U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.


Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Main content area

Influence of Soft Kernel Texture on the Flour, Water Absorption, Rheology, and Baking Quality of Durum Wheat

Jessica C. Murray, Alecia M. Kiszonas, Craig F. Morris
Cereal chemistry 2017 v.94 no.2 pp. 215-222
Triticum turgidum subsp. durum, absorption, backcrossing, baking, baking quality, breads, color, cookies, diameter, dough, durum wheat, flour, genes, genetic background, hard red spring wheat, hardness, introgression, lactic acid, loaves, parents, rheology, seeds, semolina, sodium carbonate, solvents, sucrose, texture, winter wheat
Durum wheat (Triticum turgidum subsp. durum) production worldwide is substantially less than that of common wheat (T. aestivum). Durum kernels are extremely hard; thus, most durum wheat is milled into semolina, which has limited utilization. Soft kernel durum wheat was created by introgression of the puroindoline genes via homoeologous recombination. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of the puroindoline genes and soft kernel texture on flour, water absorption, rheology, and baking quality of durum wheat. Soft Svevo and Soft Alzada, back‐cross derivatives of the durum varieties Svevo and Alzada, were compared with Svevo, a hard durum wheat, Xerpha, a soft white winter wheat, and Expresso, a hard red spring wheat. Soft Svevo and Soft Alzada exhibited soft kernel texture; low water, sodium carbonate, and sucrose solvent retention capacities (SRCs); and reduced dough water absorptions similar to soft wheat. These results indicate a pronounced effect of the puroindolines. Conversely, SDS flour sedimentation volume and lactic acid SRC of the soft durum samples were more similar to the Svevo hard durum and Expresso samples, indicating much less effect of kernel softness on protein strength measurements. Alveograph results were influenced by the inherent differences in water absorption properties of the different flours and their genetic background (e.g., W and P were markedly reduced in the Soft Svevo samples compared with Svevo, whereas the puroindolines appeared to have little effect on L). However, Soft Svevo and Soft Alzada differed markedly for W and L. Soft durum samples produced bread loaf volumes between the soft and hard common wheat samples but larger sugar‐snap cookie diameters than all comparison samples. The soft durum varieties exhibited new and unique flour and baking attributes as well as retaining the color and protein characteristics of their durum parents.