Upload
martin-mckinney
View
219
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Forage Research in Canada Past Lessons for a Better Future
Gilles Bélanger
Soils and Crops Research and Development CentreAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
5th Annual CFGA Conference and Annual General Meeting
Outline
• The past– Changing priorities– Changes in forage production– Some achievements
• The future– Main drivers– Challenges and opportunities
• My observations from 30 years of forage research.
• Emphasis on agronomy and breeding.
• Focus on eastern Canada.
The 80’s, Increasing yield
• Emphasis on inputs
• Marginal lands
– Establishment of legume species on shallow soils in eastern Ontario
– Efficiency of subsurface drainage in New Brunswick
The 90’s, Environment and climate change
• Greenhouse gases– N2O, CH4
• N and P losses
• Global changes– Temperature, CO2
The 2000’s, New uses of forage crops
• Energy from crops without affecting food production– Perennial crops
– Marginal lands
– Low cost inputs
Changes in forage production
• Overall increase in Canada (+39%)– Decrease in eastern Canada but increase in
western Canada from 1976 to 2006– Québec (-24%), Ontario (-10%)– Loosing ground to annual crops in Québec
and Ontario
Changes in forage production
• Overall increase in Canada (+39%)– Decrease in eastern Canada but increase in
western Canada from 1976 to 2006– Québec (-24%), Ontario (-10%)– Loosing ground to annual crops in Québec and
Ontario
• No yield increases or even a decrease in regional yield data (Jefferson and Selles, 2007)
9
Hay yield decline in Saskatchewan
Adapted from Jefferson and Larson. 2014. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 1-4.
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Hay yield
(t ha-1
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
10
Forage yield in Québec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
t/ha
(m.s.
)
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
t/ha
Taken from : Portrait, constats et enjeux du secteur des plantes fourragères au Québec, CQPF, April 2010.
Changes in forage production
• Overall increase in Canada (+39%)– Decrease in eastern Canada but increases in western
Canada from 1976 to 2006– Québec (-24%), Ontario (-10%)– Loosing ground to annual crops in Québec and Ontario
• No yield increases or even a decrease in regional yield data
• Increase in nutritive value
Percent of 1st-crop hay harvested by June 1 in Wisconsin, 1980-2012 (NASS)
Rankin, M. 2013. Proc. 2103 Crop Management Conference, Vol. 52.
Achievements – A few examples
Breeding of recommended species• Winter tolerance of alfalfa
– Apica, AC caribou• Yield in 2nd and 3rd year of red clover
– AC Endure• Better seedling vigor of trefoil
– AC Langille
Achievements – A few examples
New species• Meadow bromegrass• Tall fescue• Bromegrass hybrids• Sainfoin
Achievements – A few examples
Management• Cutting management of alfalfa
Carb
oh
yd
rate
re
se
rve
s (
g.
pla
nt
-1)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Nit
rog
en
re
se
rve
s (
g.p
lan
t-1)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
2 Harvests3 Har. 400 GDD3 Har. 500 GDD3 Har. 600 GDD
3rd Har. 500 GDD17 Sept.
3rd Har. 600 GDD7 Oct.
3rd Har. 400 GDD8 Sept.
2nd Harvest7 Aug.
3rd Har. 600 GDD7 Oct.
3rd Har. 500 GDD17 Sept.
2nd Harvest7 Aug.
3rd Har. 400 GDD8 Sept.
1st Aug. 97 1st Oct. 97 1st Dec. 97 1st Feb. 98 1st Apr. 98
• Importance of N reserves for regrowth.
• Fall cutting management based on number of growing degree days.
Achievements – A few examples
Management• Cutting management of alfalfa • Swath grazing• Specialized forages
– Forages for dry cows
DC
AD
(m
eq/k
g D
M)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700Spring growth Summer regrowth
a
b
c
a
ab
c
bc
d
bb
Mea
dow bromeg
rass
Smooth bro
megra
ss
Timoth
y
Cocksfo
ot
Tall fesc
ue
Mea
dow bromeg
rass
Smooth bro
megra
ss
Timoth
y
Cocksfo
ot
Tall fesc
ue
Tremblay et al. 2006
Achievements – A few examples
Management• Cutting management of alfalfa and other
species • Swath grazing• Specialized forages
– Forage for dry cows– Sweet forages
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Non
str
uct
ura
l car
boh
ydra
tes
(mg
g-1 D
M)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
SpringRed clover
Summer SpringTimothy
SummerSpringAlfalfa
Summer
SEM
Cutting:Growth:Species:
Pelletier et al. 2010
Photo: C. Morin
Achievements – A few examples
Management• Cutting management of alfalfa • Swath grazing• Specialized forages
– Forages for dry cows – Sweet forages – Se-enriched forages
The future? Three main drivers …
• Sustainability of milk and meat production systems
• Global change (+ 3ºC; elevated CO2)
• Feeding the planet
Sustainability
• Profitability and acceptability– Economic, environmental, and social dimensions
• Forage solutions– Greater role of forages in feeding ruminants
• Less grain crops fed to ruminants• Needs better forage nutritive value
Sustainability
• Profitability and acceptability– Economic, environmental, and social dimensions
• Forage solutions– Greater role of forages in feeding ruminants
• Less grain crops fed to ruminants• Needs better forage nutritive value
– Greater role of perennial legumes• Less fertilizer N• Needs better legume persistence
Sustainability
• Profitability and acceptability– Economic, environmental, and social dimensions
• Forage solutions– Greater role of forages in feeding ruminants
• Less grain crops fed to ruminants• Needs better forage nutritive value
– Greater role of perennial legumes• Less fertilizer N• Needs better legume persistence
– Increased yield• Better profitability (farm income)• Improved use efficiency of inputs
Global change
• +3ºC, elevated CO2, longer growing season, precipitation distribution
Bélanger et al. 2002.
Global change
• +3ºC, elevated CO2, longer growing season, precipitation distribution
Bélanger et al. 2002.
Jing et al. 2014.
Global change
• +3ºC, elevated CO2, longer growing season, precipitation distribution
• Forage solutions– Species/Mixtures
• Better adapted species (e.g. tall fescue)• Improved species (breeding)
– Timothy regrowth– Legume persistence
Global change
• +3ºC, elevated CO2, longer growing season, precipitation distribution
• Forage solutions– Species/Mixtures
• Better adapted species (e.g. tall fescue)• Improved species (breeding)
– Management• Timing and number of harvests
Feeding the planet
• Increased food demand on a limited land base
• Forage solutions– More forage production on marginal lands
• Tolerance to abiotic stresses
Feeding the planet
• Increased food demand on a limited land base
• Forage solutions– More forage production on marginal lands
• Tolerance to abiotic stresses
– More forage in ruminant diets• Better forage nutritive value
Feeding the planet
• Increased food demand on a limited land base
• Forage solutions– More forage production on marginal lands
• Tolerance to abiotic stresses
– More forage in ruminant diets• Better forage nutritive value (digestibility)
– Intensification of production• Increasing the crop potential• Reducing the yield gap
From actual to potential yield
Actual
Soil, Water & nutrient limited
PotentialCrop featuresRadiationTemperatureCO2
Defining factors
Yield
Pro
duct
ion
situ
atio
n
WaterNutrientsSoil
Limiting factors
WeedsInsectsDiseases
Reducing factors
Adapted from Oenema et al. 2014. Crop & Pasture Science 65: 524-537.
Yield (t/ha) gap for alfalfa in the US
Northeast Lake States
Northern Plains
Cultivar trials 17.5 11.6 17.0
2007 Census
Top 10% farms 8.7 9.2 9.9
Median farms 4.0 4.0 4.7
Russelle, M.P. 2013. Forage and Grazinglands.
Challenges and opportunities
• Greater role of forages in feeding ruminants– Improved nutritive value
• Greater role of perennial legumes– Improved persistence
• New options for species and management– Yield, nutritive value, and persistence
• More forage production on marginal lands– Tolerance to abiotic stresses (yield and persistence)
• Intensification of production– Increased yield
Forage yield
• Reducing the yield gap– Tolerance to weeds, insects, and diseases– Tolerance to nutrients, water, cold, salinity, and
heat– Cropping and soil improvement practices
• Increasing the yield potential− Increasing radiation capture in early spring or after a
harvest• e.g. timothy with no leaves after harvest
− Increasing shoot/root ratio− Increasing photosynthetic efficiency
Variety trial mean alfalfa yield (Arlington, WI)
Rankin, M. 2013. Proc. 2103 Crop Management Conference, Vol. 52.
Alfalfa: 0.25% per yearCorn: 1.4% per year
(Annricchiarico et al. 2014)
Forage yield
• Increasing yield = reduced nutritive value and persistence– Negative relationship between yield and nutritive value
Ercé
400
500
600
700
800
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Standing herbage mass (t ha-1)
Plan
t dig
estib
ility
(g k
g-1)
Sown swards Species-rich pastures
Forage yield
• Increasing yield = reduced nutritive value and persistence– Negative relationship between yield and nutritive value– More growth in fall (less dormancy) or a fall harvest might
reduce persistence
Nutritive value
• Increasing nutritive value without affecting DM yield and persistence– Frequent cutting improves nutritive value but
reduces seasonal yield and persistence– Breeding for improved nutritive value often
results in lower DM yield
Nutritive value
• Increasing nutritive value without affecting DM yield
Claessens et al. (2004, 2005)
• Selection based on low ADL/CEL ratio
improves timothy DM digestibility
with no
reduction in DM yield.
• Similar results in alfalfa (Lamb et al. 2
014).
Persistence
• Long-term persistence of some forage species is possible– Timothy with the right N, P, and K fertilization
• Tolerance to winter conditions– e.g. alfalfa, orchardgrass
From Bertrand et al.
Persistence and cold tolerance
A-TF1
APICA
A-TF4 EV-TF2 EVOL
From Yves Castonguay et al.
Apica
A-TF6
Alfalfa
Some challenges for forage research
• Significant progress has been made.• Forages vs. corn, wheat?• Less public and private investment • Complexity of forage crops
– Species, mixtures, cultivars• Legumes (6) and grasses (11)• Mixtures (12-18)
– Outbreeding, harvest index– Management and environment interactions
• Yield
• Nutritive value
• Persistence
A multidisplinary approach is needed
Management
Cultivars
AgronomyBreedingCrop physiologyBiochemistryAnimal nutritionMolecular biology
System analysis
Some challenges for forage research
• Problems are inherently multidisciplinary in nature
• Short-term experiments are often favoured by administrators (short funding cycles)
• Long-term experiments are needed to assess ecological services
(Norsberger 2010)
Summary• Contexte (drivers) changes all the time.• Significant progress has been made.
– Few examples– Limited resources for forage research– Complexity of forage production
Summary• Contexte (drivers) changes all the time.• Significant progress has been made.• Yield, quality, and persistence still central to forage
management.• Forage research is needed more than ever.
– Multidisciplinary teams– System approach– New tools
“Nothing we can do can change the past, but everything we do changes the future” (Ashleigh Brilliant)