Daf Ditty Beitza 13: Wheat from the Chaff

1
Abaye said: This dispute, concerning when the obligation to separate teruma and the prohibition
of untithed produce takes effect, is referring only to stalks of grain, which are typically brought
into a granary, where they are processed in a standard manner. Until that point, the grain is not
prohibited as untithed produce. However, with regard to legumes, everyone agrees that the
bundles are already regarded as untithed produce, and teruma must be separated from them at
that stage.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following mishna supports him (Terumot 10:6): With
regard to one who had bundles of fenugreek, a type of legume, of untithed produce, he may
pound these bundles to remove the seeds from them. And he calculates how many seeds the
bundles contain and separates teruma based on the quantity of seeds, but he does not calculate
and separate teruma based on the quantity of stalks. Although the stalks and leaves are also used
for cooking, it is not necessary to separate teruma from them. What, is it not the case that this
halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said:
There, with regard to stalks of grain, it is not yet ready to be tithed, and therefore not prohibited
as untithed produce, whereas here, i.e., with regard to the bundles of fenugreek, it is ready to be
tithed and therefore prohibited as untithed produce?

Some say that Abaye said the following: This dispute between Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi
Yehuda, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is referring to stalks of grain; however, with regard to
legumes, everyone agrees that the bundles are not yet ready to be tithed and are therefore not
prohibited as untithed produce. The Gemara raises an objection to this: With regard to one who
had bundles of fenugreek of untithed produce, he may pound them and calculate how many
seeds they contain and separate teruma based on the quantity of seeds, but he does not separate
based on the quantity of stalks. What, is this not referring to the normal case of untithed produce
of teruma, i.e., produce from which the regular teruma, the initial portion taken from produce as
the priests’ portion, must be separated?

2
The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to a different case, that of first tithe that is still
regarded as untithed produce, because of teruma of the tithe that must still be separated from
it. First tithe is given to the Levites, who must separate ten percent as teruma of the tithe, to give
to the priests. Before teruma of the tithe is separated, the first tithe may not be eaten.

And this statement is in accordance with the opinion that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi
Shimon ben Lakish said, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It can
occur that a Levite might take the first tithe before the teruma is separated, while the grain is
still on the stalks. The correct procedure is: After collecting the grain in a pile in the granary,
one first separates teruma, and only afterward separates first tithe to give to the Levites.

Summary

3
Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

Cracking open kernels Rava bar Rav Chanan's innkeeper asked him if he could crack open mustard
seeds on Yom Tov and eat from them. He didn't know, so he asked Rava, who said that one may
roll open kernels and crack open legumes on Yom Tov. Abaye challenged this from a braisa which
says that if one rolls open kernels before Shabbos, he can blow off the chaff on Shabbos from one
hand to another, but not using any utensils. If he rolled them open before Yom Tov, he could blow
off the chaff on Yom Tov a little bit at a time, with utensils used for home separating (e.g., a funnel
or plate), but not with utensils used for industrial separating (e.g., a large platter or sifters). The
second statement of the braisa implies that one may only roll the kernels before Yom Tov. Rava
deflected this by saying that the braisa only mentioned rolling before Yom Tov in the second
statement since the first section had to be a case of rolling before Shabbos (since rolling is
prohibited on Shabbos), but not because one may not roll it on Yom Tov.

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Beitzah_13.pdf

4
The Gemora challenges Rava, since we can now find a case when one may take terumah on Yom
Tov (when he rolled the kernels on Yom Tov), yet the Mishna said that terumah was something
which one may not separate on Yom Tov. The Gemora answers that this depends on the dispute
of Rebbi and Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Yehuda about the obligation of terumah from kernels meant
for rolling and eating. The braisa says that if one brought kernels in to make dough, he may snack
from it, but if he brought them in to roll and eat, Rebbi says he must take terumah before snacking,
while Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Yehuda says that he need not. According to Rebbi, one would be
allowed to take terumah if he rolls them on Yom Tov, while Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Yehuda exempts
them from terumah.

The Gemora rejects this, as even according to Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Yehuda would require one to
take terumah if he brought the kernels in to make dough, and then decided to roll and eat them. In
that case, if he rolled it on Yom Tov, he would also agree that he can take terumah. Rather, the
Gemora answers that the Mishna means that most terumah cannot be separated on Yom Tov.

Ma'aser for legume kernels

Abaye says that the dispute of Rebbi and Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Yehuda is only about grain kernels,
but all agree that one must take terumah from legume kernels brought in to roll and eat. The
Gemora tries to support Abaye with a braisa about one with untithed bundles of fenugreek. The
braisa says that he should crush them, calculate how much seeds there are, and separate on the
seeds but not on the branches. The Gemora assumes that this braisa follows Rabbi Yossi beRabbi
Yehuda, and therefore it chose the case of fenugreek, a legume, proving that he agrees that one
must take terumah from legumes brought in to eat individually.

The Gemora deflects this by saying that the braisa is following Rebbi, but challenges this, since
the braisa should have discussed kernels of grain, to teach that one must take terumah from them
as well. The Gemora says that even according to Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Yehuda we can ask why it
chose fenugreek, which is only eaten individually, as opposed to other legumes, which some pile
up, like grain. Rather, the braisa specifically chose fenugreek, since its branches taste like its seeds,
and we may have thought that one takes terumah on the branches as well.

The braisa can therefore be following Rebbi, and doesn't support Abaye. Another version of Abaye
is that he said the dispute is only about grain kernels, but all agree that one need not take terumah
from legume kernels brought in to eat individually. The Gemora challenges this from the braisa
about untithed fenugreek, which wouldn't be consistent with Rebbi or Rabbi Yossi beRabbi
Yehuda.

The Gemora deflects this by saying that it is referring to ma'aser which was taken before terumah,
and the tithing that must be done is terumas ma'aser, given by the levi to the kohen. This ma'aser
is considered untithed, even though it was brought in to eat individually, since Rabbi Avahu said
in Raish Lakish's name that if ma'aser is taken before terumah, the designation immediately
obligates it in terumas ma'aser. The Gemora asks why the braisa says that he must crush it, as the
levi should be able to give the kohen terumas ma'aser in the same unprocessed form that he
received it. Rava says that this is a sanction we impose on the levi for his taking the ma'aser before
the proper time.

5
Kernels for eating

The Gemora raises the possibility of taking terumah on Yom Tov, if one may peel kernels, and
answers that it depends on the dispute between Rebbi and Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Yehuda about the
obligation to take terumah from grain brought in to eat individually. The Gemora challenges this,
since even Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Yehuda would obligate kernels which were originally brought in
to process for flour, but are now being eaten individually. Rashi explains that the Gemora means
that Rebbi, who says that they are obligated, would indeed say that one may take terumah, when
he peeled them on Yom Tov, while Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Yehuda would not allow one to ever take
terumah, since these kernels are not obligated.

The Gemora challenges this by saying that there is a situation where even Rabbi Yossi beRabbi
Yehuda would obligate kernels being peeled to eat in terumah. Tosfos (13a Ha) challenges Rashi's
explanation for two reasons:

1. The braisa cited by the Gemora discusses whether one may snack on the kernels before terumah
is taken, implying that all agree that one may not make an official meal out of them, whether they
were meant for flour or eating as kernels. If so, all would agree that one may take terumah on Yom
Tov if he ate a full meal from the kernels.

2. If Rebbi says that kernels meant for eating are obligated in terumah, that obligation takes effect
as soon as they are brought in, and therefore there is no reason to allow someone to take the
terumah on Yom Tov. Therefore, Tosfos explains that the Gemora's attempted answer was that the
Mishna is following Rebbi, who requires terumah to be taken before eating from them, making it
prohibited to take it on Yom Tov. Rabbi Yossi beRabbi Yehuda, who says that they are not
obligated in terumah when brought inside, says the obligation takes effect when he eats them,
which may be on Yom Tov.

The text of the Gemora's subsequent challenge to this answer is that even Rebbi would agree that
one need not take terumah if he brought it in for flour, and then decided to eat them. In that case,
the obligation would take effect when he decided to eat them, allowing him to take terumah, even
on Yom Tov.

The Gemora cites two versions of Abaye's statement about this dispute. The first version says that
both agree that bundles of legumes meant for eating individually are obligated in terumah, while
the second version says that they both agree that they are not obligated.

Tosfos (13a ika) cites Rav Shimshon mikotzi who asks how the Gemora can have two versions
which are exactly opposite, as opposed to the usual situation of two versions which differ in degree
or details. He therefore suggests that the first version means that the dispute is about stalks of grain
which one explicitly brought inside to eat, but all agree that legumes brought inside explicitly to
eat are obligated in terumah immediately.

6
According to this version, the dispute is also about kernels and legumes for which he had no
explicit intent. The second version means that the dispute is when he brought grain in with no
explicit intent, but if he brought legumes in with no explicit intent, all agree that it isn't obligated
in terumah. According to this version, their dispute is also when he explicitly brought in grain or
legumes for eating. The chart below illustrates the two versions:

The “Taste” of Fenugreek

One who has bundles of fenugreek, a type of legume that is used for seasoning, and they were
tevel, (produce that one is required to separate terumah and he has not yet separated the terumah)
he should crush them, calculate how many seeds they have, and then he separates terumah for the
seeds. He is not required to separate terumah for the stalks, because it is only a rabbinical
requirement to separate terumah from legumes, so the Chachamim only required that one separate
terumah from the seeds and not from the stalks.

Rashi writes that one is not required to separate terumah from the stalks, despite the fact that the
stalks have the same flavor as the seeds. It would seem that when Rashi writes that the stalks have
the same flavor as the seed, it is not meant literally. Rather, Rashi means to describe something
that does not have flavor. Proof to this is from the Gemara that uses this expression regarding
peppers, despite the fact that the Gemara in Yoma states that peppers are not even considered food.

Holy Thoughts

The Gemara states that one can separate both Terumah Gedolah and Terumas Maaser with a
thought and one does not need to physically or orally designate the terumah. There are certain
mitzvos which require one to contemplate the mitzvah, such as loving HaShem, fearing HaShem
and other such mitzvos. There is even a situation where if one sought to perform a mitzvah and he
could not complete it because of extenuating circumstances, it is considered as if he performed the
mitzvah. Thus, thoughts play an important part in serving HaShem.

Rav Chaim Volozhiner writes in Nefesh HaChaim that one who entertains immoral thoughts is
worse than the Roman general Titus, who defiled the Holy of Holies, because a gentile does not

7
have the capability of reaching high spiritual levels, whereas a Jew has the ability to reach very
high spiritual levels, and improper thoughts defile the spiritual Holy of Holies. This idea should
teach us that not only do we have to be pure in our actions but we must also keep our thoughts
pure and holy.

PEELING BARLEY ON SHABBOS

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Gemara earlier says that one is not permitted to "roll ears of wheat" in order to remove the
kernels on Shabbos. However, the Gemara here says that one is permitted to "peel barley" by the
cupful in order to remove the seeds on Shabbos. Why is this permitted more than rolling ears of
wheat?

Moreover, the fact that the Gemara permits one to peel barley on Shabbos implies that the barley
has not yet been brought to the silo, because barley is brought to the silo only after the husks have
been peeled off. If, however, the barley has not yet been brought to the silo, then clearly the barley
has not yet undergone the procedure of Miru'ach and has not become obligated in Ma'aseros. When
one peels the seeds of barley on Shabbos into his hand, they should become obligated in Ma'aseros
at that moment, since the act of peeling is the "Gemar Melachah," the final processing of the barley.
Ma'aseros, though, cannot be separated on Shabbos. Why is one permitted to peel the barley on
Shabbos if he will not be able to eat it since he cannot separate Ma'aseros from it on Shabbos? The
barley should be Muktzah.

Finally, why does the Gemara refer to "peeling" barley and "rolling" wheat? What is the difference
between peeling and rolling? Both actions remove the outer shell of the kernel.

:
(a) TOSFOS (DH v'Im) and TOSFOS RABEINU PERETZ explain that there are two different
shells around the kernel of wheat. There is a thin shell which lies directly on top of the kernel, and
there is a thick shell which houses the kernel and its peel. When the Gemara (12b) says that one
may not roll ears of wheat, it refers to wheat within both coverings, the outer husk and the inner
peel. Rolling the wheat in order to remove the outer husk is prohibited because of Dishah
(mid'Rabanan).

When the outer covering was separated from the seed before Shabbos, the seed may have been in
the silo (after Miru'ach) and thus Ma'aser may have been separated from the barley before Shabbos.
The barley which one wants to peel on Shabbos is not Muktzah since Ma'aser was already
separated from it. The seed has only the thin, inner covering left over the kernel. One is permitted
to peel off that inner covering on Shabbos. (The removal of the inner peel is not considered Dishah,

2 https://dafyomi.co.il/beitzah/insites/bt-dt-013.htm

8
just as the removal of the peel of a fruit is not considered Dishah. Dishah involves the removal of
the container of the produce (such as the outer husk). The peel does not contain the fruit but
merely protects it.)

When the Mishnah says that one who peels ("Mekalef") barley and places it into his hand is
obligated to separate Ma'aseros, it refers to barley that was not yet brought to the silo, even though
its outer covering was already peeled off, and thus it becomes obligated in Ma'aseros only now
when its inner peel is removed.

This also explains why the Mishnah uses the term "peeling" ("Mekalef"). It refers to the removal
of the inner peel and not to the outer husk.

(b) RASHI (DH v'Ochel), in contrast to Tosfos' explanation, explains that "Mekalef" refers to
removing barley from its outer covering. Why, then, is "Mekalef" not considered Dishah, while
"Molel" is? Perhaps Rashi understands that removing the covering by peeling, rather than by
crushing the entire item, is not considered Dishah. That is why "Mekalef" is not Dishah, and why
the act is called "Mekalef" in contrast to "Molel."
Why does the barley not become obligated in Ma'aseros at the moment one peels it? TOSFOS
RABEINU PERETZ suggests that the Gemara refers to when one separated (on Shabbos)
Ma'aser on behalf of this barley from other barley which had already undergone the process of
Miru'ach (see Kidushin 62a).

REMOVING FOOD FROM ITS COVERING ON SHABBOS AND

YOM TOV
The Gemara concludes that "Melilah," or rolling grains in one's fingers in order to remove the
chaff, is prohibited on Shabbos. (According to RASHI and TOSFOS (DH Keitzad Molel), it is
prohibited on Shabbos even when done with a Shinuy, and it is permitted on Yom Tov only with
a Shinuy. According to the RIF and ROSH, it is permitted on Shabbos with a Shinuy, and it is
permitted on Yom Tov even without a Shinuy.)

Is one permitted to remove peas from a pod on Shabbos? Does the Halachah of Melilah apply to
all types of foods that are contained within a natural shell?

The MAGEN AVRAHAM (OC 319:8) and ELYAH RABAH (OC 319) write that removing
peas from their pod is not considered Dishah because one could eat the pea while it is inside the
shell. Since the shell is edible, its removal is not similar to Dishah which involves the removal of
an inedible part from an edible part.

What is the Halachah with regard to opening walnuts, peanuts, and sunflower seeds on Shabbos
or Yom Tov? The BA'AL HA'TANYA (in his Sidur) and the ARUCH HA'SHULCHAN (OC
319:25) indeed prohibit opening nuts on Shabbos because their shells are not edible. However, the
Mishnah in Shabbos (122b, 143a) clearly seems to permit cracking nuts open on Shabbos. Why is
it permitted if the shell is inedible?

9
The TAZ (OC 319:4) suggests that if the seeds are loose inside the shell (for example, when one
shakes the nut he hears the fruit inside bouncing around), then one is permitted to open them. The
Taz implies that the act is considered Dishah only when one removes a shell which is attached to
the fruit.

The IGLEI TAL (Meleches Dash 15:3), however, questions this ruling from the words
of RASHI in Shabbos (95b) who says that milking a goat is considered "Mefarek," a form of
Dishah, even though the milk is not connected to the udders. Indeed, the MAHARIL (cited by the
Elyah Rabah loc. cit.) and the PRI MEGADIM (introduction to OC 320) write the opposite: if the
fruit is attached to the shell, then removing it is not considered Dishah; only when the fruit is not
naturally attached to its containing shell is the removal of the shell considered Dishah.

The IGLEI TAL (Meleches Dash 3:2) writes, based on the SEFER HA'TERUMAH, that any
item which people normally open at the time they eat it is not considered Dishah. Only when an
item is separated from its shell far in advance is the act considered Dishah. The TZITZ
ELIEZER (10:24) writes that the common use of the fruit determines whether or not the removal
of its shell is considered Dishah or not: if some fruit is opened just before it is eaten most of the
time, then even though there are those who open it in advance (such as food production factories),
the removal of its shell or peel is not considered Dishah. RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN zt'l (IGROS
MOSHE OC 1:125) gives a similar explanation.

The PRI MEGADIM (in ROSH YOSEF here) writes that he does not understand the basis for
the doubt in the first place. During the normal course of eating a meal, one certainly is permitted
to open the shell of a nut because that is the normal manner of eating the item ("Derech Achilah"),
and the prohibitions of Borer and Dishah do not prevent a person from eating in the normal manner
of "Derech Achilah."

HALACHAH: The MISHNAH BERURAH (OC 319:24) permits cracking open nuts for
immediate consumption (he does not give the reasons for why he permits it).

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

When a farmer harvests his crop, the Torah obligates him to offer a series of tithes to
the kohanim and levi’im as well as to the poor.

Among these tithes we find:

• Terumah gedolah – contribution to the kohen, which biblically can be any amount (the
Sages recommended 1/40, 1/50 or 1/60 of the harvest)
• Ma’aser rishon – one-tenth of the remaining crop, which is given to the levi
• Terumat ma’aser – the Levi gives to the kohen one-tenth of the ma’aser rishon that he
received

3 https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_beitzah_713/

10
Although terumah gedolah does not need to be measured, since it can be any amount, how is one
to measure the harvest in order to assure that the correct amount is distributed for ma’aser
rishon and terumat ma’aser? The Talmud Yerushalmi offers three acceptable options:

• Good: Moneh – the number of bushels harvested are counted

• Better: Moded – the harvest is measured
• Best: Shokel – the harvest is weighed

Our Gemara brings the opinion of Abba Elazar ben Gimmel who quotes the passage
in Bamidbar 18:27 and interprets it as meaning that there are two types of terumah, both of which
can be distributed based on estimation and intent. This opinion is accepted as the halakha by
the Rambam (Hilkhot Terumot 3:4), who rules that it is a mitzvah to distribute terumah
gedolah based on estimation rather than by weighing or measuring it. The Me’iri applies this
ruling to terumat ma’aser, as well, arguing that it is the responsibility of the Levi to be sure that he
estimates generously so that the kohen will receive no less than 10% of the ma’aser rishon that
the Levi received.

This teaching of Abba Elazar ben Gimmel is the only one that has been preserved, although due
to its importance it appears several times in the Talmud. In the Sifrei the name appears as Abba
Elazar ben Gamliel and the contraction to “Gimmel” “Gomel” and “Gamla” (as it appears in other
sources) appears to be a nickname of sorts. He appears to have been a contemporary of Rabbi
Akiva; during that period the title “Abba” was the honorific title given to a number of Sages.

Our Daf discusses the difference between stalks of grain and legumes regarding at which point of
their processing the obligation for ma’aser begins.4 According to the second approach of the
Gemara, Abaye explains that Rebbe and Rabbi Yose ben R’ Yehuda only argue in a case where
stalks were brought collected into one’s house to eat small amounts of the grain at a time. Rebbe
rules that the obligation for ma’aser begins, because this grain will never be collected into larger
piles, which would otherwise be the point at which ma’aser applies. Rebbe Yose ben R’ Yehuda
exempts these stalks from ma’aser because only piles of ‫ דגן‬are obligated in ma’aser.

When legumes are gathered as stalks, all agree that the obligation to take ‫ מעשר‬would not begin.
Rashi explains that after being removed from their husks, they are generally piled up in piles (‫מירוח‬
,(and only then does the ma’aser obligation begin. ‫ המלך שער‬notes that according to Rashi, when
the Gemara questions the approach of Abaye from the Mishnah (Terumos 10) where stalks of
fenugreek (a legume) must have ma’aser removed, a simple answer could have been offered. The
Gemara should have simply noted that there are different types within the legume family, and
fenugreek is more valuable than others. It needs to have ma’aser removed at an earlier stage (as
stalks) because it is eaten even in small amounts. Rather, the difference between grain and legumes
is that grain is obligated in ma’aser from the Torah, while legumes are only obligated rabbinically.

4 https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Beitza%20013.pdf

11
Therefore, as stalks, we take ma’aser from grain, but not from legumes. This is why the question
from fenugreek is problematic for the Gemara.

If one separated ma’aser [before terumah was separated because the grain was still] in its
ears, [the grain] is exempt from terumah gedolah

The Netziv (1) cites an unusual ruling. A baby was born after shkiah Friday evening and the Rov
ruled that the bris should be performed on Friday morning the following Friday. One proof he
offered was the language of the Tosefta (2).

The Tosefta writes that a milah performed before the eighth day is not a mitzvah. This implies,
according to the Rov, that it is not a mitzvah but the commandment was fulfilled, nonetheless.
Furthermore, the Rema (3) writes that one is ‫ יוצא‬if the bris is performed before the eighth day.
Although the Shach (4) disagrees, nonetheless the language of the Tosefta supports the ruling of
Rema. Netziv (5) wrote that the ruling was made in error.

Regarding the Tosefta, Netziv writes that it is clear the intention is that the mitzvah is not fulfilled
at all, meaning the commandment was not performed. Furthermore, the intention of Rema is that
one is not required to take a drop of blood (‫ )ברית דם הטפת‬but not that the mitzvah was actually
fulfilled.

Additionally, Netziv writes that when the Torah prescribes that something should be done in a
particular time or order, the mitzvah is not fulfilled if the timing or order is not followed. He proves
this principle from our Gemara which cites a pasuk to teach that if one separated ma’aser before
terumah that it is exempt from having to separate terumah.

The reason a pasuk is necessary is because without the pasuk we would say that if the person did
not follow the prescribed order, i.e. terumah, ma’aser, ma’aser rishon, etc., it is considered as if he
did not perform the mitzvah. Thus, since there is nothing in the Torah to indicate that a bris milah
performed early fulfills the mitzvah, the conclusion must be that no credit is given for the mitzvah.

12
Our daf discusses terumos and ma’aseros. Rav Eliezer Don Ralbag, zt”l, once passed by the home
of the tzadekes Savta Elka of the Old City on his way to selichos and heard her weeping. “How
could my sweet grandson, who was always such a good student, suddenly lose his ability to
understand the Gemara?” Since Rav Eliezer Don held a ta’anis dibbur from Rosh Chodesh Elul
until after Yom Kippur, he knocked softly and handed her a note. “I will look into the matter.”
Savta Elka immediately felt relief; she knew that she could rely on the Rav.

Unfortunately, Rav Eliezer Don forgot his promise, and it wasn’t until Yom Kippur that he
remembered. As soon as the fast ended, he rushed to the Talmud Torah and spoke with the boy’s
rebbi, who explained that although the boy could remember his learning, he had almost no
comprehension for months.

Rav Eliezer Don then went to the boy and asked, “Son, tell me what you know about the Savta’s
cries.” Thinking that the Rosh Yeshiva was referring to the sugya of that name in Sukkah (31a),
the boy began to recite it by heart. Moved to tears, Rav Eliezer Don kissed the boy on his head and
said, “I see what a wonderful boy you are. Now tell me why your rebbi says that you are not the
student you were.”

At this, the boy began to cry. “I have been davening but my prayers go unanswered. I don’t
know!” “Tell me about your day,” the Rav pressed. The boy related his schedule and added,
“After cheder, I go to a neighbor’s house to play with the small children. Their father always
gives me a bunch of grapes for babysitting, because his brother has a vineyard.” Such grapes
were quite a luxury. Despite the late hour, Rav Eliezer Don sent for the neighbor. To soothe him,
the Rav opened with a bracha for the coming year.

He then asked about the man’s brother. “He is unfortunately not so observant, but he has come
closer to yiddishkeit during the past year.” Rav Eliezer Don asked, “And what about terumos
and ma’aseros?” The man stammered, “I…forgot!” When she heard the cause of the trouble,
Savta Elka lamented, “Such a great loss for a few grapes!

A Cupful of Peeled Barley

Rachel Scheinerman writes:5

Today the Gemara continues its discussion of the labors that would ordinarily be prohibited on
festivals but are permitted because they allow one to prepare food. There turn out to be a number
of interesting facets here. For instance, preparing food wasn’t just about slaughtering animals or
preparing grains and then cooking them. It also inevitably meant
5
Myjewishlearning.com

13
separating terumah and ma’aser — special tithes for the priests and Levites respectively. Can you
separate these gifts for the Temple workers on a festival? And if so, can you bring the produce to
the Temple on a festival? Hillel and Shammai, and then the Gemara, consider these questions.

Another aspect of food preparation was separating grains and legumes from their inedible woody
stalks (winnowing) and their outer hulls (threshing). (The discussion of terumah naturally dovetails
here because terumah is not separated from unprocessed food products. That is, it is separated from
olive oil, not raw olives; from wine, not grapes.) These activities are also among the 39 forbidden
labors on Shabbat. Though they are technically part of food preparation, they are still serious labor
and generally removed enough from immediate food preparation to be forbidden on festival days.
But there are exceptions. Threshing small amounts of grain in an unorthodox manner (like rubbing
the kernels between a few fingers), for instance, is permitted.

This all gets complicated and technical quickly. For now, I’d like to direct our attention to a
mishnah from Ma’asrot (“Tithes”) that the Gemara brings in the course of the discussion.
(Incidentally, Ma’asrot is one of the mishnaic tractates that has no Gemara so we will not be
studying it in the Daf Yomi cycle.) Here it is:

One who peels grains of barley (to eat them raw) may peel them one by one and eat them
(without separating a tithe). But if he peeled and placed several into his hand, he is obligated to
separate tithes.

Rabbi Elazar said: A similar halakhah applies to Shabbat.

Ordinarily, a person who threshed a pile of barley was then obligated to separate out a tithe. But,
says this mishnah, peeling a single grain of barley and popping it into one’s mouth raw constitutes
a kind of snacking too minimal to trigger the tithing obligation. Likewise, Rabbi Elazar remarks,
it doesn’t violate Shabbat.

But what are the limits of this “one raw grain at a time” approach to snacking? The Gemara
continues:

Is that so? But didn’t Rav’s wife peel (barley) for him (on Shabbat) by the cupful? And likewise
Rav Hiyya’s wife would peel for him by the cupful?

Here the Gemara offers a humanizing and perhaps wry view of rabbis — who not only know the
law but who are actively involved in both shaping the law and encouraging people to follow it —
pushing the boundaries of that law in their homes. Sure, technically if you don’t want to violate
the law against threshing grain on Shabbat you should sit and peel the barley grains one at a time,
popping each into your mouth before peeling the next. But surely it’s not too much of a stretch to
peel a cupful to enjoy — especially if someone else does it for you?

14
Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:6

We learn in our daf (Beitzah 13a) that the obligation to take terumah only begins once grain, fruit
and vegetables have been gathered and have been readied for use or consumption (‫)גמר מלאכתם‬.
Similarly, our religious progress and our spiritual growth should be determined based on our sense
that we have reached ‫ גמר מלאכתם‬wherever we are, and that we are ready to progress and grow
further onto a new chapter in our life.

The problem, however, is that while Chazal, both in our daf and elsewhere, provide guidelines as
to when grain, fruit and vegetables is considered to have reached ‫גמר מלאכתם‬, no such objective
measures exist for people - which means that it is up to us to know when we are ready.

There are some who claim there are always ready and who are always making changes. The
problem with this, however, is that they don’t have a chance to grow in one place. Conversely,
there are others who adopt a permanent stance that no matter wherever they are in life, they have
not yet reached ‫ גמר מלאכתם‬and are not yet ready to begin a new chapter in their life.

Yet unlike grain, fruit and vegetables where the points for transition are clear, these points are
rarely – if ever - clear for people. Which is why it is important for us to be honest with ourselves,
and if we are truly ready to take the next step, we should be prepared to do so.

Winnowing by William Edward Millner

6
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

15
 Making Mustard
Mark Kerzner writes:7

The landlord of Rava bar Rav Chanan asked him a question: is it OK to crumble mustard pods in
order to extract seeds on a Holiday (Yom Tov). Being that cooking is permitted, that too should
be allowed; on the other hand, since it could have been done before Yom Tom, maybe it should
not be done now?

Rava bar Rav Chanan did not have a ready answer. He went to ask Rava, and Rava told him that
it is totally permitted to rub ears of grain and crumble legumes on a Yom Tom, and the answer the
query is "yes" - provided it is done with the hands and not a vessel.

Ah! But now we found a case of separating tithe on a Yom Tov. He is, after all, making a small
winnowing here, and this is when the obligation of tithe begins. And all our logic on the previous
page was based on tithing not being permitted on a Yom Tov!?

How are we to deal with the contradiction? In truth, this too is not a problem. This is a mini-
winnowing, and only Rabbi Yehudah the Prince says that it counts. His senior opponent, Rabbi
Yose the son of Rabbi Yehudah, says that even after hand winnowing there is still no obligation
to tithe, and one can freely snack on the food thus obtained. Thus, our previous logic is justified,
and we know how to make mustard.

Peeling Fruits and Vegetables

Rav Yosef Zvi Rimon writes:8

Why is one allowed to remove peels on Shabbat? Is it permissible to use a peeler? Is one
allowed to peel fruits and vegetables for later use?

It would appear that peeling fruits and vegetables would violate the prohibition
of borer (selecting), as one is removing the pesolet (refuse — i.e., the peel) from the okhel (food
— i.e., the flesh of the fruit or vegetable). Indeed, the Yerushalmi (7:2) appears to indicate exactly
this: "Whoever grinds garlic... and removes the peel [is liable] for borer."

7 https://talmudilluminated.com/beitzah/beitzah13.html
8 https://etzion.org.il/en/halakha/orach-chaim/shabbat/borer-peeling-fruits-and-vegetables

16
 Despite this, the Beit Yosef writes (end of Ch. 321), that the Sefer Ha-teruma (Ch.
220), Semag (Prohibition 65, Lash) and Semak (Ch. 282, 285a) permit removing peels on
Shabbat. After citing the Yerushalmi, the Beit Yosef notes:

Even so, the Semag, Semak and Teruma write that one should not forbid peeling garlic
and onions to eat immediately, because the Yerushalmi is not talking about peeling for
immediate use, but peeling to set aside.

According to them, the Yerushalmi only forbids peeling some fruit for later use; however, one may
remove the peel in order to eat the fruit immediately. The Rema (321:19) rules: "It is forbidden
to peel garlic and onions when one is peeling to set aside, but [in order] to eat immediately is
permitted." The Magen Avraham (ibid., 30) and the Mishna Berura (ibid., 84) rule that it is
permissible to peel apples as long as one does so to eat them immediately.

Derekh Akhila

Why is one permitted to peel some fruit for immediate use? Why does peeling not violate
the prohibition of borer?
The act of peeling is, by definition, separating pesolet from okhel! The Bei'ur
Halakha (ibid., s.v. Liklof) is troubled by this:

It would appear that even for immediate use, peeling should be forbidden, for one who
peels apples, garlic and onions takes away the pesolet and leaves the okhel. We already
explained this earlier in Ch. 319: one who selects pesolet from okhel even for immediate
use is liable!
It appears that since it is impossible to do it in any other method, and this is the way of
eating it, it is not called "pesolet from okhel," because one's sole aim is to eat the inside,
and whatever is done for immediate use is permitted. However, selecting in order to set
it aside is forbidden; it cannot conceivably be better than a normal case of
selecting okhel from pesolet.

The Bei'ur Halakha's answer is that since it is impossible to get to the fruit in any other way,
peeling is permitted, as this is derekh akhila, the way of eating. If so, why must
the bereira (selection) be for immediate use? Apparently, only actions for immediate use (when
there is no other option) may be classified as "derekh akhila" and allowed.

The Peel is not Commingled with the Fruit

We have found other explanations to permit peeling as well. One comes from the words
of Rabbeinu Chananel (74a), who differentiates between the melakha of borer and
the melakha of dash (threshing):

Dash is removing pesolet which is attached to okhel... So it turns out

that zoreh (winnowing), borer and merakked (sifting) all remove pesolet which is mixed
with okhel but not attached to it...

17
 According to him, the prohibition of borer is applicable only when the pesolet is mixed in
with the okhel, not when pesolet is attached to okhel. This would mean that there is no prohibition
of borer with the peels of cucumbers, apples and the like, because they adhere to the flesh (Tal
Orot, pp. 156-157, cited by the Shevitat Shabbat, Borer, Be'er Rechovot, 45). However, this
allowance would not apply to peels which do not adhere to the flesh, e.g., onion and garlic peels
(Shevitat Shabbat, ibid.).

