Barley forage

Datasheet

Description

Click on the "Nutritional aspects" tab for recommendations for ruminants, pigs, poultry, rabbits, horses, fish and crustaceans

Common names

Barley [English]; orge, escourgeon [French]; cebada [Spanish]; cevada [Portuguese]; Almindelig Byg [Danish]; Gerst [Dutch]; Òj [Haitian Creole]; jelai [Indonesian]; orzo [Italian]; shayiri [Swahili]; sebada [Tagalog]; arpa [Turkish]; Đại mạch [Vietnamese]; ገብስ [Amharic]; شعير [Arabic]; যব [Bengali]; မုယော [Burmese]; 大麦 [Chinese]; Κριθάρι [Greek]; שעורה תרבותית [Hebrew]; जौ [Hindi]; オオムギ [Japanese]; ಬಾರ್ಲಿ [Kannada]; 보리 [Korean]; യവം [Malayalam]; جو [Persian]; ਜੌਂ [Punjabi]; Ячме́нь [Russian]; வாற்கோதுமை [Tamil]; బార్లీ [Telugu]; บาร์เลย์ [Thai]

Barley forage, whole crop barley forage, barley silage, whole crop barley silage, barley hay, barley straw

Species

Hordeum vulgare L. [Poaceae]

Synonyms

Hordeum distichon L., Hordeum hexastichon L.

Related feed(s)

Description

Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) is a major cereal crop primarily grown for its grain, but it also yields valuable forage that can be grazed, cut for hay or silage while still green, or cut after grain harvest as straw (Duke, 1983; Göhl, 1982). The barley plant is an annual, erect and tufted grass, up to 50 to 120 cm high (Ecocrop, 2011). Barley is a leafy species. The leaves are linear and lanceolate, up to 25 cm long, placed opposite their neighbours along the stem (Ecocrop, 2011; Duke, 1983). Barley leaves are broader than in other cereals and the leave:stem ratio is high (0.88) (Hannaway, 2004; Chermiti, 1997). There are thousands of cultivated barley landraces and hundreds of cultivars. Cultivars are classified according to several factors: number of rows of grains (2-row and 6-row barley), compactness of spikes, hull adherence (hulled or naked barley), presence or size of awns (awned, awnletted or awnless varieties), growth habit (winter or spring barley) and colour (black, purple or white kernels) (Cecarelli et al., 2006; CFIA, 2005; OECD, 2004).

The widespread use of barley forage for feeding purposes is relatively new. Barley can be a valuable forage during drought periods, or when the barley crop has suffered frost damage that has hindered grain crop (Winter, 2005). Until the late 1990s, forage barley varieties had rarely been selected for improved forage quality and variety selection was based solely upon yield and other agronomic characteristics (Surber et al., 2011). Whole plant silage is now an important feed for ruminants as well as for other species. For this silage winter and summer varieties are used, sometimes sown in combination with a fast-growing grass variety. Whole plant silage is high in fibre, low in protein and may be used in extensive cattle production (OECD, 2004). Two-row varieties and awnless varieties are said to be safer (see Potential constraints) and of higher nutritive quality as forage. When barley forage is directly grazed or cut early enough, it can still be harvested for grain without decreasing grain yield. Barley forage may also be used for bedding, for making hats or for making cellulose pulp (Duke, 1983). Barley straw ranks among the best quality cereal straws (Chriyaa et al., 1997): for more information about barley straw see also the Straws datasheet.

Distribution

Barley is an ubiquitous cereal and can grow in a wide range of climates (UC SAREP, 2006). Barley forage is mostly used in North America, Europe and the Mediterranean area. Barley forage is better suited to cooler, drier areas than other small grain cereals. Barley is best adapted to rich, well-drained, loamy soils and should not be planted on poor, sandy or wet soils (Ditsch et al., 2005). It prefers a soil pH above 6. Barley can withstand moderate droughts and does well on alkaline and saline soils (UC SAREP, 2006; Hannaway, 2004). It is less winter hardy than wheat or rye. Barley is sensitive to rust and disease: it should not be sown in milder climates or too early during autumn (Winter, 2005). It should not be sown under humid tropical climates (UC SAREP, 2006).

Forage management

Barley forage can be sown as the sole crop or in mixture with a legume such as vetch, pea, berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum) or Persian clover (Trifolium resupinatum) (Eskandari et al., 2009; Bingöl et al., 2007). Intercropping is effective for reducing diseases, suppressing weeds and capturing a greater share of available resources: intercropped barley-legumes have a higher total yield than barley or legume as a sole crop (Hauggaard-Nielsen et al., 2007). Intercropping barley with a legume improves the nutritive value by increasing the DM and protein content of the forage compared to the cereal crop alone (Eskandari et al., 2009).

Barley forage sown as sole crop may be managed in different ways:

Under low moisture conditions, winter barley should be sown early in autumn (early to mid-September) to become well established before winter and to provide higher yields. Good quality grazing can be obtained from early seeded barley (Ditsch et al., 2005).
However, under high moisture conditions, winter barley should be sown as late as possible (mid-autumn) so that rust cannot spoil the crop (Winter, 2005).
Early-planted and well-managed spring barley forage is a good rotation crop in a grain production system to provide livestock feed and limit weed populations (Flaherty, 2007).

Barley forage sown alone may yield 3 to 8 t DM/ha but stage of growth at cutting and environmental conditions have a significant effect on yield (McLellan, 2011; Carr et al., 2003). In the case of spring barley, the sooner the seed is sown the higher the yield of forage (Flaherty, 2007). For best quality feed and good regrowth, potential crops should be cut or grazed at 30-40 cm height. After each cut the crop fertilizer should be added to ensure good quality regrowth. Cutting should be well prior to the development of awns which will reduce the palatability of the forage. Young awns are acceptable in hay. From an autumn plant 2-3 cuts or grazings are possible (Hannaway, 2004).

Barley pasture

Using barley forage prior to grain production may be a valuable way of managing barley; it may also avoid crop lodging and decrease foliage fungal diseases while feeding livestock (GRDC, 2011; Lovegrove et al., 2008). If grazing occurs early enough in the growing period, barley grain production and grain quality are not hampered. The crop can usually be cut or grazed during a six-week period, until the first node appears on the crops. Beyond this point, grain yield is hindered (GRDC, 2011). Late heavy grazing, rather than continuous grazing, appeared to benefit forage yield, but it had deleterious effect on grain production (Lovegrove et al., 2008). Winter barley should not be grazed as close or as late in the fall as wheat or rye (Ditsch et al., 2005).

Barley hay

Swath grazing of barley forage or barley/legume is a way to increase the grazing season in northern areas (WBDC, 2002). Barley can be cut and dried to make hay. It is a valuable source of winter forage in various regions, especially in the USA. Barley hay can be an inexpensive available feed source (Llewellyn et al., 2000). It should be cut early (milky stage) to make hay. Barley haymaking is suitable in irrigated systems including alfalfa production as it breaks diseases and weed cycles (Cash et al., 2008). When barley forage is cut for hay at the milky stage, NO₃-N levels are not higher than 0.14%, which is a safe level for livestock (Cash et al., 2008; Surber et al., 2003).

Silage

Because of its good carbohydrate content, barley is easy to ensile, and with a rapid fall in pH produces a good quality silage (Helm et al., 2002; Aasen, 2000). Barley crop harvested at the soft-dough stage is suitable for silage (McLellan, 2011). However, when barley forage is intended for silage, the most important criteria is its moisture content, which must be between 64 and 72%. If the forage is allowed to get drier than this, it may result in difficulties in packing it tightly to ensure an anaerobic environment. Failure to do this can result in excessive heating and nutrient losses (Helm et al., 2002). It is advisable to short-chop the forage and to seal the silo as tight as possible in order to reduce air content to a minimum (Aasen, 2000).

Well made barley silage should be light green-yellow to green-brown in colour, it should have a lactic acid odour with no butyric acid off-flavour, and a pH ranging from 4.2 to 4.8 (Aasen, 2000).

Straw

Though it has less feed value than oat straw, barley straw is an inexpensive way to feed cattle. It can be offered as the sole roughage during winter provided it is adequately supplemented (Hamilton, 2010).

Environmental impact

Saline soil reclamation

Barley is the most salt tolerant cereal crop and barley growth remains unchanged up to high levels of salinity (Lacolla et al., 2008). Barley is thus often used in soil reclamation as it dilutes and excludes salt. Six-row, smooth-awned barleys are more tolerant of salinity than other barley types (UC SAREP, 2006).

Soil improver and erosion control

With its strong root system that grows as deep as 1.8-2.1 m, barley helps preventing soil erosion. Moreover, while it provides feed and cover during winter, it can be ploughed in for green manure during spring, thus improving soil OM content (UC SAREP, 2006).

Shelter

In California, barley is also used in vineyards as a shelter crop for young vine shoots because it lessens frost potential (UC SAREP, 2006).

Nutritional aspects

Nutritional attributes

Fresh forage and silage

The protein and NDF content of barley forage vary only slightly between flowering and the dough stage, decreasing from 12 to 9% DM for protein, 63 to 56% DM for NDF (INRA, 2007). The decrease in protein and NDF is mainly related to an increase in starch (up to 20% at the mid-dough stage; Kirchgessner et al., 1989). Higher starch and lower NDF contents have been reported in some whole crop silages (29 and 47% respectively in Ireland; Walsh et al., 2008). Harvesting at heading also allows increased starch at the expense of NDF (32 and 44% respectively). Barley forage tends to have lower contents of cell walls, ADF and lignin than other small grain forages (Ditsch et al., 2005).

Straw

The protein and NDF content of untreated straws ranges from 2 to 6%, and 80 to 86%, respectively (McCartney et al., 2006; Haddad, 2000; Abate et al., 2009; Castrillo et al., 1995; Madrid et al., 1996; Madrid et al., 1997a). Values for hay are intermediate between those of the straw and the fresh forage (Chermiti, 1997).

Potential constraints

Mouth irritation

Some barley varieties that are cut for hay or silage have rough or barbed awns that may damage the mouth of livestock (Todd et al., 2003).

Nitrate accumulation

Forage barley is prone to nitrate accumulation that can lead to nitrate toxicity in animals that can result in death. Values of NO₃-N that exceed 0.226% are considered toxic to all types and classes of livestock. Barley forage was found to contain 0.23% NO₃-N at the boot stage (Cash et al., 2002). Selecting new barley varieties based on low NO₃-N potential is possible (Surber et al., 2011).

Ruminants

Digestibility

The OM digestibility of barley forage varies slightly according to the stage of maturity, and increases only from 61 to 65% between flowering and the dough stage (INRA, 2007). This corresponds both to a decrease in NDF digestibility and an increase in grain and starch content, which improves digestibility (Walsh et al., 2009). Comparable values are reported for silage: from 59% at the milk-dough stage (about 35% DM) (INRA, 2007) to 64-67% at 35-40% DM (Candlish et al., 1973). The OM digestibility of untreated straw averages 44-45% (Haddad, 2000; Madrid et al., 1997a; Phipps et al., 1990; Xandé, 1978; INRA, 2007). It can be slightly improved by treatment with ammonia: + 11 percentage points (INRA, 2007), urea (30-40 g urea/kg DM): + 6 to 8 points (Abate et al., 2009; Castrillo et al., 1995; Madrid et al., 1996), or NaOH (40 g/kg DM): + 14 percentage points (Phipps et al., 1990).

Silage

Dairy cows

Barley forage used for silage can be harvested at heading, milk stage, or dough stage (i.e. between 27 and 49% DM, 40 to 60% grain; Kirchgessner et al., 1989; Wallsten et al., 2009). When harvested at late milk/early dough stage (35-40% DM), there is no advantage in adding acid (Candlish et al., 1973). The optimal harvest time is not critical because the quality of the forage decreases slowly with maturity, since DM intake and apparent digestibility tend to decrease when maturity increases, which impacts milk yield, milk protein and milk fat (Wallsten et al., 2009). At a similar stage (late-dough) for silage making, delaying the planting date (June vs. May) induces a higher in vitro NDF digestibility and protein content (Chow et al., 2008), but this does not affect intake and milk production in cows at mid to late lactation, whereas it tended to improve LW gain. Whole crop barley silage fed ad libitum as the sole feed is sufficient for dry or late lactating cows that consume less than 1.9% LW (Lund et al., 2006). Barley silage intake can be substantially increased to 2.5% of LW in dairy cows supplemented with concentrate at 1% LW in early or mid-lactation (Lund et al., 2006). Barley silage is comparable to pea or alfalfa silages for both intake and milk yield in dairy cows fed 50% forage diets in early lactation (Mustafa et al., 2000).

Beef cattle

Barley silage is fed and digested similarly to maize or wheat silage by beef cattle (Walsh et al., 2008). Whole crop barley silage can be used by beef calves or rams supplemented with grain. In beef cattle, 15-20% silage is required to prevent digestive diseases with barley-based diets (Koenig et al., 2003), or barley + DDGS diets (wheat dried distillers grains with solubles) (Li et al., 2011). Spraying a commercial xylanase and cellulose on barley silage may slightly improve average daily gain and feed efficiency in feedlot cattle fed high, 80%, barley silage diets (McAllister et al., 1999).

Hay

The ingestibility of barley hay (2.5% LW, i.e. 65 g/kg LW^0.75 in dry non-lactating adult ewes) is higher than that of vetch-oat hay (Chermiti, 1997). Barley hay supplemented with less than 50% concentrate can be used by ewes from 3 weeks before to 120 days after lambing (Awawdeh, 2011).

Straw

Barley can be used as straw. Untreated barley straw has a poor ingestibility (1,3% LW in castrated sheep) and requires progressive adaptation, which can be speeded up by nitrogen supplementation (Xandé, 1978). It should be fed with another forage (Haddad, 2000; Mir et al., 1988), grain (Ololade et al., 1975), or supplements. Supplementation of untreated straw with whey (Cetinkaya et al., 1997), urea and citrus by-products (Madrid et al., 1997b), or molasses (Gurdogan et al., 2000) was shown to increase intake, straw degradation and digestibility, weight gain and feed efficiency in goats (Madrid et al., 1997b; Cetinkaya et al., 1997) and sheep (Gurdogan et al., 2000).

Barley can be treated with urea (4-5% DM), ammonia (2-3% DM), and NaOH (4%) to improve intake, OM digestibility and performance. However, urea addition at 1% DM was poorly efficient (Haddad, 2000). Urea treatment was found more efficient than ammonia treatment (Kowalczyk, 1994). Urea-treated straw used alone was able to meet maintenance requirements for growing sheep, and allowed limited live-weight gain (Abate et al., 2009). Ammonia-treated straw was used for growing sheep at 1.9% LW without supplementation (Castrillo et al., 1995). It was also well ingested in lactating ewes (at 2.5% LW) when supplemented with concentrate (barley/citrus pulp mix) (Castrillo et al., 2004). Treatment of winter barley straw with NaOH greatly increased its digestibility, and improved forage intake and milk yield in dairy cows fed grass silage + barley straw diets (Phipps et al., 1990). In contrast with untreated straw, supplementation of urea-treated straw with alfalfa hay or vetch hay (Abate et al., 2009), or with dried lemon (Madrid et al., 1996), or the supplementation of urea + NaOH treated straw with citrus by-products (Madrid et al., 1998) did not improve the intake and digestibility of treated barley straw in sheep and goats, even slightly.

Pigs

Pigs can be fed on forage when they are progressively introduced to it. Forages tend to provide more crude protein than cereal grains and may thus reduce feed costs provided they are well supplemented. Forages may be offered fresh, dried or ensiled. Barley can be grazed by pigs and is palatable and nutritious to them. However, it does not provide as much dry matter as rye forage (for instance) during autumn and winter and it cannot be grazed heavily. It has a lower nutritive value (lower protein) for pigs than winter wheat forage (Kephart et al., 2010).

Rabbits

Green forage

Winter or spring barley crops seem to be widely grazed by wild rabbits (Bell et al., 1998; Dendy et al., 2004), which demonstrates that green barley plants are palatable for rabbits. This common observation was made while trying to feed rabbits with barley forage produced by hydroponics, i.e. barley grain germinated and grown for about 2 weeks (10-12 cm height) before being fed. This forage is well accepted by growing rabbits and by breeding does with their young and it is entirely consumed (Hardy, 1982; Kriaa et al., 2001). The nutritive value of barley forage dry matter, produced by hydroponics, is lower than that of a complete pelleted diet, which is most probably due to too low concentrations of digestible energy and protein (Morales et al., 2009). Nevertheless, barley forage produced in this way may represent up to 40% of the daily DM intake, without significantly depressing growth or reproductive performance, when offered ad libitum together with a limited quantity of a pelleted complete diet (Hardy, 1982; Kriaa et al., 2001). Feeding hydroponically produced forage to suckling rabbits seems to stimulate earlier dry matter consumption (Hardy, 1982). However, it must be noted that the successful use of hydroponically produced barley by French rabbit farmers in the 1980-1990s was stopped because of the development in the germination equipment of uncontrollable moulds producing mycotoxins (Lebas, 1990, unpublished data).

Dehydrated whole plant

Dehydrated whole plant barley, cut at the waxy stage and containing about 50% NDF with a moderate level of lignin (6.3-7.6% DM), could be a source of fibre for growing rabbits. Included at up to 28-35% in a balanced diet, this forage resulted in growth performance similar to that of the control diet (Auxilia et al., 1977; Auxilia et al., 1978; Grandi et al., 1986). The digestible energy content was high for a forage, about 8.4 to 10.7 MJ/kg DM, but the protein content was very low (6 to 8% DM) with a moderate nitrogen digestibility coefficient of 62 to 66% (Auxilia et al., 1978; Polidori et al., 1984).

Nutritional tables

Tables of chemical composition and nutritional value

Avg: average or predicted value; SD: standard deviation; Min: minimum value; Max: maximum value; Nb: number of values (samples) used

Barley, aerial part, fresh

Main analysis	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Dry matter	% as fed	25.0	7.5	15.0	41.5	27
Crude protein	% DM	11.0	3.7	5.9	19.5	71
Crude fibre	% DM	28.1	4.0	19.0	35.4	61
NDF	% DM	57.6	6.3	41.8	62.3	17	*
ADF	% DM	32.7	4.8	22.1	37.9	18	*
Lignin	% DM	2.4		1.8	3.0	2
Ether extract	% DM	3.8	1.4	2.3	7.2	13
Ash	% DM	11.5	2.2	8.2	18.4	63
Starch (enzymatic)	% DM	8.0	7.0	0.1	17.4	6
Water-soluble carbohydrates	% DM	7.8	3.6	4.4	12.0	6
Gross energy	MJ/kg DM	17.3					*

Minerals	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Calcium	g/kg DM	4.9	2.3	2.1	12.3	47
Phosphorus	g/kg DM	1.7	0.7	0.7	3.1	47
Potassium	g/kg DM	14.0	6.4	6.0	32.8	34
Magnesium	g/kg DM	2.4	0.8	1.4	4.1	34

Amino acids	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Arginine	% protein	5.7				1
Cystine	% protein	1.7				1
Glycine	% protein	5.7				1
Histidine	% protein	2.5				1
Isoleucine	% protein	4.9				1
Leucine	% protein	9.1				1
Lysine	% protein	6.6				1
Methionine	% protein	1.8				1
Phenylalanine	% protein	5.9				1
Threonine	% protein	5.2				1
Tyrosine	% protein	3.9				1
Valine	% protein	6.4				1

Ruminant nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
OM digestibility, ruminants	%	69.1	7.5	61.2	81.3	18	*
Energy digestibility, ruminants	%	66.1					*
DE ruminants	MJ/kg DM	11.4					*
ME ruminants	MJ/kg DM	9.2					*
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants	%	66.2	7.7	52.4	78.5	18

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

Ait Amar, 2005; Alibes et al., 1990; Carr et al., 2003; Chow et al., 2008; CIRAD, 1991; Demarquilly, 1970; Fauconneau et al., 1965; FUSAGx/CRAW, 2009; IAV, 2009; McCartney et al., 1994; Morales et al., 2009; Pace et al., 1984; Sen, 1938; Tisserand et al., 1989; Van Wyk et al., 1951

Last updated on 15/08/2013 18:17:29

Barley silage

Main analysis	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Dry matter	% as fed	36.3	4.2	26.6	42.9	19
Crude protein	% DM	10.2	1.9	6.6	12.4	17
Crude fibre	% DM	33.5		32.1	34.9	2
NDF	% DM	47.6	5.3	38.0	56.0	14
ADF	% DM	29.6	3.3	23.4	35.5	16
Lignin	% DM	4.4	1.8	2.5	7.1	5
Ether extract	% DM	2.3	0.4	1.7	3.1	7
Ash	% DM	9.3	3.6	4.7	17.3	18
Starch (polarimetry)	% DM	15.6	9.5	0.4	25.3	7
Water-soluble carbohydrates	% DM	3.5				1
Gross energy	MJ/kg DM	17.7	0.7	17.1	18.9	6	*

Minerals	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Calcium	g/kg DM	2.7		1.9	3.4	2
Phosphorus	g/kg DM	2.2		1.2	3.2	2
Potassium	g/kg DM	26.7				1
Sodium	g/kg DM	0.4				1
Magnesium	g/kg DM	2.1				1
Manganese	mg/kg DM	35				1
Zinc	mg/kg DM	30				1
Copper	mg/kg DM	6				1
Iron	mg/kg DM	825				1

Ruminant nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
OM digestibility, ruminants	%	63.9		63.9	71.3	2	*
Energy digestibility, ruminants	%	61.1					*
DE ruminants	MJ/kg DM	10.8					*
ME ruminants	MJ/kg DM	8.7					*
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants	%	69.5	2.3	67.1	71.6	3
a (N)	%	69.2				1
b (N)	%	18.5				1
c (N)	h-1	0.116				1
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%)	%	83					*
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%)	%	81					*

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

AFZ, 2011; Candlish et al., 1973; Chow et al., 2008; Gibb et al., 2004; IAV, 2009; Khorasani et al., 1993; Kirchgessner et al., 1989; Koenig et al., 2003; Lund et al., 2006; Manninen et al., 2005; McAllister et al., 1999; McCartney et al., 1994; Mustafa et al., 2000; Robinson, 1996; Tatl et al., 2001; Wallsten et al., 2009

Last updated on 15/08/2013 18:14:45

Barley straw

Main analysis	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Dry matter	% as fed	90.9	2.5	85.4	95.0	32
Crude protein	% DM	3.8	1.0	1.9	6.0	52
Crude fibre	% DM	40.5	4.1	32.9	46.7	27
NDF	% DM	80.5	4.8	69.7	89.1	36
ADF	% DM	48.3	4.9	38.7	57.9	35
Lignin	% DM	6.5	1.5	4.1	9.0	25
Ether extract	% DM	1.4	0.7	0.6	3.8	16
Ash	% DM	7.5	2.9	3.5	17.6	52
Gross energy	MJ/kg DM	18.2	0.6	17.5	18.6	3	*

Minerals	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Calcium	g/kg DM	4.6	1.5	3.0	8.2	10
Phosphorus	g/kg DM	1.0	0.7	0.2	2.3	10
Potassium	g/kg DM	14.4	5.1	8.2	20.6	4
Sodium	g/kg DM	0.9	0.4	0.5	1.6	6
Magnesium	g/kg DM	1.2	0.3	0.7	1.4	5
Manganese	mg/kg DM	28	10	17	37	3
Zinc	mg/kg DM	15	5	11	21	4
Copper	mg/kg DM	10	13	3	30	4
Iron	mg/kg DM	177	55	124	250	4

Secondary metabolites	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Tannins (eq. tannic acid)	g/kg DM	3.6				1
Tannins, condensed (eq. catechin)	g/kg DM	0.2				1

Ruminant nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
OM digestibility, ruminants	%	47.5	2.0	43.0	50.2	19	*
Energy digestibility, ruminants	%	44.1					*
DE ruminants	MJ/kg DM	8.0					*
ME ruminants	MJ/kg DM	6.5					*
ME ruminants (gas production)	MJ/kg DM	6.0				1
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants	%	22.8	22.3	0.0	63.1	8
a (N)	%	30.3				1
b (N)	%	26.5				1
c (N)	h-1	0.084				1
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%)	%	48					*
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%)	%	46					*

Pig nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Energy digestibility, growing pig	%	13.9					*
DE growing pig	MJ/kg DM	2.5					*
MEn growing pig	MJ/kg DM	2.2					*
NE growing pig	MJ/kg DM	1.2					*

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

Abate et al., 2009; Abbeddou et al., 2011; Abidin et al., 1981; AFZ, 2011; Agbagla et al., 1993; Ahn JongHo et al., 1997; Alawa et al., 1986; Alawa et al., 1988; Alibes et al., 1990; Blümmel et al., 1993; Bochi-Brum et al., 1999; Capper et al., 1989; Chehma et al., 2001; Chermiti, 1997; CIRAD, 1991; Djouvinov et al., 1998; Dryden et al., 1983; Economides, 1998; Friesecke, 1970; Grimit, 1984; Guedas et al., 1973; Haddad, 2000; Hadjigeorgiou et al., 2001; Hadjipanayiotou, 1984; IAV, 2009; Israelsen et al., 1978; Kerckhove et al., 2011; Lopez et al., 2005; Madrid et al., 1997; Martin-Orue et al., 2000; McCann, 1985; McCartney et al., 2006; Miraglia et al., 1985; Nsahlai et al., 1996; O'Shea et al., 1986; Paduano et al., 1995; Rogerson, 1956; Sehu et al., 1998; Singh et al., 2011; Tisserand et al., 1989; Turgut et al., 2004; Wheeler et al., 1979; Wilkinson et al., 1978

Last updated on 26/11/2015 17:04:19

Barley hay

Main analysis	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Dry matter	% as fed	84.9	6.3	76.3	90.6	6
Crude protein	% DM	8.7	3.2	3.9	13.5	8
Crude fibre	% DM	27.6	7.4	11.7	33.9	7
NDF	% DM	53.1	14.0	31.1	63.4	5
ADF	% DM	32.3	8.5	13.6	42.2	8
Lignin	% DM	2.3		1.4	3.2	2
Ether extract	% DM	2.3				1
Ash	% DM	8.4	2.4	5.1	12.6	7
Gross energy	MJ/kg DM	18.0					*

Minerals	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
Calcium	g/kg DM	2.1		0.7	3.6	2
Phosphorus	g/kg DM	2.8		2.4	3.2	2

Ruminant nutritive values	Unit	Avg	SD	Min	Max	Nb
OM digestibility, ruminants	%	66.7	6.1	54.2	68.4	4	*
Energy digestibility, ruminants	%	63.1					*
DE ruminants	MJ/kg DM	11.4					*
ME ruminants	MJ/kg DM	9.3					*
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants	%	55.5		43.0	68.0	2

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

References

Alibes et al., 1990; Chermiti, 1997; CIRAD, 2008; FUSAGx/CRAW, 2009; Taghizadeh et al., 2005

Last updated on 15/08/2013 18:30:11

References

Aasen, A., 2000. Nutrition and management. Alberta Feedlot Management Guide, second edition, Alberta Agriculture and Food, Canada
Abate, D. ; Melaku, S., 2009. Effect of supplementing urea-treated barley straw with lucerne or vetch hays on feed intake, digestibility and growth of Arsi Bale Sheep. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 41 (4): 579-586
Andueza, D. ; Delgado, I. ; Munoz, F., 2004. Nutritive value of hays made from different species of cereal for sheep. In: Land use systems in grassland dominated regions. Proc. 20th General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, Luzern, Switzerland, 21-24 June 2004
Auxilia, M. T. ; Masoero, G. ; Costantini, F., 1977. Meals of dried whole maize, barley and wheat plants cut at the waxy stage of maturity in feeds for fattening rabbits. Annali dell'Istituto Sperimentale per la Zootecnia, 10 (2): 201-212
Auxilia, M. T. ; Masoero, G. ; Costantini, F., 1978. Dried forage in the feeding of rabbits. Dried meal of whole plants of maize, barley and wheat cut at the waxy stage of maturity, effect in fattening rabbits. Coniglicoltura, 15 (10): 11-14
Awawdeh, M. S., 2011. Alternative feedstuffs and their effects on performance of Awassi sheep: a review. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 43 (7): 1297-1309
Bell, A. C. ; Byrne, P. M. ; Watson, S., 1998. The effect of rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) grazing damage on the growth and yield of winter cereals. Annals Appl. Biol., 133 (3): 431-442
Bingöl, N. T. ; Karsli, M. A. ; Yilmaz, H. ; Bolat, D., 2007. The effects of planting time and combination on the nutrient composition and digestible dry matter yield of four mixtures of vetch varieties intercropped with barley. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci., 31 (5): 297-302
Candlish, E. ; Clark, K. W. ; Ingalls, J. R., 1973. Intake and digestibility of organic acid-treated barley silage fed to steers and sheep. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 53 (3): 519-525
Capper, B. S. ; Thomson, E. F. ; Rihawi, S, 1989. Voluntary intake and digestibility of barley straw as influenced by variety and supplementation with either barley grain or cottonseed cake. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 26 (1-2): 105-118
Carr, P. M. ; Horsley, R. D. ; Poland, W. W., 2003. Forages: barley, oat, and cereal–pea mixtures as dryland forages in the Northern Great Plains. Agron. J., 96 (3): 677-684
Cash, D. ; Funston, R. ; King, M. ; Wichman, D., 2002. Nitrate toxicity of Montana forages. Montana State University Extension Service. Bozeman, USA
Cash, S. D. ; Surber, L. M. M. ; Wichman, D. M. ; Hensleigh, P. F., 2008. Forage yield, quality and nitrate concentration of barley grown under irrigation. Montana State University Extension Service. Bozeman, USA
Castrillo, C. ; Fondevila, M. ; Guada, J. A. ; de Vega, A., 1995. Effect of ammonia treatment and carbohydrate supplementation on the intake and digestbility of barley straw diets by sheep. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 51 (1-2): 73-90
Castrillo, C. ; Barrios-Urdaneta, A. ; Fondevilla, M. ; Balcells, J. ; Guada, J. A., 2004. Effects of substitution of barley with citrus pulp on diet digestibility and intake and production of lactating ewes offered mixed diets based on ammonia-treated barley straw. Anim. Sci., 78: 129-138
Cecarelli, S. ; Grando, S., 2006. Hordeum vulgare L.. Record from Protabase. Brink, M. & Belay, G. (Editors). PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa / Ressources végétales de l’Afrique tropicale), Wageningen, Netherlands.
Cetinkaya, N. ; Unal, S. ; Ozturk, A., 1997. The effects of whey supplementation on ruminal degradability of barley straw, rumen fermentation in Angora goats and liveweight gain, mohair yield and quality in Angora goat kids. Lalahan Hayvancilik Arastirma Enstitusu Dergisi, 37 (1): 56-64
Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2005. Description of cereal species (Appendix V). In: Seed program specific work instructions - Cereal crop inspection procedures. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Canada
Chermiti, A., 1997. Prediction of voluntary forage intake in sheep using rumen chemical characteristics and degradation. Options Méditerranéennes, 34: 37-41
Chow, L. O. ; Baron, V. S. ; Corbett, R. ; Oba, M., 2008. Effects of planting date on fiber digestibility of whole-crop barley and productivity of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci., 91 (4): 1534-1543
Chriyaa, A. ; Amri, A , 1997. Evaluation of straw quality of barley varieties for animal feeding. Options Méditerranéennes - Serie A: 34: 33-36
Demarquilly, C., 1970. Evolution de la digestibilité et de la quantité ingérée des plantes entières d'avoine, de blé et d'orge entre la floraison et la maturation du grain. Ann. Zootech., 19 (4): 413-422
Dendy, J. ; McKillop, G. ; Fox, S. ; Wertern, G. ; Langton, S., 2004. A field trial to assess the effects of rabbit grazing on spring barley. Annals Appl. Biol., 145 (1): 77-80
Ditsch, D. C. ; Bitzer, M. J., 2005. Managing small grains for livestock forage. University of Kentucky, Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture, AGR-160
Duke, J. A., 1983. Handbook of Energy Crops. NewCROPS web site, Purdue University
Duval, J., 1993. Pasture and harvest in pig farming. Ecological Agricultural Projects, McGill University, AGRO-BIO - 370 - 06
Ebbs, S. D. ; Kochian, L. V., 1998. Phytoextraction of zinc by oat (Avena sativa), barley (Hordeum vulgare), and Indian mustard (Brassica juncea). Environ. Sci. Technol., 32 (6): 802–806
Ecocrop, 2011. Ecocrop database. FAO
Ecoport, 2011. Ecoport database. Ecoport
Ellis, R. P., 2002. Wild barley as a source of genes for crop improvement. In: Slafer, G. A.; Molina-Cano, J. L.; Savin, R.; Araus, J. L.; Romagosa, I. (Eds), Barley Science, Recent advanges from molecular biology to agronomy of yield and quality, Food Products Press, Binghampton, USA, pp 65-83.
Eskandari, H. ; Ghanbari, A. ; Javanmard, A., 2009. Intercropping of cereals and legumes for forage production. Not. Sci. Biol., 1 (1): 7-13
FAO, 2011. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Fauconneau, G. ; Pion, R., 1965. Amido acid composition of proteins of some fodder plants. Proc. 9th Int. Grassld Congr., p. 779
Flaherty, C., 2007. Plant hay barley early. Montana State University, News services
Friesecke, H. K., 1970. Personal communication. Animal Husbandry Research and Training Institute, Baghdad (Iraq)
Garcia, J. ; Carabaño, R. ; Perez Alba, L. ; de Blas, C., 2000. Effect of fiber source on cecal fermentation and nitrogen recycled through cecotrophy in rabbits. J. Anim. Sci., 78 (3): 638–646
Göhl, B., 1982. Les aliments du bétail sous les tropiques. FAO, Division de Production et Santé Animale, Roma, Italy
Grandi, A.; Battaglini, M.; Costantini, F., 1986. Alternative feed sources for rabbits. Coniglicoltura, 23 (6): 42-45
GRDC, 2011. Crop grazing shows promise as disease tool. Australian Government, Grain Research and Development Corporation
Gurdogan, F. ; Cerci, I. H. ; Ozbey, O. ; Tatl, P., 2000. The effect of barley straw ground and not ground and treated with molasses on digestibility of nutrients and feedlot performance in sheep. Saglik Bilimleri Dergisi, Firat Universitesi, 14 (1): 99-105
Haddad, S. G., 2000. Associative effects of supplementing barley straw diets with alfalfa hay on rumen environment and nutrient intake and digestibility for ewes. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 87 (3-4): 163-171
Hamilton, T., 2010. The use of straw to stretch feed supplies for wintering beef cows. Ontario Ministry of agriculture food and rural affairs
Hannaway, D. B., 2004. Barley (x Elyhordeum Mansf. ex Zizin & Petrowa). Oregon State University, Species Selection Information System
Hardy, G. S. J., 1982. Early observations on feeding zero grass. Commercial Rabbit, 10 (9): 6-7
Hauggaard-Nielsen, H. ; Jørnsgaard, B.;Kinane, J. ; Steen Jensen, E., 2007. Grain legume–cereal intercropping: the practical application of diversity, competition and facilitation in arable and organic cropping systems. Renewable Agric. & Food Syst., 23 (1): 3-12
Helm, J. H. ; Salmon, D. F., 2002. Cereal silage options for Western Canada. Proceeddings of Western Canadian Dairy Seminar, University of Alberta, Canada
INRA, 2007. Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. Besoins des animaux - valeurs des aliments. Tables Inra 2007. Quae éditions
Kephart, K. B. ; Hollis, G. R. ; Murray Danielson, D., 2010. Forages for swine. Extension, PIH-126, USA
Kirchgessner, M. ; Heinzl, W. E. ; Schwarz, F. J., 1989. Nutritive value, for dairy cows, of silages from whole barley and wheat crops cut at different stages of maturity. 1. Chemical composition, digestibilities and energy contents. Wirtschaftseigene Fütter, 35 (2): 171-186
Klocek, B. ; Adamczyk, M. ; Klocek, M., 1988. Meals from whole cereal plants for fattening cattle. Biuletyn Informacyjny Przemysu Paszowego, 27 (2)
Koenig, K. M. ; Beauchemin, K. A. ; Rode, L. M., 2003. Effect of grain processing and silage on microbial protein synthesis and nutrient digestibility in beef cattle fed barley-based diets. J. Anim. Sci., 81 (4): 1057-1067
Kowalczyk, J., 1994. Treatment of barley straw with ammonia or urea solutions and digestibility of its structural carbohydrate fractions in sheep. J. Anim. Feed Sci., 3 (2): 129-139
Kriaa, S. ; Bergaoui, R. ; Kennou, S., 2001. Note: use of hydroponic barley grass for growing rabbits in family production system. World Rabbit Science, 9 (4): 171-174
Lacolla, G. ; Cucci, G., 2010. Reclamation of sodic-saline soils. Barley crop response. Italian J. Agron., 4 (3): 279-286
Li, Y. L. ; McAllister, L. T. A. ; Beauchemin, K. A. ; He, M. L. ; McKinnon, J. J. ; Yang, W. Z., 2011. Substitution of wheat dried distillers grains with solubles for barley grain or barley silage in feedlot cattle diets: Intake, digestibility, and ruminal fermentation. J. Anim. Sci., 89 (8): 2491-2501
Llewellyn, L. ; Kraus, A.M. ; Jirik, T. C., 2000. Native pasture is not the cheapest feed for range cows in may. North Dakota State University, Dickinson Research Extension Center
Lovegrove, M. B. ; Wheeler, R. D., 2008. Barley benefits from grazing. In: Unkovich, M. (Ed)., Global Issues. Paddock Action. Proceedings of 14th Agronomy Conference 2008, 21-25 September 2008, Adelaide, South Australia.
Lund, P. ; Weisbjerg, M. R. ; Hvelplund, T., 2006. Passage kinetics of fibre in dairy cows obtained from duodenal and faecal ytterbium excretion - Effect of forage type. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 128 (3-4): 229-252
Madrid, J. ; Hernández, F. ; Pulgar, M. A. ; Cid, J. M., 1996. Dried lemon as energetic supplement of diet based on urea-treated barley straw: Effects on intake and digestibility in goats. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 63 (1-4): 89-98
Madrid, J. ; Hernández, F. ; Pulgar, M. A. ; Cid, J. M., 1997. In vitro digestibility of treated and untreated barley straw: results of direct and by-difference digestibility trials. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 65 (1-4): 129-138
Madrid, J. ; Hernández, F. ; Pulgar, M. A. ; Cid, J. M., 1997. Urea and citrus by-product supplementation of straw-based diets for goats: effect on barley straw digestibility. Small Rumin. Res., 24 (3): 149-155
Madrid, J. ; Hernández, F. ; Pulgar, M. A. ; Cid, J. M., 1998. Effects of citrus by-product supplementation on the intake and digestibility of urea sodium hydroxide-treated barley straw in goats. Small Rumin. Res., 28: 241-248
