Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture J Sci Food Agric 87:2000–2011 (2007)

Hearth bread baking quality of durum

wheat varying in protein composition and
physical dough properties
Nancy M Edwards,1∗ Ken R Preston,1† F Garth Paulley,1 M Cristina Gianibelli,2‡
Tom N McCaig,3 John M Clarke,3 Nancy P Ames4 and James E Dexter1
1 Canadian Grain Commission, Grain Research Laboratory, Winnipeg, MB, R3C 3G8, Canada
2 CSIRO Plant Industry, PO Box 1600, Black Mountain, ACT 2601, Australia
3 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre, Box 1030, Swift Current, SK, S9H 3X2, Canada
4 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Cereal Research Centre, 195 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M9, Canada

Abstract: Thirty durum wheat genotypes from ten countries of origin were grown in field plots for two consecutive
years. Three of the genotypes were γ -gliadin 42 types and the remainder were γ -gliadin 45 types. Among the
γ -gliadin 45 types, six high-molecular-weight glutenin subunit (HMW-GS) patterns were identified: 6 + 8, 7 + 8,
7 + 16, 14 + 15, 20 and 2∗ , 20. All the γ -gliadin 42 genotypes contained low amounts of unextractable polymeric
protein (UPP) and exhibited low gluten index values and weak gluten properties. The γ -gliadin 45 genotypes
exhibited a wide range of UPP, gluten index and dough strength. HMW-GS 20 genotypes were generally weak,
whereas HMW-GS 6 + 8 and 7 + 8 genotypes were generally strong. When baked by a lean formulation, long-
fermentation straight-dough hearth bread process, the durum wheat genotypes exhibited a wide range of baking
quality. Loaf volume and bread attributes were strongly correlated with UPP and gluten index. Some of the
genotypes exhibited bread attributes and loaf volume equal or slightly superior to those of a high-quality bread
wheat flour. However, even the strongest durum wheat genotypes exhibited inferior fermentation tolerance to the
bread wheat flour, as seen by a requirement for lower baking absorption during dough handling and more fragile
dough properties when entering the oven. Among the HMW-GS groups, HMW-GS 7 + 8 and 6 + 8 exhibited the
best and HMW-GS 20 the poorest baking quality. Farinograph, alveograph and small-scale extensigraph properties
demonstrated that a combination of dough elasticity and extensibility was needed for superior durum wheat baking
performance.
 2007 Society of Chemical Industry

Keywords: durum wheat; bread; dough; polymeric protein; extensigraph; glutenin

INTRODUCTION dough, and lower loaf volume due to reduced oven

Durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) is the raw
material of choice for pasta and couscous.1,2 It is also
used for traditional flat breads and speciality breads
in Mediterranean countries.2 Durum wheat use for
bread in Mediterranean regions is increasing.3
There is interest in developing durum wheat suited
to more general use for bread-making.4 Improvement
of durum wheat baking quality would provide
alternative markets during periods of overproduction
as a replacement for bread wheat flour.5 The suitability
of durum wheat for making high-volume hearth bread
and pan bread has been evaluated by a number
of workers.5 – 15 There is general agreement that
durum wheat baking performance improves as gluten
becomes stronger, but it remains inferior to that of
bread wheat. Very strong gluten durum wheat has a
tendency to tenacious gluten, imparting inextensible
response.2,16 – 18
Gluten protein composition plays an important role
in determining durum wheat dough strength and
processing performance. There is general agreement
that the presence of γ -gliadin 42 and the absence of
γ -gliadin 45 in durum wheat genotypes are associated
with weak gluten, while the absence of γ -gliadin
42 and the presence of γ -gliadin 45 are associated
with moderate to very strong gluten.19,20 Payne
et al.21 showed that two types of low-molecular-weight
glutenin subunit (LMW-GS) patterns, designated
LMW-1 (associated with γ -gliadin 42) and LMW-
2 (associated with γ -gliadin 45), are related to poor
and good durum wheat gluten elasticity respectively.
There is also compelling evidence that weakness
in durum wheat genotypes is associated with the
presence of high-molecular-weight glutenin subunit
(HMW-GS) 20.22 – 24 Shewry et al.25 used molecular

∗
Correspondence to: Nancy M Edwards, GRL contribution #971, Grain Research Laboratory, Canadian Grain Commission, 1404-303 Main Street, Winnipeg,
MB, R3C 3G8, Canada
E-mail: nedwards@grainscanada.gc.ca
†
Retired
‡
Current address: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Food Policy and Safety, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
(Received 30 May 2006; revised version received 8 December 2006; accepted 15 December 2006)
Published online 13 June 2007; DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.2932

 2007 Society of Chemical Industry. J Sci Food Agric 0022–5142/2007/$30.00

 Durum wheat bread

and transformational studies to substantiate the
association. Ammar et al.16 reported that genotypes
with HMW-GS 20 exhibited inferior baking quality.
Attempts to associate other HMW-GS patterns with
durum wheat gluten strength tendencies have been
inconclusive.5,16,22,24,26,27
Genetically, durum wheats are tetraploids (AABB)
and lack the D genome found in hexaploid (AABBDD)
common wheats.28 Kerber and Tipples29 showed
that removal of the D genome from common
wheat greatly reduces baking potential. Redaelli
et al.30 demonstrated that chromosome 1D strongly
influenced both dough elasticity and extensibility for
common wheat near-isogenic lines. Some researchers
have incorporated proteins encoded by the D genome
into durum wheat lines in an effort to improve baking
quality.31 – 34
Schlichting et al.35 reported that some lines of a
cross between a strong, tenacious gluten durum wheat
and a weaker, extensible emmer (Triticum dicoccum)
line (also a tetraploid wheat) gave progeny with much
improved gluten extensibility and superior baking
quality to the durum wheat parent. They concluded
that it is possible to maintain strong gluten properties
in durum wheat while incorporating extensibility
without the addition of protein from the D genome.
The emmer–durum lines retained the superior pasta
cooking quality of the durum wheat parent, confirming
the conclusion of Marchylo et al.13 that dual-purpose
durum wheat genotypes suitable for pasta and baking
are feasible.
Durum wheat breeding programmes select lines for
quality solely on the basis of pasta-making potential,
because pasta is by far the most important end-product
of durum wheat. Therefore durum wheat baking
potential has been an afterthought, which may in part
explain why previous studies examining durum wheat
varieties bred for pasta have consistently concluded
that durum wheat baking quality is intrinsically inferior
to that of bread wheat. In this study we investigate
the baking quality of durum wheat genotypes from
diverse origins with a range of gluten strength and
protein composition to determine the potential range
of durum wheat baking quality. The impact of protein
composition on physical dough properties and bread-
making potential is also examined.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Durum wheat genotypes
Thirty durum wheat genotypes, including varieties and
breeding lines from ten countries of origin (Argentina,
Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, New
Zealand, Russia, Spain, USA), were grown in western
Canada in field plots at Vauxhall, Alberta in 2001 and
2002 (Table 1).
Durum wheat milling
Wheat was conditioned to 160 g kg−1 moisture
content and milled into semolina using a four-stand
Allis-Chalmers mill (Allis-Chalmers, Milwaukee, WI,
USA) in conjunction with a laboratory-scale purifier36
according to the procedure of Dexter et al.37 The
extraction rate of semolina ranged from about 620
to 680 g kg−1 wheat, depending on the genotype. The
long-term average particle size distribution of semolina
produced using this milling process was previously
determined using a Ro-Tap sieve shaker (WS Tyler,
Mentor, OH, USA) with US standard sieves #40
(420 µm), #60 (250 µm), #80 (180 µm) and #100
(150 µm) and found to be approximately 60 g kg−1 >
420 µm, 580 g kg−1 > 250 µm, 230 g kg−1 > 180 µm,
80 g kg−1 > 150 µm and 50 g kg−1 < 150 µm.
Common wheat control flour
The Canadian International Grains Institute (CIGI)
kindly provided a Canada Western Red Spring
(CWRS) wheat straight-grade flour of approximately
750 g kg−1 extraction for use as a control for baking
experiments. The flour had been milled in the CIGI
pilot mill as described by Holas and Tipples.38 CWRS

Table 1. Origin, description and gluten protein composition of durum wheat genotypes

Origin Description HMW-GS γ -Gliadin Origin Description HMW-GS γ -Gliadin

Argentina Bonaerense Inta Cumenay 7+8 45 Italy D-73-15 20 45

Australia Breeding line #1 7 + 16 45 Italy Gianni 7+8 45
Australia Breeding line #2 7 + 16 45 Italy Grazia 20 45
Australia Breeding line #3 7 + 16 45 Italy Mongibello 7+8 45
Australia Wolloroi 7+8 45 Italy Svevo 7+8 45
Canada DT 691 6+8 45 New Zealand Arrivato 6+8 45
Canada DT 704 6+8 45 Russia Chakinskaya 226 7+8 45
Canada DT 707 6+8 45 Spain Anton 7+8 42
Canada AC Morse 6+8 45 Spain Balilla Falso 2∗ , 20 45
Canada AC Navigator 6+8 45 Spain Camacho 6+8 45
Canada AC Pathfinder 6+8 45 Italy Demetra 14 + 15 45
France Tetradur 6+8 45 Spain Safari 20 42
Germany Durabon 7+8 42 Spain Valira 20 45
Italy Ciccio 20 45 USA Kofa 6+8 45
Italy Colosseo 14 + 15 45 USA Westbred 881 6+8 45

HMW-GS, high-molecular-weight glutenin subunits.

J Sci Food Agric 87:2000–2011 (2007) 2001

DOI: 10.1002/jsfa
NM Edwards et al.
is the predominant common wheat class grown in
Canada and is well known for its exceptional baking
quality. The protein content of the CWRS flour (140 g
kg−1 moisture basis) was 127 g kg−1 .
Analytical tests
Semolina moisture content was determined on a
10 g sample heated for 1 h in a semi-automatic
Brabender moisture oven (CW Brabender, South
Hackensack, NJ, USA) at 130 ◦ C. Protein content
(N × 5.7) was determined in a combustion nitrogen
analyser (model FP-528, Leco Corp., St Joseph MI,
USA) calibrated with ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid
(EDTA) according to AACC method 46-30.39 Gluten
index was determined by AACC method 38-12A.39
Dough properties
Alveograph (model MA82, Chopin SA, Villeneuve-la-
Garenne, France) curves were obtained following ICC
standard 121.40 Average values for five dough pieces
were determined for overpressure (P), abscissa at rup-
ture (L), deformation energy (W) and configuration
ratio (P/L) by a factory-installed computer program.
Farinograph curves were obtained according to AACC
method 54-21.39
Extensigraph curves were obtained by a small-scale
method. Dough was produced by mixing 50 g of flour
and 1 g of salt in a 50 g farinograph bowl at farinograph
absorption. The dough was sheeted and moulded with
a laboratory-scale moulder as described by Kilborn
and Irvine.41 The moulded dough was then clamped
in modified extensigraph holders described in detail
by Kilborn and Preston.42 The clamped dough was
rested for 45 min at 30 ◦ C in the extensigraph holding
chamber and stretched according to AACC method
54-10.39
Protein composition
Unextractable polymeric protein (UPP) content was
determined as described by Gupta et al.43 Readily
soluble protein was first extracted from semolina
using sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS)/phosphate buffer.
The remaining pellet was then sonicated with
SDS/phosphate buffer to obtain the UPP portion
of semolina protein. Both extracts were analysed
by size exclusion (SE) high-performance liquid
chromatography (SE-HPLC). UPP content was
calculated as the proportion of the combined area
representing glutenin for the combination of soluble
protein and UPP extracts.
Polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) of
HMW-GS was conducted using the SDS-PAGE
method of Gupta and MacRitchie.44 HMW glutenin
alleles were classified according to Payne and
Lawrence.45 Durum wheat γ -gliadin patterns were
identified using acid-PAGE46 on semolina extracts.
Baking
In some preliminary experiments, semolina milled
from commercially grown Canada Western Amber
2002
Durum wheat was reduced gently with fluted rolls
to generate a finer particle size and higher starch
damage. Owing to the extreme hardness of durum
wheat, gentle reduction is needed to avoid excessive
starch damage that can deleteriously affect durum
wheat baking quality.9 The quality of bread made
from unreduced and reduced semolina was virtually
identical, demonstrating that unreduced semolina
had adequate gassing power to withstand the long
fermentation (results not shown). Accordingly, for
simplicity, baking trials on the durum wheat genotypes
were conducted on unreduced semolina.
The French-style hearth bread process of Paulley
et al.47 was followed. The lean formula contained
300 g of semolina, 7.5 g of salt, 3 g of sugar, 6.6 g
of yeast, 300 µg of ascorbic acid, 0.3 g of malt syrup,
0.3 g of ammonium phosphate and optimum water, as
determined by dough handling properties at moulding
by an experienced baker.
Ingredients were mixed to slightly past peak in
a GRL 1000 mixer48 at 160 rpm; the final dough
temperature was 28 ◦ C. Peak mixing time and energy
input were obtained from a mixing curve generated
by an energy input meter.49 After mixing, the dough
was fermented for 75 min in a fermentation cabinet
controlled at 28 ◦ C and 85% relative humidity, divided
and scaled to give two 175 g dough pieces, rounded,
rested for 15 min at 28 ◦ C and 85% relative humidity,
then sheeted and moulded in a Euromap French
Bread Moulder (L&M Manufacturing Co., Toronto,
Canada). Moulded dough pieces were placed on
perforated French bread pans and proofed for 90 min
at 28 ◦ C and 85% relative humidity in a proofing
cabinet. Three diagonal cuts were made in each
dough piece using a retractable razor-blade knife,
and the pans were placed immediately in a modified
National Rotary Hearth Test Baking Oven (National
Manufacturing Co., Lincoln, NE, USA) equipped
with an injection steam supply. The bread was baked
at 204 ◦ C for 30 min. Low-pressure steam was injected
into the oven for 1 min immediately after loading the
pans and released from the oven 2 min later.
After baking, the loaves were cooled at room
temperature on the bench and stored in a cabinet.
Loaf volume was measured 30 min after baking,
by rapeseed displacement using a National Loaf
Volumeter (National Manufacturing Co.) as described
in the manual, and expressed on a 100 g semolina
basis. The following morning, other loaf parameters,
including top diagonal cut width (average of the three
loaf cuts at the widest point) and loaf height and width
at the widest point, were measured. After cutting, the
loaves were visually assessed for crumb structure as
for pan bread.50 Values recorded were average values
for the two loaves obtained from each semolina.
Statistical analysis
Alveograph, farinograph and extensigraph analyses
were performed singly owing to lack of material. All
other analyses and baking experiments were conducted
J Sci Food Agric 87:2000–2011 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa
 Durum wheat bread

in duplicate. Samples from 2001 and 2002 were
tested a year apart following each harvest. Samples
from each year were milled, analysed and baked in
a completely randomised design. Statistical analyses
were performed using SAS Statistical Software Version
9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Analysis
of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine
significant differences. Differences were considered
significant at P ≤ 0.05 unless stated otherwise.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Protein composition of durum wheat genotypes
Three of the 30 durum wheat genotypes were γ -
gliadin 42 types, which are well established to have
weak gluten19 – 21 regardless of HMW-GS patterns
(Table 1). HMW-GS patterns identified among the 27
γ -gliadin 45 genotypes included 6 + 8, 7 + 8, 7 + 16,
14 + 15, 20 and 2∗ , 20.
The diversity of the genotypes is evident from
the means and ranges for the various quality
measurements (Table 2). Means and ranges for all
measurements were similar for the two years. The
range in protein content across all samples was 37 g
kg−1 for wheat produced in 2001 and 41 g kg−1 for
wheat produced in 2002 (Table 2). The range in mean
protein contents among the HMW-GS groupings was
10 g kg−1 (Table 3).
All the γ -gliadin 42 genotypes contained low
amounts of UPP and gave low gluten index (GI)
values (Table 3). Among the γ -gliadin 45 genotypes
the HMW-GS 20 group exhibited the lowest UPP
and GI values. The sole 2∗ , 20 genotype, Balilla Falso,
which is included in the HMW-GS 20 group, showed
values of GI and UPP near the average for that group.
There was no change among the other HMW-GS
patterns that was associated with gluten strength,
considering the limited number of genotypes within
some groups and the range of strength measurements
within each group.
UPP is known to be a prime determinant of gluten
strength in common wheat;43 GI is well established
as a durum wheat gluten strength estimator.51 In the
current study, UPP and GI were strongly correlated
(P ≤ 0.01) in both years (Fig. 1D), corroborating
Sissons et al.24 Our results indicate that all the durum
wheat genotypes with GI values below 10 had UPP
contents of 300 g kg−1 protein or less; above a UPP
content of about 350 g kg−1 protein, GI exhibited a
rapid linear increase.
The general weakness observed for HMW-GS 20
genotypes in this study is consistent with previous
reports.16,22 – 24,52 Based on our data, the primary
factor is a low polymeric protein content resulting from
a lower density of intermolecular disulfide bonds.53
Physical dough properties of durum wheat
genotypes
The alveograph is widely used as a strength
specification in durum wheat trade.13 As expected,
the γ -gliadin 42 genotypes all exhibited low P and W
values, indicative of low elasticity (Table 3). P and W
were strongly correlated with UPP (P ≤ 0.01). A plot
of W against UPP for pooled data from both years is
shown in Fig. 1B.
Among the γ -gliadin 45 genotypes the HMW-GS 20
group exhibited the lowest mean values for alveograph

Table 2. Mean, range and standard deviation (SD) of quality measurements of 30 durum wheat genotypes harvested in 2001 and 2002

2001 2002

Measurement Mean Range SD Mean Range SD

−1
Protein content (g kg ) 123 103–140 11 126 108–149 9
UPP (g kg−1 protein) 408 184–583 96 399 149–550 101
Gluten index 41.7 1–91 28.4 42.3 1–90 26.8
Alveograph P (mm) 73.8 23–114 20.3 74.8 26–123 23.1
Alveograph L (mm) 65.4 6–112 25.8 64.8 8–107 25.3
Alveograph W (10−4 J) 155 8–319 73.0 152 12–307 69.3
Farinograph WA (g kg−1 ) 603 540–660 23 618 563–658 23
Farinograph DDT (min) 4.6 2.0–10.0 1.6 4.1 2.3–8.5 1.2
Extensigraph MH (BU) 319 50–940 200 242 55–600 128
Extensigraph L (cm) 12.5 5.5–17.5 2.7 14.9 6.5–23 3.4
Extensigraph A (cm2 ) 55.2 2.8–136 31.2 49.6 4.7–135.8 27.6
Baking absorption (g kg−1 ) 541 525–550 8 536 525–550 8
Mixing time (min) 7.3 2.6–9.9 2.0 7.3 2.9–11.0 2.0
Mixing energy (kJ kg−1 ) 42.1 14.8–62.3 10.8 43.9 16.2–63.7 11.2
Height/width 0.78 0.36–0.90 0.13 0.75 0.36–0.93 0.13
Centre cut width (mm) 8.1 1.0–14.0 3.8 7.1 1.0–15.0 3.6
Crumb structure (units) 4.4 1.8–6.5 1.2 5.2 3.5–6.2 0.8
Loaf volume (cm3 ) 489 265–713 103 508 363–805 95.6
LV/PR (cm3 g−1 ) 4.0 2.1–5.6 0.8 4.1 2.4–5.8 0.8

Protein content expressed as N × 5.7 on 140 g kg−1 moisture basis. UPP, unextractable polymeric protein; P, overpressure; L, length; W, energy of
deformation; WA, water absorption; DDT, dough development time; MH, maximum height; BU, Brabender units; A, area; LV/PR, loaf volume/protein
content.

J Sci Food Agric 87:2000–2011 (2007) 2003

DOI: 10.1002/jsfa
NM Edwards et al.

Table 3. Semolina protein content, unextractable polymeric protein (UPP), gluten index and alveograph parameters (mean values from two years)
for γ -gliadin 42 durum wheat genotypes and for γ -gliadin 45 durum wheat genotypes within high-molecular-weight glutenin subunit (HMW-GS)
groupings

HMW-GS pattern (γ -gliadin 45 types)

Measurement γ -Gliadin 42 (n = 3) 6 + 8 (n = 11) 7 + 8 (n = 6) 7 + 16 (n = 3) 14 + 15 (n = 2) 20 (n = 5)

Protein content (g kg−1 ) Mean 121 127 124 123 117 126
Range 117–126 115–138 108–135 117–127 116–118 116–143
UPP (g kg−1 protein) Mean 224 458 460 432 397 310
Range 167–307 429–527 337–566 399–484 392–488 233–370
Gluten index Mean 1.7 52.2 65.8 46.8 32.5 16.6
Range 1–2 26–83 36–91 42–50 2–63 1–38
Alveograph P (mm) Mean 37.3 78.7 88.5 87.5 68.0 64.7
Range 25–49 59–105 59–119 80–95 54–82 43–88
Alveograph L (mm) Mean 33.0 78.1 76.4 59.0 54.0 50.2
Range 7–65 56–103 51–110 54–64 41–67 14–89
Alveograph P/L Mean 1.92 1.07 1.31 1.51 1.27 1.75
Range 0.78–3.54 0.64–1.73 0.58–1.99 1.36–1.78 1.23–1.31 0.86–4.01
Alveograph W (10−4 J) Mean 41.5 179.5 207.8 162.8 121.5 105.8
Range 10–78 130–271 137–313 144–175 71–172 42–181

Protein content expressed as N × 5.7 on 140 g kg−1 moisture basis. P, overpressure; L, length; W, energy of deformation. Balilla Falso (2∗ , 20)
included in HMW-GS 20 grouping.

Figure 1. Relationships of (A) farinograph dough development time (DDT), (B) alveograph deformation energy (W), (C) 50 g extensigraph area and
(D) gluten index to unextractable polymeric protein (UPP):
, harvested in 2001; , harvested in 2002.

P and W (Table 3). A notable outlier among the
HMW-GS 20 genotypes was Grazia, which gave by
far the highest W value, 181 × 10−4 J, slightly above
the average for all the durum wheat genotypes tested.
Grazia also had the highest UPP content (370 g kg−1
protein) and GI (38) among the HMW-GS 20 group.
The γ -gliadin 42 and HMW-GS 20 groups exhibited
relatively high P/L values, as the curves were generally
short (low L) because of weakness. Again, within the
HMW-GS 20 group, Grazia was a notable exception,

2004 J Sci Food Agric 87:2000–2011 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/jsfa
 Durum wheat bread

exhibiting a P/L of 0.86. Within the other γ -gliadin
45 HMW-GS groups the 14 + 15 cultivars gave the
weakest alveograph values, but it is not possible
to draw conclusions based on only two genotypes.
Among the other HMW-GS groups, 6 + 8 and 7 + 8
exhibited higher mean values, but each exhibited wide
ranges that overlapped with those of other HMW-GS
groups.
Farinograph dough development time was also
strongly correlated with UPP (Fig. 1A) and ranked the
HMW-GS groups similarly to the alveograph parame-
ters (Table 3). The farinograph water absorption range
within the current sample set was over 100 g kg−1 . A
shortcoming of the alveograph test is that it is done
at constant water absorption, inducing higher, shorter
curves and higher W values for semolina samples with
higher water absorption.9 Therefore dough mixed in
the farinograph at farinograph water absorption was
also tested by a small-scale extensigraph procedure.
In general, the 50 g extensigraph measurements
(Table 4) ranked genotypes similarly to the alveograph
(Table 3). Both 50 g extensigraph maximum height
and area were strongly correlated with UPP (P ≤
0.001). A plot of 50 g extensigraph area against
UPP is shown in Fig. 1C. The 50 g extensigraph
measurements clearly identified the weakness of the
γ -gliadin 42 genotypes, as evident by low values for
maximum height and area. Mean 50 g extensigraph
area values indicated superior average strength among
6 + 8 and 7 + 8 genotypes compared with the other
HMW-GS groups. The superior strength of 6 + 8
and 7 + 8 is in agreement with Ammar et al.16 but
appears to contradict Brites and Carrillo,22 who found
that 14 + 15 imparted additional strength. However,
our sample set included only two lines with 14 + 15,
whereas Brites and Carrillo22 compared 25 or more
F3 lines from two crosses involving a 14 + 15 parent.
The 6 + 8 and 7 + 8 genotypes in the present study
also exhibited the highest mean values of UPP and GI
(Table 3).
Baking properties of durum wheat genotypes
The type of baking process (lean or rich formula,
long or short fermentation) will influence the relative
differences in baking performance among wheat
samples. For this study we chose a lean formula, long-
fermentation hearth bread process. Hearth bread is a
more likely bread product than pan bread for durum
wheat, and most traditional durum wheat breads
are produced by lean formula, long-fermentation
processes.2 The long fermentation associated with
the hearth bread process should accentuate intrinsic
differences in baking quality. Previous work has
shown that Canadian durum wheat of moderate
strength produces good bread when baked by a short-
fermentation process,9,13 whereas baking quality of
moderate-strength durum wheat is poor for long-
fermentation processes. Dexter et al.,54 using a long-
fermentation straight-dough baking process, found a
direct relationship of loaf volume to gluten strength
for a limited number of durum wheat genotypes from
Canada and Italy.
Results from baking of the CWRS control flour
demonstrate the high degree of repeatability of
bread measurements (Table 5). The most variable
measurement was centre cut width, an indication of
oven response and break during baking. All the other
parameters exhibited coefficients of variation of about
5% or less.
As expected for such a diverse set of durum
wheat genotypes, baking quality was highly variable
(Table 6). Baking performance was similar for the
two years. The γ -gliadin 42 genotypes all exhibited
relatively poor baking quality, as evident from their
poor crumb structure, low loaf volume and poor bread
appearance as measured by height/width ratio and
centre cut width, consistent with short mixing time and
low mixing energy related to weak dough properties.
Among the γ -gliadin 45 genotypes the HMW-GS
20 group exhibited the poorest overall bread quality
and shortest mixing requirement. Grazia, which as

Table 4. Farinograph and small-scale extensigraph parameters (mean values from two years) for γ -gliadin 42 durum wheat genotypes and for
γ -gliadin 45 durum wheat genotypes within high-molecular-weight glutenin subunit (HMW-GS) groupings

HMW-GS pattern (γ -gliadin 45 types)

Measurement γ -Gliadin 42 (n = 3) 6 + 8 (n = 11) 7 + 8 (n = 6) 7 + 16 (n = 3) 14 + 15 (n = 2) 20 (n = 5)

Farinograph WA (g kg−1 ) Mean 582 613 614 625 594 616

Range 567–601 594–631 577–647 618–638 590–598 600–657
Farinograph DDT (min) Mean 2.7 4.8 5.5 3.9 4.2 3.3
Range 2.4–3.0 4.0–5.8 3.8–9.3 3.0–4.5 3.5–4.8 2.8–4.0
Extensigraph MH (BU) Mean 84.2 322 408 215 243 209
Range 53–115 180–495 193–690 203–228 120–365 70–375
Extensigraph L (cm) Mean 10.8 14.0 14.0 13.8 11.5 15.3
Range 6–16 11–17 11–18 13–15 11–12 11–19
Extensigraph MH/L Mean 8.1 24.1 30.8 15.9 22.9 15.3
Range 7.3–8.8 12.4–42.1 13.9–56.1 13.7–17.8 13.0–32.7 5.9–34.3
Extensigraph A (cm2 ) Mean 15.2 61.2 73.2 41.1 40.7 41.9
Range 3.8–29.4 34.9–105 37.2–131 40.0–42.5 26.6–54.7 14.2–82.5

WA, water absorption; DDT, dough development time; MH, maximum height; BU, Brabender units; L, length; A, area. Balilla Falso (2∗ , 20) included
in HMW-GS 20 grouping.

J Sci Food Agric 87:2000–2011 (2007) 2005

DOI: 10.1002/jsfa
NM Edwards et al.

Table 5. Mean, range and standard deviation (SD) of hearth bread their entering the oven; in some cases the bread
baking measurements for Canada Western Red Spring control flour collapsed. Therefore it would appear that even the
(17 bakes) strongest durum wheat genotypes in this study have
Measurement Mean Range SD less fermentation tolerance than high-quality common
bread wheats such as CWRS.
Baking absorption (%) 62 62–62 –
Mixing time (min) 8.2 7.4–9.2 0.44
Mixing energy (kJ kg−1 ) 58.3 51.5–67.0 4.9 Relationship of strength measurements to
Height/width 0.87 0.77–0.93 0.05 durum wheat baking properties
Centre cut width (mm) 14.3 10–23 3.5 Protein content is a primary determinant of bread loaf
Crumb structure (cm) 6.4 6.2–6.5 0.15 volume for lean formula, long-fermentation baking
Loaf volume (cm3 ) 625 600–670 17.2 processes.55 Despite exhibiting a range of more than
LV/PR (cm3 g−1 ) 51.0 49.0–54.7 1.41 3 g kg−1 within the durum wheat genotypes each
LV/PR, loaf volume/protein content. year (Table 2), protein content was not significantly
correlated (P > 0.05) with UPP, GI, any of the
physical dough measurements or any of the bread
noted earlier was the strongest HMW-GS 20 genotype, attribute measurements or loaf volume (not shown).
baked better than the rest, giving a loaf volume slightly Accordingly, when loaf volume was normalised
in excess of 500 cm3 each year compared with a to a unit protein basis, there was little impact
mean value of 435 cm3 for the group. The HMW- on correlations with UPP, GI or physical dough
GS 6 + 8 and 7 + 8 groups exhibited the best average properties (Table 7).
bread quality. Some of the 6 + 8 and 7 + 8 genotypes It has been suggested that loaf volume of bread
gave bread volume, crumb structure and other bread from durum wheat is limited by tenacious inextensible
attributes equivalent or slightly superior to those dough properties.2,16 It is noteworthy that, for the
of the CWRS control (Tables 5 and 6 and Fig. 2). durum wheat genotypes in this study, alveograph
The one notable exception was baking absorption. length was the strength measurement that was
Farinograph water absorption of these two HMW-GS most highly correlated with loaf volume, confirming
groups averaged nearly 615 g kg−1 (Table 4), similar to that dough extensibility is an asset (Table 7 and
that of the CWRS control (610 g kg−1 ). The optimum Fig. 3C). Alveograph P/L, which is a measurement
baking absorption for the CWRS control was 620 g of the balance between elasticity and extensibility,
kg−1 , whereas the optimum baking absorption for all was more weakly correlated with bread attributes
the γ -gliadin 45 durum wheat genotypes ranged from and loaf volume than alveograph W. Although 50 g
about 530 to 550 g kg−1 (Table 6). When baked at extensigraph length was less strongly correlated with
higher baking absorption, durum wheat dough was baking measurements than alveograph length, 50 g
sticky and difficult to handle at the moulding stage, extensigraph area was more highly correlated with
tended to flow following the final proof and was too loaf volume and other bread quality attributes than
fragile to withstand slashing of the loaves prior to alveograph W (Table 7 and Figs 3D–3F).

Table 6. Hearth bread baking measurements (mean values from two years) for γ -gliadin 42 durum wheat genotypes and for γ -gliadin 45 durum
wheat genotypes within high-molecular-weight glutenin subunit (HMW-GS) groupings

HMW-GS pattern (γ -gliadin 45 types)

Measurement γ -Gliadin 42 (n = 3) 6 + 8 (n = 11) 7 + 8 (n = 6) 7 + 16 (n = 3) 14 + 15 (n = 2) 20 (n = 5)

Baking absorption (g kg−1 ) Mean 528 541 543 542 533 535
Range 525–550 530–548 540–548 538–548 528–538 525–545
Mixing time (min) Mean 4.0 7.7 8.5 9.2 7.5 5.7
Range 2.8–5.0 6.3–8.9 7.2–10.0 8.7–10.0 5.5–9.5 3.6–7.8
Mixing energy (kJ kg−1 ) Mean 23.8 45.7 49.3 52.9 40.7 36.0
Range 15.5–32.0 37.4–51.8 42.1–63.0 51.1–56.9 31.0–50.0 24.1–46.4
Height/width Mean 0.50 0.82 0.84 0.82 0.75 0.70
Range 0.36–0.65 0.74–0.89 0.79–0.89 0.80–0.84 0.69–0.81 0.50–0.90
Cut width (mm) Mean 1.7 9.4 10.2 6.3 5.9 5.5
Range 1.3–2.5 4.8–11.8 6.5–13.5 5.3–7.0 3.3–8.5 1.3–9.8
Crumb structure (units) Mean 3.3 5.3 5.6 4.6 2 4.5 4.0
Range 2.8–4.3 4.3–6.3 4.8–6.3 4.5–4.7 2 4.3–4.7 3.2–4.9
Loaf volume (cm3 ) Mean 388 542 565 459 2 446 435
Range 320–449 465–642 395–742 433–484 2 415–477 363–519
LV/PR (cm3 g−1 ) Mean 3.2 4.3 4.5 3.8 3.9 3.5
Range 2.8–3.6 3.6–5.1 3.7–5.5 3.4–3.9 3.6–4.2 2.6–4.2

Based on results from 17 bakes of Canada Western Red Spring control flour. LV/PR, loaf volume/protein content. Balilla Falso (2∗ , 20) included in
HMW-GS 20 grouping.

2006 J Sci Food Agric 87:2000–2011 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/jsfa
 Durum wheat bread

A B

C D

E F

G H

Figure 2. Hearth bread from CWRS control flour and selected durum wheat genotypes harvested in 2001 demonstrating the range in expected
baking quality. A and B, CWRS control; C and D, Kofa, HMW-GS 6 + 8, LMW-2; E and F, Mongibello, HMW-GS 7 + 8, LMW-2; G and H, D-73-15,
HMW-GS 20, LMW-2 Left column: top view. Right column: cross section.

It would appear that for this long-fermentation associated gluten elasticity. GI and UPP were both
baking process the overriding factor associated with highly correlated with loaf volume, crumb structure
superior baking quality for durum wheat is UPP and and other bread quality measurements (Table 7).

J Sci Food Agric 87:2000–2011 (2007) 2007

DOI: 10.1002/jsfa
NM Edwards et al.
Figure 3. Relationships of (A) farinograph dough development time (DDT), (B) bread dough mixing energy, (C) alveograph length, (D) alveograph
deformation energy (W), (E) 50 g extensigraph length and (F) 50 g extensigraph area to loaf volume:
, harvested in 2001; , harvested in 2002.
Dough mixing properties were less useful predictors
of durum wheat loaf volume and other bread
attributes than either GI or UPP. Farinograph dough
development time, despite being strongly correlated
with UPP (r ≈ 0.74) and GI (r ≈ 0.80) each year
(results not shown), exhibited weaker correlations with
bread properties (Table 7). As seen in Fig. 3A, a major
reason was that one of the genotypes, Chakinskaya
226, was an outlier, exhibiting relatively long
farinograph dough development time but poor loaf
volume. Bread dough mixing time was more weakly
correlated with bread properties and loaf volume
in 2001 than farinograph dough development time,
while correlations were statistically non-significant
(P > 0.05) in 2002 (results not shown). Bread dough
mixing energy gave correlations with bread attributes
2008
(not shown) and loaf volume (Fig. 3B) comparable to
those for farinograph dough development time.
CONCLUSIONS
When baked using a lean formula, long-fermentation
straight-dough hearth bread process, the durum wheat
genotypes exhibited a wide range in baking quality,
with some lines exhibiting loaf volume and bread
attributes equal or slightly superior to those of a
high-quality bread wheat flour. In terms of HMW-
GS groups the lines possessing subunit 20 exhibited
the poorest baking quality and those possessing 6 + 8
and 7 + 8 exhibited the best baking quality. All the γ -
gliadin 42 genotypes exhibited weak gluten properties
and poor baking quality. Loaf volume and bread
J Sci Food Agric 87:2000–2011 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa
 Durum wheat bread

Table 7. Pearson correlation coefficients of strength measurements to baking measurements for 30 durum wheat genotypes from 2001 (top
number) and 2002 (bottom number in italics)

Strength measurement

Baking measurement UPP GI FDTT AP AL APL AW EXMH EXL EXA

Mixing time 0.76∗∗∗ 0.82∗∗∗ 0.62∗∗∗ 0.86∗∗∗ 0.51∗∗ 0.40∗ 0.80∗∗∗ 0.63∗∗∗ 0.15 0.57∗∗
0.70∗∗∗ 0.77∗∗∗ 0.64∗∗∗ 0.83∗∗∗ 0.29 0.16 0.70∗∗∗ 0.58∗∗∗ 0.64∗∗∗ 0.40∗
Mixing energy 0.78∗∗∗ 0.84∗∗∗ 0.62∗∗∗ 0.86∗∗∗ 0.61∗∗∗ 0.46∗∗ 0.85∗∗∗ 0.71∗∗∗ 0.27 0.67∗∗
0.72∗∗∗ 0.79∗∗∗ 0.63∗∗∗ 0.88∗∗∗ 0.51∗∗ −0.25 0.85∗∗∗ 0.67∗∗∗ 0.63∗∗∗ 0.59∗∗∗
Height/width 0.83∗∗∗ 0.74∗∗∗ 0.53∗∗ 0.71∗∗∗ 0.84∗∗∗ −0.57∗∗ 0.79∗∗∗ 0.63∗∗∗ 0.57∗∗ 0.72∗∗∗
0.73∗∗∗ 0.74∗∗∗ 0.54∗∗ 0.66∗∗∗ 0.82∗∗∗ −0.47∗∗ 0.79∗∗∗ 0.67∗∗∗ 0.50∗∗ 0.75∗∗∗
Cut width 0.77∗∗∗ 0.80∗∗∗ 0.63∗∗∗ 0.60∗∗∗ 0.83∗∗∗ −0.73∗∗∗ 0.81∗∗∗ 0.80∗∗∗ 0.37∗ 0.83∗∗∗
0.70∗∗∗ 0.83∗∗∗ 0.63∗∗∗ 0.54∗∗ 0.79∗∗∗ −0.62∗∗∗ 0.77∗∗∗ 0.80∗∗∗ 0.67∗∗∗ 0.84∗∗∗
Crumb structure 0.79∗∗∗ 0.72∗∗∗ 0.55∗∗ 0.49∗ 0.91∗∗∗ −0.70∗∗∗ 0.78∗∗∗ 0.65∗∗ 0.61∗∗ 0.79∗∗∗
0.78∗∗∗ 0.82∗∗∗ 0.68∗∗∗ 0.57∗∗ 0.76∗∗∗ −0.46∗ 0.76∗∗∗ 0.78∗∗∗ 0.15 0.78∗∗∗
Loaf volume 0.71∗∗∗ 0.71∗∗∗ 0.51∗∗ 0.47∗∗ 0.91∗∗∗ −0.65∗∗∗ 0.83∗∗∗ 0.70∗∗∗ 0.60∗∗∗ 0.83∗∗∗
0.60∗∗∗ 0.70∗∗∗ 0.55∗∗ 0.31∗ 0.85∗∗∗ −0.54∗∗ 0.64∗∗∗ 0.77∗∗∗ 0.57∗∗∗ 0.86∗∗∗
LV/PR 0.68∗∗∗ 0.72∗∗∗ 0.44∗ 0.47∗∗ 0.89∗∗∗ −0.71∗∗∗ 0.76∗∗∗ 0.73∗∗∗ 0.54∗∗ 0.83∗∗∗
0.55∗∗∗ 0.65∗∗∗ 0.50∗∗ 0.20 0.81∗∗∗ 0.61∗∗∗ 0.51∗∗ 0.65∗∗∗ 0.47∗∗ 0.75∗∗∗

UPP, unextractable polymeric protein; GI, gluten index; FDDT, farinograph dough development time; AP, alveograph overpressure; AL, alveograph
length; APL, alveograph P/L; AW, alveograph energy of deformation; EXMH, 50 g extensigraph maximum height; EXL, 50 g extensigraph length;
EXA, 50 g extensigraph area; LV/PR, loaf volume/protein content. ∗∗∗ P ≤ 0.001; ∗∗ P ≤ 0.01; ∗ P ≤ 0.05.

quality attributes were strongly correlated with both
UPP and GI. A combination of dough elasticity and
extensibility, as measured by farinograph, alveograph
and small-scale extensigraph, was necessary for
superior durum wheat baking performance.
Selection of durum wheat genotypes for very strong
gluten properties has become a requirement in the
Canadian durum wheat breeding programme because
of increasing demand for more strength by the pasta
industry.56,57 The primary tests used to evaluate
Canadian durum wheat gluten strength are alveograph
and gluten index. It would appear from this study that
selection for enhanced strength based on high gluten
index and alveograph curves that show a combination
of strength and extensibility will result in genotypes
with improved baking quality well suited for niche use
for durum wheat bread baking.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the technical assistance
of Dave Turnock and John Burrows of the Cana-
dian Grain Commission Grain Research Laboratory;
Jennifer Fehr of the Cereal Research Centre, Agricul-
ture and Agri-Food Canada; and Freddy Loyman of
CSIRO Plant Industry.
REFERENCES
1 Feillet P and Dexter JE, Quality requirements of durum wheat
for semolina milling and pasta production, in Pasta and Noodle
Technology, ed. by Kruger JE, Matsuo RR and Dick JW.
AACC International, St Paul, MN, pp. 95–131 (1996).
2 Quaglia GB, Other durum wheat products, in Durum: Chemistry
and Technology, ed. by Fabriani G and Lintas C. AACC
International, St Paul, MN, pp. 263–282 (1988).
3 Palumbo M, Spina A and Boggini G, Agronomic and bread-
making characteristics of durum wheat genotypes deriving
from interspecific hybridisation with bread wheat, in
Proceedings of Durum Wheat Improvement in the Mediterranean
Region: New Challenges, ed. by Royo C, Nachit MM,
DiFonzo N and Araus NJL. CIHEAM-IAMZ, Zaragoza,
Spain, pp. 515–518 (2000).
4 Liu CY, Shepherd KW and Rathjen AJ, Improvement of durum
wheat pastamaking and breadmaking qualities. Cereal Chem
73:155–166 (1996).
5 Boggini G and Pogna NE, The breadmaking quality and storage
protein composition of durum wheat. J Cereal Sci 9:131–138
(1989).
6 Boggini G, Tusa P and Pogna NE, Bread making quality of
durum genotypes with some novel glutenin compositions.
J Cereal Sci 22:105–113 (1995).
7 Boyaçioglu MH and D’Appolonia BL, Durum wheat and bread
products. Cereal Foods World 39:168–174 (1994).
8 Dexter JE, Matsuo RR, Preston KR and Kilborn RH, Compar-
ison of gluten strength, mixing properties, baking quality
and spaghetti quality of some Canadian durum and common
wheats. Can Inst Food Sci Technol J 14:108–111 (1981).
9 Dexter JE, Preston KR, Martin DG and Gander EJ, The effects
of protein content and starch damage on the physical dough
properties and breadmaking quality of Canadian durum
wheat. J Cereal Sci 20:139–151 (1994).
10 Hareland GA and Puhr DP, Baking performance of durum and
soft wheat flour in a sponge-dough breadmaking procedure.
Cereal Chem 75:830–835 (1999).
11 Josephides CM, Joppa LR and Youngs VI, Effect of chromo-
some 1B on gluten strength and other characteristics of durum
wheat. Crop Sci 27:212–216 (1987).
12 Lopez-Ahumada GA, Valdey-Encinas VA and Ramirez-
Wong B, The use of a mix of emulsifiers to improve the
baking characteristics of blends of durum and bakers wheat
flour. Cereal Foods World 36:701–702 (1991).
13 Marchylo BA, Dexter JE, Clarke FR, Clarke JM and Pre-
ston KR, Gluten strength, physical dough properties, pasta
cooking quality and bread-making quality of Canadian durum
wheat. Can J Plant Sci 81:611–620 (2001).
14 Peña RJ, Zarco-Hernandez J, Amaya-Celis A and Mujeeb-
Kazi A, Relationship between chromosome 1B-encoded
glutenin subunit compositions and bread-making quality
characteristics of some durum wheat (Triticum turgidum)
cultivars. J Cereal Sci 19:243–249 (1994).
15 Quick JS and Crawford RD, Bread baking potential of new
durum wheat cultivars, in Proceedings of 6th International Wheat

J Sci Food Agric 87:2000–2011 (2007) 2009

DOI: 10.1002/jsfa
NM Edwards et al.
Genetics Symposium, ed. by Sakamoto S. Plant Germplasm
Institute, Kyoto, Japan, pp. 851–856 (1983).
16 Ammar K, Kronstad WE and Morris CF, Breadmaking quality
of selected durum wheat genotypes and its relationship with
high molecular weight glutenin subunits allelic variation
and gluten protein polymeric composition. Cereal Chem
77:230–236 (2000).
17 Edwards NM, Peressini D, Dexter JE and Mulvaney SJ, Vis-
coelastic properties of durum wheat and common wheat of
different strengths. Rheol Acta 40:142–153 (2001).
18 Rao VK, Mulvaney SJ, Dexter JE, Edwards NM and
Peressini D, Stress-relaxation properties of mixograph
semolina–water doughs from durum wheat cultivars of
variable strength in relation to mixing characteristics and
bread-making and pasta-making performance. J Cereal Sci
34:215–232 (2001).
19 Damidaux R, Autran J-C, Grignac P and Feillet P, Mise
en évidence de relations applicables en sélection entre
l’électrophorégramme des gliadins et les propriétés
viscoélastiques du gluten de Triticum durum Desf. CR Acad
Sci D 287:701–704 (1978).
20 Kosmolak FG, Dexter JE, Matsuo RR, Leisle D and Marchylo
BA, A relationship between durum wheat quality and gliadin
electrophoregrams. Can J Plant Sci 60:427–432 (1980).
21 Payne PI, Jackson EA and Holt LM, The association between
γ -gliadin 45 and gluten strength in durum wheat varieties: a
direct causal effect or the result of genetic linkage? J Cereal
Sci 11:15–34 (1984).
22 Brites C and Carrillo JM, Influence of high molecular weight
(HMW) and low molecular weight (LMW) glutenin subunits
controlled by Glu-1 and Glu-3 loci on durum wheat quality.
Cereal Chem 78:59–63 (2001).
23 Oak MD, Tamhankar SA, Rao VS and Bhosale SB, Relation-
ship of HMW and LMW glutenin subunits and γ -gliadins
with gluten strength in Indian durum wheats. J Plant Biochem
Biotechnol 13:51–55 (2004).
24 Sissons MJ, Ames NP, Hare RA and Clarke JM, Relation-
ship between glutenin subunit composition and gluten
strength measurements in durum wheat. J Sci Food Agric
85:2445–2452 (2005).
25 Shewry PR, Gilbert SM, Savage AWJ, Tatham AS, Wan YF,
Belton PS, et al, Sequence and properties of HMW subunit
1bx20 from pasta wheat (Triticum durum) which is associated
with poor end use properties. Theor Appl Genet 106:744–750
(2003).
26 DuCros DL, Glutenin proteins and gluten strength in durum
wheat. J Cereal Sci 5:3–12 (1987).
27 Pogna NE, Autran JC, Mellini F, Lafiandra D and Feillet P,
Chromosome 1B-encoded gliadins and glutenin subunits in
durum wheat: genetics and relationships to gluten strength.
J Cereal Sci 11:15–34 (1990).
28 Feldman M, Origin of cultivated wheat, in The World Wheat
Book, a History of Wheat Breeding, ed. by Bonjean AP and
Angus WJ. Lavoisier Publishing, Secaucus, NJ, pp. 3–53
(2001).
29 Kerber ER and Tipples KH, Effects of the D genome on milling
and baking properties of wheat. Can J Plant Sci 49:255–263
(1969).
30 Redaelli R, Pogna NE and Ng PKW, Effects of prolamins
encoded by chromosomes 1B and 1D on the rheological
properties of dough in near-isogenic lines of bread wheat.
Cereal Chem 74:102–107 (1997).
31 Ceoloni C, Biaggetti M, Ciuffi M, Forte P and Pasquini M,
Wheat chromosome engineering at the 4x level: the potential
of different alien gene transfers into durum wheat. Euphytica
89:87–97 (1996).
32 Joppa LR, Klindworth DL and Hareland GA, Transfer of
high molecular weight glutenins from spring wheat to
durum wheat, in Proceedings of 9th International Wheat
Genetics Symposium, Vol. 1, ed. by Slinkard AE. University
of Saskatchewan Extension Press, Saskatoon, pp. 257–260
(1998).
2010
33 Lafiandra D, Margiotta B, Colaprico G, Masci S, Roth MR and
MacRitchie F, Introduction of the D-genome related high
and low molecular glutenin subunits into durum wheat and
their effect on technological properties, in Gluten Proteins
2000. Proceedings of 7th International Gluten Workshop, ed.
by Shewry PR and Tatham AS. Royal Society of Chemistry,
Cambridge, pp. 51–54 (2000).
34 Pogna NE, Mazza M, Redaelli R and Ng PKW, Gluten quality
and storage protein composition of durum wheat lines
containing Gli-D1/Glu-D3 loci, in Proceedings of 46th
Australian Cereal Chemistry Conference in Association with 6th
International Gluten Workshop, ed. by Wrigley CW. Royal
Australian Chemical Institute, Melbourne, pp. 18–22 (1996).
35 Schlichting LM, Dexter JE, Preston KR, Edwards NM,
Marchylo BA, Hucl P, et al, Quality characterization of lines
from a cross between emmer (T. dicoccum) and durum
(T. durum) wheat, in Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop.
Durum Wheat and Pasta Quality: Recent Achievements and New
Trends, ed. by D’Egidio MG. Industria Grafica Failli Fausto,
Guidonia-Montecelio, pp. 71–76 (2003).
36 Black HC, Laboratory purifier for durum semolina. Cereal Sci
Today 11:533–534, 542 (1961).
37 Dexter JE, Matsuo RR and Kruger JE, The spaghetti-making
quality of commercial durum wheat samples with variable
α-amylase activity. Cereal Chem 67:405–412 (1990).
38 Holas J and Tipples KH, Factors affecting farinograph and
baking absorption. I. Quality characteristics of flour streams.
Cereal Chem 55:637–652 (1978).
39 AACC International, Approved Methods of the AACC (10th edn).
AACC International, St Paul, MN (2000).
40 ICC, Standard Methods of the International Association for Cereal
Science and Technology. ICC, Vienna (2001).
41 Kilborn RH and Irvine GN, A laboratory molder for test baking.
Cereal Sci Today 8:341–342, 344, 356 (1963).
42 Kilborn RH and Preston KR, A modified extensigraph proce-
dure for measuring the stretching properties of fermented
dough. Cereal Chem 59:381–384 (1982).
43 Gupta RB, Khan K and MacRitchie F, Biochemical basis of
flour properties in bread wheats. I. Effects of variation in the
quantity and size distribution of polymeric protein. J Cereal
Sci 18:23–41 (1993).
44 Gupta RB and MacRitchie F, Rapid one-step one-dimensional
SDS-PAGE procedure for analysis of subunit composition of
glutenin in wheat. J Cereal Sci 14:105–109 (1991).
45 Payne PI and Lawrence GJ, Catalogue of alleles for the complex
gene loci Glu-A1, Glu-B1 and Glu-D1 which code for high
molecular weight subunits of glutenin in hexaploid wheat.
Cereal Res Comm 11:29–35 (1984).
46 Tkachuk R and Mellish VJ, Wheat cultivar identification by high
voltage gel electrophoresis. Ann Technol Agric 29:207–212
(1980).
47 Paulley G, Vazquez D, Lysenko E and Preston KR, Develop-
ment of a laboratory baking test for Uruguayan French style
hearth bread using Canadian wheat flour. Can J Plant Sci
84:949–954 (2004).
48 Kilborn RH and Tipples KH, The GRL-1000 laboratory dough
mixer. Cereal Chem 51:500–508 (1974).
49 Kilborn RH, Mixing curves and energy measurements in test
baking. Bakers J 39:18–19, 39–41 (1979).
50 Preston KR, Kilborn RH and Black HC, The GRL pilot mill. II.
Physical dough and baking properties of flour streams milled
from Canadian red spring wheats. Can Inst Food Sci Technol J
15:29–36 (1982).
51 Cubadda R, Carcea M and Pasqui LA, Suitability of the gluten
index method for assessing gluten strength in durum wheat
and semolina. Cereal Foods World 37:866–869 (1992).
52 Carrillo JM, Vasquez JF and Orellana J, Relationships between
gluten strength and glutenin proteins in durum wheat
cultivars. Plant Breed 104:325–333 (1990).
53 Tatham AS, Field JM, Keen JN, Jackson PJ and Shewry PR,
Purification and characterization of HMW glutenin subunits
encoded by chromosome 1B of durum wheat (Triticum
durum). J Cereal Sci 14:111–116 (1991).
J Sci Food Agric 87:2000–2011 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa

54 Dexter JE, Marchylo BA, Preston KR, Clarke JM and Carcea M,
Comparison of the quality characteristics of some Italian and
North American durum wheat cultivars, in Wheat Protein
Production and Marketing. Proceedings of Symposium on Wheat
Protein, ed. by Fowler DB, Geddes WE, Johnson AM and
Preston KR. University of Saskatchewan Extension Press,
Saskatoon, pp. 234–239 (1998).
55 Tipples KH and Kilborn RH, ‘Baking strength index’ and the
relation of protein content to loaf volume. Can J Plant Sci
54:231–234 (1974).
J Sci Food Agric 87:2000–2011 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa
Durum wheat bread
56 Ames NP, Clarke JM, Marchylo BA, Dexter JE and Woods SM,
Effect of environment and genotype on durum wheat gluten
strength and pasta viscoelasticity. Cereal Chem 76:582–586
(1999).
57 Ames NP, Clarke JM, Marchylo BA, Dexter JE, Schlicht-
ing LM and Woods SM, The effect of extra-strong gluten
on durum wheat (Triticum durum L.) quality. Can J Plant Sci
83:525–532 (2003).
2011