Annual Progress Report on Malting Barley Research March, 2002

More documents

Recommendations

Info

140 Table 1. A comparison of the malting quality of barley samples germinated with 0% or 100% air recirculation. Fine Wort Variety or Percent Moisture Extract Wort Wort Protein S/T DP AlphaBetaamylaseglucan Quality Selection recirc'n adjusted (%) Color Clarity (%) (%) (ASBC) (20ºDU) (ppm) Score Conlon 0 OS,d1,d2 81.6 1.8 1 5.37 49.1 88 71.9 93 39 Conlon 100 OS,d1,d2 81.7 1.6 1 5.29 47.5 97 76.1 86 43 Robust 0 OS,d1,d2 78.7 2 1 6.17 47.3 147 57.1 196 27 Robust 100 OS,d1,d2 78.6 1.9 1 6.17 47.3 155 56 195 32 Harrington 0 OS,d1,d2 81.6 1.4 1 5.22 47.1 87 66.6 94 32 Harrington 100 OS,d1,d2 81.4 1.3 1 5.16 45 97 68.1 88 41 Morex 0 OS,d1,d2 80.5 2.4 1 6.15 53.1 104 66.6 109 36 Morex 100 OS,d1,d2 80.2 1.9 1 6.23 54.2 131 73 83 40 Only the Diastatic Power values varied when the air flow was altered. The levels increased markedly when the air flow was raised to 100%. Varying the air had no effect on the moisture retention of the barley samples. Other than the DP values, the amount of air recirculation during germination had little effect on the finished malt quality. The effect of moisture levels during germination. The quality of malts prepared in the JW micromalting units is affected by moisture fluctuations, and especially by desiccation, during malting. It is thus important to monitor the moisture levels of the barley during germination and to understand how moisture changes that occur throughout the malting process affect the quality of the finished malt. An investigation of how the out-of-steep (O-S) and germination moisture levels affected the malt quality has been carried out. The moisture levels of Harrington barley samples were adjusted at O-S, and every 24 hours afterwards, until germination was completed. The quality values of the resulting malts are displayed in Table 2. Table 2. The effect of germination moisture levels on Harrington malt quality parameters. Wort Protein Alphaamylase Betaglucan (ppm) FAN Fine Coarse S/T DP Moisture Extract Extract F-C (%) (%) (ASBC) (20ºDU) 43% 81.0 79.0 2.0 5.37 48.7 89 63 296 218 44% 81.3 79.1 2.2 5.47 50.2 84 68 314 215 45% 81.2 79.4 1.8 5.47 49.0 85 64 256 212 46% 81.3 79.8 1.5 5.66 50.7 98 72 108 222 Statistical tests revealed that the Fine Grind Extract and Wort Clarity parameters were the only ones that were not affected by the germination moisture level. All of the other grain
141 modification measures indicated that the barley was better modified when the higher moisture levels were used. The effect of altering the moisture levels at O-S or during germination was also studied. The most important finding from this study was that, although water sprinkling during germination improved malt quality, some of the quality parameters were irreversibly affected by the O-S moisture level. The Fine and Coarse Grind Extracts, F-C, and Diastatic Power levels of malts that were steeped and germinated at a consistent 43% moisture did not differ from those of samples that were steeped at 43% moisture and then hydrated to 47% at any time during germination. Conversely, the alpha-amylase values were raised and β-Glucan levels lowered by increased hydration during germination. The protein modification measures - wort protein, S/T, and FAN - increased when the barley was sprinkled to increase its moisture level during germination. The analysis of breeders’ samples. During 2001, 624 experimental barley samples were received from collaborating plant breeders and these were processed, micromalted, and analyzed for quality. Four hundred and forty samples have been received for testing in the JW micromalters this year. The barley parameters of these samples have been ascertained and their micromalting and quality analyses are underway. Publications. Hang, A., Burton, C.S., Hoffman, D.L. and Jones, B.L. Random amplified polymorphic primer-generated embryo DNA polymorphisms among 16 North American malting barley cultivars. J. Am. Soc Brew. Chem., 58: 147-151, 2000. Hayes, P.M., Castro, A., Corey, A., Marquez-Cedillo, Jones, B.L., Mather, D., Matus, I., Rossi, C., and Sato, K. A Summary of Published barley QTL <strong>Report</strong>s. http://www.css.orst.edu/barley/nabgmp/qtlsum.htm. 2000. Budde, A.D. and Jones, B.L. Assessing differences in malting quality parameters when malts are extracted under ‘standard ASBC’ and ‘high gravity’ conditions. ASBC Newsletter 61: PB25. 2001 and Brewers Digest 76 (3); 40, 2001. (Abstact). Budde, A.D., Jones, B.L., Goplin, E.D., Peterson, D.M. and Staff. Mississippi Valley Uniform Regional Nursery - 2000 Preliminary Quality <strong>Report</strong>. 2000. (Technical report) Budde, A.D., Jones, B.L., Goplin, E.D., Peterson, D.M. and Staff. Western Regional Spring Barley Nursery - 2000 Preliminary Quality <strong>Report</strong>. 2000. (Technical report) Budde, A.D., Jones, B.L., Goplin, E.D., Peterson, D.M. and Staff. Malting Quality of Barley Varieties and Selections Grown at the Mississippi Valley Nursery and at Central and Eastern Stations in 2000. 2000. (Technical report) Budde, A.D., Jones, B.L., Goplin, E.D., Peterson, D.M. and Staff. Malting Quality of Barley Varieties and Selections Grown in Rocky Mountain and Western Stations in 2000. 2000. (Technical report)
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 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: 139 Methods. Our malting schedule.
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?