Next Article in Journal
Differences in Fitness between Firefighter Trainee Academy Classes and Normative Percentile Rankings
Previous Article in Journal
Rethinking Sustainability in Human Resource Management
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 11
10.3390/su14116546
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Climate-Changed Wheat: The Effect of Smaller Kernels on the Nutritional Value of Wheat

by
Merri C. Metcalfe
1,*,
Heather E. Estrada
2 and
Stephen S. Jones
1
1
WSU Breadlab, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Burlington, WA 98233, USA
2
Department of Integrated and Agriculture Food Systems, Flathead Valley Community College, Kalispell, MT 59901, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(11), 6546; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116546
Submission received: 4 May 2022 / Revised: 24 May 2022 / Accepted: 24 May 2022 / Published: 27 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Food)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Through plant breeding and improved agronomy, the average wheat kernel size increased globally by about 40% from 1940 to 2000. Millers demand larger kernels because they contain more white flour (endosperm). Climate pressures are resulting in frequently reduced kernel size and routine rejection by the commodity system. If whole-wheat flour instead of white flour is the target, these smaller kernels have unrealized value. A total of 94% of Americans do not meet the recommended fiber intake, and inadequate fiber intake plays a role in the development of multiple chronic diseases. A total of 98% of the fiber in wheat is found in the bran. Bran content was measured in “big” ( x ¯ = 0.042 g/kernel) and “small” ( x ¯ = 0.023 g/kernel) kernels in nine varieties over locations and years. On average, small kernels contained 15.9% more bran than big kernels (n = 54, p < 0.001) and, thus, had higher mineral and fiber content. In the majority of cases, baking showed no difference in whole-wheat quality among flours within the same variety, regardless of kernel size, based on bread slice height and surface area. Wheat that was rejected by commercial mills as too small produced satisfactory bread. Favoring larger kernels and white flour production has unintended health consequences. Valuing smaller kernels and whole-wheat production provides an outlet for farmers dealing with increasing climate pressures and leads to an end-use product which can improve human health by increasing dietary fiber consumption.

1. Introduction

Breeders and agronomists have been successful in developing and producing wheat lines that have larger kernels. Globally, from 1940 to 2000, the average thousand-kernel weight (TKW) increased by 2.19 g per decade with an average TKW of 31.5 g in the 1940s to an average TKW of 44.64 g in the 2000s [1]. A larger kernel size results in greater white flour yield, which is demanded by millers. Breeding for a larger seed to increase white flour yield has led breeders to reject wheats from their programs that are deemed incapable of creating sufficient white flour (i.e., smaller wheat kernels). This translates to and is expanded at the flour mills, where any remaining smaller wheat kernels are rejected. Thus, a feedback loop is created where both breeders and mills overvalue larger seed kernels in the name of producing more white flour [2,3,4,5,6,7,8].
This model does not work in an overheated and drying climate where smaller seed is more frequent. Smaller kernels form in response to inhibited starch deposition from heat and drought stress [9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. Small wheats with lower TKWs, such as those produced in response to heat and drought stresses, are rejected or docked in price by the commodity market [16]. As of May 2022, extreme heat in India is already resulting in smaller and, shriveled kernels, and wheat harvests have been reported at 400 million tons less than expected due to these devastating heatwaves [17]. Another example of this global phenomenon occurred in northwestern US in 2020 and 2021, where the TKWs of over 500 wheat samples decreased by an average of 6.7 g from previous years [18]. In the summer of 2021, Washington and Oregon each had their hottest June and July on record, and from May to September 2021, an average of 46% of the contiguous United States was in drought, with nearly 90% of eleven states across the western US experiencing varying levels of drought in July, many rated as extreme [19]. Climate pressures have been steadily increasing and the past decade (2010–2019) has been the hottest recorded to date [19]. Additionally a recent study found that the southwestern US “megadrought” is the greatest drought in 1200 years [20]. As of Spring 2022, Washington state was already reporting severe and extreme droughts in the eastern part of the state, and these droughts are predicted to cause smaller wheat kernels [21,22]. Thus, despite the fact that breeders have been selecting for larger kernel size, environmental pressures are leaving producers with a harvest that contains smaller wheat kernels. Rather than reject these kernels as is customary within the commodity wheat system, should these smaller wheat kernels instead be valued for their nutritional content and economic potential?
The authors here seek to offer an alternative to a system which favors white flour and subsequently values larger wheat kernels at all costs. If we were to realize and value our global nutritional needs, how would our food system benefit by realizing the value of and not rejecting these small wheats? This is especially relevant considering Russia’s war on Ukraine. Russia and Ukraine supply up to 30% of the world’s wheat, and 2022 harvests in Ukraine are sure to plummet as Ukrainian farmers were forced to flee their farms. Additionally, both Ukraine and India have now banned wheat exports, threatening the global supply [17,23]. On average, 10–15% of the wheat kernel is dietary fiber, with nearly all of this found in the bran. White flour production, which removes the bran and germ from the wheat kernel, results in the loss of 98% of the dietary fiber found in wheat [24,25,26]. Fiber plays an essential role in the prevention of several chronic diseases, secondary to the development of a healthy gut microbiome [27,28,29,30]. Disrupted gut microbiomes have been associated with the development of diabetes, irritable bowel syndrome, irritable bowel disease, colorectal cancer, metabolic alterations, depression, and anxiety [30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39].
The current American dietary recommendations for fiber intake are 28–34 g per day. More than 90% of women and 97% of men do not meet the recommended intake [40]. Moreover, current research further suggests that fiber recommendations should be raised to at least 50 g per day [30,37,41,42,43].
In the US, total carbohydrate intake decreased 25% from 500 g per day in 1909 to 375 g per day in 1963, while dietary fiber intake decreased at a greater rate of almost 40%. From 1963 to 1997, total carbohydrate intake increased back to 500 g per day; however, fiber intake remained as low as in 1963, suggesting a dramatically increased intake of refined carbohydrates [44]. This phenomenon has been termed the “fiber gap” and is directly linked to a low intake of dietary whole grains [37,45,46,47]. A low intake of dietary whole grains was named the leading dietary risk factor for death among young adults (aged 25–50) [48]. Researchers attributed three million deaths and 70 million disability-adjusted life-years to a low intake of whole grains in the diets of individuals from 195 countries between 1990 and 2017 [48].
Since fiber in wheat is found almost exclusively in the bran, a simple way to increase fiber in the kernel (and in human diets) is to decrease the endosperm in relation to its coating (the bran) and to use the whole kernel for flour. A smaller kernel size correlates to less endosperm and a higher percentage of bran. This is illustrated by the square cube law, a mathematical principle first postulated by Galileo Galilei in Two New Sciences where he states that ‘The surface of a small solid is comparatively greater than that of a large one’ [49,50]. By principles of the square cube law, small kernels (“smalls” (Figure 1), defined here as kernels which move through a standard #7 sieve when placed in commercial shaker for three minutes), contain more total grams of dietary fiber per kernel than big kernels (“bigs”, defined here as kernels which do not move through a standard #7 sieve when placed in commercial shaker for three minutes). Furthermore, the total grams of dietary fiber in one kilogram of flour milled from smalls will be higher than from one kilogram of flour milled from bigs, as bigs have a higher percentage of endosperm per whole-grain kernel than smalls. This not only increases the fiber content in terms of percentage of fiber in the individual kernel, but also increases fiber content of finished products which use flour milled from wheat with less endosperm, as the increased percentage of bran is now replacing the endosperm (starch and gluten) in the wheat product.
Using the entire kernel is also modeling a more climate-friendly use of land and translates to a higher yield; this is because 25–30% of the farmer’s harvest is not sifted off for animal feed or other low-value uses, but is instead used for direct human nourishment. The production of white flour typically removes around 25% of the kernel, which is not used in baking production [25]. Obtaining as much direct human food per acre is the best use of our limited global land base. Additionally, valuing small kernels will provide an economic outlet for farmers who are dealing with increasing drought and heat pressures and whose smaller-kernel wheat has been previously rejected by mills and sold at a lower price.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Percent Bran Analysis

