1 / 22

Breeder Evaluations C ereal Chemistry Tests and Recommended Markers

Breeder Evaluations C ereal Chemistry Tests and Recommended Markers. E. Souza - USDA-ARS, Wooster. What do we do here at the SWQL?. Research on milling, soft wheat formulations, and genes controlling soft wheat quality Breeder sample evaluations

hue
Download Presentation

Breeder Evaluations C ereal Chemistry Tests and Recommended Markers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Breeder Evaluations Cereal Chemistry Tests and Recommended Markers E. Souza - USDA-ARS, Wooster

  2. What do we do here at the SWQL? • Research on milling, soft wheat formulations, and genes controlling soft wheat quality • Breeder sample evaluations • http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/site_main.htm?modecode=36-07-05-00 • Help the industry interpret the information on wheat quality • http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/News.htm?modecode=36-07-05-00

  3. Breeder sample evaluations • Micro evaluations -150 gram sample • Single stream milling • Sucrose and lactic Acid SRC flour analysis • Advanced evaluation – 400 gram sample • Multi-pass milling • SRC analysis and cookie bake • Wheat Quality Council – 80 lbs • US Wheat Associated Overseas Varietal Analysis – 200 lbs

  4. Micro evaluations 2007: 4300 Breeder samples (Not counting genetic studies) • Milling Quality Score and SE Score • Adjustment of mill data based on checks • Baking Quality Score • Combination of Softness Equivalent, Flour Protein, and Sucrose SRC with bias adjustment from check • Test weight • Flour yield, softness equivalent (Break flour) • Sucrose SRC and Protein Adjusted Lactic Acid

  5. Analysis of Variance for Soft Red Winter Wheat Cultivars Evaluated 5 or more times by the Soft Wheat Quality Laboratory in each year from 2006 to 2008.

  6. Advanced evaluations 2007: 1000 Breeder samples (Not counting genetic studies) • Milling Quality Score and SE Score • Adjustment of mill data based on checks • Baking Quality Score • Cookie diameter with bias adjustment from check • Test weight • Flour yield, softness equivalent (Break flour) • Sucrose SRC and Protein Adjusted Lactic Acid • For trials with many named cultivars: Water and Sodium Carbonate SRC • Sugar snap cookie evaluations

  7. Prediction of Sugar Snap Cookie Diameter from Advanced Milling in 2007 & 2008 Baking Quality Scores combine the three best predictors of sugar snap cookie diameter. Sucrose R2 = 42% Flour protein R2 = 37% Softness equivalent R2 = 21% All three variables R2 = 60% Sucrose SRC % Flour protein % Softness Equivalent %

  8. Prediction of New and Old Cookies Comparison of cookie methods from samples baked in 2008 for five soft red winter wheat cultivars. Total samples 30.

  9. New Database of Cultivar Quality • Advanced milling of state performance trials • Cookie baking • Four SRC solvents • Provide industry rapid performance evaluations of new cultivars • http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/News.htm?modecode=36-07-05-00 • Include multiple states

  10. Best Milling Wheat Cultivars in Past Year • 2007/2008 Association Mapping – 5 states • 1) Kristy, 2) Foster, 3) White Wonder • 2007 SWQL Quality Plots – OH • 1) 26R46, 2) MO 011126, 3) Foster • 2007 Virginia State Wheat Nursery – VA • 1) SS 5205, 2) NC Neuse, 3) SS 8309 • 2007/2008 Ohio Wheat Yield Trial – OH • 1) Daisy, 2) Honey, 3) Wellman 132 • 2008 UI Wheat Yield Trial – IL • 1) IL00-8530, 2) Vigoro 9723, 3) Excel 209 • 2007/2008 Michigan State Wheat Trial – MI • 1) D 8006W, 2) Ambassador, 3) Crystal

  11. 2009 Wheat Quality Council18 Cultivars from 2008 Crop • Four cultivar sets - Best cultivars: • Set 1, Ohio - PUR 02444 A1-23-9 • Set 2, Virginia – SS 5205 • Set 3, Michigan – Ambassador • Set 4, Missouri – MO 011126 • How to use this information • Selection for parents • Quality targets for release • Use as checks in the future • Remember – Moderation in all things

  12. 2009 Wheat Quality Council18 Cultivars from 2008 Crop • Traits positively correlated with cooperator scores • sugar snap ratio (r=0.88) and width (r=0.82) • wire-cut diameter (r=0.80) and weight loss (r=0.68) • straight grade yield (r=0.56) and break flour (r=0.52) • Traits negatively correlated with cooperator scores: • Farinograph absorption (r=-0.76) • Water SRC (r=-0.71), sucrose SRC (r=-0.68), sodium carbonate SRC (r=-0.68) • Flour protein (r=-0.50) • Scores not correlated to cooperator scores: • Measures of gluten strength • Most cooperators did not chlorinate flour so limited information on cakes

  13. 2007 Overseas Varietal Analysis10 Cultivars from 2007 Crop • Best overall cultivars: McCormick and Tribute • Overall ranking correlated to Farinograph strength • 2007 samples were all low for water absorption • McCormick makes a range of Asian cakes very well • Historically OVA cooperators have strong preferences for gluten levels. • Lower water absorption typically is preferred in Latin America, N. Africa, and Arabian peninsula • Bright dough color and moderate water absorption is generally desirable for steam breads

  14. Overseas Varietal Analysis Chinese Steam Bread, 2007 Samples Code 701 – Coker 9553, 702 – Tribute, 703 – USG 3665, 704 – USG 3350, 705 – Armor 260Z, 706 – McCormick, 707 – Magnolia, 708 – NC Neuse, 709 – Pioneer 25R47, and 710 – Hopewell.

  15. Wheat Coordinated Agricultural Project • Comprehensive mapping effort for wheat characteristics of economic value • Manipulation of previously mapped or marked genes for the development of new varieties Acknowledgments Jorge Dubcovsky, UC Davis, – Project Coordinator Jamie Sherman, Montana State Univ. – Outreach Coordinator Carl Griffey, Virginia Tech – Eastern US Coordinator Duc Hua, Ohio State – Technical flour analysis Anne Sturbaum, USDA-ARS, Wooster – Association Mapping Gina Brown-Guediera, USDA-ARS Raleigh – Genotyping support Mapping Project LeadersJ. Johnson – GA, C. Griffey – VA, H. Ohm, - IN, M. Sorrells – NY, C. Sneller - OH

  16. Populations & Current Phenotyping & Genotyping

  17. Effect of Glutenin and Rye Translocations in an Association Mapping Population with Genetic State Determined by Markers 187 Soft winter wheat cultivars grown in 7 environments, 2007-2008.Background genetic effects adjusted by genetic similarity using DArT markersGlu-1D, Glu-1B, and the 1B:1R translocation account for most of the variation in gluten.Glu-1B has a range alleles and Glu-1Bal is the strongest of the alleles Difference sig. @ p<0.0015 Difference sig. @ p<0.0004

  18. Effect of Milling QTL Chromosome 2B in an Association Mapping Population – XBarc10 and XBarc98 marker 187 Soft winter wheat cultivars grown in 7 environments, 2007-2008.Background genetic effects adjusted by genetic similarity using DArT markers Difference sig. @ p<0.001 Flour yield sig. @ p<0.01 and SRC @ p<0.001

  19. Effect of Dwarfing and Photoperiodism in an Association Mapping Population with Genetic State Determined by Markers187 Soft winter wheat cultivars grown in 7 environments, 2007-2008.Background genetic effects adjusted by genetic similarity using DArT markers Difference sig. @ p<0.0001 Non-significant difference

  20. Discussion Points • In soft wheat many of the quality traits are positively associated in terms of desirability • e.g. greater flour yield and lower water absorption • Quality traits in all mapping populations are highly heritable • Most of the quality traits are complex – multiple places in the genome

More Related