McAllister, T. A. ; Oosting, S. J., 1999. Effect of exogenous enzymes on digestibility of barley silage and growth performance of feedlot cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 79 (3): 353-360
McCartney, D. H. ; Vaage, A. S., 1994. Comparative yield and feeding value of barley, oat and triticale silages. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 74 (1): 91-96
McCartney, D. H. ; Block, H. C. ; Dubeski, P. L. ; Ohama, A. J., 2006. Review: The composition and availability of straw and chaff from small grain cereals for beef cattle in western Canada. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 86 (4): 443-455
McLellan, , 2011. Barley production in Alberta: Harvesting: Whole plant barley silage. Government of Alberta, Agriculture and Rural Developement, Canada
Mir, P. S. ; Mir Z., 1988. In situ degradability of barley straw in cattle fed a barley straw and crested wheatgrass diet supplemented with isobutyric acid. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 68 (3): 821-829.
Morales, M. A. ; Fuente, B. ; Juárez, M. ; Ávila, E., 2009. Short communication: Effect of substituting hydroponic green barley forage for a commercial feed on performance of growing rabbits. World Rabbit Science, 17 (1): 35-38
Mustafa, A. F. ; Christensen, D. A. ; McKinnon, J. J., 2000. Effects of pea, barley, and alfalfa silage on ruminal nutrient degradability and performance of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci., 83 (12): 2859-2865
OECD, 2004. Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.): key food and feed nutrients and anti-nutrients. Series on the Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds No. 12, Joint meeting of the chemicals committee and the working party on chemicals, pesticides and biotechnology, OECD
Ololade, B. G. ; Mowat, D. N., 1975. Influence of whole-plant barley reconstituted with sodium hydroxide on digestibility, rumen fluid and plasma metabolism of sheep. J. Anim. Sci., 40 (2): 351-357
Phipps, R. H. ; Weller, R. F. ; Elliott, R. J. ; Givens, D. I. ; Moss, A. R., 1990. Effect of untreated or chemically upgraded barley straw with highly digestbile grass-silage on intake and performance of lactating cows. J. Agric. Sci., 115 (3): 393-398
Polidori, F. ; Dell'Orto, V. ; Corino, C. ; Pedron, O. ; Bigli, A. , 1984. Use of dehydrated whole grains in high-energy diets for rabbit meat. 3rd World Rabbit Congress, Rome, 1: 339-346
Rogerson, A., 1956. Feeding values of local barley, maize and oat straws. E. Afr. Agric. For. J., 21 (3): 159
Sen, K. C., 1938. The nutritive values of Indian cattle feeds and the feeding of animals. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Dehli, Bulletin No. 25, 1-30
Singh, R. P. ; Dhania, G. ; Sharma, A. ; Jaiwal, P. K., 2007. Biotechnological approaches to improve phytoremediation efficiency for environment contaminants. In: Environmental bioremediation technologies, Singh, S. N.;Tripahti, R. D. (Eds) Springer, 223-258
Smith, T. ; Grigera-Naon, J. J. ; Broster, W. H. ; Siviter, J. W., 1986. The use of barley straw as a feed. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 14 (1-2): 23-39
Surber, L. M. M. ; Cash, S. D. ; Bowman, J. G. P. ; Meuchel, M. C., 2003. Nitrate concentration of cereal forage species at three stages of maturity. Proc. West. Sect. Am. Soc. Anim. Sci. 54: (In press).
Surber, L. ; Abdel-Haleem, H. ; Martin, J. ; Hensleigh, P. ; Cash, D. ; Bowman, J. ; Blake, T., 2011. Mapping quantitative trait loci controlling variation in forage quality traits in barley. Molecular Breeding, 28 (2): 189-200
Todd, A. L. ; Bowman, J. P. G. ; Surber, L. M. M. ; Thompson, M. A. ; Kincheloe, J. J. ; McDonnell, M. F. ; Hensleigh, P. F., 2003. Effect of barley varieties harvested for forage on backgrounding steer performance and diet digestibility. Proceedings, Western Section, 54
UC SAREP, 2006. Cover crop database. University of California, Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program, Davis
Van Wyk, H. P. D. ; Oosthuizen, S. A. ; Basson, I. D., 1951. The nutritive value of South African feeds. Part II. Hay and Pasture Crops. Union of South Africa. Department of Agriculture and Forestry. Science Bulletin No. 298
Wallsten, J. ; Martinsson, K., 2009. Effects of maturity stage and feeding strategy of whole crop barley silage on intake, digestibility and milk production in dairy cows. Livest. Sci., 121 (2-3): 155-161
Walsh, K. ; O'Kiely, P. ; Taweel, H. Z. ; McGee, M. ; Moloney, A. P. ; Boland, T. M., 2008. Intake, digestibility, rumen fermentation and performance of beef cattle fed diets based on whole-crop wheat or barley harvested at two cutting heights relative to maize silage or ad libitum concentrates. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 144 (3-4): 257-278
Walsh, K. ; O'Kiely, P. ; Taweel, H. Z. ; McGee, M. ; Moloney, A. P. ; Boland, T. M., 2009. Intake, digestibility and rumen characteristics in cattle offered whole-crop wheat or barley silages of contrasting grain to straw ratios. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 148 (2-4): 192-213
WBDC, 2002. Swath grazing barley and barley/pea mixtures. Western Beef Development Center, Agrifood Innovation Fund, Saskatchewan, Canada
Winter, B., 2005. Forage crops - Winter. Queensland Government, Primary Industries and Fisheries
Xandé, A., 1978. Feeding value of cereal straw in sheep. 1. Influence of nitrogen and energy supplementation on the voluntary intake and digestibility of barley straw. Ann. Zootech., 27 (4): 583-599

Datasheet citation

Heuzé V., Tran G., Nozière P., Lebas F., 2015. Barley forage. Feedipedia, a programme by INRAE, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. https://www.feedipedia.org/node/432 Last updated on October 19, 2015, 16:20

English correction by Tim Smith (Animal Science consultant) and Hélène Thiollet (AFZ)

Image credits

Sponsored by

Automatic translation

Feed categories

Scientific names

Tools

Resources

Barley forage