Hulled barley, Hordeum vulgare L.
Nutritional values in 3.5 oz. (100 grams)
| Energy | Protein | Carbs | Fats |
|---|---|---|---|
| 354cal | 12.48g | 73.48g | 2.3g |
NUTRITIONAL SUMMARY
FOR
* Use slider above to set a different portion size
Nutrition Facts
Serving Size n/a
Servings Per Container n/a
| Amount Per Serving | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Calories
|
||
| % Daily Value* | ||
| Total Fat | ||
| Saturated Fat | ||
| Trans Fat | ||
| Cholesterol | ||
| Sodium | ||
| Total Carbohydrate | ||
| Dietary Fiber | ||
| Total Sugars | ||
| Includes | ||
| Protein | ||
| Calcium | ||
|---|---|---|
| Iron | ||
| Potassium | ||
| Vitamin D | ||
* The % Daily Value (DV) tells you how much a nutrient in a serving of food contributes to a daily diet. 2,000 calories a day is used for general nutrition advice.
VITAMINS
IN
* Use slider above to set a different portion size
MINERALS
IN
* Use slider above to set a different portion size
AMINO ACIDS & PROTEIN QUALITY
IN
* Use slider above to set a different portion size
The nutritional values in 3.5 oz. (100grams) for Hulled barley, Hordeum vulgare L. on your website, barley-hulled-2772, match the USDA values for Barley, hulled, NDB number 20004. Their database does not indicate that the barley is cooked. Your website gives the impression that the values are for cooked hulled barley. Please verify.
Hi Allan. Can you please indicate why you think the barley on my site is cooked? While it does not say "raw", it does not say "cooked" either. And neither is this specified on USDA. Thanks.
The reason that I think the barley on your site is cooked is because the heading is NUTRITIONAL SUMMARY FOR a 3.5-ounce serving (100 grams) The word "serving" is misleading - the dictionary defines it as "a helping of food or drink". It would be clearer to say "ingredient" or "raw".
Thanks for the explanation, Allan. You make a good point. According to my dictionary, the term "serving" indeed implies something that is "suitable for or served to one person," and I can’t quite picture anyone eagerly devouring raw barley for dinner.
On the other hand, the FDA's Nutrition Info label appears on packaging for raw foods like rice, steel-cut oats, lentils, and even chicken breast, using the term "serving" to describe raw quantities. This makes sense, as 50 grams of raw rice will yield relatively consistent nutritional values, whereas values for boiled rice will vary depending on water absorption. So, for the purpose of nutrition it's best that we treat the definition of "serving" as a "quantity of food suitable for humans, at any stage of its preparation". I also think that changing the wording on the Nutrition Info label as it appears on my site is not a good idea, given the label's iconic status.
At any rate, your feedback has certainly given me food for thought, and I will think about a more suitable wording. At least in the text that you directly referenced. (Would "portion" be suitable, in your opinion?)
