DisplayTitle

Comparison of Methods for Gluten Strength Assessment

¹U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Soft Wheat Quality Laboratory, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691. Names are necessary to report factually on available data; however, the USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of the product, and the use of the name by the USDA implies no approval of the product to the exclusion of others that may also be suitable. ²Corresponding author. Phone: 330-263-3891. Fax: 330-263-3651. E-mail: gaines.31@osu.edu ³Grain Quality, Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 960 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6, Canada. ⁴Hyland Seeds-W.G. Thompson & Sons, P.O. Box 250, #2 Hyland Drive, Blenheim, Ontario N0P 1A0, Canada. ⁵USDA ARS Western Wheat Quality Lab., Washington State University, E-202 FSHN - Facility East, Pullman, WA.

Five methods that employed very different testing principles and procedures for assessing gluten quality were compared for 33 North American soft red and white wheats. The three methods analyzed flour (alveograph work, lactic acid solvent retention capacity, and mixograph peak time) and two methods employed ground wheat meal (Glutomatic gluten index and SDS sedimentation volume). Compared against the normalized mean of all five assessments, the ability of the assessment methods to evaluate gluten quality decreased in the order: alveograph work, lactic acid solvent retention capacity, mixograph peak time, Glutomatic gluten index, and SDS sedimentation volume. The methods utilizing flour were substantially superior predictive methods; however, the two meal-based methods could be sufficient for early generation screening when flour is not available.