Nine varieties of wheat grown across five locations between 2018 and 2021, for a total of eighteen unique samples, were measured using the following methods. See Table 1 for details on specific varieties, locations, and years of samples measured. Subsamples (550–600 g) of each wheat sample were sifted through a USA Standard Testing Sieve #7 (2.8 mm/0.110 in) to separate larger seeds from smaller seeds in a Ro-Tap Sound Enclosure Cabinet R-30050 (W.S. Tyler, Mentor, OH, USA) shaker for three minutes. The #7 sieve size was chosen as this is equivalent to the sieve size used by a local seed cleaning facility. This procedure was repeated with each variety until a total of 1650 g each of smalls and bigs were obtained. For most varieties, obtaining 1650 g each of smalls and bigs required at least a fifty-pound bag of seed. Some varieties which were grown in more hot and dry climates (such as those grown in Montana) contained a higher percentage of small seed to big seed per fifty-pound bag compared to other varieties and locations measured.
After separating by large and small kernel size, each sample was tempered to 15% moisture prior to milling. Initial moisture content of each sample was measured using the MT-CA (Brabender, Duisburg, Germany). Initial moisture content was then used to calculate the amount of water needed to bring moisture content up to 15%. Next, the calculated amount of water was added to the bulked sample and placed in a large, sealed container. The container was manually shaken 150 times to ensure the additional water was evenly dispersed throughout the grain sample. The sample was then left undisturbed for 24 h. Moisture content was measured again after tempering to ensure the desired level of 15% moisture was reached. Two samples—Eileen bigs grown in Chimacum, WA, USA in 2021 and Eileen smalls of the same location and year—had initial moisture contents of 15.26% and 14.83%, respectively; thus, they were not tempered.
Next, for each variety and location, a 510–520 g sample of bigs was milled through a Quadrumat Junior (Brabender, Germany) miniature roller mill with the feeder open halfway. Once all seed had moved past the feeder, the mill was left running for an additional 60 s. After 60 s had passed, the mill was turned off. Next, a small nylon brush was used to move any flour that remained in the area past the rollers into the sifter. The mill was then run for an additional 60 s. Next, the drawer containing the sifted white flour was removed and the flour in this drawer was weighed using a KL1001—Precision Balance (Veritas, Beijing, China). This weight was used in the calculation as “weight of white flour from roller mill”. The flour portion which presumably contained more bran and germ was transferred into a Bran Duster (Brabender, Germany). The flour that remained in the sieve of the roller mill was also transferred into the bran duster for further partitioning. It was observed, in preliminary experiments, that a small pile (about 1 g) of flour was expelled from the roller mill from the opening of the plates (where the brush was placed). This small pile was also added to the bran duster. Once all partitions had moved past the auger of the bran duster, the duster was left running for an additional 60 s. After the bran duster was turned off, the left side door of the bran duster was opened, and a small one-inch paint brush was used to brush off the bran that remained in the sifter into the leftmost drawer which contained the dusted bran. The contents of the bran drawer were then weighed. Next, the top door of the duster was opened, and a two-inch paint brush was used to brush off any excess white flour from around the sieve. The white flour drawer was removed and the flour in this drawer weighed using a KL1001—Precision Balance (Veritas, China). This weight was used in the calculation as “weight of white flour from bran duster”. Next, the sieve was removed and any remaining bran in the sieve was weighed. This weight was added to the weight of the contents of the bran drawer and the total weight was used in the calculation as “total bran weight”. This procedure was repeated two more times with the bigs of each variety and location—cleaning the mill and bran duster between each sample preparation. The same procedure was then repeated three times with the smalls of each variety and location—again, cleaning the mill and bran duster thoroughly between each sample preparation. The estimated percent bran of small and big seeds was calculated by dividing “total bran weight” by “total bran weight + weight of white flour from bran duster + weight of white flour from roller mill” multiplied by 100 (e.g., [109.6 g/(109.6 + 26.6 g + 374.1)] = 21.5% bran in first rep from Red Russian harvested in 2020). The percent increase bran was calculated using the formula, [(Large bran−small bran)/large bran] × 100 (e.g., [(27.91−24.09)/24.09] × 100 = 15.9%).

2.2. Percent Ash

Ash content was measured for each variety and repeated three times for both large and small kernel size samples for each variety and location. Ash content was measured using AACC Approved Method 08-01.01, “Ash—Basic Method” (AACC Approved Methods of Analysis 1999). Ash content was measured using a Thermolyne Muffle Furnace (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Flour samples for percent ash analysis were taken from flour milled as described in “Percent Bran Analysis” after having been recombined in a metal bowl and stirred 100 times with a large spoon to ensure all particles were evenly dispersed.

2.3. Thousand-Kernel Weight

Thousand-kernel weight was measured after tempering to 15% moisture and prior to milling, as described in the “Percent Bran Analysis”. A C1 Seed Counter (Elmor, Schwyz, Switzerland), with speed and size set at the number “3” setting, was used to count 100 seeds of each variety with large- and small-sized kernels measured separately. Next, these 100 seeds were weighed on a KL1001—Precision Balance (Veritas, China) with weight multiplied by 10 to estimate TKW. Each sample was measured three times.

2.4. Test Baking

Baking functionality was determined by baking pup loaves using flour milled from only smalls in addition to loaves using flour milled from only bigs of each sample. Baking was carried out after all prior tests had been completed, using the flour milled during percent bran analysis, which had been recombined when measuring percent ash. The baking formula for the “Approachable Loaf”, created by professional baker Jeff Yankellow [51,52], was used, with 500 g as the total loaf volume for each flour sample. Dough was scaled out to 140 g per loaf. Bulk fermentation and folding time remained the same as original formula. Proofing time was decreased to 25 min at 72 °F to adjust for smaller pup loaf size. Loaves were baked in a One39-E Electric Mini Rotating Oven (Revent, Upplands Väsby, Sweden) and steamed at 5 min. The oven was preheated to 400 °F and turned down to 375 °F when loaves were placed in the oven. Baking time was decreased to 22 min from the 45 min used in original “Approachable Loaf” formula to adjust for smaller pup loaf size. Three pup loaves of each sample were baked along with an additional two control loaves per pan. Control loaves were baked using a single lot of Skagit 1109 flour. Skagit 1109 is a landrace released by WSU Breadlab in September 2016 and is widely accepted by millers and bakers nationally and globally. Note that each pup loaf pan had slots for eight loaves. Each pan contained three loaves using flour from small kernel sizes and three loaves using flour from large kernel sizes of the same variety, location, and year grown, along with two control loaves. Loaves were randomly placed in the pup loaf pan. Baking functionality of small seeds was also tested using 20–30-pound samples of small wheats that were rejected to be sold as animal feed by three separate commercial flour mills. These seeds were milled on a Mockmill 200 (Mockmill, Groß-Umstadt, Germany). Again, the “Approachable Loaf” formula was used; however, these loaves were baked as full-size loaves scaled out to 900 g of dough each. Bulk fermentation, folds, proofing, and baking time were not changed from the original “Approachable Loaf” formula. Again, loaves baked with Skagit 1109 flour were used as controls. Three full-size loaves from each commercial flour mill reject sample were baked in one pan, along with one control loaf for each pan.
Both pup loaves and full-size loaves were evaluated using the same methods. Loaf slice height was evaluated using a caliper set to the mm setting and loaf slice surface area was measured using the Leafscan app with the reference length set at 8 cm for the pup loaf slices and 15 cm for the full-size loaf slices [53]. Loaf slice height was measured at the tallest cross section of each loaf. Each measurement was taken twice with the average of the two measurements used in statistical analysis. Photos were taken of all loaves.

