The Growth Potential of Triticale in Western Canada: Section C - Experience-based, End-user, Evaluations of Triticale

Triticale Seed Grower View-points: Evaluation of Triticale Varieties, Breeding Needs and Potential Markets - Results of a Survey by Mail-out, of W. Canadian Triticale Seed Growers in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan

A questionnaire (Appendix III) was sent out to all seed growers of triticale listed in the 1999 W. Provinces Seed Guide. Nineteen responses (just less than 50%) were received, representing seed production in all three provinces, and dry and wetter areas. Questions were about experience growing triticale, and sought opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of the crop, and priorities for future improvement and expansion of acreage.

Responding growers had each grown from 1 to 15 different varieties (average 3), with 2 to 30 years of experience (average 9) with the crop. 15 of 18 indicated that triticale yield was ‘somewhat’ or ‘much’ better in stability than yields of other cereals, and that it was ‘somewhat’ or ‘much’ better in competition with weeds than other cereals. Triticale is usually described as being better adapted to stress conditions than other cereals. All respondents felt this was true for droughty conditions, but were equally divided in rating triticale ‘equal to’ or ‘better than’ other cereals under wet conditions. Two thirds rated triticale as ‘better’ adapted than other cereals on low fertility or problem soils, and none indicated it was worse. Most comparisons were made to CWRS or CPS wheat, or to barley. These ratings confirm prior international experience with triticale.

Respondents reported their average, highest and lowest on-farm yields, compared to CWRS or CPS wheat. For the 16 responses received, the average triticale yield ranged from 40-80 bu/acre, compared to 38-90 bu/acre for CPS wheat, and 30-60 bu/acre for CWRS wheat. As a % of CPS yield, triticale yields ranged from 80-125%, with a mean of 115 %. (CWRS yields were in all cases lower than CPS yields, as expected). The highest individual cereal yields reported were all for triticale (at 90, 96, 98 and 115 bu/acre). These seed growers all endorsed the high grain yield potential of triticale compared to wheat. Inadequate sample size did not allow comparison of winter vs spring triticale yields of these growers.

The high enthusiasm for yield potential was reversed when maturity requirement was considered, with lateness of maturity (spring and winter types) seen as a major problem compared to other cereals, especially in the spring type. Compared to CWRS wheats, triticale averaged 10 days later (range 5-25 days), and from -1 to +15 days later (average 7 days later) for the comparison to CPS wheat, when both spring and winter types were considered.

Respondents were asked to rate severity and frequency (0-5 scale) of disease occurrence in their production fields or those of seed customers. Most indicated little to no disease problem. Individual disease occurrences included one report each of Fusarium (severity/frequency 3/3), take-all (2/1), leafspot (1/1), root-rot (3/3), and glume blotch (2/2). Ergot occurred for 7 of 18 respondents with severity/frequency ratings of 4/4, 5/2, 4/3, 2/2, 1/1, 1/1, and 1/1. Ergot was described as a continuing potential concern by most growers, even if they had not personally experienced it.

Priorities for breeding improvement
Priorities for improvement of the spring triticale crop were requested, in written form. The following table indicates the frequency (out of 16 responses) for different priorities that were named.

Table 12a. Frequency of response for crop breeding improvement priorities of spring triticale mentioned by seed growers

Earlier maturity - 17 Larger kernel (?) - 2 Less ergot - 6 Improved feed quality - 2 Faster grain drydown - 5 Improved protein content - 2 Shorter straw - 5 More sprouting tolerance - 2 Less tough straw in silage - 4 Fusarium resistance - 1 Awnless types for green-feed - 3 Uniform kernel size - 2 Better yield stability - 3 Higher silage yield - 1 Easier threshing, less head break - 3 More allelopathy - 1

Improved winter hardiness - 5 Earlier maturity - 1 Improved grain yield - 3 Better lodging resistance - 1 Improved grain quality - 3 Less volunteer problem - 1 More leafiness, less fibre - 3 Shorter straw - 1 More ergot resistance - 1 Better fall growth - 1

1. Earliness for grain
2. Redistributing seeding and harvest time, to spread cropping work
3. Adds extra choices in the crop rotation, including forage, green manure, dual purpose or silage use
4. Control of soil erosion
5. Higher yield potential than spring cereals

Advantages	Limitations
Spread harvest time	Difficult threshing and harvesting
Early crop, high yield	Seeding/harvesting at the same time
Erosion control	Volunteer problem
Direct seeding possible	Poor winter survival
Good weed competition, uses fewer chemicals	Big 'brown bag' seed problem
Cover for wildlife	Too tall, poor lodging - for irrigation
Healthy feed and food	V. high power use when combining
Repeat seed sale for forage	High seeding rates required
Excellent graze (up to 3 crops)	Must seed early
Winter forage available
Seed sales year round
Potentially much expanding market
Break crop from barley diseases (silage)
Lots of straw for cattle bedding

Potential uses (I) Production Agronomy Mean (Range) (II) Product Quality Mean (Range) Feedgrain - Beef cattle 1.8 (1-5) 1.9 (1-3) - Dairy 1.6 (1-3) 1.8 (1-3) - Poultry 1.8 (1-4) 1.9 (1-4) - Swine 1.3 (1-5) 1.9 (1-5) Forage - Greenfeed 2.2 (1-4) 1.9 (1-3) - Sileage - Dairy 2.2 (1.4) 2.2 (1-4) - Sileage - Beef 2.5 (1-4) 2.5 (1-5) - Relay cropping 1.7 (1-3) 1.9 (1-4) - Mixed cropping 1.7 (1-3) 1.5 (1-3) Human food - Consumer acceptance 1.4 (1-4) 1.2 (1-3) - Specialty foods 1.5 (1-4) 1.3 (1-3) - Health foods 1.6 (1-4) 1.3 (1-3) - Organic production 1.5 (1-3) 1.5 (1-4) - Nutritional studies 1.3 (1-3) 1.3 (1-3) - Malting/distilling 1.7 (1-3) 1.4 (1-3) Value - added products / processing: - Ethanol / energy 1.8 (1-4) 1.7 (1-4) - Grain components 1.7 (1-4) 1.5 (1-3) - Straw processing 1.6 (1-4) 1.9 (1-4) - Nutritional extracts ? 1.5 (1-4) 1.2 (1-3) - Flavor extracts ? 1.4 (1-4) 1.4 (1-3) 'Exotic novel uses' - Reclamation 2.0 (1-4) 2.0 (1-4) - Re-vegetation 1.8 (1-4) 1.8 (1-3)

