use of biotechnologies to improve feed quantity and quality: adaptation to the changing climate from...

Use of biotechnologies to improve feed quantity and quality: Adaptation to the changing climate from the

animal nutrition perspective

Ulrich Meyer and Gerhard Flachowsky

Institute of Animal Nutrition Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (FLI)

Federal Research Institute for Animal HealthBraunschweig, Germany

Use of biotechnologies to improve feed quantity and quality: Adaptation to the changing climate from the animal nutrition perspective

(FAO 2013, Guyomard et al. 2013, IPCC 2013, Keyzer et al, 2007 )

Current and future challenges:

- Achieving food security is one of the most important challenges with a view to the future.

- An additional major challenge for the food production is the impact of climate change.

- Furthermore, the coverage of the expected rapid increase in the demand for food of animal origin in the foreseeable future is challenging.

Production and yield of cereals (1993 – 2013)

(FAO Statistics Division, http://faostat3.fao.org/compare/E)

Production and yield of forage products (1993 – 2013)

(FAO Statistics Division, http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/Q/QC/E)

Forage products, plants specifically grown for animal feed


(FAO 2009, Ruane and Sonnino 2011, OECD et al. 2012)

Examples for technological options to enhance the productivity:

- Sustainable use of resorces:

▪ efficient water management, ▪ suitable tillage practices and maintenance of a protective organic soil cover▪ crop rotation to enhance soil fertility and manage pests▪ fertilisation meeting the demand.

- Reduce post harvest losses

- Use of agricultural biotechnologies.


(FAO 2001, USDA 2016)

Agricultural biotechnologie includes a wide range of tools including traditional breeding techniques with the aim to:

- Create new genetic variance- Screen and select favourable variants.

- Improve production and management systems (e.g. plant protection, nutrition, genetic resource management)

Annual mean surface temperature change (a) and average percent change in annual mean precipitation (b) in 2081–2100

(Maps of CMIP5 multi-model mean results for the scenarios RCP2.6 and RCP8.5)

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.)

(http://www.ipcc-data.org/observ/ddc_co2.html)

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations as observed at Mauna Loa from 1958 to 2008 (black dashed line) and projected under the 6 SRES marker and illustrative scenariosTwo carbon cycle models (see Box 3.7 in IPCC, 2001) are used for each scenario: BERN (solid lines) and ISAM (dashed)

~550 ppm

~380 ppm

Stylized response of C3 and C4 plant photosynthesis to atmospheric CO2 concentrations(Dotted line approximates the atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2012)

(Redrawn from Kimball et al., 1983, Lohölter, 2013)

C3 plants e.g. wheat, rice, peanut, potatoesC4 plants e.g. maize, sugarcrane, sorghumC3 and C4 plants are different in carbon fixation, optimum temperature, etc.

(Redrawn from Thünen-Institut, Braunschweig „Das Braunschweiger FACE-Projekt“; www.ti.bund.de)

vent pipes

blower

ring-shaped pipe CO2 tank CO2

evaporator

sensors

measurenent of wind speed wind direction and Co2 concentration

Control equipment

(http://www.ipcc-data.org/observ/ddc_co2.html)

Free Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment (FACE) experiment:different CO2 concentrations (380 and 550 ppm)

Organische Masse

Rohprotein Rohfett Rohfaser NfE ME0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

*

* *

* p<0.05

Changes of the digestibility of nutrients and metabolisable energy (ME) of maize grain in pigs (FACE in relation to control)(Control 380 ppm and FACE 550 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration)

Organic matter

Crude protein

Ether extract

Crude fibre

N-free extract

Metabilisable

energy(Wroblewitz et al. 2014)

Neutral detergent fibre (NDF) and crude protein (CP) in sacco degradation of maize grain(Control 380 ppm and FACE 550 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration)

(Wroblewitz et al. 2014) a = water soluble fraction, b = insoluble, but degradable fraction, c = rate of degradation of b (% h-1), a + b = potential degradability, P = effective degradability

Effects of Free Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment (FACE), drought stress and ambient temperatue on nutrient digestibility of maize silage in wethers (Control 380 ppm and FACE 550 ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration)

(Lohölter et al. 2012)

Factors examined:

- Atmospheric CO2 concentration

(380 vs. 550 ppm)

- Water management of maize

(well watered conditions, half of the amount of water compared to well watered)

- Ambient temperature conditions during the trial with wethers

(15°C, 25°C and 35°C)



CF OM NDFOM

CO2 0.108 0.116 0.187

H2O 0.384 0.682 0.416

Temperatur 0.004 0.008 < 0.001

CO2*H2O 0.289 0.059 0.925

CO2*Temperatur 0.064 0.160 0.124

H2O*Temperatur 0.276 0.130 0.214

Factorexamined

Nutrients

Results of statistical analyses (P-values)

Differences were considered as significant at P<0.05CF, crude fibreOM, organic matterNDFom, neutral detergent fibre expressed without residual ash



15 25 35Temperature °C

70

71

72

73

74

75

Dig

estib

ility

(%) O

M

15 25 35Temperature °C

50

52

54

56

58

Dig

estib

ility

(%) N

DF O

M

Effect of ambient temperature apparent digestibility of NDFom and OM

NDFom, neutral detergent fibre expressed without residual ashOM, organic matter

Effects of a Brown-midrib maize hybrid on nutrient digestibility inwethers and feed intake and milk yield of dairy cows

(Gorniak et al. 2014)

Trial withwethers Group Feeding

Control maize1 kg DM/d (silage)

Brown-midrib maize

Trials with dairy cows Group Feeding

1 Control maize 50% silage and 50% concentrate, for ad libitum intakeBrown-midrib maize

2 Control maize Silage for ad libitum intake5.3 kg concentrate/dBrown-midrib maize

DM, dry matter

Effects of a Brown-midrib maize hybrid on nutrient digestibility inwethers (Silage intake: 1 kg DM/d)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

8072.3 72.1

57.867.2

56.864.8

52.063.9

Dig

estib

ility

%

Brown midrib

Control

Crudefibre NDFom ADFom

Organic matter


Effects of a Brown-midrib maize hybrid on feed intake and milk yield of dairy cows (32 Holstein cows per treatment, Trial 1: 50% silage and 50% concentrate, Trial 2: 5.3 kg concentrate/d)

Dry matter intake(kg/d)

Milk(kg/d)

Milk fat(%)

Milk protein (%)

Trial 1Control 22.5a + 0.3 33.3a + 0.8 3.8a + 0.12 3.4a + 0.04Brown midrib 21.5b + 0.3 34,7a + 0.8 3.3b + 0.12 3.4a + 0.04

Trial 2Control 19.8a + 0.2 25.8b + 0.6 4.4a + 0.10 3.3a + 0.04Brown midrib 19.8a + 0.2 29.4a + 0.6 4.0b + 0.10 3.3a + 0.04


Values with no common superscript are significantly different within columns (p<0.05).

Values with no common superscript are significantly different within columns (p<0.05).

Use of silage additives to improve feed quality and to prevent spoilage

(Kung 2001, Kung and Muck 1997, Duniere et al. 2013)

The aim of making silage is to preserve moist crops to be available the whole year.

Making silage requires to optimise the preservation process and tominimise nutrient loses by a rapid removal of air and a rapid drop in pH

- Silage additives produced using biotechnology (e.g. Lactobacillus, Enterococcus) may be added to dominate the fermentation process to achieve a higher quality

- Positive responses to silage additives were measured in a number of studiesfor feed intake, live weight gain and milk production of cattle

- However, silage additives are no replacement for adequate management practices

Examples for other possible applications of biotechnologies to improve the feed quality

(Awad et al. 2010, Cheng et al. 2010, Karlovsky 2011, Newell-McGloughlin 2008, Osakabe et al. 2014, Roy et al. 2014 )

- Nutritionally improved agricultural crops (e.g. protein quality and level, essential amino acids, oils and fatty acids, carbohydrates, mineral availabilities,micronurients)

- Biological detoxification of the mycotoxin deoxinivalenol produced by Fusarium fungi in grains

- Response of plants to water stress and salt resistent crops

It can be stated that the use of agricultural biotechnologies

- May improve feed quantity and quality- May lead to a sustainable use of limited natural resources including

the reduction of environmental pollution

and- Therefore, may contribute to solving the important global challenge

of food security.

Conclusion

Thank You!

Institute of Animal Nutrition Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (FLI)Federal Research Institute for

Animal Health

use of biotechnologies to improve feed quantity and quality: adaptation to the changing climate from...

Education