Evaluating Winter Barley Cultivar Using Data Envelopment Analysis Models

Abstract

Unlike feed barley, malting barley must meet a specific set of quality standards for acceptability by maltsters. Multiple quality criteria in addition to the grain yield makes ranking of genotypes challenging. The objective of this study was to apply data envelopment analysis (DEA) models to rank the efficiencies of 27 winter barley entries based on grain yield and quality indices. Four methods of DEA including Charnes, Cooper and Rhodes (CCR), Färe and Grosskopf (FG), Banker, Charnes and Cooper (BCC), and Seiford and Thrall (ST) used for the ranking. Testing trial included 14 two-rows and 13 six-rows winter barley. All entries except two, demonstrated high winter survival ratings. Overall, the six-row cultivars out-yielded the two-row cultivars by 18%. However, in terms of brewing quality, the two-row entries performed better than six-row entries and had 40% lower thinness, 12% higher plump, and lower grain protein content. The six-row entries had 32% higher germinative energy than two-row entries. The ranking by four models were not similar, however, SU-Mateo and Calypso had the highest efficiency (1.0) by all four models followed by Wintmalt and Vincenta.

Winter Malting Barley Growth, Yield, and Quality following Leguminous Cover Crops in the Northeast United States

“…The overall malting quality of barley measured in this study was similar to that seen in other winter malting barley in the Northeast. As in other studies, the barley grain did not meet all malting quality standards [11,13,23]. The best practices for malting barley production in the Northeast are still under development and producers should not expect to get malting quality grain every year [2,14].…”

“…Many experiments have been performed in much drier conditions [16][17][18][19][20]22,24,39] or with spring planted cultivars [3,16,17,22,24,39]. Furthermore, many studies have found substantial differences in malting quality even in winter malting barley cultivars [10,11,14,18]. Caution should be used when generalizing experimental results given the diversity of growing conditions across North America and the relative novelty of winter malting barley cultivation in the Northeast.…”

“…The best practices for malting barley production in the Northeast are still under development and producers should not expect to get malting quality grain every year [2,14]. Given that malting barley in the Northeast can be quite variable and is much more affected by cultivar selection [3,10,11,14], spring fertilizer application [13], and harvest management [2,12], the results of the current experiment indicated that regional farmers can plan their cropping system without worrying that a previous leguminous crop may cause quality issues in following winter malting barley.…”

“…To be acceptable for malting, the barley grains should be large, low in protein, free of or very low in carcinogenic deoxynivalenol (DON) toxin [8], and sprout well during the malting process [9]. Farmers can successfully grow malting barley by combining three methods: (1) choosing a site-appropriate variety that will overwinter, resist locally common diseases, and remain upright after heading [10,11]; (2) correctly timing their harvest to avoid partial sprouting in the field and using forced air dryers if weather does not permit dry-down in the field [2,12]; and (3) using growing practices that have been shown to promote good malting quality [1,13].…”

“…Previous research has produced varietal recommendations for malting barley growing in the Northeast [10,11] as well as recommendations for planting dates and fertilization rates [13,14]. However, winter malting barley is still a relatively new and minor crop in the Northeast [15] and most scientific reports are related to the drier areas of western North America.…”