Potential uses (Ranked by priority) Research priority (mean ranking) Value-added products - Ethanol / energy 6.2 Value-added products - Grain components 8.0 Feedgrain - Beef cattle 8.6 Human food - Organic production 8.6 Human food - Consumer acceptance 9.0 Human food - Malting/distilling 9.2 Human food - Nutritional studies 9.3 Human food - Specialty foods 9.3 Forage - Silage - Beef 9.8 Human food - Health foods 11.2 Feedgrain - Poultry 11.5 Forage - Silage - Dairy 11.6 Forage - Greenfeed 12.1 Value-added products - Nutritional extracts 12.9 Feedgrain - Swine 12.9 Feedgrain - Dairy 14.1 Value-added products - Straw processing 14.2 Forage - Mixed cropping 14.4 Value-added products - Flavor extracts? 15.3 Forage - Relay cropping 15.8 Novel uses - Reclamation 17.2 Novel uses - Re-vegetation 18.7

Category Potential marketing issue Mean 1 2 3 4 5 Potential users un-informed about triticale 1.1 14 2 0 0 0 Lack of promotion / extension about triticale potential 1.3 12 6 0 0 0 Limited current supply chain discourages user commitments to this novel crop 1.4 10 7 0 0 0 Potential grain export markets only partially explored 1.5 11 4 0 0 1 Lack of recognition of triticale as a useful rotational break crop to control diseases, etc. 1.6 8 7 1 0 0 Production economics of triticale not well known vs other crops 1.6 7 8 1 0 0 Current perceptions of triticale inaccurately based on obsolete early varieties 1.6 9 7 0 1 0 Poor scientific local data base describing modern adapted varieties for various end uses 1.7 6 8 0 1 0 Potential growers un-informed about triticale 1.8 7 7 1 1 0 Triticale seed market compromised by 'brown-bagging' 2.0 9 2 0 3 1 Poor returns for triticale vs other cereal grains 2.2 5 6 4 0 1 Triticale has a special value as a non-board grain 2.3 8 2 1 4 1 Shipping costs to potential markets limit crop adoption 2.7 2 7 3 2 2 Seed supplies limiting 2.9 4 2 3 5 2

Favorable features	Negative features
High forage yields	Seed costs too high (large seed)
Good disease break from barley crop	Late maturing – hard to grow seed
Wide adaptation to stress conditions	Silage hard to chop
Winter types available, for flex cropping	Cattle rate of gain not always good
High whole plant yield	Limited herbicide registrations
Late fall / early spring graze	Few sales options for grain
Good energy source	More power needed to chop the forage
Low glucan content in grain	Rough awns not good for feed grain
Winters give 2 y prodn. from 1 y planting	Poor grain image, because of rye parent
Spring type silage, insurance for hot Aug.	Limited grain markets
Exc. lodging res. under high fertility/rain	Spring types too tall and late maturing
Winter type more hardy than winter wheat	Not as hardy as winter wheat (!)
Winter type competitive with weeds	Triticales not weed competitive (!)
Exc. nutrient sink for removing nutrientsas whole plant (eg. manure ‘sink’) with high yield and standability	Seeding date window for winters too tight
Potential for industrial fiber?	Difficulty packing silage (why?)
Non CWB grain – occasional advantage for grain exports to USA?	Hard to cut /swath, tough straw in bottom
	W. triticale not usually earlier than CWRS
	KVD (kernel visual distinguishability) limits ability to release best varieties
	Long dry-down time for grain increases risk

1. Both corn and triticale are being used as a sink to use up excess nutrients from heavy manure applications in ‘feedlot alley’ in S. Alberta. Triticale seems adapted for this.
2. The economics of any kind of triticale production in Alberta are not yet really well researched.
3. More work is needed to get herbicide minor use registrations for triticale as soon as possible.
4. Management studies are needed as to how to cut / manage straw under wet vs dry conditions, where limitations are very different. On-farm demo approach?
5. ‘Brown-bagging’ of seed is killing the triticale seed market, as the crop is trying to get established. This limits market development severely, and willingness of seed companies to invest in seed increase.
6. KVD (kernel visual distinguishability) issues as they affect wheat, make triticale immediately a second class crop. The best triticales cannot be registered, as they are visually indistinguishable from existing wheat classes. Can triticale be exempted from this requirement?
7. Specialty foods available earlier under the ‘TritiRich’ label (milled by Ellison at Lethbridge, and Rogers Foods, Armstrong, B.C.) are no longer available in stores. This niche market appears to have disappeared. Was this because of lack of consumer demand, or poor economics for the products? Triticale is still used as one of the ‘7 grains’ in Westin Bakeries ‘7-Grain Harvest Bread’.
8. Seed markets were transiently available in the USA when the US ‘set aside’ program for wheat, barley and corn was in place, as triticale was not a specified ‘set aside’ crop. US growers were happy in those circumstances to grow triticale as a feed source, and had to source seed from Canada. Demand is now low, as the ‘set aside’ is no longer in place, and US producers already have a triticale seed source.
9. Feeders wishing to switch to triticale are not going to change from their current feed unless there is a significant guaranteed, continuing, grain supply in place, to justify change from their normal feed formulations, and there must be a special reason to use it.

1. The grain crop lacks a critical production mass, and its favorable features are not well known. Its’ production characteristics are not all favorable. Continual improvements by breeding are still needed.
2. There is a lack of knowledge about market opportunity for this crop – how to market it, and to whom, and for what price.
3. Because of lack of knowledge, delivery price usually reverts to the lowest possible, such as feed wheat or feed barley, or worse, despite the known quality advantages in some specific feed markets.
4. Many felt that triticale was in the same early development phase as peas as a crop 15 to 20 years ago, and felt that barriers to adoption were very similar to those found in the pea crop development experience. Niche uses are small, and sometimes transient.
5. Knowledge dissemination about triticale will be the key to any production expansion. (Comments were heard that this crop was ‘over-hyped’ for all end uses by early promoters and some seed-growers, such that high expectations were not achieved by some producers, resulting in an acceptability – adoption ‘backlash’).
6. The biggest problem for triticale grain (and hulless barley) as feed is that the professional feed nutritionists who run feed mills and determine actual ration compositions are unfamiliar with these grains, and are ‘not at the table’. Special workshops may be needed with this group in W. Canada, in order to raise their awareness of the potentials for triticale use as a feed grain, especially for monogastric animals.

1. Systematic evaluation of local varieties (spring and winter) under local conditions for silage or grazing, including work on optimal crop management, and detailed ‘best harvest’ protocol studies, with quality of the silage evaluated using forage consumption by animals. On-farm, production level research was seen as an important tool to develop better extension data for this, to supplement basic research studies.
2. Studies of forage quality effect on animal weight gain of (specific) animals of different age and classes, including assessment of productivity and market quality.
3. In cases where triticale has suffered lowered feed intake by animals, that has in turn affected weight gain, the reasons for this limited intake need to be determined. Is the management of the silage the limiting factor, or anti-nutritional factors of the silage, that could be remedied by breeding or by other means?
4. Much more extension / technology transfer of known results from applications and use of triticale forage needs to be undertaken, with regional differences taken into account. Use of on-farm demonstrations would be the best approach to obtaining site-specific recommendations.

1. Very little is known about potential applications for triticale food products, food extracts or industrial use in W. Canada
2. Absence of technological data or a guaranteed grain supply each limit development of these potential niche markets for triticale
3. Very little is known about potential consumer demand for triticale food or beverage products, or why earlier triticale food products are no longer so widely available.

1. Seeding rate response information
2. Herbicide and pesticide use information
3. More extensive information about performance of individual cultivars
4. More information about quality and yield as a feed grain
5. Trial data comparing nutritional values of triticale and barley as silage/hay, as well as feed grain, and possibilities for replacing wheat with triticale in the pig industry
6. Historical, breeding and trial results, in a more useful and comprehensive extension form
7. Comparison of protein levels, total digestible nutrients, etc., in grain and silage, with those in other cereals
8. Better information for the feed industry (e.g. compounders, feedlots) about feed value of triticale, to avoid its use just as a ‘low cost, low value’ barley substitute
9. A wide range of detailed publications are needed for farmers, on all topics (cultivation, harvesting, feed quality, marketing alternatives, new developments, new cultivars etc.)

1. High yield, for grain and forage
2. Better profits – cheaper to seed and easier to establish than forage mixtures for pasture
3. Extended grazing season (e.g. spring seeded winters, for high quality, extended, fall grazing
4. Superior disease resistance, compared to wheat or barley (but one grower expressed concern about ergot, Fusarium and sprouting, that increased production risk)
5. Triticale has good palatability and is well accepted by cattle
6. Triticale is a valuable animal feedstock alternative
7. High protein content, compared to barley hay or silage
8. Triticale has more biomass, leading to higher forage yields, and more return of crop residual to the soil
9. Clear yield superiority compared to other cereals in dry years
10. Easy to handle using regular farm equipment and settings
11. Opportunity to achieve diversity in cropping rotations and in marketing
12. As a non-Canadian Wheat Board crop, offers more flexibility in marketing
13. Potential for emerging or novel product use, in value-added applications and processing

1. Very late maturity for grain (a major concern), therefore limiting the crop to forage use
2. Ergot as a possible problem
3. Insufficient information for cattle producers about nutritional value and feed performance of grain or forage, compared to other cereals.
4. Limited market opportunity for seed growers, and hardly any demand for the grain for feed
5. Absence of assured markets (such as a feedlot with constant specific demand for triticale)
6. Despite a potentially good agronomic fit on the farm, they saw neighbors who were unable to sell their triticale production

1. 50-70% grain mix with barley (30-50%), or as 50% triticale + 50% alfalfa;
2. As pasture, up to 10-15% of the dairy cattle diet; During the grazing season, from 70-100% of the beef cattle diet;
3. 80% silage (mix of barley, triticale and alfalfa), with 20% grain (50/50 barley and triticale); For finishing, the grain component is increased;
4. Grain ration (50/50 oat and triticale); For roughage 66% straw and hay (alfalfa plus bromegrass), plus 34% triticale;
5. 80% grain (50/50 barley and triticale), plus 16% silage (rye, rarely triticale), plus 4% feed supplement;

Extensive review of what is needed in any feed grain for different classes of animals has been the subject of many meetings over the years. In W. Canada these discussions usually focus on use of barley (hulled and hulless) and wheat. Discussion of triticale potential has been minimal. As a grain feed it would have to compete mainly with barley, wheat or oat in W. Canada. In the context of barley feed it is appropriate to present the highest priorities for feed improvement that were identified at the 1998 Feed Grain Quality Conference: ‘Measuring the feeding quality of barley grain’ (Edmonton, Nov 8-10, 1998). These research priorities were determined by vote frequency by attendees at a workshop, for ruminants, poultry and hogs, and were as follows:

(a) Research priorities for ruminants Priority 1. Determine rate of digestion/release for each livestock class       - Find optimal rates       - Find genotype vs environment influence on energy content       - Find ways to measure processing effects on energy content Very high 2. Effect of feed processing on end-use quality Medium 3. Discover ways to measure feed quality to use in formulation Medium 4. 5 other priorities Low (b) Research priorities for poultry 1. Optimize barley intake without sacrificing fatty acid profile       - Increase available energy of barley for poultry Very high 2. Identify and reduce anti-nutritive factors       - Feed intake inhibitors       - Phytic acid       - Reducing NSP's (non-soluble polysaccharides)       - Amino acid digestibility and protein quality Very high 3. Methods to measure variety and environment effect on feed samples Low (c) Research priorities for hogs 1. Digestible energy predictions, to estimate DE in vitro, or by NIR Very high 2. Feed intake predictions High 3. Ileal digestible amino acid predictions Medium 4. 11 other priorities Low

(Circle one)	Yes	or	No
Response frequency:	5		10

1. Government and ‘own research’ are the main sources of information for the feed formulator sector, and none surveyed made use of the internet for this purpose
2. The overall knowledge base of feed formulators and their clients, about feed quality of triticale grain or forage, is not as high as it should be, and in many cases is poor.
3. Interest in attending workshops to learn more about the feed qualities and use of triticale grain or forage is not high in this sector of the feed industry. For their clients, a slightly higher interest level likely exists for workshops about triticale use for forage.
4. It is of considerable importance that formulators and feeders have access to a better data base describing the nutritional properties of triticale samples from the W. Prairie area, so that more extensive, reliable localized data can be used as criteria in determining triticale grain value in rations.
5. In promoting triticale grain use for feed use, the high lysine content of the grain should be especially emphasized, for its special value in feeding swine, where there is added value in being able to reduce the amount of protein supplementation required.
6. Key issues mentioned in comments included 1. Cost problem for extra binning; 2. Lack of a supply stream or a price discovery system; 3. Need for a clear reason to want to use it for feed, compared to other feeds available; and 4. Problems with lateness of the crop, both for grain and silage, because of frost risk and potential loss of feed quality.
7. Although views were varied on this topic, respondents generally indicated that the greatest expectation of increased feed use for triticale would be for silage use for cattle and grain use for swine, with increased usage much less likely for grain use for poultry or for cattle.

