31762100152410 - ScholarWorks

Transcription

The nutritional value of six barleys and their proanthocyanidin-free mutants
by Kimberly Bolin Heintzman
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Home Economics
Montana State University
© Copyright by Kimberly Bolin Heintzman (1986)
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of proanthocyanidins on the digestibility of
protein in barley. Six normal barley cultivars (Triumph, Moravian III, Andre, Robust, Advance and
Karla ) and their proanthocyanidin-free mutants were analyzed for their chemical composition, physical
measurements and animal trial performance. Two pairs were compared in a baked product.
Chick growth trials indicated a difference (P=0.00) for feed to gain ratios between the six barley
cultivars. Comparison between the parent and mutant barleys showed the feed to gain means to be
slightly higher (P=0.07) for the mutants (1.62) than the parents (1.58). Two pairs of parent and mutant
barleys showed a significant difference for feed to gain; Robust was higher (P = 0.01 ) than its mutant
and Advance was lower (P= 0.00) than its mutant. Feed to gain had a negative correlation (r =-0.85)
with the starch content of the barleys.
Rat nitrogen balance trials showed a difference (P=0.00) between the six barley cultivars for true
protein digestibility (TPD), biological value and net protein utilization (NPU). Comparison between the
parent and mutant barleys showed the mutants to be higher (P <0.05) in TPD (86%) and NPU (66%)
than the . parents (83% and 63%, respectively) .
Trained taste panelists could not distinguish the difference between parent and mutant barleys tested in
a muffin. Consumers tended to favor a mild taste in a muffin and judged one Andre barley muffin to be
,similar to the wheat muffin. The majority of trained and consumer judges preferred the wheat muffin
over the barley muffins.
It is concluded that all constituents of barley, including protein, starch, fiber, beta-glucans and
proanthocyanidins, influence the nutritional value and must be considered when comparisons are
made. MAIN LIB.
A/37g
HS b S
top, a.
THE NUTRITIONAL VALUE OF SI X BARLEYS AND
THEIR PROANTHOCYANIDIN-FREE MUTANTS
by
Kimberly B o l i n Heintzman
A th e s i s submitted in p a r t i a l fu lf illm e n t
of t he r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r the degree
of
Master
of Sc ie nce
in
Home E c o n o m i c s
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bo z e ma n , Mo n t a n a
November 1986
ii
. APPROVAL
of
a thesis
submitted
by
Kimberly B o li n Heintzman
College
of
Graduate
Studies.
Che i r p e r s o ^ ^ 6 r a d u a t e
Pate
Approved f o r
Committee
t h e Maj or D e p a r t m e n t
y
H e a d / M a j ^ ^ Departme
'
Date
Approved f o r
V & ---------f :
Da t e
ns% .
the
College
of Graduate S t u d i e s
G r a d u a t e De a n
iii
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE
In p r e s e n t i n g
requirem ents
University,
to
this
for
a
I agree
thesis
in p artial
fulfillment
m a s t e r ’s- d e g r e e
that
the Library
at
shall
from
this
thesis
are
provided th a t accurate
Permission for
of t h i s
her
absence,
by
scholarly
thesis
my w r i t t e n
the
Director
financial
AJAj
>1
available
special
permission,
source i s
ma d e .
of
professor,
Libraries
use of
when,
the m a te r ia l
or in
in
the
is
for
Any c o p y i n g o r u s e o f t h e m a t e r i a l
gain
permission.
iflfrM J a ih tA .
State
Brief quotations
by my m a j o r
the proposed
Signature.
Dat e,
of
the
e x t e n s i v e q u o t a t i o n from or r e p r o d u c t i o n
purposes.
for
without
acknowledgment
t h e s i s ma y be g r a n t e d
o p i n i o n of e i t h e r ,
this
allowable
Montana
ma ke i t
b o r r o w e r s u n d e r r u l e s of t h e L i b r a r y .
of
,
IM
shall
not
be a l l o w e d
in
without
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I
wish
Newman,
my
to
express
major
sincere
professor,
and
Dr .
to
Dr.
Walt
Jacquelynn
O1P a l k a
committee
members,
Hockett for
p r o v i d i n g knowledge and d i r e c t i o n
Dr .
Charles
appreciation
Margaret
Dr.
Rosemary
Newman,
McGuire,
Briggs
to
my
and
Dr .
Dr.
graduate
Eugene
o n my r e s e a r c h
p r o j e c t a n d t o e a c h f o r h e l p i n g me i n t h e i r o w n s p e c i a l w a y .
Genuine
thanks
is
given
Dr . N a n c y R o t h f o r
the
laboratory,
to
Mr .
Sten
to
Sugden
words
of
Aastrup,
for
their
And t o my f e l l o w
H e r y f o r d,
I express
for
encouragement,
Carlsberg
I wish
chemical
students,
their
committee,
to
and
and
to
the
will
and
Center,
for
thank Vicki
analysis
of
in
friendship
Research
I thank J i l l
friendship
my a p p r e c i a t i o n
Marketing
P e tre a Hofer
t h e i r ma ny h o u r s o f h e l p a n d p a t i e n c e
proanthocyanidin analysis.
Ke n t
A pril Barnes,
Ha mme r a n d
endless
samples.
A b b o tt and A n n e t t e
always
be
M o n t a n a Wh e a t
by whom t h i s r e s e a r c h
appreciated.
Research
and
was p a r t i a l l y
funded.
To my
gratitude
ventures,
to
parents,
for
always
a nd m o s t
my h u s b a n d
Harold
Dan,
and H ild a
providing
important,
the love
m i l e s a n d g a v e me c o n s t a n t
love.
of
love,
Bolin,
I express
encouragement
But
my l i f e ,
my
in
our
I owe t h e v e r y
most
who d r o v e
s o many
s u p p o r t and c o n f i d e n c e .
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.vii
L I S T OF TABLES .
ix
L I S T OF. FIGURES
ABSTRACT .
INTRODUCTION
REVIEW OF LITERATURE .....................................
I n t r o d u c t i o n . . ................................ • •
K e rn el S t r u c t u r e and C o m p o s i t i o n .
P i g m e n t s a n d P h e n o l i c Co mp o u n d s
•
B i o s y n t h e s i s of P r o c y a n i d i n s . . .
N u t r i t i o n a l V a l u e ..........................................
Lysine A v a i l a b i l i t y
. . . . . .
S t a r c h a n d F i b e r ............................... •
B arley Uses
.....................................................
M i l l i n g ................................ ..... . . . .
F l o u r ..........................................
B e e r ............................................................... •
A n i m a l F e e d .......................................... .....
Animal D i e t S e l e c t i o n
. . . . . .
.
4
.
4
.
4
.
6
. 13
. 15
. 17
. 20
. 22
. 23
. 25
. 26
MATERIALS AND METHODS
. . . .
.......................................... .....
Barleys
Chemical A n a l y s i s
.....................
P h y s i c a l Measurement . . . .
An i ma l S t u d i e s ................................
Chi c k Growt h T r i a l s
. . .
Chick D i e t P r e f e r e n c e T r i a l
Rat N i t r o g e n Bal ance T r i a l s
M u f f i n E v a l u a t i o n .....................
Proximate Analyses . . . .
Objective Evaluation . . .
Sensory E va lu a tio n . . . .
Trained Taste Panels . .
C o n s u me r T a s t e P a n e l s
S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis . . . .
. 33
. 33
. 33
. 35
. 36
. 36
. 38
. 38
. 40
. 40
. 41
.42
. 42
. 42
. 43
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...........................
B a r l e y C o m p o s i t i o n ................................
P r o x i m a t e A n a l y s e s ...........................
P h y sic a l Measurements
. . . .
K e r n e l M e a s u r e m e n t .....................
Percen t Color R e f le c ta n c e
.
,
,
,
..
28
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
44
44
51
51
52
VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS -
( Continued)
A n i ma l E x p e r i m e n t s .......................................................................... 53
Chi ck Growth T r i a l s
....................................
53
C h i c k D i e t P r e f e r e n c e T r i a l .................................... * 5 9
R a t N i t r o g e n B a l a n c e T r i a l ................................................ 61
Muffin E v a lu a tio n
.
..................................... . . . . .
63
P r o x i m a t e A n a l y s i s .......................................................... ..... . 65
Objective Evaluation . . .
66
S e n s o r y E v a l u a t i o n ..........................
67
T r a i n e d T a s t e P a n e l s . . . . • ................................ 68
C o n s u me r T a s t e P a n e l s
..................................................... 69
CONCLUSIONS
.
REFERENCES C I T E D ...............................
71
72
A P P E N D I C E S ............................................................... ..... • ...........................7 9
A p p e n d i x A, T a s t e P a n e l R e c o r d i n g S h e e t s . . . . . 80
A p p e n d i x B , An i ma l D a t a ..................... .................................... . 83
vii
LI S T OF TABLES
Table
Pa g e
1
D i e t c o m p o s i t i o n f o r c h i c k s f e d p a r e n t and
mutant b a r l e y s , t r i a l I
. . . . . . . . . . 37'
2
D i e t c o m p o s i t i o n f o r c h i c k s f e d p a r e n t and
mutant b a r l e y s , t r i a l 2
. .
...........................
3
,
Co mp osi t io n of d i e t s f e d t o r a t s comparing
p a r e n t and m u t a n t b a r l e y s , n i t r o g e n b a l a n c e
trial
.................................................................
. 38
39
4
Standard muffin formula
5
P r o t e i n , e t h e r e x t r a c t and f i b e r c o n t e n t of
p a r e n t and mut a nt b a r l e y s , dry m a t t e r
b a s i s ..................... .........................................................................44
6
Ash, c a l c i u m , p h o s p h o r u s ,
s t a r c h and
p r o a n t h o c y a n i d i n c o n t e n t of p a r e n t and
m u t a n t b a r l e y s , d r y m a t t e r b a s i s ............................ 46
7
Ami no a c i d c o n t e n t o f p a r e n t a n d m u t a n t
b a r l e y s , dry m a t t e r b a s i s
..................... ..... .
8
9
10
11
................................................ 41
.47,48
E s t i m a t e d a v a i l a b l e l y s i n e of p a r e n t and
mutant b a r l e y s and l y s i n e c o n t e n t , p e r c e n t
o f r e c o v e r e d a mi n o a c i d s
................................ .....
. 49
V i s c o s i t y measurement and b e t a - g l u c a n
c o n t e n t of p a r e n t and m u t a n t b a r l e y s . . . .
50
K e rn el me as u r e me n t s of p a r e n t and m u t a n t
barleys
.......................................... . . . . . . . . .
52
Percent color re fle c ta n c e
mutant ba rle y s . . . . .
53
of p a r e n t and
................
12
Pr oxi ma te components of c h i c k d i e t s p r e p a r e d
w i t h p a r e n t and m u t a n t b a r l e y s and c o r n ,
d r y m a t t e r b a s i s .....................................................................54,
13
Compari son of p a r e n t and m u t a n t b a r l e y s f o r
w e i g h t g a i n , f e e d c o n s u m p t i o n , and f e e d / g a i n
r a t i o of c h i c k s , a d j u s t e d d a t a . . . . . . .
55
viii
LI S T OF TABLES -
(Continued)
Pa ge
Table
14
Chick p r e f e r e n c e f o r d i e t s
p a r e n t s and m u t a nt b a r l e y s
c o mp o s e d o f
. . . . . . . . .
59
15
P r o x im a te c o m p o s i t i o n of r a t d i e t s p r e p a r e d
wi t h p a r e n t and m u t a n t b a r l e y s , dry m a t t e r
basis
...............................................................................................61
16
Comparison of p a r e n t and mut a nt b a r l e y s f o r
true protein d i g e s t i b i l i t y , b iological value
and n e t p r o t e i n u t i l i z a t i o n , r a t t r i a l s ,
a d j u s t e d d a t a ............................................................... . . . 6 2
17
P r o t e i n , e t h e r e x t r a c t , f i b e r a n a l y s e s , ash,
s t a r c h and e ne r gy of b a r l e y and wheat
m u f f i n s , dry m a t t e r b a s i s
. ................................ . 6 5
18
Ami no a c i d c o n t e n t a n d e s t i m a t e d a v a i l a b l e
l y s i n e of b a r l e y and w h e a t m u f f i n s ,
a mi n o a c i d r e s i d u e m o l e c u l a r w e i g h t b a s i s
I9
. 66
P e r c e n t c o l o r r e f l e c t a n c e o f b a r l e y a nd
wheat m uffins
. . . . .....................................
20
Vol ume a n d pH o f
and w h e a t m u f f i n s
. 68
21
Taste panel response using t r i a n g l e t e s t s
c o m p a r e b a r l e y a nd w h e a t m u f f i n s . . . . .
to
. 69
22
Mean h e d o n i c s c o r e s o f b a r l e y
m u f f i n s , consumer and t r a i n e d
23
24
barley
67
and wheat
ta ste panels
. 70
Compari son of p a r e n t and mu t a n t b a r l e y s f o r
f i n a l body w e i g h t , w e i g h t g a i n , f e e d
c o n s u m p t i o n , and f e e d / g a i n r a t i o of c h i c k s ,
o r ig in a l data
. .....................................................
84
Comparison of n i t r o g e n b a l a n c e , r a t t r i a l s ,
o rig in a l data
..................................................... .....
85
ix
LI S T OF FIGURES
Figure .
Page
1
Structure
of
a barley
2
Cyanidin
3
C atechin u n i t s of
4
Numbering of u n i t s and r i n g atoms of
t r i m e r i c p r o a n t h o c y a n i d i n s ..........................................
structure
.
.
. . .
.......................
....................................
proanthocyanidihs
units
8
. . . .
.......................
10
10
B-ring
6
Pr o p o s e d b i o s y n t h e t i c pathway l e a d i n g from
d i h y d r o q u e r c e t i n t o c a t e c h i n , p r o c y a n i d i n s and
c y a n i d i n s h o w i n g l i k e l y s i t e s o f a c t i o n o f 19
ANT g e n e s
....................................................................................
14
7
Feed t o
content
8
Feed t o g a i n r a t i o s of
b e t a - g l u c a n c o n t e n t of
9
Chick d i e t
vs. starch
Ra t
vs.
of g a l l o c a t e c h i n
5
5
10
part
.
kernel
,10
g a i n r a t i o of t h e c h i c k s v s . s t a r c h
o f t h e b a r l e y s ..............................................................57
the
the
chicks vs. to ta l
b a r l e y s .............................. 58
p referen ce t r i a l feed consumption
c o n t e n t o f t h e b a r l e y s ......................
nitrogen balance t r i a l , b io lo g ical
b e t a - g l u c a n c o n t e n t of the b a r l e y s
value
. . .
60
64
X
ABSTRACT
The p u r p o s e o f t h i s s t u d y wa s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e f f e c t
of p r o a n t h o c y a n i d i n s on the d i g e s t i b i l i t y of p r o t e i n i n
barley.
Six normal b a r l e y c u l t i v a r s (Triumph, Moravian I I I ,
Andre,
Robust,
Advance
and
Karla )
and
t h e i r
proanthocyanidin -fre e
m utants were analyzed fo r
their
c h e m i c a l c o m p o s i t i o n , p h y s i c a l m e a s u r e m e n t s and a n i m a l t r i a l
performance.
Two p a i r s w e r e c o m p a r e d i n a b a k e d p r o d u c t .
Chick g r o w t h t r i a l s i n d i c a t e d a d i f f e r e n c e (P=0.00) f o r
feed to gain r a t i o s
between the six barley c u l t i v a r s .
C o mp a r i s o n b e t w e e n t h e p a r e n t and m u t a n t b a r l e y s showed t h e
f e e d t o g a i n m e a n s t o be s l i g h t l y h i g h e r ( P = 0 . 0 7 ) f o r t h e
m u t a n t s (1.62) t h a n the p a r e n t s (1.58).
Two p a i r s o f p a r e n t
and m u t a n t b a r l e y s s howe d a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e f o r f e e d
t o g a i n ; R o b u s t w a s h i g h e r ( P = O. 01 ) t h a n i t s m u t a n t a n d
Advance was l o w e r ( P=0.0 0 ) t h a n i t s m u t a n t .
Feed to g a in
had a n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n ( r = -0 .8 5 ) w i t h the s t a r c h
co n te n t of th e b a rl e y s.
Rat n i t r o g e n b a la n c e t r i a l s showed a d i f f e r e n c e
(P=0.00) b e tw e e n the s i x b a r l e y c u l t i v a r s f o r t r u e p r o t e i n
digestibility
(TPD),
biological
v a lu e and n e t p r o t e i n
u t i l i z a t i o n (NPU).
Comparison be twee n the p a r e n t and m u t a n t
b a r l e y s s h o w e d t h e m u t a n t s t o be h i g h e r ( P < 0 . 0 5) i n TPD
( 8 6 % ) a n d NPU ( 6 6 % )
than
the . p a r e n ts
(83% a n d 63%,
respectively) .
Trained ta s te
p a n e l i s t s could not d i s t i n g u i s h
the
d i f f e r e n c e b e tw ee n p a r e n t and m u ta n t b a r l e y s t e s t e d i n a
muffin.
Consumers t e n d e d t o f a v o r a m i l d t a s t e i n a m u f f i n
a n d j u d g e d o n e A n d r e b a r l e y m u f f i n t o be , s i m i l a r t o t h e
wheat muffin.
The m a j o r i t y o f t r a i n e d a n d c o n s u m e r j u d g e s
p r e f e r r e d the wheat m u ff in over the ba rle y m uffin s.
It
is
concluded th a t a l l
c o n s t i t u e n t s of b arley ,
including
protein,
starch,
fiber,
beta-glucans
and
p r o a n t h o c y a n i d i n s , i n f l u e n c e t h e n u t r i t i o n a l v a l u e and mus t
be c o n s i d e r e d wh e n c o m p a r i s o n s a r e ma d e .
1
INTRODUCTION
The
far
been
cultivation
of
barley
back i n t o human h i s t o r y ;
discovered
dynastic
Barley
in
periods
was
Romans.
used
Barley
was
coins
ears
the
(Kent,
or
grains
from
barley
rye
flour
England
in
wheaten
the
ceased to
food
and
grain
cereals
of
barley
of
the
staple
and
in
of
w orld's
total
importance
Barley
cereal
behind wheat,
of
design.
(Kent,
food
about
production,
12
barley
peasantry
nobles
more
of
ate
generally
barley
19 8 3 ) .
barley
is
still
.
staple
of
the
n e e d s of humans
percent
ranking
and m a i z e
who
the Stone
potatoes,
However ,
important
rice,
from
English
became
East
composes
" B. C.
o f c a k e s made
the
m e e t i n g c a l o r i c and o t h e r n u t r i t i o n a l
animals.
50
their
dating
cultivation
an
Greeks and
to
into
1981).
B r e a d ma d e f r o m
oats
t he Near
are
B. C.
while
breadmaking.
early
Roman g l a d i a t o r s ,
diet
century,
the
be u s e d f o r
Today,
world,
the
with
ancient
413
monococcum.
As w h e a t
and
the
Switzerland.
fifteenth
bread.
available,
a staple
formed
by
and
Bulletin',
C alcified remains
and T r i t i c u m
been found i n
pre-dynastic
from
food
known a s h o r d e a r i i .
and
grain
dating
were
Age, h a v e
from
1 9 83 ? P r o f o d c i l
general
L.) d a t e s
g r a i n s o f 6 - r o w ed b a r l e y h a v e
dating
as a bread
Greek
incorporate
Egypt
( Hordeum v u laare
( Ma c Ke y,
of
fourth
1981).
the
in
2
The a c r e a g e
of
barley
steadily
increasing.
states
barley
and
in
then
fifth
in
I 985
was
(Montana
Dakota,
second
among
is
the
I 983 ( 7 7 . 7 m i l l i o n b u s h e l s )
in
1984
down t o
(59
in
m illion
1984).
19 84,
Minnesota,
bushels)
Preliminary
approximately
A gricultural
producing s ta te s
were North
in the United S ta te s
Statistics,
s how p r o d u c t i o n
The t o p f i v e
low,
to
Agricultural
statistics
bushels
Montana
production in
dropped
(Montana
harvested
30 m i l l i o n
Statistics,
1985).
ranked from high
Idaho,
Washington,
to
and
Mont ana.
Barley,
compounds.
plants
a
located
the
many
brightly
f I a v o n o i ds
with
acid
between the
barley
kernel.
of
the
been g e n e r a t e d
and
chill
proteins
haze
by
in
by
value
1982).
and the
seed
barley
upon
They
coat
are
(testa)
suspected of
by i n t e r f e r i n g
with
( A a s t r u p e t a l . , I 984).
the
polyphenols
oh
proantho c y an id in -free
brewing in dustry.
are
such
due
as
to
the
without
barley
has
treatment
haze
precipitation
Beer
been found
with
barleys
Permanent
pr oa ntho c yani d i n s
brewing in d u stry .
proanthocyanidin-free
stability
and Nader,
of
defined as
antho c y a h i din
Proanthocyanidins are
beer
anthocyanogens in the
haze
yield
pigment
pigments in
that
research
has
various
blu e and r e d
aleurone layer
digestibility
Much
contains
colored
( Weinges
red u cin g the n u t r i t i o n a l
protein
plants,
ahthocyanidins.
of
treatment
of
Most
are
group
like
k n o wn
of
as
brewed w ith
to
have
good
s ta b iliz in g agents /
3
while
m aintaining
all
desirable
beer
characteristics
( Wett s t e i n e t a l . , 1977).
These
phenolic
utilization
protein
in
of
feed
barleys
animals
w i t h r a t s and
value
compounds
(Newman e t
barley
The p u r p o s e
of
their
effect
c u l t i v a r s were
and
this
Th e c h e m i c a l
b a r l e y and t h e i r
for
of
Karla.
commercial
the
be
nutrient
digestibility
I 985 ) .
a l . , 1984)
showed
im proved
by
that
cultivars.
the
digestibility
characteristics
the e f f e c t
protein
in
of six v a r i e t i e s
of
value.
Moravian I I I ,
chosen
The
the
barleys.
on n u t r i t i o n a l
were
the
using
s t u d y was t o d e t e r m i n e
on
of
One s t u d y
of
p r o a n t h o c y a n i d i n - f r e e m u t a n t s were
Triumph,
These
ma y
mutant
proanthocyanidins
barley.
reducing
inhibit
( Newman a n d M c G u i r e ,
chicks
of
by
may
general
Th e n o r m a l
Andr e,
because
of
compared
Robust,
their
objectives
barley
Advance
potential
of
the
included:
as
study
z
1.
Obtain gross chemical
mutant barleys,
2.
Determine
3.
Determine growth
and f e e d e f f i c i e n c y
fed t h e p a r e n t and m u t a n t b a r l e y s ,
4.
Compare p a r e n t
and
selection.preference,
5.
Measure n i t r o g e n m etabolism
m u t a n t b a r l e y s , and
6.
C o mp a r e b a r l e y m u f f i n s t o w h e a t m u f f i n s
o b j e c t i v e and s e n s o r y e v a l u a t i o n .
the
physical
composition
properties
mutant
of
of
six
parent
and s i x
the k e rn e ls ,
rates
barleys
in r a ts for
for
for
chick
chicks
diet
th e p a r e n t and
with
chemical,
it
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Barley
crop,
after
earliest
since
the
wheat,
crops
the
broader
the
is
to
w orld’s
maize,
of
environmental
barley
unfavorable for
persisted
as
because
it
ecological
Barley
civilization.
range
is
a major
than
any
produced
cereal
,three
adaptation,
of
and r i c e .
im portant
cereal
was one of
in
It
other
is
the
grown over
crop
Much o f
with
climates
regions
unique
utility
barley
malt
through
so
ma ny
It has
centuries
characteristics:
as
for
a f e e d and food
use
in
a
cereal.
p ro d u c tio n of oth er major c e r e a ls .
has
superiority
most
be d o m e s t i c a t e d a n d h a s b e e n c u l t i v a t e d
beginnings
w o r l d ’s
fourth
brewing
broad
grain,
and
( P o e h l ma n ,
1985).
Kernel
The
varies
chemical
widely,
cultural
and
Cereals
and h i g h
it
is
of
different
influenced
factors.
pigments,
contents;
the
grains
genetic,
soil,
lipids,
m i n e r a l s and t o t a l
by r e l a t i v e l y
o f s t a r c h (90% o r m o r e ) ,
1 982).
by
cereal
Amount s of p r o t e i n s ,
vitamins,
characterized
carbohydrate
essentially
(Pomeranz,
since
are
and C o m p o s i t i o n
composition
climatic
carbohydrates,
vary.
Structure
ash
low
protein
carbohydrates
consist
pentosans,
and s u g a r s
5
Breeding
efforts
to
improve
nutritive
on
increasing
cereal
grains
have
content
without
decreasing protein quality
lysine
c o n c e n t r a t i o n in the p r o t e i n ) .
protein
distribution
product
that
is
following
the
The h u s k i s
rigid
components:
I.
Structure
very
and
l ow
d e p e n d s on t h e
(Pomeranz,
into
the
testa,
I).
kernel.
but r i c h
all
the
cellulose,
lignin
to
digest.
The
chemical
composition
resembles
that
of husk,
but
and
between
cell
arabinoxylan,
aleurone
the
walls
Polyphenols
testa
are
thick
carbohydrates
consists
layer
of
and
and
and
are
the
proteins
and
very
in
the
aleurone.
The
consist
in
of
the f ib e r s
present
mainly
cellulose
wall
the
difficult
lignin.
cell
of
and
embedded i n
making the
in
the
and t e s t a
husk,
type of
pericarp,
of a b a r l e y
Nearly
of
1 9 82) .
divided
husk,
in protein,
lignin.
(mainly re ta in in g
The s i g n i f i c a n c e
is
(Figure
protein
to
aleurone
The
kernel
of
assigned
not
testa
consumed
value
is
pericarp
are
be
and e n d o s p e r m
Figure
hem ic e l l ulose
to
endosperm
barley
botanical
aleurone
kernel
in the
likely
Generally,
germ,
concentrated
the
that
phytic
of
order.
acid
6
phosphorus.
In b a r l e y ,
the aleurone
layer
t h i c k and. m a k e s up a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7 % o f
13#
of
the
endosperm
protein.
Starch
(75-85#)
together
h o r d e i n s and g l u t e i i n s .
ar e t h i n n e r
and
than
aleurone
glucans.
acid,
the
and
but
low
are
methionine,
Aastrup
and
and
walls
very
threonine
Outtrup,
pigments
from
of
1 976),
to
in
names
from
the
composed
in
amino
(Bach
structure
that
of
of
a
of
the
proteins
peri carp,
of
proline
acids
testa,
I 13! I , 4
and
such
Knudsen and
beta-
glutamic
as
lysine,
Eggum,
1984;
Compounds
very
water
fruit
large
soluble
blue
group
red,
in
substance
of
blue
and v e g e t a b l e s .
by M a r q u a r t
of
anthocyanidin
purple
fig,
almond,
delphinidin
pigment
be a n " u n u s u a l
husk,
1835
plant
and p u r p l e
The
name
(cited
comes
by B e r k ,
o f .(LejLLa2LC.es SLLJUL&,
are
derived
P e la r g o n id in i s found in the
elderberry;
The p u r p l e
storage
and
1 97 6) .
names of p l a n t s .
and
the
the
( Berk,
the
cyanidin
are
proposed
denote
cornflower
All
are
flowers,
a term
matter
I 985).
Anthocyani dins
These
dry
constituent
the
P i g m e n t s and P h e n o l i c
phenol ics.
2 to 3 c e l l s
w a lls of these f r a c t i o n s
rich
essential
the
major
with
mainly
are
in
the
Th e c e l l
cell
Hordeins
is
is
of
beetroot,
anthocyanin"
betanin is
flavonoid
in
mulberry,
pomegranate
betanin,
as i t
(Berk,
contains
I 97 6).
the
straw berry;
sweet
and
cherry
eggplant.
wa s l o n g t h o u g h t
now k n o w n t o be q u i t e
pigments
from
to
nitrogen.
The
different
from
7
A n t h o c y a n i d i n s may be d e g r a d e d
or p o l y m e r i z a t i o n .
pH,
other
(as
in
cell
pigments
(the
change
with
The
purple
change
a change
in
The m o s t
serious
pigments
in
food
chemical
their
berries,
in
technology
usually
variation
of
in
leads
(Berk,
pH.
Cyanine
is
red
in
is
their
etc.,
to
be a s s o c i a t e d
1 976).
which i s
posed
by a n t h o c y a n i n
pH d e p e n d e n c e
and l a c k
anthocyanin
destroys
of
bleaching
occurs
in
packed in unlacquered
have
3-
nature
molecular
on
structure.
ring
Increased
redness.
Color i s
also
influenced
( B)
Color
b l u e n e s s and i n c r e a s e d
increased
C-3,
red
(plain)
the
5
attachment
anthocyahidins.
of added g r o u p s a f f e c t s
compounds ( i . e .
at
with
Substitutions
various
to
in
- OH g r o u p s
location
1981).
anthocyanin
example,
assumed
Reduction
occur
leads to increased
groups
for
metals
I 97 6 ) .
position
formation
is
reductive
Anthocyanidins
OH a t
The
of
n e u t r a l . p H and b l u e i n a l k a l i n e
problem
straw berries,
Glycosides
at
temperature,
a change i n
cyanidin)
configuration
Such
cans (Berk,
with
color
stability.
color.
containers).
color
of
include
hydrolysis
enzymes and p r e s e n c e
cooking
their
solution,
medium.
tin
or
3 , 5 - d i g l u co s i de
acidic
of
Influencing factors
constituents,
storage
by o x i d a t i o n ,
to
varies
of
hydroxylation
structure
is
o f -OH
and
the
pigment.
of o t h e r
phenolic
complexes with other flavonoids)
The g e n e r a l
in
with
combination
color
7.
the
result
met h y l a t i o n
Th e
by t h e p r e s e n c e
and
s h o wn i n F i g u r e 2 .
(Outtrup,
8
tlY li
OH
F i g u r e 2.
Cyanidi n S t r u c t u r e
Proanthocyanidin
f I a v o n o i ds t h a t
(Weinges
(I)
and
yield
Nader,
is
term
for
all
a n t h o c y a n i d i n upon t r e a t m e n t
with
acid
1982;
a
collective
Campbell
et
substitution
(2)
(3)
Seeds
ripe
—> E p i c a t e c h i n
and
are
unripe
fruits.
underripe
Campbell
fruits
rich
contain
al.,
( Berk,
proanthocyanidins.
proanthocyanidins
in
the
puckery
Weinges
and
l e a s t
four
than
taste
Nader,
of
1982;
1 979).
c o n ta in s
proanthocyanidins,
and
1976;
in
more
T h i s ma y be e v i d e n t
Barley
(Outtrup
■~>Cat echi ns
particularly
fruits
et
^Anthocyanidins
Ac i d
T
Proanthocyanidocate chins
Fruits
—» D i m e r i c L e u c o a n t h o cyani din s
«^»Cat e c h i n
Ac i d
T
Dimeric
Proanthocyanidin
I 97 9).
_/> A nth ocyan!din s
H20
T
Leucoanthocyanidins
(colorless)
al.,
of
at
which
Schaumburg,
1981;
three
are
Outtrup
t r i m e r i c
prodelphinidins
and
Er d a l ,
1 9 83 »
9
O u t t r up,
1981).
barley
has
The
a
steric
Proanthocyanidins
4,
and
5) .
are
abundant
dimeric
structure
like
built
I n F i g u r e 3,
below
the plane.
linked
by e i t h e r
length
is
two
C4- C8
units,
sources.
up o f
prodelphinidin
procyanidin
catechin units
the R group i s
in
B3.
(Figures
substituted
3,
above
or
In th e p r o a n t h o c y a n i d i n s such u n i t s are
o b s e r v e d a n d ma ny
plant
most
or
C4- C6
but
bondings.
much l a r g e r
compounds have
Fr om b a r l e y ,
only
The mi n i m u m
chain
m o le c u les have
been i s o l a t e d
been
from v a rio u s
a few have been i d e n t i f i e d :
P r o c y a n i d i n B3:
2 catechin
u n i t s l i n k e d C4 - C8 , a
dimeric pro d elp h in id in having e i t h e r a procyanidin
BI s t r u c t u r e o r a p r o c y a n i d i n B3 s t r u c t u r e ,
P r o c y a n i d i n B6:
d i m e r i c c o mp o u n d o f 2 c a t e c h i n u n i t s
C4-C6 l i n k e d , a n d
P r o c y a n i d i n C2 :
3 ( + ) - c a t e c h i n u n i t s l i n k e d C4-C8.
A staining
has
been
barley
the
used
procedure
to
grains.
seed
locate
These
coat
(testa)
( A a s t r up,
the
the
were
grains
found
testa
visible
freshly
A
of sorghum.
by s t a i n i n g
prepared
distin ct
the
color
sanded
(or
remains
stable
for
mature
in
(figure
I).
been d e m o n s t r a t e d
develops
pearled)
grains
at least
lack
grains
solution for
in
p r o a n th o c y a n id i n - c o n t a in in g
proanthocyanidin -free
in
in
Th e p r o a n t h o c y a n i d i n s a r e r e n d e r e d
I % v a n i l l i n - 6 M-HCl
red
vanillin-HCl
concentrated
investigated
Tannins r e a c t i n g w i t h v a n i l l i n - H C l have
the
using
proanthocyanidins
flavonoids
of
1985)
the
the
30 m i n u t e s .
red
color.
a
30 m i n u t e s .
testa
grains,
with
of
the
while
the
The
color
10
R
compound
M -catechin
H
OH
Figure
F i g u r e 4.
3.
(-)-epicatechin
—
(♦!-gallocatechin
—
H - epigallocatechin
Catechin u n its
Numbering
of
proanthocyanidins.
of u n i t s and r i n g
proanthocyanidins.
atoms
of
H
H04
Q
RO
Figure
5.
B-r i n g
part
of
ii\ or
OR
gallocatechin
units
trim eric
Th e
layers
cells
seed
in
the
the
cutica
by
pericarp.
a
Next
cutic u la
The
enables
cells
found.
a
originates
developing
nucleus
are
bound
coat
of
layers
developing
A
study
p r o t e i n , and e n e r g y
that
the
biosynthesis
of
cell
grain
barley
in
the
three
the
cross
1 985).
al.,
(1984)
introduction
of
the
testa
of
al.
the
(. 1984)
distribution
(Aastrup,
barley
and r a t
and a
et
these
to normal
aleurone
cells
by A a s t r u p
cell
wall
of
in
et
poultry
flavonoids
to
layers
in tercellu lar
Newman
suggest
two
proanthocyanidins
by
least
a thick epidermal
presented
the
and
the
with
at
Adjacent
bordering
antho cyanins
of
grain.
are
technique
study
from
ma y e n h a n c e
compared
The r e s u l t s
blocks
the
cell
as a s ou rc e of
diets.
genetic
three
of
feed
in
the
value
of
barley.
Catechins
of
many
foods.
constitute
These
Tannins
take
the
make
are
up
generally
protein
as
I 976).
building
the
bulk
pears,
believed
precipitation
alcohols
in
Together
responsible
such as a p p l e s ,
is
part
and heavy
the
enzymatic
with
browning process
leucoanthocyanidins
they
blocks of the "condensed ta n n in s ."
of
for
tannins
the
since
metal
dates,
astringency
other
salts
woods
astringency
persimmons,
that
in
of
tea
and
and
barks.
many
foods,
cocoa.
It
is associated with
protein
are also
denaturants
astringent
such
(Berk,
Tannins
and
are
phenolic
compounds
leucoanthocyanidins
enzymatic
and
for
the
occur,
the follo w in g
browning
SUBSTRATE
+
(catechin
or Ieuco cyanid in)
Eggum
et
in
are
cut
al.
(1983)
rats
tea,
tea,
coffee
and
utilization.
These
and
had
and
protein
being
negative
effect
teas
and
coffee
effects
of
nutritional
in
content.
increased
part
i n ma ny
in
vegetables
to
series
the
on
both
the
no
tea
which
on
as
1982).
tannins.
the
energy
its
strongest
also
had
both
increased.
anti-nutritional
Nonpigmented
nutritional
true
co ncentration in
effects
of
and
effect,
The
tea,
negative
by
diet
digestible
indigestible.
As t a n n i n
black
energy
basal
effects
black
of
and
experiments,
while
balance
effects
the
Cocoa h a d
for
of
protein
negative
value,
O2
P r o a n t h o c y a n i d i n s may h a v e s i m i l a r
influence
(Eggumetal.,
test
be e x p l a i n e d
b e e n shown t o h a v e a h i g h e r
rice
In
was r e c o r d e d
tannin.
to
affected.
completely
tannin
These m ight
meal.
biological
slightly
for
For e x am p le,
and
two
cocoa
significantly
digestibility
fruits
p r o d u c t s were added to
soybean
the h ig h e st
to a s tr in g e n c y
performed
growing
only
substrates
ENZYME
+
(called polyphenolase
or polyphenol oxidase)
with
was
as
catechins
needed:
experiments
green
include
1 9 7 6 ; C a m p b e l l e t a l . , 1 97 9 ) .
order
coffee
serve
b ro w n in g and c o n t r i b u t e
foods (Berk,
barley
which
value
anti-
rice
has
than pigmented
13
Several
studies
deactivates
tannin
sorghums
al.
grains
for
( 19 85),
were
(high moisture
on
demonstrated
t a n n i n s and i m p r o v e s
Mit'aru e t
type
have
protein
used
and
two h i g h
and one low
to
the
study
amino
swine.
not
low,
tannin
detrimental
effect
digestibilities
in
on
the
both high
site
determ ine
of
some
characteristics
of
mutant
The m o s t l i k e l y
19
in
the
the
biosynthetic
other
ANT g e n e s
antho cyanin
but
leucocyanidin rather
as
the
last
anthocyanins.
The
common
and
l o c a t i o n
thesis
are
6,
of
the
shown
amino
in
to
and
acid
catechin
in
the
17,
included
18 a n d
the
sites
of the
participate
biosynthesis.
the
gene
the
ANT 13 (ANT 5 3 7
in
Th e
serves
synthesis
of
1 984).
blocks
in
ma y
and p r o c y a n i d i n s
known t o
intermediate
6
1 984).
than d i hydroquercetin a p parently
as follow s:
a
nutritional
o f ANT 1 3 ,
to g eth er with
14-16)
Figure
(Kristiansen,
of a c t i o n
barleys
had
t a n n i n sorghums.
proanthocyanidin
of
grain
in high,
treatm ent
p r o a n t h o c y a n i d i ns ( K r i s t i a n s e n ,
this
barleys
(ANT 1 - 1 2 ,
not
as
pathway
are in d ic a te d in Figure
reconstitution
and
biological
sites
sorghum
Procvanidins
blockage,
of
by
Reconstitution
Boiling
protein
of
study
digestibilities
and low
Biosynthesis
The
of
digestibilities.
sorghums.
a
of high
tannin
treatments
i mp ro ved t he p r o t e i n and amino a c i d
but
value
In
effect
boiling
acid
reconstitution
the n u t r i t i v e
chickens
s t o r a g e ) and
and
that
of
research
and
the
for
ANT 6 0 5 )
and
ANT 17 ( G a l a n t ,
Strid,
personal
AN T 5 0 4 ,
AN T 53 7 ,
communication,
ANT 13
AN T 6 2 5 )
( B.
Jende-
1986).
!
V
ANT 17
I
I
V
DIHYDROQUERCETIN
i
ANT 18 I
I
ANT 1 - 1 2 , 1 4 - 1 8
ANT 19
CYANIDIN <-------------------- LEU CO C Y AN I D I N --------------- > CATECHIN
I
Ii
(Anthocyanidin)
I
_____i
I
I
v
PROCYANIDIN B3
I
I
PROCYAN IDIN C2
F i g u r e 6.
Proposed b i o s y n t h e t i c pathway l e a d i n g from
dihydroquercetin
to
catechin,
procyanidins
and
c y a n i d i n showing the l i k e l y s i t e s of a c t i o n of I 9
ANT g e n e s .
Jende-S trid
anthocyanidin
barley
mutants
different
organs
correlation
and
the
found.
and
of
of
studied
proanthocyanidin
with
between
amount
(1978)
altered
the
the
plant.
amount
the
anthocyanin,
content
anthocyanin
Comparing
of
of
pigmentation
these
anthocyanin
proanthocyanidin
in
52 i n d u c e d
the
dry
mutants,
in
the
grains
in
no
plant
was
15
Nutritional
N utritional
merit
in
providing
essential
total
quality
availability
and
available
of
present
these
amino
acids
being fed for
of
a specific
Cereals
are
not
be
only
but
consumed
by h u m a n s o r
certain
areas
the world.
cereal
the
protein
storage
have
a
actual
the
of
lysine
prolamin content
plants
inferior
during
storage
with a better
have
as
and
great
plant
of
production
(Doll,
varieties
in
differences
for
protein
in
due
to
large
amino
the
of
generally
and
low
acids.
