© The Authors, 2026, Published by the Universidad del Zulia*Corresponding author: moh19ina@yahoo.fr
Keywords:
Barley
Dairy cow
Feeding
Milk production
Effect of hydroponic barley supplementation on production and physicochemical composition
of milk from Normande cows
Efecto de la suplementación con cebada hidropónica sobre la producción y composición sicoquímica
de la leche de vacas Normandas
Efeito da suplementação com cevada hidropónica na produção e composição físico-química do leite
de vacas da raça Normande
Abdenour Bir
1
Aissa Meredef
2
Mohamed Benidir
3*
Charef Eddine Moufok
4
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2026, 43(2): e264319
ISSN 2477-9407
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47280/RevFacAgron(LUZ).v43.n2.I
Animal production
Associate Editor: Dr. Juan Vergara-López
University of Zulia, Faculty of Agronomy
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
1
Laboratory of Natural and Biological Resources
Valorization(LNBRV), Department of Agriculture sciences,
Faculty of Natural and Life Sciences, Setif 1 university,
Ferhat ABBAS, 19137. Algeria.
2
Institute of Veterinary and Agronomic Sciences. University
Batna 1. Algeria.
3
Algeria’s National Institute for Agricultural Research
(INRAA), 19000 Sétif, Alegria.
4
Laboratory of Improvement and Development of Animal
and Plant Production Department of Agriculture Sciences,
Faculty of Natural and Life Sciences, Setif 1 university,
Ferhat ABBAS, 19137. Algeria.
Received: 05-08-2025
Accepted: 09-03-2026
Published: 26-03-2026
Abstract
This study explores the potential of hydroponic barley as an
innovative feed strategy to address shortages in intensive livestock
production, with a focus on small-scale landless farms. Twelve
three-parous Normande cows, averaging 717 ± 34 kg, were allocated
into two homogeneous groups based on body weight, calving date,
and previous lactation performance. Both groups received identical
total mixed rations (TMR), while the experimental group was
supplemented with 10 kg of hydroponic barley per cow per day.
Over the lactation period, cows in the experimental group exhibited
higher daily dry matter intake (20.62 ± 1.21 vs. 19.13 ± 1.14 kg.d
-1
)
and milk production (22.17 vs. 18.91 kg.d
-1
), resulting in a 17.25
% increase in total lactation yield (6,760.80 vs. 5,765.68 kg). Feed
eciency improved by 9.09 %, and milk composition analysis
revealed elevated fat (40.13–42.49 g.kg
-1
) and protein (32.21–
34.87 g.kg
-1
) concentrations. Daily fat and protein yields were also
signicantly higher in the experimental group (942 and 758.06
g.d
-1
, respectively) compared to the control (777.76 and 609.09
g.d
-1
). No signicant dierences were observed in body weight or
body condition score between groups. These results suggest that
hydroponic barley supplementation can enhance both milk yield and
quality by improving nutrient intake and digestibility. However, to
fully understand the mechanisms underlying these benets, further
investigations are needed to assess its eects on rumen metabolism
and gut microbiota. Overall, this study highlighted the practical
potential of hydroponic barley as a sustainable, high-value feed
supplement in modern dairy systems.
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2026, 43(2): e264319 April-June ISSN 2477-9409.
2-6 |
Resumen
Este estudio explora el potencial de la cebada hidropónica como
una estrategia innovadora de alimentación para abordar la escasez
en la producción ganadera intensiva, con especial atención a las
pequeñas explotaciones agrícolas sin tierra. Doce vacas Normandas
de tres partos, con un peso promedio de 717 ± 34 kg, se asignaron
a dos grupos homogéneos según su peso corporal, fecha de parto y
rendimiento de lactación previa. Ambos grupos recibieron raciones
totales mixtas (TMR) idénticas, mientras que el grupo experimental
se complementó con 10 kg de cebada hidropónica por vaca al día.
Durante la lactación, las vacas del grupo experimental mostraron un
mayor consumo diario de materia seca (20,62 ± 1,21 frente a 19,13
± 1,14 kg.día
-1
) y mayor producción de leche (22,17 frente a 18,91
kg.día
-1
), lo que resultó en un aumento del 17,25 % en el rendimiento
total de la lactación (6760,80 frente a 5765,68 kg). La eciencia
alimenticia mejoró en un 9,09 %, y el análisis de la composición
de la leche reveló concentraciones elevadas de grasa (40,13–42,49
g.kg
-1
) y proteína (32,21–34,87 g.kg
-1
). Los rendimientos diarios
de grasa y proteína también fueron signicativamente mayores
en el grupo experimental (942 y 758,06 g.d
-1
, respectivamente) en
comparación con el control (777,76 y 609,09 g.d
-1
). No se observaron
diferencias signicativas en el peso corporal ni en la puntuación de
la condición corporal entre los grupos. Estos resultados sugieren
que la suplementación con cebada hidropónica puede mejorar tanto
la producción como la calidad de la leche al mejorar la ingesta
de nutrientes y la digestibilidad. Sin embargo, para comprender
completamente los mecanismos subyacentes a estos benecios,
se necesitan más investigaciones para evaluar sus efectos sobre el
metabolismo ruminal y la microbiota intestinal. En general, este
estudio destaca el potencial práctico de la cebada hidropónica como
un suplemento alimenticio sostenible y de alto valor en los sistemas
lecheros modernos.
Palabras clave: cebada, vaca lechera, alimentación, producción de
leche.
Resumo
Este estudio explora el potencial de la cebada hidropónica como
una estrategia innovadora de alimentación para abordar la escasez
en la producción ganadera intensiva, con especial atención a las
pequeñas explotaciones agrícolas sin tierra. Doce vacas Normandas
de tres partos, con un peso promedio de 717 ± 34 kg, se asignaron
a dos grupos homogéneos según su peso corporal, fecha de parto y
rendimiento de lactación previa. Ambos grupos recibieron raciones
totales mixtas (TMR) idénticas, mientras que el grupo experimental
se complementó con 10 kg de cebada hidropónica por vaca al día.
Durante la lactación, las vacas del grupo experimental mostraron un
mayor consumo diario de materia seca (20,62 ± 1,21 frente a 19,13
± 1,14 kg.día
-1
) y mayor producción de leche (22,17 frente a 18,91
kg.día
-1
), lo que resultó en un aumento del 17,25 % en el rendimiento
total de la lactación (6760,80 frente a 5765,68 kg). La eciencia
alimenticia mejoró en un 9,09 %, y el análisis de la composición
de la leche reveló concentraciones elevadas de grasa (40,13–42,49
g.kg
-1
) y proteína (32,21–34,87 g.kg
-1
). Los rendimientos diarios
de grasa y proteína también fueron signicativamente mayores
en el grupo experimental (942 y 758,06 g.d
-1
, respectivamente) en
comparación con el control (777,76 y 609,09 g.d
-1
). No se observaron
diferencias signicativas en el peso corporal ni en la puntuación de
la condición corporal entre los grupos. Estos resultados sugieren
que la suplementación con cebada hidropónica puede mejorar tanto
la producción como la calidad de la leche al mejorar la ingesta
de nutrientes y la digestibilidad. Sin embargo, para comprender
completamente los mecanismos subyacentes a estos benecios,
se necesitan más investigaciones para evaluar sus efectos sobre el
metabolismo ruminal y la microbiota intestinal. En general, este
estudio destaca el potencial práctico de la cebada hidropónica como
un suplemento alimenticio sostenible y de alto valor en los sistemas
lecheros modernos.
Palavras-chave: cevada, vaca leiteira, alimentação, produção de
leite.
Introduction
The shortage of traditional fodder in Algeria poses a signicant
challenge to the development of dairy cattle farming (Bir et al., 2015).
A comparison of fodder requirements and availability in Algeria
reveals a substantial decit that exceeds 50 % of national needs.
This gap has further widened due to the increasing numbers of all
animal species, leading to the accelerated degradation of rangelands
and the decline in the oristic composition of meadows, resulting in
decreased production (Bouzida et al., 2010). As a result, breeders
are compelled to seek alternative solutions to supplement the rations
provided to their animals to some extent (Bir et al., 2015).
Because highly productive species may be cultivated in articial
conditions, hydroponic fodder production may be an alternative to
conventional fodder production in this specic situation. In addition
to improving the nutritional value of the food rations that were
delivered, this would enable the reduction of this shortfall.
Hydroponic barley is a type of fresh fodder that can be grown
in special chambers under ideal conditions of light, humidity, and
temperature for a brief period of time. The result is incredibly tasty
and palatable sprouts that were 15–20 cm tall and can be supplied
year-round, regardless of climate or land (Farghaly et al., 2019; Ali
et al., 2019).Thus, by producing year-round green fodder with high
nutritional content, hydroponic fodder production has the potential
to boost milk yield and quality on farms in addition to addressing
the main issues with traditional fodder crops (Nemzer et al., 2019,
Niroula et al., 2019, Ma et al., 2023, Pastorelli et al., 2023). The
nutritional advantages of hydroponic barley in ruminant diets,
particularly dairy cattle, have also been shown in a number of studies
(Mohsen et al., 2015, Abouelezz et al., 2019, Pastorelli et al., 2023,
Wu et al., 2024, Masucci et al., 2024). But rather than adding barley
to the rations that were given out, the authors of these tests utilised it
to replace concentrates.
This study evaluated the use of hydroponic barley as a supplement
on milk production and physicochemical characteristics, as well as
its eect on consumption, production yield, milk quality and body
condition in Normande cows.
Materials and methods
The experiment was conducted in accordance with local legislation
and the Animal Care of the Al Anfal cooperative (Accreditation
Number of 19/03/11 of October 25th, 2022). The study was carried
out at the experimental farm of the El Anfel multipurpose agricultural
cooperative, situated in the southern part of the wilaya of Sétif in
northeastern Algeria (35.58.50N and 5.32.50E), served as the study’s
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Bir et al. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2026, 43(2): e264319
3-6 |
site. The climate of this area is semi-arid, with less than 250 mm of
precipitation falling there each year.
A 120 m² semi-automated production facility at the farm level
was used to grow the hydroponic barley green fodder. Electronic
units in a nearby room controlled an LED lighting system (24 W),
an air conditioner (temperature 19–22 °C, relative humidity 65–70
%), and an irrigation system that used bleach-enriched water (sodium
hypochlorite 0.3 mg.L
-1
) to stop the growth of mould. Throughout the
eight-day production cycle, the developing fodder received 3-minute
misting with a frequency of 8 irrigations per day and continuous
lighting. Daily harvests of the hydroponic barley fodder were made
to feed the animals directly after harvest. Analyses of the chemical
composition of harvested hydroponic barley fodder were carried out
(Table 1) according to AOAC (1995). To calculate the nutritional
value, the equations used are those of the INRA (2010).
Table 1. Hydroponic barley’s chemical composition and
nutritional value at 8 days after germination.
Chemical composition (%)
DM 14.13 ± 0.31
MM (% of DM) 3.7 ± 0.2
OM (% of DM) 94.3 ± 2.6
CF (% of DM) 17.32 ± 0.42
CP (% of DM) 14.59 ± 0.27
Nutritional value /kg of DM
UFL 0.93 ± 0.14
PDI (g) 99.0 ± 4.0
DM: Dry matter, MM: Mineral matter, OM: Organic matter, CF: Crude bre, CP: Crude
protein, UFL: Milk feed unit, PDI: Digestible proteins in the intestine
Lactating Normande cows’ output performance was assessed.
Based on their body weight, calving date, and productivity level from
their previous lactation (18.86 ± 2.38 kg.h
-1
.d
-1
), twelve three-parous
cows with an average body weight of 717 ± 34 kg at the start of the
experiment were split into two homogenous groups, 3.59 ± 0.48 was
the average body condition score (BCS) according to Vasseur et al.
(2013) method.
A single lactation (305 days) was used for the experiment, and
both feedlots breeding conditions were the same. The cows were
kept in a free-stall barn with semi-automated feed gates and straw
bedding. Every cow had unrestricted access to water to drink. There
was natural daylight and ventilation. The identical diet, a total mixed
ration (TMR), was given to the control and experimental feedlots.
The quantities distributed take into account the ingestion capacity
of each cow. On average, the quantities distributed per meal are 6
kg of TMR. Nevertheless, a hydroponic barley supplement was
given to the experimental feedlot at a rate of 10 kg.cow
-1
.d
-1
. All
of the cows were fed the identical diet during the rst ve weeks
of lactation in order to check and conrm the homogeneity of the
milk production performances of the two batches. Refusals were
eliminated and weighed every day. According to INRA’s nutritional
recommendations, to ensure a cow is well-fed, a minimum of 5 %
feed rejection is required.
The experimental batch of cows’ diet was gradually supplemented
with hydroponic barley fodder starting in the sixth week (a transition
time of 15 days) in order to better understand the direct impact of
hydroponic barley on production performances. Data collection began
as soon as the cows gave birth. The total mixed ration was formulated
and balanced using the INRA equations (2010), while respecting the
recommended nutritional recommendations. The ingredients and
nutritional contributions of the TMR were mentioned in Table 2.
Rations were delivered four times a day (07:00, 11:00, 14:00,
18:00), and cows were milked twice a day (at 4:00 and 16:00) in a
four-station automated room in compliance with the farm routine. The
hydroponic barley feed for the experimental group was consistently
distributed at 11:00.
Table 2. Components, chemical composition and nutritional
values of Total Mixed Ration (TMR) distributed to
cows.
Components % of DM
Chemical composition and
nutritional value
Corn 34 DM (%) 87.45 ± 1.18
Barley 8 CF (%) 17.43 ± 0.76
Wheat bran 7 CP (%) 16.18 ± 0.34
Soybean meal 15 NDF (%) 34.27 ± 1.08
Alfalfa hay 12 ADF (%) 26.08 ± 0.94
Wheat straw 17 Starch (%) 24.13 ± 0.93
Molasses 4 UFL 0.91
Calcium
carbonate
0.5 PDI (g) 92.21
Salt 0.3
DM: Dry matter, CF: Crude bre, CP: Crude protein, NDF: Neutral detergent bre, ADF: Acid
detergent bre, UFL: Milk feed unit, PDI: Digestible proteins in the intestine.
Daily dry matter intake was calculated by subtracting refusals
from the quantities distributed for the TMR. The body weight of the
cows was measured at the end of each month.
The milk yield (average daily production (kg.d
-1
) were evaluated
every week. Maximum milk production (MPMax) was determined
by identifying the highest daily lactation production. The cumulative
milk production data gathered over the lactation period was used
to compute milk production at 305 days (MP305). Once per week,
as soon as the cows were milked in the morning and evening, milk
samples were taken for physicochemical studies. Each sample
underwent three simultaneous analyses, and the outcomes were
averaged. A spectrometric milk analyser (LACTOSCAN, Alpes
Industries Services74800) was used to evaluate milk samples. The
concentrations of pH, specic gravity, lactose, fat, protein, total solids,
and nonfat dry matter were all measured. The formula of Palmquist
and Conrad (1978) was used to determine milk yield corrected to 4 %
fat (FCM): Y= 0.4X
1
+15X
2.
where Y: milk at 4 % FCM, X
1
: milk yield
(kg.d
-1
) and X
2
: milk fat yield (kg.d
-1
).
The 4 % milk yield (FCM kg.d
-1
) was divided by the total dry
matter intake (TDMI kg.d
-1
) to determine feed eciency (FE). For the
control batch, TMR, for the experimental batch TMR + Hydroponic
barley.
A set of statistical analysis was conducted. Initially, descriptive
measures were calculated. After testing for normality, inter-group
value means were compared using Student’s tests and Welsh
correction according to the situation of equality of variance for the
two experimental conditions. The data analysed pertain to the means
obtained in the all of experiment. The level of signicance was set
at p< 0.05, all statistics analysis were performed using SPSS 18.
Results and discussion
Diets and nutritional intakes Both rations in this study showed a
protein to energy supply ratio (PDI.UFL
-1
) >100, which is consistent
with INRA’s (2010) nutritional recommendations, they were well
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2026, 43(2): e264319 April-June ISSN 2477-9409.
4-6 |
balanced. Additionally, it was consistent with the same guidelines for
the average amount of DM consumed by each cow. During lactation,
the control and experimental feedlots’ average total DM intakes
were 19.13 ± 1.14 and 20.62 ± 1.21 kg.d
-1
, respectively, showing a
dierence (P<0.05). Cattle fed hydroponically grown barley showed
an increase in total DM consumption of about 1.49 kg.d
-1
, or a 7 %
increase rate (Table 3).
Table 3. Dry matter ingested and nutritional contributions of the
two rations.
Rations DM (kg) UFL PDI (g)
PDI (g).
UFL
-1
Control 19.13ª ± 1.14 17.36ª ± 1.03 1 764.91ª ± 105.12 101.66ª
Experimental 20.62ᵇ ± 1.21 18.75ᵇ ± 1.10 1,911.94ᵇ ± 112.14 101.97ª
p-value 0.049 0.045 0.038 0.893
a, b
Values with common letters are not signicantly dierent at the 5 % threshold. DM: Dry
matter, UFL: Milk feed unit. PDI: Digestible proteins in the intestine.
The excellent palatability of this forage was most likely the cause
of this. For these kinds of feed, several authors have noted the same
thing (Romero Valdez et al., 2009, Garcia et al., 2013, Masucci et al.,
2024). Wu et al. (2024) state that by incorporating hydroponic barley
into rations, increased palatability and voluntary consumption can be
expected due to the conversion of cereal starch into simple sugars and
the activation of certain enzymes in the shoots.
Milk production
Table 4 displays the average milk production performance data. For
the two control and experimental groups, the cows’ daily production
at the start of lactation was 16.34 and 15.91 kg, respectively. During
the rst ve weeks of lactation, the average output levels achieved
equivalent levels of 22.74 and 22.62 kg.d
-1
(p>0.05). The two lactation
curves show the same tendencies when they are stacked (Figure 1).
Table 4. Eect of hydroponic barley on milk production
performance and feed eciency of lactating cows.
Control Experimental p-value
Milk production
2
nd
day of lactation
(kg.d
-1
)
16.34ª ± 2.27 15.91ª ± 2.32 0.051
Average at 5 weeks
(kg.d
-1
)
22.74ª ± 2.52 22.62ª ± 2.68 0.058
Lactation peak
(kg.d
-1
)
25.85ª ± 2.59 29.10ᵇ ± 3.14 0.006
Overall average
(kg.d
-1
)
18.91ª ± 2.28 22.17ᵇ ± 2.83 0.001
Milk adjusted to 4 %
fat (kg.d
-1
)
18.94ª ± 2.29 22.99ᵇ ± 2.92 0.001
Total production of
305 days of lactation
(kg)
5,767.55ª ± 695.4
6,761.85ᵇ ±
863.15
0.001
Feed eciency
0.99ª ± 0.12 1.16ᵇ ± 0.14 0.001
a, b
Values with common letters are not signicantly dierent at the 5 % threshold.
Given the consistency of the cows’ production performances over
the two batches, A gradual improvement in the experimental batch’s
milk output was noted as hydroponic barley was added. Production
peaks for the two batches were 25.85 and 29.10 kg.d
-1
, respectively
(p<0.01). The production level of the cows in the experimental batch
increased further until it peaked around the ninth week of lactation,
whereas the control batch hit its lactation peak early in the seventh
week (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Average milk yield of cows from both feedlots over time
(kg.d
-1
).
The average daily milk production performances for each lactation
were 18.91 and 22.17 kg.d
-1
, respectively (p<0.001), meaning that
there was a 17.24 % production dierence. Over the course of
lactation, the experimental batch produced 6761.85kg, while the
control batch produced 5,767.55 kg (p<0.001). The improvement in
milk production would have been unquestionably supported by the
consumption of total DM, the greater nutritional intakes noted, and
the addition of hydroponic barley.
Our ndings, which showed a 17.24 % improvement, were
comparable to those of Kaouche et al. (2016). According to Wu
et al. (2024), Salo (2019), and Romero-Valdez et al. (2009) who
supplemented the cows with hydroponic barley, milk output have
increased by 7.9, 10.07, and 20 %, respectively. From this, Masucci et
al. (2024) who replaced corn silage with hydroponic barley, the milk
production of cows improved by 7.5 %. Even though the trial batch’s
milk output was relatively good, it was still less than the breed’s
genetic potential of 8,626 kg (OS Race normande, 2012).
However, the results we obtained were comparatively better than
the production results of traditional dairy cattle farms in Algeria. In
fact, Bir et al. (2015) reported 4,054 kg at the level of dairy farms
in the Sétif region. Bouzida et al. (2010) reported (4,074 kg) in Tizi
Ouzou region.
Feed eciency
The experimental batch ration’s feed eciency was further
increased by the use of hydroponic barley in this study (Table 4).
From 0.99 for the control feedlot to 1.16 for the experimental feedlot
(p<0.001), the latter rose by 17 %. Wu et al. (2024) also showed an
improvement in feed eciency of roughly 5 %. This study complies
with Linn (2006) requirement that a ration’s feed eciency during
lactation be better than 1. A contained increase in the availability of
proteins, carbohydrates, minerals, and vitamis is frequently the result
of the soaking process and germination (Abouelezz et al., 2019).
Additionally, an increase in the total concentration of volatile
fatty acids (VFA) and propionate at the ruminal level thanks to
fermentation from the hydroponic barley diet is observed (Farghaly
et al., 2019), which would have likely contributed to the increase in
feed eciency of the ration supplemented with hydroponic barley.
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Bir et al. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2026, 43(2): e264319
5-6 |
Physicochemical composition of milk
The experimental batch milk had higher average fat and protein
concentrations during lactation than the control one’s (Table 5). For
fat, they were 42.49 and 40.13 g.kg
-1
, while for protein, they were
34.87 and 32.21 g.kg
-1
. As a result, the average daily outputs of fat
and protein for milk from cows in the experimental feedlot improved
signicantly (p< 0.001). These were 778 and 609 g.d
-1
for the control
feedlot and 942 and 758 g.d
-1
for the experimental feedlot. This
improvement is most likely related to the combined impacts of adding
hydroponic barley and increasing dry matter intake, which suggests
that the cows in the experimental batch were receiving more and
better nutrition. However, there was no dierence between the two
diets’ lactose contents (p>0.05). Its low variability in cow’s milk may
help to explain this (Costa et al., 2019).
Table 5. Eect of hydroponic barley on physicochemical
composition.
Control Experimental p value
pH 6.64ª ± 0.12 6.68ª ± 0.14 0.245
Fat (g.kg
-1
) 40.10ª ± 1.96 42.49ᵇ ± 2.37 0.047
Protein (g.kg
-1
) 32.21ª ± 0.91 34.87ᵇ ± 1.08 0.013
Fat (g.d
-1
) 758.85ª ± 80.13 942.00 ͨ ± 103.07 0.001
Protein (kg.d
-1
) 609.09ª ± 29.31 773.06 ͨ ± 37.65 0.001
Density 1,030.08ª ± 0.73 1,031.12ª ± 0.91 0.343
Fat-free solids (g.d
-1
) 89.69ª ± 4.09 89.16ª ± 4.32 0.198
Solids (g.d
-1
) 129.19ª ± 6.13 133.32ª ± 5.07 0.096
Lactose (g.kg
-1
) 47.20ª ± 0.33 46.60ª ± 0.22 0.294
a, b
Values with common letters are not signicantly dierent at the 5 % threshold.
According to Farghaly et al. (2019), hydroponic barley raised
the concentration of propionate and total volatile fatty acids in the
rumen. They hypothesised that this might be because there were more
vitamins and enzymes available, which function as bioactive catalysts
to enhance energy release and promote feed metabolism, improving
feed utilisation at the rumen level and ultimately improving milk
yield and quality.
Overall, and particularly for the experimental batch cows, the
results were comparable to the Normande breed standards (43 g.kg
-1
for fat and 36 g.kg
-1
for protein). Additionally, they concur with the
ndings of Wu et al. (2024) and Kaouche et al. (2016), who showed
how adding hydroponic barley improved the quality of cow’s milk,
especially its fat content. Other than increasing the protein content,
hydroponic barley has no discernible eects, according to a study by
Faccusi et al. (2024). Nonetheless, Yoon et al. (2004), Farghaly et al.
(2019), and Barros et al. (2017) documented a linear decline in the
proportion of protein and fat in cows with extremely high production
potential in their scholarly publications. They would attribute this
decline to the inverse relationship between yield and quality.
Live weight and body condition of cows
Live weight (LW) and body condition score (BCS) did not
signicantly dier between the two groups at the beginning or end of
the trial (p>0.05). The control and experimental groups had average
live weights at the start of lactation and at the end of lactation,
respectively (Table 6). The two groups’ respective averages for
the body condition score were 3.62 ± 0.41 and 3.56 ± 0.34 at the
beginning of lactation and 3.53 ± 0.27 and 3.42 ± 0.52 at the end. The
Normandy breed standard, which calls for an average live weight of
800 kg, was somewhat higher than these results.
Table 6. Body weight and body condition of dairy cows.
Feedlot Control Experimental p value
Live weight (kg):
Lactation start 723.00ª ± 39 711.00ª ± 29 0.367
Lactation end 710.00ª ± 41 691.00ª ± 27 0.171
Dierence -13.00ª -20.00ª 0.221
BCS (1 to 5):
Lactation start 3.62ª ± 0.41 3.56.00ª ± 0.34 0.568
Lactation end 3.53ª ± 0.27 3.42.00ª ± 0.52 0.348
Dierence -0.09ª -0.14ª 0.267
a, b
Values with common letters are not signicantly dierent at the 5 % threshold.
Conclusion
According to our ndings, adding this forage as a supplement
greatly increased the metrics measuring dry matter intake, nutritional
intake, milk output, feed eciency, and milk quality.
This study demonstrates that incorporating hydroponically grown
barley into the diets of lactating dairy cows can signicantly enhance
feed intake, milk production, feed eciency, and milk quality without
negatively aecting body weight.
The experimental batch consuming hydroponic barley showed a
notable increase in dry matter intake, improved milk yield by 17.24
%, and higher fat and protein concentrations in milk compared
to the control group. These improvements are likely due to the
enhanced palatability, nutrient availability, and ruminal fermentation
associated with hydroponic barley. While overall milk production
remained below the breed’s genetic potential, the gains observed
were substantial relative to traditional dairy practices in Algeria,
suggesting that hydroponic barley is a promising dietary strategy to
improve dairy cow performance and milk composition sustainably.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Al Anfal copperative of Sétif for the support and
welcome to complete the experimental works.
Literature cited
Abouelezz, K.F.M.,Sayed, M.A.M., & Abdelnabi, M.A. (2019). Evaluation of
hydroponic barley sprouts as a feed supplement for laying Japanese quail:
Eects on egg production, egg quality, fertility, blood constituents, and
internal organs. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 252,126–135.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.04.011
Ali, H. S., Miah, A. G., Sabuz, S. H., Asaduzzaman, M., & Salma, U. (2019).
Dietary eects of hydroponic wheat sprouted fodder on growth
performance of turkey. Research in Agriculture Livestock and Fisheries,
6, 101–110. https:// doi10.3329/ralf.v6i1.41392
AOAC, 1995. Ocial methods of analysis. Association of Ocial Analytical
Chemists (AOAC), 14
th
Edition, Washington D.C, USA.
Barros, T., Quaassdor, M. A., Aguerre, M. J., Olmos Colmenero, J. J., Bertics,
S. J., Crump, P. M., & Wattiaux. M. A. (2017). Eects of dietary crude
protein concentration on late-lactation dairy cow performance and
indicators of nitrogen utilization. Journal of Dairy Sciences, 100, 5434–
5448. https://doi10.3168/jds.2016-1917
Bir, A., Yakhlef, H. & Madani, T. (2015). Autonomie alimentaire des
systèmes d‟élevage bovins laitiers dans la région semi-aride de
Sétif (Algérie). Fourrages, 221, 85-91. https://afpfasso.fr/index.
php?download=2133&token=c16b0ba6e27c1efb0d74a94026afe433
Bouzida, S., Ghozlane, F., Allane, M., Yakhlef, H. & Abdelguer, A.
(2010). Impact du chargement et de la diversication fourragère
sur la production des vaches laitières dans la région de Tizi-Ouzou
(Algérie). Fourrages, 204, 269-275. https://afpf-asso.fr/index.
php?download=1915&token=c16b0ba6e27c1efb0d74a94026afe433
Costa, L., Lopez-Villalobos, N., Sneddon, N. W., Shalloo, L., Franzoi, M., De
Marchi,M. & Penasa, M. (2019). Invited review: Milk lactose—Current
This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.
Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2026, 43(2): e264319 April-June ISSN 2477-9409.
6-6 |
status and future challenges in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Sciences,
102, 5883–5898. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15955
Farghaly, M., Abdullah, M., Youssef, I., Abdel-Rahim, I. and Abouelezz K. (2019).
Eect of feeding hydroponic barley sprouts to sheep on feed intake, nutrient
digestibility, nitrogen retention, rumen fermentation and ruminal enzymes
activity. Livestock Science, 228, 31–37. https://doi10.1016/j.livsci.2019.07.022
Garcia Carrillo, M., Salas Perez, L., Esparza Rivera, J. R., Preciado Rangek,
P., Romero Paredes, J. (2013). Produccion y calidadsicoquimica
de leche de cabras suplementadas con forrajeverdehidroponico de
mais. Agronomiamesoamericana, 24, 169-176.https://doi:10.15517/
am.v24i1.9794
INRA. (2010). Alimentaion des bovins, ovins et caprins: Besoins des animaux-
valeurs alimentaires, éd. Quae, 309 p.
Kaouche-Adjlane, S., Ahmed Serirb, A., Bafdelc, M. & Benhacine, R. (2016).
Techno-Economic Approach to Hydroponic Forage Crops: Use for Feeding
Dairy Cattle Herd. Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological
Sciences, 6, 83-87. https://www.researchgate.net/prole/Kaouche-
Soumeya-2/publication/299374140_Techno-Economic_Approach_
to_Hydroponic_Forage_Crops_Use_for_Feeding_Dairy_Cattle_Herd/
links/56f2a42608aee4c8719a0672/Techno-Economic-Approach-to-
Hydroponic-Forage-Crops-Use-for-Feeding-Dairy-Cattle-Herd.pdf
Linn J. (2006). Feed Eciency: Its Economic Impact In Lacting Dairy Cows.
Advances in Dairy Technology, 18, 19-28. https://wcds.ualberta.ca/
wpcontent/uploads/sites/57/wcdsarchive/Archive/2006/Manuscripts/
Linn.pdf
Ma, Y., Wang, J., Sun, Y., Dong, Y., Cai, H., Raja, I. H., Guo, T. and Zhang, S.
(2023). Eects of compound salt concentration on growth, physiological
and nutritional value of hydroponic forage wheat. Agriculture, 13,1833.
https://doi10.3390/agriculture13091833
Masucci, F., Serrapica, F., Cutrignelli, M. I., Sabia, E., Balivo, A. & Di Francia, A.
(2024). Replacing maize silage with hydroponic barley forage in lactating
water bualo diet: Impact on milk yield and composition, water and
energy footprint, and economics. Journal of Dairy Sciences,107, 9426–
9441. https://doi/10.3168/jds.2024-24902
Mohsen, M.K.,Abdel-Raouf, E.M., Gaafar, H.M.A. & Yousif, A.M. (2015).
Nutritional Evaluation Of Sprouted Barley Grains On Agricultural By-
Products On Performance Of Growing New Zealand White Rabbits.
Archiva Zootechnica 20:1, 95-113. https://ibna.ro/arhiva/AZ-20-1/08-
Mohsen.pdf
Nemzer, B., Lin Y. & Huang, D. (2019). Antioxidants in sprouts of grains. Pages
55–68 in Sprouted Grains. AACC International Press. https://doi10.1016/
B978-0-12-811525-1.00003-8
Niroula, A., Khatri, S., Khadka, D. & Timilsina, R. (2019). Total phenolic contents
and antioxidant activity prole of selected cereal sprouts and grasses.
International Journal of Food Properties, 22, 427–437. https://doi10.108
0/10942912.2019.1588297
Organisme de sélection Race Normande, (2012). Présentation génétique de la
vache Normande. 22P. https://www.lanormande.com/upload/editeur/
presentation_generaleLaNormande.pdf
Palmquist, D.L and Conrad,H.R (1978). High fat rations for dairy cows. Eects
on feed intake, milk and fat production, and plasma metabolites. Journal
of Dairy Sciences, 6, 890-901. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-
0302(78)83667-4
Pastorelli, G., Serra, V., Turin, L. & Attard, E. (2023). Hydroponic fodders for
livestock production – a review. Annals of Animal Sciences, 24, 645-656.
https://doi10.2478/aoas-2023-0075
Romero, V., Córdova D., & Hernández, G,. (2009). Producción de forraje verde
hidropónico y su aceptación en ganadolechero. Acta Universitatis, 19: 11-
9. https://doi.org/10.15174/au.2009.93
Salo, S. (2019). Eect of hydroponic fodder feeding on milk yield and composition
of dairy cow: Review. Journal of Natural Sciences Research, 9: 1-8.
https://doi10.7176/JNSR/9-8-01
Vasseur, E., Gibbons, J., Rushen, J. & de Passillé A. (2013). Development and
implementation of a training program to ensure high repeatability of body
condition score of dairy cow in animal welfare assessments. Journal of
Dairy Sciences, 96, 4725-4737. https://doi10.3168/jds.2012-6359
Wu, Z. H., Du, C., Hou, M.J., Zhao,L.S., Ma, L., Sinclair, L.A. & Bu, D.P. (2024).
Hydroponic barley supplementation fed with high-protein diets improves
the production performance of lactating dairy cows Journal of Dairy
Sciences, 107, 7744–7755. https://doi10.3168/jds.2023-24178
Yoon, J. T., Lee, J. H., Kim, C. K., Chung, Y. C. & Kim, C. H. (2004). Eects
of milk production, season, parity and lactation period on variations of
milk urea nitrogen concentration and milk components of Holstein dairy
cows. Asian-Australas Journal of Animal Sciences, 17, 479–484. https://
doi/10.5713/ajas.2004.479
