Oklahoma Food and Agricultural Products Research and Technology Center

Transcription

1

2 OKLAHOMA AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS MAP The five most important wheat-producing 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)

3 About this Report Through the support of the Oklahoma Wheat Commission and the research conducted at the Food and Agricultural Products Research and Technology Center located on Oklahoma State University s Stillwater campus, this second annual Oklahoma Hard Red Winter Wheat Quality Survey Report provides an exceptional marketing tool for Oklahoma s second largest commodity wheat. Last year s inaugural issue resulted in strengthened international relationships and increased communication about the type of data most helpful to buyers. These responses lead to the additional gluten data included in this year s report. The combination of variety and climatic conditions influences the functionality of wheat, which can be sporadic in this state. This survey helps to define this functionality, allowing for a better match to the needs of buyers, thus increasing Oklahoma s market share. The information, however, is not a simple task to overcome. Aside from myself, a team of research assistants and graduate students worked hard and quickly to compile grade, non-grade, dough and bread performance datas. Moreover, this year s report expands to include gluten index and wet gluten information. Although extensive information is provided in this report, this survey of the state s annual wheat crop is expected to continually become more definitive as buyers dictate needs and Oklahoma strives to match those needs. Patricia Rayas-Duarte, Ph.D., Cereal Chemist Food and Agricultural Products Center Oklahoma Wheat Quality Survey 2001 Food and Agricultural Products Center Oklahoma State University J. Roy Escoubas, Director Patricia Rayas-Duarte, Cereal Chemist in cooperation with the Oklahoma Wheat Commission Keith Kisling, Chairman Mark Hodges, Executive Director Research Analysts Patricia Rayas-Duarte, Primary Investigator Maurice Brannan, Field Collaborator Cristina Francisco Xiaowu Liang Boonyeam Nobnob Evone Mao Richard Roduner Editor and Designer Stephanie Greenlee 148 FAPC, Stillwater, OK (405) FAX (405) Contents About this report... 2 DISTRICT AVERAGES Oklahoma wheat production forecast and final production... 3 Wheat grade data... 3 Wheat non-grade data... 3 Flour data... 3 Flour properties... 3 Dough properties Farinograph... 4 Alveograph... 4 Baking evaluation... 4 INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES BY DISTRICT 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 Southwest North Central Central Panhandle Dough properties West Central Southwest North Central Central Panhandle APPENDICES Analysis Methods

4 District Averages Oklahoma Wheat Production, June 1, 2000 Forecast and Final By District Year Panhandle* West Southwest* North Central* South Northeast East Southeast Central* Central* Central Central Thousand Bushels ,500 25,550 28,500 53,000 16,150 1,350 2, ,500 20,800 28,050 52,720 18,800 1,200 3, ,000 16,000 16,500 35,500 16,700 1,200 2, % Production * Districts sampled Source: Oklahoma Agricultural Statistics, June 1, 2001, Wheat Grade Data District Test Weight (lb/bu) (kg/hl) Damaged Kernels Foreign Materials Shrunken and Broken Total Defects West Central South West North Central Central Panhandle Wheat Non-Grade Data District Dockage Moisture Protein Single Kernel Data 12% Hardness SD Weight (mg) SD Diameter (mm) SD West Central South West North Central Central Panhandle SD = standard deviation District Protein Ash Moisture West Central South West North Central Central Panhandle = Moisture Basis Flour Properties District Falling Number (seconds) Wet % Index % Extraction Rate West Central South West North Central Central Panhandle

5 District Averages Dough Properties: Farinograph District Peak Time Stability (min) (min) West Central South West North Central Central Panhandle Absorption "as is" mb Absorption mb Dough Properties: Alveograph District P L W P/L (mm H 2 O) (mm) (erg/gm) West Central South West North Central Central Panhandle Baking Evaluation: (100g loaf) Districts External** Internal Characteristics** Loaf Characteristics Crumb Texture Crumb Grain Crumb Color Crumb Shape 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: percent; High: 12.5 percent or greater ** Grain and texture based on a score of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest score. 4

6 Wheat Grade Data District Test Wt. (lb/bu) (kg/hl) Damaged Kernels Foreign Material Shrunken & Broken Total Defects Grade WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC Average WC Wheat Grade Data District Test Wt. (lb/bu) (kg/hl) Damaged Kernels Foreign Material Shrunken & Broken Total Defects Grade SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW Average SW

7 Wheat Grade Data District Test Wt. (lb/bu) (kg/hl) Damaged Kernels Foreign Material Shrunken & Broken Total Defects Grade 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

8 Wheat Grade Data District Test Wt. (lb/bu) (kg/hl) Damaged Kernels Foreign Material Shrunken & Broken Total Defects Grade C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Average C Wheat Grade Data District Test Wt. (lb/bu) (kg/hl) Damaged Kernels Foreign Material Shrunken & Broken Total Defects PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH Average PH Indicates samples were rained on Grade 7