Wheat Triticale Rye NSP  - Soluble arabinoxylans % 1.8 1.3 3.4          - Insoluble arabinoxylans % 6.3 9.5 5.5          - Beta-glucans % 0.8 1.7 2.0          - Cellulose % 2.0 2.5 1.5 Total NSP  - Soluble % 2.4 1.7 4.6                  - Insoluble % 9.0 14.6 8.6 Starch % 66 (54-74) 60 (55-63) 50 Protein % 8-22 8-22 NA Metabolizable energy, Poultry (MJ/kg DM) 9.0-14.8 14.0-15.2 (14.2) Digestible energy, Pigs (MJ/kg DM) 16.0 16.0 15.5 Metabolizable energy, Ruminants (MJ/kg DM) 13.5 13.3 13.3

	DE Mcal/lb	C.prot. %	Lys %	Meth %	Meth + Cys %	Thre %	Trypt %	Ether extract %	Crude fiber %
Barley	1383	10.5	0.36	0.17	0.37	0.34	0.13	1.9	18.6
Yellow corn	1600	8.3	0.26	0.17	0.36	0.29	0.06	3.9	9.6
Oats	1256	11.5	0.40	0.22	0.58	0.44	0.14	4.7	27.0
Rye	1484	11.8	0.38	0.17	0.36	0.32	0.12	1.6	12.3
Wheat SRW	1564	11.5	0.38	0.22	0.49	0.39	0.26	1.9	na
Triticale	1505	12.5	0.39	0.20	0.46	0.36	0.14	1.8	12.7
SRW = Soft Red Winter; C.prot = Crude protein; DE = Digestible energy

Starter Grow-finish Gestation Lactation Limitations Barley 15 40 40 25 High fiber Corn 60 80 90 80 Lysine Oats 5 20 50 0 High fiber Rye 0 25 25 10 Variability, ergot Wheat 0 40 30 40 Expensive Triticale 10 40 40 40 Variable quality/ergot

1. Informational workshops about triticale grain for swine, targeted both at swine producers and feed formulators. The technology for triticale use in these situations is already in place, but needs to move out to potential users.
2. Commercial scale, on-site research (‘on-farm demos’) at selected swine production facilities throughout W. Canada, to compare locally grown triticale, wheat, hulless barley and (imported) corn. The main objective of this is to gain full-scale experience, and to establish a base price for triticale at which diet substitution can occur. This on-site work must follow proper experimental protocol, so that findings can be used in future technology transfer publications.
3. Basic research should be continued in small scale studies at government and University labs, to fill remaining informational gaps:
   a. Develop a W. Canadian nutrient database from multiple samples of different triticale cultivars, to provide a better reference data set about the mean and variability of grain composition, for application in linear programming feed formulation applied to the Canadian crop.
   b. Determine feed intake levels for all ages and types of swine, using various ration combinations, emphasizing triticale use supplemented with canola meal. Most published studies so far have used soy-meal, but canola meal would be a suitable local substitute. The purpose of this work is to obtain local feed quality data validation with local varieties, particularly for use in extension activities.
   c. Specific studies to determine whether trypsin or chymotrypsin inhibitors are a problem in new varieties, and how to remediate any such problem (by feed alterations, or by breeding for lower content).
   d. In collaboration with breeders, to select low phytate cultivars, so less phosphorus occurs in manure. These studies should be supplemented with agro-ecological modeling to determine the environmental value of reduced P in manure applied in cropping systems which involve heavy manure applications to fields.
   e. Studies of economic returns using triticale for all swine feeding situations, to determine relative merit vs other feedgrains, and to precipitate a reliable price discovery process for triticale.

1. Limiting levels of lysine and threonine in triticale grain (Gerry, 1975; Maurice et al, 1989)
2. Problematic diet formulations with triticale, including too high protein content and nitrates limiting feed intake, but also varying by genotype, location and environmental effects (Gatel et al, 1985)
3. Antinutritional factors not present in wheat and corn, including high acid detergent fiber (ADF), and cultivar specific (lowered) digestibility of specific amino acids (Johnson and Eason, 1988).
4. Pentosans (5C-polysaccharides, from the rye parent), with high water holding capacity and viscosity, causing poor digestibility, pasted vents and/or sticky feces, that need to be reduced (Boros, 1999; Maurice et al, 1989; Ruiz et al, 1987; Proudfoot and Hulan, 1988; Smith et al, 1989; Rakowska,1992).
5. Anti-nutritional factors such as trypsin inhibitor, alkyl resorcinols, or pectins (Smith etal, 1989). Rakowska et al (1992) indicated that resorcinols, that lead to lower palatability and feed intake, ranged from 400 to 600 mg/g in triticale (similar to wheat) but were from 900 to 2000 mg/g in rye. Trypsin inhibitor was at 0.6 to 1.6 in triticales, close to wheat, but was much higher in rye.
   

1. Assembly and/or reporting of specific proximate analysis data of modern W. Canadian triticale varieties for characteristics of importance in a monogastric feed, and to poultry in particular. Samples or data sets for this may be available from other triticale studies recently conducted in Alberta, in sources not normally accessed by poultry feeders. If these data are unavailable, trials should be conducted to acquire the samples and to conduct the assays. It is suspected that many of these data may already be in place in different research reports, or that data or suitable grain samples are being collected in current triticale research projects unrelated to poultry production interests.
2. The integrated grower / processor-miller / feeder’ poultry production operations of W. Canada referred to in the text should be identified, and those willing to cooperate and to conduct production facility level studies on feed value of triticale varieties, formulations and processing systems. The optimum approach would be to do this work with cooperators in all three prairie provinces, so that localized extension of results can be carried out, and replication of the studies in different facilities can be achieved prairie-wide. This research will also require localized grain production (variety specific) for the study, on which proximate analyses etc. can be conducted in collaborating research laboratories, and this activity will also serve to promote triticale prairie-wide. The concept is for multi-province funding of such a project, with the leadership for it being a partnership of AAFC (Federal) and AAFRD (Alberta), as the primary breeding agents in Canada for this crop. In Alberta terminology, this multi-facility trial would be an ‘on-farm demo’, the reasons for which are justifiable from the literature, but for which the W. Canadian adaptation studies have not yet been done. These studies should target broiler production as priority 1, and egg production as priority 2, based on the potential grain markets that could develop by replacing feed wheat. Results will be incorporated in extension materials about how to use triticale grain efficiently in poultry diets.
3. Basic scientific understanding of any negative aspects of triticale use for poultry is needed, and can only be obtained from studies conducted in specialized research facilities, such as those at the University of Alberta, or in Agassiz and Saskatoon. Continuing work of this type is essential in parallel to the ‘on-farm, production facility’ level research. These studies should continue, but will benefit from a greater focus on characterizing specific negative attributes in feeding, conducted at a variety specific level, once the studies above are completed. These studies will continue to be based on finding understanding of feeding processes using triticale, and how feeding difficulties can be remediated. The research group capabilities and facilities for doing this work in W. Canada are excellent, perhaps even better than those in other countries that already feed triticale to poultry on a commercial basis. As new scientific discovery occurs in these labs, the results can be publicized and used immediately in the production-facility studies, to validate the results, and to optimize the overall efficiency of feed use.

