Overseas Varietal Analysis Project 2009 Crop. Durum Wheat. Program by

Transcription

1 Cover 5.qxd 12/14/ :46 PM Page 1 Overseas Varietal Analysis Project 2009 Crop Durum Wheat Program by

2 Microspore Plantlets photo courtesy of Washington State University Greenhouse photo courtesy of Shutterstock/Washington Grain Alliance Wheat Life Magazine Trial Field photo courtesy of Idaho Wheat Commission

3 Overseas Varietal Analysis Project Durum Wheat 2009 Crop Sponsored by: USDA/FAS US Wheat Associates Arizona Grain Research and Promotion Council California Wheat Commission Montana Wheat and Barley Committee North Dakota Wheat Commission Milling provided by: Northern Crops Institute Fargo, North Dakota Analysis support provided by: Durum Wheat Quality/Pasta Processing Laboratory North Dakota State University Department of Plant Sciences Fargo, North Dakota December

4 Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Introduction 5 Project Timeline and Scope of Work Growing Season 6 Information on Varieties in 2009 Project 8 Section A Summary of Analysis Durum OVA Cooperators 10 Discussion of Individual Varieties 11 Cooperator Quality Rating and Ranking Summary 17 Characteristics of Samples Used by Cooperators 19 End Products and Quality Preference Survey 21 Cooperator Quality Rating and Ranking Summary 25 and Varietal Sample Evaluation Algeria 28 and Varietal Sample Evaluation Italy 1 31 and Varietal Sample Evaluation Japan 33 and Varietal Sample Evaluation Morocco 35 and Varietal Sample Evaluation Portugal 37 and Varietal Sample Evaluation Spain 40 and Varietal Sample Evaluation Tunisia 43 Section B Sample Grading and Milling Information on Samples 46 Methods 47 Kernel Quality Data North Dakota State University 50 Semolina Quality and Pasta QualityData North Dakota State University 51 Section C Kernel Quality, Semolina Quality, and Pasta Quality 52 Analysis Provided by Cooperators from Algeria, Guatemala and Spain Semolina Quality Data Algeria 53 Semolina Quality and Dough Quality Data Italy 1 55 Semolina Quality and Dough Quality Data Italy 2 56 Semolina Quality Data Japan 57 Semolina Quality Data Morocco 58 Semolina Quality and Pasta Quality Data Portugal 59 Semolina Quality and Dough Quality Data Spain 60 Semolina Quality and Dough Quality Data Tunisia 62 2

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the second Overseas Varietal Analysis report. The desired outcome of this project is to provide a means for feedback from cooperators from around the world that utilize U.S. grown durum wheat to organizations involved in grain procurement and export, grain production, and development of durum varieties. This year, eight cooperators evaluated the quality of ten varieties of durum wheat. The cooperators were from Algeria, Italy (2), Japan, Morocco, Spain, and Tunisia. Although pasta was the primary end use for the semolina, four cooperators also utilized the durum semolina to make bread products. Acceptable quality parameters varied with end use and with cooperator. Production of durum wheat in the U.S. is located in the Northern Great Plains states of North Dakota and Montana (71%) and in the desert regions of Arizona and California (29%). There is some production of durum in Idaho. Durum wheat evaluated consisted of varieties that were developed for production in Northern Great Plains and in the desert Southwest. The ten varieties of durum wheat were:,, Desert King,, D8270,,, Strongfield,, and.,,,, Strongfield, and are grown in the Northern Great Plains (Montana and North Dakota) and Desert King, D8270,, and are grown in the desert growing regions of Southern California and Arizona. Growing environment affects quality of grain and semolina. Quality of durum wheat is favored when grown in a semi-arid environment. For durum grown in the desert, adequate soil moisture can be maintained through irrigation. Durum grown in the North Central U.S. is grown under rain fed conditions where there is no control over soil moisture conditions. Hence the quality of durum wheat grown in the North Central U.S. is more variable because it is dependent on weather conditions. Limitation of results. The NCI Pilot Flour/Semolina Mill was reconfigured in 2009 from the original NCI Pilot Durum Mill, and was commissioned in January of At the time of milling the samples used in this report, the mill was undergoing refinements to optimize milling performance. The goal of this project milling was to limit adjustments of the mill between samples to allow for comparison of the semolina and end-product quality between samples. At this stage of the mill reconfiguration, extraction rates are not representative of commercial milling, and comparison of extraction rates between samples is not recommended, as the data does not be accurately reflect the milling extraction potential of these varieties or experimental lines. When comparing or evaluating the durum varieties, it must be kept in mind that they represent a single sample of durum grown in a single environment. The samples evaluated by the cooperators represent a wide range of quality. They ranged from 2 HAD to 1 HAD for U.S. Grade; 375 to 2369 sec for Falling Number; 12.1 to 14.9% 3

6 for semolina protein content; 48 to 97 for gluten index, and 0.31 to 2.99 for Alveograph P/L. Having variability in the quality of the samples allows for identification of the range in quality parameters that are important. General comments: 1. Durum varieties with the best average overall ranking (scale 1 to 10; where 1 is best) were Strongfield (1.9) and (3.0). Cooperator responses indicated that they liked Strongfield and for their high protein, vitreousness, yellow color, low ash, and good taste. 2. Durum varieties with the poorest average overall ranking (scale 1 to 10; where 1 is best) were Desert King (6.8) and (7.4) Negative attributes attributed to Desert King and were high ash, high speck count, and poor yellow color. Desert King was described as having an unbalanced alveogram and as having poor rheological behavior. The high ash contents probably reflect the high speck count in the semolina which was related to milling. 3. The durum varieties with the narrowest range in ranking were Strongfield (1 to 4) and Desert King (5 to 8). 4. Durum variety with the widest range in ranking was (1 to 10). Positive attributes of were very good yellow color, high vitreousness, Falling Number, and protein content, and had a good taste. Negative attributes of were high ash content, low extraction, poor brightness (L-value), weak gluten, low gluten index and poor extensibility. These results indicate that there is no single set of values or criteria that define quality. Quality is determined by the products produced and the needs or expectations of the end user. 4

7 INTRODUCTION Project Objective: The objective of the Overseas Varietal Analysis Project is to enable international customers an opportunity to evaluate the quality of individual durum wheat cultivars and communicate their assessment back to U.S. durum wheat producers and durum wheat breeders. This information is used to develop, produce and market varieties that best meet customer needs. U.S. durum wheat variety development North Dakota produces most of the durum wheat grown in the U.S. Due to the importance of durum wheat for the state, a durum plant breeding and genetics program was created in 1929 at North Dakota State University and is the only public research project that develops and releases durum wheat cultivars in the U.S. Several private companies also breed durum varieties that are adapted to the Northern Great Plains of the U.S. Varieties released from North Dakota s breeding program are grown on over 85% of durum acres in North Dakota and surrounding states. The remaining 15% of the acres are planted with cultivars released by breeding programs in Canada and the private companies. Varieties grown in the Southwestern U.S. are developed by private companies alone or in cooperation with plant breeders located at universities. A primary goal of durum breeding is to develop and release varieties with improved agronomic traits, such as yield and disease resistance, and improved end-use traits such as milling yield, semolina protein content and quality,and yellow pigment content. Developing a new durum variety is a team effort involving agronomists, plant pathologists and cereal chemists. After the initial cross, it takes an average of ten years of development and testing before a variety is released for commercial production. U.S. Wheat Overseas Varietal Analysis (OVA) Program The U.S. OVA program allows our international customers to provide input that is used to help identify quality parameters that are evaluated during the development of new durum varieties. Through the OVA program, international customers of U.S. durum wheat are allowed access to specific varieties for quality evaluation and comparison to a control flour used in their market. In return, producers, wheat breeders and other industry participants in the U.S. gain valuable insight into the specific and dynamic needs of our international customers. This joint effort should result in the release of new durum varieties that better meet the needs of our customers. 5

8 Project timeline and scope of work November 2009: Northern Crops Institute, Fargo, ND cleaned grain. January 2010: Northern Crops Institute, Fargo, ND milled samples. February 2010: Kernel, semolina, and pasta quality was determined by the Durum Wheat Quality and Pasta Processing Laboratory located in the Department of Plant Sciences at North Dakota State University, Fargo. March-August 2010: Samples were evaluated by cooperators. August-October 2009: Evaluation results from the cooperators were returned to U.S. Wheat Associates and Frank Manthey, Durum Wheat Quality and Pasta Processing Laboratory to be reviewed and summarized. October-November 2009: Final summary and report developed and submitted growing season in the Northern Plains Planting began during the last week of April, which was about two weeks later than normal (Fig. 1). The delay was due to cold wet conditions that occurred throughout April. Planting was nearly complete by June 7. Growing conditions in June and July were favorable for durum wheat, with adequate soil moisture and below normal air temperatures. These conditions promoted an extended period of grain filling. Harvest was three to four weeks behind normal, beginning in late August (Fig. 1). The delay in the onset of harvest reflected the delayed planting and the extended grain filling that occurred as a result of cool air temperatures. Harvest progress was slow due to cool, humid weather, which did not allow for drying conditions. Warm, dry conditions in September allowed most of the durum to be harvested in September, with harvest nearly complete by the first week of October. Dry harvest conditions in September prevented the loss of grain quality often associated with delayed harvest. Prolonged grain filling resulted in improved test weight and kernel size but also in reduced vitreousness and protein content. Planting and harvest data used in the following figures was obtained from USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service ( 6

9 ND Durum Planting, 2009 % Planted /26/2010 5/3/2010 5/10/2010 5/17/2010 5/24/2010 5/31/2010 6/7/ year average % Planted /2/2010 8/9/2010 8/16/2010 ND Durum Harvest, /23/2010 8/30/2010 9/6/2010 9/13/2010 9/20/2010 9/27/ /4/ year average MT Durum Planting, 2009 MT Durum Harvest, 2009 % Planted /19/2010 4/26/2010 5/3/2010 5/10/2010 5/17/2010 5/24/2010 5/31/2010 6/7/ year average % Harvested /9/2010 8/16/2010 8/23/2010 8/30/2010 9/6/2010 9/13/2010 9/20/2010 9/27/ /4/ /11/ /18/ /25/ year average Figure 1. Planting and Harvest Progress of the 2009 Durum Crop in Montana and North Dakota 7

10 INFORMATION ON VARIETIES IN 2009 PROJECT Durum Varieties Included in the 2009 OVA Project Sample Code Variety Origin Year released NDSU 2005 West Bred 2004 Strongfield Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2004 NDSU 2005 WestBred 2008 NDSU 2001 Resource Seeds, Inc 2008 (PVP) Resource Seeds, Inc 2008 (PVP) Desert King UC-Davis 2004 World Wide Wheat Not released Commercial production trends of project varieties, % of planted Acres Location Variety California Desert King Montana North Dakota Lebsock Lebsock Data obtained from California Wheat Commission and ND Wheat Commission publications. 8

11 Section A Summary of Analysis 9

12 Cooperators Algeria Italy (two cooperators) Japan Morocco Portugal Spain Tunisia 2009 DURUM OVA COOPERATORS Cooperators were supplied wheat samples and semolina for their evaluation. Each cooperator rated the varieties for overall kernel quality, semolina quality, handling/performance, end product performance, and overall acceptability on a scale of 1 to 9, with 1 being poor and 9 being best. The cooperators then ranked the varieties in order of performance (1 being best). 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 27. Cooperator from Italy - 2 provided only laboratory analysis of the ten durum samples (see page 56). 10

13 DISCUSSION OF INDIVIDUAL VARIETIES () graded as U.S. 1HAD, had a high 1000-kernel weight (53.5 g) and had the second highest Falling Number (490 sec) of the Northern Grown durum samples. The semolina protein was 12.8%, which would be acceptable for pasta production. It had strong gluten (gluten index 84) and dough mixing properties (mixogram score 7), moderate glutograph stretch time (27 sec), and Alveograph P/L ratio of 0.71 and W value of 119. Spaghetti color was good (color score of 9). Cooked spaghetti firmness and cooking loss were average for the varieties tested. Cooperator ratings. received the 5 th highest average rating for overall kernel quality (6.3), the 7 th highest for overall semolina quality (5.2), the 4 th highest average rating for handling/processing (6.5), the 8 th highest rating for overall product performance (5.8), and tied for the lowest average rating for overall acceptability (5.5). Cooperator comments. Cooperators liked the high test weight and 1000-kernel weight. Semolina had good water absorption, protein content, and a favorable P/L ratio. It made good bread products and had good taste. Negative comments included high ash content, high speck count, low yellow color, poor rheological properties, and poor cooked pasta texture. () graded as U.S. 1HAD but had the second lowest vitreous kernel content (88%) of the varieties Kernel weight was high (52.8 g). Falling Number (469 sec) was very good. Semolina protein content (12.4%) is acceptable for pasta production. was tied for the highest gluten index (97) and had strong dough mixing properties as indicated by the high mixogram score (7) and glutograph stretch time (112 sec). It had an Alveograph P/L ratio of 0.70 and W value of 202. Spaghetti color was low (color score of 8.5). Cooked firmness (4.9 gcm) was low. The cooking loss was high compared to the other varieties but within acceptable range. Cooperator ratings. received the 4 th highest average rating for overall kernel quality (6.6), the 6 th highest average rating for overall semolina quality (5.3), tied for the highest average rating for handling/processing (7.0), the 7 th highest average rating for overall product performance (6.2), and the 8 th highest average rating for overall acceptability (5.6). Cooperator comments. Cooperators liked the 1000-kernel weight, high vitreousness, and protein content. Semolina had good protein content, high gluten index, and had a balanced alveogram. Pasta had good color and firmness. made good bread products 11

14 and had good taste and texture. Negative comments included a low protein content, gluten index was too high, poor color, and had high levels of bran and black specks. Pasta had a dark reddish appearance. Strongfield () graded as U.S. 1HAD with 99% vitreous kernel content. Strongfield had the lowest 1000-Kernel weight (35.0 g) which reflects its relatively small kernel size (23% large kernels). Its Falling Number (570 sec) was the highest of the Northern Grown varieties. Strongfield had the highest semolina protein content (14.9%), which might be related to its small kernel size. It had a very strong gluten as indicated by gluten index (96) and glutograph stretch time of 125 sec. It also had strong dough mixing properties as indicated by mixogram score of 8 and Alveograph P/L ratio of 0.92 and W value of 289. Strongfield had very good spaghetti color score (9.5) and the best cooking properties having the lowest cooking loss (4.9%) and highest cooked firmness (6.8 gcm). The excellent pasta cooking quality reflects the high protein content and the strong gluten properties of this variety. Cooperator ratings. Strongfield received the highest average rating for overall kernel quality (7.7), the highest average rating for overall semolina quality (7.4), tied for the highest average rating for handling/processing (7.0), the highest average rating for overall product performance (7.8), and the highest average rating for overall acceptability (7.5). Cooperator comments. Cooperators indicated that this was the best sample. They liked the vitreous kernel content, high protein content, low ash content, high yellow color, very good Alveograph W value. Strongfield was good for bread. Bread had good taste, texture and color. Pasta had bright yellow color and good texture. Negative comments included low test weight and kernel weight, and too many specks in semolina. The dough had weak extensibility, high P/L ratio, and the gluten index was too high. () graded as U.S. 1HAD. had the lowest vitreous kernel content (82%). The 1000-kernel weight was good (42.1 g) and had a Falling Number of 381 sec. Semolina protein content was 12.9%. had moderate gluten and dough strength as indicated by gluten index of 71, mixograph score of 6, and glutograph stretch time of 12 sec. had the lowest Alveograph P/L ratio (0.31) and the lowest W value (106). Spaghetti color was good (color score of 9.0) and had average cooked firmness (5.5 gcm) and cooking loss (5.6%). Cooperator ratings. received the 8 th highest average rating for overall kernel quality (5.6), the 5 th highest average rating for overall semolina quality (6.0), the 8 th highest average 12

15 rating for handling/processing (6.0), the 5 th highest rating for overall product performance (6.5), and the 3 rd highest rating for overall acceptability (6.5). Cooperator comments. Cooperators liked the high protein content and low ash content. Semolina had good yellow color and had the best gluten index. Dough handled well. Pasta had good cooked firmness and color. was best for batbout, a product similar to pita bread. Bread products had good taste and appearance. Negative comments included low vitreous kernel content, low Falling Number, and too many black and bran specks in semolina. The gluten index was too low. The dough was too extensible, and had a low Alveograph P/L ratio and W value. The inconsistency in comments indicate that acceptability varied with cooperator. () graded as U.S. 1HAD with 97% vitreous kernel content. It had a moderate 1000-kernel weight (39.9 g) and the lowest Falling Number of 375 sec, which is still in the acceptable range. Semolina protein content (13.9%) was good. It had strong gluten as indicated by gluten index of 89 and glutograph stretch time of 125 sec. It also had strong dough properties as indicated by mixogram score of 8 and Alveograph W value of 206. The Alveograph P/L ratio was a modest 0.48 indicating good extensibility to the dough. had the lowest pasta color score (8.5). Compared to the other varieties, had average cooking loss (5.8%) and cooked firmness (5.7 gcm). Cooperator ratings. received the 3 rd highest average rating for overall kernel quality (6.8), the 2 nd highest rating for overall semolina quality (7.3), the 5 th highest average rating for handling/processing (6.4), the 2 nd highest rating for overall product performance (7.2), and the 2 nd highest rating for overall acceptability (7.1). Cooperator comments. Cooperators liked the high protein content, high vitreous kernel content, and low ash content of the grain. Semolina had bright, yellow color. It had good dough strength and high W value. Pasta had good color, volume, and firmness. Bread products had good taste, color, texture, swelling, and appearance. Negative comments included low test weight and kernel weight. Semolina had too many black and bran specks. Gluten index was too high, P/L ratio was too low, and dough was too extensible. () graded as U.S. 1HAD with 95% vitreous kernel content. It had the 2 nd lowest 1000-kernel weight (37.3 g) which probably was related to its moderate kernel size (50% large kernels). It had a good Falling Number (414 sec). Semolina protein content (13.8%) was good. It had moderately strong gluten as indicated by gluten index of 84 and a glutograph stretch time of 41 sec. It had good dough mixing properties with a mixogram score of 8 and Alveograph P/L ratio of 13

16 0.53 and W value of 172. Spaghetti color was very good (color score of 9.5). Spaghetti made from had modest cooked firmness (5.4 gcm) and cooking loss (5.6%). Cooperator ratings. received the 2 nd highest average rating for overall kernel quality (6.9), the 3 rd highest rating for overall semolina quality (6.6), the 9 th highest average rating for handling/processing (5.6), the 6 th highest rating for overall product performance (6.4), and the 5 th highest rating for overall acceptability (6.1). Cooperator comments. Cooperators liked the vitreous kernel content, high protein content, low ash content, and high sedimentation value. Semolina had the best gluten quality and quantity and had the best dough properties. Pasta had good cooked firmness, volume and color. Bread had good taste, texture, color, swelling, and appearance. Negative comments included low test weight and kernel weight, low protein quality. Low P/L ratio, too many black and bran specks in the semolina. Pasta lacked resistance to cooking. The inconsistency in comments indicate that acceptability varied with cooperator. () graded as U.S. 1HAD with 98% vitreous kernel content. It had the highest 1000-kernel weight (54.8 g) and very high Falling Number (1,132 sec). had the lowest semolina protein content (12.1%) which probably reflects the large kernel size (92% large kernels) and the very high kernel weight. Its gluten strength was moderately high, with a gluten index of 80 and glutograph stretch time of 51. It had strong elastic dough properties with mixogram score of 7 and an Alveograph P/L ratio of 2.16 and W value of 174. Spaghetti color was very good (color score of 9.5). Compared to the other varieties it had a high cooking loss (6.3%) and moderate cooked firmness (5.2 gcm) which reflects the low protein content. Cooperator ratings. received the 6 th highest average rating for overall kernel quality (5.9), the lowest average rating for overall semolina quality (4.8), the lowest average rating for handling/processing (5.1), the lowest average rating for overall product performance (5.3), and tied for the lowest average rating for overall acceptability (5.5). Cooperator comments. Cooperators liked the test weight, 1000-kernel weight, vitreous kernel content, and high Falling Number. Semolina had good yellow color and good strength. Pasta had good texture and bread products had very good taste. Negative comments included high ash content, low protein content and quality. Alveograph P/L ratio was too high. Dough had poor adhesiveness, no elasticity and broke easily. Pasta had poor resistance to cooking and unacceptable cooked firmness. 14

17 () graded as U.S. 1HAD with 98% vitreous kernel content. It had a good 1000-kernel weight (41.2 g) and very high Falling Number (1,136 sec). It had a good semolina protein content (13.8%). It had the weakest gluten and dough strength, with a gluten index of 48, glutograph stretch time of 11 sec, mixogram score of 5, and Alveograph P/L ratio of 0.43 and W value of 117. Spaghetti made from had the best color (color score of 10.0). Compared to the other varieties, it had a high cooking loss (6.3%) and moderate cooked firmness (5.2 gcm) which seems to reflect the relatively weak gluten properties. Cooperator ratings. received the 9 th highest average rating for overall kernel quality (5.3), the 3 rd highest average rating for overall semolina quality (6.6), the 3 rd highest average rating for handling/processing (6.8), the 3 rd highest average rating for overall product performance (6.8), and the 4 th highest average rating for overall acceptability (6.3). Cooperator comments. Cooperators liked the test weight, high vitreous kernel content, protein content, and Falling Number. Semolina had bright yellow color. Dough handled well and had a good Alveograph P/L ratio. Pasta had good color and cooked firmness. Bread had good color and good taste. Negative comments included high semolina ash. The dough lacked strength. had low sedimentation value and low gluten index. Desert King () graded U.S. 1HAD with 97% vitreous kernel content. It had a moderate 1000-kernel weight (40.0 g) and a very high Falling Number (1,158 sec). Semolina protein content (12.4%) was moderate. It had a moderately high gluten strength and dough properties with a strong index of 81, glutograph stretch time of 35 sec, and a mixogram score of 7. Desert King had a Alveograph P/L ratio of 1.25 and W value of 169 both indicate elastic type dough properties. Spaghetti color was very good (color score of 9.5). Spaghetti made from Desert King had the lowest cooked firmness (4.8 gcm) and moderate cooking loss (6.0%). Cooperator ratings. Desert King received the lowest average rating for overall kernel quality (4.6), the 2 nd lowest average rating for overall semolina quality (4.9), the 6 th highest average rating for handling/processing (6.3), the 2 nd lowest average rating for overall product performance (5.7), and the 6 th highest average rating for overall acceptability (6.0). Cooperator comments. Cooperators liked the protein and wet gluten contents and the high Falling Number. It was good for bread. Bread products had good taste. Negative comments included high ash content, high speck count in semolina, poor yellow color. 15

18 Semolina produced an unbalanced Alveogram. Dough was too extensible. Dough dried quickly after hydration. () graded U.S. 2HAD with 91% vitreous kernel content. had the lowest test weight (77.1 kg/hl). It had a moderate 1000-kernel weight (42.3 g) and a very high Falling Number (2,369 sec). Semolina protein content was 13.0%. It had very strong gluten and dough properties as indicated by a gluten index of 97, glutograph stretch time of 125 sec, mixogram score of 8, and Alveograph P/L ratio of 2.99 and W value of 292. The Alveograph data indicate that the dough was very elastic. Spaghetti color was good (color score of 9.0). Spaghetti made from Desert King had moderate cooked firmness (5.3 gcm) and moderate cooking loss (5.8%). Cooperator ratings. received the 6 th highest average rating for overall kernel quality (5.9), the 8 th highest average rating for overall semolina quality (5.1), the 6 th highest average rating for handling/processing (6.3), the 4 th highest average rating for overall product performance (6.6), and the 7 th highest average rating for overall acceptability (5.7). Cooperator comments. Cooperators liked the protein content, Falling Number, and gluten index. Pasta had good texture al dente. Negative comments included low test weight and high Falling Number. Semolina had too many specks. The dough dried quickly after hydration. Gluten strength and the Alveograph P/L ratio were too high. Semolina and pasta color was poor. did not produce good bread products. 16

19 2009 OVA Cooperator Quality Rating and Ranking Summary of Durum Varieties Rank Order Evaluation Highest overall quality Lowest overall quality 12 Cooperator: Algeria Sample Number sample 2 Sample 1 Strongfield Cooperator: Italy 1 Sample Number Strongfield Sample 1 Desert King Cooperator: Japan Sample Number Strongfield Desert King sample 2 Alazda Cooperator: Morocco Sample Number Strongfield Desert King Cooperator: Portugal Sample Number Sample 1 Sample 2 Strongfield Desert King Cooperator: Spain Sample Number Strongfield Desert King Granulosa Cooperator: Tunisia Sample Number Strongfield 17

20 Variety Quality Ranking: Cooperators ranked the varieties from 1 to 9, with 1 being the top choice. Rankings were grouped into three combined rankings to determine which varieties cooperators considered Top (1-3), middle (4-7), and bottom (8-10) varieties Cooperator Strongfield DUR909 Desert King Algeria Italy Japan Morocco Portugal Spain Tunisia Mean Range 4 to 10 4 to 9 1 to 4 3 to 10 1 to 7 2 to 9 3 to 10 1 to 10 5 to 8 2 to 8 Combined ratings Number 1 ranking Number 2 ranking Number 3 ranking Subtotal Top Number 4 ranking Number 5 ranking umber 6 ranking Number 7 ranking Subtotal Middle Number 8 ranking Number 9 ranking Number 10 ranking Subtotal Bottom

21 General Characteristics of Samples Used by Cooperators Algeria sample 1. Semolina for pasta and couscous. 1 HARD, 14.5% protein (14%mb). sample 2. Semolina for special pasta. 1 HRD, 14.7% protein (14%mb).. Italy - 1 sample from Italy/France. Semolina protein 14.2% (0% mb). Japan Semolina control sample was a blend of four commercial flours; Protein content = 12.7% (14% mb). Morocco sample had 15.5% protein. Portugal No information provided. Spain No information provided. Tunisia Semolina control sample 1 and sample 2 were both made from blends of Canadian, Mexican, and local wheat. 19

22 Characteristics of Samples Used by Cooperators Algeria Italy 1 Japan Morocco Portugal Spain Tunisia Wheat Grade Data Sample 1 Sample 2 No data Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 1 Sample 2 provide Test Weight (kg/hl) Damaged Kernels (%) Foreign Material (%) Shrunken & Broken (%) Total Defects (%) Contrasting Classes (%) Vitreous Kernels (%) Wheat Non Grade Data Dockage (%) 0.1 Moisture (%) Protein (%) 12%/0% % moisture 16.8/19.1 Ash (%) 14%/0% moisture 0.75% / Kernel Weight (g) Falling Number (sec) Semolina Data Lab Mill Extraction (%) 74 Semo Extraction (%) Ash (%) 14%/0% mb 0.67/ / <0, Specks (no/10 sqq in) 8/1 5/ Protein (%) 14%/0% moisture basis Wet Gluten (%) Gluten Index Alveograph: P (mn) L (mm) P/L Ratio W (10 4 joules) Color: L* a* b* > CGV 1.4 Spaghetti Data Color L a b

23 2009 USW Overseas Varietal Analysis Program Durum End Products & Quality Preferences Survey Cooperator: Algeria Primary End Product Uses for Durum Primary flour used Used only in blends with other flours 1. Pasta X 2. Couscous X 3. Gridle cake (Kisra) X 4. Traditional cakes X Quality measure Acceptable quality (Medium quality) Preferred Quality (High quality) 1. Vitreous kernels, % Protein, % 15%, ms 16.5%, ms 3. Test weight, kg/hl Wet gluten, % Gluten index 70 to to Granulation semolina ( u) =90% ( u)=90% 7. Color, b* b=36 b=36.5 Cooperator: Italy - 1 Primary End Product Uses for Durum Primary flour used Used only in blends with other flours 1. Pasta X 2. Bread Flour + Durum X Quality measure Acceptable quality (Medium quality) Preferred Quality (High quality) 1. Protein content, % Minimum 13 14% 2. Glutograph Minimum Wet gluten, % Minimum 35 37% 4. Ash content, % Maximum Color b* Minimum

24 End Products & Quality Preferences Survey - continued Cooperator: Japan Primary End Product Uses for Durum Primary flour used Used only in blends with other flours 1. Pasta X Quality measure Acceptable quality (Medium quality) Preferred Quality (High quality) 1. Protein Uniformity 2. Kernel moisture As low as possible 3. Chemical residue Japanese sanitation law 4. Mycotoxin Japanese sanitation law Cooperator: Morocco Primary End Product Uses for Durum Primary flour used Used only in blends with other flours 1. Pasta X 2. Bread X 3. Msemen X 4. Batbout X 5. Beghrir X 6. Ghoriba X X Quality measure Acceptable quality (Medium quality) Preferred Quality (High quality) 1. Vitreous kernels, % Minimum Protein content, % Minimum Pigment content, ppm Minimum 6 4. Sedimentation, cc Minimum Falling number, sec Minimum Ash content, % Maximum Minolta b* Minimum

25 End Products & Quality Preferences Survey - continued Cooperator: Portugal Primary End Product Uses for Durum Primary flour used Used only in blends with other flours 1. High quality pasta X 2. High quality pasta X 3. First pice pasta X 4. High quality pasta X X Quality measure None indicated Acceptable quality (Medium quality) Preferred Quality (High quality) Cooperator: Spain Primary End Product Uses for Durum Primary flour used Used only in blends with other flours 1. Pasta X Quality measure Acceptable quality (Medium quality) Preferred Quality (High quality) 1. Test weight Minimum 80 kg/hl >83 kg/hl 2. Vitreous kernel content Minimum 75% 90% 3. Wheat protein Minimum 15% >17% 4. Ash Maximum 1.70% <1.40% 5. Yellow color is very important for us Minimum 27 b* >30 b* 6. Alveograph P=120 L=90 P/L=1.50 W=380 Wheat without impurities or disease 23

26 End Products & Quality Preferences Survey - continued Cooperator: Tunisia Primary End Product Uses for Durum Primary flour used Used only in blends with other flours 1. Pasta X 2. Couscous X 3. Traditional pasta (halallem/nouasser) X 4. Traditional bread (tabouna) X X 5. Flat bread (mellaoui) X 6. Brik X 7. Cakes (makroud) X Quality measure Acceptable quality (Medium quality) Preferred Quality (High quality) Kernel 1. Test weight, kg/hl Minimum Damaged kernels, % Maximum Vitreous kernels, % Minimum Moisture, % <13 10% 5. Protein, % Minimum % 6. Ash, % Maximum % Kernel weight, g Minimum g Semolina 8. Specks (no/10 sqq in) Maximum Ash, % Maximum Protein, % Minimum % 11. Wet gluten, % Minimum Gluten index 70 to Color L* Minimum b* Minumum 25 > Falling number, sec 280 to

