Barley Substitutes and How to Use Them?
 

Unfortunately, I can no longer eat barley. But I have a fair number of
recipes that call for it. I've heard that millet, kasha and amaranth
might make decent substitutes for barley. But my problem is, having
used little or none of these grains before, I have no idea how to
substitute them in comparison to barley--- how to adapt the cooking time
or other ingredients (especially liquids). Neither am I certain if they
are really good substitutes. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

Emma

Emma Thackery wrote:
> Unfortunately, I can no longer eat barley.

Why the hell not?

> But I have a fair number of
> recipes that call for it. I've heard that millet, kasha and amaranth

> might make decent substitutes for barley.

Depends on the recipes... since you clam to have a fair number then
perhaps for starters your divluging just two is a fair request...
unless of course they are copyrighted and you're ascared to share with
a bunch of hijackers.

> But my problem is, having
> used little or none of these grains before, I have no idea how to
> substitute them in comparison to barley--- how to adapt the cooking
time
> or other ingredients (especially liquids).

Again, what recipe(s)?

> Neither am I certain if they are really good substitutes.

That would depend on what YOU want to accomplish.

> Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

First YOU need to put some new D cells in your flashlight, and then
maybe you will be capable of illuminating the *specifics* regarding WHY
you can no longer eat barley (for all we know someone knocked out all
your teeth and your jaw is wired), and what in particular you hope to
accomplish.

Sheldon

at Mon, 04 Apr 2005 01:50:16 GMT in <emma-8F2DC4.20501603042005@news-
50.dca.giganews.com>, (Emma Thackery) wrote :

>
>Unfortunately, I can no longer eat barley. But I have a fair number of
>recipes that call for it. I've heard that millet, kasha and amaranth
>might make decent substitutes for barley. But my problem is, having
>used little or none of these grains before, I have no idea how to
>substitute them in comparison to barley--- how to adapt the cooking time
>or other ingredients (especially liquids). Neither am I certain if they
>are really good substitutes. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

None are even remotely close, neither in terms of texture nor taste. Millet
has a much milder, milky flavour. It is a small, spherical grain, about
half the size of a rice grain. When cooked, if you use 2 cups water/cup
millet, it is fluffy. At 4 cups water/cup, it becomes mushy, a kind of
porridge.

Kasha (buckwheat) has a strong, earthy flavour. It is very fluffy indeed
and cooks very quickly. Its shape is unique, sort of a wedge/triangle about
the size of a wheat berry. Kasha is very popular in Russian cuisine. Use 2
cups water/cup. Any more and it just dissolves into a paste. Excellent with
mushrooms.

Amaranth is the most dissimilar. It's a tiny grain, about the size of a
mustard seed. Cooked, it has a gelatinous, almost slimy texture and a taste
very strongly reminiscent of grass. It's much more porridgelike and you
need 3 cups water per cup.

Is the problem that you're gluten intolerant? If so you're in for a rough
time because the most similar substitutes for barley are all true grains,
and AFAIK all contain constituent proteins that at least to some extent can
form gluten (correct me anyone if I'm wrong) Now, probably the most similar
is farro, a form of wheat with a softer texture popular in Italy. After
that, I'd have to say rye were next, although it has a considerably
stronger flavour. Lighter in flavour are short-grain rices. Wild rice isn't
very similar to barley but seems to work in the same dishes that barley
works in so it might be acceptable.


--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Alex Rast wrote:
>
> Is the problem that you're gluten intolerant? If so you're in for a
rough
> time because the most similar substitutes for barley are all true
grains,
> and AFAIK all contain constituent proteins that at least to some
extent can
> form gluten (correct me anyone if I'm wrong)

Nope, buckwheat is a fruit, actually a berry (not a ceral grain) and is
gluten free.

Pure buckwheat flours are readily available.

http://www.thebirkettmills.com/glute...nfree_2003.htm

Sheldon

In article .com>,
"Sheldon" > wrote:

> Emma Thackery wrote:
> > Unfortunately, I can no longer eat barley.
(snip)
> First YOU need to put some new D cells in your flashlight, and then
> maybe you will be capable of illuminating the *specifics* regarding WHY
> you can no longer eat barley (for all we know someone knocked out all
> your teeth and your jaw is wired), and what in particular you hope to
> accomplish.
>
> Sheldon

What difference does it make? She says she can't eat it.
--
-Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> The Nylons added 4-3-05.

"I read recipes the way I read science fiction: I get to the end and
say,'Well, that's not going to happen.'" - Comedian Rita Rudner,
performance at New York, New York, January 10, 2005.

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Sheldon" > wrote:
>
> > Emma Thackery wrote:
> > > Unfortunately, I can no longer eat barley.
> (snip)
> > First YOU need to put some new D cells in your flashlight, and then
> > maybe you will be capable of illuminating the *specifics* regarding
WHY
> > you can no longer eat barley (for all we know someone knocked out
all
> > your teeth and your jaw is wired), and what in particular you hope
to
> > accomplish.
> >
> > Sheldon
>
> What difference does it make? She says she can't eat it.

"it"... that's the point... gotta know what "it" is, Bubba Barb... what
component of barley.

Because she asked to suggest something else similar... not possible to
do so in any intelligent way without knowing the specific parameters of
why not barley. What difference does it make you say, so what
alternative would you suggest, "Hey, eat shit."

Now stop being smarmy, Barb... doesn't suit you.

In article >,
(Alex Rast) wrote:

> at Mon, 04 Apr 2005 01:50:16 GMT in <emma-8F2DC4.20501603042005@news-
> 50.dca.giganews.com>, (Emma Thackery) wrote :
>
> >
> >Unfortunately, I can no longer eat barley....

> None are even remotely close, neither in terms of texture nor taste. Millet
> has a much milder, milky flavour. It is a small, spherical grain, about
> half the size of a rice grain. When cooked, if you use 2 cups water/cup
> millet, it is fluffy. At 4 cups water/cup, it becomes mushy, a kind of
> porridge.
>
> Kasha (buckwheat) has a strong, earthy flavour. It is very fluffy indeed
> and cooks very quickly. Its shape is unique, sort of a wedge/triangle about
> the size of a wheat berry. Kasha is very popular in Russian cuisine. Use 2
> cups water/cup. Any more and it just dissolves into a paste. Excellent with
> mushrooms.
>
> Amaranth is the most dissimilar. It's a tiny grain, about the size of a
> mustard seed. Cooked, it has a gelatinous, almost slimy texture and a taste
> very strongly reminiscent of grass. It's much more porridgelike and you
> need 3 cups water per cup.

Thanks so much! That is very helpful. At least that gives me some idea
how to work with these grains and what they're like, though I have to
say that Amaranth doesn't sound the least bit appetizing.. lol. I've
been scouring the web looking for recipes that include kasha and millet.
But so often, what you find on the web is/sounds either tasteless
(poorly seasoned) or includes processed ingredients that contain gluten.
But I have found a few to try and surely once I have the taste and
texture set in mind, it will be easier to start substituting.

For soups with barley, I've already tried wild and brown rice which
works fairly well. I use a great deal of brown rice now (25# each month
or so) but, despite how great it is, the family does tire of it after
awhile. I'm also thinking of experimenting with oat groats (McCanns
which are generally uncontaminated by wheat). They take awile to cook
and might also be a sub in some instances.

But I realize that sometimes, depending on one's tastes, there are just
no acceptable substitutes. For instance, while rice pasta does not
stand up well against tomato sauce, it's just fine for most Asian and
other dishes. So sometimes, those of us with these food problems just
have to learn to eat differently.

> Is the problem that you're gluten intolerant?

Yes, I was diagnosed this winter with celiac disease. Going to a
gluten-free diet was like a miracle. For those who are unfamiliar,
Celiac is an inherited auto-immune disorder that causes quite an array
of symptoms including extreme digestive problems, malabsorption
syndrome, arthritic symptoms, osteoporosis, and a host of other
frequently misdiagnosed maladies. Only a small percentage of those who
carry the gene actually acquire the condition, however, and it affects
mostly people of northern European and Irish heritage. Incidence in the
US is now 1:130. In Ireland it is 1:80. On average in the US, it takes
11 years for people with Celiac to get diagnosed. The term "gluten" is
kind of a misnomer, even though it is the accepted terminology, since
even rice has gluten though it is a different type than is in wheat.
The offending protein is actually GLIADIN which is found in rye, barley
and all wheat relatives including tritcale, spelt and kamut. It is also
found in oats contaminated by wheat which is frequently the case.

> ...If so you're in for a rough
> time because the most similar substitutes for barley are all true grains,
> and AFAIK all contain constituent proteins that at least to some extent can
> form gluten (correct me anyone if I'm wrong) Now, probably the most similar
> is farro, a form of wheat with a softer texture popular in Italy. After
> that, I'd have to say rye were next, although it has a considerably
> stronger flavour. Lighter in flavour are short-grain rices. Wild rice isn't
> very similar to barley but seems to work in the same dishes that barley
> works in so it might be acceptable.

Thanks again, your insights are very helpful :)

Emma

In article .com>,
"Sheldon" > wrote:

> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "Sheldon" > wrote:
> >
> > > Emma Thackery wrote:
> > > > Unfortunately, I can no longer eat barley.
> > (snip)
> > > First YOU need to put some new D cells in your flashlight, and
> > > then maybe you will be capable of illuminating the *specifics*
> > > regarding WHY you can no longer eat barley (for all we know
> > > someone knocked out all your teeth and your jaw is wired), and
> > > what in particular you hope to accomplish.

> > > Sheldon
> >
> > What difference does it make? She says she can't eat it.
>
> "it"... that's the point... gotta know what "it" is, Bubba Barb... what
> component of barley.
>
> Because she asked to suggest something else similar... not possible to
> do so in any intelligent way without knowing the specific parameters of
> why not barley. What difference does it make you say, so what
> alternative would you suggest, "Hey, eat shit."
>
> Now stop being smarmy, Barb... doesn't suit you.

Heh! No, I wouldn't tell her to eat shit -- I'd never consider it as a
subsitute for barley (in cooking or in anything else, for that matter).
Smarmy, huh? I don't think so. Something about your response struck me
as combative and since it was her first post, I was trying to counter
your (perceived, but not without some justification, since you're often
rough on newcomers) snotty remark about her capabilities. :-P So,
there.
Why not just answer her question (or don't) and let the conversation
develop naturally. Like Alex Rast's reply and her response to it.
--
-Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> The Nylons added 4-3-05.

"I read recipes the way I read science fiction: I get to the end and
say,'Well, that's not going to happen.'" - Comedian Rita Rudner,
performance at New York, New York, January 10, 2005.

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "Sheldon" > wrote:
>
> > Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> > > In article
.com>,
> > > "Sheldon" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Emma Thackery wrote:
> > > > > Unfortunately, I can no longer eat barley.
> > > (snip)
> > > > First YOU need to put some new D cells in your flashlight, and
> > > > then maybe you will be capable of illuminating the *specifics*
> > > > regarding WHY you can no longer eat barley (for all we know
> > > > someone knocked out all your teeth and your jaw is wired), and
> > > > what in particular you hope to accomplish.
>
> > > > Sheldon
> > >
> > > What difference does it make? She says she can't eat it.
> >
> > "it"... that's the point... gotta know what "it" is, Bubba Barb...
what
> > component of barley.
> >
> > Because she asked to suggest something else similar... not possible
to
> > do so in any intelligent way without knowing the specific
parameters of
> > why not barley. What difference does it make you say, so what
> > alternative would you suggest, "Hey, eat shit."
> >
> > Now stop being smarmy, Barb... doesn't suit you.
>
> Heh! No, I wouldn't tell her to eat shit -- I'd never consider it as
a
> subsitute for barley (in cooking or in anything else, for that
matter).
> Smarmy, huh? I don't think so. Something about your response struck
me
> as combative and since it was her first post, I was trying to counter

> your (perceived, but not without some justification, since you're
often
> rough on newcomers) snotty remark about her capabilities. :-P So,

> there.
> Why not just answer her question (or don't) and let the conversation
> develop naturally. Like Alex Rast's reply and her response to it.
> --
> -Barb

My response was correct and informative (Alex Rast's was not, just
self-aggrandizing verbiage which he himeslf slantingly indicated by
disclaimer) you just didn't like how I said it but you yourself
contributed nothing/zero. I guess your telling me how to be ain't
judgmental and adding nothing but insult ain't an opportunistically
smarmy personal attack and only your net cop position is the
correct/default personna, Mommy.

Sheldon (with naked butt pointing unto the lord awaiting Sister Barb's
ministrations -- into her valley... his big beets shall defend him)

at Mon, 04 Apr 2005 13:10:42 GMT in <1112620242.258434.124980
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, (Sheldon) wrote :

>
>Alex Rast wrote:
>>
>> Is the problem that you're gluten intolerant? If so you're in for a
>rough
>> time because the most similar substitutes for barley are all true
>grains,
>> and AFAIK all contain constituent proteins that at least to some
>extent can
>> form gluten (correct me anyone if I'm wrong)
>
>Nope, buckwheat is a fruit, actually a berry (not a ceral grain) and is
>gluten free.

What I meant was that such grains as are close substitutes for barley -
i.e. "true" grains - contain gluten. Buckwheat was one not in this category
inasmuch as it's not very similar to barley.


--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Alex Rast wrote:
> at Mon, 04 Apr 2005 13:10:42 GMT in <1112620242.258434.124980
> @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, (Sheldon) wrote :
>
> >
> >Alex Rast wrote:
> >>
> >> Is the problem that you're gluten intolerant? If so you're in for
a
> >rough
> >> time because the most similar substitutes for barley are all true
> >grains,
> >> and AFAIK all contain constituent proteins that at least to some
> >extent can
> >> form gluten (correct me anyone if I'm wrong)
> >
> >Nope, buckwheat is a fruit, actually a berry (not a ceral grain) and
is
> >gluten free.
>
> What I meant was that such grains as are close substitutes for barley
-
> i.e. "true" grains - contain gluten. Buckwheat was one not in this
category
> inasmuch as it's not very similar to barley.

That's not what you said, boy... try to act like a man, and stop your
oozing.

Sheldon

Emma Thackery wrote:
> In article >,
> (Alex Rast) wrote:
>
>
>>at Mon, 04 Apr 2005 01:50:16 GMT in <emma-8F2DC4.20501603042005@news-
>>50.dca.giganews.com>, (Emma Thackery) wrote :
>>
>>
>>>Unfortunately, I can no longer eat barley....
>
>
>>None are even remotely close, neither in terms of texture nor taste. Millet
>>has a much milder, milky flavour. It is a small, spherical grain, about
>>half the size of a rice grain. When cooked, if you use 2 cups water/cup
>>millet, it is fluffy. At 4 cups water/cup, it becomes mushy, a kind of
>>porridge.
>>
>>Kasha (buckwheat) has a strong, earthy flavour. It is very fluffy indeed
>>and cooks very quickly. Its shape is unique, sort of a wedge/triangle about
>>the size of a wheat berry. Kasha is very popular in Russian cuisine. Use 2
>>cups water/cup. Any more and it just dissolves into a paste. Excellent with
>>mushrooms.
>>
>>Amaranth is the most dissimilar. It's a tiny grain, about the size of a
>>mustard seed. Cooked, it has a gelatinous, almost slimy texture and a taste
>>very strongly reminiscent of grass. It's much more porridgelike and you
>>need 3 cups water per cup.
>
>
> Thanks so much! That is very helpful. At least that gives me some idea
> how to work with these grains and what they're like, though I have to
> say that Amaranth doesn't sound the least bit appetizing.. lol. I've
> been scouring the web looking for recipes that include kasha and millet.
> But so often, what you find on the web is/sounds either tasteless
> (poorly seasoned) or includes processed ingredients that contain gluten.
> But I have found a few to try and surely once I have the taste and
> texture set in mind, it will be easier to start substituting.
>
> For soups with barley, I've already tried wild and brown rice which
> works fairly well. I use a great deal of brown rice now (25# each month
> or so) but, despite how great it is, the family does tire of it after
> awhile. I'm also thinking of experimenting with oat groats (McCanns
> which are generally uncontaminated by wheat). They take awile to cook
> and might also be a sub in some instances.
>
> But I realize that sometimes, depending on one's tastes, there are just
> no acceptable substitutes. For instance, while rice pasta does not
> stand up well against tomato sauce, it's just fine for most Asian and
> other dishes. So sometimes, those of us with these food problems just
> have to learn to eat differently.
>
>
>>Is the problem that you're gluten intolerant?
>
>
> Yes, I was diagnosed this winter with celiac disease. Going to a
> gluten-free diet was like a miracle. For those who are unfamiliar,
> Celiac is an inherited auto-immune disorder that causes quite an array
> of symptoms including extreme digestive problems, malabsorption
> syndrome, arthritic symptoms, osteoporosis, and a host of other
> frequently misdiagnosed maladies. Only a small percentage of those who
> carry the gene actually acquire the condition, however, and it affects
> mostly people of northern European and Irish heritage. Incidence in the
> US is now 1:130. In Ireland it is 1:80. On average in the US, it takes
> 11 years for people with Celiac to get diagnosed. The term "gluten" is
> kind of a misnomer, even though it is the accepted terminology, since
> even rice has gluten though it is a different type than is in wheat.
> The offending protein is actually GLIADIN which is found in rye, barley
> and all wheat relatives including tritcale, spelt and kamut. It is also
> found in oats contaminated by wheat which is frequently the case.
>
>
> Thanks again, your insights are very helpful :)
>
> Emma


I was about to ask about oats (I don't think oats contain gluten) but
you mentioned it in this follow-up message. Have you tried whole
groats? You could rinse off any wheat dust.

What about brown rice?

I've thought about adding a bunch of large-pearl tapioca to chicken
broth and calling it "Chicken Eye Soup" ;-) It would probably be more
convincing in a "Fish Eye Soup".

Best regards,
Bob

In article >,
zxcvbob > wrote:

> I was about to ask about oats (I don't think oats contain gluten) but
> you mentioned it in this follow-up message. Have you tried whole
> groats? You could rinse off any wheat dust.

The cross-contamination occurs in the fields as well.... apparently.
This is a frequent source of discussion among those with CD. They say
that in the US, wheat can be found growing in most oat fields and it
gets mixed in with the harvested oats. That's why I've been using the
McCanns from Ireland which is never grown around wheat. However, even
McCanns won't guarantee their oats. But the majority of people with
Celiac don't have problems with it.

As far as rinsing goes, I've actually done that with some chocolate bars
(under cold water) because they often use wheat flour to keep them from
sticking to their "assembly" lines. That's what you call desperation.

> What about brown rice?

Yep, I use brown rice all the time but I'd love to find a few more
options. I buy the LG organic Lundberg in 25# sacks. Great stuff.

> I've thought about adding a bunch of large-pearl tapioca to chicken
> broth and calling it "Chicken Eye Soup" ;-) It would probably be more
> convincing in a "Fish Eye Soup".

LOL!

at Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:14:20 GMT in <1112656460.213513.324600
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, (Sheldon) wrote :

>
>Alex Rast wrote:
>> at Mon, 04 Apr 2005 13:10:42 GMT in <1112620242.258434.124980
>> @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, (Sheldon) wrote :
>>
>> >
>> >Alex Rast wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Is the problem that you're gluten intolerant? ...
>> >
>> >Nope, buckwheat is a fruit, actually a berry (not a ceral grain) and
>is
>> >gluten free.
>>
>> What I meant was that such grains as are close substitutes for barley
>-
>> i.e. "true" grains - contain gluten. Buckwheat was one not in this
>category
>> inasmuch as it's not very similar to barley.
>
>That's not what you said, boy... try to act like a man, and stop your
>oozing.

Well, it is *exactly* what I said, but I apologise if you got confused
anyway. Here is the phrase:

>> >because the most similar substitutes for barley are all true
>> >grains,
>> >> and AFAIK all contain constituent proteins that at least to some
>> >extent can
>> >> form gluten (correct me anyone if I'm wrong)

Note that the "all" after "AFAIK" refers to "the most similar substitutes
for barley" just above, which I further qualify using the description "are
all true grains". Thus it refers only to the most similar substitutes and
not to any arbitrary substitute. If it were to have included buckwheat, I
would have had to make the stripping of the qualifiers explicit by saying
"AFAIK all substitutes contain constituent proteins..."

However, since what I said was confusing (and I'll agree that it's a maze
of qualifiers), how might you have worded it so that it wasn't so
confusing?

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)