Falling Numbers are a weird one to me.
Their readings are dependent on the kPa so change depending on elevation. (Yet you have to manually tell it so I’m always curious how big an effect a pressure system can have on results)
While the amounts used in a representative portion are things like 300g ground, 7ish g flour weighed, 25 ml of water..... it is still possible that in that 300g there aren’t many or maybe there’s a higher than representative amount for factors like sprouts, so even in that well stirred portion, does every 7g tested run the same chance of getting influencing factors at the correct amount they appear in the grain? (This will all get pushed back onto ensuring representative samples) It’s really the least consistent test I’ve personally done in that, you can run the same sample in the moisture or protein testers and you will be within .2 of itself every time. FNs have to be within 5% and they are so sensitive that that seems hard for some. Also, the FN people themselves will tell you that the higher the number, the less accurate/consistent you will get and anything over 400 will be harder to nail down. Not really an issue since over 400 is good, but if they start paying premiums it would be worth keeping in mind.
On the plus side, with the nature of the FN test, it seems that any **** up will more often than not result in a higher number for the grain, not a lower.
However I do wonder with so many companies saying they’re going to buy based on FN, not grades, what are they really going to do when faced with grain like Case’s. A subjective grade is one thing to disregard, maybe. But they tout the health for things like fus and ergot, can you disregard those factors in the face of the grain making good bread? Oh, it’ll look good but it might make you sick too. So do they mean they’ll buy based on FN, not visual grade, but you’re still subject to the downgrade of other stuff? They like to make it sound so simple....
Their readings are dependent on the kPa so change depending on elevation. (Yet you have to manually tell it so I’m always curious how big an effect a pressure system can have on results)
While the amounts used in a representative portion are things like 300g ground, 7ish g flour weighed, 25 ml of water..... it is still possible that in that 300g there aren’t many or maybe there’s a higher than representative amount for factors like sprouts, so even in that well stirred portion, does every 7g tested run the same chance of getting influencing factors at the correct amount they appear in the grain? (This will all get pushed back onto ensuring representative samples) It’s really the least consistent test I’ve personally done in that, you can run the same sample in the moisture or protein testers and you will be within .2 of itself every time. FNs have to be within 5% and they are so sensitive that that seems hard for some. Also, the FN people themselves will tell you that the higher the number, the less accurate/consistent you will get and anything over 400 will be harder to nail down. Not really an issue since over 400 is good, but if they start paying premiums it would be worth keeping in mind.
On the plus side, with the nature of the FN test, it seems that any **** up will more often than not result in a higher number for the grain, not a lower.
However I do wonder with so many companies saying they’re going to buy based on FN, not grades, what are they really going to do when faced with grain like Case’s. A subjective grade is one thing to disregard, maybe. But they tout the health for things like fus and ergot, can you disregard those factors in the face of the grain making good bread? Oh, it’ll look good but it might make you sick too. So do they mean they’ll buy based on FN, not visual grade, but you’re still subject to the downgrade of other stuff? They like to make it sound so simple....
Comment