Volume 6
Issue 1
Food Science and Technology
JOURNAL OF
POLISH
AGRICULTURAL
UNIVERSITIES
Available Online: http://www.ejpau.media.pl/volume6/issue1/food/art-02.html
TECHNOLOGICAL VALUE OF A SPELT AND COMMON WHEAT HYBRID
Alicja Ceglińska
The grain of spelt (Triticum spelta) is distinguished by higher total protein contents (13 – 17%) as well as by the different composition of prolamine proteins compared to common wheat (Triticum aestivum). The breeders have again taken an interest in spelt because of its better resistance to the influence of the environment. Research material used was the grain of 16 hybrids of (Triticum spelta × Triticum aestivum), which was compared with spelt and the two varieties of the common wheat featuring diverse technological value – the Begra and the Elena. Evaluation of quality included grain, flour and bread. All hybrids featured less total protein contents than spelt, however, higher than in case of the common wheat. Better total yield of flour was obtained for the hybrids than that from the spelt. Volume of the hybrid bread was in between the spelt and the common wheat breads. Technological features and good taste of bread the hybrids STH 586, STH 588 and STH
Key words:
baking properties, milling properties, spelt and common wheat hybrid
INTRODUCTION
Spelt (Triticum spelta) displays many similar features to the common wheat (Triticum aestivum), however, also many significant differences. Its grain is distinguished by higher total protein contents (13 – 17%) as well as by the different composition of prolamine proteins [4, 8]. This is probably why some people suffering from the food allergy tolerate products originating from spelt. Poor threshability of spelt as well as its lower crops (about 20%) as compared to wheat, have resulted in the reduction of its cultivation. For a couple of years, the breeders have again taken an interest in spelt because of its better resistance to the influence of the environment [4]. Therefore, spelt is suitable as a base for crossing with common wheat in order to obtain hybrids featuring improved utility values.
The aim of this work was to compare the technological value of the obtained hybrids (Triticum spelta × Triticum aestivum) of spelt type, with spelt and the common wheat.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research material used was the grain of 16 hybrids of spelt and common wheat, which was compared with spelt and the two other varieties of the common wheat featuring diverse technological value – the Begra and the Elena. Evaluation of the grain included:
hardness determined by means of the Brabender farinograph attachment [5],
total protein contents determined on the Kjel-Foss Automatic (Nx5,83),
the Hagberg falling number (ICC Standard no. 107).
The grain was ground in the Brabender Quadrumat Senior laboratory mill and the obtained break and reduction flours were mixed together to asses total yield of flour.
Flour baking quality was determined through the following analyses:
Zeleny test [5],
quantity and quality of wet gluten in the Glutomatic 2200 (ICC Standard no. 137)
farinogram made in the Brabender farinograph-resistograph equipped with a computer attachment for data output (ICC Standard no. 115/1).
Laboratory baking was made using the single-phase wheat method. The bread produced was subjected to organoleptic assessment and the baking loss, yield of bread and its volume as well as porosity of the crumb were determined [5].
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Grain hardness, and that of the endosperm in particular, is one of the most important indicators of structural-mechanical properties of grain. This feature defines potential behaviour of the grain during milling. The hybrids under test, excluding three strains, were characterised by a grain of higher hardness than spelt and the variety of the Elena wheat (tab.1). However, only three hybrids featured hardness comparable with that of the variety of Begra wheat – having the grain distinguished by good and stable milling properties [7, 9]. All hybrids featured less total protein contents than spelt by approx. 10 – 25%, however, higher than in case of the common wheat. As regards the STH 602 hybrid, protein contents was higher by 23% in relation to the Begra variety and as much as 47% higher as compared with the Elena variety. Achremowicz et al. [1] and Grela et al. [3] obtained lower total protein contents in grain of spelt than that in the wheat grain. Grain of most o f the hybrids was characterized by medium amylolithic activity. Like spelt and the common wheat variety, 6 hybrids have shown low activity figures (falling number exceeding 300 s). Low activity of the varieties of spelt have been also reported by Achremowicz et al. [1]. More break than reduction flour was obtained from the hybrids as well as from spelt and the common wheat varieties (tab. 2). As regards 6 hybrids, twice bigger amount of the break flour than that of reduction flour was obtained. Better total yield of flour was obtained for the hybrids (with the exception of three strains) than that from the spelt and the Elena variety. Higher total yield of flour than that of the Begra variety – by at least 1% - was obtained in case of 4 hybrids. Achremowicz et al. [1] found that flour made of spelt has better yield than the wheat flour. Higher Zeleny test result for the flour results from higher contents of the gluten protein – determining good baking quality (tab. 3 A>). All hybrids featured better baking quality than spelt. Among them, only five hybrids featured higher Zeleny test result or equal to that for the Begra wheat variety – considered as being a wheat belonging to the quality class A according to COBORU [2]. None of the hybrids obtained came up to spelt as regards gluten contents. However, all the hybrids featured higher gluten contents – by at least 2% - than the Begra wheat variety. Quality of the gluten extracted from the hybrid flour and from the common wheat varieties alike – defined by the gluten index amounting to 6–91 and 2 to 73 respectively – showed considerable diversity. The dough made of a flour obtained from five hybrids featured long stability time and not large dough softening – similar to that of the Berga wheat variety (tab. 4). The smell of bread produced from the hybrid was pleasant, like that of the bread made of spelt and common wheat varieties. Spelt bread featured weakly perceptible nut taste that disappeared in ca se of the hybrid bread. As a rule, volume of the hybrid bread was in between the spelt and the common wheat breads (tab. 5). Differences in the hybrid bread volumes reached as much as 45%. Well risen loafs, featuring uniform and fine porosity were obtained from the hybrids with strong gluten and good dough rheology properties. Yield of bread made of majority of the hybrids was better than that of the spelt bread and the common wheat varieties. Difference in yield of bread made of the hybrid was 10% while baking loss was 5.4%.
Table 1. Quality grains of spelt and common wheat hybrids |
No. |
Hybrid/variety |
Hardness |
Protein total |
Falling |
1 |
STH 569 |
280 |
14.5 |
345 |
2 |
STH 570 |
330 |
15.1 |
215 |
3 |
STH 576 |
340 |
15.0 |
263 |
4 |
STH 579 |
395 |
15.0 |
281 |
5 |
STH 586 |
460 |
15.3 |
280 |
6 |
STH 588 |
365 |
14.9 |
326 |
7 |
STH 563 |
310 |
16.4 |
297 |
8 |
STH 593 |
390 |
16.4 |
238 |
9 |
STH 594 |
430 |
16.2 |
274 |
10 |
STH 565 |
355 |
14.5 |
300 |
11 |
STH 561 |
325 |
14.6 |
327 |
12 |
STH 562 |
330 |
16.5 |
243 |
13 |
STH 599 |
230 |
15.5 |
336 |
14 |
STH 600 |
320 |
15.4 |
342 |
15 |
STH 602 |
310 |
17.3 |
270 |
16 |
STH 996 |
425 |
14.3 |
335 |
LSD 0.05 |
20 |
0.4 |
13 |
|
Spelt |
290 |
19.2 |
325 |
|
Wheat - Begra |
440 |
14.1 |
306 |
|
Wheat - Elena |
310 |
11.8 |
348 |
Table 2. Milling properties of grain of spelt and common wheat hybrids |
No. |
Hybrid/variety |
Break flour |
Reduction flour |
Yield of flour |
1 |
STH 569 |
45.6 |
29.6 |
75.2 |
2 |
STH 570 |
42.6 |
29.0 |
71.6 |
3 |
STH 576 |
47.6 |
24.9 |
72.5 |
4 |
STH 579 |
51.0 |
25.6 |
76.6 |
5 |
STH 586 |
46.0 |
27.9 |
73.9 |
6 |
STH 588 |
42.9 |
31.4 |
74.3 |
7 |
STH 563 |
41.4 |
24.4 |
65.8 |
8 |
STH 593 |
40.4 |
35.7 |
76.2 |
9 |
STH 594 |
43.5 |
31.2 |
74.6 |
10 |
STH 565 |
43.8 |
21.2 |
65.0 |
11 |
STH 561 |
44.0 |
30.8 |
74.9 |
12 |
STH 562 |
41.7 |
34.2 |
75.9 |
13 |
STH 599 |
47.7 |
20.5 |
68.1 |
14 |
STH 600 |
44.0 |
27.1 |
71.1 |
15 |
STH 602 |
47.4 |
21.9 |
69.3 |
16 |
STH 996 |
49.6 |
22.8 |
72.4 |
Spelt |
48.7 |
19.2 |
67.9 |
|
Wheat – Begra |
39.3 |
34.6 |
73.9 |
|
Wheat - Elena |
41.8 |
26.7 |
68.5 |
Table 3. Quality flour of spelt and common wheat hybrids |
No. |
Hybrid/variety |
Zeleny test |
Wet gluten |
Gluten |
1 |
STH 569 |
24 |
37.1 |
6 |
2 |
STH 570 |
34 |
35.6 |
35 |
3 |
STH 576 |
29 |
40.3 |
27 |
4 |
STH 579 |
32 |
37.1 |
43 |
5 |
STH 586 |
55 |
35.0 |
84 |
6 |
STH 588 |
56 |
35.4 |
91 |
7 |
STH 563 |
36 |
43.1 |
35 |
8 |
STH 593 |
47 |
42.6 |
50 |
9 |
STH 594 |
61 |
38.4 |
82 |
10 |
STH 565 |
34 |
40.1 |
35 |
11 |
STH 561 |
28 |
40.1 |
26 |
12 |
STH 562 |
42 |
42.2 |
44 |
13 |
STH 599 |
31 |
38.5 |
32 |
14 |
STH 600 |
27 |
43.9 |
19 |
15 |
STH 602 |
30 |
49.2 |
15 |
16 |
STH 996 |
50 |
39.0 |
75 |
LSD 0.05 |
3 |
1.0 |
10 |
|
Spelt |
18 |
51.6 |
11 |
|
Wheat – Begra |
48 |
32.6 |
73 |
|
Wheat – Elena |
27 |
27.4 |
2 |
Table 4. Farinograph analysis of flour of spelt and common wheat hybrids |
No. |
Hybrid/variety |
Water |
Dough |
Dough |
1 |
STH 569 |
56.8 |
2.9 |
75 |
2 |
STH 570 |
58.8 |
4.9 |
50 |
3 |
STH 576 |
60.4 |
4.5 |
60 |
4 |
STH 579 |
59.6 |
5.0 |
50 |
5 |
STH 586 |
59.6 |
8.2 |
30 |
6 |
STH 588 |
61.8 |
9.2 |
30 |
7 |
STH 563 |
59.8 |
6.2 |
35 |
8 |
STH 593 |
64.8 |
7.5 |
40 |
9 |
STH 594 |
65.4 |
9.2 |
30 |
10 |
STH 565 |
60.6 |
5.4 |
35 |
11 |
STH 561 |
61.8 |
5.1 |
35 |
12 |
STH 562 |
63.2 |
7.4 |
35 |
13 |
STH 599 |
59.6 |
5.9 |
35 |
14 |
STH 600 |
61.4 |
7.7 |
15 |
15 |
STH 602 |
60.8 |
4.8 |
60 |
16 |
STH 996 |
62.0 |
8.6 |
30 |
Spelt |
62.2 |
1.7 |
50 |
|
Wheat - Begra |
61.4 |
1.4 |
25 |
|
Wheat - Elena |
59.2 |
1.2 |
75 |
Table 5. Analysis of bread from flour of spelt and common wheat hybrids |
No. |
Hybrid/variety |
Baking |
Yield of |
Volume of |
Porosity of |
1 |
STH 569 |
17.3 |
135 |
203 |
63 |
2 |
STH 570 |
17.6 |
136 |
277 |
78 |
3 |
STH 576 |
20.5 |
131 |
277 |
74 |
4 |
STH 579 |
17.4 |
136 |
228 |
74 |
5 |
STH 586 |
16.4 |
137 |
278 |
74 |
6 |
STH 588 |
19.4 |
132 |
288 |
82 |
7 |
STH 563 |
17.5 |
134 |
233 |
74 |
8 |
STH 593 |
18.7 |
132 |
261 |
82 |
9 |
STH 594 |
17.6 |
136 |
267 |
70 |
10 |
STH 565 |
20.5 |
129 |
317 |
82 |
11 |
STH 561 |
19.1 |
132 |
267 |
82 |
12 |
STH 562 |
17.4 |
136 |
223 |
78 |
13 |
STH 599 |
18.8 |
132 |
241 |
70 |
14 |
STH 600 |
21.0 |
129 |
279 |
78 |
15 |
STH 602 |
21.2 |
129 |
305 |
74 |
16 |
STH 996 |
21.8 |
127 |
322 |
78 |
LSD 0.05 |
1.1 |
7 |
8 |
8 |
|
Spelt |
18.1 |
130 |
220 |
70 |
|
Wheat – Begra |
20.5 |
131 |
292 |
74 |
|
Wheat - Elena |
22.2 |
125 |
283 |
78 |
CONCLUSIONS
Differences in grain hardness between spelt hybrids reached 70%. However, no major relationship between this feature and the protein contents was found. Protein contents in spelt hybrids was lower by 2–5% than that in the spelt itself, however, it was higher than in the common wheat.
All the hybrids of spelt were characterized by higher Zeleny test results – indicating their better baking quality as compared with spelt. None of the hybrids matched the spelt as regards gluten contents. In turn, majority of them (12) surpassed spelt in terms of the gluten quality. Gluten content was higher by at least 2% in the hybrids than that in the Begra wheat variety itself – being rated as an A class wheat. Nevertheless, a majority – 12 out of 16 under test – featured lower quality.
A number of hybrids featuring improved milling and baking flour quality was obtained by hybridization of spelt (Triticum spelta) and the common wheat (Triticum aestivum). The STH 586, STH 588 and STH 594 hybrids were considered to have the greatest number of favourable technological features. Because of these features and good taste of bread the hybrids mentioned above may be sucessfully used for commercial baking.
REFERENCES
Achremowicz B., Kulpa D., Mazurkiewicz J., 1999. Technologiczna ocena ziarna pszenic orkiszowych. [Technological estimation of spelt]. Zesz. Nauk. AR Kraków, 360, 11, 11-17 [in Polish] COBORU, 2001. Lista odmian ro¶lin rolniczych [List of Agricultural Cultivars], 83-84 [in Polish] Grela E., Matras J., Kling Ch.J., 1993. Składniki pokarmowe w ziarnie orkiszu. [Feed ingredients of spelt grain]. Biul. Inf. Przem. Pasz., 32, 4, 35-43 [in Polish] Harsch S., Günter T., Kling Ch.I., Rozynek B., 1997. Characterization of spelt (Triticum spelta L.) forms by gel electrophoretic analyses of seed storage proteins. I The gliadins. Theor. Appl. Genet., 94, 52, 60–68 Jakubczyk T., Haber T., 1983. Analiza zbóż i przetworów zbożowych. [Analysis of cereals and cereale products], Wydawnictwo SGGW-AR, 136-144 [in Polish] Jurga P., 1996. M±ka dla potrzeb specjalnych. [Flour for especial needs]. Przegl. Zboż.-Młyn., 40, 7,11 [in Polish] Kaczyński L., 1999. Odmiany pszenicy odpowiednie na cele młynarsko-piekarskie. [Wheat cultivars applicable for milling and baking purposes]. Przegl. Zboż.-Młyn., 43, 7, 2-5 [in Polish] Ostrowska D., 1993. Orkisz pszenny cennym surowcem piekarskim. [Spelt of valued baking stuff]. Agrochemia, 8, 11 [in Polish] Sitkowski T., 1999. Ocena warto¶ci przemiałowej i wypiekowej ziarna pszenicy ze zbiorów 1998 roku. [Estimation of milling and baking quality of wheat grain from 1998 harvest] Przegl. Zboż.-Młyn., 43, 12, 33-34 [in Polish]
Alicja Ceglińska
Division of Cereal Technology
Department of Food Technology and Control
Warsaw Agricultural University
Nowoursynowska 159 c, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland
e-mail: ceglinska@alpha.sggw.waw.pl
Responses to this article, comments are invited and should be submitted within three months of the publication of the article. If accepted for publication, they will be published in the chapter headed ‘Discussions’ in each series and hyperlinked to the article.