UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BERKELEY. CALIFORNIA MARIOUT BARLEY WITH A DISCUSSION OF BARLEY CULTURE IN CALIFORNIA BY G. W. HENDRY BULLETIN No. 312 October, 1919 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS BERKELEY 1919 EXPERIMENT STATION STAFF HEADS OF DIVISIONS Thomas Forsyth Hunt, Dean. Edward J. Wickson, Horticulture (Emeritus). Walter Mulford, Forestry, Director of Resident Instruction. Herbert J. Webber, Director Agricultural Experiment Station. B. H. Crocheron, Director of Agricultural Extension. Hubert E. Van Norman, Vice-Director; Dairy Management. James T. Barrett, Acting Director of Citrus Experiment Station; Plant Path- ology. William A. Setchell, Botany. Myer E. Jaffa, Nutrition. Charles W. Woodworth, Entomology. Ralph E. Smith, Plant Pathology. J. Eliot Coit, Citriculture. John W. Gilmore, Agronomy. Charles F. Shaw, Soil Technology. John W. Gregg, Landscape Gardening and Floriculture. Frederic T. Bioletti, Viticulture and Enology. Warren T. Clarke, Agricultural Extension. John S. Burd, Agricultural Chemistry. Charles B. Lipman, Soil Chemistry and Bacteriology. Clarence M. Haring, Veterinary Science and Bacteriology. Ernest B. Babcock, Genetics. Gordon H. True, Animal Husbandry. Fritz W. Woll, Animal Nutrition. W. P. Kelley, Agricultural Chemistry. H. J. Quayle, Entomology. Elwood Mead, Rural Institutions. H. S. Reed, Plant Physiology. J. 0. Whitten, Pomology. Frank Adams, Irrigation Investigations. C. L. Roadhouse, Dairy Industry. F. L. Griffin, Agricultural Education. John E. Dougherty, Poultry Husbandry. S. S. Rogers, Olericulture. L. J. Fletcher, Agricultural Engineering. Edwin C. Voorhies, Assistant to the Dean. Division of Agronomy John W. Gilmore P. B. Kennedy B. A. Madson G. W. Hendry W. W. Mackie W. S. Wilkinson J. A. Denny L. G. Goar MARIOUT BARLEY WITH A DISCUSSION OF BARLEY CULTURE IN CALIFORNIA By G. W. HENDRY CONTENTS PAGE Introduction 58 Agricultural History 58 Specific Qualities of Mariout Barley 62 Drought resistance 62 Suitability to spring planting 66 Draft on soil moisture 67 Wind resistance 68 Special fitness for Tulare Lake region 69 Special fitness for double cropping 70 Hay values 70 Limitations and defects 70 Detailed description of Mariout 71 Seedling development 71 Life period 72 Physical analysis of Mariout 73 Physical analysis of Coast (common) 73 Field characteristics 73 Yield record at Davis, Calif 73 Yield record in other parts of Calif 76 Imperial Valley substation 76 Fresno (Kearney Park) substation 76 U. S. Plant Introduction Garden, Chico 76 Livermore Valley 76 Yield record at Highmore, S. Dak 76 Yield record at Moccasin, Mont 77 Yield record at Moro, Ore 78 Yield record at Aberdeen, Idaho 79 Yield record at Burns, Ore 79 Malting properties 80 Tillage methods ; 82 Annual or biennial cropping 82 Disking the stubble 82 Fall plowing 83 How to summer fallow 84 Care of the fallow 86 How to prepare land for annual cropping 87 At what season to plant barley 88 Effect of planting date upon yield (table) 90 Effect of planting date upon development (table) 91 Manner of planting 92 Rate of planting 94 Spring harrowing 94 Choice of seed 95 Home grown vs. imported seed 95 Harvesting methods 96 Duration of north winds (table) 100 Occurrence of northers (table) 100 Velocity of northers (table) 100 Shattering losses (table) 103 Cost of production combine way (table) 104 Cost of production binder way (table) 104 Net profits compared 105 Digest 106 58 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION INTRODUCTION Barley is the leading cereal crop of California, and is grown and fed here in larger quantities than in any other state. The average disposition of the crop has been about as follows : Per cent Fed and used for seed in California 53 Exported 37 Used for malting 10 Commensurate with the economic importance of the crop, however, comparatively little advancement in tillage methods has been made, and it is not a little curious that only one variety is extensively grown and this, the Coast or common barley, constitutes more than 99 per cent of the entire production of the state. Obviously this is an error in itself, for the excellent reason that no single variety could con- ceivably outyield all other varieties, under the diversity of soils and climates existing within the barley producing areas of the state. Concerning the origin of Coast or common barley we have no exact records to refer to, but inasmuch as barley of an identical type has long been grown in the south of Spain, it is not improbable that it found its way to California from that region, through the agency of the Spanish conquerors and the missionaries who followed them. Further evidence of this is supplied by the knowledge that this variety was grown from the earliest times about the mission settlements in California. Common (Coast) barley is well adapted to Pacific Coast conditions, but why it should have been grown here practically to the exclusion of all other varieties is difficult to explain, especially in view of the fact that several other varieties have been found to excel it in producing capacity. Our present purpose is to awaken a general interest in the subject of barley improvement, and especially to introduce the variety Mariout (Calif, no. 2241). It is no part of our purpose to replace the common variety with Mariout, but rather to supplement it under the special conditions to which Mariout is better adapted, and thus widen the range of successful barley culture in California. AGRICULTURAL HISTORY OF MARIOUT BARLEY But a mere fragment of the early history of Mariout barley has come down to us from antiquity. It is said to have been extensively grown by the Romans during their occupation of the Mariut Lake region, south of Alexandria, Egypt, and skirting the Sahara Desert. While governing this region, referred to in Roman literature as MARIOUT BARLEY 59 Fig. 1. — Representative grains of Mariout barley, left, and common (Coast) barley, right, enlarged 12 diameters. The two varieties are easily distinguishable by means of the rachilla (bristle) shown in situ at "A". The Mariout rachilla is bristly, the common rachilla is smooth. This character is constant under all conditions, and is a ready means of detecting mixture of the two varieties. 60 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Mareotis, the Romans made some pioneer advances in the art of dry farming, and their quick perception of the drouth-resistant properties of Mariout barley is but another evidence of the acumen of this race in matters pertaining* to agriculture. The variety has been perpetuated since Roman times by the Bedouins, who introduced it into the arable regions of the Sahara Desert, where it has thrived in the dry desert heat. The production of it by the Bedouins has been attended by marked success, and their surplus production has been found an outlet in England and Scotland, where it has been used for malting purposes, and has fetched a premium over English-grown barley of about 10 shillings ($2.48) per quarter (8.24 bushels). The first recorded appearance of Mariout in the United States occurred on November 7, 1903, when a sample of 240 pounds was received by the United States Department of Agriculture from Mr. Geo. P. Foaden of the Khedival Agricultural Society, Cairo, Egypt. This seed was assigned the S. P. I. (Seed and Plant Introduction) no. 9877, and later the C. I. (Cereal Investigation) no. 261. In 1904 it was distributed to the experiment stations in the arid western states, and the first planting was made in California at the Yuba City field station in December of that year. The first impression made by it in California was so unfavorable that it was discarded as being with- out promise in this state, and unworthy of further trial. By the greatest good fortune, however, a second sample of one-fourth pound was secured the following year through the courtesy of the E. Clemens Horst Company of San Francisco, who in turn had obtained it directly from their London office, and the present stock of Mariout in Califor- nia is from this source. This sample bore no other designation than "Sample-1" (S-l) and was not suspected of being Mariout in another guise until near maturity, when its unmistakable characteristics disclosed its identity. In its second appearance it showed greater promise, and was sent to the University Farm forthwith for a more thorough trial, where it was grown in the cereal nursery under close observation until the year 1911, at which time its six years of good performance merited an advancement of it to the plot tests, in com- petition with the highest yielding varieties under field competition. In its first year under field conditions it yielded at the astonish- ing rate of 126.6 bushels (63.3 sacks) per acre, greatly exceeding all other varieties in productivity for that season, and thereby establish- ing a record for high yield at the experiment station which has stood unequalled to this day. During the eight succeeding years, 1912 to MARIOUT BARLEY 61 >> ■ Common barley seedlings, eight weeks old, x /4 natural size. Fig. 2. — Above: Below: Mariout barley seedlings, eight weeks old, % natural size. Mariout developes more rapidly both above and below the ground. Note the characteristic onion-like appearance of the Mariout crown; also the more abundant stooling and the earlier and more vigorous development of both the temporary (seed) and the permanent (crown) roots of Mariout. 62 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION 1919, that it has been under test it has easily maintained a leading rank among dozens of competing varieties, and has especially distin- guished itself in drouth years and in spring planting tests (table 5). Illustrative of its suitability for spring sowing, the following instance is representative. The total seasonal rainfall at the University Farm in 1912 was only 9.46 inches. This was the most severe drouth recorded within recent years. On Februar}^ 2 of that year, field plantings of Mariout and of common barley were made under strictly comparable conditions. Mariout yielded 95.15 bushels (47.57 sacks) per acre, and common barley 41.5 bushels (20.7 sacks) per acre. In a test the same year, planted earlier, Mariout outyielded common barley, but not so decisively as in the late planting test (table 5). This shows the greater advantage of Mariout over common barley for spring planting. At this juncture, seed for a trial planting of twenty acres was sold to Mr. B. C. French, for a test under actual ranch conditions near Davis, and in this it was at once successful and fully sustained its previous good record on the University Farm. The following year, 1913, Mr. Theodore Oeste, an extensive grain producer of Yolo County, tried it and has continued to produce it in increasingly large quantities to the present time. By degrees other local producers have adopted it, and without exception all have spoken strongly in its praise. To date it has excited more interest among local growers than any other cereal previously introduced by the experiment station, and is each year becoming more firmly established in the opinion of all, as a most valuable and important addition to the productive resources of the county. We feel that it marks an important agricultural advance, and that the benefits to be derived from its wider use in California are of the first magnitude. In 1917 there were about 300 acres of this barley in California ; in 1918, 700 acres; in 1919, 3000 acres; and from present indications the 1920 acreage will exceed 10,000. Yolo County is the center for its production, and all of it originates within a radius of twenty miles of the University Farm (fig. 7). SPECIFIC QUALITIES OF MARIOUT BARLEY Drouth Resistance. — Mariout has the rare merit of never succum- ing entirely to drouth as common (Coast) barley sometimes does. When hard pressed for moisture, it concentrates all its strength in the formation of heads, and may produce them from six to eight inches above the ground. We have observed such fields, which have given MARIOUT BARLEY 63 Fig. 3. — Above : Tennessee Winter barley seedlings, eight weeks old, V^ natural size. Note heavy stooling, and sturdy, spreading winter habit. In the interior valleys it must be planted early in the fall (November-December) to succeed well. Below: Beldi barley seedlings, eight weeks old, % natural size. It is somewhat more robust as a seedling than common (Coast) barley and slightly more produc- tive under average conditions. Fig. 4. — Representative heads, of front and side views, of Mariout barley with awns (beards) partly removed to show structure. Mariout heads are stouter, the grains longer and darker, and the outer glumes larger than those of common barley. Fig. 5. — Representative heads, front and side views, of common (Coast) barley with awns (beards) partly removed to show structure. Below in circle, typical grains, dorsal and ventral views. 66 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION the appearance of yielding seven sacks or less per acre, surprise every- one by turning out fifteen sacks per acre. It is suited to high, exposed districts, and to dry soils and seasons. All available experimental evidence from California and other states agree with our opinions in these par- ticulars. Suitability to Spring Planting. — Mariout may be spring-sown with much bet- ter prospect of success than the bulkier or more tardy common (Coast) barley. It has evidenced high merit with respect to yield on the flood lands of the Sacra- mento River in Yolo County, where, because of winter inundation, planting must be deferred unlit the flood waters recede in the spring; plantings made here as late as April 20, have matured in from seventy-five to eighty days and yielded considerably in excess of common barley similarly handled. A signal instance illustrating its peculiar adaptation to spring plant- ing, occurred on the higher lands of Yolo County in 1919, where as a result of Fig. 6. — Representative plants of Mariout barley (left), and common (Coast) barley (right) . Under favorable circumstances Mariout attains a height of 3 feet, compared to 5 feet for com- mon (Coast) barley. Mariout ripens earlier, is more drought resistant, uses less soil moisture, produces a higher percentage of grain to straw, stools more, and yields more and better grain on dry soils. MARIOUT BARLEY 67 deficient spring rainfall, spring-planted barley was a general faiulre, but not so with Mariout, much of which received no rain whatever subsequent to planting, yet yielded moderately well notwithstanding. A circumstance, illustrating in a singularly convincing manner the superior drouth resistance of Mariout, is that in late planted fields a sprinkling stand of volunteer common barley often appears simul- taneously with the Mariout, but in dry spring seasons like that of 1919, only the Mariout produces seed. This characteristic in itself has enabled growers to maintain their seed, comparatively free from mixture with common barley and much more effectively than would be practicable by any other means. Draft on Soil Moisture. — Not the least merit of Mariout is its economical use of soil moisture. Determinations made in the Arm- strong field at the University Farm immediately after harvest in 1919 showed a saving of moisture by Mariout as compared with common barley, equivalent to 1.27 inches of rainfall in the surface three feet. The results of a large number of determinations made to arrive at this relationship are averaged and condensed for convenience of reference in table 1, which follows. Table 1, -Soil Moisture Requirements of Mariout and Coast (Common) Barley Compared Average inches of rainfall remaining in soil after harvest. June 4, 1919 Average Moisture draft Depth 1st foot Uncropped check inches ... 1.90 Mariout barley inches 1.17 2.14 1.44 Coast (Common) barley inches 1.04 1.02 1.42 Moisture used by Mariout inches .73 .07 .89 1.69 Moisture used by Coast inches .86 1.19 .91 Moisture saving in favor of Mar- iout, inches .13 2nd foot 2.21 2.33 1.12 3rd foot .02 Total ... 6.44 4.75 3.48 2.96 1.27 Of a total supply of moisture equivalent to 6.44 inches of rainfall remaining in the fallowed check, common barley had reduced this to 3.48 inches, and Mariout to 4.75 inches; the comparative moisture drafts were therefore 2.96 inches, or 45 per cent, and 1.69 inches, or 26 per cent, respectively. This striking difference in the use of soil moisture is of the greatest practical importance, and must be accounted the most significant reason for the well-known drouth resistance of the variety. The saving of an inch or more of rain in a dry season might well determine the success or failure of a crop, and under continuous cropping the cumulative effect of such saving over a period of years would be still 68 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION greater. For these reasons, there is little doubt that many of the dry soils which we see carrying scanty crops of common barley would give a more remunerative return if sown to Mariout. The direct effect of Mariout 's lighter moisture draft is always apparent in the growth of weeds, which because of the greater moisture supply remaining, grow taller and continue green later in Mariout fields than in common barley fields. Wind Resistance. — The weightiest consideration in the choice of either a wheat or barley variety for the interior valleys of California is resistance to wind, and the ability to stand up in the field and hold its grain retentively in the head without shattering or shelling out after ripening. The almost exclusive use of the combined harvester necessitates the employment of such varieties. Club wheat has taken precedence over all other wheats in California for many years, for no other reason than that it does not shatter during the strong harvest winds, and consequently does not have to be cut early to avoid hulling. Barley is more brittle and suffers greater wind damage than wheat. A strong north wind of three days' duration swept the Sacramento Valley on May 30, 31, and June 1, 1919, at the very start of the harvest season, and resulted in a loss of fully 25 per cent of the entire barley crop of the valley. The Mariout fields of Yolo County, how- ever, proved an exception, and withstood the wind in a manner pre- cisely analogous to that of the well known Club wheat (table 2). This characteristic is in itself a strong recommendation for this variety in the interior valleys of California. Immediately following harvest on the University Farm in 1919, a critical examination of the stubble fields was made, and the exact shattering losses for both common and Mariout barley accurately determined. Both fields were planted November 9 ; Mariout ripened May 15, common barley June 6 ; both were cut with the combined harvester, June 17 (fig. 24). Mariout stood for thirty-three days after ripening ; common for eleven days. Both varieties were exposed to the strong north wind of May 30, 31, and June 1, and if Mariout had been cut when ripe, it would have escaped the wind entirely. Mariout yielded 39.5 sacks (79 bu.) per acre, and common barley 19 sacks (38 bu.) per acre, but practically as much grain was left on the ground in the common field as was put in the sacks, and the differ- ence in yield is more indicative of the relative resistance to shattering than of the actual production of the two varieties. The harvesting, however, was done strictly in accordance with commonly employed methods, and it is a fair indication of what may be expected from the MARIOUT BARLEY 69 two varieties under existing conditions. Indeed, many fields of com- mon barley, less protected from the wind, in the neighborhood were so completely "whipped out" as not to repay the expense of cutting them. The actual shattering losses were determined by picking up by hand all heads and grain remaining on the ground in accurately meas- ured plots, three of which were chosen for each field. The average results are compiled in table 2. Table 2. — Actual Yield, Actual Shattering Loss, and Total Possible Yield for Mariout and Coast (Common) Barley at the University Farm in 1919 Per cent. Area of Actual yield Actual shattering Total possible of loss test per acre loss per acre yield per acre through Variety acres Bushels Sacks Bushels Sacks Bushels Sacks shattering Mariout 9.01 79 (39.5) 10.81 (5.4) 89.81 (44.9) 12 Common 2.84 38 (19.0) 33.2 (16.6) 71.2 (35.6) 46 (Coast) i Duplicate 4.5 acre plots. The loss for Mariout was 10.81 bushels (5.4 sacks) per acre, and for Coast barley 33.2 bushels (16.6 sacks) per acre. Mariout doubled common barley in yield for the reason that it lost only one-third as much through shattering, but had both varieties been cut with the binder "in the dough" (fig. 22), and shattering losses eliminated entirely, Mariout would still have outyielded common by 18.6 bushels (9.3 sacks) per acre, and had the period of exposure to the weather after ripening been equal, the advantage of Mariout would doubtless have been still greater. There are two reasons why Mariout is resistant to shattering. First, its more pliable straw (fig. 6), causes the heads to nod at maturity in such a manner that they hang in a mat about 14 inches above the ground, protected from the wind. Secondly, the heads of Mariout are stouter and more compact (figs. 4 and 5), and even late plantings, which stand more erectly, do not shatter as much as the more slender heads of common barley. Special Fitness for the Tulare Lake Region. — Extensive losses have occurred in the Tulare Lake and Kings River grain districts as a result of floods before and during the regular harvest season (fig. 9). The vital consideration here is to advance the harvest date as far as possible ahead of the earliest high water. Mariout is climatically well suited to this region, and by virtue of its earlier ripening (table 4) its wider use is recommended as a means of escaping flood losses. 70 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Special Fitness for Double Cropping. — In the irrigated districts of the San Joaquin Valley, the growing of a summer crop, such as beans or grain sorghum after grain harvest has become popular (fig. 21). The usual procedure is to irrigate and plant grain from September 25 to November 5, to harvest the same from May 15 to June 15, and to irrigate and plant beans or grain sorghum from May 25 to June 25 ; harvesting the same from September 15 to Octo- ber 25, in time to replant to grain from September 25 to November 25. By such a system the land yields two crops in a twelve-month cycle, but quick-maturing, short-season varieties are necessary. Mariout offers a considerable advantage over the common barley for such pur- poses because it shortens the winter crop season by about two weeks. Hay Values. — A character of minor importance, yet one not to be overlooked in this region, is the utility of a grain variety for hay- making purposes. Barley in its many variety is inferior to either oats or wheat as a hay crop, both from the standpoint of yield and feeding value. At the University Farm common barley has yielded only 4.51 tons of cured hay per acre, compared with 6.43 and 7.05 tons per acre for red oats and Pacific Bluestem (White Australian) wheat, respectively. Mariout is even less productive as a hay crop than common barley, and has, on an average, produced 15 per cent less hay. Mariout hay, however, is finer and more palatable than common barley hay, and the plant has the property of making con- siderably more second growth than common barley, especially if cut in the ' ' blossom ' ' or early milk. In this respect it resembles rye more than any of the other barley varieties tested, and must owe this property in some degree to its lighter moisture requirement. Limitations and Defects. — Mariout is a more generally satisfactory variety for California than common (Coast) barley, but its most serious limitation is its inability to produce well in the cooler northern districts and on heavy low-lying soils, which are wet for long periods during the winter. The variety "Tennessee Winter" (fig. 3) succeeds better than either the Mariout or common barley in such situations. Its second defect is its dwarf stature, which in very dry situations precludes the use of the binder as a harvesting implement, but never the ' ' combine ' ' or the header. A third, and somewhat doubtful objection to it is its effect upon weed growth. As previously suggested, its short stature, coupled with its early ripening and lighter moisture draft, gives the weeds a greater opportunity to develop, sometimes at the expense of grain production. This is especially apparent on foul land which is fall MARIOUT BARLEY 71 planted without a preceding summer fallow to free it of weeds. Two instances of this came under the writer's attention during the season of 1919. One field, badly infested with mustard (Brassica campes- tris), was divided into two parts which were sown to common and Mariout barley, respectively. The weeds in the "Mariout half" formed a canopy over the grain and grew tall and late in the season, while those in the "common half" matured earlier and did not dominate the grain so completely. The difference here is directly attributed to the greater supply of soil moisture remaining in the Mariout ground (table 1). Fig. 7. — Common (Coast) barley (left), and Mariout barley (right), planted in December and photographed in March. Note the upright habit, and the earlier and mare vigorous spring growth of Mariout. In dry spring seasons, Mariout shades the ground sooner, preventing crusting and drying of the soil, and by virtue of its earlier ripening, is less dependent upon spring showers to carry it to maturity. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF MARIOUT Seedling Development. — The early development of Mariout is very rapid (fig. 2). Plants eight weeks old average twelve inches in height, compared to seven inches for common barley (fig. 8). Mariout shades the ground sooner and thereby stops evaporation earlier in the spring ; a circumstance contributing to its value for spring seeding (fig. 8). Mariout maintains its lead in height growth until about the sixteenth week, when it passes rapidly through "booting," "heading," "blos- soming," and "ripening" without further height development. Com- mon barley, on the other hand, starts slowly, and does not overtake Mariout until about the sixteenth week, and not stopping then, con- tinues to develop in height for three weeks more, attaining ultimately, under favorable conditions, a total height of five feet compared to 72 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION three feet for Mariout (fig. 6). From the standpoint of harvesting with the ' ' combine ' ' the shorter straw of Mariout is generally regarded as an advantage. Life Period. — Under average circumstances fall-planted Mariout requires about 152 days to ripen; and spring-planted requires from eighty to ninety days. Coast barley under similar circumstances requires from ten to twenty days longer. Earliness is an essential barley characteristic in all dry climates, including the interior valleys of California, since it enables the plant to mature with a smaller and less generally distributed rainfall. Such is the case wherever dry- Fig. 8. — Pure strains of Mariout (left), and common barley (right), in the increase nursery at the University Farm. Mariout frequently escapes wind damage because of its earlier ripening, and always resists wind because of its habit of growth. These plantings were made November 13, 1918; Mariout ripened May 16, 1919, and common barley ripened fifteen days later, on May 31. Mariout entirely escaped the strong north wind of May 31, while the common barley was exposed to it and shattered badly. farmed barley is produced, and the other cereals are obedient to the same law. Physical Analysis of Mariout. — Mariout is a smaller and less bulky plant than common barley and yields a higher percentage of grain with a correspondingly lower percentage of straw. It also yields a higher percentage of leaf to stalk, as is shown by the following physical analysis of representative plants (fig. 6). MARIOUT BARLEY 73 Table 3. — Physical Analysis of Mariout and Common Barley Mariout Common per cent, per cent. Heads including grain, awns, and rachis 57.58 43.94 Straw cut at first node above root and immediately below head... 30.77 37.57 Leaves 6.08 5.64 Stubble with roots as pulled 5.57 12.85 Field Characteristics. — Mariout differs from common barley in various minor particulars ; although individual plants may show some variations, the two varieties as a whole, may be roughly separated upon the following points of difference. Table 4. — Minor Particulars in Which Mariout Differs from Common Barley Mariout Common Average number days to ripen' (fall planted) 152 162 Average number days to ripen (spring planted) 85 100 Average number tillers per plant, drilled 80 lb. per A 9 6 Average number joints per stalk 7 8 Average length of internodes in inches 5 7 Average length of leaf in cm 10.5 12 Average width of leaf in cm 1.9 1.7 Average number permanent roots 50 days old (fig. 2) 4 2 Average number temporary roots 50 days old (fig. 2) 6 5 Average length of head inches 3 3.5 Average number grains per spike 66 84 Shape of spike oblong fusiform Average length grain in mm 14 12 Average width grain in mm 4 4 Color grain yellow straw brown Rachilla bristly smooth YIELD RECORD AT DAVIS, CALIFORNIA During the nine seasons, 1911 to 1919, that Mariout has been grown under field conditions at the University Farm it has withstood the closest scrutiny and the severest tests in a manner which can leave no doubt as to its superiority over common or Coast barley at this place. Each season, several plantings have been made, so that the figures given in table 5 represent in most cases average yields from replicated plots. The tests have been conducted on a deep, rich, "Yolc* fine sandy loam' ; soil, and deep-plowing, summer-fallowing, fall-drilling, and other improved culture practices, discussed under 1 ' Tillage Methods, ' ' have been employed. Consequently, the reported yields are somewhat higher than those generally obtained in the com- munity. The yields are reported in both bushels and sacks per acre. The sack is approximately equivalent to two bushels. IZ6 6 IZOO 110 94 1062 101 1 IOZ'0 104-0 942 901 79-0 38 74 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION Bu. Per Acre Mariout Calif. No. 2241 : Coast (Com) « « ££43 ' Mariout Calif. No. ££41 J CoastCCoTV.) « « £243 * Mariout Calif. No. ££4/ ^\ Coast (Com.) « « £34J * Mariout Calif. No. £24/ ^ Coast (Com.) « « ££43 ~ Mariout Calif. No. ££41 <^| Coast (Com) « « £243 r Mariout Calif. No. ££41 *| Coast (Com) « « >?£4J ' Mariout Calif. No. ££41
    • Fig. 10. — A deep working chisel cultivator stirring the ground to a depth of seven inches. Treatment of this character improves a fallow which has developed a ' ' sole ' ' by too frequent weed cutting ; and is efficient in disintegrating plow soles at a season of the year when deep plowing would be inadvisable from the standpoint of moisture conservation. abundant rainfall, but is inconsistent with dry-farming principles, and in the drier districts is even less defensible than the summer- plowing system outlined above. The ideal summer fallow is prepared as outlined by a combination of deep fall plowing and shallow spring working. The soil should go into the dry summer months protected by a granular mulch three or four inches in depth. Choose the implement for the spring working which will granulate the surface to a texture comparable in size with English walnuts (fig. 15). Use the disk with caution, for it may 86 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION pulverize the soil too finely, causing "running together,' 1 crusting, and baking, subsequent to planting. Care of the Fallow. — The proper establishment of the summer fallow is a more exacting process than its subsequent treatment. This applies especially to the California grain districts where summer rains do not occur. California grain lands, however, are generally speaking, uncommonly weedy, and an occasional summer working of the fallow to clean it is, in most cases, necessary to secure the best results. A weedy fallow is objectionable on three scores : first, it Fig. 11. — A disk-prepared summer fallow at the University Farm. The texture of the soil mulch shown here is regarded as ideal. It is neither coarse and refrac- tory, nor is it so finely pulverized that there is danger of its i ' running together ' ' and crusting when rained subsequent to planting. The disk harrow is less effective for weeding the fallow than the sweep type weed cutter (fig. 12), and its continued use on the fallow may pulverize the soil too finely. does not conserve moisture effectively; second, it necessitates replow- ing preparatory to planting, and third, it interferes with the develop- ment of the crop. The most effective weeders are of the "spear-head sweep" or "duck-foot" type (fig. 16) ; they are much more efficient in the destruction of weeds than either the disk-harrow (fig. 15) or shovel tooth cultivator ; but a caution is necessary in their use : on soils of medium or heavy type, such implements will invariably form a hard, sheared, cultivator sole at the depth of penetration, a circum- stance to be avoided, since it neutralizes the beneficial effects of deep plowing. But this undesirable condition is easily and effectively remedied by the occasional use of a deep working chisel cultivator, or killifer (fig. 14). Ordinarily four weedings, supplemented by two MARIOUT BARLEY 87 such chiselings, will put the fallow in ideal condition for early plant- ing of seed in the fall. Prepared in this way, the land need not and should not be plowed preparatory to planting. The deep plowing of twelve months previous, coupled with the long settling period, and frequent surface working, will have given the seed bed the depth and texture necessary to a j* Fig. 12. — Weeding the summer fallow at the University Farm. The implement shown carries nine 6-inch ' ' duck-foot ' ' sweeps, which are set to penetrate four inches. It is more effective than the disk in cleaning the fallow, but it liable to pack the soil at the depth of penetration, in which case it should be followed by the chisel (fig. 10) to break up the sole. vigorous deep and extensive root development, and by the destruction of weeds will have made further plowing unnecessary. How to Prepare hand for Annual Cropping. — Deep plowing is an essential adjunct to successful annual grain cropping; but to be of immediate benefit it must be accomplished early in the fall, and indeed may be an actual detriment if performed late in the winter. Con- sequently we have no sufficient reason to dissent from those who advocate shallow plowing, so long as they insist upon plowing late in the winter or early in the spring. In order therefore, to advance the plowing date as much as possible, the stubble should be thoroughly disked soon after harvest. This treatment will cause moisture to collect near the surface, and often in sufficient quantity to make smooth plowing possible even before the first rains. Dry summer 88 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION plowing, before the soil is moist enough to scour and pulverize, is objectionable excepting on the lighter, freer working soils. Land which has been turned up in large hard lumps often remains in that con- dition until well into the winter or early spring, and even though finely pulverized at the surface, may remain rough and lumpy at the bottom of the furrow (fig. 17). Circumstances often prevent the strict adherence to a definite programme of field work, but with certain exceptions, the ideal fitting of land for the annual production of barley should consist of a stubble disking in June, followed by ten-inch plowing in November, followed by a four-inch plowing a few weeks later, followed by disking, har- rowing, and seeding as soon thereafter as possible. But if only one plowing is contemplated, and the land is weedy, we may safely grant that this single plowing should preferably be done late in the winter, because of the weeds, and that it should not exceed six inches in depth, because of the loss of moisture. It is also important that it be fol- lowed closely by a weighted disk to consolidate it, and the deeper and later it is plowed the more thoroughly the disking should be done. In this manner the disk accomplishes, though less effectively, what the winter rains accomplish for fall plowing: Underlying all this is the principle that the soil moisture is incapable of rising to the surface unless the soil is finely pulverized and firmly settled, and conse- quently the root zone, if unconsolidated, becomes insulated from the lower reservoir of soil moisture, and is subject to rapid drying, even though the sub-soil remains abundantly supplied with moisture. The statements made above form the basis for a rational system of land preparation for grain cropping on the dry lands of interior California, and if followed with discretion, should result in an early, moist and perfectly prepared seed bed, deeply worked, well settled, finely pulverized below, and coarsely granular at the surface. ^r At What Season to Plant Barley. — The barley planting season of California extends over a nine-months period, from September 1 to June 1; but the principal planting season is from December 1 to February 1. Four types of land in California are suited to the spring planting of barley: first, the mountainous districts with their severe winter climates ; second, the winter flood areas where fall seed- ing would "drown out"; third, surface irrigated land, and fourth, sub-irrigated lands which remain well stocked with moisture through- out the summer. Taken together these four types of land produce less than 15 per cent of the California barley crop, the remainder and larger portion being grown on dry land is wholly dependent upon the winter rains for its moisture supply. On land of the latter class MARIOUT BARLEY 89 the barley planting season extends from November to March, but only in rare seasons of more than normal spring rain, do plantings after January 15 succeed so well as those made prior to December 15. As a rule, all circumstances being the same, the longer the barley plant is in the ground, the more food it is able to procure from it, and the greater the return it is capable of producing. In an extended series of experiments at the University Farm, it has been definitely ascer- tained that November and December planted barley outyields January and February planted barley on an average of 5 sacks (10 bushels) '*yE Sp JtfHHlnflm ^J*JJSmi • Fig. 13. — An example of a poorly prepared summer fallow. The land has been left in the stubble all winter, and "plowed dry" the following- June. It is a heavy soil and has turned up in large lumps which no amount of working will reduce. Land prepared in this manner must be replowed before planting. Such fallowing is wasteful of moisture and fatal to the production of high yields. per acre, and that November planted barley outyields March planted barley by a still greater margin. In the drier districts to the south, the differential in favor of fall planting as compared with spring planting is still greater. The following clipping, taken at random from a California paper, speaks eloquently of the planting practice and its effect upon the crop as it exists in California today. It is only one of the numerous items of a similar character which have frequently appeared in our papers : Porterville, April 21, 1915. — "Worth literally millions of dollars to grain growers a half -inch of rain soaked southern Tulare County today. The storm came in the nick of time to save a half -million bag crop of wheat. It practically assures a fine grain crop over the entire dry farming area of this portion, of the valley. • 90 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT STATION Unfortunately, opportune spring rains do not always occur ' ' in the nick of time" to save the crop. Seven out of ten seasons in California are dry spring seasons. Spring-planted grain is of course dependent upon spring rains to carry it to maturity, while fall-planted grain makes its principal growth during the winter and is independent of additional spring rainfall for its ripening process ; in fact, spring rain may be an actual detriment to it. The only valid objection to fall planting is, that occasionally a heavy shower in April or May, coincident with the filling process, may occasion losses through lodg- ing, but such losses are never so disastrous as those suffered by spring- planted grain in dry-spring years. Notwithstanding these facts, opinion in the Sacramento Valley generally is in favor of spring planting for barley, and so long as this sentiment prevails, unsound as it is, the wider use of the variety Mariout, for reasons previously discussed, should be encouraged. The crop season of 1918-1919 was an exceptional one in that a rainfall of 3.98 inches on September 10 made it possible to fit the ground and plant barley on dry land during September and October, several weeks in advance of the usual earliest possible planting date (fig. 18). In fact, no previous season at the University Farm has afforded an opportunity to determine the effect of such extremely early planting upon the yield of barley, and while the experiment quoted is a solitary one, the results are strictly comparable and conse- quently valuable. The land was fallowed during the previous sum- mer, and was prepared for planting by disking. "Four Thousand" barley, a pedigreed strain of the common sort, was drilled at the rate of 80 pounds per acre in each instance. Table 12. — Yield in Bushels and Sacks per Acre, of "Four Thousand" Barley (Calif. No. 2265) Planted at Four Different Dates at the University Farm, Season of 1918-19. Date of Yield Time of planting planting Bushels Sacks Extremely early Sept. 18th 60.0 (30.0) Early Nov. 6th 80.3 (40.15) Midseason Jan. 8th 81.5 (40.75) Late Mar. 22nd 31.11 (15.55) Of course, these figures must only be taken for what they are worth ; that is, as approximative. There are far too many interfering conditions to allow them to have an absolute value. In a suggestive way, however, the experiment is of unusual interest, as it shows that in this season at least, barley might be planted either too early or too late to secure maximum yields. Hitherto we had held, that the MARIOUT BARLEY 91 earlier the planting, the better the yield, but we must now modify this point of view and say that in certain instances at least too early planting may be as detrimental as too late planting. One striking finding is the extremely low yield of the spring planting. Further interesting relationships are presented in table 13. Fig. 14. — Date of planting test with barley at the University Farm. Block "A, " planted March 22, yielded 31.11 bushels (15.55 sacks) per acre; block "B, " planted January 8, yielded 81.5 bushels (40.75 sacks) per acre; block "C, " planted November 6, yielded 80.3 bushels (40.15 sacks) per acre, and block "D, " planted September 18, yielded 60 bushels (30 sacks) per acre. Sep- tember planted barley ripened in 236 days, November planted in 200 days, Janu- ary planted in 148 days, and March planted in 90 days. For complete data see tables 12 and 13. Table 13. — Effect of Planting Date Upon the Development of "Four Thousand Barley." 'S.S so a a «a -»£% -c J§ So sm W "gS 0«^ ~ fl c g bC G^Q © ^ A oo fl W -B; .c^3 .a>o • i* ••'3-^ 'Java . ■+* oo • Si 03O >a (j k» OS >o3 : ^ > o3 Si o3 £ >£?» a>"0 Dateplanted