Annual Progress Report on Malting Barley Research March, 2002

More documents

Recommendations

Info

72 Varieties and Variety Tests Conlon was released in 1996 by NDSU for production in western ND and was recommended as a two-rowed malting barley by AMBA in May 2000. In 2001, Conlon was the second most popular barley cultivar in ND, sown on 5.7% of the 1.8 million acres of barley. Conlon heads more than one day earlier than Bowman and retains test weight well compared to other cultivars. It has shown some resistance to FHB and the accumulation of the toxin deoxynivalenol (DON). Conlon is resistant to net blotch and has the genes Mlg and Mlk for resistance to powdery mildew. It is susceptible to spot blotch and septoria leaf blotch. As a result, it is better adapted for production in western ND. The yields of Conlon are about 10 to 15% lower than the best six-rowed cultivars in most ND yield trials. Several growers reported that in 2001 Conlon grain frequently had much lower DON readings than that of Robust. Advanced and Intermediate Yield Trials 2ND18365 (2B91-4947/ND15403) was most promising line in advanced yield trials. 2ND19012 (Logan//ND16463/ND15409) and 2ND19121 (ND15468/ND16092// ND16461) were the most promising lines in intermediate yield trials. The number of promising lines is low because few lines had low grain protein values combined with high yields. Differential stunting of plants in the Carrington trial by the herbicide Puma further reduced the number of promising lines. ND16092 (ND13297/ND14701) and some of its derivatives showed a level of tolerance to Puma similar to that observed of six-rowed barley cultivars. ND15403 (Logan sib/ND13297) and ND16461 (ND13296/ ND14760) are the low grain protein parents of several promising lines. Lines entered in advanced and intermediate yield trials were screened for field response to spot blotch and grown in the Fusarium head blight nursery at Osnabrock. The best lines in 2001 yield trials were tested for seedling responses to net blotch. Researchers in the Department of Plant Pathology conducted field and seedling tests for disease reactions. Seed lots of the best lines in the advanced and intermediate trials were submitted to the USDA-ARS Cereal Crops Research Unit at Madison, WI for malt quality tests. Yield and agronomic comparisons of 2ND18365 with Conlon indicate that it yields more, has lower lodging readings, and is more resistant to leaf spot diseases (Table 1). It is slightly later and taller than Conlon. Malt quality tests indicate that 2ND18365 has higher values for malt extract, soluble protein, and alpha-amylase activity than Conlon (Table 2). It also has slightly lower grain protein values. Its diastatic power values are lower than those of Conlon and its kernels were not quite as plump. Line 2ND19119 (ND15403/ND15368//ND16453) was identified as a high yielding line with large, plump kernels in 2000. It had high extract values and very low grain protein values. Data from 2001 trials indicate that 2ND19119 has high yield potential and adequate resistance to leaf spot diseases. However, 2ND19119 was very susceptible to Puma injury in 2001 and its kernels showed poor hull adherence. This brief history of 2ND19119 demonstrates that low grain protein and large seed size can be combined in Midwest two-rowed barley, but also that numerous other agronomic traits are difficult to control in the breeding program.
Table 1. Agronomic trait comparisons for 2ND18365 and check cultivars using data from nurseries grown in North Dakota from 1999 to 2001. Entry Yield (bu/a) Heading date (after 5/31) 73 Plant height (inches) Leaf spot (1-9) 1 Lodging (1- 9) 2 Test weight (lbs/bu) Trials 8 10 11 3 5 5 2ND18365 83.7 26.7 31.3 3.8 2.5 50.3 Conlon 76.1 25.9 30.3 5.4 4.5 50.1 Drummond 81.4 27.9 32.3 3.3 2.0 48.9 Stander 82.2 28.7 31.4 3.6 3.2 49.1 1 A leaf spot score of 1 = no leaf disease symptoms and 9 = nearly complete defoliation. 2 A lodging score of 1 = no lodging, 9 = nearly flat. Table 2. Malt quality comparisons for 2ND18365 and check cultivars using data obtained from analyses of barley samples grown in North Dakota during 1999 and 2000. Entry* Plump kernels (%) Kernel weight (mg) Barley protein (%) Malt extract (%) Betaglucans (ppm) Wort protein (%) Wort N/ total N (%) Diastatic power (ΕL) Alpha- amylase (20Ε) Trials 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2ND18365 78.7 38.0 13.6 80.7 293 6.40 47.1 98 87.8 Conlon 81.3 36.9 14.5 78.5 288 5.21 35.9 139 67.5 Drummond 78.1 32.9 14.2 78.2 154 6.16 43.1 196 72.5 Stander 80.2 33.2 14.3 79.1 207 6.79 47.8 167 83.8 * Data courtesy of the USDA-ARS, Cereal Crops Research Unit, Madison, WI. Preliminary Yield Trials Four hundred five new selections were planted in the 2001 preliminary yield trials at Fargo and Langdon using seed from the 2000-2001 Yuma, AZ nursery. Based on heading dates, yield and grain protein data taken from the Fargo nursery and FHB readings from the scab screening nursery at Osnabrock, seed samples of 200 selections and 36 checks from the Fargo nursery were submitted to the USDA-ARS Cereal Crops Research Unit, Madison, WI, for malt quality testing. Seed samples of 209 selections plus checks were submitted to the Department of Plant Pathology for testing of seedling reactions to net blotch. The most promising lines in the 2001 preliminary yield trials had high yields at Fargo, resistance to net blotch, and low grain protein values. The best lines include 2ND19888 (ND16523//ND15468/ND16092), 2ND19929 (TR258/ND17437), 2ND20040 (ND15403//ND16453/A64), and 2ND20121 (ND17383//ND16680/ ND17490). Early Generation Material Head rows (each from a single F2 spike) representing the F3 progenies of 128 crosses
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: 71 TWO-ROWED BARLEY IMPROVEMENT PRO
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?