Evaluation of methods for wheat grain hardness determination



Similar documents
Prediction of Wheat and Flour Zeleny Sedimentation Value Using NIR Technique

RICE QUALITY AND PROCESSING. Comparison of Milling Characteristics of Hybrid and Pureline Rice Cultivars

Canadian Wheat Quality Crop CWRS and CWAD

Production of Novel Rice Flour Fractions

LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES

FHT Flour Heat Treatment.

IDŐJÁRÁS Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service Vol. 116, No. 3, July September 2012, pp

GROWTH DYNAMICS AND YIELD OF WINTER WHEAT VARIETIES GROWN AT DIVERSE NITROGEN LEVELS E. SUGÁR and Z. BERZSENYI

ELIANE. The New Waxy Potato Starch of AVEBE Detmold, 2006

Guide to Cereals in the UK

Pasta Technology. Introduction to Pasta Technology. Bühler AG Ali Kocak Process Engineer

CORN BY-PRODUCTS IN DAIRY COW RATIONS

Solvent Retention Capacity for Different Wheats and Flours Evaluation

Phosphorus use efficiency, grain yield, and quality of triticale and durum wheat under irrigated conditions

Guide to Cereals. in the UK

Syllabus M.Tech. Food Technology DSC- FT- 1 A: FUNDAMENTALS OF FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PART I

Production and profitability of flour confectionary products in different sizes of Bakery Industry in Marathwada region (M. S.

Particle size measurement of lactose for dry powder inhalers

Choosing Wheat To Eat

The Relationship Between Grain Yield and Silage Yield in Field Corn in Northern Illinois INTRODUCTION

HMHF DIRECT DRIVE BELT DRIVE. Manufactured by UDY Corporation. Cyclone Models Available:

Setting Size Specifications

GRADATION OF AGGREGATE FOR CONCRETE BLOCK

Producers of wheat are estimated to be between approximately to

48-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY 48-3 II. PRODUCT DESCRIPTION & APPLICATION 48-3

Land Use/Land Cover Map of the Central Facility of ARM in the Southern Great Plains Site Using DOE s Multi-Spectral Thermal Imager Satellite Images

CODEX STANDARD FOR RICE

New Processes for New Products. Impact of protein modification designed functionalities as food ingredients

Qualitative NIR Analysis for Ingredients in the Baking Industry

product manual HS-4210 HS-4210_MAN_09.08 Digital Static Cone Penetrometer

Precision Farming in Practice

Influence of Cotton Breeding on Yield and Fiber Quality Problems

Determination of Thermal Conductivity of Coarse and Fine Sand Soils

The Ultimate Guide to Pigeon Feed

The University of Toledo Soil Mechanics Laboratory

The importance of normalisation when comparing tablet properties

RESEARCHES REGARDING THE CHEMICAL LEAVENING AGENTS ROLE IN QUALITY OF BAKERY PRODUCTS. Abstract

Margarine versus Trans Fat-Free Margarine in Chocolate Chip Cookies. Brandy Boen FN 453 Formal Project

Sborník vědeckých prací Vysoké školy báňské - Technické univerzity Ostrava číslo 1, rok 2008, ročník LIV, řada strojní článek č.

The Effect of Adding Whole Flaxseed to Chocolate Boxed Cake Mixes. Laura Searfoss F&N 453 November 19, 2007

Irrigation Scheduling on Small Grains using AZSCHED for Windows - Safford Agricultural Center, 2003

Flour Milling Process Analysis Get more out of your production with High Resolution in-line analysis. ProFoss. Dedicated Analytical Solutions

Economic efficiency of agricultural enterprises and its evaluation

Forensic DNA Testing Terminology

Farm to Fork. Dr. Clifford Hall

Mulino Marino Flour & Getting The Most From Them

SOIL MECHANICS Assignment #4: Soil Permeability.

Utilisation of Non-Traditional Forms of Cereals in Bakery Production

TEZA DE DOCTORAT Mariana POPA SUMMARY

Apr 17, 2000 LAB MANUAL PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS AASHTO Designation T 88 (Mn/DOT Modified)

Alcoa Aluminum Powder. Your Link to Success

SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT (SCM) WITH APPROACH TO QUALITY CONTROL IN MILLING INDUSTRY

Grains and Oilseeds Outlook

METHOD A7 THE DETERMINATION OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT OF GRAVEL, SOIL AND SAND

NOTE: FOR PROJECTS REQUIRING CONTRACTOR MIX DESIGN, THE DESIGN PROCEDURES ARE SPECIFIED IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT.

The Effect of Whole Wheat Flour on Banana Bread

CATALOGUE OF PRODUCTS

No. 3 SPROUTED GRAIN ASSESSMENT

Marker-Assisted Backcrossing. Marker-Assisted Selection. 1. Select donor alleles at markers flanking target gene. Losing the target allele

POTENTIAL OF STATE-FEEDBACK CONTROL FOR MACHINE TOOLS DRIVES

Domestic Wheat and Feed Grain

Standard Test Procedures Manual

Near-infrared spectroscopy on plot harvesters UVDLUFA V. Peter Tillmann, VDLUFA Kassel Christian Paul, FAL Braunschweig.

INFORMATION ON THE PUBLIC JOINT-STOCK COMPANY INVL BALTIC FARMLAND FORMED IN THE SPLIT OFF

Chemometric Analysis for Spectroscopy

Improved Contact Formation for Large Area Solar Cells Using the Alternative Seed Layer (ASL) Process

PS Influence of storage condition on seed quality of maize, soybean and sunflower

Erosion Resistance Performance Comparison Of Natracil, Stabilizer And Envirobond s Organic-Lock

Harvesting Dry Bean John Nowatzki, NDSU Extension Agricultural Machine Systems Specialist

VISUAL PHYSICS School of Physics University of Sydney Australia. Why do cars need different oils in hot and cold countries?

Agrisoma: Creating Sustainable Energy Solutions Founded in Agriculture

THE OPTIMISATION OF BIOMASS COMBUSTION IN SMALL BOILERS

1.3 Properties of Coal

The BAKER S DREAM brand

A Course in Particle and Crystallization Technology

SOIL-LIME TESTING. Test Procedure for. TxDOT Designation: Tex-121-E 1. SCOPE 2. APPARATUS 3. MATERIALS TXDOT DESIGNATION: TEX-121-E

Wheat Flour Milling Machinery

DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS IN MATERIAL TESTING AND DETERMINATION OF COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION. Ondřej ROZUM, Šárka HOUDKOVÁ

Grains and Oilseeds Outlook

Culture in field conditions - Challenges A South American point of view Roberto Campos Pura Natura, Argentina

Image Analysis Report

Chapter D9. Irrigation scheduling

Sample preparation for X-ray fluorescence analysis

FIBER IN YOUR DIET WHAT IS FIBER?

HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT GUIDANCE NOTES ON SOIL TEST FOR PAVEMENT DESIGN

Application Centre. Bühler Bangalore.

Patty Case, M.S., R.D. Oregon State University Extension Service Klamath County November 4, 2008

FP628. Nitrogen / Protein Determination by Combustion. Rev 1-6/8/11

Analytical Testing Services Commercial Price List ManTech International Corporation January 2016

IMPORTANCE OF LONG-TERM EXPERIMENTS IN STUDYING THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE. Introduction

Evaluation of the influence of fermentation input substrates preparation on biogas production intensity

WHEAT MARKET VALUE CHAIN PROFILE. Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

PART I SIEVE ANALYSIS OF MATERIAL RETAINED ON THE 425 M (NO. 40) SIEVE

Effect of basalt aggregates and plasticizer on the compressive strength of concrete

Market Monitor Number 3 November 2012

Robust procedures for Canadian Test Day Model final report for the Holstein breed

Transcription:

Evaluation of methods for wheat grain hardness determination O. Faměra 1, M. Hrušková 2, D. Novotná 3 1 Czech University of Agriculture in Prague, Czech Republic 2 Institut of Chemical Technology, Prague, Czech Republic 3 Odkolek Inc., Czech Republic ABSTRACT Grain hardness of winter wheat cultivars was evaluated during 1997 2001 using several methods: wheat hardness index WHI (DO-Corder Brabender), 0.140 mm sieve threw ratio PPS (DO-Corder Brabender), grain hardness by NIR (Inframatic 8611 Perten), particle size index PSI (LM 3303 Perten). All tested methods showed varietal (genetic) origin of grain hardness trait and it is possible to use these methods for grain hardness determination. NIR method have had the lowest coefficient of variation (12.6%), WHI and PSI coefficient of variation was 32.8 and 30.6%, respectively. A significant influence of year-class was found only for PPS method. A high value of correlation coefficient was found between methods: WHI NIR (r = 0.84), WHI PPS (r = 0.79), and NIR PPS (r = 0.74). During 2000 2001 was correlation coefficient r = 0.93 for PSI NIR. The coefficient of variation for PSI method was 28.5%. Keywords: wheat; grain hardness; methods Endosperm structure is one of the most important criteria for wheat classification and it influences significantly the milling process, particle size of flour and milling yield. Wheat hardness is influenced especially by genetic factors, but can be influenced also by environment and factors like moisture, lipids, pentosans and protein content (Turnbull and Rahman 2002). Starch granules of different sizes are coated by a protein matrix created predominantly by gluten proteins (Morris et al. 1999). Differences in wheat hardness result probably from adhesion between starch granules and storage proteins. Low molecular proteins of starch granules are present in a larger amount in soft wheat compared to hard cultivars. Gaines et al. (2000) found out that softer wheat had a higher content of amylose bound with lipids and had a lower content of total starch. Cultivars with softer endosperm texture had bigger starch granules and harder wheat had smaller starch granules. Smaller granules have a larger surface available for non-covalent bonds with endosperm proteins and can be cramped up more effectively which ensures harder endosperm. Soft varieties of wheat had a large ratio of 25 µm particles after milling. It corresponds with isolated starch granules. In hard cultivars this particle size was rare or missing. A 25 µm particle ratio could be used to monitor the milling and breaking process (Devaux 1998). Hardness correlates well with semolina and wheat flour yield. Correlation hardness wheat vitreousness has been found out (Koeksel et al. 1993). A close relationship between hardness and energy consumption during milling has been described on collections of hard and soft wheat (Glenn et al. 1991). Low protein content and soft grain are required for cake and biscuit flours. Such flours have low starch damage during milling. High protein content and hard grain are traits required for bakery flour. Pasta wheat should have characteristics between the two above-mentioned types. Flours for starch and gluten production should be relatively soft to exclude damaged starch production during milling. At the same time they should provide high gluten content (Brown et al. 1993). MATERIAL AND METHODS Winter wheat samples from cultivar trials at Selgen Inc. in Stupice during 1997 2001 have been used to determine grain hardness. Wheat cultivars used in the evaluation were: Alka, Brea, Ebi, Estica, Samanta, Samara, Saskia, Siria, Šárka, and Versailles (1997 2000). 25 winter wheat cultivars have been tested in 2001. The aim of our study was to compare the methods for grain hardness determination in selected cultivars of winter wheat. Wheat hardness index (WHI) was determined by DO-Corder with an accessory for hardness measurement (Brabender). The methodology of the former Milling and Baking Research Institute in Prague was used. 50 g of cleaned wheat grain is ground PLANT SOIL ENVIRON., 50, 2004 (11): 489 493 489

(200 rounds per minute). A recorder registers the torque value during grinding (Brabender units). In order to extend the measurement scale a special load is used for the power transmission on register paper. Acquired meal is sieved for 3 minutes using 0.140 mm sieve. Sieve threw are weighed. Grain moisture should be 11 13%. WHI = [peak height on hardness tester (B.u.) + load value (g)]/[0.140 mm sieve threw weight (g) 2] Ground stock threw ratio (on 0.140 mm sieve) determination by WHI method was evaluated separately. The measurement principle corresponds with the PSI method. Grain hardness determination in the near infrared area (NIR) was performed using Inframatic 8611 equipped with hardness calibration. Grain was milled using Perten LM 3100 mill. PSI method was performed according to AACC 55-30 methodology. Cleaned wheat with moisture 11 13% is used for determination. The meal is prepared by laboratory mill Perten LM 3303 equipped with head No. 2. 22 23 g of wheat grain is ground. Made up meal weighs 10 g. Meal is sieved on 0.075 mm sieve for 10 minutes using sieve cleaner. The sieve threw are weighed. PSI value are calculated as follows: PSI % = [0.075 mm sieve threw weight (g)/sample weight (g)] 100 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Different methods for grain hardness determination, which could be used in the Czech Republic during 1997 2001, are published in this study. Ten evaluated cultivars have been selected out of all cultivars that were measured during 1997 2000. Ten selected cultivars represent all quality ranges: E (Brea, Ebi), A (Alka, Samanta, Saskia), B (Siria, Šárka), and C (Estica, Samara, Versailles). The WHI method has had higher grain hardness values in relation to scale span (Brabender units). The added load for the power transmission (the extend of measure scale) was necessary for the hardness measurement. Load value has been considered in WHI calculation and it resulted in an increase of WHI absolute values especially in Table 1. Variability markers for wheat grain hardness measurements using various methods (Stupice, 1997 2000) Method/variability marker 1997 1998 1999 2000 WHI Average 162.4 172.2 199.3 193.9 Variance range 160 121 216 191 Coefficient of variation (%) 31.4 24.6 34.6 33.5 NIR Average (%) 51.1 50.4 52.1 52.6 Variance range (%) 18.5 17.0 18.5 19.0 Coefficient of variation (%) 14.0 12.1 12.3 11.3 0.140 mm sieve threw ratio WHI Average (%) 13.2 10.9 10.3 15.3 Variance range (%) 9.7 6.9 10.1 11.2 Coefficient of variation (%) 25.2 23.1 31.4 24.6 Table 2. Variability markers for wheat grain hardness measurements using various methods (Stupice, 1997 2000 average) Variability marker WHI NIR (%) 0.140 mm sieve threw ratio WHI (%) Average 182.0 51.5 12.4 Variance range 228.0 21.5 15.6 Coefficient of variation (%) 32.86 12.58 30.56 490 PLANT SOIL ENVIRON., 50, 2004 (11): 489 493

Table 3. Correlation coefficients between methods for wheat grain hardness determination (Stupice, 1997 2000) Methods Correlation coefficient WHI NIR 0.84 WHI 0.140 mm sieve threw ratio WHI 0.79 NIR 0.140 mm sieve threw ratio WHI 0.74 cultivars with harder grain for which it has been necessary to adjust the load. Consequently WHI values belong to a wide range from 94 to 322. The lower values have cultivars with softer endosperm; higher values have harder grain cultivars. A wider range of WHI values for individual varieties have manifested itself also between the years. Even though WHI absolute values have varied yearly (Table 1) differences between years have not been statistically important. Cultivar sequence according to WHI has been similar in individual years. The average value of the coefficient of variation has been 32.9% (Table 2). The four-year grain hardness evaluation using WHI method has showed that this method can characterize endosperm hardness of wheat cultivars in the existing year and can be used to classify wheat cultivars into groups according to grain hardness. 0.140 mm sieve threw weight (part of WHI method) is evaluated separately. The reason for the evaluation was a principal identity with the PSI method standardized crushing of grain, ground stock sieving and sieve threw ratio evaluation. Until the year 2000 an instrument for PSI determination has not been available in the Czech Republic and a stopgap solution for similar grain hardness evaluation had been tested. Harder endosperm crumbles during milling into larger sharp-edged particles which remain on the sieve and so harder wheat cultivars have a lower threw ratio compared to softer varieties. According to Morris et al. (1999) during soft wheat crushing the starch-protein matrix surface is more uncovered and a higher quantity of starch granules are disengaged. On an average they are smaller compared to hard wheat. 0.140 mm sieve threw percentage ratio of monitored cultivars collected has ranged from 6.0 to 21.6%. Coefficient of variation for 0.140 mm sieve threw percentage ratio has had more favourable value (30.6%) compared with WHI (32.9%) (Table 2) in four-year average and also in separate years (Table 1). A statistically significant difference has been found between years. Measurement in the near infrared area was performed on an Inframatic spectrometer. Results are expressed in 0 100% scale. Higher values correspond with higher grain hardness. Results obtained by NIR method have had a narrow range of values for individual cultivars and also between yearclasses. Tested cultivars values have ranged from 40 to 60% analogous to German wheat cultivars (Meyer et al. 1997). Based on the results cultivars have been classified only into two significantly different groups according to grain hardness harder varieties (50 60%) and softer varieties (40 45%). The majority of cultivars have shown values from 52 to 57%. Slight differences in absolute values of hardness have manifested themselves by the lowest variability of results compared with 0.140 mm sieve threw ratio and WHI. Coefficient of variation was 12.6% (Table 2). Year-class differences have not been statistically significant. Also the NIR method has confirmed that grain hardness is significant for cultivar characteristic and cultivar sequence has not changed very much in individual years. Correlation coefficient of the grain hardness values determined by three methods has been high. The correlation coefficient between WHI and NIR values is r = 0.84 but in 1998 has been higher (r = 0.93) (Table 3). Both methods have had in relation to 0.140 mm sieve threw ratio determination high negative correlation coefficient r = 0.79 (WHI) and r = 0.74 (NIR), critical value r α = 0.403 (α = 0.01). All tested methods could be used for endosperm characteristics expressed as grain hardness. In the year 2001 machine for grain hardness determination according to AACC 55-30 (PSI method) has been put into operation. Thirteen varieties of winter wheat from 2000 harvest and 25 varieties of winter wheat from 2001 harvest have been evaluated. Until 2000 evaluated cultivars had been mostly Table 4. Variability markers for wheat grain hardness measurements using various methods (Stupice, 2000 2001) Variability marker WHI NIR (%) 0.140 mm sieve threw ratio WHI (%) PSI (PSI %) Average 237.0 51.7 15.9 16.2 Variance range 339.0 20.0 26.0 15.0 Coefficient of variation (%) 38.11 11.64 40.94 28.46 PLANT SOIL ENVIRON., 50, 2004 (11): 489 493 491

Table 5. Correlation coefficients between methods for wheat grain hardness determination (Stupice, 2000 2001) Methods Correlation coefficient PSI NIR 0.93 NIR 0.140 mm sieve threw ratio WHI 0.82 PSI 0.140 mm sieve threw ratio WHI 0.81 WHI 0.140 mm sieve threw ratio WHI 0.80 PSI WHI 0.75 WHI NIR 0.74 of Czech origin. In year 2001 Czech cultivars have represented only 44% out of evaluated sample collection. The PSI method is very simple and in contrast to similar determination by crushing on a DO-Corder and a meal sieving variable adjustment of the recorder was not necessary. The measurement range has varied from 10.9 PSI % (hard grain) to 25.9 PSI % (soft grain). Cultivar characteristics of endosperm have been obviously analogous to other methods. A majority of cultivars have had values from 10 to 15 PSI % (harder grain area). A smaller group of cultivars has become significantly separated with medium soft grain (21 PSI % and more). The results variability has been higher for PSI method (coefficient of variation 28.5%, Table 4) compared with the NIR method (11.64%) evaluating the same collection of cultivars. Two other methods based on crushing using DO-Corder accessory have showed a higher variability described by the coefficient of variation: WHI 38.1% and 0.140 mm sieve threw 40.9% (Table 4). Also in this set of wheat grain hardness measurements (2000 2001) using four methods a relationship has been found between methods similar to the relationship found during 1997 2000. The highest value of correlation coefficient has been found between PSI and NIR methods: r = 0.93 (Table 5). The high correlation has resulted from using the PSI method as a reference method for NIR calibration. The hardness calibration was created by an Inframatic producer using a different collection of wheat cultivars and was not adjusted for measurements in this study. Correlation coefficient between 0.140 mm sieve threw ratio and other methods (r = 0.8 for PSI, r = 0.8 for WHI and NIR, Table 5) has been higher compared to WHI and PSI method (r = 0.75) or WHI and NIR method (r = 0.74, Table 5). Nevertheless these other correlation coefficients have had high values. A high connection of measuring using individual methods is documented by the coefficients of correlation r > 0.74 or r > 0.75, respectively, compare with critical value r α = 0.413 on the level of significance α = 0.01. The evaluation of four methods for winter wheat grain hardness determination has showed that all tested methods demonstrated cultivar nature of grain hardness and could be used for the determination of this trait. Measurements by NIR method (Inframatic 8611) and by PSI method have had lower variability of results. REFERENCES Brown G.L., Curtis P.S., Osborne B.G. (1993): Factors affecting the measurement of hardness by NIR spectroscopy of ground wheat. J. NIR Spectrosc., 1: 147 152. Devaux M.F. (1998): Particle size distribution of break, sizing and middling wheat flours by laser diffraction. J. Sci. Food Agr., 78: 237 244. Gaines C.S. et al. (2000): Associations of starch gel hardness, granule size, waxy allelic expression, thermal pasting, milling quality, and kernel texture of 12 soft wheat cultivars. Cereal Chem., 77: 163 168. Glenn G.M., Younce F.L., Pitts M.J. (1991): Fundamental physical properties characterizing the hardness of wheat endosperm. J. Cereal Sci., 13: 179 194. Koeksel H., Atli A., Oezkaya H., Demir Z. (1993): Comparison of physical properties of wheat and NIR spectroscopy hardness value for prediction of semolina yield. J. Agr. Forest., 17: 821 830. Meyer L., Zabel S., Schmieder W., Hartmann G. (1997): Qualitätsuntersuchungen zu Getreide, Ernte 1997. Landwirtsch. Unters.- Forsch.-Anst. Sachsen-Anhalt: 77. Morris C.F., DeMacon V.L., Giroux M.J. (1999): Wheat grain hardness among chromosome 5D homozygous recombinant substitution lines using different methods of measurement. Cereal Chem., 76: 249 254. Turnbull K.M., Rahman S. (2002): Endosperm texture in wheat. J. Cereal Sci., 36: 327 337. Received on April 2, 2004 ABSTRAKT Hodnocení metod stanovení tvrdosti zrna pšenice V letech 1997 2001 byla hodnocena tvrdost zrna odrůd ozimé pšenice vybranými metodami: wheat hardness index WHI (DO-Corder Brabender), podíl propadu sítem 0,140 mm PPS (DO-Corder Brabender), tvrdost NIR (Inframatic 8611 Perten), particle size index PSI (LM 3303 Perten). Všechny sledované metody prokázaly genetické (odrůdové) 492 PLANT SOIL ENVIRON., 50, 2004 (11): 489 493

založení znaku tvrdosti zrna a je možné je použít pro stanovení tohoto ukazatele mlynářské jakosti. Variační koeficient byl nejnižší u NIR (12,6 %), u WHI a PPS byl podobný (32,8%, resp. 30,6 %). Významný vliv ročníku byl zjištěn jen u PPS. Mezi ověřovanými metodami byla zjištěna vysoká těsnost vztahů vyjádřená korelačním koeficientem: WHI NIR (r = 0,84), WHI PPS (r = 0,79) a NIR PPS (r = 0,74). V souboru odrůd 2000 2001 byl zjištěn záporný korelační koeficient mezi PSI a NIR (r = 0,93). Variační koeficient u PSI byl 28,5 %. Klíčová slova: pšenice; tvrdost zrna; metody Corresponding author: Ing. Oldřich Faměra, CSc., Česká zemědělská univerzita v Praze, 165 21 Praha 6-Suchdol, Česká republika phone: + 420 224 382 640, fax: + 420 224 382 535, e-mail: famera@af.czu.cz PLANT SOIL ENVIRON., 50, 2004 (11): 489 493 493