appearance with golden yellow crust Brighter crumb Dense structure Good texture

9.5 Liked

Excellent flour quality

49


Oman Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments 900‐ CONTROL 3.0 8.5 Liked

Disliked

Higher volume of breadBetter appearance Better crumb color and texture Little low in crumb color and texture

8.0 Liked Disliked

White wheatStrong and extensible gluten High bread volume Good baking performance Low protein Low gluten and gluten index


Good stability 8.0 Liked Disliked

Highest bread volumeBest crumb color Better crumb structure Better appearance Little darker crust color Little low crumb texture

7.0 Liked Disliked

Good falling number, High extractionGood stability, High bread volume, good baking Comparatively low test weight Low 100 kernel wt. and color of flour Crumb color little darker


High in stability and w valueOptimum extensibility and dough handling

9.0 Liked

Second highest bread volume Best crumb and crust color Best crumb structure Better appearance

9.0 Liked Disliked

High in test weight, 1000 kernel wtNo damage kernels shrunken and broken High water absorption Best baking performance Comparatively low sedimentation value Low extraction rate


Better water absorptionOptimum dough handling Low gluten index Little sticky dough Little low extensible dough

7.0 Liked Disliked

Average qualityLow bread volume Low crust color

8.0 Liked

High in test weight, 1000 kernel wtNo damage to kernels shrunken or broken High in color and water absorption Optimum dough handling and average baking performance


Reasonable W value Better water absorption Less elasticity

5.5 Liked Disliked

Average qualityLow bead volume Poor crust color and texture

7.5 Liked Disliked

Good test weight, Better flour extractionAcceptable W value and water absorption Average baking performance Low sedimentation value, Less elasticity Low bread volume, Poor crust color and texture


High gluten index Better stability Low P value Lowest W value

7.5 Liked Disliked

Acceptable bread volume Best crumb color Better crumb structure Low crust color

5.0 Liked Disliked

Better color L. and aveo W valuesHigh gluten index Better stability, Comparatively low 1000 kernel wt Low sedimentation, High shrunken and broken kernels, Low stability, P and W values

906‐Glenn 9.0 Liked Highest stability and W valueHigh gluten index Best dough handling

7.5 Liked Disliked

Better appearanceBetter crumb color and structure Low crust color Lower extraction

8.5 Liked Disliked

High sedimentation valueHigh gluten index, Higher water absorption High gluten index, stability, and w values Higher bread volume, Better appearance Better dough handling, Low crust color Low 1000 kernel weight, Lower extraction

50


Tanzania Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments 900‐ CONTROL 7.0 Liked

Disliked

Slightly high water absorptionPreferable peak time High P/L

8.0 Liked Disliked

High volumeGood general appearance Good crumb texture Crumb color slightly dull

7.3 Liked Disliked

High lab mill extractionHigh test weight High bread volume High flour color


Intermediate P/L preferred for breadStrong flour Slightly high water absorption Low P value Low L value

5.0 Disliked

Low oven springCrumb color slightly dull

6.5 Liked Disliked

Normal test weightGood general appearance of bread Low oven spring Poor crumb color


High P valueHigh water absorption Low P/L good for bread Slightly low stability

7.0 Liked

Good general appearanceSlightly high volume Good texture

7.7 Liked Disliked

High lab mill extraction with high test weight Good general appearance Slightly high moisture


Slightly high water absorptionHighly stable Low P, Long L value

5.5 Liked Disliked

Slightly good textureLow bread volume Poor general appearance Crumb color slightly dull

6.9 Liked Disliked

Low moisture contentHigh protein and good gluten index Low extraction rate Low bread volume Poor crumb color


Slightly good water absorptionP/L preferred Slightly low stability

4.0 Liked

Very poor tin breadLow bread volume Generally poor bread performance

6.4 Liked Disliked

Slightly high lab mill extraction Slightly high moisture content Poor bread performance


Slightly high water absorptionP/L preferable Good W value Low Stability

7.5 Liked

High bread volumeGood general appearance Slightly good crumb color

7.6 Liked Disliked

High bread volumeGood texture Low wet gluten Less stable


High peak time, highly stableHigh water absorption

7.0 Liked Disliked

Good textureGood general appearance Slightly high bread volume Crumb color slightly dull

