Research Article

Received: 28 October 2011

Revised: 29 February 2012

Accepted article published: 5 March 2012

Published online in Wiley Online Library: 23 April 2012

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/jsfa.5687

Effects of seeding rate, nitrogen rate

and cultivar on barley malt quality
Michael J Edney,a John T ODonovan,b T Kelly Turkington,b
George W Clayton,c Ross McKenzie,d Pat Juskiw,e Guy P Lafond,f
Stewart Brandt,g Cynthia A Grant,h K Neil Harker,b Eric Johnsong
and William Mayf
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Crop management tools have been shown to affect barley kernel size and grain protein content, but the direct
effect on malt quality is not well understood. The present study investigated the effect of seeding rate, nitrogen fertilisation
and cultivar on malt quality.
RESULTS: Higher seeding rates produced barley with less grain protein and smaller, more uniformly sized kernels. The small,
uniformly sized kernels modified more completely, leading to malt with higher extract and lower wort -glucan than malt
from low-seeding-rate barley. Increasing rates of nitrogen fertilisation caused grain protein levels to increase, which limited
endosperm modification and reduced malt extract levels. AC Metcalfe showed better modification and higher malt extract than
CDC Copeland, but CDC Copeland had better protein modification at higher fertilisation rates, which resulted in less reduction
of malt extract as nitrogen rate increased.
CONCLUSION: Higher seeding rates reduced kernel size and grain protein levels without compromising malt extract owing to
better endosperm modification of the more uniformly sized kernels. Negative effects of higher nitrogen rates on malt quality
can be reduced through development of cultivars with improved ability to modify protein during malting.
c 2012 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada


Keywords: endosperm modification; friability; germination index; grain protein; kernel size variability

INTRODUCTION

2672

Western Canada is an important producer of high-quality malting

barley, but on average less than 25% of annual production is
selected for malting. The short growing season with limited
precipitation and hot temperatures leads to a quality malt with
high levels of starch-degrading enzymes and free amino acids, but
conditions can restrict barley from achieving strict malt barley
specifications. The short growing season limits kernel filling,
leading to lower kernel plumpness, while inadequate precipitation
and hot temperatures produce high levels of grain protein.1,2
The strict specifications ensure the barley processes efficiently
in the malthouse and brewery, leading to the maximum amount of
beer possible. Malt extract, the malt quality parameter traditionally
used to predict beer production, is maximised by processing plump
barley with minimum levels of grain protein. The high levels of
starch associated with plump, low-protein barley increase malt
extract, but the barley endosperm must still be well modified
to realise that extract potential. Endosperm modification is a
physical change characterised by breakdown of the -glucan in
cell walls and the protein matrix entrenched among the starch
granules and cell walls.3 The walls must be degraded to allow
starch-degrading enzymes eventual access to starch granules
and release the sugars that contribute to malt extract.4 More
importantly, the -glucan must be broken down to prevent

J Sci Food Agric 2012; 92: 26722678

www.soci.org

Correspondence to: Michael J Edney, GRL 1050, Grain Research Laboratory,

1404-303 Main Street, Winnipeg, MB, R3C 3G8, Canada.
E-mail: michael.edney@grainscanada.gc.ca

a Grain Research Laboratory, 1404-303 Main Street, Winnipeg, MB, R3C 3G8,
Canada
b Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lacombe Research Centre, 6000 C and E
Trail, Lacombe, AB, T4L 1 W1, Canada
c Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre, 5403 1st
Avenue South, Lethbridge, AB, T1J 4B1, Canada
d Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, 5401 1st Avenue South, Lethbridge,
AB, T1J 4V6, Canada
e Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, 5030 50th Street, Lacombe, AB,
T4L 1 W8, Canada
f Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Indian Head Research Farm, Box 760, Indian
Head, SK, S0G 2K0, Canada
g Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Scott Research Farm, PO Box 10, Scott, SK,
S0K 4A0, Canada
h Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Brandon Research Centre, PO Box 1000A,
Brandon, MB, R7A 5Y3, Canada

c 2012 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

Effects of seeding rate, nitrogen rate and cultivar on barley malt quality
problems in the brewery such as slow wort and beer filtration
times and poor fermentation.5,6 Protein must also be hydrolysed
to allow access to the granules and in addition release the free
amino acids essential for fermentation. Endosperm modification
can be restricted in plump barley, because large kernels take water
up more slowly3 and contain higher levels of grain -glucan.7
Modification can also be restricted in grain with higher levels of
protein owing to slow water uptake and uneven processing.3,8
Kernel plumpness and grain protein levels are affected by crop
management practices such as seeding rate, nitrogen fertilisation
rate and cultivar selection. Higher seeding rates reduce kernel
plumpness and, although grain protein level is also reduced,
it is generally accepted that a lower malt extract level will
result.9 Higher seeding rates, however, also reduce variability in
kernel size,10,11 which can result in a more consistent endosperm
modification.12 Increasing the nitrogen fertiliser rate, necessary
for maximum barley yields, results in higher grain protein levels,
thinner kernels and greater variability in kernel size.10 Acceptable
levels of barley protein have been achieved at high fertilisation
rates with breeding lines, but malt extract levels decreased
significantly.2 Commercial barley cultivars also differ in their
response to nitrogen fertilization, as seen with CDC Copeland and
AC Metcalfe,10 but effects on malt quality are not well understood.
Crop management studies for barley seldom determine malt
quality directly owing to the expense and time requirements
for malting and malt analysis. Comments on malt quality tend
to be extrapolated from barley data or based on previous
experiences. The present study, an extension of our previous
publication that reported on effects of crop management on barley
quality,10 investigated malt quality directly. The study investigated
seeding rates, nitrogen fertilisation rates, differences between two
commonly grown Canadian malting cultivars and interactions
among these treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Plant materials and treatments
An experiment was conducted at multiple sites over four years
to determine the effects of seeding rate, nitrogen rate and barley
variety on malt quality. A factorial combination of seeding rate
(200 and 400 seeds m2 ), nitrogen rate (0, 30, 60, 90 and 120 kg
ha1 actual nitrogen) and barley cultivar (AC Metcalfe13 and
CDC Copeland14 ) was randomised in a complete block with four
replicates. The nitrogen, applied as urea (46-0-0) at seeding time,
was banded to the side of and below the seed. Field experiments
were conducted under no-tillage management at Fort Vermilion,
AB (58 24 N, 116 0 W), Beaverlodge, AB (55 11 N, 119 26
W), Lacombe, AB (52 28 N, 113 44 W), Lethbridge, AB (49
41 N, 112 46 W), Canora, SK (51 63 N, 102 45 W), Scott, SK
(52 21 N, 108 51 W), Indian Head, SK (50 32 N, 103 40 W)
and Brandon, MB (49 50 N, 99 57 W), Canada between 2005
and 2008. Details of field operations and soil types were described
previously.10

J Sci Food Agric 2012; 92: 26722678

from germinative energy results according to Riis and BangOlsen.16 A Single Kernel Characterization System (SKCS 1400,
Perten Instruments, Springfield, IL, USA) was used to measure
kernel weight, diameter and hardness.17 The system calculated
averages for weight, diameter and hardness of 300 barley kernels
together with their respective standard deviations, the latter being
used as an indicator of kernel uniformity.
Micromalting process and malt analyses
Barley samples from all growing locations were tested for
plumpness, germinative energy and protein content to determine
suitability for malting. Constraints on capacity for malting and
quality analysis limited the number of locations that could be
malted and analysed each year. Selection of locations was based
on barley quality (grain protein and germination). Barley from a
total of 16 location/years was malted. Barley from two locations
(Beaverlodge and Scott) was only malted from one year. Barley
from all other locations was selected for multiple years. The
number of replicates malted for each selected location/year varied
but generally was greater than two. A total of 39 replicates spread
across the 16 location/years were malted (780 samples).
Only plump barley (>2.38 mm slotted sieve) was malted
in a Phoenix Automated Micromalting machine (Adelaide, SA,
Australia) using the following malting schedule: steeping (8 h
wet,16 h air, 8 h wet, 12 h air at 13 C), germination (96 h at 15 C)
and kilning (12 h at 55 C, 6 h at 65 C, 2 h at 75 C, 4 h at 85 C 24 h
total). Steep-out moisture was calculated from the difference in
weight between dry matter barley and steeped-out barley. Malt
analyses included: (1) malt extract (fine grind), a measurement
of the solubility of malt that indicates a malts beer production
potential; (2) Kolbach index, the ratio of soluble to total malt
protein that indicates the extent of protein modification; (3) wort glucan, an indicator of the extent to which cell walls were degraded
during malting; (4) diastatic power and -amylase, enzymes that
produce fermentable sugars from malt starch during mashing,
the first phase of brewing. Analyses were performed according
to the standard methods of the American Society of Brewing
Chemists.15 Malt modification and homogeneity of modification
were assayed with both the friability method15 and the Calcofluor
staining method.18
Statistical model and analyses
Data were analysed using PROC MIXED of SAS.19 Seeding rate,
nitrogen rate and cultivar were considered fixed effects. Location
by year combinations (environments) and their associated
interactions with fixed effects were considered random effects,
as were replicates within environments. Yang20 suggests that in
breeding and agronomic studies it may be more appropriate to
consider year and location effects and their interactions with fixed
effects as random, since the goal of most crop improvement
programmes is to infer future performance at many untested
locations. The large number of environments investigated in this
study facilitated the use of this approach.
Barley cultivar and seeding rate means were compared using
Fishers protected least significant difference (LSD) test. Contrast
statements were used to test for linear and quadratic responses
to nitrogen rate. The mixed model was used to obtain regression
equations to describe relationships between nitrogen rate and
dependent variables. All differences were deemed significant at
< 0.05.

c 2012 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa

2673

Barley grain analyses

Analyses of grain protein, germination energy and water sensitivity
were performed according to the standard methods of the
American Society of Brewing Chemists.15 The present study used
percentage germination under 8 mL conditions as an indication
of water sensitivity rather than the official use of the difference
between the 8 and 4 mL tests. Germination index was calculated

www.soci.org

www.soci.org

RESULTS
The average quality of barley from the 16 location/years selected
for malting was appropriate for end use malting. Average grain
protein level (dry matter, DM) for all malted samples was
111 15 g kg1 (mean standard deviation). Average kernel
plumpness was 928 50 g kg1 . The average 4 day germination
was 98 2%. Barley showed some water sensitivity, but the average
value (92 9%) was well above the commercially acceptable level
of 80%. Malts produced from barley grown at the 16 location/years
were reasonably well modified, as indicated by low wort -glucan
levels (124 90 mg L1 ) and high Kolbach indices (42.7 4.0%).
Malts had good levels of malt extract (805 11 g kg1 ) and
starch-degrading enzymes, the latter indicated by diastatic power
(132 27 Lintner) and -amylase (58.0 11.0 dextrinising units).
Effect of seeding rate
Seeding rate affected several aspects of barley and malt quality
(Tables 1 and 2). Barley grown at the high seeding rate had lower
levels of grain protein, greater potential for a rapid initiation to
germination (germination index) and higher steep-out moistures
(Table 3). Malts produced from high-seeding-rate barley had better

Table 1.

MJ Edney et al.

endosperm modification, as indicated by lower levels of wort glucan, 112 vs 143 mg L1 , higher Kolbach indices, 42.9 vs 42.0%,
and higher values for both friability and Calcofluor. Malts made
from the high-seeding-rate barley showed slightly higher levels
of malt extract, 806 vs 805 g kg1 DM, but lower seeding rates
resulted in higher malt yields, 921 vs 920 g kg1 . Levels of starchdegrading enzymes were similar between the two seeding rates,
although malt from the high seeding rate had more -amylase
while malt from the low seeding rate had more diastatic power.
Effect of nitrogen rate
Increasing levels of nitrogen fertilisation affected nearly all aspects
of malt processing and malt quality (Tables 1 and 2). Grain protein
levels increased with increasing nitrogen rate, while germinative
energy showed a parabolic relationship (Fig. 1). Germination index
and steep-out moistures decreased with increasing nitrogen and,
as a result, endosperm modification decreased, as indicated by
increasing levels of wort -glucan, lower Kolbach indices (Fig. 2)
and lower values for both friability and Calcofluor (Fig. 3). Malt
extract levels decreased with increasing levels of nitrogen (Fig. 4),
but, as expected, levels of diastatic power and -amylase increased
(Fig. 2). Malt yields were unaffected by nitrogen rate.

P values from analysis of variance for fixed effects of barley cultivar, seeding rate and nitrogen rate on grain and malt processing variables
Grain hardness

Effect
Cultivar (C)
Seeding rate (S)
CS
Nitrogen rate (N)
N linear
N quadratic
CN
SN
CSN
Environment interactionb

Barley
protein

Average

Standard
deviation

Germinative
energy

Water
sensitivity

Germination
index

Steep-out
moisture

Malt
yield

<0.001a
<0.001
0.418
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.335
0.779
0.662
15

<0.001
0.301
0.031
0.035
0.819
0.428
0.448
0.903
0.976
24

0.774
0.124
0.903
<0.001
<0.001
0.040
0.914
0.977
0.996
18

0.022
0.002
0.247
0.111
0.795
0.007
0.826
0.400
0.660
18

<0.001
0.617
0.806
0.850
0.994
0.302
0.968
0.781
0.510
25

<0.001
<0.001
0.656
0.040
0.011
0.934
0.788
0.688
0.269
4

<0.001
<0.001
0.894
<0.001
<0.001
0.093
0.360
0.277
0.365
7

<0.001
0.005
0.575
0.023
0.031
0.011
0.346
0.908
0.330
1

Significant effects (P < 0.05) indicated in bold.

Variance associated with the effects of environment by treatment (fixed effects) interaction expressed as a percentage of the sum of the total
variance associated with the effect of environment. All environment interactions were significant at P < 0.01.
b

Table 2.

P values from analysis of variance for fixed effects of barley cultivar, seeding rate and nitrogen rate on malt quality variables
Malt
extract

Soluble
protein

Kolbach
index

Wort
-glucan

Diastatic
power

-Amylase

Friability
modification

Calcofluor
modification

Calcofluor
homogeneity

0.010a
0.009
0.156
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.018
0.538
0.335
14

<0.001
0.668
0.787
<0.001
<0.001
0.008
0.657
0.977
0.109
14

<0.001
<0.001
0.913
<0.001
<0.001
0.006
0.958
0.994
0.289
16

0.678
<0.001
0.011
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.953
0.956
0.806
9

<0.001
<0.001
0.929
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.692
0.531
0.175
10

<0.001
0.004
0.389
<0.001
<0.001
0.329
0.425
0.812
0.843
14

<0.001
<0.001
0.179
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.262
0.843
18

<0.001
<0.001
0.537
<0.001
<0.001
0.399
0.926
0.951
0.893
NDc

0.222
<0.001
0.934
<0.001
<0.001
0.549
0.908
0.418
0.933
ND

Effect
Cultivar (C)
Seeding rate (S)
CS
Nitrogen rate (N)
N linear
N quadratic
CN
SN
CSN
Environment interactionb
a,b

2674

See Table 1.
Not determined.

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa

c 2012 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

J Sci Food Agric 2012; 92: 26722678

Effects of seeding rate, nitrogen rate and cultivar on barley malt quality

Table 3.

Effect of seeding rate on grain and malt quality variables

Parameter
Barley protein (g kg1 DM)a
Average grain hardness (SKCS units)
Standard deviation grain hardness
Germinative energy (%)
Water sensitivity (%)c
Germination index
Steep-out moisture (g kg1 )
Malt yield (g kg1 )
Fine grind malt extract (g kg1 DM)
Soluble protein (g kg1 DM)
Kolbach index (%)
Wort -glucan (mg L1 )
Diastatic power ( L)d
-Amylase (DU)e
Friability modification (%)
Calcofluor modification (%)
Calcofluor homogeneity (%)

LSD
200 seeds 400 seeds
m2
(P < 0.05)
m2
114b
51.5
14.14
97.9
93.1
6.9
456
921
805
48.2
42.0
143
133
57.4
78.7
92.1
83.5

111
51.1
14.27
98.3
92.8
7.3
459
920
806
48.3
42.9
112
129
58.2
81.6
93.9
85.4

1.2
0.79
0.17
0.30
1.05
0.09
0.9
0.84
1.0
0.4
0.36
8.07
2.01
0.56
1.00
0.62
0.78

DM, dry matter.

Pair means in bold differ significantly (P < 0.05).
c
Presented as % germination with 8 mL of water.
d L, degrees Lintner.15
e DU, dextrinising units.15
b

Effect of cultivar
Several aspects of barley and malt quality were affected by
cultivar (Tables 1 and 2). CDC Copeland had lower protein than AC
Metcalfe, 109 vs 116 g kg1 DM, slightly better germinative energy,
98.2 vs 97.9%, and less water sensitivity, 94.2 vs 91.5% (Table 4). AC
Metcalfe kernels initiated germination more rapidly, as indicated
by higher germination indices, 7.37 vs 6.88, which contributed to
higher steep-out moistures, 459 vs 456 g kg1 , even though AC
Metcalfe had harder kernels, 56.6 vs 46.1 SKCS units.

www.soci.org

The endosperm of the two cultivars modified differently. Levels

of wort -glucan were similar on average between cultivars, but
AC Metcalfe had better Calcofluor modification values, 93.8 vs
92.2%, a measurement of the pattern of -glucan breakdown in
contrast to absolute levels of this undesirable compound in wort.
AC Metcalfe produced more soluble protein, 48.9 vs 47.6 g kg1
DM, but the percentage of protein breakdown, as indicated by
Kolbach index, was higher in CDC Copeland, 42.9 vs 42.1%, and CDC
Copeland also had higher friability, 83.9 vs 76.3%, a parameter also
associated with protein modification. AC Metcalfe malt produced
a slightly higher level of malt extract, 806 vs 805 g kg1 DM, but
CDC Copeland had higher malt yield, 922 vs 919 g kg1 , or reduced
losses during malting. AC Metcalfe had higher levels of diastatic
power and -amylase.
An interaction of seeding rate by cultivar was observed for levels
of wort -glucan (Table 2). CDC Copeland had more wort -glucan
than AC Metcalfe at the low seeding rate but less wort -glucan
than AC Metcalfe at the high seeding rate (Table 5). Grain hardness
also had a seeding rate by cultivar interaction, although grain
protein was not affected. The hardness of AC Metcalfe kernels
remained constant between seeding rates, while CDC Copeland
had significantly softer kernels and higher malt extract at the
higher seeding rate.
An interaction between nitrogen rate and cultivar was detected
for two aspects of malt quality (Table 2). The negative effect of
nitrogen fertilisation on friability was more pronounced with AC
Metcalfe than with CDC Copeland (Fig. 3). As a result, AC Metcalfes
advantage of higher levels of malt extract was slowly eroded with
increasing rates of nitrogen fertilisation (Fig. 4).

DISCUSSION
Environment was a significant source of variance for most barley and malt parameters analysed (data not shown). However,
the objective of the study was to determine how seeding rate,
nitrogen rate and cultivar affected malt quality, and not effects of environment on quality, which have been previously

J Sci Food Agric 2012; 92: 26722678

c 2012 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa

2675

Figure 1. Effect of nitrogen rate on (A) grain protein, (B) germinative energy, (C) germination index and (D) steep-out moisture. Symbols represent data
averaged over all environments. Lines were derived from regression coefficients as calculated with mixed model analysis.

www.soci.org

MJ Edney et al.

Figure 2. Effect of nitrogen rate on (A) wort -glucan, (B) -amylase, (C) Kolbach index and (D) diastatic power. Symbols represent data averaged over all
environments. Lines were derived from regression coefficients as calculated with mixed model analysis.

Figure 3. Effect of nitrogen on (A) friability modification, (B) friability homogeneity, (C) Calcofluor modification and (D) Calcofluor homogeneity. Symbols
represent data averaged over all environments. Lines were derived from regression coefficients as calculated with mixed model analysis.

2676

documented.1,2 Consistency of treatment effects across environments (locations/years) was a concern and was indicated by the
percentage of environment variance associated with the sum
of environment/treatment interactions (Tables 1 and 2). The percentage was low (<10%) for the malt processing parameters,
germination index, steep-out moisture and malt yield but higher
(1520%) for barley parameters such as grain protein, grain hardness, germinative energy and water sensitivity (Table 1). The
percentage for malt quality parameters averaged nearly 16%.
All percentages of environment/treatment interaction variance

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa

were still relatively low compared with the overall variances associated with the environment, indicating that treatment effects
were relatively consistent across environments.
Seeding rates and nitrogen fertilisation rates are known to
affect barley quality, but effects on malt quality have often only
been surmised from the barley data. However, the endosperm
modification so necessary for good malt quality is a complex
process dependent on all aspects of barley quality, including their
interactions. Malt quality, therefore, is best determined directly if

c 2012 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

J Sci Food Agric 2012; 92: 26722678

Effects of seeding rate, nitrogen rate and cultivar on barley malt quality

Figure 4. Effect of nitrogen rate on malt extract. Symbols represent data

averaged over all environments. Lines were derived from regression
coefficients as calculated with mixed model analysis.

Table 4.

Effect of barley cultivar on grain and malt quality variables

Parameter
Barley protein (g kg1 DM)a
Average grain hardness
(SKCS units)
Standard deviation grain
hardness
Germinative energy (%)
Water sensitivity (%)c
Germination index
Steep-out moisture (g kg1 )
Malt yield (g kg1 )
Fine grind malt extract
(g kg1 DM)
Soluble protein (g kg1 DM)
Kolbach index (%)
Wort -glucan (mg L1 )
Diastatic power ( L)d
-Amylase (DU)e
Friability modification (%)
Calcofluor modification (%)
Calcofluor homogeneity (%)
ae

AC
Metcalfe

CDC
Copeland

LSD
(P < 0.05)

116b
56.6

109
46.1

1.2
0.79

14.19

14.22

0.17

97.9
91.5
7.37
459
919
806

98.2
94.2
6.88
456
922
805

0.30
1.05
0.08
0.9
0.8
1.0

48.9
42.1
127
146
66.2
76.3
93.8
84.2

47.6
42.9
128
116
49.4
83.9
92.2
84.7

0.4
0.36
8.1
2.00
0.56
1.03
0.62
0.78

See Table 3.

effects of crop management on end use quality are to be clearly

demonstrated.
Higher seeding rates for malting barley have not been
recommended owing to poor barley plumpness and a perceived
negative effect on malt extract.9 The slight decrease in grain
protein was not considered sufficient to overcome the negative

www.soci.org

effects of small kernels. However, recent studies showed a

reduction in variability of kernel size as seeding rates increased,
which improved malt quality.12 In the present study, higher
seeding rates produced barley with smaller but more uniformly
sized kernels10 that processed differently, with a quicker start to
germination and higher steep-out moistures. This was expected,
as smaller kernels are known to take water up at a greater rate than
larger kernels.3 The uniform kernel size also allowed barley grown
at higher seeding rates to modify more uniformly, as indicated
by better Calcofluor homogeneity. The result was higher malt
extract levels, despite the smaller kernels, and lower levels of wort
-glucan. Therefore relatively high seeding rates can be used to
grow malting barley with excellent malt potential.
The necessity to reduce the rate of nitrogen fertilisation to
achieve required grain protein levels, which compromises on
yield, can be overcome with specific barley cultivars. Cultivars
have been developed that produce lower grain protein,2 but the
ability to maintain acceptable malt quality under high fertilisation
rates is not well understood. In the present study, higher rates
of nitrogen led to increased grain protein and a consequent
reduction in malt extract and endosperm modification. The two
cultivars tested did behave differently, although differences were
often subtle, as both cultivars had been developed to produce
the high but narrow malt quality demanded by industry. CDC
Copeland showed greater ability to resist the negative effects of
increasing rates of nitrogen, as indicated by smaller reductions in
friability and malt extract compared with AC Metcalfe. The two
cultivars differed in their manner of endosperm modification. CDC
Copeland showed better protein modification, as indicated by
the higher levels of friability at all nitrogen levels. The enhanced
protein modification of CDC Copeland was expected owing to
specific breeding for high friability with this cultivar (BL Harvey,
breeder of CDC Copeland, personal communication). AC Metcalfe
showed better Calcofluor modification, indicating more complete
modification of cell walls. In contrast to protein modification,
Calcofluor showed no cultivar/nitrogen interaction, suggesting
different constraints to cell wall versus protein breakdown. Kernel
size appeared to be a greater restriction to cell wall breakdown,
as indicated by the cultivar/seeding rate interaction on wort
-glucan. Breeding barley cultivars with better ability to break
protein down during malting, and not necessarily -glucan, could
lead to cultivars with good malt quality potential, even at higher
rates of nitrogen fertilisation.
In conclusion, higher seeding rates resulted in barley that
produced malt with good quality owing to smaller, more uniformly
sized kernels and more complete endosperm modification. Better
modification led to less wort -glucan and good levels of malt
extract despite the smaller kernels. Varieties responded differently
to changing crop management, which affected malt quality owing
to differences in protein modification. Negative effects on malt

Table 5. Effects of interaction between barley cultivar and seeding rate (low, 200 seeds m2 ; high, 400 seeds m2 ) on kernel diameter, kernel
hardness, wort -glucan and malt extract

Cultivar
AC Metcalfe
CDC Copeland

Average grain hardness (SKCS units)

Wort -glucan (mg L1 )

Malt extract (g kg1 DM)

Low rate

High rate

Low rate

High rate

Low rate

High rate

Low rate

High rate

2.56a
2.56

2.53
2.50

56.3
46.8

56.8
45.5

136
149

117
108

806
804

806
805

2677

Average kernel diameter (mm)

Seeding rate pairs in bold differ significantly (P < 0.05).

J Sci Food Agric 2012; 92: 26722678

c 2012 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa

www.soci.org
quality of higher nitrogen rates can be reduced by breeding and
growing cultivars that achieve better protein modification during
malting.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was funded by grants from the Alberta Barley
Commission, the Canadian Wheat Board, RAHR Malting and
the Matching Investment Initiative of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada. The excellent technical assistance of the following is
gratefully appreciated: Len Dushnicky, Jason Herman, Justin
Highmoor, April Johnson, Anders Leung, Shirley Lowe, Marnie
MacLean, Aaron MacLeod, Ashley Orr, Shawn Parsons, Mary
Richardson and Mike Svistovski.

REFERENCES
1 Therrien MC, Carmichael CA, Noll JS and Grant CA, Effect of fertilizer
management, genotype, and environmental factors on some
malting quality characteristics in barley. Can J Plant Sci 74:545547
(1994).
2 Weston DT, Horsley RD, Schwarz PB and Goos RJ, Nitrogen and
planting date effects on low-protein spring barley. Agron J
85:11701174 (1993).
3 Briggs DE, Hough JS, Stevens R and Young TW, Malting and Brewing
Science, Vol. 1, Malt and Sweet Wort. Chapman and Hall, London,
pp. 42, 80, 121 (1981).
4 Palmer GH, Cereals in malting and brewing, in Cereal Science and
Technology, ed. by Palmer GH. Aberdeen University Press, Aberdeen,
pp. 147165 (1989).
5 Crabb D and Bathgate GN, The influence of -glucanase on efficiency
of wort separation. J Inst Brew 79:519524 (1973).
6 Edney MJ, Eglinton JK, Collins HM, Barr AR, Legge WG and
Rossnagel BG, Importance of endosperm modification for malt
wort fermentability. J Inst Brew 113:228238 (2007).

MJ Edney et al.

7 Duijnhouwer IDC, Grashoff C and Angelino SAGF, Kernel filling and

malting barley quality. Proc. European Brewing Convention, Oslo,
pp. 121128 (1993).

8 Sheehy M, Marafioti A, Krawec C, Lofqvist

B and Stewart D, Active stack
management actively undoing malt quality? Proc. 14th Australian
Barley Technical Symposium, Brisbane, (2009).
9 McKenzie RH, Middleton AB and Bremer E, Fertilization, seeding date,
and seeding rate for malting barley yield and quality in southern
Alberta. Can J Plant Sci 85:603614 (2005).
10 ODonovan JT, Turkington TK, Edney MJ, Clayton GW, McKenzie RH,
Juskiw PE, et al, Seeding rate, nitrogen rate and cultivar effects on
malting barley production. Agron J 103:709716 (2011).
11 Wade A and Froment MA, Barley Quality and Grain Size Homogeneity
for Malting, Vol. I, Agronomic Effects on Cultivars. Project Report #320.
Home Grown Cereals Authority, Kenilworth (2003).
12 Muller R, Barley Quality and Grain Size Homogeneity for Malting, Vol. II,
Assessment and Control. Project Report #320. Home Grown Cereals
Authority, Kenilworth (2003).
13 Legge WG, Metcalfe DR, Haber S, Harder DE, Noll JS, Tekauz A, et al,
AC Metcalfe barley. Can J Plant Sci 83:381384 (2003).
14 CDC Copeland. [Online]. Available: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/
english/plaveg/pbrpov/cropreport/bar/app00002297e.shtml [28
February 2012].
15 ASBC, Methods of Analysis (9th edn). American Society of Brewing
Chemists, St Paul, MN (2004).
16 Riis P and Bang-Olsen KB, Germination profile a new term in barley
analyses. Proc. European Brewing Convention, Lisbon, pp. 101108
(1991).
17 Osborne BG and Anderssen RS, Single-kernel characterization
principles and applications. Cereal Chem 80:613622 (2003).
18 Aastrup S, Gibbons GC and Munk L, A rapid method for estimating the
degree of modification in barley malt by measurement of cell wall
breakdown. Carlsberg Res Commun 46:7786 (1981).
19 SAS, SAS User Manual 9.2. SAS Institute, Cary, NC (2008).
20 Yang RC, Towards understanding and use of mixed model analysis of
agricultural experiments. Can J Plant Sci 90:605627 (2010).

2678
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa

c 2012 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

J Sci Food Agric 2012; 92: 26722678