The nutrition-physiological-, forage-, and economic comparison of the novum, king and common wheats
"The art of natural science, is to raise the right question, then seeking the answer."
The wheat is the most important crop of mankind. The appellation covers many-many species, including the common wheat what people associate the most.
It is an important item for victualing, also raw material for common bread so the proper level of catering and the nutrition-physiological quality is an ultimate demand. Their fulfillment has lost so much from its significance in the past 30-40 years. Many varieties of the bread is being consumed on Earth (raised, flat, steamed), and various pasta-assortments are spread too. Wheat growing and processing can be mechanized pretty well. The grain crop, the straw (by-product?) can be used in stock-raising, also outside of agricultural sectors, for power generation or for any other industrial objectives. This wide adaptation comes with the satisfaction of different, sometimes special demands. So the false exercise, saying, implement everything with common wheat, is questionable. Are we really satisfied with the potentials of the common wheat?
Amongst all wheat species the common wheat shows the lowest quality (digestible protein content). It has been spread all over the world thanks to the European people’s activity 250-400 years ago. Back then in Europe, only this wheat variety was known. In the past two decades the spelt (as an ancient wheat species) started to shoot ahead again. Its protein content is much higher, it’s healthier, more modest, and more tolerant to diseases but it’s also untreatable and less grain crop can be harvested. In Europe and America the durum, in Australia and Asia the soft Udon noodle (from the mutated common wheat) and the hard Wanton noodle (not mutated) are specifically pasta-wheats.
What is quality in case of the wheat? Per ISO 9000 definition quality is „Degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfills requirements.” In this sense we can’t declare absolute quality, because the definition only takes notice of the aspects of consumption and utilization (economic approach). But we cannot ignore the following: Despite the fact that the vital food-materials are basically commodities, they never can be considered just as economic category: its aim to satisfy the primary needs, and the heavy shortage could generate revolutions, riots, social changes!
For the world wheat quality still depends on the protein content (whatever attributes the gluten – wheat protein – has, 2/3 of the world consuming soft or mid-hard wheat products such as roundel and steamed breads). That type of breeding which tries to increase the protein content has high importance. This comes from the fact that half of mankind is in lack of protein, and one-fifth is expressly starving.
In Hungary, despite the high purchase prices of crop production goods in 2007, the defencelessness of the agriculture kept growing to 2008 due to 20-40% input price increases and drastic fall in crop prices from June. The fate of the 7-8 million tons of maize, which follows the 5-6 million tons of wheat, is still a problem. We are far away from shipping routes, so land transport increases the first cost with 38-42€/t, i.e. with 35-40%. We can avoid these severely disturbing factors only if the first cost is cheap (this is impossible with the current technology), or the regional purchase price is high (very rare, hectic price rates), or the product has much better quality and premium price is applicable which accepted by the market.
These facts (most of them repeat themselves) were in my possession of course, this is why the novum and king wheats could born. I created the mentioned species to achieve much wider, purposeful and economical utilization.
After systematic scientific researches and experiments I realized: „Today’s common wheat is nothing else but a spin-off of some spelt-forms which were mutated and become threshable in the ancient times and which were spread and crossed with also each other during thousands of years.” I made this statement in my essay „The diversification of species Triticum spelta” (2005).
I consider it as my duty - with circling around the title subject, leaning on bibliographic datas, accredited laboratory analyses, my own breeding researches and economic speculations - to present datasets and results which can help to analyze then decide which wheat variety is the most optimal for each utilization direction.
Bibliographic overview
The direct purpose of the bibliographic datas and comparing analyses is to point out the most general correspondences. It’s not practical to compare vocationally and economically unimportant parameters and make conclusions from them, because distorted, irrelevant results will be come out. 2400 years ago Socrates has already drawn attention to this: „State (prove) something and I will traverse it; then state the opposite and I will traverse it too.”
KENT (1975) has pointed out that the definition of quality is cannot be defined perfectly regarding the wheat:
„The farmer wants good cultivation, proper price and high yield. He only cares about quality when it comes with positive margin.
The customer expects high nutrition value, rational price, savoriness and attractive look.
The miller expects good milling quality, friendly storage property and maximal milling.
The baker’s wish is the proper flour for bread, paste or biscuit. A standard quality material, fit for purpose.
The stock-raisers interest is mostly against the miller and baker (but not against the human consumer). High protein-content (optimal nutriment-rate), full of industrial minerals (ash), cheap prime cost.”
VARGA (2008) has made similar conclusion when he states: „Quality can be defined only in the function of the utilization direction: the complicated demands of our present cannot be satisfied with one or two optimal wheat variety (ideotype).”
For a century now, only food utilization indicators are in use all over the world. There are still no rules for other directions of utilization.
BÉKÉSI (2001) presents that people are using wheat for food in a very wide range (Figure 1.). It is important in the figure that U.S. and Canadian wheat hardness have remarkable roles.
Figure 1. Nutritional utilization of wheat
OMMI (Hungarian Agricultural Qualifier Institute 1997-99, now NÉBIH) datasets are informing about the world’s best wheat class systems; in Table 1. the U.S., in Table 2. the Canadian wheat class system.
Table 1. U.S. wheat classes and specification
Note: HRSW class is spring wheat, HRWW and SRWW are winter wheats, DW is durum wheat and the WW is white wheat.
Table 2. Canadian wheat class system
Note: The benchmark is the basic variety (point of reference). The CWES is currently the best bread-wheat class in the market.
Table 3. numerically presents the withdrawn MSZ (Hungarian Standard) 6383/1998, which is the latest freely accessible Hungarian wheat standard. This standard slubbers the forage quality, namely, mentions it only in text, and only the test weight (Hl) and moisture content are detailed; the most important attributes, the protein and carbohydrate content are not even mentioned.
Table 3. The quality requirements of the nutritional wheat
* The lower limit of error ranges: „A” quality group, 70; „B1” quality group, 55; „B2” quality group, 45.
** Rated to dry matter.
BARABÁS (1987) and LÁNG (1975) inform the protein content of the grain and flour, from the same authors (Table 4.). As we examine the table carefully, compared to 1960 (when the results came out), we can see, that even in the world’s best wheat class system (U.S.) there are only two extra quality groups which hit the protein specification levels in Table 4.
Table 4. Amino acid content of the wheat grain and flour protein
(Hepburn, Calhoun and Bradley, 1960)
In Table 5., after GYŐRI (1998), I present the currently effective quality requirements of the EURO-wheat. Table 6. informs about the French standard. The new parameters (alveograph values) of this table are determining the attributes of the paste too. (Note: essentially the alveograph analysis is a modified farinograph analysis – old Hungarian – and based on the energy used until the tearing of the paste.
Table 5. Quality of the EURO-wheat
* It corresponds to the quality of the wheat vending in external trade. (Food wheat regulations are the standards regarding mixture content.)
Table 6. Requirements of bakery-wheat in France
GYŐRI (1998) also presents the main attributes which came up during the Hungarian quality analysis:
Test weight (Hl): 65-85 kg/hl
Crude protein content: 9-16%
Gluten content: 10-45%
Falling number: <200-400< s
POLLHAMMERNÉ (1973), after many bibliographic datas and her own analyses, made the conclusion that the intensive dosing of nitrogen fertilizer increased the protein and wet-gluten content of the crop. The varieties responded differently but also significantly. 25 years later GYŐRI (1998) states the same correspondence per the analyses of breeders from Martonvásár, Hungary.
VARGA (2008) states, that „Both the American and the European qualification approaching the wheat only from the food industry’s side.” And also: „The wheat contains and capable of much more that the world knows right now…”. Furthermore: „The more often used aestivum with its quite tight genetic background, constantly deteriorated in its gumption and in its complex specification. This is the reason, why the FAO/WHO-configured crude protein determining nitrogen-multiplier factors were given 5,83 to whole wheat, 6,31 to wheat meal, 5,80 to germ and 5,70 to the endosperm.”
We have much less datas to economically analyze the wheat, than the datas we have in case of the quality. Only world market price-rates inform us about producing-, weather-, economic- and economic political relations of the year. VARGA (2008) gathered this information, and then formulated the international wheat-economic trends. Australia and Asia have been left out, and only concentrated to Europe and America:
„The European wheat growing has three wings:
Western European: expensive production, high average yield, low quality (this is why imported GM-soy and DDGS needed) – import-orientation for quality,
Middle European (Hungarian): quite expensive production, fluctuating average yield, mid-low quality – Self-sufficiency and export orientation,
Balkanian, Eastern European: cheap production and low average yield, (good) average quality – Essentially self-sufficiency, export or import depending on the year.
The American wheat growing is differing from the European substantially. Its principle: 3-3,5 t/ha average yield is enough, quality must be perfect, less input (the cost of production is 25-30% cheaper than the Hungarian, but the quality premium is 10-15% higher) – Self-sufficiency and export orientation.”
Materials and methods
My analyses are mostly based upon my own work and results. Later, I used results from the records of the accredited laboratory BÁCS-ÁG Kft. (Kecskemét, Hungary). And of course, for the comparing analyses, I also used the bibliographical datas already presented.
I’m dealing with grain researching-breeding since 1993. For twenty-two years, I managed crop production on 4000 hectares, the grain was approximately 1300 hectare in it. In the early 90’s I’ve made the conclusion that the grain sector needs a reformation at least. Following principles different from the current exercise (more likely, continuing with most of the principles of the great breeders of the 1920’s-1930’s – they also managed thousands of hectares) I’ve formulated the main point: the currently known common wheat is just a threshable spelt with very poor genetic background. Starting from this recognition I began to analyze the spelt and then I discovered many natural mutation lines. The novum wheat, as a new species, became the finalization of one mutation spin-off. This species has an already patented variety and another one before recognition. For the late 90’s many-many lines have been created. With the crossing of one line and the ancient emmer the king wheat has been created.
Picture 1. Novum wheat, Makó, May 2007.
Picture 2. Novums and king wheat (in front: short novum /MM-I/, right-back: average novum, middle-back: awned king wheat), 2008.
Picture 3. Left to right: king wheat (VT-35-2-6), Jubilejnaja, Ati, Magvas
These two species, the novum and the king wheat have been taken under analysis again. Of course, in this essay I couldn’t undertake the complete comparison of the new wheats and the common wheat. Including all attributes would take more volumes of documents. I only focused on the most important: namely the protein content (amino-acid analyses), protein-utilization (digestibility), grain hardness, wet-gluten content, fertilization impact assessment, economical calculation and aesthetic appearance.
To be continued...
