SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.7 número1Política pública para el campo: PROCAMPO en el centro del paísMétodos de escarificación y germinación en Brachiaria brizantha cv. Insurgente índice de autoresíndice de assuntospesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados




Links relacionados

  • Não possue artigos similaresSimilares em SciELO


Revista mexicana de ciencias agrícolas

versão impressa ISSN 2007-0934

Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agríc vol.7 no.1 Texcoco Jan./Fev. 2016



Agronomic and physical evaluation in advanced lines of malting barley

Miguel González González1  § 

Mauro Zamora Díaz1 

Salomón Solano Hernández2 

1Campo Experimental Valle de México- INIFAP. Carretera los Reyes-Texcoco, km 13.5. C. P. 56250. Coatlinchán, Texcoco, Estado de México. Tel: 01 59592 12657. Ext. 200. (

2CEBAJ- INIFAP. Carretera Celaya-San Miguel de Allende, km 6.5. C. P. 30110. Celaya, Guanajuato. (


Barley is one of the crops that offers a better production alternative in seasonal areas of the high valleys of Mexico. Its short cultivation cycle allows it to produce when it is not possible to do so in species such as maize and wheat. This grain can be used for various purposes: as human consumption, as animal fodder, and as malt in the brewing industry. In Mexico, barley is carried out principally for the production of grain with malt quality, using a six-row barley variety. So that a barley genotype can be considered a malting variety, it must fulfill various quality parameters. The Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias carries out investigations in order to generate genotypes that satisfy the quality parameters, are tolerant to diseases and have an excellent yield. With the objective of evaluating the agronomic behavior and quality in advanced lines of malting barley, 16 malting barley genotypes were established during the 2012 and 2013 agricultural cycles, under a 4 x 4 lattice design with four repetitions in five seasonal environments. The obtained results allowed for the identification of barley lines with malting potential. The lines M176, M177, M178, and M184 had a superior behavior for the evaluated localities and cycles with a yield of 3.8, 3.5, 3.9, and 4.0 t ha-1, respectively.

Keywords: Hordeum vulgare L.; hectoliter weight; malting quality; yield


La cebada es uno de los cultivos que ofrece una mejor alternativa de producción en las áreas de temporal de los Valles Altos en México. Su ciclo de cultivo corto, le permite producir cuando no es posible lograrlo con especies como maíz y trigo. Este cereal puede ser utilizado con varios propósitos; para la alimentación humana, como forraje para alimentación animal y como malta en la industria cervecera. En México, su cultivo se realiza básicamente para la producción de grano con calidad para malta, utilizando para ello variedades de seis hileras de grano en la espiga. Para que un genotipo de cebada pueda ser considerada una variedad maltera, debe satisfacer diversos parámetros de calidad; por ello, el Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias realiza investigaciones para generar genotipos que satisfagan estos parámetros de calidad, que sean tolerantes a enfermedades y con excelente rendimiento. Con el objetivo de evaluar el comportamiento agronómico y de calidad en líneas avanzadas de cebada maltera, fueron establecidos durante los ciclos agrícolas 2012 y 2013, 16 genotipos de cebada maltera bajo un diseño Látice 4 x 4 con cuatro repeticiones en cinco ambientes de temporal. Los resultados obtenidos permitieron identificar líneas de cebada con potencial para maltería. Las líneas M176, M177, M178 y M184, tuvieron un comportamiento superior para las localidades y ciclos evaluados con rendimiento de 3.8, 3.5, 3.9 y 4.0 t ha-1, respectivamente.

Palabras clave: Hordeum vulgare L.; calidad maltera; peso hectolítrico; rendimiento


Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) takes fourth place in worldwide importance behind wheat (215 million ha), rice (155 million ha), and maize (139 million ha) (Langridge and Barr, 2003). According to the FAO (2013), more than 49 million hectares were planted with an average yield of 2.9 t ha-1. Due to its great adaptability even in extreme situations and ecosystems, barley is a widely distributed crop worldwide (Poehlman, 1985); around 89 countries produce this grain, from subtropical regions (Africa, Brazil) to cold regions (Norway, Alaska). Regardless of its wide distribution, its production is significantly centered in the European Union, being the top barley producer with 46.1%; Russia, Canada, Australia, and the Ukraine represent 73% of the global barley production.

Per country, 50% of the global production is centered in China, the United States, Germany, and Brazil with 18.5%, 17.7%, 8%, and 5%, respectively. Of the total production, it is estimated that 25% is destined for the production of malt, raw material for the elaboration of beer, and 75% is used as animal fodder. Although it has great potential due to its beta-glucans contents, its use for human consumption is limited (Newton et al., 2011).

According to the SIAP in Mexico during the 2013 agricultural cycle, 355 782 ha of barley were planted, of which 320 946 ha corresponded to malting barley, 33 491 ha to fodder barley, and 1 345 ha for the production of seeds. Of the surface area planted with malting barley, 296,912 ha were harvested obtaining 594 437 t and an average yield of 2 t ha-1. The main producing states in the Bajío region are Guanajuato, Querétaro, Michoacán, and Jalisco, whereas in the Altiplano region, the production is centered in the states of Hidalgo, Puebla, Tlaxcala, and Estado de México, with the latter region being where 75% of the surface area is planted under seasonal conditions in the summer.

The distinction between malting and fodder barley is mainly based on the protein content. For malting barley, the protein content must be below 12%; whereas if it is to be used as fodder, the protein content must be higher. However, international statistics do not establish differences between barley’s use as fodder or in malt production. The protein content of the grain depends on various factors among which can be found fertilization, type of soil, temperature, and variety (Pitz, 1990).

The malting quality in barley is a complex characteristic that, in addition to the physical properties of the grain, depends on the enzymes synthetized during the germination process (Thomas et al., 1996). Nevertheless, the grain of malting barley must meet specific parameters that involve physical characteristics (size and weight of the grain) and chemical properties (extract percentage, protein content, Kolbach index, diastase strength, among others) (Molina-Cano et al., 1986; Narziss, 1990; Mather et al., 1997).

The characteristics of malting quality are quantitative; therefore, their expression does not only depend on the genotype but is also influenced by various environmental factors and by the interaction of the genotype with the environment, making its inheritance a complex matter (Sparrow, 1971; Mather et al., 1997; Iguarta et al., 2000; Zale et al., 2000). Research on barley is based on aspects related to the yield and disease control. Investigations focused on evaluating the contribution of genes to the malting quality characteristics are limited; this research being of interest for malt and beer industries (Hockett et al., 1993).

In the Mexican norm NMX-FF-043-SCFI-2003, the conditions and characteristics that malting barley must meet for its commercialization are established. The grain must have between 11.5 and 13.5% humidity, have a minimum germination of 85%, an 85% grain size for its use as malt (grain retained in a 55.5/64” x –” sieve), maximum 5% naked and/or broken grains, 2% impurities, maximum 10% damaged grain, mixtures up to 10%, weight per hectoliter (which is the weight of a hectoliter of grain of the original sample free of impurities expressed in kilograms; kg hL), and a 56 kg hL minimum on six-row barley, whereas on two-row barley it must have a value of 58 kg hL. Furthermore, the organoleptic characteristics of the grain must be appropriate making sure that the grain is not dirty, damaged, stained, painted or contaminated, and that it does not have a putrid, stale, alcoholic, or chemical odor, among others.

It is estimated that in Mexico, 80% of the national barley production is destined to be turned into malt, whereas at a global level the percentage is lower. The production of barley required by the malting industry is mainly centered on two varieties: the Esperanza variety for the irrigation zones of the Bajío, and the Esmeralda variety for the seasonal zones of the Altiplano. The Alina and Armida varieties constitute other options for irrigation conditions, whereas the Adabella variety is recommended for seasonal zones with good productivity environments (Zamora et al., 2008; Solano et al., 2009; Zamora et al., 2010). It is calculated that the industry requires a volume of 750 000 t of raw material per year in order to satisfy demand and thus cover the requirements for the production of beer.

Barley is one of the crops that offers a better production alternative in the seasonal areas of Mexico. Therefore, in addition to the varieties needing good agronomic attributes, the grain production must meet the required quality for the malting industry. Given the importance of the quality parameters of the barley meant to be used as malt, the Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP) carries out investigations in order to create genotypes that satisfy these quality parameters, are tolerant to diseases, and have an excellent yield.

In order to know the behavior of the genotypes generated in the research stage, agronomic evaluations and physical tests were carried out on advanced lines of malting barley with six-rows of grain in the ear, with the objective of determining the productive potential and physical quality based on the variables of weight per hectoliter and the percentage of malting grain, parameters which are included in the norm for the commercialization of malting barley and that will allow for an efficient selection of the best malting genotypes.

Materials and methods

The research project was carried out during the agricultural cycles of spring-summer 2012 and spring-summer 2013, under seasonal conditions in five contrasting localities: Experimental Field Mexico Valley (CEVAMEZ-INIFAP), Tlacatecpan and Polotitlán, Estado de México; Calpulalpan, Tlaxcala; and Experimental Site North of Guanajuato (SENGUA-INIFAP). 16 malting barley genotypes were evaluated (14 advanced lines and the Esmeralda and Adabella varieties as control). The tests were established in each locality under a 4 x 4 simple Lattice design with four replications. The dates of planting and fertilization doses were done according to the technical recommendations for the cultivation of seasonal malting barley provided by the INIFAP. The planting density was 80 kg ha-1. Data was recorded on the days of flowering, days of physiological maturity, height of the plant, yield, weight per hectoliter, and percentage of malting quality grain. The yield was determined harvesting the total plot (3.6 m2), which consisted of four furrows 3 m in length with 0.3 m separating the rows.

In order to determine the weight per hectoliter, the method using a funnel and tray was considered; for this purpose, a 110 g sample free of impurities was taken and its volume was determined. The corresponding hectoliter weight was assigned to the obtained value with the aid of the table of values indicated in the Mexican norm NMX-FF- 043-SCFI-2003. The percentage of malting grain (PMG) was determined using a 200 g grain sample, passing it through two sieves, one of 6/64” x 3/4” and one of 5.5/64” x 3/4” in order to see how much grain was retained in the sieve with a larger mesh. The quantity of grain retained by each sieve was weighed. Both quantities were added and the percentage was determined, given that the norm specifies that for this variable the test must be carried out using a 5.5/64” x 3/4” sieve.

An analysis of variance was carried out per locality for the variables measured with the aid of the statistical program SAS9.0 (SAS, 2002). Subsequently, a combined analysis of the localities was carried out for each evaluated agricultural cycle. The comparison of averages was done with the least significant difference (LSD, α= 0.01).

Results and discussion

The results obtained from the analysis of variance per locality showed significant differences for the majority of the evaluated variables. When a combined analysis was carried out, these differences were greater when interacting with genotypes with the environment, resulting in a higher significance for all the evaluated variables.

The behavior of the evaluated lines was mainly influenced by the environmental conditions that were presented in each agricultural cycle. For the 2012 cycle, highly significant statistical differences were detected (Table 1) between localities and genotypes for all the evaluated variables. These results could be attributed to the particular conditions of each locality where the materials were established, in addition to the specific behavior of each line in each locality.

Table 1. Average squares of the combined analysis of variance across localities for agronomic and quality variables on advanced lines of malting barley. 2012 cycle. 

Variable Localidades Rep(Loc) Blo(Loc*Rep) Genotipos Loc*Gen Error
GL 4 15 60 15 60
Días a floración 635.33 ** 21.43 ns 14.80 * 162.08 ** 11.14 ns 9.27
Madurez 3192.573 ** 48.72 * 24.86 ns 118.51 ** 28.91 ns 7.16
Altura de planta mj 9206.11330 ** 272.55 ** 68.95 * 202.30 ** 44.30 ns 35.29
Rendimiento (kg ha-1) 204960096.50 ** 2784506.80 ** 495589.70 * 2537230.60 ** 774486.30 ** 249209.2
Peso por hectolitro 446.85 ** 4.34 * 1.57 ns 13.27 ** 2.91 ** 1.39
Porcentaje de grano maltero 484.785 ** 6.78 * 4.12 * 60.92 ** 6.83 ** 2.75
Criba 6.5 2160. 26 ** 32.33 ** 15.28 * 282.13 ** 62.70 ** 8.62
Criba 5.5 604.06 ** 11.07 ** 4.93 * 81.89 ** 16.12 ** 2.53

The genotype interaction per locality showed a high statistical significance for the yield and the physical quality variables (weight per hectoliter and percentage of malting grain); however, the variables of days of flowering, days of maturity, and plant height were not significant for this interaction.

The results obtained from the analysis of variance for the 2013 agricultural cycle showed a greater statistical significance for the evaluated agronomic and quality variables (Table 2). For the interaction of genotypes per locality, height was not significant, maturity was significant, and the rest of the variables showed values with a high statistical significance (p≤ 0.01), which evidences the environmental variation between localities, the existence of genetic variability in the response of the barley lines, and the influence of environmental variation on the expression of each one of the evaluated genotypes.