2.5. Protein Content Analysis

Protein content, along with moisture content, was determined using an Inframatic Flour Analyzer (Perten Instruments, Hamburg, Germany). Flour was spooned into the analyzer and compressed into the view window using the designated plunger. A sample of bigs and smalls from each variety was run once using the “Whole Grain” setting. One replication was completed for each sample. After determining protein and moisture for each sample, all samples were adjusted to 15% moisture. This adjusted value was used in the statistical analysis.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The obtained data were analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 28.0. Descriptive statistics including mean values, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and range of bran per 100 g, TKW, percent ash, and percent protein were run for both total bigs and smalls, as well as split by variety, location, and year grown. Independent samples t-tests were run for total bran per 100 g, TKW, percent ash, and protein, and split by variety, location, and year to determine significance of the differences between bigs and smalls. Effect size was measured using Cohen’s d. Descriptive statistics including mean values, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and ranges were run for bread loaf slice height and bread loaf slice surface area of control pup loaves and of all full-size loaf test bakes. Analyses of variance between independent variables (bran per 100 g, TKW, and percent ash) and categorical variables (variety, location, and year grown) were run to check for interaction effects.

3. Results

3.1. Percent Bran, TKW, and Ash (%) Analysis

Table 2 summarizes the mean values, standard deviations, and standard errors of the mean for bran per 100 g, TKW, ash, bread slice height, and bread slice surface area, split by variety, year, and location. Table 3 summarizes the mean values, standard deviations, and standard errors of the mean for bran per 100 g, TKW, ash, bread slice height, and bread slice surface area for all the samples. The differences in bran per 100 g between the bigs and smalls of each variety, split by year and location, were significant at p = 0.025 or less. On average, smalls contained 15.9% more bran than bigs. The differences in TKW between the bigs and smalls of each variety, split by year and location, were significant at p = 0.015 or less. The differences in percent ash between the bigs and smalls of each variety, split by year and location, were significant at p = 0.026 or less. The standard errors of the mean ranged from 0.12 to 1.01 for bran per 100 g versus kernel size, 0.01 to 2.06 for TKW versus kernel size, and 0–0.05 for ash versus kernel size. The effect size (Cohen’s d) ranged from 2.26–26.86 for bran per 100 g, 6.43–31.08 for TKW, and 3.35–26.13 for ash for each variety, split by year and location, suggesting a very strong relationship between kernel size and percent bran, TKW, and ash. Three-way ANOVAs were run and no interaction effects were detected (data not shown).

3.2. Pup Loaf Test-Bake Analysis

To test the functionality of bigs versus smalls of all the varieties measured, pup loaf test bakes were conducted. We observed slightly higher loaf volume with larger kernels (See Figure 2, slices 3–6). Less variation was seen when t-tests were run on samples split by variety, year, and location. As shown in Table 2, independent samples t-tests between the pup loaf bread slice heights of loaves baked with flour from small versus large kernels, split by variety, year, and location, were found to be non-significant for nine out of eighteen tests. Independent samples t-tests between the pup loaf bread slice surface area of the same set of loaves was found to be non-significant for thirteen out of eighteen tests, suggesting that in many instances, kernel size does not significantly impact bread baking qualities. The descriptive statistics (mean values and ranges) of the bread slice height and bread slice surface area of the control loaves are shown in Table 4.

3.3. Protein Content Analysis

Table 5 summarizes the means, standard deviations, and standard errors of the mean for protein adjusted to 15% moisture for all bigs and smalls. The protein of smalls was significantly higher than that of bigs at p = 0.004 using an independent samples t-test.

3.4. Full-Size Loaf Test-Bake Analysis

To test the theory that small kernels can make good whole-wheat bread in a commercial way, full-size loaves were baked using four samples of small wheats rejected by local mills. This portion of the experiment was not comparing big and small kernels; rather, it was testing the performance of flour made from small kernels with that of flour made from a commercially accepted wheat. Table 6 summarizes the descriptive statistics of the full-size test bakes. The average bread slice loaf height of all mill-reject test bakes was 100.43 ± 4.16 mm (n = 12) compared to an average bread slice loaf height of 99.48 ± 1.93 mm in the control loaves (n = 4). The mill-reject test-bake bread slice heights ranged from 92.31 to 106.32 mm and the control bread slice heights ranged from 97.63 to 102.19 mm. The mill-reject test-bake bread slice surface areas ranged from 94.14 to 107.78 cm2 and the control bread slice surface areas ranged from 99.20 to 107.37 cm2. Figure 2 shows a comparison of a slice of one of the control loaves (#1) and reject Rouge de Bordeaux wheat test loaf (#2). We find both loaves to be visually appealing with a nearly identical crumb.

