MT Report Journal19

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 5

From: E.J. Wright, M.C. Webb and E. Highley, ed., Stored grain in Australia 2003.

Proceedings of the Australian Postharvest Technical Conference, Canberra,


25–27 June 2003. CSIRO Stored Grain Research Laboratory, Canberra.

Malting barley: storage, dormancy and processing


quality
R. Reuss,1 J.A. Cassells and J.R. Green
CSIRO Entomology, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601
R. Nischwitz
Barett Burston Malting Co., Central Laboratory Gough Street, GPO Box 153B, Melbourne, Victoria 3001

Abstract. Preharvest sprouting of malting barley causes substantial commercial losses to the grain industry. The use of
dormant barley varieties could reduce the risk of weather damage, but dormancy and water sensitivity are undesirable
during malting. Storage conditions largely determine the rate of postharvest breakdown of dormancy and water sensi-
tivity. This process may take months, to the disadvantage of handlers and maltsters. Our research has identified several
options for managing barley dormancy to provide opportunities to malt and export barley earlier. This would open the
door to the use of more dormant barley varieties to reduce preharvest sprouting. The use of agricultural chemicals to
break dormancy before or after storage is one possible option. Alternatively, the use of dry heat is an attractive option
avoiding market sensitivities to chemical use. Finally, by manipulating the storage process, postharvest dormancy
breakdown can be accelerated without compromising barley quality. Here we present preliminary results of a three-
year project that aims to understand the interaction between storage conditions, barley quality and dormancy.

Introduction Storage conditions largely determine the rate at which


postharvest maturation occurs. Initial seed condition, seed
The effect of storage conditions on the quality of barley is temperature, seed moisture content and storage time are
of considerable importance to the barley industry. Storage the major factors influencing changes in malting quality.
can either reduce barley quality (Woods et al. 1994; White Depending on storage conditions, Australian malting
et al. 1999), or increase maltability (Woonton et al. 2002). barley can take several months to reach optimum malting
To maximise quality of previously stored barley entering quality. Our research has identified three options for
the malt house, the influence of storage environments on managing barley dormancy to provide opportunities to
postharvest maturation and changes in malting quality of malt and export barley earlier. The use of agricultural
contemporary Australian barley varieties needs to be chemicals to break dormancy before or after storage is one
better understood. possible option. Alternatively, the use of dry heat is attrac-
Preharvest sprouting is a serious problem in cereals tive, since it avoids difficulties such as chemical residues
(Nagao 1995), and in malting barley results in down- and market sensitivities to chemical use. Finally, by
grading of grain and heavy financial penalties to the understanding and carefully manipulating the storage
grower. Low dormancy of barley is closely linked to process, postharvest dormancy breakdown can be acceler-
preharvest sprouting of grain (Jacobson et al. 2002). The ated without compromising barley quality. Here we
use of barley varieties with dormant genotypes reduces present preliminary results of a three-year project that
downgrading caused by rain and, in combination with aims to understand the interaction between storage condi-
improved harvesting practices, the risk of weather damage tions, barley quality and dormancy.
in rain-prone areas can be minimised (Moor 1987).
However, dormancy that persists after harvest is highly
undesirable because it prevents malting of newly received Materials and methods
barley (Jacobsen et al. 2002). In contemporary Australian
barley varieties, levels of dormancy are very low, and Chemical treatments
generally are only expressed when cool, wet weather
conditions occur. After screening 65 barleys collected during the 2001–
2002 harvest for dormancy, samples of Franklin from
1 Corresponding author: <[email protected]>. Tasmania and a breeding line from the Tasmanian Depart-