Table 2. Average squares of the combined analysis of variance across localities for agronomic and quality variables on advanced lines of malting barley. 2013 cycle. 

Variable Localidades Rep(Loc) Blo(Loc*Rep) Genotipos Loc*Gen Error
GL 4 15 60 15 60
Días a floración 1204.48 ** 6.77 * 4.05 ns 162.08 ** 7.70 ** 3.70
Madurez 8576.78 ** 28.81 * 21.20 * 98.18 ** 15.03 * 10.11
Altura de planta mj 11244.12 ** 99.42 ** 46.93 * 230.59 ** 37.58 ns 28.35
Rendimiento (kg ha-1) 146165257.90 ** 1436415.60 ** 653338.00 ** 3838074.70 ** 852711.90 ** 301891.5
Peso por hectolitro 355.28 ** 3.75 ** 3.30 ** 20.77 ** 4.38 ** 1.02
Porcentaje de grano maltero 494.37 ** 15.42 ** 9.19 ** 60.09 ** 14.28 ** 2.19
Criba 6.5 6941.77 ** 75.26 ** 38.20 ** 379.08 ** 58.69 ** 9.79
Criba 5.5 2553.41 ** 23.53 ** 10.97 ** 142.21 ** 142.21 ** 3.89

On average, the agronomic and physical variables evaluated (Table 3) had flowering characteristics with a similar behavior between years in each locality. For the 2012 cycle, the values of flowering days (FD) were distributed on an average range of 46 to 57 days, with CEVAMEX being the most premature locality, although statistically it had a similar behavior to the localities of SENGUA and Tlacatecpan. During the 2013 cycle, SENGUA was the most premature locality, with a statistical value similar to CEVAMEX. The locality of Calpulalpan was the slowest for the two evaluated cycles.

Table 3. Average comparison between localities for 16 advanced lines of malting barley of six rows. 2012 and 2013 cycles. 

Ciclo: 2012
1 CEVAMEX 47.6 b 95.3 c 92.3 a 6951.6 a 62.5 b 94.8 b
2 Calpulalpan 55.1 a 108.9 a 78.7 bc 2141.7 c 58.3 d 93.5 bc
3 Tlacatecpan 49.4 b 90.9 d 88.5 ab 3314.3 b 60.5 c 92.5 c
4 Polotitlán 52.9 a 99.2 b 69.7 cd 4117.2 b 64.0 a 98.5 a
5 SENGUA 48.8 b 96.0 bc 64.1 d 3595.3 b 64.8 a 98.3 a
Media 50.7 98.1 88.4 3879.6 62.4 97.1
CV 6.0 2.7 6.4 13.0 2.3 1.6
DMS 3.2 3.8 11.5 1158.9 1.45 1.81
Ciclo 2013
1 CEVAMEX 47.8 d 100.7 d 70.8 b 5612.7 a 58.7 b 98.9 a
2 Calpulalpan 56.8 a 113.9 b 78.1 a 3118.0 bc 55.1 c 92.9 b
3 Tlacatecpan 51.3 c 119.4 a 57.0 c 2346.8 cd 55.8 c 89.2 c
4 Polotitlán 54.3 b 104.2 c 83.5 a 3863.1 b 58.5 b 97.6 a
5 SENGUA 46.4 d 89.8 e 52.8 c 1708.7 d 60.9 a 97.8 a
Media 51.7 106.3 65.7 3111.5 57.8 95.3
CV 3.5 3.1 7.9 17.4 1.8 1.6
DMS 1.81 3.73 6.92 832.33 1.35 2.73

In regard to the time required in order to reach physiological maturity, this variable behaved differently between each cultivation cycle. During the 2012 cycle, an average maturity of 98 days after planting was observed, whereas for the 2013 cycle, this increased to 106 days after planting. The locality of Tlacatecpan had an atypical behavior due to the climatic conditions that prevailed during the 2013 agricultural cycle (drought before tillering and rain during tillering and the beginning of flowering), causing the cultivation cycle to be prolonged for almost a month. In the other localities, the seasonal effect between the 2012 and 2013 cycles was about 5 days, being more delayed during the second cycle. Excluding the locality of Talcatecpan-2013, Calpulalpan was the slowest in the two agricultural cycles. This behavior is related to the climatic conditions of the region, considered semi-cold humid and characterized by its altitude (2 600 meters above sea level), high humidity, and low temperatures. The humidity and temperature conditions promote a slower development of the crop than in the other localities.

On average, the genotypes reach maturity around 100 days after planting (98 days after planting in 2012 and 106 days after planting in 2013); the required time from planting to harvest for the cultivation of malting barley in Mexico is much shorter in comparison with the data reported for this crop at other latitudes, where the environmental conditions cause the materials to mature much slower, even reaching maturity at up to 200 days after planting (Eshghi and Akhundova, 2009; Fedaku et al., 2014).

Plant height was also affected by the climatic conditions of each locality, particularly due to the lack of water at the early stages of crop development resulting in a height difference for the plant between each cycle. Greater sizes were observed for the 2012 agricultural cycle (88.4 cm), whereas for the 2013 cycle, the height decreased by more than 20 cm (65.7 cm). The differences found between localities decreased when the genotypes within the localities were compared, observing in this manner similar heights between them (Tamm, 2003). The plant height for malting barley is a highly important aspect, given that if it is too short, mechanical harvest becomes much more difficult. When these plants are very tall, however, it causes a greater susceptibility to being flattened (Eshghi and Akhundova, 2009), which can gradually affect the final grain yield and furthermore it also makes harvest, given that it is mechanized, much more difficult. Plant height as observed in the evaluated lines can be considered adequate for the barley producing regions in Mexico.

The grain yield variable, as well as with the other variables, showed variations between localities and cycles; an average yield of 3.8 and 3.1 t ha-1 was obtained for 2012 and 2013, respectively. During the 2012 agricultural cycle, the locality established in the municipality of Calpulalpan had the least grain yield with 2.1 t ha-1. The best locality for this cycle corresponded to CEVAMEX whose average yield was 6.9 t ha-1; in this locality, the most efficient lines surpassed 7 t ha-1. In the 2013 cycle, the grain yields decreased up to 50% (SEGUA) with regard to the previous cycle; CEVAMEX, the best locality in this agricultural cycle, decreased by more than 1.5 t h-1. This decrease was due to the lack of water, which caused a smaller grain size, less grain weight, and a smaller number of grains per ear (Ataei, 2006).

Weight per hectoliter

The physical characteristics of the seeds, considered quality factors, include the volumetric weight; this is the determination of the weight in kilograms of a determined volume of grain free of impurities expressed in hectoliters. The weight per hectoliter (WH) is related to the texture of the endosperm or to the protein content, as such it is a highly important parameter in the industrialization of malting barley, with its values directly influencing the yield and quality of the finished product (González et al., 2013). The results of the analysis of variance (Table 3) show statistically significant differences between localities in both agricultural cycles evaluated.

During the 2012 agricultural cycle, the average values obtained for this parameter were within the range of 68.3 to 64.8 kg hL, surpassing by 4.6 kg hL the average value obtained for the 2013 cycle. The average WH values for the first cycle were above the official Mexican norm NMX-FF-043-SCFI-2003, where a value of 56 kg hL is established for the purchase of malting barley grain; whereas during the 2013 cycle, values below the norm were observed in two localities. The best locality corresponded to SENGUA for both agricultural cycles; whereas the worst locality was Calpulalpan with 58.3 kg hL in 2012 and 55.1 kg hL in 2013. The climatic conditions present in 2013, in particular the lack of water during the grain fill stage, caused a decrease in the WH; thus, only three of the five localities showed an average value above that established in the norm, with the localities of Calpulalpan (55.1) and Tlacatecpan (55.8) having average WH values below the required value (56 kg hL-1). According to Pržulj et al. (1998), the environment, genotypes, and the genotype: environment interaction play a primordial role in the behavior of the WH of malting barley, which explains the observed behavior.

Percentage of malting grain

Regarding the percentage of malting grain (PMG), during this study high statistical differences were observed between the evaluated localities (Table 3); on average, the localities showed values above the specifications required by the norm, which establishes a percentage above 85% of the grain retained in a 5.5/64” x –” sieve. The grain fill that determines the weight and size is greatly influenced by water availability and optimal temperatures (Ataei, 2006). As mentioned in the yield and hectoliter weight sections, the lack of water caused a decrease in the yield, the weight per hectoliter, and affected the percentage of malting (Pržulj et al., 1999).

Better values were obtained for the PMG during the 2012 cycle and a decrease in the same was observed for 2013. Although the locality of Calpulalpan (2012) was the worst locality, all the evaluated material complied with the quality specifications for this parameter; as for Tlacatecpan, which was statistically different than Calpulalpan, it showed values below 85% for two evaluated genotypes, among them Adabella, which obtained a value of 82.2%. This value was similar to that obtained in the locality of Chapingo (82.2%). For the 2013 agricultural cycle, as well as on the other evaluated variables, the conditions specific to the localities caused variations in the behavior of the evaluated genotypes.

In particular in the locality of Chapingo, the rain that occurred when the grain had not yet reached maturity did not allow for opportune harvest, thus some of the material showed pre-germination causing a high value of grain retained in the sieve, but with a low yield and WH (Benech-Arnold and Sánchez, 2003). Alongside the protein content and caliber of the grain, the germination capacity of the grain is one of the most important factors that gives the grain the quality of malting barley (Brokes, 1980; Benech-Arnold, 2001; Gulano and Benech-Arnold, 2009).

The ability to evaluate under contrasting environmental conditions, in conjunction with the evaluation involving different agricultural cycles, allowed the distinction of genotypes with high yield potential, adequate to being planted in a broader range of environments. In Table 4, the average behavior of the materials is shown, which were more consistent in their behavior in each locality evaluated. As can be observed, the agronomic parameters had similar values to the control, Esmeralda, for the variables of days of flowering and maturity, although with a slightly higher plant height. However, in comparison with Adabella, these values were lower with the exception of M177 which had a similar maturity.

Table 4. Average behavior of the outstanding genotypes of malting barley. Spring-summer 2012 and spring-summer 2013 cycles. 

Genotipo DF (dds) DM (dds) AP (cm) REND (kg ha-1) PH PGM
2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013
M184 52 55 98 106 81 67 4522.8 3380.1 62.0 58.6 97 97
CV00-407-2C 52 54 99 107 84 65 4398.3 3080.7 61.6 57.0 94 93
M178 50 49 99 107 79 65 4394.9 3345.2 62.9 58.1 94 95
M176 52 54 99 106 85 70 4342.5 3278.2 62.9 57.1 97 98
RI05-26 52 51 97 106 78 69 4280.4 3338.18 62.3 58.0 98 98.5
M177 53 52 103 109 80 62 4222.2 2802.9 62.7 58.4 97 98
CV99-245 51 51 96 105 80 68 4122.7 3055.3 63.2 58.6 96 95
CV01-315 47 48 93 101 73 64 3952.8 3316.6 62.4 58.7 95 97
ADABELLA 58 57 100 110 80 67 3500.6 2198.6 59.7 56.0 90 91
ESMERALDA 50 51 99 106 75 63 3487.8 2080.6 62.1 56.2 96 93

In the case of the yield, a superiority of 0.5 to more than 1 t ha-1 of the lines against the controls can be observed for the localities and between years evaluated. Results with a similar behavior were reported by Gracia et al. (2012). Genotypes M184, M176, M177, and M178 had more stable yield values for the evaluated localities in each agricultural cycle.

The control varieties had a better expression in localities with adequate production conditions, whereas those where the water availability was a limiting factor caused a decrease in the yield; this resulted in an average grain yield of 3.5 t ha-1 for the two controls in the 2012 spring-summer cycle and of 2.2 and 2.1 t ha-1 in the 2013 spring-summer cycle for Adabella and Esmeralda, respectively. These results allowed for a clear superiority on the evaluated lines. The Adabella variety showed low quality and yield values, due to it being a genotype released for good productivity conditions (precipitation above 500 mm and fertile soils with good humidity retention). Thus, when combining the results of all the localities where the majority of them are not adequate for this variety, the results obtained were low.

The WH during 2012 was superior to the 60 k hL in the lines and in the Esmeralda control; whereas for Adabella, it was 59.7 k hL. In 2013, the WH values obtained were inferior to 60 k hL; however, they all complied with the value established in the norm, including the Adabella variety which, for this cycle, showed the lowest value (56 kg hL). The percentage of malting grain reached 97%; on the evaluated lines similar values were obtained by Rivas and Barriga (2002). Esmeralda had a similar behavior on the lines with the lowest PMG values, whereas Adabella had a percentage of approximately 90%.


The evaluated genotypes had premature behavior, on average flowering at 50 days and reaching maturity at around 100 days after planting.

The yields of the experimental lines were greater than the controls, with the average yield being 3.5 t ha-1. The lines M176, M177, M178, and M184 behaved in a stable manner in the two agricultural cycles for all the evaluated localities; their average yields were 3.8, 3.5, 3.9, and 4 t ha-1, respectively.

The volumetric weight was superior to the value specified in the norm, 56 kg hL. The lines with greater hectoliter weight surpassed the controls by at least 1 kg hL.

In various localities drought problems were presented; the lack of water caused low yields due to the fact that the grain did not fill-out adequately, given that when the water deficit was presented the genotypes were in the grain fill stage. This water deficit was an important factor, given its limitation affected the final yield of the evaluated experiments.

Through the application of this evaluation strategy under various test environments, the genetic improvement program for barley of the INIFAP has managed to obtain lines with good potential yield, tolerance to diseases, and good malting quality.

Literatura citada

Ataei, M. 2006. Path analysis of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) yield. Tarim Bilimleri Degisi. Ankara University Fakultesi. 12(3):227-232. [ Links ]

Benech-Arnold, R. L. 2001. Bases of pre-harvest sprouting resistance in barley: physiology, molecular biology and environmental control of dormancy in the barley grain. In: Barley Science. Recent advances from molecular biology to agronomy of yield and quality. (Ed.). Slafer, G. A.; Molina-Cano, J. L.; Araus, J. L.; Savin, R. and Romagosa, I. Food products Press, New York, USA. 481-502 pp. [ Links ]

Benech-Arnold, R. L. and Sánchez, R. A. 2003. Applied of Dormancy, Preharvest sprouting. In: B. Thomas, d. Murphy and B. Murray (Eds). Encyclopedia of Applied Plant sciences. Elsevier, Academic Press, London, UK. 1333-1339 pp. [ Links ]

Brokes, P. A. 1980. The significance of pre-harvest sprouting of barley in malting and brewing. Cereal Research communications. 8(1):29-38. [ Links ]

Eshghi, R. and Akhundova, E. 2009. Genetic analysis of grain yield and some agronomic traits in hulless barley. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 4(12):1464-1474. [ Links ]

Fedaku, W.; Lakew, B. and Wondatir, Z. 2014. Advance in improving morpho-agronomic and grain quality traits of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) in Central Highland of Ethiopia. Advanced Science Journals of Agricultural science 1(1):11-26. Available online at ]

González, G. M.; Zamora, D. M.; Huerta Z. R. and Solano, H. S. 2013. Eficacia de tres fungicidas para controlar roya de la hoja en cebada maltera. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias agrícolas 4(8):1237-1250. [ Links ]

Gracia, M. P.; Mansour, E.; Casas, A. M.; Lasa, J. M.; Medina, B.; Molina- Cano, J. L.; Moralejo, M. A.; López, A.; López-Fuster, P.; Escribano, J.; Ciudad, F. J.; Codesal, P.; Montoya, J. and Iguarta, E. 2012. Progress in the Spanish National Barley Breeding Program. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research. 10(3):741-751. [ Links ]

Gulano, N. A. and Benech-Arnold, R. L. 2009. Predicting pre-harvest sprouting susceptibility in barley: Looking for “sensitivity windows” to temperature throughout grain filling in various commercial cultivars. Field Crops Research. 114:35-44. [ Links ]

Hockett, E. A.; Cook, A. F.; Khan, M. A.; Martin, J. M. and Jones, B. L. 1993. Hybrid performance and combining ability for yield and malt quality in a diallel cross of barley. Crop Science 33:1239-1244. [ Links ]

Igartua, E.; Edney, M.; Rossnagel, B. G.; Spaner, D.; Legge, W. G.; Scoles, G. J.; Eckstein, P. E.; Penner, G. A.; Tinker, N. A.; Briggs, K. G.; Falk, D. E. and Mather, D. E. 2000. Marker-based selection of QTL affecting grain and malt quality in two row barley. Crop Science 40:1426-1433. [ Links ]

Langridge, P. and Barr, A. R. 2003. Preface to better barley faster: the role of maker assisted selection. Australian Journal of Agricola Research. 54:1-4. [ Links ]

