Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Two New Food Hull-Less Barley Varieties For Rainfed In Egypt

A.A. EL-Sayed1, R.A. Abo El-Enein1 , A.S. El-Gamal1, A.A. El-Sherbiny1, M.A. El-Moselhy1, M.A. Megahed1, A.A. El-Hag1, A.M.O. El-Bawab1, M.T. Abdelhamid1, K.A. Amer1, R.A. Rizk2, S. Grando3, M.A. Said1, H.A. Ashmawy1, S.I. Abaas1, M.Z. Shendy1 and M.I El-Hawary1

1 Field Crops Res. Inst., -ARC – E-mail: aaaelsayed@yahoo.com
2
Plant Pathology Res. Inst., -ARC, 9 Gamma St., 12619- Giza- Egypt
3
-International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)- E-mail: s.grando@cgiar.org

Abstract

Giza 130 and Giza 131 are two six rowed spring type hull-less barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) varieties identified by the Egyptian/French Hull-Less Barley Project, Field Crops Research Institute at Giza, Egypt and released in October, 2001. They were selected for rainfed areas of Egypt as drought tolerant varieties to be used for the dual purposes of food and feed. Giza 130 has been selected from the crosses “Comp.cross” 229//Bco.Mr./DZ02391/3/Deir Alla 106 using the bulk method. Giza 131 from the cross CM67-B/CENTENO//CAM-B/3/ROW906.73/4/GLORIA-BAR/COME-B/5/FALCON-BAR/6/LINO using the pedigree method. The two varieties have been evaluated for four seasons in different environments. They outyielded the national check (hulled variety Giza 126) for both grain yield and straw yield. Both new varieties showed moderate resistance to leaf rust (Puccinia hordei) and powdery mildew (Erysiphe graminis hordei), and resistance to net blotch (Drechslera teres)and stripe disease (D.graminea).

Key words

Yield performance, Stability, Molecular variation, Finger print, Protein, β-glucan.

Introduction

Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) is the main cereal crop grown in the rainfed areas of Egypt. It occupies about 300,000 feddans (c. 126 000 ha) in the Northwest Coast (NWC) and about 50,000 (c. 21 000 ha) feddans in North Sinai (NS). The long term average annual rainfall is about 133 mm in NWC (Ferere and Popove 1984) and slightly higher in NS. This figure is below the lowest limit of semi arid areas (160 mm). The national production of cereals is lower than the national consumption, therefore it has been suggested to use hull-less barley as a complementary cereal crop to minimize this gap. This is based on the ability of barley to grow better than other cereals under drought conditions. El-Sayed (2002) and El-Sayed et al. (2002) and Noaman et al. (1995) reported that it is possible to identify barley genotypes with high yield potential under severe drought stress with high average stability. Recently, barley has been gaining a renewed interest as food component because of its higher content of soluble dietary fibers and β-glucan compared to other cereals (El-Sayed 2002). The objective of this study is to identify new drought tolerant, stable hull-less barley cultivars to be used as a dual purpose crop for human consumption and animal feeding.

Materials and methods

The two new six-rowed, hull-less barley varieties Giza 130 “Comp.cross”229//Bco.Mr./ DZ02391/3/Deir Alla 106 and Giza 131 CM67-B/CENTENO//CAM-B/3/ROW906.73/4/GLORIA-BAR/COME-B/5/FALCON-BAR/6/LINO were selected from naked barley materials provided by ICARDA and ICARDA/CIMMYT programs. They were evaluated for grain yield (GY), straw yield (SY), plant height (PLHT), spike length (Spike L.) and harvest index (HI) in different environments for four seasons (1998/99 to 2001/2002) in nine locations (see Tables 1 and 2) along the North Coast of Egypt. Giza 126, the recommended hulled barley cultivar was used as a check. The two varieties were selected under the natural drought stress conditions and evaluated in multi-location yield trials for four seasons 1998/1999, 1999/2000, 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 in the Hull-less Barley Screening Yield Trial (HBSYT), Preliminary Hull-less Barley Yield Trial (PHBYT) and Advanced Hull-less Barley Yield Trial (AHBYT). The two cultivars were then included in large scale experiments in the farmers fields (On-Farm Experiments) and were compared with farmer’s variety (Giza 126). The yield trials were laid down in a Randomized Complete Block Design with three replications. Seeding rate was 72 kg/ha. Standard analysis of variance and combined analysis over all environments were performed to estimate the significant differences among genotypes (Steel and Torrie 1980) and the stability parameters according to (Eberhart and Russell 1966). Data recorded were: grain yield (GY) ton/hectare, straw yield (SY) ton/hectare, harvest index (HI)= Grain yield/Biological yield (GY/BY), plant height (PLHT) and spike length (Spike L.) in cm. The two cultivars were evaluated for resistance to the major barley diseases. i.e. leaf rust (LR) (Puccinia hordei), powdery mildew (PM) (Erysiphe graminis hordei), net blotch (NB) (Drechslera teres) and stripe disease (SD) (D.graminea). PM and NB reactions were recorded using the double digit scale 00-99 according to (Sarri and Prescott, 1975), and (Eyal et al. 1987). LR reaction was recorded as severity and response (percentage of leaf area affected) according to the modified Cobb Scale (Peterson et al. 1948). SD reaction was recorded as percentage of infected plants. DNA Profiling: Random amplified polymorphic DNA-RAPDs molecular technique was applied to verify the two tested genotypes as prescribed by De Loose and Gheysen (1995) and Baum et al.. (1998). RAPDs diagnostic markers are effectively used for verification and variety identification purposes. The applied procedures were stated by El-Sayed et al. (2002). Determination of crude protein and β-glucan contents: Total protein content of grains was determined according to AOAC, (1990). β-glucan content was determined according to Woodward et al..(1983). Seasonal rainfall at Marsa Matrouh (Middle of NWC) ranged from 160.1mm in 1999/2000 to 99.01mm in 2001/2002. Totals at N. Sinai were slightly higher.

Results and discussion

Yield Performance

Data in Table 1 shows that yield and harvest indices of Giza 130 and Giza 131 were not significantly different from the national check hulled barley (Giza 126). The two hull-less barley varieties were significantly taller and had longer spikes than the check variety (Table 2).

Table1. GY, SY and HI of the two hull-less barley varieties compared with the national check Giza 126 (Hulled barley).

Environments

GY (Ton/ha)

SY (Ton/ha)

HI

No.

Season

Site

Trial

G.130

G.131

G126

G.130

G.131

G126

G.130

G.131

G126

1

98/99

El-Kasr

PHBYT

0.21a

0.18a

0.20a

0.36a

0.40a

0.40a

36.84a

31.03b

33.33b

2

99/2000

El-Kasr

HBSYT

0.81a

0.60ab

0.41b

1.28a

1.20a

1.25a

38.94

33.33

24.70

3

99/2000

El-Kasr

PHBYT

0.40a

0.52a

0.34a

1.55

1.49

1.65

20.51a

25.88a

17.02b

4

99/2000

El-Wask

PHBYT

0.25

0.22

0.19

0.60a

0.49b

0.72a

29.41a

31.98a

18.54b

5

99/2000

El-Negela

PHBYT

1.00

0.92

0.82

3.50a

3.21a

2.99a

22.22

22.32

22.45

6

99/2000

El-Wask

AHBYT

0.32a

0.40a

0.42a

0.59a

1.05a

0.99a

35.56a

27.58b

29.79b

7

99/2000

El-Negela

AHBYT

1.05a

1.00a

0.89a

4.50a

2.80c

3.52b

18.92a

26.32a

20.18a

8

99/2000

N. Dhawaia

AHBYT

1.54a

1.50a

1.46a

3.41a

3.50a

2.27b

31.11a

30.00a

39.14a

9

99/2000

S. Dhawaia

AHBYT

1.60a

1.45a

1.21a

4.33a

4.00a

2.53b

27.12a

26.61a

32.35a

10

99/2000

El-Mathani

AHBYT

0.41a

0.35a

0.50a

0.89a

0.70a

0.82a

31.54a

33.33a

37.88a

11

2000/2001

Rafah

PHBYT

2.94a

3.00a

3.06a

6.06a

7.00a

7.45a

32.67a

30.00a

29.12a

12

2000/2001

El-Shakh Z.

