Journal of Plant Nutrition

ISSN: 0190-4167 (Print) 1532-4087 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpla20

Farmers’ knowledge helps develop practically

applicable site-specific fertilizer rate
recommendations for improving yield and grain
quality of malt barley

Adamu Molla

To cite this article: Adamu Molla (2020): Farmers’ knowledge helps develop practically applicable
site-specific fertilizer rate recommendations for improving yield and grain quality of malt barley,
Journal of Plant Nutrition, DOI: 10.1080/01904167.2020.1771575

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2020.1771575

Published online: 27 May 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lpla20
JOURNAL OF PLANT NUTRITION
https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2020.1771575

Farmers’ knowledge helps develop practically applicable site-

specific fertilizer rate recommendations for improving yield
and grain quality of malt barley
Adamu Molla
Debre Birhan Agricultural Research Center, Debre Birhan, Ethiopia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Many participatory research works in Ethiopia and elsewhere proved that Received 9 October 2019
peasant farmers can classify soils according to their fertility/productivity Accepted 17 February 2020
status but these studies did not use this knowledge for developing practic-
KEYWORDS
ally applicable site-specific fertilizer rate recommendations. Experiment
farmers’ soil classification;
comprising factorial combinations of four levels of nitrogen (N) (0, 60, 120, grain protein content; grain
and 180 kg ha
1) and two contrasting malt barley varieties (V1 ¼ Miscal-21 test weight; malt barley;
versus V2 ¼ Holker) was conducted on 10 sites representing soils of less nitrogen fertilizer
fertility/less productivity (S1) and fertile/productive (S2) according to farm-
ers’ classification in 2010–2012. The objectives were to confirm and use
farmers’ knowledge for developing practically applicable site specific N fer-
tilizer rate recommendations; and generate information for developing
malt barley varieties with lower grain protein accumulation and higher
productivity in higher N application rates. The results revealed that farmers
knowledge could be used to develop practically applicable site-specific fer-
tilizer rate recommendations. Therefore, applications of 110.5, 45.0, 137.5
and 110.5 kg N ha
1 in S1V1, S2V1, S1V2 and S2V2, respectively, are sug-
gested for production of malt barley having 11.85% dry grain protein con-
tent with the relative higher productivity in the highlands of Ethiopia.
Results also revealed that there is opportunity to develop malt barley vari-
eties with lower grain N accumulation and higher productivity in higher
N rates.

Introduction
Barley has been an important food and industrial crop in Ethiopia covering 977,757 ha nationally,
347,720 ha in the Amhara Regional State, and 58,638 ha in North Shewa administrative zone dur-
ing the main cropping season (meher) of 2008/2009 (CSA 2009). Even though Ethiopia is the
second largest barley producer in Africa, accounting for about 25% of the total barley production
(FAO 2014), it has not yet been able to expand malt barley production. The share of malting bar-
ley production is quite low and constitutes about 10% to 15% (100–150 thousand ha) of the total
barley area of about one million hectares in 2016/2017 meher season. Booming breweries demand
for supply of high quality malt barley has ever been increasing in Ethiopia (Gessesse 2017).
However, due to low productivity, poor quality, and very limited expansion of malt barley pro-
duction, the net import bill for malt barley jumped from US$240 thousand in 1997 to US$40 mil-
lion in 2014 (Rashid et al. 2015).

CONTACT Adamu Molla adamu_molla@yahoo.com Debre Birhan Agricultural Research Center, P.O. Box 112, Debre
Birhan, Ethiopia.
ß 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 A. MOLLA

Abiotic and biotic stresses, weak technology generation and transfer, low availability and access
to inputs, sub-optimal application of fertilizer inputs, and poor access to markets due to poor
linkages between the farmer producers and the brewing industry are the main constraints respon-
sible for low productivity, poor quality and limited expansion of malt barley. It is a well estab-
lished fact that environment (including management practices) and genetic potential affect both
productivity and quality of malt barley (Muhe 2011; EIAR 2015; Mehari et al. 2015; Mekonnen
2013; Rashid et al. 2015). Ajith (2009) in his review indicated that malting quality of barley is
very complex and is controlled by many genes and is strongly influenced by the environment.
Environment includes the soil type, rainfall amount and distribution, temperature and crop man-
agement practices. One of the main concerns in the barley industry is the need to implement
good nitrogen (N) fertilizer management systems to obtain good malting quality and high yield.
Through the effort since its inception some 50 years ago up to 2010, Ethiopian national agricul-
tural research system has released ten malt barley varieties with different yield potentials, malt
qualities, adaptation areas and stability (MoA 2010). Therefore, the interactions of soil fertility/
productivity, malt barley varieties and N fertilizer levels are priority areas of this study for gener-
ating information on the importance of farmers’ knowledge and designing targeted variety devel-
opment scheme for improving productivity and grain quality in malt barley producing highlands
of Ethiopia.
The rate of N fertilizer application is among the most critical decisions for malting barley pro-
duction due to its large impact on grain yield and quality. The relationship between yield and
quality is affected by soil fertility, cultivar, N management, and soil water availability and by pat-
terns of N uptake at pre- and post-anthesis. The observed limited responses of crops to fertilizer
inputs and investments could also be largely explained by the blanket application of nutrients,
without targeting crop types, landscape position and drought regimes. When farmers are advised
to use blanket application, irrespective of their soils and landscape position, the return will be
limited, prompting smallholder farmers not to adopt this practice (Tamene et al. 2017). The lack
of site specific fertilizer recommendations to replenish declining soil fertility has been the major
challenge to boost crop production in Ethiopia (Lelago et al. 2016; Tamene et al. 2017). Various
national and international research centers and researchers at higher learning institutions have
also been engaged in testing crop response to fertilizer application in a quest to develop site- and
context-specific fertilizer recommendations. Regardless of these efforts, fertilizer recommendations
are largely blanket for most crops, and this is particularly worse for malt barley production which
has been going on by applying the blanket fertilizer rate of 41/20 kg ha
1 of N/phosphorus (P)
that had been recommended about 30 years ago (IAR 1983) in the highlands of North Shewa in
the Amhara Regional State of Ethiopia. Soil testing is an important tool for preparing site specific
fertilizer recommendations, but it has not been used by smallholder peasant farmers in Ethiopia
and has not been profitable for many farmers in developed countries such as the United States of
America (Kastens and Dhuyvetter 2005). The full impact of soil testing service in actual farming
has not been visible and difficult to achieve in India having 514 (including 133 mobile) soil test-
ing laboratories (Tiwari 2002). Reliable soil test results depend on proper soil sampling and sam-
ple processing procedures and proper soil analysis techniques, which all are the common
deficiencies in Ethiopia. Moreover, various management practices of fragmented landholdings of
smallholder farmers in Ethiopia further amplifies variability that needs huge capacity in terms of
physical and human resource for administering soil test-based site-specific fertilizer recommenda-
tion. Agriculture in Ethiopia is a smallholder peasant based (accounting 95.8% of crop produc-
tion) subsistence activity with the national average crop land holding size of 0.96 ha per
household, the household size being 5.32 persons (CSA 2011), of which barley land size per
household in 2017/18 meher season was 0.27 ha (CSA 2018). Therefore, it would be additional
cost and impractical to administer soil test based recommendations in such fragmented landhold-
ing and subsistence peasant farming systems in Ethiopia. Many participatory research works in
 JOURNAL OF PLANT NUTRITION 3

Ethiopia (Belachew and Abera 2010; Pound and Jonfa 2005; Corbeels et al. 2000), Ghana
(Agyarko et al. 2011) and northern Laos (Saito et al. 2006) proved that peasant farmers can clas-
sify soils according to their fertility/productivity status but these studies did not use this know-
ledge for developing practically applicable site-specific fertilizer rate recommendations. Therefore,
this experiment was conducted with the following objectives.

 To generate information on the relevance of farmers’ knowledge of soil fertility/productivity

classification for developing technically and economically affordable site specific N fertilizer
rate recommendations for quality malt barley production on the brown soil in the central
highlands of Ethiopia
 To generate information for developing malt barley varieties with lower grain N accumulation
for maintaining standard grain protein content under higher N fertilizer rates for improving
productivity

Materials and methods

Description of study areas
This on-farm experiment was conducted on farmers’ fields at Mush in Bassona-Worana district
and at Ankober in Ankober district representing typical barley producing highlands of North
Shewa Zone of Amhara Regional State of Ethiopia. The testing sites were in the areas between
Debre Birhan and Tarimaber, and between Debre Birhan and Ankober towns. Testing sites lay in
areas with the geographical coordinates of 9 380 1700 and 9 490 5500 latitude north and 39 320
1100 and 39 450 3800 longitude east. The sites were in the agro-ecology of SM2 (tepid to cool sub
moist). The altitude ranges from 2825 to 3140 m asl with the annual rainfall of 1635.9 mm for
Andit Tid, and 1003.1 mm for Debre Berhan as averaged over years in 1995–2009. The corre-
sponding maximum and minimum temperatures averaged over the years 1995–2009 were 17.5
and 7.6  C for Andit Tid (3040 m asl), and 19.6 and 6.2  C for Debre Birhan (2825 m asl).
Number of years with full data set in 1995–2009 was 15 for Andit Tid, and 5 for Debre Birhan.
No reliable rainfall and temperature data record at Ankober. Testing sites represent well drained
to moderately drained brown soil where barley production dominates.

Experimental sites selection

The land distribution undertaken in 1997 and 1998 by the Amhara Regional State also used farm-
ers’ knowledge to classify land in terms of soil fertility/productivity levels. In addition to this
information, land background about crop rotation, soil fertility management practices, soil drain-
age and depth characterization by farmers were used to determine fertility/productivity levels of
soils in each test site. Additional confirmation was also obtained by asking knowledgeable, neigh-
boring farmers in each test site. Farmers’ understanding about fertile and less fertile soil is based
on its productivity. In this way, sites representing less fertile/less productive soils (termed as S1)
and fertile/productive soils (termed as S2) were selected in each of 2010, 2011 and 2012 experi-
mental years (Table 1).
To summarize farmers’ ratings in Table 1, although use of legume crop rotation is same for
both, less fertile/less productive soil (S1) is light soil which is moderately drained and relatively
shallow in depth, never been manured/composted or lightly manured/composted once every other
5 years, and should be low in productivity as compared to the fertile/productive soil. Fertile/pro-
ductive soil (S2) is light soil which is well drained and relatively deep in depth, well manured or
composted once in every other 2–3 years, and should be productive since fertile soil does not
4 A. MOLLA

Table 1. Summary of farmers’ descriptions on soil fertility status, drainage and depth, and management practices of soils of
the testing sites.
Prior soil fertility management
Testing site Experimental year Farmers’ ratings of the soil practiced on the test sites
S1 2010 Less fertile/less productive: Fallow in 2009; barley in 2008; never
moderately drained, shallow been manured
S2 2010 Fertile/productive: well drained Field pea in 2009; unfertilized wheat
in 2008; manured faba bean
in 2007
S1 2011 Less fertile/less productive: well Faba bean in 2010; never
drained, shallow been manured
S2 2011 Fertile/productive: well drained, Field pea in 2010; composted in
deep, homestead 2007; homestead
S1 2011 Less fertile/less productive: well Fallow in 2010; barley in 2009; never
drained, relatively shallow been manured
S2 2011 Fertile/productive: well Faba bean in 2010; barley in 2009;
drained, deep manured in 2008
S1 2012 Less fertile/less productive: Field pea in 2011; never
moderately well drained, shallow been manured
S2 2012 Fertile/productive: well Field pea in 2011; manured faba bean
drained, deep in 2009
S1 2012 Less fertile/less productive: well Faba bean in 2011; never
drained, relatively shallow been manured
S2 2012 Fertile/productive: well Fertilized potato in 2011; manured
drained, homestead in 2008

Table 2. Selected information of the test malt barley varieties.

Grain yield in
recommended Thousand Plant height
Name of the Days management Grain protein grain at Recommended
test varieties Year of release to maturity (t ha
1) content (%) weight (g) heading (cm) altitude m asl
Holker (¼ V2) 1979 135–141 2.4–3.1 10.4 41.1 95 2300–2800
Miscal-21 2006 136 1.9–5.2 11.5 46.0 87 1550–2850
(¼ V1)
Note: m asl ¼ meters above sea level.
Source: NSIA (1998); MoARD (2006).

necessarily mean productive due to physico-chemical limitations such as waterlogging and sub-
optimal soil pH (Ahn 1993).

Treatments and experimental design

The two contrasting test malt barley varieties were selected based on characters indicated in
Table 2. Factorial combinations of these two malt barley varieties (Miscal-21, hereafter denoted as
V1; and Holker, hereafter denoted as V2) with four levels of N (0, 60, 120 and 180 kg ha
1) were
tested in randomized complete block design with four replications at each site.

Experimental management
According to the typical local practice, seedbed preparation of each site was done by plowings
three times (first plowing in February, second in March to April, the last in June for seed cover-
ing) including seed covering with oxen drawn local ard plow with sharp metal tip, maresha. Seed
rate of the test varieties was determined based on seed weight, germination rate, and field ger-
mination loss of 10% to approximately have 288 plants m
2 in the broadcast sowing method.
Thus, seed rate used in 2010–2012 for each of Holker and Miscal-21 variety was 130–154 and
147–175 kg ha
1, respectively. Sowing in each year was done in 16–29 June while the soil was sub
 JOURNAL OF PLANT NUTRITION 5

moist, approximately 50%–75% lower than field capacity by feel method (Misra and Ahmed
1987). Basal application of 20 kg P ha
1 was made at sowing for each plot treated by N fertilizer.
The source of P fertilizer was DAP while the sources of N fertilizer were DAP and urea. Half rate
of N fertilizer for each treatment rate was applied at sowing while the other half was applied at
tillering stage of malt barley soon after weeding on the same date. Fertilizer application method
was broadcasting. One hand weeding was done at tillering stage of the malt barely varieties in
each year at each site. Harvesting close to the soil surface in each year was done manually in 25
October to 16 November depending on the maturity of malt barley which was affected by the
variable effects of siteyear, variety and N fertilizer rates.

Data collection
Five core soil samples in zigzag pattern sampling to the depth of 0–20 cm for each site were com-
posited into one so as to determine texture class, pH, organic carbon, total N, and available P
(Table 3) in each year and rating of measured parameters was done as given by Thiagalingam
(2000). Soil samples were collected on the same date at which sowing of the experimental plots in
each site was done. Rainfall and temperature data of the growing season in each year were also
collected from meteorology stations managed by Debre Birhan Agricultural Research Center
(DBARC) at DBARC on-station and Andit Tid testing site (Tables 4–6). Premature drying of
malt barley in October to November in each year was scored in percentage when it was observed
at each site (Table 7). Percentage scoring was done based on the proportion of prematurely dried
malt barley spikes out of the total population of malt barley spikes/heads in each experimental
plot. Each of straw and grain yield obtained from 9.6 m2 harvested sample in each plot was
weighed on sun-dry basis in kg and then was changed to yield per hectare. A sample of 250
grains from each plot was weighed in g and was multiplied by 4 to get thousand grains weight. A
subsample of grain from each plot was used to determined grain test weight (kg grain per liter)
with test weight scale seedburo (Chicago, IL). Grain protein, starch and moisture contents were
determined nondestructively by near infrared reflectance (model infratec 1241). Dry grain protein
content was calculated as (FSSAI 2015):
   
100
M2 Protein content  100
ð
Dry grain protein content % ¼ Þ P ¼
100
M1 100
Moisture content
where M1 is grain moisture content at the time of the test; M2 is zero grain moisture content;
and P is percentage grain protein content at M1 grain moisture content.
The farm gate prices of the respective 15.60 and 6.80 Ethiopian Birr (ETB) per one kg of grain
and straw yields of malt barely in February–March 2019; and 13.02 ETB per one kg of urea fertil-
izers (including interest and transport costs) in June 2019 were used for economic analyses. Price
sources for grain and fertilizer were malt barley producer cooperatives while source of straw price
was direct market price survey by the author in Debre Birhan town. During price survey, one
USD was equivalent to 29.50 ETB in the official exchange market.

Data analyses
This on-farm experiment was planned to conduct on two sites representing S1 and S2 at each
location (Ankober and Mush) in each year. However, in the first year, 2010, two sites failed due
to high waterlogging caused by selection of non-representative sites. Due to this unbalanced
nature, it was not possible to compare year and location effects. Thus, year and location were
combined to make five environmental levels which were treated as random source of variation.
This scenario suggested to use restricted or residual maximum likelihood analysis of variance in
mixed model and type-3 test to efficiently handle such unbalanced experiment and data sets
 6
A. MOLLA

Table 3. Testing sites’ soil analysis results of samples to the depth of 0–20 cm.
Rating
of values
Soil
fertility-productivity Organic Available Total Organic Available Texture
levels pH Total N (%) carbon %) P (ppm) pH N (%) carbon (%) P (ppm) Sand (%) Clay (%) Silt (%) class
S1 5.94 0.216 2.04 7.44 Moderately acidic Low Low Very low 20.67 42.00 37.33 Clay
S2 6.35 0.203 2.44 7.80 Slightly acidic Low Low Very low 17.67 38.67 43.67 Silty clay loam
Extraction methods: 1:2.5 soil to water ratio for pH; Walkley-Black for Organic carbon; Olsen for available P; Kjeldahal for total N; and Hydrometer for texture.
Source: Thiagalingam (2000).
 JOURNAL OF PLANT NUTRITION 7

Table 4. Rainfall of the growing period of nearby locations of the testing sites in 2010–2012 as compared to the long-
term average.
Rainfall (mm) in 2010 Rainfall (mm) in 2011 Rainfall (mm) in 2012 Log-term average
Months Andit-Tid D/Birhan Andit-Tid D/Birhan Andit-Tid D/Birhan Andit-Tid D/Birhan
June 90.5 35.4 104.4 84.4 213.5 86.8 106.8 73.0
July 347.6 242.3 318.3 357.4 382.3 351.6 353.3 363.7
August 435.4 329.2 342.7 312.3 258.6 404.5 319.1 309.1
September 128.1 53.8 145.6 79.0 45.6 55.4 156.6 81.1
October 29.7 0.3 23.7 0.0 18.0 0.0 117.2 16.3
November 74.2 8.5 56.8 4.3 45.1 0.0 77.7 12.3
Total 1105.3 669.5 991.4 837.4 963.1 898.3 1130.7 855.6
% annual total 66.8 72.3 69.9 78.2 70.6 85.2 69.1 85.3

Table 5. Maximum temperature (oC) of the growing period of nearby locations of the testing sites in 2010–2012 as compared
to the long-term average.
Max temp in 2010 Max temp in 2011 Max temp in 2012 Long-term average
Months Andit-Tid Debre Birhan Andit-Tid Debre Birhan Andit-Tid Debre Birhan Andit-Tid Debre Birhan
June 21.3 22.7 20.2 19.3 19.3 22.3 19.8 21.5
July 18.0 18.7 17.9 18.1 17.2 18.4 17.3 18.2
August 17.6 18.1 17.1 18.7 17.4 18.3 17.2 18.1
September 17.9 19.0 17.7 18.8 16.8 19.4 17.3 18.8
October 18.4 19.8 16.5 19.4 15.7 19.8 16.5 18.7
November 16.9 19.2 16.0 19.4 16.5 20.5 15.8 18.5
Seasonal average 18.3 19.6 17.6 18.9 17.1 19.8 17.3 19.0
Annual average 18.4 20.0 17.4 19.8 17.2 20.4 17.5 19.6
Note: Locations Andit Tid and Debre Birhan are assumed to represent testing sites at Ankober and Mush, respectively, based
on altitude and rainfall distribution.

Table 6. Minimum temperature ( C) of the growing period of nearby locations of the testing sites in 2010–2012 as compared
to the long-term average.
Min temp in 2010 Min temp in 2011 Min temp in 2012 Log-term average
Months Andit-Tid Debre Birhan Andit-Tid Debre Birhan Andit-Tid Debre Birhan Andit-Tid Debre Birhan
June 9.0 8.1 9.0 7.6 8.8 7.6 9.0 7.6
July 7.6 9.1 8.1 8.7 6.6 8.7 8.2 8.2
August 6.5 9.3 7.5 8.7 5.8 7.9 8.1 8.4
September 7.6 7.2 7.3 7.5 7.8 6.5 8.2 6.4
October 7.2 3.7 7.5 3.4 6.3 1.7 7.1 4.0
November 6.1 4.1 7.4 4.8 6.9 1.9 5.4 3.4
Seasonal average 7.3 6.9 7.8 6.8 7.0 5.7 7.7 6.3
Annual average 7.5 7.5 7.5 6.5 7.1 5.6 7.6 6.2
Note: Locations Andit Tid and Debre Birhan are assumed to represent testing sites at Ankober and Mush, respectively, based
on altitude and rainfall distribution.