1. Triticale grain appears to be substitutable for barley grain in cattle feeder rations, without detriment
2. A technical level, detailed survey of feedlots using triticale grain should be conducted, to learn their method of use and to assess their success and/or problems using it, and returns
3. Extension materials should be developed, to publicize the value of triticale as a substitute for barley in feed rations, and how to use it
4. A basic research study should be conducted (low priority) to determine the extent, if any, of varietal differences in feed value for feedlot cattle. Differences would be expected to be small in this feeding situation. Any such studies should carry through to study of weight gain, and also include carcass and meat quality determinations.

1. The notably consistent and positive feature of triticale as a silage was its high nutritive value and high dry matter yield, compared to local conventional silage crops for which it could be substituted.
2. Studies of optimum physiological time to harvest triticale for silage generally concluded that the milk-ripe to mid-dough stage was optimal, as earlier harvest lowered yield, but later harvest allowed fiber content (especially lignin) to reach too high levels. Some differences in optimum harvest date were seen in different reports, and this appeared to be a topic which would require local adaptation trials to assess local variety differences, with product quality to be determined using studies where silage was fed from varied harvest dates, to determine optimum harvest management. As with other cereal silage, management should be such as to optimize water soluble carbohydrate levels, for good fermentation at a low pH. The specific harvest process also has to avoid problems with yeast, from liquid losses, and avoid anaerobic conditions, as well as achieving the lowest possible lignin content.
3. In studies from Brazil, Argentina and the USA, a number of desirable plant traits associated with good silage and grazing properties that were suggested were:
   a. Narrow to medium leaf width, and medium stem width.
   b. Abundant tillering, and a high frequency of fertile spikes.
   c. Good rates of re-growth after grazing.
   d. Avoidance of high lignin content, which in Argentina studies was associated with tall varieties, high leaf/stem ratios, and high sclerenchyma or epidermis content.

a. For poor soils, as forage, and in high altitude locations where wheat does poorly.
b. As a dairy farm forage source, where access to maize silage or grain is limited, or on acid soil fields (e.g. after potatoes) for soil conservation.

Yield, t ha-1 Protein, % IVDOM, % NDF, % Triticale 16.9 8.6 67.2 44.0 Barley 12.4 10.0 68.2 46.6 Oat 16.0 11.6 61.6 48.9 IVDOM = in vitro digestible organic matter;         NDF = neutral detergent fiber

Triticale/barley Steers Perennial grass Heifers Rainfall (mm) 264 274 Initiation July 1 May 29 Completion Oct.23 Sept.9 Grazing days 115 103 Stocking rate (animals/ha) 0.38 0.38 Daily gain (kg/day) 0.94 0.74 Total gain (kg/ha) 23.6 19.3

Diet Alfalfa Barley Oat Triticale SEM Dry matter intake      Kg/d 19.6a 18.6a 16.7b 17.2b 0.42      % of Body wt. 3.29a 3.12a 2.83b 2.90b 0.06 Milk, kg/d      Yield 31.6 31.5 30.1 30.2 0.51      4% FCM 29.1 27.7 27.3 26.6 0.78      Fat 1.10 1.01 1.01 0.97 0.05      Protein 0.95 0.96 0.90 0.94 0.02      Lactose 1.47 1.50 1.42 1.43 0.03 Milk composition, %      Fat 3.50 3.23 3.45 3.21 0.14      Protein 3.01b 3.07b 3.04b 3.14a 0.03      Lactose 4.67b 4.80a 4.76ab 4.75ab 0.03 Milk energy, Mcal/d 21.4 20.9 20.4 20.0 0.44 Gross efficiency     Kg of milk/kg of DMI 1.61c 1.69bc 1.80a 1.76ab 0.03 Body wt., kg 596 596 590 591 4.9 Body wt. Changes, g/d -264 74 473 464 301 Means in the same row with different letters differ (P<0.05)

	Biomass kg/mu		Milk Quality
			Protein %	Fat %	Lactose %
Triticale H1890	901.7	Triticale	3.14	3.38	4.67
Wheat FengKang No. 8	673.0	Corn	3.03	2.83	4.59
Rye AR132	661.0	Barley	3.05	3.30	4.60
Barley cuan	583.0

• ADF or acid detergent fibre is the fibrous, least digestible portion of roughage, consisting of cellulose and lignin
• Roughages high in ADF are lower in digestible energy than roughages that contain low levels of ADF
• Digestible energy (Mcal/kg) is a function of ADF
  
  

  ADF %	Quality
  <31	Excellent
  31 - 34	Very good
  34 - 39	Good
  39 - 41	Fair
  >41	Poor

1. Variety / genetic problem of plant material from triticale silage
2. Inadequate chopping, processing, packing of triticale silage
3. Custom harvesters unfamiliar with best harvesting methods for triticale silage
4. Optimum harvest date for triticale silage not yet known
5. Fiber content in silage too high
6. Other - specify ______________________________

1. Value in crop rotation, to break disease cycles and for diversification
2. Flexibility of use as a forage
3. Flexible timing of harvest, in different uses throughout the year
4. Significantly higher yields than barley silage
5. Nutritional value at least equal to barley, if cut early (milk stage)
6. Good straw strength under irrigation, compared to barley
7. Corn is the other alternative as a break crop for diseases, but has become unaffordable because of high input costs for chemicals, machinery, power for irrigation, and shortage of water to pump, plus harvest date too late in the fall (September snows interfere)
8. It requires less irrigation than corn
9. No special cropping equipment needed, compared to growing corn

1. Extra moisture in the silage crop at harvest can be problematic
2. Harvest window for optimal quality is fairly narrow. If window is missed, feed intake definitely drops
3. Triticale silage is harder to cut and requires more power
4. It requires more seed per acre (3 bushel/acre rate, vs 2 bu/acre rate for barley)

1. Nutritional aspects
2. Fibre content data
3. Localized data about optimum harvest date for the silage
4. Yield response to varied seeding dates
5. Relative merit of spring vs winter triticale for silage
6. Comparative data about variety differences for silage production

