Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T00:10:23.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Plant-based strategies towards minimising ‘livestock's long shadow’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

Alison H. Kingston-Smith*
Affiliation:
IBERS, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3EB, UK
Joan E. Edwards
Affiliation:
IBERS, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3EB, UK
Sharon A. Huws
Affiliation:
IBERS, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3EB, UK
Eun J. Kim
Affiliation:
IBERS, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3EB, UK
Michael Abberton
Affiliation:
IBERS, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3EB, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Dr Alison H. Kingston-Smith, fax +44 1970 828357, email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ruminant farming is an important component of the human food chain. Ruminants can use offtake from land unsuitable for cereal crop cultivation via interaction with the diverse microbial population in their rumens. The rumen is a continuous flow fermenter for the digestion of ligno-cellulose, with microbial protein and fermentation end-products incorporated by the animal directly or during post-ruminal digestion. However, ruminal fermentation is inefficient in capturing the nutrient resource presented, resulting in environmental pollution and generation of greenhouse gases. Methane is generated as a consequence of ruminal fermentation and poor retention of ingested forage nitrogen causes nitrogenous pollution of water and land and contributes to the generation of nitrous oxide. One possible cause is the imbalanced provision of dietary substrates to the rumen micro-organisms. Deamination of amino acids by ammonia-producing bacteria liberates ammonia which can be assimilated by the rumen bacteria and used for microbial protein synthesis. However, when carbohydrate is limiting, microbial growth is slow, meaning low demand for ammonia for microbial protein synthesis and excretion of the excess. Protein utilisation can therefore be improved by increasing the availability of readily fermentable sugars in forage or by making protein unavailable for proteolysis through complexing with plant secondary products. Alternatively, realisation that grazing cattle ingest living cells has led to the discovery that plant cells undergo endogenous, stress-mediated protein degradation due to the exposure to rumen conditions. This presents the opportunity to decrease the environmental impact of livestock farming by using decreased proteolysis as a selection tool for the development of improved pasture grass varieties.

Type
Symposium on ‘Food supply and quality in a climate-changed world’
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2010

Abbreviation:
PPO

polyphenol oxidase

Making assessments of the impact and value of livestock farming is complex. The rearing of domestic livestock is important in food production, although there are conflicts between the use of land for production of animal feed as opposed to producing grain for human consumption(1). The livestock sector is economically valuable. Livestock contributes 1·4% of global gross domestic product providing employment for 20% of the global population in both developed and developing countries(1). Livestock products can provide an important addition to diet especially in the developing world, providing key vitamins and nutrients. Indeed, the consumption of meat has been linked to both physical and mental development in children(Reference Neumann, Bwibo and Murphy2), but in the developed world over-consumption of meat has been linked to development of serious health problems(Reference Martin, Morgavi and Doreau3). Current projections estimate that the global demand for meat and milk will have doubled by 2050 compared with that at the onset of the 21st century(4). This is being driven by demographic changes, (the emergence of a larger, but older population) and economic growth(1). Increased demand for livestock products comes mostly from developing countries as affluence increases, and these same countries also show population increases, with the global population predicted to reach 8·9 billion in 2050, 90% of whom will reside in less developed regions(5).

Meeting the increased demand for livestock products will not be easy. Livestock currently occupies 30% of global (ice free) land area(1) with production systems varying in scale from the extensive (rangelands) to the intensive (the feedlot system). Land take for livestock production has increased several-fold over recent centuries, but currently competes with land needed for housing, growth of crops for human consumption and increasingly, the growth of bioenergy/biomass crops. This limits the ability to meet the increased demand for animal products by increasing production through the further expansion of grazing lands(Reference Asner, Elmore and Olander6). Intimately coupled with this are the effects that livestock has on the local and global environment. Lands used for livestock farming are man-made ecosystems which contribute to carbon and nitrogen cycles as well as providing habitats. However, deforestation in order to allow access to new rangelands leads to the loss of biodiversity. At a global scale, recent estimates suggest that livestock are responsible for 9% of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions (including the effects of deforestation) and 37% of the anthropogenic methane (which has 23 times the warming potential of CO2), the latter mostly being due to ruminal fermentation which on its own accounts for 30·5% of anthropogenic methane production(1). Livestock farming is also a major consumer of water resources, and a major polluter. Animal wastes contribute about 30% of the N and P in water courses(1), and the use of both organic and inorganic fertilisers in feed production contributing to the emission of NOx , N2O and ammonia(Reference Subbarao, Ito and Sahrawat7, Reference Letica, de Klein and Hoogendoorn8). Livestock contribute 65% of anthropogenic N2O, with 35% of this linked specifically to the abundance and handling of manure-N(1). Although N2O is of relatively minor abundance in the atmosphere, it has 296 times the warming potential of CO2, and persists for a considerable length of time (>100 years). Locally, N deposition in urine and manures favours proliferation of grasses at the expense of dicotyledonous species, thereby decreasing the biodiversity of the pasture ecosystem. More remotely, N compounds entering the water courses cause eutrophication and nitrate poisoning of aquatic life as well as the loss of biodiversity(Reference Letica, de Klein and Hoogendoorn8, Reference Phoenix, Hicks and Cinderby9).

