Barley (Hordeum vulgare) is a monocotyledonous herbaceous plant with an annual growth cycle included in the Gramineae family. It has a great adaptability to different soils and climate zones. In the past, six-row barley was used to feed animals, and two-row barley (malting barley) to produce beer, but currently, six-row barley production has dropped in favour of two-row barley, because it can be used in the beer and malting industry as well as to feed animals.

The grain contains some 3.8% of germ, 18.1% of bran (pericarp and testa) and 78.1% of endosperm (including aleurone). Barley contains relatively high levels of protein and minerals in comparison with other cereals such as maize and sorghum, and a low fat content. Barley grain has a sugar content of 1.5-2.5%, mainly as soluble sugars (sucrose and raffinose), but it basically differs from the rest of the most used cereals in pig feeding because of its content in barely lignified fibre, that can double that of maize, sorghum, wheat or rye (it is more similar to oats). The differential trait of barley fibre is that most of it is comprised of ß-glucans and pentosanes, that vary depending on the climate and the crop conditions. In fact, its energy value (ME/kg) is lower than that of wheat and maize.
Production and trade
Production
Trade


Comparative study of the nutritional values
The systems used in the comparison are: FEDNA (Spain), CVB (The Netherlands), INRA (France), NRC (USA) and Brazilian.
| FEDNA | CVB | INRA | NRC | Brazil | |
| DM (%) | 88.9-89.9 | 86.7 | 86.7 | 89.9 | 87.1 |
| Energy value (kcal/kg) | |||||
| Crude protein (%) | 9.6-11.3 | 10 | 10.1 | 11.33 | 10.8 |
| Ether extract (%) | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 2.11 | 1.7 |
| Crude fibre (%) | 4.7 | 4.3 | 4.6 | 3.9 | 4.25 |
| Starch (%) | 52.5-51.9 | 52.8-54.0 | 52.2 | 50.21 | 52.1 |
| Sugars (%) | 1.6 | 2.3 | 2.1 | - | - |
| DE growing pigs | 3,3151-3,3702 | - | 3,070 | 3,150 | 3,106 |
| ME growing pigs | 3,2301-3,2702 | - | 2,970 | 3,073 | 3,019 |
| NE growing pigs | 2,3251-2,3452 | 2,390 | 2,280 | 2,327 | 2,305 |
| NE sows | 2,3751-2,3952 | 2,390 | 2,320 | 2,327 | 2,380 |
| Protein value | |||||
| Crude protein digestibility (%) | 78 | 74 | 75 | 79 | 79.5 |
| Amino acid composition (% CP) | |||||
| Lys | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.8 | 4.5 | 3.8 |
| Met | 1.64 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 2.3 | 1.67 |
| Met + Cys | 3.83 | 3.9 | 4 | 5.2 | 4.07 |
| Tre | 3.31 | 3.4 | 3.4 | 4.1 | 3.33 |
| Trp | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.2 |
| Ile | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.6 | 4.2 | 3.33 |
| Val | 4.9 | 4.9 | 5.1 | 5.9 | 4.44 |
| Arg | 4.91 | 4.9 | 4.8 | 6.0 | 4.91 |
| Standardised ileal digestibility (% CP) | |||||
| Lys | 78 | 76 | 75 | 75 | 73.7 |
| Met | 84 | 82 | 84 | 82 | 82 |
| Met + Cys | 82 | 80 | 84 | 81 | 82 |
| Tre | 79 | 79 | 75 | 76 | 74.3 |
| Trp | 80 | 77 | 79 | 82 | 76.9 |
| Ile | 81 | 82 | 81 | 79 | 80.6 |
| Val | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 78.9 |
| Arg | 83 | 84 | 83 | 85 | 83.3 |
| Minerale (%) | |||||
| Ca | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.05 |
| P | 0.32 | 0.31 | 0.34 | 0.35 | 0.35 |
| Phytic P | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.187 | 0.22 | 0.2 |
| Available P | 0.11 | - | - | - | 0.15 |
| Digestible P | 0.10 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.158 | - |
| Na | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| Cl | 0.12 | 0.1 | 0.11 | 0.12 | 0.12 |
| K | 0.4 | 0.49 | 0.48 | 0.38 | 0.43 |
| Mg | 0.1 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.13 |
1Spanish two-row barley with a crude protein content of 9.6%.
2Spanish two-row barley with a crude protein content of 11.3%.
As opposed to the rest of the tables, the FEDNA clearly differentiates between two barleys with a different quality classified according to their protein content, whilst the CVB, INRA and Brazil only consider a single barley quality with intermediate values (10.0-10.8%), except the NRC, that equates to the FEDNA's higher range as its single protein value (11.3%). This is closely related to the fact that the NRC offers the lowest fibre value, followed by Brazil, the INRA and the CVB, with a very marked negative correlation (r2 = -0,83) between the protein and fibre contents (with the exception of high-protein barley for FEDNA, that assumes a fixed value for fibre content). The same correlation, although less marked (r2 = 0,56) is seen between the protein and starch contents.
These relationships have a direct impact on the net energy (NE) estimated value, because the clear positive correlation between starch content and NE is evident (with the exception of the INRA, with a downward NE estimation for high starch values in comparison with the rest of the estimation systems). We must highlight that, as opposed to the rest of the estimation systems, the NRC gives barley higher protein values (+15% with respect to the FEDNA's low-protein barley and the same value as the high-protein barley), higher fat values (+20%), but lower fibre values (-20%), barley being a fibrous cereal. Regarding the energy value, both the INRA and the NRC, estimate that NE is 2-3% lower than for the FEDNA, whilst Brazil and the CVB's values are only slightly higher (+0.2% and +0.5%).
In terms of total amino acids, and taking as a reference lysine, we can see that whilst the FEDNA and the CVB offer similar values, the INRA and Brazil show an increase by 5% in lysine content. The NRC's case is more extreme, as it shows a 20% higher lysine value. The values for the rest of the amino acids are quite proportional with respect to lysine. Lysine digestibility coefficient shows a range that goes from 74% (Brasil) to 78% (FEDNA), with intermediate values (75-76%) for the rest of the estimation systems (CVB, INRA and NRC). Exceptionally, the INRA shows higher digestibility values for sulphur amino acids, and the NRC offers a higher digestibility coefficient for tryptophan.
Recent findings
References
Foreing Agricultural Service. USDA. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html
FEDNA: http://www.fundacionfedna.org/
FND. CVB Feed Table 2016. http://www.cvbdiervoeding.nl
INRA. Sauvant D, Perez, J, y Tran G, 2004, Tables de composition et de valeur nutritive des matières premières destinées aux animaux d'élevage,
NRC 1982. United States-Canadian Tables of Feed Composition: Nutritional Data for United States and Canadian Feeds, Third Revision.
Rostagno, H,S, 2017, Tablas Brasileñas para aves y cerdos, Composición de Alimentos y Requerimientos Nutricionales, 4th Ed,