1. Conduct a W. Canadian survey of existing growers and users of triticale forage, to gather and determine the range of W. Canadian applications and experience in triticale silage processing and feeding, and a measure of the results obtained on animal productivity. The approach used should be similar to that of the barley grain production survey of many years back, so that responses can be analyzed sectorally, to identify common factors where the best results are obtained. Information and ‘best practise’ protocols thus identified would be entered in the proposed Triticale Manual, and also would be widely used in extension activities. The primary focus of the survey should be on silage use for feedlot applications, where the largest potential use likely lies.
2. New Canadian based technology transfer chapters should be written about triticale forage use, based on local results as far as possible, for use in publications and on the web. Current materials are either very insufficient or badly out of date.
3. Several new research projects should be initiated to determine (a) optimal harvest dates for silage production, balancing yield and quality, and (b) to find the best timing and ways to cut and process triticale silage to minimize any acceptability and intake problems, as sometimes reported to occur. These should focus on the tough straw problem, and studies of chop length etc., intake, and energy conversion in particular. These studies can be combined if a large project is planned. It would take 3-5 years to complete, and would be similar in nature to the project recently completed on barley silage. This work could be done at the University of Alberta, and would include linked analysis of field production data, processing data, feeding data, chemical composition of the forage, rumen analyses, in the herd milk productivity and composition, as well as milk sensory tests. Multi-year testing is necessary to estimate year effects on the quality of triticale silage. Comparisons to barley silage are essential, to estimate triticale silage value as a replacement. Cultivar studies could be included, but are of lower priority. A study of this kind was proposed by Progressive Seeds Ltd. in their 2000-2001 work plan, that would conduct research at 8 designated feedlots, and it was also indicated that these cooperators were interested in participating. ‘On-feedlot’ research would focus on answering the questions of high priority to those cooperators which were;
   1. For feedlot operators
      1. triticale standability on heavy manure
      2. silage yield vs barley
      3. palatability and quality
      4. ease of harvest
      5. lodging and eas of cutting
   2. For dairy operators
      1. quality (improved protein + low ADF)
      2. Triticale standability on heavy manure
      3. ease of harvest
      4. silage yield vs barley
         Data are available at Progressive Seeds Ltd. for 2000, and it is expected that this work will be continued, subject to funding.
4. AAFRD should continue its agronomic trials to expand and refine the methods by which triticale can be used (a) to extend the forage season and to provide high quality forage early in the season, (b) as a crop for highly manured lands, to remediate excessive nutrient loading and run-off problems, and (c) as a low input crop and rotational break crop in sustainable mixed farming systems, including effects on weed dynamics and control of barley diseases.
5. Results from recently completed (or ongoing) AARI triticale projects, or AAFRD or AAFC triticale forage research projects, should be summarized and posted on the Triticale website as results become available. There needs to be a sense of urgency about the importance of this new information as it is obtained, for immediate application to a potentially increasing triticale acreage. Current efforts are underway to extend the information, but are not enough. Website technology can be used to get faster, additional and wider exposure of the new information. The information must be presented pragmatically, without ‘over-hyping’ triticale prospects, as occurred in the past.
6. The major users of silage should be identified, and information packages should be sent to them directly, comparing performance of triticale silage with barley silage, or other silage they use. If crop displacement towards triticale is going to happen, it will require targeted technology transfer activities, events, and materials printed or electronic, to gain attention of potential users. ‘Lead adoptees’ of triticale should be used as speakers at extension functions on the topic, backed up by researchers with their newest local data, and the results from the user survey. The timing now is excellent to target this approach, when so many animal producers are having difficulty handling their manure problems, and feed and forage of any kind is in great demand.
7. The cattle and dairy industry should be lobbied to gain support for a Chair in Forage Harvesting and Processing Systems at the University of Alberta, that could work on numerous crops and applications, but that would have a primary focus on silage technology for Alberta (or W. Canada). No such position exists in W. Canada, to the author’s knowledge, which is a remarkable lack of investment in such a valuable commodity for the animal industry. This position, when established, would provide a focus for W. Canadian joint projects, integrating research at multiple sites and done by multiple agencies, including those already working on the beef/forage interface in Alberta. Work on triticale silage would be part of the program. The position should also be tied in with the proposed new ‘Feeds Institute’.
8. Results from prior AARI ‘On-farm triticale forage demos’ do not appear to be available readily for examination or review (e.g. AARI Projects 99NE05; 99E17; 99NW08, and others). Progressive Seeds has also completed an AARI Matching project examining triticale use on heavily manured land. Results from these studies should be reported immediately on the triticale website. It should be suggested to AARI that all annual and final reports to them by recipients of grants for triticale research and development be required to submit web ready material for placing immediately on the Triticale Homepage (to be established), as received. This would provide immediate access to the newest research information, not now possible.

1. Generally low protein content, low gluten strength and low sedimentation value compared to wheat.
2. Flour yield generally lower than that for wheat, but generally superior in complete triticales compared to substituted triticales.
3. Low bread volume when processed as 100% triticale flour, compared to wheat, and generally poor performance in most rheological (gluten strength) tests.
4. When used in blends with strong gluten wheat flour, from 25-35% up to 50% triticale, bread products obtained are very satisfactory. India, Poland and Brazil are already doing this commercially.
5. A higher Hagberg Falling Number value is desirable, as triticale remains very prone to pre-harvest sprouting, much more so than wheat.
6. Higher test weights would also be desirable, to improve both flour extract and value as feed.
7. 100% triticale flour is very satisfactory for products that do not require high gluten strength, such as cookies, biscuits, pastry, chapatis, cakes, and some noodle products. In these markets Canadian triticale would have to compete with the excellent quality attributes of the CPS wheat class, a class specially designed for these markets. Although triticale fits well in this market, it is not likely to compete well because of lack of a supply stream, excepting if special flavors are of consumer interest, as specialty triticale products. (Just at the completion of this review, the author noted that Weston Bakeries, Calgary, does include triticale as an ingredient in its 7-grain specialty bread. No other local food uses were found, in a quick survey of food outlets).
8. Extensive reports from India described numerous applications for 50% triticale flour mixed with 50% wheat flour in indigenous foods, (results from which might also offer insight into potential novel product applications in N. American specialty food markets). A lengthy list of Indian ethnic foods for which the 1:1 mix produced an excellent and tasty product included jamoor, kesaribath, porridge, makmal poori, samosas, uppittu, halwa, shankarpoli, poori, and 10 other ethnic food items. Malts from triticale were also judged as being very suitable for food use applications (being high in alpha-amylase and proteolytic activity). For these various uses it was recommended that new varieties be produced with harder kernels, an amber color (preferred to red in India), higher test weight, and lowered enzyme levels associated with pre-harvest sprouting. These positive attributes of triticale used in a 50:50 blend with wheat were reconfirmed in the 1998, Bakhshi et al report, which indicated very acceptable consumer response to triticale based Indian foods, including flavor improvement. These products included wholemeal atta, chapati, poori, paratha, and idli, matthi, mattar and samosa, halva, pinni and jalebi.
9. Other whole grain (non-flour) specialty uses of triticale that are commercialized in a small way are as specialty malt for micro-breweries, and as sweet green seed (in the USA for canning, as a novelty food).
10. Anderson et al (1976) presented a fairly complete review of the dry milling and wet milling characteristics of triticale, including their own findings, and concluded that ‘triticale grain can be dry milled readily into flour, which can be further milled and air classified into fractions with desirable physical and chemical properties. Starch and gluten can also be recovered from triticale grain or flour by conventional wet processing’.

• protein
• lipids
• ash
• starch (amount and type)
• B-glucan
• pentosans (high and low)
• soluble / insoluble fiber
• phenolics
• tocols (tocopherols and tocotrienols)

• viscosity
• foam properties
• emulsion stabilizing properties
• water binding capacity
• anti-oxidant properties
• extrusion properties (components)
• noodle, pasta, baked goods
• use in specialty products (nutrition bars, breads, pancakes)

	Triticale		Wheat		Rye
Dietary fibre, g/100g DM	14.5		11.0		15.5
Lignans - Seco = Secoisolariciresinol, mg/100mg DM	30.6		16.6		21.6
- Matair = Matairesinol, mg/100mg DM	11.1		18.6		30.2

1. The literature indicates a high level of suitability of triticale for a large number of uses outside the bread market, but these have not been confirmed with Canadian varieties. Research is therefore needed to examine their suitability for a wide range of potential flour-based products, in studies which also include taste panels, consumer preference trials and assessment, and discovery of true market potential. Such research can readily be done at the University of Alberta, Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science. If suitable specialty products can be determined (such as high fiber bars etc.) the potential for processed product export to the US market must also be investigated. A major impediment to development of this area now is the absence of a local triticale miller, and absence of a variety specific, IP-based, grain supply stream in W. Canada. Also, the influence of locational and yearly variability on grain quality for such a market must be determined through basic research.
2. The potential for value-added activity through fractionation and isolation of specific grain components from triticale grain, both for food and nutraceutical application, needs to be determined. Almost no information is available about these properties in new Canadian varieties. The current proposal to AARI to conduct this work should be supported, as this basic research work is needed before any future market potential can be assessed.
3. At a more detailed level, the following research topics have also been listed as urgent in priority, before food markets can be further developed. In the absence of this research, incorporation of triticale at the 50% rate appears feasible for most conventional wheat-based food products, although vital gluten supplementation may still be necessary for bread-based applications (as is the case for the 7-Grain Harvest Bread of Weston Bakeries).

a. Full rheological testing of flour samples of the newest Canadian triticale varieties grown at varied locations, to establish a reference quality database for the crop
b. Milling trials to determine milling yields, extraction rates and other milling parameters
c. Proximate analysis of samples, including determination of amino acid profiles, starch characteristics, mineral and vitamin content, in work cross-referenced with other projects establishing a feed quality data-base.
d. Analysis of, and determination of the extent of the ‘sticky dough’ problem in Canadian varieties. How big a problem is this in Canadian varieties?
e. Studies with locally grown grain, to determine if there is a special advantage of triticale to replace wheat use in very high fiber snack bars (Onwulata et al, 2000). This work could be conducted in the lab of Dr. Buncha Ooraikal (AFNS, University of Alberta), in collaboration with local snack bar producers. This would be an excellent, low cost project for the senior undergraduate course in product development at the University.

a. a market for the co-products
b. a distribution channel for the ethanol; and
c. existence of sufficient taxation or other incentives for ethanol to be able to compete with gasoline in the fuel market
(Cited from www.aceis.agr.ca/pfra/sidcpub/sidcft3.hom - no longer available at this URL)

		L per year	Commodity / use
Mohawk Oil, Canada Ltd.	Minnedosa, MB	10M	Wheat-based
Pound-Maker Agventures, Ltd.	Lanigan, SK	12M	Wheat-based + cattle
Commercial Alcohols, Inc.	Tiverton, ON	23M	Corn-based
Commercial Alcohols, Inc.	Chatham, ON	150M	Corn-based
API Grain Processors	Red Deer, AB	26M	Wheat based
Tembec	Temiscaming, QB	17M	Forestry-product base
Other potential plants planned (listed from website source)
Seaway Grain Processors, Inc.	Cornwall, ON	66M	Corn-based
Commercial Alcohols, Inc	Varennes, QB	150M	Corn-based
Commercial Alcohols, Inc	Chatham, ON	+150M	Corn-based
Metalore Resources Inc.		75M	Wheat-based

a. Ethanol (blended with 5% gasoline for non-food use)
b. Vital gluten
c. Bakery flour
d. Mill-run co-product, and ‘spillage’ from the ethanol process, for feed use

1. High starch level in the grain is desired, in a low priced grain. CPS wheat (especially AC Crystal in 2000) has proven to be a suitable, price-competitive source. Some problems are found in accessing enough CPS with high enough protein content in this class to meet the specifications of flour purchasers. Feed wheat is also attractive because of low price. A 12.8% protein minimum is desirable in purchased grain, to meet needs on the gluten extraction side. CPS wheats have proven satisfactory for all aspects of the processing procedures, although increasing price may present a problem in the future. Year round supply is essential, as the plant can process 230 t/day, approximately 84,000 t/year. CPS is also attractive because local growers obtain a high yield compared to CWRS wheat, and delivery contracts are readily signed in the region. The Canadian Wheat Board requires a minimum 25% of deliveries to API to be done through permits, and this is also possible for CPS deliveries by local growers.

2. For triticale to compete with CPS in this process several key questions would need to be answered. (The same questions would also be asked for winter wheat as a potential alternative grain source for ethanol processing).

a. How does triticale starch compete in ethanol productivity with CPS? The literature indicates the answer would be that triticale would be equal to or better than wheat, but no local data with local varieties and samples are available about this.

b. For a switch to complete triticale, which variety would be best, and could there be a year round supply to satisfy processing demand, with an attractive price and returns to growers? Available yield data suggest yields for triticale are higher than for CPS, and that price, although not well established, is lower than for CPS.

c. The product run performance of triticale in the API plant cannot be known in advance of an actual pilot scale run. However, sources have advised API that a perceived problem with ‘stickiness’ of triticale in processing equipment exists, and that triticale should not be used, especially in the milling process. Although there is literature that shows the dough stickiness of triticales elsewhere in the world can limit use in large scale baking process plants, it is not known that this is a problem for the newest Canadian varieties. Both Canadian triticale breeders believe that this is probably not a problem for Canadian varieties. However, only testing could resolve this important question with certainty. No Canadian research data exist on the topic.

d. The economics of ethanol production from grain is favorable when (a) energy prices are high, and (b) grain prices are low. At other times potentially low returns on the ethanol production side have to be balanced by enhanced prices for other products. The absence of a well established supply of triticale grain in W. Canada hinders ability to establish a reliable costing base for use in forecasting economic returns under various market price scenarios. It is unlikely that a processing plant would switch to a new grain in the absence of substantial background triticale production in the region, unless advantages in the processing itself, or in expected price, were great enough compared to wheat to merit commitment to contract production. Although triticale yield potential compared to CPS is excellent, the maturity of winter types is no earlier than CPS wheats, and the spring triticale varieties are later maturing, suggesting potentially increased production risk. If the maturity issue can be handled, adapted local acreage at least as large as that now contracted to CPS by API should be readily achievable within an affordable delivery radius, based on agronomic considerations already known for the region of C. Alberta.

e. Currently most of the ethanol produced at API is exported to the USA, where most potential expansion for energy ethanol sales probably exists. In Canada, ethanol enhanced gasoline (e.g. as sold by Mohawk) is only available in premium gas grades, which in today’s high gas price scenario are not at all promising as an expanding market. Thus, since API is not engineered or certified for human ethanol production, future expansion of the ethanol market for API in Canada would be dependent on a radical shift in government policy and action that recognizes the environmentalist lobby to clean up automobile fuels, similar to current developments in California. Unfortunately, despite the sale of many vehicles in Canada that can already or could be fitted to meet the ‘E85’ specification for burning ethanol in car engines (meaning the engine could use an 85% ethanol fuel), there appears to be no local, provincial or federal interest or incentive to move in this direction, or to offer this source of fuel more widely. Other Canadian ethanol plants face a similar market constraint in Canada, suggesting that the market will be primarily an export one in the foreseeable future, in competition with US-based ethanol processed from US corn.

1. Processing properties of triticale for ethanol at a plant scale at API are not known, compared to grains currently used. Equivalence or superiority of triticale vs CPS needs to be researched at the plant scale.
2. Triticale grain supply for ethanol production is not in place. Could adequate sustainable supply be profitably grown within a suitable delivery radius of the plant? Agronomic information to answer this question may already be in place for Alberta, as AAFRD has just completed a major long-term study on triticale productivity compared to other grains. However, this study does not consider ethanol productivity as one of its market prospects.
3. In the absence of a reliable supply, price competitiveness of triticale is not known.
4. The economics and demand side for ethanol processing in the future is not known, as this is an industry still in its infancy compared to other energy sources. Its’ future will be dependent on provincial, federal and international policies in energy, agriculture and the environment, that will affect energy and grain prices alike. It should be noted, however, that the USA is investing heavily in bio-fuel research, as it views this area to be one of national security, because of future concern about US sources of energy and the desire to develop cleaner burning fuels. If the consolidated US demand for bio-fuel continues to develop, the prospects for Canadian bio-fuel provision in that market will obviously improve, thus expanding market opportunity. It would seem prudent to determine which cereals would be the optimum ones for use as feedstock in an expanding market.
5. Existing Canadian triticale varieties probably differ in their efficiency as an ethanol extraction source, but little information is available on these differences at this time, except that next described in this report. Even basic research on this topic is minimal for modern Canadian varieties produced under Canadian conditions. It is also not known whether the extent of genetic differences available would merit specific breeding goals to produce varieties especially suited to the ethanol processing market. Additional laboratory level research on the extent of any such differences in the most recent Canadian varieties is immediately desirable.

	NDF	ADF	HEMI	CELL	ASH	LIG	PROT	OMD
Triticale	76.8	49.7	27.0	40.6	8.8	3.4	3.8	43.3
Wheat	78.4	52.1	26.7	42.3	9.5	3.0	4.1	40.6

1. Conduct a plant scale run (or several with different varieties) at API using triticale, to determine the processing parameters, productivity and economics when substituting triticale for CPS wheat. This is rated as a very high priority value-added project, because of the impact that favorable results would have on ethanol processing and on crop diversification in the central Alberta region. The cost of this project should include project insurance for downtime, cleanouts or other losses that could occur because of the project. Dialogue should be immediately opened between the Alberta Government, API and other interested parties, to determine the enablement of this pilot run.

1. Laboratory based research to compare the functional, rheological properties of vital triticale gluten with that of vital wheat gluten, compared to local CPS and CWRS wheat varieties. Will it compete with or could it replace wheat gluten, or can it develop its own niche market? Both scenarios seem unlikely, but without research this conclusion cannot be confirmed.
2. Plant scale run(s) to determine if the perceived but as yet unmeasured ‘dough stickiness’ problem for triticale in processing really is a problem for modern Canadian varieties, in a plant such as that at API.
3. Market analysis is needed to determine if extracted triticale gluten would be an acceptable product in the primary markets that now use wheat gluten, blended or otherwise. Can triticale gluten be satisfactorily blended with wheat gluten without detriment
4. If gluten / protein by-product from ethanol extraction with triticale is unsuitable for a gluten market, what are the nutritional and economical prospects for diverting this product into the feed processing stream?

1. Laboratory level analysis of CPS and triticale varieties grown at common sites in W. Canada, for protein content, milling, baking and rheological properties, and for use in specialty food products, this being work that has been completed in other parts of the world, with favorable results. Samples from at least two years of production should be tested, drawn from a range of eco-agricultural production zones in W. Canada.
2. Data should be collected from a full-scale pilot run of triticale grain through the API or equivalent milling plant, followed by a baking test run of the flour product suitability for the very large hamburger bun market, in particular. Special attention should be paid to determining whether the ‘stickiness’ problem is real or not in this market application.
3. Economic and market acceptance studies of triticale flour for baked products of various kinds, including taste panel assessments, for which the University of Alberta research facilities and others in the province are well equipped. This work should especially emphasize the effect of the ‘nutty’ flavor of triticale reported in similar studies in other parts of the world.
4. Product development research to determine the possibility of marketing novel baked goods or other novel or ethnic foods that exploit the ‘nutty’ flavor of triticale, separate from the wheat flour market.
5. A review (if not already completed) of agronomic performance of triticale for grain compared to CPS wheat in the Parkland zone (within the 80 mile radius from Red Deer, for example), to determine comparative yield potential, production risk, expected grade patterns, protein levels and potential economic return for producers.

Other Documents in the Series