Hard Red Winter Wheat

Cover 2.qxd 12/14/2010 12:41 PM Page 1 Overseas Varietal Analysis Project 2009 Crop Hard Red Winter Wheat Program by

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

OVERSEAS VARIETAL ANALYSIS Hard Red Winter Wheat 2009 Crop Year 1 Sponsored by: U.S. Wheat Associates Reported by: Bradford W. Seabourn 2 and Yuanhong R. Chen 3 The United States Department of Agriculture ARS - Hard Winter Wheat Quality Laboratory Manhattan, Kansas 1

Overseas Varietal Analysis (OVA) Objectives The overall OVA objectives are to provide on-going quality assessment of new or predominantly existing hard winter wheat cultivars grown in the Great Plains for main overseas hard winter wheat buyers in the world and in turn to further improve U.S wheat quality that better meet overseas user needs through all wheat industry sectors, especially wheat breeding, production, and marketing. OVA Project Goals - Provide overseas wheat user input into U.S. wheat breeding programs. - Increase foreign customer awareness of the quality of U.S. hard winter wheat. Acknowledgements On behalf of U.S Wheat Associates (USW), Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Texas Wheat Commissions, and the USDA- ARS Hard Winter Wheat Quality Laboratory (HWWQL) we greatly thank the overseas cooperators for providing an in-depth evaluation of the quality of U.S. Hard Red Winter wheat varieties. The overseas cooperators involved in the 2009 crop of the OVA program were China (four cooperators), Brazil, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Philippines (three cooperators), United Arab Emirates, Taiwan, Tanzania, and Thailand. We also wish to extend our appreciation to the staff of the USDA-ARS Hard Winter Wheat Quality Laboratory in Manhattan, KS, who enthusiastically conducted all tests and generated quality data. We also thank Kansas State University s Department of Grain Science & Industry for milling all wheat samples. Thanks also go to the Engineering & Wind Erosion Research Unit at the USDA-ARS Center for Grain & Animal Health Research (CGAHR, formerly GMPRC) for handling and distributing wheat and flour samples to overseas cooperators, Dr. Jeff Wilson of the Grain Quality & Structure Research Unit at the USDA-ARS-CGAHR in Manhattan, KS for providing flour particle size analysis, and members of the Board of Appeals and Review of Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) in Kansas City, Missouri for proving the official inspection results. 2

1 This report represents a summary of preliminary investigations and should not be cited in publications or used elsewhere without the expressed authorization of U.S. Wheat Associates, State Wheat Commissions, and the USDA-ARS Hard Winter Wheat Quality Laboratory (HWWQL). Mention of firm names or trade products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the USDA over other firms or products not mentioned. 2 Supervisory Research Chemist and Director of the USDA-ARS Hard Winter Wheat Quality Laboratory, 1515 College Ave. Manhattan, KS 66502 (Tel: 785-776-2751; email: brad.seabourn@ars.usda.gov). 3 Research Food Technologist and Associate Director of the USDA-ARS Hard Winter Wheat Quality Laboratory, 1515 College Ave. Manhattan, KS 66502 (Tel: 785-776-2750; email: richard.chen@ars.usda.gov). 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES... 5 LIST OF TABLES... 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 8 USDA-ARS-HWWQL Quality Evaluation... 8 Overseas Cooperator Quality Evaluation... 10 Multi-Year Summary... 12 INTRODUCTION... 14 Project Background... 14 Project Goal... 14 Project Approach... 15 Principal Investigation Groups... 16 USDA-ARS-HWWQL QUALITY EVALUATION... 16 GIPSA Official Wheat Grading and Kernel Characteristics... 16 Wheat Chemical Analysis... 17 Milling Tests... 18 Flour Cumulative Ash Curves... 18 Flour Cumulative Protein Curves... 19 Flour Color and Particle Size... 19 Flour Moisture, Ash, and Protein Contents... 20 Glutomatic, Falling Number, Amylograph and SDmatic... 20 Sedimentation and RVA Flour Pasting... 21 Mixograph and Farinograph... 22 Alveograph and Extensigraph... 23 Baking Results... 24 COOPERATOR QUALITY EVALUATION... 52 Introduction... 52 Cooperator Controls and Evaluated End-Products... 53 Cooperator Rating Scores... 55 Cooperator Rank-Order Evaluation... 57 Cooperators Flour Quality Analysis Results... 57 Cooperators Comments... 64 Cooperators Primary End-Products and Other Uses... 67 Cooperators Wheat Quality Preferences... 69 End Products Evaluated By Cooperators... 71 MULTI-YEAR SUMMARY... 133 OVA Project: Crop Years 2005-2009... 133 Rating Scores of OVA Hard Winter Wheat Cultivars... 134 OVA Cultivars Quality vs. Cooperators Controls... 137 APPENDIX... 149 Materials and Methods Used by USDA-ARS-HWWQL... 149 Wheat Breeders/State Wheat Commissions... 150 Authors Contact Information... 151 4

LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1. Cumulative Ash Curves for All Samples... 37 Fig. 2. Cumulative Protein Curves for All Samples... 37 Fig. 3. Cumulative Ash Curves for Jagger and Endurance... 38 Fig. 4. Cumulative Ash Curves for Hatcher and TAM 111... 39 Fig. 5. Cumulative Ash Curves for Santa Fe, Overley, and Fuller... 40 Fig. 6. Cumulative Ash Curves for Genou, Wesley, and Millennium... 41 Fig. 7. Cumulative Protein Curves for Jagger and Endurance... 42 Fig. 8. Cumulative Protein Curves for Hatcher and TAM 111... 43 Fig. 9. Cumulative Protein Curves for Santa Fe, Overley, and Fuller... 44 Fig. 10. Cumulative Protein Curves for Genou, Wesley, and Millennium... 45 Fig. 11. Mixograms and Farinograms... 46 Fig. 12. Mixograms and Farinograms (Cont)... 47 Fig. 13. Mixograms and Farinograms (Cont)... 48 Fig. 14. Extensigrams and Alveograms... 49 Fig. 15. Extensigrams and Alveograms (Cont.)... 50 Fig. 16. Extensigrams and Alveograms (Cont.)... 51 Fig. 17. Steam Bread Evaluated by South Korea... 89 Fig. 18. Steam Bread Evaluated by South Korea... 90 Fig. 19. Noodle Color Analysis at 2 Hours by Taiwan... 92 Fig. 20. Noodle Color Analysis at 24 Hours by Taiwan... 92 Fig. 21. Cross-Section of Steam Bread Analyzed by Taiwan... 93 Fig. 22. Whole Steam Bread Analyzed by Taiwan... 94 Fig. 23. Cross-Section and Whole Shape of Steam Bread by Taiwan... 95 Fig. 24. Pan Bread of Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand... 107 Fig. 25. Pan Bread of Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand... 108 Fig. 26. Pan Bread of Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand... 109 Fig. 27. Protein Content Determined by Overseas Cooperators... 137 Fig. 28. Wet Gluten Content Determined by the Cooperators... 138 Fig. 29. Gluten Index Determined by the Cooperators... 139 Fig. 30. Farinograph Water Absorption... 141 Fig. 31. Farinograph Development Time... 142 Fig. 32. Farinograph Mixing Stability... 142 Fig. 33. Alveograph Resistance-to-Extension... 143 Fig. 34. Alveograph Extensibility... 144 Fig. 35. Alveograph Area-Under-The-Curve... 145 Fig. 36. Alveograph Ratio of P/L... 146 5

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Wheat Grading... 26 Table 2. Results of SKCS 1 and Other Wheat Physical Tests... 27 Table 3. Results of Wheat Chemical Analysis... 28 Table 4. Milling Results... 29 Table 5. Flour Color and Particle Size... 30 Table 6. Flour Moisture, Ash and Protein Contents... 31 Table 7. Glutomatic, Falling Number, Amylograph and SDmatic Results... 32 Table 8. Results of Sedimentation and RVA Tests... 33 Table 9. Results of Mixograph, Farinograph, and Alveograph Tests... 34 Table 10. Results of Extensigraph Tests... 35 Table 11. Bread Baking Results... 36 Table 12. OVA 2009 HRW ID, Variety, and Submitter... 53 Table 13. Instructions of USW Overseas Varietal Analysis Program... 76 Table 14. PNW Cooperators Controls and End Products... 77 Table 15. GULF Cooperators Controls and End Products... 78 Table 16. PNW Performance Rating Scores... 79 Table 17. GULF Performance Rating Scores... 80 Table 18. PNW Rank Order... 81 Table 19. GULF Rank Order... 82 Table 20. Wheat and Flour Quality Analysis by U.A. Emirates... 83 Table 21. Wheat and Flour Quality Analysis by Guatemala... 84 Table 22. Wheat and Flour Quality Analysis by Japan... 85 Table 23. Wheat and Flour Quality Analysis by Korea... 86 Table 24. End-Product Quality Analysis by Korea... 87 Table 25. End-Product Quality Analysis by Korea... 88 Table 26. Flour Quality and End Product Analysis by Taiwan... 91 Table 27. Flour Quality and End Product Analysis by Tanzania... 96 Table 28. Average Results of PNW Flour Quality... 97 Table 29. Control Sample Analysis by Indonesia... 98 Table 30. Control Sample Analysis by Malaysia... 99 Table 31. Control Sample Analysis by Philippines _ PFMC... 100 Table 32. Control Sample Analysis by Philippines - Pilmico... 101 Table 33. Control Sample Analysis by Philippines RFM... 102 Table 34. Control Sample Analysis by Thailand - UFM... 103 Table 35. End-Product Results of Indonesia/Malaysia/Philippines/Thailand... 104 Table 36. End-Product Results of Indonesia/Malaysia/Philippines/Thailand... 105 Table 37. End-Product Results of Indonesia/Malaysia/Philippines/Thailand... 106 Table 38. Wheat and Flour Quality Analysis by Brazil... 110 Table 39. Wheat and Flour Quality Analysis by Dominican Republic... 111 Table 40. Wheat and Flour Quality Analysis by Israel... 112 Table 41. Wheat and Flour Quality Analysis by Mexico... 113 Table 42. Wheat and Flour Quality Analysis by Peru... 114 Table 43. Average Results of GULF Flour Quality... 115 6

Table 44. Lists of abbreviations used for comments of cooperators... 116 Table 45. Comments of 2009 PNW Cooperators (1)... 117 Table 46. Comments of 2009 PNW Cooperators (2)... 118 Table 47. Comments of 2009 PNW Cooperators (3)... 119 Table 48. Comments of 2009 PNW Cooperators (4)... 120 Table 49. Comments of 2009 PNW Cooperators (5)... 121 Table 50. Comments of 2009 PNW Cooperators (6)... 122 Table 51. Comments of 2009 PNW Cooperators (7)... 123 Table 52. Comments of 2009 GULF Cooperators (1)... 124 Table 53. Comments of 2009 GULF Cooperators (2)... 125 Table 54. Comments of 2009 GULF Cooperators (3)... 126 Table 55. PNW Main End-Products... 127 Table 56. GULF Main End-Products... 128 Table 57. PNW Cooperators Wheat Quality Preferences (1)... 129 Table 58. PNW Cooperators Wheat Quality Preferences (2)... 130 Table 59. GULF Cooperators Wheat Quality Preferences (1)... 131 Table 60. GULF Cooperators Wheat Quality Preferences (2)... 132 Table 61. OVA HRW Cultivars Evaluated from Crop Years 2005-2009... 133 Table 62. Average Rating Scores from Cooperators... 135 Table 63. Results of Cooperators OVA Hard Winter Wheat Quality Analysis... 148 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Overseas Varietal Analysis (OVA) project on U.S Hard Red Winter (HRW) wheat has been conducted for more than 10 years with the cooperation of many parties, including U.S. Wheat Associates (USWA), USDA-ARS Hard Winter Wheat Quality Laboratory (HWWQL), Kansas State University s Department of Grain Science & Industry, State Wheat Commissions, Hard Winter Wheat breeders in the Great Plains, the USDA-ARS-CGAHR Engineering & Wind Erosion Research Unit, U.S. Embassies and U.S. Agricultural Trade Offices, USDA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) Technical Service Division (TSD), and 21 overseas cooperators from 16 countries or regions including China, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Philippines, United Arab Emirates, Taiwan, Tanzania, and Thailand. Ten HRW wheat cultivars, Jagger and Endurance from Oklahoma, Hatcher from Colorado, Santa Fe, Overley and Fuller from Kansas, Genou from Montana, TAM 111 from Texas, Wesley from South Dakota, and Millennium from Nebraska, were submitted for the 2009 OVA project. Wheat physical characteristics were evaluated by the USDA-ARS-HWWQL, and the wheat samples were then milled on a Miag mill at the Department of Grain Science & Industry, Kansas State University. Flour quality analysis and baking tests for the OVA samples, including straight dough and sponge-dough baking tests, were conducted by the USDA-ARS-HWWQL. The overseas cooperators also analyzed the OVA samples and their controls using their methods, conducted their own end-product tests, and compared the OVA samples with their controls, as well as made comments and completed wheat quality preference surveys. A final technical report was completed by the USDA-ARS-HWWQL in Manhattan, KS using the data, results, and images generated by both the HWWQL and the overseas cooperators. This technical report consists of three main parts: USDA-ARS-HWWQL Quality Evaluation, Cooperator Quality Evaluation, and Multi-Year Summary. USDA-ARS-HWWQL Quality Evaluation Eight OVA wheat samples graded U.S. #1 HRW wheat, while two samples, Jagger and Endurance, graded U.S. #2 HRW due to their low test weight. Average kernel hardness of 300 single kernels from each sample ranged from 53.1 for Fuller to 90.9 for Jagger. Mean kernel weight varied among the OVA samples, with Fuller being the highest at 38.2 mg and Jagger the lowest at 24.3 mg. Average kernel size ranged from 2.48 mm for Jagger to 2.99 mm for Fuller. The cultivar with the highest wheat protein content was Genou with 14.3% (12% mb), while the cultivar with the lowest protein content was Fuller at 9.8%. Kernel 8

size distribution varied among the samples. Sample flour-extractions from the Miag mill ranged from 69.7% for Jagger to 74.8% for Wesley, while flour extractions from the Quadrumat Sr. mill ranged from 67.3% for Jagger to 72.2% for Genou. Flour ash contents were quite varied, with Jagger having the highest at 0.55% (14% mb) and Genou the lowest at 0.32%. Flour protein contents ranged from 8.4% (14% mb) for Fuller to 13.0% for Genou. Howver, there were four cultivars (Fuller, Endurance, Hatcher, and Overley) with protein contents lower than 10.0%. Flour particle size distribution varied among the OVA samples. The cultivar whose flour had the highest damaged-starch was Jagger at 7.3%, whose kernels also had the highest hardness score among the OVA samples. The cultivar with the lowest damaged-starch was TAM 111 at 5.5%. All samples, with the exception of TAM 111 and Millennium, had gluten index values higher than 91.7. Results of sedimentation test suggest that Genou, Wesley, TAM 111, and Jagger are good quality wheat for bread making because their sedimentation values were higher than 45 ml. The sample with the lowest sedimentation-value was Endurance at only 31.2 ml. The peak viscosity for flour pasting properties determined by the Rapid Visco-Analyzer (RVA) ranged from 206.7 (RVU) for Hatcher to 249.7 (RVU) for Overley. The optimum Mixograph water absorption for Genou, Jagger, Santa Fe, TAM 111, Wesley, and Millennium was higher than 60.0% (14% mb).. The cultivar, Fuller, had the lowest mixograph water absorption at 56.1%. Mix time for all samples (except TAM 111 and Millennium) was longer than 3.0 min. Dough mixing tolerance index showed that all samples but Endurance and Fuller were acceptable (a score of 3, on a 0 6 scale). Optimum water absorption on the Farinograph ranged from 55.3% for Overley to 63.5% for Genou, and dough development time varied, with Genou being the longest at 9.5 min and Fuller being the shortest at 1.7 min. Most of the samples had good dough mixing stability with the exception of Fuller, which was the weakest at 3.4 min. Samples with a strong mixing tolerance index were Santa Fe, Endurance, Jagger, Wesley, and Genou, while relatively weak samples were Fuller and Hatcher. Dough biaxial extension characteristics were evaluated using the alveograph, and the test showed that P-values varied widely, ranging from 67.0 (mm H 2 0) for Santa Fe to 101.0 (mm H 2 0) for Genou. Dough extensibility ranged from 60.0 mm for Fuller to 126.0 mm for Millennium. Area-under-the-curve values also varied widely, from 212.0 (10-4 J) for Endurance to 413.0 (10-4 J) for Genou. Dough uniaxial extension tests were also conducted using the extensigraph. Extensigraph maximum resistance-to-extension varied considerably at three rest times (45, 90, and 135 min), with Genou being the highest at 564.0 (BU) at 45 min, 723.0 (BU) at 90 min, and 878.0 (BU) at 135 min, and with TAM 111 and Millennium being the lowest. Dough extensibility decreased with increasing rest times. The 9

extensibility at 45 min ranged from 152.9 mm for Endurance to 231.1 mm for Wesley, and at 135 min ranged from 140.0 mm for Endurance to 195.0 mm for Wesley. The area-under-the-curve (described as energy) increased with increasing rest time for all samples. The energy varied at 45 min among the samples, with Genou being highest at 151.9 (cm 2 ) and with Endurance being the lowest at 85.3 (cm 2 ), while the energy ranged at 135 min from 168.0 (cm 2 ) for Jagger to 90.0 (cm 2 ) for Endurance. Among the OVA samples, Genou, Jagger, Wesley, and Santa Fe, performed the best in straight dough baking tests based on bake water absorption, loaf volume, crumb grain, and crumb color. Overseas Cooperator Quality Evaluation The HRW wheat samples for the 2009 OVA crop year were divided into two groups based on export regions, one for the Gulf of Mexico (GULF) and one for the Pacific Northwest (PNW). Three of the OVA samples, Hatcher, TAM 111, and Millennium, were evaluated by both GULF and PNW port cooperators. All endproduct evaluations and important flour quality tests conducted by the cooperators are listed below. PNW pan bread: five wheat cultivars, Hatcher, Genou, TAM 111, Wesley, and Millennium)were evaluated by 13 PNW cooperators. However, end-product evaluation results were submitted by only five cooperators, and on nine cooperators submitted performance rating scores for the five rating categories. Genou was rated as equal to, or exceeding, the controls of China-COFCO, China-Shunde, Japan, and Tanzania, based on the performance rating scores. Thailand and China-Lamsoon rated Wesley the best among the five OVA samples in terms of the average performance rating scores. Three cooperators, China-COFCO, China-Yuhai, and Tanzania rated Wesley as the second best for pan bread. The average performance rating scores for the other three OVA cultivars, Hatcher, TAM 111, and Millennium, were acceptable according to cooperator responses. Millennium was rated the same as Genou and better than the Japanese control, yet it was also rated by China-Yuhai as the second best and the same as Wesley among the OVA samples. Based on the rank order from two cooperators, both Genou and Wesley were ranked first for pan bread production. Wesley was also ranked second best by four cooperators. Therefore, Wesley might could be considered to have a slight preference as being better than Genou when used for bread making. PNW steam bread: South Korea and Taiwan evaluated steam bread products using five OVA submissions. South Korea used one control flour while Taiwan used two. Based on the average performance rating scores, both Genou and Wesley exceeded the end-product quality of the two Taiwanese controls. Taiwan also rated three other OVA samples as being good for steam bread. Taiwan 10

ranked Genou first, Wesley second, their controls third and fourth, then Hatcher, TAM 111, and Millennium in that order. On the other hand, South Korea rated all five PNW OVA samples lower than its control based on the average performance rating scores. Wesley was rated the best for steam bread among five OVA samples, with an average performance rating score of 6.6 points. The second highest rating scores was 5.8 for Millennium. Therefore, South Korea ranked Wesley first, then its control second, Millennium third, followed by TAM 111, Hatcher, and Genou in that order. Although South Korean and Taiwanese cooperators listed their products as steam bread, these products are not truly identical as the name would imply (see product photographs found later in this report). The authors believe this accounts for the drastic difference in the two cooperator s average performance rating for cultivars such as Genou. PNW noodle: Taiwan performed noodle evaluations based upon noodle color, color stability, and cooked noodle texture. Genou and Wesley were rated better than the controls based on the average performance rating scores, with Genou rated as first and Wesley second. Other three OVA samples were acceptable in the noodle quality evaluation. GULF French bread: Brazil and Peru conducted French bread baking tests on eight OVA HRW wheat cultivars (Jagger, Endurance, Hatcher, Santa Fe, Overley, Fuller, TAM 111, and Millennium). Brazil rated Millennium, TAM 111, and Santa Fe better than its control, and Hatcher similar to its control, based on performance rating scores. Brazil ranked Millennium first, its control second, and TAM 111 third. Other samples also performed well since the average performance rating score was at least 6.8 points. Peru rated no GULF OVA cultivars better than its control, but rated Overley and Santa Fe the best among the OVA samples submitted. Other OVA samples also received good scores with the exception of TAM 111, whose average performance rating score was lower than 5. Peru ranked its control first, Overley second, and Santa Fe third. GULF pan bread: The Dominican Republic (DR) and Mexico ran pan bread baking tests on the OVA sample flours. DR rated the Millennium cultivar the best among the OVA samples and very similar to its control based on the performance rating scores. Both Jagger and TAM 111 were also rated as the top three among the OVA samples. DR ranked Millennium first, Jagger second, and its control third. Mexico rated Millennium, Jagger, and TAM 111 as the top three among the OVA samples, however its control was rated the best. Mexico rated the remaining OVA samples better than average. PNW and GULF cooperator flour quality analysis Most of the overseas cooperators not only conducted their end-product quality tests and answered technical and survey questions required by U.S. Wheat Associates, but also ran general flour quality analysis and physical dough tests. The most important tests conducted by most of the cooperators included flour 11

protein, ash, falling number, wet gluten content, gluten index, farinograph, and alveograph, as well as extensigraph. According to cooperator data, flour protein content for all OVA samples ranged from 9.7% to 13.3%, which almost overlapped the protein content range of the controls (9.4% to 12.3%). Ash content was generally lower in the OVA samples than the controls. Falling number for all OVA samples was higher than 380 sec. The wet gluten content of the PNW OVA samples ranged from 27.6% to 38.6%, which was wider than the range of wet gluten content for the PNW controls (26.3% to 31.7%). The wet gluten content of the GULF OVA samples ranged from 21.9% to 36.5%, which was also wider than the wet gluten content range of the GULF controls (27.0% to 35.8%). Average gluten index for both PNW and GULF samples was relatively lower than their controls, but all OVA samples except TAM 111 had a gluten index higher than 80.0. Farinograph optimum water absorption for all OVA samples was in the range of the water absorption for the controls, and several OVA samples had dough development times shorter than the lower range of the development times for the controls. Average dough mixing stability for either PNW or GULF samples was very close to the controls. Based on alveograph test results, average dough resistant-to-extension (P) and area-under-the-curve (W) for the OVA samples were lower than both PNW and GULF cooperators controls. Several OVA samples had very low P and W values. Dough extensibility (L) for most of the PNW OVA samples was greater than the controls, while the extensibility for three GULF OVA samples (Fuller, Overley, and Endurance) was less than the average extensibility of the controls. There were several cooperators that also ran extensigraph tests, but most of cooperators preferred the alveograph over the extensigraph for dough extension analysis. Multi-Year Summary U.S. HRW wheat cultivars that have been evaluated and analyzed for more than two crop years within the last five crop years (2005-2009) were Genou, Hatcher, Jagger, OK Bullet, Overley, and TAM 111. In addition, both Genou and Hatcher have been evaluated in the project for five consecutive years. All HRW wheat samples performed well and some even exceeded cooperators controls in the last five years in terms of wheat kernel quality, flour quality, dough handling/processing, end-product quality, and overall quality acceptability. Genou, a Montana cultivar, was the overall best among the OVA samples during the five year period. Flour quality tests conducted by most of the cooperators included protein content, Glutomatic, farinograph, and alveograph. Both protein and wet gluten content for some of the OVA samples was lower than the controls even though their gluten index values were similar to the controls. The farinograph water absorption and dough development time for some OVA samples were lower and shorter than the controls, respectively. Most of the OVA samples had alveograph P and W values lower than the controls, while L values 12

were higher than the controls. Consistent end-use quality is an important characteristic observed in the quality analysis results from the cooperators controls. 13

