TECHNICAL BULLE-'-i>-I 65 ISSN 0070 - 2315

NUTRITIVE VALUE OF TRITICALE AND BARLEY GRAIN AND STRAW

M. Hadjipanayiotou, S

\~/ . ~'\i;/ i.":. ..!... r

;< - '~'t

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

NICOSlA CYPRUS

JANUARY [985

NUTRITIVE VALUE OF TRITICALE AND BARLEY GRAIN AND STRAW

M. Hadjipanayiotou, S. Economides and E. Georghiades

SUMMARY

Four experiments were conducted to compare the nutritive value or triticale and barley grains and straws. Triticale grain contained more crude protein, 134 vs 119 g/kg dry matter (OM), but considerably less crude ribre, 33 vs 81 g/kg OM, than barley grain. Differences between straws in crude protein (28 vs 38 g/kg OM) and crude fibre (398 vs 391 g/kg OM) were not significant. Voluntary intake or triticale straw (646 glhead/day) and grain (1043 glhead/day) were similar to those of barley. Supplementing straw of either kind with protein nitrogen or urea increased straw intake of sheep by 27.7% and 14.3%, respectively. Digestion coefficients for DM of unsupplemented triticale and barley straw (0.47 vs 0.48), organic matter (OM) (0.50 vs 0.49) and gross energy (GE) (0.45 vs 0.44) were almost identical. Diets with triticale grain had higher digestibility for OM (0.64 vs 0.60), OM (0.66 vs 0.62), and GE (0.63 vs 0.59). and con· tained more Metabolizable Energy (ME) (2.44 vs 2.17 Mcal/kg DM) compared with barley grain diets.

INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS

Triticale, a wheat x rye hybrid, is grown in many Grain and straw from the triticale variety Tell regions of the world (Hulse and Laing, 1974). Its (MIA-X2148-SN-2M-3Y-2M-OY) and the barley performance in comparison with barley and wheat in variety Athenais, grown under similar conditions, semi-arid areas of Cyprus has been studied by Had­ were used in these studies. They were fertilized with jichristodoulou (1984). The crude protein content of 3 kg Nand 5 kg P2 q; per donum (l donum = 1340 grain of many selections of triticale now available rTf) at sowing (December) and were top dressed for animal feeding exceeds that of most wheats, ryes with 3 kg N per donum in mid-February. Grains and barleys (Hulse and Laing, 1974; Hadjichristodo­ were fed ground and straws in the long form ulou, 1984). Most of the earlier work with triticale grain was carried out with poultry (Sell et aI., 1962) and pigs (Shimada et at., 1971). It was shown that Experiment 1. Voluntary sttaw intake the high protein content of triticale grain can be used effectively in meeting the total protein require­ Thirty dry, non-pregnant Chios ewes (average live ments provided the diet is supplemented with cer­ weight 60 kg and mean age 36 months) were used. tain amino acids, especially lysine. The animals were allocated to six treatment diets in

a completely random design with 2X3 factorial ar­Research data concerning the use of triticale grain rangement of treatments. Straw (barley or triticale)

and straw in ruminant diets are limited. Hulse and comprised one factor and nitrogen supplement (nil, Laing (1974) reviewing the available literatare con­ soybean meal or urea) the other factor. Supplemen­cluded that triticale grain reduced feed intake and ted diets contained also grains (Table 1). Straws weight gain of dairy calves compared to barley-urea were offered ad libitum and supplements at constant or barley-soya diets. Furthermore, they reported q uan tities throughout the 21-day experimental pe­that triticale and wheat grains had equal nutritive riod, which followed a 7 day adaptation period. A value when fed to sheep. vitamin-mineral mixture (20 g/head) was given daily

(Table I). The animals were housed individually in The present investigations were undertaken to concrete pens bedded with wood shavings. Indivi­

measure the voluntary intake of triticale and barley dual feed intake was recorded daily. Daily samples straw, with or without a nitrogen supplement, to de­ of feed offered and feed refused were bulked for termine the digestibility of triticale grain and straw subsequent analysis. In vitro dry matter digestibility and to compare the acceptability of triticale grain to and other chemical analyses were made on ground sheep relative to barley grain. (Imm) samples by the methods outlined by

A.O.A.C. (1975). Feed records of the last 7 days of the trial were used for statistical analysis using standard analytical procedures (Steel and Torrie, 1960).

Experiment 2. Digestibility of straw with or without grain

Twelve mature Chios wether sheep of an average weight of 65 kg were housed in metabolism crates for two periods of 18 days each. Two sheep were of­fered one of six diets in each period (Table 3). The diets were either triticale straw ad libitum supplemented with 3 levels of triticale grain (0,250 and 450g as fed/animal/day) or barley straw ad libitum supplemented with 3 levels of barley grain (0,250 and 450 g/animal/day). At the end of the first period the animals were rerandomized and no wether was allowed to receive the same diet twice. Each period consisted of a 7 day adaptation period, a 4 day ration adjustmet period and a 7 day faecal and urine collection period. Representative samples of feed offered and feed refused were bulked for subsequent analysis. Feed was offered twice daily. Concentrates and straw were given from separate containers. Collection, processing and analyses of feed, faeccs and urine samples were made as out­lined by Hadjipanayiotou et al. (1981).

Experiment 3. Digestibility of barley straw supplemented with triticale or bar­ley grain

Eight Chios wether sheep were placed in metabolism crates and were divided into two groups of similar liveweight. Sheep in each group were of­fered barley straw ad libitum, 20g of a mineral­vitamin mixture and 380g (as fed basis) of triticale or barley grain per head daily (Table 3). The digesti­bility of the diets was measured using the proce­dures described in experiment 2.

Experiment 4. Voluntary intake of barley or triticale grain

Twelve Chios wether sheep averaging 55 kg liveweight and 14 months of age were used. The ani­mals were divided into two groups on the basis of liveweight, and were given chopped barley straw ad

libitum with either barley or triticale grain ad libitum. The animals were housed in metabolism crates and were offered the diets for 3 weeks. Feed intake was recorded daily during the last eight days of the trial.

RESULTS

The chemical composition of triticale and barley grains and straws is shown in Table 2. The crude protein content of triticale straw was slightly lower than that of barley straw, but triticale grain con­tained more protein and considerably less crude fibre than barley grain. In vitro dry matter digestibil­ity of straws Was similar. ,

The voluntary intake of triticale straw was similar to that of barley straw (Table I). Source of suple­mental nitrogen had a significant effect on straw in­take, which was lowest for unsupplemented straw. Differences, however, were significant (P==O.OI) between only unsupplemented and soy­bean meal supplemented diets.

Dry matter intake of grain, minerals, and straw, and apparent digestion coefficients, and metaboliz­able energy (ME) content per kg of finished diet (Experiments 2 and 3) are given in Table 3. Diges­tion coefficients, except crude fibre digestibility, were improved when the grain component in the finished diet increased. Digestion coefficients for dry matter (OM), organic matter (OM) and gross energy (GE) were almost identical for treatments l and 2 (experiment 2). On the other hand, there was a trend towards higher digestion coefficien ts with triticale compared with barley grain (Table 3, exper­iment 3). Furthermore, comparison of diets contain­ing triticale grain (d iets 3 and 5 in expt. 2 and diet 1 in expt. 3) with those containing barley grain (diets 4 and 6 in expt. 2 and diet 2 in expt. 3) showed a sig­nificant difference (P==O.OI) for OM (0.64 vs 0.60), OM (0.66 vs 0.62) and GE(0.63 vs 0.59) digestibil­ity, and ME(2.44 vs 2.17) content favouring triticale grain. Differences for crude protein (CP) digestibil­ity were not significant.

Voluntary intake of triticale and barley grain in experiment 4 (1,043 vs 1,000g per head daily) was similar. The intake of chopped barley straw, in the

2

------- ------

------

Table 1. Voluntary intake of triticale or barley straw by sheep (Exp. 1)

Diets

Straws Straws U nsupplemented supplemented supplemented

straws with soybean meal with urea SD

Intake (g)ewe/day) 2 3 4 5 6

Tritica~e straw 646 843 794 039 Triticale grain 170 240 Barley straw 695 833 706 0.39 Barley grain 170 240 Minerals' 4 12 20 20 20 20 Soybean meal 90 90 Urea II I It.1

The composition of the mineral mixture (kg) 100 kg) was: dicalcium phosphate 74, NaCi 8, N~S04 8, MgO 8 and vitamins and trace elements (Vita 6 Vita Trace Nutrition, Cyprus) 2.

1 Triticale straw (TS) alone 2 Barley straw (BS) alone 3 TS with triticale grain (TG) and soybean 4 BS with barley grain (BG) and SSM 5 TS with TG and urea 6 BS with BG and urea

meal (SSM)

Table 2. Chemical composition of triticale and barley grain and straw (g/kg DM), and in vilro DM digestibility (DMD 'iO) of straws

Hadjipanayiotou et at, 1975), supplementation of straw with nitrogen and energy improved its vol­untary intake. Non-protein nitrogen (urea) supple­

Ether DMD DM Ash CP CF extract (ill vilro)

Straw Barley 927 77 38 391 13 42 Triticale 931 79 28 398 12 -11

Grain Barley 903 27 119 81 29 Triticale 904 19 134 . 33 2J

same trial, was very low irrespective whether barley or triticale grain was offered (133 and 148 g per head).

DISCUSSION

The nutritive value of both straws was low, and without supplementation could not meet the mainte­nance requirements of dry non-pregnant ewes. In line with earlier work (Economides et at, 1981;

ment was inferior to soybean meal in impoving straw intake. SimiJar findings were reported by Economides et at (1981) and Egan (1965).

Both grains were equally acceptable to sheep (ex­periment 4), which is at variance with the accepta­bility trials with cattle of McCloy et al. (1971), who reported decreasing intake with increasing level of triticale grain in the diet. Lower consumption of triticale grain than corn or barley grains has also been reported by Stringham (1968, cited by McCloy et aI., 1971). The lower consumption of triticale was attributed to the presence of ergot (Stringham, 1968) or the grain processing (dry rolled) method (McCloy et aI., 1971).

In the present studies, digestion coefficients for CP were similar for both grains, but those for OM, OM and GE were higher with triticale grain. McCloy et al. (1971) reported higher digestibility of all the energy components, including CP, with triticale than with the sorghum grain.

3

Table 3. Digestibility coefficients and energy content of diets

0

Grain

2

Experiment 2 component (g as

250 ---­3 4

fed)

5

450

6 SO

Experiment 3 Barley straw

Triticale Barley grain grain

I 2 SE

Intake (g OM/day) Triticale straw 617 533 176 Triticale grain 226 402 339 Barley straw 601 516 181 396 386· Barley grain 226 411 339 Minerals' 13 18 20 20 20 20 20 20

Digestibility OM 0.47 c 0.48 c 0.57 b 0.54 b 0.70 a 0.68 a 0.034 0.64 0.58 0039 OM 050 c 0.49 c 0.59 b 0.56 b 0.73 a 0.71 a 0.033 066 060 0,093

CP -0.23 c -0.14c 033 b 0.37 b 061 a 0.58 a 0.089 0.50 0.38 0.058 GE 0.45 c 0.44 c 0.55 b 051 bc 0.72 a 0.68 a 0052 0.61 059 0.038 CF 052 0.51 0.49 0.46 0.41 0.47 0081 047 0.44 0.075

I

['vIE (Mcal/kg OM) 172 bc 1.57 c 2.16 b 1.85 bc 2.78 a 2.60 a 0266 2.38 2.06 0.155

Treatment designation as in expo I. SO standard deviation. SE standard error of difference between two treatment means. Within trials, means on the same line with different letters are significantly different.

Using the energy values obtained with diets 1 and ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 2 (expt. 2) for triticale and barley straw, the energy values (Metabolisable Energy in Mcal/kg DM) of The authors wish to thank A. Photiou, G Had­barley and triticale grains were estimated to be 2.72 jigavriel, M. Theodoridou, N. Parouti, M Karavia, and 3.26, respectively. The superiority of triticale and the staff of the Central Chemistry Laboratory over barley grain (~O% higher) can be explained by for skilled technical assistance. its lower crude fib,e content and the resulting higher OM, OM and GE digestibility. The method of esti­mation of the energy content of grains could be REFERENCES

criticized because the energy content of straw may A.OA.C. 1975. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Of­

be increased when fed in conjunction with nitrogen ficial Me/hods of Analysis. 12th edition (ed. W Hor­and energy supplements. However, it is expected witz), Washington D. C. that this increment should be similar for both straws and the estimated 20% higher energy content of Economides, S., M Hadjipanayiotou, and E Georghiades 1981.

The nutritive value of straw, and barley and lucernetriticale grain should be true. hay, and the effect of nitrogen supplementation on the nutritive value of straw to sheep. Technical Bulle/in 39.

It can be concluded that the voluntary intake of Agricultural Research Institute, Nicosia, 9 p. triticale grain or straw, and barley grain or straw, by sheep are similar; the nutritive value of triticale Egan, A.R. 1965. Nutritional status and intake regulation in

sheep. [I. The influence of sustained duodenal infu­grain is higher than that of barley because of its hi­sions of casein or urea upon voluntary intake of low

gher metabolizable energy (20%) and crude protein protein roughages by sheep Aus/ralian Journal of

(13%) contents but the nutritive value of triticale Agricultural Research 16: 451-462. and barley straws is similar.

4

Hadjichristodoulou, A. 1984. Performance of triticale in compari­son with barley and wheat in a semi-arid Mediterra­nean region. Experimental Agriculture 20: 41-51.

Hadjipanayiotou, M., A. Louca, and M.J. Lawlor. 1975. A note on the straw intake of sheep given supplements of urea-molasses, soybean meal, barley-urea or barley. Animal Production 20: 429-432.

Hadjipanayiotou, M., S. Economides, and A. Koumas. 1981. [n­take and nutritive value of hay produced from awned and hooded barley cut at different growth stages: Technical Bulletin 37. Agricultural Research Institute, Nicosia, 12 p.

Hulse, J. H., and Evangeline M. Laing. 1974. Nutritive value of triticale protein. Intemational Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada, 183 p.

McCloy, A.W., L.B. Sherrod, R.C. Albin, and K.R. Hansen. 1971. Nutritive value of triticale for ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 32: 534-539.

Sell, J.L., G.c. Hodgson, and L.H. Shebeski 1962. Triticale as a potential component of chick rations. Canadian Jour­nal of Animal Science 42: 158-166

Steel, R.G.D., and J.H. Torrie. 1960 Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hili, New York.

Shimada, A.S., R.L. Martinez, and F.O. Bravo. 1971.Studies on the nutritive value of triticale for growing swine. Jour­nal of Animal Science 36 1266-1269.

5

Issued by the Press and Information Office, Ministry to the President, Nicosia

Printed by M. S Zevlaris & Sons ltd., Tel. 29101-2, Strovolos

P 1.0 3/85 - 600