Durum Quality Standards for Pasta Production Quality Analysis Methods

1. Canadian Grain Commission canadienne Commission des grains Durum Quality Standards for Pasta ProductionQuality Analysis Methods B. A. Marchylo, Ph.D. Program Manager, Durum Wheat Research Canadian Grain Commission Grain Research Laboratory Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

2. Durum Wheat Quality • Durum millers and pasta processors • physical condition of wheat grain • wheat & semolina composition • intrinsic quality • Priorities differ in different markets • Range of quality segregations needed

3. Measurement of Quality • Visual grain grading • mostly subjective • efficient • cost effective • segregating large volumes into quality packages

4. Visual Grading • What does it tell us about quality? • visual appearance / physical quality • durum wheat milling, • primary quality selection criteria • influenced by environmental conditions • physical defects or damage factors • within tolerances for each grade

5. Visual Grading • In Canada • visual appearance / physical quality • connected to processing • quality by scientific research • grade tolerances set accordingly • appearance reflects end use quality

6. Specific Quality Factors • Durum wheat millers and processors • increasing demand for more specific quality factors • want more than grade • Can this demand be met ?

7. Methods For Quality Testing • What methods can be used to determine durum quality? • Will these work in the commercial durum trade ? • from farm to the processor

8. Methods For Quality Testing • Objective measurements of quality • incorporate into grading systems? • Limited by: • time constraints • grain segregation and handling • testing capabilities • Further incorporation of technology into grading is an inescapable change

9. Objective Methods For Quality Testing • Milling quality • slow laboratory scale milling • no rapid methods available • test weight

10. Objective Methods For Quality Testing • Test Weight • easy to use • predictive

11. Objective Methods For Quality Testing • Falling Number • relatively slow • hampers operational segregation systems

12. Objective Methods For Quality Testing • Protein Content • Near Infrared Reflectance (NIR) • rapid technology • provides specified protein content

13. Objective Methods For Quality Testing • Hard vitreous kernel / starchy kernel content • manual • tedious • subjective • slows high throughput grain terminals

14. Objective Methods For Quality Testing • hard vitreous kernel • by machine vision • camera • computer • objective, repeatable • fast, accurate • costly

15. Objective Methods For Quality Testing • Ash content • laboratory standard oven procedure • no rapid instrumental procedures • durum wheat cannot be segregated according to this factor

16. Objective Methods For Quality Testing • Colour • colour of wheat or semolina sample • “potential” pasta colour • alcohol extraction of yellow pigments • laboratory method

17. Objective Methods For Quality Testing • Variety • intrinsic quality package • wheat quality characteristics incorporated by plant breeders • specified as part of contract • marketing tool • in Canada intrinsic quality of durum varieties strictly controlled

18. Objective Methods For Quality Testing • Variety segregation • identity preserved • from the field, • through the handling system • during loading • transit to the final processor • adds to cost of durum wheat

19. Objective Methods For Quality Testing Protein Fingerprints • Variety segregation • Verifying purity • monitoring for leakage into other shipments • variety identification • electrophoresis • HPLC • DNA (PCR)

20. Objective Methods For Quality Testing • Variety identification methods • costly, slow laboratory methods

21. Objective Methods For Quality Testing • Gluten strength characteristics • SDS sedimentation test • gluten index method • alveograph • uses semolina • slow • laboratory methods

22. Summary • Segregating durum wheat into different quality packages • visual grading • cost effective • efficient • NIR • provides protein segregation

23. Summary • Segregating durum wheat into different quality packages • quality factors other than protein • quality evaluation methods • laboratory-based • sometimes complex • generally too slow for segregation

24. Summary • Specific quality information • Analysis of cargoes after loading • possible • analysis after vessel departure • after the fact • adds to cost of wheat • Related problem • methods lack consistency and reproducibility among laboratories

25. Summary • Development of rapid, objective, automated quality testing procedures • to enhance or replace visual grading • to facilitate segregation • to give more specific quality information • to facilitate identity preservation

26. Summary • Implementation of rapid, objective, automated quality testing procedures • challenges • to apply operationally over a wide area • for large volumes • future • technology used at farm level

27. Summary • Rapid, objective, automated quality testing procedures • substantial cost of development and implementation • farmer can’t cover costs • costs passed on to • processors • ultimately consumer

28. Summary • Ultimate goal • more precise, wheat quality information for processors • variety, milling performance, gluten characteristics, colour, etc.