Protein Indicators, Quality, and Yield of Winter Durum Wheat Grown in Virginia

dc.contributor.authorBullard, Amanda Simpsonen
dc.contributor.committeecochairAbaye, Azenegashe Ozzieen
dc.contributor.committeecochairGriffey, Carl A.en
dc.contributor.committeememberConforti, Frank D.en
dc.contributor.committeememberBrann, Daniel E.en
dc.contributor.committeememberAlley, Marcus M.en
dc.contributor.departmentCrop and Soil Environmental Sciencesen
dc.date.accessioned2014-03-14T20:46:56Zen
dc.date.adate1999-10-29en
dc.date.available2014-03-14T20:46:56Zen
dc.date.issued1999-10-08en
dc.date.rdate2012-05-08en
dc.date.sdate1999-10-21en
dc.description.abstractDurum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) is produced primarily in the Northern Great Plains and the Pacific Southwest of the United States. Current germplasm is predominantly of the spring growth habit. The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of winter durum production in Virginia based upon both yield and quality parameters. Adaptation and yield potential of available winter durum lines were assessed from 1993-1998, in three physiographic regions in Virginia. The highest average durum yields were produced in the northern piedmont plateau at the Orange County location. Winter durum yields generally averaged 1600-2800 kg/ha less than soft red winter wheat, traditionally grown in the state. The price premium for high quality durum can compensate for this difference in yield. Based on average durum yields, and assuming the grain meets U.S. No. 2 Hard Amber Durum standards, durum production in Virginia would have been more profitable than soft red winter wheat production in 1994 and 1997. Physical and chemical quality analyses of the top 19 performing durum lines were performed to determine grain marketability, suitability for pasta, and potential consumer acceptance of the end product. Protein content and gluten strength of the Virginia grown durum were acceptable. Color, firmness, and cooking loss of pasta produced from Virginia grown durum were comparable to pasta produced from commercial semolina. Requirements for U.S. No. 2 Amber Durum were met by 21% of the lines in both 1996 and 1997. Overall, the wet, humid Virginia climate was the greatest hindrance to durum production and quality. The field trials and quality analyses showed that high quality durum production in Virginia is possible, but not consistent over all years.en
dc.description.degreeMaster of Scienceen
dc.identifier.otheretd-102199-065536en
dc.identifier.sourceurlhttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-102199-065536/en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/35457en
dc.publisherVirginia Techen
dc.relation.haspartetd.PDFen
dc.rightsIn Copyrighten
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en
dc.subjectdurum wheaten
dc.subjectpastaen
dc.subjectgliadin proteinsen
dc.subjectcooking qualityen
dc.subjectalternative cropsen
dc.titleProtein Indicators, Quality, and Yield of Winter Durum Wheat Grown in Virginiaen
dc.typeThesisen
thesis.degree.disciplineCrop and Soil Environmental Sciencesen
thesis.degree.grantorVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State Universityen
thesis.degree.levelmastersen
thesis.degree.nameMaster of Scienceen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
etd.PDF
Size:
1.31 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

Collections