Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities (EJPAU) founded by all Polish Agriculture Universities presents original papers and review articles relevant to all aspects of agricultural sciences. It is target for persons working both in science and industry,regulatory agencies or teaching in agricultural sector. Covered by IFIS Publishing (Food Science and Technology Abstracts), ELSEVIER Science - Food Science and Technology Program, CAS USA (Chemical Abstracts), CABI Publishing UK and ALPSP (Association of Learned and Professional Society Publisher - full membership). Presented in the Master List of Thomson ISI.
2003
Volume 6
Issue 1
Topic:
Food Science and Technology
ELECTRONIC
JOURNAL OF
POLISH
AGRICULTURAL
UNIVERSITIES
Ceglińska A. 2003. TECHNOLOGICAL VALUE OF A SPELT AND COMMON WHEAT HYBRID, EJPAU 6(1), #02.
Available Online: http://www.ejpau.media.pl/volume6/issue1/food/art-02.html

TECHNOLOGICAL VALUE OF A SPELT AND COMMON WHEAT HYBRID

Alicja Ceglińska

 

ABSTRACT

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:

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:

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). 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
B.u.

Protein total
%

Falling
number
s

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
cm3

Wet gluten
%

Gluten
index

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
absorption
%

Dough
stability
min

Dough
softening
B.u.

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
loss
%

Yield of
bread
%

Volume of
bread
cm3

Porosity of
crumb
%

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  1. 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]

  2. COBORU, 2001. Lista odmian ro¶lin rolniczych [List of Agricultural Cultivars], 83-84 [in Polish]

  3. 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]

  4. 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

  5. Jakubczyk T., Haber T., 1983. Analiza zbóż i przetworów zbożowych. [Analysis of cereals and cereale products], Wydawnictwo SGGW-AR, 136-144 [in Polish]

  6. Jurga P., 1996. M±ka dla potrzeb specjalnych. [Flour for especial needs]. Przegl. Zboż.-Młyn., 40, 7,11 [in Polish]

  7. 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]

  8. Ostrowska D., 1993. Orkisz pszenny cennym surowcem piekarskim. [Spelt of valued baking stuff]. Agrochemia, 8, 11 [in Polish]

  9. 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.


[BACK] [MAIN] [HOW TO SUBMIT] [SUBSCRIPTION] [ISSUES] [SEARCH]