Download PDF, 1698 kB - Evira

evira.fi

Download PDF, 1698 kB - Evira

Evira publications 5/2013

Finnish Grain Quality in 2012


Evira publications 5/2013

Finnish Grain Quality in 2012


Finnish Grain Quality in 2012


Description

Publisher Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira

Title Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Authors Evira, Plant Analysis Laboratory, Cereal Section

Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Abstract The quality monitoring of the grain harvest gives a general

view of the quality of the annual domestic grain harvest.

The quality has been monitored since 1966. In 2012, more

extensive data was collected than previously about the quality

of organically grown grain. The quality monitoring is based on

the grain samples sent in by farmers and on the background

information they have supplied. The grain samples have been

analysed using the generally used quality factors of the grain

trade. The farms covered by the monitoring are selected

randomly from the Farm Register of the Information Centre of

the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Farms with less than

five hectares of cultivated area are not part of the sampling. In

2012, the quality monitoring covered 2 025 farms, from which

a total of 1 008 samples were received.

Publication date April 2013

Keywords Grain quality

Name and number

of publication Evira publications 5/2013

Pages 43

Language Finnish, Swedish, English

Confidentiality Public

Publisher Evira

Layout Evira, In-house Services

ISSN 1797-299X

ISBN 978-952-225-124-4 (pdf)


Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Kuvailulehti

Julkaisija Elintarviketurvallisuusvirasto Evira

Julkaisun nimi Viljaseula - Kotimaisen viljasadon laatuseuranta 2012

Tekijät Evira, Kasvianalytiikan yksikkö, Viljajaosto

Tiivistelmä Viljasadon laatuseuranta antaa kokonaiskuvan vuosittaisesta

kotimaisen viljasadon laadusta. Laatuseurantaa on tehty vuodesta

1966 alkaen. Vuonna 2012 kerättiin tietoa aiempaa kattavammin

myös luonnonmukaisesti viljellyn viljan laadusta.

Laatuseuranta perustuu viljelijöiden lähettämiin viljanäytteisiin

ja heidän antamiin taustatietoihin. Viljanäytteistä on analysoitu

viljakaupassa yleisesti käytettäviä laatutekijöitä. Seurantaan

kuuluvat tilat valitaan otantamenetelmällä maa- ja

metsätalousministeriön tietopalvelukeskuksen maatilarekisteristä.

Alle viiden hehtaarin tilat eivät kuulu otantaan. Vuonna

2012 laatuseurantaan kuului 2 025 maatilaa, joilta saatiin

yhteensä 1 008 näytettä.

Julkaisuaika Huhtikuu 2013

Asiasanat Viljan laatu

Julkaisusarjan

nimi ja numero Eviran julkaisuja 5/2013

Sivuja 43

Kieli Suomi, Ruotsi, Englanti

Luottamuksellisuus Julkinen

Julkaisun

kustantaja Evira

Taitto Evira, virastopalveluyksikkö

ISSN 1797-299X

ISBN 978-952-225-124-4 (pdf)


Beskrivning

Utgivare Livsmedelssäkerhetsverket Evira

Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Publikationens titel Kvalitetsuppföljning av den inhemska spannmålsskörden 2012

Författare Evira, Enheten för växtanalytik, Spannmålssektionen

Resumé Uppföljningen av spannmålsskördens kvalitet ger en helhetsbild

av kvaliteten på den årliga inhemska spannmålsskörden.

Kvaliteten har följts upp sedan år 1966. År 2012 insamlades

mera omfattande uppgifter än tidigare om kvaliteten

på ekologiskt odlad spannmål. Kvalitetsuppföljningen är

baserad på de spannmålsprover som odlarna sände in och

på de bakgrundsuppgifter som de gav. I spannmålsproverna

analyserades de kvalitetsfaktorer som spannmålshandeln

använder allmänt. De gårdar som ingår i uppföljningen

väljs enligt en samplingsmetod ur lantbruksregistret vid

jord- och skogsbruksministeriets informationstjänstcentral.

Gårdar med mindre än fem hektar åker ingår inte i samplet.

År 2012 omfattade kvalitetsuppföljningen 2 025 gårdar, och

sammanlagt 1 008 prover kom in från gårdarna.

Utgivningsdatum April 2013

Referensord Spannmåls kvalitets

Publikationsseriens

namn och nummer Eviras publikationer 5/2013

Sivuja 43

Språk Finska, Svenska, Engelska

Konfidentialitet Offentlig handling

Förläggare Evira

Layout Evira, Enheten för ämbetsverkstjänster

ISSN 1797-299X

ISBN 978-952-225-124-4 (pdf)


CONTENT

Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Special Characteristics Of The Growing Period Of 2012 .................................................................... 7

1.2 The Quality Of The Grain Harvest 2012 ............................................................................................. 7

1.3 The Quality Of Organically Grown Grain ............................................................................................ 8

1.4 The Purpose Of The Quality Monitoring ............................................................................................. 9

2 RYE ......................................................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Average Rye Quality ......................................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Average Rye Quality By Region 2012 .............................................................................................. 11

2.3 Average Rye Quality By Variety 2012 .............................................................................................. 12

3 SPRING WHEAT ..................................................................................................................................... 14

3.1 Average Quality Of Spring Wheat ..................................................................................................... 14

3.2 Average Spring Wheat Quality By Region 2012 ............................................................................... 16

3.3 Average Spring Wheat Quality By Variety 2012 ............................................................................... 17

4 WINTER WHEAT ..................................................................................................................................... 19

4.1 Average Winter Wheat Quality ......................................................................................................... 19

4.2 Average Winter Wheat Quality By Region In 2012 ........................................................................... 20

4.3 Average Winter Wheat Quality By Variety In 2012 ........................................................................... 20

5 OATS ....................................................................................................................................................... 21

5.1 Average Oat Quality ......................................................................................................................... 21

5.2 Average Oat Quality By Region 2012 ............................................................................................... 22

5.3 Average Oat Quality By Variety In 2012 ........................................................................................... 23

6 FEED BARLEY ........................................................................................................................................ 25

6.1 Average Quality Of Feed Barley ....................................................................................................... 25

6.2 Six-Rowed And Two-Rowed Feed Barley ......................................................................................... 26

6.3 Average Quality Of Feed Barley By Region In 2012 ......................................................................... 27

6.4 Average Quality Of Feed Barley By Variety In 2012 ......................................................................... 28

7 MALTING BARLEY ................................................................................................................................. 30

7.1 Average Quality Of Malting Barley .................................................................................................... 30

7.2 Average Quality Of Malting Barley By Region In 2012 ..................................................................... 31

7.3 Mallasohran Keskilaatu Lajikkeittain 2012 ........................................................................................ 32

8 AVERAGE QUALITY OF THE ORGANICALLY CULTIVATED GRAIN HARVEST ............................... 34

8.1 Organic Oats .................................................................................................................................... 34

8.2 Organic Wheat .................................................................................................................................. 37

8.3 Organic Barley .................................................................................................................................. 39

8.4 Organic Rye ...................................................................................................................................... 40

9 MATERIAL .............................................................................................................................................. 41

9.1 Sampling And Response Rate .......................................................................................................... 41

9.1.1 The Quality Monitoring Of The Grain Harvest ........................................................................... 41

9.1.2 Quality Monitoring Of The Organic Grain Harvest ..................................................................... 41

9.2 Grain Samples And Form For Background Information .................................................................... 41

9.5 Analyses ........................................................................................................................................... 42


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Special characteristics of the growing period of 2012

Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

The growing period of 2012 was much wetter than previous years. The spring sowing

was delayed due to the moisture; in places it was up to 2-3 weeks later than normal.

According to the reports the most common sowing date was May the 22 nd . The earliest

sowing date on the farms that took part in the quality monitoring was 1.5.2012 and the

latest 20.6.2012.

The cool summer and the ample rains did not help in catching up with the delayed

sowing. During all of autumn there were no long harvesting periods with dry weather.

The harvesting continued late into the autumn and some of the areas were left

unharvested due to the difficult circumstances. On the forms for the background

information of the grain harvest, in addition to the exact measurements of the monthly

rainfalls or when these were missing, there were very descriptive descriptions of the

record high monthly rainfalls: “May sufficient, June a lot, July more than we needed,

August too much, September way too much”.

According to estimates, over 90 per cent of the grain harvest was harvested during the

short spells of dry weather. The most often reported harvesting date was September

the 10 th . The earliest reported harvest for the quality monitoring was in week 32, in

early August, and the latest in week 44, right at the end of October.

The moisture content at harvest varied in the spring grains between 15 and 40.0 per

cent. The average moisture content at harvest was 23 per cent (the median was 22 per

cent).

1.2 The quality of the grain harvest 2012

The harvested grain was of good quality despite the weather conditions that marked

the growing season. Over half of the grain harvest fulfilled the criteria for bread grain

based on hectolitre weight, falling number and protein content. The falling number of

the bread grains did not fall as much as had been feared due to the late harvest. The

quality of the wheat harvest was reduced mainly by the protein content, especially for

winter wheat. The rye harvest was also of good quality. Based on the samples 76 per

cent of the harvest had a falling number of a minimum of 120 and a hectolitre weight of

a minimum of 71 kg, which means that they fulfilled the quality requirements for rye at

the basic price.

The harvest of malting barley was also good as to the quality requirements of the

malting industry for sieving and protein content. The quality requirements were fulfilled

by 68 per cent of the samples. The exceptionally wet growing period may well have

lowered the germination and increased the number of moulds or mould toxins and may

therefore have reduced the quality of the malting barley.

The feed grains had high hectolitre weights. The hectolitre weight in 59 per cent of the

feed barley samples was above 64 kg and in the oat samples 96 per cent was over 52

kg. No less than 59 per cent of the oat samples also fulfilled the general requirement

for milling quality oats of a hectolitre weight of 58 kg. Even though mould toxins are not

7


Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

covered by this publication, it should still be noted that high levels of deoxynivalenol

(DON), especially in oats, were found in the whole country, and in some cases they

have exceeded the limit set for food use.

Even though the past growing period was particularly difficult in certain areas, the wet

summer also produced excellent harvests in other areas. Summer rains are by their

nature often very localised, which means that there can be great local fluctuations even

within the same region.

1.3 The quality of organically grown grain

Oats is the most important cereal in organic cultivation. The hectolitre weights of

organic oats were also very high. Based on hectolitre weight, 97 per cent of the oat

samples qualified for the feed industry, when a hectolitre weight of 52 kg is considered

as the minimum requirement. The average yield level for organic oats was 2,542

kg/hectare.

Based on hectolitre weight, 62 per cent of the organic samples qualified as milling

quality oats. For the purpose of these statistics, no other quality factors affecting the

pricing than hectolitre weight were used. Potential mould toxins were not considered.

The cultivation of organic spring wheat succeeded somewhat better than the cultivation

of conventional spring wheat, when taking into consideration the share of samples

qualifying for bread wheat of the samples in the quality monitoring of the grain harvest.

Based on hectolitre weight, falling number and protein content, 51 per cent of the

samples of organic wheat were of bread quality, whereas the corresponding share of

conventional spring wheat was 46 per cent. The average yield level was only 2,579

kg/hectare for organic wheat.

Of the organic barley, 41 per cent had a hectolitre weight of a minimum of 64 kg. The

average yield per hectare for organic barley was 2,067 kg/hectare. As to total besatz

and the number of shrivelled grains, organic barley was behind that of conventional

barley.

The quality of organic rye was good, but not as good as that of the conventionally

grown rye. Of the samples, 65 per cent fulfilled the quality requirements for rye at the

basic price (falling number 120, hectolitre weight 71 kg). The average yield level for

organic rye was 1,763 kg/hectare.

In 2012, more extensive data was collected than previously about the quality of

organically grown grain by using new additional sampling. Quality information on the

organic grain harvest has also been collected in previous years, but only as a part of

the quality monitoring of the traditional grain harvest.

8


1.4 The purpose of the quality monitoring

Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

The purpose of the quality monitoring of the grain harvest is to form an overall picture

of the quality of the grain for the cropping year as it is when it is sent from the farms to

the market or is left for on farm use. The basic data on the grain quality for the year in

question and also statistics on average quality for a longer period is published in in

here.

The quality monitoring is based on the samples sent in by the farmers (the material is

described in more detail in chapter 9 at the end of the publication). In addition to the

samples, the farmers are giving valuable information on the form accompanying the

samples, with background data on inputs and background factors such as preceding

crops, information on the fertility of the cultivated plot, seeds used, fertilisers, plant

protection agents, dates of sowing and harvesting, soil cultivation techniques, types of

dryers and weather factors that have impacted on the grain quality during the growing

season, such as frosts and rainfall. The information used in this publication on harvest

estimates, dates for sowing and harvesting are based on the information received from

the farmers.

The results of the quality monitoring have been published on Evira's internet pages

since the harvest began. The average quality is presented by cereal, variety and

region. In 2012, the regional examination of the quality of the harvest was mainly

carried out according to the divisions of the Centres for Economic Development,

Transport and the Environment (hereafter ELY-Centres). The map of ELY-Centres is

presented in appendix 1 (source of the maps is SYKE, Finland’s environmental

administration).The division of Finland into four main regions has also been used in

order to get better coverage in cases where the number of samples was low. Viljaseula

has previously described the regional quality of the grain via the rural advisory centres,

which is the ProAgria Centres, which should be considered if the regional differences

between different years are being compared. In conjunction with the publication of

Viljaseula on our internet pages, we have added tables by cereal, region and grain

variety for all of the quality factors.

The material from the quality monitoring of the grain harvest has been used in press

releases, lectures and articles. The farmers who have submitted samples got the

results of their own samples. The material was also used by the Finnish Cereal

Committee (VYR) for a follow-up analysis of the safety of the grain, where mould

toxins, residues of plant protection products and heavy metals were examined. These

results are not included in this publication.

The quality of the domestic grain harvest has been monitored since 1966. An

advantage of long-term monitoring is the ability to compare between different years.

The publication functions as a good source of information when seeking statistical

information on the quality factors of the grain.

9


2 RYE

2.1 Average rye quality

Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

The number of rye samples submitted for the quality monitoring of the grain harvest

was 6.0 per cent of the grain samples in 2012, which is relatively somewhat more than

the cultivated surface of rye (2.0 per cent of the area cultivated in grain) or yield (1.8

per cent of the harvest of the grain crop).

The average quality results of rye for 1990–2012 are presented below (table 1). The

average hectolitre weight of rye was 77.1 kg (the median was 78.1 kg). Of the samples,

94 per cent had a minimum hectolitre weight of 71 kg. The average falling number was

171 seconds (the median was 174 seconds). Of the samples, 78 per cent had a falling

number of a minimum of 120 seconds. The variation in of the average values of

hectolitre weight, protein content and falling number for the last ten years is illustrated

in figures 4-6.

Based on the analyses of the rye samples, 76 per cent of the samples fulfilled the

generally used quality requirements for the basic price as to hectolitre weight and

falling number for rye. The share of rye samples qualifying for bread grain was at a

high level similarly to the two previous years (figure 1) and better than the average

value for the last ten years.

According to the reports, the rye was harvested 15.8-18.9. The average value and the

median were week 34 in August. Of the late harvests, the falling number was low in

part of the samples, but in others the falling number had remained high. The moisture

content at harvest fluctuated between 17-36 per cent. The average moisture content at

harvest was 25 per cent (the median was 24 per cent). The estimated rye harvest was

on average 3,405 kg, the range of variation was 800–6,000 kg (the median was 3,300).

Table 1. Average rye quality in 1990–2012

Rye

Crop year Hectoliter weight Falling number Protein Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl s % < 1,8 mm % %

1990 75,2 124 10,9 ― ―

1991 72,9 86 10,7 ― ―

1992 76,9 130 11,5 ― ―

1993 74,9 96 11,9 ― ―

1994 75,8 172 11,3 ― ―

1995 76,2 213 10,3 ― ―

1996 73,8 214 11,1 ― ―

1997 75,6 198 12,0 5,9 ―

1998 70,6 75 10,7 19,2 21,5

1999 76,6 175 10,9 5,4 7,7

2000 74,5 116 10,8 8,3 10,1

2001 75,1 170 10,8 8,8 10,4

2002 75,3 219 11,2 8,9 11,2

2003 73,7 204 11,9 9,7 11,9

2004 73,0 137 11,2 11,7 13,7

2005 75,0 103 10,3 8,3 10,4

2006 77,3 215 10,7 3,7 7,0

2007 76,4 164 10,6 5,8 8,6

2008 75,0 93 10,4 6,2 8,2

2009 75,0 149 9,7 6,1 8,8

2010 76,3 245 10,2 6,9 10,1

2011 76,2 198 11,1 4,5 8,1

2012 77,1 171 9,7 6,6 8,6

10


Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Figure 1. The share of rye samples qualifying for bread grain 2003–2012 (hectolitre weight ≥71 kg, falling

number ≥120 s).

2.2 Average rye quality by region 2012

Rye samples from a total of 13 ELY-centres’ regions were received for the quality

monitoring. Of these, the most important production areas of rye are Häme, Uusimaa

and Southwest Finland. Based on the samples from these regions, the rye harvest

fulfilled in its entirety the requirements for the basic price (falling number 120, hectolitre

weight 71 kg), whereas 76 per cent of the samples from the whole country fulfilled

these requirements. The statistical examination was done by way of Finland’s main

regions, Southern, Western and Eastern Finland, in order to have a more

comprehensive number of samples. The average regional quality information for the

main regions is presented in table 2.

Table 2. Average rye quality by region in 2012

Rye

Area Hectoliter weight Falling number Protein Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl s % < 1,8 mm % %

Southern Finland 79,0 202 9,2 4,3 6,3

Western Finland 77,0 162 10,0 7,8 9,6

Estaren Finland 74,8 120 10,4 9,1 10,9

Figure 2. Share of samples fulfilling the quality requirements for rye at the basic price (hectolitre weight ≥

78 kg, falling number ≥ 120 s) and yield level by main region in 2012.

11


2.3 Average rye quality by variety 2012

Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

In 2012, 12 different varieties of rye were received for the quality monitoring of the

grain harvest. There are 14 varieties of winter rye on the official list of plant varieties.

No samples of spring rye were sent in for the quality monitoring. Figure 3 shows the

share of the rye varieties of the samples. The most popular was Reetta, which

represented 40 per cent of the rye samples. Other common varieties were Elvi and

Riihi, for which the average quality information is presented in the comparison between

the varieties (table 3), even though the number of samples is below ten.

Figure 3. The share of rye varieties in the samples for the quality monitoring 2012.

Table 3. Average rye quality by variety in 2012

Rye

Variety Hectoliter weight Falling number Protein Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl s % < 1,8 mm % %

Elvi* 76,9 152 8,8 6,1 8,0

Reetta 79,1 181 9,5 4,1 5,7

Riihi*

* n ˂ 10

74,5 148 10,5 6,1 8,2

The rye samples of the variety Reetta had a minimum hectolitre weight of 71 kg and a

falling number of a minimum of 120 seconds in 85 per cent of the samples. When all of

the other varieties are added together, the corresponding share was 70 per cent.

12


Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

The pictures 4-6 show the fluctuations in average hectolitre weight, falling number and

protein content in rye, spring wheat and winter wheat for the last ten years.* ->

Figure 4. Hectolitre weights of bread grains in 2003–2012.

Figure 5. Falling numbers for bread grains in 2003–2012.

Figure 6. Protein content of bread grains in 2003–2012.

13


3 SPRING WHEAT

3.1 Average quality of spring wheat

Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Twenty-five per cent of the grain samples in the quality monitoring of the grain harvest

of 2012 were spring wheat samples. The spring wheat covered 20 per cent of the area

cultivated in grain and the harvest was 22 per cent of the grain harvest. The average

quality of spring wheat for the years 1990-2012 is presented in table 4.

