Tải bản đầy đủ - 0 (trang)
XIII. Malting Barley Production Practices

XIII. Malting Barley Production Practices

Tải bản đầy đủ - 0trang

MALTING BARLEY IN THE UNITED STATES



365



duction of barley for the malting market are more critical than for other

uses because the physical and chemical properties of the harvested grain

are of primary concern in the market.

Three general considerations confront a producer interested in growing

acceptable malting barley. First, the area of production must have the potential of growing grain of suitable quality. This factor is largely a matter

of environment, and past climatic history should provide the answer. There

are new frontiers for malting barley where history may be of little value

in determining successful production. However, these are small in number

and generally are associated with new irrigation developments or areas

where cropping practices can be changed in established irrigation districts.

Second, adapted barley varieties of acceptable quality must be available.

Third, a market for malting barley must be available. After these general

criteria have been met, several specific management decisions remain.

The general requirements of malting barley have been known for a long

time in relation to the period of time that this crop has occupied an important place in American agriculture. Information on barley production practices was summarized by Derr (191 1) and in bulletins by Harlan (1918,

1932) and Harlan and Wiebe (1943). Each of these authors referred to

culture of malting barley. Most states with significant malting barley acreages have published results on production practices and made these available to barley growers through extension bulletins and circulars. Although

some of the recommended practices have been modified as new research

data have been published, it is interesting to note the validity of recommendations made several decades ago to malting barley producers.

A.



CHOICE

OF VARIETY



Selection of a variety by a malting barley grower involves two major

considerations. First, the variety must be adapted to the area and should

have as many of the agronomic characteristics as possible to fit the specific

conditions provided by the individual grower’s farming operations.

Medium to late maturity in spring barley for early sowing, in order to utilize more of the growing season, and resistance to loose smut [Ustilago

nuda (Jens.) Rostr.] are examples of specific characteristics that may be

used in varietal decisions. Second, the variety must have the potential as

a suitable raw material for malt. The various agricultural experiment stations in states with malting barley breeding programs collaborate with the

malting and brewing industry through the Malting Barley Improvement

Association in the evaluation of potential malting barley varieties. Acceptable malting barley varieties are made known to growers through publications listing the varieties available for production or, in some states, the



366



G. A. PETERSON AND A. E. FOSTER



recommended malting barley varieties. However, growing of an acceptable

malting variety does not assure the production of acceptable grain. Standards for kernel protein percentage, kernel plumpness, percentage of skinned and broken kernels, kernel discoloration, and other factors must be

met.



B. SEED QUALITYAND TREATMENT

Numerous investigators with several crops have dealt with the effect of

seed quality on grain yield and the components of yield as well as on other

agronomic characteristics. Although barley is considered a superior competitor against weeds, compared to other small grain cereals and flax, seed

of high germination, good plumpness or weight, and freedom from weed

seeds, diseases, and inert mixtures is recommended to produce optimum

plant stands as measured by seedling emergence and vigor.

Kaufmann and McFadden (1963) and Peterson and Foster (1964)

found seed size to be associated positively with grain yield, especially under

conditions of plant stress often experienced with late sowing. The number

of spike-bearing tillers was the yield component most affected by seed

size. The barley plant appears to compensate for seed and seedling deficiencies during the growing season if the environment is favorable for barley grain production. Seed quality factors are important to malting barley

in the way that they affect kernel size or plumpness of the resultant crop

in addition to the usual criteria of agronomic performance. Kernel plumpness of harvested grain has been shown to be maintained at a higher level

when plump seed is used for late planting (Peterson and Foster, 1964).

The use of chemical seed treatment is a recommended malting barley

production practice found to be effective in controlling certain seed-borne

diseases (Dickson, 1962; Reid et al., 1968). Also, protection of germinating seeds and young seedlings against harmful organisms in the soil is obtained. Seed treatment is more likely to prevent losses from diseases which

weaken plants or prevent spikes from producing seed than to prevent losses

from diseases which reduce or impair quality of the harvested grain. Kernel

plumpness and protein percentage can be influenced by diseases if interplant competition is altered or nonthrifty plants contribute to the total production. Recommendations of state agricultural experiment stations should

be followed closely in the use of seed treatments on malting barley.



c.



TYPEOF SEEDBED



AND



SEEDBED



PREPARATION



The best soils for growing malting barley are well-drained loams and

clay loams (Harlan and Wiebe, 1943; Reid et al., 1968). Barley is more



MALTING BARLEY IN THE UNITED STATES



367



susceptible to damage than several other crops from water-saturated soil.

Light, sandy soils in the subhumid and semi-arid regions often produced

drought stress of plants, resulting in low yields. The fertility level of the

soil is extremely important for malting barley and will be discussed in a

subsequent section.

Most of the malting barley in the United States is spring sown. Most

of the spring barley is sown on land which was cropped the preceding

year. A common practice is to fall plow, especially fine-textured soils of

the Red River Valley of North Dakota and Minnesota or where winter

erosion is not a problem. Seedbed preparation of fall-plowed land involves

shallow tillage in the spring to control weeds, to prevent deeply buried

weed seeds from being brought to the surface, and to reduce soil moisture

loss. Disking or field cultivating followed by a harrowing often is used in

the spring on land previously seeded to a row crop. In less humid areas

where malting barley is grown on previously cropped land, the most common practice is to spring plow or to use other implements which leave

some of the crop residue on the surface. Spring soil moisture often is more

favorable with spring than with fall tillage because of snow cover held during the winter. Also, the standing crop residue reduces erosion during the

winter. Under irrigated conditions, as used for malting barley in many

western areas of the United States, the land is preferably plowed.

Some spring-sown malting barley is planted on summerfallow. Generally, this is not a recommended practice because protein content of the

grain produced may be too high. However, some summerfallow fields may

not have excessive soil nitrogen levels (Wagner et al., 1970) and are suitable for malting barley production. Shallow tillage for seedbed preparation

is recommended for land which has been summerfallowed.

Fall-sown winter or spring malting barleys usually are shown on nonfallow land. Plowing followed by various tillage operations to prepare a firm,

level seedbed often is used if large crop residues exist. If crop residues

are of minor consequence, seedbed preparation is similar to that mentioned

for spring-sown barley on row-crop land. A small amount of fall-sown

malting barley is seeded on summerfallow and seedbed preparation is similar to that for spring-sown barley.

Malting barley usually is grown in a crop sequence. The kind of sequence varies with the other crops adapted to the region, length of growing

season, availability of moisture, soil type, soil fertility, and disease problems (Reid et al., 1968). Barley following barley is not a recommended

cropping practice, particularly in areas where inoculum of destructive diseases can build up on residues in the soil and on the surface. Barley following corn or wheat is undesirable in areas where scab is a problem unless

clean cultivation and sanitation are practiced. In the more humid regions



368



G. A. PETERSON AND A. E. FOSTER



where summerfallowing is not practiced, malting barley production following row crops such as sugar beets, potatoes, and sunflowers has been successful if soil nitrogen levels are not excessive. Occasionally malting barley

is used as a companion crop with a legume or legume-grass mixture in

these areas or where irrigation is used. Malting barley follows wheat in

many rotations in the major producing areas of the North Central States.

Fallow-wheat-barley is a common crop sequence for less humid malting

barley growing areas.



D. SEEDINGPRACTICES

Malting barley usually is seeded with a grain drill, often equipped with

press wheels and a fertilizer attachment (Reid et al., 1968). Most drills

have disk furrow openers which place the seeds in rows 6-8 inches apart.

Hoe drills, with about 9 inches between rows, are used in some areas of

the Pacific Northwest on clean fallowed land, and in some of the less

humid regions of the upper Midwest.

The desired plant population for a specific set of environmental conditions is obtained by selecting an appropriate rate of seeding. Variety, date

of sowing, soil moisture, and conditions affecting seedling emergence are

the most important factors affecting the number of spike-bearing tillers

per unit area. Varieties with large seeds and low tillering capacity require

higher seeding rates. A delay in date of seeding, which often reduces tillering or stand reductions due to poor seedling emergence in nonfriable soils,

also dictates use of higher seeding rates to compensate for below optimum

stands. Lower rates of seeding ordinarily are used in drier areas because

less dense stands reduce stress due to interplant competition. Competition

from excess weed growth requires that barley be seeded at higher rates

than normal (Woodward, 1956).

Grain drills meter out the barley seed by volume, and seeding rate recommendations normally are made on this basis. Planting 1.5 to 2 bushels

of barley per acre is a general practice in the more humid area of the

North Central States and in irrigated regions of Western United States.

One to 1.5 bushels are seeded in the less humid malting barley growing

areas of the Midwest. Seeding by volume is one reason the grower adjusts

seeding rate by variety or kernel size. Berdahl (1967) was not able to

show any difference in grain yield when rates from 0.75 bu/acre to 1.75

bu/acre were seeded in North Dakota by volume, weight, or number of

seeds per unit area. These results, along with an increase in the number

of spike-bearing tillers with the use of large seed (Kaufmann and McFadden, 1963; Peterson and Foster, 1964), indicate the compensation in rate

of seeding may be less important than growers believe. Studies with barley

show that similar grain yields are obtained over a wide range of seeding



MALTING BARLEY IN THE UNITED STATES



369



rates (Meredith and Olson, 1942; Woodward, 1956; Berdahl, 1967). An

important factor to the malting barley grower, however, is that the range

of seeding rate for the production of quality grain is more critical than

for quantity. Higher seeding rates than required for optimum stands reduce

kernel size (Meredith and Olson, 1942; Woodward, 1956; Peterson,

1966).

Date of seeding of malting barley is influenced by latitude, altitude, climatic conditions, cropping practices, and use of spring or winter varieties

(Reid et al., 1968). Most of the malting barley for processing by the malting industry is obtained from spring-sown barleys. The general recommendation for these production areas is that seeding should begin as soon as

a good seedbed can be prepared. In the North Central States the earliest

seeding date ranges from about March 10 to May 10. The range of preferred dates of seeding spring barley in the Pacific Northwest and intermountain areas is from March 15 to April 30. Some winter barley is sown

in these areas from September 1 to October 15. In California, spring varieties are sown from late October to mid-January.

The benefits of early spring seeding regarding performance for yield and

other agronomic characteristics have been established by numerous investigators (Woodward, 1956; Beard, 1961; Jackson et al., 1962; Peterson,

1966; Berdahl, 1967; Hoag and Geiszler, 1968; Zubriski et al., 1970).

Seeding date is among the most important factors involved with malting

barley production. Although grain yield response to seeding date may differ

with varieties (Beard, 1961; Berdahl, 1967) or with years or locations

(Woodward, 1956; Zubriski et al., 1970), the advantage of early seeding

of barley is affirmed. Reduction in grain yield with delayed seeding appears

to have a linear trend in some studies and nonlinear in others. A delay

of one month from the optimum seeding date for malting barley in North

Dakota resulted in grain yield reductions of 53% (Peterson, 1966), 22%

(Berdahl, 1967), and 7% (Hoag and Geiszler, 1968). Most studies show

yield losses to be within the range of the North Dakota studies, with the

position within the range depending on the variety and/or the environment

under which the trials were conducted.

The effect of date of seeding on characteristics of harvested grain is important to the grower since the influence on grade and suitability for malting have a direct impact on economic return. In addition to a loss in yield,

losses in kernel weight, kernel plumpness, and test weight per bushel appear

to be some of the most consistent effects indicated in date of sowing studies

(Meredith and Olson, 1942; Woodward, 1956; Beard, 1961; Jackson et

al., 1962; Peterson, 1966; Berdahl, 1967; Hoag and Geiszler, 1968;

Zubriski et al., 1970). Kernel protein percentage increases with late seeding (Meredith and Olson, 1942; Hoag and Geiszler, 1968; Zubriski et al.,



370



G. A. PETERSON AND A. E. FOSTER



1970) and levels are often in excess of those suitable for malting (Table

VIII), Undesirable decreases in barley extract (Beard, 1961) and malt

extract (Meredith and Olson, 1942) were found as a result of late seeding.

Expected increases in diastatic power in the barley grain accompanying

the increase in kernel protein levels were found by Beard (1961).

TABLE VIII

Influence of Seeding Dates and Rates of Nitrogen and Potassium Fertilizers

on Average Grain Yields, Percentage Plump Kernels, and Protein Content of Graina



Rate of

N or K



(WA)

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

0.0

12.5

25.0



N

N

N

N

K

K

K



Average



Average yields



Average plump kernels



(WA)



(%I



Average protein

content

(%)



Early

seeded



Late

seeded



Early

seeded



Late

seeded



Early

seeded



Late

seeded



48.6

53.3

56.2

58.5

53.6

54.3

54.4

54.1



44.2

49.2

49.9

51.5

47.7

49.1

49.2

48.7



75.8

75.9

75.9

75.6

74.8

76.1

76.5

75.8



66.2

67.1

65.6

65.1

64.5

66.3

67.2

66.0



12.8

13.1

13.2

13.5

13.2

13.1

13.1

13.1



13.4

13.6

13.9

14.2

13.8

13.7

13.8

13.8



Adapted from Zubriski et al. (1970).



Barley should be sown at a depth at which moisture is available, but

the depth should not be so great that the energy requirement for emergence

exceeds the supply available in the barley kernel. In general, the depth of

seeding is 1-2 inches in the more humid malting barley growing areas and

2-3 inches in the drier regions.

E.



FERTILIZERS



One of the most important management decisions for the malting barley

producer is the amount of fertilizer to apply to the soil. High yields of

good quality grain is the goal of the barley grower. Protein content and

kernel plumpness are two properties of the harvested grain used to evaluate

malting quality and must be at desirable levels if the barley is to be purchased by the malting industry. These properties are greatly influenced by

the supply of available nutrients, particularly nitrogen, in the soil in relation to the minimum amount required for dry matter production. Other



MALTING BARLEY IN THE UNITED STATES



371



variables affecting grain quality are the barley variety, moisture, and temperature conditions under which the variety is produced, and diseases or

other pests detrimental to favorable plant growth.

The close relationship of soil nitrogen levels to yield and protein content

of the grain has been recognized for a long time. Hopkins (1936), Jackson

et al. (1962), Zubriski el al. (1970), and Bishop and MacEachern (1971)

found nitrogen fertilizer increased average grain yields on nitrogen-deficient soils. Protein content of the grain increased significantly when excessive nitrogen fertilizer was used. Protein content of the grain appears to

increase to the greatest extent after the maximum grain yield level is

reached. When the yield curve begins to level off as greater amounts of

nitrogen (are made available, protein content of the barley grain increases

rapidly. If the nitrogen available to the plant exceeds that required for

optimum yield in relation to the other soil nutrients and environments,

kernel protein levels above those desirable for malting barley often result.

Nitrogen fertilization appears to influence kernel plumpness or size less

than grain yield or protein. Kernel plumpness and size are most seriously

reduced if use of fertilizer or other factors induce lodging at a relatively

early growth stage. Grain yield and kernel protein responses in barley with

the addition of different levels of nitrogen fertilizer show considerable variability as reported by many workers. Also, significant interactions with

years, locations, and varieties have been indicated (Olson et al., 1942;

Frey et al., 1952; Pendleton el al., 1953; Zubriski et al., 1970). The discrepancies in response to different amounts of nitrogen fertilizer indicated

among the various reports probably result from not considering the amount

of nitrogen in the soil profile available to the barley plant before fertilizer

application and from uncontrolled environmental variables. Soper and

Huang (1962) showed a highly significant correlation of 0.95 between

nitrate nitrogen in the soil to a 4-fOOt depth and yield response to nitrogen.

Also, the correlation between uptake of nitrogen in the grain and nitrate

nitrogen in the soil profile plus nitrogen added at seeding time was

r = 0.90.

The need for a certain amount of nitrogen fertilizer to enhance malting

barley production on land which has been cropped previously is well

understood. Many producers have thought summerfallow to be unsuitable

for growing malting barley because of suspected high levels of nitrate-nitrogen in the soil which would lead to higher levels of protein in the grain

produced. Recent summaries show that about 15% of the summerfallowed

fields in the Red River Valley of North Dakota and Minnesota and adjacent areas contain less than 100 pounds/acre of nitrate nitrogen (Wagner

et al., 1970). Acceptable malting barley can be produced on these summerfallow fields. Producers utilizing the NO, soil test to predict the amount



372



G. A. PETERSON AND A. E. FOSTER



of nitrogen available for crop growth can make reliable decisions on choice

of land to use for malting barley and how much nitrogen, if any, to apply.

Malting barley has shown favorable responses to phosphorus and potassium applied to soils in which these elements are deficient. Grain yield

increases, reduced lodging, increased kernel plumpness, and reduced protein content of grain are the major benefits attributed to applications of

phosphorus (Hopkins, 1936; Norum et al., 1953; Pendleton et al., 1953;

Atkins et al., 1955). Response of barley to phosphorus fertilizer often is

observed on both fallow and nonfallow land. The use of potassium fertilizer on malting barley has given less consistent responses than nitrogen

or phosphorus with agronomic and quality characteristics (Hopkins, 1936;

Pendleton et al., 1953; Bauer and Vasey, 1964; Zubriski et al., 1970).

An increase in percent of plump kernels and often an accompanying decrease in kernel protein content by application of potassium fertilizer are

among the more frequent favorable responses observed.

The use of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium fertilizers on malting

barley should be based on soil test results along with other production variables, such as soil moisture, soil type, and date of seeding. Fertilizer recommendations for malting barley, made by state agricultural experiment stations such as those presented by Wagner et al. ( 1970), consider the several

variables in suggesting the levels to be applied. The need for a balanced

level of nutrients available to the barley plant for best grain quality has

been recognized (Hopkins, 1936; Pendleton et al., 1953; Jackson et al.,

1962; Zubriski et al., 1970; Bishop and MacEachern, 1971). Most soils

used for malting barley production appear to have satisfactory levels of

micronutrients.



F. CONTROLOF



PESTS



A large array of pests can influence malting barley production and the

quality of harvested grain. The effects can be either through competition

with the barley plant, as with weeds, or by direct attacks on different parts

of the plant by diseases or insects. The loss or damage is a result of an

interaction between the barley genotype and pest as influenced by the environment. Control of any pest may be accomplished through the use of

one or a combination of practices which include cultural methods, sanitation, chemical treatments, resistant varieties, or timing of management

operations. A lengthy discussion on pests of malting barley will not be

included because of the number and variability of effects. Some known

effects of pests on malting barley are grain yield reductions, decreased kernel size and weight, discoloration and blighting of the grain, increased kernel protein, and changes in chemical constituents of the kernel. Reviews

of pests and their control in barley include those for weeds (Reid et al.,



MALTING BARLEY IN THE UNITED STATES



373



1968), insects (Reid et al., 1968), and diseases (Dickson, 1962; Reid

et al., 1968).



G. HARVESTING

AND THRESHING

The primary method of harvesting and threshing malting barley in the

major producing areas in the North Central region of the United States

is windrowing followed by combine threshing of the windrows. Cutting

and direct threshing of the standing grain, termed direct or straight combining, is a common practice in Western United States.

Windrowing has two main advantages. First, shattering is avoided since

considerable moisture is contained in the straw and grain at the time of

windrowing. This feature especially is applicable to the midwestern grown

six-rowed Manchurian types because of their tendency to shatter at maturity. Second, weed mixtures and barley of uneven maturity are permitted

to dry enough to allow proper threshing and usually reach a kernel moisture content adequate for safe storage. Several workers (Harlan, 1920;

Harlan and Pope, 1923; Dodds and Dew, 1958; Koenig et al., 1965;

Brewer and Poehlman, 1968; Pomeranz et al., 1971) have shown that

the deposits of dry matter in the barley kernel cease as the kernel moisture

content reaches the 3 5 4 2 % level. The barley kernel is termed physiologically mature when the addition of dry matter to the grain ceases. Changes

from the 35-42% level of kernel moisture to maturity have been considered to be primarily dehydration. Grain yield and kernel weight are not

reduced by windrowing of malting barley at physiologic maturity with subsequent threshing when the grain has a moisture content of 15% or less.

Windrowing at high levels of kernel moisture has affected the variability

of chemical characteristics used to measure quality of malting barley more

than it has affected the variability of grain yield and kernel weight. Optimal

properties for some of the chemical characteristics appear to be reached

when the barley is windrowed or harvested at kernel moisture contents

below 3 5 4 2 % . Malt modification, as measured by fine-coarse extract

difference, a-amylase activity, and protein solubility (expressed as the wort

nitrogen-to-malt nitrogen ratio) are factors that benefit from barley maturation. Windrowing when the kernel moisture ranges from 18 to 35% appears suitable in order to obtain desirable chemical properties in the grain

for malting barley (Dew and Bendelow, 1963; Koenig et al., 1965;

Pomeranz et al., 1971).

The moisture content of barley grain when threshed is important to

malting quality. Watson et al. (1962) found that with direct combining,

germination was reduced below an acceptable level for malting barley if

the moisture content was above 21.5%. Although other malting quality

characteristics were satisfactory in grain with higher moisture content, me-



374



G. A. PETERSON AND A. E . FOSTER



chanical damage was responsible for poor germination at these levels.

Malting barley should not be threshed if the moisture content is above



20%.

Threshing malting barley is a critical operation for the producer because

acceptable grain can be made unsuitable for malting by improper threshing. The principal factor which causes reduction in, or the elimination

from, the malting barley grades is skinned and broken kernels. Excessive

cylinder speeds of the combine mainly are responsible for skinned and

broken kernels (Vogel, 1958). Concave clearance of the combine should

be adjusted in relation to correct cylinder speed to properly thresh without

excessive damage to the grain (Kucera, 1972). Sieves and air should be

adjusted for minimum tailings in the return to prevent kernel damage

caused by barley passing through the cylinder a second time. Kernel damage from threshing is greatest when moisture content is too low or high.

The moisture content of the grain varies with the time of day, and therefore, combine adjustments should be made according to prevailing

conditions.



H. HANDLING

AND



STORAGE



Most malting barley is stored in bulk in bins of various sizes. Grain

elevators are used in transferring the barley into and out of these bins.

If a blower type of elevator is used, excessive fan speeds should be avoided

to prevent skinned or broken kernels (Vogel, 1958). For safe storage of

malting barley for long periods, kernel moisture content should be less

than 13% (Tuite and Christensen, 1955). Grain should be dried to a

moisture content of 13% or less to prevent heating and possible deterioration in malting quality characteristics, especially loss of germination. Barley

intended for malting purposes should be harvested at a kernel moisture

content of 20% or lower and not be subjected to drying air temperatures

above 130°F (Watson et al., 1962). Lower drying air temperatures should

be used as kernel moisture levels increase. High air velocity and temperature are being used in some of the new drying units, and extreme care

should be exercised in use of this equipment on malting barley to prevent

loss of quality.

In the post-ripening process that takes place in newly threshed and stored

barley, the moisture and temperature tend to increase. If the moisture content is above 13 %, molds develop and temperatures continue to rise and

cause the grain to deteriorate. Tuite and Christensen (1955) found that

storage molds became active when kernel moisture content was above

13 % , resulting in decreased germination. The storage molds were the main

cause of germination loss since mold-free grain retained viability when

stored for 15-30 days at room temperature and at moisture contents up



MALTING BARLEY IN THE UNITED STATES



375



to 19.4%. Invasion of the kernels by the storage molds, Aspergillus spp.

and Penicillium spp., took place after harvest. Fungi such as Alternuria

spp., Cladosporium spp., and Fusarium spp. are sometimes abundant in

the pericarp of the kernels and under the hulls before maturity, but decrease after barley is placed in storage. These fungi are associated with

kernel discoloration and blight in harvested grain. Dickson (1962) made

an extensive review of the kernel diseases of barley and their effect on

malting quality.

Barley infested with insects or rodents will deteriorate in storage and

may become “unfit for human use,” thus not classifying as malting barley

in the marketplace. Sanitation and use of recommended chemicals on storage facilities before use can help alleviate these problems.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. A. 1944. Wallerstein Lab. Commun. 7, 179-191.

Anderson, J. A., Sallans, H. R., and Meredith, W. 0. S. 1941. Can. J . Res. 19,

278-29 1.

Anderson, J. A., Meredith, W. 0. S., and Sallans, H. R. 1943. Sci. Agr. 23, 297-314.

Anonymous. 1958. “Methods of Analysis,” 6th ed. Amer. SOC.Brew. Chem., Madison, Wisconsin.

Armstrong, J . F., Howell, D. R., Little, J. W., Dennis, R. E., and Osborne, W. E.

1970. 1969 Barley Newslett. 13, 3-6.

Atkins, R. E., Stanford, G., and Dumenil, L. 1955. J . Agr. Food Chem. 3, 609-614.

Baker, R. J., Bendelow, V. M., and Buchannon, K. W. 1968. Crop Sci. 8, 446-448.

Banasik, 0. J. 1971. Wallerstein Lab. Cornmiin. 34, 45-51.

Banasik, 0.J., and Harris, R. H. 1957. Brew. Dig. 32,60-65.

Banasik, 0. J., and Harris, R. H. 1959. Wallerstein Lab. Commun. 22, 81-87.

Banasik, 0. J., Myhre, D., and Harris, R. H. 1956. Brew. Dig. 31, 50-55 and

63-67.

Banasik, 0. J., Gilles, K. A., Holoien, M. O., and Peterson, D. E. 1966. Proc.

Amer. SOC. Brew. Chem. pp. 192-198..

Bauer, A., and Vasey, E. H. 1964. N . Dak. Farm Res. 23, 19-22.

Beard, B. H. 1961. Crop Sci. 1, 300-303.

Bell, G. D. H.,and Lupton, F. G. H. 1962. In “Barley and Malt: Biology, Biochemistry, Technology” (A. H. Cook, ed.), pp. 45-99. Academic Press, New York.

Bendelow, V. M., and Meredith, W. 0. S. 1955. Can I . Agr. Sci. 35, 252-258.

Berdahl, J. D. 1967. M.S. Thesis, North Dakota State University, Fargo.

Bishop, R. F., and MacEachern, C. R. 1971. Can. J . Soil Sci. 51, 1-11.

Brewer, D. H., and Poehlman, J. M. 1968. Agron. J . 60, 472-474.

Cook, A. H., ed. 1962. “Barley and Malt: Biology, Biochemistry, Technology.”

Academic Press, New York.

Day, A. D., Down, E. E., and Frey, K. J. 1955. Agron. J . 47, 163-165.

Den Hartog, G. T. 1950. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Derr, H. B. 1911. US.Dept. Agr., Farm Bull. 443.

Dew, D. A., and Bendelow, V. M. 1963. Can. J . Plant Sci. 43, 534-541.

Dickson, A. D. 1965. Cereal Sci. Today 10,284-290.



Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về

XIII. Malting Barley Production Practices

Tải bản đầy đủ ngay(0 tr)

×