Annual Progress Report on Malting Barley Research March, 2002

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4 TWO-ROWED BARLEY GERMPLASM IMPROVEMENT Lynn W. Gallagher Department of Agronomy & Range Science University of California, Davis 95616 The production of malting barley in California has been sporadic over the last century. Prior to World War II as much as 30% of the production of the barley variety Coast was exported to England for brewing. In earlier times six-rowed Coast’s production was 10% malted and 37% exported. Atlas barley, a selection from Coast, became the genotype upon which a whole series of improvements was made ending in the barley yellow dwarf resistant Atlas 68. None of the Atlas series of varieties gained acceptance as a malting barley because of thickness of hull, bitterness, and other reasons. The two-rowed variety Hannchen gained minor acceptance when grown in the Paso Robles area of the Central Coast. In more recent decades the southern part of the Klamath Basin near Tulelake has been used from time to time to grow malting barley. Malting barley as a breeding objective was abandoned by UCD even though beer production and consumption in the state has been growing and demand for malt increasing. The focus of the breeding program at UCD has traditionally been six-rowed feed barley. Despite increasing grain yields per unit area and a deficit in feed grains, the area in barley production has declined from two million to about one hundred thousand acres during the last fifty years. To provide greater grower choice, the UCD barley breeding program began to explore the possibility of creating malting barley for California growing conditions by taking advantage of two-rowed germplasm not previously evaluated or exploited. For the last decade ICARDA/CIMMYT barleys have been evaluated at Davis and a number of two-rowed barleys have exhibited good plant types and moderate levels of productivity given their earliness to head when compared to the commonly grown feed barleys. More recently two-rowed barleys from Oregon St. University have been evaluated at Davis. Two lines from Mexico were identified as having good plant types and multiple disease resistances. The genotypes 22IBON153 (Emir/5/Apizaco/CM67// Russell/Aleli) and 23IBON61 (Arupo/K8753//Aleli) were evaluated for malting quality over three years at the USDA malt lab in Wisconsin (Table 1). These lines had both positive and negative malting qualities. On the positive side were kernel weight, plumpness, grain protein, wort clarity, alpha-amylase and beta-glucan values. On the negative side were low values for wort protein, soluble/total protein, DP, and malt extract. By contrast BCD 47 from Oregon St. U. exhibited good or higher wort protein, soluble/total protein, DP, and malt extract but is susceptible to BYDV and scald. The two Mexican genotypes were hybridized to BCD 47 creating an initial gene pool. Backcrosses of the F1’s were made to BCD 47. Single crosses are now in F3 bulks which will be harvested in May 2002. Subsequently these bulks will be divided and evaluated at Tulelake and Davis, two environments in which varieties are generally not interchangeable. In the 2001 growing season four more two-rowed genotypes exhibited near malting quality. Three lines (SalAjo1, BU 27, and OR 2967102) from Pat Hayes’ program at Oregon State achieved good malt quality scores. An additional promising line is
5 Triumph/Tyra//Arupo, a selection from an ICARDA/CIMMYT F2 sample received years ago. These short statured lines provide the plant type required for Central Valley environments because few tall Midwestern malting varieties are productive after a shattering episode created by fifty mile per hour spring winds. The diseases of scald, BYDV, and stripe rust are additional impediments to the utilization of Midwestern malting barley genotypes in the Central Valley of California. Table 1. Malting values for selected two-rowed barley genotypes grown at Davis, California. Entry KWt 6/64 Color Ext. Wrt Clr Wrt Clrty Prot Sol. Pro. mg % % % % % S/T DP AA Bglu Score 1999 22IB153 46.8 95.5 68 75.3 1.6 1 11.8 4.03 35.6 81 37.4 91 33 23IB61 51.0 93.9 68 74.7 1.9 2 10.1 3.61 36.6 71 42.9 120 35 BCD47 40.2 75.9 73 76.9 1.6 1 13.0 4.93 38.6 163 74.7 159 21 H MaltChk 37.2 81.2 79 79.8 1.6 1 12.0 5.61 47.3 135 77.0 45 29 2000 22IB153 48.7 99.3 57 74.9 1.3 1 11.6 4.22 35.4 80 39.7 154 29 23IB61 48.0 99.5 52 74.6 1.5 1 11.7 4.11 35.0 82 45.2 257 32 BCD47 44.9 95.0 50 79.7 1.9 1 9.9 4.90 49.6 110 81.5 100 42 H MaltChk 36.2 89.8 57 78.6 1.9 1 12.1 5.39 43.5 79 51.9 354 31 2001 22IB153 48.3 91.9 70 78.8 1.3 1 9.8 3.50 36.9 39 41.1 75 31 23IB61 47.5 98.0 69 78.8 1.5 1 10.0 3.94 39.5 57 46.0 166 31 BCD47 45.7 93.2 70 82.2 1.8 1 9.1 4.64 52.1 79 76.2 67 37 H MaltChk 40.1 95.1 75 81.7 1.8 1 11.6 6.17 56.3 139 77.0 46 38 Harrington 38.2 89.1 81 82.5 1.5 1 8.1 4.49 60.6 62 61.7 24 29 SalAjo1 44.7 89.5 71 79.5 1.6 1 10.9 4.76 45.7 96 77.6 124 50 Tri/Ty//Arup 47.1 96.6 64 80.4 1.7 1 8.8 3.83 47.1 106 42.5 51 38 BU 27 44.2 93.5 74 81.0 1.7 1 8.5 4.52 54.6 73 68.3 56 37 OR2967102 47.2 87.3 70 80.3 1.7 1 9.8 5.01 52.9 89 79.3 134 36
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: 3 2001 Barley Stripe Rust Screening
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 and 128:
119 Table 6. Malting quality of win
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?