WHEAT&CLASSIFICATION&GUIDELINESwheatquality.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Wheat...Version(October(2015(8(5. CLASSES AVAILABLE ((5.1 The availability of Classes is determined at

Version October 2015 1

WHEAT CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES

VERSION: OCTOBER 2015


TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 4

2. THE OBJECTIVES OF CLASSIFICATION 5

3. THE CLASSIFICATION PROCESS 5

4. CLASSIFICATION ZONES 7

5. CLASSES AVAILABLE 8

6. CLASSIFICATION STAGES 8

7. APPLICATION FOR CLASSIFICATION 10

8. GENERATION OF DATA 10

9. LABORATORY PROFICIENCY PROGRAM 12

10. VARIETY CLASSIFICATION PANEL 14

11. REPORTING OF OUTCOMES 15

12. APPEAL OF CLASSIFICATION DECISIONS AND ARBITRATION 15 13. GLOSSARY 17


PREAMBLE

Wheat Quality Australia (the Company) is a not for profit company limited by guarantee, that is owned by Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) and Grain Trade Australia (GTA). It was established to be responsible for wheat variety classification and related activities from 1 January 2011. The objective of Wheat Quality Australia is to ensure that the quality of the Classes of wheat available in Australia, now and in the future, meet the processing and end product requirements of key markets. Wheat Quality Australia will deliver on this objective primarily through the activities of the Wheat Classification Council (Council) and Variety Classification Panel (Panel).

The Council is responsible for establishing and maintaining the wheat variety classification system in Australia. This responsibility includes the strategic and operational framework for classification as well as defining the common Classes of Australian wheat and their quality attributes. The Council is composed of nominees from industry that provide funding to the Company as well as wheat breeding companies that use the classification service.

The Panel is responsible for assessing quality data of new varieties against the technical requirements of the Classes of Australian wheat according to the policies and procedures currently determined by the Council and approved by the Company in the Wheat Classification Guidelines. The Panel is to faithfully apply the requirements and processes set out by the Company in the classification of new wheat varieties; provide explanation of the decisions they reach relative to those requirements and processes and to identify potential changes to the requirements and processes and report these to the Company. Panel is composed of technical experts commissioned by the Company; it reports to and is convened by, the Company. To ensure the open exchange of views between all of the participating bodies, the Panel and Council members meet on a regular basis. Furthermore, WQA, the Wheat Variety Classification Panel and Wheat Classification Council have adopted a culture of ensuring that any statements associated with quality of varieties, Classes and Grades is defensible with evidence, and to be proactive in checking statements about quality against evidence and if need be refuting them openly.


THE GUIDELINES

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 These Guidelines including attachments, constitute the Company’s guidelines with respect to the Classification of varieties of wheat. Unless indicated otherwise (by the use of inverted commas), terms starting with a capital letter within these Guidelines are defined in the Glossary in section 13. Breeding Organisations using the classification service should read the Guidelines in conjunction with their Services Agreement with the Company.

1.2 The broad purpose of the Guidelines is to provide industry participants with

information and guidance in relation to:

a. the objectives of wheat Classification;

b. the process for wheat Classification;

c. the quality data and additional information that must be provided by Breeding Organisations to support an application for Classification of a variety of wheat;

d. the process to be followed by Breeding Organisations when submitting an

Application for Classification of a wheat variety;

e. the classes available for classification and the quality requirements of the classes

f. the objectives and grounds for reviewing the Classification of a wheat variety;

g. the process for varying the Classification of a wheat variety;

h. the quality data and additional information that must be provided to support an Application for a variation to the classification of a wheat variety; and

i. the process to be followed when submitting an Application to vary the

Classification of a wheat variety.

1.3 The Guidelines do not, and are not intended to exhaustively address all issues that may arise in respect of Classification. The Guidelines seek to address issues considered to be of central importance to Industry Participants. The Guidelines will be reviewed periodically, at which time feedback will be sought from Industry Participants as required. However, industry participants are invited to make submissions for change to the Guidelines at any time via the submissions template on the Company website. Elements of the Guidelines may be altered from time to time as required, and amendments (incorporated in the current version of the Guidelines) will be published on the Company website at www.wheatquality.com.au Industry Participants may also seek clarification and additional information from the Company at any time.


2. THE OBJECTIVES OF CLASSIFICATION

2.1 Classification of wheat is the categorisation of a variety of wheat into a “Wheat Class”.

A Wheat Class is awarded to a product based on its processing and end-use qualities. Quality requirements of a Wheat Class may change from time to time in response to market requirements.

2.2 The Classification Process i s p a r t o f a p r o c e s s t h a t aims to deliver

grain of consistent physical quality, processing performance and end-product quality to customers and end-users and thus increases the marketability of Australian wheat.

2.3 Reclassification of a variety of wheat involves similar considerations of marketability.

2.4 It is understood that the process of Classification and the outcome of Classification do not dictate the release or distribution of varieties to growers. Control of and responsibility for the release and sale of varieties to growers sits with the Breeding Organisation with whom proprietary rights reside. Industry, through the Classification process, does not compel nor prevent the release of any variety. However, varieties that have not gone through the Classification Process may not be represented to growers or buyers as belonging to one of the recognised Classes other than FEED.

3. THE CLASSIFICATION PROCESS

3.1 Classification of a new variety of wheat is a complex task involving an evaluation of the quality of a variety, within a defined geographic area, over several years of production. Classification decisions are made by the Variety Classification Panel (Panel) and involve a series of defined, sequential stages. The Classification Process is summarised in Figure 1.

3.2 The overall quality of a wheat variety, its physical and chemical composition and

resultant performance in processing and end-products, is the result of plant genetics, the environment and the interaction between the genotype and environment (GXE). Consequently, grain quality is influenced not only by the genetic make-up of the relevant variety, but by the geographic area in which it is produced, and the environmental and seasonal conditions that prevail. The Classification Process attempts to take into account genetic and environmental and GXE interaction effects

3.3 Classification decisions for each Candidate Variety of wheat are made on the basis of

quality data (including grain quality, milling quality, dough rheology and performance in end products) that are collected from breeding trials on a seasonal (over a minimum of three seasons) and regional (relating to a defined region of production – a Classification Zone) basis. Other information (such as agronomic or pedigree information) may be submitted to support Applications at the discretion of the Breeding Organisation.

3.4 For a Candidate Variety to be considered at any stage in the Classification process, the relevant Breeding Organisation must submit the required data and information to the Company, on the Application for Classification form that is included in Attachment 4, and in accordance with these Guidelines.


Figure 1: Schematic Representation of the Classification Process

Application by the Applicant

Data Insufficient

Analysis of application

Data sufficient

Panel Discussion on submitted analysis and

Data

Classification Decision Process

Year 1 Data Zone 1

Plus Year 2 Data Zone1

Preliminary Classification – optional

Year 3 Data* (Zone 2)

Plus Year 3 Data Zone 1

Final Primary Classification

Default Out of Zone Class’n

Final Out of Zone Class’n

Reclassification

* more than one season maybe required - refer to section 3 for details


4. CLASSIFICATION ZONES

4.1 Classification Decisions apply to wheat grown in specified geographic areas referred to as Classification Zones.

4.2 Classification Zones define the geographic regions in which agronomic trials e x p e r im e n ts must be established to generate the data samples for quality analyses that provides the data and information required for the Classification Process. Trials E x p e r i m e n t s for a Candidate Wheat Variety can be conducted in a range of Classification Zones. However Classification decisions will be made with respect to data and information on a Zone by Zone basis.

4.3 The current Classification Zones are:

1. Northern Classification Zone, including:

§ Queensland – defined by the state boundaries of Queensland

§ Northern NSW – defined by the Queensland/NSW boundary and the area

north of the Central NSW Zone

§ Central NSW – defined by the region containing the receival sites Albert, Alectown, Bogan Gate, Condobolin, Euabolong West, Gobondery, Gunningbland, Kadungle, Kiacatoo, Mickibri, Ootha, Parkes, Peak Hill, Tomingley, Tottenham, Trundle, Tullamore, Wyanga, Yarrabandi, Yeoval and Yethera

2. South Eastern Classification Zone – defined by the Victoria/NSW state boundary

and the area south of the Central NSW sites listed above

3. Southern Classification Zone, including:

§ Victoria – defined by the state boundaries of Victoria

§ South Australia – defined by the state boundaries of South Australia

4. Western Classification Zone – defined by the state boundaries of Western Australia

4.4 Primary and Out-of-Zone Classification Zones - Classification Decisions are reached by reference to a “Primary” Classification Zone or an “Out-of-Zone” Classification Zone.

a. A “Primary” Classification Zone is the geographic zone from which the first

Complete Data Set (see Attachment 2) has been generated and on the basis of which the first Final Classification Decision can be made.

b. An “Out-of-Zone” Classification Zone is any region other than the “Primary”

Classification Zone.


5. CLASSES AVAILABLE

5.1 The availability of Classes is determined at the discretion of the Company. The Classes

currently available for Classification and the Zones they are available for are listed in Table 5.1 below.

5.2 The Classes available may vary over time with the result that affected varieties will automatically be classified into the next available, lower Class. If requested by the Breeding Organisation, a review of the Classification of the affected varieties of wheat may be undertaken. This will require the Breeding Organisation to submit an application for Final Classification as per normal processes.

5.3 Availability of Classes for Classification does not guarantee segregation of these

Classes by storage providers in any Zone or at any receival site.

Table 5.1: Classes of Wheat currently available for Classification by Zone

Wheat Class Classification Zone Australian Prime Hard (APH) Northern & South Eastern Australian Hard (AH) All Zones Australian Premium White (APW) All Zones Australian Standard White (ASW) All Zones Australian Premium Durum (ADR) All Zones Australian Soft (ASFT) All Zones Australian Standard Noodle (ANW) All Zones Australian Premium Noodle (APWN) Western Australian Feed (FEED) All Zones

6. CLASSIFICATION STAGES

6.1 Classification can occur in two stages – the feedback stage and the final decision. The Feedback stage is in the form of a Preliminary Classification. This is an optional stage of the Classification process. The final decision is in the form of a Final Classification in the Primary Zone and an Out-of-Zone Classification. The Out-of-Zone Classification may be a default based on no data in the Zone or a Final based on data for the Zone.

6.2 The Feedback Stage

a. The Feedback Stage comprises of a Preliminary Classification (based upon a

minimum of ‘Year 1 plus Year 2 Data’). Full data requirements are set out in Attachment 2 of these Guidelines. It commences upon the receipt of an Application for Classification form.

b. The Feedback Stage serves to provide early feedback to the Breeding

Organisation regarding the quality and the potential Class of relevant wheat variety. Comments made at the Feedback Stage are an indication only and should not be taken as a representation, or a guarantee, of the likely Final Classification of that Candidate Variety.


c. Use of information provided during the Feedback stage is covered in the Services Agreement between the Company and the Breeding Organisation. This sets out strict provisions limiting the use of Preliminary Classifications and other Feedback, by Breeding Companies and related parties. Careful consideration of these provisions is required before any use of the Preliminary Classifications.

6.3 The Classification Decision Stage

a. The Classification Decision Stage commences following receipt of a further

Application for Classification (defined in Attachment 2 and section 4), and usually concludes with a Final Classification. A Final Classification is usually made three years after the commencement of the process. However, the information and data requirement is the determining factor – not length of time. A Final Classification will be based upon a minimum data and information requirement of ‘Year 1 plus Year 2 plus Year 3 Data’ from a single Classification Zone (the Primary zone). Thus, a Final Classification can be awarded once that data has been generated and without first having a Preliminary Classification. Full data requirements are set out in Attachment 2 to these Guidelines.

b. Final Classification, subject to 6.3.j below, is the outcome of a complete

Classification Process in the form of a Class. This Class determines the Grade or Grades into which a variety of wheat can be delivered by growers based on, and subject to, Wheat Receival Standards.

c. A Final Classification comprises of a Primary Final Classification.

d. A Primary Final Classification is determined for a Candidate Variety in a

Classification Zone where the Complete Data Set and information is first presented to the Panel for decision (see section 4 and Attachment 2). In such circumstances, the relevant Classification Zone (to which the Complete Data Set relates) will be the “Primary Classification Zone”.

e. Final Out-of-Zone Classification can be awarded to a Candidate Variety that has

already received a Primary Final Classification and where Supplementary Data has been provided by the Industry Participant for another Classification Zone as set out in Attachment 2.

f. Final Classifications of named Varieties are recorded in the Variety Master List. Varieties not recorded on the Master List can only be received as FEED according to the Wheat Receival Standards.

g. A variety may be Reclassified at any time at the request of the Breeding Company.

This is achieved by submitting existing data along with any new data via the Application process.

h. A Final Classification is valid for a period of ten (10) years from the time that the

Variety first receives a Final Classification. After ten years the Variety must be either Reclassified or removed from the Variety Master List if it does not meet quality specifications.

i. A Variety will be Reclassified if it is still in is still in production above 0.1% by Zone or if requested by industry to be retained. Where the variety is reclassified the new Final Classification will be valid for a period of two (2) years. The process of Reclassification will continue until the Variety is below the production limit and is not requested to be retained by industry.

ii. A Variety will be removed from the Master List if its production is below 0.1% by Zone in all Zones and is not requested by industry to be retained.


7. APPLICATION FOR CLASSIFICATION

7.1 An “Application for Classification” must be submitted to the Company for every classification decision required for each Candidate Variety. This application form is to be completed on the website –http://www.wheatquality.com.au/info/wheatqualityaustralia/classificationservices The statutory declaration contained in Attachment 4 is to be completed and submitted with each Application for Classification.

7.2 Only the person or organisation holding proprietary rights in a variety may submit an

Application for Classification except where reclassification is required due to expiration of the previous Classification. In this instance the Company may collect and test samples and submit an Application for Classification of the Variety.

7.3 The Company will not submit to the Panel an application for a Final Classification if the

data and information provided do not meet the minimum criteria outlined in these Guidelines.

7.4 All data and information must be provided in the format required by the Company along with the completed “Application for Classification” form prior to the cut off for submission. The cut off for submission for each Panel sitting is posted on the website.

7.5 The “Application for Classification” may include a nominated Target Classification which the Candidate Variety is intended to achieve. This Target Classification will be one of the Classes available for Classification.

8. GENERATION OF DATA

8.1 For each Classification stage the data and testing requirements are set out in

Attachment 2 for the Candidate Variety and the appropriate Control Varieties.

8.2 All data for a Candidate Variety must be accompanied by data for appropriate Control Varieties for the Target Grade generated from the same trials and in the same manner as data for the Candidate Variety. Attachment 5 sets out the appropriate Control Varieties, by Target Classification and Zone.

8.3 When changes are made to the Control Varieties for any Classification Zone, the Company will notify Industry Participants of the changes via these Guidelines. Changes will take effect for the growing season immediately following notification. New Control Varieties will be phased in over the three year period of the Classification Process and in the interim period data already generated using existing controls will be considered by the Panel.


8.4 Data submitted in support of an Application for Classification must:

a. be produced by a laboratory actively participating in the Laboratory Proficiency Program and producing acceptable results (see section 9);

b. be generated from samples drawn from experiments (established to evaluate

agronomic performance and yield according to the “ACAS Guidelines”), and the samples from which data are derived must be prepared according to Attachment 6 which is a modification of the “ACAS Guidelines”;

c. be generated for the Candidate Variety and appropriate Control Varieties for the

Target Classification (see Attachment 5)

d. include data for appropriate Control Varieties that are derived from samples drawn from the same trials and prepared in the same manner as those for the Candidate Variety; and

e. meet the basic wheat quality requirements set out in Attachment 6.

8.5 In order to ensure the veracity and accuracy of the data and information upon which Classification Decisions are made, the Company will require each Industry Participant submitting such data to complete a statutory declaration in the Application for Classification form set out in Attachment 4 of the Guidelines. A person who intentionally makes a false statement in a statutory declaration under the Statutory Declarations Act 1959 is guilty of an offence, and may be fined, or jailed, or both.

8.6 The Panel may also seek additional supporting data from Breeding Organisations relating to genetic background and agronomic performance, for any Candidate Variety submitted for Classification. There is no obligation on the Breeding Organisation to provide this information.

8.7 The Company reserves the right to:

a. review source documents and audit test data in relation to an Application for Classification of a variety of wheat; and

b. obtain original test results provided with an Application for Classification directly from

the relevant laboratory;

c. obtain samples and data and/or generate samples and data of Candidate Varieties after they have received a Final Classification. These samples may be sought from the Breeding Organisation or other sources.

8.8 Test laboratories should retain records for 5 years.

8.9 The minimum data required for a Final Classification in a Zone are:

a. 3 years’ (seasons) and 5 sites/composites for 2015, then 6 sites/composites from 2016, of data for physical grain quality, milling performance and flour and dough property assessment. A minimum set of 3 sites/composite/seasons (one in each year) may be assessed by the Panel and classification possible if those sites/composites perform consistently and are the complete data set.

b. The minimum number of sites/composites in one year is one with the total made up of any combination above this e.g. 1 in year 1, 2 in year 3, 3 in year 3 etc. for an optimum of six.

c. 2 distinct induction event data for LMA laboratory based screening.


d. 2 years’ (seasons) and 3 sites/composites worth of end product quality assessment.

e. The minimum number of sites/composites in one year is one with the total made up of any combination above this eg 1 in year 2, 2 in year 3.

9. LABORATORY PROFICIENCY PROGRAM

9.1 Data for Classification must be produced from laboratories that actively participate in the laboratory proficiency program and produce results with levels of accuracy acceptable to the Company.

9.2 There are two rounds of the proficiency program annually. Active involvement in the

laboratory proficiency program is defined as production of results for the last two consecutive rounds of testing.

9.3 The criteria and the means by which the Company determines acceptable levels of accuracy are set out in Attachment 3. The proficiency program is used to monitor the consistency of data and performance of laboratories wishing to provide data for Classification. Where levels of accuracy of a laboratory participating in the program are not acceptable, Classification Data will be examined to determine whether or not this has translated into inaccurate and unacceptable data for Classification.

9.4 NOTE that all Breeding Organisations should assess all data for Classification before

submission for typographical errors and inaccuracies that potentially affect the utility of the data for the purpose of Classification.

9.5 The Company will, from time to time, post to its website a list of laboratories that are involved in the Industry laboratory Proficiency-testing program. This does not constitute a recommendation of any of the laboratories.

9.6 The Company’s determination of acceptable laboratory results is based solely on the Company’s own use of data. This in no way implies or guarantees that all data from a laboratory will be without error, nor does it imply or guarantee the suitability of this data for the purposes of any other party. All Industry Participants must individually ascertain the accuracy and acceptability of results from any laboratory they intend to use for any purpose, including Classification.

9.7 Laboratories involved in the proficiency program for end-product evaluation are listed in Table 9.1. This may change from time to time.


Table 9.1: Summary of laboratories where end product evaluation can be conducted for Classification

End product Test Laboratories Measurements Required Yellow Alkaline Noodles

DPI Horsham LRC Toowoomba Agrifood Technology AGT Adelaide Weston Technologies Laucke Flour GrainGrowers Graincorp AGT Narrabri Intergrain DPI Wagga Wagga AEGIC

Fresh Noodle sheet colour at 2hr - b*, L*,a*, & 24hr - b*, L*, a* Cooked Noodle sheet colour - b*, L*,a*, Texture

Udon Noodle* Udon Noodle Sensory* *To be completed on 60% extraction flour

Grain Growers Limited, Agrifood Technology Pty Ltd, DPINSW, DPIVic AEGIC & GrainGrowers

Fresh Noodle sheet colour at 2hr - b*, L*,a*, & 24hr - b*, L*, a* Cooked Noodle sheet colour - b*, L*,a*, Texture

Japanese sensory method - appearance and texture

White Salted Noodles DPI Horsham LRC Toowoomba Agrifood Technology AGT Adelaide Weston Technologies Laucke Flour GrainGrowers Graincorp AGT Narrabri Intergrain DPI Wagga Wagga AEGIC

Fresh Noodle sheet colour at 2hr - b*, L*,a*, & 24hr - b*, L*, a* Cooked Noodle sheet colour - b*, L*,a* Texture

Bread Baking DPI Horsham LRC Toowoomba Agrifood Technology AGT Adelaide Weston Technologies Laucke Flour GrainGrowers Graincorp AGT Narrabri Intergrain DPI Wagga Wagga AEGIC

Loaf volume, crumb colour, appearance and texture scores

Biscuits Arnott’s, NSW DPI, Grain Growers Limited, AEGIC, Agrifood Technology Pty Ltd.

Spread ratio, cracking


Pasta NSW DPI, Tamworth, Agrifood Technology Pty Ltd.

Dry Spaghetti colour (Minolta L* a* and b*) Cooked Spaghetti Colour (Minolta L* a* and b*) Optimum Cooking Time (OCT) Texture

10. VARIETY CLASSIFICATION PANEL

10.1 The Panel is composed of technical experts selected by the Company. The composition of the Panel, and identity of the members, may change from time to time as required. For succession planning purposes, the Company has agreed that a young/less-experienced/trainee cereal chemist be seconded as an observer for a period of not more than three years. The trainee should participate in discussions but should not be entitled to vote.

10.2 The Panel will sit throughout the year on dates determined by the Company

and posted on the website along with submission cut off dates. The Panel may convene at other times, in other ways, to address extraordinary requirements. These dates will be advised to affected parties as appropriate.

10.3 Classification decision making process and specifically the assessment of quality requirements involves the application of expert or experience-based judgment. Eg analysing and understanding the interaction of different parameters and assessing appropriate end-uses for varieties of wheat. Given the subjective nature of some of the required assessments, the Panel is composed of technical experts capable of making these determinations.

10.4 Notwithstanding that all decisions require some level of judgment to be exercised by the Panel, all Candidate Varieties will be assessed:

a. According to the Target Classification nominated by the Breeding Organisation; b. In comparison with appropriate Control Varieties for the relevant Classification

Zone and Target Classification (Attachment 5);

c. By reference to the “Wheat Class Quality Requirements”, set out as Attachment 1 to these Guidelines and available on the Company website.

10.5 Following individual assessment by Panel members and group discussion, all Panel

decisions should generally be reached through consensus. However in the event that the Panel cannot achieve consensus on the classification of a line, the Convenor will take a vote and the Panel will award the Classification upon which a substantial majority of Panel members can agree.

10.6 A substantial majority amongst a 5-person panel is defined as at least 4 in favour of a

particular grade.

10.7 Whilst experience shows that a 3:2 majority is a very rare occurrence it indicates broad disagreement among Panel members and is effectively a non-decision. Under these circumstances additional samples or relevant data (or both) will be requested from the Breeding Organisation. This may, in some circumstances, require a further season of trials. Where the Panel becomes aware of the need for additional samples or data (or both), the Company will immediately communicate this fact, and any further appropriate steps, to the Breeding Organisation in writing.


11. REPORTING OF OUTCOMES

11.1 All Classification Decisions and Feedback will be formally notified by the Company to the relevant Breeding Organisation verbally after the relevant Panel sitting date. Such notifications will be confirmed in writing.

11.2 The Company will produce a Certificate of Classification and a detailed Classification

report for all classification decisions. The format of this written material is set out in the Services Agreement between the Company the Breeding Organisation.

11.3 Final Classification decisions of named varieties will be recorded in the Variety

Master List which is posted on the website. In order for a variety to appear on the Master List the Breeding Organisation must advise the Company when it is named and released and when changes to its classification occur. Notifications received before the 31st July each year will take effect for the harvest of that year. Notifications received after the 31st July will take effect for the harvest of the following year.

11.4 Regular interaction between the Variety Classification Panel and Breeding

Organisations is required to ensure open communication and that the matters outlined above are addressed. While an open forum is a transparent and efficient way to meet with breeding programs to discuss issues because there will be some sensitivities involved, it is recommended that at least one member of the Variety Classification Panel needs to meet with each program that submits lines individually after each assessment.

12. APPEAL OF CLASSIFICATION DECISIONS AND ARBITRATION

12.1 If a Breeding Organisation is dissatisfied with a Final Classification decision a series of options exist to resolve matters. These are detailed in the Services Agreement between the Company and the Breeding Organisation. The steps for resolution are outlined here –

a. Contact the Company to detail concerns and seek further discussion/explanation

from Panel

b. Contact the Company to commence the Appeal process as outlined in the Services Agreement

c. Commence Arbitration via the process outlined in the Services Agreement


f. tested

specifications

No

Is it possible classify at alternate

g. Is

that

Figure 2: Classification Decision Process – flow diagram

Objective analysis of trial data Classification evaluation Outcome

Feedback to a. Application Form providing target grade and region plus required quality data.

b. Technical evaluation by Panel of current season and previous season/s (where applicable) data

c. Assessment of overall balance of quality attributes, within and between seasons

Limitations of data submitted identified and discussed

No

Yes Alternate grade (hypothesis) proposed

Breeder

– Preliminary Classification of assessed per steps 2e – g below (where applicable)

- Data inadequacies & additional data required for Classification decision

No Notification to

Breeder

- Classification decision cannot be given

d. Data set adequate for making a Classification decision?

Yes

e. Hypothetical classification grade proposed by chair

Notification to Breeder - Final Classification

Page 15


13. GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Applicant: Person or organisation holding proprietary rights in a variety to be, or that has been, Classified.

Application: Formal submission of information and data for the classification of a

variety.

Breeding Organisation: Person or organisation holding proprietary rights in Australia for a variety to be, or that has been, Classified.

Candidate Variety: A wheat variety for which an application is provided to WQA for

consideration in the Classification Process.

Class: The broad categories of Australian wheat described with reference to such things as seed coat colour (white), grain hardness (hard or soft) end-use (noodle), species (durum), and overall rating (prime, premium, standard). The recognised classes of Australian wheat are Australian Prime Hard (APH), Australian Hard (AH), Australian Premium White (APW), Australian Premium White Noodle (APWN), Australian Standard White (ASW), Australian Premium White T (APWT), Australian Standard White Noodle (ANW), Australian Soft (ASFT), and Australian Durum (ADR).

Classification: (n) The Class into which a Variety can be received.

(v) act of determining the Class into which a Variety can be received

Classification Decision: Determination by the Panel of the Class into which a Variety can be

received.

Classification Decision Stage:

Point in the Classification Process at which a Final Classification can be made. See section 3.6.

Classification Process: The process undertaken by WQA to classify wheat varieties, as set out in

these Guidelines.

Classification Records: All data and information compiled during the Classification Process and written records of Panel feedback and decisions.

Classification Zone: Region to which a Classification Decision is referenced and for which the

decision is related.

Company: Wheat Quality Australia Limited ACN 147 439 656

Complete Data Set: See Attachment 2.

Control Varieties: Varieties against which Candidate Varieties are compared in order to assess the relative quality of the Candidate Variety within a Classification Zone.

Council (Wheat Classification Council):

Committee of the Board of Wheat Quality Australia responsible for design, implementation and operation of the system of wheat classification in Australia.

Default Out-of-Zone Automatic Class assigned to a variety in all other Zones upon


Classification: achievement of a Primary Final Classification (note that this system is no longer on use as of 2014),

Feedback Stage: Point in the Classification Process at which a Preliminary Classification is

provided by way of guidance for the Breeding Organisation.

Final Classification: The Wheat Grade awarded to a Candidate Variety that dictates the Grades into which the variety can be received, subject to Wheat Receival Standards. See section 3.6.

Grade: The bin or segregation into which a delivery or parcel of wheat is

delivered and stored. Grade is determined by assessment of receival standards on a sample of the wheat parcel – this includes declaration of variety classification, test weight, screenings, protein etc.

Grower/s: Companies or individual/s delivering at least 33 1/3 metric tonnes of

wheat annually.

Guidelines: The requirements, processes and information contained in this document and attachments.

GXE: Genotype by environment interaction (see section 3).

Industry Participants: Wheat Breeding Organisations and associated Seed Commercialisers.

Laboratory Proficiency Criteria:

Detailed in Attachment 3.

LMA: Late Maturity Alpha Amylase.

Out-of-Zone Classification:

See section 3.2.2

Panel: The Variety Classification Panel - see section 5.

Preliminary Classification:

Technical assessment provided as feedback to the Breeding Organisation based on Year 1 and Year 2 data, as outlined in section 3.2.1

Primary Final Classification:

The Class awarded to a Candidate Variety that dictates the Grades into which the variety can be received with reference to the Classification zone from which the Complete Data Set has been generated.

Reclassify: Process of classifying a variety again after a period of time has elapsed.

Seed Commercialisers: Organisations responsible for the sale of wheat seed to growers.

Services Agreement: Legal contract between the Company and individual Breeding Organisations for the purposes of providing classification services.

Supplementary Data: See section 3.2.2 (ii)

Target Class: Class for which the Breeding Organisation (or nominee) would like the variety to be Classified.

Zone (Classification Zone):

Region to which a Classification Decision is referenced and for which the decision is related.

Version October 2014

19

ATTACHMENT 1: WHEAT CLASS QUALITY REQUIREMENTS AUSTRALIAN PRIME HARD (APH) Australian Prime Hard comprises selected white hard-grained wheat varieties of exceptional milling quality with a minimum protein level of 13%. Flour milled from Australian Prime Hard is used to produce Chinese style yellow alkaline noodles and Japanese Ramen noodles. It is also suitable for the production of high protein, high volume breads. The fundamental quality requirements for Australian Prime Hard are excellent milling quality and strong balanced dough properties at or above 13% protein. High test weights and thousand kernel weights are also desirable as they contribute to exemplary milling performance and stringent visual appearance requirements. Milling quality is one critical quality parameter for Australian Prime Hard and the superior performance of this class is a feature that differentiates it from its competitors and should not be compromised. This means that not only should a new variety have a high extraction rate, but the resultant flour must also be clean and free of impurities with low colour grade and flour ash results. Hartog has traditionally represented the minimum milling quality standard for Australian Prime Hard, with higher levels now required. Tri-stimulus flour colour should be “white – creamy” with the variety Batavia representing a workable upper limit for yellow pigment levels, as represented by CIE b* data. Baxter, on the other hand represents a workable minimum level for yellow pigment. Sunco, Lang and Sunvale all have acceptable flour colour. From an end-product standpoint, high flour pasting characteristics are not a critical component of Australian Prime Hard, with medium levels being generally preferred. In SNSW the current target is for varieties to have high flour paste viscosity results, and whilst this will not be a strict requirement for classification, these levels are currently being targeted in an endeavour to improve baking quality, and in particular to improve crumb texture and to reduce staling. Water absorption is another critical quality parameter for Australian Prime Hard and the target Farinograph water absorption for Australian Prime Hard is 64% or better. Levels 1% higher than Baxter represent a workable minimum in NNSW and QLD. In SNSW, water absorption 1% higher than Chara is an appropriate minimum level. Sunvale, Sunbri, Lang and Janz have acceptable water absorption, however higher levels are preferred for this grade.


20

For a new variety to be accepted into Australian Prime Hard it needs to display strong balanced dough properties with a minimum Farinograph stability of 15 minutes targeted. For NNSW and QLD, the variety Hartog has for many years represented the minimum level of extensibility acceptable for Australian Prime Hard, with Banks previously represented minimum height requirements. New varieties Ellison and EGA Gregory have improved extensibility compared to Hartog and are now preferred as controls for extensibility as Hartog is being phased out as a control. The dough strength of Strzelecki in NNSW and QLD is below minimum requirements, with strength levels greater than Sunco targeted. In SNSW Chara and EGA Wedgetail now represent the target level for dough strength and Janz is below the target strength in this region. In NNSW and QLD potential new varieties are required to achieve both yellow alkaline noodle and bread making quality, with a focus in SNSW on bread making performance, more than noodle making quality. Kennedy is currently the best available variety for Sponge and Dough bread making, but does not represent a meaningful target as it does not have strength and tolerance comparable to the DNS target. For straight dough baking, Kennedy, Sunbri and Sunvale are three of the better performing, current Australian varieties and baking quality comparable to these varieties is targeted. In terms of Yellow Alkaline Noodles traditionally the target variety for this product has been Sunco, however the more recently introduced varieties Lang and EGA Hume are also preferred as targets, with Sunbri and Cunningham representing the minimum level of Yellow Alkaline Noodle required. Janz and Sunvale do not meet the current requirement for Yellow Alkaline Noodle in Australian Prime Hard.


TARGET AND MARGINAL QUALITY PARAMETERS BY VARIETY, CLASS AND REGION Class: Australian Prime Hard, 13% protein

Target Key Quality Parameters Grain Hardness Milling Extraction Water Absorption Extensibility Dough Strength Yellow Pigment Starch Quality Colour Stability

Northern Lang, Sunco Batavia, Diamondbird

Baxter, Sunco Sunco + Sunco, Lang Sunco, Lang Sunco, Lang, EGA Hume

South East Chara Diamondbird Chara Chara, EGA Wedgetail

Janz, Lang Sunstate Chara

Southern WA

Marginal Key Quality Parameters Northern High – Kite

Low – Sunco Low - Hartog + Low – Hartog,

Baxter + Low – EGA

Gregory, Ellison Low - Strzelecki + High - Batavia

Low - Baxter High –

Cunningham, Sunbri

South East Low – Dollarbird + Low - Chara + Low – Cunningham Low – Janz High - Batavia High – Chara

Southern WA


AUSTRALIAN HARD (AH) Australian Hard is made up of specific hard grained white wheat varieties selected for superior milling performance and excellent dough quality. It is segregated at a guaranteed minimum protein level of 11.5 percent. The flour derived from Australian Hard is ideally suited to the production of a wide range of baked products including European style pan and hearth breads, Middle Eastern flat breads, Chinese steamed products as well as Chinese style yellow alkaline noodles. Milling performance is a critical quality parameter for Australian Hard and has been comparable with the high benchmark levels of Australian Prime Hard in most growing regions, with high straight run extraction levels and low impurity levels. In New South Wales and Queensland, Australian Prime Hard varieties are the target for milling performance, whilst in Southern New South Wales the under-performing Dollarbird variety is the long-established minimum. In South Australia and Victoria the milling performance of Australian Hard has consistently improved over the past decade to approach levels that are consistent with the northern growing regions and here Yitpi could be considered an appropriate standard to surpass. In Western Australia milling performance is measurably inferior to other Australian Hard growing regions and requires significant improvement, with EGA Bonnie Rock representing the level of performance that is required. Carnamah is unacceptable for this trait. Flour colour data as indicated by tri-stimulus colour readings should be white to creamy, with varieties such as Mitre, Cascades and BT Schomburgk representing workable upper limits for yellow pigment. High flour paste viscosity is not a critical requirement for Australian Hard wheat in South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales or Queensland where medium starch pasting levels are preferred. The WA Hard on the other hand, and in particular that produced in the Geraldton and Fremantle zones, has traditionally been used to supply discerning markets producing dry white salted noodles, where higher flour pasting levels at AH protein levels are required. The classification guidelines and breeding objectives for AH in these regions reflected this requirement, however, following a recent decision taken by the Wheat Classification Council, a preference for medium starch pasting requirements will now also apply to Australian Hard in Western Australia. This decision was taken in the knowledge that significant volumes of higher pasting AH varieties are still in circulation, and it is envisaged that marketers wishing to meet this high starch pasting requirement will be able to do so by sourcing these wheat types from within the AH grade. Target water absorption levels are in the range 62-64%, with the variety Kukri representing a workable minimum in South Australia, whilst Chara is appropriate in Victoria and Southern New South Wales. In Western Australia EGA Castle Rock is a workable minimum, which has been shown to be 1% higher than Cascades. Yitpi, Janz, Wylah and EGA Bonnie Rock all have acceptable water absorption, whilst varieties such as Diamondbird, Ventura and Carnamah all have good water absorption.


For new varieties to be awarded an Australian Hard classification they must possess strong and balanced dough properties that will increase the overall strength and stability of this grade with the aim of achieving a minimum Farinograph stability of 12 minutes. The Prime Hard growing regions in Queensland and Northern New South Wales tend to display increased dough strength within Australian Hard and this is partially due to the fallout of the Australian Prime Hard varieties that fail to meet the protein level requirements of the higher grade. Whilst Southern New South Wales is another Australian Prime Hard region, not all areas are able to achieve the protein levels required and so a high proportion of Australian Hard varieties are grown. In this region, Drysdale and Janz represent the target dough strength required whilst Wylah is considered marginal. In Victoria and South Australia the variety Yitpi is an appropriate target variety for dough strength, whilst in Western Australia Australian Hard is targeting the dough strength properties exhibited by EGA Bonnie Rock. Varieties such as Carnamah are now outdated and are unacceptable for this requirement. Australian wheat is recognised for its levels of extensibility, and extensibility should not be compromised whilst targeting an increase in dough strength. Dough “balance” is critical for end product processing performance and varieties such as Janz and EGA Bonnie Rock represent the target level for extensibility. As with Australian Prime Hard, Northern New South Wales and Queensland varieties are required to have good yellow alkaline noodle and bread making quality, with Southern New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia the end product focus is more on baking performance, than noodle making quality. Western Australia is similar to Queensland and Northern New South Wales in that, Australian Hard varieties from this region need to have good noodle quality. For straight dough baking, Kennedy, Sunbri and Sunvale are three of the better performing, current Australian varieties and baking quality comparable to these varieties is targeted in New South Wales and Queensland. For noodle quality in these regions, the target varieties are the same as Australian Prime Hard, however the minimum level of acceptability in Australian Hard is not as stringent and whereas Janz and Sunvale do not currently meet the current requirements for Yellow Alkaline Noodle in Australian Prime Hard, they are acceptable in Australian Hard. In South Australia and Victoria, Yitpi is good for both Noodle quality and Straight Dough baking quality, however an improvement on this quality would be beneficial to the overall marketability of wheat in these regions. EGA Bonnie Rock is the target variety for both Noodle and Baking quality in Western Australia, Carnamah and Cascades both do not have the level of Noodle quality that is required from wheat in this region.


TARGET AND MARGINAL QUALITY PARAMETERS BY VARIETY, CLASS AND REGION Class: Australian Hard, 11.5% protein

Target Key Quality Parameters Grain Hardness Milling Extraction Water Absorption Extensibility Dough Strength Yellow Pigment Starch Quality Colour Stability

Northern Lang / Sunco Batavia, Ventura Janz Janz Lang / Sunco Lang / Sunco Lang / Sunco

South East Chara Diamondbird Janz Drysdale Janz Diamondbird Lang / Sunco

Southern Chara, Yitpi + Yitpi Chara, Janz Yitpi Yitpi Yitpi Yitpi +

WA Carnamah EGA Bonnie Rock Carnamah EGA Bonnie Rock EGA Bonnie Rock

EGA Bonnie Rock Yitpi EGA Bonnie Rock

Marginal Key Quality Parameters Northern Low - Rees Low - Rees Low – Rees Low –Strzelecki +,

Batavia + High - Batavia High - Sunvale

South East Low – Dollarbird + Low - Chara Low – Diamondbird Low – Wylah + High – Batavia Low – Janz + High - Chara

Southern Low – Mitre, Machete

Low – Chara, Kukri Low – Mitre, Machete

Low – Annuello, Goldmark, Janz

High – Mitre, BT Schomburgk

Low - Molineux

Low – Meering, Janz

High - Janz

WA Low -Cascades Low – Carnamah + Low – EGA Castle Rock

Low – Machete Low – Carnamah + Low – Kalannie High – Cascades

Low – Janz / GBA Sapphire

High - Carnamah


AUSTRALIAN PREMIUM WHITE (APW) Australian Premium White is hard grained white wheat varieties with high milling performance and flour quality, delivered with a minimum protein level of 10.5 percent. Australian Premium White is multi-purpose wheat ideal for the production of a variety of noodle types, including Hokkien, instant and fresh noodles. It is also suitable for Middle Eastern and Indian style flat breads and Chinese steamed bread. Milling performance is a critical quality parameter for Australian Premium White and the milling performance in South Australia and Victoria has shown steady improvement to approach the excellent levels achieved in the northern growing regions. Performance equivalent to Frame is an appropriate target for South Australia and Victoria. Milling performance in Western Australia is inferior to other Australian Premium White growing regions by approximately 2 percent. This has been influenced by deliveries of under-performing Australian Hard varieties with inadequate milling performance, such as Carnamah, but varieties such as Camm, Spear and Westonia also exhibit inferior milling performance. As Wyalkatchem increases in popularity, the milling quality of this grade is improving, however higher levels are still preferred. The development of Australian Premium White varieties in traditional Australian Prime Hard wheat growing areas, has not been a focus of breeding programs until recently, and this grade has always had superior milling quality due to the cascading of Australian Prime Hard varieties failing to meet strict protein cut offs. In targeting Australian Premium White classification in Queensland and New South Wales, the milling requirement is the same as Australian Hard and Prime Hard. Flour colour is important with tri-stimulus flour data from instruments such as the Minolta Chroma-meter in the “white to slightly yellow” range being desired. Varieties such as Westonia, Batavia, Frame and Mitre represent workable upper limits. The South Australian variety Krichauff is considered extreme in this regard and its yellow pigment levels are unacceptable. Above average flour pasting attributes and low gelatinisation temperatures are preferred for Australian Premium White wheat produced Australia- wide, although this is not a specific requirement for classification generally. Traditionally, Western Australian Premium White, and in particular that produced in the Geraldton and Fremantle zones, has been used to supply discerning markets, where high flour pasting levels are required. However, following a recent decision by the Wheat Classification Council, these special requirements will be met from supplies of APWN wheat as outlined in a later section of these guidelines. In summary therefore, whilst above average flour paste viscosity is desirable for Western Australian Premium White, lower levels do not preclude the classification of varieties as APW in WA. Farinograph water absorption requirements for Australian Premium White are not dissimilar to the higher protein wheat grades as this is still important for products which are lower in protein. The main proportion of Australian Hard and Australian Premium White wheat from Australia is used in the production of bread products where high levels of water absorption are required and a target level is in excess of 60 percent. Wyalkatchem, Westonia and Kellalac represent workable minimum levels in Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria respectively, whilst Baxter and Chara are appropriate in Queensland and New South Wales.


Improving the dough strength of Australian Premium White has been identified as a breeding objective and current Australian Premium White varieties such as Kellalac in Victoria, Frame and Spear in South Australia and Westonia in Western Australia below acceptable levels. Varieties such as Wyalkatchem in Western Australia and to some extent Pugsley in South Australia are appropriate targets for dough strength in Australian Premium White. In Victoria, whilst Meering is an Australian Hard variety it now represents an acceptable dough strength target for Australian Premium White, however Meering is no longer included as a control and until a further variety is available, target levels of strength should be higher than Frame. Australian wheat is recognised for its levels of extensibility, and extensibility should not be compromised whilst targeting an increase in dough strength. Dough “balance” is critical for end product processing performance and due to commensurate relationship between extensibility and protein content, varieties such as Janz and EGA Bonnie Rock are suitable targets for extensibility in Australian Premium White. High quality noodle wheats are targeted across all wheat grades and growing regions, however as noodle sheet colour and colour stability improves at lower protein levels, the marginal varieties for Australian Premium White for Yellow alkaline Noodle are slightly poorer in quality than those for Australian Hard and Australian Prime Hard in northern New South Wales and Queensland. Varieties such as Janz, Wyalkatchem and Yitpi are suitable for Noodle quality in Australian Premium White, however improved quality in this area will increase the marketability of this wheat grade in Asia. Australian Premium White wheat is used in a number of baking processes across the world and is renowned for it’s versatility in all these processes. Whilst a large proportion of Australian Premium White ends up in Flat Bread products, it is also readily used in both rapid dough and straight dough processes. Across all baking processes, Frame performs very well and is a suitable target for baking quality.


TARGET AND MARGINAL QUALITY PARAMETERS BY VARIETY, CLASS AND REGION Class: Australian Premium White, 10+% protein

Target Key Quality Parameters

Grain Hardness Milling Extraction Water Absorption Extensibility Dough Strength Yellow Pigment Starch Quality Colour Stability

Northern Lang / Sunco Batavia, Ventura Janz Strzelecki, Batavia Lang / Sunco EGA Gregory Lang / Sunco

South East Chara Diamondbird Janz Wylah Janz Diamondbird Lang / Sunco

Southern Frame Frame Frame Janz, Wyalkatchem+

Pugsley Yitpi Frame+, Westonia Yitpi +

WA Westonia Wyalkatchem + Spear Wyalkatchem + Wyalkatchem Wyalkatchem Westonia Wyalkatchem +

Marginal Key Quality Parameters

Northern Rees Baxter Rees Strzelecki – 30BU, Batavia – 30BU

Batavia Lang / Sunco Sunvale / Janz

South East Dollarbird+ Chara Diamondbird Wylah – 30BU Batavia Janz Chara

Southern Low – Diamondbird, Spear

Low – Kellalac, Westonia

Low - Frame Low - Frame High - Frame Low – Janz High – Frame

WA Low – Wyalkatchem

Low – Spear Low - Wyalkatchem Low – Spear Low – Spear Low - Kalannie High - Westonia

Low – Janz / Magenta

High – Spear


AUSTRALIAN PREMIUM WHITE NOODLE (APWN) APWN is a hard grained specialty class that has strict quality requirements. APWN varieties are specific hard grained wheats with excellent visual specifications, segregated within a protein window of 10 to11.5 percent. This Class is currently only segregated in Western Australia where it is used for blending for specific markets in Asia. Good noodle sheet colour and Brightness stability is a prerequisite for this grade, with low Poly phenol Oxidase (PPO) being a significant contributor to this. APWN is used to contribute to the hardness, milling quality, protein content and colour of a unique blend of wheat. The blended grade produces flours for a range of white salted and instant noodle types. Milling performance better than Wyalkatchem is the target for APWN. High flour pasting levels are critical for this grade of wheat and therefore a specific quality parameter for classification. A number of measures of flour pasting properties may be used such as the RVA, the Viscoamylograph and the Flour swelling volume Test, the latter giving a useful measure of noodle eating quality. Viscoamylograph results of greater than 700 BU (using the AACC method) are required for this class required to satisfy the expectations of key export markets. Water absorption levels in the range from 58 to 60%, with medium dough strength properties are important for these wheat types, with the latter helping to meet the strict texture requirements of the final product, which are described as smooth, whilst being slightly firm, elastic and slightly sticky. Apart from milling quality, flour pasting characteristics and noodle sheet colour stability, the variety Westonia (within the required protein window) has been shown to be acceptable across the remaining quality parameters for this specialty product, and is considered an appropriate target variety.


TARGET AND MARGINAL QUALITY PARAMETERS BY VARIETY, CLASS AND REGION Class: Australian Premium White Noodle, 10-11.5% protein



Northern South East Southern WA Westonia Wyalkatchem + Spear Westonia Westonia Wyalkatchem EGA Bonnie Rock EGA Bonnie Rock


Northern South East Southern WA Low - Wyalkatchem Low – Spear Low - Wyalkatchem Low - Yitpi Low – Carnamah

High – Yitpi Low - Yitpi

High – Westonia Low – Visco, RVA,

Cascades, Wyalkatchem

Low – FSV Stiletto/ Cascades

Low (marginal colour stability)

Westonia


AUSTRALIAN PREMIUM DURUM (ADR)

Australian Premium Durum consists of specially selected durum varieties with very hard, vitreous, amber coloured kernels. It is a free milling product, capable of achieving high yields of superior quality semolina with minimal residue flour production. ADR is ideal for a wide range of wet and dry pasta products with excellent colour and shelf life and is also used in the production of North African and Middle Eastern products such as couscous, hearth and flat breads.

The key quality requirements for Australian Premium Durum are physical grain quality and semolina and end product yellowness. Having high test weight, vitreous kernel counts and thousand kernel weight all help to achieve the desired high semolina yield (with low contamination) whilst at the same time meeting stringent customer visual appearance requirements. It is also important that Australia’s durum is uniform in grain size, as this assists in optimising mill set up and contributes to improved semolina yield.

In terms of colour it is important that durum produces semolina, and subsequently end products, that have a Bright and natural yellow colouration. Yellowness is currently measured as Minolta b* and yellow pigment levels. For Eastern Australian durum growing areas, EGA Bellaroi is a suitable target. In the South the Hyperno represents a suitable target for semolina colour is, with an on Saintly representing the minimum level of performance that is required.

High grain protein content and gluten quality also need to be considered, given the effect they have on end product quality.

From an overall quality perspective EGA Bellaroi and Jandaroi can be considered good quality targets.

TARGET AND MARGINAL QUALITY PARAMETERS BY VARIETY, CLASS AND REGION

Class: Australian Premium Durum, 13+% protein Target Key Quality Parameters

Grain Hardness Milling Extraction Gluten Strength Yellow Pigment Northern EGA Bellaroi Jandaroi Jandaroi EGA Bellaroi South East EGA Bellaroi Jandaroi Jandaroi EGA Bellaroi Southern Saintly Saintly Hyperno Hyperno WA Wollaroi Wollaroi Wollaroi Wollaroi

Marginal Key Quality Parameters Northern Low - Wollaroi South East Low - Wollaroi Southern Low – Saintly Low – Saintly WA Low - Kalka


AUSTRALIAN SOFT (ASFT) Australian Soft Wheat is a unique blend of white, soft-grained wheat varieties, segregated at a guaranteed maximum protein level of 9.5 percent. Traditionally Australian Soft wheat has featured only club wheat varieties however these varieties have tended to produce higher screenings and whilst new varieties do not need to be club types they do need to have the quality attributes associated with club wheats, as outlined in further detail below. All Australian Soft varieties are very soft grained, as indicated by results generated by grain hardness tests such as Particle Size Index (PSI) or the Perten Single Kernel Characterisation System (SKCS), with the varieties Bowie, Harrismith and Thornbill representing a workable maximum level of hardness. Soft grained kernels are a critical factor in the generation of the low levels of starch damage and resultant low water absorption that are fundamental in the production of most soft wheat products. Soft grained wheats are not renowned for their milling quality, however Australian Soft varieties are required to have adequate milling performance, with low flour ash and colour grades at high straight run flour extraction rates. In the Northern New South Wales and Queensland classification regions QALBis is a suitable target variety for assessing milling performance as are Snipe in southern New South Wales and EGA Jitarning in Western Australia. In Victoria and South Australia, levels superior to Bowie are targeted. Tri stimulus flour colour readings from instruments such as the Minolta chroma meter must be both Bright and white, as indicated by high L* and low b* values, with the varieties Bowie and Datatine representing workable upper limits for yellowness. There is currently no specific flour-pasting requirement for Australian Soft varieties. As indicated above, low water absorption and starch damage levels are critical for many soft wheat products to minimise checking and energy consumption costs. The target Farinograph water absorption level is 50% with QALBis representing a suitable target variety for this quality parameter in northern regions. In Southern New South Wales, Snipe is the target, whilst Bowie is considered marginal. In Western Australia EGA Jitarning is the target variety, with EGA 2248 a workable upper limit. For a new variety to be accepted into Australian Soft, it must possess weak extensible dough properties, represented by low Farinograph development time and stability readings. Extensograph and Alveograph tests should produce low height results with adequate extensibility, with Alveograph P/L values of less than 0.40, and ‘w’ values of less than 70 targeted. In the northern Soft wheat growing areas of Australia, QALBis represents a suitable target variety for this requirement, whilst Snipe is suitable in Southern New South Wales and Bowie in Victoria and South Australia. For Western Australia both Datatine and Tincurrin are ideal target varieties for dough strength whilst EGA Jitarning is marginal.


TARGET AND MARGINAL QUALITY PARAMETERS BY VARIETY, CLASS AND REGION Class: Australian Soft, <9.5% protein


Grain Hardness Milling Extraction Water Absorption Extensibility Dough Strength Yellow Pigment

Northern QALBis QALBis QALBis QALBis QALBis QALBis

South East Snipe Snipe Snipe Snipe Snipe Snipe

Southern Bowie - Bowie + Bowie - Bowie Bowie Bowie -

WA EGA Jitarning EGA Jitarning EGA Jitarning EGA 2248 Datatine EGA 2248


Northern

South East Thornbill Low - Thornbill High - Bowie High - Thornbill High – Tatiara, Bowie

Southern Bowie Low - Bowie High - Bowie High - Rosella High - Bowie

WA Harrismith Low – Datatine High – EGA 2248 Low – Datatine High – EGA Jitarning High - Datatine


AUSTRALIAN STANDARD WHITE NOODLE (ANW) ANW is white grained wheat with relatively soft kernel hardness. The key quality requirements for Australian Noodle wheat varieties are excellent physical grain and milling quality with high flour pasting attributes, and specific flour colour and end product performance. Australian Noodle wheat varieties should have high test weight and thousand kernel weights leading to adequate milling performance. The grain is toward the soft end of the hardness scale as measured by Particle Size Index (PSI) or Single Kernel Characterisation System (SKCS) tests and is segregated within a specific protein window of 9.2 and 11.8 percent. Exceptional noodle sheet colour stability is a prerequisite for this grade, with low Poly Phenol Oxidase (PPO) being a significant contributor to achieving this aim. Udon-style noodle flours are generally milled to a patent flour extraction level with a specific maximum ash requirement of 0.36 – 0.40%. Furthermore, the flour must have minimal bran contamination, as once these specks are introduced into flour via the milling process, they cannot be removed and lead to a visually unappealing final product. Flour yields superior to those of Cadoux and Arrino are desired with the Western Australian variety Calingiri being a suitable milling target. Flour colour for Australian Noodle varieties is also fundamental, and they must generate Bright and creamy flour and paste results when assessed by tri-stimulus colour tests, with either dull and or excess levels of whiteness being unacceptable. Rosella on the East Coast and Cadoux on the West Coast are appropriate target varieties, with Arrino providing a workable lower limit for creaminess. High flour pasting attributes and low gelatinisation temperatures are critical for Australian Noodle varieties and are therefore specific requirements for the classification of potential varieties into this grade. Flour pasting levels are measured by various methods including the Viscograph, Rapid Visco Analyser (RVA) or the more recent Flour Swelling Volume (FSV) test. High flour pasting properties, coupled with the specific protein standards applied to ANW varieties at receival, combine to produce the desired final noodle characteristics, most notably bite, mouth feel and elasticity. The softish grain hardness levels of ANW varieties produce the medium to low levels of water absorption that are required for the production of Udon type noodles. Excessive water absorption levels can lead to soft and sticky doughs that are not only uneven in colour and appearance, but the dough can be easily torn and can stick to the noodle cutters and rollers, reducing the productivity of the noodle manufacturer. Medium dough strength levels as determined using the Farinograph, Extensograph or Alveograph are preferred, with any of the four current Western Australian varieties representing acceptable controls for this trait. In the eastern Australian Noodle wheat growing areas the dough strength of the current varieties is slightly weaker, enabling lower protein segregations to be utilised in the production of flours for Soft wheat products, such as confectionery and baked products including sweet biscuits, cookies, pastries, and cakes. Rosella is a suitable target variety.


TARGET AND MARGINAL QUALITY PARAMETERS BY VARIETY, CLASS AND REGION Class: Australian Noodle, 9.2-11.8% protein



Northern Sunsoft 98 Sunsoft 98 Sunsoft 98 Sunsoft 98 Sunsoft 98 Sunsoft 98 Sunsoft 98 Sunsoft 98

South East Rosella Rosella + Rosella Rosella Rosella Rosella Rosella Rosella

Southern Rosella Rosella + Rosella Rosella Rosella Rosella Rosella Rosella

WA Cadoux Calingiri Cadoux Cadoux Cadoux Cadoux Cadoux Cadoux


Northern

South East

Southern

WA Low – Arrino Low – Arrino N/A N/A


AUSTRALIAN STANDARD WHITE (ASW) Australian Standard White is widely recognised as a highly versatile medium to low protein white wheat product representing excellent value for straight milling or blending purposes. This multi-purpose wheat is used for the production of Middle Eastern, Indian and Iranian style flat breads, European style breads and rolls, and Chinese steamed bread. There are no specific quality guidelines for Australian Standard White – varieties are classified as Australian Standard White when they fail to meet one or more of the minimum quality standards required to meet premium milling grade specifications. Obvious examples are lower than desirable milling performance, poor colour characteristics, low water absorption or weak dough properties.


ATTACHMENT 2: TESTING GUIDELINES

As part of the Classification Process, Company requires as a minimum the following tests to be conducted on all Candidate Variety and appropriate Control Variety (see Attachment 5) samples. All samples are to be generated according the sample requirements and meet the quality standards set out in Attachment 6 for the Target Grade.

The actual data to be recorded and the format for submitting the data are set out in data template to be found on the Panel website. Quality data includes physical grain quality, LMA screening, milling performance, flour and dough properties and end product quality.

The minimum data required for a Final Classification in a Zone are:

§ 3 years’ (seasons) data for physical grain quality, milling performance and flour and

dough property assessment

§ 2 distinct induction event data for LMA laboratory based screening. Note that this may necessitate additional field screening data – see section A2.2 below.

§ 2 years’ (seasons) worth of end product quality assessment.

Data requirements are broken in to Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3 – differing in the tests to be conducted because generally there is insufficient sample of the Candidate Variety in Year 1 for end product testing.

Preliminary Classification requires Year 1 data and Year 2 data (for all grades except ADR see Table 2.a below for ADR see Table 2.b) for the candidate variety and appropriate controls drawn from the Classification Zone within which a Final Classification will be sought.

Final Primary Classification requires Year 1 data, Year 2 data and Year 3 data (for all grades except ADR see Table 3.a below for ADR see Table 3.b) for the target variety and appropriate controls drawn from the Classification Zone within which a Final Classification will be sought.

Final Out of Zone Classification requires Supplementary Data for the target variety and appropriate controls drawn from the Classification Zone within which a Final Out of Zone Classification will be sought. The Supplementary Data that can be provided may be either:

‘Year 3 data’ (for all grades except ADR see Table 3.a below for ADR see Table 3.b) for the new zone (being a zone other than the Primary Classification Zone). This data is required if the Target Classification sought in the new zone is the same or lower than the grade received in the Primary Classification Zone. The data must demonstrate that the wheat quality is consistent with the required end-use performance in the Primary Classification Zone; or

A minimum of ‘Year 2 plus Year 3 Data’ (for all grades except ADR see Tables 2.a and 3.a below for ADR see Tables 2.b and 3.b) for the new zone. This additional data are required if the Target Classification sought is higher than the Grade received in the Primary Classification Zone and/or the variety quality is not consistent with the quality of the Primary Classification Zone.


Table 1.a: Year 1 testing requirements for all grades except ADR

Year 1.a Minimum Grain, Flour and Dough Testing Requirements

Physical Grain Flour Dough

Test Weight (kg/hl) Flour Extraction (% by wt) Farinograph

Thousand Kernel Weight (g) Protein (14%mb) Extensograph 45 min

Grain Hardness (by PSI or SKCS)

Flour Purity (Colour grade and/or Oven Ash (14%mb)

Protein (11%mb) Yellowness – Minolta b* - flour and/or paste

Optional – Oven Ash (11%mb)

Brightness – Minolta L* - flour and/or paste

Falling Number (sec) Flour Pasting (RVA and/or Visco-Amylogram and/or flour swelling volume)

2.00 mm Screenings (% by wt)

Optional - Diastatic Activity and/or Starch Damage

Table 1.b: Year 1 testing requirements for ADR

Year 1.b Minimum Grain, Semolina and Dough Testing Requirements ADR

Physical Grain Semolina

Test Weight (kg/hl) Extraction– Un-Purified (% by wt) and Purified (% by wt)

Thousand Kernel Weight (g) Protein (14%mb)

Grain Hardness (by PSI or SKCS) Moisture content (%)

Protein (11%mb) Semolina Purity – (Speck count and/or Oven Ash (14%mb)

Optional - Ash (11%mb) Semolina Granularity – between 500µ,- 200µ

Moisture (%) Semolina Yellowness – Minolta b* (sieved 160-200 micron) or measured with Minolta Chroma Meter equipped with granular material attachment and/or Butanol Pigment Extraction

Falling Number (sec) Wet Gluten and Gluten Index

2.00 mm Screenings (% by wt) ConsitoGraph/Alveograph (preferred) or MixoGraph or Farinograph

Vitreous Grain (% by wt)


Table 2.a: Year 2 testing requirements for all grades except ADR

Year 2.a Minimum Grain, Flour and Dough and End Product Testing Requirements

Physical Grain Flour Dough End Product

Test Weight (kg/hl) Flour Extraction (% by wt) Farinograph Depends on Target Grade – see A2.1 below

Thousand Kernel Weight (g)

Protein (14%mb) Extensograph 45 min


Diastatic Activity and/or Starch Damage

Protein (11%mb) Flour Purity (Colour grade and/or Oven Ash (14%mb)

Ash (11%mb) (where flour ash is also conducted).

Yellowness – Minolta b* - flour and/or paste

Falling Number (sec) Brightness – Minolta L* - flour and/or paste

2.00mm Screenings (% by wt)

Flour Pasting (RVA and/or Visco-Amylogram and/or Flour Swelling Volume)

LMA Laboratory Screening


Year 2.b Minimum Grain, Semolina and Dough and Pasta Testing Requirements

Physical Grain Semolina Pasta Test Weight (kg/hl) Extraction– Un-Purified (% by wt) and

Purified (% by wt) see A2.1 below

Thousand Kernel Weight (g) Protein (14%mb) Grain Hardness (by PSI or SKCS)

Moisture content (%)


Optional - Ash (11%mb) Semolina Granularity – between 500µ,- 200µ

Moisture (%) Semolina Yellowness – Minolta b* (sieved 160-200 micron) or measured with Minolta Chroma Meter equipped with granular material attachment and/or Butanol Pigment Extraction

Falling Number (sec) Wet Gluten and Gluten Index

2.00 mm Screenings (% by wt)

ConsitoGraph/Alveograph (preferred) or MixoGraph or Farinograph



Table 3.a Year 3 testing requirements for all grades except ADR

Year 3.a Minimum Grain, Flour and Dough and End Product Testing Requirements Physical Grain Flour Dough End Product Test Weight (kg/hl) Flour Extraction (% by wt) Farinograph Depends on Target Grade

– see A2.1 below Thousand Kernel Weight (g)

Protein (14%mb) Extensograph – 45 min


Diastatic Activity and/or Starch Damage

Protein (11%mb) Flour Purity (Colour grade and/or Ash (14%mb))

Oven Ash (11%mb) – where flour Ash is also analysed

Yellowness – Minolta b* - flour and/or paste

Falling Number (sec) Brightness – Minolta L* - flour and/or paste

Screenings (% by wt) Flour Pasting (RVA and/or Visco-Amylogram and/or Flour Swelling Volume)

LMA Laboratory Screening


Year 3.b Minimum Grain, Semolina and Dough and Pasta Testing Requirements

Physical Grain Semolina Pasta Test Weight (kg/hl) Extraction– Un-Purified (% by wt) and Purified

(% by wt) see A2.1 below

Thousand Kernel Weight (g)

Protein (14%mb)


Moisture content (%)


Optional - Ash (11%mb) Semolina Granularity – between 500µ,- 200µ Moisture (%) Semolina Yellowness – Minolta b* (sieved 160-

200 micron) or measured with Minolta Chroma Meter equipped with granular material attachment and/or Butanol Pigment Extraction

Falling Number (sec) Wet Gluten and Gluten Index 2.00 mm Screenings (% by wt)

ConsitoGraph/Alveograph (preferred) or MixoGraph or Farinograph



END PRODUCT TESTING

The required end product testing can be conducted at any stage but is usually completed during years 2 and 3 of the Classification Process due to the larger sample size available.

A2.1 End Product Testing

The specific types of end products required depend on the Target Grade for Classification. The following Table (Table A2.1) lists the minimum required end product testing and any optional end product testing by Target Grade – actual measurements to be taken are set out in the data templates on the Panel website www.awvcp.com.au If additional testing is desired this will be discussed with the Breeding Organisation at the time.

Table A2.1: Summary of required and optional end product testing by target grade.

Grade Required End Products Optional End Products Australian Prime Hard

Yellow Alkaline Noodle, Straight Dough baking, Sponge and Dough baking,

Australian Hard Yellow Alkaline Noodle, Straight Dough baking,

Rapid Dough baking

Australian Premium White

Yellow Alkaline Noodle, Straight Dough baking, Rapid Dough baking,

Flat Bread

Australian Standard White

Yellow Alkaline Noodle, Straight Dough baking, Rapid Dough baking,

Flat Bread

Australian SOFT Cookie or Biscuit, Steamed Bun. Australian Noodle

Udon Noodle, including sensory analysis (to be completed on 60% extraction flour and be assessed by Japanese noodle expert)

Australian Premium White Noodle

White Salted Noodle.

Australian Premium Durum

Dry Long Italian Type Pasta (Spaghetti)


A2.2 LMA EXPRESSION TESTING

DISCLAIMER

LMA screening as described in this section has been developed for the purposes of Classification. It has not been developed for the purposes of breeding or selection or commercialisation of varieties.

It is possible to achieve ‘false negatives’ through LMA screening – ie generation of low or nil LMA expression when the variety may be capable of high expression but, it is not possible to achieve ‘false positives’ – ie detection of LMA expression in varieties without the genes for expression. As a result failure to detect LMA during the Classification screening process does not guarantee that the variety is not capable of producing LMA in the field.

Company reserves the right to subsequently downgrade any variety that expresses LMA in the field. Responsibility for the release and progression of varieties with and without LMA potential remains with the Breeding Organisation.

Breeding Organisations should satisfy themselves of the third parties exposures associated with this. Provision of a milling grade classification by Company in no way implies that there is no risk or that Company accepts any risk associated with these varieties.

Breeding Organisations are required to assess their own risk in this regard and implement appropriate risk assessment and risk mitigation strategies. Company accepts no liability or responsibility for decisions made to bulk up or commercialise Varieties on the basis of LMA screening results.

INTRODUCTION

The risk of Late Maturity Alpha amylase (LMA) expression in Australian wheat varieties is managed through the assessment of potential for expression as part of the wheat variety classification process. Amylase is the enzyme normally produced during grain germination which causes the breakdown of starch into sugar providing energy for the seed to grow roots and shoots. This typically occurs in the ground after planting but it can also occur in the head when ripe grain has been exposed to pre-harvest rain – its impact is measured by the falling number test. High levels of amylase result in low falling numbers.

The Late Maturity alpha-Amylase (LMA) phenomenon occurs when amylase is produced in the latter stages of grain development – prior to ripening. The enzyme remains in the ripened grain and causes apparently sound, ripe grain to have low falling number. Falling number is a key quality parameter for buyers of grain and so this can negatively affect grain value. The tendency for a variety to produce LMA is genetic while the trigger for production is often environmental – a cold temperature shock at a critical point in grain development.

Not all varieties have the genetic potential to produce LMA. In fact, the vast majority of varieties currently in production are free from this tendency.

The role of the wheat classification process has been to reinforce the importance of high falling number in Australian wheat. The wheat classification process requires soon to be released varieties to be under go several rounds of controlled environment screening for LMA – only varieties showing nil or very low levels of LMA expression are automatically classified into milling grades. Varieties showing high levels of LMA expression are automatically classified as Feed. Varieties exhibiting medium levels of LMA expression under managed environmental conditions need to undergo further field trialing to demonstrate nil expression under field conditions before they can be classified into milling grades.


Guidelines for the management of Late Maturity alpha Amylase (LMA) in classification were initially developed and agreed by industry through the Industry LMA Steering Committee. At that time it was noted that all discussion and agreement around the management of LMA in classification was based on current screening protocols and current understanding of LMA expression and control of expression. These are subject to change and industry has agreed to identify areas for change and facilitate advance in all areas of LMA research. Thus, these Guidelines and agreements are expected to change as and when additional information and understanding becomes available.

The ongoing management of LMA through classification will be undertaken by industry through the Wheat Classification Council.

The current agreed Classification Guidelines for LMA are based on current knowledge and testing protocols.

All varieties seeking a Final Classification in a milling grade must have undergone LMA Assessment. In the absence of this assessment varieties will not receive a Final Classification or will receive a FEED Classification if a Final Classification is required. It is envisaged that a Final Classification may be required a) if a Breeding Organisation requests it or b) if growers are producing the variety and need to be able to deliver it for sale – although there may be other instances not addressed here.

Assessment of the expression of LMA can be conducted in two stages.

Stage 1. Laboratory screening – this is described in detail in section A2.2.i and is the minimum data requirement to achieve a Final Classification.

Stage 2. Field screening – this is described in detail in section A2.2.ii and is only required

if LMA expression detected in the Laboratory screening is in the prescribed range (see Table A2.2) AND if a milling grade classification is sought.


A2.2.i Laboratory Screening

All Candidate Varieties seeking a Final milling grade classification are required to undergo Laboratory Screening for LMA as described here –

• Screening is to be conducted according to the University of Adelaide Protocol that may

change from time to time in accordance with improvements in understanding and scientific practice.

• Screening may be conducted by laboratories using the University of Adelaide Protocol,

participating in the University of Adelaide inter-laboratory proficiency testing and producing results in that proficiency testing that are equivalent to the University of Adelaide screening program.

· A minimum of two laboratory screening assessments are required, representing two separate

induction events, generating a ‘First Screening Result’ and a ‘Second Screening Result’. Where both results are lab generated they must form part of the current connected data set and not contain data from earlier protocols (pre 2012). A Laboratory may test seed using both glasshouse and field induction protocols. In this case the two sets of results will be treated as two separate results, as they represent two distinct induction environments.

• It is the breeding organisation’s responsibility to provide pure seed for LMA screening. Seed

provided to any Laboratory for LMA screening must be from an appropriate pure seed source.

• Interpretation of LMA screening results is provided in Table A2.2 (below). Note that because there is a known G x E effect, which at this time cannot be completely controlled for, the test will be a “no fail” test , i.e. the two possible results are “pass” = milling grade, or “no pass” = eligible for retesting. Where a milling grade classification is not awarded, the variety is eligible for additional screening, however all the available data will be used to calculate the P value and determine if a pass has been achieved.

• Results of screening are to be provided by the Breeding Organisation with Applications for Final

Classification. Company and/or Company may contact the Laboratory generating the results directly to verify the results provided. Results for Candidate lines are to be submitted with results for laboratory controls and should include the date of the test and the name of the laboratory.

• Eligibility for a milling grade Classification (see Table A2.2) means that the variety can be

considered for a milling grade Classification (ASW, APW, AH, APH, ASFT, ANW, ADR).

Table A2.2: Method for determining Classification outcomes of LMA screening based on the University of Adelaide protocol

Control (Wyalkatchem#)

Result (P value)

Classification Eligibility

Milling Grade (pass) Feed Grade (no pass)

q* = 0.049# p p<= q* p>q*

Green – eligible for milling classification, Red – FEED classification, eligible for retest # note that the q* value for Wyalkatchem is not fixed and will change with additional data. It is most likely that the value will decrease over time as more data is acquired. The p-value relates to the one-sided T-test of the entry compared to RAC655, testing the null hypothesis that the LMA expression of the entry is higher than that of RAC655 against the alternative hypothesis that the LMA expression of the entry is less than that of RAC655.


A2.2.i.Protocol for Detection of LMA Expression in the Field

Based on protocol supplied by Department of Agriculture Western Australia (DAWA)

Where Field Screening data is required it is to be generated in accordance with the protocol described below –

• Advice should be sought from the National Statistics Program for the design of field trials for the Detection of LMA expression in the Field. Generally field trials should be designed according to ACAS Guidelines.

• Data for Candidate Varieties is required from six (6) trials within the Classification Zone over a minimum of three (3) years where LMA expression of temperature sensitive LMA controls has occurred.

• Controls should include LMA prone and non-LMA prone varieties in field trials conducted for the above purposes. Appropriate controls on a regional basis are

− LMA Prone Varieties: § QLD/NNSW/CNCSW – Kennedy & Suneca (2 controls should be used) § SNSW – Whistler or Currawong & Kennedy or BD159 (2 controls should

be used) § VIC/SA – Kennedy & BD159 (2 controls should be used) § WA – Cranbrook, Westonia, Kennedy, BD159, RAC655, Nyabing or

Spear (2 controls should be used) − Non-LMA Prone Varieties:

§ Janz suggested across all regions

• The basic principles for the selection and use of varieties as LMA controls are: − expression of LMA in the field is in response to temperature shock − agronomic suitability and − similarity of maturity with target varieties.

• The expression events of controls will need to be confirmed o first by the presence of low falling number (less than 300 sec). And, o second by laboratory screening to eliminate sprouting and frost as sources of

alpha amylase – the protocol can be sought from University of Adelaide for this.

• Where LMA controls have expressed LMA the Candidate Variety is to be tested to determine whether or not it has expressed LMA. This involves –

o first by the presence of low falling number (less than 300 sec). And, o second by laboratory screening to eliminate sprouting and frost as sources of

alpha amylase – the protocol can be sought from University of Adelaide for this.

• If the field testing data set contains 1 (or more) confirmed LMA expression event for the Candidate variety its’ classification will be FEED in the Classification Zone.

• If there is no confirmed LMA expression for the target variety in the field testing data set then the variety will be eligible for a milling grade Classification in the Classification Zone in which the data set was generated.

• The default Classification in all other zones will be FEED until such time as field data has been generated to support a milling grade Classification.

This protocol and rules around field expression are subordinate to the rules around laboratory LMA screening. That is, data relating to field expression of LMA is only required and will only be considered in the situations defined by results achieved through laboratory based LMA screening (see Table A2.2 above).


Factors to be taken into consideration by breeding organisations in applying the protocol are:

1. Appropriateness of controls – • range of expression and induction of expression • maturity of controls relative to the maturity of target variety/ies

2. Site selection

• sites need to be across the target classification zone and in areas likely to induce expression in controls

3. Other data o It is suggested (but not required) that collection of meteorological data (rainfall and

temperature data) in the immediate vicinity of the trial also be undertaken as this can also assist to distinguish between PHS and LMA.


ATTACHMENT 3: LABORATORY PROFICIENCY CRITERIA

A] CRITERIA TO BE ACCEPTABLE FOR CLASSIFICATION

Company requires laboratory proficiency programs to be undertaken in order to maintain confidence in the quality of data presented for Classification purposes. The guidelines contained in this Attachment establish parameters for acceptable levels of accuracy and proficiency in the provision of such data.

For a laboratory to be able to provide data for Classification they must first participate in at least two sequential rounds of proficiency testing and achieve acceptable results and then continue to participate in the proficiency program, achieving acceptable results.

If a laboratory has stopped participating in the proficiency program it must participate in two sequential rounds of proficiency program and produce acceptable results in order to be eligible to produce data for Classification again.

Laboratories and Industry Participants may at any time seek clarification from Company as to the criteria for determining acceptable levels of accuracy for laboratories and the application of the laboratory proficiency testing program.

B] CRITERIA OF DATA CONSISTENCY AND ACCURACY FOR LABORATORIES

For each individual Wheat test the absolute average |Z-scores| is calculated to enable some measure of reproducibility. Absolute average |Z-scores| are also performed on individual samples and on combined milled and pre-milled samples, which enables Company to observe the effect of the milling process on results.

Each individual Z-score represents the decimal number of standard deviations by which an analytical result differs from the "true value" as represented by the median value. The definitions that are used are:

Z-scores of less than |1.00| represent outstanding accuracy and precision.

Z-scores of less than |2.00| are considered to represent satisfactory accuracy and precision

Z-scores between |2.00| and |3.00| are considered to be questionable and suggest some attention to equipment and procedures may be required.

Z-scores greater than |3.00| are considered to be unsatisfactory and require examination of equipment and procedures used.

If the absolute average |Z-score| for a collaborative sample is >3.00, this is indicative of an unacceptable level of variation in the test result.

If an absolute average |Z-score| for a sample is 2.00-3.00, then this test result must be considered questionable, and laboratories will be requested to provide an explanation, and to review its test methods. If 2 consecutive Z-scores for a specific test are in this 2.00 - 3.00 range, the variation exhibited by the laboratory is considered unacceptable.

Absolute average |Z-scores| for a sample of <2.00, but with individual outliers identified, would indicate there is confidence in the methods and the results; however the repeatability of the method will need to be monitored.

Where unacceptable results are observed then the laboratory is asked to provide a detailed explanation and undertake corrective action.


WHEAT RESULTS

All wheat quality tests (with the exception of PSI) must meet Company’s Z-score criteria. Given the range of different methods employed for measuring hardness, PSI results will be ranked. If ranking is not consistent, then a review may be required.

MILLING RESULTS

Due to the variable nature of milling performance between laboratories, this quality parameter has been measured using a ranking system. The flour extraction rate has been observed in conjunction with some measure of bran contamination, such as a Kent Jones Colour grade or Flour Ash result, from this an overall ranking has been completed on each sample. If ranking is not consistent, then a review may be required.

FLOUR RESULTS

Results provided on pre-milled flour samples will be required to meet the Z-score criteria.

END PRODUCT

Values are ranked based on each individual laboratory's results against the other samples in the set and then compared with the results generated by the other participating laboratories.

Bread - Loaf Volumes and Total score results will be ranked against the other samples in the set. To enable us to complete this, we require the maximum figure ie. 100, 50 etc upon which each individual laboratory expresses its "total score". Noodles - Due to insufficient participants completing the evaluation, results for 30min, 24hr and Colour stability (24-0 min) will be ranked for comparative purposes.

Statistical evaluation is undertaken by statisticians at the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA), who apply "Z-scores" in order to identify significant outliers.

Each laboratory's results are kept confidential. Individual laboratories will receive their detailed results, with median, normal inter-quartile range, average, standard deviation and z-score. The "average Z-score" for all laboratories is also provided as a reference for all participants.


ATTACHMENT 4: AUSTRALIAN WHEAT VARIETY CLASSIFICATION PANEL

Statutory Declaration

Summary of Lines submitted for classification

Entry Variety ID Variety name Classification stage

Target grade

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1. I am familiar with the Australian Crop Accreditation System guidelines;

2. I have had care and control of the collection and preparation or have put in place appropriate processes to ensure the care and control of the samples submitted by Company as part of the Program and the collation of all the accompanying data, and I am authorized to make this declaration on behalf of Company;

3. All of the samples referred to above were drawn from trials established according to the

Australian Crop Accreditation System guidelines and, where required, have been composited according to those guidelines and are representative of the line to be classified; and

4. All data and information provided by Company as part of the Program is true and correct.

5. All available and relevant quality data and information, in accordance with the guidelines and

data/information requirements has been submitted. Where data have not been provided, the nature of the data and the reason for its omission has been provided.

6. I understand that a person who intentionally makes a false statement in a statutory declaration is guilty of an offence under section 11 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1959, and I believe that the statements in this declaration are true in every respect.

Signed: Date: _

Witness: _ Date: _


ATTACHMENT 5: CONTROL VARIETIES

The following table contains a list of appropriate control varieties suitable for Classification purposes. This list was developed by the Variety Classification Panel and the domestic milling industry in an attempt to minimise the number of control varieties that are required for quality comparisons.

This list will be continually updated as more appropriate and relevant controls are established. Please contact Company for information on the suitability of other varieties as quality controls.

Table 5.0 – Control Varieties

Grade Planting Northern South Eastern Southern West Australian Prime Hard

Main Kennedy Lang

Suntop

Chara Spitfire

Early Sunco Sunbri

Sunvale EGA Gregory

Sunbri Sunvale

EGA Wedgetail

Long

Australian Hard

Main Janz Livingston

Janz Livingston

EGA Gregory

Yitpi Derrimut

Mace

Cascades EGA Bonnie Rock

Mace

Early Bolac Axe

Long Wylah

EGA Wedgetail

Australian Premium White

Main Frame Wyalkatchem

Westonia Wyalkatchem

Magenta Early Strzelecki Kellalac

Long

Australian Standard White

Main Early

Long Whistler

Marombi

Whistler

Marombi

Australian Soft Main QALBis Impala

QAL2000 Impala

Bowie Impala

QAL2000

Datatine Bullaring

Early Australian Noodle

Main Sunsoft98 Arrino Fortune

Early Sunsoft 98

Rosella Sunsoft 98

Rosella

Calingiri Kulin Australian

Durum Main EGA Bellaroi

Jandaroi

EGA Bellaroi

Jandaroi

Saintly

Hyperno

Kalka Wollaroi


main season = early maturity early season = late maturity

* Useful control for YAN assessment only.


For each quality control, the Company uses descriptors for each of the main quality parameters, based on a standardised set of definitions, and based on the understanding of long term variety quality. Table 5.1 (below) defines the words used to describe the quality parameters for each control.

Table 5.1

Word Definition Excellent Better than awarded grade

Good Acceptable at top end of awarded grade Acceptable Acceptable for awarded grade

Marginal Acceptable but at bottom end for awarded target grade Poor Below awarded grade

Very Poor Well below awarded grade

For each classification region, each quality parameter for each control has been defined in the following tables.

Northern – Table 5.2 South Eastern – Table 5.3 Southern – Table 5.4 Western Australia – Table 5.5

Pale blue shading indicates control varieties that are not mandatory until 2016. Grey shading indicates long season control varieties.


Table 5.2: Quality Summary of Northern Zone Controls

NORTHERN CONTROL VARIETIES – APH, AH, APW, ASW

Kennedy Suntop Lang Sunco Sunvale EGA Gregory Sunbri

Properties

Milling Quality Good Good Good Good Good Good Good

Flour Colour Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Water Absorption Good Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Dough Properties Good balance and strength for APH

Extensibility low relative to strength not well balanced

Acceptable for APH Acceptable for APH Good for APH Good strength for APH

Good strength and balance for APH

Extensibility Good Acceptable Good Good Good Acceptable Good

Max Resistance Good Good Acceptable Acceptable Good Good Good Flour Paste Viscosity High Medium Medium Medium Medium High Medium

YAN Very Poor Marginal + Very Good Very Good Poor Very Good Marginal

Straight Dough Very Good Acceptable Good Good Very Good Marginal Very Good

Rapid Dough Very Good Marginal Good Good Very Good Good Very Good

Mixing Time Undesirably long Undesirably long Undesirably long Undesirably long Undesirably long Undesirably long Undesirably long

Sponge and Dough Very Good Acceptable Good Good Very Good Good Good

Steam Bread

Biscuit


Table 5.2 continued: Quality Summary of Northern Zone Controls

NORTHERN CONTROL VARIETIES – APH, AH, APW, ASW

Janz Livingston Strzlecki Wylah EGA Wedgetail Whistler Marombi

Properties

Milling Quality Good Acceptable Good Acceptable - Good Good Marginal - Poor Marginal - Poor

Flour Colour Acceptable Acceptable Marginal Acceptable Marginal Acceptable Poor

Water Absorption Acceptable Good Good Acceptable Acceptable Good Acceptable

Dough Properties Good balance and strength for AH

Strong and balanced

Poor Rmax below APH and AH requirements

Marginal strength for AH

Good strength and balance Weak Very weak

Extensibility Good Good Acceptable Acceptable Good Marginal Marginal

Max Resistance Acceptable Good Poor Marginal Very Good Marginal Poor Flour Paste Viscosity Medium Medium High Medium Medium Medium Medium

YAN Poor Poor Good Marginal Poor Marginal Acceptable

Straight Dough Acceptable Good Good Good Good Marginal Marginal - Poor

Rapid Dough Acceptable Very Good Good Acceptable Poor Marginal

Mixing Time Acceptable Short (good) Acceptable Undesirably long Acceptable Acceptable Sponge and Dough Acceptable Very Good Acceptable Marginal Good

Steam Bread

Biscuit



NORTHERN CONTROL VARIETIES - ASF & ANW

QALBis Impala Sunsoft 98

Properties

Milling Quality Acceptable Acceptable Good

Flour Colour Acceptable Acceptable Very Good

Water Absorption Acceptable Acceptable Good

Dough Properties Weak and extensible, acceptable for SOFT

Weak and extensible, acceptable for SOFT Good for ANW

Extensibility Good Good Good

Max Resistance Good Good Good Flour Paste Viscosity Medium - High High

Colour Stability Raw Noodle Sheet 0-24 Hours

Good Boiled Noodle Colour

Boiled Noodle Hardness

Boiled Noodle Elast/Stickiness

Steam Bread

Biscuit Acceptable



NORTHERN CONTROL VARIETIES - ADR

EGA Bellaroi Jandaroi

Properties

Milling Quality Acceptable Acceptable

Semolina Purity Acceptable Acceptable Semolina Granularity Acceptable Acceptable

Semolina Yellowness Very Good Acceptable

Gluten Properties Strong gluten properties Acceptable gluten properties

Alveograph (P/L, W) Good Good

Pasta Colour Good Marginal

Pasta Firmness Good Acceptable


Table 5.3: Quality Summary of South Eastern Zone Controls

SOUTH EASTERN

CONTROL VARIETIES – APH, AH, APW, ASW

Chara EGA Gregory Sunbri Sunvale Spitfire Janz Livingston

Properties

Milling Quality Good Very Good Good Good Good Good Good

Flour Colour Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Water Absorption Poor Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Dough Properties Very Good for APH Good strength and

balance for APH Good for APH Good for APH Good Strength slightly lacking extensibility

Acceptable strength and balance for AH

Acceptable strength and balance for AH

Extensibility Very Good Acceptable Good Good Acceptable Good Acceptable Max Resistance Very Good Good Good Good Good Acceptable Good

Flour Paste Viscosity Medium High Medium Medium Low Medium Low

YAN Acceptable Very Good Good Acceptable Good Acceptable Acceptable

Straight Dough Good but variable Marginal Very Good Very Good Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Rapid Dough Good Good Acceptable Very Good Good Acceptable Acceptable

Mixing Time Undesirably long Undesirably long Undesirably long Undesirably long Undesirably long Acceptable Acceptable Sponge and Dough Good but variable Good Good Very Good Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Steam Bread

