Explanatory Memorandum GTA GRAIN TRADING STANDARDS … Standards... · Explanatory Memorandum GTA...

Explanatory Memorandum GTA GRAIN TRADING STANDARDS

2013/2014 Season

Table of Contents

1. Background................................................................................. 2

2. Process for Implementation ........................................................ 2

3. Changes made for implementation in 2013/14 ............................. 2

3.1 All Cereals (Section 2) ....................................................................................... 2

3.2 Wheat ................................................................................................................... 3

3.3 Barley ................................................................................................................... 8

3.4 Sorghum .............................................................................................................. 9

3.5 Triticale ............................................................................................................. 10

3.6 Oats .................................................................................................................... 10

3.7 Cereal Rye ......................................................................................................... 11

3.8 Maize .................................................................................................................. 11

3.9 Oilseeds (Section 3) ......................................................................................... 12

3.10 Pulses (Section 4) ............................................................................................. 12

4. Issues Considered but Not Approved .......................................... 12

4.1 General .............................................................................................................. 12

4.2 Wheat ................................................................................................................. 14

4.3 Barley ................................................................................................................. 14

5. Potential Changes for the 2014/15 & Beyond Standards .............. 15

5.1 General .............................................................................................................. 15

5.2 Wheat ................................................................................................................. 19

5.3 Barley ................................................................................................................. 19

5.4 Sorghum ............................................................................................................ 20

5.5 Maize .................................................................................................................. 20

5.6 Oats .................................................................................................................... 20

Explanatory Memorandum GTA Trading Standards 2013/2014 Season of 20

1. Background GTA Member Update No.2 of 13 and No.10 of 13 sought feedback from industry on potential changes to grain trading standards (Standards) for the coming season. Feedback was received from a range of industry sectors on the proposed changes and a range of other issues. The GTA Standards Committee (Committee) met in 2013 on several occasions and reviewed feedback from industry. The Committee recommended changes to the GTA Board and the Board has adopted recommendations as appropriate. This document lists:

Changes to all Standards for implementation in 2013/14;

Those issues raised by industry where changes were not accepted; and

Issues potentially to be addressed in the 2014/15 Standards and beyond.

2. Process for Implementation As the 2013/14 Standards have been adopted by the GTA Board, the final Standards have been published on the GTA website at www.graintrade.org.au and are now available for industry use.

3. Changes made for implementation in 2013/14 3.1 All Cereals (Section 2) 3.1.1 Visual Recognition Standards Guides

a) Visual Recognition Standards Guides (VRSG) produced by GTA have been updated for barley,

wheat, sorghum, oats, canola, desi chickpeas and maize. b) GTA VRSGs have been developed for Angustifolius lupins and red lentils. c) Definitions in the VRSG have been upgraded and made consistent with terminology in each

Standards Booklet for the respective commodity. Changes are detailed in this document below. d) References in Standards to obsolete VRSGs produced by other industry

organisations/companies that are no longer produced have been deleted. e) The photographs depict the minimum standard for a grain to be assessed as defective. If a

grain defect does not meet the physical attributes depicted in the photograph it is to be assessed as sound. As previously advised to industry, the photographs for each defect in the VRSG and the definitions in the standards Booklet both reflect the particular defect. Both should be referred to when assessing grain quality. To increase clarity, further refinement to the wording in relation to the applicability of the photographs and definition for each defect depicted has been made to each Standards Booklet. Where a photograph exists in the VRSG for a particular defective grain type, the definition in the Standards Booklet now states that “This definition is to be read in conjunction with the photo in the Visual Recognition Standards Guide which depicts the minimum affected standard for a grain to be classified as defective”.

3.1.2 Minor Wording Changes

a) Updates in all Standards Booklets to refer to the latest versions of reference material including

the Weed Seed Identification booklet, Insect Identification booklet and the document entitled “Australian Grains Industry Post Harvest Chemical Usage Recommendations and Outturn Tolerances 2013/14”.

b) As industry does not currently have the tools to determine the exact coverage of a defect on an individual grain, for all commodities and defects where there is a figure listed in the definition relating to the coverage of the defect before it qualifies, the word “approximately” has been inserted.

http://www.graintrade.org.au/


For example, for part of the Wheat Stained Grains definition the following will apply: “A light grey to black fungal discolouration that may extend from the brush end of the grain but does not cover more than approximately 50% of the entire grain surface. Kernels with greater than approximately 50% of a fungal like dark grey, brown or black discolouration are to be classified as Field Fungi. Grains that exhibit small dots covering less than approximately 5% of the surface area of the kernel (a small proportion) are not to be classified as Stained and are otherwise whole sound grains. This definition is to be read in conjunction with the photo in the Visual Recognition Standards Guide which depicts the minimum affected standard for a grain to be classified as Stained”.

c) As Khapra beetle is not present in Australia, it was agreed to remove reference to this insect in all commodity standards.

d) The prior reference screen specification of plate thickness of 0.8mm has been altered to 0.9mm to reflect that stainless steel plates used in the manufacture of screens has only been available in that width for several years.

e) As noted in 5.1.8, GTA has formed a further sub-committee of the Standards Committee to develop standards required for the approval of Objective measurement technology. For all commodities, in the Reference Method for Defective Grains Assessment, wording has changed to clarify that Approved equipment may be used to assess each defect. The wording now states: “The defective grains percentage can be assessed with the assistance of the GTA Approved photographic standards (VRSG) or Approved objective measurement instruments where appropriate”.

f) The reference method for Objectionable Material when assessing Contaminants states “For assessment of Pickling Compounds, Chemicals not Approved or Chemicals in Excess of the MRL, all deliveries are to be accompanied by a signed declaration referring to its chemical status. Where the receiving agent believes that the visual appearance and/or odour of grain suggests that it has been treated with a non approved chemical, the grain is not to be received until the representative “as received” sample has been tested by an approved independent laboratory and the presence or absence of non approved chemicals ascertained”. The wording has been altered to make this statement a recommendation rather than a specific action that industry must implement. The wording now states “For assessment of Pickling Compounds, Chemicals not Approved or Chemicals in Excess of the MRL, it is recommended that all deliveries are accompanied by a signed declaration referring to its chemical status. Where the receiving agent believes that the visual appearance and/or odour of grain suggests that it has been treated with a non approved chemical, it is recommended the grain is not received until the representative ‘as received’ sample has been tested by an approved independent laboratory and the presence or absence of non approved chemicals ascertained”.

3.1.3 Insect Damaged

The definition has been simplified to refer to “These are grains eaten in part by Stored Grain Insects and any field pest of grains including Heliothis spp. Any visible insect damage to the grain is to be classified as defective”. The previous reference to “grains may have a hole or have a chewed appearance” has been removed as it is not required given the inclusion of the statement clarifying that any visible damage is considered defective.

3.2 Wheat In addition to the points outlined in 3.1 above that apply to all cereals, the following changes were made to wheat Standards only.

3.2.1 Minimum Test Weight Increase in Milling Grades As advised in 2010, the implementation date of the GTA Board Policy for an increase in test weight in milling grades of wheat was no later than 2013/2014. The Committee has considered all submissions on test weight provided by industry and has provided the outcomes of its deliberations to the GTA Board. Industry is advised that the minimum test weight will increase to 76.0kg/hl in the 2013/14 season for the following wheat grades:


APH1 APH2

H1 H2

APW1 APW2

ASW1 ASWS

ANW1 ANW2 PNC PNE APWN

DR1 DR2

SFE1 SFT1 SFE2 SFT2

3.2.2 WQA Wheat Variety Masterlist

a) Revised Annual WQA Wheat Variety Masterlist Review Process

To simplify the process of receiving advice from Wheat Quality Australia (WQA) on changes to the WQA Wheat Variety Masterlist and to ensure industry has access to the latest classification of each variety, a revised process will be implemented for the 2013/14 season onwards:

Date Activity 25th July WQA provides the final draft of the WQA Wheat Variety Masterlist for the

harvest season to the GTA Standards Committee:

The final draft will include confirmed changes from the previous year plus

Proposed changes to be finalised for the 1st September 30th July GTA Standards Committee provides acknowledgement of receipt of the final

draft of the WQA Wheat Variety Masterlist to WQA, noting the proposed changes that will be finalised for the 1st September

1st August The final draft of the WQA Wheat Variety Masterlist is incorporated in the Wheat Standards and published to industry. Notice to industry will include identification of proposed changes to the WQA Wheat Variety Masterlist that will be finalised for the 1st September

25th August WQA provides the final WQA Wheat Variety Masterlist for the harvest season 30th August GTA Standards Committee provides acknowledgement of receipt of the Final

WQA Wheat Variety Masterlist for the season to WQA 1st September The final WQA Wheat Variety Masterlist is incorporated in the Wheat

Standards and published for use by industry

b) Re-classification of Zones The Wheat Classification Council has consolidated several of the classification zones. From the 2013/14 season onwards:

QLD, NNSW and CNSW will be consolidated into a new Northern Classification Zone. Where varieties have different classifications in QLD, NNSW and CNSW they will be allocated the highest of those classifications in the new Northern Classification Zone.

SNSW will be renamed as the South Eastern Classification Zone.

VIC and SA will be consolidated into a new Southern Classification Zone. Where varieties have different classifications in VIC and SA they will be allocated the highest of those classifications in the new Southern Classification Zone.

o The exceptions to this are Lorikeet and Rosella where they retain ASW classification in SA and ANW classification in VIC.

WA will be renamed as the Western Classification Zone.

c) Default Classification The current default classification scheme has been removed. This means that for all future classification decisions determination of or changes to the classification of a variety in one Zone will not affect its classification in any other Zone. The above changes to the Zones and default classification will not only maintain and enhance the robustness of the Classification System but will also simplify its administration.

d) Changes to the WQA Wheat Variety Masterlist for 2013/14 - Recently added Varieties

Trojan – this variety will be classified in the Southern Zone in August 2013 Lancer – this variety will be named and released in August 2013 Shield Grenade CL Plus


Suntop Dart Phantom Gazelle

e) Changes to the WQA Wheat Variety Masterlist for 2013/14 - Due to a review of classification and/or creation of the new Classification Zones AGT Katana AH in Vic (previously APW) AGT Scythe APW in Vic (previously ASW) Angas APW in Vic (previously ASW) Aroona APW in Vic (previously AGP) Axe AH in Southern Batavia AH in SA (previously APW) Beulah APW in Qld (previously AGP) Bindawarra ASF1 in Vic (previously AGP) Brookton APW in Vic (previously ASW) BT Schomburgk AH in Vic (previously AGP) Buckley ASF1 in Vic (previously AGP) Caparoi ADR in Vic (previously Feed) Cascades T/N APW in Vic (previously AGP) Chara APH in NNSW (previously AH)

APH in Qld (previously APW) Cobra AH in Vic (previously APW) Cocamba AH in SA (previously APW)

APW in NNSW (previously AGP) APW in Qld (previously AGP)

Condor APW in NNSW (previously AGP) APW in Qld (previously AGP)

Corack APW in Southern (previously ASW) Corrigin ASF1 in Vic (previously AGP) Cunningham AH in SA (previously APW) Dagger APW in Vic (previously AGP) Datatine ASF1 in Vic (previously AGP) Diaz APH in CNSW (previously AGP)

APH in NNSW (previously AGP) Drysdale AH in NNSW (previously APW)

AH in Qld (previously APW) EGA Bourke APH in CNSW (previously AH) EGA Gregory APH in CNSW (previously AH) EGA Hume APH in CNSW (previously AH)

APH in NNSW (previously AH) EGA Jaeger AH in SA (previously APW) EGA Kidman APH in CNSW (previously AH)

APH in NNSW (previously AH) EGA Wentworth AH in SA (previously APW) EGA Wills AH in CNSW (previously APW) Elmore Cl Plus APW in Western (previously ASW)

AH in Southern (previously APW) AH in Northern (previously APW)

Envoy APWN in Western Excalibur ASW in Vic (previously AGP) Fang APW in Vic (previously ASW) Flinders APH in CNSW (previously AGP)

