Wheat Grading

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie;

Did you know at the last CGC standards meeting that it was explained that Hard Viterous Kernels HVK are NOT a determining factor for flour yield in Hard Red Spring... in the real world yet is a primary grade determination for much of the wheat traded today?

Hard White Spring does not have HVK as a grade determining factor at all in Canada?

CPS used to not use HVK... but now it seems to have snuck in?

Falling Numbers are being considered for implementation for 2006-07... but it is a mess because they are squabling over how to apply this factor to grading?

What about if a good falling number (above 300)on a sample does not change the grade... because of HVK is too low?

In the US grading system this has been refined for decades... I sure hope we will actually benefit CDN western designated area producers of wheat... to simply add the falling number without changing the other grading factors will not add value to many who are being discounted unfairly by the CDN grading system now...

Some CDN wheat that is graded as feed now will yeild as much and as high a flour yeild as #1CWRS right now. Are we going to recognise this in the Canadian grading standards?

[silverback]

Surely the CWB would not be buying our grain as 1CW Feed and selling it overseas as #3,#2, or better and still accepting feed price from their customers would they?? That would be unethical. LOL

[charliep]

What do others think about alternatives grading/quality specification systems?

Should wheat go the way of oats where grades are almost irrelevant and rather sold to contract specifications?

What are peoples thoughts about the current CGC discussion paper proposing that wheat grades go to four classes - hard red spring wheat, durum, other red wheat and other white wheat. The implication for alternative wheats is that they would either be blended or gathered/shipped under an idendity presserved program. (See the CGC website - http://www.grainscanada.gc.ca/Pubs/discussions/wqas/wqas01-e.htm).

As a note, you cannot necessarily say that 3CWRS wheat has the same flour yield as better grades. Shrivelled/smaller kernels that come from frost damage will deal with less flour than high quality. It is also more difficult to get nice white flour given there is more flecking (hope I got the name right -pieces of the outside hull) winding up in the flour.

[charliep]

Mistake alert. The second sentence should read as follows.

Shrivelled/smaller kernels that come from frost damage will YIELD less flour than high quality WHEAT.

[wd9]

Tom4CWB re:

Did you know at the last CGC standards meeting that it was explained that Hard Viterous Kernels HVK are NOT a determining factor for flour yield in Hard Red Spring... in the real world yet is a primary grade determination for much of the wheat traded today?

:: Since the CGC just released this info at the Nov 1 WGSC, what to do with the info is to be decided by the wheat subcommittee. However appearance is still important to a customer who doesn't live in the real world.


Hard White Spring does not have HVK as a grade determining factor at all in Canada?

:: Should be obvious why.


Falling Numbers are being considered for implementation for 2006-07... but it is a mess because they are squabling over how to apply this factor to grading?

:: Technology to do falling number is coming along nicely, and no there hasn't been any squabling over grading, at least not officially at the WGSC meeting, maybe in the hallway.

[TOM4CWB]

WD9;

It should be obvious why Hard White Spring does not use HVK, why exactly?

On Falling Numbers the US does not do a falling number on every load entering an elevator... they use composite samples which is all that is needed 95% of the time. If wheat is a borderline 300, then a visual can normally determine sprout that would spike the falling number down... this is not rocket science! 80% plus of world trade of milling wheats use falling numbers as a primary determination of milling quality today. We are not inventing the wheel!

[wd9]

If Canada goes to an objective grading system using FN, we will be world leaders in grading at the country elevator. If producers don't want this they best speak real soon and real loud. Protein and moisture testers used today are a good example of objective testing. Once a falling number is determined, how it is paid for will be the big discussion. I never said the squabling won't be coming, just that it hasn't happened yet. Will it be a sliding scale like protein? Maybe. To say good at 301 and bad at 299 will not work I am sure. To go back to checking for sprouts to "fudge" the grade is not objective grading. Chlorophyll in canola faces the same question. Energy in feed barley, same question. Objective grading is black and white, how those numbers determine value will be a bit grey.

Many producers argue FN will make my feed wheat good for milling. What they don't realize is the reverse is also true just as often.

[charliep]

As an interesting note, I would highlight the payment spreads between different grades and classes of wheat have widened IMHO. The new pricing options have made the market based spread a lot more visible. It is harder to cross subsidize classes, grades and proteins.

Moving to falling number will add a new set of complexities. Will falling number be a yes/no decision in terms of qualifying for a grade? Will farmers have a falling number payment grid similar to that for protein? What will the blending capabilities be at terminal elevators viewed both as a benefit (higher revenues) and risk (liability)?

Questions/implications?

[parsley]

Wd9,
You are very astute to say:
"Once a falling number is determined, how it is paid for will be the big discussion."

All the extra grading that is being done helps marketing the product but the cost should not and cannot be borne by the producer once again.

Flour Mills have the testing capacity to determine the falling number immediately. That cost shold not be downloaded, as is the cleaning at the ports.As is the protein testers at the elevators . As is storage. As is transport. etc.
The CWB SHOULD be looking out for the farmer.Instead, didn't they send the bill for the protein testers to farmers?
Parsley

[wd9]

Yup, and we'll pay it again. Have you met my friend Ben Dover?

Objective grading is the future, we are gonna stumble a bit to get there though.

[parsley]

Don't know him. What does Ben Dover say?

[wd9]

BenD over (oops, little typo there) keeps telling me that an industry that buys retail and sells wholesale is not in a value chain, but at the bottom of a value "V". Innovation and development costs passed down, value added and logistics costs pushed back. The trick for farmers will be to turn the V into a chain for long term sustainability, passing on costs and sharing some profit. Fortunately the CWB is helping us achieve this through things like well written malt contracts protecting farmers.

[charliep]

Just a question how CWB malt contracts protect growers. I have to question how the current CWB contracts protect farmers. I note you provide maltsters and exporters exclusive right to look at a malt barley sample (must have a signed CWB contract) for two weeks - no competition in the selection process. Maltsters and exporters have the right of rejection if sample does not meet specifications. The delivery terms are at best wimpy with no penalties (except for perhaps the storage payment with is not paid by the maltster exporter but rather shared in the pricing pool) when this commitment is not kept. Maltsters and exporters are not allowed to compete with the domestic feed market let alone each other. Farmers and maltsters cannot really enter into long term contracting relationships based on some form of price guarantee. The prices paid by different buyers are masked in the pooling process - ie. what is the relationship between prices paid by the domestic malting industry and that paid by the export market.