Recent Comments
- ILRI Virtual Meetings » No travel required » Registration: How do I sign up? on Registration
- jenspeter on S2 – Q4 – Scenario 2, Question 4 (Livestock and Fish with a Global Animal Science Agenda – Theory of Change)
- Mblummel on S1 – Q1 – Scenario 1, Question 1 (Livestock and Fish like now – Key Research Areas)
- Mblummel on S1 – Q1 – Scenario 1, Question 1 (Livestock and Fish like now – Key Research Areas)
- Mblummel on S1 – Q1 – Scenario 1, Question 1 (Livestock and Fish like now – Key Research Areas)
L&F Yammer Group
Day 1 FS review: Feeds and Forages
-
-
Presentation speakers
- Michael Blummel, ILRI
Please view this presentation and comment below:
- What in the presentation rings true or not?
- What is missing?
Return to Flagship Review Page
Related Presentations
What specific key constraints or opportunities have the feed platforms unlocked? The presentation talks of improved analysis on these platforms, but is there a story to tell of this leading to better feeding and productivity?
Hi Suart yes but still much on the mentioned pilot/proof of concept level
I am also interested in these feed platforms. I guess I should know where (what sites) you are using them but I do not. Anyway, have the platforms improved the feeding and also for a longer period or just during the period you were involved? I am in a pessimistic mode at present so I am concerned that the platforms only work during the time period “we” are there. Who has the reasonability for them?
Do we have tools to a) perform assessments on the change in feed requirement (quantity and quality) that are likely to arise if new technologies for increased animal productivity are introduced (such as a more productive, but higher input, breed-types), and b) perform assessments on if / how these changed feed requirements could be best met (with no or positive environmental impact etc.) over different time-scales? I think such tools would be very valuable.
Hi Karen: yes we do have and we are currently using them for yield gap work with Marion Herrero and BMGF
Great - any plans to implement these in our varied value chains?
Within this BMGF scoping study in India and Ethiopia
I agree on the relevance of including interactions when evaluating potential interventions, and that is particularly the case of breed type*diet. We consider it in one of the on station trials in the Ugandan pig value chains project; however, found a large variation among replications particularly in those treatments involving the so-called local breed group, because of lack of uniformity in the definition of the locals. Definitely there is a need for genetic characterization of the "local breeds".
You mentioned that there was a paradigm shift in crop improvement programs, with crop aspects pertinent to livestock and fish production now getting true attention. What influenced this paradigm shift and what aspects of crop improvement are now getting more attention (stover as feed?)
Hi Karen: Yes straw and stover quanity and fodder quality for example as additional criteria in new cultivar release. Two major reasons for the paradigm ship: 1) the monetary value of straw and stover increases in sorghum for example stover is now valued at about 50% of the grain ie demand, 2) largely absence of trade-offs between grain and crop residue trait
Also you mentioned that some feed options producing higher biomass have reduced environmental impacts or even positive effect on the environment. What is an example of the latter (positive environmental effect)?
Hi Karen: that related mainly CIAT Bracharia work around bio-nitrification
Thanks, Michael for the clear presentation. Very good question, Karen. Improved forage/feed options should not only improve meat and milk production through their greater productivity and nutritional quality but also should be suitable for integration into climate-smart agricultural systems so that their carbon footprint is minimal. Improved Brachiaria grass options not only improve animal production but also can play a key role in improving soil carbon accumulation and soil structure through their deep and vigorous root systems. In addition, these grasses can also inhibit nitrification in soil and reduce nitrous oxide emissions. The on-going Brachiaria breeding program at CIAT is generating new hybrids that not only combine adaptation to major biotic and abiotic stress factors with higher forage quality but also have potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions per unit livestock product when integrated into agricultural systems.
Do you see opportunities for working more closely with the other technology flagships … if so, what are these?
Yes even more, I see an absolute need for this. Focus will depend on value chain demand and constraints. Genetics certainly key: what is first constraint feed or genetics. If the latter is the case you wouldn't strat with feed interventions and the vice versa
Also interventions on feed and genetics could go hand-in-hand (i.e. simultaneous rather than sequential)
I made a similar comment on the Genetics presentation, i.e. AH+ feed+ genetics working together)! And expanding on this topic: what drives the choice of feed intervention to be 'tested' (like Bracharia)? is it based on the value chain 'diagnostics', as per the L&F logic, or scientists (and development agencies) don't need such fancy tools and reports to guide their interventions? for example for Bracharia, what drove the intervention?
Karen, Isabelle, Barbara: yes you are right ie hand-in-hand instead of sequential, who decides about intervention etc. The constraint is that we hardly have value chain analysis thorough enough to start with. They are usually quite general
Isabelle: no not the scientist drives it. You will see that we up the "participatory, interactive" evaluation of feeding options very strongly for example in case of FEAST etc.
For 2015 more work is planned under the AH flagship/cluster 1 to assess impact of disease burden on productivity. Is there a need to further explore how disease burden impacts on feed requirements (feed conversion ratios, etc.)? Would that be another area for collaboration across flagships?
Good idea! The health status and the nutritional status of the animal certainly are closely linked to each other. For sure the nutrition or lack of good feeding makes a large number of animals sick with low productivity. No rocket science just basics! But more collaboration would be good.
Equally or perhaps even more important is how under-nutrition impacts ill-health and mortality during drought cycles
1. Genetic resources are the basis of agricultural and livestock production. Genetic diversity can be used to generate new forage cultivars –either from grass or legume species– that meet consumer demands, replace cultivars that have become sensitive to biotic and abiotic stresses, and other constraints. Moreover, genetic diversity is essential to address new and unpredictable climate contexts that appear and will appear as a result of global warming.
2. The value proposition for the genetic enhancement of forages and feed in LnF should focus on the integration of interdisciplinary information resources with a comprehensive germplasm collection to facilitate the development of a new paradigm of knowledge-led forage breeding in which defined genomic regions of each grass or legume species will be the target for specific manipulation by genetic enhancement undertakings.
3. The core research agenda of SLU Department of Plant Breeding deals from agrobiodiversity to plant breeding with the main focus on analysis of genetic diversity of crops as well as development of strategies for conservation through use of genetic resources in plant breeding including germplasm enhancement (or pre-breeding). The Department also undertakes research on improving quality of various products, which may include feed. Ongoing PhD partnership research with the Univ. Mayor San Simón (UMSS, Cochabamba, Bolivia) is on the systematization of native forage species of the Festuca genus existing in the Andean region of Bolivia, whose native species are a main food supply for animals inhabiting highland regions of Bolivia.
4a. Apomixis research proposal that may fit into LnF: Genomics research has advanced considerably, both in model and crop plants, which may provide opportunities to modify breeding systems as evidenced in Arabidopsis. Mating system, however, not recombination per se, has greater effect on the level of polymorphism. Generating targeted recombination remains one of the most important factors for crop genetic enhancement. Asexual reproduction through seeds or apomixis, by producing maternal clones, presents a tremendous potential for agriculture. Although believed to be under simple genetic control, recent research has revealed that apomixis results as a consequence of the deregulation of the timing of sexual events rather than being the product of specific apomixis genes. Further, forward genetic studies in Arabidopsis have permitted the isolation of novel genes reported to control meiosis I and II entry. Mutations in these genes trigger the production of unreduced or apomeiotic megagametes and are an important step toward understanding and engineering apomixis. CIAT and SLU are developing a proposal -seeking funding- on the fine mapping of genes and identifying DNA markers as aids for breeding apomixis (in B. ruziensis/decumbens/brizantha and B. humidicola) with the aim of understanding this breeding system to explore it further in other grass species.
4b. Biological nitrification inhibition (BNI) research proposal that may fit into LnF: The ability to suppress soil nitrification by the release of nitrification inhibitors from plant roots is termed 'biological nitrification inhibition' (BNI), an active plant-mediated natural function that can limit the amount of N cycling via the nitrification pathway. IAT and SLU are developing a proposal -seeking funding- on genome-wide association study (GWAS) of biological nitrification inhibition (BNI) in B. humidicola to identify quantitative trait loci controlling BNI – a trait that may contribute to mitigate climate change and N-use efficiency.
For cereal residues we have found that there is plenty of existing diversity in feed quality traits among existing cultivars before we need to think about breeding. I suspect a similar story applies to forages.
I agree with Alan's comment. There is plenty of variation among existing germplasm for many crops regarding the feeding value of crop residues, i.e., sweet potato, cassava, but in the past crop breeders did not give much attention to such attributes. We know of the efforts made by CIP in their sweet potato germplasm collection paying attention to foliage and tubers characterization, and also there are similar efforts in the case of cassava. These are interesting areas for interaction with other CRPs, e.g., RTB.
Thanks, Alan for your comment. In the case of tropical forages (e.g., Brachiaria) breeding for improved nutritional quality is needed for some species such as Brachiaria humiicola which is highly adapted to very infertile acid soils with high aluminum toxicity and phosphorus deficiency. This grass is also highly tolerant to waterlogging conditions and also has greater ability to inhibit nitrification in soil and reduce nitrous oxide emissions from soil. But its nutritional quality is low and it is also not highly resistant to a major insect pest, spittlebug in Latin America. Thus breeding efforts are well justified to develop superior grass hybrids that combine the major desirable attributes.
Interesting presentation, but for my understanding (as an outsider) it lacked some tangible examples.
I think the area is very important but we must not overlook one aspect: the animals and fish are kept for human consumption so it is important to study the effect of different feed of the nutritional content and organoleptic properties of the resulting product. Otherwise we may have a potential solution that ticks most boxes but if the resulting product tastes poorly, people will avoid it.
I think we are fair way off having to worry about influence of feed composition on organoleptic properties of livestock products. I think our first priority must be to get productivity up to reasonable levels.
I was particularly think about fish feed where the link between what the fish eats and the nutritional value of the fish meat is very strong. This is relevant with reagrd to the perceived benefits of fish regarding the fatty acid composition.
Yes this point was stressed by our colleagues from WordFish
Nice presentation and good focus on the competition between feed and food. Perhaps this is not the scope of the FS presentation, but do this FS benefit from and contribute to the VC format LnF? That is both for testing "interventions" and to pick up "issues/constraints"…..
Thank you, Michael, for a comprehensive presentation.
A few specific examples of outcomes would have been nice to share to colleagues who may not necessarily be familiar with the feed and forages flagship.
You did highlight the need for more focused, detailed analyses at the VC level to determine priorities, i.e., will feeds unlock the most important productivity constraint or is it genetics, or animal health, etc. Am not sure that we have the tools on hand to enable us to make these types of quantitative assessments, but I could be wrong, and SASI may already have this in their portfolio. If not yet, might this be something that could be given some attention in the relevant flagships in L&F?
Good point, Lucy, as to the VC level productivity constraint. What we are missing from the presentation is the human link with Feed and Forages: what labor is required? who does the work? what financial and labor inputs are required?
Lucy, developing a framework and tools for breaking down the yield gap between genetics, health, nutrition and management has been one of our ambitions, and one which we are hoping to work on with our SLU and Wageningen colleagues. This led to an initial pilot study being led by Mario Herrero, which Michael B is contributing to, and that we hope will provide the basis for a much larger effort. Perhaps Michael B, you could say a word or three....
From Addis Dream Team: There was also that BMGF commissioned work on livestock yield gaps a few years ago.
Following up on the comment by the Addis Dream team, I remember the BMGF commissioned work in 2008 because I was actively involved in it together with Isabelle, An, Okeyo, Steve Staal, yourself (Tom), Julie, Mario et al. It was a very broad study based on literature review that looked and calculated yield gaps for different species of livestock (cattle (beef, dairy, local breeds, crosses between exotics and local breeds), sheep, goats and chicken) across Africa (East, West and Southern Africa) and Indian subcontinent. We attempted to partition the yield gap to various components attributable to genetics, nutrition and health. The findings of this study could be a good starting point, the document is available and I have seen the graphs we produced being used in several forums. It would be good and interesting to see what the current effort will produce.
Apart from literature review, we also obtained data from different countries through a survey.
See presentation here on yield gap
http://www.slideshare.net/ILRI/smith-gfsc-apr2014?qid=bd8dcb53-9b55-42f0-9934-eb3fc3927214&v=default&b=&from_search=1
Michael, one of the major constraints highlighted by farmers and livestock feed traders in our value chain work (Uganda pig VC) has a lot to do with poor quality of commercial feeds partly due to poor regulation of the feed industry and lack of capacity of feed compounders to develop nutritionally balanced feed rations. Is this one area that this flagship should work on?. Possibly through research on feed safety and hazards, testing feed training and certification schemes (in collaboration with private sector players and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock), and collaborating with VCTS flagship on feed policy assessments.
Hi there: yes and we do this actually and right now we are discussing transfer of this capacity to NaLRRI in Uganda. So far Uganda VC send samples to India
Comment from Addis Think Tank: We developed some ideas around feed certification in Tz but it has gone cold - we could revive. Same issue came up in discussions in Ethiopia VC. Need to think about which models e.g. PPP's
The comment on quality not only applies to the concentrates, but also to the ingredients used for formulating compounded feeds. There are huge variations in the quality of some ingredients, e.g., silver fish meal in Uganda. The latter has to do with the rudimentary technologies applied while preparing fish meal, with high contamination with sand. Also, many of the feed mixtures purchased by smallholder farmers come from feed stockists that prepare "concentrates" using formulas provided by universities and national services; however, when an ingredient is not available, it is replaced by others not always considering if those have a similar nutritive value than the one being replaced. There is a need for training feed stockists on ration formulation, and for implementing some sort of certification for those involved in this type of business..
Hi Michael. Thanks fo the presentation. Some questions/comments from Anouka and I:
- Are the tools you mention in relation to the technology platform TechFit and FEAST? If so, we had some interesting discussions last year on integrating gender more comprehesively into those tools, and look forward to progressing on that in 2015 and beyond.
-Under development outcomes you mentionned interactive approaches. Could you expand on that? What approaches and who do they interact with?
- Competition for biomass. This is an important and interesting area to explore gender dimensions both on farm and at other levels. The work of the gender scientists on ownership could be a good input to this discussion. Competition for biomass is also a rich area to look at the interplay between natural resources and social relations.
-
The recent evaluation of the value chain approach also raised questions about the utility and depth of the assessments done so far. Perhaps in future they should be done with greater input/wholly by the tech flagships in their respective areas of expertise.
Thank you, Michael, for the presentation!
In order to better understand the forages VC, we need to focus more on the wholes VCs of all commodities, i.e., fish, goats and sheeps, cattle, chicken ..etc. in one programme. Could be also for each VC country if possible.
Sorry, This was by mistake! I was commenting not replying.
Thank you, Michael, for the presentation!
In order to better understand the forages VC, we need to focus more on the wholes VCs of all commodities, i.e., fish, goats and sheeps, cattle, chicken ..etc. in one programme. Could be also for each VC country if possible.