, Volume 163, Issue 2, pp 249–257 | Cite as

Assessing for genetic and environmental effects on ruminant feed quality in barley (Hordeum vulgare)

  • Glen P. Fox
  • Jan Bowman
  • Alison Kelly
  • Andy Inkerman
  • David Poulsen
  • Robert Henry


Grain samples from a combined intermediate and advanced stage barley breeding trial series, grown at two sites in two consecutive years were assessed for detailed grain quality and ruminant feed quality. The results indicated that there were significant genetic and environmental effects for “feed” traits as measured using grain hardness, acid detergent fibre (ADF), starch and in-sacco dry matter digestibility (ISDMD) assays. In addition, there was strong genotypic discrimination for the regressed feed performance traits, namely Net Energy (NE) and Average Daily Gain (ADG). There was considerable variation in genetic correlations for all traits based on variance from the cultivars used, sites or laboratory processing effects. There was a high level of heritability ranging from 89% to 88% for retention, 60% to 80% for protein and 56% to 68% for ADF. However, there were only low to moderate levels of heritability for the feed traits, with starch 30–39%, ISDMD 55–63%, ADF 56–68%, particle size 47–73%, 31–48% NE and ADG 44–51%. These results suggest that there were real differences in the feed performance of barleys and that selection for cattle feed quality is potentially a viable option for breeding programs.


Barley Cultivar Digestibility Energy Feed Heritability 



Acid detergent fibre


Average daily gain (kg/day)




Grain protein (dry basis)


In-sacco dry matter digestibility




Particle size


Retention (>2.5 mm)



The authors would like to thank the technical staff, namely John Sturgess, Rob Fromm and Toni Dwan from Hermitage Research Station, Warwick for conducting the field trials. In addition, the financial support from the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and the Grain Research and Development Corporation is acknowledged.


  1. AOAC International (1997) Official methods of analysis, 16th edn. Gaithersburg, MDGoogle Scholar
  2. Blake TK, Bowman JGP, Hensleigh P, Kushnak G, Carlson G, Welty L, Eckhoff J, Kephart K, Wichman D, Hayes PM (2002) Registration of ‘Valier’ barley. Crop Sci 42:1748–1749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boles JA, Bowman JG, Surber LMM, Boss DL (2004) Effects of barley variety fed to steers on carcass characteristics and color of meat. J Anim Sci 82:2087–2091PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Boss DL, Bowman JG (1996) Barley varieties for finishing steers 1. Feedlot performance, in vivo diet digestion, and carcass characteristics. J Anim Sci 78:1967–1972Google Scholar
  5. Bowman JGP, Blake TK, Surber LMM, Habernicht TK, Bockelman H (2001) Feed quality variation in the barley core collection of the USDA national small grains collection. Crop Sci 41:863–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowman JGP, Blake TK, Surber LMM, Habernicht TK, Daniels JT (1996) Genetic factors controlling digestibility of barley for ruminants. Proc West Sect Am Soc Anim Sci 47:257–260Google Scholar
  7. Butler DG, Cullis BR, Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ (2002) Spatial analysis mixed models for S language environments—SAMM reference manual, training series QE02001. Queensland Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  8. Cullis BR, Smith AB, Coombes NE (2006) On the design of early generation cultivar trials with correlated data. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 11:381–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dehghan-Banadaky M, Corbett R, Oba M (2006) Effects of barley grain processing on productivity of cattle. Anim Feed Sci Technol.  doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2006.11.021
  10. Fisher DS, Burns JC, Pond KR (1988) Estimation of mean and median particle-size of ruminant digesta. J Dairy Sci 71:518–524PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fox GP, Kelly AM, Poulsen DME, Inkerman PA, Henry RJ (2006a) Genetic and environmental effects on selecting improved barley grain size in dry environments. J Cereal Sci 43:198–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fox GP, Kelly AM, Cakir M, Bloustein G, Poulsen DME, Inkerman PA, Henry RJ (2006b) Impact of the husk on barley grain quality. J Inst Brew 112:101–107Google Scholar
  13. Fox, GP, Osborne BG, Bowman JGP, Kelly AM, Cakir M, Poulsen DME, Inkerman PA, Henry RJ (2007) Measurement of genetic and environmental variation in barley (Hordeum vulgare) grain hardness. J Cereal Sci  doi:10.1016/j.jcs2006.12.003
  14. Fregeau-Reid J, Choo TM, Ho KM, Martin RA, Konishi T (2001) Comparisons of two-row and six-row barley for chemical composition using doubled-haploid lines. Crop Sci 41:1737–1743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilmour AR, Cullis BR, Thompson R (1995) Average information REML: an efficient algorithm for variance parameter estimation in linear mixed models. Biometrics 51:1440–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hunt CW (1996) Factors affecting the feeding quality of barley for ruminants. Anim Feed Sci Technol 62:37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hussein A-H (2004) Genetic and mapping of quantitative trait loci of feed quality-related traits in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). PhD thesis, Montana State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaiser AG (1999) Increasing the utilisation of grain when fed whole to ruminants. Aust J Agric Res 50:737–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kelly AM, Smith AB, Eccleston JA, Cullis BR (2007) The accuracy of varietal selection using factor analytic models for multi-environment plant breeding trials. Crop Sci 47:1063–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Molina-Cano J-L, Francesch M, Perez-Vendrell AM, Ramo T, Voltas J, Brufau J (1997) Genetic and environmental variation in malting and feed quality of barley. J Cereal Sci 25:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Overnell-Roy KH, Nelson ML, Froseth JA, Parish SM, Martin EL (1998a) Variation in chemical composition and nutritional quality among barley cultivars for ruminants: I. Steer finishing performance, diet digestibilities and carcess characteristics. Can J Anim Sci 78:369–375Google Scholar
  22. Overnell-Roy KH, Nelson ML, Froseth JA, Parish SM (1998b) Variation in chemical composition and nutritional quality among barley cultivars for ruminants: II. Digestion, ruminal characteristics and in situ disappearance kinetics. Can J Anim Sci 78:377–388Google Scholar
  23. Overnell-Roy KH, Nelson ML, Westburg HH, Froseth JA (1998c) Effects of barley cultivar on energy and nitrogen metabolism of lambs. Can J Anim Sci 78:389–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Patterson HD, Thompson R (1971) Recovery of interblock information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 63:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Petterson DS, Harris DJ, Rayner CJ, Blakeney AB, Choct M (1999) Methods for analysis of premium livestock grains. Aust J Agric Res 50:775–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rowe JB, Choct M, Pethick DW (1999) Processing cereal grains for animal feeding. Aust J Agric Res 50:721–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith AB, Cullis BR, Thompson R (2001) Analysing cultivar by environment data using multiplicative mixed models and adjustments for spatial field trends. Biometrics 57:1138–1147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods of dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:3583–3597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vanzant ES, Cochran RC, Titgemeyer EC (1998) Standardization of in situ techniques for ruminant feedstuff evaluation. J Anim Sci 76:2717–2729PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Wrigley CW (1999) Potential methodologies and strategies for the rapid assessment of feed-grain quality. Aust J Agric Res 50:789–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© GovernmentEmployee: State of Queensland Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Glen P. Fox
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jan Bowman
    • 3
  • Alison Kelly
    • 4
  • Andy Inkerman
    • 1
  • David Poulsen
    • 5
  • Robert Henry
    • 2
  1. 1.Queensland Grains Research LaboratoryDepartment of Primary Industries and FisheriesToowoombaAustralia
  2. 2.Grain Foods CRCSouthern Cross UniversityLismoreAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Animal and Range SciencesMontana State UniversityBozemanUSA
  4. 4.Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Plant Science, BiometryToowoombaAustralia
  5. 5.Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Plant ScienceWarwickAustralia

Personalised recommendations