Annual Progress Report on Malting Barley Research March, 2002

More documents

Recommendations

Info

118 Table 4. Agronomic data for Oregon winter barley selections compared to check varieties (2000- 2001). Yield Test weight Plump seed Location /Year Variety/selection (lbs/acre) (lbs/bu) (on 6/64) Pendleton 88Ab536 4622 51 72 Strider 7132 50 87 Hundred 6271 49 53 812 5792 51 71 STAB 7 6252 51 70 STAB 47 5761 52 87 STAB 113 5805 52 70 KAB37 6161 52 74 KAB47 5725 50 65 KAB51 5459 53 91 Pullman 88Ab536 4218 53 83 Strider 6772 51 86 Hundred 5532 47 51 812 5839 51 78 STAB 7 4998 52 75 STAB 47 4027 52 87 STAB 113 5836 53 85 KAB37 5757 52 70 KAB47 5323 52 78 KAB51 4816 52 91 Aberdeen 88Ab536 6993 53 91 Strider 8321 54 90 Hundred 8194 52 74 812 8637 53 90 STAB 7 6511 54 82 STAB 47 5772 53 88 STAB 113 7615 55 86 KAB37 8088 55 82 KAB47 5549 53 82 KAB51 6782 55 88 Table 5. Adult plant stripe rust disease severity of winter barley varieties and checks at Toluca, Mexico; Davis, California; Huancayo, Peru (data provided by H .Vivar, L. Jackson, and B. Brown) and reaction under controlled environment conditions when inoculated with an isolate corresponding to race 24 (data courtesy of M. Johnston). Stripe rust Stripe rust Davis, Stripe rust Stripe rust reaction Variety/selection Toluca, Mexico CA Huancayo, Peru (seedling) % severity % severity % severity 1 – 9 scale 88 Ab 536 90 100 100 9 Kold 20 0 0 1 Strider 0 0 0 1 Hundred - 30 70 - Eight-Twelve - 60 70 - Scio - 40 80 - Kab 37 30 20 60 7 Kab 47 0 5 80 2 Kab 51 0 50 10 1 Stab 7 40 20 40 6 Stab 47 30 10 60 0 Stab 113 20 40 50 3
119 Table 6. Malting quality of winter barley selections compared to 88AB536. Pendleton, Pullman, and Aberdeen 1999- 2001. Malt Barley Wort Diastatic Alpha Variety or extract protein protein power amylase Selection Data source Location Year % % % 0 ASBC 20 0 Beta glucan Units ppm 88 Ab536 ConAgra Pendleton 1999 80.3 10.1 4.4 143 54.0 84.0 88 Ab536 CCRU Pendleton 1999 78.7 11.3 4.3 143 53.5 128.0 88 Ab536 BARI Pendleton 2000 78.8 10.9 3.1 170 55.2 348.4 88 Ab536 ConAgra Pendleton 2000 81.7 8.7 4.3 119 51.0 301.0 88 Ab536 BARI Aberdeen 2000 80.0 11.4 5.0 166 56.6 323.2 88 Ab536 BARI Pullman 2000 82.1 11.3 4.3 155 45.1 626.9 88 Ab536 BARI Pendleton 2001 77.2 12.2 4.8 153 49.3 312.0 88 Ab536 ConAgra Pendleton 2001 78.4 12.3 4.9 199 61.0 188.0 88 Ab536 ConAgra Pullman 2001 79.4 12.6 5.6 189 61.0 220.0 Average 79.3 11.5 4.7 159.6 51.6 288.8 Stab 7 ConAgra Pendleton 1999 82.2 9.4 4.2 129 76.0 53.0 Stab 7 CCRU Pendleton 1999 81.1 10.1 3.8 115 60.9 67.0 Stab 7 ConAgra Pendleton 2000 82.2 9.9 4.6 135 60.0 296.0 Stab 7 BARI Pendleton 2000 79.9 10.2 2.8 145 49.7 538.6 Stab 7 BARI Aberdeen 2000 78.9 13.4 5.2 155 51.2 471.3 Stab 7 BARI Pullman 2000 81.5 10.3 3.6 103 46.4 540.6 Stab 7 ConAgra Pendleton 2001 80.1 11.4 4.8 164 78.0 189.0 Stab 7 BARI Pendleton 2001 78.0 11.3 4.2 134 42.1 337.9 Stab 7 BARI Aberdeen 2001 78.9 12.1 5.1 132 48.4 280.9 Stab 7 ConAgra Pullman 2001 81.4 10.9 4.8 172 76.0 161.0 Stab 7 BARI Pullman 2001 78.6 11.0 4.4 118 39.4 392.3 Average 80.3 10.9 4.3 136.5 57.1 302.5 Stab 47 ConAgra Pendleton 1999 78.0 11.8 5.0 150 61.0 56.0 Stab 47 CCRU Pendleton 1999 76.8 12.9 4.4 149 61.1 64.0 Stab 47 ConAgra Pendleton 2000 79.6 10.2 4.4 117 59.0 229.0 Stab 47 BARI Pendleton 2000 77.8 10.9 3.0 140 51.7 458.7 Stab 47 BARI Aberdeen 2000 77.8 12.3 5.5 148 63.7 207.9 Stab 47 BARI Pullman 2000 81.9 11.0 4.5 134 50.5 592.3 Stab 47 ConAgra Pendleton 2001 80.0 11.7 4.8 145 72.0 75.0 Stab 47 BARI Pendleton 2001 78.3 11.1 4.4 130 45.9 325.7 Stab 47 BARI Aberdeen 2001 76.4 13.7 5.3 135 54.3 220.0 Stab 47 ConAgra Pullman 2001 78.6 13.4 6.1 219 77.0 108.0 Stab 47 BARI Pullman 2001 76.4 13.6 5.6 138 44.1 274.5 Average 78.4 11.9 4.9 143.6 58.2 238.7
Page 1 and 2:
Annual Pro
Page 3:
-i- INTRODUCTION The March 2002 <st
Page 6 and 7:
Barley Transformation G.J. Muehlbau
Page 9 and 10:
1 2000/2001 WINTER NURSERY: BARLEY
Page 11 and 12:
3 2001 Barley Stripe Rust Screening
Page 13 and 14:
5 Triumph/Tyra//Arupo, a selection
Page 15 and 16:
7 Washington (Fossum Cereals and Wa
Page 17 and 18:
9 This project is supported by the
Page 19 and 20:
11 ‘Triumph’, ‘Valier’, ‘
Page 21 and 22:
13 Table 2. Agronomic data for sele
Page 23 and 24:
15 Table 4. Agronomic data for sele
Page 25 and 26:
17 Table 8. Malting quality data* f
Page 27 and 28:
19 Six-rowed barley selections of c
Page 29 and 30:
21 Table 14. Agronomic data for sel
Page 31 and 32:
23 Table 16. Agronomic data for win
Page 33 and 34:
25 Table 19. Malting quality data*
Page 35 and 36:
Garnet/98Ab11865 Garnet/98Ab12895 9
Page 37 and 38:
29 rust resistant NSGC accessions o
Page 39 and 40:
31 DEVELOPMENT OF SIX-ROWED MALTING
Page 41 and 42:
33 backcrossing. The selfed lines w
Page 43 and 44:
35 MINNESOTA BARLEY IMPROVEMENT PRO
Page 45 and 46:
37 ADVANCED LINE EVALUATION Varieti
Page 47 and 48:
39 OTHER BARLEY DISEASES In 2001, r
Page 49 and 50:
41 Wingbermuehle, W. J., K.M. Belin
Page 51 and 52:
43 In 2001 winter/spring, over 300
Page 53 and 54:
45 assessments were made by countin
Page 55 and 56:
47 IDENTIFICATION OF NOVEL DISEASE
Page 57 and 58:
49 Unfortunately, disease levels in
Page 59 and 60:
51 BARLEY TRANSFORMATION G.J. Muehl
Page 61 and 62:
53 We have available the sugarcane
Page 63 and 64:
55 Secondly, we tried to grow F. gr
Page 65 and 66:
57 References: Issac, S. and Jennin
Page 67 and 68:
59 Huntley-dryland) with two replic
Page 69 and 70:
61 Table 2. 1992 thru 2001 Overall
Page 71 and 72:
63 performance for Montana farmers.
Page 73 and 74:
65 Blake, T,. Hensleigh P., Boss D.
Page 75 and 76: 67 settling tower cannot accommodat
Page 77 and 78: Table 3. Seedling reaction to strip
Page 79 and 80: 71 TWO-ROWED BARLEY IMPROVEMENT PRO
Page 81 and 82: Table 1. Agronomic trait comparison
Page 83 and 84: 75 mutants reduce plant vigor and g
Page 85 and 86: 77 SIX-ROWED BARLEY IMPROVEMENT PRO
Page 87 and 88: 79 this variety has decreased over
Page 89 and 90: Table 7. Malt quality comparisons o
Page 91 and 92: 83 • Management studies for malt
Page 93 and 94: 85 STUDIES ON BARLEY DISEASES AND T
Page 95 and 96: 87 With funding from the US Wheat a
Page 97 and 98: 89 MALTING AND BREWING QUALITY OF B
Page 99 and 100: 91 β-glucans, it might be most ins
Page 101 and 102: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 93 Figure 1.
Page 103 and 104: 95 Bolin, P., Schwarz, P., Jones, B
Page 105 and 106: 97 Results Results from field and g
Page 107 and 108: 99 DEVELOPING BARLEY TISSUE CULTURE
Page 109 and 110: 101 trials of plants regenerated fr
Page 111 and 112: 103 Table 2. Agronomic performance
Page 113 and 114: 105 BSMV spread between entries. Ho
Page 115 and 116: 107 involving two susceptible backg
Page 117 and 118: 109 THE OREGON BARLEY IMPROVEMENT P
Page 119 and 120: 111 for traits that are difficult/e
Page 121 and 122: Germplasm Development: 113 Crosses:
Page 123 and 124: 115 • All lines in spring yield t
Page 125: 117 Table 2. Agronomic data for Ore
Page 129 and 130: 121 Table 7. Across location summar
Page 131 and 132: 123 MOLECULAR MARKER ASSISTED MODIF
Page 133 and 134: 125
Page 135 and 136: 127 exchanges. Spring and winter ba
Page 137 and 138: 129 Table 2. 2000-2001 Agronomic Pe
Page 139 and 140: 131 Table 7. Spring 2- and 6-Row #
Page 141 and 142: 133 2. Direct Seeding Cropping Syst
Page 143 and 144: 135 D.M. Wesenberg - spring and win
Page 145 and 146: 137 A STUDY OF THE MALTING QUALITY
Page 147 and 148: 139 Methods. Our malting schedule.
Page 149 and 150: 141 modification measures indicated
Page 151 and 152: 143 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PROTEIN
Page 153 and 154: 145 Purification of a serine endope
Page 155 and 156: 147 STUDIES ON THE PROTEINASES THAT
Page 157 and 158: 149 with the proteinase T will be s
Page 159 and 160: 151 10°C increase in thermostabili
Page 161 and 162: 153 Sissons MJ and MacGregor AW (19
Page 163 and 164: µM Carbohydrate / Unit of α-Gluco
Page 165 and 166: 157 Tissue-specific gene products f
Page 167 and 168: 159 The promoters were subcloned fr
Page 169: 161 Fig. 3. Expression of Trx-Hth f
show all

Annual Progress Report on Malting Barley Research March, 2002

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?