Field Crop Development Centre - Agronomy Projects

• Forage Production of Fall-Seeded and Spring-Seeded Winter Cereals
• Winter Cereal Weed Management
• Winter Cereal Agronomy
• Impact of Seeding Rate and Nitrogen Placement and Rate on Stand Density, Silage and Grain Yield and Quality of Barley
• Integrated Pest Management Systems Evaluating Effects of Crop Rotation, Seeding Rate, and Herbicide Rates over Time
• Impact of Seeding Rate and Seeding Depth on Stand Density, Silage and Grain Yield of Hulled and Hulless Barley
• The Influence of Rotational Diversity and Seeding Rate on Crop Health, Quality, and Competitiveness via Their Impact on Weed and Disease Levels
• Improvement of Malt Barley Quality and Seed Homogeneity through Optimization of Agronomic, Genetic, and Environmental Factors

[Top of Document]

Winter Cereal Weed Management

Purpose
To determine the agronomic benefits of winter wheat and winter triticale in comparison to spring seeded spring wheat and triticale cereals for weed management and overall crop production for central Alberta.

Reason for project and impact
Plant breeding programs are continuing to provide improved winter cereal varieties. There are important agronomic questions that need to be answered before producers will be able to realize the full potential of these new varieties. The relative competitiveness of these new varieties has to be established. Therefore, new information on short vs. tall varieties of wheat and triticale and how the potential impact of seeding rates would enhance their overall productivity as a conservation crop and identify management practices that reduce the impact of winter annual weeds. Introducing weed pressure, crop types, varieties, herbicide options and seeding rates into multi-factored experiments allows researchers to detect agronomic weaknesses and determine when those weaknesses can be alleviated with innovative management.

Benefits derived from improved management of winter cereals include: 1) soil conservation, 2) improved wildlife habitat, 3) diversified and sustainable cropping systems and 4) a preferred crop for producers. Direct benefits to growers will be the elimination of one or more herbicide applications with a small increase in seed costs, improved health and safety on the farm from less exposure to pesticides, increased environmental stewardship, and marketing opportunities from an alternate crop in rotation. Indirect benefits include access to knowledge from agronomic work with winter cereals as the research activity is almost exclusively in breeding.

Research plan of work
1) Cultivars: Winter Wheat cultivars (CDC Falcon, CDC Osprey); Winter Triticale cultivars (Bobcat, Pika); Fall Rye (AC Rifle, Puma); Spring Wheat (Oslo, AC Barrie, AC Crystal); Barley (CDC Bold); Triticale (Pronghorn).
2) Herbicide: Fall 2,4-D OR Fall 2,4-D + in-crop Horizon + Refine Extra
3) Weeds seeded: Supplement the natural weed infestation with wild oat. Spread weeds on the soil surface on all plots before seeding winter crops in the fall.
4) Seeding equipmentt: 9” ConservaPak at Lacombe.
5) Data collection : Crop emergence; weed counts; herbicide efficacy; heading date; head count; weed biomass; maturity date; crop biomass; grain yield; grain quality.

Summary of results
Broadleaf weed biomass was significantly greater where only fall 2,4-D was applied compared to the fall and spring application. The logical expectation of such a finding would be a significant yield advantage in those plots treated with a spring herbicide application. However, the winter cereal grain yield did not significantly improve with the added spring herbicide inputs, which suggests a superior level of weed competitiveness vs. spring cereals. The spring cereal yield improved significantly in treatments that received the full herbicide treatment.

All winter cereals reduced weed biomass compared to the spring cereals, except for barley. At Lacombe, winter cereal yields were similar to spring cereal yields in 2002 except for spring triticale, which produced higher yield than all other winter or spring cultivars. In all years, winter cereals produced higher grain yield than all spring cereals at Lacombe, with the exception of barley and spring triticale, which produced higher yields. Winter cereals matured 7-14 days earlier than the spring cereals and produced a significantly greater amount of biomass than all spring cereals, except triticale and barley in 2005. This biomass was particularly valuable in 2002 where straw production was valuable due to the shortage of hay and straw because of drought in the Lacombe area.

[Top of Document]

Winter Cereal Agronomy

Purpose
To determine the relative competitiveness of winter cereals and seeding rate.

Reason for project and impact
Plant breeding programs are continuing to provide improved winter cereal varieties. There are important agronomic questions that need to be answered before producers will be able to realise the full potential of these new varieties. The relative competitiveness of these new varieties has to be established. Therefore, new information on short vs. tall varieties of wheat and triticale and how the potential impact of seeding rates would enhance their overall productivity as a conservation crop and identify management practices that reduce the impact of winter annual weeds. Introducing weed pressure, crop types, varieties, herbicide options and seeding rates into multi-factored experiments allows researchers to detect agronomic weaknesses and determine when those weaknesses can be alleviated with innovative management.

Benefits derived from improved management of winter cereals include: 1) soil conservation, 2) improved wildlife habitat, 3) diversified and sustainable cropping systems and 4) a preferred crop for producers. Direct benefits to growers will be the elimination of one or more herbicide applications with a small increase in seed costs, improved health and safety on the farm from less exposure to pesticides, increased environmental stewardship, and marketing opportunities from an alternate crop in rotation. Indirect benefits include access to knowledge from agronomic work with winter cereals as the research activity is almost exclusively in breeding.

Research plan of work
Experimental design: 24 treatments - Varieties (2) x Seeding Rate (3) x Weed Management (4)
Varieties: Short Winter Wheat (CDC Falcon); Tall Winter Wheat (CDC Osprey, CDC Ptarmigan, AC Radiant)
Seeding Rate: 1) 100 seeds/m²; 2) 300 seeds/m² ; 3) 500 seeds/m²
Weed Management: 1) Fall 2,4-D; 2) Fall 2,4-D + In-Crop Spray
Weeds seeded: Supplement the natural weed infestation with wild oat. Spread weeds on the soil surface on all plots before seeding winter crops in the fall.
Data Collection: Crop emergence; weed counts; herbicide efficacy; heading date; head count; weed biomass; maturity date; crop biomass; grain yield; grain quality.

Summary of results
Studies were initiated in fall 2000/spring 2001 and completed in 2005.

Weed Competitiveness: CDC Ptarmigan had significantly fewer grassy weeds than did CDC Falcon. The superior competitiveness of CDC Ptarmigan, particularly compared to CDC Falcon, was also observed in the weed biomass measurements. Broadleaf biomass was reduced by a factor of over 60 when spring herbicide was applied. Grassy weed biomass was almost 3 times greater when only the fall 2,4-D was application was used. Competitiveness between winter wheat and grassy weeds vs. winter wheat and broadleaf weeds differed as shown in the trend of weed biomass vs. seed rates. Increased seed rates had a greater impact on the reduction of broadleaf weed biomass than on the reduction of grassy weed biomass.

Yield Characteristics: At both locations, yield of CDC Ptarmigan was significantly higher than the other winter wheat cultivars. This was not a surprise as CDC Ptarmigan is a soft white wheat, a class that is generally higher yielding than red wheats. CDC Osprey was significantly lower yielding than the other cultivars.

There was no yield difference between 300 seeds/m2 and 450 seeds/m2, but yield was significantly reduced at the 600 seeds/m2 rate. There was no yield advantage when a spring in-crop Horizon + Refine Extra herbicide application was added to the crop management strategy, which is somewhat of a surprise, as weed removal from the spring herbicide treatment should have enhanced crop competitiveness and productivity.

Future directions
The study results outlined in this report laid a foundation on which we would build our future directions. We have successfully demonstrated that winter wheat is superior in terms of competitiveness and grain yield than CPS and CWRS spring wheat, and that higher plant populations will enhance the productivity and competitiveness of winter wheat. Our future directions will address fertility management so that whole grain protein is maintained at a level that consistently rewards the producer with protein premiums. Producers that opt into the Canadian Wheat Boards’ Select Variety Program for winter wheat must carefully manage soil fertility to ensure that the crop meets the minimum whole grain protein level of 11.5%. Commercial milling companies were concerned last fall the winter wheat crop would not be able to achieve 11.5% (Sadasivaihah, personal communication). When we begin growing winter wheat under high production environments, protein management becomes critical as soil available N can leach down and become unavailable to the winter wheat crop. Protein management was an issue in the previous studies conducted at Lethbridge and Lacombe. Fertility was not a factor that we could modify when we increased plant populations and the result was that we barely achieved 11.5% protein at Lethbridge under irrigation, and we missed it in Lacombe (Figure 1). Our approach was to supply all fertilizer in the fall, which we sidebanded at time of seeding.


Figure 1. Whole grain protein concentration of AC Radiant and CDC Osprey. 2002-04.

Our study results coincided with the removal of ammonium nitrate from the marketplace, which has been a fertilizer product of choice for winter wheat producers that opt to top dress fertilizer in the spring. Therefore, we designed an experiment that would test alternative products, timing of application, and rates so that a new protein management package could be developed to ensure producers consistently meet protein target for premium winter wheat markets. Outlined below is the research plan initiated in the fall of 2005.

Nitrogen release (3): 1) Urea (uncoated); 2) Polymer-Coated urea; 3) Blend (50-50)
Nitrogen placement (2): 1) Sideband; 2) Spring broadcast (in April)
Fertilizer rate (2): 1) 100% (1.0x); 2) 150% (1.5x) of soil test recommendation
Weed management (2): 1) Fall 2,4-D + spring in-crop (broadleaf and grass); 2) No herbicide
Fall burnoff: Burnoff with Roundup 24 to 48 hours prior to seeding at ½ litre/acre.
Seeding equipment: 9” ConservaPak @ Lacombe.
Varieties: AC Radiant
Seeding rate: 450 seeds/m2 (Target density is 338 pl / m²)
Seeding date: Fall seeding should be done 1st week in September
Herbicide rate: 2,4-D at 560g ai/ha
Weeds seeded: Seed wild oats at 200 seeds/m² and a broadleaf weed prior to seeding the winter wheat
Experimental design: 24 treatments – RCBD factorial with 4 replicates

[Top of Document]

Impact of Seeding Rate and Nitrogen Placement and Rate on Stand Density, Silage and Grain Yield and Quality of Barley

Purpose
The objectives of this research are: 1) to determine if increasing seeding rates can overcome seedling population decline from seed-placed N toxicity, 2) to determine the interactive effects of seeding rate and N placement on weed competition and dockage and 3) to determine the effect of seedling damage, N rate and seeding rate on functional and nutritional quality of silage and grain barley.

Reason for project and impact
Barley has a high demand for crop nutrients, including nitrogen. Deficiencies of N are common and frequently limit barley yield and protein content. Therefore, proper N fertilization is important in optimizing barley production. Seedling damage can have a major impact on crop yield, quality maturity and competitive ability with weeds. Barley is sensitive to damage from seed-placed fertilizer so it is generally recommended that the amount of N fertilizer placed with the seed be limited, particularly if the source of N fertilizer is urea. Increased seeding rates may compensate for any detrimental effects of placement and rate of nitrogen under weedy and weed-free conditions and provide a competitive advantage to the crop at very little cost.

Research plan of work
The experiment will be conducted at three sites to represent a dark grey-wooded (Beaverlodge), a Black sandy loam (Lacombe) and a clay loam soil (Brandon). Fertilizer will be applied at 30, 60, 90, and 120 kg/ha using a ConservaPak or SeedHawk type opener on 8" or 9" row space. Seeding rate of AC Rosser barley will be 200, 300 and 400 seeds m-2. At all seed rates the N fertilizer will be applied in the seed row or as a pre-plant band. Each seed rate will have a 0 N check.

Weedy and weed-free: Wild oats will be seeded across the treatments over half the plot area to determine the impact of treatments in a weedy and weed free situation.

Measurements: 1) Soil nutrient status to 60 cm in spring and fall, 2) Spring moisture, 3) Stand emergence and biomass at 2 and 4 weeks after seeding, 4) Biomass yield at heading + 2 weeks = silage yield, 5) Weed populations,6)Grain yield, 7) Dockage, 8) Silage and grain quality, 9) Leaf disease severity

Summary of results
This study has been completed and John O’Donovan is in the process of submitting a scientific manuscript. Some of the results of the study are presented below.

Plant Density: In our study, plant stand increased with increasing seeding rate, more so with pre-plant banded N than seed row N. Plant stand decreased with increasing N rate.

In some cases, there was no effect of nitrogen rate and placement on barley plant stand, particularly at Beaverlodge in 2001. Most of the time, the N rate did not affect plant stand when pre-plant banded, but (averaged over the site-years) plant stand was increasingly reduced as N rate increased in the seed row. Plant stand decreased as N rate increased for all seeding rates. Seeding rate partially compensated for the reduction in plant stand from increasing N rate.

Increasing seeding rate increased plant stand when N was pre-plant banded and placed in the seed row, but the plant stand was lower with seed row than pre-plant banded N. Seeding rate partially compensated for reduction in stand when N was placed in the seed row. However, a three way interaction occurred indicating that plant stand increased with seeding rate and N rate when pre-plant banding but not when the N rate increased in the seed row.

Digital image analysis indicated that N placement in the seed row reduced crop growth at all rates and affected competition with weeds. The competitive ability of barley was negatively affected by nitrogen. Limiting the damage caused by N increased the competitive ability of barley.

Yield Loss:
Main Effects

• Yield loss from wild oat declined with increasing seeding rate
• Yield loss from wild oat was less with pre-plant band than seed-placed N
• Increasing N rate increased yield loss from wild oat

• Barley yield loss from wild oat was 40-70%, when N was seed-placed, as N rate increased to 120 kg N/ha at Beaverlodge in 2002 and 2003, at Brandon in 2002, and at Lacombe in 2002 and 2003
• Pre-plant banded N significantly reduced barley yield loss from wild oat to less than 20% with increasing N rates. Yield loss declined as N rate was increased at Beaverlodge in 2003, at Brandon in 2002, and at Lacombe in 2003

• Yield loss from wild oat was generally higher at the lower seeding rate and tended to increase as N rate increased
• Yield loss response was more variable among site-years

• Yield loss decreased as seeding rate increased, particularly when N was seed-placed at Lacombe in 2002. At other site-years interaction was not significant because yield loss decreased as seeding rate increased with both N placements

• Seed barley at 300 to 400 seeds m^-2 in the Black soil zone to improve plant stand and promote earlier ground cover.
• Avoid, if possible, placing N rates above 30 kg ha^-1 in the seed row to limit seedling damage. Higher seeding rates can only partially compensate for seedling damage due to placement of N in the seed row.
• Higher plant stand establishment than is normally found in most farmers fields are achievable and help the community of plants defend themselves against pests such as weeds and limit yield loss.
• Increased seeding rate and banding nitrogen are strategies to reduce yield loss of barley from wild oat
• Increased yield loss with increasing N rate indicates that wild oat can utilize applied N as well or better than barley
• Banding optimal rates of N feeds the crop, not the weed, and almost eliminates yield loss due to wild oat
• Increased seeding rate can reduce the yield loss due to wild oat by 50% when N was seed-placed

Integrated Pest Management Systems Evaluating Effects of Crop Rotation, Seeding Rate, and Herbicide Rates over Time

Purpose
To determine the accumulative effects of seeding rate, rotations, and the effectiveness of variable rates on wild oat (Avena fatua) management.

Reason for project and impact
There has been little research conducted to determine if a relationship exists between crop competitiveness with weeds, and the efficacy of low herbicide rates. Crop competition was shown to be essential for effective wild oat control with several graminicides (Sharma and VandenBorn 1983). It is conceivable, therefore, that crop competition may influence the effectiveness of lower than recommended rates of herbicides used for wild oat control. It was shown that different barley varieties varied considerably in their ability to compete with A. fatua (O’Donovan et al. 2000). Semi-dwarf and hull-less varieties were generally less competitive than hulled, taller varieties, and the need for effective weed control in these less competitive varieties was emphasized. In a more recent study, O’Donovan et al. indicated that low herbicide rates were less effective in the third year of continuous semi-dwarf barley production.

Short-term experiments can produce management practices that show profitability in small segments, however, it is doubtful if such practices would continue to be profitable due to carryover effects of uncontrolled weed populations and to the sensitivity of modest fluctuations in economic and/or production environments. Consequently, a longer term experiment is proposed in a cropping system situation where the impact of a system in one year carries over to the following crop in another year.

Research plan of work
The experiment will be conducted at three sites to represent a dark grey-wooded (Beaverlodge), a Black sandy loam (Lacombe), a sandy loam (Fort Vermilion) and clay loam soil (Brandon).

Rotation System Options: Continuous short barley (Peregrine); continuous tall barley (AC Bacon); short barley–canola–short barley–peas; tall barley–canola–tall barley–peas
Seeding Rate: 200 and 400 seeds m-2 for barley; 100 and 150 seeds m-2 for peas; 1X and 2X for RR® canola. Wild oats will be seeded across the treatments to facilitate the weediness of each plot.
Herbicide Rate 1 X, ½ X and ¼ X rate

Summary of results – Year 5
Weed Biomass and Grain Yield- Lacombe: By year five, barley yields were substantially lower under continuous barley production than when the barley was rotated with canola and field peas (Figure 1). In continuous barley plots, higher barley seeding rates led to higher yields. In rotational barley plots, short barley (‘Vivar’) out-yielded the taller variety (‘AC Lacombe’). Without agronomic crop health support, wild oat biomass after five years of ¼ herbicide rates was very high (4530 kg/ha) (Figure 2).


Figure 1. Barley yield as affected by five years of ¼ herbicide rates, continuous or rotational barley (B-C-B-P-B), barley type (short vs tall) and seeding rate (200 and 400 seeds planted per m2) in 2005 at Lacombe, Alberta.





Figure 2. Wild oat biomass as affected by five years of ¼ herbicide rates, continuous or rotational barley (B-C-B-P-B), barley type (short vs tall) and seeding rate (200 and 400 seeds planted per m²) in 2005 at Lacombe, Alberta.


Crop rotation alone reduced wild oat biomass by more than 50%. Seeding a taller variety reduced wild oat biomass by 2-fold. Doubling the seeding rate reduced wild oat biomass by 3-fold. Combining both of the latter factors together reduced wild oat biomass by 8-fold. Combining all optimal practices for crop health reduced wild oat biomass by 70-fold. It is evident that there is much more that you can do about wild oat management (and by extrapolation, the management of other weeds) other than just spraying herbicides.

Disease: At Lacombe in 2005, the spot-form of net blotch was the main leaf disease present with average levels per treatment of up to approximately 22% of the leaf area diseased on the flag - 2 leaf. Cultivar, rotation and the interaction of cultivar x rotation had significant effects on disease development. Overall, slightly higher disease was observed on ‘AC Lacombe’ (12.3%) compared with Vivar (4.8%, LSD = 1.6%). Disease severity was higher under continuous barley (12.7%) compared with rotation with canola and field pea (5.6%, LSD = 1.6%).

However, no significant difference was found between the continuous barley (6.4%) and barley in rotation with canola/field pea (4.1%) for cultivar ‘Vivar’, while there was significantly higher disease for continuous barley (19.0%) versus barley in rotation with canola/field pea (5.5%, LSD = 2.2%) for ‘AC Lacombe’. Leaf disease ratings were similar for both seeding rates in 2005. Root mass per area tended to be higher for ‘Vivar’ (resistant rating for common root rot) versus ‘AC Lacombe’ (susceptible rating for common root rot), and was higher for barley in rotation with canola/field pea versus continuous barley. Little or no disease developed at Fort Vermilion in 2005 and no disease data is reported. Ratings for leaf disease severity are being completed and tabulated for other study sites.

Summary

• Cultivar selection, seeding rate and rotational management provide ecological approaches to managing weeds and disease.
• Integrating a competitive barley type and a high seeding rate is an ecological tool for weed management in monoculture or rotation.
• Pest management strategies are not always compatible. The positive weed management strategies of higher seeding rate may have a minor negative effect on disease management. However, differences in leaf disease severity between seeding rates tended to be minimal and trends were not always the same among sites and years.
• Grain yield was positively affected by ecological crop management that enhanced crop health.
• Continuation of this study will help to explain the relationship between disease pressure (i.e. crop health) and weed management in an integrated crop management (ICM) system.

[Top of Document]

Impact of Seeding Rate and Seeding Depth on Stand Density, Silage and Grain Yield of Hulled and Hulless Barley

Purpose
The objectives of this research are: 1) to develop regression curves for hulled and hulless barley emergence and 2) to determine the interactive effects of seeding rate and seeding depth on weed competition and dockage.

Reason for project and impact
Previous research has shown that hulled barley has approximately 75% emergence and that hulless barley emergence is between 50-60% of the seeds sown in the ground. There have been many studies that have shown seeding rate effects, however, there are no regression equations available for predicting emergence under various conditions. This predictive tool could be invaluable to professionals involved in technology transfer of barley information and producers utilizing a web site to determine agronomic varietal information.

Research plan of work
The experiment will be conducted at three sites to represent a dark grey-wooded (Beaverlodge), a Black sandy loam (Lacombe) and a sandy loam soil (Fort Vermilion). Seeding rate will be 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500 seeds m-2. At all seed rates the seeding depth will be 2.5 cm and 7 cm. Peregrine (hulless) and AC Harper (hulled) variety were seeded.

Measurements:
1) Emergence counts at 3 and 5 weeks after seeding
2) Days to Maturity
3) Biomass yield at heading + 2 weeks = silage yield
4) Grain yield

Summary of results
This study has been completed and John O’Donovan is in the process of submitting a scientific manuscript. Some of the results are presented below.

Study was started in May 2001. At all locations it appears that seeding rates are variable depending on the variety, seeding depth and seedbed conditions (locations). A predictive model will be developed at the end of the study that will probably indicate that recommended seeding rates are too low. Seeding rates of 300 to 400 seeds m-2 are optimum for feed barley.

At Lacombe, the spot-form of net blotch was the main leaf disease present with average levels up to 6% leaf area diseased on the flag -1 leaf for some treatments. Slightly higher levels occurred on Peregrine (4.3%) versus AC Harper (3.3%, LSD = 0.71%). There was also a slight increase in spot-form net blotch severity from 100 (2.1%) or 200 (3.1%) seeds per m² to the higher seeding rates (4.4% to 4.7%, LSD = 1.1%), which had similar levels of disease. There was also a significant effect of seeding depth and the interaction of seeding depth and cultivar on spot-form net blotch levels. Overall, the 1” seeding depth had a rating of 4.9%, while the 2” depth had a rating of 2.7% (LSD = 0.71%). Differences between seeding depths were greater for Peregrine versus AC Harper. Differences between seeding depths may have reflected poor stand development for the 2” seeding depth, which led to lighter crop stands and likely less favourable microenvironmental conditions. Levels of scald and net blotch at Beaverlodge and Fort Vermilion were very limited; treatment means were mainly less than 0.5% and therefore no data are presented.

[Top of Document]

The Influence of Rotational Diversity and Seeding Rate on Crop Health, Quality, and Competitiveness via Their Impact on Weed and Disease Levels

Objective
To determine the interactive effects of agronomic factors such as rotational diversity, seeding rate, and time of silage removal on crop health, competitiveness, disease levels, productivity and quality in a cereal silage production system.

Reason for project and impact
Previous research has shown that rotation of barley varieties can help to lessen leaf disease levels. However, this research did not look at the impact of rotational diversity on general crop health and its influence on competitiveness as well as root and stem base diseases. This project will study the impact of treatment factors on crop productivity and overall crop competition in terms of weeds.

Research plan of work
The experiment was set up as a randomized complete block design factorial with 4 replications at Lacombe. The experiment will be conducted over a three-year period starting in 2002. Wild oats were seeded across all treatments. Treatment combinations included the following:

Rotation/diversity treatments included the following rotations for 2005/2006/2007:
1) Seebe three years in a row (low diversity)
2) CDC Helgason year one/AC Harper year two/Seebe year three (low to moderate diversity)
3) Pronghorn (spring triticale) three years in a row (low diversity)
4) CDC Helgason year one/Pronghorn year two /Seebe year three (moderate diversity)
5) CDC Helgason year one/AC Mustang year two/Seebe year three (moderate to high diversity)
6) Pronghorn year one/AC Mustang year two/Seebe year three (high diversity)

Seeding Rates: Barley, triticale and oats = 250 seeds per m2 and 375 seeds per m2

Time of silage removal (based on individual crop development): Early cut; Late cut

Summary of results
The second phase of this trial was started in 2005 with the next comparison of all barley rotation treatments in 2007. The spot-form of net blotch was the main leaf disease present and it was highest on Seebe as part of the Seebe/Seebe/Seebe rotation (13.5% leaf area diseased on the flag - 2 leaf) compared with Helgason as part of the Helgason/AC Harper/Seebe rotation (1.1%, LSD = 1.5).

Acknowledgments
The Alberta Barley Commission and AAFC MII provided financial support. We are grateful to L. Michielsen, B. Pocock, D. Orr, N. Rauhala, D. Clark, and J. Busaan for their excellent technical support.

[Top of Document]

Improvement of Malt Barley Quality and Seed Homogeneity through Optimization of Agronomic, Genetic, and Environmental Factors

Purpose
1) To develop and evaluate improved management systems for current malting barley varieties that will satisfy the processing requirements of maltsters, and provide agronomic information that will assist producers to improve the yield and quality of malting barley. 2) To develop management practices that will support sustainable and environmentally friendly malting barley production systems based on sound principles of integrated crop management. 3) To identify and recommend to producers the agronomic factors that result in the optimum relationship between seed uniformity, plumpness and protein level and thus increase the likelihood of a positive recommendation following the micro-malt assessment process.

Reason for project and impact
Successful production of a barley crop for the malting market can significantly increase farm profits due to the much higher price premium compared to the feed barley market. A major focus has been genetic enhancement of quality through breeding superior varieties. Of equal importance is the need for a thorough investigation of how these varieties interact (in terms of yield and malt quality) with the variable agronomic practices that farmers are likely to adopt, and the diverse climatic and soil factors that prevail across the prairie region. Present guidelines on production practices to enhance malting quality in the different agro-ecosystems are somewhat anecdotal and based on very limited data. This multi-site study will result in the development of best management practices for malting barley by identifying the most appropriate rotational crop on which malting barley should be seeded, the most effective and economical pest management practices, and the most appropriate crop seeding rates and dates, and fertility practices. The project will increase the likelihood of a positive recommendation following the micro-malt assessment process and thus add value to the barley industry in Alberta. The project is unique in that it will directly link agronomic factors to malting quality.

Research plan of work
Three field trials will be conducted at six to eight locations across the prairie region of western Canada including sites in the Brown, Dark Brown, Black, and Grey Wooded soil zones.

Trial 1. Effect of stubble type, nitrogen, and fungicide on malt quality
Previous crop stubble – cereal, oilseed, pulse (3 factors)
N rate – low and high (2 factors)
Fungicide – yes & no (2 factors)
Treatments = 3 x 2 x 2 = 12 treatments with 4 replicates = 48 plots/location.

Trial 2. Effect of seeding rate and seeding date on malt quality
Seeding rate – 150, 250, 350, 450 and 550 seeds m-2 (5 factors)
Seeding date – early and late (2 factors)
Treatments = 5 x 2 = 10 treatments with 4 replicates = 40 plots/location.

Trial 3. Malt barley varietal response to seeding rate and N rate
Variety – AC Metcalfe and CDC Copeland (2 factors)
Seeding rate 200 400 (2 factors)
N-rate - 0, 30, 60, 90, 120 kg N (5 factors)
Treatments = 2 x 2 x 5 = 20 treatments with 4 replicates = 80 plots/location.

Data collection: Maturity, kernel weight, test weight, leaf disease severity, crop plant and tiller counts, weed counts, maturity, yield.

Kernel uniformity/plump relationships, color/hardness, protein will be determined at the Grain Research Laboratory of the Canadian Grain Commission in Winnipeg and at AAFC Lethbridge using techniques such as image analysis, single kernel determination techniques and micro-malts when data supports the malting of seed from treatments.

Barley and malt quality evaluation at the Research Laboratory (GRL): Laboratory work (micro-malt and seed analysis) will be conducted in the GRL of the Canadian Grain Commission in Winnipeg.

Recommended methods will be used to determine kernel plumpness, level of protein and germinative energy. Research methods will include image analysis and the Single Kernel Characterization System (SKCS), which will provide more extensive information on quality including kernel colour and homogeneity of size and hardness among kernels.

Depending on availability of an experimental apparatus, variability in protein content among individual kernels will be investigated.

A maximum of 225 samples will be malted each year because of time and labour constraints. Selection for malting will be based on germination (minimum 95%) and protein (maximum 14.0 % dry basis). Selection will also be based on barley homogeneity as indicated by SKCS and some heterogeneous samples will be included for comparative purposes. Barley will be malted using standard methods and equipment. Chitting rates and steep-out moistures will be determined during malting to indicate homogeneity of processing.

Malt quality will be determined using recommended methods, including, fine extract, soluble protein, ß-glucan, á-amylase and diastatic power. Friability of malts will indicate the degree and homogeneity of endosperm modification.

All samples (100 g) will be run through the Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy (NIRS) system at Lacombe FCDC. This is a robust calibration based on commercial malting quality (fully modified samples).

Summary of results
This trial was initiated at a limited number of locations in 2005 and 2006 and preliminary data are being collected.