BARLEY

GRAIN
Feed Industry Guide
FIRST
EDITION

RUMINANTS | POULTRY | SWINE | OTHER LIVESTOCK & AQUACULTURE

2015
EDITED BY: TIM MCALLISTER, PH.D., SARAH MEALE, PH.D., AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
02 Introduction
02 Feed Barley Background & Market
04 Feed Barley Production & Quality Grading
08 Nutritional Composition & Feed Value
12 Barley In Ruminant Diets
22 Barley In Swine Diets
26 Barley In Poultry Diets
30 Barley In Diets For Other Livestock
and Aquaculture
31 References

1
INTRODUCTION
This technical guide on the use FEED BARLEY
of barley grain as poultry and
livestock feed is the first to be
BACKGROUND & MARKET
S.J. Meale1, M.L. He2 and T.A. McAllister1; 1Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (smea4184@uni.
published by Alberta Barley. sydney.edu.au; tim.mcallister@agr.gc.ca); 2University of Saskatchewan (moro_he@yahoo.com)

Barley is among the most

ORIGIN & VARIETIES
important feed grains in Canada.
Domesticated in approximately 8000 BC, barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) is
It was brought to Canada in the
considered one of the oldest cultivated grains (Badr et al. 2000). Barley was
early 17th century and has been
first brought to Canada in the early 17th century by European settlers. Today,
used worldwide as both a food for
global production of barley grain is ranked fourth among major cereals for
humans and as a feed for livestock.
human food or animal feed with an estimated 132.4 M tonnes produced
Of the barley produced in Canada
annually (FAO, 2014).
each year, 80% is grown for malt
with about 20% of this achieving
Barley is a member of the grass family Poaceae. Varieties of barley are
malt standard. Barley that does not
based on morphological differences such as two-row barley or six-row
make malt, along with the 20% that
barley, and hulled (or covered) or hulless (or naked). Barley varieties are also
is grown as feed, is fed to livestock.
distinguished according to their growing season (spring or winter barley),
Feed barley is rich in starch,
their use (forage or grain), and starch composition (waxy or normal).
protein, fibre and phosphorus, and
there are no commercial varieties
CLASSIFICATION
that are genetically modified.
Barley is ultimately classified according to its end usei.e., food, malting and
general-feed barley (Canadian Grain Commission, 2008). Food barley is the
Barley is the principal grain used to
highest quality and can be used as a whole grain or after processing as refined
produce Canadian beef and there
or whole-grain flours. Both hulled and hulless barley as well as other varieties
is a growing demand for Canadian
can be used for food.
feed barley on the international
market. This guide is targeted
Malting barley consists of both hulled and hulless varieties. To ensure
at assisting international and
brewing efficiency and high quality, malt barley must meet a number of strict
Canadian feed barley consumers
specifications in order to make the malt grade. For instance, high protein
in understanding the various
content (>13% dry matter; DM) may reduce the fermentation efficiency for
facets of barley to capitalize on
brewing and cause brewing issues such as cloudiness of the beer. However,
its nutritional value as feed for all
such a property may be considered an advantage when barley is used as
classes of poultry and livestock.
livestock feed. Approximately 80% of harvested malt barley does not meet
grading standards for use in brewing, and is subsequently used as livestock
It is expected that future editions
feed. In Canada, most of the feed barley (approximately 80%) is produced in
of this guide will expand on
Alberta. A very small percentage (<1%) of barley is directly used as food.
existing knowledge of Canadian
feed barley and its utilization in
poultry and livestock production.
The present document represents
a compilation of the expertise
of Canadas 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.

BARLEY GRAIN - FEED INDUSTRY GUIDE 2

 Most of the world trade in barley is driven by countries
with expanding beer production. Thus, Canadas barley
export industry is mainly driven by the demand for malt
barley. Canadas 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 IN

CROP YEAR 2011-2012 (IN THOUSAND METRIC TONNES)

EXPORT DESTINATION AMOUNT

China, P. R. 347.2
GLOBAL PRODUCTION & TRADE Japan 282.2
In 2012, global production of barley was 132.4 M metric United States 272.9
tonnes, produced across 104 countries (FAOSTAT, 2014). Saudi Arabia 118.3
Canada is among the top five producers, with a total
Columbia 81.6
8.0 M metric tonnes produced in 2012 on approximately
4 M ha of land (Table 1). The major growing areas in Canada Mexico 40.9
are the Prairie provinces, including Alberta, Saskatchewan South Africa 31.5
and Manitoba. Ecuador 6.3
Total 1,180.9
Table 1. TOP 10 BARLEY PRODUCERS IN 2012 (IN MILLION
METRIC TONNES)
NON-GENETICALLY MODIFIED
(NON-GMO) GRAIN SOURCE
COUNTRY PRODUCTION Currently all barley on the world market is considered to
Russian Federation 14.0 be a non-genetically modified (non-GMO) grain source.
There are ongoing scientific field trials on GMO barley
France 11.4
with modified characteristics including fungal resistance
Germany 10.4 and herbicide tolerance. However, to date, no GMO barley
Australia 8.2 varieties have been approved for commercial production
Canada 8.0 (GMO Compass, 2014) and there are no GMO barley
varieties in Canada being considered for commercial
Turkey 7.1
production.
Ukraine 6.9
Spain 6.0
United Kingdom 5.5
Argentina 5.5
World total 132.4

3
FEED BARLEY protein and lower crude fibre than hulled barley, as the
hull accounts for a large proportion of the crude fibre
PRODUCTION & content of the kernel. It also contains higher levels of the
polysaccharide -glucan. This compound is considered
QUALITY GRADING undesirable for malting barley since it interferes with the
starch modification process. However, -glucan is highly
J. ODonovan Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
desirable when barley is grown for food due to linkages
(john.odonovan@agr.gc.ca)
to positive health outcomes in humans. For this reason,
hulless varieties are being developed primarily for use as
TYPES OF BARLEY
human food. Studies have shown that hulless feed barley
Barley can be two-row or six-row and hulled or hulless.
has higher digestibility, protein and energy content, and
The barley type used can result in differences in feed
lower fibre than hulled barley. The high -glucan content
intake, feed efficiency, as well as malting quality. Two-row
may prove problematic, however, when feeding to swine
barley varieties produce fewer, but larger kernels per plant
and poultry, and enzymes are frequently used to improve
than six-row varieties, so two-row barley generally results
digestibility. Other constraints to growing hulless barley
in better feed efficiency in livestock and malting quality.
in Canada include lower yields, lack of a premium, and
These differences can, to some extent, be related to kernel
difficulty in segregating the product from hulled varieties
plumpness. Kernels of six-row varieties tend to be less
within the grain transportation system.
plump, especially when produced under relatively dry
conditions. This can result in reduced starch content with
TIMING OF BARLEY SEEDING
increased protein and fibre content. This is because starch
With the relatively short growing season in Canada, virtually
accounts for a lower portion of the total kernel weight.
all of the barley is seeded in spring. In general, barley tends
Fibrous carbohydrates are less digestible than starch,
to mature earlier than other major crops, including canola
and therefore yield less available energy to livestock
and wheat, so there is a tendency among growers to seed
and poultry. Two-row varieties have tended to produce
these crops before barley. Early seeding (early April to
lower overall grain yields than their six-row counterparts;
mid-May) favours higher yields compared to later seeding
however, this is changing with the development of high-
(late May to early June). A 10% increase in barley yield and
yielding two-row varieties for both the malting and feed
a 25% increase in net economic return with early seeding
markets.
has been recorded in eight regions across Western Canada
with the exception of the Peace River region of Northern
Approximately 99% of barley grown in Canada is of hulled
Alberta (Table 3). In the Peace region, later seeding resulted
varieties in which the hull or glume is retained during
in higher yields (7%) and net economic returns (30%; Smith
the threshing process. With hulless varieties, the hull is
et al. 2012). The effect of seeding time on barley kernel
removed during threshing. Hulless barley may also be
feed quality was less pronounced. Slight increases in kernel
referred to as naked barley. Hulless barley has a major
protein (11.5 to 11.9% DM), starch (61.2 to 61.3% DM), lysine
advantage over conventional barley in transportation,
(6.06 to 6.20% DM) and soluble fibre (4.07 to 4.20% DM),
processing, and storage. Removing the hull fraction
and a decrease in kernel plumpness (90 to 88%) occurred
increases the bulk density (weight-per-unit volume)
with late seeding. It is doubtful, however, if these small
compared to hulled barley by about 25%, thus cost savings
differences would markedly affect the feed value of barley
can be considerable. Hulless barley has higher crude
for livestock and poultry.

BARLEY GRAIN - FEED INDUSTRY GUIDE 4

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

1A

Table 3. EFFECT OF TIME OF SEEDING ON BARLEY YIELD

AND NET ECONOMIC RETURN IN WESTERN CANADA1 1B

PEACE RIVER ALL OTHER

REGION REGIONS
NET NET
TIME OF YIELD YIELD
RETURN RETURN
SEEDING (KG/HA) (KG/HA)
($/HA) ($/HA)
Early 3,009 100 4,906 371
Late 3,224 142 4,412 276
Adapted from Smith et al. 2012
1
1C
SEEDING RATE
Growers 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
1D
selection. However, studies conducted at numerous
locations in Western Canada (ODonovan et al. 2012) have
shown that seeding hulled barley at 300 seeds per m2
optimized yield (Fig. 1A), reduced protein (Fig. 1B) and
-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).

5
In all regions, net economic returns were highest at 200 Fig. 2. EFFECT OF NITROGEN RATE ON BARLEY
to 300 seeds per m2 compared to lower or higher seeding QUALITY PARAMETERS
rates. On a precautionary note, the study also indicated
that seeding hulled barley above 300 seeds per m2 often 2A
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 (ODonovan 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 -glucan at
the higher seeding rates has positive implications for both
2B
malting and feed quality. More uniform kernels with low
-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 BARLEY
The 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 2C
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 2D
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 (ODonovan et
al. 2011; Edney et al. 2012) indicated that increasing nitrogen
rates decreased starch content (Fig. 2A) and increased
-glucan (Fig. 2B), soluble fibre (Fig. 2C) and lysine content
(Fig. 2D) of barley kernels.

BARLEY GRAIN - FEED INDUSTRY GUIDE 6

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 MANAGEMENT
Proper 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.
7
Table 4. EFFECT OF CROP RESIDUE TYPE ON LEAF DISEASE AND
YIELD OF BARLEY
CROP DISEASE BARLEY YIELD
RESIDUE SEVERITY1 (KG/HA)
Barley 9.8 3,735
Canola 3.9 4,134
Field pea 4.0 4,467
Total leaf disease severity (%)
1
HARVEST & STORAGE
Barley 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 VALUE
T. Vasanthan1 and S.J. Meale2; 1University of Alberta (tv3@ualberta.ca); 2 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (smea4184@uni.sydney.edu.au)

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 grainspecifically, the ratio of amylose to amylopectindetermines
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 -glucan. Barley can range
widely in its -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, -glucans have been shown to have hypocholesterolaemic properties (Naumann et al. 2006), a trait that is
desirable from a human nutrition perspective.

BARLEY GRAIN - FEED INDUSTRY GUIDE 8

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

HULLESS
COMPONENT, % HULLED REGULAR HULLED WAXY HULLESS REGULAR CORN
WAXY
Starch 58.23 55.14 62.75 57.43 62.55
-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 3.48
Acid detergent fibre
1
Neutral detergent fibre
2

9
PROTEIN & AMINO ACIDS Table 7. MACRONUTRIENTS IN BARLEY GRAIN
The value of protein in barley reflects its concentration,
amino acid composition and digestibility. The protein MINERAL % DRY MATTER
content of hulled non-waxy, hulled waxy, hulless non-waxy
P 0.27-0.49
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. K 0.45-2.51
Barley protein has complex effects on grain quality, as high Ca 0.01-0.28
protein content results in reduced starch content, thereby Mg 0.10-0.24
decreasing overall carbohydrate content (Fox, 2010). When
S 0.14-0.19
compared to wheat, barley (hulled regular) has a lower
protein content (12.44%), but in terms of quality, barley Na 0.006-0.045
protein is comparable to wheat (Eggum, 1969). Barley has
a 4% higher protein content than corn grain (Table 5) and a VITAMINS & MINERALS
higher level of lysine (Table 6). The range in content of the main macronutrients present in
barley are presented in Table 7. Diets high in barley typically
Table 6. ESSENTIAL AMINO ACIDS IN BARLEY VS. NORMAL meet the phosphorus requirements of ruminants, but
CORN GRAIN AS % OF PROTEIN supplemental Ca in the diet is often required.

Barley is a significant source of vitamin E, one of the most

AMINO ACID BARLEY CORN important antioxidants in nature. Barley is the only cereal
Arginine 4.4 3.8 grain in which vitamin E is present in all of its isomeric forms
Histidine 2.1 2.8 (Prma et al. 2007). Tocols (tocopherols and tocotrienols) as
lipid-soluble antioxidants are vitamin E-active substances.
Isoleucine 3.6 3.7
Total tocols are present at 3.27 to 10.4 mg/100 g in barley
Lysine 3.4 2.6 grain, which is greater than in wheat or oats.
Methionine 2.6 1.8
Phenylalanine 5.2 5.1 ENERGY
Threonine 3.1 3.6 Due to its high digestible energy content (80%), barley grain
has a high metabolizable energy value for ruminants (about
Valine 5.0 5.3
12.4 MJ/kg DM; Baik and Ullrich, 2008). However, barley
contains about 95% of the digestible or metabolizable
OIL & FATTY ACIDS energy content of corn and wheat due to its higher dietary
Compared to starch and protein, the lipid content of cereal fibre content (Table 8).
grains is relatively low (~3% DM). Its contribution toward the
nutritional value as well as storage stability of cereal-based Table 8. AVERAGE ENERGY CONTENT OF COMMON CEREAL
feed, however, is important. The lipid content of barley is GRAINS
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 BARLEY CORN WHEAT OATS
range from 1.5 to 5.8, 1.9 to 3.6, 1.4 to 4.1 and 1.8 to 6.2 (% TDN, % 1
88 90 88 77
DM), respectively. Additionally, the fatty acid composition NEm
of barley is comparable to that of wheat for linolenic acid 2.03 2.24 2.18 1.85
(Mcal/kg)2
(C18:3; 3.13 vs. 3.54% total fatty acids, respectively) and
NEg
linoleic (C18:2; 51.75 vs. 59.68% total fatty acids), but acids 1.37 1.55 1.50 1.22
(Mcal/kg)3
higher than that for oats (1.25 and 41.29% total fatty acids
TDN, total digestible nutrients; 2NEm, net energy for maintenance;
1
for C18:3 and C18:2, respectively; Liu, 2011).
NEg, net energy for gain
3

BARLEY GRAIN - FEED INDUSTRY GUIDE 10

 PREDICTION OF FEED VALUE OF BARLEY GRAIN
USING NEAR INFRARED SPECTROSCOPY (NIRS)
M.L. Swift Hi Pro Feeds (mary-lou.swift@hiprofeeds.com)

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.

11
BARLEY IN RUMINANT DIETS
BEEF CATTLE
B. Lardner and G. Penner University of Saskatchewan (blardner.wbdc@pami.ca; greg.penner@usask.ca)

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 Grain

It 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.

BARLEY GRAIN - FEED INDUSTRY GUIDE 12

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 steam-rolling, temper-rolling,
70-75 40-60
feedlot cattle flaking or dry-rolling, pelleting
Finishing
dry-rolling and temper-rolling 75-80 80-90
feedlot cattle
Dairy cattle temper-rolling, steam-rolling 60-70 Varies2
Sheep whole barley (unprocessed) - 50-80
1
Processing index, see text for a description as to how to estimate
Factors such as particle length, level of forage and degree of grain processing influence the recommended level of barley grain that can be included
2

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.

13
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 cows

Swath 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.

BARLEY GRAIN - FEED INDUSTRY GUIDE 14

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 (smea4184@uni.sydney.edu.au; tim.mcallister@agr.gc.ca); 2University of
Saskatchewan (moro_he@yahoo.com)

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.

15
FINISHING BEEF CATTLE
J. McKinnon University of Saskatchewan (john.mckinnon@usask.ca)

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 barleys 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 barleys 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

TOTAL DIGESTIBLE NET ENERGY NET ENERGY CRUDE

GRAIN TYPE
NUTRIENTS (%) MAINTENANCE (MCAL/KG) GAIN (MCAL/KG) 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

Adapted from the National Research Council (2001)

1

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

BARLEY GRAIN - FEED INDUSTRY GUIDE 16

(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 (masahito.oba@ualberta.ca)

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.

17
Table 11. PRODUCTIVITY AND TOTAL TRACT STARCH DIGESTIBILITY OF COWS FED STEAM-ROLLED BARLEY GRAIN VARYING
IN EXTENT OF PROCESSING1

P LINEAR QUADRATIC
COARSE MEDIUM M-FLAT FLAT
VALUE CONTRASTS 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

Yang et al. 2000

1

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 McGregors (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.

BARLEY GRAIN - FEED INDUSTRY GUIDE 18

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 VALUE
Bulk 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 -
PRODUCTION
DMI, 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

Silveira et al. 2007

1
Schlau et al. 2013
2

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.

19
OTHER RUMINANTS
K. Stanford Alberta Agriculture Food and Rural Development (kim.stanford@gov.ab.ca)

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.
Lambs
The 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 Rams

Feeding 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.

Goats
Although 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).

BARLEY GRAIN - FEED INDUSTRY GUIDE 20

21
BARLEY IN SWINE DIETS acid composition and digestibility are therefore important.
Barley contains more lysine, threonine, methionine and
R. Zijstra and E. Beltranena University of Alberta (zijlstra@ualberta. tryptophan than corn with similar standardized ileal
ca; eduardo.beltranena@gov.ab.ca) digestibility (SID; NRC 2012; Table 13). Therefore, the
Barley grain is a source of dietary energy, so it has been inclusion of protein meals and crystal amino acids is
a main constituent of swine feeds in the Prairie provinces reduced in feeding barley as compared with corn-based
of Canada for decades. Old-timer pork producers simply diets.
calculated a pork price (100 index) to barley bushel cost to
quickly estimate their profitability. Table 13. AMINO ACID CONTENT (G/KG) AND
STANDARDIZED ILEAL DIGESTIBILITY1
ENERGY
Barley has a lower net energy (NE) value for swine as HULLED HULLESS
CORN
compared with wheat or corn grain, which is the most BARLEY BARLEY
important economic attribute for swine. However, once cost
Lysine 4.00 5.10 2.50
per MJ NE delivered on farm is calculated, barley generally
prices more readily into swine diets than wheat or corn SID 0.75 0.65 0.74
grain. The French proposed an NE value for barley of 9.7 Threonine 3.60 3.70 2.80
for sows vs. 9.5 MJ NE/kg for growing pigs. The difference is SID 0.76 0.70 0.77
because sows can derive slightly more dietary energy from Methionine 2.00 2.00 1.80
the fibre in barley through the production of short-chain
SID 0.82 0.73 0.83
fatty acids by bacterial fermentation in the hindgut.
Tryptophan 1.30 0.13 0.60
DIGESTIBILITY OF AMINO ACIDS IN SWINE SID 0.82 - 0.80
As the main constituent of swine feeds, cereal grains
NRC 2012; SID
1
contribute the bulk of amino acids in the diet. Cereal amino

BARLEY GRAIN - FEED INDUSTRY GUIDE 22

 NURSERY PIGS
Newly 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,
PHOSPHORUS 2000). Newly weaned pigs may find it challenging to
Supplemental phosphorus is a costly component of swine consume sufficient energy from diets high in barley, but
feed. Barley grain can also contribute the bulk of dietary the fibre in barley can also have a prebiotic effect reducing
phosphorous. However, a large portion of the phosphorus the incidence of diarrhea. Thus, any reduction in growth
in barley is tied up in a phytate ring and therefore performance in young pigs may be short-lived. Pigs initially
unavailable to pigs (Htoo et al. 2007). It is now common fed diets high in barley may also show compensatory
practice to include phytase enzyme to increase phosphorus growth during the growing-finishing period, resulting in
digestibility in feeds for both swine and poultry. However, reduced cost/kg of weight gain to market weight.
barley still contributes more available phosphorus to
swine feeds than corn grain (Table 14). Therefore, there GROWING & FINISHING PIGS
is generally no need to supplement phosphorus from Even pigs that have not been fed barley grain during the
inorganic sources to growing-finishing pigs fed barley- nursery period can be fed diets based solely or partially
based diets even without the use of phytase. This fact has on barley grain during the entire growing-finishing period
important implications for manure application in some along with supplemental protein sources such as pulses
countries where phosphorus directives limit the amount (field pea, lentil, faba bean) or high protein co-products
of manure that can be applied on the land. Under these (canola meal, DDGS). This approach can lead to substantial
conditions, if phosphorus supplementation is required, savings in feed cost as compared with corn due to the use
the efficiency of utilization must be improved (e.g., feeding of cheaper protein sources at lower levels in the diet, even
phytate enzyme) or the number of swine in the herd with consideration that the diets have a lower NE value.
reduced in order to comply with regulations.
CARCASS & PORK QUALITY
Table 14. TOTAL AND PHYTATE-BOUND PHOSPHORUS Feeding barley-based diets to finishing pigs reduces
CONTENT (G/KG) AND APPARENT AND STANDARDIZED dressing percentage (one to two percentage points)
TOTAL TRACK DIGESTIBILITY 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
HULLED HULLESS
CORN dressing percentage can be compensated for by feeding
BARLEY BARLEY
barley diets slightly longer to increase live market weight by
Total approximately 1.5 to 2.5 kg. This approach can result in a
3.5 3.6 2.6
phosphorus reduced cost of gain as compared with feeding other grains,
Phytate even with consideration for the slightly longer feeding
2.2 2.6 2.1
phosphorus period.
ATTD of Feeding high-barley diets to finisher pigs can improve pork
0.39 0.31 0.26 quality attributes compared with feeding corn. Barley has
phosphorus1
a lower fat and linoleic acid content than corn, resulting in
STTD of
0.45 0.36 0.34 firmer pork fat. Feeding barley can also result in whiter pork
phosphorus2
fat than corn grain, increasing its contrast with myoglobin
Apparent total tract digestibility
1
and thus enhancing the visual appeal of loin marbling
Standardized total tract digestibility
2
(Lampe et al. 2006).

23
BREEDING GILTS & SOWS
Gestating 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 FEED

Particle 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

% body weight as total non-structural carbohydrates

1
Experimental diets containing barley protein concentrate
2

BARLEY GRAIN - FEED INDUSTRY GUIDE 24

25
BARLEY IN POULTRY DIETS
T. Scott University of Saskatchewan (tom.scott@usask.ca)
INTRODUCTION
Barley 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 grains 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
-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., -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.
BARLEY GRAIN - FEED INDUSTRY GUIDE 26
ENZYMES
There are two main supplemental enzymes (-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; -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,
-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
27
no enzyme supplementation can increase the incidence of
dirty eggsan 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 GRAIN
If 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 DIET
Similarly 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 GRAIN - FEED INDUSTRY GUIDE 28
29
BARLEY IN DIETS FOR
OTHER LIVESTOCK & AQUACULTURE
S.J. Meale1, M.L. He2 and T.A. McAllister1
1
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (smea4184@uni.sydney.edu.au; tim.mcallister@agr.gc.ca) 2University of Saskatchewan (moro_he@yahoo.com)

INTRODUCTION
Barley 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.

HORSES
Under 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.

RABBITS
Barley 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.

AQUACULTURE
Barley 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).

BARLEY GRAIN - FEED INDUSTRY GUIDE 30

REFERENCES
Aasen, 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.
 cedo-Rico J., Mendez, J., & Santom, G. (2010). Feed manufacturing. In C. de Blas & J. Wiseman (Eds.), The nutrition of the
A
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., Mller, K., Schfer-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.
 ennett, C. D., Classen, H. L., Schwean, K., & Riddell, C. (2002b). Influence of whole barley and grit on live performance and
B
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., ODonovan,
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

31
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.
 too, J. K., Sauer, W. C., Yez, J. L., Cervantes, M., Zhang, Y., Helm, J. H., & Zijlstra, R. T. (2007). Effect of low-phytate barley
H
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.
 oy, T. W., Klopfenstein, T. J., Erickson, G. E., Macken, C. N., & Macdonald, J. C. (2008). Effect of supplemental energy source
L
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.

BARLEY GRAIN - FEED INDUSTRY GUIDE 32

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.
 organ, E. K., Gibson, M. L., Nelson, M. L., & Males, J. R. (1991). Utilization of whole or steam-rolled barley fed with forages
M
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). -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.
ODonovan, 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.
ODonovan, 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.
ODonovan, 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 lorge par de
lhuile de soja sur les performances de lapins allaitantes: premiers rsultats. In Proceedings of the 7mes Journes 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.
Prma, J., Ehrenbergerov, J., Belcrediov, N., & Vaculov, 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.

33
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.
 mith, E. G., ODonovan, J. T., Henderson, W. J., Turkington, T. K., McKenzie, R. H., Harker, K. N., . . . May, W. E. (2012). Return
S
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.
 urkington, T. K., ODonovan, J. T., Edney, M. J., Juskiw, P. E., McKenzie, R. H., Harker, K. N., . . . Smith, E. (2012). Effect of crop
T
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.
 ang, W. Z., Beauchemin, K. A., & Rode, L. M. (2000). Effects of barley grain processing on extent of digestion and production
Y
of lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 83, 554-568.

BARLEY GRAIN - FEED INDUSTRY GUIDE 34

albertabarley.com