Comparative feeding value of hulless vs covered barley for feedlot cattle.

Zinn, R. A.; Montaño, M. F.; Shen, Yixin

doi:10.2527/1996.7461187x

Cited by 34 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Very few studies have addressed differences in feed quality for ruminants between hulled and hulless barley cultivars. Zinn et al (1996) found the net energy value of hulless barley was 5.6% greater than that of hulled barley for feedlot steers ( Bos taurus ); however, they did not see a corresponding increase in average daily gain. Zinn et al (1996) did find lower ruminal pH, and increased incidence of liver abscesses in steers fed hulless barley, both indicative of rapid fermentation and excessive accumulation of acid in the rumen.…”

mentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Zinn et al (1996) found the net energy value of hulless barley was 5.6% greater than that of hulled barley for feedlot steers ( Bos taurus ); however, they did not see a corresponding increase in average daily gain. Zinn et al (1996) did find lower ruminal pH, and increased incidence of liver abscesses in steers fed hulless barley, both indicative of rapid fermentation and excessive accumulation of acid in the rumen. Extremely rapid ruminal fermentation of barley can increase the incidence of metabolic disorders such as acidosis, laminitis, and bloat (Hunt, 1996; Yang et al, 1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 79%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Feed‐Quality Variation in the Barley Core Collection of the USDA National Small Grains Collection

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feed is an important end use of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Recent research has identified high starch content, low acid‐detergent fiber (ADF), low ruminal dry‐matter digestibility (DMD), and large particle size after dry rolling as desirable barley feed‐quality characteristics for beef cattle. Knowledge about the variation available may help barley breeders develop strategies for feed‐quality improvement. Our objective was to estimate the variation in feed‐quality characteristics in barley around the world. The spring barley core subcollection from the USDA‐ARS National Small Grains Collection was planted in 1995. Ruminal DMD of 1480 accessions was evaluated. Seventy‐three accessions, selected on variation in DMD, were planted in two field replications in 1996 and 1997. These 73 accessions were evaluated for starch, DMD, ADF, and particle size after dry rolling. The range in DMD was 82 to 621 g kg−1, with a mean of 398 g kg−1 (SD = 75 g kg−1). The ranges for other traits of the 73 selected accessions were 387 to 593 g kg−1 (starch); 15 to 96 g kg−1 (ADF); 187 to 510 g kg−1 (DMD); and 1118 to 1572 μm (particle size). Six‐row types had greater ADF and particle size (P < 0.001), lower starch, and DMD (P < 0.001), compared with 2‐row types. Starch was higher (P < 0.01), and ADF and DMD were lower (P < 0.01), for hulless than for hulled accessions. Substantial variation in the spring barley core collection for feed quality‐related characters could be exploited to develop barley cultivars for feed quality.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 79%

mentioning

confidence: 79%

Feed‐Quality Variation in the Barley Core Collection of the USDA National Small Grains Collection

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It was predicted that hull-less genotypes would have less fiber and more starch contents than hulled genotypes, since the hull constitutes about 10% of the barley grain dry weight Zinn et al 1996;Yang et al 1997;Bowman et al 2001). The population was divided according to grain type into two subpopulations.…”

Section: Phenotypic Variationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The differences in the QTL detected in our study compared with those in other reports could be related to different QTL detection methods. Another possibility is that Steptoe and Morex are hulled barley varieties, and other studies have noted the importance of the presence of the hull on ADF variation Zinn et al 1996;Bowman et al 2001). …”

Section: Qtl Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two-rowed barleys contain less ADF than sixrowed and therefore contain higher nutritional value than six-rowed varieties . Hull-less barley also has lower ADF than hulled barley Zinn et al 1996;Bowman et al 2001). Lehman et al (1995) reported that the absence of hull increased dry matter digestibility by 5.5% in a comparison among 16 hulled and six hull-less varieties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quantitative trait loci of acid detergent fiber and grain chemical composition in hulled × hull-less barley population

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultivated barley is the major livestock feed grain in the Northern Plains and Northwestern United States due to the fact that its short growing season and limited rainfall limit the planting and production of corn. Starch and fiber content play a significant role in feedlot performance of animals raised on barley feed. To study the underlying genetic locations and mechanisms for these traits, a recombinant inbred line population was derived from a cross between the hulled barley cultivar Valier and a hullless Swiss landrace line, PI370970. Valier has a high acid detergent fiber content (ADF) and low starch and protein while PI370970 contains low ADF and high starch and protein content. To detect associated QTLs, data were collected and analyzed from irrigated and rain-fed environments. A total of 30 main effect QTLs and four epistatic QTLs were identified which conditioned ADF, starch and protein content under rain-fed, irrigated and combined analyses. These QTLs were located on chromosomes 2H, 3H, 5H, 6H and 7H. Major ADF and starch QTL were identified on chromosome 7H near the nud locus (the locus controlling hulled vs. hull-less caryopsis). High heritability estimates for both ADF and starch content suggest that early selection for these traits during breeding would be productive. Low ADF-QTL were independently verified in a second population in a different genetic background.

show abstract

Breeding Naked Barley for Food, Feed, and Malt

Meints

Hayes

2019

Plant Breeding Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparative feeding value of hulless vs covered barley for feedlot cattle.

Cited by 34 publications

References 16 publications

Feed‐Quality Variation in the Barley Core Collection of the USDA National Small Grains Collection

Feed‐Quality Variation in the Barley Core Collection of the USDA National Small Grains Collection

Quantitative trait loci of acid detergent fiber and grain chemical composition in hulled × hull-less barley population

Breeding Naked Barley for Food, Feed, and Malt

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About