(go to KOMUGI Home) (go to WIS List) (go to NO.45-46 Contents)



Seeds harvested from the greenhouse planting were used for milling and dough-mixing tests. Seed samples were tempered to 12.5% moisture content and milled on the C.W. Brabender Quadrumat "Jr." Experimental Mill2) with the sieve removed. The milled stock was separated on an auxiliary sieve shaker with 40, 60, and 100 mesh sieves.

AACC Method 50-10 (1962) was used to determine particle size distribution of the 100 mesh flour. Mass median particle diameters (MMD) were calculated. The MMD is the point at which 50% of the flour by weight is finer and 50% coarser.

One-gram samples were analyzed for nitrogen by AACC method 46-12 (1962) and protein percentages were calculated from percent N x 5.73.

Flour from the 60 and 100 mesh sieves was composited for mixogram tests. Dough-mixing curves were recorded at 25C with the Swanson-Working Mixograph2) using 30g of flour, with absorptions adjusted to optimum for bread dough.

Results and Discussion

The identity test with the Cinese Spring 1D ditelosomic stock indicated that the Cheyenne chromosome substituted in the new line was 1D.

Data for kernel and flour characteristics of the new Cheyenne 1D substitution in Chinese Spring, the parental cultivars, and the "1D" substitution line appear in Table 1, and mixing curves in Figure 1.

Kernel length and weight were somewhat greater for Cheyenne than for Chinese Spring, but kernel width was similar in the two cultivars. The kernel weights and lengths of the 1D sublines were more like Chinese Spring than Cheyenne. The "1D" line matured about 1 month later than the other materials, and its kernel weight and width were reduced because of high temperatures in the greenhouse during early summer. The 1D sublines tended to be closer to Chinese Spring than to Cheyenne in flour yield and MMD values, and lower than either parent in percent protein. However, they resembled Cheyenne in having the desirable properties of increased mixing time and tolerance. The "1D" line, on the other hand, was inferior to Chinese Spring in mixing time and tolerance, as it had been in previous tests (MORRIS et al. 1966).



<-- Back

|

--> Next


(go to KOMUGI Home) (go to WIS List) (go to NO.45-46 Contents)