prairie recommending committee for oat and barley (pcrob) 2007 minutes.pdf · prairie recommending...
Embed Size (px)
Minutes of the Main Committee and Evaluation Teams Of the
Prairie Recommending Committee for Oat and Barley 1st Meeting
Saskatoon, SK February 20-22, 2007
Chair: Michael Edney
Secretary: Patricia Juskiw
DISCLAIMER The data contained in this document are the copyright property of the Prairie Recommending Committee for Oat and Barley (PRCOB). The information contained herein may not be reproduced, published or disseminated in any form other than in its entirety without the express written consent of the PRCOB Chair. The data contained in this document are collected from several sources. The PRCOB does not guarantee the veracity of subsets of these data. The members of the PRCOB evaluate the merit of genotypes/cultivars using a pool of performance parameters collected over several years and multiple locations. Any subset of these data cannot be considered a reliable indication of overall merit. Requests for permission to use portions of this document must be forwarded in writing to the PRCOB Chair.
Prairie Recommending Committee for Oat and Barley (PCROB)
Second Annual Meeting Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
February 23, 2007 8:07 am 1.0 Call to order M. Edney (Chair) welcomed everyone.
1.1 Approval of agenda 1.1.1 Motion: To accept agenda as amended. MarioTherrien/Yueshu
Li. Carried. 1.2 Announcements 1.2.1 Fifth Canadian Barley Symposium: “The Science and Joy of Canadian
Barley and Beer” June 25-29 , 2007 Contact: Marta Izydorczyk 1.2.2 International Oat Conference U of Minn. June, 2008 Contact: Brian
Rossnagel 1.2.3 International preharvest sprouting symposium Nov. 2007 Contact:
Joseph Nyachiro 1.3 Introductions 1.3.1 Each person in the room gave their name, their organization/company,
2 2006 Minutes 2.1 Motion: To accept 2006 minutes as circulated. Kathy Hanson/Jennifer
Mitchell-Fetch. Carried 2.2 Business arising: nothing that was not going to be addressed in later points.
3 Information from Meetings etc. 3.1 PRCOB input consultation on Market Signals in barley. Two page report
prepared by Mike Edney on behalf of PRCOB, circulated to everyone. 3.2 Hulless seed grades and % germination: Consulted but did nothing.
Change has been Gazetted to reduction in standards for germination from 85 to 75% for Hulless barley and hulless oat (certified seed). Discussion by Mike Edney and Brian Rossnagel
3.3 Meetings on Seed modernization: Number of CFIA seed modernization meetings. CFIA/NSF working group on variety reg. CFIA/NSF changes to variety reg. NSF specific consultative groups. Mike Edney reported.
4 Modernization of Seed Regulatory
From 10:25 to 11:00 Mike Scheffel, Seed Section CFIA 4.1 Seed Regulatory Framework: removes or reduces barriers; maintains and
enhances consumer confidence; protects environment and contributes to food safety; is inclusive transparent and responsive.
4.2 Description: concerted effort to improve the seed policy, regulatory and institutional frameworks; two phase initiative (1st seed consultative framework and variety registration) (2nd strategic action plan for internal and external consultation)
4.3 Reasons: rapid advances; evolving needs of producers; government staff turnover; establishment of new consultative mechanisms such as the National Forum on Seed and Diversification of Seed Program stakeholders.
4.4 Consultation Workbook: http//www.inspection.gc.ca/English/plaveg/variet/revetu/consule.shtml Deadline extended to March 31, 2007 Some responses will be posted hopefully by end of Feb. Elements; consultative framework; flexible system; strengthen contract registration; call for issues
4.5 Strengthen Consultative Framework: 1 National stakeholder forum: stakeholder-government dialogue 2. Crop specific consultative groups: facilitate dialogue, analysis, options identification and consensus building within specific crop sectors on seed policy issues. Need to include value chain (to customer level). Do not want to be duplicating things: want to build around recommending committees.
4.6 Flexible Tiered Variety Registration System Tier 1: Performance Assessment May or may not include merit requirements Confirm that it is new Confirmation that it is a variety Tier 2: Listing
Confirm that it is new Confirmation that it is a variety
Example: Potatoes Initial crop placement will be current registration requirements.
4.7 Contract registration Strengthen enforcement & compliance Enhance monitoring capacity through a third party Provided to introduce new commercially promising varieties not otherwise eligible
4.8 Call for issues Areas of concern and improvement To support innovative, competitive,…. So far 90 responses. Responses so far are highly supportive of framework, tier system, and contract reg changes.
4.9 Phase 2: Seed program Id issues 3 year strategic action plan develop over next yr evergreen document Listed Consultations with stakeholders and the process.
4.10 National Workshop March 27-28 2007 Will report on results to date; outline work plan for next year; explore crop placement; id key elements of 3 yr Strategic plan. Mike Edney asked question on crop specific issue: Mike Scheffel sees no problem with combining groups. But offered that informal groups would also be okay.
5 Crop Specific Consultative Groups (CSCG) 5.1 Background (see above) 5.2 Barley and Oat separate (see above) 5.3 Ad hoc committee
Use of PRCOB as a CSCG. Look at Ad Hoc Committee to forming a PRCOB/CSCG that includes both oats and barley and that it focuses on western Canada. Final CSCG to be larger that PRCOB to include a wider group from the industry; PRCOB to be the “core”. ACTION: Mike Edney will chair an Ad Hod Committee with the follow members to address the issue of PRCOB being the core of a CSCG. Members Michael Edney, Erin Armstrong, Mike Brophy, Terry Young, Grant Morrison
6 Report on 2005/2006 USDA Barley Crop Germplasm Committee
Brian Rossnagel Canadian Rep on US germplasm committee attended November meeting (via conference call). Richard St. Pierre from Plant Gene Resoureces has been named the new rep. Brian Steffenson did extensive Turkey collection in 2006 that included H. sponteneum and bulbosum. Contact Brian if interested in this material. Barley stripe rust, they feel they have it in hand. Fair bit of germ plasm is resistant to the new race UG 99 TTKS stem rust.
7 Standing Committee on Agriculture – Recommendations Brian Rossnagel: Regarding recommendation #8 Increase by $40 M input to R&D industry and separate appropriation to GRL. ….conduct study to see if GRL……Concerned that last recommendation is confusion about co-location versus co-administration. May make GRL less independent from a corporate sense. BR will be sending a letter expressing concern. Erin Armstrong, BMBRI shares concern. Mike Brophy, the CWB, has already sent a letter expressing concern. Terry Young asked question about stability of funding. Mike responded with comments about the CGC funding (two-year current plan). CGC used to be self funding. Motion: Send letter to Standing Committee cc to Minister indicating that the suggestion that the GRL under the corporate umbrella of AFRC is a fallacy. Rossnagel/Brophy. Carried. Discussion that as Mike Edney is from GRL that the PRCOB Secretary will send it out. ACTION: Pat Juskiw will write to Standing Committee on Agriculture about concern in change of corporate structure for the GRL.
8 Use of Coop Data 8.1 WGRF would like to post WGRF data on web site. Lanette Kuchenski (WGRF)
told group that WGRF has changed their communication plan. Working more with producers in extension. Do not want to advertise new varieties, but would like to give info as new varieties are recommended. New preliminary info; some general data from breeders or evaluation teams only. Discussion from the floor follows. Motion: “Request of Support” information for candidate cultivars (extracted Coop data of line and relevant checks only) be available for use of breeders for publication / distribution purposes. Mario Therrien/Ken May. Carried.
Discussion followed about confusion over line numbers and names. Breeder would not distributing third party data. This motion would by for distribution of requests for support only.
8.2 Crop Development Centre use of coop data. Request made by Brian Rossnagel that that they be able to use malting quality data over years to send for DART analyses by Triticarte (http://www.triticarte.com.au/). Brian would request new seed of approximately 90 lines and use 4 or 5 years of malt quality data. Motion: Request for permission to use malting quality data from the barley coops for association mapping. Rossnagel/Cooper. Carried. Discussion: Erin asked if data will be available to all. Rossnagel: yes. Blake: good opportunity for phenotyping.
9 Review of Operating Procedures of PRCOB
9.1 Recognized by CFIA for 2006-07 9.1.1 OPs were recognized from Nov 1 2006 to Nov 2007. 9.1.2 Need total review of OPs every three years. 9.1.3 Western Barley Coops Registration Tests should be part of the title. 9.1.4 Reports are to PRCOB not PGDC.
9.2.1 Saskatchewan Oat Development Commission Letter regarding membership; selection procedures; suggested several changes. 9.2.2 Our OPs say the person/individual not the institute is a member and if person has not been here for three years will be voted off. 9.2.3 Brian Rossnagel spoke with Jack Shymko about potential SODC representation, as they were not aware that they could have more than one person on committee. 9.2.4 Jack from SODC spoke about the development and representation from SODC. Discussion on membership in general. Don/Leo /Jack spoke to the issue of organizations/producers on this committee. Rossnagel reasonable representation from committees/commissions on PRCOB. Grant Morrison: membership is not clear in OP as it maybe should be.
ACTION: Mike Edney will write letter of response.
9.3 Standardized food barley testing Marta Izydorczyk: barley quality evaluation team is recommending parameters for hulless food barley, including plump, test weight (etc.) and viscosity (AEV). Appropriate outside info would be acceptable with appropriate starch type check. Discussion from group. Motion: The BQET will provide a complete statement to add to OP on quality parameters required for hulless food barley. Marta Izydorczyk/Dennis Langrell. Carried
9.4 Changes to checks (Jim Anderson on behalf of BAET) 9.4.1 Forage: No changes. 9.4.2 Six Row Coop: Drop CDC Sisler in 2007 (Legacy added in 2006 as
malting check). 9.4.3 Oat Coop: Drop Ronald in 2007 with addition of Leggett in 2006 9.4.4 Two Row Coop: Drop CDC Kendall and Harrington, add CDC Copeland in
2007. 9.4.5 Hulless: Drop AC Bacon in 2007 with temporary addition of Millhouse for
2007 and tentatively 2008 based on milling hulless lines in coop. Discussion: Millhouse not be added to Hulless coop without supporting data on milling quality. Mario Therrien concurred that he would provide data comparing Millhouse to CDC McGuire. Motion: Changes to Western Barley Registration Coop check cultivars be made as presented above. Jim Anderson/Brian Rossnagel. Carried.