6.9 Liked Disliked

Low ash content Low lab mill extraction

51

HRS G/GL Variety Sample Evaluation Variety Dough Handling End‐Product Performance Overall Acceptability

Spain Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments 910‐ CONTROL 9

9

9.0

911‐BRICK

9

9 9.0

912‐BARLOW 9

9

9.0

913‐BRENNAN 9 8.5

8.5

914‐BREAKER 9 8.0 Disliked A little less volume

8.5

915‐SABIN 9

8.5

8.5

916‐GLENN 9 8.5 9.0

52


UK‐1 Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments

910‐ CONTROL 8.0 Liked Handles well N/A Liked Good oven spring and volume

N/A

911‐BRICK

6.0 Disliked

Slightly tight ex mixer 8.0 Liked

Good oven spring and volume

7.5

912‐BARLOW 6.0 Disliked



7.5

913‐BRENNAN 6.0 Disliked Slightly tight ex mixer 7.5 Liked


8.0

914‐BREAKER 7.5 Liked Nice to handle 8.0 Liked


8.0

915‐SABIN 6.0 Disliked



7.5

916‐GLENN 7.5 Liked

Nice to handle 7.5 Liked Good oven spring and volume

8.0

53


UK‐2 Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments 910‐ CONTROL 7.0 Liked Good degree of strength and balanced 8.0 Liked Good overall quality 8.0 Liked Baking performance

911‐BRICK

4.0 Disliked Gluten too strong 4.0 Disliked

Only moderate bread quality

4.0 Disliked Gluten strength and baking performance

912‐BARLOW 7.0 Liked

Balanced gluten characteristics 6.0 Liked Disliked

Good volumeSlightly open crumb structure

6.5 Liked

Disliked

Acceptable overall quality

Crumb Structure

913‐BRENNAN 6.0 Liked

Good gluten quality 7.0 Liked Good overall quality

7.0 Liked Good overall quality

914‐BREAKER 4.0 Disliked Overstrong gluten 3.0 Disliked

Only moderate to poor baking performance

4.0 Disliked Baking performance

915‐SABIN 7.0 Liked

Good gluten quality 8.0 Liked

Very good overall quality

7.0 Liked Disliked

Baking performanceLow flour extraction

916‐GLENN 4.0 Liked Overstrong gluten 4.0 Disliked

Only moderate baking performance

4.5 Disliked

Baking performance and gluten strength

54


Italy Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments 910‐ CONTROL 8.0 8.0

8.0

911‐BRICK

8.0

8.0

8.5

912‐BARLOW 7.0

7.0

7.5

913‐BRENNAN 6.0

6.0

6.0

914‐BREAKER 7.0

7.0

7.0

915‐SABIN 6.0

6.0

6.5

916‐GLENN 8.0

8.0 8.0

55


Mexico Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments 910‐ CONTROL 3.0 Liked

Disliked Absorption Low strength

4.0 Disliked Low oven spring Low volume Crumb too compact

5.0 Disliked

Wheat with medium to poor quality Prefer a higher gluten content

911‐BRICK

8.0 Liked Disliked

Strength Absorption

8.0 Liked

Good crumb Good volume Good spring oven

8.0 LikedDisliked

Falling number ok/strength okMedium volume

912‐BARLOW 8.0 Liked

Strength/Absorption

8.0 Liked


8.0 Liked

Strength

913‐BRENNAN 7.0 Liked Disliked

Absorption Low stability

9.0 Liked

Very uniform crumb Great volume Very good oven spring

9.0 LikedDislike

Excellent quality of wheat and flourPrefer a better stability of falling number

914‐BREAKER 8.0 Liked

Strength/Absorption

8.0 Liked


8.0

915‐SABIN 8.0 Liked

Strength/Absorption

8.0 Liked


8.0

916‐GLENN 9.0 Liked Strength/Absorption

9.0 LikedDisliked

Great volumeLittle oven spring Not uniform crumb structure

8.0

56


Dominican Republic Score Comments Score Comments Score Comments 910‐ CONTROL 7.0 Liked

Disliked

Good handlingSlightly low water absorption

8.0 Liked

Good textureVery good volume

7.0 Liked Disliked

Good flour qualityPrefer higher protein Prefer higher absorption

911‐BRICK

7.0 Liked Disliked

Good handlingSlightly low water absorption

6.5 Liked Disliked

Good water absorption Good texture Low volume

7.0 Disliked Prefer higher wheat protein

912‐BARLOW 7.5 Liked Disliked

Good water absorptionSlightly low development time

8.0 Liked

Good water absorption Good volume

9.0 Liked

Very good wheat and flour quality

913‐BRENNAN 7.0 Liked Disliked

Good water absorptionLow development time Slightly low stability

6.0 Liked Disliked

Good water absorptionVery low volume

7.5 Disliked Prefer higher specific weight Prefer higher bread volume

914‐BREAKER 8.5 Liked Disliked

Good stability Good development time Very high W

7.0 Liked Disliked

Good water absorptionSlightly low volume

8.5 Liked


915‐SABIN 6.5 Liked Disliked

Good water absorptionLow development time Slightly low stability

7.0 Liked Disliked

Good water absorptionSlightly low volume

8.0 Liked


916‐GLENN 7.0 Liked Disliked

Good water absorptionLow development time Very high W

8.5 Liked

Good water absorption Very good volume

8.5 Liked


57

Section B: Wheat Sample Milling and Kernel Grading

Information

58

Methods and Procedures – Milling and Tests for Kernel Characteristics

1. Test Weight – weights per Winchester bushel of cleaned, dry wheat subsequent to the removal of dockage using a Carter‐Day dockage tester. Units are recorded as lb/bu and kg/hl (AACC Method 55‐10).

2. Kernel Size – percent kernels remaining over a Tyler #7 sieve (2.92 mm opening) and over a Tyler #12 sieve (1.65 mm opening).

3. NIR Kernel Hardness (AACC Method 39‐70A).

4. Kernel Moisture – official USDA procedure with Motomco Moisture Meter

5. Whole Wheat Protein – whole grain (NIR) – (AACC 46‐30 – combustion method) @ 12% moisture basis.

6. Whole Wheat Ash – (AACC Method 08‐01) @ 14% moisture basis.

7. Falling Number in Seconds – Perten Falling Number Instrument (AACC 56‐81B)

8. Thousand kernel weight – 10 gram sample of clean wheat counted by an electronic counter.

9. Official Grade – (FGIS/USDA Standards).

10. Milling Procedure ‐ Wheat was cleaned, conditioned, and milled in the following sequence: The wheat was cleaned on a grain cleaning system which includes a separator cleaner, air aspirator and color sorter. Each sample was tempered to 16.5% moisture the day before milling.

59

Kernel Characteristics Results U.S. Wheat Associates

Overseas Varietal Analysis Project

2009 Crop

Official Wheat Grade Information (FGIS)

Test Test Foreign Damaged Broken Total FGIS FIGS

ID Cultivator Location Weight Weight material Kernel Kernel Defects DHV1 Grade Subclass

lb/bu kg/hl % % % % %

901 Mott PNW 61.0 80.2 0 0.2 0.1 0.3 72 1 NS

902 Barlow PNW 64.0 84.1 0 0 0 0 73 1 NS

903 Choteau PNW 61.0 80.2 0 0 0 0 83 1 DNS

904 Vida PNW 62.0 81.5 0 0 0.1 0.1 74 1 NS

905 ND808 PNW 61.0 80.2 0 0.1 0.3 0.4 63 1 NS

906 Glenn PNW 62.0 81.5 0 0 0.1 0.1 89 1 DNS

AVERAGE PNW 61.8 81.3 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 75.7 1

911 Brick G/GL 63.0 82.8 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 76 1 DNS

912 Barlow G/GL 63.0 82.8 0 0.3 0 0.3 82 1 DNS

913 Brennan G/GL 60.0 78.9 0 0.3 0.4 0.7 57 1 NS

914 Breaker G/GL 62.0 81.5 0 1.4 0.3 1.7 68 1 NS

915 Sabin G/GL 61.0 80.2 0 0.2 0.3 0.5 93 1 DNS

916 Glenn G/GL 63.0 82.8 0 0.8 0.2 1 94 1 DNS

AVERAGE G/GL 62.0 81.5 0 0.53 0.23 0.77 78.3 1

1DHV indicates the percent of dark, hard and vitreous kernels

60

U.S. Wheat Associates


2009 Crop

Additional Kernel Quality Characteristics

Wheat Protein1

Wheat Ash2

SKCS3 Kernel Size Distribution4

ID Cultivar Location 12% MB

0% MB

14% MB

0% MB

Falling Number

Sedimentation 1000 Kernel

Hardness3 Weight3 Diameter3 Large Medium Small

(%) (%) (%) (%) (sec) (Zeleny, cc) Wt (g) (grams) (mg) (mm) (%) (%) (%)

901 MOTT PNW 15.2 17.3 1.44 1.68 345 62 30.4 66.8 31.0 2.8 51 48 1

902 BARLOW PNW 14.7 16.7 1.46 1.70 401 53 36.5 79.6 36.5 2.9 73 26 1

903 CHOTEAU PNW 15.9 18.1 1.73 2.01 500 60 35.8 53.2 35.4 2.9 65 35 0

904 VIDA PNW 13.7 15.6 1.68 1.96 423 39 36.4 69.3 36.0 2.9 65 34 1

905 ND808 PNW 13.9 15.8 1.42 1.66 426 49 34.1 74.1 32.9 2.9 60 39 1

906 GLENN PNW 15.8 17.8 1.37 1.59 410 69 29.9 82.1 30.0 2.7 35 63 2

AVERAGE PNW 14.9 16.9 1.52 1.77 417.5 55.3 33.9 70.9 33.6 2.9 58.2 40.8 1.0

911 BRICK G/GL 13.7 15.6 1.54 1.79 402 49 32.3 82.2 32.3 2.7 50 49 1

912 BARLOW G/GL 15.0 17.0 1.62 1.88 349 58 32.8 84.1 32.8 2.8 61 38 1

913 BRENNAN G/GL 15.1 17.2 1.59 1.84 294 66 29.8 76.3 29.8 2.7 52 46 2

914 BREAKER G/GL 14.6 16.6 1.53 1.78 394 69 33.3 81.0 33.3 2.8 58 41 1

915 SABIN G/GL 15.3 17.4 1.66 1.93 452 49 27.9 91.3 27.9 2.6 36 62 2

916 GLENN G/GL 14.8 16.8 1.57 1.83 420 63 31.8 86.1 31.8 2.8 59 40 1

AVERAGE G/GL 14.8 16.8 1.59 1.84 385.2 59.0 31.3 83.5 31.3 2.7 52.7 46.0 1.3

1 Wheat protein reported on both 12% and 0% moisture basis using combustion nitrogen analysis (Dumas Nitrogen) 2 Wheat ash value reported on 14% and 0% moisture basis 3 Kernel Weight, Kernel Hardness and Kernel Diameter were from Single Kernel Characterization System (SKCS) 4 Based on % weight of kernels held on 2.82 mm (Large) and 2.00 mm (Medium) sieves and through a 2.00 mm (Small) sieve

61

Milling Results US Wheat Associates

Oversea Varietal Analysis Project

2009 Crop

Milling Extraction

Straight Grade Flour Flour Ash

ID Cultivar Location Extraction (%)1 (%)2

901 MOTT PNW 66.8 0.42

902 BARLOW PNW 59.5 0.46

903 CHOTEAU PNW 59.7 0.51

904 VIDA PNW 62.3 0.52

905 ND 808 PNW 59.8 0.47

906 GLENN PNW 59.0 0.46

AVERAGE 61.2 0.47

911 BRICK G/GL 58.9 0.52

912 BARLOW G/GL 55.7 0.50

913 BRENNAN G/GL 51.9 0.50

914 BREAKER G/GL 56.1 0.54

915 SABIN G/GL 51.6 0.59

916 GLENN G/GL 52.6 0.55

AVERAGE G/GL 54.5 0.53

1 Flour extractions were calculated based on total products collected. 2 Flour ash is reported on a 14.0 percent moisture basis Notes: The NCI Pilot mill is a dual purpose or “swing mill” that allows for the milling of durum wheat into semolina and

hard wheats, such as hard red spring, hard red winter and hard white into flour.