Biscuit


Table 5.3 continued: Quality Summary of South Eastern Zone Controls

SOUTH EASTERN

CONTROL VARIETIES – APH, AH, APW, ASW

EGA Wedgetail Whistler Marombi

Properties

Milling Quality Good Marginal - Poor Marginal - Poor

Flour Colour Marginal Acceptable Poor

Water Absorption Acceptable Good Acceptable

Dough Properties Good strength and balance Weak Very weak

Extensibility Good Marginal Marginal

Max Resistance Very Good Marginal Poor Flour Paste Viscosity Medium Medium Medium

YAN Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Straight Dough Good Marginal Marginal - poor

Rapid Dough Acceptable Poor Marginal

Mixing Time Undesirably long Acceptable Acceptable Sponge and Dough Good

Steam Bread

Biscuit



SOUTH EASTERN

CONTROL VARIETIES - ASF & ANW

Impala QAL2000 Sunsoft 98 Rosella

Properties

Milling Quality Acceptable Marginal Good Good

Flour Colour Acceptable Acceptable Very Good Very Good

Water Absorption Acceptable Acceptable Good Good


Weak and extensible, acceptable for SOFT Good for ANW Good for ANW

Extensibility Good Good Good Good

Max Resistance Good Good Good Good Flour Paste Viscosity Medium - High Medium High High


Good Good Boiled Noodle Colour



Steam Bread

Biscuit Good Acceptable



SOUTH EASTERN CONTROL VARIETIES - ADR

EGA Bellaroi Jandaroi

Properties

Milling Quality Acceptable Acceptable

Semolina Purity Acceptable Acceptable Semolina Granularity Acceptable Acceptable

Semolina Yellowness Very Good Acceptable

Gluten Properties Strong gluten properties Acceptable gluten properties

Alveograph (P/L, W) Good Good

Pasta Colour Good Marginal

Pasta Firmness Good Acceptable


Table 5.4: Quality Summary of Southern Zone Controls

SOUTHERN CONTROL VARIETIES – APH, AH, APW, ASW

Yitpi Mace Bolac Axe Derrimut Frame Wyalkatchem Kellalac

Properties

Milling Quality Good Good Good Very Good Very Good Good Acceptable Acceptable

Flour Colour Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Marginal Marginal Marginal

Water Absorption Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Poor Acceptable Good Acceptable Poor

Dough Properties Good for AH Good strength but can be slightly short

Good strong and balanced

dough properties

Strong and inextensible

Marginal strength (AH min) and acceptable

extensibility

Mediocre strength but

is Acceptable for APW

Good strength for APW

Mediocre strength which is

Acceptable for APW

Extensibility Acceptable Acceptable Good Marginal Acceptable Marginal Acceptable Marginal

Max Resistance Good Good Good Very Good Marginal Marginal Good Poor Flour Paste Viscosity

Medium - High Medium - High Medium Medium Medium Medium -

High Medium - High Medium

YAN Good Very Good Good Very Good Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Good

Straight Dough Good Acceptable Good Acceptable Good Good Marginal Marginal

Rapid Dough Acceptable Acceptable Good Acceptable Acceptable Very Good Poor Marginal

Mixing Time Acceptable Acceptable Undesirably long Excessive Acceptable Short (good) Slightly Long Short (good)

Sponge and Dough

Steam Bread

Biscuit


Table 5.4 continued: Quality Summary of Southern Zone Controls

SOUTHERN CONTROL VARIETIES - ASF & ANW

Impala QAL2000 Sunsoft 98 Bowie Rosella

Properties

Milling Quality Acceptable Marginal Good Marginal Good

Flour Colour Acceptable Acceptable Very Good Marginal Very Good

Water Absorption Acceptable Acceptable Good Marginal Good


Weak and extensible, acceptable for SOFT Good for ANW Weak and extensible,

acceptable for SOFT Good for ANW

Extensibility Good Good Good Good Good

Max Resistance Good Good Good Good Good Flour Paste Viscosity Medium - High Medium High Medium - High High


Good

Good Boiled Noodle Colour



Steam Bread

Biscuit Good Good Acceptable


Table 5.4 continued: Quality Summary of Southern Zone Controls

SOUTHERN CONTROL VARIETIES - ADR

Saintly Hyperno

Properties

Milling Quality Acceptable Good

Semolina Purity Acceptable Acceptable

Semolina Granularity Acceptable Acceptable

Semolina Yellowness Marginal Very Good

Gluten Properties Marginal gluten strength Acceptable gluten properties

Alveograph (P/L, W) Acceptable - Good Acceptable

Pasta Colour Good Very Good

Pasta Firmness Acceptable Acceptable


Table 5.5: Quality Summary of Western Zone Controls

WESTERN CONTROL VARIETIES – APH, AH, APW, ASW

EGA Bonnie Rock Cascades Mace Wyalkatchem Westonia Magenta

Properties

Milling Quality Good Very Good Good Acceptable Marginal Marginal

Flour Colour Good Poor Acceptable Marginal Marginal Marginal

Water Absorption Acceptable Poor Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable

Dough Properties Good for AH Good for AH Good strength but can be slightly short Good for APW Mediocre strength but

Acceptable for APW Good dough balance

and strength

Extensibility Good Good Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Good

Max Resistance Good Good Good Good Acceptable Good

Flour Paste Viscosity High High Medium - High Medium - High High Medium

YAN Good Marginal Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Good

Straight Dough Good Acceptable Acceptable Marginal Marginal Marginal

Rapid Dough Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Poor Marginal Marginal

Mixing Time Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Slightly long Acceptable Acceptable

Sponge and Dough

Steam Bread

Biscuit


Table 5.5 continued: Quality Summary of Western Zone Controls

WESTERN CONTROL VARIETIES - ASF & ANW

Datatine Bullaring Arrino Calingiri Fortune Kulin

Properties

Milling Quality Acceptable Good Marginal Good Good Poor

Flour Colour Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Poor Very Good Acceptable

Water Absorption Good Acceptable Good Good Good Good


Weak and extensible, acceptable for SOFT Good for ANW Good for ANW Good for ANW Good for ANW

Extensibility Good Good Good Good Good Good

Max Resistance Good Good Good Good Good Good

Flour Paste Viscosity Medium - High High High High High Colour Stability Raw Noodle Sheet 0-24 Hours Good Good Very Good Good

Boiled Noodle Colour Acceptable Marginal Very Good Marginal

Boiled Noodle Hardness Good Good Good Very Poor Boiled Noodle Elast/Stickiness Good Acceptable Very Good Very Poor

Steam Bread Good Good

Biscuit Good Good


Table 5.5 continued: Quality Summary of Western Zone Controls

WESTERN CONTROL VARIETIES - ADR

Kalka Wollaroi

Properties

Milling Quality Acceptable Good

Semolina Purity Semolina Granularity

Semolina Yellowness Marginal Good

Gluten Properties Acceptable gluten properties Acceptable gluten properties

Alveograph (P/L, W)

Pasta Colour Acceptable Good

Pasta Firmness


66

ATTACHMENT 6: SAMPLE REQUIREMENTS

Samples submitted for Classification must be selected and prepared in accordance with the following guidelines. These guidelines are based on the ACAS wheat protocols (specifically parts 2.1 and 2.2.2.2) and have been supplemented by the Wheat Receival Standards where appropriate.

Sample Collection:

• Samples must be collected from trials used for the collection of yield and other agronomic data.

• Trials from which samples are drawn should be representative of the target area as proposed by the Breeding Organisation.

• Approximately 4-5kg of sample is required to undertake the appropriate testing.

• Trials must include control varieties which are appropriate for the purposes of comparison - please refer to Attachment 5 – Control Varieties

• Grain samples should be thoroughly cleaned through a Carter Dockage tester or equivalent using a 2mm sieve to retain the main grain fraction.

• As a guide, cleaned grain samples should meet grain quality specifications Table 1 (below) and Industry receival standards summarised in Table 6.1 (below):

Table 6.1

Test Limit Test weight >= 78kg/hl min Falling Number >= 300 seconds (>350 seconds for APH) min Moisture =<12% max Kernel Weight >=30g/1000 kernels min Screenings (2.00 mm) =< 5% max Protein must meet the target grade as outlined below: APH 13% - 15 % AH 11.5% - 13.5% APW 10% - 12% ASFT 7.5% - 10% ANW 9.5% - 11.5% ASW N/A ADR 13% - 15%

• Trial sites exposed to environmental or disease situations that would adversely affect the

validity of end product quality test results should be excluded.

• Samples should be stored under conditions that maintain the integrity of the quality of the sample (examples are given)


67

Analysis may be conducted on:

Site Composite: Where possible, a site composite should be prepared from equal quantities of each replicate at a site. All replicates should be included. Replicates should not vary greatly in grain quality parameters. As a guide:

Protein content should not vary by more than 3%

Moisture should not vary by more than 3%

Kernel Wt should not vary by more than 5g/1000krn

Falling Number should be >300 seconds (>350 seconds for APH)

Test wt should be >78kg/hl.

Please Note: all details of the composition of composites as well as the data on which compositing is based must be submitted with the results.

Multi site Composite:

A multi-site composite is a composite prepared from site composites to achieve a sample of a test variety within an appropriate protein range. Control varieties and test varieties are to be blended in the same proportions from the same sites. Site composites used to produce a multi- site composite should be from sites that are geographically close to each other and should not vary greatly in grain quality parameters. As a guide:

Protein should not vary more than 2%

Moisture content should not vary by more than 3%

Kernel weight should not vary by more than 5g/1000

Test weights should be>78kg.hl

Falling Numbers should be >300 seconds (>350 for APH)

Screenings of any sample should be <5%

Please Note: all details of the composition of composites as well as the data on which compositing is based must be submitted with the results.


68

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF RELEVANT WHEAT RECEIVAL STANDARDS

QUALITY PARAMETER APH AH APW ANW APWT ASF1 ADR

Defective Grains Max (% by count, 300 grain sample; unless otherwise stated) Sprouted Grains max (% by count)* Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil - Falling Number min (sec) 350 300 300 300 300 250 300

Stained Grains max (% by count) Of which; 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 - Pink Grains max (% by count) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Dry Green, Sappy or Frost Distorted Grains max (% by count)

1 1 1 1 1 1 2

Heat Damaged, Bin Burnt or Storage Mould Affected Grains max (entire load)

Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

Field Fungi Affected Grains max (count per half litre) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Rotted Grains max (entire load) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Grain Infected with Ball Smut max (entire load) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Insect Damaged Grains max (% by count) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Staining Due to Moist Plant Material max (% by count) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Head Scab Affected Grains max (% by count) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Takeall Affected Grains max (% by count) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 White Grain Disorder max (% by count) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Vitreous Kernels min (% by count) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Contaminants Max (per half litre; unless otherwise stated) Picking Compound max (entire load) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Chemicals Not Approved for Grain max (entire load) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Seed Contaminants Type 1 max (individual seeds per half litre)

8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Seed Contaminants Type 2 max (seeds in total per half litre) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Seed Contaminants Type 3a max (seeds in total per half litre) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Seed Contaminants Type 3b max (seeds in total per half litre) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Seed Contaminants Type 3c max (seeds in total per half litre) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Seed Contaminants Type 4 max (seeds in total per half litre) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Seed Contaminants Type 5 max (seeds in total per half litre) 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Seed Contaminants Type 6 max (seeds in total per half litre) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Seed Contaminants Type 7a max (seeds in total per half litre) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Seed Contaminants Type 7b max (seeds in total per half litre) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Ergot Ryegrass max (length in cm per half litre) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ergot Wheat max (count per half litre) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Tainting Agents max (entire load) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Objectionable Material max (entire load) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Other Non-Objectionable Material max (% by weight) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Sand max (count per half litre) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Earth - 5mm max diameter (count per half litre) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Stored Grain Insects & Pea Weevils Live max (entire load) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Stored Grain Insects Dead max (count per half litre) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Pea Weevils Dead max (count per half litre) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Earcockle max (count per half litre) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Field Insects Sitona Weevils max (count per half litre) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Field Insects All others max (count per half litre) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Snails max Live or Dead (count per half litre) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Loose Smut max (count per half litre) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Bread Wheat max (% by count) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3

Documents

WHEAT&CLASSIFICATION&GUIDELINESwheatquality.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Wheat...Version(October(2015(8(5. CLASSES AVAILABLE ((5.1 The availability of Classes is determined at