Annual Progress Report on Malting Barley Research March, 2002

More documents

Recommendations

Info

36 average. The three new varieties Lacey, Legacy and Drummond all yielded above Robust, with Lacey yielding about 11% better than Robust. Other Agronomic characteristics for the varieties is reported in Table 2. All three of the newer varieties appear to be about a half a percent lower in grain protein compared to Robust. Most of the varieties have similar heading dates to Robust, while Stander and Legacy appear to head a little later. Stander and Drummond have the best lodging resistance. Table 1. Grain yield (percent of the mean of the varieties) in Minnesota trials from 1999-2001. Crookston Morris Stephen St. Paul Roseau Mean 3 1 3 2 3 3 14 Morex 92 87 87 87 88 89 Robust 97 95 96 97 88 96 Stander 108 101 114 104 109 110 Foster 98 100 109 105 106 101 MNBrite 100 105 92 93 97 95 Lacey 107 108 105 107 104 105 Drummond 97 96 82 107 101 98 Legacy 96 101 109 99 -- -- Mean (Bu/A) 101 91 67 81 90 87 1 number of trials. Table 2. Description of barley varieties; 1999-2001. Variety Heading (DAP) Height (inches) Lodging (%) Plump (%) Protein (%) 8 1 9 5 6 3 Morex 57 35 38 70 13.2 Robust 58 36 34 77 13.5 Stander 59 32 28 82 12.6 Foster 57 34 29 80 12.0 MNBrite 58 35 39 75 13.8 Lacey 58 33 29 79 12.9 Drummond 58 34 25 74 12.9 Legacy 1 number of trials 60 34 34 67 13.1
37 ADVANCED LINE EVALUATION Varieties currently grown in Minnesota were evaluated with 17 new experimental lines in advanced trials conducted at St.Paul, Morris, Crookston, Stephen and Rosseau. Two lines were submitted for their first year of pilot scale testing M109 (M95/Lacey) and M110 (M932-117/M95). These lines were also included in the Mississippi Valley Nursery. Both lines M109 and M110 show a significant yield advantage over the varieties Stander and Lacey based on two years of advanced yield trial data (Table 3). Maturity is similar to Robust while height is between Lacey and Stander. In terms of malting quality these lines are distinctly lower than Robust in grain protein, similar in wort protein, and slightly higher in alpha amylase (Table 4). Table 3. Agronomic comparisons of new AMBA pilot entries M109 and M110 to check varieties 2000-2001. Variety Yield Bu/A 8 1 Heading (Days after 5/31) Height (cm) Lodging (0-9) Maturity (1-5) 4 6 2 3 M109 98.1 20.0 83.4 4.2 3.0 M110 99.4 20.5 81.7 3.5 3.0 Robust 82.6 20.6 93.8 4.4 3.0 Stander 93.6 20.5 82.7 3.2 2.7 Lacey 1 number of trials 92.4 20.3 85.4 3.2 2.8 Table 4. Malt Quality 1 of M109 and M110 compared to other varieties grown in Minnesota based on 8 trials grown in 2000-2001. Variety/Line Barley Protein (%) Plump Kernels (%) Malt Extract (%) Wort Protein (%) S/T (%) Dias. Power (ºL) Alpha amylase (20º DU) M109 12.8 81.7 79.3 5.5 45.0 147 58.0 M110 12.6 85.7 78.9 5.3 45.0 141 55.0 Robust 14.0 81.9 77.6 5.6 40.9 150 48.4 Stander 13.1 87.3 79.3 6.5 51.8 133 77.4 Lacey 13.2 86.4 78.6 5.4 42.6 145 54.5 1 Data courtesy of the USDA-ARS Cereal Crops Research Unit, Madison, WI.
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: 35 MINNESOTA BARLEY IMPROVEMENT PRO
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?