CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 147Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyCrop Yield and Soil FertilityAgricultural Productivity and Crop Improvement

Genetic variation and breeding strategies for improved cell wall digestibility in annual forage crops. A review

Open access
Barrière, Yves, Guillet, Carine, Goffner, Deborah, Pichon, Magalie·2003·Animal Research
DOI 10.1051/animres:2003018
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Forage plants are the basis of ruminant nutrition, and cell wall digestibility is the limiting factor of their feeding value.Cell wall digestibility is therefore "the" target for improving the feeding value of forage crops.Among annual forages, maize cropped for silage making is the most widely used, and much research in genetics, physiology and molecular biology of annual forages is devoted to maize.Sorghum, immature small grain cereals and straws of small grain cereals are also given to cattle.Some dicotyledons are or were also used, such as forage beets, kales, canola in temperate areas and amaranths in tropical and subtropical areas.Large genetic variation for cell wall digestibility was proved from both in vivo and in vitro experiments in numerous species.Among the regular maize hybrids (excluding brown-midrib ones), the NDF in vivo digestibility nearly doubled from 32.9 to 60.1%.Correlations between in vivo and in vitro estimates of cell wall digestibility were often close to 0.75, but in vitro estimates of cell wall digestibility significantly reduced the range of variation between genotypes.Despite lignin content is well known as the major factor making cell wall undigestible, breeding for a higher digestibility of plant only from a lignin content trait appeared impossible.Correlations between lignin content and cell wall digestibility were indeed greatly variable according to the genetic background.Moreover, enzymatic solubilities were excessively dependent on lignin, and correlation between in vivo estimates of cell wall digestibility and lignin content were always lower than correlation between in vitro estimates of cell wall digestibility and lignin content.Among brown-midrib genes, the bm3 mutant in maize, and the bmr12 (and possibly bmr18) mutant in sorghum, which are both altered in the COMT activity, appeared as the most efficient in cell wall digestibility improvement.Moreover, a great genetic variation in the efficiency of the maize bm3 gene for cell wall digestibility improvement was observed according to the genetic background, with a lower efficiency when the normal germplasm was of better cell wall digestibility.Efficient breeding maize and others annual forage plants demands a renewing of genetic resources.Because resources of interest in cell wall digestibility improvement could be of poor agronomic value, the best is likely to 193

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1051/animres:2003018

Cites

142 of 142 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. [8]8. Andrieu J., Demarquilly C., Valeur nutritive des fourrages, tables et prévisions, in: Jarrige R. (Ed.), Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins, INRA Éditions, Paris, 1988, pp. 351-471.
  2. [19]19. Baker S.K., Klein L., Minsin D.J., Purser D.B., Voluntary intake and the energy required to shear or comminute dry, mature subterranean clover, in: Proceedings of the Nutrition Society Abstr., 1992, pp. 17-74.
  3. [51]51. Capper B.S., Thomson E.F., Herbert F., Genetic variation in the feeding value of barley and wheat straw, in: Reed J.D., Capper B.S., Neate J.H. (Eds.), Plant breeding and the nutritive value of crop residues, Addis Abeba, Interna- tional livestock for Africa, 1988, pp. 177-193.
  4. [55]55. Cervantes S.J.M., Amaranth (Amanranthus spp.) as a forage, in: Proceedings of 4th Natl Amaranth Symposium, Perspectives on produc- tion, processing and marketing, Minneapolis, MN, 23-25 August 1990, pp. 47-54.
  5. [59]59. Chenost M., Fibrousness of forage, its determi- nation and its relation to feeding value, in: Proc. X Inter. Grassl. Congr., Helsinki, Finland, 7-16 July 1966, pp. 406-411.
  6. [72]72. Coors J.G., Carter P.R., Hunter R.B., Silage corn, in: Hallauer A.R. (Ed.), Specialty Corns, CRC Press, London, 1994, pp. 305-340.
  7. [89]89. Dolstra O., Medema J.H., An effective screening method for genetic improvement of cell-wall di- gestibility in forage maize, in: Proceedings of the 15th congress maize and sorghum section of Eucarpia, Baden, Austria, June 4-8 1990, pp. 258-270.
  8. [91]91. Doyle P.T., Devendra C., Pearce G.R., Rice straw as a ruminant feed, Canberra, International de- velopment press (Ed.), 1986.
  9. [104]104. Goujon T., Ferret V., Mila I., Pollet B., Ruel K., Burlat V., Lapierre C., Barrière Y., Jouanin L., Effects of down-regulation of AtCCR1 gene in Arabidopsis thaliana on external phenotype, lignins, digestible properties and monolignols pathway genes expression, Planta (2003), in press. 224 Y. Barrière et al.
  10. [112]112. Halpin C., Foxon G.A., Fentem P.A., Trans- genic plants with improved energy characteris- tics, in: Chesson A., Wallace R.J. (Eds.), Biotechnology in animal feeds and animal feed- ing, VCH Publishers, Weinheim, 1995, pp. 279-293.
  11. [138]138. Marten G.C., Barnes R.F., Prediction of energy and digestibilities of forages with in vitro ru- men fermentation and fungal enzymes systems, in: Pigden W.J., Blach C.C., Graham M. (Eds.), Procedure for standardization of analytical methodology for feeds workshop, Ottawa, Canada, 1980, pp. 61-71.
  12. [158]158. Ronsin T., Femenias N., Use of NIRS determi- nation of digestibility in a breeding program for silage maize, in: Third international conference of near infrared spectroscopy, Brussels, 1990, pp. 277-288.
  13. [168]168. Struik P.C., Physiology of forage maize (Zea mays L.) in relation to its productivity, Doctoral thesis, Wageningen, 1983, 97 p.
  14. [187]187. Zimmer E., Criteria and methods for evaluation of silage maize, in: Proceedings of Eucarpia maize and Sorghum congress, Baden, Austria, 1990, pp. 214-222.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Barrière, Y., Guillet, C., Goffner, D., & Pichon, M.
Affiliations
  • Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (FR)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Venue
Animal Research
Publisher
EDP Sciences
Published
2003-05
Volume
52
Issue
3
Pages
193-228
ISSN
  • 1627-3583 (ISSN-L)
  • 1627-3591
DOI
10.1051/animres:2003018
OpenAlex
W2151158800
Semantic Scholar
32988aa71189d1a0a924be65130c36d18650e48d
Cited by
147
References
142
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 12
FWCI
17.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Animal Research (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Springer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Crop Yield and Soil Fertility
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Agricultural Productivity and Crop Improvement
Keywords
cell wall digestibility, forage crops, maize, sorghum, brown midrib mutants, catechol-O-methyltransferase, lignin content, genetic variation, forage breeding, ruminant nutrition, forage beet, small grains

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review