On Systems Thinking, Systems Biology, and the in Silico Plant

The recent summary report of a Department of Energy Workshop on Plant Systems Biology (P.V. Minorsky [2003] Plant Physiol 132: 404-409) offered a welcomed advocacy for systems analysis as essential in understanding plant development, growth, and production. The goal of the Workshop was to consider methods for relating the results of molecular research to real-world challenges in plant production for increased food supplies, alternative energy sources, and environmental improvement. The rather surprising feature of this report, however, was that the Workshop largely overlooked the rich history of plant systems analysis extending over nearly 40 years (Sinclair and Seligman, 1996) that has considered exactly those challenges targeted by the Workshop. Past systems research has explored and incorporated biochemical and physiological knowledge into plant simulation models from a number of perspectives. The research has resulted in considerable understanding and insight about how to simulate plant systems and the relative contribution of various factors in influencing plant production. These past activities have contributed directly to research focused on solving the problems of increasing biomass production and crop yields. These modeling approaches are also now providing an avenue to enhance integration of molecular genetic technologies in plant improvement (Hammer et al., 2002).

Responses to various protein and energy supplements by steers fed low-quality tropical hay. 1. Comparison of response surfaces for young steers

Response curves were established for different supplements, offered at intakes ranging from 0 to 20 g/kg liveweight (W).day to young Bos indicus crossbred steers fed low-quality Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) hay ad libitum in two pen experiments. Supplements included protein meals of varying rumen-degradability (cottonseed meal (CSM) or fishmeal), as well as ‘energy sources’ comprising grains of high and low ruminal starch degradability (barley and sorghum) and a highly fermentable sugar source (molasses), with all diets adjusted for rumen-degradable nitrogen and mineral content. Unsupplemented steers gained 0.08 and 0.15 kg/day, in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively. Growth of steers increased linearly with intake of ‘energy source’ supplements in increasing order of molasses, sorghum and barley (all differences P < 0.05). Steer growth rate also increased linearly with fishmeal, albeit over a narrow intake range (0–4.1 g/kg W.day), whereas the response with CSM was asymptotic, showing a steep response at low intake before levelling at ~1.2 kg/day. All supplement types were associated with a linear reduction in hay intake by the steers (energy substitution) where the reduction was greater (P < 0.05) for barley and molasses (not different) than for sorghum (P < 0.05), and for fishmeal compared with CSM (P < 0.05). In concurrent metabolism studies with the same rations, organic matter digestibility of the total ration (561–578 g/kg DM, unsupplemented) was increased linearly by barley and molasses (both P < 0.05) but was unaffected by CSM and sorghum supplements. The efficiency of microbial protein synthesis in steers increased linearly, from 91 g microbial crude protein/kg digestible organic matter (unsupplemented), in both molasses and CSM-supplemented steers, with the trend for a higher response to molasses (P = 0.05), and appeared most closely related to digestible organic matter intake. The response curves from these studies provide the practical framework upon which to formulate rations for cattle grazing low-quality forages.