Hard Red Winter Wheat

Transcription

1 Crop Quality Survey 2000 Oklahoma Hard Red Winter Wheat Oklahoma State University Oklahoma Wheat Commission

2 Contents Oklahoma Agricultural Districts Map... 2 Oklahoma wheat production forecast and final production... 3 Wheat grade data... 3 Wheat non-grade data... 3 Flour data... 3 Flour properties Falling number... 3 Wheat grade data West Central... 5 Southwest... 5 North Central... 6 Central... 7 Panhandle... 7 Wheat non-grade data West Central... 8 Southwest... 8 North Central... 9 Central Panhandle Flour data West Central DISTRICT AVERAGES INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES BY DISTRICT Extraction rate... 3 Dough properties Farinograph... 4 Alveograph... 4 Baking evaluation... 4 Southwest North Central Central Panhandle Dough properties West Central Southwest North Central Central Panhandle Analyses OKLAHOMA WHEAT QUALITY SURVEY 2000, Oklahoma State University Lowell D. Satterlee, director Patricia Rayas-Duarte, cereal chemist in cooperation with the Oklahoma Wheat Commission Keith Kisling, chairman Gary Gilbert, executive director Research Analysts Patricia Rayas-Duarte, primary investigator Maurice Brannan, field collaborator Cristina Francisco Xiaowu Liang Boonyeam Nobnob Carlos Silva Juntanee Uriyapongson Stephanie Greenlee served as the editor, designer and publisher. 148 FAPC, Stillwater, OK (405) FAX (405)

3 OKLAHOMA AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS MAP The five most important Agricultural Statistic Districts, as partitioned by the Oklahoma Agricultural Statistics Service, are as follows: West Central (WC) Southwest (SW) North Central (NC) Central (C) Panhandle (PH) 2

4 DISTRICT AVERAGES Oklahoma Wheat Production: June 1, 2000 forecast and final production Year Panhandle* West Southwest* North Central* South Northeast East Southeast Central* Central* Central Central Thousand Bushels ,200 32,800 39,100 71,000 23,800 2,160 3, ,500 25,550 28,500 53,000 16,150 1,350 2, ,000 29,300 28,500 60,500 14, , % Production** * Districts sampled, ** Percent production in year 2000 Source: Oklahoma Agricultural Statistics, June 1, 2000 Wheat Grade Data District Test Damaged Foreign Shrunken Total Weight Kernels Material and Broken Defects (lb/bu) (kg/hl) (%) (%) (%) (%) West Central South West North Central Central Panhandle Wheat Non-Grade Data District Dockage Moisture Protein Single Kernel Data (%) (%) 12% MB (%) Hardness SD Weight (mg) SD Diameter (mm) SD West Central South West North Central Central Panhandle Note: mean + standard deviation, SD=standard deviation Flour Properties District Falling Extraction Number Rate (seconds) (%) South West (rained on) West Central (rained on) South West West Central Central North Central Panhandle Flour Data District Protein Ash Moisture 14% MB 0% MB 14% MB 0% MB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) West Central South West North Central Central Panhandle

5 DISTRICT AVERAGES Dough Properties: Farinograph District Peak Stability Absorption Time 14% MB (min) (min) (%) West Central South West North Central Central Panhandle Dough Properties: Alveograph District P L W P/L (mmh 2 O) (mm) (erg/gm) West Central South West North Central Central Panhandle Baking Evaluation: 100g flour pup loaf District Crumb Crumb Loaf Grain Texture Volume Southwest Low Medium High North Central Low Medium High Panhandle Low Medium High West Central Low Medium High Central Low Medium High * Low: less than 11.5 percent; Medium: 11.5 to 12.5 percent; High: 12.5 percent or greater Grain and texture based on a score of one to ten, with ten being the highest score. 4

6 Wheat Grade Data District Test Damaged Foreign Shrunken Total Grade Weight Kernels Material and Broken Defects (lb/bu) (kg/hl) (%) (%) (%) (%) WC WC WC WC WC WC WC SG WC WC WC WC Average WC District Test Damaged Foreign Shrunken Total Grade Weight Kernels Material and Broken Defects (lb/bu) (kg/hl) (%) (%) (%) (%) SW SW SG SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW Average SW Samples were rained on. 5

7 Wheat Grade Data, cont. District Test Damaged Foreign Shrunken Total Grade Weight Kernels Material and Broken Defects (lb/bu) (kg/hl) (%) (%) (%) (%) NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC Average NC Samples were rained on. 6

8 Wheat Grade Data, cont. District Test Damaged Foreign Shrunken Total Grade Weight Kernels Material and Broken Defects (lb/bu) (kg/hl) (%) (%) (%) (%) C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Average C District Test Damaged Foreign Shrunken Total Grade Weight Kernels Material and Broken Defects (lb/bu) (kg/hl) (%) (%) (%) (%) PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH Average PH Samples were rained on. 7

9 Wheat Non-Grade Data District Dockage Moisture Protein Single Kernel Data (%) (%) 12% MB (%) Hardness SD Weight (mg) SD Diameter (mm) SD WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC Average WC Wheat Non-Grade Data District Dockage Moisture Protein Single Kernel Data (%) (%) 12% MB (%) Hardness SD Weight (mg) SD Diameter (mm) SD SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW Average SW Samples were rained on, SD= standard deviation 8

10 Wheat Non-Grade Data, cont. District Dockage Moisture Protein Single Kernel Data (%) (%) 12% MB (%) Hardness SD Weight (mg) SD Diameter (mm) SD NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC Average NC SD= standard deviation 9

11 Wheat Non-Grade Data, cont. District Dockage Moisture Protein Single Kernel Data (%) (%) 12% MB (%) Hardness SD Weight (mg) SD Diameter (mm) SD C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Average C District Dockage Moisture Protein Single Kernel Data (%) (%) 12% MB (%) Hardness SD Weight (mg) SD Diameter (mm) SD PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH Average PH Samples were rained on, SD= standard deviation 10

12 Flour Data District Protein Ash Moisture 14% MB 0% MB 14% MB 0% MB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC Average WC District Protein Ash Moisture 14% MB 0% MB 14% MB 0% MB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW No Flour SW SW SW SW SW SW Average SW District Protein Ash Moisture 14% MB 0% MB 14% MB 0% MB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC Average NC

13 Flour Data District Protein Ash Moisture District Protein Ash Moisture 14% MB 0% MB 14% MB 0% MB 14% MB 0% MB 14% MB 0% MB (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) C PH C PH C PH C PH C PH C PH C PH C PH C PH C PH C PH C PH C PH C Average PH C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Average C

14 Dough Properties Dough Properties: Farinograph Alveograph Flour Data Absorption Peak Time Stability "as is" 14% P L W P/L Extraction 2 District (min) (min) MB MB (mmh 2 0) (mm) (erg/gm) (%) WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC Average WC Dough Properties: Farinograph Alveograph Flour Data Absorption Peak Time Stability "as is" 14% P L W P/L Extraction 2 District (min) (min) MB MB (mmh 2 0) (mm) (erg/gm) (%) SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW Average SW

15 Dough Properties Dough Properties: Farinograph Alveograph Flour Data Absorption Peak Time Stability "as is" 14% P L W P/L Extraction 2 District (min) (min) MB MB (mmh 2 0) (mm) (erg/gm) (%) NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC a NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC Average NC a = ran out of flour 14

16 Dough Properties Dough Properties: Farinograph Alveograph Flour Data Absorption Peak Time Stability "as is" 14% P L W P/L Extraction 2 District (min) (min) MB MB (mmh 2 0) (mm) (erg/gm) (%) C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Average C Dough Properties: Farinograph Alveograph Flour Data Absorption Peak Time Stability "as is" 14% P L W P/L Extraction 2 District (min) (min) MB MB (mmh 2 0) (mm) (erg/gm) (%) PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH Average PH

17 ANALYSES METHODS Sampling Method Composite samples, 14 to 15 lbs each, were taken from locations representing the five most important Agricultural Statistic Districts as partitioned by the Oklahoma Agricultural Statistics Service. Samples were taken twice during harvest, at a third into harvest and again at the end. The first sampling was taken from truckloads as they delivered wheat to selected county elevators within a two to four day span. Samples were then poured into buckets, then mixed, bagged and delivered to the Enid Grain Inspection Office, Enid, OK, for grading. After grading, the wheat samples were transported to the Food and Agricultural Products Center for analysis. The second sampling was taken from several bins of the same elevators sampled earlier in the harvest. Quality Test All tests, except baking evaluations, were determined on individual samples. For baking tests, individual samples were measured by district at three ranges of protein using equal weights. The levels of protein were low, less than 11.5 percent; medium, 11.5 to 12.5 percent; and high, 12.5 percent or greater. Wheat and Grade Data Grade: Official U.S. Standards for Grain. Dockage: Carter Dockage Test, official USDA procedure. Moisture: AACC 44-15A. Test Weight: AACC The test weight was mathematically converted to hectoliter weight (kg/hl = lb/bu x ). Protein: Near Infrared Analysis technique using FOSS NIR System 6500 was used. Single Kernel Characterization: Perten method using Perten SKCS Falling Number: AACC 56-81B. An average value of two replicates was reported. Flour Data Extraction: Samples were cleaned and tempered according to AACC Method 12-10A and milled on a Brabender Quadrumat Sr. mill using the Brabender procedure. All extraction rates were calculated against total products on an as is moisture basis. Ash and Protein: Near Infrared Analysis technique using FOSS NIR System 6500 expressed on a 14 percent moisture basis. Falling Number: AACC 56-81B. An average value of two replicates is reported. Farinograph: AACC with 50-gram bowl. Absorption on an as is and 14 percent moisture basis was reported. Alveograph: AACC 54-30A. Baking Evaluation The AACC Method 10-10B was used, producing one loaf per batch using dry yeast and 50 ppm of ascorbic acid. After mixing, the dough was fermented for 180 minutes, proofed and baked in a pup loaf pan. Loaf volume was measured immediately after baking by rapeseed displacement. Scoring was based on a scale of one to ten, with ten indicating the preferred quality attributes. 16

18