Sponsor Day on animal feeding: Ruminants and sustainability: The main improvements possibilities

13-14 November 2008

E. J. Kim, C. J. Newbold and

N. D. Scollan

Ruminants and sustainability: The main improvements possibilities

Jamie Newbold

Demand on land increasing

New knowledge-based farming systems profitable at farm level, produce

competitive products, environmentally sustainable and energy efficient

(SCAR, 2008)

Feed

Land Use

Food Fuel

Fibre

Additional grain required by 2050

1048 million tonnes of which:

– 430 million tonnes for livestock

– 480 million tonnes for humans

(IAASTD 2009)

Sources of feed for animal production

• Forages from land not able to grow crops

• Crop residues

• Food and fiber processing by-products

Human - inedible materials:

Common by-products used for feed

Nutrient supplied By-product

Protein brewer’s grains, distiller’s grains,

cull beans, feather meal

Protein and energy brewer’s grains, distiller’s grains,

corn gluten feed, peanut

screenings, wheat mids

Energy bakery meal, fat, hominy feed,

snack food waste, soft drink syrup,

soyhulls, vegetable, fruit-

processing waste

Roughage sources apple pomace, corn cobs,

cottonseed hulls, peanut hulls, rice

by-products

There are wide range of by-products. Increased and efficient use of by-products is important for animal agriculture in future!!!

1960 1970 1980 1990

Cropland 1409 1432 1417 1444

Pastures and meadows 2569 3059 3333 3402

Forests and Woodlands 4046 4028 4100 4029

Other 5307 4872 4229 4205

World land use million hectares

Herbivore Gut Ecosystems

Understanding the interaction between gut microbes,

animals and the forage they eat in order to maximise

production and reduce environmental impact

Integrated analysis

(Meta)genome

Transcriptome

Proteome

Metabolome

Microbial products for

industry Primary feeds

Low emissions

Improved feed

Trait selection

Rumen Systems Biology

Animal products and health

• high in fat

• saturated fatty acids

• cardiovascular disease

• carcinogenic potential

• source of micronutrients

Meat, milk/dairy

Quality

protein Haem-iron

Quality lipids

(n-3 PUFA)

Essential

minerals (Zn, Se, Ca, P) Balanced

vitamins

(B9, B12, A)

Hazard ratios (and 95% CIs) for 2-y incidence of

hypertension by quartile dairy product intake in

2245 Dutch adults aged >=55 y

11 Quartiles of intake (Engberink et al., 2009)

12

Epidemiological evidence indicates

that milk has cardioprotective

properties such that simply reducing

consumption of dairy foods to meet

SFA targets may not be a sound

public health approach

(Givens, 2008)

Grass silage and added oils

milk lipids

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

SFA MUFA PUFA

% o

f m

ilk fatty a

cid

s

Control

Rapeseed oil

Soya bean oil

Linseed oil

(Shingfield et al., 2008)

Modelling suggests such changes at

EU level would reduce CHD…

implementation which require major

changes in agro-food industry at both

economic and political

(Givens, 2008)

CH4

N2O

GHG emissions (kg CO2e/kg product) by

livestock product

Beef 12.98

Sheep 17.4

Pig 6.35

Poultry 4.57

Milk 1.32

Foster et al (2006)

Farm 1 Farm 2

Mean (Range) Mean (Range)

Total 1215

(368- 3726)

3091

(789 – 9305)

Total GHG emissions on two mixed sheep/cattle farms (kg CO2 e /ha/year)

(Edwards-Jones et al., 2009)

Farm 1 - Intensive lowland Farm 2 - Organic extensive

Returns from Animal Production (Energy in Human Food / Energy in Feed)

Total Human Edible

Product USA Other USA Other

Beef 0.07 0.04 0.65 7.60

Pork 0.21 0.16 0.31 0.40

Poultry meat 0.19 0.19 0.28 0.50

Eggs 0.17 0.13 0.24 0.30

Milk 0.25 0.15 1.07 3.05

Feed Inputs

Improved

fertility

Improved

health

Improved

genetics

Decreased No.

of animals

required per

kg product

More

energy

dense

feed

Decreased CH4

emissions per

animal

Routes for impact of management and

technology interventions designed to

improve productivity on GHG emissions

from livestock (Gill et al. 2009)

Redirection of metabolic hydrogen

Methods of methane mitigation:

Feed

CH4

CO2

Methanogens

Protozoa

Microbial cells

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Control AberAvon

WS

C (

g/k

g D

M)

CH

4 (

mm

ol/g

DM

D)

CH4 (mmol/g DM degraded)

WSC (g/kg DM)

-10

0

10

20

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

oC

CH

4e

mis

sio

n (

l la

mb

-1d

-1)

Control HWSC Mean temp

c. 20% reduction in emission per lamb

Live weight Gain (g/d) Control 106 HWSC 153

CH4

CO2

Methanogens

Protozoa

H2

H2

Methane production: a microbially driven process to remove hydrogen

Feed

Literature summary of added fat vs CH4 production Y = 5.562 (SE = 0.590) × % added fat; r2 = 0.67; P = 0.004

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 2 20 0 2 20

Allicin concentration (µg/mL)

Me

than

e p

rod

uct

ion

(mm

ol/

d)

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

0.014

0.016

Me

than

ogen

s (ΔΔ

Ct)

a

a

b

A

A

B

CH4

CO2

Methanogens

Protozoa

Methods of methane mitigation:

Inhibition of methanogens

Pyrosequencing

www.454.com

Genomic DNA

The V3 region of the 16s rRNA (400 bp) was amplified using 27F and 357R. Both primers carry on the 5’ extremity the adaptators (Roche, Amplicon protocol) needed for the emulsion PCR and a 4bp tag was included between the 357R primer and the adaptator. These tags allowed us to discriminate each of the 9 samples when sequenced from the 357R primer. Five PCR for each sample (9 DNA samples) were pooled sent for sequencing on a Genome Sequencer FLX system .

0

1

2

3

4

5

20

25

30

Pre

vote

lla

Ru

min

ob

act

er

Succ

iniv

ibri

o

Trep

on

ema

Ru

min

oco

ccu

s

Fib

rob

act

er

Bu

tyri

vib

rio

Meg

asp

ha

era

Control Bicarbonate Yeast

b

a

b

a

b

a

a b b

Amylolytic Plan cell wall degraders

Lactate utilising

Bacterial composition at the genera level

Rumen conditioning sheep (Chloroform, CHCl3)

High concentrate High hay

x20 x20

CHCl3 + CHCl3 + CHCl3 - CHCl3 -

x10 x10 x10 x10

Weaning

Sampling Sampling

Field for 12 wks

Sampling Sampling

TRFLP, pyrosequencing, methane chambers

TRFLP, pyrosequencing, methane chambers

Table of Means Showing CH4/L/D from Hay:Concentrate diet (H:C), Hay diet (H),

Chloroform -Untreated (-) and Chloroform -Treated (+) Lambs

Period 1

H:C H SED P- Values

- + - + D/C Diet (D) Chloroform (C) D/C

CH4/L/D

12.25 4.72 8.20 5.92 2.723 0.466 0.017 0.185

CH4/L/Kg DMI 12.00 5.80 19.80 17.20 4.320 0.004 0.158 0.563

Table of Means Showing CH4/L/D from Hay:Concentrate diet (H:C), Hay diet (H),

Chloroform -Untreated (-) and Chloroform -Treated (+) Lambs

Period 2

H:C H SED P- Values

- + - + D/C Diet (D) Chloroform (C) D/C

CH4/L/D

23.80 20.07 20.14 17.10 1.922 0.023 0.020 0.800

CH4/L/Kg DMI 21.02 18.82 17.38 17.09 0.885 <.001 0.059 0.140

Questions