Mather, D. E.; Tinker, N. A.; Laberge, D. E.; Edney, M.; Jones, B. L.; Rossnagel, B. G.; Legge, W. G.; Briggs, K. G.; Irvine, R. B.; Falk, D. E. and Kasha, K. J. 1997. Regions of the genome that affect grain and malt quality in a North American two row barley cross. Crop Science. 37:544-554. [ Links ]

Molina-Cano, J. L.; Madsen, B.; Atherton, M. J.; Drost, B. W.; Larsen, J.; Schildbach, R.; Simiand J. P. and Voglar, K. 1986. Un índice para la evaluación global de la calidad maltera y cervecera de la cebada. Cerveza y Malta No 92. Asociación Española de Técnicos de Cerveza y Malta, Madrid, España. 12 p. [ Links ]

Narziss, L. 1990. Malt specifications, barley properties and limitations of malting technology. Brauwelt International. 3:180-185. [ Links ]

Newton, A. C.; Flavell, A. J.; George, T. S.; Leat, P.; Mullholland, B.; Ramsay, L.; Revoredo-Giha, C.; Russell, J.; Steffenson, B. J.; Swanston, J. S.; Thomas, W. T. B.; Waugh, R.; White P. J. and Bingham, I. J. 2011. Crops that feed the world 4. Barley: a resilient crop? Strengths and weaknesses in the context of food security. Food Security. 3(2):141-178. [ Links ]

Pitz, W. J. 1990. An analysis of malting Research. Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists (ASBC). 48:33-44. [ Links ]

Poehlman, J. M. 1985.Adaptation and distribution. In: Rasmusson, Donald C. (ed). Barley. Agronomy 26. American Society of Agronomy Inc. 1-18 pp. [ Links ]

Pržulj, N.; Dragović, S.; Maleśević, M.; Momčilovič, V. and Mladenov, N. 1998. Comparative performance of winter and spring malting barleys in semiarid growing conditions. Euphytica 101:377-382. [ Links ]

Przulj, N.; Momcilovic, V. and Mladenov, N. 1999. Temperature and precipitation effect on barley yields. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science. 3:403-410. [ Links ]

Rivas, P. R. and Barriga, B. P. 2002. Capacidad combinatoria para rendimiento de grano y caracteres de calidad maltera en cebada. Agricultura Técnica. 62(3):347-356. [ Links ]

SAS (Statistical Analysis System) 2002. version 9.0 edition. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC, USA. [ Links ]

Solano, H. S.; Zamora, D. M.; Gámez, V. F. P.; García, R. J. J.; Sánchez, de la C. R.; Díaz, E. F. and Garza, G. R. 2009.Alina, nueva variedad de cebada maltera para riego en el Bajío. Agricultura Técnica en México. 35(4):467-469. [ Links ]

Sparrow, D. H. B. 1971. Genetics of quality-malting. In: R.A. Nillan (ed.) Barley Genet. II. Proc. 2nd Int. Barley Genet. Symp. Pullman, Washington. 6-11 July 1969. Washington State University Press, Pullman, Washington, USA. 559-574 pp. [ Links ]

Tamm, Ü. 2003. The variation of agronomic characteristic of Europan malting barley varieties. Agronomy Research. 1:99-103. [ Links ]

Thomas, W. T. B.; Powell, W.; Swanston, J. S.; Ellis, R. P.; Chalmers, K. J.; Barua, U. M.; Lea, P. V.; Foster, B. P.; Waugh, R. and Smith, D. B. 1996. Quantitative trait loci and malting quality characters in a spring barley cross. Crop Science 36:265-273. [ Links ]

Zale, J. M.; Clancy, J. A.; Ulrich, S. E.; Jones, B. L.; Hayes, P. M. and The North American Barley Genome Mapping Project. 2000. Summary of barley malting quality QTLs mapped in various populations. Barley Genetics Newsletter. 30:44-54. [ Links ]

Zamora, D. M.; Solano, H. S.; Garza, G. R.; Islas, G. J.; Huerta, Z. R.; López, C. M. 2010. Armida, nueva variedad de cebada maltera para riego en el Bajío. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias agrícolas. 1(5):723-726. [ Links ]

Zamora, D.; Solano, H. S.; Gómez, M. R.; Rojas, M. I.; Ireta, M. J.; Garza, G. R. and Ortiz, T. C. 2008. Adabella: variedad de cebada maltera para valles altos de la mesa central de México. Agricultura Técnica en México 34(4):491-493. [ Links ]

Received: September 2015; Accepted: January 2016

Creative Commons License Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons