Optimizing agronomic practices to improve yield and quality of malting barley. John O Donovan, AAFC, Lacombe, AB

Transcription

1 Optimizing agronomic practices to improve yield and quality of malting barley John O Donovan, AAFC, Lacombe, AB

2 The science and joy of malt quality evaluation and analysis 2

3 Collaborating Scientists Breanne Tidemann, T.K. Turkington, G.P Lafond, C.A. Grant, K.N. Harker, E.N. Johnson, B.L. Beres, W.E. May, R. Mohr, C. Vera, E. Smith, T. McAllister, M. Khakbazan (AAFC); M.J. Edney, M. Izydorczyk, S. Tittlemeir, A. Mcleod (CGC); P.E. Juskiw, R. McKenzie, B. Chapman, Y. Kabeta, L. Oatway (AAF) Agriculture & Agri-food Canada (AAFC), Alberta Agriculture & Forestry (AAF), Canadian Grain Commission (CGC)

4 Acknowledgements Funders Alberta Barley RAHR Malting Canada Ltd Barley Malting and Brewing Research Institute Western Grains Research Foundation The Canadian Wheat Board AAFC MII, Barley DIAP, Barley Cluster 4

5 Acknowledgements Technical Support AAFC, CGC and AAF technical staff at the various locations 5

6 Malting Barley in Canada Barley in western Canada is grown for feed (for livestock), malt (for beer and whisky), food Malt varieties account for about 50-70% (mostly two-row) of the total area seeded to barley Yet less than 25% is selected for malting each year This needs to be increased by 5-10% to meet projected future demand

7 Important quality factors for maltsters Plump seed lots of starch for conversion to sugars Low protein affects rate of water uptake (steeping), amount of extract (high protein, low starch), enzymes and soluble protein ( %) Kernel uniformity to achieve better modification Low beta-glucan a polysaccharide that makes up the walls of the endosperm and must be broken down to release starch can cause filtration problems High friability indicates how well the endosperm breaks down during the malting process (modification) Malt extract provides source of fermentable sugars, enzymes, and proteins 80%

8 Western Canadian Study Locations 60º N Lat. Fort Fort Vermilion Vermillion Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba Canadian Shield Beaverlodge 49º N Lat. Vegreville Lacombe Scott Lethbridge Melfort Indian Head Brandon Gray Dark Gray Black Dark Brown Brown

9 Factors investigated Seeding date Seeding rate Nitrogen rate Variety selection Crop rotation Plant growth regulators Pre-harvest glyphosate

10 Factors investigated Seeding date Seeding rate Nitrogen rate Variety selection Crop rotation Plant growth regulators Pre-harvest

11 Yield, Protein and Net Return for Early and Late Seeding (Peace region excluded) Yield (t/ha) Protein (%) Net return ($/ ha) Early seeding $371 Late seeding 4.4* (10% decrease) 11.9* (5% increase) $278* (25% decrease) *Significant at P<0.05, O Donovan et al. 2012, Canadian Journal of Plant Science Smith et al. 2012, Agronomy Journal

12 Message Seeding malting barley as early as possible in most regions of the prairies will likely increase yield, improve quality (less protein) and result in higher net returns The Peace region was an exception 12

13 Factors investigated Seeding date Seeding rate Nitrogen rate Variety selection Crop rotation Plant growth regulators Pre-harvest

14 Effect of barley seeding rate on kernel yield, protein, plump and uniformity Linear or quadratic effects of seeding rate significant at P<0.05 O Donovan et al. 2012, Canadian Journal of Plant Science Edney et al., 2012, Journal of Science, Food and Agriculture

15 Effect of barley seeding rate on seed germination, beta-glucan, friability and extract With the exception of extract, linear or quadratic effects significant at P<0.05 O Donovan et al. 2017, Canadian Journal of Plant Science

16 Effect of barley seeding rate on net return* Quadratic effect significant at P<0.05 Smith et al. 2012, Agronomy Journal

17 Message Seeding barley atapproximately 300 seeds/ m 2 optimized yield, quality and economic returns in most regions of the prairies in our experiments again the Peace River region was an exception Averaged over 21 environments, approximately 70% of seed sown produced plants Conduct plant counts after seeding and aim for densities of 200 to 220 plants/m 2 17

18 Factors investigated Seeding date Seeding rate Nitrogen rate Variety selection - determined by maltster and brewers Crop rotation Plant growth regulators Pre-harvest

19 Yield, Protein and Net Return for AC Metcalfe and CDC Copeland Yield (t/ha)* Protein (%)* Net return ($/ ha)* AC Metcalfe $290 CDC Copeland 4.4 (7%) 11.0 $343 (15%) *Means significantly different at P<0.05 O Donovan et al. 2011, Agronomy Journal Smith et al., 2012, Agronomy Journal

20 Effect of N rate on Fine Extract levels of AC Metcalfe and CDC Copeland Quadratic effects significant at P<0.05 Edney et al., 2012, Journal of Science, Food and Agriculture

21 Effect of N rate on Net Return Quadratic effect significant at P<0.05 Smith et al. 2012, Agronomy Journal

22 Barley Varieties and N rates used in the Study AC Metcalfe standard, AAFC, Brandon, MB Major - AAFC, Brandon, MB Bentley AAF (AARD), Lacombe, AB CDC Meredith Crop Development Centre, University of Saskatchewan Merit 57 - Busch Agricultural Resources LLC, Fort Collins, USA N rates, 0, 30, 60, 90, 120 kg/ha actual N 22

23 Variety yields across N rates with environment as a random variable P values for AC Metcalfe contrasted with: Bentley CDC Meredith Merit 57 < Major O Donovan et al. 2015, Canadian Journal of Plant Science 23

24 Variety protein concentration across N rates with environment as a random variable P values for AC Metcalfe contrasted with: Bentley CDC Meredith < Merit 57 < Major O Donovan et al. 2015, Canadian Journal of Plant Science 24

25 Variety friability across N rates with siteyear as a random variable P values for AC Metcalfe contrasted with: Bentley < CDC Meredith < Merit 57 < Major

26 Variety kernel plumpness across N rates with site-year as a random variable P values for AC Metcalfe contrasted with: Bentley CDC Meredith Merit 57 < Major O Donovan et al. 2015, Canadian Journal of Plant Science 26

27 Variety extract across N rates with environment as a random variable P values for AC Metcalfe contrasted with: Bentley CDC Meredith Merit 57 < Major <

28 Variety lodging across N rates with environment as a random variable Lodging in CDC Meredith barley, Lacombe, AB, 2013 P values for AC Metcalfe contrasted with: Bentley CDC Meredith < Merit Major O Donovan et al. 2015, Canadian Journal of Plant Science 28

29 Message Advising on N application based on soil test recommendations still remains a bit problematic due to uncertainty in estimating available soil N and the N demand of the crop The economic analysis suggests that 60-70% of the soil test recommendation may suffice to optimize economic returns if the barley is accepted for malting Growing malting barley varieties with high yield and relatively low protein may mitigate the negative effects of nitrogen on quality (high protein, reduced friability and extract) may also allow for a bit higher nitrogen rate 29

30 Factors investigated Seeding date Seeding rate Nitrogen rate Variety selection Crop rotation Plant growth regulators Pre-harvest glyphosateglyphosate

31 Disease severity, yield and protein as affected by crops grown the year before barley Crop Residue Disease Severity Yield (t/ha) Protein (%) Barley 9.8 a 3.74c 11.6 Canola 3.9b 4.13b 11.7 Pea 4.0b 4.47c 11.8 Turkington et al. 2012, Canadian Journal of Plant Science

32 Effect of preceding crops (2009)* on barley yield and protein concentration in 2011 Crop Residue Barley yield (T/HA) Barley protein (%) Wheat Faba bean 4.46 (NS) 11.2 (NS) Field Pea 4.51 (6%)** 11.4 (NS) Lentil 4.58 (7%)** 11.6 (3%)* Canola 4.43 (NS) 11.3 (NS) *Canola was grown in 2010 **Indicates significantly different from wheat residue (p < 0.05) NS indicates not significantly different from wheat residue (p > 0.05) O Donovan et al. 2015, Agronomy Journal

33 Message Growing legume crops such as field pea one or two years prior to malting barley will likely increase barley yield without resulting in unacceptably high protein concentrations Inorganic nitrogen was more likely to raise the protein concentration to unacceptable levels Growing a legume crop before malt barley may allow for a reduction in inorganic nitrogen application (25%) without compromising malt barley yield 33

34 Factors investigated Seeding date Seeding rate Nitrogen rate Variety selection Crop rotation Plant growth regulators See poster by Breanne Tidemann Pre-harvest glyphosate

35 Pre-harvest glyphosate on malting barley is it risky? The objective was to assess the benefits and risks associated with using a pre-harvest glyphosate application as a dry-down on malting barley AC Metcalfe and CDC Meredith 2 rates (900 and 1125 g/ha) 3 application times (soft dough, hard dough and maturity) Experiments were conducted at 5 locations over 4 years 35

36 Effect of pre-harvest glyphosate - YIELD The effect of the glyphosate applications on yield were variable among 20 environments (location years) In most cases there were no significant effects when applied at the correct stage Yield reductions often occurred when glyphosate was applied before the hard dough stage Yield increases occurred about 15-20% of the time when glyphosate was applied after the soft dough stage 36

37 Effect of pre-harvest glyphosate KERNEL GERMINATION In general, barley with glyphosate residue <40 ppm exhibited adequate germination energy MRL is 10 ppm Germination energy often decreased below 95% when glyphosate was applied at the higher rate and/or soft dough stage If applied at correct stage and uniform dry down is achieved, negative effects on germination may not be an issue 37

38 Effect of pre-harvest glyphosate KERNEL RESIDUES Glyphosate residues were almost always below the allowable threshold (<10 ppm) when applied at the recommended rate and correct stage Glyphosate residues were almost always above the allowable threshold (>10 ppm) when applied at the higher rate and soft dough stage If applied at correct stage and uniform dry down is achieved, residue levels will likely not exceed the allowable threshold 38

39 From pre-harvest staging guide DID YOU KNOW? UNIFORM DRYDOWN ISN T EASY.. Some parts of your field will be mature while other spots may be too green for a preharvest application of a Roundup brand agricultural herbicide Assuming that the producer does everything right (correct application stage and rate) the greatest risk may lie in non-uniform dry down at the farm level resulting in some kernels having reduced germination and relatively high residue levels 39

40 Thank you From champion wrestler to plant pathologist 40