Annual Progress Report on Malting Barley Research March, 2002

More documents

Recommendations

Info

120 Table 6 (cont.). 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 Stab 113 ConAgra Pendleton 1999 80.8 9.0 4.4 147 52.0 45.0 Stab 113 CCRU Pendleton 1999 79.9 10.1 3.8 132 41.2 71.0 Stab 113 ConAgra Pendleton 2000 81.6 9.4 4.4 125 58.0 88.0 Stab 113 BARI Pendleton 2000 79.4 9.9 3.0 152 51.9 244.2 Stab 113 BARI Aberdeen 2000 81.5 10.0 5.3 122 52.0 248.4 Stab 113 BARI Pullman 2000 82.7 8.6 4.0 102 40.7 460.9 Stab 113 BARI Pendleton 2001 79.1 10.3 4.7 114 48.0 117.9 Stab 113 ConAgra Pendleton 2001 80.3 10.8 4.5 135 57.0 31.0 Stab 113 BARI Aberdeen 2001 77.6 12.2 4.8 130 43.2 311.7 Stab 113 ConAgra Pullman 2001 80.3 11.0 5.2 151 59.0 65.0 Stab 113 BARI Pullman 2001 78.5 11.1 4.8 111 41.0 236.3 Average 80.5 10.0 4.6 126.5 49.9 151.5 Kab 47 ConAgra Pendleton 1999 80.7 10.0 4.7 126 80.0 19.0 Kab 47 ConAgra Pendleton 2000 82.2 8.4 4.2 86 62.0 169.0 Kab 47 BARI Pendleton 2000 81.6 8.4 3.0 90 69.7 234.8 Kab 47 BARI Aberdeen 2000 79.4 12.6 5.8 140 66.5 358.6 Kab 47 BARI Pullman 2000 82.3 11.4 5.3 141 62.8 352.2 Kab 47 ConAgra Pendleton 2001 79.3 11.7 5.2 169 80.0 33.0 Kab 47 BARI Pendleton 2001 78.2 11.8 4.9 113 38.1 225.0 Kab 47 BARI Aberdeen 2001 76.9 13.2 5.6 113 45.7 228.1 Kab 47 ConAgra Pullman 2001 79.8 12.4 5.7 152 70.0 151.0 Kab 47 BARI Pullman 2001 78.0 12.7 5.1 117 40.9 347.5 Average 80.2 11.0 4.9 126.0 63.3 210.0 Kab 51 ConAgra Pendleton 1999 80.6 8.8 4.2 107 56.0 45.0 Kab 51 ConAgra Pendleton 2000 82.8 8.3 4.0 100 59.0 119.0 Kab 51 BARI Pendleton 2000 79.0 11.3 2.7 149 53.1 613.8 Kab 51 BARI Aberdeen 2000 79.2 11.7 5.3 139 53.8 553.5 Kab 51 BARI Pullman 2000 81.4 10.8 4.1 125 48.0 825.2 Kab 51 ConAgra Pendleton 2001 78.4 12.8 4.8 183 68.0 140.0 Kab 51 BARI Pendleton 2001 76.9 12.6 4.1 115 55.8 386.6 Kab 51 BARI Aberdeen 2001 76.7 12.6 4.6 111 38.2 399.4 Kab 51 ConAgra Pullman 2001 79.3 12.8 4.9 157 59.0 208.0 Kab 51 BARI Pullman 2001 77.8 12.6 4.6 123 36.8 493.0 Average 79.5 11.3 4.3 133.1 54.4 376.0
121 Table 7. Across location summary of the six-row spring barley yield trial, 2001. Yield lbs/acre Heading Lodging † Test wt. Plump Entry Name Aberdeen Boseman Pendleton Pullman Avg date % lbs/bu % 1 Baronesse 7471 6179 3572 5915 5784 177 43 52.4 89.2 3 Stander 8058 5336 3329 5108 5458 174 60 52.4 89.8 14 CR/SR 16 6763 5555 2886 4169 4843 176 97 51.5 75.4 15 CR/SR 66 6020 5414 2690 5227 4838 176 80 47.8 60.5 17 Mex 2 6768 4875 2764 4563 4743 175 60 48.3 74.7 9 Stab 113 6588 5280 2098 4858 4706 176 37 51.1 73.9 4 Stab 7 6221 5144 2513 4826 4676 182 100 50.0 57.8 16 CR/SR 102 6624 4830 2595 4514 4641 176 100 49.2 71.0 2 Tango 6495 4875 2485 4642 4625 172 73 48.5 69.8 6 Stab 34 6494 5438 2300 4197 4607 177 60 49.4 45.0 11 Kab 47 6573 4166 2532 4972 4561 181 57 49.4 43.2 12 Kab 50 6363 4294 2353 4315 4332 176 83 50.5 64.3 18 Morex 6298 4222 2889 3906 4329 175 100 50.9 78.5 7 Stab 47 6082 4486 2536 4195 4325 174 73 50.2 73.1 5 Stab 33 6254 4075 2521 4334 4296 181 97 48.1 66.9 8 Stab 64 5665 3739 2336 4543 4071 175 97 49.0 39.7 10 Kab 43 5809 4251 2285 3703 4012 172 37 51.1 76.6 13 Kab 51 5976 4688 1749 3621 4009 178 33 51.1 84.0 Mean 6474 4825 2580 4534 4603 176 71 50.1 68.5 se 398 240 142 365 817 1 13 0.6 6.9 Prob.>F 0.0135
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 and 126: 117 Table 2. Agronomic data for Ore
Page 127: 119 Table 6. Malting quality of win
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?