CGC / HVK

[wmoebis]

One of our biggest degrading factors of wheat is HVK. or Non Viteous Kernals. We have been down graded all the way to a #3 from a #1 because of non HVK. In many areas this is the most common factor and the reason a lot of producers quit growing HRS, they couldn't grow #1 and lost on not only grade, but protien to a #3.

We pay dearly for a research lab,the CGC sets our standards and enforces them. They have anounced that HVK is not a factor and will be removed in the near future. Something that many producers have been saying for years. Shouldn't this have been looked at before they implemented this factor? Not years after it has cost us?

This factor has cost us farmers billions over the years, being degraded for something that isn't even a quality issue and can be revoked or never put in place.

Who is going to be accountable for this blunderous mistake? How many more factors are out there that aren't needed and are just made up for what ever reason, possably for job protection? Who is at fault the CGC or the Western Grain Standards Committee?

I'm not sure but I know that farmers have paid dearly over the years. Trying to grow better quality that is not even a quality issue. They were told it was a protien issue and poured on more fertilizer. They changed seeding dates, early seeded seemed to be better some years some years later and risked frost. Then we still got degraded at the elevator. Farmers have even quit growing wheat because they say they can't grow quality and standards are too high.

[TOM4CWB]

wmoebis,

I have heard that HVK and Water retention are connected.

As a wheat kernel is broken down in weathering... it's ability to bind water and retain it in the baking process is reduced; I understand.

This is another side to the HVK issue... that is an indicator of value to the miller and baker.

Blending with higher quality wheat with HVK's is an option to upgrade the lower water absorbtion weathered wheat.

The US system certainly pays more for high HVK wheat... discounts are applied for low HVK lots of wheat.

[melvill]

wmoebis, your question got my curiosity going so I did some digging. According to a book from the Cdn. Gr. Commission library, "Wheat Grading in Western Canada: 1883-1983", hard vitreous kernels were first defined in the 1925 revision of the Canada Grain Act. The book said, "An ambiguity in the wording of the previous grade definitions was also cleared up by separating the concepts of variety and percentage of hard vitreous kernels. Previously the definition for No. 1 Manitoba Hard wheat was worded: " ... and shall be composed of at least 75% of Red Fife wheat." The new definition said: "... shall include all varieties of hard red spring wheat equal in value to Marquis wheat," and further "... shall contain 75% of hard vitreous kernels."

Going on the book said, "By this time, hard vitreous kernel percentage in hard spring and hard winter wheats was widely considered to be closely related
to protein content. The United States, in defining their first federal grain standards in 1916, had set up a classification for hard spring and hard winter wheats based on percentages of hard vitreous kernels, each classification then having a series of grades. This focused the attention of wheat buyers on hard vitreous percentage classification and grading, and Canada responded by spelling
out more clearly what had been implied by the grade definitions for many years."

So basically the HVK spec in grading was there to allow visual evaluation of the milling and baking quality of hard red spring and hard red winter wheat.

Incidently, the U.S. grading system requires a minimum of about 75% HVK for Dark Northern Spring, a minimum of about 40% for Northern Spring and anything less than that is graded Spring.

I talked to the CWB sales department about this issue. Japan, for instance, always buys #1 CWRS which must have a minimum of 65% HVK but millers there are used to 80% to 90% HVK. Persuading them to take a lower HVK level may be a tough sell.

Last year China bought 1.5 Mil t of #2 13.5% which requires a minimum of 35% HVK. The first cargos of that sale were #2 13.5% but with about 60% HVK. The last cargo of that sale was #2 13.5% but just above 35% HVK. The Chinese millers that received grain from the last cargo complained about it saying it looked like domestic Chinese wheat even though it met all the specs for #2.

This whole issue started because grading by HVK is a very subjective process. The CGC has begun a process to remove subjectivity (eye-balling) from the grade specs, hoping to replace it with objective (or machine) measurements of grade.

Sorry this is so long but it's an important question.