Download PDF, 1698 kB - Evira

Evira publications 5/2013 

Finnish Grain Quality in 2012




Description 

Publisher Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira 

Title Finnish Grain Quality in 2012 

Authors Evira, Plant Analysis Laboratory, Cereal Section 

Finnish Grain Quality in 2012 

Abstract The quality monitoring of the grain harvest gives a general 

view of the quality of the annual domestic grain harvest. 

The quality has been monitored since 1966. In 2012, more 

extensive data was collected than previously about the quality 

of organically grown grain. The quality monitoring is based on 

the grain samples sent in by farmers and on the background 

information they have supplied. The grain samples have been 

analysed using the generally used quality factors of the grain 

trade. The farms covered by the monitoring are selected 

randomly from the Farm Register of the Information Centre of 

the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Farms with less than 

five hectares of cultivated area are not part of the sampling. In 

2012, the quality monitoring covered 2 025 farms, from which 

a total of 1 008 samples were received. 

Publication date April 2013 

Keywords Grain quality 

Name and number 

of publication Evira publications 5/2013 

Pages 43 

Language Finnish, Swedish, English 

Confidentiality Public 

Publisher Evira 

Layout Evira, In-house Services 

ISSN 1797-299X 

ISBN 978-952-225-124-4 (pdf)


Kuvailulehti 

Julkaisija Elintarviketurvallisuusvirasto Evira 

Julkaisun nimi Viljaseula - Kotimaisen viljasadon laatuseuranta 2012 

Tekijät Evira, Kasvianalytiikan yksikkö, Viljajaosto 

Tiivistelmä Viljasadon laatuseuranta antaa kokonaiskuvan vuosittaisesta 

kotimaisen viljasadon laadusta. Laatuseurantaa on tehty vuodesta 

1966 alkaen. Vuonna 2012 kerättiin tietoa aiempaa kattavammin 

myös luonnonmukaisesti viljellyn viljan laadusta. 

Laatuseuranta perustuu viljelijöiden lähettämiin viljanäytteisiin 

ja heidän antamiin taustatietoihin. Viljanäytteistä on analysoitu 

viljakaupassa yleisesti käytettäviä laatutekijöitä. Seurantaan 

kuuluvat tilat valitaan otantamenetelmällä maa- ja 

metsätalousministeriön tietopalvelukeskuksen maatilarekisteristä. 

Alle viiden hehtaarin tilat eivät kuulu otantaan. Vuonna 

2012 laatuseurantaan kuului 2 025 maatilaa, joilta saatiin 

yhteensä 1 008 näytettä. 

Julkaisuaika Huhtikuu 2013 

Asiasanat Viljan laatu 

Julkaisusarjan 

nimi ja numero Eviran julkaisuja 5/2013 

Sivuja 43 

Kieli Suomi, Ruotsi, Englanti 

Luottamuksellisuus Julkinen 

Julkaisun 

kustantaja Evira 

Taitto Evira, virastopalveluyksikkö 

ISSN 1797-299X 

ISBN 978-952-225-124-4 (pdf)

Beskrivning 

Utgivare Livsmedelssäkerhetsverket Evira 


Publikationens titel Kvalitetsuppföljning av den inhemska spannmålsskörden 2012 

Författare Evira, Enheten för växtanalytik, Spannmålssektionen 

Resumé Uppföljningen av spannmålsskördens kvalitet ger en helhetsbild 

av kvaliteten på den årliga inhemska spannmålsskörden. 

Kvaliteten har följts upp sedan år 1966. År 2012 insamlades 

mera omfattande uppgifter än tidigare om kvaliteten 

på ekologiskt odlad spannmål. Kvalitetsuppföljningen är 

baserad på de spannmålsprover som odlarna sände in och 

på de bakgrundsuppgifter som de gav. I spannmålsproverna 

analyserades de kvalitetsfaktorer som spannmålshandeln 

använder allmänt. De gårdar som ingår i uppföljningen 

väljs enligt en samplingsmetod ur lantbruksregistret vid 

jord- och skogsbruksministeriets informationstjänstcentral. 

Gårdar med mindre än fem hektar åker ingår inte i samplet. 

År 2012 omfattade kvalitetsuppföljningen 2 025 gårdar, och 

sammanlagt 1 008 prover kom in från gårdarna. 

Utgivningsdatum April 2013 

Referensord Spannmåls kvalitets 

Publikationsseriens 

namn och nummer Eviras publikationer 5/2013 

Sivuja 43 

Språk Finska, Svenska, Engelska 

Konfidentialitet Offentlig handling 

Förläggare Evira 

Layout Evira, Enheten för ämbetsverkstjänster 

ISSN 1797-299X 

ISBN 978-952-225-124-4 (pdf)

CONTENT 


1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 7 

1.1 Special Characteristics Of The Growing Period Of 2012 .................................................................... 7 

1.2 The Quality Of The Grain Harvest 2012 ............................................................................................. 7 

1.3 The Quality Of Organically Grown Grain ............................................................................................ 8 

1.4 The Purpose Of The Quality Monitoring ............................................................................................. 9 

2 RYE ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 

2.1 Average Rye Quality ......................................................................................................................... 10 

2.2 Average Rye Quality By Region 2012 .............................................................................................. 11 

2.3 Average Rye Quality By Variety 2012 .............................................................................................. 12 

3 SPRING WHEAT ..................................................................................................................................... 14 

3.1 Average Quality Of Spring Wheat ..................................................................................................... 14 

3.2 Average Spring Wheat Quality By Region 2012 ............................................................................... 16 

3.3 Average Spring Wheat Quality By Variety 2012 ............................................................................... 17 

4 WINTER WHEAT ..................................................................................................................................... 19 

4.1 Average Winter Wheat Quality ......................................................................................................... 19 

4.2 Average Winter Wheat Quality By Region In 2012 ........................................................................... 20 

4.3 Average Winter Wheat Quality By Variety In 2012 ........................................................................... 20 

5 OATS ....................................................................................................................................................... 21 

5.1 Average Oat Quality ......................................................................................................................... 21 

5.2 Average Oat Quality By Region 2012 ............................................................................................... 22 

5.3 Average Oat Quality By Variety In 2012 ........................................................................................... 23 

6 FEED BARLEY ........................................................................................................................................ 25 

6.1 Average Quality Of Feed Barley ....................................................................................................... 25 

6.2 Six-Rowed And Two-Rowed Feed Barley ......................................................................................... 26 

6.3 Average Quality Of Feed Barley By Region In 2012 ......................................................................... 27 

6.4 Average Quality Of Feed Barley By Variety In 2012 ......................................................................... 28 

7 MALTING BARLEY ................................................................................................................................. 30 

7.1 Average Quality Of Malting Barley .................................................................................................... 30 

7.2 Average Quality Of Malting Barley By Region In 2012 ..................................................................... 31 

7.3 Mallasohran Keskilaatu Lajikkeittain 2012 ........................................................................................ 32 

8 AVERAGE QUALITY OF THE ORGANICALLY CULTIVATED GRAIN HARVEST ............................... 34 

8.1 Organic Oats .................................................................................................................................... 34 

8.2 Organic Wheat .................................................................................................................................. 37 

8.3 Organic Barley .................................................................................................................................. 39 

8.4 Organic Rye ...................................................................................................................................... 40 

9 MATERIAL .............................................................................................................................................. 41 

9.1 Sampling And Response Rate .......................................................................................................... 41 

9.1.1 The Quality Monitoring Of The Grain Harvest ........................................................................... 41 

9.1.2 Quality Monitoring Of The Organic Grain Harvest ..................................................................... 41 

9.2 Grain Samples And Form For Background Information .................................................................... 41 

9.5 Analyses ........................................................................................................................................... 42

1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Special characteristics of the growing period of 2012 


The growing period of 2012 was much wetter than previous years. The spring sowing 

was delayed due to the moisture; in places it was up to 2-3 weeks later than normal. 

According to the reports the most common sowing date was May the 22 nd . The earliest 

sowing date on the farms that took part in the quality monitoring was 1.5.2012 and the 

latest 20.6.2012. 

The cool summer and the ample rains did not help in catching up with the delayed 

sowing. During all of autumn there were no long harvesting periods with dry weather. 

The harvesting continued late into the autumn and some of the areas were left 

unharvested due to the difficult circumstances. On the forms for the background 

information of the grain harvest, in addition to the exact measurements of the monthly 

rainfalls or when these were missing, there were very descriptive descriptions of the 

record high monthly rainfalls: “May sufficient, June a lot, July more than we needed, 

August too much, September way too much”. 

According to estimates, over 90 per cent of the grain harvest was harvested during the 

short spells of dry weather. The most often reported harvesting date was September 

the 10 th . The earliest reported harvest for the quality monitoring was in week 32, in 

early August, and the latest in week 44, right at the end of October. 

The moisture content at harvest varied in the spring grains between 15 and 40.0 per 

cent. The average moisture content at harvest was 23 per cent (the median was 22 per 

cent). 

1.2 The quality of the grain harvest 2012 

The harvested grain was of good quality despite the weather conditions that marked 

the growing season. Over half of the grain harvest fulfilled the criteria for bread grain 

based on hectolitre weight, falling number and protein content. The falling number of 

the bread grains did not fall as much as had been feared due to the late harvest. The 

quality of the wheat harvest was reduced mainly by the protein content, especially for 

winter wheat. The rye harvest was also of good quality. Based on the samples 76 per 

cent of the harvest had a falling number of a minimum of 120 and a hectolitre weight of 

a minimum of 71 kg, which means that they fulfilled the quality requirements for rye at 

the basic price. 

The harvest of malting barley was also good as to the quality requirements of the 

malting industry for sieving and protein content. The quality requirements were fulfilled 

by 68 per cent of the samples. The exceptionally wet growing period may well have 

lowered the germination and increased the number of moulds or mould toxins and may 

therefore have reduced the quality of the malting barley. 

The feed grains had high hectolitre weights. The hectolitre weight in 59 per cent of the 

feed barley samples was above 64 kg and in the oat samples 96 per cent was over 52 

kg. No less than 59 per cent of the oat samples also fulfilled the general requirement 

for milling quality oats of a hectolitre weight of 58 kg. Even though mould toxins are not 

7


covered by this publication, it should still be noted that high levels of deoxynivalenol 

(DON), especially in oats, were found in the whole country, and in some cases they 

have exceeded the limit set for food use. 

Even though the past growing period was particularly difficult in certain areas, the wet 

summer also produced excellent harvests in other areas. Summer rains are by their 

nature often very localised, which means that there can be great local fluctuations even 

within the same region. 

1.3 The quality of organically grown grain 

Oats is the most important cereal in organic cultivation. The hectolitre weights of 

organic oats were also very high. Based on hectolitre weight, 97 per cent of the oat 

samples qualified for the feed industry, when a hectolitre weight of 52 kg is considered 

as the minimum requirement. The average yield level for organic oats was 2,542 

kg/hectare. 

Based on hectolitre weight, 62 per cent of the organic samples qualified as milling 

quality oats. For the purpose of these statistics, no other quality factors affecting the 

pricing than hectolitre weight were used. Potential mould toxins were not considered. 

The cultivation of organic spring wheat succeeded somewhat better than the cultivation 

of conventional spring wheat, when taking into consideration the share of samples 

qualifying for bread wheat of the samples in the quality monitoring of the grain harvest. 

Based on hectolitre weight, falling number and protein content, 51 per cent of the 

samples of organic wheat were of bread quality, whereas the corresponding share of 

conventional spring wheat was 46 per cent. The average yield level was only 2,579 

kg/hectare for organic wheat. 

Of the organic barley, 41 per cent had a hectolitre weight of a minimum of 64 kg. The 

average yield per hectare for organic barley was 2,067 kg/hectare. As to total besatz 

and the number of shrivelled grains, organic barley was behind that of conventional 

barley. 

The quality of organic rye was good, but not as good as that of the conventionally 

grown rye. Of the samples, 65 per cent fulfilled the quality requirements for rye at the 

basic price (falling number 120, hectolitre weight 71 kg). The average yield level for 

organic rye was 1,763 kg/hectare. 

In 2012, more extensive data was collected than previously about the quality of 

organically grown grain by using new additional sampling. Quality information on the 

organic grain harvest has also been collected in previous years, but only as a part of 

the quality monitoring of the traditional grain harvest. 

8

1.4 The purpose of the quality monitoring 


The purpose of the quality monitoring of the grain harvest is to form an overall picture 

of the quality of the grain for the cropping year as it is when it is sent from the farms to 

the market or is left for on farm use. The basic data on the grain quality for the year in 

question and also statistics on average quality for a longer period is published in in 

here. 

The quality monitoring is based on the samples sent in by the farmers (the material is 

described in more detail in chapter 9 at the end of the publication). In addition to the 

samples, the farmers are giving valuable information on the form accompanying the 

samples, with background data on inputs and background factors such as preceding 

crops, information on the fertility of the cultivated plot, seeds used, fertilisers, plant 

protection agents, dates of sowing and harvesting, soil cultivation techniques, types of 

dryers and weather factors that have impacted on the grain quality during the growing 

season, such as frosts and rainfall. The information used in this publication on harvest 

estimates, dates for sowing and harvesting are based on the information received from 

the farmers. 

The results of the quality monitoring have been published on Evira's internet pages 

since the harvest began. The average quality is presented by cereal, variety and 

region. In 2012, the regional examination of the quality of the harvest was mainly 

carried out according to the divisions of the Centres for Economic Development, 

Transport and the Environment (hereafter ELY-Centres). The map of ELY-Centres is 

presented in appendix 1 (source of the maps is SYKE, Finland’s environmental 

administration).The division of Finland into four main regions has also been used in 

order to get better coverage in cases where the number of samples was low. Viljaseula 

has previously described the regional quality of the grain via the rural advisory centres, 

which is the ProAgria Centres, which should be considered if the regional differences 

between different years are being compared. In conjunction with the publication of 

Viljaseula on our internet pages, we have added tables by cereal, region and grain 

variety for all of the quality factors. 

The material from the quality monitoring of the grain harvest has been used in press 

releases, lectures and articles. The farmers who have submitted samples got the 

results of their own samples. The material was also used by the Finnish Cereal 

Committee (VYR) for a follow-up analysis of the safety of the grain, where mould 

toxins, residues of plant protection products and heavy metals were examined. These 

results are not included in this publication. 

The quality of the domestic grain harvest has been monitored since 1966. An 

advantage of long-term monitoring is the ability to compare between different years. 

The publication functions as a good source of information when seeking statistical 

information on the quality factors of the grain. 

9

2 RYE 

2.1 Average rye quality 


The number of rye samples submitted for the quality monitoring of the grain harvest 

was 6.0 per cent of the grain samples in 2012, which is relatively somewhat more than 

the cultivated surface of rye (2.0 per cent of the area cultivated in grain) or yield (1.8 

per cent of the harvest of the grain crop). 

The average quality results of rye for 1990–2012 are presented below (table 1). The 

average hectolitre weight of rye was 77.1 kg (the median was 78.1 kg). Of the samples, 

94 per cent had a minimum hectolitre weight of 71 kg. The average falling number was 

171 seconds (the median was 174 seconds). Of the samples, 78 per cent had a falling 

number of a minimum of 120 seconds. The variation in of the average values of 

hectolitre weight, protein content and falling number for the last ten years is illustrated 

in figures 4-6. 

Based on the analyses of the rye samples, 76 per cent of the samples fulfilled the 

generally used quality requirements for the basic price as to hectolitre weight and 

falling number for rye. The share of rye samples qualifying for bread grain was at a 

high level similarly to the two previous years (figure 1) and better than the average 

value for the last ten years. 

According to the reports, the rye was harvested 15.8-18.9. The average value and the 

median were week 34 in August. Of the late harvests, the falling number was low in 

part of the samples, but in others the falling number had remained high. The moisture 

content at harvest fluctuated between 17-36 per cent. The average moisture content at 

harvest was 25 per cent (the median was 24 per cent). The estimated rye harvest was 

on average 3,405 kg, the range of variation was 800–6,000 kg (the median was 3,300). 

Table 1. Average rye quality in 1990–2012 

Rye 

Crop year Hectoliter weight Falling number Protein Shrivelled grain Total besatz 

kg/hl s % < 1,8 mm % % 

1990 75,2 124 10,9 ― ― 

1991 72,9 86 10,7 ― ― 

1992 76,9 130 11,5 ― ― 

1993 74,9 96 11,9 ― ― 

1994 75,8 172 11,3 ― ― 

1995 76,2 213 10,3 ― ― 

1996 73,8 214 11,1 ― ― 

1997 75,6 198 12,0 5,9 ― 

1998 70,6 75 10,7 19,2 21,5 

1999 76,6 175 10,9 5,4 7,7 

2000 74,5 116 10,8 8,3 10,1 

2001 75,1 170 10,8 8,8 10,4 

2002 75,3 219 11,2 8,9 11,2 

2003 73,7 204 11,9 9,7 11,9 

2004 73,0 137 11,2 11,7 13,7 

2005 75,0 103 10,3 8,3 10,4 

2006 77,3 215 10,7 3,7 7,0 

2007 76,4 164 10,6 5,8 8,6 

2008 75,0 93 10,4 6,2 8,2 

2009 75,0 149 9,7 6,1 8,8 

2010 76,3 245 10,2 6,9 10,1 

2011 76,2 198 11,1 4,5 8,1 

2012 77,1 171 9,7 6,6 8,6 

10


Figure 1. The share of rye samples qualifying for bread grain 2003–2012 (hectolitre weight ≥71 kg, falling 

number ≥120 s). 

2.2 Average rye quality by region 2012 

Rye samples from a total of 13 ELY-centres’ regions were received for the quality 

monitoring. Of these, the most important production areas of rye are Häme, Uusimaa 

and Southwest Finland. Based on the samples from these regions, the rye harvest 

fulfilled in its entirety the requirements for the basic price (falling number 120, hectolitre 

weight 71 kg), whereas 76 per cent of the samples from the whole country fulfilled 

these requirements. The statistical examination was done by way of Finland’s main 

regions, Southern, Western and Eastern Finland, in order to have a more 

comprehensive number of samples. The average regional quality information for the 

main regions is presented in table 2. 

Table 2. Average rye quality by region in 2012 

Rye 

Area Hectoliter weight Falling number Protein Shrivelled grain Total besatz 

kg/hl s % < 1,8 mm % % 

Southern Finland 79,0 202 9,2 4,3 6,3 

Western Finland 77,0 162 10,0 7,8 9,6 

Estaren Finland 74,8 120 10,4 9,1 10,9 

Figure 2. Share of samples fulfilling the quality requirements for rye at the basic price (hectolitre weight ≥ 

78 kg, falling number ≥ 120 s) and yield level by main region in 2012. 

11

2.3 Average rye quality by variety 2012 


In 2012, 12 different varieties of rye were received for the quality monitoring of the 

grain harvest. There are 14 varieties of winter rye on the official list of plant varieties. 

No samples of spring rye were sent in for the quality monitoring. Figure 3 shows the 

share of the rye varieties of the samples. The most popular was Reetta, which 

represented 40 per cent of the rye samples. Other common varieties were Elvi and 

Riihi, for which the average quality information is presented in the comparison between 

the varieties (table 3), even though the number of samples is below ten. 

Figure 3. The share of rye varieties in the samples for the quality monitoring 2012. 

Table 3. Average rye quality by variety in 2012 

Rye 

Variety Hectoliter weight Falling number Protein Shrivelled grain Total besatz 

kg/hl s % < 1,8 mm % % 

Elvi* 76,9 152 8,8 6,1 8,0 

Reetta 79,1 181 9,5 4,1 5,7 

Riihi* 

* n ˂ 10 

74,5 148 10,5 6,1 8,2 

The rye samples of the variety Reetta had a minimum hectolitre weight of 71 kg and a 

falling number of a minimum of 120 seconds in 85 per cent of the samples. When all of 

the other varieties are added together, the corresponding share was 70 per cent. 

12


The pictures 4-6 show the fluctuations in average hectolitre weight, falling number and 

protein content in rye, spring wheat and winter wheat for the last ten years.* -> 

Figure 4. Hectolitre weights of bread grains in 2003–2012. 

Figure 5. Falling numbers for bread grains in 2003–2012. 

Figure 6. Protein content of bread grains in 2003–2012. 

13

3 SPRING WHEAT 

3.1 Average quality of spring wheat 


Twenty-five per cent of the grain samples in the quality monitoring of the grain harvest 

of 2012 were spring wheat samples. The spring wheat covered 20 per cent of the area 

cultivated in grain and the harvest was 22 per cent of the grain harvest. The average 

quality of spring wheat for the years 1990-2012 is presented in table 4. 

Table 4. Average spring wheat quality 1990-2012 

Spring wheat 

Crop Year Hectoliter weight Falling number Protein Wet Gluten Zeleny-index Starch Shrivelled grain Total besatz 

kg/hl s % % ml % < 2,0 mm % % 

1990 81,7 311 14,1 34,5 47 ― ― ― 

1991 81,1 371 13,2 32,3 56 ― ― ― 

1992 82,0 209 15,4 41,9 68 ― ― ― 

1993 80,2 183 13,6 34,2 59 ― ― ― 

1994 81,7 293 13,7 33,9 57 ― ― ― 

1995 82,3 291 12,6 37,3 46 ― ― ― 

1996 80,8 294 11,7 26,5 46 ― ― ― 

1997 79,1 361 14,0 33,3 63 ― 2,8 ― 

1998 74,1 271 12,9 28,7 60 ― 8,2 10,3 

1999 81,2 325 14,2 34,0 64 ― 2,3 4,5 

2000 78,2 302 13,8 29,1* 64 ― 3,9 6,1 

2001 81,5 289 13,9 29,7* 62 ― 2,2 4,1 

2002 77,9 329 14,8 31,7* 61 ― 4,2 8,0 

2003 79,7 224 14,1 27,5* 62 67,2 3,3 5,3 

2004 76,7 210 13,2 26,8* 59 66,1 5,2 7,6 

2005 80,2 258 12,7 25,9* 48 68,0 2,0 4,5 

2006 82,6 317 12,7 25,5* 51 69,1 1,0 3,3 

2007 79,6 303 13,6 26,8* 57 68,1 1,7 4,1 

2008 77,3 239 12,6 25,2* 53 68,2 2,4 7,3 

2009 81,1 319 12,0 23,4* 47 69,5 1,2 5,3 

2010 80,6 352 14,1 28,8* 57 66,7 4,2 7,9 

2011 80,7 302 14,7 31,2* 62 66,6 2,0 5,2 

2012 80,6 271 12,8 25,8* 54 69,1 2,1 4,1 

The average hectolitre weight of spring wheat was 80.6 kg (the median was 81.4 kg). 

Of the samples, 87 per cent had a hectolitre weight of a minimum of 78 kg. The 

average falling number was 271 seconds (the median was 281 seconds), which is 

lower than it has been for the last three years. The falling number did, however, cope 

sufficiently with the late harvests (picture 7). Eighty-eight per cent of the samples had a 

falling number of a minimum of 180 seconds. 

The quality of the spring wheat was especially reduced by the low protein content. The 

average protein content was 12.8 per cent (the median was 12.8 per cent). The target 

protein content for wheat is a minimum of 12.5 per cent, which was attained in 60 per 

cent of the samples. 

The Venn diagrams (figure 8) show the quality requirements for bread grain quality as 

to the different quality factors and also how many of the samples fulfilled the quality 

requirements for protein content and falling number, protein content and hectolitre 

weight, and falling number and protein content. The figure shows both the diagram for 

wheat at the basic price and the quality category with a higher falling number (the 

falling number a minimum of 220). Based on the analyses of spring wheat, 46 per cent 

of the samples were of bread wheat quality having fulfilled the generally used quality 

requirements mentioned above. The share of spring wheat samples of bread grain 

quality was clearly lower than in the two previous years (figure 9). The years of 2010 

and 2011 were especially good years for wheat quality. 

14


Figure 7. Average falling number of the spring wheat in relation to the harvesting weeks 2010–2012. 

Figure 8. In the Venn diagrams, the attainment of the quality criteria for bread wheat in the spring wheat 

samples of the year 2012 according to two different quality categories. 

Figure 9. Shares of samples of spring and winter wheat of bread grain quality (hectolitre weight ≥78 kg, 

protein content ≥12.5 %, falling number ≥180 s) in the years 2003 - 2012. 

The sowing time of spring wheat was reported as 2.5-15.6. The most common sowing 

date was May the 10 th . The harvesting time for spring wheat was reported as 11.8- 

12.10, and the most common date for harvesting was September the 10 th . The 

harvesting time was exceptionally long and lasted late into the autumn. The moisture 

content at harvest fluctuated between 18-40 per cent, and the median was 25 per cent. 

The average estimated yield of spring wheat was reported as 4,076 kg per hectare, 

and the median was 4,000 kg. The range of variation was high, 1,000-7,441 kg. In 

places, the cultivation of wheat had been very successful and in other places the 

harvest had been extremely difficult, if not to say impossible. According to the reports 

the spring wheat had, due to the unfavourable circumstances, been left unharvested 

also on some of the farms participating in the quality monitoring of the grain harvest. 

15

3.2 Average spring wheat quality by region 2012 


Samples of spring wheat had been sent in from 14 regions for the quality monitoring. 

The average quality of samples from ten regions is presented in table 5. The quality of 

the spring wheat fluctuated regionally. In addition to the location and weather 

conditions, the prevalence of the different varieties may have had an impact on the 

results. 

The largest producer of spring wheat by cropping area, that is to say Southwest 

Finland, had the highest yield of 4,582 kg/hectare. In this region 37 per cent of the 

spring wheat crop fulfilled the criteria for bread grain based on the samples (figure 10). 

Varieties with high yield potential and low protein content were cultivated more often in 

this region than in other regions (12 per cent of the samples). Varieties of the so-called 

main type covered 59 per cent of the samples and 33 per cent of the samples were 

varieties with high protein content. The division of the wheat varieties into different 

types is presented in more detail in section 4.3. 

Uusimaa is the second largest producer of spring wheat and 46 per cent of its spring 

wheat samples was suited for bread wheat. In Uusimaa 5 per cent were varieties with 

high yield potential, 46 per cent were varieties of the main type and 49 per cent were 

varieties with high protein content. 

Table 5. Average spring wheat quality by region in 2012 

Spring wheat 


kg/hl s % % ml % < 2,0 mm % % 

Uusimaa 80,9 282 12,6 25,0 53 69,3 1,9 3,6 

Southwest Finland 81,4 294 12,1 24,4 49 70,3 1,6 3,2 

Satakunta 81,3 250 13,0 27,0 56 68,8 1,3 3,1 

Häme 81,1 298 13,0 26,5 56 69,2 2,1 4,5 

Pirkanmaa 82,1 231 13,2 27,4 56 68,9 1,7 3,6 

Southeast Finland 79,2 275 12,9 26,0 55 68,6 1,9 4,7 

North Savo* 77,7 255 13,2 26,7 55 67,6 5,5 8,4 

North Karelia 79,2 217 13,2 26,9 57 67,8 5,1 6,7 

South Ostrobothnia* 79,5 274 13,2 26,8 55 68,3 2,4 5,7 

Ostrobothnia 

* n ˂ 10 

80,1 252 13,6 28,1 58 68,3 1,7 4,0 

Most of the spring wheat samples that fulfilled the criteria for bread wheat came from 

Häme, where 67 per cent of the spring wheat samples from the region fulfilled these 

quality requirements. In Häme, 55 per cent of the samples were varieties with high 

protein content, varieties of the main type 28 per cent and varieties with high yield 

potential 10 per cent. 

Less than fifth of the spring wheat samples from Northern Karelia fulfilled these quality 

requirements. In Northern Karelia all of the samples were of varieties with high protein 

content. In Southwest Finland, Uusimaa and Häme, the low protein content reduced 

the quality of the harvest the most, whereas in North Karelia the hectolitre weight and 

falling number were as often the cause of not reaching the quality requirements. 

The geographical division of bread grain quality for spring wheat followed the pattern of 

the above average rainfall during this growing season. 

16


Figure 10. Share of spring wheat samples meeting the requirements for bread quality and yield level by 

region in 2012 (hectolitre weight ≥78 kg, protein content ≥12.5 %, falling number ≥ 180 s.). 

3.3 Average spring wheat quality by variety 2012 

In 2012, 19 different varieties of spring wheat were received for the quality monitoring. 

At the same time, 23 varieties of spring wheat were on the official list of approved plant 

varieties. Figure 11 shows the share of spring wheat varieties of the samples. 

Figure 11. Share of spring wheat varieties in the samples for the quality monitoring in 2012. 

Of the most common varieties, Anniina, Quarna, Tjalve and Wanamo can be 

considered to be varieties with high protein content. Zebra, Kruunu, Marble, Bjarne and 

Wellamo are wheats of the main type and Amaretto a variety with high yield potential. 

The highest average protein content was found in Anniina and Quarna, with 13.8 and 

13.7 per cent. The spread of the protein content in the wheat varieties is presented in 

figure 12. 

Table 6. Average spring and winter wheat quality by variety in 2012 

Spring and winter wheat 

Variety Hectoliter weight Falling number Protein Wet Gluten Zeleny-index Starch Shrivelled grain Total besatz 

kg/hl s % % ml % < 2,0 mm % % 

Amaretto* 80,9 244 10,8 20,5 40 72,4 1,5 2,8 

Anniina 80,9 264 13,8 28,8 61 68,0 3,4 5,7 

Bjarne* 79,2 193 12,2 23,6 49 69,4 2,0 4,5 

Kruunu 78,5 308 12,3 24,2 50 69,3 1,4 2,8 

Manu* 83,4 252 13,5 29,0 57 69,3 2,2 4,0 

Marble 79,3 256 11,6 23,0 45 71,2 2,1 5,6 

Quarna 81,1 295 13,7 28,5 61 68,0 0,7 1,9 

Wellamo* 83,3 294 11,8 23,3 47 70,3 1,2 2,6 

Zebra 80,9 291 12,0 23,4 47 69,6 2,2 3,9 

Urho (SW) 79,4 347 11,6 23,9 35 70,8 2,3 5,1 

* n ˂ 10 SW, Spring Wheat 

17


Figure 12. Spread of protein content in the wheat varieties presented in a box-plot diagram, where 25 per 

cent of the samples of each variety are below the lower quartile and 75 per cent below the upper quartile. 

The central line of the box is the median and 10 per cent of the samples are left on the outside of the thin 

lines. 

The highest average falling numbers were found in the varieties Kruunu, Quarna and 

Wellamo, with 308, 295 and 294 seconds. The varieties Wellamo and Quarna had the 

highest average hectolitre weights, 83.3 and 81.1 kg. All of the results for average 

quality are presented in table 6. 

The quality requirements for hectolitre weight, falling number and protein content for 

bread grain were best met by the variety Quarna, with 88 per cent of the samples being 

of bread grain quality when considering these quality factors. Of the samples of 

Anniina, 61 per cent fulfilled the criteria for bread wheat, but its yield level was the 

lowest. The samples of Amaretto all had a protein content that was too low for the 

quality requirements for bread wheat, but the yield level was the highest of all of the 

varieties. 

The shares of the most common spring and winter wheat varieties that fulfil the 

requirements for bread grain in 2012 are shown in figure 13. 

Figure 11. Shares of spring and winter wheat samples meeting the requirements for bread quality and 

yield level by variety in 2012 (hectolitre weight ≥78 kg, protein content ≥12,5 %, falling number ≥180 s.). 

18

4 WINTER WHEAT 

4.1 Average winter wheat quality 


Four per cent of the grain samples of the quality monitoring of the 2012 grain harvest 

were winter wheat, whereas the cultivated area for winter wheat was 2.2 per cent of the 

area in grain and the harvest was 2.9 per cent of the grain harvest. 

The average hectolitre weight of the winter wheat was 81,0 kg (the median was 81.1 

kg). Of the samples, 85 per cent had a hectolitre weight of a minimum of 78 kg. The 

average protein content of the winter wheat was 11,5 per cent (the median was 11.5 

per cent), which is the lowest for more than 10 years. The low protein content was the 

main reason for the low share of the winter wheat harvest of bread grain quality – only 

21 per cent of the winter wheat samples had a protein content of a minimum of 12.5 

per cent. 

The average falling number for winter wheat was 333 seconds (the median was 335). 

The falling number was high and was the limiting factor for bread grain quality in only 

one sample of winter wheat. The data on average quality for winter wheat for the years 

1990–2012 is presented in table 7. 

Table 7. Average winter wheat quality 1990–2012 

Winter wheat 


kg/hl s % % ml % < 2,0 mm % % 

1990 81,7 320 12,3 28,7 33 ― ― ― 

1991 80,1 170 11,3 23,0 35 ― ― ― 

1992 82,3 336 12,0 30,6 37 ― ― ― 

1993 79,8 187 13,0 31,1 35 ― ― ― 

1994 80,3 344 12,2 28,3 39 ― ― ― 

1995 81,0 341 11,0 26,3 30 ― ― ― 

1996 78,9 343 11,2 26,2 29 ― ― ― 

1997 79,6 314 13,2 33,6 48 ― 1,8 ― 

1998 75,5 130 11,6 26,7 47 ― 4,9 6,8 

1999 82,0 273 11,3 27,1 44 ― 1,3 3,3 

2000 80,7 256 12,7 28,1* 52 ― 2,0 3,5 

2001 81,3 304 12,6 27,9* 50 ― 1,4 3,3 

2002 81,4 331 12,3 26,3* 40 ― 1,3 3,3 

2003 78,8 292 13,9 29,6* 54 67,5 2,5 4,8 

2004 77,3 259 12,7 26,7* 44 66,8 3,8 6,2 

2005 78,9 228 11,6 25,2* 40 69,8 2,2 5,2 

2006 80,9 352 12,2 26,7* 33 69,6 2,0 5,5 

2007 81,2 347 12,1 25,8* 38 70,3 1,6 3,8 

2008 80,5 263 12,3 25,9* 41 70,4 1,1 4,6 

2009 80,3 367 12,2 26,2* 34 69,9 2,1 5,1 

2010 78,8 398 12,6 25,2* 38 68,7 2,5 4,9 

2011 80,2 339 13,4 28,7* 43 68,8 1,9 5,1 

2012 81,0 333 11,5 23,4* 35 71,1 1,5 3,7 

Based on the analyses of the winter wheat samples only 11,8 per cent of the samples 

fulfilled the quality requirements for hectolitre weight, protein content and falling 

number generally used for bread wheat. The share of winter wheat samples fulfilling 

the requirements for bread grain was clearly the lowest since 2005 (figure 9).The 

sowing time of winter wheat was reported as being 26.8-1.10. The harvesting time for 

winter wheat was reported as being 13.8-25.9, and most of the harvesting was carried 

out during week 34. The moisture content at harvest fluctuated between 18-28 per 

cent, and the median was 24 per cent. The estimated yield for winter wheat was on 

average 4,672 kg per hectare and the median was 5,000 kg, which is higher than that 

of spring wheat. The range of variation was between 1,200-7,000 kg. 

19

4.2 Average winter wheat quality by region in 2012 


Samples of winter wheat were sent in for the quality monitoring from seven regions, of 

which Southwest Finland, Häme and Uusimaa were the most important production 

areas for winter wheat. Based on the samples received from Southwest Finland, one 

fifth of the winter wheat harvest fulfilled the quality requirements for bread wheat, 

whereas not one of the samples from Häme fulfilled all of the quality requirements. 

Only one in ten out of the samples from the whole country fulfilled the criteria for bread 

wheat. Table 8 shows the figures for average quality of autumn wheat from two out of 

the four main regions that Finland is divided into, Southern and Western Finland, in 

order to get a more comprehensive number of samples. 

Table 8. Average winter wheat quality by region in 2012 

Winter wheat 

Area Hectoliter weight Falling number Protein Wet Gluten Zeleny-index Starch Shrivelled grain Total besatz 

kg/hl s % % ml % < 2,0 mm % % 

Southern Finland 80,9 336 11,5 23,3 35,2 71,0 1,6 3,8 

Western Finland* 

* n ˂ 10 

81,2 325 11,6 23,9 34,7 71,7 1,3 3,5 

4.3 Average winter wheat quality by variety in 2012 

In 2012, samples of 8 different varieties of winter wheat were received for the quality 

monitoring (figure 14). At the same time, 12 varieties of winter wheat were on the 

official list of approved plant varieties. As the only variety of which enough samples 

were received was Urho, the data on average quality and bread wheat quality was 

presented in the same table and figures as the spring wheat varieties (table 6, figures 

12 and 13). 

Only 13 per cent of the samples of Urho fulfilled the criteria for bread wheat. The falling 

number and hectolitre weight of Urho were clearly higher than the average figures for 

spring wheat, but the protein content was even lower than that of the spring wheat 

Amaretto. 

Figure 14. Share of winter wheat varieties in the samples for the quality monitoring in 2012. 

20

5 OATS 

5.1 Average oat quality 


Of the samples sent in for the monitoring of the grain harvest, 31 per cent were oats, 

and the cultivated area was also 31 per cent and 30 per cent of the grain harvest was 

oats. 

For oats there are two different quality categories depending on the end use. The 

minimum quality requirement for feed oats is generally a hectolitre weight of 52 kg and 

for milling quality oats for food use the hectolitre weight required is 58 kg. The hectolitre 

weights for oats were very high in 2012, the average being 57.9 kg (the median was 

58.4 kg). A total of 96 per cent of the oat samples had a hectolitre weight over 52 kg 

and 59 per cent had a hectolitre weight over 58 kg. 

Based on hectolitre weight the share of samples qualifying as feed oats and milling 

oats was the highest for the decade (figure 15). It should still be noted that especially 

oats were found to contain raised levels of deoxynivalenol (DON) in the whole country, 

which in some cases have exceeded the limit of 1 750 µg/kg set for food use. This 

decreased somewhat the share of oats qualifying for food use. 

The average protein content of oats was 10.9 per cent (the median was 12.1 per cent), 

which is the lowest for more than two decades. The average quality information for oats 

for the years 1990–2012 is presented in table 9. The fluctuation of the average values 

of hectolitre weight and protein content for oats and barley for the last ten years is 

illustrated in the pictures (figures 19-20). 

Table 9. Average oat quality 1990–2012 

Oat 

Crop Year Hectoliter weight Protein Shrivelled grain Total besatz 

kg/hl % < 2,0 mm % % 

1990 57,6 13,4 ― ― 

1991 55,5 12,8 ― ― 

1992 56,9 14,2 ― ― 

1993 56,6 12,6 ― ― 

1994 55,5 13,0 ― ― 

1995 58,1 12,1 9,2 ― 

1996 58,2 12,1 5,8 ― 

1997 55,7 13,7 8,4 ― 

1998 54,6 12,1 9,8 12,3 

1999 55,2 15,0 11,3 15,6 

2000 54,9 13,0 8,1 10,6 

2001 56,2 13,4 7,6 10,0 

2002 54,4 13,8 8,5 11,0 

2003 54,9 14,2 10,3 11,6 

2004 55,1 12,9 6,2 7,8 

2005 55,1 12,8 8,4 10,2 

2006 55,9 13,7 10,2 12,5 

2007 56,1 13,1 5,0 6,7 

2008 56,4 11,8 4,6 6,3 

2009 55,7 12,1 5,5 7,1 

2010 53,0 13,5 12,2 13,7 

2011 55,2 13,5 5,1 6,6 

2012 57,9 12,0 4,8 5,7 

21


Figure 15. Shares of oat samples with a hectolitre weight at a minimum of 52 kg and a minimum of 58 kg 

in 2003-2012. 

The sowing time of oats was reported as being 3.5-10.16. The most common sowing 

date was May the 10 th . The harvesting time for oats was reported as being 16.8-9.10, 

and the most common date for harvesting was September the 10 th . The moisture 

content at harvest fluctuated between 15-35 per cent, and the median was 22 per cent. 

The average harvest per hectare for oats in 2012 was 3,900 kg per hectare, and the 

median was 5,500 kg. The range of variation for the reported harvests was 900-8,465 

kg. The quality information for organically grown oats is presented in chapter 8. 

5.2 Average oat quality by region 2012 

Oat samples were sent in for the quality monitoring from a total of 15 regions, of which 

the average quality from 13 regions is presented in table 10. 

The average hectolitre weights were high in the whole country. The oat samples from 

Uusimaa, Southwest Finland, Satakunta, Häme, South Savo and Ostrobothnia fulfilled 

in their entirety the quality requirement for hectolitre weight for feed oats (figure 18). 

Due to the effect of the weather conditions during the growth period of 2012, mould 

toxins were found to some degree in the whole country, and these may have reduced 

the oat quality from these top figures. 

Table 10. Average oat quality by region 2012 

Oat 

ELY Central Hectoliter weight Protein Shrivelled grain Total besatz 

kg/hl % < 2,0 mm % % 

Uusimaa 58,6 11,9 4,1 4,9 

Southwest Finland 58,9 11,4 3,5 4,3 

Satakunta 58,7 12,1 3,2 3,9 

Häme 59,2 11,9 3,4 4,1 

Pirkanmaa 58,7 12,0 4,8 5,3 

Southeast Finland 57,5 12,3 6,1 7,0 

Sotuh Savo* 57,2 12,4 5,5 6,2 

North Savo* 57,9 12,1 6,5 9,6 

North Karelia 56,2 12,4 7,0 7,9 

Central Finland 56,5 12,1 5,3 6,6 

South Ostrobothnia 57,3 12,3 5,3 6,1 

Ostrobothnia 58,6 12,5 5,1 6,1 

North Ostrobothnia 

* n ˂ 10 

55,7 12,4 5,0 6,6 

22


Figure 16. Shares of oat samples with a hectolitre weight at a minimum of 52 kg and a minimum of 58 kg 

and average yield level by region in 2012. 

5.3 Average oat quality by variety in 2012 

Oat samples of 26 different varieties were received for the quality monitoring of the 

2012 grain harvest (the shares of the different varieties in figure 20). At the same time, 

there were 37 oat varieties on the official list of plant varieties. The information on the 

average quality for the most common varieties in 2012 is presented in table 11. 

Many varieties had high hectolitre weights in 2012. The varieties Akseli, Belinda, Ivory, 

Marika, Ringsaker, Steinar, SW Ingeborg, Venla and Viviana all had a minimum 

hectolitre weight of 52 kg (figure 19). For the varieties Eemeli, Fiia and Peppi the 

corresponding figure was over 90 per cent. 

The hectolitre weights of milling quality oats (≥58 kg) were higher in these varieties 

than in previous years. Figure 19 presents the shares of oat samples fulfilling the 

requirements for hectolitre weight for feed oats and milling quality oats and the yield 

levels by variety. 

Table 11. Average oat quality by variety in 2012 

Oat 

Variety Hectoliter weight Protein Shrivelled grain Total besatz 

kg/hl % < 2,0 mm % % 

Akseli 58,4 12,5 6,4 7,1 

Belinda 58,6 10,6 4,8 5,3 

Eemeli 58,0 13,5 2,7 3,8 

Fiia 57,4 12,6 6,5 7,4 

Ivory 58,7 10,9 2,0 3,0 

Marika 58,2 12,5 3,7 4,9 

Peppi 58,4 13,0 5,6 6,6 

Ringsaker* 58,9 11,1 5,2 6,7 

Roope* 54,5 11,4 5,8 6,8 

Steinar 58,6 11,5 4,0 4,6 

SW Ingeborg 59,5 11,1 2,2 2,8 

Veli* 58,0 12,3 6,3 8,6 

Venla 57,6 13,2 4,5 5,2 

Viviana 

* n ˂ 10 

58,6 10,9 4,4 5,0 

23


Figure 17. Shares of oat samples with a minimum hectolitre weight of 52 kg and 58 kg and average yield 

level by variety in 2012. 

Figure 18. Share of oat varieties of the samples for the quality monitoring in 2012. 

Figure 19. Average hectolitre weights for oats and barley 2003–2012. For barley, the average values are 

presented separately for feed barley, malting barley varieties and two-rowed barley varieties. 

Figure 20. The average protein content of oats and barley 2003–2012. For barley, the average values are 

presented separately for feed barley, malting barley varieties and two-rowed barley varieties. 

24

6 FEED BARLEY 

6.1 Average quality of feed barley 


Of the samples for the quality monitoring of the grain harvest, 19 per cent were 

samples of feed barley, whereas 34 per cent of the cultivated area and 33 per cent of 

the grain harvest was barley. 

The average hectolitre weight of barley was 63.6 kg (the median was 64 kg). The 

average protein content of feed barley was 11.4 per cent (the median was 11.3 per 

cent). Table 12 shows the average quality of all of the feed barley varieties during 

1990–2012 (the average qualities of the varieties in the list of approved malting barley 

varieties are presented separately in table 17). 

Table 12. Average quality of feed barley 1990–2012 

Barley 1) 

Crop Year Hectoliter weight Protein Starch Shrivelled grain Shrivelled grain Total besatz 

kg/hl % % < 2,0 mm % < 2,2 mm % % 

1990 65,1 13,0 ― ― ― ― 

1991 66,6 12,6 ― ― ― ― 

1992 67,4 12,6 ― ― ― ― 

1993 66,0 11,7 ― ― ― ― 

1994 67,7 12,1 ― ― ― ― 

1995 67,0 11,2 ― ― 13,6 ― 

1996 64,7 11,5 ― ― 20,6 ― 

1997 62,1 12,5 ― ― 21,0 ― 

1998 58,7 12,4 ― ― 25,2 12,9 

1999 65,1 12,6 ― 4,1 11,3 6,2 

2000 61,4 12,3 60,6 6,5 16,7 7,6 

2001 63,8 12,4 60,4 4,1 12,0 6,1 

2002 61,9 13,0 59,9 8,9 22,5 11,6 

2003 61,6 13,5 59,1 8,4 20,9 10,0 

2004 61,1 12,5 59,8 10,4 25,6 11,6 

2005 63,6 11,9 60,4 4,0 11,5 5,8 

2006 67,4 12,0 62,0 2,5 7,7 4,6 

2007 63,8 12,0 60,8 3,7 9,9 5,5 

2008 63,9 10,7 61,9 2,7 7,1 4,4 

2009 65,3 11,0 61,7 1,8 4,7 3,9 

2010 62,4 12,4 60,6 3,6 9,2 5,9 

2011 61,4 12,7 60,1 3,6 10,2 6,1 

2012 63,6 11,4 60,6 3,1 8,5 5,4 

1) Excluding malting barley varieties 

The determining quality factor for barley in the feed industry is a sufficiently high 

hectolitre weight, usually a minimum of 64 kg. In 2012, 51 per cent of the samples of 

the feed barley varieties fulfilled this quality requirement. When in addition to the feed 

barley varieties, the samples of those malting barleys for which the usage had been 

reported as something other than malting are taken into account, the minimum 

hectolitre weight of 64 kg was found with 59 per cent of the samples, which is a better 

result than for the two previous years (figure 21). Then the average value of the 

hectolitre weight of feed barley rises to 64.6 kg. 

The sowing time of the feed barley was reported as 1.5-9.6. The most common dates 

for sowing were the 22 nd and 28 th of May. The harvesting time for feed barley was 

reported as 10.8-30.10, and the most common date for harvesting was September the 

25


6 th . The moisture content at harvest fluctuated between 15-35 per cent, and the median 

was 22.3 per cent. 

The average harvest per hectare for barley in 2012 was 3,830 kg per hectare, and the 

median was 4,000 kg. The variation in the reported harvest yields was 800-6,000 

kg/hectare. 

Figure 21. Shares of feed barley samples with a hectolitre weight of a minimum of 64 kg in the period 

2003–2012 (including samples of malting barley varieties for which the purpose had been reported as 

other than malting). 

6.2 Six-rowed and two-rowed feed barley 

There are 28 varieties of six-rowed barley in the National list of plant varieties and 20 

varieties in the samples for the quality monitoring of the grain harvest. With the 

exception of Polartop and Hankkija’s Pokko, the six-rowed barleys in the National list of 

plant varieties can be classified as feed barleys. 

There are 47 varieties of two-rowed barleys in the National list of plant varieties and 22 

varieties in the quality monitoring. Out of these, 11 varieties are approved as malting 

barley, which are separated into two-rowed and six-rowed varieties as to average 

quality (tables 13 and 14). 

Table 13. Information on average quality of six-rowed varieties of feed barley in 1998–2012 

Six-rowed barley 

Crop Year Hectoliter weight Protein Starch Shrivelled grain Shrivelled grain 

kg/hl % % < 2,0 mm % < 2,2 mm % 

1998 57,1 12,2 ― 12,4 27,0 

1999 63,8 12,2 ― 4,6 13,1 

2000 60,6 12,1 60,5 7,0 18,1 

2001 62,8 12,3 60,2 4,6 13,5 

2002 61,3 12,9 59,6 12,4 23,6 

2003 61,2 13,4 59,1 4,6 22,2 

2004 60,6 12,5 59,8 7,0 26,7 

2005 63,2 11,8 60,4 4,6 12,2 

2006 67,0 11,9 61,7 2,8 8,5 

2007 63,5 12,0 60,8 3,7 10,5 

2008 63,3 10,7 61,8 3,0 8,0 

2009 64,8 11,1 61,6 1,9 5,2 

2010 61,5 12,3 60,5 4,0 10,3 

2011 60,8 12,7 60,0 3,7 10,7 

2012 62,4 11,4 60,4 3,6 9,6 

26

Table 14. Information on average quality of two-rowed varieties of feed barley in 1998–2012 

Two-rowed barley 1) 

6.3 Average quality of feed barley by region in 2012 


Crop Year Hectoliter weight Protein Starch Shrivelled grain Shrivelled grain 

kg/hl % % < 2,0 mm % < 2,2 mm % 

1998 62,9 13 ― 9,6 21,4 

1999 67,8 13,7 ― 3,2 8,1 

2000 65,1 12,9 61,0 4,3 10,0 

2001 67,0 12,9 60,8 2,4 6,6 

2002 63,3 13,5 60,2 8,9 19,7 

2003 64,0 14,4 59,3 4,4 11,3 

2004 64,4 13,1 60,1 6,8 15,8 

2005 66,6 12,6 60,4 1,7 4,5 

2006 70,2 12,7 62,3 0,9 2,5 

2007 66,7 12,3 60,9 2,6 6,5 

2008 65,9 11,6 61,7 4,0 8,8 

2009 67,7 10,9 62,4 1,3 2,5 

2010 65,8 12,8 60,7 1,3 3,3 

2011 64,0 12,4 60,4 3,3 8,2 

2012 67,4 11,5 60,8 2,0 5,3 

1) Excluding malting barley varieties 

Samples of feed barley were sent in for the quality monitoring from 14 regions, of which 

the results of the average quality of feed barley from 10 regions are presented in table 

15. There were more regional fluctuations as to hectolitre weight in barley than in oats. 

The best feed barley harvest by hectolitre weight was found in Uusimaa and Southwest 

Finland, where 83 and 91 per cent of the samples had a hectolitre weight of a minimum 

of 64 kg (figure 22). The highest average yield of 4,348 kg/hectare was also found in 

Southwest Finland. 

Table 15. Average quality of feed barley by region in 2012 

Barley 1) 

ELY Central Hectoliter weight Protein Starch Shrivelled grain Shrivelled grain Total besatz 

kg/hl % % < 2,0 mm % < 2,2 mm % % 

Uusimaa* 67,8 11,8 60,5 1,9 5,4 4,0 

Sotuhwest Finland 67,5 11,0 61,3 2,1 6,1 4,1 

Satakunta* 63,9 11,2 60,8 3,5 8,4 4,8 

Häme* 65,7 12,0 60,2 3,5 8,5 7,5 

Pirkanmaa 65,1 11,4 60,8 1,9 8,1 4,7 

North Savo 62,8 11,4 60,7 2,1 10,0 5,8 

Central Finland 59,9 11,1 60,6 3,5 10,7 7,0 

Sotuh Ostrobothnia 65,3 11,7 60,5 3,5 6,5 4,1 

Ostrobothnia 64,2 11,8 60,2 3,5 6,1 4,5 

North Ostrobothnia 61,3 10,8 60,6 3,7 9,9 10,8 

1) Excluding malting barley varieties * n ˂ 10 

27


Figure 22. Shares of feed barley samples with a hectolitre weight of a minimum of 64 kg by region and 

average yield levels (including samples of malting barley varieties with another purpose than malting). 

6.4 Average quality of feed barley by variety in 2012 

In 2012, 30 different varieties of barley were received for the quality monitoring of the 

grain harvest. At that time, the official list of plant varieties contained a total of 75 

approved varieties of two-rowed or six-rowed barley. Figure 21 presents the share of 

feed barley varieties of the samples. In this analysis, the feed barley varieties and the 

varieties recommended for cultivation as malting barley were examined separately. 

Table 16. Average quality of feed barley by variety in 2012 

Barley 1) 

Variety Hectoliter weight Protein Starch Shrivelled grain Shrivelled grain Total besatz 

kg/hl % % < 2,0 mm % < 2,2 mm % % 

Edel* 64,3 11 61,1 3,1 8,4 5,3 

Einar* 64,0 10,5 61,8 5,9 13,8 7,8 

Elmeri 64,9 11,0 61,1 2,0 5,2 4,3 

Jyvä* 61,4 11,9 59,7 3,8 10,4 6,6 

Kunnari* 64,7 11,2 60,8 3,1 13,8 6,0 

Streif* 67,4 12,1 60,0 5,9 6,2 6,7 

Vilde 62,0 11,9 59,9 2,0 10,0 5,4 

Voitto 61,0 11,6 60,2 3,8 9,2 6,2 

Wolmari* 63,6 10,9 61,1 2,0 7,9 4,5 

1) Excluding malting barley varieties * n ˂ 10 

Amongst the six-rowed varieties, the quality monitoring of the 2012 grain harvest only 

contained one two-rowed variety of feed barley, that is Streif. The same variety that 

best fulfilled the criteria for feed barley based on hectolitre weight. Edel had the highest 

yield level, 4,403 kg/hectare. Figure 24 shows the share of samples of feed barley that 

fulfil the requirement of 64 kg by hectolitre weight by variety and the average yield 

levels. 

28

Figure 23. Share of feed varieties in the samples of the quality monitoring in 2012. 


Figure 24. Shares of samples of feed barley with a minimum hectolitre weight of 64 kg and average yield 

levels by variety in 2012. 

29

7 MALTING BARLEY 

7.1 Average quality of malting barley 


The share of samples of malting barley varieties was 15 per cent and samples of 

malting barley cultivated for the purpose of malting was 9 per cent of the samples in 

the quality monitoring of the grain harvest, when malting barley was 10 per cent of both 

the cultivated area and of the harvest. The average quality of the samples of malting 

barley varieties are presented in table 17. 

As to the samples of malting barley varieties, malting was reported as the end use for 

60 per cent. The average hectolitre weight of these samples was 69.9 kg (the median 

was 70.8), the average protein content was 10.7 per cent (the median was 10.8 per 

cent), the average starch content was 62.2 per cent (the median was 62.5 per cent) 

and the average sieving was 91.7 per cent (the median was 93.4 per cent). Out of the 

samples cultivated for the purpose of malting, 68 per cent qualified as malting barley, 

when considering the quality requirements for protein content (9-11.5 per cent) and 

grain size in the sieving (≥2,5 mm ≥85 per cent of the samples). Figure 25 shows that 

the share of these samples qualifying for malting is higher than in the two previous 

years. 

Table 17. Average quality of malting barley 1990-2012 

Malting barley 2) 

Crop Year Hectoliter weight Protein Starch Sieving Shrivelled grain Shrivelled grain Total besatz 

kg/hl % % >2,5 mm % < 2,0 mm % < 2,2 mm % % 

1995 71,8 11,2 ― ― 2,0 4,9 ― 

1996 70,6 11,2 ― 75,5 4,4 11,3 ― 

1997 64,3 12,4 ― 65,2 7,0 16,7 ― 

1998 63,7 11,7 ― 69,7 6,3 14,5 6,7 

1999 69,1 13,2 ― 88,3 1,4 14,0 3,8 

2000 66,2 12,1 62,2 82,6 2,8 7,3 4,2 

2001 68,5 12,7 61,4 88,3 1,3 3,7 3,6 

2002 65,1 12,9 61,5 70,5 5,2 12,8 7,6 

2003 66,9 13,5 60,6 83,7 1,9 5,2 3,2 

2004 66,2 11,8 62,0 79,3 3,0 7,7 3,8 

2005 67,1 11,8 61,7 91,7 0,7 2,1 2,5 

2006 70,9 12,5 62,6 93,7 0,5 1,4 2,3 

2007 67,9 12,1 61,7 86,6 1,4 3,6 3,1 

2008 67,5 10,6 63,0 89,7 1,2 1,4 2,7 

2009 68,6 10,7 62,9 91,6 0,8 2,1 2,9 

2010 66,7 12,9 60,8 88,0 1,4 14,5 4,0 

2011 64,4 12,2 60,9 77,6 2,9 14,0 5,5 

2012 69,0 11,0 61,8 89,2 1,3 12,8 3,3 

2) Includes the varieties Annabell, Barke, Braemar, Fairytale, Harbinger, Marthe, 

NFC Tipple, Polartop, Prestige, Saana, Scarlett and Xanadu regardless the intended end use. 

The sowing time of malting barley was reported as 1.5-20.6. The most common sowing 

date was May the 15 th . The harvesting time of malting barley was reported as 15.8- 

30.10, the most common harvesting date was August the 30 th . The moisture content at 

harvest fluctuated between 15-33 per cent, and the median was 22 per cent. The 

average harvest per hectare for malting barley in 2012 was 4,183 kg per hectare, and 

the median was 4,300 kg. The range of variation for the reported yields was 1,600- 

6,000 kg/hectare. 

30


Figure 25. Shares of malting barley samples that fulfilled the quality requirements for grain size and 

protein content (protein content ≤11.5 %, sieving 2.5 mm ≥85 %), when the only samples considered were 

those for which the farmer had indicated would be used for malting. 

7.2 Average quality of malting barley by region in 2012 

Malting barley samples were sent in for the quality monitoring from a total of 11 

regions, of which the average quality from 5 regions is presented in table 18. Out of 

these, the most important producers of malting barley are Southwest Finland, Häme 

and Uusimaa. 

As with feed barley, there was much regional fluctuation in the quality of the malting 

barley. In Southwest Finland 78 per cent of the samples intended for malting fulfilled 

the quality requirements as to protein content and grain size. The average yield in the 

region was 4,162 kg/hectare. 

In Häme, 63 per cent of the samples fulfilled these quality requirements. The highest 

yields were also harvested in Häme, the average yield being 4,299 kg/hectare. In 

Uusimaa, 67 per cent of the samples fulfilled the requirements and the average yield 

was 3,721 kg/hectare (figure 26). 

Table 18. Average quality of malting barley by region in 2012 


ELY Central Hectoliter weight Protein Starch Sieving Shrivelled grain Shrivelled grain Total besatz 

kg/hl % % >2,5 mm % < 2,0 mm % < 2,2 mm % % 

Uusimaa 68,8 11,2 61,5 87,9 1,9 4,3 3,8 

Southwest Finland 70,3 10,6 62,5 91,5 1,1 2,5 2,9 

Satakunta 67,4 11,4 61,2 86,6 2,1 4,9 4,4 

Häme 69,8 10,9 62,0 92,6 0,9 2,2 2,5 

Pirkanmaa* 69,1 10,8 62,1 87,9 1,4 3,3 4,5 

2) Includes the varieties Annabell, Barke, Braemar, Fairytale, Harbinger, Marthe, 

NFC Tipple, Polartop, Prestige, Saana, Scarlett and Xanadu regardless the intended end use. * n ˂ 10 

31


Figure 26. Share of samples of malting barley that fulfil the requirements for malting and average yield 

level by region in 2012 (protein content 9-11.5 per cent, grain size ≥2.5 mm ≥85 per cent). Only samples 

intended for malting have been considered in this figure. 

7.3 Mallasohran keskilaatu lajikkeittain 2012 

Out of the 13 varieties that the list of plant varieties recommends for cultivation of 

malting barley, samples of 12 different varieties were sent in for the quality monitoring 

of the grain harvest, and their prevalence is presented in figure 27. Sixty per cent of the 

samples of malting barley varieties had been cultivated mainly for malting purposes. By 

variety, the shares fluctuated between 65-87 per cent, with Saana being an exception 

as malting was not mentioned once as the purpose of use. Other usage was most 

commonly the feed industry and feed for own use (24 per cent). The variety that best 

fulfilled the quality criteria of the malting industry as to protein content and grain size 

was Barke (figure 28). 

Table 19. Average quality of malting barley by variety in 2012 


Variety Hectoliter weight Protein Starch Sieving Shrivelled grain Shrivelled grain Total besatz 

kg/hl % % >2,5 mm % < 2,0 mm % < 2,2 mm % % 

Barke 70,5 11,0 62,2 90,6 1,1 2,5 3,0 

Marthe* 70,9 10,7 62,3 91,0 1,0 2,8 2,6 

NFC Tipple 67,9 9,8 62,8 92,6 1,3 3,0 3,8 

Saana 67,1 11,8 60,7 90,6 1,3 4,1 2,9 

Xanadu* 68,9 11,2 61,8 91,0 1,3 2,9 3,8 

2) Includes the varieties which are approved in the plant varitety list as a malting barley regardless the intended end use. 

* n ˂ 10

Viljaseula - Finnish Grain Quality in 2012 

Figure 27. Share of malting barley varieties of the samples in the quality monitoring in 2012. 

Figure 28. Share of samples of malting barley that fulfil the requirements for malting as to grain size and 

protein content and average yield level by variety in 2012 (protein content 9-11.5 per cent, grain size ≥2.5 

mm ≥85 per cent). Only samples intended for malting have been considered in this figure. 

33


8 AVERAGE QUALITY OF THE ORGANICALLY CULTIVATED GRAIN HARVEST 

8.1 Organic oats 

In 2012, alongside the traditional quality analysis, more extensive information and 

samples than previously were collected on organically cultivated grains. 

Oats are our most important cereal in organic production. Its yield in 2012 was 38.6 

million kg, which is about 3.5 per cent of the whole production of oats. Out of the 

organic material for the quality monitoring, 42 per cent of the samples were oats. 

The average hectolitre weight of organic oats was 58.1 kg (the median was 58.6 kg) 

and the average protein content was 12.0 per cent (the median was 11.9 per cent). The 

average quality for the years 2002-2012 is presented in table 20. 

The average hectolitre weight and protein content were similar to those of 

conventionally cultivated oats. Figures 26-29 show a comparison between organically 

and conventionally cultivated samples as to hectolitre weight, protein content, total 

besatz and shrivelled grains. 

Out of the organic oats, no less than 97 per cent had a hectolitre weight of a minimum 

of 52 kg. Sixty-two per cent of the samples had a hectolitre weight of a minimum of 58 

kg. 

Table 20. Average quality of organic oats in 2001–2012 

Organic oats 

Crop Year Hectoliter weight Protein Shrivelled grain Total besatz 

kg/hl % < 2,0 mm % % 

2002 54,8 13,4 8,6 ― 

2003 55,0 13,6 9,8 ― 

2004 55,2 12,3 4,1 ― 

2005 54,4 12,0 6,3 ― 

2006 54,1 12,7 11,2 ― 

2007 56,3 12,9 4,1 ― 

2008 55,5 11,4 3,8 ― 

2009 55,0 11,7 6,6 ― 

2010 52,9 13,4 3,5 ― 

2011 55,7 13,5 4,9 7,5 

2012 58,1 12,0 4,4 5,8 

34


Figure 29. Average hectolitre weight in organic and conventionally cultivated grain per cereal in 2012. 

Figure 30. Average protein content in organic and conventionally cultivated grain per cereal in 2012. 

Figure 31. Average total besatz in organic and conventionally cultivated grain per cereal in 2012. 

Figure 32. Average number of shrivelled grains in organic and conventionally cultivated grain per cereal in 

2012. 

The sowing time of organic oats was reported as 3.5-6.6. The most common sowing 

date was May the 23 rd . The harvesting time was reported as 24.8-17.10, and the most 

35


common date for harvesting was September the 16 th . The moisture content at 

harvesting fluctuated between 16-40 per cent, and the median was 22 per cent. 

The average harvest per hectare for organic oats in 2012 was 2,542 kg per hectare, 

and the median was 2,700 kg. The range of variation for the reported harvests was 

700-4,500 kg/hectare. There were greater differences as to yield levels than as to 

quality factors between conventional and organic oats. The average yield level of 

organic oats was 65 per cent of the average yield levels of conventionally cultivated 

oats (the average yield level for conventional oats was 3,900 kg/hectare, the median 

was 5,500 kg). Figure 33 shows the differences in average yield levels for all cereals in 

organic and conventional cultivation. 

Figure 33. Average yield level in organic and conventionally cultivated grain per cereal in 2012. 

Regional information on organic samples was examined according to the division of 

Finland into four main regions (table 21). Out of the samples, 36 per cent came from 

Southern Finland, 39 per cent from Western Finland, 16 per cent from Eastern Finland 

and 9 per cent from Northern Finland. Almost all of the samples had a hectolitre weight 

of a minimum of 52 kg, and there were no significant differences between regions. In 

Western Finland, 74 per cent of the samples had a hectolitre weight of a minimum of 

58 kg. In Eastern Finland only about one third of the samples reached a hectolitre 

weight of 58 kg (figure 34). The yields were highest in Northern Finland at 2,950 

kg/hectare, and lowest in Eastern Finland at 2,070 kg/hectare. 

Table 21. Average quality of organic oats by the main regions in 2012 

Organic oats 

Area Hectoliter weight Protein Shrivelled grain Total besatz 

kg/hl % < 2,0 mm % % 

Souther Finland 58,1 11,8 4,4 6,1 

Eastern Finland 56,7 12,3 5,8 6,9 

Western Finland 58,9 12,2 4,0 6,2 

Northern Finland 

* n ˂ 10 

57,3 11,8 3,7 5,4 

36


Figure 34. Shares of organic oat samples with a minimum hectolitre weight of 52 kg and 58 kg and 

average yield level by main regions in 2012. 

8.2 Organic wheat 

Wheat is the second most important cereal in Finnish organic production. In 2012, the 

yield was 15.3 million kg, which is 1.7 per cent of the whole wheat production. Out of 

the organic material for the quality monitoring, 23 per cent of the samples were wheat. 

The average hectolitre weight of organic wheat was 80.3 kg (the median was 80.8 kg). 

The average hectolitre weight of conventionally grown wheat was a little higher at 80.6 

kg (the median was 81.4 kg). Of the organic wheat samples, 80 per cent had a 

hectolitre weight of a minimum of 78 kg. 

The average protein content was 13.0 per cent (the median was 13.3 per cent). The 

minimum protein content of 12.5 per cent was found in 67 per cent of the samples. 

Of the organic wheat samples, 85 per cent had a falling number of a minimum of 180, 

which is a common quality requirement for bread wheat at the basic price. All of the 

results for the average quality of organic wheat in 2012 are presented in table 22. 

Figures 29-32 compare the average quality of conventionally grown and organic wheat 

as to hectolitre weight, protein content, total besatz and the number of shrivelled 

grains. 

Table 22. Average quality of organic wheat in 2012 

Organic spring wheat 

Crop Year Hectoliter weight Falling Number Protein Wet Gluten Zeleny-index Starch Shrivelled grain Total besatz 

kg/hl s % % ml % < 2,0 mm % % 

2012 80,3 253 13,0 25,9 55,2 68,6 2,3 4,9 

Out of the samples of organic spring wheat, a total of 51 per cent fulfilled the quality 

requirements mentioned above. The Venn diagrams (figure 35) show the quality 

requirements for bread grain quality as to the different quality factors and also how 

many of the samples fulfilled the quality requirements for protein content and falling 

number, protein content and hectolitre weight, and falling number and protein content. 

The picture shows both the diagram for wheat at the basic price and the quality 

category with a higher falling number (the falling number a minimum of 220). 

37


Figure 35. The quality of the organic spring wheat in 2012 presented as a Venn diagram. 

The average harvest per hectare for organic wheat in 2012 was 2,579 kg per hectare, 

and the median was 2,600 kg. The range of variation for the reported harvests was 

1,000-4,200 kg/hectare. Similarly to oats, the differences between conventional and 

organic wheat were higher as to yield levels than as to quality factors. 

The average yield level of organic wheat was only 63 per cent of the average yield 

levels of conventional wheat (the average yield level for conventional wheat was 4,076 

kg/hectare, and the median was 4,000 kg. Figure 33 compares the average yield levels 

for all cereals in organic and conventional cultivation. 

The regional differences between Southern Finland and Western Finland were 

examined, as the number of samples was sufficient. Of the spring wheat samples in the 

quality monitoring of the organic grain harvest, 51 per cent came from Southern 

Finland, 33 per cent from Western Finland and 15 per cent from Eastern and Northern 

Finland. Table 23 shows the information on the average quality of the organic spring 

wheat by region. 

Out of the spring wheat samples from Southern Finland, 45 per cent fulfilled the quality 

criteria for bread wheat. In Western Finland the corresponding share was 62 per cent 

of the samples. The yields were highest in Western Finland, where they were on 

average 2,931 kg/hectare. In Southern Finland the yield was 2,300 kg/hectare. 

Table 23. Average quality of organic spring wheat by region in 2012 

Organic spring wheat 

Area Hectoliter weight Falling Number Protein Wet Gluten Zeleny-index Starch Shrivelled grain Total besatz 

kg/hl s % % ml % < 2,0 mm % % 

Southern Finland 81,0 261 12,5 24,7 52,7 69,3 2,4 4,7 

Western Finland 79,8 248 13,6 27,7 59,1 67,9 1,8 5,0 

Eastern and northern Finland* 

* n ˂ 10 

79,0 237 13,1 26,1 55,6 67,9 3,3 4,9 

38

8.3 Organic barley 


In 2012, 6.6 million kg organic barley was produced, which is 0.4 per cent of the 

domestic barley production. Out of the organic grain for the quality monitoring, 12 per 

cent of the samples was barley. 

The average hectolitre weight of organic barley was 61.3 kg (the median was 61.4 kg). 

The average hectolitre weight of conventionally grown barley was higher at 63.6 kg (the 

median was 64 kg). All of the results for the average quality of organic barley in 2012 

are presented in table 24. Of the organic barley samples, 41 per cent had a hectolitre 

weight of a minimum of 64 kilos. The corresponding share in conventional cultivation 

was 51 per cent. 

Figures 26-29 compare the average quality of conventionally grown and organic barley 

as to hectolitre weight, protein content, total besatz and the number of shrivelled 

grains. The figures show that the differences between total besatz and the number of 

shrivelled grains was more obvious between organic barley and conventional barley 

than for oats and wheat, the quality of the organic grain being poorer. 

The average yield per hectare for organic barley in 2012 was 2,067 kg per hectare, and 

the median was 2,100 kg. The range of variation for the reported harvests was 700- 

3,000 kg/hectare. Similarly to oats and wheat, the differences between conventional 

and organic barley were higher as to yield levels than as to quality factors. The average 

yield level of organic barley was only 54 per cent of the average yield levels of 

conventional barley (the average yield level for conventional barley was 3,821 

kg/hectare, and the median was 4,000 kg. Figure 34 compares the average yield levels 

for all cereals in organic and conventional cultivation. 

Of the organic barley samples, 41 per cent came from Southern Finland, 29 per cent 

from Eastern Finland, 18 per cent from Northern Finland and 12 per cent from Western 

Finland. Due to the small number of samples no regional comparison was made. 

Table 24. Average quality of organic barley in 2012 

Organic barley 

Crop Year Hectoliter weight Protein Starch Shrivelled grain Shrivelled grain Total besatz 

kg/hl % % < 2,0 mm % < 2,2 mm % % 

2012 61,3 11,5 60,3 5,3 12,5 8,3 

39

8.4 Organic rye 


In 2012, 5.1 million kg organic rye was produced. That is 7.8 per cent of the whole 

domestic rye production. Out of the organic grain in the quality monitoring 20 per cent 

were rye samples. 

The average hectolitre weight of organic rye was 74.7 kg (the median was 75.2 kg). 

The average hectolitre weight of conventionally grown rye was higher at 77.1 kg (the 

median was 78.1 kg). Of the samples, 79 per cent of the organic rye samples had a 

hectolitre weight of a minimum of 71 kg. 

The average falling number was 150.5 seconds (the median was also 150.5 seconds). 

The aim for rye at the basic price is a minimum of 120 seconds, which was reached in 

74 per cent of the samples. All of the results for the average quality of organic rye in 

2012 are presented in table 25. The total besatz of organic rye was clearly higher than 

that of conventionally grown rye (figure 28). 

Out of the organic rye samples, 65 per cent fulfilled the requirements as to hectolitre 

weight and falling number for bread rye. The corresponding figure for conventionally 

grown rye was 76 per cent. 

The average yield per hectare for organic rye in 2012 was 1,763 kg per hectare, and 

the median was 1,500 kg. The range of variation for the reported harvests was 700- 

3,400 kg/hectare. The average yield level for organic rye was only 43 per cent of that of 

conventional rye (the average yield level of conventional rye was 3,405 kg/hectare, and 

the median was 3,500 kg). Figure 34 compares the average yield levels for all cereals 

in organic and conventional cultivation. 

Of the organic rye samples, 48 per cent came from Southern Finland, 30 per cent from 

Western Finland, 15 per cent from Eastern Finland and 9 per cent from Northern 

Finland. Due to the small number of samples no regional comparison was made. 

Table 25. Average quality of organic rye 

Organic rye 

Crop Year Hectoliter weight Falling Number Protein Shrivelled grain Total besatz 

kg/hl s % < 1,8 mm % % 

2002 74,3 210 11,1 10,5 ― 

2003 71,9 150 11,9 13,7 ― 

2004 72,8 121 10,8 11,1 ― 

2005 74,2 103 10,2 11,0 ― 

2006 75,8 201 10,4 3,3 ― 

2007 74,8 144 11,0 8,7 ― 

2008 72,1 73 10,4 5,2 ― 

2009 73,6 143 9,8 5,1 ― 

2010 74,7 236 10,3 8,0 ― 

2011 ― ― ― ― ― 

2012 74,7 150 9,5 8,1 10,7 

40

9 MATERIAL 

9.1 Sampling and response rate 

9.1.1 The quality monitoring of the grain harvest 


The farms covered by the monitoring were selected randomly from the Farm Register 

of the Information Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (Tike). Farms with 

less than five hectares of cultivated area were not part of the sampling. In 2012 about 

1,700 farms were part of the sampling. Samples were sent in from 23 per cent of the 

farms selected for the quality monitoring. The scale of the study and the time it takes to 

take the samples and to send them have an impact on the response rate. The 

distribution of the sizes of the farms and the samples sent in are shown in figure 36. 

Every year, farms that have not sent in samples during the preceding four years are 

chosen for the sampling. There is however also a small permanent group of farms in 

the sampling. The quality monitoring of the grain harvest received 841 samples in 

2012. 

9.1.2 Quality monitoring of the organic grain harvest 

In addition to the usual sampling, requests for samples were sent to about 300 farms 

for the purpose of the quality monitoring of organically grown grain. These were 

selected regionally from Tike’s register of organic production. Samples were received 

from 29 per cent of the farms selected for the quality monitoring. The distribution of the 

sizes of the farms and the number of samples sent in are shown in figure 37. We 

received 167 samples for the quality monitoring of organic grain. 

9.2 Grain samples and form for background information 

For the purpose of the monitoring, a total of 5,600 sample bags were sent in July to the 

selected farms based on the sampling. The number of sample bags depended on the 

size of the farm. The farm sizes were divided into the categories 5–9.9 ha, 10–19.9 ha, 

20–29.9 ha, 30–49.9 ha, 50–99.9 ha and farms exceeding 100 ha. Requests for two 

samples were sent to the two smallest categories, requests for three samples to the 

category in the middle and requests for four samples were sent to the two following. 

Farms over 100 hectares received requests for 5 samples. The sizes of the farms in 

the distribution of the sampling and that from which samples were received are 

presented in figures 32–34. Every request for samples was accompanied by a request 

form requiring background information specific to the batch of grain, which supplied us 

with valuable information on factors related to the grain production (more detail in 

chapter 1.4). 

Taking samples is an important factor that affects the reliability of the results. This is 

why instructions on how to take the samples were sent to the farmers in the letter to the 

growers. It had been requested that the samples would have been sent in by mid- 

October, but this was changed to a later date due to the special characteristics of the 

growing period. The harvesting period was drawn out very much due to the weather 

conditions during the growing period of 2012, and it was therefore decided to still 

accept samples in November. 

41


Figure 36. Distribution of the sizes of the farms selected for the quality monitoring of the grain harvest and 

distribution of the sizes of the farms from which samples were received. 

Figure 37. Distribution of the sizes of the farms selected for the quality monitoring of the organic grain 

harvest and distribution of the sizes of the farms from which samples were received. 

9.5 Analyses 

The study analysed the quality factors for grain that are generally used by the grain 

trade and the grain industry, and were analysed by the Cereal Section of the Plant 

Analysis Laboratory Unit of the Food Safety Authority. The laboratory of Evira’s Cereal 

Section is accredited by the FINAS accreditation service and it complies with a quality 

system in accordance with SFS-EN ISO/IEC 17025 standard. The laboratory methods 

used for this study are presented in table 26. 

Table 26. Methods of analysis and their reference methods used in this study 

Analytical methods 

Analysis Unit Method Referencemethod 

Moisture % NIT-measurement, Evira 7214, internal method ISO 712-1998 E 

Hectoliter weight kg/hl NIT-measurement, Evira 7214, internal method ISO 7971-2:1995, 1/4 l litre 

Falling Number s Evira 7212, ICC-std. no. 107/1/68/95 

Protein content % / k-a. NIT-measurement, Evira 7214, internal method ISO 20483:2006 , Kjeldahl 

Starch content % / k-a. NIT-measurement, Evira 7214, internal method ISO 6493, polarimetric 

Wet gluten % NIT-measurement, Evira 7214, internal method ICC-std. 155/1/94 

Zeleny index ml NIT-measurement, Evira 7214, internal method ISO 5529-1992 

Shrivelled grain % Evira 7314, internal method EY N:o 824/2000 

Malting barley sieving % Evira 7310, internal method 

Total besatz % Evira 7314, internal method EY N:o 824/2000 

42

APPENDIX 1 

source SYKE 

Kunnat, maakunnat ja ELY-keskukset 1.1.2011 

Elinkeino-, liikenne ja ympäristökeskukset 

01 UUD Uudenmaan ELY 

02 VAR Varsinais-Suomen ELY 

03 SAT Satakunnan ELY 

04 HAM Hämeen ELY 

05 PIR Pirkanmaan ELY 

06 KAS Kaakkois-Suomen ELY 

07 ESA Etelä-Savon ELY 

08 POS Pohjois-Savon ELY 

09 POK Pohjois-Karjalan ELY 

10 KES Keski-Suomen ELY 

11 EPO Etelä-Pohjanmaan ELY 

12 POH Pohjanmaan ELY 

13 POP Pohjois-Pohjanmaan ELY 

14 KAI Kainuun ELY 

15 LAP Lapin ELY 

16 Ahvenanmaa 

Kalajoki 

Enontekiö 

Muonio 

Kolari 

Pello 

Tornio 

Ylitornio 

Raahe 

Pyhäjoki 

Merijärvi 

Alavieska 

Ylivieska 

Kokkola 

Kannus 

Nivala 

Kärsämäki 

Luoto 

Pietarsaari Kruunupyy 

12 Pedersöre 

Sievi 

Keski- 

Haapajärvi 

Toholampi 

Pohjanmaa Reisjärvi 

Kaustinen 

Pyhäjärvi 

Kiuruvesi 

Vieremä 

Sonkajärvi 

Valtimo 

Nurmes 

Uusikaarlepyy 

Evijärvi Veteli 

Halsua 

Lestijärvi 

Kinnula 

Pihtipudas 

Iisalmi 

Lapinlahti 

Rautavaara 

Lieksa 

Korsnäs 

Mustasaari 

Vöyri 

Vaasa Vähäkyrö 

Isokyrö 

Pohjanmaa 

Maalahti Laihia 

Ilmajoki 

Kauhava Lappajärvi 

Perho 

Vimpeli 

Kivijärvi 

Viitasaari 

Kyyjärvi 

Lapua Alajärvi 

Kannonkoski 

Soini Karstula 

11Kuortane 

Seinäjoki 

Keski-Suomi 

Pielavesi 

Pohjois-Savo Nilsiä 

Keitele 

Maaninka 

Siilinjärvi Juankoski 

08 

Tervo 

Kaavi 

Vesanto 

Kuopio 

Tuusniemi 

Juuka 

Pohjois-Karjala 

Polvijärvi 

09 

Kontiolahti 

Närpiö 

Kaskinen 

Kurikka 

Etelä-Pohjanmaa 

Teuva 

Alavus 

Jalasjärvi 

Kari- 

Kauhajoki 

joki 

Töysä 

Ähtäri 

Saarijärvi Äänekoski 

10 

Multia Uurainen 

Laukaa 

Rauta- 

Konnevesi lampiHanka- 

Suonenjoki 

Leppävirta 

Outokumpu 

Heinävesi 

Liperi 

Joensuu 

salmiKristiinan- 

Virrat 

Keuruu 

Petäjävesi 

Rääkkylä 

kaupunki 

Pieksämäki 

Varkaus 

Tohmajärvi 

Kihniö 

Savonlinna 

Isojoki 

Karvia 

Joroinen 

Enonkoski 

Mänttä- 

Muurame 

Honka- 

Parkano 

Vilppula 

Kitee 

Merijoki 

Toivakka 

Rantasalmi 

Kangasniemi 

karvia 

Ruovesi 

Ylöjärvi 

Jyväskylä 

Kerimäki 

Siikainen 

Jämi- 

Jämsä 

Etelä-Savo 

Kesälahti 

Kankaanpää järvi Ikaalinen Pirkanmaa 

Savonlinna 

Juupajoki 

Joutsa 

Juva 

Pomarkku 

Mikkeli 

Punka- 

03 

Luhanka 

Sulkava 

05 

harju 

Pori 

Lavia Hämeenkyrö Tampere 

07 

Orivesi 

Hirvensalmi 

Parikkala 

Satakunta 

Kuhmoinen 

Ulvila 

Hartola 

Kiikoinen 

Puumala 

Nokia 

Kangasala 

Sysmä 

Pertun- 

Ristiina 

Luvia Nakkila 

Sastamala Pirkkala 

maaHarjaRautvalta 

Lempäälä 

Pälkäne Padasjoki 

Mäntyharju 

Ruokolahti 

järvi 

Eurajoki Kokemäki 

Vesilahti 

Suomenniemi 

Päijät-Häme 

Valkeakoski 

Heinola 

Eura 

Asikkala 

Taipalsaari 

Köyliö 

Rauma 

Huittinen Punka- 

Akaa 

Savitaipale 

Imatra 

laidun 

Hämeenlinna 

Urjala 

Pyhäranta 

Säkylä 

Hämeen- 04 

Etelä-Karjala 

Hattula 

Lemi 

linna 

Hollola 

Nastola 

Laitila 

HumpHämeen- 

Loimaa 

Forssa 

Lahti 

Oripila 

Kanta-Häme koski 

06 

Lappeenranta 

Iitti Kouvola 

Luumäki 

Uusikaupunki 

pää 

Janakkala 

Jokioinen 

Pöytyä 

Kärkölä 

Mynämäki 

Ypäjä Tammela 

Hausjärvi 

Orimattila 

Vehmaa 

Kymenlaakso 

Nousiainen 02 

Aura 

Koski 

RiihiTaivas- 

Loppi 

Rusko 

Miehikkälä 

Tl 

mäki 

Kustavi saloTarvas- 

Somero 

Pukkila Lapinjärvi 

Masku 

Marttila 

Hyvinkää Mäntsälä 

Hamina 

joki 

Turku Lieto 

Myrskylä 

Brändö 

Geta 

Raisio Varsinais- 

Karkkila 

Kotka 

Virolahti 

Paimio 

Askola 

Naantali 

Järven- 

Kaarina 

Nummi- 

Pyhtää 

Saltvik 

Nurmijärvi pääPornainen 

Loviisa 

Eckerö 

Pusula 

Finström 16 

Suomi 

Tuusula 

Salo 

Porvoo 

Hammar- Sund Vårdö Kumlinge 

Vihti 

Kerava 

land Sauvo 

Länsi- 

Sipoo 

Jomala 

Uusimaa 

Turunmaa 

Lohja 

Vantaa 

Lumparland Sottunga 

Karja- 

Espoo 

Maarianlohjahamina 

Lemland 

Kauniainen Helsinki01 

Föglö 

Kemiön- 

Siuntio 

saari 

Raasepori 

Kirkko- 

Inkoo nummi 

Kökar 

Kuntaraja © Affecto Finland Oy, Karttakeskus, Lupa L4659 

Hanko 

Keminmaa 

Kemi 

Hailuoto 

Oulainen 

Tervola 

Siikajoki 

Vihanti 

Kittilä 

Simo 

Haapavesi 

Ii 

Haukipudas 

Oulunsalo 

Kempele 

Lumijoki 

Liminka 

13 

Rovaniemi 

Tyrnävä 

Yli-Ii 

Kiiminki 

Oulu 

Muhos 

Siikalatva 

La pp i 

15 

Ranua 

Pyhäntä 

Utsjoki 

Inari 

Sodankylä 

Vaala 

Pudasjärvi 

Utajärvi 

Pelkosenniemi 

Kemijärvi 

Pohjois-Pohjanmaa 

Kajaani 

Puolanka 

Paltamo 

Posio 

Savukoski 

Salla 

Taivalkoski 

14 

Ristijärvi 

Sotkamo 

Suomussalmi 

Hyrynsalmi 

Kuusamo 

Kainuu 

Kuhmo 

0 25 50 100 150 200 Km 

Ilomantsi

Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira 

Mustialankatu 3, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland 

Tel. +358 29 530 0400, Fax +358 29 530 4350 

www.evira.fi 


ISSN 1797-299X 

ISBN 978-952-225-124-4 (pdf) 

Cover photo: Evira´s Image Bank/Kristiina Kanerva

Download PDF, 1698 kB - Evira

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?