44
Malting barley: storage, dormancy and processing quality

ment of Primary Industry were chosen for the experi- sensitivity (WS) were determined as described by Doran
ments. and Briggs (1992).
Nineteen chemicals were selected for assessment (Table
1). Duplicate 50 g samples were weighed into crystallising
dishes and placed into sealed desiccators containing Results and discussion
magnetic stirring paddles. Controls were exposed to the
same handling procedures, except for the chemical treat- The use of agricultural chemicals to break dormancy
ment. Chemicals were injected into desiccators, which were Nineteen chemicals were selected for assessment
placed on stirrer plates and the air mixed for 30 min and (Table 1). The compounds tested fell into two basic cate-
then kept at 25°C for 48 h. After exposure, samples were gories: gases and condensable vapours. The selection
vented in a fume cabinet for 48 h. Samples were tested included past, current and potential fumigants (shown in
immediately or stored at –18°C until assessment. italics in Table 1). Other chemicals were selected based on
Germination testing was based on the germination published data and likely low phyto- and mammalian
energy test developed by Doran and Briggs (1992) and toxicity. Doses were selected based on existing treatment
methods described in the International Rules for Seed schedules or, where this was not possible, on the doses
Testing (ISTA 1999). To define dormancy status, germina- used for related compounds. Doses were deliberately set
tion with water only was compared to germination in the high to speed up the screening process and to ensure that
presence of 0.05% gibberellic acid (GA3) solution. the compounds had low phytotoxicity—the most essential
Dormant (but not dead) grain will germinate in the characteristic of any chemical compound applied to
presence of GA3. For the purpose of rapid screening of malting barley. Very high doses were applied for
chemicals, phytotoxicity was classified as high (>51% compounds which were considered to be of very low
dead seeds), medium (21–50% dead seeds) and low toxicity. Details of doses and application techniques will
(<20% dead seeds). be published at the conclusion of the project.
Barley samples had to display persistent dormancy to
Heating experiments
be useful for chemical treatment trials. A clear distinction
To assess the effect of dry heat on dormancy, 40 g needed to be drawn between dormant kernels and kernels
samples of grain were rapidly heated to 60°C following which were non-viable, i.e. dead. The percentage of grain
the procedure developed by Beckett et al. (1998). that failed to germinate in the presence of gibberellic acid
Exposure times were 15, 30 and 60 minutes. The varieties (GA3) was considered to be a measure of non-viable
Stirling (Western Australia, 2002–2003 harvest, 11.1% (dead) grain. The difference between non-germinated
moisture content; MC) and Triumph (Tasmania, 2002– grain in the standard test and non-viable grain was taken
2003 harvest, 12.3% MC) were selected for treatment. to be an indication of dormancy. Based on germination
tests, treatments were assigned a phytotoxicity classifica-
Storage experiments tion (high, medium, low) and a classification based on
Stirling (from Western Australia), Sloop and Gairdner their effectiveness in breaking dormancy (the effects
(both from South Australia) from the 2001–2002 harvest ranged from a high, medium or low ability to break
were stored at 10, 12 and 14% MC and 15, 20, 25 and dormancy through to actually increasing dormancy). We
30°C. All samples had been graded as malting barley, would like to emphasise that phytotoxicity classifications
obtained immediately after harvest, and were conditioned were only for comparison between compounds tested in
to the required MC before storage under controlled labo- this experiment; they do not measure the safety of any of
ratory conditions. Germinative energy (GE) and water the treatments when applied to malting barley.

Table 1. Chemical treatments (past, current and potential fumigants are shown in italics).

Gaseous treatments Vapour treatments


Phosphine PH3 Ethyl formate C3H6O2
Carbonyl sulfide COS Methyl formate C2H4O2
Sulfuryl fluoride F2O2S Propyl formate C4H8O2
Hydrogen sulfide H2S Carbon disulfide CS2
Sulfur dioxide SO2 Dichlorvos C4H7Cl2O4P
Carbon dioxide CO2 Methanol CH4O
Carbon monoxide CO Ethanol C2H6O
Ethylene C2H4 Propanol C3H8O
Hydrogen cyanide HCN Sodium hypochloride solution NaClO
Ethanedinitrile C2N2

45
Stored grain in Australia 2003

The phytotoxic and barley dormancy-breaking effects chemicals for breaking seed dormancy with large-scale
of the chemicals tested are shown in Table 2. Where the industrial applications in mind. We have concentrated on
effect of chemicals on dormancy breakdown was variable, chemicals that may be applied as in-bin treatments and
the range of responses has been listed in the table. Three which are likely to be available to industry in the near
of the compounds screened displayed considerable phyto- future. In this respect, ethyl formate seems to show the
toxicity and no assessment of dormancy-breaking capa- most promise.
bility was possible (Table 2). Ethanedinitrile and two of
the alcohols tested also showed unacceptable levels of The use of dry heat to break barley dormancy
phytotoxicity. The alcohols appeared to increase
Germination testing of barley samples before treat-
dormancy when applied at high concentrations. Ethane-
ment showed that germinative energy (GE) was 94% and
dinitrile decreased dormancy, but it was more phytotoxic
96%, and water sensitivity (WS) was 91% and 72% for
than current fumigants, but less toxic than hydrogen
Stirling and Triumph, respectively. After heat treatment at
cyanide or sulfur dioxide. The rest of the chemicals tested
60°C for 15–60 minutes, GE was found to increase
had low phytotoxicity. Of these compounds, ethyl and
slightly and there was a trend for a breakdown of WS.
methyl formate stand out as the chemicals most likely to
Much more work is required in this area, including treat-
reduce dormancy. Dichlorvos could also be considered as
ment of a variety of samples at range of temperatures and
a dormancy-breaking chemical. The other compounds
exposure times.
were less promising.
There are few published data on the use of vapour and
Breaking dormancy by manipulating the storage
gases to break seed dormancy. Many types of chemicals
process
can influence seed dormancy (Taylorson and Hendricks
1981). Cohn and Hillhorst (2000) summarise the literature Viable grain may not germinate under conditions that
on the effect of small organic molecules, including are considered suitable for germination, i.e. the grain is
alcohols and some esters, on the dormancy of a range of dormant. Non-germination of viable grain can also be
seeds, including cereals. Results vary between species and caused by an excessive amount of water used during
with application methods and range from breaking to germination testing, i.e. the grain is water-sensitive. In this
inducing dormancy. To the best of our knowledge, no case, low levels of germination signify a high level of
wide-ranging studies have been published on the use of water-sensitive grains, and an increase in germination

Table 2. Effect of chemicals on barley dormancy and viability.

Treatment Phytotoxicity Dormancy breakage capabilitya


Hydrogen cyanide High n/a
Methanol High n/a
Sulfur dioxide High n/a
Ethanedinitrile Medium Medium
Ethanol Medium Dormancy increase
Propanol Medium Dormancy increase
Ethyl formate Low Medium to high
Methyl formate Low Medium to high
Dichlorvos Low Medium
Phosphine Low Medium to low
Hypochloride solution Low Medium to low
Hydrogen sulfide Low Low to high
Propyl formate Low Low to high
Carbon monoxide Low Medium to dormancy increase
Ethylene Low Medium to dormancy increase
Carbon disulfide Low Low
Carbonyl sulfide Low Low
Carbon dioxide Low Low to dormancy increase
Sulfuryl fluoride Low Low to dormancy increase
a Range of responses is shown where necessary.

46
Malting barley: storage, dormancy and processing quality

means a breakdown of water sensitivity. Before storage, tures high enough to rapidly break dormancy, it is neces-
all three barley varieties displayed some level of WS and sary to carry out systematic studies on a range of current
low GE (Table 3). These characteristics were most Australian varieties stored at different moisture contents.
pronounced in Gairdner. Storage at 30°C for 1.5 months at An integrated strategy for managing barley dormancy in
14% MC led to a significant increase in GE and loss of the United Kingdom has been presented by Armitage and
WS in Gairdner and Stirling. In contrast, Sloop lost its Woods (1997). This project will contribute towards
ability to germinate over the same period. Further storage building models that will allow the development of a ther-
at 30°C had the same negative effect on Sloop, Stirling mally based integrated storage strategy for Australian
and Gairdner. malting barley.