The grain cleaning system consists of a classifier cleaner, air aspirator and color sorter all manufactured by Buhler, Inc. The roll stands were built by Creason Corrugating & Machinery Co. Inc. and are 10 inches in diameter and 4 inches long. The sifter box was designed and built by Great Western Manufacturing Company. The flow utilizes three pilot‐scale purifiers which were manufactured by Buhler, Inc. In hard wheat mode, the mill has 16 roll stands, with seven breaks and nine reduction rolls. In durum wheat mode, the mill has 12 roll stands, with eight break rolls and four reduction rolls. The throughput of the mill is approximately 300 lbs per hour. The wheat samples were tempered to 16.5% moisture the day before milling, utilizing a custom built tempering drum. After water addition, the samples were tumbled for 15 minutes and transferred to covered plastic storage container, and stored for approximately 16 hours before milling. Brian Sorenson, Director Northern Crops Institute

62

Section C: Flour, Rheological and Product Analysis

63

Hard Red Spring Wheat Quality Laboratory Department of Plant Sciences North Dakota State University

Fargo, North Dakota

Methods and Procedures ‐ Flour, Dough and End Product Analysis (Hard Red Spring Wheat Quality Evaluation)

Flour Characteristics

Flour Protein ‐‐ AACC Method: 46‐30; (Combustion Method); expressed on 14 percent moisture basis.

Flour Ash – AACC Method: 08‐01; expressed on 14 percent moisture basis.

Falling Number ‐‐ AACC Method: 56‐81 B; expressed on 14 percent moisture basis.

Starch Damage ‐‐ AACC Method: 76‐31.

Wet Gluten ‐‐ AACC Method: 38‐12; expressed on 14 percent moisture basis.

Flour Color ‐‐ Minolta Method: Minolta Chroma Meter CR‐ 110 with Granular‐ Materials Attachment CR‐A50. L* indicates white ‐ black, a* red ‐ green, and b* yellow – blue.

Amylograph – AACC Method: 22‐10; 100g flour; AACC Method: 22‐10; modified to use 65g flour and 450 ml distilled water with paddle.

Dough Characteristics

Farinograph – AACC Method: 54‐21; with 50g bowl. Absorption expressed on 14 percent moisture basis.

Mixograph – AACC Method: 54‐40A 10g bowl, water was adjusted based on the protein content, and the spring setting was 10.

Extensograph – AACC Method: 54‐10; modified, 45 minute and 135 minute stretch.

Alveograph – AACC Method: 54‐30A; Modified using Alveolink NG.

Baking Procedure

Baking ‐‐ AACC Method: 10‐09; Modified: fungal amylase (15 SKB units/100g flour) replacing malt dry powder, instant dry yeast (1%); 5 ppm bromate, when added oxidants are required; 2% shortening.

The dough is mechanically punched, molded and baked in "Shogren‐type" pans.

Scoring based on a scale of 1‐10. Higher numbers indicate preferred quality attributes.

64

Flour Analysis Results US Wheat Associates


2009 Crop

Flour Characteristics

Flour Flour Falling Starch Wet Gluten Minolta Color Amylograph

ID Cultivar Location Protein1 Ash1 Number Damage Gluten Index L* a* b* 65g 100g

(%) (%) (sec.) (%) (%) (BU) (BU)

901 Mott PNW 14.7 0.42 420 5.4 45.2 97.5 89.67 ‐1.05 9.79 625 2203

902 Barlow PNW 13.9 0.46 449 6.7 40.5 93.5 89.96 ‐1.08 9.76 865 2632

903 Choteau PNW 15.3 0.51 560 5.4 45.7 83.5 90.36 ‐0.71 8.05 800 2885

904 Vida PNW 12.9 0.52 458 6.9 40.5 87.9 89.96 ‐0.81 9.33 904 2891

905 ND808 PNW 12.9 0.47 420 6.6 38.2 93.2 90.17 ‐0.53 7.71 905 3224

906 Glenn PNW 15.0 0.46 462 6.4 41.1 97.3 90.27 ‐0.97 9.08 993 3259

AVERAGE PNW 14.1 0.47 461.5 6.2 41.9 92.2 90.07 ‐0.86 8.95 848.7 2849.0

911 Brick G/GL 12.6 0.52 441 7.4 35.5 97.5 89.92 ‐1.17 9.78 600 2046

912 Barlow G/GL 13.7 0.50 380 7.2 40.9 93 89.90 ‐0.98 9.53 390 1204

913 Brennan G/GL 13.6 0.50 323 6.2 41.1 86.9 90.10 ‐1.41 10.42 295 821

914 Breaker G/GL 13.5 0.54 441 6.9 37.2 97.9 89.43 ‐0.96 9.72 690 1870

915 Sabin G/GL 14.0 0.59 463 7.1 41.5 87.6 89.32 ‐0.90 9.83 510 1493

916 Glenn G/GL 14.2 0.55 388 7.4 39.2 97.5 89.42 ‐0.86 8.98 745 1813

AVERAGE G/GL 13.6 0.53 406.0 7.0 39.2 93.4 89.68 ‐1.05 9.71 538.3 1541.2

1 Flour protein and ash are reported on a 14.0 percent moisture basis Note: All data in the above table were analyzed at the Hard Red Spring Wheat Lab at North Dakota State University

65

Dough Analysis Results

US Wheat Associates


2009 Crop

Dough Rheology Characteristics‐ Farinograph and Mixograph

Farinogram Mixogram

ID Cultivar Location Absorption1 Peak Time Mixing Stability MTI2 Classification Classification

(%) (min.) (min.) (BU) (1‐8) (1‐8)

901 Mott PNW 65.6 9.0 15.5 20 6 7

902 Barlow PNW 67.7 9.0 12.0 30 5 6

903 Choteau PNW 66.9 8.5 25.5 20 8 4

904 Vida PNW 64.9 6.5 12.0 35 6 4

905 ND808 PNW 65.0 8.0 11.0 40 5 4

906 Glenn PNW 66.7 11.0 33.0 20 8 7

AVERAGE 66.1 8.7 18.2 27.5 6.3 5.3

911 Brick G/GL 63.0 7.5 15.5 25 6 7

912 Barlow G/GL 67.4 8.0 11.0 40 5 6

913 Brennan G/GL 66.7 8.0 8.5 60 5 5

914 Breaker G/GL 64.9 11.0 18.0 30 6 7

915 Sabin G/GL 66.7 7.0 10.5 40 5 5

916 Glenn G/GL 65.6 9.0 17.0 20 6 7

AVERAGE G/GL 65.7 8.4 13.4 35.8 5.5 6.2

1Absorption value corrected to 14.0 percent moisture basis 2 Mixing Tolerance Index

66

Reference Farinogram Chart

67

Farinogram Images

HRS PNW FARINOGRAMS 901‐Mott 902‐Barlow

903‐Choteau 904‐Vida

905‐ND 805 906‐Glenn

68

HRS GULF/GREAT LAKES FARINOGRAMS

911‐Brick 912‐Barlow

913‐Brennan 914‐Breaker

915‐Sabin 916‐Glenn

69

Reference Mixogram Chart

70

Mixogram Images

HRS PNW Mixograms

901‐Mott 902‐Barlow


905‐ND 808 906‐Glenn

71

HRS G/GL Mixograms




72

US Wheat Associates


2009 Crop

Dough Rheology Characteristics‐ Extensograph and Alveograph

Extensogram Alveogram

45 min 135 min

ID Cultivar Location Extension Resistance Area Extension Resistance Area P L P/L W

(cm) (BU) (cm2) (cm) (BU) (cm2) (mm) (mm) (ratio) (10‐4 J)

901 Mott PNW 18.5 459 111 14.6 876 171 76 150 0.51 394

902 Barlow PNW 23.5 412 123 19.3 637 165 96 147 0.65 459

903 Choteau PNW 20.1 366 97 17.1 644 144 78 159 0.49 376

904 Vida PNW 19.4 355 94 16.4 543 120 83 134 0.62 334

905 ND808 PNW 17.4 402 90 16.4 722 159 81 152 0.53 404

906 Glenn PNW 19.3 748 175 13.4 9971 195 95 127 0.75 469

AVERAGE PNW 19.7 457 115 16.2 736.5 159 84.8 144.8 0.59 406

911 Brick G/GL 17.9 555 125 14.9 975 191 88 148 0.59 467

912 Barlow G/GL 19.4 448 115 13.4 801 141 91 158 0.58 450

913 Brennan G/GL 17.3 387 89 19.0 637 163 91 146 0.62 414

914 Breaker G/GL 20.3 582 147 16.7 564 128 87 181 0.48 552

915 Sabin G/GL 18.0 401 96 17.4 989 225 96 147 0.65 431

916 Glenn G/GL 19.3 588 143 17.5 594 136 87 162 0.54 506

AVERAGE G/GL 18.7 493.5 119.2 16.5 760 164 90 157 0.58 470

1 Resistance exceeded the extensograph maximum value of 1000 BU

73

Reference Extensogram Chart

74

Extensogram Images

HRS PNW Extensograms 901‐Mott 902‐Barlow 903‐Choteau

904‐Vida 905‐ND 808 906‐Glenn

75

HRS G/GL Extensograms

911‐Brick 912‐Barlow 913‐Brennan

914‐Breaker 915‐Sabin 916‐Glenn

76

Alveogram Images

HRS PNW Alveograms

901‐Mott 902‐Barlow


905‐ND 808 906‐Glenn

77

HRS G/GL Alveograms




78

End Product Quality Results U.S. Wheat Associates


2009 Crop

Bread making Characteristics

Bake Mix Dough Loaf Crumb Grain Crumb Crust Loaf

ID Cultivar Location Absorption1 Time Handling Volume and Texture Color Color Symmetry

(%) (min.) (1‐10) (cc) (1‐10) (1‐10) (1‐10) (1‐10)

901 Mott PNW 64.1 3.00 9.0 1000 9.0 8.0 10.0 10.0

902 Barlow PNW 66.2 2.75 10.0 1065 8.0 8.5 10.0 9.0

903 Choteau PNW 66.4 2.25 9.0 1000 8.5 9.0 10.0 8.0

904 Vida PNW 64.4 2.50 10.0 970 9.0 8.5 10.0 9.0

905 ND808 PNW 63.5 2.75 10.0 1065 8.5 9.5 10.0 9.0

906 Glenn PNW 65.2 3.75 9.0 1075 8.0 9.0 10.0 9.0

AVERAGE PNW 65.0 2.83 9.5 1029.2 8.5 8.75 10.0 9.0

911 Brick G/GL 62.5 4.25 10.0 920 8.0 8.0 10.0 9.0

912 Barlow G/GL 65.9 3.00 10.0 1010 9.0 8.0 10.0 9.0

913 Brennan G/GL 66.2 3.00 9.0 1000 8.5 9.0 10.0 9.0

914 Breaker G/GL 63.4 4.25 10.0 1075 8.5 8.5 10.0 7.0

915 Sabin G/GL 65.2 3.00 10.0 1000 9.0 8.0 10.0 9.0

916 Glenn G/GL 64.1 3.50 10.0 1025 8.0 8.0 10.0 9.0

AVERAGE G/GL 64.6 3.50 9.8 1005 8.5 8.3 10.0 8.7

114.0 percent moisture basis

79

U.S. Wheat Associates


2009 Crop

C‐Cell Analysis of Bread Loaves

ID Cultivar Location Slice Area Wrapper Length Slice Brightness Number of Cells Number of Holes Cell Wall Thickness

901 Mott PNW 349294.0 2249.5 128.2 4184.5 2.30 3.08

902 Barlow PNW 342820.5 2257.5 129.8 4327.0 3.68 3.06

903 Choteau PNW 324383.0 2133.5 138.3 4394.0 0.77 2.92

904 Vida PNW 305731.0 2112.5 132.8 4148.0 2.44 2.94

905 ND808 PNW 340106.0 2234.0 130.9 4422.0 4.12 3.07

906 Glenn PNW 370374.0 2323.0 131.8 4679.0 3.01 3.00

AVERAGE 338784.8 2218.3 132.0 4359.1 2.72 3.01

911 Brick G/GL 334287.0 2185.5 128.7 4550.0 5.83 2.98

912 Barlow G/GL 351571.0 2261.5 122.1 4452.0 3.47 3.09

913 Brennan G/GL 330121.0 2199.0 130.4 4419.5 4.34 2.98

914 Breaker G/GL 371534.0 2319.5 122.3 4498.5 3.18 3.17

915 Sabin G/GL 331778.5 2196.5 130.9 4565.5 3.29 2.99

916 Glenn G/GL 351287.0 2282.0 117.1 4397.0 3.08 3.06

Average 345096.4 2240.7 125.2 4480.4 3.86 3.04

80

C‐Cell Images of Bread Loaves

HRS PNW C‐Cell Images 901‐Mott

902‐Barlow

903‐Choteau

81

804‐Vida

905‐ND 808

906‐Glenn

82

HRS G/GL C‐Cell Images

911‐Brick

912‐Barlow

913‐Brennan

83

914‐Breaker

915‐Sabin

916‐Glenn

84

C‐Cell Bread Descriptor Definitions

Raw Image

A raw image of a slice selected for analysis

Shape

This shows a view of the slice with particular features shown in color. A white rectangular box is shown enclosing

the slice. The corners of the slice are also identified and are connected by white lined to each other and to the

center of the slice. Concavities in the sides of the slice are shown in blue for the bottom, green for the sides and

red for the top. Where oven spring is detected, this is shown in yellow. The points used for measuring the slice

height are marked as yellow points on the top edge. High points are identified at either side of the top edge and

the lowest point between them is also marked. Where there is no clear dip in the top, some of these points may

coincide and it may not be possible to see three distinct points.

Elongation

This image represents the orientation and elongation of cells. Short red lines are drawn parallel to the long axis of

the cells at each point in the slice. The length of the lines indicates the degree of elongation of the cells. For

regions that show some curvature, green lines are also drawn that point towards the center of the curvature. The

length of the green lines indicates the degree of local curvature. Yellow lines are also shown that divide regions of

the slice that show curvature in opposite directions. Regions of the slice that show a complete 360° rotational

structure are shaded in bright blue. Those that show a rotational structure that turns 180° are shaded in pale blue.

Those that show no full rotation are left grey.

Brightness correction

This image shows a view of the slice, corrected to remove any differences in overall product reflectance. The image

is shaded in brown to avoid confusion with the raw image.

Volume Contours

This displays contours of the coarseness of the texture, based on volume measurements of the cells. The coarsest

50% of the slice area is shaded in red and the finest regions are shaded in blue. The range of values displayed in

this image is used for calculation of cell size measurements on the coarse/fine clustering. The shape of the red and

blue regions is used for calculation of the circularity measurement.

Cell

This displays the individual cell within the product slice. Each one is color coded according to its prominence. This

is based on a combination of its area and depth. Small cells are colored in dark blue and larger ones are shown in

lighter shades of blue, green and yellow. Cells large enough to be classified as holes are outlined in red.

*Note: C‐Cell definition information was taken from Wheat Quality Council HRS Technical Committee 2008 Crop

Report.

85

Cooperator Bread Photos (Electronic/CD Version Only) PNW Cooperator Bread Photos

Korea – White Pan Bread Control – 900 Mott – 901 Barlow – 902 Choteau – 903

Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

Control – 900 Mott – 901 Barlow – 902 Choteau – 903

Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

86

Thailand – Open Top Bread Light – 6% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

Light – 16% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

87

Heavy – 6% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

Heavy – 16% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

88

Malaysia – Open Top Bread Light – 6% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

Light – 16% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

89

Heavy – 6% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

Heavy – 16% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

90

Indonesia – Open Top Bread Light – 6% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

Light – 16% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

91

Heavy – 6% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

Heavy – 16% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

92

Philipines‐1 – Open Top Bread Light – 6% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

Light – 16% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

93

Heavy – 6% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

Heavy – 16% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

94



Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

Light – 16% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

95

Heavy – 6% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

Heavy – 16% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

96



Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

Light – 16% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

97

Heavy – 6% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

Heavy – 16% Sugar


Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

98

Guatemala – Loaf Bread Control – 900 Mott – 901 Barlow – 902 Choteau – 903

Vida – 904 ND 808 – 905 Glenn – 906

99

G/GL Cooperator Bread Photos

Spain – Pan Bread

UK‐1 – Single Piece Unlidded

Control – 910 Brick – 911 Barlow – 912 Brennan – 913 Breaker – 914 Sabin – 915 Glenn ‐ 916

Brick – 911 Barlow – 912 Brennan – 913 Breaker – 914 Sabin – 915 Glenn ‐ 916

Documents

Hard Red Spring Wheat - Kansas State University · Hard Red Spring Wheat Hard Red ... Executive Summary ... Hard red spring —a specialty wheat grown primarily in the Northern Plains