Comparison of forage yield and quality of local and commercial barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) varieties under semi-arid conditions

1. Introduction

Türkiye sustains rural communities through its large cattle, sheep, and goat population, which supports domestic food security and fuels the red meat and dairy sectors (Daskiran et al., 2018). The latest statistics show that Türkiye maintains a cattle population of 16 million alongside 52 million small ruminants (TÜİK, 2024). The demand for forage has increased because of fast cattle farming development, together with natural rangeland destruction and rising feed costs, and unpredictable weather patterns (Tubb & Seba, 2021). The quantity and quality of on-farm roughage often remain insufficient to support superior animal performance in Türkiye (Hanoğlu Oral & Gökkuş, 2021). These constraints have heightened interest in drought-tolerant and water-efficient forage crops that help maintain feed availability and strengthen the resilience of livestock production (Koçak, 2023).

The Muş province in Eastern Anatolia has significant potential for livestock production, with rangelands representing a considerable fraction of the overall agricultural area (Kurt & Gülalp, 2021; Özkurt & Çınar, 2020). The combination of improper land management and excessive grazing has led to a significant drop in both rangeland productivity and biodiversity, thereby limiting the availability of high-quality forage (Kurt & Güllap, 2021). The region traditionally grows alfalfa together with silage maize (Karadağ et al., 2024). Alfalfa farming has declined sharply, while production costs have risen, and silage maize performance has become unreliable during drought conditions, exacerbating feed supply challenges. These constraints highlight the need for high-yielding, nutritionally adequate, and better-adapted varieties to the rainfed, semi-arid conditions of Muş.

Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) serves as a vital crop for animal feeding while thriving under dry environmental conditions (Newton et al., 2011). Barley not only provides an energy source for ruminants, pigs and poultry, but also serves as a source of protein. The protein content fluctuates between 9.6 and 14.1% while its fat content is about 2%. Barley serves as a low-lysine, low-threonine energy source but is high in tryptophan. The plant demonstrates suitability for semi-arid regions through its ability to withstand cold and drought conditions and produce reliable yields in poor soil environments during its short growing season (Carter et al., 2019; Mansour et al., 2018). The flexible harvesting schedule of barley allows farmers to integrate the crop into different farming systems as grain, green fodder, hay, or silage (Newton et al., 2011). The optimal harvesting time of barley fodder results in high energy content and suitable protein amount, and acceptable fiber content, which makes it ideal for complete ruminant feed formulations (Nikkhah, 2013). Identifying barley varieties with strong forage yield and quality characteristics can support more sustainable livestock systems in Eastern Anatolia.

A crop’s suitability for ruminant nutrition depends equally on the quality of its forage and its total biomass production (Capstaff & Miller, 2018). The essential characteristics include crude protein (CP) content and cell wall components, such as acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF), digestible dry matter (DDM), and relative feed value (RFV) (Capstaff & Miller, 2018). The two fiber components, i.e., ADF and NDF, are at high levels, resulting in decreased digestibility and voluntary intake. In contrast, better animal performance occurs when CP and fiber fractions are at their optimum levels. These characteristics are significantly affected by genotype, environment, and their interaction, harvest time, and management factors. In semi-arid, high-altitude regions like Muş, significant interannual fluctuation in temperature and precipitation challenges the selection of stable and high-performing forage genotypes. Therefore, it is important to carry out region-specific assessments of several barley cultivars in realistic field conditions to select genotypes with high forage production, acceptable nutritional quality, and consistent stability across the years.

While numerous studies have evaluated the grain yield of barley varieties across various areas of Türkiye and abroad (Akdogan et al., 2025; Bouhraoua et al., 2025; Güngör et al., 2024), thorough comparisons of forage yield and quality under the semi-arid conditions of Muş province are scarce. Specifically, data that combines agronomic performance (fresh forage and dry matter production) with extensive quality indicators (CP, ADF, NDF, DDM, RFV) across an extensive range of local and commercial genotypes is limited. This knowledge gap restricts evidence-based variety recommendations for farmers and hinders the optimization of regional forage production methods. The current study aimed to evaluate the forage yield and quality characteristics of 14 barley genotypes, including widely cultivated commercial varieties and promising lines, under rainfed circumstances in Muş during two successive growing seasons.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Experimental site description

This research was conducted out in the research field of Muş Alparslan University during the 2019–2020 and 2020–2021 growing seasons. The experimental site for the 2019–2020 season was located at 38.79649° N, 41.50273° E, while the 2020–2021 experiment was established at 38.77131° N, 41.421265° E. The study area lies within the boundaries of Muş province at an altitude of approximately 1,300–1,350 m above sea level and is characterized by a continental climate, classified as cold semi-arid (BSk) according to the Köppen–Geiger system. Temperature, precipitation, and relative humidity data for the study area for 2020 and 2021, alongside long-term averages, are presented in Fig. 1.

Close

Fig. 1.

Monthly variations in temperature (°C), precipitation (mm), and relative humidity (%) for Muş Province during the 2020–2021 growing seasons. Red lines represent the monthly mean temperature, green dashed lines show the relative humidity, and blue bars indicate total monthly precipitation.

Export to PPT

Soil samples were collected separately for each growing season from the 0–30 cm soil layer. According to the USDA soil texture classification, the 2019–2020 experimental site exhibited a clay texture, consisting of 36.64% sand, 17.45% silt, and 45.91% clay, with a pH of 7.40, electrical conductivity (EC) of 0.40 dS m⁻¹, calcareous content of 0.26%, organic matter of 1.28%, available phosphorus of 1020 kg ha⁻¹, and available potassium of 908 kg ha⁻¹. The 2020–2021 experimental site was characterized as clay loam, containing 30.47% sand, 19.87% silt, and 41.87% clay, with a slightly acidic pH (6.61), an EC of 0.20 dS m⁻¹, calcareous content of 1.10%, organic matter of 1.23%, available phosphorus of 851 kg ha⁻¹, and available potassium of 741 kg ha⁻¹. These results indicate notable differences in soil texture and nutrient status between the two growing seasons, which may have influenced the performance of the barley genotypes evaluated in this study (Table 1).

Table 1. Cultivars and their sources.

Cultivar	Source code
Olgun	DAAE
Mert	OLTR
Aydanhanım	TBAE
Burakbey	TBAE
TARM-92	TBAE
Sladoran	TRAE
Zeynel Ağa	TBAE
Harman	TRAE
Yaprak	TRAE
Martı	TRAE
Hazar	TRAE
Bolayır	TRAE
Line 1	MAU
Line 2	MAU

DAAE: Doğu Anadolu Agricultural Research Institute (Erzurum, Türkiye); TBAE: Tarla Bitkileri Central Research Institute (Ankara, Türkiye); TRAE: Trakya Agricultural Research Institute (Edirne, Türkiye); OLTR: Olgunlar Turizm Tarım Enerji Üretim Tic. Paz. Ltd.; MAU: Muş Alparslan University.

3. Results

There were significant differences in plant height due to the year, genotype, and their interaction (P < 0.01). The plant height on average decreased from 77.81 cm in 2020 to 70.09 cm in the following year, which was a sign of less favorable rainfall distribution in 2021. The values for two-year averages were between 62.98 and 84.86 cm (Table 3). The genotype ‘Hazar’, along with ‘Sladoran’, ‘Zeynel Ağa’, ‘Yaprak’, ‘Martı’, and ‘Bolayır’, were in the shortest group, while ‘Aydanhanım’, ‘Olgun’, ‘Burakbey’, and ‘Tarm-92’ developed taller canopies, thereby increasing their biomass potential.

The analysis of fresh forage yield (FFY) data showed highly significant differences among genotypes and years and the combined effect of these factors (P < 0.01). Annual FFY values showed a substantial drop from 17766 kg ha⁻¹ in 2020 to 10527 kg ha⁻¹ in 2021 due to lower amounts of in-season precipitation. Two-year averages showed that ‘Olgun’ had the highest yield, while ‘Zeynel Ağa’, ‘Martı’, ‘Hazar’, ‘Bolayır’, ‘Line 1’, and ‘Line 2’ were the lowest performing genotypes. The 2020 results showed ‘Aydanhanım’ and ‘Burakbey’ as the top two performers before ‘Aydanhanım’ and ‘Olgun’ took the lead in 2021, proving different strains perform better in changing conditions (Table 3).

The dry matter ratio (DMR) exhibited substantial variation across years (P < 0.01), averaging 92.03% in 2020 and 87.62% in 2021, with greater rainfall in 2021 associated with a lower DMR. Genotypic variations were significant, ranging from 89.49% to 91.03%, with ‘Olgun’, ‘Aydanhanım’, ‘Sladoran’, ‘Harman’, ‘Hazar’, ‘Bolayır’, ‘Line 1’, and ‘Line 2’ constituting the high-DMR group (Table 4). The DMY was significantly affected by the year, genotype, and their interaction. The average DMY declined from 5039 to 3097 kg ha⁻¹ between 2020 and 2021. Two-year averages varied from 2945 to 5127 kg ha⁻¹, with ‘Olgun’ demonstrating evident superiority and ‘Harman’ exhibiting the lowest performance, indicating divergent adaptability.

The average ADF content was 28.43% and showed no significant variation across genotypes; however, the considerable year effect revealed higher ADF levels in 2020 compared to 2021, aligning with increased structural tissue under optimal development conditions (Table 5). The NDF concentration exhibited considerable variation across genotypes and throughout the years (P < 0.01), with values ranging from 54.57% (‘Bolayır’) to 60.22% (‘Burakbey’). The mean NDF decreased from 58.74% in 2020 to 56.18% in 2021, and a significant year × genotype interaction revealed that specific variety altered their rankings between the two years.

The CP concentration was influenced by both the year and the genotype. The means increased from 14.89% in 2020 to 16.79% in 2021, with two-year averages ranging from 15.28% (‘Olgun’) to 16.34% (‘Yaprak’) (Table 6). The CP yield, including CP content and DMY, varied from 459 to 775 kg ha⁻¹. The ‘Olgun’, ‘Mert’, ‘Aydanhanım’, ‘Burakbey’, ‘Tarm-92’, and ‘Sladoran’ constituted the group with the greatest CP yield. At the same time, ‘Zeynel Ağa’, ‘Harman’, ‘Martı’, and ‘Hazar’ represented the lowest, therefore confirming the significance of biomass accumulation for protein production.

The DDM increased and was consistently stable, averaging 66.76% (range 66.35–67.12%) with no significant genotypic variations (Table 7). Digestible dry matter yield (DDMY) exhibited significant variation across genotypes (about 1950–3434 kg ha⁻¹), with ‘Olgun’ consistently ranking highest and ‘Zeynel Ağa’ lowest, reflecting the trends seen in DMY. The RFV was significantly affected by year, genotype, and their interaction. The RFV values mostly increased in 2021 (reaching around 112), owing to reduced NDF and ADF levels. The greatest RFV was recorded in ‘Bolayır’ in 2021, whereas ‘Burakbey’ in the same year had one of the lowest values, highlighting diverse quality profiles (Table 8).

Correlation analysis (Fig. 2) revealed a strong positive correlation among plant height, FFY, and DMY, suggesting that taller, more vigorous genotypes produce greater biomass. ADF and NDF exhibited a positive correlation with one another and a negative association with DDM, RFV, and crude protein content efficiency, confirming that increased fiber content decreases forage quality and intake potential. These correlations provide a solid physiological foundation for differentiating “yield-oriented” genotypes (e.g., ‘Olgun’, ‘Aydanhanım’) from “quality-oriented” genotypes (e.g., ‘Bolayır’, ‘Hazar’, ‘Yaprak’).

Close

Fig. 2.

Correlation between the characteristics examined in the study. PH: Plant Height FFY: Fresh Forage Yield; DMY: Dry Matter Yield; CP: Crude Protein; ADF: Acid Detergent Fiber; NDF: Neutral Detergent Fiber; DDM: Digestible Dry Matter; RFV: Relative Feed Value. * Significant at P < 0.05; ** Significant at P < 0.01.

Export to PPT

4. Discussion

The current assessment of 14 local and commercial barley genotypes under rainfed semi-arid conditions in Muş offers a thorough examination of forage yield, nutritional quality, and genotype × environment interactions, directly tackling the regional forage deficit in Eastern Türkiye. The notable annual variations in plant height, FFY, DMY, and CP yield illustrate the adaptability of forage performance to interannual climatic fluctuations, underscoring the need for variety recommendations in semi-arid systems to ensure stability under changing conditions. These patterns collectively illustrate the physiological basis of genotype differences. Although the present study captured consistent yield–quality trends, the two-year dataset may not fully represent the broader interannual climate variability characteristic of Eastern Anatolia, and longer-term datasets would be required to capture these dynamics better.

It was confirmed that there is a positive relationship between canopy structure and biomass accumulation when taller genotypes produced more FFY and DMY. The fact that “Olgun” and “Aydanhanım” have performed better over the years shows that they are very adaptable and use resources well. On the other hand, some genotypes have performed poorly, which shows that they are not very well suited to these conditions. The findings confirm earlier research demonstrating that genotypic variations, precipitation patterns, and temperature conditions significantly affect barley biomass production in arid regions (Bratković et al., 2024; Högy et al., 2013). These demonstrations show the trend of differentiation among genotypes in terms of yield and quality, and these demonstrations are considered as interpretive observations based on this development rather than as a methodology.

This study further indicates that higher biomass production does not uniformly lower forage quality. The average CP levels (15–17%) were often higher than or the same as the values for barley fodder in different places, where 8–14% is common (Çaçan & Kökten, 2019; Çöken & Akman, 2016). The ‘Olgun’, ‘Mert’, ‘Aydanhanım’, ‘Burakbey’, ‘Tarm-92’, and ‘Sladoran’ genotypes exhibited a notable CP concentration with higher dry matter yield, resulting in an exceptional CP yield. This supports the view that CP yield, rather than only CP %, might guide cultivar selection in forage systems (Temel & Keskin, 2022). The comparatively high CP concentrations (15–17%) may, in part, reflect the nitrogen fertilization rate used in the experiment, as nitrogen supply is known to enhance protein accumulation in cereal forages. Therefore, the fertilization regime likely contributed to the elevated CP levels observed in this study. The study identifies genotypes that provide both biomass and protein, surpassing grain-focused assessments and offering directly applicable insights for roughage-based livestock systems in Eastern Anatolia.

Fiber fractions and related quality traits demonstrate a distinct yield-quality variation among genotypes. The NDF values (55–60%) and ADF values (28%) show that barley forage is moderately digestible and has acceptable intake potential, which is in line with or falls within the ranges found in earlier studies on barley and small-grain forages in semi-arid areas (Acıkgoz et al., 2022). Similar patterns have been reported in recent studies evaluating barley forage nutritive value under semi-arid growing conditions (Abdelhalim et al., 2023; Karimi & Ghasemi, 2022). The ‘Bolayır’ and ‘Hazar’ genotypes, distinguished by lower NDF and higher RFV, have been recognized as quality-oriented genotypes, indicating their suitability for scenarios requiring improved fodder intake and digestibility. On the other hand, Burakbey and many other high-biomass varieties had higher NDF and lower RFV, which shows the traditional trade-off between structural development and nutritional quality. The strong negative links between ADF/NDF and DDM, RFV, and CP efficiency found in this study are in line with early research on forage quality (Van Soest, 2018).

The DDM and RFV remained at or above the levels for “good–very good” quality hay. This shows that barley that is managed effectively can provide both energy and fiber in semi-arid agricultural areas. The distinct classification of “quantity genotypes” (‘Olgun’, ‘Aydanhanım’) and “quality genotypes” (‘Bolayır’, ‘Hazar’, ‘Yaprak’) establishes a functional framework. This qualitative differentiation is supported by the significant inverse relationships observed in the correlation analysis, particularly between NDF–ADF and RFV, and the classification is an interpretation based on these physiological tendencies. Commercial farms with higher stocking densities and large concentrate utilization may prioritize high-yield varieties, whereas smallholders aiming to enhance on-farm forage quality without incurring significant expenses may find value in quality-focused cultivars. Research on barley forage management and mixed systems in semi-arid areas has shown similar yield–quality structuring.

This study did not include direct measurements of lignin (ADL), mineral composition, WSC, or in vitro digestibility (e.g., IVOMD). Because RFV and DDM are estimative indices, the absence of direct digestibility assays represents a limitation and should be considered when interpreting forage quality outcomes.

This study makes an important contribution by offering a region-specific, forage-focused assessment of a wide range of genotypes in Muş under actual rainfed conditions. This study, in contrast to various Turkish and international barley research that concentrate solely on grain yield or particular quality metrics, simultaneously evaluated FFY, DMY, CP, ADF, NDF, DDM, DDMY, and RFV across two different years, thereby describing genotype × year interactions that relate to climate-sensitive systems. This method changes from broad statements like “barley is good for drylands” to specific cultivar suggestions based on evidence: Olgun and Aydanhanım as the best options for getting the most forage. Bolayır and Hazar are specific choices for better quality, and Yaprak is a good choice for places where there isn’t enough protein. Although not directly measured in this study, increasing forage availability through suitable barley cultivars could indirectly lessen pressure on degraded rangelands. The preceding findings suggest that appropriately selected barley cultivars may serve as strategic, climate-resilient fodder sources for Muş and comparable semi-arid regions, offering an efficient means to improve Türkiye’s livestock feed security while mitigating pressure on degraded rangelands. The terms “yield-oriented” and “quality-oriented” used in this study are not categories created as a result of a formal clustering analysis; rather, they are practical observations based on the consistent yield and quality trends shown by the genotypes over two years.

5. Conclusions

This two-year study in rainfed semi-arid regions of Muş demonstrated significant genotype and the year effects on fodder productivity and quality. Olgun and Aydanhanım consistently yielded greater biomass and protein, whereas Bolayır and Hazar provided higher relative feed value and digestibility. Collectively, these differentiated performance profiles permit more explicit agronomic recommendations: high-yielding cultivars such as ‘Olgun’ and ‘Aydanhanım’ are more appropriate for intensive, high-stocking commercial systems requiring substantial forage supply, whereas quality-oriented genotypes, notably ‘Bolayır’ and ‘Hazar,’ are better aligned with smallholder or resource-limited operations seeking to maximize nutrient density and intake efficiency. Accordingly, the findings provide a functional basis for region-specific forage planning aimed at enhancing feed security and resilience within semi-arid livestock production systems. We acknowledge that this classification represents patterns emerging from two years of single-location data, and broader validation would require multi-year, multi-location trials to confirm the stability of these yield–quality groupings under diverse environmental conditions.