Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
331
CONTAMINANTS OF GRAIN
J McLean, GrainCorp, Narrabri, NSW, Australia
C Wrigley, Food Science Australia and Wheat CRC,
North Ryde, NSW, Australia
2004, Elsevier Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
Introduction
Ideally, grain should be harvested in sound and clean
condition, without any form of defect or contamination. Realistically, however, there is always the likelihood that the grain will be harvested together with
nongrain material and with weed or crop seeds, all of
which detract from the value of the harvested crop.
The loss in value relates partly to the fact that the
resulting consignment of grain does not contain
100% of the type of grain ordered, but worse than
that, it is likely that the nongrain materials will cause
problems with the processing of the grain, or that they
may even render the grain unfit for the designated
purpose or for any use.
Historic Perspective
Primitive man, as the hunter-gatherer, had to accept
whatever material grew with the seeds that were collected laboriously from wherever they could be found.
As a result, the presence of contaminants must have
been considerable. Presumably, this unsatisfactory
situation was one of various stimuli for early man
to progress to cultivation and seed sowing, thereby
to improve the purity and quality of grain foods. Nevertheless, throughout the Middle Ages, the presence
of contaminating material was generally extensive,
because of poor agricultural practice and also due
to the lack of purity of the seed for sowing.
Significant improvements in grain quality have been
forced as a result of the progressive change from subsistence agriculture (the farmers family consuming
what they produce) to trading in grain (provision
of the grain produced for sale, in competition with
others). The past century has seen the extension of
trading from the local situation to major international
marketing and transport on a large scale (see Cereals:
Overview). As a result, standard specifications have
been established for the various grades of grain, based
on quality, offered for trade within a country and
internationally. Examples of these specifications are
provided in Tables 1 3.
An important part of these specifications is the levels of contaminating materials, the higher-value
grades being those with the least foreign material.
Examples of these specifications can be examined
on the websites of the export corporations of major
grain-trading countries. The first two examples in
Table 1 contrast a premium Australian wheat grade
(prime hard) with a lower grade (general purpose).
The former has tighter specifications for all aspects
of physical quality, compared to the lower-value
grade, including the requirement for less material in
the category of contaminants.
Types of Contaminants
Nongrain material goes under various names, depending on local terminology and on the species of grain
involved. Common terms include extraneous matter, unmillable material, dockage, besatz,
and screenings. This last term alludes to the general
practice of screening the grain through sieves of suitable size to separate material that is larger or smaller
than the normal size range of the grain involved.
The act of sieving to determine screenings is illustrated in Figure 1. The amount of these screenings
is a significant measure of grain quality, as it indicates
the proportion of the grain consignment that is not the
grain purchased. In addition, the nature of the nongrain material is very important, depending on which
of the following categories are involved.
Plant Material from the Grain Crop
332
CONTAMINANTS OF GRAIN
Table 1 Some of the specifications for physical aspects of grain quality for contrasting grades of wheat involved in international trade
Quality attribute
Australian general
purpose
Canadian No 1.
CWRS
Canadian CW
feed
Test weight, kg hl 1
Varietal mix
Falling number
Sprouted grains
Unmillable material:
above 2 mm screen
below 2 mm screen
Small foreign seeds
74
Specified
350
Nil
68
Specified
200
Nil
75
Specified
65
Specified
0.5
No limit
0.6% max.
Active scale
0.6% max.
1.2% max.
Active scale
1.2% max.
0.05%
0.05%
From 2 to 150,
acc. to species
Nil
Nil
1
3
Nil
0 10
3
50
15
2
Nil
5
10
Not stated
Not stated
0.01%
0.10%
1.0
No limit
7.0%
No limit
10.0%
7.0%
0.01%
0.03%
No limit
No limit
0.10%
0.10%
0.2%
0.01%
65.0%
0.75%
0.25%
Nil
4.0%
1.0%
Nil
1.5%
0.30%
1.0%
0.03%
No limit
No limit
5.0%
2.0%
No limit
No limit
2.0%
No limit
0.50%
1
2
1
5
Sources: (1) AWB Ltd. Wheat Receival Standards (2002 03); (2) http://www.grainscanada.gc.ca
Guide, dated 1 August, 2002.
CONTAMINANTS OF GRAIN
333
Table 2 Specifications for physical aspects of grain quality for grades of barley involved in international trade
Quality attribute
Australian
malt 2 six-row
malting barley
Australian
malt 3 six-row
malting barley
Australian
food 1 six-row
malting barley
US no. 1
six-row blue
malting barley
US no. 4
six-row blue
malting barley
Test weight
Varietal mix
Falling number
Sprouted grains
Unmillable material
65 kg hl 1
Specified
300
Nil
38.0 below
2.5 mm screen
0.6%
65 kg hl 1
Specified
300
Nil
42.0 below
2.5 mm screen
0.6%
68 kg hl 1
Specified
300
Nil
30.0 below
2.5 mm screen
0.6%
47.0 lb bu 1
Specified
Not stated
3.0%
4.0%
43.0 lb bu 1
Specified
Not stated
13.0%
10.0%
0.5%
3.0%
2.0%
5.0%
Nil
Not stated
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
0.5%
0.5%
Not stated
Nil
Not stated
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
3.0%
3.0%
Not stated
5
10
Nil
Nil
5
10
Nil
Nil
5
10
Nil
Nil
0.4%
Not stated
Nil
0.4%
Not stated
Nil
0.1%
0.1%
Sources: (1) Australian GrainCorp Receival Standards 2002/2003; (2) USDA (1995) USDA Grain Inspection Handbook.
Table 3 Specifications for physical aspects of grain quality for grades of oilseeds involved in international trade
Quality attribute
Australian
canola
CSO-1
Test weight
Sprouted grains
Unmillable material
6.2 kg hl
5%
US no. 3
grade
canola
5.0%
5.0%
49 lb bu
1.0%
5.0%
2.0%
0.2%
8.0%
3.0%
10.0%
1.0%
40.0%
10.0%
25 lb bu
25 lb bu
From nil
From nil
Not stated Not stated
to 200,
to 200,
acc. to
acc. to
species
species
0.05%
0.05%
40%
Nil
Nil
2.0%
20.0%
4%
7%
3%
4%
20%
3%
0.1%
0.05%
0.05%
2.0%
0.15%
0.05%
5.0%
0.5%
10.0%
1.0%
5.0%
5.0%
Sources: (1) AOF Incorporated Technical and Quality Standards, December, 2001; (2) USDA (1995) USDA Grain Inspection Handbook.
334
CONTAMINANTS OF GRAIN
matter in international trade as to whether the accumulated dust should be removed before shipping
grain, or whether it is a legitimate part of a grain
cargo. In any case, the dust generated during grain
handling is a significant health problem, causing
irritation to the bronchial tract as well as to the
Defective Grains
Defective grains may be regarded as undesirable contaminants, even though of the same grain species.
Such defects include:
(a)
(b)
100 m
(c)
100 m
(d)
400 m
10 m
Figure 2 Scanning electron micrographs of grain dust from (a) wheat and (b) barley. The photo of half a barley grain (c) shows where
the rachilla hairs have been broken from the base of the rachilla. The rachilla hairs are also shown at greater magnification (d). In each
photo, the black bar at the bottom, near the right side is: (a) 100 m, (b) 100 m, (c) 400 m, and (d) 10 m.
CONTAMINANTS OF GRAIN
335
Figure 4 Ergot-infected heads, in which ergot bodies have replaced grains in the head. (Reproduced with permission from
Ferns GK, Fitzsimmons RW, Martin RH, and Wrigley CW (1978)
Australian Wheat Varieties: Supplement No 1. Melbourne,
Australia: CSIRO.)
336
CONTAMINANTS OF GRAIN
from the development of field fungi, which may produce dangerous toxins and offensive odors.
Other Crop Seeds
CONTAMINANTS OF GRAIN
337
Table 4 Groupings of contaminating seeds (a few examples only) used by the Australian wheat industry to indicate their severity
as contaminants
Seed type
2
3
4
5
6
Botanical name
Ricinus communis
Coriandrum sativum
Allium vineale
Datura spp.
Gossypium spp.
Zea mays
Lupinus spp.
Helianthus annuus
Melilotus indicus
Argemone spp.
Sorghum halepense
Lolium temulentum
Secale cereale
Sorghum bicolor
Avena sativa
GP1a
Feed
Nil
Nil
Nil
50
100
50
50
20
80
200
50
200
500
a
General Purpose 1.
Source: AWB Ltd., Melbourne, Australia.
338
CONTAMINANTS OF GRAIN
Silybum marianum
variegated thistle
Carthamus lanatus
saffron thistle
Emex spp.
double gee
threecornered Jack
spiny Emex
cats heads
Galium tricornutum
(Galium tricorne)
threehorn bedstraw
Figure 7 Weed seeds that are likely to cause problems if identified in grain consignments. (Reproduced with permission from Ferns
GK, Fitzsimmons RW, Martin RH, and Wrigley CW (1978) Australian Wheat Varieties: Supplement No 1. Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO.)
Agricultural Chemicals
CONTAMINANTS OF GRAIN
Sitophilus granarius
Granary weevil
Sitophilus oryzae
Rice weevil
Rhyzopertha dominica
Lesser grain borer
Tribolium castaneum
Rust-red flour beetle
Cryptolestes spp.
Flat grain beetle
Oryzaephilus surinamensis
Saw-toothed grain beetle
339
Figure 8 Insect species that attack grains. (Reproduced with permission from Ferns GK, Fitzsimmons RW, Martin RH, and Wrigley
CW (1978) Australian Wheat Varieties: Supplement No 1. Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO.)
In addition to the contamination of grain with tainting materials as a result of harvest, tainting of a grain
consignment can occur during storage and transport if
a taint or odor is acquired from materials with the
grain. One such source can be the packaging material
used, in the case of grain that is stored and transported
in bags, for example, hessian bags.
GM Grain
340
CONTAMINANTS OF GRAIN
the detection of such contamination thereby guaranteeing the required grain quality required by specific
markets.
Sampling
CONTAMINANTS OF GRAIN
Traditional methods of analyzing contaminants involve visual inspection, and this approach is still
the best with respect to providing an immediate outcome and requiring no expensive equipment. However, this approach is subjective and highly dependent
on the experience of the inspector. This expertise is
acquired and maintained by ongoing training, the use
of illustrated manuals and actual samples, requiring
ongoing monitoring to ensure the standards are applied consistently. By this approach, grain samples are
first evaluated visually at the site of grain receival, and
then a representative portion may be sent back to
a regional laboratory for a second cross-reference assessment. In addition, a further portion may be presented to buyers of the grain for their additional
evaluation. The identification of the species of insects
is also an important part of this process, because the
various insect species differ in the severity and consequences of infestation.
The immediate detection of serious contaminants is
critical at the time of delivery, so that defective grain
loads are not combined with sound grain, as this
might downgrade the grain to which it is added. Subsequent analysis in the laboratory provides results too
late to prevent damage of a large grain consignment
by, for example, the incorporation of a relatively
small load of grain that is tainted or insect infested.
On-the-spot analysis is thus critical.
It has become usual for visual inspection to be
complemented by on-the-spot testing to provide objective results for specific critical aspects of contamination. Image analysis has great potential for
replacing the subjectivity of human involvement by
analysis of the image of grains and contaminants
provided by a television camera. However, the
341
Contaminant identification may continue by visual examination at a regional or central laboratory, where
a higher level of expertise may be expected of the
inspectors. There is also a role for image analysis
and sophisticated NIR equipment at a central site,
where the volume of samples would warrant the expense and need for operator expertise. A wide range of
laboratory methods is available for the detection of
specific contaminants. For example, the AACC Methods provide many standard procedures in section
28 AACC Method Group (see Appendix: Test
Methods for Grain and Grain-Based Products).
Laboratory methods include gas or liquid chromatography to analyze for agricultural chemicals
and ELISA immuno-assays for many contaminants,
especially aflatoxins.
Avoidance of Contaminants
Purity of Seed Sown
An obvious source of contaminants is the seed originally sown. If it contains foreign seeds, these are
likely to multiply and downgrade the harvested
grain. Additional risks include the presence of diseased seed, which will lead to the spread of diseases
during growth. It is thus important to obtain seed of
guaranteed purity at the time of purchase.
Farm Management
342
CONTAMINANTS OF GRAIN
International Regulations on
Contaminants
International regulations on many food matters are
administered by parts of the Codex Alimentarius. The
Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) establishes or endorses maximum or
guideline levels of contaminants in food and animal
feed, as well as dealing with food additives and naturally occurring toxicants. CCFAC is developing
risk-analysis approaches to be applied to all foods.
The resulting document is the General Standard for
Contaminants and Toxins in Foods. Further details of
the latest developments are available at the USDA
website: www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/codex/fac.htm.
Future Prospects
Traditionally, the presence of contaminants of any
type in a grain consignment has prompted
a reduction in its market value, because any variation
in appearance can provide grounds for bargaining and
for price reduction. More recently, there has been
a growing awareness that some defects and contaminants may have relatively small financial consequences. In some instances, the economic effects
can readily be assessed. For example, the presence
of 2% screenings (by weight) at a 5% reduction in
price would be a worthwhile bargain, if the cost of
cleaning is more than covered in the price difference.
Similar considerations apply to other innocuous contaminants, if their dimensions make them easily removable. Another approach to overcoming such
problems may involve the intelligent blending of diverse grain samples. Relatively simple research activities can establish the extent of economic penalties for
Further Reading
AOF Incorporated Technical and Quality Standards,
December, 2001.
American Association of Cereal Chemists (1983) Approved
Methods of the American Association of Cereal
Chemists, 8th edn. St. Paul, MN: American Association
of Cereal Chemists.
Australian GrainCorp Receival Standards 2002/2003.
AWB Ltd. (2001) Australian Graincrop Receival Standards
2002/03. Melbourne, Australia: AWB Ltd.
AWB Ltd. (2001) Wheat Receival Standards 2002/03
Season. Melbourne, Australia: AWB Ltd.
CCFRA (2002) Manual of Methods for Wheat and Flour
Testing. Guideline No. 3, (3rd edn.). Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire, UK: CCFRA Technology.
Ferns GK, Fitzsimmons RW, Martin RH, and Wrigley CW
(1978) Australian Wheat Varieties: Supplement No 1.
Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO.
Fitzsimmons RW and Wrigley CW (1979) Australian
Barleys: Identification of Varieties, Grain Defects and
Foreign Seeds. Melbourne, Australia: CSIRO.
National Institute of Agricultural Botany (2000) Botanical
Descriptions of Cereal Varieties. Cambridge, England:
National Institute of Agricultural Botany.
USDA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration (1995) Grain Inspection Handbook: Book 1.
Washington, DC: USDA (http://www.usda.gov/gipsa).
COTTONSEED
Wrigley CW (ed.) Identification of Food-Grain Varieties.
St. Paul, MN: American Association of Cereal Chemist.
Relevant Websites
http://www.grainscanada.gc.ca
Canadian Grains
Commission Official Grain Grading Guide, dated 1
August 2002.
http://www.aaccnet.org
American Association of
Cereal Chemists.
http://www.aocs.org
American Oil Chemists
Society; Standard Methods.
http://www.awb.com.au
AWB Ltd, Melbourne,
Australia.
http://www.campden.co.uk
Campden and Chorleywood Food Research Association.
Corn
343
http://www.cgc.ca; www.grainscanada.gc.ca
Canadian Grains Commission, Winnipeg.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov
Codex Committee on
Food Additives and Contaminants.
http://www.pi.csiro.au
CSIRO Plant Industry,
Australia.
http://www.wheat.pw.usda.gov Graingenes.
http://www.icc.or.at International Association for
Cereal Science and Technology.
http://www.seedtest.org International Seed Testing
Association.
http://www.crop.cri.nz
New Zealand Institute of
Crop and Food Research.
http://www.sgrl.csiro.au
Stored Grain Research
Laboratory, Canberra, Australia.
http://www.usda.gov United States Department of
Agriculture.
see Maize: Genetics; Breeding; Quality Protein Maize; Dry Milling; Wet Milling; Foods from Maize.
COTTONSEED
E Hernandez, Texas A&M University, College Station,
TX, USA
2004, Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Introduction
Most varieties of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L., G.
aboreum L., G. barbadense L., or G. herbaceum L.)
are grown mainly in warm climates around the world.
Over 98.5 million tons (Mt) of cotton were produced
worldwide in 2001 02 and over 33.6 Mt of cottonseed. Cotton is grown for its fiber (over 80% of its
value) and the seed is used mostly for oil recovery and
feed. Whole cottonseed can be fed to dairy cattle, and
the meal resulting from oil extraction is fed primarily
to ruminants and, in limited amounts, to poultry and
swine.
Traditional varieties of cottonseed contain gossypol, a yellow-green polyphenolic compound considered toxic to man and monogastric animals (Figure 1),
reportedly affecting the heart, liver, and reproductive
organs. It has been used in China as a male contraceptive but the practice was abandoned because of
permanent side effects. Gossypol is dispersed in the
plant as deposited structures or glands, which can
be seen as black specks in the stems, leaves, and seed
(Figure 2). The glands in the seed are ovoid structures
containing 35 50% gossypol and are 0.025
0.178 mm in diameter. These gossypol glands are
difficult to break by mechanical means, but heat
generated in extraction of oil by pressing, binds gossypol to protein, turning it nontoxic. Switching to
solvent extraction with hexane, where no appreciable
heat is generated, increases the free gossypol content
in the meal over ten times.
Raw cottonseed kernels may contain 0.6 2.0%
free gossypol. The Food and Drug Administration
in the US (FDA) limits free gossypol in human food
products and ingredients at 450 ppm, and the Protein
Advisory Group of the United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health
Organization (WHO) has set maximum guidelines
of 600 ppm for free gossypol and 12 000 ppm total