Hopp til hovedinnholdet

Publikasjoner

NIBIOs ansatte publiserer flere hundre vitenskapelige artikler og forskningsrapporter hvert år. Her finner du referanser og lenker til publikasjoner og andre forsknings- og formidlingsaktiviteter. Samlingen oppdateres løpende med både nytt og historisk materiale. For mer informasjon om NIBIOs publikasjoner, besøk NIBIOs bibliotek.

2009

Sammendrag

There is hardly any commercial growing of agricultural crops for energy purposes in Norway. Cereal straw is to some extent used as solid biofuel. There is no reason to believe that production of energy crops will increase significantly in Norway in the near future, partly due to political reasons. In Denmark, Finland and Sweden cultivation of energy crops has been commercial for several years. The objective of this presentation is to give a review of the significance and types of possible energy crops in Norway, focusing on crops for biodiesel and solid biofuel.

Sammendrag

Kronikken imøtegår kritikk som har komme i pressa i februar/mars 2009 på relevans og kvalitet på Bioforsk si forsking på økologisk og konvensjonelt landbruk.

Til dokument

Sammendrag

Konferansen Arktisk Landbruk 2009 ble arrangert 16. – 17. april i Tromsø, som den femte i rekken av konferanser for landbruket i nord og Barentsregionen. Nytt av året er samarbeidet med Nordnorsk landbruksrådgiving, Troms Landbruksfaglige senter, Fylkesmannen i Troms og Nordnorsk Landbruksråd, samt et program med større fokus enn tidligere på aktive næringsutøvere. Denne utgaven av Bioforsk Fokus inneholder et sammendrag av 17 av konferansens foredrag. Innhold i denne publikasjonen følger oppsett av seksjonene i konferanseprogrammet, som var: Mulighetens marked, Næring i utvikling, Jord og planter, Fôr og fôring, Sau, Geit og Grønnsaker. For foredrag i seksjonen Gjødsling henviser vi til ovennevnte link på våre nettsider. Landbruk i Nordområdene står ovenfor utfordringer både med sikte på klima- og samfunnsutvikling. Det å få samlet så mange aktører fra Nord-Norge, Norge, og våre naboland Finland og Russland, bidrar til erfaringsutveksling, formidling av kompetanse og nettverksbygging på tvers av sektorer og landegrenser og legger dermed grunnlag for felles problemløsing av utfordringer vi alle står ovenfor.

Sammendrag

Konklusjon.Innvik: Både Agromarin og Marihøne+ gir god avling. Ingen forskjell på gjødselmengder. Ingen positiv virkning av dryppgjødsling. Brønnøysund: Både Agromarin og Marihøne gir god avling.Samspill drypp og fastgjødsel i 2009: Dryppgjødsel + fastgjødsel var positivt i 2009. Harstad: Økt mengde fastgjødsel ga større avling. Agromarin er dårligere enn Marihøne+: K-effekt? Dryppgjødsel + fastgjødsel ga større avling

Sammendrag

QTL mapping experiments aim to find the genes or mutations that contribute to phenotypic variance. This knowledge is important for biological understanding and can be utilized, e.g. for medical or breeding purposes. QTL mapping methods can be categorised as linkage analysis (LA) methods, linkage disequilibrium (LD) based methods and methods combining linkage and linkage disequilibrium analysis (LLD). The basic difference between LA and LD analysis is the calculations of the probability that two animals carry genes that are identical-by-descent (IBD) at a given point on the chromosome. LA is based on within family IBD, whereas LD is based on population-wide IBD probabilities. LA analysis is dependent on recombinations that can be observed in the genotyped data, which limits the accuracy. LD is based on historical recombinations and can find short confidence intervals, but is likely to result in false positives due to spurious associations between markers and QTL. To avoid the problems of separate LA or LD analysis, approaches combining linkage and linkage disequilibrium mapping (LLD) have been proposed. The main objective of this thesis has been to make maximum use of genotyping information from QTL mapping experiments for detecting as many as possible QTL and position them as precisely as possible. Specific issues addressed have been single versus multiple mapping methods (paper 1), the effects of including the causative mutation amongst the markers in QTL mapping experiments (paper 2) and developing a statistical test to distinguish causative from non-causative SNPs (paper 3).In paper 1 single and multi QTL fine-mapping methods were compared in a situation where two QTL were located in the analysed region. The single QTL method had problems differentiating between two QTLs when these were closely located, which often resulted in discovery of a ghost QTL between the real ones, or no clear QTL discovery. The multi QTL approach found evidence of both QTLs even when these were close (15cM). Although these differences to some extent may be explained by the different statistical approaches used by the two methods, the main conclusion from this paper is that multi QTL mapping methods should be applied when analysing QTL data. Paper 2 investigated the effect of including the causative SNP amongst the markers in a QTL mapping experiment. Both power and precision was greatly increased by including the causative mutation. When the causative mutation was not included amongst the markers the LLD method had clearly better precision and power than the association method. The increased power from including the causative SNP as marker was larger with association mapping  than LLD mapping, and when the causation was included amongst the markers the methods had similar power and precision. These differences were partly due to the test-statistics, as the association method tested directly on the markers, while the LLD method tested the midpoints of the marker brackets. Including the causative mutation as marker increases the possibility of discovering QTLs of smaller effects.The increased power and precision obtained by including the causative SNP amongst the markers, was in paper 3 used to develop a test to confirm causative SNPs. The ‘Causative SNP Test" obtained a power of 28 % in this study, while the power of QTL detection was 97 %. The low power of CST was due to strong LD between the analyzed markers. All confirmed SNPs were truly causative and correctly positioned by the CST test. Thus, if positive, this test provides a lot of evidence for causality.Results from QTL mapping experiments so far indicates that most complex traits are controlled by many genes, with mainly small effects on variance. Currently available genome sequences and sample sizes has limited power to detect QTLs with small effects and thus, reported QTLs so far only explains small proportions of observed phenotypic variance for most traits. Future prospects of complete genome sequences will increase the power to find QTLs. The recent strong focus on genome-wide association studies (GWAS) will be expected also for future experiments. This study has shown that future QTL mapping experiments should use multi QTL approaches, to avoid bias from additional QTLs. As the power of QTL mapping is greatly increased by including the causative mutation amongst the markers, one should also aim to design experiments that have high power to distinguish causative from non-causative mutations. Experiments where the relationship between the individuals is low, as is generally the case in human GWAS studies, seem to achieve this. The causality can in the next step be tested by the proposed CST test.

Sammendrag

Kva utfordringar har vi med omsyn til rett grovfôr til hest? Kva er gjort av forskning i Norge? Relativt lite er gjort og vi har heller ikkje lukkast med å skaffe finansiering til forskingsprosjekt innan dette temaet. Men i og med at det no er oppretta eit felles svensk-norsk forskingsprogam innan hest vil det truleg verte enklare å få støtte til prosjekt.