INTRODUCTION Project Background On average, 50% of U.S. wheat production is exported every year. The percentage of world wheat export market shares for the U.S. has been about 25% over the last 10 years, while the percentages for other countries are 16% for Canada, 16% for Europe, 15% for Australia, and 8% for Argentina. The U.S. still dominates world wheat trade. Hard winter wheat, which consists of both hard red and hard white wheat, comprises 45% of the total U.S. wheat production, and, over the past 10 years, the percentage of exported hard winter wheat has averaged 40% of total U.S exported wheat. Therefore, given the high demand, it is critically important that U.S. wheat exports meet the wheat quality requirements and needs of our foreign customers. The Overseas Varietal Analysis (OVA) project, sponsored by U.S. Wheat Associates (USWA), brings quality analysis information from overseas customers back to the U.S wheat industry and, in particular, wheat breeding programs. Wheat breeders use OVA cooperator end-product feedback and other information for development of new wheat varieties, or the improvement of existing wheat varieties. State or private wheat breeders and/or state wheat commissions submit the most popular wheat varieties to the USDA-ARS Hard Winter Wheat Quality Laboratory (HWWQL), which is one of four regional quality laboratories within the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the research arm of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The samples are milled at Kansas State University s Department of Grain Science & Industry and then distributed to overseas cooperators through arrangements made by USWA foreign offices (FOs). The HWWQL independently conducted all necessary wheat and flour analyses as well as baking tests. The cooperators analyze the samples for wheat/flour physical and chemical characteristics, physical dough/dough handling properties, and end-product quality compared to their own control samples, and make comments on each of the samples submitted in a given crop year. The data, analytical results, and comments from the overseas cooperators and the HWWQL are summarized and interpreted in this final report. The technical report is completed by the HWWQL and then submitted to the USWA, who distributes the report to U.S. wheat producers, breeders, quality laboratories, the wheat grain trade, participating overseas cooperators, and other interested parties. Project Goal The goal of the OVA project is to provide overseas buyers of U.S. hard red winter (HRW) wheat an assessment of the end-use quality of new or existing HRW wheat varieties in the Great Plains, and for the U.S. wheat industry, in turn, to 14

respond to cooperator feedback by breeding, producing, and marketing superior hard winter wheat quality varieties that better meet the needs of overseas users. Project Approach The OVA project for hard winter wheat varieties has been conducted for more than 10 years, but this is the second year in which the OVA project used wheat varieties that occupy the largest acreage in each state of the Great Plains growing region as the basis for entry into the program. Based on the wheat production history of each state, Kansas was allowed three (3) entries, Oklahoma two (2) entries, while Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Texas were allowed one (1) each. This is the first year in which the OVA project submitted samples to overseas cooperators based on two main exporting ports: the Pacific Northwest (PNW) and Gulf of Mexico (GULF). The maximum entry limit was set at 10 HRW entries from Gulf tributary states and 10 HRW entries from PNW tributary states. The overall total number of hard winter wheat samples in a given year was limited to 20 including samples submitted for both the Gulf and PNW. The USDA-ARS-HWWQL in Manhattan, KS, assigns the number of samples and quantity of each sample to a representative (breeder, wheat commission, or other) from each state in the Great Plains growing region. All samples with qualifying quality requirements are sent to the HWWQL by early October each year. After the HWWQL blends together within each entry, cleans them if necessary, and collect subsamples for wheat analyses before The OVA samples are delivered to K-State Department of Grain Science & Industry for milling. The USDA-ARS-Wind Erosion & Engineering Research Unit (WE&ERU) in Manhattan, KS, prepares flour samples to be shipped to overseas cooperators by U.S. Wheat Associates. Both wheat and flour samples for each entry are analyzed in the HWWQL. Wheat analyses include official grade, kernel size distribution, test weight, ash, protein, moisture, thousand kernel weight, and single kernel characterization. The mill streams are analyzed for moisture, ash, and protein, which are used to estimate milling performance for each entry based on cumulative ash and protein curves. The straight grade flours are evaluated in moisture, ash, protein, gluten characteristics, flour particle size, flour color, starch damage, falling number, SDS sedimentation, flour pasting property using RVA, mixograph, farinograph, extensigraph, alveograph, as well as baking tests including pup loaf using straight dough method and one bound loaf using sponge and dough method. Once the overseas cooperators complete their evaluations, their data are sent to the HWWQL through U.S. Wheat Associates. The USDA-ARS-HWWQL then compiles the data and results generated by both overseas cooperators and the HWWQL and completes a final OVA report, which is then distributed to most of 15

wheat sectors, such as breeders, U.S. wheat producers, quality laboratories, the grain trade, and participating overseas cooperators. Principal Investigation Groups The USDA-ARS-HWWQL works closely with the project sponsor, U.S. Wheat Associates, in planning, conducting and evaluating samples. The Department of Grain Science & Industry at Kansas State University assumes responsibility for milling all of samples with the assistance of the USDA-ARS-HWWQL. All overseas cooperators (buyers and users, recipients of an average of 50% of the U.S. wheat production) evaluate specific Hard Red Winter (HRW) wheat varieties grown in the U.S. for various quality traits in their own food production systems.usda-ars-hwwql QUALITY EVALUATION This chapter includes results from a compilation of the USDA-ARS-HWWQL testing data and interpretations. A total of 10 Hard Red Winter (HRW) wheat samples harvested in the Great Plains in the 2009 crop year were evaluated for the OVA project. Two samples, Jagger and Endurance, were submitted by Oklahoma, three varieties, Santa Fe, Overley, and Fuller were submitted by Kansas, Hatcher was submitted by Colorado, TAM 111 was submitted by Texas, Genou was submitted by Montana, Millennium was submitted by Nebraska, and Wesley was submitted by South Dakota. Five of these samples, TAM 111, Hatcher, Millennium, Wesley and Genou, were given a PNW port designation while eight samples, TAM 111, Jagger, Endurance, Santa Fe, Overley, Fuller, Hatcher, and Millennium, were given a Gulf port designation. Thus, three samples, TAM 111, Hatcher, and Millennium, were given both PNW and Gulf port designations. Wheat grading was conducted by the USDA Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) in Kansas City, Missouri, and the milling tests were performed by personnel at the KSU Department of Grain Science & Industry using a Miag Multimat mill. GIPSA Official Wheat Grading and Kernel Characteristics Wheat grading results are summarized in Table 1. All submitted samples, with the exception of Jagger and Endurance which graded as U.S. grade #2, were classified as U.S. grade #1. Jagger and Endurance had test weights of 58.8.5 (lb/bu) (77.0 kg/hl) and 59.5 (lb/bu) (78.3 kg/hl), respectively, which were lower than the 60.0 (lb/bu) (78.9 kg/hl) required for U.S. grade #1. Dockage (%) for all 16

samples was null, except for Hatcher which had dockage of 0.04%. Total defects (%) ranged from 0% for Fuller to 0.6% for Hatcher. The defects, which include damaged kernels, foreign materials, and shrunken-and-broken-kernels, were much lower than the maximum limits of 3% for U.S. grade #1. Two samples, Fuller and TAM 111, contained 0.6% and 0.5% wheat of contrasting classeswheat, respectively, which is lower than the percentage that affects the grade. Wheat single kernel characteristics were evaluated using the Single Kernel Characterization System (SKCS 4100), and the results are listed in Table 2. All samples were classified as hard wheat based on SKCS analysis, in which hardness classification is determined from the average hardness index of the sample and the distribution of individual kernel hardness measurements. If the mean hardness score was higher than 46, the sample was more likely to be classified as hard. Overley, Fuller, and Wesley were relatively less hard than others because their classification was 02 rather than 01, which is based on distribution of individual kernel hardness measurements. The sample with the highest average kernel hardness index was Jagger at 90.9, while the sample with the lowest average kernel hardness index was Fuller, at 53.1. The average kernel hardness indices for three samples, Jagger, Santa Fe, and TAM 111, were higher than 70, while others ranged from 53.1 to 62.0. Average kernel weight ranged from 24.3 mg for Jagger to 40.3 mg for Wesley, and all samples (except Jagger) had average kernel weights higher than 30 mg. Average kernel diameter for Fuller was the largest at 2.99 mm, while Jagger was the smallest at 2.48 mm. Table 2 also includes data for thousand kernel weight and kernel size tests. Thousand kernel weight for Wesley was the highest at 39.9 g, while Jagger s thousand kernel weight was the lowest at 25.5 g. A kernel size distribution test was performed on the samples using a Ro-tap sifter with a stack of 8 diameter Tyler sieves (Nos. 7, 9, and 12). The proportion of large kernels for both Wesley and Fuller was were the highest at more than 90%, while Jagger was the lowest at 33.1%. Wheat Chemical Analysis Table 3 shows results of wheat chemical analysis, which include wheat moisture, protein, and ash, as well as wheat falling number. All samples had moisture contents lower than 12.0%, with Wesley being the highest at 11.7% and with Genou being the lowest at 10.3%. Wheat protein content at 12% moisture basis ranged from 9.8% for Fuller to 14.3% for Genou. There were five samples (Genou, Santa Fe, Jagger, Tam 111, and Wesley) with protein contents higher than 12.4% (12% mb), while the remaining samples had protein contents lower than 11.2% (12% mb). Wheat ash content, on a 14% moisture basis, varied among the samples, with Jagger being the highest at 1.750%, while Santa Fe 17

was the lowest at 1.445%. Results from the falling number test showed that all samples didn t have any sprout damage; values ranged from 384 sec for Genou to 644 sec for Santa Fe. Milling Tests Wheat samples were milled on both the Kansas State University s (K-State) Miag Multimat mill and the HWWQL Quadrumat Sr. mill. Typical flour yields from sound wheat milled on the Miag and the Quadrumat Sr. mill range from 70% to 72% and 70% to 74%, respectively. Flour yield was calculated as a percentage of total recovered products. Table 4 includes the percentage of each product stream and straight grade flour yield from the Miag Multimat, as well as flour yield from the Quadrumat Sr. mill. The highest flour yield wheat milled on the Miag mill was Wesley at 74.8%, while the lowest flour yield sample was Jagger at 69.7%. The milling results reflect kernel weight and size affects that influence milling extraction: Wesley s kernel weight and size was greater than than that of Jagger. Remaining samples had flour extractions above 71.3%. Wheat samples milled on the Quadrumat Sr. mill showed that their flour yields were different from flour yields derived when these same samples were milled on the Miag mill. Although the lowest flour yield sample milled on the Quadrumat Sr. mill was Jagger, the highest flour yield sample was Genou rather than Wesley. Three other samples, Santa Fe, Fuller, and TAM 111, had flour extractions lower than 70%, while remaining samples had their flour extractions of more than 70%. Flour Cumulative Ash Curves Evaluation of wheat milling performance is typically based on two factors: potential flour yield and its ash content. The two factors can be estimated through cumulative flour ash curves if the milling process provides a sufficient number of mill stream products. Figure 1 shows the cumulative ash curves of all 10 OVA samples. Figures 3-6 show several cumulative ash curves with more detailed data regarding yield and ash contents of each mill stream, as well as straight grade flour and wheat ash contents. Due to some problems during the milling process, wheat ash content and straight grade flour ash content for some samples didn t agree with the end-points of the cumulative mill stream products and flour stream products. Therefore, the data can only be used as rough guide. In Fig. 1, the low curve for Genou reflects the higher flour yield potential that can be extracted from the sample without sacrificing low-ash patent flour yield. In the milling process, higher break releases for higher extraction milling can be utilized in the Genou sample without impairing the quality of sizing stocks produced in the initial several breaks. Ash contents for other samples, Fuller, Santa Fe, 18

Endurance, and Wesley, were lower than 0.45% for flour extractions ranging from 71.5% to 74.8%. Therefore, a higher flour extraction for these samples could be obtained without significantly increasing ash content compared to other samples that had ash contents above 0.45%. In addition, the cumulative ash curves can predict how efficiently the endosperm separated from bran during the milling process. It should be noted that the same wheat variety can have significantly different ash contents if grown at different locations since environment, especially soil composition, can significantly impact ash content. More objective comparisons and recommendations could be made if the samples were grown at the same location. Flour Cumulative Protein Curves Figure 2 shows cumulative flour protein curves for all 10 OVA samples. Figures 7-10 show several cumulative flour protein curves on each page with additional details on the flour yield and protein content of each mill stream for each sample, as well as straight grade flour and wheat protein contents. The cumulative flour protein curves in Fig. 2 were relatively parallel to each other even though the curves had slight crossovers at certain flour yield levels. The protein content gradually increases in the wheat kernel from kernel center to outside, but the protein increase rate is much lower than the ash increase rate based on the comparison of cumulative protein curve trends with cumulative ash curve trends. The cumulative protein curve for Genou was the highest, 13.1% at the end-point of its cumulative protein content curve, while Fuller was the lowest, 8.41% at its end-point of the cumulative protein curve, among the samples. Flour Color and Particle Size Flour color can be used as a quality determinant during milling,and there are several methods available to measure flour color. In this report, flour color was measured using a Minolta colorimeter, which reports results in terms of 3-distinct color values (L*, a*, and b*). Flour from Hatcher, Genou, and Wesley exhibited more whiteness than others because their flour L* values were high and b* values were low (Table 5). However, it is generally accepted that flour color is a poor indicator of dough color or end-product color since differences in product processes and ingredients can impact dough and end-product color. Flour particle size and its distribution were determined using a Beckman/Coulter LS 13320, laser light-scattering particle size instrument that was equipped with Beckman/Coulter application software version 4.21. Although flour particle size distribution is usually not specified between millers and bakers, it affects endproduct quality because the average particle size and its distribution affect water absorption and dough properties, such as dough gas retention and stability. The flour particle size is significantly related to the degree of hardness or texture in the wheat kernel if the milling process is kept consistent. Kernel hardness is an 19

important factor in flour functionality for wheat-based food products. Table 5 lists flour particle size mean, median and distribution statistics for each OVA sample. Among the samples, Genou had the most coarse (largest) flour particle size, while Hatcher was the most fine (smallest) particle size based on the averages. Average flour particle size for other samples ranged from 63.41 µm for Wesley to 68.75 µm for Millennium. Flour Moisture, Ash, and Protein Contents Testing results for flour moisture, ash, and protein contents are listed in Table 6. The low flour moisture was expected because the flour was re-blended after the initial flour blending was determined to be inadequate. In Table 6, the listed protein and ash contents include their converted data at both 14 % and 0% moisture basis (mb). Protein content is a key indicator of wheat end-product quality, especially in fermented bakery products since dough gas retention capability and dough mixing stability rely on both protein quantity and quality. The highest flour protein content sample was Genou (13.0%), while the lowest flour protein content sample was Fuller (8.4%). There were four samples, Fuller, Endurance, Hatcher, and Overley, that had flour protein contents lower than 9.8% (14% mb), while the remaining samples had protein content higher than 11.1% (14% mb). The broad range in protein content among the samples provided cooperators the opportunity to evaluate and select samples that best meet their end-product performance criteria using their respective evaluation protocols. Flour ash content (Table 6) is usually used as an indicator of milling performance and flour quality control. The ash itself doesn t impact end-product quality, but high ash content is typically related to bran contamination, which detrimentally affects end-product quality. Jagger had the highest flour ash content sample at 0.551% (14% mb), while Genou had the lowest flour ash content at 0.320% (14% mb). Ash content for the remaining samples ranged from 0.400% for Santa Fe to 0.422% for both TAM 111 and Overley. It was interesting to note that Genou, which had very small kernels and high protein content, produced flour with such low ash content. Glutomatic, Falling Number, Amylograph and SDmatic Table 7 shows testing results from the Glutomatic, Falling Number, Amylograph, and SDmatic, which are test methods typically used to determine gluten quantity and quality, flour alpha-amylase activity, and damaged starch content, respectively. Both the Falling Number and the Amylograph can predict alphaamylase activity. 20

The Glutomatic test is one method utilized for gluten quality testing based on the values of wet gluten, dry gluten, and gluten index. Wet gluten ranged from 18.8% for Fuller to 38.0% for Genou. The sample with the highest dry gluten value was Genou at 13.5%, while the sample with the lowest dry gluten value was Fuller at 7.0% (Table 7). Dry gluten is correlated to wet gluten in a broad sense, but the actual correlation between dry and wet gluten for a given sample is dependent upon the water-holding capability of the gluten in the flour, which is a function of both quantity and quality. Gluten index is typically used as an indicator of gluten quality (strength). Gluten index ranged from 79.7 to 99.5, with Fuller having the highest value and with TAM 111 the lowest. Actually, 8 out of 10 samples had gluten indices higher than 90. Only two samples, TAM 111 and Millennium, had a gluten index less than 90. Falling number is used to determine sprout damage in wheat, which is considered to be related to alpha-amylase activity. There was no measurable sprout damage for any of the OVA samples based on data from the Falling Number test (Table 7), even though the testing values were different among the samples. The amylograph testing results also showed that all samples had high viscosity, which is an indicator of low alpha-amylase activity. Damaged starch content for hard winter wheat flour is an important factor in wheat-based end-product quality since it impacts dough water absorption. Damaged starch content is directly related to kernel hardness and the milling process. The SDmatic was used to evaluate the flour samples (Table 7). Data obtained from SDmatic tests include Ai% (absorption of iodine) and a conversion to AACC Method 76-31 values. The higher the Ai%, the higher the flour s damaged starch. Iodine absorption ranged from 95.0% for both TAM 111 and Overley to 97.3% for Jagger. The converted values from AACC 76-30 indicated that the samples had different damaged starch contents, with Jagger having the highest at 7.3% and TAM 111 having the lowest at 5.5%. Sedimentation and RVA Flour Pasting The sedimentation test is another method used to determine flour quality, and is related to gluten functionality. Sedimentation test values were different among the samples (Table 8). The high sedimentation samples were Genou, Wesley, TAM 111, Jagger, Santa Fe, Hatcher, and Millennium, all above 40 ml, with Genou being the highest at 67.7 ml. The lowest sedimentation sample was Endurance, with a sedimentation value of 31.2 ml. Flour pasting properties were estimated using the Rapid Visco-Analyzer (RVA), and include measurements of peak viscosity, trough, breakdown, final viscosity, setback viscosity, and peak time. Pasting properties are an important starch characteristic. As shown in Table 8, Overley had the highest peak viscosity (249.7 RVU) among the samples, while Genou displayed the lowest peak 21

viscosity (161.3 RVU). All of the remaining samples had peak viscosities higher than 200 (RVU). Trough values ranged from 116.4 (RVU) for Genou to 160.9 (RVU) for TAM 111, while the breakdown value for Overley was the highest at 90.4 (RVU) and Genou the lowest at 44.9 (RVU). The low breakdown value indicated that Genou was more capable of resisting shear thinning than other samples. Other RVA characteristics, such as final viscosity, set back, and peak time are also listed in Table 8. Mixograph and Farinograph Mixograms from the 10-g Mixograph and farinograms from the 50-g farinograph- E are shown in Figures 11 to 13. Data for dough mixing characteristics of the flour samples are listed in Table 9. Mixograph and farinograph tests are both conducted to predict flour water absorption and dough strength based on mixing time, mixing stability, and mixing tolerance. Because of differences in mixing style and evaluation parameters, the results of mixograph and farinograph testing are not always in agreement. Samples that displayed strong mixograph mixing characteristics were Jagger, Overley, and Wesley (Figs 11-13). The Wesley mixing curve showed the strongest type mixing curve among these samples. Mixograph water absorption (14% mb) ranged from 56.1% for Fuller to 63.9% for Genou. Samples with mixograph water absorption lower than 59% were Fuller, Endurance, Overley, and Hatcher. The remaining samples, Jagger, Santa Fe, Wesley and Millennium, had mixograph water absorptions higher than 61.7% (Table 9). The sample with the longest mixing time was Overley (5.00 min), while the sample with the shortest mixing time was TAM 111 (2.63 min). The remaining samples had mix times within a range of 2.75 min to 4.75 min. All samples, with the exception of TAM 111 and Millennium, had dough mix times longer than 3 min. All samples except Endurance and Fuller had mixing tolerance index values higher than 3 (0 6 scale), with Wesley being the highest at 5. Farinograms showed that Jagger, Santa Fe, Genou, and Wesley had very strong mixing curves (Figs 11 to 13), with Wesley being the strongest, while Endurance and Fuller had the weakest mixing curves. Farinograph water absorption (14% mb) ranged from 55.3% for Overley to 63.5% for Genou (Table 9). Only three samples, Jagger, Millennium, and Genou, had water absorptions higher than 60.0%. The remaining seven samples had farinograph water absorptions lower than 60.0%, and three of the seven, Endurance, Hatcher, and Overley, had the farinograph water absorptions lower than 56.0% (55.8%, 55.8% and 55.3%, respectively). Dough development time ranged from 1.7 min to 9.5 min, with Fuller having the shortest and Genou the longest dough development time. Four out of 10 OVA samples, Endurance, Overley, Hatcher, and Fuller, had dough development times shorter than 2.3 min, while the remaining samples had development times longer than 5.5 min. All samples had good mixing stability 22

with a range of 8.1 min to 24.8 min, with the exception of Fuller which had a mixing stability of 3.4 min. Farinograph mixing tolerance index (MTI) showed that half of the OVA samples had good mixing tolerance with an MTI lower than 30, while the other half had an MTI higher than 30. Fuller had the highest MTI at 65. Time-to-breakdown is reported as the time from the start of mixing cycle until the farinogram curve has decreased 30 Brabender Units (BU) below curve peak height at peak time. Four samples, Wesley, Santa Fe, Genou, and Jagger had breakdown times longer than 15 min, with Wesley being the longest at 20.0 min. Three samples, Overley, Hatcher, and Fuller, had breakdown times shorter than 5 min, with Fuller being the shortest at 2.8 min. Quality number wasn t reported since this dough characteristic is based on time-to-breakdown multiplied by 10. Farinograph data suggested that Wesley, Jagger and Genou had strong mixing characteristics based on dough development time, mixing stability, mixing tolerance index (Table 9) and water absorption, while Fuller, Hatcher, and Overley had weak mixing characteristics. Alveograph and Extensigraph Dough extensional characteristics are very important wheat flour quality attributes. Both the alveograph and extensigraph can be used to determine dough extensional properties, but their respective results don t always necessarily agree due to fundamental differences in the instrument design and measurement methods. The alveograph test utilizes biaxial extension while the extensigraph test utilizes uniaxial extension. Figures 14-16 include extensigrams and alveograms for all samples. Dough extension data acquired from both the alveograph and extensigraph are listed in Tables 9 and 10, respectively. The dough extension curves from the alveograph tests showed that the sample with the highest dough strength was Genou, while the sample with the lowest dough strength was endurance, based on the area under the curves (Figs. 14-16). Alveograph test results (Table 9) showed that P values ranged from 67 (mm H 2 O) for Santa Fe to 101 (mm H 2 O) for Genou. Dough made from Millennium was the most extensible (L = 126 mm), while Fuller dough was the least extensible (L = 60 mm) among the samples. Swelling index (G) ranged from 17.2 for Fuller and 25.0 for Millennium. Area-under-the-curve is typically used to measure dough strength. Only three samples, Genou, Jagger, and Wesley, showed that their areas were higher than 300 (10 E-4 J), with Genou the highest at 413 (10J). P/L ratio is related to a balance between resistance-to-extension and extensibility, but the ratio should be used with other dough characteristics in order to better estimate end-product performance. The ratio for good breadmaking dough ranges from 0.8 to 1.2. Elasticity index (le, expressed as %) can be estimated from the equation P200/P, where P200 = pressure 4 cm from the start of the curve, and P = pressure at the peak. Elasticity index ranged from 54.3% for TAM 111 to 69.1% for Genou. Based on the alveograph results, 23

Genou, Jagger, and Wesley samples had better dough properties than the rest of the samples in terms of dough elasticity requirements for baking quality. Extensigrams (Figs. 14-16) showed that Genou, Jagger, and Wesley possessed the greatest resistance-to-extension (P), area under the curve (W), and extensibility (L) at each of testing times (45, 90, and 135 min). Samples that showed the least resistance-to-extension were Endurance, Millennium, and Fuller. Dough resistance-to-extension (Table 10) increased with increasing dough rest time for each sample while dough extensibility decreased with increasing dough rest time. Therefore, logically, the ratio of dough resistance-toextension to extensibility was also observed to increase at each rest time.. On the other hand, the energy (cm 2 ) value was observed to increase or decrease among the samples with increasing dough rest time since the value of the energy (area-under-the-curve) is dependent on both values of resistance-to-extension and extensibility during testing. Samples that had the highest Extensigraph energy values (area-under-the-curve) were Jagger, Genou, and Wesley. Baking Results Baking tests for the OVA samples were performed using both straight dough and sponge-and-dough test methods. The baking results are shown in Table 11. Dough processing affects flour baking performance potential and end-product quality. Flour quality is typically more sensitive to the straight dough method than the sponge-and-dough method. Based on the results from the pup-loaf straight dough baking tests, Genou (62.4%), Wesley (62.0%), and Jagger (61.9%) were regarded as having high bake water absorptions (14% mb), while Endurance (53.7%) and Fuller (56.7%) water absorptions lower than 57%.. Baking mix time for the samples ranged from 3.4 min to 7.6 min, with TAM 111 and Millennium having the shortest and with Fuller having the longest, respectively. With the exception of Fuller, baking mix times for the remaining samples was considered within a desirable range. Fuller had a long mix time due primarily to its low protein content. Crumb grain scores ranged from 2.5 to 4.5 (0-6 scale), with Genou having the highest score of 5.0. With the exception of Endurance, crumb gain scores for the remaining samples were acceptable. Loaf volume is a very important part of baking performance evaluation. Samples that displayed good loaf volumes were Genou, Jagger, Santa Fe, and Wesley, with Genou having the largest loaf volume of 940 cc. Fuller had the smallest loaf volume (700 cc). Crumb color for half of the OVA samples, Santa Fe, Overley, Fuller, Genou, and Wesley were described as creamy, while the color for the remaining samples was described as dull. Therefore, Genou, Jagger, Wesley, and Santa Fe had better overall straight dough baking performance quality characteristics than the others. 24

Based on the sponge-and-dough bake test results (Table 11), Jagger, Santa Fe, Genou, TAM 111, and Wesley, had water absorption values higher than 60.0% (14% mb), with Genou having the highest water absorption of 62.4%. The sample with the lowest water absorption was Endurance at 56.7%. Sponge-anddough bake mix times ranged from 2.63 min (Jagger) to 6.50 min ( Fuller). Two wheats, Genou and Wesley, produced loaves with a volume exceeding 2300 cc, while two samples, Millennium and Fuller, had loaf volumes of 1920 cc and 1975 cc, respectively, which were the lowest among the samples. Loaf volumes for the remaining samples ranged from 2000 cc to 22000 cc. Crumb grain scores for all samples except Endurance, TAM 111, and Millennium, were acceptable. Samples with the highest crumb score were Genou and Wesley at 5.0, while samples with the lowest crumb scores were Endurance and Millennium at 2.5. Crumb color for four samples, Jagger, Overley, Genou, and Wesley were characterized as creamy, while the remaining samples displayed a dull crumb color. The sponge-and-dough baking results indicated that Genou, Wesley, and Jagger had better overall baking performance than the others. 25