4. Discussion

In this study, nine varieties of wheat grown between 2018 and 2021 among five locations across the US states of Washington and Montana, for a total of eighteen samples, were used to compare the percent bran, TKW, percent ash, and baking quality of large and small kernel size within each variety. The data herein provide evidence that small-sized wheat kernels have commercial and nutritional value. The rejection of small kernels is a lost economic opportunity. When these small kernels are rejected at a mill, the price paid for them is greatly diminished as the wheat becomes a secondary product. Rejecting small kernels also results in lost potential for increased nutrient capture. Smalls among every variety and location contain more bran and more ash (Table 2 and Table 3); this equates to more dietary fiber, minerals, and vitamins and, thus, more nutrient-dense bread for direct human nourishment [54,55,56]. Increased minerals and vitamins of note in the bran include iron, calcium, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, B6, and folate [57]. On average, smalls contained 15.9% more bran than bigs. According to USDA data describing the average chemical composition of wheat bran per 100 g, using smalls instead of bigs to produce flour would equate to an increase of 6.7 g of fiber (42.8 g to 49.6 g), 1.7 mg iron (10.6 mg to 12.3 mg), 11.5 mg calcium (73 mg to 84.5 mg), 1.16 mg Zn (7.3 mg to 8.5 mg), 0.1 mg thiamine (0.5 mg to 0.6 mg), 0.1 mg riboflavin (0.6 mg to 0.7 mg), 2.2 mg niacin (13.6 mg to 15.8 mg), 0.2 mg B6 (1.3 mg to 1.5 mg), and 12.6 ug folate (79 ug to 94.6 ug) per 100 g of kernels milled [57].
An average increase of 6.7 g fiber per 100 g of all smalls (Table 3) is notable given the global fiber intake gap. The increases in iron, calcium, folate, and other B vitamins are also worth noting in relation to the FDA requirements for flour labeled as enriched, which include the fortification of at least 2.9 mg thiamin, 1.8 mg riboflavin, 24 mg niacin, 0.7 mg folic acid, and 20 mg iron per pound of flour (454 g) [58]. Interestingly, fiber is not supplemented into flour labeled as enriched, highlighting the devaluation of this nutrient [58]. The irony of doing this would be powerful, further emphasizing the importance of a shift towards whole-grain uses.
Franz Bread, a popular commercial brand, has 0 g fiber in one slice (30 g) of their Franz Big White Premium Bread and 2 g fiber in one slice (43 g) of their Franz 100% Whole-Wheat Sandwich Bread [59,60]. Whole-wheat sandwich bread made from flour of the bigs in this study with the least bran (Edison) would be 2.1 g per slice (40 g) and from the smalls with the greatest amount of bran (Eileen) would be 3.4 g fiber in a single slice (40 g).
The highest percent bran of any variety was seen in Eileen grown in 2020 in Chimacum, WA, USA, with smalls measured at an average of 34.3 ± 0.44% bran and bigs measured at an average of 29.57 ± 0.44% bran (Table 2). The second-highest percent bran was seen in Salish Blue grown in 2019 in Mount Vernon, WA, USA, with smalls measured at an average of 33.92 ± 0.21% bran and bigs measured at an average of 27.73 ± 0.74% bran (Table 2). Salish Blue samples were highly diverse “field blends” as opposed to pure Salish Blue, as they contained a mix of pure Salish Blue seed and a mix of hard red winter and other wheat. After sifting, it was noticeable that the bigs sample contained more of the hard red winter wheat and the smalls sample contained a higher amount of pure Salish Blue, which probably also explains the variation in baking performance seen in this line.
Protein content was higher in the smalls of each variety and location when adjusted to 15% moisture (Table 5). This is likely related to the higher amount of bran in the smalls and the proteins formed in the aleurone during grain development. These proteins, by contrast to the glutenins and gliadins (found in the endosperm), include small amounts of every essential amino acid and some non-essential amino acids, all of which contribute to a more nutrient dense food product. Given that the proteins in the bran have been shown to be related to defense functions and oxidative stress [54], future research may explore the effect that climate stress, such as increased heat and drought, has on the beneficial protein content of the wheat bran, which is often overlooked. Bakers have developed a preference for high-protein flours, specifically higher glutenins and gliadins in the endosperm, which are needed for gluten development in bread [56].
Increased fiber intake along with increased intake of whole grains has been repeatedly linked to a decrease in chronic disease [32,37,41,44,48,61]. Researchers analyzed data from 185 prospective studies and 58 clinical trials, amounting to a total of 4635 participants, and found a 15–30% decrease in colorectal cancer, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular-related mortality, along with decreased incidence of coronary artery disease, stroke, and mortality in high fiber consumers compared to low fiber consumers [62]. Better health outcomes were associated with a daily fiber intake of 25 to 29 g; however, dose–response curves suggested even greater benefit with an even higher intake [62]. Another meta-analysis published in 2016 examining chronic disease risk and mortality associated with whole-grain consumption had similar findings. They included 45 studies and found an intake of 210–225 g per day of whole grains to be associated with decreased risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease [32].
Baking with smaller wheat kernels is possible with very slight decreases in baking functionality (Table 3, Table 4 and Table 6). We saw slightly higher loaf volumes with larger kernels (Table 3). This is to be expected and represents an average increase in bread slice height of only about 2.2 mm or 4%, which would equate to about 4 mm less height in a typical grocery-store-style loaf of bread. This variation is acceptable as it is similar to that observed in typical commercial bread production (personal comm. King Arthur Baking Co., Norwich, VT, USA, 2022). The flavor and taste acceptance of whole-grain bread samples was outside the scope of this study; however, this has been extensively studied, and positive acceptance of whole-grain products has been found to be related to education regarding health benefits, availability, and price [63,64,65,66]. Moreover, some people even prefer it [67]. We have found it to just taste better [68,69]. In an informal blind taste test among five lab members and one professional baker, small differences in taste between the loaves made with bigs and smalls were detected, but none of the loaves were rated as unacceptable (results not shown). All loaves were seen as “good bread” with no off flavors.
Given the implications of our changing climate and the struggles for growers resulting from climate change, valuing small wheats will make a profound impact on current food system challenges. Valuing small wheats provides a use for a product that is currently sold off as a low-value useable “waste”. They reject small kernels because they do not mill as efficiently as large kernels [4]. This rejected wheat is commonly used as hog feed and the argument is that “it is not wasted; it is going to animal feed”. However, this wheat was not designed for this use. It was designed for direct human nourishment. Using hog feed as an example, blended and supplemented feed for hogs will add weight gain of consumable meat at a range that declines, as they grow to less than 30% [70]. If wheat sold into the animal feed chain was made into bread, this would produce 100% human food as opposed to food produced at a 30% efficiency. Wheat is developed from the beginning as a crop that would be turned into either white or whole-wheat flour. The agronomics, the cultural practices, and the genetics were all geared towards the crop going to direct human consumption—to develop a feed crop for hogs is something entirely different.
Human consumption and direct human nourishment is more climate friendly than using wheat as animal feed, even when something that is more efficient than hogs such as poultry is considered. In their study on healthy and sustainable diets for the planet, Macdiarmid et al. [71] categorized bread as a Low Greenhouse Gas Emission (<1.0 kg CO2 e/kg edible weight) food group, chicken as a Medium Greenhouse Gas Emission (1.0–4.0 CO2 e/kg edible weight) food group, and pork as a High Greenhouse Gas Emission (>4.0 kg CO2 e/kg edible weight) food group.
Given the increasing heat and drought pressures secondary to climate change and the effects of these pressures on wheat kernel size in the field, as discussed in the introduction, we are likely to see increased amounts of small kernels in farmers’ harvests in the coming years. Learning to value smaller wheats is a proactive solution that not only has climate efficiency benefits, but also has human nutrition benefits in terms of fiber and micronutrients.
The utility of wheat commercially rejected as animal feed was shown in our test bakes (Figure 2). We have shown that these breads are also more nutritious, and thus, could provide a higher-value use for wheat that was once destined to be rejected and devalued.
If wheat is destined for whole-wheat uses—which, as argued herein, is better for both human health and for the planet—it will improve the health of consumers, while simultaneously providing value to a farmer’s wheat crop and a miller’s rejects. The frequency of small kernels in wheat is already increasing in a changing and warming climate. How we choose to deal with them can either harm or help us and the planet.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.C.M., H.E.E. and S.S.J.; methodology, M.C.M. and S.S.J.; validation, M.C.M.; formal analysis, M.C.M. and H.E.E.; investigation, M.C.M. and S.S.J.; resources, S.S.J. and H.E.E.; data curation, M.C.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.C.M. and S.S.J.; writing—review and editing, M.C.M., H.E.E. and S.S.J.; visualization, M.C.M.; supervision, S.S.J.; project administration, S.S.J.; funding acquisition, S.S.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially funded by The Purple Crayon Foundation.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Full data set available at breadlab.wsu.edu.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge Steve Lyon for help in the field and Janine Johnson for assistance with test baking and photography.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Wang, L.; Ge, H.; Hao, C.; Dong, Y.; Zhang, X. Identifying loci influencing 1000-kernel weight in wheat by microsatellite screening for evidence of selection during breeding. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e29432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Evers, A.D. Grain Size and Morphology: Implications for Quality. In Wheat Structure Biochemistry and Functionality; The Royal Society of Chemistry: Reading, UK, 1995; pp. 19–24. [Google Scholar]
  3. MacMasters, D.; Hinton, M.M.; Bradbury, J.J.C. Microscopic Structure and Composition of the Wheat Kernel. In Wheat Chemistry and Technology, 2nd ed.; Pomeranz, Y., Ed.; American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc.: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1978; pp. 51–113. [Google Scholar]
  4. Marshall, F.W.; Mares, D.R.; Moss, D.J.; Ellison, H.J. Effects of grain shape and size on milling yields in wheat. II. Experimental studies. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1986, 37, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Evers, R.P.; Cox, A.D.; Shaheedullah, R.K.; Withey, M.Z. Predicting milling extraction rate by image analysis of wheat grains. Asp. Appl. Biol. 1990, 25, 417–426. Available online: http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19910742779.html (accessed on 3 May 2022).
  6. Feldman, M. Origin of cultivated wheat. In The World Wheat Book: A History of Wheat Breeding; Bonjean, A.P., Angus, W.J., Eds.; Intercept: Andover, UK, 2001; pp. 3–56. [Google Scholar]
  7. Fuller, D.Q. Contrasting patterns in crop domestication and domestication rates: Recent archaeobotanical insights from the old world. Ann. Bot. 2007, 100, 903–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gegas, V.C.; Nazari, A.; Griffiths, S.; Simmonds, J.; Fish, L.; Orford, S.; Snape, J.W. A Genetic Framework for Grain Size and Shape Variation in Wheat. Plant Cell 2010, 22, 1046–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Asseng, S.; Martre, P.; Maiorano, A.; Rötter, R.P.; O’Leary, G.J.; Fitzgerald, G.J.; Ewert, F. Climate change impact and adaptation for wheat protein. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2019, 25, 155–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Blumenthal, C.W.; Bekes, C.; Gras, F.; Barlow, P.W.; Wrigley, E.W.R. Identification of wheat genotypes tolerant to the effects of heat stress on grain quality. Cereal Chem. 1995, 72, 539–544. [Google Scholar]
  11. Iizumi, T.; Yokozawa, M.; Sakurai, G.; Travasso, M.I.; Romanenkov, V.; Oettli, P.; Furuya, J. Historical changes in global yields: Major cereal and legume crops from 1982 to 2006. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2014, 23, 346–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Langridge, P.; Reynolds, M. Breeding for drought and heat tolerance in wheat. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2021, 134, 1753–1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lobell, D.B.; Field, C.B. Global scale climate—Crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 2007, 2, 014002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tack, J.; Barkley, A.; Lanier, L. Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 6931–6936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Zampieri, A.; Ceglar, M.; Dentener, A.; Toreti, F. Wheat yield loss attributable to heat waves, drought and water excess at the global, national and subnational scales. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 064008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. U.S. Wheat Associates. Wheat Grade Factors. 2013. Available online: https://www.uswheat.org/working-with-buyers/wheat-grade-factors/ (accessed on 4 January 2022).
  17. Bitter Harvest for Indian Farmers after Wheat Export Ban. The Economic Times, 2022. Available online: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/agriculture/bitter-harvest-for-indian-farmers-after-wheat-export-ban/articleshow/91718820.cms(accessed on 23 May 2022).
  18. Wheat Marketing Center. 2021 Pacific Northwest Crop Quality Report, Portland, OR, USA. 2021. Available online: https://www.wmcinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Week8Final_WebReport.pdf (accessed on 29 January 2022).
  19. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. State of the Climate: National Climate Report for September 2021. 2021. Available online: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/202109 (accessed on 4 January 2022).
