barley grainbarley can be two-row or six-row and hulled or hulless. the barley type used can result...

FIRST EDITION 2015

BARLEY GRAINFeed Industry GuideRUMINANTS | POULTRY | SWINE | OTHER LIVESTOCK & AQUACULTURE

EDITED BY: TIM MCALLISTER, PH.D., SARAH MEALE, PH.D., AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

02 Introduction02 Feed Barley Background & Market04 Feed Barley Production & Quality Grading08 Nutritional Composition & Feed Value12 Barley In Ruminant Diets22 Barley In Swine Diets26 Barley In Poultry Diets30 Barley In Diets For Other Livestock

and Aquaculture31 References

BARLEY GRAIN - FEED INDUSTRY GUIDE 2

FEED BARLEY BACKGROUND & MARKETS.J. Meale1, M.L. He2 and T.A. McAllister1; 1Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada ([email protected]; [email protected]); 2University of Saskatchewan ([email protected])

ORIGIN & VARIETIESDomesticated in approximately 8000 BC, barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) is considered one of the oldest cultivated grains (Badr et al. 2000). Barley was first brought to Canada in the early 17th century by European settlers. Today, global production of barley grain is ranked fourth among major cereals for human food or animal feed with an estimated 132.4 M tonnes produced annually (FAO, 2014).

Barley is a member of the grass family Poaceae. Varieties of barley are based on morphological differences such as two-row barley or six-row barley, and hulled (or covered) or hulless (or naked). Barley varieties are also distinguished according to their growing season (spring or winter barley), their use (forage or grain), and starch composition (waxy or normal).

CLASSIFICATION Barley is ultimately classified according to its end use—i.e., food, malting and general-feed barley (Canadian Grain Commission, 2008). Food barley is the highest quality and can be used as a whole grain or after processing as refined or whole-grain flours. Both hulled and hulless barley as well as other varieties can be used for food.

Malting barley consists of both hulled and hulless varieties. To ensure brewing efficiency and high quality, malt barley must meet a number of strict specifications in order to make the malt grade. For instance, high protein content (>13% dry matter; DM) may reduce the fermentation efficiency for brewing and cause brewing issues such as cloudiness of the beer. However, such a property may be considered an advantage when barley is used as livestock feed. Approximately 80% of harvested malt barley does not meet grading standards for use in brewing, and is subsequently used as livestock feed. In Canada, most of the feed barley (approximately 80%) is produced in Alberta. A very small percentage (<1%) of barley is directly used as food.

INTRODUCTION This technical guide on the use of barley grain as poultry and livestock feed is the first to be published by Alberta Barley.

Barley is among the most important feed grains in Canada. It was brought to Canada in the early 17th century and has been used worldwide as both a food for humans and as a feed for livestock. Of the barley produced in Canada each year, 80% is grown for malt with about 20% of this achieving malt standard. Barley that does not make malt, along with the 20% that is grown as feed, is fed to livestock. Feed barley is rich in starch, protein, fibre and phosphorus, and there are no commercial varieties that are genetically modified.

Barley is the principal grain used to produce Canadian beef and there is a growing demand for Canadian feed barley on the international market. This guide is targeted at assisting international and Canadian feed barley consumers in understanding the various facets of barley to capitalize on its nutritional value as feed for all classes of poultry and livestock.

It is expected that future editions of this guide will expand on existing knowledge of Canadian feed barley and its utilization in poultry and livestock production. The present document represents a compilation of the expertise of Canada’s leading scientists in the areas of barley production, kernel chemistry and the feeding of barley to livestock and poultry. A copy of this publication can be found on albertabarley.com.

3

GLOBAL PRODUCTION & TRADE In 2012, global production of barley was 132.4 M metric tonnes, produced across 104 countries (FAOSTAT, 2014). Canada is among the top five producers, with a total 8.0 M metric tonnes produced in 2012 on approximately 4 M ha of land (Table 1). The major growing areas in Canada are the Prairie provinces, including Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Table 1. TOP 10 BARLEY PRODUCERS IN 2012 (IN MILLION METRIC TONNES)

COUNTRY PRODUCTIONRussian Federation 14.0

France 11.4

Germany 10.4

Australia 8.2

Canada 8.0

Turkey 7.1

Ukraine 6.9

Spain 6.0

United Kingdom 5.5

Argentina 5.5

World total 132.4

Most of the world trade in barley is driven by countries with expanding beer production. Thus, Canada’s barley export industry is mainly driven by the demand for malt barley. Canada’s main markets are China, Japan and the U.S.. About half of this barley is exported unprocessed for malting overseas while the remainder is malted in Canada and sold to the domestic brewing industry or exported in a processed form. A small amount of feed barley is also exported, primarily to Japan and Saudi Arabia. In the year 2011-2012 there was a total of 1.18 million tonnes of barley exported from Canada to eight countries, with China, Japan and the U.S. being the top three buyers of Canadian barley at 347,200, 282,200 and 272,900 tonnes, respectively (Table 2). Export of barley is not impeded by GMO crop trade barriers as it has not been genetically modifed.

Table 2. EXPORTS OF CANADIAN BARLEY INCROP YEAR 2011-2012 (IN THOUSAND METRIC TONNES)

EXPORT DESTINATION AMOUNTChina, P. R. 347.2

Japan 282.2

United States 272.9

Saudi Arabia 118.3

Columbia 81.6

Mexico 40.9

South Africa 31.5

Ecuador 6.3

Total 1,180.9

NON-GENETICALLY MODIFIED (NON-GMO) GRAIN SOURCECurrently all barley on the world market is considered to be a non-genetically modified (non-GMO) grain source. There are ongoing scientific field trials on GMO barley with modified characteristics including fungal resistance and herbicide tolerance. However, to date, no GMO barley varieties have been approved for commercial production (GMO Compass, 2014) and there are no GMO barley varieties in Canada being considered for commercial production.


FEED BARLEY PRODUCTION & QUALITY GRADING J. O’Donovan – Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (john.o’[email protected])

TYPES OF BARLEYBarley can be two-row or six-row and hulled or hulless. The barley type used can result in differences in feed intake, feed efficiency, as well as malting quality. Two-row barley varieties produce fewer, but larger kernels per plant than six-row varieties, so two-row barley generally results in better feed efficiency in livestock and malting quality. These differences can, to some extent, be related to kernel plumpness. Kernels of six-row varieties tend to be less plump, especially when produced under relatively dry conditions. This can result in reduced starch content with increased protein and fibre content. This is because starch accounts for a lower portion of the total kernel weight. Fibrous carbohydrates are less digestible than starch, and therefore yield less available energy to livestock and poultry. Two-row varieties have tended to produce lower overall grain yields than their six-row counterparts; however, this is changing with the development of high-yielding two-row varieties for both the malting and feed markets. Approximately 99% of barley grown in Canada is of hulled varieties in which the hull or glume is retained during the threshing process. With hulless varieties, the hull is removed during threshing. Hulless barley may also be referred to as naked barley. Hulless barley has a major advantage over conventional barley in transportation, processing, and storage. Removing the hull fraction increases the bulk density (weight-per-unit volume) compared to hulled barley by about 25%, thus cost savings can be considerable. Hulless barley has higher crude

protein and lower crude fibre than hulled barley, as the hull accounts for a large proportion of the crude fibre content of the kernel. It also contains higher levels of the polysaccharide β-glucan. This compound is considered undesirable for malting barley since it interferes with the starch modification process. However, β-glucan is highly desirable when barley is grown for food due to linkages to positive health outcomes in humans. For this reason, hulless varieties are being developed primarily for use as human food. Studies have shown that hulless feed barley has higher digestibility, protein and energy content, and lower fibre than hulled barley. The high β-glucan content may prove problematic, however, when feeding to swine and poultry, and enzymes are frequently used to improve digestibility. Other constraints to growing hulless barley in Canada include lower yields, lack of a premium, and difficulty in segregating the product from hulled varieties within the grain transportation system.

TIMING OF BARLEY SEEDINGWith the relatively short growing season in Canada, virtually all of the barley is seeded in spring. In general, barley tends to mature earlier than other major crops, including canola and wheat, so there is a tendency among growers to seed these crops before barley. Early seeding (early April to mid-May) favours higher yields compared to later seeding (late May to early June). A 10% increase in barley yield and a 25% increase in net economic return with early seeding has been recorded in eight regions across Western Canada with the exception of the Peace River region of Northern Alberta (Table 3). In the Peace region, later seeding resulted in higher yields (7%) and net economic returns (30%; Smith et al. 2012). The effect of seeding time on barley kernel feed quality was less pronounced. Slight increases in kernel protein (11.5 to 11.9% DM), starch (61.2 to 61.3% DM), lysine (6.06 to 6.20% DM) and soluble fibre (4.07 to 4.20% DM), and a decrease in kernel plumpness (90 to 88%) occurred with late seeding. It is doubtful, however, if these small differences would markedly affect the feed value of barley for livestock and poultry.

5

Table 3. EFFECT OF TIME OF SEEDING ON BARLEY YIELD AND NET ECONOMIC RETURN IN WESTERN CANADA1

PEACE RIVER REGION

ALL OTHER REGIONS

TIME OF SEEDING

YIELD (KG/HA)

NET RETURN

($/HA)

YIELD (KG/HA)

NET RETURN

($/HA)Early 3,009 100 4,906 371

Late 3,224 142 4,412 2761Adapted from Smith et al. 2012

SEEDING RATEGrowers should determine seeding rates based on seeds sown per unit area rather than on a kernel weight basis (e.g., kg/ha, lbs/ac or bushels/ac). This is because seed size and weight can vary among varieties, and even among seed lots within a variety, leading to variable plant establishment. Unfortunately, many previous barley production guides have recommended the latter approach. There has also been a tendency in the past to seed barley at relatively low rates (100 to 200 seeds per m2) in an effort to obtain plump kernels, an important criterion for malting grade selection. However, studies conducted at numerous locations in Western Canada (O’Donovan et al. 2012) have shown that seeding hulled barley at 300 seeds per m2 optimized yield (Fig. 1A), reduced protein (Fig. 1B) and β-glucan (Fig. 1C) content, and improved kernel uniformity (Fig. 1D), while having little or no adverse effects on other feed quality traits, such as starch, lysine or fibre content. The Peace River region was again an exception; 200 seeds per m2 or lower sometimes optimized yield and returns (Smith et al. 2012).

Fig. 1. EFFECT OF BARLEY SEEDING RATE ON BARLEY YIELD AND QUALITY PARAMETERS

1A

1B

1C

1D


In all regions, net economic returns were highest at 200 to 300 seeds per m2 compared to lower or higher seeding rates. On a precautionary note, the study also indicated that seeding hulled barley above 300 seeds per m2 often resulted in lower yields and economic returns, and reduced kernel plumpness. This loss in yield may reflect greater lodging at higher seeding rates.

Hulless barley, on the other hand, should be seeded at a rate higher than 400 seeds per m2 in order to optimize plant establishment (O’Donovan et al. 2009). This is because damage to the embryo during the seeding process can result in reduced germination and plant establishment. The increase in kernel uniformity and the lower β-glucan at the higher seeding rates has positive implications for both malting and feed quality. More uniform kernels with low β-glucan results in better endosperm modification during the malting process. During processing of barley for feed, uniform kernels are also important, as it is easier to set the roller distance in roller mills to achieve optimal processing if kernels are uniform.

FERTILIZING BARLEYThe amount of fertilizer required for barley and other crops grown in Canada is normally based on a soil test recommendation. Nitrogen is usually the most limiting nutrient in arable soils in Canada, and applications are required annually during the cropping season. The amount required depends on a number of factors including the amount of soil nitrate-nitrogen present, as well as the mineralization potential and moisture content of the soil, along with expected precipitation.

Numerous studies have shown that both barley yield and protein content increase with an increase in the nitrogen rate. For malting barley growers, limiting nitrogen application is sometimes recommended to avoid excessive kernel protein (>12% DM), which can result in rejection for malting. Nitrogen application can also affect barley feed quality parameters. While high protein content may not be as compromising with feed as with malting barley, starch content will decrease due to the inverse relationship between protein and starch. Studies conducted at eight locations over three years in Western Canada (O’Donovan et al. 2011; Edney et al. 2012) indicated that increasing nitrogen rates decreased starch content (Fig. 2A) and increased β-glucan (Fig. 2B), soluble fibre (Fig. 2C) and lysine content (Fig. 2D) of barley kernels.

Fig. 2. EFFECT OF NITROGEN RATE ON BARLEY QUALITY PARAMETERS

2A

2B

2C

2D

7

The increase in lysine content is positive since the amino acid is very important in feed for livestock, especially swine and poultry. Overall, however, the effects of nitrogen fertilization on feed barley quality parameters would appear to be less important than on malting barley. Barley samples from these studies were used to evaluate the effects of nitrogen rate together with seeding rate and variety on the rate and extent of ruminal DM disappearance. It was concluded that these factors did not have a profound or reliable effect on the rates of DM digestion within the rumen (Cleary et al. 2011).

DISEASE MANAGEMENTProper crop rotation is key to managing diseases, weeds, and insects in barley and optimizing yield as well as malt and feed quality. It is particularly important for disease management. Diseases of the greatest significance in Canada include common root rot, net blotch and scald. Rotating barley with oilseed and pulse crops can reduce the incidence of these and other diseases. Rotating barley with canola or field peas as compared to continuous cropping with barley has also been shown to reduce disease incidence and improve barley yields in Western Canada (Table 4; Turkington et al. 2012). In this case, growing barley after field peas resulted in higher yields than when barley was grown after canola (Table 4).

Fusarium head blight (FHB) is becoming an increasing concern in Canada. It is important because the fungus (Fusarium spp.) produces toxins including deoxynivalenol (DON). The disease also causes yield and quality losses. There is zero tolerance for DON in malting barley. Pigs are sensitive to this toxin, which causes vomiting, feed refusal, immune suppression, diarrhea, weight loss and milk production loss. In addition to crop rotation, selecting resistant feed varieties and systemic fungicide application can mitigate the incidence of FHB and other diseases. These are becoming standard practices in Canadian barley production. Two-row barley varieties are more resistant to FHB than six-row varieties due to their head architecture. Seed treatments are not effective against FHB since the inoculum comes from the crop residue, but can be effective against soil-borne pathogens.

Table 4. EFFECT OF CROP RESIDUE TYPE ON LEAF DISEASE AND YIELD OF BARLEY

CROP RESIDUE

DISEASE SEVERITY1

BARLEY YIELD (KG/HA)

Barley 9.8 3,735

Canola 3.9 4,134

Field pea 4.0 4,4671Total leaf disease severity (%)

HARVEST & STORAGEBarley can be straight combined or placed in a swath to dry. Most of the barley grown in Canada is swathed prior to threshing and storage. Prior to swathing, barley for grain should have reached physiological maturity; i.e., Zadok growth stage 87 and 30 to 40% moisture. Threshing should occur prior to shattering or sprouting, but grain must be dry enough for safe storage in the bin. Barley for feed and malt should be threshed when grain moisture is less than 14.5 and 13.5%, respectively. To ensure preservation of grain quality, barley should not be threshed at moisture levels higher than 20% or dried at temperatures higher than 43° C. This is particularly important for malting barley and for barley grown for seed. Feed barley is usually swathed for five to ten days before it is harvested. Swathing reduces losses from insects and shattering, and reduces problems associated with harvesting grain with green kernels and green undergrowth.

Some growers in Canada favour straight combining over swathing if the seed moisture level is less than 13.5% and conditions are favourable. Desiccants can be used to accelerate the dry-down of barley to this desirable moisture level. This can improve quality, especially in the case of malting barley. However, straight combining should be avoided if the crop is excessively weedy or secondary crop growth has occurred. Green material, such as weeds and plant parts, may cause heating in storage and result in grain spoilage due to the high levels of moisture they contain. Ensuring that grain does not deteriorate during storage is extremely important. There are several hazards including moulds, insects and chemical changes that adversely impact the nutritional value of the grain. These hazards are usually related to excessive grain moisture content, grain temperature, or both. Grain deterioration in storage can be minimized or prevented by keeping the grain dry, cool, and free of insects. During storage, the moisture content should be 13% or less and the temperature below 10° C. Bins should be checked for insects and mould at least every two to three weeks. An aeration system can provide the safest and most economical means of keeping grain moisture content and temperature at desired levels.


NUTRITIONAL COMPOSITION & FEED VALUET. Vasanthan1 and S.J. Meale2; 1University of Alberta ([email protected]); 2 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada ([email protected])

CARBOHYDRATES & FIBRE The starch content of barley grain varies depending on the cultivar. Hulled regular varieties have higher starch contents, ranging from 35.9 to 69.9% DM, compared to hulled waxy barley grain cultivars (51.5 to 59.7% DM; Table 5). Conversely, the starch content of regular hulless barley ranges from 49.4 to 74.5% DM, compared to 51.7 to 68.5% DM for waxy hulless barley. Barley starch content is nearly 20% lower than that of wheat or corn grain. Starch content of barley can be further reduced under drought conditions as starch granules fail to mature.

The composition of starch components in the barley grain—specifically, the ratio of amylose to amylopectin—determines its classification as either ’waxy’ or ‘regular’’. Regular barley typically has a ratio of amylose to amylopectin of 1:3, whereas barley with higher levels of amylopectin (up to 100%) is referred to as ‘waxy’ barley. High-amylose barley is associated with enzymatic resistance to digestion in swine and poultry, and thus slower glucose release and prolonged satiety. Increased amylopectin is associated with faster digestion of starch to glucose, which may result in higher feed intake as a consequence of rapid rises in insulin.

Water-soluble fibre in barley grains is composed primarily of non-starch polysaccharides, such as β-glucan. Barley can range widely in its β-glucan content, with hulled varieties ranging from 1.2 to 6.7% and 4.6 to 7.3% DM for regular versus waxy barley, and hulless varieties ranging from 2.8 to 7.3% DM (non-waxy) and 4.8 to 16.9% DM (waxy). High levels of water-soluble dietary fibre can increase the viscosity of intestinal contents, slowing intestinal transit and delaying gastric emptying (Webster, 1986), a characteristic that poses challenges if feed with high levels of soluble fiber are used as feed for poultry. Conversely, β-glucans have been shown to have hypocholesterolaemic properties (Naumann et al. 2006), a trait that is desirable from a human nutrition perspective.

9

Water-insoluble fibre in barley is comprised of lignin and other non-starch polysaccharides, such as cellulose and hemi-cellulose, particularly arabinoxylans. High levels of insoluble dietary fibre can result in increased fecal bulk as a result of its high water holding capacity (Manthey et al. 1999). As lignin, cellulose and arabinoxylan are concentrated in the hull of the grain, a difference in total fibre content occurs between hulled (13.2 to 27.0 vs. 19.6 to 22.6% DM; regular vs. waxy) and hulless (9.4 to 20.2 vs. 12.6 to 33.4% DM; regular vs. waxy) barley varieties. This does not, however, affect total soluble fibre content, as this is concentrated in the endosperm cell walls. The content of both acid detergent fibre (ADF) and neutral detergent fibre (NDF) are considerably lower in hulless varieties compared to hulled varieties. As such, hulless barley is considered more appropriate for use in monogastric diets (swine and poultry; Newman et al. 2004). Additionally, due to the hull, barley grain provides greater dietary fibre than wheat or corn, and a larger portion of the fibre is in an insoluble form (ADF).

Table 5. TYPICAL CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF BARLEY GRAIN COMPARED TO CORN

COMPONENT, % HULLED REGULAR HULLED WAXY HULLESS REGULAR HULLESS WAXY CORN

Starch 58.23 55.14 62.75 57.43 62.55

β-glucan 4.34 5.77 4.77 7.69 -

ADF1 5.85 - 2.14 2.40 2.88

NDF2 18.49 - 10.28 8.10 9.11

Protein 12.44 12.79 14.41 15.24 8.24

Lipid 2.58 2.81 2.45 3.08 3.481Acid detergent fibre 2Neutral detergent fibre


PROTEIN & AMINO ACIDS The value of protein in barley reflects its concentration, amino acid composition and digestibility. The protein content of hulled non-waxy, hulled waxy, hulless non-waxy and hulless waxy barley range from 7.3 to 18.2%, 10.5 to 16.1%, 9.6 to 21.9% and 11.3 to 21.6% DM, respectively. Barley protein has complex effects on grain quality, as high protein content results in reduced starch content, thereby decreasing overall carbohydrate content (Fox, 2010). When compared to wheat, barley (hulled regular) has a lower protein content (12.44%), but in terms of quality, barley protein is comparable to wheat (Eggum, 1969). Barley has a 4% higher protein content than corn grain (Table 5) and a higher level of lysine (Table 6).

Table 6. ESSENTIAL AMINO ACIDS IN BARLEY VS. NORMAL CORN GRAIN AS % OF PROTEIN

AMINO ACID BARLEY CORNArginine 4.4 3.8

Histidine 2.1 2.8

Isoleucine 3.6 3.7

Lysine 3.4 2.6

Methionine 2.6 1.8

Phenylalanine 5.2 5.1

Threonine 3.1 3.6

Valine 5.0 5.3 OIL & FATTY ACIDS Compared to starch and protein, the lipid content of cereal grains is relatively low (~3% DM). Its contribution toward the nutritional value as well as storage stability of cereal-based feed, however, is important. The lipid content of barley is generally higher than that of wheat (1 to 2%), but lower than that of oats (5 to 6%). The lipid content of hulled non-waxy, hulled waxy, hulless non-waxy and hulless waxy barley range from 1.5 to 5.8, 1.9 to 3.6, 1.4 to 4.1 and 1.8 to 6.2 (% DM), respectively. Additionally, the fatty acid composition of barley is comparable to that of wheat for linolenic acid (C18:3; 3.13 vs. 3.54% total fatty acids, respectively) and linoleic (C18:2; 51.75 vs. 59.68% total fatty acids), but acids higher than that for oats (1.25 and 41.29% total fatty acids for C18:3 and C18:2, respectively; Liu, 2011).

Table 7. MACRONUTRIENTS IN BARLEY GRAIN

MINERAL % DRY MATTERP 0.27-0.49

K 0.45-2.51

Ca 0.01-0.28

Mg 0.10-0.24

S 0.14-0.19

Na 0.006-0.045

VITAMINS & MINERALSThe range in content of the main macronutrients present in barley are presented in Table 7. Diets high in barley typically meet the phosphorus requirements of ruminants, but supplemental Ca in the diet is often required.

Barley is a significant source of vitamin E, one of the most important antioxidants in nature. Barley is the only cereal grain in which vitamin E is present in all of its isomeric forms (Prýma et al. 2007). Tocols (tocopherols and tocotrienols) as lipid-soluble antioxidants are vitamin E-active substances. Total tocols are present at 3.27 to 10.4 mg/100 g in barley grain, which is greater than in wheat or oats.

ENERGYDue to its high digestible energy content (80%), barley grain has a high metabolizable energy value for ruminants (about 12.4 MJ/kg DM; Baik and Ullrich, 2008). However, barley contains about 95% of the digestible or metabolizable energy content of corn and wheat due to its higher dietary fibre content (Table 8).

Table 8. AVERAGE ENERGY CONTENT OF COMMON CEREAL GRAINS

BARLEY CORN WHEAT OATSTDN, %1 88 90 88 77

NEm (Mcal/kg)2 2.03 2.24 2.18 1.85

NEg (Mcal/kg)3 1.37 1.55 1.50 1.22

1TDN, total digestible nutrients; 2NEm, net energy for maintenance; 3NEg, net energy for gain

11

PREDICTION OF FEED VALUE OF BARLEY GRAIN USING NEAR INFRARED SPECTROSCOPY (NIRS)M.L. Swift – Hi Pro Feeds ([email protected])

The nutritional quality of barley grain fed to animals is traditionally defined by energy content, which can vary considerably due to genetics and environmental growing conditions. For example, the range in energy content of barley for pigs and poultry has been reported to vary by as much as 20% (Regmi et al. 2008). After analysis of 600 samples representing 30 varieties grown over 12 locations, significant variation in protein, starch and fibre content was noted (Reynolds et al. 1992). Accurate and rapid evaluation of energy content of barley is therefore key to ensuring that the nutrient content of the barley is optimal for livestock or poultry.

Near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) is a secondary method, which uses multivariate statistics to relate data from a reference method to energy absorption data collected in the near infrared region (800 to 2,500 nm) of the electromagnetic spectrum. This technology is used worldwide in many commercial and in-house laboratories for prediction of ingredient, feed and forage constituents.

Over the last five years, the Alberta barley industry has intensified efforts in refining the use of NIRS for determination of the feed quality of intact undried barley grain.

As a result, NIRS is now being used by farmers, feed mills, nutritional consultants and crop producers to reliably predict moisture, protein, fat, ash, ADF, NDF, and starch composition of whole barley. These predicted values are being used to compute energy value for ruminants and swine. Prediction models have been developed for the prediction of DE content of whole barley for swine, based on animal bioassays as well as a three-step enzymatic in-vitro method. In addition, NIRS is being used by the research community in many projects investigating the feeding value of barley, such as prediction of residual starch in residues following in-situ rumen incubation, as well as nitrogen, starch and fibre content of feces from cattle being fed barley-based diets. The NIRS method has proven to be a reliable and rapid method for determination of feeding value of barley in terms of composition and digestibility.


BARLEY IN RUMINANT DIETSBEEF CATTLEB. Lardner and G. Penner – University of Saskatchewan ([email protected]; [email protected])

Barley grain is as an excellent energy source for beef cattle. For this reason, barley grain is generally fed to beef cows when cows are grazing poor-quality pastures or consuming forages that do not have enough energy to meet requirements. While barley can be used to increase the energy content of the diet, the extent of barley grain processing and level of feeding can impact forage and total feed intake and forage utilization.

Effect of Processing on the Utilization of Barley GrainIt is clear that processing (rolling, grinding, or flaking) improves digestibility of barley grain. Mathison (1996) concluded that whole barley grain was 15 to 30% less digestible than the same barley grain when dry rolled. The addition of water prior to rolling (tempering) can reduce production of fine particles, resulting in a more uniform particle size distribution in the final processed product. Similarly, steam-flaking uses moisture, heat and pressure to gelatinize starch granules, but positive effects of starch gelatinization on animal performance may be less for barley grain compared to corn, as barley starch is readily degradable in the rumen even without gelatinization. Unlike barley, corn requires steam-flaking to make starch available by breaking down the protein that surrounds starch granules within the endosperm.

13

Table 9. PROCESSING METHODS AND MAXIMUM INCLUSION RATES OF BARLEY GRAIN IN RUMINANT DIETS

ANIMAL PROCESSING METHOD PI (%)1 MAX. INCLUSION RATE (% DM)Beef cow dry-rolling 75-80 5-25

Backgrounding feedlot cattle

steam-rolling, temper-rolling, flaking or dry-rolling, pelleting

70-75 40-60

Finishing feedlot cattle

dry-rolling and temper-rolling 75-80 80-90

Dairy cattle temper-rolling, steam-rolling 60-70 Varies2

Sheep whole barley (unprocessed) - 50-801Processing index, see text for a description as to how to estimate2 Factors such as particle length, level of forage and degree of grain processing influence the recommended level of barley grain that can be included in dairy cattle diets

The processing index (PI) can be used as a practical tool to evaluate the extent of barley grain processing and is calculated as follows:

Processing index (PI) = weight of processed sample / weight of unprocessed sample × 100%

For both processed and unprocessed barley, the sample should be measured into a container so the same volume is used for both weight measurements. It is recommended to process barley for beef cows to a similar extent as suggested for dairy cattle and growing beef cattle, equating to a processing index ranging between 65 and 75% (Dehghan-banadaky, 2007; Table 9).

COW – CALF Barley grain is often provided to increase the energy intake of beef cattle. However, barley grain feeding also affects the intake of forage as cattle preferentially consume barley over forage. Past studies have shown that as the level of barley increases, the consumption of hay decreases (Fig. 3).

In addition, forage digestibility decreases with increasing rates of barley intake as the digestion of barley in the rumen may decrease pH, reducing the digestion of fibre by shifting the bacterial species from a fibre-digesting community to one that is more adept at starch digestion.


Fig. 3. The effect of level of barley grain supplementation on forage intake, total DMI and digestible organic matter intake. No further increases in total DMI and only marginal increases in digestible organic matter were noted when barley exceeded 12.5% of total DMI (red line). Total DMI and only marginal increases for digestible organic matter intake. Data adapted from Lardy et al. 2004.

As a consequence of reduced forage intake and forage digestibility, the benefit of barley supplementation on energy supply may not be as great as expected. For example, research by Lardy et al. (2004) demonstrated that as barley supplementation increased from 0.8 to 2.4 kg/d, there was no further improvement in digestible organic matter supply (Fig. 3). Thus, to maximize the benefit from barley grain for forage-fed cattle, it is recommended barley grain be limited to approximately 12.5% of the total DM intake (DMI). If forage is not the main energy source in the diet, such as during a drought, higher levels of barley can be utilized. Producers are encouraged to provide barley grain on a daily basis as infrequent provision decreases the beneficial effects of cereal-based supplementation (Loy et al. 2008).

Utilizing whole-plant barley forage for beef cowsSwath grazing whole-crop barley is one strategy to reduce feed costs through the use of extensively managed cows. A number of studies have investigated management and grazing whole plant barley for beef cattle. Swath grazing reduces costs by eliminating the need to process hay and deliver it to the cows as well as the need to remove the manure from pens, as is the case if cows are housed in drylot. It should be recognized that up to 50% of the weight of whole-crop barley is the kernel. For swath grazing, whole-plant barley should be swathed or cut at the soft dough stage and left in windrows in the field to graze.

15

Swathed whole-crop barley generally meets the nutritional requirements of beef cows in mid-gestation when temperature is in the thermo-neutral zone (Aasen at al. 2004). Several studies have suggested that swath grazing can reduce cow costs per day. When swath grazing whole-crop barley, the producer needs to balance yield with potential weathering effects on the crop. Later seeding dates results in higher-quality forage, although whole-crop yield or biomass production will be reduced. It was suggested that barley for swath grazing should be seeded from May 20 to 25, to optimize utilization of soil moisture and cool temperatures. Combining rows during swathing increases the bulk of swaths, enabling cattle to access them even through up to 500 cm of snow (McCartney et al. 2008). However, there is a need to actively monitor the body condition of cattle to ensure they are consuming sufficient forage. Access to swaths should be controlled with portable electric fences, with cattle being given access to a two- to three-day supply of forage. This practice promotes consumption and reduces wastage. This also ensures that manure is more evenly spread over the field. Nutritive value of whole-crop barley can be affected by weathering as the level of digestible organic matter in swaths may decrease by as much as 25% if swaths are left to lie from September to April. Forage quality in the swaths should be monitored to ensure that spoilage has not severely lowered feed value. Weather conditions can also impact the rate of spoilage.

BACKGROUNDING BEEF CATTLE S.J. Meale1, M.L. He2 and T.A. McAllister1; 1Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada ([email protected]; [email protected]); 2University of Saskatchewan ([email protected]) The period following weaning until the cattle enter a feedlot is known as the backgrounding or growing period. During this time, cattle require relatively high dietary nutrient and energy contents to maximize growth. Typical backgrounding diets contain feed grain and protein supplement together with ~50% of forage DM. Owing to its high energy content, barley is an ideal grain for inclusion in the diets of backgrounding cattle. An additional benefit is that barley contains more protein than corn, reducing the level of expensive supplemental protein that needs to be added to the diet.

Barley grain can be included in backgrounding diets at a maximum of 40 to 60% DM. To improve digestibility while maintaining normal rumen function, barley grain should be properly processed before feeding to backgrounding beef cattle. Whole barley is less digestible due to its resistant nature to ruminal microbes, whereas finely ground barley can be rapidly utilized by ruminal bacteria for fermentation and may cause health issues, such as acidosis and bloat. Processing barley via steam-rolling, temper-rolling, flaking or dry-rolling effectively reduces the risk of acidosis by modulating starch degradation in the rumen (Stock and Britton, 1993). In Western Canada, dry-rolling is the major processing method used due to its simplicity and cost-effective nature. The processing index should ideally be around 70 to 75% for a backgrounding diet (Wang et al. 2003). An alternate processing method for maximizing barley utilization in backgrounding beef cattle diets is pelleting. For example, pelleting barley blended with canola meal in a ratio of 85:15 improved feed efficiency compared to a rolled barley diet on its own, with both diets containing ~30% of DM as barley.


FINISHING BEEF CATTLE J. McKinnon – University of Saskatchewan ([email protected]) Barley grain is the predominant cereal grain fed to finishing cattle in Western Canada. This is a function of supply, price and nutrient content. Nutrient characteristics that enhance barley’s reputation as a feed grain include its relatively high net energy value for maintenance (2.03 Mcal/kg DM) and gain (1.37 Mcal/kg DM) and crude protein value (12.5% DM). In contrast, respective net energy values for cracked corn grain are 2.09 and 1.42 Mcal/kg DM and 9.5% DM for crude protein (Table 10).

Despite barley’s slightly lower net energy content than corn, the performance of barley-fed cattle is excellent and often comparable to corn-fed cattle. To understand why, it is necessary to examine the nature of the barley and corn kernel. Unlike corn, the starch in the endosperm of barley is surrounded by readily digestible protein that is rapidly digested once the hull and pericarp is breached. Barley is often sold on the basis of bushel weight, which may range from 36 to 55 lbs per bushel. Although lower-bushel-weight barley contains less starch than high-bushel-weight barley, gains of cattle are usually not influenced by bushel weight as cattle compensate for the lower starch by consuming more barley. Feed efficiency can start to decline at bushel weights below 40 lbs. Care must be taken to match the degree of barley processing to bushel weight as lots of barley with different bushel weights also vary in kernel plumpness.

Table 10. COMPARISON OF ENERGY AND PROTEIN CONTENT OF TYPICAL CEREAL GRAINS ON A DM BASIS1

GRAIN TYPE TOTAL DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS (%)

NET ENERGY MAINTENANCE (MCAL/KG)

NET ENERGY GAIN (MCAL/KG)

CRUDE PROTEIN (%)

Oat (dry-rolled) 78.5 1.89 1.25 13.0

Barley (dry-rolled) 83.0 2.03 1.37 12.5

Corn (cracked) 85.0 2.09 1.42 9.5

Wheat (dry-rolled) 87.0 2.15 1.47 14.5

Corn (steam-flaked) 91.5 2.28 1.58 9.5

1Adapted from the National Research Council (2001)

With corn, starch in regions of the endosperm is tightly bound to protein and, as a result, steam-flaking is required to optimize the utilization of starch in corn. There are also differences between the two grains in terms of starch content and rate of rumen fermentability. The barley kernel has less starch than corn, but the starch that it has is fermented at a much faster rate. This can lead to increased digestion of starch in the rumen, enhancing the growth of rumen microbes, but processing needs to be carefully managed to avoid the occurrence of digestive upsets, such as acidosis and bloat, which have been linked to rapid ruminal starch digestion.

As with backgrounding cattle, the most common processing methods for barley are dry- and temper-rolling. Extensive processing such as steam-flaking has not proven to be economically viable as the goal is to crack the outer hull and break the kernel into two to four pieces. Too many whole kernels will result in poor digestibility, elevated feed intakes and poor feed conversions. In contrast, too high a degree of processing results in excessive fines (grain particles <2 mm in size), which can lead to digestive disturbances. While there are no hard and fast guidelines as to an acceptable level of fines, values greater than 5% can indicate that the grain has been over-processed. Additionally, barley is often processed to a PI of 75 to 80% for finishing cattle, with lower PI used with higher levels of forage in the diet. Lower values indicate a more aggressive feeding program and the need to pay closer attention to bunk management. Higher values indicate a less aggressive feeding program and potentially issues that can lead to poor feed efficiency if whole kernels pass through the digestive tract. Further confirmation of optimal processing can be gained by examining the nature of the feces in terms of consistency

17

(i.e., normal versus grey, runny feces, which can arise from sub-acute acidosis) and the number of whole barley kernels, with a high number being indicative of insufficient processing.

A second key to optimizing the performance of barley-fed cattle is an effective bunk management program. The goal is to keep cattle eating at a high level on a consistent basis over an extended period. Due to the rapid fermentation of barley starch, this can be a challenge. Keys to sound bunk management include a step-up feeding program that allows for a smooth transition from forage to high-barley-grain diets. This transition is usually accomplished through the use of four to six step-up diets where the level of forage is gradually decreased and the level of barley grain gradually increased. A well-designed bunk reading and feed delivery program along with an effective grain processing and monitoring program are keys to successfully feeding barley. Most importantly, one needs effective communication between all staff involved in the feeding of the cattle.

In summary, barley grain can be used as the sole cereal grain for finishing cattle with excellent results in terms of performance, carcass and meat quality. Comparative studies have shown that barley-fed cattle produce meat of equal quality to those fed corn. Optimizing the performance of barley-fed cattle is a function of sound management including knowledge of nutrient content and rumen fermentability in the design and implementation of the feed program.

DAIRY COWS M. Oba – University of Alberta ([email protected])

Barley grain is widely used as a primary energy source in diets of dairy cows in Canada. Understanding its nutrient and digestive characteristics is very important for formulating diets for lactating dairy cows that will maximize their productivity. The level of inclusion of barley grain in dairy cattle diets is dependent on stage of lactation, body weight and other factors. Consideration also needs to be given to the nature and level of forage included, as higher forage diets and longer chopped forage or forage with a slower rate of fermentation can allow for higher rates of barley to be included. As with other cattle, whole unprocessed barley grain is poorly digested, and processing is necessary to make the starch accessible to microbes in the rumen of dairy cows. Christen et al. (1996) reported an increase in milk yield of 1.8 kg/d when temper-rolled barley replaced dry-rolled barley in a diet of dairy cows, due to greater whole tract digestibility. Contrarily, feeding tempered barley without rolling decreased milk yield by 2 kg/d compared to dry-rolled barley, so tempered barley must be rolled prior to feeding. Intensive dry-rolling of barley can also generate the fine particles that can lead to a reduction in milk production as a result of acidosis.


Table 11. PRODUCTIVITY AND TOTAL TRACT STARCH DIGESTIBILITY OF COWS FED STEAM-ROLLED BARLEY GRAIN VARYING IN EXTENT OF PROCESSING1

COARSE MEDIUM M-FLAT FLAT P VALUE

LINEAR CONTRASTS

QUADRATIC CONTRASTS

DMI, kg/d 18.7 21.4 21.7 20.1 0.60 0.12 < 0.01

Milk yield, kg/d 25.6 28.1 30.8 29.0 0.40 < 0.01 < 0.01

Milk fat, % 3.93 3.89 3.78 3.9 0.06 0.5 0.25

Milk protein, % 3.15 3.30 3.29 3.34 0.02 < 0.01 < 0.05

Total tract starch digestibility, % 78.0 84.1 93.6 92.9 1.70 < 0.01 0.10

1Yang et al. 2000

Barley grain is often steam-rolled prior to feeding to dairy cattle as it is frequently processed in large commercial feed mills that possess this equipment. As with beef cattle, it is important to define the optimal degree of processing because maximizing fermentation of barley in the rumen does not necessarily maximize milk yield. Yang et al. (2000) fed barley grain, steam-rolled to coarse, medium, medium-flat and flat (PI = 81.0, 72.5, 64.0, and 55.5%, respectively) in diets of lactating dairy cows. Total tract starch digestibility and milk yield increased linearly as the PI decreased from 81.0 to 64.0% (Table 11). However, further processing, indicated by reduction in the PI from 64.0 to 55.5%, did not increase total tract starch digestibility, but decreased DMI and milk yield. As a result, it was concluded that the optimum PI for barley grain fed to lactating dairy cows was 64% as it maximized milk yield.

However, the optimum extent of processing is expected to differ depending on the quality of barley grain prior to processing. In a similar study (McGregor et al. 2007), barley grain was steam-rolled to either 82.5 or 68.7% PI, and fed to lactating dairy cows.

Dry matter intake and milk yield were not affected by the extent of processing in this study, a discrepancy that might be attributed to differences in physical and chemical characteristics of barley. Barley grain used by Yang (2000) had a bushel weight of 44.4 lb and 26.5% NDF while McGregor’s (2007) had a bushel weight of 53.1 lb and 16.8% NDF. Barley grain with low NDF content might require less processing, while highly fibrous barley grain may need more extensive processing to optimize rumen fermentation and digestibility.

Variation among barley grain and its effects on milk production A study conducted at the University of Alberta (Silveira et al. 2007) evaluated two barley varieties that differed in their physical and chemical characteristics (47.8 vs. 58.5 lb/bushel, 27.0 vs. 19.0% NDF, 50.0 vs. 58.7% starch, respectively; Table 12). Cows fed the high-starch barley (40% DM) increased milk yield by 2.3 kg/d, and tended to decrease milk fat concentration by 0.24% units compared with cows fed the moderate-starch barley (40% DM), indicating that the composition of the barley grain can affect the productivity of lactating dairy cows.

Schlau et al. (2013) conducted a similar study evaluating two lots of barley grain that also differed in starch content (Table 12), but reported that milk yield was not affected by grain treatment. One possible reason for the discrepancy between the two studies may be related to milk production level; Silveira et al. (2007) used cows in peak lactation producing more than 40 kg/d of milk, while Schlau et al. (2013) used late-lactating cows producing less than 30 kg/d of milk.

Maximum milk production of cows at peak lactation requires higher energy intakes, which may have been satisfied by high-starch barley leading to increased milk production. Cows in the study of Schlau et al. (2013) may have consumed sufficient energy with the moderate-starch barley grain, and thus the use of higher-starch barley did not result in a further increase in milk production.

19

Table 12. EFFECT OF BARLEY GRAIN DIFFERING IN STARCH CONTENT ON PRODUCTIVITY OF LACTATING DAIRY COWS

STARCH CONTENT STUDY A1 STARCH CONTENT STUDY B2

MODERATE HIGH P VALUE MODERATE HIGH P VALUEBulk density, lb/bushel 47.8 58.5 - 41.0 53.3 -

Starch, %DM 50.0 58.7 - 49.6 64.3 -

NDF, %DM 27.0 19.0 - 29.3 18.6 -

CP, %DM 10.1 12.6 - 13.0 13.6 -

PRODUCTIONDMI, kg/d 21.4 21.8 0.35 24.0 23.9 0.30

Milk yield, kg/d 36.2 38.5 < 0.05 28.8 28.3 0.37

Milk fat, % 3.47 3.23 0.08 3.9 3.94 0.60

Milk protein, % 2.89 3.08 < 0.01 3.45 3.45 0.90

1Silveira et al. 2007 2Schlau et al. 2013

In summary, processed barley grain is highly fermentable in the rumen and an important energy source in dairy diets. Feeding value of barley grain varies greatly among lots, and can affect productivity of high-producing dairy cows, in which energy intake limits maximum milk production. Processing method and the extent of processing also affect milk production of dairy cows, particularly if poor-quality barley grain is used. Feeding highly fermentable grains, such as barley, can enhance milk production by increasing energy intake and metabolizable protein supply if diets are formulated properly, but may decrease feed intake and milk production if it leads to subclinical or clinical acidosis. The feeding value of barley grain and its optimum utilization are greatly affected by how it is processed and how it is incorporated into the diet.


LambsThe extent to which barley grain is fed to lambs depends on the marketing strategy that is being employed. Concentrate diets for finishing lambs promote rapid growth (Sormunen-Cristian 2013), but may result in undesirable carcass fatness (Priolo et al. 2002). Accordingly, Hatfield et al. (1997) determined that higher levels of whole barley (up to 90% of the diet) resulted in fatter lamb carcasses as compared to diets that contained 50 or 70% whole barley. However, as with cattle, the rapid and thorough rumen fermentation of barley grain results in greater microbial protein synthesis than in corn-based diets, and the supplemental protein required as outlined by the National Research Council (NRC) to meet the crude protein requirement for lambs is higher for corn- than barley-based diets. Accordingly, Stanford et al. (1995) determined that rapidly growing lambs fed diets consisting of 76% barley required 32% less crude protein than NRC estimates.

Ewes and RamsFeeding of concentrates to mature sheep is generally limited to pre-breeding flush of ewes and rams, to supply required nutrients to ewes during the last trimester of pregnancy and to ewes during lactation. For 21 days prior to breeding, feeding 300 g of barley per head per day to ewes receiving forage-based diets improved both conception and lambing percentages (Atsan et al. 2007), as an increased plane of nutrition in the pre-mating period increases ovulation rate 12 to 18 days later (Hayman & Munro, 1985). Supplementation with barley during the last trimester of pregnancy has improved maintenance of ewe body weight (Atiq-ur-Rehman et al. 1992) and increased lambing percentages. Rumen capacity is limited in ewes and does during the last trimester of pregnancy and supplementation with concentrates such as barley is often necessary to meet energy requirements (Perez et al. 1995). For milking ewes, 500 g of whole barley per suckling lamb has been fed to ewes receiving high-quality forage to avoid excess weight loss during early lactation (Joy et al. 2008). Condition score of ewes at lambing can be used to gauge the extent to which ewes may benefit from supplementation with barley.

GoatsAlthough barley grain is highly palatable to goats, kids and mature goats are less prone to overeating than lambs and sheep (Fedele et al. 2002) and excess fat is uncommon in goat carcasses. High-producing dairy goats and rapidly growing kids are commonly fed large amounts of concentrate to meet their energy demands. Despite the lower pH associated with increased volatile fatty acids production in the rumen, subacute ruminal acidosis was not detected in growing kids fed up to 60% whole barley (Klevenhusen et al. 2013). Barley grain has been found to be equivalent to corn with regard to milk yield and composition of milk produced by dairy goats. Given a choice, dairy goats preferred barley grain over corn, although proportion of hay consumed by does also increased relative to that of concentrates (Avondo et al. 2013).

OTHER RUMINANTSK. Stanford – Alberta Agriculture Food and Rural Development ([email protected])

Barley is a common and valuable feedstuff for lambs, sheep and goats. As small ruminants chew whole grains more thoroughly than cattle, the costs associated with processing are generally not recovered through improvements in the efficiency of sheep and goats (Morgan et al. 1991; McGregor & Whiting, 2013). Feeding whole barley to small ruminants also avoids the digestive disturbances that can occur with highly processed or pelleted barley diets.


BARLEY IN SWINE DIETSR. Zijstra and E. Beltranena – University of Alberta ([email protected]; [email protected])

Barley grain is a source of dietary energy, so it has been a main constituent of swine feeds in the Prairie provinces of Canada for decades. Old-timer pork producers simply calculated a pork price (100 index) to barley bushel cost to quickly estimate their profitability.

ENERGYBarley has a lower net energy (NE) value for swine as compared with wheat or corn grain, which is the most important economic attribute for swine. However, once cost per MJ NE delivered on farm is calculated, barley generally prices more readily into swine diets than wheat or corn grain. The French proposed an NE value for barley of 9.7 for sows vs. 9.5 MJ NE/kg for growing pigs. The difference is because sows can derive slightly more dietary energy from the fibre in barley through the production of short-chain fatty acids by bacterial fermentation in the hindgut.

DIGESTIBILITY OF AMINO ACIDS IN SWINE As the main constituent of swine feeds, cereal grains contribute the bulk of amino acids in the diet. Cereal amino

acid composition and digestibility are therefore important. Barley contains more lysine, threonine, methionine and tryptophan than corn with similar standardized ileal digestibility (SID; NRC 2012; Table 13). Therefore, the inclusion of protein meals and crystal amino acids is reduced in feeding barley as compared with corn-based diets.

Table 13. AMINO ACID CONTENT (G/KG) AND STANDARDIZED ILEAL DIGESTIBILITY1

HULLED BARLEY

HULLESS BARLEY CORN

Lysine 4.00 5.10 2.50

SID 0.75 0.65 0.74

Threonine 3.60 3.70 2.80

SID 0.76 0.70 0.77

Methionine 2.00 2.00 1.80

SID 0.82 0.73 0.83

Tryptophan 1.30 0.13 0.60

SID 0.82 - 0.80

1NRC 2012; SID

23

PHOSPHORUSSupplemental phosphorus is a costly component of swine feed. Barley grain can also contribute the bulk of dietary phosphorous. However, a large portion of the phosphorus in barley is tied up in a phytate ring and therefore unavailable to pigs (Htoo et al. 2007). It is now common practice to include phytase enzyme to increase phosphorus digestibility in feeds for both swine and poultry. However, barley still contributes more available phosphorus to swine feeds than corn grain (Table 14). Therefore, there is generally no need to supplement phosphorus from inorganic sources to growing-finishing pigs fed barley-based diets even without the use of phytase. This fact has important implications for manure application in some countries where phosphorus directives limit the amount of manure that can be applied on the land. Under these conditions, if phosphorus supplementation is required, the efficiency of utilization must be improved (e.g., feeding phytate enzyme) or the number of swine in the herd reduced in order to comply with regulations.

Table 14. TOTAL AND PHYTATE-BOUND PHOSPHORUS CONTENT (G/KG) AND APPARENT AND STANDARDIZED TOTAL TRACK DIGESTIBILITY

HULLED BARLEY

HULLESS BARLEY CORN

Total phosphorus

3.5 3.6 2.6

Phytate phosphorus

2.2 2.6 2.1

ATTD of phosphorus1 0.39 0.31 0.26

STTD of phosphorus2 0.45 0.36 0.34

1Apparent total tract digestibility2Standardized total tract digestibility

NURSERY PIGSNewly weaned pigs can be fed hulled barley as the sole cereal grain in the ration. However, due to its relative high dietary fibre content, growth performance may be initially reduced. Feeding hulless barley or a large proportion of wheat initially and progressively replacing it with hulled barley grain may increase growth performance and reduce the cost associated with the need to include fat sources to boost the dietary energy content of the diet (Harrold, 2000). Newly weaned pigs may find it challenging to consume sufficient energy from diets high in barley, but the fibre in barley can also have a prebiotic effect reducing the incidence of diarrhea. Thus, any reduction in growth performance in young pigs may be short-lived. Pigs initially fed diets high in barley may also show compensatory growth during the growing-finishing period, resulting in reduced cost/kg of weight gain to market weight.

GROWING & FINISHING PIGSEven pigs that have not been fed barley grain during the nursery period can be fed diets based solely or partially on barley grain during the entire growing-finishing period along with supplemental protein sources such as pulses (field pea, lentil, faba bean) or high protein co-products (canola meal, DDGS). This approach can lead to substantial savings in feed cost as compared with corn due to the use of cheaper protein sources at lower levels in the diet, even with consideration that the diets have a lower NE value.

CARCASS & PORK QUALITYFeeding barley-based diets to finishing pigs reduces dressing percentage (one to two percentage points) compared to wheat. The reduction in dressing is attributed to the relative high fibre content of barley, reducing digesta passage rate and/or increasing gut fill. This reduction in dressing percentage can be compensated for by feeding barley diets slightly longer to increase live market weight by approximately 1.5 to 2.5 kg. This approach can result in a reduced cost of gain as compared with feeding other grains, even with consideration for the slightly longer feeding period. Feeding high-barley diets to finisher pigs can improve pork quality attributes compared with feeding corn. Barley has a lower fat and linoleic acid content than corn, resulting in firmer pork fat. Feeding barley can also result in whiter pork fat than corn grain, increasing its contrast with myoglobin and thus enhancing the visual appeal of loin marbling (Lampe et al. 2006).


BREEDING GILTS & SOWSGestating sows are fed restrictively to prevent excess weight gain and therefore can be fed high-fibre diets that also mitigate the incidence of undesirable chewing behaviours in sows housed in stalls. Gestating gilts and sows can thus be fed barley-based diets with minimal supplemental protein as canola meal, dried distillers grains or soybean meal. Lactating sows can also be fed barley-based diets, but it is usually mixed with wheat grain to further increase the energy content of the diet (Table 15).

PROCESSING FOR FEEDParticle size reduction of barley grain for swine feeding is most commonly achieved by hammer milling. Screen size utilized for barley milling is usually 1/64” to 3/64” smaller than for wheat or corn grain. Barley grain may also be rolled using single- or tandem-pass corrugated rollers that result in more consistent particle size than pulverizing using a hammer mill. Disk-milling barley grain between either a fixed or counter-rotating disk also results in more consistent particle size than hammer milling. Hulls separated during rolling or disk-milling may subsequently be blown off, producing barley with a feed value that is similar to hulless barley and some wheat varieties.

Table 15. PROCESSING METHODS AND MAXIMUM INCLUSION RATES OF BARLEY GRAIN IN SWINE, OTHER LIVESTOCK AND AQUACULTURE DIETS

PROCESSING METHOD MAX. INCLUSION RATE (% DM)Nursery pigs Hammer mill, dry-rolling, disk-milling 40

Growing and finishing pigs Hammer mill, dry-rolling, disk-milling 60

Breeding gilts and sows Hammer mill, dry-rolling, disk-milling 80

Layers and broilers Whole grain 35

Turkeys Whole grain 20

Horses Rolled, extruded, steam-flaked 0.2 (% BW TNC)1

Growing rabbits Whole grain 40 - 45

Breeding rabbits Whole grain 64

Aquaculture Extruded pellets 222

1% body weight as total non-structural carbohydrates 2Experimental diets containing barley protein concentrate


BARLEY IN POULTRY DIETST. Scott – University of Saskatchewan ([email protected])

INTRODUCTIONBarley is suitable for inclusion in the diet of all types and ages of poultry (Table 15). The primary limitation to its inclusion, as with any dietary ingredient, is the cost per kilogram of animal protein (meat or eggs) produced. This means it may be more profitable to have poorer feed conversion using a cheaper feed. The costs associated with barley are based on nutrient level and availability, which vary with the source of barley. With poultry, however, the cost associated with reducing antinutritional factors also needs to be considered. The majority of the barley available as poultry feed is hulled, but the lower fibre content of hulless barley is especially advantageous for poultry, making it competitive with corn or wheat as an energy source.

NUTRIENT LEVEL & AVAILABILITY The primary considerations in formulating poultry diets are metabolizable energy content (AME; kcal/kg) and the availability of amino acids, particularly lysine, to produce poultry protein, expressed per kilogram of barley. Nutrient levels in barley are diluted by the hull, which accounts for ~15% of the grain’s weight, adding considerable bulk to a diet. Theoretically, if there are no limits on intake due to

gut fill, then poultry should be able to consume enough of a barley-based diet to meet their dietary requirements. However, as a result of the hull, feed conversion (g feed to g gain) will be ~15% higher; thus, to be economically feasible, barley costs need to be comparably lower than alternative grains with a lower fibre content.

The energy levels of barley are primarily dependent on the level, digestibility and utilization of starch and lipids. Scott et al. (1998) determined that the energy content of 14 cultivars of barley (hulled and hulless) in young broilers ranged from 2,800 to 3,320 kcal/kg when no fibrolytic β-glucanase enzymes were present, but increased to 3,240 to 3,570 kcal/kg with enzyme addition, resulting in an overall increase in AME of 14%. As expected, this response was higher for hulless barley, due to higher levels of soluble non-starch polysaccharides (i.e., β-glucan). The Australian Premium Grains for Livestock Program (Black, 2008) measured the energy from 38 barley samples (without enzyme) in broilers (2,360 to 2,940 kcal/kg) and layers (2,630 to 3,530 kcal/kg) and noted that overall digestibility was higher in layers than broilers, possibly due to the longer residency time of digesta in the digestive tract of layers.

27

ENZYMESThere are two main supplemental enzymes (β-glucanases and phytase) that should be considered when feeding barley to poultry. However, the economics and benefits of enzyme inclusion vary with the age and type of birds being fed. Enzymes are commercially produced by fermentation using specific strains of micro-organisms, and due to genetic modification of some of these cultures, their use may be limited in organic production systems.

Barley has significant amounts of soluble non-starch polysaccharides (NSP; β-glucans and arabinoxylans) that form viscous gels in the fluid of the poultry gut during digestion. Consequently, digestion and absorption are reduced, higher amounts of water are excreted (wet litter) and the birds may be more susceptible to pathogens, leading to diseases such as necrotic enteritis and coccidiosis.

The recommendations are to always use barley enzyme supplements for broilers and young turkeys. However, there is less digestive upset for older birds and benefits should be evaluated prior to use in these situations. Scott et al. (2001) demonstrated that if intake of barley-based diets without enzymes was slightly restricted in young broilers, β-glucanases offered less benefit, although digesta viscosity of non-supplemented diets was high. This suggests that viscosity is more of a problem when birds are eating to gut capacity, as would be the case in broilers and young turkeys. In layers, the higher moisture in the digesta with

no enzyme supplementation can increase the incidence of dirty eggs—an occurrence that can be reduced with enzyme supplementation.

The second enzyme that should be considered for inclusion in poultry diets is phytase. Phytase “digests” phytate, which stores phosphorus in the barley kernel. Phytate is also associated with tying up some minerals, as well as starch and amino acids, thus lowering their availability. With a supplemental phytase, less phosphorus is required in the diet; however, there are limits (0.5% DM) as to how much supplemental phosphorus can be reduced (Scott, 2010). Reducing the amount of dietary phosphorous with phytase supplementation lowers phosphorous excretion in manure by as much as 50%, reducing the risk of it contributing to the eutrophication of waterways.

Combinations of feed enzymes, often referred to as enzyme cocktails, are commercially available. Selection should be based on the specific enzymes needed and their minimum activity levels, but generally, little advantage has been observed with the addition of enzyme cocktails that contain proteases (which break up protein) or cellulases (which break down fibre). Feed processing also affects enzyme efficacy as grinding, conditioning and pelleting result in higher solubilization of non-starch polysaccharides in feed ingredients, and heating can destroy both dietary and supplemental enzymes.


FEEDING WHOLE BARLEY GRAINIf implemented correctly, feeding whole barley grains can reduce costs associated with feed processing. In broilers, the practice requires a gradual introduction of whole grain and careful attention to proper mixing, so that all birds receive feed of uniform nutritive value that meets their requirements.

Bennett et al. (2002a) reported that whole barley grain could be included in broiler diets at up to 35% DM and at least 20% DM for growing turkeys (Bennett et al. 2002b). Whole-grain feeding for laying hens and broiler breeders (either in the diet or spread on the litter) is associated with reduced behaviour problems, such as feather pecking and cannibalism.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WHEN FEEDING A HIGH-BARLEY DIETSimilarly to the effect in swine, high-barley diets can increase the whiteness and hardness of fat as compared to corn. This is also likely to result in paler yolks in eggs from layers. This can be overcome by supplementing pigments in the diet; however, the cost should be rationalized with the value of the finished product and consumer preference.Small flock owners may also consider steeping barley (approximately one part by weight feed to 1.0 or 1.2 parts water) for 15 to 30 min just before feeding to form a feed with a porridge-like consistency. This approach has significantly increased intake and growth of broilers and minimized the need to supplement with enzymes. Care must be taken to ensure the feed is fed immediately after the steeping process to avoid mould growth.


BARLEY IN DIETS FOR OTHER LIVESTOCK & AQUACULTURES.J. Meale1, M.L. He2 and T.A. McAllister1 1Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada ([email protected]; [email protected]) 2University of Saskatchewan ([email protected])

INTRODUCTIONBarley grain can be included in the diets of horses, rabbits and fish to provide energy and nutrients. The level of inclusion needs to consider the digestive physiology of the animal and its ability to digest fibre. Barley is recommended for inclusion in the diet of high-performance horses due to its high energy content. However, care needs to be taken in order to properly process the grain and to formulate a well-balanced diet that includes sufficient forage. For rabbits, barley can be the primary dietary component due to its moderate protein and fibre content as compared with other major grains. Barley grain can also be included in fish diets as it provides starch as an energy source, but requires extrusion and pelleting to form pellets that float. Concentration of barley protein has also been used as a partial replacement for fish meal and soybean meal in fish diets.

HORSESUnder certain production (e.g., growth, pregnancy, and lactation) and performance conditions, nutrient requirements of horses far exceed those provided by forage. Barley grain is a good source of protein and energy; however, enzymatic hydrolysis of starch in whole grains is limited in the small intestine of horses. As such, processing of the barley (Table 15) is required to increase the absorption of starch in the small intestine. Barley starch that reaches the large intestine is rapidly fermented by resident microbes and the acid produced can lead to intestinal disturbances such as colic and laminitis. It has been recommended that barley grain be fed to horses at a maximum 0.2% of body weight as total non-structural carbohydrates (TNC), when included with alfalfa cubes to prevent negative effects on horse health and digestion (Hussein et al. 2004). Barley grain can also be fed to horses in combination with oats and corn.

Digestion of starch and sugar in grains provides the main substrate for muscle glycogen synthesis after exercise. Hydrolyzable carbohydrate from rolled barley grain has a glycemic index of approximately 60 compared to 100 in pure glucose (Jose-Cunilleras et al. 2004). Consequently, barley is a good substrate for muscle glycogen synthesis and thus a suitable feed for high-performance horses.

RABBITSBarley is a viable grain source for all aspects of rabbit production. As barley contains more fibre than wheat or corn, it may be a more desirable grain source for rabbits (Acedo-Rico et al. 2010). Barley grain can be included in the diets of growing rabbits at 10 to 25% DM (de Blas et al. 2010) with a maximum level of 40 to 45% DM (Seroux, 1984; Table 15). For breeding rabbits, recommended inclusion rates of barley are 25 to 40% DM (Pascual et al. 1998) with a maximum rate of 64% DM (Prasad et al. 1998). Flaking or grinding of barley has been reported to have no added benefit for the nutritional value of barley for rabbits and thus, as with sheep, it can be fed to rabbits whole.

AQUACULTUREBarley grain is included in fish diets as a starch source for energy (Table 15). Starch in extruded pellets also helps contribute to their buoyancy. Energy and nutrient digestibility of barley grains (30% DM) with various starch types (waxy vs. normal) were compared as feed for rainbow trout. Results indicated that waxy barley had higher digestible energy than non-waxy barley (Gaylord et al. 2009). Barley meal (50% DM) has also been included in diets of common carp and tilapia (Degani et al. 1997a, b). Barley meal provides 6.69 and 14.36 kJ digestible energy per g of barley to common carp and adult tilapia, respectively. Barley grain has lower protein and amino acid availability than fish meal for rainbow trout (Gaylord et al. 2010). Development of a barley protein concentrate has shown promise as a protein source in pilot feeding studies with salmon and trout (Durham, 2010).

31

REFERENCESAasen, A., Baron, V. S., Clayton, G. W., Dick, A. C., & McCartney, D. H. (2004). Swath grazing potential of spring cereals, field pea and mixtures with other species. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 84, 1051-1058.

Acedo-Rico J., Mendez, J., & Santomá, G. (2010). Feed manufacturing. In C. de Blas & J. Wiseman (Eds.), The nutrition of the rabbit (2nd ed.) (pp. 200-221). Wallingford, England: CAB International.

Atiq-ur-Rehman, A., Asghar, R. S., & Sultani, M. I. (1992). Effect of the flushing and late-gestation supplementary feeding on fertility and productivity of Harnai ewes. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research, 13, 89-94.

Atsan, T., Emsen E., Yaprak, M., Dagemir, V., & Diaz, C. A. G. (2007). An economic assessment of differently managed sheep flocks in eastern Turkey. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 6, 407-414.

Avondo, M., Pagano, R. I., DeAngelis, A., & Pennisi, P. (2013). Diet choice by goats as effect of milk production level during late lactation. Animal, 7, 1113-1118.

Badr, A., Müller, K., Schäfer-Pregl, R., Rabey, H. E., Effgen, S., Ibrahim, H. H., . . . Salamini, F. (2000). On the origin and domestication history of barley (Hordeum vulgare). Molecular Biology and Evolution, 17, 499-510.

Baik, B. K., & Ullrich, S. E. (2008). Barley for food: Characteristics, improvement, and renewed interest. Journal of Cereal Science, 48, 233-242.

Bennett, C. D., Classen H. L., & Riddell, C. (2002a). Feeding broiler chickens wheat and barley diets containing whole, ground or pelleted grain. Poultry Science, 81, 995-1003.

Bennett, C. D., Classen, H. L., Schwean, K., & Riddell, C. (2002b). Influence of whole barley and grit on live performance and health of turkey toms. Poultry Science, 81, 1850-1855.

Black, J. L. (2008). Premium grains for livestock program final report: An overview of outcomes from PGLP 1 & 2. Sydney, Australia: The University of Sydney. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5441

Canadian Grain Commission. (2014). Canadian grain exports, crop year 2011-2012. Winnipeg, Canada: The Commission.

Canadian Grain Commission. (2013). Official grain grading guide. Winnipeg, Canada: The Commission.

Christen, S. D., Hill, T. M., & Williams, M. S. (1996). Effects of tempered barley on milk yield, intake, and digestion kinetics of lactating Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 79, 1394-1399.

Cleary, L. J., Van Herk, F., Gibb, D.J., McAllister, T. A., & Chaves, A. V. (2011). Dry matter digestion kinetics of two variables

of barley grain sown with different seeding and nitrogen fertilization rates in four different sites across Canada. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 24, 965-973.

de Blas, C., & Mateos, G. G. (2010). Feed formulation. In C. de Blas & J. Wiseman (Eds.), Nutrition of the rabbit (2nd ed.) (pp. 222-232). Wallingford, England: CAB International.

Degani, G., Yehuda, Y., Viola, S., & Degani, G. (1997a). The digestibility of nutrient sources for common carp, Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus. Aquaculture Research, 28, 575-580.

Degani, G., Viola, S., & Yehuda, Y. (1997b). Apparent digestibility of protein and carbohydrate in feed ingredients for adult tilapia (Oreochromis aureus x O. niloticus). Israeli Journal of Aquaculture, 49, 15-123.

Dehghan-banadaky, M., Corbett, R., & Oba, M. (2007). Effects of barley grain processing on productivity of cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 137, 1-24.

Durham, S. (2010). Barley examined as source for potential fish feed. Australian Grain, 20(2), 20-23. Edney, M. J., O’Donovan, J. T., Turkington, T. K., Clayton, G. W., McKenzie R., Juskiw, P., . . . May, W. (2012). Effects of crop management on barley

quality and endosperm modification during malting. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 92, 2672-2678.

Eggum, B. O. (1969). Evaluation of protein quality and the development of screening techniques. In New approaches to breeding for improved plant protein (pp. 125-135). Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency. Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2014). FAO statistical programme of work (FAOStat). Retrieved from http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E


Fedele, V., Claps, S., Rubino, R., Calandrelli, M., & Pilla, A. M. (2002). Effect of free-choice and traditional feeding systems on goat feeding behaviour and intake. Livestock Production Science, 74, 19-31.

Fox, G. P. (2010). Chemical composition in barley grains and malt quality. In G. Zhang and C. Li (Eds.), Genetics and improvement of barley malt quality (pp. 63-98). Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

Gaylord, T. G., Barrows, F. T., & Rawles, S. D. (2010). Apparent amino acid availability from feedstuffs in extruded diets for rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Aquaculture Nutrition, 16, 400-406.

Gaylord, T. G., Barrows, F. T., Rawles, S. D., Liu, K., Bregitzer, P., Hang, A., . . . Morris, C. (2009). Apparent digestibility of nutrients and energy in extruded diets from cultivars of barley and wheat selected for nutritional quality in rainbow

trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Aquaculture Nutrition, 15, 306-312.

GMO Compass. (2010). Barley. Retrieved January 29, 2014, from www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/plants/36.barley. html

Harrold, R. L. (2000). Feeding barley to swine. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University Extension Service. Retrieved from http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/585/feeding-barley-to-swine.

Hatfield, P. G., Hopkins, J. A., Pritchard, G. T., & Hunt, C. W. (1997). Effects of amount of whole barley, barley bulk density

and form of roughage on feedlot lamb performance, carcass characteristics and digesta kinetics. Journal of Animal Science, 75, 3353-3366.

Hayman, J. M., & Munro, J. M. (1985). Silage and grain for flushing ewes. In Proceedings of the 15th Seminar of the Sheep and Beef Cattle Society of the New Zealand Veterinary Association (pp. 120-153). Invercargill, New Zealand: The Society.

Htoo, J. K., Sauer, W. C., Yáñez, J. L., Cervantes, M., Zhang, Y., Helm, J. H., & Zijlstra, R. T. (2007). Effect of low-phytate barley or phytase supplementation to a barley-soybean meal diet on phosphorus retention and excretion by grower pigs.

Journal of Animal Science, 85, 2941-2948.

Hussein, H. S., Vogedes, L. A., Fernandez, G. C. J., & Frankeny, R. L. (2004). Effects of cereal grain supplementation on

apparent digestibility of nutrients and concentrations of fermentation end-products in the feces and serum of horses consuming alfalfa cubes. Journal of Animal Science, 82, 1986-1996.

Jose-Cunilleras, E., Taylor, L. E., & Hinchcliff, K. W. (2004). Glycemic index of cracked corn, oat groats and rolled barley in horses. Journal of Animal Science, 82, 2623-2629.

Joy, M., Alvarez-Rodrigues, J., Revilla, R., Delfa, R., & Ripoli, G. (2008). Ewe metabolic performance and lamb carcass traits in pasture and concentrate-based production systems in Churra Tensina breed. Small Ruminant Research, 75, 24-35.

Klevenhusen, F., Hollmann, M., Podstatzky-Lichtenstein, L., Krametter-Frotscher, R., & Achenback, J. R. (2013). Feeding barley grain-rich diets altered electrophysiological properties and permeability of the ruminal wall in a goat model. Journal of

Dairy Science, 96, 2293-2302.

Lampe, J. F., Bass, T. J., & Mabry, J. W. (2006). Comparison of grain sources for swine diets and their effect on meat and fat quality traits. Journal of Animal Science, 84, 1022-1029.

Lardy, G. P., Ulmer, D. N., Anderson, V. L., & Caton, J. S. (2004). Effects of increasing level of supplemental barley on forage intake, digestibility, and ruminal fermentation in steers fed medium-quality grass hay. Journal of Animal Science, 82,

3662-3668.

Liu, K. (2011). Comparison of lipid content and fatty acid composition and their distribution within seeds of 5 small grain species. Journal of Food Science, 76, 334-342.

Loy, T. W., Klopfenstein, T. J., Erickson, G. E., Macken, C. N., & Macdonald, J. C. (2008). Effect of supplemental energy source and frequency on growing calf performance. Journal of Animal Science, 86, 3504-3510.

Manthey, F. A., Hareland, G. A., & Huseby, D. (1999). Soluble and insoluble dietary fibre content and composition in oat. Cereal Chemistry, 76, 417-420.

33

Mathison, G. W. (1996). Effects of processing on the utilization of grain by cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 58, 113-125.

McCartney, D., Fraser, J., & Ohama, A. J. (2008). Annual cool season crops for grazing by beef cattle. A Canadian review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 88, 517-533.

McGregor, B. A., & Whiting, C. J. (2013). Grain excretion by goats fed whole or processed cereals with various roughages. Small Ruminant Research, 115, 21-28.

McGregor, G., Oba, M., Dehghan-Banadaky, M., & Corbett, R. (2007). Extent of processing of barley grain did not affect productivity of lactating dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 138, 272-284.

Morgan, E. K., Gibson, M. L., Nelson, M. L., & Males, J. R. (1991). Utilization of whole or steam-rolled barley fed with forages to wethers and cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 33, 39-78.

National Research Council. (1994). Nutrient requirements of poultry (9th rev. ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved from http://www.lamolina.edu.pe/zootecnia/biblioteca2012/NRC%20Poultry%201994[1].pdf

National Research Council. (2001). Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle (7th rev. ed.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2007). Nutrient requirements of small ruminants: sheep, goats, cervids and new world camelids. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). Nutrient requirements of swine (11th rev. ed.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Naumann, E., van Rees, A. B., Oenning, G., Oeste, R., Wydra, M., & Mensink, R. P. (2006). β-glucan incorporated into a fruit drink effectively lowers serum LDL-cholesterol concentrations. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 83, 601-605.

Newman, C. W., & Newman, R. K. (2004). Hulless barley for food and feed. In E. Abdel-Aal & P. Wood (Eds.), Specialty grains for food and feed (pp. 167-202). St. Paul, MN: American Association of Cereal Chemists.

O’Donovan, J. T., Clayton, G. W., Harker, K. N., Turkington, T. K., & Lupwayi, N. Z. (2009). Relationship between seeding rate and plant density of hulled and hull-less barley as influenced by seeding depth in a no-tillage system. Canadian Journal

of Plant Science, 89, 645-647.

O’Donovan, J. T., Turkington, T. K., Edney, M. J., Clayton, G. W., McKenzie, R. H., Juskiw, P. E., . . . May, W. E. (2011). Seeding rate, nitrogen rate, and cultivar effects on malting barley production. Agronomy Journal, 103, 709-716.

O’Donovan, J. T., Turkington, T. K., Edney, M. J., Juskiw, P. E., McKenzie, R. H., Harker, K. N., . . . Smith, E. ( 2012). Effect of seeding date and seeding rate on malting barley production in western Canada. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 92,

321-330.

Pascual, J. J., Sebastian, A., Cervera, C., Blas, E., & Fernadzez-Carmona, J. (1998). Effets de la substitution de l’orge par de l’huile de soja sur les performances de lapins allaitantes: premiers résultats. In Proceedings of the 7èmes Journées de la

Recherche Cunicole (pp. 167-170), Lyon, France.

Perez, J. F., Gasa, J., Castrillo, C., & Guada, J. A. (1995). Effect of reproductive state and concentrate supplementation on liquid and particulate turnover in the rumen of ewes given ammonia-treated straw. Australian Journal of Agricultural

Research, 46, 1579-1586.

Priolo, A., Micol, D., Agrabriel, J., Prachhe, S., & Dransfield, E. (2002). Effect of grass or concentrate feeding systems on lamb carcass and meat quality. Meat Science, 62, 179-185.

Prýma, J., Ehrenbergerová, J., Belcrediová, N., & Vaculová, K. (2007). Tocol content in barley. Acta Chimica Slovenica, 54, 102-105.

Regmi, P. R., Sauer, W. C., & Zijlstra, R. T. (2008). Prediction of in vivo apparent total tract energy digestibility of barley in grower pigs using an in vitro digestibility technique. Journal of Animal Science, 86, 2619-2626 (Appendix 1).

Reynolds, W. K., Hunt, C. W., Eckert, J. W., & Hall, M. H. (1992). Evaluation of the feeding value of barley as affected by variety and location using near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Journal of Animal Science, 70 (Suppl. 1), 131 (abstract).

Schlau, N., Duineveld, L., Yang, W. Z., McAllister, T. A., & Oba, M. (2013). Precision processing barley grain did not affect productivity of lactating dairy cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 93, 261-268.


Scott, T. A. (2010). What are the consequences of defining the minimum levels of phosphorus in animal diets? Retrieved from http://www.anacan.org/files/4132_ANAC_PolicyPaper_Eng_04.pdf

Scott, T. A., Leslie, M. A., & Karimi, A. (2001). Measurements of enzyme response with hulless barley-based diets full-fed to Leghorn and broiler chicks or restricted-fed broiler chicks. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 81, 403-410.

Scott, T. A., Silversides, F. G., Classen, H. L., Swift, M. L., & Bedford, M. R. (1998). Effect of cultivar and environment on the feeding value of western Canadian wheat and barley samples with and without enzyme supplementation. Canadian

Journal of Animal Science, 78, 649-656.

Seroux, M. (1984). The use of monocereal diets for rabbits. In Proceedings of the 3rd World Rabbit Congress (pp. 331-339). Rome, Italy: WRSA Publications.

Silveira, C., Oba, M., Beauchemin, K. A., & Helm, J. (2007). Effect of grains differing in expected ruminal fermentability on productivity of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 90, 2852-2859.

Smith, E. G., O’Donovan, J. T., Henderson, W. J., Turkington, T. K., McKenzie, R. H., Harker, K. N., . . . May, W. E. (2012). Return and risk of malting barley production in western Canada. Agronomy Journal, 104, 1374-1382.

Sormunen-Cristian, R. (2013). Effect of barley and oats on feed intake, live weight gain and some carcass characteristics of fattening lambs. Small Ruminant Research, 109, 22-27.

Stanford, K., McAllister, T. A., Zu, Z., Pickard, M., Cheng, K.-J. (1995). Comparison of lignosulfonate-treated canola meal and soybean meal as rumen undegradable protein supplements for lambs. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 75, 371-377.

Stock, R. A., & Britton, B. A. (1993). Acidosis in feedlot cattle. In C. Parrot (Ed.), Scientific update on Rumensin/Tylan for the professional feedlot consultant (pp. A1-A13). Indianapolis, IN: Elanco Animal Health.

Turkington, T. K., O’Donovan, J. T., Edney, M. J., Juskiw, P. E., McKenzie, R. H., Harker, K. N., . . . Smith, E. (2012). Effect of crop residue, nitrogen rate and fungicide application on malting barley productivity, quality and foliar disease severity.

Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 92, 577-588.

Wang, Y., Greer, D., & McAllister, T. A. (2003). Effects of moisture, roller setting, and saponin-based surfactant on barley processing, ruminal degradation of barley, and growth performance by feedlot steers. Journal of Animal Science, 81,

2145-2154.

Webster, F. H. (Ed.). (1986). Oats: Chemistry and technology. St. Paul, MN: American Association of Cereal Chemists.

Yang, W. Z., Beauchemin, K. A., & Rode, L. M. (2000). Effects of barley grain processing on extent of digestion and production of lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 83, 554-568.

albertabarley.com

barley grainbarley can be two-row or six-row and hulled or hulless. the barley type used can result...

Documents