EXPERIMENTS WITH REDUCED LIGNIN ALFALFA

Similar documents
EFFECT OF HARVEST TIMING ON YIELD AND QUALITY OF SMALL GRAIN FORAGE. Carol Collar, Steve Wright, Peter Robinson and Dan Putnam 1 ABSTRACT

Cool-Season Annual Forages for Hay in North Dakota

Silage Corn Variety Trial in Central Arizona

Silage Corn Variety Trial in Central Arizona

Managing for Corn Silage Yield and Quality. Ev Thomas Miner Institute

HARVESTING MAXIMUM VALUE FROM SMALL GRAIN CEREAL FORAGES. George Fohner 1 ABSTRACT

Effects of feeding brown midrib dwarf. performance and enteric methane. pearl millet silage on lactational. emission in dairy cows

Interactions of forage quality and quantity, their implications in grazing and hay management

2016 Corn Silage Field Crop Trials Results

AGRONOMY DEPARTMENT 1575 Linden Drive University of Wisconsin-Madison Field Crops 26.5 January 1997

2010 Spring Cereal Grain Forage Trials

Forage Systems to Increase Productivity

The Texas A&M consisted. crop water. demand. Menke. Plot Size: were. hybrids were

Annual Grasses Preserved as Silage: Fermentation Characteristics, Nutritive Value, and Quality

AT HARVEST EFFECTS ON YIELD AND QUALITY OF WINTER CEREALS FOR SILAGE

2011 State Silage Corn Performance Test on the Texas High Plains

HOW EMERGENCY FORAGE CROPS GREW IN 2003

University of California Cooperative Extension Tulare County. Grape Notes. Volume 3, Issue 4 May 2006

2010 U.P. Corn, Small Grain and Forage Performance Trials Introduction Methods Discussion

Plant Population Effects on the Performance of Natto Soybean Varieties 2008 Hans Kandel, Greg Endres, Blaine Schatz, Burton Johnson, and DK Lee

BEEF Effect of processing conditions on nutrient disappearance of cold-pressed and hexane-extracted camelina and carinata meals in vitro 1

2014 Organic Silage Corn Variety Trial for Coastal Humboldt County

Double Crop System. To Maximize Annual Forage Yield & Quality. Dr. Heather Darby Erica Cummings, Rosalie Madden, and Amanda Gervais

Forage Planting Alternatives Mike Ballweg, Crops & Soils Agent, Sheboygan County

Dr. Dan Undersander University of Wisconsin

Contents: Table 1: Precipitation in Chatham, Table 2: Oat Variety Trial. Table 3: Spring Wheat Variety Trial. Table 4: Barley Variety Trial

Preference, yield, and forage nutritive value of annual grasses under horse grazing

2010 State Silage Corn Performance Test on the Texas High Plains

COMPARISON OF BLACKLINE RESISTANT AND CONVENTIONAL ENGLISH WALNUT VARIETIES

Asian Journal of Food and Agro-Industry ISSN Available online at

Some Hay Considerations

Legume and Cool-Season Grass Mixtures: A Demonstration Planting in Perkins County, South Dakota

2007 Texas Panhandle Forage Sorghum Silage Trial

Challenges for Growing Corn Silage Suitable for the Dairy Industry in a Northern Climate

Nutritional value of seaweed for ruminants

Non-Structural Carbohydrates in Forage Cultivars Troy Downing Oregon State University

Chapter 3 Microcatchment water harvesting systems for fruit trees and shrubs

2016 & 2017 Legend Seeds Silage Research Report

Research Progress towards Mechanical Harvest of New Mexico Pod-type Green Chile

Temperature effect on pollen germination/tube growth in apple pistils

Maejo International Journal of Science and Technology

EFFECT OF TOMATO GENETIC VARIATION ON LYE PEELING EFFICACY TOMATO SOLUTIONS JIM AND ADAM DICK SUMMARY

Studies in the Postharvest Handling of California Avocados

2002 Texas Panhandle Forage Sorghum Silage Trial

Title: Development of New Strawberry Varieties Adapted to the NC Plasticulture System. Name, Mailing and Address of Principal Investigator(s):

Evaluation of desiccants to facilitate straight combining canola. Brian Jenks North Dakota State University

18 PHOTOSYNTHESIS AND CARBOHYDRATE PARTITIONING IN CRANBERRY

Determining the Optimum Time to Pick Gwen

VERMONT SAFFRON B.L. Parker - M. Skinner - A. Ghalehgolabbehbahani

Dd-#eluhgo S g. -ie lo : 3 Apg 1. Meaemet I-, Agcf~r. 0 - ~ tio AtSr * 0res. ;# I- en, s Ous.: e a S u lsi a a

Baled Silage. Wayne Coblentz USDA-ARS US Dairy Forage Research Center Marshfield, WI

PERFORMANCE OF FOUR FORAGE TURNIP VARIETIES AT MADRAS, OREGON, J. Loren Nelson '

Genetic Variability in the Fodder Yield, Chemical Composition and Disappearance of Nutrients in Brown Midrib and White Midrib Sorghum Genotypes

Results and Discussion Eastern-type cantaloupe

EFFECTS OF HIGH TEMPERATURE AND CONTROLLED FRUITING ON COTTON YIELD

Keys to Producing High Quality Corn Silage in Western Canada

Development of an efficient machine planting system for progeny testing Ongoing progeny testing of black walnut, black cherry, northern red oak,

Banat s Journal of Biotechnology

NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR(S) AND THEIR AGENCY:

The Potential for Teff as an Alternative Forage Crop for Irrigated Regions

OVERSEEDING EASTERN GAMAGRASS WITH COOL-SEASON GRASSES OR GRASS- LEGUME MIXTURES. Abstract

Native Grass Cultivars/Selections Information Sheet Conservation Specification Information Sheet

What is Saffron? Saffron is the dry stigma of Crocus sativus L. flowers. Flowering: autumn. In cultivation for over 3,500 yr

SPRING CEREAL FORAGE VARIETIES FOR CENTRAL OREGON. Mylen Bohle, Peter Ballerstadt, Randy Dovel, Russ Karow, and David Hannaway.

THE EVALUATION OF WALNUT VARIETIES FOR CALIFORNIA S CENTRAL COAST REGION 2007 HARVEST

Objective: To examine Romaine lettuce varieties for resistance to yellow spot disorder

Grape Growers of Ontario Developing key measures to critically look at the grape and wine industry

What's New with Blackberry Varieties

2006 New Mexico Farmer Silage Trials

COMPARISON OF CONCENTRATED SEPARATOR BY-PRODUCT TO MOLASSES AS AN ANIMAL FEED SOURCE

Composition and Value of Loin Primals

Yield and nutritive value of four Napier (Pennisetum purpureum) cultivars at different harvesting ages

Final Report to Delaware Soybean Board January 11, Delaware Soybean Board

2010 Report to the Pennsylvania Vegetable Research and Marketing Board

Annual Report for the Pennsylvania Vegetable Research and Marketing Board

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION FINAL REPORT FUNDING CYCLE

THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS ON FRUIT YIELD CHARACTERISTICS OF STRAWBERRIES CULTIVATED UNDER VAN ECOLOGICAL CONDITION ABSTRACT

Grain Craft. Thresher Seed Days Fort Hall, ID

MONTHLY COFFEE MARKET REPORT

2005 Texas Panhandle Forage Sorghum Silage Trial

2006 Texas Panhandle Forage Sorghum Silage Trial

Effect of Different Levels of Grape Pomace on Performance Broiler Chicks

Potential of Spring Barley, Oat and Triticale Intercrops with Field Peas for Forage Production, Nutrition Quality and Beef Cattle Diet

Silage is a forage crop that is preserved in succulent condition by a process of fermentation (i.e. under anaerobic conditions).

PERFORMANCE OF HYBRID AND SYNTHETIC VARIETIES OF SUNFLOWER GROWN UNDER DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INPUT

SUPPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS FOR THE COW-CALF HERD

What Effect do Nitrogen Fertilization Rate and Harvest Date Have on Cranberry Fruit Yield and Quality?

University of California Cooperative Extension Tulare County Small Grain News. Volume, Issue October 2009

Buying Filberts On a Sample Basis

Coonawarra Wine Region. Regional summary report WINEGRAPE UTILISATION AND PRICING SURVEY 2007

Determination of Fruit Sampling Location for Quality Measurements in Melon (Cucumis melo L.)

Do lower yields on the vine always make for better wine?

Stacey Hamilton, PhD State Dairy Specialist Scott E. Poock, DVM, DABVP Associate Extension Professor

Project Concluding: Summary Report Mandarin Trial for the California Desert

Feeding Prickly Pear Cactus (PCC) to Ruminants

Melon Quality & Ripening

2012 BUD SURVIVAL SURVEY IN NIAGARA & ESSEX AREA VINEYARDS

Pruning and Training Young Walnuts Bruce Lampinen UC Davis Plant Sciences

COMPARISON OF SEEDING RATES AND COATING ON SEEDLING COUNT, ROOT LENGTH, ROOT WEIGHT AND SHOOT WEIGHT OF CRIMSON CLOVER

COMPARISON OF CORE AND PEEL SAMPLING METHODS FOR DRY MATTER MEASUREMENT IN HASS AVOCADO FRUIT

Transcription:

UC Davis Field Day, 11 May, 2017 EXPERIMENTS WITH REDUCED LIGNIN ALFALFA D. Putnam, Chris DeBen, Brenda Chavez, Steve Orloff, UC Davis The Concept: Lignin is important for plant structure (holding the plants erect), but not so good for animal growth, milk production or utilization. Plant cell walls are made up of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, about 35-45% of the Dry Matter. Since lignin is essentially not-at-all digestible by ruminants, it is one of the most important limiting factors for quality. It also ties up cellulose and hemicellulose in a complex so it can t be broken down by microorganisms. Lignin can greatly reduce digestibility of an alfalfa plant, usually predicted using in-vitro NDFD (Neutral Detergent Fiber Digestibility). The USDA-ARS estimates that an increase in 10% of fiber digestibility would increase milk/beef by $350 million/year, and decrease manure by 2.8 million t/year, due to more efficient utilization by ruminants. New Varieties. In 2014, a Genetically-Engineered (GE) trait called HarvXtra was developed in cooperation with Nobel Inst. (Ardmore, Oklahoma) and USDA Dairy Forage Center (Madison, WI) and commercialized by Forage Genetics International (Land-O-Lakes). This GE construct reported to reduce the lignin content in alfalfa by about 15%. About the same time, Alforex (Dow AgroSciences) introduced non-ge varieties called Hi-Gest which claimed also to have reduced lignin characteristics. Currently, both are being marketed. IS THIS A QUALITY TRAIT OR A YIELD TRAIT? Lignin is the structural carbohydrate in cell walls which gives it rigidity and strength, much like the re-bar in cement construction. The key quandary is the tradeoff between yield and quality with alfalfa. Very high digestibility alfalfa is typically obtainable (with any variety) when harvested very early. But yields are typically so low that it is not worthwhile. Growers routinely cut early to attain quality, but they compromise significant yield, and if they cut too late, they don t produce quality hay, and take a significant price hit. In Yolo County, yield maximizes at about 2 tons/acre per cutting at about 35-40 days, but is approximately ½ ton/acre when harvested at about 21 days (Figure 1)! Conversely, quality is lowest at the late cutting schedule and highest at a short cutting schedule. Typically, growers compromise between yield and quality, cutting at about 28 days unfortunately this often misses dairy quality designation, resulting in both lower yields and lower quality and price.

The Low-Lignin Concept may change this. If field data holds true, dairy quality hay may be produced when the crop is significantly delayed in harvest scheduling. Thus this trait could either: Improve Quality and Digestibility at the same harvest schedule Improve yields when hay is harvested late producing forage equal in quality to hay harvested at an earlier time. Yield (t /a / day) 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 y = 0.0402x + 1.25 R 2 = 0.6451 The Yield/Quality Tradeoff y = -0.2262x + 55.442 R 2 = 0.5715 70 65 60 55 50 45 TDN (90% DM) WHAT DOES THE DATA SAY? 0 Figure 1. Relationship between yield and quality-yolo County. Maximum While extensive field quality rarely occurs at maximum yield, and maximizing yields reduces quality. trials are still ongoing, here are some preliminary results.. In 2016, Marc Sulc from Ohio State University presented a national dataset from 2014-2016 on this concept. In that dataset, three alfalfa varieties ( HarvXtra-008 with the reduced lignin trait, 54R02 with high yield, and WL 355RR selected for high forage quality), were sown in spring 2015 in six states (CA, KS, WI, MI, OH, PA). In CA and PA the variety Hi-Gest 360 (selected for reduced lignin via conventional breeding) was also included. These were all Fall Dormancy 4-type varieties. A cutting schedule factor (maturity at harvest) to test the yield-quality concept (above) (see Sulc et al., 2016 for complete report). We have conducted our own trials in 2012-2014, and are continuing today. In that two-year study, 4 HarvXtra preliminary lines were compared with 4 controls at 2 cutting schedules on the Davis campus and in Tulelake PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS The HarvXtra varieties tested maintained lower lignin content and exhibited higher digestibility (NDFD) and higher RFQ than conventionally-bred varieties in a 6 location nationwide dataset and in a 4-location/year California study. Days 40

In the datasets so far, Hi-Gest 360 had nutritive values similar to other conventionallybred high quality lines, and differed from HarvXtra, which had higher quality than conventional lines. The HarvXtra reduced lignin line maintained high nutritive value for up to 10 days longer than conventional high quality alfalfa varieties, confirming the possibility to improve yields while maintaining quality There was some indication of slightly lower yields vs. controls with HarvXtra in some trials, but yields of harvxtra cut late were superior to conventional lines cut early FURTHER QUESTIONS and RESEARCH Does this Hold up? Do the promising yield and quality results for HarvXtra hold up over multiple locations/years? Non-Dormant Varieties. How does the trait work with non-dormant varieties commonly grown in the Southwestern US? Current research has been primarily on dormant lines. Comparing Company Claims. How do the different low lignin lines compare in reality and over multiple tests, fall dormancies and locations? Seasonal Effects. What are the effects of excessive heat in summer harvests can we improve quality of these summer harvests which are typically low quality vs. fall or spring which are usually high quality anyway? Markets must recognize different methods of measurement will markets respect digestibility estimates (e.g. NDFD, other in-vitro methods) compared with the current method of simply looking at ADF or NDF (which determines TDN and RFV)? UC, USDA, and other universities have long recommended that digestibility be considered when pricing forage crops. GMO Acceptance of Markets Will sensitive markets, particularly export and organic accept the HarvXtra GE trait? (the answer is currently no, but that may change). Cost-Benefit. Can the additional cost of the seed be justified by hay growers through either higher quality or higher yield harvests or more flexibility of harvest timings? REFERENCES Sulc, M.R., A. Parker, K. Albrecht, K. Cassida, M. Hall, D. Min, S. Orloff, D. Undersander, X Xu. 2016. Low Lignin Alfalfa: Wide Area Field Test Results. In: Proceedings, 2016 California Alfalfa and Forage Symposium, Reno, NV, Nov 29-Dec 1, 2016. UC Cooperative Extension, Plant Sciences Department, University of California, Davis, CA 95616. (See http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu for this and other alfalfa conference Proceedings.) For 2016 proceedings: http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/+symposium/2016/index.aspx

Figure 3. Average ADL, NDF, NDFD, and RFQ of three alfalfa cultivars grown in six locations and harvested twice in the seeding year at 28-33-, and 38-day intervals. (Note, % values for ADL, NDF, and NDFD are obtained by dividing values by 10). Table 2. Forage nutritive value of three alfalfa varieties averaged over six sampling dates during each of two growth cycles in California and Pennsylvania in the 2015 seeding year. (Sulc et al., 2016 Variety ADL % NDFD % NDF % RFQ CP % HarvXtra-008 4.2 b 56.2 a 27.3 c 284 a 26.2 a Hi-Gest 360 4.8 a 52.5 a 28.3 bc 265 ab 26.0 a WL 355 RR 5.0 a 51.5 a 29.1 b 254 bc 25.8 a 54R02 5.1 a 50.7 b 30.7 a 237 c 24.9 a Values followed by different letters are significantly different at P=0.05.

Table 3. Effect of LL (HarvXtra) alfalfa (pre-release lines) compared with control varieties on yield, average over cuts, Davis and Tulelake, CA (2013-2014) Tulelake Davis 2013 2014 Mean 2013 2014 Mean Harvest Schedule Harvest Schedule Early Late Early Late 2013-14 Early Late Early Late 2013-14 Harvests 4 3 4 3 5 4 7 5 Yield HarvXtra 9.10 7.70 8.39 8.32 8.37 5.77 6.54 7.39 8.16 7.08 Control 8.87 7.67 8.40 8.24 8.29 6.50 6.81 7.43 8.50 7.40 Mean CV% LSD (p=0.05) F-Test Type 8.32 4.07 0.17 8.34 6.95 0.29 6.4 7.87 5.44 8.09 ns ns *** ns *** ns Cutting Schedule *** *** 0.2 0.31 Table 4. Data from Tulelake comparison of HarvXtra low lignin experimental varieties vs. controls (2014 data) from two different cutting schedules, early and late. Early Late Table of NDFD Variety 2nd Cutting 3rd Cutting 4th Cutting Aftermath Avg. by Variety 12RRL -1 51.38 48.44 53.59 52.94 51.59 12RRL-2 52.75 49.97 53.06 50.93 51.68 12RRL-3 51.30 49.10 53.70 52.98 51.77 12RRL-4 51.59 48.85 53.20 52.38 51.50 54R01 47.61 44.95 50.35 48.08 47.75 Liberator 48.22 45.91 49.02 48.82 47.99 WL 355.HQ.RR 47.69 44.26 49.62 51.53 48.27 Ameristand 405TRR 46.15 45.77 47.86 52.32 48.02 Avg. by Cutting 49.59 47.16 51.30 51.25 12RRL -1 48.14 50.02 51.52 49.89 12RRL-2 47.95 47.21 50.93 48.70 12RRL-3 50.29 47.42 50.45 49.38 12RRL-4 49.37 48.83 50.58 49.60 54R01 45.37 45.63 50.11 47.04 Liberator 43.93 45.61 49.91 46.48 WL 355.HQ.RR 44.19 46.16 52.97 47.77 Ameristand 405TRR 42.63 45.33 49.65 45.87 Avg. by Cutting 46.48 47.03 50.76

Table 5. Data from Davis comparisons of HarvXtra low lignin experimental varieties vs. controls (2014 data) from two different cutting schedules, early and late (2014 data). Early schedule (28 day) forage quality (NIRS results) by variety. 7 harvests Davis, CA Variety ADF Ash CP ADL IVTDM IVdOM NDF NDFD TDN1 RFQ NFC 54R01 (control) 23.8 7.2 26.0 4.6 87.4 79.5 27.6 51.9 72 271 39 Ameristand 405TRR (control) 23.3 6.8 25.8 4.5 87.5 80.1 27.1 51.9 72 279 40 Liberator (control) 23.2 7.0 26.1 4.5 87.7 79.9 27.1 52.0 72 276 39 WL 355RR (control) 23.1 6.8 25.9 4.5 87.8 80.3 26.7 52.0 72 285 40 12RRL-1 (Lot RRL-1281-F) 22.2 7.0 26.1 4.0 89.3 81.9 25.8 54.9 73 299 41 12RRL-2 (Lot RRL-1284-F) 21.8 7.1 26.3 3.9 89.7 82.2 25.5 55.1 73 306 41 12RRL-3 (Lot RRL-1290-F) 22.3 7.1 26.3 3.9 89.2 81.7 26.2 54.8 73 294 40 12RRL-4 (Lot-1291-F) 22.1 7.1 26.1 3.9 89.4 81.9 25.9 55.0 73 298 40 Mean 22.7 7.0 26.1 4.2 88.5 80.9 26.5 53.4 72.6 288.6 39.9 variety *** *** ns *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** cut *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** variety*cut ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns Table 5. Late schedule (35 day) forage quality of 4 experimental LL varieties and 4 released varieties, 5 harvests/year Davis, CA, average of 2 years Variety ADF Ash CP ADL IVTDM IVdOM NDF NDFD TDN1 RFQ NFC 54R01 (control) 26.2 6.6 23.4 5.0 84.4 77.4 30.8 48.8 70 233 39 Ameristand 405TRR (control) 27.9 6.6 22.8 5.3 82.9 76.3 32.6 47.3 68 218 37 Liberator (control) 26.8 6.7 23.0 5.1 83.9 76.9 31.5 48.3 69 230 38 WL 355RR (control) 27.5 6.7 22.8 5.3 83.1 76.4 32.2 47.4 69 220 38 12RRL-1 (Lot RRL-1281-F) 25.6 6.8 22.9 4.5 85.6 79.0 30.1 51.3 71 246 40 12RRL-2 (Lot RRL-1284-F) 26.3 6.8 23.0 4.5 85.2 78.7 31.2 51.3 70 236 39 12RRL-3 (Lot RRL-1290-F) 25.4 6.8 23.2 4.4 85.8 78.9 30.3 51.8 71 247 39 12RRL-4 (Lot-1291-F) 26.0 6.8 22.9 4.6 85.2 78.5 31.0 51.1 70 238 39 Mean 26.5 6.7 23.0 4.8 84.5 77.8 31.2 49.7 69.8 233.4 38.6 variety *** ns ns *** *** *** ** *** *** ** ** cut *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** variety*cut ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns