thumbnail

By Dr. Senay Simsek, Bert L. D’Appolonia Cereal Science and Technology of Wheat Endowed Associate Professor, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND

With the global demand for wheat remaining quite strong, there is a continual need to develop new varieties that have resistance to the latest disease threats, as well as improved yield, agronomic and end-use qualities. The varieties available today are improved over historic varieties, yet their basic genetic structure is essentially unchanged. In the Northern U.S. Plains during the past century, there have been many improved wheat cultivars, including many public varieties developed by breeders at North Dakota State University (NDSU).

Those of us involved in wheat research, production and processing fully accept that flour from HRS and other wheat classes as well as semolina is healthy and very nutritious for the vast majority of people. However, this has not prevented opposing points of view, and serious attacks against food products that contain gluten.

Celiac disease is a real and serious autoimmune condition that has gained a lot of attention in the past few years. Reputable medical organizations have determined that celiac disease is prevalent in about 1 of every 100 people worldwide. However, the over-simplified explanation that “gluten causes celiac disease” has likely hurt the reputation of wheat and wheat foods. There is a subtle but significant difference that demonstrates gluten alone does not cause celiac disease and, as our study showed, that new wheat varieties are not responsible for increased cases of celiac.

The gluten in wheat, which is essential for the elastic texture of dough, is composed of two separate proteins: glutenin and gliadin. Glutenin and gliadin are divided into distinct compounds, which in turn are made up of specific peptides (compounds of two or more amino acids in a chain).

A genetic predisposition to celiac must exist in individuals before the presence of certain gliadin and glutenin peptides may trigger an immune response that results in damage to the lining of the small intestine. These peptides are therefore considered “immunogenic.” Previous studies have found that α-gliadin proteins in wheat have a high number of immunogenic peptides.

In many ways, simply blaming gluten for celiac has helped spark quite a bit of unwanted attention from bloggers, authors, doctors and others making claims that modern breeding practices have changed wheat protein chemistry. This has resulted in a higher concentration of immunogenic peptides in modern wheat in comparison to historical wheat varieties, and that this is a contributing factor towards increased incidence of celiac disease.

To test this hypothesis, we studied the protein chemistry of 30 HRS wheat cultivars released in North Dakota in the last century. The presence of celiac disease-initiating-peptides was determined using untargeted mass spectrometry, and the amount of these peptides was quantified using a targeted mass spectrometric approach. We collaborated with Dr. Steven Meinhardt from the NDSU Plant Pathology Department and graduate student Maneka Malalgoda worked with us as part of her master’s thesis project. This project was funded by growers through checkoff funds from the North Dakota Wheat Commission.

In the qualitative analysis, we determined the presence of 15 immunogenic peptides. We found that the presence of these peptides is not related to the release year of cultivars and that these peptides appear randomly. In our quantitative analysis, we specifically tracked two prominent immunogenic peptides, PFPQPQLPY (DQ-α-I/ glia-α9) and RPQQPYPQ (glia-α20), and total α-gliadin. The results supported our previous findings. That is, the amount of the peptides varied randomly across the years that were analyzed, and there is no correlation between release year and the number of immunogenic peptides or total α-gliadin.

Thus, overall, our results demonstrate that modern HRS wheat is not higher in terms of celiac disease immunogenicity in comparison to historical HRS varieties.

Our team plans to submit the complete study report to a peer reviewed journal in the future.

Editor’s Note: Capital Press has reported that a researcher is working with the Kansas Wheat Commission at the Heartland Plant Innovations Center in Manhattan, KS, toward a “celiac-safe” wheat. In theory, celiac-safe wheat would still contain the gluten proteins necessary for making bread, but would have none of the immunogenic peptides which trigger an immune response in people with the genetic predisposition for celiac disease, said Chris Miller, director of wheat quality research for Heartland Plant Innovations.

“I think the problem of celiac disease is so big that it won’t be solved by a single group of researchers,” Miller said. “If we can identify the underlying cause of celiac reactivity in the process, and we have the means to reduce it, we should be working towards those types of goals.”

thumbnail

By Elizabeth Westendorf, USW Policy Specialist

In 2016, Field to Market published its third National Indicators Report that assessed sustainability metrics in U.S. agriculture and looked at production of each crop on a national scale. Based on its environmental indicators, the report showed that wheat production has continued to improve, with particular progress in reducing soil erosion, over the past 25 years. The assessment results reflect yield improvements in wheat and demonstrate how farmers have adopted conservation practices. Reports like this help quantify sustainability and production improvement over time.

Assessing wheat sustainability on a national scale is difficult, however, because of the highly regional nature of its production. There are six U.S. wheat classes, grown in distinct regions and local micro-climates. Aggregate measures of sustainability are important, but they fail to capture the nuances of a crop that is grown across many different climates, soil types and farm environments.

To capture some of those nuances, USW has developed a series of farmer profiles that highlight regional sustainability in U.S. wheat production. Featuring farmers that grow a specific U.S. wheat class, the profiles highlight their practices, dedication to sustainability and unique growing conditions. They illustrate that while no two farmers are the same, they share a dedication to protecting their land for the next generation and a commitment to responsible stewardship.

The profiles include:

We encourage our customers and stakeholders to read the profiles at www.uswheat.org/factsheets. There is also more information about how U.S. farmers, ranchers, fishermen and foresters share their values, sustainability experiences and conservation practices online at The U.S. Sustainability Alliance.

thumbnail

By Stephanie Bryant-Erdmann, USW Market Analyst

As the Dec. 9 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimate (WASDE) confirms, global wheat supplies are at a record high this year. USDA increased its estimate for 2016/17 global wheat production to 751 million metric tons (MMT), up 2 percent from 2015/16 and 6 percent above the 5-year average. USDA now forecasts Australian wheat production to reach a record 33.0 million metric tons (MMT), up 35 percent year over year, if realized.

Higher yields tend to be associated with lower protein. As discussed in the Nov. 3 Wheat Letter, quality test results from Stratégie Grains, UkrAgroConsult, Canadian Grain Commission and other international agricultural groups show lower-than-average protein in the supplies from wheat-exporting countries.

Lower average protein content is problematic for many end-users. According to work done by Shawn Campbell, USW Deputy Director, West Coast Office, nearly all of the world’s high protein wheat exports (13 percent protein on a 12 percent moisture basis or higher) originate from just six countries: Australia; Canada; Kazakhstan; Russia; Ukraine; and the United States. High protein wheat production in these countries accounts for an average one-fifth of their total production in a normal year.

High protein wheat supply and demand factors are driving the growing premium between the Minneapolis Grain Exchange (MGEX), which trades hard red spring (HRS), and the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) and Kansas City Board of Trade (KCBT), which trade soft red winter (SRW) and hard red winter (HRW), respectively. Last December the intermarket spread between MGEX and KCBT averaged 36 cents. Fast forward to this December, and the MGEX to KCBT spread averages $1.47.

If the same high-yield, lower-than-average protein correlation also plays out in Australia, there will be little help from that corner for buyers searching for high protein wheat, further supporting the MGEX to KCBT and MGEX to CBOT spreads.

The demand for higher protein wheat also supports HRW protein spreads, which have widened significantly this year at both Gulf and Pacific Northwest (PNW) ports. Over the past 15 years, the average premium for 12 percent protein (12 percent moisture) at the Gulf has been 12 cents per bushel. This year that premium is 46 cents per bushel. The 15-year average premium for 12 percent protein HRW at the PNW is $1.05 per bushel. Since the beginning of the 2016/17 marketing year on June 1, that average premium is $1.64 per bushel.

Despite the increasing premiums for higher protein HRW and HRS, U.S. HRW exports are 25 percent ahead of the 5-year average and U.S. HRS exports are 29 percent ahead of the 5-year average. While the average protein content of HRW exports this year is down from last year due to increased demand for all HRW, 12 percent protein shipments account for 31 percent of all HRW shipments to date, up from 27 percent last year. The brisk pace of HRW and HRS exports and anecdotal reports from traders indicate buyers are breaking from the hand-to-mouth buying pattern that has been prevalent this past year to secure supplies of higher protein wheat. Forward contracting for high protein needs now makes sense.

When evaluating competing prices of high protein wheat, buyers should be sure to convert protein values quoted to a common moisture basis. Because water can be readily removed (by drying) or added (by tempering), exporters quote protein using a fixed moisture basis, but they do not all use the same basis. The United States specifies protein on a 12 percent moisture basis. The European Union and the Black Sea region typically use a dry-matter (0 percent) moisture basis. Australia uses an 11 percent moisture basis and Canada uses a 13.5 percent moisture basis. Below is an example of how moisture basis impacts actual protein received, and the conversion equation.

Please call your local USW representative if you have any questions about the U.S. wheat marketing system, U.S. wheat supply or moisture basis calculations.

Country Moisture basis used Example: 13% Protein Protein Converted to

Dry-Matter Basis

Australia 11.0 13.0 14.6
Black Sea 0.0 13.0 13.0
Canada 13.5 13.0 15.0
European Union 0.0 13.0 13.0
United States 12.0 13.0 14.8

Equation to calculate protein content based on different moisture basis:

Example: You have a sample of wheat with 10 percent protein on a 13 percent moisture basis (mb) and want to convert to 12 percent mb.

Equation:    Protein1/(100-mb1) = Protein2/(100-mb2)

10/(100-13) = Protein2/(100-12)

10/87=Protein2/88

Protein2= (88*10)/87 = 10.1%