| | Presented at the 18th North American Barley Researchers Workshop, July 17-20, 2005, Red Deer, Alberta, Canada
Breeding for malt and feed quality barley in northern Australia
Most countries that produce barley classify their varieties as either malt or feed with the feed class consisting of varieties that are not biochemically suited for malting. However, these varieties have probably not been tested for any animal feed value. In a number of countries, including Australia, more barley is used annually for feeding animals than used in beer production. Under Australian feedlot conditions, anecdotal data had suggested that malt varieties were best for feeding cattle but little data was available to support this generalisation. We have undertaken a study comparing over 30 Australian varieties and breeding lines to ascertain some scientific basis to this theory. Genotypes from two sites and two years replicated trials were evaluated for malt and feed analysis. Results indicated that the levels of resting grain components were similar for each end-use. There was no apparent difference in total starch content between malt and feed. However, there were differences for the in sacco Dry Matter Digestibility with the good feed and malt genotypes having low levels. While there was no strong relationship for particle size (hardness) between malt and feed quality there was a relationship within a genotype with feed type being slightly harder. This relationship was independent of protein content. The most significant area of difference is the need for malt varieties to produce moderate to high levels of enzymes to breakdown endosperm components during malting and mashing. Varieties that performed especially well in both end-uses, ie. good malt quality and improved animal performance, were current malting varieties. The biochemical results to date demonstrate that breeding programs could effectively select for improved malt and feed quality in breeding lines by focusing on malt quality and selecting lines with high level of enzymes.
Glen Fox (1,5), Jan Bowman (3,) Karyn Onley-Watson (1), Andrew Skerman (1), Gary Bloustein (1), Alison Kelly (1), Andy Inkerman (1), David Poulsen (4) and Robert Henry (2,5)
Corresponding author: glen.fox@dpiq.ld.gov.au
(1) Department of Primary Industries& Fisheries, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
(2) Grain Foods Cooperative Research Centre, Lismore NSW, Australia
(3) Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA
(4) Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries, Warwick, Queensland, Australia
(5) Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW, Australia
[Top of document]
Milling energy and grain hardness in barley
Grain hardness is a product of the complex interaction between compositional and structural endosperm components, including starch, protein and beta-glucan. Hardness may contribute significantly to barley quality. Grain hardness can be evaluated by measuring the energy required to mill (milling energy) or crush (hardness) the grain, with harder grain requiring more force. Our research examines the relationship between milling energy and hardness of several feed and malting barley genotypes grown at multiple locations and the influence of protein and moisture on grain hardness.
Seven feed, one malting variety and one malting barley breeding line were grown in field trials at six Western Canadian sites during 2003 and 2004 and evaluated for milling energy, hardness, moisture and protein content. Milling energy was determined using the ‘Comparamill’ at the Scottish Crop Research Institute (Scotland). Hardness and moisture were determined using the Perten Single Kernel Characterization System (SKCS). Grain protein was estimated using Near Infrared Transmittance (NIT).
Analysis of variance showed significant differences between genotypes and sites for all measured traits (P=<0.001) with no variety by site interaction (P=>0.99). Milling energy of genotypes ranged from 617 to 736 joules (SE=5.9). McLeod and CDC Dolly required significantly more energy to mill, followed by Valier, Newdale, Xena and CDC Helgason. CDC Bold, TR253 and CDC Trey required the least energy to mill, indicating a softer endosperm. Milling energy ranged from 625 to 709 joules across sites. SKCS hardness of genotypes ranged from 38.5 to 56.6 (SE=0.77). McLeod was hardest, followed by Valier, Xena and CDC Dolly. CDC Trey, Newdale, TR253, CDC Helgason, and CDC Bold followed with CDC Bold being softest. SKCS hardness ranged from 40.4 to 55.8 across sites. Protein concentration of genotypes ranged from 10.8 to 12.0% (SE=0.16). McLeod, CDC Dolly and Newdale were highest followed by Valier, CDC Helgason, TR253, CDC Bold, Xena and CDC Trey. Protein concentration ranged from 8.8% to 13.3% across sites. Moisture of genotypes ranged from 10.1% to 10.5% (SE=0.06), with larger differences between sites (7.4% to 13.1%). Milling energy was correlated (n=9) with SKCS hardness (r=0.81, P=<0.008) and protein concentration (r=0.79, P=<0.01). No significant correlation was detected between milling energy and moisture (P=0.90), SKCS hardness and moisture (P=0.89) or SKCS hardness and protein concentration (P=0.20).
G.A. Camm and B.G. Rossnagel
Corresponding author: brian.rossnagel@usask.ca
Plant Sciences Department/Crop Development Centre, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A8
[Top of document]
Low phytate barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) development at the Crop Development Centre, University of Saskatchewan
Phytate, a complex of phytic acid (myo-inositol 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexakisphosphate) and other minerals, is the primary form of phosphorous in barley grain. Monogastric animals do not effectively digest phytate because they do not produce the phytase enzyme. Diets must be supplemented with inorganic phosphorous (P) or a microbial phytase to meet minimum nutritional requirements. Consequently, excreted phytate generates high levels of P in effluent resulting in possible environmental pollution or eutriphication of waterways. Low phytic acid mutants (with corresponding increases in free and available phosphorous) have been developed in Harrington barley by Dr. V. Raboy, U.S.D.A. Hvlpa1-1 has 50% less phytate and M635 and M955 have 75% and 95% less, respectively. Initial hybridizations of the low phytate genotypes were made in 1998 at the Crop Development Centre (CDC) to adapted hulless parents in the combinations: Hvlpa1-1/CDC McGwire and M635/CDC Freedom. Based on the uniformity of the original mutants from an observation trial in 1999 the initial crosses were subjected to a rapid backcross breeding strategy with CDC McGwire and CDC Freedom as recurrent parents. Four backcrosses were made for each hybrid combination between 1999 and 2000 with each F1 being screened for phytate to retroactively identify the low phytate F1 plants for the correct backcross in the greenhouse at the University of Saskatchewan. BC4F1 generations were grown as bulk populations in 2000/01 in New Zealand winter nurseries and the subsequent F2 populations were grown as space planted bulks at Saskatoon, SK in 2001. The BC4F3 and BC4F4 generations were advanced using a modified single seed descent procedure in the greenhouses at the University of Saskatchewan during the 2001/02 winter. BC4F5 lines were grown in the field at Saskatoon as F5 hill plots in 2002. Each hill plot was derived from an individual F4 head. Selected hills were tested for phytate. Seed from selected low phytate F5 hill plots was bulked and increased in 2002/03 winter nurseries in New Zealand. Selections were tested in CDC yield trials in 2003, two of which, SR03013 (50% phytate reduction) and SR03044 (75% phytate reduction), were advanced to the Western Canadian Hulless Barley Cooperative (WCHBCoop) yield trial during 2004 as HB378 and HB379, respectively. HB379 has been advanced for final year testing in the 2005 WCHBCoop and will be put forward for support for variety registration in 2006. Growing 2nd generation Breeder Hills in our 2004/05 New Zealand contra-season nursery has allowed for rapid production of Breeder Seed of HB379 in 2005 in anticipation of variety registration. Using this rapid breeding technique means we have moved from 1st cross in 1998 to a released variety in 2006, a period of less than eight years.
B.G. Rossnagel (1), T. Zatorski (1), G. Arganosa (1) and V. Raboy (2)
Corresponding author: brian.rossnagel@usask.ca
(1) Department of Plant Sciences/Crop Development Centre, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, CANADA, S7N 5A8
(2) U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service, National Small Grains Research Facility, 1691 So. 2700 W., Aberdeen, ID 83210, USA
[Top of document]
Post-anthesis biomass yield and quality of barley cultivars developed by Field Crop Development Centre
Over 2.5 million tonnes of barley silage is produced each year in Alberta to support the livestock industry. Barley is a vigorous, early maturing crop that makes high quality silage and is also a preferred feed grain for Alberta producers. The objective of this study was to determine post-anthesis (PA) biomass yield and quality of barley varieties and advanced breeding lines developed at the Field Crop Development Centre (FCDC), Lacombe. Tests were grown at Lacombe from 1998 to 2004, excluding data for the drought year 2002. The varieties were grown in replicated field trials. At about soft-dough growth stage (post-anthesis) the plots were harvested and wet weights determined. Samples were analyzed to determine quality and percent moisture so dry weight could be calculated. Sub-samples of biomass were analyzed for percent protein, acid detergent fibre (ADF%), neutral detergent fibre (NDF%) and relative feed value (RFV) was calculated. Overall, there were significant variations of 5 to 20 tonnes/ha of PA biomass yield among barley varieties. On average there were no significant differences between the 2-rowed, 6-rowed or hulless barley classes. Biomass protein for all varieties ranged between 8 and 15%. The 6-rowed and hulless barley classes tended to have slightly wider range of protein values compared with the 2-rowed. The ADF ranged between 20 and 40%. The overall NDF ranged between 30 and 65%, although the 2-rowed barleys showed a relatively narrower NDF range of between 39 and 59%. The overall RFV varied between 85 and 200. The 2-rowed barleys showed narrower RFV values varying between 100 and 160 compared with either 6-rowed or hulless barleys. The ADF was positively correlated (r = 0.85) with NDF, and grain yield was positively correlated (r=0.75) with biomass yield. The biomass yields, protein % and grain yield showed no correlation to ADF, NDF or RFV. These results suggest that it is possible to breed barley for high post-anthesis biomass yields and quality.
J.M. Nyachiro, J.H. Helm and P.E. Juskiw
Corresponding author: joseph.nyachiro@gov.ab.ca
Field Crop Development Centre, Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, 5030 – 50 St., Lacombe, AB T4L 1W8
[Top of document]
Process development for quick cooking barley products
Barley is among the most ancient of the cereal crops. Canada is the world’s third largest barley producer with an average annual production of 12 million tonnes. Alberta produces approximately one half of the total Canadian production. A large percentage of the production is used as feed for cattle, swine and poultry, while the second largest usage is in the malting industry. A limited amount of barley is used for human food. The objective of this study was to develop processes for quick-cooking barley products to increase food barley consumption.
Alberta grown Falcon and A.C Metcalfe cultivars were used for the study. The effects of variety, pearling rate and pre-treatment on moisture uptake were studied. Moisture uptake was used to evaluate the effect of each pre-treatment. Two processes were developed to produce quick-cooking barley. The quick-cooking barley products reduced cooking time from 45 minutes to 15 minutes for 35% pearled barley and from 60 minutes to 18 minutes for 5% pearled barley. Quick-cooking barley can be cooked by boiling in at least twice the volume of water for 15 to 18 minutes followed by a 5-minute stand. Quick-cooking barley products have a cooked texture, as measured by an Ottawa extrusion method, with an average force of 450 N, an average bulk density of 530 kg/m3 and an appearance similar to long-cooking barley (cooking 35% pearled barley for 45 minutes and 5% pearled barley for 1 hour).
There was a slight decrease in the beta-glucan content with the treatments except with the 35% pearled AC Metcalfe, where the beta-glucan level increased. The 5% pearled barley had much higher insoluble dietary fiber content than that of the 35% pearled barley samples. There was a slight increase in the soluble fibre content with the pressure treatment compared with the untreated barley samples.
There were no significant differences between the samples for overall acceptability or flavour, but appearance and texture were significantly different. The steamed barley samples scored significantly higher for appearance and colour than the pressure-cooked samples. The pressure-cooked barley scored significantly higher than the steam-cooked samples for texture, bite and stickiness/looseness.
The successful development of a quick-cooking barley process provides an excellent commercialization opportunity for processors to produce a human consumption barley product, which could be conveniently incorporated into our daily diet.
Hong Qi (1), Connie Phillips (1), M. Eliason (2), Karen Erin (3), and Feral Temelli (4)
Corresponding author: hong.qi@gov.ab.ca
(1) Centre for Agri-Industrial Technology, Processing Division, Alberta Agriculture, Food & Rural Development (AAFRD)
(2) Agricultural Engineering Branch, Technical Services, AAFRD
(3) Processing Division, AAFRD
(4) University of Alberta
The above posters were presented at the 18th North American Barley Researchers Workshop, July 17-20, 2005, Red Deer, Alberta |
|