Table 4. Average spring wheat quality 1990-2012

Spring wheat

Crop Year Hectoliter weight Falling number Protein Wet Gluten Zeleny-index Starch Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl s % % ml % < 2,0 mm % %

1990 81,7 311 14,1 34,5 47 ― ― ―

1991 81,1 371 13,2 32,3 56 ― ― ―

1992 82,0 209 15,4 41,9 68 ― ― ―

1993 80,2 183 13,6 34,2 59 ― ― ―

1994 81,7 293 13,7 33,9 57 ― ― ―

1995 82,3 291 12,6 37,3 46 ― ― ―

1996 80,8 294 11,7 26,5 46 ― ― ―

1997 79,1 361 14,0 33,3 63 ― 2,8 ―

1998 74,1 271 12,9 28,7 60 ― 8,2 10,3

1999 81,2 325 14,2 34,0 64 ― 2,3 4,5

2000 78,2 302 13,8 29,1* 64 ― 3,9 6,1

2001 81,5 289 13,9 29,7* 62 ― 2,2 4,1

2002 77,9 329 14,8 31,7* 61 ― 4,2 8,0

2003 79,7 224 14,1 27,5* 62 67,2 3,3 5,3

2004 76,7 210 13,2 26,8* 59 66,1 5,2 7,6

2005 80,2 258 12,7 25,9* 48 68,0 2,0 4,5

2006 82,6 317 12,7 25,5* 51 69,1 1,0 3,3

2007 79,6 303 13,6 26,8* 57 68,1 1,7 4,1

2008 77,3 239 12,6 25,2* 53 68,2 2,4 7,3

2009 81,1 319 12,0 23,4* 47 69,5 1,2 5,3

2010 80,6 352 14,1 28,8* 57 66,7 4,2 7,9

2011 80,7 302 14,7 31,2* 62 66,6 2,0 5,2

2012 80,6 271 12,8 25,8* 54 69,1 2,1 4,1

The average hectolitre weight of spring wheat was 80.6 kg (the median was 81.4 kg).

Of the samples, 87 per cent had a hectolitre weight of a minimum of 78 kg. The

average falling number was 271 seconds (the median was 281 seconds), which is

lower than it has been for the last three years. The falling number did, however, cope

sufficiently with the late harvests (picture 7). Eighty-eight per cent of the samples had a

falling number of a minimum of 180 seconds.

The quality of the spring wheat was especially reduced by the low protein content. The

average protein content was 12.8 per cent (the median was 12.8 per cent). The target

protein content for wheat is a minimum of 12.5 per cent, which was attained in 60 per

cent of the samples.

The Venn diagrams (figure 8) show the quality requirements for bread grain quality as

to the different quality factors and also how many of the samples fulfilled the quality

requirements for protein content and falling number, protein content and hectolitre

weight, and falling number and protein content. The figure shows both the diagram for

wheat at the basic price and the quality category with a higher falling number (the

falling number a minimum of 220). Based on the analyses of spring wheat, 46 per cent

of the samples were of bread wheat quality having fulfilled the generally used quality

requirements mentioned above. The share of spring wheat samples of bread grain

quality was clearly lower than in the two previous years (figure 9). The years of 2010

and 2011 were especially good years for wheat quality.

14


Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Figure 7. Average falling number of the spring wheat in relation to the harvesting weeks 2010–2012.

Figure 8. In the Venn diagrams, the attainment of the quality criteria for bread wheat in the spring wheat

samples of the year 2012 according to two different quality categories.

Figure 9. Shares of samples of spring and winter wheat of bread grain quality (hectolitre weight ≥78 kg,

protein content ≥12.5 %, falling number ≥180 s) in the years 2003 - 2012.

The sowing time of spring wheat was reported as 2.5-15.6. The most common sowing

date was May the 10 th . The harvesting time for spring wheat was reported as 11.8-

12.10, and the most common date for harvesting was September the 10 th . The

harvesting time was exceptionally long and lasted late into the autumn. The moisture

content at harvest fluctuated between 18-40 per cent, and the median was 25 per cent.

The average estimated yield of spring wheat was reported as 4,076 kg per hectare,

and the median was 4,000 kg. The range of variation was high, 1,000-7,441 kg. In

places, the cultivation of wheat had been very successful and in other places the

harvest had been extremely difficult, if not to say impossible. According to the reports

the spring wheat had, due to the unfavourable circumstances, been left unharvested

also on some of the farms participating in the quality monitoring of the grain harvest.

15


3.2 Average spring wheat quality by region 2012

Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Samples of spring wheat had been sent in from 14 regions for the quality monitoring.

The average quality of samples from ten regions is presented in table 5. The quality of

the spring wheat fluctuated regionally. In addition to the location and weather

conditions, the prevalence of the different varieties may have had an impact on the

results.

The largest producer of spring wheat by cropping area, that is to say Southwest

Finland, had the highest yield of 4,582 kg/hectare. In this region 37 per cent of the

spring wheat crop fulfilled the criteria for bread grain based on the samples (figure 10).

Varieties with high yield potential and low protein content were cultivated more often in

this region than in other regions (12 per cent of the samples). Varieties of the so-called

main type covered 59 per cent of the samples and 33 per cent of the samples were

varieties with high protein content. The division of the wheat varieties into different

types is presented in more detail in section 4.3.

Uusimaa is the second largest producer of spring wheat and 46 per cent of its spring

wheat samples was suited for bread wheat. In Uusimaa 5 per cent were varieties with

high yield potential, 46 per cent were varieties of the main type and 49 per cent were

varieties with high protein content.

Table 5. Average spring wheat quality by region in 2012

Spring wheat

Crop Year Hectoliter weight Falling number Protein Wet Gluten Zeleny-index Starch Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl s % % ml % < 2,0 mm % %

Uusimaa 80,9 282 12,6 25,0 53 69,3 1,9 3,6

Southwest Finland 81,4 294 12,1 24,4 49 70,3 1,6 3,2

Satakunta 81,3 250 13,0 27,0 56 68,8 1,3 3,1

Häme 81,1 298 13,0 26,5 56 69,2 2,1 4,5

Pirkanmaa 82,1 231 13,2 27,4 56 68,9 1,7 3,6

Southeast Finland 79,2 275 12,9 26,0 55 68,6 1,9 4,7

North Savo* 77,7 255 13,2 26,7 55 67,6 5,5 8,4

North Karelia 79,2 217 13,2 26,9 57 67,8 5,1 6,7

South Ostrobothnia* 79,5 274 13,2 26,8 55 68,3 2,4 5,7

Ostrobothnia

* n ˂ 10

80,1 252 13,6 28,1 58 68,3 1,7 4,0

Most of the spring wheat samples that fulfilled the criteria for bread wheat came from

Häme, where 67 per cent of the spring wheat samples from the region fulfilled these

quality requirements. In Häme, 55 per cent of the samples were varieties with high

protein content, varieties of the main type 28 per cent and varieties with high yield

potential 10 per cent.

Less than fifth of the spring wheat samples from Northern Karelia fulfilled these quality

requirements. In Northern Karelia all of the samples were of varieties with high protein

content. In Southwest Finland, Uusimaa and Häme, the low protein content reduced

the quality of the harvest the most, whereas in North Karelia the hectolitre weight and

falling number were as often the cause of not reaching the quality requirements.

The geographical division of bread grain quality for spring wheat followed the pattern of

the above average rainfall during this growing season.

16


Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Figure 10. Share of spring wheat samples meeting the requirements for bread quality and yield level by

region in 2012 (hectolitre weight ≥78 kg, protein content ≥12.5 %, falling number ≥ 180 s.).

3.3 Average spring wheat quality by variety 2012

In 2012, 19 different varieties of spring wheat were received for the quality monitoring.

At the same time, 23 varieties of spring wheat were on the official list of approved plant

varieties. Figure 11 shows the share of spring wheat varieties of the samples.

Figure 11. Share of spring wheat varieties in the samples for the quality monitoring in 2012.

Of the most common varieties, Anniina, Quarna, Tjalve and Wanamo can be

considered to be varieties with high protein content. Zebra, Kruunu, Marble, Bjarne and

Wellamo are wheats of the main type and Amaretto a variety with high yield potential.

The highest average protein content was found in Anniina and Quarna, with 13.8 and

13.7 per cent. The spread of the protein content in the wheat varieties is presented in

figure 12.

Table 6. Average spring and winter wheat quality by variety in 2012

Spring and winter wheat

Variety Hectoliter weight Falling number Protein Wet Gluten Zeleny-index Starch Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl s % % ml % < 2,0 mm % %

Amaretto* 80,9 244 10,8 20,5 40 72,4 1,5 2,8

Anniina 80,9 264 13,8 28,8 61 68,0 3,4 5,7

Bjarne* 79,2 193 12,2 23,6 49 69,4 2,0 4,5

Kruunu 78,5 308 12,3 24,2 50 69,3 1,4 2,8

Manu* 83,4 252 13,5 29,0 57 69,3 2,2 4,0

Marble 79,3 256 11,6 23,0 45 71,2 2,1 5,6

Quarna 81,1 295 13,7 28,5 61 68,0 0,7 1,9

Wellamo* 83,3 294 11,8 23,3 47 70,3 1,2 2,6

Zebra 80,9 291 12,0 23,4 47 69,6 2,2 3,9

Urho (SW) 79,4 347 11,6 23,9 35 70,8 2,3 5,1

* n ˂ 10 SW, Spring Wheat

17


Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Figure 12. Spread of protein content in the wheat varieties presented in a box-plot diagram, where 25 per

cent of the samples of each variety are below the lower quartile and 75 per cent below the upper quartile.

The central line of the box is the median and 10 per cent of the samples are left on the outside of the thin

lines.

The highest average falling numbers were found in the varieties Kruunu, Quarna and

Wellamo, with 308, 295 and 294 seconds. The varieties Wellamo and Quarna had the

highest average hectolitre weights, 83.3 and 81.1 kg. All of the results for average

quality are presented in table 6.

The quality requirements for hectolitre weight, falling number and protein content for

bread grain were best met by the variety Quarna, with 88 per cent of the samples being

of bread grain quality when considering these quality factors. Of the samples of

Anniina, 61 per cent fulfilled the criteria for bread wheat, but its yield level was the

lowest. The samples of Amaretto all had a protein content that was too low for the

quality requirements for bread wheat, but the yield level was the highest of all of the

varieties.

The shares of the most common spring and winter wheat varieties that fulfil the

requirements for bread grain in 2012 are shown in figure 13.

Figure 11. Shares of spring and winter wheat samples meeting the requirements for bread quality and

yield level by variety in 2012 (hectolitre weight ≥78 kg, protein content ≥12,5 %, falling number ≥180 s.).

18


4 WINTER WHEAT

4.1 Average winter wheat quality

Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Four per cent of the grain samples of the quality monitoring of the 2012 grain harvest

were winter wheat, whereas the cultivated area for winter wheat was 2.2 per cent of the

area in grain and the harvest was 2.9 per cent of the grain harvest.

The average hectolitre weight of the winter wheat was 81,0 kg (the median was 81.1

kg). Of the samples, 85 per cent had a hectolitre weight of a minimum of 78 kg. The

average protein content of the winter wheat was 11,5 per cent (the median was 11.5

per cent), which is the lowest for more than 10 years. The low protein content was the

main reason for the low share of the winter wheat harvest of bread grain quality – only

21 per cent of the winter wheat samples had a protein content of a minimum of 12.5

per cent.