27 2009 Overseas Varietal Analysis Program Cooperator Quality Rating and Ranking Summary Overall Kernel Quality (1 to 9, with 9 being best) Algeria Italy - 1 Japan Morocco Portugal Spain Tunisia Average Range to to 8.0 Strongfield to to to to to to 6.5 Desert King to to 8.0 Overall Semolina Quality (1 to 9, with 9 being best) Algeria Italy 1 Japan Morocco Portugal Spain Tunisia Average Range to to 6.5 Strongfield to to to to to to 8.0 Desert King to to 6.5 Overall Handling/Processing Performance (1 to 9, with 9 being best) Algeria Italy - 1 Japan Morocco Portugal Spain Tunisia Average Range to to 9.0 Strongfield to to to to to to 8.0 Desert King to to

28 2009 Overseas Varietal Analysis Program Cooperator Quality Rating and Ranking Summary Overall End Product Performance (1 to 9, with 9 being best) Algeria Italy - 1 Japan Morocco Portugal Spain Tunisia Average Range to to 8.0 Strongfield to to to to to to 8.0 Desert King to to 8.0 Overall Acceptability (1 to 9, with 9 being best) Algeria Italy - 1 Japan Morocco Portugal Spain Tunisia Average Range to to 8.0 Strongfield to to to to to to 8.0 Desert King to to 7.0 Overall Variety Ranking (1 to 9, with 1 being best) Algeria Italy - 1 Japan Morocco Portugal Spain Tunisia Average Range to to 9 Strongfield to to to to to to 10 Desert King to to 8 26

29 2009 USWA - Overseas Varietal Analysis Program CONTROL AND VARIETAL SAMPLE EVALUATION FORM Sample Evaluation Instructions: Listed below are the flour sample numbers that correspond to each sample you have received. 1. Show the information for each of your Sample(s) in the area provided to the left of these instructions. Please select control flour sample(s) that are comparable to the wheat class and protein level of the varietal samples being evaluated. The control sample(s) should be selected from commercial flours routinely produced or used in your operation. 2. Complete an analysis for your Sample(s) and each Varietal Sample. 3. Score the samples in Questions 1-5 using the scale shown below. (Please aggressively differentiate quality through your scoring) Very Good Good Average Poor Very Poor 4. Describe the qualities you "like" and "dislike" on each sample. 5. Be sure and fill in the Evaluator Name, Company Name and Date in the space provided below. Cooperators were asked to answer the following five questions. 1. Based on the wheat kernel data provided, please score the overall wheat kernel quality of these varieties. 2. Based on the semolina data provided, or you analysis, please score the overall flour quality of these varieties. 3. Based on your analysis or the rheology data provided, please score the overall pasta handling/ processing performance of these varieties. 4. Based on your analysis, please score the end product performance of these varietal samples. 5. Based on your review, please score the overall acceptability of these varietal samples. 27

30 Sample CONTROL AND VARIETAL SAMPLE EVALUATION - Algeria Overall Kernel Quality Overall Semolina Quality Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score 1 to 9 Qualities Liked Qualities Disliked Score 1 to 9 Qualities Liked Qualities Disliked Sample High 1000-kernel weight High rate of grain speck, shrunken and broken 6.0 High yellow index (b-value) Low protein content Sample High 1000-kernel weight High rate of grain speck, shrunken and broken 8.0 Best gluten quality Highest yellow index, Best granulation Low protein content 7.0 High test weight Best 1000-kernel weight 6.0 Low moisture High 1000-kernel weight High ash content 6.0 Low yellow index (b-value) High speck count High ash content 6.0 Best brightness index (L-value) High ash content, speck count and gluten index Low wet gluten content Strongfield 8.0 Best vitreousness, high protein content, low moisture and ash content Low test weight Low 1000-kernel weight 7.0 Lowest ash content and speck count High protein content and yellow index High gluten index 7.0 High protein content Low ash content Low vitreousness 6.0 Best gluten index Low brightness index (L-value) 6.5 High protein content High vitreousness High total defects, shrunken and broken 8.0 High yellow index (b-value) High brightness index (L-value) Desert King 7.5 High protein content High vitreousness Lowest ash content Low 1000-kernel weight 7.5 Best gluten quality and quantity Low brightness index (L-value) 28

31 Sample CONTROL AND VARIETAL SAMPLE EVALUATION Algeria Continued Handling/processing performance Overall End Product Performance Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score 1 to 9 Qualities Liked Qualities Disliked Score 1 to 9 End Products Qualities Liked Qualities Disliked Sample Pasta Traditional bread Acceptable firmness Good taste, color, texture, swelling, and appearance Pasta was medium sticky Not resistant to cooking Sample Pasta Couscous Acceptable firmness, yellow color, transparency. Beautiful color Pasta slightly sticky 6.5 Best P/L Low strength baker W 5.0 Traditional bread Good taste and appearance Swelling medium Not resistant to cooking 8.5 Best P/L High pasta value High gluten index 8.0 Traditional bread Good taste, texture, swelling, and appearance Strongfield 8.0 Best strength W Best pasta value High gluten index High P/L 9.0 Traditional bread Best of taste, color, texture, swelling and appearance 5.0 High pasta value Low strength W P/L too low 6.0 Traditional bread Bread had good taste and appearance Swelling is medium and not resistant to cooking 7.5 High strength W High pasta value High gluten index P/L too low 7.0 Traditional bread Bread had good taste, color texture, swelling and appearance 6.5 High strength W High pasta value P/L too low 7.0 Traditional bread Bread had good taste, color texture, swelling and appearance Not resistant to cooking Desert King 29

32 Sample Sample 1 Sample 2 CONTROL AND VARIETAL SAMPLE EVALUATION- Algeria Continued Overall Acceptability Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score Qualities Liked Qualities Disliked 1 to Wheat acceptable Good color 7.0 Wheat acceptable Best color 6.0 Best extraction Beautiful color Prefer higher extraction with good yellow color Strongfield 6.0 Wheat acceptable Prefer stronger gluten with same extensibility 8.0 Best wheat and semolina quality Weak extensibility 7.0 Wheat and semolina acceptable 8.0 Nice wheat and the best semolina quality 8.0 Nice wheat and semolina Prefer stronger gluten with the same extensibility Desert King 30

33 Sample Sample 1 CONTROL AND VARIETAL SAMPLE EVALUATION- Italy - 1 Overall Kernel Quality Overall Semolina Quality Handling/processing Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score Qualities 1 to 9 Liked No comments provided 6.0 Qualities Disliked Score 1 to 9 Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Qualities Qualities Liked Disliked Score 1 to 9 performance Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Qualities Liked No Comments provided Qualities Disliked Sample 2 Strongfield High protein High W 4.0 Low protein Low W Desert King

34 Sample CONTROL AND VARIETAL SAMPLE EVALUATION- Italy - 1 Continued Overall End Product Performance Overall Acceptability Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score Qualities Liked 1 to 9 End Products Made Qualities Disliked Score 1 to 9 Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Qualities Liked Qualities Disliked No Comments Provided Sample 1 Sample 2 Strongfield Desert King Bread Bread Bread Good for bread production Good for bread production Good for bread production 32

35 Sample Sample 1 Sample 2 CONTROL AND VARIETAL SAMPLE EVALUATION- Japan Overall Kernel Quality Overall Semolina Quality Handling/processing performance Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score Qualities Liked Qualities Disliked Score Qualities Qualities Disliked Score Qualities 1 to 9 1 to 9 Liked 1 to 9 Liked No Comments Provided 5.0 Qualities Disliked 5.0 High kernel weight 5.0 High kernel weight High ash content 4.0 Many specks 5.0 High ash content 6.0 Bright 5.0 Strongfield Few specks Low yield High test weight High kernel weight High ash content Desert King 4.0 High ash content 4.0 Low yield High ash content Few specks

36 Sample Sample 1 Sample 2 CONTROL AND VARIETAL SAMPLE EVALUATION- Japan Continued Overall End Product Performance Overall Acceptability Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score End Products 1 to 9 Made PASTA Qualities Liked Qualities Disliked Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score Qualities Liked Qualities Disliked 1 to Slightly soft 4.0 End product texture 4.0 Darkish red 4.0 End product color Strongfield 7.0 Bright, yellow Good texture 7.0 End product quality Slightly bright Good texture 6.0 End product quality Desert King 6.0 Bright Good texture 6.0 End product quality 34

37 Sample CONTROL AND VARIETAL SAMPLE EVALUATION- Morocco Overall Kernel Quality Overall Semolina Quality Handling/processing performance Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score Qualities Liked Qualities Disliked Score Qualities Qualities Disliked Score Qualities 1 to 9 1 to 9 Liked 1 to 9 Liked Qualities Disliked Sample Very good yellow color 9.0 Good balance between water absorption and extensibility Sample High test weight, 1000 kernel weight Good protein Nothing 3.0 Low ash content Low yellow color High speck count 8.0 Good water absorption, adequate extensibility 7.0 High test weight, 1000 kernel weight Good protein Protein low 3.5 Protein and ash contents ok Yellow color not satisfactory 9.0 Good water absorption, adequate extensibility Strongfield 7.0 High protein High vitreousness Low 1000 kernel weight and test weight 8.0 Very good yellow color Nothing 7.0 Beautiful color 5.0 Protein is ok Nothiing 5.0 Satisfactory yellow color 5.0 Protein is ok Nothing 6.0 Good yellow color 6.0 Satisfactory color 4.0 Satisfactory 6.0 High protein content Low 1000 kernel weight 6.0 Good yellow color 5.0 Satisfactory 5.0 Satisfactory yellow color 7.0 Satisfactory 8.0 Very good yellow color 8.0 Satisfactory Extensibility Desert King 3.0 Protein content ok 3.0 Protein content ok Yellow color, too many specks Yellow color, too many specks 9.0 Satisfactory Very very extensible 9.0 Good water absorption Extensibility 35

38 Sample Sample 1 CONTROL AND VARIETAL SAMPLE EVALUATION- Morocco Continued Overall End Product Performance Overall Acceptability Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score 1 to 9 End Products Made Qualities Liked Qualities Disliked Bread / Msmen / Btbout /Beghrir Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score Qualities Qualities Disliked 1 to 9 Liked Sample 2 Bread/Msmen Batbout/Beghrir Traditional couscous Good taste Good for melloui Bread/Msmen Batbout/Beghrir Traditional couscous Good taste Very good for melloui Strongfield Bread/Msmen Batbout/Beghrir Traditional couscous Adequate development, good taste and color 8.0 Fairly good for all products Bread/Msmen Batbout/Beghrir Traditional couscous Adequate development, good taste Satisfactory Very good for batbout Bread/Msmen Batbout/Beghrir Traditional couscous Very good taste Very good for batbout Not satisfactory for melloui Bread/Msmen Batbout/Beghrir Traditional couscous Very good taste Moderately good for all products Bread/Msmen Batbout/Beghrir Traditional couscous Very good taste Ok for products Bread/Msmen Batbout/Beghrir Traditional couscous Good taste Good yellow color Ok for products Desert King Bread/Msmen Batbout/Beghrir Traditional couscous Good taste Not too good for products Bread/Msmen Batbout/Beghrir Traditional couscous Fairly good development of bread but not for other products Not too good for products 36

39 Sample CONTROL AND VARIETAL SAMPLE EVALUATION- Portugal Overall Kernel Quality Overall Semolina Quality Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score 1 to 9 Qualities Liked Qualities Disliked Score 1 to 9 Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Qualities Qualities Disliked Liked Sample High test weight Low ash content High shrunken and broken 8.5 Highest extraction, lowest specks, good protein High ash due to high extraction Sample High test weight Low ash content High shrunken and broken 8.5 Highest extraction, lowest specks, good protein High ash due to high extraction 6.0 High test weight No shrunken and broken High ash content 4.0 Good extraction Slightly high ash content High brown speck count 6.0 Good vitreousness No shrunken and broken High ash content 4.0 High gluten index High ash content Very high brown speck count Strongfield 7.0 High protein, vitreousness, falling number Low ash content 6.5 Good ash content Good speck count Lowest extraction 5.0 Low ash content Lowest vitreousness Low falling number 5.0 Good extraction, protein and ash contents Low gluten index 6.0 High vitreousness Low ash content Low falling number High moisture 8.5 Good semolina quality 7.0 High protein Good vitreouness Low falling number High moisture 4.0 High protein Low protein quality 6.0 High vitreousness and falling number 6.0 High vitreousness, falling number, protein Low shrunken and broken High ash content 3.0 High ash Low protein High ash content 7.0 Good color Low extraction Lowest gluten index Desert King 2.0 High falling number High shrunken and broken and total defects 5.0 Medium characteristics 4.0 Very high falling number Lowest test weight 5.0 High protein content and gluten index Light color 37

40 Sample CONTROL AND VARIETAL SAMPLE EVALUATION- Portugal continued Handling/processing performance End Product performance Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score Qualities Qualities Disliked 1 to 9 Liked Score 1 to 9 Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent End Qualities Qualities Disliked Products Liked Made Sample Handles well Good absorption 8.0 Pasta Acceptable al dente Good color No specks Sample Handles well Good absorption 8.0 Pasta Acceptable al dente Good color No specks 5.0 Handles well Slightly high absorption 6.0 Pasta Acceptable al dente Many specks 5.0 High absorption Does not handle well 6.0 Pasta Acceptable al dente Too many specks Strongfield 5.0 Good absorption Handles well Seems to be underhydrated but handles well 6.0 Pasta Acceptable al dente 6.0 Handles well Too high absorption, needs less water than normal Only 30% of water normally used 7.0 Pasta Acceptable al dente 7.0 Good adhesivity Too high absorption, needs less water than normal Only 30% of water normally used 8.4 Pasta Color, Good al dente Low specks 3.0 Slightly high absorption Weak protein Dough seems dry 1.0 Poor adhesiveness Poor protein quality, No elasticity. Dough breaks very easily 7.0 Handles well Slightly lowest water than normal 4.0 Pasta Low resistance to cooking 2.0 Pasta Very soft Lowest resistance to cooking Unacceptable al dente 8.0 Pasta Color Good al dente Desert King 4.0 Dough dries very quickly after adding water 5.0 Pasta Acceptable al dente Many specks Light yellow 4.0 Dough dries very quickly after adding water 5.0 Pasta Acceptable al dente Many specks Very light yellow almost white 38

41 CONTROL AND VARIETAL SAMPLE EVALUATION- Portugal continued Overall Acceptability Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Sample Score 1 to 9 Qualities Liked Qualities Disliked Sample Nice wheat and flour quality Good extraction Sample Nice wheat and flour quality Good extraction Strongfield 4.0 Nice wheat and flour quality No shrunken and broken wheat 4.0 Nice wheat and flour quality No shrunken and broken wheat 5.0 Wheat and flour with good protein and low ash contents High vitreousness Prefer lower ash content and speck count Prefer lower ash content Low extraction 6.0 Low vitreousness High total defects Good protein Low kernel weight 3.0 Good wheat test weight, vitreousness, and high falling number 8.0 Nice wheat and flour quality No shrunken and broken wheat Prefer lower ash content Prefer stronger gluten and lower ash content Desert King 6.0 No damaged kernels Prefer lower ash content and speck count Highest wheat total defects 4.0 Highest falling number Low wheat quality 39

42 Sample CONTROL AND VARIETAL SAMPLE EVALUATION- Spain Overall Kernel Quality Overall Semolina Quality Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score 1 to 9 Qualities Liked Qualities Disliked Score 1 to 9 Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Qualities Qualities Disliked Liked Sample Good gluten index Low color 6.0 Good test weight High kernel weight Sedimentation could be improved 7.0 Protein and ash contents Low color and gluten index 8.0 Good sedimentation High 1000 kernel weight Protein content could be improved 6.5 Good gluten index and color Low wet gluten content Strongfield 9.0 Very good sedimentation and protein content Low test weight and kernel weight 9.0 Best in all parameters 6.5 Low ash content Low vitreousness 7.5 Good color, ash and protein contents Wet gluten content could be improved 8.5 Good sedimentation and protein content Low test weight and 1000 kernel weight 8.0 High protein and color 8.5 Good sedimentation and protein content Low test weight and 1000 kernel weight 8.5 Good ash and protein contents 6.0 Good test weight and high 1000 kernel weight Sedimentation could be improved 6.0 Good color High ash and low wet gluten contents 6.5 Good moisture, test weight and protein content Low sedimentation 7.5 Very good color and protein contents Low gluten index Desert King 7.0 Good moisture High ash content 6.5 Good protein and gluten content Low color 6.5 Good moisture Very high falling number and low test weight 6.5 Good protein and gluten content Low color Falling number too high 40

43 Sample CONTROL AND VARIETAL SAMPLE EVALUATION- Spain continued Handling/processing performance End Product performance Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score 1 to 9 Qualities Liked Qualities Disliked Score 1 to 9 Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent End Qualities Products Liked Made Qualities Disliked Sample Low strength 5.0 Laboratory spaghetti Spanish standard 7.0 Handles well Has the worst rheological behavior 7.0 Laboratory spaghetti Acceptable al dente 8.5 Good balanced alveogram Low texturometer behavior 7.0 Laboratory spaghetti Acceptable al dente Strongfield 9.0 Good in all data Best sample 9.0 Laboratory spaghetti Very good in volume and al dente 7.0 Good texturometer test Long pasta is soft Very elastic 8.0 Laboratory spaghetti Good scores in general 8.5 Good alveogram excellent for all types of pasta Not the best for long pasta 8.5 Laboratory spaghetti Very good volume and al dente 8.5 Good general behavior for all types of pasta Not best for long pasta 9.0 Laboratory spaghetti Very good volume and al dente 7.5 Good strength to blend with other samples Too much P/L too tough 8.0 Laboratory spaghetti Good general score 7.0 Good P/L Lacks strength 6.5 Laboratory spaghetti Acceptable al dente Desert King 7.0 Not the worst one Unbalanced alveogram 7.0 Laboratory spaghetti Acceptable al dente 7.0 Good for blends Too much unbalanced P/L 8.0 Laboratory spaghetti Good general score 41

44 CONTROL AND VARIETAL SAMPLE EVALUATION- Spain continued Overall Acceptability Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Sample Score 1 to 9 Qualities Liked Qualities Disliked Sample Spanish standard but could be better Prefer stronger 6.5 It is not a bad wheat but it needs something 8.0 Good semolina, balanced alveogram Low wet gluten content Strongfield 9.0 Number one. bery suitable for every type of pasta 7.5 Good wheat but not for every type of pasta. need to blend Too much extensibility 8.5 Very good wheat with very good results Prefer a little less extensibility 8.5 Very good wheat with very good results Prefer a little less extensibility 7.5 Good wheat but not for every type of pasta. Need to blend To much P/L 6.0 Less evaluated (good) Needs strength Desert King 7.0 Good wheat but needs some improvement Poor extraction 7.0 Good wheat for blending Too much P/L and very strong gluten 42

45 Sample CONTROL AND VARIETAL SAMPLE EVALUATION- Tunisia Overall Kernel Quality Overall Semolina Quality Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score Qualities Liked 1 to 9 Qualities Disliked Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score Qualities Liked 1 to 9 Qualities Disliked Sample 1 High protein, vitreousness, and test weight High a-amylase activity; Low 1000-kernel weight, average test weight High protein content Low ash content Satisfactory yellow color (b) High wet gluten content Some bran and black specks Sample 2 Very high protein; Extra vitreous wheat Low kernel weight; Average test weight Very low ash content Very high protein, wet gluten. Very good yellow color Some bran and black specks 7.5 High protein, 1000 kernel weight, and vitreousness Average a- amylase activity 7.0 High wet gluten content Good gluten index Satisfactory color Some bran and black specks 7.0 Average vitreous kernels and protein content High a-amylase 6.0 Satisfactory wet gluten, and protein contents Good yellow color (b) Some bran and black specks Strongfield 9.0 Very high vitreousness, protein content Low ash content High sedimentation Low test weight High a-amylase 9.0 Very high wet gluten High protein content Satisfactory gluten index Very high rheological properties Very good color Unacceptable bran and black specks 6.5 Satisfactory test weight High protein Low ash content Average kernel weight Low vitreous kernels 7.5 Average protein High wet gluten Low ash content Good yellow color Some bran and black specks 8.0 High protein High vitreousness Low ash Low test weight 8.0 Very high wet gluten High protein Low ash content Good yellow color Some bran and black specks Resistant gluten 8.0 Very high vitreousness and protein content. Low ash content High sedimentation 8.5 High wet gluten content High protein content Low ash content Good yellow color Some bran and black specks Resistant gluten Desert King 43

46 Sample CONTROL AND VARIETAL SAMPLE EVALUATION- Tunisia continued Handling/processing performance End Product performance Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Score Qualities Liked 1 to 9 Qualities Disliked Score 1 to 9 Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent End Qualities Qualities Disliked Products Liked Made Sample 1 Low a-amylase activity Good wet gluten properties Pasta Good cooked firmness Good color during cooking Good taste Low water absorption Best or medium cooked firmness Sample 2 Pasta Not sticky during cooking 7.5 Good gluten 7.0 Pasta Average color 6.0 Satisfactory wet gluten quality and dough properties High α- amylase activity 6.0 Pasta Good color Good cooked firmness Low moisture Strongfield 8.0 Good water absorption 8.0 Pasta Tradition al bread Good color Good cooked firmness Very high α- amylase activity 7.0 Satisfactory gluten and dough properties Satisfactory wet gluten quality and dough properties Satisfactory wet gluten quality and dough properties 7.0 Pasta Good cooked firmness Good color 7.5 Pasta Good cooked firmness Good color 7.0 pasta Good cooked firmness Good color Desert King 44

47 CONTROL AND VARIETAL SAMPLE EVALUATION- Tunisia continued Overall Acceptability Score: 1=Very Poor/9=Excellent Sample Score 1 to 9 Qualities Liked Qualities Disliked Sample 1 Good wheat quality Very good semolina quality Very good color Prefer higher kernel weight Sample Satisfactory wheat quality Satisfactory semolina quality Some black and bran specks 6.0 Satisfactory wheat quality Satisfactory semolina quality Some black and bran specks Strongfield 8.0 Average wheat quality High semolina quality Very good color 7.0 Satisfactory wheat quality Satisfactory semolina quality Some black and bran specks Very high a-amylase activity Some black and bran specks 7.0 Satisfactory wheat quality Satisfactory semolina quality Some black and bran specks 6.0 Satisfactory wheat quality Satisfactory semolina quality Some black and bran specks Desert King 45

48 Section B Kernel Quality, Semolina Quality, and Pasta Quality Analysis Durum Wheat Quality and Pasta Processing Laboratory at North Dakota State University 46

49 Methods Tests for Kernel Characteristics 1. Test weight. Weight based on Winchester bushel of clean, dry wheat after removal of dockage using a Carter-Day dockage tester. (AACC Method 55-10). 2. Official grade and grading factors (damaged kernels, shrunken and broken, foreign material, total defects, and vitreous kernel content) determine by FGIS/USDA Standards by a licensed grain inspector Kernel weight. Based on 10 g sample of cleaned wheat (free of foreign material and broken kernels) counted by electronic seed counter. Value adjusted to weight of 1000 kernels. 4. Falling Number. Determined using a Perten Falling Number machine via AACC Method 56-81B. 5. Wheat protein. Determined by combustion method (AACC Method 46-30). Milling The NCI Pilot Flour/Semolina Mill was reconfigured in 2009 from the original NCI Pilot Durum Mill, and was commissioned in January of It is undergoing refinements to optimize milling performance, and extraction rates are expected to improve with the additional changes planned this year. The goal of this project milling was to limit adjustments of the mill between samples to allow for comparison of the semolina and end-product quality between samples. At this stage of the mill reconfiguration, extraction rates are not representative of commercial milling, and comparison of extraction rates between samples is not recommended, as the data does not be accurately reflect the milling extraction potential of these varieties or experimental lines. The samples were cleaned on the new grain cleaning system, which consists of a grain separator cleaner, air aspirator and color sorter. All samples were tempered to 16.5%, 13 hours prior to milling. Total and semolina extractions were are calculated based on total products collected. Tests for Semolina Characteristics 1. Semolina ash. Determined by oven method (AACC Method 08-01). 2. Semolina protein. Determined by combustion method (AACC Method 46-30). 3. Gluten index. Determined using Perten Glutomatic (AACC Method 38-12). 47

50 Dough Characteristics 1. Mixograph. Determined according to AACC Method 54-40A with some modifications. Semolina (10 g based on 14% mb) was mixed for 8 min at constant water absorption of 5.8 ml, using a spring setting of 8. Mixogram class was assigned based on reference mixograms (see page 49). A scale of 1 to 8 was employed, higher class indicates strong mixing characteristics. 2. Glutograph. Determined according to manufacturer s instructions. Maximum stretch time was 125 sec. Longer stretch times indicate strong gluten. 3. Alveograph. Determined according to AACC Method 54-30A modified. Pasta Processing Spaghetti was made using the laboratory procedure described by Walsh et al Cereal Sci. Today 16(11):385. Water (32% based on semolina weight) was added to semolina (1 kg) and mixed in a Hobart mixing bowl 3.5 min. Hydrated semolina was extruded through an 84-strand Teflon coated spaghetti die with cm openings using a DeMaCo laboratory pasta extruder. Spaghetti was dried using a high temperature (72 C) drying cycle as described by Debbouz et al Cereal Chem. 72(1):128. Pasta Characteristics 1. Pasta color score. Color scores were determined by light reflectance (AACC Method 14-22), using a Minolta Color Difference Meter (Model CR310). 2. Cooking quality was determined according to AACC Method with some modifications. Dry spaghetti (10 g) were placed in 300 ml boiling distilled water and cooked for 12 min. Cooking water was drained. Cooked spaghetti was rinsed with distilled water allowed to drain for 2 min and then weighed. Cooking water was dried at 110 C in a forced air oven. Firmness of the cooked spaghetti was determined with a plexiglass knife probe attached to a Texture Analyzer (model TA-XT2). 48

51 Reference Mixograms for Durum Wheat Reference mixograms from Durum Wheat Quality and Pasta Processing Laboratory, Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University. 49

52 DURUM 2009 DURUM OVA Samples Wheat Grade and Wheat Non-Grade Data North Dakota State University Strongfield Desert King Wheat Grade Data Test weight (lb/bu) (kg/hl) Damaged kernels (%) Foreign material (%) Shrunken & Broken (%) Total Defects (%) Contrasting classes (%) Vitreous kernels (%) Grade 1 HAD 1 HAD 1 HAD 1 HAD 1 HAD 1 HAD 1 HAD 1 HAD 1 HAD 2 HAD Wheat Non-Grade Data Dockage (%) Moisture (%) Protein (%) 12%/0% mb 14.5/ / / / / / / / / /16.3 Ash (%) 12%/0% mb 1.72/ / / / / / / / / / Kernel weight (g) Kernel size (%) lg/md/sm 90/10/0 90/10/0 23/73/4 63/36/1 52/46/2 50/47/3 92/8/0 50/48/2 60/37/3 62/37/1 Falling number (sec) Sedimentation (cc)

53 DURUM 2009 DURUM OVA Samples Semolina Quality and Spaghetti Quality Data North Dakota State University Strongfield Desert King Semolina data: Lab mill extraction (%) Semolina extraction (%) Ash (%), db 0.65/ / / / / / / / / /0.79 Specks (no/10sqq in) Protein (%), db 12.8/ / / / / / / / / /15.1 Wet gluten (%) Gluten index Mixograph Classification Alveograph: P (mm) L (mm) P/L W (10-4 joules) Glutograph Stretch time (sec) Relaxation (BU) Granulation On 600 micron On 425 micron On 250 micron On 180 micron On 150 micron Through 150 micron Color: L* a* b* Spaghetti Quality Data Pasta color score Cooked weight (%) Cooking loss (%) Cooked firmness (gcm)

54 Section C Kernel Quality, Semolina Quality, and Pasta Quality Analyses Provided by Cooperators from Algeria, Italy, Japan, Morocco, Portugal, Spain, and Tunisia 52

55 DURUM Strongfield 2009 DURUM OVA Samples Semolina Quality Data Algeria Desert King Sample 1 Semolina data: Ash (%), db Protein (%), db Gluten index Wet gluten (%) Color: L* a* b* Granulation, μm > > > > > > > < Sample 2 53

56 Griddle cakes (Kisra) - Algeria. DUR 0901 is, DUR 0902 is, DUR 0903 is Strongfield, DUR 0904 is, DUR 0905 is, and DUR 0906 is. 54

57 DURUM 2009 DURUM OVA Samples Semolina Quality and Dough Quality Data Italy - 1 Strongfield Desert King Sample 1 Semolina data: Ash (%), db Specks (no/10sqq in) Black Bran Protein (%), db Gluten index Wet gluten (%) Color: L* a* b* Alveograph W P/L G

58 DURUM 2009 DURUM OVA Samples Semolina Quality and Dough Quality Data Italy - 2 Strongfield Desert King Semolina data: Ash (%), db Specks (no/10sqq in) Protein (%), db Wet gluten Gluten index Color: L* a* b* Dough properties: Alveograph*: P (mm) L (mm) P/L Ratio W (10-4 joules)

59 DURUM Strongfield 2009 DURUM OVA Samples Semolina Quality Data Japan Desert King Semolina data: Ash (%), 13.5 mb/db Protein (%),13.5 mb/db Sample 1 Color: CGV

60 DURUM Semolina data: Strongfield 2009 DURUM OVA Samples Semolina Quality Data - Morocco Desert King Sample 1 Sample 2 Ash (%), db Protein (%), db Color: L* a* b*

61 DURUM Semolina data: Semolina extraction (%) 2009 DURUM OVA Samples Semolina Quality and Pasta Quality Data - Portugal Strongfield Desert King Sample 1 Sample Ash (%), db Specks (no/10sqq in) 44/1 72/0 16/1 35/0 25/1 23/0 45/0 24/0 39/1 24/1 8/1 5/0 Protein (%), db Gluten index Color: L* a* b* Pasta data: Color: L* a* b*

62 DURUM 2009 DURUM OVA Samples Semolina Quality and Dough Quality Data Spain Strongfield Desert King Sample 1 Semolina data: Falling number, sec Ash (%), db Protein (%), db Dry gluten (%) Wet gluten (%) Gluten index Color: L* a* b* Chroma value Granulation, μm > > > > > > > < Dough properties: Alveograph*: P (mm) L (mm) P/L Ratio W (10-4 joules)

63 Example of Output from Texturometer - Spain. Data from Texturometer Test - Spain Sample Maximum Force kg Slope Total Energy Comments provided by company Poor rheological behaviour Low texturometer behavior Good texturometer results Good texturometer results , ,581.2 Strongfield , , , , , ,623.3 Desert King , ,695.7 Semola ,