The Arukh Ha-shulchan (319:22) also writes that removing the peel from the fruit has no
connection to the prohibition of borer. How then does he explain the clear ruling of
the Yerushalmi that removing the garlic from its peel is forbidden because of borer? He explains
the Yerushalmi as follows:

It appears from their words that peeling a great quantity of garlic or onions is borer, and
it is forbidden if one does not eat immediately. Aside from the fact that it is not clear
what bereira (selection) has to do with this, it contradicts an explicit Talmudic passage
(our daf )in Beitza (13b) about peeling barley... Furthermore, this is mefarek, as Rashi
says there, and not borer.

It appears to me that this is the explanation: they are not referring to removing the peels
and setting the peels down on their own; rather, as one peels the fruits, the peels are
mixed in with them [the fruit]... In such a case, borer is definitely applicable, and that
is why they say that it is only permitted for immediate use... This is the intent of our
master, the Rema, as well — that [the peels and the fruit] are mixed together — even
though he does not write so explicitly. Were it not so, bereira would not be applicable in
this case.

According to him, peeling fruit is linked to the prohibition of mefarek, a subcategory

of dash, and not to the melakha of borer. It appears that in his view, since the peel is not mixed
with the flesh of the fruit, but rather only envelops and covers it, the prohibition of borer is not
applicable, Thus, the prohibition of dash, which relates to removing food from its natural covering,
is the relevant issue.[1]

Although the Yerushalmi and the Rishonim mention the prohibition of borer in the context
of peeling garlic, the Arukh Ha-shulchan is of the opinion that they are not speaking of the act of
peeling per se, but rather of a specific case in which the cloves of garlic became mixed with their
peels (after the peeling process had been finished). In such an instance, a prohibition
of borer exists, and one must remove the garlic from the mixture in accordance with the normal
rules of borer. According to the Arukh Ha-shulchan, this is also the intent of the Rema: the act of
peeling per se is not forbidden, even if one's intent is to eat the garlic or the onions at a later point,
but if the garlic or the onions have become mixed with their peels, one may not remove them from
the mixture in order to eat them later.

Similarly, the Eglei Tal (Borer, 6 and 11) writes that there is no prohibition to remove the
peel from the fruit, even if one intends to leave the fruit for a later time (at least when one peels a
lone fruit), because this does not fall under the rubric of the melakha of borer, but rather
the melakha of dash.

18
Peel Eaten with the Fruit

Sometimes, there is another reason to permit peeling fruits or vegetables on

Shabbat. There are many fruits and vegetables that we are accustomed to eat with the peel (a
trend which has increased in recent years). In these cases, one may see the fruit and its peel as one
type, so that even if one wants to peel the fruit, there would not be a prohibition
of borer. The Mishna Berura (Sha'ar Ha-tziyun 321:97) writes in the name of Peri
Megadim (Eshel Avraham 321:30): "Most people are accustomed to eat apple peels even under
normal circumstances; consequently, this should be permissible even to set aside." This is echoed
by the Eglei Tal (Borer, 6).

Removing the Peel with Part of the Fruit

Certain types of fruit cannot be peeled without taking some of the flesh with the peel. In
such a case, there is another reason to permit peeling: we have already mentioned that the view of
the Mishna Berura (319:61) that it is permitted to remove the pesolet with a bit of the okhel.[2]

The Menuchat Ahava (Vol. II, 7:12) writes:

If it is a type of fruit to which the peel closely adheres, and when one peels with a knife,
part of the flesh comes off with it, it is permitted, according to all opinions, to peel them
on Shabbat, even if one's intent is to eat it later on that same Shabbat.

The Difference between the Approaches

What is the practical difference between these views? According to the Bei'ur Halakha,
one may remove the peel only if one wants to eat the fruit immediately, and only if one peels by
hand and not with a utensil designed for peeling; according to the other views, there is no action
of bereira here at all, and therefore it is permissible to peel even with a specially-designed utensil,
such as a peeler, even if one wants to eat the fruit at a later point.

Summary and Practical Ruling

To conclude, the Rishonim agree that one is allowed to peel fruit on Shabbat. There are
numerous explanations of this:

19
 1. There is no other way to get to the food, and therefore it
is derekh akhila. (Bei'ur Halakha)

2. An adhering peel is not included in the prohibition

of borer. (Rabbeinu Chananel)

3. The peel is not considered to be commingled with the fruit. (Arukh

Ha-shulchan)

4. Peels which are edible are considered to be the same type as the flesh
of the fruit. (Peri Megadim, Mishna Berura, Eglei Tal)

5. Many times the peel comes off with a bit of the fruit.

According to the first view, one must be stringent and peel only by hand and for immediate use,
while according to the other opinions, these conditions need not be met.

Practically, when it comes to a peel which is usually eaten, one may remove it even not
for immediate use, even using a peeler, and this is how Rav Neuwirth rules (Shemirat Shabbat
Ke-hilkhatah 3:30). However, when it comes to a peel which is usually not eaten, one should be
stringent in accordance with the view of the Bei'ur Halakha, and one may peel only by
hand or with a knife and the like (i.e., not with a utensil designed for peeling), and only for
immediate use.

Therefore, if one wants to peel oranges or eggs, one must do it by hand or with a knife,
and one may only do it right before eating or right before a meal (as we will explain when we deal
with the definition of "immediate use" in the next section), because we do not eat their respective
peels or shells. The same applies to carrots (in our modern reality, in which most people do not
eat the top layer of the carrot): one may peel it with a knife, but not with a peeler, and only right
before the meal.

On the other hand, when it comes to cucumbers and apples, since nowadays most people
eat the peels, there is no prohibition of borer at all, and it is permissible to remove the peels even
using a peeler, and even the night before for the next day's lunch and the like.

Defining "Immediate Use"

20
 Is one allowed to select before the meal for dessert? How long before the meal is it
permissible to start selecting for the meal? Is one allowed to select in order to heat up food on the
hot plate for a meal which will take place later?

As we have seen, it is permissible to manually select okhel from pesolet, provided that one
has the intent "for immediate use." Now we must ask: what is the definition of "for immediate
use" (le-altar)? How close must the bereira be to eating?

The Gemara (74a) states, "Abbayei said: '"One may select and eat" for immediate use,
"select and set aside" for immediate use.'" This means that "for immediate use" does not mean
that the food must be put in one's mouth immediately; one may set it aside on one's plate. If so,
what is the precise measure of time? Rabbeinu Chananel (74b) writes: "The measure is the amount
of time that one spends at the table during that meal only."

According to this, it is permitted to select for that entire meal. Rabbeinu Chananel writes
that his words are based on the Yerushalmi (7:2):

If one selects food from food, Chizkiya said: "Liable;" Rabbi Yochanan said:
"Exempt."
There is a beraita opposed to Chizkiya's view — it says: "One may select and eat, select
and set aside on the table." Rabbi Bun bar Chiya says in the name of Rav Shemu'el bar
Rav Yitzchak: "Explain it that there were guests eating first things first."

The Yerushalmi explains that even though there is a prohibition of borer for two types of
food, nevertheless the beraita permits one to select and set aside on the table, since one is dealing
with a case "that there were guests eating first things first." Apparently, Rabbeinu Chananel
understands that the host leaves all the food on the table, but the guests are "eating first things first"
— i.e., they start on the appetizer first, and only after that do they reach the course that is being
selected for them. From this it is clear that one may select food for the meal that one is eating —
even the food which one will eat for dessert. The words of Rabbeinu Chananel are quoted by
most Rishonim (e.g., Rosh 7:4).

The Beit Yosef (319, s.v. Ve-shiur le-altar) understands the view of Rabbeinu
Yerucham (12:8) to be even more lenient:

So writes Rabbeinu Yerucham... But he writes before this, and I quote: "Even though
[bereira] by hand is permitted, as we have said, this is only for immediate use — namely,
that very meal. However, for that very day — i.e., selecting and setting aside for the
needs of another meal on that very day — [bereira] is forbidden." It appears to me that
we should understand this rule in the following way: if one selects after the meal, any
selection for the next meal on the same day is considered le-altar; but if one selects in
the midst of a meal, one cannot select except for that very meal."

According to this understanding, it is permitted to select even long before the meal, on the
condition that one selects only for the next meal. Conceptually, this means that one's having the
next meal in mind neutralizes the status of "selecting for the granary," as the selection is

21
unequivocally not for the sake of storage, and therefore it is permitted, even if the meal will not
take place for several hours.

The most stringent view is cited by the Mordekhai (Hagahot, Ch. 7, #461) in the name of
the Ra'avan. He defines "select and set aside for immediate use" as:

to select and to set aside a mouthful and to put it in one's mouth; alternatively: to select
the amount of the meal, to start and to finish immediately after one's selection. However,
[bereira in order] to eat an hour later — this is equivalent to selecting for the granary...

According to the first option which he mentions, one must eat immediately after
the bereira (according to what we have seen, one may put the okhel on the plate and eat it
immediately), and in any case one definitely may not select for the entire meal.[3]

The Rema rules (319:1) that one is allowed to select for a meal that one is about to eat
immediately: "Whatever one selects for the meal which one is about to eat is called 'le-altar.'"

What is the source of the Rema's view? His opinion is not in keeping with the view of the
Mordekhai, who requires one to eat immediately, or with the view of Rabbeinu Yerucham, who
permits selecting for a meal which will be eaten much later. His words are not even in keeping
with those of Rabbeinu Chananel, who (as cited by the Rishonim[4]) implies that is permissible to
select only during the meal; the Rema, on the other hand, permits selecting even before the meal,
as long as it is close to the meal.[5]

The Peri Megadim (Eshel Avraham 319:6) writes that even though Rabbeinu Chananel's
language implies that one is already sitting at the table, the Rema believes that logically there is
no reason to make such a distinction (and he understands that even Rabbeinu Yerucham permits
this). Similarly, one may derive this from the words of other Rishonim.[6]

The Bei'ur Halakha (319:1, s.v. Ve-khol Ma She-borer) cites this argument while
evaluating whether one can be lenient in accordance with the Rema's view. After noting that
the Tosefet Yerushalayim tries to disprove the Rema's view based on the Yerushalmi, he writes:
"In any case, one need not be stringent in this, as the words of the Rema have a source in our
Talmud."

Apparently the Tosefet Yerushalayim argues with Rabbeinu Chananel and the Rema,
following the view of the Mordekhai that selecting is permitted only for immediate
consumption. According to him, there is a proof to this in the Yerushalmi.[7] The Bei'ur Halakha,
on the other hand, writes that one need not act stringently, since the Babylonian Talmud supports
the Rema's view, as the Vilna Gaon notes (cited ibid.): "from the fact that it says, 'even on that
very day,' etc., it indicates that le-altar does not literally mean immediately." The Gemara says
that the opposite of "le-altar" is "that very day," implying that the immediacy of "le-altar" is
relative; if "le-altar" were to be understood literally as immediate, the Gemara would have to teach
us this novelty, that not only is selection for later that day forbidden, but even selection shortly
before one eats! Similarly, since almost all of the Rishonim echo the words of Rabbeinu Chananel,
there is no place for the stringency of the Tosefet Yerushalayim, which only accords the view of

22
the Mordekhai. Thus, le-altar is not measured halakhically by the akhila (eating) but by
the se'uda (meal).

The Acharonim (Mishna Berura, 4; Ben Ish Chai, Year 2, Beshallach 1; Halikhot Olam,
Vol. IV, p. 75; Yalkut Yosef, 319, n. 12-14) accept the ruling of the Rema, and so we rule
halakhically, that one may select before the meal, as long as it is "close to the meal."[8] However,
we still need to define this term.

Samukh La-se'uda

What exactly is considered "close to the meal" (samukh la-se'uda)? The Rashba in
his Responsa (Vol. IV, Ch. 75) writes:

If one selects in the normal way and sets it aside for an hour later, one is liable; however,
eating it immediately is permissible.

It appears that one may derive from this that bereira for a shorter time is absolutely

permissible.[9] However, it may be that the Rashba is not referring to an hour on the clock, but

rather, colloquially, to a short amount of time. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe, OC, Vol. IV,

Ch. 74, Borer, 13) raises the question: "Is less than an hour of sixty minutes considered selection

to eat le-altar?" He responds,

This hour is not an hour per se, but rather the amount of time that it takes this homemaker
to arrange the food for the meal, and before that point, even a short time, [bereira] is
forbidden.

The Magen Avraham (321:15) also implies that one must perform bereira right before the
meal.[10] However, the Ben Ish Chai (Year 2, Beshallach 1) understands[11] that the intent is
for an actual hour, and he writes:

Everything that is selection for an hour later is considered “borer for a later point” and
is forbidden. However, it is permissible to select for a meal that starts within the hour;
even though one may continue eating at the meal for many hours, it is still allowed.

The view of the Eglei Tal (Borer, 5) lies between these two extremes:

It is not called le-altar unless it is within an hour of one's bereira. If one sits down near
mealtime, even though one may tarry eating other things for longer than an hour before

23
 one eats the selected items, it is permitted to select for the needs of that entire meal, since
one sits down at the meal very close to one's bereira. If one will not sit down very close
[to the bereira], one must not select beyond what one will eat within an hour of
the bereira.

According to this, one may be lenient in the measure of the hour if the akhila itself will
take place within an hour, and it is also permissible to select samukh la-se'uda, even if during the
meal a great deal of time will pass until one consumes this food. However, one should not rely on
both leniencies simultaneously by selecting close to an hour before the meal. Rav Ovadya
Yosef (Halikhot Olam, Vol. IV, pp. 75-77; Yalkut Yosef, 319, n. 12, 14) concurs with this
ruling.

Lengthy Preparations for the Meal

The Gemara (115a) seems to allow one to crack nuts in the late afternoon[12] of Yom
Kippur for after the fast, since the Sages did not issue any decree against this. The Mishna
Berura (Sha'ar Ha-tziyyun 611:9) questions this reading, since peeling fruit for non-immediate use
is a Torah prohibition, not a rabbinical ban. The Mishna Berura explains this based on the words
of the Me'iri:

They only allow it in the afternoon because this is the time that people commonly prepare
their food on a weekday, and all will realize that one is doing it for the needs of the night;
but before this time, it is forbidden, because it appears that one is preparing for the needs
of the day.

The Me'iri is not discussing the prohibition of borer, but according to the Mishna Berura, his
words may help us understand why there is no problem of bereira in this case:

With this he also explains the implication of the allowance to crack nuts since one is not
eating le-altar — although we have established above, in a gloss [of the Rema] in 321:19,
that this is forbidden! Indeed, according to what we have said above, it is no problem:
since it is close to the evening, it as if one prepares to eat le-altar.
Note that, according to this, it is clear that if one does not have many vegetables or nuts,
and one does not need to spend a lot of time preparing them, certainly one should delay
the matter until close to dark, so that it will be close to the evening meal.

According to him, since one shells the nuts close to the evening, at the time when people
would prepare supper on a weekday, this is considered "peeling" for immediate use. According to
this, one may start selecting a bit before the meal, if the bereira is part of the process of preparing
the meal and this process lasts until near the meal. However, the Mishna Berura limits himself
and says that only if one has a great quantity is one allowed to start this bereira a long time before
the meal; however, if it is a small amount of okhel, one must start the selection a bit later, so that
one will complete the act samukh la-se'uda.

In any case, one may select close to the meal even if the meal will take many hours, and it
is permissible to start the bereira at a much earlier point, depending on the quantity one needs to

24
select. To put it simply, one must complete the preparations very close to the meal, as the Magen
Avraham indicates. On the other hand, the Ben Ish Chai rules leniently: one may complete these
preparations close to an hour before the meal. One may adopt the definition of Rav Moshe
Feinstein for "samukh la-se'uda" — namely, "the amount of time that it takes this homemaker to
arrange the food for the meal." In other words, one must complete the preparations for the meal
according to the normal timetable. If so, it appears that one may start the preparations so that they
will be completed a few minutes before the meal, as every person is accustomed to including a
certain "safety margin."

If there are number of types of preparation for the meal, it is preferable to leave
the bereira for the end: removing peels that are not normally eaten (or even peels that are normally
eaten, if possible), sorting silverware, etc. However, if there is a reason to do the bereira before
other preparations, there is no problem in this, even if the bereira will not be close to the meal,
since it is logical that all preparations for the meal fall under the same rubric. The Ayil
Meshullash (Ch. 8, n. 22) writes something similar in the name of Rav Karelitz, and one may enlist
the view of the Ben Ish Chai, who permits any act of selection within an hour of the meal.

Bereira and Essential Acts

We have seen above that one may select samukh la-se'uda even if one will not eat the given
item for a while. On the other hand, if one wants to eat something outside of the context of a meal,
one must select and eat immediately (though there are those who allow this within one hour). What
is the basis of the distinction?

It appears that the rule is that an act bereira must be near in time to the "use" of
the okhel, but each time the definition of "use" changes. If one simply eats the food, akhila is
the use, and then one needs to select shortly before the actual ingestion.