APH in NNSW (previously AGP) Forrest APW in South Eastern Frame APW in NSW (previously ASW)

APW in Qld (previously AGP) Gatcher APH in CNSW

APH in Qld (previously AGP) Gauntlet APH (previously AH) GBA Ruby ASW in Qld (previously AGP) Glover AH in CNSW (previously APW)

AH in NNSW (previously APW)


Goldmark AH in SA (previously APW) AH in NNSW (previously APW) AH in Qld (previously APW)

Goroke APW in Qld (previously AGP) Guardian APW in Qld (previously ASW) H46 APW in Qld (previously ASW) Harrier AH in Qld (previously AGP) Hartog AH in SA (previously AGP) Hyperno ADR in Vic (previously Feed)

ADR in CNSW (previously Feed) Impala ASF1 in Vic (previously AGP)

ASF1 in Qld (previously AGP) Jandaroi ADR in Vic (previously Feed)

ADR in CNSW (previously Feed) Kelalac APW in SA (previously AGP) Kennedy APH in CNSW (previously Feed) Kite AH in Vic (previously APW) Kord CL Plus AH in Vic (previously ASW)

AH in Western (previously ASW) APW in Northern (previously ASW)

Kukri AH in Vic (previously APW) Lang AH in Vic (previously APW) Lark APW in Qld (previously AGP) Lincoln AH in Qld (previously APW) Lorikeet ANW in NNSW (previously ASW)

ANW in QLD (previously ASW) ASW in SA ANW in Vic

Mace APWN in Western AH in South Eastern

Marombi ASW in Qld (previously Feed) Meering APW in NNSW (previously AGP)

APW in Qld (previously AGP) Merinda AH in SA (previously APW) Merlin AH in Southern (previously APW in SA)

AH in northern (previously APW in Qld) Mira APW in SA (previously ASW) Mitre AH in SA (previously APW) Mulgara AH in Qld (previously APW) Orion ASF1 in Vic (previously AGP)

ASF1 in Qld (previously AGP) Osprey APW in NNSW (previously AGP)

APW in Qld (previously AGP) Ouyen APW in Qld (previously AGP) Pardalote APW in NNSW (previously ASW)

APW in Qld (previously ASW) Perouse APH in CNSW (previously AGP)

APH in NNSW (previously AGP) QALBis ASF1 in Qld (previously AGP) Rees T/N AH in CNSW (previously APW) Rosella ANW in Qld (previously AGP)

ASW in SA ANW in Vic

Rowan AH in CNSW (previously AGP) AH in NNSW (previously AGP)

Saintly ADR in Vic (previously Feed) Schomburgk AH in Vic (previously AGP) Scout APWN in Western

AH in Southern Sentinel3R ASW in Qld (previously AGP) Silverstar AH in Qld (previously APW) Snipe ASF1 in Qld (previously AGP) Spitfire AH in SA (previously APW) Stiletto ASW in Qld (previously AGP) Strzelecki APH in CNSW (previously AH)


Stylet APW in Vic (previously ASW) Sunbird ASW in Qld (previously AGP) Sunbri AH in SA (previously AGP) Sunbrook AH in SA (previously APW) Sunco AH in SA (previously APW) Sunelg AH in Vic (previously APW) Sunfield APW in Vic (previously AGP) Sunkota APH in Qld (previously AGP) Sunsoft 98 ANW in Qld (previously AGP) Sunstar APH in Qld (previously AGP) Sunvex APH in CNSW (previously AH) Sunzell AH in SA (previously APW) Tailorbird AH in SA (previously APW) Takari AH in Vic (previously AGP) Tern ASW in Qld (previously AGP) Thornbill ASF1 in SA (previously AGP) Tincurrin ASF1 in Vic (previously AGP) Tjilkuri ADR in Vic (previously Feed) Trident ASW in Qld (previously AGP) Ventura AH in SA (previously APW) Vulcan APW in SA (previously ASW)

APW in Qld (previously AGP) Wallup APH in Qld (previously AH) Warrigal AH in Vic (previously AGP) Westonia T/N APW in Vic (previously ASW) Whistler ASW in SA (previously AGP)

ASW in Qld (previously AGP) WID802 ADR in Vic (previously Feed) Wyalkatchem N APW in Qld (previously ASW) Wylah AH in Qld (previously APW) Yanac APW in Qld (previously ASW) Yarralinka ASW in Vic (previously AGP) Yawa ADR in Vic (previously Feed)

3.2.3 Development of ASWS Cascade Rules As previously advised to industry, the ASWS grade is listed in the GTA Standards as CSG-126 however there is no reference to it in the “grade cascading rules” in Section 4 of the Wheat Standards Booklet. In addition, no approved varieties are listed for this grade. Wheat Quality Australia do not refer to this class, nor approved varieties within this class. Rather than seek WQA adoption of this class, requiring an extensive consultation process and significant resources, the Committee agreed to undertake this role in this instance only. In line with existing industry understanding and practices, for the 2013/14 season onwards, for the ASWS class:

The eligible varieties will be Lorikeet, Rosella, and Sunsoft 98 only

The grade cascade rule will be ASWS / AGP1 / AUW1 / SFW1 / FED1

3.2.4 Wheat Statement of Standards

Updated the Statement of Standards list, which is a spreadsheet enabling a comparison of the tolerances that apply for each quality parameter by grade.

3.2.5 Frost Damaged The reference to “affected by or during drying operations, or by any damage occurring during plant growth due to herbicides” has been removed. Frost Damaged is now defined as arising through one means, being frost during the development stage. Damage by other means such as the use of herbicides will generally result in grains being pinched/small. These smaller grains frequently fall through into the screen and are thus classified as Screenings.


3.2.6 White Grain Disorder/Head Scab The definition and VRSG has been revised to include a “flaky grain” arising from White Grain Disorder/Head Scab. There was a need to revise the definition to include reference to flaky grains and the following has been included in the definition: “For a grain to be classified as ‘flaky’ within this definition, it must also be affected by White Grain Disorder. If a grain is ‘flaky’ but not classified as White Grain Disorder, it is to be considered as a sound grain.”

3.2.7 Stained Clarified that for “black tip/ black point”, discolouration must be more than 50% of the germ in length to be classified as defective. Discolouration equal to or less than 50% of the germ in length is classified as sound.

3.2.8 Field Fungi Reference to how the fungus occurs has been removed from the definition. The field fungi definition for wheat is now: “Field Fungi refers to individual kernels where more than half of the seed coat is discoloured. The visible discolouration of affected grains can vary from dark grey, brown to black in colour. Grains that are approximately 50% or less discoloured are to be classified as Stained. Grains that are soft (and not classified as Sappy) and/or emit a mouldy odour are to be classified as Rotted. This definition is to be read in conjunction with the photo in the Visual Recognition Standards Guide which depicts the minimum affected standard for a grain to be classified as Field Fungi.”

3.3 Barley In addition to the points outlined in 3.1 above that apply to all cereals, the following changes were made to barley Standards only.

3.3.1 Barley Varietal List

Barley Australia has recently reviewed the list of approved malting barley varieties. As a result of their deliberations, the following varieties will be added to the list of approved malting barley varieties for the 2013/14 season:

Grange Henley

Scope Westminster

The following varieties will be deleted from the list of approved malting barley varieties for the 2013/14 season and only permitted as Feed varieties:

Arapiles Dhow

Grimmett Sloop

Sloop SA/VIC Tallon

3.3.2 Food Grade

Clarified a number of aspects related to this grade:

The variety to be included in this grade (Hindmarsh only)

A food variety will only be classified into the Food grade if it meets all Malt Grade specifications

Updated the Varietal declaration procedure to include this grade

3.3.3 Skinnings

Various types of Skinnings are defined in the barley standards (awn skinning, germ exposed, pearled, side skinning, split backs and split skirt). A further defect type, Ventral Skinnings, has been added to the definition and VRSG.


The Committee agreed to remove from the Skinnings definition the wording “in the two thirds of the grain closest to the germ end”. The term Skinnings is now “Skinnings is defined as damage to the protective husk of the barley”. Various minor wording changes have also occurred to parameters existing in this defect type to increase clarity.

3.3.4 Removal of Franklin Variety

The Franklin variety has a different Screenings tolerance than all other varieties in the Malt No.1 and Malt No.2 grades. As Franklin is no longer approved as a Malt variety, and is not listed as a Feed variety, the Committee agreed to delete this Franklin screenings tolerance and remove all references to Franklin in the barley standards.

3.3.5 Cleaved The definition has been simplified to now read “Cleaved barley is generally caused by rainfall events or rapid changes in moisture when grain is maturing. This results in a split along the crease or a split down the back, front or side of the grain exposing the endosperm.”

3.3.6 Field Fungi The definition has been altered as follows:

To reflect that low levels of staining not classified as field fungi are permitted without an impact on quality

The % coverage of the grain surface has been reduced from 15% to 10%

Reference to how the fungus occurs has been removed The field fungi definition for barley is now: “Field Fungi refers to individual kernels where the seed coat has the appearance of black spotting occurring anywhere on the grain. Coverage greater than approximately 10% of the grain surface is considered defective. Grains that show a coverage of approximately 10% or less are to be classified as sound. This definition is to be read in conjunction with the photo in the Visual Recognition Standards Guide which depicts the minimum affected standard for a grain to be classified as field fungi”.

3.3.7 Shot Minor word changes have occurred to clarify that a grain is classified as Shot if the husk has:

A distinct pin hole at the germ end; or

‘Tramlines’ on both sides where the husk has begun to lift on each side on the back of the grain at the germ end.

For both Shot and Sprouted, the reference to RVA and Falling Number has been removed from the VRSG but remains in the Standards booklet.

3.4 Sorghum In addition to the points outlined in 3.1 above that apply to all cereals, the following changes were made to sorghum Standards only.

3.4.1 Stained

The wording in the existing definition has been modified for clarity, which now reads “Stained refers to a grain defect caused by either exposure to wet and damp conditions during growth and maturation phases or a stress related biochemical reaction, which causes individual grains to become visually discoloured. This discolouration may be caused by a relatively slow growing fungus that affects the appearance of the grain. It does not refer to the more serious storage moulds (refer Heat Damaged, Bin Burnt, Storage Mould Affected, Musty, Mouldy or Rotted). The definition for Stained includes kernels that display a distinct light grey, to dark brown to black stain on approximately 50% or less of the grain surface.


Kernels with greater than approximately 50% discolouration are to be classified as “Field Fungi”. Grains that exhibit small dots covering less than approximately 5% of the surface area of the kernel (a small proportion) are not to be classified as Stained and are otherwise whole sound grains. This definition is to be read in conjunction with the photo in the Visual Recognition Standards Guide which depicts the minimum affected standard for a grain to be classified as Stained”.

3.4.2 Field Fungi

Clarifications to this definition include:

The colours that may be depicted within this defective grain type

Removal of wording associated with the cause of this defect

The previous reference to “field fungi being able to be rubbed off and staining generally not being able to be rubbed off” has been removed as it is not always valid

The definition now states “Field Fungi refers to individual kernels where the seed coat is greater than approximately 50 percent discoloured. The visible discolouration of affected grains can vary from white, to grey, to brown, to black in colour. Grains that are approximately 50 percent or less discoloured are to be classified as Stained. Grains that are soft and/or emit a mouldy odour are to be classified as Rotted. This definition is to be read in conjunction with the photo in the Visual Recognition Standards Guide which depicts the minimum affected standard for a grain to be classified as Field Fungi”.

3.4.3 Bin Burnt, Storage Mould Affected, Musty, Mouldy or Rotted

Clarified the definition for these defective grain types to distinguish them from Heat Damaged which has a separate tolerance.

3.4.4 Frost Damaged

The reference in the definition to “or affected by or during drying operations (refer also to Maximum Temperature)” has been removed as this effect is covered in the definition for other quality parameters such as Heat Damaged.

3.5 Triticale In addition to the points outlined in 3.1 above that apply to all cereals, the following changes were made to triticale Standards only. 3.5.1 Frost Damaged

The reference to “affected by or during drying operations, or by any damage occurring during plant growth due to herbicides” has been removed. Frost Damaged is now defined as arising through one means, being frost during the development stage. Damage by other means such as the use of herbicides will generally result in grains being pinched/small. These smaller grains frequently fall through into the screen and are thus classified as Screenings.

3.6 Oats In addition to the points outlined in 3.1 above that apply to all cereals, the following changes were made to oat Standards only.

3.6.1 Damaged Grains

Clarified Damaged Grains:

The definition includes broken grain, commonly occurring during the harvesting and handling process

Included the statement that any level of damage is classified as defective


3.6.2 Frost Damaged The reference to “affected by or during drying operations, or by any damage occurring during plant growth due to herbicides” has been removed. Frost Damaged is now defined as arising through one means, being frost during the development stage. Damage by other means such as the use of herbicides will generally result in grains being pinched/small. These smaller grains frequently fall through into the screen and are thus classified as Screenings.

3.6.3 Field Fungi

The definition has been altered as follows:

To reflect that low levels of staining not classified as Field Fungi are permitted without an impact on quality

The % coverage of the grain surface has been reduced from 15% to 10%

Reference to how the fungus occurs has been removed The Field Fungi definition for oats is now: “Field Fungi refers to individual kernels where the seed coat has grey to black spotting occurring anywhere on the grain. Coverage greater than approximately 10% of the grain surface is considered defective. Grains that show approximately 10% or less discolouration are to be classified as sound. Grains that are soft (that are not classified as Sappy) and/or emit a mouldy odour are to be classified as Musty or Mouldy. This definition is to be read in conjunction with the photo in the Visual Recognition Standards Guide which depicts the minimum affected standard for a grain to be classified as Field Fungi”.

3.6.4 Sprouted / Shot The definition for these two quality parameters has been separated given different tolerances apply in some grades. Photographs for each defect have been included in the VRSG.

3.6.5 Dry Green or Sappy Green

To reflect the definition, this parameter has been altered to refer to Dry Green or Sappy.

3.7 Cereal Rye In addition to the points outlined in 3.1 above that apply to all cereals, the following changes were made to cereal rye Standards only.

3.7.1 Frost Damaged

The reference to “affected by or during drying operations, or by any damage occurring during plant growth due to herbicides” has been removed. Frost Damaged is now defined as arising through one means, being frost during the development stage. Damage by other means such as the use of herbicides will generally result in grains being pinched/small. These smaller grains frequently fall through into the screen and are thus classified as Screenings.

3.8 Maize In addition to the points outlined in 3.1 above that apply to all cereals, the following changes were made to maize Standards only.

3.8.1 Fusarium Infection

Two new definitions have been developed, with photographs added to the VRSG as follows:

a) Starburst Starburst is “Best identified as spider web like streaks radiating down the kernel from the point of silk attachment. These streaks are corroded channels within the pericarp caused by fungal growth. Air in the channels breaks the transparency of the pericarp so the yellow aleurone beneath cannot be seen.”


b) Silk Cut Silk Cut is “Easily identified where the pericarp is split and the starch appears to be popping out of the kernel”.

3.8.2 Field Fungi

Reference to how this defect occurs has been removed from the definition. A photograph has been added to the VRSG to depict this defect.

3.9 Oilseeds (Section 3) The Committee agreed to adopt fully the Australian Oilseeds Federation Standards for 2013/14:

Updates to the canola definitions and VRSG have occurred, including the addition of a photograph for mould

Revision to various definitions and wording in the standards to aid interpretation

3.10 Pulses (Section 4) The Committee decided to adopt fully the Pulse Standards for 2013/14 as provided by Pulse Australia:

Included an export standard for Machine Dressed Angustifolius Lupins

Revision to various definitions and wording in the standards to aid interpretation

4. Issues Considered but Not Approved The following issues were not approved by the Committee for adoption in the 2013/14 standards. These issues will not be re-considered by the Committee unless a further submission is received from industry. Industry is free to provide their original submission or further information to support their views should they wish for any of these issues to be considered by the Committee in developing the 2014/15 or future Standards.

4.1 General 4.1.1 Rejected Change: Adoption of ISO Standards

A submission was received noting that a range of international (e.g., ISO and Codex Alimentarius Commission) Standards for Grain Measurement instruments existed. GTA was requested to adopt those standards where relevant. The proposal included adopting allowances for sampling uncertainty and measurement tolerances in the standards. This proposal was rejected for various reasons including:

The existing methods of analysis in general are meeting the requirements of the Australian grain industry;

Reference methods for assessment of grain are listed in GTA standards, some of which were developed using international and overseas country methods of assessment;

There is no immediate requirement for Australia to adopt international methods in areas where the existing Australian methods have differed;

In certain instances adoption of international methods would require: o A significant review of existing standards (e.g., tolerances, definitions) o A significant cost to industry to purchase new equipment o May significantly alter the testing process used in the field, leading to increased times

for sample assessment

Where required, under the Code of Practice for the Management of Grain along the Supply Chain (Code of Practice), Technical Guideline Documents are to be developed to assist industry to conduct various grain quality tests as listed in standards; and

“Tolerances” have traditionally been cited in laboratory certification for samples submitted, rather than listed for each quality parameter documented in the standards.

The abovementioned submission also sought development of appropriate “standards” (e.g., national reference methods) under the National Measurement Institute for test weight and


Falling Number use. Industry is advised that the National Measurement Institute have considered those comments previously and are progressing the issues where relevant.

4.1.2 Rejected Change: Standards for Bulk Export Cargoes

A submission was received requesting standards be developed for bulk export cargoes and large grain sales, specifying specific sampling rates, an average value and allowable variation for each quality parameter. The Committee rejected this proposal on the basis that:

It was not directly related to standards;

This proposal in part deals with the implementation of standards at various points along the supply chain following receival of grain. Industry may apply the GTA Trading Standards at any point in the supply chain and is free to vary those standards (e.g., noting specific quality parameters that are not guaranteed on outturn in a Storage and Handling Agreement); and

As outlined above, there are commercial implications of the application of variations to standards.

However the Committee agreed to develop a Technical Guideline Document under the Code of Practice to assist industry in this regard. This would include specifying appropriate sampling rates for application of the Trading Standards at various points along the supply chain.

4.1.3 Rejected Change: Cliff Face Pricing

A submission was received on various topics related to “cliff face pricing” and the application of standards. Various comments were included in the submission and actions were requested relating to issues such as:

Extending the range of pay grades for milling and other premium grades;

Introducing payment systems similar to the former “Golden Rewards”; and

Developing a system of averaging delivery classifications, or load pairing. The Committee rejected the various proposals on the basis they were not directly a technical standards issue. Industry participants manage some of these issues based on their own commercial operations. However the Committee agreed that the various issues raised in the submission would be forwarded to the GTA Commerce Committee for their consideration.

4.1.4 Rejected Change: Over-riding Visual Fungal levels post-receival of Grain

A submission was received requesting that initial classification of a sample based on the visual presence of fungal levels be over-ridden following analysis of the sample for mycotoxins. The Committee rejected the proposal on various grounds including:

Classification of a sample (e.g., load tendered for delivery) must occur at the time of delivery;

The range of mycotoxins that may or may not be present in a sample varies widely and is largely unknown at the time of sample collection and inspection, thus the range of tests to be done on each sample would be extensive;

The presence of fungal grains is not always an indicator that mycotoxins are present;

The timing of mycotoxin testing post-delivery would be problematic with the receival, segregation and marketing of that grain;

The potential prohibitive cost of mycotoxin testing of each sample; and

Industry generally introduces more suitable arrangements when fungal stained/field fungi/mycotoxins are detected or potentially present, such as pre-delivery testing.


4.1.5 Rejected Change: Standards to be set by an Independent Body

A submission was received requesting the standards be set by a suitable independent body. The Committee rejected the proposal. Under the current industry standards setting process, one of the tasks of the GTA Standards Committee is to undertake the following on behalf of industry: “Role As a Committee appointed by the GTA Board of Directors, the role of the Standards Committee is to consider those issues listed below and to advise the Board on appropriate action. Scope of Operation The Standards Committee shall make recommendations to the Board on issues relating to: (a) Grain standards - the review and maintenance of those Standards”

4.2 Wheat 4.2.1 Rejected Change: Field Fungi in the Wheat Grade AGP1

Industry sought an increase in the level of field fungi in the wheat grade AGP1 from 10 to 20 grains per half litre. This increase was sought on the basis that the current level of 10 was too restrictive. The Committee rejected this proposal on the basis that:

There was not a significant number of loads tendered for delivery that had been downgraded; and

The current tolerance enabled AGP1 to be marketed as a general purpose grade “mid-way” between milling and Feed.

4.2.2 Rejected Change: Falling Number Assessment and Dispute Resolution

A submission was received requesting a dispute resolution mechanism be implemented for the use of the Falling Number test and all other tests outlined in the standards. For the Falling Number test, this also included increasing the sample size for assessment and guidelines on the number of repeat tests to be conducted. The Committee rejected the proposal on the basis that:

The Falling Number test is the recognised international standard to assess sprouted grain;

A Falling Number reference method is documented in the standards, specifying minimum sample size requirements;

Industry implement their own testing methods and choose the equipment to conduct those tests when applying industry standards;

Industry is free to chose and implement their own dispute resolution procedure based on their own commercial operations; and

Under the Code of Practice a Technical Guideline Document is to be developed to provide industry with guidelines on implementing dispute procedures for all quality tests listed in standards.

4.3 Barley 4.3.1 Rejected Change: Prohibit the Use of Grain Dryers

For malt barley, drying of grain using incorrect temperatures may adversely impact on grain quality. A change was sought that for all Malt barley grades, grain dryers are not permitted. However it is recognised that a significant number of producers rely on the use of grain dryers in various parts of the cropping region across Australia. The use of grain dryers by the majority of producers does not materially impact on barley quality.


This change prohibiting the use of dryers for malt barley was therefore rejected. However recognising that the potential for damage to barley exists when using dryers, approaches will be made to relevant industry organisations to generate or update as required information pamphlets for distribution to producers who may potentially be using grain dryers on barley.

4.3.2 Rejected Change: Cleaved in Malt Barley

Industry sought an increase from 1% cleaved to 3% cleaved in Malt No.1. The increase was sought on the basis that for certain varieties, cleaved may be confused with other quality parameters, making classification difficult. The Committee rejected this proposal on the basis that the current tolerance was appropriate to meet the quality requirements of the market.

5. Potential Changes for the 2014/15 & Beyond Standards The following highlights potential changes for adoption in the 2014/15 and beyond Standards or highlights issues where further information and input from industry is required. Industry is encouraged to provide submissions on any of the following points, or any other issues, at any time by providing a detailed written response to GTA. GTA will formally seek submissions on the issues below and any other matters of interest early in 2014.

5.1 General A number of potential changes to Standards in general were proposed by the Committee in the Member Updates provided to industry during 2013. Industry provided various responses which the Committee considered. In summary these included: 5.1.1 Proposed Change: Visual Recognition Standards Guides for Other Grains

a) It is planned to produce VRSGs for the remaining cereals and other commodities where

relevant in future seasons. This will include various oilseeds and pulses. These VRSGs are intended to replace existing photographs industry may be using.

b) During this process, each VRSG will be reviewed on an annual basis as part of the Standards setting process.

5.1.2 Proposed Review: Weed Seed & Foreign Material Tolerances

Industry was advised in 2011 the Committee had commenced a review to simplify the categories of weed seeds, their tolerances and the method of assessment. A discussion paper on the proposed revised weed seed grouping and tolerances was released in September 2011. Following consideration of initial industry feedback, a further discussion paper incorporating various changes was released to industry in 2012. The revised weed seed tolerances were trialled over the 2012/13 harvest. The Committee has also considered further industry feedback on the proposed changes. In summary:

Generally the proposed tolerances altered the grade classification to some extent, however the impact on changes to grade classification and the extent varied by commodity.

Brome grass, cereal grains and weed seed pods were present in main grades in higher numbers based on the proposed tolerances. The high levels permitted in some samples were an issue, especially in Malt barley.

Given the difficulty of removing all Foreign Material (FM) from a sample and the increased time for this task, FM would be estimated only unless levels were close to the tolerance for that grade. However there was general support in “pursuing a FM category, or consistency where it currently exists in standards”.

There is a desire to maintain or reduce the time taken for assessment of a sample. The proposal does not reflect this intent.


As a result of the trial outcomes and industry feedback the Committee has determined that the revised proposal is no longer supported:

Further work will be done to simplify the standards by reducing the number of categories (i.e., standardising the existing lists);

The inclusion of a FM category where it does not currently exist will not progress under the current proposal. In addition, the existing proposal to standardise the FM definition will not occur, as this caused significant issues in some commodities;

A further review of the proposed FM category will occur to determine if any changes are warranted;

The revised proposal will be further trialled over the 2013/14 harvest;

The revised proposal simplifies the current testing process without adding any time for sample assessment;

This revised proposal supports the revision of categories and tolerances without compromising the marketability of the grain;

A further review will occur in 2014 before a decision on implementation in 2014/15 is made;

The impact of the proposed changes on individual weed seeds requires further review. Specifically, the tolerance for Black Oats (Wild Oats) in various Oats grades and other commodities requires review; and

No changes in the 2013/14 standards are proposed; Should industry seek a copy of the newly revised weed seed proposal, please contact GTA. This paper will be made available on the GTA website in the latter half of 2013, at which time further industry comments will be sought.

5.1.3 Proposed Review: Nil Tolerance

There was general support from industry to harmonise and/or clarify the definition of “Nil Tolerance” in standards where:

There is no measureable impact on grain quality; and

There are variances between outturn tolerances in storage provider agreements and standards applied at receival. This includes the parameters “storage and field mould”.

Based on feedback the Committee is currently developing a revised proposal. This paper will be made available on the GTA website in the latter half of 2013, at which time industry comments will be sought. As a consequence of this timing, no changes are proposed for the 2013/14 season however changes may be considered in future seasons based on industry feedback following consultation.

5.1.4 Proposed Review: Snail Tolerance

Industry noted that snails were a concern in deliveries in some regions during the 2012/13 harvest. Based on that feedback, the Committee is reviewing the current definitions and tolerances for snails to determine if any changes are required. This review will consider the impact of any changes in the standards on available control methods for snails on-farm. No changes are proposed for 2013/14. Industry will be advised of the outcome of the review during development of the 2014/15 standards, at which time industry feedback will be sought.

5.1.5 Proposed Change: Standards Implementation Date Summer Crops

Currently the GTA Standards are implemented on an annual basis as follows:

Winter crops – 1 August Summer Crops – 1 October

In general, industry did not support changing the date for implementation of summer crop standards from 1 October to 1 November.


Despite the above two existing dates, GTA publishes standards for all commodities for implementation as of 1 August each year. As such, the current 1 October date for summer crops is in practice not relevant. For 2014/15, 1 August will apply for implementation of standards for all commodities.

5.1.6 Proposed Change: Further Development of Code of Practice

The second draft of the Code of Practice for the Management of Grain along the Supply Chain was recently provided to industry for comment. GTA will review industry feedback and determine if there are any issues that may impact on the Standards and require Committee review in future seasons. In addition, industry submissions on the proposed changes to Standards for 2013/14 have been reviewed and issues relevant to the Code have been provided to the sub-committee developing the Code for their consideration.

5.1.7 Proposed Change: Actioning of Item relevant to Standards

Industry submissions were generally supportive of actioning the following items, especially where there may be some impact on the implementation and interpretation of standards. The following is a list of items raised by industry requiring actioning. The GTA Standards Committee will progress areas within its responsibility however does not intend to action those items where considerable resources or studies are required. For actioning those items, industry is encouraged to seek input from other more relevant industry sources. Including those items raised in 2013/14 industry submissions, the current list is:

No. Issue GTA to Action

Comment / Action

Open Issues 1 Development of more practical

Earth & Sand assessment method

No Extensive review required, resolution is a low priority.

2 Development of reference Screen Specifications for all commodities

No Documenting current screens used by industry. Yet to determine if the information provided will enable recommended specifications to be made.

3 Foreign Material, Unmillable Material and Contaminants category simplification

Yes Commenced under weed seed review. Further consideration will occur in 2013/14.

4 Vacuum v manual probe accuracy and suitability by commodity, standards for vacuum probes

No Reviewing prior trials. Guidelines for use planned to be documented under the Code of Practice as a Technical Guideline Document.

5 Generation of Fact Sheets and data to support existing quality parameters and tolerances in standards

No Will be considered under the Code of Practice as a Technical Guideline Document, however low priority.

6 Image Analysis techniques and adoption by industry

Yes A GTA sub-committee has been formed to consider development and adoption of all “new technology”, provide guidelines to industry and liaise with the NMI where required.

Completed Tasks 7 Falling Number machine

vibration impact on results Yes Reviewed. No further action warranted as

industry responsible for implementation of appropriate facilities and operating equipment as per recommended procedures.

8 Variation of NIR machines in regards to weather damaged wheat

Yes Reviewed. No further action warranted as NIR machines should be monitored and verified throughout the season by industry users.

9 Consistency of Standards across Industry, including interpretation and application

Yes Completed. Various references included in the Code of Practice.

10 Pyrrolizidine Alkaloid impacts on standards

Yes GTA Food Safety sub-committee has provided input into the weed seed review.


5.1.8 Proposed Review: Development of Objective Testing Technology

For several years sectors of industry have been working with commercial equipment suppliers to develop objective testing technology for a range of quality parameters listed in GTA Standards. This technology has the potential to remove the subjectivity of testing a grain sample and will therefore have significant benefits for industry. The Committee has been actively involved in that process and has recently been provided with a further update on progress of development of this technology by one commercial provider. The GTA Standards Committee has formed a sub-committee to:

Develop guidelines outlining requirements for equipment manufacturers when seeking to implement this technology for the assessment of grain as per industry GTA standards;

Liaise with equipment manufacturers on industry requirements and the process of industry signoff of equipment; and

Liaise with the National Measurement Institute on development of an appropriate “standard” as required for this technology.

5.1.9 Proposed Change: Review of Sticks and Stones

Industry noted that while producers strive for delivery of a sample free from sticks and stones, due to seasonal conditions and other factors compliance with the existing standards may not always be practical. On outturn from storage grain may be unintentionally contaminated. The current definition for sticks and stones may result in rejection of grain in these circumstances. Based on that industry feedback, the Committee will review the current definitions and tolerances for sticks and stones to determine if any changes are warranted, provided the marketability of the grain is not compromised. No changes are proposed for 2013/14. Industry will be consulted in development of the 2014/15 standards should any change be considered.

5.1.10 Proposed Change: Sample Size for Assessment of Defective Grains

For some defective grain quality parameters, standards require assessment of the entire half litre sample. Industry has advised this is problematic due to:

The time to conduct the assessment

The effort to detect these quality parameters in samples where a half litre sample may contain 8,000-12,000 grains

The difficulty of applying low tolerances in these relatively large samples The Committee will conduct a review of the sample size to be used for assessment of defective grains in all commodities. No changes are proposed for 2013/14. Industry will be consulted in development of the 2014/15 standards should any change be considered following the review.

5.1.11 Proposed Change: Formation of Food Safety Sub-Committee

In recent seasons the Committee has received a number of comments from industry in submissions relating to food safety issues. These topics include weed seeds and pyrrolizidine alkaloids, mycotoxins and mould, ergot etc. The GTA Board has approved the formation of this sub-committee to deal with these and related issues.

5.1.12 Proposed Change: Mould Definition Minor wording differences exist in the definitions for each commodity in relation to mouldy grain. Material included in this definition also varies by commodity. The will be altered to be consistent across all commodities. Note that this change will be done in conjunction with the previously advised review of nil tolerance.


5.2 Wheat

5.2.1 Proposed Change 2014/15: Removal of Obsolete Wheat Grades

The Committee noted that two “noodle grades” are currently not segregated in Western Australia. These are:

CSG – 123 PNC (Cadoux variety) CSG – 124 PNE (Eradu variety)

It was agreed to remove these grades in 2014/15. Note that these varieties would not be removed from the wheat Varietal Master List. It was further agreed to review the complete list of GTA wheat grades and determine if further deletions were able to be made.

5.2.2 Proposed Change 2015/16: Variety Classification Industry is advised that of changes to the Classifications of Rosella and Lorikeet for the 2015/16 WQA Wheat Masterlist will occur as follows:

Rosella will become ANW in the Southern Zone (SA & Vic) in the 2015/16 Masterlist

Lorikeet will become ANW in the Southern Zone (SA & Vic) and AGP in the Western Zone in the 2015/16 Masterlist

5.3 Barley

5.3.1 Proposed Review 2014/15: Malt Barley Germination Assessment

Industry was supportive of the review of the Malt barley standards in relation to the interaction between the quality parameters Shot, Sprouted, Falling Number (FN) test, Rapid Visco Analyser (RVA) test, Germinative Energy and Germinative Capacity. Analysis of data obtained from Malt barley received and stored during 2012/13 showed that:

In some instances at receival barley may have a low FN but still have good germination;

FN is a good indicator of storability over time;

As no sprouting may be present FN may not be initially tested at receival (but values may be below the standard). On outturn required germination levels may not be met;

There may be a case for lowering the FN or RVA tolerance however a significant amount of further data generation is required;

Some larger storage providers monitor barley in storages over time and liaise with end-users on any “issues” identified with the quality of the stored barley;

There may be varietal differences on the interaction of these quality parameters; and

There remains a need for FN, RVA and Shot/Sprouted limits in the standards. The Committee intends to liaise further with the malt barley industry to seek a resolution on the issues raised during the review of the abovementioned data. It was agreed no changes to the standards could be recommended at present based on the data.

5.3.2 Proposed Review 2014/15: Broken Grain No photograph for this defect exists in the VRSG. It is intended to include a photograph and review the definition to ensure it is appropriate.


5.4 Sorghum 5.4.1 Proposed Review 2014/15: Review of Total Admixture in Sorghum

A submission was received requesting a deletion of the quality parameter Total Admixture in sorghum. The request cited the existing separate categories and tolerances in the standards of which Total Admixture is comprised (Foreign Material, Screenings and Trash). A review will be conducted to determine the impact of this proposal on the marketability of sorghum and to determine if the existing quality parameters within the Total Admixture category require revision. Note that no changes are proposed for 2013/14. Industry will be consulted in development of the 2014/15 standards should any change be considered following the review.

5.5 Maize

5.5.1 Proposed Review 2014/15: Deletion of Gritting Maize Standard

GTA had previously advised that the GTA Gritting Maize Standard CSG-44 would be deleted for 2013/14 at it is a grade that is not used by industry. For this market, varying standards are applied based on commercial contractual requirements. Given that deletion in 2013/14 would not have been sufficient notice for industry, the standard will remain in 2013/14 and will be deleted in 2014/15.

5.5.2 Proposed Review 2014/15: Broken Grain

It is intended to review the photograph in the VRSG and review the definition to ensure it is appropriate.

5.6 Oats 5.6.1 Proposed Review 2014/15: Broken Grain

It is intended to review the definition relating to “any level of damage is classified as defective” to ensure it is appropriate.

5.6.2 Proposed Review 2014/15: Shot

It is intended to review the definition and inclusion of a tolerance in the Standards for Shot given the difficulty of assessment of this quality parameter in a sample.

Explanatory Memorandum GTA GRAIN TRADING STANDARDS … Standards... · Explanatory Memorandum GTA...

Documents

Transcript of Explanatory Memorandum GTA GRAIN TRADING STANDARDS … Standards... · Explanatory Memorandum GTA...