Table 1. Wheat Grading Sample ID 09-2601 09-2602 09-2603 09-2604 09-2605 09-2606 09-2607 09-2608 09-2609 09-2610 Variety Name Jagger Endurance Hatcher Santa Fe Overley Fuller Genou TAM 111 Wesley Millennium Gulf Port HRW0911 HRW0912 HRW0913 HRW0914 HRW0915 HRW0916 HRW0917 HRW0918 PNW Port HRW0901 HRW0902 HRW0903 HRW0904 HRW0905 States Oklahoma Oklahoma Colorado Kansas Kansas Kansas Montana Texas South Dakota Nebraska FGIS Classification HRW HRW HRW HRW HRW HRW HRW HRW HRW HRW Dockage (%) 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Test Weight (lb/bu) 58.8 59.5 61.3 60.7 61.9 60.6 63.7 61.2 63.4 62.2 Hectoliter Weight (kg/hl) 77.0 78.3 80.6 79.8 81.4 79.7 83.7 80.5 83.3 81.8 Moisture (%) 12.3 11.6 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.5 10.3 11.1 12.7 12.0 Odor ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok Heat Damage 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Damaged Kernels (%) 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 Foreign Material (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Shrunken & Broken (%) 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 Total Defects (%) 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 Contrasting Classes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wheat of Other Classes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Grade 2 HRW 2 HRW 1 HRW 1 HRW 1 HRW 1 HRW 1 HRW 1 HRW 1 HRW 1 HRW 26

Table 2. SKCS 1 and Other Wheat Physical Test Results Sample ID 09-2601 09-2602 09-2603 09-2604 09-2605 09-2606 09-2607 09-2608 09-2609 09-2610 Variety Name Jagger Endurance Hatcher Santa Fe Overley Fuller Genou TAM 111 Wesley Millennium Gulf Port HRW0911 HRW0912 HRW0913 HRW0914 HRW0915 HRW0916 HRW0917 HRW0918 PNW Port HRW0901 HRW0902 HRW0903 HRW0904 HRW0905 States Oklahoma Oklahoma Colorado Kansas Kansas Kansas Montana Texas South Dakota Nebraska 1000 Kernel Weight (gm) 25.5 28.9 34.7 30.5 35.6 36.9 34.9 30.6 39.9 36.6 Kernel Size (Rotap) Over 7 wire (%) 33.1 68.1 60.3 66.7 88.7 90.4 80.8 64.3 91.5 83.3 Over 9 wire (%) 65.8 31.8 39.1 33.1 11.3 9.6 19.2 35.6 8.4 16.6 Through 9 wire (%) 1.1 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Single Kernel (SKCS) Kernel Hardness (avg/s.d) 2 90.9/14.9 56.8/15.5 62.0/15.5 71.5/13.4 53.9/17.2 53.1/15.1 57.0/12.5 71.4/12.5 58.4/17.9 60.8/13.7 Kernel Weight (mg) (avg/s.d) 24.3/7.2 30.7/7.4 31.2/7.6 31.1/7.2 36.4/7.3 38.2/7.1 35.9/8.0 31.1/7.7 40.3/8.4 37.0/7.9 Kernel Diameter (mm) (avg/s.d) 2.48/0.28 2.63/0.30 2.60/0.30 2.70/0.27 2.94/0.27 2.99/0.27 2.83/0.31 2.63/0.29 2.98/0.27 2.86/0.30 Kernel Moisture (%) (avg/s.d) 12.9/0.49 12.3/0.36 11.7/0.32 12.2/0.56 11.96/0.30 11.8/0.33 9.9/0.41 11.4/0.44 12.6/0.36 12.2/0.33 SKCS Distribution 00-00-02-98-01 05-20-31-44-01 03-13-31-53-01 00-04-12-84-01 09-22-35-34-02 08-26-33-33-02 02-16-43-39-01 01-03-15-81-01 10-17-22-51-02 02-13-31-54-01 Classification Hard Hard Hard Hard Hard Hard Hard Hard Hard Hard 1 SKCS = Single kernel characterization system 2 avg/s.d = average and standard deviation 27

Table 3. Wheat Chemical Analysis Sample ID 09-2601 09-2602 09-2603 09-2604 09-2605 09-2606 09-2607 09-2608 09-2609 09-2610 Variety Name Jagger Endurance Hatcher Santa Fe Overley Fuller Genou TAM 111 Wesley Millennium Gulf Port HRW0911 HRW0912 HRW0913 HRW0914 HRW0915 HRW0916 HRW0917 HRW0918 PNW Port HRW0901 HRW0902 HRW0903 HRW0904 HRW0905 States Oklahoma Oklahoma Colorado Kansas Kansas Kansas Montana Texas South Dakota Nebraska Analytical Moisture (%) 11.2 11.1 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.8 10.3 10.5 11.7 11.3 Analytical Protein (% asis) 13.4 11.3 11.4 13.6 11.1 9.9 14.6 13.1 12.4 13.0 at 12% mb 13.3 11.2 11.2 13.4 11.0 9.8 14.3 12.9 12.4 12.9 at 0% mb 15.1 12.7 12.8 15.2 12.5 11.1 16.3 14.6 14.0 14.7 Analytical Ash (% asis) 1.807 1.597 1.682 1.499 1.615 1.512 1.530 1.672 1.631 1.657 at 14% mb 1.750 1.545 1.620 1.445 1.559 1.458 1.467 1.607 1.589 1.607 at 0% mb 2.035 1.796 1.884 1.680 1.813 1.695 1.706 1.868 1.847 1.868 Wheat Falling Number (sec) 538 515 413 644 477 467 384 462 434 438 28

Table 4. MIAG Milling Results Sample ID 09-2601 09-2602 09-2603 09-2604 09-2605 09-2606 09-2607 09-2608 09-2609 09-2610 Variety Name Jagger Endurance Hatcher Santa Fe Overley Fuller Genou TAM 111 Wesley Millennium Gulf Port HRW0911 HRW0912 HRW0913 HRW0914 HRW0915 HRW0916 HRW0917 HRW0918 PNW Port HRW0901 HRW0902 HRW0903 HRW0904 HRW0905 States Oklahoma Oklahoma Colorado Kansas Kansas Kansas Montana Texas South Dakota Nebraska 1BK 4.4 8.7 6.6 5.5 8.7 9.3 4.8 6.3 7.7 6.9 2BK 2.0 6.1 6.5 4.5 4.9 6.5 3.9 5.6 6.0 5.3 Grader 1.3 2.3 2.8 1.8 2.1 2.7 1.7 2.2 2.6 2.2 3BK 4.8 3.3 3.8 3.6 6.5 3.3 4.6 4.0 4.1 4.0 1M 5.1 4.6 9.3 6.0 6.0 6.5 7.0 6.3 6.2 6.5 2M 16.1 18.0 14.6 16.4 16.9 15.3 14.4 14.5 15.4 14.2 3M 18.3 14.7 13.6 16.4 14.9 14.5 16.2 15.7 15.6 17.8 1M Red 2.2 2.7 2.7 2.3 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 4M 8.3 8.5 6.4 7.4 6.5 6.6 10.0 8.9 9.7 10.2 5M 3.1 1.8 2.0 3.3 1.6 1.8 3.5 2.9 2.6 2.3 BRAN FLR 2.8 2.3 3.0 3.5 2.4 2.8 3.1 3.6 1.8 1.8 FILTER FLR 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.2 2.2 1.1 0.7 1.0 Str. Grd Fl. Yield (%) 69.7 74.4 72.4 71.5 73.1 72.7 74.0 73.5 74.8 74.4 Break Shorts 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.5 2.4 2.4 3.0 2.2 2.3 Red Dog 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.8 1.4 1.1 1.1 Red Shorts 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Filter Bran 1.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Bran 25.5 21.9 23.6 24.4 22.2 23.3 22.4 21.7 21.5 21.7 Flour Yield (%) from Quadrumat Sr. Mill 67.3 70.1 70.8 69.4 71.8 69.0 72.2 67.9 70.3 71.7 29

Table 5. Flour Color and Particle Size Sample ID 09-2601 09-2602 09-2603 09-2604 09-2605 09-2606 09-2607 09-2608 09-2609 09-2610 Variety Name Jagger Endurance Hatcher Santa Fe Overley Fuller Genou TAM 111 Wesley Millennium Gulf Port HRW0911 HRW0912 HRW0913 HRW0914 HRW0915 HRW0916 HRW0917 HRW0918 PNW Port HRW0901 HRW0902 HRW0903 HRW0904 HRW0905 States Oklahoma Oklahoma Colorado Kansas Kansas Kansas Montana Texas South Dakota Nebraska Flour Color - Minolta L* 92.29 92.95 93.05 92.08 91.98 92.56 92.80 92.23 92.62 91.95 a* -1.46-1.47-1.33-1.58-1.31-1.32-1.29-1.54-1.17-1.26 b* 9.55 8.16 7.72 9.77 8.79 8.05 7.56 8.70 7.30 8.26 Flour Particle Size Mean (µm) 67.20 63.80 60.36 65.75 67.75 63.76 70.97 64.81 63.41 68.75 Median (µm) 64.69 61.09 56.39 63.24 65.59 60.49 68.41 62.21 60.48 65.45 < 10% (µm) 17.82 15.70 14.36 18.09 17.51 15.39 19.41 15.45 15.14 18.69 < 25% (µm) 35.46 30.18 27.58 34.60 34.63 29.26 38.75 30.80 30.51 35.62 < 50% (µm) 64.69 61.09 56.39 63.24 65.59 60.49 68.41 62.21 60.48 65.45 < 75% (µm) 94.75 91.92 87.78 92.37 95.77 92.75 99.68 93.43 91.23 97.12 < 90% (µm) 120.55 117.84 114.30 118.10 121.85 119.18 127.31 119.59 117.39 124.73 30

Table 6. Flour Moisture, Ash and Protein Contents Sample ID 09-2601 09-2602 09-2603 09-2604 09-2605 09-2606 09-2607 09-2608 09-2609 09-2610 Variety Name Jagger Endurance Hatcher Santa Fe Overley Fuller Genou TAM 111 Wesley Millennium Gulf Port HRW0911 HRW0912 HRW0913 HRW0914 HRW0915 HRW0916 HRW0917 HRW0918 PNW Port HRW0901 HRW0902 HRW0903 HRW0904 HRW0905 States Oklahoma Oklahoma Colorado Kansas Kansas Kansas Montana Texas South Dakota Nebraska Flour Moisture (%) 10.1 10.7 10.5 10.6 10.6 10.7 11.3 10.2 10.9 11.2 Flour Protein (% asis) 12.6 10.1 10.2 12.4 10.2 8.7 13.4 12.4 11.5 11.8 at 14% mb 12.1 9.7 9.8 11.9 9.8 8.4 13.0 11.8 11.1 11.4 at 0% mb 14.0 11.3 11.4 13.9 11.4 9.7 15.1 13.8 12.9 13.3 Flour Ash (% asis) 0.576 0.435 0.422 0.415 0.439 0.422 0.330 0.441 0.436 0.433 at 14% mb 0.551 0.420 0.405 0.400 0.422 0.406 0.320 0.422 0.420 0.420 at 0% mb 0.641 0.487 0.472 0.464 0.491 0.473 0.372 0.491 0.489 0.488 31

Table 7. Glutomatic, Falling Number, Amylograph and SD-matic Test Results Sample ID 09-2601 09-2602 09-2603 09-2604 09-2605 09-2606 09-2607 09-2608 09-2609 09-2610 Variety Name Jagger Endurance Hatcher Santa Fe Overley Fuller Genou TAM 111 Wesley Millennium Gulf Port HRW0911 HRW0912 HRW0913 HRW0914 HRW0915 HRW0916 HRW0917 HRW0918 PNW Port HRW0901 HRW0902 HRW0903 HRW0904 HRW0905 States Oklahoma Oklahoma Colorado Kansas Kansas Kansas Montana Texas South Dakota Nebraska Glutomatic Wet Gluten (%) 35.0 26.7 28.1 24.1 24.9 18.8 38.0 36.7 32.4 33.9 Dry Gluten (%) 12.0 8.8 10.1 12.0 9.0 7.0 13.5 12.6 11.9 11.7 Gluten Index 93.7 96.6 98.2 91.7 99.2 99.5 95.0 79.7 98.8 87.3 Flour Falling Number (sec) 628 505 459 482 514 496 375 492 371 430 Amylograph Viscosity 65 g (BU) 770 760 770 750 960 765 460 890 835 710 SD Matic for Damaged Starch Iodine Absorption (%) 97.3 95.7 96.2 96.5 95.0 96.0 96.4 95.0 96.0 96.4 Converted AACC 76-31 (%) 7.3 6.1 6.4 6.7 5.6 6.3 6.6 5.5 6.2 6.6 32

Table 8. Sedimentation and RVA Test Results Sample ID 09-2601 09-2602 09-2603 09-2604 09-2605 09-2606 09-2607 09-2608 09-2609 09-2610 Variety Name Jagger Endurance Hatcher Santa Fe Overley Fuller Genou TAM 111 Wesley Millennium Gulf Port HRW0911 HRW0912 HRW0913 HRW0914 HRW0915 HRW0916 HRW0917 HRW0918 PNW Port HRW0901 HRW0902 HRW0903 HRW0904 HRW0905 States Oklahoma Oklahoma Colorado Kansas Kansas Kansas Montana Texas South Dakota Nebraska Flour Sedimnetation Test Valume (ml) 45.2 31.2 44.0 44.6 36.9 32.3 67.7 46.3 56.8 43.5 Rapid Visco-Analyzer Peak 1 (RVU) 210.2 210.2 206.7 209.2 249.7 234.0 161.3 227.5 225.7 207.0 Trough 1 (RVU) 144.2 141.6 136.0 135.3 159.3 155.0 116.4 160.9 139.4 145.0 Breakdown (RVU) 66.0 68.6 70.7 73.8 90.4 79.0 44.9 66.6 86.3 62.0 Final Visc (RVU) 270.9 268.8 260.8 256.6 280.2 274.1 218.8 284.3 254.7 260.8 Setback (RVU) 126.8 127.2 124.8 121.3 120.9 119.1 102.4 123.3 115.3 115.8 Peak Time(min) 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.5 6.3 6.3 33

Table 9. Mixograph, Farinograph, and Alveograph Test Results Sample ID 09-2601 09-2602 09-2603 09-2604 09-2605 09-2606 09-2607 09-2608 09-2609 09-2610 Variety Name Jagger Endurance Hatcher Santa Fe Overley Fuller Genou TAM 111 Wesley Millennium Gulf Port HRW0911 HRW0912 HRW0913 HRW0914 HRW0915 HRW0916 HRW0917 HRW0918 PNW Port HRW0901 HRW0902 HRW0903 HRW0904 HRW0905 States Oklahoma Oklahoma Colorado Kansas Kansas Kansas Montana Texas South Dakota Nebraska Mixograph Test Water Absorption (14% mb) 62.6 56.4 58.9 62.1 56.9 56.1 63.9 62.0 62.0 61.7 Mix time (min) 3.63 3.75 4.75 3.88 5.00 4.50 3.38 2.63 4.50 2.75 Mix Tolerance (0-6) 4 1 3 3 4 2 3 3 5 3 Farinograph Test Water Absorption (14% mb) 61.0 55.8 55.8 58.0 55.3 57.3 63.5 59.7 57.4 60.8 Development Time (min) 7.9 2.2 2.0 7.3 2.2 1.7 9.5 6.8 6.2 5.5 Mix Stability (min) 24.8 12.0 8.1 19.2 12.3 3.4 15.8 19.3 31.5 9.8 Mix Tolerance Index 17 16 49 14 42 65 28 31 17 31 Breakdown (min) 15.5 10.3 4.0 16.9 4.1 2.8 16.7 11.8 20.0 9.7 Alveograph Test P (mm H2O) 97 74 72 67 73 93 101 73 74 76 L (mm) 110 84 100 121 83 60 106 122 122 126 G: Swelling index 23.3 20.4 22.3 24.5 20.3 17.2 22.9 24.6 24.6 25.0 W (10E-4J) 355 212 257 266 246 221 413 265 339 268 P/L 0.88 0.88 0.72 0.55 0.88 1.55 0.95 0.66 0.61 0.60 le (%) 58.9 54.8 60.6 59.4 66.9 59.2 69.1 54.3 66.5 51.7 34

Table 10. Extensigraph Test Results Sample ID 09-2601 09-2602 09-2603 09-2604 09-2605 09-2606 09-2607 09-2608 09-2609 09-2610 Variety Name Jagger Endurance Hatcher Santa Fe Overley Fuller Genou TAM 111 Wesley Millennium Gulf Port HRW0911 HRW0912 HRW0913 HRW0914 HRW0915 HRW0916 HRW0917 HRW0918 PNW Port HRW0901 HRW0902 HRW0903 HRW0904 HRW0905 States Oklahoma Oklahoma Colorado Kansas Kansas Kansas Montana Texas South Dakota Nebraska Extensigraph Test Time [min] 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Energy [cm²] 140.5 85.3 104.4 119.5 118.0 89.6 151.9 97.3 142.2 88.9 Resistance [BU] 322 302 282 265 307 320 265 207 239 236 Extensibility [mm] 189.8 152.9 182.4 199.5 187.4 155.8 218.3 210.1 231.1 182.4 Maximum [BU] 585 407 422 461 462 409 564 344 482 367 Ratio Number 1.70 1.97 1.55 1.33 1.64 2.05 1.21 0.99 1.03 1.29 Ratio Number (Max.) 3.08 2.66 2.32 2.31 2.47 2.62 2.59 1.64 2.09 2.01 Time [min] 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Energy [cm²] 181 92 119 130 141 112 159 121 184 102 Resistance [BU] 461 363 350 335 413 422 448 270 319 293 Extensibility [mm] 178 145 174 185 168 147 178 204 224 179 Maximum [BU] 816 466 515 533 653 587 723 452 640 442 Ratio Number 2.6 2.5 2.0 1.8 2.5 2.9 2.5 1.3 1.4 1.6 Ratio Number (Max.) 4.6 3.2 3.0 2.9 3.9 4.0 4.1 2.2 2.9 2.5 Time [min] 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 Energy [cm²] 168 90 108 122 164 122 162 121 167 102 Resistance [BU] 486 371 338 361 442 467 565 309 368 323 Extensibility [mm] 172 140 166 167 173 144 154 191 195 166 Maximum [BU] 792 478 484 575 755 656 878 480 682 464 Ratio Number 2.8 2.7 2.0 2.2 2.6 3.2 3.7 1.6 1.9 2.0 Ratio Number (Max.) 4.6 3.4 2.9 3.4 4.4 4.6 5.7 2.5 3.5 2.8 35

Table 11. Bread Baking Results Sample ID 09-2601 09-2602 09-2603 09-2604 09-2605 09-2606 09-2607 09-2608 09-2609 09-2610 Variety Name Jagger Endurance Hatcher Santa Fe Overley Fuller Genou TAM 111 Wesley Millennium Gulf Port HRW0911 HRW0912 HRW0913 HRW0914 HRW0915 HRW0916 HRW0917 HRW0918 PNW Port HRW0901 HRW0902 HRW0903 HRW0904 HRW0905 States Oklahoma Oklahoma Colorado Kansas Kansas Kansas Montana Texas South Dakota Nebraska Pup Loaf Straight Dough Bake Water Abs (% as is) 66.7 57.7 61.7 63.7 61.7 60.7 65.7 63.7 65.7 60.7 Bake Water Abs (14% mb) 61.9 53.7 57.4 59.6 57.5 56.7 62.4 59.1 62.0 57.3 Bake Mix Time (min) 3.8 4.6 6.0 4.1 7.1 7.6 4.5 3.4 6.3 3.4 Loaf Vollume (cc) 885 785 800 850 815 700 940 840 850 845 Crumb Grain (0-6) 3.5 2.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.5 3.2 4.0 4.0 Crumb Color Dull Dull Dull Creamy Creamy Creamy Creamy Dull Creamy Dull One Pound Loaf Sponge and Dough Bake Water Abs (% as is) 66.7 60.7 63.7 64.7 62.7 63.7 65.7 64.7 65.7 61.7 Bake Water Abs (14% mb) 61.9 56.7 59.4 60.6 58.5 59.7 62.4 60.1 62.0 58.3 Bake Mix Time (min) 2.63 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.88 6.50 3.00 3.75 3.38 3.00 Loaf Vollume (cc) 2200 2025 2150 2200 2150 1975 2325 2000 2390 1920 Crumb Grain (0-6) 4.5 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 5.0 2.8 5.0 2.5 Crumb Color creamy dull dull dull creamy dull creamy dull creamy dull 36

Fig. 1. Cumulative Ash Curves for All Samples Cumulative Ash (%) 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 2009 Hard Winter Wheat OVA Samples 2601-Jagger 2602-Endurance 2603-Hatcher 2604-Santa Fe 2605-Overley 2606-Fuller 2608-TAM 111 2610-Millennium 2607-Genou 2609-Wesley 0.25 0.20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Cumulative Flour Yield (%) Fig. 2. Cumulative Protein Curves for All Samples 14.0 2009 Hard Winter Wheat OVA Samples 13.0 Cumulative Flour Protein (%) 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 2601-Jagger 2602-Endurance 2603-Hatcher 2604-Santa Fe 2605-Overley 2606-Fuller 2608-TAM 111 2610-Millennium 2607-Genou 2609-Wesley 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Cumulative Flour Yield (%) 37

Fig. 3. Cumulative Ash Curves for Jagger and Endurance 0.60 0.55 2009 HRW OVA Samples - Jagger and Endurance 2601-Jagger 2602-Endurance Cumulative Ash (%) 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Cumulative Flour Yield (%) 2601 Strm Yld Cumulative 2602 Strm Yld Cumulative MILL STREAM (14%mb) ASH_14 Yield (14%) Ash (14%) MILL STREAM (14%mb) ASH_14 Yield (14%) Ash (14%) 2M 15.99 0.43 15.99 0.428 1M 4.5 0.287 4.54 0.287 1M Red 2.20 0.44 18.18 0.430 2M 17.9 0.303 22.45 0.300 3M 18.22 0.47 36.40 0.449 1M Red 2.6 0.316 25.09 0.302 1M 5.13 0.47 41.53 0.451 1BK 8.5 0.319 33.58 0.306 4M 8.44 0.54 49.97 0.467 Grader 2.3 0.353 35.88 0.309 1BK 4.35 0.57 54.32 0.475 2BK 6.1 0.361 41.94 0.317 2BK 1.98 0.61 56.30 0.480 3M 14.7 0.365 56.69 0.329 Grader 1.31 0.62 57.61 0.483 4M 8.6 0.454 65.27 0.346 3BK 4.79 0.85 62.40 0.511 3BK 3.4 0.693 68.62 0.363 FILTER FLR 1.18 0.89 63.58 0.518 FILTER FLR 1.4 0.753 70.03 0.370 5M 3.20 0.96 66.78 0.539 5M 1.8 1.049 71.86 0.388 BRAN FLR 2.86 1.68 69.63 0.586 BRAN FLR 2.3 1.511 74.19 0.423 Break Shorts 1.88 3.48 71.51 0.662 Break Shorts 2.1 1.716 76.31 0.459 Red Dog 1.04 2.77 72.55 0.692 Red Dog 0.9 3.136 77.17 0.489 Red Shorts 0.05 4.54 72.60 0.695 Red Shorts 0.0 4.172 77.19 0.490 Filter Bran 1.89 2.82 74.49 0.749 Filter Bran 0.8 2.165 77.95 0.506 Bran 25.51 5.21 100.00 1.887 Bran 22.0 5.059 100.00 1.510 WHEAT 1.749 WHEAT 1.545 St. Gr Flour 0.551 St. Gr Flour 0.420 38

Fig. 4. Cumulative Ash Curves for Hatcher and TAM 111 0.60 0.55 2009 HRW OVA Samples - Hatcher and TAM 111 2603-Hatcher 2608-TAM 111 Cumulative Ash (%) 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Cumulative Flour Yield (%) 2603 Strm Yld Cumulative 2608 Strm Yld Cumulative MILL STREAM (14%mb) ASH_14 Yield (14%) Ash (14%) MILL STREAM (14%mb) ASH_14 Yield (14%) Ash (14%) 2M 14.4 0.322 14.44 0.322 1M Red 2.3 0.344 2.31 0.344 1M Red 2.7 0.328 17.16 0.323 2M 14.4 0.354 16.72 0.352 1M 9.3 0.331 26.41 0.325 1M 6.2 0.355 22.95 0.353 1BK 6.5 0.364 32.92 0.333 3M 15.8 0.392 38.71 0.369 3M 13.6 0.387 46.49 0.349 2BK 5.5 0.399 44.23 0.373 Grader 2.7 0.390 49.23 0.351 1BK 6.2 0.402 50.44 0.376 2BK 6.4 0.393 55.65 0.356 4M 9.0 0.416 59.40 0.382 4M 6.4 0.463 62.10 0.367 Grader 2.2 0.423 61.62 0.384 3BK 3.8 0.771 65.87 0.390 3BK 4.1 0.724 65.67 0.405 FILTER FLR 1.3 0.799 67.14 0.398 5M 3.0 0.739 68.69 0.419 5M 2.1 0.922 69.22 0.414 FILTER FLR 1.1 0.989 69.80 0.428 BRAN FLR 3.1 1.407 72.29 0.456 BRAN FLR 3.6 1.286 73.43 0.471 Break Shorts 2.4 4.327 74.72 0.582 Break Shorts 3.1 3.936 76.49 0.609 Red Dog 0.8 2.963 75.56 0.608 Red Dog 1.4 2.895 77.90 0.651 Red Shorts 0.0 4.192 75.60 0.610 Red Shorts 0.0 3.981 77.94 0.652 Filter Bran 0.7 1.906 76.30 0.622 Filter Bran 0.4 1.609 78.35 0.657 Bran 23.7 4.999 100.00 1.659 Bran 21.7 4.740 100.00 1.541 WHEAT 1.621 WHEAT 1.606 St. Gr Flour 0.405 St. Gr Flour 0.422 39