Table 3. Germinative energy and water sensitivity of three


commercial barley varieties stored at 14% moisture content for 9 Conclusions and future work
months at three temperatures.
Ethyl formate has been shown to be the most prom-
Variety Storage Storage Germinative Water
ising candidate for reducing dormancy in stored barley.
temperature period energy sensitivity
(°C) (months) (%) (%) Research will be taken forward by a set of static exposures
of several lots of dormant barley to different doses of ethyl
Gairdner 0 87 49
formate. If these are successful, a second set of experi-
20 3 93 79 ments will confirm the doses in a flow-through system. If
9 92 82 dormancy can be removed through this process, then this
25 3 96 90 will lead to the recommendation of application rates of
ethyl formate for the purpose of reducing dormancy in
6 90 84
barley. Any recommendations will be based on treatment
9 57 40 schedules developed for pest control. Samples will be
30 1.5 96 92 micromalted to confirm that the quality of the barley is not
Sloop 0 94 81 affected by the treatment. At the same time, and using a
similar experimental plan, barley samples will be exposed
20 3 97 93
to a variety of heat treatments for the purpose of breaking
9 98 94 dormancy.
25 3 98 95 In a separate experiment, we will use data collected to
6 99 95 date to run a storage trial on two samples of Stirling from
the north and south of Western Australia. A storage
9 81 72
schedule of alternating temperatures will be used to speed
30 1.5 1 0 up postharvest maturation and reduce water sensitivity
Stirling 0 95 70 and dormancy in barley grain without an unacceptable
20 3 100 95 reduction in malting quality.
9 100 98
25 3 99 99 Acknowledgments
6 100 99
The authors would like to thank the Grains Research and
9 99 100
Development Corporation (GRDC) and CSIRO Ento-
30 1.5 100 98 mology for funding this project. We also would like to
thank Barrett Burston Malting Co. for their ongoing
Stirling continued to improve in quality during storage support and the partners of the SGRL and the state agri-
at 20°C and 25°C. Sloop was similar to Stirling, but some cultural departments for their help in obtaining appro-
deterioration could be seen after storage for 9 months at priate samples. We are grateful to Stephen Beckett, Peter
25°C. Gairdner also improved in quality when stored for Dillon and the whole SGRL team for their contributions to
up to three months. However, longer storage periods were this project.
detrimental.
In summary, the germination of three barely varieties
can be improved by storage through the loss of dormancy
References
and water sensitivity. At the same time, germination may Armitage, D.M. and Woods, J.L. 1997. The development of an
be lost, especially with extended storage periods at integrated storage strategy for malting barley. Project Report
elevated temperatures. The effect of storage temperatures No. 138, London, Home Grown Cereals Authority.
on barley dormancy have been previously reported (e.g. Beckett, S.J., Morton, R. and Darby, J.A. 1998. The mortality of
Briggs et al. 1994; Woods and McCallum 2000). To allow Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae) and
Australian grain handlers to safely store grain at tempera- Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) at moder-

47
Stored grain in Australia 2003

ate temperatures. Journal of Stored Products Research, 34, ings of the 7th international symposium on pre-harvest
363–76. sprouting in cereals. Osaka, CASJO.
Briggs, D.E., Woods, J.L. and Favier, J.F. 1994. Drying and Taylorson, R.B. and Hendricks, S.B. 1981. Anaesthetic release
storage treatment for overcoming dormancy in malting of seed dormancy—an overview. Israel Journal of Botany,
barley. Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 100, 271–278. 29, 273–280.
Cohn, M.A. and Hilhorst, H.W.M. 2000. Alcohols that break White, N.G.G., Hulasare, R.B. and Jayas, D.S. 1999. Effect of
seed dormancy: the anaesthetic hypothesis, dead or alive? In: storage conditions on quality loss of hull-less and hulled oats
Viemont, J.D. and Crabbe, J., ed., Dormancy in plants. Wall- and barley. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 79, 475–482.
ingford, CAB International.
Woods, J.L., Favier, J.F. and Briggs, D.E. 1994. Predicting the
Doran, P.J. and Briggs, D.E. 1992. Studies on germination tests.
germinative energy of dormant malting barley during stor-
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 98, 193–201.
age. Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 100, 257–269.
ISTA (International Seed Testing Association) 1999. Seed
Woods, J.L. and McCallum, D.J. 2000. Dormancy in malting
science and technology rules. Switzerland, International
barley: quantifying the effect of storage temperature on dif-
Rules for Seed Testing.
ferent varieties and the response to sudden cooling. Journal
Jacobsen, J.V., Pearce, D.W., Poole, A.T., Pharis, R.P. and
of the Institute of Brewing, 106, 251–258.
Mander, L.N. 2002. Abscisic acid, phaseic acid and gibberel-
lin contents associated with dormancy and germination of Woonton, B., Jacobsen, J., Sherkat, F. and Stuart, M. 2002.
barley. Physiologica Plantarum, 115, 428–441. Effect of post-harvest storage period on barley germination
Moor, T. 1987. Problems encountered in storage of sprout and malt quality. In: Proceedings of the 10th Australian
damaged barley. In: Mares, D.J., ed., Proceedings of the Barley Technical Symposium, Canberra, ACT, 16–20 Sep-
fourth international symposium on pre-harvest sprouting in tember 2001. Australian Barley Technical Symposium Incor-
cereals. Boulder, CO, Westview Press. porated.
Nagao, S. 1995. Detrimental effect of sprout damage on wheat
flour products. In: Noda, K. and Mares, D.J., ed., Proceed-

48

You might also like