PHBYT

2.08a

1.95a

2.03a

5.65a

6.00a

6.20a

27.01a

24.53a

24.67a

13

2000/2001

Rafah

AHBYT

2.50a

2.05a

2.42a

7.50a

6.95a

7.37a

25.00b

29.29a

24.69b

14

2000/2001

El-Shakh Z.

AHBYT

1.56a

1.24a

1.36a

4.00a

3.51a

3.88a

28.06a

26.11a

25.95a

15

2000/2001

Nubaria

AHBYT

2.50a

2.28a

2.31a

6.00a

4.62b

5.84a

29.41a

33.04a

28.34a

16

2001/2002

El-Mathani

HBSYT

0.93a

0.91a

0.90a

1.74a

1.39a

1.38a

34.83b

41.36a

39.70a

17

2001/2002

Rafah

HBSYT

1.70a

2.00a

1.63a

2.21

2.47

2.44

43.48a

44.74a

40.25a

18

2001/2002

El-Mathani

AHBYT

0.50

0.62

0.65

1.58

1.80

2.00

24.04a

25.62a

24.53a

19

2001/2002

El-Shakh Z.

AHBYT

1.22

1.62

1.42

2.92b

3.78ab

3.92a

29.47

30.00

30.60

20

2001/2002

El-Mathani

On-Farm

0.62

0.91

0.90

1.60b

2.20a

2.08a

27.93

29.36

30.20

21

2001/2002

Rafah

On-Farm .

1.74a

1.60a

1.91a

3.21b

3.93a

4.06a

35.15a

28.93b

31.99ab

22

2001/2002

El-Shakh Z.

On-Farm .

1.00a

1.12a

1.20a

2.70b

3.83a

4.54a

27.02a

22.63ab

20.91b

Combined

1.22a

1.23a

1.19a

3.01a

3.02a

3.11a

30.2a

29.73a

28.14a

Table2. PLHT and Sp.L. of the two hull-less barley varieties compared with the national check Giza 126 (Hulled barley).

Environments

PLHT

Sp.L.

No.

Season

Site

Trial

G.130

G.131

G126

G.130

G.131

G126

1

98/99

El-Kasr

PHBYT

23.00a

20.0ab

17.3b

4.7a

4.0a

3.0b

2

99/2000

El-Kasr

HBSYT

27.1

29.00

25.9

2.5

3.0

3.0

3

99/2000

El-Kasr

PHBYT

28.0ab

31.7a

27.7b

3.0a

3.4a

3.1a

4

99/2000

El-Wask

PHBYT

28.5

31.0

29.9

4.0

4.5

4.8

5

99/2000

El-Negela

PHBYT

68.5ab

71.3a

63.3b

7.0

8.3

7.5

6

99/2000

El-Wask

AHBYT

36.5

39.0

33.0

4.9

4.5

4.0

7

99/2000

El-Negela

AHBYT

92.7a

100.0a

85.5b

9.6a

9.0ab

8.5b

8

99/2000

N. Dhawaia

AHBYT

45.8ab

50.0a

40.5b

6.4

6.0

5.8

9

99/2000

S. Dhawaia

AHBYT

79.3ab

80.0a

68.5b

8.3a

7.6ab

7.0b

10

99/2000

El-Mathani

AHBYT

38.0

40.0

37.5

5.3

5.0

4.8

11

2000/2001

Rafah

PHBYT

95.0

93.5

93.0

6.5

6.0

5.8

12

2000/2001

El-Shakh Z.

PHBYT

88.0

85.0

90.0

6.0

5.5

5.3

13

2000/2001

Rafah

AHBYT

95.0a

101.0a

87.5b

8.0a

8.8a

6.3b

14

2000/2001

El-Shakh Z.

AHBYT

90.0a

92.5a

82.5b

9.5ab

10.0a

8.3b

15

2000/2001

Nubaria

AHBYT

110.0b

116.0ab

120.0a

5.0a

5.5a

6.0a

16

2001/2002

El-Mathani

HBSYT

48.4a

45.8a

43.8a

4.7a

6.1a

5.1a

17

2001/2002

Rafah

HBSYT

71.0a

66.7a

70.3a

7.2a

6.0a

6.7a

18

2001/2002

El-Mathani

AHBYT

40.8a

39.2a

32.5b

4.8

4.6

5.0

19

2001/2002

El-Shakh Z.

AHBYT

69.0b

83.0a

78.0a

6.2

7.0

6.0

20

2001/2002

El-Mathani

On-Farm

38.2a

46.5a

42.0a

5.0

6.3

5.2

21

2001/2002

Rafah

On-Farm

75.0a

65.0b

62.5b

6.5b

7.5a

6.0b

22

2001/2002

El-Shakh Z.

On-Farm

74.0

72.5

78.0

7.3a

7.0ab

6.0b

Combined

61.9a

63.6a

57.5b

6.0a

6.2a

5.3b

Yield Stability

Stability parameters adapted by Eberhart and Russell (1966) were used in this study to obtain information about variety x environment interaction and the ability to cope with the fluctuating environment in those areas. Table (3) shows means of grain and straw yields, and their stability parameters i.e. regression line slope (b) and mean square of the deviation from regression (S2d) for the three barley cultivars. It was concluded from that table that the three barley cultivars were more stable because they had b=1 and S2d=0.

Table 3. Stability parameters for GY and SY of the two varieties and the check under 22 various environments.

Varieties

GY

SY

X-

b

S2d

X-

B

S2d

Giza 130

1.222a

1.02

0.013

3.008a

0.99

0.225

Giza 131

1.202a

0.96

0.011

3.015a

0.97

0.015

Giza 126 (check)

1.192a

1.01

0.010

3.105a

1.04

0.165

Disease reactions (Table 4) indicate that the two varieties have a good level of resistance to the major diseases under rainfed conditions compared with the commercial barley variety Giza 126

Table 4. Assessment of the major barley diseases of the two hull-less barley varieties and the check variety.

Cultivar

Leaf Rust

Powdery Mildew

Net Blotch

Stripe disease

Giza 130

Trace R*

2/1

0/0

0

Giza 131

20 MR**

4/2

0/0

0

Giza 126 (check)

50 S***

3/0

2/1

10%

R* = Resistant / MR** = Moderately Resistant / S*** = Susceptible

Molecular variation (Table 5) shows the differences between the two tested varieties. The alignment of sequences and number of bands of the finger printed varieties have been also shown in the same table. The scored polymorphic bands regarded as potentially diagnostic for Giza 130 and Giza 131 varieties are shown in Figure 1 using five primers.

Table 5. Alignment of sequences and no. of bands of barley Giza 130 and Giza 131 varieties.

Bands

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

 

G.130

G.131

G.130

G.131

G.130

G.131

G.130

G.131

G.130

G.131

1

8

9

8

9

8

9

8

9

8

9

2

6.9

3.8

1.4

1.9

8.0

6.0

2.8

3.8

7.3

7.4

3

3.8

2.6

1.2

1.6

6.1

5.5

2.2

1.9

6.0

5.6

4

3.0

2.1

1.0

1.4

5.6

4.5

   

5.3

5.4

5

2.8

1.8

0.9

1.3

5.3

4.1

   

3.8

3.9

6

2.5

1.6

0.7

1.1

4.6

3.6

   

2.8

2.8

7

2.1

1.3

0.6

0.9

4.2

3.4

   

2.4

2.2

8

1.8

1.1

 

0.8

3.8

2.8

   

2.0

1.9

9

1.6

   

0.6

3.4

2.5

   

1.8

1.6

10

1.3

   

0.5

2.8

2.3

   

1.5

1.3

11

1.0

     

2.5

2.0

   

1.4

1.1

12

       

2.3

1.9

   

1.2

0.9

13

       

2.1

1.7

   

1.1

 

14

       

1.9

1.5

   

0.9

 

15

       

1.8

1.3

       

16

       

1.5

1.1

       

17

       

1.3

         
         

1.1

         

Primer 1 (P1): GGG TAA CGC C
Primer 2 (P2): GTT GCG ATC C
Primer 3 (P3): AGC CAG CGA A
Primer 4 (P4): GAA ACG GGT G
Primer 5 (P5): GTG ATC GCA G

Fig.1. Finger printing of Giza 130 and Giza 131 hull-less barley varieties using RAPD’s method with 5 primers

Protein and β-glucan contents

Protein and β-glucan contents of Giza 130 and Giza 131 as compared with Giza 123 and Giza 126 (hulled barley) and Sakha 69 (wheat cultivar) were determined. Protein % were 13.52 and 13.13% for Giza 131 and Giza 130 compared to 12.33, 12.26 and 12.51% for Giza 123, Giza 126 and Sakha 69. Total β-glucan % were 4.60 and 4.44% for Giza 130 and Giza 131, whereas, it was 3.01 and 1.80 for Giza 123 and Sakha 69. These results show that the high protein and β-glucan contents of the two new hull-less barley varieties make them suitable for use in bread making and other nutritional purposes. With this respect, barley β-glucan reduces blood cholesterol, (Martinez et al. 1992) and increasing the viscosity of digest in the intestine, and thereby slows down the rate of digestion and adsorption of starch (Anderson et al. 1990) which is beneficial to diabetics (Gosain 1996).

Conclusion

Because of good performance, stability, little cleaning requirements for the entire kernel and the good grain quality of the two newly developed varieties Giza 130 and Giza 131, they have been certified and released to farmers in rainfed areas in Egypt.

References

A.O.A.C. (1990). Official Methods Analysis of Association of Official Agricultural Chemists 15th Ed. Washington D.C.

Andersson JW, Deakins DA, Floore TL, Smith BM and Whitis SE (1990). Dietary fiber and coronary heart disease. Crit. Rev. Food Science Nutrition. 29:96-147.

Baum BR, Mechanda S, Penner GA and Ednie AB (1998). Establishment of a scheme for the identification of Canadian barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) six row cultivars using RAPD diagnostic bands. Seed Science & Technology 26: 449-462.

De Loose M and Gheysen G (1995). Identification methods based on molecular techniques. International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, UPOV Document BMT 1312, Geneva. pp 22.

Eberhart SA and Russel WD (1966). Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Science 6: 36-40.

El-Sayed AA (2002). Improvement of food hull-less barley in Egypt. Paper presented in the Food Barley Workshop organized by ICARDA and FAO, 14-17 January, 2002 Hammamet, Tunisia (in press).

El-Sayed AA, El-Hawary MI and Selim AH (2002). Identification of some hull-less barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) genotypes using morphological and biochemical methods. The Second International Conference on Sustainable Agriculture for Food, Energy and Industry, Beijing, China. Vol I. PP 726-733.

Eyal Z, Scharean AL, Prescott JM and Van Cinkel (1987). The Septoria clissenses of wheat: concepts and methods of disease management. Mexico D.F. CIMMYT. 46 PP.

Ferere M and Popove GF (1984). Agro-climatological data for Africa. Vol. 1. Countries North the Equator, FAO, Rome.

Gosain K (1996). Long term effects of barley bread products on metabolic control of non insulin dependant diabetes mellitus. M.Sc thesis University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

Large EC and Doling DA (1962). The measurement of cereal mildew and its effect on yield. Plant Pathology 11: 47-54.

Martinez VM, Newman RK and Newman CK (1992). Barley diets with different fat sources have hypo cholesterolemic effects in chickens. Journal. Nutrition 122: 1070-1076.

Noaman MM, El-Sayed AA, Asaad FA, El-Sherbini AM, El-Bawab AM, El-Moselhi MA and Rizk RA (1995). Giza 125 and Giza 126 two new barley cultivars for rainfed areas of Egypt. Egyptian Journal of Applied Science 10 (7) 418-432.

Peterson RE, Campbell AB and Hanna AE (1948). A diagrammatic scale for estimating rust intensity on leaves and stems of cereals. Canadian Journal Research 26: 496-500.

Sarri EE and Prescott JM (1975). A scale for appraising the foliar intensity of wheat diseases. Pl. Sid. Reptr. 59: 377-380.

Steel RGD and Torrie JH (1980). Principles and procedures of statistics. 2nd Ed. McGrow-Hill Book Co., Inc. New York, 633, pp.

Woodward JR, Fincher GB and Stone BA (1983). Water soluble (1-3), (1-4) B-D-glucans from barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) endosperm. II. Fine structure. Carbohydr. Polym. 3: 207-225.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext Page