Fig. 5. Cumulative Ash Curves for Santa Fe, Overley, and Fuller 0.60 0.55 2009 HRW OVA Samples - Santa Fe, Overley and Fuller 2604-Santa Fe 2605-Overley 2606-Fuller Cumulative Ash (%) 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Cumulative Flour Yield (%) 2604 Strm Yld Cumulative 2605 Strm Yld Cumulative 2606 Strm Yld Cumulative MILL STREAM (14%mb) ASH_14 Yield (14%) Ash (14%) MILL STREAM (14%mb) ASH_14 Yield (14%) Ash (14%) MILL STREAM (14%mb) ASH_14 Yield (14%) Ash (14%) 2M 16.3 0.303 16.30 0.303 2M 16.8 0.324 16.85 0.324 2M 15.2 0.289 15.19 0.289 3M 16.4 0.315 32.72 0.309 1M 6.0 0.334 22.80 0.326 Grader 2.7 0.289 17.85 0.289 1M 6.0 0.320 38.67 0.311 2BK 4.9 0.374 27.66 0.335 1BK 9.1 0.290 26.96 0.289 1M Red 2.3 0.323 40.93 0.311 1M Red 2.0 0.378 29.64 0.338 1M 6.5 0.310 33.42 0.293 4M 7.4 0.353 48.31 0.318 Grader 2.0 0.378 31.68 0.340 1M Red 2.2 0.315 35.65 0.295 2BK 4.5 0.367 52.82 0.322 1BK 8.5 0.380 40.17 0.349 2BK 6.4 0.346 42.02 0.302 1BK 5.4 0.372 58.25 0.327 3M 15.0 0.484 55.20 0.385 3M 14.6 0.379 56.65 0.322 Grader 1.8 0.400 60.00 0.329 4M 6.5 0.562 61.71 0.404 4M 6.7 0.442 63.35 0.335 5M 3.3 0.613 63.30 0.344 3BK 6.5 0.709 68.18 0.433 3BK 3.3 0.708 66.67 0.353 3BK 3.7 0.620 66.99 0.359 FILTER FLR 0.8 0.829 68.99 0.438 FILTER FLR 1.2 0.712 67.87 0.360 FILTER FLR 1.0 0.740 67.97 0.364 5M 1.6 1.053 70.57 0.451 5M 1.9 0.946 69.74 0.375 BRAN FLR 3.5 1.252 71.48 0.408 BRAN FLR 2.5 1.335 73.06 0.482 BRAN FLR 2.8 1.397 72.56 0.415 Break Shorts 2.7 3.175 74.17 0.508 Break Shorts 3.5 2.892 76.54 0.591 Break Shorts 2.5 3.746 75.04 0.525 Red Dog 1.0 2.593 75.15 0.535 Red Dog 0.7 2.849 77.20 0.610 Red Dog 0.9 2.917 75.96 0.555 Red Shorts 0.1 3.209 75.26 0.539 Red Shorts 0.0 3.956 77.21 0.611 Red Shorts 0.0 3.573 75.99 0.556 Filter Bran 0.4 1.909 75.67 0.547 Filter Bran 0.6 2.208 77.78 0.623 Filter Bran 0.6 1.922 76.59 0.566 Bran 24.3 4.365 100.00 1.476 Bran 22.2 5.280 100.00 1.657 Bran 23.4 4.487 100.00 1.484 WHEAT 1.445 WHEAT 1.558 WHEAT 1.457 St. Gr Flour 0.400 St. Gr Flour 0.422 St. Gr Flour 0.406 40

Fig. 6. Cumulative Ash Curves for Genou, Wesley, and Millennium 0.60 0.55 2009 HRW OVA Samples - Genou, Wesley, and Millennium 2610-Millennium 2607-Genou 2609-Wesley Cumulative Ash (%) 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Cumulative Flour Yield (%) 2607 Strm Yld Cumulative 2609 Strm Yld Cumulative 2610 Strm Yld Cumulative MILL STREAM (14%mb) ASH_14 Yield (14%) Ash (14%) MILL STREAM (14%mb) ASH_14 Yield (14%) Ash (14%) MILL STREAM (14%mb) ASH_14 Yield (14%) Ash (14%) 2M 14.4 0.220 14.40 0.220 2M 15.3 0.291 15.30 0.291 1M Red 2.3 0.274 2.29 0.274 1M Red 2.5 0.232 16.89 0.222 1M Red 2.3 0.297 17.64 0.292 2M 14.0 0.286 16.30 0.285 1M 6.9 0.263 23.76 0.234 1M 6.2 0.298 23.80 0.294 1M 6.4 0.294 22.73 0.287 3M 16.2 0.267 39.99 0.247 3M 15.6 0.350 39.39 0.316 3M 17.8 0.345 40.49 0.313 4M 10.1 0.274 50.08 0.253 2BK 5.9 0.358 45.31 0.321 1BK 6.7 0.363 47.22 0.320 2BK 3.8 0.329 53.89 0.258 1BK 7.5 0.362 52.81 0.327 2BK 5.2 0.378 52.45 0.326 Grader 1.7 0.346 55.62 0.261 Grader 2.5 0.385 55.34 0.330 Grader 2.1 0.392 54.60 0.328 1BK 4.8 0.368 60.38 0.269 4M 9.8 0.468 65.13 0.351 4M 10.3 0.509 64.92 0.357 FILTER FLR 2.3 0.508 62.72 0.278 FILTER FLR 0.7 0.639 65.86 0.354 FILTER FLR 1.0 0.672 65.97 0.362 3BK 4.6 0.519 67.35 0.295 3BK 4.1 0.874 70.00 0.385 3BK 4.0 0.920 69.98 0.394 5M 3.6 0.588 70.96 0.310 5M 2.7 0.959 72.71 0.406 5M 2.4 1.281 72.41 0.424 BRAN FLR 3.2 1.162 74.19 0.347 BRAN FLR 1.9 1.741 74.61 0.440 BRAN FLR 1.9 1.812 74.32 0.459 Break Shorts 2.5 2.922 76.64 0.429 Break Shorts 2.3 4.109 76.87 0.548 Break Shorts 2.4 4.471 76.69 0.584 Red Dog 0.8 2.163 77.42 0.447 Red Dog 1.2 2.535 78.05 0.578 Red Dog 1.2 2.845 77.84 0.617 Red Shorts 0.0 2.515 77.43 0.447 Red Shorts 0.0 3.305 78.06 0.578 Red Shorts 0.0 2.975 77.85 0.617 Filter Bran 0.4 1.338 77.84 0.452 Filter Bran 0.4 1.446 78.43 0.582 Filter Bran 0.4 1.469 78.24 0.622 Bran 22.2 5.415 100.00 1.552 Bran 21.6 5.964 100.00 1.743 Bran 21.8 5.760 100.00 1.740 WHEAT 1.468 WHEAT 1.588 WHEAT 1.606 St. Gr Flour 0.320 St. Gr Flour 0.420 St. Gr Flour 0.42 41

Fig. 7. Cumulative Protein Curves for Jagger and Endurance 2009 HRW OVA Samples - Jagger and Endurance 14.0 13.0 Cumulative Flour Protein (%) 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 2601-Jagger 2602-Endurance 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Cumulative Flour Yield (%) 2601 Strm Yld PROTEIN Cumulative 2602 Strm Yld PROTEIN Cumulative MILL STREAM (14%mb) 14% Yield (14%) Protein (14%) MILL STREAM (14%mb) 14% Yield (14%) Protein (14%) 1M 5.13 11.12 5.13 11.12 1BK 8.49 7.85 8.49 7.85 1M Red 2.20 11.15 7.33 11.13 Grader 2.30 8.95 10.79 8.08 2M 15.99 11.26 23.31 11.22 1M Red 2.64 9.12 13.43 8.29 3M 18.22 11.50 41.53 11.34 2M 17.90 9.15 31.33 8.78 4M 8.44 11.68 49.97 11.40 1M 4.54 9.17 35.88 8.83 1BK 4.35 12.47 54.32 11.49 3M 14.75 9.66 50.63 9.07 5M 3.20 12.72 57.52 11.56 4M 8.58 10.01 59.21 9.21 Grader 1.31 12.86 58.83 11.58 2BK 6.06 10.20 65.27 9.30 FILTER FLR 1.18 13.28 60.00 11.62 5M 1.83 11.43 67.10 9.36 2BK 1.98 14.06 61.98 11.70 FILTER FLR 1.41 11.88 68.51 9.41 3BK 4.79 14.88 66.78 11.92 3BK 3.35 12.47 71.86 9.55 BRAN FLR 2.86 15.90 69.63 12.09 BRAN FLR 2.32 13.90 74.19 9.69 Break Shorts 1.88 14.32 71.51 12.15 Break Shorts 2.12 13.53 76.31 9.79 Red Dog 1.04 13.25 72.55 12.16 Red Dog 0.87 12.75 77.17 9.83 Red Shorts 0.05 14.10 72.60 12.16 Red Shorts 0.01 13.89 77.19 9.83 Filter Bran 1.89 15.18 74.49 12.24 Filter Bran 0.77 11.44 77.95 9.84 Bran 25.51 16.36 100.00 13.29 Bran 22.05 16.20 100.00 11.25 WHEAT 12.99 WHEAT 10.93 St. Grade Fl 12.08 St. Grade Fl 9.74 42

Fig. 8. Cumulative Protein Curves for Hatcher and TAM 111 2009 HRW OVA Samples - Hatcher and TAM 111 14.0 13.0 Cumulative Flour Protein (%) 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 2603-Hatcher 2608-TAM 111 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Cumulative Flour Yield (%) 2603 Strm Yld PROTEIN Cumulative 2608 Strm Yld PROTEIN Cumulative MILL STREAM (14%mb) 14% Yield (14%) Protein (14%) MILL STREAM (14%mb) 14% Yield (14%) Protein (14%) 1BK 6.50 8.31 6.50 8.31 1M 6.23 10.43 6.23 10.43 1M Red 2.71 8.97 9.22 8.51 1M Red 2.31 10.45 8.54 10.44 1M 9.26 8.98 18.47 8.75 2M 14.41 10.64 22.95 10.57 2M 14.44 9.20 32.92 8.95 3M 15.76 10.87 38.71 10.69 3M 13.58 9.62 46.49 9.14 4M 8.96 11.01 47.67 10.75 Grader 2.74 9.63 49.23 9.17 1BK 6.21 11.66 53.88 10.86 4M 6.45 10.00 55.68 9.27 Grader 2.22 12.03 56.10 10.90 FILTER FLR 1.27 10.92 56.95 9.30 5M 3.02 12.16 59.12 10.97 5M 2.08 10.98 59.03 9.36 FILTER FLR 1.11 12.66 60.23 11.00 2BK 6.42 10.99 65.45 9.52 2BK 5.52 13.79 65.75 11.23 3BK 3.77 12.82 69.22 9.70 BRAN FLR 3.64 15.68 69.38 11.46 BRAN FLR 3.07 13.21 72.29 9.85 3BK 4.05 15.92 73.43 11.71 Break Shorts 2.43 14.27 74.72 9.99 Break Shorts 3.06 14.81 76.49 11.83 Red Dog 0.84 11.82 75.56 10.01 Red Dog 1.41 13.78 77.90 11.87 Red Shorts 0.04 12.41 75.60 10.02 Red Shorts 0.04 14.16 77.94 11.87 Filter Bran 0.70 10.87 76.30 10.02 Filter Bran 0.41 12.01 78.35 11.87 Bran 23.70 14.77 100.00 11.15 Bran 21.65 16.09 100.00 12.78 WHEAT 11.02 WHEAT 12.58 St. Grade Fl 9.84 St. Grade Fl 11.84 43

Fig. 9. Cumulative Protein Curves for Santa Fe, Overley, and Fuller 14.0 13.0 2009 HRW OVA Samples - Santa Fe, Overley, and Fuller Cumulative Flour Protein (%) 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 2604-Santa Fe 2605-Overley 2606-Fuller 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Cumulative Flour Yield (%) 2604 Strm Yld PROTEIN Cumulative 2605 Strm Yld PROTEIN Cumulative 2606 Strm Yld PROTEIN Cumulative MILL STREAM (14%mb) 14% Yield (14%) Protein (14%) MILL STREAM (14%mb) 14% Yield (14%) Protein (14%) MILL STREAM (14%mb) 14% Yield (14%) Protein (14%) 1M Red 2.25 10.80 2.25 10.80 1BK 8.49 7.96 8.49 7.96 1BK 9.12 6.20 9.12 6.20 2M 16.30 10.91 18.55 10.90 2M 16.85 8.73 25.34 8.47 3BK 3.32 7.46 12.44 6.54 3M 16.42 11.07 34.97 10.98 Grader 2.04 8.95 27.38 8.50 2M 15.19 7.80 27.63 7.23 4M 7.38 11.10 42.35 11.00 1M 5.95 9.21 33.33 8.63 1M Red 2.23 8.00 29.86 7.29 1M 5.96 11.19 48.31 11.02 1M Red 1.98 9.51 35.31 8.68 3M 14.63 8.35 44.49 7.64 1BK 5.43 11.87 53.74 11.11 3M 15.03 9.63 50.34 8.96 Grader 2.66 8.56 47.15 7.69 Grader 1.75 11.99 55.49 11.14 4M 6.51 9.92 56.85 9.07 2BK 6.37 8.63 53.52 7.80 5M 3.31 12.10 58.79 11.19 2BK 4.86 10.40 61.71 9.18 FILTER FLR 1.19 8.75 54.71 7.82 FILTER FLR 0.98 13.30 59.77 11.23 FILTER FLR 0.81 10.68 62.52 9.20 4M 6.70 8.99 61.41 7.95 2BK 4.51 14.20 64.28 11.44 5M 1.59 11.30 64.11 9.25 5M 1.87 10.18 63.28 8.01 3BK 3.69 15.94 67.97 11.68 3BK 6.46 12.49 70.57 9.55 1M 6.46 10.82 69.74 8.27 BRAN FLR 3.51 16.86 71.48 11.93 BRAN FLR 2.49 13.69 73.06 9.69 BRAN FLR 2.82 11.70 72.56 8.41 Break Shorts 2.70 15.81 74.17 12.07 Break Shorts 3.48 13.10 76.54 9.84 Break Shorts 2.48 13.93 75.04 8.59 Red Dog 0.97 14.88 75.15 12.11 Red Dog 0.66 12.32 77.20 9.86 Red Dog 0.92 14.10 75.96 8.66 Red Shorts 0.11 14.72 75.26 12.11 Red Shorts 0.02 12.86 77.21 9.86 Red Shorts 0.03 12.76 75.99 8.66 Filter Bran 0.41 13.17 75.67 12.12 Filter Bran 0.57 11.00 77.78 9.87 Filter Bran 0.60 9.88 76.59 8.67 Bran 24.33 17.20 100.00 13.36 Bran 22.22 14.64 100.00 10.93 Bran 23.41 14.00 100.00 9.92 WHEAT 13.10 WHEAT 10.74 WHEAT 9.53 St. Grade Fl 11.89 St. Grade Fl 9.81 St. Grade Fl 8.41 44

Fig. 10. Cumulative Protein Curves for Genou, Wesley, and Millennium 14.0 13.0 2009 HRW OVA Samples - Genou, Wesley, and Millennium Cumulative Flour Protein (%) 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 2610-Millennium 2607-Genou 2609-Wesley 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Cumulative Flour Yield (%) 2607 Strm Yld PROTEIN Cumulative 2609 Strm Yld PROTEIN Cumulative 2610 Strm Yld PROTEIN Cumulative MILL STREAM (14%mb) 14% Yield (14%) Protein (14%) MILL STREAM (14%mb) 14% Yield (14%) Protein (14%) MILL STREAM (14%mb) 14% Yield (14%) Protein (14%) 1M Red 2.50 11.61 2.50 11.61 1M Red 2.33 9.82 2.33 9.82 1M Red 2.29 10.29 2.29 10.29 2M 14.40 11.62 16.89 11.62 2M 15.30 10.13 17.64 10.09 2M 14.01 10.58 16.30 10.54 3M 16.23 11.75 33.12 11.68 3M 15.59 10.18 33.22 10.13 3M 17.77 10.62 34.07 10.58 4M 10.09 11.84 43.21 11.72 1M 6.16 10.22 39.39 10.14 1M 6.42 10.75 40.49 10.61 1M 6.87 12.25 50.08 11.79 4M 9.79 10.30 49.18 10.17 4M 10.33 10.98 50.82 10.68 FILTER FLR 2.35 12.39 52.42 11.82 1BK 7.50 11.03 56.68 10.29 1BK 6.73 11.31 57.55 10.76 5M 3.62 12.92 56.04 11.89 5M 2.72 11.51 59.39 10.34 Grader 2.15 11.92 59.69 10.80 Grader 1.73 14.18 57.77 11.96 Grader 2.53 11.62 61.92 10.40 5M 2.44 12.41 62.13 10.86 1BK 4.76 15.23 62.53 12.21 FILTER FLR 0.73 12.51 62.65 10.42 FILTER FLR 1.05 12.44 63.18 10.89 2BK 3.81 16.45 66.34 12.45 2BK 5.93 13.88 68.58 10.72 2BK 5.23 14.30 68.40 11.15 3BK 4.62 18.13 70.96 12.82 3BK 4.14 15.44 72.71 10.99 3BK 4.01 16.39 72.41 11.44 BRAN FLR 3.23 18.43 74.19 13.07 BRAN FLR 1.89 16.68 74.61 11.13 BRAN FLR 1.90 18.36 74.32 11.61 Break Shorts 2.45 14.41 76.64 13.11 Break Shorts 2.26 13.59 76.87 11.20 Break Shorts 2.38 15.45 76.69 11.73 Red Dog 0.78 13.49 77.42 13.11 Red Dog 1.18 12.47 78.05 11.22 Red Dog 1.15 13.61 77.84 11.76 Red Shorts 0.01 14.12 77.43 13.11 Red Shorts 0.01 12.94 78.06 11.22 Red Shorts 0.01 14.20 77.85 11.76 Filter Bran 0.40 12.55 77.84 13.11 Filter Bran 0.37 11.38 78.43 11.22 Filter Bran 0.38 12.29 78.24 11.76 Bran 22.16 18.29 100.00 14.26 Bran 21.57 14.60 100.00 11.95 Bran 21.76 17.63 100.00 13.04 WHEAT 14.04 WHEAT 12.06 WHEAT 12.61 St. Grade Fl 12.97 St. Grade Fl 11.11 St. Grade Fl 11.42 45

Fig. 11. Mixograms and Farinograms HRW 09-2601 Jagger HRW 09-2602 Endurance HRW 09-2603 Hatcher HRW 09-2604 Santa Fe 46

Fig. 12. Mixograms and Farinograms (Cont.) HRW 09-2605 Overley HRW 09-2606 Fuller HRW 09-2607 Genou HRW 09-2608 TAM 111 47

Fig. 13. Mixograms and Farinograms (Cont.) HRW 09-2609 Wesley HRW 09-2610 Millennium 48

Fig. 14. Extensigrams and Alveograms HRW 09-2601 Jagger HRW 09-2602 Endurance HRW 09-603 Hatcher HRW 09-2604 Santa Fe 49

Fig. 15. Extensigrams and Alveograms (Cont.) HRW 09-2605 Overley HRW 09-2606 Fuller HRW 09-2607 Genou HRW 09-2608 TAM 111 50

Fig. 16. Extensigrams and Alveograms (Cont.) HRW 09-2609 Wesley HRW 09-2610 Millennium 51

Introduction COOPERATOR QUALITY EVALUATION Twenty-one overseas cooperators were involved in the OVA project this year (2009 harvest) to evaluate hard red winter (HRW) wheat cultivars grown in the U.S. Great Plains. The overseas cooperators were composed of experts in milling and baking industries from 16 countries and regions. Based on entries that the cooperators received from either the U.S. Gulf (Gulf) tributary states or the U.S. Pacific Northwest (PNW) tributary states, they were named as either PNW or GULF cooperators. The PNW had 16 cooperators from 11 countries, while the Gulf had 5 cooperators from 5 countries. PNW Cooperators: China (4 cooperators: COFCO, Lamsoon, Shunde, and Yuhai) Guatemala Indonesia Japan Korea Malaysia Philippines (3 cooperators: PFMC, PMC, and RFM) Taiwan Tanzania Thailand United Arab Emirates (UAE) GULF Cooperators: Brazil Dominican Republic (DR) Israel Mexico Peru Ten HRW wheat varieties were submitted by 7 states: Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas. The samples were identified as GULF or PNW samples based on the the originating state s typical or most likely port designation for wheat grown in that state. Some samples were given both GULF and PNW cooperators designation. Table 12 lists the details of sample identification number, variety name, and source. The USWA identification number is different from the Hard Winter Wheat Quality Lab (HWWQL) identification number. Five HRW wheat samples were analyzed by PNW cooperators while eight HRW wheat samples were evaluated by GULF cooperators. Three HRW wheat samples analyzed by both PNW and GULF 52

cooperators were Hatcher, TAM 111, and Millennium. After the wheat samples were milled at Kansas State University, physical and chemical properties, as well as baking performance, were independently evaluated in the Hard Winter Wheat Quality Laboratory at the USDA-ARS Center for Grain & Animal Health Research (CGAHR) in Manhattan, Kansas. The straight-grade flour samples were sent to overseas cooperators for their independent flour quality analyses and evaluations based on their own methods and end-products using their own control samples for comparison. Evaluation instructions established by the U.S. Wheat Associates (USWA) and sent to each cooperator are shown in Table 13. The HWWQL compiled and analyzed the cooperators data, and summarized the results in this final report. All interpretations, discussions and summaries are based on the tributary areas of either the PNW or GULF. Table 12. OVA 2009 HRW ID, Variety, and Submitter USWA ID HWWQL ID Ports Variety Submitter HRW 0901 09-2603 PNW/GULF Hatcher Colorado HRW 0902 09-2607 PNW Genou Montana HRW 0903 09-2608 PNW/GULF TAM 111 Texas HRW 0904 09-2609 PNW Wesley South Dakota HRW 0905 09-2610 PNW/GULF Millennium Nebraska HRW 0911 09-2601 GULF Jagger Oklahoma HRW 0912 09-2602 GULF Endurance Oklahoma HRW 0913 09-2603 GULF/PNW Hatcher Colorado HRW 0914 09-2604 GULF Santa Fe Kansas HRW 0915 09-2605 GULF Overley Kansas HRW 0916 09-2606 GULF Fuller Kansas HRW 0917 09-2608 GULF/PNW TAM 111 Texas HRW 0918 09-2610 GULF/PNW Millennium Nebraska Cooperator Controls and Evaluated End-Products PNW Table 14 summarizes the specific wheat and flour qualities of the PNW cooperators controls and their end-products. While most of the cooperators submitted control wheat/flour quality data, six cooperators, United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Malaysia, three cooperators from the Philippines, didn t provide this information regarding their controls. Four cooperators were located in China, and they used either CWRS (Canada Western Red Spring), or APH (Australia Prime Hard), or a combination of CWRS and DNS (U.S. Dark Northern Spring) as their controls. All of these control flours had high protein content, high farinograph flour water absorption, and high wet 53

gluten content. The end-products evaluated by these cooperators were pan bread and rolls. Guatemala used a control sample with protein content of 11.5%, ash of 0.55%, wet gluten of 32.0%, gluten index of 96, falling number at 322 sec, farinograph peak time, dough mixing stability, and optimum water absorption of 4.8 min, 8.6 min, and 63.6%, respectively. The end-product evaluated by this cooperator was pan bread. Japan used a hard red winter wheat sample as its control. The control flour protein was 10.1%. The cooperator evaluated pan bread as its end-product. Both Korea and Taiwan evaluated steam bread, while Taiwan additional evaluated raw noodles. Korea used a combination of Hard Red Winter wheat and Soft Winter wheat at a ratio of 50/50 as its control, with a flour protein content of 9.4% and ash content of 0.41%. Taiwan conducted both raw noodle and steam bread tests using two controls. Their control for raw noodles was Hard Red Winter wheat with a protein content of 11.7%, while their control for steam bread was a combination of Hard Red Winter wheat and Dark Northern Spring wheat at a ratio of 75/25, with a protein content of 11.7%. Tanzania didn t provide information about its control, but flour specifications included flour protein of 12.3%, ash of 0.56%, wet gluten of 31.6%, gluten index of 96.3, falling number of 355 sec, farinograph water absorption and mixing stabilities of 62.3%and 6.0 min, respectively, and alveograph P, L, and W values of 106.9 (mm H 2 O), 111.2 (mm), and 430.4 (10-4 J), respectively. The endproduct evaluated was tin bread, most likely a type of pan bread. Thailand used U.S. Dark Northern Spring as its control with a wheat protein content of 14.5% and a flour protein content of 13.6%. The end-product evaluated was pan bread. GULF There were five cooperators that were involved in evaluation of GULF HRW samples this year (Table 15). Four of them provided information on their control samples and end-products, but the Dominican Republic submitted only information on its end-product, pan bread. Brazil didn t specify the type of wheat used as its control, but flour quality of its control was submitted. The flour quality of its control sample was specified with a flour protein content of 10.5%, flour color with an L* value of 92.5, falling number of 330 sec, and farinograph dough development time, dough mixing stability, and optimum water absorption of 7.5 min, 13.5 min, and 58.5%, respectively. The end-product evaluated was French bread. 54

Israel also didn t specify the type of wheat used as its control. Israel directly received the OVA wheat samples rather than flours for the quality evaluation and didn t run end-product tests. The flour quality of its control sample was provided including specifications for wet gluten of 32.0%, gluten index of 86.0, and farinograph dough peak time, mixing stability, and optimum water absorption of 6.0 min, 9.4 min, and 60.3%, respectively. Mexico didn t specify a wheat class for its control, but its flour specifications included that flour ash of 0.52%, wet gluten of 35.8%, and farinograph peak time, dough mixing stability, and optimum water absorption of 7.6 min, 10.4 min, and 57.7%, respectively, alveograph P, L, and W values of 97.0 (mm H 2 O), 76.0 (mm), and 273.0 (10-4 J), respectively. The end-product evaluated was pan bread. Peru s evaluated French bread as its end-product. Its control sample was a combination of Hard Red Winter wheat and Canada Western Red Spring wheat. Its control protein was 12%, and other quality parameters included flour ash of 0.52%, wet gluten of 35.8%, gluten index of 99.2, falling number of 437 sec, farinograph dough development time, mixing stability, and optimum water absorption of 6.0 min, 11.0 min, and 62.0%, respectively, and alveograph P, L, and W values of 93.0 (mm H 2 O), 122.0 (mm), and 323.0 (10-4 J), respectively. Cooperator Rating Scores PNW Table 16 shows quality performance rating scores for cooperator controls and five OVA samples (Hatcher, Genou, TAM 111, Wesley, and Millennium) evaluated by 15 PNW cooperators. Indonesia, Malaysia, and 3 Philippine cooperators didn t submit their results. Two cooperators (Japan and Taiwan) used two controls as references for evaluating the OVA samples. Most of the cooperators evaluated the samples based upon pan bread as the end-product, but Taiwan and Korea also ran noodle and steam bread tests on the samples, respectively. The evaluations were based on five categories: overall wheat kernel quality, overall flour quality, dough-handling/processing performance, endproduct performance, and overall acceptability. The evaluations scores were based on a scale of 1 to 9 points (9 = excellent, 8-7 = very good, 7-5 = good, 5-4 = average, 3 2 = poor, and 1 = very poor). Ratings within each of the five categories were based relative to the quality of their respective control. The end-products evaluated for the PNW OVA flours included pan bread, bread rolls, no-time-dough open-top white pan bread, steam bread, and raw noodles. The rating scores for each of the OVA samples varied with the cooperators due to their different end-products, different processes, different subjective nature of the individual assessments, as well as different requirements of end-product quality. The rating scores among five categories for each of the OVA samples 55

were not always consistent. All OVA samples were rated at least above average and some samples rated by some cooperators even exceeded their controls. The average rating score for each of the OVA samples is highlighted in gray for each of the cooperators in Table 16. The average rating score for most of the cooperators controls was higher than the average for each of the OVA cultivars. That was not surprising since each of the controls was already optimized or selected by each cooperator for their excellent or optimized end-product quality. Based on the average rating scores (Table 16), half of the cooperators (China 1, China 3, Japan, Taiwan, and Tanzania) considered at least two of the PNW OVA samples equal to or better than their controls. Japan rated three cultivars (Genou, TAM 111, and Millennium) as having performed better than its control 1. The average rating scores also showed that 4 of the five OVA samples had performed better than at least one of the cooperators controls. Genou s performance was the best among the PNW OVA samples, and better than half of the cooperators controls. After averaging the rating scores for each of five categories among the cooperators, the results on the bottom of Table 16 showed that category 1 and 2 for Genou and category 4 and 5 for Wesley performed close to or better than the cooperator s controls. The average values for each of five categories for all cooperators showed that all OVA samples performed at least better than the average. GULF Table 17 shows quality performance rating scores for cooperator s controls and eight OVA samples evaluated by five GULF cooperators. Israel didn t submit its complete evaluation results. Two cooperators, Brazil and Peru, ran French bread tests on the samples while the Dominican Republic and Mexico conducted pan bread quality tests. However, Israel didn t indicate any end-product test. The rating scores of five categories for each of the cooperators were averaged and the average results highlighted in gray in Table 17. Five of the OVA samples (Millennium, TAM 111, Santa Fe, Hatcher, and Jagger) performed equal to or better than at least one of the controls based on the average rating scores. There were four OVA samples (Hatcher, Santa Fe, TAM 111, and Millennium) that performed similar to or better than Brazil s control. Millennium was better than other GULF cultivars in terms of the average rating scores in comparison to the cooperators controls. None of the OVA samples were rated better than the controls used by Mexico and Peru, but all OVA samples were rated at least above average based on the average rating scores. Table 17 shows that some categories for some OVA samples performed close to or better than the controls. All OVA samples performed at least better than the average. 56

Cooperator Rank-Order Evaluation A number value (rather than text) for rank order made by each of the cooperators on all tested samples (including their own controls) within each of tributaries was used in order to calculate and analyze the ratings. Simple summary statistics are highlighted in gray at the bottom of the tables. Average rank order, lowest rank order, frequency of the lowest rank, highest rank order, and frequency of the highest rank are given. PNW Rank-order evaluations for the five PNW OVA cultivars and cooperators controls are summarized in Table 18. A rank order scale of 1 6 was supposed to be used, but two cooperators, Japan and Taiwan, used two controls resulting in a rank order scale from 1 to 7. Six cooperators did not provide rank order score for either the tested samples or their controls. There were only four cooperators (China 2, China 4, Japan, and Thailand) that rated their controls better than the OVA samples, while other cooperators ranked their controls less than at least one of the PNW samples. Genou was ranked the best and better than the control by three out of ten cooperators who submitted their results. Wesley was ranked the best by two cooperators and second best by five cooperators. The average rank-order value for the cultivar Wesley (2.6) equaled the controls, while the value for Genou (3.2) was slightly lower than the controls. Therefore, the top two PNW OVA cultivars were Wesley and Genou in terms of their average rank-order values. GULF Rank-order evaluations for the eight GULF OVA cultivars and cooperators controls are summarized in Table 19. A rank order scale was given from 1 to 9 for cooperator use. Only two (Mexico and Peru) of five cooperators rated their controls the best; Brazil and the Dominican Republic ranked their controls as second and third best. Millennium was ranked the best by two cooperators and Jagger was ranked the second best by three cooperators. The average rankorder value for the controls was 2.4, while the lowest values for the OVA samples was 3.2 for Millennium, 3.6 for Santa Fe, and 3.8 for Jagger. Therefore, the top three GULF OVA samples were Millennium, Santa Fe, and Jagger. Cooperators Flour Quality Analysis Results PNW Only six of 16 cooperators: United Arab Emirates (Table 20), Guatemala (Table 21), Japan (Table 22), Korea (Table 23), Taiwan (Table 26), and Tanzania (Table 27) ran wheat and flour quality analysis, which didn t include end-product 57

performance tests. Types of tests conducted by the cooperators for the flour quality analysis were different, but most of tests included protein content, ash, Glutomatic, farinograph, alveograph, and falling number. United Arab Emirates didn t run the flour quality tests on its control sample. Japan reported only farinograph water absorption from the farinograph test. The average results of the flour quality tests for the PNW OVA samples and controls, as well as the range of results for the controls, are shown in Table 28. The following discussion addresses some important measurements that typically play a major role in dough handling and end-product quality. Flour Protein and Ash Contents Average protein content and protein range for the PNW controls are listed in Table 28. Flour protein content of the cooperators controls ranged from 9.4% to 12.3%, with an average of 11.0%. The protein content for the PNW OVA hard winter wheat samples ranged from 10.0% to 13.3%, with an average of 11.7%, which was slightly higher than the protein range of the cooperators controls. Flour ash content for the OVA samples ranged from 0.35% to 0.46%, with an average of 0.40%, while the ash content for the controls ranged from 0.40% to 0.56%, with an average of 0.47%. The OVA sample ash range and average content were lower than the cooperators controls. The higher ash contents for the control samples were typically related to higher flour extractions. Amylograph and Falling Number The amylograph test was only conducted by Japan and Korea, while the falling number test was performed by four cooperators (Emirates, Guatemala, Taiwan, and Tanzania). Both tests can be used to evaluate the extent of α-amylase activity or sprout damage. The testing results showed that none of the OVA samples had sprout damage. Amylograph testing results ranged from 552.5 BU for Genou to 910.0 BU for TAM 111 (Table 28). The average amylograph value for the PNW OVA samples was 794.5 BU, while the average for the controls was 585.0 BU. Falling number values for the OVA samples ranged from 400.3 sec for Genou to 473.5 sec for TAM 111. Average falling number values were 429.1 sec for the OVA samples and 380.7 sec for the controls. Some control flours might have been treated with enzyme supplementation or malting during the milling process in order to optimize flour functionality for baking purposes. Flour treated as such usually shows a low falling number compared to untreated flour. The optimum falling number for most bread flours is considered to be 300 sec. Wet Gluten and Gluten Index Five cooperators (United Arab Emirates, Guatemala, Korea, Taiwan, and Tanzania) performed Glutomatic testing, and generated data for wet gluten content and gluten index. However, Korea only reported wet gluten content results, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) didn t report these results for its 58

control. Average wet gluten and gluten index as well as their range for both OVA samples and controls are listed in Table 28. Wet gluten content for the controls ranged from 26.3% to 31.7%, with an average of 30.4% while the OVA samples had a range of wet gluten content from 27.6% for Hatcher to 38.6% for Genou, with an average of 33.6%. The wet gluten content range for the PNW OVA samples almost overlapped the wet gluten content range of the controls. Gluten index values for the control samples ranged from 96.3 to 98.0, with an average of 96.8. However, the range of gluten index for the OVA samples was from 85.0 to 98.5, with an average of 92.2. Although the average gluten index for the OVA samples was slightly lower than the average for the control samples, the gluten index range of the OVA samples was wider than the controls and covered the gluten index range of the controls. Farinograph Test Results Six cooperators (UAE, Guatemala, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Tanzania) conducted the farinograph testing, but the UAE didn t run the test on its own control sample. The UAE reported results on the OVA samples that included farinograph water absorption, development time, mixing stability, and mixing tolerance index, but five other cooperators reported their farinograph testing results differently. Japan just submitted farinograph water absorption, while the other four cooperators (Guatemala, Korea, Taiwan, and Tanzania) reported farinograph water absorption, development time, and mixing stability. Farinograph optimum water absorption for the controls ranged from 58.5% to 62.3%, with an average of 60.0%, The water absorption for the OVA samples ranged from 57.3% for Hatcher to 64.2% for Genou, with an average of 60.8% (Table 28). Farinograph dough development time for the cooperators controls ranged from 3.5 min to 20.8 min, with an average of 8.6 min, while the OVA samples had a dough development time that ranged from 2.2 min for Hatcher to 9.9 min for Genou, with an average of 5.5 min. Farinograph dough stability for the controls had a range from 6.0 min to 41.5 min, with an average of 16.0 min, while the OVA samples showed that their dough mixing stability was shorter in a range than the controls range: 8.9 min for Hatcher to 27.1 min for Wesley. Average farinograph dough mixing stability for the OVA samples was 14.5 min, which was also shorter than the control average. There was no dough mixing tolerance index for the controls because most of those cooperators didn t provide the data. Extensigraph Test Results Three cooperators (U A E, Taiwan, and Tanzania) conducted extensigraph testing and generated results of resistance, extensibility, and area at 45 min, but the UAE didn t perform this test on its control sample. Dough resistance-toextension for the controls ranged from 285.0 (BU) to 462.0 (BU) with an average of 373.5 (BU), while the OVA samples ranged from 390.0 (BU) for TAM 111 to 596.3 (BU) for Hatcher, with an average of 451.1 (BU) (Table 28). Dough 59

extensibility is a very important quality factor. Dough extensibility for the controls ranged from 204.0 (mm) to 208.0 (mm), with an average of 206.0 (mm)., On the other hand, dough extensibility for the PNW OVA samples was much shorter than the controls, and ranged from 104.5 (mm) for Hatcher to 143.5 (mm) for Genou, with an average of 126.1 (mm). The area-under-the-curve for the controls averaged 168.5 (cm 2 ), with a range from 137.0 (cm 2 ) to 200.0 (cm 2 ). Areaunder-the-curve for the OVA samples ranged from 105.3 (cm 2 ) for Millennium to 168.7 (cm 2 ) for Genou, with an average of 141.1 (cm 2 ). Among the OVA samples, Genou showed the highest resistance-to-extension, the longest extensibility, and the greatest dough strength. Alveograph Test Results Only four cooperators (UAE, Guatemala, Taiwan, and Tanzania) conducted the alveograph test on the OVA samples, but the UAE didn t run the test on its own control sample. Results reported by four cooperators included P, L, W, and P/L values. Average results and their ranges for both the controls and the OVA samples are listed in Table 28. P values for the controls ranged from 91.0 (mm H 2 0) to 106.7 (mm H 2 0), with an average of 92.8 (mm H 2 0), while the P values for the OVA samples ranged from 69.3 (mm H 2 0) for Wesley to 96.9 (mm H 2 0) for Genou, with an average of 76.2 (mm H 2 0). With the exception of Genou, the average OVA P value indicates that OVA doughs are generally weaker than the controls. L values for the controls ranged from 102.6 mm to 111.2 mm and its average value was 107.9 mm, but the L value for the OVA samples ranged from 101.4 mm for Hatcher to 139.3 mm for TAM 111, and the average L value was 122.6 mm. These results indicate that the OVA samples might be more extensible than the dough made from the cooperators controls. Area-under-thecurve (W) values for the controls ranged from 334.0 to 430.4 (10-4 J), with an average of 383.1 (10-4 J), while the W values for the OVA samples ranged from 254.1 (10-4 J) for Millennium to 416.9 (10-4 J) for Genou, with an average of 313.5 (10-4 J). Again, with the exception of Genou, the average OVA W value indicates that dough strength for the OVA samples was generally weaker than the controls. Average P/L values for the controls was 0.91, while the average P/L ratio for the OVA samples was 0.64. P/L values for the OVA samples ranged from 0.52 for TAM 111 to 0.83 for Genou, while the controls ranged from 0.83 to 0.96. These results indicate that only the cultivar Genou had a balanced dough that was close to that of the control. Other Quality Evaluations There were also other flour quality measurements that may be important to some of cooperators: starch damage, due to its impact on flour water absorption, and flour color, due to its impact on consumer preferences in end-product selection. Starch damage content was evaluated on the controls and OVA samples by both Guatemala and Taiwan. Flour color tests were conducted by both Japan and Taiwan since they produce many products that are either steamed or cooked. 60

The RVA test was also performed by Taiwan on both its two controls and the OVA samples. Please see these testing results in the Tables designated for the cooperators if you are interested in more specific details. In addition, six cooperators (Indonesia, Malaysia, three Philippines, and Thailand) only evaluated their own controls, such as wheat grade quality, wheat non-grade quality, flour protein and ash, flour color, gluten quality, starch damage, farinograph, and extensigraph. Please see Tables 29-37 if you are interested in more details about the quality of their control samples. GULF Five GULF cooperators ran wheat and flour quality analysis of both their controls and eight GULF OVA hard winter wheat samples. The results are listed in Tables 38-42 for Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Israel, Mexico, and Peru, respectively. Although the tests that each country performed varied, most of tests included ash content, wet gluten content, gluten index, farinograph, alveograph, falling number, and flour color measurements. Brazil was the only cooperator that performed the extensigraph test, and the Dominica Republic was the only country that evaluated the protein content. Farinograph testing was conducted by all five cooperators. The average results of the flour quality tests for the GULF OVA samples and controls as well as the range of results for the controls are shown in Table 43. The following discussion addresses some important measurements that typically play an important role in dough handling and endproduct quality. Flour Protein and Ash Only the Dominican Republic evaluated flour protein content; control flour protein content was 11.0% while the OVA flour protein content ranged from 8.2% to 12.2%, with an average of 10.5%. The flour protein content for four OVA samples (Jagger, Santa Fe, TAM 111, and Millennium) was higher than the control, but the remaining OVA samples had much lower flour protein contents than the control. With the exception of Israel, all GULF cooperators performed analysis for flour ash content. Ash contents for the controls ranged from 0.52% to 0.70%, with an average of 0.59%, while the ash content for the OVA samples ranged from 0.45% for four of the OVA samples to 0.60% for Jagger, with an average of 0.48% (Table 43). Flour ash contents for the OVA samples was much lower than the control. Seven of the GULF OVA samples had ash content lower than 0.48%, while the lowest ash content among the control samples was 0.52%. Ash content is typically indicative of the milling process and increases as flour extraction becomes more agressive. Flour extractions within the milling industry generally range from 75% to 78%, which is much higher than the flour yield of a lab experimental mill. Therefore, the high ash content for the cooperators control samples was expected. 61

Falling Number Three cooperators, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and Peru, performed the falling number test, which is widely used to measure starch damage as a result of α-amylase activity, and thus sprout damage. Falling number test results (shown in Table 43) indicate that the controls were much lower in the falling number than the OVA samples in both their ranges and average values. Falling numbers for the controls ranged from 330 sec to 437 sec, with an average of 397 sec, while falling number values for the OVA samples ranged from 435 sec for Hatcher to 701 sec for Jagger, with an average of 555 sec based on the results generated by the GULF cooperators. The controls with relatively low falling number were probably caused by adding malting or other sources of α-amylase into the flours for their various end-product bread flour quality requirements. Based on the cooperators analysis on the falling number tests, all GULF OVA samples were not damaged by sprouting. Wet Gluten and Gluten Index All five cooperators ran the Glutomatic test and reported wet gluten results. With the exception of Mexico, four cooperators submitted gluten index results as well. Average wet gluten content (31.0%) for the controls was similar to the average (30.4%) for the OVA samples (Table 43). Wet gluten content for the controls ranged from 27.0% to 35.8% while wet gluten content for the OVA samples ranged from 21.9% for Fuller to 36.5% for TAM 111. Gluten index ranged from 86.0 to 99.2 for the controls, with an average of 91.2, while gluten index ranged from 77.4 to 98.7 for the OVA samples, with an average of 86.3. The gluten index for the OVA samples was lower than the control and was higher than 90.0 for only two OVA samples, Hatcher (93.1) and Overley (98.7). Flour Color Only two cooperators Brazil and the Dominican Republic evaluated flour color based on L*, a*, and b* values. L* values were 92.5 for the Brazilian control and 92.2 for the Dominican Republic, while L* values for the OVA samples ranged from 93.3 to 94.8, with an average of 94.2 (Table 43). The a* values were -0.06 and -0.65 for Brazil and the Dominican Republic, respectively, while a* values for the OVA samples ranged from -0.35 to -0.72, with an average of -0.47. The b* values were 10.1 for Brazil and 8.5 for the Dominican Republic, while the b* value for the OVA samples ranged from 7.39 for Hatcher to 9.35 for Santa Fe, with an average of 8.29. All OVA flour samples were brighter and whiter than the controls based on the L* value. Flour extractions from the Miag experimental mill are typically lower than flour extractions from a commercial mill, resulting in lower ash values and brighter flours in the OVA samples. Farinograph Testing Results 62

Farinograph testing was conducted on the OVA samples by all cooperators. Reported farinograph results included optimum water absorption, dough development time, and dough mixing stability. Farinograph water absorption for the controls ranged from 57.5% for the Dominican Republic to 62.0% for Peru, with an overall control average of 59.2%, while the GULF OVA samples ranged from 58.3% for Endurance to 65.1% for Jagger, with an overall average of 61.2% (Table 43). The farinograph water absorption of the OVA samples covered the range of the controls water absorption, and average water absorption for the OVA samples was higher than the average for the controls. The dough development time for the controls ranged from 6.0 min to 8.5 min, with an average of 7.1 min, while development time for the OVA samples ranged from 2.8 min for Fuller to 8.4 min for Santa Fe, with an average of 5.3 min. Based on the cooperators farinograph results, dough development time for five (Endurance, Hatcher, Overley, Fuller, and Millennium) of 8 OVA samples was shorter than the shortest development time (8.5 min) among the controls. Dough mixing stability for the five control samples ranged from 9.4 min to 18.0 min, with an average of 12.5 min, while the OVA samples ranged from 7.5 min for Fuller to 17.3 min for Jagger, with an average of 12.7 min (Table 43). Average dough mixing stability for the OVA samples was similar to the controls. Alveograph Testing Results The Dominican Republic, Mexico, and Peru performeded the alveograph teston both their controls and the OVA samples. Their reported testing parameters included P, L, P/L, and W. Ranges and average results of these parameters for both the controls and the OVA samples are listed in Table 43. P represents dough resistance to extension. The P value for the controls ranged from 93.0 (mm H 2 O) to 113.0 (mm H 2 O) with an average of 101.0 (mm H 2 O), while P values for the OVA samples ranged from 75.3 (mm H 2 O) for Endurance to 113.3 (mm H 2 O) for Jagger, with an average of 85.7 (mm H 2 O). The P values indicated that average dough resistance (85.7 mm H 2 0) for the OVA samples was weaker than the average for the controls (101.0 mm H 2 0). Extensibility, L, of the control samples ranged from 76.0 mm to 122.0 mm, with an average of 97.3 mm, while L values for the OVA samples ranged from 51.3 mm for Fuller to 125.0 mm for Santa Fe, with an average of 98.1 mm, which was similar to the control. The area-under-the-curve, W, is used to measure dough strength. W values for the controls ranged from 273.0 (10-4 J) to 385.0 (10-4 J), with an average of 327.0 (10-4 J), while the W values for the OVA samples ranged from 192.7 (10-4 J) to 398.0 (10-4 J), with an average of 270.0 (10-4 J). The ratio of P to L can be used to indicate a dough balance between dough resistances to extensibility. The P/L ratio for the controls ranged from 0.76 to 1.27, with an average of 1.08, while the P/L ratio for the OVA samples ranged from 0.67 to 1.99, with an average of 0.96. In comparison to the controls, some of the OVA samples might be considered too extensible or too resistant. The overall dough strength for the OVA samples could be characterized as being weaker than the controls based on the P, L, and W values. 63

Cooperators Comments All comments made by both PNW and GULF cooperators have been reformatted for a sheet that can be easily printed from this report. Many abbreviations used for the comments are listed in Table 44. Tables 45 to 51 (PNW cooperators) and Tables 52 to 54 (GULF cooperators) include scores and comments made by each of the cooperators who either liked or disliked the OVA wheat or flour samples in comparison with their controls through complete assessments based on each of five categories. The categories include: overall wheat kernel quality, overall flour quality, overall dough handling/processing performance, end-product performance, and overall acceptability of these varieties. Evaluation score ratings were based on a scale of 1 to 9 (9 being the highest and 1 being the lowest). Some comments might not be completely clear or understood since there were no standard methods to be followed, and each cooperator was dependent on his/her knowledge, experience, and understanding of wheat quality evaluation. The authors for this report would prefer to leave these original comments or suggestions to the readers for interpretation without clarification or further discussion since misinterpretation could be misleading. However, we did make a brief summary for each tributary. If the reader has any questions about the cooperator s comments or doesn t understand the comments, please contact Mr. Steven Wirsching (swischi@uswheat.org) or Ms. Ann Murchis (amurchis@uswheat.org) at U.S. Wheat Associates Wheat Marketing Center in Portland, Oregon. PNW Tables 45 51 listed score ratings and all comments made by a total of 10 of 16 PNW cooperators. - China 1 (COFCO) in Table 45: LIKE included nice and acceptable wheat and flour quality, good bread loaf volume, appearance, and crumb texture. DISLIKE included low flour protein for all samples except Genou, low absorption for Hatcher and Wesley. Its control was high protein, high water absorption, good dough handling, good loaf volume and appearance, good crumb texture. - - China 2 (Lam Soon) in Table 45: LIKE included high/acceptable protein and low ash for Genou, TAM 111 and Millennium, long mixing stability for Genou, TAM 111, and Wesley, acceptable loaf volume for Hatcher and Genou, acceptable bread flour for Hatcher and Genou, and good baking performance for Wesley. DISLIKE included low protein for Hatcher and Wesley, low water absorption for all but Genou, sticky or soft dough for Genou, TAM 111, and Millennium, poor oven spring and low extensibility for TAM 111 and Millennium. 64

- - China 3 (Shunde) in Table 46: LIKE included high protein for Genou, TAM 111, and Wesley, good/acceptable dough handling for Genou, TAM 111, and Millennium, good loaf volume, good appearance, and good oven spring for all but Millennium, and good bread flour for all but Millennium. DISLIKE included high dockage and low protein for Hatcher, sticky or soft dough for Hatcher and Wesley, slightly low gluten quality for Hatcher and Millennium, and slightly sticky texture for Hatcher and Millennium. - - China 4 (Yihai Kerry Flour Mill) in Table 46: LIKE included high protein and test weight for Genou, Wesley, and Millennium, acceptable and good mixing stability for Genou, TAM 111 and Wesley, good loaf volume, good appearance and texture for all but TAM 111, acceptable bread flour or good baking performance for all but TAM 111. DISLIKE included low protein for Hatcher, TAM 111, and Millennium, low water absorption for all except Millennium, soft/slightly sticky dough for all samples, small loaf volume, open grain and poor oven spring for TAM 111. - - Guatemala in Table 47: LIKE included good protein content for all but Hatcher, good W (area-under the-curve) for Genou and Wesley, good dough extensibility for TAM 111 and Millennium, good loaf volume for Hatcher, Genou, Wesley, and Millennium, good oven spring for Hatcher and Millennium. DISLIKE included very high protein for Genou, low protein for Hatcher, low starch damage for Hatcher, TAM 111 and Wesley, low gluten index for Genou, low W value for Hatcher and Millennium, no positive baking performance for all samples. - - Japan in Table 47: LIKE included high test weight for Genou and Wesley, high farinograph water absorption for Genou and Millennium, good dough handling for TAM 111 and Millennium, good loaf volume for Genou and Millennium, good end-product quality for Genou and Millennium. DISLIKE included high ash and low protein for Hatcher, slightly weak or sticky dough for Hatcher, Wesley, Millennium, poor loaf volume and eating quality for Hatcher and Wesley, and poor dough property and end-product quality for Hatcher and Wesley. - - Korea in Table 48: LIKE included high test weight for Genou, proper protein for Hatcher, bright color and good dough handling for Wesley and Millennium, bright crumb color for TAM 111 and Wesley, very good loaf appearance. DISLIKE included high wheat ash for Hatcher, Wesley, and Millennium, high protein for Genou, weak dough for Hatcher, Genou, low absorption for TAM 111 and Wesley, open coarse grain for Hatcher and Genou, poor grain and rough appearance for Hatcher and Genou. - - Taiwan in Table 49: LIKE included high thousand kernel weight for Hatcher, Wesley, and Millennium, high protein for Genou, TAM 111, and 65

Millennium, good color (L*) for Hatcher, Genou, and Wesley, good dough handling for all samples, very good noodle eating quality for all samples, very good wheat and flour quality for Genou and Wesley. DISLIKE included low protein for Hatcher and Wesley, low protein or gluten index for all but Genou, low farinograph peak time for Hatcher, TAM 111, and Millennium, poor eating quality of steam bread for TAM 111 and Millennium, poor wheat and flour quality for Hatcher, TAM 111, and Millennium. - - Tanzania in Table 50: LIKE included high test weight for Genou and Wesley, good falling number for all samples except Genou, high gluten index for all except for TAM 111, high dough strength for most samples, high loaf volume for Wesley and Millennium, good crumb texture for Hatcher, Genou, and TAM 111. DISLIKE included low falling number for Genou, low protein and/or gluten index for Hatcher, TAM 111 and Wesley, low water absorption for Hatcher and Wesley, low bread volume for Hatcher and Genou, crumb color for TAM 111, Wesley, and Millennium, low falling number for Hatcher and Genou, poor baking performance for Millennium. - - Thailand in Table 51: LIKE included high thousand kernel weight for Genou, Wesley, and Millennium, good ash content for all samples, good bread volume and oven spring for Hatcher, Wesley, and Millennium. DISLIKE included low protein for all but Genou, low water absorption for all samples, less tender texture for all but Millennium, coarse grain for Genou and Millennium. GULF Tables 52-54 listed score ratings and all comments for eight OVA samples made by five GULF cooperators. - Brazil in Table 52: LIKE included high test weight for all except Jagger and Endurance, high wheat protein for Santa Fe, TAM 111, and Millennium, high flour yield for Hatcher, Santa Fe, Overley, Fuller, and TAM 111, high flour absorption for all samples, nice flour color for all samples, and nice dough extensibility for Santa Fe, TAM 111, and Millennium. DISLIKE included low test weight and flour yield for Jagger, low wet gluten for Santa Fe, Overley, and Fuller, poor oven spring for Jagger, Endurance, Hatcher and Fuller, and low loaf volume for all. - - The Dominican Republic in Table 40: LIKE included high test weight for all but Jagger and Endurance, good wheat protein for Jagger, Santa Fe, TAM 111 and Millennium, good gluten for all samples, good dough handling for TAM 111 and Millennium, good dough absorption for Jagger, Santa Fe, TAM 111, and Millennium, good crumb texture, crumb and loaf volume for 66

Jagger, Hatcher, and Millennium, and nice flour quality for Jagger, Santa Fe, TAM 111, and Millennium. DISLIKE included low protein content for Endurance, Hatcher, Overley and Fuller, low gluten index or low flour protein content for all except Jagger and Millennium, poor dough mixing or dough extension characteristics for Jagger, Endurance, Hatcher, Overley, and Fuller, low loaf volume for Endurance, Santa Fe, and Fuller. - - Israel in Table 53: LIKE included gluten quality for Jagger, Santa Fe, TAM 111, and Millennium, short farinograph development time for Endurance, Hatcher, Overley, and Fuller. DISLIKE included long farinograph development time for Jagger, low gluten index for Endurance, Overley, and Fuller. - - Mexico in Table 53: LIKE included good wheat physical quality for all samples but Jagger, high wet gluten for Jagger, TAM 111 and Millennium, high flour water absorption for Jagger, Santa Fe, TAM 111, and Millennium, good crumb texture for Fuller and Millennium, good flour quality for Jagger, TAM 111, and Millennium, average flour quality for Endurance, Santa Fe, and Fuller. DISLIKE included low test weight for Endurance and Santa Fe, high damaged kernels for Jagger, Hatcher, Overley, and Millennium, low wet gluten for Endurance, Hatcher, Santa Fe, and Fuller, high ash for Jagger and TAM 111, low water absorption for Endurance and Overley, short mixing stability for Endurance and Millennium, low loaf volume for Hatcher, Fuller, and TAM 111, very poor baking performance for Hatcher and Overley. - - Peru in Table 54: LIKE included good or high gluten index for Jagger, Santa Fe, TAM 111, and Millennium, good P/L value for Jagger and Overley, very good flour absorption for all samples, good dough mixing tolerance for Endurance, Santa Fe, Overley, and Millennium, good loaf volume for Santa Fe and Overley, good end-product and dough properties for Santa Fe and Overley. DISLIKE included low W for all except Jagger, low gluten index for Overley and Fuller, low dough mixing tolerance for TAM 111, poor loaf volume for most of the samples except Santa Fe and Overley, low gluten index for Endurance and Hatcher. Cooperators Primary End-Products and Other Uses PNW Table 55 summarizes the PNW cooperators primary end-products made with only Hard Red Winter wheat flour as well as other products made with a blend of Hard Red Winter wheat flour with other flours. Only three cooperators reported their end-products made with only Hard Red Winter wheat flours. Guatemala made pan bread and sweet rolls using only Hard Red Winter wheat flour. Korea 67

used only Hard Red Winter wheat flour for noodles, Buchim (Korean pan cake), and steam bread, even though the Hard Red Winter wheat could be blended with other wheats for other end-products, such as donuts and cakes. Tanzania s primary end-products made with only Hard Red Winter wheat flour were tin bread (a type of bread loaf) and banana rolls, although the cooperators also blended the Hard Red Winter wheat with other wheats for other end-products, such as Maandazi. Most of the PNW cooperators utilized Hard Red Winter wheat for blending with other wheat flours for many other types of end-products. All four Chinese cooperators used Hard Red Winter wheatblended with other wheat flours for pan bread, sweet rolls, pan roll, and frozen dough. Japan produced buns, bread, and Chinese noodles using a blend of Hard Red Winter wheat with other wheat flours. Raw noodles and steam bread produced in Taiwan were also made using a blend of the Hard Red Winter wheat flour with other wheat flour. Thailand also used ahard Red Winter wheat blend for pan bread, noodles and all-purpose flour. Cooperators from Indonesia and Malaysia, as well as three Philippino cooperators indicated that they used a blended flour of Hard Red Winter wheat with other wheat flour for their pan bread and noodle products. GULF Table 56 summarizes the GULF cooperators primary end-products. In some cases, only Hard Red Winter wheat flour was used, while other cooperators made products using a blend of Hard Red Winter wheat flour with other flours. Brazil didn t use any Hard Red Winter wheat flour for their end-products. The Dominican Republic primarily used Hard Red Winter wheat flour for Artisanal bread, baguette, and pan bread. Israel also used Hard Red Winter wheat flour as its primary source for breads, buns, puff pastries, and laminated yeast-dough breads even though other products were made using Hard Red Winter wheat flour blended with other wheat flour. Mexico didn t use Hard Red Winter wheat as its primary flour for its end-products. Peru used Hard Red Winter wheat flours in products such as polish and acid doughs. Three cooperators: Israel, Mexico, and Peru, utilized Hard Red Winter wheat flour blended with other flours for other end-products. Israel made biscuits and wafers using a Hard Red Winter wheat flour blend as well. Many kinds of endproducts in Mexico, such as hearth (artisanal) bread, breadings on snack foods, and tortillas, were also made using a Hard Red Winter wheat flour blend. Peru also made many kinds of end-products, such as French bread, sandwich bread, common bread, and ciabatta bread using Hard Red Winter wheat flour blended with other flours. Therefore, hard winter wheat was not only used for specific end-products in both PNW and GULF cooperators countries, but also used for blending with other 68

wheat to optimize the flour for the quality requirements of their particular endproducts. Cooperators Wheat Quality Preferences The OVA Hard Red Winter wheat quality preference survey has been included in the report for the last four years. The cooperators listed the wheat/flour qualities that were the most important for successful use of the wheat in their products. Each of the quality characteristics had both Acceptable quality (AQ) and preferred quality (PQ).The data for the quality characteristics could be a value or a range. The preferences are summarized below and reported by tributary for ease of discussion. PNW Tables 57 and 58 show the PNW cooperators wheat and flour quality preferences. Six of the cooperators, UAE, Indonesia, Malaysia, and three Philippine cooperators, didn t provide any information about flour quality preferences. Four Chinese cooperators had the same flour quality preferences in terms of protein level, farinograph test results, and extensigraph test results. Their acceptable protein level was 13.5%, while the preferred protein level consisted of a narrow range from 13.5% to 13.8% (Table 57). Their acceptable farinograph mixing stability and optimum water absorption were 15.0 min and 65.5%, respectively, while the preferred stability and absorption ranged from 16.0 min to 17.0 min and 65.0% to 66.0%, respectively (Table 58). Minimum acceptable protein level for Guatemala was 10.0%, while preferred protein content ranged from 11.0% to 12.0% (Table 57). The cooperator also reported acceptable farinograph optimum water absorption and mixing stability at a minimum of 61.0% and 8.0 min, respectively, while preferred absorption was higher than 64.0% and dough mixing stability was longer than 16.0 min (Table 58). Japan didn t provide much information other than a preference for uniform protein content and minimal vomitoxin levels as cited under Japanese sanitation laws. Korea indicated an acceptable protein range from 8.7% to 9.8% and a preferred range from 8.9% to 9.7% (Table 57). Flour ash was acceptable at maximum of 0.43%, while maximum of 0.42% ash was preferred by Korea. Acceptable optimum farinograph water absorption and mixing stability ranged from 55.0% to 60.0% and from 5.5 min to 8.5 min, respectively, while preferred water absorption ranged from 56.0% to 59.0%, and preferred mixing stability ranged from 6.0 min to 8.0 min (Table 58). 69

Taiwan had more flour quality preferences than others. Minimum acceptable flour protein content was 12.5% and preferred flour protein content was 13.5% (Table 57). Flour color at acceptable levels was stated as a minimum L value of 92.0, a maximum a* value of -1.5, and a maximum b* value of 9.0, while preferred flour color was stated as a minimum L* value of 93.0, a maximum a* value of -2.0, and a maximum b* value of 8.0. Acceptable farinograph optimum water absorption and mixing stability were listed as a minimum of 59.0% and of 12.0 min, respectively, while the preferred values were a minimum of 61.0% and 15.0 min, respectively (Table 58). Tanzania s quality preferences included wheat moisture at an acceptable minimum of 9.0% and preferred maximum of 12.0%. Wheat protein was acceptable at a minimum of 12.0% and a preferred maximum of 18.0%. Flour color was acceptable at a minimum of 2.0 KJ, with a preferred maximum of 0.95 KJ. Falling number for wheat was acceptable at a minimum of 300 sec, with a preferred maximum of 600 sec (Table 57). Thailand listed acceptable flour protein content at a minimum of 13.0%, while the preferred protein level ranged from 13.5% to 13.8% (Table 57). Acceptable farinograph parameters were: optimum water absorption at a minimum of 65.0%, development time from 6.0 min to 10.0 min, and mixing stability from 8.0 min to 16.0 minutes. Their preferred farinograph requirements were: optimum water absorption from 67.0% to 68.0%, dough development time from 6.0 min to 8.0 min, and mixing stability from 10.0 min to 14.0 min (Table 58). Based on the cooperators flour quality preferences, it would appear that protein content and farinograph dough mixing characteristics are considered the most important in determination of flour quality. GULF Tables 59 and 60 listed wheat and flour quality preferences from four GULF cooperators. Israel didn t participate in the survey. Brazil cited a minimum acceptable test weight of 78.0 (kg/hl) and a wheat moisture maximum of 13.0%, while their preferred test weight was a minimum of 79.0 (kg/hl) and preferred wheat moisture of 10.5 to 11.5% (Table 59). An acceptable wheat protein level was listed as a minimum of 10.0%, with preferred protein at a minimum of 11.0%. Flour color (L*) was cited as acceptable at a minimum of 91.5, with a preferred L* value at a minimum of 92.0. Falling number was acceptable at a minimum of 250 sec while preferred falling number ranged from 250 sec to 350 sec. Wet gluten was acceptable at a minimum of 25.0% while preferred wet gluten ranged from 28.0% to 32.0%. A minimum of 10.0 min for farinograph mixing stability was acceptable, while a range from 12.0 min to 15.0 min was preferred. Acceptable extensigraph area-under-the-curve, 70

resistance-to-extension, and extensibility at 135 min were 90.0 (cm 2 ), 330.0 (BU), and 100.0 (mm), respectively, while preferred characteristics were 100.0 (cm 2 ) for area-under-the-curve, 350-400 (BU) for resistance-to-extension, and 180.0 to 200.0 (mm) for extensibility (Table 60). The Dominican Republic indicated acceptable protein content at a minimum of 10.5%, while preferred protein content was listed as a minimum of 11.0% 12.5% (Table 59). Acceptable minimums for farinograph optimum water absorption, development time and mixing stability were listed as 57.0%, 8.0 min, and 9.0 min, respectively, while preferred values ranged from 58.0 to 61.0% for water absorption, from 9.0 min to 14.0 min for dough development time, and from 15.0 min to 18.0 min for dough mixing stability (Table 60). Acceptable minimum alveograph area-under-the-curve was 250 (10-4 J), while preferred area-underthe-curve ranged from 300.0 (10-4 J) to 400.0 (10-4 J). Mexico s survey results showed that acceptable wheat protein content was a minimum of 12.0%, while preferred wheat protein was a minimum of 13.0% at 12% moisture basis (Table 59). Flour ash was acceptable up to amaximum of 0.525%, while preferred ash level was 0.525±0.05%. Wet gluten content was acceptable at s minimum of 30.0%, acceptable farinograph development time was a minimum of 9.0 min. and the acceptable alveograph area-under-the-curve was a minimum of 250.0 (10-4 J) (Table 60). The cooperator from Peru cited acceptable test weight at a minimum of 80.0 (kg/hl), and wheat moisture at 11.0%, while the preferred the test weight was cited at 81.0 (kg/hl) to 83.0 (kg/hl) and wheat moisture at 10.0% 14.0% (Table 59). Wheat protein content was acceptable at a minimum of 12.0% (12% mb), and preferred at a minimum of 13.0%. Vomitoxin level was acceptable at a maximum of 2.0 (ppm) while it was preferred at maximum of 1.0 (ppm). Acceptable dry gluten content was listed at minimum of 10.0%, with preferred dry gluten content ranging from 10.0% to 11.0%. Acceptable farinograph minimum water absorption and mixing stability were 58.0% and 14.0 min, respectively, while preferred water absorption ranged from 58.0% to 60.0%, and mixing stability ranged from 12.0 min to 20 min. Acceptable alveograph characteristics included P = 100 (mm H 2 0) and L = 90.0 (mm), while preferred alveograph characteristics included P = 90.0 100.0 (mm H 2 0) and L = 90.0 120.0 (mm) (Table 60). End-products Evaluated By Cooperators Although the OVA project cooperators, and subsequent flour quality tests conducted by the cooperators, have changed year-to-year, their end-product evaluations have remained fairly consistent or similar. PNW 71

There were actually six PNW cooperators - United Arab Emirates (UAE), Guatemala, Korea, Taiwan, Tanzania, and Thailand, submitting results from their end-product evaluations. The UAE conducted pan bread testing on all PNW HRW wheat samples, but didn t do it on their control. Results are shown at the bottom of Table 20. Loaf volume for Millennium was the smallest, while the loaf volumes for the remaining cultivars were very similar to each other. Genou had the highest baking score at 26, while Millennium had the lowest baking score at 20. Genou and Wesley performed very well in terms of dough mixing stability and water absorption, but water absorption for Hatcher was lower than the other OVA samples. Overall quality scores for Hatcher and Wesley were the highest at 8.0 each, while TAM 111 and Millennium were the lowest at 6.0. The cooperator ultimately ranked Genou as the best, followed by Wesley, Hatcher, and Millennium, in that order, in terms of end-product quality and dough processing. Guatemala evaluated pan bread and their end-product evaluation results included crumb grain, crumb texture and loaf volume, which are reported in Table 21. Crumb grain for TAM 111 and Wesley were the same as the control. Crumb texture for Hatcher, TAM 111, and Wesley were also similar to the control. However, loaf volume for all OVA samples was smaller than the control (1250 cc). The largest loaf volume among the PNW OVA samples was Wesley at 1213 (cc). South Korea was one of two cooperators that conducted steam bread tests on the PNW OVA samples. The methods used for making steam bread, including formulation and water absorption specifications, are shown in Table 24, with evaluation results listed in Table 25. The end-product images are shown in Figs. 17-18. Water absorption for the PNW OVA samples ranged from 54.5% (TAM 111) to 56.5% (Hatcher), and were lower than the control (58.0%). The methods for making steam bread included dough mixing, dividing, shaping, fermentation, and steaming, as well as cooling before the product was evaluated. Table 25 shows steam bread quality data. Steam bread quality evaluation was based on external characteristics (25 pts), internal characteristics (35 pts), and eating quality (40 pts), for a total score of 100 points. Each of the categories consisted of two or three sub-characteristics, and most of these end-product characteristics were subjectively evaluated. Quality scores for steam bread made from the control totaled 90.0 points out of a possible 100 points, while one PNW OVA sample, Wesley, had quality scores (92.0 points) higher than the control. The quality scores for the remaining OVA samples ranged from 86.5 points to 89.0 points, which were very close to the control. Only one OVA sample (Wesley) exceeded the control in the quality scores, primarily due to the requirement that steam bread typically utilizes low protein flour with moderate dough strength. This is confirmed by the fact that Genou, which had protein content above 12.0%, was ranked last in quality for steam bread(table 25). In addition, the 72

water absorption requirement for steam bread is much lower than the water absorption desired in white pan bread flour. It can also be noted that, in the steam bread formula, the sugar content is higher than the sugar requirement typically used in white pan bread. The final rankings in order of decreasing acceptability were as follows: Wesley, control, Millennium, TAM 111, Hatcher, and Genou. Taiwan conducted both raw noodle and steam bread tests on the PNW OVA samples and compared them with two of their controls. The cooperator only submitted the color results of both noodle and steam breads, as shown in Table 26. Figs. 19-20 show images of raw noodles at 2 hr and 24 hr after sheeting, while Figs. 21-23 show images of the steam bread products. L* values for all PNW OVA samples were higher than the controls at 2 hours and 24 hours for raw noodle after the noodle dough was sheeted, while b* values for all PNW OVA samples were lower than the controls. Two OVA samples, Genou and Wesley, ranked higher than the controls. Steam bread crumb grain and color for Genou and Wesley were better than the controls based on the images (Fig 21). The cooperator ranked them as the 1 and 2 second, respectively, while the controls were ranked third and fourth. Crumb color data of the steam breads also show that the L* values for Genou, Hatcher, and Wesley were close to, or slightly higher than, the controls, while b* values for crumb color for the OVA samples were all lower than the controls. Based on the results from steam breads evaluated by both South Korea and Taiwan, Taiwan ranked Genou the best among all samples tested, while South Korea ranked it the worst. The difference was due to their end-products having the same name but different composition. Korean steam bread had a red beanbased filling, but there was no filling in Taiwan s steam bread. Therefore, these two products actually required different quality characteristics in their respective flours. Tanzania conducted tin bread evaluation tests, which is a product that is the same as, or very similar to, pan bread (the word tin is utilized in some parts of the world in place of pan ; short for tinned steel ). The test results for crumb texture and loaf volume are shown in Table 27. The crumb texture scores show that the texture of all PNW OVA sample loavess was good. Their scores ranged from 6.0 to 8.0 (1-10 scale), and were higher than the control (5.5). The cooperator didn t submit crumb grain data. Loaf volume for the control was the largest at 1010 (cc) among the tested samples, while the largest loaf volume among the OVA samples was Wesley (950 cc). Indonesia, Malaysia, 3 Philippines, and Thailand conducted no-time-dough open top white pan bread. Each of them, Indonesia (Table 29), Malaysia (Table 30), Philippines-PFMC (Table 31), Philippines-PMC (Table 32), Philippines-RFM (Table 33), and Thailand-UFM (Table 34) evaluated flour quality using their control(s). Flour quality evaluation included both the farinograph and 73

extensigraph. Tables 35, 36, and 37 show formulation and dough preparation specifications (as well as other remarks) for their control samples and the PNW OVA samples. Figs 24, 25, and 26 show the images of the no-time-dough open top white pan bread end-products evaluated by the cooperators. Based on their baking tests, the cooperators ranked their controls the best, followed by Wesley, Hatcher, Millennium, TAM 1111, and Genou, in descending rank order. GULF Although five cooperators were sent sample to conduct end-product tests, only Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and Peru submitted their results. Brazil was one of two cooperators conducting French bread tests on its control sample and the eight GULF OVA samples. Their results included loaf volume and appearance data (Table 38). The appearance data involved format, color, and crispness on a scale of 1 to 10. Loaf volume for the control was the largest at 900 (cc), while loaf volumes for all GULF OVA samples were smaller than the control. Loaf volume for the OVA samples ranged from 700 (cc) for Fuller to 850 (cc) for Santa Fe and Millennium. Appearance score for the control was 8.5, while the scores for the OVA samples ranged from 5.0 for Santa Fe to 9.0 for Overley. Only two samples (Overley and Millennium) had appearance scores higher than, or equal to, the control. The Dominican Republic conducted pan bread evaluations, and their results included scores for crumb grain texture (1-10 scale), as well as loaf volume. Crumb grain and texture scores for the control sample was 8 each, and loaf volume was 1300 (cc) (Table 39). Only one OVA sample had the same crumb grain score as the control, while the remaing OVA samples had the crumb grain scores from 5.0 for Santa Fe to 7.0 for Jagger, Overley, Fuller, and Millennium. Crumb texture scores for all of the GULF OVA samples were lower than the control, with TAM 111 being the lowest at 5.0 and with Jagger and Hatcher being the highest at 7.0. Three OVA samples, Jagger, Hatcher, and Millennium, achieved loaf volumes larger than the control, with Jagger and Hatcher being the largest at 1375 (cc). Loaf volume for Endurance was the smallest at 1050 (cc). Based on the cooperator s end-product tests, most of the GULF OVA samples had good performance in terms of crumb grain, crumb texture, and loaf volume. Mexico did not submit results from its end-product (Pan Bread) tests. However, they submitted many images various tests, including extensigraph, farinograph, alveograph, and particle size analysis. These images were not included in this report. Based on Mexico s rank order evaluation, the cooperator ranked its control as first, followed by Jagger, Millennium, TAM 111, Santa Fe, Endurance, Fuller, Overley, and Hatcher, in descending rank order. Peru also conducted French bread evaluation tests on the GULF OVA samples. The only results submitted by the cooperator were for loaf volume (Table 42). 74

Loaf volumes for the OVA samples ranged from 224 (cc) for Millennium to 288 (cc) for Santa Fe. All loaf volumes were smaller than the control (332 cc). 75

Table 13. Instructions of USW Overseas Varietal Analysis Program Instructions: USW Overseas Varietal Analysis Program (Flour Samples) Thank you for agreeing to participate in the US Wheat Overseas Varietal Analysis (OVA) Program. Your participation will help the US develop and market wheat best suited to your needs. We anticipate that the OVA Program may also help you identify available wheat qualities that can improve economic returns. Please apply the following instructions as you evaluate the enclosed samples: NOTE: As you know, last year we reformatted our evaluation forms into an MS Office Excel (.xls) workbook to help you in reporting your findings to us. This year we have expanded that workbook by adding three new tabs: Instructions, US Quality Lab Analysis and Cooperator Lab Analysis. This expanded workbook contains the following tabs: Instructions Control& Varietal Sample Evaluation End Product Quality Preference Survey Rank Order Evaluation US Quality Lab Analysis Cooperator Lab Analysis The Instructions tab was added to the workbook so the testing and reporting instructions would be readily available to those running the various tests. The US Quality Lab Analysis and Cooperator Lab Analysis tabs were added to the workbook for two reasons: Again, to make the sheets readily available to those running the various tests, and to standardize the reporting of the various testing components. In the past, both our overseas cooperators and stateside labs have used slightly different formats for recording their analysis, which have made it difficult to determine true comparisons for publication in the final Reports. To create analysis sheets that would be familiar to everyone, we have used the same format as is found in the US Wheat Crop Quality Report. 1. Please select from your commercial flours one or more "control flours" of similar class/type and protein level for comparison with the varietal samples that have been sent to you. If you desire, you may select more than one control flour to match the protein levels in the varietal samples. Your control sample(s) should be representative of commercial flour routinely used in your operation. 2. Please process the control sample(s) through your standard set of laboratory and end product tests. Complete both the "Control Sample Information" section and control sample quality information. Questions 1 2: Please refer to the tab entitled "U.S. Quality Lab Analysis". For Question 1, use the data found under the sections entitled "Wheat Grade Data" and "Wheat Non Grade Data". For Question 2, please use the data found under the section entitled "Flour Data". Questions 3 5 Please answer these questions based upon your internal testing and analysis of the samples. If you are making more than one end product, please list the information for the control samples for each end product on the spreadsheet. If needed, please feel free to insert additional lines in the spreadsheet. 3. Please evaluate the individual varietal samples enclosed using exactly the same procedures used with the 4. 5. Please report your internal laboratory analysis for both your Control Sample(s) and each Varietal Sample on spreadsheet entitled Cooperator Lab Analysis. After completing evaluation of all samples, please complete the information included in the Rank Order Evaluation tab. Rank order the samples from the best overall quality to the poorest, including your control sample(s). 6. 7. Please also complete the information in the End Product Quality Performance Survey tab, providing requested information on product uses and quality performance for this wheat class. When you have completed the evaluation, please forward the Excel workbook and your lab score sheets to your Regional US Wheat Office. We would appreciate return no later than May 15th. Thank you for your valuable assistance in evaluating these varieties! Your input will help determine the quality of wheat available to you in the future. When all US and overseas cooperator results are summarized, a copy of that summary will be forwarded for your use. Overseas cooperators will be identified by country only, unless advised otherwise. 76

Table 14. PNW Cooperators Controls and End-Products PNW Cooperators Wheat and flour specification of cooperators' controls End-Product China 1 CWRS, 14.5% wheat protein, 0.45-0.48% ash, 66% water abs. Pan bread China 2 CWRS, No.1, 13.6% fl protein, 0.48% ash, Pan bread China 3 APH, 12.5% flour protein, 0.56% flour ash, 63.6% water abs. Pan bread and roll China 4 CWRS + DNS, 37% wet gluten, 0.4% flour ash Pan bread Emirates Pan bread Guatemala 11.5% flour protien, 0.55% flour ash, 32% wet gluten, 96 gluten index, 322 sec fn. 4.8 min, 8.6 min, 61.8% for farino peak, stabl, and abs, respectively, 91, 110, 334 for alveo P, L, and W, respectively. Pan bread Indonesia Japan HRW, 10.1% flour protein, 60% flour yield. Bread Korea HRW:SW=50:50, 9.4% flour protein, 0.41% flour ash Steam bread Malaysia Philippines 1 Philippines 2 Philippines 3 Taiwan HRW, 11.7% flour protein for sample 1, HRW:DNS=75:25, 11.7% flour protein for sample 2 Sample 1 for raw noodle, sample 2 for steam bread Tanzania 12.3% flour protein, 0.56% ash, 31.6% wet gluten, 96.3 gluten index, 355 sec Falling number. 62.3% farino abs, 6 min farino stabl, 106.9, 111.2, and 430.4 for alveo P, L, and W, respectively. Tin bread Thailand DNS wheat with 14.5% protein content, 13.6% flour protein. Pan bread 77

Table 15. GULF Cooperators Controls and End-Products GULF Cooperators Wheat and flour specification of cooperators' controls End-Product Brazil 10.5% flour protein, L* = 92.5, 27% wet gluten, fn=330 sec, 7.5 min, 13.5 min, and 58.5% for farino peak time, stablity and abs, French bread respectively. Dominican Pan bread Israel 32% wet gluten, 86 for gluten index, 6 min, 9.4 min and 60.3% for farino peak time, stabl, and abs, respectively. Mexico 0.52% ash, 35.8% wet gluten, 7.6 min, 10.4 min, and 57.7% for farino peak time, stability, and abs, respectively; 97, 76, 273 for Pan bread alveo P, L and W, respectively, Peru 0.52% ash, 30.5% wet gluten, 99.2% gluten index, 437 sec falling number, 6 min, 11 min, 62% for farino peak time, stability, and abs, respectively, 93, 122, 323 for alveo P, L, and W, respectively, HRW+CWRS with 12% flour protein. French bread 78

Table 16. PNW Performance Rating Scores Average Results Q1-5 Hatcher Genou TAM 111 Wesley Millennium Scores Control 1 09-2603 09-2607 09-2608 09-2609 09-2610 (1-9) HRW 0901 HRW 0902 HRW 0903 HRW 0904 HRW 0905 Q1 8.0 6.5 8.5 7.0 7.5 7.5 Q2 8.0 7.0 7.5 7.5 8.0 7.0 Q3 8.0 6.0 7.0 6.5 6.5 7.0 Q4 7.0 6.5 7.5 7.5 8.0 7.5 Q5 7.5 6.8 7.8 7.3 7.8 7.3 Avg 7.7 6.6 7.7 7.2 7.6 7.3 Q1 6.0 8.0 7.5 7.0 7.0 Q2 6.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 6.5 Q3 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 Q4 8.0 7.5 7.0 5.5 8.0 5.0 Q5 8.0 7.5 7.0 5.5 8.0 5.0 Avg 8.0 7.0 7.4 6.5 7.6 6.1 Q1 8.0 7.0 9.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 Q2 8.0 7.0 9.0 8.0 7.5 8.5 Q3 7.5 6.0 7.5 8.0 6.0 6.5 Q4 8.0 7.0 8.0 7.5 7.5 6.0 Q5 8.0 7.0 8.0 7.5 7.5 5.0 Avg 7.9 6.8 8.3 7.7 7.3 6.9 Q1 6.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 7.5 Q2 5.0 7.0 6.0 6.5 5.0 Q3 8.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Q4 8.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 8.0 8.0 Q5 8.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 8.0 8.0 Avg 8.0 6.2 7.0 5.6 6.9 6.9 Q1 3.0 5.0 4.0 7.0 2.0 Q2 3.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 2.0 Q3 8.5 6.0 7.0 7.0 2.0 3.0 Q4 8.0 8.0 7.5 8.5 6.5 7.5 Q5 8.0 4.0 5.0 5.5 6.5 3.0 Avg 8.2 4.8 5.9 5.8 5.4 3.5 Q1 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 Q2 4.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 Q3 5.0 7.0 4.0 6.0 7.0 4.0 6.0 Q4 5.0 7.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 7.0 Q5 5.0 7.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 Avg 5.0 7.0 4.0 6.0 5.4 4.6 6.0 Q1 7.0 5.0 7.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 Q2 7.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Q3 7.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 Q4 7.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 Q5 7.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 Avg 7.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 6.6 5.8 Q1 7.0 7.0 5.0 8.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 Q2 6.0 7.0 4.0 9.0 6.0 8.0 5.0 Q3 6.0 7.0 7.0 9.0 7.0 8.0 4.0 Q4 6.0 7.0 7.0 9.0 5.0 8.0 4.0 Q5 6.2 7.0 6.0 8.8 6.0 7.8 4.8 Avg 6.2 7.0 5.8 8.8 6.0 7.8 5.0 Q1 7.5 6.0 8.5 7.0 7.5 6.5 Q2 7.0 6.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.5 Q3 7.5 6.5 9.0 7.5 8.0 7.0 Q4 7.0 8.0 6.0 5.5 8.0 4.0 Q5 7.3 6.6 8.1 7.0 7.6 7.3 Avg 7.3 6.6 8.1 7.0 7.6 6.3 Q1 7.0 5.5 7.0 6.0 6.5 6.5 Q2 7.0 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 Q3 4.5 5.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 Q4 7.0 6.0 5.0 6.5 6.5 6.0 Q5 7.0 6.0 4.5 5.0 6.5 5.5 Avg 7.0 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.5 6.3 Q1 7.4 7.0 5.4 7.5 6.0 6.9 6.3 Q2 7.2 7.0 5.6 7.3 6.4 6.8 6.0 Q3 7.3 7.0 5.9 6.9 6.7 6.1 5.9 Q4 7.1 7.0 6.6 6.8 6.3 7.2 6.1 Q5 7.2 7.0 6.0 6.7 6.0 7.1 5.8 Contries Control 2 China 1 (COFCO) China 2 (Lamsoon) China 3 (Shunde) China 4 (Yuhai) Guatemala Japan Korea Taiwan Tanzania Thailand Scores (1-9) Scores (1-9) Scores (1-9) Scores (1-9) Scores (1-9) Scores (1-9) Scores (1-9) Scores (1-9) Scores (1-9) Scores (1-9) Scores (1-9) 79

Table 17. GULF Performance Rating Scores Contries Q1-5 Brazil Dominican Israel Mexico Peru Average Results Scores (1-9) Jagger Endurance Hatcher Santa Fe Overley Fuller TAM 111 Millennium 09-2601 09-2602 09-2603 09-2604 09-2605 09-2606 09-2608 09-2610 HRW 0911 HRW 0912 HRW 0913 HRW 0914 HRW 0915 HRW 0916 HRW 0917 HRW 0918 Q1 7.5 6.5 7.0 8.0 9.0 8.0 8.0 9.0 9.0 Q2 7.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 7.5 7.5 7.0 8.5 8.5 Q3 7.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Q4 8.5 6.5 6.0 6.0 7.0 5.0 5.5 7.5 8.0 Q5 8.0 6.5 6.5 7.5 8.0 6.5 6.5 8.0 8.5 Avg 7.8 6.9 7.0 7.5 7.9 6.8 7.0 8.2 8.4 Q1 6.5 4.5 4.5 7.5 5.0 2.5 6.5 7.0 Q2 7.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 3.0 8.0 8.5 Q3 8.0 3.5 4.0 8.0 3.5 3.0 8.0 8.0 Q4 8.5 8.5 6.0 8.5 6.0 6.5 6.0 6.5 8.0 Q5 8.0 8.5 4.5 5.0 7.5 5.0 4.0 8.0 8.5 Avg 8.3 7.7 4.7 5.4 6.8 4.9 3.7 7.4 8.0 Q1 Q2 7.2 8.3 6.3 6.4 8.4 5.8 5.1 8.0 7.6 Q3 Q4 Q5 Avg 7.2 8.3 6.3 6.4 8.4 5.8 5.1 8.0 7.6 Q1 8.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 9.0 7.0 Q2 9.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 8.0 8.0 Q3 9.0 9.0 4.0 7.0 6.0 4.0 3.0 8.0 8.0 Q4 9.0 8.0 7.0 2.0 6.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 8.0 Q5 9.0 8.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 7.0 8.0 Avg 8.8 7.6 5.8 5.0 6.4 5.2 5.2 7.6 7.8 Q1 Q2 9.0 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 Q3 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 Q4 8.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 4.0 5.5 Q5 8.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 7.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 Avg 8.5 6.8 6.5 6.3 7.0 7.5 5.5 4.8 5.9 Q1 7.8 6.0 5.8 6.5 7.8 7.0 6.2 8.2 7.7 Q2 8.2 7.5 6.3 6.3 6.6 6.2 4.8 7.5 7.7 Q3 8.2 8.0 5.6 6.5 7.5 5.6 5.0 7.3 7.5 Q4 8.6 7.3 6.3 5.6 6.8 5.6 5.9 6.0 7.4 Q5 8.4 7.5 5.9 5.4 7.1 5.9 5.1 7.0 7.8 Scores (1-9) Scores (1-9) Scores (1-9) Scores (1-9) Scores (1-9) Scores (1-9) Control 1 80

Table 18. PNW Rank Order Cooperators Control 1 Control 2 Hatcher Genou TAM 111 Wesley Millennium 09-2603 09-2607 09-2608 09-2609 09-2610 HRW 0901 HRW 0902 HRW 0903 HRW 0904 HRW 0905 China 1 5 6 3 4 1 2 China 2 1 3 4 5 2 6 China 3 2 5 1 4 3 6 China 4 1 5 4 6 2 3 Emirates Guatemal 2 6 3 1 5 4 Indonesia Japan 5 1 7 3 4 6 2 Korea 2 5 6 4 1 3 Malaysia Philippines 1 Philippines 2 Philippines 3 Taiwan 4 3 5 1 6 2 7 Tanzania 3 5 1 4 2 6 Thailand 1 3 6 5 2 4 Avg rank order 2.6 5.0 3.2 4.3 2.6 4.3 The lowest rank order 5 7 6 6 6 7 Frequency of the lowest rank 2 1 2 2 1 1 The highest rank order 1 3 1 1 1 2 Frequency of the highest rank 3 2 2 1 2 2 The most rank order 1 5 1 4 2 6 Frequency of the most rank order 3 5 3 5 5 3 81

Table 19. GULF Rank Order Jagger Endurance Hatcher Santa Fe Overley Fuller TAM 111 Millennium Cooperators Control 1 Control 2 09-2601 09-2602 09-2603 09-2604 09-2605 09-2606 09-2608 09-2610 HRW 0911 HRW 0912 HRW 0913 HRW 0914 HRW 0915 HRW 0916 HRW 0917 HRW 0918 Brazil 2 8 7 5 4 6 9 3 1 Dominican 3 2 8 6 5 7 9 4 1 Israel 5 2 7 6 1 8 9 3 4 Mexico 1 2 6 9 5 8 7 4 3 Peru 1 5 4 6 3 2 8 9 7 Avg rank order 2.4 3.8 6.4 6.4 3.6 6.2 8.4 4.6 3.2 The lowest rank order 5 8 8 9 5 8 9 9 7 Frequency of the lowest rank 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 The highest rank order 1 2 4 5 5 2 7 3 1 Frequency of the highest rank 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 The most rank order 1 2 7 6 5 8 9 3 1 Frequency of the most rank order 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 82

Table 20. Wheat and Flour Quality Analysis by the U.A.E Sample ID HRW 901 HRW 902 HRW 903 HRW 904 HRW 905 Moisture 10.6 10.9 10.2 10.8 10.9 Protein (14% MB) 10.49 12.9 12.04 11.52 11.35 Ash (14%MB) 0.384 0.280 0.373 0.376 0.386 Minolta 92.31/-1.19/6.17 92.39/-1.22/6.02 92.09/-1.56/7.22 92.47/-1.18/5.77 91.67/-1.19/6.67 Gluten 28.5 40.6 36.6 32.1 36.4 Index 98.6 93.8 84.8 98.8 82.7 Falling No. 406 410 496 438 475 Farinograph (14% MB) Water Abs. 57 65.2 62.4 59.3 62.5 Arrival Time 1.2 4.9 2.4 1.6 1.8 DDT 2.6 12 5.8 3.5 5.5 Stability 14.4 19.8 12.6 38 10.5 MTI 40 20 50 20 50 Extensograph (14% MB) Resistance 760/620 630/500 550/440 710/500 470/385 Extensibility 15.6 20.5 18.4 20.3 18.2 Area 156 193 136 193 120 Alveograph P 73 91 60 70 66 L 107 137 155 148 135 G 23.1 26.1 27.7 27.1 25.8 W 283 441 262 361 252 P/L 0.68 0.66 0.39 0.47 0.49 Ie 63.9 67.8 55 65.7 53.6 Loaf Volume 1620/1500 1680/1460 1640/1380 1660/1460 1500/1300 Spec. Loaf Vol. 4.18/3.87 4.30/3.69 4.21/3.55 4.28/3.74 3.80/3.26 Baking Score 24 26 21 25 20 Dough handling 7 9 8 9 8 less water abs. good water abs and stability very good stability Baking 9 8 7 8 6 bench tolerance is less bench tolerance is very less Overall quality 8 7 6 8 6 Ranking 3 1 4 2 5 83

Hard Red Winter PNW Table 21. Wheat and Flour Quality Analysis by Guatemala Control Control HRW 0901 HRW 0902 HRW 0903 HRW 0904 HRW 0905 Sample 1 Sample 2 Please complete only those tests/analyses that apply to your market. If you are performing other quality evaluation tests that are not listed, please include that data also. Wheat Grade Data: Test Weight (lb/bu) (kg/hl) Damaged Kernels (%) Foreign Material (%) Shrunken & Broken (%) Total Defects (%) Grade Wheat Non Grade Data: Dockage (%) Moisture (%) Protein (%) 12%/0% moisture basis Ash (%) 14%/0% moisture basis 1000 Kernel Weight (g) Kernel Size (%) lg/md/sm Single Kernel: Hardness Weight (mg) Diameter (mm) Sedimentation (cc) Falling Number (sec) Flour Data: Lab Mill Extraction (%) Color: L* a* b* Protein (%) 14%/0% moisture basis 11.42 / 13.28 9.54 / 11.09 12.60 / 14.65 11.43 / 13.29 10.72 / 12.47 11.16 / 12.98 Ash (%) 14%/0% moisture basis.554 /.644.519 /.604.445 /.518.528 /.614.501 /.581.517 /.601 Wet Gluten (%) 32 26.9 38.8 35.95 32.5 33.3 Gluten Index 96.25 98.32 96.65 93.49 97.78 96.51 Falling Number (sec) 322 367 322 395 346 366 Amylograph Viscosity 65 g (BU) Starch Damage (%) by SDMatic 8.14 8.77 9.22 7.67 8.68 9.74 Dough Properties: Farinograph: Peak Time (min) 4.8 2.2 11.5 4.8 2.7 4.7 Stability (min) 8.6 4.6 16.7 11.9 21 8.5 Absorption (%) 61.8 58.6 64.7 63 60.6 63.3 Alveograph: P (mm) 91 82 105 80 72 77 L (mm) 110 86 115 127 121 106 P/L Ratio 0.83 0.95 0.91 0.63 0.6 0.73 W (10 4 joules) 334 270 458 318 326 264 Extensograph: Resistance (BU) (45/135 min) Extensibility (cm) Area (sq cm) Baking Evaluation: Crumb Grain (scale 1-10) 9 8 8 9 9 7 Crumb Texture (scale 1-10) 8 8 7 8 8 8 Loaf Volume (cc) 1250 1037 1100 1087 1213 1162 84

Hard Red Winter - PNW Table 22. Wheat and Flour Quality Analysis by Japan Control Sample 1 Control Sample 2 HRW 0901 HRW 0902 HRW 0903 HRW 0904 HRW 0905 If you are performing other quality evaluation tests that are not listed, please include that data also. W heat G rade D ata: Test Weight (lb/bu) (kg/hl) Damaged Kernels (%) Foreign Material (%) Shrunken & Broken (%) Total Defects (%) Grade W heat N on-g rade D ata: Dockage (%) Moisture (%) Protein (%) 12%/0% moisture basis Ash (%) 14%/0% moisture basis 1000 Kernel Weight (g) Kernel Size (%) lg/md/sm Single Kernel: Hardness Weight (mg) Diameter (mm) Sedimentation (cc) Falling Number (sec) Flour D ata: Lab Mill Extraction (%) Color: L* a* b* CGV -2.6-1.9-1.3-2.9-0.7-1.9 0.0 Protein (%) 14%/0% moisture basis Protein (%) 13.5% moisture basis 10.1 10.5 9.7 12.8 11.6 11.0 11.2 Ash (%) 14%/0% moisture basis Ash (%) 13.5% moisture basis 0.41 0.44 0.48 0.36 0.47 0.45 0.45 Wet Gluten (%) Gluten Index Falling Number (sec) Amylograph Viscosity 65 g (BU) 640 560 800 545 880 870 780 Starch Damage (%) D ough Properties: Farinograph: Peak Time (min) Stability (min) Absorption (%) 58.8 62.3 56.0 62.6 59.9 58.0 61.1 Alveograph: P (mm) L (mm) P/L Ratio W (10 4 joules) Extensograph: Resistance (BU) (45/135 min) Extensibility (cm) Area (sq cm) Baking Evaluation: Crumb Grain (scale 1-10) Crumb Texture (scale 1-10) Loaf Volume (cc) Please complete only those tests/analyses that apply to your market. 85

Table 23. Wheat and Flour Quality Analysis by Korea Hard Red Winter - PNW CONT. HRW 0901 HRW 0902 HRW 0903 HRW 0904 HRW 0905 Please complete only those tests/analyses that apply to your market. If you are performing other quality evaluation tests that are not listed, please include that data also. Wheat Grade Data: Test Weight (lb/bu) 62.4 - - - - - (kg/hl) 77.1 - - - - - Damaged Kernels (%) 0.3 - - - - - Foreign Material (%) 0.1 - - - - - Shrunken & Broken (%) 1 - - - - - Total Defects (%) 1.4 - - - - - Grade 1 HRW - - - - - Wheat Non-Grade Data: Dockage (%) 0.4 - - - - - Moisture (%) 9.6 - - - - - Protein (%) 12%/0% moisture basis 11.0/12.5 - - - - - Ash (%) 14%/0% moisture basis 1.47/1.71 - - - - - 1000 Kernel Weight (g) 35.8 - - - - - Kernel Size (%) lg/md/sm - - - - - - Single Kernel: Hardness - - - - - - Weight (mg) - - - - - - Diameter (mm) - - - - - - Sedimentation (cc) - - - - - - Falling Number (sec) 373 - - - - - Flour Data: Lab Mill Extraction (%) - - - - - - Color: L* - - - - - - a* - - - - - - b* - - - - - - Protein (%) 14%/0% moisture basis 9.4/11.0 9.4/11.0 12.4/14.4 11.3/13.1 11.0/12.3 11.0/13.0 Ash (%) 14%/0% moisture basis 0.41/0.48 0.44/0.51 0.34/0.40 0.46/0.54 0.44/0.51 0.44/0.51 Wet Gluten (%) 26.3 26.3 34.7 31.6 30.8 30.8 Gluten Index - - - - - - Falling Number (sec) - - - - - - Amylograph Viscosity 65 g (BU) 530 825 560 940 925 820 Starch Damage (%) - - - - - - Dough Properties: Farinograph: Peak Time (min) 3.5 2.0 8.0 4.0 2.5 3.0 Stability (min) 8.0 7.0 20 13.0 20 12.0 Absorption (%) 58.5 58.3 64.2 62.8 60.3 63.2 Alveograph: P (mm) - - - - - - L (mm) - - - - - - P/L Ratio - - - - - - W (10-4 joules) - - - - - - Extensograph: Resistance (BU) - - - - - - (45/135 min) Extensibility (cm) - - - - - - Area (sq cm) - - - - - - Baking Evaluation: Crumb Grain (scale 1-10) 8.5 8.5 8 8.5 9 9-8.5 7.5 7 7.5 8.5 8 Loaf Volume (cc) - - - - - - 86

Table 24. End-Product Quality Analysis by Korea [Steamed Bread] 1. Formulation : Straight Method Ingredient Wheat flour Sugar Shortening Baking Powder Salt Ratio( % Based of flour weight) 100.0 8.0 3.5 1.0 1.0 Compressed Yeast 3.0 2. Water Absorption Items Water Absorption HRW HRW HRW HRW HRW Cont. 0901 0902 0903 0904 0905 58.0 56.5 56.0 54.5 55.0 56.0 3. Method Mixing time Speed 1(2min), Speed 3(8min) Dividing Shaping Fermentation Steaming Cooling Bun 60g + ANKO 35g Circle type 40~45 min 99, 15min 60min 87

Table 25. End-Product Quality Analysis by Korea Items Possible HRW HRW HRW HRW HRW Cont. Points 0901 0902 0903 0904 0905 Height 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.8 External Volume Characteristi (cm) Width 8.5 9.0 8.7 8.2 8.4 8.2 cs 15.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 13.0 14.0 14.0 25 Points Crust Color 10 9.0 8.0 8.0 8.5 9.0 8.5 Internal Grain 10 8.5 8.0 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.0 Characteristi cs Texture 15 15.0 14.5 14.5 14.5 15.0 14.5 35 Points Crumb Color 10 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.0 8.5 Eating Qualities 40 Points Taste 20 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Mouth feel 10 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.5 9.0 8.0 Aroma 10 8.5 8.0 8.0 9.0 9.0 8.5 Total 100 90.0 87.0 86.5 87.5 92.0 89.0 Ranks 2 5 6 4 1 3 88

Fig. 17. Steam Bread Evaluation by South Korea 89

Fig. 18. Steam Bread Evaluation by South Korea 90

Table 26. Flour Quality and End-Product Evaluation by Taiwan Hard Red Winter PNW Control Sample #1 Control Sample #2 HRW 0901 HRW 0902 HRW 0903 HRW 0904 HRW 0905 Please complete only those tests/analyses that apply to your market. If you are performing other quality evaluation tests that are not listed, please include that data also. Wheat Grade Data: Test Weight (lb/bu) (kg/hl) Damaged Kernels (%) Foreign Material (%) Shrunken & Broken (%) Total Defects (%) Grade Wheat Non Grade Data: Dockage (%) Moisture (%) Protein (%) 12%/0% moisture basis Ash (%) 14%/0% moisture basis 1000 Kernel Weight (g) Kernel Size (%) lg/md/sm Single Kernel: Hardness Weight (mg) Diameter (mm) Sedimentation (cc) Falling Number (sec) Flour Data: Lab Mill Extraction (%) Color: L* 93.14 93.24 93.75 93.79 93.17 93.67 92.85 a* 0.41 0.34 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.29 b* 9.52 9.6 7.5 7.39 8.47 7.11 7.89 Protein (%) 14%/0% moisture basis 11.7/13.6 11.7/13.6 9.9/11.5 13.0/15.2 11.8/13.7 11.2/13.0 11.5/13.4 Ash (%) 14%/0% moisture basis 0.395/0.460 0.378/0.440 0.444/0.516 0.326/0.379 0.449/0.522 0.426/0.496 0.423/0.492 Wet Gluten (%) 31.7 32.1 27.7 39.5 36.9 32.2 34.9 Gluten Index 97.95 97.19 97.83 93.92 86.04 98.91 86.1 Falling Number (sec) 465 464 498 430 595 434 471 RVA (peak viso.)(rvu) 189.08 200.75 208.3 163.8 200.8 225.7 210.3 Starch Damage (%) 5.44 5.69 6.07 5.83 5.47 5.92 6.42 Dough Properties: Farinograph: Peak Time (min) 20.8 34.9 1.7 11 5 12.4 4.8 Stability (min) 41.5 46.5 9.8 16.1 10.7 42.7 8.9 Absorption (%) 58.8 59 56.5 64.4 61.3 58.6 62 Alveograph: P (mm) 94.66 87.13 54.93 83.45 61.95 59.2 53.76 L (mm) 102.6 123.8 101.5 106.4 144.3 117.8 132.4 P/L Ratio 0.931 0.7076 0.542 0.7845 0.431 0.502 0.406 W (10 4 joules) 385 407 205.8 352.7 251.7 261.3 202.4 Extensograph: Resistance (BU) 285/473 338/486 331/349 262/360 242/302 288/400 240/249 (45/135 min) Extensibility (cm) 208/193 198/168 169/149 230/216 219/185 184/191 184/185 (45/135 min) Area (sq cm) 137/185 159/172 120/107 151/180 123/119 123/174 90/93 Baking Evaluation: Crumb Grain (scale 1-10) Crumb Texture (scale 1-10) Loaf Volume (cc) Raw noddle-dough sheet quality Color at 2 hours : L* 81.08 81.35 88.5 84.1 84.34 85.39 82.36 a* 0.67 0.53 0.67 0.24 0.62 0.56 0.9 b* 17.56 17.62 12.14 14.09 15.9 12.73 14.22 Color at 24 hours : L* 73.07 73.79 85.87 77.48 79.93 81.36 78.57 a* 0.99 0.77 0.95 0.47 0.97 0.86 1.19 b* 18.69 18.55 13.06 14.71 17.56 13.61 14.84 Chang in L* (2-24 hr) -8.01-7.56-2.63-6.62-4.41-4.03-3.79 Steam bread end-product color Crust Color : L* 89.25 88.15 89.72 91.43 87.47 89.13 86.18 a* 0.01-0.07 0.17-0.35-0.04-0.05 0.34 b* 15.65 14.7 12.86 12.71 14.91 12.27 14.56 Crumb Color : L* 85.51 86.95 88.17 89.01 84.93 88 84.3 a* 0.34 0.06 0.08-0.11 0.11 0.03 0.32 b* 18.15 17.49 14.87 14.25 18.06 14.29 16.17 91

Fig. 19. Noodle Color Evaluation at 2 Hours by Taiwan Fig. 20. Noodle Color Evaluation at 24 Hours by Taiwan 92

Fig. 21. Cross-Section of Steam Bread Evaluated by Taiwan 93

Fig. 22. Steam Bread Evaluated by Taiwan 94

Fig. 23. Cross-Section and Shape of Steam Bread Evaluated by Taiwan 95

Table 27. Flour Quality and End-Product Evaluated by Tanzania Hard Red Winter PNW Control Sample 1 Control Sample 2 HRW 0901 HRW 0902 HRW 0903 HRW 0904 HRW 0905 Please complete only those tests/analyses that apply to your market. If you are performing other quality evaluation tests that are not listed, please include that data also. Wheat Grade Data: Test Weight (lb/bu) (kg/hl) 82.3 Damaged Kernels (%) 1.2 Foreign Material (%) 0.22 Shrunken & Broken (%) 1.21 Total Defects (%) 0.6 Grade Wheat Non Grade Data: Dockage (%) Moisture (%) 11 Protein (%) 12%/0% moisture basis 14.8 Ash (%) 14%/0% moisture basis 1.56 1000 Kernel Weight (g) Kernel Size (%) lg/md/sm Single Kernel: Hardness Weight (mg) Diameter (mm) Sedimentation (cc) Falling Number (sec) 350 Flour Data: Lab Mill Extraction (%) 74 Color: L* 1.44-0.47-1.28 0.22-0.9 0.22 a* b* Protein (%) 14%/0% moisture basis 12.3 11.2 15.9 14.6 12.9 14.8 Ash (%) 14%/0% moisture basis 0.56 0.5 0.32 0.32 0.52 0.48 Wet Gluten (%) 31.6 28.5 39.5 36.7 32.5 36.2 Gluten Index 96.3 96 88.1 82.3 98.6 74.6 Falling Number (sec) 355 461 439 408 388 435 Amylograph Viscosity 65 g (BU) Starch Damage (%) Dough Properties: Farinograph: Peak Time (min) 5.2 2.7 7 5.5 7.2 5.5 Stability (min) 6 8.7 7.7 6.2 13.6 8.5 Absorption (%) 62.3 57.6 64.2 59.3 57 60.2 Alveograph: P (mm) 106.9 86 108 82 76 83 L (mm) 111.2 111.2 112 131 124 134 P/L Ratio 0.96 0.77 0.96 0.63 61 0.61 W (10 4 joules) 430.4 301 416 347 400 298 Extensograph: Resistance (BU) 462 698 372 378 464 372 (45/135 min) Extensibility (cm) 20.4 12.9 18 18.6 16.1 15.6 Area (sq cm) 200 146 162 139 158 106 Baking Evaluation: Crumb Grain (scale 1-10) Crumb Texture (scale 1-10) 5.5 6 7 6 8 7.5 Loaf Volume (cc) 1010 774 795 850 950 800 96

Table 28. Average Results of PNW Flour Quality Protein (% at 14%mb) Ash (%, at 14%mb) Amylograph (BU) Falling number (sec) Wet gluten (%) Gluten index Farinograph Extensigraph Alveograph Hatcher Genou TAM 111 Wesley Millennium 09-2603 09-2607 09-2608 09-2609 09-2610 Range_contrl Avg_contrl HRW901 HRW902 HRW903 HRW904 HRW905 Avg_OVA 9.4-12.3 11.0 10.0 13.3 12.1 11.4 11.8 11.7 0.40-0.56 0.47 0.46 0.35 0.43 0.45 0.45 0.4 530-640 585.0 812.5 552.5 910.0 897.5 800.0 794.5 322-465 380.7 433.0 400.3 473.5 402.0 436.8 429.1 26.3-31.7 30.4 27.6 38.6 35.6 32.0 34.3 33.6 96.3-98.0 96.8 97.7 93.1 86.7 98.5 85.0 92.2 Water abs (%) 58.5-62.3 60.0 57.3 64.2 61.5 59.0 62.1 60.8 Dept time (min) 3.5-20.8 8.6 2.2 9.9 5.0 5.7 4.7 5.5 Stability (min) 6.0-41.5 16.0 8.9 16.1 10.9 27.1 9.7 14.5 Resistance (BU) 285-462 373.5 596.3 421.3 390.0 487.3 360.7 451.1 Extensibility (mm) 204-208 206.0 104.5 143.5 141.1 121.8 119.4 126.1 Area (cm 2 ) 137-200 168.5 140.7 168.7 132.7 158.0 105.3 141.1 P (mm H20) 91.0-106.7 97.5 74.0 96.9 71.0 69.3 69.9 76.2 L (mm) 102.6-111.2 107.9 101.4 117.6 139.3 127.7 126.9 122.6 W (10-4 J) 334.0-430.4 383.1 265.0 416.9 294.7 337.1 254.1 313.5 P/L 0.83-0.96 0.91 0.74 0.83 0.52 0.55 0.56 0.64 97

Table 29. Control Sample Evaluated by Indonesia Indonesia - Sriboga Control Analysis Bread Control (CWRS) Wheat Grade Data: Test Weight (lb/bu) NA (kg/hl) 85.8 Damaged Kernels (%) 0.97 Foreign Material (%) 0.2 Shrunken & Broken (%) 1.51 Total Defects (%) 2.68 Grade 2 Wheat Non-Grade Data: Dockage (%) NA Moisture (%) 11.45 Protein (%) 12% / 0% Moisture Basis 14.11 Ash (%) 14% / 0% Moisture Basis 1.54 1000 Kernel Weight (g) 37.8 Kernel Size (%) lg/md/sm NA Single Kernel: Hardness NA Weight (mg) NA Diameter (mm) NA Sedimentation (cc) NA Falling Number (sec) NA Flour Data: Lab Mill Extraction (%) NA Color: L* 93.05 a* -1.21 b* 8.48 Protein (%) 14% / 0% Moisture Basis 12.39 Ash (%) 14% / 0% Moisture Basis 0.42 Wet Gluten (%) 36 Gluten Index 90 Falling Number (sec) 408 Amylograph Viscosity 65 g (BU) 1040 Starch Damage (%) 61 Solvent Retention Capacity (%) NA Water / 50% Sucrose NA 5% Lactic Acid / 5% Na 2 CO 3 NA Dough Properties: Farinograph: Peak Time (min) 6 Stability (min) 15 Absorption (%) 63 Alveograph: P (mm) NA L (mm) NA P/L Ratio NA W (10-4 joules) NA Extensograph: Resistance (BU) NA (45 min) Extensibility (cm) NA Area (sq cm) NA Reported by : Dedy Wirastyo Date : 3 March 2010 98

Table 30. Control Sample Evaluated by Malaysia Malaysia - Sabah Flour & Feed Mills (SFFM) Control Analysis Premium Bread Flour Bread Flour Wheat Grade Data: Bread Control 1 Bread Control 2 Test Weight (lb/bu) NA NA (kg/hl) 83.50 83.30 Damaged Kernels (%) 0.10 0.10 Foreign Material (%) 1.26 1.20 Shrunken & Broken (%) 1.00 0.99 Total Defects (%) 2.55 2.45 Grade NA NA Wheat Non-Grade Data: Dockage (%) 5.29 5.31 Moisture (%) 12.49 12.14 Protein (%) 12% / 0% Moisture Basis 13.60 13.30 Ash (%) 14% / 0% Moisture Basis 1.46 1.44 1000 Kernel Weight (g) 40.27 40.00 Kernel Size (%) lg/md/sm NA NA Single Kernel: Hardness 6.93 7.10 Weight (mg) NA NA Diameter (mm) NA NA Sedimentation (cc) NA NA Falling Number (sec) 435 441 Flour Data: Commercial Extraction (%) 76 76 Color: L* 92.0 92.3 a* -1.2-1.2 b* 10.4 10.2 Protein (%) 14% / 0% Moisture Basis 12.97 / 15.08 12.38 / 14.39 Ash (%) 14% / 0% Moisture Basis 0.51 / 0.59 0.52 / 0.60 Wet Gluten (%) 37.50 35.90 Gluten Index 86.79 84.20 Falling Number (sec) 487 514 Amylograph Viscosity 65 g (BU) NA NA Starch Damage (%) NA NA Solvent Retention Capacity (%) NA NA Water / 50% Sucrose NA NA 5% Lactic Acid / 5% Na 2 CO 3 NA NA Dough Properties: Farinograph: Peak Time (min) 7.5 8.4 Stability (min) 10.0 11.6 Absorption (%) 65.2 63.7 Alveograph: P (mm) NA NA L (mm) NA NA P/L Ratio NA NA W (10-4 joules) NA NA Extensograph: Resistance (BU) NA NA (45 min) Extensibility (cm) 184.0 178.0 Area (sq cm) 117.0 119.0 Reported by : Teo Eng Chorn Date : 3 March 2010 99

Table 31. Control Sample Evaluation by Philippines _ PFMC Philippines - Philippines Foremost (PFMC) Control Analysis Bread Control (CWRS 14) Bread Control (CWRS 14) Wheat Grade Data: Control 1 Control 2 Test Weight (lb/bu) NA NA (kg/hl) NA NA Damaged Kernels (%) 0.49 1.49 Foreign Material (%) 0.33 1.33 Shrunken & Broken (%) 0.58 1.58 Total Defects (%) 1.4 2.4 Grade NA NA Wheat Non-Grade Data: Dockage (%) 0.2 0.2 Moisture (%) 11.6 11.6 Protein (%) 12% / 0% Moisture Basis 14.2 / 16.1 14.2 / 16.2 Ash (%) 14% / 0% Moisture Basis 1.544 / 1.795 1.544 / 1.795 1000 Kernel Weight (g) NA NA Kernel Size (%) lg/md/sm NA NA Single Kernel: Hardness NA NA Weight (mg) NA NA Diameter (mm) NA NA Sedimentation (cc) NA NA Falling Number (sec) 390 390 Wheat Microbiological Test: E. Coli cfu/g 0 0 Total Coliform cfu/g 0 0 Yeast cfu/g 50 50 Mold cfu/g 20 20 Flour Data: Lab Mill Extraction (%) NA NA Color: L* NA NA a* NA NA b* NA NA Protein (%) 14% / 0% Moisture Basis 13.2 / 15.3 13.4 / 15.6 Ash (%) 14% / 0% Moisture Basis 0.551 / 0.641 0.591 / 0.687 Wet Gluten (%) 41.4 41.6 Gluten Index NA NA Falling Number (sec) NA NA Amylograph Viscosity 65 g (BU) NA NA Starch Damage (%) / Maltose Value mg/10g 244 251 Solvent Retention Capacity (%) NA NA Water / 50% Sucrose NA NA 5% Lactic Acid / 5% Na 2 CO 3 NA NA Dough Properties: Farinograph: Peak Time (min) 8.4 6.8 Stability (min) 15.1 8.4 Absorption (%) 72.2 70 Alveograph: P (mm) NA NA L (mm) NA NA P/L Ratio NA NA W (10-4 joules) NA NA Extensograph: Resistance (BU) NA NA (45 min) Extensibility (cm) 216 245 Area (sq cm) NA NA Remarks Straight Run Split Run Reported by : Roc R Canares Date : 3 March 2010 100

Table 32. Control Sample Evaluation by Philippines - Pilmico Philippines - Pilmico Milling Corporation Control Analysis Bread Control (CWRS14) Bread Control (CWRS 13.5) Wheat Grade Data: CTL 1 CTL 2 Test Weight (lb/bu) NA NA (kg/hl) NA NA Damaged Kernels (%) NA NA Foreign Material (%) NA NA Shrunken & Broken (%) NA NA Total Defects (%) NA NA Grade NA NA Wheat Non-Grade Data: Dockage (%) NA NA Moisture (%) 12.66 12.62 Protein (%) 12% / 0% Moisture Basis 13.94 13.07 Ash (%) 14% / 0% Moisture Basis 1.448 1.555 1000 Kernel Weight (g) NA NA Kernel Size (%) lg/md/sm NA NA Single Kernel: Hardness NA NA Weight (mg) NA NA Diameter (mm) NA NA Sedimentation (cc) NA NA Falling Number (sec) 411 411 Flour Data: Lab Mill Extraction (%) 75.56 73.69 Color: L* 62.39 62.28 a* -1.04-1.11 b* 6.00 6.21 Protein (%) 14% / 0% Moisture Basis 12.78 12.50 Ash (%) 14% / 0% Moisture Basis 0.645 0.687 Wet Gluten (%) 39.86 38.50 Gluten Index 81.31 80.29 Falling Number (sec) 499 473 Amylograph Viscosity 65 g (BU) NA NA Starch Damage (%) 6.31 6.82 Solvent Retention Capacity (%) NA NA Water / 50% Sucrose NA NA 5% Lactic Acid / 5% Na 2 CO 3 NA NA Dough Properties: Farinograph: Peak Time (min) 8.00 5.50 Stability (min) 12.00 10.50 Absorption (%) 69.30 70.00 Alveograph: P (mm) NA NA L (mm) NA NA P/L Ratio NA NA W (10-4 joules) NA NA Extensograph: Resistance (BU) 525 380 (45 min) Extensibility (cm) 19 24 Area (sq cm) NA NA Reported by : Nestea E Sacil Date : 3 March 2010 101

Table 33. Control Sample Evaluation by Philippines RFM Philippines - Republic Flour Mills (RFM) Control Analysis Bread Control (NS 14) Bread Control (NS 14) Wheat Grade Data: Control 1 Control 2 Test Weight (lb/bu) 60.22 61.63 (kg/hl) NA NA Damaged Kernels (%) NA NA Foreign Material (%) NA NA Shrunken & Broken (%) 0.22 0.17 Total Defects (%) NA NA Grade 2 2 Wheat Non-Grade Data: Dockage (%) 0.215 0.17 Moisture (%) 10.58 11.22 Protein (%) 12% / 0% Moisture Basis NA NA Ash (%) 14% / 0% Moisture Basis 1.32 1.39 1000 Kernel Weight (g) 36.0 35.5 Kernel Size (%) lg/md/sm NA NA Single Kernel: Hardness NA NA Weight (mg) NA NA Diameter (mm) NA NA Sedimentation (cc) NA NA Falling Number (sec) 416 387 Flour Data: Lab Mill Extraction (%) NA NA Color: L* 90.75 89.84 a* -1.67-1.65 b* 6.74 7.63 Protein (%) 14% / 0% Moisture Basis 12.76 13.2 Ash (%) 14% / 0% Moisture Basis 0.51 0.64 Wet Gluten (%) 34.9 35.7 Gluten Index 90 85 Falling Number (sec) 529 402 Amylograph Viscosity 65 g (BU) 696 580 Starch Damage (%) 6.3 6.39 Solvent Retention Capacity (%) NA NA Water / 50% Sucrose NA NA 5% Lactic Acid / 5% Na 2 CO 3 NA NA Dough Properties: Farinograph: Peak Time (min) 10 6 Stability (min) 19.5 13.2 Absorption (%) 64.63 65.3 Alveograph: P (mm) 115 121 L (mm) 92 88 P/L Ratio 1.25 1.38 W (10-4 joules) 393 405 Extensograph: Resistance (BU) NA NA (45 min) Extensibility (cm) NA NA Area (sq cm) NA NA Reported by : Aries Adinit Date : 3 March 2010 102

Table 34. Control Sample Evaluation by Thailand - UFM Thailand - UFM Control Analysis Bread Control (DNS) Wheat Grade Data: Test Weight (lb/bu) NA (kg/hl) NA Damaged Kernels (%) 0.04 Foreign Material (%) 0.27 Shrunken & Broken (%) 0.60 Total Defects (%) 0.91 Grade NA Wheat Non-Grade Data: Dockage (%) 0.46 Moisture (%) 11.88 Protein (%) 12% / 0% Moisture Basis 14.73 Ash (%) 14% / 0% Moisture Basis 1.48 / 1.72 1000 Kernel Weight (g) 33.09 Kernel Size (%) lg/md/sm NA Single Kernel: Hardness NA Weight (mg) NA Diameter (mm) NA Sedimentation (cc) NA Falling Number (sec) 407 Flour Data: Lab Mill Extraction (%) 67.17 Color: L* NA a* NA b* NA Protein (%) 14% / 0% Moisture Basis 13.69 / 15.92 Ash (%) 14% / 0% Moisture Basis 0.45 / 0.52 Wet Gluten (%) 40.80 Gluten Index NA Falling Number (sec) 445 Amylograph Viscosity 65 g (BU) 850 Starch Damage (%) NA Solvent Retention Capacity (%) NA Water / 50% Sucrose NA 5% Lactic Acid / 5% Na 2 CO 3 NA Dough Properties: Farinograph: Peak Time (min) 6.5 Stability (min) 11.5 Absorption (%) 66.0 Alveograph: P (mm) NA L (mm) NA P/L Ratio NA W (10-4 joules) NA Extensograph: Resistance (BU) NA (45 min) Extensibility (cm) 228 Area (sq cm) 145 Reported by : Wantana Suktalordcheep Date : 3 March 2010 103

Table 35. End-Product Results of Indonesia/Malaysia/Philippines/Thailand Sample Number Ingredients & Other Details Dough Flour *Water Instant Yeast (Type: High Sugar ) Salt Sugar Shortening Improver (Type: UFM Turbo ) Total 1 2 3 4 5 Sriboga Control Interflour Control 1 Interflour Control 2 UFM Control 1 Pilmico Control 1 % Wt. % Wt. % Wt. % Wt. % Wt. 100 700 100 700 100 700 100 700 100 700 66.15 463.05 68.46 479.22 66.89 468.20 62.79 439.53 72.77 509.36 1 7 1 7 1 7 1.5 10.5 1.5 10.5 1.5 10.5 1.5 10.5 1.5 10.5 1.5 10.5 1.5 10.5 6 42 6 42 6 42 6 42 6 42 4 28 4 28 4 28 4 28 4 28 0.4 2.8 0.4 2.8 0.4 2.8 0.5 3.5 0.5 3.5 179.05 1253.35 181.36 1269.52 179.785 1258.495 176.29 1234.03 186.265 1303.855 Water Abs Based on Farino Abs @ 100 Water Abs Based on Farino Abs @ 105 63 65.2 66.15 68.46 63.7 66.89 59.8 62.79 69.3 72.77 Label Code Indo CTL - H Indo CTL - L Msia CTL1 - H Msia CTL1 - L Msia CTL2 - H Msia CTL2 - L UFM CTL1 - H UFM CTL1- L PIL CTL1 - H PIL CTL1 - L No Time Dough Heavy Light Heavy Light Heavy Light Heavy Light Heavy Light Dough Mixing Time - 1st Speed min 1 min 1 min 1 min 1 min 1 min - 2nd Speed min 2 mins 45 secs 3 mins 15 secs 3 mins 3 mins 45 secs 3 mins 30 secs Dough Temperature ºC 30.2 31.5 30.7 30.7 28.7 Dough Appearance Soft & sticky Soft & very sticky Soft, sticky Soft, good handling Soft, sticky Scaling Weight grams 320 210 320 210 320 210 320 210 320 210 Intermediate Proof Time min 15 15 15 15 15 Proof Time - Total min 85 131 72 110 95 154 72 109 102 149 Proof Box Temperature ºC 38 38 38 38 38 Proof Box R.H. % 85 85 85 85 85 Baking Time - Total min 25 25 25 25 25 Template Height Above Pan Top cm 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Baking Temperature - Top ºC 200 200 200 200 200 - Bottom ºC 200 200 200 200 200 Remarks *Water = Equal to 105% of Farinograph Abs. Mix dough to full development. Pan Size: Top: 20.5cm x 9.5cm Bottom: 18.5cm x 8.0cm Height: 7.5cm Scaling Weights: Heavy Weight: Vol of pan (c.c.) / 4 = weight in grams 1279.69/4 =319.92g = 320g Light Weight: Vol of pan (c.c.) / 6.12 = weight in grams 1279.69/6.12 =210g ** Proof box failure - Temp stay @ 30CºC 104

Table 36. End-Product Results of Indonesia/Malaysia/Philippines/Thailand Sample Number Ingredients & Other Details Dough Flour *Water Instant Yeast (Type: High Sugar ) Salt Sugar Shortening Improver (Type: UFM Turbo ) Total Water Abs Based on Farino Abs @ 100 Water Abs Based on Farino Abs @ 105 6 7 8 9 10 Pilmico Control 2 PFC Control 1 PFC Control 2 RFM Control 1 RFM Control 2 % Wt. % Wt. % Wt. % Wt. % Wt. 100 700 100 700 100 700 100 700 100 700 73.50 514.50 75.81 530.67 73.50 514.50 67.86 475.03 68.57 479.96 1.5 10.5 1.5 10.5 1.5 10.5 1.5 10.5 1 7 1.5 10.5 1.5 10.5 1.5 10.5 1.5 10.5 1.5 10.5 6 42 6 42 6 42 6 42 6 42 4 28 4 28 4 28 4 28 4 28 0.5 3.5 0.5 3.5 0.5 3.5 0.5 3.5 0.5 3.5 187 1309 189.31 1325.17 187 1309 181.3615 1269.5305 181.565 1270.955 70 72.2 70 64.63 65.3 73.50 75.81 73.50 67.86 68.57 Label Code PIL CTL2 - H PIL CTL2 - L PFC CTL1 - H PFC CTL1 - L PFC CTL2 - H PFC CTL2 - L RFM CTL1 - H RFM CTL1 - L RFM CTL2 - H RFM CTL2 - L No Time Dough Heavy Light Heavy Light Heavy Light Heavy Light Heavy Light Dough Mixing Time - 1st Speed min 1 min 1 min 1 min 1 min 1 min - 2nd Speed min 3 mins 3 mins 3 mins 15 secs 3 mins 30 secs 3 mins 30 secs Dough Temperature ºC 27.1 26.8 27.1 34.1 34 Dough Appearance Soft, sticky, too extensibiility Soft, sticky Soft, sticky Soft, good handling Soft, good handling Scaling Weight grams 320 210 320 210 320 210 320 210 320 210 Intermediate Proof Time min 15 15 15 15 15 Proof Time - Total min 115 155 152 235 87 144 144 225 103 145 Proof Box Temperature ºC 38 30** 38 30 ** 38 Proof Box R.H. % 85 85 85 85 85 Baking Time - Total min 25 25 25 25 25 Template Height Above Pan Top cm 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Baking Temperature - Top ºC 200 200 200 200 200 - Bottom ºC 200 200 200 200 200 Remarks *Water = Equal to 105% of Farinograph Abs. Mix dough to full development. Pan Size: Top: 20.5cm x 9.5cm Bottom: 18.5cm x 8.0cm Height: 7.5cm Scaling Weights: Heavy Weight: Vol of pan (c.c.) / 4 = weight in grams 1279.69/4 =319.92g = 320g Light Weight: Vol of pan (c.c.) / 6.12 = weight in grams 1279.69/6.12 =210g ** Proof box failure - Temp stay @ 30CºC 105

Table 37. End-Product Results of Indonesia/Malaysia/Philippines/Thailand Sample Number Ingredients & Other Details Dough Flour *Water Instant Yeast (Type: High Sugar ) Salt Sugar Shortening Improver (Type: UFM Turbo ) Total Water Abs Based on Farino Abs @ 100 Water Abs Based on Farino Abs @ 105 11 12 13 14 15 HRW 901 HRW 902 HRW 903 HRW 904 HRW 905 % Wt. % Wt. % Wt. % Wt. % Wt. 100 700 100 700 100 700 100 700 100 700 58.59 410.13 66.68 466.73 62.69 438.80 60.27 421.89 63.84 446.88 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1.5 10.5 1.5 10.5 1.5 10.5 1.5 10.5 1.5 10.5 6 42 6 42 6 42 6 42 6 42 4 28 4 28 4 28 4 28 4 28 0.4 2.8 0.4 2.8 0.4 2.8 0.4 2.8 0.4 2.8 171.49 1200.43 179.575 1257.025 175.585 1229.095 173.17 1212.19 176.74 1237.18 55.8 63.5 59.7 57.4 60.8 58.59 66.68 62.69 60.27 63.84 Label Code HRW 901 - H HRW 901 - L HRW 902 - H HRW 902 - L HRW 903 - H HRW 903 - L HRW 904 - H HRW 904 - L HRW 905 - H HRW 905 - L No Time Dough Heavy Light Heavy Light Heavy Light Heavy Light Heavy Light Dough Mixing Time - 1st Speed min 1 min 1 min 1 min 1 min 1 min - 2nd Speed min 3 mins 15 secs 3 mins 15 secs 3 mins 3 mins 45 secs 2 mins 45 secss Dough Temperature ºC --- --- --- --- --- Dough Appearance slightly stiff dough slightly soft, good handling slightly soft, good handling slightly stiff dough soft, good handling Scaling Weight grams 320 210 320 210 320 210 320 210 320 210 Intermediate Proof Time min 15 15 15 15 15 Proof Time - Total min 82 107 95 138 90 148 81 127 98 139 Proof Box Temperature ºC 38 38 38 38 38 Proof Box R.H. % 85 85 85 85 85 Baking Time - Total min 25 25 25 25 25 Template Height Above Pan Top cm 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Baking Temperature - Top ºC 200 200 200 200 200 - Bottom ºC 200 200 200 200 200 Remarks *Water = Equal to 105% of Farinograph Abs. Mix dough to full development. Pan Size: Top: 20.5cm x 9.5cm Bottom: 18.5cm x 8.0cm Height: 7.5cm Scaling Weights: Heavy Weight: Vol of pan (c.c.) / 4 = weight in grams 1279.69/4 =319.92g = 320g Light Weight: Vol of pan (c.c.) / 6.12 = weight in grams 1279.69/6.12 =210g ** Proof box failure - Temp stay @ 30CºC 106

Fig. 24. Pan Bread Evaluation by Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand 107

Fig. 25. Pan Bread Evaluation by Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand 108