Forage Research in Canada Past Lessons for a Better Future

1. Forage Research in CanadaPast Lessons for a Better Future Gilles Bélanger Soils and Crops Research and Development Centre Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 5th Annual CFGA Conference and Annual General Meeting

2. Outline • The past • Changingpriorities • Changes in forage production • Someachievements • The future • Main drivers • Challenges and opportunities • My observations from 30 years of forage research. • Emphasis on agronomy and breeding. • Focus on eastern Canada.

3. The 80’s, Increasingyield • Emphasis on inputs • e.g. fertilizers

4. The 80’s, Increasingyield • Emphasis on inputs • Marginal lands • Establishment of legumespecies on shallowsoils in eastern Ontario • Efficiency of subsurface drainage in New Brunswick

5. The 90’s, Environment and climate change • Greenhousegases • N2O, CH4 • N and P losses • Global changes • Temperature, CO2

6. The 2000’s, New uses of forage crops • Energyfromcropswithoutaffectingfood production • Perennialcrops • Marginal lands • Lowcost inputs

7. Changes in forage production • Overallincrease in Canada (+39%) • Decrease in eastern Canada but increase in western Canada from 1976 to 2006 • Québec (-24%), Ontario (-10%) • Loosingground to annualcropsin Québec and Ontario

8. Changes in forage production • Overallincrease in Canada (+39%) • Decrease in eastern Canada but increase in western Canada from 1976 to 2006 • Québec (-24%), Ontario (-10%) • Loosingground to annualcropsin Québec and Ontario • No yieldincreases or even a decrease in regionalyield data (Jefferson and Selles, 2007)

9. Hay yielddecline in Saskatchewan Adaptedfrom Jefferson and Larson. 2014. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 1-4. 9

10. Forage yield in Québec Takenfrom: Portrait, constats et enjeux du secteur des plantes fourragères au Québec, CQPF, April 2010. 10

11. Changes in forage production • Overallincrease in Canada (+39%) • Decrease in eastern Canada but increases in western Canada from 1976 to 2006 • Québec (-24%), Ontario (-10%) • Loosingground to annualcrops in Québec and Ontario • No yieldincreases or even a decrease in regionalyield data • Increase in nutritive value

12. Percent of 1st-crop hay harvested by June 1 in Wisconsin, 1980-2012 (NASS) Rankin, M. 2013. Proc. 2103 Crop Management Conference, Vol. 52.

13. Achievements – A few examples Breeding of recommendedspecies • Winter tolerance of alfalfa • Apica, AC caribou • Yieldin 2nd and 3rdyear of redclover • AC Endure • Betterseedlingvigor of trefoil • AC Langille

14. Achievements – A few examples New species • Meadowbromegrass • Tallfescue • Bromegrasshybrids • Sainfoin

15. Achievements – A few examples Management • Cutting management of alfalfa • Importance of N reserves for regrowth. • Fallcutting management based on number of growingdegreedays.

16. Achievements – A few examples Management • Cutting management of alfalfa • Swathgrazing

17. Achievements – A few examples Management • Cutting management of alfalfa • Swathgrazing • Specialized forages • Forages for dry cows Tremblay et al. 2006

18. Achievements – A few examples Management • Cutting management of alfalfa and otherspecies • Swathgrazing • Specialized forages • Forage for dry cows • Sweet forages Photo: C. Morin Pelletier et al. 2010

19. Achievements – A few examples Management • Cutting management of alfalfa • Swathgrazing • Specialized forages • Forages for dry cows • Sweet forages • Se-enriched forages

20. The future? Three main drivers … • Sustainability of milk and meat production systems • Global change (+ 3ºC; elevated CO2) • Feeding the planet

21. Sustainability • Profitability and acceptability • Economic, environmental, and social dimensions

22. Sustainability • Profitability and acceptability • Economic, environmental, and social dimensions • Forage solutions • Greater role of forages in feeding ruminants • Less grain crops fed to ruminants • Needs better forage nutritive value

23. Sustainability • Profitability and acceptability • Economic, environmental, and social dimensions • Forage solutions • Greater role of forages in feeding ruminants • Less grain crops fed to ruminants • Needs better forage nutritive value • Greater role of perennial legumes • Less fertilizer N • Needs better legume persistence

24. Sustainability • Profitability and acceptability • Economic, environmental, and social dimensions • Forage solutions • Greater role of forages in feeding ruminants • Less grain crops fed to ruminants • Needs better forage nutritive value • Greater role of perennial legumes • Less fertilizer N • Needs better legume persistence • Increased yield • Better profitability (farm income) • Improved use efficiency of inputs

25. Global change • +3ºC, elevated CO2, longer growing season, precipitation distribution

26. Global change • +3ºC, elevated CO2, longer growing season, precipitation distribution Bélanger et al. 2002.

27. Global change • +3ºC, elevated CO2, longer growing season, precipitation distribution Bélanger et al. 2002. Jing et al. 2014.

28. Global change • +3ºC, elevated CO2, longer growing season, precipitation distribution • Forage solutions • Species/Mixtures • Better adapted species (e.g. tall fescue) • Improved species (breeding) • Timothy regrowth • Legume persistence

29. Global change • +3ºC, elevated CO2, longer growing season, precipitation distribution • Forage solutions • Species/Mixtures • Better adapted species (e.g. tall fescue) • Improved species (breeding) • Management • Timing and number of harvests

30. Feeding the planet • Increasedfooddemand on a limited land base • Forage solutions • More forage production on marginal lands • Tolerance to abioticstresses

31. Feeding the planet • Increasedfooddemand on a limited land base • Forage solutions • More forage production on marginal lands • Tolerance to abioticstresses • More forage in ruminant diets • Better forage nutritive value

32. Feeding the planet • Increasedfooddemand on a limited land base • Forage solutions • More forage production on marginal lands • Tolerance to abioticstresses • More forage in ruminant diets • Better forage nutritive value (digestibility) • Intensification of production • Increasing the croppotential • Reducing the yield gap

33. Fromactual to potentialyield Cropfeatures Radiation Temperature CO2 Potential Definingfactors Soil, Water & nutrientlimited Water Nutrients Soil Limitingfactors Production situation Actual Reducingfactors Weeds Insects Diseases Yield AdaptedfromOenema et al. 2014. Crop & Pasture Science 65: 524-537.

34. Yield (t/ha) gap for alfalfa in the US Russelle, M.P. 2013. Forage and Grazinglands.

35. Challenges and opportunities • Greater role of forages in feeding ruminants • Improvednutritive value • Greater role of perennial legumes • Improvedpersistence • New options for species and management • Yield, nutritive value, and persistence • More forage production on marginal lands • Tolerance to abiotic stresses (yield and persistence) • Intensification of production • Increasedyield

36. Forage yield • Reducing the yield gap • Tolerance to weeds, insects, and diseases • Tolerance to nutrients, water, cold, salinity, and heat • Cropping and soil improvement practices • Increasing the yieldpotential • Increasing radiation capture in earlyspring or after a harvest • e.g. timothywith no leavesafterharvest • Increasing shoot/root ratio • Increasingphotosyntheticefficiency

37. Variety trial meanalfalfayield (Arlington, WI) Alfalfa: 0.25% per year Corn: 1.4% per year (Annricchiarico et al. 2014) Rankin, M. 2013. Proc. 2103 Crop Management Conference, Vol. 52.

38. Forage yield • Increasingyield = reduced nutritive value and persistence • Negativerelationshipbetweenyield and nutritive value Sown swards Species-rich pastures

39. Forage yield • Increasingyield = reduced nutritive value and persistence • Negativerelationshipbetweenyield and nutritive value • More growth in fall (lessdormancy) or a fallharvestmightreducepersistence

40. Nutritive value • Increasing nutritive value withoutaffecting DM yield and persistence • Frequentcuttingimproves nutritive value but reducesseasonalyield and persistence • Breeding for improved nutritive value oftenresults in lower DM yield

41. Nutritive value • Increasing nutritive value withoutaffecting DM yield • Selection based on low ADL/CEL ratio improves timothy DM digestibility with no reduction in DM yield. • Similarresults in alfalfa(Lamb et al. 2014). Claessens et al. (2004, 2005)

42. Persistence • Long-termpersistence of some forage speciesis possible • Timothy with the right N, P, and K fertilization • Tolerance to winter conditions • e.g. alfalfa,orchardgrass From Bertrand et al.

43. Persistence and cold tolerance Alfalfa Apica A-TF1 APICA A-TF6 A-TF4 EV-TF2 EVOL From Yves Castonguay et al.

44. Persistence and cold tolerance Alfalfa Redclover Apica A-TF6 From Yves Castonguay et al.

45. Can weimprovethem all… Farm system Yield Persistence Nutritive value

46. Some challenges for forage research • Significantprogress has been made. • Forages vs. corn, wheat? • Lesspublic and privateinvestment • Complexityof forage crops • Species, mixtures, cultivars • Legumes (6) and grasses (11) • Mixtures (12-18) • Outbreeding, harvest index • Management and environment interactions

47. A multidisplinaryapproachisneeded • Yield • Nutritive value • Persistence Agronomy Breeding Crop physiology Biochemistry Animal nutrition Molecular biology Management Cultivars System analysis

48. Some challenges for forage research • Problems are inherentlymultidisciplinary in nature • Short-termexperiments are oftenfavoured by administrators (short funding cycles) • Long-termexperiments are needed to assessecological services (Norsberger2010)

49. Summary • Contexte (drivers) changes all the time. • “Nothing is permanent but change” (Heraclitus)

50. Summary • Contexte (drivers) changes all the time. • Significantprogress has been made. • Few examples • Limited resources for forage research • Complexity of forage production