9 Wheat Non-Grade Data District Dockage Moisture Protein 12 % Single Kernel Data Hardness SD Weight (mg) SD Diameter (mm) Kernel Size L/M/S WC /45/0 WC /42/1 WC /56/0 WC /54/1 WC /52/0 WC /43/1 WC /52/1 WC /52/1 WC /53/2 WC WC /62/4 WC /50/2 WC /52/1 WC /56/1 WC /58/0 WC /53/2 Average WC L/M/S = Large/Medium/Small SD = Standard Deviation SD Wheat Non-Grade Data District Dockage Moisture Protein 12 % Hardness Kernel Size L/M/S SW /44/1 SW /53/1 SW /42/1 SW /35/1 SW /43/1 SW /30/1 SW /39/1 SW /49/1 SW /46/1 SW /35/1 SW /40/1 SW /35/1 SW /36/0 SW /46/0 SW /43/0 SW /32/1 SW /47/0 SW /48/1 SW /49/1 SW /35/1 SW /62/1 Average SW SD Single Kernel Data Weight SD (mg) Diameter (mm) SD 8

10 Wheat Non-Grade Data District Dockage Moisture Protein 12 % Single Kernel Data Hardness SD Weight SD (mg) Diameter (mm) Kernel Size L/M/S NC /41/0 NC /44/1 NC /54/1 NC /47/1 NC /37/1 NC /46/1 NC /50/7 NC /41/1 NC /33/1 NC /41/1 NC /42/1 NC /39/1 NC /40/0 NC /36/1 NC /35/1 NC /45/0 NC /39/1 NC /38/1 NC /53/1 NC /50/1 NC /45/1 NC /46/0 NC /18/0 NC /34/0 NC /39/0 NC /48/1 NC /50/1 NC /48/1 NC /50/2 NC /59/1 NC /46/1 NC /47/1 NC /48/0 NC /48/1 NC /39/0 NC /54/0 NC /53/0 NC /49/1 NC /38/1 NC /48/1 NC /42/1 NC /53/2 NC /52/2 NC /46/1 NC /47/1 NC /49/1 NC /54/1 Average NC SD 9

11 Wheat Non-Grade Data District Dockage Moisture Protein 12 % Single Kernel Data Hardness SD Weight SD (mg) Diameter (mm) Kernel Size L/M/S C /31/1 C /36/1 C /41/1 C /39/1 C /39/1 C /36/1 C /46/1 C /49/1 C /45/0 C /48/1 C /39/0 C /37/0 C /46/1 C /52/1 Average C SD Wheat Non-Grade Data District Dockage Moisture Protein 12 % Hardness Weight (mg) PH /57/2 PH /55/1 PH /41/1 PH /36/0 PH /50/1 PH /35/1 PH /23/1 PH /13/1 PH /30/1 PH /43/1 PH /37/1 PH /18/1 PH /30/0 PH /36/1 PH /47/1 PH /36/0 Average PH Indicates samples were rained on SD Single Kernel Data SD Diameter (mm) SD Kernel Size L/M/S 10

12 District Protein Ash Moisture Falling Number Wet Index WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC Average WC District Protein Ash Moisture Falling Number Wet Index SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW Average SW

13 District Protein Ash Moisture Falling Number Wet Index 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 = Moisture Basis 12

14 District Protein Ash Moisture Falling Number Wet Index C C C C C C C C C C Average C District Protein Ash Moisture Falling Number Wet Index PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH Average PH

15 Dough Properties District Farinograph Alveograph Peak Time Stability Absorption P L W P/L Extraction Rate 2 (min) (min) "as is" mb mb (mmh 2 0) (mm) (erg/gm) WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC WC Average WC Dough Properties District Farinograph Alveograph Peak Time Stability Absorption P L W P/L Extraction Rate 2 (min) (min) "as is" mb mb (mmh 2 0) (mm) (erg/gm) SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW SW Average SW

16 Dough Properties District Farinograph Alveograph Peak Time Stability Absorption P L W P/L Extraction Rate 2 (min) (min) "as is" mb mb (mmh 2 0) (mm) (erg/gm) 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

17 Dough Properties District Farinograph Alveograph Peak Time Stability Absorption P L W P/L Extraction Rate (min) (min) "as is" mb mb (mmh 2 0) (mm) (erg/gm) C C C C C C C C C Average C Dough Properties District Farinograph Alveograph Peak Time Stability Absorption P L W P/L Extraction Rate (min) (min) "as is" mb mb (mmh 2 0) (mm) (erg/gm) PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH PH Average PH

18 Analysis Methods Sampling Method Composite samples, 14 to 15 pounds each, were taken from locations representing the five most important wheat-producing 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, Okla., 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 and expressed on a 12 percent moisture basis. Single Kernel Characterization: Perten method using Perten SKCS Falling Number: AACC 56-81B. An average value of two replicates was reported. 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. Wet and Index: Analyzed in a Glutomatic Analyzer (Perten Instruments) following manufacturer s instructions. 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. 17

19 NOTES

20