Annual Progress Report on Malting Barley Research March, 2002

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 4. Agronomic comparisons of ND16903, Robust, Stander, and Foster based on North Dakota yield trials, 1998-2001. 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 11 11 11 5 8 5 7 ND16903 79 27 33 4.0 3.0 5.5 2.8 Robust 75 26 36 4.9 4.1 8.6 3.1 Stander 78 26 34 4.4 3.2 9.7 3.3 Foster 82 25 34 4.6 3.7 8.7 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. DON = Deoxynivalenol. Table 5. Malt quality comparisons of ND16903 and other six-rowed barley cultivars grown in North Dakota yield trials, 1998-2001†. Barley Plump Malt Wort Diastatic Alphaprotein kernels extract protein S/T‡ power Amylase Entry (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) ( o L) (20 o DU) Station years 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ND16903 13.7 70 77.4 6.01 44.6 168 70.2 Morex 14.3 50 77.1 6.09 43.8 174 72.1 Robust 14.4 57 77.8 6.02 43.0 181 56.7 †Data courtesy of the USDA-ARS Cereal Crops Research Unit, Madison, WI. ‡Soluble protein to total protein ratio. Table 6. Agronomic comparisons of ND16922, Robust, Stander, and Foster based on North Dakota yield trials, 1998-2001. Grain Days to Plant Stem FHB§ Variety yield heading height Lodging breakage severity DON (bu/ac) (days after 5/31) (inches) (0-9)† (0-5)‡ (%) (ppm) Station years 11 11 11 4 7 4 6 ND16922 82 25 34 4.3 3.2 6.4 3.5 Robust 75 26 36 4.9 4.1 8.6 3.1 Stander 78 26 34 4.4 3.2 9.7 3.3 Foster 82 25 34 4.6 3.7 8.7 3.5 †Lodging of 0 = no lodging and 9 = severe lodging. ‡Stem breakage of 0 = no breakage at harvest and 5 = severe breakage at harvest. § FHB = Fusarium head blight. DON = Deoxynivalenol. 80
Table 7. Malt quality comparisons of ND16922 and other six-rowed barley cultivars grown in North Dakota yield trials, 1998-2001†. Barley Plump Malt Wort Diastatic Alpha- protein kernels extract protein S/T ‡ power Amylase Entry (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) ( o L) (20 o DU) Station years 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 ND16922 14.0 73 78.1 6.04 44.7 169 79.0 Morex 14.3 49 77.1 6.04 43.5 167 72.0 Robust 14.3 59 77.8 5.96 42.9 175 55.8 †Data courtesy of the USDA-ARS Cereal Crops Research Unit, Madison, WI. ‡Soluble protein to total protein ratio. 81 Intermediate and Preliminary Yield Trials Forty-five experimental lines were grown in the Intermediate Malting Barley Yield Trial at four locations (Fargo, Carrington, Langdon, and Minot) for their second year of evaluation. Selected lines were evaluated for malt quality by the USDA-ARS Cereal Crops Research Unit at Madison, WI and for spot blotch and net blotch reactions in greenhouse tests conducted by Dr. Neate. Four hundred ninety eight experimental lines were grown in Preliminary Yield Trials at Osnabrock and Fargo. Early Generation Selections Single spikes from the F3 and F4 generations were sown at Fargo and Osnabrock in head rows. About 17,100 head rows representing material from 124 crosses were sown. Selection of head rows in the field was based on maturity, plant height, straw strength, kernel plumpness, kernel color, FHB resistance, awn type, spike length, spike erectness, and spike density. About 1,600 selections were made and submitted to Dr. Paul Schwarz’s laboratory (Dept. of Cereal Science) for malt quality prediction tests. Selections were evaluated for barley kernel assortment, barley grain protein, test weight, barley kernel color, and barley diastatic power. Spikes from the selected rows were sown in Yuma, AZ to increase seed for 2002 yield trials. Rows from the selections with the best malt quality estimates will be harvested and advanced to the Preliminary Yield Trials. Sixty-seven F2 populations were grown at Fargo and Osnabrock. Selection among and within populations was based on the same criteria used in the F3 and F4 progeny rows. Nine F1 populations from crosses made in the 2001-spring greenhouse were grown in the field at Osnabrock. All F1 populations had at least one parent with partial FHB resistance. One hundred forty two crosses were made during fall of 2001 in the greenhouse to combine favorable agronomic characteristics, disease resistance, and malt quality traits. Over 85% of the crosses made used parents that showed resistance to at least one of the following diseases: FHB, spot blotch, net blotch, stem rust, leaf rust, speckled leaf blotch, and leaf scald.
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: 79 this variety has decreased over
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?