10 Use of PGDC web site for PRCOB Communications
10.1 Coop reports: latest version with version date be posted on the web as received.
10.2 Requests for support: be posted as received. Discussion: Minutes of meetings be posted. Long-term posting of data—suggested five years. ACTION: Secretary of PRCOB will ensure all information is posted to the web in a timely manner, and will send out e-mails to membership informing them of new postings. ACTION: Secretary of PRCOB will write-up and send out a READ ME file on how to negotiate the website. Motion: PRCOB minutes, coop reports, and requests for support be posted on the PGDC website. Jennifer Mitchell-Fetch/Yeushu Li. Carried.
11 Evaluation Team Reports
11.1 Disease Evaluation Team (DET): Linnea Skoglund Changes to priority diseases effectively making rankings for eastern and western prairies the same for barley. Change to disease priorities for oats to take place next year. Please see DET minutes for full report. Motion: To accept DET report including changes to priority rankings. Linnea Skoglund/Doug Voth. Carried.
11.2 Breeding and Agronomy Evaluation Team (BAET): Jim Anderson Please see BAET minutes for full report. Motion: To accept BAET report. Jim Anderson/Mario Therrien. Carried.
11.3 Barley Quality Evaluation Team (BQET): Marta Izydorczyk Please see BQET minutes for full report. Hulless malting lines will not to be entered into Collabs; suggest interm reg. followed by product evaluation. Motion: To accept BQET report. Marta Izydorczyk/Erin Armstrong. Carried. Discussion regarding Limit Dextronase. GRL will provide next year for information only.
11.4 Oat Quality Evaluation Team (OQET): Nancy Ames Please see OQET minutes for full report. Discuss dietary fibre for human health claim.
Motion: to accept OQET report. Nancy Ames/Lorne Kyle. Carried. 11.5 Barley Collabs: Erin Armstrong
See Collabs for full report. The 2007 Western Canadian Barley Registration Collab will consist of 22 entries with new checks consistent with coop checks. Motion: To accept Collab report and entries. Erin Armstrong/Mario Therrien. Carried.
12 Consideration of Candidate Cultivars (10:45 – noon) 12.1 Voting procedures: Presented by Michael Edney. 12.2 Barley Candidates 12.2.1 Candidate name: HB115 Six Row Hulless Feed
Evaluation team chairs presented reports for ET (see table below). Agronomy Disease Quality Support 14 0 0 Do not Object 7 0 1 Object 0 11 15 Abstain 0 0 0 Motion: To support recommendation for registration of HB155 Six Row Hulless Feed barley. Mario Therrien/Jim Anderson. Members instructed to vote on paper ballot. Vote was as follows: Support Object Abstain Result 11 30 0 Do not support
12.2.2 Candidate name: HB388 Two Row Hulless Feed Evaluation team chairs presented reports from ET (see table below). Agronomy Disease Quality Support 20 4 16 Do not Object 1 7 0 Object 0 0 0 Abstain 0 0 0 Motion: To support recommendation for registration of HB388 Two Row Hulless Feed barley. Brian Rossnagel/Doug Voth. Members instructed to vote on paper ballot. Vote was as follows: Support Object Abstain Result 40 1 0 Support
12.2.3 Candidate name: FB012 Six Row Forage
Evaluation team chairs presented reports from ET (see table below). Agronomy Disease Quality Support 8 0 0 Do not Object 13 11 16 Object 0 0 0 Abstain 0 0 0 Motion: To support recommendation for registration of FB012 Six Row Forage barley. Mario Therrien/Jim Anderson. Members instructed to vote on paper ballot. Vote was as follows: Support Object Abstain Result 37 4 0 Support
12.3 Oat Candidates 12.3.1 Candidate name: OT2040 Milling
Evaluation team chairs presented reports from ET (see table below). Agronomy Disease Quality Support 10 11 10 Do not Object 7 0 3 Object 0 0 0 Abstain 0 0 0 Motion: To support recommendation for registration of OT2040 Milling oat. Jennifer Mitchell-Fetch/Richard Pedde. Members instructed to vote on paper ballot. Vote was as follows: Support Object Abstain Result 32 1 0 Support
12.3.2 Candidate name: OT3018 Milling
Evaluation team chairs presented reports from ET (see table below). Agronomy Disease Quality Support 17 0 1 Do not Object 0 11 10 Object 0 0 2 Abstain 0 0 0 Motion: To support inclusion of supplemental data (Quaker Uniform Oat Nurseries, Tables 5 and 6). Brian Rossnagel/Jennifer Mitchell-Fetch. Carried. Motion: To support recommendation for registration of OT3018 Milling Oat. Brian Rossnagel/Jim Dyck. Members instructed to vote on paper ballot. Vote was as follows: Support Object Abstain Result 31 2 0 Support
12.3.3 Candidate name: OT903 (Paul) Feed
Evaluation team chairs presented reports from ET (see table below). Agronomy Disease Quality Support 5 0 2 Do not Object 11 10 0 Object 1 0 0 Abstain 0 1 11 Motion: To overlook changes in check cultivars from 1997 and 1998 Coop tests. Jennifer Mitchell-Fetch/Lorne Kyle. Carried. Motion: To support inclusion of supplemental data (McVet and letters of support). Brian Rossnagel/Jennifer Mitchell-Fetch. Carried. Motion: To support recommendation for registration of OT903 feed Oat. Lorne Kyle/Jennifer Mitchell-Fetch. Members instructed to vote on paper ballot. Vote was as follows: Support Object Abstain Result 26 5 2 Support
13 Review of membership 13.1 Motion to accept new members 13.2 Motion to delete members
Motion: To accept changes to membership as presented by ETs. Andy Tekauz/Leo Meyer. Carried. Motion: To accept Jack Shymko as a member of the BOET. Brian Rossnagel/Jennifer Mitchell-Fetch. Carried.
14 Nomination of new PRCOB Chair Motion: Nominiation of Michael Brophy to act as PRCOB Chair for a three year term starting April 1, 2007. Brian Rossnagel/Kelly Turkington. Carried. Jim Dyck thanked Mike for his leadership in the past six years. Round of applause.
15 Other Business 15.1 Motion: To destroy ballots. Pat Juskiw/Mario Therrien.
Carried. 15.2 Straw vote to see which location would have preference in Alberta:
Banff/Calgary/Edmonton. Approx. 16/5/10. 15.3 Motion: Deadline for letters of support must be to Secretary of
PRCOB by February 13, 2008. Pat Juskiw/Mario Therrien. Carried. 15.4 Blake Cooper/Jim Anderson: Issue of extending period post
registration recommendation to actual registration with CFIA from 2 to 3 years. Discussion that this would be okay with PRCOB.
15.5 Interim registration: None for 2007. TR03903 will need to be reviewed at next years meeting.
Motion: To adjourn. Leo Meyer.
Minutes of the Barley and Oats, Breeding and Agronomy Evaluation Team Meeting
Delta Bessborough, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
February 21, 2007 1 Call to Order – 1:30pm
Jim Anderson called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance.
1.1 Approval of the Agenda Motion to accept agenda Mario Therrien/Bryan Harvey
1.2 Introduction of Members and Guests 2 Minutes of 2006 Meeting 2.1 Approval of 2006 Evaluation Team Minutes
Item 6.2 – Member deleted should have read Dr. M Banik Motion to approve minutes as ammended Jennifer Mitchell-Fetch/Dale Clark
2.2 Business Arising from the 2006 minutes Question for Jim Dyck as to whether he had a chance to follow up with weed people regarding his presentation in 2006. He talked briefly to Hugh Beckie, but has not pursued further.
3 New Business 3.1 Circulated email/address list for updates 3.2 CFIA consultation extended to March 31
Importance of filling out the consultation strongly stressed. Special interest groups are completing the survey and the science side is being left out
3.3 Circulations for Support Must be circulated by sponsors of the variety, not secretaries or chairs. Will not apply next year as will post on the website, but there will still be deadlines. If we do use the website, proposals must be up 1 week in advance and then need to be to the website manager 6 days prior to that. Eg. For the Feb. 27 and 28 meetings in 2008, would have to be to website coordinator by Feb. 13. If coordinators send all reports to Pat for the last 5 years it should be possible to get these on the website as well.
3.4 DART Mapping – B. Rossnagel spoke on this. Available for a cost from an Australian company (Triticarte). $5000 for 90 DNA samples. 2 month turn around for a complete genetic map with 500-600 markers. When combined with association mapping, can be very useful for breeders. Would like to use malting quality data from all 2 row co-op lines that Mike Edney has, and send seed for DART mapping – then use association mapping to come up with markers for malt quality traits. Need permission from committee to use Mike Edney’s data, and breeder permission to use seed. Will seek permission from PRCOB tomorrow, and ask breeders individually.
3.5 Standing Committee on Agriculture – B. Rossnagel spoke about the list of recommendations from the
standing committee on Ag to the Fed minister. With regard to the CGC - #8 recommends that a study be conducted to see whether Grain Research Lab should be relocated under Ag Canada rather than
under CGC. Concerned that transferring corporate control of GRL to AAFC is not a good idea. Will bring to whole committee tomorrow and people should consider writing letters. Caution that we are not critical of having a new lab or co-location, only the corporate control.
3.6 Seed Regulation Ammendments for Hulless seed grades – B. Rossnagel talked about reduction in
quality standard for hulless barley and hulless oats. To get the same grade the standard for hulless has always been lower than hulled. Suggestion to lower the required germs further for hulless barley and hulless oat. B. Rossnagel did not feel that this was necessary for hulless barley, some objections were raised, but the new standard was still lowered from 85% to 75% for #1 hulless barley. He felt this is a step backward that was not required for barley. We should pressure CFIA not to proceed with this change. Producers should write to CFIA to get this reversed.
3.7 Where are we on PNT issues? B. Rossnagel was asked for an update, and he indicated that nothing has
changed and CFIA are adamant about the PNT definition. 4 Coordinator Reports 4.1 Forage Barley Co-operative Registration Trial
2006 – 15 entries, 2 retained. 2007 – 7 new, 2 retained, plus 4 checks = 13 entries Motion to accept the report Mario Therrien/Garth Massie
4.2 6 Row Co-operative Registration Trial 4.2.1 Check changes – drop CDC Sisler, keep Excel, Vivar, Rosser, and Legacy (Legacy was added last
year and replaces Sisler this year) Motion to accept changes to checks for 2007 6 row barley test Mario Therrien/Blake Cooper
4.2.2 2006 – 24 entries, 8 retained 2007 – 10 new entries, 8 retained, 4 checks = 22 entries Motion to accept report with a change to one CDC line Mario Therrien/Pat Juskiw
4.3 2 Row Co-operative Registration Trial 4.3.1 Check changes – BMBRI committee would like to put in Copeland and potentially take out
Harrington and CDC Kendall. Checks would be Xena, Metcalfe, and Copeland. TR numbering – will assign 400 series to Busch Ag and 800 series to Sapporo 900 would be reserved for people who only enter occasionally.
4.3.2 2006 – lost 2 sites. 42 entries, of second year lines – all feed dropped, 6 going into second year collab, 13 retained 2007 – 13 retained, 3 or 4 checks, 20 new entries Motion to accept the report Brian Rossnagel/Mario Therrien
4.4 Hulless Co-operative Registration Trial 4.4.1 Check changes – Drop Bacon, add Millhouse. Would have Metcalfe, Mcgwire, Rattan, Millhouse
Motion to accept check changes Joseph Nyachiro/Mario Therrien
4.4.2 2006 – 20 entries, 9 retained 2007 – 26 entries, 13 first year, 9 retained, 4 checks CDC will replace Goodale with an alternate site Suggestion to change numbers to add a 0 in front starting in 2008 Motion to accept the report Joseph Nyachiro/Tom Zatorski
4.5 Oat Co-operative Registration Trial 4.5.1 Checks – Drop Ronald (Leggett was added in 2006 as a replacement for Ronald) Motion to accept check changes
Jennifer Mitchell-Fetch/Jim Dyck Carried
4.5.2 2006 – used 11 locations of data,
2007 – 36 entry test Tim Ferguson (AU) will have discussions with Leo Meyer and Jennifer about adding an Oat Co-op site on Leo’s farm near Rycroft. AU may seed the site and Leo would spray it. 0 will be added to front of numbers started 2007 Motion to accept the report Jennifer Mitchell-Fetch/Brian Rossnagel
5 Consideration of Candidate Cultivars HB 115 Motion to support request Mario Therrien/Dale Clark 14 support, 7 do not object FB012 Move to support request with ammendment – Common Root Rot is MR, not R Mario Therrien/Tom Zatorski 8 support, 13 do not object HB388 Move to support request Brian Rossnagel/Bryan Harvey 20 support, 1 do not object OT3018 Move to accept supplemental data, tables 5 and 6 Brian Rossnagel/Jennifer Mitchell-Fetch
Move to support request Brian Rossnagel/Garth Massie 17 support OT903 Discussion regarding using data from 1997/1998 co-op data – is OK as compared to appropriate check (Morgan) Move to accept supplemental data Jennifer Mitchell-Fetch/Brian Rossnagel
Move to support request Jennifer Mitchell-Fetch/Ken May 5 support, 11 do not object, 1 object OT2040 Motion to accept supplemental data Jennifer Mitchell-Fetch/Brian Rossnagel
Move to support request Jennifer Mitchell-Fetch/Jim Dyck 10 support, 7 do not object Discussion as to thoughts on extending period allowed to register after support for registration is received from 2 years to 3 years. General consensus is that it should be fine. 6 Review of Membership 6.1 Appointment of New Chair
Garth Massie has agreed to let his name stand Move nominations cease Brian Rossnagel./Dale Clark
Congratulations were extended to Garth, and a thank you was given to Jim Anderson – outgoing chair
6.2 New Members Add Wayne Bacon (producer from SK) Motion to accept new members Mario Therrien/Brian Rossnagel
6.3 Deletion of Members Motion to delete Carl Flis, Allan Hardy, Marvin Nakonechny Pat Juskiw/Mario Therrien
7 Other Business Jennifer has entry forms etc. for entry into McVett lines 8 Adjournment Motion to Adjourn at 4:00pm Mario Therrien/Jennifer Mitchell-Fetch
The Sixty-Fourth Meeting of the Evaluation Team for Barley Quality
Kelsey Room, Conference Floor Delta Bessborough Hotel
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Wednesday February 21, 2007
1:30 pm Members Present: Marta Izydorczyk (Chair) Richard Joy Dennis Langrell (Secretary) Yueshu Li Michael Brophy Erin Armstrong Michael Edney Jolanta Menert Walter Fernets Ed McCallum Bruce French Fraser Thomson Scott Heisel Les Wright Daryl Beswitherick Alexander Egi Member Apologies: Dan Burch Alan Griffiths Ken Campbell Gene Arganosa Gary Hanning Fred Havel Rob McCaig Guests Present: Terry Young Alberta Barley Commission Debbie Stiles Farm Pure Seeds Wataru Saito Sapporo Breweries Ltd., Japan 1. Acceptance of the Agenda
The agenda was circulated to those in attendance. Motion made and seconded to accept the agenda as circulated. Carried Introductions of members and guests followed.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the 63rd Meeting, February 22, 2006
Motion made and seconded to accept the minutes as distributed. Carried Business arising from the 2006 minutes:
There were no items of business arising from last year’s minutes.
3. Disposition of registered barley varieties
De-registered in 2006: Bonanza BT 308 was proposed for de-registration but did not get de-registered. Registered in 2006/7: CDC Coalition (TR 03373) 2-rowed feed reg’d in 2006 Millhouse (HB 109) 2-rowed hulless feed reg’d in 2006 Enduro (HB 813) 2-rowed hulless waxy reg’d in 2006 Champion (TR 04719) 2-rowed feed reg’d in 2007 Alston (BT 974) 6-rowed feed reg’d in 2007
4. Acceptance of the 2005 Co-operative Quality Report
Dennis Langrell briefly reviewed the contents of the 2006 Coop report, previously distributed, and requested that any member noticing inaccuracies in names, addresses, etc. should notify Dennis with the appropriate information. It was noted that this year’s report contained hulless barley coop data as well as 2 year comparison data. Motion made and seconded to accept the co-op report as distributed Carried
5. Acceptance of the 2005 Collaborative Quality Report Erin Armstrong had previously distributed copies of the 2006 Collaborative Report to the ETBQ members for their consideration. Erin reported that she will be distributing a final version of the report to members in a week or so when final data is available.
Motion made and seconded to accept the Collaborative Report as distributed
6. Discussion of the preliminary review of the malting quality data in Winnipeg, February 13, 2007 A meeting was held on Tuesday, Feb 13 at 1:30pm in Winnipeg to discuss the malting
quality of lines in the 2006 coop and collaborative tests. There were 10 members present in the room and 5 members called in via conference call.
Tentative recommendations were made after reviewing the data for advancement of lines from 1st year coop into 1st year collaborative/2nd year coop, and for advancement of 2nd year coop lines/1year collaborative lines into second year collaborative testing.
A list of tentative recommendations was to be made up and distributed to the relevant breeders and to the committee members prior to the PRCOB meetings the following week in Saskatoon.
It was decided to review the quality data for hulless barley coop lines during the upcoming meeting in Saskatoon as time did not allow for further discussion.
7. Approval of the recommendations for entries into the 2007 Collaborative trials. Erin Armstrong presented a list of the proposed entries into the 2007 Collaborative Barley Trials. The list had been revised downward to 22 entries from the initial 27 proposed entries coming out of the preliminary meeting on Feb 13 in Winnipeg.
A motion was made to accept the revised list of 22 entries into the 2007 Collaborative Barley Trials Carried.
8. Discussion of the malting quality of hulless barley lines in the 2006 Western Hulless Barley Registration Test, and discussion about continued testing of hulless barley lines for malting quality. The following recommendations were made:
a) the GRL will continue malting and quality testing of the hulless barley lines in the Western Cooperative Hulless Barley Trials. b) the ETBQ will continue to evaluate the quality of hulless barley lines from the first and second years of coop data. c) the committee recommends that hulless lines not be included in the BMBRI sponsored Collaborative trials at this point. d) breeders have the option of applying for interim registration after the 2nd year of coop testing. It would be expected that they would have to provide further quality testing data and provide proof of some commercial interest in hulless barley for malting purposes, before the committee would consider support for full registration.
9. Discussion about malting barley check varieties for co-op and collab tests.
A document had been distributed from Jim Anderson of the breeding and agronomy team which indicated the changes proposed to the check varieties in the several coop tests. As well Erin Armstrong reported on discussions among the BMBRI Technical Committee on the proposed checks for the Collaborative test for 2007. There was brief discussion among committee members and the following statements were prepared to reflect the consensus of the committee: a) the ETBQ supports the removal of CDC Sisler and the use of Excel and Legacy as malting checks for 6-rowed coop tests in 2007. b) the ETBQ recommends dropping Harrington and CDC Kendall as malting checks and the addition of CDC Copeland, (to accompany AC Metcalfe) as a malting checks in the 2 rowed coop test for 2007. c) the ETBQ does not support the use of Millhouse as a milling check in the WHBCoop test. The committee feels that there is a need for appropriate checks for the qualities being tested and the coop trial at this point. Milling is not a standard test in the Coop trials, also supporting evidence and records of quality characteristics need to be presented in order to support changing of checks.
10. Discussion about the number of malting entries in the two-rowed coop test.
Michael Edney reported that there was some concern about the increasing number of malting entries in the cooperative two-rowed test over the past few years which was making it more difficult each year to complete micromalting and analysis of the lines. He reported to the committee that the breeding and agronomy group had already pared the number of lines for 2007 down to 26 malting entries from 33 in 2006. This was an improvement, however the committee will be vigilant in coming years to prevent an upward creep in numbers.
11. Discussion about limit dextrinase assay for coop malting lines.
Michael Edney reported to the committee that the GRL has routinely performed limit dextrinase assays on malting lines from the coop, micromalted at the GRL over the past 2 years. The GRL has reported on its research at ASBC meetings and proposed that limit dextrinase levels in malt are directly related to the fermentability of the malt and ultimate brewing quality when made into beer. It was proposed to the committee that the GRL would continue testing of limit dextrinase activity levels in malted coop lines and would present the data to the committee for as part of the quality evaluation data set. The committee voiced concern that the limit dextrinase test was not widely recognized or performed in the industry, and that a definite link to quality was not accepted. The committee agreed that they would consider data presented to them as information only, not to be used for quality evaluation for registration purposes at this time.
12. Discussion on protocol for quality testing of food barley and the request to drop AC Bacon and add Millhouse as a milling check in the WHBCOOP.
The ETBQ does not support the addition of Millhouse to the Hulless barley coop as a milling check. In consultation with breeders and users of barley, the ETBQ has prepared a list of guidelines for evaluating barley lines for food purposes: a) at this point it is recommended that the following parameters should continue to be
tested in the Western Hulless Barley Cooperative Registration Trials: kernel plumpness, hull retention, dirty and clean test weight, thousand kernel weight, beta-glucan content, and acid extract viscosity.
b) For evaluation of quality of barley lines bred for specific end uses and /or additional traits, additional tests outside of the Coop testing are recommended:
- these tests will depend on the intended end use of the barley c) It should be up to the proponent to provide data for the appropriate traits in comparison
with appropriate checks to convince the ETBQ to support the request. d) The comparison should be made with at least one Coop HB check of the same starch
type. e) These guidelines are intended as open working documents and comments and
suggestions should be addressed to the quality team.
13. Review of requests for support for registration
The supporting documents on each line up for consideration for registration were discussed individually prior to a vote being taken. A statement on the feed quality of each line was prepared by Rex Newkirk, the team’s feed quality expert, as a reference document for the team’s consideration. The results of team voting are recorded in the table below.
Results of voting on candidate cultivars:
Support Do not object Object Abstain 6R hulless feed:HB 115 0 1 15 0 2R hulless feed:HB 388 16 0 0 0 6R forage: FB 012 0 16 0 0
14. Membership of the ETBQ It was noted that Les Wright and Ken Campbell have indicated their intention to resign their membership in this committee. The committee has expressed its appreciation to both these individual for their valuable contributions over many years. Two new members were nominated for membership on the ETBQ committee: Terry Young, a producer and member of the Alberta Barley Commission. Wataru Saito from Sapporo Breweries Ltd. Motion made and seconded to accept all nominations of incoming members Carried
15. Election of a new secretary of the ETBQ. The incumbent secretary, Dennis Langrell agreed to stand for nomination for another term as secretary of the ETBQ. Motion was made and seconded to elect Dennis Langrell as secretary of the ETBQ for a term of three years, expiring in April, 2010. Carried
16. Other Business
There was no other business brought forward at this time.
17. Motion made to adjourn at 5:10 pm. Carried
PRAIRIE RECOMMENDING COMMITTEE FOR OAT AND BARLEY MINUTES OF THE DISEASE EVALUATION TEAM The Bessborough Hotel, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan February 21-22, 2007 1. Call to Order
At 13:40, on Tuesday, February 20, 2007, in the Kelsey Room, the meeting of the Prairie Recommending Committee For Oat and Barley (PRCOB) Disease Evaluation Team (DET) was called to order by the Chair, Dr. Linnea Skoglund. It should be noted that this was a joint meeting of the PRCOB DET and of the Wheat, Rye and Triticale (WRT) DET. Dr. T. Fetch chaired the WRT DET starting at 09:00.
Members of the Barley and Oat sub-committee Disease Evaluation Team present included Dr. J. Chong, Dr. T. Fetch, Dr. J. Gilbert, Dr. S. Haber, Dr. J. Menzies (Secretary), Dr. L .Skoglund (Chair), Dr. A. Tekauz, Mr. J. Tucker, Dr. T.K. Turkington, Mr. D. Voth and Dr. K. Xi.
1.1 Introductions of those present at the meeting were made. 1.2 Announcements:
None. 1.3 The agenda was circulated and discussed. No items were added to Section 5 of the
Motion to adopt agenda: Moved by D. Voth and seconded by J. Chong. Carried 2. Minutes of the 2006 meeting
The minutes of the 2006 meeting were adopted.
Motion to adopt: Moved by T. Fetch and seconded by S. Haber. Carried 2.1 Business arising from the minutes.
There was no business arising from the 2006 minutes. 3. Review of the disease guidelines for Oat and Barley
3.1 L. Skoglund reviewed the guidelines for barley. There was discussion regarding changing the guidelines to one set of disease resistance standards for the entire prairies. Stem rust, Fusarium Head Blight, Scald and Spot Blotch were made priority 1 diseases in 2006 for the entire prairie region. This year, the levels of Desirable Minimum Resistance were set at MR-MS for all four diseases.
Motion: K. Turkington moved acceptance of the barley guidelines and suggested changes, seconded by D. Voth. Carried
3.2 J. Chong reviewed the guidelines for oats. There was discussion regarding changing the
guidelines to one set of disease resistance standards for the entire prairies. Barley Yellow Dwarf, Stem Rust and Crown Rust were made priority 1 diseases for the entire prairie region in 2006. This year, the levels of Desirable Minimum Resistance were set at MS for Barley Yellow Dwarf, MR-MS for Stem Rust and MR for Crown Rust.
Motion: J. Chong moved acceptance of the guidelines and suggested changes. Seconded by A. Tekauz. Carried
4. Consideration of first year entries eligible for advancement 4.1 Assessment and voting forms were presented and reviewed by L. Skoglund. 4.2 L. Skoglund reviewed the voting procedures and eligibility. There are 4 options open to
those having the right to vote. The four options include; 1) To Support the registration of the line, 2) Not to Object to the registration of the line, 3) To Object to the registration of the line, and 4) To Abstain from voting. She stressed that abstaining from voting should occur if one has a real conflict of interest in voting or if one feels that insufficient data are available to make a proper decision.
4.3 Roll call of voting members. Members of the Barley and Oat sub-committee Disease Evaluation Team present included Dr. J. Chong, Dr. T. Fetch, Dr. J. Gilbert, Dr. S. Haber, Dr. J. Menzies (Secretary), Dr. L .Skoglund (Chair), Dr. A. Tekauz, Mr. J. Tucker, Dr. T.K. Turkington, Mr. D. Voth and Dr. K. Xi for a total of 11 voting members.
4.4. Consideration of 1st year entries. 4.4.1. Western Cooperative Oat Test - presented by J. Menzies.
J. Menzies made a motion to accept the report and recommendations for the 1st year entries, seconded by K. Turkington.
Carried 4.4.2. Western Cooperative 2-row Test - presented by A. Tekauz.
A. Tekauz made a motion to accept the report and recommendations for the 1st year entries, seconded by J. Tucker.
Carried 4.4.3. Western Cooperative 6-row Test - presented by K. Xi.
K. Xi made a motion to accept the report and recommendations for the 1st entries, seconded by K. Turkington.
Carried 4.4.4. Western Cooperative Hulless Barley Test - presented by D. Voth.
D. Voth made a motion to accept the report and recommendations for the 1st entries, seconded by S. A. Tekauz.
Carried 4.4.5 Western Cooperative Forage Barley Test - presented by J. Tucker.
J. Tucker made a motion to accept the report and recommendations for the 1st year entries, seconded by D. Voth.
Carried 4.5. T. Fetch moved to accept the cooperative disease data for OT903 from 1997 and 1998.
Seconded by A. Tekauz. J. Menzies spoke to the smut data and indicated that the data is acceptable. T. Fetch spoke to the stem rust data and indicated that the data is acceptable. J. Chong spoke to the crown rust data and indicated that it is acceptable. S. Haber spoke to the barley yellow dwarf data and indicated that it is acceptable. Carried
5. Other business
5.1 A. Tekauz commented on the use of “Do Not Object” terminology by the Agronomy Team. It was felt that the DET would like the Agronomy Team to use this terminology more often as compared to “Support” to give guidance to the other evaluation teams as to the merit of the proposed lines for registration. 5.2 B. Rossnagel requested that in the future the disease reactions of the agronomy checks be included in the disease reports.
6. Review of membership and responsibilities.
T. Fetch moved adding Dr. C. McCartney, CDC, Saskatoon to the membership of the Disease Evaluation Team for the PRCOB. Seconded by D. Voth. Carried
7. Consideration of 2nd yr entries proposed for registration. 7.1. L. Skoglund reviewed the assessment form. 7.2. L. Skoglund reviewed voting eligibility, the voting procedures, and the 4 options open to
those having the right to vote. The four options include; 1) To Support the registration of the line, 2) Not to Object to the registration of the line, 3) To Object to the registration of the line, and 4) To Abstain from voting. He stressed that abstaining from voting should occur if one has a real conflict of interest in voting or if one feels that insufficient data are available to make a proper decision.
7.3 Roll call of voting members. Members of the Barley and Oat sub-committee Disease Evaluation Team present included Dr. J. Chong, Dr. T. Fetch, Dr. J. Gilbert, Dr. S. Haber, Dr. J. Menzies (Secretary), Dr. L .Skoglund (Chair), Dr. A. Tekauz, Mr. J. Tucker, Dr. T.K. Turkington, Mr. D. Voth and Dr. K. Xi for a total of 11 voting members.
7.4 The disease evaluation team assessed the disease reactions of the candidate cultivars to be
as follows: Oat Candidate Cultivar
Crown Rust Stem Rust Smut Barley Yellow Dwarf
OT2040 R R R MR
OT3018 MS MRMS R MS
OT903 S MRMS R MR The summary of the voting on the candidate cultivars follows: Candidate Cultivar
Do not object to registration
Object to registration
OT2040 11 0 0 0 support
OT3018 0 11 0 0 Do not object to
OT903 0 10 0 1 Do not object to
Com. root rot
Surf. Borne Smuts
Net-form of net blotch
Spot-form net blotch
Scald Sept. BYD FHB Spot Blotch
HB115 MS MRMS MS MS S MRMS S S MS MR MS
HB388 MRMS MRMS MS R S MR MRMS S S MRMS MRMS
FB012 MR MRMS MS R S MR S S MS MS MRMS
The summary of the voting on the candidate cultivars follows:
Do not object to registration
Object to registration
HB115 0 0 11 0 object
HB388 4 7 0 0 Do not object to
FB012 0 11 0 0 do not object to
Motion: move to adjourn - T. Fetch. Meeting adjourned at approx. 16:25.
DISEASE RESISTANCE STANDARDS FOR THE REGISTRATION OF SPRING BARLEY IN WESTERN CANADAa. Disease Priority
(1-5)b Avail. res.c
Des. min. res.d
Ease of breeding and testinge
Common Root Rot 1 MR MS 4
Surface-Borne Smuts 1 R MR 2
Net-Form of Net Blotch 1 R MR-MS 2
Spot-Form of Net blotch 1 R MR 2
Stem Rust 1 R MR-MS 1
Fusarium Head Blightf 1 MR MR-MS 4
Scald 1 R MR-MS 2
Spot Blotch 1 MR MR-MS 2
Loose smut 2 R MR 3
Barley yellow dwarf 3 R MS 2
Sept. speckled leaf blotch.
4 R R 2
Barley Stripe Mosaicg 1 E E 1
Leaf Stripeg 3 E E 4 a Approved by the Prairie Regional Committee for Oat and Barley and Oat, February 2007. Additional barley diseases of potential concern can be found in the Diseases of Field Crops in Canada. b For priority 1, desirable minimum resistance is an essential trait; for priority 2 and 3, desirable minimum resistance is not an essential trait. However, to reduce crop losses, breeders are urged to use resistant parental lines and to select for resistance whenever possible. c Available resistance: R = resistant; MR = moderately resistant; MR-MS = moderately resistant to moderately susceptible; MS = moderately susceptible; E = exclusion; n/a = not applicable; (-) = no information. d Desirable minimum resistance. A level of resistance that will not cause significant yield loss. e 1-5, 5 = most difficult f Resistance to FHB should include reduced DON accumulation. g At present, these diseases can be kept at low levels only through negative selection. Breeding programs must conduct negative selection for these diseases.
Disease Resistance Standards for Registration of Oat in western Canadaa.
Disease Priority (1-5)b
Des. min. res.d
Ease of breeding and testinge
Smuts 1 R MR 1
Barley yellow dwarf 1 MR MS 2
Stem rust 1 R MR-MS
Crown rust 1 R MR 1
Fusarium head blight 2 - MS 5 a Approved by the Prairie Recommending Committee for Oat and Barley, February 2007. Additional oat diseases of potential concern can be found in the Diseases of Field Crops in Canada. bFor priority 1, desirable minimum resistance is required; for priority 2-5, desirable minimum resistance is not a requirement. However, to reduce crop losses, breeders are urged to use resistant parental lines and to select for resistance whenever possible. cAvailable resistance: VR = very resistant; R = resistant; MR = moderately resistant; (-) = no information. dDesirable minimum resistance. A level of resistance that will not cause significant yield loss. MR = moderately resistant; MS = moderately susceptible; I = MR/MS; N/A = not applicable. e1-5, 5 = most difficult.
Membership of the Disease Evaluation Team of the Barley and Oat Subcommittee for 2006/2007 is: Dr. Linnea Skoglund Busch Agricultural Resources Inc. Phone: (970)472-2332 Chair 3515 Richards Lake Road Fax: (970)472-2334
Ft. Collins, CO 80524 U.S.A. Email:[email protected] Dr. Jim Menzies Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Phone: (204)983-5714 Secretary Cereal Research Centre Fax: (204)983-4604 195 Dafoe Road Email: [email protected] Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2M9 Dr. James Chong Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Phone: (204)983-0932 Cereal Research Centre Fax: (204)983-4604 195 Dafoe Road Email: [email protected] Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2M9 Dr. Tom Fetch Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Phone: (204)983-5533 Cereal Research Centre Fax: (204)983-4604 195 Dafoe Road Email: [email protected] Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2M9 Dr. Jeannie Gilbert Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Phone: (204)983-0891 Cereal Research Centre Fax: (204)983-4604 195 Dafoe Road Email: [email protected] Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2M9 Dr. Steve Haber Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Phone: (204)983-1467 Cereal Research Centre Fax: (204)983-4604 195 Dafoe Road Email: [email protected] Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2M9 Dr. Curt McCartney Department of Plant Sciences Phone: (306)966-4951 University of Saskatchewan Fax: (306)966-5015 51 Campus Drive Email: [email protected] Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A8
Dr. Andy Tekauz Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Phone: (204)983-0944 Cereal Research Centre Fax: (204)983-4604 195 Dafoe Road Email: [email protected] Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2M9 Mr. James Tucker Brandon Research Centre Phone: (204)726-7650 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Fax: (204) 728-3858
P.O. Box 1000A, R.R. #3 Email: [email protected] 18th St. N. & Grand Valley Rd. Brandon, Manitoba R7A 5Y3 Dr. Kelly Turkington Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Phone: (403)782-8100 Chair 6000 C&E Trail Fax: (403)782-6120 Lacombe, Alberta Email:[email protected] T4L 1W1 Mr. Doug Voth Crop Development Centre Phone: (306)966-8558 University of Saskatchewan Fax: (306)966-5015 51 Campus Drive Email: [email protected] Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A8 Dr. Kequan Xi A.A.F.R.D., F.C.D.C Phone: (403)782-8861 6000 C&E Trail Fax: (403)782-6120
Lacombe, Alberta T4L 1W1 Email:[email protected]
Co-op disease screening and evaluation: Barley Diseases Tom Fetch - Protocol for evaluating reaction to barley stem rust Co-op entries are screened at the adult plant stage in a field stem rust nursery at Nolette and at the seedling stage in the greenhouse in Winnipeg. The stem rust nursery is seeded in short rows (2m) with resistant and susceptible check lines planted alternatively about every 20 entries. Stem rust spreader rows using a mixture of lines that are susceptible to stem rust but resistant to leaf rust are hand-planted parallel to the test entries about 8 ft apart to allow space for mechanical planting of test entries. Spreader rows are planted 10-12 days prior to planting of coop entries to allow for spread of rust inoculum from the spreader rows onto test entries. This method will result in uniform inoculation of all coop entries and will be monitored using the check lines. Spreader rows are inoculated with a mixture of stem rust pathotypes (TPMKR, TMRTK, RKQSR, RHTSK, RTHJT, QTHST, MCCFR) at the jointing to flag leaf emerging stage of development. These pathotypes were chosen for a wide range of virulence and are not representative of the current stem rust population. Plants are inoculated using low volume applicators (Mini-Ulva) that apply rust suspended in Bayol oil (0.6g urediospores/liter) to the stem and leaf tissue at a rate of about one liter per km of spreader row. This will result in early and heavy infection of rust spreader rows. The adult plant reaction for the coop entries is assessed at about the mid-dough stage of development when symptom expression is optimal. Two ratings are given for each entry: (1) stem rust severity (% of infected stem tissue using the Peterson et al. scale), and (2) stem rust infection response [resistant (R), moderately resistant (MR), moderately susceptible (MS), or susceptible (S)] based on the observed pustule types. The seedling test is conducted in the greenhouse using race MCCFR to determine the presence of gene Rpg1. Seedlings are inoculated at the first leaf fully extended stage (7-8 d old) using rust inoculators pressurized at 2-3 psi and inoculum concentration of 3 mg/0.7 ml Bayol oil in a 00 gelatin capsule. One capsule of inoculum is applied per 98 containers (about 500 seedlings). Plants are then placed into dew chambers for about 16 hr, then put into greenhouse under high light and slow drying for two hours to complete the infection process. Seedlings are rated 14 d after inoculation using the Stakman et al 1962 scale, where Its of 0-2 are resistant and 3 or above are susceptible. Jim Menzies: Protocol for evaluating reaction to loose smut in barley Inoculum: Currently, collection 72-66 is used to test the reaction of lines or cultivars. This collection has the virulence found in approximately 80% of current field collections on the prairies. Small amounts of inoculum of 72-66 can be obtained from James Menzies at [email protected] The inoculum can be stored for several years in a refrigerator, but it loses viability after a few months at room temperature. The inoculum is prepared by mixing ~1g of teliospores in 1 L of water. The inoculum should look like weak tea. If the suspension is stored at 5C and only removed for inoculation purposes, it can last up to 5 days, but making a new
suspension every day is recommended. Inoculation: Grow 4 plants of each line in a 15 cm. pot, include a pot of a susceptible variety as a control. Secondary tillers may be cut off to promote growth of primary tillers. Inoculate 2-5 spikes at anthesis. In barley, the optimum time is when the heads are just emerging from the boot to when they have fully emerged from the boot; just prior to anthesis. Mark inoculated spikes by snipping off the awns. A 5-10 mL syringe with 21-24 gauge, 0.5 to 1 inch needle is used to inoculate the florets. Simply inject enough inoculum into the floret to fill it. Start at the bottom of the spike and work up the florets. Evaluation: After maturation of the seed, plant 40 to 50 seeds of each line and establish a percent infection at heading. Protocol for evaluating reaction to Covered and False Loose smuts of barley Inoculum: The inoculum used in these tests is a composite of all the different isolates that are collected from field surveys. Small amounts of inoculum can be obtained from James Menzies at [email protected] The dry inoculum can be stored for several years in a refrigerator, but it loses viability after a few months at room temperature. For inoculation, the inoculum is prepared by mixing ~1g of teliospores in 1 L of water. The suspension should look like weak tea. The teliospore suspension should be prepared just before inoculation. The suspension can be stored for 1 to 2 days at 5C, but this is not recommended. Inoculation: The procedure consists of placing ~ 4 g of seed in the jar of a Waring Blendor, adding the spore suspension to cover the seed and the blades of the blendor and agitating the seed for 10 to 25 seconds. The blades of a commercial Waring Blendor should be modified so that they are not sharp to reduce the amount of damage to the seed. The contents of the blendor jar are then poured into a sieve to separate the seed from the spore suspension (which can be re-used). The seed is then packaged into a coin envelope and allowed to slowly dry at room temperature for 2 days. Evaluation: The seed is planted in a row in the field and at maturation, a percent infection of the plants established. (The above procedure can also be used for Loose and Covered smut of oats.) Popp, W., and W.J. Cherewick. 1953. An improved method of inoculating seed of oats and barley with smut. Phytopathology 43: 697-699. Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus (BYDV) - affects barley, oat and wheat S. Haber PROCEDURE A. For greenhouse-scale work * Two weeks before planting a test rear BYDV live aphid (oat-bird cherry aphid) inoculum on a planted mixture of susceptible oat (e.g. Sun II) and barley (e.g. Manley) that are infected with a single virulent isolate (e.g. Y9801) of the strain (PAV) identified as overwhelmingly predominant in recent surveys. Allow at least a 5-day acquisition access feed.
* Mix viruliferous aphids with talcum powder in a large petri dish, just enough to prevent aphids from sticking together. * Disperse aphids onto test plants at rate of about 15-20 per plant. * Allow aphids to feed on test plants for 9 days; growth chamber is maintained at 12 C. * Raise temperature to 20 C for one day. * Kill aphids with Pirliss insecticide. * For oat: -> return temperature to 12 C for 10 days, then return to 18 C; maintain until boot stage in growth cabinet, transfer to greenhouse * For barley and wheat: -> return temperature to 18-20 C; maintain in growth cabinet until head emergence, then transfer to greenhouse. B. For field-scale work * Four weeks before planting a test rear BYDV live aphid (oat-bird cherry aphid) inoculum on a planted mixture of susceptible oat (e.g. Sun II) and barley (e.g. Manley) that are infected with a single virulent isolate (e.g. Y9801) of the strain (PAV) identified as overwhelmingly predominant in recent surveys. Harvest aphids periodically if necessary to avoid early plant senescence. * Mix harvested viruliferous aphids with talcum powder cylindrical containers (2-4 L) * Disperse aphids onto field nursery plants. OBSERVATION A. For greenhouse-scale work * mild symptoms will appear on susceptible checks from 3 to 10 days after killing aphids. Oats will show leaf reddening, barley and wheat, leaf tip yellowing. * symptom severity will increase with temperature. For most experiments maintain at 18 - 20 C * Score on 1 (best) to 9 (worst) scale, taking into account: -> delay of head emergence compared to non-inoculated control -> loss of height " " " " -> degree of leaf discolouration" " " " For oat -> loss of number of florets " " " " B. For field-scale work * mild symptoms will appear on susceptible checks from 15 to 10 days post inoculation * symptom severity will increase with temperature, insolation and water stress * Score on 1 (best) to 9 (worst) scale, taking into account:
-> loss of height " " " " -> loss of green leaf pigment " " " " if feasible -> loss of yield " " " " Protocol for testing seed for presence of barley strip mosaic virus (BSMV) Reference: Lange, L. & Heide, M. (1986) Detection of Virus in Seed. Canadian J. Plant Pathol. 30:373-378. BSMV is embryo-borne is barley seed. It is effectively controlled by exclusion, i.e. by eliminating infected seed at an early point in the cultivar development system. In western Canada, this has historically been done by testing in the Co-operative Trials (Second Year). I. Grow-out Test A suitably sized batch of seed (typically 500 or more seeds) is grown out in a normal way. If seed is infected with BSMV, some seedlings will show the typical chlorotic, stripe mosaic symptoms between the 3-leaf and early tillering stages. A initial diagnosis of BSMV based on visual symptoms can be confirmed (and distinguished from 'Leaf Stripe' of barley, caused by a seed-borne fungus) by mechanical rub-inoculation of expressed sap onto barley test seedling plants. If BSMV is involved, test plants will start to show stripe mosaic symptoms 7-10 days after inoculation. II. Serological Test. BSMV can be diagnosed by serological tests, and/or serology can be used to confirm diagnosis based on a grow-out test or transmission test (cf. above). We have used protocols described in: 1) Haber, S. & Knapen, H. (1989) Filter paper sero-assay (FiPSA): A rapid, sensitive techniques for sero-diagnosis of plant viruses Canadian J. Plant Pathol. 11:109-113. 2) Lange, L. & Heide, M. (1986) Detection of Virus in Seed. Canadian J. Plant Pathol. 8:373-378.
Crop Development Centre Barley Leaf Disease Nursery D. Voth Entries to the Western Co-operative Barley Registration Tests are annually rated for their reaction to leaf disease by the Crop Development Centre, in Barley Leaf Disease Nurseries located at the University of Saskatchewan, North Seed Farm (NSF), Saskatoon, SK and the AAFC Research Station at Melfort SK. Two hill-plots (15 - 20 seeds/30 cm row) of each Co-op entrant are planted as part of each nursery in May. Nursery is sprayed for weeds using tank-mixed Frontline/Puma Super at 3 - 5 leaf stage of crop development. Spot blotch (Cochliobolus sativus) infested winter-barley leaf and stem material is spread among NSF hill-plots at 4 - 6 leaf stage. The nursery is irrigated using fine spray for 10 -15 minutes at dusk and dawn daily (except when raining) to promote leaf disease epidemic. Entries are rated for reaction to spot blotch during dough stage of development, using a 0 - 9 scale: where 0 = no disease symptoms and 9 = 50+% infection level of lower, middle and upper canopy. Spot blotch is the predominant leaf disease in this nursery, however, the net-form of net blotch (Pyrenophora teres f. sp. teres), spot-form of net blotch (Pyrenophora teres f. sp. maculata) and occasionally scald (Rhynchosporium secalis) are observed in the nursery. Spot blotch field reactions are reported as means of two replicate hill-plot ratings. The leaf disease nursery at Melfort, SK is sown on the site of previous year’s forage test. Net-form net blotch (Pyrenophora teres f. sp. teres) and spot blotch (Cochliobolus sativus) epidemics are allowed to develop naturally. This nursery is not irrigated. Entries are given separate ratings for reaction to net blotch and spot blotch during dough stage of development, using a 0 - 9 scale: where 0 = no disease symptoms and 9 = 50+% infection level of lower, middle and upper canopy. Net blotch is the predominant leaf disease in this nursery, however, spot blotch is also common and occasionally scald (Rhynchosporium secalis) is observed in the nursery. Net blotch and spot blotch field reactions are reported as means of two replicate hill-plot ratings. PROTOCOL FOR TESTING BARLEY FOR REACTION TO THE LEAF SPOT PATHOGENS PYRENOPHORA TERES AND COCHLIOBOLUS SATIVUS
A. Tekauz, Cereal Research Center, AAFC, Winnipeg MB. A. Isolation and Preparation of Single-spore Cultures 2. Place fresh or dried leaf sections (10 - 20 x 5 mm) infected with WRS 857,WRS 858 (P.
teres), or WRS 1903 (C. sativus) on dry filter paper in bottom of a small (100 x 20 mm) petri dish. Infected leaves can be surface sterilized to reduce saprophytic flora (15 seconds in 50% ethyl alcohol, 30 seconds in 2% NaOCI, rinse in sterile distilled water).
3. Place a second piece of filter paper in cover of the dish. Wet only this paper. 4. Incubate at 20EC, 12/12 hour light/dark cycle for 3 to 5 days. 5. Using a fine sterile needle, transfer single spores to test tube slants of 10% V-8 juice agar. B. Multiplication of Inoculum
1. Incubate single-spored test tube slants for 10 days (as above), in near-horizontal position,
near a flourescent/incandescent light-source. 2. Using sterile technique (flaming, sterile distilled water, etc.) add 8 ml H2O to slants.
Gently scrape surface culture with a wire loop, suspend, and pour into a 150 mm Petri dish of 10% V-8 juice agar. Manipulate dish to distribute suspension over entire surface.
3. Incubate Petri dish(es) for 6 days (as above). C. Preparation of Inoculum 1. Flood the 150 mm petri dishes with sterile distilled water and gently scrape off surface
culture (mainly conidia and conidiophores, depending on isolate) using a wire loop, glass rod, etc.
2. Place suspension in container (Waring Blendor unit) and blend for 60 - 90 seconds. Strain through a single layer of fine cheesecloth or several layers of coarse cheesecloth.
3. Adjust suspension to 5 or 10 x 103 spores per ml (for P. teres spot and net-types, respectively) or 3 x 103 spores per ml for C. sativus.
4. Add 1 drop of Tween 20 per 50 ml of suspension. D. Seedling Inoculation 1. Apply 30 ml of spore suspension (2,000 spores/ml) per pot of 4 clumps of 8 barley plants.
A DeVilbis nozzle and electric air pump operating at 10 psi is suitable. 2. Plants are 2-weeks old when inoculated. Grown at 17/15EC, 17/7 hours light/dark cycle,
respectively. 3. Humidify for 18 hours in the dark or at 12/12 light/darkness at 20EC. 4. Return plants to growth cabinet at 15EC for 7 to 9 days. 5. Assess reactions 7 - 8 days after inoculation using a 0 - 10 or a 0 - 9 rating scale, where
0= immune (unknown), 1= R (resistant), 9= S (susceptible); 10= VS (very susceptible, re. P. teres net-type).
PROTOCOL FOR TESTING BARLEY FOR REACTION TO THE LEAF BLIGHT PATHOGENS RHYNCHOSPORIUM SECALIS AND SEPTORIA PASSERINII A. Tekauz, Cereal Research Center, AAFC, Winnipeg MB. A. Multiplication and Preparation of Inoculum 6. For inoculum multiplication, Rhynchosporium secalis and Septoria passerinii are grown
in sterilized potato sucrose water (PSW) in glass tissue culture bottles (40 ml PSW in 200 ml size bottles with one flat side).
2. Add 8 ml sterile distilled water to each potato sucrose peptone agar (PSPA) reference slant of R. secalis 1493 or S. passerinii, 1998, scrape culture from surface with a wire loop, and pour contents into culture bottles above.
1.3 Incubate at 20EC, 12/12 h light/dark cycle for 7 days (bottles lie flat). 1.4 Shake bottle, pour contents into container (Waring Blendor) and blend for 60 sec. 1.5 Strain through a single layer of cheesecloth, and adjust concentration to 0.8 - 1.0 x 106
conidia per ml. 1.6 Add ‘Tween 20' as a spreader/sticker, at one drop per 50 ml inoculum. B. Inoculation 1. Plants are grown in 30 cm pots, as 4 clumps of 8 plants, at 17EC /15EC and an 17/7 h
light/dark cycle, respectively. Inoculate when 2-weeks old. 2. Apply inoculum as a fine spray; a DeVilbiss atomizer nozzle fitted to an electric air pump
operating at 10 psi is suitable, as is an artist’s air brush, or a ‘hand-pumped’ misting bottle. Inoculum is applied at a rate of 30 ml per pot.
3. Humidify for 48h, at 17EC for R. secalis and 22EC for S. passerinii and keep plants at this temperature following incubation.
4. Assess reactions 14 days after inoculation using an R (resistant) to S (susceptible) rating scale. For R. secalis, R= no lesions, S= large coalescing lesions; for S. passerinii, R= no lesions, or lesions small to large but without pycnidial formation, S= lesions with visible pycnidia (black spots).
Protocol for field evaluation of scald reactions in Alberta T.K. Turkington, AAFC Lacombe, J.P. Tewari, University of Alberta, Edmonton, and K. Xi, AAFRD Lacombe For each growing season seed is sent to AAFC Lacombe and is hand seeded in scald nurseries at AAFC Lacombe and the University of Alberta, Edmonton in hill plots (approximately 10 seeds per hill plot) on approximately 50 cm spacing. Three to four weeks after seeding, each hill plot at both Edmonton and Lacombe are inoculated with infected barley residue (if available) obtained from the previous growing season. In addition, plots at both sites are spray inoculated with a suspension of R. secalis spores at 1 x 105 spores per ml. Individual hills are inoculated until runoff. Disease assessments are done on individual hill plots a total of three times at Lacombe and up to two times at Edmonton. At both Lacombe and Edmonton, ratings are based on a 0 to 9 scale, where 0 is no disease and 9 represents a plant with greater than 50% of the lower, middle and upper leaves diseased (Couture 1980). At both sites, the initial rating is typically done in early to mid July and then every two weeks for a total of three rating dates. At Edmonton the initial rating is typically done towards the end of July and then again after approximately two weeks. Ratings from the last date of assessment at each site are used for evaluation of cooperative trial entries.
PROCEDURE FOR FUSARIUM HEAD BLIGHT NURSERY AT BRANDON RESEARCH CENTRE James Tucker. Preparation of Inoculum: 5. Inoculum is comprised of 3 isolates of Fusarium graminearum : 99 E3, 005-130, 005-
131 which may vary by year (Obtained from Dr. A. Tekauz, Cereal Research Centre). Cut core plugs of media from F. graminearum infected Potato-Dextrose-Agar (PDA) plates. Transfer 3 plugs onto a new PDA plate in a central triangular arrangement. Incubate at 20NC 12 hr L:12 hr D under fluorescent/ dark lights for 1 week.
2. Place 4 kg of corn in a stainless steel pan (4" deep, restaurant-style pan) and soak
within 6 L of distilled water for at least 24 hours. 3. Pour off any excess water from the pan, and level corn. Cover pan with two layers of
aluminum foil. Autoclave corn at 121NC for 1 hour, and let stand to cool overnight. 4. Along with 200 ml of the autoclaved distilled water, add 3 fusarium infected PDA
plates (Single isolate) to the blender and blend on low setting for 60 sec. 5. In a laminar flow hood, pour blended contents evenly over surface of the sterilized corn
then mix thoroughly. Cover the pan with aluminum foil, and incubate at room temperature for at least 2 weeks.
6. Spread the infected corn out to dry on aluminum foil. Once the corn is dry (4-7 days),
it can be bagged and stored in a cool dry place for later use. FHB Nursery: Each Co-op entry (50-70 seeds/ row) is planted in 1.5 m rows on approximately 0.3 m
spacing with the entire test replicated 3 times. Two sets of checks are placed alternatively after every 50 rows of Co-op material: Set 1 - AC Metcalfe (MR), CI 4196 (R) Stander (S) Set 2 - CDC Sisler (MR), Chevron (R), Robust (S). Corn inoculum (5 g / row) is initially spread 2 weeks before the first material begins to head out, and then applied weekly thereafter (3-5 applications in total). Material is irrigated by a NAAN-501 sprinkler system (yellow nozzle) set on a timer which administers a fine water spray for a 5 min period every ½ hr between (6-8 pm) and (4-8 am). The number of days to heading is recorded for each row. Along with a lodging score (1-9), a visual Fusarium rating is taken 2-3 weeks following heading based on a scale developed by A. Tekauz (0 = no infection; 1 = incidence low, up to 5% of spikes; 2 = incidence low to moderate, 5 to 15% of spikes infected; 3 = incidence moderate, 15 to 30% of heads; 4 = incidence moderate to high, 30 to 50% of spikes infected;5 = incidence high, 50% or more spikes affected). For each Co-op entry, 20 g subsamples of cleaned seed from all
3 replicates is combined and ground together in a coffee grinder. DON (deoxynivalenol) levels are assessed on a 1 g subsample from this composite (analysis performed using ELISA technique at ECORC, Ottawa).
Oat Diseases Tom Fetch - Protocol for evaluating reaction to oat stem rust Co-op entries are screened at the adult plant stage in a field stem rust nursery in Glenlea and at the seedling stage in greenhouse tests. Data from both tests will be used to determine the stem rust rating. Planting, inoculation, and disease assessment procedures for the field nursery are the same as for the barley stem rust nursery listed previously. The stem rust pathotypes used for both the oat field nursery and seedling evaluations are NA8, NA16, NA25, NA27, NA28, NA55 and NA67. Pathotypes are mixed for the field inoculation, but are individually inoculated onto coop entries for seedling evaluations. For the seedling plant reaction, coop entries are seeded in flats and inoculated individually at the two leaf stage (See barley stem rust protocols). Inoculated seedlings are placed in a chamber at an RH near 100% for 16 hr in the dark. Seedlings are then removed from the chamber and then placed into a greenhouse at 20C and light intensity at or exceeding 250 FE and allowed to slowly dry off. Coop entries are evaluated about 14 days later for pustule type (0, ;, 1, 2, 3, or 4). Infection types 0, ;, 1, and 2 are indicative of a resistant response while ITs 3 and 4 are indicative of a susceptible response (IT3 reactions with chlorosis indicate some level of resistance). Protocol for evaluating reaction to Covered and Loose smuts of oats The inoculum used in these tests is a mixture of three races, A13, A60 and A617. Small amounts of inoculum can be obtained from James Menzies at [email protected] The inoculum can be stored for several years in a refrigerator, but it loses viability after a few months at room temperature. The inoculum is prepared by mixing ~1g of teliospores of each race in 1 L of water. The inoculum should look like weak tea. The teliospore suspension should be prepared just before inoculation, but it can be stored for 1 to 2 days at 5C. Inoculation: Seed should be placed in plastic vials; the size of the vial will depend on the amount of seed you have to inoculate, 4 g should be sufficient. The vial should not be filled more than 1/4 full with seed. Each vial should be filled to 2/3 full with the teliospore suspension and allowed to sit for a few minutes so the seed can start to absorb the inoculum. The level of the spore suspension should then be re-adjusted back to the 2/3 full level. The vials containing seed and inoculum should then be placed in a desiccator and covered with a filter paper. Two or three weights should be put on the filter paper to prevent the seeds from splashing out and contaminating other vials during in the inoculation process. Seal the desiccator and gently apply vacuum. Carefully monitor the vials until the inoculum starts to boil. Let the inoculum boil for 5 minutes and then remove the vacuum source and let the desiccator return to room pressure rapidly. This cycle should be repeated at least once. The contents of the vial are then poured into a sieve to separate the seed from the spore suspension (which can be re-used). The seed is then packaged into a coin envelope and allowed to slowly dry at room temperature for 2 days. Evaluation: The seed is planted in a row in the field and at maturation, a percent infection of the plants established. (The above procedure can also be used for False Loose and Covered smut of barley.)
Protocol for Evaluating Crown Rust Reactions - James Chong Cooperative oat entries are evaluated for seedling reactions in the greenhouse to individual isolates of crown rust (currently CR13, CR181, CR185, CR192, CR223, and CR225) having a diverse range of virulence. The entries are planted in seedling flats and inoculated at the one-leaf stage by spraying a fine suspension of urediniospores in a light industrial oil (e.g. Bayol, Esso Canada; 4 mg/450 L) to the leaves or by dusting the leaves with a mixture of urediniospores and talc (approximately 1:40 w/w). The inoculated seedlings are incubated in a high humidity (100%) chamber overnight and subsequently grown in a greenhouse maintained between 18-25EC with supplemental fluorescent or high pressure sodium lighting. The crown rust infection types (ITs) are scored at 12-14 days after inoculation using a 0-4 type scale as follows: 0 = no pustules or other macroscopic signs of infection, ; = no pustules, but necrotic or chlorotic flecks, 1 = small pustules surrounded by chlorosis or necrosis, 2 = small to medium size pustules in chlorotic areas, 3 = medium size pustules in chlorotic areas, and 4 = large pustules without necrosis or chlorosis. Infection types of 0-2 are indicative of a resistant response, and ITs of 3-4 are indicative of a susceptible response. For adult-plant reactions in the field, cooperative entries are planted in short (one-metre) rows in the crown rust nursery at Glenlea with spreader rows of susceptible oat varieties planted at every sixth row. The entries are evaluated under a crown rust epidemic artificially induced by infecting the plants in the spreader rows generally at the jointing stage of development. The inoculum consists of a composite of crown rust isolates bulked from the rust samples collected from the previous year annual surveys in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. This ensures that the inoculum is representative of the current rust population. Low volume applicators (Mini-Ulva) are used to spray the urediniospores suspended in Bayol oil (0.6 g urediniospores/litre) at a rate of about one litre per km of spreader row. Field reactions are evaluated generally at about the mid-dough stage of development, when symptom expression on the susceptible checks is optimal. The modified Cobb scale is used to rate crown rust severity expressed as percent area of leaf affected, in combination with infection response based on observed pustule types as follows: 0VR = immune with no visible symptoms, R = resistant; presence of chlorotic or necrotic flecks but no sporulation, MR = moderately resistant; presence of small sporulating pustules,
MS = moderately susceptible; presence of medium size of pustules with or without chlorosis or necrosis,
S = susceptible; presence of large pustules without chlorosis or necrosis. Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus (BYDV) - affects barley, oat and wheat S. Haber PROCEDURE
A. For greenhouse-scale work * Two weeks before planting a test rear BYDV live aphid (oat-bird cherry aphid) inoculum on a planted mixture of susceptible oat (e.g. Sun II) and barley (e.g. Manley) that are infected with a single virulent isolate (e.g. Y9801) of the strain (PAV) identified as overwhelmingly predominant in recent surveys. Allow at least a 5-day acquisition access feed. * Mix viruliferous aphids with talcum powder in a large petri dish, just enough to prevent aphids from sticking together. * Disperse aphids onto test plants at rate of about 15-20 per plant. * Allow aphids to feed on test plants for 9 days; growth chamber is maintained at 12 C. * Raise temperature to 20 C for one day. * Kill aphids with Pirliss insecticide. * For oat: -> return temperature to 12 C for 10 days, then return to 18 C; maintain until boot stage in growth cabinet, transfer to greenhouse * For barley and wheat: -> return temperature to 18-20 C; maintain in growth cabinet until head emergence, then transfer to greenhouse. B. For field-scale work * Four weeks before planting a test rear BYDV live aphid (oat-bird cherry aphid) inoculum on a planted mixture of susceptible oat (e.g. Sun II) and barley (e.g. Manley) that are infected with a single virulent isolate (e.g. Y9801) of the strain (PAV) identified as overwhelmingly predominant in recent surveys. Harvest aphids periodically if necessary to avoid early plant senescence. * Mix harvested viruliferous aphids with talcum powder cylindrical containers (2-4 L) * Disperse aphids onto field nursery plants. OBSERVATION A. For greenhouse-scale work * mild symptoms will appear on susceptible checks from 3 to 10 days after killing aphids. Oats will show leaf reddening, barley and wheat, leaf tip yellowing. * symptom severity will increase with temperature. For most experiments maintain at 18 - 20 C * Score on 1 (best) to 9 (worst) scale, taking into account: -> delay of head emergence compared to non-inoculated control -> loss of height " " " " -> degree of leaf discoloration" " " " For oat -> loss of number of florets " " " "
B. For field-scale work * mild symptoms will appear on susceptible checks from 15 to 10 days post inoculation * symptom severity will increase with temperature, insolation and water stress * Score on 1 (best) to 9 (worst) scale, taking into account: -> loss of height " " " " -> loss of green leaf pigment " " " " if feasible -> loss of yield " " " "
MINUTES OF OAT QUALITY EVALUATION TEAM, PRCOB FEBRUARY 21, 2007
Delta Bessborough, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan FEBRUARY 21, 1:30PM
Members Present: J. Jenkins - General Mills Canada [email protected] N. Ames - AAFC Winnipeg [email protected] G. Morrison - Pepsi-QTG Canada [email protected] R. Menon - General Mills, Minneapolis, MN [email protected] B. Roskens - Quaker Oats, Chicago [email protected] Mark Ramsland - General Mills, Minneapolis, MN [email protected] Lorne Kyle - Prairie Oat Growers’ Asso [email protected] Richard Kieper -Cargill [email protected] G. Arganosa - University of Saskatchewan [email protected] T. Pizzey - CAN-OAT Milling [email protected] Terry Tyson - Popowich Milling Alan Koechner - Quaker Oats, Cedar Rapids,IA [email protected] Joe Lutz - General Mills, Minneapolis,MN [email protected] Regrets: Dan Burch - Canadian Grain Commission Richard Pedde - Prairie Oat Growers’ Asso. [email protected] Guests: Virgina Labbe FarmPure Seeds [email protected]
1) Meeting commenced at 1:30 p.m. by Nancy Ames. Agenda was read, membership list was circulated and corrections made (attached). Guests were introduced as well as team members. Of 15 voting members, 13 were present.
2) Minutes of the 2006 meeting in Banff were read and moved for acceptance (B
Roskens), seconded (J Jenkins) and approved.
3) Nancy Ames discussed her work surrounding NIR equation development for b glucan and TDF. Equation transfer to the new NIR Instrument was not good. Wet chemical analyses for B Glucan and TDF will continue to be run s well over 3 sites next year. Nancy will work with B Rossnagel and T Pizzey regarding earlier availability of samples. Concern was again expressed re: the need to push B glucan and TDF levels higher in the new varieties. Discussion also occurred around obtaining more objective results for oat breakage. Gene Arganosa will followup with B Rossnagel. Nancy will review the possible correlation study with the impact dehuller.
4) Discussed “4.5.3 Food Oat Quality” traits used by the committee to evaluate new
cultivars as well as voting procedures and options. 5) Candidate cultivars submitted for registration were reviewed and voted on (see
attached sheets). Throughout the process, serious concerns were again raised re: the need to move BG/TDF values upward, FDA (and potentially Health Canada) Health Claim values are important to meet as these are “regulation”
6) Membership – J Jenkins resigned from the group after 10+ years including several as Chair. John was commended and thanked for his numerous years service. John moved (L Kyle seconded) that Dan Winderl, General Mills US replace John. T Pizzey also nominated (seconded GM) Dennis Galbraith , CanOat Milling to the group in anticipation of Trevor’s resignation in 2008. These nominations were approved. Grant Morrison will review past attendance in accordance with the Policy and Procedures.
7) L Kyle discussed POGA and their checkoff program. It was also reiterated that
membership on the Committees was based individual expertise rather than on organization/ Company affiliation. Lorne also discussed the desire for input to the Canadian Grains B&O Standards subcommittee. While industry will continue to have their own individual specifications, Lorne would forward to them our PRCOB Oat Quality Guidelines (attached ) to see if there was any opportunity to harmonize numbers or methodology
8) Meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
4.5.3 Food Oat Quality (revised Feb. 05) Below are the traits which the oat quality committee uses in assessing cultivars for
food oats. Parameters are assessed under conditions that reflect the commercial practices for milling oats. Results are evaluated with respect to controls and must be equal to or better than the appropriate check cultivars assessed by the same procedures of this test.
1. Hull Colour – white to yellow preferred, but coloured oats will not be excluded. 2. Groat Colour – white to cream. 3. Plumpness – for uniformity and elimination of thin and double oats. Measured as %
by weight remaining on 5.5/64 X ¾ inch slotted screen/sieve. 4. Thin Oats –measured as % by weight passing through a 5/64 X ¾ inch slotted
screen/sieve. 5. Test Weight –Kg/hl 6. Kernel Weight –g per 1000 kernels 7. % Groat – acceptable methods include Lab Codema,NIR,hand dehulling,Lab Impact
Dehuller 8. % Breakage – visual score 1-9 during dehulling (Lab Codema dehuller). 9. Commercial Laboratory Assessment of Milling. 10. % groat Protein (Nx6.25) 11. % groat Oil – Comparable to the values for the check cultivars. 12. % groat B-Glucan 13. % groat Total Dietary Fiber
Compositional specifications for food oat.
Quality Trait Recommended Target Values Hull Colour White to yellow preferred
Groat Colour White to cream Plumpness >50% 0ver Thin Oats 2%
Test Weight 48.6Kg/hl (38# Winchester bushel) Kernel Weight >30g /1000
% Groats Target 75% Total Dietary Fiber1, minimum: >10% db
Oil2, maximum: 13%db
ß-glucan4, minimum: >4%db 1AOAC 991.43, 2AOAC 996.06, 3AACC 46-30 /*corresponds to AOAC 992.23 4AOAC 995.16
Note: Specifications for the oat TDF, oil, protein,B-glucan are based on a groat, dry weight basis. These are derived from the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 21: 101.81 (April 1, 2000 edition, pg. 138.) Note: In the case of hulless oats in the test, data must be converted to a groat basis, using values for % hull for all hulled cultivars.
Prairie Recommending Committee for Oat and BarleyPRCOB 2007 Minutes1.0 Call to order2. 2006 Minutes3 Information from Meetings etc.4 Modernization of Seed Regulatory5 Crop Specific Consultative Groups (CSCG)6 Report on 2005/2006 USDA Barley Crop Germplasm Committee7 Standing Committee on Agriculture – Recommendations8 Use of Coop Data9 Review of Operating Procedures of PRCOB10 Use of PGDC web site for PRCOB Communications11 Evaluation Team Reports12 Consideration of Candidate Cultivars13 Review of membership14 Nomination of new PRCOB Chair15 Other Business16 Adjourn
BAET 2007 Minutes1 Call to Order – 1:30pm2 Minutes of 2006 M