Annual Progress Report on Malting Barley Research March, 2002

More documents

Recommendations

Info

78 North Dakota are moderately susceptible to the pathogens inciting FHB. Foliar diseases were most severe at Osnabrock. The predominant foliar disease at this site was septoria speckled leaf blotch (SSLB), incited by Septoria passerinii. All six-rowed cultivars currently grown in North Dakota are susceptible to SSLB. High levels of SSLB along with successive rainstorms resulted in severe lodging in our Osnabrock yield trials. The only trials harvested at this location were those that included lines with SSLB resistance. The North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station (NDAES) released Drummond, tested as ND15477, in June 2000. Drummond yields greater than Robust and slightly less than that of Lacey (Table 1). Drummond has a heading date similar to Robust, and has stronger straw and lower FHB severity ratings than two other new varieties, Lacey (University of Minnesota) and Legacy (Busch Ag. Resources Inc.) (Table 1). However, the lower FHB severity in Drummond does not translate into lower DON accumulation. In 2001, Drummond was grown for production of Registered Seed. In 2002, only seed of the classes Foundation and Registered are available. Miller Brewing completed two years of plant scale evaluation of Drummond and found it satisfactory. Based on their testing, Drummond was added to the list of recommended varieties by AMBA. Anheuser-Busch completed one year of plant scale evaluation of Drummond and found it satisfactory. A second year of evaluation using seed produced in 2001 will begin soon. Table 1. Agronomic comparisons of six-row varieties grown in North Dakota yield trials, 1996-2001. Days to Plant FHB Yield heading height Lodging severity‡ DON§ Variety (bu/ac) (days after 5/31) (inches) (1-9)† (%) (ppm) Station years 11 11 11 3 4 5 Robust 77 25 35 5.3 6.0 2.2 Stander 78 26 33 3.9 7.3 3.1 Foster 80 25 34 5.1 7.9 2.8 Lacey 79 25 32 3.8 5.6 1.9 Legacy 78 27 34 4.0 5.0 2.6 Drummond 78 25 34 2.4 4.3 2.9 †Lodging score of 1 equals no lodging, 9 equals severe lodging. ‡FHB = Fusarium head blight severity. §DON = Deoxynivalenol. Foster, released by the North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station (NDAES) in 1995, was added to the list of varieties recommended for malting by AMBA in July 1996. Foster has yielded slightly greater than all currently released varieties; yet, has weaker straw than all but Robust (Table 1). Foster appears best adapted to all malting barley growing regions of North Dakota except the northern Red River Valley because of its weaker straw. Foster has lower grain protein than currently grown varieties; thus, this may allow growers in the central and western malting barley growing region of North Dakota to produce barley with acceptable grain protein more consistently. Foster was grown on about 10,000 acres (
79 this variety has decreased over the last four years because many growers are sensitive to the “itchiness” caused by its long rachilla hairs. Twenty-one experimental lines were grown at four North Dakota locations (Fargo, Carrington, Minot, and Langdon) in their third or fourth year of yield trials. The USDA- ARS Cereal Crops Research Unit, Madison, WI, evaluated selected lines for malt quality and Dr. Stephen Neate evaluated lines for resistance to spot and net blotch in greenhouse tests. Three lines currently are being evaluated in the AMBA Pilot Scale Evaluation Program. The lines are ND16301 (Foster//ND12200/6B88-3213), ND16903 (Foster//ND12200/BT428), and ND16922 (ND14161/ND14296). Comparisons of these lines to currently grown varieties are presented in Tables 2-7. Table 2. Agronomic comparisons of ND16301, Robust, Stander, and Foster based on North Dakota yield trials, 1996-2001. Grain Days to Plant Stem FHB§ Variety yield heading height Lodging breakage severity DON (bu/ac) (days after 5/31) (inches) (1-9)† (1-5)‡ (%) (ppm) Station years 30 29 26 10 17 9 13 ND16301 77 25 32 3.3 2.9 6.0 3.4 Robust 72 26 34 4.9 4.3 6.8 2.8 Stander 76 27 32 3.4 3.0 7.7 3.9 Foster 76 26 33 4.8 4.0 7.8 3.5 †Lodging of 1 = no lodging and 9 = severe lodging. ‡Stem breakage of 1 = no breakage at harvest and 5 = severe breakage at harvest. § FHB = Fusarium head blight. DON = Deoxynivalenol. Table 3. Malt quality comparisons of ND16301 and other six-rowed barley cultivars grown in North Dakota yield trials, 1996-2001†. Barley Plump Malt Wort Diastatic Alpha- protein kernels extract protein S/T‡ power Amylase Entry (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) ( o L) (20 o DU) Station years 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 ND16301 13.3 71 78.5 5.78 44.5 183 62.9 Morex 14.1 53 77.2 5.87 43.5 168 64.9 Robust 13.8 64 77.6 5.68 42.3 166 50.9 †Data courtesy of the USDA-ARS Cereal Crops Research Unit, Madison, WI. ‡Soluble protein to total protein ratio.
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: 77 SIX-ROWED BARLEY IMPROVEMENT PRO
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?