It is clear that action is needed to facilitate an increased consumption of livestock products in a way which minimises the local and global environmental impact of livestock farming. As with many complex problems, there may not be one overall solution, and not all solutions are practical in all situations, but improvements come as a result of combined actions. The concept of ‘stabilisation wedges’(Reference Pacala and Socolow10) has been proposed to illustrate how the combined contribution of various strategies can be effective in achieving targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases set under the Kyoto Protocol. A similar concept can be applied to identify numerous targets that individually appear to be inconsequential, but which together would be effective in mitigating the effects of livestock production. Some of these strategies are effective at a policy level, for example, enforcing limitations of N emission to watercourses(11) through penalties for non-compliance. There is also the possibility of increasing intensive agriculture to minimise damage to ecosystem services which arises for instance by deforestation to increase grazing. The FAO suggest that the removal of subsidies and realistic pricing would be effective in restricting demand, with knock-on effects on production needs(1). Improvements to the impact of livestock and arable agriculture can also be made by reducing inputs. Other options identified by the UN include an increased uptake of precision agriculture techniques, such as satellite imaging to inform on the need for fertiliser application, decreasing transport (and hence use of fossil fuels) through an increased awareness of the ‘food-miles’ concept and minimising the use of pesticides by developing crops with increased nutrient use efficiencies and increased pest/ pathogen tolerance(1).

Something that would undoubtedly make a huge contribution to decreased environmental impact is increasing the efficiency with which livestock utilise their feed, and great potential benefits could be gained from the ruminant sector in particular. Although the capacity to perform pre-gastric fermentation enables ruminants to utilise forage species unsuitable for other animals, their environmental impact is disproportionate. Due to the size of the ‘global herd’ (estimated to be 3·45 billion cattle, buffalo, sheep and goats in 2007(4)), relatively modest improvements in performance could result in significant effects in terms of lowering the generation of undesirable emissions. Later, it is discussed how recent advances in understanding the functioning of the rumen have shown that improving rumen function is a realistic target for future improvements given the potential for exploitation of plant-based solutions to mitigate ruminal-based inefficiencies.

Ruminants as a source of environmental pollutants

Ruminant production is beset by two major problems resulting from inefficiencies in ruminal fermentation: nitrogen and methane emission. It has been estimated that globally ruminal fermentation produces 86 million tonnes of methane a year(1). Anaerobic decomposition of manure from ruminants is estimated to release a further 8·5 million tonnes of methane a year(1). Methane is produced by methanogenic archaea during the final stages of the anaerobic fermentation of plant biomass in the rumen, a process which involves the integrated activities of a variety of different microbial taxa(Reference McAllister, Okine and Mathison12, Reference Moss, Jouany and Newbold13). Plant carbohydrates including starch, cell-wall polymers and water-soluble carbohydrate are hydrolysed to simple sugars and undergo microbial fermentation via pyruvate, resulting in the production of volatile fatty acids (principally acetate, propionate and butyrate), CO2 and hydrogen as end-products. The latter two products are the primary substrates for ruminal methanogenic archaea. Although methane generation is considered to be an undesirable process, resulting in ruminal-based inefficiencies in the use of plant biomass, it provides an important hydrogen sink for the rumen ecosystem. The accumulation of hydrogen produced during microbial fermentation can be toxic to certain ruminal micro-organisms unless it is removed(Reference Martin, Morgavi and Doreau14). Methane production can be calculated from the stoichiometry of the main volatile fatty acids formed during fermentation; acetate and butyrate production results in methane production as they are hydrogen-producing reactions, while propionate formation is a hydrogen-consuming reaction resulting in lowered methane production(Reference Moss, Jouany and Newbold13). Animal-based approaches to methane production are discussed in Scollan et al.(Reference Martin, Morgavi and Doreau3), but plant-based approaches are also appropriate as the ruminant diet has been shown to alter the molar proportions of volatile fatty acids, and consequently can reduce ruminal methane production and methane emission(Reference Moss, Jouany and Newbold13Reference Edwards, Kim, Scollan, Andrews and Andrews17). Initially, efforts focused on dietary changes involved either adjustment of a major dietary component(s) or the use of supplements to manipulate ruminal fermentation patterns (and subsequently volatile fatty acids production) through the perturbation of microbial populations which contribute to and/or produce ruminal methane. These methods include the application of yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), Aspergillus oryzae extracts, ionophores (i.e. monensin), organic acids (i.e. fumarate, malate), defaunation and using starch-enriched concentrate feeding systems(Reference Boadi, Benchaar and Chiquette16). The potential of plant extracts containing essential oils to manipulate rumen function in order to improve nutrient use efficiency and environmental burden has been demonstrated(Reference Boadi, Benchaar and Chiquette16, Reference Hart, Yáñez-Ruiz and Duval18) and the provision of linseed fatty acid as a dietary supplement can also depress ruminal methanogenesis(Reference Martin, Rouel and Jouany19). Future advances could involve the identification of other plants' secondary and primary products which can advantageously perturb rumen function. For example, at the whole forage level, an in vitro fermentation study has shown that perennial ryegrass cultivars differing in nutrient composition (for example, water-soluble carbohydrate) could be exploited to mitigate enteric methane emission in a pasture-based production system(Reference Lovett, McGilloway and Bortolozzo20).

Ruminants are also responsible for the direct deposition of N in urine and faeces as urea and ammonia. While in low input systems this does fulfil a role in supplying organic fertiliser, the resource is poorly captured. Soil micro-organisms catalyse conversion to nitrites (by Nitrosomonas spp.) and then to nitrates (by Nitrobacter spp.). Where nitrate run-off from land enters water sources, it is extremely toxic to aquatic life, and to infants if it enters the source of drinking water supply(Reference Subbarao, Ito and Sahrawat7). Although poorly understood, the deposition of N onto land contributes to the soil-borne capacity for N2O generation by supplying substrate, in addition to the direct emission of N2O in manure(Reference Subbarao, Ito and Sahrawat7). A solution to this problem would simply be to decrease stocking density, but this does not address the need to maintain production. A forage-specific effect on the production of atmospheric pollutants has been identified, with the application of slurries from sheep fed kale silage resulting in more N2O production than after application of slurry from sheep fed lucerne or ryegrass silage(Reference Cardenas, Chadwick and Scholefield21). Interestingly, although leguminous crops fix N (so do not require additional N fertiliser) leguminous pastures can also give rise to N leaching, thus permitting N2O production(Reference Subbarao, Ito and Sahrawat7). Realistic targets for environmental improvement include an increased use of precision agricultural techniques for fertiliser application and increasing N use efficiency (the ability of plants to take up and sequester N) of crop plants(Reference Subbarao, Ito and Sahrawat7). A further opportunity is to exploit the natural presence of N-fixing endophytic bacteria on the roots of non-leguminous crop plants, including grasses(Reference Ferreira, Fernandes and Döbereiner22Reference Cocking24), the success of which will enable decreased requirement to add N fertilisers to land for forage production. These bacteria are apparently able to colonise (at low level compared with numbers present in the soil) not just the root surface, but also the apoplastic spaces (possibly xylem elements) to overcome oxygen toxicity of the nitrogenase enzyme(Reference Baldani, Caruso and Goi23, Reference Cocking24). The potential of this has been demonstrated by yield improvements in wheat inoculated with Azospirillum (Reference Boddey, Baldani and Baldani25), although this may be mediated by hormonal effects rather than by the modest increase in N fixation(Reference Andrews, Raven, Hodge, Andrews and Andrews26). An alternative strategy to address N pollution is to move to a more intensive livestock production system which removes waste to a point source(1), but does not fully address the problem of minimising N waste in the first place.

The rumen is a complex ecosystem which essentially functions in the conversion of plant material to microbial protein, driven by the fermentation of plant biomass by a community of bacteria, anaerobic fungi, ciliate protozoa and methanogenic archaea(Reference Hobson and Stewart27). The diversity of these microbial taxa is only now becoming truly acknowledged, due to the application of cultivation-independent techniques(Reference Edwards, McEwan and Travis28Reference Tuckwell, Nicholson and McSweeney32). However, it is with this complex microbial population that the source of ruminal inefficiencies in feed use lies. Forage supplies the nutrients required for microbial proliferation. However, it is believed that there is an imbalance in the relative delivery of protein and carbohydrate which favours the abundance of protein breakdown products during a period of celluloysis(Reference MacRae and Ulyatt33, Reference MacRae, Theodorou, Abberton, Amdrews, Skøt L and Theodorou34). The hyper-ammonia-producing bacteria are key contributors to an excessive production of ammonia in the rumen. Hyper-ammonia-producing bacteria can derive energy from amino acids by deamination with a consequential generation of ammonia, which can be assimilated by the rumen bacteria and used for microbial protein synthesis. However, when carbohydrate is limiting, microbial growth rates are slow meaning that an excess of ammonia is produced relative to what can be re-assimilated by the microbial population to generate microbial protein. The excess ammonia cannot be used by the animal, and enters the blood stream for processing into urea before it is removed in the form of excreta. This extremely poor nutrient use efficiency underlies the low retention of dietary N by ruminants, which is in the order of just 20–30%(Reference MacRae and Ulyatt33, Reference Dewhurst, Mitton and Offer35). Therefore an important target is to find a strategy that can improve N use efficiency in ruminant production systems.

Plant-based solutions

It is undisputed, and supported by an abundance of literature, that different forage species have different intrinsic qualities in terms of digestibility. Some of these qualities are easily understood, such as increasing protein content of the crop and transfer into ruminant product, albeit with associated N outputs. However, the mechanisms of action of other plant components are less understood. Many plant species contain a diverse collection of secondary products including condensed cyanogenic glycosides, glucosinolates, alkaloids, tannins, phenolics and saponins(Reference Bennett and Wallsgrove36, Reference Kliebenstein37). Although originally believed to be undesirable by-products of primary metabolism, the roles of these secondary products are now thought to be mainly defensive (excluding interactions with the specialist feeders), for example, to prevent attack by insect herbivores(Reference Bennett and Wallsgrove36Reference Metlen, Aschehoug and Callaway38). Indeed, many of these chemicals can be induced by developmental stage, damage, pathogenesis and environment(Reference Bennett and Wallsgrove36, Reference Metlen, Aschehoug and Callaway38, Reference Bidart-Bouzat and Imeh-Nathaniel39). Furthermore, the presence of secondary metabolites in forage also has implications for large herbivores via the perturbation of rumen function. One example is the non-protein amino acid mimosine which is found in the tropical legume Leucaena leucocephala. Although mimosine is toxic, it has been found that ruminants can graze Leucaena following an adaptive change in the rumen microflora favouring proliferation of Synergistes jonesii which facilitates detoxification of the mimosine derivative(Reference Allison, Mayberry and McSweeney40Reference Wallace42). In terms of potential beneficial effects on ruminant digestion, two groups of compounds have attracted most attention; the condensed tannins (proanthocyanidins) and phenolics. Commonly used tanniferous forage species include the trefoils (Lotus species), sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia) and chicory (Cichorium intybus). Tannins have been shown to have a beneficial effect on ruminant production and parasite load when included in ruminant diets, typically at less than 6% DM(Reference Min, Barry and Attwood43, Reference Hoste, Jackson and Athanasiadou44). However, tannins can also have negative effects on feed utilisation by decreasing digestibility and microbial growth in the rumen, especially when dietary protein is low(Reference Niederhorn and Baumont45). It is thought that the inclusion of tannins in feed improves nutrient use efficiency in the rumen by complexing with protein making it unavailable for degradation, thus increasing the pool of ‘bypass protein’ which is degraded post-ruminally in the abomasum(Reference Reed46). An alternative explanation is that the protein protective effect is mediated via the formation of tannin-protease complexes(Reference Aerts, Barry and McNabb47), thereby limiting degradative potential(Reference McMahon, McAllister and Berg48, Reference Theodorou, Barahona, Kingston-Smith and Brooker49). Despite the complexity of the biosynthetic pathways involved in tannin synthesis, molecular approaches have shown that it is possible to alter the tannin content of forage(Reference Robbins, Paolocci and Hughes50Reference Dixon, Xie and Sharma52). Much remains to be understood about the fundamentals of the regulation of tannin biosynthesis in planta, especially regulation by myb and myc genes(Reference Marles, Ray and Gruber53). Some plant species, including the forage and model legume Medicago sativa, contain saponins. Saponins are amphipathic glycosides which can also complex with protein and, although the results are variable, forage saponins have been linked with decreased methane production (reviewed in Niederhorn and Baumont(Reference Niederhorn and Baumont45)). Likewise, some plant species (e.g. Trifolium pratense, red clover) contain the enzyme polyphenol oxidase (PPO) which catalyses the oxidative complexing of plant phenolics with cellular proteins(Reference Parveen, Threadgill and Moorby54), thus decreasing the availability of forage protein for degradation(Reference Lee, Olmos Colmenero Jde and Winters55, Reference Theodorou, Kingston-Smith and Winters56). Genetic control of PPO is complex, involving at least six genes(Reference Winters, Heywood and Farrar57) and mutants with lower than normal PPO activities have been identified in red clover(Reference Lee, Tweed and Minchin58). The protein protective benefits of PPO-containing forage is largely exploited in silage, where there is an adequate window in time for this oxygen-dependent enzyme to be catalytically active(Reference Lee, Olmos Colmenero Jde and Winters55, Reference Lee, Tweed and Minchin58). However it is estimated that mastication by grazing cattle takes approximately 3 min (at approximately 55–60 chews per bolus and a chew rate of 15–18 per minute(Reference Abrahamse, Dijkstra and Vlaeminck59)); so given that PPO is active within 5 min post-damage there is the potential for exploitation of this trait in the protection of protein before the down bolus is swallowed into the anaerobic rumen environment(Reference Lee, Tweed and Minchin58).

Recent research has indicated that plants can affect nutrient use efficiency in more subtle ways than merely on a compositional basis (reviewed in Kingston-Smith et al.(Reference Kingston-Smith, Davies and Edwards60)). In a grazing situation, the ruminant ingests living plant material, which invokes endogenous stress responses upon exposure to the primary environmental stresses of the rumen: anoxia, elevated temperature and invasion by micro-organisms. These conditions are found in the field, for example during flooding, in high summer and during attack by pathogenic micro-organisms (e.g. mildew, rust etc). As plants cannot move away from adverse conditions they have evolved mechanisms to enable them to withstand periods of environmental stress, but these efforts are of limited duration in the rumen as the plant cells will eventually die(Reference Kingston-Smith, Bollard and Armstead61). However, how the plant cells die and how they use their endogenous constituents to prevent death has an impact on nutrient availability for the ruminal micro-organisms. For instance, it has been demonstrated that exposing forage species to the ruminal conditions of heat and anoxia in the absence of a microbial inoculum is sufficient to promote rapid degradation of plant protein by the plant's own proteases(Reference Kingston-Smith, Bollard and Armstead61Reference Kingston-Smith, Merry and Leemans63). Stress-induced proteolysis in plants is a phenomenon that has been widely reported for biotic and abiotic stresses(Reference Simova-Stoilova, Demirevska and Petrova64Reference Howarth and Ougham67). Finding a way to inhibit this stress-induced proteolysis would therefore produce immediate benefits in terms of decreasing the relative availability of protein breakdown products in recently ingested forage(Reference Kingston-Smith and Thomas68). This is not a trivial concern, because proteolysis is highly regulated at transcriptional and post-translational levels. In addition, plant cells are highly compartmented which means that proteases could be present at relatively low abundance on a whole cell basis, but could be present at high concentrations within an organelle. Hence, low abundance proteases may have an apparently disproportionately large effect if co-localised with their protein substrate prior to or as a result of stress-induced activation. For example, the majority of protease activity is in vacuoles(Reference Feller and Dalling69), which can account for up to 70 % of the cell volume in mesophyll cells, but about 70% of the soluble protein of the plant cell is located in the chloroplasts, accounting for about 25% of the mesophyll cell volume(Reference Winter, Robinson and Heldt70). To date, there is little evidence that forage variety improvement comes about on the basis of selection for total protease activity in the standing crop(Reference Kingston-Smith, Bollard and Shaw71, Reference Pichard, Tesser and Vives72). Research is required to identify control points in proteolysis as the plant cells die, and how amenable these are for manipulation for forage improvement.

It is clear that to fully understand rumen function consideration must be paid to all components of the ecosystem and how they interact, particularly the plant-microbe ‘interactome’. Microbial colonisation of newly ingested plant material by a complex microbial community is a pre-requisite for ruminal degradation of plant biomass(Reference McAllister, Bae and Jones73Reference Koike, Yoshitani and Kobayashi75). The dynamics of this process are poorly understood, although recent work has demonstrated that this process is similar to other microbial colonisation events in nature in that the biofilm phenotype prevails(Reference Mayorga, Huws and Kim76). Biofilms are defined as attached microbes which are enveloped in exopolymeric substances(Reference Costerton, Cheng and Geesey77). This ‘slimy matrix’ encases the colonising microbes, offering them protection from predation and concentrating their plant degradative enzymes (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Scanning electron microscopy image of a biofilm community on a perennial ryegrass leaf following 2 h of incubation under ruminal conditions. Scale: 1 μm.

The initial attachment of ruminal bacteria and anaerobic fungi to plant material occurs within minutes of its ingestion(Reference Koike, Yoshitani and Kobayashi75, Reference Edwards, Huws and Kim78, Reference Edwards, Kingston-Smith and Jimenez79). Ciliate protozoa also rapidly colonise ingested plant material(Reference Mayorga, Huws and Kim80), although it is currently unclear whether this reflects attachment per se. Following initial colonisation events, the production of extracellular polymeric substances by the colonising bacteria ensues. The production of exopolymeric substances is quick and reaches its maxima early on in the colonisation process, although the exact timing of this is dependent on the plant material. For example, under ruminal conditions exopolymeric substances production on perennial ryegrass leaf and stem material is maximal after 1 h and 4 h of incubation respectively(Reference Mayorga, Huws and Kim76). This observation is not really surprising considering the heterogeneity of the plant as a microbial substrate(Reference Kingston-Smith, Bollard and Thomas81).

As well as spatial differences associated with differences in plant structure, the organisation of plant metabolites within these structures also has an impact on the ability of microbes to utilise plant nutrients. The mosaic distribution of condensed tannin containing plant cells within Lotus corniculatus leaf tissue, for example, results in the preferential microbial degradation of non-tanniferous areas of leaf tissue (Fig. 2). As well as the structural heterogeneity of plant material, it appears that the nature of the plant may also influence the timing of the changes in the population composition of colonising microbes. Differences in the populations of rumen bacteria colonising Lotus corniculatus over time have been reported, with a change in the population composition evident after 8 h of ruminal incubation(Reference Edwards, Kim, Scollan, Andrews and Andrews17). In contrast, with perennial ryegrass the temporal difference in the colonising bacterial population composition occurred after just 2 h of ruminal incubation(Reference Mayorga, Huws and Kim76). The mechanism underlying this temporal change in the bacterial populations colonising fresh plant material is currently unclear; however, this appears to be correlated with a decrease in exopolymeric substances quantity, and as such quorum sensing may play a role. With due consideration of how plants and microbes interact in the rumen, it will be possible to understand the mechanistic basis for many of the feed-specific effects identified by decades of research. Not only will this be of academic interest, but it will also allow a refinement of screening parameters, plus provide the potential for enhanced throughput by utilisation of molecular markers, to derive improved forage more rapidly.

Fig. 2. Rumen microbial degradation of Lotus corniculatus. Leaf discs (5 mm) of L. corniculatus were anaerobically incubated in 10% (v/v) rumen fluid at 39°C for 24 h prior to being stained for the presence of condensed tannins (purple) with 4-dimethylaminocinnamaldehyde. Representative light microscopy images of leaf discs before (A) and after 24 h of incubation (B) show the preferential degradation of non-tanniferous areas of the leaf tissue (C).

Opportunities for selective breeding for impact mitigation

Selective breeding of forage has enabled significant improvements in livestock productivity to be made. Considerable progress has been made with respect to the yield, persistency and tolerance to abiotic and biotic stresses of the grasses and clovers used in temperate agriculture. In recent years, considerations of quality and of reducing deleterious environmental impacts associated with livestock production have been emphasised alongside these agronomic traits. Recently, improved grass varieties containing elevated contents of water soluble carbohydrates (sucrose, glucose, fructose and fructan) with an approximate average annual water soluble carbohydrate content of 24% (e.g. AberDart) have proved commercially successful. In research trials, feeding ruminants with grasses containing increased carbohydrate have resulted in significant improvements in the incorporation of N into milk and meat when used as grazed and conserved feed(Reference Miller, Moorby and Davies82). This effect could be due to a more favourable provision of protein breakdown products and readily fermentable carbohydrate than in control grass varieties with lower carbohydrate content. Of course, an improved retention of N inputs means decreased N outputs to the benefit of the local and wider environment. Future opportunities for improvement could arise from capitalising on the observations of species-specific differences in endogenous rates of induced proteolysis(Reference Kingston-Smith and Thomas68, Reference Shaw83).

The results described above, together with efforts to understand the rumen interactome in terms of the microbial competition and the ecological niches required by methanogens, in addition to how their proliferation can be minimised, enable the identification of key traits required for the development of the next generation of improved forages(Reference Edwards, Kim, Scollan, Andrews and Andrews17). The ability to incorporate new selection criteria in plant breeding programmes is greatly facilitated by the integration of molecular marker-based approaches into germplasm development, together with genomics and modelling(Reference Abberton, Marshall and Humphreys84). In grasses and white clover, interspecific hybridisation and introgression of genes from related species has an important role to play. Modern breeding programmes will increasingly be based on high throughput phenotyping techniques operating in parallel with next generation sequencing to ensure that enhanced understanding of gene function can be rapidly incorporated into variety development.

Conclusions

Agricultural advances in mechanisation, fertiliser application and genetic improvement of both crop and livestock have led to increased production potentials, but have done little to address the adverse effects of demand for ruminant-derived products; with such a significant environmental impact, there is a correspondingly large potential for improvement. There is a real opportunity to use improved forages to increase nutrient use efficiencies by ruminants, thereby producing a double benefit of not only decreasing environmental footprint, but also simultaneously increasing productivity. Furthermore, there is the opportunity to deliver additional benefits through the development of multifunctional pastures that not only support biodiversity and ecosystem services but also attract income, for example, through tourism. The ultimate goal is to realise better incorporation of inputs into product to feed a growing population, but with decreased generation of undesirable by-products. Over the last century, selective breeding of forage has led to significant improvements in the quality of raw materials given to livestock, from what could be considered to be the original improved pasture grass, the variety named S23, to current high sugar grass varieties and mixtures. In the future, strategic breeding can continue to provide pasture forages with less environmental impact. Admittedly, on a global scale much of the land used for grazing is unimproved, and here a genetic improvement of livestock is likely to have the greatest impact, but the utilisation of improved forages where possible has the potential to make a real contribution to minimising the impact of livestock farming. By treating the rumen as an ecosystem and exploiting the interactions between plant and micro-organisms, realistic mitigation strategies can be developed and, most crucially, applied to deliver real benefits.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank BBSRC, Germinal Holdings and Defra for funding. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. A. K.-S. initiated, prepared and edited the draft paper to which the other authors contributed to specialist sections. S. A. H. and J. E. E. collected the data shown in Figs 1 and 2 respectively.

References

1.FAO (2006) Livestock's Long Shadow. Environmental Issues and Options. Rome: FAO. Available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/A0701E00.pdfGoogle Scholar
2.Neumann, CG, Bwibo, NO, Murphy, SP et al. (2003) Animal source foods improve dietary quality, micronutrient status, growth and cognitive function in Kenyan school children: background, study outline and baseline findings. The American Society for Nutritional Science. J Nutr 133, 3941S3949S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Martin, C, Morgavi, DP & Doreau, M (2010) Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4, 351365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.FAOSTAT (2009) Available at: http://faostat.fao.org/Google Scholar
5.UN (2005) World Population Prospects: The 2004 Revision. New York: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdfGoogle Scholar
6.Asner, GP, Elmore, AJ, Olander, LP et al. (2004) Grazing systems, ecosystem responses and global change. Annu Rev Environ Resources 29, 261299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Subbarao, GV, Ito, O, Sahrawat, KL et al. (2006) Scope and strategies for regulation of nitrification in agricultural systems – challenges and opportunities. Crit Rev Plant Sci 25, 303335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Letica, SA, de Klein, CAM, Hoogendoorn, CJ et al. (2010) Short-term measurement of N2O emissions from sheep-grazed pasture receiving increasing rates of fertiliser nitrogen in Otago, New Zealand. Anim Prod Sci 50, 1724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Phoenix, GK, Hicks, WK, Cinderby, S et al. (2006) Atmospheric nitrogen deposition in world biodiversity hotspots: the need for a greater global perspective in assessing N deposition impacts. Global Change Biol 12, 470476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Pacala, S & Socolow, R (2004) Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305, 968972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.EU (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official J EU L 327, 22 December 2000, pp. 173.Google Scholar
12.McAllister, TA, Okine, EK, Mathison, GW et al. (1996) Dietary, environmental and microbiological aspects of methane production in ruminants. Can J Anim Sci 76, 231243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Moss, AR, Jouany, J-P & Newbold, CJ (2000) Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming. Ann Zootech 49, 231253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Martin, C, Morgavi, DP & Doreau, M (2009) Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. Animal 4, 351365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.McAllister, TA & Newbold, CJ (2008) Redirecting rumen fermentation to reduce methanogenesis. Aust J Exp Agric 48, 713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Boadi, D, Benchaar, C, Chiquette, J et al. (2004) Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: update review. Can J Anim Sci 84, 319335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Edwards, JE, Kim, EJ, Scollan, ND et al. (2009) The plant-microbe interactome in ruminants: identification of control for mitigation of negative ecosystem outputs. In Positive Plant Microbial Interactions in Relation to Plant Performance and Ecosystem Function. Aspects of Applied Biology, vol. 98, pp. 9199 [Andrews, M and Andrews, ME, editors]. Warwick, UK: Association of Applied Biologists.Google Scholar
18.Hart, KJ, Yáñez-Ruiz, DR, Duval, SM et al. (2008) Plant extracts to manipulate rumen fermentation. Anim Feed Sci Technol 147, 835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Martin, C, Rouel, J, Jouany, JP et al. (2008) Methane output and diet digestibility in response to feeding dairy cows crude linseed, extruded linseed, or linseed oil. J Anim Sci 86, 26422650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Lovett, DK, McGilloway, D, Bortolozzo, A et al. (2006) In vitro fermentation patterns and methane production as influenced by cultivar and season of harvest of Lolium perenne L. Grass For Sci 61, 921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Cardenas, LM, Chadwick, D, Scholefield, D et al. (2007) The effect of diet manipulation on nitrous oxide and methane emissions from manure application to incubated grassland soils. Atmos Environ 41, 70967107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Ferreira, MCB, Fernandes, MS & Döbereiner, J (1987) Role of Azospirillum brasilense nitrate reductase in nitrate assimilation by wheat plants. Biol Fertil Soils 4, 4753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Baldani, JL, Caruso, VLD, Goi, S et al. (1997) Recent advances in biological nitrogen fixation with non-legume plants. Soil Biol Biochem 29, 911922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Cocking, EC (2003) Endophytic colonization of plant roots by nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Plant Soil 252, 169175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Boddey, RM, Baldani, VLD, Baldani, JL et al. (1986) Effect of inoculation of Azospirillum spp. on the nitrogen assimilation of field grown wheat. Plant Soil 95, 109121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Andrews, M, Raven, JA & Hodge, S (2009) The role and potential of microorganisms in crop nutrition. In Positive Plant Microbial Interactions in Relation to Plant Performance and Ecosystem Function. Aspects of Applied Biology, vol. 98, pp. 157158 [Andrews, M and Andrews, ME, editors]. Warwick, UK: Association of Applied Biologists.Google Scholar
27.Hobson, PN & Stewart, CS (editors) ( 1997) The Rumen Microbial Ecosystem. London, UK: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Edwards, JE, McEwan, NR, Travis, AJ et al. (2004) 16S rDNA library-based analysis of ruminal bacterial diversity. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 86, 263281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Edwards, JE, Huws, SA, Kim, EJ et al. (2008) Advances in microbial ecosystem concepts and their consequences for ruminant agriculture. Animal 2, 653660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Janssen, PH & Kirs, M (2008) Structure of the archaeal community of the rumen. Appl Environ Microbiol 74, 36193625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Moon-van der Staay, SY, van der Staay, GWM, Javorský, P et al. (2002) Diversity of rumen ciliates revealed by 18S ribosomal DNA analysis. Reprod Nutr Dev 42, S76.Google Scholar
32.Tuckwell, DS, Nicholson, MJ, McSweeney, CS et al. (2005) The rapid assignment of ruminal fungi to presumptive genera using ITS1 and ITS2 RNA secondary structures to produce group-specific fingerprints. Microbiology 151, 15571567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.MacRae, JC & Ulyatt, MJ (1974) Quantitative digestion of fresh herbage by sheep. 2. Sites of digestion of some nitrogenous constituents. J Agric Sci 82, 309319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.MacRae, JC & Theodorou, MK (2003) Potentials for enhancing the animal and human nutrition perspectives of grazing systems. In Crop Quality: Its Role in Sustainable Livestock Production. Aspects of Applied Biology, vol. 70, pp. 93100 [Abberton, MT Amdrews, M Skøt L, L and Theodorou, MK, editors]. Warwick, UK: Association of Applied Biologists.Google Scholar
35.Dewhurst, RJ, Mitton, AM, Offer, NW et al. (1996) Effect of the composition of grass silages on milk production and nitrogen utilisation by dairy cows. Anim Sci 62, 2534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36.Bennett, RN & Wallsgrove, RM (1994) Secondary metabolites in plant defense-mechanisms. New Phytologist 127, 617633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.Kliebenstein, DJ (2004) Secondary metabolites and plant/environment interactions: a view through Arabidopsis thaliana tinged glasses. Plant Cell Environ 27, 675684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.Metlen, KL, Aschehoug, ET & Callaway, RM (2009) Plant behavioural plasticity in secondary metabolites. Plant Cell Environ 32, 641653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39.Bidart-Bouzat, MG & Imeh-Nathaniel, A (2008) Global change effects on plant chemical defenses against insect herbivores. J Integr Plant Biol 50, 13391354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40.Allison, MJ, Mayberry, WR, McSweeney, CS et al. (1992) Synergistes jonesii, gen-nov, sp-nov – a rumen bacterium that degrades toxic pyridinediols. Syst Appl Microbiol 15, 522529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41.Hammond, AC (1995) Leucaena toxicosis and its control in ruminants. J Anim Sci 73, 14871492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42.Wallace, RJ (2008) Gut microbiology – broad genetic diversity, yet specific metabolic niches. Animal 2, 661668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43.Min, BR, Barry, TN, Attwood, GT et al. (2003) The effect of condensed tannins on the nutrition and health of ruminants fed fresh temperate forages: a review. Animal Feed Sci Technol 106, 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44.Hoste, H, Jackson, F, Athanasiadou, S et al. (2006) The effects of tannin-rich plants on parasitic nematodes in ruminants. Trends Parasitol 22, 253261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45.Niederhorn, V & Baumont, R (2009) Associative effects between forages on feed intake and digestion in ruminants. Animal 3, 951960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46.Reed, JD (1995) Nutritional toxicology of tannins and related polyphenols in forage legumes. J Anim Sci 73, 15161528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
47.Aerts, RJ, Barry, TN & McNabb, WC (1999) Polyphenols and agriculture: beneficial effects of proanthocyanidins in forages. Agric Ecosyst Environ 75, 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48.McMahon, LR, McAllister, TA, Berg, BP et al. (2000) A review of the effects of forage condensed tannins on ruminal fermentation and bloat in grazing cattle. Can J Plant Sci 80, 469485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49.Theodorou, MK, Barahona, R, Kingston-Smith, A et al. (2000) New perspectives on the degradation of plant biomass in the rumen in the absence and presence of condensed tannins. In Proceedings of an International Workshop on Tannins in Livestock and Human Nutrition, Adelaide, Australia, 31 May–2 June 1999. ACIAR Proceedings Series, vol. 92, pp. 4451 [Brooker, JD]. Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). ISBN: 1863202765Google Scholar
50.Robbins, MP, Paolocci, F, Hughes, J-W et al. (2003) Sn, a maize bHLH gene, modulates anthocyanin and condensed tannin pathways in Lotus corniculatus. J Exp Bot 54, 239248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
51.Robbins, MP, Bavage, AD, Strudwicke, C et al. (1998) Genetic manipulation of condensed tannins in higher plants II. Analysis of birdsfoot trefoil plants harboring antisense dihydroflavonol reductase constructs. Plant Physiol 116, 11331144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
52.Dixon, RA, Xie, D-Y & Sharma, SB (2005) Proanthocyanidins – a final frontier in flavonoid research? New Phytologist 165, 928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53.Marles, MA, Ray, H & Gruber, MY (2003) New perspectives on proanthocyanidin biochemistry and molecular regulation. Phytochemistry 64, 367383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
54.Parveen, I, Threadgill, MD, Moorby, JM et al. (2010) Oxidative phenols in forage crops containing polyphenol oxidase enzymes. J Agric Food Chem 58, 13711382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
55.Lee, MRF, Olmos Colmenero Jde, J, Winters, AL et al. (2006) Polyphenol oxidase activity in grass and its effect on plant-mediated lipolysis and proteolysis of Dactylis glomerata (Cocksfoot) in a simulated rumen environment. J Sci Food Agric 86, 15031511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56.Theodorou, MK, Kingston-Smith, AH, Winters, AL et al. (2006) Polyphenols and their influence on gut function and health in ruminants: a review. Environ Chem Lett 4, 121126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57.Winters, AL, Heywood, S, Farrar, K et al. (2009) Identification of an extensive gene cluster among a family of PPOs in Trifolium pratense L. using a large insert BAC library. BMC Plant Biol 9, 94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
58.Lee, MRF, Tweed, JKS, Minchin, FR et al. (2009) Red clover polyphenol oxidase: activation activity and efficacy under grazing. Anim Feed Sci Technol 149, 250264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
59.Abrahamse, PA, Dijkstra, J, Vlaeminck, B et al. (2008) Frequent allocation of rotationally grazed dairy cows changes grazing behavior and improves productivity. J Dairy Sci 91, 20332045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
60.Kingston-Smith, AH, Davies, TE, Edwards, JE et al. (2008) From plants to animals; the role of plant cell death in ruminant herbivores. J Exp Bot 59, 521532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
61.Kingston-Smith, AH, Bollard, AL, Armstead, IP et al. (2003) Proteolysis and cell death in clover leaves is induced by grazing. Protoplasma 220, 119129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
62.Beha, EM, Theodorou, MK & Kingston-Smith, AH (2002) Grass cells ingested by ruminants undergo autolysis which differs from senescence: implications for grass breeding targets and livestock production. Plant Cell Environ 25, 12991312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
63.Kingston-Smith, AH, Merry, RJ, Leemans, DK et al. (2005) Evidence in support of a role for plant-mediated proteolysis in the rumens of grazing animals. Br J Nutr 93, 7379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
64.Simova-Stoilova, L, Demirevska, K, Petrova, T et al. (2009) Antioxidative protection and proteolytic activity in tolerant and sensitive wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varieties subjected to long-term field drought. Plant Growth Regul 58, 107117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
65.Beers, EP, Woffenden, BJ & Zhao, CS (2003) Plant proteolytic enzymes: possible roles during programmed cell death. Plant Mol Biol 44, 399415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
66.Thomas, H & Stoddart, JL (1980) Leaf Senescence. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 31, 83111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
67.Howarth, CJ & Ougham, HJ (1993) Tansley Review 51. Gene-expression under temperature stress. New Phytologist 125, 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
68.Kingston-Smith, AH & Thomas, HM (2003) Strategies of plant breeding for improved rumen function. Ann Appl Biol 142, 1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
69.Feller, U (1986) Plant proteolytic enzymes in relation to leaf senescence. In Plant Proteolytic Enzymes, pp. 4968 [Dalling, MJ]. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
70.Winter, H, Robinson, DG & Heldt, HW (1994) Subcellular volumes and metabolite concentrations in spinach leaves. Planta 193, 530535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
71.Kingston-Smith, AH, Bollard, AL, Shaw, RK et al. (2003) Correlations between protein content and protease activity in forage crops. Crop quality: its role in sustainable livestock production. Aspects Appl Biol 70, 101106.Google Scholar
72.Pichard, GR, Tesser, BR, Vives, C et al. (2007) Proteolysis and characterization of peptidases in forage plants. Agronomy J 98, 13921399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
73.McAllister, TA, Bae, HD, Jones, GA et al. (1994) Microbial attachment and feed digestion in the rumen. J Anim Sci 72, 30043018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
74.Tajima, K, Aminov, RI, Nagamine, T et al. (1999) Rumen bacterial diversity as determined by sequence analysis of 16S rDNA libraries. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 29, 159169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
75.Koike, S, Yoshitani, S, Kobayashi, Y et al. (2003) Phylogenetic analysis of fiber-associated rumen bacterial community and PCR detection of uncultured bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Lett 229, 2330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
76.Mayorga, OL, Huws, SA, Kim, EJ et al. (2007) Microbial colonisation and subsequent biofilm formation by ruminal microorganisms on fresh perennial ryegrass. Microbiol Ecol Health Dis 19, 26.Google Scholar
77.Costerton, JW, Cheng, KJ, Geesey, GG et al. (1987) Bacterial biofilms in nature and disease. Annu Rev Microbiol 41, 435464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
78.Edwards, JE, Huws, SA, Kim, EJ et al. (2007) Characterisation of the dynamics of initial bacterial colonisation of non-conserved forage in the rumen. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 62, 323335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
79.Edwards, JE, Kingston-Smith, AH, Jimenez, HR et al. (2008) Dynamics of initial colonisation of non-conserved perennial ryegrass by anaerobic fungi in the bovine rumen. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 66, 537545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
80.Mayorga, OL, Huws, SA, Kim, EJ et al. (2010) Temporal and spatial colonisation of rumen protozoa on fresh perennial ryegrass. In Gut Microbiome: Functionality, Interaction with the Host and Impact on the Environment. INRA-RRI. 18–20th June, Clermont Ferrand, France. Proc Nutr Soc (In the Press).Google Scholar
81.Kingston-Smith, AH, Bollard, AL, Thomas, BJ et al. (2003) Nutrient availability during the early stages of colonization of fresh forage by rumen micro-organisms. New Phytologist 158, 119130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
82.Miller, LA, Moorby, JM, Davies, DR et al. (2001) Increased concentration of water-soluble carbohydrate in perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.). Milk production from late-lactation dairy cows. Grass Forage Sci 56, 383394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
83.Shaw, RK (2005) Effects of gene transfer from Festuca to Lolium on plant-mediated proteolysis. PhD Thesis, University of Wales, Aberystwyth.Google Scholar
84.Abberton, MT, Marshall, AH, Humphreys, MW et al. (2008) Genetic improvement of forage species to reduce the environmental impact of temperate livestock grazing systems. Adv Agronomy 98, 311355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Scanning electron microscopy image of a biofilm community on a perennial ryegrass leaf following 2 h of incubation under ruminal conditions. Scale: 1 μm.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Rumen microbial degradation of Lotus corniculatus. Leaf discs (5 mm) of L. corniculatus were anaerobically incubated in 10% (v/v) rumen fluid at 39°C for 24 h prior to being stained for the presence of condensed tannins (purple) with 4-dimethylaminocinnamaldehyde. Representative light microscopy images of leaf discs before (A) and after 24 h of incubation (B) show the preferential degradation of non-tanniferous areas of the leaf tissue (C).