Post Harvest Evaluation Of Rice Hybrids For Grain And Cooking Qualities

International Journal of Current Research and Review | Research Article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31782/IJCRR.2019.11124

Md Post Harvest Evaluation of Rice Hybrids
"W" for Grain and Cooking Qualities

IJCRR

Section: Life
Sciences
Sci. Journal Impact

Factor: 5.385 (2017) Anirban Nath!", Disharee Nath!, Chand Kumar Santra?,
ICV: 71.54 (2015) 3
Tapash Dasgupta

"Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Institute of Agricultural Science, University of Calcutta. 51/2, Hazra Road, Kolkata -700019;
"Rice Research Station, Govt. of West Bengal, Chinsurah- 712 102; "School of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ramakrishna Mission

Vivekananda University, Narendrapur, Kolkata 700103.

ABSTRACT

Background: For commercial exploitation of rice hybrids, superior grain and cooking gualities are prereguisites. The current
study evaluates thirty eight rice hybrids in terms of important grain and cooking guality parameters.

Materials and Methods: Performances associated with grain guality parameters like Hulling%, Milling%, Head rice recovery%,
Kernel length, Kernel Breadth and L/B ratio were recorded. In case of cooking gualities, characters like Amylose content, Gel
consistency, Alkali spreading value, Gelatinization temperature, Elongation ratio and water uptake were estimated. The data
obtained from the guality performances were also compared with consumer preferences reported by earlier authors.

Results and Discussions: As per earlier reports, rice millers prefer 80 % Hulling, 70% milling and 65% head rice recovery. From
the consumer's perspective long slender kernel, intermediate amylose, soft gel and intermediate gelatinization temperature are
prereguisites. In the current investigation the hybrids like ADTRH1, GK5003 and Suruchi exhibited superior performances for all
the grain qualities but lacked in one or more cooking quality parameters. On the contrary, hybrids like IR58025A x IR10198R,
IR79156A x IR40750R, Sahyadri4, PSD 3 and PusaRH-10 exhibited superior cooking quality traits but lacked in one or more
grain quality parameters. The hybrid IR80559A x IR6876-1 was the best performer fulfilling the criteria for most of the grain and
cooking quality traits. A Correlation coefficient analysis was performed and significant correlations among the quality traits were
elucidated. The analysis revealed that hulling (%) and head rice recovery (%) were significantly correlated with milling (%). Simi-
larly Amylose content was negatively correlated with gel consistency.

Conclusions: The hybrids showing superior grain and cooking qualities can be recommended for commercial production. The
vital correlations can be used as tools for selection in terms of grain and cooking qualities.

Key Words: Hybrid rice, Hulling, Milling, Head rice recovery, Amylose content, Gel consistency, Gelatinization temperature,
Correlation coefficient analysis

INTRODUCTION parameters like high milling %, head rice recovery %, grain

shape, appearance, cooking qualities, palatability, etc are

The high grain yield attributed by hybrid vigour will only be emphasized across rice growing regions. In most countries
worthwhile if ultimately the rice obtained is of high quality including India ‘long grain’ type of rice which is soft and
in terms of grain and cooking properties. In the absence of non-sticky upon cooking are preferred over ‘short grained’
adequate grain and cooking quality associated with the grain Japonica types which are sticky on cooking resulting from a
obtained, the hybrid rice finally produced from a breeding Jow amylose content. In case of hybrid rice, achieving supe-
program will be commercially inefficacious. Compared to rior grain and cooking quality is challenging. Firstly the con-
other cereals, grain quality of rice is of crucial importance sumed grains belong to F, generation. Secondly the sterile
and determines the market price since rice is consumed as a cytoplasm has significant influence on the quality traits asso-
whole grain. Also, the preferences in terms of cooking quality ciated with the grain as reported by Shivani et al. (2007), Yi
vary from region to region. In general, few desirable quality ang Cheng (1992), Virmani et al. (2003). The current study

Corresponding Author:
Anirban Nath, Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Institute of Agricultural Science, University of Calcutta. 51/2, Hazra Road,
Kolkata -700019; Email: anirbannathkol@gmail.com

ISSN: 2231-2196 (Print) ISSN: 0975-5241 (Online)
Received: 18.05.2019 Revised: 05.06.2019 Accepted: 16.06.2019

Int J Cur Res Rev | Vol 11 + Issue 12 - June 2019

Nath et.al.: Post harvest evaluation of rice hybrids for grain and cooking gualities

aims at evaluating 13 new hybrids (unreleased) and 25 com-
mercially released hybrids for their physical grain and cook-
ing gualities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was performed using 38 rice hybrids com-
prising of 13 newly identified and 25 released hybrids from
public and private sectors. The list of germ plasm evaluated
in the current experiment is mentioned in the Table 1. For the
analysis of guality traits, post-harvest seeds kept at a mois-
ture level of 12 to 15% were used. After 60 days of harvest,
the grain and cooking gualities were estimated.

Characterization of Grain physical parameters:
The vital grain guality characters like Hulling and Milling %,
Length of Kernel, Breadth of Kernel, Length-breadth ratio
and Head Rice Recovery% were evaluated. For estimating
hulling % (HL) Paddy de husker (Satake, Japan Model —
THU-35B) was used. For estimating Milling % (ML), repli-
cated paddy seeds were milled using the rice miller (Satake,
Japan Model — TMO 5C & TM - 05). Head rice recovery
% (HRR) was estimated using 4 months old seeds as sug-
gested by Khush et al. (1978). Head rice was separated us-
ing the (Satake Japan, Model no.TRGOS58). The hulling %,
milling % and Head rice recovery% were calculated as per
Singh (2000). The Kernel Length (KL) and Kernel Breadth
(KB) were measured using Dial Thickness Gauge (Mitutoyo,
Japan, Range: 0.01- 20 mm). The LB ratio was calculated
by dividing KL by KB. The Kernel Length was classified
as >7.50mm (very long), 6.61 to 7.50(Long), 5.51 to 6.60
(Medium or intermediate) and <5.50 (short). The LB ratio
was classified as >3.0 (slender), 2.1 to 3.0 (medium), < 2.0
(bold).

Characterization of hybrids with respect to
cooking guality parameters

Cooking guality and palatability of rice are influenced pre-
dominantly by the properties of starch, which corresponds to
90% of the milled rice recovered. The physical and chemi-
cal properties of starch can be approximated by the amylose
content, gel consistency and alkali spreading value observed
in the milled rice. In the current study Amylose Content
(AC) was estimated following Sadasivam and Manikam
(1992). Classification of grain type based on amylose con-
tent into waxy (0-2%), very low (3-9%), Low (10-19%), in-
termediate (20-25%) and High (>25%) was done following
Kumar and Khush (1986). For determining the texture of the
cooked rice, gel consistency (GC) was estimated and clas-
sified following Cagampang et al.(1973). For determining
the cooking temperature of the milled rice the gelatinization
temperature (GT) was estimated using the Alkali spreading

value (ASV). ASV was determined following Little (1958).
The ASV and GT was scored following Singh (2000). The
cooked rice properties like Elongation ratio (ER) and Water
uptake (WU) were also estimated. The ER was estimated by
dividing length of cooked rice by uncooked Azeez and Shafi
(1966).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

The performances of the hybrids in terms of grain physical
qualities are discussed in Table 2. In terms of hulling and
milling percentages the best performing hybrid was Indira
Sona with 84.22% and 75.24 % hulling and milling recovery
respectively. The highest head rice recovery% was observed
in GK5003 (69.24 %). For the new crosses, the highest HL
and ML was observed in IR69897A x CNR102 with 82.47 %
and 75.21% hulling and milling recovery respectively. The
highesr HRR (%) among the new crosses was observed in
IR80559A X IR6876-1 (65.27 %). In terms of grain physical
appearance, a long grained rice (long slender/medium) are
highly marketable Kaul (1970), Singh et al. (2000). The grain
type revealed that 26 out of 38 hybrids were long grained of
which 24 are long slender and 2 hybrids were long medium.

The cooking quality parameters of the hybrids were evaluated
and discussed in Table3. The elongation ratio of the cooked
rice was calculated. The highest elongation ratio (ER) was
observed in PA 6444 (1.9). In case of amylose content, an
intermediate value (20 to 25 %) is preferred by the consum-
ers in the Indian sub continent. In the current study 28 out of
38 hybrids exhibited an intermediate level of amylose. For
determining the texture of the cooked rice, gel consistency
was estimated. The Gel consistency suggests that 6 out of 38
hybrids exhibited a soft gel with a gel migration of > 61mm.
These hybrids can be presumed to maintain a soft texture in
the cooked rice which is highly desired by consumers Tang
et al. (1991). For determining the temperature required for
cooking, Alkali spreading value indicating the GT was es-
timated. In case of Gelatinization temperature, 29 out of 38
hybrids exhibited an intermediate range of 70 to 74 °C. An
intermediate cooking temperature is desired by the consum-
ers Bansal et al. (2006).

From the commercial perspective earlier reports indicated
specific criteria which are to be fulfilled in terms of quality
parameters. Fulfillment of these criteria can ensure market-
ability for the hybrids. Bisne and Sarawgi (2008) indicated
80% hulling percentage is required for marketability of a rice
cultivar. Similarly 70% milling recovery and 65% head rice
recovery was suggested by Cruz and Khush (2000), Bhon-
sle and Sellappan (2010) respectively. For cooking quali-
ties, intermediate amylose (20-25%), Soft gel consistency
and intermediate gelatinization temperature were recom-
mended Cruz and Khush (2000) Tang et al. (1991), Bansal

Int J Cur Res Rev | Vol 11 - Issue 12 « June 2019

Nath et.al.: Post harvest evaluation of rice hybrids for grain and cooking gualities

et al.(2006) respectively. Based on the fulfillment of such
standards, performances of the hybrids in terms of quality
traits were scored in the form of presence (+) or absence (-)
in Table 4. It reveals that, none of the hybrids could fulfill all
the criteria suggested. The hybrids IR58025A x IR10198R,
IR79156A x IR40750R, Sahyadri 4, PSD 3 and Pusa RH-10
exhibited superior cooking qualities in addition to long (slen-
der/medium) grain types but lacked in traits like hulling,
milling and head rice recovery. Whereas ADTRH1, GK5003
and Suruchi fulfilled the superior grain quality parameters
like hulling, milling and head rice recovery but lacked in one
or more cooking qualities. The hybrid IR80559A x IR6876-
1 fulfilled almost all the criteria for high performance with
respect to both grain and cooking qualities only drawback
being slightly low hulling percentage.

Since the grain and cooking quality parameters are highly
complex, prediction of performance becomes highly chal-
lenging and tedious. In such cases understanding the mutual
association between the quality traits is very helpful. Thus
based on the performances of the hybrids, a correlation coef-
ficient analysis was performed (Table 5).

The correlation coefficient analysis indicated that the hull-
ing % and head rice recovery % are positively correlated
with milling %. Such correlations were also observed by
Manonmani and Khan (2003). Hulling % and Head rice
recovery % were also observed to be positively correlated.
Influence of hulling percentage upon head rice recovery %
was mentioned by Bisne and Sarawgi, (2008) who suggested
that 80 % hulling percentage can enhance head rice recovery
expected in the hybrids. From such observation it can be sug-
gested that superior performance for any one of these three
traits can indicate a desirable performance for the others. A
significantly positive correlation was observed between Ker-
nel length and L/B ratio. Similarly a significantly negative
correlation at 1% probability was observed in case of kernel
length and kernel breadth as well as between kernel breadth
and L/B ratio. Thus from such observations it can be sug-
gested that larger kernel length can indirectly ensure reduc-
tion of grain breadth and increase of L/B ratio. Such hybrids
can be expected to produce long slender or long medium
grain type. Significant correlations among the characters as-
sociated with grain shape has been also reported by Hussain
et al.(1987), Naik et al.(2005), Rajamani et al. (2004).

Since cooking guality ofrice is highly influenced by the grain
amylose content, the correlations involving amylose content
is worth analyzing. The amylose content of the grains were
found to be positively correlated at significantly high prob-
abilities with alkali spreading value. Such observations sug-
gest that selection for the intermediate levels of amylose can
indirectly ensure the intermediate GT. Such Intermediate
GT within a range of 70 to 74°C is a desired attribute in terms
of cooking guality. The positive association between the two

traits was also suggested by Jennings et al.(1979).

Another strong correlation associated with amylose was ob-
served in case of Gel consistency. The two traits were nega-
tively correlated at high probabilities. Thus increase of amyl-
ose will lead to hard gel consistency with short gel flow and
for low amylose the gel will be soft with a longer gel flow.
This occurs as a result of the retrogradation behavior of am-
ylose during cooling as suggested by Rani et al. (2006). Gel
consistency determines the texture of the cooked rice after
cooling down of rice following the completion of the cook-
ing process. Thus selection of hybrids for desirable amylose
content can ensure desirable texture for the cooked rice. The
negative correlations between gel consistency and amylose
content was reported earlier by Khatun et al. (2003). Apart
from the above mentioned correlations which can be ex-
ploited for determining the desired grain and cooking quality
parameters, many other correlations have been observed be-
tween the grain and quality traits. These correlations indicate
the nature of interactions among the traits and the complex
network of genetic interactions which influence these quality
characters.

CONCLUSIONS

The performances of the hybrids in terms of important qual-
ity traits provided vital inputs on the expected marketability
of the hybrids. The study suggested that the cross combi-
nation IR80559A x IR6876-1 was the best performer show-
ing desirable results for both grain and cooking qualities.
Thus the hybrid can be expected to be commercially desir-
able. Other crosses like IR58025A x IRI0198R, IR79156A
x IR40750R, Sahyadri 4, PSD 3 and Pusa RH-10 exhibited
superior cooking qualities but lacked in grain qualities. The
loss of head rice recovered in these lines can be avoided
if they are consumed as brown rice. Similarly hybrids like
ADTRHI, GK5003 and Suruchi performed well in terms
of grain qualities but showed drawbacks in case of cooking
qualities. These hybrids can be used for making rice based
products. The results from the correlation coefficient analy-
sis identified the traits which can influence multiple grain
and cooking qualities. Evaluation of hybrids for these traits
can in turn provide an approximate idea about the perfor-
mances for other quality traits.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Authors acknowledge the immense help received from the
scholars whose articles are cited and included in references
of this manuscript. The authors are also grateful to authors /
editors / publishers of all those articles, journals and books
from where the literature for this article has been reviewed
and discussed. The authors extend their gratitude towards the

Int J Cur Res Rev | Vol 11 - Issue 12 - June 2019

Nath et.al.: Post harvest evaluation of rice hybrids for grain and cooking gualities

project “Crop Breeding Research Unit” funded by Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Govt. of West Bengal, India and Rice
Research Station, Chinsurah, Hooghly Govt. of West Bengal
for providing infrastructural support.

nM

REFERENCES

Shivani, D., Viraktamath, B. C., & Rani, N. S. Effect of nucleo-
cytoplasmic interactions on the expression of quality characters
in rice (Oryza sativa L.) hybrids. The Indian Journal of Genetics
and Plant Breeding, 67(3), 225-228. (2007).

Yi, X. P., & Cheng, F. Y. Genetic effect of different cytoplasm
types on rice cooking, milling and nutrient qualities in Indica
type hybrid rice. Chinese Journal of Rice Science, 6, 187-189.
(1992).

Virmani, S. S., Mao, C. X., & Hardy, B. (Eds.). Hybrid rice for
food security, poverty alleviation, and environmental protection.
Int. Rice Res. Inst. (2003).

Khush, G. S., Paule, C. M., & De La Cruz, N. M. Rice grain
quality evaluation and improvement at IRRI. In Proceedings of
the workshop on chemical aspects of rice grain quality. Los Ba-
nos, Philippines, International Rice Research Institute, (1978).
Singh, U. S. Aromatic rices. Int. Rice Res. Inst. (2000).
Sadasivam, S., & Manikam, A. Biochemical methods for Agri-
cultural Sciences Wiley Eastern Limited and Tamil Nadu Agri-
cultural University Publication. (1992).

Kumar, I. & Khush, G.S. Gene dosage effect of amylose content
in rice endosperm .Japanese J. Genet. 61: 559-568. (1986).
Cagampang, G. B., Perez, C. M., & Juliano, B. O. A gel consist-
ency test for eating quality of rice. Journal of the Science of
Food and Agriculture, 24(12), 1589-1594. (1973).

Little, R. R. Differential effect of dilute alkali on 25 varieties of
milled white rice. Cereal Chem., 35, 111-126. (1958).

. Azeez, M. A., & Shafi, M. Quality in rice. Dept. Agr.(W. Paki-

stan) Tech. Bull, (13), 23. (1966).

. Kaul, A. K. Early generation testing for quality characters. Il.

Rice. Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding, 30(1),
237-243. (1970).

12.

20.

21;

22.

24.

Singh, V., Okadome, H., Toyoshima, H., Isobe, S., & Ohtsubo,
K. I. (2000). Thermal and physicochemical properties of rice
grain, flour and starch. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chem-
istry, 48(7), 2639-2647. (2000).

. Tang, S. X., Khush, G. S., & Juliano, B. O. Genetics of gel con-

sistency in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Journal of Genetics, 70(2),
69-78. (1991).

. Bansal, U. K., Kaur, H., & Saini, R. G. Donors for quality char-

acteristics in aromatic rice. Oryza, 43(3), 197. (2006).

. Bisne, R., & Sarawgi, A. K. Agro-morphological and qual-

ity characterization of badshah bhog group from aromatic rice
germplasm of Chhattisgarh. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural
Research, 33(3), 479-492. (2008).

. Cruz, N. D., & Khush, G. S. Rice grain quality evaluation proce-

dures. Aromatic rices, 3, 15-28. (2000).

. Bhonsle, S. J., & Sellappan, K. Grain quality evaluation of tradi-

tionally cultivated rice varieties of Goa, India. Recent Research
in Science and Technology, 2(6). (2010).

. Manonmani, S., & Khan, A. F. Analysis of genetic diversity for

selection of parents in rice. Oryza, 40(3/4), 54-56. . (2003)

. Hussain, A. A., Maurya, D. M., & Vaish, C. P. Studies on qual-

ity status of indigenous upland rice (Oryza sativa). The Indian
Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding, 47(2), 145-152. (1987).
Naik, R. K., Reddy, P. S., Ramana, J. V., & Rao, V. S. Correlation
and path coefficient analyses in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Andhra
Agriculture Journal, 52, 52-55. (2005).

Rajamani, S. Durga Rani Ch. V., Subramanyam. D. Genetic
variability and character association in rice. Andhra Agric J,
51(1&2): 36—38(2004)

Jennings, P. R., Coffman, W. R., & Kauffman, H. E. Grain qual-
ity. Rice improvement, 101-120. (1979).

. Rani, N. S., Pandey, M. K., Prasad, G. S. V., & Sudharshan,

I. Historical significance, grain quality features and precision
breeding for improvement of export quality basmati varieties in
India. Indian J Crop Sci, 1(1—2), 29-41. (2006).

Khatun, M. M., Ali, M. H., & Dela Cruz, Q. D. Correlation
studies on grain physicochemical characteristics of aromatic
rice. Pakistan J. Biol. Sci, 6(5), 511-513. (2003).

Table 1: Hybrids evaluated in terms of grain and cooking quality parameters.

1 IR58025A X IR10198R New Cross
2 IR58025A X MTU9992 New Cross
3 IR58025A X CNR57 New Cross
4 IR69897A X CNR45 New Cross
5 IR69897A X CNR102 New Cross
6 IR79156A X IR10198R New Cross
7 IR79156A X IR40750R New Cross
8 IR79156A X IR6876-1 New Cross
9 IR80559A X IR10198R New Cross
10 IR80559A X IR6876-1 New Cross
u APMS6A X IR6876-1 New Cross
12 IR58025A X CNR93 New Cross
3 IR58025A X CNR98 New Cross
14 US312

Seed Works India Pvt. Ltd

Int J Cur Res Rev | Vol 11 - Issue 12 « June 2019

Nath et.al.: Post harvest evaluation of rice hybrids for grain and cooking gualities

Table 1: (Continued)

15 Sahyadri2 Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli
16 DRRH2 Directorate of Rice Research, Hyderabad

17 DRRH3 Directorate of Rice Research, Hyderabad

18 Sahyadri3 Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli
19 Sahyadri4 Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli
20 JRH4 JNKVV, Jabalpur,M.P, India

21 PA 6129 Bayer Bio-Science

22 PA 6444 Bayer Bio-Science

23 APHR2 Andra Pradesh Rice Research Institute, Maruteru, India
24 MGR-1 Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore

25 PSD1 G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar
26 PSD 3 G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar
27 ADTRH1 Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore

28 Sahyadri Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli
29 PA6201 Bayer Bio-Science

30 GK5003 Ganga Kaveri Seeds

31 NSD3 Narendra Deva University of Agricultre and Technology
32 AJAY Central Rice Research Institute (CRRI), Cuttack, India
33 JRH5 JNKVV, Jabalpur,M.P, India

34 PAC835 Advanta India Ltd

35 HRI-157 Bayer Bio-Science

36 Pusa.RH-10 Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi

37 Ind. Sona Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Raipur

38 Suruchi Mahyco

Table 2: Grain quality parameters of thirty eight hybrids

1 IR58025A X IRio198R 79.38 70.14 60.21 6.70 2.09 3.21 LS 34.14
2 IR58025A X MTUg992 75.59 68.41 62.37 6.69 2.02 3.31 LS 36.55
3 IR58025A X CNR57 77.22 72.14 64.2 6.90 2.2 3.14 LS 37.21
4 IR69897A X CNR45 81.32 74.21 61.55 6.80 2.01 3.38 L.S 39.69
5 IR69897A X CNRi02 82.47 75.21 63.32 6.60 1.92 3.44 L.S 40.95
6 IR79156A X [R10198R 67.31 60.24 55-78 5-97 1.91 3.13 MS 41.37
7 IR79156A X IR40750R 70.49 68.32 56.17 6.60 2.1 3.14 LS 42.38
8 IR79156A X IR6876-1 78.49 71.31 64.28 5-98 1.92 3.1 MS 45-43
9 IR80559A X IR10198R 69.33 64.27 55.21 5.89 1.9 3.10 MS 41.33
10 IR80559A X IR6876-1 79.21 70.18 65.27 6.62 2.12 3.12 LS 38.47
u APMS6A X IR6876-1 81.24 72.38 63.41 5.88 1.89 3.1 MS 33-90
12 IR58025A X CNR93 77.32 71.42 60.87 6.94 2.23 3. LS 46.69
B IR58025A X CNR98 78.39 70.14 61.22 6.82 2.24 3.04 LS 46.30
14 US312 75-32 67.18 65.12 6.12 1.97 3.1 MS 40.32
15 Sahyadri2 81.17 68.33 50.14 7.08 2.07 3.42 LS 39.10
16 DRRH2 72.14 68.28 59.32 6.63 1.89 3.51 LS 40.30
17 DRRH3 77.21 68.47 60.33 5.73 187 3.06 MS 36.67

Int J Cur Res Rev | Vol 11 - Issue 12 - June 2019

Nath et.al.: Post harvest evaluation of rice hybrids for grain and cooking gualities

Table 2: (Continued)

18 Sahyadri3 75.14 70.21 60.38 7.48 25 3.25 LS 42.12
19 Sahyadri4 75:39 66.28 54-74 6.82 1.8 3.79 LS 33.46
20 JRH4 72.47 67.32 53.14 6.61 2.35 2.81 LM 36.44
21 PA 6129 81.22 70.28 60.73 6.67 1.72 3.88 LS 37.10
22 PA 6444 80.12 7314 60.23 6.24 2.02 3.09 MS 37.18
23 APHR2 77-47 64.23 50.23 6.64 2.11 3.15 LS 37.93
24 MGR-1 71.22 66.3 59.29 5.9 1.9 3. MS 38.20
25 PSD1 81.12 68.27 56.22 73 2.08 3.51 LS 35.78
26 PSD3 79.3 65.21 60.22 7.01 2.12 3.31 LS 35.09
27 ADTRH1 80.21 74.23 67.48 6.8 2.12 3.21 LS 37.43
28 Sahyadri 7222 63.18 53.28 7.01 2.17 3.23 LS 37.20
29 PA6201 80.51 69.45 62.74 6.08 2.01 3.02 MS 38.34
30 GK5003 80.24 75.11 69.24 6.41 1.9 3.37 MS 37.89
31 NSD3/2 77.39 68.38 50.44 6.71 2.19 3.06 LS 39.48
32 AJAY 81.42 75-23 63.52 7.29 2.01 3.63 LS 38.57
33 JRH5 72.23 69.41 52.24 6.7 2.19 3.06 LS 30.91
34 PAC835 76.14 72.51 61.45 6.1 2 3.05 MS 36.41
35 HRI-157 78.36 69.43 62.52 6.7 2.28 2.94 LM 37.91
36 Pu.RHio 83.39 66.44 60.32 6.8 1.71 3.98 LS 31.47
37 Ind. Sona 84.22 75.24 54.29 712 2.1 3.39 LS 37.61
38 Suruchi 80.41 70.36 65.27 5.52 1.8 3.07 MS 39.67
Mean 77-47 69.50 59.89 6.58 2.03 3.25 38.34
Minimum 67.31 60.24 50.23 5.52 1.71 2.81 30.91
Maximum 84.22 75.24 69.24 7.48 2.35 3.98 46.69
CD at 5% 1.63 1.90 1.59 0.98 0.67 1.63 3.11

HL= Hulling %, ML= Milling %, HRR %= Head Rice Recovery, KL= Kernel Length, KB= Kernel Breadth, LBR= L/B ratio,
GS=Grain shape,GY= Grain tield/plant

Table 3: Cooking quality parameters of thirty eight rice hybrids.

1 IR58025A X IR10198R 1.82 21.80 62 3:2, Intermediate (70 to 742C)
2 IR58025A X MTU9992 1.74 23.80 53 41 Intermediate (70 to 74°C)
3 IR58025A X CNR57 1.68 23.40 48 5.1 Intermediate (70 to 742C)
4 IR69897A X CNR45 1.52 25.90 50 5.5 Intermediate (70 to 74°C)
5 IR69897A X CNRio2 1.63 22.10 59 3.5 Intermediate (70 to 74°C)
6 IR79156A X IR10198R 1.58 24.90 45 5.2 Intermediate (70 to 74°C)
7 IR79156A X IR40750R 1.61 20.80 67 3.7 Intermediate (70 to 74°C)
8 IR79156A X IR6876-1 1.69 26.90 38 6.2 Low (55-69 °C)

9 IR80559A X IR10198R 1.52 23.20 57 4.4 Intermediate (70 to 74°C)
10 IR80559A X IR6876-1 1.66 22.90 64 4.2 Intermediate (70 to 74°C)
u APMS6A X IR6876-1 1.77 23.28 49 4-7 Intermediate (70 to 742C)
12 IR58025A X CNR93 1.80 24.10 39 4.6 Intermediate (70 to 742C))
B IR58025A X CNR98 1.79 23.51 47 51 Intermediate (70 to 74°C)
14 US312 1.41 23.40 55 5.2 Intermediate (70 to 74°C)
15 Sahyadri2 1.49 23.40 47 6.1 Low (55-69 °C)

16 DRRH2 1.44 26.20 37 6.8 Low (55-69 °C)

17 DRRH3 1.48 24.60 50 4.2 Intermediate (70 to 742C)

Int J Cur Res Rev | Vol 11 - Issue 12 - June 2019

Nath et.al.: Post harvest evaluation of rice hybrids for grain and cooking gualities

Table 3: (Continued)

18 Sahyadri3 1.57 24.90 53 3.9 Intermediate (70 to 742C)
19 Sahyadri4 1.49 21.60 69 5.8 Intermediate (70 to 742C)
20 JRH4 1.42 26.10 39 6.9 Low (55-69 2C)
21 PA 6129 1.5 24.50 45 6.3 Low (55-69 °C)
22 PA 6444 1.9 23.70 57 4.7 Intermediate (70 to 74°C)
23 APHR2 1.64 27.38 33 73 Low (55-69 °C)
24 MGR-1 1.6 29.80 30 7.4 Low (55-69 °C)
25 PSD1 1.41 24.02 58 34 Intermediate (70 to 742C)
26 PSD 3 1.77 20.70 63 4.2 Intermediate (70 to 742C)
27 ADTRHi 1.74 25.30 39 4.8 Intermediate (70 to 74°C)
28 Sahyadri 1.68 21.90 58 43 Intermediate (70 to 742C)
29 PA6201 1.82 24.70 55 3.5 Intermediate (70 to 74°C)
30 GK5003 1.77 24.60 59 4.1 Intermediate (70 to 742C)
31 NSD3/2 1.81 22.70 51 5.4 Intermediate (70 to 742C)
32 AJAY 1.49 25.90 39 6.5 Low (55-69 °C)
33 JRH5 1.59 25.10 42 5.5 Intermediate (70 to 742C)
34 PAC835 1.61 25.10 37 6.2 Low (55-69 °C)
35 HRI-157 1.52 24.70 51 5.1 Intermediate (70 to 74°C)
36 Pu.RHio 1.79 24.80 61 51 Intermediate (70 to 742C)
37 Ind. Sona 1.51 22.91 59 4.8 Intermediate (70 to 742C)
38 Suruchi 1.71 24.80 44 5.7 Intermediate (70 to 742C)

Mean 1.63 24.19 50 5.06

Minimum 1.41 20.70 30 3.10

Maximum 1.90 29.80 69 7.40

CD at 5% 0.30 0.91 2.33 1.34

ER= Elongation Ratio, AC %= Amylose Content, GC (mm) = Gel Consistency, ASV= Alkali spreading value, GT=Gelatinization
temperature.

Table 4: Scoring of hybrids based on presence or absence of grain and cooking qualities recommended by
earlier reports

IR58025A X IR10198R - + - + + $ 4
IR58025A X MTU9992 - - - + H + si
IR58025A X CNR57 - + - + - + +
IR69897A X CNR45 + + - - - + +
IR69897A X CNR102 + + - + - + +
IR79156A X IR10198R - - - + = + i,
IR79156A X IR40750R - = - + + + +
IR79156A X IR6876-1 - + - s = z -

Int J Cur Res Rev | Vol 11 - Issue 12 - June 2019

Nath et.al.: Post harvest evaluation of rice hybrids for grain and cooking gualities

Table 4: (Continued)

IR80559A X IR10198R - - - 4 = + -
IR80559A X IR6876-1 - + + + + + +
APMSGA X IR6876-1 + + - + - $ 8
IR58025A X CNR93 - + - + - + +
IR58025A X CNR98 - + - + - + +
US312 - - + + R + z
Sahyadriz + - - + - s +
DRRH2 - - - - z - +
DRRH3 - - - + > + 7
Sahyadri3 - + - + A + +
Sahyadri4 - - - + + + +
JRH4 s s : : : S m
PA 6129 4 de = + 2 - 4
PA 6444 + + - + m $ :
APHR2 - - - - s z +
MGR-1 - - m = > 5 -
PSDi + - - + = + že
PSD 3 s = - + + + +
ADTRHi + + + - - + 4
Sahyadri - - - + = + +
PA6201 + - - + z s -
GK5003 + + + + = + z
NSD3/2 : k : - - F s
AJAY + + - - z 2 +
JRH5 : ; ' : f 4 x
PAC835 x + - - z z H
HRI-157 = z $ + - + +
Pu.RHio + - = + $ + $
Ind. Sona + + - $ - + +
Suruchi + + + + = + z

"Bisne and Sarawgi (2008); "Cruz and Khush(2000); ‘Bhonsle and Sellappan (2010); 4Cruz and Khush (2000); "Tang et al. (1991);
‘Bansal et al. (2006); SKaul (1970); Singh et al (2000)

Int J Cur Res Rev | Vol 11 - Issue 12 - June 2019

Nath et.al.: Post harvest evaluation of rice hybrids for grain and cooking gualities

Table 5: Correlation coefficient analysis among ten grain and cooking guality parameters

HL

ML

HRR

KL

KB

LBR

ER

ASV

AC

GC

a v o v a vd o v o v o Va v o vo vo

P

1
1
o.71**
0.65**
0.51**
0.43**
0.25
0.24
-0.16
-0.14
0.21
0.18
0.24
0.23

-0.16

-0.13
-0.14
-0.12
0.15

0.13

0.58**
0.56**
0.18
0.15
0.08
0.04
o.
0.08
0.18
0.16

0.01

0.05

0.04
0.02

0.16

0.144

1
1
-0.24
-0.20
-0.25
-0.24
0.06
0.04
0.23
0.21

-0.01

-0.06
0.18
0.12
0.11

0.09

1

1

-0.52** 1
-0.51** 1
0.48** -0.57**
0.42** -0.55**
-0.14 0.07
-0.12 0.06
-0.31* -0.21
-0.27* -0.19
0.08 -0.18
-0.05 -0.16
0.21 0.14
0.16 0.11

1
1

0.31*
0.28*

0.24

0.21
-0.09
-0.08
0.09

0.06

1
1

-0.24
-0.23
0.39**
0.28*
0.42**

0.39**

1

1

0.49**
0.45**
0.30*

0.28"

1
1
-0.52**

-0.48**

1

1

HL= Hulling %, ML= Milling %, HRR %= Head Rice Recovery, KL= Kernel Length, KB= Kernel Breadth, ER= Elongation Ratio,
ASV= Alkali spreading value, AC %= Amylose Content, GC (mm) = Gel Consistency.* significant variation at 5% probability, **
significant variation at 1% probability.

Int J Cur Res Rev | Vol 11 + Issue 12 « June 2019