Effects of barley grain processing on productivity of cattle

Dehghan-Banadaky, M.; Corbett, R.; Oba, M.

doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2006.11.021

Cited by 79 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Grain from field plots was split into duplicate samples for the micromalting process, and an incomplete block design was used to allocate individual samples to the malt runs and position within the micromalter. The designs contained only partial duplication of the field plots and laboratory samples as described previously 17 .…”

Section: Barley Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Malting Barley Better Feed for Cattle than Feed Barley?

Fox

Kelly²,

Bowman

et al. 2009

Journal of the Institute of Brewing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Barley grain from a combined intermediate and advanced barley breeding trial was assessed for grain, feed and malt quality from two sites over two consecutive years, with the objective to ascertain relationships between these traits. Results indicated there were genetic effects for both malt (hot water extract and friability) and "feed" traits (as measured by hardness, acid detergent fibre, starch and in-sacco dry matter digestibility). The feed trait values were generally independent of the malt trait values. However, there were positive relationships between friability, hardness and protein, as well as a negative relationship between extract and husk. Extract also had a positive relationship with test weight but appeared to be independent from the feed traits. Test weight also showed little relationship to the feed traits. Heritability values ranged from low to high for almost all traits. This study details where both malt and cattle feed parameters have been compared and the results indicated that while malt and feed traits do not correlate directly, malt cultivars can exhibit excellent feed characteristics, equal to or better than feed cultivars. This data highlights the benefit of selecting for malt quality even if a breeding program would be interested at targeting specific feed quality.

show abstract

Section: Barley Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Malting Barley Better Feed for Cattle than Feed Barley?

Fox

Kelly²,

Bowman

et al. 2009

Journal of the Institute of Brewing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, a reduced fermentation in the rumen may contribute to alleviate these disorders. Dehghan-Banadaky et al (2007) stated that grain processing methods or conditions would determine the site of starch digestion in the gastrointestinal tract, with the possibility to decrease its ruminal fermentation and increase the flow of starch to the duodenum without reducing its total tract digestibility (Moharrery et al, 2014). Changing the site of digestion of starch may also have an influence on the microbial synthesis in the rumen, which is highly dependent on the provision of energy from the fermentation of the feed organic matter to the rumen microbes (Brassard et al, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of barley grain particle size and treatment with citric acid on digestibility, ruminal fermentation and microbial protein synthesis in Holstein calves

Kazemi-Bonchenari

Salem

López

2017

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chemical and physical treatments of barley grain increase ruminally resistant starch and can improve the rumen fermentation pattern. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effects of chemical (addition of citric acid, CA) and physical (grinding to two different particle sizes, PS) treatment of barley grain on performance, rumen fermentation, microbial protein yield in the rumen and selected blood metabolites in growing calves. In all, 28 male Holstein calves (172 ± 5.1 kg initial BW) were used in a complete randomised design with a factorial arrangement of 2 barley grain particle sizes × 2 levels of citric acid. The diets were as follows: (i) small PS (average 1200 µm) barley grain soaked in water (no CA addition); (ii) small PS barley grain soaked in a CA solution (adding 20 g CA/kg barley); (iii) large PS (average 2400 µm) barley grain soaked in water (no citric acid addition) and (iv) large PS barley grain soaked in a citric acid solution (adding 20 g CA/kg barley). Barley grain was then incorporated at 35% in a total mixed ration and fed to the calves for 11 weeks. Feeding small PS barley decreased feed intake ( P = 0.02) and average daily weight gain ( P = 0.01). The addition of CA to barley grain did not affect intake but increased weight gain ( P < 0.01) and improved feed to gain ratio ( P = 0.03). Digestibility of organic matter and NDF tended ( P < 0.10) to increase, whereas faecal scoring was improved ( P = 0.03) and the presence of undigested grain particles in faeces was reduced ( P < 0.01) with CA-treated barley grain. Glucose and urea concentrations were increased (P < 0.01) in the blood of calves fed the CA-treated barley grain. Ruminal pH tended ( P = 0.08) to be decreased with more finely ground barley and was increased when barley grain was treated with CA. Total volatile fatty acid concentrations in the rumen did not differ among treatments ( P > 0.05). However, the molar proportion of propionate was increased ( P = 0.03) when barley was more finely ground, and that of acetate was increased ( P = 0.04) when CA was added to barley grain. The ruminal concentration of ammonia nitrogen was increased ( P < 0.01) and microbial nitrogen synthesis in the rumen tended to decrease by adding CA to barley. Treating barley grain with citric acid increased fibre digestibility of total mixed rations, attenuated the decrease in ruminal pH, and improved weight gain and feed efficiency in male Holstein growing calves fed a high-cereal diet (550 g cereal grain/kg diet).

show abstract

“…It is well known that dry-rolling would ensure a larger particle size of grain than grinding (Beauchemin et al, 2001;Dehghan-banadaky et al, 2007). Furthermore, grinding increases microbial fermentation by reducing particle size (Bertipaglia et al, 2010) and diets with fine particle sizes decrease rumen pH (Ghassemi Nejad et al, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Grinding and pelleting increase microbial fermentation by reducing particle size and/or promoting starch gelatinization (Bertipaglia et al, 2010). Cereal rolling would ensure larger particle size than grinding (Beauchemin et al, 2001;Dehghan-banadaky et al, 2007), and therefore is an interesting, better than grinding or pelleting, alternative for preventing ruminal acidosis (Gimeno et al, 2015). Porter et al (2007) reported greater average daily gain (ADG), starter intake, and earlier rumination time in neonatal calves fed coarse meal diet vs pelleted fine particle diet.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%