Winter barley 2019

Some varietys aren't ctu tolerant. We used it here when ipu went off, ctu has gone here now too. It's good on meadow grass, I think!!
Because it's off now breeders don't bother checking the variety tolerance.
I remember a neighbour putting it on wheat,it gave it a heck of a scorch. I can't recall the variety but it wasn't tolerant.
I've used it myself, it won't handle advanced meddow grass as well as ipu but it's better than flufenacet or pdm.
 
Some varietys aren't ctu tolerant. We used it here when ipu went off, ctu has gone here now too. It's good on meadow grass, I think!!
Because it's off now breeders don't bother checking the variety tolerance.
I remember a neighbour putting it on wheat,it gave it a heck of a scorch. I can't recall the variety but it wasn't tolerant.
I've used it myself, it won't handle advanced meddow grass as well as ipu but it's better than flufenacet or pdm.

The breeders may not check wheat variety tolerance to CTU but the Irish agent, Croplink did. Barley isn’t an issue.

All the main varieties of wheat were checked in plot trials at multiple times the label rate and there was no problem.
 
Was thinking Infinity myself, how did people find it last year?
Happy enough with infinity this year, and every other year, carneval had an edge on it here this year and it will be a mix of the two for me even on my small acres. Dropping cassia after growing it for the last 5 years.
 
Didn't order today as was distracted by cars etc but I had ordered Carneval last year and it was gone before my order got through. Had Tower this year and it only did 3.3t/ac, had Cassia previous year and it did 3.6t/ac. Would Carneval be an improvement on Tower or maybe I should just try it for trials sake. Am in hilly fields this year so won't be heavy soil. Some reason Carneval caught my eye on the spec sheet last year but I understand some varieties just happen to suit certain soils/fields.
MF30
 
Anybody else notice Carneval not on the recommended list? Not even provisional? Any info? @CORK @Blackwater boy ?

Well spotted.

Traditionally, to warrant addition to the Recommended List, a variety needs to have an average over 2-3 years of 100% as it's yield rating.

Carneval would have achieved 99 if it were to be added to the list.

In recent years, exceptions have been made to this yield threshold of 100 where a new variety has a feature(s) which brings something valuable to the choice of varieties.

An example would have been Costello which came on the list initially with a rating of 99 - however, Costello was seen as a variety which brought a new level of grain quality both in terms of KPH and importantly, resistance to sprouting.

This time next year, Carneval may have raised its average to 100 and therefore may be added to the list.


Its a logic that I agree with to be honest.
 
Well spotted.

Traditionally, to warrant addition to the Recommended List, a variety needs to have an average over 2-3 years of 100% as it's yield rating.

Carneval would have achieved 99 if it were to be added to the list.

In recent years, exceptions have been made to this yield threshold of 100 where a new variety has a feature(s) which brings something valuable to the choice of varieties.

An example would have been Costello which came on the list initially with a rating of 99 - however, Costello was seen as a variety which brought a new level of grain quality both in terms of KPH and importantly, resistance to sprouting.

This time next year, Carneval may have raised its average to 100 and therefore may be added to the list.


Its a logic that I agree with to be honest.
Is it right to include 6 rows or hybrids in the average?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no 2 row is now achieving 100% yield rating.
It is important to keep a good choice of newer 2 row varieties available, the list is becoming dominated by 6 row and hybrids, both of which should be niche varieties in my opinion.
 
Is it right to include 6 rows or hybrids in the average?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no 2 row is now achieving 100% yield rating.
It is important to keep a good choice of newer 2 row varieties available, the list is becoming dominated by 6 row and hybrids, both of which should be niche varieties in my opinion.
That is probably skewing the results, my experience was that carneval was a step forward from infinity and cassia which are both listed, is there merit in a two row and six row list?
 
Is it right to include 6 rows or hybrids in the average?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no 2 row is now achieving 100% yield rating.
It is important to keep a good choice of newer 2 row varieties available, the list is becoming dominated by 6 row and hybrids, both of which should be niche varieties in my opinion.

It's a fair suggestion.

Yes - you're right. Quadra is now one of the control varieties (along with Cassia and Tower) so it has certainly put pressure on the yield ratings of the 2 rows.

That said, the normal gap in yield between the 6 rows and 2 rows in trial was narrowed this year for some reason.
 
It's a fair suggestion.

Yes - you're right. Quadra is now one of the control varieties (along with Cassia and Tower) so it has certainly put pressure on the yield ratings of the 2 rows.

That said, the normal gap in yield between the 6 rows and 2 rows in trial was narrowed this year for some reason.
When the KPH figures are quoted for all varieties both 2 and 6 row are they cleaned and screened figures quoted on the list?
 
Is it right to include 6 rows or hybrids in the average?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no 2 row is now achieving 100% yield rating.
It is important to keep a good choice of newer 2 row varieties available, the list is becoming dominated by 6 row and hybrids, both of which should be niche varieties in my opinion.
The naughty list is the only list I want to see 6 rows on
 
When the KPH figures are quoted for all varieties both 2 and 6 row are they cleaned and screened figures quoted on the list?

It's a misleading way of doing it really as the farmer gets paid for the barley straight off the combine not the cleaned sample. The kph figures off the combine of the 6 rows will never achieve the figures on the recommended list this way as they are always quite dirty compared to the 2 rows
 
It's a misleading way of doing it really as the farmer gets paid for the barley straight off the combine not the cleaned sample. The kph figures off the combine of the 6 rows will never achieve the figures on the recommended list this way as they are always quite dirty compared to the 2 rows
If you do kph on screenings you’ll get 64

TGW is a more representative way of comparing barley varieties along with kph
But lads love de bushel
 
Last edited:
Our “expert” will be along shortly

He’s a big fan of “quality barley”

The only thing going for six rows is crows don’t like it
The crows know the TGW is low and they would have to eat twice as much grain to be full up.
They swopped the lexions for new Hollands this year, it's supposed to be a fleet of 135 sperry NH's, laverdas,forshits, and reaper and binders for next years videos....
 
While KPH isn't the perfect measure of grain quality, it's probably not a bad measure either.

At the end of the day, what we want is the maximum amount of flour versus husk. The flour gives the energy (for animals or producing malt). This is why wheat and maize are more valuable normally.

TGW might indicate a large full grain but it might also be a long "hungry grain" which mightn't have a greater % of flour versus husk than a small round grain.
Long hungry grains or screenings aren't always easy to roll properly which doesn't do any favours for the appearance or digestibility of rolled barley.

If trying too get a handle on the "quality" of a barley variety, I would also look at the %screenings as printed on the Rec List. Screenings definitely aren't of use in the sample.
My view of 6 rows is that when things do go wrong with a crop, the Screening % in the 6 row will rise higher than the 2 rows as the grain size is compromised because of the grain numbers per ear.

If barley gets weathered due to bad harvest weather then it will certainly lose feed value as the starch begins to get used up in the grain. The KPH will also be observed to drop. In this case, the KPH is a very good measure of the quality of grain in a given harvest in my opinion.
In the case of varieties wheat, a low KPH in a variety is often a fair indication of sprouting risk of the variety - therefore another signal of how quickly the wheat variety in question can lose feed quality in the field.

A higher KPH will also make better use of grain handling and storage facilities. A silo that holds 5000 tn of barley at 68KPH will hold about 350 tonnes less of barley which has a KPH of 63. Even the cups of a conveyor will move more tonnes per hour of a high KPH grain than a low KPH grain.

Many factors (Screenings, TGW & KPH) at play but whoever began using KPH as a measure of grain quality wasn't a fool either.
 

Attachments

  • WinterCerealRecommendedLists2019140918.pdf
    1.1 MB · Views: 14
Back
Top