1. Forage Research in Canada Past 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 –Changing priorities –Changes in forage production –Some achievements 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, Increasing yield Emphasis on inputs –e.g. fertilizers

4. The 80’s, Increasing yield Emphasis on inputs Marginal lands –Establishment of legume species on shallow soils in eastern Ontario –Efficiency of subsurface drainage in New Brunswick

5. The 90’s, Environment and climate change Greenhouse gases –N 2 O, CH 4 N and P losses Global changes –Temperature, CO 2

6. The 2000’s, New uses of forage crops Energy from crops without affecting food production –Perennial crops –Marginal lands –Low cost inputs

7. Changes in forage production Overall increase in Canada (+39%) –Decrease in eastern Canada but increase in western Canada from 1976 to 2006 –Québec (-24%), Ontario (-10%) –Loosing ground to annual crops in Québec and Ontario

8. Changes in forage production Overall increase in Canada (+39%) –Decrease in eastern Canada but increase in western Canada from 1976 to 2006 –Québec (-24%), Ontario (-10%) –Loosing ground to annual crops in Québec and Ontario No yield increases or even a decrease in regional yield data (Jefferson and Selles, 2007)

9. 9 Hay yield decline in Saskatchewan Adapted from Jefferson and Larson. 2014. Can. J. Plant Sci. 94: 1-4.

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

11. Changes in forage production Overall increase in Canada (+39%) –Decrease in eastern Canada but increases in western Canada from 1976 to 2006 –Québec (-24%), Ontario (-10%) –Loosing ground to annual crops in Québec and Ontario No yield increases or even a decrease in regional yield 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 recommended species Winter tolerance of alfalfa –Apica, AC caribou Yield in 2 nd and 3 rd year of red clover –AC Endure Better seedling vigor of trefoil –AC Langille

14. Achievements – A few examples New species Meadow bromegrass Tall fescue Bromegrass hybrids Sainfoin

15. Achievements – A few examples Management Cutting management of alfalfa Importance of N reserves for regrowth. Fall cutting management based on number of growing degree days.

16. Achievements – A few examples Management Cutting management of alfalfa Swath grazing

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

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

19. Achievements – A few examples Management Cutting management of alfalfa Swath grazing 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 CO 2 ) 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 CO 2, longer growing season, precipitation distribution

26. Global change +3ºC, elevated CO 2, longer growing season, precipitation distribution Bélanger et al. 2002.

27. Global change +3ºC, elevated CO 2, longer growing season, precipitation distribution Bélanger et al. 2002. Jing et al. 2014.

28. Global change +3ºC, elevated CO 2, 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 CO 2, 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 Increased food demand on a limited land base Forage solutions –More forage production on marginal lands Tolerance to abiotic stresses

31. Feeding the planet Increased food demand on a limited land base Forage solutions –More forage production on marginal lands Tolerance to abiotic stresses –More forage in ruminant diets Better forage nutritive value

32. Feeding the planet Increased food demand on a limited land base Forage solutions –More forage production on marginal lands Tolerance to abiotic stresses –More forage in ruminant diets Better forage nutritive value (digestibility) –Intensification of production Increasing the crop potential Reducing the yield gap

33. From actual to potential yield Actual Soil, Water & nutrient limited Potential Crop features Radiation Temperature CO 2 Defining factors Yield Production situation Water Nutrients Soil Limiting factors Weeds Insects Diseases Reducing factors Adapted from Oenema et al. 2014. Crop & Pasture Science 65: 524-537.

34. Yield (t/ha) gap for alfalfa in the US NortheastLake States Northern Plains Cultivar trials 17.511.617.0 2007 Census Top 10% farms 8.79.29.9 Median farms4.0 4.7 Russelle, M.P. 2013. Forage and Grazinglands.

35. Challenges and opportunities Greater role of forages in feeding ruminants –Improved nutritive value Greater role of perennial legumes –Improved persistence 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 –Increased yield

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 yield potential −Increasing radiation capture in early spring or after a harvest e.g. timothy with no leaves after harvest −Increasing shoot/root ratio −Increasing photosynthetic efficiency

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

38. Forage yield Increasing yield = reduced nutritive value and persistence –Negative relationship between yield and nutritive value Sown swards Species-rich pastures

39. Forage yield Increasing yield = reduced nutritive value and persistence –Negative relationship between yield and nutritive value –More growth in fall (less dormancy) or a fall harvest might reduce persistence

40. Nutritive value Increasing nutritive value without affecting DM yield and persistence –Frequent cutting improves nutritive value but reduces seasonal yield and persistence –Breeding for improved nutritive value often results in lower DM yield

41. Nutritive value Increasing nutritive value without affecting DM yield Claessens et al. (2004, 2005 ) Selection based on low ADL/CEL ratio improves timothy DM digestibility with no reduction in DM yield. Similar results in alfalfa (Lamb et al. 2014).

42. Persistence Long-term persistence of some forage species is 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 A-TF1 APICA A-TF4 EV-TF2 EVOL From Yves Castonguay et al. Apica A-TF6 Alfalfa

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

45. Can we improve them all… Yield Persistence Nutritive value Farm system

46. Some challenges for forage research Significant progress has been made. Forages vs. corn, wheat? Less public and private investment Complexity of forage crops –Species, mixtures, cultivars Legumes (6) and grasses (11) Mixtures (12-18) –Outbreeding, harvest index –Management and environment interactions

47. Yield Nutritive value Persistence A multidisplinary approach is needed Management Cultivars Agronomy Breeding Crop physiology Biochemistry Animal nutrition Molecular biology System analysis

48. Some challenges for forage research Problems are inherently multidisciplinary in nature Short-term experiments are often favoured by administrators (short funding cycles) Long-term experiments are needed to assess ecological services (Norsberger 2010)

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

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

51. Summary Contexte (drivers) changes all the time. Significant progress has been made. Yield, quality, and persistence still central to forage management. Forage research is needed more than ever. –Multidisciplinary teams –System approach –New tools “Nothing we can do can change the past, but everything we do changes the future” (Ashleigh Brilliant)

52. Thanks to the CFGA Leadership Award sponsored by New Holland