Barley is an important cereal gain which is traditionally used in some nations of Asia and North Africa, and there has been growing interest in using barley as an ingredient in food due to their nutritional value and high content of phyto-constituents. However, no study report on comparative feed value between sprouted barley, cornflake and alfalfa hay. Therefore, in this study we aimed to evaluate the chemical composition, amino acid profile and mineral content of 6 day sprouted barley fodder (SBF) compared with cornflake and alfalfa hay using by AOAC method, as an alternative feed ingredient. Results showed that SBF had higher content of crude protein, acid detergent insoluble crude proteins and neutral detergent insoluble crude protein than alfalfa hay and cornflake; cornflake had higher crude fiber, neutral detergent fiber content than SBF and alfalfa hay; alfalfa hay had higher crude fiber, crude ash, acid detergent fiber, neutral detergent fiber and lignin level than SBF and cornflake. Also, significant differences were found on amino acid content among them (p<0.01). The most abundant amino acid in SBF was glutamate (123 g/kg DM), which is higher than in alfalfa hay (1.27%) or cornflake (1.58%). However, methionine (1.33%) and cysteine (1.53%) were the least abundant amino acids in SBF compared with cornflake or alfalfa hay. Furthermore, our study results exhibited that SBE comprise a good sources of minerals including ferrous (90.01 mg/kg) followed by zinc (20.50 mg/kg), magnesium (0.20 mg/kg) and sodium (0.03 mg/kg) as compared to cornflake and alfalfa hay. The present research findings, confirmed that the nutritional values of SBF are comparable to those of cornflake and alfalfa hay. Hence, SBF can be a better alternative feed ingredient for cornflake or alfalfa hay. However, feeding trials will be required to determine acceptability of SBF for ruminant production.

ABSTRACT
Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION
Ⅱ. MATERIALS AND METHODS
    1. Samples and preparation
    2. Chemical composition analysis
    3. Amino acid profile analysis
    4. Mineral content analysis
    5. Statistical analysis
Ⅲ. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
    1. Chemical composition
    2. Composition of amino acids
    3. Mineral content
Ⅳ. CONCLUSIONS
Ⅴ. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Ⅵ. REFERENCES

• Tae-Il Kim(Dairy Science Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration) Corresponding author
• Vijayakumar Mayakrishnan(Dairy Science Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
• Dong-Hyun Lim(Dairy Science Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
• Hyun-Jeong Lee(Dairy Science Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
• Jun-Kyu Son(Dairy Science Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
• Yoon-Jeong Kim(Gffa, Inc.)
• Hee-Chul Choi(Dairy Science Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)
• Jae-Hyeong Shin(Korea Livestock Research Institute)
• Jong-Ho Park(Crop Breeding Division, National Institute of Crop Science, Rural Development Administration)
• Sam-Churl Kim(Department of Animal Science, Gyeongsan National University)
• Kwang-Seok Ki(Dairy Science Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration)