Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:37:15.100Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Characterization of the end-use Quality of Soft Wheat Cultivars from the Eastern and Western US Germplasm ‘Pools’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2024

Craig F. Morris ,
Kim Garland Campbell  and
Garrison E. King
Craig F. Morris*
Affiliation:
1USDA-ARS Western Wheat Quality Laboratory, E-202 Food Science & Human Nutrition Facility East, RO. Box 646394, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6394, USA
Kim Garland Campbell
Affiliation:
2USDA-ARS Wheat Genetics, Quality Physiology and Disease Research Unit, 379 Johnson Hall, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6420, USA
Garrison E. King
Affiliation:
3Department of Food Science & Human Nutrition, Washington State University, assigned to the Western Wheat Quality Laboratory, Pullman, WA 99164-6394, USA
*
* Corresponding author. E-maii: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Soft wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) improvement could be enhanced by the identification of germplasm with superior end-use quality traits. Due to the geographic and historical separation of eastern and western US soft wheat germplasm ‘pools’, genetic differences in end-use quality may exist among cultivars arising from these two pools. To identify such differences, 30 US soft wheat cultivars were evaluated in ‘head-to-head’ trials over 3 years in Washington state. Cultivars were classified as: eastern soft red winter (SRW), eastern soft white winter (ESWW), western soft white (WSWW) and western Club. These four soft wheat cultivar classifications clearly differed systematically for some of the quality traits examined. The Club wheat cultivar group had the highest flour yield and flour ash. The Club group also had the lowest mixograph dough water absorption. Milling score (which incorporates break flour yield) was highest for Club and ESWW. Eastern soft red and white wheat cultivar groups had lower flour ash and alkaline water retention capacity (AWRC) compared to the western Club and soft white wheats; ESWW had the lowest AWRC of any classification. Cookie diameter was greatest for the ESWW group, followed by the SRW and Club groups (which were not significantly different), and then by the WSWW group. Individual cultivars with exceptional quality traits were also identified. These results indicate that the four US soft wheat germplasm pools differ, and they may be valuable genetic resources for ‘inter-pool’ wheat improvement.

Keywords

alkaline water retention capacityashcookieend-use qualityflour yieldmillingmixographsoft wheat
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , April 2004 , pp. 59 - 69
Copyright
© NIAB 2004

Footnotes

Mention of trademark or proprietary products does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of a product by the US Department of Agriculture and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products that may also be suitable. This article is in the public domain and not copyrightable.

References

American Association of Cereal Chemists (AACC) (2000) Approved Methods of the AACC, 10th edn. St. Paul, MN: AACC.Google Scholar
Bacon, RK (2001) U.S. soft winter wheat pool. In: Bonjean, AP and Angus, WJ (eds) The World Wheat Book: A History of Wheat Breeding. Paris: Lavoisier Publishing, pp. 469–478.Google Scholar
Baenziger, PS, Clements, RL, McIntosh, MS, Yamazaki, WT, Starling, TM, Sammons, DJ and Johnson, JW (1985) Effect of cultivar, environment, and their interaction and stability analyses on milling and baking quality of soft red winter wheat. Crop Science 25: 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassett, LM, Allan, RE and Rubenthaler, GL (1989) Genotype X environment interactions on soft white winter wheat quality. Agronomy Journal 81: 955–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettge, AD and Morris, CF (2000) Relationships among grain hardness, pentosan fractions, and end-use quality of wheat. Cereal Chemistry 77: 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gains, CS, Finney, PL and Rubenthaler, GL (1996b) Milling and baking qualities of some wheats developed from eastern or northwestern regions of the United States and grown at both locations. Cereal Chemistry 73: 521–525.Google Scholar
Guttieri, MJ, Bowen, D, Gannon, D, O'Brien, K and Souza, EJ (2001) Solvent retention capacities of irrigated soft white spring wheat flours. Crop Science 41: 1054–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guttieri, MJ, McLean, R, Lanning, SP, Talbert, LE and Souza, EJ (2002) Assessing environmental influences on solvent retention capacities of two soft white spring wheat cultivars. Cereal Chemistry 79: 880–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazen, SP, Ng, PKW and Ward, RW (1997) Variation in grain functional quality for soft winter wheat. Crop Science 37: 1086–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffers, HC and Rubenthaler, GL (1977) Effects of roll temperature on flour yield with the Brabender Quadrumat experimental mills. Cereal Chemistry 54: 1018–1025.Google Scholar
Lin, PY and Czuchajowska, Z (1997) Starch properties and stability of club and soft white winter wheats from the Pacific Northwest of the United States. Cereal Chemistry 74: 639–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schabenberger, O and Pierce, FJ (2001) Contemporary Statistical Models for the Plant and Soil Sciences. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USDA (1996) Official United States Standards for Grain. Riverdale, MD: Federal Grain Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Yamamoto, H, Worthington, ST, Hou, G and Ng, PKW (1996) Rheological properties and baking qualities of selected soft wheats grown in the United States. Cereal Chemistry 73: 213–221.Google Scholar
Yan, WK (2001) GGEbiplot A windows application for graphical analysis of multi-environment trial data and other types of two-way data. Agronomy Journal 93: 1111–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, WK and Rajcan, I (2002) Biplot analysis of test sites and trait relations on soybean in Ontario. Crop Science 42: 11–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed