UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A comparison of barley, corn and wheat as the grain in broiler starter rations Haazele, Felix M. 1984

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1984_A6_7 H32.pdf [ 3.75MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096111.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096111-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096111-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096111-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096111-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096111-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096111-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096111-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096111.ris

Full Text

A COMPARISON OF BARLEY, CORN AND WHEAT AS THE GRAIN IN BROILER STARTER RATIONS by F e l i x M. Haazele B.Ag.Sc, University of Zambia, 1980 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE THE FACULTY OF (Department of i n GRADUATE STUDIES Poultry Science) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA © F e l i x M. Haazele J a n u a r y , 1984 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head o f my department o r by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f /W/^ry 5 ^ ^ r > ^ The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date 16-02-1984 i i ABSTRACT Growth t r i a l s , a d i g e s t i b i l i t y and N-retention t r i a l were con-ducted using b r o i l e r chicks to compare the n u t r i t i o n a l value of b r o i l e r s t a r t e r rations based on barley, corn, wheat or combinations of two cereals. When barley replaced wheat to a maximum l e v e l of 50% of the t o t a l diet with adjustments to keep diets iso-nitrogenous, feed consumption increased with increasing barley, weight gain f e l l when barley was used at l e v e l s beyond 30% of the diet and feed e f f i c i e n c y f e l l with increas-ing barley. However, differences i n these parameters were not s i g n i f i -cant. Feed intakes were 1274, 1292, 1323, 1304, 1311 and 1308 g/bird, weight gains 806.25, 817.50, 826.00, 817.25, 802.75 and 797.50 g/bird and feed/gain r a t i o s 1.58, 1.58, 1.60, 1.60, 1.63 and 1.64 for 0, 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50% barley diets r e s p e c t i v e l y . When corn replaced wheat to a maximum l e v e l of 48.6% of the t o t a l d i e t , feed intake s i g n i f i c a n t l y (P <.01) decreased while feed e f f i c i e n c y s i g n i f i c a n t l y (P <.005) improved with increased corn. High wheat diets gave s l i g h t l y better weight gains than diets high i n corn, however best weight gains were achieved when the two cereals were used i n a combina-tio n of approximate equal proportions. Differences i n weight gains were not s i g n i f i c a n t . Feed intakes were 1466, 1440, 1433, 1426, 1386 and 1386 g/bird. Weight gains were 913.00, 912.75, 921.75, 936.25, 902.00 and 901.75 g/bird and feed/gain r a t i o s were 1.61, 1.58, 1.56, 1.52, 1.54 and 1.54 for the 0, 10, 20, 30, 40 and 48.6% corn diets respectively. i i i When barley replaced corn up to a maximum l e v e l of 47% of the diet with adjustments i n soybean meal and animal tallow to maintain diets iso-nitrogenous and i s o - c a l o r i c , there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between diets i n feed intake, weight gain or feed e f f i c i e n c y although a decline i n feed e f f i c i e n c y appeared to occur at 47% barley. Feed i n -takes were 1349, 1395, 1299, 1404, 1375 and 1394 g/bird, weight gains were 856.62, 885.72, 836.28, 895.25, 863.42 and 874.00 g/bird and feed/ gain r a t i o s were 1.58, 1.58, 1.56, 1.57, 1.59 and 1.60 for the 0, 10, 20, 30, 40 and 47% barley diets r e s p e c t i v e l y . Corn had s i g n i f i c a n t l y (P <.005) higher d i g e s t i b l e dry matter (91.40%) than wheat (88.25%) and barley (87.49%), and barley had s i g n i -f i c a n t l y (P <.05) lower nitrogen retention (71.43%) than corn (77.67%) and wheat (74.03%). No s i g n i f i c a n t difference occurred i n the d i g e s t i b l e dry matter of diets based on the three cereals but a barley-based diet gave s i g n i f i c a n t l y (P <.005) lower nitrogen retention (74.03%) than diets based on corn (84.86%) and wheat (83.74%). I t was concluded that no s i g n i f i c a n t difference occurs i n weight gain when b r o i l e r s are fed corn or wheat based diets but corn-based diets give better feed e f f i c i e n c y . Barley-based diets are not p r a c t i c a l i n b r o i l e r feeding due to low metabolizable energy i n barley, however, barley i n combination with corn or wheat can be successfully used i n p r a c t i c a l b r o i l e r r a t i o s to a l e v e l of 30% of the t o t a l r a t i o n without a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on weight gain and feed e f f i c i e n c y . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF TABLES v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i x INTRODUCTION 1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4 A. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n , o r i g i n , ecology and geography 4 1. Barley 4 2. Wheat 5 3. Corn 3 B. Gross composition of barley, corn and wheat 7 C. Nutrient a v a i l a b i l i t y for poultry 9 D. Barley i n b r o i l e r feeding 11 E. Barley i n layer feeding 13 F. Treatments i n barley diets 14 1. Enzyme supplements 14 2. Other treatments 16 3. Amino acid supplements 20 G. Barley diets and pancreatic enlargement 20 H. V a r i a t i o n i n the n u t r i t i o n a l value of cereals 20 1. V a r i a t i o n i n the n u t r i t i o n a l value of barley ..." 21 2. V a r i a t i o n i n the n u t r i t i o n a l value of wheat .... 21 3. V a r i a t i o n i n the n u t r i t i o n a l value of corn 23 I. P o t e n t i a l for n u t r i t i o n a l value improvement i n barley through breeding ; 23 1 . Waxy barley 23 V Page 2. High-amylose barley 24 3. High-lysine barley 25 4. Hulless barley 25 MATERIALS AND METHODS 26 A. Choice of cereal source and birds 26 B. Formulation of diets and mixing 26 C. Bir d management 27 D. Randomization and experimental design 28 E. Experiments 28 1. Experiment I. Growth t r i a l with wheat and barley diets 28 2. Experiment I I . Growth t r i a l with wheat and corn di e t s 29 3. Experiment I I I . Growth t r i a l with corn and barley di e t s 32 4. Experiment IV. D i g e s t i b i l i t y and N-retention t r i a l 34 (a) Selection of experimental material 34 (b) Feeding and sample c o l l e c t i o n 34 F. Chemical analyses 36 1. Dry matter determination 36 2. Total nitrogen determination 36 3. Gross energy determination 37 G. Data analysis 37 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 38 A. Experiment I 38 B. Experiment II 42 C. Experiment I II 46 D. Experiment IV. D i g e s t i b i l i t y and N-retention t r i a l . 50 v i . Page E. General b i r d performance 53 F. General discussion 54 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 57 REFERENCES 60 APPENDICES 67 v i i LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Experimental d i e t s for experiment I 30 2 Experimental diets for experiment II 31 3 Experimental diets for experiment I I I 33 4 Diets used i n experiment IV 35 5 Determined nitrogen, CP (N x 6.25) and gross energy of experimental diets 39 6 Feed intake, weight gain and feed/gain r a t i o s for birds fed wheat and barley-based d i e t s 39 7 Dietary ME (c a l c u l a t e d ) , feed intake and feed/gain r a t i o s for birds fed wheat and barley-based diets .. 40 8 Determined nitrogen, CP (N x 6.25) and gross energy of experimental diets 43 9 Feed intake, weight gain and feed/gain r a t i o s for birds fed wheat and corn-based diets 43 10 Dietary ME (ca l c u l a t e d ) , feed intake and feed/gain r a t i o s for birds fed wheat and corn-based diets .... 46 11 Determined nitrogen, CP (N x 6.25) and gross energy of experimental diets 47 12 Feed intake, weight gain and feed/gain r a t i o s for birds fed corn and barley-based diets 48 13 Apparent ME, dry matter and nitrogen retention of cereals 51 14 Dry matter and nitrogen retention of diets 51 15 Canadian barley and wheat production figu r e s : (1975-80) 68 16 Gross amino acid composition of barley, corn and wheat 69 17 Gross composition of barley, corn and wheat 70 18 Gross composition of some barley v a r i e t i e s 71 v i i i Table Page 19 Gross composition of some wheats 72 20 Carbohydrate composition of some barleys 73 21 Carbohydrate composition of some wheats 74 22 Ash, phosphorus and tannin content of some barleys . 75 23 Ash, phosphorus and tannin content of some wheats .. 76 24a Experiment I - Feed intake 77 24b Experiment I - ANOVA on feed intake 77 25a Experiment I - Weight gain 78 25b Experiment I - ANOVA on weight gain 78 26a Experiment I - E f f i c i e n c y of gain 79 26b Experiment I - ANOVA on e f f i c i e n c y of gain 79 27a Experiment II - Feed intake 80 27b Experiment II - ANOVA on feed intake 80 28a Experiment II - Weight gain 81 28b Experiment II - ANOVA on weight gain 81 29a Experiment I I - E f f i c i e n c y of gain 82 29b Experiment II - ANOVA on e f f i c i e n c y of gain 82 30a Experiment I I I - Feed intake 83 30b Experiment I I I - ANOVA on feed intake 83 31a Experiment I I I - Weight gain 84 31b Experiment I I I - ANOVA on weight gain 84 32a Experiment I I I - E f f i c i e n c y of gain 85 32b Experiment III - ANOVA on e f f i c i e n c y of gain 85 33a Experiment IV - D i g e s t i b i l i t y percent 86 33b Experiment IV - Nitrogen retention 86 33c Experiment IV - F-values for DM and N-retention .... 87 i x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my research advisor and chairman of my thesis committee Dr. D.B. Bragg for his guidance, encouragement and assistance throughout the course of my study. Appreciation i s extended to members of my thesis committee Professor B.E. March, Dr. J.S. Sim and Dr. P.M. Townsley for the i r valuable advice and suggestions during the preparation and writing of th i s t h e s i s . Technical assistance from a l l members of s t a f f , technicians and students i n the department as well as farm personnel i s also greatly appreciated. I also thank CIDA for providing f i n a n c i a l support and a l l CIDA personnel whose services provided a good working atmosphere. 1 INTRODUCTION Animal products (meats, milk and eggs) are the best protein sources i n human n u t r i t i o n . About 30% of the t o t a l protein consumed by the world population comes from animal sources (FAO, 1964). The need for e f f i c i e n t production of animal products has stimulated changes i n animal management pra c t i c e s . Intensive animal production systems have been developed u t i l i z i n g formulated d i e t s . Cereals are a major com-ponent of formulated diets used i n animal production, e s p e c i a l l y poultry and swine which tend to be more dependent on cereals than ruminants since ruminants u t i l i z e roughage and can be produced with minimal use of cereals. There i s further v a r i a t i o n i n extent of dependency on cereals between poultry and swine. Swine can u t i l i z e a wider range of cereal v a r i e t i e s and by-products as feed ingredients whereas poultry require high energy feed ingredients. In p r a c t i c a l formulations, cereals are used to a proportion of about 50% of the t o t a l d i e t . However, the high e f f i c i e n c y of feed u t i l i z a t i o n by poultry i n r e l a t i o n to other types of l i v e s t o c k j u s t i f i e s the use of grain i n poultry feeding. Wheat and corn are the primary cereals for poultry feeds. Due to the high demand for these cereals i n the diets of both animals and man, these cereals tend to be expensive. Barley i s a cereal which i s r e l a t i v e l y cheap and has a good pot e n t i a l for increased production. Hence the use of barley i n poultry feeds may be a way of d i v e r s i f y i n g grain types used i n feeds as well as reducing production costs, thereby improving the economic e f f i c i e n c y of poultry production. To date, 2 l i m i t e d use has been made of barley i n poultry feeding. Barley-based d i e t s i n b r o i l e r feeding have been observed to r e s u l t i n poor b r o i l e r performance both i n growth and feed e f f i c i e n c y (Lindblad et a l . , 1954; Willingham et a l . , 1958; Arscott and Rose, 1960a; Anderson et a l . , 1961; Arscott et a l . , 1965 and Petersen, 1969). Most of the work conducted to evaluate barley i n b r o i l e r feeding was conducted over 10 years ago i n which r e l a t i v e l y high l e v e l s of barley (50% of the diet or more) were used without adjustments for nutrient balance (Arscott et a l . , 1955; Arscott and Rose, 1960a; Anderson et a l . , 1961; Arscott et a l . , 1965 and Petersen, 1969). In most cases, evaluation methods used made comparisons of barley with other cereals on a weight to weight s u b s t i t u t i o n basis. I t should be r e a l i s e d that t h i s method of evaluation, while providing the value of one grain r e l a t i v e to the other, does not give an accurate evaluation of the n u t r i t i v e value of a diet that can be formulated using the grain under consideration. It i s also possible that, while a given crop may be of poor n u t r i t i o n a l value when used as a sole grain i n a d i e t , p a r t i a l use of the grain i n combination with another grain could provide n u t r i t i o n a l l y acceptable d i e t s . Over the years, changes have also occurred i n nutrient requirement recommendations, methods of di e t formulatation, barley breeding and str a i n s of bi r d s . With these points i n mind, a comparative study was designed to evaluate the po t e n t i a l of commercially available feed-grade barley as an ingredient i n p r a c t i c a l b r o i l e r s t a r t e r r a t i o n s . The objective of th i s thesis was to: 3 1. Conduct a review of l i t e r a t u r e on the value of barley i n poultry feeding and attempt to i d e n t i f y the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that give barley i t s status i n poultry feeding. 2. Conduct growth t r i a l s to evaluate the performance of b r o i l e r s (to 4 weeks of age) fed diets containing varying amounts of barley i n combination with wheat or corn i n balanced d i e t s . 3. Make comparisons i n performance of b r o i l e r s fed diets based on corn, wheat or barley. 4 REVIEW OF LITERATURE A. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n , O r i g i n , Ecology and Geography 1. Barley Barley belongs to the t r i b e T r i t i c e a e Dumort, family gramineae and genus Hordeum which occurs both as a wild and as a c u l t i v a t e d plant. The genus Hordeum i s divided into sections, c u l t i v a t e d barley together with i t s c l o s e l y related wild types belong to the section of C e r e a l i a . Three of the species i n the section Cerealia are the c u l t i v a t e d barleys. These include H. vulgare L. a six-rowed barley, H. distichum L. a two-rowed barley and H. i r r e g u l a r e E. an i r r e g u l a r barley (Wiebe and Reid, 1961). A l l c u l t i v a t e d barleys possesses 7 pairs of chromosomes (Nilan, 1964). A number of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n schemes for barley have been suggested by a number of workers at species l e v e l , none of which appears to be widely accepted as being most appropriate. The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme used above gives the best segregation of barley types. In this work, the term barley w i l l be used to refer to H. vulgare L. , H. distichum L. and H. i r r e g u l a r e E., c u l t i v a t e d barley species. There i s a large number of c u l t i v a t e d barley v a r i e t i e s world-wide and these are changing with breeding improvements and changes i n c u l t i -vation methods. In 1958, about 165 v a r i e t i e s of barley were being grown i n North America, approximately 37 were grown i n Canada (Wiebe and Reid, 1961). Barley v a r i e t i e s are c l a s s i f i e d as spring or winter i n r e l a t i o n to time of c u l t i v a t i o n . In North America the greater part of the barley crop comes from Spring v a r i e t i e s (Weibe and Reid, 1961). 5 Cultivated barley does not have a c l e a r l y traceable o r i g i n or path of descent. It i s adapted to a very wide range of e c o l o g i c a l and clima-t i c conditions. Barley i s grown as far north as 65° l a t i t u d e i n the USSR, at elevations of 12,000 feet i n the Himalaya mountains to 1,100 feet below sea l e v e l at the dead sea (Nilan, 1964), at equatorial l a t i t u d e s (Helbaek, 1959) and i n A u s t r a l i a , i n the southern hemisphere. In spite of the wide d i s t r i b u t i o n of the c u l t i v a t e d barley, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of one of the possible progenitors H. spontaneum i s l i m i t e d to the near East and Western North A f r i c a (Helbaek, 1959) and the other possible progenitor H. a g r i o c r i t h o n has never been observed growing under wild conditions, but was f i r s t found as mixtures i n c u l t i v a t e d barley seed from Tibet (Schiemann, 1951). In Canada, barley i s produced i n many areas across the country, with greater production being c a r r i e d out i n the p r a i r i e provinces. The y i e l d i n the p r a i r i e s i s i n the order of 0.98 to 1.01 tonnes/acre (Agriculture Canada, 1977 and 1978). Canada barley production figures over a f i v e year period (1975-1980) are given i n Table 15. 2. Wheat Cultivated wheat belongs to the t r i b e T r i t i c e a e Dumort, family Gramineae and genus Triticum L. emend. This genus includes d i p l o i d , a l l o t e t r a p l o i d , allohexaploid wheats and d i p l o i d , a l l o t e t r a p l o i d and allohexaploid species of i n t e r s p e c i f i c hybrid o r i g i n . There are 10 d i p l o i d species, one a l l o t e t r a p l o i d wheat species of hybrid o r i g i n which includes many c u l t i v a r s , three botanical v a r i e t i e s and one auto-allohexaploid form, one allohexaploid wheat which i s a hybrid complex 6 that includes many c u l t i v a r s , 10 other a l l o t e t r a p l o i d or allohexaploid species of i n t e r s p e c i f i c hybrid o r i g i n and numerous a r t i f i c i a l and natural i n t e r s p e c i f i c hybrids (Bowden, 1959). I t i s considered that c u l t i v a t e d wheat originated from the middle East since a l l the four ancestral wild species of wheat (T_. monococcum, T. speltoides, T. dicoccoides and T_. aegilops) are found within the area from Zagros mountains (Iran-Iraq), the Taurus mountains (southern Turkey) to the G a l i l e a n uplands (Israel-TransJordan) (Helbaek, 1959; Vavilov, 1950). Wheat production i s mainly carried out i n areas outside the tropics with major producing areas l y i n g i n the northern hemisphere. Wheat i s c u l t i v a t e d i n North America, Europe and through the middle East region to A s i a . In the southern hemisphere, major production i s ca r r i e d out i n A u s t r a l i a . Wheat has just been introduced i n most t r o p i c a l regions of the world and major production has not been achieved. Canada produces red spring wheats and amber durum wheats, with red spring wheats making up the greater part of the crop (Agriculture Canada, 1976-81). Canada wheat production figures over the period 1975-1980 are given i n Table 15. 3. Corn Corn (maize) belongs to the t r i b e Maydeae and family gramineae. Due to numerous v a r i a t i o n s i n corn and possible misunderstanding of the nature and re l a t i o n s h i p of species, the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of corn at genus and species l e v e l i s not c l e a r . Whereas Zea i s usually considered to be the genus name f o r corn, mays has also been used as a genus name for some v a r i e t i e s . Mays i s usually considered a species name along with 7 many others. There has been a wide divergence of the botanical charac-t e r i s t i c s of what i s suggested to be corn's ancestors and a number of theories have been suggested to explain the o r i g i n of corn. Data on the races and lineages suggest that corn had more than one l o c a t i o n of o r i g i n i n Mexico and South America. Corn i s c u l t i v a t e d i n a l l continents of the world and appears to be one of the most widely c u l t i v a t e d cereals. B. Gross Composition of Barley, Corn and Wheat In general, barley i s a high f i b e r crop compared to wheat and corn. I t s crude protein content (11.6%) i s higher than corn (8.8%) but lower than wheat (14.1%) (NRC, 1977). The gross energy value of barley (4.43 kcal/g) i s lower than corn and comparable to wheat (4.51 kcal/g) (Coates et a l . , 1977). The amino acid composition i n barley does not d i f f e r greatly to that of corn and wheat, a l l values for amino acid composition f a l l within the range of corn and wheat. The amino acid composition of barley, corn and wheat i s given i n Table 16. The l i p i d content i n barley i s almost equivalent to wheat and about one-half of corn. I t s ash content i s higher than both wheat and corn. Barley i s s l i g h t l y lower than wheat and corn i n t o t a l carbohydrates, i t i s however higher than both corn and wheat i n c e l l u l o s e , hemicellulose and l i g n i n , and higher than corn i n pectins. Barley i s lower than both corn and wheat i n soluble sugars and starch, providing a lower value than corn or wheat i n available carbohydrates (McNab and Shannon, 1974). 8 The phosphorus content i n barley (0.44%, Hayes et a l . , 1979; 0.36%, NRC, 1977) i s almost equivalent to wheat (0.37%, Hayes et a l . , 1979; and NRC, 1977) and considerably higher than corn (0.27%, Hayes et a l . , 1979; 0.28%, NRC, 1977) and the phytin phosphorus and tannic acid content i n barley (0.25 and 0.018% respectively) i s almost equivalent to wheat (0.28 and 0.015% respectively) (Coates et a l . , 1977). Table 17 shows the gross composition of barley, corn and wheat. The gross composition of barley can vary with genetic, environmen-t a l and c u l t u r a l conditions. One of the components that can vary co n s i -derably i s the nitrogen content, which determines the crude protein value. Coates et a l . (1977) reported crude protein values of d i f f e r e n t barley v a r i e t i e s ranging from 10.1 to 14.3%. The nitrogen content of barley can vary with s o i l nitrogen content, nitrogen f e r t i l i z a t i o n , time of harvesting and to some extent, processing and storage. The carbohydrate composition can also vary with environmental and c u l t u r a l practices (Thomke and Hellberg, 1976; Coering et a l • , 1957). Goering et a l . (1957) reported a v a r i a t i o n of 19 to 23% i n amylose content i n 30 barley samples grown under d i f f e r e n t environmental and c u l t u r a l p r a c t i c e s . The f i b e r content also varies i n barley, Coates et a l . (1977) reports values of crude f i b e r ranging from 3.89 to 7.17% i n d i f f e r e n t barley v a r i e t i e s . V a r i a t i o n i n composition occur i n wheat [March and B i e l y (1973), Protein 9.5 to 22.8%; Coates et a l . (1977), Protein 10.2 to 17.3; Nelson et a l . , (1980), MEn 3.44 to 3.48 kcal/g; B o l d a j i et a l . (1978), ME 3.68 to 3.90 kcal/g.] In a number of major components, s i m i l a r or greater 9 va r i a t i o n s can be observed i n wheat as compared to barley. Barley only shows greater v a r i a t i o n i n crude f i b e r and ether extractives. Corn shows the least v a r i a t i o n i n composition. Its crude protein content w i l l range from 8.0 to 9.5%. However, i t s ME can vary considerably with area of c u l t i v a t i o n as well as year of c u l t i v a t i o n . Conner et a l . , (1976), reported s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n ME values i n corn from d i f f e r e n t locations as well as years of harvest. Tables 18 to 23 show the composition of d i f f e r e n t v a r i e t i e s of wheat and barley produced i n Canada i n 1972. From these tables i t can be noticed that v a r i a t i o n i n major components between v a r i e t i e s of the two cereals occurred i n both cases. Barley v a r i e t i e s showed greater v a r i a t i o n i n crude f i b e r and ether extractives whereas wheat v a r i e t i e s showed greater v a r i a t i o n i n crude protein and nitrogen-free extracts. C. Nutrient A v a i l a b i l i t y f o r Poultry No great differences have been reported i n the d i g e s t i b i l i t y of nutrients between barley, corn and wheat except for carbohydrates and some minerals. The d i g e s t i b i l i t y of carbohydrates i n barley i s consi-derably less than i n corn and s l i g h t l y less than i n wheat. McNab and Shannon (1974) estimated the true d i g e s t i b i l i t y for barley, maize, oats and wheat res p e c t i v e l y for crude protein to be 83.6, 82.2, 85.0 and 84.7%, that of crude f a t 92.5, 94.9, 95.0 and 92.5% and that of carbohy-drates 73.0, 87.2, 52.1 and 81.1%. There appears to be considerable v a r i a t i o n i n mineral a v a i l a b i l i t y i n cereals. Hayes et a l . (1979) reported the a v a i l a b i l i t y of phosphorus to be 12, 43, 58 and 50% for corn, hard wheat, soft wheat and barley 10 resp e c t i v e l y . Closely i n agreement with r e s u l t s obtained by Hayes et a l . , (1979), Trotter and A l l e e (1979) reported phosphorus a v a i l a b i l i t y to be 19 and 48% i n corn and wheat respectively. In contrast to the observations by Hayes et a l . , (1979) and Trotter and A l l e e (1979), Aw-Yong et a l . , (1983) reported higher and more uniform phosphorus a v a i l a b i l i t y values, the a v a i l a b i l i t y of phosphorus was 60.9, 68.8 and 67.5% i n corn, barley and wheat respectively. Aw-Yong et a l . (1983), reported the a v a i l a b i l i t y of other minerals to be as follows: calcium 70.0, 68.9 and 71.0%, magnesium 51.0, 54.9 and 53.5%, manganese 60.0, 54.9 and 48.4%, zinc 57.6, 49.1 and 48.6% and copper 87.2, 77.5 and 78.5% i n corn, barley and wheat respectively. The metabolizable energy value of barley for the chicken does not d i f f e r g r eatly with that of wheat but i t i s considerably less than that of corn. McNab and Shannon (1974) estimates the metabolizable energy values to be 3.16, 2.91 and 2.66 kcal/g dry matter for corn, wheat and barley respectively. NRC (1977) gives metabolizable energy values corrected for nitrogen for barley, corn and wheat as 2640, 3430 and 2800 kcal/kg r e s p e c t i v e l y . Davidson et a l . (1978) reported ME values of 3.01 and 3.25 kcal/g for barley and wheat resp e c t i v e l y and Coates et a l . (1977) estimated the mean metabolizable energy values to be 3.05 and 3.47 kcal/g f o r barley and wheat v a r i e t i e s r e s p e c t i v e l y . The ME value of a crop can vary with variety or area of c u l t i v a t i o n . Variations i n ME values can also occur with age differences i n birds used i n the estimation (Zelenka, 1968 and Coates et a l . , 1977). 11 There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t negative c o r r e l a t i o n between crude f i b e r and metabolizable energy values i n barley (Sibbald and P r i c e , 1976; Coates et a l . , 1977). There are also highly s i g n i f i c a n t (P <0.01) correlations between true metabolizable energy and starch (0.833), starch + sugar (0.838), bulk density (0.912) and ash (-0.758) (Sibbald and P r i c e , 1976). The high c o r r e l a t i o n of component composition to energy values implies v a r i a t i o n s i n metabolizable energy values with v a r i a t i o n s i n factors that a f f e c t the gross composition of barley. D. Barley i n B r o i l e r Feeding Most of the work conducted on the use of barley i n b r o i l e r rations reveal adverse e f f e c t s on growth and feed e f f i c i e n c y when barley diets are used, i n comparison to corn and wheat, for b r o i l e r s under 4 weeks of age. Arscott et a l . (1965) reported decreased body weights when barley replaced corn at 69.25% and 70.3% of the diet i n day old b r o i l e r chicks fed to 4 weeks of age. Willingham et a l . (1958) reported poor growth and feed e f f i c i e n c y when eight d i f f e r e n t v a r i e t i e s of barley were fed to chicks. Arscott and Rose (1960a) reported i n f e r i o r performance e f f i c i e n c y i n b r o i l e r s when fed from day old to 8 weeks on a diet i n which barley replaced corn at 61.23% of the d i e t . Anderson et a l . (1961) observed that the rate of gain of chicks fed on a r a t i o n based on yellow corn averaged 17% more than that of chicks fed on a r a t i o n based on hulless barley and the gain/feed r a t i o averaged 12% more with the corn r a t i o n . Petersen (1969) reported least growth from barley diets when White Plymouth Rock birds were fed d i e t s containing 50% corn, sorghum, barley, wheat or oats from day old to 53 days. 12 However, some workers have reported observations which are not exactly i n agreement with those of workers just given. H i j i k u r o and Takemasa (1981) i n t h e i r study on the p a l a t a b i l i t y and u t i l i z a t i o n of some whole grains for f i n i s h i n g b r o i l e r s using barley, wheat, milo and r i c e observed that feed intake and weight gain was not affected by dietary grain source. Grains were used at 63% of the d i e t , both as whole grains and as ground grains and diets were adjusted to meet the protein and energy requirements. Birds were fed the d i e t s from 6 to 8 weeks of age. It should be noted that the period of the experiment only covered the l a s t 14 days of production. The length of the period as well as the age at which the experiment was conducted could have affected the r e s u l t s . It i s well known that more rapid growth i n b r o i l e r s w i l l occur i n the early weeks of growth. I t i s also most l i k e l y that growth differences can be easier to determine when the growth rate i s high and an observation i s conducted over a longer period than 14 days. There i s a p o s s i b i l i t y that the method used i n the study may have f a i l e d to reveal differences i n the feeding value of the grains that might occur over an e n t i r e growing period. Lindblad et a l . (1954) reported adverse e f f e c t s on the performance of b r o i l e r s fed barley-based diets to occur only when the l e v e l of barley exceeded 30% of the t o t a l d i e t . This observation suggests that low l e v e l s of barley can be used i n b r o i l e r rations without a f f e c t i n g b i r d performance. What i s not clear i s the minimum l e v e l of dietary barley which r e s u l t s i n adverse e f f e c t s or the maximum dietary l e v e l that w i l l support normal performance. These questions may be d i f f i c u l t 13 to answer since v a r i a t i o n s can occur i n the n u t r i t i v e value of various barley samples handled by d i f f e r e n t i n vestigators. Differences i n observations made can also occur due to differences i n the t o t a l com-p o s i t i o n of the diets as well as differences i n b i r d s t r a i n s . From the r e s u l t s of the workers given, i t can only be said that high l e v e l s of barley i n b r o i l e r diets r e s u l t i n poor b i r d performance. It should be noted that H i j i k u r o and Takemasa (1981) reported no adverse e f f e c t s i n 6 week old b r o i l e r s . This observation might mean reduced s e n s i t i v i t y of b r o i l e r s to barley-based diets with age. E. Barley i n Layer Feeding Barley i n layer d i e t s does not a f f e c t egg production although feed e f f i c i e n c y i s a f f e c t e d . Brown and Hale (1965) using diets containing 65% barley, 55% maize and 35% oats observed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n egg production between d i e t s . However, better feed conversion was obtained on maize d i e t s . S i m i l a r l y , Anderson et a l . (1960) reported good performance i n laying hens fed rations with a high l e v e l of barley (78 to 80%), egg production was comparable to that obtained with rations containing corn, milo and wheat. However, s l i g h t l y more feed was required to produce a dozen eggs with the high barley d i e t s . Berg and Bearse (1958) reported equal rates of lay between birds fed corn-based diets and those on barley-based diets although feed e f f i c i e n c y was less with barley-based d i e t s (8% more feed was required per dozen eggs). Singh and Barsaul (1977) reported r e l a t i v e l y poor feed e f f i c i e n c y when 8-week old White Leghorns were fed diets containing 40% grain when the grain was barley as compared to maize, sorghum or pearl m i l l e t . 14 This difference was not however c l e a r l y r e f l e c t e d when the diets were fed to Rhode Island Red chickens. Intake values for White Leghorns were 4.73, 6.83, 4.63 and 3.98 kg/kg gained and Rhode Island Reds were 3.98, 4.33, 4.02 and 3.72 kg/kg gained for maize, barley, sorghum and pearl m i l l e t r e s p e c t i v e l y . Better performance i n layers on barley-based diets further suggests increased a b i l i t y of mature birds to u t i l i z e barley d i e t s . As observed by Lodhi et a l . (1969), the a b i l i t y of a b i r d to u t i l i z e a given dietary material can vary with age. Lodhi et a l . (1969), i n a study on the metabolizable energy of rapeseed meal for growing chickens and laying hens, reported increased a b i l i t y of the chicken to u t i l i z e rapeseed meal with age. This increased a b i l i t y may be due to increased si z e of the digestive t r a c t , increased microbial populations i n the t r a c t , changes i n microbial composition, changes i n concentrations of digestive enzymes or rate of digestive enzyme secretion. F. Treatments i n Barley Diets 1. Enzyme supplements S i g n i f i c a n t improvements i n both growth and feed e f f i c i e n c y can be achieved when barley-based b r o i l e r rations are supplemented with enzymes. Jensen et a l . (1957) reported s i g n i f i c a n t improvements i n growth and feed e f f i c i e n c y i n b r o i l e r s , from 1 to 4 weeks of age, when enzymes were supplemented to diets i n which barley replaced corn on a weight to weight basis. Arscott and Rose (1960a) reported s i g n i f i c a n t improve-ments i n b r o i l e r performance when enzymes were added to rations contain-ing 61.25% barley fed to b r o i l e r s from day old to 8 weeks. Similar 15 observations were reported by Dobson and Anderson (1958), Willingham et a l . (1958), Willingham (1964), Willingham and Earle (1964), Willingham (1959), Daghir and Rottensten (1966), Petersen and Sauter (1968), Herstad and McNab (1975), White et a l . (1980), Mannion (1981), Hesselman et a l . (1982), and Moss et a l . (1983). The use of enzymes i n barley diets has no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the rate of lay, feed e f f i c i e n c y , t o t a l egg production and body weight gain i n layers (Berg, 1959 and 1961, and Berg and Bearse, 1958). Arscott and Rose (1960b) also reported no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of enzymes i n layer diets on production. The poor response of layers to enzymes may be due to t h e i r better a b i l i t y to u t i l i z e barley d i e t s . No s p e c i f i c enzyme(s) have been i d e n t i f i e d as being responsible for the improvements observed i n b r o i l e r performance. Dobson and Anderson (1958) reported improvements with the use of crude fungal and b a c t e r i a l enzyme preparations. Willingham et a l . (1958 and 1959) also reported s i g n i f i c a n t growth responses when enzyme preparations from both b a c t e r i a l and fungal sources were used. Willingham et a l . (1958) observed greater response from a combination of barley malt and fungal amylase, suggesting the p o s s i b i l i t y of more than one enzyme being involved. Improved chick growth to 4 weeks can also be achieved by using crude enzyme materials containing amylase, protease, gumase, li p a s e and c e l l u l a s e (Petersen and Sauter, 1968), crude amylolytic and p r o t e o l y t i c enzyme preparations (Willingham et a l . , 1959) or a pectin degrading enzyme (Burnett, 1966). 16 2. Other treatments Water soaking of barley grains before using i n b r o i l e r rations also r e s u l t s i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y improved b i r d performance (Dobson and Anderson, 1958; Willingham et a l . , 1959; Willingham et a l . , 1960; Willingham 1964 and Potter et a l . , 1965). A reduction i n f e c a l moisture and increase i n body fat occurs i n birds fed water soaked barley (Willingham, 1964). Water soaking however, has no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on rate of lay, feed e f f i c i e n c y of egg production or body weight gain i n layers (Berg and Bearse, 1958 and Berg, 1959). Other treatments which include the addition of f a t (Arscott et a l . , 1955; Fry et a l . , 1958 and Arscott and Rose, 1960a), addition of substances with b a c i t r a c i n - l i k e a c t i v i t y (Willingham, 1964; Willingham and E a r l e , 1964) or the addition of cottonseed o i l (Dobson and Anderson, 1958) also r e s u l t i n improved b r o i l e r performance. The component of the d i e t affected by the various treatments i s not c l e a r l y known. However, Leong et a l . (1958), Willingham (1964), Potter et a l . (1965) and Mannion (1981) reported increased ME values with enzyme treatments. The mechanism of action of the treatments i s not c l e a r e i t h e r . Willingham (1964) suggested the benefits obtained by the use of enzymes or water treatment to be a r e s u l t of combined action by enzymes and a n t i b i o t i c s which are contained i n enzymes or produced during oven drying of a water soaked barley. An assay of treated barley showed i t contained approximately 33 g of b a c i t r a c i n - l i k e a c t i v i t y per ton while untreated barley was without a n t i b i o t i c a c t i v i t y . Willingham and Earle (1964) observed s i g n i f i c a n t weight and feed conversion improvements when enzymes with a high l e v e l of b a c i t r a c i n -17 l i k e a c t i v i t y were used. They suggested that a carbohydrate-protein complex i s broken down and improved energy u t i l i z a t i o n i s obtained when an e f f e c t i v e enzyme supplement allows a b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t with or with-out an e f f e c t i v e growth stimulating a n t i b i o t i c . Burnett (1966), Gohl et a l . (1978), Willingham et a l . (1980) and Blurn et a l . (1980) explain the poor performance of chicks fed barley diets to be due to a viscous component i n barley which r e s u l t s i n poor d i g e s t i b i l i t y of the barley d i e t . Gohl et a l . (1978) reported a reduc-t i o n i n v i s c o s i t y i n barley with the use of 3-glucanase. These workers suggested that enzymes added break up the viscous component whereas water treatment allows hydrolysis by the enzymes i n the barley. Burnett (1966) observed a quick reduction i n v i s c o s i t y of a solution of pectin with the use of a pectin degrading enzyme which also s i g n i f i c a n t l y improved the performance of b r o i l e r chicks. He also observed that gut extracts from chickens that were fed barley alone were lowered i n v i s c o s i t y by enzyme preparations that were e f f e c t i v e i n improving the performance of chickens. These enzymes gave s i m i l a r r e s u l t s with a s o l u t i o n of g-glucan. He concluded that the enzyme responsible for lowering the v i s c o s i t y was endo -3-glucanase and i d e n t i f i e d 3 -glucan and glucan components to give r i s e to the observed v i s c o s i t y . Observa-tions made by Burnett (1966) and Gohl et a l . (1978) provide evidence i n support of the suggestion that poor performance of chicks fed on barley diets i s due to a viscous component i n barley which r e s u l t s i n poor d i g e s t i b i l i t y of barley-based d i e t s . Since no great differences have been reported i n the d i g e s t i b i l i t y of nutrients i n barley, except for energy, i t can be assumed that the 18 poor d i g e s t i b i l i t y mentioned above mainly a f f e c t s the energy component of the d i e t . In contrast to Burnett (1966), Gohl et a l . (1978), White et a l . (1980) and Blum et a l . (1980), Coon et a l . (1979) reported the c o r r e l a -t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t f or r e l a t i v e v i s c o s i t y i n barley and chick weight gain to be -0.238, implying that v i s c o s i t y may not be the main factor a f f e c t -ing chick performance. In agreement with this observation, Gohl and Thomke (1976) observed that the n u t r i t i o n a l value of d i f f e r e n t barleys was not influenced by v i s c o s i t y . Arscott et a l . (1960) suggested the presence of an enzyme i n h i -b i t o r i n barley, which i s removed by water treatment and whose i n h i b i -tory action can be overcome by an appropriate enzyme supplement. On the other hand, Dobson and Anderson (1958) and Arscott (1963) reported work which suggested the presence of a b e n e f i c i a l factor i n corn. Arscott (1963) reported equal effectiveness by replacing one-eighth to a quarter of the barley with corn, as an amylolytic enzyme supplement considering body weights and feed conversion. This b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t was observed to be l o s t by autoclaving the corn. The nature of the b e n e f i c i a l factor suggested by these workers i s not s p e c i f i e d . Whereas one can assume that the b e n e f i c i a l f actor i s i n the form of a substance which improves the feeding value of nutrients i n the barley-based diets but i s not a nutrient i t s e l f , i t may however be a nutrient and improves the feeding value of a barley-based d i e t by contributing to available nutrients. Dobson and Anderson (1958) achieved a marked improvement i n growth and feed e f f i c i e n c y by adding corn, wheat or milo extracts to soaked barley. These workers suggested the presence of a growth factor i n the 19 corn extract. The suggested growth factor was not destroyed by b o i l i n g for 20 minutes. I t should again be r e a l i s e d that an improvement by way of soluble nutrients i n the extracts i s a p o s s i b i l i t y . Coon et a l . (1979), using barley selections and c u l t i v a r s reported low c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s for chick weight gain and r e l a t i v e v i s c o -s i t y (r = -0.238), catechin content ( r = -0.041), l y s i n e (r = 0.142) and threonine (r = 0.448). These workers concluded that the low c o r r e l a t i o n of chick weight gain with r e l a t i v e v i s c o s i t y , catechins and amino acid content suggests there are several factors l i m i t i n g the n u t r i t i o n a l q u a l i t y of barley. Closely related to t h i s observation i s that of Lindblad et a l . (1954) who suggested that neither the productive energy nor the d i g e s t i b l e protein contents of the high barley rations per se were the l i m i t i n g factors i n the chick's performance, but that p a l a t a b i l i t y of the barley may have been concerned. I f there are several factors l i m i t i n g the n u t r i t i o n a l value of barley, then i t may also be that treatments which have been observed to r e s u l t i n improvements i n barley diets had t h e i r e f f e c t s brought about i n several ways. It should also be r e a l i s e d that reported work has concentrated on observing the e f f e c t s of the treatments on barley-based d i e t s with l i t t l e i nvestigations on the e f f e c t s of the treatments on diets based on other cereals. There i s a p o s s i b i l i t y of achieving benefits from some of the treatments i n d i e t s other than barley diets so that the e f f e c t s could be common to any d i e t . 20 3. Amino acid supplements L i t t l e work has been conducted on amino acid supplementation i n barley rations possibly due to the fact that observations which have been made do not imply the involvement of amino acids as such. Coon et a l . (1979) however reported work on supplementation of threonine and l y s i n e to barley d i e t s . These workers observed that chicks that were fed rations with barleys that supported good body weights did not respond to amino acid supplementation, whereas those that supported poor body weights responded to amino acid supplementation. In fact the barleys that supported the best weights without amino acid supplementation resulted i n the lowest weights with amino acid supplementation. However, the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of chick weight gain and amino acid content was low i n both supplemented (0.142) and unsupplemented (0.448) d i e t s . Supplementing DL-methionine (at 0.05%) i n diets containing 15.25 and 30.5% barley resulted i n no s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n growth and feed e f f i c i e n c y (Arscott et a l . , 1955). G. Barley Diets and Pancreatic Enlargement Pancreatic enlargement was observed, by Arscott et a l . (1965), when barley-based diets were fed to chicks. Enzyme additions to the diets provided no c l e a r response i n the reduction of pancreas s i z e , however a change was observed when the data was expressed as percent of body weight. Some organs have been observed to undergo modifications i n size i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r l e v e l s of functioning. In most cases organs have been observed to increase i n size with increased functioning. This enlarge-21 ment of the pancreas may be a response to need for increased a c t i v i t y of digestive enzyme secretion due to increased digestive enzyme requirement i n the digestion of the barley-based d i e t . H. V a r i a t i o n i n the N u t r i t i o n a l Value of Cereals 1. V a r i a t i o n i n the n u t r i t i o n a l value of barley Besides v a r i a t i o n i n the gross composition of barley v a r i e t i e s and barley of d i f f e r e n t geographical l o c a l i t i e s , differences i n the n u t r i -t i v e value of barley i n poultry feeding have been reported. Gohl and Thomke (1976) i n a d i g e s t i b i l i t y t r i a l with layers observed that barley c u l t i v a t e d i n d i f f e r e n t geographical l o c a l i t i e s showed differences i n the content of ME, i n the d i g e s t i b i l i t y of crude protein, organic matter and crude carbohydrates. These workers reported s i g n i f i c a n t decreases i n crude protein d i g e s t i b i l i t y with increased geographical l a t i t u d e . They related the differences i n crude protein d i g e s t i b i l i t y to d i f f e r -ences i n the contents of tannins. Neither the weather conditions, the proximate composition of barleys, the thousand kernal weight nor the v i s c o s i t y were found to have any influences on the n u t r i t i v e value. Daghin and Rotternsten (1966) also reported s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ences i n chick weight at 4 weeks when they were fed on diets with barley of d i f f e r e n t v a r i e t i e s . However, they reported that differences i n body weights were not correlated with differences i n chemical composition of the v a r i e t i e s tested. Elwinger (1978) reported the protein content of barley to a f f e c t weight gain and feed e f f i c i e n c y . On the other hand, St r a i n and P i l o s k i (1972) observed s i g n i f i c a n t differences due to barley c u l t i v a r s for shank length but not for average d a i l y gain, although they 22 obtained i d e n t i c a l ranking for both t r a i t s (r = 0.997). In spite of many reports of v a r i a t i o n i n barley, Davidson et a l . (1978) observed no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n metabolizable energy between 16 barley samples. Barley grown i n the mid-west and eastern North America does not improve chick performance s i g n i f i c a n t l y as a response to enzyme supple-mentation compared to barley grown i n the western United States (Willingham et a l . , 1960). Differences i n response to enzyme supplemen-t a t i o n by d i f f e r e n t v a r i e t i e s also occur (Daghin and Rottensten, 1966). 2. V a r i a t i o n i n the N u t r i t i o n a l Value of Wheats Differences have been reported i n the feeding value of d i f f e r e n t wheat v a r i e t i e s . B o l d a j i et a l . (1978) observed v a r i a t i o n s i n metabolizable energy values i n v a r i e t i e s of wheat grown i n one region ranging from 3.68 to 3.90 kcal/g dry matter. Salmon and Dunkelgod (1974), reported increased growth rate, i n day old chicks raised to 8 weeks, as the crude protein content of wheat v a r i e t i e s decreased. Differences were related to dietary amino acid balance of wheats with lower protein and p a r t l y due to the higher proportion of soybean meal i n lower protein wheats. In agreement to the observation by Salmon and Dunkelgod (1974), Gardiner and Dubetz (1974) reported s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower body weights i n chicks fed d i e t s containing high protein wheats compared to those on diets containing low protein wheats. 23 3. V a r i a t i o n i n the N u t r i t i o n a l Value of Corn Unlike wheat and barley, corn shows l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n i n gross composition. Both the l o c a t i o n of c u l t i v a t i o n and v a r i e t y have l i t t l e influence on the gross composition i n corn. This should explain the fact that no great v a r i a t i o n s i n the feeding value of corn have been reported. I. P o t e n t i a l for N u t r i t i o n a l Value Improvement i n Barley Through  Breeding. N u t r i t i o n a l value improvements of barley through breeding appears to be possible since a number of types of barley that show considerable differences i n some components of n u t r i t i o n a l concern have been observed. Some popular c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s observed i n barley are given below. 1. Waxy barley These are barleys which are d i f f e r e n t from normal barley i n that normal barley has starch i n the form of a mixture containing amylopectin and amylose, whereas these barleys have starch which i s e s s e n t i a l l y 100% amylopectin (Moss et a l . , 1983). Moss et a l . (1983) reported better metabolizable energy values for normal barley (12.93 + 0.38 kJ/g dry matter) compared to waxy barley (12.76 + 0.46 kJ/g dry matter) i n non-laying leghorn hens. Calvert et a l . (1976) reported equal performance i n rats fed normal and waxy barleys i n average gain or protein e f f i c i e n c y r a t i o . Contrary to t h i s observation, Calvert et a l . (1977) reported better rate 24 of gain i n rats fed normal barley compared to waxy barley although the difference was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . However, feed/gain r a t i o s and protein e f f i c i e n c y r a t i o s were not altered by starch type and there was no difference between diets i n retained nitrogen, digestive nitrogen or d i g e s t i b l e energy. These workers also showed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ence i n the performance of pigs fed diets containing the waxy and normal barleys. 2. High amylose barley Barleys with high amylose have also been discovered. These barleys contain more amylose and l e s s amylopectin i n t h e i r starch. Newman et a l . (1978) reported a high amylose barley to contain more s a l t - s o l u b l e proteins and lysine than a normal barley. These workers reported superior growth and protein e f f i c i e n c y r a t i o s with the use of high amylose barley i n weanling rats as compared to normal barley. The b i o l o g i c a l value of the high amylose barley was also greater than the normal barley, although protein d i g e s t i b i l i t y was higher i n normal barley. However, Calvert et a l . (1976) reported higher average weight gains i n rats fed the normal barley starch diet compared to rats fed high amylose barley starch d i e t , although there was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n feed consumption or feed e f f i c i e n c y . Normal starch diets also produced higher protein e f f i c i e n c y r a t i o (PER) compared to high amylose starch d i e t s . In another t r i a l these workers reported low d i g e s t i b l e nitrogen i n high amylose starch d i e t s . But, no differences were observed i n retained nitrogen or d i g e s t i b l e energy between the two starch type d i e t s . 25 3. High-lysine barley These are barley types which have been observed to contain higher l e v e l s of l y s i n e than normal barley. But, the composition of these barleys i n other components do not d i f f e r greatly from that of normal barley. Salomonsson et a l . (1980) did not observe any consistent differences i n the major constituents of high l y s i n e and normal barleys. These workers considered starch, non-starch polysaccharides, crude protein, l i g n i n and ash. 4. Hulless barley This i s barley without h u l l s , sometimes known as naked barley. Newman et a l . (1980) reported higher protein, ether extract and nitrogen free extract and less crude f i b e r and ash i n h u l l e s s barley compared to normal barley. Since the h u l l s are responsible for high f i b e r i n barley, and since the high f i b e r i n barley has been suspected to c o n t r i -bute to the poor n u t r i t i o n a l value of barley i n poultry feeding, i t may be possible that the use of hulless barley may r e s u l t i n n u t r i t i o n a l improvements. Anderson et a l . (1961) reported the crude f i b e r content of a h u l l e s s barley to be about 2.2% and the crude protein content about 11.7%. However, these workers reported that rations based on hulless barley were not superior to rations based on regular barley. 26 MATERIALS AND METHODS A. Choice of Cereal Source and Birds To make the evaluation of the cereals on a p r a c t i c a l basis, i t was decided that a l l sample ingredients to be used i n experimental diets should be obtained from a commercial feed supplier. Cereals used were obtained from Otter Farms Co-op. as ground grain. Birds used i n a l l the experiments were b r o i l e r s purchased from a commercial hatchery. B. Formulation of Diets and Mixing Diets were formulated to meet, at minimum, requirements for a b r o i l e r s t a r t e r (NRC, 1977) i n crude protein, l y s i n e , methionine, calcium and phosphorus. Because of the great difference i n the metabolizable energy between corn and the other two cereals (wheat and barley) i t was r e a l i s e d that a t t a i n i n g the l e v e l of 3200 kcal/kg i n the diets containing wheat and barley i n the s u b s t i t u t i o n with corn, would be d i f f i c u l t , e s p e c i a l l y as experimental di e t s were to be of p r a c t i c a l nature. To minimize v a r i a t i o n s i n metabolizable energy between di e t s , a metabolizable energy requirement of 3000 kcal/kg was assumed i n the formulations. With t h i s assumption, vari a t i o n s were kept at a minimum possible i n Experiments I and II and i n Experiment I I I adjustments i n l e v e l s of metabolizable energy were achieved by increasing animal tallow. By t h i s procedure, the difference i n ME of di e t s was reduced to a maximum of 194 kcal/kg between extremes i n the f i r s t experiment, 149 kcal/kg between diets i n Experiment I I and 61 kcal/kg i n Experiment I I I . 27 Cereal samples were analysed for crude protein content and tabular values which were used i n the formulation of rations were those that best approximated determined values. The t o t a l composition of the d i e t s included meat meal, animal tallow, multi calcium phosphate, limestone, a premix, soybean and either of the three cereals (wheat, corn and barley) or a combination of two. The l e v e l of meat meal was kept constant i n a l l diets throughout the three experiments. Animal tallow was also kept constant i n the diet s of Experiments I and I I , but was allowed to vary i n Experiment I I I to maintain almost i s o - c a l o r i c , iso-nitrogenous d i e t s . The l e v e l of soybean meal was adjusted i n a l l diets of the three experiments to provide iso-nitrogenous d i e t s . Diets u t i l i z e d i n the three experiments were 23 +0.1% calculated crude protein. A l l diets were mixed i n a h o r i -zontal mixer. Premixes were prepared i n a small mixer before being added into d i e t s . C. Bi r d Management Day-old b r o i l e r chicks were purchased from a commercial hatchery and placed i n e l e c t r i c a l l y heated Petersime brooder units for the dura-t i o n of each experiment. The chicks were fed experimental diets from day-old to 4 weeks. Group weekly weights and feed consumption were recorded. Observations for deaths were conducted twice every day, chicks that were found dead were weighed. These weights were used for mortal-i t y correction. Chicks that developed leg abnormalities, such that impaired feeding was suspected, were c u l l e d and recorded under mortality. Feed and water were supplied ad l i b i t u m under 24 hours l i g h t i n g . 28 D. Randomization and Experimental Design A completely randomised design was used i n the three experiments. Upon a r r i v a l , chicks were randomly selected and weighed i n groups of 10. In Experiment I, 300 chicks were obtained as a mixed-sex batch whereas i n Experiments I I and I I I , 150 chicks of each sex were purchased. For Experiments I I and I I I , f i v e chicks of each sex were randomly selected to make groups of ten. Chicks were placed i n the middle 4 brooder compartments with the top and bottom compartments unused. The 6 dietary treatments i n each experiment were tested i n 4 r e p l i c a t i o n s . This gave a t o t a l of 24 pens assigned to three b a t t e r i e s . The r e p l i c a t e s were assigned to brooders such that no two re p l i c a t e s of^one treatment shared a common heat source. Batteries were arranged to provide uniform l i g h t to a l l pens. E. Experiments 1. Experiment I; Growth t r i a l with wheat and barley diets The objective of th i s experiment was to evaluate the performance of b r o i l e r s fed to 4 weeks of age, die t s based on wheat or barley, or combinations of these two cereals at various l e v e l s . Six d i e t s , A to F, were formulated with the amount of barley i n the d i e t s A to F increasing i n units of 10% from 0 to 50%. Barley was introduced i n the diets B to F at the expense of wheat, but the percent-age of barley added did not correspond to the percentage decrease i n wheat since the amount of soybean meal was adjusted with increasing barley to maintain iso-nitrogenous d i e t s . 29 Meat meal and animal tallow were kept constant throughout the s i x d i e t s . This method of formulation resulted i n a v a r i a t i o n of 194 kcal/kg i n ME between the d i e t highest i n ME (diet A) and that lowest i n ME (diet F ) . A premix was formulated to meet minimum requirements for a b r o i l e r s t a r t e r (NRC, 1977) i n copper, zi n c , manganese and vitamins. Methionine and l y s i n e were supplemented as part of the premix to maintain equal d i e t a r y l e v e l s . The composition of experimental diets i s outlined i n Table 1. Each experimental d i e t was fed to 4 groups of 10 chicks of mixed sex for 4 weeks. 2. Experiment I I ; Growth t r i a l with wheat and corn diets The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the performance of b r o i l e r chicks fed to 4 weeks of age on die t s based on wheat or corn, or a combination of these two cereals at various l e v e l s . Six d i e t s were formulated with the amount of corn i n die t s A to E increasing i n units of 10% from 0 to 40%. Corn was introduced at the expense of wheat with adjustments i n the amount of soybean to maintain iso-nitrogenous d i e t s . This adjustment resulted i n a 8.6% increment i n corn, instead of 10% i n the l a s t d i e t (diet F ) . With t h i s formulation method, a difference of 149 kcal/kg ME occurred between the diet highest i n ME and that of lowest ME. Amounts of meat meal and animal tallow were kept constant i n the s i x experimental d i e t s . A premix was formulated to meet minimum requirements for zinc, copper, manganese and vitamins i n a b r o i l e r s t a r t e r (NRC, 1977) and supply methionine and l y s i n e to maintain equal l e v e l s . The composition of experimental diets i s presented i n Table 2. Each of the s i x 30 TABLE 1. Experimental diets for Experiment I Ingredient''" A B D i C e t s D E F Wheat 56.1 45.1 34.1 23.1 12.6 1.6 Barley - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Soybean meal 32.0 33.1 34.1 35.0 35.5 36.5 Meat meal 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Animal tallow 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 Mult i calcium phosphate 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Limestone 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 Premix^ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Composition : Calculated CP% 23.00 23.10 23.10 23.00 22.90 22.90 Calculated ME (kcal/kg) 2998 2960 2922 2880 2842 2804 Calculated crude f i b r e % 2.60 2.88 3.17 3.45 3.72 4.01 Determined CP% 4 24.30 23.81 23.81 23.85 23.63 23.63 ^Ingredients given as percent of diets ^Premix was made of a vitamin mix and a mineral mix. Vitamin mix supplied (per kg of di e t ) r e t i n y l palmitate, 4000 IU., c h o l e c a l c i f e r o l , 1000 ICU., alpha-tocopherol 25 IU., vitamin B 1 2 0*0132 mg, r i b o f l a v i n 2.6 mg, pantothenic acid 8.0 mg, n i a c i n 25 mg, choline chloride 400 mg, menadione 1.0 mg and 250 mg of santoquin as an anti-oxidant. Mineral mix supplied (per kg of d i e t ) 50 mg manganese, 30 mg zinc , 3 mg copper and supplemental l y s i n e and methionine to make up for d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the d i e t s . ^ A l l values expressed on a i r - d r y basis. ^Determined CP = N x 6.25. 31 TABLE 2. Experimental diets for Experiment II Ingredient''" A B D i C e t s D E F Wheat 56.1 44.6 32.6 21.6 9.5 Corn - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 48.6 Soybean meal 32.0 33.5 35.5 36.5 38.5 39.5 Meat meal 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Animal tallow 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 MultI calcium phosphate 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 Limestone 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 Premix^ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Composition^: Calculated CP% 23.00 22.90 23.10 22.90 22.90 22.90 Calculated ME (kcal/kg) 2998 3029 3057 3091 3119 3147 Calculated crude f i b r e % 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.61 2.61 Determined CP% 4 22.85 23.53 23.44 23.68 23.33 23.53 •'•Ingredients given as percent of diets ^Premix was made of a vitamin mix and a mineral mix. Vitamin mix supplied (per kg of d i e t ) r e t i n y l palmitate, 4000 IU., c h o l e c a l c i f e r o l , 1000 ICU., alpha-tocopherol 25 IU., vitamin B 1 2 °-°132 mg, r i b o f l a v i n 3.6 mg, pantothenic acid 10.0 mg, n i a c i n 27.0 mg, Choline chloride 1,300 mg, menadione 1.0 mg and 250 mg of santoquin as an anti-oxidant. Mineral mix supplied (per kg of d i e t ) 55 mg manganese, 40 mg zinc , 4 mg copper and supplemental l y s i n e and methionine to make up for d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the di e t s . ^ A l l values expressed on air - d r y basis. ^Determined CP = N x 6.25. 32 experimental d i e t s was fed to 4 groups of 10 chicks of equal sex compo-s i t i o n (5 males and 5 females) for 4 weeks. 3. Experiment I I I ; Growth t r i a l with corn and barley diets The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the performance of b r o i l e r s to 4 weeks of age fed on diets based on corn or barley, or combinations of corn and barley at various l e v e l s . Six d i e t s were formulated such that barley was introduced at the expense of corn with amounts of barley increasing by units of 10% i n diets B, C, D and E and 7% i n diet F. Diet A had no barley (0% barley) and as the l e v e l s of barley increased i n diets B, C, D, E and F, a l t e r a -tions were made to maintain the diets approximately i s o - c a l o r i c and i s o -nitrogenous by adjusting the amount of soybean meal and animal tallow so that amounts of barley introduced did not correspond to corn removed. This formulation procedure allowed a difference of 61 kcal/kg ME between the d i e t of highest ME and that of lowest ME. A premix was formulated to meet minimum requirements for a b r o i l e r s t a r t e r for zinc, copper, manganese and vitamins (NRC, 1977) and supply ly s i n e and methionine to a t t a i n equal l e v e l s i n the d i e t . The t o t a l composition of the experimental diets i s shown i n Table 3. Each of the six experimental diets was fed to 4 groups of 10 chicks of equal sex composition (5 males and 5 females) for a period of 4 weeks. 33 TABLE 3. Experimental diets for Experiment I I I Ingredient^" A B D i C e t s D E F Corn 52.8 42.0 29.1 18.0 7.0 Barley - 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 47.0 Soybean meal 39.0 38.5 39.0 38.5 38.1 37.7 Meat meal 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 Animal tallow 3.0 4.3 6.7 8.4 9.8 10.2 Mult i calcium phosphate 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 Limestone 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 Premix 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Composition^: Calculated CP% 23.10 22.90 23.10 22.90 22.90 22.90 Calculated ME (kcal/kg) 3014 2995 3006 3004 2986 2953 Calculated crude f i b r e % 2.68 2.93 3.18 3.43 3.68 3.87 Determined CP% 4 22.81 23.61 23.90 23.72 23.83 23.00 ^•Ingredients given as percent of diets ^Premix was made of a vitamin mix and a mineral mix. Vitamin mix supplied (per kg of d i e t ) r e t i n y l palmitate, 4000 IU., c h o l e c a l c i f e r o l , 1000 ICU., alpha-tocopherol 25 IU., Vitamin B 1 2 °-0132 mg, r i b o f l a v i n 3.6 mg, pantothenic acid 10.0 mg, n i a c i n 27.0 mg, choline chloride 1,300 mg, menadione 1.0 mg and 250 mg of santoquin as an anti-oxidant. Mineral mix supplied (per kg of d i e t ) 55 mg manganese, 40 mg zi n c , 4 mg copper and supplemental l y s i n e and methionine to make up for d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the di e t s . 3 A l l values expressed on air - d r y basis. ^Determined CP = N x 6.25. 34 4. Experiment IV: D i g e s t i b i l i t y t r i a l and N-retention (a) S e l e c t i o n of experimental material A f t e r the t h i r d week i n Experiment I I I , healthy chicks being fed on a commercial chick s t a r t e r (20% crude protein) were placed i n a battery brooder i n groups of four birds per pen. Using these birds, a d i g e s t i b i l i t y t r i a l was conducted on diet A of Experiment I I , A and F of Experiment I I I , ground corn, ground wheat and ground barley. This was done to evaluate the diets that had each of the three grains as a sole grain and test the pure grains. The composition of the three diets i s presented i n Table 4. (b) Feeding and sample c o l l e c t i o n Feed was withdrawn for a period of 16 hours p r i o r to feeding each of the test materials. Each of the test materials was fed to four r e p l i c a t e s of four chicks each for a period of four hours. A marker d i e t (chick s t a r t e r with 0.2% f e r r i c oxide) was supplied before and a f t e r feeding each of the test materials u n t i l marked excreta showed i n f e c a l pans. C o l l e c t i o n of unmarked excreta was started approximately 1 hour a f t e r the test material had been withdrawn and was continued u n t i l no more of unmarked excreta showed i n f e c a l pans. The excreta was placed i n a freezer a f t e r c o l l e c t i o n . Excreta samples were l a t e r freeze-dried, weighed and ground for dry matter, nitrogen and gross energy determination. 35 TABLE 4. Diets used i n Experiment IV Ingredient DA. DA„ DF, *** Wheat Corn Barley Soybean meal Meat meal Animal tallow Multi calcium phosphate Limestone Premix 56.1 32.0 2.2 6.7 0.6 1.4 1.0 52.8 39.0 2.2 3.0 0.7 1.3 1.0 47.0 37.7 2.2 10.2 0.5 1.4 1.0 Calculated CP% Calculated ME (kcal/kg) Calculated crude f i b r e % Determined CP% 23.00 2998 2.60 22.85 23.10 3014 2.68 23.81 22.90 2953 3.87 23.00 * Diet A of Experiment I I . ** Diet A of Experiment I I I . *** Diet F of Experiment I I I . 36 F. Chemical Analyses 1. Dry matter determination Samples were weighed and placed i n pre-weighed aluminum dishes which had been dried i n an oven at 96°C for a period of about 2 hours. The weighed samples were placed i n the oven at 96°C overnight and cooled i n a desiccator upon removal. Cooled samples were weighed and weight loss was taken as moisture l o s s . 2. T o t a l nitrogen determination To t a l nitrogen was determined by the macro-Kjeldahl method. Approximately 1 g samples were weighed on f i l t e r papers and placed i n digestion tubes. Two blanks were prepared by placing f i l t e r papers i n tubes. 10.3 g of a c a t a l y s t made up of sodium sulphate with 2.9% copper sulphate was added to each tube and 25 ml concentrated sulphuric acid was added. The samples were then digested on a Buchi digestion u n i t . Digested samples were cooled a f t e r which 90 ml of d i s t i l l e d water was added to each tube. Tubes were placed on a Buchi 325 N 2 d i s t i l l a t i o n u n i t , approximately 150 ml 30% sodium hydroxide was added and d i s t i l l a -t i o n was done. Nitrogen d i s t i l l e d was c o l l e c t e d i n 50 ml 4% b o r i c acid with an i n d i c a t o r (0.2% brom cr e s o l green, 0.2% methyl red i n ethanol). Approximately 150 ml of the d i s t i l l a t e was co l l e c t e d for each tube and d i s t i l l a t e s were t i t r a t e d with 0.1052 N hydrochloric a c i d . The volume of hydrochloric acid used i n the t i t r a t i o n of blanks was deducted from the volumes used i n the t i t r a t i o n of samples. Percent nitrogen i n the samples was calculated as shown below: 37 %N = NHC1 x 14.007 x mLs HC1 g.wt. sample x 1000 x 100 where: NHC1 = normality of hydrochloric acid. mLs HC1 = volume of acid used, g.wt. = weight i n grams. 3. Gross energy determination Gross energy was determined with a Parr oxygen bomb calorimeter. Pelleted samples were weighed and placed i n capsules. The samples were ign i t e d i n the bomb f i l l e d with oxygen at 25 atmospheres. Heat l i b e r a t e d from the combustion of the sample was determined and gross energy was calculated by using temperature changes, the water equivalent value and considering corrections for heat production from the i g n i t i o n wire and sulphur and nitrogen oxidation. G. Data Analysis Analysis of variance by F-test was carried out for feed consump-t i o n , body weight gain, feed e f f i c i e n c y and d i g e s t i b i l i t y data. S i g n i -f i c a n t differences between means were determined by Duncan's new multiple range te s t (Duncan, 1955). Co r r e l a t i o n between sets of data was determined by Pearson's Product Moment c o e f f i c i e n t of c o r r e l a t i o n as described by Mendenhall (1979). 38 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A. Experiment I A minor v a r i a t i o n was observed i n determined t o t a l nitrogen values for the s i x d i e t s (Table 5). A difference of 0.11% t o t a l nitrogen occurred between the diet of highest nitrogen, diet A and those of lowest nitrogen, d i e t s E and F. The order of t o t a l nitrogen values agreed w e l l with the order of crude protein values calculated on formulation, except diet A which was higher i n nitrogen than expected. Uniformity was also obtained i n determined crude protein values of the d i e t s (N x 6.25) which was expected since diets u t i l i z e d the same ingredient sources and formulations were calculated for 23% +0.1% crude protein i n the s i x d i e t s (Table 5). The s i x diets were also f a i r l y uniform i n determined gross energy values with a difference of 62.89 kcal/kg between the two extremes (Table 5). There i s no clear trend i n the order of gross energy values. However, the diet with 50% barley (diet F) gave the highest value and the diets containing 20, 30 and 40% barley gave higher values than the diets with 0 and 10% barley. Feed consumption (Table 6) expressed as g/bird appeared to increase with increasing barley from 0% to 20%. However, feed consumption a f t e r 20% l e v e l of barley did not appear to take any consistent order. These values were less than that of 20% barley but greater than those of 0 and 10% barley l e v e l s . Analysis of variance by F-test showed no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n feed consumption. This indicates that replacement of wheat by barley up to 50% of the t o t a l diet by the procedure followed did not r e s u l t i n dietary differences large enough to s i g n i f i c a n t l y 39 TABLE 5. Determined nitrogen, CP (N x 6.25) and gross energy of experimental diets Diet N% CP% GE(cal/g) A 3.89 24.30 4245.82 B 3.81 23.81 4234.62 C 3.81 23.81 4255.50 D 3.82 23.85 4253.23 E 3.78 23.63 4251.84 F 3.78 23.63 4297.51 TABLE 6. Feed intake, weight gain and feed/gain r a t i o s for birds fed wheat and barley-based d i e t s * Diet Feed intake Weight gain Feed/Gain (g/bird) (g/bird) A 1274 a 806.25 a 1.58a B 1292 a 817.50 a 1.58a C 1323 a 826.00 a 1.60a D 1304 a 817.25 a 1.60a E 1311 a 802.75 a 1.63a F 1308 a 797.50 a 1.64a *Means of one parameter with a s i m i l a r superscript are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (P £.05). 40 a f f e c t feed comsumption. Even though a difference of 194 kcal/kg was calculated f o r ME between extremes, t h i s did not appear to have s i g n i f i -cantly affected feed consumption. The c o r r e l a t i o n between feed consump-ti o n and calculated ME was low (r = -0.65). Calculated ME, feed intake and feed/gain values are given i n Table 7. TABLE 7. Dietary ME ( c a l c u l a t e d ) , feed intake and feed/gain r a t i o s for birds fed wheat and barley-based diets Diet ME (calculated) (kcal/kg) Feed intake (g/bird) Feed/Gain A 2998 1274 1.58 B 2960 1292 1.58 C 2922 1323 1.60 D 2880 1304 1.60 E 2842 1311 1.63 F 2804 1308 1.64 C o r r e l a t i o n : Calculated ME and feed intake r = -0.65. Weight gains (Table 6) appeared to improve with increased barley i n the diet up to the l e v e l of 20% i n the r a t i o n , a f t e r which a decline i n weight gain occurred. The 50% barley diet gave the lowest weight gain (g/bird) over the 4 week period while that with 20% barley support-ed the highest, with 10 and 30% barley being second highest. The d i e t without barley resulted i n weight gain which exceeded those of d i e t s 41 containing 40 and 50% barley. Analysis of variance by F-test showed no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between treatment means. The order of values of feed/gain r a t i o s (Table 6) showed an increase with increasing l e v e l s of barley i n d i e t s . The 0 and 10% barley diets supported feed/gain r a t i o s of 1.58 and the diet with 50% barley was 1.64. However, the differences were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . These observations are s i m i l a r to those by H i j i k u r o and Takemasa (1981) who reported no e f f e c t on feed intake or weight gain when diets containing 63% barley adjusted to meet protein and energy requirements were fed to b r o i l e r s , as compared to wheat. It should however be noted that a higher l e v e l of barley and older birds (6 week old) were used by these workers. Furthermore, Lindblad et a l . (1954) reported optimum weight gains when wheat was replaced by barley on a pound per pound basis i n amounts of up to 30% of the r a t i o n . They reported a reduction i n weight and feed consumption when barley was included at levels higher than 30% of the r a t i o n . Petersen (1969) reported less growth from barley diets i n comparison to sorghum, wheat and oats at levels of 50% i n the d i e t s . He indicated that weight gain decreased for the diet with 50% barley although not s i g n i f i c a n t l y . While Lindblad et a l . (1954) mention decreasing feed consumption at high l e v e l s of barley i n c l u s i o n (>30% of r a t i o n ) , r e s u l t s of the present study show increases i n feed consumption with increases i n barley up to 20% of the diet a f t e r which feed consumption shows no consistent order but remains higher than for the wheat based d i e t s . It i s emphasized here that differences i n feed consumption were not s i g n i f i c a n t i n the present study. 42 A possible reason for differences i n observations made i n this experiment and r e s u l t s reported by Lindblad et a l . (1954) and Petersen (1969) i s the fact that substitutions of wheat by barley were on a weight to weight basis, whereas barley was included into diets of t h i s experiment using dietary nutrient balance as the major consideration. B. Experiment II V a r i a t i o n observed i n determined nitrogen values (percent) and crude protein values (N x 6.25) between diets was low (Table 8). Diets were calculated to provide 23% +0.10 crude protein, therefore r e s u l t s indicated that ingredient content values were consistent with tabular composition values. Greater v a r i a t i o n i n gross energy values of the diets was observed i n Experiment II compared to Experiment I. A difference of 134.33 kcal/kg occurred between the d i e t of highest gross energy and that of lowest gross energy. However, the order of values did not suggest an influence by the two grains, wheat and corn, on the magnitude of gross energy values. The di e t which had 20% corn gave the lowest gross energy value while the diet with 30% corn had the highest value. Feed intake (Table 9) decreased with increased corn i n the d i e t . The diet with 56.1% wheat had 5.7% higher feed consumption than the di e t with 48.6% corn, and a diet with 44.6% wheat (10% corn) had 3.86% higher feed consumption than a 48.6% corn d i e t . Analysis of variance by F-test showed a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (P <.01) between treatments and a test of treatment means by Duncan's new multiple range test showed di e t A (56.1% wheat, 0% corn) to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from d i e t s E (40% 43 TABLE 8. Determined nitrogen, CP (N x 6.25) and gross energy of experimental diets Diet N% CP% GE(cal/g) A 3.66 22.85 4479.05 B 3.76 23.53 4416.94 C 3.75 23.44 4366.59 D 3.79 23.68 4500.92 E 3.73 23.33 4376.75 F 3.76 23.53 4411.66 TABLE 9. Feed intake, weight gain and feed/gain r a t i o s for birds fed wheat and corn-based d i e t s * Diet Feed intake Weight gain Feed/Gain (g/bird) (g/bird) A 1466 a 913.00 a 1.61 c B 1440 a b 912.75 a 1.58 b c C 1433 a b 921.75 a 1.56 a b D 1426 a b 936.25 a 1.52a E 1386 b 902.00 a 1.54 a b F 1386 b 901.75 a 1.54 a b *Means with a s i m i l a r superscript are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (P <.05). 44 corn, 9.6% wheat) and F (48.6% corn, 0% wheat). C o r r e l a t i o n between feed consumption and calculated ME of the diets was high (r = -0.96). This suggests the difference i n ME values of the diets E, F and A (a difference of more than 120 kcal/kg) to be a factor that affected feed consumption. L i t t l e difference occurred i n weight gain (g/bird over 4 week period) between the six die t s and the s l i g h t difference that occurred did not seem to take any consistent order i n favour of either wheat or corn (Table 9). However, die t s high i n wheat appeared to give s l i g h t l y higher weight gains as compared to diets high i n corn. The diet with 30% corn, 21.6% wheat supported the highest weight gain while diets higher i n corn gave s l i g h t l y lower values than diets lower than 30% i n corn. Analysis of variance by F-test showed no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n weight gain. Feed e f f i c i e n c y (Table 9) improved with an increase i n corn. Diets D, E and F supported s i g n i f i c a n t l y (P <.005) better feed e f f i c i e n c y than d i e t A. This suggested that diets with 30% corn (or more) were superior to the diet with 56.1% wheat for e f f i c i e n c y of feed u t i l i z a -t i o n . Since no s i g n i f i c a n t difference was observed i n weight gain, the difference i n feed e f f i c i e n c y was due to v a r i a t i o n observed i n feed consumption, also s i m i l a r to feed consumption r e s u l t s , a high c o r r e l a -t i o n was observed between feed e f f i c i e n c y r a t i o s and calculated ME values of the d i e t s (r = -0.84). Results from t h i s experiment show that diets high i n corn (>30% of the d i e t ) are superior to diets high i n wheat (>30% of the di e t ) i n e f f i c i e n c y although diets high i n wheat appear to give s l i g h t l y higher 45 weight gains than diets high i n corn. The best weight gains appear to be achieved when wheat and corn are used i n a combination of approxi-mately equal proportions. However, weight gain values are not s i g n i f i -cantly d i f f e r e n t , whereas feed e f f i c i e n c y values are s i g n i f i c a n t . These observations agree with r e s u l t s reported by Reddy et a l . (1979) i n which poor feed e f f i c i e n c y occurred to 56 days of age, i n b r o i l e r s when maize was replaced with wheat at 53.5% of the diet but not at 25%, both on the basis of equal nitrogen or weight. In contrast to res u l t s i n Table 9 these workers reported i n f e r i o r weight gain when wheat was used at 53.5% of the diet compared to a 53.5% corn d i e t , but not when wheat was used at 25% of the diet i n combination with corn. Weight gain for the 25% wheat diet i n combination with corn was greater than the 53.5% corn d i e t . This r e f l e c t e d the compatibility of ingredients to support superior performance. The s u p e r i o r i t y of high corn diets to high wheat diets i s probably due to high metabolizable energy i n the high corn d i e t s , a difference of about 120 kcal/kg occurred i n the calculated ME between the high corn diets and the diet containing 56.1% wheat. A high c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i -cient was obtained between calculated ME and feed consumption (r = -0.96), and feed e f f i c i e n c y r a t i o s ( r = -0.84) which further supports the metabolizable energy r e l a t i o n s h i p . Calculated ME, feed intake and feed/gain r a t i o values are given i n Table 10. 46 TABLE 10. Dietary ME (ca l c u l a t e d ) , feed intake and feed/gain r a t i o s for birds fed wheat and corn-based d i e t s Diet ME (calculated (kcal/kg) Feed intake (g/bird) Feed/Gain A 2998 1466 1.61 B 3029 1440 1.58 C 3057 1433 1.56 D 3091 1426 1.52 E 3119 1386 1.54 F 3147 1386 1.54 Correlation: Calculated ME and feed intake r = -0.96 Calculated ME to Feed/Gain r = -0.84 C. Experiment I I I Determined values of t o t a l nitrogen and crude protein (N x 6.25 for the s i x diets appeared f a i r l y close except for di e t F, which had a difference of 0.9% CP with the diet highest i n crude protein (Table 11). The general trend of determined dietary nitrogen and crude protein agreed w e l l with calculated crude protein values except for diet F which was s l i g h t l y lower than expected. Variations i n determined dietary nitrogen were low enough for the diets to be considered iso-nitrogenous. V a r i a t i o n i n determined gross energy of d i e t s (Table 11) was greater i n Experiment I I I compared to Experiments I and I I . There was a difference of 311.44 kcal/kg between the diet of lowest and that of 47 TABLE 11. Determined nitrogen, CP (N x 6.25) and gross energy of experimental diets Diet N% CP% GE(cal/g) A 3.81 23.81 4308.16 B 3.78 23.61 4294.51 C 3.82 23.90 4405.17 D 3.80 23.72 4548.73 E 3.81 23.83 4519.87 F 3.68 23.00 4605.95 highest gross energy. The sequence of gross energy values suggested increased gross energy with decreasing corn and increasing barley. The increase i n gross energy values with increasing barley i s due to the fact that the high barley d i e t s were maintained adequate i n available energy by adding animal tallow while unavailable energy increased with increased barley. The v a r i a t i o n that occurred i n feed intake (Table 12) did not suggest any r e l a t i o n s h i p to eit h e r of the two cereals, corn and barley, or the energy values of the d i e t s . Feed consumption was highest i n the die t with 30% barley and 29% corn. The difference of 61 kcal/kg calcu-lated ME between the di e t of highest ME and that of lowest ME was too low to support a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n feed consumption. Similar to feed consumption, s l i g h t differences occurred i n weight gain (g/bird over 4 week period), but values showed no d e f i n i t e trend that would suggest the e f f e c t of either of the two cereals. The diet 48 TABLE 12. Feed intake, weight gain and feed/gain r a t i o s for birds fed corn and barley-based d i e t s * Diet Feed intake (g/bird) Weight gain (g/bird) Feed/Gain A 1349 a 856.62 a 1.58a B 1395 a 885.72 a 1.58a C 1299 a 836.28 a 1.56a D 1404 a 895.25 a 1.57a E 1375 a 863.42 a 1.59 a F 1394 a 874.00 a 1.60a *Means of one parameter with a s i m i l a r superscript are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (P <.05). with 30% barley had the highest weight gain while that with 20% barley had the lowest. Analysis of v a r i a t i o n by F-test showed no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between treatments. Feed e f f i c i e n c y (Table 12) declined s l i g h t l y at high l e v e l s of barley, the diet with 47% barley had the highest feed/gain r a t i o (1.60) while those with 0% and 10% barley had the lowest (1.58). However, there was no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n feed e f f i c i e n c y between the s i x d i e t s . The s u b s t i t u t i o n of barley for corn by the procedure followed i n t h i s experiment did not re s u l t i n differences i n either feed intake or weight gain. Even though the feed/gain r a t i o increased at high l e v e l s of barley i n the d i e t s , the difference was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . 49 In 1965, Arscott et a l . reported decreased body weights i n b r o i l e r s fed to 4 weeks of age on diets i n which barley replaced corn at 69.26 or 70.3% of the di e t on weight basis. The difference i n observations made i n t h i s experiment and that by Arscott et a l . (1965) could mainly be due to differences i n the methods used i n the sub s t i t u t i o n , the barleys used, as well as l e v e l s at which the barley was used i n the d i e t s . Barley was used to a maximum of 47% of the diet i n th i s experiment and introduced with adjustments to maintain diets i s o - c a l o r i c and i s o - n i t r o -genous while Arscott et a l . (1965) used barley at 69.26 and 70.3% and did a weight to weight s u b s t i t u t i o n . E a r l i e r i n 1955, Arscott et a l . reported that replacing corn with barley at 15.25, 26 and 30.5% of the diet resulted i n a progressive decrease i n growth that was s i g n i f i c a n t at the 30.5% l e v e l , while the growth of chicks fed barley at 52% of the diet was retarded. Feed e f f i c i e n c y decreases were observed for a l l the l e v e l s . However, adding 4 to 8% fat to the 26 and 15.25% barley rations resulted i n progressive increases i n growth and improvements i n e f f i c i e n c y of feed conversion that compared favourably with a corn-based diet with or without added f a t . Fat i n the 52% barley diet resulted i n improvements i n growth and feed conversion. An important aspect i n the report by Arscott et a l . (1955) i s the ef f e c t of added fat on the n u t r i t i o n a l value of the barley containing d i e t s . The improvements r e s u l t i n g from f a t may have been r e a l i s e d i n thi s experiment since the l e v e l s of animal tallow were increased with increases i n the amounts of barley. The fact that the corn diet did not res u l t i n any improvements with the addition of fat i n the work by 50 Arscott et a l . (1955), suggests the e f f e c t on the barley diet to be related to improvements i n metabolizable energy which was lowered by the replacement of corn with barley. It i s apparent that metabolizable energy i s a factor which a f f e c t s the n u t r i t i o n a l value of barley-based d i e t s . Improvements i n chick performance with the addition of fat to barley d i e t s were also reported by Fry et a l . , 1958. and Arscott and Rose 1960a. D. Experiment IV: D i g e s t i b i l i t y and N-retention T r i a l Corn had s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher (P <.005) d i g e s t i b l e dry matter than both wheat and barley (Table 13). This difference i s not t o t a l l y related to the crude f i b e r content of the grains since corn and wheat are almost equivalent i n crude f i b e r content while barley i s about twice as high i n crude f i b e r compared to wheat and corn, but the dry matter d i g e s t i b i l i t y i n wheat was almost equal to that i n barley. Corn also had a s i g n i f i -cantly higher (P <.05) nitrogen retention value compared to barley but not to wheat. The nitrogen retention i n wheat was intermediate to that of corn and barley and was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from e i t h e r . Whereas the d i g e s t i b i l i t y of dry matter and retention of nitrogen i n the three cereals i s not correlated to crude f i b e r content, i t i s possible that crude f i b r e i n barley affected the d i g e s t i b i l i t y of dry matter and retention of nitrogen. Although corn had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher d i g e s t i b l e dry matter than wheat or barley, diets based on the three cereals showed no s i g n i -f i c a n t difference i n d i g e s t i b l e dry matter (Table 14). This means that the difference that occurred between the cereals i n d i g e s t i b l e dry TABLE 13. Apparent ME, dry matter and N-retention of cereals* Cereal Crude AME DM dig N-retention f i b e r (%) (kcal/g) (%) (%) Wheat 2.4 3.48 88.25 a 74.03 a b Com 2.5 3.63 91.40 b 77.67 b Barley 5.1 3.45 87.49 a 71.43 3 *Means for DM and N-retention with a s i m i l a r superscript are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (P <.05). TABLE 14. Dry matter and N-retention of d i e t s * Diet Crude DM dig N-retention f i b e r (%) (%) (%) DF 3 3.87 87.95 a 74.03 b DA 2 2.60 89.92a 83.74 a DA3 2.68 90.54 a 84.86 a *Means of one parameter with a s i m i l a r superscript are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (P £.05). 52 matter was not s u f f i c i e n t to be r e f l e c t e d i n diets based on either cereal at the l e v e l s used and by the method of formulation used. How-ever, the dry matter d i g e s t i b i l i t y i n the corn-based d i e t was higher than the barley-based d i e t . This trend i s i n agreement with dry matter d i g e s t i b i l i t y values for i n d i v i d u a l cereals. The barley-based d i e t was s i g n i f i c a n t l y (P <.005) lower i n retained nitrogen than corn and wheat-based d i e t s . The lack of a s i g n i -f i c a n t difference i n chick performance between the barley- based diet and corn and wheat-based diets i n spite of a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n retained nitrogen i n the diets implies that the difference i n nitrogen retention was not s u f f i c i e n t to cause a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n performance parameters or that N-retention values did not provide an accurate approximation of a v a i l a b l e protein. It i s also noted that a wheat-based di e t gave s i g n i f i c a n t l y better nitrogen retention than a barley-based diet while nitrogen retention i n the two cereals i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . This s i t u a t i o n , together with the fact that the barley diet contained more soybean-nitrogen than the wheat diet suggests that barley affected the a v a i l a b i l i t y of crude protein from soybean meal and meat meal. An attempt was made to determine the apparent metabolizable energy values of the cereals by the t o t a l c o l l e c t i o n method using the same birds on which dry matter and nitrogen retention were determined. As can be seen i n Table 13, values of 3.48, 3.63 and 3.45 kcal/g were obtained for wheat, corn and barley respectively. I t was r e a l i s e d that the values obtained for wheat and barley were higher than expected, e s p e c i a l l y that these values were apparent and not true. However, i t 53 was also observed that metabolizable energy values reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e vary. Boldaji et a l . (1978) reported higher metabolizable energy values for wheat than were obtained i n this experiment. These workers reported ME of wheat i n the range from 3.68 to 3.90 kcal/g dry matter. It was assumed that ME values i n the present study were affected either by prolonged f i b e r retention i n the crops of birds i n the case of barley, or by the low accuracy of the method used i n the determination. E. General Bi r d Performance Chicks i n the three experiments performed well except for leg abnormalities which became evident at about the end of the second week of each experiment. Leg abnormalities were severe s t a r t i n g from the t h i r d week of each experiment and t h i s accounted for over 50% of recorded mortality i n each experiment. The frequence of leg abnormalities appeared to be less i n Experiment I I compared to Experiments I and I I I . Mo r t a l i t y rates were 4.17, 2.08 and 3.75% for Experiments I, I I and III res p e c t i v e l y . The mortality i n the three experiments did not appear to be affected by d i e t s . Considerable differences i n day-old chick weights occurred between the batches for the three experiments. Chicks i n Experiment I had an average chick-weight of 36.06 g, those i n Experiment I I had an average of 42.08 g while those i n Experiment I I I had an average weight of 46.59 g. Whereas the batch that had the lowest day-old chick weights gave the highest mortality, i t did not appear that day-old weights affected the mortality rate since the batch that had the highest weights gave a rate almost as high as that of the l i g h t e s t batch and the intermediate batch gave the lowest mortality rate. Rather than being an indica t o r of 54 better health, day-old weights may have been related to the degree of dehydration i n the chicks or the average siz e of eggs from which a given batch was hatched. No difference was observed i n water consumption between the di f f e r e n t treatments for a l l the growth t r i a l experiments. Fecal excreta appeared f a i r l y s i m i l a r i n moisture content i n a l l treatments for the three growth t r i a l s , but excreta output appeared to vary with l e v e l s of feed consumption i n Experiment I. Since feed consumption was elevated with increased l e v e l s of barley i n this experiment, increased f e c a l excretion can also be related to increases i n barley. There was no evident difference i n f e c a l output i n the other two experiments. F. General Discussion Some of the early work on the evaluation of the n u t r i t i v e value of barley i n poultry feeding may have underestimated the value of barley by using a weight to weight s u b s t i t u t i o n method and only considering high le v e l s of barley (Arscott et a l . , 1955; Arscott and Rose, 1960a; Anderson et a l . , 1961; Arscott et a l . , 1965; Petersen, 1969). When a weight to weight s u b s t i t u t i o n i s done i n a wheat d i e t , an increase i n barley r e s u l t s i n a decrease i n both crude protein and metabolizable energy. Because of the su b s t i t u t i o n , the barley diet may be i n f e r i o r to the wheat diet i n crude protein and available energy. When a s i m i l a r s u b s t i t u t i o n i s done i n a corn d i e t , the barley diet w i l l be consider-ably lower i n available energy. When re s u l t s obtained from such s u b s t i -tutions are used as a measure of the value of barley d i e t s , an evident bias against barley d i e t s i s ignored. 55 When the aim i s to evaluate the pot e n t i a l of a given crop as an ingredient i n di e t s , i t i s necessary that the crop be incorporated i n experimental diets i n a way that the crop w i l l be used i n p r a c t i c a l d i e t s . When th i s i s done, some clear d e f i c i e n c i e s of the diets contain-ing the crop under i n v e s t i g a t i o n are eliminated. This gives an evalua-t i o n of the crop that approaches a p r a c t i c a l s i t u a t i o n . Whereas one crop could be i n f e r i o r to the other as a grain, a si m i l a r degree of difference can not be taken to occur between two formulated diets containing the two crops. Improved performance i n b r o i l e r s fed barley containing d i e t s i n Experiments I and III compared to some reports i n l i t e r a t u r e i s most l i k e l y to be due to the fact that the method of s u b s t i t u t i o n of cereals considered nutrient balance. The elevation i n soybean meal with increases i n barley when barley replaced wheat and i n animal tallow when barley replaced corn could be factors that reduced differences i n bi r d performance between diets based on each of the three crops. I t should be noted that, while barley i s higher i n f i b e r compared to corn and wheat, differences i n the crude f i b e r of diets based on these cereals were not as pronounced as differences between the cereals. When wheat was replaced by barley i n Experiment I, a 54% increase i n calculated crude f i b e r occurred, giving a t o t a l of 4.01% crude f i b e r i n the 50% barley d i e t . Replacement of corn by barley i n Experiment I I I resulted i n a 31% increase i n calculated crude f i b e r , giving a t o t a l of 3.87% crude f i b e r i n the 47% barley d i e t . In the replacement of wheat by barley, the 30% barley diet had 22% more calculated crude f i b e r than the wheat-based diet while the 30% barley diet i n the corn replacement 56 had 19% more calculated crude f i b e r than the corn-based d i e t . The c o r r e l a t i o n of dietary calculated crude f i b e r to weight gain was negative but low i n Experiment I (r = -0.47) while that i n Experiment III was po s i t i v e and low ( r = 0.19). Whereas the poor performance of chicks fed on d i e t s based on barley can be suspected to be due to the d i l u t i o n e f f e c t of the f i b e r , r e s u l t s i n the present study did not reveal any clear e f f e c t of dietary crude f i b e r on weight gain. As can be seen above, the c o r r e l a t i o n of dietary crude f i b e r to weight gain i n the two experiments did not suggest any clear e f f e c t of f i b e r on weight gain. However, the c o r r e l a t i o n of crude f i b e r to feed/gain r a t i o s was 0.96 i n Experiment I and 0.51 i n Experiment I I I . This suggests a f i b e r r e l a t i o n s h i p to feed e f f i c i e n c y . The reduced c o r r e l a t i o n of dietary crude f i b e r to feed/gain r a t i o s i n Experiment I I I must be due to greater uniformity i n metabolizable energy of d i e t s . 57 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Three growth t r i a l s and a d i g e s t i b i l i t y and N-retention t r i a l were conducted to compare the n u t r i t i o n a l value of b r o i l e r s t a r t e r diets based on barley, corn, wheat or combinations of two cereals. 1. When wheat i s replaced by barley to levels of up to 50% of the diet with adjustments being made to keep the diets approximately iso-nitrogenous. ( i ) Feed consumption increases with increased barley i n d i e t s . ( i i ) Weight gain improves s l i g h t l y to 20% barley l e v e l a f t e r which i t f a l l s . ( i i i ) Feed e f f i c i e n c y f a l l s with increased barley. However, the differences i n a l l the three parameters are not s i g n i f i c a n t . When wheat i s replaced by barley by the procedure followed i n th i s study, a l e v e l of 30% barley can be used i n p r a c t i c a l b r o i l e r s t a r t e r rations without adverse e f f e c t s on weight gain. However, the f a c t that feed e f f i c i e n c y f a l l s implies that the p r o f i t a b i l i t y of such a replacement w i l l be determined by the price difference between the two cere a l s . Using barley beyond 30% l e v e l may also be j u s t i f i a b l e i n a s i t u a t i o n where great differences i n prices occur between the two cereals since the decline i n weight gain i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . 2. When wheat i s replaced by corn up to 48.6% of the diet with adjustments being made to keep the diets almost iso-nitrogenous. ( i ) Feed intake s i g n i f i c a n t l y decreases with increased corn. 58 ( i i ) Weight gain s l i g h t l y improves to 30% l e v e l of corn a f t e r which i t f a l l s and diets high i n wheat give s l i g h t l y better weight gains than diets high i n corn. However, differences i n weight gain are not s i g n i f i c a n t . ( i i i ) A s i g n i f i c a n t improvement occurs i n feed e f f i c i e n c y with with increases i n corn. Wheat-based b r o i l e r s t a r t e r diets give better weight gains than corn-based diets but best weights are achieved when the gains are used i n combination i n approximate equal proportions, and corn diets give better feed e f f i c i e n c y compared to wheat d i e t s . Since the difference i n weight gain i s not s i g n i f i c a n t whereas d i f f e r -ences i n feed e f f i c i e n c y are s i g n i f i c a n t , wheat i n b r o i l e r diets i s recommended over corn only when corn i s more expensive than wheat. 3. When corn i s replaced by barley up to the l e v e l of 47% of the d i e t with d i e t s being maintained iso-nitrogenous and i s o - c a l o r i c by adjusting the le v e l s of soybean meal and animal tallow. ( i ) There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n both feed intake and weight gain. ( i i ) There i s a decline i n feed e f f i c i e n c y at l e v e l s of barley greater than 40%, however, the decline i s not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . I t i s possible to use barley i n b r o i l e r rations up to 30% of the di e t without s a c r i f i c i n g weight gains. Using barley beyond t h i s l e v e l to 47% without s a c r i f i c i n g weight gains requires high levels of animal tallow which may not be p r a c t i c a l i n commercial feed mixing. Where r a t i o n formulation i s done at farm l e v e l , higher l e v e l s of animal tallow may be used allowing barley up to 47% of 59 the diet to be used without a f f e c t i n g weight gains. Since a decline i n feed e f f i c i e n c y occurs at barley l e v e l s greater than 40%, although not s i g n i f i c a n t , this s u b s t i t u t i o n w i l l be j u s t i f i e d when barley i s cheaper than corn. Corn has s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher (P <0.005) d i g e s t i b l e dry matter (91.40%) than wheat (88.25%) and barley (87.49%) while barley has s i g n i f i c a n t l y (P <.05) lower nitrogen retention (71.43%) than corn (77.67%). No s i g n i f i c a n t difference (P <.01) occurred i n the d i g e s t i b l e dry matter of diets based on the three cereals but the diet based on barley gave s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower (P <.005) nitrogen retention than diets based on corn and wheat. The feeding value of wheat as a sole grain i n b r o i l e r rations i s comparable to that of corn, except that corn i s superior i n feed e f f i c i e n c y . The closeness of the two crops i n n u t r i t i o n a l value j u s t i f i e s the use of wheat where corn i s more expensive than wheat. The use of barley as a sole grain i n a b r o i l e r r a t i o n i s not p r a c t i c a l . When barley i s used at a l e v e l higher than 40% of the t o t a l d i e t , changes have to be made to keep the diet adequate i n energy. However, i f the l e v e l does not exceed 50% of the d i e t , an increase i n animal tallow may be j u s t i f i a b l e i f barley i s r e l a t i v e l y cheap and the p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n enables handling of high f a t d i e t s . Barley i n combination with wheat or corn can be su c c e s s f u l l y used i n b r o i l e r s t a r t e r rations up to a l e v e l of 30% of the d i e t with-out a f f e c t i n g b i r d performance. 60 REFERENCES Agr i c u l t u r e Canada. 1977. Canadian Grain Commission. Canadian Barley. Crop B u l l e t i n 135. pp. 17. Agr i c u l t u r e Canada. 1978. Canadian Grain Commission. Canadian Barley. Crop B u l l e t i n 140. pp. 17. Agr i c u l t u r e Canada. 1976-1981. Canadian Grain Commission. Annual reports, pp. 25(1976), 27(1977), 30(1978), 26(1979), 20(1980), 20(1981). Anderson, J.O., D.C. Dobson and R.K. Wagstaff. 1961. Studies on the value of hulle s s barley i n chick diets and means of increasing t h i s value. Poultry S c i . 40:1571-1584. Anderson, J.O., R.K. Wagstaff and D.C. Dobson. 1960. Value of barley and hull e s s barley i n rations for laying hens. Poultry S c i . 39:1230 (Abstract). Arscott, G.H. 1963. Use of barley i n h i g h - e f f i c i e n c y b r o i l e r r a t i o n s . 6. Influence of small amounts of corn on improvement of barley. Poultry S c i . 42:301-304. Arscott, G.H. and R.J. Rose. 1960a. Use of barley i n high e f f i c i e n c y b r o i l e r r a t i o n s . 4. Influence of amylolytic enzymes on e f f i c i e n c y of u t i l i z a t i o n , water consumption and l i t t e r condition. Poultry S c i . 39:93-95. Arscott, G.H. and R.J. Rose. 1960b. Studies on the use of enzymes and p e l l e t i n g barley for laye r s . Poultry S c i . 39:1231 (Abstract). Arscott, G.H., R.J. Rose and J.A. Harper. 1960. An apparent i n h i b i t o r i n barley i n f l u e n c i n g e f f i c i e n c y of u t i l i z a t i o n by chicks. Poultry S c i . 39:268-270. Arscott, G.H., L.E. Johnson and J.E. Parker. 1955. The use of barley i n high e f f i c i e n c y b r o i l e r r a t i o n s . 1. The influence of methionine, g r i t and s t a b i l i z e d animal fat on e f f i c i e n c y of u t i l i z a t i o n . Poultry S c i . 34:655-661. Arscott, G.H. , D.C. Hutto and P. Rachapaetayakom. 1965. Use of barley i n high e f f i c i e n c y b r o i l e r r a t i o n s . 7. Pancreatic enlargement i n chicks fed barley containing d i e t s . Poultry S c i . 44:432-434. Aw-Yong, L.M., T.S. Sim and D.B. Bragg. 1983. Mineral a v a i l a b i l i t y of corn, barley, wheat and t r i t i c a l e for the chick. Poultry S c i . 62:659-664. 61 Berg, L.R. and G.E. Bearse. 1958. The ef f e c t of adding amylolytic enzymes to barley rations for laying hens. Poultry S c i . 37:1184 (Abstract). Berg, L.R. 1959. Enzyme supplementation of barley d i e t s for laying hens. Poultry S c i . 38:1132-1139. Berg, L.R. 1961. E f f e c t of adding enzymes to barley d i e t s at d i f f e r e n t ages of p u l l e t s on laying house performance. Poultry S c i . 40:34-39. Blurn, J.C., P. P i t o n and A. Gauthier. 1980. Preliminary study of the components causing poor u t i l i z a t i o n of barley i n the young chicken. Reproduction, N u t r i t i o n , Development 20:1717-1722. B o l d a j i , F., W.B. Roush, H.S. Nakaue and G.H. Arscott. 1978. True metabolizable energy values of d i f f e r e n t v a r i a t i e s of wheat grown i n Oregon, measured with normal size and dwarf White leghorn roosters. Poultry S c i . 57:1119-1120. Bowden, W.M. 1959. The taxonomy and nomenclature of the wheats, barleys and ryes and t h e i r wild r e l a t i v e s . Can. J . Botany 37:657-684. Burnett, G.S. 1966. Studies of v i s c o s i t y as the probable factor involved i n the improvement of c e r t a i n barleys for chickens by enzyme supplementation. B r i t . Poul. S c i . 7:55-75. Brown, W.O. and R.W. Hale. 1965. E f f i c i e n c y of egg production of three types of caged layers fed diets containing maize, oats or barley as the main cereal ingredient. B r i t . Poul. S c i . 6:119-124. Calvert, C.C, C.W. Newman, R. E s l i c k , K.G. Goering, B.R. Moss and A.M. El-Negoumy. 1977. Waxy vs. normal barley i n rat and pig d i e t s . Nutr. Rep. Int. 15:157-164. Calvert, C.C, C.W. Newman, R.F. E s l i c k and K.G. Goering. 1976. Comparison of waxy, high amylose and normal barley starches i n p u r i f i e d rat d i e t s . Nut. Rep. Int. 14:55-61. Coates, B.J., S.J. Slinger, J.D. Summers and H.S. Bayley. 1977. Metabolizable energy values and chemical and physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of wheat and barley. Can. J . Anim. S c i . 57:195-207. Connor, J.K., A.R. N e i l l and K.M. Barram. 1976. The metabolizable energy content for the chicken of maize and sorghum grain hybrids grown at several geographical regions. Aust. J . of E x p t l . Agric. and Anim. Husb., 16:699-703. 62 Coon, C.N., R. Shepler, D. McFarland and J . Nordheim. 1979. The n u t r i -t i o n a l evaluation of barley selections and c u l t i v a r s from Washington State. Poultry S c i . 58:913-918. Daghir, N.J. and K. Rottensten. 1966. The influence of variety and enzymes supplementation on the n u t r i t i o n a l value of barley for chicks. B r i t . Poul. S c i . 7:159-163. Davidson, J . , C.G. Banfield, J.G.W. Duguid and E.G. L e i t c h . 1978. The measurement of ME i n samples of oats, barley and wheat using chicks. J . S c i . Fd. Agric. 29:339-344. Dobson, D.C. and J.O. Anderson. 1958. Methods of improving the n u t r i -t i o n a l value of a new v a r i e t y of hulless barley for chicks. Poultry S c i . 37:1199 (Abstract). Duncan, D.B. 1955. Mu l t i p l e range and multiple F-test. Biometrics 11:1-42. Elwinger, K. 1978. E f f e c t s of nitrogen f e r t i l i z a t i o n on the n u t r i -t i o n a l value of barley. 2. Experiments with growing chickens. Swedish J . Agric. Res. 8:107-112. F.O.A. 1964. Protein: At the heart of the world food problem. World Food problems No. 5, pp. 62. Fry, R.E., J.B. A l l r e d , L.S. Jensen and J . McGinnis. 1958. E f f e c t of pearling barley and of d i f f e r e n t supplements to die t s containing barley on chick growth and feed e f f i c i e n c y . Poultry S c i . 37:281-288. Gardiner, E.E. and S. Dubetz. 1974. Comparison of a 19.7% wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) three 13.5% protein wheats and corn (Zea mays) i n b r o i l e r d i e t s with d i f f e r e n t protein and ly s i n e contents. B r i t . Poultry S c i . 15:239-244. Goering, K.J., R.F. E s l i c k and C A . Ryan, J r . 1957. Some e f f e c t s of environment and v a r i e t y on the amylase content of barley. Cereal Chem. 34:437-443. Gohl, B. and S. Thomke. 1976. D i g e s t i b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s and metabolizable energy of barley diets for layers as influenced by geographical area of production. Poultry S c i . 55:2369-2374. Gohl, B., S. Alden, K. Elwinger and S. Thomke. 1978. Influence of g-glucanase on feeding value of barley for poultry and moisture content of excreta. B r i t . Poul. S c i . 19:41-47. Hayes, S.H., G.L. Cromwell, T.S. Stahly and T.H. Johnson. 1979. A v a i l a b i l i t y of phosphorus i n corn, wheat and barley for the chick. J . Anim. S c i . 49:992-999. 63 Helbaek, H. 1959. Domestication of food plants i n the old world. Science 130:365-372. Herstad, 0. and J.M. McNab. 1975. The e f f e c t of heat treatment and enzymes supplementation on the n u t r i t i v e value of barley for b r o i l e r chicks. B r i t . Poul. S c i . 16:1-8. Hesselman, K. , K. Elwinger and S. Thomke. 1982. Influence of increasing l e v e l s of g-glucanase on the productive value of barley d i e t s for b r o i l e r chickens. Anim. Feed S c i . Tech. 7:351-358. H i j i k u r o , S. and M. Takemasa. 1981. Studies on the p a l a t a b i l i t y and u t i l i z a t i o n of some whole grains for f i n i s h i n g b r o i l e r s . Japan. Poultry S c i . 18:301-306. Jensen, L.S., R.E. Fry, J.B. A l l r e d and J . McGinnis. 1957. Improvement i n the n u t r i t i o n a l value of barley for chicks by enzymes supple-mentation. Poultry S c i . 36:919-921. Leong, K.C., L.S. Jensen and J. McGinnis. 1958. E f f e c t of water treatment and fungal enzymes addition on metabolizable energy of pearled barley. Poultry S c i . 37:1220 (Abstract). Lodhi, G.N., R. Renner and D.R. Clandimir. 1969. Studies on the metabolizable energy of rapeseed meal for growing chickens and laying hens. Poultry S c i . 48:964-970. Lindblad, G.S. J.R. Aitken and W.G. Hunsaker. 1954. Studies on the use of barley i n chick rations. Poultry S c i . 33:1067 (Abstract). Mannion, P.F. 1981. Enzyme supplementation of barley-based d i e t s for b r o i l e r chickens. Aust. J . Exptl. Agric. Anim. Husb. 21:296-302. March, B.E. and J. B i e l y . 1973. Chemical, physical and n u t r i t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of d i f f e r e n t samples of wheat. Can. J . Anim. S c i . 53:569-577. Mendenhall, W. 1979. Introduction to p r o b a b i l i t y and s t a t i s t i c s . 5th Ed i t i o n , pp. 350-356. McNab, J.M. and D.W.F. Shannon. 1974. The n u t r i t i v e value of barley, maize, oats and wheat for poultry. B r i t . Poul. S c i . 15:561-567. Moss, B.R., A.M. El-Negoumy and C.W. Newman. 1983. N u t r i t i o n a l value of waxy barleys for b r o i l e r chickens. Animal Feed S c i . and Tech. 8:25-34. National Research Council. 1977. Nutrient requirements for poultry. No. 1. Subcommittee on Poultry N u t r i t i o n , Committee on Animal N u t r i t i o n . National Academy of Science, Washington, D.C. pp. 62. 64 Nelson, T.S., L.K. Kirby, R.L. Hanks, Z.B. Johnson and P.W. Waldroup. 1980. The metabolizable energy content of wheat and animal products for the chick. Poultry S c i . 59:1337-1338. Newman, C.W., R.S. E s l i c k , C.C. Calvert and A.M. El-Negoumy. 1978. Comparative n u t r i t i v e value of g l a c i e r and high amylose g l a c i e r barleys. J . of Anim. S c i . 47:448-455. Newman, C.W., R.F. E s l i c k , J.W. Pepper and A.M. El-Negoumy. 1980. Performance of pigs fed hulless and covered barleys supplemented with or without a b a c t e r i a l diastase. Nutr. Reports Int. 22:833-837. Nilan, R.A. 1964. The cytology and genetics of barley. 1951-1962 Monographic Supplement No. 3 Research Studies. Washington State University, pp. 1-27. Petersen, V.E. 1969. A comparison of the feeding value for b r o i l e r s of corn, grain sorghum, barley, wheat and oats, and the influence of the various grains on the composition and taste of b r o i l e r meat. Poultry S c i . 48:2006-2013. Petersen, C.F. and E.A. Sauter. 1968. Enzyme sources and th e i r value i n barley rations for chick growth and egg production. Poultry S c i . 47:1219-1224. Potter, L.M., M.W. Stutz and L.'D. Matterson. 1965. Metabolizable energy and d i g e s t i b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s of barley for chicks as influenced by water treatment or by presence of fungal enzyme. Poultry S c i . 44:565-573. Reddy, N.V., D.R. Rao and G.R. Sunki. 1979. Comparison of maize, wheat and t r i t i c a l e i n b r o i l e r d i e t s . B r i t . Poultry S c i . 20.357-362. Salomonsson, A.C., 0. Theander and P. Aman. 1980. Composition of normal and high l y s i n e barleys. Swedish J . A g r i c . Res. 10:11-16. Salmon, R.E. and K.E. Dunkelgod. 1974. N u t r i t i v e and economic evaluation of wheat c u l t i v a r s with varying protein l e v e l s : amino acid and fa t t y acid composition and performance i n chick and poultry d i e t s . Can. J . Anim. S c i . 54:619-628. Schiemann, E. 1951. New r e s u l t s on the hist o r y of c u l t i v a t e d cereals. Heredity 5:305-320. Sibbald, I.R. and K. P r i c e . 1976. True metabolizable energy values for poultry of Canadian barleys measured by bioassay and predicted from physical and chemical data. Can. J . Anim. S c i . 56:775-782. 65 Singh, S.D. and C.S. Barsaul. 1977. A note on the e f f i c i e n c y and economics of feeding d i f f e r e n t cereal grains on growth production i n White leghorn and Rhode Island Red b i r d s . Indian J . of Anim. S c i . 47:159-161. St r a i n , J.H. and A.P. P i l o s k i . 1972. E f f e c t s of barley and wheat c u l t i v a r s on growth of chick. Can. J . Anim. S c i . 52:525-529. Thomke, S. and A. Hellberg. 1976. E f f e c t of d i f f e r e n t treatments on the feeding value of barley harvested at two stages of ripeness. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, 26:25-32. Trotter, M. and G.L. A l l e e . 1979. A v a i l a b i l i t y of phosphorus from corn, soybean meal and wheat. J . Anim. S c i . 49 (Supp. 1):255 (Abstract). Vavilov, N.I. 1950. The o r i g i n , v a r i a t i o n , immunity and heredity of cu l t i v a t e d plants. Chronica Botanica 13:20-43. White, W.B., H.R. Bird, M.L. Sunde, N. Prentice and W.C. Burger. 1980. Interaction of barley beta-glucan with Trichoderma v i r i d e c e l l u l a s e i n the chick. Poultry S c i . 59:1672 (Abstract). Wiebe, G.A. and D.A. Reid. 1961. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of barley v a r i e t i e s grown i n the United States and Canada i n 1958. U.S.D.A Tech. B u l l . No. 1224, pp. 234. Willingham, H.E., L.S. Jensen and J . McGinnis. 1958. Studies on the rol e of enzyme supplements and water treatment on the n u t r i t i v e value of barley. Poultry S c i . 37:1253 (Abstract). Willingham, H.E. 1964. E f f e c t of enzymes and water treated barley on carcass composition, water and feed consumption and feces moisture of chicks and poults. Poultry S c i . 43:1376 (Abstract). Willingham, H.E., L.S. Jensen and J . McGinnis. 1959. Studies on the rol e of enzyme supplements and water treatment for improving the n u t r i t i o n a l value of barley. Poultry S c i . 38:539-544. Willingham, H.E., K.C. Leong, L.S. Jensen and J . McGinnis. 1960. Influence of geographical area of production on response of d i f f e r e n t barley samples to enzyme supplements or water treatment. Poultry S c i . 39:103-108. Willingham, H.E. and J.D. Ea r l e . 1964. E f f e c t of various enzyme supplements i n high energy rations on b r o i l e r performance. Poul. S c i . 43:1376 (Abstract). Wilson, B.J. and J.M. McNab. 1975. Diets containing conventional, naked and high amylose barleys for b r o i l e r s . B r i t . Poul. S c i . 16:497-504. Zelenka, J . 1968. Influence of the age of chicken on the ME values poultry d i e t s . B r i t . Poul. S c i . 9:135-142. 67 A P P E N D I C E S TABLE 15. Canadian barley and wheat production f i g u r e s : (1975-1980) 1 Crop (Thousand tonnes) Year Barley Wheat 1975 9,549 13,704 1976 10,545 18,927 1977 11,799 19,862 1978 10,387 21,145 1979 8,460 17,185 1980 11,259 19,158 1 A g r i c u l t u r e Canada 1976-1981. 69 TABLE 16. Gross amino acid composition of barley, corn and wheat^-2 Barley Corn Wheat Component McNab & NRC McNab & NRC McNab & NRC Shannon Shannon Shannon Aspartic acid .66 - .52 - .40 -Threonine .42 .42 .32 .39 .32 .37 Serine .44 .42 .40 .40 .34 .63 Glutamic acid 2.80 - 1.82 - 3.40 -Glycine .48 .40 .32 .37 .38 .72 Alanine .56 - .65 - .42 -Valine .56 .62 .40 .52 .44 .63 Cystine .19 .19 .19 .15 .22 .26 Methionine .21 .17 .18 .20 .18 .19 Iso leucine .42 .49 .32 .37 .41 .58 Leucine .78 .80 1.06 1.10 .72 .94 Tyrosine .35 .33 .36 .45 .31 .43 Phenyalanine .53 .64 .42 .47 .52 .71 Lysine .42 .40 .27 .24 .38 .40 H i s t i d i n e .24 .29 .26 .20 .27 .22 Arginine .68 .59 .43 .50 .54 .58 Tryptophan - .14 - .09 - .18 iMcNab and Shannon 1974; NRC 1977. 2 A l l values given as percent of the crops. (Differences i n values between the two sources are due to the fact that McNab and Shannon gave values for single crop samples on dry matter basis whereas values under NRC are means of crop composition on as fed basis.) 70 TABLE 17. Gross composition of barley, corn and wheat 2 Barley Corn Wheat Component McNab & NRC McNab & NRC McNab & NRC Shannon Shannon Shannon Fiber _ 5.1 _ 2.2 _ 2.4 Gross Energy (kcal/g) — — — — — — Ether Extract 1.5 1.8 3.2 3.8 1.4 1.9 Crude Protein^ 11.3 11.6 8.2 8.8 10.4 14.1 Ash 2.7 - 1.2 - 1.8 -Total carbohydrates 73.6 - 75.6 - 75.5 -Available carbohydrates 55.7 - 65.0 - 62.9 -Soluble sugars 0.3 - 2.0 - 0.6 -Starch 54.5 - 59.4 - 57.8 -Cellulose 1.1 - 0.5 - 0.8 -Hemicelluse 7.1 - 5.3 - 4.8 -Pectins .5 - .2 - 1.2 -L i g n i n 4.4 - 2.9 - 2.0 -^cNab and Shannon 1974; NRC 1977. 2A11 values, except gross energy are given as percent of a crop. ^Crude protein = N x 6.25. (McNab and Shannon values are given as values of single crop samples on dry matter basis whereas NRC values are means of crop composition values on as fed basis.) TABLE 18. Gross composition of some barley v a r i e t i e s (DM basis) Nitrogen-free Barley Crude f i b e r Gross Energy CP% Ether Extract Extract % (kcal/g) (Nx5.83) % % Bonanza 4.83 4.43 Brock 5.73 4.40 Fergus 5.32 4.48 Herta 5.47 4.33 Herta Increase 4.53 4.46 Increase Brock 5.07 4.37 Keystone 6.62 4.52 Sample No. 1 5.89 4.40 Sample No. 2 5.39 4.41 Sample No. 3 7.17 4.43 Sample No. 4 4.99 4.47 Sample No. 5 4.95 4.41 Malting Sample No. 1 4.55 4.44 Malting Sample No. 2 6.29 4.43 Malting Sample No. 5 6.21 4.43 Trent Increase 3.89 4.47 Mean 5.43 4.43 Standard deviation 0.86 0.05 11.4 2.21 79.1 12.9 2.24 76.3 13.9 2.16 75.8 10.1 2.44 79.0 12.8 2.27 77.9 11.9 2.20 78.1 13.6 2.41 74.4 11.8 2.70 76.9 11.1 2.34 78.3 10.8 3.16 75.0 11.9 2.43 77.9 12.2 2.58 77.4 11.1 2.62 78.9 12.9 2.55 75.9 12.7 2.58 75.3 14.3 1.96 77.1 12.2 2.43 77.1 1.2 0.28 1.5 Coates et a l . , 1977. TABLE 19. Gross composition of some wheats (DM basis) Nitrogen-free Wheat Crude f i b e r Gross Energy CP% Ether Extract Extract % (kcal/g) (Nx5.83) % % Canthatch 3.63 4.53 16.7 2.16 76.0 Cypress 2.91 4.58 16.1 1.99 77.3 Glenlea 3.37 4.47 13.1 2.21 78.2 Hercules 2.35 4.47 12.7 2.37 80.7 Lemhi 5 3 2.96 4.46 10.6 1.93 82.7 Manitou 3.67 4.55 17.1 2.11 73.8 Neepawa 2.40 4.52 17.3 2.17 76.0 Nugaines 4.18 4.46 10.7 1.75 81.8 P e l i s s i e r 2.91 4.45 15.6 2.11 74.4 P i t i c 62 2.89 4.44 10.2 2.09 82.9 P i t i c 62 National 3.69 4.52 13.8 2.20 78.2 Selkirk 3.00 4.47 14.2 2.20 78.6 Sample No. 1 3.21 4.58 16.1 2.20 76.1 Sample No. 5 3.29 4.56 16.4 2.21 76.1 Stewart 3.68 4.55 16.1 2.05 76.3 Winalta 3.06 4.57 12.6 1.86 80.9 Mean 3.20 4.51 14.3 2.10 78.1 Standard deviation 0.49 0.05 2.4 0.15 2.8' 1Coates et a l . , 1977. 73 TABLE 20. Carbohydrate composition of some barleys (DM b a s i s ) ! Barley Acid detergent Starch Sugar Pentosans Fiber % % % % Bonanza Brock Fergus Herta Herta Increase Increase Brock Keystone Sample No. 1 Sample No. 2 Sample No. 3 Sample No. 4 Sample No. 5 Malting Sample No. Malting Sample No. Malting Sample No. Trent Increase 6.04 8.67 6.53 6.57 7.09 7.52 8.81 6.50 7.23 7.74 5.90 6.09 5.64 5.64 7.10 7.86 66.3 65.9 64.6 67.9 65.2 66.1 64.1 64.6 64.9 65.1 66.2 65.9 66.4 63.7 63.7 64.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.5 9.8 9.5 8.2 10.4 9.7 9.4 8.4 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.7 9.4 9.4 8.5 Mean Standard deviation 6.93 1.00 65.3 1.1 2.6 0.1 9.4 0.6 ^•Coates et a l . , 1977. 74 TABLE 21. Carbohydrate composition of some wheats (DM b a s i s ) ^ Wheat Acid detergent Starch Sugar Pentosans Fiber % % % % Canthatch 3.69 62.4 2.8 7.7 Cypress 3.98 61.7 2.6 7.4 Glenlea 4.21 67.7 3.0 6.9 Hercules 3.21 62.1 2.6 7.1 Lemhi 53 3.18 68.2 3.6 7.8 Manitou 3.81 63.8 3.1 7.5 Neepawa 3.91 62.5 2.8 6.8 Nugaines 3.35 65.7 3.7 7.4 P e l i s s i e r 3.03 64.6 3.0 7.3 P i t i c 62 3.47 66.5 2.9 7.2 P i t i c 62 National 3.95 67.4 3.0 7.6 Selkirk 3.63 66.7 2.7 7.3 Sample No. 1 4.16 63.5 2.7 7.5 Sample No. 5 4.33 63.1 2.7 7.2 Stewart 3.11 62.9 2.7 7.4 Winalta 3.34 65.6 2.8 7.9 Mean 3.65 64.7 2.9 7.4 Standard deviation 0.42 2.2 0.3 0.3 iCoates et a l . , 1977. 75 TABLE 22. Ash, phosphorus and tannin content of some barleys (DM b a s i s ) ! Barley Ash Tot a l Phytin Tannic Phosphorus Phosphorus acid % % % % Bonanza 2.51 Brock 2.84 Fergus 2.82 Herta 2.94 Herta Increase 2.52 Increase Brock 2.69 Keystone 2.95 Sample No. 1 2.70 Sample No. 2 2.85 Sample No. 3 3.82 Sample No. 4 2.80 Sample No. 5 2.88 Malting Sample No. 1 2.78 Malting Sample No. 2 2.25 Malting Sample No. 5 3.18 Trent Increase 2.77 Mean 2.83 Standard deviation 0.34 0.38 0.20 0.016 0.41 0.27 0.015 0.42 0.27 0.017 0.40 0.25 0.015 0.37 0.23 0.014 0.43 0.27 0.015 0.44 0.28 0.022 0.38 0.22 0.022 0.42 0.29 0.020 0.46 0.27 0.023 0.43 0.27 0.016 0.39 0.22 0.023 0.35 0.21 0.016 0.34 0.21 0.016 0.45 0.29 0.016 0.43 0.26 0.017 0.40 0.25 0.018 0.03 0.03 0.003 Coates et a l . , 1977. 76 TABLE 23. Ash, phosphorus and tannin content of some wheats (DM b a s i s ) * Ash Total Phytin Tannic Wheat Phosphorus Phosphorus acid % % % % Canthatch 1.54 Cypress 1.67 Glenlea 3.09 Hercules 1.89 Lemhi 53 1.81 Manitou 3.32 Neepawa 2.14 Nugaines 1.51 P e l i s s i e r 1.95 P i t i c 62 1.90 P i t i c 62 National 2.05 Sel k i r k 1.98 Sample No. 1 2.42 Sample No. 5 2.00 Stewart 1.89 Winalta 1.59 Mean 2.04 Standard deviation 0.49 0.30 0.24 0.015 0.38 0.26 0.013 0.36 0.23 0.015 0.34 0.24 0.017 0.35 0.25 0.017 0.43 0.33 0.019 0.44 0.33 0.016 0.31 0.23 0.011 0.42 0.33 0.013 0.39 0.29 0.015 0.33 0.23 0.015 0.44 0.33 0.016 0.46 0.33 0.018 0.43 0.35 0.016 0.36 0.28 0.013 0.36 0.28 0.015 0.38 0.28 0.015 0.05 0.04 0.002 iCoates et a l . , 1977. 77 TABLE 24a. Experiment I - Feed intake Mean feed consumption per b i r d (g) (1 to 28 days) Treatment Replicate  (di e t ) 1 2 3 4 Mean A 1268 1256 1369 1201 1274 B 1295 1403 1203 1266 1292 C 1304 1334 1357 1296 1323 D 1387 1285 1335 1208 1304 E 1315 1257 1401 1270 1311 F 1337 1300 1299 1296 1308 TABLE 24b. Experiment I - ANOVA on feed intake Analysis of variance on feed consumption per b i r d Source of v a r i a t i o n df Mean Square F^ Treatment 5 1,170.50 0.34 N.S. Repl i c a t i o n 3 6,004.72 1.76 N.S. Error 15 3,417.46 Tota l 23 F-value followed by N.S. i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . 78 TABLE 25a. Experiment I - Weight gain Mean weight gain per b i r d (g) (1 to 28 days) Treatment Replicate  (di e t ) 1 2 3 4 Mean A 778 800 867 780 806.25 B 852 861 766 791 817.50 C 800 834 870 800 826.00 D 867 813 829 760 817.25 E 802 776 854 779 802.75 F 820 788 792 790 797.50 TABLE 25b. Experiment I - ANOVA on weight gain Analysis of variance on weight gain per b i r d Source of v a r i a t i o n df Mean Square F J -Treatment 5 463.14 0.38 N.S. Rep l i c a t i o n 3 2,385.49 1.95 N.S. Error 15 1,223.19 Tota l 23 F-value followed by N.S. i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . TABLE 26a. Experiment I - E f f i c i e n c y of gain Feed/grain r a t i o s (1 to 28 days) Treatment Replicate  (di e t ) 1 2 3 4 Mean A 1.63 1.57 1.58 1.54 1.58 B 1.52 1.63 1.57 1.60 1.58 C 1.63 1.60 1.56 1.62 1.60 D 1.60 1.58 1.61 1.59 1.60 E 1.64 1.62 1.64 1.63 1.63 F 1.63 1.65 1.64 1.64 1.64 TABLE 26b. Experiment I - ANOVA on e f f i c i e n c y of gain Analysis of variance on feed/gain r a t i o s Source of v a r i a t i o n df Mean Square Fl Treatment R e p l i c a t i o n Error 5 3 15 .0027 .0001 .001 2.7 N.S. 0.1 N.S. Tota l 23 F-value followed by N.S. i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . 80 TABLE 27a. Experiment II - Feed intake Mean feed consumption per b i r d (g) (1 to 28 days) Treatment Replicate  ( d i e t ) 1 2 3 4 Mean A 1480 1452 1449 1481 1466 B 1437 1470 1397 1454 1440 C 1428 1381 1465 1458 1433 D 1465 1437 1392 1409 1426 E 1377 1409 1401 1356 1386 F 1368 1392 1382 1402 1386 TABLE 27b. Experiment II - ANOVA on feed intake Analysis of variance on feed consumption per b i r d Source of v a r i a t i o n df Mean Square Fj; Treatment 5 3,953.27 4.52** Rep l i c a t i o n 3 192.28 0.22 N.S. Error 15 874.18 Total 23 * * S i g n i f i c a n t (P <.01) ^F-value followed by N.S. i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . 81 TABLE 28a. Experiment II - Weight gain Mean weight gain per b i r d (g) (1 to 28 days) Treatment Replicate  ( d i e t ) 1 2 3 4 Mean A 925 913 900 914 913.00 B 921 942 868 920 912.75 C 927 874 939 947 921.75 D 951 933 928 933 936.25 E 883 927 934 864 902.00 F 912 922 880 893 901.75 TABLE 28b. Experiment II - ANOVA on weight gain Analysis of variance on body weight gain Source of v a r i a t i o n df Mean Square Fj; Treatment 5 679.77 0.94 N.S. Re p l i c a t i o n 3 183.28 0.22 N.S. Error 15 720.74 Total 23 ^-F-value followed by N.S. i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . 82 TABLE 29a. Experiment II - E f f i c i e n c y of gain Feed/grain r a t i o s (1 to 28 days) Treatment Replicate  (di e t ) 1 2 3 4 Mean A 1.60 1.59 1.61 1.62 1.61 B 1.56 1.56 1.61 1.58 1.58 C 1.54 1.58 1.56 1.54 1.56 D 1.54 1.54 1.50 1.51 1.52 E 1.56 1.52 1.50 1.57 1.54 F 1.50 1.51 1.57 1.57 1.54 TABLE 29b. Experiment II - ANOVA on e f f i c i e n c y of gain Analysis of variance on feed/gain r a t i o s Source of v a r i a t i o n df Mean Square Treatment Re p l i c a t i o n Error 5 3 15 .0037 .0003 .0007 5.29 *** 0.43 N.S. Tota l 23 * * * S i g n i f i c a n t (P <.005) N.S. = not s i g n i f i c a n t 83 TABLE 30a. Experiment III - Feed intake Mean feed consumption per b i r d (g) (1 to 28 days) Treatment Replicate  (di e t ) 1_ 2 3 4 Mean A 1418.31 1280.90 1345.05 1351.43 1349 B 1333.33 1391.95 1415.70 1439.27 1395 C 1336.79 1340.38 1280.55 1236.87 1299 D 1407.03 1347.11 1470.17 1392.24 1404 E 1432.44 1400.50 1297.30 1368.71 1375 F 1451.31 1323.68 1396.64 1402.95 1394 TABLE 30b. Experiment I I I - ANOVA on feed intake Analysis of variance on feed consumption per b i r d Source of v a r i a t i o n df Mean Square F J ; Treatment 5 6,325.24 2.28 N.S. Re p l i c a t i o n 3 2,479.75 0.89 N.S. Error 15 2,777.96 Tota l 23 F-value followed by N.S. i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . 84 TABLE 31a. Experiment III - Weight gain Mean weight gain per b i r d (g) (1 to 28 days) Treatment Replicate  (di e t ) 1 2 3 4 Mean A 903.38 842.70 851.30 829.10 856.62 B 865.80 869.97 890.38 916.73 885.72 C 846.07 881.83 853.70 763.50 836.28 D 896.20 869.10 924.03 891.66 895.25 E 912.38 859.20 842.40 839.70 863.42 F 924.40 827.30 872.90 871.40 874.00 TABLE 31b. Experiment I II - ANOVA on weight gain Analysis of variance on body weight gain per b i r d Source of v a r i a t i o n df Mean Square F_]; Treatment 5 1,798.07 1.61 N.S. Rep l i c a t i o n 3 1,827.00 1.64 N.S. Error 15 1,117.23 Total 23 F-value followed by N.S. i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . 85 TABLE 32a. Experiment I I I - E f f i c i e n c y of gain Feed/grain r a t i o s (1 to 28 days) Treatment Replicate  (diet) 1 2 3 4 Mean A 1.57 1.52 1.58 1.63 1.58 B 1.54 1.60 1.59 1.57 1.58 C 1.58 1.52 1.50 1.62 1.56 D 1.57 1.55 1.59 1.56 1.57 E 1.57 1.63 1.54 1.63 1.59 F 1.57 1.60 1.60 1.61 1.60 TABLE 32b. Experiment I II - ANOVA on e f f i c i e n c y of gain Analysis of variance on feed/gain r a t i o s Source of v a r i a t i o n df Mean Square F-*-Treatment 5 .0009 .71 N.S Re p l i c a t i o n 3 .0019 1.46 N.S. Error 15 .0013 Total 23 F-value followed by N.S. i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . 86 TABLE 33a. Experiment IV - D i g e s t i b i l i t y percent Dig e s t i b l e dry matter (%) for cereals and die t s Sample Replicate  1 2 3 4 Mean Wheat Corn Barley 88.37 92.24 87.49 88.27 92.32 88.80 87.48 89.84 88.11 88.87 91.19 85.55 88.25 91.40 87.49 Wheat diet (DA 2) 89.39 87.01 91.21 92.08 89.92 Corn diet (DA 3) 90.60 91.08 89.51 90.96 90.54 Barley d i e t (DF 3) 87.01 84.40 89.57 86.83 87.95 TABLE 33b. Experiment IV - Nitrogen retention Sample Nitrogen retention (%) for cereals and die t s Replicate  Mean Wheat Corn Barley 74.85 78.11 66.81 73.15 80.00 75.27 72.70 77.67 71.04 75.42 74.89 72.60 74.03 77.67 71.43 Wheat diet (DA 2) 82.00 79.25 85.62 88.07 83.74 Corn diet (DA3) 83.98 86.28 83.51 85.67 84.86 Barley d i e t (DF3) 74.85 73.15 72.70 75.42 74.03 TABLE 33c. Experiment IV - F-values for DM and N-retention F-values for dry matter and nitrogen retention Component F-value Crop dry matter 14.22 *** Crop nitrogen 6.30 * Diet dry matter 3.04 N.S. Diet nitrogen 22.84 *** * S i g n i f i c a n t (P <.05) ** S i g n i f i c a n t (P <.01) *** S i g n i f i c a n t (P <.005) N.S. = Not s i g n i f i c a n t 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096111/manifest

Comment

Related Items