Distilling Quality in Winter

W Thomas1, J Swanston1, R Bradley2, D Kindred2, R Weightman2, J Brosnan3 J Melichar4, D Feuerhelm4 & O Argilier4

1SCRI, Dundee, UK; 2ADAS Boxworth, Cambs, UK; 3SWRI, Edinburgh, UK; 4Syngenta Seeds, Whittlesford, UK

Introduction Materials & Methods The Scotch industry used over 550,000t of wheat from harvest 2008 as a starch adjunct in grain whisky production, where the cereal The population was grown in replicated field trials under contrasting nitrogen adjunct is cooked prior to with addition of 5-15% high enzyme regimes to provide 8 environments, from which yield estimates were obtained.

in the mash, fermentation and distillation. We then utilised NIR to predict alcohol yield, grain protein and starch content

The key requirements are a high level of spirit production coupled with a and the MARVIN seed analyser to measure grain size parameters from cleaned low viscosity of the residue, which are largely the result of carbohydrate and graded seed samples and derived overall and environmental means.

and protein respectively and have received little breeding attention. Bi-plots were used to study the relationships between the overall means. 201

We used a random inbred population from a cross between Canterbury x molecular markers were used to construct a genetic map that we then used in Eclipse to study the genetic control of alcohol yield and related a QTLxE analysis, taking into account the variance/covariance structure characters. between individual environments, to identify genomic regions affecting the genetic control of distilling quality traits.

Results

Variance component analysis showed Relationship between protein content and alcohol yield

that the genetic component ranged from The scatter plot of grain protein and 13 (Starch) to 58% (Grain Length:Width) alcohol yield confirms the negative of the sum of the genetic, GxE and error relationship between the two from the components whilst the GxE component bi-plot but indicates that there are ranged from 9 (grain shape parameters) considerable deviations at all protein levels. to 30% (Starch). The bi-plot shows that grain yield, alcohol yield and starch content are highly positively correlated, as are viscosity and grain length:width ratio Distilling quality QTLs in Canterbury x Eclipse and thousand grain weight and grain QTLs were found for all 10 characters; 3B 6D Mark103 0.0 4B 3A Mark104 2.6 6B Mark223 0.0 1A Mark105 5.7 Mark153 0.0 width. Mark1 0.0 Mark87 0.0 Mark106 8.6 Mark154 4.5 Mark107 10.8 Mark215 0.0 Mark2 2.4 2D Hardness those for viscosity, starch% and TGW Mark3 4.4 Mark155 13.1 Grain Mark108 19.2 Mark4 5.6 Mark75 0.0 Mark156 17.9 Mark5 9.0 Mark224 23.9 _

Mark6 11.6 5A N

Mark109 33.2 S Mark88 25.5 Mark168 0.0 Mark216 23.1 tarch%

Mark169 2.1 T Mark217 26.5 GW Grain_N Mark218 28.8 Mark89 Mark110 44.8 36.3 Mark225 46.7 S

Bi-plot showing relationships between were the most numerous. Notable hot Mark7 38.0 tarch% Mark170 17.0 Mark219 41.1

Mark76 36.5 T Mark171 23.8 Mark90 53.1 GW Mark172 25.4 Mark8 51.6 Mark111 68.9 T

characters and genotypes Mark112 71.8 GW Mark113 75.1 S Mark173 37.5 Mark226 72.3 Res_Visc Mark91 65.6 tarch% Mark114 76.5 Mark92 69.7 Mark9 68.4 Mark115 79.3 spots existed on chromosomes 2B Mark10 Mark116 83.4 5B 71.5 Mark117 85.5 Mark11 76.9 Mark93 80.7 Mark176 Mark118 88.2 0.0 Mark227 92.6

(25.81%) Mark119 92.5 S 3 Mark177 7.1 tarch% Istabraq Mark94 92.1 Mark178 8.8 1B Res_Visc Mark77 86.5 Mark120 107.3 Mark179 17.2 Mark15 0.0 Mark228 112.0

and 7D, where some QTLs reflected Mark16 2.1 Res Mark121 117.2 Mark180 25.6 Mark95 111.5 Mark181 31.2 _ 2B Mark122 125.4 7D 2 Mark17 14.8 Visc Mark78 107.6 Mark182 36.8 Mark123 131.4 Claire Gr Length Mark18 21.1 Mark59 0.0 Mark248 0.0 Mark96 129.4 5D Mark60 8.1 Mark249 7.9 S

Len:Wid Alcohol Yield tarch% Yield the correlations apparent from the Mark19 35.5 Mark186 0.0 Mark250 15.6 Grain_N Mark97 148.8 Mark124 158.8 Res_Visc Viscosity 1 Mark98 152.1 Hardness Mark251 Starch% 28.4 Mark20 57.2 Mark187 23.7 Mark21 63.1 Mark79 157.6 Mark99 171.3 Mark252 47.2 bi-plot but some others did not. Useful Mark22 70.6 Mark125 183.4 Mark253 53.2

(28.85%) S 0 Mark254 Mark61 58.1 tarch% 56.8 3D Hardness -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Mark23 87.7 Mark80 180.0 Mark62 72.7 Mark129 0.0 s Mark130 5.2 TGW variation for distilling characters was Mark131 10.2 es Mark132 15.0 Mark188 73.7 -1 Mark189 77.2 Gr Width Gr_Len ardn Mark133 23.3 Mark190 79.7 H Mark134 33.2 Mark255 106.8 g

Protein th Mark24 135.9 GR Mark256 116.9 found in the hard wheat parent. Hardness Mark25 137.4 Len_Wid Mark257 120.3 Res_Visc _ Mark63 122.7 A Mark258 120.5

T Mark191 -2 Width Mark135 52.2 108.8 lcY_t GW Control Mark64 126.8 S Mark136 55.0 Mark65 131.9 tarch% Mark192 116.3

CxE Mark66 133.4 Grain_N Mark259

136.3 GR_Width S Mark67 Mark137 65.8 Len 137.7 Mark260 137.9 Res

Mark68 tarch%

140.7 A Mark193

131.1 lcY Mark261 147.6 _ _ Wid

Mark194 133.0 Mark262 150.9 Visc

Mark195 138.3 Mark263 152.2 _ t -3 Mark138 84.8 Mark196 141.3 Mark264 154.0 Mark139 88.6

Conclusions Acknowledgments There is considerable independence between the key distilling Although soft wheat is preferred, for ease of This project was supported by the LINK Sustainable Arable Programme through quality parameters alcohol yield and viscosity thus both can be processing, useful genetic variation for distilling quality sponsorship by BBSRC, RERAD and HGCA and industrial contributions from Syngenta Seeds, The improved simultaneously. parameters exists in the hard wheat genepool. Research Institute, FOSS UK, Wessex Grain, Green Spirit Fuels and Grampian