Effect of Agronomic Practices on Growth, Grain Yield, Malt Yield Losses of Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)

Transcription

1 Vol. 12, No. 1, pp (2012) Journal of Agricultural Physics ISSN X Research Article Effect of Agronomic Practices on Growth, Grain Yield, Malt Yield Losses of Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) JASVINDER SINGH 1, S.S. MAHAL 1 AND S.S. MANHAS 2 * 1 Department of Agronomy, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana PAU, Regional Research Station, Bathinda ABSTRACT A field experiment was conducted during and at Ludhiana to study the effect of different agronomic practices on growth, grain yield, malt yield and losses of malt barley (Hordeum vulgare L.).The study revealed that plant height, dry matter accumulation, grain and straw yield were statistically at par with different method of sowing during both the years. Similar trend was also observed for malt quality, recovery and yield of malt during both the crop season. Methods of sowing also did not influence the steeping, respiration and root losses significantly during both the years. The maximum consumptive water use was recorded with zero-tillage and maximum water use efficiency and crop productivity were registered under bed planted crop and were significantly higher than zero and conventional tillage during both years of crop growth. The grain, straw and malt yield increased significantly with increase in N levels from 75 to 125% of recommended dose as a result of increase in plant height and dry matter accumulation.the steeping, respiration and root losses also increased with every increment of nitrogen dose. The highest consumptive water use, water use efficiency and water productivity were obtained with 125% of recommended N. Irrigation at 1.00 IW/CPE ratio significantly increased plant height, dry matter accumulation, grain and straw yield as compared to 0.75 and 0.50 IW/ CPE ratio during both the years. Similar trend was also observed for recovery and yield of malt during both the crop season. The highest steeping, respiration and root losses were obtained with 0.50 IW/CPE. Increased irrigation ratios in barley exhibited increasing trend in consumptive water use, water use efficiency and water productivity during both the years. Key words: Agronomic practices, Growth, Grain yield, Malt losses, Malt barley Introduction Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) is a cereal crop of family poaceae which is grown throughout the temperate, tropical and sub tropical regions of the world. It is usually used as food for human beings and feed for animals and poultry. It is also a valuable input for industries for extracting malt to be utilized for brewing, distillation, baby foods, coca malt drinks and in ayurvedic medicines. It is *Corresponding author, sm_manhas30@yahoo.com preferred over other cereals for malting purpose because of its glumes and hulls are firmly cemented to the kernel and remain attached to the grain after threshing. Hull protects the coleoptile from damage during processing, as coleoptile grows and elongates under the hull. Hull also acts as a filter for separation of soluble materials. Barley grain for malting largely depends upon several quality parameter like processing of protein content in grain, uniformity in grain size, husk content, kernel weight and kernel plumpness etc. Agronomic practices also

2 2012] Agronomic Practices on Growth, Grain Yield, Malt Yield Losses of Barley 75 influence the yield, protein content and other quality parameters of barley grain which have direct bearing on the malt quality. Therefore, different agronomic practices are adopted for malt grade and malt grain crop. Methods of sowing, nitrogen levels and irrigation greatly influence the yield and malt quality of barley. Tillage methods have a major influence on aeration, moisture and temperature of soil which in turn affect the yield and quality of crop. Under Agra, Durgapur, Hisar and Karnal condition, barley sown by different methods (flat, bed and FIRBS) resulted no difference in grain yield of malt barley (Anonymous, 2004). Nitrogen is the most important element for realizing potential yield of crops. The photosynthetic assimilates are reflected in terms of yield of crop. Nitrogen is also the main constituent of amino acids which are precursors to protein. Moreover, high protein content in grain is undesirable, because malt extract is inversely related to grain protein content (Verma et al., 2003). Thus optimum application of nitrogen is required for production of malt barley. Soil moisture is also one of the most important factors which influence the availability of water and nutrients to plants. Protein content in barley was observed to decrease with increase in moisture level (Grant et al., 1991). Malting quality of barley reduced due to water stress at grain filling stage because of increase in protein content (Smith and Gyles, 1988). Keeping in view the above facts, a study on the effect of methods of sowing, nitrogen levels and irrigation scheduling on yield and quality of malt barley was conducted under agro-climatic conditions of Punjab. Material and Methods The field experiments were carried out at Department of Agronomy farm, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana during rabi season of and Ludhiana is situated at 30 o 56' N latitude, 75 o 52' E longitude and 247 m altitude above mean sea level. Soil of experiment field was loamy sand in texture with normal soil reaction and electrical conductivity, low in organic carbon and available nitrogen, medium in available phosphorus and potassium. Agronomic treatments comprised of three methods of sowing (bed planting, zero and conventional tillage), three nitrogen levels (75, 100, and 125% of recommendation) and three irrigation schedules (0.50, 0.75 and 1.00 IW/ CPE). The recommended dose of nitrogen is 62.5 kg/ha. Experiment was laid out in split-plot design with three replications. A uniform basal dose of 30 kg P 2 O 5 /ha in the form of super phosphate and 15 kg K 2 O/ha in the form of murate of potash were applied before sowing. Nitrogen was applied at the time of sowing as per treatment in the form of urea. Field was ploughed twice with a tractor drawn disc harrow and twice with a cultivator followed by planking except in zero till plots. In zero and conventional tillage plots sowing were done with single spacing of 22.5cm. In bed planting method, sowing were done with tractor operated wheat bed planter which enables sowing of two barley rows 22.5cm apart on each bed. Irrigations were given as per treatment of IW/ CPE schedules. Growth parameters were recorded at the interval of 30 days. Crop was harvested on 24 th and 28 th March respectively during and and threshed with the help of a thresher. The grain and straw yield of net plot was converted into q/ha. Harvest index was calculated on the basis of economic and biological yield. Plumpness of barley kernels was determined by the method suggested by ASBC (1992). One Kg of grains were taken and sieved through cm sieve. Those retained on the sieve were weighed and expressed as per cent plumpness (w/w). The grain hardness was measured using the hardness tester. Ten grains at random from the lot were crushed individually on the instrument and the average force required cracking the grains express grain hardness in kgs. The test weight was measured using the test weight apparatus designed by Directorate of Wheat Research, Karnal. The instrument uses 100 ml volume of the grain. Weighing of measured quantity of grains gives the value in kilogram/ hectoliter (kg/ hl) (Anonymous, 1998). Protein and starch content were analyzed using automatic whole grain analyzer Infratech-1241 manufactured by FOSS analytical AB, Sweden. The instrument measures the light transmitted

3 76 Journal of Agricultural Physics [Vol. 12 through the grain in the wavelength range of nm. The instrument used five sub samples of whole grains. The value of the constituent was displayed directly as analyzed by the software provided in the equipment. Malting of barley grains were carried out as per the method suggested by Singh and Sosulski (1985). Consumptive use and water use efficiency of water were calculated by the formulae suggested by Singh et al. (1960) and Viets (1962), respectively. Water productivity, malting losses, root loss, steeping losses and respiration losses were calculated by using the following formulae: Water productivity (kg m -3 ) = Malting loss (%) = Grain yield (kg ha -1 ) (1) Irrigation water applied (m 3 ha -1 ) (2) W 1 = Initial weight of sample (before malting) W 2 = Weight of malt sample without roots (after malting) Root loss (%) = (3) W 1 = Initial weight of sample (before malting) W 2 = Weight of roots (after malting) Steeping losses (%) = (4) W 1 = Initial weight of sample (before steeping) W 2 = Weight of steeped grains (after steeping) Respiration losses (%) = Malting loss (%) rootlets (%) steeping loss (%) (5) Results and Discussion Growth Characters The methods of sowing did not influence the plant height of barley at 60 DAS during both the years (Table 1). At harvest, highest plant height was observed with conventional tillage followed by zero tillage and bed planting method of sowing during and , years of crop season. Ciha (1982) also reported statistically similar plant height variation of spring barley under different tillage methods. Dry matter accumulation is an important index for assessment of crop performance. Dry matter accumulation continued to increase with increase in the age of crop. Dry matter accumulation was not influenced with different method of sowing at 60 DAS (Table 1). At harvest stage of crop growth, maximum dry matter accumulation was obtained with conventional tillage followed by zero tillage and bed planting method of sowing during both the years. Legere et al. (1997) found similar biomass production between zero and conventional tillage method of sowing of spring barley. Plant height and dry matter accumulation of barley increased significantly with each increment of nitrogen level from 75 to 125 per cent of recommendation during both the years (Table 1). At both stages of crop growth maximum plant height and dry matter accumulation were recorded with 125 per cent of recommended N as compared to 75 and 100 per cent of recommended N. Irrigation schedules did not influenced the plant height and dry matter accumulation of barley at 60 DAS during both the years (Table 1). At harvest stage of crop growth, irrigation scheduling with 1.00IW/CPE ratio resulted in taller plant and more dry matter accumulation than other levels of irrigation schedule during both the years. Elmobarak et al. (2007) revealed that application of irrigation after every 10 days gave the highest plant height which was significantly more than irrigation applied after every 20 days. Grain and Straw Yield Methods of sowing failed to show any significant affect on the grain yield of barley during both the years (Table 1). The highest grain yield was recorded with zero tillage followed by conventional tillage and bed planted crop during both years of crop growth. The grain yield of zero tillage crop was 3.4 and 3.4 percent higher than conventional tillage crop and 4.1 and 8.0 percent higher than bed planted crop during and , respectively. The grain yield increased with each increment of nitrogen dose.

4 2012] Agronomic Practices on Growth, Grain Yield, Malt Yield Losses of Barley 77 Table 1. Effect of methods of sowing, nitrogen levels and irrigation scheduling on growth parameters, harvest index, grain and straw yield of malt barley Treatment Plant height (cm) Dry matter accumulation (g m -2 ) Grain yield Straw yield Harvest index 60DAS At harvest 60DAS At harvest (q ha -1 ) (q ha -1 ) (%) Sowing methods Bed Planting Zero-Tillage Conventional Tillage SEm± CD(p=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Nitrogen levels (% of recommendation*) SEm± CD(p=0.05) NS NS Irrigation scheduling (IW/CPE) SEm± CD(p=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS * 62.5 kgha -1

5 78 Journal of Agricultural Physics [Vol. 12 The highest grain yield was obtained with 125% of recommended N which was statistically at par with 100% of recommended N and significantly higher than 75% of recommended N during both the years of crop growth. These results were in conformity with those of Saini and Thakur (1999). Irrigation schedules significantly affected the grain yield during both the years. Highest grain yield was obtained with 1.00 IW/CPE ratio, which was significantly higher than 0.75 and 0.50 IW/ CPE ratio during both the years. This might be due to better growth and development of barley crop under 1.00IW/CPE ratio. Sowing methods failed to affect the straw yield significantly during both the years (Table 1). The highest straw yield was obtained from conventional tillage which was significantly higher than zero-tillage and bed planted crop during and , years of study. The straw yield increased with each increment of nitrogen dose during both the years. The highest straw yield was obtained with 125% of recommended N, which was significantly higher than 100 and 75% of recommended N during both the years of crop growth. These findings were in conformity with those of Singh and Singh (2005). Irrigation schedules significantly affected the straw yield during both the years. The highest straw yield was obtained with 1.00 IW/CPEratio which was significantly higher than 0.75 and 0.50 IW/CPE ratio during and , years of crop season. The highest harvest index was observed in zero tillage followed by bed planting and conventional tillage crop during and , years of crop growth (Table 2). The variable nitrogen levels and irrigation schedules failed to show any trend on harvest index during both years of crop growth. Grain Quality Characters Methods of sowing failed to influence significantly the test weight, kernel plumpness, grain hardness, protein, husk and starch content of grain during both the years(table 2). The highest test weight and kernel plumpness were obtained with zero tillage followed by conventional tillage and bed planted crop during and , years of crop growth. Increased hardness, protein and husk content of grain were observed in bed planted crop followed by conventional tillage and zero tillage crop during and , years of crop growth. The highest starch content was observed in zero tillage crop followed by conventional tillage and bed planted crop during both years. The grain hardness, husk content, protein content and test weight increased with increasing dose of nitrogen during both the years. The highest grain hardness and test weight were observed with 125% of recommended N which were statistically at par with 100% and 75% of recommended N during and , years of crop season. Nitrogen doses did not show significant impact on kernel plumpness and starch content. Although highest kernel plumpness and starch was found with 75% of recommended N followed by 100 and 125% of recommended N during both the years.the highest protein content and husk content were obtained with 125% of recommended N which was significantly higher than 100 and 75% of recommended N during and , years of crop growth. Irrigation scheduling significantly influenced the grain hardness, husk and protein content during both the years. The highest grain hardness, husk and protein content were observed with 0.50 IW/ CPE ratio, which was significantly higher than 0.75and 1.00 IW/CPE ratio during and Irrigation schedules in barley significantly influenced the test weight during both the years. Irrigation schedules in barley had non-significant effect on kernel plumpness. Although highest kernel plumpness were observed with 1.00 IW/CPE ratio followed by 0.75 and 0.50 IW/CPE ratios during both the years. The highest test weight was obtained with 1.00 IW/ CPE ratio, which was significantly higher than 0.75 and 0.50 IW/CPE ratio during both the years. Verma et al. (2003) also documented improvements in grain quality with irrigation. The highest protein content with 0.50 IW/CPE ratio might be due to moisture stress. Irrigation schedules significantly influenced the grain starch content of barley during both the years. The highest starch content were obtained with 1.00 IW/CPE ratio, which was statistically at par with

6 2012] Agronomic Practices on Growth, Grain Yield, Malt Yield Losses of Barley 79 Table 2. Effect of methods of sowing, nitrogen levels and irrigation scheduling on quality characters of malt barley Treatment Grain hardness Test weight Husk content Kernel plumpness Protein Starch (kgs) (kg hl -1 ) (%) (%) (%) (%) Sowing methods Bed Planting Zero-Tillage Conventional Tillage SEm± CD(p=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Nitrogen levels(% of recommendation*) SEm± CD(p=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Irrigation scheduling (IW/CPE ) SEm± CD(p=0.05) NS NS * 62.5 kgha -1

7 80 Journal of Agricultural Physics [Vol IW/CPE ratio and significantly higher than 0.50IW/CPE ratio during and Malt Losses and Yield Methods of sowing in barley did not influence the steeping, respiration and root losses significantly during both the years (Table 3). Although the highest steeping, respiration and root losses were obtained with bed planted crop followed by conventional and zero tillage crop during and , year of crop. The steeping losses increased with each increment of nitrogen dose. The highest steeping losses was obtained with 125% of recommended N which was statistically at par with 100% of recommended N and significantly higher than 75% of recommended N during and , years of crop season. Both respiration and root losses increased with increased dose of nitrogen application. The highest respiration and root losses were obtained with 125% of recommended N, which were significantly higher than 100 and 75% of recommended N during both the years of crop growth. Irrigation schedules significantly influenced the steeping, respiration and root losses in barley during both the years. The highest steeping, respiration and root losses were obtained with 0.50 IW/CPE which were significantly higher than 0.75IW/CPE and 1.00IW/CPE ratio during and Methods of sowing in barley had non-significant influence on recovery and yield of malt in both the years. The highest malt recovery and yield were obtained from crop grown under zero tillage followed by one grown under conventional tillage and bed planted, respectively during and The malt recovery decreased with increasing dose of applied nitrogen. The highest significant malt recovery was obtained with 75% of recommended N which was higher than 100 and 125% of recommended N during both the years. The highest malt yield was obtained with 125% of recommended N which was significantly higher than 100 and 75% of recommended N during both the year. Applied Irrigation schedules in barley significantly influenced the recovery and yield of malt during both the years. The highest recovery and yield of malt were obtained with 1.00 IW/CPE ratio, than for 0.75 and 0.50 IW/ CPE ratio during both the years of crop season. Verma et al. (2003) reported improvements in malting quality and production with irrigation. The lower malt recovery in 0.50 IW/CPE ratio results from higher protein content and due to water stress. Water Indices The consumptive water use of barley varied with different methods of sowing. The maximum consumptive water use was recorded with zerotillage crop which was significantly higher than bed planted and conventional tillage, during and (Table 4). Less water consumption in bed planted might be due to less amount of average irrigation water applied through irrigations than conventionally and zerotillage during both years. The maximum water use efficiency and per unit of water productivity were registered under bed planted crop which were significantly higher than zero and conventional tillage during both years of crop growth. The higher water use efficiency in case of bed planting was possibly due to higher soil moisture storage capacity requiring less irrigations compared to that under zero and conventional tillage. The increasing rate of nitrogen showed increasing trend of consumptive water use, water use efficiency and water productivity during both the years. The highest consumptive water use, water use efficiency and water productivity were obtained with 125% of recommended N which were significantly higher than 100 and 75% of recommended N during both the years of crop growth. Increased irrigation ratios in barley exhibited increasing trend in consumptive water use, water use efficiency and water productivity during both the years. The highest consumptive water use, water use efficiency and water productivity were obtained with 1.00 IW/CPEratio which was significantly higher than 0.75 and 0.50 IW/CPE ratio. Conclusions It is concluded that methods of sowing did not influence malt losses, yield and quality of

8 2012] Agronomic Practices on Growth, Grain Yield, Malt Yield Losses of Barley 81 Table 3. Losses, recovery and yield of malt as influenced by methods of sowing, nitrogen levels and irrigation scheduling. Treatment Steeping losses (%) Respiration losses (%) Roots losses (%) Malt recovery (%) Malt yield (q ha -1 ) Sowing methods Bed Planting Zero-Tillage Conventional Tillage SEm± CD(p=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Nitrogen levels(% of recommendation*) SEm± CD(p=0.05) NS NS Irrigation scheduling (IW/CPE ) SEm± CD(p=0.05) * 62.5 kgha -1

9 82 Journal of Agricultural Physics [Vol. 12 Table 4. Effect of methods of sowing, nitrogen levels and irrigation scheduling on consumptive water use (CWU), water use efficiency (WUE) and water productivity (WP) Treatment CWU (cm) WUE(kg ha -1 cm -1 ) WP(kg m -3 ) Sowing methods Bed Planting Zero-Tillage Conventional Tillage SEm± CD(p=0.05) Nitrogen levels(% of recommendation*) SEm± CD(p=0.05) Irrigation scheduling (IW/CPE ) SEm± CD(p=0.05) * 62.5 kgha -1 malt-barley. The maximum consumptive water use was recorded with zero-tillage crop while maximum water use efficiency and water productivity were obtained with bed planted crop which were significantly higher than zero and conventional tillage. Increased nitrogen levels and irrigation ratio improved productivity, quality and water indices of malt barley. The highest steeping, respiration and root losses were obtained with 0.50 IW/CPE ratio while lowest with1.00 IW/CPE ratio. The highest steeping, respiration and root losses were obtained with 125% of recommended N. References Anonymous Quality and Basic Sciences, Progress Report, Directorate of Wheat Research, Karnal, India, Anonymous All India coordinated wheat and barley improvement project, Progress report, Directorate of Wheat Research, Karnal, India, pp ASBC Methods of analysis. The Society, Medison, Wisc. Ciha, A.J Yield and yield components of four spring barley cultivars under three tillage systems. Agronomy Journal 74: Elmobarak, A., Mohamed, M.A., Khair, M.A.and Richter, A.C Effects of irrigation interval, sowing method and nitrogen application on forage and grain yield of barley. Sudan Tropentag, October 9-11, Witzenhausen. Grant, C.A., Gauer, L.E., Gehl, D.T. and Barley, L.D Protein production and nitrogen utilization by barley cultivars in response to nitrogen fertilizer under varying moisture conditions. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 71: Legere, A.N., Samson, R., Rioux, D.A. and Simard, R.R Response of spring barley to crop

10 2012] Agronomic Practices on Growth, Grain Yield, Malt Yield Losses of Barley 83 rotation conservation tillage and weed management intensity. Agronomy Journal 89: Saini, J.P. and Thakur, S.R Response of barley (Hordeium vulgare L.) varieties to nitrogen under dry temperature conditions. Indian Journal of Agronomy 44: Singh, M., Gandhi, R.T. and Raheja, P.C A critical review of the methods used to determine the water requirements of crops and suggestions for planning future irrigation experiments in India. Indian Journal of Agronomy 4: Singh, R.K and Singh, R.K Effect of times and levels of nitrogen application on malt barley (Hordeum vulgare). Indian Journal of Agronomy 50: Singh, T. and Sorsulski, F.W Malting of hullers barley (Hordeum vulgare) cultivars. Journal of Food Science 50: 342. Smith, C.J. and Gyles, O.A Fertilizer nitrogen balance on spring irrigated malting barley. Fertilizer Research 18: Verma, R.P.S., Sharma, R.K. and Nagarajan, S Influence of nitrogen and irrigation on malt and wort quality in barley. Cereal Research Commu. 31: Viets, F.G. Jr Fertilizers and the efficient use of water. Advance Agronomy 14: Received: 10 January 2012; Accepted: 18 March 2012