About Us | Help Videos | Contact Us | Subscriptions
 

Abstract

 

This article in CS

  1. Vol. 35 No. 4, p. 949-953
     
    Received: June 1, 1994
    Published: July, 1995


    * Corresponding author(s): rb27412@uafsysb.uark.edu
 View
 Download
 Alerts
 Permissions
 Share

doi:10.2135/cropsci1995.0011183X003500040001x

Relationship of Test Weight and Kernel Properties to Milling and Baking Quality in Soft Red Winter Wheat

  1. Steve F. Schuler,
  2. Robert K. Bacon ,
  3. Patrick L. Finney and
  4. Edward E. Gbur
  1. D ep. of Agronomy, Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, KS 66506
    D ep. of Agronomy
    U SDA-ARS Soft Wheat Quality Lab, Wooster, OH 44691
    A gric. Statistics Lab., Univ. of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701

Abstract

Abstract

Although test weight is used as a grading criterion and an indication of quality in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), its relationship to specific quality parameters in soft wheat is not well documented. Seed characteristics, flour yield, and baking quality were studied in 24 soft red winter wheat (SRWW) genotypes grown in six environments to determine their relationship to test weight. Flour yield, flour protein, alkaline water retention capacity (AWRC), and softness equivalent (SEQ) were evaluated by the micro-procedures of the USDA-ARS soft wheat early-generation milling and baking quality evaluation program. Despite removal of shriveled kernels prior to evaluation, environmental effects had a significant impact on quality parameters, ranging from 68% of total variability (SEQ) to 5% (AWRC). Test weight was correlated with flour yield, but was significantly correlated with flour protein content (r = 0.54, P < 0.05) as was kernel density (r = 0.49). Thousand-kernel weight, diversity of seed size, proportion of large seed, and average kernel length and width were not correlated with flour yield or other quality parameters. Test weight did not predict flour yield in SRWW when shriveling was absent, but it was related to flour protein content, which is associated with baking quality. Kernel size or size distribution did not affect end-use quality. The best predictive model based on the characters above explained little of the total variation in flour yield (R2 = 0.22).

Joint contribution of the Arkansas Agric. Exp. Stn. and USDA-ARS. Mention of a trademark or proprietary product does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of a product by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products that may also be suitable. This research was funded in part by a grant from the Arkansas Wheat Promotion Board.

  Please view the pdf by using the Full Text (PDF) link under 'View' to the left.

Copyright © 1995. Crop Science Society of America, Inc.Copyright © 1995 by the Crop Science Society of America, Inc.