  20. Williams, A.P.; Cook, B.I.; Smerdon, J.E. Rapid intensification of the emerging southwestern North American megadrought in 2021. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2022, 12, 232–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Turner, N. Droughts Continue in the Pacific Northwest Despite Early Snow and Rain. The Seattle Times, 2022. Available online: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/droughts-continue-in-the-pacific-northwest-despite-early-snow-and-rain/(accessed on 7 March 2022).
  22. National Integrated Drought Information System. Washington Drought.gov. 2022. Available online: https://www.drought.gov/states/washington (accessed on 7 March 2022).
  23. Magaña, D.Z. What Russia’s war in Ukraine means for Washington’s wheat market. The Seattle Times, 15 March 2022. [Google Scholar]
  24. Stevenson, L.E.O.; Phillips, F.; Sullivan, K.O.; Walton, J. Wheat bran: Its composition and benefits to health, a European perspective. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2012, 63, 1001–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Poutanen, K. Past and future of cereal grains as food for health. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 25, 58–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cheng, W.; Sun, Y.; Fan, M.; Li, Y.; Wang, L.; Qian, H. Wheat bran, as the resource of dietary fiber: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 61, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Allai, F.M.; Azad, Z.R.A.A.; Gul, K.; Dar, B.N. Wholegrains: A review on the amino acid profile, mineral content, physicochemical, bioactive composition and health benefits. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 57, 1849–1865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gill, S.K.; Rossi, M.; Bajka, B.; Whelan, K. Dietary fibre in gastrointestinal health and disease. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021, 18, 101–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Guo, H.; Wu, H.; Sajid, A.; Li, Z. Whole grain cereals: The potential roles of functional components in human health. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 61, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhao, L.; Zhang, F.; Ding, X.; Wu, G.; Lam, Y.Y.; Wang, X.; Zhang, C. Gut bacteria selectively promoted by dietary fibers alleviate type 2 diabetes. Science 2018, 359, 1151–1156. Available online: http://science.sciencemag.org/ (accessed on 3 May 2022). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Anderson, J.W.; Hanna, T.J.; Peng, X.; Kryscio, R.J. Whole Grain Foods and Heart Disease Risk. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 2000, 19, 291S–299S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Aune, D.; Keum, N.; Giovannucci, E.; Fadnes, L.; Bofetta, P.; Greenwood, D.; Tonstad, S.; Vatten, L.; Riboli, E.; Norat, T. Whole grain consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all cause and cause specific mortality: Systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. BMJ 2016, 353, i2716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Sonnenburg, E.D.; Sonnenburg, J.L. Starving our microbial self: The deleterious consequences of a diet deficient in microbiota-accessible carbohydrates. Cell Metab. 2014, 20, 779–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Valdes, A.M.; Walter, J.; Segal, E.; Spector, T.D. Role of the gut microbiota in nutrition and health. BMJ 2018, 361, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Velasquez-Manoff, M. The Peace keepers Amid the trillions of microbes that live in the intestines, scientists have found a few species that seem to play a key role in keeping us healthy. Nature 2015, 518, S4–S11. [Google Scholar]
  36. Chatenoud, L.; Tavani, A.; La Vecchia, C.; Jacobs, D.R., Jr.; Negri, E.; Levi, F.; Franceschi, S. Whole Grain Food Intake and Cancer Risk. Int. J. Cancer 1998, 77, 24–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Makki, K.; Deehan, E.C.; Walter, J.; Bäckhed, F. The Impact of Dietary Fiber on Gut Microbiota in Host Health and Disease. Cell Host Microbe 2018, 23, 705–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Koh, A.; de Vadder, F.; Kovatcheva-Datchary, P.; Bäckhed, F. From dietary fiber to host physiology: Short-chain fatty acids as key bacterial metabolites. Cell 2016, 165, 1332–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Liu, R.H. Whole grain phytochemicals and health. J. Cereal Sci. 2007, 46, 207–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025, 9th ed.; 2020; p. 101. Available online: https://www.DietaryGuidelines.gov/ (accessed on 2 February 2022).
  41. O’Keefe, S.J.; Li, J.V.; Lahti, L.; Ou, J.; Carbonero, F.; Mohammed, K.; Zoetendal, E.G. Fat, fibre and cancer risk in African Americans and rural Africans. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 6342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Pedersen, C.; Lefevre, S.; Peters, V.; Patterson, M.; Ghatei, M.A.; Morgan, L.M.; Frost, G.S. Gut hormone release and appetite regulation in healthy non-obese participants following oligofructose intake. A dose-escalation study. Appetite 2013, 66, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Jenkins, D.J.; Kendall, C.W.; Popovich, D.G.; Vidgen, E.; Mehling, C.C.; Vuksan, V.; Connelly, P.W. Effect of a very-high-fiber vegetable, fruit, and nut diet on serum lipids and colonic function. Metabolism 2001, 50, 494–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Gross, L.S.; Li, L.; Ford, E.S.; Liu, S. Increased Consumption of Refined Carbohydrates and the Epidemic of Type 2 Diabetes in the United States: An Ecologic Assessment 1–3. 2004. Available online: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/79/5/774/4690186 (accessed on 3 May 2022).
  45. Deehan, E.C.; Walter, J. The Fiber Gap and the Disappearing Gut Microbiome: Implications for Human Nutrition. Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 2016, 27, 239–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Li, H.; Gidley, M.J.; Dhital, S. High-Amylose Starches to Bridge the ‘Fiber Gap’: Development, Structure, and Nutritional Functionality. In Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety; Blackwell Publishing Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; Volume 18, pp. 362–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Quagliani, D.; Felt-Gunderson, P. Closing America’s Fiber Intake Gap: Communication Strategies From a Food and Fiber Summit. In American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017; Volume 11, pp. 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Afshin, A.; John Sur, P.; Fay, K.A.; Cornaby, L.; Ferrara, G.; Salama, J.S. Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 2019, 393, 1958–1972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Galileo, G. Two New Sciences Including Centers of Gravity & Force of Percussion, 1st ed.; Translated by Drake; The University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, WI, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  50. Peterson, M.A. Galileo’s discovery of scaling laws Galileo’s discovery of scaling laws. Am. J. Phys. 2004, 70, 575–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Yankellow, J. The Approachable Loaf. WSU Breadlab, 2018. Available online: https://breadlab.wsu.edu/the-approachable-loaf-and-the-breadlab-collective/(accessed on 3 January 2022).
  52. Nierenberg, A. The Whole-Grain Grail: A Sandwich Bread With Mass Appeal. The New York Times, 2020. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/dining/bread-affordable-whole-grain.html(accessed on 3 January 2022).
  53. Anderson, P.J.; Rosas-Anderson, C. Leafscan. 2017. Available online: https://itunes.apple.com/app/id1254892230 (accessed on 5 November 2021).
  54. Balandrán-Quintana, R.R.; Mercado-Ruiz, J.N.; Mendoza-Wilson, A.M. Wheat Bran Proteins: A Review of Their Uses and Potential. Food Rev. Int. 2015, 31, 279–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Murphy, K.M.; Reeves, P.G.; Jones, S.S. Relationship between yield and mineral nutrient concentrations in historical and modern spring wheat cultivars. Euphytica 2008, 163, 381–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ross, A.S.; Bettge, A.D. Chaper 20: Passing the Test on Wheat End-Use Quality. In Wheat: Science and Trade; Carver, B.F., Ed.; U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; pp. 455–494. [Google Scholar]
  57. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Wheat bran, crude. In National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference; 2018. Available online: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/169722/nutrients (accessed on 17 February 2022).
  58. Food and Drug Administration Department of Health and Human Services. Code of Federal Regulations Title 21—Food and Drugs. 2020. Available online: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2020-title21-vol2/xml/CFR-2020-title21-vol2-sec137-165.xml (accessed on 17 February 2022).
  59. Franz. Big Premium White. 2022. Available online: https://franzbakery.com/HTML/productView#category=breads.classic&id=breads.classic.big (accessed on 5 April 2022).
  60. Franz. 100% Whole Wheat. 2022. Available online: https://franzbakery.com/HTML/productView#category=breads.classic&id=breads.classic.100ww (accessed on 5 April 2022).
  61. Meyer, K.A.; Kushi, L.H.; Jacobs, D.R., Jr.; Slavin, J.; Sellers, T.A.; Folsom, A.R. Carbohydrates, dietary fiber, and incident type 2 diabetes in older women. Am. Soc. Clin. Nutr. 2000, 71, 921–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Reynolds, A.; Mann, J.; Cummings, J.; Winter, N.; Mete, E.; Morenga, L.T. Carbohydrate quality and human health: A series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Lancet 2019, 393, 434–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Barrett, E.M.; Foster, S.I.; Beck, E.J. Whole grain and high- fibre grain foods: How do knowledge, perceptions and attitudes affect food choice? Appetite 2020, 149, 104630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bisanz, K.J.; Stanek-Krogstrand, K.L. Consumption & Attitudes about Whole Grain Foods of UNL Students Who Dine in a Campus Cafeteria. Rural. Rev. Undergrad. Res. Agric. Life Sci. 2007, 2, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  65. Meynier, A.; Riou, E. Main Factors Influencing Whole Grain Consumption in Children and Adults—A Narrative Review. Nutrients 2020, 12, 2217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Wongprawmas, R.; Sogari, G.; Menozzi, D.; Pellegrini, N.; Lefebvre, M.; Gómez, M.I.; Mora, C. Determinants of us university students’ willingness to include whole grain pasta in their diet. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Ross, A. A Shifting Climate for Grains and Flour. Cereal Foods World 2019, 64, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ray, J. Wheat Nerds and Scientists Join Forces to Build a Better Bread. Wired, 2017. Available online: https://www.wired.com/story/grain-gathering-better-bread/(accessed on 15 March 2019).
  69. Greenwood, V. Science Makes Bread Taste Better:Renegade Bakers and Geneticists Develop Whole Wheat Loaves You’ll Want to Eat. The Boston Globe, 2018. Available online: https://apps.bostonglobe.com/ideas/graphics/2018/11/the-next-bite/the-seeds/(accessed on 10 March 2019).
  70. Patience, J.F.; Rossoni-Serão, M.C.; Gutiérrez, N.A. A review of feed efficiency in swine: Biology and application. J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2015, 6, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Macdiarmid, J.I.; Kyle, J.; Horgan, G.W.; Loe, J.; Fyfe, C.; Johnstone, A.; McNeill, G. Sustainable diets for the future: Can we contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by eating a healthy diet? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2012, 97, 449, Erratum in Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2012, 96, 632–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 06546 g001 550
Figure 1. Eileen “Big” with Thousand-Kernel Weight (TKW) of 42.7 g (left) and Eileen “Small” with TKW of 24.5 g (right).
Figure 1. Eileen “Big” with Thousand-Kernel Weight (TKW) of 42.7 g (left) and Eileen “Small” with TKW of 24.5 g (right).
Sustainability 14 06546 g001
Sustainability 14 06546 g002 550
Figure 2. Pup and full-size Approachable Loaf test bakes. Skagit 1109 full-size control loaf (left, 1) versus rejected small Rouge de Bordeaux wheat from commercial mill (right, 2); 2020 Le Sourd bigs (3); 2020 Le Sourd smalls (4); 2020 Red Russian bigs (5); and 2020 Red Russian smalls (6).
Figure 2. Pup and full-size Approachable Loaf test bakes. Skagit 1109 full-size control loaf (left, 1) versus rejected small Rouge de Bordeaux wheat from commercial mill (right, 2); 2020 Le Sourd bigs (3); 2020 Le Sourd smalls (4); 2020 Red Russian bigs (5); and 2020 Red Russian smalls (6).
Sustainability 14 06546 g002
Table
Table 1. Description of Samples Tested.
Table 1. Description of Samples Tested.
VarietyLocationYear Grown
Le SourdMount Vernon, WA, USA (NWREC)2019–2020
Red RussianMount Vernon, WA, USA (NWREC)2019–2020
Salish BlueMount Vernon, WA, USA (NWREC)2018–2019
Mount Vernon, WA, USA (Roozen Fields)2020–2021
EileenMount Vernon, WA, USA (Viva Farms)2020, 2021
Chimacum, WA, USA (Finnriver Grain)2020, 2021
EdisonMount Vernon, WA, USA (NWREC)2018, 2019, 2020
Mount Vernon, WA, USA (Viva Farms)2021
ExpressoChimacum, WA, USA (Finnriver Grain)2020
FVCC WheatKalispell, MT, USA (FVCC Campus Farm)2020
RuthMount Vernon, WA, USA (NWREC)2019, 2020
Mount Vernon, WA, USA (Viva Farms)2021
Very BlueMount Vernon, WA, USA (NWREC)2020
NWREC = Northwestern Washington Research and Extension Center; FVCC = Flathead Valley Community College.
Table
Table 2. Bran/100 g, TKW, percent ash, test-bake pup loaf slice height, and test-bake pup loaf slice surface area differed between large- and small-sized kernels, split by variety, year grown, and location grown.
Table 2. Bran/100 g, TKW, percent ash, test-bake pup loaf slice height, and test-bake pup loaf slice surface area differed between large- and small-sized kernels, split by variety, year grown, and location grown.
Variety, Year, and LocationBran per 100 gTKW (g)Ash (%)Slice Height (mm)Slice Surface Area (cm2)
Le Sourd2020 MVBigs
Smalls		23.92 ± 0.56 (0.32) ***
27.26 ± 0.32 (0.19)		39.23 ± 0.84 (0.48) ***
24.04 ± 0.02 (0.01)		1.62 ± 0.03 (0.02) **
1.75 ± 0.01 (0.00)		52.59 ± 0.49 (0.28) ns
51.57 ± 1.45 (0.83)		28.46 ± 0.36 (0.21) ns
28.15 ± 1.02 (0.59)
Red Russian2020 MVBigs
Smalls		22.92 ± 1.30 (0.75) **
27.75 ± 1.05 (0.61)		41.23 ± 1.87 (1.08) ***
21.77 ± 0.86 (0.50)		1.67 ± 0.07 (0.04) **
1.99 ± 0.01 (0.01)		54.90 ± 1.52 (0.88) *
51.50 ± 0.97 (0.56)		31.45 ± 1.31 (0.76) ns
29.74 ± 0.92 (0.53)
Eileen2020 MVBigs
Smalls		25.31 ± 0.21 (0.12) **
29.02 ± 1.09 (0.63)		42.74 ± 0.89 (0.52) ***
24.54 ± 0.28 (0.16)		1.75 ± 0.00 (0.00) ***
1.93 ± 0.04 (0.02)		50.53 ± 0.72 (0.42) ns
49.78 ± 0.47 (0.27)		26.04 ± 0.83 (0.48) ns
25.86 ± 0.87 (0.50)
2021 BLBigs
Smalls		25.01 ± 0.39 (0.23) **
27.58 ± 0.53 (0.31)		44.75 ± 1.10 (0.64) ***
23.26 ± 0.34 (0.19)		1.76 ± 0.04 (0.02) **
1.93 ± 0.04 (0.02)		53.04 ± 0.97 (0.56) *
50.95 ± 0.93 (0.54)		29.57 ± 1.99 (1.15) ns
28.04 ± 1.40 (0.81)
2020 CMBigs
Smalls		29.57 ± 0.63 (0.36) ***
34.26 ± 0.88 (0.51)		40.79 ± 1.61 (0.93) ***
20.99 ± 0.80 (0.46)		1.75 ± 0.09 (0.05) *
2.00 ± 0.01 (0.00)		51.02 ± 0.98 (0.57) *
48.99 ± 1.11 (0.64)		27.09 ± 0.67 (0.39) ns
26.65 ± 0.98 (0.56)
2021 CMBigs
Smalls		24.83 ± 1.11 (0.64) **
28.81 ± 0.22 (0.13)		44.66 ± 0.73 (0.42) ***
20.98 ± 0.79 (0.46)		1.50 ± 0.02 (0.01) ***
1.75 ± 0.02 (0.01)		52.68 ± 0.95 (0.55) **
49.69 ± 0.19 (0.11)		29.94 ± 1.38 (0.80) ns
27.60 ± 0.68 (0.39)
Edison2018 MVBigs
Smalls 		21.61 ± 0.61 (0.35) **
24.28 ± 0.59 (0.34)		46.60 ± 1.03 (0.60) ***
26.20 ± 0.51 (0.29)		1.65 ± 0.00 (0.00) **
1.75 ± 0.04 (0.02)		53.84 ± 1.69 (0.98) **
49.35 ± 0.79 (0.46)		29.88 ± 1.15 (0.66) *
26.59 ± 0.13 (0.08)
2019 MVBigs
Smalls		22.05 ± 0.36 (0.21) ***
26.94 ± 0.20 (0.12)		43.48 ± 2.23 (1.29) ***
22.60 ± 0.89 (0.51)		1.35 ± 0.01 (0.00) ***
1.46 ± 0.00 (0.00)		52.31 ± 1.86 (1.07) ns
50.40 ± 0.46 (0.26)		28.19 ± 1.58 (0.91) ns
28.14 ± 0.80 (0.46)
2020 MVBigs
Smalls		22.65 ± 0.59 (0.34) ***
26.31 ± 0.58 (0.34)		47.10 ± 3.16 (1.82) **
20.70 ± 0.23 (0.13)		1.39 ± 0.04 (0.02) ***
1.70 ± 0.02 (0.01)		53.04 ± 2.13 (1.23) ns
50.49 ± 2.32 (1.34)		30.08 ± 0.86 (0.50) *
26.51 ± 1.77 (1.02)
2021 BLBigs
Smalls		22.55 ± 0.73 (0.42) **
25.45 ± 0.56 (0.32)		41.51 ± 1.20 (0.69) ***
22.53 ± 0.71 (0.41)		1.73 ± 0.06 (0.00) ***
1.94 ± 0.04 (0.02)		52.88 ± 2.08 (1.20) ns
52.06 ± 1.45 (0.84)		28.70 ± 0.79 (0.46) ns
27.72 ± 0.63 (0.36)
Ruth2019 MVBigs
Smalls		23.85 ± 0.62 (0.36) **
26.96 ± 0.77 (0.44)		45.13 ± 1.01 (0.58) ***
23.48 ± 0.41 (0.24)		1.54 ± 0.06 (0.04) **
1.70 ± 0.03 (0.02)		52.09 ± 0.38 (0.22) ns
50.88 ± 1.03 (0.59)		28.22 ± 0.41 (0.24) ns
27.42 ± 1.11 (0.64)
2020 MVBigs
Smalls		21.89 ± 0.28 (0.16) ***
28.60 ± 0.21 (0.12)		44.48 ± 0.66 (0.38) ***
22.08 ± 0.23 (0.13)		1.49 ± 0.02 (0.01) ***
1.74 ± 0.02 (0.01)		53.56 ± 0.94 (0.54) ns
51.35 ± 2.02 (1.17)		29.16 ± 1.71 (0.99) ns
28.42 ± 1.61 (0.93)
2021 BLBigs
Smalls		21.85 ± 0.66 (0.38) ***
25.32 ± 0.30 (0.18)		45.13 ± 1.01 (0.58) ***
24.08 ± 0.70 (0.41)		1.49 ± 0.02 (0.01) ***
1.73 ± 0.02 (0.01)		55.18 ± 1.18 (0.68) *
53.05 ± 1.12 (0.64)		29.68 ± 1.69 (0.97) ns
28.49 ± 0.40 (0.23)
Very Blue2020 MVBigs
Smalls		24.86 ± 0.54 (0.31) **
27.23 ± 0.21 (0.12)		43.87 ± 1.26 (0.73) ***
22.30 ± 0.95 (0.55)		1.54 ± 0.04 (0.02) ***
1.76 ± 0.02 (0.01)		53.13 ± 1.52 (0.88) *
50.40 ± 0.95 (0.55)		29.05 ± 0.54 (0.31) ns
27.83 ± 1.10 (0.64)
FVCC Wheat2020 KLBigs
Smalls 		23.37 ± 0.56 (0.32) *
24.85 ± 0.73 (0.42)		29.55 ± 0.85 (0.49) ***
19.35 ± 0.54 (0.31)		1.93 ± 0.02 (0.01) **
2.05 ± 0.02 (0.01)		50.40 ± 0.95 (0.55) ns
50.14 ± 0.95 (0.14)		27.15 ± 1.12 (0.65) ns
26.49 ± 1.03 (0.59)
Salish Blue2019 MVBigs
Smalls		27.73 ± 0.53 (0.30) **
33.92 ± 1.72 (1.01)		31.75 ± 3.56 (2.06) **
21.49 ± 0.99 (0.57)		1.96 ± 0.02 (0.01) ***
2.16 ± 0.04 (0.02)		51.61 ± 1.01 (0.58) ***
46.52 ± 0.68 (0.39)		27.06 ± 0.86 (0.50) **
24.33 ± 0.17 (0.10)
2021 MV2Bigs
Smalls		25.12 ± 0.36 (0.21) ***
29.03 ± 0.36 (0.21)		41.52 ± 0.88 (0.51) **
25.43 ± 3.43 (1.98)		1.69 ± 0.00 (0.00) E
1.82 ± 0.00 (0.00)		53.57 ± 0.95 (0.55) **
50.39 ± 0.96 (0.55)		29.72 ± 0.88 (0.51) **
26.97 ± 0.79 (0.45)
Expresso2020 CMBigs
Smalls		24.53 ± 0.79 (0.45) ***
28.82 ± 0.40 (0.23)		37.17 ± 0.31 (0.18) ***
20.96 ± 0.96 (0.55)		1.59 ± 0.04 (0.02) ***
1.68 ± 0.01 (0.00)		53.49 ± 1.02 (0.59) ns
52.00 ± 1.30 (0.75)		29.79 ± 0.74 (0.43) **
26.82 ± 0.25 (0.15)
Mean ± standard deviation (s.e.m.), n = 3; * p < 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p < 0.001; ns = non-significant at p > 0.05; E = cannot be computed, no variation between three samples of small kernel size and no variation between three samples of large kernel size; MV = Mount Vernon, Washington; MV2 = Different farm in Mount Vernon, Washington; BL = Burlington, Washington; CM = Chimacum, Washington; and KL = Kalispell, Montana.
Table
Table 3. Bran/100 g, TKW, percent ash, test-bake pup loaf slice height, and test-bake pup loaf slice surface area between large- and small-sized kernels of all samples tested.
Table 3. Bran/100 g, TKW, percent ash, test-bake pup loaf slice height, and test-bake pup loaf slice surface area between large- and small-sized kernels of all samples tested.
Seed Kernel SizeBran per 100 gTKW (g)Ash (%)Slice Height (mm)Slice Surface Area (cm2)
Bigs24.09 ± 2.12 (0.29) ***41.71 ± 4.85 (0.66) ***1.63 ± 0.17 (0.02) ***52.66 ± 1.74 (0.23) ***28.69 ± 1.65 (0.22) ***
Smalls27.91 ± 2.69 (0.37)22.60 ± 1.95 (0.27)1.82 ± 0.17 (0.02)50.47 ± 1.75 (0.23)27.27 ± 1.44 (0.19)
Effect size (Cohen’s d)1.5765.1661.1541.3221.549
Mean ± standard deviation (s.e.m.), n = 54; *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 4. Test-bake pup loaf slice height, and test-bake pup loaf surface area from Skagit 1109 flour as a control.
Table 4. Test-bake pup loaf slice height, and test-bake pup loaf surface area from Skagit 1109 flour as a control.
Mean ± SDRange
Skagit 1109 Control Bread Slice Height (mm)55.94 ± 1.54 (0.26)52.51–58.90
Skagit 1109 Control Bread Slice Surface Area (cm2)31.57 ± 1.42(0.24)29.12–36.09
Mean ± standard deviation (s.e.m.); n = 36.
Table
Table 5. Protein adjusted to 15% moisture between large- and small-sized kernels of all samples tested.
Table 5. Protein adjusted to 15% moisture between large- and small-sized kernels of all samples tested.
Seed Kernel SizeProtein (%)Range
Bigs9.56 ± 1.28 (0.30) **7.12–11.86
Smalls10.78 ± 1.29 (0.30)8.86–13.35
Effect size (Cohen’s d)0.946
Mean ± standard deviation (s.e.m.), n = 18; ** p = 0.004.
Table
Table 6. Full-size test bakes with mill rejects from three mills against Skagit 1109 flour as a control.
Table 6. Full-size test bakes with mill rejects from three mills against Skagit 1109 flour as a control.
Mean ± SDRange
Mill-Reject Bread Slice Height (mm)100.43 ± 4.16 (1.20)92.31–106.32
Mill-Reject Bread Slice Surface Area (cm2)103.61 ± 6.22 (1.80)94.14–107.78
Skagit 1109 Control Bread Slice Height (mm)99.48 ± 1.93 (0.97)97.63–102.19
Skagit 1109 Control Bread Slice Surface Area (cm2)103.48 ± 3.58 (1.79)99.20–107.37
Mean ± standard deviation (s.e.m.), n = 12 for bakes made with mill rejects from three mills and n = 4 for bakes made with Skagit 1109 flour as control.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Metcalfe, M.C.; Estrada, H.E.; Jones, S.S. Climate-Changed Wheat: The Effect of Smaller Kernels on the Nutritional Value of Wheat. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6546. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116546

AMA Style

Metcalfe MC, Estrada HE, Jones SS. Climate-Changed Wheat: The Effect of Smaller Kernels on the Nutritional Value of Wheat. Sustainability. 2022; 14(11):6546. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116546

Chicago/Turabian Style

Metcalfe, Merri C., Heather E. Estrada, and Stephen S. Jones. 2022. "Climate-Changed Wheat: The Effect of Smaller Kernels on the Nutritional Value of Wheat" Sustainability 14, no. 11: 6546. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116546

APA Style

Metcalfe, M. C., Estrada, H. E., & Jones, S. S. (2022). Climate-Changed Wheat: The Effect of Smaller Kernels on the Nutritional Value of Wheat. Sustainability, 14(11), 6546. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116546

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop