Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-8p85h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-12T23:43:49.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heritability and genetic gain of digestible organic matter intake of barley straw genotypes by sheep, using repeatable in situ- and laboratory-based indicator traits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2022

A. V. Goodchild Open the ORCID record for A. V. Goodchild [Opens in a new window] ,
S. Grando ,
E. F. Thomson ,
M. Haylani  and
S. Ceccarelli Open the ORCID record for S. Ceccarelli [Opens in a new window]
A. V. Goodchild*
Affiliation:
Pasture, Forage and Livestock Program, ICARDA, P.O. Box 5466, Aleppo, Syrian Arab Republic
S. Grando
Affiliation:
Germplasm Program, ICARDA, P.O. Box 5466, Aleppo, Syrian Arab Republic
E. F. Thomson
Affiliation:
Pasture, Forage and Livestock Program, ICARDA, P.O. Box 5466, Aleppo, Syrian Arab Republic
M. Haylani
Affiliation:
Pasture, Forage and Livestock Program, ICARDA, P.O. Box 5466, Aleppo, Syrian Arab Republic
S. Ceccarelli
Affiliation:
Germplasm Program, ICARDA, P.O. Box 5466, Aleppo, Syrian Arab Republic
*
Author for correspondence: Anthony Victor Goodchild, E-mail: tonyg.rdg@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The voluntary digestible organic matter intake (DOMI) of mature barley crops (Hordeum spp.) for sheep depends largely on straw quality. Direct measurement of DOMI is laborious; consequently, the research reported here evaluated indicator traits for improving barley straw DOMI by crop breeding. It hypothesized that some indicator traits for straw quality are heritable, facilitate genetic gain in DOMI, and reveal straw properties that constrain genetic gain. In 4 years, 32 genotypes of barley were grown at ICARDA, northern Syria, with no fertilizer in one year and supplementary irrigation in another. Indicator traits for predicting DOMI included in situ straw dry matter losses (DML) at nine incubation times (0–120 h), four parameters of the DML curve, seven laboratory tests, grain yield and straw yield. Heritability (h2) was highest for traits associated with indigestible cell wall constituents, including potential DML (h2 = 0.61), DML at 48–120 h of incubation (h2 = 0.48–0.58), and acid detergent fibre (ADF) (h2 = 0.41). Heritability was lower for DOMI itself (h2 = 0.24), neutral detergent fibre (NDF) (h2 = 0.20), and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (h2 = 0.17), and was lowest for DML at 6–18 h (h2 = 0.08–0.09) and the in situ parameters Lag and relative loss rate of slowly degradable DM (h2 ≤ 0.03). Correlations between indicator traits and DOMI tended to increase with heritability. Grain and straw yields were not correlated with DOMI; of these, only grain yield was heritable. In conclusion, genetic gain in barley straw nutritive value can be achieved by crop breeding under diverse growing conditions, using indicator traits associated with indigestible cell wall constituents.

Keywords

Barley straw qualityHordeum vulgarein situ degradabilitysemiarid zoneSyria

Information

Type
Animal Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 160 , Issue 5 , October 2022 , pp. 380 - 390
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alderman, G and Cottrill, BR (1993) Energy and Protein Requirements of Ruminants: An Advisory Manual Prepared by the Agricultural and Food Research Council Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.10.1079/9780851988511.0000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, RW, Cook, DE and Combs, DK (2016) Comparison of in situ versus in vitro methods of fiber digestion at 120 and 288 h to quantify the indigestible neutral detergent fiber fraction of corn silage samples. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 5394–5400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bliss, CI (1967) Statistics in Biology: Statistical Methods for Research in the Natural Sciences. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Blümmel, M and Ørskov, ER (1993) Comparison of in vitro gas production and nylon bag degradability of roughages in predicting feed intake in cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology 40, 109–119.10.1016/0377-8401(93)90150-ICrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capper, BS (1988) Genetic variation in the feeding value of cereal straw. Animal Feed Science and Technology 21, 127–140.10.1016/0377-8401(88)90095-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capper, BS, Thomson, EF, Rihawi, S, Termanini, A and Macrae, R (1986) The feeding value of straw from different genotypes of barley when given to Awassi sheep. Animal Production 42, 337–342.Google Scholar
Capper, BS, Thomson, EF and Herbert, F (1988) Genetic variation in the feeding value of barley and wheat straw. In Reed, JD, Capper, BS and Neate, PJH (eds), Plant Breeding and the Nutritive Value of Crop Residues. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: International Livestock Centre for Africa, pp. 177–193.Google Scholar
Capper, BS, Thomson, EF and Rihawi, S (1989) Voluntary intake and digestibility of barley straw as influenced by variety and supplementation with either barley grain or cottonseed cake. Animal Feed Science and Technology 26, 105–118.10.1016/0377-8401(89)90010-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capper, BS, Sage, G, Hanson, PR and Adamson, AH (1992) Influence of variety, row type and time of sowing on the morphology, chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of barley straw. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 118, 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceccarelli, S, Grando, S, Tutwiler, R, Baha, J, Martini, AM, Salahieh, H, Goodchild, A and Michael, M (2000) A methodological study on participatory barley breeding. 1. Selection phase. Euphytica 111, 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colucci, PE, Falk, D, Macleod, GK and Grieve, DG (1992) In situ organic matter degradability of untreated and urea-treated varieties of spring barley and oat straws, and of untreated varieties of winter wheat straws. Animal Feed Science and Technology 37, 73–84.10.1016/0377-8401(92)90121-LCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deaville, ER and Flinn, PC (2000) Near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy: an alternative approach for the estimation of forage quality and voluntary intake. In Givens, DI, Owen, E, Axford, RFE and Omed, HM (eds), Forage Evaluation in Ruminant Nutrition. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, pp. 301–320.10.1079/9780851993447.0301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhanoa, MS (1988) On the analysis of dacron bag data for low degradability feeds. Grass and Forage Science 43, 441–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdman, RA, Proctor, GH and Vandersall, JH (1986) Effect of rumen ammonia concentration on in situ rate and extent of digestion of feedstuffs. Journal of Dairy Science 69, 2312–2320.10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(86)80670-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erickson, DO, Meyer, DW and Foster, AE (1982) The effect of genotypes on the feed value of barley straws. Journal of Animal Science 55, 1015–1026.10.2527/jas1982.5551015xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, DS and Mackay, TFC (1996) Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 4th Edn. Harlow, UK: Longmans Green.Google Scholar
Fonseca, AJM, Dias-da-Silva, AA and Ørskov, ER (1998) In sacco degradation characteristics as predictors of digestibility and voluntary intake of roughages by mature ewes. Animal Feed Science and Technology 72, 205–219.10.1016/S0377-8401(98)00121-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givens, DI, Baker, CW, Moss, AR and Adamson, AH (1991) A comparison of near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy with three in vitro techniques to predict the digestibility in vivo of untreated and ammonia-treated straws. Animal Feed Science and Technology 35, 83–94.10.1016/0377-8401(91)90101-WCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, HK and van Soest, PJ (1970) Forage Fiber Analyses. Washington, DC, USA: USDA Agricultural Research Service.Google Scholar
Goodchild, AV (1997) Effects of rainfall and temperature on the feeding value of barley straw in a semi-arid Mediterranean environment. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 129, 353–366.10.1017/S002185969700470XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbert, F, Thomson, EF and Capper, BS (1994) Effect of genotype on the morphological characteristics, chemical composition and feeding value of nine barley straws, and responses to soya-bean meal supplementation. Animal Science 58, 117–126.10.1017/S0003356100007157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, MG (1977) Review article: the alkali treatment of straws. Animal Feed Science and Technology 2, 105–130.10.1016/0377-8401(77)90013-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, JW, Magid, J, Hansen-Møller, J, Andersen, SB and Bruun, S (2011) Genetic variation in degradability of wheat straw and potential for improvement through plant breeding. Biomass and BioEnergy 35, 1114–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshi, AK, Barma, NCD, Hakim, MA, Kalappanavar, IK, Naik, VR, Biradar, SS, Prasad, SVS, Singh, RP and Blümmel, M (2019) Opportunities for wheat cultivars with superior straw quality traits targeting the semi-arid tropics. Field Crops Research 231, 51–56.10.1016/j.fcr.2018.10.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kernan, JA, Coxworth, EC, Crowle, WL and Spurr, DT (1984) The nutritional value of crop residue components from several wheat genotypes grown at different fertilizer levels. Animal Feed Science and Technology 11, 301–311.10.1016/0377-8401(84)90045-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khazaal, K, Dentinho, MT, Ribeiro, JM and Ørskov, ER (1995) Prediction of apparent digestibility and voluntary intake of hays fed to sheep: comparison between using fibre components, in vitro digestibility or characteristics of gas production or nylon bag degradation. Animal Science 61, 527–538.10.1017/S1357729800014107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krausmann, F, Erb, K-H, Gingrich, S, Lauk, C and Haberl, H (2008) Global patterns of socioeconomic biomass flows in the year 2000: a comprehensive assessment of supply, consumption and constraints. Ecological Economics 65, 471–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naz, AA, Reinert, S, Bostanci, C, Seperi, B, Leon, J, Böttger, C, Südekum, K-H and Frei, M (2017) Mining the global diversity for bioenergy traits of barley straw: genomewide association study under varying plant water status. GCB Bioenergy 9, 1356–1369.10.1111/gcbb.12433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordblom, TL, Goodchild, AV, Shomo, F and Gintzburger, G (1997) Dynamics of feed resources in mixed farming systems of West/Central Asia-North Africa. In Renard, C (ed.), Crop Residues in Sustainable Mixed Crop/Livestock Farming Systems. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, pp. 131–148.Google Scholar
Nygaard, D (1983) Tests of farmers’ fields: the ICARDA experience. In Lora, CB (ed.), Proceedings of the First Farming Systems Research Symposium. Manhattan, Kansas, USA: Kansas State University Press, pp. 76–98.Google Scholar
Ørskov, ER (1994) Plant factors limiting roughage intake in ruminants. In Sansoucy, R and Dalibard, C (eds), First FAO Electronic Conference on Tropical Feeds and Feeding Systems. Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural Organization, pp. 55–70.Google Scholar
Ørskov, ER (2000) The in situ technique for the estimation of forage degradability in ruminants. In Givens, DI, Owen, E, Axford, RFE and Omed, HM (eds), Forage Evaluation in Ruminant Nutrition. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, pp. 175–188.10.1079/9780851993447.0175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørskov, ER, Reid, GW and Kay, M (1988) Prediction of intake by cattle from degradation characteristics of roughages. Animal Production 46, 29–34.Google Scholar
Rezaeian, M, Beakes, GW and Chaudhry, AS (2006) Effect of feeding chopped and pelleted lucerne on rumen fungal mass, fermentation profiles and in sacco degradation of barley straw in sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology 128, 292–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS (2003) SAS version 9.1.3 (Service Pack 4), including Base SAS and SAS/STAT Statistical Software. Cary, North Carolina, USA: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
SASS (1987) ALPHAGEN version 2.3, A Program for Generating Alpha Designs and Resolvable row-Column Designs. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Agricultural Statistics Service.Google Scholar
Schiere, JB, Joshi, AL, Seetharam, A, Oosting, SJ, Goodchild, AV, Deinum, B and Van Keulen, H (2004) Grain and straw for whole plant value: implications for crop management and genetic improvement strategies. Experimental Agriculture 40, 277–294.10.1017/S0014479704001814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulthess, U, Tedla, A, Mohamed-Saleem, MA and Said, AN (1995) Effects of genotype, altitude, and undersowing with legumes on the nutritive value of wheat straw. Experimental Agriculture 31, 169–176.10.1017/S0014479700025254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, M, Ceccarelli, S and Hamblin, J (1993) Estimation of heritability from varietal trials data. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 86, 437–441.10.1007/BF00838558CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sommer, R (2011) Information sheet on future climate and impacts in the rural case studies: Tel Hadya, Syria. European Union: CIRCE (Climate Change and Impact Research: the Mediterranean Environment). Available at https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/projects/circe/TH_Future_impacts_infosheet_Final.doc (Accessed 4 September 2021).Google Scholar
Thomson, EF, Herbert, F and Rihawi, S (1993) Effects of genotype and simulated rainfall on the morphological characteristics, chemical composition and rumen degradation of the straw fractions of barley plants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 44, 181–208.10.1016/0377-8401(93)90047-NCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, JMA and Terry, RA (1963) A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.10.1111/j.1365-2494.1963.tb00335.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unkovich, MJ, Baldock, J and Forbes, M (2010) Variability in harvest index of grain crops and potential significance for carbon accounting: examples from Australian agriculture. Advances in Agronomy 105, 173–219.10.1016/S0065-2113(10)05005-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Goodchild et al. supplementary material

Goodchild et al. supplementary material

Download Goodchild et al. supplementary material(File)
File 134.5 KB