Strategies for Value-Added Barley

Introduction

In any system of feed development there must be basic research and applied technology linked to commercial development. The opportunities this system affords is enhanced efficiency and increased dollar impact. The following details an approach to identify position and possible solutions to improving barley as a feed. Western Canada is unique with regard to feedstuffs as it exists as an island unto itself, traditionally using barley and canola meal as main ingredients in the feed mix. Within Western Canada the situation is further complicated by increasing transport costs, lower nutrient density in feeds and disproportionate livestock numbers relative to feed production capability in certain regions. There is a need to be competitive in the global marketplace whether the product is with feed or meat. Opportunities arise for increased barley use from applications of nutritional technology, producing higher demand meat products, food safety and a drive for both the livestock and crop industries to minimize risk in production.

Barley Position

Globally, corn is the largest feed crop with some 590 million tonnes produced and 78 million tonnes traded. Barley has a global production of some 135 million tonnes and only 13.5 million tonnes traded, mainly for malt from the significant exporters (EU, US, Canada, Australia) as stated by the U.S. Grains Council website 2003. Barley, it can be concluded, is basically a stay at home feed source except for certain markets such as Saudi Arabia and Japan which import feed barley for specific reasons (Table 1). Reasons of lower bulk density and lower nutrient density, especially for non ruminants are the reasons for the limited feed trade. Canada has seen a steady decline in feed barley exports to a position where less than 500,000 tonnes are exported annually. Transport costs and varied other reasons are cited as being responsible.

Barley, our main feed crop, is grown principally for malting purposes with Saskatchewan having the greatest proportion of barley grown for malt purposes followed by Manitoba and then Alberta (Table 2). In Saskatchewan, because we have no real export market overseas for feed, some 75 to 80% must be consumed locally or exported into feed deficit provinces such as Alberta and Manitoba. Considering Saskatchewan produces 1.80 million pigs and it takes 1.0 tonne of feed to send three pigs to market, we only need 600,000 tonnes of feed total. Barley would only make up 50% of the total ration as energy density is too low consuming only 300,000 tonnes of barley. Table 3 shows the livestock populations present in Western Canada. Manitoba’s competitive advantage of growing a higher energy grain, corn which competes well with alternates such as feed wheat has helped foster a larger hog industry. It is being predicted that Saskatchewan will grow in hog production but the greatest gains will be had in the beef industry.

Table 1. Barley Trade and Exports

	000 tonnes		(000) Canada origin
Item:	1990/91	1995/96	1999/00	2000/01
Canada Export: Total Barley	4536	2336	1755	1725.7
Main Barley Importers:
Europe	1235 (495)	508 (0)	579 (0)	(9)
Former USSR	3900 (1194)	181 (0)	1066 (0)	(0)
Africa	1257 (50)	557 (24)	1512 (0)	(55)
China	1043 (122)	557 (379)	1508 (428)	(552)
Japan	1475 (966)	878 (395)	1228 (376)	(264)
South Korea	105 (0)	35 (20)	72 (21)	(0)
Saudi Arabia	4759 (993)	2514 (370)	4534 (160)	(293)
United States	385 (389)	730 (782)	458 (595)	(585)
Mexico	174 (13)	242 (57)	211 (99)	(34)
Central & South America	(74)	-	-	-
Total exports - World	17,122	11,241	18,139	17,184
Estimated feed barley export			<400	<400

Source: Statistical Handbook 2001, Canada Grains Council, Winnipeg, MB.

Table 2. Canadian Barley Production and Position

	% of seeded acres
	(000) of tonnes
	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta	B.C.	Average
1999-2000
Malt
2 row	13.2	52.5	37.1	22.4	40.5
6 row	54.9	21.8	5.2	23.4	18.5
Feed:
2 & 6 row	23.5	22.4	55.3	54.2	37.5
Hulless (2+6)	8.4	3.3	2.4	0.0	3.5
Production total	(1214.9)	(4942.3)	(5987.4)	(89.3)	13,196.0
2000-01 production total	(1622.0)	(5477.9)	(5388.7)	(88.8)	13,468.0
2001-02
Malt
2 row	25.9	61.8	47.3	51.4	50.8
6 row	42.0	18.4	2.4	2.8	14.8
Feed:
2 & 6 row	22.0	19.2	49.3	43.9	32.4
Hulless (2+6)	10.0	0.6	0.9	1.9	2.0
Production total	(1234.5)	(3655.6)	(4746.4)	(100.7)	(10,845.6)

Source: Canadian Wheat Board, Variety Surveys

Table 3. Canadian and W.C. Livestock Inventory

					000's
		MB	SK	AB	Total Canada
Swine	1997	3,371	1,373	2,771	19,603
	2000	5,616	1,651	3,523	25,506
Beef	1997	859	1,716	3,566	8,092
	2000	808	1,547	3,817	7,929
Dairy	1997	70	52	149	1,754
	2000	63.5	42	142	1,602
Broiler	1997	20,054	11,805	46,255	496,835
	2000	26,283	17,069	54,131	569,295
Turkey	1997	1,301	712	1,724	20,949
	2000	1,465	806	1,554	20,804

The higher price paid for malt barley helps barley growers justify the risk in growing barley. Table 4 shows the current status of Saskatchewan feed barley relative to corn in the feed system. While it is recognized, because of weather that we have an artificially high price for feed barley, there is no known lower end for corn as they price corn into the market to compete. The fact is corn in Lethbridge, once Alberta’s locally grown barley is used up, will be a better buy many times than Saskatchewan barley. In this scenario malting barley production and sustainability is strongly linked to barley’s competitiveness as a feed.

Table 4. Current Position of Barley - Saskatoon Feb 14, 2003

Corn $171.00/tonne Barley $162.00/tonne

Feeding value nutritionally (ruminant) = barley 93 to 95% of corn:

Real value price of barley

FOB Saskatoon = 159 to 162.45/tonne or 3.46 to 3.54/ bu.

Wadena barley in Lethbridge = 171.00 x 0.94 = 160.74 -30.00 = 130.74/tonne or2.85/bu.

Cost of barley prod black soil zone from SAF: $2.16/bu. (includes 17.33 land cost no labor & management, and 59.9 bu/acre on stubble)

In growing feed, crops prices received must allow economic sustainable production. Tables 5 and 6 are results from the crops livestock interface project showing the relative costs of production per unit of feed grain in the dark brown and black soil zones. It clearly shows for non ruminants like pigs, more impact may be possible from a high yielding hulless barley or CPS wheat. For ruminants which can digest more fibre, lower quality or other special barley would have greater impact. It should be noted that in 2001 (April) barley prices at Wadena, SK were $2.05/bu. and October 2002 prices were $2.81/bu., taking a severe drought in Alberta to increase the price above the cost of production. Not responding by increasing barley’s competitiveness would place our livestock and barley crop industries at a disadvantage to other feed grains restricting growth in both sectors.

Table 5. Position: Main Commodities

	Yields and Costs of Production: Stubble Crop
	Soil Zone - Dark Brown
	Barley	HRS	CPS
Total Variable
Costs/acre	80.45	83.02	83.38
Total cost/acre	122.77	132.29	132.65
Yield bu/acre	45.1	28.0	34.3
Break even/bu	2.72	4.72	3.87
Break even/tonne	125.05	173.63	142.12
Yield of DE/Mcal/acre	3099.0	2657.0	3255.0
(swine)
Yield of CP - kg/acre	108.24	103.09	116.93

Source: Crops-Livestock Interface Project

Table 6. Position: Main Commodities

	Yields and Costs of Production: Stubble Crop
	Soil Zone - Black
	Barley	HRS	CPS
Total Variable
Costs/acre	85.25	89.87	90.23
Total cost/acre	146.95	151.57	151.93
Yield bu/acre	59.6	35.6	44.0
Break even/bu	2.47	4.26	3.45
Break even/tonne	113.26	156.46	126.89
Yield of DE/Mcal/acre	4096.0	3378	4176.0
(swine)
Yield of CP - kg/acre	143.04	131.07	150.00

Source: Crops-Livestock Interface Project

Potential Routes of Value Adding

To capture market demands we need to create competitive feed sources that can be used to grow unique safe food products. Feeding value for barley for all species is dependent on its protein and available energy content.

Protein Level

Barley through modeling in the Crops Livestock Interface has shown little in any value increase from an increase in protein content (Table 7). Because of this, lower protein barleys are acceptable and open the door to accept high yielding malting varieties as feed. It is expected that malting barley will continue to lead through price; however it is also reasonable to expect that good malting varieties are also best for pigs but less desirable for ruminants. Feeding and processing technology can be used to capture greater available nutrient value for ruminants. All synergies between malting barley and feed barley should be looked at from a systems approach that combines malt production with feedlot activity. The results would be value added activity from malt production, feeding activity from an assured feed supply and malt barley crop production.

Table 7. Value of Protein in Barley

	12% CP	10% CP	Difference
Hog
Grow 30 60 100	147.36 148.15 147.79	143.95 145.66 146.21	3.41 2.49 1.58
Beef
Grow 1 Med Finish	122.91 124.18 113.60	112.18 124.18 113.60	10.73 0.00 0.00

Available Energy

The greatest value of gain from barley improvement, besides increasing yield, is that of increasing the available energy content. For pigs there is a much clearer and distinct relationship between available energy and hull (fibre) content. In 1983 Bell et al. reported from fractionated barleys where hull was added back in digestible energy contents of 3385, 3115 and 2845 kcal/kg for 0, 10 and 20% hull content respectively. While we know that hulless barley approaches wheat in available energy for pigs there is no reason that barleys cannot be bred for lower hull content particularly malting barleys. Non-starch polysaccharide composition should be monitored and used routinely in selection.

For ruminants there is great debate in comparing corn with barley as to available energy content. The rumen environment itself and variation in rumen fermentation efficiencies achieved are some of the possible reasons for the debate and the mixed results of comparisons in the literature. The fact remains that corn has lower indigestible fibre, higher fat content and a slower fermentable starch fraction giving it greater potential energy if fed in a suitable diet. Lowering of the relatively indigestible hull content and/or lignin content of the hull in barley would increase available energy for ruminants. Because of good fermentation capability non-starch polysaccharide content is less of a concern however the rapidly degraded starch level does make energy capture from barley more difficult. Work begun on barley by the Crop Development Centre (B. Rossnagel) and Animal and Poultry Science, U of S, has identified a slower digestion rate of the carbohydrate fraction in the rumen of a specific barley variety that increases efficiency of energy capture. This means a higher level of gain or better feed efficiency. Other means of increasing available energy could be through processing for both ruminants and non ruminants. With feedlot cattle Owens et al. 1996, comparing grain types, found with dry rolling corn and barley similar rates of gain and feed efficiency were gotten.. However with steam rolling corn and barley, rates of gain of 1.43 and 1.33 kg/day and feed efficiencies of 5.87 and 6.19 kg feed/kg gain respectively were achieved.

Other means of increasing the value of barley would be such items as reducing the phytate content; this to increase the available phosphorus of barley for pigs and poultry saving some $2.00 to $3.00 per tonne of feed fed and is environmentally sustainable. Pioneer Grain has a low phytate corn on the market with development of rapid testing procedures so it can be handled as an I.P. grain. Work at the Crop Development Centre on a low phytate barley is continuing and could have great impact particularly in producing designer meats. Barley as a feed has value in markets to produce desirable meat products with a white hard fat and this coupled to an I.P. system that demonstrates feed safety may command a market and/or premium.

Forage production from barley is often forgotten but has been the most consistent and profitable means of barley crop production (Table 8). Barley silage and identifying superior barley silage varieties could have substantial impact. Table 9 gives an example of the gross returns from the cattle gains responsible from barley silage. A true value added process with substance.

Table 8. Examples of Forage Opportunities

1. Grain vs. silage

Barley silage 2.1 tonne D.M./acre = 1323 kg TDN = 2310 kg protein

Barley grain 60 bushels/acre = 1.30 tonnes = 1066 kg TDN = 156 kg protein

Question: Which is cheaper to produce? What if you paid for silage $30/tonne wet? (180.00/acre)

Table 9. What is the Value of Barley Silage?

2. Feeding Margin (700 lb. or 318 kg steer)

Yield adjusted for silo loss of 15% 1.35 to 2.2 tonnes of dry matter fed

Amount of dry matter eaten/day; 8.1 kg (18 lb. DM)

Daily gain; 0.9 kg (2.0 lb.) from silage based on US-NRC Model (with implant and rumensin)

Gain per acre: from 1.35 tonnes; 150 kg or 330 lb. from 2.2 tonnes; 244 kg or 538 lb.

Gross income per acre at $1.00/lb.; $330 to $538

Summary

Changes in the global feed marketplace and increasing transport costs are necessitating improvements in barley to increase its competitiveness. The changes possible are increasing nutrient density particularly available energy and giving it special characteristics such as low phytate along with an I.P. system to capture that potential value. Yield improvements are necessary but so are systems with commercial activity that can meet the challenges of food safety and environment issues.

References

Bell, J.M., A. Shires and M.O. Keith, 1983. Effects of Hull and Protein contents of Barley on Protein Digestibility and Feeding Value. Research Reports, Dept. of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan, p. 17.
Owens, Frederic N., David S. Secrist, W. Jeff Hill and Donald R. Gill, 1997. The effect of grain source and grain processing on performance of feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 75: 868-879.
Statistical Handbook 2001, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Canada Grains Council: Canadian Wheat Board Variety Survey 2001-02, Canadian Wheat Board, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
U.S. Grains Council website at: http://www.grains.org

Vernon J. Racz
Executive Director, Prairie Feed Resource Centre
Dept. of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan
Presented at the 3rd Canadian Barley Symposium, June 19-20, 2003