The
nutritionally
into
breeding,
i n ma ny
variations
content,
value
n i t r o g e n n u t r i t i o n of
plant
is
the
content
protein
it
areas
Newman a n d M c G u i r e ,
synthesis
protein
of
production in
glutamine,
If
nutrition
most
high
converted
by
producing
proteins
essential
19 84;
in
species
nutritional
the
and
be
for
animal
Storage
value
and
important
supply
inferior
could
o n h u ma n
potential
also
seed development.
nutritional
balance
as
crops
d e pe nds on t h e
impact
The
main
proline
protein
are
(Newman a n d M c G u i r e , 1 9 8 5 ) .
The
other
that
c e r ta in animal
used f o r
prolamin.
content
for
they
prim arily
protein
high
content
is
relative
component s such as
classified
the
protein
of
biological
barley
a
This encompasses t h e
Certain
purpose
in food and feed ,
of
the
to
nutrients
animals.
and
ma y
refers
food
nutrients.
determining the quality
energy
barley
t o humans and o t h e r
nutrients
fiber
of
Value
of
different
demonstrated
true
would
as
well
1985).
barley
by
the
digestibility,
16
biological
protein.
cereal
value,
Past
protein
research
quality
brought
plentiful
The
involved
increased
as well
grain
determined
barley
by
varieties
three
but
nutritional
protein
yield
level.
level
upon t h e
more l o w - l y s i n e
high
than
at
DeMan
wa s
due
the
years
for
( Eg g u m,
more
19 84) .
quantitatively
locations
different
environmental
were a lso
was
of
present.
influenced
dietary
grain
The
the
fiber
and
but
of
the
protein
whe n t h e
protein
The
by
yield,
independent
established.
prolamin r e la tiv e
European
spring
v ariatio n in
grain
level,
adapted
Th e l a r g e s t
to
were
nine
seven
increasing
which
be
than
recent
need
the
in
percentage
protein
low
and
of
Th e
some
grain
quality
contained
to non-prolamin p ro te in at
protein levels.
Dondeyne
nitrogen f e r tiliz a tio n
fatty
(1981)
grown a t
with
could
foods
of
genotypic e ffe c ts
differences
depended
al.
each
decreased
varietal
et
composition
yield
the
of
c o n s t i t u e n t s of b a r l e y g r a i n w ere
composition
conditions,
of
contents
or f o u r r e p l i c a t i o n s .
nutritional
grain
Torp
evaluation
However,
awareness
and
utilizable
properties rather
a s mo r e n u t r i t i o u s
yield
and
qualitative
characteristics.
predominant n u t r i t i o n a l
with
utilization
grains emphasizing physical
nutritional
have
net
acid
( TEA)
amounts
of
nitrogen
content
and a v e ry
(1985)
level
content
of
fertilizer
slightly
studied
on p r o t e i n
barley
resulted
the
of
c o n t e n t and t o t a l
grains.
in
Increasing
a higher
l o w e r e d TFA i n t h e
-Zr.
impact
protein
grains.
17
A study
of
by B u c k l e y
processing
little
on
effect
dry
matter
barley
on
moisture lev els
and D e v l i n
showed
tended to
were:
reconstituted,
dry
little,
but
fold.
Pantothenic
small
increase
contains,
vitam in
benefit
per
BI,
of
acid
in
and
from
riboflavin,
and
BI
content
increase
30-40%,
malting
niacin,
ground
steamed grain.
increase
1.2,
high
(in v itro
heated,
pyridoxine
approximately
at
had
treatm ents
the v ita m in
biotin
niacin
gram
dry
barley,
and
cooking
processing
whole gra in ,
riboflavin
methods
digestibility
The
reconstituted
various
while
ground,
During the m a ltin g
changes
that
digestibility,
disappearance).
compared
(1983) on t h e i n f l u e n c e
pearl
0.35,
two
and a
barley
and
25ug
of
respectively
(Kent,
amino a c id in
barley
19 83).'
Lysine
Lysine is
and o t h e r
food
commonly t h e l i m i t i n g
cereal
systems,
grains.
group
or
lipid
retention
of
affected
show l o w e r e d
technique.
analysis
it
but
(Pellet,
During t h e
chemical
epsilon-amino
carbohydrate
Availability
the ly sin e
Thus,
be
reactions
of
lysine
value
Th e
of
occur
a
when a s s a y e d
for
between
absorption
be r e d u c e d ,
absent
proteins
certain
by a n y
an
in
the
reactive
and
and p r o t e i n s
a n a m i n o a c i d c a n be p r e s e n t
effectively
1978).
can
and
grouping.
may b o t h
heating
the
so
bioassay
by c h e m i c a l
animal
consuming
18
With
growth
determine
the
slope
concentration
(1985)
one
response
most
of
to d i e t a r y
or
true
the
a nd
rice
as
et
al.
to
was
to
increasing
broiler
chicks
determine
their
Intake
the
most
Protein
of
the
imp o rtan t
intake
amino
acid
content
diet.
influenced
method
reproducible
and
availability
consumption
the
the
lowest
lysine
values
for
method
versus
lysine
nitrogen
was
of
pattern
in
the
possesses
the
lysine
( Eggum,
lysine
the
was
of
the
as
by
a
availability
diet
and f e c a l
type
and
standard
subject
to
They
curve
the
caloric
the d ie t
were
most
factors
when
function
in
of
growth method
other
level
be
1973).
the
by t h e
lower
will
c o m p o s i t i o n of
influenced
than
consumed
a nd
content,
availability.
calculated
in which
layer
by g r o w t h
influence
Values obtained
least
rather
growth
the
calculating
was
endosperm
determined
by c h a n g e s i n
of
the aleurone
Since
proteins,
carbohydrate,
of t h e
in
(1 967) e x a m i n e d l y s i n e
as
the
age
highest
on t o t a l
well
and
of
to
is
Go u s a n d M o r r i s
on m a l e
rate.
digestibility
wh e n e s t i m a t e d
co r n a n d
were
nutrient.
(lysine)
is
endosperm.
protein
analysis
growth
concentrations.
growth
content
DeMuelenaere
in
weeks
acid
digestibility
obtained
in
objective
no i m p o r t a n c e .
in
highest
response
lysine
amino
The l y s i n e
lowest
primary
experiments
three
determining
little
the
three
and
lim iting
factor
of
the
some l i m i t i n g
conducted
between
assay,
of
lysine
the
diet.
of
weight
least
Th e
gain
variation.
19
Differences
in
digestibility
the
body
show
ratio
that
protein
to
determined
are
A simple
of
available
lysine
proportionally
(availability
the
the
and r a p i d
fecal
influenced
method
the
protein
research
of
used
in
with
primary
amino g r o u p s
Rawson
and
techniques with
lysine
powder
for
correcting
for
the
independent
of
its
dye-binding
values
by
lysine
used
which
binds
reflect
to
of p r o t e i n s and
This
me t hod was
specifically
1 969).
used
dye-binding
residues.
dye
ami no
TNBS
Blue R to m e a s u r e r e a c t i v e
doubling
dye
free
and
Coon
determining available
correlation
versus
the
of
group
changes
The
milk
authors
concentration
to
the
content.
in
in
and
protein,
The r e s u l t i n g
reactive
lysine,
but
methods
for
underestimate losses.
Nordheim
The
have
of
Maillard-browning reactions
involve
techniques
use
TNBS r e a c t s
(1983)
lysine
factors.
been
( Kakade and L i e n e r ,
Remazol B r i l l i a n t
primarily
has
foodstuffs.
thesis.
Mahoney
i n m i l k powder.
modified
tend to
this
to
digestion
the
content
true
lost
of
by d i f f e r e n t
acid)
the ly sin e
lysine
Digestion
involving
determine s p e c ific a lly
to
necessarily
m e t h o d ) and
(2,4,6-trinitrobenzene-sulfonic
available
not
protein.
by
therefore
is
lysine
(1984)
lysine
coefficients
2,4,6-trinitrobenzene
f I u o r o - 2 , 4 - d i n i t r o b e n z ene
compared
four
f o r 23 a n i m a l
(r ) for
sulfonic
(FDNB)
chick
acid
lysine,
p ro te in meals.
bioassay
(TNBS)
( CBA)
lysine,
I-
digestible lysine
f
20
( DL )
and
total
respectively,
for
Starch
branched,
all
exists
and
is
glueopyranose
chains
lysine
alpha-1,6
Starch
a nd F i b e r
in
two
It
the
.8 3 ,
entirely
can
amylose
units
as
and
.93
linear
or
a l p h a - g l ucan or
be j o i n e d
called
Chains
forms,
of
either
alpha-1,4
.97 ,
tested.
molecular
alpha-1,4
linkages.
.90 ,
proteins
units.
where
were
animal
composed
linked
amylopectin
( TL)
long
are
in
straight
or
exist
branched
as 2000 g l u c o s e
units
a v e r a g e s o n l y 24 -
glucose
contains
of
amylopectin
Starch
( Mu n c k ,
to
loosely
for
carbohydrate
problems,
hull
fiber
fiber.
( OHF)
sources.
The
et
fiber
in
in
the
ratio
1978).
dry
of
fiber
matter.
endosperm
barley
hull
fiber
may
flour
content
absence
the
bran
( BHF )
72.6$
the
value
digestive
McGui r e,
averaged
of
of
w ater-soluble
create
corn
flour
quantity
no e n e r g y
( Ne wman a n d
hull
structural
total
or
or
of
tested
of
the
presence
and c e r t a i n
(1982)
Barley
fiber;
has l i t t l e
poultry
al.
and
dietary
found
in
quantities
as
by t h e
animals
especially
flour
defined
components
Schimberni
(Briggs,
increase
is
varying
Barley
nonruminant
the
starch
affected
or husk.
respectively
a 75:25
26
1985).
contains
principally
hull
barley
1981 ; H o f e r ,
carbohydrates
starch
parallels
80 % o f
Barley
barley
amylose,
deposition
A b o u t 75 -
is
N o r ma l
as
through
ma k e up a m y l o s e w h e r e a s a m y l o p e c t i n
units.
D-
1985).
( CE ) ,
as
oat
dietary
26.0$
included
crude
28.2$
21
cellulose,
oil
33. 9%
hemicellulose,
absorption,
capacity
whereas
were
density
10.4% l i g n i n .
measurements
comparable
CB e x h i b i t e d
and
in a ll
the
the
highest
and
Wa t e r
water
samples
values
of
human
diets
and
holding
investigated
cation
exchange
capacity.
Increasing
cereal
decrease
transit
studies
the
provided
by
fiber
tim e and i n c r e a s e
increase
the
substitution
of
e x tra ctio n
in
whole
of
grain
wheat
barley
Judd
in
diets.
g compared
flour.
Therefore
in
the
daily
in
weights
nitrogen,
of
were
the
enabled
dry
al.
met h y 1 - g l u t a r y l
hydroxyIase
a
type
high
fiber
matter
l o w e r on t h e h i g h f i b e r
et
of
and
significantly
fat,
Burger
o f 9.6 g / 1 0 0
diet
of
and
reduced.
and
diets
or
to
study
its
subjects'
c o n t e n t o f I 5.3
whole
other
in
wheat
cereals
fiber
to
be
There were s i g n i f i c a n t
bowel
diet
been
the
for
high
has
studied
g in
barley
taking supplements.
number
consumption
a level
I n many
low
in the
fiber
to
ma d e f r o m
and
of n u t r i e n t s
substitution
meals
provided without
changes
to
known
the
bread
diets
Th e b a r l e y u s e d h a d a d i e t a r y
g/100
to
(1982)
human
e f f e c t s on t h e d i g e s t i b i l i t y
intake
bran
for
is
weight.
fiber
wheat
flour.
of
stool
cereal
addition
rate
acceptability
in
energy
movements
fecal
wet
during
and dry
D igestibilities
were
of
all
significanty
hepatic
B-hydroxy-B-
diet.
( 1984)
investigated
CoA ( HMG- CoA) r e d u c t a s e ,
(7 a - h y d ) and f a t t y
cholesterol
acid synthetase
( FAS) .
7aThe
22
activities
of
these
enzymes,
s y n t h e s i s and d e g r a d a t i o n
levels
were determ ined
and h i g h - p r o t e i n
CoA r e d u c t a s e
( - 13%)
(-27%),
to
a
ether-soluble
weight,
corn-based
decreased
cholesterol.
f l o u r ( HPBF ) b a s e d d i e t s .
whereas
fraction
The
of
effects
chickens which
fractions.
plant
(low
material
concomitant
on
decrease
Chicks
fed
the
same
suggests
diet
the
animals,
barley
lower
with
and f o r
produced
lower
in
7-week
old
decrease
levels
by
in
these
biosynthesis
with
a
with
serum
added
dietary
cholesterol
supplemental
cholesterol
than chicks fed
beta-glucanase.
effect
This
w a s d u e t o be t a -
b a r l e y (F a d e l e t a l . , 19 86).
principal
for
TAG a n d
to a d i r e c t a c t i o n of the
cholesterol
Bariev
The
serum
body
a n d i n c r e a s e d FAS
lipoproteins)
cholesterol-lowering
glu can s i n the
in
o f LDL c h o l e s t e r o l .
wa x y
had s i g n i f i c a n t l y
fraction
duplicated
points
( ' 28%)
increased
s howed a s i g n i f i c a n t
density
T h e HMG-
A petroleum
FAS a n d
cholesterol
were
also
This re s e a rc h
diet.
corn
cholesterol
increased
(control)
me t h a n o I - s o l u b l e
activity.
cholesterol-LDL
FAS
HMG-CoA r e d u c t a s e ,
and serum
broiler
and s er u m
HPBF p r o d u c e d
HMG- CoA r e d u c t a s e
These
and c h o l e s t e r o l
chicks fed i sonitrogenous
7 a - hy d ( - 3 0 $ ) ,
were.reduced,
comparison
are r a te -lim itin g , in the
of c h o l e s t e r o l ,
in
barley
which
uses
for
Uses
barley
are
as
feed
for
domestic
m a l t i n g and b r e w i n g i n t h e m a n u f a c t u r e of b e e r ,
distilling
in whiskey m anufacture.
Barley
is
now
23
the
fourth
w orld’s
most
total
Bulletin,
important
cereal
high
North A frica,
regions,
soups,
covering
about
production
(Munck,
1981;
much o f
as
flour
consumers
and the
the
a
diet, based
barley
of
the
Profodcil
products
barley
live
in
the
Middle East Regions.
barley
for
of
is
flat-type
Far
In th e se
consumed a s p e a r l e d g r a i n f o r
bread,
be c o o k e d a n d e a t e n a s p o r r i d g e .
has
12$
1981).
Relatively
East,
cereal
and as
No c o u n t r y
exclusively,
or
(Kent,
Profodcil
1983;
ground
even
grain
to
in the world
mainly,
on m i l l e d
Bulletin,
1981;
Newman a n d M c G u i r e , 1 9 8 5 ) .
Milling
Barley
barley
is
milled
groats,
consumption.
is largely
process.
indigestible,
from
and
in
absence
fungal
of
barley
The h a r d n e s s
and
of
the
absence
barley
aleurone layer
tend
to
objective
is
human
or husk of b a r l e y ,
which
be h a r d e r
harder
generally
of
1985;
and v a r i e t y .
the
part
of
the m illin g
due t o
weathering,
i n f e s t a t i o n or damage,
undesirable
Kent,
grain
1983»
is
a
Types w i t h
than
types
not to
flour
barley,
for
and i n s e c t
type
purposes
pearl
for m i l l i n g i m p l i e s absence
upon
milling
barley
of d i s c o l o r a t i o n
attack
kernel
barley,
i s an i m p o r t a n t
(Newman a n d M c G u i r e ,
dependent
blocked
flakes,
Good q u a l i t y
soundness
flavor
barley
ma ke
Removal of th e h u l l
of s p r o u t i n g ,
freedom
to
are
produce
types
Munc k,
or
1981).
characteristic
a blue-colored
without
preferred,
flour
aroma
but
it.
For
since
the
to remove
the
hull
and
particles
grains
bran
by
which r e t a i n
tend
the
to fragment
decrease in the y ie ld
for
m illing
than
of
wheat
of
is
modified
barley
husk.
the
to
stages
the
the
the
of
must
similar
kernels.
With
Barley
a higher
contribution
to those
apertures
larger
and
of r e m o v a l
be
leading to a
size
of
barley
(rounding)
d i f f e r i n g from
of
the
superficial
only
accomplished
is
used f o r
and i n d e n t s
pearling
removes
Pearling
whole
The a v e r a g e
barley.
and f o r
material
products
croutons
for
Pearl
the
breakfast
yield
part
with
carried
cereal.
of pearl
barley
manufacture
Pearl
of
of
is
used
out
puffed
barley
in
in
also
for
substitutes
also
used
two
of
i s ~67% o f
soups
barley,
is
the
minimal
barley
the m a n u fa c t u r e of b a r l e y f l o u r .
are
to
1983).
sieve
Blocking
Softer
content as p o ssib le .
scouring processes,
in degree
procedure
grain.
w hich remove th e r e m a i n d e r of t h e h u s k and p a r t
dressing
nut
(Kent
yielding
products.
make a s m a l l
(de-hulling)
grain.
endosperm.
to-eat
a hull
comparatively
blocking
the
This
injury
product
are abrasive
of
they
The s i z e s
each o t h e r m erely
layers
of h i g h e s t q u a l i t y
normal,
for
Both
th e whole
in the m illin g process,
c l e a n e d on m a c h i n e s
cleaning.
grains.
of
abrasion,
decrease m illing quality.
milled
Barley
are
also
content
the y ie ld
shape
s h o u l d have as low
Thin k e r n e l s
hull
superficial
and
a ready-
a starting
Milled barley
for
extruded
foods,
snacks,
as
soup and s a l a d
dressings,
and a s
crunches
for
(Kent,
1983;
Ne wma n a n d M c G u i r e ,
1985).
25
Flour
Conventional
flour,
from
shorts,
the
of
while
( S o r u m , 1977;
Barley
of
or
shorts
yields
and
is
is
unpearled hulless
barley
representing
67% o f
flour
the
o f 55% b a s e d o n t h e
f l o u r from h u l l e s s
at a constant
barley.
m illing
pearl
obtained
grain,
giving
rate,
than with
in
than
the h u lle d
an
bread
flour
quality
barley
increased
Barley
flour.
supplement
loaves,
(Kent,
malt is
Uses
for
deteriorated
for
barley,
blocked
pearl
overall
as
rate
barley
extraction
The y i e l d
of
K o r e a w a s "10% g r e a t e r ,
that
from
the
hulled
barley.
the h u lle s s
flour
was b l e n d e d w i t h w h e a t f l o u r i n r a t i o s
but
pericarp
from
Bread c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were b e t t e r w ith
flour
and
whole gra in.
milled
starch
Average e x t r a c t i o n
is
barley
and
a
1971).
from
original
represent
germ,
hulls
streams:
comes m a i n l y
flour
some
principally
m illed
major
Flour
tailings
pericarp,
bran
four
and bran.
Robbi ns and P o m e r a n z ,
flour
8 2 >6 o f
rate
flour
aleurone,
endosperm;
milling
tailings
endosperm;
mixture
barley
roller
barley
when b a r l e y
flour
of 10:90 and 30 :7 0 ,
p r o p o r t i o n of
barley
19 8 3 ) .
g r o u n d o r m i l l e d t o make m a l t e d b a r l e y
m alt
bread
kibbled malts,
flour
flours,
malt
1983» Newman a n d M c G u i r e ,
include
a flavor
a
high
supplement
e x t r a c t and c e r e a l
1985).
diastatic
in malt
syrups
(Kent,
26
Beer
The s e c o n d l a r g e s t
USA,
an e s t i m a t e d
malted
in
m etric
to n s were
m illion
1 979.
use of b a r l e y
3.27 m i l l i o n m e t r i c
Of t h i s
m etric
amount,
utilized
tons
for
20 years
B e e r i s ma d e by y e a s t
called
wort
vitamins,
The
sugars
barley
in
which
and
Central
(Kaffir
rye in
America,
up f r o m
nitrogenous
derived
in Japan
( s a k e ’),
solution
compounds,
growth
from
1 .97
1 985).
of a s u g a r y
for
were
3. 0 6 m i l l i o n
( P o e h l man,
necessary
m a n u f a c t u r e d from
has a c o n s i d e r a b l e
of
yeast.
cereals,
Kvass),
sorghum
i.e.
maize
in Africa
Besides
satisfactory
grain
for
required
storage.
for
color,
or
and
with
mashed,
low
content
content
( K e n t , 1983).
process
which
of
and
to
for malting
and q u a l i t y
species
barley
adequate
are:
of
should
be
high
produce
of
husk and low
of
barley
absence
of
extract
p r o t e i n and high
Malting is a controlled
to
germination
capacity
ma x i mu m
and
clean
enzyme a c t i v i t y ,
grains,
the
purity
characteristics
brewing
broken
by m a l t i n g
yield
malting
Mo r e s p e c i f i c
and e n e r g y ,
modification
on t h e
varietal
malting
d e -husked
b arley using th e p ro c e s s es of
The c o n d i t i o n o f b a r l e y
effect
products.
of
barley
t h e S o v i e t Union ( f o r
rice
m a l t i n g and b r e w i n g .
capacity
earlier
In the
beer).
Beer i s
fit
of
approximately
contains
elements
malt.
brew er’s m alt,
traditionally
i n Europe,
tons
fermentation
also
trace
are
is for
grain
when
starch
germination
p ro d u c e s a complement of enzymes to c o n v e r t
27
cereal
starches
supply
of
and
modify
to
to fermentable
amino a c i d s
the
such im p o r ta n t
Hi gh
yield
malt
of
effects
extract
from
and o t h e r
quality
nitrogen
high
of
nitrogen
or
barley.
This
forming
"haze" and p o s s i b l y
the
albuminoid
beer.
soluble
likely
to
occur
(Kent,
1983).
caused
by
in
The
follow s:
steeping,
or
ploughing,
pass
the
a
and
spreading
on t h e
germ ination,
the
extract,
bacteria
is
albumin
haze
with
from
more
content
in
beer
barley
and
1983;
are
hops
Erdal
in m alting
grain),
in
of
polyphenols
malting
drying
soluble
into
chill
the
the
The
keeping q u a lity
operations
(cleaning
because
impaired.
O u ttru p and E r d a l,
of
beer.
low-nitrogen
high
derived
of
from
of
proteins
are
sequence
draining,
with
of
which
screening
w ill
which have
more of
that
yeasts,
malting
quality
than
haze
e t a l . , 1 977;
1983).
for
development
precipitation
(Wett s t e i n
its
impairing
liquids
for
macromolecules
contains
protein
Permanent
(proanthocyanidins)
al.,
and
material
Furthermore,
nutrients
unsuitable
barley
protein
s e c u r e an a d e q u a t e
physical quality
is
lower
to
minor
the
on t h e
barley
is
sugars,
are
et
as
storage,
floor,
m alt
turning
kilns
and
screening.
Brewing i s
alcohol
of t h e
The
the
solution
original
sequence
grinding
of
procedure
malt,
converting
by m e a n s o f y e a s t
starch
of
of
is
starch
fermentation.
converted to alco h o l
operations
steeping,
the
in
brewing
filtering,
is
t o an
A b o u t 75%
by b r e w i n g .
as
sparging,
follow s:
flavoring,
28
boiling,
filtering,
of y e ast
and
are
barley
whiskey,
is
block
distilled
used
include:
gin
mutants
so
from
the
investigated
barley
haze.
far
a fte r
S o me
been
from
the
50
wort,
and
beer
The
had
the
pilot
made
specific
no
bottled
in
Irish
whether mutants
catechins
and
can
the
in
prevent
different
barley
w it h
The r e c e s s i v e
as well
ethyl
mutant
ANT
from
the
as production scale.
mutant
of
catechins
effects
were
free
of
W ith o u t any s t a b i l i z i n g
b eer had an e x c e l l e n t
elimination
detrim ental
whiskey,
treatm en ts
c a t e c h i n s and p r o a n t h o c y a n id in s .
treatment,
Those
Foma h a s b e e n p r o p a g a t e d a n d m a l t i n g
and b r e w i n g s p e r f o r m e d i n
Malt,
removal
isolated
m utagen
cultivar
of
grain
me t h a n e s u l f o n a t e a n d s o d i u m a z i d e .
13-13
cereals.
Scotch
b io sy n th esis
in
beer
have
v a rie tie s
fermenting,
1 983).
(1980)
the
of
(Kent,
al.
proanthocyanidin's
formation
yeast,
also
and Dut c h
W ettstein et
which
with
pasteurization.
Liquors
which
seeding
upon
and
beer
haze
stability.
proanthocyan!dins
quality
including
flavor.
Ani mal Feed
The l a r g e s t
used
as
feed,
Primarily,
ration.
grain
grain
Protein
depending
on
use
the
of
barley
should
supplies
content
for
animal
be c r a c k e d ,
carbohydrates
varies
cultivar,
is
from
climate
ground,
and
feed.
or r o l l e d .
protein
ten to f i f t e e n
and
soil
Whe n
in
the
percent,
conditions
29
under
feed
which
the
barley
barley
is
suggested
Newman
and
McGuire
protein is
barley
barley
indigestible
for
al.
A high
by
( 1985)
protein
Poehlman
state
that
animal
to m a in ta in a high
contains
for
that
reported
increased,
this
fiber,
lower
hulls.
Hull
energy
content
ma y
crude
with
that
digestible
decreased;
the
as
of p r o t e i n in
is
preferred
husk
the
largely
protein,
of
to
the
barley
content.
percentage
due
and
relatively
type
e n e r g y and d i g e s t i b l e
be
1 2%
content.
which
a low
in
However,
approximately
energy
fiber
monogastrics,
feeding is
(1983)
some
content
(1985).
t h e m o s t d e s i r a b l e maximum l e v e l
in order
As
grows.
of
crude
the
low
Bell
et
hull
protein
higher
crude
digestibility
of
content i s a major f a c to r a f f e c t i n g d i g e s t i b l e
of
barley
(Kent,
1983;
Profodcil
Bulletin,
1981).
Bhatty
superior
trials
to
at
benefit
et
al.
covered
improvement
hulless
did
energy
barley
for
considerations,
that
it
the
cultivars
point
of
is
and
barley
trials.
to
Several
barley,
reduction
or
in
that
yield
on
the
quality.
dominant
lysine.
recommended
Based
in
feasibility
The
role
on
future
the
that
( Newman a n d M c G u i r e , 1 9 8 5 )
the
be
i n B o z e ma n h a v e s h o w n no
reported
feed
out
chick
covered
justify
(1983)
over
in ra t
hulless
University
Knudsen
considerations
showed
over
not
observed in h u lle s s
breeding
barley
Mont ana S t a t e
of
Bach
(1975)
is
.
of
economical
of
available
the
economic
plant
breeding
of
feed
order
barley
I)
to
determine
improvement
protein/essential
in
the
a mi no a c i d
opportunity
2)
content,
to
energy
the following
h a v e s h o wn t h a t
select
the
wh e n a n i m a l s a r e
components
of
they
do s o i n a wa y w h i c h r e s u l t s i n n o r m a l
It
been
suggested,
may r e f l e c t
the
Lilburn
et
al.
been
via
balanced
been r e p o r t e d
said
to
be m o s t
the
classifications
applicable
to
A study
select
acute
a
growth
at
(sweet,
sour)
the
fowl.
by
Kaufman
diet
near
wa s
declined
with
in
et
as
al.
access
control
that
a ge .
It
learning
the
taste
( I 97 8)
present
is
controls
high
in
this
The
wh e n
chicken
sense
is
offered
broad
taste
by ma n a r e
showed
not
that
male
and
high
protein
an
is
ability
to
sufficient
to
maintain
The
of
protein
level
either
hypothesized
the
the
agent
demonstrated
levels.
nutrition
and
perceived
ratio
buds
However ,
feed.
to
fractions,
below
poultry
fed.
of
taste
when t h e f l a v o r i n g
protein-carbohydrate
selected
involving
has
versus
given
the organism.
i n n u mb e r a n d p a l a t a b i l i t y
are
that
diets
the
water
chicks,
carbohydrate
diets
growth.
in
to have a s ens e
drinking
broiler
a nd f e w
their
self-selected
r e q u i r e m e n t s of
considered a major f a c t o r
nutritionally
has
that
(1984) r e p o r t e d
chick are rudimentary
not
therefore,
nutritional
3)
Selection
diets,
has
and
content.
Diet
Numerous i n v e s t i g a t o r s
the
in
yield,
An i ma l
given
priorities
control
that
selection
diet
and
a feedback loop
mechanism.
31
Newman a n d
were
provided
lysine,
chicks
of
synthetic
the adequate
rats
a higher
active
animals.
active
rats
given
Results
in
(Collier
that
t wo f o o d s ,
containing
(dextrin),
tended
to
choice,
but
larger
p r o t e i n / c a r bo h y d r a t e
Leshner
that
I 96 9 ) .
et
al.
were
as
(1971)
studied
of
fractions.
The c o l d s e l e c t i o n
by
which
increasing
intake
of
their
the
was
their
protein
diets
high
protein
ratios
the
consume
exhibiting
housed
to
and
cold
in
select
stress,
as
the
the higher
entirely
carbohydrate;
same
the
carbohydrate
group a cc o m p l i s h e d
of
pattern
0.80-1.00.
protein
consumption
as
were 0.29-
began to
animals
by
to
carbohydrate
protein,
as
and
( 1978)
access
continued th is
stimulated
rem ained
that
a s mu c h
opportunity
from
showing
intermediary
1 556 o r 7 Oj
of
ratios
components
intake,
in
abruptly
proportions
given
non
simultaneous
2 9-35J
others
did
Yokogoshi et al.
given
only
carbohydrate
requirements
changes
about h alf
the
in
preference
than
as
nutritional
c o n s u me
but
and
(i.e ., protein/carbohydrate
considerably
cold
protein
1 8% c a s e i n a n d
With m a t u r a t i o n ,
nutrient
of
interpreted
rats
or low
diet.
reflects
male
that
In each case,
carbohydrates
were
et a l .,
weanling
carbohydrate
of
their
difference
metabolism
0.35).
a choice
chicks
adequate
offered,
lysine
proportion
differ
this
found
broiler
diets
c o n s u m e d some o f e a c h d i e t
chose
food
studied
and a d e q u a t e i n or d e v o i d o f l y s i n e .
Active
of
(1983)
choices
was shown f o r
that
Sands
that
for
their
the
32
selecting
protein
growth
Rats
group
in
the
consumption i s
curve,
of
without
increased
a
food
not
but r a t h e r ,
given
regard
normal, e n v iro n m en t.
age
to
eat
consumption
that
intake
is
sensitive
best
source
satisfying
determined
by d e v i a t i o n
appears
be a f u n c t i o n o f a g e .
a
their
Apparently,
to
determined
size.
of
to
these
On
the r a t s
current
needs.
amount
the
in
caloric
other
the
of
the
protein
hand,
cold
needs
from
the
suggests
and i s
the
33
MATERIALS AND. METHODS
Barievs
The
free
six
cultivars
of
barley
(ANT) m u t a n t s i n v e s t i g a t e d
Parent
ANT M u t a n t
T r i umph
Moravian I I I
Andre
Robust
Advance
Karl a
b a r l e y s were
State
University
o f Bozeman i n
proanthocyanidin
include:
Bariev
These
and t h e i r
Galant
ANT 605
ANT 5 87
ANT 625
ANT 537
ANT 504
grown in a d j a c e n t
Agricultural
plots at
Experiment
the
Station
Montana
farm
west
I 985.
Chemical A na lyse s
The f o l l o w i n g
the
six parent
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13«
14.
15.
is
a list
and s i x m u t a n t
of
the
analyses
completed
barleys researched.
Moisture
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Ether e x tra c t
Neutral detergent f ib e r
Acid d e t e r g e n t f i b e r
Starch
Ash
Calcium
Phosphorus
Ami no a c i d p r o f i l e
Lysine a v a i l a b i l i t y
Relative viscosity.
Beta-glucan (to tal, soluble
Vanillin-HCl stain
Proanthocyanidin
and i n s o l u b l e . )
on
34
P r o x i m a t e a n a l y s e s and a c i d d e t e r g e n t f i b e r
determined
Chemists
according
Methods
to
Association
(AOAC,
(NDF) w a s m e a s u r e d
1980).
according
( 1 97 7 ) m e t h o d a s m o d i f i e d
dietary
fiber
described
by
(EDF)
%m a n
determined with
1925)
and
to
described
fallingball
utilized
the
H e s s e l man
content
Calcium
utilizing
(1984).
by Coon e t
extract
Swedish
University
communication).
exchange
North
was
Amino
chromatography
Dakota
State
determined
the
at
State
University.
A griculture
acids
were
al.
Animal
University,
Fargo.
method
(1 978)
relative
( P.
described
stain
was
conducted
al.
(1984)
by A a s t r u p e t
proanthocyanidin
pigments
Proanthocyanidin
content
in the
was
personal
using
ion
Department a t
Lysine
availability
by Ka k a d e a n d L i e n e r
according
to in d ic a te
seed c o at of
analyzed
was <
developed a t
Home E c o n o m i c s R e s e a r c h L a b o r a t o r y
Vanillin-HCl
by
viscosity.
Sm a n ,
Science
method
B e n d a l o w 1s
determined
by t h e
by t h e
(1969)
described
of
was
was done
Bet a - g l u c a n s were a n a l y z e d a c c o r d i n g t o methods
the
the
Starch an aly sis
alkaline
method
( C l a r k and O o l l i p ,
by Sman a n d H e s s e l m a n
measuring
Estimated
the
( 1 9 84 ) .
measured
fiber
a n d Van S o e s t
using
method
technique as de sc rib e d
for
Analytical
detergent
Robertson
calculated
o f F i s k e a n d S u b b a r o w ( I 92 5 ) .
methods
Neutral
t h e K r a m e r —T i s d a l l
phosphorus
Official
by R o t h e t a l . ( 1 9 8 2 ) .
was
and
of
(ADF)were
by
at
Montana
to
methods
presence
barley
methods
of
grains.
described
35
by
W ettstein et
Laboratory
in
al.
(1977)
Copenhagen,
plump was t h e
6/64” screen;
passing
percent
through
the
expressed
as k g / h l .
seed
number
per
expressed as
Color
flour)
with
M - 5 0 0 - A) ,
weight
thin
of
was
5.5/64”
the
measured
according
on
the
Test
was
ground
of
kernels
weight
determined
counted
(reflectance
to
Weight
screen.
weight
kernels
an Agtron
Research
k e r n e l s on and a b o v e a
thousand kernel weight in
was
Carlsberg
Measurement
Kernel
of
the
De n ma r k .
Physical
Percent
at
x
1000,
was
as
30 g
which
was
grams.
whole
kernels
(barley
spectrophotometer,
instructions
in
the
Mo d e l
operating
■
manual
from
Agtron
measures
monochromic
yellow.
Quality
Magnuson E n g i n e e r s ,
the
spectral
Th e a b o v e
Laboratory
relative
color
frequencies:
tests
at
Inc
were a l l
Mont ana S t a t e
(San J o s e ,
CA).
of
m aterial
in
red,
green,
blue
The
four
and
performed at
the Cereal
University.
Triplicate
m e a s u r e s w e r e p e r f o r m e d on e a c h s a m p l e . 1
1Mention of a t r a d e m a r k , vendor, or p r o p r i e t a r y p r o d u c t does
n o t c o n s t i t u t e o r w a r r a n t y u s e o f t h e p r o d u c t by M o n t a n a
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y and d o e s n o t i m p l y i t s a p p r o v a l to t h e
e x c l u s i o n o f o t h e r p r o d u c t s o r v e n d o r s t h a t ma y a l s o b e
suitable.
36
An i ma l
Studies
Ch i c k Gr owt h T r i a l s
Chick t r i a l s
pairs
(parent
meal)
were
were housed i n H e rric k Hall.
and
m u t a n t ) and
included
in
each
of
control
two
trials.
Puyallup,
Washington were housed i n a b a t t e r y - t y p e
Water
number
before
data
collection
began.
assigned
to
were
each
sticky
and
consumption
a week.
were
cage,
a
wire
mesh
continuous
a 2-day
period
After
adjustment
th e 2 - day a d j u s t m e n t
by
weight
barley
and
Feed t o
level
(Tables
and
each
I
body
gain r a t i o
was
per
diets
Newman,
20.0% p r o t e i n
recorded
to
replications
the
(Newman.and
m inerals
was
with
Chicks
assigned
3
was a d d e d t o
droppings
vitam ins
twice
per
at
cage w i t h
g i v e n £_$i I l b J L t u jg.
stratified
chicks
chicks
form ulated
in
randomly
diet.
Twenty-one
Beta-glucanase
day-old
Hatchery
controlled with
were
allowed
chicks
7
feed
banded and
period,
days,
and
For s
compartments
The r o o m w a s t e m p e r a t u r e
lighting.
were
controlled
from
One
Hubbard
floors.
chicks
barley
(corn-soybean
cockerel
therm ostatically
broiler
one
Three
and
to
1985).
and
for
reduce
wet,
Diets
were
Daily
were
calculated.
21
treatm ent.
balanced
2).
weights
diet
for
feed
measured
37
Table
I.
Diet composition for
barleys, t r i a l I.
Ingredienta
MOfib
605
chicks
ROB
fed
625
parent
KAR
and m u t a n t
504
Co r n
........................................................... ............................................................ - - - - -
Cor nmeal
----Soybean meal 2 8 . 88
Barley
61.12
Oil
5.59
Dical phos.
2.80
Limestone
. 60
Vi t premix
.325
Salt
.50
DL-MET
. 1 25
Biotin
. 01
B-glucanase
.05
Cornstarch
---------
----24.95
65.05
5.59
2.80
.60
.325
.50
.1 25
. 01
.05
---------
----26.89
63.11
5.59
2.80
. 60
.325
.50
.1 25
. 01
•0 5
--------
----25.82
64.18
5.59
2.80
,.60
.325
.50
.125
. 01
.05
---------
----26.86
63.15
5.59
2.80
. 60
.325
.50
.1 25
. 01
.05
---------
-55.41
24.28 34.59
65.72 — —
5.59
5.59
2.80
2.80
.60
.60
.325
.325
.50
.50
.125
.1 25
. 01
. 01
.05
--------•^ 5
aOil:
50% M a z o l a c o r n o i l ,
50% C r i s c o v e g e t a b l e o i l .
Vitamin premix:
f u r n i s h e s t h e f o l l o w i n g ( p e r k g d i e t ) 7716
USPS v i t a m i n A a c e t a t e , 2 2 0 5 I CU v i t a m i n Dg , 6 . 6 1 USPS
v i t a m i n E , 11 u g v i t a m i n B 1 - , 6 . 6 1 mg r i b o f l a v i n , 11 mg
d l - c a l c i urn p a n t o t h e n a t e , 4 9 b m g c h o l i n e c h l o r i d e , 33 mg
n i a c i n , 3 . 3 mg p y r i d o x i n e h y d r o c h l o r i d e , 1. 1 mg m e n a d i o n e
s o d i u m b i s u l f i t e , 1.1 mg t h i a m i n e m o n o n i t r a t e , 0 . 6 6 mg f o l i c
acid,
55 u g d - b i o t i n ,
0 . 1 mg s o d i u m s e l e n i t e ,
5 0 mg
m a n g a n e s e s u l f a t e , 50 mg z i n c o x i d e , 50 mg i r o n c a r b o n a t e , 5
mg c o p p e r
oxide,
1 . 5 mg p o t a s s i u m
iodide,
110.2 g
oxytetracycline.
Be t a - g l u c a n a s e :
E n z e c o (R) b e t a g l u c a n a s e , 200 u n i t s / g , Enzyme D e v e l o p m e n t C o r p o r a t i o n ,
K e y p o r t , NJ.
b MOR = M o r a v i a n I I I , 6 0 5 = ANT 6 0 5 , ROB = R o b u s t , 6 2 5 = ANT
6 2 5 , KAR z K a r l a , 5 0 4 z ANT 5 0 4 , C o r n z c o r n - s o y b e a n m e a l
c o n t r o l , D i c a l p h o s . z d i c a l c i u m p h o s p h a t e , DL- MET z DLmethionine.
38
Table
2.
Diet composition for
b a r l e y s , t r i a l 2.
chicks
fed
parent
and m u t a n t
I n g r e d i e n t s 3 TRI b
GAL
AND
587
ADV
537
C or n me a l
S o y b e a n meal
Ba r l e y
Oil
Dical phos.
Limestone
V it premix
Salt
DL-MET
Biotin
B - g l ucanase
Cornstarch
27.30
62.70
5 .59
2.80
. 60
.325
. 50
.125
. 01
.05
28.52
61 . 4 8
5 .59
2.80
. 60
.325
. 50
.125
. 01
.05
26.47
63.53
5 .59
2.80
. 60
.325
.50
.125
. 01
.05
25.82
64.1 8
5 .59
2.80
. 60
.325
. 50
.125
. 01
.05
23.82
66.18
5.59
2.80
. . 60
.325
. 50
.125
.01
.05
27.92
62.08
5 .59
2.80
. 60
.325
. 50
.125
. 01
.05
Corn
55.41
34 . 5 9
5.59
2.80
.60
.325
.50
.125
. 01
.05
a S ee Ta bl e I .
^ T R I = T r i u m p h , GAL = Ga l a n t , AND = A n d r e , 58 7 = ANT 5 8 7 ,
ADV = A d v a n c e , 5 37 = AN T 5 3 7 ,
Corn = c o r n - s o y b e a n m eal
c o n t r o l , D i c a l p h o s . = d i c a l c i u m p h o s p h a t e , DL- MET = DLme t h i o n i n e .
Chick D i e t
A diet
conditions
broiler
choice
preference
and
Preference
study
diets
as
in
was
conducted
the
chick
c h ick s were housed in each
of
20 d a y s .
hours.
diets
prepared
Position
Diet
of
consumption
g a i n was r e c o r d e d
from
the
twice
pans
nitrogen
Department
of
wa s
the
trials.
Ten
given
the
barleys
for
alternated
daily
same
every
a n d body
48
weight
a we e k .
balance
Animal
growth
and m u t a n t
measured
Rat N i t r o g e n B a l a n c e
Rat
under
cage and were
parent
feed
wa s
Trial
trials
Trials
were
and Range S c i e n c e s
conducted
N utrition
at
the
Center
39
using
H o l t z ma n
(parent
and
included
male
mutant)
in each
of
and
one
three
rats.
control
trials.
Two
barley
barley
Rat d i e t
pairs
(Clark)
were
composition is
presented
in
Table
C o m p o s i t i o n of d i e t s f e d to r a t s c o m p a r i n g p a r e n t
and m u t a n t b a r l e y s , n i t r o g e n b a l a n c e t r i a l .
3.
Dieta
Table
weanling
B a r l ey
TRI
GAL
MOR
605
AND
5 87
ROB
6 25
ADV
537
KAfi
504
CLARK
70.86
69.23
64.75
6 3.83
72.58
67.16
68.18
65.69
65.69
61.64
86 . 5 4
62.50
72.58
3.
Corn
starch
Vit
mixb
22.0 9
23. 7. 2
28.20
29.12
20 . 37
25.79
24 . 7 7
27.26
27.26
31.31
6 . 41
30.45
20 . 37
____ <
t_
I . 00
2.00
I . 00
2.00
I . 00
2.00
I . 00
2.00
I . 00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
I . 00
I .00
2.00
I . 00
2.00
I . 00
2.00
2.00
I . 00
I .00
2.00
2.00
I . 00
Mi n
mix0
CaC03
Ant i b i o t i cd
Oil
. 80
. 80
. 80
. 80
.80
. 80
.80
. 80
.80
. 80
.80
. 80
. 80
. 25
.25
. 25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
.25
3.00
3.00
3 .00
3.00
3 . 00
3.00
3 .00
3.00
3 .00
3.00
3 .00
3.00
3 . 00
a TRI = T r i u m p h , G AL = G a l a n t , MOR = M o r a v i a n I I I , 6 05 = AN T
6 0 5 , AND = A n d r e , 5 8 7 = ANT 5 8 7 , ROB = R o b u s t , 6 2 5 = ANT
6 2 5 , ADV = A d v a n c e , 5 37 = AN T 5 3 7 , KAR = K a r l a , 5 04 = ANT
5 0 4 , CLARK = C l a r k c o n t r o l b a r l e y .
bV i t a m i n
Diet
0B e r n h a r t
Fortification
and T o m a r e l l i
dO x y t e t r a c y c l i n e ,
Mixture,
Salt
Mixture
environmentally
controlled
light
Rats
by i n i t i a l
dark.
Cleveland,
OH.
(1966).
110.2 g/kg.
Rats were housed in i n d i v i d u a l
and
I CN-NBC,
weight.
were
woven w i r e
room w i t h
allotted
to
c a g e s i n an
t w e l v e h o u r s each of
diets
Rats were i n d i v i d u a l l y
and
fed
stratified
10 g o f d i e t
40
per
day i n m e t a b o l i s m
cages designed fo r
of f e c e s and u r i n e .
given jji
Water
libitum.
formulated
at
t h a t had not
V i t a m i n and m i n e r a l
a
level
of
9. 0%
a s s i g n e d to each d i e t f o r a 4day
collection
for
nitrogen
biological
( Eggum,
period.
Feed,
to
determine
value
( B V) ,
separate
been d e i o n i z e d was
fortified
protein.
Six
diets
were
rats
were
day a d j u s t m e n t p e r i o d and a 4
feces,
true
and
collection
and u r i n e
protein
net
protein
were analy zed
digestibility
( TPD) ,
utilization
( NPU)
1 973).
Muffin E v a l u a t i o n
Two
mutants
parent
were
barleys
(Kitchenetics
wheat
flour
wheat)
(a
muffin.
which i s
muffin
minutes.
of
proanthocyan!din-free
in
apple
a Magic
CA) w e r e c o m p a r e d t o a
wheat
and
was a d d e d t o
a conventional
m u f f i n s were
oven a t
placed
needed f o r
taste
p a n e l s and 2 weeks f o r
analysis
Muffins
70% w i n t e r
the
formula
B a t t e r was w e i g h e d t o
Proximate
Proxim ate
ground w ith
30% s p r i n g
C until
consumer
flour,
Campbell,
T a b l e 4.
cooling,
and f r o z e n a t - 1 0 °
(2 days f o r
Corp.,
Grated f r e s h
baked
After
barley
blend
shown i n
and
their
compared i n a s t a n d a r d m u f f i n p r o d u c t .
m a d e f r o m 100% w h o l e
Mill
and
and
210°
I 6 g per
C for
in freezer
panel
bags
evaluation
trained
p a n e l s ).
Analyses
lysine
av ailab ility
d eterm in ed u sin g the methods d e sc rib e d p r e v io u s ly .
a c i d s were d e te r m in e d
25
by AAA L a b o r a t o r i e s ,
were
Ami no
Mercer Is la n d ,
41
Washington,
to
the
u s i n g an a u t o m a t i c amino a c i d a n a l y z e r a c c o r d i n g
procedure
o f S p a c k ma n e t
Objective
al.
(1958).
Evaluation
O b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n of t h e m u f f i n s i n c l u d e d , volume,
and p e r c e n t
24
hours
color reflectance.
after
displacement
a slurry
40
ml
of
48
(Galaxie
by b l e n d i n g
water
New H a r t f o r d ,
determined
Co mp a n y ,
hours
and
Type,
from
(Campbell
distilled
wa s
Scientific
for
method
w a s ma de
( T y p e S J T,
slurry
removal
in
the
et a l . ,
for
PA).
using
an
Triplicate
T a b l e 4.
rape seed
To m e a s u r e
methods
Blendor
The pH o f
( Mode l
8 1 5 MP,
The m u f f i n s w e r e
in
an
Milwaukee,
Fisher
dried
WI)
before
C o l o r a n a l y s i s was made
described
Standard muffin formula.
Ingredient
Amount
Flour
B a k i n g powder
Salt
Sugar, gra n u la ted
Oil
R e c o n s t i t u t e d NFDMa
Egg
Grated apple
204 . Og
9 . Og
5 . Sg
2 4 . Sg
27 . Og
250.0ml
5 0 . Og
50 . Og
dry milk.
this
Osterizer
previously.
m e a s u r e m e n t s w e r e p e r f o r m e d on e a c h s a m p l e .
a NFDM = n o n f a t
pH,
of e a c h m u f f i n w i t h
30 seconds
d e t e r m i n a t i o n s w e r e made.
the
the
a Waring Commercial
Corporation,
with
using
1 979).
ten.grams
color
Agtron
oven
u s i n g a pH m e t e r
blended
Oster
P r o d u c t v o l u me was m e a s u r e d
CN) f o r 30 s e c o n d s .
Pittsburgh,
pH
42
Sensory
Sensory
mutant
evaluation
barley
Trained
trained
wheat
and
panelists.
were
trials.
Panelists
rated
barley
compared
like/dislike
muffins
to
wheat
judged
flavor
and
a
to
the
the
were
parent
judged
in
by
individual
tem perature
provided
for
hedonic
A) .
booths in
of
separate
of t h e j u d g e s used t o b a c c o .
for
test
was d e t e r m i n e d u s i n g th e a p p e n d ix t a b l e
was
and
Judges
a d a r k e n e d room
w a t e r a t room
palates
of
for
Testing
19 8 1 ) .
11 f e m a l e s
Significance
test
Training
D istilled
rinsing
consisted
two
between
and
I male.
A g e s r a n g e d f r o m 21 t o 57 w i t h a m e a n a g e o f 3 5 y e a r s ,
al.
and
twelve
a triangle
( AST M, 1 96 8 a n d
colored lig h ts .
The j u d g e s
by u s i n g
(Appendix
u n d e r 25 w a t t r e d
was
.muffins, in
American S o c i e t y
recommendations
coded s a m p l e s
samples.
judge
nine-point
determ ination
according
M aterials
to
A n d r e a n d ANT 587 a n d R o b u s t a n d ANT 6 25
difference
conducted
used
panels
muffins
for
was
m u f f i n s and t h e wheat m u f f i n .
taste
The
Evaluation
triangle
E from
none
tests
Amerine e t
( I 96 5 ) .
C o n s u me r t a s t e
panels
Two c o n s u m e r
Mall
p an els were
S h o p p i n g C e n t e r i n B o z e ma n ,
muffins
wheat
taste
and
muffins
panelists
Robust
and
and
recorded
their
Mo n t a n a .
ANT 6 2 5
presented
in
age
conducted in the
muffins
different
Main
A n d r e a n d ANT 5 87
were
panels.
and s e x and r a t e d
compared
to
Untrained
the
barley
43
and w h e a t m u f f i n s
using a nine
point hedonic sca le
A).
were
and
Th e m u f f i n s
Water
was
properly
provided
sliced
to
rinse
completed hedonic
were r e q u i r e d
to
judge
wheat m uffin).
a n d ANT 5 8 7
all
muffins,
palates
a me a n a g e
panel,
consisted
wheat,
o f 36 y e a r s .
of
100
judges,
variance
mutant)
for
(MSUSTAT,
me a n v a l u e s
analyzed
mutant
Pearson
were
by
and one
Andre
o f whom 66
69
consisted
of
100 j u d g e s
of
Age s r a n g e d f r o m 5
(Campbell
et
aI . ,
1 979).
Analysis
d ata were analyzed w ith an a n a l y s i s
barley
cultivar
1983).
Control
used
to
analysis
and
d a ta were
eliminate
of
barley
trial
variance
and
coefficients
were
type
(parent,
a v e r a g e d and t h e
effect.
paired
b a r le y s were compared o r t h o g n ally
correlation
Judges
The s e c o n d p a n e l , w h i c h j u d g e d
Statistical
of
Onl y
Ages r a n g e d f r o m 5 t o
o f 33 y e a r s
The c h i c k a n d r a t
samples.
tabulated.
whom 71 w e r e f e m a l e s a n d 29 w e r e m a l e s .
a me a n a g e
trays.
which judged wheat,
R o b u s t a n d ANT 625 m u f f i n s
t o 65 w i t h
coded
m u f f i n s (two b a r l e y
w e r e f e m a l e s a n d 34 w e r e m a l e s .
with
on
between
form s were
three
The f i r s t
placed
(Appendix
Data w e r e
parent
( MSUSTAT,
determined
and
1983).
using
SAS
(1985).
Hedonic s c o r e s
analyzed for
of
variance
triangular
from
statistical
technique
tests
Amerine
for
et
wa s
al.
the
t r a i n e d and c o n s u me r p a n e l s w e r e
significance
( MSUSTAT,
determined
( 1965).
using
1983).
using
the
two-way a n a l y s i s
Significance
appendix
Table
of
E
44
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Bariev
Composition
Proximate
The
Table
chemical
5,
were
Analyses
compositions
quite
sim ilar,
of
the
based
barleys,
on
two
as seen i n
analyses
per
sample.
Table
5.
Protein,
e t h e r e x t r a c t and f i b e r
content
p a r e n t and mut ant b a r l e y s , dry m a t t e r b a s i s .
of
Barley
PROTa
EE
NDF .
ADF
EDF
Tr i umph
Galant
13.9
14.1
2.5
2.5
13.0
14.6
5.6
5.2
16.2
22.6
Moravian I I I
ANT 605
15. 1
15.4
2.4
2.4
13.0
14.0
5.6
5.7
19.8
19. 1
An d r e
ANT 5 87
13.6
14.5
2.5
2.6
12.9
12.7
5.2
5.1
19.9
20.7 •
Robust
ANT 625
14.3
14.7
2.0
2.4
14.6
14.0
4.8
5.0
20.7
19.8 .
Ad v a n c e
ANT 537
14.6
15.5
2.3
2.9
16.3
16.1
6.3
6.8
21 . 4
27 . 0
Karl a
ANT 504
11 . 3
15.5
2.3
2.9
16. 1
15.0
6.0
6.1
23.1
25.2
13.8
I 5.0
2.3
2.6
14.3
14.4
5.6
5.7
20.2
22.4
Parent
Mutant
(X)
(X)
NDF =
neutral
a PROT = p r o t e i n ,
EE = e t h e r e x t r a c t ,
=
a
c
i
d
d
e
t
e
r
g
e
n
t
f
i
b
e
r
,
EDF =
detergent
fiber,
ADF
estimated dietary fiber.
45
and
The p r o t e i n
level
AN T 50 4 b e i n g
the
average,
were
(13.8?).
Most
difference
Neutral
the
as
Karla
highest.
in
Th e m u t a n t
protein
Karla
( 15. 0%)
also
averaged
(2.6?),
than
was
being
the
higher
difference
of
parents
by p a i r ,
and
however,
m utants.
with
barleys
(2*3?)»
were
similar
There
was
and
Robust
and
the
mutants
(22.4?)
than
Ash,
barleys
(53.5?)
the
calcium
(Table
than
lowest
protein
proanthocyanidin,
259
m g / 1 0 0 g.
parents
The m u t a n t s
parents
starch
content
the
were
higher
some
lowest
Me a n
for
the
NDF
estimated
group
of
(20.2?).
and p h o s p h o r u s l e v e l s w e r e s i m i l a r f o r a l l
6).
the
values
AD F.
for
ANT 537 h a v i n g
A n d r e a n d AN T 5 87 t h e
( EDF )
Ether
mutant
NDF a n d ADF,
fiber
derived
the
Advance and
lowest
the
consistently
highest
dietary
to
was
the
AN T 6 25
parents
due
in
parent
d e t e r g e n t f i b e r a n d ADF me a n l e v e l s
groups
on t h e
communication).
slightly
than
ANT 5 3 7
the
Karla
th at is noted for
personal
with
barleys,
difference
a n d AN T 5 0 4 .
New man,
a group
was l o w e s t ,
protein
(C.W.
levels
barleys
the
a cultivar
in p r o t e i n
extract
of
between
from Karl,
low
higher
of
content,
(r
(54.9?).
ANT 5 3 7
which
inversely
= - 0 . 3 9).
whereas
averaged
the
Mutant
lower
starch
a n d ANT 5 0 4 h a d
correlated
barleys
p a re n ts ranged
in
with
contained
no
b e t w e e n 1 95 a n d
46
Table
6.
Ash,
calcium ,
phosphorus,
starch
and
p r o a n t ho c y a n ! d i n c o n t e n t
of p a r e n t and m u t a n t
b a r l e y s , dry m a t t e r b a s i s .
Ca
PR OAN T a
STARCH
P
Barley
ASH
T r i umph
Galant
2.5
2.7
. 02
.02
.38
. 43
57.8
52.1
226
0
Moravian I I I
ANT 60 5
2.4
2.6
.02
.02
. 40
.42
54.2
53.7
200
0
Andre
ANT 587
2.5
2.4
. 00
.02
.38
.37
55.2
53.9
. 214
0
Robust
ANT 625
2.3
2.4
.02
.03
. 36
.38
54.4
55.3
I 99
0
Advance
ANT 537
2.6
2.4
.02
.03
.40
.34
54.2
47.7
195
0
Karla
ANT 504
2.8
2.7
.02
.04
.40
. 41
53.6
48.2
25 9
0
2.5
2.6
.02
.03
.39
.39
54.9
53.5
216
0
Parent
Mutant
(JC)
(X)
a Ca = c a l c i u m ,
P = phosphorus,
Ami no a c i d a n a l y s e s
to ta l
w ith
protein,
approximately
one
Lysine
averaging
of
was h i g h e r
0. 45%
and
504
being
respe c tiv e ly ) .
recovered
the
barleys
in a ll
po i n t h i g h e r
in
the
to
being
mutants
(10.4%).
mutants
(0.30%),
highest
acids
amino
0. 39% , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
K a r l a was t h e l o w e s t
ANT
( T a b l e i 7) s h o w e d a t r e n d s i m i l a r
percentage
(11.5%) t h a n t h e p a r e n t
PROANT = p r o a n t h o c y a n i d i n .
than
The
their
lysine
with Galant
(0.48%,
0.46%
,
parents,
content
ANT 6 2 5 a n d
and
0.46%,
47
Table 7.
A mi n o a c i d c o n t e n t
dry m a t t e r b a s i s .
of
parent
and m u t a n t
barleys,
T r u i m p h Ga l a n t
Moravian
III
ANT
605
Andre
ANT
587
ALA
ARG
0.47
0 . 70
0.45
0 . 76
_ t
0.40
0 . 60
0.50
0 . 67
0 .42
0.59
0 . 47
0.63
ASP
GLU
0.69
2 .77
0.68
2 .59
0.56
2.39
0.58
2 .64
0.6 1
2 .59
0.66
2.89
GLY
HI S
0.44
0 .39
0.46
0 . 44
0.38
0.34
0.46
0.35
0.40
0 .32
0.46
0 .35
I LE
LEU
0.43
0.84
0.45
0.84
0.37
0 .73
0.44
0 .78
0.37
0 .73
0.40
0.79
LYS
MET
0.45
0 .08
0.48
0 .09
0 .37
0.06
0. 41
0.10
0.38
0.16
0.43
0.10
PHE
PRO
0.81
I . 73
0.7 5
I .55
0.68
I . 57
0.77
I .74
.0.66
'1.22
0.75
I . 21
SER
THR
0.49
0 .39
0.42
0 . 33
0.39
0 . 30
0.42
0 . 37
0 .42
0 .33
0.43
0.34
TYR
VAL
0.35
0 . 71
0.30
0 .64
0.28
0 .59
0.38
0 . 63
0.35
0.54
0 .34
0 . 60
Ami no
acida
a Cy s t i n e / 2 a n d t r y p t o p h a n w e r e n o t d e t e r m i n e d .
AL A =
Alanine,
AR G = A r g i n i n e ,
ASP = A s p a r t i c a c i d ,
GL U =
G l u t a m i c a c i d , GL Y = G l y c i n e , H I S = H i s t i d i n e ,
ILE =
I s o l e u c i n e , LEU = L e u c i n e , LYS = L y s i n e , MET = M e t h i o n i n e ,
PHE = P h e n y l a l a n i n e , PRO = P r o l i n e , S ER = S e r i n e ,
THR =
Threonine,
TYR = T y r o s i n e ,
VAL = V a l i n e .
48
Table 7 ( c e n t . ) .
A mi n o a c i d c o n t e n t o f p a r e n t
b a r l e y s , dry m a t t e r b a s i s .
and m u ta n t
Ave
par b
Ave
mu t
Karl a
ANT
50 4
0.54
0.74
0 . 37
0.49
0 . 51
0.6 6
0.43
0.6 4
0 .50
0.7 I
0 .63
2.85
0 . 73
3.50
0.50
2.3 8
0 .70
2.77
0.62
2.64
0 .68
2.92
0 .75
0 .37
0.63
0.32
0 . 73
0.36
0.50
0 . 26
0 . 70
0.37
0.51
0.34
0.59
0.37
0.42
0.83
0.46
0.84
0 .38
0.72
0.46
0.89
0 .32
0 .6 I
0.43
0.7 9
0.38
0.74
0 .44
0.82
LYS
MET
0 .45
0.19
0.46
0 . 07
0 . 36
0.10
0.43
0.10
0 . 30
0.07
0.46
0.10
0.39
0.11
0 .45
0.0 9
PHE
PRO
0.76
I .22
0 .78
I .29
0 . 66
I . 23
0.80
I . 57
0.57
1.19
0.70
I . 31
0.69
I .36
0 . 76
1.45
SER
THR
0 .48
0.37
0.46
0.38
0 . 40
0.33
0 .50
0.40
0 . 35
0 . 27
0 .45
0.39
0.42
0 .33
0 . 45
0.37
TYR
VAL
0.39
0.6 2
0.34
0.6 6
0.36
0.6 6
0.27
0.46
0 .38
0.6 4
.0 . 32
0.58
0.35
0.6 4
ANT ■
Adv a n ce 537
ALA .
ARG
0 .4 8
0.80
0.53
0.7 8
0.44
0.6 4
ASP
GLU
0.72
2.83
0 .75
3.11
GLY
HIS
0 .72
0 .38
I LE
LEU
a See p r e v i o u s
O
ANT
R o b u s t 625
U)
O
Ami no
acid &
0.55
footnote
for
b Ave p a r - a v e r a g e p a r e n t
mutant barley values.
Estimated
recovered
in
the
ami no
mutants
available
acids
than the
Table 7 •
barley
lysine
(Table
parent
8)
values,
Ave m u t = a v e r a g e
and p e r c e n t a g e
were
barleys.
also
lysine
slightly
of
higher
49
T a b l e 8.
E s t i m a t e d a v a i l a b l e l y s i n e of p a r e n t and m u t a n t
barleys
and
lysine . content ,
p e rc e n t of
recovered
amino a c i d s .
Barley
Tr i umph
Galant
-------— .................... %............
0.2 9
0.14
3.83
4 . 27
Moravian I I I
ANT 605
0 . 21
0.24
3.70
3.65
Andr e
ANT 587
0 .20
0.3 8
3.77
3.96
Robust
ANT 625
0.3 0
0.30
3.94
3.90
Advance
ANT 537
0 .3 I
0.36
3.50
3.43
Karl a
ANT 50 4
0.27
0.34
3.42
4.13
0.26
0.2 9
3.6 9
3 .89
Parent
Mutant
The
(JO
(X)
percentage
of
estimated
considerably.
This may, in p a r t ,
method,
is
which
Therefore,
total
measure.
Since
lysine,
this
available
sensitive
will
be
would
and
there
available
lysine,
it
is
is
a more
necessary
Raws on and
subject
considered
theoretically
lysine
varied
h a v e b e e n d u e t o t h e TNBS
p r o a n t h o c y a n i d i ns
until
analyses.
highly
lysine
However,
acid
Lysine content
of r e c o v e r e d
a mi n o a c i d s
Estimated
available lysine,
as s u b m i t t e d
are
lower
precise
to
use
Ma h o n e y ( 1 9 8 3 )
to
error.
a mor e i m p o r t a n t
believed
to
available
method
to
bioassay
discussed
bind
lysine.
measure
and a m i n o
the
50
problem
which
with
Maillard
contain
reactions
a high level
Viscosity
and
of
in
the
analysis
of
samples,
carbohydrate.
beta-glucan
results
are
presented
in
T a b l e 9.
Table
1
9•
V i s c o s i t y m e a s u r e m e n t and
p a r e n t and m u ta n t b a r l e y s .
beta-glucan
content
Bet a - g l u c a n
of
K
B a r l ey
Viscosi tya
Total
S o l u ble
Insoluble
T r i umph
Galant
—- C P eew
1.75
2 . 04
3.5
4.1
1.8
2.2
I .7
1.9
Moravian I I I
ANT 60 5
2.20
I . 85
4.2
3.7
2.2
2 .0
2.0
I .7
Andre
ANT 5 87
2.23
2.28
4.3
4.3
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.1
Robust
ANT 625
1.97
I . 84
3.7
3.7
1.5
I .5
2.2
2.2
Ad v a n c e
ANT 537
2.65
2 . 09
4.5
4.4
2.5
2.1
2.0
2.3
Karl a
ANT 50 4
1.86
2.11
3.7
4.2
I .3
2 .3
2.4
1.9
2.1 I
2 . 04
4.0
4.1
I .9
2.1
2.1
2.0
Parent
Mutant
(JO
(X)
ac P = centepoise
^Percentage
showed
resulted
means fo r
units.
dry m a t t e r .
Triumph
Advance
.
in
the
the
lowest
highest
p a r e n t s and m u t a n t s
v s . 2.0 4 cP,
respectively).
viscosity
measurement
(1.75
(2.65
QP )
and
c P) .
The
d if f e r e d only s l i g h t l y
(2.11
51
Total
mutants
and
and
(4.1
1. 9%,
a n d 2 . 1 %,
by p a i r ,
(3.7%)
individual
no
respectively)
and
the
apparent
Soluble
and
ANT 5 3 7
lowest
weight
measurements
averaged
mutants
This
correlates
were
sim ilar
measurements
72.4%,
could
537
the
(4.0
in t o t a l
averaging
highest
the
(4.5%);
the lo w e st
be t a - g l u c a n s s h o w e d s i m i l a r
the
(2.3%);
Insoluble
lowest
( 1. 5%)
individually
beta-glucans
showed
presented
for
the
starch
both
indicated
percentage also
are
Triumph
content
groups.
a wide
with
in
parent
ANT 53 7 h a v i n g
for
highest
Measurement
with
with
to
Measurements
mg).
barleys
be d u e
starch
ANT 6 25
(37.0
and p e r c e n t
had t h e
with
higher
( 4 0 . 8 mg),
and m u t a n t
parents
the
differences.
Kernel
the
and
highest
( 1. 3%) .
Kernel
than
the
for
s ome d i f f e r e n c e
ANT 62 5 b e i n g
the
Physical
weights
and
sim ilar
shows Triumph as h a v i n g
Robust
and
Robust
Advance
(3.5%).
with
Advance
had
T h e r e was
observation
differences
Karla
were
with
and
concentration
and
be t a - g l u c a n s
respectively).
beta-glucans
low est
soluble
had t h e
and
thin
( 32. 3 mg).
weights
thin
kernel
plump a v e r a g i n g
showed a s i g n i f i c a n t
kernel
between the
parent
81. 7% a n d
respectively.
kernels.
mg )
Test
ANT 53 7 a n d ANT 504 m u t a n t s
percentage
content.
highest
( r = .7 0) .
Plump
Kernel
(38.2
the lo w e st
t h i n 6. 8% a n d 1 0 . 4 %,
the
10.
barleys
difference
percent
Table
which
Plump
correlation
This
both
and t h i n
(r = .77)
52
Table
10.
Kernel
measurements
of
p a r e n t and m u t a n t
barleys.
Thi n
kernels
Ba r l e y
Kernel
weight3
Test
weights
Pl ump
kernels
Tr i umph
Ga l a n t
——mg——
40.8
39.4
-kg/hl71.6
67.9
— ------- %
81 .6
86.9
5.6
40 . 7
38.1
71 .6
70.0
87 . 4
76.7
3.4
9.2
An d r e
ANT 587
39.1
40.7
72.7
73.2
76 . 3
80.5
8.4
6.5
Robust
ANT 625
38.0
36.9
70 .0
69.0
81 . 8
85.1
5.7
4.2
Advance
ANT 537
35 .6
32.3
64.1
58.7
84 . 0
41 . 1
6.2
21 . 3
Karla
ANT 50 4
35.0
34.7
65.8
62.5
78 .9
64.2
9.1
15.5
38.2
37.0
69.3
66.9
81 . 7
72.4
6.8
10.4
Moravian
ANT 6 0 5
Parent
Mutant
III
(X)
(X)
a The m e a s u r e m e n t s w e r e me a n s
Percent
Color
D ifferences occurred
for
the
four
colors
averaged a s l i g h t l y
colors
than the
darker
parents.
color
the
(darkest).
purposes;
reasonable
since
than wheat
the
endosperm.
ground
11) .
barley
The m u t a n t
or l o w e r r e f l e c t a n c e
Karla
The
it
analyses.
Reflectance
(Table
measurement
comparative
duplicate
among a l l
measured
reflectance
lowest
of
wa s
barley
for
samples
barleys
all
four
and G a l a n t had t h e h i g h e s t
(lightest)
wheat
with
flour
was
the l i g h t e s t
endosperm
Robust h a v in g
measured
sample,
tends
to
which
for
is
be d a r k e r
53
Table
11.
Percent color
barleys.
reflectance
of
parent
and
mutant
Percent re f le c ta n c e 3
Barley
Blue
Green
Red
T r i u mp h
Galant
51
46
67
60
— -----------------78
' 70 .
71
65
Moravian I I I
ANT 60 5
56
56
72
71
82
82
75
75
Andr e
ANT 5 87
56
57
71
73
83
83
76
77
Robust
ANT 625
61
50
73
64
83
75
77
69
Ad v a n c e
ANT 537
55
52
70
67
80
78
75
72
Karl a
ANT 504
44
53
60
68
73
79
66
73
54
52
69
67
80
78
73
72
72
83
91
87
Parent
Mutant
(X)
(X)
Wh e a t f l o u r
3 Per c e n t age s a r e
t h e means of
three
Yel l ow
samples.
An i ma l E x p e r i m e n t s
C h i c k Gr o w t h T r i a l s
Proximate
diets
fed
in the
analyses,
growth
calcium
trials
are
and
phosphorus
given in Table
of
12.
chick
T a b l e 12.
P r o x i m a t e c ompone nt s of c h i c k d i e t s p r e p a r e d w i t h
p a r e n t and m u t a n t
b a r l e y s and corn, dry m a t t e r
basis.
Diet
PROTa EE
NDF
ADF
ASH
Ca
P
T r i a l I.
Moravian I I I
ANT 605
21 . 4
21.8
8.5
7.7
14.0
13.8
6.5
6.5
7.8
7.0
I .02
0.80
0.87
I .07
Robust
ANT 625
21.6
21 .6
8.0
8.5
14.2
14.1
5. 9.
6.0
7.0
7.0
0.98
0 . 80
0 . 7 9 . 0 . 94
Karl a
ANT 504
21.8
21 .5
8.4
8.1
15.0
15.3
3.8
6.7
7.2
7.0
0 . 83
0.81
I . 01
0.98
Corn-soybean
meal c o n t r o l
21 . 6
8.2
11.8
5.4
6 .8
0 . 80
I .Ub
Trial 2
T r i umph
Galant
23.5
22.9
7.7
7.7
12.8
13.4
5.4
6.3
7.1
7.2
0.90
0.86
U .O f
0.91
Andre
ANT 5 87
22.5
22.0
7.3
7.6
12.7
12.7
5.8
5.4
7.0
6.9
0.93
0.91
0.93
0.92
Ad v a n c e
ANT 537
22.5
23.4
7.5
7.8
13.9
I 4.6
5.6
6.6
6 .8
6 .7
0.90
0.95
0 . 88
0.88
Corn-soybean
meal c o n t r o l
23.8
6.5
11.9
5.5
6.9
0.98
0.96
a PROT = P r o t e i n , EE = e t h e r e x t r a c t , NDF = n e u t r a l d e t e r g e n t
f i b e r , ADF = a c i d d e t e r g e n t f i b e r , C a = c a l c i u m ,
P =
phosphorus.
Results
and m u t a n t
averaged
effect;
of
the
chick growth
b arleys are
and t h e
original
s h o wn i n
mean v a l u e s
data
are
trials
Table
comparing the parent
13«
Control
data were
were used to e l i m i n a t e
s h o wn i n A p p e n d i x
B.
trial
Table
13."
C o m p a r i s o n of p a r e n t and m u t a n t b a r l e y s f o r
w e ig h t g a in , f e e d c o n s u m p t io n and f e e d / g a i n
r a t i o of c h i c k s , a d j u s t e d d a t a ;
Diets
n
We i g h t
g a i na
Feed
c o n s umed
Feed/Gain
ratio
Tr i umph
Galant
21
I9
- g - ( P=)
64 8
630 ( . 5 2 )
- g - ( P=)
962
993 ( . 3 3 )
( P=)
I .49
1.58 ( .07)
Moravian I I I
ANT 605
19
18
599
621 ( . 4 2 )
956
9 87 ( . 3 2 )
1.60
1.59
( .94)
An d r e
ANT 5 87
20
20
603
6 4 9 ( .1 I)
96 8
1008 ( . 2 1 )
1.61
1.56
( . 2 9)
Robust
ANT 625
19
20
6 14
639 ( . 3 7 )
969
922 ( . 1 4)
I .58
I . 44 ( . 0 1 )
Ad v a n c e
ANT 537
21
20
5 87
520 ( . 0 2 )
956
967 ( . 7 2 )
I .63
1.87 ( .00)
Karl a
ANT 50 4
17
17
I 001
629
5 83 ( . 1 1) 976
Parent
Mutant
(JO
(X)
S . E. b
^Probability
bg.E. = S t a n d a r d e r r o r
Ch i ck
difference
Parent
(613
body
than
difference
three
of
to
higher
be
96 9
976 ( . 5 9)
1.58
1.62
7.75
6.42
0.06
weight
resulted
the
mutant
was n o t
the mutants
than
listed
gains
in each
c o l u mn .
sh o w ed
a
ANT 5 37 b e i n g
the
in
larger
a slightly
barleys
significant
(ANT. 6 0 5 ,
their
( .07)
of t h e m e a n
(P < 0 .05) w i t h
barleys
g)
613
607 ( . 5 8 )
(P= ) a r e
values
I .59
I .68 ( .09)
(.43)
parent
(6 07
(P=0.58).
ANT 587 a n d
barleys
significant
lowest
g),
(520 g).
average
gain
although
the
Weight g a in s
ANT 6 2 5 )
(Moravian
for
appeared
III,
Andre
56
and R o b u s t ,
and
respectively);
ANT 5 37 wa s
Feed
difference
only the d if f e r e n c e
f o r Advance
significant.
consumed
between
by
the
barley
showed
a
negative
content
and a p o s i t i v e
chicks
showed
cultivars
correlation
no
significant
or t y p e s .
(r
=
correlation
(r
- 0 . 4 9)
Feed
consumed
with
protein
= 0.60)
with
starch
content.
Feed
between
to
gain
barley
gain
(I . 5 8 ),
ratio
to
cultivars
ratio
than
ratio
was
the
of
the
mutants
a n d ANT 5 0 4 ,
and
48 .256,
1.68).
total
to
et
gain
(r
al.
with
when
compared
to
this
research
did
for
barleys.
the
(Table
lower
which
ratios
for
not
mutant
the
(r
a positive
which
found
barleys
in
highest
is
s h o wn
improved
to
the
wh e n
starch
contents
F/G
ANT
(47. 7%
(1.87
correlation
in
to
and
with
F i g u r e 7«
growth
superior
compared
gain
F i g u r e 7.
Chick s t u d i e s
consistent
feed
barleys
rate
p r o a n t h o c y a n i d i n - f r ee
barley.
show
with
starch
had
Average
Feed
= -0.85)
the
difference
parent
( P = O. 0 7 ) «
had
chicks for
normal
IB).
is. p r e s e n t e d
= 0.54),
(1984)
feed effic ie n cy
value
significant
whi ch had t h e l o w e s t
bet a-glucan
Newman
types
(1.62)
respectively),
Feed
a
correlation
barley,
537
and
slightly
had a n e g a t i v e
content
showed
and
barley
included
in
nutritional
their
parent
feed/ gain
1.3-1
STARCH (% )
r 59
Legend
□ FEED/GAIN
EZl STARCH CS)
Figure 7.
Feed t o
gain r a t i o
of
the
chicks vs.
starch
content
of
the
barleys
(r = - 0 .85).
BETAGLUCAN
r5
feed/ gain
1.3-1
Legend
□ FEED/GAIN
ZZl BETA-GLUCAN (%)
1.4-
- 4 .5
1.5-
-4
1. 6 -
1.7-
1.8 -
^
< o& VS9
Figure
8.
Feed t o g a i n r a t i o s o f t h e
of t he b a r l e y s ( r = 0 . 5 4 ) .
chicks
^
vs. t o t a l
^
«,Ok'
beta-glucan
content
59
Chick Di e t
Results
presented
starch
in
content
Table
14.
from
the
Table
14.
of
the
Preference
chick
diet
Chicks'
barleys
Chick p r e f e r e n c e
mutant barleys.
Feed
Barley
Trial
preference
feed
is
for
consumption
presented in
diets
trial
versus
F i g u r e 9.
composed of
p a re n t and
Total
c o n s u me d
- -g°*”
T r i u mp h
Ga l a n t
- -g - 3 80
321
™
54
46
701
Moravian I I I
ANT 6 0 5
I 91
495
28
72
686
Andr e
ANT 587
384
293
57
43
677
Robust
ANT 625
305
393
44
56
698
Advance
ANT 537
618
53
92
8
671
Karla
ANT 504
556
169
77
23
725
406
2 87
59
41
Parent
Mut ant
(JO
(X)
Chicks
preferred
ANT 537 g r a i n
by c o n s u m p t i o n o f 53 g r a m s
consumed
537.
These
lowest
which
618
Chicks
two
Advance
preferred
mutant
starch
ma y
g of
Karla
barleys,
the
by 10 c h i c k s
as
the
over
for
the
as
evidenced
i n 20 d a y s .
choice
ANT 50 4 by 556 g t o
ANT 53 7
low
least
alternate
and
a n d w e r e a mo n g t h e h i g h e s t
account
are
ANT 5 0 4 ,
They
to
ANT
169 8«
have
the
b e t a - g l ucan c o n t e n t ,
preference
by
the
chicks.
Legend
FEED ,
3)
CON!
650-
I
600-
(%)
-5 7
4
%
I
I
%
550500450400350-
-5 6
-5 5
-5 4
-5 3
//
300-
-5 2
I
I%
250200150100-
-51
-5 0
-4 9
v
i
in i I
I
50-
y,
0#
Figure 9.
starch
□ FEED CONSUMED (g>-59
1221 STARCH (%)
^
6&
<
Chick d i e t p r e f e r e n c e
of t h e b a r l e y s .
^
trial
feed consumption vs.
-4 8
^ 0 '
starch
content
61
There
also
affects
the
reported
that
may.
chick
feed
chicks
d ie ts with s u f f ic ie n t
normal
be
an
unknown
selection.
factor
Kaufman
et
al.
have d e m o n strated the a b i l i t y
protein-carbohydrate ratio
which
(I 978)
to s e l e c t
to maintain
growth.
Rat N i t r o g e n B a l a n c e
Proximate
balance
Table
present
studies
15.
c o m p o n en ts of r a t
are
Trial
d i e t s fed in the n itro g e n
shown i n T a b l e
15.
Proximate c o m p o si t i o n of r a t d i e t s p re p a red w i t h
p a r e n t and m u t a n t b a r l e y s , dry m a t t e r b a s i s .
NDF
ADF
ASH
Ca
P
5.0
6.0
9.8
10.0
3.9
3.9
4.7
4.8
0.91
0.95
0.67
0.70
9.9
10.3
6.1
5.7
8.4
9. 1
3.2
3.4
4.6
4.5
0.87
0.83
0.65
0.68
Andre
ANT 587
10.6
9.4
4.9
5.4
10.0
7 .7
3.4
2.9
4.7
4.4
0.91
0.86
0.66
0.59
Robust
ANT 625
9.5
9.6
5.4
5.2
8.2
8.4
2.5
3.4
4.8
4.4
I .08
0.85
0.65
0.59
5.3
9.9
10.0 , 4.9
9.7
9.7
3.8
3.7
4.5
4.3
0.86
0.85
0.65
0.60
4.6
3.9
5.2
4.6
0.91
0.86
0.73
0.66
3.9 ,
4.8
0.90
0.66
Diet
PROTa EE
Tr i umph
Ga l a n t
10.1
10. 1
Moravian I I I
ANT 6 0 5
Advance
ANT 537
Karl a
ANT 50 4
9.8
9.8
5.1
5.4
11.9
9.8
Control
(Clark)
9.8
5.3
9.6
a PROT = p r o t e i n , EE = e t h e r e x t r a c t , NDF = n e u t r a l d e t e r g e n t
fiber,
ADF = a c i d d e t e r g e n t f i b e r ,
Ca= calcium ,
P =
phosphorus.
62
R e s u l t s of
the
parent
Control
and m u ta n t
data
eliminate
the r a t
were
trial
n itro g en balance
barleys,
averaged
effect;
are
and t h e
original
trials,
presented
me a n v a l u e s
data
are
in
comparing
Table
16.
were used to
s h o wn i n A p p e n d i x
B.
Table
16.
C o m p a r i s o n of p a r e n t and m u t a n t b a r l e y s f o r t r u e
protein d ig e stib ility ,
b i o l o g i c a l v a l u e and
net
protein
utilization,
r a t t r i a l s , adjusted data.
Diets
TPDa
T r i urn ph
Galant
-Jl82 . 6
82.2
85 .1
84.8
Moravian
ANT 60 5
III
NPU
BV
(P= )
' (P= )
(P= )
(.76)
71 .6
86.5
(.82)
80 .6
75.5
(.00)
59.3
71.5
(.18)
(.20)
68.7
64.2
(.18)
( .01)
53.4
62.7
(.01)
(.04)
70.3
66.0
(.21)
(.23)
61 . 2
67.7
(.06)
(.99)
An d r e
ANT 587
81 . 0
83.9
(.07)
66 .2
74.6
Robust
ANT 62 5
82 . 4
85.5
(.06)
84.8
76.9
Advance
ANT 537
86 . 6
90.4
(.02)
70 .6
75.2
Karla
ANT 50 4
81 . 8
87.7
(.00)
79 . 9
74.4
(.16)
65.0
65.0
83.3
85 . 8 ( . 0 0 )
75.6
77.2
( .32)
63.0
66 . 2 ( . 0 0 )
Parent
Mutant
(JO
(X)
S.E.b
0.3 5
0.98
0.85
a TPD = t r u e p r o t e i n d i g e s t i b i l i t y , BV = b i o l o g i c a l v a l u e ,
NPU = n e t p r o t e i n u t i l i z a t i o n .
S. E. = S t a n d a r d e r r o r of t h e
mean d i f f e r e n c e .
Probability
values
a r e shown in each
col umn.
^SE = s t a n d a r d
error
of
t h e me a n .
Tr ue
mutants
protein
(85.8%)
digestibility
(r
= 0.79,
digestibility
than
higher for
Biological
negatively
correlated
- 0 . 4 1 ) and s o l u b l e
statistically
relationship
True
protein
protein
content
with
the mutants
value
no
with
total
and
the
wa s
10
different
mutant
being
content
(r
N PU
=
neither
were,
the
content.
for
There
and
the
the
was,
barley
wa s a n a l y z e d .
al.
barleys.
show
for
(63.0%).
between
parents
( P=O. 00)
(1984)
found
the
protein
p r o a n t h o c y a n i d i n - f r ee b a r l e y s w i t h r a t s
not
the
represents
beta-glucan
parents
the
trend
bet a-glucan
Figure
utilization
that
a
than
b e t a - g l u c a n ( r = - 0 . 4 5) b u t
correlation
New man e t
normal
for
t h a t was d i g e s t e d
(7 7. 2%)
showed
b e t w e e n BV a nd t o t a l
(66.2%)
composition
the p ro te in
significant.
protein
however,
for
(83.3%).'
correlated
v a l u e of
(75.6%).
m utants
higher
P C 0 . 0 1 ).
slightly
Ne t
slightly
parents
wa s p o s i t i v e l y
The b i o l o g i c a l
was
the
was
mo r e
whe n c o m p a r e d t o
Rat s t u d i e s i n c l u d e d i n t h i s
consistent
superior
b a r l e y s . whe n c o m p a r e d
to
digestible
re s e a rc h did
nutritional
value
their
barleys.
parent
f or ^ t h e
Muffin E v a l u a t i o n
Andre/ANT
baked
product
Judd
human
5 87
Ro b u s t / A N T
6 25
were
selected
for
barley
into
evaluation.
(1982)
diets
and
by
studied
the
substituting
acceptability
barley
for
of
other
cereals
in
BETA- /ex
GLUCAN (%)
r 5
Legend
□ BIOLOGICAL V/
122 BETA-GLUCAN
< b&
Figure
10.
Rat n i t r o g e n b a l a n c e t r i a l
of t he b a r l e y s ( r = - 0 . 4 1 ) .
j P ^
biological
^
v a l u e s vs.
b0'
beta-glucan
content
daily
meals;
without
fiber
taking
content
of
Proximate
17.
muffins
Table
components
of
presented
in
As
average d higher
(32.0$)
than
17.
diets
were
increased
supplements.
Proximate
Table
the
the
wheat
Analysis
the
muffins
Table
estimated
muffin
17,
are
presented
the
four
dietary
in
barley
fiber
content
(19.8$).
Protein, ether extract,
f i b e r a n a l y s e s , ash,
s t a r c h and e n e r g y of b a r l e y and w h e at m u f f i n s ,
dry m a t t e r b a sis .
An d r e
ANT
587
Robust
ANT
625
14.3
10.8
14.5
11 . 6
14.9
11.9
15.3
11.8
14.7
I I .5
NDF
ADF
2.6
1.8
10.3
4.7
9.9
5.4
11.2
4.8
11 . 5
5.3
EDF
ASH
19.8
4.3
31 . 8
5.3
32.0
5.4
31.3
5.2
32.7
5.4
STARCH
45.7
32.1
31.1
31.8
31 . 2
Kc a l Vg
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.4
Qualitya
parameter
Wh e a t
flour
PROTEIN
EE .
4.4
a EE = e t h e r e x t r a c t , NDF =. n e u t r a l d e t e r g e n t f i b e r , ADF =
a c i d d e t e r g e n t f i b e r , EDF = e s t i m a t e d d i e t a r y f i b e r .
All
dietary
was
barley
fiber
higher
sim ilar
wheat
in
flour
m u f f i n s were h i g h e r i n p r o t e i n and e s t i m a t e d
than
the
in
the
all
five
was
wheat
wheat
flour
muffin
muffins.
11$.
Ami no
muffin.
and
The
acid
Starch
caloric
protein
content
content
content
analysis
is
of
shown
was
the
in
66
Table
18.
As w i t h
the ba rle y m u f f i n s
Table
18.
protein,
than in
lysine
was
slightly
higher
in
the wheat muffin.
Ami no a c i d c o n t e n t a n d e s t i m a t e d
of b a r l e y and wh eat m u f f i n s .
available
lysine
ANT 625
Ami no a c i d a
Wh e a t
Andre
ANT 587
Robust
Alanine
Arginine
0.339
0.375
0.393
0.442
0.420
0.453
0.418
0.512
Aspartic acid
Glutamic acid
0.608
2.920
0.719
2.260
0.768
2.420
0.793
2.520
Glycine
Histidine
0.288
0.233
0.300
0.229
0.346
0.244
0.330
0.257
0.321
0.247
I s o l e u c i ne
Leucine
0.495
0.882
0 .474
0.860
0.494
0.915
0.506
0.923
0.495
0.889
Lysine
Methionine
0.372
0.148
0.447
0.159
0.468
0.151
0.481
0.161
0.455
0.14 8
Phenylalanine
Proline
0 . 6 31
0.761
0.576
0.742
0.623
0.802
0.724
0.813
0 . 6 98
0.796
Serine
T h r e o n i ne
0.544
0.337
0.502
0.370
0.520
0.394
0.544
0.407
0.519
0.389
T y r o s i ne
Valine
0.341
0.549
0.353
0 . 5 90
0.361
0.625
0.401
0.630
0.369
0.586
TOTAL
9.820
9.420
I 0.000
10.400
9.950
Estimated
available
lysine
0.370
0.300
0.400
0.410
0.410
aCystine/2
and t r y p t o p h a n w e r e
Objective
Percent
i n T a b l e 19.
color
The
reflectance
not
0 .405
0.480
.
0.752
2.400
determined.
Evaluation
of
the
muffins
is
presented
wheat f l o u r m u ff in had h i g h e r ( l i g h t e r )
67
readings
barley
for
all
four
m uffins
and
difference
could
colors.
AN T 6 25
affect
grain-type
barleys
their
were
parent
Tabl e
darkest.
preference,
while
product.
slightly
the
consumer
prefer a l ig h te r muffin,
whole
A n d r e wa s t h e l i g h t e s t
as
the
This
color
s ome
people
o t h e r s ma y p r e f e r a d a r k e r ,
The p r o a n t h o c y a n i d i n - f r e e
darker
of
in
the
red
mutant
reflectance
than
barleys.
Percent color
muffins.
I 9.
of b a r l e y
reflectance
and w h e a t
Percent r e fle c ta n c e a
Yellow
Red
27
50
An d r e
ANT 587
18
16
38
35
55
49
46
41
Robust
ANT 625
17
I5
35
33
50
47
42
39
t h e means o f
Volume m e a s u r e m e n t s
Table
20.
three
and
were
57
batches.
pH r e s u l t s
Vo l u me m e a s u r e m e n t s
i
are
i
a Percentages
I
i
Wh e a t f l o u r
i
i
i
i
Green
I -=T
W .V O
Blue
,
are
slightly
presented
higher
b a r l e y m u f f i n s whe n c o m p a r e d t o t h e w h e a t m u f f i n s ;
were
similar
for
all
panelists
to
the
pH v a l u e s
muffins.
Sensory
M u ffin s were
for
in
evaluated
determine
Evaluation
by t r a i n e d
differences
and
consum er
taste
and
acceptability.
68
T a b l e 20.
Vol ume a n d pH o f
barley
and wheat m u f f i n s .
Spec if ic
v o l ume
pH
38.7
-cc/g2.98
6.57
Andre
ANT 587
43 . 7
42.0
3 . 36
3.23
6.40
6 .2 2
Robust
ANT 62 5
45 .3
47.0
3 . 48
3 .6 2
6 .49
6.42
Muffin
V o l u me a
Wh e a t f l o u r
-C C -
a Vo l u me a n d pH v a l u e s
Trained
taste
22.
not t e l l
w ith
taste
The
difference
the
panel
trained
parent
of
the
differentiate
are
presented
were
in
and
mutant
content
muffins
scores
Table
f o r t h e s c o r e s of w h e at,
trained
of
panelists.
the
( P<0. 0 1 ).
to
muffins.
barleys
for
the
There
no
not
trained
barley
trained
was
The
did
the
and m u t a n t
Tables
tell
21
the
They c o u l d
baked
different
affect
panel
the
to
muffins.
taste
significant
panel
are
difference
A n d r e a n d AN T 5 87 m u f f i n s j u d g e d by
When
compared
R o b u s t a n d AN T 6 25 h a d s i g n i f i c a n t l y
wheat m u f f i n
able
barleys.
enough
for
23.
in
(P<0. 0 1) between the m u ff in s
between pa re nt
Hedonic
the
results
panelists
difference
p r o a n t h o cy a n i d i n
presented
th re e measurements.
b e t w e e n t h e w h e a t and b a r l e y
the
flavor
t h e means of
panels
Trained
and
are
to
the
lower
wheat
muffin,
scores than the
69
Table
21.
Taste panel response using t r i a n g l e
compar e b a r l e y and w h e a t m u f f i n s .
.
Tri angle
Panel I
Wh e a t v s .
Wh e a t V s .
Andre v s .
Panel Z
Wh e a t v s . R o b u s t
Wh e a t V s . ANT 62 5
R o b u s t v s . ANT 6 25
ooo i n d i c a t e s
a significant
C o n s u me r t a s t e
when
be
sim ilar
(P<0.05)
587
Although
compared
barley
to
the
identification
consumer
Andr e m u f f i n ,
There
was
panels
( P < 0 . 0 0 1) .
the
a
lowest.
the
are presented in
consumers
a higher
judged
significant
w h e a t a n d ANT 587
scores for
muffins,
There
was
score
them
difference
with
no
the
ANT
difference
A n d r e a n d ANT 5 87 m u f f i n s .
as h av in g
to
the m ild e s t
The
flavor
of
muffins.
significantly
almost
correct
wheat m u ff in o b ta in e d
scoring
Hedonic
These
1000
3000
24
the
Andre m u f f i n was r e p o r t e d
the
30
28
7
the
between the
between the
23
for
( P < 0 .0 5 ) .
muffin
3000
I OO 0
33
35
13
panels
Hedonic s c o r e s
T a b l e 23.
to
Incorrect
Correct
An d r e
ANT 5 87
ANT 587
tests
barley
scores
lower
muffins
rye-like
for
the
than
were
flavor.
Robust
those
of
reported
a n d ANT 6 25
the
as
wheat
having
muffins
muffin
a very
were
( P < 0 . 0 1 ).
strong,
70
Table 22.
Mean h e d o n i c
scores
of
barley
and
wheat
m u f f i n s , ,consumer and t r a i n e d t a s t e p a n e l s .
Muffin
type
C o n s u me r p a n e l
n
Score
Trained panel
n
Score
Wh e a t
Andre
ANT 587
100
7 . 0 +1 .4 b*
6 . 8±1 . 6 ab
6 . 6 +1 .6 a
36
Wh e a t
Robust
ANT 625
I 00
7 . 1± 1 . 3 boo
6 . 4±1 . 5 a
6 . 6±.1 . 4 a
31
o Values in a group
t h a t do n o t
d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y (P<0.05).
eo P<0 . 0 1 .
Results
from
Andre
accepted
stronger
containing
from
the
and
ANT
by c o n s u m e r s .
flavors,
rye
or
taste
587
share
the
6 . 5±1 . 3
6 . 1±1 . 5
6 . 3±1 »6
6 . 6± 1 . 0- b®°
5 . 3±1 . 8 a
5 . 5±1 . 6 a
s a me l e t t e r
panels
show
that
barleys
have
promise
products
of
R o b u s t a n d AN T 6 2 5 b a r l e y s ,
could
in other
be
incorporated
strong
flavored
(a,b)
into
products.
ma de
being
having
products
71
CONCLUSIONS
chemical
c o n s t i t u e n t s of b a r l e y
t h a t have been p r e v i o u s l y
shown t o h a v e a n e g a t i v e
on p r o t e i n
a nd n u t r i t i o n a l
al,
1 9 84) .
did
not
digestibility
Rat and
show
chick
consistent
proanthocyan!din-free
barleys.
Other
structure,
the
barleys
fiber,
results
included
superior
of
barley
animal
( Newman e t
this
value
compared
to
and
research
for
the
including
b e t a - g l u c a n s,
of
in
nutritional
wh e n
constituents
total
influence
studies
quality
influence
normal
protein
starch
and p o u l t r y
the
w ill
evaluations.
T h e s e f a c t o r s m u s t be " e q u a l i z e d " a s m u c h a s p o s s i b l e w h e n
comparisons are
Consumer
ma de
and
compare
muffins
barleys.
Trained
d i f f e r e n ce
to prevent
trained
made
between
tended
to
judged
normal
barley
muffin.
Th e
preferred
It
wheat
parent
favor
m ajority
including
concluded
protein,
proanthocyan!dins,
that
all
starch,
influence
the
were
two
not
mutant
to
trained
th e wheat muffin over
is
could
mild
muffin
of
and
and
a
conclusions.
panels
panelists
Consumers
one
taste
from
taste
incorrect
the
conducted
parent
taste
in
a
be s i m i l a r
and
wheat
judges
of
barley,
be t a - g l u c a n s
nutritional
be c o n s i d e r e d wh e n c o m p a r i s o n s a r e ma d e .
to.the
and
muffins.
constituents
fiber,
the
tested.
muffin
consumer
barley
mutant
distinguish
barleys
to
value
and
and mus t
REFERENCES CITED
73
Aa s t r u p , S.
1985.
A te s t for presence
p r o a n t h o cy a n d i n s i n b a r l e y a n d m a l t .
Commun.
50:37-42.
or a b se n c e of
C a r l s b e r g Res.
A astrup,
S.
a n d H.
Out t r u p .
1 9 85 .
Location
and
c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of b a r l e y f l a v a n o i d s d u r i n g g r a i n
filling.
EBC C o n g r e s s , p p . 6 6 7 - 6 7 4 .
A a s t r u p , S . , H. O u t t r u p a n d K. E r d a l . 1 9 84.
L o c a t i o n of t h e
p r o a n t h o cy a n i d i n s i n t h e b a r l e y g r a i n .
C a r l s b e r g Re s .
Commun.
4 9:105-109.
8 ma n,
P. a n d K. H e s s e l m a n . 1 9 8 4 .
A nalysis of
o t h e r main c o n s t i t u e n t s of c e r e a l g r a i n s .
A g r i c. Res .
1 4 : 1 3 5- 1 3 9 «
Amerine,
M. A. R. M. P a n g b o r n a n d E . B .
P r i n c i p l e s of S e n s o r y E v a l u a t i o n of
A c a d e m i c P r e s s , New Yor k.
AOAC.
s t a r c h and
S w e d i s h J.
Roessler.
1 96 5 .
F o o d , P P« 5 2 6 - 5 2 7 .
1980.
O fficial
Methods of A n a ly s is ,
ed.
13.
A ssociation
of O f f i c i a l
A nalytical
C hem ists.
Washington,
D.C.
ASTM C o m m i t t e e E - 1 8 on S e n s o r y E v a l u a t i o n o f M a t e r i a l s a n d
P r o d u c t s . I 968.
Manual on S e n s o r y T e s t i n g M et h o d s ,
ASTM STP 4 3 4 , p p . 1 - 7 7 •
A me r . S o c . f o r T e s t i n g a n d
Materials, Philadelphia.
ASTM C o m m i t t e e E - 1 8 on S e n s o r y E v a l u a t i o n o f M a t e r i a l s a n d
P r o d u c t s . 1981. G u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e S e l e c t i o n and
T r a i n i n g o f S e n s o r y P a n e l Me mb e r s , ASTM STP, pp. 1 - 3 5 .
Am e r . S o c . f o r T e s t i n g a n d M a t e r i a l s ,
Philadelphia.
Ba c h K n u d s e n, K.E.
1 983.
The e c o n o m i c s i n b r e e d i n g b a r l e y
for feed q uality.
Sveriges Utsadesforeningen Tidsckeft
93:227-233.
BachKnudsen,
K. E. a n d B . 0, E g g u m . 1 9 8 4 .
The n u t r i t i v e
v a l u e of b o t a n i c a l l y d e f i n e d m i l l f r a c t i o n s of b a r l e y .
National
Institute
of Animal S c i e n c e ,
Copenhagen,
Denmark.
2.
T ierphysiolo.,
Ti e r e n a h r g .
u.
Futtermittelkde
51:130-148.
Bell,
J . M. , A. S h i r e s , a n d M. 0. K e i t h . 1 9 8 3 .
E f f e c t of h u l l
and p r o t e i n c o n t e n t s o f b a r l e y on p r o t e i n a n d e n e r g y
d i g e s t i b i l i t y and f e e d i n g v a l u e f o r p ig s .
Ca n.
J.
A n i m. S c i .
63:201-211.
Berk,
Z.
1 97 6 . T h e B i o c h e m i s t r y
of F o o d s .
S c i e n t i f i c P u b l i s h i n g Co mp a n y , A m s t e r d a m .
Elsevier
74
B e r n h a r t , F. W. a n d R. M„ Tom a r e l l i .
1966.
A sa lt mixture
s u p p l y i n g t h e N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C o u n cil e s t i m a t e s of
m i n e r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s of the r a t .
J. N u t r . 8 9 : 4 9 5 .
B h a t t y , R . S . , J . D . B e r d a h l a n d G. I . C h r i s t i s o n .
Ch e m i c a l c o m p o s i t i o n and
d i g e s t i b l e e ne r gy of
Ca n. J . Ani m. S c i . 5 5 : 7 5 9 - 7 6 4 .
Briggs,
D.E.,
1978.
Barley.
London,
1 975 .
barley.
Chapman and H a l l ,
NY.
Buckley,
K. E.
a n d T. J .
Devlin.
1 9 83.
Influence
of
p r o c e s s i n g on i n v i t r o d i g e s t i b i l i t y of r y e ,
corn,
b a r l e y and o a t s .
Ca n . J . A n i m . S c i .
63: 97-103.
Burger.
W. C. , A. A. Q u r e s h i , Z. Z. D i n , N.
C. E.
El s o n .
1 9 84.
Suppression
biosynthesis
by c o n s t i t u e n t s
of
Atherosclerosis
51:75-87.
A b u i r m e i l eh and
of
cholesterol
barley
kernel.
C a m p b e l l . A.M.,
M.P. P e n f i e l d a n d R.M. G r i s w o l d .
E x p e r i m e n t a l S t u d y o f F o o d , pp. 16 2 - 2 0 6 .
M i f f l i n , B o s t o n , 1 979.
1 97 9.
The
Hough t o n
C l a r k , E.P. a n d J . B. Col I i p .
1 925.
M o d i f i c a t i o n of. KramerT i s d a l l method f o r calcium d e t e r m i n a t i o n .
In:
Ha wk s
P h y s i o l o g i c a l C h e m i s t r y , 1 4 t h e d . , ( O s e r , B. L. e d . ) ,
1 1 3 3 - 1 137.
M c G r a w - H i l l , NY.
C o l l i e r . G., A. I . L e s h n e r a n d R. L.
self-selectio n
in
active,
P h y s . and B e h a v i o r
4:79-82.
Coon,
Squibb.
1 96 9.
Dietary
and
non-active
rats.
C. W. , R. S h e p i e r , D. M c F a r l a n d a n d J . N o r d h e i m .
1 978.
The n u t r i t i o n e v a l u a t i o n o f b a r l e y s e l e c t i o n s an d
c u l t i v a r s from Washington S t a t e .
Poult. Sci.
58:913918.
De Man,
W. a n d P. D o n d e y n e .
I 985.
E f f e c t of n i t r o g e n
f e r t i l i s a t i o n on p r o t e i n c o n t e n t ,
to ta l fa tty acid
c o n t e n t a n d c o m p o s i t i o n o f b a r l e y ( Ho r d e u m v u i g a r a L . )
grains.
J. S c i . Food A g r i c.
36: 1 8 6- 1 90.
De M u e l e n a e r e . H . J . H . , M- L. C h e n , a n d A. E, H a r p e r .
1 967.
A s se ss m en t of f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g e s t i m a t i o n of l y s i n e
a v a i l a b i l i t y in cereal products.
J . A g r . F o o d Ch e m.
15:310-317.
D o l l - H.
1 984.
N u t r i t i o n a l a s p e c t s of c e r e a l
a p p r o a c h e s t o overcome t h e i r d e f i c i e n c i e s .
R. S o c. L o n d .
B. 3 0 4 : 37 3 - 3 80 .
p r o t e i n s and
Phil. Trans.
75
E g g u m . B. 0.
1 97 3.
B i o l o g i c a l a v a i l a b i l i t y of amino a c i d
c o n s t i t u e n t s in g rain p ro te in . In:
Nuclear Techniques
f o r S e e d P r d t e i n I m p r o v e m e n t , 42 2 pp.
IAEA, V i e n n a .
E g g u m , B. O.
1984.
cereal mutants.
E v a l u a t i o n of
IAEA, V i e n n a ,
the
pp.
protein
347-355.
quality
of
E g g u m , B. O. , E. P. A l a b a t a a n d B.O. J u l i a n o .
1 9 82.
Protein
u t i l i z a t i o n of p i g m e n t e d and n o n p i g m e n t e d brown and
m i l l e d r i c e s by r a t s .
Q u a l . P l a n t . F o o d s Hum. N u t r .
31:175.
E g g u m . B. 0. , B. P e d e r s e n ,
a n d I . J a c o b s e n . 1 9 83 .
The
i n f l u e n c e o f d i e t a r y t e a , c o f f e e , a n d c o c o a on p r o t e i n
and e n e r g y u t i l i z a t i o n o f s o y a - b e a n and b a r l e y i n r a t s .
B r i t i s h J. o f N u t r . 5 0 : 1 9 7 - 2 0 5 .
E r d a l , K. , H. O u t t r u p , a n d B. A h r e n s t - L a r s e n . 1 9 8 3 .
Th e
r o l e of p r o a n t h o c y a n i d i n s i n b e e r f l a v o u r and f l a v o u r
stability.
EBC C o n g r e s s 1 983 , P o s t e r No. 2 3 , PP. 5 5 7 564.
C a r l s b e r g R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , De n ma r k .
F a d e l . J . G . , R. K. N e w m a n , C. W. N e w m a n a n d A. E. B a r n e s .
1986.
H y p o c h o l e s t e r o l e m i c e f f e c t s of b e t a - g l u c a n s i n
different
barley
diets
fed
to
broiler
chicks.
N u t r i t i o n Repor ts I n t e r n a t i o n a l ( s u b m i t t e d ).
Fiske.
C. H.
and
Y.
Sabbarow.
1 92 5 .
Phosphorus
d e t e r m i n a t i o n . J. B i o l . Chem.
66:37 5- 400.
Gous,
R. M. , a n d T. R. M o r r i s . 1 9 8 5 .
E v a l u a t i o n of a d i e t
dilution
technique for measuring
the response
of
broiler
c h i c k e n s to i n c r e a s i n g c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of
lysine.
B r i t . P o u l t . S c i . 26:1 4 7 - 1 6 1 .
H o f e r . P. J .
1 985 .
The c o m p o s i t i o n a n d n u t r i t i o n a l v a l u e
of a h i g h l y s i n e , h i g h s u g a r b a r l e y .
M aster's Thesis,
M o n t a n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Boz e ma n.
Jende-Strid,
B.
synthesis in
273 .
Judd,
1978. M u t a t i o n s a f f e c t i n g f l a v o n o i d
barley.
C a r l s b e r g R e s . Co mmu n .
43:265-
P.
I 982.
Th e e f f e c t s o f h i g h i n t a k e s o f b a r l e y o n
g a s t r o i n t e s t i n a l f u n c t i o n and a p p a r e n t d i g e s t i b i l i t i e s
of dry m a t t e r , n i t r o g e n and f a t i n human v o l u n t e e r s .
J. of P l a n t Foods
4:79-88.
K a k a d e . M. L. a n d I . E . L i e n e r . 1 9 6 9 .
D e t e r m i n a t i o n of
a v a ila b le ly s in e in p ro te in s.
A n a l y t i c a l Bi o chem.
2 7 : 273- 2 8 0 .
76
K a u f m a n , L. , G. C o l l i e r a n d R. L. S q u i b b . 1 97 8 .
a d e q u a t e p r o t e i n - c a r b o h y d r a t e r a t i o by
chick.
P h y s. a n d B e h a v i o r
20:339-344.
Kent,
S e l e c t i o n of
the dom estic
N. L .
1983.
Barley:
Processing,
nutritio n al
a t t r i b u t e s and t e c h n o l o g i c a l u s e s , In :
Technology of
C e r e a l s , 3 r d e d . , pp. 1 5 4 - 1 6 4 , P e r g a m o n P r e s s , O x f o r d .
Kristiansen,
K.N.
1 984.
B i o s y n t h e s i s o f p r o a n t h o c y a n i d i ns
in b arley :
genetic
control
of th e
c o n v e r s i o n of
dihydroquercetin
to
catechin
and p r o c y a n i d i ns.
C a r l s b e r g Res . Commun. 4 9 : 5 0 3 - 5 2 4 .
L e s h n e r , A. I . , G. H. C o l l i e r a n d R. L. S q u i b b .
1971.
Dietary
s e l f - s e l e c t i o n at cold te m p e ra tu re s .
P h y s. a n d
Behavior
6:1-3.
L il burn,
M. S. ,
L. S.
J e n s e n a n d A. Br e n e s .
1 984.
Feed
p r e f e r e n c e by y o u n g b r o i l e r c h i c k s a s a f f e c t e d by
in g re d ie n t d ifferen c es in n u t r i t i o n a l l y balanced d iets.
N u t r . and B e h a v i o r
2:19-26.
MacKey.
J.
1981.
Cereal production.
In:
Cereals a
Renewable R e s o u r c e :
Theory and P r a c t i c e .
(Pomeranz,
Y. a n d L. M u n c k , e d s . ) .
pp. 5 - 2 3 .
Am e r . A s s o c . C e r e a l
Chem. , S t . P a u l .
Mi t a r u, B. N . , R.D. R e i c h e r t , a n d R. B l a i r . 1 9 8 5 .
Protein
and amino a c id
d ig e stib ilitie s
for
c h i c k e n s of
r e c o n s t i t u t e d and b o i l e d sorghum g r a i n s v a r y i n g i n
tannin contents.
Poult. Sci. 64:101-106.
Montana A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s .
1984.
M o n t a n a Crop a nd
L i v e s t o c k R e p o r t i n g S e r v i c e , Vo l . XXI, H e l e n a , MT.
Montana A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s . 1985.
M o n t a n a Crop a nd
L i v e s t o c k R e p o r t i n g S e r v i c e , Vo l . XXI I , H e l e n a , MT.
MSU S T AT. V e r s i o n 2 . 2 0 .
U n i v e r s i t y , B o z e ma n .
R.
Lund.
1 983.
Montana
State
M u n c k , L.
1981.
B arley f o r food, feed and i n d u s t r y .
In:
C e r e a ls , A Renewable R esource; Theory and P r a c t i c e .
(Pomeranz,
Y. a n d M u n c k . L . , e d s . ) , p p . 4 2 7 - 4 5 9 »
Amer . A s s o c . C e r e a l Chem. , S t .
Paul.
Ne wma n, C. W. a n d C.F. Mc G u i r e .
1 985. N u t r i t i o n a l q u a l i t y o f
barley pp.403-456
In:
Barley,
D. C. R a s m u s s o n , e d .
Ag r o n o my Mo n o g r a p h No. 2 6 .
77
Newman, fi.K. a nd C.W. Newman.
1985.
B e t a - g l ucanase e f f e c t
on t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f b r o i l e r c h i c k s f e d c o v e r e d a n d
h u l l e s s b a r l e y i s o t y p e s h a v i n g n o r m a l a n d wa x y s t a r c h .
P r o c . W e s t . S e c t . A me r . S o c . o f An. S c i .
36:239-242.
N e w m a n , R. K. , C.W. N e w m a n , A. M. E l - N e g o u m y , a n d S. A a s t r u p .
1984.
N u t r i t i o n a l q u a l i t y of p r o a n t h o c y a n ! d i n - f r e e
barley.
N u t r . Re p . I n t .
30:809-816.
N e w m a n , R.K. a n d D. C. S a n d s , 1 9 8 3 Dietary se le c tio n
l y s i n e by t h e c h i c k .
P hys. and B e h a v i o r 3 1 : 1 3 - 1 9 .
Nordheim,
J . P. a n d C.N. C o o n .
methods for d e te rm in in g
p ro te in meals.
Foul. S c i .
O u t t r u p , H.
1981.
EBC C o n g r e s s ,
for
1 984.
A C o m p a r i s o n of f o u r
a v a ila b le ly sin e in animal
6 3: 1 0 4 0 - 1 0 5 1 .
S t r u c t u r e of
pp. 3 2 3 - 3 3 3 .
prodelphinidins
in
barley.
O u t t r u p , H. a n d K. E r d a l .
1983.
Haze f o r m i n g p o t e n t i a l of
p r o a n t h o c y a n i d i ns.
EBC C o n g r e s s , 1 9 8 3 » L e c t u r e # 3 2 ,
PP. 3 0 7 - 3 1 4 .
C a r l s b e r g R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , De n ma r k .
O u t t r u p , H. a n d K. S c h a u m b u r g . 1981.
Structure elucidation
o f s o m e p r o a n t h o c y a n i d i n s i n b a r l e y by
H270 MHz NMR
spectroscopy.
C a r l s b e r g Re s . Commun.
46:43-52.
P e l l e t , P. L.
1978.
Fo o d T e c h n o l o g y
P o e h l m a n , J . M.
17.
In:
Monogr a ph,
Pomeranz,
Food
Protein quality
5:60-80.
evaluation revisited.
1 985.
A d a p t a t i o n a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n , pp. 2 Barley,
D.C.Rasmusson,
ed.
Agronomy
No. 26.
Y. 1 982.
Grain s t r u c t u r e
M i c r o s t r u c t u r e 1:1 0 7 - 1 2 4 .
Profodcil Bulletin.
and m a r k e t i n g .
and
end-use
properties.
1981.
B a r l e y - a s u r v e y on p r o d u c t i o n
P r o f o d c i l B u l l e t i n 16:50-59.
Raw s o n , N. a n d R. R. M a h o n e y .
1 983.
A m o d if ie d method f o r
d e t e r m i n a t i o n of r e a c t i v e l y s i n e i n m i l k powder u s i n g
rem azo l b r i l l i a n t blue r.
Lebensm.-Wiss.U.-Technol.
16:1-4.
Robbins,
G. S.
and Y P o m e r a n z .
.1971.
C o m p o s i t i o n and
u t i l i z a t i o n of m i l l e d b a r l e y p r o d u c ts I I I :
amino a c i d
composition.
C e r e a l Chem. 4 9 : 2 4 0 - 2 4 6 .
R o b e r t s o n , J . B . a n d P. J . Va n S o e s t .
1 977.
estim ation in concentrate feedstuffs.
45, S u p p l e . I : 245.
Dietary fib e r
J . A n i m. S c i .
78
Roth. N.J.L.,
G.H.
Watts,
a n d C. W. Ne wma n .
1 982.
Beta■ g lu c a n a s e as an a id i n m e a s u r i n g n e u t r a l d e t e r g e n t
f ib e r in barley kernels.
C e r e a l Chem.
58:353-362.
S AS.
1 9 85.
S t a t i s t i c Analysis
Cary,
North Ca ro lin a .
Systems
Institute,
Inc.
S c h i m b e r n i . M., F. C a r d i n a l ! , G. S o d i n i , a n d M. C a n e l l a.
1 9 82.
Chemical and f u n c t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of c orn
b r a n , o a t h u l l f l o u r and b a r l e y h u l l f l o u r .
Lebensm.Wiss.U.-Technol.
I 5:337-339.
S o r u m . D. L.
1977.
A study
p r o c e d u r e s to b a rle y .
U n i v e r s i t y , Bo z e ma n .
adapting s o ft wheat e v alu a tio n
M a s te r 's T h esis, Montana S t a t e
S p a ckm a n , D . H . ,
W.H. S t e i n a n d S. M o o r e .
1958.
Automatic
r e c o r d i n g a p p a r a t u s f o r u s e i n c h r o m a t o g r a p h y of ami no
acids.
J . A n a l . Chem. 3 0 : 1 1 9 0 - 1 2 1 0 .
Torp,
J.,
H. D o l l , a n d V. H a a h r .
1981.
Genotype and
Environmental
Influence
Upon t h e
Nutritional
Composition of Barley Grain.
Euphytica
30:71 9-728.
W e i n g e s , K. a n d F. W. N a d e r . 1 9 8 2 .
A n t h o c y a n i n s a s Food C o l o r s
9 3 - 1 24.
A c a d e m i c P r e s s , NY.
Proanthocy an i dins.
( M a r k a k i s , P . , e d . ),
In:
pp.
W e t t s t e i n , D. B. v o n , J e n d e - S t r i d , B. A h r e n s t - L a r s e n , a n d K.
Erdal.
1 980.
Proanthocyanidin-free barley prevents
the f o r m a t i o n of beer haze.
MBAA T e c h n i c a l Q u a r t e r l y
R e p r i n t 17:16-23.
. ‘
W e t t s t e i n , D.B. v o n , B. J e n d e - S t r i d , B. A h r e n s t - L a r s e n , a n d
J . A. S o r e n s e n .
I 97 7.
B iochem ical mutant in barley
r e n d e r s c h e m i c a l s t a b i l i z a t i o n of b e er s u p e r f l u o u s .
C a r l s b e r g Re s . Commun.
42:341 -351.
Yokogoshi,
H. ,
C. L.
Theall
a n d R. J . W u r t m a n .
I 986 .
S e l e c t i o n o f d i e t a r y p r o t e i n a n d c a r b o h y d r a t e by r a t s :
changes with m aturation.
Phy s . a n d B e h a v i o r 3 6 : 9 7 9 982.
APPENDICES
80
APPENDIX A
Taste
Panel
Recording Sheets
I
81
BOOTH NUMBER.
FOOD EVALUATION
Triangle
Test
P r o d u c t : __________________ __ __ _
Two o f t h e s e s a m p l e s , a r e i d e n t i c a l and t h e o t h e r d i f f e r e n t ,
p l e a s e c i r c l e t h e odd s ampl e and s c o r e f o r p r e f e r e n c e .
Circle
the
odd s a m p l e ( s ) :
o
#
Ch e c k y o u r
&
preference:
[ ]
Pair
'
t J
Single
[ ]
No P r e f e r e n c e
Name.
Date
Comment s :
82
Boot h
n u mb e r
Food E v a l u a t i o n T e s t
P r o d u c t ______________ _
Check t h e a p p r o p r i a t e
block:
SAMPLE NUMBER
C
]
[
]
[
]
Like Extremely
[
]
[
]
[
]
L i k e V e r y Much
[
]
[
]
[
]
Like
[
]
[
i
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
[
]
Moderately
Like S l i g h t l y
Neither
Di s i i k e
Like
Dislike
Slightly
[
]
[
]
c
]
Dislike
Moderately
[
]
t
]
[
. 3
Dislike
V e r y Much
[
]
[
. ]
[
3
Dislike
Extremely
[
]
[
]
c
3
Co mme n t s :
Nam e.
Date
or
APPENDIX B
A n i ma l
Data
84
Ta bl e 23.
C o m p a r i s o n of p a r e n t and m u t a n t b a r l e y s f o r f i n a l
b o d y w e i g h t , w e i g h t g a i n , f e e d co s u m p t i o n , a n d
f e e d / g a i n r a t i o of c h i c k s , o r i g i n a l d a t a .
Di e t s
n
Fi n a l
we i g h t
Weight
gain
Fee d
c o n s u me d
Feed/gain
ratio
Trial I
Moravian I I I
ANT 605
19
18
671
694
607
630
981
1013
I .62
I . 61
Robust
ANT 625
19
20
6 87
712
623
648
9 94
948
I .60
1.46
Karl a
ANT 504
17
17
702
6 56
638
5 92
I 026
10 01
1. 61
I .70
Corn-soybean
meal c o n t r o l
20
7 66
7 02
1003
Trial 2
T r i umph
Galant
21
I9
699
681
640
622
937
967
1.47
I .56
Andr e
ANT 5 87
20
20
654
700
595
6 41
943
9 83
1.59
I .54
Adv a n ce
ANT 537
21
20
6 38
570
57 9
511
931
942
1.61
I .85
Corn-soybean
meal c o n t r o l
I9
7 44
685
952
I .39
675
66 9
614
6 07
969
976
I .58
1.62
Pare n t s
Mutant s
,
1 .43
85
Table
24.
C o m p a r i s o n of
o r i g i n a l d a t a.
Diets
TPD
T r i umph
Galant
85.0
84 .6
Moravian I I I
M T 605
nitrogen
balance,
rat
trials,
BV
NPU
70^6
69 .4
60.1
72.3
87.5
87 .2
79.5
74.4
69.6
64.9
Andre
ANT 5 87
83.0
85.9
71.4
79 .8
59.2
69.5
Robust
ANT 625
84.4
87 .5
89.9
82 .0
76.0
71.8
Ad v a n c e
ANT 537
82.2
85.9
6 6.5
71 .1
54.6
61.1
Karl a
ANT 504
77 . 4
83 . 3
75.8
70 .3
58.4
58.5
Parents
Mutants
83.2
85 .7
75.2
77 .2
62.6
66.2
S. E.
0.35
0.98
0.85
'
a TPD = t r u e p r o t e i n d i g e s t i b i l i t y ,
NPU = n e t p r o t e i n u t i l i z a t i o n .
BV = b i o l o g i c a l
value,
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
3 1762 10015241 O

31762100152410 - ScholarWorks

Transcription

Similar documents

PDF - Northern Research Station