The nutrition-physiological-, forage-, and economic comparison of the novum, king and common wheats
Besides the official analyzing datas, the raw datas of the essay’s listing, displaying figures, pictures and tables are currently available only in the own breeding data bank. I considered as main task to settle and highlight them objectively, then valuate and conclude.
Analyzing results, valuations
1. Reviewing the main indexes
1.1 Protein content, protein utilization
The graphical display is the best way to compare the laboratory results of the novum and king wheats with the bibliographic datas seen in the tables. This is also the best way to show correspondences and differences. Diagram 1. informs about the amino acid content of the common, king and novum wheats (amino acid content gives the whole wheat protein):
Diagram 1. Amino acid content
It’s obvious that all amino acid levels are massively higher in the novum than in the common wheat, moreover, many essential amino acids (lysine, methionine, leucine, glutamine-acid) are 50-150% higher. So, it largely exceeds the usual 3-5% SD (significant difference) standard. This trend is also true regarding the king wheat but the measure is less; the positive difference is about 30-40%. What’s coming after all this? It’s that, the new wheat species have much better nutrition-physiological effect. Actually, they can be considered as „functional” (they contain everything) raw materials for food.
Figure 2. informs about a ten year long novum, two year long king wheat analyzing timeline and also shows many years’ analyzing datas of the common wheat:
Figure 2. Analyzing datas of the common, king and novum wheat
We can make innovative conclusions after studying the figure. First of all, it verifies Diagram 1. We can see that the protein content of the common wheat is fluctuating between 9,5-15%. The fluctuation is affected by the professionalism of the fertilization and year, the variety-structure’s role is minimal.
The king wheat’s protein content exceeds the protein content of the best American wheats (15-18,5%!). The dispersion regarding the novum wheat is high (16-28%), but the minimum is still higher than the maximum of the common wheat. The reason of the high dispersion: it was tested in different (not fertilized) soil conditions (from low-grade to average and good soils). Very important, that fertilization is forbidden if the soil is little better, in other case it will make the quality worse (Diagram 2.).
The measure of the protein utilization (digestibility) is remarkable too. It is very low in the common wheat (55-75%) and very high (king: 89-93%, novum: 90-96%) in the other two. The new ones are utilized nearly the same way like the animal proteins. Important fact that common wheat is almost always strongly chemicalized (fertilizers, pesticides) otherwise it would barely grow; the novum and king wheats had pest control only once.
The novum’s high protein content and utilization questioning that does Hungary really need to import nearly one million ton soy (or the EU with ten million) when, the protein-yield per hectare could be more than the soy’s (Table 7.)? The novum don’t need heat treatment (this is mandatory regarding the soy, because it could be toxic in forage and food), so it’s protein is totally useable. The feeding quantity is limitless, i. e. dosage at will. Soybean should be mixed in max. 15-25%.
1.2 Hardness
Figure 3. informs about the Hi-ranges (hardness-index).
Figure 3. The hardness of the common, king and novum wheats
After taking a look at the figure we can observe the following: the hardness ranges of the common and novum wheat are nearly the same. This is not a coincidence because the common wheat genetically resembles to the novum more (the novum is a threshable spelt), than to the king wheat. The interval of the king wheat is favorably tight, because one of its ancestor, the emmer, is also the ancestor of the durum. But the king wheat also contains spelt-bloodline too, which makes it not just a dry-pasta material. It’s flour-, and protein structure exceeds the best American wheats. So, raised pastas, breads and other bakeries with excellent features can be made from it. And because its protein content is higher than the durums’, dry-pastas with better dietetic effect can be made and no need for egg as protein-complement.
Marketability side: the baking industrial use of the hard wheat is spreading in Europe too (for this purpose, the U.S. and Canada exported wheats so far). The best wheats so far were coming from the Canadian CWES class. The king wheat also exceeds this class with the protein content, and mostly with the hardness too (compare Tables 1-2. with Figure 3.).
But the novum representatives haven’t been developed just because the hardness. The main goal was to realize the highest nutritional value, and in forage to replace the soy and to reduce the maize (it’s often uneconomical and has low nutrition-rate). Sure we can see values around 80 Hi in the figure. These lines are coming from those genetic bases (with selection) which are good for flour and bakery with the current technology. The protein content of these still exceeds (Figure 2.) the best common wheats’.
After processing the non-presented datasets, we can state that regarding the novum 40-60 Hi value (soft – mid-hard) comes with 18-28% protein content, and 70-80 Hi value (hard) comes with 16-20% (r=0,82 – tight correlation).
1.3 Wet-gluten and spreading evaluation
The wet-gluten is 75-85% of the wheat’s protein content, indissoluble in water, strongly swells to the effect of moisture. This gives the framework of raised pastas. The internal structure components (glutenin, gliadin) determine will it keep its shape at gas-formation (CO2) or will it pall.
A gluten quality indicator, the most frequently used spreading can inform about this flexibility. The structure is flexible between 0-5 mm/h spreading, and it’s soften, inflexible if the gluten’s spreading is above 8 mm/h.
Diagram 2. presents the results of a seven year long analyzing period. It shows the genetic width of the common, novum and king wheats, how ecologically adaptive they are, how good they are for the requirements of sustainable farming, and what they are capable of at very low soil conditions (0,4-0,6% humus = shifting sand).
Diagram 2. Wet-gluten on the left (%), spreading on the right (mm/h)
Before we evaluate the diagram above let’s see some important facts:
the soil does not contain any nutrition supply since 2000,
from the novum mostly forage varieties were sown,
the king wheat is in use since 2007,
2007 and 2012 were extremely droughty, 2010 was extremely wet,
the average height of the tallest aestivums (Kunhalom, Lupus, Jubilejnaja) in the most wet year /2010/ was only 70 cm, the average of the others was 45 cm, and the harvest with combine would have encountered big troubles.
Below conclusions can be made regarding wet-gluten:
the level in the novum is constantly high,
the king wheat is doing great even in low-grade soil,
the common wheat without fertilization barely achieve the minimum quality requirements → 3-4 years of non-fertilized acclimatization is needed for the better quality, but still cannot be harvested mechanically because of the shortness; before the acclimatization the highest gluten quantity was realized in the driest season (2007), and the lowest in the wettest season (2008); the gluten quantity is following the principle resulting the switch/adaptation, but the statement about the effect of dry and wet season is still true.
Regarding the spreading we can define the following:
the most often used novum line’s spreading is high, so, with the common technology it’s difficult to make bakery from it (this variety, because of the spreading – 8-12mm/h – forage kind); in few seasons with other lines /less spreading/ the values are lower,
the common wheat, at extreme soil conditions, also gave high spreading, but the diagram does not tell us that the gluten structure completely fell apart (there was only one variety which complied properly in most years),
the king wheat’s spreading is good, so, in any low-grade soil, without fertilization it’s still good for culinary purpose, it can be used even in half-desert circumstances.
Dispersions in seven year’s average:
wet-gluten spreading
common wheat 18-38% 5,5-12,5 mm/hour
king wheat 29-49% 0-8,0 mm/hour
novum wheat 30-57% 2-15,0 mm/hour
1.4 Aesthetic performance; grain size evaluations
The shape, particularly the average size and weight indicate that how much reserved nutrition the grain has. Also it shows (after purifying in particular sized sifters: 2,20-2,50-2,80-3,0mm) the falling percentage, namely how much wheat offal we have and how square the production is.
The common wheat’s culinary standard is 2,2mm, the seed’s 2,5mm; the novum’s general standard is 2,6-2,8mm; the king wheat does not have a standard yet, but I predict the culinary standard probably will be 2,80mm.
The thousand kernel weight (TKW), regarding the wheat, is referring mainly to the weight and less to the size (Figure 4.).
Figure 4. Thousand kernel weights of the common, king and novum wheats
It’s marking out from the figure that in Hungary, the weight of more than hundred common wheat varieties are between 36-48g, the average weight of the current novum lines are between 44-56g, and the average of the hundreds of king wheat lines are between the 54-72g interval. Looking back to Picture 6., the king wheat’s convincing aesthetic vantage is eye-catching. On the photo we can see a TKW=66g king wheat, and some common wheat varieties (Jubilejnaja TKW=49g, Ati TKW=38g, Magvas TKW=44g).
2. Economic evaluation
The point of this evaluation is to be aware of a species’ or a variety’s accounting (first cost) and economic relationship system (producer-processor-logistics-costumer) and significance.
Section 1 comparisons can be used in economic sense too, because the way higher level of the quality parameters predestinates the novum and king wheats to replace the common wheats and generate demand market. To achieve this, a proper marketing strategy is needed. The most important part of the first cost approach is the cheaper growing reality.
2.1 Fertilization impact assessment
Diagram 3. informs about the input demand of the most important cost factor, and about the quality change:
Diagram 3. The change of wet-gluten content to the effect of fertilization
Very important correspondence can be noticed. Both the king and novum wheat’s protein and gluten content strongly fall down while the common wheat’s gluten level increases 10-20% compared to the control. This all means that the common wheat can reach protein level above 30% only with 100-135 €/ha additional input, if the other technological components are appropriate and no need for acclimatization. Moreover there is another 100-135 €/ha input (weed control, P-K fertilizers) which the novum and king wheats barely need.
Why don’t the new wheats require the fertilization? The direct, synthetic N-fertilizer is harmful for them, but they need the nitrogen revealed, hardened by the microorganisms in the soil. This type of nutriment is always and progressively at service, it’s not a spasmodic dose like the spilled nitrogen, so the vegetal cell-structure doesn’t slack up, the wheat doesn’t lean. The quality loss from fertilization is caused by leanings and the change of genetically coded physiological processes ® the crop literally gets ill (=overnutrition).
The new wheats are carrying a very old genetic material (they had the time to adapt to the natural circumstances), the common wheat, after 100-150 years of breeding work, has lost many-many old genetic programs and only got better in yield and some not so significant quality parameters.
In 2008, Hungary started the „Pannon” wheat program. The common wheat varieties in the program (with technological disciple their hardness and protein content are similar to the Americans’) can only fulfill the requirements of the western market with 120-160 kg/ha N-fertilizers. But the farm price is mostly higher in DAF-level yet (FOB-Rijeka, Hamburg, Rotterdam even higher), than the CIF-Rotterdam regarding American wheats.
In the point of culinary quality, only the king wheat can ensure rentability to the western markets.
The current novums can be alternatives for the western market as protein-supplements with the purpose to upgrade flours, also to replace the spelts, bio foods and soy. Their first cost is even cheaper than the king wheats’.
2.2 The economical indicators of the novum wheat
In Table 7. I summarized the comparing indicators in 2010 input prices:
Table 7. Economical indicators of the novum wheat, other grain crops and meat
The numbers are obvious. For stock-raising it’s worthy to switch to novum use. For those who make demands towards healthy food it’s also worthy to consider the food industrial use. Regarding the efficiency it is the cheapest protein based forage, so there is an opportunity take out the protein import. The novum provides the same digestible protein per unit as the meat and more than the soy. Also the price level of the soy and meat is much higher. Against the 2007 first cost, in 2012 the maize doubled, the aestivum and the inland soy increased 30-40% the import soy increased 90-100%. But the same time the novum first cost increased only 10-15%.
Summary
The combinational possibilities of the millions of years ago formed, still unchanged structured, twenty natural amino-acids provide the endless varieties of the life forms (more than all of the atoms in the Solar System - 10*130). The formed amino-acids have only „L” (left) optical activity, so they are homochiral, living molecules. Every „L” amino-acid can only connect with „D” saccharine molecules (nucleotides, RNS, DNS etc.). The „D” amino-acid and the „L” sugar are not able to choose, so both are dead materials.
The „L” characteristic, in those amino-acids which give the protein-content of the crops from the misconceived „intensive” farming (strongly chemicalized), has become „D” in 25-40% - they have lost their biological activities. The best case is they generate inert effect in the organism (same thing happens with sugar, in that case D turns into L), but in long term they are toxic. This statement is increasingly applies to the mainly not species-identical gene transfer (GMO).
Mainly these facts are responsible for many diseases such as high blood pressure, secondary diabetes, most of the allergies, flour and sugar sensitivity, protein sensitivity (especially with soy), endomycosis (mainly the Candida) etc.
The current calculation methods are unable to discriminate the „L” and „D” amino-acids. So, at the protein content determination, the methods review the incorrect amino-acids (without knowing) in positive way also.
The presented results and conclusions are referring to that the new wheat species are much more suits for human nutrition and healthcare, moreover they’re very important for forage production, bio-farming, sustainable agriculture and for the evolving green energy program. It is also worthy to consider the involvement of the State. Such radical changes could be indicated, like in Europe 450 years ago by the maize and potato.
The grain-sector which mainly determines the current agribusiness has many anomalies. Varga reveals these anomalies when he says: „The unbalanced and unreliable yield level, together with the hectic price relations, is responsible for the downfall of the Hungarian stock-raising. The practice cannot eliminate the weather anomalies and the not so good production site capabilities without the change of paradigm. The currently used Hungarian and European common wheats are able to yield and show proper quality only with intensive fertilization and pest control. They are genetically over-raised, the ecological adaptability has ceased.” If we include the climate change then it is obvious that new ways have to be found.
While the subvention level is high – because it’s real high – in the oldest member countries of the European Union, then the U.S. will continue to keep fighting against the EU-protectionism in the WTO with success. The EU farmers, because of the high subvention level, are not that aware of the quality and cost saving requirements.
Innovation is just a political slogan. There is no will to act behind the conceptions and directives towards action. It’s because there weren’t any specific data, fact, smashing economic innovation which would have been attached to the directives.
GM is a wrong approach in direct nutrition and forage, it could have reason for existence only in industrial processing (not food-industrial!), and the gene transport is only allowable when it happens inside the genus. Besides all this, it contradicts to the Brundtland Commission’s definition of the sustainable development: "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
I hope that, with the communicated and processed information, I can contribute to present a brand new innovation work, and then, with its analysis, to achieve a more efficient agricultural economy.
----------------------------------
Barabás, Z. (1987): A búzatermesztés kézikönyve. Mezőgazdasági Kiadó, Budapest
Berényi, B. – Szabó, L. (2001): Növénytermesztés trópusokon-szubtrópusokon. Szaktudás Kiadó, Budapest
Békési, F. (2001): CSIRO Division of Plant Industry. Canberra
Győri, Z. – Győriné (1998): A búza minősége és minősítése. Szaktudás Kiadó, Budapest
Kent, N. L. (1975): Technology of Cereals. Pergamon Press, Oxford
Labay, A. (1998): Új utak-új lehetőségek az agrártermelésben. Szaktudás Kiadó, Budapest
Láng, G. (1966): A növénytermesztés kézikönyve. Mezőgazdasági Kiadó, Budapest
Martonvásári Fajtakatalógus (2006): MTA Mezőgazdasági Kutatóintézete, Martonvásár
MSZ 6383 (1998): Hungarian Standard, Wheat
Pollhamerné (1973): A búza minősége különböző agrotechnikai kísérletekben. Akadémia Kiadó, Budapest
Varga, F. (2005): A magyar agrár-élelmiszerbiznisz újszerű stratégiája. Script, Izsák
Varga, F. (2005): The diversification of species Triticum spelta. Script, Izsák
Varga, F. (2008): A búza ezer arca. Script, Izsák
Varga, F. (2008): Novum wheat, the threshable spelt. Script, Izsák
