Skip to main content
  • 548 Accesses

Abstract

Current viewpoints on animal production systems are being challenged in many parts of the world by the importance of safeguarding their long-term environmental stability and improving productivity. Pressure for change is arising from a range of environmental problems including dryland salinity, degradation of rangeland grazing systems and desertification; the need to address growing resistance to chemical anthelmintic drugs [3] and pressure to reduce the use of antimicrobial drugs in livestock production [8]. Plants with anthelmintic properties are of special interest because of a growing problem of nematode resistance to the chemical anthelmintics. There is also concern that antibiotics used in stock feed will lead to development of resistant organisms that could harm human health. The European Union has applied a total ban on antibiotics in stock feed and producers in other countries will be under pressure to follow suit to gain entry into European markets. Global warming is also an important issue where we need to adapt to maintain productive capacity while contending with more variable rainfall patterns while reducing greenhouse gas release into the atmosphere, a particular issue with methane production from ruminant animals. These various pressures have led to an increase in the interest in exploring global plant diversity for solutions to these issues and “natural” alternatives to the chemicals used in livestock production. Financial and human resources determine the extent to which we can explore our plant diversity, which means we have to make a choice about which to include in a screening programme. In this Chapter, we have used our research programme as an example of an approach that can be taken to selecting plants for a large-scale screening programme. We acknowledge that ours is just one approach of many that can be taken and is shaped by the goals of our programme, but the principles behind our approach can be applied to more broadly to any screening programme.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bennell, M., T. Hobbs, and M. Ellis. 2008. FloraSearch species and industry evaluation, p. 154. A report for the RIRDC/Land and Water Australia/FWPRDC/MDBC Joint Venture Agroforestry Program, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cork, S.J. and W.J. Foley. 1991. Digestive and metabolic strategies of arboreal mammalian folivores in relation to chemical defenses in temperate and tropical forests, pp. 133–136. In R.T. Palo and C.T. Robbins (eds.), Plant Defences Against Mammalian Herbivory. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hordegen, P., H. Hertzberg, J. Heilmann, W. Langhans, and V. Maurer. 2003. The anthelmintic efficacy of five plant products against gastrointestinal trichostrongylids in artificially infected lambs. Vet. Parasitol. 117:51–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hughes, S.J., R. Snowball, K.F.M. Reed, B. Cohen, K. Gajda, A.R. Williams, and S.L. Groeneweg. 2008. The systematic collection and characterisation of herbaceous forage species for recharge and discharge environments in southern Australia. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 48:397–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Palombo, E.A. and S.J. Semple. 2001. Antibacterial activity of traditional Australian medicinal plants. J. Ethnopharmacol. 77:151–157.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Revell, D. and M. Bennell. 2006. Multipurpose grazing systems using perennial woody species. Report of Workshop held 8–9 December 2004. RIRDC Publication No 06/030, Canberra, ACT.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Rogers, M.E., A.C. Craig, R.E. Munns, T.D. Colmer, P.G.H. Nichols, C.V. Malcolm, E.G. Barrett-Lennard, A.J. Brown, W.S. Semple, P.M. Evans, K. Cowley, S.J. Hughes, R. Snowball, S.J. Bennett, D.G. Sweeney, B.S. Dear, and M.A. Ewing. 2005. The potential for developing fodder plants for the salt-affected areas of southern and eastern Australia: an overview. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 45:301–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wegener, H.C. 2003. Antibiotics in animal feed and their role in resistance development. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 6:439–445.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mike Bennell .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 International Atomic Energy Agency

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bennell, M., Hobbs, T., Hughes, S., K. Revell, D. (2010). Selecting Potential Woody Forage Plants That Contain Beneficial Bioactives. In: Vercoe, P., Makkar, H., Schlink, A. (eds) In vitro screening of plant resources for extra-nutritional attributes in ruminants: nuclear and related methodologies. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3297-3_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics