Barley Genetics and Improvement

Transcription

1 Barley Genetics and Improvement

2 Barley Team and Cooperators Research Associates Liz Elmore Hannah Estabrooks Graduate Students Andy Burkhardt Megan Getz Traci Hoogland Dylan Mangel (Andreas Fischer s student) Montana State University Andreas Fisher Michael Giroux Utah State University David Hole University of Idaho Juliet Marshall North Dakota Rich Horsley Robert Brueggeman University of Minnesota Brian Steffenson Kevin Smith North Carolina State University Gina Brown-Guedira Colorado State University Adam Heuberger Washington State University Kevin Murphy USDA ARS ABERDEEN Gongshe Hu Chris Evans USDA ARS Cereal Crops Research Unit Chris Martens Oregon State University Pat Hayes AB-InBev Joshua Butler

3 Central Ag Research Center Pat Carr Shabeg Briar Eastern Ag Research Center Chengci Chen Sherry Turner & Calla Cowatch Southern Ag Research Center Ken Kephart Kent McVay & Qasim Khan Western Ag Research Center Zach Miller Marty Knox & Stephen Johnson Northwestern Ag Research Center Robert Stougaard Brooke Bohannon MSU Post Farm Dave Gettel Northern Ag Research Center Darrin Boss Peggy Lamb Western Triangle Ag Research Center Gadi Reddy John Miller Montana Agriculture Experiment Stations

4 Provided Advice and Support

5 Thanks to our supporters MSU College of AG and Montana Ag Experiment Station Montana Wheat and Barley Committee American Malting Barley Association Brewers Association USDA-NIFA

6 Summary Introduction MSU Barley Genetics and Improvement Malt Quality Lab Why Dryland Barley Background of GPC Management of Low GPC lines Experimental Design Results Agronomic Quality Conclusions

7 Successful plant breeders are integrators of many disciplines (H. Roger Boerma, Executive Director, Georgia Seed Development & Emeritus Professor, University of Georgia ) Jack of All Trades, Master of None

8 Varieties released by Montana Ag Experiment Station and MSU COA

9 Objectives MSU Barley Breeding Enhance barley competitiveness by increasing yield and yield stability and reducing risk to growers by improving quality stability Identify, develop and utilize new traits in released varieties that will provide an economic advantage to growers or end-users. Provide lines with new end-uses to support new markets for Montana Growers. Genetically dissect important traits

10 Crosses Breeding Goals High yield, high quality malt or feed Food 4 21 Forage Purple malt or food Lodging resistance 11 1 FHB resistance Extended grain-fill (high yield, stable quality) Spot Form of Net Blotch Resistance 3 12 Nematode Resistance 4 10 Beer Staling Resistance 6

11 Hannah Estabrooks is the Barley Quality Lab manager

12 Why barley? Production has moved west Montanans plant more barley acres than any state Important part of rotation to manage pests Many end-uses providing multiple markets for growers About 50% of total grain and 90% of feed exported as a commodity Value added - Malt, Forage

13

14 Why Dryland and what are the issues? 80% of Montana farmland is rainfed Barley grown on rainfed more likely to be rejected for malt Could soybean and corn out compete barley for irrigated acres in Montana? Varieties requiring less water could be classified as more sustainable. Can one line fit most environments? Need to select for quality stability therefore need to malt as many environments as possible Looking for early indicators of malt quality and stability are they different in marginal environments?

15 Why do growers care? They lose revenue when their lines are rejected for malt due to poor quality. Primary reasons for rejection High protein Poor plumps

16 What causes high protein low plumps too little water and/or too much N From Jackson 2000

17 Why do maltsters care? 16% 9% Un-hydrated endosperm Hydrated endosperm Protein inhibits endosperm hydration More time to make malt Poor malt extract

18 Genetic control of Grain Protein Content (GPC) Important QTL for GPC ID in Karl X Lewis cross of 6H (See et al. 2002, Mickelson et al. 2003) Homologous locus cloned in wheat is a NAC transcription factor (Uauy et al. 2006) QGpc.mst.6H associated with delayed senescence (Jukanti et al. 2008) QGpc.mst.6H influences pre- and post-anthesis barley development and senescence (Lacerenza et al. 2010) Stay green QTL reported at same locus as QGpc.mst.6H (Gous et al. 2016)

19 Greenhouse study of two sets of GPC NILs Heidlebaugh et al High N Low N Six Row Two Row

20 Pilot malt testing Lines created by backcrossing the Karl allele for QGpc.6H into a number of Montana lines are a major part of germplasm inherited from Tom Blake

21 Management Low Protein lines Dylan Mangel, Andreas Fischer s graduate student is studying the low protein lines

22 Experiment Post Farm, Bozeman MT 2016 Materials 9 lines with Karl allele backcrossed into a recurrent parent Recurrent parents Hockett, Eslick, Craft, Amsterdam, Lewis Karl and Karl NIL w Lewis allele Design Randomized Complete Block design 3 reps each treatment Rainfed and Irrigated N = 100 lbs/ac, N = 150 lbs/ac

23 Results - Agronomic

24 Results - Agronomic K= Karl allele low protein L = Lewis allele higher protein

25 Results - Agronomic K= Karl allele low protein L = Lewis allele higher protein

26 Low protein alone not enough Pauli and Blake

27 Results Quality? In process

28 USDA ARS Cereal Crops Research Unit Chris Martens

29 Conclusions and future plans Low protein lines have lower protein both rainfed and irrigated Can be higher yielding irrigated Low protein lines appear to be more stable with increased N Some low protein lines appear to have quality stability Hockett low protein lines appear to be the most stable Malt Quality of 2016 material Rerun experiment in 2017 Run subset of low protein lines in more environments and more fertility treatments (3 N and 2 S) to ensure quality stability

30 Goal: Release a low protein line in 2018 with stable malt quality and management recommendations Questions?