The average falling number for winter wheat was 333 seconds (the median was 335).

The falling number was high and was the limiting factor for bread grain quality in only

one sample of winter wheat. The data on average quality for winter wheat for the years

1990–2012 is presented in table 7.

Table 7. Average winter wheat quality 1990–2012

Winter wheat

Crop Year Hectoliter weight Falling number Protein Wet Gluten Zeleny-index Starch Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl s % % ml % < 2,0 mm % %

1990 81,7 320 12,3 28,7 33 ― ― ―

1991 80,1 170 11,3 23,0 35 ― ― ―

1992 82,3 336 12,0 30,6 37 ― ― ―

1993 79,8 187 13,0 31,1 35 ― ― ―

1994 80,3 344 12,2 28,3 39 ― ― ―

1995 81,0 341 11,0 26,3 30 ― ― ―

1996 78,9 343 11,2 26,2 29 ― ― ―

1997 79,6 314 13,2 33,6 48 ― 1,8 ―

1998 75,5 130 11,6 26,7 47 ― 4,9 6,8

1999 82,0 273 11,3 27,1 44 ― 1,3 3,3

2000 80,7 256 12,7 28,1* 52 ― 2,0 3,5

2001 81,3 304 12,6 27,9* 50 ― 1,4 3,3

2002 81,4 331 12,3 26,3* 40 ― 1,3 3,3

2003 78,8 292 13,9 29,6* 54 67,5 2,5 4,8

2004 77,3 259 12,7 26,7* 44 66,8 3,8 6,2

2005 78,9 228 11,6 25,2* 40 69,8 2,2 5,2

2006 80,9 352 12,2 26,7* 33 69,6 2,0 5,5

2007 81,2 347 12,1 25,8* 38 70,3 1,6 3,8

2008 80,5 263 12,3 25,9* 41 70,4 1,1 4,6

2009 80,3 367 12,2 26,2* 34 69,9 2,1 5,1

2010 78,8 398 12,6 25,2* 38 68,7 2,5 4,9

2011 80,2 339 13,4 28,7* 43 68,8 1,9 5,1

2012 81,0 333 11,5 23,4* 35 71,1 1,5 3,7

Based on the analyses of the winter wheat samples only 11,8 per cent of the samples

fulfilled the quality requirements for hectolitre weight, protein content and falling

number generally used for bread wheat. The share of winter wheat samples fulfilling

the requirements for bread grain was clearly the lowest since 2005 (figure 9).The

sowing time of winter wheat was reported as being 26.8-1.10. The harvesting time for

winter wheat was reported as being 13.8-25.9, and most of the harvesting was carried

out during week 34. The moisture content at harvest fluctuated between 18-28 per

cent, and the median was 24 per cent. The estimated yield for winter wheat was on

average 4,672 kg per hectare and the median was 5,000 kg, which is higher than that

of spring wheat. The range of variation was between 1,200-7,000 kg.

19


4.2 Average winter wheat quality by region in 2012

Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Samples of winter wheat were sent in for the quality monitoring from seven regions, of

which Southwest Finland, Häme and Uusimaa were the most important production

areas for winter wheat. Based on the samples received from Southwest Finland, one

fifth of the winter wheat harvest fulfilled the quality requirements for bread wheat,

whereas not one of the samples from Häme fulfilled all of the quality requirements.

Only one in ten out of the samples from the whole country fulfilled the criteria for bread

wheat. Table 8 shows the figures for average quality of autumn wheat from two out of

the four main regions that Finland is divided into, Southern and Western Finland, in

order to get a more comprehensive number of samples.

Table 8. Average winter wheat quality by region in 2012

Winter wheat

Area Hectoliter weight Falling number Protein Wet Gluten Zeleny-index Starch Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl s % % ml % < 2,0 mm % %

Southern Finland 80,9 336 11,5 23,3 35,2 71,0 1,6 3,8

Western Finland*

* n ˂ 10

81,2 325 11,6 23,9 34,7 71,7 1,3 3,5

4.3 Average winter wheat quality by variety in 2012

In 2012, samples of 8 different varieties of winter wheat were received for the quality

monitoring (figure 14). At the same time, 12 varieties of winter wheat were on the

official list of approved plant varieties. As the only variety of which enough samples

were received was Urho, the data on average quality and bread wheat quality was

presented in the same table and figures as the spring wheat varieties (table 6, figures

12 and 13).

Only 13 per cent of the samples of Urho fulfilled the criteria for bread wheat. The falling

number and hectolitre weight of Urho were clearly higher than the average figures for

spring wheat, but the protein content was even lower than that of the spring wheat

Amaretto.

Figure 14. Share of winter wheat varieties in the samples for the quality monitoring in 2012.

20


5 OATS

5.1 Average oat quality

Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Of the samples sent in for the monitoring of the grain harvest, 31 per cent were oats,

and the cultivated area was also 31 per cent and 30 per cent of the grain harvest was

oats.

For oats there are two different quality categories depending on the end use. The

minimum quality requirement for feed oats is generally a hectolitre weight of 52 kg and

for milling quality oats for food use the hectolitre weight required is 58 kg. The hectolitre

weights for oats were very high in 2012, the average being 57.9 kg (the median was

58.4 kg). A total of 96 per cent of the oat samples had a hectolitre weight over 52 kg

and 59 per cent had a hectolitre weight over 58 kg.

Based on hectolitre weight the share of samples qualifying as feed oats and milling

oats was the highest for the decade (figure 15). It should still be noted that especially

oats were found to contain raised levels of deoxynivalenol (DON) in the whole country,

which in some cases have exceeded the limit of 1 750 µg/kg set for food use. This

decreased somewhat the share of oats qualifying for food use.

The average protein content of oats was 10.9 per cent (the median was 12.1 per cent),

which is the lowest for more than two decades. The average quality information for oats

for the years 1990–2012 is presented in table 9. The fluctuation of the average values

of hectolitre weight and protein content for oats and barley for the last ten years is

illustrated in the pictures (figures 19-20).

Table 9. Average oat quality 1990–2012

Oat

Crop Year Hectoliter weight Protein Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl % < 2,0 mm % %

1990 57,6 13,4 ― ―

1991 55,5 12,8 ― ―

1992 56,9 14,2 ― ―

1993 56,6 12,6 ― ―

1994 55,5 13,0 ― ―

1995 58,1 12,1 9,2 ―

1996 58,2 12,1 5,8 ―

1997 55,7 13,7 8,4 ―

1998 54,6 12,1 9,8 12,3

1999 55,2 15,0 11,3 15,6

2000 54,9 13,0 8,1 10,6

2001 56,2 13,4 7,6 10,0

2002 54,4 13,8 8,5 11,0

2003 54,9 14,2 10,3 11,6

2004 55,1 12,9 6,2 7,8

2005 55,1 12,8 8,4 10,2

2006 55,9 13,7 10,2 12,5

2007 56,1 13,1 5,0 6,7

2008 56,4 11,8 4,6 6,3

2009 55,7 12,1 5,5 7,1

2010 53,0 13,5 12,2 13,7

2011 55,2 13,5 5,1 6,6

2012 57,9 12,0 4,8 5,7

21


Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Figure 15. Shares of oat samples with a hectolitre weight at a minimum of 52 kg and a minimum of 58 kg

in 2003-2012.

The sowing time of oats was reported as being 3.5-10.16. The most common sowing

date was May the 10 th . The harvesting time for oats was reported as being 16.8-9.10,

and the most common date for harvesting was September the 10 th . The moisture

content at harvest fluctuated between 15-35 per cent, and the median was 22 per cent.

The average harvest per hectare for oats in 2012 was 3,900 kg per hectare, and the

median was 5,500 kg. The range of variation for the reported harvests was 900-8,465

kg. The quality information for organically grown oats is presented in chapter 8.

5.2 Average oat quality by region 2012

Oat samples were sent in for the quality monitoring from a total of 15 regions, of which

the average quality from 13 regions is presented in table 10.

The average hectolitre weights were high in the whole country. The oat samples from

Uusimaa, Southwest Finland, Satakunta, Häme, South Savo and Ostrobothnia fulfilled

in their entirety the quality requirement for hectolitre weight for feed oats (figure 18).

Due to the effect of the weather conditions during the growth period of 2012, mould

toxins were found to some degree in the whole country, and these may have reduced

the oat quality from these top figures.

Table 10. Average oat quality by region 2012

Oat

ELY Central Hectoliter weight Protein Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl % < 2,0 mm % %

Uusimaa 58,6 11,9 4,1 4,9

Southwest Finland 58,9 11,4 3,5 4,3

Satakunta 58,7 12,1 3,2 3,9

Häme 59,2 11,9 3,4 4,1

Pirkanmaa 58,7 12,0 4,8 5,3

Southeast Finland 57,5 12,3 6,1 7,0

Sotuh Savo* 57,2 12,4 5,5 6,2

North Savo* 57,9 12,1 6,5 9,6

North Karelia 56,2 12,4 7,0 7,9

Central Finland 56,5 12,1 5,3 6,6

South Ostrobothnia 57,3 12,3 5,3 6,1

Ostrobothnia 58,6 12,5 5,1 6,1

North Ostrobothnia

* n ˂ 10

55,7 12,4 5,0 6,6

22


Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Figure 16. Shares of oat samples with a hectolitre weight at a minimum of 52 kg and a minimum of 58 kg

and average yield level by region in 2012.

5.3 Average oat quality by variety in 2012

Oat samples of 26 different varieties were received for the quality monitoring of the

2012 grain harvest (the shares of the different varieties in figure 20). At the same time,

there were 37 oat varieties on the official list of plant varieties. The information on the

average quality for the most common varieties in 2012 is presented in table 11.

Many varieties had high hectolitre weights in 2012. The varieties Akseli, Belinda, Ivory,

Marika, Ringsaker, Steinar, SW Ingeborg, Venla and Viviana all had a minimum

hectolitre weight of 52 kg (figure 19). For the varieties Eemeli, Fiia and Peppi the

corresponding figure was over 90 per cent.

The hectolitre weights of milling quality oats (≥58 kg) were higher in these varieties

than in previous years. Figure 19 presents the shares of oat samples fulfilling the

requirements for hectolitre weight for feed oats and milling quality oats and the yield

levels by variety.

Table 11. Average oat quality by variety in 2012

Oat

Variety Hectoliter weight Protein Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl % < 2,0 mm % %

Akseli 58,4 12,5 6,4 7,1

Belinda 58,6 10,6 4,8 5,3

Eemeli 58,0 13,5 2,7 3,8

Fiia 57,4 12,6 6,5 7,4

Ivory 58,7 10,9 2,0 3,0

Marika 58,2 12,5 3,7 4,9

Peppi 58,4 13,0 5,6 6,6

Ringsaker* 58,9 11,1 5,2 6,7

Roope* 54,5 11,4 5,8 6,8

Steinar 58,6 11,5 4,0 4,6

SW Ingeborg 59,5 11,1 2,2 2,8

Veli* 58,0 12,3 6,3 8,6

Venla 57,6 13,2 4,5 5,2

Viviana

* n ˂ 10

58,6 10,9 4,4 5,0

23


Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Figure 17. Shares of oat samples with a minimum hectolitre weight of 52 kg and 58 kg and average yield

level by variety in 2012.

Figure 18. Share of oat varieties of the samples for the quality monitoring in 2012.

Figure 19. Average hectolitre weights for oats and barley 2003–2012. For barley, the average values are

presented separately for feed barley, malting barley varieties and two-rowed barley varieties.

Figure 20. The average protein content of oats and barley 2003–2012. For barley, the average values are

presented separately for feed barley, malting barley varieties and two-rowed barley varieties.

24


6 FEED BARLEY

6.1 Average quality of feed barley

Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Of the samples for the quality monitoring of the grain harvest, 19 per cent were

samples of feed barley, whereas 34 per cent of the cultivated area and 33 per cent of

the grain harvest was barley.

The average hectolitre weight of barley was 63.6 kg (the median was 64 kg). The

average protein content of feed barley was 11.4 per cent (the median was 11.3 per

cent). Table 12 shows the average quality of all of the feed barley varieties during

1990–2012 (the average qualities of the varieties in the list of approved malting barley

varieties are presented separately in table 17).

Table 12. Average quality of feed barley 1990–2012

Barley 1)

Crop Year Hectoliter weight Protein Starch Shrivelled grain Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl % % < 2,0 mm % < 2,2 mm % %

1990 65,1 13,0 ― ― ― ―

1991 66,6 12,6 ― ― ― ―

1992 67,4 12,6 ― ― ― ―

1993 66,0 11,7 ― ― ― ―

1994 67,7 12,1 ― ― ― ―

1995 67,0 11,2 ― ― 13,6 ―

1996 64,7 11,5 ― ― 20,6 ―

1997 62,1 12,5 ― ― 21,0 ―

1998 58,7 12,4 ― ― 25,2 12,9

1999 65,1 12,6 ― 4,1 11,3 6,2

2000 61,4 12,3 60,6 6,5 16,7 7,6

2001 63,8 12,4 60,4 4,1 12,0 6,1

2002 61,9 13,0 59,9 8,9 22,5 11,6

2003 61,6 13,5 59,1 8,4 20,9 10,0

2004 61,1 12,5 59,8 10,4 25,6 11,6

2005 63,6 11,9 60,4 4,0 11,5 5,8

2006 67,4 12,0 62,0 2,5 7,7 4,6

2007 63,8 12,0 60,8 3,7 9,9 5,5

2008 63,9 10,7 61,9 2,7 7,1 4,4

2009 65,3 11,0 61,7 1,8 4,7 3,9

2010 62,4 12,4 60,6 3,6 9,2 5,9

2011 61,4 12,7 60,1 3,6 10,2 6,1

2012 63,6 11,4 60,6 3,1 8,5 5,4

1) Excluding malting barley varieties

The determining quality factor for barley in the feed industry is a sufficiently high

hectolitre weight, usually a minimum of 64 kg. In 2012, 51 per cent of the samples of

the feed barley varieties fulfilled this quality requirement. When in addition to the feed

barley varieties, the samples of those malting barleys for which the usage had been

reported as something other than malting are taken into account, the minimum

hectolitre weight of 64 kg was found with 59 per cent of the samples, which is a better

result than for the two previous years (figure 21). Then the average value of the

hectolitre weight of feed barley rises to 64.6 kg.

The sowing time of the feed barley was reported as 1.5-9.6. The most common dates

for sowing were the 22 nd and 28 th of May. The harvesting time for feed barley was

reported as 10.8-30.10, and the most common date for harvesting was September the

25


Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

6 th . The moisture content at harvest fluctuated between 15-35 per cent, and the median

was 22.3 per cent.

The average harvest per hectare for barley in 2012 was 3,830 kg per hectare, and the

median was 4,000 kg. The variation in the reported harvest yields was 800-6,000

kg/hectare.

Figure 21. Shares of feed barley samples with a hectolitre weight of a minimum of 64 kg in the period

2003–2012 (including samples of malting barley varieties for which the purpose had been reported as

other than malting).

6.2 Six-rowed and two-rowed feed barley

There are 28 varieties of six-rowed barley in the National list of plant varieties and 20

varieties in the samples for the quality monitoring of the grain harvest. With the

exception of Polartop and Hankkija’s Pokko, the six-rowed barleys in the National list of

plant varieties can be classified as feed barleys.

There are 47 varieties of two-rowed barleys in the National list of plant varieties and 22

varieties in the quality monitoring. Out of these, 11 varieties are approved as malting

barley, which are separated into two-rowed and six-rowed varieties as to average

quality (tables 13 and 14).

Table 13. Information on average quality of six-rowed varieties of feed barley in 1998–2012

Six-rowed barley

Crop Year Hectoliter weight Protein Starch Shrivelled grain Shrivelled grain

kg/hl % % < 2,0 mm % < 2,2 mm %

1998 57,1 12,2 ― 12,4 27,0

1999 63,8 12,2 ― 4,6 13,1

2000 60,6 12,1 60,5 7,0 18,1

2001 62,8 12,3 60,2 4,6 13,5

2002 61,3 12,9 59,6 12,4 23,6

2003 61,2 13,4 59,1 4,6 22,2

2004 60,6 12,5 59,8 7,0 26,7

2005 63,2 11,8 60,4 4,6 12,2

2006 67,0 11,9 61,7 2,8 8,5

2007 63,5 12,0 60,8 3,7 10,5

2008 63,3 10,7 61,8 3,0 8,0

2009 64,8 11,1 61,6 1,9 5,2

2010 61,5 12,3 60,5 4,0 10,3

2011 60,8 12,7 60,0 3,7 10,7

2012 62,4 11,4 60,4 3,6 9,6

26


Table 14. Information on average quality of two-rowed varieties of feed barley in 1998–2012

Two-rowed barley 1)

6.3 Average quality of feed barley by region in 2012

Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Crop Year Hectoliter weight Protein Starch Shrivelled grain Shrivelled grain

kg/hl % % < 2,0 mm % < 2,2 mm %

1998 62,9 13 ― 9,6 21,4

1999 67,8 13,7 ― 3,2 8,1

2000 65,1 12,9 61,0 4,3 10,0

2001 67,0 12,9 60,8 2,4 6,6

2002 63,3 13,5 60,2 8,9 19,7

2003 64,0 14,4 59,3 4,4 11,3

2004 64,4 13,1 60,1 6,8 15,8

2005 66,6 12,6 60,4 1,7 4,5

2006 70,2 12,7 62,3 0,9 2,5

2007 66,7 12,3 60,9 2,6 6,5

2008 65,9 11,6 61,7 4,0 8,8

2009 67,7 10,9 62,4 1,3 2,5

2010 65,8 12,8 60,7 1,3 3,3

2011 64,0 12,4 60,4 3,3 8,2

2012 67,4 11,5 60,8 2,0 5,3

1) Excluding malting barley varieties

Samples of feed barley were sent in for the quality monitoring from 14 regions, of which

the results of the average quality of feed barley from 10 regions are presented in table

15. There were more regional fluctuations as to hectolitre weight in barley than in oats.

The best feed barley harvest by hectolitre weight was found in Uusimaa and Southwest

Finland, where 83 and 91 per cent of the samples had a hectolitre weight of a minimum

of 64 kg (figure 22). The highest average yield of 4,348 kg/hectare was also found in

Southwest Finland.

Table 15. Average quality of feed barley by region in 2012

Barley 1)

ELY Central Hectoliter weight Protein Starch Shrivelled grain Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl % % < 2,0 mm % < 2,2 mm % %

Uusimaa* 67,8 11,8 60,5 1,9 5,4 4,0

Sotuhwest Finland 67,5 11,0 61,3 2,1 6,1 4,1

Satakunta* 63,9 11,2 60,8 3,5 8,4 4,8

Häme* 65,7 12,0 60,2 3,5 8,5 7,5

Pirkanmaa 65,1 11,4 60,8 1,9 8,1 4,7

North Savo 62,8 11,4 60,7 2,1 10,0 5,8

Central Finland 59,9 11,1 60,6 3,5 10,7 7,0

Sotuh Ostrobothnia 65,3 11,7 60,5 3,5 6,5 4,1

Ostrobothnia 64,2 11,8 60,2 3,5 6,1 4,5

North Ostrobothnia 61,3 10,8 60,6 3,7 9,9 10,8

1) Excluding malting barley varieties * n ˂ 10

27


Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Figure 22. Shares of feed barley samples with a hectolitre weight of a minimum of 64 kg by region and

average yield levels (including samples of malting barley varieties with another purpose than malting).

6.4 Average quality of feed barley by variety in 2012

In 2012, 30 different varieties of barley were received for the quality monitoring of the

grain harvest. At that time, the official list of plant varieties contained a total of 75

approved varieties of two-rowed or six-rowed barley. Figure 21 presents the share of

feed barley varieties of the samples. In this analysis, the feed barley varieties and the

varieties recommended for cultivation as malting barley were examined separately.

Table 16. Average quality of feed barley by variety in 2012

Barley 1)

Variety Hectoliter weight Protein Starch Shrivelled grain Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl % % < 2,0 mm % < 2,2 mm % %

Edel* 64,3 11 61,1 3,1 8,4 5,3

Einar* 64,0 10,5 61,8 5,9 13,8 7,8

Elmeri 64,9 11,0 61,1 2,0 5,2 4,3

Jyvä* 61,4 11,9 59,7 3,8 10,4 6,6

Kunnari* 64,7 11,2 60,8 3,1 13,8 6,0

Streif* 67,4 12,1 60,0 5,9 6,2 6,7

Vilde 62,0 11,9 59,9 2,0 10,0 5,4

Voitto 61,0 11,6 60,2 3,8 9,2 6,2

Wolmari* 63,6 10,9 61,1 2,0 7,9 4,5

1) Excluding malting barley varieties * n ˂ 10

Amongst the six-rowed varieties, the quality monitoring of the 2012 grain harvest only

contained one two-rowed variety of feed barley, that is Streif. The same variety that

best fulfilled the criteria for feed barley based on hectolitre weight. Edel had the highest

yield level, 4,403 kg/hectare. Figure 24 shows the share of samples of feed barley that

fulfil the requirement of 64 kg by hectolitre weight by variety and the average yield

levels.

28


Figure 23. Share of feed varieties in the samples of the quality monitoring in 2012.

Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Figure 24. Shares of samples of feed barley with a minimum hectolitre weight of 64 kg and average yield

levels by variety in 2012.

29


7 MALTING BARLEY

7.1 Average quality of malting barley

Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

The share of samples of malting barley varieties was 15 per cent and samples of

malting barley cultivated for the purpose of malting was 9 per cent of the samples in

the quality monitoring of the grain harvest, when malting barley was 10 per cent of both

the cultivated area and of the harvest. The average quality of the samples of malting

barley varieties are presented in table 17.

As to the samples of malting barley varieties, malting was reported as the end use for

60 per cent. The average hectolitre weight of these samples was 69.9 kg (the median

was 70.8), the average protein content was 10.7 per cent (the median was 10.8 per

cent), the average starch content was 62.2 per cent (the median was 62.5 per cent)

and the average sieving was 91.7 per cent (the median was 93.4 per cent). Out of the

samples cultivated for the purpose of malting, 68 per cent qualified as malting barley,

when considering the quality requirements for protein content (9-11.5 per cent) and

grain size in the sieving (≥2,5 mm ≥85 per cent of the samples). Figure 25 shows that

the share of these samples qualifying for malting is higher than in the two previous

years.

Table 17. Average quality of malting barley 1990-2012

Malting barley 2)

Crop Year Hectoliter weight Protein Starch Sieving Shrivelled grain Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl % % >2,5 mm % < 2,0 mm % < 2,2 mm % %

1995 71,8 11,2 ― ― 2,0 4,9 ―

1996 70,6 11,2 ― 75,5 4,4 11,3 ―

1997 64,3 12,4 ― 65,2 7,0 16,7 ―

1998 63,7 11,7 ― 69,7 6,3 14,5 6,7

1999 69,1 13,2 ― 88,3 1,4 14,0 3,8

2000 66,2 12,1 62,2 82,6 2,8 7,3 4,2

2001 68,5 12,7 61,4 88,3 1,3 3,7 3,6

2002 65,1 12,9 61,5 70,5 5,2 12,8 7,6

2003 66,9 13,5 60,6 83,7 1,9 5,2 3,2

2004 66,2 11,8 62,0 79,3 3,0 7,7 3,8

2005 67,1 11,8 61,7 91,7 0,7 2,1 2,5

2006 70,9 12,5 62,6 93,7 0,5 1,4 2,3

2007 67,9 12,1 61,7 86,6 1,4 3,6 3,1

2008 67,5 10,6 63,0 89,7 1,2 1,4 2,7

2009 68,6 10,7 62,9 91,6 0,8 2,1 2,9

2010 66,7 12,9 60,8 88,0 1,4 14,5 4,0

2011 64,4 12,2 60,9 77,6 2,9 14,0 5,5

2012 69,0 11,0 61,8 89,2 1,3 12,8 3,3

2) Includes the varieties Annabell, Barke, Braemar, Fairytale, Harbinger, Marthe,

NFC Tipple, Polartop, Prestige, Saana, Scarlett and Xanadu regardless the intended end use.

The sowing time of malting barley was reported as 1.5-20.6. The most common sowing

date was May the 15 th . The harvesting time of malting barley was reported as 15.8-

30.10, the most common harvesting date was August the 30 th . The moisture content at

harvest fluctuated between 15-33 per cent, and the median was 22 per cent. The

average harvest per hectare for malting barley in 2012 was 4,183 kg per hectare, and

the median was 4,300 kg. The range of variation for the reported yields was 1,600-

6,000 kg/hectare.

30


Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Figure 25. Shares of malting barley samples that fulfilled the quality requirements for grain size and

protein content (protein content ≤11.5 %, sieving 2.5 mm ≥85 %), when the only samples considered were

those for which the farmer had indicated would be used for malting.

7.2 Average quality of malting barley by region in 2012

Malting barley samples were sent in for the quality monitoring from a total of 11

regions, of which the average quality from 5 regions is presented in table 18. Out of

these, the most important producers of malting barley are Southwest Finland, Häme

and Uusimaa.

As with feed barley, there was much regional fluctuation in the quality of the malting

barley. In Southwest Finland 78 per cent of the samples intended for malting fulfilled

the quality requirements as to protein content and grain size. The average yield in the

region was 4,162 kg/hectare.

In Häme, 63 per cent of the samples fulfilled these quality requirements. The highest

yields were also harvested in Häme, the average yield being 4,299 kg/hectare. In

Uusimaa, 67 per cent of the samples fulfilled the requirements and the average yield

was 3,721 kg/hectare (figure 26).

Table 18. Average quality of malting barley by region in 2012

Malting barley 2)

ELY Central Hectoliter weight Protein Starch Sieving Shrivelled grain Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl % % >2,5 mm % < 2,0 mm % < 2,2 mm % %

Uusimaa 68,8 11,2 61,5 87,9 1,9 4,3 3,8

Southwest Finland 70,3 10,6 62,5 91,5 1,1 2,5 2,9

Satakunta 67,4 11,4 61,2 86,6 2,1 4,9 4,4

Häme 69,8 10,9 62,0 92,6 0,9 2,2 2,5

Pirkanmaa* 69,1 10,8 62,1 87,9 1,4 3,3 4,5

2) Includes the varieties Annabell, Barke, Braemar, Fairytale, Harbinger, Marthe,

NFC Tipple, Polartop, Prestige, Saana, Scarlett and Xanadu regardless the intended end use. * n ˂ 10

31


Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Figure 26. Share of samples of malting barley that fulfil the requirements for malting and average yield

level by region in 2012 (protein content 9-11.5 per cent, grain size ≥2.5 mm ≥85 per cent). Only samples

intended for malting have been considered in this figure.

7.3 Mallasohran keskilaatu lajikkeittain 2012

Out of the 13 varieties that the list of plant varieties recommends for cultivation of

malting barley, samples of 12 different varieties were sent in for the quality monitoring

of the grain harvest, and their prevalence is presented in figure 27. Sixty per cent of the

samples of malting barley varieties had been cultivated mainly for malting purposes. By

variety, the shares fluctuated between 65-87 per cent, with Saana being an exception

as malting was not mentioned once as the purpose of use. Other usage was most

commonly the feed industry and feed for own use (24 per cent). The variety that best

fulfilled the quality criteria of the malting industry as to protein content and grain size

was Barke (figure 28).

Table 19. Average quality of malting barley by variety in 2012

Malting barley 2)

Variety Hectoliter weight Protein Starch Sieving Shrivelled grain Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl % % >2,5 mm % < 2,0 mm % < 2,2 mm % %

Barke 70,5 11,0 62,2 90,6 1,1 2,5 3,0

Marthe* 70,9 10,7 62,3 91,0 1,0 2,8 2,6

NFC Tipple 67,9 9,8 62,8 92,6 1,3 3,0 3,8

Saana 67,1 11,8 60,7 90,6 1,3 4,1 2,9

Xanadu* 68,9 11,2 61,8 91,0 1,3 2,9 3,8

2) Includes the varieties which are approved in the plant varitety list as a malting barley regardless the intended end use.

* n ˂ 10


Viljaseula - Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Figure 27. Share of malting barley varieties of the samples in the quality monitoring in 2012.

Figure 28. Share of samples of malting barley that fulfil the requirements for malting as to grain size and

protein content and average yield level by variety in 2012 (protein content 9-11.5 per cent, grain size ≥2.5

mm ≥85 per cent). Only samples intended for malting have been considered in this figure.

33


Viljaseula - Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

8 AVERAGE QUALITY OF THE ORGANICALLY CULTIVATED GRAIN HARVEST

8.1 Organic oats

In 2012, alongside the traditional quality analysis, more extensive information and

samples than previously were collected on organically cultivated grains.

Oats are our most important cereal in organic production. Its yield in 2012 was 38.6

million kg, which is about 3.5 per cent of the whole production of oats. Out of the

organic material for the quality monitoring, 42 per cent of the samples were oats.

The average hectolitre weight of organic oats was 58.1 kg (the median was 58.6 kg)

and the average protein content was 12.0 per cent (the median was 11.9 per cent). The

average quality for the years 2002-2012 is presented in table 20.

The average hectolitre weight and protein content were similar to those of

conventionally cultivated oats. Figures 26-29 show a comparison between organically

and conventionally cultivated samples as to hectolitre weight, protein content, total

besatz and shrivelled grains.

Out of the organic oats, no less than 97 per cent had a hectolitre weight of a minimum

of 52 kg. Sixty-two per cent of the samples had a hectolitre weight of a minimum of 58

kg.

Table 20. Average quality of organic oats in 2001–2012

Organic oats

Crop Year Hectoliter weight Protein Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl % < 2,0 mm % %

2002 54,8 13,4 8,6 ―

2003 55,0 13,6 9,8 ―

2004 55,2 12,3 4,1 ―

2005 54,4 12,0 6,3 ―

2006 54,1 12,7 11,2 ―

2007 56,3 12,9 4,1 ―

2008 55,5 11,4 3,8 ―

2009 55,0 11,7 6,6 ―

2010 52,9 13,4 3,5 ―

2011 55,7 13,5 4,9 7,5

2012 58,1 12,0 4,4 5,8

34


Viljaseula - Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Figure 29. Average hectolitre weight in organic and conventionally cultivated grain per cereal in 2012.

Figure 30. Average protein content in organic and conventionally cultivated grain per cereal in 2012.

Figure 31. Average total besatz in organic and conventionally cultivated grain per cereal in 2012.

Figure 32. Average number of shrivelled grains in organic and conventionally cultivated grain per cereal in

2012.

The sowing time of organic oats was reported as 3.5-6.6. The most common sowing

date was May the 23 rd . The harvesting time was reported as 24.8-17.10, and the most

35


Viljaseula - Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

common date for harvesting was September the 16 th . The moisture content at

harvesting fluctuated between 16-40 per cent, and the median was 22 per cent.

The average harvest per hectare for organic oats in 2012 was 2,542 kg per hectare,

and the median was 2,700 kg. The range of variation for the reported harvests was

700-4,500 kg/hectare. There were greater differences as to yield levels than as to

quality factors between conventional and organic oats. The average yield level of

organic oats was 65 per cent of the average yield levels of conventionally cultivated

oats (the average yield level for conventional oats was 3,900 kg/hectare, the median

was 5,500 kg). Figure 33 shows the differences in average yield levels for all cereals in

organic and conventional cultivation.

Figure 33. Average yield level in organic and conventionally cultivated grain per cereal in 2012.

Regional information on organic samples was examined according to the division of

Finland into four main regions (table 21). Out of the samples, 36 per cent came from

Southern Finland, 39 per cent from Western Finland, 16 per cent from Eastern Finland

and 9 per cent from Northern Finland. Almost all of the samples had a hectolitre weight

of a minimum of 52 kg, and there were no significant differences between regions. In

Western Finland, 74 per cent of the samples had a hectolitre weight of a minimum of

58 kg. In Eastern Finland only about one third of the samples reached a hectolitre

weight of 58 kg (figure 34). The yields were highest in Northern Finland at 2,950

kg/hectare, and lowest in Eastern Finland at 2,070 kg/hectare.

Table 21. Average quality of organic oats by the main regions in 2012

Organic oats

Area Hectoliter weight Protein Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl % < 2,0 mm % %

Souther Finland 58,1 11,8 4,4 6,1

Eastern Finland 56,7 12,3 5,8 6,9

Western Finland 58,9 12,2 4,0 6,2

Northern Finland

* n ˂ 10

57,3 11,8 3,7 5,4

36


Viljaseula - Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Figure 34. Shares of organic oat samples with a minimum hectolitre weight of 52 kg and 58 kg and

average yield level by main regions in 2012.

8.2 Organic wheat

Wheat is the second most important cereal in Finnish organic production. In 2012, the

yield was 15.3 million kg, which is 1.7 per cent of the whole wheat production. Out of

the organic material for the quality monitoring, 23 per cent of the samples were wheat.

The average hectolitre weight of organic wheat was 80.3 kg (the median was 80.8 kg).

The average hectolitre weight of conventionally grown wheat was a little higher at 80.6

kg (the median was 81.4 kg). Of the organic wheat samples, 80 per cent had a

hectolitre weight of a minimum of 78 kg.

The average protein content was 13.0 per cent (the median was 13.3 per cent). The

minimum protein content of 12.5 per cent was found in 67 per cent of the samples.

Of the organic wheat samples, 85 per cent had a falling number of a minimum of 180,

which is a common quality requirement for bread wheat at the basic price. All of the

results for the average quality of organic wheat in 2012 are presented in table 22.

Figures 29-32 compare the average quality of conventionally grown and organic wheat

as to hectolitre weight, protein content, total besatz and the number of shrivelled

grains.

Table 22. Average quality of organic wheat in 2012

Organic spring wheat

Crop Year Hectoliter weight Falling Number Protein Wet Gluten Zeleny-index Starch Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl s % % ml % < 2,0 mm % %

2012 80,3 253 13,0 25,9 55,2 68,6 2,3 4,9

Out of the samples of organic spring wheat, a total of 51 per cent fulfilled the quality

requirements mentioned above. The Venn diagrams (figure 35) show the quality

requirements for bread grain quality as to the different quality factors and also how

many of the samples fulfilled the quality requirements for protein content and falling

number, protein content and hectolitre weight, and falling number and protein content.

The picture shows both the diagram for wheat at the basic price and the quality

category with a higher falling number (the falling number a minimum of 220).

37


Viljaseula - Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Figure 35. The quality of the organic spring wheat in 2012 presented as a Venn diagram.

The average harvest per hectare for organic wheat in 2012 was 2,579 kg per hectare,

and the median was 2,600 kg. The range of variation for the reported harvests was

1,000-4,200 kg/hectare. Similarly to oats, the differences between conventional and

organic wheat were higher as to yield levels than as to quality factors.

The average yield level of organic wheat was only 63 per cent of the average yield

levels of conventional wheat (the average yield level for conventional wheat was 4,076

kg/hectare, and the median was 4,000 kg. Figure 33 compares the average yield levels

for all cereals in organic and conventional cultivation.

The regional differences between Southern Finland and Western Finland were

examined, as the number of samples was sufficient. Of the spring wheat samples in the

quality monitoring of the organic grain harvest, 51 per cent came from Southern

Finland, 33 per cent from Western Finland and 15 per cent from Eastern and Northern

Finland. Table 23 shows the information on the average quality of the organic spring

wheat by region.

Out of the spring wheat samples from Southern Finland, 45 per cent fulfilled the quality

criteria for bread wheat. In Western Finland the corresponding share was 62 per cent

of the samples. The yields were highest in Western Finland, where they were on

average 2,931 kg/hectare. In Southern Finland the yield was 2,300 kg/hectare.

Table 23. Average quality of organic spring wheat by region in 2012

Organic spring wheat

Area Hectoliter weight Falling Number Protein Wet Gluten Zeleny-index Starch Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl s % % ml % < 2,0 mm % %

Southern Finland 81,0 261 12,5 24,7 52,7 69,3 2,4 4,7

Western Finland 79,8 248 13,6 27,7 59,1 67,9 1,8 5,0

Eastern and northern Finland*

* n ˂ 10

79,0 237 13,1 26,1 55,6 67,9 3,3 4,9

38


8.3 Organic barley

Viljaseula - Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

In 2012, 6.6 million kg organic barley was produced, which is 0.4 per cent of the

domestic barley production. Out of the organic grain for the quality monitoring, 12 per

cent of the samples was barley.

The average hectolitre weight of organic barley was 61.3 kg (the median was 61.4 kg).

The average hectolitre weight of conventionally grown barley was higher at 63.6 kg (the

median was 64 kg). All of the results for the average quality of organic barley in 2012

are presented in table 24. Of the organic barley samples, 41 per cent had a hectolitre

weight of a minimum of 64 kilos. The corresponding share in conventional cultivation

was 51 per cent.

Figures 26-29 compare the average quality of conventionally grown and organic barley

as to hectolitre weight, protein content, total besatz and the number of shrivelled

grains. The figures show that the differences between total besatz and the number of

shrivelled grains was more obvious between organic barley and conventional barley

than for oats and wheat, the quality of the organic grain being poorer.

The average yield per hectare for organic barley in 2012 was 2,067 kg per hectare, and

the median was 2,100 kg. The range of variation for the reported harvests was 700-

3,000 kg/hectare. Similarly to oats and wheat, the differences between conventional

and organic barley were higher as to yield levels than as to quality factors. The average

yield level of organic barley was only 54 per cent of the average yield levels of

conventional barley (the average yield level for conventional barley was 3,821

kg/hectare, and the median was 4,000 kg. Figure 34 compares the average yield levels

for all cereals in organic and conventional cultivation.

Of the organic barley samples, 41 per cent came from Southern Finland, 29 per cent

from Eastern Finland, 18 per cent from Northern Finland and 12 per cent from Western

Finland. Due to the small number of samples no regional comparison was made.

Table 24. Average quality of organic barley in 2012

Organic barley

Crop Year Hectoliter weight Protein Starch Shrivelled grain Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl % % < 2,0 mm % < 2,2 mm % %

2012 61,3 11,5 60,3 5,3 12,5 8,3

39


8.4 Organic rye

Viljaseula - Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

In 2012, 5.1 million kg organic rye was produced. That is 7.8 per cent of the whole

domestic rye production. Out of the organic grain in the quality monitoring 20 per cent

were rye samples.

The average hectolitre weight of organic rye was 74.7 kg (the median was 75.2 kg).

The average hectolitre weight of conventionally grown rye was higher at 77.1 kg (the

median was 78.1 kg). Of the samples, 79 per cent of the organic rye samples had a

hectolitre weight of a minimum of 71 kg.

The average falling number was 150.5 seconds (the median was also 150.5 seconds).

The aim for rye at the basic price is a minimum of 120 seconds, which was reached in

74 per cent of the samples. All of the results for the average quality of organic rye in

2012 are presented in table 25. The total besatz of organic rye was clearly higher than

that of conventionally grown rye (figure 28).

Out of the organic rye samples, 65 per cent fulfilled the requirements as to hectolitre

weight and falling number for bread rye. The corresponding figure for conventionally

grown rye was 76 per cent.

The average yield per hectare for organic rye in 2012 was 1,763 kg per hectare, and

the median was 1,500 kg. The range of variation for the reported harvests was 700-

3,400 kg/hectare. The average yield level for organic rye was only 43 per cent of that of

conventional rye (the average yield level of conventional rye was 3,405 kg/hectare, and

the median was 3,500 kg). Figure 34 compares the average yield levels for all cereals

in organic and conventional cultivation.

Of the organic rye samples, 48 per cent came from Southern Finland, 30 per cent from

Western Finland, 15 per cent from Eastern Finland and 9 per cent from Northern

Finland. Due to the small number of samples no regional comparison was made.

Table 25. Average quality of organic rye

Organic rye

Crop Year Hectoliter weight Falling Number Protein Shrivelled grain Total besatz

kg/hl s % < 1,8 mm % %

2002 74,3 210 11,1 10,5 ―

2003 71,9 150 11,9 13,7 ―

2004 72,8 121 10,8 11,1 ―

2005 74,2 103 10,2 11,0 ―

2006 75,8 201 10,4 3,3 ―

2007 74,8 144 11,0 8,7 ―

2008 72,1 73 10,4 5,2 ―

2009 73,6 143 9,8 5,1 ―

2010 74,7 236 10,3 8,0 ―

2011 ― ― ― ― ―

2012 74,7 150 9,5 8,1 10,7

40


9 MATERIAL

9.1 Sampling and response rate

9.1.1 The quality monitoring of the grain harvest

Viljaseula - Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

The farms covered by the monitoring were selected randomly from the Farm Register

of the Information Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (Tike). Farms with

less than five hectares of cultivated area were not part of the sampling. In 2012 about

1,700 farms were part of the sampling. Samples were sent in from 23 per cent of the

farms selected for the quality monitoring. The scale of the study and the time it takes to

take the samples and to send them have an impact on the response rate. The

distribution of the sizes of the farms and the samples sent in are shown in figure 36.

Every year, farms that have not sent in samples during the preceding four years are

chosen for the sampling. There is however also a small permanent group of farms in

the sampling. The quality monitoring of the grain harvest received 841 samples in

2012.

9.1.2 Quality monitoring of the organic grain harvest

In addition to the usual sampling, requests for samples were sent to about 300 farms

for the purpose of the quality monitoring of organically grown grain. These were

selected regionally from Tike’s register of organic production. Samples were received

from 29 per cent of the farms selected for the quality monitoring. The distribution of the

sizes of the farms and the number of samples sent in are shown in figure 37. We

received 167 samples for the quality monitoring of organic grain.

9.2 Grain samples and form for background information

For the purpose of the monitoring, a total of 5,600 sample bags were sent in July to the

selected farms based on the sampling. The number of sample bags depended on the

size of the farm. The farm sizes were divided into the categories 5–9.9 ha, 10–19.9 ha,

20–29.9 ha, 30–49.9 ha, 50–99.9 ha and farms exceeding 100 ha. Requests for two

samples were sent to the two smallest categories, requests for three samples to the

category in the middle and requests for four samples were sent to the two following.

Farms over 100 hectares received requests for 5 samples. The sizes of the farms in

the distribution of the sampling and that from which samples were received are

presented in figures 32–34. Every request for samples was accompanied by a request

form requiring background information specific to the batch of grain, which supplied us

with valuable information on factors related to the grain production (more detail in

chapter 1.4).

Taking samples is an important factor that affects the reliability of the results. This is

why instructions on how to take the samples were sent to the farmers in the letter to the

growers. It had been requested that the samples would have been sent in by mid-

October, but this was changed to a later date due to the special characteristics of the

growing period. The harvesting period was drawn out very much due to the weather

conditions during the growing period of 2012, and it was therefore decided to still

accept samples in November.

41


Viljaseula - Finnish Grain Quality in 2012

Figure 36. Distribution of the sizes of the farms selected for the quality monitoring of the grain harvest and

distribution of the sizes of the farms from which samples were received.

Figure 37. Distribution of the sizes of the farms selected for the quality monitoring of the organic grain

harvest and distribution of the sizes of the farms from which samples were received.

9.5 Analyses

The study analysed the quality factors for grain that are generally used by the grain

trade and the grain industry, and were analysed by the Cereal Section of the Plant

Analysis Laboratory Unit of the Food Safety Authority. The laboratory of Evira’s Cereal

Section is accredited by the FINAS accreditation service and it complies with a quality

system in accordance with SFS-EN ISO/IEC 17025 standard. The laboratory methods

used for this study are presented in table 26.

Table 26. Methods of analysis and their reference methods used in this study

Analytical methods

Analysis Unit Method Referencemethod

Moisture % NIT-measurement, Evira 7214, internal method ISO 712-1998 E

Hectoliter weight kg/hl NIT-measurement, Evira 7214, internal method ISO 7971-2:1995, 1/4 l litre

Falling Number s Evira 7212, ICC-std. no. 107/1/68/95

Protein content % / k-a. NIT-measurement, Evira 7214, internal method ISO 20483:2006 , Kjeldahl

Starch content % / k-a. NIT-measurement, Evira 7214, internal method ISO 6493, polarimetric

Wet gluten % NIT-measurement, Evira 7214, internal method ICC-std. 155/1/94

Zeleny index ml NIT-measurement, Evira 7214, internal method ISO 5529-1992

Shrivelled grain % Evira 7314, internal method EY N:o 824/2000

Malting barley sieving % Evira 7310, internal method

Total besatz % Evira 7314, internal method EY N:o 824/2000

42


APPENDIX 1

source SYKE

Kunnat, maakunnat ja ELY-keskukset 1.1.2011

Elinkeino-, liikenne ja ympäristökeskukset

01 UUD Uudenmaan ELY

02 VAR Varsinais-Suomen ELY

03 SAT Satakunnan ELY

04 HAM Hämeen ELY

05 PIR Pirkanmaan ELY

06 KAS Kaakkois-Suomen ELY

07 ESA Etelä-Savon ELY

08 POS Pohjois-Savon ELY

09 POK Pohjois-Karjalan ELY

10 KES Keski-Suomen ELY

11 EPO Etelä-Pohjanmaan ELY

12 POH Pohjanmaan ELY

13 POP Pohjois-Pohjanmaan ELY

14 KAI Kainuun ELY

15 LAP Lapin ELY

16 Ahvenanmaa

Kalajoki

Enontekiö

Muonio

Kolari

Pello

Tornio

Ylitornio

Raahe

Pyhäjoki

Merijärvi

Alavieska

Ylivieska

Kokkola

Kannus

Nivala

Kärsämäki

Luoto

Pietarsaari Kruunupyy

12 Pedersöre

Sievi

Keski-

Haapajärvi

Toholampi

Pohjanmaa Reisjärvi

Kaustinen

Pyhäjärvi

Kiuruvesi

Vieremä

Sonkajärvi

Valtimo

Nurmes

Uusikaarlepyy

Evijärvi Veteli

Halsua

Lestijärvi

Kinnula

Pihtipudas

Iisalmi

Lapinlahti

Rautavaara

Lieksa

Korsnäs

Mustasaari

Vöyri

Vaasa Vähäkyrö

Isokyrö

Pohjanmaa

Maalahti Laihia

Ilmajoki

Kauhava Lappajärvi

Perho

Vimpeli

Kivijärvi

Viitasaari

Kyyjärvi

Lapua Alajärvi

Kannonkoski

Soini Karstula

11Kuortane

Seinäjoki

Keski-Suomi

Pielavesi

Pohjois-Savo Nilsiä

Keitele

Maaninka

Siilinjärvi Juankoski

08

Tervo

Kaavi

Vesanto

Kuopio

Tuusniemi

Juuka

Pohjois-Karjala

Polvijärvi

09

Kontiolahti

Närpiö

Kaskinen

Kurikka

Etelä-Pohjanmaa

Teuva

Alavus

Jalasjärvi

Kari-

Kauhajoki

joki

Töysä

Ähtäri

Saarijärvi Äänekoski

10

Multia Uurainen

Laukaa

Rauta-

Konnevesi lampiHanka-

Suonenjoki

Leppävirta

Outokumpu

Heinävesi

Liperi

Joensuu

salmiKristiinan-

Virrat

Keuruu

Petäjävesi

Rääkkylä

kaupunki

Pieksämäki

Varkaus

Tohmajärvi

Kihniö

Savonlinna

Isojoki

Karvia

Joroinen

Enonkoski

Mänttä-

Muurame

Honka-

Parkano

Vilppula

Kitee

Merijoki

Toivakka

Rantasalmi

Kangasniemi

karvia

Ruovesi

Ylöjärvi

Jyväskylä

Kerimäki

Siikainen

Jämi-

Jämsä

Etelä-Savo

Kesälahti

Kankaanpää järvi Ikaalinen Pirkanmaa

Savonlinna

Juupajoki

Joutsa

Juva

Pomarkku

Mikkeli

Punka-

03

Luhanka

Sulkava

05

harju

Pori

Lavia Hämeenkyrö Tampere

07

Orivesi

Hirvensalmi

Parikkala

Satakunta

Kuhmoinen

Ulvila

Hartola

Kiikoinen

Puumala

Nokia

Kangasala

Sysmä

Pertun-

Ristiina

Luvia Nakkila

Sastamala Pirkkala

maaHarjaRautvalta

Lempäälä

Pälkäne Padasjoki

Mäntyharju

Ruokolahti

järvi

Eurajoki Kokemäki

Vesilahti

Suomenniemi

Päijät-Häme

Valkeakoski

Heinola

Eura

Asikkala

Taipalsaari

Köyliö

Rauma

Huittinen Punka-

Akaa

Savitaipale

Imatra

laidun

Hämeenlinna

Urjala

Pyhäranta

Säkylä

Hämeen- 04

Etelä-Karjala

Hattula

Lemi

linna

Hollola

Nastola

Laitila

HumpHämeen-

Loimaa

Forssa

Lahti

Oripila

Kanta-Häme koski

06

Lappeenranta

Iitti Kouvola

Luumäki

Uusikaupunki

pää

Janakkala

Jokioinen

Pöytyä

Kärkölä

Mynämäki

Ypäjä Tammela

Hausjärvi

Orimattila

Vehmaa

Kymenlaakso

Nousiainen 02

Aura

Koski

RiihiTaivas-

Loppi

Rusko

Miehikkälä

Tl

mäki

Kustavi saloTarvas-

Somero

Pukkila Lapinjärvi

Masku

Marttila

Hyvinkää Mäntsälä

Hamina

joki

Turku Lieto

Myrskylä

Brändö

Geta

Raisio Varsinais-

Karkkila

Kotka

Virolahti

Paimio

Askola

Naantali

Järven-

Kaarina

Nummi-

Pyhtää

Saltvik

Nurmijärvi pääPornainen

Loviisa

Eckerö

Pusula

Finström 16

Suomi

Tuusula

Salo

Porvoo

Hammar- Sund Vårdö Kumlinge

Vihti

Kerava

land Sauvo

Länsi-

Sipoo

Jomala

Uusimaa

Turunmaa

Lohja

Vantaa

Lumparland Sottunga

Karja-

Espoo

Maarianlohjahamina

Lemland

Kauniainen Helsinki01

Föglö

Kemiön-

Siuntio

saari

Raasepori

Kirkko-

Inkoo nummi

Kökar

Kuntaraja © Affecto Finland Oy, Karttakeskus, Lupa L4659

Hanko

Keminmaa

Kemi

Hailuoto

Oulainen

Tervola

Siikajoki

Vihanti

Kittilä

Simo

Haapavesi

Ii

Haukipudas

Oulunsalo

Kempele

Lumijoki

Liminka

13

Rovaniemi

Tyrnävä

Yli-Ii

Kiiminki

Oulu

Muhos

Siikalatva

La pp i

15

Ranua

Pyhäntä

Utsjoki

Inari

Sodankylä

Vaala

Pudasjärvi

Utajärvi

Pelkosenniemi

Kemijärvi

Pohjois-Pohjanmaa

Kajaani

Puolanka

Paltamo

Posio

Savukoski

Salla

Taivalkoski

14

Ristijärvi

Sotkamo

Suomussalmi

Hyrynsalmi

Kuusamo

Kainuu

Kuhmo

0 25 50 100 150 200 Km

Ilomantsi


Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira

Mustialankatu 3, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland

Tel. +358 29 530 0400, Fax +358 29 530 4350

www.evira.fi

Evira publications 5/2013

ISSN 1797-299X

ISBN 978-952-225-124-4 (pdf)

Cover photo: Evira´s Image Bank/Kristiina Kanerva

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines