Wheat farmers make their money on the basis of falling number, the result of a viscosity test. The presence of alpha-amylase, an enzyme, alters the viscosity of wheat slurry through which the fall of a stirrer is timed. A falling number below 300 seconds portends bad news for farmers who might have to take a hit on their crop. Prices can drop by well over a dollar a bushel and can drop below the break-even point on the basis of the falling number. At the end of the summer of 2016 there’s some concern that the year’s Idaho wheat crop has falling falling numbers.
Everyday wheat-eaters are probably unaware that an agricultural economy rests on a simple viscosity test of some boiled wheat. And the test is neither time-consuming nor difficult. What’s the practical difference between low and high falling numbers that is of concern to wheat consumers? A low falling number caused by too much alpha-amylase results in the production of more sugar that, in turn, makes a dough more sticky and gummy, and, therefore, less desirable for human consumption.
Aren’t we a bit spoiled? In hunger, I would think that any wheat will suffice. That we have desirable levels of alpha-amylase speaks volumes about how far we have separated ourselves from mere subsistence. Most bread-eaters have to have special quality wheat without even knowing what gives wheat that desirable quality. At the same time that we well-fed industrialized populations recognize wheat quality in the bread we consume, we hear constant calls for sustainability and for—as though we could get “back to Nature” in the sense first proclaimed by nineteenth century Romantic writers—a simple life. Simple? My gosh! This is the gap between the satiated and unsatiated. We test for viscosity in wheat slurry! Is there some hypocrisy in our desire to “save” the planet while we live on it, use it, and require its soils and rains to produce wheat with low alpha-amylase?
So, thinking we are “getting back to Nature” and “saving the planet,” we drive our electric cars home to our solar-powered houses where we eat bread made from wheat with a high falling number. Are we modern Marie Antoinettes? If the falling number falls, should we send the wheat to the Third World? “Your Majesty, the people are complaining that their bread is unpalatable because the dough is sticky and gummy. We sent them the high alpha-amylase wheat. We tried to help them—at a price, of course—but even in their famine they seem ungrateful.”
Do we, like Marie, reply, “Well, if they don’t like the high-amylase bread, let them eat cake”?
Everyday wheat-eaters are probably unaware that an agricultural economy rests on a simple viscosity test of some boiled wheat. And the test is neither time-consuming nor difficult. What’s the practical difference between low and high falling numbers that is of concern to wheat consumers? A low falling number caused by too much alpha-amylase results in the production of more sugar that, in turn, makes a dough more sticky and gummy, and, therefore, less desirable for human consumption.
Aren’t we a bit spoiled? In hunger, I would think that any wheat will suffice. That we have desirable levels of alpha-amylase speaks volumes about how far we have separated ourselves from mere subsistence. Most bread-eaters have to have special quality wheat without even knowing what gives wheat that desirable quality. At the same time that we well-fed industrialized populations recognize wheat quality in the bread we consume, we hear constant calls for sustainability and for—as though we could get “back to Nature” in the sense first proclaimed by nineteenth century Romantic writers—a simple life. Simple? My gosh! This is the gap between the satiated and unsatiated. We test for viscosity in wheat slurry! Is there some hypocrisy in our desire to “save” the planet while we live on it, use it, and require its soils and rains to produce wheat with low alpha-amylase?
So, thinking we are “getting back to Nature” and “saving the planet,” we drive our electric cars home to our solar-powered houses where we eat bread made from wheat with a high falling number. Are we modern Marie Antoinettes? If the falling number falls, should we send the wheat to the Third World? “Your Majesty, the people are complaining that their bread is unpalatable because the dough is sticky and gummy. We sent them the high alpha-amylase wheat. We tried to help them—at a price, of course—but even in their famine they seem ungrateful.”
Do we, like Marie, reply, “Well, if they don’t like the high-amylase bread, let them eat cake”?
RSS Feed