Nutrition and Management: Effect of Barley Grain Type on Feedlot Performance of Steers

This is a fact sheet from the Nutrition and Management section of the Alberta Feedlot Management Guide,Second Edition published September 2000. The 1200 page guide is available for purchase on CD-ROM.

Take Home Message

• The main reason for feeding barley to feeder cattle is to improve gains by providing a concentrated source of energy, which comes form the starch.
• About 90% of this starch is degraded in the rumen.
• Rapid starch degradation in the rumen is believed to be undesirable since it lowers rumen pH, depresses fibre digestion, causes liver abscesses and digestive disturbances such as acidosis, rumenitis and bloat.
• It may be possible to select barleys with slower rates of degradation for feeding to cattle since differences in dry matter (DM) degradation rates between barley varieties have been reported.

Barley is the major cereal grain used for feeding beef cattle in Alberta. About one third of the barley produced in Alberta is fed to beef cattle. In spite of this, only limited research has been conducted on the factors affecting the feeding value of barley. Future barley breeding programs should consider nutritional quality to a greater extent than in the past.

Some researchers have reported differences in feed value among cultivars of barley for cattle. These have included differences of 10% for average daily gain (ADG), 5% for feed DM:gain ratio, and 10% for digestible energy (DE). Although the reasons for these differences have not been determined, it has been suggested that head morphology (two-row, six-row), growth habit (winter, spring), and intended end-use (malting, feed) are probably the most useful indicators of barley nutritional quality. Limited research is available comparing the feeding value of two-row vs. six-row or malt vs. feed barley in cattle diets in the same experiment. Hulless barley has become available as a feed grain in recent years and has proven to be superior to hulled barley for monogastric animals. Limited studies are available in which hulless barley has been fed to cattle.

Effect of Barley Variety on Nutritional Value

A recent University of Alberta trial (24) measured the effects of several factors which might affect feedlot performance of barley;

• barley variety and type:
  • two-row vs. six-row,
  • hulless vs. hulled,
• malting vs. feed type.

• rate of barley DM degradation in the rumen,
• and total tract digestibilities among barley varieties on:
  • dry matter intake,
  • average daily gain,
  • and DM intake:gain ratio.

• bushel weight (BW; 44-54 lb/bu),
• crude protein (CP; 10.3-14.8%),
• acid detergent fibre (ADF; 5.2-8.0%),
• kernel hardness
• DM degradability after 0 - 24 hours in the rumen,
• and total tract digestibility of:
  • DM (80.5-87.4%),
  • organic matter (82.4-88.7%),
  • and nitrogen (73.7-84.8%).

Table 1. Effect of Barley Variety and Type on Steer Performance and Carcass Characteristics.

Barley Variety	Type	ADG1	DMI1	F/G1	Carcass Wt (lb)	Dresssing %	Cutability Estimate
Duke	6 Row Feed	3.52	23.9	6.63	693	57.3	62.3
Condor	Hulless Feed	3.3	23.4	6.84	691	58.2	61.6
Ellice	2 Row Malt	3.54	21.7	6.38	684	57.9	61.7
Harrington	2 Row Malt	3.45	23.6	6.85	691	58.5	61.8
Duke	6 Row Feed	3.45	23.4	6.76	691	57.8	62.3
Virden	6 Row Feed	3.21	22.1	6.78	680	57.6	62.2
Bonanza	6 Row Feed	3.39	21.4	6.71	671	57.2	62.3
Abee	2 Row Feed	3.39	22.5	6.75	689	57.6	60.8
Leduc	6 Row Feed	3.43	22.8	6.69	686	57.8	61.7
Harrington	2 Row Malt	3.28	21.9	6.71	689	58	62.1
Difference		NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
Effect of 2 vs 6 Row Barley Type
	2 Row	3.41	22.4	6.64	689	58	61.6
	6 Row	3.39	22.7	6.67	684	57.6	62.2
	Hulless	3.3	23.4	6.84	691	58.2	61.6
	Difference	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
Effect of Malt vs Feed Barley Type
	Malting	3.41	22.1	6.66	684	57.9	61.9
	Feed	3.39	23	7.25	689	57.7	61.8
	Difference	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

Trial Weight Range - In wieght 800 lb to average finish weight of 1188 lb. Individual animals may have bloated a number of times, but were only counter once. NS: not significant
¹ADG = average daily gain; DMI = dry matter intake; F/G = feed DMI:gain ratio Source: Ramsey (24)

Two-row vs. six-row barley
No differences in steer DMI, ADG, DMI:gain or carcass characteristics were detected between two-row and six-row barley (Table 1). However digestibilities of DM, organic matter and DE were about 2% higher in the two-row barleys compared to the six-row barleys. While some US research reports agree with these results, others have observed that steer performance, carcass parameters, as well as diet digestibility, were greater when Clark (two-row malting cultivar) was fed than when Cougar (six-row malting cultivar) was fed. Similarly, others found that Camelot and Harrington (two-row cultivars) had higher ADG and lower feed:gain ratios for ruminants compared to Hesk and Steptoe (six-row cultivars). It has been suggested that head morphology (two-row vs. six-row) had the most influence on nutrient composition and in most cases the composition of two-row barley is superior to six-row barley. However, any advantage of two-row barley over six-row barley may be related to plumper kernels, and a higher BW of the two-row barley. It has been demonstrated that two-row barley has, on the average, 3.3 lb/bu higher BW, 5 g higher kernel weight, and 30% more plump kernels than six-row barley. It is difficult to make any clear recommendation to feed two-row vs. six-row barley due to conflicting results, however feedlots may be selecting more two-row barley inadvertently by discounting light weight barley.

Hulless vs. hulled barley
There is limited information available on the nutritive value of hulless barley for cattle. US work has shown that hulless barley compares favourably with corn as a sole grain source in beef cattle finishing diets. The presence or absence of hulls did not influence steer performance in the feedlot or carcass characteristics in the U of A trial (Table 1). In a US trial, cattle fed hulless (Condor) barley had an 8.6% lower feed intake than for covered (Leduc) barley. Diet net energy was 5.6% greater for hulless barley. However in this particular trial, animals fed hulless barley had a greater incidence of liver abscess (167%), and lower ruminal pH. No differences in ADG or feed:gain ratios between hulless and covered barley were found. Based on the very limited information that is available, the higher net energy content does not appear to result in improved animal performance. The reduced feed intake, likely caused by a reduction in rumen pH, appears to explain the lack of difference in performance of cattle fed hulless barley compared to hulled varieties.

Malting vs. feed barley
Malting and feed barley appear to have similar feed value for steers as measured by feedlot performance and carcass characteristics (Table 1). There were no differences in the digestibility of malting and feed barley. These results do not support the suggestion that intended end use (malting vs. feed) is one of the most useful indicators of barley nutritional quality.

Relationship between rate and extent of digestion and feedlot performance
Recent U of A research could not detect any relationship between barley degradability in the rumen or total tract digestibility among varieties and DM intake, ADG or DM intake:gain ratio. Similarly, there was no relationship between rate of barley DM degradation in the rumen (33.0-57.7% per hour) and the DMI:gain ratio. DMI:gain ratios were also not related to barley DM disappearance in the rumen after 0, 2, 4, 8 or 12 hours. This may be because of the relatively narrow range in these parameters; for example there were only 6% differences among varieties in the amount of DM degraded after 2 and 4 hours in this study, whereas another study has shown differences of 26% and 17% in DM degradability in unselected barley varieties after 2 and 4 hours, respectively. A negative correlation between barley DM disappearance in the rumen after 24 hours and DM intake:gain ratios for steam and dry rolled barley was shown in prior U of A research.

The literature is unclear concerning the potential effects of differing rumen degradability rates on ADG and feed:gain ratio. However, as ruminal degradation rate of barley DM increased, the incidence of bloat increased. This is a strong indication that a faster breakdown of the grain in the rumen is undesirable in terms of animal health. Other work has suggested that barley grain may be degraded too rapidly in the rumen, contributing to acidosis, rumenitis and bloat. A slower rate of starch breakdown in the rumen would also allow more to escape the small intestine. In one study starch digested in the small intestine was used 30% more efficiently than starch digested in the rumen. Increased animal performance may result from a decreased rate of ruminal starch degradation, and slower ruminal degradation rates may reduce the incidence of subacute acidosis. In contrast, other work has shown that starch digested in the rumen provided 6 MJ more energy daily to steers than when the starch was digested in the small intestine. To repeat, the research results are not clear.

There is other evidence that cereal grain may even be degraded too slowly in the rumen in some circumstances. Boss et al. (5) found that the rate of degradation of Harrington barley was 71.4% faster than Medallion or Gunhilde barley. However, the ADG of cattle fed Harrington barley was 8.0% higher than those fed Medallion or Gunhilde barley. Feed DM intake to gain ratios were not significantly different between steers fed the three barleys (Medallion 6.3, Harrington 6.6 and Gunhilde 6.8). Despite an extremely rapid rate of ruminal degradation, Harrington barley provided superior feedlot performance compared with Medallion or Gunhilde barleys.

Conclusions

No differences in the feeding value of different samples of barley grain, two-row vs. six-row, hulless vs. hulled, or malt vs. feed barley of similar BW have been detected in Alberta grown varieties fed to steers. Also no relationship between rate of barley DM degradation in the rumen, or total tract digestibility and rate or efficiency of gain has been demonstrated in steers fed Alberta grown varieties. However, the amount of barley degraded after 12 hours in the rumen was associated with increased bloating of the steers. This result and correlations between barley DM disappearance in the rumen after 24 hours and DMI:gain ratios indicate that rate of degradation may be important. More research is required to determine what the optimum rate of degradation for cattle is and how to achieve this rate: by selecting varieties of barley with slower rates of ruminal digestion; using mixtures of different grains; using appropriate processing methods; and using grains appropriate for the level and source of roughage.

References

1. Aherne, F.X. 1990. Barley: Hulless. Pages 23-31 in Nontraditional feed sources for use in swine production. eds. P.A. Thacker and R.N. Kirkwood, Butterworths, Toronto.
2. Bhatty, R.S. et al. 1974. Relationships of various physical and chemical characters to digestible energy in wheat and barley cultivars. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 54: 419-427.
3. Bhatty, R.S., Christison, G.I., and Rossnagel, B.G. 1979. Energy and protein digestibilities of hulled and hulless barley determined by swine-feeding. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 59: 585-588.
4. Bock, B.J. et al. 1991. Mixtures of wheat and high-moisture corn in finishing diets: feedlot performance and in situ rate of starch digestion in steers. J. Anim. Sci. 69: 2703-2710.
5. Boss, D.L. et al. 1994. Effect of barley variety on growth performance, carcass characteristics and rate and extent of digestion by feedlot steers. Proc. Montana Nutr. Conf. Special Report No. 50: 5.1-5.8.
6. Bradshaw et al. 1992. Steptoe vs. Klages barley varieties and processing methods on feedlot steer nutrient digestibility, carcass characteristics, and performance. Proc. West. Sec. Am. Soc. Anim. Sci. 43: 548-552.
7. Clark, et al. 1987. Evaluation of in vitro dry matter, neutral detergent fibre and crude protein fermentation rate of normal, proanthocyanidin-mutant and crossline barley. Proc. West. Sec. Amer. Soc. Anim. Sci. 38: 293-296.
8. Engstrom, D.F. et al. 1992. Effect of ß-glucan, starch and fibre content and steam versus dry rolling of barley grain on its degradability and utilization by steers. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 37: 33-46.
9. Froseth, J.A. and Miller, M.C. 1992. Nutrient composition of Pacific Northwest barley. Proc. Pacific Northwest Anim. Nutr. Conf.: 97-109.
10. Fulton, W.R. et al. 1979. Adaptation to high concentrate diets by beef cattle. I. Adaptation to corn and wheat diets. J. Anim. Sci. 49: 775-784.
11. Grimson, et al. 1987. Effects of barley volume-weight and processing method on feedlot performance of finishing steers. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 67: 43- 53.
12. Hinman, D.D. 1979. A comparison of malting vs. feed barley varieties on beef cattle performance. Proc. West. Sec. Am. Soc. Anim. Sci. 30: 49-50.
13. Husby, F.M. 1992. Hulless barley and crab shell in diets fed to steers. Agroborealis 22: 30-34.
14. Lehman, K.B. et al. 1995. In situ degradabilities of barley grain cultivars. Can J. Anim. Sci. 75: 485-487.
15. Males, J.R., and Fong, K.S. 1987. Barley vs. corn and barley cultivars for feedlot cattle. Proc. Pacific Northwest Anim. Nutr. Conf. Portland, Oregon: 65- 72.
16. Mathison, G.W. et al. 1991. Rate of starch degradation, apparent digestibility and rate and efficiency of steer gain as influenced by barley grain volumeweight and processing method. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 71: 867-878.
17. McAllister, et al. 1990. Use of formaldehyde to regulate digestion of barley starch. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 70: 581-589.
18. Newman, C.W. et al. 1981. Genetic factors affecting the feed quality of barley. Pages 299-304 in Barley Genetics IV. Edinburgh University Press, Redwood Burn Ltd., Trowbridge, Wilts.
19. Newman, C.W. and McGuire, C.F. 1985. Nutritional quality of barley. Pages 403- 456 in D.C. Rasmusson ed. Barley. Am. Soc. Agron. Monograph No. 26., Crop Sci. of Am., Soil Sci. Soc. of Am., Publishers, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
20. Ørskov, E.R. 1986. Starch digestion and utilization in ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 63: 1624-1633.
21. Ovenell, K.H. and Nelson, M.L. 1992. Feedlot performance, carcass characteristics of steers, and digestibility of diets containing different barley cultivars. J. Anim. Sci. 70 Suppl. 1): 100.
22. Ovenell, K.H. et al. 1993. Feedlot performance, carcass characteristics of steers, and digestibility of diets containing different barley cultivars. Proc. West. Sec. Amer. Soc. Anim. Sci. 44: 416-418.
23. Owens, et al. 1986. Limits to starch digestion in the ruminant small intestine. J. Anim. Sci. 63:1634-1648.
24. Ramsey, P.B. 1994. Effect of type of barley grain on rate of degradation, digestibility and feedlot performance of steers. MSc. Thesis, Department of Agriculture Food and Nutritional Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
25. Statistics Canada. 1992. Estimates of Production, and Grains and Oilseed Consumption by Livestock and Poultry, Canada and the Provinces 1991. Livestock Feed Usage Study by Livestock and Anim. Products Sec., Agric. Div., Stats Canada.
26. Tanguichi, K. et al. 1995. Net nutrient flux by visceral tissues of beef steers given abomasal and ruminal infusions of casein and starch. J. Anim. Sci. 73: 236-249.
27. Taylor, P.F. et al. 1985. Barley varieties and corn for finishing cattle. Proc. Beef Res. Information Day. Dept. of Anim. Sci., Washington State Univ., Pullman, 99164-6320: 21-24.
28. Zinn, R.A. et al. 1996. Comparative feeding value of hulless vs covered barley for feedlot cattle. J. Amin. Sci. 1996 74: 1187-1193.