Advertisement

Euphytica

, Volume 185, Issue 1, pp 37–45 | Cite as

QTL associated with barley (Hordeum vulgare) feed quality traits measured through in situ digestion

  • Peter W. Gous
  • Anke Martin
  • Wendy Lawson
  • Alison Kelly
  • Glen P. Fox
  • Mark W. SutherlandEmail author
Article

Abstract

Barley (Hordeum vulgare) is a major feed source for the intensive livestock industry. Competitiveness against other cereal grains depends largely on the price per unit of expressed feed quality. The traits which contribute to feed quality in barley are largely quantitative in nature but little is known about their genetic control. A study to identify the quantitative trait loci (QTLs) associated with feed quality was performed using a F6-derived recombinant inbred barley population. Samples from each line were incubated in the rumen of fistulated cattle, recovered, washed and dried for determination of in situ dry matter digestibility. Additionally, both pre- and post-digestion samples were analysed to quantify the content of key quality components relating to acid detergent fibre, total starch and protein. The data was used to identify trait-associated QTLs. Genetic analysis identified significant QTLs on chromosomes 2H, 5H and 7H. Genetic markers linked to these QTL should provide an effective tool for the selection and improvement of feed barley in the future.

Keywords

ADF Barley DMD Feed quality Protein QTL Starch 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the Grain Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) and the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI) for funding the project. We thank Donna Hocroft (DEEDI) and Jim Kidd (CAAS) for all their time and aid in sample preparation for the phenotypic trial and for maintaining the cattle herd.

References

  1. Anderson MK, Reinbergs E (1985) Barley breeding. Barley agronomy monograph, 26th edn. American Society of Agronomy, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowman JGP, Blake TK, Surber LMM, Habernicht DK, Bockelman H (2001) Feed quality variation in the barley core collection of the USDA national small grains collection. Crop Sci (41):863–870Google Scholar
  3. Butler DG, Cullis BR, Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ (2009) ASReml-R reference manual release, 3 edn. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  4. Churchill GA, Doerge RW (1994) Empirical threshold values for quantitative trait mapping. Genetics 138:963–971PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Coombes NE (2002) The reactive tabu search for efficient correlated experimental designs. Liverpool John Moores University, LiverpoolGoogle Scholar
  6. Fox G, Kelly A, Bowman J, Inkerman A, Poulsen D, Henry R (2009) Is malting barley better feed for cattle than feed barley? J Inst Brew 115(2):95–104Google Scholar
  7. Herrera-Saldana RE, Huber JT, Poore MH (1990) Dry matter, crude protein and starch degradability of five cereal grains. J Dairy Sci 73:2386–2393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Khorasani GR, Helm J, Kennelly JJ (2000) In situ rumen degradation characteristics of sixty cultivars barley grain. Can J Anim Sci 80:691–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lawson W, Mace E, Collard BCY, Fox G, Kelly A, Sutherland M, Franckowiak J, Bowman J (2009) Investigating the molecular dynamics of feed quality traits in two barley F6-derived RIL populations. Paper presented at the Australian Plant Breeding Conference, CairnsGoogle Scholar
  10. Martin P, Mackinnon D, Dharma S, Liao B, Phillips P, Crooks S, Penm J (2009) Australian farm survey results. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  11. Matsushima JK (1979) Feeding beef cattle. Advances series in agriculture sciences. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. McDonald P, Edwards RA, Greenhalgh JFD, Morgan CA (1995) Animal Nutrition, 5th edn. Longman Scientific and Technical, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Patterson HD, Thompson R (1971) Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58:545–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rebetzke G (2007) CSIRO: barley overview. CSIRO. 2009Google Scholar
  15. Roberts I, Haseltine C, Maliyasena A (2009) Factors affecting Australian agricultural exports. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  16. Smith W (1995) Crop production: evolution, history and technology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Soest PJV (1994) Nutritional ecology of the Ruminant, 2nd edn. Cornell University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Surber LMM, Bowman JGP, Blake TK, Hinman DD, Boss DL, Blackhurst TC (2000) Prediction of barley feed quality for beef cattle from laboratory analyses. Proc West Sect Am Soc Anim Sci (51):454–457Google Scholar
  19. Voorrips RE (2002) MapChart: software for the graphical presentation of linkage maps and QTLs. J Hered 93:77–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wang S, Basten CJ, Zeng Z-B (2002) Windows QTL Cartographer: WinQtlCart V2.0Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter W. Gous
    • 1
    • 4
  • Anke Martin
    • 1
  • Wendy Lawson
    • 2
  • Alison Kelly
    • 3
  • Glen P. Fox
    • 3
    • 5
  • Mark W. Sutherland
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Centre for Systems BiologyUniversity of Southern QueenslandToowoombaAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Employment, Economic Development and InnovationHermitage Research FacilityWarwickAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Employment, Economic Development and InnovationLeslie Research FacilityToowoombaAustralia
  4. 4.Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food InnovationThe University of QueenslandSt. LuciaAustralia
  5. 5.Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, Leslie Research FacilityThe University of QueenslandToowoombaAustralia

Personalised recommendations