barley...steven e. ullrich significance of barley barley ( hordeum vulgare l.) is one of the most...

BarleyProduction,

Improvement, and Uses

COPYRIG

HTED M

ATERIAL

3

Chapter 1 Signifi cance, Adaptation, Production,

and Trade of Barley

Steven E. Ullrich

SIGNIFICANCE OF BARLEY

Barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.) is one of the most

ancient crops, and it has played a role in the

human development of agriculture, civilizations,

and cultures and the sciences of agronomy, physi-

ology, genetics, breeding, malting, and brewing.

It is grown and/or used around the world. For

many centuries, barley has fed livestock, poultry,

people, and people ’ s spirit. Barley was among

the fi rst domesticates playing an important role

during the hundreds or thousands of years of

human transition from a hunting and gathering to

agrarian lifestyle in the “ Fertile Crescent ” of the

Near East starting at least 10,000 years ago. The

Fertile Crescent is considered the fi rst of at least

seven centers of agriculture origin in the world

(Smith 1998 ). Barley, along with wheat ( Triticum

spp.), pea ( Pisum sativum L.), lentil ( Lens culinaris L.), goat ( Capra aegagrus hircus ), sheep ( Ovis aries ), and cow ( Bos taurus ), set the stage for the

evolution of agriculture in the Near East, which

eventually spread to North Africa, further east

and north in Asia, and to Europe (Smith 1998 ).

A concise history of the spread of barley cultiva-

tion is presented by Fischbeck (2002) , and an

update on the probable origin or origins of barley

is presented in Chapter 2 of this book.

The prominence of barley can be seen from the

interpretation of its genus name, Hordeum , which

derives from the word by which Roman gladiators

were known, “ hordearii, ” or “ barley men, ” for

Barley: Production, Improvement, and Uses. Edited by Steven

E. Ullrich © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

eating barley to give them strength and stamina

(Percival 1921 ). The English word “ barn ” derives

from barley plus “ aern ” or barley house/building

( Webster ’ s Dictionary , various versions). Barley

was presumably fi rst used as human food, raw or

roasted and in breads, porridges, and soups, but

eventually evolved primarily into a feed, malting,

brewing, and distilling grain. Barley ’ s decrease in

prominence as a food grain was due in part to the

rise in prominence of wheat and rice. In recent

times, 55% – 60% of the barley crop has been used

for feed, 30% – 40% for malt, 2% – 3% for food,

and about 5% for seed.

Barley is best known around the world today

as a feed grain and as the premier malting and

brewing grain. Barley varieties are quite variable

in feed quality, and barley is often compared to

maize or corn ( Zea mays ) and wheat in feed

quality. Considerable research and debate about

the attributes of each have ensued throughout

modern times. The presence of a fi brous hull on

barley grain generally puts barley at a disadvan-

tage, especially for use by nonruminants, mainly

swine and poultry. However, the advantage of

maize or wheat over barley is not clear - cut, and

some studies have shown that barley can be of

equal or greater quality compared with maize or

wheat (Bowland 1974 ; Owens et al. 1995 ).

Furthermore, hulless barley, due to removal of

the hull with threshing, tends to be superior to

hulled barley and more on par with maize and

wheat (Joseph 1924 ; Mitchall et al. 1976 ; Bhatty

et al. 1979 ). Given the adaptation of barley versus

maize, barley is very important in areas where

maize is not produced, especially where the

climate is cool and/or dry, that is, in western

4 Barley: Production, Improvement, and Uses

North America, northern Europe, the Middle

East, North Africa, and the Andean region of

South America. Barley is utilized as forage as well

as for grain. Details of barley feed use, character-

istics, and value are given in Chapter 16 of this

book.

When most people think of the composition of

beer, they think of barley (but not necessarily

malt). However, in much of Africa, sorghum

( Sorghum bicolor ), maize, and/or millet (various

genera/species) beers abound and are part of cul-

tural traditions. The history of alcoholic drinks

including beer goes back thousands of years. The

use of barley for beer likewise goes back thousands

of years and dates from archeological evidence to

at least 8000 years ago in the Middle East and in

Egypt (Arnold 1911 ). The long history of brewing

means that barley has long been selected for

improvements in malting and brewing qualities.

The traditions of using barley for brewing in

the Middle East gradually migrated north into

Europe where these traditions grew even stronger.

Eventually, with the far reach of Europeans during

the exploration and colonization of unknown and

lesser known parts of the world (Americas, Africa,

East Asia, and Australia), barley brewing tradi-

tions spread worldwide. Today, the sciences of

malting and brewing are highly developed. Malting

barley breeding is quite refi ned as well, with a host

of barley and malt traits under consideration by

industry. However, in spite of advanced technolo-

gies of analyses (e.g., near infrared) and breeding

(marker - assisted selection), actual malting of grain

and wet chemical analyses are still the principal

procedures for analysis and selection. Major

traits relate to the germination process and the

physical and chemical composition of barley

and malt including such things as kernel confor-

mation, hull, carbohydrates, proteins, enzymes,

and enzyme activity. Whereas the preponderance

of malted barley is used for beer, some types are

used for distilling (e.g., Scotch whisky and Irish

whiskey) and for food applications. Details of traits

and trait improvement can be found in Chapters 8

and 15 of this book.

Although barley utilization for food is rela-

tively minor on a global basis today, throughout

its history, barley has remained an important and

major food source for some cultures principally

in western and eastern Asia, as well as in the

Himalayan nations and in northern and eastern

Africa (Grando and Macpherson 2005 ; Newman

and Newman 2006, 2008 ; Baik and Ullrich 2008 ).

Furthermore, there has been a resurgence of

interest and use of barley for food, primarily in

the developed world due to an increasing empha-

sis on incorporating a diversity of whole grains in

people ’ s diets for health benefi ts. In addition, in

2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

issued an endorsement of the benefi ts of foods

containing barley principally due to its soluble

fi ber content ( β - glucans), which has been shown

to lower blood cholesterol levels with implications

for heart health. Barley also seems to lower blood

glucose levels (glycemic index) with implications

for those suffering from diabetes. See Grando and

Macpherson (2005) , Newman and Newman

(2008) , and Chapter 17 of this book for an

expansion of barley food topics.

Barley has fi gured prominently on the frontiers

of science in general, but especially in genetics.

There is a long history of genetics research

focused on trait inheritance and mapping in the

conventional sense (Smith 1951 ; Nilan 1964 ;

Barley Genetics Newsletter, 1971 – 2010 ), also on

induced mutagenesis (Nilan 1981 ), and more

recently on molecular and physical mapping and

genetic analyses (e.g., Graner et al. 1991 ; Hayes

et al. 1993 ; Kleinhofs et al. 1993 ; Yu et al. 2000 ;

Kleinhofs and Han 2002 ; Caldwell et al. 2004 ;

Close et al. 2004 ; Druka et al. 2006, 2008 ; Hayes

and Szucs 2006 ; Kumlehn et al. 2006 ; Varshney

et al. 2007 ; Xu and Jia 2007 ; Massman and Smith

2008 ; Potokina et al. 2008 ; Hamblin et al., 2010 ).

Chapters 3 – 8 of this book focus on basic and

applied molecular genetics and breeding advances

in barley that are representative of the state of

the science in crop species and plant species in

general. As barley is one of the fi rst domesticated

crop species, much research has been done on the

origins of barley and related small grains as well

as phylogeny and systematics (see Chapter 2 of

this book). Considerable research has been done

with barley as a model in physiological and ana-

tomical areas, especially of the grain (see Chapters

13 and 14 ).

Signifi cance, Adaptation, Production, and Trade of Barley 5

ADAPTATION OF BARLEY

Barley has evolved to include several morphologi-

cal and commercial forms, including winter,

spring, two - row, six - row, awned, awnless,

hooded, covered, naked, hulless, and malting,

feed (grain and forage), and food types. Barley is

arguably the most widely adapted cereal grain

species with good drought, cold, and salt toler-

ance. It is generally produced in temperate (winter

and/or spring planting) and semiarid subtropical

(winter planting) climates. It does not tolerate

highly humid warm climates. Grain production

occurs at higher latitudes and altitudes and farther

into deserts than any other cereal crop. For

example, in the Nordic countries of Norway,

Sweden, and Finland, six - row spring barley is

grown further north (above 65 ° N lat.) than winter

and spring two - row barley and spring wheat and

oat. On the Altiplano of the Andean nations of

Peru and Bolivia, barley is grown for grain at

higher elevations (over 4500 m) than oat, wheat,

and maize. In the North African country of

Algeria, barley is grown further south toward the

Sahara than the most drought - tolerant durum

wheats (author, personal observation). Whereas

barley can thrive and produce an acceptable crop

at some of the earth ’ s agricultural margins, it does

very well under well - drained loam soils, at mod-

erate rainfall (400 – 800 mm) or under irrigation,

and at moderate temperature regimes (15 – 30 ° C).

Barley production and reactions to biotic and

nonbiotic stresses are detailed in Chapters 9 – 12

of this book. Below are a few rough illustrations

of barley adaptation based on estimated yields

from the United Nations Food and Agriculture

Organization (FAO) database (FAO 2009 ). The

estimated average barley yield in the world in

2006 was 2497 kg/ha , and in Western Europe,

with a nearly ideal climate for barley with rela-

tively high inputs of fertilizer and pesticides, it

was 5956 kg/ha or 238% of the world average.

Moving to warmer and drier Southern Europe,

the average yield in 2006 was 2715 kg/ha. Moving

to cooler and wetter Northern Europe, it was

4253, and in the Nordic countries mentioned

above, the yield was 3550 kg/ha. The average

yield across high - altitude Bolivia and Peru was

1045 kg/ha. In the North African countries bor-

dering the Sahara desert, the average yield was

1168 kg/ha. Of course, a number of factors affect

yield besides the adaptation effects of climate,

soil, and biotic factors ( + and − ), including the

level of farmer inputs of cultivar, fertilizer, pesti-

cides, and irrigation. All these things are refl ected

in the yield numbers above, especially lower

inputs toward the margins of adaptation in south-

ern and northern Europe, the Andean nations in

South America, and in the Sahara desert border-

ing nations in North Africa. The wide adaptation

of barley and production around the world have

stimulated much study on the reactions of barley

to abiotic and biotic stresses (see Chapters 10 – 12

of this book), and research and development of

best management practices for barley production

(see Chapter 9 of this book).

GLOBAL PRODUCTION OF BARLEY

How does barley fi gure into the whole scheme of

crop agriculture around the world? Barley in

recent years has been the fi fth most - produced

crop in the world and the fourth most - produced

cereal on an approximate dry weight basis (Table

1.1 ). The three major food cereal grains, in order

of production, are maize, rice ( Oryza sativa ), and

wheat, which lead annual world crop production

with 2000 – 2007 averages of ∼ 600 + M t (millions

of metric tons) each by a wide margin. Soybean

( Glycine max ), barley, sugarcane ( Saccharum

spp.), potato ( Solanum tuberosum ), and sorghum

follow (196, 140, 93, 61, 58 M t , respectively).

There have been some major shifts in production

rank of the top crops over the last 20 years. Twenty

years ago, the production rank from the top was

wheat, maize, rice, barley, soybean, sugarcane,

sorghum, and potato. The average rank so far in

the twenty - fi rst century is maize, rice, wheat,

soybean, barley, sugarcane, potato, and sorghum.

The shifts have involved greater surges in maize,

rice, and soybean relative to the other crops (FAO

2009 ). In the mid - 1980s, barley production was

nearly twice that of soybean (160 vs. 88 M t). Table

1.2 complements Table 1.1 by reporting area and

yield averages for the top six grain crops in the


Table 1.1 Global production estimates for 8 years of the top eight crops expressed “ as is, ” in millions of metric tons (M t), except dry weight (dw) for sugarcane and potato

Year/Crop 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Average

Maize 593 616 604 641 727 713 695 785 672 Rice (paddy) 599 598 569 584 607 632 635 650 609 Wheat 586 590 575 560 633 629 606 607 598 Soybean 161 178 182 188 206 215 222 216 196 Barley 133 144 137 142 154 141 139 136 140 Sugarcane (dw) 88 88 93 95 93 91 98 102 93 Potato (dw) 63 59 60 60 63 61 60 61 61 Sorghum 56 60 54 59 58 59 56 65 58

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ( http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.aspx ).

Table 1.2 Global grain production estimates for 8 years: fi rst row in area harvested in millions of hectares (M ha), second row and grain yield in metric tons per hectare (t/ha)

Year/Crop 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Average

Wheat 215 2.7

215 2.7

214 2.7

208 2.7

217 2.9

221 2.8

216 2.8

217 2.8

215 2.8

Rice (paddy) 154 3.9

152 3.9

148 3.9

148 3.9

150 4.0

154 4.1

154 4.1

157 4.2

152 4.1

Maize 140 4.2

139 4.4

138 4.4

142 4.5

146 5.0

145 4.9

144 4.8

158 5.0

144 4.7

Soybean 74 2.2

77 2.3

79 2.3

83 2.3

91 2.3

93 2.3

93 2.4

95 2.3

85 2.3

Barley 55 2.4

56 2.6

55 2.5

58 2.5

58 2.7

56 2.5

56 2.5

57 2.4

56 2.5

Sorghum 41 1.4

44 1.4

41 1.3

45 1.3

41 1.4

44 1.3

42 1.4

44 1.5

43 1.4


world. One can get a good impression of differ-

ences in biology, adaptation, and production con-

ditions from the combination of data in these two

tables, especially relative yield data. For example,

maize and rice are mostly produced under much

less water stress than wheat and barley. This is

refl ected in total production versus total area

grown and in global 8 - year average yield estimates

of 4.7 and 4.1 versus 2.8 and 2.5 t/ha for maize and

rice versus wheat and barley, respectively. The

fact that maize outyields rice (and many other

crops) is at least partially refl ective of the more

effi cient C4 versus C3 photosynthetic system of

maize versus rice. The gap may be less than

expected under similar production conditions

because globally, maize typically experiences

more drought than rice. Patterns over time in the

overall production of these crops in Table 1.1 are

refl ected in the patterns in hectarage and yield in

Table 1.2 . Most area and yield data have been

relatively stable in the twenty - fi rst century so far.

Exceptions are the trends of increasing yield of

maize and increasing hectarage of soybean. Barley

production, area, and yield data have been rela-

tively stable this century, but barley has decreased

by about 12% in overall production in the past 20

years.

The adaptation of barley described above can

be seen in the regional distribution of barley pro-

duction over the globe (Table 1.3 ). Thirty - eight

countries in Europe (including the Russian

Federation and Ukraine) produced 83 M t of

barley in 2007, which is more than 60% of the

world ’ s barley production. The 27 countries of

the European Union (EU) produced over 40% of

world production in 2007 and for the 5 - year


Table 1.3 World distribution of barley production based on estimates in millions of metric tons ( M t ), 2007

Region No. of Countries Production

World 100 136

Europe 38 83 European Union 27 59

Asia 34 22 West Asia 16 10 South Asia 7 5 East Asia 5 4 Central Asia 5 3

North America 2 17

Australia/New Zealand 2 6

Africa 16 5 North Africa 6 3 East Africa 6 2

South America 8 3


average of 2003 – 2007 (FAO 2009 ). Approximately

16% of the world ’ s barley in 2007 was produced

in 34 countries in Asia with 45% of Asian

barley produced in 16 western Asian countries.

North America (Canada and the United States)

grew 12.5% of global production, followed by

Australia/New Zealand (4.4%), 16 countries

(mostly North and East) in Africa ( ∼ 4%), and

eight countries in South America (2%).

Barley production (5 year means, 2003 – 2007)

by country is detailed in Table 1.4 . These data

again generally illustrate the adaptation of barley

and complement the data in Table 1.3 . The top

10 countries in descending order are the Russian

Federation, Canada, Germany, France, Spain,

Turkey, Ukraine, Australia, the United Kingdom,

and the United States, and they produced

approximately 67% of the world ’ s barley over

this 5 - year period (94.4/140.8 M t). Seven of the

top 10 countries are considered in Europe includ-

ing the Russian Federation, Turkey, and Ukraine.

Of these seven countries, four are currently

(2009) in the EU. Of the 27 countries listed in

Table 1.4 , 15 are in Europe and 12 of these are

currently in the EU with Turkey ’ s membership

pending. Although European countries dominate

global barley production, each continent and

Table 1.4 Barley production estimates by country — 5 - year averages (2003 – 2007)

Rank Country Production (M t)

Harvested (M ha)

Yield (t/ha)

World 140.8 57 2.6 1. Russian Federation 16.7 9.4 2.2 2. Canada 12.0 4.0 3.7 3. Germany a 11.5 2.0 7.0 4. France a 10.1 1.7 7.4 5. Spain a 9.4 3.2 3.2 6. Turkey 8.5 3.6 3.0 7. Ukraine 8.3 4.3 2.5 8. Australia 7.2 4.5 2.1 9. United Kingdom a 5.5 1.0 7.1

10. United States 5.2 1.6 4.2 11. Poland a 3.6 1.1 3.7 12. Denmark a 3.4 0.7 6.2 13. China 3.4 0.8 4.7 14. Iran 2.9 1.6 2.2 15. Czech Republic a 2.1 0.5 4.1 16. Kazakhstan 2.0 17. Finland a 1.9 18. Belarus 1.8 19. Morocco 1.8 20. Sweden a 1.5 21. Ethiopia 1.3 22. Algeria 1.3 23. India 1.3 24. Italy a 1.2 25. Ireland a 1.2 26. Argentina 1.2 27. Hungary a 1.1

a European Union member countries. Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ( http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.aspx ).

subcontinent listed in Table 1.3 is represented

by at least one country in Table 1.4 . Country

yield averages range from about 2 t/ha (Russian

Federation, Australia, and Iran) to ≥ 7 t/ha

(Germany, France, and the United Kingdom;

Table 1.4 ). The country yield averages, hectarage,

and total production refl ect relative growing con-

ditions (mainly precipitation) and management

technology (mainly soil fertility and pest man-

agement). For example, the most infl uential

factors in the countries with the lowest yields are

climate for Australia and climate and manage-

ment technology for the Russian Federation and

Iran. At the high end of the yield spectrum,

Germany, France, and the United Kingdom all

have a favorable climate and a high level of

management technology.


GLOBAL TRADE OF BARLEY

Most but not all barley - producing countries

utilize the bulk of their production domestically.

There is considerable trade of barley and barley

products. FAO estimates of global trade of barley

and barley products are summarized in Table 1.5 ,

where import and export fi gures are presented

and compared for the years 2000 and 2005. Over

20 M t of barley grain have typically been exported

and imported annually this century, globally gen-

erating about US$3 billion per year. The esti-

mated amount, value, and price of barley grain

exports and imports rose between 2000 and 2005

by about 10%, 32%, and 22%, respectively.

Barley malt trade has amounted to an estimated

5 – 6 M t/year with modest increases between 2000

and 2005 (exports: 5.5 – 6.2 M t [13%]; imports:

5.2 – 5.7 M t [10%]). The value of malt exports and

imports rose from an average of about US$1.35

billion in 2000 to about US$2.0 billion in 2005

Table 1.5 World trade estimates of barley and barley products

Year

2000 2005

Exports Imports Exports Imports

Barley grain Quantity (M t) 23.8 22.3 25.8 23.4 Value (G US$) 2.7 2.8 3.6 3.7 Price (US$/t) 114 125 139 152

Malt Quantity (M t) 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.7 Value (G US$) 1.3 1.4 2.0 2.0

Beer Quantity (M t) 6.2 6.3 9.8 9.1 Value (G US$) 4.8 5.4 8.2 7.9

Malt extract Quantity (K t) 65 120 192 125 Value (M US$) 69 116 192 147

Pearled barley Quantity (K t) 15 32 69 29 Value (M US$) 4.0 13.5 11.6 6.3

Barley fl our/grits Quantity (K t) 7 30 11 15 Value (M US$) 1.4 5.4 3.7 3.2

G, billions; M, millions; K, thousands; t, metric tons. Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ( http://faostat.fao.org/site/535/default.aspx#ancor ).

(48%). The increase in the value of malt outpaced

the increase in the quantity of malt traded during

these years. The quantity and value of beer

exports and imports grew very dramatically

between these two years. The quantity of beer

exported and imported rose from 6.2 to 9.8 M t

and from 6.3 to 9.4 M t or by 49% and 59%,

respectively. The value of beer exports rose from

US$4.8 billion to US$8.2 billion (71%) between

2000 and 2005, and the value of beer imports rose

from US$5.4 billion to US$7.9 billion (46%).

Furthermore, the increase in the value of beer

outpaced the increase in the value of malt exported

between 2000 and 2005, but import value gains

were about equal.

Other value - added barley products traded are

malt extract, pearled barley, and barley fl our and

grits. Compared to trade of barley grain, malt,

and beer, the trade of these commodities is rela-

tively minor. Generally, dramatic increases

occurred from 2000 to 2005 in the export and

import quantity and value of these commodities,

except for import numbers for pearled barley and

barley fl our and grits, which actually went down,

and in some cases dramatically. Given that all the

data presented by the FAO are estimates from

various sources with variable accuracies, export

and import numbers for the various commodities

in Table 1.5 agree fairly well. However, there are

major discrepancies, and therefore, inaccuracies

in the numbers for malt extract, pearled barley,

and barley fl our/grits.

Barley malt production data by country is dif-

fi cult to obtain. Perhaps the reason is that malt-

sters guard production information for business

purposes. Malt production capacity and pro-

duction information is scattered across various

Web sites. According to “ Worldmalt Statistics ”

( http://www.coceral.com/ ), world malt produc-

tion capacity is estimated at about 22 M t/year

with actual annual production ranging from 18 to

22 M t in recent years. The EU countries typically

produce 8 – 9 M t/year, about 42% of the world

total. Typically, the top fi ve EU malt producers

in descending order are Germany, the United

Kingdom, France, each with over a million

metric tons, followed by Belgium ( ∼ 700,000 t),

and Spain and/or the Czech Republic ( ∼ 500,000


t each). Furthermore, this Web site indicates that

of the approximate 20 M t of malt used per year

globally, about 94% is used for beer, 4% for dis-

tillation, and 2% for food. Other estimates of

annual malt production/capacity include a 5 - year

(2002 – 2006) average production of approximately

1.8 M t in the United States (calculated from net

import/export data from the United States

Department of Agriculture [USDA] Foreign

Agriculture Service [ http://www.fas.usda.gov/

ustrade/ ] and malt used in breweries from the

U.S. Department of Treasury Alcohol and

Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau [ http://www.

ttb.gov/beer/beer - stats.shtml ]), approximately

1.2 M t capacity for Canada ( http://www.wheat-

growers.ca/ ), about 700,000 t production for

Australia ( http://www.barleyaustralia.com/ ),

and 4 + M t capacity for China (Bormann 2007 ).

China is capable of producing more malt than any

other country in the world based on the data pre-

sented above. The surging economy in China in

almost all sectors including the agricultural sector

is well - known, so it is not surprising to see China ’ s

large capacity to produce malt. According to

Bormann (2007) , beer consumption has risen dra-

matically, driving an increasing demand for malt.

In 1989, per capita beer consumption in China

was ∼ 5 L; in 1999, it was ∼ 15 L, and the projection

for 2009 is for over 25 L. In 1990, the demand for

malt by Chinese brewers was 0.8 M t, and in 2000,

it was 2.7 M t. By 2004, 200 maltsters had devel-

oped the capacity to produce 4.3 M t of malt.

Whereas China annually has imported about 2 M t

of barley in recent years, some of which is malting

barley, it imports very little higher - cost malt, only

about 3000 – 4000 t/year (FAO 2009 ). China,

which has roughly the same amount of crop

land and 4.4 times the population of the United

States, has surged to the forefront in the produc-

tion of a number of agricultural commodities.

It is the number 1 producer, globally, of rice,

wheat, potato, sweet potato ( Ipomoea batatas ), groundnut ( Arachis hypogaea ), cotton ( Gossypium

spp.), rapeseed ( Brassica spp.), squash ( Cucurbita

spp.), peach ( Prunus persica ), apple ( Pyrus malus ), tobacco ( Nicotiana tabacum ), and cabbage

( Brassica oleracea / B. chinensis ). China is number

2 in maize, number 3 in banana ( Musa spp.), and

number 4 in soybean production in the world

(FAO 2009 ). China, the world ’ s most populous

nation with 1.4 billion people estimated in 2008,

is an agricultural giant.

A breakdown of leading exporting and import-

ing countries of barley and malt by quantity

traded is presented in Table 1.6 . Data are pre-

sented for the years 2000 and 2005 to illustrate

the dynamics of the trade. The EU dominates

the export trade of both barley and malt. Three

of the top fi ve exporters of barley and malt in

2000 were EU countries (barley: Germany,

France, the United Kingdom; malt: France,

Belgium, Germany), and in 2005, France and

Germany were among the top fi ve barley export-

ers, and France, Belgium, and Germany were

among the top fi ve exporters of malt . Overall,

EU countries exported 66% and 50% of the

barley in 2000 and 2005, respectively, and 67%

and 69% of the malt (FAO 2009 ). Australia

and Canada, large countries with relatively small

populations and high production, were among

the top fi ve barley and malt exporters in both

years.

There tends to be greater diversifi cation among

the top barley and malt importing countries

(Table 1.6 ). The consistently largest barley

importer by far is Saudi Arabia, taking about 25%

of the trade. Crop production is a relatively small

component of Saudi Arabia ’ s agriculture com-

pared with animal production, hence, the empha-

sis on importing feed stocks like barley. China,

Japan, and Belgium were among the top fi ve

importing countries in both 2000 and 2005. Japan,

Brazil, the Russian Federation, and Venezuela

were among the largest malt importers in both

2000 and 2005. Although the EU dominates the

export market, it is a prominent importer of

barley and malt as well, importing 25% – 30% of

the barley and about 25% of the malt traded in

the world (FAO 2009 ).

Most of the world ’ s people on every continent

associate barley malt with beer. However, in rural

areas in Africa, sorghum, maize, and millet beers

are very important in local cultures. Unless oth-

erwise indicated, the term beer in this section

refers to beer made from malted barley. The

average annual estimated global production of

10

Tabl

e 1.

6 Le

adin

g ba

rley,

mal

t, an

d be

er e

xpor

ting

and

impo

rting

cou

ntrie

s ba

sed

on q

uant

ity e

stim

ates

(mill

ions

of m

etric

tons

[ M t ]

)

2000

20

05

Barle

y M

alt

Beer

Ba

rley

Mal

t Be

er

Expo

rters

Wor

ld

23.8

W

orld

5.

5

Wor

ld

6.24

W

orld

25

.8

Wor

ld

6.2

W

orld

9.

84

G

erm

any

6.2

Fran

ce

1.1

Mex

ico

1.05

Fr

ance

5.

4 Fr

ance

1.

2 M

exic

o 1.

62

Fr

ance

4.

8 Be

lgiu

m

0.60

Th

e N

ethe

rland

s 0.

80

Aust

ralia

3.

9 Be

lgiu

m

1.1

The

Net

herla

nds

1.48

Aust

ralia

3.

0 G

erm

any

0.55

G

erm

any

0.79

U

krai

ne

3.5

Can

ada

0.55

G

erm

any

1.42

Can

ada

1.8

Can

ada

0.50

Be

lgiu

m

0.43

G

erm

any

2.9

Aust

ralia

0.

49

Belg

ium

0.

87

U

nite

d Ki

ngdo

m

1.6

Aust

ralia

0.

47

Can

ada

0.39

C

anad

a 2.

0 G

erm

any

0.42

Ire

land

0.

40

Impo

rters

Wor

ld

22.3

W

orld

5.

2

Wor

ld

6.32

W

orld

23

.4

Wor

ld

5.7

W

orld

9.

08

Sa

udi A

rabi

a 5.

4 Ja

pan

0.74

U

nite

d St

ates

2.

35

Saud

i Ara

bia

6.0

Braz

il 0.

65

Uni

ted

Stat

es

2.98

Chi

na

2.1

Braz

il 0.

64

Uni

ted

King

dom

0.

44

Chi

na

2.3

Japa

n 0.

52

Uni

ted

King

dom

0.

75

Ja

pan

1.7

Russ

ian

Fede

ratio

n 0.

56

Italy

0.

42

Spai

n 1.

6 Be

lgiu

m

0.48

Ita

ly

0.53

Belg

ium

1.

2 G

erm

any

0.31

Fr

ance

0.

37

Belg

ium

1.

4 Ru

ssia

n Fe

dera

tion

0.35

Fr

ance

0.

48

Ira

n 1.

0 Ve

nezu

ela

0.26

G

erm

any

0.32

Ja

pan

1.4

Vene

zuel

a 0.

29

Ger

man

y 0.

37

Sour

ce:

Food

and

Agr

icul

ture

Org

aniz

atio

n of

the

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

( http

://fa

osta

t.fao

.org

/site

/535

/def

ault.

aspx

#an

cor ).


barley malt beer over the 3 - year period of 2005 –

2007 was 165 M t. During this period, production

increased rather sharply (11.5%) from 156 M t in

2005 to 165 M t in 2006, and to 174 M t in 2007

(Table 1.7 ). Beer production in 2007 was 128%

of the beer production in 2000 (136 vs. 174 M t).

By continent, in 2007, Europe produced the most

beer, an estimated 57 M t (EU with 40 M t) fol-

lowed by Asia at 53 M t, North America at 35 M t,

South America at 18 M t, Africa at 8 M t, and

Australia and New Zealand at 2 M t (FAO 2009 ).

With 1.4 billion people, it is not surprising that

China is now the world ’ s largest beer producer

with an estimated 40 M t in 2007 (Table 1.7 ). The

United States is a distant number 2 with an

approximate production of 23 M t, and the

Russian Federation is a distant number 3 with

approximately 11.5 M t. Germany, Brazil, and

Mexico closely follow at numbers 4, 5, and 6,

respectively. The top 10 is rounded out with the

United Kingdom, Japan, Spain, and Poland. The

dynamics in beer production over the 3 - year

period of 2005 – 2007 are also depicted in Table

1.7 . Among the top 10 producers, China is rapidly

increasing its beer production, while the Russian

Federation, Brazil, Mexico, and Poland have been

slowly increasing production, and the United

States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan,

and Spain have been rather static in production.

Seven of the top 10 beer exporting and import-

ing countries based on quantity of trade in 2000

and 2005 were EU countries. The EU countries

as a whole exported approximately 60%, and they

imported about 40%, of the beer traded in the

world both of these years (FAO 2009 ). The top

fi ve exporting and importing countries in 2000

and 2005 are depicted in Table 1.6 along with the

quantities exported and imported. Mexico has

consistently been the leading beer exporting

country in the world. Besides the European coun-

tries listed, Canada ranked fi fth in 2000 and sixth

in 2005 (FAO 2009 ). The United States has con-

sistently ranked fi rst in the importation of beer in

the world and by a very wide margin versus the

second - ranked United Kingdom. As noted above,

global beer production has risen sharply (2007

was 128% of 2000) since the beginning of the

twenty - fi rst century. The trade of beer has risen

Table 1.7 Leading beer - producing countries based on esti-mates of quantity produced (millions of metric tons [ M t ])

2005 2006 2007

Barley beer World 156 165 174 China 31.7 35.9 40.0 United States 23.1 23.2 23.5 Russian Federation 9.1 10.0 11.5 Germany 9.5 9.9 9.7 Brazil 9.0 9.4 9.6 Mexico 7.3 7.8 8.1 United Kingdom 5.6 5.4 5.5 Japan 3.8 3.8 3.9 Spain 3.1 3.4 3.4 Poland 3.0 3.3 3.6

Sorghum beer World 6.9 Tanzania 1.92 Uganda 0.82 Nigeria 0.79 Burkina Faso 0.64 Congo 0.59 South Africa 0.56 Cameroon 0.42 Ghana 0.34

Maize beer World 2.5 South Africa 0.90 Uganda 0.62 Canada 0.52 Congo 0.14 Zambia 0.14

Millet beer World 1.5 Uganda 0.34 Tanzania 0.33 Ethiopia 0.21

Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ( http://faostat.fao.org/site/535/default.aspx#ancor ).

even more sharply with export quantity in 2006

175% of export quantity in 2000, and import

quantity in 2006 165% of that in 2000 (FAO

2009 ).

In contrast to the 165 M t of beer brewed with

barley malt in the world in 2006, there was an

estimated 6.9, 2.5, and 1.5 M t of beer brewed

with malt of sorghum, maize, and millet, respec-

tively (Table 1.7 ). Almost all of nonbarley malt

beer is brewed in Africa. Canada (for maize beer)

is the only country outside Africa among the


leading producers of these beers. The leading

countries are spread throughout sub - Saharan

Africa. From the author ’ s own experience living

in Malawi in southern Africa, msese , a maize beer,

brewed in 55 - gal oil drums, was available in rural

villages, and chibuku , another maize beer, com-

mercially produced and packaged in paperboard

cartons, was available in stores. Both types of beer

are opaque with much sediment, even chunks,

typically fi ltered out of msese, but not chibuku.

The chibuku brand was “ Shake Shake, ” probably

to admonish the consumer to mix the contents

thoroughly to get the full benefi t (nutritional?) of

the beer. Because considerable amounts of beer

are brewed locally noncommercially in villages,

the FAO production data are probably substan-

tially underestimates. Nevertheless, these beers

are produced on a much reduced scale compared

with barley malt beer and are important mostly

on a local or regional basis.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This introductory chapter sets the stage for under-

standing the importance of barley as a major global

crop. The following chapters will expand on some

of the topics briefl y discussed here. Barley has

played a major role from the era of hunting and

gathering, through the transition to agriculture,

up to the present era. Barley was one of the fi rst

plants domesticated in the fi rst agricultural region

of the world, and it has maintained its prominence

in the world for over 10,000 years in agriculture;

human and animal food, feed, and nutrition; alco-

holic beverage production and consumption; and

in the continuing development of the biological

sciences. Barley has played an important role in

plant genetics and breeding, plant physiology,

agronomy, cereal chemistry, human and animal

nutrition, plant pathology, and entomology.

Barley, as an experimental organism, has contrib-

uted to the development of scientifi c knowledge,

and science has contributed to the improvement

of barley as a crop. Barley, as the fi fth most - pro-

duced crop in the world today, involves massive

amounts of resources and people working in pro-

duction agriculture; commodity transportation

and trade; processing and end use product manu-

facture, transportation, marketing, and consump-

tion, as well as, research and development for the

improved production and use of the crop.

REFERENCES

Arnold , J.P. 1911 . Origin and History of Beer and Brewing . Wahl - Henius Institute , Chicago .

Baik , B. - K. and S.E. Ullrich . 2008 . Barley for food: charac-teristics, improvement, and renewed interest . J. Cereal Sci. 48 : 233 – 242 .

Barley Genetics Newsletter , 1971 – 2010 . Vols. 1 – 40. Barley Genet. Newsl. Vols. 1 – 40 . Available at http://wheat.pw.usda.gov/ggpages/bgn .

Bhatty , R.S. , G.I. Christison , and B.G. Rossnagel . 1979 . Energy and protein digestibilities of hulled and hulless barley determined by swine - feeding . Can. J. Anim. Sci. 59 : 585 .

Bormann , N. 2007 . An analysis of the competitiveness of Chinese malting barley production and processing. Inst. for Farm Economics, Braunschweig . Available at http://www.agribenchmark.org/ .

Bowland , J.P. 1974 . Comparison of several wheat cultivars and a barley cultivar in diets for young pigs . Can. J. Anim. Sci. 54 : 629 – 638 .

Caldwell , D.G. , N. McCallum , P.P. Shaw , G.J. Muehlbauer , D.F. Marshall , and R. Waugh . 2004 . A structured mutant population for forward and reverse genetics in Barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.) . Plant J. 40 : 143 – 150 .

Close , T.J. , S.I. Wanamaker , R.A. Caldo , S.M. Turner , D.A. Ashlock , J.A. Dickerson , R.A. Wing , G.J. Muehlbauer , A. Kleinhofs , and R. Wise . 2004 . A new resource for cereal genomics: 22K Barley GeneChip comes of age . Plant Physiol. 134 : 960 – 968 .

Druka , A. , G.J. Muehlbauer , I. Druka , R. Caldo , U. Baumann , N. Rostoks , A. Schreiber , R. Wise , T. Close , A. Kleinhofs , A. Graner , A. Schulman , P. Langridge , K. Sato , P. Hayes , J. McNicol , D. Marshall , and R. Waugh . 2006 . An atlas of gene expression from seed to seed through barley development . Funct. Int. Genom. 6 : 202 – 211 .

Druka , A. , I. Druka , A. Centeno , H. Li , Z. Sun , W. Thomas , N. Bonar , B. Steffenson , S. Ullrich , A. Kleinhofs , R. Wise , T. Close , E. Potokina , Z. Luo , C. Wagner , G. Schweizer , D. Marshall , M. Kearsey , R. Williams , and R. Waugh . 2008 . Towards systems genetic analysis in barley: integra-tion of phenotype, expression and genotype data into the GeneNetwork . BMC Genet. 9 : 73 . Available at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471 - 2156/9/73 .

Fischbeck , G. 2002 . Contribution of barley to agriculture: a brief overview , pp. 1 – 14 . In G.A. Slafer , J.L. Molina - Cano , R. Savin , J.L. Araus, and I. Romagosa (eds.). Barley Science: Recent Advances from Molecular Biology to Agronomy of Yield and Quality . The Haworth Press , Binghamton, NY .

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations . 2009 . FAOSTAT crop production and trade


Web sites. Available at http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/ ; http://faostat.fao.org/site/535/ .

Grando , S. and H.G. Macpherson (eds.). 2005 . Food barley: importance, uses and local knowledge . Proc. Int ’ l. Workshop on Food Barley Improvement, Hammamet, Tunisia, January 14 – 17, 2002. ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria .

Graner , A. , A. Jahoor , J. Schondelmaier , H. Siedler , K. Pillen , G. Fischbeck , G. Wenzel , and R.G. Herrmann . 1991 . Construction of an RFLP map of barley . Theor. Appl. Genet. 83 : 250 – 256 .

Hamblin , M.T. , T.J. Close , P.R. Bhat , S. Chao , J.G. Kling , K.J. Abraham , T. Blake , W.S. Brooks , B. Cooper , C.A. Griffey , P.M. Hayes , D.J. Hole , R.D. Horsley , D.E. Obert , K.P. Smith , S.E. Ullrich , G.J. Muehlbauer , and J - L. Jannick . 2010 . Population structure and linkage dis-equilibrium in US barley germplasm: Implications for association mapping . Crop Sci. 50 : 556 – 566 .

Hayes , P.M. and P. Szucs . 2006 . Disequilibrium and associa-tion in barley: thinking outside the glass . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 49 : 18385 – 18386 .

Hayes , P.M. , B.H. Liu , S.J. Knapp , F. Chen , B. Jones , T. Blake , J. Franckowiak , D. Rasmusson , M. Sorrells , S.E. Ullrich , D. Wesenberg , and A. Kleinhofs . 1993 . Quantitative trait locus effects and environmental interac-tion in a sample of North American barley germplasm . Theor. Appl. Genet. 87 : 392 – 401 .

Joseph , W.E. 1924 . Feeding pigs in drylot . Mont. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. , Bozeman, MT .

Kleinhofs , A. and F. Han . 2002 . Molecular mapping of the barley genome , pp. 31 – 63 . In G.A. Slafer , J.L. Molina - Cano , R. Savin , J.L. Araus, and I. Romagosa (eds.). Barley Science: Recent Advances from Molecular Biology to Agronomy of Yield and Quality . The Haworth Press , Binghamton, NY .

Kleinhofs , A. , A. Kilian , M.A. Saghai Maroof , R.M. Biyashev , P. Hayes , F.Q. Chen , N. Lapitan , A. Fenwick , T.K. Blake , V. Kanazin , E. Ananiev , L. Dahleen , D. Kudrna , J. Bollinger , S.J. Knapp , B. Liu , M. Sorrells , M. Heun , J.D. Franckoiak , D. Hoffman , R. Skadsen , and B.J. Steffenson . 1993 . A molecular, isozyme and morphological map of the barley ( Hordeum vulgare ) genome . Theor. Appl. Genet. 86 : 705 – 712 .

Kumlehn , J. , L. Serazetdinova , G. Hensel , D. Becker , and H. Loerz . 2006 . Genetic transformation of barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.) via infection of androgenetic pollen cultures with Agrobacterium tumefaciens . Plant Biotech. J. 4 : 251 – 261 .

Massman , J.M. and K.P. Smith . 2008 . Locating resistance QTL for Fusarium head blight using association mapping in contemporary barley breeding germplasm . Phyto-pathology 98 : S99 – S99 .

Mitchall , K.G. , J.M. Bell , and F.W. Sosulski . 1976 . Digestibility and feeding value of hulless barley for pigs . Can. J. Anim. Sci. 56 : 505 – 511 .

Newman , C.W. and R.K. Newman . 2006 . A brief history of barley foods . Cereal Foods World 51 : 4 – 7 .

Newman , R.K. and C.W. Newman . 2008 . Barley for Food and Health: Science, Technology, and Products . John Wiley and Sons , Hoboken, NJ .

Nilan , R.A. 1964 . The Cytology and Genetics of Barley 1951 – 1962 . Monographic Suppl. No. 3 Research Studies. Washington State University Press , Pullman, WA .

Nilan , R.A. 1981 . Induced gene and chromosome mutants . Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 292 : 557 – 466 .

Owens , F. , D. Secrist , and D. Gill . 1995 . Impact of grain sources and grain processing on feed intake by and perfor-mance of feedlot cattle , pp. 235 – 256 . Proc. Symp. Intake by Feedlot Cattle, Oklahoma Agric. Exp. Stn., Stillwater, OK .

Percival , J. 1921 . The Wheat Plant . Duckworth Publishers , London .

Potokina , E. , A. Druka , Z.W. Luo , R. Wise , R. Waugh , and M. Kearsey . 2008 . Gene expression quantitative trait locus analysis of 16,000 barley genes reveals a complex pattern of genome - wide transcriptional regulation . Plant J. 53 : 90 – 101 .

Smith , B.D. 1998 . The Emergence of Agriculture . Scientifi c American Library , New York .

Smith , L. 1951 . Cytology and genetics of barley . Bot. Rev. 17 : 1 – 51 , 133 – 202 , 285 – 355 .

Varshney , R.K. , T.C. Marcel , L. Ramsay , J. Russell , M.S. Roder , N. Stein , R. Waugh , P. Langridge , R.E. Niks , and A. Graner . 2007 . A high density barley microsatellite con-sensus map with 775 SSR loci . Theor. Appl. Genet. 114 : 1091 – 1103 .

Xu , S.Z. and Z.Y. Jia . 2007 . Genomewide analysis of epistatic effects for quantitative traits in barley . Genetics 175 : 1955 – 1963 .

Yu , Y. , J.P. Tomkins , R. Waugh , D.R. Frisch , D. Kudrna , A. Kleinhofs , R.S. Brueggeman , G.J. Muehlbauer , R.P. Wise , and R.A. Wing . 2000 . A bacterial artifi cial chromo-some library from barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.) and identi-fi cation of clones containing putative resistance genes . Theor. Appl. Genet. 101 : 1093 – 1099 .

barley...steven e. ullrich significance of barley barley ( hordeum vulgare l.) is one of the most...

Documents