Table 7. Mean of percent premature drying score on malt barley at grain filling stage.
Soil fertility/productivity levels E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 Average
S1 0 18.8 0.7 19.3 0 7.8
S2 0 7.5 3.8 0 0 2.3
Average 0 13.2 2.3 9.7 0
Note: E1 ¼ Location Ankober in 2010 for S1, Location Mush in 2010 for S2; E2 ¼ Location Mush for S1 and S2 in 2011; E3 ¼
Location Ankober for S1 and S2 in 2011; E4 ¼ Location Mush for S1 and S2 in 2012; and E5 ¼ Location Ankober for S1 and
S2 in 2012.

which may violate some analysis of variance assumptions (Virk et al. 2009; Stroup 2015; Luke
2017; Langan et al. 2019). Kenward-Roger method of estimating denominator degrees of freedom
(ddf) for testing fixed effects was used as it was proved to work better than other methods in
8 A. MOLLA

Table 8. Summary of probability values of combined analysis of variance over environments (E), soil fertility/productivity levels
(S), malt barley varieties (V) and nitrogen fertilizer levels (N).
Random factors’ sources of variation GY Pr > Z SY Pr > Z TGW Pr > Z GTW Pr > Z DGPC Pr > Z
E No value No value No value No value 0.3286
ES 0.0452 0.0284 0.0304 0.0286 0.0882
EV No value 0.3717 0.3483 0.0874 0.2163
ES  V 0.0968 0.2537 0.1500 No value 0.1734
EN No value No value 0.2655 0.1791 No value
ES  N 0.1957 0.1072 0.1700 0.1289 0.0184
EV  N No value No value No value No value No value
ES  VN No value No value No value No value No value
Fixed factors’ sources of variation GY Pr > F SY Pr > F TGW Pr > F GTW Pr > F DGPC Pr > F
S 0.0002 0.0037 0.1176 0.0679 0.3948
V 0.0006 0.4631 0.0031 0.0192 0.0228
SV 0.6858 0.0566 0.2125 0.1130 0.2195
N <0.0001 <0.0001 0.1713 0.3867 <0.0001
SN 0.7339 0.9152 0.1420 0.0622 0.0441
VN 0.0001 0.3779 0.7339 0.0005 0.2867
SV  N 0.9865 0.9416 0.8718 0.8009 0.8625
Note: Probability with “No value” under the indicated malt barley parameter is due to the corresponding random factor or its
interaction with zero or nearly zero contribution as the source of variation to the sum of squares; Pr ¼ probability level of
significance; Z ¼ value of Z for random factors; F ¼ value of F for fixed factors; G ¼ grain yield; SY ¼ straw yield;
TGW ¼ thousand grain weight; GTW ¼ grain test weight; DGPC ¼ dry grain protein content; E ¼ environments; S ¼ soil fertil-
ity/productivity levels; V ¼ varieties; N ¼ nitrogen fertilizer rates.

unbalanced, complex covariance structures with large sample sizes (Padilla et al. 2008; Alnosaier
2007; Luke 2017). Soil fertility/productivity sites, variety, N fertilizer and their interactions were
considered as fixed factors sources of variations (Gomez and Gomez 1984; Petersen 1977).
Analysis of variance and trend analyses using stepwise regression procedures were done using
SAS software Version 9.3 of 2002–2010 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Probability level of
5% was used for entering and retaining each term in stepwise regression analysis except in few
cases where quadratic terms having significant probability level of 0.0563 to 0.1147 were included
to improve the curve fit so as to accurately approximate the observed values. Based on the guide-
lines outlined by Rana and Kumar (2014), N application rate for each of agronomic and eco-
nomic optimum grain yield was determined from curve fit equation generated by stepwise
regression for each variety at each of S1 and S2. However, grain protein content was the deter-
mining factor in deciding the final recommendable N fertilizer rate for each of S and V levels
combinations.

Results and discussions

Grain yield
Grain yield was significantly (p < 0.05) affected by main effects of S, V and N; and by interaction
effects of E with S, and V with N (Table 8). The interpretation of these main and interaction
effects are presented in Table 9. Main effects show that malt barley grain yield productivity on S2
was significantly (p < 0.05 in Table 8) higher by 70.8% over S1 when averaged over the five envi-
ronments (E) in Table 9. Main effects confirmed the feasibility of farmers’ classification which
rated S2 as fertile/productive than S1 (Table 1). The soil sample analysis result with higher clay
content of S1 being clay soil in texture (Table 1) also confirmed that S1 is inherently liable to
poor drainage (waterlogging) than S2 which has relatively lower clay content being silty-clay loam
in texture (Table 3). Since there are no appreciable differences in nutrient analysis results between
S1 and S2, it is suggested that their differences in soil drainage and soil depth (Table 1), texture
and soil pH (Table 3) contributed to differences in productivity. Survey study elsewhere in the
northern part of Ethiopia (Corbeels et al. 2000) showed that farmers categorize their soils into
 JOURNAL OF PLANT NUTRITION 9

Table 9. Response of malt barley to environments and soil fertility/productivity levels.

Interaction effects of E with S levels
Soil fertility/productivity levels Main effects of S1 vs S2 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5
Grain yield (kg ha
1)
S1 2449.2 2145 2883 2957 2119 2142
S2 4183.8 4227 4165 3516 4686 4275
Difference 1734.6 2082 1282 559 2567 2133
Straw yield (kg ha
1)
S1 3791.6 3305 4890 3810 4651 2302
S2 6319.6 6997 6255 4746 6806 6794
Difference 2528.0 3692 1365 936 2155 4492
Thousand grain weight (g)
S1 39.94 43.8 38.8 43.9 30.9 42.3
S2 44.48 45.7 46.0 43.3 45.9 41.5
Difference 4.54 1.9 7.2 0.6 15.0 0.8
Grain test weight (kg L
1)
S1 0.648 0.654 0.646 0.675 0.595 0.669
S2 0.680 0.695 0.684 0.669 0.690 0.664
Difference 0.032 0.041 0.038 0.006 0.095 0.005
Note: E1 ¼ Location Ankober in 2010 for S1, Location Mush in 2010 for S2; E2 ¼ Location Mush for S1 and S2 in 2011; E3 ¼
Location Ankober for S1 and S2 in 2011; E4 ¼ Location Mush for S1 and S2 in 2012; and E5 ¼ Location Ankober for S1 and
S2 in 2012; S1 ¼ less fertile/less productive soil; S2 ¼ fertile/productive soil.

fertile soils, moderately fertile soils and poor soils based on the soils’ potential to produce crops,
it is not limited to their perceived nutrient status. It is also a well established fact that all product-
ive soils are fertile, but fertile soils may not be productive due to some physical problems of soil
like waterlogging and other yield reducing factors (Ahn 1993). Thus, differences in soil acidity
might have also contributed to productivity differences in S1 and S2 since malt barley is sensitive
to soil acidity in which S1 was more acidic than S2 in this study (Table 3). A field experiment
elsewhere in southern Ethiopia (Boke and Fekadu 2019) indicated that barley grain yield product-
ivity was about 1023, 1506 and 1631 kg ha
1 on a soil pH of 4.8, 5.5 and 6.1, respectively, at
Chencha with 2900 m asl; and 1264, 1772 and 2017 kg ha
1 on a soil pH of 5.2, 5.7 and 6.3 at
Hagereselam with 2650 m asl; both locations having the average annual rainfall of 1000–1300 mm.
The interpretation of the interaction effects reveals that superiority of S2 over S1 varied with
environments: being 97.1, 44.5, 18.9, 121.1 and 99.6% in E1, E2, E3, E4, and E5, respectively
(Table 9). In addition to soil drainage and soil depth variations across environments, variations
in rainfall distribution (Table 4) and minimum temperature (Table 6), which in turn might have
caused premature drying of malt barley (Table 7) in some environments could probably be the
major contributors to the interaction effects. At E1 and E5 where there was no premature drying,
the superiority of S2 over S1 was by 97.1%–99.6% while it was only 18.9% at E3 where premature
drying record in S2 was higher than in S1. At E4 where premature drying was nil in S2 and 19.3%
in S1, the superiority of S2 over S1 increased to 121.1%. Experiences in western Australia show
that cold damage to cereal crops occur when plants are exposed to temperatures less than 5  C
down to
2  C (Biddulph et al. 2017). Minimum temperatures during grain filling period of malt
barley in October and November at Debre Birhan representing testing sites at Mush (Table 6) are
less than 5  C, confirming the report of Biddulph et al. (2017). Although not as large as that of
minimum temperature effects, the maximum temperatures ranging from 15.7 to 20.5  C (Table 5)
during grain filling period of malt barley might have also contributed to significant interaction
effect. Experiences elsewhere in a growth chamber experiment by Reinhardt et al (2013) on the
effect of 10, 20 and 30  C temperatures applied at the beginning of heading to the beginning of
watery ripe of barley indicated that 30  C decreased grain yield by 57.2% while 10  C increased by
30.6% over the control temperature 20  C. Environmental effects are unpredictable but farmers
can use their experiences to plant such waterlogging and desiccating wind or freezing temperature
sensitive crops like malt barley on well drained and hill sheltered lands by avoiding low lying
10 A. MOLLA

Table 10. Grain yield and quality response of malt barley varieties as affected by nitrogen fertilizer rates.
Grain yield (kg ha
1) Grain test weight (kg L
1) Dry grain protein content (%)

1
N rates (kg ha ) V1 V2 Difference V1 V2 Difference V1 V2 Difference
0 2383 2263 120 0.647 0.676 0.029 11.3 10.5 0.8
60 3505 2985 520 0.659 0.678 0.019 11.6 10.7 0.9
120 3962 3371 591 0.652 0.673 0.021 12.6 11.9 0.7
180 4447 3576 871 0.659 0.668 0.009 13.8 13.4 0.4

plane and valley bottoms where frost intensity is recurrent and high (Matusick et al. 2014).
Because it is established fact that relatively warmer air moves up slope while the cooler one
moves down slope. Early maturing malt barley varieties are also an option to escape frost or
freezing temperatures which usually appear in late October to end of November in which late
maturing varieties do not reach dough grain stage which is less prone to frost damage.
Main and interaction effects of S, V and N in Tables 8–10 and Figure 1 clearly indicates that
the two varieties are significantly different in N utilization efficiency under inherently different
soil fertility/productivity levels and applied N rates. Higher grain yield productivity of 25.2% of
V1 over V2 at N0 in S1 decreased to 8.6% in S2 (Table 10), which shows that V1 performs better
than V2 in inherently less fertile/less productive soil condition without N fertilizer application
while V2 needs inherently fertile/productive soil. The trend was also similar at N180, suggesting
an important input for breeding programs to further develop higher yielding malt barley varieties
efficient in N utilization while maintaining grain quality standards. Grain yield of malt barley
increased with increasing N levels but the increment rate was significantly (p < 0.05 in Table 8)
higher on V1 than on V2 (Table 10); thus the response of V1 on N0, N60, N120 and N180 was
5.3%, 17.4%, 17.5% and 24.4% higher than that of V2, respectively. Although analysis of variance
failed to detect interaction effects of S with V with N (Table 8), stepwise regression analysis
results in Figure 1 generated meaningful trends. Grain yield gap between the two varieties was
similar under N0 and N60 and then progressively increased with increasing N levels to achieve
the highest at N180; but V1 was always higher yielding than V2 in all N rates and S levels. The
grain yield gap between the two varieties was also always higher in S1 than in S2 for all N rates.
Thus, the corresponding grain yield productivity of V1 under N0, N60, N120 and N180 was 25.2,
17.0, 22.9 and 37.0% higher than that of V2 at S1; and 8.6, 5.6, 10.6 and 22.7% higher than that
of V2 at S2.
Although not done on different soil fertility/productivity levels, the unpublished adaptation
trial results of DBARC, comparing five malt barley varieties in 2006 meher season at Ankober,
revealed that V1 was higher yielding than V2 with the corresponding grain yield of about 5315
and 3411 kg ha
1. Similarly, a field experiment conducted in 2009 meher cropping season at
Bekoji (a high altitude area above 2800 m asl) also confirmed that Miscal-21 was higher grain
yielding than Holker, and grain yield increased with increasing N rates of 0, 23, 46, 69 and 92 kg
ha
1 (Getasew and Tesfaye 2010).

Agronomic and economic optimum for grain yield

Agronomic optimum (amount of N required to obtain the highest grain yield) and economic
optimum (amount of N required to obtain the highest net return) computations based on
guidelines outlined by Rana and Kumar (2014) and grain yield prediction equations in Figure 1
revealed the following results. N fertilizer rates of 180, 218, 180 and 170 kg N ha
1 for obtain-
ing agronomic optimum of V1 at S1, V2 at S1, V1 at S2 and V2 at S2, respectively, give the cor-
responding predicted grain yield could be 3774, 2803, 5370 and 4381 kg ha
1. However, 218 kg
N ha
1 yielding 2803 kg grain ha
1 for V2 at S1 is not only out of the range of the tested N
rates but also shows that V2 is not efficient in N utilization since its predicted grain yield is
 JOURNAL OF PLANT NUTRITION 11

Figure 1. Grain yield (GY) response of malt barley varieties to soil fertility/productivity levels and nitrogen fertilizer rates.

2759 kg ha
1 under the tested 180 kg N ha
1; the yield increment is negligible as compared to
increasing N rate to 218 kg ha
1. This led to the computation of the economic optimum N
rates. The results show that 180, 188, 180, and 148 kg N ha
1 for V1 at S1, for V2 at S1, for V1
at S2 and for V2 at S2, respectively, were economic optimum. However, 188 kg N ha
1 for V2
at S1 is out of the tested N rates. Therefore, the final N rates for economic optimum malt bar-
ley grain yield production are 180, 180, 180, 148 kg ha
1 for V1 at S1, V2 at S1, V1 at S2 and
V2 at S2, respectively, giving the corresponding predicted grain yield of 3774, 2759, 5370 and
4361 kg ha
1.

Straw yield
Main and interaction effects which affected grain yield also followed more or less similar pattern
in affecting straw yield (Tables 8 and 9; Figure 2), the explanations provided for grain yield also
applies for straw yield since grain and straw yield mostly have direct relationship (Kassie and
Tesfaye 2019). However, unlike to grain yield with which V1 was superior than V2 in all N rates
and S levels, V2 out-yielded V1 at S2 in straw yield for V2 being inherently taller in height than
V1 (Table 2). This is what Figure 2 also confirms: Predicted straw yield of V1 at N0 in S2 was
4470 kg ha
1 while that of V2 was 4801 kg ha
1. Similar trend was also observed at N180 in S2
where predicted straw yield of V1 was 7496 kg ha
1 while that of V2 was 7671 kg ha
1. Barley
straw is very important feed source for cattle, which provides draft power for seedbed preparation
and threshing of malt barley in the highlands of Ethiopia (Kehaliew et al. 2011). These are inter-
dependent enterprises of smallholder farmers where one kg barley straw costed on average up to
6.80 ETB during February–March 2019 in Debre Birhan town. This scenario forced farmers give
due emphasis to straw yield as one of the most important parameters in participatory variety
selection activities of the research endeavors by the Ethiopian agricultural research system. About
1,118,000 ton of barley straw was reported to be annually available to feed ruminant population
of the Ethiopian highlands, the availability being about 29 kg barley straw per annum per tropical
livestock unit (Kehaliew et al. 2011).
12 A. MOLLA

Figure 2. Straw yield (SY) response of malt barley varieties to soil fertility levels and nitrogen fertilizer rates.

Grain quality parameters

Thousand grain weight (TGW) was significantly (p < 0.05) affected only by main effect of V, and
interaction effect of E with S (Table 8). TGW of 44.6 g for V1 (Table 9) was significantly
(p < 0.05 in Table 8) higher than 39.8 g of V2 (Table 9). Interaction of E with S revealed that
TGW of malt barley in S2 was higher than that of S1 in E1, E2 and E4 but the reverse was true in
E3 and E5 (Table 9). According to ESA (2001) standard 25–35 g TGW requirements, all ten com-
binations of S and E levels in Table 9 satisfy the requirements since the lowest is 30.9 g in S1 at
E4 and the highest is 46.0 g in S2 at E4. TGW is one of the important grain quality parameters of
malt barley as it affects extract and flour yield. Edney et al. (2005) reported that increasing seed
weight linearly increased malt extract (the lowest grain weight giving the lowest extract of 74%
and the highest grain weight giving the highest extract of 82%) within the range of the tested
TGW values of 27–50 g.
Grain test weight (GTW) was significantly (p < 0.05) effected by main effect of V; and inter-
action effects of E with S, and V with N (Table 8). GTW of 0.674 kg L
1 for V2 (Table 9) was
significantly (p < 0.05 in Table 8) higher than 65.4 kg hl
1 for V1 (Table 9). Interaction of E with
S revealed that GTW of malt barley in S2 was higher than that of S1 in E1, E2 and E4 but the
reverse was true in E3 and E5 (Table 9). Interaction of V with N indicated that GTW of V2 was
always higher than that of V1 in all N levels but the gap varied (Table 10). Thus, GTW of V2 was
higher than that of V1 by 4.5, 2.9, 3.2 and 1.4% in N0, N60, N120 and N180, respectively. GTW of
all ten S and E levels combinations in Table 9 and all eight V and N levels combinations in Table
10 satisfy the ESA (2001) standard 0.48–0.62 kg L
1 requirement since the lowest record in this
study is 0.595 kg L
1 in S1 at E4 and the highest record is 0.69 kg L
1 in S2 at E4.
Dry grain protein content (DGPC) was significantly (p < 0.05) effected by main effects of V
and N; and interaction effects of S with N, and E with S with N (Table 8). DGPC of malt barley
treated with each of N60, N120 and N180 was consistently higher in S2 than in S1 at E1, E2 and E5
but the reverse was true in E3 and E4 (Table 11). DGPC 12.3% of V1 (Table 11) was significantly
(p < 0.05 in Table 8) higher than 11.6% of V2 (Table 11). DGPC of malt barley significantly
 JOURNAL OF PLANT NUTRITION 13

Table 11. Interaction effect of environment (E), soil fertility/productivity (S) and nitrogen fertilizer (N) on dry grain protein
content of malt barley.
Dry grain protein content (%)
N0 N60 N120 N180
Environments S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2
E1 12.01 11.78 11.47 12.26 12.00 14.09 13.27 15.34
Difference 0.22
0.79
2.09
2.07
E2 8.84 9.75 9.58 10.58 10.35 11.54 11.85 13.16
Difference
0.91
1.01
1.20
1.31
E3 13.02 12.03 12.59 12.32 14.42 12.76 14.94 14.62
Difference 0.98 0.27 1.66 0.32
E4 10.37 9.24 10.74 9.74 12.22 11.32 13.71 12.70
Difference 1.13 1.01 0.89 1.00
E5 9.76 11.91 9.43 12.61 10.34 13.67 11.35 15.11
Difference
2.15
3.18
3.32
3.76
Note: E1 ¼ Location Ankober in 2010 for S1, Location Mush in 2010 for S2; E2 ¼ Location Mush for S1 and S2 in 2011; E3 ¼
Location Ankober for S1 and S2 in 2011; E4 ¼ Location Mush for S1 and S2 in 2012; and E5 ¼ Location Ankober for S1 and
S2 in 2012; S1 ¼ less fertile/less productive soil; S2 ¼ fertile/productive soil; N0, N60, N120 and N180 are tested rate of N at
0, 60, 120 and 180 kg N ha
1, respectively.

Figure 3. Dry grain protein content (DGPC) response of malt barley varieties to soil fertility levels and nitrogen fertilizer rates.

(p < 0.05 in Table 8)) increased with increasing N levels but the increment rate was affected by S
and V (Figure 3). The DGPC difference between the two varieties was the highest at N0 and pro-
gressively decreased to the lowest level at N180 in S1 while the highest gap between the two vari-
eties in S2 was at N120 but narrowed down to the lowest at N180. Thus, the corresponding grain
protein content of V1 under N0, N60, N120 and N180 was 6.9, 6.2, 4.4 and 1.9% higher than that
of V2 at S1; and 7.8, 9.8, 8.5 and 4.8% higher than that of V2 at S2. Generally, grain protein con-
tent of the two varieties was higher in S2 than in S1 at all N levels. Elsewhere experiences in
southeastern Ethiopia also show that we need to give due consideration in selecting the variety
for production and N rates for application since DGPC increased with increasing N rates of 0,
23, 46, 69 and 92 kg N ha
1 where DGPC of V1 was by far higher than that of V2 (Getasew and
Tesfaye 2010).
14 A. MOLLA

In this study, the economic optimum N rates of 180, 180, 180, 148 kg ha
1 for V1 at S1, V2 at
S1, V1 at S2 and V2 at S2, respectively, for grain yield are further reduced to N120 and N144 for the
respective V1 and V2 in S1, and to N57 and N117 in S2 which all attained the maximum limit of
12% DGPC standard of ESA (2001). There is still some level of risk in recommending these rates
since 45% of all fourty E, S and N levels combinations presented in Table 11 have higher value
than the maximum limit of the 12.0% DGPC standard of ESA (2001). To minimize this risk, appli-
cations of 110.5, 45.0, 137.5 and 110.5 kg N ha
1 in S1V1, S2V1, S1V2 and S2V2, respectively, are
suggested to have 11.85% DGPC (Figure 3) with the corresponding predicted grain yield of 2970,
3939, 2605 and 4235 kg ha
1 (Figure 1). Improving malt barley productivity is one of the critical
intervention areas in the Ethiopian malting industry because low productivity is believed to have
contributed to high local market prices than importing from Europe (Rashid et al. 2015). Barley
productivity in Ethiopia is about 2.16 t ha
1 (CSA 2018) while the average productivity of France,
Germany and the Netherlands is over 6.0 t ha
1 (Rashid et al. 2015). Therefore, Figure 1 showing
the predicted DGPC of V1 and V2 at different levels of S and N rates could be very important
guide to make awareness for policy makers and practitioners at different levels for improving qual-
ity malt barley grain production and productivity in the highlands of Ethiopia.

Conclusions and recommendations

The results of this study revealed that farmers knowledge of soil classification itno different fertil-
ity/productivity levels could be used to develop practically applicable site-specific fertilizer rate
recommendations. This approach is very much plausable in the face of the chronic problems of
very limited soil test capacity, highly fragmented landholding and subsistent peasant farming sys-
tems of Ethiopia.
Even though it was possible to identify N rates applicable for attaining agronomic and eco-
nomic optimum production of each malt barley variety in each soil fertility/productivity level, it
is the grain protein content that dictates the final selection of recommendable N rates. Therefore,
applications of 110.5, 45.0, 137.5 and 110.5 kg N ha
1 in S1V1, S2V1, S1V2 and S2V2, respectively,
are suggested for production of malt barley with the approximation of having 11.85% DGPC and
the corresponding predicted grain yield of 2970, 3939, 2605 and 4235 kg ha
1. Therefore, the
trend analyses results showing the predicted productivity and DGPC of V1 and V2 at different
levels of S and N rates could be very important guide to make awareness for policy makers and
practitioners at different levels for improving quality malt barley grain production and productiv-
ity in the highlands of Ethiopia.
The two contrasting malt barley varieties (V1 ¼ Miscal-21; V2 ¼ Holker) also showed that
there is an opportunity to develop malt barley varieties, which are efficient in utilizing N fertilizer
to improve productivity while maintaining grain quality standards under different soil fertility/
productivity levels.
In addition to using farmers knowledge for avoiding shallow depth soils and frost frequented
areas, developing early maturing malt barley varieties are also important options to escape frost
or freezing temperatures which usually appear in late October to end of November in which late
maturing varieties do not reach dough grain stage which is less prone to frost damage.

Acknowledgment
Able field works of Mrs Getachew Hailu and Degu Temeche are also highly acknowledged.

Disclosure statement
No conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
 JOURNAL OF PLANT NUTRITION 15

Funding
This research received financial and logistical support of Debre Birhan Agricultural Research Center.

ORCID
Adamu Molla http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8555-5827

References
Agyarko, K., E. K. Asiedu, I. K. Atubiga, and S. Anane. 2011. Determination and restoration of soil fertility by
local farmers: The Case of Techiman Municipality of Ghana. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 7 (6):
667–71.
Ahn, P. M. 1993. Tropical soils and fertilizer use. London, UK: Longman Group UK Limited.
Ajith, A. 2009. Genotype effect of South African barley cultivars on malting quality under different nitrogen levels.
MSc thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein.
Alnosaier, W. S. 2007. Kenward-Roger approximate F test for fixed effects in mixed linear models. A dissertation
submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy, Oregon State University, Oregon.
Belachew, T., and Y. Abera. 2010. Assessment of soil fertility status with depth in wheat growing highlands of
southeast Ethiopia. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 6 (5):525–31.
Biddulph, B., T. March, K. Angel, and R. Maccallum. 2017. Frost: Frequently asked questions brochure. Department
of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Government of Western Australia. dpird.wa.gov.au.
Boke, S., and A. Fekadu. 2019. Lime and NPK effect on soil acidity and yield of barley in different acid soils of
southern region. Journal of Natural Sciences Research 2 (7):113–22. doi: 10.7176/JNSR/9-14-01.
Central Statistical Agency (CSA). 2009. Agricultural sample survey report on area and production of crops by private
peasant holdings in 2008/2009 meher season. Statistical Bulletin 446. Addis Abeba, Ethiopia: CSA.
Central Statistical Agency (CSA). 2011. Agricultural sample survey report on land utilization of private peasant hold-
ings in 2010/2011 meher season. Statistical Bulletin 505. Addis Abeba, Ethiopia: CSA.
Central Statistical Agency (CSA). 2018. Agricultural sample survey report on area and production of major crops by
private peasant holdings in 2017/18 meher season. Vol. 1, Statistical Bulletin 586. Addis Abeba, Ethiopia: CSA.
Corbeels, M., A. Shiferaw, and M. Haile. 2000. Farmers’ knowledge of soil fertility and local management strategies
in Tigray, Ethiopia. Managing Africa’s Soils No. 10. Nottingham, UK: Russell Press.
Edney, M. J., M. S. Izydorczyk, S. J. Symons, and N. Woodbeck. 2005. Measuring barley kernel color and size to
predict end use malt quality. Canadian Grain Commission. www.grainscanada.gc.ca.
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR). 2015. Malt barley research and achievements. https://www.
facebook.com/EIARPR/posts/432653976888664:0.
Ethiopian Standards Agency (ESA). 2001. Malt barley specification. Addis Abeba, Ethiopia: ESA.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2014. Food balance sheets. Rome, Italy: FAOSTAT. http://faostat3.fao.
org/download/FB/FBS/E.
Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). 2015. Manual of methods of analysis of foods: Cereal and
cereal products. Lab. Manual 3. New Delhi, India: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.
www.fssai.gov.in.
Gessesse, A. S. 2017. Ethiopia to end malt import: Boosting local production. https://newbusinessethiopia.com/ethi-
opia-to-end-malt-import-boosting-local-production/.
Getasew, M., and K. Tesfaye. 2010. Effect of nitrogen fertilizer rates on yield and grain protein content of malt bar-
ley at Bekoji, southeastern Ethiopia. MSc thesis submitted to Haramaya University, Ethiopia.
Gomez, K. A., and A. A. Gomez. 1984. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2nd ed. Singapore: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR). 1983. Field Crops Department progress report for 1977/78, part II. Pulses,
oil crops, fiber crops and general agronomy. Addis Abeba, Ethiopia: IAR.
Kassie, M., and K. Tesfaye. 2019. Influence of variety and nitrogen fertilizer on productivity and trait association
of malting barley. Journal of Plant Nutrition 42 (10):1254–67. doi: 10.1080/01904167.2019.1605380.
Kastens, T. L., and K. C. Dhuyvetter. 2005. Soil sampling, especially for N and P: Does it Pay? (with a consider-
ation of other dynamic issues). www.agmanager.info.
Kehaliew, A., G. Kitaw, S. Bediye, G. Assefa, and B. Lakew. 2011. Production and nutritional qualities of barley
straw in Ethiopia. In Barley research and development in Ethiopia, eds. B. Mulatu and S. Grando, 363–74.
Aleppo, Syria: ICARDA.
16 A. MOLLA

Langan, D., J. P. T. Higgins, D. Jackson, J. Bowden, A. A. Veroniki, E. Kontopantelis, W. Viechtbauer, and M.

Simmonds. 2019. A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random-effects meta-analyses
. Research Synthesis Methods 10 (1):83–98. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1316.
Lelago, A., T. Mamo, and W. Haile. 2016. Assessment and mapping of status and spatial distribution of soil mac-
ronutrients in Kambaa Tembaro zone, southern Ethiopia. Advances in Plants and Agriculture Research 4 (4):
305–17. doi: 10.15406/apar.2016.04.00144.
Luke, S. G. 2017. Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R. Behavior Research Methods 49 (4):
1494–502. doi: 10.3758/s13428-016-0809-y.
Matusick, G., K. X. Ruthrof, N. C. Brouwers, G. St, and J. Hardy. 2014. Topography influences the distribution of
autumn frost damage on trees in a Mediterranean-type Eucalyptus forest. Trees 28 (5):1449–62. doi: 10.1007/
s00468-014-1048-4.
Mehari, M., S. Alamerew, and B. Lakew. 2015. Genotype by environment interaction for protein content of malt
barley genotypes using the additive main effect and multiplicative interaction effect model (AMMI) and
genotype plus genotype by environment interaction (GGE) biplot. Asian Journal of Agricultural Research 9 (6):
305–14. doi: 10.323/ajar.2015.
Mekonnen, B. 2013. The malt effect: How the growing beer industry creates opportunities for barley farmers.
http://eco-opia.org/2013/11/22/the-malt-effect-how-the-growing-beer-industry-creates-opportunities-for-barley-
farmers/.
Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). 2010. Crop variety register. Issue No. 13. Addis Abeba, Ethiopia: MoA.
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD). 2006. Crop Variety Register. Issue No. 9. Addis Abeba,
Ethiopia: MoARD.
Misra, R. D., and M. Ahmed. 1987. Manual on irrigation agronomy. New Delhi, India: Oxford and IBH Publishing
Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Muhe, K. 2011. Opportunities and challenges in malt barley research and production in North Shewa of the
Amhara Region. In Barley research and development in Ethiopia, eds. B. Mulatu and S. Grando, 73–6. Aleppo,
Syria: ICARDA.
National Seed Industry Agency (NSIA). 1998. Crop variety register issue number 1. Addis Abeba, Ethiopia: NSIA.
Padilla, M. A., Y. Min, and G. Zhang. 2008. Type I error rates of the Kenward-Roger F-test for a split-plot design
with missing values and non-normal data. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods 7 (2):385–97. http://
digitalcommons.wayne.edu/jmasm/vol7/iss2/4. doi: 10.22237/jmasm/1225512180.
Petersen, R. G. 1977. Use and misuse of multiple comparison procedures. Agronomy Journal 69 (2):205–8. doi: 10.
2134/agronj1977.00021962006900020003x.
Pound, B., and E. Jonfa. 2005. Soil fertility practices in Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia: Learning from farmers.
Policy and Research Series 2. London, UK: Farm Africa.
Rana, S. S., and S. Kumar. 2014. Research techniques in agronomy. Department of Agronomy, College of
Agriculture, CSK Himachal Paradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27074.58562.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309211509_Research_Techniques_in_Agronomy.
Rashid, S., G. T. Abate, S. Lemma, J. Warner, L. Kasa, and N. Minot. 2015. The barley value chain in Ethiopia.
Technical report. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.
3670.8724.
Reinhardt, D., G. Jansen, S. Seddig, and B. Eichler-L€ obermann. 2013. Temperature stress during flowering time
affects yield and quality parameters of waxy barley. Applied Agricultural and Forestry Research 1 (63):79–84. doi:
10.3220/LBF_2013_79-84.
Saito, K., B. Linquist, B. Keobualapha, T. Shiraiwa, and T. Horie. 2006. Farmers’ knowledge of soils in relation to
cropping practices: A Case study of farmers in upland rice based slash-and-burn systems of Northern Laos.
Geoderma 136 (1–2):64–74. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.02.003.
Stroup, W. W. 2015. Rethinking the analysis of non-normal data in plant and soil science. Agronomy Journal 107
(2):811–7. doi: 10.2134/agronj2013.0342.
Tamene, L., T. Amede, J. Kihara, D. Tibebe, and S. Schulz. 2017. A review of soil fertility management and crop
response to fertilizer application in Ethiopia: Towards development of site- and context-specific fertilizer recom-
mendation. CIAT Publication No. 443. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: International Center for Tropical Agriculture
(CIAT). http://hdl.handle.net/10568/82996.
Thiagalingam, K. 2000. Soil and plant sample collection, preparation and interpretation of chemical analysis: A
training manual and guide. Adelaide, Australia: AACM International Project Managers and Consultants.
Tiwari, K. N. 2002. Fertilizer recommendations: Need a fresh look. Fertilizer Knowledge No. 4. Potash and
Phosphate Institute of Canada-India Program, Gurgaon.
Virk, D. S., D. B. Pandit, M. A. Sufian, F. Ahmed, M. A. B. Siddique, M. A. Samad, M. M. Rahman, M. M. Islam,
G. Ortiz-Ferrara, K. D. Joshi, et al. 2009. REML is an effective analysis for mixed modelling of unbalanced on-
farm varietal trials. Experimental Agriculture 45 (1):77–91. doi: 10.1017/S0014479708007047.