214 Agronomics of Malting Barley Production Mike Grenier The Canadian Wheat Board Box 816 Stn. M. Winnipeg, MB R3C 2P5 Introduction Western Canadian barley production has averaged near 12 MMT annually over the last 10 years, of which about 9 MMT is malt varieties. Current malting barley selection rates represent about 25-30% of malting variety production. Growing malting barley demand especially for Asian markets could easily see selection rates increasing to 40% of current malt variety production.. Historically, top 2-row malt grades have returned a premium close to $50.00 over international feed market prices to farmers. The main challenge of meeting future expansion in market demand will require producers of malting barley to increase the size of selectable quality malting barley pool, by focusing on newer higher yielding and quality varieties. Besides cultivar selection farmers will need to pay more attention to their agronomic practices affecting yield and quality such as fertility management, and minimizing the impact of fusarium head blight (FHB) which will be key for successful malt production. Variety Selection Currently, two-rowed malting barley varieties dominate Canada s overall malting barley production accounting for approximately 50% of total acres and six row malting varieties near 15% with the remainder of the acres devoted to feed and hulless varieties (see Table 1). Harrington has traditionally accounted for the majority of two-row acres however this has been declining over the last few years with the introduction of newer varieties such as AC Metcalfe, CDC Kendall and CDC Stratus (see Table 2.). Table 1. 2001-2002 CWB Barley Variety Survey Percentage of seeded acres/ ( ) = last year Variety Prairie Average Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta Two-row (malt) 50.8 (43.7) 25.9 (18.2) 61.8 (51.2) 47.3 (43.5) Six-row (malt) 14.8 (20.7) 42.0 (55.6) 18.4 (27.0) 2.4 ( 3.9) Feed (2&6 Row) 32.4 (33.2) 22.0 (18.8) 19.2 (19.7) 49.3 (51.6) Hulless (2&6 Row) 2.0 ( 2.3) 10.0 ( 7.4) 0.6 ( 2.1) 0.9 ( 1.0) Manitoba farmers have traditionally focused on 6-row barley production largely due to availability of high yielding and adapted varieties suited to eastern prairies climate along with the freight advantage for supplying 6 row to the US market. With the release of these newer 2 row varieties showing improved agronomic performance, better quality, and increased 2-row demand in the US we are seeing a shift from 6-row to 2-row production in Manitoba (see Table 2). Variety yield performance data from Manitoba indicates16-18% yield increase with AC Metcalfe, CDC Kendall and CDC Stratus as compared to Harrington, with yields similar to the standard six row check variety Robust (Seed Manitoba 2002).
215 Table 2. 2001-2002 Two-row Malting Barley Percentage of seeded acres/ ( ) = last year Variety Prairie Average Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta Harrington 36.6 (45.1) 2.3 ( 4.5) 32.0 (43.9) 48.3 (51.2) AC Metcalfe 26.9 (19.7) 51.8 (38.9) 28.5 (21.4) 20.3 (15.3) CDC Kendall 10.3 ( 4.5) 5.6 (0.4) 13.6 ( 6.2) 6.7 ( 3.0) CDC Stratus 8.0 ( 7.6) 33.3 (35.9) 7.0 ( 5.1) 5.0 ( 7.3) Stein 6.8 ( 9.0) 0.9 ( 0.0) 7.4 (10.0) 7.1 ( 9.0) Merit 3.6 ( 1.9) 0.0 ( 0.0) 4.8 (1.9) 2.7 (2.1) Other 2.8 ( 6.9) 4.0 (18.7) 1.0 ( 4.7) 5.2 ( 8.2) Manley 2.6 ( 5.3) 1.0 ( 1.6) 3.5 ( 6.9) 1.7 (3.8) B1202 2.1 (n/a) 0.3 (n/a) 2.1 (n/a) 2.3 (n/a) CDC Copeland 0.2 ( 0.0) 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.4 (0.0) AC Bountiful 0.2 ( 0.0) 0.8 ( 0.0) 0.1 (*T) 0.1 (0.0) *Trace: less than 0.05 per cent Disease Management The increasing incidence of FHB, caused primarily by Fusarium graminearum, has impacted the quality of both feed and malting barley production in Manitoba resulting in decreased acreage over the last few years. Compared to wheat, the incidence of FHB in barley tends to be higher while overall severity is less, and the infection period for barley can continue for more than 2 weeks after heading (Tekauz et al. 2000). In malt barley, allowable grading tolerances are very low for the presence of fusarium damage kernels (FDK) and are one of the main reasons that barley is rejected for malt. These FDK are more difficult to clean out in barley samples during harvest than compared to wheat and usually accumulate levels of the mycotoxin deoxynivalenol (DON). Information on variety tolerance to FHB can be found in Seed Manitoba 2002 recommendations. Tworow varieties are less susceptible than six-row varieties to FHB and may offer an advantage for meeting acceptable selection criteria for malt. Keep in mind that while two-row varieties such as AC Metcalfe, CDC Kendall and CDC Stratus may reduce risk for FHB under low to moderate disease conditions, they may offer little advantage as compared to six-row varieties under moderate to severe disease conditions. It is recommended that farmers use an integrated approach in managing FHB combining variety selection, crop rotation and staggering seeding dates. Crop rotations should avoid high frequency of cereals including corn. Staggering seeding dates may be an effective approach in spreading out risk due to FHB but delayed seeding may also present additional management considerations to avoid rejection for malt due to weathering such as frost, stained or sprouted kernels. No fungicide treatments for FHB in barley are currently available. Research trials evaluating potential fungicides for use on barley indicate variable and inconsistent control as compared to that achieved in wheat ( Kaminski 2001). It is likely that the extended infection period in barley does not lend itself to economical control of FHB by fungicide application. Advances in improving variety tolerance and the development of newer and improved fungicides may offer future integrated approaches to controlling FHB in malt barley.
216 While newer two-row varieties offer improved disease resistance, the use of the fungicide Tilt may provide an economic return for control of leaf diseases. The use of a fungicide should be based on a decision assessment evaluating the economic benefit due to growing conditions and disease pressure. For additional information, refer to research trials conducted by Westco at: http://www.westcoag.com/miscellaneous/barleyposts.pdf Two row vs. Six-row Quality Factors Two-row varieties tend to offer more plump and uniform kernel size, which are highly desired by malting barley selectors. Farmers switching from six-row to two-row varieties need to pay particular attention to their harvest management and combine settings. Peeled and broken kernels can be avoided by careful attention and adjusting for changing harvesting conditions throughout the day. Differences in head architecture of two-row varieties may also offer more opportunity for straight combining, as there tends to be less loss due to head breakage and shattering. This can be an advantage as standing malt barley better withstands damage due to weathering as compared to swathing. Many of the other quality specifications for malt barley selection criteria are under the control and influence of the production practices used by malt barley producers (Hanson and Graff). For additional recommendations refer to A Practical Guide For Malting Barley Production at: http://www.swp.com/aginfo/images/maltbarleyguide.pdf Protein Management The relationship between yield and protein response to applied N fertilizer is best described in Malting Barley Nutrient Management guide prepared by Agrium Inc. (see figure 1.). At low rates of applied N any increase in protein accumulation is diluted by increases in plant growth. As increasing rates of N are applied we begin to see increases in protein accumulation as the response in plant growth rate decreases. Research studies conducted in Manitoba indicate that the response in grain protein concentration of barley varieties to applied N is strongly dependent upon available moisture during the growing season and demonstrated by Figure 2 (Grant et al. 1991). Under typical moisture supply for the eastern prairies, managing protein levels while achieving optimum economical target yields should not pose a problem for malt barley production and selection. Only under conditions of low to moderate moisture supplies do producers need to consider limiting N fertilization to optimize yields while maintaining malting barley protein levels. Recent studies from Alberta and Montana demonstrate results very similar to the observed in Manitoba and conclude that the starting point for producers is to consider malting barley yield potential (Jackson et al., 2001). Yield potential can be estimated with knowledge of soil moisture supply at time of seeding combined with long term average growing season precipitation. Further it is recommended by utilizing soil tests, producers can predict yield response to total N supply (Soil N + Fertilizer N) and accurately determine what target yield will maximize their returns while maintaining acceptable protein levels for malt barley selection.
217 Figure 1. Relationship between yield and protein demonstrated in Manitoba research trials conducted under high rainfall conditions. (Source Grant et al., 1991) Provided by Agrium Inc. Figure 2. Average grain protein concentration for barley grown under various moisture and nitrogen fertilizer conditions in Manitoba (Source Grant et al., 1990). Provided by Agrium Inc. Summary In recent years, production of malting barley in Manitoba has proven difficult primarily due to presence of FHB. However by carefully evaluating and utilizing the best-adapted variety to meet local needs and with emphasis on best management practices to improve malt barley quality, growers of malting barley in Manitoba can be successful. With the adoption of newer 2 row varieties Manitoba farmers may have the opportunity to take advantage of growing malt market demand Maltsters and marketers are continuously looking for disease free, higher plump, lower protein and low peeled barley from which to base their selections. Acknowledgements Thank-you to M. Brophy and B. Cuthbert (CWB), Dr. C. Grant (AAFC), D. Kaminski (MAF), R. Dowbenko (Agrium) and D. Van Deynze (MCIC) for providing background material in preparing this presentation.
218 References Anonymous. 1998. Malting barley nutrient management guide. Cowell, L., Roberts, T. and Solberg, E. eds. Agrium Inc. Calgary, Alberta. Anonymous. 2001. Seed Manitoba 2002 Variety Guide and Growers Directory. Supplement to The Manitoba Co-operator December 6, 2001. Grant, C.A., Gauer, L.E., Gehl, D.T. and Bailey, L.D. 1991. Yield response of semidwarf and conventional height barely cultivars to nitrogen fertilizer under varying moisture conditions. Can. J. Plant Sci. 71: 361-371 Grant, C.A., Gauer, L.E., Gehl, D.T. and Bailey, L.D. 1991. Protein production and nitrogen utilization by barely cultivars in response to nitrogen fertilizer under varying moisture conditions. Can. J. Plant Sci. 71: 997-1009 Hanson, K.M. and Graff, R.J. A practical guide for malting barley production. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. http://www.swp.com/aginfo/images/maltbarleyguide.pdf Jackson, G.D., McKenzie, R.H., and Middleton, A.B., 2001. Fertilizing malt barley for yield and quality. p. 32-36 in Western Canada Agronomy Workshop, Canadian Fertilizer Institute, Ottawa, Ontario. Kaminski, D. 2001 Personal communication. Manitoba Agriculture and Food. Carman, Manitoba. Tekauz, A., McCallum, B. and Gilbert, J. 2000. Review: Fusarium head blight of barley in western Canada. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 22: 9-16