Related PDF

Foods and Drinks Low in Potassium and Phosphorus
Page 1 of 4 Foods and Drinks Low in Potassium and Phosphorus If you
The ultimate acid-alkaline food and drink chart
Adzuki beans Chickpeas Fava Beans Kidney Beans Lentils Lima beans Mung beans Navy Beans
CCA NM Plant Nutrient Functions and Deficiency and
Module 9 Plant Nutrient Functions and Deficiency and Toxicity Symptoms
CAF MENU - Au Bon Pain
tuscan white bean 12 veggie corn green chili bisque tomato basil bisque roasted
PPI Table 9. Indexes and percent changes for commodity and
Table 9 Producer price indexes and percent changes for commodity and service groupings and
2008 JMPR Evaluations-- PART I
Azoxystrobin 1 AZOXYSTROBIN 229 First draft prepared by Dr Katerina Mastovska Agricultural Research Service
Dielectric Constant Chart -
Dielectric Constants of Common Materials MATERIALS DEG F DIELECTRIC CONSTANT ABS RESIN LUMP 2 4 4 1
TTB F MONTHLY REPORT OF PRODUCTION OPERATIONS
department of the treasury alcohol and tobacco tax and trade bureau ttb monthly report
COLORADO BEER CODE ARTICLE 4, TITLE 44,
COLORADO BEER CODE Page 2 of 7 44 4 103 Definitions Definitions applicable to this article
ASX Clear (Futures) Margin Parameters
ASX Clear Futures Margin Parameters AUD I niti al Marg Rates Sp n
Contract Specifications - ASX
price of each component stock may occur at any time between ASX market open
Appendix M: Validation Procedures for Quantitative Food
Appendix M Validation Procedures for Quantitative Food m 1
Manitoba Economic Highlights
Note Changes are calculated relative to the corresponding period in the previous year Year
HOW MUCH CALCIUM DO YOU EAT? - UCSF Medical Center
HOW MUCH CALCIUM DO YOU EAT Recommended calcium intake is 1200 1500 mg per day
Buckwheat Starch: Structure and Characteristics A Review
Structure and characteristics of buckwheat starch Hung et al clusters while the longer B2
Planning Meals using Eating Well with Canada s Food Guide
Planning Meals using Eating Well with Canada s Food Guide Trusted advice
The foods on this list are good sources of Omega 3 Fatty
The foods on this list are good sources of Omega 3 Fatty Acids Folate
nglish Year 1 - ACARA
nglish Year 1 Aove satisfactory ork sale 2014 dition Page 2 of 15 Character
ALLERGEN INFORMATION - Jimmy Johns
Dairy Soy Wheat Eggs Fish Shellfish Tree Nuts Peanuts Gluten French Bread 1 9 Grain Wheat
Glycemic Index by Glycemic Load - Mendosa
Glycemic Index by Glycemic Load First Number in Parentheses is GL Second is GI
McDonalds USA Ingredients Listing for Popular Menu Items
Provided below is a listing of components in our popular menu items by category
Fibre - Nutrition Australia
Fibre What is fibre Fibre is the indigestible parts of plant foods such as
FUNDAMENTALS OF BEER AND HOP CHEMISTRY
108 QU MICA NOVA 23 1 2000 FUNDAMENTALS OF BEER AND HOP CHEMISTRY Denis
McDonald s Canada Ingredients Listing
McDonald s Canada Ingredients Listing As of March 19 2019 Provided in
Guidelines for Pain Management Programmes for adults
Guidelines for Pain Management Programmes for adults 3 Contents Page Foreword 5 Definitions and
Thomas Fawcett & Sons Ltd. Malt Range and Typical
Thomas Fawcett Sons Ltd Malt Range and Typical Specification ASBC Analysis www fawcett maltsters co uk Extract
Gluten Wise Menu Suggestions - Barley Station Brew Pub
The Barley Station donates 25 from every Quesadilla sold to the Shuswap Hospital Foundation
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY TTB Ruling
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau TTB Ruling Number
MenuPro Main Menu Social Starters Nov 2018 -
Comes with a choice of fries tossed or caesar salad or cup of soup
2019 FIELD CROP BUDGETS
2019 FIELD CROP BUDGETS Publication 60 1 Alfalfa Timothy Hay 2 Barley 3 Spring Canola

Popular PDF

BARLEY - Food and Agriculture Organization

BARLEY Post Harvest Operations Page 3 losses in food grains in developing countries have been estimated conservatively during the 1980s as 10 15 by the FAO s Special Action Program for the Prevention of Food Losses

Insert your error message here, if the PDF cannot be displayed.



File type: PDF

File size: 1,56 MB

File name: a-au997e.pdf


	BARLEY
Post-harvest Operations
       - Post-harvest Compendium
BARLEY
: Post
-
Harvest Operations
 
Organisation:
The Central Research Institute for Field Crops, P.O.Box. 226, Ulus, 
Ankara,Turkey
 
Author:
 
Taner Akar, Muzaffer Avci and Fazil Dusunceli
 
Edited by AGST/FAO:
 
Danilo Meja, PhD, FAO (Technical)
 
Last reviewed:
 
15/06/2004
 
 
Contents
 
Preface
................................
................................
................................
................................
....
 
2
 
1. Introduction
 
................................
................................
................................
........................
 
3
 
1.1 Socio economic impact of the crop
 
................................
................................
..............
 
3
 
1.2 World Trade
 
................................
................................
................................
.................
 
5
 
1.3 Primary Product
 
................................
................................
................................
...........
 
7
 
1.4 Secondary and Derived Products
 
................................
................................
.................
 
7
 
1.5 Quality Assurance
 
................................
................................
................................
........
 
9
 
2. Post
-
Production Operations
 
................................
................................
.............................
 
10
 
2.1 P
re
-
harvest Operations
 
................................
................................
...............................
 
10
 
2.2 Harvesting
 
................................
................................
................................
..................
 
12
 
2.3 Transport
 
................................
................................
................................
....................
 
14
 
2.4 
Threshing
 
................................
................................
................................
...................
 
14
 
2.5 Drying
 
................................
................................
................................
........................
 
15
 
2.6 Cleaning
 
................................
................................
................................
.....................
 
16
 
2.7 Storage
 
................................
................................
................................
.......................
 
16
 
2.7.1 Adobe depots:
 
................................
................................
................................
.........
 
17
 
2.7.2 Cement or pile depots:
 
................................
................................
............................
 
17
 
2.7.3 Wooden de
pots:
 
................................
................................
................................
......
 
17
 
2.7.4 Vertical wooden depots:
 
................................
................................
.........................
 
17
 
2.7.5 The vertical earth well depots:
 
................................
................................
................
 
19
 
2.7.6 Modern Silos:
 
................................
................................
................................
..........
 
20
 
2.8 Gender participation and post harvest operations
 
................................
......................
 
24
 
3. 
Overall Losses
 
................................
................................
................................
..................
 
24
 
4. 
Pests Control
 
................................
................................
................................
....................
 
25
 
4.1 Post harvest microorganisms
 
................................
................................
.....................
 
25
 
4.2 Post harvest p
ests
 
................................
................................
................................
.......
 
34
 
4.3 Control of post harvest microorganisms and pests
 
................................
....................
 
41
 
5. Economic and social considerations
 
................................
................................
................
 
46
 
6. References
 
................................
................................
................................
........................
 
48
 
7. Annex
 
................................
................................
................................
...............................
 
58
 
Annex 1. Recipes of barley foods containing barley product
s
 
................................
........
 
58
 
Annex 2: List of figures
 
................................
................................
................................
...
 
64
 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
2
 
 
Preface
 
Barley is grown in about 70 million hectares in the world. Global production is 160 million 
tons. Developing countrie
s accounts for about 18 % (26 million tons) of total barley 
production and 25 % (18.5 million hectares) of the total harvested area in the world. Barley 
grain is mostly used as feed for animals, malt, and food for human consumption. Malt is the 
second larg
est use of barley. Farmers also use barley straw as animal feed in West Asia, 
 
Barley dominates other grains in some developing countries having arid and semi arid 
climates where it is
 
the only cereal and only staple food resource. It is the fourth most 
important cereal crop in the world after wheat, maize, and rice. Barley is cultivated in Tibet, 
Af
rica, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Eritrea, and the Yemen. Even in more 
developed countries, it is also very important species not only for animal feed but also for 
malting and exportation. 
 
Crop quality and post harvest operations are very impo
rtant for human nutrition in dry areas, 
on the other hand economic development and farmer revenue for more humid areas. 
 
In the developing countries, farmers are mostly too poor to afford any loss of production.
 
In general, barley is more productive and it
s yield is more stable against seasonal variation 
than wheat and most of other small grains. Therefore, resource poor farmers tend to prefer 
barley production. Successive poor production seasons leads farmers particularly those of 
poor to replace wheat wit
h barley for the aforementioned reasons. In dry years, barley flour is 
mainly used for bread making or it is added to wheat flour to make bread (Olu, 1946). 
 
The barley crop is considered as a kind of guarantee against very low yield or crop failure 
risks
.
 
Due to the fact that barley crop is utilized for animal feed as well as human nutrition, poor 
production and any kind of loss after harvest adversely affect farmers' livestock production 
and consequently socio
-
economic conditions.
 
Growing crops and prote
cting them until consumption have been the major preoccupation of 
mankind since the inception of agriculture. Storage is an essential interim operation in the 
food pipeline that moves crops from producer to processor and foodstuffs from processor to 
consum
er. It equilibrates the quantitative fluctuations derived from the imbalance of supply 
and demand. Hunger today may be threatening the lives of about 800 million people in the 
developing world, with approximately 60% of them living in Asia. People may suff
er from 
food shortage or malnutrition heavily, especially in the poorest countries where agricultural 
production is never in surplus, where facilities for storage are lacking, and in regions subject 
to extreme climatic fluctuations from one year to the nex
t (Navvaro, 1997).
 
While post harvest production systems and post harvest losses are largely controlled by 
market imposed political and economical conditions in developed countries, ecological 
factors play more decisive role in those systems and losses in 
the developing world. In 
developed countries qualitative aspects of food loss are of greater importance than the 
quantitative ones. In these countries cereal grains are stored in large centralized storage 
facilities or on
-
farm in bulk. Under these conditio
ns quantitative losses are generally at low 
levels and therefore further loss reductions are not cost effective. Losses of biological origin 
such as grain or insect respiration, or limited drying due to aeration of grain in storage are 
common. These losses
 
on an annual basis are usually less than 1%. Developing countries are 
food
stuffs. In developing countries the major portion of grain and pulses (sometimes up to 
80% of the national production) is kept on the farms for home consumption. Post harvest 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
3
 
 
losses in food grains in developing countries have been estimated conservatively 
during the 
1980s as 10
-
15% by the FAO's Special Action Program for the Prevention of Food Losses. 
However, actual losses may be higher in certain areas depending on storage types and 
conditions. For example, losses of corn due only to insects in farmers' s
tores in Nigeria, 
Swaziland and Kenya, were estimated to be in the order of 6
-
10% (Navarro, 1997).
 
1. Introduction
 
Barley (
Hordeum vulgare
 
L.) is one of the most important cereal crops in the world. It is 
widely grown fourth cereal and among top ten crop p
lants in the world. Barley was mainly 
cultivated and used for human food supply in the last century but nowadays it is significantly 
grown as animal feed, malt products and human food respectively. In addition, barley is very 
well known as a model crop for
 
plant breeding methodology, genetics, cytogenetics, 
pathology, virology and biotechnology studies (Hockett and Nilan 1985; Hogberg, 1987).
 
Barley is mainly produced in unfavorable climate and soil conditions of the world. Wide 
adaptation to these conditio
ns mentioned above, versatile utility mainly for animal feed and 
food and superiority for malt and beer industry as a raw material are the main reasons that 
enable barley to be commonly cultivated crop plant over centuries. Barley is cultivated in 
highly d
iverse regions of the world from 330 m below sea level near the Dead Sea in the 
Middle East up to 4200 m on Atipano and the Andes in Bolivia. 
 
Fertile Crescent of the Middle East consisting of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon has been 
reported as original ar
ea of cultivation and most likely origin of barley, the most ancient crop 
of cereals (Harlan, 1979). According to the excavations, barley was domesticated in the Nile 
River Valley of Egypt at least 17.000 year ago (Wendorf et al., 1979). 
 
1.1 Socio economi
c impact of the crop
 
Barley is very important cereal in terms of 132 million tons production, 55 million ha acreage 
and 2.4 t/ha yield in the world (Table 1.1.1). Barley production is generally and drastically 
affected by environmental and seasonal conditi
ons. Considering the reasons, production, 
acreage and yield data are reported below as a
-
three year average. It is clearly seen from 
during the last three year period (
1998
-
00). 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
4
 
 
 
Table 1.1.1: Status of Barley Production in Ten Leading Countries
 
(Three year average, 1998
-
2000)
 
Countries
 
Area 
harvested
 
(000 ha)
 
Production
 
(000 t)
 
Yield
 
(kg/ha)
 
% of world
 
production
 
World
           
 
 
55.778
 
132.393
 
2374
 
----
 
Canada
 
4.2
97
 
13.124
 
3059
 
9.9
 
Germany
 
2.155
 
12.671
 
5879
 
9.5
 
Russian Fed.
 
8.165
 
11.222
 
1380
 
8.5
 
France
 
1.575
 
10.036
 
6366
 
7.5
 
Spain
 
3.316
 
9.871
 
2962
 
7.4
 
Turkey
 
3.623
 
7.533
 
2072
 
5.6
 
USA
 
2.131
 
6908
 
3235
 
5.2
 
UK
 
1.187
 
6566
 
5541
 
5.0
 
Ukraine
 
3.574
 
6389
 
1787
 
4.8
 
Aust
ralia
 
3.185
 
5372
 
1726
 
4.1
 
 
The largest producer country was Canada with 4.2 million hectare acreage and 13.1 million 
together with Germany has the highest yield lev
el (6.4 t/ha and 5.9 t/ha) while Russian 
 
Seven out of ten leading barley countries are in Europe and Eurasia (Russian, Federation, 
Germany, France, UK, Spain, Turkey and Ukraine),
 
two of them (USA and Canada) are in 
Northern America and the last one is in Oceania (Australia). World barley production trend 
from 1961 to 2000 with an average of a
-
ten
-
year period is summarized in Table 1.1.2. If it is 
compared in terms of area harveste
d, production and yield level criteria, in spite of the fact 
that there are some decline in terms of area harvested (18%), both production and yield level 
have increased by 33% and 61%, respectively.
 
 
Table 1.1.2: Barley Production Trends in the World
 
 
 
Y
ears
 
Area
 
harvested
 
 
(000 ha)
 
Production
 
% of first 
period
 
(000 tons)
 
% of first 
period 
 
Yield
 
(kg/ha)
 
% of the first 
period
 
1961
-
65
 
68.071
 
100
 
99.716
 
100
 
1465
 
160
 
1978
-
80
 
84.818
 
124
 
167.627
 
167
 
1978
 
135
 
1998
-
00
 
55.778
 
82
 
132.393
 
133
 
2374
 
161
 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
5
 
 
1.2 Wor
ld Trade
 
World barley grain export is totally 20 million tons and its value is 25 billion $ as average of 
three years between 1998 and 2000 (Table 1.2.1). Europe is the main exporter with 12.3 
million tons barley grain export and 1.5 billion $ value. It is
 
followed by Oceania, North and 
Central America and Asia. Leading barley grain exporting countries are France, Australia and 
Germany and Canada with 4.8, 3.6, 1.8 and 1.7 million tons, respectively in the world. These 
leading countries mainly export maltin
g barley and naturally get more money due to 20
-
30 % 
of price superiority of malting barley grain over feeding barley.
 
 
Table 1.2.1: Amount and Value of Exported Barley in Main Exp
orter Continents and 
Countries 
(Three year average, 1998
-
2000)
 
Countries
 
Ex
port (10 Mt )
 
Value (1000 $)
 
World
 
2.042.194
 
2.517.078
 
NC America
 
371.923
 
275.137
 
Canada
 
178.816
 
247.549
 
USA
 
96.333
 
124.374
 
Asia
 
145.106
 
131.382
 
Kazakhstan
 
57.161
 
43.495
 
Turkey
 
76.319
 
68.646
 
Europe
 
1.233.695
 
1.513.937
 
France
 
482.080
 
615.161
 
Germa
ny 
 
179.955
 
207.591
 
UK
 
136.802
 
180.110
 
Denmark
 
75.341
 
120.237
 
Ukraine
 
70.269
 
72.197
 
Oceania
 
362.180
 
461.696
 
Australia
 
360.549
 
459.405
 
 
World barley import is almost equal to the export in terms of amount and value with 19.5 
million tons and 2.6 billi
on $, respectively (Table 1.2.2). On the contrary to export, Asia 
continent is the main importer with 10.7 million tons and 14 billion $ value and it is followed 
by Europe and Africa (Table 1.2.2). Saudi Arabia, China, Japan and Bel
-
Lux are the four 
leadin
g importer with 4.3, 2.1, 1.5 and 1.4 million tons, respectively in the world. Generally 
Asian and African countries import feeding barley both for animal and human consumptions.
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
6
 
 
 
Table 1.2.2: Amount and Value of Imported Barley in Main Importing Continen
ts and 
Countries (Three year average, 1998
-
2000)
 
Countries
 
Imports (10 Mt )
 
Value (1000$)
 
World 
 
1.951.172
 
2.637.466
 
Africa
 
 
 
170.272
 
172.169
 
Algeria
 
43.505
 
41.380
 
Libya
 
37.233
 
33.100
 
Tunisia
 
21.825
 
24.233
 
Morocco
 
52.732
 
49.476
 
North and South Amer
ica
 
99.057
 
152.538
 
USA
 
74.310
 
106.107
 
South America
 
45.043
 
82.088
 
Colombia
 
17.233
 
30.355
 
Brazil
 
8.737
 
15.729
 
Asia
 
1.071.632
 
14.025.140
 
China
 
211.056
 
338.783
 
Japan
 
156.739
 
234.479
 
Jordan
 
58.565
 
75.786
 
Iran
 
41.205
 
62.576
 
Saudi Arabia
 
431.532
 
485.44
0
 
Europe
 
558.469
 
824.766
 
Bel
-
Lux
 
141.268
 
224.255
 
Germany
 
42.340
 
75.388
 
Italy
 
60.358
 
93.747
 
Netherlands
 
81.410
 
118.664
 
Russian Federation
 
42.626
 
37.909
 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
7
 
 
 
1.3 Primary Product
 
Barley is mainly used as feed for animals. Barley grain is also very import
ant source for malt 
and food for human. According to Bhatty (1993), barley is predominantly consumed for 
feeding animals even in some European countries such as Germany, France, UK, Denmark 
and Italy (Table 1.3.1). Ratio of the feed consumption changes fro
m 70% (in UK) to 89 % (in 
Canada). The trend shows some variations, but globally 70% of barley production used 
directly or indirectly for feeding animals. Highly diverse regions of the world where maize 
can not be cultivated due to short growing period, co
ol temperature in spring and rainfall 
deficiency and higher evaporation, barley is predominantly grown as principal feed grain 
(Poehlman, 1985). Turkish highlands characterized with 1500 m altitude and severe cold and 
long winter period are a good example 
for this issue. A survey conducted on two provinces 
(Sivas and Kayseri) located in Turkish highlands indicated that barley is mainly grown (87 
%) for animal feeding and according to the economical analysis result it is the most profitable 
crop for this pur
pose (Bayaner et al., 1993).  
 
Barley with maize, oat and wheat is one of the most common feed grain of the world. If used 
as feed, its grain should be ground or cracked to improve efficiency in a given ration. It is 
overwhelmingly considered as carbohydra
tes and protein sources in livestock feed. Protein 
content, which is strongly affected by environmental conditions where barley is grown, 
changes from 10 % to 15%.
 
In addition to this, annually 5% of world production is generally retained for seed. Barley 
straw is used for animal bedding in developed countries but also for animal feeding especially 
quality forage production for grazing or cutting for making of hay or s
ilage.
 
1.4 Secondary and Derived Products
 
The second largest use of barley grain is for malt. Globally, 30 % of the world barley 
production is used for malting purpose and 70 % for feed use. In addition to barley, wheat 
and rye are also malted but barley g
rain has been preferred to other grains. The reasons why 
barley is commonly used for malt are its husk protecting the coleoptiles during germination 
process and filtering, firm texture of barley grains and tradition. 90 % of malted barley is 
utilized for m
alting beer and the remainder for food substitutes. Table 1.4.1 clearly shows 
that barley malt can be substituted in to a lot of food stuffs such as biscuits, bread, cakes, 
 
Traditionally, barley is very important food crop plant in the semi
-
arid regions of Africa 
(Morocco, Algeria, Libya and Tunisia), Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Syria), 
and in some Asian counties (China, North Korea and Hi
malaya). 
 
Morocco is leading country in terms of food consumption in the world with 88.3 kg per 
capita (Table 1.3.1). Barley has also some by
-
products that can be used for various purposes. 
The most valuable by product is the straw which is used mainly for
 
bedding in developed 
countries but also for animal feeding in developing and under
-
developed countries. Brewer's 
and distiller grains and sprouts from malting barley also have desirable protein level for 
animal diets. 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
8
 
 
 
Table 1.3.1: Feed and Food use 
of Barley in Some Countries (1)
 
Countries
 
Feed use
 
(% of Total)
 
Countries
 
Food use 
(kg
-
person 
/year)
 
(1986
-
88)
 
Canada
 
89
 
Morocco
 
88.3
 
Turkey
 
88
 
 
19.0
 
Denmark
 
87
 
Algeria
 
18.1
 
Spain
 
87
 
Afghanistan
 
15.4
 
Finland
 
86
 
Iraq
 
11.5
 
Italy
 
86
 
Tunisia
 
10.
6
 
France
 
85
 
Libya
 
8.9
 
Sweden
 
85
 
Korea Rep.
 
7.5
 
Norway
 
81
 
Iran
 
7.1
 
Austria
 
79
 
Poland
 
6.1
 
Switzerland
 
79
 
Peru
 
4.8
 
Ireland
 
78
 
Japan
 
1.1
 
Germany, FDR
 
72
 
Netherlands
 
0.9
 
UK
 
70
 
New Zealand
 
0.9
 
(1) Bhatty, R.S.
 
 
(1986). Non
-
malting uses of barley. In „Ba
rley: Chemistry and Technology‟. Chapter: 8, 
P:355
-
418.
 
 
Table 1.4.1: Food Uses of Malt as By
-
product (1)
 
Food Stuff
 
Colour
 
Enzyme
 
Flavour
 
Sweetness
 
Nutrition
 
Biscuits and crackers
 
X
 
X
 
X
 
X
 
X
 
Bread 
 
X
 
X
 
X
 
X
 
X
 
Breakfast cereal
 
-
 
-
 
X
 
X
 
X
 
Cakes
 
X
 
-
 
X
 
X
 
X
 
Dessert
 
X
 
-
 
X
 
-
 
-
 
Ice cream
 
X
 
-
 
X
 
-
 
-
 
Malted food drinks
 
-
 
X
 
X
 
X
 
X
 
Meat products 
 
X
 
 
-
 
 
-
 
 
-
 
 
-
 
Sauces
 
X
 
-
 
X
 
X
 
-
 
Soft drinks
 
X
 
-
 
X
 
X
 
X
 
Type of malt 
products used
 
Soluble Extract 
(SE)
 
SE or flour
 
SE or flour, 
flake
 
SE
 
SE flour, 
flake
 
(1) From : Bam
forth, CW, and Barclay, A.H.P., (1993). Malting Technology: the uses of Malt. Page: 298. 
Barley:
 
Chemistry and Technology. A.A.C.C .Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
9
 
 
Due to the fact that barley grains have higher soluble dietary fiber and lower low density 
l
ipoprotein (LDL) content than that of wheat, some food manufacturers now favor barley as 
an excellent food stuff (Oakenfull, 1996). Soluble fiber has a cholesterol lowering property 
and LDL cholesterol is the fraction associated with increased risk of hear
t diseases. 
Considering these two important factors, a lot of hull
-
less barley have been registered 
specially for human consumption and its acreage has been increased even in the western 
countries such as Canada (Bhatty,1986).
 
In fact, although barley is u
sed mostly as mixtures in flours for bread making either due to 
lower price of barley compared to wheat or due to its nutrition value. Similarly, barley malt 
and its extract are used in various types of commercial breads in Turkey and many 
developing count
ries. Such breads can include various ingredients. For example „Diva' light 
form bread contains wheat flour, Wheat bran, Malt extract, Roasted whole malt flour, Warm 
water, Ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), Regular yeast, Salt (Diva unlu mamuller sanayii, 
Demirli
bahe, Ankara, Turkey). Various recipes containing barley products for human 
consumption in developing countries are described by Saari & Hawtin (1977). Some of these 
are given in the Annex. Intensive efforts are also made for promotion of barley as major 
human food in developed countries because of its valuable nutrition properties. Various 
Canadian recipes for use of barley as human food in the form of whole bread making and 
main dishes are described at www.albertabarley.com/recipes. Barley is also used f
or 
production of soft drinks in the form of barley juice in some developing countries such as in 
India (Kochar, 1981).
 
1.5 Quality Assurance
 
Grain quality is the most complicated trait and affected by many factors. Some of the criteria 
that are required by
 
feed and malt industry are as follows:
 
1.5.1 
 
Cultivar
:
 
Uniform germination is a key point during malting process. Therefore, all grains used should 
originate from a single variety. This also applies to grains used for feed purposes, but in this 
case cult
ivars with same color can be stored and then easily used for feed making in the 
industry.
 
1.5.2 
 
Moisture:
 
Low moisture content below %12 is the optimum moisture level and facilitates long term 
storage of barley grains in many developing countries, includi
ng Turkey. However, in the 
northern part of the world known as humid weather conditions, 16% of moisture is permitted.
 
1.5.3 
 
Grain size:
 
Thousand kernels weight is a good indicator of mean kernel size. In addition to this, there is 
another specification f
or two and six rowed malting barley cultivars. For this 85% of grains 
should be retained on a 2.5 mm sieve and be free from extraneous matters. Test weight is also 
used for an indicator of grain and samples having 70% and higher test weight should be 
prefe
rred especially for effective storage. 
 
1.5.4 
 
Protein content:
 
Low protein content is preferred from 9% to 12% for brewing and distilling purposes. 
Farmers can get more premiums if they apply suitable rate of nitrogen. So, contracted 
n private malting companies and farmers is a common procedure in 
many countries to guarantee desirable protein level and grain size. In contrast, higher protein 
ratio with lysine amino acid is required by feed industry.
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
10
 
 
1.5.5 
 
Modification capacity:
 
The gr
ain lots finally should have ready and even modification potential with sufficient 
enzymes to mobilize the endosperm. This means that the grain has 95% and higher 
germination capacity and a starchy endosperm.
 
1.5.6 
 
Microbial infections
 
Mould, yeast and ba
cterial infections are main sources of microbial infection. However, the 
most important one is fungi that their infections generally occur under field conditions. The 
main fungal species that infect grains in the field are Alternaria spp., Helminthosporium
 
spp., 
Fusarium spp. and Cladosporium spp. During storage, these tend to decline and are replaced 
by species of Aspergillus and Penicillium that are able to grow under lower temperature. 
These fungi cause toxic effects when consumed both human beings and a
nimals. Thus, malt 
and feed factories prefer to purchase barley grains free from microbial infections. Pest issues 
are discussed in section 4.
 
2. Post
-
Production Operations 
 
2.1 Pre
-
harvest Operations 
 
After physiological maturity, 10 or 15 days are requir
ed to harvest barley with combine in 
temperate dry lands. If this duration is exceeded, crop will get too dry and then cause 
shattering at harvest.
 
Harvesting time should be decided when barley stem becomes dry enough to be broken by 
hand easily in semi ar
id and arid areas. In humid regions seed moisture and hardness should 
 
In some areas rainfalls may force to postpone the harvest, but harvest before rainfall should 
be preferred, as 
seed after drying following rainfall may be discolored. In addition, delayed 
harvest can lead to yield losses. Klinner and Bigger (1972) found that yield loss of barley 
increased from 3.5% to 9.5 % as a result of delay in harvest date in the same location 
but loss 
increase was very low with wheat crop.
 
In humid or irrigated areas generally six
-
row and logging resistant varieties should be chosen. 
Akar 
et al. 
(1999) documented that lodging resistant barley cultivars gave 20 to 25% more 
yield than that of sus
ceptible ones especially in excessive rainy seasons even in dray lands of 
Turkey (Figure 2.1). Yield and quality reducing economical diseases, pests and weeds should 
also be controlled either thorough use of resistant cultivars, agronomical procedures or 
p
esticide use. In countries where malting industry is developed as in case of Turkey or 
malting barley export is common, the varieties should meet the quality requirements for 
malting. 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
11
 
 
.
 
 
Figure 2.1. Barley cultivars resistant and susceptible to lodging
 
I
n years or in areas where winter season is mild, barley grows and produces excessive 
canopy. If spring is rainy, the crop lodges, pests and diseases develop, grains can not mature 
and consequently the yield drops. The farmers whose crops are in the threat 
of lodging, cut 
the crop with machine or scythe for animal feeding. In the Marmara region of Turkey, 
farmers are hesitant to graze the crop by sheep due to damage caused by animals in rainy 
seasons. (Gkgl, 1969). 
 
Barley physiologically matures upon kern
el moisture content drops to about 40 %. Harlan 
(1920) found that translocation to the kernels ceased at a moisture content of 42%. It can be 
harvested without loss of yield or quality after reaching about 35% kernel moisture but the 
grain can not be safel
y stored until the moisture content decreased to 14%, (Baldridge 
et al.
, 
1985).
 
In Southeast part of Turkey, some of the agricultural enterprises (13.5 % of total surveyed) 
graze the barley crop when the vegetation is very low in the pasture areas. Some fa
rmers (23 
%) indicate that they graze barley crop early in spring to increase grain yield and 24.5 % of 
agricultural enterprises graze some portion of their barley acreages.
 
In North African countries (Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia), tall barley landraces a
nd/or old 
varieties with long cycle phenology, have been grown. Broadcasting seed and offset disking 
the seed under in October/ November with 100 to 120 kg/ha seed rates are the practice of the 
farmers. Farmyard manure is used in livestock oriented farms. 
Generally, weed and disease 
control are not performed. Barley is grown as main crop in barley/weedy fallow or 
barley/cereal rotations. In Egypt, fallow/ barley/ pasture/ pasture cropping sequence was 
practiced in some areas. In those countries, barley is g
rown for double purpose: grazing 
during winter and after winter left for seed production if rainfall is sufficient (Anonymous, 
MEDRATE (EC
-
CIHEAM Co
-
operation project, 1998
-
2002) Regional Action Program 
”Rain fed Agriculture” RAP
-
RAG Report of the Second C
oordination Meeting, unpublished).
 
Excessive seed use can be considered as a kind of pre harvest loss. In some areas of 
developing countries, farmers tend to use higher seed rate as tradition or as compensation for 
winter kill of seedlings in harsh winter 
conditions. For instance in Turkey, particularly in dry 
land areas, the amount of seed planted is 30 to 60 % higher than recommended seed rate for 
barley. Farmers use higher rates to compensate the seedling kill by winter and losses resulting 
from improper
 
provinces in Turkey indicated that the seed rates changed from 160 to 362 kg/ha and 
averaged at 270 kg/ha (Balkan, 1981). Drought is a prevalent and constant threat on barley 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
12
 
 
prod
uction in most of the developing countries. It seems that drought stress will be a more 
important stress in the future as a result of climate changes. The areas that can not be 
harvested due to drought are 5% of total barley acreage in southeast of Turkey 
and 34.6 % in 
Northern Syria (Somel 
et al.
, 1984). Crop rotation and soil productivity were reported as the 
main factors in the variability of barley acreage in the Southeast of Turkey. 39.7 % and 32.2 
% of farmers declared rotation and productivity as the
 
main reasons for the change in barley 
acreage, respectively. Only 5% of farmers declared barley price as he main factor in 
variability (Somel 
et al.
, 1987). 
 
2.2 Harvesting
 
Depending on social economic situations such as plot size (acreage), altitude and 
slope, there 
are a lot of harvest methods in developing countries. Barley crops are harvested by hand tools 
such as sickle, scythe or just hand pulling, tractor mounted mower (Figure 2.2a) and combine. 
 
land is small and located on the 
sloping hills and harvesting machine can not access. Farmers on those areas are small scale, 
resource poor and mainly practicing animal husbandry. Hand pulling is generally employed 
in very dry years or areas with poor see
d and straw yield and high price expectations. Hand 
harvest can also be adopted even in more humid seasons or flat fields when straw yield is 
very low, sometimes the hired combine machines cut the straw higher from the ground 
leaving majority of straw stan
ding in the field. To obtain more straw, farmers, who produce 
whether livestock or not, harvest the crop near the ground by hand harvest tools as the barley 
straw is popular for animal feed and compost for mushroom production. The cost of the hand 
harvest 
changes from 35 to 60 EUROs per ha depending on demand and supply of labor of 
locations.
 
Most of the farmers (90 %) in Southeast of Turkey harvested the barley with combine, 10 % 
of farmers did harvest by hand. The percentage of hand harvest was 20.3 % in 
northern Syria. 
The harvest was made largely with the use of rented combines (94.4 %) and only 4.9 % of 
farmers used their own machines (Somel 
et al.
, 1984). 
 
Combine is available in areas where the main agricultural activity is cereal production 
(Yurdakul
 
et al.
, 1987). Combine harvest of barley crop is common in areas where 
topography is suitable, land size is large and farmers are relatively rich. Poor farmers in other 
areas generally raise livestock to sustain their lives. In developing countries combin
e 
harvesters are hired because most of the farmers can not afford to own combines. The loss in 
harvest with combines may be more prevalent in dry land areas where the harvest depends on 
the availability of combine harvester. In Turkey, barley is cropped in
 
less acreage as 
compared to wheat. Therefore the combine harvesters come to the areas when wheat crops 
matured enough for harvest. Because the barley matures earlier than wheat, particularly in 
warm seasons, crops dry up extensively and become vulnerable 
to shattering loss and also 
bird damage at harvest. Following such years, barley harvested fields become as if planted 
due to emergence of shattered seed (Figure 2.2b). 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
13
 
 
 
Figure 2.2a. Harvest with a tractor mounted mower
 
 
Figure 2.2b. Emergence of seeds 
shattered during harves
t
 
Speed of combine at harvest is very important in terms of grain loss. Although the speed 
should be 4 to 6 km/h during harvest it was measured to be 7 
-
 
8 or even 9 km/h in farmer 
condition (Demirci, 1982). This is because of high d
emand of combine owners to earn more 
by harvesting more fields in a given time. 
 
-
 
30 
USDs is the cost of harvesting one ha of barley or wheat. According to extensi
ve 4 year 
investigations on the amount of grain losses of barley and wheat crops associated with 
combine harvest in most of the provinces of Turkey indicated that the loss was reduced to 5.7 
% and 4.5 % from 7.5 % during the study years by training of comb
ine drivers. There were 
no differences between locally made and imported combine machines and combines with 
different ages. However, reduced loss was observed with drivers who were the owners of the 
combines as compared to hired drivers (Table 2.2.1)
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
14
 
 
2.3 
Transport 
 
The means of transportation of barley grains to market or to the granaries depend upon farm 
size, physical and geographical conditions, availability of transportation facilities. 
 
Small size farmers prefer to sell their crop in village. In the s
outheast of Turkey 9 % of 
farmers sell the barley crop in village, 26.4 % sell to state agency (TMO) and 13.2 % sells to 
merchants in local markets. Generally the crops are transported to markets by tractors or 
trucks. The cost of transportation is about 1
.900 TL/ton (1985
-
1986), (Yurdakul 
et al.
, 1987). 
 
2.4 Threshing
 
Threshing with “doven: Wooden threshing sled with flint blades, (Figure 2.4a)” which is 
driven by animals is not a common practice and particularly employed by small farmers in 
mountainous ar
eas or in undeveloped areas of developing countries. 
 
 
Table 2.2.1: Cereal Seed Losses at Harvest in Relation to Driver Training and Age of 
Combines in Turkey During 1978
-
1982
 
Observations
 
Investigation years
 
1978
 
1979
 
1981
 
1982
 
Number of combines
 
51
 
9
29
 
2530
 
2267
 
No. of trained combine drivers 
 
-
 
191
 
796
 
1024
 
No. of untrained combine drivers
 
51
 
738
 
1734
 
1263
 
Number of provinces involved
 
4
 
25
 
48
 
37
 
Grain loss (%)
 
Average
 
7,5
 
5,7
 
5,4
 
4,5
 
Trained drivers
 
-
 
4,7
 
4,8
 
3,9
 
Untrained drivers
 
7,5
 
6,0
 
5,7
 
4,8
 
Local made combines
 
-
 
5,5
 
5,4
 
4,4
 
Imported combines
 
-
 
6,2
 
5,3
 
4,6
 
Combines with 1
-
5 years old
 
-
 
6,4
 
5,1
 
4,6
 
Combines with 6
-
10 years old
 
-
 
5,2
 
5,3
 
4,4
 
Combines with 11
-
15 years old
 
-
 
5,1
 
5,3
 
4,8
 
Combines with� 16 years old 
 
-
 
6,1
 
5,4
 
4,1
 
Drivers
 
(hired)
 
-
 
6,5
 
5,6
 
4,7
 
Drivers (owner)
 
-
 
5,0
 
5,2
 
4,3
 
 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
15
 
 
Figure 2.4a. Wooden threshing sled 
 
with flint blades 
 
For this, a special location is prepared by hardening 
the soil surface, usually circle of 10
-
for every year use. For threshing, 
the bunches of 
harvested barley is scattered around this hardened soil 
and the „doven' is pulled by an animal, mostly bulls or 
horse, over the scattered bunches around the circle. 
Usually pieces of a large stone of 20
-
40 kg is placed 
or even the thresher o
r his/her children gets on the 
„doven' to increase its weight so that the it creates 
sufficient pressure on the bunches. As the „doven' is 
pulled over the bunches, the flint blades cut the straw 
separating the grains from the heads. Then, the 
mixture of st
raw and grains is separated through 
winnowing using wooden pitchfork like shovels.
 
In more developed parts, engine powered or tractor 
driven threshing machines (Figure 2.4b) have replaced 
the old animal driven wooden threshing sleds, before 
modern combine 
harvesters came into use. These 
machines are still in use particularly in mountainous areas in Turkey and other developing 
countries.
 
Figure 2.4b. Threshing with a 
tractor driven threshing 
machine
 
 
(Vezirkopru, Samsun, Turkey)
 
In spite of lacking extensiv
e 
survey data on the harvest 
losses during threshing with 
various equipments, a 
research in Turkey provided 
an estimation of such losses. 
It showed that the rate of 
broken grains of barley was 
between 1 
-
 
5 % which is 
much more than that of 
wheat. Prior to
 
harvesting 
with machines, batter and contra
-
batter of combine should be adjusted so that grains are not 
injured. Grain injury is worse than broken grains, since the broken grains can be separated 
during screening unlike the injured grains can not. The eco
nomic loss due to broken grains of 
barley amounted to 10 % of selling price of normal product (Tetik, 1982).
 
2.5 Drying
 
 
 
As the other grains, barley must be dried before putting in granaries. For this purpose 
harvested crop is left in open and sunny place
 
for drying near the granary in village 
conditions. It is aerated by inverting the heap with shovel and covered with a material during 
the night. Following this process the grains are transported in the granary. On the other hand, 
the crop harvested with o
ther means (sickle etc.) than combine harvester are made bunche
s 
(Figure 2.5a) with their straw and left in he field as groups (called „yıgın' or “tokurcun”) ( 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
16
 
 
Figure 2.5b) until the moisture content is reduced to low levels (12
-
14 %) to be taken for 
threshing. 
 
 
 
Figure 2.5a. Bunches of barley left for drying after 
harvest 
 
 
Figure 2.5b. Stacks of barley (yıgın) in field
 
Vezirkopru, Samsun, Turkey
 
2.6 Cleaning
 
Cleaning barley grains is an important process for malt and feeding industries. During the 
cleaning process of malting barley product in Turkey, separated mat
erials such as stones, 
earth, weed seeds and broken grains, and amounted to 10 % of total grains (A. Başgül, pers. 
comm.).
 
2.7 Storage 
 
Generally barley is stored for a short period under shelter or in depots in order not to be 
affected by rainfall or othe
r adverse climatic events. In Southeast Anatolia of Turkey 90 
-
 
97.6 % of farmers store barley under shelter (roof shelter), 1.9 
-
 
2.4 % leave the crop outside 
the closed areas (Yurdakul 
et al.
, 1987). Barley is stored either in bags (0
-
 
3.8 % of farmers) 
or in gross (96.2 
-
100 %). In northern Syria 90.1 % of farmers keep the crops in closed areas 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
17
 
 
in bags (71.5 % of farmers) or in gross outside (27.8) (Somel 
et al.
, 1987). Grains are stored 
in depots made by brick, cement, and wood or earth wells specially 
drilled. Storage types are 
described below.
 
2.7.1 Adobe depots:
 
Horizontal type adobe depots are used by rural people as their economic status permits only 
this type of depots. Some of these depots have ceiling made by tree or plant residue mixed 
with comp
acted soil. Outside and sometimes inside walls are filed with adobe. Floors are 
earth or cement covered by mud with cereal straw mix and white washed. In adobe depots, 
small amount of barley (5
-
10 tons) can be stored. Before the crop is put inside the depo
ts, the 
floor is covered with straw, reed mat or in some cases with plastic cover. Adobe depots are 
known as unsuitable for storing barley grains.
 
2.7.2 Cement or pile depots:
 
The horizontal cement/pile depots are partly suitable for storing barley. These 
are used by 
some governmental institutions and farmers who produce relatively more amount of barley 
than small producers and merchants (Figure 2.7.2a,b). Cement and pile depots have cement 
floors and brick or stone walls covered with straw mixed with mud. 
Lime is applied on wall 
surfaces and roofs are covered with stainless undulated pane or tile.
 
 
They do not have any 
aeration mechanism. Windows on opposite walls are situated near the roofs to provide 
aeration. Barley grain is handled generally by labor. 
 
2.7.3 Wooden depots:
 
Wooden depots store barley in a good condition for long time and are usable for many years. 
Wooden depots constructed during orum
-
 
an
kırı Rural Development Project (FAO) are 
still functional in Turkey (Figure 2.7.3). They get moisture inside from the top at very low 
rate or with difficulty, but the walls provide good aeration resulting in cool product in the 
granary.
 
 
The wooden granari
es are constructed on elevated, easily aerated and southern parts 
of the farm buildings. One of the important drawbacks of the wooden depots is rodent 
damage to the crop and wood material. To protect the woods from damage caused by rodents, 
h slippery and dented corners are placed inside the wooden granaries. These 
stores are ideal for barley storage in developing countries if adequate measures are taken to 
prevent entry of rodents and rain. The second drawback of wooden granaries is the cost
. Only 
rich farmers can afford to install wooden depots. 
 
2.7.4 Vertical wooden depots:
 
In addition to horizontal ones, these types of storages can also be seen in rural areas. They are 
constructed under large spaces in houses such as balcony or veranda of
 
double floor village 
houses. They have top and bottom openings where barley grain circulation can be made 
(Figure 2.7.4). 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
18
 
 
 
b
 
Figure 2.7.2 a, 
b. Horizontal cement/pile depot
 
 
Figure 2.7.3.
 
 
Horizontal wooden depot
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
19
 
 
 
Figure 2.7.4. Vertical wooden depot
 
2.7.5 The vertical earth well depots:
 
They are built in farm buildings and disinfected by lime or heat in areas where the wood 
materials are expensive and inaccessible. They are in various types. Although the farmers in 
rural areas generally sell the produ
ct immediately after harvest some part of grains are stored 
for the next season's seed and animal feed. Acting as the rules of free market, the farmers 
having very large land and no debt either sell the product 
 
or keep it in earth horizontal depots until 
sell off. On the other hand, farmers who have 
insufficient acreage of land and insufficient economic power to construct granaries, dig earth 
wells to store the grains in areas where the direction is northern and water table is below 5
-
6 
m. If well granarie
s are constructed so that water entrance from the bottom and sides is 
prevented, they are suitable for safely storing of dry and clean product after harvest for a long 
period. Some farmers place the cereal straw in the bottom of the well before placement o
f 
grains. After removal of the grains the straw is burnt prior to storage of next load of grains.To 
some extend, this practice removes the moisture of the well and helps to disinfect the pests 
and fungi in the well. Before the grain is put inside, new cere
al straw is spread on the bottom 
of the well at 20
-
30 cm thickness. Then, some amount of grain is put and side walls of the 
well is covered with cereal straw at the same height as the grain load. Then the grain is put 
again and side walls are covered with 
straw. The well is filled up this way and the top of the 
well is covered tightly with a mixture of various materials (cereal straw+ fine soil+ mud 
+stone etc.). In order to check the stored grains in the well, an iron rod is pushed into the 
grains along th
e well and in the next day it is checked by hand whether it is warmed or not. If 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
20
 
 
the rod is warmed, it is understood that the product in the well has a storage problem. There 
are different kinds of applications of the storage method in various countries.
 
A
ccording to Donahaye 
et al.
 
(1995) fifty tons of locally grown barley were stored in an 
underground pit hermetically sealed inside a polyethylene liner at Kibbutz Lahav. Gas 
measurements and observations showed that a satisfactory hermetic seal was obtaine
d within 
the liner after seven weeks of storage (1.0
-
32 per cent O
2
). However, the efficiency of the 
seal was reduced by the gnawing activity of rodents which damaged the liner, and this 
appears to be a limiting factor for this type of storage. Changes in 
moisture content and in 
germination power were minimal during the storage period. Marked seasonal temperature 
changes were only recorded at the periphery of the grain bulk, while at the center the 
temperature remained stable. Barley grains which was remove
d after 15 months of storage, 
during nine of which the liner was sealed, was clean, of natural brightness and color, of low 
moisture content, and uninfected.
 
2.7.6 Modern Silos:
 
A lot of feed and malt companies store their raw material to be processed duri
ng the year in 
big silos made of concrete (Figure 2.7.6a) or steel (2.7.6b) immediately after barley harvest in 
Turkey. In addition to these, Soil Product Office (TMO), a governmental organization and 
monopoly on cereal long term storage in Turkey, stores 
the barley in big silos by modern 
this capacity has been allocated for long term barley storage during the last thirty years (B. 
Baran, 2003, per. com.) 
 
In Turkey,
 
barley grain is also stored as heap in open areas and in closed vertical and 
horizontal depots and the tops of the heaps are leveled (Esin, 1990).
 
 
They are as follows: 
 
2.7.6.1 Modern open heap depot units:
 
There are two types of this storage systems; ov
al and circular, respectively. The former is 
loaded with transposable machines while the latter is loaded with constant ones. In Turkey, 
capacity of oval units changes from 2.5 tones to 5 tones whereas that of circular units starts 
from 10 tones (Figure 2.
7.6.1).
 
 
Figure 2.7.6a. Concrete depot
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
21
 
 
 
Figure 2.7.6b. Steel depot 
 
 
Figure 2.7.6.1.Circular heap depot
 
2.7.6.2 Polyethylene and earth covered heaps:
 
The system invented by old Anatolian civilizations was developed by TMO and commonly 
used by the govern
mental organization throughout Turkey when especially its modern 
storage capacity is not enough to store enormous amount of barley and wheat and some food 
legumes grains. It is the first model of hermetic storage system in the world and has been 
used by TM
O during the last sixteen years. Selecting of sandy soils and 5 to 10 % of sloppy 
zones are two important prerequisites to safely store barley and wheat grains for short and 
 
in the PVC 
then grains are covered by PVC over liners and the heaps created with 2 m height are re
-
covered with 5 to 10 cm soil layer (Figure 2.7.6.2 a,b,c). Long term yield losses in this 
hermetic storage system in TMO conditions are 0.5 to 1% throughout
 
Turkey (B. Baran, 
2003, pers. com.).
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
22
 
 
 
Figure 2.7.6.2a. Diagram of an earth covered heap
 
 
b
 
c
 
Figure 2.7.6.2b,c. Earth and polythene covered heaps
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
23
 
 
2.7.6.3 Oilcloth covered heaps:
 
 
heaps excluding 
coverage material. In this type of storage, oil clothed material is used instead of PVC (Figure, 
2.7.6.3 ).
 
 
 
Figure 2.7.6.3. Vertical cross section of heap with oilcloth surrounded by earth pad 
 
2.7.6.4 Low stone walls covered PVC:
 
This 
with low walls made of stone or brick. Then polyethylene is laid on the floor and barley 
grains are filled and then covered with PVC. Varnava 
et al
. (1995) examined the
 
under Mediterranean conditions with small modifications. A large (75 x 25m) concrete 
platform with low walls was filled with barley and covered with a PVC over liner and a 
polyethylene under liner. The barley formed a pile of 4,018 tones with a pea
k of 7 m high and 
was stored for 34 months under hermetic seal. Periodic monitoring was carried out to 
determine temperature fluctuations, inter granular gas composition, insect infestation, and 
grain quality parameters. Ambient temperatures were shown to 
create temperature gradients 
in the upper layers, and moisture migration occurred towards the peak of the grain bulk. 
However, the resulting spoilage by moulds was limited to 0.22% weight loss on an annual 
basis. An additional 0.12% loss due to insect dama
ge, and spillage resulted in an annual 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
24
 
 
storage loss of 0.34%. Possible solutions to this problem were discussed. The platform 
successfully protected the grain against insect, bird, and rodent attack and provided safe 
storage during the rainy season. At the
 
end of storage, the PVC over liner which had been 
used continuously since 1988 remained with low gas
-
permeability, retained its mechanical 
characteristics and was suitable for reuse.
 
2.8 Gender participation and post harvest operations
 
The operations duri
ng and after harvest requires more labor than the pre harvest procedures. 
The gender participation operations seem to depend on the level of overall development and 
mechanization. In very rural areas the harvest and post harvest operations are based on the
 
working of all family members, man and women, in most cases including the children as 
well. This is because the harvest is done by hand using physical instruments such as sickle, 
scythe, hand pulling or tractor mounted mower and requires a lot of labor. T
he families can 
not afford hiring labor and therefore all members participate in harvest. Similarly, threshing 
is also based on participation of both females and males. In such areas females participate by 
actively doing the harvest job or threshing as wel
l as preparing the food for the members in 
the field. However, in more developed areas where operations are more mechanized the 
involvement of women is decreased. The operators of the harvest machines, threshers or 
combiners are mostly males and in most ca
ses women may participate in supply of food in 
the field.
 
3. 
Overall Losses 
 
because these commodities can be stored for extended periods and are continuously availab
le, 
provided that there is no insect infestation or spoilage. However, losses occur at every stage 
of grain handling, storage and processing. These losses may be either quantitative or 
qualitative. The magnitude of losses is highly variable and in certain 
cases they may even 
reach 100%. Qualitative losses are more difficult to evaluate then quantitative ones. 
Qualitative losses for example, may consist of changes in the physical appearance, nutritional 
degradation, loss of germination, presence of fragments
 
and insect infestation, contamination 
(Navarro, 1997).
 
Overall losses of cereals including barley, wheat, maize and rice can be investigated under 
two important stages, p
re and post harvest losses. The first stage consists of pre harvest losses 
resulting from weeds, insect pests and diseases and is estimated to be approximately 35% of 
total cereal harvest production (Schildbach, 1989). If appropriate techniques can be 
deve
loped and applied to avoid such losses, world cereal production can be increased by 1/3 
or higher.
 
The post harvest losses may result from inappropriate procedures during and after harvest and 
unsuitable storage conditions such as unbalanced humidity, temp
erature and O2 /CO2 levels 
which allow infestation of the stored grains by microorganisms, insect pests and rodents. Post 
harvest losses of cereals in the developing countries conservatively estimated by FAO's 
Special Action Program as %10
-
15 during 1980s 
(Navarro, 1997). In rural areas of 
developing countries, traditional storage systems are very common and due to very low 
socio
-
economic situation, new technologies cannot be easily introduced to these conditions. 
Navarro 
et al
. (1998) clearly reported that
, annual losses of 5
-
10% at village level mainly 
caused by rodents and insect pests are usually considered as inevitable. In Turkey, as in other 
developing countries, the cereals are stored in farmer granaries generally in unsuitable 
conditions and the sto
rage loss varies from 5 to 10 % (TMO report, 1981).
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
25
 
 
4. 
Pests Control 
 
Barley is a host for numerous pathogens and insect pests attacking the plant at different 
stages of growth. The attacks at different stages would have various consequences on 
productivit
y but the degree of their impact on quantity and quality of the post harvest 
products may vary according to production, environment, crop husbandry and post harvest 
procedures. The biological factors affecting the stored grains are illustrated in the Fig. 
4.1. 
 
 
Figure 4.1. External and internal factors affecting storage quality of barley grains 
 
The storage microorganisms and pests cause economical losses in stored grains in many parts 
of the world. The loss is higher especially in developing countries be
cause the grain storage 
structures do not have adequate conservation properties. The post harvest loss of 5
-
10% for 
grains is usually considered inevitable at the village level in developing countries (Navarro 
et 
al.
, 1997) but this is likely to be higher 
for barley in rural areas of many developing countries. 
 
4.1 Post harvest microorganisms
 
4.1.1 Field diseases with effect on post harvest procedures 
 
Undoubtedly, the infection / infestation of harvested or stored grains by pathogens, 
saprophytes and insec
t pests directly reduce the quantity and quality of the grains. Occurrence 
of pests and diseases at vegetative stage and near the harvest time is, also important factors 
reducing the quantity and quality of the products. Although agents that attack the cro
p at 
earlier stages appear as less significant for the post harvest operations, they can reduce the 
quantity and quality of the products significantly under suitable conditions. For example, 
species of fungi producing mycotoxins and sunny bug injecting var
ious enzymes could play 
very substantial role in quality of the stored grain. Thus, these agents and their relation with 
post harvest procedures are also described briefly. 
 
The importance of field diseases is various parts of the world are depicted in Tab
le 4.1.1. As 
seen in the table, diseases caused by 
Helminthosporium
 
species seem to be the most widely 
occurring diseases. The common root rots, spot blotch and the seed borne leaf stripe are 
treated in this group. The smuts seem to be ranking 4
th
 
in gener
al following scald and yellow 
rust.
 
4.1.1.1 Root and foot rots:
 
The root and foot rots reduce the yield and quality of the barley crop through reducing 
tillering and amount and weight of the grains. These are caused by mainly soil borne 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
26
 
 
pathogens, but some
 
may also be transmitted through the seeds. Among the root infecting 
pathogens, 
Helminthosporium
 
sativum
 
is the most widely occurring species. The 
Fusarium
 
species 
F. culmorum
, 
F. graminearum
 
and 
F. nivale
 
can also infect the crowns and some 
even infect th
e leaves and heads later.
 
4.1.1.2 Foliar diseases: 
 
There are a number of microbial agents causing different kinds of blotches and lesions on 
leaves of barley. Symptoms may be in the forms of spots, lesions, stripes or blotches. The 
most widely occurring f
ungal foliar diseases are scald (
R. secalis
), spot blotch 
(
Helminthosporium sativum
), Powdery mildew (
Erysiphe graminis
), Rusts (
Puccinia 
spp
.
) 
and the barley leaf stripe (
Pyrenophora graminea
). The common characteristics of these 
symptoms are that they re
duce the photosynthesis area. Often diseased plants have less ears 
and smaller and lighter grains. 
 
Among the foliar diseases, the most important one is 
P. graminea
 
(Fig. 4.1.1.2) which is wide 
spread disease in Mediterranean region including Morocco (Boul
if, M., 1990; Lyamani, 
1990; Arifi, 1990), Turkey (Cetin 
et al.
, 1995) and is also recorded in Korea (Lee, 1981). The 
disease is seed borne and infects the plant during germination process and develops 
systemically within the plant. The first symptoms appe
ar at the seedling stage as pale, white 
stripes along the main leaf axil. This stripe develops and becomes easily visible and extended 
as the plant grows and finally leaves may be thorn apart as a result. Infected plants are stunted 
and produce no or few h
eads and the heads would have shriveled grains. Under moist 
conditions, sporulation takes place on the leaves and spores are spread by the wind to the ears 
of heads where the spores infect the floral parts which produce infected seeds. Infection of 
the flo
ral parts is favored by cool and humid conditions. The infected seeds have to be treated 
with seed treatments if it is to be used as seeds. 
 
 
Table 4.1.1: The Ranking of Importance of Main Pre
-
harvest Diseases of Barley in 
Different Parts of the World 
(1)
 
Region
 
Stem rust
 
Yellow 
 
rust
 
Leaf 
rust
 
Powdery
 
mildew
 
Helm.
 
spp.*2
 
Scald
 
Smuts
 
Middle east
 
6
 
3
 
5
 
1
 
2
 
5
 
4
 
South and Far East
 
5
 
1
 
6
 
3
 
2
 
7
 
4
 
North Africa
 
7
 
5
 
4
 
3
 
1
 
6
 
2
 
East Africa
 
7
 
4
 
3
 
5
 
2
 
1
 
5
 
Mediterranean Europe
 
7
 
3
 
6
 
2
 
1
 
5
 
4
 
South & Far east Asia
 
6
 
1
 
5
 
3
 
2
 
7
 
4
 
(1)
 
Adapted from Srivastava (1977) and Kamel (1981); *2: 
Helminthosporium
 
spp.
 
 
 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
27
 
 
 
Figure 4.1.1.2. Severe infection of barley leaf stripe
 
(
Pyrenophora graminea
)
 
4.1.2 Ear diseases
 
The smuts (
Ustilago 
spp.) directly affect the yield and qua
lity of the grains. This is because 
they replace the grains with their dark spore masses (Fig. 4.1.2 a, b). Three types of smuts 
may occur in barleys; loose smut, semi covered smut and covered smut. Their symptoms are 
similar and all produce dark spore mas
ses in the place of grains in the ears and no grain is 
harvested from such plants. Their symptomatic differences are related to appearance of the 
spore balls. In loose smut (
U. nuda
), the seed coat is totally destroyed and spores can be 
freely flown away b
y the wind and only the axil of the heads may remain on the plant. In 
U. 
nigra
, 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
28
 
 
 
Figure 4.1.2a. Covered smut of barley
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.1.2b. Loose smut of
 
 
(
Ustilago hordei
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
barley
 
(
Ustilago nuda)
 
 
 
 
the 
seed coat remains relatively intact and spore b
alls remain on the heads until late. 
However, towards the maturity the seed coat may be thorn apart and spores can be spread by 
the wind. In contrast, the seed coat of 
U. hordei
 
is the strongest among the three smut species 
and remains intact until the har
vest time. These structures are broken apart during harvest and 
spores are attached onto the clean seeds. The transmission of these three smut species is 
through infected or contaminated seeds. Loose smut spores infect the floral structures and as 
a result
 
U. nigra
 
and 
U. hordei
 
are carried on the seed coats to the next season. These spores infect the seedlings 
during germination and the fungus develops systemically up to the heads w
here they produce 
the spore balls in the place of grains. Apart from the smuts, 
Claviceps purpurea
 
can also 
occur on barley heads as hard black horn like structures in the place of grains, if care is not 
taken. 
 
The use of clean seeds or seed treatment is 
the most feasible means of control of the smuts. 
However despite this possibility, the smuts cause still significant yield losses in many 
developing countries, since seed treatment is not practiced properly. There are various reports 
indicating different l
evels of losses in various countries, resulting from the smuts. These are 
for 
U. nuda
 
in Iraq (Hamdany 
et al.
, 1990), for 
U. hordei
 
and 
U. nuda
 
in Morocco (Lyamani, 
1990), in India (Atyheya 
et al
., 1981) and in Tunisia (El Ahmed 
et al
., 1981) and for the t
hree 
species of 
U.hordei
, 
U.nigra
 
and 
U. nuda
 
in Turkey (Öğüt & Onan, 1995) and in Jordan 
(Mamluk, 1981). 
 
4.1.3 Grain infecting field microorganisms 
 
Many fungal species may be found in barley grains, but usually many of them would be 
unimportant. For exa
mple, Aktas (1999) have reported 23 fungal species in the barley grain 
flora in Eskisehir, Turkey and found the 
Alternaria alternata
 
most frequently occurring 
species, but reported that the rest was at very low level of contamination levels, apart from 
U. 
nuda
 
which was found in 44% of the 199 samples. 
 
The main fungi infecting the heads and seeds of barley in the field belong to the genus 
Fusarium.
 
The species infecting the barley heads include 
F. graminearum, F. poae, F. 
avenaceum, F. sporotrichoides
 
(Sal
as 
 
al
., 1997), 
F. culmorum, F. moniliforme and 
F.nivale
 
(Richardson, 1979). 
 
The 
Fusarium
 
species infect the grains and heads of barley in warm and humid areas 
especially if the wet and rainy periods coincide with the crop maturity. The occurrence of 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
29
 
 
he
ad blights have been stated in North West of Russia (Schipilova & Gagkaeva, 2000), in 
India (Paramjit 
et al.
, 2000), in Mexico (Gilchrist 
et al.
, 2000) and in Poland (Wisniewska 
et 
al.
, 1997). Those that have been reported to occur on barley seeds by Richa
rdson (1979) 
include 
Fusarium culmorum, F. graminearum, F. moniliforme, F. nivale 
and
 
F. poae.
 
These 
species can also be involved in formation of leaf blotches and root/foot rots (Figure 4.1.3). 
 
Apart from 
Fusarium
 
spp., the species of 
Alternaria, Cladosp
orium 
and
 
Dreschlera 
can 
infect the grains especially on the embryo side before harvest causing black points. These are 
common fungi that can be found world wide, but their frequency and severity may differ 
according to conditions. All grain infecting fung
i reduce the quality of grains and could be 
the main cause of spoilage. They not only reduce the quality of grains, but also the toxins 
produced by some of the species may cause health concerns for livestock and men. The 
grains infected by such species are
 
also more vulnerable to storage fungi such as 
Penicillium
 
spp. and 
Aspergillus
 
spp. Classification of the genera 
Fusarium, Alternaria, 
Helminthosporium,
 
Penicillium, 
and 
Aspergillus
 
which are the main post harvest micro 
organisms is illustrated in the Tab
le 4.1.3. 
 
 
Figure 4.1.3. Life cycle of Fusarium species (Parry, 1990) 
 
Table 4.1.3: Classification of the Most Important Genera of Fungi Associated with 
Infection and Spoilage on Barley Grains (Kingdom:Mycota, Division:Eumycota)
 
Division
 
Sub
-
division
 
Cl
ass
 
Family
 
Genus
 
Eumycota
 
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
Ascomycotina 
 
Plectomycetes
 
Euroticeae
 
Aspergillus
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
Penicillium
 
-
 
Basidiomycotina
 
Teliomycetes
 
Ustilaginales
 
Ustilago
 
-
 
Deuteromycotina
 
Hyphomycetes
 
Helminthosporiaceae
 
Helminthosporium
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
Alternaria
 
-
 
Deuteromycotina
 
Hyphomycetes
 
Tuberculariaceae
 
Fusarium
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
30
 
 
4.1.4 Storage microorganisms 
 
Stored barley grains are subjected to infection by many species of micro organisms. Although 
there are a few species of bacteria and yeasts that can infect the stored b
arley grains, the main 
storage microorganisms are species of fungi. 
 
The most important fungal species causing spoilage of barley in storage belong to the genus 
of 
Aspergillus
 
and 
Penicillium
. In general 
Aspergillus
 
species can be adapted to conditions 
wit
hout free water and can grow at lower humidity R.H.70% (Dube, 1990) whereas 
Penicillium 
species are abundant mainly in grains with high moisture content stored at lower 
temperatures.
 
 
Similar to 
Penicillium
 
spp., species of 
Rhizopus
, 
Mucor
 
and 
Nigrospora
 
c
an 
also invade the high moisture grains before or during the storage (Sauer 
et al.
, 1992). There 
are many other less important species of fungi that can be isolated from barley grains stored 
under unfavorable conditions. For example Lacey (1988) isolated 6
5 different species of 
fungi from wheat and barley grains stored in underground pits or in buildings in Iran. 
However, only the species of 
Aspergillus
, 
Penicillium
 
and 
Alternaria
 
were indicated to be 
significant. 
 
The means and time of invasion of the grai
ns by storage fungi are significant for the 
establishment of management strategies. In general, it is considered that the wet weather 
conditions near the harvest time would favor invasion of grains by storage fungi. However, 
Tuite & Christensen (1955) foun
d no storage fungi growing from the surface sterilized barley 
seeds collected from barley fields of Minnesota in a wet and showery season. Sauer (1992) 
reviewed the studies on time of invasion of grains by storage fungi and indicated that the 
fungi causing
 
damage to grains in storage do not invade the grains to any significant degree 
or extent before harvest. Therefore it may be concluded that the storage fungi contaminate the 
grains during or after harvest, as the conidia of 
Aspergillus
 
and 
Penicillium
 
spe
cies are 
present in the air. Here, the procedures and conditions during harvest, transportation and 
storage determine the extent of the invasion of grains by storage fungi. 
 
Aspergillus
 
and 
Penicillium
 
species may be seen world wide, but 
Aspergillus
 
spp. (
Figure 
4.1.4 a) is more of a problem in tropical countries while 
Penicillium 
spp. (Figure 4.1.4 b) 
species are more abundant in tropical countries (Dube, 1980). However, their occurrence on 
barley grains is not limited to geographical regions and they occu
r in all parts of the world 
providing the favorable storage conditions. The limiting factors for their occurrence and 
severity are mainly crop husbandry practices, quality and moisture of grains and 
characteristics of storage facilities.
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
31
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.1.4a
,b. Life cycle of 
Aspergillus
 
spp. (a,top) and 
Penicillium
 
spp. (b, bottom) 
 
(Dube, 1990). 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
32
 
 
In developing countries, majority of the farmers lack the essential knowledge of good crop 
husbandry practices and much improvement is needed for availability and u
se of improved 
cultivars, field levelling and control of weeds, diseases and pests. Improper and inadequate 
crop husbandry practices result in production of low quality grains such as shriveled, smaller 
and broken grains. Although most farmers tend to wait
 
until the crop is dry enough for 
harvest, they can not avoid adverse weather conditions such as rain during harvest time and 
threshing. Such grains are more vulnerable to invasion by storage fungi. All these factors help 
multiplication of storage fungi an
d increase the risk of spoilage.
 
In addition to crop husbandry practices and crop quality, the type, quality and conditions of 
the storage facilities are the major factor determining the occurrence and severity of the 
storage microorganisms on barley grain
s. Apart from the large scale professional barley 
producers and traders, majority of farmers in developing countries do not even have storage 
facilities. The small scale farmers store the grains mostly in sacks or as bulks in buildings 
made up of wood or b
ricks but with no control facilities. The larger farmers can store the bulk 
grains in underground or above ground pits, usually with a polyethylene liner and covered 
with polyethylene sheets and other coverings. Here, lack of atmosphere control facilities 
is 
the key factor which promotes development of storage fungi on the grain. In such storage 
facilities, it is impossible to keep the grain at a suitable temperature and dry enough to 
prevent the growth of storage fungi. As a result, the storage fungi devel
ops steadily on grains 
using the available moisture deteriorating the grains. During growth, fungi increase the 
respiration and heating of the grains (Sauer 
et al.
, 1992). The grains invaded by the storage 
fungi loose their germination capacity and its nor
mal color and may be decayed totally 
depending on the extent of the growth of fungi. 
 
The genera of 
Aspergillus
 
and 
Penicillium
 
are taxonomically placed in the Euroticeae family 
of the class Plectomycetes in Ascomycotina subdivision of Eumycota division in
 
the fungal 
kingdom. Since sexual stages of some of the species are identified, the genera of 
Aspergillus
 
and 
Penicillium 
are studied in the sub division of ascomycotina. However they extensively 
reproduce asexually through conidia and in fact, in many spe
cies sexual stage is absent or 
unidentified. They over winter as mycelia or conidia, but the species with asexual stages can 
also use the cleistothocia which contain the asci carrying the sexual ascospores as over 
wintering organ. The conidia are produced 
on conidiophores which are produced on the foot 
cells of the somatic hyphae which is hyaline, septate. The hypha is branched and 
multinucleate in 
Aspergillus
 
(Fig. 4.1.4a) while it is highly branched and uninucleate in 
Pencillium 
(Fig. 4.1.4b). The color o
f the conidia such as blue, green, black or yellow gives 
the colony color and is a useful tool for the identification of species. The conidia resemble the 
the end 
of the conidiophores. The number and shapes of these reproduction structures are the 
Aspergillus
 
and 
Penicillium
. 
 
4.1.5 Mycotoxins in barley grains 
 
The most important biological risk factor in the barley grains is
 
the mycotoxins produced by 
various fungi that invade barley grains before or during storage. These fungi can be grouped 
in two groups. Some fungal species infecting the grains before harvest may produce 
mycotoxins in barley grains. These include the speci
es of 
Claviceps
 
spp. and 
Fusarium 
spp. 
The second group includes the storage fungi 
Aspergillus
 
spp. and 
Penicillium
 
spp. 
 
The most known field infecting toxigenic fungus is the ergot 
Claviceps
 
purpuea
 
(Fr.) Tul. It 
may infect 38 gramineaceous species inclu
ding barley Jones & Clifford, 1978). The fungus 
infects the florets during anthesis and sclerotia (known as ergot) is formed in place of the 
grains and these contain various alkaloids which may be hazardous to animals and humans. 
The fungus is more common 
in grass species and less frequent in barley (Gair 
et al.,
 
1987) 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
33
 
 
but it has been reported from India (Richardson, 1979). During harvest and threshing, the 
ergots formed in heads of barley or grasses in the field are mixed with the harvested grain 
trough br
eakage. The ergotism in livestock results from grazing eating diseased grains in 
pastures but it may also result from eating stored barley grains containing ergots.
 
There are a number of 
Fusarium
 
species that can produce mycotoxins. Those that have been 
re
ported to occur on barley seeds by Richardson (1979) include 
Fusarium culmorum, F. 
graminearum, F. moniliforme, F. nivale and F. poae.
 
These species can also be involved in 
formation of leaf blotches and root/foot rots. The 
Fusarium
 
species have been shown
 
to 
produce various mycotoxins such as Trichothecenes, zearalenone (ZEN), moniliformin, 
fumonosins and fusarins (Wilson & Abramson, 1992). So far, more than 70 individual 
trichothecenes have been identified but only the deoxynivalenol (Vomitoxin
-
DON) and 
n
ivalenol have been found to have significance on naturally infected commodities (Shepherd 
& Gilbert, 1986). Salas 
et al.
 
(1997) reported that some toxins are specific for some 
Fusarium
 
species. In his study barley infecting 
Fusarium
 
species produced 10 dif
ferent mycotoxins and 
DON and 15
-
DON was specific for 
F. graminearum
, T
-
2, HT
-
2 and T
-
2 TET for 
Fusarium 
sporotrichioides
 
and presence of NIV somewhat specific for 
F. poae
. 
 
In general, infection of the seeds by 
Fusarium
 
species is favored by humid and rai
ny periods 
at generative periods. 
 
Further fungal growth is promoted by moist storage conditions. However, if the grain is 
dried, the growth of the grain micro flora would be retarded. 
 
Apart from the 
Fusarium
 
species the storage fungi 
Aspergillus
 
and 
Peni
cillium
 
species are 
also responsible for production of a number of mycotoxins in storage. Wilson & Abramson 
(1992) reported production of 17 different mycotoxins or potential mycotoxins by 
Aspergillus
 
species and 14 by 
Penicillium
 
species, some being produ
ced by both. The most well known 
mycotoxins produced by 
Aspergillus
 
species are aflatoxins and those produced by 
Penicillium
 
species are naphthoquinones. The general mycotoxin problems in stored grains 
are reviewed by Wilson & Abramson (1992), 
Fusarium
 
myc
otoxins by Shepherd & Gilbert 
(1986) and mycotoxins of mould species in cereal grains and animal feedstuffs by Buckle, 
A.E. (1986), Scudamore 
et al.
 
(1986) and Paterson & Kozakiewicz (1997). 
 
Although the mycotoxins are identified academically, there are f
ew documents, most being in 
developed countries, indicating the extent of the toxicological problems in practice. Gilbert 
et 
al.
(1983) found deoxynivalenol (Vomitoxin
-
DON) at insignificant concentration levels 
(0.02 mg/kg) in feeding and malting barleys i
n England and Scotland. Similarly, the ADAS 
microbiologists found Ochratoxin A, Sterigmatocystin and citrinin in only 6, 3, and 1 barley 
samples respectively in 108 barley stores in England and Wales (Buckle, 1986). 
 
However, the severity of occurrence of 
mycotoxin on livestocks was considered to be 
insignificant. In contrast, Ehling 
et al.
 
(1997) indicated that WHO (1993) reported a relatively 
high mean DON concentration in food/feeds in South America, Africa and Southern China, 
the individual results vari
ed considerably between 0.01 
-
 
92 ppm. Scudamore 
et al.
 
(1986) 
summarized the reports of outbreaks of mycotoxic porcine nephropathy linked with the 
ochratoxin A in feedstuff in livestock in a number of European countries including Denmark, 
Sweden, Netherla
nds, Hungary and Yugoslavia. The extent of Mycotoxin problem has been 
investigated in a number of developing countries by various workers. Lacey (1988) surveyed 
the wheat and barley stores in high oesophageal cancer area of Iran for toxigenic fungi and 
myc
otoxins to study the linkage between the grain microflora and cancer incidence. The 
study concluded that despite the poor storage facilities, serious deterioration of the grains and 
detection of aflatoxins and ochratoxins, the cancer incidence and severity
 
could not be linked 
with the mycoflora and mycotoxins of the wheat and barley grains in the area. However, it is 
clear that the storage facilities in the area need to be improved significantly to ensure better 
preservation of the quality of the grains. Si
milarly, Karacan 
et al.
 
(2000) surveyed the grains 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
34
 
 
from the regions of Marmara, Aegea, Black Sea, Mediterranean, Central Anatolia and 
Southeast Anatolia for microbial flora and mycotoxins such as aflatoxin, Ochratoxin A, 
DON, ZEN, T
-
2, HT
-
2 and tenuazonic 
acid. They found that the predominant fungi in black 
point formations were 
Alternaria sp., Penicillium 
spp.
 
and Aspergillus 
spp. and the toxin 
concentrations were at ignorable levels. However, Gagkaeva and Levitin (1997) detected 
high level of toxigenic po
tential in 
F. graminearum
 
Schwabe populations from wheat and 
high level mycotoxin contamination risk in the grains in South European part of Russia, 
although there was no such record for the far east parts. Bacha 
et al.
 
(1988) indicated that 
mycotoxins are
 
involved in the death of many cattle, horses and poultry died in Tunisia in 
1970s and studied the mycotoxins of Tunisian cereals in 1988. The conclusion was that the 
Aflatoxins B1, B2, G1 and G2 all produced by 
Aspergillus
 
flavus
 
Link were detected 
especi
ally in humid areas. Citrinin was encountered only in stores with hygene problems and 
ochratoxin A was absent in locally produced cereals. 
 
4.2 Post harvest pests
 
Barley is a host for more than 100 species of insect pests. Various groups of insect pests 
at
tack the barley crop at different stages, reducing the yield and quality. The feeding of 
insects on barley crops results in loss of yields or grain quality. Yield loss usually occur 
through killing of plants or reduction in number of tillers, heads or grai
ns as a result of 
feeding, injection of various toxins or acting as vectors for various microbial disease agents 
like barley Yellow Dwarf Virus (BYDV). The loss of grain quality occurs through shriveling, 
reduced weight and biochemical changes in the grain
s. Especially the effects of insects on 
grain quality have much relation with the post harvest operations. The shriveled and low 
quality grains are more vulnerable the spoilage by the storage microorganisms and storage 
insects. The low quality grains are b
roken apart more easily during harvest and threshing and 
provide better nutrition for the storage microorganisms and insect pests. Therefore, the 
insects infesting the crop in the field would also have a significant effect on deterioration of 
the grains in
 
storage. 
 
Many of the insect pests of barley are polyphagous feeding also on other cereals and grass 
weeds. No barley crop would be free from the insect pests, but just a few of the insects 
become key pests causing significant losses in various parts of t
he world. Majority of the 
pests have secondary importance and they cause economical losses occasionally only if the 
agro ecological conditions become suitable. 
 
The insect pests of barley may be studied in 6 different groups considering their feeding 
habit
s and the type of damage they cause: 1) Soil borne insects; 2) Sap feeding insects; 3) 
Chewing insects; 4) Borers; 5) Storage pests; 6) Nematodes 7) Moluscae, Rodents and Birds. 
The insect pests of barley, infesting the crop in field are reviewed by Starks
 
& Webster 
(1985) and Gair 
et al.
 
(1987) and those in stored cereals are reviewed by Wilkin & Hurlock 
(1986). 
 
4.2.1 Preharvest insects
 
4.2.1.1 Soil insects: 
 
This group of insects mostly cause damage to the underground parts of the plants. The most 
import
ant insects in this group include wire worms and false wire worms, the common 
species being 
Agriotes lineatus, A. mancus, A. obscura, A. sputator, Athous haemorhoidalis 
and
 
Ctenicera
 
spp. The adults of these insects feed on maturing cereals and grasses inc
luding 
barley, but the major damage are caused by the larvae which passes through the summers and 
winters deeper in the soil. As a consequence of larval feeding, the plants are totally killed or 
the established tillers produce shriveled grains. In addition
 
to wire worms, there are a number 
of other species feeding on underground parts of barley. Among these, the white grubs in the 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
35
 
 
genus 
Phyllophaga
, many ants (formicididae), webworms (
Crambus 
spp.) and Billbugs 
(
Sphenophorus 
spp.) were reported to feed on u
nderground parts of barleys in North 
America
 
 
(Starks & Webster, 1985). Briggs (1978) reported that the larvae of Crane flies 
caused about 0.2% loss in barleys of Great Britain. 
 
 
4.2.1.2 Sap feeding insects:
 
 
This group of insects includes mostly the arth
ropods which feed on leaves and stems. During 
feeding they may inject various toxins and transmit various diseases. They multiply rapidly 
giving 10 generations in a season. The aphids are in this category. Although the predominant 
species may vary from cou
ntry to country, the aphids occur in all continents (Vickerman and 
Wratten, 1979). The English grain aphid (
Sitobion avenae
 
(Fabricius)) infects other cereals, 
transmits BYDV and is a pest of barley in Europe, Asia as well as North and South America. 
Among
 
the aphids, the Russian wheat aphid (
Diuraphis noxia
) is the most known cereal 
aphid and reported to occur in wide range of geography including North America, Latin 
America, South Africa, North Africa, Central and West Asia (Elmalı, 1999). They are small 
and have soft bodies with various colors such as whitish gray, green and black and sucking 
mouthparts. They over winter on weeds and infest almost all species of graminea. They suck 
the nutrients from the green parts of the plants, inject various toxins an
d also transmit 
important cereal diseases such as Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus (BYDV) and as a result reduce 
tillering and grain quality. The extent of damage varies depending on the species, population 
density and time of infestation. Total devastation of ce
real crops in Konya province,
 
Turkey 
due to Russian wheat aphid is reported (Elmalı, 1999). The control measures include 
development and use of resistant cultivars Starks and Webster (1985), early sowing, removal 
of alternative hosts and insecticide sprays. Other sap feeding insects i
nclude Chinch bug 
(
Blissus leucupterus
 
(Say)), leafhoppers (Family Cicadellidae), planthoppers (Fulgoridae) and 
mites such as 
Aceria 
spp., 
Petrobia 
spp.
, Penthaleus 
spp.
 
and Oligonychus 
spp. Some mite 
species can also be found in cereal stores. For example
, flour mite (
Acarus siro
) can feed on 
broken pieces of grains in cereal stores. 
 
Among the sap feeding insects in developing countries include the sunny pest and cereal 
bugs. The most known species are 
Eurygaster integriceps
 
and 
Aelia rostrata
 
respectivel
y. 
Various species can also be present in different countries. These include 
E. Maura, E. 
Austrica, A. acuminata, A. syriaca, A. furcula, A. melanota, A. turanica, A. virgata, A. 
albovittata and A. sibirica.
 
The sunny pest and cereal bug species over winte
r in high forestry 
areas and move to cereal fields including barleys in the spring. The nimphs and adults suck 
the vegetative parts starting from seedling stage causing drying out of plants, reduced tillering 
and white heads. Later in the season the nymphs
 
and adults feed on the maturing grains 
causing production of empty or shriveled grains. The infested grains loose their quality as a 
result of shriveling and also due to the enzymes injected. Such grains would also act as a host 
for the spoilage microorga
nisms and storage insects. The grains that have 2% or more sucked 
grains are considered to be of low quality. The sunny pests and cereal bugs are among the 
most serious insect pests of cereals in many countries in Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe and 
cause 
significant economical losses. In Turkey alone approximately 12 million USD is spent 
for the control of these insects and despite this, significant damage still occurs. They are 
predominant pests in West Asia and North Africa. Individual reports of importa
nce have been 
made for Iran (Anonymous, 1967) and Turkey (Ozkan 
et al.
, 1999). Control of these insects 
is very difficult and requires integrated approach such as development and protection of 
biological control agents, establishment of green belts, use of
 
efficient fungicide applications 
and improvement of tolerant/resistant cultivars. 
 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
36
 
 
 
4.2.1.3 Chewing insects: 
 
The most important species of insects with chewing mouth parts is the Cereal leaf beetle 
(
Oulema melanopus
 
L.) which feeds on the epidermis open
ing narrow channels, consequently 
reducing the photosynthesis area and reduced grain weight. Other species include the widely 
occurring armyworms (
), cutworms (
Euxoa auxiliaris, Agrotis 
orthogonia
), grasshoppers and other minor insects
 
such as Mormon cricket (
Anabrus 
simplex
), blister beetles (
Epicauta 
spp.), (Starks and Webster, 1985). These species generally 
feed on leaves and stems of barley as well as other cereals. The symptoms that the species 
cause include defoliation of the plan
ts, blotching and streaks on the leaves, breakage of the 
stalks and damage on florets and grains. 
 
 
4.2.1.4 Borers: 
 
The insects in this group usually grow through the stems of barley. The species include barley 
joint worm (
Harmolita hordei
), wheat stem ma
ggot (
Meromyxa 
spp.), fritfly (
Oscinella frit
) 
and lesser cornstalk borer (
Elasmopalpus lignosellus
). The species of sawflies are the major 
hymenopterous pests of small grains in North America, Europe, North America and East 
Asia. The saw fly species inclu
de 
Trachelus tabidus, T. libanensis, Cephus pygmaeus
 
and 
C. 
cinctus
 
(Starks & Webster, 1985). The symptoms include stunting or death of plants, 
formation of shrunken or prematurely whitened heads, shriveling of grains and cutting of 
stems as in saw flies.
 
 
 
4.2.1.5 Nematodes: 
 
There are a few nematodes that may be recorded on barley. The seed gal nematode (
Anguina 
tritici
) is mainly a pest of wheat but it may sometimes be observed on barley. This causes 
stunting of plants, deformation of leaves and produces
 
galls on heads in place of grains. The 
contaminated grains are not suitable for use as seeds, food or feed.
 
Apart from the seed gal nematode, Cereal cyst nematodes infect the roots and produce pin 
head like cysts on roots. The most widely occurring cereal
 
cyst nematode agent is 
Heterodera 
avena 
but species of 
H. filipjevi, H. mani, H.bifenestra, H.iri, H. hordecalis
 
and 
H. latipons
 
are among the causal agents. Other nematodes infecting the barley roots include 
meloidogyne 
spp. producing knots and 
Pratylenc
hus 
spp. producing brown lesions on the roots. Other 
nematodes of minor importance include stunt nematode (
Tylenchorhynchus 
spp.), sheath 
nematodes (
Hemicycliophora 
spp.) and pin nematodes (
Paratylenchus 
spp.). 
 
The nematodes in barleys reduce the water an
d nutrient uptake resulting in retarded plant 
growth, reduced tillering and grain weight, producing symptoms like similar to nutrient 
deficiencies. The effect of majority of nematodes on barley is not well known, but yield 
losses of up to 50 % has been rep
orted due to cereal root knot nematode and yield gain of 
21% as a result of control of Root lesion nematode of 
P. pallax
 
in Wales (Gair 
et al.
, 1987). 
 
4.2.2 Storage pests 
 
The main cereal storage pests are from the various families of the orders of Coleop
tera 
(Beetles) and Lepidoptera (Butterflies and moths) and also include mites (Table 4.2.2). The 
species of Coleoptera have hardened front wings and chewing mouth parts, while the adults 
of Lepidoptera have loose wings and siphoning mouth parts, larvae hav
ing chewing mouth 
parts. Both order have complete metamorphosis, egg 
-
 
larva 
-
 
pupa 
-
 
adult (beetle) for 
Coleoptera (Fig. 4.2.2) and egg 
-
 
Larva (or caterpillar) 
-
 
Pupa 
-
 
Adult (Butterfly or moth) for 
Lepidoptera (Morril, W.L., 1995). 
 
The storage insects 
feed on many food sources that can be found in stores, although some 
have preferences. Therefore, it is impossible to separate them on the bases of commodities. 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
37
 
 
However, here, the insects causing economically important damage to cereals, barley in 
particul
ar, are explained. The storage pests of cereals can be studied in four different groups: 
1) Primary storage insects, 2) Secondary storage insects, 3) Storage mites, 4) Birds and 
rodents. 
 
 
4.2.2.1 The primary storage insects: 
 
This group of insects constit
utes the most damaging storage insects. This is so because they 
feed internally within the grains and without careful examination it is difficult to observe 
them until the damage is very obvious at which time the degree of damage becomes 
irrecoverable. The
 
adults chew a hole in the grain and the females lay their eggs in these 
holes after mating. The larva passes through the larval instars within the grain transforming to 
pupa and then into an adult weevil. The larva, with its chewing mouth parts feeds on t
he 
endosperm but some portions of embryo can also be consumed. These insects prefer drier 
grains for feeding and can feed on grains with moisture content of 2%. 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
38
 
 
 
Table 4.2.2: Important insect pests of barley stores
 
Order
 
Family
 
Species
 
Common name
 
Type*
1
 
Coleoptera
 
Dermestidae
 
Trogoderma granarium 
 
Khapra Beetle
 
***
 
-
 
Ostomatidae 
 
Tenebrioides mauritanicus
 
Cadelle
 
*
 
-
 
Bostrychidae
 
Rhyzopherta dominica
 
Lesser grain 
borer
 
***
 
 
-
 
Silvanidae
 
Oryzaephilus surinamensis
 
Sawtoothed 
grain beetle
 
*
 
-
 
Silvanid
ae
 
Oryzaephilus mecator
 
Merchant grain 
beetle
 
*
 
-
 
Tenebrioidae
 
Tribolium castaneum 
 
Red flour beetle
 
*
 
-
 
Tenebrioidae
 
Tribolium confusum
 
Red flour beetle
 
*
 
-
 
Tenebrioidae
 
Tribolium molitor 
 
Red flour beetle
 
*
 
-
 
Tenebrioidae
 
Gnathocerus cornutus
 
Broad h
orned 
flour beetle
 
*
 
-
 
Curculionidae
 
Sitophilus granaries
 
Granary weevil
 
***
 
-
 
Curculionidae
 
Sitophilus oryzae
 
Rice weevil
 
***
 
-
 
Curculionidae
 
Sitophilus zeamais
 
Maize weevil
 
***
 
-
 
Cucujidae
 
Leomophloeus(Cryptolestes)ferrugineus
 
Red grain beetle
 
*
 
-
 
C
ucujidae
 
Ahasverus advena
 
Foreign grain 
beetle
 
*
 
Lepidoptera
 
Gelechiidae
 
Sitotroga cerealella
 
Angoumois 
grain 
 
***
 
-
 
Pyralidae
 
Anagasta (Ephestia) kuehniella
 
Mediterranean 
flour moth
 
*
 
-
 
Galleriidae
 
Ephestia cautella 
 
Tropical 
warehouse moth
 
*
 
-
 
Galler
iidae
 
Ephestia eutella
 
Tobacco moth
 
*
 
-
 
Galleriidae
 
Ephestia figuliella
 
Raisin moth
 
*
 
-
 
Galleriidae
 
Pyralis farinalis
 
Meal moth 
 
*
 
-
 
Galleriidae
 
Plodia interpunctella
 
Indian meal 
moth
 
*
 
Acarina 
 
Acaridae
 
Acarus siro 
 
Grain mite
 
*
 
*1: ***: Primary grai
n pest; *: Secondary grain pest
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
39
 
 
 
Figure 4.2.2. Life cycle of 
Trogoderma granarium
, a member of Coleoptera (Adapted from 
Yasar, 1996 and Akan, 2003). 
 
Economically, the most important species in this group are the grain weevil species 
(
Sitophilus 
spp.), n
amely rice weevil (
S. oryzae
), maize weevil (
S. zeamais
) and granary 
weevil (
S. granarius
). The adults are dark brown, the egg, larva and adult stages all take place 
in the grain and adults can fly to fields to re
-
infest the crops. They occur worldwide and
 
can 
cause significant losses in cereals in Turkey (Drtbudak 
et al.
, 1988). 
 
Other economically important species in this group include Lesser borer (
Rhyzopertha 
dominica
 
(Fabricus)). This species is cylindrical, 3 mm long, strong flier and favor dust 
par
ticles and broken grain particles. The less damaging primary storage insect is the 
Lepidopter Angoumois grain moth (
Sitotroga cerealella
). The adult moth of this species is 5
-
8 mm long and can not feed on whole grains with its sucking type of mouth parts. 
The 
females lay their eggs among the grains and the larva feeds into the grains, feeds there, 
pupates and then transforms into adults. This species favors feeding on broken grain pieces 
and grain dust. 
 
 
4.2.2.2 The secondary storage insects: 
 
The insects 
that feed on parts of the grain such as broken grains or particles of grains, dusts or 
flours are considered in this group. The species in this group feed on the outside of the grains 
and prefer embryos. The adults are 3
-
4 mm long, brown or reddish 
-
 
brown
 
in color. The best 
known species in this group are flour beetles (
Tribolium 
spp.). There are slight differences 
between the 
T. confusum
 
and 
T. castaneum
 
especially in the structure of antennas and eyes. 
The females lay their eggs among the grains and the 
compaction of dusts and grain particles 
are very favorable for the flour beetles to survive. The adults can live up to 5 years and when 
the environment becomes unfavorable they secrete quinons which turns the flour into pink 
color. 
 
The saw
-
toothed grain b
eetle (
Oryzaephilus 
spp.) and merchant beetle (
O. mercator
) are 
among the common storage grain infesting species. Development from egg to adult takes 
place in 25 days. The eggs are laid singly or as groups on the feed sources. The larva is pale 
yellow with
 
dark segments on thorax and the adults are black, 2.5
-
3 mm long. Larvae can not 
damage the whole grains but can feed on broken grain pieces, dusts and flour. The grain 
beetles (
Cryptolestes 
spp.) group also has three species namely flat grain beetle (
C.pu
sillus
), 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
40
 
 
rusty grain beetle (
C. ferrugineus
) and flour beetle (
C. turcicus
). These can feed externally on 
the grains consuming embryo as well as broken grain pieces, dust and flours. 
 
In addition, a number of dermestids such as 
Trogoderma variable
, 
T. glab
rum
 
and most 
importantly the Khapra beetle (
T. granarium
) cause significant damages in cereal stores. The 
adults of khapra beetle have a very short life span of about 1
-
3 weeks, the larvae can remain 
alive for several months without food and can tolerate t
o adverse conditions such as 2% 
moisture and 44 C o temperature (Pedersen, 1992). All this makes the Khapra beetle one of 
the most significant storage pests of cereal grains and difficult to eradicate. The Khapra 
beetle is the most damaging dermestid in c
ountries of India, Pakistan and arid regions of 
Africa (Pedersen, 1992). Ring (1965) reported the records of total loss of 300 tones of barley 
in USA, 30 tones of grains in southeastern Turkey and average grain loss of around 20
-
30% 
in Turkey due to Khapra
 
beetle. The occurrence and importance of Khapra beetle in grain 
stores are reported for Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, 
Sudan and U.A.R. (Anonymous, 1967) and in Saudi Arabia (Rostom, 1993). 
 
Additional insects that
 
may cause damage to stored cereals include Catedelle (
Tenebroides 
mauritanicus 
L.), Cigarette beetle (
Lasioderma serricorne
) and drugstore beetle (
Stegobium 
paniceum
 
L.), Indian moth (
Plodia interpunctella
), the almond moth (
Cadra cautella
), 
tobacco moth 
(
Ephestia elutella
) and Mediterranean flour moth (
Anagasta kuehniella
) 
(Pedersen, 1992). 
 
In addition to the insects that favor drier grains and those feeding on broken grain pieces, 
dusts and flour, there are a number of insect species feeding on moist gr
ains under damp and 
moldy conditions. These are more of a problem especially in humid areas and with storages 
without sufficient drying and aeration facilities. These include foreign grain beetle 
(
Ahasverus advena
), hairy fungus beetle (
Typhaea stercorea 
L
.), Mealworms (
Tenebrio 
molitor, T.obscurus, Alphitobius diaperinus
), psocids 
-
 
booklice (
Liposcelis 
spp.) and mites 
(
Acarus 
spp.). 
 
 
4.2.2.4 Storage mites: 
 
Apart from the members of the coleoptera and diptera, the mites (Acaridae family in 
Arthropoda) ar
e studied together with the insect pests due to the nature of their behaviour and 
damage. Although many mite species are predators of many insect pests and also feed on 
moulds, some species are also pests of stored grains especially in temperate climates (
Wilkin, 
1975). The mites can also feed on the embryos of the grains. The most important mite species 
causing damage to barleys in storage is the 
Acarus siro
 
L. which favors damp grains and 
conditions. Favorable conditions are 23 
-
25 C and 75 
-
 
85 % R.H. (
Pedersen, 1992). It is 
reported to be a significant problem in barley stores in tropical and subtropical countries but 
it may be present in where ever the conditions are suitable. 
A. siro
 
has been significant 
problem in cereal stores in UK (Wilkin & Hurloc
k, 1986) and in souteastern part of Turkey 
(Yildirim, 
et al.
,1997). Together with 
A. siro
, 
Lepidoglyphus destructor
 
and 
eruditus
 
have been reported to be important pests of cereal grains in Turkey (Emeki and 
Toros, 1999). Some other species have
 
also been reported in various countries. For example, 
Acaropsis sollers
 
Tyrophagus sp., Calogyphus berlesi, Rhizoglyphus sp. 
and
 
Oribatula sp
. in Iraq (Mahmood, 
1992). 
 
 
4.2.2.5 Birds and 
rodents: 
 
Barleys, as well as many other crops are subject to damage by birds and rodents. They can 
cause damage both in the field and in storage. Birds can pick up the seeds following sowing if 
especially shallow seeding practiced. The birds can pick the 
grains from the heads near 
the 
harvest time causing significant losses for example in south east Anatolia of Turkey (Akın, 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
41
 
 
1973) as well as in many other locations. In addition, the birds can also enter the unprotected 
grain stores and eat the grains. Among the most important bird s
pecies causing such damage 
are crows (
Corvus 
spp.) and sparrows (
Passer domesticus, Sturnus vulgaris
). 
 
Rodents can also cause important losses in field and stores. The 
Microtus 
spp. and 
Microtus 
arvalis
 
are common problems especially in fields. These can 
eat the seeds and seedlings in 
the field after sowing. Their control in field is difficult but application of LPG gas into the 
tunnels or placement of seeds treated with Zinc phosphide near the open end of the tunnels 
are practiced by some farmers for this
 
purpose. The rodents are also among the major 
problems in storage. The rodents are capable of passing through very small holes and can be 
real problems in barley stores in developing countries. The major species that infest barley 
stores as well as many o
ther commodities include 
Mus musculus
 
and 
Rattus rattus
. These are 
present almost in all developing countries. They are reported to cause damage in stores in all 
parts of Turkey (Yildirim 
et al.
, 1997) and in Pakistan, Sudan and other parts of the Near Eas
t 
region (Anonymous, 1967). 
 
4.3 Control of post harvest microorganisms and pests
 
In order to minimize the losses due to post harvest losses caused by microorganisms, insects 
or other pests, application of appropriate control measures is necessary. These p
rocedures 
technology, controlling the storage atmosphere and use of pesticides at various stages such as 
in field, on seeds or in storage effectively. The cont
rol measures for post harvest diseases and 
pests and their status in developing countries are as follows
.
 
 
Since the post harvest diseases and pests favor low quality, shriveled and broken grains, the 
production of bet
ter quality grains is the first stage for management of post harvest pests. The 
procedures to achieve this include selection of right cultivars, use of quality seeds, practicing 
good soil tillage, appropriate fertilization and other crop production practic
es. 
 
4.3.2 Preharvest control of diseases and pests in field
 
Control of field diseases and pests is necessary for production of good quality grains. 
Moreover, many post harvest diseases and pests originate from field infection/infestation. 
Grain infecting 
fungi such as 
Fusarium 
spp., 
Alternaria 
spp. and 
Helminthosporium 
spp. 
infect the grains in the field before harvest and continue their spoilage in storage under 
appropriate conditions. Similarly grain veewils (
Sitophilus 
spp.) can infest the grains in the
 
field and then be transported to the storage together with the grains. Therefore their control in 
the field would help in preventing, or at least minimize, initial infestation of the grains before 
storage. The pre harvest control measures include use of r
esistant cultivars, seed treatments 
for seed borne diseases such as smuts (
Ustilago 
spp.), barley leaf stripe (
P. graminea
) and 
wire worms, fungicidal sprays for foliar diseases which lower the grain quality such as Scald 
(
R. secalis
) and powdery mildew (
E
rysyphe graminis
) and insecticidal sprays for sunny pest 
(
Eurygaster integriceps
) and cereal bugs (
Aelia 
spp.). However despite the recommendations, 
control measures are not taken adequately in most of the developing countries. This is 
because most of the 
farmers are not aware of the importance of the diseases and pests and 
control technology or their financial status does not allow them to focus on this. As a result, 
the barley grains produced are of lower quality than the potential, which are vulnerable t
o 
storage diseases and pests. However in some countries, state agricultural organizations may 
execute the protection programs for pests causing economical losses in wide areas. For 
example, the survey and insecticide spray for the control of sunny pest and
 
cereal bug in 
Turkey have been carried out by the institutions of Ministry of Agriculture until recently. 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
42
 
 
However, there is a growing debate as to the efficiency and feasibility of this approach. In 
order to achieve the control of diseases and pests, prac
tical integrated strategies need to be 
developed and the technologies should be transferred to the farmers. 
 
4.3.3 Appropriate harvest procedures
 
Harvest procedures not only affect the direct grain losses but also affect the grain quality and 
as a result t
he losses due to post harvest diseases and pests. To minimize this effect, the 
harvest should be done at right time as the moist grains are more vulnerable not only to 
storage micro organisms such as 
Penicillium 
spp. and 
Aspergillus 
spp. but also to a numb
er 
of storage pests such as 
A. advena, T. stercorea L., T. molitor
 
and 
Liposcelis 
spp. The 
efficiency of threshing procedures can also affect the grain quality. 
 
The portion of broken grains may increase if harvest delayed and thresher adjustments and 
proc
edures are not done properly (Demirci, 1982). In such situation there would be higher 
risk of microbial spoilage and insect damage in stores as such grains would provide more 
nutrient sources for many post harvest insects, especially secondary storage inse
cts such as 
flour beetles (
Tribolium 
spp.) and saw
-
toothed grain beetle (
Oryzaephilus 
spp.) which feed on 
broken grain pieces, dusts and flour. 
 
In very rural areas of most developing countries the small farmers harvest the crop by hand 
and leave the crop 
outside until threshing time. The threshing may also be done with rather 
primitive methods which would result in higher portion of broken grains. Similarly, even 
with the medium size farmers who harvest the crop with combines, the harvest procedures are 
no
t appropriate to minimize the grain loss and breakage, due to inadequate training of the 
operators. To improve this, efficient extension activities are needed for the training of farmers 
and combine operators. 
 
4.3.4 Drying the grains 
 
Many post harvest di
seases and pests favor moist grains in storage. These include 
microorganisms such as 
Penicillium 
spp. and 
Aspergillus 
spp. and insect pests such as foreign 
grain beetle (
A. advena
), hairy fungus beetle (
T. stercorea
 
L.), mealworms (
T.enebrio
 
spp.), 
booklic
e (
Liposcelis 
spp.) and mites (
Acarus 
spp.). In order to avoid the spoilage by these 
agents, the grains may have to be dried if the moisture content is too high at harvest time. The 
efficiency of grain drying has been reported for the control of 
Acarus 
spp
. (Wilkin, 1975). 
The moisture content of the grains must not be over 13
-
14% in order to avoid infestation by 
these microorganisms and insect pests. The large producers and traders may have drying 
facilities but the small and medium size farms do not. Howe
ver some farmers dry the grains 
in the open air before placing them in storage 
 
 
The characteristics of the storage facilities and atmosphere in them are the major factors 
determ
ining the extent of development of storage microorganisms, pests on barley grains and 
resulting damage. Therefore, ideally the storage facilities should have sufficient isolations 
and controllable atmosphere to create the most adverse conditions for the de
velopment and 
multiplication of microorganisms and pests. There are many storage types with different 
degrees of sophistication and facilities, described in previous sections of this title. The better 
quality storage facilities are present only for large c
ompanies and organizations in the 
developing countries. The majority of small and medium size barley producers in developing 
countries do not even have storage facilities and they store their grains either as bags in 
buildings, or as bulk in wood or concre
te stores. The medium and large size farmers may also 
store the grains in underground or above ground pits. In most cases these would be covered 
polyethylene sheets and have almost no atmosphere control facilities. 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
43
 
 
The grains in these primitive storage fa
cilities would have almost no protection against the 
storage microorganisms and insect pests other then the covering. In fact if the covering is of 
good quality and properly placed, the grain could be protected at least for a season. However 
in many cases 
the grains in such pits are exposed to moisture, internal and external heating 
problems and s a result become vulnerable to storage microorganisms and pests. 65 different 
species of microorganisms have been reported from such storages in Iran (Lacey, 1988)
 
and 
storage facilities would be more suitable for the grains for protection against the storage 
grains and pests, but their costs would be too high for the ordinary f
armers in developing 
countries. Therefore, in most cases these farmers keep the grains for domestic use only and 
sell the rest as soon as they harvest. However, the farmers with primitive storage facilities can 
improve the quality of their storage by not l
eaving any opening or cracks in the walls of the 
stores or covering properly to minimize the entry of outside moisture or organisms into the 
stored grains. 
 
In order to promote safer and more effective storage of cereal grains, alternative storage 
suitable for the small farmers in developing countries are needed. For this purpose 
containers and keeping the grain quality through allowing consumption of the all O
2
 
by the 
present organisms to produce CO
2
R. dominica
 
and 
T. 
castaneum, Cryptolestes sp. 
were reduced significantly (Ferizli and Emeki, 1999). The 
arro 
et al.
, 
1994). 
 
4.3.6 Use of Pesticides 
 
4.3.6.1 Rodenticides: 
 
Despite the care taken not to leave any holes or cracks on the walls of storage, the rodents can 
find their way to the stored grains. The rodents are important problems especially in 
deve
loping countries because the store structures are not properly constructed. In the very 
rural areas and small farms the rats are caught with mechanical traps on which attractive 
foods, such as cheese, are placed. However, medium size farmers tend to use ro
denticides in 
various formulations. For example in Turkey, the rodents are chemically controlled through 
placement of pellets (such as Difenacum 0.05%), grains treated with the poisonous 
rodenticides (Coumatetraly 0.75, Brodifacoum 0.05%, Zinc phosphide, 8
0
-
(aluminium phosphide 56
-
57%, 1 tablet for 1m
3
) in the grain stores. The use of zinc 
phosphide treated grains as baits is reported for Sudan (Anonymous, 1967) as well. 
 
4.3.6.2 Sanitation of stores before storage: 
 
In order to protect the 
grains in store from the storage microorganisms and insect pests, the 
stores should be cleaned and sanitized before the grain is placed. Otherwise small amount of 
microorganism or insects can grow and develop in time after storage and cause extensive 
damag
e, if the environmental conditions are suitable for them. 
 
Some farmers do apply lime to the walls of ordinary building stores to eliminate the 
microorganisms before storage. The insect pests existing in the store can be destroyed before 
the grain is store
d with the use of Malathion, Bromophos, Chlorpyrifos
-
Methyl and 
Primiphos methyl. For the application, WP or EC formulation of the insecticides must be 
used and all surface area must be sprayed. 
 
However, majority of small scale farmers ignore to do this a
nd the losses are encountered 
frequently resulting from the existing micro organisms and pests in stores. 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
44
 
 
4.3.6.3 Use of grain protectants
: 
 
The protection of grains from spoilage fungi such as 
Penicillium 
spp. and 
Aspergillus 
spp. is 
more difficult in de
veloping countries. Although application of propionic acid as sprays is 
widely used in many developed countries for this purpose (Sauer 
et al.
, 1992) especially the 
smaller farmers in developing countries do not practice this. Use of protectants is an effi
cient 
way of protecting grains especially from contamination of the storage insects. The major 
objectives for application of grain protectants are to kill the most important insects in the 
grain and prevent them from establishing an infestation after the s
torage. One protectant 
application may be sufficient during only one storage season (Harein & Davis, 1992). 
 
The earlier protectant insecticide studies in the USA, India and Kenya are reviewed by 
Harein and Davis (1992) and included diatomaceous earths, si
lica aero gels, magnesium 
oxide, aluminium oxide and activated clays in the form of inert dust acting as toxic and 
repellent insecticide. Although the inert dusts have residue problems they still seem to 
interest the producers in developing countries (Mitt
al & Wrightman, 1989). The insecticides 
that have been developed as effective grain protectants include Malathion, Pyrethrins, 
Dichlorvos, Chlorpyrifos
-
-
 
insects such as 
A. advena, Sitophilus 
spp
.
, Oryzaephilus 
spp.
, Cryptolestes 
spp.
, Trogoderma 
spp. and 
Tribolium 
spp. at various degrees. Although the small size farms in developing 
countries ignore use of protectant fungicides, the medium size farms use these protectant 
fungicides as this is more
 
suitable for their loosely built stores which are unsuitable for 
fumigation. Recommendations for application of insecticides in cereal storage in Turkey are 
summarized in Table 4.3.6 as an example. Care should be taken to minimize and monitor the 
developm
ent of insect resistance against these insecticides. 
 
The grain protectants are applied either as dust to the grains such as (Malathion, Pyrethrins, 
Chlorpyrifos
-
Methyl and Pirimoiphos 
-
 
sprays as in the c
ase of dichlorvos which acts as semi fumigant dissolving in the store 
atmosphere but not being able to penetrate into the depth of bulk grain. 
 
4.3.6.4 Fumigation: 
 
Despite every effort that is made, it may not be possible to achieve complete isolation of 
the 
grain stores from their environment, control the atmosphere and destroy the storage 
microorganisms and pests in the grain that is placed in the store. In such cases the 
microorganisms and pests can grow and multiply in time at various speed depending o
n the 
atmosphere conditions and their requirements. Then it may be necessary to fumigate the 
stores to destroy them or decrease their population. 
 
Various fumigation agents have been developed but only two are widely used currently, 
phin. These are available in most developing countries, but only the 
medium and large scale farmers, traders and industry apply fumigation in their barley grain in 
 
use is limited in developed countries, but it is still used widely in grain stores in developing 
countries as it is cheaper and more widely available. The more advanced phosphin group of 
fumigants (Aluminium phosphide, Magnesium phosphide) are costly and 
not widely used by 
the small farmers, but medium and large scale farmers use the phosphins in different forms. 
 
use. For example Turkey is planning to ban the use of met
hyl bromide from use in stores in 
2005 and in other areas in 2008. Therefore alternative fumigants are gaining importance in 
similar countries. 
 
Various fumigation technology is available for all kinds of storage facilities including the 
sophisticated atmo
sphere controlled silos, underground or above ground pits under polythene 
covering, wood or concrete stores. The principle of phosphin fumigation is based on release 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
45
 
 
of the gas into the stored grain atmosphere and keeping it as long as possible. Here, the 
most 
critical factor is the efficiency of covering of the stored grain. Therefore special care needs to 
be taken to cover the grains especially in the pits which are common practices of grain 
storage (Fig. 4.3.6.4.). The farmers need to have sufficient exp
erience and knowledge of the 
technology for effective application of fumigation. 
 
In order to achieve maximum benefit from fumigation and reduce fumigant use 
the 
following 
steps must be taken: 
 

 
 

 
insuring
 
that the store is isolated from the outside environment by filling in any 
wholes, cracks and openings, 
 

 
application of the fumigants according to the recommendations, 
 

 
revision of dosage rates to avoid overdosing; 
 

 
reducing the frequency of treatments by 
preventing or reducing reinvasion of pests 
subsequent to fumigation.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4.3.6.
4. Storage of a covered pit and 
application of phosphine tablet for developing 
countries
 
(Akan, 2003). 
 
 
 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
46
 
 
 
Table 4.3.6: Recommendations for Use of Insecticides and F
umigants in Grain Stores in 
Turkey
 
(1)
 
Insecticide
 
Formulation
 
Recommended dose
 
(Preparation) for
 
100 m
2
 
 
1 ton grain
 
1 m
3
 
(Vol.)
 
Malathion %25 W/W
 
WP
 
500 g
 
-
 
-
 
Malathion 190 g/l
 
EC
 
650 ml
 
-
 
-
 
Malathion 650 g/l
 
EC
 
200
 
 
ml
 
-
 
-
 
Bromophos 360 g/l
 
EC
 
2
50 ml
 
-
 
-
 
Primiphos
-
 
EC
 
300 ml
 
-
 
-
 
 
EC
 
200 ml
 
20 ml
 
In 1 lt water
 
Chlorpyiphos
-
 
EC
 
425 ml
 
-
 
-
 
Malathion %2 W/W
 
Dust
 
-
 
500 g
 
-
 
Fenitrothion %3 W/W
 
Dust
 
-
 
133,2 g
 
-
 
Fenitrothion %1 W/W
 
Dust
 
-
 
400 g
 
-
 
Aluminium p
hosphide %57
 
 
-
 
9
-
30 g
 
3
-
12 g
 
Aluminium phosphide %57
 
Granule sack
 
-
 
-
 
8,5 g
 
 
Liquid gas
 
-
 
-
 
25 g
 
Dichorvos 550 g/l (DDVP)
 
EC
 
-
 
-
 
0,150 ml (in 10 ml water)
 
Dichorvos 1000 g/l (DDVP
 
EC
 
-
 
-
 
In 1 lt. water at 25 C or 
over 
 
(1)
 
Ad
apted from Yasar (1996); Yildirim 
, (1997)
 
 
 
Ideal fumigation techniques are known only by professional grain producers, traders or 
industrialists in the developing countries. Majority of the small scale farmers are unaware of 
these techniques. Even
 
in the medium 
-
 
large size farms, the efficiency of fumigation is 
generally low and still significant losses occur due to storage diseases and pests. The main 
reason for inefficient grain preservation in smaller farms in developing countries is the 
inadeq
uacy of technical knowledge and unsuitability of present storage systems for their 
conditions as well as financial resources for establishment of better storage facilities. 
 
5. Economic and social considerations
 
The main costs of the modern storage investm
ent are construction, 
maintenance
 
and energy. 
Although majority of barley grains are stored in modern structures in developed countries, 
construction and maintenance of these infrastructures can not be affordable in developing 
7countries. However, introduc
tion of such facilities was realized in some developing 
countries by using international funds. Result of these attempts has summarized by Navarro 
(1997): „a major effort over recent decades has been devoted to improving storage conditions 
of cereal and pu
lse crops, reducing losses in tropical countries. Past attempts at introducing 
"state
-
of
-
the
-
art" storage structures into several developing countries for this purpose have 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
47
 
 
-
elephants" standing empty an
d 
abandoned'.
 
In order to reduce cost of storage construction and increase adoption of new storage systems, 
socio
-
economic conditions of developing countries should be considered more. New 
technology has to meet the following very important requirements: 
 
1)Design must be similar to those of traditional storage structures (cylindrical container, 
raised above ground on a platform, with an upper loading port and a lower spout to remove 
the grain; 
 
2) Reduction in cost of manufacture by incorporation of certai
n elements of the structure that 
are usually freely obtainable locally (raised platform, straw roof); 
 
3) Achievement of a minimal and affordable price with an anticipated life
-
time of several 
years. 
 
s environmentally sound, user friendly, 
and does not require application of chemical pesticides; 
 
 
(Navarro, 1998).
 
If these conditions are taken in to considerations, new storage systems can be accept
ed by 
small scale farmers living trough the developing world. Navarro 
et al.
(1997) have proved that 
more appropriate storage systems have also been widely introduced, and have enabled the 
successful transfer and updating of modern conservation and control 
technologies with 
consequent reduction in storage losses. Reduction of storage losses at the small
-
scale and 
subsistence farmer levels has proved to be far more difficult than in the commercial or public 
sectors. This is because the available storage conse
rvation technologies are costly and not 
Therefore new solutions must be found, appropriate to the local conditions, and acceptable to 
o be introduced.
 
A good example illustrates the benefits of introduction of this approach in to developing 
countries. Navarro 
et al
. (1994) reported that net benefits from PVC hermetic units for rice 
and maize per tons was 100$ and 80$, respectively.
 
Losse
s of small grains after harvest are at least 5
-
10% especially for small scale farmers 
under rural areas in developing countries, but the magnitude of the losses sometimes may 
reach up to 100 % depending on climate and storage conditions (Navarro 
et al.
, 19
98). 
However, introduction of hermetic storage systems, which are easily applicable, cost 
effective and eco
-
friendly technology especially for small scale farmers, into rural areas 
dramatically decreases grain losses down to 0.15% (Navarro 
et al.
, 1998).
 
D
eveloping countries urgently need international collaboration in order to finance and 
execute research and development projects and transfer/introduce the existing and 
 
problems and priorities, the following procedures are recommended to be put into practice by 
Navarro (1997) a) development of appropriate storage technologies for developing countries; 
b) development of non
-
chemical control methods; c) development of nove
l pesticides based 
on biotechnological approaches; d) further development of IPM strategies and e) evaluation 
and development of new fumigants and other alternatives. In order to achieve all this, 
international collaboration must be established and suffici
ent resources should be allocated 
for research and technology transfer work in this area.
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
48
 
 
6. References
 
 
Akar, T., M. Avcı, M., Dusunceli, F., Tosun, H., Ozan, A.N., Albustan, S., 
Yalvac, K., Sayım, İ., Ozen, D., Sipahi, H., 1999. The problems and solutio
ns of 
cereals cultivation in Central and transitional zones of Central Anatolia. 
In 
Proceeding of symposium on „the problems and solutions of cereals cultivation in 
Central Anatolia, ed. H. Ekiz, 8
-
11 June 1999, Konya, Turkey, Gurcan Ofset 
Printhouse ISBN:
 
975
-
487
-
071
-
3, pp: 77
-
86 (in Turkish). 
 
 
 
 
Akan, K., Dusunceli, F. 2003. The insects of stored small grain cereals. 
Unpublished report, Central Research Institute for Field Crops, CRIFC, Ankara.
 
 
 
 
Akın, T., 1973. Guneydogu Anadoluda mahsullere zarar veren dag sercesine 
(
Passer montanus
 
L.) karsı öldürücü etkisi olan queletx ilacının tesir derecesinin 
tesbiti. Plant protection research annual, Ankara, Turkey, pp. 66 (in Turkish).
 
 
 
 
Aktas, H., 1999
. Determination of the fungal flora of barley seeds and their 
sensitivities against 
Drechslera sorokiniana
 
'Sacc.' Subram. and Jain. 
In 
Proceeding of symposium on „the problems and solutions of cereals cultivation in 
Central Anatolia, ed. H. Ekiz, 8
-
11 Jun
e 1999, Konya, Turkey, Gurcan Ofset 
Printhouse ISBN: 975
-
487
-
071
-
3, pp 705 
-
 
710 (in Turkish).
 
 
 
 
Anonymous, 1967. Report of the second session of the near east plant protection 
commission held at Tripoli, Libya, 6
-
13 May 1967, Meeting report 
No:PL:1967/
M/3, FAO, Rome, 36 pp.
 
 
 
 
Anonymous, 2002. MEDRATE (EC
-
CIHEAM Co
-
operation project, 1998
-
2002) 
Regional Action Program ”Rain fed Agriculture” RAP
-
RAG Report of the 
Second Coordination Meeting, unpublished.
 
 
 
 
Arifi, A.,1990. Distribution and importance
 
of the main barley fungal foliar 
diseases in Morocco. 
In
 
proceedings of the 8th congress of the Mediterranean 
phytopathological union, October 28 
-
 
November 3rd, Agadir Morocco, 1990, 
pp.309
-
312.
 
 
 
 
Atheya, S.C., Dikshit, N.N. and Ram, L., 1981. Barley 
diseases in India. 
In
 
Rabat, Morocco, pp. 219
-
234.
 
 
 
 
Bacha, H., Hadidane, R., Creppy, E.E., Regnaul, C., Ellouze, F. and Dirhemier, 
G., 1988. 1988. Monitoring and identificatio
n of fungal toxins in food products, 
animal feed and cereals in Tunisia. 
J. Stored prod. Res. 
Vol. 24, No:4, pp.199
-
206.
 
 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
49
 
 
 
Baldridge D. E., D. E. Brann, A.H. Ferguson, J.L. Jerry, R.K. Thompson, 1985. 
Cultural practices. 
In
 
Barley, D. C. Rasmusson ed., 
Publishers Madison, Wisconsin, 1985.
 
 
 
 
Balkan, C., 1981. Research on agricultural economics and training national 
project, İzmir,Turkey (in Turkish).
 
 
 
 
Ba
mforth, CW, and Barclay, A.H.P., 1993. Malting technology the uses of Malt. 
Barley: Chemistry and Technology. A.A.C.C .Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, pp. 
298.
 
 
 
 
Bateman, G.L., Ehle, H and Wallace, H.A.H., 1986. Fungicidal treatment of 
cereal seeds. 
In
 
S
eed treatment, ed. K.A.Jeffs, BCPC, UK, pp. 83
-
111.
 
 
 
 
Bayaner, A., Uzunlu, V., Keating, J.D.H., and Tutwiler, R., 1993. Agricultural 
Structure and Constraints to Increased Production in the Eastern Margin of 
Central Anatolia. Highland Regional Program. 
ICARDA
-
TARM. Ankara, 
Turkey.
 
 
 
 
Bhatty, R.S, 1986. Hulless barley: Development and Civilisation. 
In
 
VII. Int. 
Barley Genetics Symp. , Canada, pp:106
-
111.
 
 
 
 
Boulif, M., 1990. Breeding for resistance to barley leaf stripe (
Pyrenophora 
graminea
) in the M
editerranean region. 
In
 
Proceedings of the 8th congress of the 
Mediterranean phytopathological union, October 28 
-
 
November 3
rd
, 1990, 
Agadir, Morocco, pp.117.
 
 
 
 
Briggs, D.E., 1978. Barley, Chapman and Hall, London.
 
 
 
 
Buckle, A.E., 1986. Moulds and m
ycotoxins in cereal and other components of 
compound animal feeds. 
In
 
Spoilage and mycotoxins of cereals and other stored 
products, 
, Vol:22, Supplement, ed. B. Flannigan, 
pp 55
-
60.
 
 
 
 
Casanova, A., Dohler, R., Farrant, D.M
., Rathmell, W.G., 1977. The activity of 
the fungicide nuarimol against diseases of barley and other cereals. 
In
. 
Proceedings of the British Crop Protection Conference, pests and diseases 1, .pp 
1
-
7.
 
 
 
 
Cetin, L., Albustan, S., Dusunceli, F., Tosun, H. a
nd Akar, T., 1995. 
Determination of resistance barley breeding materials developed for Central 
Anatolia to barley leaf stripe (
Pyrenophora graminea
). 
In
 
proceedings of the 7
th
 
Turkish phytopathological congress, 26
-
29 September, Adana, Turkey, pp. 126
-
129 
(In Turkish).
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
50
 
 
 
 
 
Demirci, K., 1982. Crop losses with combine at harvest: examples of Turkey and 
State Farms 
In
 
proceedings of the seminar on pre and post harvest, 13
-
17 Dec. 
1982, Printing house of Ankara. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Central 
Lo
gistic Directory, Yenimahalle, Ankara, pp.127
-
132 (in Turkish)
 
 
 
 
Donahaye, E. J., Navarro, S. and Miriam Rindner, 1995. Storage of Barley in an 
underground Pit Sealed with a Polyethylene Liner. 
J. stored Prod. Res.
 31, 63
-
70.
 
 
 
 
Donahaye, E.J., 2000.
 
Current status of non
-
residual control methods against 
stored product pests. 
In
 
proceedings of the XIV
th
 
International Plant Protection 
Congress July 25
-
30, Jerusalem, Israel, Crop Protection, 19: 571
-
576.
 
 
 
 
Dörtbudak, N., Yılmaz, D. and Aydın, M., 1988. Investigation on the resistance 
to protective chemical used against granary weevil (
Sitophulus granaries
 
L.) 
destructive on the stored grain in Ankara and Eskisehir. 
In
 
plant protection 
research annual, Ankara
, Turkey, pp. 74.
 
 
 
 
Dube, D.C., 1990. An introduction to fungi. Vikas publishing house pvt ltd., 608 
pp.
 
 
 
 
Ehling, G., Cockburn, A., Snowdon, P. and Buschhaus, H., 1997. The 
significance of the Fusarium toxin deoxynivalenol (DON) for human and animal
 
health. 
Cereal Research Communication
, Vol.25, No.3/1, 443
-
447.
 
 
 
 
Emekci, M. and Toros, S., 1999. Investigations on the stored grain mites. 
In 
Proceeding of symposium on „the problems and solutions of cereals cultivation in 
Central Anatolia, ed. H. Eki
z, 8
-
11 June 1999, Konya, Turkey, Gurcan Ofset 
Printhouse ISBN: 975
-
487
-
071
-
3, pp: 483
-
497 (in Turkish).
 
 
 
 
El Ahmed, A., Ghodbane, A., Laribi, F. and El Felah, 1981. Barley diseases in 
Tunisia and sources of resistance. Pages 262
-
272, 
In
 
Proceedings of 
'Barley 
 
 
 
 
Elmalı, M., 1999. Rus bugday afidinin Konya ili tarımı acısından önemi ve 
czum nerileri.
 
 
In 
Proceeding of symposium on „the problems and solutions of cereals cultivation 
in Central Anatolia, ed. H. Ekiz, 8
-
11 June 1999, Konya, Turkey, Gurcan Ofset 
Prin
thouse ISBN: 975
-
487
-
071
-
3, pp. 449
-
461 (in Turkish).
 
 
 
 
Eren, Y., 1982. Grain loss at combine harvest. 
In 
Seminar on pre and post harvest 
proceeding, 13
-
17 Dec. 1982, Printing house of Ministry of Agriculture and 
Forestry, Central Logistic Directory, Ye
nimahalle, Ankara (in Turkish)
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
51
 
 
 
 
 
Esin, T., 1990. Pest and Diseases of stored dry grains. TMO Alkasan Matbaası, 
1990 (in Turkish).
 
 
 
 
Evcim, 1982. Grain loos with local made harvesters. 
In
 
proceedings of the 
seminar on pre and post harvest procedures, 13
-
17 Dec. 1982, Printing house of 
A
nkara. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Central Logistic Directory, 
Yenimahalle, Ankara (in Turkish).
 
 
 
 
FAO : Production Yearbook Vol: 54
-
2000 Rome, Italy.
 
 
 
 
FAO : Trade Yearbook Vol:53
-
1999 Rome, Italy.
 
 
 
 
Ferizli, A.G. & Emekci, M. 1999. Alt
ernatif ve evre dostu bir depolama tipi: 
Hermetik depolama. 
In 
Proceeding of symposium on „the problems and solutions 
of cereals cultivation in Central Anatolia, ed. H. Ekiz, 8
-
11 June 1999, Konya, 
Turkey, Gurcan Ofset Printhouse ISBN: 975
-
487
-
071
-
3, pp: 
491
-
497 (in 
Turkish).
 
 
 
 
Gagkeva, T. and Levitin, M., 2000. Composition of 
Fusarium graminearum
 
schwabe populations collected from different regions of Russia. 
In
 
Proceedings 
of the 5th European Seminar, Szeged, Hungary, 26 August 
-
 
5 September, 1997; 
Ce
real Research Communications Vol.25, No.3/2, pp. 591 
-
 
594.
 
 
 
 
Gair, R., Jenkins, J.E.E. and E. Lester, 1987. Cereal pests and diseases. Farming 
press ltd. 268 pp.
 
 
 
 
Gilbert, J., Shepherd, M.J., Startin, J.R., 1983. A survey of the occurrence of the 
t
richothecene mycotoxin deoxynivalenol (vomitoxin) in UK grown barley and 
imported maize by combined gas chromatography
-
mass spectrophotometry. 
Journal of the science of food and agriculture.
 
Vol:34, 86
-
92.
 
 
 
 
Gilchrist L., Vivar, H., Franco, J. And Cross
a, J., 2000. Comparing 
Fusarium 
graminearum
 
infection period in wheat and barley. 
In
 
Proceedings of the 5th 
European Seminar, Szeged, Hungary, 26 August 
-
 
5 September, 1997; Cereal 
Research Communications Vol.25, No.3/2: 739
-
740.
 
 
 
 
Gkgl, M., 1969. Cul
tivation and Breeding of Cool season cereals (wheat, 
barley, rye and Oat ), Özaydın matbaası, İstanbul,1969, (in Turkish).
 
 
 
 
Gumustekin, H., Akın, K., 1998. Marmara bölgesinde arpa acık rastık etmenine 
(
Ustilago nudo hordei
 
"Jest" Rostr. Saffn) karsı ar
pa cesit ve hatların 
reaksiyonlarının tespiti uzerinde arastırmalar. Unpublished report, The Thrace 
agricultural research institute, Edirne, Turkey
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
52
 
 
 
 
 
Hagberg, A. 1987. Barley as a model crop on plant genetic research. 
In
 
proceedings of the 5
th
 
Int. Barl
ey Genet. Symp. S.Yasuda and T.Konishi, eds., 
Sanyo Press, Okoyama, Japan, pp. 3
-
6.
 
 
 
 
Hamdany, M.A., Salih, M.M. and Al
-
Dulami, I.A., 1990. Selection of mildew 
and smut resistant lines from barley induced mutants. 
In
 
proceedings of the 8th 
congress of t
he Mediterranean phytopathological union. October 28 
-
 
November 
3rd, Agadir Morocco, 1990, pp. 279 
-
 
280.
 
 
 
 
Harein, P.K. & Davis, R., 1992. Control of stored grain insects. 
In
 
Storage of 
grains and their products, Sauer, D. B. ed., American Association 
of Cereal 
Chemists, pp. 491 
-
 
534.
 
 
 
 
Harlan, H.V., 1920. The daily developments of kernels of barley from flowering 
to maturity. 
J. Agric. Res.
 
19:393
-
429.
 
 
 
 
Harlan, J.R.1979. On the origin of barley. 
In
 
Origin, Botany, culture, winter 
hardness, Gene
tics, Utilization, Pests. Agric. Handb. 
338.US.Dept.Agr.Washington, D.C., pp. 10
-
36.
 
 
 
 
Hockett, E.A., and Nilan R.A.1985.Genetics. 
In
 
Barley. D.C. Rasmusson, ed. 
-
230.
 
 
 
 
Jones, D.G. & Clifford, B.C., 1
978. Cereal Diseases, their pathology and control. 
2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, 309 pp.
 
 
 
 
Kamel, A.H., 1981. Barley diseases in the dry areas. 
In
 
Proceedings of the 
Morocco, pp. 27
-
42
.
 
 
 
 
Kansu, İ.A., 1994. Genel entomoloji, Kıvanc matbaası, Ankara, Turkey. 426 pp. 
(In Turkish).
 
 
 
 
Karacan, H., Yılmaz, A., Yalcın, D. and Pembeci, C., 2000. Determination of the 
incidence of black point occurrence in wheats in Turkey and examination of its 
effect on product quality. 
In
 
Abstracts of Oral and Poster presentations of the 6th 
international wheat conference, 5
-
9 June, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 128.
 
 
 
 
Klinner, W.E. and G. Bigger, 1972. Some effects of harvest date and design 
features of cutting ta
ble on the front losses of combine harvesters. 
Journ. Agr. 
Eng. Res.
 
17(1):71
-
78.
 
 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
53
 
 
 
Lacey, J. 1988. The microbiology of cereal grains from areas of Iran with a high 
incidence of oesophageal cancer. 
J. Stored Prod.Res.
 
Vol.24, No.1, pp.39
-
50.
 
 
 
 
Lee, E
.S., 1981. Helminthosporium stripe in korea. 
In
 
Proceedings of 'Barley 
75
-
85.
 
 
 
 
Luz,W.C. and Vieria, J.C., 1982. Seed treatment with systemic fungicides to 
control 
Cochliobolus 
sativus
 
on barley. 
Plant Disease
, 66:135
-
136.
 
 
 
 
Lyamani, A., 1990. Fungal foliar diseses of wheat and barley in Morocco. 
In
 
proceedings of the 8
th
 
congress of the Mediterranean phytopathological union. 
October 28 
-
 
November 3rd, Agadir Morocco, 1990, pp
. 128.
 
 
 
 
Mahmood, S.H. 1992. Mite fauna of stored grain seeds in central Iraq. 
J. Stored 
prod. Res
. Vol. 28, No:3:179
-
181.
 
 
 
 
Mamluk, O.F., 1981. Review of smut diseses in Jordan. 
In
 
Proceedings of 'Barley 
workshop'., Rabat, Morocco, 
Pages 192
-
198.
 
 
 
 
Mittal, S. and Wightman, J.A. 1989. An inert dust protects stored groundnut from 
insect pests. 
Int. Arachis Newsl.
 
Nov. 1989, Int. Crops.Res. Inst. Semi
-
Arid 
Tropics, pp.21
-
22.
 
 
 
 
Morril, W.L., 1995. Insect
 
pests of small grains. APS press, Minnesota, USA,140 
pp.
 
 
 
 
Navarro S., Donahaye, E.J., Ferizli, G.A., Miriam Rindner and Azrieli, A., 1998. 
A sealed granary for use by small
-
scale farmers. 
In
 
Proc. 7
th
 
Int. Working Conf. 
Stored
-
Product Protection, Vol.
 
I., Zuxun, J., Quan, L., Yongsheng, L., 
Xianchang, T., and Lianghua, G. Eds. 14
-
19 October, 1998, Beijing, China., pp. 
434
-
443.
 
 
 
 
Navarro, S., 1997. Stored crops: the search for food security. 
In
 
stored crops, 
foodstuffs 
-
 
Introduction, E. Warrell Ed.,
 
The Crop Protection Directory, 
International Edition. 209
-
210.
 
 
 
 
Navarro, S., Donahaye, E. and Fishman, S., 1994. The future of hermetic storage 
of dry grains in tropical and subtropical climates. 
In
 
Proc. 6
th
 
Intern. Working. 
Conf. Stored Prod. Protec
tion E. Highley, E.J., Wright, H.J. Banks and B.R. 
Champ eds., CAB International, University Press, Cambridge, pp. 130
-
138.
 
 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
54
 
 
 
Navarro, S., Donahaye, E., Ferizli, A.G., Rindner, M. and Azrieli, A., 1998. 
A 
sealed granary for use by small scale farmers. T
he 7th International Working 
Conference on Stored 
-
 
Product Protection. 14
-
19 October, 2998. Beijing, China.
 
 
 
 
Navarro, S., Donaheye, E., and Fishman, S. 1994. The future of hermetic storage 
of dry grains in tropical and subtropical climates. 
In
 
Proc. 6
th
 
Intern. Working. 
Conf. Stored Prod. Protection, E. Highley, E.J., Wright, H.J. Banks and B.R. 
Champ eds., CAB International, University Press, Cambridge, pp. 130
-
138. 
 
 
 
 
Oakerfull, D., 1986. Food applications for barley. 
In
 
VII
th
 
Int. Barley Genetics
 
Symp. Canada, P:50
-
57..
 
 
 
 
Oluc, M.,1946. Agricultural economy of Trace region Ismail Akgun matbaası, (in 
Turkish).
 
 
 
 
Ogut, M. and Onan, E., 1995. Investigation on the determination of barley smuts 
(
Ustilago 
spp.) occurring in the Agean region, 
In
 
th
e Plant Protection Research 
Annual, Ankara, Turkey, 1995, Page 77.
 
 
 
 
Ozar, A.İ. and Yucel, A., 1981. Survey studies on the stored grain pests in the 
southeast Anatolia region. 
In
 
Plant Protection Research Annual, Ankara, Turkey, 
pp. 93
-
94..
 
 
 
 
Ozkan, 
M., Kocak, E., Babaroglu, N.E., Gkdogan, A and Altun, V., 1999. 
Problems caused by sunn pest and cereal bug in cereal fields and their solutions 
in Central Anatolia region. 
In 
Proceeding of symposium on „the problems and 
solutions of cereals cultivation i
n Central Anatolia, ed. H. Ekiz, 8
-
11 June 1999, 
Konya, Turkey, Gurcan Ofset Printhouse ISBN: 975
-
487
-
071
-
3, pp: 462
-
472 (in 
Turkish).
 
 
 
 
Ozkan, M., Kocak, E., Babaroglu, N.E., Gkdogan, A and Altun, V., 1999b. 
Problems caused by corn ground beetle in ce
real fields and their solutions in 
Central Anatolia region
 
In 
Proceeding of symposium on „the problems and 
solutions of cereals cultivation in Central Anatolia, H. Ekiz, ed., 8
-
11 June 1999, 
Konya, Turkey, Gurcan Ofset Printhouse ISBN: 975
-
487
-
071
-
3, pp: 4
73
-
476 (in 
Turkish).
 
 
 
 
Paramjit, S.B., Kumar, V., Aujla, S.S., 2000. Current status of research on 
Fusarium head scab of wheat in India. 
In
 
Proceedings of the 5th European 
Seminar, Szeged, Hungary, 26 August 
-
 
5 September, 1997; 
Cereal Research 
Communic
ations,
 
Vol.25, No.3/2: 795
-
796.
 
 
 
 
Parry, D., 1990. Plant pathology in agriculture. Cambridge University Press, 385 
pp.
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
55
 
 
 
 
 
Paterson, R.R.M., Kozakiewicz, Z., 1997. Penicillium and Aspergillus 
mycotoxins 
-
 
diagnostic characters and quantitative data fr
om commodities and 
cultures. 
Cereal Research Communications
, Vol.25, No.3/1: 271 
-
 
275.
 
 
 
 
Pedersen, J.R., 1992. Insects: Identification, damage and detection. 
In
 
Storage of 
grains and their products, Sauer, D. B. ed., American Association of Cereal 
Chem
ists, pp.435
-
489.
 
 
 
 
Richardson, M.J., 1979. An annoted list of seed
-
borne diseases, CAB., 320 pp.
 
 
 
 
Rostom, Z.M., 1993. Survey of some granivorous and non
-
granivorous insects 
and mites in Saudi Arabia. 
J. Stored Prod. Res.
 
Vol.29, No.1: 27
-
31.
 
 
 
 
S
aari. K. and Hawtin, L., 1977. Back to barley, recipes for the world's oldest food 
crop. Forth regional winter cereal workshop 
-
 
Barley, Amman, Jordan, April 24
-
28, 1977.
 
 
 
 
Salas, B., Steffenson, B.J., Casper, H.H. and Prom, L.K. 1997. Fusarium species 
pathogenic to barley and their associated toxins. 
Cereal Research 
Communications, Vol:25, No:3/1: 483
-
487.
 
 
 
 
Sauer, D.B., Meronuck, R.A. and C.M. Christensen, 1992. Microflora. 
In
 
Storage 
of grains and their products, Sauer, D. B. ed., American Associat
ion of Cereal 
Chemists, pp.313
-
340.
 
 
 
 
Schipilova, N.P. and Gagkaeva, T.Y., 2000. The forms of manifestation of 
Fusarium head blight on the seeds and heads of cereal crops. 
In
 
Proceedings of 
the 5
th
 
European Seminar, Szeged, Hungary, 26 August 
-
 
5 Septem
ber, 1997; 
Cereal Research Communications Vol.25, No.3/2: 815
-
816.
 
 
 
 
Scudamore, K.A., Clarke, J.H. & Atkin, P.M., 1986. Natural occurrence of 
naphthoquinones in cereals and animal feed stuffs. 
In
 
International 
society on spoilage and mycotoxins of cereals and other stored products', B. 
Flannigan, ed., pp:71
-
82.
 
 
 
 
Shepherd, M.J. & Gilbert, J., 1986. Fusarium mycotoxins in cereals and other 
stored products. 
In
 
International biod
eterrioration Vol:22, supplement, 
cereals and other stored products, B. Flannigan, ed., pp:61
-
70.
 
 
 
 
Shildbah, R. 1989. Problems relating to infestation with micro organism on 
mal
ting barley and malt. Brauwelt international.
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
56
 
 
 
 
 
Skerritt, J.H., Hill, A.S., Edward, S.L. Beasley, H.L., Lee, N., McAdam, D.P. and 
Rigg, A.J., 1997. Rapid testing for insecticide residues in stored products using 
immuno
-
and ezyme assays. 
In
 
Proc. 6
th
 
Int
ern. Working. Conf. Stored Prod. 
Protection E. Highley, E.J., Wright, H.J. Banks and B.R. Champ eds., CAB 
International, University Press, Cambridge, pp. 843
-
847.
 
 
 
 
Somel,K., Mazid, A.,Hallajian, M., 1984. Survey of barley producers Northern 
Syria (1981
/1982). Volume III Descriptive Statistics, Research Report 12
-
111, 
Farming System Program. ICARDA, Syria.
 
 
 
 
Srivastava, J.P., 1977. Barley production, utilization and research in the Afro
-
Asia region. Proc. of the fourth regional winter cereal workshop,
 
Vol.2, Amman, 
Jordan.
 
 
 
 
Starks, K.J. and Webster, J.A., 1985. Insect and related pests, Chapter 12. 
In
 
Barley, Rasmusson, D.C. ed., Number 26 in the series Agronomy, American 
-
360.
 
 
 
 
Donald, B.R., pp. 335
-
365, American So
 
 
 
 
Tetik, M., 1982. Grain losses and rates of broken grains of batter threshing. 
In
 
Seminar on pre and post harvest proceeding, 13
-
17 Dec. 1982,
 
Printing house of 
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Central Logistic Directory, Yenimahalle, 
Ankara (in Turkish).
 
 
 
 
TMO, 2003. Long term data of purchased commodities and their storage 
capacities. Ankara.
 
 
 
 
Tuite, J.F. & Christiensen, C.M., 1955
. Grain storage studies, XVI: Influence of 
temperature conditions upon the fungus flora of barley seed. 
Cereal Chem.,
 
32:1
-
11.
 
 
 
 
Ulger, P., 1982. Effects of various mechanizations systems used for wheat 
harvest and threshing on the crop losses. 
In
 
Semin
ar on pre and post harvest 
proceeding, 13
-
17 Dec. 1982, Printing house of Ministry of Agriculture and 
Forestry, Central Logistic Directory, Yenimahalle, Ankara (in Turkish).
 
 
 
 
Varnava, A., Navarro, S. and Donahaye, E., 1995. 
Long
-
term hermetic storage o
f 
barley in PVC covered concrete platforms under Mediterranean conditions. 
Postharvest Biol. & Technol. 
6: 177
-
186.
 
 
 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
57
 
 
 
Vickerman, G.P. and Wratten, S.D, 1979. The biology and pests status of cereal 
aphids (Hemiptera, Aphidedae) in Europe: A review. 
Bull
. Entomol. Res.
 
69:1
-
2.
 
 
 
 
Wendorf, F., Schild, R., Hadidi, N.E., Close, A.E., Kabusıewicz, M., 
Wieckowska, H., Issawı, B. and Haas, H., 1979. Use of barley in the Egyptian 
late paleolithic. 
Science
, 205: 1341
-
04 1347.
 
 
 
 
WHO, 1993. IARC Monographs on 
the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to 
humans, Volume 56, 397
-
444.
 
 
 
 
Wilkin, D.R. & Hurlock, E.T., 1986. Stored grain pests and their management. 
In
 
International biodeterrioration Vol:22, supplement, proceedings of the 
ilage and mycotoxins of cereals and other stored 
products', B. Flannigan, ed., pp: 1
-
6
 
 
 
 
Wilkin, D.R., 1975. The effects of mechanical handling and admixture of 
acaricides on mites in farm stored barley. 
J. Stored Prod. Res
., Vol.11, pp.87
-
95.
 
 
 
 
Wils
on, D.M., Abramson, D., 1992. Mycotoxins, 
In
 
Storage of cereal grains and 
their products, D.B.Sauer, ed., American Association of Cereal chemists, Inc., 
pp.341
-
391.
 
 
 
 
Wisniewska, H., Adamski, T., Chelkowski, J. And Surma, M., 1997. 
Susceptibility of two
 
and six rowed barley DH lines to Fusarium head blight. 
In
 
Proceedings of the 5th European Seminar, Szeged, Hungary, 26 August
-
5 
September, 1997; Cereal Research Communications Vol.25, No.3/2: 833.
 
 
 
 
Yaltirik, A., 1982. Methods for measuring grain loss 
at combine harvest and 
grain loss in Ankara province in: Seminar on pre and post harvest proceeding, 13
-
17 Dec. 1982, Printing house of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Central 
Logistic Directory, Yenimahalle, Ankara (in Turkish).
 
 
 
 
Yasar, B., 1996
. Depo zararlilari. 100th Year University, Agricultural Faculty 
Pres, No:16, Van, Turkey, 76 pp. (in Turkish).
 
 
 
 
Yildirim, E., Özbek, H. and Aslan, İ., 1997. Turkiyedeki önemli depolanmıs urun 
zararlıları ve mucadeleleri. Ataturk University Pres, No:191, Erzurum, Turkey, 
95 pp. (in Turkish).
 
 
 
 
Yurdakul, O., O. Erkan, I. Genc, c. Bedestenci, Y. Kırtok, M. Direk, 19
87. Barley 
production economy of Southestern Anatolia. Cukurova Universitesi basımevi, 
Adana, 1987, (in Turkish).
 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
58
 
 
7. Annex
 
Annex 1. Recipes of barley foods containing barley products 
 
(Saari. K. and Hawtin, L., 1977. Back to barley, recipes for the worl
d's oldest food crop. 
Forth regional winter cereal workshop 
-
 
Barley, Amman, Jordan, April 24
-
28, 1977).
 
Soups:
 
Scotch broth 
 
Ingredient
 
Amount
 
Lamb or mutton, cubed
 
3 lbs
 
Water
 
-
 
Salt
 
1 table spoon
 
Pearl barley
 
1/2 cup
 
Carrots
 
2
 
Turnips, diced
 
2
 
On
ions, diced
 
3
 
Chopped parsley
 
1/2 cup
 
Place cubed mutton in deep kettle. Cover with water. Add salt, bring to boil and reduce heat 
to low. Add salt. Bring to boil and reduce heat to low. Skim off scum when necessary. 
Simmer, covered, for 1 hour. Add barl
ey and vegetables except parsley. Simmer, covered 1 
1/2 
-
 
2 hours. Skim fat and before serving, stir in parsley. Serves 6.
 
Barley yogurt soup (Turkey)
 
Ingredient
 
Amount
 
Pearl barley
 
1 cup
 
Beef broth
 
6 cups
 
Yogurt
 
4 cups
 
Onion, chopped
 
1
 
Butter
 
1/4 pou
nd
 
Parsley
 
1 bunch
 
Dried mint
 
1 sweet spoon
 
Salt
 
1 tea spoon
 
Pepper
 
1/2 tea spoon
 
Soak barley overnight in cold water. Drain and cook in broth until tender. Fry onion in butter 
until lightly brown and add to barley. Add parsley, mint, salt, pepper and
 
simmer 1 1/2 hours. 
Add well
-
beaten yogurt and cook 5 minutes more, stirring constantly in one direction only. 
Serve at once.
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
59
 
 
Barley soup 
-
Krupnik (Poland)
 
Ingredient
 
Amount
 
Cracked soup bone (joint) with some meat
 
1/2 pound
 
Diced mixed vegetables
 
1/2 
pound
 
Mushrooms, dried
 
2
 
Medium potatoes, diced
 
3
-
4
 
Pearl barley
 
1/2 cup
 
Butter
 
1 table spoon
 
Dairy sour cream
 
1 cup
 
Salt and pepper
 
1 tea spoon
 
Egg yolks
 
1
-
2
 
Chopped parsley
 
1 table spoon
 
d cover with water. Bring to 
boil, reduce heat, and simmer until meat is half done. Skim occasionally, add potatoes and 
cook until done. Cook barley separately, adding half the butter. When meat and potatoes are 
done, remove bones and meat and add vegetabl
es and stock to barley. Cut mushrooms in 
strips and return to soup. Bring to boil. Add sour cream and seasoning. Stir in youlks a little 
at a time to prevent curdling. Pour into tureen, and add remaining butter and parsley. Serves 
6. For a less filling sou
p, omit sour cream and egg youlks.
 
 
Main dishes: 
 
Barley Casserole
 
Ingredient
 
Amount
 
Butter or margarine
 
6 table spoons
 
Pearl barley
 
1 cup
 
Large onion, minced
 
1
 
Sliced raw or canned mushrooms
 
1 cup
 
Chicken bouillon
 
3 cups
 
Salt and pepper
 
-
 
Heat two 
table spoon butter and saute barley. Transfer barley to heavy casserole. Heat two 
more table spoon butter and saute onion. Add to barley. Saute mushrooms in remaining butter 
and add to casserole. Stir in hot consomme. Salt and pepper to taste. Cook, covere
d, over 
lowest possible heat until barley is tender and consomm absorbed, 25
-
45 minutes, depending 
on type of barley. Stir occasionally. Serves 6. 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
60
 
 
Mushroom and Kasha (Poland and Russia)
 
Ingredient
 
Amount
 
Pearl barley
 
1/2 lb.
 
Dried (1 oz) or cultivated
 
mushrooms (1/2 lb)
 
1 oz 1/2 lb
 
Butter
 
1
-
2 oz
 
Salt and pepper
 
1/2 taste 
 
Greated chese
 
2 table spoon
 
Egg
 
1
 
Beat up the egg and stir into barley so tht the grains are well coated, and leave to dry. Soak 
the mushrooms (if dried) in one pint warm salted 
water, then simmer them, covered, in the 
same water for 1/4 hour or until tender. With cultivated mushrooms, wipe and slice them, 
then simmer in one pint salted water, covered for 1/4 hour. In both cases, Simmer the butter 
in a pan till melted, add the bar
ley, cover and simmer very slowly for 10 minutes, stirring 
from time to time. Then transfer the content of the p
an to a small, heavy casserole with a lid. 
Mix in the mushrooms, cut into small strips, a pinch of salt and a sprinkle of pepper. Put on 
the lid and bake in a moderate oven (180 C) for one hour. Before serving, stir in another 
lump of butter and greated c
heese. Serves 3
-
4.
 
Chicken livers and barley
 
Ingredient
 
Amount
 
Butter or margarine
 
1/2 cup
 
Onion, minced
 
1
 
Mushrooms, sliced
 
1/2 pound
 
Pearl barley
 
1 cup
 
Chicken boullon
 
2 cups
 
Chicken livers
 
1 pound
 
Salt and pepper
 
 
Heat 1/4
 
c. butter
 
in heavy sau
cepan. Add onion and cook for 2
-
3 minutes. Add mushrooms 
and cook for 5 minutes. Add barley and brown lightly. Stir in bouillon. Cover, and simmer 
for about 25 minutes, or until barley is tender and liquid is absorbed. Saute chicken livers in 
remaining but
ter. Season to taste. Stir into barley. Serves 4
-
6.
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
61
 
 
Desserts:
 
Birthday cake
 
Item
 
Amount
 
Barley flour 
 
1 cup
 
Sugar
 
1/2 cup
 
Baking powder
 
3 tea spoon
 
Salt
 
1/4 tea spoon
 
Shortening
 
4 table spoon
 
Milk
 
2/3 cup
 
Egg replacer
 
1 tea spoon
 
Vanilla
 
1/2 tea s
poon
 
Sift flour, baking powder and salt together.
 
Cream shortening. Add sugar to shortening, 
continuing to beat. Beat milk, egg replacer, and vanilla. Add milk mixture and then the sifted 
dry ingredients. Bake in two greased 6 inch pans at 375 F. for abo
ut 40 minutes. When cool, 
smooth on your favorite frosting on both layers. Serve immediately or chill.
 
Barley fudge
 
Item
 
Amount
 
Flaked barley 
 
1 tea cup
 
Chopped dates
 
2 table spoons
 
Golden syrup
 
1 table spoon
 
Cocoa
 
1/2 table spoon
 
Margarine
 
1 oz
 
Salt
 
1 pinch
 
Water
 
4 tea cup
 
Mix the ingredients well and put into a well greased pudding bowl and steam for 2 1/2 hours.
 
Boiled barley 
-
Iyouk (Syria)
 
Item
 
Amount
 
Yellow barley 
 
1 cup
 
Sugar
 
1 cup
 
Raisins (soaked 1/2 hour)
 
1 cup
 
Anise seeds
 
1 tea spoon
 
W
alnuts, chopped
 
1/2 cup
 
Boil barley in quart of water on low fire for 30 minutes, adding more water during cooking. 
Add sugar and stir well. Add raisins and anise seed. Simmer 10 minutes. Garnish with 
walnuts. This dessert is served especially on the feas
t day of S. Barbara, which falls on 
December 4.
 
 
 
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
62
 
 
Belila
 
Item
 
Amount
 
Barley (Soaked overnight) 
 
1/2 lb.
 
Sugar
 
-
 
Orange blossom or rose water
 
-
 
Pistachios, chopped
 
2 oz
 
Flaked almonds
 
1/4 lb.
 
Pine nuts
 
1 oz.
 
Simmer the barley in about 2 pints of wat
er until only just tender, about 1/2 
-
 
3/4; hour. Add 
sugar to taste and cook a few minutes, stirring well
-
dissolved. Add orange blossom or rose 
water and nuts. Add more water, if necessary, so that the barley and nuts remain suspended in 
a light, scented 
syrup. This dessert is served especially on the occasion of the appearance of 
the first tooth of babies.
 
Beverages
 
Barley water:
 
Mix 1 oz of patent barley into a smooth paste, pour into a stewpan containing 1 quart of 
boiling water and thinly
-
pared rind of
 
1/2 small lemon, and two 
-
 
three lumps of sugar, and 
stir over the fire for about 5 minutes. When cold, strain and use. This forms a nutritious, 
agreeable drink, and is also largely used to dilute milk, thus making it easier of digestion.
 
 
Barley drink:
 
I
tem
 
Amount
 
Pearl barley
 
1/ 4 cup
 
Water
 
1 qt.
 
Rind and juice of lemons
 
2
 
Sugar
 
To taste
 
Combine barley, water and lemon rind in a saucepan. Bring to boil and simmer, covered, over 
the lowest possible heat for two hours. Strain and add lemon juice and s
ugar to taste. Chill 
before serving. Makes 1 quart.
 
Breads
 
Unleavened barley bread 
-
 
Rieska (Finland)
 
Item
 
Amount
 
Buttermilk (or any other liquid)
 
1/2 cup
 
Cream
 
1/2 cup
 
Salt
 
1/2 tea spoon
 
Sugar
 
1/2 tea spoon
 
Barley flour 
 
1 cup
 
Melted butter
 
1 table 
spoon
 
 
Mix together the buttermilk, cream, salt and sugar. Stir in the flour and beat until smooth. 
Add the butter. Pour the batter into a well
-
buttered and floured 9 inch round cake pan, or 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
63
 
 
spread the dough on raw cabbage leaves and place on a lightly gr
eased baking sheet. Bake at 
450 F for about 30 minutes or until lightly browned. Serve hot with butter. Serves 4
-
6.
 
Kyrsa whole
-
grain bread (Vahakyron Ohrakyrsa) bread 
 
Item
 
Amount
 
Dry yeast
 
2 packages
 
Warm water
 
1/4 cup
 
Salt
 
2 tea spoon
 
Barley flour 
 
4 cups
 
Milk
 
2 cups
 
 
Sprinkle the yeast into the mixing bowl and add water. Stir until the yeast dissolves. Add the 
milk, salt, and part of the flour, stirring well. Add the remaining flour slowly, beating until 
the dough is smooth and stiff. Let the dou
gh rest in the bowl for 15 minutes. Turn out unto a 
lightly floured board and divide into 2 equal parts (the dough will be slightly sticky). Shape 
each part into a ball and pat out into around 8 
-
 
10 inches in diameter. Place on a lightly 
buttered baking s
heet. Let rise until the loaves look puffy (about 45 minutes 
-
 
1 hour). Prick 
all over with a fork and bake a 375 F. for 30 minutes or until lightly browned. Brush with 
butter while hot. To slice, cut into wedges and split each wedge into 2 parts. Makes 2
 
loaves.
 
Barley/Whole Wheat Bread 
-
 
Canada
 
(
www.albertabarley.com/recipes) 
 
Ingredient
 
Amount
 
whole barley flour
 
3 cups
 
whole wheat flour
 
3 cups
 
all
-
purpose flour
 
5
-
6 cups
 
water
 
5 cups
 
vitamin C
 
1000 mg
 
regular yeast
 
2 Table spoons
 
sugar
 
2 Table spo
ons
 
salt
 
1 Table spoons
 
canola oil
 
1/3 cup
 
 
In a separate bowl, combine 1cup warm water, sugar and yeast. Let stand until yeast becomes 
visibly active. In a large mixing bowl, combine yeast mixture with remaining ingredients, 
except for 4 cups of all
-
pu
minutes, until a sponge is formed and doubled in bulk. Mix in enough of the remaining flour 
to produce a soft, smooth dough and knead for 15 minutes (12 minutes by mechanical dough 
hook). Sepa
for 20 to 25 minutes in a 375 F (190 C) oven. 
From Donna Hamilton
, 
Hamilton's Barley 
Flour, 
Olds, Alberta, Canada.
 
BARLEY: Post Harvest Operations
 
Page 
64
 
 
 
 
Annex 2: List of figures
 
Figure 2.1
 
Barleys cultivars
 
resistant and susceptible to lodging.
 
Figure 2.2a
 
Harvest with a tractor mounted mower
 
Figure 2.2b
 
Emergence of seeds shattered during harvest
 
Figure 2.4a
 
Wooden threshing sled with flint blades
 
Figure 2.4b
 
Threshing with a tractor driven threshing ma
chine (Vezirkopru, Samsun, 
Turkey) 
 
Figure 2.5a
 
Bunches of barley left for drying after harvest
 
Figure 2.5b
 
Stacks of barley (yıgın) in field (Vezirkopru, Samsun, Turkey)
 
Figure 2.7.2a, b
 
Horizontal cement/pile depot
 
Figure 2.7.3
 
Horizontal wooden depo
t
 
Figure 2.7.4
 
Vertical wooden depot
 
Figure 2.7.6a
 
Concrete depot
 
Figure 2.7.6b
 
Steel
 
Figure 2.7.6.1
 
Circular heap depot
 
Figure 2.7.6.2a
 
Diagram of an earth covered heap
 
Figure 2.7.6.2b,c
 
Earth and polythene covered heaps 
 
Figure 2.7.6.3
 
Vertical cr
oss section of heap with oilcloth surrounded by earth pad
 
Figure 4.1
 
External and internal factors affecting storage quality of barley grains
 
Figure 4.1.1.2
 
Severe infection of barley leaf stripe (
Pyrenophora graminea
)
 
Figure 4.1.2a
 
Covered smut of barl
ey (
Ustilago hordei
)
 
Figure 4.1.2b
 
Loose smut of barley (
Ustilago nuda
)
 
Figure 4.1.3
 
Life cycle of 
Fusarium
 
species (Parry, 1990)
 
Figure 4.1.4a
 
Life cycle of 
Aspergillus
 
spp. (Dube, 1990). 
 
Figure 4.1.4b
 
Life cycle of 
Penicillium
 
spp. (Dube, 1990). 
 
F
igure 4.2.2
 
Life cycle of 
Trogoderma granarium
, a member of Coleoptera (Adapted 
from Yasar, 1996 and Akan, 2003).
 
Figure 4.3.6.4
 
developing countries (Akan, 2003).