Montana Barley Production Guide
The intent of this publication is to provide current information on barley production for producers within the state of Montana. The authors have attempted to provide all the basic information necessary for the establishment and management of a barley crop. More detailed information can be found on certain topics by following the links to the referenced websites. Hard copies of many of the references in this publication are available through MSU Extension Publications, as well as through your local county MSU Extension office.
Last Updated: 11/17by Kent McVay, associate professor and MSU Extension cropping systems specialist; Mary Burrows, professor and Extension plant pathology specialist; Clain Jones, associate professor and Extension nutrient management specialist; Kevin Wanner, associate professor and Extension entomology specialist; and Fabian Menalled, professor and Extension cropland weed specialist
Cereal Grain Development Scales
| Growth Stage | Description | Zadoks | Feekes | Haun |
Germination |
Dry seed | 00 | ||
| Start of imbibition | 01 | |||
| Imbibition complete | 03 | |||
| Radicle emerged | 05 | |||
| Coleoptile emerged | 07 | |||
| Leaf at coleoptile tip | 09 | 0.0 | ||
Seedling Growth |
First leaf through coleoptile | 10 | 1 | |
| 1st leaf unfolded | 11 | 1.+ | ||
| 2 leaves unfolded | 12 | 1.+ | ||
| 3 leaves unfolded | 13 | 2.+ | ||
| 4 leaves unfolded | 14 | 3.+ | ||
| 5 leaves unfolded | 15 | 4.+ | ||
| 6 leaves unfolded | 16 | 5.+ | ||
| 7 leaves unfolded | 17 | 6.+ | ||
| 8 leaves unfolded | 18 | 7.+ | ||
| 9 or more leaves unfolded | 19 | |||
Tillering |
Main shoot only | 20 | ||
| Main shoot and 1 tiller | 21 | 2 | ||
| Main shoot and 2 tillers | 22 | |||
| Main shoot and 3 tillers | 23 | |||
| Main shoot and 4 tillers | 24 | |||
| Main shoot and 5 tillers | 25 | |||
| Main shoot and 6 tillers | 26 | 3 | ||
| Main shoot and 7 tillers | 27 | |||
| Main shoot and 8 tillers | 28 | |||
| Main shoot and 9 or more tillers | 29 | |||
Stem Elongation |
Pseudo stem erection | 30 | 4-5 | |
| 1st node detectable | 31 | 6 | ||
| 2nd node detectable | 32 | 7 | ||
| 3rd node detectable | 33 | |||
| 4th node detectable | 34 | |||
| 5th node detectable | 35 | |||
| 6th node detectable | 36 | |||
| Flag leaf just visible | 37 | 8 | ||
| Flag leaf ligule/collar just visible | 39 | 9 |
Cereal Grain Development
| Growth Stage | Description | Zadoks | Feekes | Haun |
Booting |
Boot Initiation | 40 | ||
| Flag leaf sheath extending | 41 | 8-9 | ||
| Boots just swollen | 45 | 10 | 9.2 | |
| Flag leaf sheath opening | 47 | |||
| First awns visible | 49 | 10.1 | ||
Inflorescence Emergence |
First spikelet of inflorescence visible | 50 | 10.1 | 10.2 |
| ¼ of inflorescence emerged | 53 | 10.2 | ||
| ½ of inflorescence emerged | 55 | 10.3 | 10.5 | |
| ¾ of inflorescence emerged | 57 | 10.4 | 10.7 | |
| Emergence of inflorescence complete | 59 | 10.5 | 11.0 | |
Anthesis |
Beginning of anthesis | 60 | 10.51 | 11.4 |
| Anthesis half-way | 65 | 11.5 | ||
| Anthesis complete | 69 | 11.6 | ||
Milk Development |
Kernal watery ripe | 71 | 10.54 | 12.1 |
| Early milk | 73 | 13.0 | ||
| Medium milk | 75 | 11.1 | ||
| Late milk | 77 | |||
Dough Development |
Early dough | 83 | 14.0 | |
| Soft dough | 85 | 11.2 | ||
| Hard dough | 87 | 15.0 | ||
Ripening |
Kernel hard (difficult to divide by thumbnail) | 91 | 11.3 | |
| Kernel hard (no longer dented by thumbnail) | 92 | 11.4 | 16.0 | |
| Kernel loosening in daytime | 93 | |||
| Overripe, straw dead and collapsing | 94 | |||
| Seed dormant | 95 | |||
| Viable seed giving 50% germination | 96 | |||
| Seed not dormant | 97 | |||
| Secondary dormancy induced | 98 | |||
| Secondary dormancy lost | 99 |
Modified from www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/small-grains/growth-and-development/spring-wheat/index.html
Editor
Kent A. McVay, associate professor and MSU Extension cropping systems specialist, Department of Research Centers, Montana State University, located at the Southern Agricultural Research Center, Huntley, MT.
Contributing Authors
All authors are faculty members of Montana State University. Kent McVay is the principle author, assisted by Clain Jones, associate professor and Extension nutrient management specialist in the Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences; Mary Burrows, professor and Extension plant pathology specialist in the Department of Plant Sciences and Plant Pathology; Fabian Menalled, professor and Extension cropland weed specialist in the Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences; and Kevin Wanner, an associate professor and Extension entomology specialist in the Department of Plant Sciences and Plant Pathology.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the reviewers, Darren Crawford, Sharla Sackman, and Michael Killen, who helped to make this a more inclusive and complete publication.
Layout and design by MSU Extension Publications. Cover photos by Kent McVay.
Disclaimer
Common chemical and trade names are used in this publication for clarity of the reader. Inclusion of a common chemical or trade name does not imply endorsement of that particular product or brand and exclusion does not imply non-approval.
Barley description and history
In 2015 Montana producers harvested 860,000 acres of barley at a value of over $258.5 million (Anonymous, 2017). This number represents a decline in total barley acreage from a high of 2.4 million acres in 1986. Montana has ranked second in barley production since 2002 to North Dakota. Add in Idaho’s 500,000 acres and these three states account for 77% of the nation’s barley production. Barley is an important crop for Montana, fitting nicely into rotations with sugar beets and corn in irrigated production, as an alternate dryland crop to wheat, and as an annual feed and forage crop in dryland and irrigated production.
Variety selection
Barley products include malt, feed grain, hay and a minor amount of food. The end use market determines proper agronomic management of the crop. For example, for use as malt, stringent grain quality dictates acceptability in the market. Management for malt quality factors becomes more important than management for high yield (see Table 1), and generally requires more precision than management for feed. In the feed market, total barley grain yield and higher protein becomes more important than malt quality factors.
Variety selection is most important, and varieties for malt production are not always the best choice for the feed grain market. This is particularly true for dryland production, although many producers, without a malt barley contract, will speculate by growing a malt variety hoping for malt quality and use the feed grain market as a safety net. There are some open markets for malt barley although most malt barley is specified by contract with individual companies that require specific varieties. The AMBA website http://ambainc.org/ provides a list of malt varieties recommended for the current production year. Maltsters are particular in the varieties they purchase and even narrow their choices within the list of AMBA approved varieties. If you are considering growing malt barley without a contract, first investigate the market prior to planting and be aware of the potential for reduced yields, particularly on dryland, when growing a malt variety as opposed to a feed barley. Insurance is typically not available for malt barley without a contract. Be sure to check with your insurance office prior to making the decision to plant.
Variety development for feed grain production has produced some outstanding varieties capable of high yield. Variety trials are conducted annually at the Montana Agricultural Research Centers. Results are published at the Southern Ag Research Center (SARC) website http://www.sarc.montana.edu as Annual Reports to the Montana Wheat & Barley Committee. Click on the link to ‘Research Results’, and then ‘Reports to MWBC.’ Results from the current year back through 1997 are available. Results are also available on CD from SARC or the Montana Wheat and Barley Committee, Great Falls, MT, upon request. Montana Variety Performance Evaluations is another good source of variety information and is available from the MSU Plant Sciences and Plant Pathology Department website http://plantsciences.montana.edu/crops/index.html.
Tillage
Barley can be successfully produced in any tillage system. Soil management begins at harvest via residue management. It is important to distribute crop residue as evenly as possible during harvest. This is especially true if barley or any other crop is to be planted no-till, but is also important in tilled systems. Straw choppers and chaff spreaders on combines efficiently distribute residue, simplifying the next operation. In dryland operations, stripper headers which strip small grain from the straw rather than cutting the straw are a good option which leaves straw intact which requires no spreading.
In flood irrigation, conventional tillage is typically used to reduce residue levels for more uniform water distribution the following year. There are options for less tillage in irrigated systems. For example, following barley harvest, straw can be baled and the field left for a no-tillage establishment of sugar beets, corn, or canola the following spring. One or two heavy harrow passes shortly after harvest is effective in spreading residue and breaking it up in preparation for spring planting. A planter capable of no-tillage operations will be required because the remaining residue and more dense soil under no-till conditions will be difficult to penetrate. Straw can be burned, but burning is not recommended on a regular basis as this can lead to reduced soil organic matter over time. For overhead sprinkler systems options for less tillage are even better. In these systems, residue does not need to be removed for water distribution. Crop rotations (see below) rather than tillage become key to managing diseases and pests just like in dryland systems.
TABLE 1. Typical Two-Row Malting Barley Purchase Specifications. Be sure to check with your buyer for their current requirements.
| Quality Factors | Two-Row Barley |
| Moisture | < 13% |
| Plump kernels (on 6/64 screen) | > 70% |
| Diseased and Damaged | < 5% |
| Germination | > 97 % |
| Protein | 7.5 - 14 % |
| Skinned & broken kernels | < 3 % |
| Wild oat | < 2.5 % |
| DON (Vomitoxin) | < 1 ppm |
No-till usually results in soil conditions that are wetter and cooler than tilled soils largely due to the residue, which reflects solar energy rather than absorbing it as does exposed soil. One benefit of keeping residue in place is improved soil moisture within the planting zone which helps stand establishment. The mulching residue protects the newly emerged crop from physical damage from wind, blowing soil, and rain. Planter openers such as 4- to 6-inch sweeps or residue managers ahead of openers will move residue from the row, allowing soils to warm quicker while keeping the area between rows covered. Watch for shifts in weed species when moving from tilled to minimum-till or no- till systems. Reduced tilled systems favor winter annuals so it is important to use a herbicide application like glyphosate prior to crop emergence.
Planting Dates and Rates
Barley crops grown in Montana are spring varieties; no winter varieties are currently adapted to this region. Barley is a cool-season crop, and will yield best when vegetative and early reproductive growth occurs while temperatures are cool. Spring barley will germinate at temperatures above 40°F. Optimal germination and emergence occurs when soil temperatures are between 55°F and 75°F. In the spring, barley should be planted as soon as possible after killing grassy and other weeds. Delayed planting can result in lower yields and higher protein, which can be cause for rejection in the malt market. In general, early-seeded barley (late-February to mid-April depending on location) avoids injury from drought, high temperatures, diseases, and insect pests that occur late in the season. As a rule-of-thumb for Montana, potential yield is reduced approximately one bushel (bu) a day for each day planting is delayed after the first of May.
Barley Seeding Rates
Desired populations when planted on-time. Increase seeding rate if planting is delayed.
Crop Plants/acre x 1,000 Plants/ft2 Irrigated malt 800 – 1,200 18 - 28 Dryland malt 400 - 600 9 - 14 Feed barley 500 - 720 11 – 17 Hay barley 850 - 950 18 - 22
Seeds per pound is usually provided on the seed test report. To calculate actual seeding rate on a pure live seed (PLS) basis, use the information from each seed lot to correct for seeding rate. For example, assume a seed test indicates the following information: density of 11,400 seeds/lb, germination of 95%. With experience you expect that your stand will be approximately 90% of what you plant. Calculate the planting rate to obtain 750,000 plants/acre as follows:
Seed Rate (lb/acre) = (Desired plants/acre) / (Seeds/lb) ×% Germ×% Stand
Seed Rate (lb/acre) = (750,000 plants/acre) / (11,400 seeds/lb)×0.95×0.90) = 77 lb/acre
Planting depth should be 1 to 1½ inches. It’s important that press wheels cover the entire width of the seed trough to ensure good seed-soil contact. This is especially true if using an air seeder with wider openers. Recent research (McVay and Khan, 2015) indicated no yield difference in irrigated malt barley production for plant populations that ranged from 9 to 28 plants/ft2 (400,000 to 1.2 million plants/acre). Barley has a tremendous ability to compensate for poor stands by producing tillers. Irrigated malt barley populations should target a minimum of 750,000 plants/acre. That way if an early stand loss occurs that leaves as few as 9 plants/ft2 (assuming uniformity across the field), a significant yield penalty would not likely occur. This is preferable to replanting, which usually lowers yield due to later establishment. For dryland production, malt barley populations should be about half that of irrigated. Dryland feed barley populations should be at least 500,000 plants/acre.
The number of seeds per pound varies by variety and within a variety each year depending on the quality of the grain. In central Montana in 2007, results from the variety performance trials showed that seed weights ranged from 8,500 to 13,000 seeds per pound. This large variation in seed size is one reason why a seed test should be used to calculate optimum seeding rates.
Crop Rotations
Recent studies in North Dakota (Krupinsky et al., 2006 and Tanaka et al., 2007) have helped quantify the rotation benefit of crops in a study largely independent of the impact of pests. These researchers used a matrix of 10 different crops planted in strips in two consecutive years with the second year’s strips oriented perpendicular to the first year’s. This provided a data set of each crop on 10 different kinds of residue. Table 2 shows results combined over crop types. Warm-season grasses like corn, grain sorghum, and millet and oilseed crops like sunflower and safflower give positive yield responses of 50 to 60% (relative yield of 1.5 to 1.6) to rotation. While the cool-season grass crops like barley and spring wheat show little yield response due to rotation. These results should not be taken to mean rotations don’t improve crop production. On the contrary, crop rotation is a great way to help manage residue and reduce pest levels of weeds, diseases and insects. Additionally, crops such as spring pea, mustards, canola, sunflower, and safflower can be rotated with small grains in continuous crop systems to help manage the amount of residue present at planting time. The low carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio of pea straw allows quicker decomposition than wheat straw, which reduces the total amount of residue on the ground the following season. Crops like canola and mustard produce less residue at harvest so alternating these crops with small grains, a high-residue-producing crop, is a good management practice. In irrigated cropping systems rotational crops such as sugar beets, dry beans, soybeans, peas, or alfalfa provide excellent disease management for Fusarium Head Blight (see “Managing Plant Diseases,” for more information).
TABLE 2. Relative expected yield response of a crop following various previous crops. A value of 1.0 indicates yields were neither improved nor depressed due to the previous crop.
| Previous Crop | CS grass | WS grass | CS Pulse | Canola | Sun or Safflower |
| CS grass | 1.00 | 1.59 | our store, contact your county or reservation MSU Extension office, or e-mail orderpubs@montana.edu.
Copyright © 2023 MSU Extension We encourage the use of this document for nonprofit educational purposes. This document may be reprinted for nonprofit educational purposes if no endorsement of a commercial product, service or company is stated or implied, and if appropriate credit is given to the author and MSU Extension. To use these documents in electronic formats, permission must be sought from the Extension Communications Coordinator, 115 Culbertson Hall, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717; E-mail: publications@montana.edu The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Montana State University and Montana State University Extension prohibit discrimination in all of their programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital and family status. Issued in furtherance of cooperative extension work in agriculture and home economics, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cody Stone, Director of Extension, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717 |