However, in the context of a meal, the fact is that the meal begins once all of the food is
prepared; consequently, bereira le-altar in this case means completing the act of selection near the
start of the meal.

According to this approach, if one must do a number of actions long before the meal so
that the food will be ready for it, and in order to execute a given act one must first perform bereira,
the bereira must merely be proximate to the given act — the relevant "use" or "purpose" in this
case. Rav Neuwirth (Shemirat Shabbat Ke-hilkhatah, Ch. 3, n. 4) quotes Rav S.Z. Auerbach to
this effect:

It may be that the onions need to remain in the soup for a long time in order for the food
to taste good; if so, there is good reason to say that it is considered le-altar and
permissible... The same applies if one is peeling produce in order to put in a salad and
moving up its preparation makes it taste better.

25
 Similarly, Rav Auerbach (ibid., 74) rules that one may select and remove a given food from
the refrigerator in advance of the meal so that it will reach room temperature by mealtime. Since
a great deal of time is required for the food to be properly prepared for the meal, such an act is
considered part of the process of preparing the meal, and the only relevant question is
whether bereira is done soon before this act.[13]

However, Rav Auerbach points out (Shemirat Shabbat Ke-hilkhatah, Tikkunim U-

milllu'im, Ch. 3, n. 200) that this is limited to an act that people are accustomed to do in the
hours before mealtime; however, an act which is normally done some days before the meal,
though it may improve the taste of the food, is not considered part of the process of preparing the
meal, and one may only do it right before the meal.

Similarly, it is clear that if one can do the act closer to the meal and wants to do it earlier
merely for the sake of convenience (for example, one wants to prepare the meal earlier in order to
go afterwards to the synagogue), one must not allow this bereira. The basic distinction is between
the needs of the meal and the needs of the person; bereira can only be advanced when the impetus
is objective and culinary in nature, not when it is subjective and human.

A practical application of this is that one would be allowed to remove the meat from the
sauce in order to heat it on a hotplate, even though there are many hours before the meal, since
placing the meat on the hotplate is necessary so that it will be hot at the time of the meal, and thus
it is permissible to select the meat for the sake of the act of heating. However, if one does not need
the meat to be heated for so long, and it merely makes one's life easier by freeing one to concentrate
on other things, one may not select earlier.

Additional Points of Le-altar

For Others

Selecting for other people who will eat le-altar is permitted, as indicated by the anecdote of Rav
Bivi cited in the Gemara (74a), and the Rema (319:1) rules accordingly.[14] The Ben Ish
Chai (Year 2, Beshallach 3; Rav Pe'alim, Vol. I, Ch. 12) rules that one who is selecting for of
others is allowed to select a quantity greater than what is needed in order to honor the guests:

If one selects a full platter in order to present it to the guests for their immediate
enjoyment, and at the time of selection one knows clearly that the guests will not eat all
of the food on the platter — or even one third of it! — one is selecting all of this solely
in order to fill up the platter in the guests' honor. Indeed, it is an embarrassment to
present a half-empty platter to them, so my conclusion is to permit this, because we
regard the entire platter as necessary for that meal, and doing so is permitted.

The reason is that the honor of the guests is also an essential element of the se'uda, so that the
person is actually selecting for the sake of the meal.

The Selected Food

26
The Bei'ur Halakha (319:1, s.v. Ha-borer) cites an argument concerning the rule of okhel which
has been selected in a prohibited way on Shabbat:

See the Peri Megadim, who writes that if one does select, it may be forbidden [to use the
selected item] for that Shabbat, because one is benefitting from a melakha on
Shabbat... However, according to what the Vilna Gaon has written above 318:1, there
is no need to be stringent with other melakhot [aside from cooking] after the fact if one
does so inadvertently.

According to the Peri Megadim (Eshel Avraham 319:1), okhel which was selected in a
prohibited manner may not be eaten during that Shabbat, while the Bei'ur Halakha writes that one
may rely on the view of the Vilna Gaon (318:1), who allows one to partake of the product of an
inadvertent melakha.[15] Practically, there is another reason to be lenient here, because one could
have done bereira in a permissible way, and if so this is not considered to be benefit from
a melakha.[16]

If one selects for later (not le-altar) use, can one rectify the problem by eating the food
immediately? The Ben Ish Chai (Rav Pe'alim, Vol. I, Ch. 12) rules that one may not correct the
violation, since at the time that one does the bereira, it is considered a melakha. However, there
are those who understand that this would alleviate the problem. It seems to be preferable to mix
everything together again, thereby undoing the gain from the prohibited bereira. By doing so
one may solve the problem, and certainly one does not lose anything — even according to the Ben
Ish Chai (see Yalkut Yosef 319:11).

Is it a problem if after bereira and akhila, some of the food is left over? The Mishna
Berura (5) rules that there is no problem:

And if one's intention is to leave something for after the meal or for another meal, one
is liable to bring a sin-offering. However, if in the course of events something is left of
one's bereira after the meal, this is of no consequence since one has already performed
the selection in a permissible manner.

In other words, since one had intended to select food for the meal, and the food has indeed been
used at the meal (unlike a person who selects and decides not to eat[17]), there is no problem in
this case. In light of this, it is clear that one who selects samukh la-se'uda need not be exact; one
may prepare whatever amount one thinks may be needed for the meal. However, the Mishna
Berura (based on the Tur) adds that if one intentionally prepares an excessive amount, one is liable
(see Yalkut Yosef 319:1).

NOTES

[1] According to Rabbeinu Chananel and the Arukh Ha-shulchan, one may ask: why is peeling fruit not forbidden as a violation
of dash? We will deal with this in our shiurim on the melakha of dash.
[2] In fact, even the Chazon Ish, who generally opposes this view, may concede in this case, since the commingling exists only
in the place where the peel touches the fruit, and when one removes the peel with a bit of the fruit, one takes the entire area of the

27
mixture, just as the Chazon Ish rules leniently to allow removing a fly with a bit of liquid (see our previous shiur; see also Menuchat
Ahava, Vol. II, 7:12). On the other hand, one may argue that this case should be treated more stringently than removing the fly
with a bit of the liquid, so that even the Mishna Berura would concede in this case. This is because the normal way to prepare these
fruits is to remove the peel with part of the flesh; thus, it may be that the flesh which comes off with the peel is insignificant relative
to the peel, and it is considered as if one is removing only pesolet. This is the view of most halakhic authorities: one may not peel
fruit for later use, even though generally a bit of the flesh comes off with peel. The Ketzot Ha-shulchan (Ch. 125, Baddei Ha-
shulchan, 42) puts it this way: "The little bit of the apple's flesh which adheres to the peel is insignificant in relation to the peel
since this is the common way — to remove the peel with a bit of the apple — and it is selecting pesolet from okhel."
[3] The Eglei Tal (Borer, 9) writes that the Ra'avan does not believe that it is permitted to select only for immediate use, as he cites
(Ch. 351) the words of Rabbeinu Chananel that "le-altar" is as long as one is sitting at the table.
[4] See, for example, the Me'iri (74a, s.v. Zeh She-biarnu): "They explained in the Western Talmud [the Yerushalmi, this is
Rabbeinu Chananel's source], that [bereira is permissible] as long as one is sitting at the table — not that they will eat immediately
after the selection. Rather, as long as one is sitting and one's intent is to eat the food or feed it to the family before they leave the
table, it is le-altar and permitted."
[5] The words of Tosafot imply that only use during the meal is considered le-altar. The Gemara (74a) tells that Rav Bivi poured
out a basket of fruit and pesolet before Rabbi Ammi and Rabbi Assi, and Rav Dimi is unsure whether this was to avoid the
prohibition of borer or simply to appear magnanimous. Tosafot (s.v. Ve-lo yadana) write that it cannot be that the question is why
Rav Bivi did not select the fruits in front of them, since according to all opinions one may pick okhel from pesolet for immediate
use; the question is why he did not select the fruit ahead of time. From the words of the Tosafot it appears that le-altar is only
when one selects in the midst of the meal, but when one selects before the meal, this is not necessarily le-altar (and this may be the
Gemara's question).
[6] The Sefer Ha-ittim (p. 337) seems to support the Rema, because he writes that if one selects and sets aside at the table with
intent to sit down and eat, this is called le-altar. This implies that one selects before one sits down. The second possibility cited
above by the Mordekhai ("to select the amount of the meal, to start and to finish immediately after one's selection") also seems to
be in line with the Rema.
[7] It appears that he understands the Yerushalmi's "guests eating first things first" as meaning that the guests eat immediately
everything which the host selects and sets before them, not, as Rabbeinu Chananel understands it, that the guests start with the
appetizer and eventually reach the selected okhel.
[8] Rav Yosef Karo (Beit Yosef 319, s.v. Ve-ha’mordekhai) understands the view of the Rambam (8:13) as distinguishing between
one who is picking okhel from pesolet and one who is selecting between two types of okhel when it comes to le-altar. In the former
case, the Rambam writes that one who selects "even for that same day" is liable, and the Beit Yosef understands that he agrees with
the view of the Mordekhai, that one should select close to eating, or in any case the view of Rabbeinu Chananel, that one should
select close to the meal. Concerning bereira of two types of food, the Rambam writes that if one selects for a later point, "for
example, one selects in the morning to eat in the afternoon, one is liable," and the Beit Yosef derives from this that only in such a
case would one be liable — not to set aside for three or four hours later. Similarly, in the Shulchan Arukh (319:2-3), Rav Yosef
Karo copies the language of the Rambam, and according to this, one who perform bereira on two types of food (or silverware, etc.)
is allowed to select for a point some hours in the future. The Magen Avraham (ibid., 6) writes that according to Rav Yosef Karo,
it is forbidden to perform bereira on two types of food from one meal to the next, but for a shorter time, it is permitted. However,
the Bei'ur Halakha (s.v. She-birer Shacharit) cites a dispute among the Acharonim about this issue, and he concludes that "one
should be careful about this, as it touches on a Torah prohibition" (Sephardic halakhic authorities also rule
stringently. Nevertheless, the lenient view can be considered when there are other mitigating factors.)
[9] When it comes to le-altar, the Gemara distinguishes between liability and permissibility, without raising the in-between option
of "forbidden, but not liable" (a rabbinical prohibition).
[10] The Magen Avraham writes that this is the implication of the words of the Rishonim commenting on Shabbat 114b-
115a. The Gemara there permits trimming vegetables on the afternoon of Yom Kippur. The Rishonim (Rashba, Ran, et al.)
question this: is this not a violation of borer? This implies that even though one is preparing the vegetable for the next meal, this
is not le-altar, and it appears that one must do this immediately before the meal. However, this proof is not compelling. The
Gemara permits trimming vegetables in the afternoon, even though the meal will only be at night, once the fast ends — some hours
later. This would certainly be a violation of borer. Still, it is certainly feasible to maintain that one cannot select for the next meal
if that meal will not occur for a long time, but one may do so a bit closer to the meal, even if it is not immediately before.
[11] The Az Nidberu (Vol. VI, 72:5) writes that "samukh la-se'uda" would be within one half-hour, as this is the definition
of "samukh" in other circumstances, e.g., eating before the Seder (see Rashbam, Pesachim 99b, s.v. Arvei Pesachim).
[12] The literal term is "from the mincha and above," which is roughly equivalent to the last fifth of the daytime (measured from
sunrise to sunset).
[13] Rav S.Z. Auerbach (Shemirat Shabbat Ke-hilkhatah, Ch. 3, n. 185) goes even further, ruling that one is allowed to select an
item to give to another who is about to leave but has no intention of using the object immediately. In this case, he maintain, the
borrowing is the use, and the act of borrowing is done le-altar. (However, there are those who dispute this; see Ayil
Meshullash 8:27, in the name of Rav Elyashiv and Rav Karelitz.)
[14] However, Mahari Abulafia (cited in the Responsa of the Maharitatz, Ch. 23) writes that Rav Dimi's doubt in the Gemara flows
from the question of whether it is permitted to select for others when one is not partaking oneself; accordingly, he forbids one to
do so. However, one may be lenient practically given that one is allowed to select even for the sake of one's animal (Tosefta 17:6,
Rashba's Responsa, Vol. IV, Ch. 75; Rema 321:12). The words of Tosafot (74a, s.v. Ve-lo yadana) also imply that this is not the

28
basis of Rav Dimi's question; rather, he is troubled by selecting okhel from pesolet for non-immediate use. The Mishna
Berura (319:6) rules that it is permissible to select for others even if one does not intend to partake.
[15] From the words of the Bei'ur Halakha it appears that one may rely on the Vilna Gaon, particularly when it comes
to melakhot other than cooking. He seems to be referring to melakhot which involve no fundamental change in the item itself and
are reversible, in which case we may enlist the view of the Ritva (Eiruvin 41b), that the prohibition of benefitting from the product
of a melakha on Shabbat does not apply to these melakhot.
[16] However, it may be that this is not a sufficient reason on its own, for there may be a punishment, even if one does not derive
tangible benefit from the violation. A fuller treatment of this topic is beyond the purview of this chapter. The Maharsham (Da'at
Torah, beginning Ch. 319) rules leniently on this matter. Indeed, Rav Ovadya Yosef (Yalkut Yosef 319:15) rules leniently even
in cases of deliberate violation.
[17] According to the Peri Megadim (Mishbetzot Zahav 319:2), one who selects for immediate use and then decides not to eat the
food is not liable, since at the time of the bereira one had a legitimate aim. However, one may not do so in the first place; one must
eat the okhel right away. The Mishna Berura (Sha'ar Ha-tziyyun, 5) cites this view and questions it in light of a ruling of Rav
Yosef Karo concerning trapping on Shabbat (316:6): one may continue to sit by the door of a house even if a wild animal has
entered it (and is now "trapped" by one's blocking the door) since at the time of one's sitting down, there was no
problem. The Mishna Berura argues that this applies in our case as well: since at the time of bereira one does nothing wrong, one
cannot say that failing to eat the food would create a retroactive violation. Nevertheless, this comparison is questionable, since
sitting by the doorway of an empty house is not an action of trapping in any way, while here one is definitely doing an act of bereira,
just with the intention to eat immediately, and it may be that this case is more serious (unless we say that bereira le-altar is not
considered an act of bereira at all). The Shevitat Shabbat (Borer, Be'er Rechovot, 9) writes this and adds that the words of the Beit
Yosef (319, s.v. Ve-shiur Le-altar) imply that if one does not eat, one is liable. He writes, "Similarly, if one selects before the meal,
one must eat the food at the first meal, and if one leaves it until one gets up from the meal, it is not called le-altar, and one is liable,"
but there are those who explain his words otherwise. (See Yalkut Yosef 319:12.) To summarize, according to the Mishna Berura,
one may change one's mind after selecting le-altar; according to the Peri Megadim, there is a rabbinic ban; and some understand
that the Beit Yosef sees it as a Torah prohibition.

TYPES OF BARLEY9
Confused about all the different kinds of barley that are available?
This illustrated list will help you out.

Photo credits: Freefoto.com (Barley Growing in Field); Shiloh Farms (Hulled Barley, Hulless
Barley, Barley Grits, Barley Flakes); Whole Grains Council (Barley Flour, Pearl Barley, Quick
Barley).

Thanks also to the National Barley Foods Council for some of the information on this page.

9 https://wholegrainscouncil.org/whole-grains-101/whole-grains-101-orphan-pages-found/types-barley

29
Barley, growing in a field

This is what barley looks like as it grows in the field. Most barley is
what’s called “covered barley,” which means it has a tough, inedible
outer hull around the barley kernel. This covering must be removed
before the barley can be eaten. A less common variety, referred to as
“naked” barley, has a covering, or hull, that is so loose that it usually
falls off during harvesting.

Hulled Barley (sometimes called Dehulled Barley)

Hulled barley is covered barley that has been minimally processed

to remove only the tough inedible outer hull. It’s challenging to
remove the hull carefully so that some of the bran is not lost – but
that’s what must be done for covered barley to be considered whole
grain. (see Pearl Barley, below)

Hulless Barley

This type of barley has an outer hull that’s so loosely attached to the
kernel that it generally falls off during harvesting. This cuts down on
processing and ensures that all of the bran and germ are retained.

Barley Grits

When barley kernels are cut into several pieces, they become grits.
Read the label carefully: grits from hulled or hulless barley are
whole grain, but grits created by cutting up pearl barley are not
considered whole grain.

30
Barley Flakes

If barley flakes remind you of oatmeal (rolled oats), it’s because

they’re created the same way, by steaming kernels, rolling them, and
drying them. As with barley grits, flakes can be made from whole
grain barley or from pearl barley, with only the former considered to
be whole grains. Barley flakes cook faster because they’ve been
lightly steamed and because of their greater surface area.

Barley Flour

Barley flour is used in baked goods and as a thickener for soups,

stews and gravies. While it contains gluten, the protein that helps
baked goods rise, the type of gluten in barley flour does not promote
adequate rising on its own, so barley flour is usually used with
wheat flour. Look for whole grain barley flour, ground from hulled
or hulless barley, not from pearl barley.

Pearl Barley (not a whole grain)

Pearl barley has been polished, or “pearled” to remove some or all

of the outer bran layer along with the hull. If it’s lightly pearled,
pearl barley will be tan colored (top photo); if it’s heavily pearled,
barley will be quite white (bottom photo). Most of the barley found
in the typical supermarket is pearl barley. Although it is technically
a refined grain, it’s much healthier than other refined grains because
(a) some of the bran may still be present and (b) the fiber in barley is
distributed throughout the kernel, and not just in the outer bran
layer. Pearl barley cooks more quickly than whole grain barley.

31
 Quick Pearl Barley (not a whole grain)

Quick barley is a type of barley flake that cooks in about 10 minutes,

because it has been partially cooked and dried during the flake-
rolling process. Although barley flakes can be whole grain and
technically it would be feasible to create quick whole grain barley
(similar to quick oats, which are whole grain), the quick barley
commercially available today is made from pearl barley and so is
not whole grain.

SEPARATING THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF

Kelly Toups, RD writes:10

Jaclyn, from North Dakota, wrote the WGC asking if hulled millet is whole grain or not. She’d
read that hulling removes the bran, so she figured the answer would be no – hulled grains are no
longer whole. Happily we were able to assure her that hulled grains can still be whole grains, and
we thought you all might like to understand why.

Your whole life you may have heard the expression “separating the wheat from the chaff” without
any real understanding of its meaning (unless you grew up on a grain farm).

In cereal crops like wheat, rice, barley, oats and others the seed – the grain kernel we eat – grows
on the plant with an inedible hull (also sometimes called a husk) surrounding it. Before we can eat
the grain kernel, we need to remove that inedible hull. This can require two processes: threshing
(to loosen the hull) and winnowing (to get rid of the hull).

In some harvest-ready grains, the hull is thin and papery, and easy to remove. Little or no threshing
is required, as the hull is already loose. Traditionally, farmers would toss this kind of grain into
the air, from big flat baskets, letting the thin hulls – called chaff in Middle English – blow away in
the wind, or fall through the chinks in the basket. This wind-assisted process for separating the
wheat from the chaff is called winnowing and the grains with almost no hull are called “naked”
grains. (You can winnow other grains too — the photo here shows rice being winnowed in
Indonesia.)

Other grains, even when they’re ripe, have a thick hull that adheres tightly to the grain kernel;
these are called “covered” grains and threshing (hulling) them is a real challenge. In the old days,
covered grains were often pounded to loosen the hull, or soaked in water; sometimes they even

10 https://wholegrainscouncil.org/blog/2014/09/separating-wheat-chaff

32
needed to be lightly milled to remove the hull. It’s no coincidence that “thrash” – meaning to whip
or flog – originated as a variant of the word thresh. Alas, with such primitive means, some or all
of the bran was often lost too since the healthy bran layer was stuck to the inedible hull.

Today, fortunately, technology has given us much more exacting ways to peel the hull off of
covered grains, without disturbing the bran layer. That’s why covered varieties of wheat like spelt
and faro are making a comeback, after being sidelined as too much work to hull. At the same time,
plant breeding has helped make more “naked” varieties of some grains available.

A look at the varieties of barley on the market helps illustrate how understanding all this can help
you be a better grain-shopper:

Hull-less barley: This is a “naked” variety of barley that’s recently become more popular
as more and more people choose whole barley over refined. Its inedible hull falls off
naturally or with just a little nudge, leaving the complete whole grain for our enjoyment.

Hulled barley: This is a “covered” variety of barley that has had its hull removed with
modern technology in a way that leaves the bran intact; it’s therefore a whole grain. (You
may also see this described as “dehulled” barley.)

Pearled barley: Pearling is an abrasive process used to remove the hull. It’s something of a
blunt instrument, so some of the bran will be missing too. Therefore, even “lightly pearled”
barley is not whole grain. And some barley is heavily pearled, so there’s virtually no bran
left.

So yes, Jaclyn. Hulled millet is a whole grain, as is hulled barley or any other grain that’s had its
inedible hull removed, leaving all of the original bran, germ and endosperm.

33
 What’s the Difference Between Barley and Wheat?11

Wheat is one of the world’s most commonly consumed cereal grains.

It comes from a type of grass (Triticum) that is grown in countless varieties worldwide.

Bread wheat, or common wheat, is the primary species. Several other closely related species
include durum, spelt, emmer, einkorn, and Khorasan wheat.

White and whole-wheat flour are key ingredients in baked goods, such as bread. Other wheat-
based foods include pasta, noodles, semolina, bulgur, and couscous.

11
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/barley-vs-wheat

34
Wheat is highly controversial because it contains a protein called gluten, which can trigger a
harmful immune response in predisposed individuals.

However, for people who tolerate it, whole-grain wheat can be a rich source of various
antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, and fiber.

This article tells you everything you need to know about wheat.

Nutrition facts

Wheat is mainly composed of carbs but also has moderate amounts of protein.

Here are the nutrition facts for 3.5 ounces (100 grams) of whole-grain wheat flour

• Calories: 340

• Water: 11%

• Protein: 13.2 grams

35
 • Carbs: 72 grams

• Sugar: 0.4 grams

• Fiber: 10.7 grams

• Fat: 2.5 grams

Carbs

Like all cereal grains, wheat is mainly composed of carbs

Starch is the predominant carb in the plant kingdom, accounting for over 90% of the total carb
content in wheat.

The health effects of starch mainly depend on its digestibility, which determines its effect on blood
sugar levels.

High digestibility may cause an unhealthy spike in blood sugar after a meal and have harmful
effects on health, especially for people with diabetes.

Similar to white rice and potatoes, both white and whole wheat rank high on the glycemic index
(GI), making them unsuitable for people with diabetes.

On the other hand, some processed wheat products — such as pasta — are digested less efficiently
and thus don’t raise blood sugar levels to the same extent.

Fiber

Whole wheat is high in fiber — but refined wheat contains almost none.

The fiber content of whole-grain wheat is 12–15% of the dry weight.

36
As they’re concentrated in the bran, fibers are removed during the milling process and largely
absent from refined flour.

The main fiber in wheat bran is arabinoxylan (70%), which is a type of hemicellulose. The rest is
mostly made up of cellulose.

Most wheat fiber is insoluble, passing through your digestive system almost intact and adding bulk
to stool. Some fibers also feed your gut bacteria.

What’s more, wheat contains small amounts of soluble fibers, or fructans, that may cause digestive
symptoms in people with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

By and large, though, wheat bran may have beneficial effects on gut health.

Protein

Proteins make up 7–22% of wheat’s dry weight.

Gluten a large family of proteins, accounts for up to 80% of the total protein content. It’s
responsible for the unique elasticity and stickiness of wheat dough, the properties that make it so
useful in breadmaking.

Wheat gluten can have adverse health effects in people with gluten intolerance.

SUMMARY

Carbs are the main nutritional component of wheat. Still, this grain harbors significant amounts of
fiber, which may aid your digestion. Its protein mostly comes in the form of gluten.

37
Vitamins and minerals

Whole wheat is a good source of several vitamins and minerals.

As with most cereal grains, the amount of minerals depends on the soil in which it’s grown.

• Selenium. This trace element has various essential functions in your body. The selenium
content of wheat depends on the soil — and is very low in some regions, including China.

• Manganese. Found in high amounts in whole grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables,
manganese may be poorly absorbed from whole wheat due to its phytic acid content.

• Phosphorus. This dietary mineral plays an essential role in the maintenance and growth of
body tissues.

• Copper. An essential trace element, copper is often low in the Western

diet. Deficiency may have adverse effects on heart health.

• Folate. One of the B vitamins, folate is also known as folic acid or vitamin B9. It’s
particularly important during pregnancy.

Some of the most nutritious parts of the grain — the bran and germ — are absent from white wheat
because they’re removed during the milling and refining process.

Therefore, white wheat is relatively poor in many vitamins and minerals compared to whole-grain
wheat.

Because wheat accounts for a large portion of people’s food intake, flour is regularly enriched with
vitamins and minerals.

In fact, enrichment of wheat flour is mandatory in many countries (16).

Enriched wheat flour may be a good source of iron, thiamine, niacin, calcium, and vitamin B6, in
addition to the above nutrients.

38
SUMMARY

Whole wheat may be a decent source of several vitamins and minerals, including selenium,
manganese, phosphorus, copper, and folate.

Other plant compounds

Most of the plant compounds in wheat are concentrated in the bran and germ, which are absent
from refined white wheat.

The highest levels of antioxidants are found in the aleurone layer, a component of the bran.

Wheat aleurone is also sold as a dietary supplement.

Common plant compounds in wheat include:

• Ferulic acid. This polyphenol is the predominant antioxidant in wheat and other cereal
grains.

• Phytic acid. Concentrated in the bran, phytic acid may impair your absorption of minerals,
such as iron and zinc. Soaking, sprouting, and fermenting grains can reduce its levels.

• Alkylresorcinols. Found in wheat bran, alkylresorcinols are a class of antioxidants that

may have a number of health benefits.

• Lignans. These are another family of antioxidants present in wheat bran. Test-tube studies
indicate that lignans may help prevent colon cancer.

• Wheat germ agglutinin. This protein is concentrated in wheat germ and blamed for a
number of adverse health effects. However, lectins are inactivated with heat — and thus
neutralized in baked goods.

• Lutein. An antioxidant carotenoid, lutein is responsible for the color of yellow durum
wheat. High-lutein foods may improve eye health.

39
SUMMARY

Wheat bran, which is present in whole wheat, may contain a number of healthy antioxidants, such
as alkylresorcinols and lignans. Notably, white flour and other refined wheat products do not
contain these compounds.

Get our daily Nutrition email

To help you create your best meal plan, we’ll send you expert, evidence-based guidance on
nutrition and weight loss.

SUMMARY

Whole wheat and other whole-grain cereals may promote gut health and reduce your risk of colon
cancer.

SUMMARY

Gluten — which is found in all wheat — can harm individuals with celiac disease. This condition
is characterized by damage to your small intestine and impaired absorption of nutrients.

Other downsides and side effects

Although whole-grain wheat may have some health benefits, many people need to eat less of it —
or avoid it altogether.

Wheat sensitivity

The number of individuals who follow a gluten-free diet exceeds those who have celiac disease.

Sometimes, people simply believe that wheat and gluten are inherently harmful to health. In other
cases, wheat or gluten may cause actual symptoms.

40
This condition — called gluten sensitivity or non-celiac wheat sensitivity — is defined as an
adverse reaction to wheat without any autoimmune or allergic reactions.

Frequently reported symptoms of wheat sensitivity include abdominal pain, headache, fatigue,
diarrhea, joint pain, bloating, and eczema.

One study indicates that, in some people, the symptoms of wheat sensitivity may be triggered by
substances other than gluten.

Evidence suggests that wheat sensitivity is caused by fructans, which belong to a class of fibers
known as FODMAPs.

High dietary intake of FODMAPs exacerbates IBS, which has symptoms similar to those of celiac
disease.

In fact, approximately 30% of people with IBS experience a wheat sensitivity.

Studies indicate that IBS may be associated with low-grade inflammation in the digestive tract.

If you have this condition, it may be best to limit wheat consumption.

Allergy

Food allergy is a common condition, triggered by a harmful immune response to certain proteins.

Gluten in wheat is a primary allergen, affecting approximately 1% of children (56Trusted Source).

In adults, allergy is most often reported among those regularly exposed to airborne wheat dust.

Baker’s asthma and nasal inflammation are typical allergic reactions to wheat dust.

41
Antinutrients

Whole-grain wheat contains phytic acid (phytate), which impairs the absorption of minerals —
such as iron and zinc — from the same meal.

For this reason, it has been referred to as an antinutrient.

While rarely problematic for people following a well-balanced diet, antinutrients may be a concern
for those who base their diets on cereal grains and legumes.

The phytic acid content of wheat can be reduced considerably — by up to 90% — by soaking and
fermenting the grains (21Trusted Source, 58Trusted Source).

SUMMARY

Wheat has a number of potential downsides. These include allergy, worsened IBS symptoms,
wheat intolerance, and antinutrient content.

Common wheat vs. spelt

Spelt is an ancient variety of wheat closely related to common wheat.

Grown for thousands of years, spelt has recently become popular as a health food.

Common whole wheat and spelt have similar nutritional profiles — particularly regarding their
fiber and protein content. Still, this depends on which varieties of spelt and common wheat are
being compared.

That said, spelt may be richer in some minerals, such as zinc.

In fact, studies indicate that modern wheat may be lower in minerals than many ancient types of
wheat.

42
Other than its higher mineral content, spelt is not clearly more beneficial than whole-grain common
wheat.

SUMMARY

Spelt may have a higher mineral content than common wheat. However, this difference is unlikely
to have any major health effect.

Barley vs Wheat - Health impact and Nutrition Comparison

vs

Zvart Movsisyan writes:12

INTRODUCTION
Wheat vs barley. Both of them are whole grains widely consumed worldwide. Some people

consider them to be the same, but they are absolutely different cereals, although they belong to the

same family. Can you differentiate wheat and barley? Let’s gain insight into the main key points

to distinguish them.

12 https://foodstruct.com/compare/barley-hulled-vs-wheat

43
Historical background

Wheat – Triticum aestivum, it is originated from the Levant, the cultivation of it dates back almost 10000

years ago. It is the second most consumed grain after the rice. The plant’s stalk is a long, with

spiky kernels clusters. Barley – Hordeum vulgare, is the fourth consumed grain cereal after the rice,

wheat and maize. It is domesticated and cultivated in the Near East in Bronze Age Mesopotamia

about 11000 years ago.

Consumption
Wheat is a staple food; it is used for making bread, biscuits, crackers, pasta, bulgur, cookies,

noodles and other breakfast products, and in a lesser extent for beverages and as an animal food.

Barley is mainly used in beer brewing and in production of other alcoholic beverages; it is largely

used as livestock fodder. Both wheat and barley are used for direct cooking. There are two forms

of produced and edible barley – hulled and pearled. Hulled one is minimal processed, the bran and

germ are intact, and only edible outer shell is removed, saving by this way most of nutrients. The

pearled one is polished and has no bran either. Barley is easy to cook like rice, and wheat needs

for some preparation before cooking - it should be milled into the flour or broken and pre-boiled

into the bulgur, which unfortunately diminishes the wheat’s nutrient content. So, bellow we will

reveal nutritional content comparison of wheat and barley.

NUTRITIONAL CONTENT COMPARISON

There is no big difference between nutritional content of wheat and barley. They are considered to

be nutritional goldmines, since they are powerful sources of protein, carbohydrates, fiber,

essential vitamins and minerals. Barley is higher in dietary fiber than wheat; on the other hand

wheat is higher in protein. They contain almost equal quantity of fats and carbohydrates.

From among all proteins in wheat and barley gluten is worth mentioning. Gluten is a common

name of some proteins in cereal, which ensure the shape and chewy texture of foods like glue. The

44
gluten in barley is hordein, and the gluten in wheat is gliadin. There are some gluten related

disorders, which we will discuss later.

MINERALS COMPARISON
Let’s look at the mineral content of what and barely. From the viewpoint of minerals wheat is the

winner because it is radically higher in Selenium, inconsiderably higher in Phosphorus, slightly

higher in Copper and Zinc, as well as in Magnesium and Manganese, also it contains less sodium.

VITAMINS COMPARISON
What about vitamins comparison? Wheat is greatly higher in Vitamin B5, fairly higher in

Vitamin B3. On the other hand, barley is higher enough in Vitamin B2 and Vitamin B1, while

wheat is higher in Vitamin B6. Barely is also contains some content of Vitamin K, Vitamin A and

Vitamin E, which are absent in wheat. So, in this content barley is the title holder.

HEALTH IMPACT
Wheat is higher in Selenium – the essential element for our health. Higher Selenium status is

essential for human reproduction function, has antiviral, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects,

it reduces the risk of autoimmune thyroid disease as well as the risk of different types of cancer

(1). On the other hand, high intake of Selenium rich food may increase the risk of Diabetes type

2. Wheat is also higher in Copper, which contributes to the formation of red blood cells, body

tissues, to the right function of endocrine and cardiovascular systems; it is involved in

pigmentation of hair and skin (2).

All B vitamins are concentrated in bran or germ of wheat and barley, so they lose most of them by

producing processes. The group of B vitamins contributes to the right metabolism, the right

function of nervous and metabolic systems, provides us with essential energy, and nourishes our

skin and blood vessels (3).

45
Barley is higher in dietary fiber. Dietary fiber decreases the risk of Diabetes type 2, prevents

constipation, contributes to weight loss, shortens intestinal transit time, reduces the risk of

colorectal and breast cancer, reduces the cholesterol and the risk of coronary heart disease (4, 5).

According to the study (6) high intake of food rich in dietary fiber prevents Gallstone disease and

Cholecystectomy.

We finally got to the most concerning contemporary issues related to the gluten. A number of

people may react to gluten in different ways. According to the review published in February 2012

(7), there are three main forms of gluten reactions: autoimmune (Celiac disease, Dermatitis

herpetiformis and gluten ataxia), possibly immune mediated (gluten sensitivity), allergic (wheat

allergy).

Celiac disease is the most common immune-mediated small intestinal disorder among the people

of European origin affecting about 1% of them. People with Celiac disease have a genetic

predisposition related to the HLA-DQ-2 and HLA-DQ-8 gene mutations, but it doesn’t mean that

every person with this predisposition has Celiac disease. Clinical presentations vary from the

classical intestinal symptoms (diarrhea, bloating, vomiting, stomach pain, constipation, weight

loss etc) to the extra intestinal symptoms (for example, osteoporosis, anemia, neurological

symptoms, which are the result of malabsorption of nutrients).

Dermatitis herpetiformis presents with a blistering rush. The incidence is about 1:10,000 in the

UK and among the European Americans, 4:10,000 and 6:10,000 among the people from Sweden

and Finland respectively. The skin symptoms start with small erythematous vesicles, which rapidly

turn into the urticarial papule accompanied with burning and itching.

46
Non-Celiac gluten sensitivity has similar symptoms as Celiac diseases, which appear in hours to

days after gluten consumption. The high levels of antibodies and intestinal damage are absent here

contrary to Celiac disease.

Wheat allergy is the immunological response to the wheat proteins, associated with high levels

of immunoglobulin E, which known as the allergic marker in the blood. There are different types

of wheat allergy, depending on the way of allergen exposure and the underlying mechanisms -

classic food allergy, affecting respiratory or gastrointestinal tract, and the skin; wheat-dependent,

exercise induced anaphylaxis; baker’s asthma or rhinitis; contact urticaria. Symptoms depend on

the type.

It is important to note that all these conditions can be threatened with gluten-free diet.

Except for gluten, there are some other points to concern. Wheat germ agglutinin (WGA)

is another type of protein found in wheat, which leads to the similar intestinal disorders like gluten

by damaging epithelial cells. Researchers use this feature to create anti-tumor drugs (8). According

to the study, published in February 2019 (9) WGA demonstrated maximum toxicity toward acute

myeloid leukemia, even in low doses.

SUMMARY
Wheat and barley are widely used and versatile grains. Wheat is mostly used as a source of food

in different states, and the barley mostly used for beer brewing and as a cattle feed. Although there

is no significant difference between nutritional content, wheat is better in minerals, at the same

time barley is richer in vitamins. Despite the fact that today most of markets suggest gluten free

products, the number of people suffering from gluten is not as frightening as it seems.

47
Notes

1. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22381456/
2. https://foodstruct.com/ru/list/продукты-богатые-медью
3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280920597_Nutritional_Contents_and_Medicinal_Properties_of_Wheat_A_
Review
4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4998136/
5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28252255/
6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25020181/
7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3292448/
8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24244425_Effects_of_wheat_germ_agglutinin_on_human_gastrointestinal_e
pithelium_Insights_from_an_experimental_model_of_immuneepithelial_cell_304_interaction
9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6393371/

Barley grain13

Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) is one of the main cereal crops. With 150 million tons produced in 2009,
barley grain production ranked fourth behind maize, rice and wheat (FAO, 2011). Developing
countries account for about 25% of the total barley harvested area (Akar et al., 2003).

13
https://www.feedipedia.org/node/227

48
Barley is an annual, erect and tufted grass, up to 50 to 120 cm high. It has a strong fibrous root
system, with seminal roots that grow as deep as 1.8-2.1 m and anchor the plant, and adventitious
roots that explore the upper soil for moisture and nutrients (Ecocrop, 2011; UC SAREP, 2006).
The stems are made of 5 to 7 hollow, cylindrical internodes. The leaves are linear and lanceolate,
up to 25 cm long, placed opposite their neighbours along the stem (Ecocrop, 2011; Duke, 1983).
In barley, the sheaths, ligule and auricles of the leaves surround the stem (Ecocrop, 2011). Spikes
are variable in size (short or long) and shape (lax or compact). They may also be awned or
awnletted or awnless; they are borne at the end of the culms. Depending on barley type, 1 or 3
spikelets are alternately borne at each node along the rachis of the spike. In domesticated barley,
all spikelets are fertile: depending on the number of spikelets, there are barleys with 2 or 6 rows
of grains (Cecarelli et al., 2006). Barley grain is an ellipsoid, grooved, 0.7-0.9 cm long caryopse
that may be white, blue or black in colour and hairy at the end (Ecocrop, 2011; Duke, 1983).

There are thousands of cultivated barley landraces and hundreds of cultivars. Cultivars can be
classified according to several factors: the number of rows of grains (2-row and 6-row),
compactness of spikes, hull adherence (hulled or naked barley), presence or size of awns (awned,
awnletted or awnless varieties), growth habit (winter or spring barley) and colour (white, blue or
black kernels) (Cecarelli et al., 2006; CFIA, 2005; OECD, 2004). End-use may also be a way to
classify barley (OECD, 2004). The average yield for barley grain is 2.7 t/ha but there are large
differences between countries, from yields as high as 8.39 t/ha in Belgium to yields as low as 0.6
t/ha in Morocco and 0.2 t/ha in Lesotho (FAO, 2011).

Barley grain has three major uses: livestock feed, raw material for alcohol and starch production,
and food (OECD, 2004).

• Barley is of utmost importance for livestock feeding, which accounts for about
85% of barley production. Six-row barleys, which have higher protein content, are a
valuable feed ingredient (OECD, 2004). Two-row barleys contain more starch and less
protein and are thus preferred for brewing (barley with more than 11.5% protein causes
beer cloudiness) (Monfort et al., 2005).
• Barley grain is used for the production of alcohol (beer, whisky and ethanol), non-
alcoholic beverages (barley tea, breakfast beverages) (OECD, 2004).
• Food products include starch flour, flakes and pearled barley and it is a staple food
in several countries including Morocco, India, China and Ethiopia (OECD, 2004).
• The by-products of barley grain processing are used as feed: brewer's
grains, brewer's yeast, malt culms (barley sprouts and rootlets), barley distillers and
solubles, hulls, bran and barley feed (the by-product of pearl barley production) (OECD,
2004).
• Barley forage can be fed to livestock as pasture, hay or silage.
• Barley straw is also used as fodder for ruminants and as bedding material (OECD,
2004, Akar et al., 2003).

Distribution

49
Barley is grown in more than 100 countries: the 10 main barley producers (Russian federation,
France, Germany, Ukraine, Canada, Australia, Spain, Turkey, UK and USA) account for 75% of
the total world production. Barley importers include countries that use it primarily for feed, as
Saudi Arabia (29% of exported barley), Iran and Syria, and beer producers like Belgium and the
Netherlands (FAO, 2011; OECD, 2004).

Though its origin is still debated, it is believed that wild barley is an indigenous plant in the
Middle East and adjacent regions of North Africa. It was domesticated more than 7000 years ago
(Cecarelli et al., 2006; OECD, 2004). Its cultivation spread from the Middle East to northern
Africa, and moved South along the Nile, into Ethiopia, as early as 5000 BCE (Cecarelli et al.,
2006). It spread to northern and western Europe and later to North America, Australia, and
southern Africa (Ellis, 2002).

Modern barley is the most widely distributed cereal crop (Ecocrop, 2011; Duke, 1983). Barley is
cultivated from 70°N (in Norway) to 17°N (around tropical Timbuktu, Mali). It can be found
down to 53°S in southern Chile (Ecocrop, 2011). Barley is commonly found at higher latitudes,
higher elevations and in drier places than cereals such as wheat and oats. Thanks to its short
growing season (some cultivars mature in 60-70 days), it can be found at higher latitudes than
wheat (Duke, 1983) and it does well in areas that are too hot or dry for wheat because it ripens
before harsh conditions occur. In the tropics, barley is found at higher elevations than other
cereals (above 1800 m and up to 4500 m in the Himalayas) (Ecoport, 2011).

Optimal growth conditions are an annual rainfall ranging from 190 mm to 1760 mm, average day
temperatures of about 20°C and soil pH between 4.5 and 8.3 (Duke, 1983). Barley thrives on
well-drained, fertile loams or light clay soils and does better on alkaline than on acid soils. Low
pH may induce aluminium toxicity (Duke, 1983). Barley does not withstand waterlogging but
has good salt tolerance (up to 1% salt in the soil)(Duke, 1983).

Barley is grown as a winter crop in areas with comparative mild winters, as in Mediterranean
basin and India (Duke, 1983). In other regions, such as the highlands of Ethiopia, barley can be
cropped twice a year. Barley can be sown with wheat in mixed cropping systems, examples being
in Eritrea and northern Ethiopia (Cecarelli et al., 2006).

Processes

Barley grain must be dried before storage. In developing countries, the harvested crop is left to
dry in open and sunny areas during the day and covered during the night. When the crop is
harvested by hand, bunches are made with the straw and left in the field until the moisture content
is reduced to 12-14%, and then collected and threshed (Akar et al., 2003).
Barley is a hard grain that should be crushed or ground, otherwise it will pass undigested through
the alimentary tract. Feed efficiency improves with the removal of hulls, grinding, or the breaking
of the bran layer. Common processes include rolling (dry or steam rolling), flaking, grinding,
and pelleting (OSU, 2006). Ground barley can be sifted into a finer fraction containing less than
3% fibre and a coarser one containing about 11% fibre. The finer fraction is more suitable for
pigs and poultry than whole ground barley (Göhl, 1982). Dry-rolled and ground barley contains

50
considerable dust that may reduce intake and adversely affect performance and health in cattle
(Mathison, 1996).

Environmental impact
Phytoremediation
Barley is a salt-tolerant species that can be used for the reclamation of saline soils. The main
mechanisms of salinity tolerance are salt exclusion and salt dilution (Anderson et al., 1985 cited
by UC SAREP, 2006). Barley is thought to have potential for Zn, Cu and Cd extraction (Ebbs et
al., 1998). Barley has Al tolerance provided the pH is not too low (Singh et al., 2007).
Weed suppression
Barley can compete with weeds for soil moisture and may be used for this purpose in high-density
sown swards (UC SAREP, 2006).
Cover crop and green manure
Barley can be ploughed in as green manure in spring or grown as a cover crop. In the latter case,
only barley forage will be harvested (UC SAREP, 2006).

Nutritional attributes

Barley grain is an important feed ingredient for the major livestock species, and often competes
with wheat and maize grain. For instance, barley is a valuable grain for finishing beef cattle in
the United States (OECD, 2004). In most European countries, wheat and barley are the most
commonly used cereal grains in poultry and pig feeds (Bergh et al., 1999).
Like maize and wheat, barley grain contains a high level of starch, about 60% DM (55-63%),
which is lower than that of the other two cereal grains. Its protein content (about 11-12% with
values comprised between 9.5 and 13% DM) is similar to that of wheat and higher than that of
maize. Barley has a higher fibre content (crude fibre 4-6%, ADF 5-7%, NDF 18-24%) than maize
and wheat, which results in a poorer nutritive value in animal species sensitive to fibre content
(Feedipedia, 2011).
Several types of barley varieties can be of interest in animal feeding. Hulless varieties, which
contain about half the fibre content of hulled varieties and 1-2% more protein, are more digestible
and less bulky (CDC, 2003). Low-phytate barleys can help reduce phosphorus excretion
(Gaylord et al., 2010). There are waxy barleys that contain more amylopectin (up to 97% of
starch) than regular barleys (about 54%), and high-amylose barleys. The physical structure of
starch (distribution of starch granules according to size) can interact negatively with the presence
of other constituents (lipids, protein, ß-glucans) to decrease digestibility by reducing contact
between the starch and the digestive enzymes (Svihus et al., 2005; Bergh et al., 1999). Waxy
barleys are high in ß-glucans and should be treated with enzymes in pigs and avoided in poultry
(CDC, 2003).

Potential constraints

51
Mechanical injuries
Awned barley varieties may cause irritation and result in stomatitis in horses, cattle and poultry
(Kahn, 2005; Göhl, 1982). The awns should be removed prior to feeding poultry (Göhl, 1982).
Mycotoxicosis
Barley grain is susceptible to scab (Fusarium head blight), a disease caused by Fusarium spp. in hot
and humid conditions. Fusarium head blight results in the production of mycotoxins, notably in
deoxynivalenol (DON, vomitoxin) (Burrows et al., 2008). Signs of toxicosis are weight loss,
lower feed conversion, vomiting, bloody diarrhoea, severe dermatitis and death. It causes lower
egg production in hens and abortion in mammals. Pigs are more susceptible to vomitoxin than
cattle and poultry (Herrman, 2002). Harvested grain containing more than 5% infected kernels
may contain enough toxin to be harmful to humans and animals (Buhariwalla et al., 2011). The
USDA has set a limit for deoxynivalenol at 5-10 ppm in grains intended for animal feeding
(Burrows et al., 2008).
Pentosans
Barley contains pentosans (ß-glucans) that cause sticky droppings in poultry, resulting in leg and
breast damage and low-grade products. In laying hens, sticky droppings tend to adhere to the
mesh and to mark the eggs as they roll away, reducing their market value (Chesson, 1991). ß-
glucans also result in poor performance in monogastric animals. ß-glucanase supplementation
may alleviate these problems (OECD, 2004; Göhl, 1982).

Ruminants

Barley grain is one of the most common grains used in diets for dairy and beef cattle. Due to its
high gross energy and high energy digestibility (80%), barley grain has a high metabolisable
energy value for ruminants (about 12.4 MJ/kg DM; Sauvant et al., 2004). However, its protein
value is low with a digestible protein content of about 10% DM in diets with an adequate N
balance (INRA, 2007). Due to its high content of rapidly degradable starch (nearly 50% of the
DM), barley grain should be included in the diet at levels compatible with dietary
recommendations on degradable starch (less than 40% of the DM). Other factors that influence
pH buffering (for example particle length, forage NDF, electrolyte balance) should also be taken
into consideration.

Effects of processing
Because the pericarp surrounding the endosperm of the barley kernel is extremely resistant to
microbial degradation in the rumen, even in high-forage diets favoring mastication (Mathison,
1996), dry barley grain needs to be processed to improve its utilisation by beef and dairy cattle
(Dehghan-banadaky et al., 2007). In lambs, however, processing (pelleting) did not prove to be
necessary since feeding whole barley grain resulted in similar digestibility, prevented rumenitis
and resulted in better subcutaneous fat quality (Orskov et al., 1974a; Orskov et al., 1974b).

Individual animal variation is high when animals are fed whole barley (Mathison, 1996). When
barley is processed, for a given level of barley grain in the diet, animal performance depends not
only on grain quality, but on the processing method, the extent of processing and their
interactions (Dehghan-banadaky et al., 2007; Mathison, 1996). Incidence of bloating have been

52
shown to be higher in steers fed whole rather than rolled barley, which is surprising since
processing should increase degradability and the risk of bloating, but the mechanisms involved
in these results are still unclear (Mathison, 1996).

Individual animal variation is high when animals are fed whole barley (Mathison, 1996). When
barley is processed, for a given level of barley grain in the diet, animal performance depends not
only on grain quality, but on the processing method, the extent of processing and their
interactions (Dehghan-banadaky et al., 2007; Mathison, 1996). Incidence of bloating have been
shown to be higher in steers fed whole, rather than rolled, barley, which is surprising since
processing should increase degradability and the risk of bloating, but the mechanisms involved
are still unclear (Mathison, 1996).

Grinding with a hammer mill is not an adequate process. It induces considerable dust due to
shattering grain kernels and is generally detrimental to animal performance (Dehghan-banadaky
et al., 2007). Finely ground barley grain ferments more rapidly than cracked barley grain, and
may reduce productivity of cattle. Reduced feed intake (a reduction of 5% of DM intake
compared to rolled barley given to steers), growth rate (down 100 g/d), feed efficiency
(4.47 vs. 7.54), and fat depots (less 0.15 cm) have been observed with ground barley (Mathison,
1996).

Dry rolling, achieved by passing kernels between rotating rollers, is a common processing
method. Adequate dry rolling increases rumen digestibility of grain and animal productivity
(Dehghan-banadaky et al., 2007). In cattle fed high-grain diets, digestibility increased by 16%
when rolled barley was fed rather than whole barley, related to an increase in starch digestibility
of 37% (Mathison, 1996).

Tempering is achieved by raising the moisture content of the barley to 20-25% by adding water,
mixing, and storing for 12-24 h prior to rolling (Dehghan-banadaky et al., 2007). This method
reduces dustiness and production of fine particles. Although information is scarce, tempering of
barley may slightly improve feed conversion (increased by 6.8%) in growing and finishing cattle,
but the mechanisms are not clear since intake, starch digestibility, daily gain, and carcass
characteristics are not affected (Mathison, 1996).

Steam rolling is achieved by application of steam above the roller mill prior to rolling. Compared
to dry rolling, it reduces production of fine particles during rolling, allowing a more uniform
particle size distribution. Short term (70 seconds) steam rolling was of no benefit in improving
feeding value compared to dry rolling, where longer times (20 min) increased digestibility.
However, there was generally little response in either live-weight gain or efficiency (Mathison,
1996).

Steam flaking is achieved by applying steam at low or high pressure and allowing the grain to
cool before rolling. The combination of moisture, heat and pressure gelatinizes the starch
granules. This process does not improve feed efficiency (Owens et al., 1997), because barley
starch, once exposed to microbial organisms in the rumen, is readily degradable even without
being gelatinized (Dehghan-banadaky et al., 2007). Neither pelleting with a low moisture content

53
and a temperature around 80°C, nor extrusion affect rumen degradation of starch in barley grain,
due to the very high level of rumen degradable starch before processing (Svihus et al., 2005).

Some processes can be applied to barley grain to control its rate of degradation in the rumen.
Roasting, aldehyde treatment, and ammonia can decrease starch and rumen protein degradability
(Mathison, 1996, Dehghan-banadaky et al., 2007). Ammoniation can increase milk production
in dairy cows, but does not affect daily gain and feed efficiency in lambs (Mathison, 1996).
Treating grains with NaOH may increase its ruminal starch digestibility without increasing the
ruminal rate of starch release (Dehghan-banadaky et al., 2007). Ammonia or fibrolytic enzymes
can increase hull degradation (Dehghan-banadaky et al., 2007). The effect of expanding is
unclear, and could depend on temperature, treatment duration and particle size. At high heat input
and low moisture content (toasting), the protein matrix becomes resistant to proteolysis and the
rumen degradation of barley starch is decreased, but this does not reduce its intestinal
digestibility in situ or in vivo (Svihus et al., 2005).

Pigs
Like other cereal grains, barley is mainly a source of energy for pigs due to its starch content.
The main advantage of barley relative to the other cereal grains is its higher content in digestible
amino acids (particularly lysine), especially when compared to maize grain (Noblet et al., 2002).
However, barley contains about 95% of the digestible or metabolizable energy content of maize
and wheat due to its higher dietary fibre content (Noblet et al., 2002). Barley contains more
phosphorus than the other commonly used grains and its bioavailability is also higher. Pigs are
particularly susceptible to the mycotoxin deoxynivalenol, which may be present in Fusarium-
contaminated barley (Herrman, 2002) (see Potential constraints above).

In weaner pigs, the palatability of barley distributed in mash form is higher than for maize and
wheat and this difference increases when pelleted diets are fed to piglets (Sola-Oriol et al., 2009).
The inclusion rate of barley for weaner pigs should be lower than 40% (of diet DM) to avoid
negative effects on growth performance. In growing and finishing pigs and in gestating and
lactating sows, barley meal can be used as the only cereal grain without adverse effects on
performance (Harrold, 1999).

Poultry

Because ME value of barley is lower than that of maize and wheat, its use is limited in high-
energy poultry diets. Barley composition and ME value depend on its origin (Jeroch et al.,
1995; Metayer et al., 1993). The use of high inclusion rates of barley in poultry diets has been
known for a long time to be detrimental to growth, particularly in young birds (Jeroch et al.,
1995). Sticky droppings and wet litter can result from feeding barley to poultry, due to soluble
polysaccharides such as ß-glucans. These non-starch polysaccharides are known to reduce
nutrient digestibility and to increase viscosity of digestive contents (Chesson, 2001). Older birds
can consume diets containing up to 20-30% of barley without detrimental effects on growth, but
litter condition can be negatively affected with diets containing more than 20% of barley (Brake

54
et al., 1997). Increased percentages of dirty eggs are mentioned in literature from laying hens fed
barley-based diets.

In order to prevent those negative effects and to increase the percentage of barley in poultry diets,
multi-enzyme preparations containing mainly ß-glucanases can be added (Burnett, 1966). The
possible benefits of those preparations include the reduction of digesta viscosity, enhanced
digestibility of nutrients and a reduction in water intake (Jeroch et al., 1995, Chesson,
2001, Choct, 2006).

Fish

Barley is relatively low in protein and is used in fish feeds primarily for its starch content. Its
nutritional value for fish species is lower than that of other common cereal grains and cereal by-
products due to several factors. The presence of hulls in standard varieties tends to dilute the
energy content of the grains since the hulls have little or no nutritional value for fish. Also, hulls
make processing more difficult, notably grinding and extrusion. Another issue is that barley
phosphorus is bound primarily as phytate that cannot be digested effectively. Low-phytate
varieties have been tested successfully in several fish species (Gaylord et al., 2010).
Salmonids
In rainbow trout fed a diet containin 30% barley, using low-phytate varieties (less than 40% of
phytate-P in total P) significantly reduced fecal excretion of phosphorus (Sugiura et al.,
1999; Overturf et al., 2003).

Tables of chemical composition and nutritional value

Barley grain

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max

Dry matter % as fed 87.1 1.3 82.8 91.6 1
Crude protein % DM 11.8 1.1 8.5 16.1 1
Crude fibre % DM 5.2 0.8 3.1 8.2 1
NDF % DM 21.7 3.2 14.7 30.0
ADF % DM 6.4 0.9 4.4 8.7
Lignin % DM 1.1 0.3 0.6 2.0
Ether extract % DM 2.0 0.3 1.2 2.9
Ash % DM 2.6 0.3 1.9 3.4
Starch (polarimetry) % DM 59.7 2.3 52.2 66.8
Total sugars % DM 2.8 0.7 1.4 4.4

55
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 18.4 0.1 18.1 18.7

Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max

Calcium g/kg DM 0.8 0.4 0.1 1.8
Phosphorus g/kg DM 3.9 0.3 3.0 4.9
Potassium g/kg DM 5.7 0.6 4.5 7.2
Sodium g/kg DM 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3
Magnesium g/kg DM 1.3 0.2 0.9 2.0
Manganese mg/kg DM 19 3 13 24
Zinc mg/kg DM 30 4 24 44
Copper mg/kg DM 12 5 5 20
Iron mg/kg DM 184 119 52 468

Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max

Alanine % protein 4.1 0.3 3.5 4.6
Arginine % protein 4.7 0.4 3.9 5.5
Aspartic acid % protein 5.8 0.4 5.0 6.6
Cystine % protein 2.2 0.2 1.9 2.7
Glutamic acid % protein 22.8 1.5 19.6 26.0
Glycine % protein 4.0 0.2 3.5 4.5
Histidine % protein 2.2 0.2 1.8 2.8
Isoleucine % protein 3.6 0.2 3.2 4.0
Leucine % protein 6.8 0.3 6.1 7.5
Lysine % protein 3.7 0.3 3.2 4.3
Methionine % protein 1.7 0.2 1.4 2.1
Phenylalanine % protein 4.9 0.3 4.3 5.4
Proline % protein 10.5 0.9 8.5 12.0
Serine % protein 4.2 0.2 3.7 4.7
Threonine % protein 3.4 0.2 3.0 3.9
Tryptophan % protein 1.2 0.1 1.1 1.4
Tyrosine % protein 2.8 0.4 1.5 3.5
Valine % protein 5.0 0.3 4.3 5.7

Secondary metabolites Unit Avg SD Min Max

Tannins (eq. tannic acid) g/kg DM 0.8 1.4 0.2 4.9

Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max

OM digestibility, Ruminant % 83.2 17.6 41.2 86.4
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 80.7 21.4 38.4 82.1
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 14.8
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 12.4 0.4 5.4 12.4
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 66.6 12.4 63.6 91.0

56
a (N) % 15.5 10.0 7.0 29.6
b (N) % 74.7 8.6 63.2 87.1
c (N) h-1 0.168 0.105 0.097 0.340
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=4%) % 76 71 86
Nitrogen degradability (effective, k=6%) % 71 6 61 83

Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max

Energy digestibility, growing pig % 80.6 1.7 76.7 82.9
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 14.8 0.4 13.8 15.2
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 14.3 0.3 13.8 14.8
NE growing pig MJ/kg DM 11.1
Nitrogen digestibility, growing pig % 76.2 9.4 52.4 87.0

Poultry nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max

AMEn cockerel MJ/kg DM 13.2 0.5 13.2 15.3
AMEn broiler MJ/kg DM 11.3 0.4 11.3 13.1

Rabbit nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max

Energy digestibility, rabbit % 79.0 75.7 79.1
DE rabbit MJ/kg DM 14.5 0.5 13.9 14.9
MEn rabbit MJ/kg DM 14.1

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

Barley grain, naked varieties

Main analysis Unit Avg SD Min Max

Dry matter % as fed 86.8 1.1 85.7 88.6
Crude protein % DM 14.4 2.2 9.8 16.6
Crude fibre % DM 2.3 0.3 1.7 2.8
NDF % DM 12.8 2.6 10.1 16.3
ADF % DM 2.9 1.0 2.0 5.2
Lignin % DM 0.6 0.2 0.5 1.0
Ether extract % DM 2.3 0.1 2.1 2.4
Ash % DM 2.1 0.1 1.9 2.4
Starch (enzymatic) % DM 61.00 6.07 52.50 66.10
Gross energy MJ/kg DM 18.6 0.2 18.1 19.0

Minerals Unit Avg SD Min Max

57
Calcium g/kg DM 0.5
Phosphorus g/kg DM 4.3
Magnesium g/kg DM 1.5
Manganese mg/kg DM 15
Zinc mg/kg DM 30
Copper mg/kg DM 5
Iron mg/kg DM 55

Amino acids Unit Avg SD Min Max

Alanine % protein 4.5
Arginine % protein 5.4 0.4 5.1 5.9
Aspartic acid % protein 6.0
Cystine % protein 2.7 0.5 2.3 3.4
Glutamic acid % protein 21.6
Glycine % protein 4.4
Histidine % protein 2.5 0.5 2.2 3.2
Isoleucine % protein 3.8 0.1 3.6 3.9
Leucine % protein 7.2 0.3 6.8 7.4
Lysine % protein 3.8 0.1 3.6 3.9
Methionine % protein 1.8 0.1 1.6 1.9
Phenylalanine % protein 5.2 0.3 4.7 5.4
Proline % protein 9.6
Serine % protein 4.2
Threonine % protein 3.6 0.1 3.5 3.7
Tryptophan % protein 1.0
Tyrosine % protein 3.4 0.3 3.1 3.8
Valine % protein 5.3 0.2 5.1 5.7

Ruminant nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max

OM digestibility, Ruminant % 88.8
Energy digestibility, ruminants % 86.5
DE ruminants MJ/kg DM 16.1
ME ruminants MJ/kg DM 13.4
Nitrogen digestibility, ruminants % 72.1

Pig nutritive values Unit Avg SD Min Max

Energy digestibility, growing pig % 87.5 0.8 86.6 88.8
DE growing pig MJ/kg DM 16.2 0.4 15.7 16.8
MEn growing pig MJ/kg DM 15.1

The asterisk * indicates that the average value was obtained by an equation.

58
 References

Abas, I. ; Ozpnar, H. ; Kutay, H. C. ; Kahraman, R. ; Eseceli, H., 2005. Determination of the metabolizable energy (ME) and net energy lactation (NEL)
contents of some feeds in the Marmara Region by in vitro gas technique. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci., 29: 751-757
Acedo-Rico, J. ; Mendez, J. ; Santomá, G., 2010. Feed manufacturing. In: de Blas, C. ; Wiseman, J. (Eds): 200-221. The nutrition of the rabbit. CAB
Publishing
Akar, T. ; Muzaffer Avci, M. ; Dusunceli, F., 2003. Barley: Post-Harvest Operations. In: Compendium on Post-harvest Operations. Chapter XXXI.
AGST/FAO
Akram, M. ; Rasool, S. ; Aslam, M. ; Nawaz, S., 1989. Comparative nutritive value of barley, oats and maize in rabbits. Pakistan Vet. J., 9: 85-86
Al-Shami, S. A. ; Mohammed, T. A., 2009. Effect of replacement of barley grains by wasted breadcrumbs or rejected dates on growth performance and
carcass traits of growing rabbits. Pakistan J. Nutr., 8 (5): 635-641
Beames, R. M. ; Helm, J. H. ; Eggum, B. O. ; Boisen, S. ; Bach Knudsen, K. E. ; Swift, M. L., 1996. A comparison of methods for measuring the
nutritive value for pigs of a range of hulled and hulless barley cultivars. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 62: 189-201
Beauchemin, K. A. ; Rode, I. M., 1998. Optimum processing of barley. Advances in Dairy Technology, 10 (152)

Belal, I. E. H., 1999. Replacing dietary corn with barley seeds in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (L.), feed. Aquacult. Res., 30 (4): 265-269

Bell, J. M. ; Keith, M. O., 1993. Effects of combinations of wheat, corn or hulless barley with hulled barley supplemented with soybean meal or canola
meal on growth rate, efficiency of feed utilization and carcass quality of market pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 44 (1-2): 129-150
Bergh, M. O. ; Razdan, A. ; Aman, P., 1999. Nutritional influence of broiler chicken diets based on covered normal, waxy and high amylose barleys
with or without enzyme supplementation. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 78 (3-4): 215-226
Brake, J. D. ; Brann, D. E. ; Griffey, C. A., 1997. Barley without enzyme supplementation in broiler grower and finisher diets. J. Appl. Poult. Res., 6:
422-431
Buentello, J. A. ; Gatlin, D. M. III, 2010. Phosphorus availability in low-phytate mutant varieties of barley: digestibility studies with channel catfish and
red drum. North Amer. J. Aquacult., 72 (2): 188-194
Buhariwalla, H. K. ; Duveiller, E. ; Kosina, P., 2011. Fusarium Head Blight (extended information). Wheat Doctor, CIMMYT, Mexico

Buraczewska, L. ; Schultz, E. ; Schröeder, H., 1987. Ileal digestibilities of amino acids in pigs fed barleys differing in protein content. Arch.
Tierernähr., 37 (10): 861-867
Burnett, G. S., 1966. Studies of viscosity as the probable factor involved in the improvement of certain barleys for chickens by enzyme
supplementation. Br. Poult. Sci., 7 (1): 55 - 75
Burrows, M. ; Grey, W. ; Dyer, A., 2008. Fusarium head blight (scab) of wheat and barley. Ag and Natural Resources (Plant Diseases), 1000-608SA,
Montana State University Extension, Bozeman, USA
Capper, B. S. ; Thomson, E. F. ; Rihawi, S, 1989. Voluntary intake and digestibility of barley straw as influenced by variety and supplementation with
either barley grain or cottonseed cake. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 26 (1-2): 105-118
CDC, 2003. Hulless barley. Crop Development Centre, University of Saskatchewan

Cecarelli, S. ; Grando, S., 2006. Hordeum vulgare L.. Record from Protabase. Brink, M. & Belay, G. (Editors). PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa /
Ressources végétales de l’Afrique tropicale), Wageningen, Netherlands.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2005. Description of cereal species (Appendix V). In: Seed program specific work instructions - Cereal crop
inspection procedures. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Canada
Chesson, A., 1991. Effects of supplementary enzymes in barley diets. Options Méditerranéennes - Série Séminaires, 20: 55-62

Chesson, A., 2001. Non-starch polysaccharide degrading enzymes in poultry diets: influence of ingredients on the selection of activities. World Poult.
Sci. J., 57 (3): 251-263
Choct, M., 2006. Enzymes for the feed industry: past, present and future. World Poult. Sci. J., 62 (1): 5-16

Davies, S. J. ; Gouveia, A., 2004. Cereal processing and improved carbohydrate digestibility in over-wintering diets for juvenile Gilthead sea bream.
Int. Aquafeed, 7 (4): 18-23
de Blas, J. C. ; Taboada, E. ; Mateos, G. G. ; Nicodemus, N. ; Mendez, J., 1995. Effect of substitution of starch for fiber and fat in isoenergetic diets on
nutrient digestibility and reproductive performance of rabbits. J. Anim. Sci., 73 (4): 1131-1137
de Blas, C.; Mateos, G. G., 2010. Feed formulation. In: Nutrition of the rabbit - 2nd edition. de Blas, C.; Wiseman, J. (Eds). CAB International, UK

Degani, G. ; Yehuda, Y. ; Viola, S. ; Degani, G., 1997. The digestibility of nutrient sources for common carp, Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus. Aquacult. Res., 28
(8): 575-580

59
Degani, G. ; Viola, S. ; Yehuda, Y., 1997. Apparent digestibility of protein and carbohydrate in feed ingredients for adult tilapia (Oreochromis aureus * O.
niloticus
). Israeli J. Aquacult., 49 (3): 115-123
Dehghan-banadaky, M. ; Corbett, R. ; Oba, M., 2007. Effects of barley grain processing on productivity of cattle. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 137 (1-2):
1-24
Duke, J. A., 1983. Handbook of Energy Crops. NewCROPS web site, Purdue University

Ebbs, S. D. ; Kochian, L. V., 1998. Phytoextraction of zinc by oat (Avena sativa), barley (Hordeum vulgare), and Indian mustard (Brassica juncea). Environ. Sci.
Technol., 32 (6): 802–806
Ecocrop, 2011. Ecocrop database. FAO

Ecoport, 2011. Ecoport database. Ecoport

Ellis, R. P., 2002. Wild barley as a source of genes for crop improvement. In: Slafer, G. A.; Molina-Cano, J. L.; Savin, R.; Araus, J. L.; Romagosa, I.
(Eds), Barley Science, Recent advanges from molecular biology to agronomy of yield and quality, Food Products Press, Binghampton, USA, pp 65-83.
FAO, 2011. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Fengler, A. I. ; Aherne, F. X. ; Robblee, A. R., 1990. Influence of germination of cereals on viscosity of their aqueous extracts and nutritive value.
Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 28 (3-4): 243-253
Fernandez, C. ; Merino, J. M. ; Carabaño, R., 1996. Effect of enzyme complex supplementation on diet digestibility and growth performance in
growing rabbits. Proc. 6th World Rabbit Congress, Toulouse, France, 9-12/07/1996, 1: 163-166.
Garcia, G. ; Galvez, J. F. ; Blas, J. C. de, 1993. Effect of substitution of sugarbeet pulp for barley in diets for finishing rabbits on growth performance
and on energy and nitrogen efficiency. J. Anim. Sci., 71 (7): 1823-1830
García-Ruiz, A. I. ; García-Palomares, J. ; García-Rebollar, P. ; Chamorro, S. ; Carabaño, R. ; de Blas, C., 2006. Effect of protein source and enzyme
supplementation on ileal protein digestibility and fattening performance in rabbits. Spanish J. Agric. Res., 4 (4) : 297-303.
Gaylord, T. G. ; Barrows, F. T. ; Rawles, S. D. ; Liu, K. ; Bregitzer, P. ; Hang, A. ; Obert, D. E. ; Morris, C., 2009. Apparent digestibility of nutrients
and energy in extruded diets from cultivars of barley and wheat selected for nutritional quality in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Aquacult. Nutr., 15 (3):
306-312
Gaylord, T. G. ; Barrows, F. T. ; Rawles, S. D., 2010. Apparent amino acid availability from feedstuffs in extruded diets for rainbow trout Oncorhynchus
mykiss
. Aquacult. Nutr., 16 (4): 400-406
Göhl, B.; Thomke, S., 1976. Digestibility coefficients and metabolizable energy of barley diets for layers as influenced by geographical area of
production. Poult. Sci., 55: 2639-2374
Göhl, B., 1982. Les aliments du bétail sous les tropiques. FAO, Division de Production et Santé Animale, Roma, Italy

Green, S. ; Bertrand, S. L. ; Duron, M. J. C. ; Maillard, R., 1987. Digestibilities of amino acids in maize, wheat and barley meals, determined with intact
and caecectomised cockerels. Br. Poult. Sci., 28 (4): 631-641
Green, S.; Bertrand, S. L.; Duron, M. J. C.; Maillard, R., 1987. Digestibility of amino acids in maize, wheat and barley meals measured in pigs with
ileo-rectal anastomosis and isolation of the large intestine. J. Sci. Food Agric., 41 (1): 29-43
Grings, E. E. ; Roffler, R. E. ; Deitelhoff, D. P., 1992. Evaluation of corn and barley as energy sources for cows in early lactation fed alfalfa-based
diets. J. Dairy Sci., 75 (1): 193-200
Harrold, R. L., 1999. Feeding barley to swine and poultry. In: Technical report of the North Dakota State University, Fargo, N. D. , p. 17

Herrman, T., 2002. Mycotoxins in feed grains and ingredients. Kansas State University - May 2002

Huet, J. C. ; Baudet, J. ; Bettaieb Ben Kaab, L. ; Mossé, J., 1988. Variation of the amino-acid scores and of the nitrogen-to-protein conversion factors in
barley grain as a function of nitrogen content as compared with wheat and rye. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr., 38: 175-178
INRA, 2007. Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. Besoins des animaux - valeurs des aliments. Tables Inra 2007. Quae éditions

Jeroch, H. ; Dänicke, S., 1995. Barley in poultry feeding: a review. World Poult. Sci. J., 51 (3): 271-291

Kahn, C. M., 2005. The Merck Veterinary Manual. Merck, 9th edition

Lanza, E. ; Sinatra, M.C. ; Fasone, V. ; d'Urso, G., 1986. Effect of using maize, barley and triticale in single-cereal diets for fattening rabbits. Rivista di
Coniglicoltura 23:47-48
Laurent, F., 1988. Review : Utilization of wheat grain and other cereals in diets for dairy cows. Ann. Zootech., 37 (2): 117-132

Lebas, F.; Viard Drouet, F.; Coudert, P., 1988. Reproduction and morbidity of rabbit does. Effects of diet energy level and origin. First results. 4th
World Rabbit Congress, Budapest, 3 (2): 53-58
Lopez-Bote, C. J. ; Sanz, M. ; Rey, A. ; Castaño, A. ; Thos, J., 1998. Lower lipid oxidation in the muscle of rabbits fed diets containing oats. Anim.
Feed Sci. Technol., 70 (1): 1-9

60
Mathison, G. W., 1996. Effects of processing on the utilization of grain by cattle. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 58 (1-2): 113-125

Matz, S. A., 1991. The chemistry and technology of cereals as food and feed. AVI Book, Springer

McKeown, L. E. ; Chaves, A. V. ; Oba, M. ; Dugan, M. E. R. ; Okine, E. ; McAllister, T. A., 2010. Effects of replacing barley grain with triticale-based
dried distillers' grains with solubles on nutrient digestibility, lamb growth performance and carcass traits. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 90 (1): 87-98
Metayer, J. P. ; Grosjean, F. ; Castaing, J., 1993. Study of variability in French cereals. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 43 (1-2): 87-108

Monfort, B. ; Sinnaeve, ; Dardenne, P. ; Falisse, A, 2005. Prédiction des teneurs en protéines des orges de brasserie avant la moisson en 2005.
Promotion de l'Orge de brasserie (asbl). Gembloux, Belgique
Mulatu, B. ; Grando, S., 2011. Barley Research and Development in Ethiopia. Proc. 2nd National Barley Research and Development Review
Workshop. 28-30 November 2006, HARC, Holetta, Ethiopia. ICARDA, PO Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria. pp xiv + 391
Neumark, H., 1970. Personal communication. Volcani Institute of Agricutural Reseach, Israel
Noblet, J.; Sève, B.; Jondreville, C., 2002. Valeur nutritive pour le porc. In: Tables de composition et de valeur nutritive des matières premières
destinées aux animaux d'élevage (Eds. Sauvant, D., Perez J. M., Tran, G.), p. 301, INRA-AFZ, Paris
OECD, 2004. Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.): key food and feed nutrients and anti-
nutrients. Series on the Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds No. 12, Joint meeting of the chemicals committee and the working party on chemicals,
pesticides and biotechnology, OECD
Ørskov, E. R. ; Fraser, C. ; McHattie, I., 1974. Cereal processing and food utilization by sheep. 2. A note on the effect of feeding unprocessed barley,
maize, oats and wheat on food utilization by early-weaned lambs. Anim. Prod., 18 (1): 85-88
Ørskov, E. R. ; Fraser, C. ; Gordon, J. G. , 1974. Effect of processing of cereals on rumen fermentation, digestibility, rumination time, and firmness of
subcutaneous fat in lambs. Br. J. Nutr., 32 (1): 59-69
Oregon State University, 2006. What is Barley?. Barley Project, Crop and soil science department, Oregon State Universtity, USA

Overturf, K. ; Raboy, V. ; Cheng, Z. J. ; Hardy, R. W., 2003. Mineral availability from barley low phytic acid grains in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
diets. Aquacult. Nutr., 9 (4): 239-246
Owens, F. N. ; Secrist, D. S. ; Hill, W. J. ; Gill, D. R., 1997. The effect of grain source and grain processing on performance of feedlot cattle: a review.
J. Anim. Sci., 75 (3): 868-879
Pascual, J. J.; Sebastian, A.; Cervera, C.; Blas, E.; Fernandez-Carmona, J., 1998. Effets de la substitution de l'orge par de l'huile de soja sur les
performances de lapins allaitantes : premiers résultats. 7èmes Journées de la Recherche Cunicole, Lyon 1998: 167-170.
Pauly, T. ; Sporndly, R. ; Uden, P., 1992. Rumen degradability in sacco of physically and chemically treated oat and barley grain. J. Sci. Food Agric., 58
(4): 465–473
Perez, J. M. ; Maertens, L. ; Villamide, M. J. ; de Blas, J. C., 1998. Tables of composition and nutritive value of feedstuffs for rabbits: First proposal
from a European working group. 7èmes Journ. Rech. Cunicole Fr., Lyon, 141-14
Perttilä, S.; Valaja, J.; Partanen, K.; Jalava, T., 2001. Effect of volume-weight on apparent ileal and excreta amino acid digestibility and feeding value
of barley for poultry. J. Anim. Feed Sci., 10 (4): 671-685
Prasad, R. ; Karim, S. A., 1998. Effect of dietary energy and protein level on performance and digestibility parameters in pregnant and in lactating
rabbit does under tropical environment. World Rabbit Science, 6 (3-4): 271-276
Racz, V. J., 2001. Innovation and Commercialization of Saskatchewan Feedstuffs. Final Report to Canada-Saskatchewan Agri-Food Innovation Fund,
October 1997 to March 31, 2001, Prairie Feed Resource Centre
Ram Ratan; Sawal, R. K., 2005. Influence of sirus (Albizia lebbeck) pods supplementation in sheep production. Indian J. Small Rumin., 11 (1): 43-47

Romero, C. ; Nicodemus, N. ; Rodríguez, J. D. ; García, A. I.; de Blas, C., 2011. Effect of type of grinding of barley and dehydrated alfalfa on
performance, digestion, and crude mucin ileal concentration in growing rabbits.. J. Anim. Sci., 89 (8): 2472-2484
Sauvant, D.; Perez, J. M.; Tran, G., 2004. Tables INRA-AFZ de composition et de valeur nutritive des matières premières destinées aux animaux
d'élevage: 2ème édition. ISBN 2738011586, 306 p. INRA Editions Versailles
Sauveur, B., 1989. Phytic phosphorus and phytases in poultry nutrition. Inra Prod. Anim., 2 (5): 343-351

Seker, E., 2002. The determination of the energy values of some ruminant feeds by using digestibility trial and gas test. Revue Med. Vet., 153 (5): 323-
328
Seroux, M., 1982. Effet de la cuisson de l'amidon par floconnage des céréales sur les performances zootechniques des lapereaux sevrés. 3e Journées
Rech. Cunicole en France 1:communication 10,1-11
Seroux, M., 1984. The use of monocereal diets for rabbits. 3rd World Rabbit Congress, Rome 1:331-339
Seroux, M., 1989. Barley for fattening rabbits. Effects of flaking. Cuniculture (Paris) 16:99
Sibbald, I. R., 1979. Bioavailable amino acids and true metabolizable energy of cereal grains. Poult. Sci., 58 (4): 934-939

61
Sinatra, M.C. ; Fasone, .V; Barresi, S. ; d'Urso, G., 1987. Effect of using wheat, barley and triticale in monocereal diets for rabbits. Tecnica Agricola
39:243-248
Singh, R. P. ; Dhania, G. ; Sharma, A. ; Jaiwal, P. K., 2007. Biotechnological approaches to improve phytoremediation efficiency for environment
contaminants. In: Environmental bioremediation technologies, Singh, S. N.;Tripahti, R. D. (Eds) Springer, 223-258
Sola-Oriol, D. ; Roura, E. ; Torrallardona, D., 2009. Feed preference in pigs: Effect of cereal sources at different inclusion rates. J. Anim. Sci., 87 (2):
562-570
Steen, R. W. J., 1993. A comparison of wheat and barley as supplements to grass silage for finishing beef cattle. Anim. Prod., 56 (1): 61-67

Struklec, M. ; Kermauner, A. ; Marinsek Logar, R., 1995. Effect of feeding with a diet based on maize, barley and oats on the digestive process and
growth performance in growing rabbits. Sodobno Kmetijstvo 28:505-508
Sugiura, S. H. ; Raboy, V. ; Young, K. A. ; Dong, F. M. ; Hardy, R. W., 1999. Availability of phosphorus and trace elements in low-phytate varieties of
barley and corn for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture, 170 (3-4): 285-296
Sullivan, Z.; Honeyman, M.; Gibson, L.; McGuire, J.; Nelson, M., 2005. Feeding small grains to swine. Iowa State University, University Extension,
PM1994 2005
Svihus, B. ; Uhlen, A. K. ; Harstad, O. M., 2005. Effect of starch granule structure, associated components and processing on nutritive value of cereal
starch: a review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 122 (3-4): 303-320
Taghizadeh, A. ; Safamerh, A. ; Palangi, V. ; Mehmannavaz, Y., 2008. The determination of metabolizable protein in some feedstuffs used in ruminant.
Res. J. Biol. Sci., 3 (7): 804-806
Taira, H., 1965. Studies on amino acid contents of food crops. 10. Amino acids in barley on dehulling and milling. J. Japan. Soc. Food Nutr., 18: 226-
229
Tait, R. M. ; Bryant, R. G., 1973. Influence of energy source and physical form of all-concentrate rations on early weaned lambs. Can. J. Anim. Sci., 53
(1): 89-94
Thomas, M.; Rijm, W.; van der Poel, A. F. B., 2001. Functionality of raw materials and feed composition. Cahiers Options Méditerranéennes, 54: 87-
102
Tor-Agbidye, Y.; Cheeke, P. R.; Nakaue, H. S.; Froseth, J. A.; Patton, N. M., 1992. Effects of beta-glucanase (Allzyme BG) on comparative
performance of growing rabbits and broiler chicks fed rye, triticale and high- and low-glucan barley. J. Appl. Rabbit Res., 15 (B): 1144-1152
UC SAREP, 2006. Cover crop database. University of California, Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program, Davis

Vacha, F. ; Vejsada, P. ; Huda, J., 2006. Cereal additional feeding in relation to organoleptic characteristic of common carp flesh. Relation of
environment, fish culture and common carp flesh quality. Bulletin - VURH Vodnany, 42 (3): 101-104
van Barneveld, R. J. ; Hughes, R. J. ; Choct, M. ; Tredrea, A. ; Nielsen, S. G., 2005. Extrusion and expansion of cereal grains promotes variable energy
yields in pigs, broiler chickens and laying hens. Rec. Adv. Anim. Nutr. Aust., 15: 47-55
Vargas, M.; Urbá, R.; Enero, R.; Báez, H.; Pardo, P.; Visconti, C., 1965. Composición de alimentos chilenos de uso en ganadería y avicultura. Santiago.
Ministerio de Agricultura. Instituto de Investigación Veterinaria.
Villamide, M. J. ; Fraga, M. J., 1998. Prediction of the digestible crude protein and protein digestibility of feed ingredients for rabbits from chemical
analysis. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 70: 211-224
Wang, M. ; Hu, Y. ; Tan, Z. ; Tang, S. ; Sun, Z.; Han, X., 2008. In situ ruminal phosphorus degradation of selected three classes of feedstuffs in goats.
Livest. Sci., 117 (2-3): 233-237
Wiseman, J. ; Villamide, Maria J. ; Carabaño, Maria J. ; Carabaño, R., 1992. Prediction of the digestible energy and digestibility of gross energy of
feeds for rabbits. 1. Individual classes of feeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 39 (1-2): 27-38

62