Special issue: Interlaken International Conference Numero especial ...

412007

2 0

0 7

41

Special issue:Interlaken International Conference

Numero especial:Conferencia Internacional de Interlaken

Numéro spécial:Conférence Internationale d’Interlaken

9 7 8 9 2 5 0 0 5 7 6 4 4TC/D/A1206Tri/1/07.07/2400

ISBN 978-92-5-005764-4 ISSN 1014-2339

ISBN 978-92-5-005764-4

Editors - Editeurs - Editores:S. Galal & I. Hoffmann

Viale delle Terme di Caracalla,00153 Rome, Italy

Animal Genetic Resources Information ispublished under the auspices of the Foodand Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO). It is edited in theAnimal Genetic Resources Group of theAnimal Production and Health Divisionof FAO. It is available direct from FAO orthrough FAO sales agents.

ANIMAL GENETIC RESOURCESINFORMATION will be sent free of chargeto those concerned with the sustainabledevelopment conservation of domesticlivestock. Anyone wishing to receive itregularly should send their name andaddress to the Editor, at the addressshown above.AGRI can also be found in the “Library”of DAD-IS at www.fao.org/dad-is.

Le Bulletin d’information sur les ressourcesgénétiques animales est publié sous lesauspices de l’Organisation des NationsUnies pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture(FAO). Cette publication est éditée par leGroupe des ressources génétiques de laDivision de la production et de la santéanimales de la FAO. On peut se le procurerdirectement au siège de la FAO ou auprèsdes dépositaires et agents de vente despublications de l’Organisation.

LE BULLETIN D’INFORMATION SURLES RESSOURCES GÉNÉTIQUESANIMALES sera envoyé gratuitement auxpersonnes intéressées par ledéveloppement durable et la conservationdu cheptel national. Les personnessouhaitant recevoir cette publicationrégulièrement voudront bien faire parvenirleurs nom et adresse à l’éditeur, àl’adresse susmentionnée.AGRI peut être consulté également dansla “Bibliothèque” de DAD: www.fao.org/dad-is.

El Boletín de información sobre recursosgenéticos animales se publica bajo losauspicios de la Organización de lasNaciones Unidas para la Agricultura y laAlimentación (FAO). Se edita en el Grupode Recursos Zoogenéticos de la Direcciónde Producción y Sanidad Animal de laFAO. Se puede obtener directamente de laFAO o a través de sus agentes de venta.

EL BOLETÍN DE INFORMACIÓN SOBRERECURSOS GENÉTICOS ANIMALES seráenviado gratuitamente a quienes esténinteresados en el desarrollo sostenible yla conservación del ganado doméstico. Sise desea recibirlo regularmente, se ruegacomunicar nombre, apellido y direcciónal editor a la dirección arriba indicada.AGRI puede consultarse también en la“Biblioteca” de DAD-IS en:www.fao.org/dad-is.

ANIMAL GENETICRESOURCES INFORMATION

BULLETIND’INFORMATIONSUR LES RESSOURCESGÉNÉTIQUES ANIMALES

BOLETÍN DEINFORMACIÓN SOBRE RECURSOSGENÉTICOS ANIMALES

CONTENTS Page

412007

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES POUR L’ALIMENTATION ET L’AGRICULTURE

ORGANIZACIÓN DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS PARA LA AGRICULTURA Y LA ALIMENTACIÓN

"Table of content" continued on page 4

Editorial ..................................................................................................................... I

Passing on the fire - To further inspire people to contribute in the managementof animal genetic resources ................................................................................ 1

B. Kubbinga, I. Hoffmann & B. Scherf

Randall cattle in the USA: rescuing a genetic resource from extinction ................... 9D.P. Sponenberg, C. Creech & W.J. Miller

Puesta en valor de un sistema tradicional y de sus recursos genéticos medianteuna Indicación Geográfica: El proceso de la Carne Caprina delNorte Neuquino en la Patagonia Argentina ...................................................... 17

M. Pérez Centeno, M.R. Lanari, P. Romero, L. Monacci, M. Zimerman,M. Barrionuevo1, A. Vázquez, M. Champredonde, J. Rocca,F. López Raggi & E. Domingo

Experience in establishing a herd book for thelocal Nguni breed in South Africa .................................................................... 25

M.M. Scholtz & K.A. Ramsay

Development of international genetic evaluations of dairy cattlefor sustainable breeding programs ................................................................... 29

W.F. Fikse & J. Philipsson

Genetic diversity and sustainable managementof animal genetic resources, globally ............................................................... 45

E. Fimland

Integrating policies for the management of animal genetic resourceswith demand for livestock products and environmental sustainability ............ 53

H.D. Blackburn

What’s on the menu? Options for strengthening the policy andregulatory framework for the exchange, use and conservationof animal genetic resources1 ............................................................................ 65

S.J. Hiemstra, A.G. Drucker, M.W. Tvedt, N. Louwaars, J.K. Oldenbroek,K. Awgichew, S. Abegaz Kebede, P.N. Bhat & A. da Silva Mariante

Back to the future. How scenarios of future globalisation, biotechnology,disease and climate change can inform presentanimal genetic resources policy development .................................................. 75

A.G. Drucker, S.J. Hiemstra, N. Louwaars, J.K. Oldenbroek, M.W. Tvedt,I. Hoffmann, K. Awgichew, S. Abegaz Kebede, P.N. Bhat & A. da Silva Mariante

Regulatory options for exchange, use and conservation ofanimal genetic resources: a closer look at property right issues ...................... 91

M.W. Tvedt, S.J. Hiemstra, A.G. Drucker, N. Louwaars & J.K. Oldenbroek

Genetic impact assessments – summary of a debate ........................................... 101D. Pilling

Country Contributions ......................................................................................... 109

Recent publications ............................................................................................. 125

Editorial Policies and Procedures ......................................................................... 133

Editorial Advisory Board (EAB) of Animal Genetic Information (AGRI)

• Editor-in-Chief: I. Hoffmann, Chief Animal Production Service, FAO• Editor: S. Galal (Egypt)• Technical Editor: C. Mosconi (Italy)• Editorial Board: L. Ollivier, Chairperson (France)

L. Alderson (United Kingdom)J.S. Barker (Australia)P. Bhat (India)J.V. Delgado Bermejo (Spain)M. Djemali (Tunisia)J. Hodges (Canada)K. Ramsay (South Africa)E. Rege (ILRI)A. Tewolde (Mexico)

The following is the address for each of the members of the Editorial Advisory Board.

• Irene Hoffmann, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 1, 00100 Rome, ItalyTel.: +33 06 5705 52796, [email protected]

• Salah Galal, Animal Production Department, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ain Shams,PO Box 68, Hadaeq Shubra 11241, Cairo, EgyptTel.: +20 2 634408, [email protected]

• Louis Ollivier, INRA-Station de Génétique Quantitative et Appliquée, CRJ, Domaine de Vilvert,78352 Jouy-en-Josas Cédex, FranceTel.: +33 1 34652190, [email protected]

• Lawrence Alderson, Countrywide Livestock Ltd, 6 Harnage, SY5 6EJ Shrewsbury, Shropshire, UKTel.: +44 195 2510030, [email protected]

• J. Stuart Barker, Dept. of Animal Science, University of New England, NSW 2351 Armidale,AustraliaTel.: +61 7 54358365, [email protected]

• Pushkar Nath Bhat, Indian Association for Animal Production, World Buffalo Trust, Flat Nº 205Nº F64-C/9 Sector 40, 201 303 Noida (UP), IndiaTel.: +91 11 91579627, [email protected]

• Juan Vicente Delgado Bermejo, Departamento de Genética, Universidad de Córdoba, Campus deRabanales Edificio C-5 (Gregor Mendel), 14071 Córdoba, SpainTel.: +34 957 218661, [email protected]

• Mnouer Djemali, Institut National Agronomique de Tunis, 43, avenue Charles Nicole,Tunis, Tunisia,Tel.: +216 1 289683/289431, [email protected]

• John Hodges, Lofererfeld 16, 5730 Mittersill, Austria,Tel.: +43 6562 5481, [email protected]

• Keith Ramsay, Senior Livestock Specialist, Private Bag X 138, 0001 Pretoria, Gauteng, South AfricaTel.: +27 12 3197448, [email protected]

• Ed Rege, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), P.O. Box 30709, 00100 Nairobi, KenyaTel.: +254 20 4223201, [email protected]

• Assefaw Tewolde, Inovacion y Tecnologia/Biotecnologia, Instituto Interamerican de Cooperacionpara la Agricultura (IICA), Sede Central, Coronado, San Jose, Costa Rica, [email protected]

• Cesare Mosconi, EAAP, Via G. Tomassetti 3, 00161 Rome, ItalyTel.:+39 06 44202639, [email protected]

I○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Sustainable management of the world’s animalgenetic resources is of vital importance toagriculture, food production, rural developmentand the environment. The first InternationalTechnical Conference on Animal Genetic Resourcesto be held in Interlaken, Switzerland, in September2007 will raise awareness among stakeholders andpromote improved policy development andcooperation at all levels.

The conference will see the launch of The State ofthe World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food andAgriculture – the first global assessment of the statusand management of livestock biodiversity. The Stateof the World is the culmination of a long process ofreporting, analysis, writing and reviewing, whichhas involved a great number of individualsthroughout the world. The 169 Country Reportssubmitted to FAO were key sources of information,supplemented by reports from internationalorganizations, specially commissioned thematicstudies, and the knowledge of the authors andreviewers. The country-based reporting process hasalready stimulated policy development at nationallevel and led to the elaboration of a Global Plan ofAction for Animal Genetic Resources, which onceadopted, will provide an agenda for action by theinternational community. The InterlakenConference will mark a historic opportunity for theinternational community to make strategic choicesfor the future management of animal geneticresources.

This special issue of AGRI reflects the effortsmade by governments, INGOs, NGOs, livestockkeepers, and FAO in the area of animal geneticresources. It reviews the development of AnGR-related activities, presents examples of breed

improvement and conservation measures, anddiscusses a number of policy issues. Also includedare 17 contributions highlighting national actionsin animal genetic resources management that havebeen implemented subsequent to the preparation ofthe Country Reports on the State of Animal GeneticResources. These examples underscore thecontribution of the The State of the World process toraising awareness of animal genetic resources, andillustrate that this has led to action at technical andpolicy levels. They also highlight the need forfurther action in various aspects of animal geneticresources management.

The adoption of a Global Plan of Action for AnimalGenetic Resources is another intended outcome of theInterlaken Conference. The Global Plan of Action willprovide a basis, agreed by the internationalcommunity, to support and increase the overalleffectiveness of national, regional and global effortsfor the sustainable use, development andconservation of animal genetic resources, and tosustainably mobilize resources. It is intended as arolling plan with an initial time horizon of tenyears. Prospects for the Global Plan of Action areenhanced by a growing awareness that countriesare fundamentally interdependent with respect toanimal genetic resources for food and agriculture,and that substantial international cooperation isnecessary to ensure the effective management ofanimal genetic diversity.

We gratefully acknowledge the efforts of theauthors who contributed articles to this issue andprovided their papers at short notice.

The Editors

Editorial - The First International Technical Conference on AnimalGenetic Resources

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

II

La gestion durables des ressources génétiquesanimales au niveau mondial est d’une importancevitale pour l’agriculture, la production alimentaire,le développement rural et l’environnement. Lapremière Conférence Technique Internationale surles Ressources Génétiques Animales qui aura lieu àInterlaken, en Suisse, en septembre 2007,augmentera la sensibilisation entre les partiesintéressées du secteur de l’élevage et encourageral’amélioration des politiques de développement etde la coopération à tous les niveaux.

La conférence servira aussi au lancement dudocument sur la Situation Mondiale des RessourcesGénétiques Animales pour l’Alimentation etl’Agriculture – première évaluation au niveaumondial sur la situation et la gestion de labiodiversité en élevage. La Situation Mondiale est lepoint culminant d’un long processus fait derapports, d’analyses, de rédactions et de révisionsqui a compté avec un grand nombre d’individus enprovenance de différents parties du monde. Les169 Rapports Nationaux soumis à la FAO ont étéune source essentielle d’informations complétéesavec les rapports réalisés par les organisationsinternationales auxquelles avaient été demandé desétudes sur des thèmes spécifiques, et avec laconnaissances des auteurs et des réviseurs. Leprocessus d’élaboration des rapports nationaux acontribué à la stimulation de politiques dedéveloppement au niveau national et a porté àl’élaboration du Plan Mondial d’Action pour lesRessources Génétiques Animales qui, aprèsapprobation, permettra d’établir un agenda detravail pour les actions à réaliser par lacommunauté internationale. La Conférenced’Interlaken offrira une occasion historique à toutela communauté internationale pour définir les choixstratégiques pour la gestion future des ressourcesgénétiques animales.

Ce numéro spécial de AGRI reflète les effortsréalisés par les gouvernements, les INGO et NGO,les éleveurs et la FAO dans le domaine desressources génétiques animales. Il présente une

révision du développement des activités en relationavec les AnGR ainsi que des exemples suramélioration de race et mesures de conservation, eton discute d’un certain nombre de thèmespolitiques. Ce numéro comprend aussi 17 articlesqui soulignent les actions au niveau national dansla gestion des ressources génétiques animales quiont été entreprises comme conséquence de lapréparation des Rapports Nationaux sur laSituation des Ressources Génétiques Animales. Cesexemples soulignent aussi l’importance dudocument sur la Situation Mondiale tout au long duprocessus de sensibilisation au thème desressources génétiques animales et illustrentcomment il a conduit à des actions concrètes auniveau technique et politique. Le numéro reporteaussi le besoin d’ultérieures actions nécessaires àdifférents niveaux de la gestion des ressourcesgénétiques animales.

L’adoption du Plan Mondial d’Action pour lesRessources Génétiques Animales est l’autre objectif quenous essayerons d’atteindre pendant la Conférenced’Interlaken. Avec l’accord de la communautéinternational, le Plan Mondial d’Action donnera lesbases nécessaires pour soutenir et augmenterl’efficacité globale au niveaux national, régional etmondial de tous les efforts pour l’utilisationdurable, le développement et la conservation desressources génétiques animales, et la durabilitédans la mobilisation des ressources. Cet évènementest conçu pour établir un objectif initial avec unhorizon de dix ans. Les probabilités que le PlanMondial d’Action soit amélioré grâce à une majeursensibilisation dépendra si les pays sontfondamentalement interdépendants par rapportaux ressources génétiques animales pourl’alimentation et l’agriculture, et de la coopérationinternationale qui devra assurer une gestioneffective de la diversité génétique animale.

Nous voulons remercier les efforts de tous lesauteurs qui ont contribué à ce numéro en envoyantleurs articles avec un si court délai.

Les Editeurs

Éditorial - La première Conférence Technique Internationale sur lesRessources Génétiques Animales

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

III

La gestión sostenible de los recursos zoogenéticos anivel mundial es de vital importancia para laagricultura, la producción de alimentos, eldesarrollo rural y el ambiente. La primeraConferencia Técnica Internacional sobre RecursosZoogenéticos que tendrá lugar en Interlaken, Suiza,en septiembre 2007, tratará de concienciar la gestiónsostenible de los recursos zoogenéticos a nivelmundial es de vital importancia para la agricultura,la producción de alimentos, el desarrollo rural y elambiente. La primera Conferencia TécnicaInternacional sobre Recursos Zoogenéticos quetendrá lugar en Interlaken, Suiza, en septiembre2007, tratará de concienciar las partes interesadasen el sector ganadero y promoverá la mejora depolíticas de desarrollo y la cooperación a todos losniveles.

La conferencia será también el marco para lapresentación del documento sobre la SituaciónMundial de los Recursos Zoogenéticos para laAlimentación y la Agricultura – primera valoración anivel mundial sobre la situación y gestión de labiodiversidad ganadera. La Situación Mundial es laculminación de un largo proceso formado deinformes, análisis, redacciones y revisiones que hainvolucrado un gran número de individuosprovenientes de todo el mundo. Los 169 InformesNacionales sometidos a la FAO han sido una fuenteclave de información que ha sido complementadacon los informes realizados por las organizacionesinternacionales, a las que se han solicitado estudiostemáticos específicos, y con el conocimiento de losautores y revisores. El proceso de elaboración de losinformes nacionales ha contribuido a estimular laspolíticas de desarrollo a nivel nacional y ha llevadoa la elaboración del Plan Mundial de Acción para losRecursos Zoogenéticos que una vez aprobadopermitirá elaborar una agenda de trabajo para lasacciones a realizar por parte de la comunidadinternacional. La Conferencia de Interlakenproporcionará una oportunidad histórica a toda lacomunidad internacional para definir eleccionesestratégicas para la futura gestión de los recursoszoogenéticos.

Este número especial de AGRI refleja losesfuerzos realizados por los gobiernos, las INGO yNGO, los ganaderos y la FAO en el terreno de los

Editorial - La primera Conferencia Técnica Internacional sobreRecursos zoogenéticos

recursos zoogenéticos. Se hace una revisión deldesarrollo de las actividades relacionadas conAnGR, se presentan ejemplos de mejora de raza ymedidas de conservación, y se discuten un ciertonúmero de temas políticos. Este número tambiénincluye 17 artículos que subrayan las acciones anivel nacional en la gestión de los recursoszoogenéticos que han sido realizadas comoconsecuencia a la preparación de los InformesNacionales sobre la Situación de los RecursosZoogenéticos. Estos ejemplos recalcan laimportancia del documento sobre la SituaciónMundial en todo el proceso de concienciación sobrelos recursos zoogenéticos e ilustran cómo hallevado también a acciones concretas a nivel técnicoy político. También se recalca la necesidad deulteriores acciones necesarias en distintos aspectosde la gestión de los recursos zoogenéticos.

La adopción del Plan Mundial de Acción para losRecursos Zoogenéticos es otro de los logros que seintenta obtener durante la Conferencia deInterlaken. El Plan Mundial de Acción proporcionarálas bases, con el acuerdo de la comunidadinternacional, para apoyar e incrementar la eficaciaglobal a nivel nacional, regional y mundial de losesfuerzos para la utilización sostenible, eldesarrollo y conservación de los recursoszoogenéticos, y la sostenibilidad en la movilizaciónde los recursos. Este evento está concebido paraestablecer un objetivo inicial con un horizonte dediez años. Las probabilidades de que el PlanMundial de Acción se vea realzado con una mayorconcienciación dependerá de que los países seanfundamentalmente interdependientes con respectoa los recursos zoogenéticos para la alimentación yla agricultura, para lo que será necesaria unacooperación internacional importante paraasegurar la gestión efectiva de la diversidadgenética animal.

Queremos agradecer los esfuerzos de todos losautores que han contribuido a este númeroenviando sus artículos con tan previo aviso.

Los Editores

1○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

AGRI 2007, 41: 1-7

SummaryIn light of the upcoming first InternationalTechnical Conference on Animal Genetic Resources(September 2007), experts have been interviewed totell about their experiences in the management ofanimal genetic resources over the past fifty years.They identified three milestones in the history ofAnimal Genetic Resources (AnGR) management:the foundation of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust(1973), the FAO/UNEP 1980 TechnicalConsultation on AnGR, and the signing of theConvention on Biological Diversity (1992).Conservation of AnGR started at grassroot level andeventually led to policies at governmental level. Thepassion of civil society organizations remains vitalto conserve local livestock breeds. Technical andfinancial support will be crucial for the future ofAnGR conservation. The next milestone will be aGlobal Plan of Action that is expected as oneoutcome of the International Technical Conference.

RésuméEn vue de la prochaine Conférence TechniqueInternationale sur les Ressources GénétiquesAnimales qui aura lieur en septembre 2007, on ainterrogé une série d’experts pour connaître leursexpériences dans la gestion des ressourcesgénétiques animales au cours des derniers 50 ans.Trois point principaux ont été identifiés tout aulong de l’histoire de la gestion des RessourcesGénétiques Animales (AnGR):1. la création en 1973 du Rare Breeds Survival Trust;2. la Consultation Technique sur AnGR organisée

par la FAO/UNEP en 1980; et3. la signature de la Convention pour la

Biodiversité de 1992.La conservation de AnGR commence à un

niveau de base et éventuellement conduit à despolitiques au niveau gouvernemental. Les supportstechnique et financier seront d’importance cruciales

Passing on the fire - To further inspire people to contribute to themanagement of animal genetic resources

B. Kubbinga, I. Hoffmann & B. Scherf

Animal Health and Production Division, Food and Agriculture Organization,Viale delle Terme di Caracolla, 00153 Rome, Italy

pour le futur de la conversation de AnGR. Leprochain défi sera la Plan Mondial d’Action qui onespère sera un des résultats à la fin de la ConférenceTechnique Internationale.

ResumenEn vistas de la próxima Conferencia TécnicaInternacional sobre Recursos Zoogenéticos quetendrá lugar en septiembre 2007, se hanentrevistado una serie de expertos para concer susexperiencias en la gestión de los recursoszoogenéticos en los últimos cincuenta años. Hanidentificado tres puntos principales a lo largo de lahistoria de la gestión de los Recursos Zoogenéticos(AnGR):1. la creación en 1973 de Rare Breeds Survival Trust;2. la Consulta Técnica sobre AnGR de la

FAO/UNEP en 1980; y3. la firma de la Convención sobre la Diversidad

Biológica del 1992.La conservación de AnGR empieza a nivel de

base y eventualmente conduce a políticas a nivelgubernamental. Los soportes técnico y financieroserán cruciales para el futuro en la conservación deAnGR. El próximo reto será el Plan Mundial deAcción que se espera sea uno de los resultados de laConferencia Técnica Internacional.

Keywords: Animal genetic resources for food andagriculture, NGO, Research, Government, FAO, State ofthe World, Interlaken.

IntroductionWhy have animal genetic resources for food andagriculture (AnGR) become more prominent on theinternational agenda over the past fifty years? Andwhat moved people to conserve and promote thesustainable use of the incredible diversity of cattle,

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

2Passing on the fire

pigs, sheep, goats, poultry, and the many otherexisting livestock species?

This paper gives some answers to these twoquestions. The occasion to look into these questionsis the forthcoming International TechnicalConference on Animal Genetic Resources, whichwill be held from 1 till 7 September 2007 inInterlaken, Switzerland. As it is the first suchTechnical Conference, and is expected to adopt aGlobal Plan of Action for Animal GeneticResources, it represents an important milestone inthe history of AnGR management. Hence, it isopportune to look back into the past and discoverwhat milestones have preceded the upcoming event,and to show what the motivation is of people whohave been or still are wholeheartedly involved inthe management of AnGR.

The paper is based on a series of interviews withAnGR experts from all over the world. The names ofmany of our informants are mentioned, however,innumerable individuals and institutions orconstituencies have contributed to the AnGRprogramme. The lack of reference to such keypartners in the text does not imply thenon-recognition of their inputs.

The structure follows the three milestones theyidentified over the past half-century: the firstmilestone was laid in 1973, when the firstNGO - the Rare Breeds Survival Trust (RBST) – wasfounded in the United Kingdom. The FAO/UNEP1980 Technical Consultation on AnGR that tookplace in Rome was the second. Finally, the signingof the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992represents the third milestone. Building upon thisstructure, the paper recounts the invaluableexperiences of experts to show their never-endingpassion – the same passion that we as human kindwill need in the coming years to sustainably useand conserve Animal Genetic Resources for foodand agriculture in all regions of the world.

The first milestone: the start ofconservation at grassroot level

“It has been my perception that interest inconserving farm animal genetic resourcesbegan almost simultaneously andindependently in many different countriesand at many different levels. Most of thebeginnings occurred during the 1960s”,says Roy Crawford (Canada). “Yet thefirst milestone was laid in 1973, when

Lawrence Alderson started the Rare BreedsSurvival Trust in the UK”.

Arthur da Silva Mariante(Brazil), later involved in setting upRare Breeds International that took thework of the RBST to an internationallevel, gives the Trust the same credit:“It became the first NGO to fully commititself to the conservation of local breeds”.

Three decades earlier, in the 1940s, the picturelooked completely different: ‘conservation’ was noton the agenda. It was a time of fast changes in thelivestock sector. In many developed countries, thelevels of production were raised in response to therapid rise in demand for animal products. Animalswere selected that could provide meat and dairyproducts in the shortest time possible, and efficientbreeding programmes were applied to use theseanimals on a large scale.

An important factor in these breedingprogrammes was the availability of new breedingtechniques. The most important one was developedby the Russians in 1899: reproduction via ArtificialInsemination (AI). This revolutionized the use oflivestock, not only in the developed world, but alsoin the developing countries. As mobility had beengiven an enormous boost – people could now travelin no-time to other parts of the world, by train, boator airplane – this meant that also animals or theirgenetic material, together with related productiontechnologies, could now easily be moved aroundthe globe.

In the same period, just after the Second WorldWar, the FAO was founded (FAO, 1945). It becamedirectly involved in this global move. As themandate of FAO was “to improve agriculturalproductivity, better the lives of rural people andcontribute to the growth of the world economy”, the newknowledge on farm animal breeding was soontransferred to the rest of the world. The exportationof temperate breeds into tropical and subtropicalareas, which had already started a few decadesearlier, was continued.

“Few people realized that these exotic breeds could beharmful for local breeds”, tells John Hodges (UnitedKingdom). Yet he adds: “Some people were aware ofthe problem. Government officials who came back fromthe colonial states had witnessed the problems ofintroducing exotic breeds into tropical areas”. Despitethe awareness, however, governments and donorsin developed countries would not refrain fromexporting breeds with high yield potential, in theirwell-meaning attempts to improve production alsoin developing countries – yet without always

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

3

Animal Genetic Resources Information, No. 41, 2007

Kubbinga et al.

providing the necessary expertise on how tomanage these breeds.

Attention for this matter was also raised at theFAO. In 1946, the FAO convened a meeting of aStanding Advisory Committee on Agriculture. Oneof the topics for this meeting was ‘Animal GeneticResources’. Ralph Philips (United States ofAmerica) was invited to the Committee: “One of mycontributions to its work was the drafting of arecommendation – which the Committee adopted – thatthe FAO should undertake work on the cataloguing ofanimal genetic stocks” (Philips, 1981). Although FAOcreated an international study group in 1965 toissue recommendations on the evaluation,utilization and conservation of AnGR (FAO, 1967),cataloguing would remain the primary activity formany years.

On an individual basis, the cataloguing hadalready been started by Ian Mason1 in the 1940s.His work was a significant step in the evaluation ofthe existing livestock breeds, although compilingcatalogues of breeds was just a first step in theconservation of breeds. As the process ofintroducing ‘improver’ animals continued, manyindigenous breeds in and outside Europe becamerare. But things changed in the 1960s.

“It began very naively in 1964 when I recognized therapidly advancing erosion of poultry genetic resources, Ifelt that something had to be done to stem the tide, andpresumed that I was the only one who cared about thesituation”, says Roy Crawford. Crawford decided totake care of rare poultry breeds at the university andeven at home. “His situation was typical for thesporadic activities that came about elsewhere”2, saysImre Bodó (Hungary). Interestingly, one of theseearly initiatives would develop into a major stepforward in the management of AnGR.

“In the early 1960s, a small group of peoplebelonging to the Zoological Society of London realizedthat many native breeds were endangered, and theydecided to keep small herds in London Zoo in order topreserve them,” tells Lawrence Alderson (UnitedKingdom), “The first farm animals that were saved werecattle and sheep; other species like horses, goats and pigssoon followed”.

Alderson himself joined this London-basedgroup of conservationists in 1969. He had spent hisyouth on a dairy farm, and was now a youngbusiness consultant with a special interest in nativebreeds. He realized that the best way to promote theconservation of AnGR in the UK was by creating aseparate organisation. In 1973, Alderson’s idearesulted in the foundation of RBST – most probablythe first NGO in the world concerned with theconservation of endangered breeds.

The creation of RBST was the first milestone inthe history of AnGR management. Roy Crawfordbelieves it is no coincidence that it was set up by agrassroot organisation. “Conservation work requirespassion – grassroots have that in abundance”, saysCrawford, “That is why grassroots started themovement.”

Grassroot organisations, like RBST, had alreadyseen the need for conservation in the 1960s. Itwould take almost two decades before thisconsciousness would move up – from the bottom –to the agenda of governments. RBST was founded inthe middle of this process and provided the firstinput to the government from the level of NGOs.

The second milestone: FAOadopts ‘conservation’

“This was the real beginning of the AnGRmovement!” says Stuart Barker(Australia), referring to the TechnicalConsultation of 1980 held in Rome.Kalle Maijala (Finland) and LouisOllivier (France) agree: “The TechnicalConsultation in 1980 was mostimportant.”

It was in the 1970s that the concept of‘conservation’ entered the picture at a governmentallevel. This process was generally slow. Grassrootorganisations had to convince both the generalpublic and the scientific community that morepublic and financial support was needed. “It took along time to convince agricultural advisors as they stillthought that replacing breeds was good,” tellsHans-Peter Grunenfelder, founder of the SwissNGO Pro Specie Rara and the European umbrellaorganization SAVE Foundation. With the supportthey gained, “NGOs did a lot to convince governmentsabout the need for conservation”.

At the FAO, the process was equally slow. “Itwas Ian Mason who brought the interest in indigenous

1 Ian Mason (14 February 1914 - 21 May 2007) belonged tothe first people involved in AnGR management. He hasworked his entire life on the documentation andconservation of breeds from all over the world. His mostfamous work A World Dictionary of Livestock Breeds, Typesand Varieties was first published in 1951 and has been animportant information source ever since (the fifth editionappeared in 2002).

2 Changes could also be observed at a governmental level. In1963, the governments of France and Hungary were the firstto provide subsidies for the conservation of local breeds.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


breeds, and thus in conservation”, says John Hogdes.“Mason came as Animal Breeding Officer to the FAO in1972. He had already started the documentation ofbreeds in the 1940s, and then carried on making hisfiling cabinet at the FAO, collecting breed data fromAfrica, Asia and Latin America”. Referring to the sameperiod, Edward Rege (Kenya) notes: “Although thequestion ‘Is new germplasm successful in a traditionalenvironment?’ had arisen, still no action was undertakenin the form of new policies”.

In 1974, in conjunction with the United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP) that was born atthe 1972 Stockholm Conference, FAO launched theproject “Conservation of animal genetic resources”.Over a period of six years, extensive surveys werecarried out to describe the status of local breeds in awide range of world regions, while a few studieswere initiated with the aim to developmethodologies for conservation and management.

In the meantime, an important conference wasorganised in 1974 by the International Committeefor World Congresses on Genetics Applied toLivestock Production. It was the first WorldCongress organised by the Committee and “the firstopportunity for scientists to discuss the genetics of farmanimal breeding and breed conservation at aninternational level”, explains Stuart Barker. Geneticswas a new tool in breeding programmes. “At thattime”, says David Steane (United Kingdom), “weknew how to improve the traits of interest in breeding,but no-one knew which genes and – more importantly –which gene-combinations to save for the future”.

At the end of the first FAO/UNEP cooperation, ajoint Technical Consultation on Animal GeneticResources, Conservation and Management (1980)was organised. The Consultation took place inRome and represented a turning point in AnGRmanagement. The alarming results from the surveysof endangered breeds, together with the growingunderstanding of genetics and the recent fruitfulefforts at different levels in society to conserve localbreeds, finally provided the impulse to convincegovernments of the need to conserve AnGR.Poultry- expert Roy Crawford: “The effect of the 1980Consultation was huge. People were first thinking alone.This conference was a landmark, as it provided anopportunity to create international liaisons”.

The meeting in 1980 embodied the secondmilestone in AnGR history. Lawrence Alderson:“The Consultation was the biggest milestone in terms ofgoing forward. It drew everyone together; it createdfriendships between NGOs and governments.”

The third milestone:‘sustainable use of biodiversity’

“We struggled for the inclusion ofagrobiodiversity in the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD) but we gothelp from the powerful “Business Councilfor Sustainable Development3”, tellsHans-Peter Grunenfelder. The CBDwas signed in 1992 by 150 governmentleaders at the Rio Earth Summit.

The recommendations of the 1980 TechnicalConsultation (FAO, 1981) finally provided aresponse at policy level to the long-standing issue ofdisplacing native breeds and crossbreeding themwith a few highly-selected breeds. Following therecommendations, a Joint FAO/UNEP Project forConservation and Management of Animal GeneticResources was set up. Coordinated by John Hodgesat FAO from 1982 till 1990, the project laid thefoundations for a worldwide infrastructure forAnGR conservation (Hodges, 2002). Although theproject was largely supported by UNEP, “fundingwas limited”, says Hodges. Practical guidance camefrom a Panel of Experts from UNEP and FAO whogave technical advice about a new approach to theglobal management of AnGR.

Major developments in AnGR conservation werepublished in FAO’s Animal Production and Healthpapers. “These papers were the ‘bible’ for us in Brazil”,says Arthur Mariante, “They are still used as areference by our students nowadays”. Information onconservation projects and studies around the globewere published (and are still being published) inthe FAO Animal Genetic Resources InformationBulletin (AGRI) since 1983. After John Hodges, JeanBoyazoglu (Greece), Daniel Chupin (France), SalahGalal (Egypt) and Ricardo Cardellino (Uruguay)served as its editors, and AGRI continues to be theonly journal of its kind.

In Europe, conservation activities were boostedin 1980 by the European Association for AnimalProduction (EAAP). EAAP set up a EuropeanWorking Group on Animal Genetic Resources(WG-AGR) which initiated surveys of European

3 The Business Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD)was founded in 1991 by the Swiss industrialist StephanSchmidheiny, and is now called the World Business Councilfor Sustainable Development (WBCSD).

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

5


Kubbinga et al.

breeds and populations in 1982. Five years later, thesurvey data could be entered in a novel electronicdatabank that was created by Detlef Simon. In closecooperation with FAO, the Hannover databankbegan storing world data on AnGR in 1988, untiltheir transfer to FAO in 1991. This transfer providedthe starting point for the FAO database for AnGR,the backbone of the Domestic Animal DiversityInformation System or DAD-IS (now in its thirdversion). Consequently, the Hannover databankwas renamed EAAP Animal Genetic Data Bank andprovided the first information on AnGR at regionallevel.

Another emerging NGO partner of FAO – at aglobal level - was Rare Breeds International (RBI),established in 1991. “Lawrence Alderson gave theinitial push on behalf of the RBST. Other people,including John Hodges, Imre Bodó, Arthur Mariante andmyself, continued the work”, recounts Roy Crawford.The funding and facilities of RBI were meagre: “Thesecretariat was at my lunch table in Canada”.Nevertheless, the organisation would become acommon voice for the increasing number of nationaland regional bodies interested in conserving rarelivestock breeds. Keith Ramsay (South Africa):“While FAO had a network at a governmental level, RBIwas important for creating liaisons at grassroot level”.

While the international network of governmentsand NGOs kept on growing, the concept of‘sustainability’ (Brundlandt, 1987) was getting afirmer grip on society. As a result, the UN plannedthe Conference on Environment and Development(UNCED) or ‘Rio Earth Summit’ in 1992 toincorporate this concept in global environmentalprogrammes. In line with the aim of Agenda 21 – aglobal partnership for sustainable development –three conventions were adopted soon after the RioEarth Summit. One of them was the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD).

The impact of the CBD was tremendous. On theone hand, it was a large leap forward for theconservation and sustainable use of naturalresources in general. On the other, however, theConvention was a disappointment for the AnGRmovement, as it lacked a specific framework forAnGR conservation. This might seem detrimental;yet the consequence was surprisingly positive.Lawrence Alderson compares it with the effect ofthe disease outbreaks that occurred later in the1990s and at the beginning of the 21st century: “TheCBD had the same impact as disease epidemics like BSEand food-and-mouth disease. The fear of loosing breedsserved as a powerful trigger for people to react.”

The CBD was thus the third milestone in theglobal evolution of AnGR management.

Passing on the fire – time foraction

David Steane: “Perhaps the biggestchallenge is now to raise awareness inorder to get funds”. He adds: “I doubt ifnations really can keep all breeds but we doneed to maintain the overall geneticdiversity”.“It is the livestock keepers who will alwaysbe the main actors in the conservation andsustainable use of all our animal geneticresources – without a diversity of livestockkeepers, it will not be possible to maintainlivestock diversity. Their needs have to berecognized by policy makers, researchers,and even consumers” says Ilse Köhler-Rollefson of the League for PastoralPeoples and Endogenous LivestockDevelopment.

In 1990, the FAO Council recommended thepreparation of a comprehensive programme for thesustainable management of animal geneticresources at the global level. In the years followingthe signing of the CBD the global infrastructure wasextended further by FAO, at both national andregional levels. In an FAO Expert Consultation onManagement of Global Animal Genetic Resourcesin 1992, this programme took shape. Supported bythe Deputy Director General Philippe Mahler(France) and the Division Director PatrickCunningham (Ireland), Keith Hammond played akey role in initiating the Global Strategy for theManagement of Animal Genetic Resources in 1993,with the aim of supporting countries in developingand implementing national management strategiesfor AnGR. In 1995, the FAO Commission on PlantGenetic Resources for Food and Agriculturewidened its mandate to include also AnGR andbecame the Commission on Genetic Resources forFood and Agriculture (CGRFA). It established anIntergovernmental Technical Working Group onAnimal Genetic Resources in 1997. FAO thusfurther established its role as the intergovernmentaltechnical secretariat for food and agriculture.

Following efforts of the CGRFA, AnGR expertsand civil society, the CBD supported the furtherdevelopment of the Global Strategy in 19964 and

4Decision III/11 www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx?dec=III/11

5Decision V/5 www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx?dec=V/5

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


established a work programme on agriculturalbiodiversity in 20005.

The first Regional Focal Point (RFP) for themanagement of AnGR was set up in Asia withJapanese funding, and managed by David Steaneand his Asian colleagues. After six years, in 1999,this pioneering project was forced to end as fundswere no longer available. Another Sub-regionalFocal Point was established for the SADC region inSouth Africa but it, too, did not endure after projectfunds dried up. In contrast, the intensivecollaboration of FAO and EAAP, with publicsupport at hand, led to the establishment of a vastnetwork of National Focal Points (NFP) inEuropean countries, until a European RFP waslaunched in 2000. This regional platform, managedby Dominique Planchenault in Paris, is the firstexample of a RFP supported by the region itself.Unfortunately, very few RFPs have so far emergedelsewhere in the world, mainly due to the lack of thenecessary regional support.

The participation of NGOs and researchorganisations in AnGR management continued toincrease during the 1990s. The EAAP WG-AGR stillprovided valuable scientific input during FAOconsultations. Other research organisations, i.e. theInternational Livestock Research Institute or theInternational Society for Animal Genetics, NARSand new national and international NGOs alsojoined the AnGR movement. FAO’s work improvedconsiderably: “Various international NGOs continuedto contribute (…) and a small number were givenobserver status at the intergovernmental sessions of FAOgoverning bodies6, the CGRFA and itsIntergovernmental Technical Working Group on AnimalGenetic Resources”, says Keith Hammond (Australia).Furthermore: “A larger number of international NGOssupported the development of FAO’s work program bycontributing to the negotiation of AnGR issues atsessions of the Conference of Parties to the CBD”.Moreover, as national governments and regionalbodies became more aware of the state of AnGR,research programmes saw a slow increase inavailable funds and rare breeds got more support.

Meanwhile, the cataloguing of breeds by FAOwas still going on and resulted in the first WorldWatch List for Domestic Animal Diversity in 1993.The FAO database and information system DAD-IS(1996) became the primary tool to exchange breeddata and know-how on AnGR management. Inaddition to the collection of breed data, FAOinitiated the first global assessment of AnGR.Countries were invited in 2001 to prepare theirCountry Reports on the status and trends of AnGR,and of the state of institutional and technological

capacities to manage these resources. In 2002, theCBD decided to support this ambitiousundertaking7.

Now, fifteen years after the Rio Earth Summit,we have a comprehensive overview of The State ofthe World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food andAgriculture (SoW). This report builds on CountryReports from 169 countries – the fruit of manynational governments and stakeholders – and thework of civil society and research institutions.Again, collaboration with an NGO, the WorldAssociation for Animal Production and its thenSecretary-General Jean Boyazoglu, was essential forFAO in the SoW preparation process. At FAO,Keith Hammond played a key role in making theissues known worldwide, and Ricardo Cardellinoand Pal Hajas were pivotal in persuadinggovernments to develop Country Reports. The SoWhas been adopted in June 2007 by the CGRFA andwill be presented in September this year during theTechnical Conference. We do not know everything,but the message of the SoW seems clear: diversitymeans resilience – we should promote it!

One of the expected outcomes of the SeptemberConference will be a Global Plan of Action for AnimalGenetic Resources. Whatever this plan will look like,it is clear that finding appropriate support will becrucial. Raising public awareness, therefore,remains a key priority. Another priority is to furtherdevelop infrastructures and pass on skills for AnGRmanagement. Keith Ramsay: “We should create moreregional focal points and improve the internationalcommunication through FAO forums”. Creativesolutions are also required to promote and conservelocal breeds. “Developing value-added products is agood way to draw attention to the uniqueness of localbreeds”, says Ramsay. The colourful hides of N’gunicattle in South-Africa and the camel milk ice creamof India are fine examples of such products. Apartfrom these two priorities, many other issues willhave to be addressed to agree on a meaningful andexecutable Global Plan of Action.

We have learned that the first passionate effortsto use and conserve AnGR in a sustainable wayhave arisen at the grassroots’ level – by people whodepend on them in their daily lives, or by peoplewho simply care about them. Ilse Köhler-Rollefson“Many important breeds are conserved against the oddsby people who are poor and marginalized, but who have

6The FAO Commission on Agriculture (COAG) and the FAOCouncil.

7Decision VI/5 www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx?dec=VI/5

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

7


Kubbinga et al.

a close cultural and emotional attachment to theiranimals.” Roy Crawford: “It would help if thegrassroots could be more actively involved ingovernmental programs – to provide the spark and firethe passion”. The most important matter now is tocreate a broader movement, and an enabling andsupportive policy framework for AnGRmanagement. “We need joint forces of the government,the NGO and the university side to keep AnGR”, saysHans-Peter Grunenfelder, “Joining forces we willsucceed!”. Indeed, we must make sure that the fire ispassed on, till we reach the next milestone – theTechnical Conference, together with a Global Plan ofAction – and the many milestones that will follow.

The fire is crucial for AnGR. For naturaldisasters it is easy to show the need for immediateaction; for protecting agricultural plant diversity itis already more difficult. For farm animals it is evenharder to prove the urgent need for conservation. Itrequires creativity to further catch the public eyeand conserve the indispensable diversity of AnGR.Kalle Maijala: “It is not easy for most people tounderstand, but I hope, that positive developmentcontinues gradually.”

Crawford concludes: “I caught ‘the fire’ manydecades ago, and have devoted my professional andretirement life to tending the blaze. The fire does NOT goout it seems!”

Before ending this paper, the authors would liketo state that the fire not only exists in the hearts ofthe experts from grassroots, research or governmentlevel we have interviewed. During the past 12 000years, livestock keepers worldwide had the mostimportant role in the history of animal production.They have been and continue to be the peopleresponsible for the evolution, improvement andsafeguarding of the rich diversity of livestock breedswe have today, for all the different productionsystems and intensity levels. Therefore, we shouldlearn from these very livestock breeders and keepershow to use in sustainable way and conserve ourAnGR, and carry the fire together with them.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to warmly thank all the AnGRexperts who were interviewed for the purpose ofthis paper.

List of ReferencesBrundlandt, G. (Ed.). 1987. Our Common

Future: The World Commission on Environmentand Development; http://ringofpeace.org/environment/brundtland.html.

FAO. 1945. Constitution of the Food andAgriculture Organisation of the United Nations.Quebec, 16 October 1945.

FAO. 1967. Report of the FAO study group onthe evaluation, utilization and conservation ofanimal genetic resources. Meeting Report 1966, 9,Rome, pp. 31.

FAO. 1990. Animal genetic resources. Aglobal programme for sustainable development.Proceedings of an FAO Expert Consultation Rome,Italy, September 1989. FAO Animal Production andHealth Paper 80.

FAO. 2007. The State of the World’s AnimalGenetic Resources for Food and Agriculture,Barbara Rischkowsky & Dafydd Pilling (Eds).Rome, Italy.

Hodges, J. 1999. Jubilee History of theEuropean Association for Animal Production1949-1999. Livestock Production Science 60,105-168.

Hodges, J. 2002. Conservation of farm animaldiversity: history and prospects. AGRI 32, 1-11.

Mason, I. 1981. Cooperative work by FAOand UNEP on the conservation of animal geneticresources. In: FAO: Animal Genetic ResourcesConservation and Management. FAO AnimalProduction and Health Paper 24, 15-28.

Philips, R.W. 1981. The identification,conservation and effective use of valuable animalgenetic resources. In: FAO, 1981. Animal GeneticResources Conservation and Management. FAOAnimal Production and Health Paper 24, 1-5.

9○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

AGRI 2007, 41: 9-16

SummaryRandall Cattle are a landrace from the northeastUSA. The cattle are triple-purpose and well adaptedto the cold northeast geographic region. The currentpopulation descends from 14 cattle that remainedafter the death of the original owner, though only12 of these represented unique founders due tointerrelationships among the 14. He had kept thecattle as an isolated strain for nearly 80 years.Blood-typing results point to a north Atlantic originfor the breed, which is consistent with the history.The policy and practice of the American LivestockBreeds Conservancy has been to carefully documentlandraces and to assure their conservation. Focusedbreeding strategies have succeeded in rescuing theoriginal 13 animals and expanding the populationto nearly 300 in 2006. The breed is gainingpopularity as a hardy, adapted and useful geneticresource. Breeding management has decreasedoverall inbreeding while at the same time managingthe contributions of the various founder animals.

RésuméLa race “Randall” est une race locale du Nord-Estdes Etats-Unis. Il s’agit d’une race a triple propos etelle s’adapte bien à cette région froide. Lapopulation actuelle s’est formée à partir des14 animaux découverts après la mort de leurpropriétaire qui avait conservé son troupeau isolépendant plus de 80 ans. Le type de sang révèle uneorigine de la race proche au bovins de la régionNord Atlantique, ce qui coïncide avec l’histoire decette race. La “American Livestock BreedsConservancy” a établi un document détaillé desraces locales pour s’assurer qu’elles nedisparaissent pas. Grâce aux stratégies d’élevage

Randall cattle in the USA: rescuing a geneticresource from extinction

D.P. Sponenberg1, C. Creech2 & W.J. Miller3

1Department of Biosciences and Pathobiology, Virginia-Maryland Regional Collegeof Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA

259 Ore Hill Road, South Kent, CT 06785, USA3218 Parkridge Circle, Ames, IA 50014, USA

du noyau initial on est arrivé à 300 têtes en 2006. Larace est appréciée surtout en tant que race rustique,bien adaptée et utile. La gestion de la population apermis la diminution de la consanguinité tout enassurant l’apport de chacun des animaux d’origine.Cette race est en augmentation et son futur estassuré.

ResúmenLa raza “Randall” es una raza local del nordeste delos Estados Unidos. Se trata de una raza detriple-propósito, bien adapatada a este región fría.La población actual se fundó con 14 cabezasdescubiertas después de la muerte del dueñooriginal que había mantenido su ganado aisladodurante unos 80 años. Los tipos de sangre colocanel origen de la raza en los bovinos de la regiónnordatlántica, lo que corresponde con la historia dela raza. La “American Livestock Breeds Conservancy”ha documentado las razas locales para asegurarque no se extingan. Las estrategias de cría hantenido éxito en el rescate de las 13 cabezasoriginales, y la cabaña ha aumentado hasta300 cabezas en 2006. La raza es popular como razarústica, bien adaptada, y útil. El manejo de lapoblación ha disminuido la consanguinidad, peroasegurando la contribución de cada animalfundador. El número de animales de esta raza estáya creciendo y el futuro está asegurado.

Keywords: Local breed, Description, Original herd,Breeding management, Blood-typing, Breed expansion,Conservation.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

10Rescuing Randall cattle in the USA

IntroductionAnimal production and breed use in the UnitedStates of America is typical of most industrializedcountries (Rouse, 1973; Sims and Johnson, 1972),with the exception that direct governmentalregulation of breeding and monitoring ofpopulations is minimal. For most of the past centurylivestock production has been based on imported,well documented purebred livestock registered inherd books that are maintained bynon-governmental breed associations. In addition,composite breeds based on pure breeds were laterdeveloped in an attempt to combine attributes ofvarious founder breeds into new mixtures designedfor specific environments or production situations.A final and recent stage of breed development hasbeen industrial strains of livestock, mainly swineand poultry which are designed to be veryproductive in tightly controlled environments.Industrial strains are based on pure breedsoriginally, but have usually functioned outside ofthe purebred livestock community because of theirstrictly industrial function and their lack ofparticipation in associations or herd books.

A few older and more traditional livestockproduction systems have persisted peripheral tothese mainstream systems. These older types oflivestock tend to be overlooked by bothgovernmental programs and scientific investigators,largely because these systems and their animals areconsidered to be of low productivity and are outsidethe usual short-term commercial concerns ofmainstream American agricultural production.Traditional livestock have, however, persisted insustainable systems, and are well adapted to harshand demanding environments, and are thereforegenetic resources of potential future utility.

The livestock of peripheral, sustainable systemsincludes old types that continue to persist in geneticisolation from other livestock genetic resources. TheAmerican Livestock Breeds Conservancy (ALBC) isactively engaged in saving the livestock geneticresources of these systems. ALBC is anongovernmental nonprofit organization thatserves an important role as a central source ofinformation, procedures, practices, and technicalsupport for breeders of rare livestock geneticresources. ALBC classifies populations of isolated,traditional livestock as landraces, and hasdeveloped procedures for their identification,classification, and conservation (Sponenberg andChristman, 1995). Randall Cattle are one suchAmerican landrace, and the rescue of thispopulation from extinction has provided the ALBC

with many insights that have been useful indeveloping strategies and procedures for workingwith other small populations of livestock(Christman and Sponenberg, 1997).

HistoryWell-adapted triple purpose (milk, meat, draft)cattle have been useful in the northeast of theUnited States for centuries. These cattle wereintroduced to the region during early colonizationby Europeans, and were widely used for productionin this region of cold winters, short summers, steepslopes, and poor, rocky soils. One genetic resourcethat was commonly used was the widelyrecognized Milking Devon, an isolated type withinthe more widespread Devon breed (Splan andSponenberg, 2004). This type is now limited to theUnited States (Christman and Sponenberg, 1997).Other cattle types within the same region haveoccurred for centuries, but these others have lackedbreed identification and have lagged behind theMilking Devon in breed recognition andconservation programs (Rouse 1973).

One reasonably common type within NewEngland was called ‘Linebacked Cattle’. These cattlewere generally black but occasionally red, and hadeither the colour-sided pattern or ‘Pinzgauer’pattern, either of which is characterized by adistinctive white top-line that gives the cattle theirname. Various strains of Linebacked cattle existed,although throughout the 1960s and 1970s they wereincreasingly crossbred with Holstein cattle toprovide higher milk production. Through this slowgenetic erosion, nearly all of this type of NewEngland landrace cattle became extinct. In 1986Everett Randall’s herd of Lineback cattle came to theattention of the livestock conservation community.He had kept his herd free from other breeds fornearly 80 years, but with his death the herd’s futurewas in peril.

The Randall cattle went from Everett Randall’sestate to a few different buyers. One of these originalbuyers, a single breeder (C. Creech) became theowner of the vast majority of them, and embarkedon a breed rescue and conservation program whichhas resulted in a growing population of Randallcattle that are now secure as an adapted geneticresource. Two other early breeders obtained a few ofthe dispersed cattle, and while most of those werelost to the conservation effort, a few have madeimportant contributions to the conservation of thepopulation. Procedures and practices that weredeveloped in the course of rescuing and conserving

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

11


Sponenberg et al.

the Randall cattle have been essential to theirsurvival as well as helping in the conservation ofother rare livestock breed resources.

DescriptionRandall cattle are moderate but variable in size, andhave a type that varies from predominantly dairy todual-purpose. Mature cows vary from 300 kg to400 kg, with a few outside of this range. The typeswithin the breed cluster around one that mostresembles older Shorthorn type, and others that aremore similar to Channel Island breeds such asJersey and Guernsey. Very few of the animals showa heavier beef type. The range of types is in keepingwith the long selection history of use in low-inputsubsistence dairying. All of the cattle are horned,and the horns are generally short and spread outand upward. A few have horns with a more inwardtwist. Udders are generally medium-sized withgood attachments and medium sized teats.

The color of all of the original remnant cattle wasconsistently black, with all animals having the‘color-sided’ pattern of white spotting. Thecolor-sided pattern within this herd varies fromvery dark to nearly white. At the dark extreme areanimals with only a minimally white top-line andunderline and no roaning. In most, however, thehead and edges of the white areas are generallyroan or speckled even in the darkest individuals,which produces a ‘blue’ appearance and led toanother synonym of ‘Randall Blue’ for the breed.The palest animals have pale roan sides, withextensively white top-lines and underlines. In thepalest animals, dark areas characteristically remainon the muzzle, ears, feet, around the eyes, and thereis generally a dark spot on the forehead. In betweenthe dark and pale extremes of color pattern areanimals that are distinctly line-backed, but withroan and speckled areas especially where coloredand white areas meet. These are illustrated infigures 1 and 2.

In recent years red-based animals have emergedin the herd. These were reported to be in the herd inearly years, and the color has persisted as arecessive allele. The red animals have the samedistinctive range of expression of the color-sidedpattern as do the black animals.

Foundation PopulationThe original herd presented for conservationconsisted of four bulls and nine cows. The herd wasexamined for age structure as an aid to determiningrelationships. Everett Randall had used single siresfor most of the previous 80 years, so that age-mateswere likely to be half siblings. This logic determinedthat the initial group included five cows and a bullthat were likely all sired by the same bull, who wasno longer living. These five cows were assumed tobe out of different dams. This assumption wasespecially valid for the animals with the same birthyear (one pair of cows from one year, a cow and themature bull from a second year, and a single cowfrom a third year).

Also included in the herd were four youngercows and two younger bulls sired by the livingmature bull. Dam information was present for thisyounger group, and only one of these (a cow) wasproduced by a cow not present in the older group.The other three had been produced by dams thatwere in the older group. The final young bull calfwas produced by one of the younger bulls and anolder cow otherwise unrepresented and unavailablefor the conservation effort.

The animal pedigree information was used tocreate a spread sheet that enabled tracking of thepopulation. Specific information that was trackedincluded sex, year of birth, sire, dam, and thecontribution to the animal from each of thefounders.

Breeding ManagementThe relationships among the founders and theirdescendants were used to design a breedingprogram that followed a few general principles. Thegoals of the breeding program varied for differentmatings. Most matings attempted to minimizeinbreeding, in an effort to reduce the risk ofinbreeding depression in what was already aninbred population.

In contrast, a few specific matings wereconstrained to produce line-bred offspring thatconcentrated the contribution of each of the specificfounders. This strategy produced cattle each ofwhich was a high percentage of one of the founders.The goal for this strategy was especially to providebulls from which semen could be frozen as an

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


insurance against the loss of certain lines within thepopulation. This was important as freezing ofsemen is relatively inexpensive compared to otherassisted reproduction techniques, and in theabsence of governmental subsidy or supportattention needed to be paid to the economic aspectsof the breed rescue.

The inbreeding strategy was used as an attemptto ensure that some individuals, though highlyinbred, would be high percentage specific founders,and would therefore be less distantly related to mostother animals in the population. These line-bredanimals could then be used over large numbers ofother animals in the breed to produce more out-bredoffspring that still retained significant influence ofthe various founders but without significantly highinbreeding. This would have been impossible if astrategy of uniformly reducing inbreeding had beenused to guide all mating decisions, and the risk ofloss of the distinctive contributions of the variousfounders would have been greater by following thatstrategy.

Breeding management was also deliberatelychanged from the original single-sire system. It iscommon in the USA for landrace herds to use asingle sire for multiple years, and then to replacehim with a son. A new and more genetically soundstrategy was developed, so that multiple bulls were

used (generally no fewer than two per year) andeach bull tended to be used for only a single year.The result was a more rapid turnover of males, andby that means an avoidance of the geneticbottleneck that males can easily present to a smallpopulation.

Semen was frozen on individual males that wereeither foundation animals, or that had highpercentages of the breeding of individualfoundation cows. This strategy provided for theavailability of this genetic material for the future ofthe breed, and especially served to provide thegenetic material of the founders in a readilyaccessible form (semen versus oocytes or embryos)that was economically feasible.

The consequences of the breeding managementdecisions can be appreciated in table 1. A few of thefounders, such as the sire of the majority of theoriginal animals, were bottlenecks to thepopulation. The percentage contribution fromvarious founders ranges from 35% to 0.9%. Of moreimportance to the long term survival of thepopulation is the range in percent contributions ofthe various founders. It is clear that the influence ofFounder 1 (the sire of the original older group) willnever be minimized to a proportionate contributionbecause no animal lacks his influence. He is thebottleneck to the population. Other founders have

Figure 1. Randall cows with a lighter manifestation of the color-sided pattern.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

13


Sponenberg et al.

minimal or no contribution to at least some animalsin the population. This allows, at least for that onefounder, the planning of matings to counteract anyoverrepresentation (inbreeding) to that one founder.

Some founders, usually by virtue of contributingto only one individual early animal, will never havethe potential to contribute much to the overallpopulation. Examples are Founder 8 and Founder10, with the maximal representation of 19% and13% respectively in any individual animal in thepopulation. For others, such as Founder 12, theminimal overall contribution can be countered byusing a relatively high percentage bull acrossseveral animals. Founder 12’s contribution comesfrom one of the bulls used in a smaller herd awayfrom the main conservation herd. Fortunately semenis available, and this provides an opportunity tomanage this founder’s contribution and to providefor its inclusion across broader portions of thebreed.

Most of the founders are represented by animalsthat have at least 25% of the genetic influence of thefounder. Semen from such animals has been frozenwhere possible. In some cases these high percentageanimals are females. In those cases the strategy has

had to shift to planned matings that increase line-breeding to the high percentage founder. The goal ofthese matings is to produce bulls that are a highpercentage of the founder and that can have semenfrozen for future representation of that founder.

Blood-typingConventional blood-typing of the population wasaccomplished at a relatively early stage in theconservation program in an effort to determinerelationships among the founders as well aspossible breed origins of the population.

Blood-typing of the population (17 animals) wasdone in 1992, and the results are shown in table 2.The results of the blood-typing indicate lowvariability at many loci, which is consistent withthe long history of isolation of this population. Onelocus remains highly variable, B, at which manyalleles remain.

The specific variants that are present point to anorth Atlantic origin for Randall cattle, which isconsistent with the history of the region in which

Figure 2. Randall cow with a mid-range manifestation of the color-sided pattern, and with a pale calf atfoot.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Table 1. Management of percentage contributions of founder animals through breeding management.

Founder Average % of

all cattle

Average % in cattle alive in

2005

Target % for long term

management

Minimum % in cattle alive in

2005

Maximum % in cattle alive in

2005 1 35 33 30 12 48 2 16 16 11 0 50 3 15 15 11 2 25 4 5.7 5.7 6 0 38 5 7 7 6 0 25 6 4 4 6 0 50 7 5.9 5.9 5 0 25 8 2.8 2.5 5 0 19 9 4.3 4.6 5 0 25

10 2.8 2.4 5 0 13 11 2 2.1 5 0 25 12 0.9 1.5 5 0 50

Table 2. Blood-types within the Randall cattle herd.

Locus Allele No. A A1 20 A1H 2 A1DH 5

B 01 9 I103J’K’O’ 4 E’3 5 B28 9 PQI’ 2 I’ 3 E’3G’ 1 I1 1

C C2EW 8 R1WX2 2 C2EWX1 1 L’ 1 R1X1 1 C2EWX2 1 EWX2 1 EW 3 E 1

F F 30 V 4 J J 11 - 14

L L 13 - 10

M 1 34 S SH’ all Z Z 5 - 24 Z2 1

R S’ 11 R’S’ 7

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

15


Sponenberg et al.

they were found. Specific variants found in thepopulation are also found in Holstein, Jersey orGuernsey, and Shorthorn cattle. A few, such asI1O3J’K’O’ are rare in all other breeds, and indicatethe antiquity and uniqueness of the Randall cattle.

Specific blood-typing results indicate that onlyeight B pheno groups were found in the 17 samples,including the rare I1O3J’K’O’ type, represented byfour copies in the population, and in every casewere heterozygous. The A system shows a few typeD, with many homozygous for its absence. TheS system is non-variable in this population, as allare SH’. An older reagent, the ‘Wisconsin’ reagentwas negative in two animals, and is noteworthybecause the reagent is rarely non-reactive.

The blood-typing results are interesting in thatseveral loci reflect the history of closed breedingwithin a small herd. Even though several loci haveminimal variability, others have retained greatvariability. Singh and Nordskog (1981) suggest,after detailing similar findings in inbred lines ofchicken, that certain loci may retain variability ininbred populations due to their role in fitness andadaptability.

Landraces are notoriously difficult to define, andALBC has found that blood types or DNAfingerprinting can greatly aid in landracedefinition. This is especially the case for decisionsas to inclusion or exclusion of individual animals.Blood-typing of the Randall cattle was useful indetermining the legitimacy of one bull which hadpassed through multiple owners before beingrediscovered as a potential Randall animal. Hishistory raised some doubts about his relationship tothe breed, but blood-typing showed that he wasindeed of the breed and a useful founder animal.

Strategies for Breed ExpansionAs a result of the targeted rescue and conservationwork, the breed received publicity through theALBC. This was accomplished through theALBC newsletter, as well as through the network ofindividuals that characterizes the active breedermembers of ALBC. The initial phase of the rescuewas accomplished with very few breeders, so that aformal breeder organization was not essential. Asanimals were sold into an increasing number ofherds, the breeders organized a breed association,and formalised the registration and documentationof animals within the breed.

The breed is now finding demand as a low-inputsubsistence animal suited for home dairyproduction, as well as for the production of beef. In

addition, excess males find a ready market in asmall but strong demand for oxen. Their aptitudefor draft is high, as they are active as well aswilling, and those using the oxen specifically notethat they are very quick to learn. The organization ofbreeders as well as the increased availability ofanimals has resulted in a demand for the breed thatassures breeders of a consistent market for breedinganimals as well as for oxen. This has all beenaccomplished by diligent work on the part of thenon-governmental sector. The breed is numericallystill very rare, and it will take several years ofexpanding numbers before it becomes a main-stream production breed. It has, however, found asecure if small niche in American agriculture, sothat numbers are increasing rather than decreasing.It is therefore very unlikely to face a census crisis ordanger of extinction.

DiscussionRescue of the Randall cattle from the very doorstepof extinction has provided the ALBC with usefulexperience in working with a ‘worst case’ situationwhere a numerically rare livestock genetic resourcehas needed careful strategies for breeding andpopulation management to avoid its outrightextinction (through sale to slaughter) as well as aslower extinction through inbreeding depression.The lessons learned have had wide rangingrepercussions for the conservation of traditionallivestock genetic resources, especially in view of thelack of direct governmental support and oversightfor conservation programs in the USA. Developedcountries such as the USA present specialchallenges for the conservation of traditional,adapted livestock because these resources differfrom the usual breeds of interest which are selectedfor immediate commercial utility.

It is important to note that landraces still persistin developed countries, but are very likely to beoverlooked in organized conservation efforts due totheir poor documentation. Landraces tend to fallfrom notice when compared to standardized breedswith active breed registry organizations, and this isespecially the case when governmental agenciesand non-governmental entities focus only on themore readily identifiable standardized breeds withwell-developed breed associations that advocate fortheir breeds. In this situation it becomes all too easyto conclude that if there is no breed association,then there is no breed.

In the USA, no other strain of landrace cattlefrom New England has survived to be available for

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


conservation work, despite the anecdotalpersistence of several of these up until the 1970s or1980s. This unfortunate fact is due to the longpractice of ignoring landraces as legitimate geneticresources. The success of the conservation ofRandall Cattle stands in contrast to a more generalfailure to conserve related strains of this overall typeof cattle that would have provided greater geneticdiversity within this type of cattle.

Randall cattle illustrate the successes that can beexperienced with small populations that arefortunate enough to have caretakers that arededicated to their survival. Most of the Randallcattle recovery has been due to a single breeder(C. Creech) functioning as a private individual withno governmental support. Importantly,contributions from a few of the original animals thatremained outside of this main conservation herdhave also been essential for the conservation ofthese cattle, usually because these animalsrepresented a diversity absent from the mainconservation herd. Fortunately for the breed, manyother breeders are now contributing to its survivaland its genetic management.

Randall cattle serve as a reminder that whileinbreeding depression is a threat to breedconservation, not all inbred populations declinefrom depression. While a few cows have hadreproductive failures, the majority of the cattleremain fertile and have good health. Managing thelevels of inbreeding is clearly an important priority,and requires carefully constructed breeding plansand population-management procedures. Theeasier solution in the face of such small numbers isto resort to crossbreeding, but this strategy only

assures the premature loss of important adaptedgenetic resources.

List of ReferencesChristman, C.J., D.P. Sponenberg &

D.E. Bixby. 1977. A Rare Breeds Album of AmericanLivestock. The American Livestock BreedsConservancy. Pittsboro, North Carolina.

Rouse, J.E. 1973. World Cattle III: Cattle ofNorth America. University of Oklahoma Press.Norman, Oklahoma. 1973.

Sims, J.A. & L.E. Johnson. 1972. Animals inthe American Economy. The Iowa State UniversityPress. Ames, Iowa.

Singh, H. & A.W. Nordskog. 1981.Biochemical Polymorphic Systems in Inbred Linesof Chickens: A Survey. Biochemical Genetics 19:1031-1035.

Splan, R.K. & D.P. Sponenberg. 2004.Characterization and Conservation of the AmericanMilking Devon. Animal Genetic ResourcesInformation 34: 11-16.

Sponenberg, D.P. & C.J. Christman. 1995. AConservation Breeding Handbook. The AmericanLivestock Breeds Conservancy. Pittsboro, NorthCarolina.

17○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

AGRI 2007, 41: 17-24

ResumenEl sistema tradicional de producción caprina delnorte de Neuquen (Patagonia, Argentina),desarrollado por “crianceros” trashumantes, es unsistema marginal de baja dotación de recursoseconómicos y alta fragilidad ambiental pero quedispone de un alto capital cultural, un recursogenético adaptado y un producto de calidadsuperior reconocida pero no diferenciado. A fin desuperar esta situación se propone la aplicación deuna Denominación de Origen (DO). La propuesta sebasó en la organización de los integrantes de lacadena de valor de la carne caprina regional y ladeterminación de sus cualidades tecnológicasligado a la raza Criolla Neuquina. Se construyó unavisión común sobre el sistema y su identidad,expresada en el Protocolo de la Denominación deOrigen del “Chivito Criollo del Norte Neuquino”.Los estudios sobre la tipicidad y calidad hanpermitido establecer indicadores de la misma y latrazabilidad del producto. El fortalecimiento de lasorganizaciones campesinas y la conformación deun espacio de articulación ha permitido niveles deconcertación inexistentes hasta el presente quepotencian el desarrollo del territorio y locapitalizan, dando proyección a la sostenibilidaddel sistema y del recurso genético.

SummaryThe traditional goat production system from NorthNeuquen (Patagonia, Argentina), developed bytranshumant goat keepers is a marginal systemwith low economic input and fragile environmentbut with a high cultural capital, an adapted genetic

Puesta en valor de un sistema tradicional y de sus recursosgenéticos mediante una Indicación Geográfica: El proceso de la

Carne Caprina del Norte Neuquino en la Patagonia Argentina

M. Pérez Centeno1, M.R. Lanari2, P. Romero1, L. Monacci1, M. Zimerman2, M. Barrionuevo1, A. Vázquez5,M. Champredonde3, J. Rocca1, F. López Raggi4 & E. Domingo2

1Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, AER Chos Malal, Argentina1,2Genética en Rumiantes Menores, Area de Producción Animal, INTA EEA Bariloche, San Carlos de Bariloche,

Paraje Valle Verde S/N CC 277 (8400), Río Negro, Patagonia, Argentina3INTA EEA. Bordenave CC Nro. 44 - 8187 Bordenave, Buenos Aires, Argentina

4Fac. Economía UNCo, Argentina5Dirección de Ganadería de la Prov. del Neuquen, Argentina

resource and a product with high reputation but notdifferentiated. To overcome this situation theapplication of a Geographical Indication wasproposed. This process was based on theorganization of the local goat meat marketing chainand the description of technological properties ofthe product of the Neuquen Criollo breed. The chainactors have constructed a common vision about thesystem and its identity, which is reflected in theProtocol of the Designation of Origin of the “CriolloKid of North Neuquen”. The study on product’stypicity and quality has contributed to definequality indicators and traceability of the product.As a result Goat Keepers organizations have beenempowered, a common ground of communicationhas been established enhancing the understandinglevel among local actors, which was previously notexistent. This has reinforced regional developmentand given projection to system and genetic resourcesustainability.

RésuméLe système traditionnel de production caprine dansle Nord du Neuquen (Patagonie, Argentine),développé par les “crianceros (éleveurs)”transhumants, est un système marginal à faibleinput en ressources économiques et grande fragilitéenvironnementale, mais qui dispose d’un capitalculturel élevé, une ressources génétique adaptée etun produit de qualité supérieure reconnu mais nondifférentié. Pour améliorer cette situation onpropose la demande d’une Dénomination d’Origine(DO). La proposition se base sur l’organisation desdifférentes parties de la chaîne de valeur de laviande caprine dans la région et la définition de ses

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

18Indicación Geográfica Carne Caprina del Norte Neuquino

qualités technologiques liées à la race CriollaNeuquina. On a élaboré un plan commun sur lesystème et identité recueilli dans le Protocole de laDénomination d’Origine du “Chivito Criollo delNorte Neuquino”. Les études sur la typicité et laqualité ont permis d’établir des indicateurs de larace et la traceabilité du produit. Le renforcementdes organisations d’éleveurs et la l’établissementd’un espace ont permis des niveaux d’accordinexistants auparavant qui permettent ledéveloppement du territoire et sa capitalisation, cequi porte à une durabilité du système et de laressources génétique.

Keywords: Genetic resources, Traditional systems,Valuation of livestock keepers culture, Designation ofOrigin.

IntroducciónExisten dos planteos básicos sobre la estrategia deintervención para conservar y mantener losrecursos genéticos en animales domésticos: elprimero de ellos considera al animal per se, es decirla conservación de animales o grupos en estacionesexperimentales, zoológicos o granjas educativas(Alderson, 1990), a la que en la actualidad se sumael concepto de conservación in-vitro, medianteconservación de semen u ovocitos congelados. Porel contrario otra corriente considera que ladiversidad genética de las poblaciones de animalesdomésticos puede ser mantenida sólo en el contextosocial y ambiental que les dio origen,fundamentándose en que la diversidad genética esprincipalmente el producto del proceso de seleccióndado por las condiciones ambientales localescombinadas con las estrategias de manejo yselección de las comunidades rurales que las crían(Köhler-Rollefson, 2000). Desde esta perspectiva lacaracterización del recurso genético es el primerpaso dentro de la estrategia de conservación (FAO,1998). Los pasos posteriores deberían asegurar lasostenibilidad del recurso en el largo plazo.

En este sentido el trabajo realizado en relacióncon la Cabra Criolla Neuquina (CCN) adhiere alconcepto de conservación enunciado porKöhler-Rollefson (2000), considerando la raza en elcontexto del sistema rural tradicional del que esparte. A partir de 1997 el Instituto Nacional deTecnología Agropecuaria (INTA) en cooperacióncon la Dirección de Agricultura y Ganadería(DAyG) de la provincia de Neuquén iniciaron unaserie de trabajos de investigación tendentes acomprender el funcionamiento del sistema de

producción y caracterizar la población caprina dela región ubicada en el norte de la provincia deNeuquén, Patagonia, Argentina en un área de unos30 000 km2 (Figura 1). La utilización de enfoquessistémicos orientados a los actores (Long, 1992) ymetodologías de investigación-acción (Albadalejo yCasabianca, 1997) que involucró a los destinatariosen los estudios, buscaba comprender sus prácticasasí como el modelo de gestión de los recursosexistentes.

Los resultados de estos trabajos decaracterización fenotípica, genética y productivahan establecido sus particularidades que en síntesisla muestran como una entidad genética única ydefinida (Lanari, 2004; Lanari et al., 2006). Laconsideración de este enfoque sistémico, implicóinvolucrar los grupos sociales, en este caso decrianceros trashumantes, que son efectivamentequienes han modelado la población y viven de ella(Lanari et al., 2005). El ambiente físico, la historiaeconómica y social de la región así como laimportante intervención de las políticas de

Figura 1. Provincia de Neuquén (Patagonia, Argentina) yzona de intervención.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

19


Pérez Centeno et al.

desarrollo emanadas desde el estado provincial haninfluido sobre el sistema tradicional (Pérez Centeno,2001).

Los crianceros, constituyen un grupo social demás de 1 500 familias con fuerte arraigo a la tierra.Sus unidades de producción, asentadasgeneralmente sobre tierras públicas, son destinadasesencialmente al autoconsumo, con una inserciónlimitada al mercado. La historia y evolución de lapoblación rural de la región muestran la capacidadde transformación y adaptación de estrategias parasobrevivir en un ambiente físico y social difícil(Pérez Centeno, 2007).

El sistema rural tradicional se caracteriza por serextensivo y trashumante, de estacionalidad estricta(Lanari et al., 2006). El reconocimiento de acuerdossociales internos y de las prácticas culturales deraigambre indígena lo muestran como unarespuesta socialmente construida frente a larealidad en la que se ha desarrollado (PérezCenteno, 2001). El sistema presenta actualmenterestricciones tales como reducción de áreas depastoreo de invierno (invernadas) y particularmentede verano (veranadas) y las correspondientes rutasde arreo, el envejecimiento de los productoresasentados efectivamente en el campo y la migraciónde los jóvenes entre otros problemas, que soncomunes a otras comunidades pastorales (Blench,2000; Leneman y Reid, 2001). Estas se suman a lascondiciones estructurales del sistema que presentauna alta dispersión geográfica, gran distancia a losmercados, estacionalidad marcada en laproducción y bajo nivel de organización de laoferta. Sin embargo el principal producto delsistema, el “chivito del norte neuquino”, no solo esmotivo de orgullo para los crianceros sino quedetenta un alto reconocimiento en los mercadosregionales. La utilización de su nombre comoargumento de venta por parte de loscomercializadores, es un claro indicador delprestigio que goza el producto en sus mercadostradicionales. En la actualidad, no es posible ladiferenciación del “chivito” por parte de losconsumidores respecto a las produccionesprovenientes de otras regiones, ya que no existeningún mecanismo que garantice su procedencia.La falta de diferenciación del producto en elmercado podría promover, como señala Akerlof(1970) una selección adversa ante la imposibilidadde reconocimiento de la calidad que castiga suprecio de venta.

En otras palabras, nos situamos frente a unsistema marginal de baja dotación de recursoseconómicos y alta fragilidad de los recursosnaturales pero que dispone de un alto capital

cultural, un recurso genético adaptado y unproducto de calidad superior reconocida.

El trabajo interinstitucional contribuyó a laconformación de un espacio de diálogo entrecrianceros, intermediarios, organizacionesprofesionales, agentes de desarrollo einvestigadores de diferentes disciplinas quienesconstruyeron una visión consensuada de laactividad, constituyéndose en una plataforma parael desarrollo territorial, basado en la valoración y lajerarquización de la producción caprina regional. Eldesafío que se planteó fue hacer sustentable alsistema, entendiendo que sólo de ese modo podrádar lugar al desarrollo de esta comunidad rural y enconsecuencia la preservación de su recursogenético.

El uso de signos de distinción de calidad comola Denominación de Origen (DO), surge como unaherramienta que beneficia tanto al sector productivocomo a los consumidores (Lacroix et al., 2000) y deimpacto social positivo (Jatib, 1995). Este signo nosólo distingue un producto sino que lo vincula conel saber hacer y la cultura existente detrás de laactividad productiva. Las experiencias existentes selocalizan fundamentalmente en Europamediterránea (Lambert-Derkimba, et al., 2006),siendo los productos lácteos y los vinos los que másaprovechan estos mecanismos. En Argentina no sepresentan ejemplos de DO en productosagroalimentarios a excepción de los vinos que sonregulados según una legislación particular. Enconsecuencia la propuesta de valorizar un productocárnico producido en un sistema tradicional en unaregión marginal de un país en desarrollo, suponeatravesar nuevos caminos, crear condiciones yenfrentar un desafío.

En este trabajo se expone la experienciarealizada en el norte de la Patagonia Argentina,donde pequeños productores, intermediarios,comercializadores, e instituciones públicas sereunieron a fin de construir el marco tecnológico yorganizativo de la Denominación de Origen (DO)para la carne caprina del norte neuquino. Lahipótesis de nuestra experiencia sostiene que losmecanismos de diferenciación basados en el origenson una herramienta eficaz para la promoción deldesarrollo territorial, la valoración de la culturacampesina y del recurso genético local.

Materiales y MétodosLas actividades desarrolladas se enmarcaron en unproyecto de Investigación y Desarrollo financiadopor la Agencia Nacional de Ciencia y Técnica, el

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Municipio de la ciudad de Chos Malal, principalcentro urbano de la región y el INTA. El proyecto seinició en el año 2005.

Los dos aspectos básicos del trabajo fueron: laorganización de los integrantes de la cadena devalor de la carne caprina regional para laconstrucción de la DO y la determinación decualidades tecnológicas y nutricionales de losproductos a proteger. Asimismo se realizaronestudios sobre la actividad comercial y laconceptualización que tienen los diferentes actoressobre la calidad.

La organización de los integrantes de la cadenade valor se consideró a través de talleres endiferentes parajes de la región norte de Neuquén. Enellos se procuró identificar las motivaciones para elinicio de un proceso de diferenciación, así como losniveles de articulación entre los actores. Los talleresefectuados tuvieron dos objetivos diferentes:1. Talleres informativos y de sensibilización.2. Talleres de Construcción de la DO (Figura 2).

Talleres informativos y desensibilización

Se efectuaron diez talleres en los cualesparticiparon más de trescientos productores,comercializadores e integrantes de quinceinstituciones de la región, a los que se informó sobrelas diferentes alternativas para la diferenciación deproductos agroalimentarios (Marcas comerciales,DO, IG, Producto Orgánico), las especificidades delos mismos y las exigencias para su obtención. Estaactividad de sensibilización fue acompañada poruna campaña informativa a través de diferentesmedios locales (radial, gráfico y televisivo)focalizada en los establecimientos educacionalescon el fin de sensibilizar sobre el valor del recursoproductivo y la necesidad de su protección en elmercado.

Talleres de Construcción de la DO

En una segunda etapa a lo largo de cuatro talleres,se indagó sobre la representación que la sociedadtiene del Norte Neuquino, sobre las especificidadesde su identidad, los modos de producción local, asícomo los límites socialmente reconocidos de dichoterritorio.

Los mencionados Talleres fueron la base de lasactividades posteriores que incluyeron: Talleres dediscusión sobre formas de asociación, constitución

del consejo regulador de la DO, reglamentaciones yaspectos legales.

Los aspectos tecnológicos incluyeron ladeterminación de indicadores de calidad para lasdistintas fases de la elaboración del producto, esdecir:• La caracterización de las categorías a proteger, el

grado de terminación in vivo.• La calidad de la canal y la calidad sensorial.

Este trabajo se realizó en el Frigorífico de ChosMalal, cuyas instalaciones y procedimientoshabilitan para la comercialización de los productoscárnicos a destinos diversos. Todos los muestreosrealizados fueron realizados en época normal decomercialización, que corresponde a los meses deoctubre a abril.

Por último se realizó un análisis de la demandaen el ámbito de operadores comerciales medianteencuestas a intermediarios, comercializadores yrestaurantes, localizados en el área de producciónasí como en los centros naturales de consumo: laregión de los Lagos cordilleranos, área de actividadturística, y en el Alto Valle de Río Negro y Neuquen,que con cerca de medio millón de habitantes es el

Figura 2. Foto tomada durante uno de los talleresinformativos.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

21



mayor conglomerado urbano de la Patagonia. Elobjetivo particular de este análisis fue comprenderlos modos de compra y venta a lo largo de la cadenaproductivo-comercial, desde el criancero hasta elconsumidor, así como la forma en que se construyela calidad del producto.

ResultadosLa realización de los talleres informativos permitióconsensuar el concepto de distinción de calidadcomo herramienta para poner en valor laproducción caprina. Se observó un marcado orgullopor el ser “criancero” y por el producto “chivito”,destacándose el valor que le asignan a la razaCriolla Neuquina. Esta autovaloración resultafundamental al momento de construir la DO.

En los Talleres de construcción de la DO, laparticipación de más de cien productores,comercializadores e instituciones permitióexplicitar la imagen común, que resume laespecificidad regional. Los siguientes elementossurgieron como los de mayor importancia:• La presencia de la Cabra Criolla Neuquina en

cualquiera de sus dos biotipos.• La realización de la trashumancia.• La homogeneidad de los pastizales de los

campos de veranada ubicados en la alta cuencadel río Neuquén y Barrancas.Estos elementos delimitan territorios diferentes

que se superponen en el área que define laDenominación de Origen (Figura 3). En ella se

evidencia una identidad comúnconstruida en función del uso delespacio y los modos de circulación. Elárea de la DO está integrada por todaslas unidades de producción que hacentrashumancia en los campos deveranada ubicados en losdepartamentos Minas, Chos Malal,Pehuenches o Ñorquin (Figura 4).Los modos de producción que

caracterizan a la región fuerondescritos en dos talleres, en los cualesdetallaron la gestión del rodeo, elmanejo reproductivo, nutricional,sanitario, así como la rotación entre losdiferentes campos y el arreo. El cicloanual de producción fue definido comoestrictamente estacional, con servicio de

otoño y parición de primavera, gracias al trabajo delcastronero o chivatero1, en lugares alejados fuera de laépoca de servicio. Esta práctica fue desarrollada sinintervención externa surgida frente a la necesidadde regular la época de los nacimientos. Laexistencia de pautas no escritas, como los modos deretribución, los momentos de recepción y entrega delos reproductores y las formas de sancionar losdescuidos en el manejo, permiten reconocerla comouna práctica institucionalizada, que si bien seencuentra en sistemas productivos vecinos, nomanifiesta igual intensidad.

La trashumancia entendida como “... el hecho detrasladarse de un lugar a otro por arreo oexcepcionalmente en camión. No importa el medio...eltema es estar un tiempo en una parte y otro tiempo en otraparte. Esto es lo que nos caracteriza a nosotros;… es unelemento estructurador de las relaciones sociales, ya quela participación de la familia permitió la formación devínculos con pobladores distribuidos a lo largo de la rutade arreo. Esto se constituyó en un elementohomogeneizador de las relaciones sociales y lainformación entre los productores. La alternancia entrelos campos bajos y los campos altos fue señalada como unelemento esencial para la tipicidad del producto: Elcambio de pastura es lo que da el sabor al chivo. Si no secambia de pasto, no hay sabor del chivo…”.

Al definir qué tipo de animal y qué producto sedebería proteger con la DO, se definió claramentepor proteger la raza Criolla Neuquina y al chivito

Figura 3. Foto del grupo delimitando la región.

1Castronero o chivatero: Productor especializado en elcuidado de machos normalmente durante el períodonoviembre a marzo.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


con dos categorías posibles; el “chivito mamón”, dehasta 90 días de edad, lactante y que no hubieserealizado arreos a las pasturas altas, y el “chivito deveranada”, que realiza al menos un arreo y se haalimentado de las pasturas de las veranadas,siendo su edad límite los 180 días. El nombreelegido por los propios participantes fue “ChivitoCriollo del Norte Neuquino” (Figura 5)

El trabajo sobre los aspectos tecnológicos estuvodirigido a establecer los parámetros y losindicadores de cada una de las categorías que losmismos crianceros buscan proteger en la DO. Losresultados de estos estudios fueron detallados porDomingo et al. (2005). En base a estos resultados seestableció una metodología para la clasificación delas canales y los umbrales de calidad pertinentes ala distinción con el sello de la DO, además deldesarrollo de indicadores de calidad in vivo.

Como resultado del trabajo de talleres y sobre losaspectos que hacen a la calidad del producto, seredactó y acordó con los interesados el Protocolo dela DO. Este documento fue presentado ante lasautoridades de la Secretaría de Agricultura,Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentación en diciembre de2005 por el Consejo de Promoción de laDenominación. Dicha presentación fue la primerasolicitud formal en Argentina en el marco de la leyNº 25.380. Simultáneamente se constituyó el ConsejoRegulador conformado por representantes de lacadena de valor (productores, comercializadores ytransformadores) y el Consejo Asesor integrado porlas instituciones tecnológicas, académicas y dedesarrollo vinculadas al sector. Esta iniciativapermitió la organización del sector y la articulaciónentre los actores alrededor de un proyecto común.

Al mismo tiempo, se estudió elmercado local y regional (Alto Valle delRío Negro y Lagos cordilleranos) asícomo las articulaciones entre losdiferentes actores de la cadena(productores, matarifes, restaurantes,supermercados y consumidores) conrespecto a la calidad del producto.Simultáneamente, se evaluarondiferentes alternativas de presentaciónde productos (desarrollo de cortescomerciales, envasado al vacío, etc.), asícomo nuevas vías de comercializaciónpara productos Premium.

DiscusiónLa presente experiencia nos ha permitido laimplementación de nuevos enfoques aplicados a lainvestigación y el desarrollo dirigido a espaciosmultiactorales con énfasis en el sector campesino.Un enfoque orientado a los actores y sureconocimiento como sujetos “capaces” y“competentes” para delinear su propio desarrolloresulta esencial como punto de partida de laintervención pública.

Por otra parte este reconocimiento aplicado a lagestión de los recursos genéticos, conduce areafirmar el derecho de los crianceros sobre elrecurso. En este proceso iniciado en 1997 se hademostrado no sólo que los crianceros han sido losformadores de la raza Criolla Neuquina (Lanari etal., 2005), que han construido y adaptado con suspropios conocimientos y sus propias estrategias desobrevivencia en el marco de su sistema rural (PérezCenteno, 2007), sino que también son activos en la

Figura 4. Mapa del área de la DO

Figura 5. Logo de presentación del producto protegidopor la Denominación de Origen.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

23



formulación de propuestas superadoras. En estesentido este trabajo coincide con el conceptopromovido por Lohkit Pashu-Palak Sansthan (2005)según el cual son los propios campesinos los quepueden y deben tomar sus propias decisiones conrelación a sus recursos genéticos. Estos derechos losresguardan de perder la propiedad sobre losmismos, al tiempo que previene la introduccióninadecuada de germoplasma exótico,frecuentemente promovida por intereses externos alas comunidades.

La valorización de los recursos genéticos y lossaberes locales como capital permitió laconstrucción de un desarrollo alternativo que parteya no de la asimilación de modelos exógenosbasados en producciones estándares sino desde suidentidad cultural.

La metodología de investigación-acción que hapromovido la concertación de los objetivos deinvestigación y la participación activa de losdestinatarios durante la implementación de lasmismas ha posibilitado la estructuración de unespacio de confianza fructífero que facilitó elintercambio de saberes, la comprensión de susprácticas y la apropiación de las acciones públicaspor parte de los beneficiarios.

La protección de un producto ligado a unrecurso genético específico puede estar fundada ensu tipicidad o simplemente estar relacionado almarketing (Lambert-Derkimba, et al., 2006). Ennuestro caso, el recurso genético se halla ligado alsistema y su gente de modo estrecho y por lo tantosu vínculo es genuino.

Desde el punto de vista tecnológico estaexperiencia ha sido innovadora en la puesta envalor de un producto local, al que se le aplicancriterios de calidad y seguridad que protegen alconsumidor y le dan garantías sanitarias ynutricionales. Por otra parte los aspectosproductivos, se ponen del mismo modo en laperspectiva de la calidad y la sostenibilidadambiental, orientando de este modo las decisionesproductivas.

La articulación con otras actividades sociales yproductivas movilizadas a partir de la valoraciónde la identidad local y la cultura, implícitas en laDenominación de Origen, genera una sinergia enlas actividades desarrolladas en la región querefuerzan las interacciones entre los espaciosrurales y los urbanos.

Por otra parte la DO ha favorecido el desarrollode la institucionalidad, como es el Consejo de

Regulador y las Asociaciones profesionales querefuerzan a través de dicho espacio su identidad. Elfortalecimiento de las organizaciones campesinas yla conformación de un espacio multiactoralvinculado al sistema productivo permite niveles deconcertación y articulación inexistentes hasta elpresente que potencian el desarrollo del territorio ylo capitalizan. La DO abre las puertas a larevalorización territorial dando un nuevo horizontea la sostenibilidad del sistema.

ReferenciasAkerlof, A. 1970. The market for lemons:

quality uncertainly and the market mechanism.Quaterly Journal of Economics, (84). 488-500.

Albadalejo, C. & F. Casabianca. 1997.Eléments pour un débat autour des pratiques derecherche-action. Etudes et Recherches sur lesSystèmes Agraires et le Développement, INRA,pp. 127-149.

Alderson, L. 1990. The work of the rareBreeds Survival Trust. In: L. Alderson (Ed.) “GeneticConservation of Domestic Livestock”. CAB Internac.London. Cap. 3: 33-43.

Blench, R. 2000. Extensive PastoralProduction Systems: Issues and Options for thefuture. FAO, pp. 78.

Domingo, E. M. Zimerman, R. Raiman &M.R. Lanari. 2005. Caracterización de las canalesde Chivitos Criollos Neuquinos. Revista Argentinade Producción Animal. 25:(Suplemento 1) pp. 370.

FAO. 1998. Primer documento de líneasdirectrices para la elaboración de planes nacionalesde gestión de los recursos genéticos de animales degranja, pp. 146.

Jatib, M.I. 1995. Propuestas para laimplementación del sistema de denominaciones deorigen en argentina. In: Primer seminariointernacional de denominaciones de origen.SAGPyA. Buenos Aires , 19-20 de abril, pp. 179-204.

Köhler-Rollefson, I. 2000. Management ofanimal genetic diversity at community level.I. Köhler-Rollefson (Ed.), GTZ, GMBH, pp. 24.

Lacroix,A., A. Mollard & B. Pecquer. 2000.Origine et produits de qualité territoriale: du signalá l´attribut? 01-21. (Abstract).

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Lambert-Derkimba, A., F. Casablanca &E. Verrier. 2006. L’inscription du type génétiquedans le reglements techniques des produitsanimaux sous AOC: consequences pour les racesanimales. INRA Prod. Anim. 19: 357-370.

Lanari, M.R. 2004. Variación y diferenciacióngenética y fenotípica de la Cabra Criolla Neuquinaen relación con su sistema rural campesino. Fac.Biología. Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche.Univ. Nacional del Comahue, pp. 234.

Lanari, M.R., E. Domingo, M. Pérez Centeno& L. Gallo. 2005. Pastoral community selection andgenetic structure of a local goat breed in Patagonia.FAO, AGRI 37: 31-42.

Lanari, M.R., M. Pérez Centeno, &E. Domingo. 2006. La Cabra Criolla Neuquina y susistema de producción. En: FAO (2006) People andanimals. Traditional Livestosck keepers: guardiansof domestic animal diversity. A documentation of 13case studies on how communities manage theirlocal animal genetic resources. K. Tempelman andR.A. Cardellino (Eds). FAO InterdepartmentalWorking Group on Biol. Divers. For Food and Agric.Rome, Italy.

Leneman, M. & R. Reid. 2001. Pastoralismbeyond the past. Development, Local/GlobalEncounters 44 (4): 85-89.

Lokhit Pashu-Palak Sansthan. 2005.Indigenous breeds. Local communities.Documenting Animal Breeds and Breeding from aCommunity Perspective. Ed. I. Köhler-Rollefson.Mudra, India, pp. 64.

Long, N. 1992. Battlefields of knowledge. TheInterlocking of Theory and Practice in SocialResearch and Development. Routledge. London &New Cork, pp. 306.

Pérez Centeno, M. 2001. Etude des stratégiesde la petite production familiale minifundiste et deson articulation avec les institutions dudéveloppement. Le cas des éleveurs transhumantsdu Nord de la Province de Neuquén (PatagonieArgentine). Université de Toulouse Le Mirail,pp.123.

Pérez Centeno, M. 2007. Transformationsdes stratégies social et productives des Criancerostranshumants de la province de Neuquén et leursrelations avec les interventions de développement.Thèse de doctorat (In Press).

25○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

AGRI 2007, 41: 25-28

SummaryFor many years the performance of the indigenouslivestock of Africa was regarded as inferior. It wasonly when the results of research and performancerecording were published that the value of a breedsuch as the Nguni was acknowledged. Thisresulted in an interest in the breed from commercialfarmers, which lead to the establishment of abreeder’s society in 1986, but with no officialpedigrees it was a challenge to establish a herdbook.

This article describes how the principles ofupgrading were initially used to develop a herdbook until the Nguni was recognized as anestablished breed in 1996. Subsequently a system offirst registration was implemented. This systemcaters for emerging black farmers in South Africawho want to become seed stock breeders and allowsfor the good quality Nguni genetic materialavailable to the communal black farmers to enter theseed stock industry.

RésuméLa performance des animaux indigènes Africains aété pendant longtemps considérée comme médiocre.C’est seulement après la publication des rechercheset résultats de leurs performances que la valeur desraces comme la Nguni a été reconnue; d’où l’intérêtsoudain des fermiers pour cette race; intérêt quirésultera en la formation d’une Associationd’éleveurs de la race Nguni en 1984; toutefois enl’absence des données fiables concernant leurpedigree, il était difficile d’établir le “herd book” deces animaux.

Cet article décrit comment les méthodesd’amélioration génétiques avaient été entreprisespour l’établissement d’un “herd book” qui conduisit

Experience in establishing a herd book for thelocal Nguni breed in South Africa

M.M. Scholtz1,2 & K.A. Ramsay3

¹Post Graduate School in Animal Breeding, University of the Free State, P.O. Box 339,Bloemfontein 9301, South Africa

2(Corresponding address:ARC – Animal Production Institute,Private Bag X2, Irene 0062, South Africa)

3Department of Agriculture, Private Bag X138, Pretoria 0001, South Africa

à la reconnaissance de la Nguni en tant que race en1996; ce qui d’office résultat en la mise sur piedsd’un système d’inscription qui, d’une part pourvoitune place pour les fermiers noirs Sud-africainsdésireux de devenir éleveurs d’animaux de type pursang Nguni; de l’autre ce système prévoit qu’unesemence Nguni de bonne qualité soit disponibleparmi les fermiers noirs; ce qui leur faciliteraitl’accès au sein de l’Association d’éleveurs de la raceNguni.

ResumenDurante mucho tiempo se ha considerado elrendimiento de las razas indígenas africanas comomediocre. A raíz de la publicación de una serie deresultados e investigaciones sobre sus rendimientosel valor de algunas razas como la Ngumi ha sidoreconocido; de ahí el interés de algunos ganaderospor esta raza. Este interés llevo en 1984 a la creaciónde una asociación de ganaderos de la raza Nguni.Sin embargo, dada la escasez de datos fidedignossobre el pedigrí era difícil establecer un librogenealógico de estos animales. Este artículodescribe cómo se llevaron a cabo los métodos demejora genética para establecer un libro genealógicoque llevó al reconocimiento de la Nguni como razaen 1996. Esto fue posible gracias a la puesta enpráctica de un sistema de inscripción que, por unaparte, da espacio a los ganaderos negrossud-africanos que desean criar animales de tipopura sangre Nguni, por otro lado, este sistema preveque el semen de buena calidad de Nguni seadisponible para los ganaderos negros, lo que lefacilitará el acceso a la asociación de ganaderos deraza Nguni.

Keywords: Sanga cattle, Commercial breeders,Upgrading program.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

26Establishing a herd book for local breeds

IntroductionThe Sanga cattle (Bos Taurus africanis) (Meyer, 1984)originally found along the east coast of SouthernAfrica are known as the Nguni. Due to a lack ofperformance recording during the period ofcolonization, these cattle and many otherindigenous livestock of Africa were regarded asinferior. This perception was the result of Africanman living in a symbiotic relationship with hisanimals. His animals were invaluable as theyprovided for most of his needs (Matjuda, 2005). Inaddition, the status value of animals resulted inmore animals being kept and overstocking becamethe order of the day (Scholtz, 1988). A second reasonfor the earlier ignorance surrounding the qualitiesof the Nguni stemmed from the variety of coloursand colour patterns often encountered amongstanimals of the breed. These wide ranges of coloursand colour patterns are in sharp contrast to thegeneral tendency in the stud breeding industry toemphasize uniformity. As a result of this, the studbreeding industry was unable to identify the muchemphasized antiquated breed standards (Bonsma,1980), and regarded these animals as anindiscriminate mixture of breeds (Scholtz, 1988).

In South Africa, this perception of inferiority ledto the promulgation of an Act in 1934 in whichindigenous breeds and types were regarded as‘scrub’ (non descript). Inspectors were appointed toinspect the bulls in communal areas (those inpossession of indigenous Africans) and to castratethem if regarded as inferior. Fortunately this Actwas applied effectively for only a few years, since itwas very unpopular (Hofmeyr, 1994). During thefirst part of the previous century little or noattention was paid to the improvement or study ofthe potential of indigenous cattle breeds in SouthAfrica, except for the Afrikaner.

The potential of the Nguni was onlydemonstrated following the introduction of a beefcattle recording scheme in 1959 in South Africa andthe publication of research results on the Nguni inthe early 1980’s. This resulted in a keen interest inthe Nguni by the commercial farmers of SouthAfrica, and the Nguni has now grown numericallyto be the second largest stud beef breed in SouthAfrica, according to the information obtained fromSouth Africa’s national database (IntegratedRegistration and Genetic InformationSystem-INTERGIS) on 1 April 2007.

All the seed stock (stud) of Ngunis originatesfrom the original custodians (communal farmers)that maintained the breed over many centuries.However, there was no benefit sharing by these

original custodians and in many cases they wereexploited by the commercial farmers in order to takepossesion of their animals. Currently there is stillvery good quality Nguni genetic material availableto South Africa’s communal black farmers.Recognizing the value of such genetic material, theNguni Cattle Breeder’s Society in collaboration withthe Agricultural Research Council (ARC) developeda process of first registration to cater for suchanimals. This system specifically caters foremerging black farmers that want to become Ngunistud breeders.

MethodsThe interest in the Nguni from commercial breedershad already begun in the 1970’s, when the onlysource of Ngunis was in remote tribal areas wherethe influence of imported exotic breeds was lessprevalent (Hobbs, 2006). The initial attempts tocollect animals from these areas were difficult. Thecommercial breeders were lucky to find animals thatcould be bought as “nothing was for sale” and suchattempts would on many occasions result in thecollection of only one heifer and an old cow or twowith only one teat that had survived the onslaughtof ticks.

In the 1980’s the interest in the Nguni from thecommercial sector accelerated and in August 1983the breed was recognized as a developing breedunder the Livestock Improvement Act (No. 25 of1977) and a breeder’s society was established in1986. At that stage there were about 3 000 Ngunifemales in a few well managed herds (mostlygovernment farms). However, the Nguni in thecommunal areas was under severe threat, mainlydue to crossbreeding with the Brahman (Scholtz,2005). During this period there were no effectivemechanisms in place to control the acquisition ofNgunis, and the original custodians in many caseswere exploited by commercial farmers in order totake possesion of their animals; inter alia twoBrahman heifers would be swapped for one Nguniheifer.

With a breeder’s society in place, but with nopedigree information, it was a challenge to establisha herd book. The usual techniques, namely topcrossing or upgrading (Dalton, 1980) were notapplicable to the Nguni. A top cross is when abreeder or breeders go back to the original source ofthe breed for some new genetic material. In the caseof the Nguni this could not be done, since there wasno herd book.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

27


Scholtz & Ramsay

Upgrading is where one breed is changed (gradedup) to another by continued crossing. It has beenwidely used throughout the world where stock wasgraded up by a number of crosses with registeredStudbook Proper (SP) sires from a specific breed. It iscommonly accepted that four generations ofcrossing with a registered sire (SP) will result inpurebred status.

An upgrading program will work as follows:Unspecified original Female x Registered Sire (SP)

(50% pure) Female x Registered Sire (SP) (F1)

(75% pure) Female x Registered Sire (SP) (F2)

(87.5% pure) Female x Registered Sire (SP) (F3)

(93.75% pure) Female (SP) (F4)

These principles of upgrading were adapted inthe initial development of a herd book for theNguni. In contrast to normal upgrading where theF1 is 50% pure, in this case F1 referred to animalsthat were phenotypically Nguni, but with nopedigree information. In cases where the farmershad pedigree information, their animals wereaccepted as F2, irrespective of the number ofpedigree generations.

The development process was thus as follows:

F1 x F1, F2, F3 or F4 = F2

F2 x F2, F3 or F4 = F3

F3 x F3 or F4 = F4

F4 x F4 = F4

F1 referred to animals that were phenotypicallyNguni, but with no pedigree information. In caseswhere the farmers had pedigree information, theiranimals were accepted as F2, irrespective of thenumber of pedigree generations.

In 1996 the Nguni was recognized as anestablished (developed) breed, and the systemchanged from the F rating to an appendix andSP (Studbook Proper) system. All F1 and F2 animalsthat met the breed standards were classified as

Appendix A, F3 animals as Appendix B and F4animals as SP.

This system worked as follows:

Appendix A x A, B or SP = Appendix BAppendix B x B or SP = Studbook Proper

Results and DiscussionThe interest from the seed stock industry in theNguni resulted in revived interest in the Nguni fromthe emerging/small scale sector. It is now generallyaccepted that the research and performance resultsthat were published saved the Nguni from thepossible threat of extinction. The Nguni has nowgrown numerically to the second largest stud beefbreed in South Africa. The stud animals currentlyconsist of over 30 000 females with an estimated1.8 million Nguni type animals in South Africa.This clearly demonstrates the important role abreeder’s society can play in in-situ conservation.

Currently there is still very high quality Ngunigenetic material available amongst the cattle ofSouth Africa's communal black farmers. However,up to now there has not been an easy way that thisgenetic material could enter the seed stock industry.Recognizing the value of such genetic material, theNguni Cattle Breeder's Society in collaboration withthe ARC developed a process of First Registration tocater for such animals. First Registration (FR) refersto phenotypically Nguni animals that enter theNguni register from the first time, e.g. a farmer whohas been farming commercially with Ngunis andnow wants to become a Stud Breeder. This systemalso specifically caters for emerging black farmerswho want to become Nguni Stud Breeders, and theyare encouraged to enter the Seed Stock Industry.

This system works as follows :

First Registration (FR) x FR, A, B or SP=Appendix A(Phenotypic Nguni)

Appendix A x A, B or SP = Appendix BAppendix B x B or SP = Studbook Proper

Restriction is placed on the sale of FR animalsfirstly to ensure that not only do they look like pureNgunis, but also that they breed and perform likepure Ngunis and meet the minimum breedstandards. Secondly the restriction ensures that theFR animals remain in the ownership of emerging

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

28Establishing a herd book for local breeds

farmers for a period of time, and are not exploited byestablished seed stock breeders who want to takepossession of their good quality animals.

In the case of females a cow must have at leastone calving interval and her average calvinginterval must not exceed 550 days. At least one ofher calves must also have passed an inspectionbefore she can be sold. Bulls must have at least20 progeny submitted for inspection of which 50%have passed the inspection, before it can be sold.

The ARC launched an alien plant controlprogramme in communal areas north of Pongola inKwaZulu-Natal. Following this project one of thecommunities demonstrated their intentions tocommercialize their livestock enterprise. TheEmoyeni community of 18 families secured thegrazing rights to approximately 1 500 hectare ofcommunal land. They have 85 sexual maturefemales most of which are Ngunis of high geneticquality that can enter the system of FirstRegistration of the Nguni Cattle Breeders Society,and the ARC is busy assisting them with thisprocess.

ConclusionIf the intervention in the Emoyeni community issuccessful it will be the first instance in SouthAfrica and probably the world, where a communalcommunity progressed to be stud farmers usingtheir own original animals. For the first time it willbe possible for communal farmers to benefit from theexceptionally high prices that are currently beingpaid for Stud Nguni cattle in South Africa.

A Breeder's Society can play a pivotal role in thesustainable use of local livestock genetic resources,since it can act as the modern custodians for thesustainable utilization of such breeds. However,they should move away from the antiquatedoveremphasis on uniformity and artificial breed

standards, while ensuring that such breeds remainor become competitive. This will necessitate properpedigree and performance recording in order toidentify any undesirable genetic drift and to ensurecompetitiveness through proper breeding programsdesigned for local conditions.

List of ReferencesDalton, D.C. 1980. An introduction to

practical animal breeding. Granada Publishing,Great Britain.

Bonsma, J.C. 1980. Livestock Production - Aglobal approach. Tafelberg, Cape Town.

Hobbs, P. 2006. Musings of a (white) Nguniveteran. Nguni Journal, 3-9.

Hofmeyr, J.H. 1994. Findings of a committeere a gene bank for Livestock. Proc. Conf.Conservation Early Domesticated Animals ofSouthern Africa, Pretoria, 3-4 March 1994.

Matjuda, L.E. 2005. The role of the Angusbreed in the emerging beef sector in South Africa.Proc. 9th World Angus Forum Technical Meeting.Cape Town, 19 March 2005, 61-65.

Meyer, E.H.H. 1984. Chromosomal andbiochemical gentic markers of cattel breeds insouthern Africa. Proceedings of th 2nd WorldCongress on Sheep and beef Cattle Breeding,328-339.

Scholtz, M.M. 1988. Selection possibilities ofhardy beef breeds in Africa:The Nguni example.Proc. 3rd World Congr. Sheep Beef Cattle Breed.Paris, 19–23 June 1988, 303–319.

Scholtz. M.M. 2005. History and backgroundof the Nguni in South Africa. Nguni Journal, 7-9.

29○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

AGRI 2007, 41: 29-43

SummaryA large proportion of dairy foods consumed byhumans are produced using milk from commercialdairy breeds. The result of high selection intensities,narrow breeding objectives and ignoring inbreedingin past decades is that much attention now needs tobe given to conserving these commercial breeds tomaintain and increase food production and meetfuture demands. The characteristics of a sustainablebreeding program are broad breeding objectives,measures to control inbreeding rates andcontinuous genetic improvement to keeppopulations competitive. It is necessary to includetraits in the breeding objectives that reduce the costprice of products in addition to traits that increasethe output of products. Breeding objectives differbetween countries (production environments), andtogether with genotype-environment interaction forsingle traits (e.g. milk yield) the implication is thatranking of animals for local breeding goals differsbetween countries (production environments).Acknowledging this in selection programs leads tolarger number of selected animals - at least on aglobal level, adding to the global diversity incommercial dairy cattle populations. Interbullprovides international comparisons of bulls fromsix dairy breeds for most of the economicallyimportant traits, thereby enabling global selectionfor broad breeding objectives in many countriesaround the world.

RésuméUne grande partie des produits laitiers pour laconsommation humaine provient de lait de racescommerciales. Le résultat d’une sélection intense,d’objectifs d’amélioration limités et ne pas tenircompte des problèmes de consanguinité dans lepassé nous portent aujourd’hui à la nécessité d’une

Development of international genetic evaluations of dairy cattle forsustainable breeding programs

W.F. Fikse & J. Philipsson

Interbull Centre, Dept. of Animal Breeding and Genetics,Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Uppsala, Sweden

majeure attention à la conservation de ces racescommerciales tout en conservant et augmentant laproduction alimentaire pour faire face à la demandedans le futur. Les caractéristiques d’un programmed’amélioration durable sont les objectifs plus larges,les mesures pour contrôler les niveaux deconsanguinité et l’amélioration génétique continuepour obtenir que les populations soientcompétitives. Il est nécessaire d’inclure certainstraits dans les objectifs d’amélioration qui aident àréduire le coût des produits, ainsi que d’autres quipermettent d’augmenter la production de ces mêmeproduits. Les objectifs d’amélioration dépendentdes pays (p.e. milieu de production) et del’interaction génotype-milieu pour chacune de cesraces (p.e. performances lait), ce qui entraîne que lamarge du nombre d’animaux disponible pour lesobjectifs d’amélioration soit différente d’un pays àl’autre (milieu de production). Prenant enconsidération ce point nous pouvons augmenter lenombre d’animaux sélectionnés, au moins auniveau mondial, ainsi que la diversité mondialedans les populations de bovin à lait. Interbullfournis des comparaisons au niveau internationalede taureaux appartenant à six races laitières parmiles plus rentables et importantes du point de vuecommercial, ce qui permet une sélection mondialepour des plus amples objectifs d’amélioration dansbeaucoup de pays dans le monde.

ResumenUna amplia parte de los productos lácteos paraconsumo humano provienen de leche de razascomerciales. El resultado de una selecciónintensificada, objetivos de mejora limitados y notener en cuenta los problemas de consanguinidaden las pasadas décadas hacen que ahora seanecesaria una mayor atención para conservar estasrazas comerciales al mismo tiempo que se mantienee incrementa la producción alimentaria para hacer

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

30International evaluations for sustainable breeding

frente a la demanda futura. Las características deun programa de mejora sostenible son los ampliosobjetivos de mejora, las medidas para controlar losniveles de consanguinidad y una mejora genéticacontinua para conseguir que las poblaciones seancompetitivas. Es necesario incluir algunos rasgos enlos objetivos de mejora que reduzcan el costo de losproductos , así como otros que incrementen laproducción de los mismos. Los objetivos de mejoradependen de los países (p.e. ambiente deproducción), y junto con la interaccióngenotipo-ambiente para cada una de las razas(p.e. rendimiento en leche), hacen que el margen deanimales para los objetivos de mejora local difierende un país a otro (ambientes de producción). Elreconocer esto en un programa de selección permiteampliar el número de animales seleccionados, porlo menos a nivel mundial, ampliando la diversidadmundial en las poblaciones de vacuno de leche.Interbull proporciona comparacionesinternacionales de toros pertenecientes a seis razaslecheras provenientes de entre las máseconómicamente importantes, lo que permite unaselección mundial para mayores objetivos de mejoraen muchos países del mundo.

Keywords: Sustainability, Breeding objectives,Inbreeding, International genetic evaluations.

IntroductionGlobally, milk is one of the most important source ofnutrients for human consumption. The so-calledlivestock revolution, envisaged by Delgado et al.(1999), predicts that the global demand for milk willincrease considerably over a 20-year period.Developing countries will more than double theirproduction (133%), whereas the developed worldneeds to increase production by just 7% to meetfuture demands. Most milk is produced by cattle,although buffalo, sheep and goats play veryimportant roles for milk production in certaincountries. Future demands for milk cannot be metby an increased number of animals but must resultfrom increased productivity per animal andefficiency in the use of feed resources consideringavailing environments and production systems. Theincreased global demand for dairy products pointsto the importance of the commercial dairy breeds,and the need to ensure that breeding programs forthese breeds are sustainable.

So far much of the national and internationalconservation efforts have been directed towardsalready endangered or nearly extinct breeds,whereas little emphasis has been put on the‘mainstream breeds’ as their numbers are still quitehigh. In a developed country like Sweden, forexample, only about 0.5% of the dairy herdpopulation consists of endangered breeds and theyproduce about 0.3% of the milk.

If breeding programs for the major dairy breedsof the world fail to be sustainable the effects may bedramatic in several ways: demands for food will notbe met, major losses in animal genetic diversity willoccur and severe effects on land use and cropdiversity may follow. Modern reproductiontechnologies, such as artificial insemination (AI)and embryo transfer (ET), have been proven to bevery powerful tools in changing the genetics ofcattle populations. The dynamics of thesecommercial populations effectively using AI and ETare therefore more important to monitor than justactual numbers of animals at a given time. The issueof genetic diversity is related to the number ofbreeds with distinctly different characteristics, theeffective population size of each of these breeds, andeffects of the within breed selection programspracticed.

The objectives of this paper are to illustrate theglobalization of six major breeds or groups of breedsused for dairy production as a result of extensiveuse of AI and ET, some circumstances threateningthe sustainability of the breeding programspracticed, and measures taken to improve the use ofthese genetic resources in such a way that demandsfor genetic diversity and sustainability can be metalong with continuously improved production.Opportunities to monitor important genetic changesin the world’s major dairy production breeds havebeen made possible since the establishment ofInterbull, initially founded by EuropeanAssociation of Animal Production (EAAP),International Dairy Federation (IDF) and theInternational Committee of Animal Recording(ICAR). Nowadays regular exchange of data takesplace between Interbull and nearly 30 countries inorder to conduct international genetic evaluation ofbulls. Nearly all continents are represented amongthese developed countries with two from NorthAmerica, two from Oceania, one from Africa, onefrom Asia and the remainder from Europe.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

31


Fikse & Philipsson

Globalization of BreedsIncluded in InterbullEvaluationsAn enormous increase in the semen trade followedthe disclosure of results from the extensiveFAO-experiment conducted in Poland, where10 Friesian strains of dairy cattle were compared(Stolzmann et al., 1981). The results showed anunexpectedly significant superiority ofNorth-American Holstein-Friesians (HF) inproduction over their European ancestralpopulations. The New Zealand and Israelipopulations also surprised many with their highproductivity. A wave of importation of HF semenfollowed, and in a decade or two the black andwhite dairy cattle populations around the worldhad been ‘Holsteinized’ and the effectivepopulation size declined dramatically. Figure 1shows that the Friesian cattle in northern Europealso went through a dramatic morphologicalchange.

A parallel development also took place in otherbreeds. Braunvieh cattle had, similarly to Friesiancattle, been exported from western Europe to NorthAmerica, where a new type of Brown Swiss wasdeveloped. Although this population was small ithas provided the European ancestral populationswith a lot of semen in the last 3-4 decades. The Redbreed group, with Ayrshire ancestry, of Finland(Finnish Ayrshire), Norway (Norwegian Red) andSweden (Swedish Red) started an early exchange ofbull sire semen and became genetically closelylinked. Ayrshire cattle, although only in smallpopulations, were also part of the dairy populationsin other regions of the world, e.g. North America,South Africa, Australia and in its area of origin inthe UK. The Jersey breed had at an early stage

become a globally utilised breed, well adapted tomany different environmental conditions, includingtropical areas. Genetically it differs markedly frommost other commercial dairy breeds in live weightand milk composition. The Jersey breed has beenvery competitive in many countries, especially inDenmark, the USA and New Zealand, where thebiggest populations are found. The other ChannelIsland breed, the Guernsey, has also been used aglobally, but in a limited number of primarilyCommonwealth countries. Major populations arefound in the USA, the UK and Australia, but thenumber of cows has been rapidly decreasing in thelast decades, despite its many interesting features.Another breed which has been spread to manycountries is the Fleckvieh, primarily from centralEurope, and internationally named as theSimmental. It is a dual purpose breed, but has beendiverted into different lines for milk and beefvs. only for beef in some countries. The populationused for dairy production is seen only in Europeand has largely been developed by use of RedHolstein semen imported from North America.

Need for comparable information

These breed and industry developmentsemphasized the need for methods to compare thegenetic merit of bulls across countries in order toimprove efficiency in the global selection of bulls.This challenge was taken up by both the IDF andEAAP, which in 1983 led to the formation ofInterbull as an international committee forimproved transparency of genetic evaluations ofdairy cattle around the world. Following thisdevelopment the Interbull Centre was established in1991 aiming at conducting international genetic

Figure 1. European Friesian before (a)…… and after ‘Holsteinization’ (b).

a) b)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


evaluations of bulls including the breeds mentionedabove (Philipsson, 1998).

Exchange of Genetic MaterialThe magnitude of exchange of genetic material canbe illustrated in many ways. For example, the USAexported nine million semen doses (dairy bulls) in2005, an increase of nearly 20% in 10 years.European AI organizations exported approximatelyfive million semen doses in 2004. Through theInterbull system pedigree data on AI bulls iscollected from 26 different countries on a routinebasis, which makes it possible to monitordevelopments for the various breeds at the globallevel. The exchange of genetic material will beillustrated below based on information in theInterbull pedigree database.

Young bulls are typically tested in the country ofbirth and first registration (Table 1). The Guernseysand Holsteins showed the most exchange at thelevel of young bulls among the breed groups andcountries considered in the Interbull evaluations;approximately 15% of the progeny tested bulls did

not originate from the country in which they weretested. The trend for Guernsey, Holstein and Jerseyis to import more young bulls from other countries,whereas the converse is true for the Brown Swissand Red Dairy cattle breed groups.

The exchange of genetic material betweencountries is much more intense at the level of siresof sons. Between 13% and 67% of the progeny testedbulls had a foreign sire (Table 2). Selection of sires ofsons is most global for the Brown Swiss andHolstein breed groups. The trend is generallyincreasing, particularly for the Guernsey and Jerseybreed groups. Similar patterns were observed for theorigin of maternal grand sires of progeny testedbulls.

By comparing table 1 and table 2 it becomes clearthat, not surprisingly, the exchange of semen at thelevel of sires of sons is more frequent than theimportation of calves to be put on progeny test.Fikse et al. (2006) reported that the proportion offoreign proven bulls used to breed cows for thecommercial population ranged from 3% to 12%,with large variations between countries, and theimpact of semen exchange at the level of provenbulls is less than that for sires of sons.

Table 1. Percentage of bulls progeny tested1 in country of origin2.

Birth year of bull Breed group 1981-1985 1986-1990 1991-1995 Brown Swiss 93.2 94.7 94.6 Guernsey 96.1 88.5 84.9 Holstein 89.1 86.4 Jersey 98.1 95.6 94.5 Red Dairy Cattle 97.4 98.6 99.3 Simmental 97.9 98.4 97.3

1Country of test is defined as the country with most daughters. 2Origin is defined as country of first registration. Table 2. Percentage of progeny tested bulls with foreign sire.

Birth year of bull Breed group 1981-1985 1986-1990 1991-1995 Brown Swiss 67.3 57.4 64.9 Guernsey 14.6 13.0 32.7 Holstein 60.2 59.4 Jersey 14.9 26.1 35.0 Red Dairy Cattle 16.7 27.1 26.9 Simmental 23.6 26.0 28.6

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

33


Fikse & Philipsson

Importance of Broad BreedingObjectivesThere is accumulating evidence that single-traitselection for milk production has negativeside-effects on the health and reproduction of dairycows. These functional traits, i.e. characters of ananimal that increase efficiency not by higheroutputs of products but by reduced costs (Groen etal., 1997), are unfavorably correlated with milkproduction, the magnitude of the geneticcorrelations being 0.2-0.5 (e.g. Roxström, 2001; Wallet al., 2003). The complexity of functional traits,reflected in the categorical nature of data recordsand low heritabilities, is often given as a reason toignore these traits in breeding objectives andbreeding programs.

The considerable amount of genetic variationthat exists for functional traits (Philipsson andLindhé, 2003) justifies inclusion of these traits inbreeding objectives. Aamand (2007) illustrated forexample that the incidence of mastitis was abouttwice as high among daughters of sires with anindex below 86 (2 SD below average) compared tosires with an index above 113 (2 SD above average).Zwald et al. (2004) also reported large differences inincidence (by a factor of between 1 and 5) of severaldiseases (ketosis, mastitis, lameness, cystic ovariesand metritis) depending on the genetic merit fordisease susceptibility.

The merging of Nordic health and reproductiondata with North American production andconformation data revealed an unfavorablerelationship between health and dairy character(Rogers et al., 1999). The emphasis on dairycharacter and the determination to breed for ‘sharp’cows may indeed have contributed to the increasein health and reproductive problems in somebreeds.

Given the existence of genetic variation and thenegative relationship with production, ignoringfunctional traits will lead to deterioration offunctional traits and ultimately an increase in costsof producing milk due to increased diseaseincidence, reproductive failures and involuntaryculling of cows. On average, the length ofproductive life is 2-3 lactations. This measure must,however, be cautiously interpreted as it merelyreflects the economics of markets and theproduction systems practiced rather than just thegenetic stayability of the cows. The emphasis ofdairy cattle breeding objectives has graduallyshifted from production and conformation traitsonly to include more functional traits during thepast couple of decades (Miglior et al., 2005) and

many countries now have genetic evaluations inplace for important functional traits such as health,fertility, longevity and calving traits (Mark, 2004).

The inclusion of functional traits in selectionindexes and breeding objectives not only increasesgenetic progress for total genetic merit in economicterms but has also positive implications for geneticdiversity. Sorensen et al. (1999) observed withsimulations that selection for milk yield was inferiorto selection for total merit index in terms of geneticgain for total genetic merit and inbreeding rates.

Interbull International GeneticEvaluationsTraditionally, countries perform national geneticevaluations to assess the genetic merit of bulls, butthe results of these evaluations are not directlycomparable across countries. The main reasons(Philipsson, 1987) are1. Differences in trait definitions and recording

and evaluations practices.2. Differences in genetic levels among countries.3. Differences in animal performance under

varying production systems(genotype-environment interaction).It was nearly impossible for breeders to compare

the genetic merit of domestic and foreign geneticmaterial, complicating the process of identifyingsuperior animals and realizing the potentialbenefits of exchange of genetic material betweencountries. The recognition of this problem formedthe basis of developments and activities, initially byEAAP and IDF, that led to the establishment ofInterbull and the launch of international geneticevaluations by Interbull.

MACEThe routine international genetic evaluationsperformed by Interbull combine the results ofnational genetic evaluations from various countriesin a joint analysis often referred to as Multiple-traitAcross Country Evaluation (MACE; Schaeffer,1994). MACE is essentially a multiple-trait siremodel where performance in each country is treatedas a different trait. Important features of MACE arethe ability to accommodate different parameters(heritability, genetic and residual variances)between countries and the possibility of consideringrelationships between bulls.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Genetic correlations between countries areaccounted for in MACE to reflect the fact thatperformance in different environments can beviewed as different traits. Genetic correlationsbetween countries less than unity indicate thepresence of genotype-environment interaction,which means that ranking of animals (genotypes)differs between countries (environments). Forexample, if cows are fed on high quality feed thenthe cows’ appetite and feed intake could be thefactor that causes some cows to be superior in milkproduction over others, whereas if the cows are fedon poor feed it is likely that cows with the best feedutilization will be superior. Hence, a separate list ofbulls with breeding values is computed for eachparticipating country, expressed in their own unitsand relative to their own base group of animals(Figure 2).

Genetic correlations between countries

Genetic correlations between countries are onaverage highest for milk production and somaticcells and lowest for longevity and stillbirth(Table 3). These correlations reflect on one hand theharmonization in recording and evaluation of traitsand on the other hand the degree ofgenotype-environment interaction betweencountries. Both milk yield and somatic cells arerecorded and evaluated reasonably uniformlyacross countries, which is reflected in the high

genetic correlations between countries. Longevity,on the other hand, is a more complex trait andgenetic correlations between countries are relativelylow and variable. Reasons for culling differ betweencountries due to economic conditions, climate andother production factors.

A closer look at the genetic correlations revealsthat correlations are usually highest amongcountries in the same hemisphere and lowestamong countries from different hemispheres(North vs. South). For example, the geneticcorrelations for milk production among countriesfrom the same hemispheres range between 0.85 and0.95, and are between 0.75 and 0.85 amongcountries from different hemispheres. Thus, milkproduction in the northern and southernhemispheres can be viewed as different traits, anddifferent rankings of sires are to be expected in bothhemispheres.

Global perspective on selection of dairybulls

A consequence of genotype-environment interactionand genetic correlations among countries less thanunity, is the re-ranking of animals acrossenvironments (illustrated in Figure 2). Table 4 isbased on data available through Interbull andshows that bulls with high genetic merit for proteinyield in Sweden, USA or the Netherlands do notalways have high genetic merit for protein yield in

Table 3. Weighted1 average and range in estimated genetic correlations (rg) across different Holstein populations for selected traits (February 2007).

Trait Populations Mean rg SD of rg Range of rg Protein yield 24 0.84 0.05 0.18 Somatic cells 23 0.90 0.05 0.23 Clinical mastitis2 4 0.85 0.07 0.18 Longevity 19 0.71 0.14 0.61 Direct calving ease 12 0.78 0.11 0.51 Maternal calving ease 11 0.77 0.09 0.35 Direct stillbirth 5 0.69 0.11 0.29 Maternal stillbirth 5 0.80 0.07 0.21 Interval calving-first insemination 5 0.81 0.17 0.43 Non-return rate 5 0.74 0.09 0.32 Days open/calving interval 8 0.81 0.10 0.34 Body condition score3 2 0.92

1Weighted by number of bulls with evaluations in both of the concerned countries. 2Taken from the Interbull March 2005 test evaluation. 3Estimated by Jorjani (2005).

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

35


Fikse & Philipsson

New Zealand. The top 100 lists of the northernhemisphere countries had approximately 90 bullsin common, but only 75-80 with New Zealand. Thesituation is more extreme for somatic cells andespecially longevity for which none of the top100 bulls in Sweden and the Netherlands wereamong the top 100 in New Zealand (Table 4). Itappears that due to the seasonal calving patternsand the grazing system, cows have to meet differentrequirements to survive in New Zealand comparedwith northern hemisphere countries.

Considering genotype-environment interactionin international comparisons leads to the selectionof more bulls on a global level (Table 5). Forexample, treating protein yields as different traits ineach of the 24 populations participating in theInterbull evaluation (Holstein), 309 different bullswere among the top 100 in any given country.Similarly, there were 611 different bulls among thetop 100 lists for longevity in each of the 19 countries(Holstein). Different sires and dams are selected indifferent countries, which can increase the globaleffective population size (Goddard, 1992). Thus,taking genotype-environment interaction intoaccount in international comparisons has adesirable effect on the utilization of animal geneticresources, in addition to accommodating differencesin production environments around the world.

The number of potential selection candidatesincreases when selection is across-country rather

than within-country. Consequently, higher selectionintensities can be achieved which is especiallybeneficial for small and genetically inferiorpopulations (Banos and Smith, 1991; Lohuis andDekkers, 1998). Using the Interbull evaluationresults it has been shown that the potential toincrease selection differentials is up to 2.5 geneticstandard deviation units for across-countryselection compared to within-country selection(Fikse, 2004; Mark, 2005). Rather than exploiting theincreased selection potential for increasing geneticprogress, it can also be used to select less-relatedanimals, thus reducing the inbreeding rate.

The combination of 1) genotype-environmentinteractions for individual traits and 2) differencesin breeding objectives across countries (i.e. weightsgiven to individual traits in an index for totalgenetic merit) results in relatively low geneticcorrelations between breeding objectives in differentcountries. Sonesson (2006) estimated the geneticcorrelation between the breeding objectives for theNordic Red breeds to be around 0.8. Miglior et al.(2005) observed rather low numbers of bulls incommon between the top 100 lists for total geneticmerit in a range of countries, indicatingconsiderable re-ranking of bulls across countries.

The presence of genotype-environmentinteraction for total genetic merit actualizes thequestion of whether separate breeding programsshould be maintained for different environments

Table 4. Number of bulls in common between the top 100 lists of Holstein bulls on four different country scales1.

Protein Somatic cells Longevity NLD USA NZL NLD USA NZL NLD USA NZL

SWE 86 90 80 75 70 39 41 46 0 NLD 82 75 69 41 48 0 USA 75 34 3

1 NLD = The Netherlands; SWE = Sweden; USA = United States of America; NZL = New Zealand Table 5. Increase in total number of top 100 bulls when considering genotype-environment interaction by applying genetic correlations (rg) less than unity (February 2007).

Number of top bulls Breed group Number of populations rg = 1 rg < 1 Brown Swiss 9 100 179 Guernsey 6 100 140 Holstein 24 100 309 Jersey 10 100 282 Red Dairy Cattle 10 100 192 Simmental 10 100 179

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


and whether cooperation between breedingprograms is beneficial. Sonesson (2006) investigatedthe difference between one breeding program for allcountries and separate breeding programs in eachcountry for the Nordic Red breeds and concludedthere was little difference in overall genetic gain atconstrained levels of inbreeding rate. A generalrule-of-thumb is that multiple breeding programsare justifiable when the genetic correlation betweenbreeding objectives is below 0.8 (e.g. Robertson,1959), but this depends on the actual scenario(testing capacity, genetic parameters, selectionintensity, etc.; Mulder and Bijma, 2006).

Interbull evaluations

Interbull started international genetic evaluationsfor production traits in 1994 and data from fourcountries and two breed groups were considered(Philipsson, 1998). Since then, Interbull serviceshave expanded and they nowadays consider sixbreed groups and 26 countries (Table 6). SinceFebruary 2007, international evaluations for fertilityhave been computed, in addition to production,conformation, udder health, longevity and calvingperformance. Thus, international geneticevaluations are available for all economicallyimportant trait groups.

Routine evaluations are performed three timesper year. For the Interbull evaluation of February2007 the pedigree database included nearly400 000 bulls (Table 7) and internationalevaluations were computed for 140 000 bulls. Itshould be noted that Interbull does not publishinternational breeding values; Interbull simplydistributes them to participating countries. It is thenthe responsibility of these countries to rank the bullswithin country according to their own breedingobjectives, and publish these results.

The joint analysis of national geneticevaluations (MACE) depends on the results ofnational genetic evaluations systems (Figure 2).Therefore, international comparisons are only asgood as the various national evaluation systemsthat provide the input. Procedures have beendeveloped and are applied on a regular basis tocheck the quality of data used in Interbullevaluations (Klei et al., 2002; Boichard et al., 1995).In addition, Interbull organizes special workshops,conducted surveys and compiled guidelines fornational genetic evaluation systems to monitordevelopments and promote standardization ofnational evaluation systems and their results.

Monitoring Global Trends inDairy Cattle Breeding

Genetic progress

The genetic level for protein yield has increasednoticeably during the past two decades for both theHolstein and Red Dairy cattle breed groups(Figure 3). The genetic trends were slightly negative(unfavorable) for clinical mastitis and directlongevity for the Holstein breed group. On the otherhand, the genetic trend for clinical mastitis anddirect longevity for the Red Dairy cattle breed groupwere slightly positive.

Philipsson and Lindhé (2003) illustrated theimportance of having comparable information forall traits of economic importance for selectioncandidates by comparing the genetic trend in femalefertility for the Swedish Holstein and the SwedishRed populations. The genetic trend for fertility inthe Swedish Red population was slightly favorable,due to the availability of genetic evaluations forprogeny tested bulls that were candidates forselection as sires of sons. The majority (~75%) of thebulls belonging to the Red Dairy cattle breed groupare tested in Nordic countries where recording andevaluation of female fertility traits has beenpracticed for a long time. The situation for theHolstein breed group was much worse, because atthe time of selection as sires of sons no femalefertility information was available for the majority ofbulls (> 90%). Selection emphasis was instead puton production and conformation, leading to anunfavorable correlated response for female fertility.

Inbreeding

The intensity of use of sires of sons has been highestfor the Holstein breed group, as indicated by thenumber of sons per bull sire (Figure 4). For the otherbreed groups about ten sons per bull sire weretested on average. The oscillating pattern for theHolstein breed group is caused by a few verypopular bull sires with hundreds or thousands ofprogeny tested sons. In 1983 and 1985, half of allprogeny tested bulls were sired by one bull sire.Extreme use of Holstein bull sires has beentempered for bulls born after 1987 (Figure 5). For theJersey breed group the intensity of use of bull sireshas been tempered lately as well, whereas the trendis increasing for the Brown Swiss breed group. Dueto the limited population size not more than five

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Figure 3. Estimated genetic trends in Holstein and Red Dairy cattlecow populations for protein yield (thick-solid line), clinical mastitis(dotted line) and direct longevity (thin-solid line) on Swedish scales(weighted average of international bull breeding values from February2007 Interbull evaluations; weighted by total number of daughtersacross all countries; high breeding values are favorable; all breedingvalues are expressed with a standard deviation of 10).

80

90

100

110

120

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Birth year of bull (Holstein)

Mea

n R

BV

70

80

90

100

110

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

Birth year of bull (RDC)

Mea

n R

BV

noticeable, for example by the increased problemsdue to recessive genetic defects or inbreedingdepression.

Dairy farmers in the US and other countriesstarted to explore crossbreeding Holsteins withother breeds (Hansen, 2006) to circumvent problemsdue to increased inbreeding rates and deteriorationof functional traits. The first experiences from thesecrossbreeding experiments are positive, resulting inF1 females with lower stillbirth rates, decreasedcalving difficulty, improved cow fertility, andenhanced survival with little, if any, loss of

production (kg) of fat plus protein (Heins et al.,2006a; 2006b; 2006c). The prospects ofcrossbreeding as a means to deal with problems inpurebred populations depends on theimplementation of crossbreeding programs on aherd basis that capture as much heterosis aspossible, are easy to manage and result in as littlevariation among crossbred animals as possible.Most importantly, crossbreeding is only successfulif continuous progress is made in the purebredpopulations.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

39


Fikse & Philipsson

Figure 4. Average number of progeny tested sons per bull sire (February 2007).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

Birth year of bull sire

Num

ber o

f son

s

BSW JER GUE HOL RDC SIM

Figure 5. Percentage progeny tested bulls after the five most popular bull sires(February 2007).

0

20

40

60

80

100

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

Birth year

Perc

enta

ge

BSW JER GUE HOL RDC SIM

Several tools to aid selection of parents havebeen developed that can maximize progress atrestricted inbreeding rates (Meuwissen andSonesson, 1998; Berg et al., 2006). While powerful,the success of these tools depends on the extent oftheir use. Important selection decisions in dairycattle breeding (bull sire and bull dam selection) aretaken by AI organizations that are in competitionwith each other. The challenge for these

organizations is to balance the short-term interest inincreasing genetic gain with the long-term need toavoid depletion of genetic resources. Initiatives likethe European Forum of Farm Animal Breeders andthe development of a Code of Good Practice forFarm Animal Breeding and ReproductionOrganizations are steps in the right direction.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Measures to be taken for sustainability

A sustainable dairy cattle breeding program shouldbe characterized by:• A continuous genetic improvement of

productivity to keep the populationcommercially competitive in relevant areas forproduction.

• The generation of products which have suchvalue that they are marketable at a profitablefarm-gate price.

• A broad definition of breeding objectives to takeinto account selection for all major economicallyimportant traits with a special restriction thatfundamental characteristics of fertility, healthand survival do not decline.

• Management of inbreeding at such a level thatno depression of important traits resulting fromincreased inbreeding occurs. The effectivepopulation size should be monitored andselection practiced to keep it above levels atwhich the breed is considered to be at risk ofendangerment.In any dairy cattle population the most

important assumption for a sustainable breedingprogram is that there is a comprehensive milk-recording scheme and links to other recordings oftraits, e.g. health and fertility, to enable geneticevaluation of bulls for broad breeding objectives(Philipsson et al., 2005).

As regards the design of breeding programs, theuse of young bulls is essential in all systems. Inlarge populations extensive use of young bullsenables progeny testing of many bulls, providingopportunities for strong selection of bulls to be usedas sires of cows and sons. With large progenygroups, i.e. 100-150 daughters, reasonably accuratebreeding values can also be obtained for mostfunctional traits. In small populations progenytesting is of limited value for selection of bulls forwide-spread use, as such use is not possible froman inbreeding point of view. However, progenyinformation, as well as records of all relatives, canbe used for evaluation and selection of parents ofyoung bulls, each one of which should be limited inuse.

The globalization of practically all breeds is afact and the advantages of this should be capturedwhile possible disadvantages must be avoided. Toreach this goal it is important that all bulls in thecountries in question are evaluated nationally (orregionally) for domestically defined broad breedingobjectives and that these domestic breeding valuesbecome part of the international genetic evaluationsthat Interbull provides. In this way wise selection of

bulls across countries is made possible for the broadbreeding objectives set for each country (or region).This scenario is based on the assumption that theInterbull evaluations are published in each countryin such a way that they are easily accessible byAI stud managers and progressive farmers.

Options for developing countries

Livestock recording schemes are well developed inmost industrialized countries and may then providethe information necessary to conduct advancedgenetic evaluations of cows and bulls. In mostdeveloping countries the situation is quite different.The most limiting factor for adoption of sustainablebreeding programs is the lack of relevant recordingschemes as a basis for both management andgenetic evaluation purposes (Philipsson, 2000). Forlocal breeds, variants of nucleus breeding schemesare plausible, but problems exist in selecting bulls of‘exotic’ breeds, e.g. Holstein, Brown Swiss andAyrshire. If no domestic evaluations exist in thedeveloping countries, there are no opportunities toparticipate in international evaluations, and thus toselect the best bulls for the country in question. Thebest advice so far is for each country to compare itsenvironment and production system with thosecountries already participating in the Interbullevaluations and rely on the results of a countryhaving the most similar environment. For instance,international breeding values published for NewZealand may indicate which bulls are best for othercountries heavily relying on grazing systems,whereas Israeli results may be the best to use inother countries characterized by a hot climate andhigh intensity of grain feeding. In any case,breeding organizations in developing countriesneed to put more emphasis on defining their ownbreeding objectives and select for these according tothe principle proposed above, rather than just usingsemen of any bulls advertised by foreign companies.

Do Commercial Breeds Need toBe Conserved?In scrutinizing the criteria for sustainability ofbreeding programs for dairy cattle, and the reviewof what has happened in the most globallyprominent breeds used for dairy production, it isobvious that certain facts indicate that some breeds,especially Holstein, are faced with severe problemsthat question the sustainability of the breed. The

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

41


Fikse & Philipsson

unfavorable correlations between e.g. productionand fertility, or the rising stillbirth trend, have notbeen met globally by adequate means for geneticevaluation and selection until very recently. Still, forthese breeds used globally there is no body thattakes the overall responsibility for directing theirdevelopment into more harmonized breedingprograms in line with the criteria for sustainabilityrather than focusing on traditional breeding forconformation, and especially for such traits that areunfavorably correlated with fitness of the animals.However, there are notable exceptions. InScandinavia, quite well harmonized breedingprograms have long since been established for theRed Dairy breeds, considering broad breedingobjectives. As a consequence semen of these breedsis now successfully used internationally in crossingHolsteins to capture not only effects of heterosis, butalso to effectively incorporate genes for good fertilityand health along with high production and toavoid further inbreeding (Hansen, 2006).

Another example and problem is demonstratedby the Guernsey breed, which has been declining innumbers for some time. In most countries thebreeding program is characterized by traditionalselection for just production and conformation, thelatter leading to bigger and less fertile cows.However, the World Guernsey Cattle Federation hastaken the initiative to launch a global breedingprogram based on sound scientific principles,whereby the genetic diversity is considered incombination with selection for a continuouslybroader breeding objective (Luff, 2006). It takes time,however, to harmonize ideas and breedingobjectives and principles of selection acrosscontinents used with different breeding traditions,but such global efforts are very well worthsupporting. This is also emphasized by the fact thatthe breed seems to offer certain characteristics in itsmilk that differ from other major breeds.

List of ReferencesAamand, G.P. 2007. Use of health data in

genetic evaluation and breeding. Proceedings of the35th Biennial session of ICAR. EAAP publicationno. 121: 275-282.

Banos, G. & C. Smith. 1991. Selecting bullsacross countries to maximize genetic improvementin dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Breeding andGenetics 108: 174-181.

Berg, P., J. Nielsen & M.K. Sorensen. 2006.EVA: realized and predicted optimal geneticcontributions. Proceedings of the 8th WorldCongress on Genetics Applied to LivestockProduction, communication no. 27-09.

Boichard, D., B. Bonaiti, A. Barbat &S. Mattalia. 1995. Three methods to validate theestimation of genetic trend for dairy cattle. Journalof Dairy Science 78: 431-437.

Delgado, C., M. Rosegrant, H. Steinfeld,S. Ehui & C. Courbois. 1999. Livestock to 2020-Thenext food revolution. Food, Agriculture, and theEnvironment Discussion Paper 28. IFPRI(International Food Policy Research Institute),Washington, DC, USA, pp. 72.

Fikse, W.F. 2004. Interbull guides through thelabyrinth of national genetic evaluations.Proceeding of the 55th meeting of the EAAP. EAAPBook of Abstracts 10, 326.

Fikse, W.F., J.H. Jakobsen & C. Gustafsson.2006. Selection of sires in different countries forglobal dairy breeds. Proceedings of the 8th WorldCongress on Genetics Applied to LivestockProduction, communication no. 01-31.

Groen, A.F., T. Steine, J.J. Colleau,J. Pedersen, J. Pribyl & N. Reinsch. 1997. Economicvalues in dairy cattle breeding, with specialreference to functional traits. Report of anEAAP-working group. Livestock Production Science49:1-21.

Goddard, M.E. 1992. Optimal effectivepopulation size for the global population of blackand white dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 75:2902-2911.

Hansen, L.B. 2006. Monitoring theworldwide genetic supply for cattle with emphasison managing crossbreeding and inbreeding.Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on GeneticsApplied to Livestock Production, communicationno. 01-01.

Heins, B.J., L.B. Hansen & A.J. Seykora.2006a. Production of pure Holsteins versuscrossbreds of Holstein with Normande,Montbeliarde, and Scandinavian Red. Journal ofDairy Science 89: 2799-2804.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Heins, B.J., L.B. Hansen & A.J. Seykora.2006b. Calving difficulty and stillbirths of pureHolsteins versus crossbreds of Holstein withNormande, Montbeliarde, and Scandinavian Red.Journal of Dairy Science 89: 2805-2810.

Heins, B.J., L.B. Hansen & A.J. Seykora.2006c. Fertility and survival of pure Holsteinsversus crossbreds of Holstein with Normande,Montbeliarde, and Scandinavian Red. Journal ofDairy Science 89: 4944-4951.

Klei, L., T. Mark, W.F. Fikse & T. Lawlor.2002. A method for verifying genetic evaluationresults. Interbull Bulletin 29: 178-182.

Lohuis, M.M. & J.C.M. Dekkers. 1998. Meritsof borderless evaluations. Proceedings of the 6th

World Congress on Genetics Applied to LivestockProduction 26: 169-172.

Luff, B. 2006. Guernsey Global BreedingProgramme. http://www.worldguernseys.org/.

Mark, T. 2004. Applied genetic evaluationsfor production and functional traits in dairy cattle.Journal of Dairy Science 87: 2641-2652.

Mark, T. 2005. International geneticevaluations for udder health traits in dairy cattle.PhD thesis. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae,2005: 93. Swedish University of AgriculturalSciences, Uppsala, Sweden.

Meuwissen, T.H.E. & A.K. Sonesson. 1998.Maximizing the response of selection with apredefined rate of inbreeding- overlappinggenerations. Journal of Animal Science 76:2575-2583.

Miglior, F., B.L. Muir & B. J. Van Doormaal.2005. Selection indices in Holstein cattle of variouscountries. Journal of Dairy Science 88: 1255-1263.

Mulder, H.A., R.F. Veerkamp, B.J. Ducro,J.A.M. van Arendonk & P. Bijma. 2006.Optimization of dairy cattle breeding programs fordifferent environments with genotype byenvironment interaction. Journal of Dairy Science89: 1740-1752.

Philipsson, J. 1987. Standards andprocedures for international genetic evaluation ofdairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 70: 418-424.

Philipsson, J. 1998. Global use of bulls andthe “INTERBULL System”. Agric. Scand., Sect.A,Animal Science 1998: Supplement 29: 98-107.

Philipsson, J. 2000. Sustainability of dairycattle breeding systems utilising artificialinsemination in less developed countries-examplesof problems and prospects. ICAR Technical Seriesno. 3: 551-562.

Philipsson, J., J-Å. Eriksson &H. Stålhammar. 2005. Know-how transfer inanimal breeding-the power of integrated cow databases for farmer’s selection of bulls to improvefunctional traits in dairy cows. In: Knowledgetransfer in cattle husbandry. EAAP Publicationno. 117: 85-95.

Philipsson, J. & B. Lindhé. 2003. Experiencesof including reproduction and health traits inScandinavian dairy cattle breeding programmes.Livestock Production Science 83: 99-112.

Robertson, A. 1959. The sampling variance ofthe genetic correlation coefficient. Biometrics 15:469-485.

Rogers, G.W., G. Banos & U.S. Nielsen.1999. Genetic correlations among protein yield,productive life, and type traits from the UnitedStates and diseases other than mastitis fromDenmark and Sweden. Journal of Dairy Science 82:1331-1338.

Roxström, A. 2001. Genetic aspects of fertilityand longevity in dairy cattle. PhD thesis. ActaUniversitatis Agriculturae Sueciae, Agraria 276.Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,Uppsala, Sweden.

Schaeffer, L.R. 1994. Multiple-countrycomparisons of dairy sires. Journal of Dairy Science77: 2671-2678.

Sonesson, A.K. 2006. Assessing total profit ofalternative levels of co-operation between Nordiccattle populations. In: Project report: SustainableBreeding in the Nordic Red Dairy Breeds.

Sorensen, M.K., P. Berg, J. Jensen &L.G. Christensen. 1999. Stochastic simulation ofbreeding schemes for total merit in dairy cattle.Interbull Bulletin 23: 183-192.

Sorensen, A.C., M.K. Sorensen & P. Berg.2005. Inbreeding in Danish dairy cattle breeds.Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1865-1872.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

43


Fikse & Philipsson

Stolzmann, M., H. Jasiorowski, Z.Reklewski, A. Zarnecki & G. Kalinowska. 1981.Friesian cattle in Poland. Preliminary results oftesting different strains. World Animal Review, 38:9-15.

Wall, E., S. Brotherstone, J.A. Woolliam,G. Banos & M.P. Coffey. 2003. Genetic evaluationof fertility using direct and correlated traits. Journalof Dairy Science 86: 4093-5102.

Weigel, K.A. 2001. Controlling inbreeding inmodern breeding programs. Journal of DairyScience 84 (E. supplement): E177-E184.

Zwald, N.R., K.A. Weigel, Y.M. Chang,R.D. Welper & J.S. Clay. 2004. Genetic selection forhealth traits using producer-recorded data. I.Incidence rates, heritability estimates, and sirebreeding values. Journal of Dairy Science 87:4287-4294.

45○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

AGRI 2007, 41: 45-52

SummaryGeneral trends of development imply an increasinguniformity of animal genetic resources, caused bythe loss of endangered breeds and increasedinbreeding within commercial breedingpopulations. The implications of these trends pointto a reduction in the genetic diversity of the animalgenetic resources, which may reduce possibilitiesfor utilization in the future, while at the same time adramatic change in environmental productionconditions can be observed. In order to change thisdevelopmental trend, sustainable management ofanimal genetic resources must be promotedglobally. The fundamental issues for suchsustainable management are illustrated by theprinciples given in the Convention on BiologicalDiversity. In order to accomplish sustainablemanagement of these resources, the followingactions must be taken:• The development of policies to promote national

and global responsibility for maintaining geneticdiversity, which will not be addressed withinthis paper

• The development of knowledge as afundamental concept to impose sustainablemanagement principles on these animal geneticresources. This will be dealt with in this paper.A more complete description of these featurescan be found in Woolliams et al., 2005 in(Sustainable Management of Animal GeneticResources).

RésuméLes tendances générales de développement actuelprévoient une uniformité des ressources génétiquesanimales, due, d’une part, à la perte des espècesmenacées d’extinction et d’autre part, audéveloppement des croisements génétiques au seindes populations commercialisées pour l’élevage.

Genetic diversity and sustainable management of animal geneticresources, globally

E. Fimland

Nordic Gene Bank Farm Animals, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences,P.O. Box 5003, 1432 Aas, Norway

Ceci mène à une restriction de la diversité génétiquedes ressources animales, ce qui pourraitcompromettre leur utilisation possible à l’avenir. Acôté de cela, les conditions environnementales deproduction sont également radicalementchangeantes. Pour pouvoir faire évoluer ce mode dedéveloppement de manière positive, il est plus quenécessaire d’imposer un management durable desressources génétiques animales, à l’échellemondiale. Le fondement d’un tel développementdurable est mis en avant par les principes cités parla Convention sur la Biodiversité. Pour atteindre unmanagement durable de ces ressources, certainesconditions sont nécessaires:• Une responsabilité à la fois nationale et

internationale pour conserver la diversitégénétique - règles, qui ne seront pas traitées dansce document

• Développer les connaissances, fondement debase pour imposer le développement durable deces ressources génétiques animales; sujet quisera débattu ici. Une plus complète descriptionde ce dispositif peut être consultée dansWoolliams et al., 2005 (Sustainable Managementof Animal Genetic Resources).

ResumenLas tendencias generales de desarrollo actualmentepreven una uniformidad de los recursoszoogenéticos debido, por una parte a la pérdida deespecies en vía de extinción y por otra al desarrollode cruces genéticos dentro de las poblaciones paracomercialización. Esto nos lleva a una restricción dela diversidad genética de los recursos animales, loque podría comprometer su utilización en el futuro.Al mismo tiempo las condiciones ambientales deproducción también están cambiando radicalmente.Para permitir la evolución de este tipo de desarrollode manera positiva, será necesario imponer unagestión sostenible de los recursos zoogenéticos aescala mundial. La base de este desarrollo

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

46Genetic diversity and sustainable management of AnGR

sostenible se recoge dentro de los principiosestipulados en la Convención para laBiodiversidad. Para alcanzar una gestión sosteniblede estos recursos son necesarias ciertascondiciones:• Responsabilidad tanto nacional como

internacional para la conservación de ladiversidad genética – normas que no trataremosen este documento.

• Desarrollar los conocimientos y los fundamentosde base para imponer un desarrollo sosteniblede estos recursos zoogenéticos, este tema serátratado en el artículo. Una descripción másdetallada de este dispositivo se puede consultaren Wooliams, J.A. et al. 2005. SustainableManagement of Animal Genetic Resources.Nordic Gene Bank Farm Animals ISBN 92-893-1089-8.

Keywords: Animal genetic resources, Sustainablemanagement, Maintain genetic diversity, Optimalselection, Conservation.

IntroductionIn addition to maintaining diversity, theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD) alsointends to activate genetic resources (GR) for foodproduction, which may impact on the sustainablemanagement of all farm AnGR, including:• Sustainable useage.• Sufficiency of conservation.• Fair and equitable sharing of benefit.• National responsibility.

The objectives of the CBD can be accomplishedin two ways: via political incentives and/ordirectives/acts on the one hand; and throughknowledge, analysis of future consequences andinvention of technological tools to avoid damagecaused by insufficient breeding programmes on theother. In addition, sufficient conservation ofendangered breeds must be undertaken in such away that genetic diversity among breeds can bemaintained.

The Nordic Gene Bank Farm Animals (NGH)focuses on developing the knowledge needed toaccomplish the sustainable management of AnGR,based on extensive cooperation with, among others:• National ministries of agriculture.• National gene resource committees or other

bodies appointed by the national authorities toorganise the national conservation of AnGR,within the scope of available budgets.

• National breeding organisations, breed societies,etc.NGH has directed increasing focus towards the

elements needed to secure sustainable managementof AnGR.

Elements Needed forSustainabilityThe following factors influence sustainablemanagement of AnGR:• Inbreeding, DF = 1/ Ne a function of the efficient

population size.• Maintaining alternative breeds.• Selection on a complete set of traits.• Interaction between environment (production

systems) and genetic effects.The first two points encompass the requirement

of maintaining diversity of farm AnGR and can beaccomplished by the following means:1. Avoidance of inbreeding:

• Optimal selection based on the contributiontheory that needs are equal for all breeds.

• Maintaining a sufficient number of breeds tosecure between-breed diversity, whichprovide new genes forimmigration/exchange from other breeds.This requires several alternative breedingpopulations.

2. Conservation of breeds:• Activating properties of certain breeds for

developing branded food products.• Ensuring sufficient conservation to secure

maintenance of important genes for futureuse.

• Conservation of historical/culturallyimportant breeds.

3. In order to maintain the population of farmanimals as a healthy production unit, thebreeding goal must encompass the traits of bothmarketable products and those important for thefunctionality of the individuals belonging to thepopulation. This implies:• Weighting factors for the traits must

counterbalance the negative response viagenetic correlations with vital traits offunctionality, or proper trait restriction mustbe used as a selection tool.

• By using reproduction, health and survivaltraits in the selection goal properly,unexpected problems caused by rapidchanges in the frequency of unfavourablealleles/deleterious genes may be avoided,

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

47


Fimland

and inbreeding depression in fitness traitsmay also be reduced.To illustrate the point, the realised ΔG formastitis in Norwegian Red is shown infigure 1. Breeding programs can be designedin a way that gives a positive response tosuch traits as mastitis. Similar responses canbe shown for non-return rates and otherhealth problems in the breed in this example.

4. The last important factor impactingsustainability is the occurrence of interactionbetween production systems and genotypes. Aninternational ‘regulation’ of exchange of AnGRshould focus on this interaction and its socialand economic consequences for the recipientpopulation in the long run.It would seem appropriate to copy some of the

principles of the national legislation relating to thetrade of goods in several countries, which putresponsibility on the seller to sell an appropriateproduct. Such requirements could easily beincluded in a standard agreement for transferringgenetic material of farm animals.

When the testing of the breeding animals andthe production of the offspring are performed in thesame environment or in the same productionsystem, the interaction between genotype andenvironment or production system can usually beignored. However, when the offspring is exported,the environment in the importing country may bequite different from the test environment of theparents. Besides, a lack of adaptation of the breedsto the environment in the importing country might

have a negative effect on fitness traits leading todisappointing production figures. An internationalregulation of exchange of farm animal geneticresources should focus on the existence of possibleinteractions and the long-term social and economicconsequences for the importing country. It mightundermine the livelihood of farmers in theimporting country. Such imports often result in theerosion of local livestock systems and often thelivelihoods of entire groups of people are destroyed.It has to be realized that as much as 70% of theworld’s rural poor (approximately two billionpeople) keep livestock to meet the food demands oftheir families. In these communities, livestockdiversity contributes in many ways to humansurvival and wellbeing (Drucker, 2002).Increasing production volume may also increasewaste output. The considerable volumes of wasteproduced by large-scale, high-density livestockoperations can cause severe soil, water and airpollution (Cunningham, 2003). The most importantpollutants giving rise to concern are nitrogen,phosphorous, various heavy metals andgreenhouse gasses such as methane and nitrousoxide. If the recycling of manure and urine inagriculture is not firmly regulated, considerableenvironmental damage may arise. The strong focuson environmental issues in several countries maylead to regulations that minimize the output ofwastes from livestock systems. Such regulationsmay require other genotypes than those favoured bythe present breeding goals which focus onmaximizing yield. This means that breeding

Figure 1. Plot of average sire posterior mean (SPM) in the probability scale (threshold model) andmean predicted transmitting ability (BLUP-PTA) of sires by birth-year of daughters for mastitis.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


programmes that maximize production volume peranimal may lead to a reduction of theenvironmental quality for that society.

Food Security and SafetyWoolliams (2006) discusses the fundamentalimportance of farm animal genetic resources forfood security and safety. The general answer is thatlivestock development works best when allstrategies are co-ordinated and work in the samedirection. For example, fertility in dairy cattle tendsto decrease as milk yield increases. An establishedconsequence of infertility is an increase ingreenhouse gas emissions from the productionsystem per litre of milk produced. The effectivenessof any management solution will be compromisedwhen selection increases yield without taking intoaccount the genetic merit for fertility. In thisinstance, the overall utility of the system will not beoptimised (Woolliams 2006). Genetics can play animportant role in the dynamics of the populationscaused by genetic selection, and one should usegenetic options, where they exist, as part of thesolution to improve security and safety.

To meet the challenges to food security arisingfrom the increased global demand and the threatsfrom global warming, livestock breeding must beincluded as a component of the solution. In the longterm, unsustainable management of animal geneticresources may lead to an increased risk to foodsecurity and safety.

Knowledge as a Driving Forcefor SustainabilitySince the food coming from farm animals accountsfor 40-50% of human caloric intake, and in manycountries much of this food originates from thecommercial or mainstream breeds, the maintenanceof genetic diversity within these breeds is becomingincreasingly important. As the number of breedsused in food production continues to decline, thereis an increasing risk of some genetic failure. Theloss of breeds contributing to our food supplydirectly diminishes the aspect of food securityinherent in maintaining a diversity of foodresources. Thus, major breeds which have“no alternative” for immigrant genes from otherbreeds, have to invest in tools and strategicmeasures to avoid the risk of genetic failure, as part

of the running breeding programme. Investments inrisk management measures for running breedingprogrammes are not well documented.

Therefore, I would like to discuss morethoroughly the importance of managing themainstream breeds by maintaining their futuregenetic diversity as part of breeding programmes.

Present StatusThe classic measure for genetic improvement pergeneration is accuracy (the square root ofheritability, h) times the genetic selection differentialexpressed in real units of the trait (iσg);Δ = hiσg = h2 iσp

2, in which h is the correlationbetween genotype g and phenotype p, h2 is theregression of g on p, i is the selection differentialand σg and σp

2 are genetic standard deviation andphenotypic variance, respectively. Efficient methodsfor registration of lineage and such traits asperformance, fertility, health and survival forindividuals in a population have beenimplemented. At the same time, efficient methods forbreeding value estimation were developed, whichlinked the individual’s traits to all relatives. Thesemethods were based on the principle of “Best,Linear Unbiased Predictions” (BLUP), (Henderson,1976).

Due to the before mentioned development, alimited number of certain individuals and theirrelatives can easily come to dominate as parents infuture generations. As a result, the breed willeventually consist of animals originating from fewerand fewer families. As time passes, the averagedegree of relatedness between parents increases andthus, the inbreeding rate will increase.

Developing a SustainableBreeding TheoryAn important discovery within genetic theory wasthe effect of selection on genetic variation. This wasdeveloped by Bulmer (1971) and shows thatsystematic selection of parents results in reducedgenetic variation among their offspring. After four tofive generations with the same selection intensity,the reduction will stabilise. In practical cattlebreeding work, Fimland (1979) showed that thisreduction could amount to 20 – 30%, depending onthe selection intensity and accuracy. Systematically,intensive selection thus leads to the stabilisation of

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

49


Fimland

genetic variation at about 70 - 80% of the level ofvariation achieved with random mating and noselection.

The next step towards developing a morerealistic foundation for breeding work was thediscovery of the dynamic traits of the additivekinship matrix A, by Hill (1974), Henderson (1976),Thompson (1977) and Wray and Thompson (1990).The elements in the A matrix generate covariance ordegrees of relatedness between all individuals in apedigree for the respective population, as well asthe individuals’ inbreeding status along thediagonal of A. When determining A from the “base”generation, one can identify gene transfersthroughout all individuals in a lineage; sires tosires, sires to dams, dams to sires and dams todams, from the base generation to the presentpopulation. In addition, one gets an overview of theindividuals that have provided a lasting geneticcontribution to genetic improvement, and of thoseindividuals that no longer are considered ascontributors to genetic improvement.

The latest major step of this development wasthe establishment of the unique “geneticcontribution” theory put forward by Woolliams andThompson (1994), which also provided a tool toestimate values for ΔG and ΔF. The two definedfactors that determine genetic improvement andinbreeding rate are:• A factor, r, which is the additive genetic

contribution from an individual in a pedigree totoday’s population, where the correspondingelement of A is a function of r. When r > 0, theindividual is a contributor to geneticimprovement, but when r = 0, the individual hasnot contributed to the genetic improvement oftoday’s population. The sum of r of all damscontributing to the present population is 0.5. Thesame applies to the sires contributing to thepresent population.

• The breeding value of an individual iscomprised of: g = ½ gs + ½ gd + swhere g, gs, gd are the additive breeding valuesfor the individual, sire and dam, respectively;and s is the individual’s unique additivebreeding value for the trait, consisting of theindividual’s unique gene combination inaddition to the additive breeding valuetransferred by the parents. Variation of thiselement, s, can amount to more than half of theadditive genetic variation of presentpopulations. The expression is used because ifselection is carried out in the parent generation,the additive genetic variation that is transferredfrom the parents to their offspring will be less

than when using random mating and noselection among parents (the so-called Bulmereffect). The value of s is often called the“individual’s sampling term”.It was shown that:

1. ΔG = sum of r multiplied by s for all individualsin the pedigree who pass on genes toindividuals in today’s population (ΔG = Σ r x s).This shows that genetic improvement is a directproduct function of the individuals contributinggenes (r > 0) and the corresponding value of s,which expresses the individual’s unique genecombinations, i.e., the genes that are notadditively passed down from the parents or frommore distant relatives in the pedigree.

2. ΔF = sum of r squared for all individuals whocontribute genes to individuals in today’spopulation (ΔF = ¼ Σ r2 ), under certainassumptions, e.g. random mating.Due to the dynamics of breeding work, if one

goes back five to seven generations in the pedigree,the contribution from those parents passing ongenes to present-day and future individuals will bethe same for each of these ancestors. This meansthat the genetic contribution of previous“matadors” (extensively used) breeding animalsthat have contributed to a large share of genes intoday’s population cannot be changed in a closedbreeding population. In a closed population, geneticchange will take place for those genes that cancontribute to new gene combinations. Such newgene combinations can only occur via the“gene base”, which is identified by the individual’ssampling term. The individual’s sampling term isthe individual’s specific and unique set of genes,and thus represents the foundation for futuregenetic renewal that can occur within closedpopulations. Fifty per cent of genetic variation isfixed through previous selection of parents andearlier relatives. Only in the most recent generationswill genetic contributions be affected by theaccuracy of the breeding value and the individual’sselective benefit. It is thus obvious that anindividual contributing to sustainable improvementhas a sampling term that is larger than the averageof its parents’ breeding value. The characterisationof this genetic diversity shows a resource potentialfor the respective trait and population.Theoretically, an individual’s sampling term as aninfinite resource will only exist for traits consistingof an infinite number of loci. For traits with only onelocus or few loci, selection will rapidly approachfixation, and thus be depleted of its geneticvariation.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


In closed populations with intensive selectionand the use of few sires, the long-term contributionand a large share of the genes will be provided byonly a few individuals. In such cases, the effectivepopulation size, which is Ne =1/(2ΔF), will berelatively small. Since the selection space forbreeding work is 2Neih2 σp

2, breeding programmeswith small effective population sizes (Ne) will resultin less total improvement than breedingprogrammes that secure larger effective populationsizes. It has been indicated that moderate selection(about 50%), especially in the first generations, willensure maximum genetic improvement in the longrun. It should be well known that intensiveselection in the start-up phase of a breedingprogramme leads to the loss of numerous beneficialgenes in the first few generations, due to the effect oflinkages between loci. A more moderate selectionintensity early in the programme will help to ‘breakapart’ these linkages as time progresses, thusenabling more beneficial genes to be passed on tofuture generations, (Alan Robertson personalcommunication from 1974).

One way to regenerate genetic variation is toenable immigration of genes from various otherpopulations. This is the most effective way toprovide new genetic variation, especially when theexternal population contains more beneficial genesthan the mother population. However, immigrationfrom other, similar populations can also lead toimproved genetic variation, especially for inbredmother populations. For these, genetic variancewould be (1-F) σg

2, where F is accumulatedinbreeding. In such cases, the new supply of genescan “break apart gene pairs identical by descent”that have been inherited from the same ancestor andreplace these with genes that are either morebeneficial or have the same functional value. Ineither case, inbreeding will be discontinued, thusrevitalising the genetic variation within thepopulation.

Optimised election is the maximisation of theselection differential, with the restriction that ΔF isless than, e.g. 0.5%, in which case Ne= 100 animals.Optimisation is achieved by maximising theselection differential for the potential parents byusing a mating strategy that keeps the inbreedingrate in the next generation below a given value,e.g. 0.5%. The process of optimisation impliesdetermining which animals to use in breeding, anddeciding on the relative genetic contribution of eachof these, ci. This includes, for example, determiningthe relative share of semen provided by each proven

sire. If this value is expressed as ci , optimisedselection will result in maximised correlationbetween c (contribution to next generation) and r(long-term contribution).

Effect of SelectionIn classic breeding, genetic improvement isaccuracy (h) times selection intensity (i) timesgenetic standard deviation for the trait. Note thatthe term “accuracy” here is an expression relatingto the accuracy of an individual’s breeding value(g). Due to uncertainty and other factors, certainselected individuals may not contribute to futuregenetic gains. For example, it has been shown thatsome bulls selected as breeding sires generateprogeny which for various reasons do notcontribute to genetic improvement.

By calculating the contribution to genetic gain(ΔG = Σ r x s), where r is the long-term contribution,and s is the sampling term, one sees that these bulls(with r = 0) do not contribute to geneticimprovement.

This implies that:1. Long-term contribution (r) correlates better with

the breeding value of the individual’s samplingterm (s) than with the individual’s breedingvalue (g). In other words, the individual’sselectivity is more closely tied to the value of thesampling term (s) than to the individual’sbreeding value (g).

2. Additive genetic variation from gf is less thanhalf of the variation of s – the individual’ssampling term in populations under selection.

3. Due to restrictions on ΔF, optimised selectionleads to greater accuracy with regard to thecontribution to genetic gain than when applyingclassic breeding theory, in other words, thismaximises the correlation betweenc (contribution to next generation) andr (long-term contribution).

4. Optimal selection secures “new genes” withselective benefits from potential parents’sampling term, s, and which have not beenpreviously expressed by animals in the pedigree.Such animals will contribute to sustainablebreeding gain in future generations.An analysis done by Avendano et al. (2004)

shows the following results:

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

51


Fimland

1. Correlation squared between the long-termcontribution (r) and estimated sampling term (s)is 0.84

2. Correlation squared between the long-termcontribution (r) and estimated breeding value (g)is 0.43This means that restricted inbreeding in

breeding programs improves the efficiency ofbreeding operations.

It was also shown that the effect of selection inan optimised selection strategy was 0.92, comparedto 0.50 in ordinary BLUP selection, i.e., nearly twiceas much. Furthermore, optimal selection gave 20%more genetic improvement than ordinary selection.These results confirm that, when selecting parents,restrictions on expected ΔF in the next generationreflect the individual’s sampling term, s, rather thanthe breeding values of the individual’s parents.

Several analyses have shown that restrictions onthe rate of inbreeding can lead to the apparent lossof phenotypic selection differential. Restriction ofinbreeding in the optimal selection scheme leads tothe selection of alternative parent animals with ahigher probability of contributing to the renewal ofgenetic variation. It is also more probable that thesebreeding animals will contribute to the long-termgenetic gain (r > 0) than animals selected forensuring a maximum ‘phenotypic’ selectiondifferential. When placing restrictions oninbreeding rates for the next generation, the neteffect is that the product of selection differentialtimes accuracy is maximised. This implies thatoptimal selection in general includes the use ofbreeding animals that lead to greater selectivebenefits and higher probability for a long-termcontribution to genetic gain. The result is moreefficient genetic improvement than when selectionis merely based on BLUP values.

ConclusionsOptimal selection focuses on:1. The individual’s selectivity, which is dependent

on the relative share of genes (r) and a positiveadditive value of the individual’s sampling term(s > 0).

2. Maximising the probability that the selection ofparents gives unique, new genes that contributeto genetic improvement in coming generations,i.e. finding potential parents with a considerableprobability of providing unique and new genesfrom their sampling term.

3. Genetic improvement requires that, new, uniqueand beneficial genes be introduced from thesampling term of each new generation ofpotential parents.

4. Selection for traits with limited number of lociwill gradually reduce the genetic variance as locibecome fixed. In traits with infinite number ofloci the random sampling term with its geneticvariance seem to be unaffected by selection.However the intense selection of the parentimplies that the parent’s contribution to the nextgeneration of the genetic variance will be lessthan ½. Thus, the sum of the random samplingterm of genetic variance and the part comingfrom the parent will be less than the originalgenetic variance with no directional selection ofthe parents, i.e.the Bulmer-effects.

5. The only practical way to break long timeinbreeding is to immigrate genes from otherbreeding population. Such refreshing of blood tolocal breeds has been done in many breedsduring the history. The question of where to finda breed that can be accepted for use, may becomea question of life or death for some populations.

List of ReferencesAvendano, S., J.A. Woolliams &

B. Villanueva. 2004. Mendelian sampling terms asa selective advantage in optimum breeding schemeswith restrictions on the rate of inbreeding. Genet.Res., Camb. 83, 55-64.

Bulmer, M.G. 1971. The effect of selection ongenetic variability. The American Naturalist 105,201-211.

Chesnais, W. Fairfull, J. P. Gibson,B.W. Kennedy & E.B. Burnside. 1994. Proceedingsof the 5th World Congress on Genetics Applied toLivestock Production, Guelph, Ontario, pp. 127-134.

Cunningham, E.P. (Ed.). 2003. After BSE – AFuture for the European Livestock Sector. EAAPpublication no. 108.

Drucker, A.G. 2001. The Economic Valuationof AnGR: Importance, Application and Practice. In:Proceedings of the workshop held in Mbabane,Swaziland, 7-11 May 2001.

Fimland, E. 1979. Zeitschrift fürTierzüchtung und Züchtungsbiologie 96, 120-134

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Henderson, C.R. 1976. A simple method forcomputing the inverse of a numerator matrix usedin prediction of breeding values. Biometrics 32,69-84.

Heringstad, B., R. Rekaya, D. Gianola,G. Klemetsdal & K.A. Weigel. 2003. Geneticchange for clinical mastitis in norwegian cattle: athreshold model analysis. J. Dairy Sci. 86: 369–375.

Hill, W.G. 1974. Prediction and evaluation ofresponse to selection with overlapping generations.Animal Production 18:117-139.

Simm, B. Villanueva, K.D. Sinclair &S. Townsend (Eds). 2004. Farm Animal GeneticResources., BSAS Publication No. 30. NottinghamUniversity Press, Nottingham NG11, 0AX.ISBN 1-897676-15-8, SB, pp. 345.

Thompson, R. 1977. The estimation ofheritability with unbalanced data: ii. data availableon more than two generations. Biometrics, Vol. 33,no. 3, pp. 497-504.

Woolliams, J.A. & Thompson R. 1994. In:Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Geneticsapplied to Livestock Production, Guekph, vol. 19.

Woolliams, J.A. 2006. Sustainable LivestockBreeding – Food Security and Safety. “NordicGENEresources”, ISBN 92-893-1153-3,www.nordgen.org/publikasjoner/nordiskegenressurser.htm

Woolliams, J., P. Berg, A. Maki-Tanila, T.Meuwissen, E. Fimland. 2005. SustainableManagement of Animal Genetic Resources- As:Nordic Gene Bank Farm Animals.ISBN 92-893-1089-8, pp. 95.

Wray, N.R. & Thompson R. 1990 Predictionof rates of inbreeding in selected populations.Genet. Res. 55, 41-54.

53○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

AGRI 2007, 41: 53-64

SummaryGlobal recognition of the need to conserve animalgenetic resources comes at a time when the livestocksector faces significant challenges in meeting thegrowing demand for livestock products and themitigation of negative environmental impactscaused by livestock. In developing regions it wouldseem that portions of the growing demand forlivestock products are being met by increasinganimal numbers instead of achieving increases inproduction efficiency. Concurrently, extensivegrazing and mixed crop-livestock productionsystems are largely responsible for significantgreenhouse gas emissions and other forms ofenvironmental degradation. Under the growingdemand and environmental sustainability rubricthere exists a need to garner maximum benefit fromdiverse animal genetic resources. These three areas;growing demand on animal products,environmental issues, and conservation of AnGRform a nexus that national policies mustsimultaneously consider. To advance thisintegration, a policy framework is proposed thatconsists of incentives to produce, a secure resourcebase (e.g., genetic resources, land tenure) and accessto markets for outputs and inputs includingtechnology. Within this framework a set of potentialpolicies are suggested that promote conservation,livestock sector growth and environmentalsustainability.

RésuméLa reconnaissance au niveau mondial du besoin deconserver les ressources génétiques animales arriveà un moment où le secteur de l’élevage se trouve àfaire face à des défis importants tels quel’augmentation de la demande de produits et

Integrating policies for the management of animalgenetic resources with demand for livestock products

and environmental sustainability1

H.D. Blackburn

National Animal Germplasm Program, National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation, ARS,USDA, Fort Collins, CO 80521, USA,

1Mention of a trade name, proprietary product, or specifiedequipment does not constitute a guarantee or warranty bythe USDA and does not imply approval to the exclusion ofother products that may be suitable.

comment atténuer l’impact négatif sur le milieu du àl’élevage. Dans les régions développées il sembleraitqu’une partie de l’augmentation de la demande deproduits puisse être obtenue avec l’augmentationdu nombre d’animaux au lieu d’essayerd’augmenter l’efficacité de la production. Aucontraire, le pâturage extensif et les systèmes mixtesde production agriculture-élevage sont en grandepartie responsables des émission de gaz de serre etd’autres formes de dégradation du milieu. Si nousconsidérons les normes au sujet de l’augmentationde la demande et la durabilité de l’environnement ilfaudra obtenir un bénéfice maximum des différentesressources génétiques animales. Les trois domainessont:1. L’augmentation de la demande de produits

d’origine animale.2. Les problèmes de l’environnement.3. La conservation des formes de AnGR comme

point d’union pour les politiques nationales.Pour atteindre cette intégration il est nécessaire

de créer un cadre politique qui prévoit des primes àla production, une ressources de base fiable(p.e. ressources génétique, propriété de la terre) et unaccès aux marchés pour les produits et latechnologie. Dans ce cadre on suggère d’inclure unensemble de normes potentielles pour promouvoirla conservation, la croissance du secteur élevage etla durabilité du milieu.

ResumenEl reconocimiento mundial sobre la necesidad deconservar los recursos zoogenéticos llega en unmomento en que el sector ganadero se enfrenta a

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

54Integrating policies for the sustainable management of AnGR

desafíos importantes como el incremento de lademanda de productos ganaderos y cómo atenuarlos impactos negativos sobre el ambiente debidos ala ganadería. En las regiones desarrolladas podríaparecer que una parte del aumento de la demandade productos se podría conseguir con el incrementodel número de animales en vez de intentaraumentar la eficacia de producción. Al revés, elpastoreo extensivo y los sistemas mixtos deproducción agricultura-ganadería son en gran parteresponsables de las emisiones de gas y otras formasde degrado ambiental. Bajo las normas deincremento de la demanda y sostenibilidadambiental existe la necesidad de conseguir unbeneficio máximo de los distintos recursoszoogenéticos. Estas tres áreas son:1. Incremento de la demanda de productos

animales.2. Problemas ambientales.3. Conservación de formas de AnGR como nexo

para las políticas nacionales.Para alcanzar esta integración es necesario unmarco político que consiste en incentivos a laproducción, un recurso de base seguro (p.e. recursosgenéticos, propiedad del terreno) y un acceso a losmercados para los productos y la tecnología. Dentrode este marco se sugiere incluir un conjunto depolíticas potenciales que promuevan laconservación, el crecimiento del sector ganadero yla sostenibilidad ambiental.

Keywords: Awareness, Industrial production systems,Meat consumption, Environmental Issues, AnGR use,Consumer demand, Climate change, Access to markets.

IntroductionDuring the past decade awareness concerning thecontraction of animal genetic resources (AnGR) hasincreased, particularly through the reportingprocess of FAO’s State of the World’s AnimalGenetic Resources (SOW; FAO, 2007). The SOWreport highlights issues confronting the use andconservation of diverse animal genetic resources. Itsuggests that the major challenges for countries areto balance different livestock policy objectives thatmaintain animal genetic resource diversity,environmental integrity, increasing demand forlivestock products, and contributions to ruraldevelopment and poverty reduction. Given thatAnGR are a component of the livestock sector,measures taken to conserve genetic resourcesshould complement other initiatives designed toadvance the sector. Nesting AnGR within livestock

development is necessary due to the environmentaland economic development pressures that arecurrently placed on livestock industries, especiallyin the developing world. Principally, to meet thegrowing demand for livestock products, animalproductivity needs to be increased and theenvironmental foot-print contained.

Two important driving forces are theunprecedented growth in demand for livestockproducts (Delgado et al., 1999) and globalenvironmental issues (de Haan et al., 1997; Steinfeldet al., 2006). Increasing demand for livestockproducts has spurred acceleration in industrialproduction systems and significant growth inpoultry and swine production (Steinfeld et al., 2006).In turn, such increases have or are havingsignificant environmental impacts. In addition, themove to more intense industrial types of productionsystems coupled with increases in selectionintensity contribute to the loss of animal geneticresources within those production systems.

The goal of this paper is to explore the majorforces - product demand, environment andproductivity - that impact AnGR and the type ofpolicies that facilitate the integration ofAnGR conservation, economic growth, andenvironmental issues. The paper approaches this bypresenting an overview of the demand for livestockproducts, major environmental issues confrontingthe livestock sector, and how animal geneticresource use may change in relation to these forces.Given this discussion, a policy framework capableof addressing these three issues is presented andfollowed by several policy options that integrate theissues of demand, environment, and conservation.

Demand for Livestock Productsand Growth of the LivestockSectorDelgado et al. (1999) have estimated that total meatconsumption in the developing world will increasefrom 88 000 000 metric tons in 1993 to188 000 000 metric tons in 2020, a 4.2% per yearincrease. Such an increase in demand suggests thatto keep pace with livestock product demand, peranimal productivity will have to increase,production systems will have to intensify, andcommercially viable genetic resources will have tobe utilized more extensively (whether they areindigenous, exotic, or were developed for industrialproduction system use). In many productionsystems indigenous AnGR have been used to play

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

55


Blackburn

fundamental subsistence and sustainability roles inextensive and crop-livestock systems (Rege andGibson, 2003). However, this position is and willcontinue to be challenged, potentially resulting in afurther contraction or loss of genetic resources.Table 1 shows that the rate of increase in livestockproduction is not consistent across regions butprogress is being made toward meeting theprojected demands estimated by Delgado et al.(1999). Table 1 also shows the increasingimportance of monogastric species, in agreementwith SOW (FAO, 2007) and Steinfeld et al. (2006).However, when increased production is convertedto per head productivity for cattle, milk, and smallruminants (Figure 1) it is apparent that not allregions are experiencing an increase, and mostnotably contributions from small ruminants andbeef cattle are lagging in some developing regions. Itis acknowledged that significant increases inmonogastric species has occurred, but suchinformation was not available in the dataset.FAO (2007) illustrates that producers respond toincreasing demand by expanding herd size,diversification of production or processing,intensification of existing production patterns andincreasing the proportion of off-farm income. Itwould appear from table 1 and figure 1 thatproducers are responding to demand signalsprimarily by increasing herd size, with somediversification of production and processing,and/or intensification of specific productionsystems (FAO, 2007; Steinfeld et al., 2006).

Environmental Issues – AGlobal ConcernDuring the past 35 years the livestock sector hascontinually been placed in an adversarial positiondue to real or perceived negative impacts on theenvironment. Environmental issues have been andwill continue to be a point of contention for

livestock industries and how societies choose toutilize livestock species (de Haan et al., 1997;Steinfeld et al., 2006). Furthermore, the impactslivestock are having on the environment areoccurring across all livestock production systems(extensive grazing, mixed farming, and industrial),species, and geographic regions. The breadth of thisissue is dramatic and concerning, especially withregard to the livestock sector’s need to meet furtherconsumer demands. On a global scale, livestockimpact the environment by overgrazing, climatechange (soil organic matter oxidation and carbonrelease into the atmosphere), water resourcesdepletion (through reduced recharge of groundwater), and biodiversity loss via habitat destruction(Steinfeld et al. 2006; de Haan et al. 1997). Ofparticular concern, as Steinfeld et al. (2006)illustrated, is the total greenhouse gas emissionsfrom enteric fermentation and manure that aregreatest in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa,China, and South and East Asia (Figure 2). Thespecies emitting the largest amounts of gases arecattle and buffalo produced in extensive grazingand mixed crop-livestock production systems. Thisresult is surprising, as it was often assumed thatmixed crop-livestock and extensive grazing systemswere relatively benign contributors to greenhousegas emissions compared to industrial systems. Thisfinding has important ramifications because locatedin these production systems and geographic areasare significant portions of AnGR. As a result stepsto mitigate environmental impacts will also impactthese AnGR. While such results are of concern andwarrant action, potential solutions to mitigategreenhouse gas emissions do exist. For example,Leng (1991) illustrated that improving ruminantdiet quality, particularly in the mixed crop-livestocksystems, can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to greenhouse gas emissions,landscape degradation by grazing ruminantsremains an important issue in Africa, Central andSouth Asia, and Central and South America. As aresult of such pressures, Asner et al. (2004) suggest

Table 1. Annual percent change in production from 1994 to 2004 across developing regions.

Region/Product Beef Small

ruminant Pork Eggs Milk Sub-Saharan Africa 2.8 4.1 2.0 2.1 3.1 Asia 18.8 6.7 4.9 7.7 4.5 Central – South America 4.3 -0.5 5.8 2.7 3.7 West Asia – North Africa 1.8 1.1 4.5 3.0 4.5

Data source: H. Steinfeld, unpublished.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


three types of ecosystem degradation occur thesebeing desertification in arid areas, increased woodyplant cover in semi-arid/subtropical rangelandsand deforestation in humid climates. Technicalcapacities exist to resolve the grazing livestockissue; however, the social and political implicationsof such solutions often impede implementation. Forexample, it is well known that successful utilizationof arid grazing areas is dependent upon the abilityto adjust animal numbers to climatic conditions andthe ability to migrate from areas experiencingdrought. Yet, producers find it difficult to destock atappropriate times, and movement to areas less

impacted by drought are difficult when dry seasongrazing areas are converted to crop agriculture andgovernment policies restrict livestock movement.

Despite the array of negative environmentalissues interfacing the livestock sector it is importantto recognize that there are significant positiveimpacts which livestock have on the environment.Many examples have demonstrated how livestockcan reduce chemical dependence for vegetationmanagement - for example, in rubber production inSouth East Asia (Ismali and Thai, 1990) and incontolling noxious weed infestation in NorthAmerica (de Haan et al., 1997). In equillibrium

Figure 1. Annual percent change in production per head from 1994 to 2004 for Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), Asia,Central and South America (CSA), West Asia and North Africa (WANA).

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Perc

ent

Cha

nge

SSA ASIA CSA WANA

Region

Beef

Small Ruminants

Milk

Figure 2. Total greenhouse gas emissions from enteric fermentation and manure per species and main productionsystem. (Source: Steinfeld et al., 2006).

*

Dairy cattle

Cattle & Buffalo

Small ruminant

Poultry

Pigs

Grazing Mixed Industrial

Tonnes of CO2 equivalent 150 mil

CO2 tonnes eq.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

57


Blackburn

grazing systems no difference in erosion or waterinfiltration between light and moderately andungrazed areas has been shown to exist (Blackburnet al., 1982). Appropriately managed industrialsystems can result in lower methane production(FAO, 2007) via increased efficiency, andconcentration of livestock can lead to more costeffective mitigation of livestock pollutants (de Hannet al., 1997). These types of positivelivestock-environment interactions should becapitalized upon when policies for the sector arebeing designed.

Changing Animal GeneticResource UseAs a result of changes in livestock product demandand environmental pressures, there is a need tobetter assess breed performance and explorealtering breed performance levels within and acrossproduction systems to meet the challengespreviously discussed. Such an evaluation should befocused on the judicious use of AnGR. Threats toAnGR have been summarized and include changesin production systems, markets preferences andenvironments, natural catastrophes, geneticdilution due to exotic germplasm use, unstablepolicies from public and private sectors and limitedfunds for conservation activities (Rege and Gibson,2003; FAO, 2007). A number of policy interventionshave been suggested to alleviate these situations;however, these policy recommendations have notbeen implemented, for as Mendelsohn (2003) states“the conservation community has not provided a clearstatement of the benefits of conserving AnGR”. Byincluding AnGR in national agricultural policies,an integration of AnGR conservation and livestocksector development can be forged. Such a balancewould ensure that an array of genetic variation isavailable for future utilization while enabling theadvancement of other livestock productionstrategies.

With the dynamics of a livestock revolutionupon us, it is useful to explore how AnGR use couldchange and therefore what policies might need to bedeveloped. An important element of the livestockrevolution is that economic growth and incomelevels will increase. As incomes grow there is a highincome elasticity of demand for meat and otherlivestock products (Delgado et al., 1999). It is thecombination of income growth and elasticity ofdemand that enables broader sections of the global

society to increase their consumption of livestockproducts.

Changing consumer demand

There are examples of how consumer affluence andawareness impacts AnGR use. Several Europeancountries have established landscape managementprograms that either require or suggest thatrare/minor breeds be utilized. Participation in suchprograms by breeders provides an opportunity toobtain additional revenues, offsetting the differencein production income. However, care must be takenwith such programs to ensure they do not to fosterunnecessary subsidies or impediments to trade.There is anecdotal evidence suggesting thatconsumer demand will eventually shift toward amore diverse set of genetic resources. Such a patternhas been reported for heritage turkey breeds in theUS (Blackburn, 2006) and rare breeds of sheep inBrazil (Mariante, personal communication). Thisdemand tends to be coupled with an interest insupporting local products and the utilization oflivestock for landscape management. Consumptionof local products tends to be limited by theconsumers’ perception of price and that theseproducts are for use on special occasions(Amanor-Boadu, personal communication).Furthermore, such changes have only emergedduring the last decade and the scope and depth ofthese markets are unclear. However, these trendssuggest that having a broad array of geneticresources available for future use to meet consumerdemands will be of benefit to livestock keepers.Figure 3 presents a conceptualization of thisscenario where consumer utilization of geneticdiversity goes through a bottleneck and thenbroadens out as income levels increase andconsumer preferences change. In essence, marketdemands will slow and/or mitigate contractions ingenetic diversity and potentially broaden the use ofAnGR as incomes increase and cause a shift inconsumer preferences. If such a scenario were tobecome more prevalent, the challenge would be oneof positioning national livestock populations tocapitalize on the situation. Steinfeld et al. (2006) hassuggested that globally there is still going to be adecrease in animal genetic diversity. However, theydo point out that with consumers demanding morelivestock products those same consumers will bemore interested in knowing and determining howtheir livestock products are produced which wouldsupport the concept of a shift in genetic resource usethat is illustrated in figure 3.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Climate change

Global climate change is a potential driver foraltering how AnGR may be used. If there issignificant climate change it will most likely havethe largest impact on ruminant species produced inextensive grazing systems, as those species andproduction systems are already subjected torelatively large environmental variations. Hansonet al. (1993) simulated an extensive grazing systemin a short grass prairie under global climate changeconditions of altered temperature, precipitation andincreased CO2 levels in northeastern Colorado(USA). Under all scenarios plant productionincreased but forage quality decreased. As a resultweaning weights, cow weights and average dailygain decreased slightly. More importantly,variances for plant parameters increased suggestingthat carrying capacities should be lowered by 36%to maintain a 90% confidence of not overstockingthis rangeland. The potential for increasedfrequency of drought has also been discussed as apotential result of climate change, particularly forthe African continent (FAO, 2007). Blackburn andCartwright (1987) explored the impact of droughton varying genotypes and found that whengenotypes are out of balance with the productionsystem, a herd or flock’s ability to recover fromdrought is compromised. Blackburn et al. (1990)extended this analysis and showed thatsmallholders are at greatest risk during such eventsand have less of a chance of recovering. Under suchchallenges balancing genotypes with production

systems will become a crucial element requiring theutilization of diverse genetic resources withappropriate genetic potentials for growth, milkproduction, resistance to disease and prolificacy.

Altering breed types is also an alternativeresponse to climate change. Cundiff (2005)suggested a range of near optimal combinations ofBos taurus and Bos indicus inheritance as geographiclocations changes within the USA (Gulf Coast,southern states and temperate regions). Thissituation can be observed in other countries havingsimilar ranges of environments and genotypes thatproduce products for different markets (internalconsumption, exportation to different and variedmarkets having specific demands in quality). For allsuch production systems, potential climate changecould alter the suggested Bos taurus and Bos indicuscombinations, resulting in new opportunities forAnGR use. Souza et al. (1998) underscored thispoint by demonstrating the presence ofgenetic-environmental interactions and subsequentchanges in ranking across regions with Nellorecattle in Brazil. Under conditions of climate changesuch differences may be magnified. Madalena et al.(2002) discussed how poultry housing lacksenvironmental control in southern Asia, andtherefore the need for local chicken breeds orvarieties for industrial systems. The present use ofsuch genotypes would suggest they would havegreater importance under a global warmingscenario. Kolmodin et al. (2002) showed howselection in the presence of genetic-environmentalinteraction may increase animals’ environmental

Figure 3. Potential utilization of genetic diversity as income levels and consumer preferences change.

Genetic Diversity1960

2000

2020Quality Conscious

Price Conscious

Consumer Preferences

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

59


Blackburn

sensitivity. They also implied that animals could beselected for low sensitivity which could be anadvantage in low input systems, or in the event ofclimate change. The work done by Misztal andRavagnolo (2002) demonstrated how selection inHolsteins for heat resistance can be accomplished.All these reports suggest the reality ofgenetic-environmental interactions and the need tohave genotypes that match the productionenvironment in the event of a potential change inclimate. Reports have also shown that selection foradaptability is possible; however, indigenousgenotypes may already have a comparativeadvantage in the context of climate change,suggesting a need for within breed selection.

Genetic improvement

Genetic improvement activities in developingcountries have had a checkered history (Madalenaet al., 2002). In part, genetic improvement amongindigenous breeds for commercial traits is difficultdue to the time required to achieve predeterminedselection goals and therefore crossbreeding or breedsubstitution have been viewed as more expedientmethods of increasing animal productivity.However, numerous reports detail the failure ofvarious crossbreeding and breed substitutionprojects. Further complicating within breedimprovement in developing environments is thatsingle trait selection is not appropriate, and, whenapplied, genotypes may become unbalanced duringperiods of environmental instability (Blackburn andCartwright, 1987). However, if multiple traitselection goals are clearly defined it may be possibleto keep genetic combinations in balance during theselection process. This concept was simulated forpastoral sheep production in northern Kenya(Blackburn and Taylor, 1990), where selection forincreased mature size and milk production wasevaluated. These results indicated that culling age,which directly impacts selection intensity andgenetic gain, was important in maintaining flockproductivity. As culling age increased, flockproductivity was higher than when culling age wasdecreased, resulting in a shorter generation interval.The need to retain animals longer to maintainproduction levels (which impacts generationinterval) implies higher intensities of selection andtherefore the need to closely monitor inbreedinglevels.

Recent work by Gollin (personnelcommunication) suggests that indigenousgenotypes (or those present in the production

system for considerable time) may have acommanding advantage in terms of productivityand that there will not be significant migration ofgenetic resources from developing to developedcountries. He found that under prevailing marketconditions and existing levels of productivity withthe current set of breeds, that imported breeds fromdeveloping countries have little opportunity tobecome mainstreamed, making successful newbreed importation difficult to achieve. This resultdraws into question the hypothesis of Gibson andPullin (2005) that there would be increased demandfor genotypes from developing countries.

General Agriculture PolicyGoalsNational agricultural policies are developedprincipally to promote economic growth and foodsecurity. In setting national policies there is aninternational consensus that direct governmentinterventions in the economy generally should bereduced along with fiscal expenditures (Norton,2004). Norton further explains that at the producerlevel, agricultural policies should fulfill three basicneeds: incentives to produce (not to be confusedwith subsidized production), a secure resourcebase, and access to markets for outputs and inputs,including technology.

AnGR conservation management intersectsthese three basic needs and therefore policiesconcerning AnGR can be structured within each ofthe three areas. However, complicating thedevelopment of AnGR policies is the lack ofassessment and valuation methodology for AnGRin the context of food security and economic growth.Clearly, AnGR can contribute to economic growthand food security, but the level of contribution hasnot been quantified in any substantial way,underscoring Mendelsohn’s (2003) view. In general,we do know that the livestock species domesticatedby man in the last 12 000 years contribute directly orindirectly to 30 to 40% of the total value of food oragriculture production at a global level (FAO, 2000).But such assessments at the breed level are missing.

Policy Framework for AnimalGenetic ResourcesPotential policies range from broad to specificpolicy instruments that are targeted directly at

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


AnGR, livestock-environmental interactions, andlivestock sector development. The frameworkdiscussed strives to promote all three elementsthrough the areas of incentives to produce, a secureresource base, and access to markets for outputsand inputs. Madalena et al. (2002) stated the majorissues depressing effective breeding and AnGRutilization are excessive bureaucratic constraintsand the need for producer driven programs. Theyalso suggest that breeding programs are not likely to“succeed if the program is focused upon grandioseschemes, are run by government or internationalagencies, or are driven by policy goals with few benefitsto participants”. In other words, breeding and AnGRutilization are private sector activities wheregovernment, international agencies andnon-governmental organizations should playsecondary or supportive roles. This perspectiveconfirms the points made by Norton (2004).

Given the issues of AnGR addressed byMadalena et al. (2002) and the fact that AnGR arecontracting, there is a need for policies to manageAnGR that consider the performance of past effortsand the realities of the challenges in meeting thedemands of the livestock revolution. Given thepractical considerations of Madalena et al. (2002),effective policy formulation is also inhibited by theneed for determining the long term value of AnGR(Mendelsohn, 2003). Gollin and Evenson (2003)point out three primary sources of value - direct use,indirect use, and non-use - which can serve asapproaches to establish the quantitative worth ofAnGR. Studies articulating the value of AnGRusing one of these three valuation approaches arenecessary to firmly establish effective long-termpolicies. It is key in developing methods for valuingAnGR that not only market value but other traitslike adaptation to local environment or diseaseresistance, which in fact also determine the value ofthe resource be considered (de Haan et al. 1997;Rege and Gibson, 2003). Kanis et al. (2005) proposeda method based on selection index theory whichincorporates socially important traits such asanimal welfare and health, which can be selectiongoals but have no direct economic value. Such anapproach could be applied on a community basiswhere genetic resources must be well matched to theproduction environment because AnGR are used asa food source, for traction, and/or manure. For thesesituations, the establishment of programs ofparticipatory breeding with the owners orstakeholders of the AnGR is appropriate and mustbe factored into policy making for managing andconserving AnGR in conjunction withenvironmental and economic issues.

Incentives to ProduceIn many production systems producers have or aremoving away from indigenous or minor breeds totake advantage of specific production traits (SOW,2006). However, globally this type of breedsubstitution has been shown to be problematic,particularly among the ruminant species which areexpected to produce in a new environment withlittle or no genetic or managerial modification. Inmost situations the new breed may be shown to besuperior for a trait of interest (e.g., milk production,growth rate, disease resistance), but when evaluatedon the basis of biological efficiency or life timeproductivity, the new breed often ranks below thebreed already being utilized (Blackburn, 1995;Blackburn et al., 1998). The mixed history of breedintroductions suggests that prior to wide spreaddissemination, multi-year breed comparisons beperformed to better ascertain a breed’s potential inthe new production system (de Haan et al., 1997).Having such an analysis will make more evidentthe managerial changes necessary for some breedtypes to be effectively used and can be extended intocost/benefit analyses. The result of this effortshould improve the decision making by breederscontemplating the use of new breed types and couldencourage them to employ appropriate selectionstrategies.

In certain situations policies could be developedthat encourage utilization of some breeds inconjunction with land conservation strategies. Suchpolicies have been implemented in severalEuropean countries (FAO, 2007). There areadditional opportunities to merge AnGRconservation efforts with landscape or vegetativemanagement strategies. In such situations policiescould specifically call for the utilization of rareand/or minor breeds. Furthermore, wherevegetation is being controlled on public lands,access could be restricted to the use of rare and/orminor breeds. Such an approach would accomplishthe land management goal and AnGR conservationwithout a cash subsidy but may create concernabout producer equity. Where private lands areconcerned the issue of payment has to be addressedand whether society deems such an effort importantenough to make a public investment withoutdistorting markets. Presently, it would appear thatonce a country’s economy reaches a sufficient leveland consumer preferences change, as illustrated infigure 3, policies permitting direct subsidypayments may no longer be necessary. Perhaps themajor issue with such strategies is whether or notsufficient scale in land mass and animal numbers

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

61


Blackburn

can be achieved to promote in-situ/in-vivoconservation of a large number of breeds. Someregions have implemented subsidies formaintaining breeds of interest based upon animalnumbers (FAO, 2007) however, it would appear thatsuch approaches invite producers to maintainnumbers below minimum threshold levels tocontinue to receive the subsidy and therefore limitthe growth and utilization of a breed.

A Secure Genetic Resource BaseFrom a policy and technical standpoint the first andmost significant step in securing AnGR is thedevelopment and implementation of a nationaldatabase/information system. The development ofthis capacity enables policy makers, scientists, andindustry to understand the country’s AnGRthrough trend analysis of populationdemographics, geographic location, phenotypic andgenotypic information, and ownership patterns. Italso serves to document the utilization of variousbreeds. In addition, development of nationaldatabases is the first step in developing anunderstanding of the status of breeds that areshared between countries within a region.

The second policy step to secure the AnGR baseis the country’s decision to develop ex-situ/in-vivo,or ex-situ/cryopreserved collections of germplasmand/or tissue. The decision for ex-situ/in-vivocollections, ex-situ/cryopreserved collections orboth is primarily a financial consideration (Gollinand Evenson, 2003) to the extent that the two aresubstitutes. It would appear that limited financialand physical resources will control the number ofex-situ/in-vivo populations that can be maintainedand therefore ex-situ/cryopreserved collections will,in the long run, be a more flexible, cost effective, andsustainable approach for conserving AnGR. Suchcollections can serve multiple functions, forexample: a secure reserve of germplasm forpopulation regeneration; a source of genes that maypotentially become lost due to selection pressure; asource of genes that assists breeders in modifyingtheir populations to better meet consumer demand;and, a source of DNA for the research community.By increasing the scope of collection utilization thecosts of collection development and maintenanceare reduced. Furthermore, re-sampling can beperformed to ensure that collections represent thepopulations at any point in time. Issues of collectionredundancy can be addressed within a country,regionally or even on a global scale (although this islogistically more complex). On the other hand,

when funds are not limited, maintainingex-situ/in-vivo populations have the advantage thatpopulations can adapt to changing environments,production systems or markets. In addition, thepopulation can be seen by farmers which in turncould facilitate actions to promote breed utilization.

Access to Markets for Outputsand Inputs, includingTechnologyIn order to facilitate national livestock sectoreconomic growth potentials, and therefore allowcountries to participate in the livestock revolution(Delgado et al., 1999), rare and minor breed typeswill be under continued economic pressure(Mendelsohn, 2003; FAO, 2007). However, theirposition can be enhanced by eliminating thesources of market failure which Wollny (2003) citesas one reason for diversity loss. The positivebenefits of establishing dynamic and wellfunctioning markets, and their role in conservationand development, has been documented in the wellstudied Machakos District in Kenya. In this areamarket access made small scale dairying possiblewhich in turn generated capital for investments insoil and water conservation (Tiffen et al., 1994).

Some authors have suggested trade restrictionsbe put in place to reduce or eliminate theimportation of exotic germplasm. However, asNorton (2004) notes, “there is an internationalconsensus that high rates of protection not only inviteretaliatory protection measures but also lead toinefficiencies in a country’s own production structure, byremoving the pressure for productivity increases and forreallocating a country’s productive resources to its morecompetitive product lines”. Given this insight, severalsteps are required to overcome the shortcomings ofthe market place. There should be an elimination ofimport and export subsidies to encourage thebreeder-driven market place to determine theappropriateness of indigenous or exotic breeds.Better market information concerning the value ofvarious genetic resources is required. Marketsshould be open allowing a free flow of germplasmso there will be greater opportunities to increase theutilization of genetic diversity, particularly asconsumer demand shifts to regionally-producedproducts (de Haan, et al., 1997).

Access to technology/information also providesan opportunity to correct market failures. Asmentioned previously, correcting the manner inwhich breeds are evaluated should provide all

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


livestock producers with a much clearer perspectiveon how breeds will perform in a given productionsystem. There is also a need to employ othertechnologies such as assisted reproductivetechnologies. Some of these technologies havebecome routine and require much less technicaltraining than once perceived. Given pastexperiences (Madalena et al., 2002), there is asignificant need to blend the utilization of varioustechnologies with local breeding expertise. Acomponent of such a policy could be thestrengthening of breeding organizations wherebreeders reach a consensus on AnGR use and thebreeding strategies necessary to achieve economicgrowth. If a country does determine it beneficial toestablish ex-situ/cryopreserved collections therewill be a need for varying degrees of training.Furthermore, by taking this approach the countryallows breeders an effective mechanism to make useof specific AnGR and create new marketingopportunities.

Policies integratingConservation, Demand, andEnvironmentThere are policies by which the nexus of AnGR,environmental concerns, and consumer demandcan be addressed and fit within the frameworkdescribed. One such policy is the establishment ofclear title to land ownership or use. Land title cutsacross the areas of incentives to produce andprovides livestock producers with a secure resourcebase from which to produce livestock. Furthermore,it promotes a balance between the productionpotential of livestock (and thereby genotypes) andthe environmental capacity of their resource. It willpermit owners of grazing based livestock to matchland use with ecological processes so as to exploitthe temporal and spatial variation of key resourcesand therefore promote opportunities for bothlivestock production and wildlife. Knowledge of theresource capacity also allows producers to bettermatch genotypes to specific environments, and indetermining if new genotypes are to be introducedwhat type of external inputs are needed to achievesuccess.

Elimination of market distortions, such asunder-valued prices on breed importation schemes,is also a cross-cutting policy affecting livestockproducers’ incentive to produce and maintainindigenous genetic resources, improved marketaccess for inputs and outputs and the mitigation of

negative impacts of the environment. Elimination ofsubsidies or distorted prices on genetic resourceswill level the playing field for all breed types.Without such influences breeders should be in abetter position to evaluate the ramifications ofutilizing existing genetic resources or modifyingtheir populations through within breed selection,crossbreeding, or breed substitution.

Improving market structures to provideproducers with access to inputs, outputs and newtechnologies is also important. This includes theprospect of access to international exchange andutilization of animal genetic resources. Providingbreeders/livestock keepers with access and stablemarkets allows them the opportunity to search forand evaluate potentially beneficial geneticresources, thereby responding to increasedconsumer demand, intensifying production, andlowering environmental impacts. In addition,having secured market channels has been deemed anecessary element for adjusting extensive grazingsystem stocking rates during times of drought.

Conserving AnGR should not be consideredjuxtaposed to the implementation of newtechnologies that can promote intensification.Through appropriate intensification there will bereductions of resource use and waste emissionsacross the board (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Furthermore,livestock products can be tailored to variousconsumer groups as part of the intensificationprocess. But for appropriate technologies to emerge,national research organizations must bestrengthened and public-private linkages must befostered and enhanced.

Economic and environmental pressures toutilize alternative AnGR will continue andproducers are likely to shift to such AnGR, wherethey deem appropriate. As a result, developingex-situ/cryopreserved stores of genetic resourcesmay need to become a primary mechanism forconserving diversity. By building suchex-situ/cryopreserved collections producers have theopportunity to adjust breeding stock to meet therealities of the livestock revolution, while beingassured that AnGR used in the past are secure andavailable for future use if needed. This type ofpublic facilitation role fits well with conceptsdiscussed earlier in this paper (Norton, 2004;Madalena et al., 2002). It has often been suggestedthat infrastructure and human capacity are lackingto put such repositories in place and that they aremore costly than in-situ conservation. However, nocomprehensive comparison has been performed. Itcould well be that ex-situ/cryopreservationcollections have high initial investment costs but

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

63


Blackburn

lower recurrent costs, when compared to in-situconservation. Furthermore, globally a number ofwithin country capacities exist and with littleadditional effort resources can be brought to bear forimplementing this type of conservation program.

ConclusionGlobal demand for livestock products, the need tomitigate environmental degradation and nationaleconomic growth agendas requires maximum use ofAnGR. Yet after one decade of becoming aware ofthe growing consumer demand, it appears thatsupply is not keeping pace. In addition, long termlivestock - environmental issues (e.g., resourcedegradation due to grazing) remain unresolved.Increased productivity will require the utilization ofmore commercialized, higher-producing AnGR thatwill in turn create more short term pressure onAnGR diversity. Furthermore, the literature suggeststhat by increasing animal productivity, which mayrequire the utilization of new breeds or intensiveselection within indigenous breeds, negativeenvironmental impacts can be mitigated.Considering these pressures breeders will have tocapitalize on indigenous breed adaptability whileselecting for traits that meet consumer demands forindigenous AnGR to be competitive. As a result ofthe convergence of the major issues discussed inthis paper, policies concerning AnGR should be putin the context of three categories: incentives toproduce, securing the resource base, and providingaccess to markets for inputs and outputs. In makingthese assignments, potential policies also need toconsider the impact they may have on theenvironment. To meet the current economic,environmental and conservation challenges there isperhaps a need to assess productivity from anotherperspective, such as life-time productivity andability to withstand environmental stressors(e.g., drought and disease). There are significantinformational needs (e.g., phenotypic/genotypicdescriptors, database development, status of breedercapacity) all of which contribute to making moreinformed choices concerning genetic resource use,as well as solving livestock product demand andenvironmental issues.

While some have advocated restrictive tradepolicies as a mechanism to protect indigenousgenetic resources, the body of literature on tradeindicates that such approaches are not conducive toeconomic growth and development. Such practicesimpede the opportunity to encourage producers inother countries to evaluate and utilize the AnGR in

question. In addition to trade restrictions, there hasalso been a call for so-called access and benefitsharing agreements, the benefits of which areunknown. But, if perceived discrepancies existbetween buyer and seller, these are withoutquestion a failure of market information and shouldbe resolved by correcting marketing issues andinformation flow rather than imposing morerestrictive policies that will harm the livestocksector’s growth. In summary, advancement ofpolicies for AnGR will require a clear statement ofthe value of AnGR, policies that support breeders inmaking informed choices about the use of AnGR,development of ex-situ/cryopreserved germplasmcollections and placing AnGR policies in thecontext of larger national agendas that addresseconomic growth, consumer demand andenvironmental sustainability.

AcknowledgmentsThe author wishes to thank Dr. Arthur Mariante forhis constructive comments and Dr. CarlosMezzadra for his contribution to an earlier paper onthis subject.

List of ReferencesAsner, G. P., A. Elmore, L. Olander,

R. Martin & A. Harris. 2004. Grazing systems,ecosystem responses, and global change. AnnualReview of Environment and Resources. 29: 261-299.

Blackburn, H.D. & T.C. Cartwright. 1987.Simulated genotype, environment and interactioneffects on performance characters of sheep. J. Anim.Sci. 65: 399-408.

Blackburn, H.D., K. Zessin, J.F. Taylor,T.C. Cartwright & B.A. Mwandotto. 1990. Flockdynamics during drought and recovery years. Proc.8th SR-CRSP Scientific Workshop. Nairobi,pp. 15-28.

Blackburn, H.D & J.F. Taylor. 1990.Simulation of flock performance when differentintensities of selection are practiced. 4th WCGALP.15: 127-130.

Blackburn, H. 1995. Comparison ofperformance of Boer and Spanish Goats in two U.S.locations. J. Anim. Sci. 73: 302-309.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Blackburn, H., S. Lebbie & A. van der Zijpp.1998. Animal genetic resources and sustainabledevelopment. 6th WCGALP. 28: 3-10.

Blackburn, H. 2006. The National AnimalGermplasm Program: Challenges and opportunitiesfor poultry genetic resources. Poultry Sci. 85:210-215.

Blackburn, W.H., R. Knight & M. Wood.1982. Impact of Grazing on Watersheds; A State ofKnowledge. Texas Agric. Exp. Sta. MP 1496, pp. 32.

Cundiff, C.V. 2005. Tropically adaptedbreeds – Regional Project S-1013. SouthernCooperative Series Bulletin, pp. 131-143.

de Haan, C., H. Steinfeld & H. Blackburn.1997. Livestock and the Environment: Finding aBalance. WREN media, Suffolk, UK, pp. 115.

Delgado, C., M. Rosegrant, H. Steinfeld,S. Ehui & C. Courbois. 1999. Food, Agriculture, andthe Environment Discussion Paper 28. Int’l. FoodPolicy Res. Inst., pp. 72.

FAO. 2000. World Watch List for DomesticAnimal Diversity, 3rd. Edition, FAO, Rome, Italy.

FAO. 2007. The State of the World’s AnimalGenetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. FAO,Rome, Italy.

Gollin, D. & R. Evenson. 2003. Valuinganimal genetic resources: lessons from plant geneticresources. Ecological Economics. 45: 353-364.

Gibson, J. & R. Pullin. 2005. Conservation oflivestock and fish genetic resources: joint report oftwo studies commissioned by the CGIAR SceinceCouncil. Science Council Secretariat.(www.sciencecouncil.cgiar.org/activities/spps/pubs/AnFiGR%20study%20report.pdf).

Hanson, J. D., B.B. Baker & R.M. Bourdon.1993. Comparison of the effects of different climatechange scenarios on rangeland livestockproduction. Agric. Systems, 41: 487-502.

Ismali, T. & C.D. Thai. 1990. Report on theSmall Ruminant Collaborative Research SupportProject (SR-CRSP) Indonesia Workshop. US Agencyfor International Development, Washington, DC.

Kanis, E., K. De Greef, A. Hiemstra &J. van Arendonk. 2005. Breeding for societallyimportant traits in pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 83: 948-957.

Kolmodin, R., E. Strandberg, H. Jorjani &B. Danell. 2002. Selection in presence of genotypeby environment interaction may increaseenvironmental sensitivity. 7th WCGALP. 32:333-336.

Leng, R.A. 1991. Improving RuminantProduction and Reducing Methane Emissions fromRuminants by Strategic Supplimentation. U. S.Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,D.C. EPA/400/1-91/004.

Madalena, F., K. Agyemang, R. Cardellino &G. Jain. 2002. Genetic improvement in medium- tolow-input systems of animal production.Experiences to date. 7th WCGALP. 33: 331-340.

Mendelsohn, R. 2003. The challenge ofconserving indigenous domesticated animals.Ecological Economics. 45: 501-510.

Misztal, I. & O. Ravagnolo. 2002. Studies ongenetics of heat tolerante in Holsteins. 7th WCGALP.32: 345-348.

Norton, R. 2004. Agriculture DevelopmentPolicy: Concepts and Experiences. FAO, Rome.

Rege, J. & J. Gibson. 2003. Animal geneticresources and economic development: issues inrelation to economic valuation. EcologicalEconomics. 45: 319-330.

Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar,V. Castel, M. Rosales & C. de Haan. 2006.Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues andoptions. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Souza, J., A. Ramos, A. Silva, K. EuclidesFilho, M. Alenctar, F. Wechsler, C. Gadini &L. Van Vleck. 1998. Effect of genotype xenvironment interaction on weaning weight ofNelore calves raised in tour different regions ofBrazil. 6th WCGALP. 23: 193-196.

Tiffen, M., M. Mortimore & F. Gichuki.1994. More People, Less Erosion: EnvironmentalRecovery in Kenya. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester,UK.

Wollny, C. 2003. The need to conserve farmanimal genetic resources in Africa: should policymakers be concerned? Ecological Economics. 45:341-352.

65○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

AGRI 2007, 41: 65-74

SummaryThis paper addresses major issues and challengesfor Animal Genetic Resources (AnGR) and thelivestock sector, as well as options for furtherdevelopment of policies or regulatory approaches.Three main areas were identified, i) how we canhalt the further erosion of genetic diversity andpromote sustainable breeding and use, ii) whetherthere is a need to regulate the exchange of geneticmaterial and iii) how to balance different systems ofrights (e.g. sovereign rights of nations, intellectualproperty rights, communal rights or rights oflivestock keepers).

To halt further erosion, complementary ex-situand in-situ conservation approaches are needed andbreeding and marketing of local breeds should bestrengthened. Secondly, recognizing the importanceof the exchange of AnGR, broad access andresponsible and equitable exchange mechanismsshould be further promoted. Thirdly, regardingintellectual property rights, there is a need to adaptthe application of the patent system to the specialcircumstances inherent in animal breeding.Moreover, possible sui generis systems should be

What’s on the menu? Options for strengthening the policy andregulatory framework for the exchange, use and conservation

of animal genetic resources1

S.J. Hiemstra1, A.G. Drucker2, M.W. Tvedt3, N. Louwaars1, J.K. Oldenbroek1, K. Awgichew4,S. Abegaz Kebede5, P.N. Bhat6 & A. da Silva Mariante7

1Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN) of Wageningen University and Research Centre, theNetherlands. P.O. Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, the Netherlands

2School for Environmental Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia3The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, P.O. Box 326, 1326 Lysaker, Norway

4Institute of Biodiversity Conservation, P.O.Box 30726, Ethiopia5Ambo College, P.O. Box. 19, Ambo, Ethiopia

6World Buffalo Trust (WBT), 201 303 Noida (UP), India7EMBRAPA Cenargen, Brasilia DF, Brazil

further explored in order to better balance differentrights systems.

Rather than developing a new or adaptedinternationally legally binding framework, theintergovernmental process under FAO may insteadwish to focus, in the first instance, on thedevelopment of voluntary instruments to strengthennational policies and the implementation of actionat national levels.

Debates and developments related tointernational agreements in the crop sector havealso tended to frame the debate for AnGR. However,before launching into a discussion on whether ornot an ‘FAO Animal Treaty’ would be needed, oneshould first of all clarify the problems to be dealtwith and regulated via an international regime.

RésuméCet article rassemble les thèmes principaux et défisdes Ressources Génétiques Animales (AnGR) et dusecteur élevage, ainsi que les options disponiblespour le développement de politiques ou règlements.

1This paper summarizes the main findings of a study entitled ‘Exchange, Use and Conservation of Animal Genetic Resources:Policy and Regulatory Options’. Report 2006/06. Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN), WageningenUniversity and Research Centre. The study was commissioned by FAO and funded by the Government of the UnitedKingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, through DFID. The views expressed in the report and in this paper are thesole responsibility of the authors. The full report is downloadable from:http://www.cgn.wur.nl/UK/CGN+Animal+Genetic+Resources/Policy+advice/http://www.cgn.wur.nl/UK/CGN+General+Information/Publications/2006/http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/subjects/en/genetics/documents/ITWG-AnGR4/AnGR_policy_and_regul.pdf

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

66Policy and regulatory framework for the exchange, use and conservation of AnGR

On a identifié trois domaines principaux:1. Comment empêcher l’érosion de la diversité

génétique et promouvoir l’utilisation et l’élevagedurable.

2. Quand est-il nécessaire de réglementer leséchanges de matériel génétique.

3. Xomment adapter les différents systèmeslégislatifs (p.e. les droits souverains au niveaunational, les droits sur la propriété intellectuelle,les droits communs ou droits des éleveurs).Pour empêche une érosion ultérieure des études

complémentaires in-situ et ex-situ seront nécessaires,ainsi qu’un renforcement de la sélection etcommercialisation des races locales. En deuxièmelieu, et tenant compte de l’importance des échangesde AnGR, on devrait promouvoir un majeur accès etdes mécanismes responsables et équitables. Pourfinir, en ce qui concerne les droits de la propriétéintellectuelle, il faudrait adapter l’application dessystèmes de brevet aux circonstances spécialesinhérents au secteur de l’élevage animal.Cependant, on pourrait rechercher d’autressystèmes possibles sui generis afin de mieux adapterles différents systèmes législatifs. Au lieu dedévelopper un nouveau système ou adapter uncadre légal au niveau international, le procèsintergouvernemental sous la supervision de la FAOvoudrait centrer le thème en principe sur ledéveloppement d’outils volontaires quirenforceraient les politiques nationales et la mise enoeuvre d’actions au niveau national. Les débats etdéveloppements en relation avec les accordsinternationaux dans le domaine agricole ontcontribué aussi à l’encadrer dans les AnGR.Cependant avant d’initier une discussion surl’opportunité ou moins d’établir un “Traité FAO surles animaux” il serait nécessaire d’identifier lesproblèmes auxquels il faudra faire face et commentles réglementer à travers un accord international.

ResumenEste artículo recoge los temas principales y desafíosde los Recursos Zoogenéticos (AnGR) y del sectorganadero, así como las opciones para elconsiguiente desarrollo de políticas o reglamentos.Se identificaron tres áreas principales:1. Cómo impedir la erosión de la diversidad

genética y promover la utilización y críasostenible.

2. Cuando es necesario reglamentar losintercambios de material genético.

3. Cómo adaptar los distintos sistemas legales(p.e. los derechos soberanos a nivel nacional, losderechos de la propiedad intelectual, losderechos comunales o derechos de losganaderos).Para impedir una erosión ulterior serán

necesarios estudios complementarios in-situ yex-situ, así como un reenforzamiento de la cría ycomercialización de las razas locales. En segundolugar, teniendo en cuenta la importancia de losintercambios de AnGR, se debería promover unmayor acceso y mecanismos responsables yequitativos. Por fin, en lo relativo a los derechos dela propiedad intelectual, sería necesario adaptar laaplicación del sistemas de patentes a lascircunstancias especiales inherentes al sector de lacría animal. Sin embargo, se podrían investigarulteriores posibles sistemas sui generis con el fin deadaptar mejor los distintos sistemas legales. En vezde desarrollar un nuevo sistema o adaptar unmarco legal a nivel internacional, el procesointergubernamental bajo supervisión de la FAOdesearía enfocar el tema en un principio en eldesarrollo de instrumentos voluntarios que reforcenlas políticas nacionales y la implementación de lasacciones a nivel nacional. Los debates y desarrollosrelacionados con los acuerdos internacionales en elsector agrícola también han contribuido a enmarcarel debate en el campo de AnGR. Sin embargo, antesde lanzarse en una discusión sobre la oportunidado menos de establecer un “Tratado de la FAO sobreanimales”, se deberían identificar los problemasque se encontraran y cómo reglamentarlos a travésde un acuerdo internacional.

Keywords: AnGR, Policy and Regulatory Options,Exchange, Conservation, Use, Rights.

IntroductionThe FAO International Technical Conference onAnimal Genetic Resources (AnGR) in Interlaken in2007 will represent a milestone, finalizing theglobal assessment on the State of the World’sAnimal Genetic Resources and providing anopportunity to reach agreement on how best toaddress priorities for the sustainable use,development and conservation of animal geneticresources for food and agriculture (AnGR). One ofthe expected outcomes of this Conference is a GlobalPlan of Action on Animal Genetic Resources,therefore Interlaken will probably be for AnGR whatLeipzig was for plant genetic resources for food andagriculture. The overall process, coordinated by

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

67


Hiemstra et al.

FAO and driven by national governments, shouldresult in action contributing to conservation andsustainable breeding and utilization of AnGR. It isexpected that three important issues need to bediscussed:1. How we can halt the further erosion of genetic

diversity and promote sustainable breeding anduse.

2. Whether there is a need to regulate the exchangeof genetic material.

3. How to better balance different systems of rights(e.g. sovereign rights of nations, intellectualproperty rights, individual or communalownership rights or access rights to AnGR andnatural resources).Debate on these issues may lead to a decision as

to whether an international legally bindingmechanism is needed, or if ‘softer’ arrangementscan adequately meet the objectives in a moreeffective manner.

Although not designed primarily for AnGR,international agreements with a general scope(governed by the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD), the World Trade Organisation/TradeRelated Intellectual Property System (WTO/TRIPS)and the World Intellectual Property Organisation(WIPO)) also apply to AnGR. As theirimplementation advances further, they may have anincreasingly significant impact on AnGR exchange,use and conservation. While the special nature ofagricultural biodiversity is recognized, FAO couldplay a key role in facilitating and informing thedebate on specific AnGR needs and challenges.

In 2004, the Intergovernmental TechnicalWorking Group on Animal Genetic Resources2

recommended that FAO commission a study3 toassess how exchange practices regarding AnGRaffect the various stakeholders in the livestocksector, and to identify policies and regulatoryoptions that guide the global exchange, use and

conservation of AnGR. This paper presents themain findings of the recommended study: policyand regulatory options related to the exchange andthe conservation and sustainable use of AnGR. Theidentification of options is based on literaturesurveys4 and stakeholder consultations. A review ofthe current situation and the exploration of futurescenarios served as input for the latter.5

The International Treaty onPlant Genetic Resources (PGR)for Food and Agriculture as anexample for AnGR?Debates and developments related to internationalagreements in the crop sector have also tended toframe the debate for AnGR. Some argue that it isimportant to develop a legally binding internationalagreement for AnGR similar to the InternationalTreaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food andAgriculture (ITPGRFA) that has been ratified by agrowing number of countries. Core elements of thistreaty are a multilateral system for the exchange ofaccessions of plant genetic resources for food andagriculture and the recognition of farmers’ rightswhich are left to countries to implement. The treatyis in line with CBD and regulates specific aspectsfor plant genetic resources in agriculture. Beforelaunching into a discussion on whether or not an‘FAO Animal Treaty’ would be needed, one shouldclarify which problems need to be regulated orwhich trends needed to be positively influenced.Key biological, historical, socio-economic andinstitutional differences between plant and animalgenetic resources need to be understood and to bebrought into the policy, regulatory and legaldiscussions about AnGR. The substantialdifferences between animal and plant breeding

2 CGRFA/WG-AnGR-3/04/REPORT, paragraph 243 The study, entitled ‘Exchange, use and conservation of animal genetic resources: policy and regulatory options’ wascommissioned by FAO and funded by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, throughDFID. The views expressed in the report and in this paper are the sole responsibility of the authors. The full report isdownloadable from:http://www.cgn.wur.nl/UK/CGN+Animal+Genetic+Resources/Policy+advice/http://www.cgn.wur.nl/UK/CGN+General+Information/Publications/2006/http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/subjects/en/genetics/documents/ITWG-AnGR4/AnGR_policy_and_regul.pdf

4 Due to the large number of references, they are listed in the Bibliography section at the end5 For further details about future scenario’s and stakeholder analysis see also Drucker et al. (this volume); a detailed analysisof property rights, exclusive rights and use rights is provided by Tvedt et al. (this volume).

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


strongly suggest that to simply copy the solutionsfrom the plant sector to the animal branch will notprovide a suitable solution.

Halt Further Genetic Erosionand Promote SustainableBreeding and UseThere is consensus that global AnGR diversity isunder pressure. The global livestock sector isincreasingly focused on a small number of highlyspecialized breeds and local breeds are threatened.The existence of threats to farm animal breeds andfarm animal genetic diversity is generally accepted,

Even where diverse animal genetic resourcescurrently have a low ‘direct use’ value, suchresources may nonetheless be particularly valuablefor future use. Such ‘non-market’ values provide akey justification for the public sector to play animportant role in their conservation andmanagement. However, there is limited awarenessabout the importance of conservation and thesustainable use of AnGR among policy makers andmajor stakeholders in the livestock sector.

To halt further genetic erosion, complementaryex-situ and in-situ conservation approaches areneeded, to be organized at national, regionaland/or global levels. The major responsibility forthe conservation and sustainable use of AnGR liesat the national level (according to the CBD).

However, coordination andcollaborative arrangements atregional and/or global levels arealso likely to be important.Ex-situ conservation could either

support in-situ conservation andbreeding in the short term or mayhave a long term (insurance)objective. Ex-situ approachesrequire appropriateinfrastructure, organization,technical capacity, agreedpriorities, sustained funding and(new) legal arrangementsregarding ownership and theuse of germplasm.In many countries there is a lack

of human resources andinstitutional capacity in animalbreeding. Lack of effective,sustainable breeding programs

for local breeds may be one of the reasons that suchbreeds lose their competitive advantage, especiallywhere production systems or external conditionsare subject to change. Poor marketing and breedpromotion is also an important limiting factor forthe continued use of valuable breeds. Withoutinterventions and the strengthening of breedingcapacity for local breeds, the current threat to thesurvival of local AnGR is inevitably going toescalate. Within-breed diversity in both local andinternational breeds may also decline withoutproper consideration of inbreeding issues andsustainable long term breeding goals.

Figure 1. Dutch Landrace goat, the Netherlands (photoby H.F. Cnossen).

even though debate remains about the severity ofgenetic erosion. FAO (2007) reported that, globally,20% of recorded breeds are classified as ‘at risk’. Onthe other hand, the loss of breeds is only oneindicator of the loss of farm animal geneticdiversity, as a major part of genetic diversity isfound within breeds and there is also significantgenetic overlap between breeds. Maintenance ofwithin breed diversity is as important as betweenbreed diversity as a genetic reservoir for futurebreeding and use. Both commercial breeds and rarebreeds sometimes have very limited within breeddiversity. Therefore, the problem may be bigger thanfigures of breed loss imply.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

69


Hiemstra et al.

Responsible and equitableexchange mechanismsExchange of genetic material between countries andregions over millennia has been a very valuablemechanism for breed and livestock development.Countries and regions are highly interdependent,and continue to need broad access to AnGR for theirlivestock development. However, there have alsobeen direct or indirect negative effects on farmanimal genetic diversity.

A tremendous amount of AnGR exchangecurrently takes place between developed countries(‘North’ to ‘North’) while globalization drives theexportation of high performing breeding stock from‘North’ to ‘South’. ‘South’ to ‘South’ exchange hasalso been extensive and important for livestockdevelopment but less well documented than ‘North’to ‘North’ exchange. Movements of livestockgermplasm from ‘South to North’ have been rare inthe past century. The latter practice is in starkcontrast to plants, where South to North flows areprominent, driven by the search for diseaseresistance and adaptive genes for new plantvarieties. This important difference in the gene flowdirection is likely to influence discussions on theregulation of exchange.

The exchange of AnGR is currently mainlyregulated through the transfer of private ownership

(by private law contractsand customary law) and isalso influenced by zoo-sanitary regulations. Somecountries have specificaccess regulations orregulations to assess thepotential impact of AnGRintroductions in thecountry.

Zoo-sanitaryregulations

Zoo-sanitary regulationsare considered to be themain constraints toexchange. In order toavoid frustrating theexchange of AnGR, furtherharmonization of

zoo-sanitary laws should continue at regional andglobal levels. Special attention should be given tothe use of resources cryo-conserved in the past.

Impact assessment

There are examples of the damaging effects ofintroducing exotic material from North to South toimprove local breeds. The existence ofgenotype x environment interactions, and theavoidance of undesired effects of exchange, maytrigger the need to assess the (genetic) impact ofimport/export on sustainable (livestock sector)development in the country. Such an instrumentmay be worth considering as a basis for putting inplace strategies to support the mitigation ofpotential negative side-effects of particularexchange practices. Application of a (voluntary)‘code of good practice’ would be useful in thiscontext, creating stronger responsibilities for bothexporters and importers. Genetic impactassessments (both positive and negative) could alsobe extended to include economic and livelihoodimpacts as well as other developmental and/orenvironmental impacts. A potential disadvantagethat would have to be overcome is the likelihood ofincreased bureaucracy, thereby blocking importsand reducing livestock sector developmentopportunities.

Figure 2. Yak, Bhutan (photo S.J. Hiemstra).

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Access and benefit sharing

It is a general belief that the current exchange ofAnGR has generated benefits for both seller andbuyer under the present circumstances whereprivate law agreements have been in use. However,there are some cases where stakeholders considerthat benefit sharing has not been sufficiently cateredfor. There are cases where the value in furtherbreeding turned out to significantly outweigh thepurchase value of the exported breeding animal orgermplasm. The CBD presupposes the right of acountry to exercise sovereign control over itsAnGR (accompanied by a number ofresponsibilities). An exporting country may wish tomaintain property rights over the AnGR after theresources have left the country. Even if the animalsand breeding material are under private ownership,states have, according to the CBD, the right toregulate export. It can be argued that private partiesagree on benefit sharing when AnGR is beingtransferred by a private law agreement. An exportregulation could however set rules or a minimumstandard for the content of a private law agreementto be considered legal or valid.

An export regulation could provide a usefulsupplementary tool for private law agreements, inparticular in situations where negotiatingcapacities or market positions are significantlyunequal. Two countries who commonly tradeAnGR could also decide to develop a bilateralframework agreement aimed at facilitated exchange,following a pre-negotiated set of rules.

Development of a model Material TransferAgreement (model MTA) at the international level,

largely based on current exchange practices as wellas covering all importantnegotiation issues relevant toAnGR exchange, would also beuseful, in order to support theresponsible exchange of AnGR.Development of such a modelMTA may become particularlyimportant if patterns of gene flowwere to change substantially inthe future. Private law guidedexchange could be supplementedby a model MTA which wouldsupplement the fragmented useof contracts today.Following the negotiations in

the CBD regarding anInternational Binding Regime forAccess and Benefit Sharing, thereis a need to survey how these

changes in the international legal order for theexchange of genetic resources in general will affectFigure 4. Groningen White Headed cattle, the Netherlands

(photo by H.F. Cnossen).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Cover of the Report "Exchange, use andconservation of animal genetic resources: policy andregulatory options". Report 2006/06.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

71


Hiemstra et al.

the exchange of AnGR in particular. Developmentof an international agreement on a standard MTA forAnGR could be a response to CBD developmentsand to unequal negotiating capacities and themarket dominance of larger commercial entities inthe livestock sector. A MTA for AnGR should reflectthe significant differences between plant andanimal genetic resources.

Intellectual Property Rights andUse RightsGenetic flows have changed over time, geneticdiversity is under pressure, and the power betweenstakeholders is increasingly unbalanced. Furtherconcentration and vertical integration in thelivestock industry, combined with the protection ofinvestments through the use of intellectual propertyrights are generating an increased concern aboutequity and may seriously affect the positions oflivestock keepers, small farmers and (small scale)breeders.

Today, almost all farm animal genetic resourcesare under private control and ownership and notconsidered to be in the public domain. However,breeds are ‘public’ in the sense that governmentsoften recognize them as distinct breeds. Commercialbreeders generally ‘protect’ their investments by‘staying ahead’ of competing breeders, throughphysical control of the use of their breeding animalsand the use of private law contracts. The use ofIntellectual Property Rights (IPR) in animalbreeding has to date mainly been focused ontrademarks. Developments in patenting in somecountries have triggered discussions about thepotential impact of patenting on animal breedingmethods and animal genes and cells. This has alsostarted a discussion about the need to define therights of livestock keepers/farmers/breeders overthe AnGR they have developed over time and aboutaccess rights to AnGR and natural resources. Anincreasing tension is apparent between existingphysical ownership or communal ownership toAnGR and increased use of the patent system in thecommercial breeding sector. Regardingdevelopments in the patent system, concerns havebeen raised that a high number of patent claims andthe broad scope of the claims may lead to asignificant body of exclusive rights on knowledgeand breeding technology with substantial impactson the use of AnGR.

Exclusive rights

There is considerable concern that patents begranted to existing methods – although they maynot sufficiently disclosed to qualify as prior art inthe patent system. To counterbalance the effect ofexcessive patenting, preventive publishing is oftenput forward as a strategy to ensure that commonknowledge will be considered prior art. However,the ability to exploit even small adaptations to whatwas originally published (i.e. ‘patenting around theprior art’) means that such an approach may be anineffective counterbalance in practice. Otheralternatives could be to oblige patent offices to takeinto account specific AnGR prior art/novelty/inventiveness guidelines and/or having countriesintroduce specific exemptions in national patent law,such as farmers’ privilege or breeder’s exemption. Asystematic legal analysis would be advisable toassess how general patent law rules apply to AnGRand breeding. There is also a need for analyzing theeffects patents might have on research andinvestments in the animal sector; and eventually itmay be worth considering the degree to whichpatent protection is needed at all in the animal

Figure 5. Drenthe fowl, the Netherlands(photo by F. van Welie).

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


sector, to promote breeding, research anddevelopment in the livestock sector.

Sui generis protection

The present system of plant breeders’ rights (UPOV)provides protocols for assessing and describing theunique characteristics of a new plant variety,ensuring that it is distinct, uniform and stable. Sucha system is unlikely to be applicable to farm animalbreeds in the same way as it is for plants. Sui generisprotection systems could nonetheless be useful.Establishment of breed associations or herd bookregistration (governed by breeding laws) combinedwith trademark protection would be a goodalternative for breed conservation and propertyright protection. A sui generis protection could alsobe linked to special geographical related propertiesand characteristics of the animals or their products(geographical indications).

ConclusionsBased on analysis of the existing policyframeworks, and as potential solutions to theproblems raised during the stakeholderconsultations, a number of possible policy andregulatory options for AnGR were identified duringthe study. These should be considered within thecontext of an informed debate regarding the need forstrengthening the existing policy and regulatoryframework for AnGR, as well as in terms of the formthat any such strengthening should take. Withregard to the latter, rather than developing a new oradapted internationally legally binding framework,the intergovernmental process under FAO mayinstead wish to focus, in the first instance, on thedevelopment of voluntary instruments to strengthennational policies and the implementation of actionat national levels. This could be carried out inparallel with further analysis of how otherinternational regimes may influence AnGR. TheInterlaken Conference is expected to raise the levelof awareness on the many roles and values ofAnGR, and to highlight the special nature of AnGR,their distinctive features, and problems needingdistinctive solutions.

AcknowledgementsWe are grateful to FAO for commissioning thisstudy, and to the Government of the UnitedKingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland forfunding it through the Department for InternationalDevelopment DFID. We also thank the members ofthe steering committee, I. Hoffmann (FAO) and T.Brown (DFID) for their inputs and contributions.

List of ReferencesCBD. 1992. Convention on Biological

Diversity. Available at: www.biodiv.org.

CBD. 2002. Bonn Guidelines on Access toGenetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharingof the Benefits Arising out of their Utilization.

Drucker, A.G., V. Gomez & S. Anderson.2001. The Economic Valuation of Farm AnimalGenetic Resources: A Survey of Available Methods.Ecological Economics. Vol. 36 (1): 1-18.

Drucker, A.G., M. Smale & P. Zambrano.2005. Valuation and Sustainable Management ofCrop and Livestock Biodiversity: A Review ofApplied Economics Literature. SGRP/IFPRI/ILRI,www.ilri.org.

Esquinas-Alcazar, J. 2005. Protecting cropgenetic diversity for food security: political, ethicaland technical challenges. Science & Society: NatureReview Genetics 6, 946-953.

FAO. 1999. The global strategy for themanagement of farm animal genetic resources. FAO.Rome.

FAO. 2005. The legal framework for themanagement of animal genetic resources. FAOLegislative Study 89. ISSN 1014-6679. ISBN 92-5-105433-9. Ingressia, A., Manzella, D. &Martyniuk, E. (Eds), Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations, Rome, 2005.

FAO. 2007. The State of the World’s AnimalGenetic Resources. B. Rischkowsky and D. Pilling(Eds).

Gibson, J.P. & S.V. Pullin. 2005.Conservation of Livestock and Fish GeneticResources. Gibson, J.P. and Pullin, S.V. ScienceCouncil Secretariat, FAO.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

73


Hiemstra et al.

Gibson, J., S. Gamage, O. Hanotte,L. Iñiguez, J.C. Maillard, B. Rischkowsky,D. Semambo & J. Toll. 2006. Options and Strategiesfor the Conservation of Farm Animal GeneticResources: Report of an International Workshop(7-10 November 2005, Montpellier, France). CGIARSystem-wide Genetic Resources Programme(SGRP)/Bioversity International, Rome, Italy, pp.53.

Hiemstra, S.J., A.G. Drucker, M.W. Tvedt,N. Louwaars, J.K. Oldenbroek, K. Awgichew,S. Abegaz Kebede, P.N. Bhat & A. da SilvaMariante. 2006. Exchange, use and conservation ofanimal genetic resources: policy and regulatoryoptions. Report 2006/06. Centre for GeneticResources, the Netherlands (CGN), WageningenUniversity and Research Centre, the Netherlands;www.cgn.wur.nl/UK/CGN+Animal+Genetic+Resources/Policy+advice/; http://www.cgn.wur.nl/UK/CGN+General+Information/Publications/2006/;www.fao.org/ag/againfo/subjects/en/genetics/documents/ITWG AnGR4/AnGR_policy_and_regul.pdf

Hoffmann, I. & B. Scherf. 2005. Managementof farm animal genetic diversity: opportunities andchallenges. WAAP Book of the Year 2005,pp. 221-245.

ITPGRFA. 2004. International Treaty onPlant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture,FAO, Rome, 2004. Aavailable at www.fao.org (fullweb link).

LID. 1999. Livestock in poverty-focuseddevelopment. Livestock in Development.Crewkerne, UK.

LPP. 2003. Karen Commitment. Pastoralist/Indigenous Livestock Keepers’ Rights. Karen,Kenya, 27-30 October, 2003; www.pastoralpeoples.org/docs/karen.pdf.

Mathias, E. & P. Mundy. 2005. Herdmovements: The exchange of livestock breeds andgenes between North and South. League forPastoral Peoples and Endogenous LivestockDevelopment; www.pastoralpeoples.org/docs/herdmovements.pdf

Notter, D.R. 2004. Conservation strategies foranimal genetic resources. Background Study PaperNo. 22. Commission on Genetic Resources for Foodand Agriculture, FAO, October 2004.

Rege, J.E.O. & J. Gibson. 2003. Animalgenetic resources and economic development:issues in relation to economic valuation. EcologicalEconomics 45 (3), 319-330.

Rosendal, G.K., I. Oleson, H.B. Bentsen,M.W. Tvedt & M. Bryde. 2005. Strategies andRegulations Pertaining to Access to and LegalProtection of Aquaculture Genetic Resources. TheFridtjof Nansens Institute, October 2005.

Rothschild, M.F., G. Plastow & C. Newman.2003. Patenting in animal breeding and genetics.WAAP Book of the Year 2003, pp. 269-278.

Sainath, P. 1996. Everybody Loves a GoodDrought. Stories form India’s Poorest Districts.Penguin Books, 1996.

Sere, C., H. Steinfeld & J. Groenewold. 1996.World Livestock Production Systems. Currentstatus, issues and trends. FAO Animal Productionand Health Papers 127. FAO. Rome, Italy.

Stannard, C., N. van der Graaf, A. Randall,P. Lallas & P. Kenmore. 2004. Agriculturalbiological diversity for food and agriculture:shaping international initiatives to help agricultureand the environment. Howard Law Journal, vol. 48,no. 1. Ed. Howard University School of Law.

Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar,V. Castel, M. Rosales & C. Haan. 2006. Livestock’slong shadows. Environmental issues and options.FAO; www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.pdf

Tisdell, C. 2003. Socioeconomic causes ofloss of animal diversity genetic: analysis andassessment. Ecological Economics 45 (3), 365 -376.

TRIPS. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspectsof Intellectual Property Rights; available at:www.wto.org.

Tvedt, M.W. 2005. How will a substantivepatent law treaty affect the public domain forgenetic resources and biological material? TheJournal of World Intellectual Property, vol. 8 no. 3,311-344.

Tvedt, M.W. 2006. Element for Legislation inUser Country to Meet the Fair and Equitable Benefit-Sharing Committment. The Journal of WorldIntellectual Property, vol. 9, no. 2., 189-212.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


adfbg

Tvedt, M.W. & T.R. Young. 2006(Forthcoming). Beyond Access – A Legal Analysis ofthe Fair and Equitable Benefit Sharing Commitmentin the CBD. IUCN.

UPOV. 1991. International Union for theProtection of New Varieties of Plants; available atwww.upov.int.

Valle Zárate, A., K. Musavaya & C. Schäfer.2006. Gene flow in animal genetic resources. Astudy on status, impact and trends. Institute ofAnimal Production in the Tropics and Subtropics,University of Hohenheim, Germany.

Verrier, E., M. Tixier-Boichard, R. Bernigaud& M. Naves. 2005. Conservation and value of locallivestock breeds: usefulness of niche productsand/or adaptation to specific environments.Animal Genetic Resources Information, no. 36,2005.

Woolliams, J. & M. Toro. 2007. What isgenetic diversity? In: Utilisation and Conservationof Farm Animal Genetic Resources. K. Oldenbroek(Ed.). Wageningen Academic Publishers.

75○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

AGRI 2007, 41: 75-89

SummaryWith the aim of assessing how exchange practicesregarding Animal Genetic Resources for Food andAgriculture (AnGR) affect the various stakeholdersin the livestock sector and to identify policies andregulatory options that could guide the globalexchange, use and conservation of AnGR, anexploration of future scenarios was used as acomplementary approach to reviewing the currentsituation, as well as to identify stakeholders’ viewson AnGR policy development.

Four 2050 future scenarios were developed andincluded:1. Globalization and regionalization.2. Biotechnology development.3. Climate change and environmental degradation.4. Diseases and disasters.

Having developed the scenarios, these were thenused as an input point for a wide range ofstakeholder consultations.

The findings show that such an approach hasbeen a useful analytical tool. The ‘far’ futureperspective appeared to make people less defensive,especially in a situation where current exchangeproblems were not yet particularly visible or welldocumented. Many interviewees broadlyconsidered that it was not a question of ‘if’ thescenarios would happen, but rather a question of‘when’. This implies that we might do well toconsider the need to respond to future challengesthrough the proactive development of new policiesor regulations. Such a finding is partly in contrast

Back to the future. How scenarios of future globalisation,biotechnology, disease and climate change can inform present

animal genetic resources policy development

A.G. Drucker1, S.J. Hiemstra2, N. Louwaars2, J.K. Oldenbroek2, M.W. Tvedt3, I. Hoffmann4, K. Awgichew5,S. Abegaz Kebede6, P.N. Bhat7 & A. da Silva Mariante8

1School for Environmental Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia2Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN) of Wageningen

University and Research Centre, Wageningen,The Netherlands3The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, P.O. Box 326, 1326 Lysaker, Norway

4Animal Production Service (AGAP), FAO, Rome, Italy5Institute of Biodiversity Conservation, P.O.Box 30726, Ethiopia

6 Ambo College, P.O. Box. 19, Ambo, Ethiopia7World Buffalo Trust (WBT), 201 303 Noida (UP), India

8EMBRAPA Cenargen, Brasilia DF, Brazil

with the general perception of the current regulatorysituation being broadly acceptable.

RésuméOn a réalisé une enquête sur les possibles futurscénarios comme approche complémentaire pourrevoir la situation actuelle et identifier l’avis desintéressés au secteur de l'élevage sur ledéveloppement politique des RessourcesGénétiques Animales (AnGR) afin d’évaluercomment les modalités d’échange de AnGR dans ledomaine de l’alimentation et de l’agriculture ont uneffet sur les éleveurs et pouvoir ainsi identifier lespolitiques et réglements qui peuvent servir de guidedans ces échanges, l’utilisation et la conservationde AnGR au niveau mondial.

On a identifier quatre possibles scénarios futursqui comprennent:1. La globalisation et régionalisation.2. Le développement biotechnologique.3. Les changements climatiques et dégradation de

l’environnement.4. Les maladies et calamités.

Une fois établis ces scénarios, ils ont été utiliséscomme point de départ pour la consultationsauprès des éleveurs. Les résultats montrent que cetteapproche a été un outil utile.

Les perspectives de futur “lointain” montrent lapopulation avec moins de protection, spécialementdans les situations où les problèmes dus auxéchanges n’étaient pas visibles ou connus. La

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

76How future scenarios inform AnGR policy development

plupart des consultés ont considéré que le problèmen’était pas tellement “si” mais plutôt “quand” cesscénarios pourraient se présenter. Ceci impliquequ’il faudra très bien considérer la capacité deréaction aux défis dans le futur à travers desinitiatives de développement de nouvellespolitiques ou règlements. Ce résultat contraste enpartie avec la perception générale sur la grandeacceptation de la situation réglementaire actuelle.

ResumenSe ha realizado una exploración de futurosescenarios como enfoque complementario pararevisar la situación actual, así como identificar lavisión de las partes interesadas del sectorganadero, sobre el desarrollo político de losRecursos Zoogenéticos (AnGR) con el fin de evaluarcómo las modalidades de intercambio de AnGR enla alimentación y agricultura afectan a lospropietarios del sector ganadero e identificarpolíticas y reglamentos que puedan servir de guíaen los intercambios, utilización y conservación deAnGR a nivel mundial.

Se establecieron cuatro escenarios futuros queincluyen:1. Globalización y regionalización.2. Desarrollo biotecnológico.3. Cambios climáticos y degrado ambiental.4. Enfermedades y calamidades.

Una vez establecidos estos escenarios, seutilizaron como punto de partida para una mayorconsulta con los propietarios. Los resultadosmuestran que este enfoque ha sido una herramientaútil.

Las perspectivas del futuro “lejano” hicieron lagente menos protegidas, especialmente ensituaciones en que los problemas debido a losintercambios no eran particularmente visibles obien documentados. Muchos de los entrevistadosconsideraron que el problema no era tanto “si” sino“cuando” estos escenarios podían darse. Estoimplica que tendremos que considerar muy bien lacapacidad de respuesta a los futuros desafíos a

través iniciativas de desarrollo de nuevas políticaso reglamentos. Este resultado se contrapone enparte a la percepción general de la situaciónreglamentaria actual ampliamente aceptada.

Keywords: AnGR, Policy development, Regulatoryoptions, Future scenarios.

IntroductionFollowing a recommendation from theIntergovernmental Technical Working Group onAnimal Genetic Resources1, the FAO commissioneda study2 (Hiemstra et al., 2006) to assess howexchange practices regarding Animal GeneticResources for Food and Agriculture (AnGR) affectthe various stakeholders in the livestock sector andto identify policies and regulatory options thatguide the global exchange, use and conservation ofAnGR.

In order to identify present and/or future issuesand problems related to the exchange, conservationand sustainable use of AnGR, literature surveys,scenarios and stakeholder consultations were used.A review of the current situation and theexploration of future scenarios served as an inputpoint for stakeholder consultations.

Future scenarios for exchange, use andconservation were used to illustrate plausible futuredevelopments (‘histories of the future’), with the aimof supporting improved decision making in thepresent about issues that have long-termconsequences in the future (Hiemstra et al., 2006).Four 2050 future scenarios were developed. Theseincluded: globalization and regionalization;biotechnology development; climate change andenvironmental degradation; and diseases anddisasters. The future scenarios were based on majordriving forces, which are not only visible today, butwhich could have an increasing impact on theexchange, use and conservation of AnGR in thefuture. Such impacts imply that we might indeedneed to respond to future challenges with new

1CGRFA/WG-AnGR-3/04/REPORT, paragraph 242The study, entitled “Exchange, use and conservation of animal genetic resources: policy and regulatory options” wascommissioned by FAO and funded by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, throughDFID. The views expressed in the report and in this paper are the sole responsibility of the authors. The full report isdownloadable from:http://www.cgn.wur.nl/UK/CGN+Animal+Genetic+Resources/Policy+advice/http://www.cgn.wur.nl/UK/CGN+General+Information/Publications/2006/http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/subjects/en/genetics/documents/ITWG-AnGR4/AnGR_policy_and_regul.pdf

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

77


Drucker et al.

policies or regulations, and this is partly in contrastwith the general perception of the current situation.

The structure of this paper is as follows. SectionII provides an overview of the four 2050 scenarios,while Section III highlights the main findings of thestakeholder consultations based on the discussionof these scenarios. Section IV discusses thesefindings in the context of their policy and regulatoryimplications, while Section V provides conclusionsabout both the findings and the usefulness of thescenarios approach.

Overview of the Scenarios3

The conditions for animal breeding and theconservation of AnGR diversity are changing for anumber of reasons. The development of a policy orregulatory framework for AnGR may therefore wishto anticipate future developments. For this reason,four emerging challenges or (potential) futurescenarios4 were developed in order to illustrateplausible future developments (‘histories of thefuture’), with the aim of supporting improveddecision making in the present about issues thathave long-term consequences in the future.Each scenario sub-section starts by highlighting themain driving forces or pillars on which the scenariois built5. The future scenario per se, as presented toand discussed with the stakeholders is thendescribed.

2050 Globalization and regionalizationscenario

Driving forces

Population growth, urbanisation and increasedincomes are expected to more than double meat and

milk consumption in developing countries between1993 and 2020. This ‘livestock revolution’ willresult in a major increase in the share of developingcountries in total livestock production andconsumption, putting greater stress on grazingresources and triggering more land-intensiveproduction closer to cities. It would also beassociated with rapid technological changes andlivestock production shifting from a multipurposeactivity with mostly non-tradable outputs, to onefocused on food production in the context ofglobally integrated markets.

Globalization6 trends may be expected to resultin a wider use of a limited number of breeds,standardization of consumer products and a movetowards large scale production. Retailers andsupermarkets will be leading players in theglobalization process. Vertical integration isexpected to become the primary business model ona global scale. Furthermore, globalization mayadversely affect smallholder competitiveness andthreaten the sustainable use of local breeds.

The 2050 Scenario

The globalization of production and trade waseffectively promoted by the establishment of theWorld Trade Organization in 1993 which has amuch wider mandate and stronger implementationmechanisms than the GATT. The global economytriggered global product sourcing by processors andretailers in the most powerful markets. This globalsourcing led to the standardization of products.Initially, this process started with individual chainssuch as McDonalds that put in place strictstandards for their potatoes, beef, and wheat flour,and which finally led to the exclusive use ofprescribed potato and wheat varieties and finallyprescribed one animal breed or type of animal for

3 The scenarios summarised here are based on a more detailed analysis presented in Hiemstra et al., (2006) and relatedmaterials. Full details are available from the lead author upon request.

4 A scenario is defined as a coherent, internally consistent, and plausible description of a possible future state of the world.Scenarios provide alternative views of future conditions considered likely to influence a given system or activity (IPCC, 2001).The scenarios are meant to be plausible, pertinent, alternative stories about the future, with the objective of permitting anexploration of possibilities rather than predicting the future per se. In this context, scenarios do not have to turn out to beabsolutely correct to be useful.

5 References from which these driving forces were identified are given under the relevant sections of the Bibliography at the endof this paper.

6 “Globalisation” is understood to include the international integration of food markets which has generally been observable atthe end of the 20th century and can be attributed to the liberalization of international commercial policy and the bundle ofinter-related technological changes underlying the process (Hobbs and Kerr, 1998).

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


their global operations. Their example was followedby powerful consortia of retailers.

Parallel to the globalization-led uniformity ofproducts, consumers in the higher segments of themarket started to demand regional products withdistinct consumption values, supplied through veryshort chains. Apart from consumption qualities,consumers wanted to support the productionfunction of the local landscape despite scaleadvantages in production in other parts of theworld. The Slow Food movement, which started in asmall way at the beginning of the millennium,gained a market share of 5% to 15% in theindustrialized world, with the USA at the low end,central Europe and Japan at the higher end andChina in between. The Fair Trade movement of the1990s has connected its initially economic andhuman welfare objectives with the Slow Foodmovement, providing northern markets withregionally identified products produced intraditional farming systems.

Globalization has had some adverseconsequences, such as the globalization ofcommunicable animal diseases and human healthconsequences as a result of the over consumption oflivestock products by some population sectors, andexposure to livestock waste, as a result of increasedlivestock product consumption and intensivelivestock production, respectively.

The dual development of globalization andregionalization has led to large multinationalcompanies that adapt the production condition tosuit the needs of the high productive breeds, linesand hybrids in tightly controlled production chains.Globalization has resulted in an increased demandfor breeds with productive traits appropriate forintensive farming systems and consequently areduced demand for breeds with adaptive traitsappropriate for extensive farming systems, therebyincreasing the relative importance of conservationmeasures for the latter.

As an example of these developments, theBovaria cattle were developed out of a crossbetween a European breed with excellent growthrate and carcass characteristics and a beef breedfrom Latin America with excellent meat quality andresistance to heat stress. Bovaria appear to have awide adaptability to all major beef producingenvironments ranging from the Argentineanpampas to the saline water irrigated productionplains on the Arabic peninsula. Introgression of theheat stress resistance genes left the important meatcharacteristics unchanged. The breeding companyBPAIC (Bovine, Pig and Avian ImprovementCompany) grew into a multinational body with

strategic alliances with major biotechnologyconglomerates and its own gene bank providing thematerials for ongoing improvements. BPAIC can beconsidered a monopolist in the business, but it canavoid anti-trust allegations by pointing to themultitude of local breeding companies andassociations maintaining the herd books of a widevariety of breeds that supply the Fair Trade andSlow Food regional markets. Some of these localbreeding companies and associations requiresupport, including at the regional level, from donorinstitutions and/or national governments in orderto survive. Such subsidies are part of theInternational Initiative on Farm Animal GeneticResources (IIAnGR), established in 2014.

IIAnGR was established to enhance a widerange of national initiatives to support theconservation and sustainable use of farm animalgenetic diversity. However, the gradualdevelopment of the market into two segments(globalised and national/regional) has not resultedin an increase in the international exchange ofgenetic resources. BPAIC is entirely self-containedin terms of genetic resources and provides thecommercial sector with excellent breeding stock;national breeding programs exchange geneticmaterial within the region but the national breedactivities tend to avoid the use of exotic materials.Access to genetic resources and benefit sharingissues on a global level have thus become lessrelevant than expected.

2050 Biotechnology scenario

Driving forces

A series of developments in biotechnology areexpected to speed up on-going developments in thelivestock sector with potentially major impacts onthe exchange, use and conservation of AnGRthrough:• Continued progress in reproductive and

cryopreservation technologies for all livestockspecies.

• Development of a new generation of quantitativegenetic tools, linking genomics and quantitativegenetics.

• Improved efficiency and safety of transgenic andcloning technologies.

• Better control of animal diseases and increasedavailability of (marker) vaccines.Based on the impact of a combination of these

major breakthroughs by 2050, it may be expectedthat superior genotypes will be distributed and

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

79


Drucker et al.

used across the globe even more easily than today,which may negatively affect the conservation ofglobal farm animal genetic diversity. Furthermore,rapid developments in biotechnology are providingnew opportunities to explore and possibly exploitgenetic resources in ways that were not possiblebefore. Exchange patterns may change and AnGRfrom developing countries may increasinglycontribute to commercial breeding. Molecularbiology is already having an increasing impact onthe animal breeding sector, as well as playing a rolein the introduction of the patenting of processes andproducts used in animal breeding.

The 2050 Scenario

All continents have recovered from a serious globalrecession, which surprisingly did not stop scientistscontinuing to develop (bio)technology. After arelatively quiet period, investors are seriouslyinterested again in the implementation ofbiotechnologies in their businesses. Last week,Clonestock, a world leading biotech company,which has undertaken two major acquisitions in thelivestock breeding sector, organised a pressconference, which attracted a lot of attention in theinternational agricultural press. Stock prices ofClonestock have increased by 20% today.

The press release showed the final, positiveresults of safety studies of genetically modifiedclones of Robusta cattle. The company managed toproduce a highly productive breed with specificheat and disease tolerance characteristics. Theoriginal breed was genetically modified,introducing a selected number of genes, after manyyears of studying the genetic background of heatand disease resistance. The company patentedmany genes with major and/or minor effects. Thisselection was greatly assisted by the development ofeffective cloning techniques developed in the early21st century.

The introduction of Robusta cattle had alreadystarted in 2025 and at that time Clonestock had setup a nucleus herd with the aim of selecting the bestRobusta sires and dams to produce commercialoffspring. Clonestock started selling clones of thebest combinations of sires and dams to commercialdairy farms all over the world, especially to lessfavoured areas or those in tropical climates.Clonestock predicts that by the end of this year(2050), 25% of dairy production in Asia, Africa andthe Americas will be produced by their clones.

In the late 20th century breeding and biotechcompanies did not invest in transgenic and cloning

technologies, because of negative consumerperceptions and ethical considerations. Scientistshad also serious doubts about the safety of thesetechnologies in farm animals and about animalhealth and welfare implications. However, publicperception changed slowly when GMO cropsproved to be safe and when on-going research inthis area showed that it was possible to producetransgenics and clones on a large scale.

Clonestock strategically decided to combinecloning with the production of transgenic animals.Within this context the company was better able toprotect breeding stock and property rights inrelatively small nucleus herds. Cloning oftransgenic animals appeared to be a safe andefficient way of disseminating breeding animals orembryos for production purposes. In order to protecttheir investments in research and breeding,Clonestock introduced a ‘termination’ gene into thecloned genetic material, which made it impossiblefor the clones to reproduce.

The introduction of cloned transgenic animalsdoes not affect smallholders directly. Poor countriesand small holders can continue to breed and keeptheir local breeds but the production gap betweenthe clones and the local animals is furtherincreasing. To some extent this will affect localmarkets and local communities, because prices ofanimal products, including animal productsproduced by clones, are expected to drop evenfurther.

Although policy makers and scientists arguedthat plant genetic resources and plant breedingraise totally different issues from those associatedwith animal genetic resources and animal breeding,ex-situ conservation differences between plants andanimals disappeared to a large extent as a result ofrapid developments in biotechnology. After theInternational Technical Conference on AnGR in2007, the international community and largerbiotech and breeding companies decided to developglobal and private gene bank initiatives. Privatecompanies invested in cryo-preservation ofgermplasm and somatic cells for strategic reasons.The international community decided to start anemergency cryo-preservation programme anddevelop a trust fund after another outbreak of footand mouth disease in Asia in 2007. Access to theglobal gene bank is possible under a strict MaterialTransfer Agreement which includes a provisionthat benefits arising from the use of gene bankmaterial have to flow back to the trust fund. Becauseof this strict rule, breeding and biotech companiesdecided to set up an insurance cryo-preservationcollection themselves and to put more emphasis on

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


maintenance of within breed/line/companydiversity.

2050 Climate change & environmentaldegradation scenario

Driving forces

Known causes or drivers of past climate changeinclude changes in the atmospheric abundance ofgreenhouse gases and aerosols, in solar radiationand in land surface properties. Such changes canhave both manmade (e.g., greenhouse gasemissions, land use changes) and natural (e.g.,volcanic emissions, changes in the Earth’s orbit,changes in the sun’s intensity) origins. Five mainimpacts on global climates can be identified interms of temperature, precipitation, sea level rise,the incidence of extreme weather events, and thelevel of atmospheric carbon dioxide and othergreenhouse gas content. Climate change can beexpected to affect livestock productivity directly byinfluencing the balance between heat dissipationand heat production and indirectly through itseffect on the availability of feed, fodder and water,as well as changes in disease challenge. Amongother possible effects, climate change maysignificantly move livestock production away fromcurrent marginal rangelands, and may thuscontribute to the shift in favour of intensiveproduction systems.

The 2050 Scenario

By 2050 Earth’s now more affluent humanpopulation has increased from the 6.5 billion in2005 to 9 billion, over 65% of whom live in cities.Global mean surface temperatures have risen by 2°Ccompared to 1990 and mean sea levels have risen by25 cm. Global mean precipitation is 2% higher thanin 1990. However, these global numbers hidecomplex spatial patterns of changes. In someregions, temperature increases are three times theglobal mean, while in others temperatures havedeclined.

The specific direction of change can only bepredicted by considering specific localities. Broadlyspeaking at the higher latitudes (beyond 50°N and50°S), higher temperatures have lengthened andincreased the intensity of the growing season. Cropand feed yields have increased in those regions

where there have been no major changes in rainfall.By contrast, in tropical and equatorial regionshigher temperatures since 2005 have furtherexacerbated what had already been quite frequentwater and heat stress on plants due to higher ratesof evaporation. In addition, changes in extremeweather and climatic events have occurredincreasing livestock losses, decreasing yieldstability, damaging production infrastructure anddisrupting access to markets. Environmentaldegradation has accompanied these processes,which has caused a drop in crop and livestocklevels. The unequal distribution of losses and gainshas had a major effect on production, trade andrelative prices.

The fact that the speed of climate change hasbeen and will continue to be faster than the speed oflivestock and forage evolutionary adaptation meansthat many of the breeds used in extensive systemshave moved or been replaced. Large-scalemovement of livestock breeds occurred in search ofmore appropriate climatic zones (e.g., lowlandsheep can now be found in the highlands) and lessdegraded pastures. By contrast hardy wildlifespecies, such as the Oryx, have increasingly beendomesticated for use in areas of high climaticchallenge.

Although the direct impact of climate change onlivestock systems has only been moderate in globalterms, it is expected to increase in severity andconsequently all nations are strongly behind the2027 ‘Son of Kyoto’ protocol and its greenhousegasses (GHGs) trading mechanisms, which includemethane emitted from livestock.

The growing volume of livestock trade hasresulted in AnGR research becoming moreimportant. Increased germplasm flows within andbetween countries create new opportunities forcrossbreeding and the introduction of exotics,together with a need to ensure that such flows arebeneficial and do not threaten remaining livestockdiversity. Genetic impact assessments andcontrolled breeding programmes play a key role inthis context. Research related to the economicbenefits of livestock germplasm flows have alsobeen important, ensuring that such germplasmflows continue to facilitate monetary and non-monetary benefit sharing. Internationally fundedAnGR research is now comparable to that of cropsand plants, compared to being less than 10% in2005.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

81


Drucker et al.

2050 Disease & disaster scenario

Driving forces

International trade and human travel has alreadyled to the rapid spread and ultimately theglobalization of diseases, resulting in adeterioration in the global animal health situationduring 1980-2000. This situation is expected toworsen. Diseases, natural disasters, civil war andother threats can have a serious impact on localAnGR and thus on conservation of global farmanimal genetic diversity.

The 2050 Scenario

The ripah-virus disease which affects pigs has nowarrived in southern Africa. Starting in eastern Asiain April 2042, it was able to conquer almost half theglobe in less than 5 years. This paramyxovirus usedto be a harmless virus that lived in the hindgut andwas originally excreted and decomposed inmanure. However, the feeding of manure to animalshad become a necessity in the 2030s in order to keepup with the increasing meat demand of the worldpopulation which has become more affluent thanever projected. Despite the many safety regulationsfor heat treatment of the manure the ecology of thehindgut changed, with the virus developing heatresistance and increasing virulence.

Following the outbreak of a fast-spreadingpoultry disease named avian influenza in the early2000s, researchers and international organizationshad already warned that the high density of variousdomestic animals species and humans in theemerging intensive production systems, particularlyin Asia, may lead to increased disease risks in farmanimals and humans.

Today, in hot summer weather, the ripah-virusexperiences optimal conditions and spreads fast.Veterinary and medical services all over the worldare collaborating in their efforts to fight the diseasewhich has already seen 10 million pigs killed bysevere diarrhoea and respiratory problems.Stamping the virus out through mass pig culling isthe preferred control strategy, but breeders of localbreeds are scared about the potential loss of theirbreeding stock. Culling is likely to particularly affectthose breeds that are not registered in herd books, asregistration in a herd book is required to receive theexemption permit given by the Global Animal BreedConservation Trust. Breed registration also offers anentry point for semen or somatic cell storage in thetrust’s (ex-situ / in-vitro) gene bank. However, there

are many breeds for which breeds associations orherd books do not exist. These were bred either bylocal communities or commercial companies whohad various reasons for not registering their breeds.For example, some communities had instead chosento include their breeds in local/indigenous breedregisters, whereas companies had chosen to registerthe products of their breeds as trademarks.

An international gene bank had becomenecessary after the value of breeds wasinternationally recognized as our global heritageand a back-up system for future restocking wasconsidered necessary. As many countriesrecognized that they did not have the capacity tohave their own secure gene bank, they decided toestablish an international gene bank, with thenecessary regulatory framework to enable theexchange of material to and from this gene bank.The international gene bank developed standardforms for Prior Informed Consent, MaterialAcquisition Agreements and Material TransferAgreements for receiving and passing-on material,in agreement with the owners.

Material from the gene bank had already beenused for restocking after the disastrous earthquakein Indonesia which caused the loss of most animals.Since its establishment in 2010, the gene bank hasbuilt up a collection that covers 40% of all breeds ofdomestic animal species across the globe. Allmaterial is cryo-preserved in liquid nitrogen. Breedsfrom the developed countries are much betterrepresented in the gene bank, because it was easierfor these countries to provide some back-up materialfrom their normal breeding activities. As artificialinsemination was less practised in developingcountries in the early days, their breeds have beenstored less frequently. However, recent years haveseen more somatic cells from developing countrybreeds being deposited, as they can be easilycollected through a biopsy in the ear.

At the present time, the ripah-virus threat hastriggered rare breed and animal welfare NGOs toestablish breed rescue teams which collect geneticmaterial in the affected countries, in collaborationwith the veterinary services. The geo-referenceddatabase held by the trust helps to locate breeds inremote areas, and the Material AcquisitionAgreements are simple and can be used even withinthe short time available in such emergencysituations. These teams had managed to save thegenetic material of a further 42 breeds in20 countries before the disease hit, and thus savedour global biodiversity heritage for future use.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Stakeholder ConsultationHaving developed the scenarios, they were thenused as an input into the stakeholder consultations.A wide range of stakeholder group representatives(e.g., government officials, scientists in the publicand private sectors, representatives of breedingorganisations and livestock keepers orrepresentatives of their organizations) wereconsulted through:• interviews in four case study countries (Brazil,

Ethiopia, India, the Netherlands)7.• additional interviews in other OECD, African,

Asian and Latin American countries.• an e-conference involving approximately

200 participants from 43 countries8.

Stakeholder perspectives and findings

Globalization

A large majority of stakeholders believes that thecurrent globalization trend will continue.Globalization will bring considerable uniformity inanimal products. Current niche products couldbecome global, and uniformity will lead to thedominance of fewer breeds. Although oneinterviewee indicated that the dominance of a smallnumber of breeds would not necessarily result in adecrease of global genetic diversity, the majority ofinterviewees believe that uniform, intensiveproduction systems (in family owned or corporatefarms) with the same breeds all over the world willhave a strong negative effect on indigenous breeds.Therefore it would be necessary to strengthenconservation strategies for local/indigenous breedsand to create gene repositories.

There was also a strong belief in the potential forthe development of regionalized and niche marketsbased on livestock products. Much will depend onthe viability of local or regional markets and

products. The trend towards special products iscurrently mainly localized in Europe butstakeholders from other regions also have a positiveview on the development of niche products or localmarkets.

Although there was generally agreement thatuniversalized demands and concepts could bebeneficial for the development of niche or localmarkets, in general globalization was seen as apotential constraint to the development of local foodsystems and the use of local breeds for foodproduction. Retailers and supermarkets will beplaying a lead role in the globalization process.Vertical integration is expected to become theprimary business model on a global scale. Smallfarmers and local breeds will have problems to meetthe requirements for food safety and productuniformity, and compete in global markets withcorporate or large scale operations with verticallyintegrated enterprises. Developments in agriculturetaking place in developed countries are expected tobe repeated in other parts of the world but localconsumer demands in developing countries maynot be strong enough to sustain specialty products.

Current trends towards uniform productionsystems, the standardization of consumer productsand a move towards large scale production areexpected to continue. In this respect, developingcountries become increasingly dependent ondeveloped countries providing the resources orproducts and they may not benefit much fromglobalization. Some stakeholders noted thatunequal conditions in relation to the ability to copewith globalization would result in developingcountries continually lagging behind richercountries, as the latter have technologies andcapital resources that are absent in poorer countries.

It is also expected that globalization will resultin the degradation of ecosystems and ecosystemservices which poor people depend upon for theirsurvival.

Different views were expressed by NGO andfarmers’ representatives with regard to the

7 Countries were selected on the basis of their representing different development categories, the importance of the livestocksector within those countries, the existence of different types of production systems and producer sizes, varied geneticresource policy and/or legal approaches, different degrees of biotechnology capacity and different vulnerability to climatechange or disasters.

8 It is acknowledged that the number of case study countries was limited and e-conference participation and additionalstakeholder interviews in non-case study countries do not cover the entire world. Consequently, some important viewpointsand specific situations may have not been covered. However, within the time and funding constraints of the FAOcommissioned report, a range of country types were selected and a wide range of stakeholders consulted, with the goal ofpermitting a balanced analysis that can support informed decision-making with regard to policy and regulatory options forAnGR.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

83


Drucker et al.

strategies to cope with globalization, i.e. whetherthe focus should be on improving competitiveness(farmers), or on the protection of local producersfrom the impact of globalization (e.g., imports ofcompeting goods) and from the expanding verticalintegration within the livestock production andmarketing sectors (NGOs). Some farmers viewedglobalization as advantageous in terms ofincreasing market opportunities, but expect thegovernment to address issues related to animalhealth.

It was also suggested that national governmentsshould mainly focus on development of rural areasand of associated animal genetic diversity andlivelihoods, because rural development is(compared to peri-urban developments) lessattractive for the private sector and therefore lacksinvestment. The challenge is to support livestockdevelopment and to protect pastoralists,smallholders and their breeds at the same time.

Biotechnology

Reproductive technologies have revolutionized theanimal breeding sector and facilitated the exchangeof genetic material between countries and regions ofthe world. However, scientists are as yet unclearabout whether the technologies currently availableor in the pipeline will find a practical application inthe foreseeable future. Some claim that some of thesetechnologies which are already in use or willbecome available for animal breeding, could haveserious impacts on the characteristics and structureof animal breeding. Indian stakeholders argued thatif investments become available for identifying thegenes for disease resistance, adaptability, fertilityand growth, the leadership of animal industrieswill shift to developing countries that have denseand diverse populations of AnGR.

Breeders and the breeding industry realize thatbiotechnology has led to reduced genetic variability,mainly through widespread multiplication ofindividuals. Such a trend may be extrapolatedwhen new techniques become available and whenthe concentration in the breeding industry for cattle,pigs and poultry further increases. Breeders in theNetherlands generally think that consumerpressure may reduce the impact of newbiotechnological developments, such as geneticmodification or cloning, on developments in thebreeding industry. Cloning is expected to be viewedslightly more favourably than genetictransformation (GM animals).

Government representatives were less concernedabout biotechnology issues than other stakeholders.Some consider that despite the current restrictivenature of the regulations on these technologies, theapplication of biotechnology in breeding andproduction cannot be stopped in the long run.However, they also realize that animals are muchmore complex organisms than plants in terms ofreproduction control, and such complexity willreduce the speed of application of biotechnology.

A number of stakeholders cautioned aboutserious ethical problems and potential conflictsbetween the breeding industry and farmers.Important issues are ‘food safety’ or ‘squeezing poorcountries out of animal production’. Some claim thatthe major beneficiaries of biotechnologyapplications will be the resource rich stakeholders.Poorer countries and poor livestock farmers withinthese countries are likely to lose out. Biotechnologydevelopments will also trigger further discussionsabout benefit sharing arrangements and intellectualproperty rights. Several respondents felt they wereinsufficiently informed about a range ofbiotechnology developments and issues.

Biotechnology is also considered to bepotentially increasingly important for theconservation, evaluation and utilization of AnGR.However, advanced (reproductive) technologies arenot frequently used for local breeds (in developingcountries). Several biotech developments have beenmuch more slowly implemented than originallypredicted. Others stated that those technologies areparticularly well suited to further develop localbreeds and that insight into resistance to diseasesand abiotic stresses may even help to increaseleadership in animal breeding in developingcountries. Hence, the impact of biotechnology maybe either positive or negative depending on how it isused or regulated.

Climate change

A majority of stakeholders involved in this studycould envision that climate change may have aserious impact on the exchange, use andconservation of AnGR. Stakeholders in India andEthiopia were particularly outspoken on this topicand mentioned climate and environmental changeas one of the major future driving factors.

According to government representatives, whenclimate is changing drastically, the adaptability ofbreeds will become more critical. Climate changecould result in rapid and significant changes inlivestock systems and their dynamics. Such a

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


scenario underlines the mutual dependency ofcountries in genetic resources. The main effect ofclimate change is expected to be seen in extensivelivestock systems.

Breeders on the other hand stated thatmodern/science based breeding will go faster thanclimate change and can be handled by breedingcompanies. They realize that it will require fasteradaptation of breeds than today to be able to serve avariety of production systems. A prevalence of(new) diseases might however complicate thebreeding of adapted breeds.

Scientists argued that climate change will affectlivestock systems mainly by the effects of aprevalence of diseases, but also that, for example,animals from lowland areas may replace those inthe cooler highlands. Some think that climatechange will lead to more frequent drought but thismay affect population sizes rather than AnGRdiversity per se. In this respect we can learn fromcurrent restocking programmes after drought9.Conservation of AnGR may become a major issuewhen we realize that both crossbreds andtraditional breeds could be lost due to a lack ofsuitable environmental conditions.

Livestock keepers consider that the effect ofclimate change will be more positive than negativeor are not aware of any significant change inclimate. One interesting dilemma here is whetherclimate change will go faster than adaptationcapacity of breeds or breeding programmes. Apastoralist said that effects may be less thanmentioned in the scenario.

Diseases and disasters

Some case study countries have recently facedproblems as a result of outbreaks of animaldiseases. In the Netherlands and Brazil, suchdiseases were a threat to unique farm animalpopulations and seriously affected the export ofanimal products. On the other hand, in theNetherlands and the UK, recent disease outbreaksresulted in an increased interest in (conservation of)farm animal genetic diversity.

Dutch government representatives said that verystrict veterinary regulations are needed and(harmonisation of) veterinary issues should play a

more prominent role in WTO. Others expect thatstricter zoo-sanitary regulations will operate asnon-tariff trade barriers. Some scientists claim thatthis might strengthen the utilization of locallyadapted breeds, due to their tolerance/resistance todiseases and parasites.

Some southern stakeholders seek a solution indisease free-zones that could form part of a ‘fairtrade’ framework, while others thought that thiswould be difficult to implement and may create anadditional trade barrier. It was also argued thatsuch disease free zones might work against theneed for the free movement of livestock keepers,particularly in pastoral areas.

Many contributors underlined the threat ofdiseases and disasters and the impact of diseaseeradication programmes on local/indigenousbreeds. However, evidence on such impact islimited. It is important to anticipate these seriousthreats and conserve animal genetic diversitythrough various strategies. Several contributionsindicated that we need national, regional andglobal systems for monitoring and conservation ofimportant AnGR.

Discussion and Potential PolicyInstrumentsA majority of stakeholders considered that all fourscenarios might become a reality in one way oranother and may affect the exchange, use andconservation of AnGR. A general conclusion fromthe overall consideration of the scenarios bystakeholders was that although (perceived) shortterm problems are limited, substantial longer termeffects on exchange, use and conservation may arisein the future. Exchange may increase or exchangepatterns may change, together with changes in(intellectual) property rights protection and anincreasing imbalance in the power relationshipsbetween rich and poor (both between and withincountries). Interviewees were most outspoken aboutthe need for the strengthening of an AnGRregulatory framework in the context of thebiotechnology scenario, which particularly raisedequity issues.

9Author’s comment: note that a number of restocking programmes to date have had a negative effect on AnGR diversity dueto restocking with other than local breeds.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

85


Drucker et al.

The on-going globalization process is certainlyseen as having the potential to affect exchangepatterns and negatively affect the conservation offarm animal genetic diversity. The effects ofbiotechnology and climate change were generallyconsidered as of concern only over a longer termhorizon. While both were considered to have ratherunpredictable impacts, they have the potential tohave a significant effect on the exchange, use andconservation of farm animal genetic diversity,including a positive effect on conservation ordevelopment of adapted breeds. Diseases anddisasters are also unpredictable but it is clear thatthey could seriously threaten AnGR if such ascenario becomes a reality.

A range of potential policy instruments could beapplied to address the stakeholder concernsidentified in the consultation process. Any policyinstruments targeted to improve AnGRmanagement should ensure that the measures:• Generate benefits to the economy, environment,

or society under current conditions.• Address high-priority issues such as irreversible

impacts of the loss of animal biodiversity,long-term planning for adaptation(e.g., breeding), and unfavourable trends(e.g., breed replacement) which may inhibitfuture adaptive management.

• Target current areas of opportunity (e.g., revisionof national livestock sector development plans orbreeding laws; research and development).

• Are feasible (adoption is not significantlyconstrained by institutional, social/cultural,financial, or technological barriers).

• Are consistent with, or even complementary to,adaptation or mitigation efforts in other sectors[see IPCC (2001, Section 18.4.2)].Many of the possible policies have been

discussed at a number of international meetings10

and it is also interesting to note how some of themcut across the different scenarios. In summary, thepotential (non-comprehensive) range of instrumentsincludes11:• Support for both the conservation and

improvement of local AnGR. Provide financialincentives for breeding and raising local breedsand promote/support marketing of local breedproducts.

• Capacity building (education, awarenessraising, information, use of participatoryapproaches, recognition of importance of AnGR,etc.)

• Regulation of export and import of livestockgermplasm, establishing protocols for theguidance of donors and NGOs when importingexotic breeds, including through thedevelopment and implementation of ‘geneticimpact assessments’. Protocols could also play arole in the promotion and adoption of‘AnGR-friendly’ restocking programmesfollowing disasters such as droughts or diseasesFurthermore, national Biosafety Acts could beestablished within which any futureintroduction of AnGR containing geneticallymodified organisms can be regulated.

• Ensure greater levels of effectiveness in thesurveillance and monitoring of infectiousdiseases in humans, wildlife, and livestock.Clear policy mandates must be put in place toencourage and ensure the rapid worldwidesharing and dissemination of information oninfectious disease outbreaks. Adoption ofincreasingly demanding international sanitarystandards drawing on international codes andstandards from the Organisation Internationaledes Épizooties (OIE) and Codex Alimentarius.Make special provisions for indigenous AnGRin animal disease acts.

• Address potential smallholder exclusion bybuilding participatory institutions of collectiveaction for small-scale farmers that allow them tobe vertically integrated with livestock processorsand input suppliers. Provide additional supportto smallholders through:a. market reform policies that encourage

smallholder investment and avoiddifferential subsidies to large-scaleoperations

b. institutional development to help small-scaleoperators meet global standards regardingquality, food safety, and timeliness (includingin the context of supermarkets’ procurementsystems); and

c. the provision of public goods such asresearch, extension, and infrastructure.

10In particular, “Community-based Management of Farm AnGR”, Mbabane, 2001; “Incentive Measures for Sustaianble Useand Conservation of Agro-biodiversity”, Lusaka, 2001; “Development of Regional and National Policy”; Luanda, 2002; and“Legal and Regulatory Framework for Farm AnGR”, Maputo 2003. For full details, see Koehler-Rollefson (2004).

11Further details regarding the development of this list of policy options can be found in Hiemstra et al. (2006), as well as inHiemstra et al. (this issue).

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


• Acknowledge the critical role that localcommunities play in AnGR conservation, andsecure access rights to natural resources forindigenous livestock breeding communities(could include ‘Karen Declaration’-type oflivestock-keepers rights approach whichincludes support for indigenous knowledgeremaining in the public domain and that AnGRbe excluded from intellectual property rightsclaims; regime for research and development).

• Develop procedures for access and benefitsharing, including Prior Informed Consent(based on the recommendations of the BonnGuidelines), and possibly within a frameworksimilar to that of the African Model Law.

• Inclusion of livestock under any futureemissions trading schemes (e.g., under ‘Son ofKyoto’)

ConclusionsReturning back to the present from our explorationof the future in 2050, it appears that embarking onsuch time travel has been very useful in helping tothink in terms of current problems, on the one hand,and a situation 40+ years from now, on the otherhand. The ‘far’ future perspective appeared to makepeople less defensive, especially in a situationwhere current exchange problems were notparticularly visible or well documented (as of yet).Many interviewees broadly considered that it wasnot a question of ‘if’ the scenarios would happen,but rather a question of ‘when’. This implies that wemight do well to consider the need to respond tofuture challenges through the proactivedevelopment of new policies or regulations. Such afinding is partly in contrast with manyparticipants’ general perception of the currentregulatory situation being broadly acceptable.

With regard to the above list of potential policyoptions that follows logically from the scenariodevelopment process and the findings of thestakeholder consultation, it should be noted that theauthors simply present these as a list of optionswhich, together with others, could form the basis forinforming future debate about the need for suchpolicy and regulatory options. The task of decidingwhich, if any, of these options to adopt and the formin which they may be adopted, falls to the decision-makers who are one of the main target audiences ofthis paper and the original Hiemstra et al. (2006)study.

AcknowledgementsWe are grateful to FAO for commissioning thisstudy, and to the Government of the UnitedKingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland forfunding it through the Department for InternationalDevelopment DFID.

List of References

General

Almekinders, C.M.J. 2002. Incentivemeasures for sustainable use and conservation ofagrobiodiversity. Experiences and lessons fromSouthern Africa. Proceedings of a workshop,Lusaka, Zambia, 11-14 September 2001, pp. 175.

FAO. 2003. Community based managementof animal genetic resources. Proceedings of theworkshop held in Mbabane, Swaziland, 7-11 May2001, pp. 180.

Hiemstra, S.J., A.G. Drucker, M.W Tvedt,N. Louwaars, J.K. Oldenbroek, K. Awgichew,S. Abegaz Kebede., P.N. Bhat & A. da SilvaMariante. 2006. Exchange, use and conservation ofanimal genetic resources: policy and regulatoryoptions. Report 2006/06. Centre for GeneticResources, the Netherlands (CGN), WageningenUniversity and Research Centre, the Netherlands.www.cgn.wur.nl/UK/CGN+Animal+Genetic+Resources/Policy+advice.

Koehler-Rollefson, I. 2004. Farm animalgenetic resources - Safeguarding national assets forfood security and trade. Summary of fourWorkshops held in the Southern AfricanDevelopment Community. GTZ/BMZ/FAO/SADC/CTA. Eschborn.

Globalization and regionalisation

Delgado, C., N. Minot & N. Wada. 2001.High value agriculture: shaping globalization forpoverty alleviation and food security. IFPRI 2020Focus 8 (Shaping Globalization for PovertyAlleviation and Food Security), August.Washington D.C. USA.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

87


Drucker et al.

Delgado, C., M. Rosegrant, H. Steinfeld,S. Ehui & C. Courbois. 1999. Livestock to 2020 - Thenext food revolution; Food, Agriculture, and theEnvironment Discussion Paper 28, FAO. Rome,www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/documents/lvst2020/20201.pdf.

Delgado, C.L. & C. Narrod. 2002. Impact ofchanging market forces and policies on structuralchange in the livestock industries of selected fast-growing developing countries. Final ResearchReport of Phase I - Project on LivestockIndustrialization, Trade and Social-Health-Environment Impacts in Developing Countries,FAO, www.fao.org/WAIRDOCS/LEAD/X6115E/x6115e00.htm#Contents

Dirven, M. 2001. Dairy clusters in LatinAmerica in the context of globalization.International Food and Agribusiness ManagementReview 2(3/4): 301-313.

Dudley, J. 2004. Global zoonotic diseasesurveillance: an emerging public health andbiosecurity imperative. BioScience Vol 54 (11)pp.982-983, Washington D.C.

FAO. 1997. Long-Term Scenarios ofLivestock-Crop-Land Use Interactions inDeveloping Countries. FAO Land and waterbulletin 6. Rome, Italy

FAO. 2005. The Globalizing Livestock Sector:Impact of Changing Markets. 19th COAG, April2005, Rome, ftp://ftp.fao.org/unfao/bodies/coag/coag19/j4196e.doc

FAO. 2007. Managing Livestock -Environment Interactions. 20th COAG, April 2007,ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/011/j9421e.pdf

Gill, M. 1999. Meat production in developingcountries. Proceedings of the nutrition society. Vol.58 (2). Natural Resources International Ltd.,Chatham Maritime, UK.

Hobbs, J. & W. Kerr. 1998. StructuralDevelopments in the Canadian Livestock Subsector:Strategic Positioning Within the ContinentalMarket. In R.M.A. Loyns, et al. (Eds), Proceedings ofthe Fourth Agricultural and Food Policy SystemsInformation Workshop, Economic Harmonizationin the Canadian/U.S./ Mexican Grain-LivestockSubsector. University of Guelph and Texas A&MUniversity, pp. 125-143.

Kouba, V. 2003. Globalization ofcommunicable diseases and international trade.Proceedings of the 10th international symposium forveterinary epidemiology and economics. Vina delMar, Chile.

Nin Pratt, A., L. Lapar & S. Ehui. 2003.Globalization, trade liberalization and povertyalleviation in Southeast Asia: the case of thelivestock sector in Vietnam. 6th annual conferenceon global economic analysis, Scheneningen, TheHague, Netherlands.

Popkin, B. & S. Duy. 2003. Dynamics of thenutritional transition toward the animal foodssector in China and its implications. The AmericanSociety for Nutritional Sciences, Journal ofNutrition.

UN Population Division. 2003 and 2004,http://esa.un.org/unpp

Vinkyl, N. & T. Kleynhans. 2002. Tradeliberalization, the livestock revolution and theimpact on South African rangelands. University ofStellenbosch, South Africa.

Weatherspoon, D. & T. Reardon. 2003. Therise of supermarkets in Africa: implications foragrifood systems and the rural poor. DevelopmentPolicy Review Vol. 21 pp. 333-355. Michigan StateUniversity, USA.

Biotechnology

AEBC. 2002. Animals and Biotechnology. Areport by the AEBC. Agriculture and EnvironmentBiotechnology Commission. September 2002.

Andersson, L & M. Georges. 2004. Domesticanimal genomics: deciphering the genetics ofcomplex traits. Nature Reviews Genetics. Volume 5,March 2004.

European Commission. 2003. GenomicsResearch in Livestock, What does it offer? EUR:21031.

Gibson, J.P. & S.V. Pullin. 2005.Conservation of Livestock and Fish GeneticResources. Science Council Secretariat, FAO.

Hiemstra, S.J., T. van der Lende &H. Woelders. 2005. The potential ofcryopreservation and reproductive technologies for

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


animal genetic resources conservation strategies.Proceedings, Workshop on Biotechnology andConservation, Turin, Italy, March, 2005

Hoffmann, I. & B. Scherf. 2005. Managementof farm animal genetic diversity: opportunities andchallenges. WAAP Book of the Year 2005,pp. 221-245.

Makkar, H.P.S. & G.J. Viljoen (Eds). 2005.Applications of gene-based technologies forimproving animal production and health indeveloping countries, The Netherlands, Springer.

Meuwissen, T.H.E. 2005. Use of genomicinformation for genetic improvement of livestock.Proceeding of the Annual Meeting of the EuropeanAssociation for Animal Production, Uppsala,Sweden, 5-8 June 2005.

Boa-Amponsem, K. & G. Minozzi. 2006. Thestate of development of biotechnologies as theyrelate to the management of animal geneticresources and their potential application indeveloping countries. Background Study Paperno. 33. Rome, FAO, ftp://ftp.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/BSP/bsp33e.pdf

Rothschild, M.F., G. Plastow & C. Newman.2003. Patenting in animal breeding and genetics.WAAP Book of the Year 2003, pp, 269-278.

Climate change and environmentaldegradation

Anderson, S. 2004. Environmental effects onanimal genetic resources. Background Study Paper28, Rome, FAO, ftp://ftp.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/BSP/bsp28e.pdf.

AGO (Australian Greenhouse Office). 2004.Agricultural Impacts and Adapation) Departmentof the Environment and Heritage, AustralianGovernment, http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/impacts/agriculture.html.

ABS (Austalian Bureau of Statistics). 2004.Measures of Austalias Progress. www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0/d994d50fc56e79e3ca256e7d0000264e?OpenDocument.

CCAA (Climate Change and Agriculture inAfrica). 2002. Facts about Africa AgricultureClimate. http://www.ceepa.co.za/climate_change/index.html

Charron, D. 2002. Potential impacts of globalwarming and climate change on the epidemiologyof zoonotic diseases in Canada. Canadian Journalof Public Health. www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3844/is_200209/ai_n9132821#continue

FAO. 2004. Impact of climate change onagriculture in Asia. 27th FAO Regional Conferencefor Asia and the Pacific. Beijing, China, 17-21 May.APRC/04/INF/9. Rome.

FAO. 2006. Breed diversity in drylandecosystems. Information document no. 9,www.fao.org/ag/againfo/subjects/en/genetics/documents/ITWG-AnGR4/CGRFA-WG-AnGR-4-06-inf9.pdf

FAO. No date. Extensive pastoral livestocksystems: issues and options for the future.www.fao-kyokai.or.jp/edocuments/docement2.html

Frank, K., T. Mader, J. Harrington &G. Hahn. No date. Potential Climate Change Effectson Warm-Season Livestock Production in the GreatPlains. Journal Series no. 14462, Agric. Res. Div.,University of Nebraska.

MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Food andFisheries). 2000. Climate Change and Agriculture inthe United Kingdon. www.defra.gov.uk/environ/climate/climatechange/index.htm.

IPCC (International Panel on ClimateChange). 2001. Climate change 2001: impacts,adaptation, and vulnerability. CUP.

Kenny, G. 2001. Climate Change: LikelyImpacts on New Zealand Agriculture: A reportprepared for the Ministry for the Environment aspart of the New Zealand Climate ChangeProgramme.

Kristjanson, P.M., P.K. Thornton,R.L. Kruska, R.S. Reid, N. Henninger,T.O. Williams, S. Tarawali, J. Niezen &P. Hiernaux. 2001. Mapping livestock systems andchanges to 2050: implications for West Africa.Sustainable crop-livestock production for improvedlivelihoods and natural resource management inWest Africa. Proceedings of an internationalconference.

Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar,V. Castel, M. Rosales & C. de Haan. 2006.Livestock’s long shadows. Environmental issuesand options. FAO, www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.pdf .

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

89


Drucker et al.

Tisdell, C. 2003. Socioeconomic causes ofloss of animal diversity genetic: analysis andassessment. Ecological Economics 45 (3), 365 -376.

UN Population Division. 2003 and 2004.http://esa.un.org/unpp.

WRI (World Resources Institute). 2000. PilotAnalysis of Global Ecosystems: Agroecosystems.

Disease and disasters

Charron, D. 2002. Potential impacts of globalwarming and climate change on the epidemiologyof zoonotic diseases in Canada. Canadian Journalof Public Health. www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3844/is_200209/ai_n9132821#continue.

Heffernan, C. & M.R. Goe. 2006. The impactof disasters and emergencies on animal geneticresources. Rome, FAO, Background Study Paperno. 32 ftp://ftp.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/BSP/bsp32e.pdf.

Ingressia, A., D. Manzella & E. Martyniuk.2005. The legal framework for the management ofanimal genetic resources. FAO Legislative Study 89.ISSN 1014-6679. ISBN 92-5-105433-9, Rome.

Kouba, V. 2003. Globalization ofcommunicable diseases and international trade.Proceedings of the 10th international symposium forveterinary epidemiology and economics. Viña delMar, Chile.

McDermott, J., P. Coleman & T. Randolph.2001. Methods for assessing the impact of infectiousdiseases of livestock - their role in improving thecontrol of Newcastle disease in Southern Africa.Alders, R.G. & Spradbrow, P.B. (Eds). AustralianCentre for International Agricultural Research,Canberra. SADC planning workshop on Newcastledisease control in village chickens. Proceedings ofan international conference. ACIAR Proceedings.no.103. p. 118-126. Canberra (Australia): ACIAR.

McLeod, A., N. Morgan, A. Prakash, &J. Hinrichs. 2005. Economic and social impacts ofAvian Influenza, FAO, www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/pubs_ah.html#4.

Otte, J. et al. 2004. Transboundary AnimalDiseases: Assessment of socio-economic impactsand institutional responses Livestock PolicyDiscussion paper no, 9, www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/sector_discuss/PP_Nr9_Final.pdf.

Springbett, A.J., K. MacKenzie,J.A. Woolliams & S.C. Bishop. 2003. Thecontribution of genetic diversity to the spread ofinfectious diseases in livestock populations.Genetics, 165(3): 1465–1474.

adfbg

asgv

91○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

AGRI 2007, 41: 91-99

SummaryThree main areas for further development of policiesor regulatory options for animal genetic resources(AnGR) were identified in a study on the exchange,use and conservation of AnGR (Hiemstra et al.,2006):1. how to halt the further erosion of genetic

diversity and promote sustainable breeding anduse,

2. whether there is a need to further regulate theexchange of genetic material and

3 how to balance different systems of property anduse rights.

This paper provides an in-depth analysis regardingthe third challenge, that of addressing the problemsand options available for balancing the differentproperty right systems for AnGR.

RésuméOn a identifié trois domaines principaux pour ledéveloppement futur de politiques ou règlementspour les ressources génétiques animales (AnGR)dans une étude sur l’échange, l’utilisation et laconservation des AnGR (Hiemstra et al., 2006):1. Comment empécher l’érosion de la diversité

génétique et promouvoir une amélioration etutilisation durable.

2. Quand est-il nécessaire de réglementer leséchanges de matériel génétique.

Regulatory options for exchange, use and conservation of animalgenetic resources: a closer look at property right issues1

M.W. Tvedt1, S.J. Hiemstra2, A.G. Drucker3, N. Louwaars2 & J.K. Oldenbroek2

1The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, P.O. Box 1326, N-1326 Lysaker, Norway2Centre for Genetic Resources (CGN), Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands

3 School for Environmental Research, Institute of Advanced Studies,Charles Darwin University, Ellengowan Drive, NT 0909, Australia

1 This paper summarizes the main findings on property right issues of a study by Himestra et al. (2006) entitled "Exchange,use and conservation of animal genetic resources: policy and regulatory options". The study was commissioned by FAO andfunded by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, through DFID. The viewsexpressed in the study and in this paper are the sole responsibility of the authors. The full report is downloadable from:www.cgn.wur.nl/UK/CGN+Animal+Genetic+Resources/Policy+advice/www.cgn.wur.nl/UK/CGN+General+Information/Publications/2006/www.fao.org/ag/againfo/subjects/en/genetics/documents/ITWG-AnGR4/AnGR_policy_and_regul.pdf

3. Comment harmoniser les différents systèmes depropriété et droits.Cer article présente une analyse détaillée du

troisième point, c’est à dire, comment approcher lesproblèmes et quelles sont les options disponiblespour harmoniser les différents systèmes de droits depropriété dans le domaine de AnGR.

ResumenSe han identificado tres áreas principales parafuturos desarrollo de políticas o reglamentos paralos recursos zoogenéticos (AnGR) en un estudiosobre el intercambio, la utilización y conservaciónde AnGR (Hiemstra et al., 2006):1. Cómo impedir la erosión de la diversidad

genética y promover una mejora y utilizaciónsostenible.

2. Cúando es necesario reglamentar el intercambiode material genético.

3. Cómo harmonizar los distintos sistemas depropiedad y derechos.Este artículo presenta un análisis detallado del

tercer punto, es decir, cómo enfocar los problemas ycuales son las opciones disponibles paraharmonizar los distintos sistemas de derechos depropiedad en el campo de AnGR.

Keywords: AnGR, Regulatory options, Patent, Suigeneris, Breeders’ rights and livestock keepers’ rights

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

92Balancing property rights for AnGR among stakeholder

IntroductionThe analysis of different property right and legalsystems (in this paper) forms part of a larger studyby Hiemstra et al. (2006) into how exchangepractices regarding AnGR affect the variousstakeholders in the livestock sector.

The study’s main objective was to identifypolicies and regulatory options for the globalexchange, use and conservation of AnGR (Hiemstraet al., 2006 and Hiemstra et al., this issue). Thebackground for FAO to commission this study wasa recommendation from the IntergovernmentalTechnical Working Group on Animal GeneticResources (see: CGRFA/WG-AnGR-3/04/REPORT,paragraph 24). The analysis of policy andregulatory options available is based on literaturesurveys, scenarios analysis and stakeholderconsultations (Hiemstra et al., 2006; Drucker et al.,this AGRI issue).

Different legal systems and types of propertyrights are relevant to AnGR. The current legalframework shapes the freedom to use, breed and sellAnGR on national, regional and global levels. Forfarm animals and thus also for AnGR, privateownership is the rule and public domain theexception. The principal point of departure is thatthe owner of the individual animal has the right touse the genetic resources in further breeding or evento sell genetic material (for a more profounddiscussion of ownership of AnGR, see Hiemstra etal. 2006, pp. 15–16; Tvedt et al. 2007, pp. 8–10).

The right to use the animal in breeding is oftenspecified in a (formal or informal) contract betweenthe seller and the buyer of the animal. The contractor informal agreement determines the scope of whatis transferred and which rights still belong to theseller (if any). Contracts imply a dynamic element inestablishing (or transferring) rights from one ownerto the other. The most important limitation of theuse of a contact is that it only applies between twoparties, and has limited legally binding effects forthird parties (For a more detailed discussion ofcontracts, see Tvedt et al., 2007, p. 11–12).

Intellectual property rights are also used in theanimal sector. Currently, the most familiar is atrademark. A trademark is a “sign, or anycombination of signs, capable of distinguishing the goodsor services” that may add value to a product bydistinguishing the product from other similarproducts in the market (TRIPS Article 15).

Thus a trademark does not target the AnGRper se, but products developed from animals.Geographical indications can protect “indicationswhich identify a good as originating in the territory of a

Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where agiven quality, reputation or other characteristic of thegood is essentially attributable to its geographicalorigin” (TRIPS Article 22, paragraph 1). Similar totrademarks, geographical indications do not protectthe breed or genetic material per se, but may addcommercial value to the animals or breeds producedin a particular region. A third type of intellectualproperty right which is relevant for AnGR arepatents (see Section A below).

This paper addresses the problems of, andoptions available for, balancing different propertyright systems for AnGR. Three groups of regulatoryoptions can be identified:1. Patent law and animal breeding.2. Sui generis protection in animal breeding.3. Livestock keepers’ rights.

Section A explains the current situationregarding patent law as applied to the animalbreeding sector. Section B identifies possiblesui generis systems, which could be (further)developed for AnGR. Section C elaborates further onthe specific issue of livestock keepers’ rights (orfarmer’s rights). Finally in Section D we summarizeour main conclusions and highlight key issues to bediscussed in international forums.

Section A. Patent Law andAnimal BreedingPatent law is general in scope, applying to all fieldsof technology and innovation [for a more in-depthanalysis of how patent law applies to animalbreeding and AnGR, see Tvedt (2007, forthcoming)and Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2001) regardingan analysis how patent law applies to genes ingeneral]. Consequently, it does not necessarily takeinto account the specific needs and challenges ofAnGR or the animal breeding sector (Tvedt 2007,Rothschild and Newman 2004 and Rothschild andNewman 2002). The main legitimacy of this existinglegal framework rests in its contribution toinnovation, research and development. If patent lawis not contributing to increased research anddevelopment in this field, the time-limitedmonopolies can hardly be justified. One concern forAnGR is that a high number of claims, as iscommon for patent applications in the plant sector,may lead to the establishment of a significant bodyof exclusive rights with substantial impact upon theuse of AnGR by researchers, breeders and farmers.The potential consequences are yet to be seen.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

93


Tvedt et al.

In the plant breeding sector, the main rule is thatPlant Genetic Resources (PGR) are in the publicdomain and open to use by everyone. This is quitedifferent from the case of AnGR, which are often inindividual or communal private ownership. It maywell be that the need to maintain a viable publicdomain for AnGR is not as important as it is forplants (For an analysis of public domain for geneticresources in general, see Tvedt 2005). However, ifpatent protection is granted with a low requirementof inventiveness and novelty (potential examplesare in fact in the process of being granted (seeFitzgerald 2005), and if granted broadly in terms ofscope, research and breeding activities which werepreviously widely possible might become morerestricted. In some cases this could even impacttraditional uses in the country of origin. Due to theshort history of applying patents to AnGR, there isan absence of case law and scholars commenting onhow these general principles of law will be appliedin this particular area. In this context, this study hasidentified the following questions that may raiseparticular problems in the future.

Patentability in the animal sector

The question of what types of inventions are eligiblefor patent protection was previously left to thediscretion of each country. This was radicallyaltered by the Agreement on Trade-RelatedIntellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement)under the WTO, which establishes a comprehensivescope of patentability by requiring all membercountries to provide for patent protection in allfields of invention, save for some narrowexemptions: Countries are allowed to exempt patentprotection of animals other than micro-organisms,and for essentially biological processes (TRIPSAgreement 27, paragraph 3).

The TRIPS Agreement essentially createsopportunities for exempting animals other thanmicro-organisms from product patent protection innational patent law. The practical implications ofthis exemption depend upon the interpretation ofthe legal concept ‘other than micro-organisms’.There is no definition or any agreed understandingof the term ‘micro-organisms’ among the parties tothe TRIPS Agreement. Thus, countries havesignificant discretion as to whether to include orexclude animals, animal-proteins, genes and cellsunder patent protection in their national patent

system, which may have a significant impact onbiotechnology. One linguistically possibleinterpretation of this term is that countries have thefreedom to exempt product patent protection forevery category of animal-related biologicalinvention except those being clearly recognised asmicro-organisms in a biological sense [Correa (2007,p. 293); Westerlund (2001) takes the oppositeposition and argues that the exemptions should beinterpreted narrowly, see also de Carvalho (2005)].

Consideration of the patent applicationsreceived under the WIPO Patent Cooperation Treatysystem shows that process patents are highlyrelevant for the animal sector (Tvedt, 2007) and thatcountries are highly likely to grant process patentsin the field of animal breeding. The TRIPS article 27paragraph 3 opens for countries to exempt“…essentially biological processes for the production of[…] animals”, but obliges countries to delimit such anexemption and provide for patents to “other than non-biological and microbiological processes”. The essentialquestion is what is an “essentially biological process”?A WIPO official, de Carvalho, argues that thiswording should “… be read in a restrictive manner…”,since it is an exemption and maintains that: “…thereare processes which are biological, to the extent theycomprise some phase in which biological reproduction isemployed, yet their most important steps consist of acts ofhuman direct interference. These processes, in essence, arenot biological” and must therefore, according to him,be patentable according to his understanding of theTRIPS Agreement (de Carvalho 2005, pp. 217-218).Correa notes that “…its main aim in the TRIPSAgreement context is probably to limit the exclusion ofpatentability to traditional breeding methods […]”(Correa 2007, p. 293). Note that neither of them arediscussing this issue particularly within the contextof the animal breeding sector. As the TRIPSagreement does not specify the legal concept further,countries have some discretion to implement abroad or narrow definition and practice of theconcept of essentially biological processes for theproduction of animals. The experience from the EUDirective on the legal protection of biotechnologicalinventions (EC/98/44) shows that this discretionhas in fact been used to implement a narrowexemption from patentability in Europe (Tvedt,2007). We may therefore expect differences amongcountries with regards to the scope of patentabilityboth for product and process patents, but as ageneral rule patent protection can be expected tobecome widely available in the field of animalbreeding.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Prior art

The concept of ‘prior art’ relates to what isconsidered to be a body of information whichcannot be patented. In principle, everything alreadyknown should be considered part of prior art andthus ineligible to meet the patent criteria. However,this is only a formal point of departure as thenational patent office must put this principle intopractice. For an activity where the current practicesor prior art are not necessarily published in asufficiently formal manner, there is a concern thatcommon knowledge could conceivably becomepatent protected. To avoid such occurrences,measures could be taken to ensure that all relevantsources be covered during the prior art searchprocess. Such a measure could be implemented byexpanding the check-list for patent offices whenthey search for prior art.

Although preventive publishing is often putforward as a strategy to ensure that commonknowledge will be considered prior art, it should betaken into consideration that such publishing onlyprevents patents from being granted in relation tothat specific and particular form of publishedinformation. This means that preventive publishingmay prove to be less effective in protecting againstsmall adaptations to what was originallypublished. The large number of patent applicationsfor different breeding methods which are currentlybeing considered by patent offices is alreadyincreasing the challenge of identifying relevantprior art.

Novelty and inventiveness

The novelty of an invention is considered bycomparing the prior art with the inventiondescribed in the patent claims. If these two textualsources are identical the novelty criterion is not metand the patent should not be granted. In technicalareas where extensive publication is not the norm,the chance of meeting the novelty criterion is higherthan for areas where there is an extensive body ofpublications. The livestock sector might thus beexposed to many patent applications meeting thepatent criterion even if they are not particularlynovel in a practical sense. The same items of priorart are used to assess inventiveness. If a low level ofinventiveness is required, a granted patent mayinclude what was de facto already known or inpractice. Practical measures to deal with theseproblems include the development of specific

guidelines for patent offices relating to how suchassessments should be conducted. Such specificguidelines would of course have to comply with therequirement in the TRIPS Agreement, which statesthat patent protection is granted withoutdiscrimination among the various technologicalfields. Specific regulation of aspects ofbiotechnology patents is already accepted by the EUDirective on Biotechnological Patents (EC/98/44),so the TRIPS Agreement does not close the door toadapting special guidelines for single areas ofinvention. The general conclusion with regard toAnGR issues is therefore that an important gapneeds to be addressed in order to ensure thatmethods already in existence do not becomepatented due to a lack of formal publications.

Scope of the granted right

After a patent is granted, the next task is todetermine the scope of the exclusive right that theclaims would confer to the patentee. According tothe TRIPS Agreement, Article 28, the scope of aprocess patent protection is:“... (b) where the subject matter of a patent is a process, [itconfers a right] to prevent third parties not having theowner’s consent from the act of using the process, andfrom the acts of: using, offering for sale, selling, orimporting for these purposes at least the product obtaineddirectly by that process.”

The process patent covers an exclusive right tothe use or application of the described method. Butthe scope of protection extends also to cover at leastthe product obtained directly by that process. Thismeans that the scope of process patent protection inthe TRIPS Agreement requires countries to providefor indirect product patent protection that covers theoutcome from the use of a patented method. Using apatented process might therefore give the patentee alegal position in relation to the offspring from theapplication of the process. This is highly relevantfor the breeding sector as the next generations ofanimals bred by applying a patented method mightbecome subject to the exclusive right.

In addition to concerns regarding the aboveprinciples and the granting of patents, theapplication of the principle of equivalence maycreate further difficulties when applied to livestocksector issues. The scope of what is covered by apatent is described in the patent claims. Whileinterpreting the written patent claims, in somecountries the scope of patent protection is made

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

95


Tvedt et al.

even broader than it appears from a reading of thepatent claims. The invention as described in thepatent claims might be interpreted to become widerto also cover inventions that are so-called‘equivalent’ to the invention described in the patentclaims. If such an expansive ‘doctrine ofequivalence’ is applied, there is a possibility ofrestricting someone else’s potential to carry outbreeding and/or research activities. Little attentionhas been given to this principle in patent law andnone for the area of animal breeding. It isnevertheless an important issue, as it might becomea significant factor in establishing broad exclusiverights. This will have unforeseeable consequencesfor AnGR. Since there hardly is any case-lawdealing with these questions in the livestock sector,there is a need for a thorough, systematic legalanalysis related to assessing how general patentlaw rules will apply to AnGR and breeding (forfurther details, see Tvedt 2007).

Exemptions to patent protection

An additional measure for supporting theadaptation of patent law could involve theidentification of useful exemptions that would leadto a more balanced application of patent lawvis-à-vis the livestock sector (for an analysis of thebalancing of property rights in the aquatic sector,see Rosendal 2006). In this context, it is important tonote that although a patent grants the exclusiveright to use an invention as it is described in thepatent claim, Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreementspecifies that “countries have discretion toimplement exemptions in the right conferred by thepatent on a general level in the patent act”. Oneexample of such an exemption applies to plants inEurope, where the EU Patent Directive Article 11implements a version of the ‘farmers’ privilege’ –i.e. the right of the farmer to reuse his harvest asseeds under certain specific conditions even if thoseseeds contain a patented gene. There is a similaropening for EU countries to implement anexemption in the animal sector according to thedirective and a wide discretion for all countriesaccording to the TRIPS Agreement. Nevertheless,surprisingly few developing countries haveimplemented such legitimate exemptions in theirpatent legislation.

Finally, it is also worth considering the degree towhich patent protection is needed in practise topromote breeding, research and development in thissector. While the issue of increased bureaucracy isoften raised as a counter argument to the

implementation of CBD-based access legislation, itshould also be taken into consideration that thepatent application process and subsequentenforcement are also time-consuming, expensiveand heavily dependent upon the involvement oflawyers. It would therefore be useful to assess whatthe potential benefits of patent protection might befor breeding, research and development in thissector, taking into account the fact that theinvestments of breeders and others need to beprotected. This would need to be weighed againstany potential costs, e.g. increased costs of breedingmaterial and reduced exchange and use of AnGR.

Section B. Sui Generis Protectionin Animal BreedingThe term ‘sui generis’ is not a clearly defined legalterm or concept in international intellectualproperty law. The TRIPS Agreement talks about “aneffective sui generis system” for the protection ofplant varieties as an alternative to providing patentprotection to the same subject matter. But the TRIPSAgreement does not itself define such a system ‘ofits own kind’ – a sui generis model for plant varietyprotection. One example of such a sui generis systemfor the protection of plant varieties are the plantbreeders’ rights under the different versions of theUPOV Convention. Sui generis systems fortraditional knowledge have also been on the agendaat the World Intellectual Property Organisation(WIPO) for some years, but agreement on such aninternational system is still far off. If a sui generissystem for AnGR were to be developed, it is crucialthat the differences between plants and animals arecarefully taken into account.

For AnGR it is not immediately apparent whichsubject matter requires further intellectual propertyprotection. Where such a subject matter is identifiedand could be protected within the context of a suigeneris system, then there is still a need to clarifyinter alia i) who needs protection, ii) which entityshould be the holder beneficiary to the right, iii)what should be the criteria for achieving protection,and iv) what should be included under theexclusive right. In the following section four optionsfor sui generis protection are discussed:

Animal variety or breed protection

In considering the application of an intellectualproperty right such as a sui generis system for

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


AnGR or the breeding sector, defining the precisesubject matter that should be protected by the rightis clearly important. Compared to plant varietyprotection, providing intellectual propertyprotection for ‘animal varieties/breeds’ would notmake much sense due to biological reasons. Thevariety/breed is probably not the most relevantentity in animal breeding, but rather the individualbreeding animal or its germplasm. Furthermore, theconcept of an animal variety/breed is not easilydefined. Such considerations mean that in terms ofdevelopment of a sui generis system for the livestocksector, it would be difficult to identifycharacteristics that could serve as a standarddescription of the ‘subject matter’. Further work isrequired to clarify the relevant subject matter forprotection.

Establishment of breed associations

A sui generis system could be linked to eligibility forbeing included in a particular register or herd book(managed by a breed association). Under such a suigeneris protection system, registration would lead tothe establishment of a right and the criteria for beinggranted that right are those required for beingregistered. The difficult question here is what therights (and legal consequences) conferred by such aregistration should entail. For example, should suchregistration give any exclusive rights to the geneticmaterial? One alternative could be that registrationgives rights to the individual animal. However,such registration would not add much in additionto the already held physical property right over theanimal plus the complete genome of the particularanimal in question. A second alternative could bethat registration of individual animals also confersan exclusive right to single genes or alleles in theregistered animals. This alternative is howeverproblematic, as single genes or alleles often occur ina similar form in different individual animals andthere is a need to avoid creating competingexclusive rights to the same gene. A third alternativecould be that only those farmers and breeders withanimals registered by the breed association have theright to use the name or brand of the breed. Such a‘sui generis protection’ would be more similar to aregular trademark approach. Establishment of breedassociations or herd book registration (governed bybreeding laws) combined with trademark protectioncould therefore be a good option for breedconservation and property right protection.

Rights to genetic material of individualanimals

One might also think about establishment of a suigeneris right to the genetic material of the individualanimal. With reference to the second alternative inthe preceding paragraph, the first problemassociated with such a right is the paralleloccurrence of similar or identical genes and allelesin other animals. This would either undermine theexclusivity of such a right or result in competingproperty right claims. In addition to the problemsrelated to identifying such genes, establishing ageneral sui generis right to the genes of theindividual animal would probably not addanything new compared to ownership of theanimals.

Geographical related properties

A sui generis protection could also be linked tospecial geographical related properties andcharacteristics of the animals or their products(geographical indications). A final alternative for asui generis system would be to leave it to the breederto characterise in a sufficiently precise manner as towhat s/he claims as an exclusive right. This couldthen be used to establish a system for securingrights to technological developments and provide,for example, protection for a single gene whenisolated and described. Such protection is howeveralready provided by the existing patent system.

Summing up options for sui generissystems

To sum up, there are a number of relevant subjectmatters for intellectual property protection:• At the level of the individual animal – protection

is conferred by physical ownership of thatanimal and/or its offspring. Rights transferredduring the purchase/sale of individual animalscan be protected through the use of contracts.

• At the breed level – protection through theestablishment of breed associations (or herdbooks) and the use of trademarks may beappropriate

• At the allelic, gene or protein level – protection isprovided by patent law.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

97


Tvedt et al.

• Technical inventions relevant forbreeding - protection would be covered bycurrent patent law.The conclusion on sui generis intellectual

property rights in the animal sector is that it is noteasy to identify the subject matter which needs to beprotected. If a sui generis system were to bedeveloped there would be a need for a moreprofound theoretical analysis in close cooperationwith breeders to identify the subject matter thatneeds further intellectual property protection. Suchan analysis would also need to identify thenecessity of stimulating breeding andinnovativeness by using such a legal system.

Section C. Livestock Keepers’RightsLivestock keepers’ rights or farmers’ rights toanimals are unexplored legal or political conceptsin the livestock sector. The term ‘farmers’ rights’ ismentioned in Article 9 of the ITPGRFA (FAOInternational Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources forFood and Agriculture). Farmers’ rights ‘recognizethe enormous contribution’ farmers have maderegarding plant genetic resources (PGR).Responsibility for realizing such rights rests withnational governments and there is a clausespecifying that Article 9 shall not limit any alreadyexisting ‘rights that farmers have to save, use,exchange and sell farm-saved seed/propagatingmaterial, subject to national law’. From a legal pointof view, these ‘rights’ are not formulated in a legallybinding sense, which raises issues about theirenforcement in practice.

Implementing a version of farmers’ rights forlivestock keepers (e.g. as formulated in suchdocumentation as the ‘Karen Declaration’, whichincludes support for indigenous knowledgeremaining in the public domain and that AnGRneeds to be excluded from IPR claims) would firstrequire similar international recognition of theircrucial role and contribution to AnGR.

Different strategies have been suggested forsecuring livestock keepers’ rights, and these includecodifying the customary laws that relate to themanagement of AnGR. A first step in this directionwould be to review and analyse relevant customarylaw in order to identify which principles need to beincluded. Given that grazing rights are crucial to

maintaining pastoral societies and are thus closelylinked to conservation both at a breed level and atan allelic level, livestock keepers’ rights couldinclude production and grazing rights, as well asthe protection of traditional knowledge.Mechanisms to strengthen livestockkeepers’ understanding of AnGR issues, theirnegotiating capacity and access to legal supportwould also necessarily be a crucial element of astrategy for developing livestock keepers’ rights.

Obstacles to the implementation of livestockkeepers’ rights include the fact that they couldconflict with other intellectual property rights. Forexample, if a patent on a particular gene existed, theconsent of the patent holder could be required whenanimals that express that gene were used for furtherbreeding. Addressing this potential conflict is nothowever an insurmountable problem. For example,India has developed a Farmers’ Rights law whichcarefully balances these rights for crop seeds.Similarly, where livestock keepers’ rights couldpotentially conflict with other intellectual propertyrights, there would be a need to have rulesgoverning how these interests should be taken intoaccount within the highly specified and enforceablebody of patent law. One approach would be thatlivestock keepers’ rights could inter alia be relevantfor inclusion both when assessment of the patentcriteria is carried out, as well as duringenforcement. However, since livestock keeperpractises are typically not published in a mannerqualifying as prior art according to the patentsystem, this might expose them to patenting even ifnot new in a de facto sense. Two alternativeapproaches might also be considered:1. either single countries could implement

exemptions to intellectual property rights forlivestock keepers; or

2. standard exemptions could be developed at aregional or multilateral level.It is also possible to imagine some form of a

sui generis protection system for livestock keepers’rights. This concept would have to be developedfurther on a theoretical level, but could include amodel for benefit sharing or could combineindividual and community rights over AnGR. Acrucial issue in the development of such a conceptwould be whether a sui generis system shouldinclude a positive right to exclude others or whether

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


it should be geared towards being a negative rightaiming at preventing misappropriation of what is inuse by livestock keepers.

Section D. Conclusions: How toBalance the Rights ofStakeholders in the Livestockand Animal Breeding Sector‘Classical ownership’ of AnGR includes physicalownership and communal ‘law of the land’affecting livestock keeping and breeding. Theexisting use of contract law in a more or less explicitmanner is functioning rather well in the area ofanimal breeding. There is, however, an increasingtension with developments in the realms ofbiodiversity law and intellectual property rightsprotection. Demarcation of these different rightssystems and maintaining equity among differentstakeholders is crucial to avoiding conflict andincreased transaction costs. In this context, it isimportant to consider the rights of livestock keepersvis-à-vis national level sovereign rights, as well asobligations between patent holders andbreeders/livestock keepers. Balance is not easilyachieved as breeders have a need to protect theirnew investments as well the current practiceswhich are functioning and thus need not to bealtered.

There are several potential options that could beexplored in order to better balance the rights ofdifferent stakeholders in the livestock sector under arange of future scenarios. For example specificexemptions in patent law as applied to the animalsector could be implemented. This is already awell-known strategy from in the crop sector. Keyissues related to the patent system also could beconsidered and these include: up-dating the priorart search practice, reviewing patent criteria forassessing potential innovations relating to AnGR,and/or implementing exemptions for livestockkeepers and breeders.

Sui generis protection options for AnGR couldalso be explored, including through protection ofbreeds via the establishment of breed associations,defining livestock keepers’ rights and assessingother strategies to secure investments. Note also thatsince livestock keepers’ rights are in an early phaseof development as a legal concept, furtherdevelopment is likely to require the identification ofthe needs of livestock keepers and how these needscan be addressed through the use of internationalpolicy or legal instruments.

The overall conclusion of this paper is thatproperty rights need to be adequately adapted to thefield of AnGR to be conducive to the exchange,conservation and sustainable use of AnGR. Asecond main observation is that for these purposesthe balancing of property rights may not also beeasily achieved. This is because breeders have aneed to protect their new investments, while currentpractices are functional and thus do not need to bealtered. Exploration of the options discussed in thispaper may however assist in this task.

List of ReferencesCorrea, C.M. 2007. Trade Related Aspects of

Intellectual Property Rights: A Commentary on theTRIPS Agreement, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

de Carvalho, N.P. 2005. The TRIPS Regime ofPatent Rights, 2nd edition. Kluwer LawInternational, The Hague.

Hiemstra, S.J., A.G. Drucker, M.W. Tvedt,N. Louwaars, J.K. Oldenbroek, K. Awgichew,S. Abegaz Kebede, P.N. Bhat & A. da SilvaMariante. 2006. Exchange, Use and Conservation ofAnimal Genetic Resources: Identification of Policyand Regulatory Options. CGN Report 2006/06.Centre for Genetic Resources, Wageningen, TheNetherlands.

Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2001. TheEthics of Patenting DNA. London: The NuffieldFoundation of Bioethics.

Rosendal, K.G., I. Olesen, H.B. Bentsen,M.W. Tvedt, & M. Bryde. 2006. Access to and legalprotection of aquaculture genetic resources:Norwegian perspectives, Journal of WorldIntellectual Property 9, 392-412.

Rothschild, M.F. & S. Newman (Eds). 2002.Intellectual Property Rights in Animal Breeding andGenetics. New York: CABI Publishing

Rothschild, M.F., G. Plastow. & S. Newman.2004. Patenting in animal breeding and genetics, inA. Rosati et al. (Eds) WAAP Book of the Year 2003.Wageningen Pers, for World Association for AnimalProduction (WAAP)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

99


Tvedt et al.

Tvedt, M.W., S.J. Hiemstra, A.G. Drucker, N.Louwaars & K. Oldenbroek. 2007. Legal Aspects ofExchange, Use and Conservation of Farm AnimalGenetic Resources. FNI Report 1/2007. The FridtjofNansen Institute, Lysaker, Norway.

Tvedt, M.W. 2007 forthcoming. Patentprotection in the field of animal breeding and farmanimal genetic resources, ACTA Scandinavia.

Tvedt, M.W. 2005. How will a substantivepatent law treaty affect the public domain forgenetic resources and biological material? Journal ofWorld Intellectual Property 8, 311-344.

Tvedt M.W. 2007. 2005. Monsanto files fornew invention: the pig, www.greenpeace.org/international/news/monsanto-pig-patent-111#.

Westerlund, L. 2001. Biotech Patents –Equivalency and Exclusions under European andU.S. Patent Law. Faculty of Law, StockholmUniversity, Stockholm, Sweden.

adfbg

ASDCas

101○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

AGRI 2007, 41: 101-107

SummarySome countries have introduced a requirement forgenetic impact assessments prior to grantingpermission for the import of new exotic livestockbreeds. However, the merits of such a system are notuniversally accepted. During February 2007 adiscussion on the subject took place on FAO’sDomestic Animal Diversity Network (DAD-Net)electronic forum. This paper presents a descriptionof how the discussion developed, and a summary ofthe issues raised. Arguments both for and againstrequiring impact assessments were put forward.Those opposing such measures focused on the risksof limiting access to animal genetic resources(AnGR), and questioned the benefits of governmentinterference. Practical constraints to implementationand enforcement were also noted. Counterarguments pointed to the potential for avoiding theloss of valuable AnGR, and stressed governments’responsibilities to intervene where necessary topromote sustainable development, to defend theinterests of the poor, or to protect national heritage.The debate ranged more widely – encompassing therespective roles of local and exotic AnGR indifferent regions of the world and in differentproduction systems.

RésuméCertains pays ont introduit le besoin d’évaluationde l’impact génétique comme condition pourl’obtention du permis d’exportation de nouvellesraces exotique. Cependant, l’importance de cesystème n’est pas mondialement reconnu. En février2007 a eu lieu une discussion à ce sujet au sein duforum électronique du Réseau pour la Diversité desAnimaux Domestiques de la FAO. Cet articleprésente une description du déroulement de ladiscussion et un résumé des objectifs atteints. Ondécrit les arguments à faveur ou contre l’évaluationde l’impact. Les oppositeurs à ces mesures ont

Genetic impact assessments – summary of a debate

D. Pilling

Animal Production and Health Division, FAO, 00153 Rome, Italy

présenté les risques que comporte limiter l’accès desressources génétiques animales (AnGR) et ont remisen question les bénéfices de l’interférencegouvernementale. Les argument exposés dans cesens soulignent la potentialité d’éviter la perted’une partie importante de AnGR et insistent sur lesresponsabilités des gouvernements dans leurintervention sur la promotion du développementdurable, la défense des intérêts des plus pauvres oula protection de l’héritage national. Le débat s’estétendu ultérieurement pour inclure les rôles desAnGR au niveau local et exotiques dans lesdifférentes régions du monde et différents systèmesde production.

ResumenAlgunos países han introducido la necesidad de laevaluación del impacto genético como condiciónpara la obtención del permiso de exportación denuevas razas exóticas. Sin embargo la importanciade este sistema no está reconocida a nivel mundial.En febrero 2007 se mantuvo una discusión a esterespecto en el foro electrónico de la Red sobre laDiversidad de los Animales Domésticos de la FAO.Este artículo presenta una descripción sobre eldesarrollo de la discusión y un resumen de losobjetivos alcanzados. Se describen los argumentos afavor o en contra de la evaluación de impacto. Losopositores a estas medidas se centraron en losriesgos que supone limitar el acceso de los recursoszoogenéticos (AnGR) y cuestionaron los beneficiosde la interferencia estatal. También se plantearonlas limitaciones prácticas para reenforzar y llevar acabo este proceso. Los argumentos expuestos en estesentido subrayaban la potencialidad de evitar lapérdida de una parte importante de AnGR,insistiendo sobre las responsabilidades de losgobiernos en su intervención en la promoción deldesarrollo sostenible, la defensa de los intereses delos pobres o en la protección de la herencianacional. El debate se extendió ulteriormente paraincluir los respectivos roles de los AnGR locales y

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

102Genetic impact assessments

exóticos en las distintas regiones del mundo y endiversos sistemas de producción.

Keywords: Animal genetic resources, Genetic impactassessment, Regulations.

IntroductionThis paper presents an overview of an exchangethat took place on FAO’s Domestic AnimalDiversity Network (DAD-Net1) during February2007. Central to the debate was the question ofgenetic impact assessments - whether there shouldbe a requirement for such a study prior to the importof new exotic animal genetic resources (AnGR) intoa country. However, the discussion ranged morewidely, encompassing the roles and relative meritsof exotic and local breeds in livestock developmentin different regions of the world and differentproduction systems, and the roles of variousstakeholders (farmers, governments, commercialinterests) in decision-making.

The widespread interest in the topic was clear; asingle request for information sparked aspontaneous exchange which ran to almost60 messages posted over a 15-day period.Participants from at least 25 countries and allregions of the world2 contributed their views. Anumber of new subscribers joined DAD-Net in orderto participate or to follow the discussion. Theobjective here is to bring the debate to a wideraudience.

DAD-Net is managed by the Animal Productionand Health Division of FAO. The purpose of thiselectronic service is to provide an informal forum forthe discussion of issues relevant to the managementof AnGR at national, regional and internationallevels. After free registration users receive allmessages posted. Users are encouraged to postmessages on topics of interest related to themanagement of AnGR, and are also invited tocontribute articles or other information in English,French or Spanish dealing with the followingsubjects: characterization, conservation, utilization,breeding, data and information management,training and education, emergency planning andresponse, research and technology transfer, and anyother subject they consider relevant to AnGR. FAO

periodically contributes information and acts asmoderator. DAD-Net has around 1 000 subscribers;at the time of writing, 520 messages had beenposted since its launch in February 2005.

Development of the DiscussionThe message that initiated the discussion was asimple question: is South Africa the only country inthe world that demands impact assessments priorto the import of a new exotic breed? The messageexplained that the question was prompted by thesurprised reaction of an agent from a Europeancountry when he learnt of this requirement. Furthermessages supplied DAD-Net subscribers with thewording of the South African guidelines(Department of Agriculture, 2003), and an FAOdocument that had been used in their preparation(FAO, 1994). The guidelines indicate that any partywishing to import new exotic breeds has to arrangefor an impact study to be conducted by reputableanimal scientists. The completed study has to beevaluated before the breed will be considered forrecognition and importation under the terms of theAnimal Improvement Act, 1998 (Act No. 62 of 1977).There may be a requirement for a further on-siteevaluation. For further details of the guidelines, seeAppendix 1.

Initial responses were generally supportive ofthe South African measures. Participants from twoEuropean countries (Iceland and Spain) indicatedthat their countries also required impactassessments. It was a message posted by aparticipant from Brazil that stimulated much of thesubsequent discussion. Two related points wereraised:• Exotic genetic resources (Zebus) have been vital

to the Brazilian cattle industry (includingsmall-scale producers) although there wasstrong opposition to their introduction duringthe early twentieth century.

• This example illustrates that decisions are betterleft to the farmer, and that governmentinterference should be avoided.The implication seemed to be that genetic impact

studies are unnecessary and, indeed, are likely to domore harm than good. The following sections

[email protected], Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Near East, North America and the Southwest Pacific.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

103


Pilling

present a summary of the main arguments putforward during the subsequent discussion.

Arguments Against GeneticImpact StudiesA key argument put forward by those opposingimpact studies related to the need to avoidrestricting the options available to breeders andlivestock keepers. Put more forcefully, thesuggestion was that too much emphasis on keepinglocal genetic resources in use compromises foodsecurity and prevents farmers from improving theirlivelihoods. According to this view, it is thelivestock keepers who are the best judges as to whatAnGR are appropriate for the circumstances inwhich they make their living; it is they rather thanthe government officials who bear the risksassociated with such decisions.

It was also argued that it is impossible to uselegal means to prevent breeders from obtaining thegenetic resources they want. Moreover, it waspointed out that if governments are at presentunable or unmotivated to protect their local AnGR,it is questionable if they should be trusted toorganize effective impact studies and abide by thefindings. The cynical view was that the desiredoutcome could always be arranged.

Other practical concerns were raised includingthe question of how national-level restrictions ofimports could account for the diversity of theproduction systems that exist within manycountries. Either some potential users will be deniedappropriate resources, or once imported there is arisk that AnGR will ‘leak’ into systems to whichthey are not adapted. Another question related tohow an impact assessment could account for themany different potential cross-breedingcombinations for which an introduced breed mightbe used.

It should be noted that the participants who castdoubt on the role of genetic impact assessmentsstressed that they were not questioning theimportance of maintaining local breeds or the needfor governments to support conservation measures.Neither should it be concluded that all those whooppose restrictions on imports do not recognize theimportance of a policy framework to manage theutilization of exotic AnGR. One participantsuggested that rather than keeping exotic breedsout, the real requirement was structures to be put inplace to allow the development and testing of

breeds within the country to ensure optimalutilization. There was another suggestion thatwhile there should be no restrictions on imports,those seeking to profit from importing germplasmshould be obliged to contribute to data collectionand monitoring activities within the country, andhence to the development of local AnGR.

Arguments in Favour of GeneticImpact StudiesThe objections described in the preceding sectiongave rise to a number of counter arguments. One setof arguments was based on comparing geneticimpact assessments to the provisions put in place toregulate other aspects of livestock trade or ofdevelopment projects in general. For example,governments impose import restrictions in order toprotect veterinary and public health – a parallelwas drawn between the need for such provisionsand the need to defend the public goods embodiedin local AnGR. Indeed, it was further argued thatexotic imports could in themselves present a threatto a country’s animal health status, as theirsusceptibility makes them effective carriers ofdiseases and parasites. Parallels were also drawnwith the environmental (and social) impactassessments which have become widely requiredfor the approval of development projects. Suchstudies, it was noted, need not be expensive unlessa particular threat that requires deeper investigationis identified. The argument ran that the costs ofthese studies are generally regarded as worthwhileas they reduce the risk of a far more expensiveenvironmental disaster in the future.

Another theme related to the availability ofinformation. It was argued that breeders andlivestock keepers do not always have the relevantinformation on which to make informed judgementsregarding breed choices. The role of commercialinterests that wish to promote the use of theirproducts without regard for their suitability to theproduction environment was raised as a concern,including both lobbying of decision-makers and thesupply of inadequate information to the farmer.Genetic impact assessments are seen as a means ofcountering such biases.

It was also argued that free trade in AnGRshould not be seen as a goal in itself. According tothis perspective, governments have a responsibilityto intervene where necessary to promote sustainabledevelopment, to defend the interests of the poor or toprotect the country’s heritage.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Roles of Local and Exotic BreedsThe demand for genetic impact assessments arisesprimarily because of concerns about the potentialloss of genetic diversity through breed replacementor ill-considered crossing/upgrading. However,imports may influence not only the futureavailability of local AnGR, but also influence (forbetter or worse) current utilization – the economy,development objectives and the livelihoods oflivestock keepers may be affected. It was, therefore,not surprising that the scope of the discussionbroadened to encompass the respective roles(strengths, weaknesses, potentials) of local andexotic breeds within a country’s livestock sector.

Where tropical countries are concerned, much ofthe discussion focused on the suitability, orotherwise, of temperate AnGR within localproduction systems. The problems associated withraising pure-bred temperate livestock in the tropicswere widely acknowledged. Susceptibility todisease, poor tolerance of high temperatures, andpoor adaptation to local feed resources greatlyconstrain the utilization of such animals. Animalwelfare issues associated with the introduction ofanimals to environments to which they are notsuited were noted. It was also recognized thatconsideration has to be given not only climatic andecological conditions, but also the to multiple rolesthat livestock are required to fulfil withinsmallholder production systems, and to which localanimals tend to be well adapted. One situation inwhich it was noted that there is a need for carefulassessment of the potential impact of theintroduction of exotic AnGR was in the case ofrestocking projects carried out in post-disasterconditions.

There was, however, recognition of thecontribution that temperate AnGR have made in thedevelopment of composite breeds utilized in thetropics/subtropics. Examples mentioned in thecontext of South Africa included Dorper and Afrinosheep, and Bonsmara and Drakensberger cattle.Attention was also drawn to the contribution oftemperate × Zebu cross-bred dairy animals (Brazilbeing the main example cited). A paper outliningthe role of exotic AnGR in Latin America wascirculated to participants (Madalena, 2005). It wasalso pointed out that where there is a lack ofcapacity to organize breeding programmes for localbreeds, the introduction of exotic AnGR oftenappears to be the only practical option to achievegenetic improvement. The need for improvedmanagement if the utilization of exotic AnGR in thetropics is to be a success was recognized. Cases in

which this has been successfully achieved (e.g.provision of improved forage and veterinary care fordairy cattle in Brazil) were cited. However, it wasalso noted that for some livestock keepers, meetingthe costs of the additional inputs required by exoticor cross-bred animals can be prohibitive.

In the case of Latin America, both Zebus andEuropean breeds are, of course, of exotic origin. Anumber of participants drew attention to thisdifference between the Old and the Newworlds - the former being richly endowed with localbreeds of the major international livestock species(cattle, goats, sheep, pigs, chickens etc) adapted tothe local conditions, the latter lacking these speciesprior to European colonization. Although Zebus areexotic to Latin America, they are adapted to tropicalconditions. In this context, it was interesting to notethe rather different perspective emanating fromLatin America as compared, for example, to thatexpressed by most participants from Africa whohad a more favourable view of the importance oflocal breeds and the need for impact assessments.

Although most participants would probablyshare the view that both local and exotic AnGRhave a contribution to make in the tropics, and thatAnGR should be matched to the given productionconditions, there certainly seemed to be differencesof opinion as to where the balance should lie.Several participants cautioned against assumingtoo readily that exotic or cross-bred animals are themost appropriate for local production conditions,and cited some examples to support this case.Mention was made, for example, of the study byKing et al. (2006), which revealed how heat stressand energy deficit constrain milk yield and cowreplacement rates among Friesians kept onKenyan smallholdings. Several messagesemphasized the need for a more comprehensiveunderstanding of the concept of productivity,particularly in smallholder production systems,including the use of a definition based on theefficient use of scarce resources and inclusion of thenon-marketed benefits provided by the animals. Thecase study conducted by Ayalew et al. (2003) whichfound indigenous goats to be more productive thancross-breeds under smallholder conditions in theHighlands of Ethiopia was cited in this respect.

Concerns regarding the use of exotic AnGR toupgrade local breeds were summed up by oneparticipant with the following quote taken fromHall (1992): “There is ... a major risk that the bestfemales of local breeds will be the first to be used forupgrading, which would erode the local breeds.Upgrading will foster a climate of contempt for localbreeds and devalue traditional husbandry skills. It is

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

105


Pilling

unlikely to benefit the smallholder farmer and hence mayhave limited contribution to the alleviation of ruralpoverty. However, such developments are very attractiveto governments and aid agencies and are likely tocontinue.”

There was widespread recognition that theutilization of local breeds in developing countries isconstrained by a lack of adequate characterization.The absence of long-term breed comparisons wasnoted as a problem. Similarly, there is a lack ofcapacity to implement genetic improvementprogrammes in local breeds.

Some participants emphasized the contributionsmade by exotic AnGR in both developing-countryand developed-country (e.g. North AmericanHolstein genetics in Europe) contexts. Others,however, warned against ignoring the valuablecharacteristics of local breeds – including theirpotential contribution to profitable commercialproduction. A participant from Canada arguedagainst the view that the producer is always in aposition to make the optimal choice of breeds. Alack of knowledge, and limited availability ofalternatives in a market dominated byindustrial-scale production, may mean thatsmall-scale producers overlook potentially superioroptions – the example cited was that of the Bronzeturkey in Canada. A participant from South Africanoted the great commercial potential of local pigbreeds and of cattle breeds such as the Nguni – thelatter having been almost wiped out byindiscriminate cross-breeding in the name of‘improvement’.

The risks to the livestock sector of policiespromoting uniformity in pursuit of increased outputwere noted by some participants. In developedcountries (Spain was cited as an example) highlevels of milk production have been achieved, yetmany producers struggle to make a profit. There isan urgent need for diversification. Local breeds thatenable the farmer to exploit niche markets can be avaluable resource in this context.

Concluding RemarksThe discussion summarized in this article arosespontaneously; it was essentially an informal andunstructured exchange of views. No attempt wasmade to arrive at a set of conclusions orrecommendations. It would be inappropriate toattempt to do so here.

By their willingness to share their opinions theparticipants showed that they recognize theimportance of debating policy and management

options for the sustainable use and development ofAnGR. If one item of consensus can safely beidentified, it is that there is a need for allstakeholders to be better informed about AnGR andstrategies for their management. The DAD-Netdiscussion on genetic impact assessment was acontribution to this process.

List of ReferencesAyalew, W., B. Rischkowsky, J.M. King &

E. Bruns. 2003. Crossbreds did not generate greaternet benefits than indigenous goats under improvedmanagement in Ethiopian smallholdings.Agricultural Systems 76, 1137–1156.

Department of Agriculture. 2003; Guidelinesfor a biological impact study. Possible introductionof a new breed of farm animal. Pretoria.

FAO. 1994. Implications of the Conventionon Biological Diversity. Management of animalgenetic resources and the conservation of domesticanimal diversity. Report of an informal workinggroup, Animal Production and Health Division, UNFood and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy,28–29 March 1994. Edited by M. Strauss. Rome.

Hall, S.J.G. 1992. Conservation of livestockbreeds. In J.E.O. Rege & M.E. Lipner, eds. Africananimal genetic resources: their characterisation,conservation and utilization. Proceedings of theresearch planning workshop held at ILCA AddisAbaba, Ethiopia, 19–21 February 1992.

King, J.M., D.J. Parsons, J.R. Turnpenny,J. Nyangaga, P. Bakari & C.M. Wathes. 2006.Modelling energy metabolism of Friesians in Kenyasmallholdings shows how heat stress and energydeficit constrain milk yield and cow replacementrate. Animal Science 82, 705–717.

Madalena, F.E. 2005; Considerations on themanagement of animal genetic resources inLatin-America. Paper presented at theEAAP/SLU/FAO/ICAR workshop on SustainableManagement of Animal Genetic Resources: Linkingperspectives globally, Uppsala, Sweden, June 2,2005.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Appendix 1. South Africa’s guidelines for impact assessmentstudiesThe following requirements are outlined in the guideline document (Department of Agriculture, 2003):1. The study should be undertaken by a reputable animal scientist, group of animal scientists or animal

science institution (university, research institute).2. Animal scientists or organizations in South Africa can be contracted to do the work.3. The report must include color photographs of the breed.4. Special attention should also be given to the possible use of the breed in developing areas in South

Africa.5. Where the importation of a limited amount of genetic material has been authorized for evaluation

purposes, all animals and progeny must be recorded on the National database.Further details of the framework for such studies are set out in table 1.On receipt of the study, a decision will be taken with regard to the need for further evaluation on site.Genetic material may be imported for further evaluation under the following conditions:“1. The import will be strictly for evaluation purposes and all animals and progeny must be recorded on the

INTERGIS [Integrated Registration and Genetic Information System] as a breed under evaluation.2. Participation in a relevant animal evaluation scheme (e.g. beef cattle or dairy cattle recording and

evaluation scheme).3. All animals and progeny must be identified by way of DNA.4. No animals or genetic material may be disposed of in any way without the permission of the registrar.5. No publication of results or any other information without the permission of the registrar.”

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

107


Pilling

Table 1. Basic framework an impact assessment in South Africa

Subject Details Additional Comments Basic description Type Color Color Size (male, female, calf) Weight, linear measurements Hair coat Smooth, woolly, etc Origin If a composite supply details of the development of the

breed Grazing pattern Is the breed a bulk grazer, browser, selective grazer etc.

What impact can it have on the environment? Specific details Details of fertility and growth under different

conditions. Performance (reproduction and growth) Feed conversion rate under field and stall conditions

Breed description

Milk production (dairy breeds) Dairy breeds must include details of production and contents analysis

Normal production environment

Describe the environment where the breed occurs naturally

Where will the breed adapt best?

Selected for e.g. double muscling

e.g. Belgian Blue and Piedmontese are selected for double muscling – mainly with a veal market in mind

Known genetic defects

Selected against List all known genetic defects that have occurred in the breed and the measures taken to control these

Extensive beef production Veal production Industrial crossing

Describe the production systems where the breed has been used. Supply statistics to verify production figures.

Production systems

Production of feedlotters Milk production Wool Mutton etc.

Similar.

Level of management

Level of management required e.g. what management inputs are needed for optimal production

Evaluation the suitability of the breed for the small farm/developing sector

Breeds in South Africa

Any similar breeds already in South Africa E.g. the Australian Belmont Red is similar to the Bonsmara

What impact will the breed in question have on any similar breeds?

Asses the impact of the breed on production systems in South

Specify areas where it could compete with similar breeds

Impact on production systems in South Africa

Africa Specify areas where it could compete with indigenous and locally developed breeds

Impact on the indigenous livestock resources of South Africa

Investigate the possibility of the breeds converging on indigenous breeds Could it lead to a projected loss in diversity?

A projected potential impact is particularly important where the breed in question is similar to local breeds and where it could lead to the erosion of local genotypes. Marketing

Assess the quality of the genetic material

Is it better than any locally available breed? Impact

Is it quality or surplus? Certify that this is not surplus and that genetic material will not be made available at prices below the local semen market prices

Impact in other countries

Supply case studies of where the breed has been introduced and its impact in the country in question. A developing country A developed country

This could be in the form of a literature study. But: List referees for each reference enabling verification and possible cross-referencing

Source: Department of Agriculture (2003).

adfbg

arf

Country Contributions

Contributions from countries highlighting country actions in AnGR managementbased on and following the preparation of Country Reports on the State of AnGR

Bangladesh .............................................................................................................................................................. 111

Croatia ...................................................................................................................................................................... 112

Ghana ....................................................................................................................................................................... 113

Islamic Republic of Iran .......................................................................................................................................... 114

Ireland ...................................................................................................................................................................... 115

Madagascar ............................................................................................................................................................. 116

Union of Myanmar .................................................................................................................................................. 116

Nigeria ...................................................................................................................................................................... 117

Norway ..................................................................................................................................................................... 118

Sultanate of Oman ................................................................................................................................................... 118

Papua New Guinea ................................................................................................................................................. 119

Poland ...................................................................................................................................................................... 120

Serbia ........................................................................................................................................................................ 120

Spain ......................................................................................................................................................................... 122

Sweden ..................................................................................................................................................................... 123

Viet Nam ................................................................................................................................................................... 124

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

110Country contributions

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

111



Livestock in Bangladesh consists of 22.3 millionlarge ruminants (cattle and buffalo), 14.6 millionsmall ruminants (goats and sheep) and126.7 million chickens and ducks. The highestnumber of households (13.6 million) raises fowlsfollowed by households who raise cattle(8.2 million), ducks (7.0 million), goats (5.6 million)and sheep (0.5 million). The least number ofhouseholds were found to raise buffalo (0.3 million).The gross value of livestock in Bangladeshaccording to BBS (2000) is equivalent to aboutUS$ 426.3 million most of which is held bysmallholders. The domestic animal geneticresources in the country are rich sources of valuableproducts like meat, milk, skin and genes ofeconomic importance (disease resistance, capacityfor production on poor quality management andproduct of special flavor or other quality) but fewefforts are being made towards their conservation orsustainable development in food and agriculture.

The major imports of livestock products arepowdered milk and live poultry while the majorexports are leather, skin and animal casings. Theaverage annual growth rate of meat and milkproducts is 3.7% and 4.2% respectively, and that ofeggs about 7.7%. Animal agriculture receivespriority attention from the public sector for thepurposes of increasing the production of meat, milkand eggs to meet the growing demands of thecountry. Most of the livestock species are still rearedunder traditional production systems except for theconsiderable development of commercial poultrybased on imported germplasm, feed and medicines.The available genetic resources of cattle may beclassified as:1. Native cattle (Pabna Red Chittagong,

Munshigonj and North Bengal Grey cattle).2. Crossbred cattle and exotic breeds

(Holstein - Friesian, Shahiwal, Sindhi andJersey).

3. Native buffalo and the Nili-Ravi exotic breed.It is estimated that more than 90 % of total goat

population in Bangladesh is comprised of BlackBengal goats, the remainder being Jamnapari andtheir crosses. Sheep in Bangladesh are mostlyindigenous non-descript type. Native chicken

(Naked Neck, Hilly, Aseel, native dwarf type andYasine), five purebred and ten commercial strainchicken germplasm are available in the country.Non-descript indigenous type and Deshi WhitePekin duck are limited to some duck farms in thepublic sector. The types of special fowls found inBangladesh are geese, quail, pigeon and guineafowl. The country also has genetic resources of pigs,horse, deer and dogs.

The national cross-boundary priorities forconservation and development of farm AnGR are:1. Establishment of a coordination system for

livestock development programs.2. Breed surveys, population size estimation, risk

assessment and characterization.3. Formulation of national breeding policies for

different AnGR.4. Economic evaluation of AnGR and resource

uses.5. Breed diversity assessment and improvement.6. Developing systems for regular recording and

evaluation of production performance data ofAnGR.

7. Strengthening livestock research anddevelopment (R&D) and technology transfersystems.

8. Strengthening of livestock production extensionservices.

9. Training and development of human resources.10. Ex-situ conservation of germplasm.11. Development of livestock marketing and quality

control systems.12. Acquisition of funding.13. Promoting public awareness .14. Encouraging formation of breed associations.

Global and regional cooperation and initiativeswill assist identification of resource potentialsand their utilization for economic and socialdevelopment through application ofbiotechnology and other technological advances.Bangladesh is an active partner in the on-going

efforts to promote sustainable development oflivestock; believes in capacity building to achievebetter management of AnGR to help food security,poverty alleviation and employment generation,especially, for rural people; and responds tochanging global demands and market preferences.

Bangladesh

Azharul Islam TalukderNational Co-ordinator for the management of AnGR

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


The preparation of the Country Report on AnGRmanagement has included a large number ofexperts who engage in the preservation of geneticresources. The guidelines for the preparation of thenational AnGR report initiated a wider publicdebate on the harmonisation of the strategic lines ofdirection in the preservation of the entire geneticresource base. The meetings that followed gaveanswers to some of the questions raised, and tried totake into consideration the national and regionalcharacteristics of Croatia. The preparation of theCountry Report on AnGR management stimulated arevision of the scope of animal genetic resources inCroatia. A need to supplement the list of breeds thatare included in the active care of the widercommunity has been noted, following theundertaking of a further revision and analysis of thestate of genetic resources.

On the basis of a revision, the Busha, Murislandhorse, Croatian Coldblood and the Tsigai breedshave been included in the list of protected breeds.With the aim of determining priorities relating to themore reliable protection of original breeds, asystematic molecular genetic determination is being

Croatia

Ante IvankovicNational Co-ordinator for the management of AnGR

performed. In this way, the phylogeneticinterrelation and the genetic originality of originalbreeds can be more clearly discerned, a basis for thesubsequent tracking of gene flows is set and apriority list of breeds in the protection programmecan be determined. Following the preparation of thenational AnGR report, a program to reaffirm theeconomic potential of original breeds through theproduction of recognisable, refined and high-valuefoods has been initiated. There are several programsfocussed on the organisation and standardisationof products currently in use, whose goal is toincrease the economic benefits of production basedon original breeds of domestic animals (Kulen, Pagsheep cheese, Istrian beef, etc.).

The preparation of the national report on AnGRmanagement provided stimulation for a revision ofthe state of original breeds and the efficiency of theprotection system. The First Report on the State ofthe World's Animal Genetic Resources willcertainly be a new incentive in the completion andharmonisation of the existing system of protectionof original breeds in Croatia, as well as in theexchange of experiences with other states,especially those that host related breeds.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

113



Ghana accepted the FAO DirectorGeneral’s invitation to join the Sow-AnGR processin the late 1990s. Consequently, the AnimalProduction Directorate (APD) of the Ministry ofFood and Agriculture (MOFA) was identified as thehost institution. A broad-based andmulti-disciplinary stakeholder NationalConsultative Committee (NCC) was formed and aNational Co-ordinator appointed. The NCCidentified the need to infuse the goals of theSow-AnGR especially sustainable AnGRmanagement for present and future generations,into Ghana’s Livestock Policy which aim, amongothers, to establish breed improvement schemes tohelp improve the performance of indigenous/locallivestock species (APD/MOFA, 2005).

The Sow-AnGR process has brought to thepublic attention the livestock sector of Ghana’sAgriculture which hitherto had been overshadowedby activities in the crop sector. The first NationalWorkshop on AnGR management was held in 2003to educate the general public on sustainablemanagement of AnGR. The NCC with support ofthe FAO and MOFA managed to produce andsubmit Ghana’s Country Report (CR) in good time.The CR raised critical issues which informed policymakers the need to give attention to local AnGR.This period coincided with the launch in 2004 of a6-year Livestock Development Project (LDP) by theGovernment of Ghana with funding from theAfrican Development Bank (ADB). This project hada major component of developing oflocal/indigenous livestock breeds including

Ghana

Richard Osei-AmponsahNational Co-ordinator for the management of AnGR

formation of breed associations. In all districtswhere the LDP is being implemented, livestockbreed associations have been formed to encourageraising of local livestock species: Ashanti Black Pig,Ghana Shorthorn Cattle, White Fulani Cattle, SangaCattle, West African Dwarf Goats and Djallonkesheep. A priority area identified in Ghana’s CR wasthe need to develop human resource in the area ofAnGR management. The curricula of animalbreeding in the country’s universities are beingrevised to include topics on conservation andsustainable utilization of AnGR as well asbiotechnology. This should help improve both thequality and quantity of people involved in AnGRmanagement in the present and in the future.Ghana has actively participated in regional andsub-regional meetings on AnGR with the view tostrengthening networks with other developingcountries. Ghana is currently a member of theIntergovernmental Technical Working Group onAnGR.

Ghana has taken a bold step to be part of theglobal Sow-AnGR process. We call on ourdevelopment partners to help by collaborating withus on various projects in AnGR, providingassistance to help Ghana train students and PostDocs in new areas of AnGR management such asthe application of various molecular techniques tocharacterize AnGR. Finally support for theestablishment of a permanent office for themanagement of AnGR in Ghana will be highlyappreciated.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


The Iranian plateau with its geographical situation,extensive plains, climatic diversity and position asa junction point for west and east highways,provides the location for the gathering andmovement of various livestock and poultry species.As a result, certain species of sheep, goats, poultryand cattle have developed a relatively desireablerange of genetic diversities and enhanced thecountry's reputation as the home of authenticgenetic stock. Iran is globally assumed to be one ofthe richest centers of diversified genetic resources,amounting to up to 12 000 plant species, of which59 156 domestic and wild samples have beenalready recorded, as well as 26 breeds of sheep,9 breeds of goat, 7 breeds of cattle, 7 breeds of horse.

The Islamic Republic of Iran also hasexperienced some genetic encroachment on nativespecies by exogenous breeds which resulted in largescale genetic mixing and population decline,intensified by the non-economic production ofnative species. Rearing of some native species is nomore economic mainly due to changes in marketpatterns or life styles which have led to decreasedconsumption of these species, and decreasingtrends in their populations particularly in the caseof cattle. This decreasing trend can also be seen inother species. In response to this situation severalactions have initiated with the intention ofharmonizing and organizing the inventories ofAnGR in Iran as follows:• Pursuant to relative perceptions voiced by

national stakeholders on animal geneticconservation, tangible support in the form of oftechnical, research and extension services wererecently forwarded which may continue andincrease in the future. In this respect, "The Law

Islamic Republic of Iran

Mohammad Ali KamaliNational Co-ordinator for the management of AnGR

of Livestock Breeding Systems" was prepared bythe Ministry of Jihad-e-Agriculture andpresented to the Government for ratification. Thelaw has resulted in the creation of the Ministryfor the Conservation of Aquatic, Livestock andPoultry Genetic Resources.

• To date, the Act of National Veterinary Systems,which was laid down in 1971 and encompassedoverall regulations on hygienic aspects ofanimal husbandry, still governs quarantinecodes and the trans-boundary movement ofnative or exotic animal genetic resources. The actalso covers the following measures under itsdomain:- Preventing and controlling animal diseases

or common human and animal diseases.- Issuance of hygiene certificates for animals

and related raw products for export.- Hygienic supervision of pastures, watering

places, stables, and other breedingestablishments.

- Monitoring of feeding plants, slaughterhouses and processing units.

- Controlling the production, import, exportand marketing process of various biologicmaterials e.g. drugs, vaccines, serums, etc.

• Development of AnGR databanks in ex-situ andin-situ forms for native cattle, camels, goats,horses, buffalo, sheep and poultry at a nationallevel.

• Expanding biotechnology activities aimed atrecognizing, conserving and preserving AnGRespecially in poultry, sheep, horses, camels andcattle.

• Breeding and extension projects in poultry, cattleand sheep in order to improve the products ofrelevant species.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

115



The management of animal genetic resources forfood and agriculture in Ireland is co-ordinated bythe Department of Agriculture and Food with theassistance of a National Advisory Committee. TheCommittee meets on an annual basis and providesfunding to a range of projects that cover one or moreof the primary policy objectives including;identification, evaluation and conservation ofunique Irish Genetic Resources whose survival isbeing threatened or endangered, development andutilisation of genetic resources to increase nationalfood security and the promotion of publicawareness and support for genetic resources.

Arising from the recommendations fromIreland’s Country Report the Advisory Committeehas prioritised funding for the following actions:• A National Conservation Strategy Plan was

established to develop a long-term conservationplan for a number of endangered traditionallivestock breeds. The plans include the nationalcross-cutting priorities as outlined in Ireland’sCountry Report. For example the development ofan emergency reaction plan which can beinvoked in the event of a disease outbreak, and

Ireland

Helen O'TooleNational Co-ordinator for the management of AnGR

the use of National Parks and State lands as aresource for the maintenance of indigenousbreeds as a living gene-bank.

• Phenotypic, genetic and molecularcharacterisation of breeds was carried out on anumber of endangered rare breeds and theresults have been used in devising conservationplans.

• Ireland is participating in the EFABIS Net project(www.eaap.org/content/efabis_net.htm) to assistwith the development of a national database forall breeds of farm animals. Further work isrequired in this area to develop the capacities ofbreed societies to ensure the effective flow of therequired information.

• Ex-situ conservation work has been carried outfor a number of endangered breeds, however, anational gene-bank for these breeds has yet to beestablished.

• Ireland Rural Environmental Protection Schemewas modified in light of recommendations inIreland’s Country Report to encourage thegreater uptake of measures for rare native breeds.Improvements to the measure have resulted in agreater level of participation and an increase inthe number of animals that are eligible forsupport under the measure.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Objectif:Développement et sauvegarde des ressourcesgénétiques animales pour la sécurité alimentaire.

Les actions prioritaires:1. La première action à entreprendre repose sur le

développement de l’élevage de zébu malgache,cheptel le plus important. Il s’agit de mettre enplace une bonne gestion de ces ressources parune bonne politique d’utilisation et parl’amélioration de sa performance par unprogramme de sélection.

2. En deuxième priorité, on doit faire un effort deconservation de la race «renitelo» par uncroisement de retrempe.

3. La troisième action prioritaire porte sur lacaractérisation de la race « Baria » et la mise enplace d’un programme d’utilisation et de

Madagascar

R. RakotondravaoNational Co-ordinator for the management of AnGR

conservation de cette race. Favoriser ladomestication et la constitution de fermed’élevage.

4. Améliorer également le système d’élevage despetits ruminants et leur utilisation.

5. L’élevage avicole villageois constitue une sourcede revenue et protéique au niveau du monderural malgache. On doit renforcer les actions depromotion de ce type d’élevage et sa protectionvis-à-vis des maladies. Continuer les actions decaractérisation des souches malgaches.

6. Mettre en place un système de formationspécialisée en ressources génétique animalespour renforcer la capacité de gestion desressources.

The Livestock Breeding and Veterinary Departmentunder the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries is themain organization concerned with making policyand management plans for the conservation andutilization of domestic animal genetic resources(AnGR).

The main priority actions for AnGR are:• Research into the animal production systems of

existing farm animals and local breeds.• Promotion of in-situ conservation and the

sustainable use of rare breeds.• Raising public awareness and providing

education regarding on-farm conservation.• Developing a regulatory framework to promote

and ensure the continuity of AnGRmaintenance.According to these priority actions, the Livestock

Breeding and Veterinary Department has carriedout following the activities:• In accordance with the roles and values of

AnGR, the Livestock Breeding and VeterinaryDepartment has given training to farmers onconservation of AnGR encouraging a greaterfocus on draught cattle and village chickenbreeds than other species. For the sustainable

Union of Myanmar

Nay WinNational Co-ordinator for the management of AnGR

use and development of AnGR in future, thebreeding policy for domesticated animals likedraught cattle, sheep, goats, indigenous pigsand poultry must be maintained at its presentlevel and a monitored crossbreeding programmefor all species included.

• In-situ conservation for indigenous chickenbreeds (Inbyinwa Kyet, Sittagaung Kyet, TaikketKyet, Lin da) in special farms in lower andupper Myanmar by the Livestock Breeding andVeterinary Department. For sustainable use andconservation of Mythan, the Myanmar Livestockand Fisheries Bank is giving loans to localfarmers in northern and southern Chin State.

• For an integrated approach to improvinglivestock production using indigenous resourcesand conserving the environment, usefulindigenous draft cattle like the Shwe Ni andShan Bu which are declining in numbers, havebeen brought under a conservation programmein Magwe Division (Middle Myanmar) andsouthern Shan State.

• Ex-situ conservation using cryogenicpreservation for Mythan (frozen semen straws)has been occurring since 1997 in the ArtificialInsemination Centre at Yangon.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

117



Nigeria is richly endowed with very diversedomestic animals (cattle, sheep, goats, camels,donkeys, pigs and poultry) that are being developedand used widely for food and agriculture in thecountry. The predominant production system,nomadic pastoralism, is characterized by lowinputs and productivity. Output in the industry hasbeen low, a situation that led to the prioritization ofenhanced management practices after thecompletion of The Country Report on the State of theAnimal Genetic Resources.

Significant efforts made by the Government toensure sustainable management of the country’sanimal genetic resources after completion ofCountry Report include:1. Prioritization of Food Security and Poverty

Alleviation Programmes in Nigeria.2. Rehabilitation, expansion and restocking of

existing animal genetic resources improvementand conservation centres in the country.

3. Provision of support for promotion ofdomestication and conservation of some feralrelatives of the nation’s AnGR (rabbits,grass-cutters, snails, etc).

4. Improvement and sustainable utilization of allnational feed resources for use of farm animals.

5. Financial support to research institutes anduniversities of agriculture nation wide forresearch into various aspects of AnGRmanagement, conservation and sustainableutilization.

Nigeria

Lawrence A.O. AsijeNational Co-ordinator for the management of AnGR

6. Increased effort in the control of Trans-boundaryDiseases (TADS), zoonotic and other diseases ofeconomic importance, including AvianInfluenza.

7. Accelerated development of grazing reserves,stock routes and grazing corridors andsettlement and empowerment of pastoralists.

8. Putting in place policies in the areas of breeding,production, disease control, trade and animalproduct assurance, afforestation, prohibition ofbush burning, establishment of parks, gardens,game and grazing reserves as well as stockroutes that will ensure orderly and safe use ofanimal genetic resources in the country.Nigerian firmly believes that prioritization of

advanced production technologies andmethodologies in critical areas like AI, ET, MOET,etc. will further enhance output per animal,conservation and sustainable utilization efforts.Sustainable utilization of animal genetic resourcesin the country will create jobs and income, andhence wealth. It will thus lead to poverty alleviationand facilitate achievement of food security.Consequently, the Government is ready to negotiatewith any other government(s) andNon-governmental Organization(s) that is/arewilling to assist her in these areas.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


The Sultanate possesses many animal geneticresources (AnGR) living under varying, difficultenvironmental conditions. These AnGR haveadapted well to these environments. The process ofthe preparation of the First Report on The State ofthe World's AnGR has stimulated interest in theseresources.

Measures taken to protect AnGR are listed belowThe state has had policies and strategies in place

to limit the depreciation of AnGR, which areconsidered a national asset. Among these strategiesare:• Establishing animal profiles like that of the

endangered Arabian Oryx.

Sultanate of Oman

Rashid Soud Al-HabsiNational Co-ordinator for the management of AnGR

• The Sultanate has joined the CBD.• Remodeling the policies and strategies of

research establishments to cater for themonitoring and characterization of livestockspecies.

• Decreasing the camel stocking rate in the southof the Sultanate to maintain the pasture quality.

• Holding seminars for upper management onsustainable development, protection of AnGR,encouraging investment in the development ofAnGR and national training on AnGRmanagement

The most important action in Norwegian AnGRmanagement during the last years is theestablishment of The Norwegian Genetic ResourceCentre in July 2006. The centre was established bythe Ministry of Agriculture and Food as adepartment of the Norwegian Forest and LandscapeInstitute and promotes conservation andsustainable use of national genetic resources infarm animals, crop plants and forest trees. As thenational centre of expertise on genetic resources inagriculture, it acts as advisory body to the Ministryof Agriculture and Food and coordinates a widerange of activities. Furthermore it is the secretariatfor The Norwegian Genetic Resource Council andfor advisory committees within each of the threesectors farm animals, crop plants and forest trees.Together with these bodies the Centre develops andconducts national programmes for conservationand sustainable use of genetic resources inagriculture. The Centre initiates and administersactivities within the three sectors, and cooperateswith gene conservation networks for practicalimplementation. It contributes towards publicawareness and information flow on geneticresources and is the national participant in Nordicand international programmes.

Within the AnGR conservation programme, anaction of major importance is maintaining the gene

Norway

Nina SætherNational Co-ordinator for the management of AnGR

bank for egg laying hens. This gene bank includeslines from the national breeding work on egg layerswhich was closed in 1995, and might be the onlypublic gene bank for egg layers in the industrializedworld. Monitoring native and small populationshas been highly prioritized and subsidy systems forfarmers keeping these breeds have been establishedin the period. For the commercial native breeds ofcattle and pigs, export of genetic material has beenestablished as a permanent part of the breedingassociations’ activities. The increased exportactivity has accentuated the need for internationallegal frameworks regarding exchange of geneticmaterial from farm animals. This aspect isdiscussed in the Nordic project “Legal frameworkfor the rights to and exchange of animal geneticresources”, a project Norway is supporting andparticipating in. Sustainable breeding isfundamental in Norwegian breeding work – andthe three national breeding associations GENO,NORSVIN and Norsk Sau og Geit (cattle, pigs andgoat and sheep breeding associations respectively)have introduced from 2006 a new chapter in theirannual reports with essential parameters from theirpopulations to document the sustainability of theirbreeding work, such as genetic trends and effectivepopulation size.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

119



Following the preparation of Papua New Guinea'sCountry Report on the State of Farm Animal GeneticResources in November, 2004 there has been littleprogress on the proposed action plan mainly due tolack of financial resources and other unforeseendelays.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock hasrecently formulated a National AgricultureDevelopment Plan (2007 – 2016) with technical andfinancial assistance from FAO. This plan has beenformerly approved by the National Government ofPapua New Guinea in March 2007. Implementationof this plan is expected to commence in the secondhalf of 2007.

Conservation of farm animal genetic resources isone of the activities that have been identified forimplementation under this plan and will receivebudgetary support from the National Governmentof Papua New Guinea. As indicated in the countryreport National Agriculture Research Institute of

Papua New Guinea

Siva SupiramaniamNational Co-ordinator for the management of AnGR

Papua New Guinea is mandated to implement theaction plan proposed in the Country Report.

It must be emphasized that within theforeseeable future there is no threat to any of theAnGR in Papua New Guinea. The only exception tothis is the Javanese Zebu cattle that is considered asendangered. The basic information including thenumber and location of different farm animals inPapua New Guinea is currently not available.Therefore, a survey has been proposed in thecountry report to assemble this information. Thissurvey will now be combined with the proposedNational Agricultural Census, to be conducted in2008 under the National Agriculture DevelopmentPlan. This information is vital to refine the actionplan and prioritize activities that have beenhighlighted in country report, especially to developappropriate national policies to safeguard theAnGR.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


The most important issues related to thepreparation of the Country Report are:1. Serbia has signed and ratified the CBD2. Serbia has been nominated for the NFP3. Serbia has established NCCMain priority actions undertaken since 2002 were

the following:1. Identification of endangered breeds of domestic

animals.

Serbia

Srdjan StojanovicNational Co-ordinator for the management of AnGR

2. Ongoing work on updating the National AnGRdatabase.

3. Financial support to the stakeholders of AnGR.4. Increasing collaboration with countries in the

region.5. Increasing collaboration with research institutes,

NGO`s and international organisations.6. Provision of financial support for different

projects related to AnGR.7. Support the developing production of local

products and agro-tourism in protected areas.

The preparation of the Country Report supportedthe introduction of a new paragraph (§21a),specifically devoted to the conservation of animalgenetic resources, as part of the process ofamending the Law on the Organization of Breedingand Reproduction of Farm Animals in 2004.

During the last few years, several new initiativeshave been undertaken to restore native breeds. Thefirst has already proved successful with regards toPolish White-backed cattle, the others includerestoration of the Carpathian goat, the PodhalanianZackiel and the old-type Polish Merino as well astraditional cold-blooded horse breeds such as theSokolski and Sztumski.

Changes in the livestock production systemresulted in an urgent need to undertake several newconservation programs to address the continuouslydecreasing pre-bred populations of two native horsebreeds. These programs, applied to the Malpolskiand Silesian horse, led to development of relevantconservation programs in 2004. A similar situationwas observed in the Wielkopolski horse breed.

The continuous increase of the Holsteingenotype in the Polish dairy cattle populationresulted in the introduction of Polish red and whiteand Polish black and white dual purpose cattlebreeds into a conservation program in 2007. Thereare also efforts to include several coloured varieties

Poland

Elzbieta MartyniukNational Co-ordinator for the management of AnGR

of nutria and two additional lines of carp inconservation programs in 2007.

The support for AnGR conservation is providedthrough the Agri-environmental Program (forbreeds of cattle, horse, sheep and pig) and from thestate budget for breeds of remaining species(poultry, fur animals, fish and honey bees). Toensure a timely and professional service forbreeders participating in the conservation of nativebreeds, the Animal Genetic Resources ConservationUnit was established in the National ResearchInstitute of Animal Production in Balice in January2005. At present, nine specialists are responsible forsupervising the implementation of conservationprograms for each species or group of species, andfor interactions with breeders.

In last several years special exhibitions of nativebreeds, accompanied by seminars and occasionalpublications have been organized during theNational Animal Show POLAGRA-FARM. In 2006,an album of Polish native breeds was publishedand distributed during POLAGRA. To supportAnGR activities and facilitate preparation for theInterlaken ITC, in May 2007, an internationalscientific conference entitled "Conservation ofAnimal Genetic Resources in Poland and in Europe- achievements and dilemmas" was held in Balice.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

121



The following are the main actions taken in SlovakRepublic in the field of AnGR management:• Developing the national inventory on farm

animal biodiversity and breed characterizationand conducting regular monitoring of farmanimal genetic resources.

• Involving farm animal genetic resources inagro-tourism and the non-profit sector.

• Finding the balance between market demandand the production potential of traditionalbreeds.

Slovak Republic

Ladislav HetényiNational Co-ordinator for the management of AnGR

• Managing farm animal genetic resources inaccordance with the principles of sustainability,environmental impact and ethological needs.

• Improving the legal framework for farm animalgenetic resources and building their capacities.

• Improving public awareness and disseminationof research results in the field of farm animalgenetic resources.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


During 2006, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fishingand Feeding (MAPA) made progress in thedevelopment of the National Strategic Plan for theConservation, Improvement and Promotion ofZoogenetic Resources, in coordination withlivestock breeders' associations and the AutonomicCommunities (Spanish regions), within theframework of the New Communitarian AgrarianPolicy and the FAO strategy.

Actions were undertaken to complete the currentanalysis of resources, and make adjustments to theadministrative and technical sources utilised aspart of the implementation process, in line withdirectives from FAO, in the following ways.

Inventory, characterization andclassification of breeds1. Development of the Official Catalogue of

Spanish´s breeds. In the Official Catalogue allthe livestock breeds that are zootechnicallyregulated and supported have been inventoried.Currently there are 169 catalogued breeds.

2. Definition of prototypes and characterization:The prototypes of most of the breeds have beenapproved and published, with the regulation ofthe genealogical book.

3. Recognition of associations of breeders ofbovine, ovine, goat, pig, canine, poultry andequine species, for the purposes of themanagement of genealogical books, and thedevelopment of breeding programs with159 associations.

4. Appointment of breeds inspectors to supervisethe associations' functions.

5. Individual identification and inscription of theanimals in the genealogical book and theregistry of collaborating farms, with 2.8 millionregistered reproducing females.

Spain

Isabel García SanzNational Co-ordinator for the management of AnGR

Programs of breeding(conservation or improvement)and sustainable use1. Approval of national programs, general and

specific for each breed.2. Reproducers valuation and animal qualification.3. Yields control and genetic evaluation, including

criteria for ovines against TSE, with1 555 000 genotyped ovines (NationalGenotyping Program).

4. Authorization of Testing Centers.5. Sustainable use of and alternatives for the

employment of the breeds and their productsusing quality identifiers, country tourism, etc

Animal reproduction andgenetics1. Authorization of collection, storage and

reproduction centers and germplasm banks. Atthe moment, there are 19 centers for bovinespecies, 15 for ovine and goat species, 46 for pigsand 17 for equines, and 25 processes for thecollection of bovine embryos, 3 for equines and1 for ovine and goat embryos.

2. Designation of the Reproducing ReferenceCenter or National Bank (in Madrid).

3. Ex-situ conservation of breeds in danger.4. Artificial insemination, and diffusion of the

improvement created with high genetic valuesemen.

5. Authorization of genetic laboratories, DNAbanks and filiation control; providing theCentral Veterinary Laboratory (Algete) withproper sources.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

123



Programs for the institutionaldevelopment, coordination andcreation of capacity1. Organization of meetings, in committees, with

all the partners implied in the management ofbreeds, both public and private.

2. Creation of communications networks andopportunities for the exchange of information,with national (Universities, INIA) andinternational (EAAP, FAO, EU) organisations.

3. Connection of policies and programs on animalgenetics resources with other national andinternational initiatives in the fields ofagriculture and biodiversity.

4. Educative programs for vets, livestock breedersand the general public.

5. Establishment of a legal framework includingnorms and policies. There are already legalnorms and two Royal Decree projects exist todevelop these programs.

Information1. Dissemination of information through the

Internet (Web pages, such as PEGASO for equinebreeds) and awareness campaigns of andpromotions, particularly the congressFUTUREQUI, in the first half of 2007.

2. Plan for export, commercialization andinternational cooperation (Creation of the webCEXGAN).

Creation of the nationalcomputer science systemCoordinating references to pure breed animalsregistered in genealogical books between differentdata bases.

FinancingFinancing the program with national and Europeanfunds. It has been subsidized, and properlystructured in the regulating legislation that is nowbeing enacted.

• Setting up a national committe on AnGR whichis advisory to the competent authority in mattersconcerning conservation, sustainable utilizingand developing of Swedish AnGR.The committee has worked since 2005.

• Amending the National Act and Ordinance forLivestock, etc management June 2006A new aim was included: Promoting asustainable management of AnGR.This addition gives the competent authority, theSwedish Board of Agriculture, the possibility tofurther regulate the management of AnGRtowards the responsible acteurs such asbreeding organisations.

Sweden

Eva-Marie StalhammarNational Co-ordinator for the management of AnGR

• An Action plan for AnGR is under way. Thisplan will prioritize between the actions neededfor conservation, use and development. The planwill give an idea of costs and also have a timeplan.

• Starting a conservation project to get hold of theformer dairy breed Swedish Friesian (SLB) beforethe Holstein breed was introduced into theSwedish population. This project has startedfrom a farmer’s appeal to save /”rescue” what isleft of the this breed which used to be one of thenumerous dairy breeds in Sweden. The olderbreed was more multi purpose than todaysHolstein breed.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


In terms of policy and management:• The National Assembly has issued a national

management decree for livestock breeds,consisting of national management documentsregarding:- Strategies, management and usage of AnGR.- Research into selecting, creating,

experimenting with and approving newanimal breeds.

- Production of and business dealings relatedto, animal breeds.

-- Management of livestock breed quality,directly managed and operated by theMARD.

• The Ministry of Natural Resources andEnvironment, in coordination with otherministries has establish the Law of BiologicalDiversity to be presented to the Government atthe end of 2007, in which the importance ofFAnGR are highlighted.

• The Government has increased the budget forthe animal genetic conservation program fromUS$35 000 to US$100 000 per year.

• The biotechnical program has been improved,within which the most important project of theMinistry of Agriculture and Rural Developmentis concerned with using molecular techniques toanalyse the animal genetic resources of localchicken breeds such as the Ri, Mia, Ho breeds.

In terms of national activities• Publishing the completed data system including:

- Three monographs of genetic resourceconservation, one atlas of domestic animalsand many publications involving themanagement, conservation and usage ofFAnGR.

- The establishment of a website and databasesystem concerned with the preservation of thebiological diversity of domestic and wildanimals in Vietnam in the information centreat the Ministry of Science and Technology

Viet Nam

Nguyen Vang DangNational Co-ordinator for the management of AnGR

• Enhancing the analysis of animal geneticresources including:- The molecular genetics laboratory in Vietnam

using microsatellite techniques to determineVietnam cattle, chicken, pig and goat geneticresources.

- The biological research program coded KC04-03 in which molecular genetic techniqueswere used to improve the productivity ofVietnamese pigs and cattle. Thirty genesequences involving traits such asproductivity and quality of pork and milk inVietnam have been approved and proclaimedat the International Genbank.(EMBL/Genbank/DDBJ: www.ebi.ac.uk ,www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

• Approaching the market and exploiting severallocal livestock breeds which have economicbenefits such as the H'mong chicken, sheep,goats and Ban pigs. Some breeds are conservedand exploited via culture and tourism throughwomen's, elders' and gardeners' associations;worship ceremonies; Ho chicken and buffalocompetitions; elephant and horse ridingfestivals; etc.

• Strengthening capacity and informationexchange by:- The Vietnamese Government improving the

equipment available to animal celllaboratories for analyzing AnGR in Vietnam.

- Improving technological training forresearchers through coordinated biologicaldiversity research projects such as Biodivaand IAEA.

- Regularly and efficiently updating helpfulinformation networks for the managementand usage of genetic resources from DAD-ISat FAO.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

125


Recent publications

Managing Biodiversity in Agricultural EcosystemsD. I. Jarvis, C. Padoch & H. D. Cooper (Eds)

Columbia University Press, New York, USAPublished in 2007, pp. 105

ISBN: 9778-0-231-1364-8

This hardcover book takes a look at how farmersmanage, maintain, and benefit from biodiversity inagricultural production systems. The volumeincludes the most recent research and developmentsin the maintenance of local diversity at the genetic,species, and ecosystem levels. Chapters cover theassessment and farmer management practices forcrop, livestock, aquatic, and associated diversity(such as pollinators and soil microorganisms) inagricultural ecosystems; examine the potential roleof diversity in minimizing pest and diseasepressures; and present studies that exemplify thepotential nutritional, ecosystem service, andfinancial values of this diversity under changingeconomic and environmental conditions. Thevolume contains perspectives that combine thethinking of social and biological scientists.

Inappropriate or excessive use of inputs cancause damage to biodiversity within agriculturalecosystems and compromise future productivity.This book features numerous case studies that showhow farmers have used alternative approaches tomanage biodiversity to enhance the stability,resilience, and productivity of their farms, pointingthe way toward improved biodiversity on a globalscale. As custodians of the world’s agriculturalbiodiversity, farmers are fully invested in ways tocreate, sustain, and assist in the evolution andadaptation of a variety of plant and animal species.Thus this text is mandatory reading forconservationists, environmentalists, botanists,zoologists, geneticists, and anyone interested in thehealth of our ecosystem.

Assembling the efforts and expertise of a diverseand well-qualified set of authors, this bookaddresses a wide range of topics, yet the essaysclearly cohere. The perspective is global, which willmake the book the single most authoritative sourceto date on issues of agrobiodiversity.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

126Recent publications

Marker-Assisted Selection: Status and Future Perspectives incrops, Livestock, Forestry and Fish

E.P. Guimarães, J. Ruane, B.D. Scherf, A. Sonnino & J.D. Dargie (Eds)FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy

Published in 2007, pp. 471ISBN: 978-92-5-105717-9

The 22-chapter book includes a series of casestudies giving a comprehensive technicaldescription and assessment of the current use ofMarker Assisted Selection (MAS) and concludeswith a series of 5 chapters devoted to non-technicalissues relevant to applications of MAS indeveloping countries, such as national researchcapacities and international partnerships, economicconsiderations, the impacts of intellectual propertyrights, and policy considerations. The46 contributors to the book were all internationallyrecognised experts in their field and came from26 different organisations (comprising universities,national research organisations, CGIAR centres,UN agencies and private companies) and15 different countries.

At present the book is published in electronicformat only and may be viewed on the web at:www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1120e/a1120e00.htm.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

127


Recent publications

People and Animals - Traditional Livestock keepers: Guardiansof Domestic Animal Diversity

K.-A. Tempelman & R.A. Cardellino (Eds)FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy

Published in 2007, pp. 123ISBN: 978-92-5-105684-4

This soft cover book deals with the domestic animaldiversity that is being lost at an alarming rate.Worldwide, local livestock breeds are being crossedor replaced with higher-yielding animals under themotto "exotic is better". Furthermore, the nativehabitats of pastoralists and their animals aresteadily disappearing, relinquishing their domainto agriculture, protected nature reserves andindustrial activities. This trend is furtherencouraged by existing formal policy, short-termprofit opportunities and a decreasing appreciationof the value of Local breeds.

This book presents a variety of farm animalspecies and breeds that are the result of centuries oflocal knowledge-based selection by traditionallivestock keepers. Through traditional farmingsystems a broad diversity of livestock breeds isbeing preserved and developed to provide meat,dairy products, eggs, fibre, fertilizer, manure anddraught power. Finally, thw book presents livestockdiversity as a tool for future capacity to meetunforeseen needs and opportunities.

Case studies on traditional livestock farmingsystems using local breeds were compiled in orderto understand and establish:• How communities manage local animal genetic

resources.• Local knowledge and good practices.• How animal genetic resources interact with their

environment.• How communities cope with threats to their

local animal genetic resources.• Long-term solutions and sustainability of

strategies.The main lessons to be drawn from the case

studies are:1. Technical and political decision-makers are

often unaware of the far-reaching impact of theirdecisions on the conservation and sustainableuse of livestock genetic diversity; consequently,raising awareness and teaching are essentialelements.

2. Communities in general have identified thechallenges they face in making their farmingsystems profitable enough to support their

livelihoods. Such knowledge should beconsolidated by decision-makers, who havehuge potential to contribute to solving problemsrelated to the loss of livestock diversity faced byfarming communities.

3. Connecting people with others who havealready addressed, or are addressing, similarproblems generates new ideas and solutions. Italso empowers people to formulate solutionsserving both their own and common situationsand to take appropriate action.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


El Ganado Romosinuano en laproduccion de carne en Colombia

The Romosinuano cattle in Colombian meat production(In Spanish)

R. Rodrigo Vázquez, S. Rodrigo Martínez, Ch. Hugo Ballesteros,L. Grajales Henry, G.J. Esteban Pérez & P. Yesid Abuabara (Eds)

CORPOICA, Mosquera (Cundimarca), ColombiaPublished in 2006, pp. 102

ISBN: 978-958-8311-10-4

This soft cover book describes recent works inconservation, characterization and promotion in theColombian Creole cattle Romosinuano. Initially, abrief historical review of the breed is illustrated, aswell as its geographic distribution in Colombia, theeffects its effects on the Colombian beef production.

In the second part of the book severalcharacterization studies are presented together withmorpho-metric studies, genetic evaluations,productive and reproductive characterizations anda compilation of results of studies on meat qualityin Romosinuano, Zebu and their respective crosses.The publication also displays all activities relatedwith conservation and promotion of this breed andit ends with a review of productive andreproductive performance of Romosinuano breed insubtropical areas.

For sure, this publication may be useful toproducer, veterinarians and students with interestin this geographic area and with its productionsystems.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

129


Recent publications

Patrones tecnologicos y calidad dela carne bovina en el caribe colombiano

Technologies patterns and meatquality in the Colombian Caribe

(In Spanish)R. Rodrigo Vázquez, H.J. Pulido, P.Y. Abuabara, S. Rodrigo Martínez,

S.B. Abadía, L.C. Arreaza, J.Z. Silva, L.S. Sáncez, Ch. Hugo Ballesteros,C. Muñoz, T. Rivero, A. Nivia & G. Barrera (Eds)CORPOICA, Mosquera (Cundimarca), Colombia

Published in 2005, pp. 93ISBN: 958-8210-82-8

This soft cover publication is the result of a projectsupported by Colciencias, FEDEGAN andCORPOICA.

Its objective is to illustrate the current situationof meat production in Colombia, the localexpectatives, areas with higher productive potentialand applied technologies in order to gain a higherquality production. The publication also includes acharacterization study of meat quality in Colombia,considering some aspects like fat quality,tenderness and microbiological quality; it alsodescribes several novelty tools to estimate meatquality.

Clear pictures and diagrams help the reader infollowing the clear presentation of the topics,resulting the publication of particular interest tomeat technologists, students and industryresponsibles in meat processing.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


ASC

Development of animal identification and recording systems forveterinary surveillance and livestock development in countries

of Eastern EuropeR. Pauw, A. Speedy & J. Mäki-Hokkonen (Eds)

Proceedings of the ICAR/FAO Seminarheld in Kuopio, Finland, on 6 June 2006

ICAR, Via G. Tomassetti 3, 00162 Rome, ItalyPublished in 2007, pp. 130

ISBN: 92-95014-04-9; ISSN: 1563-2504

There is an increasing interest worldwide in animalidentification and recording (I&R) systemsincluding developed countries, countries intransition and developing countries. Traditionally,I&R systems were mostly developed as an essentialelement in breed improvement programmes andhave been fundament to the establishment andmaintenance of livestock breeding programs

It is this increasing interest to develop and laysustainable foundation for I&R systems, thatresulted in FAO and ICAR together with OIE andthe Government of Finland collaborating to put on aseminar at the 35th ICAR Session, held in Kuopio,Finland, in June 2006 entitled «Development ofanimal identification and recording systems forveterinary surveillance and livestock developmentin countries of Eastern Europe».

The parties of this seminar were convinced thatin these countries appropriate systems to trace backthe origin of animals and the food of animal originare the natural and necessary entry point to foodsafety and security as well as contribution tosustainable livestock development. The basicprerequisites for an efficient I&R remain the same:• A system that is practical and meets its

expectations.• A system that is supported by an appropriate

policy and legal framework of a country as wellas by the producers a nd trade.

• A system that is sustainable and self supporting.The seminar provided an overview of the roleplayed by the ICAR Sub-Committee AnimalIdentification and its use by ICAR members.The FAO paper on veterinary surveillance and

livestock development issues in Eastern Europestressed the priority of I&R for animal health,

particularly surveillance and control of BSE, FMDand CSF in the Region, and the need for aninternational standards. Further papers werepresented by the European Commission on EUlegislation, and by OIE on CIE activities andstandards relating to I&R and traceability.

Freely available at: www.icar.org/pages/Publications/technical_series.htm

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

131


Recent publications

Sustainable management of the world’s livestockgenetic diversity is of vital importance toagriculture, food production, rural developmentand the environment. The State of the World’s AnimalGenetic Resources for Food and Agriculture is the firstglobal assessment of these resources. Drawing on169 Country Reports, contributions from a numberof international organizations and 12 speciallycommissioned thematic studies, it presents ananalysis of the state of agricultural biodiversity inthe livestock sector – origins and development, usesand values, distribution and exchange, risk statusand threats – and of capacity to manage theseresources – institutions, policies and legalframeworks, structured breeding activities andconservation programmes. Needs and challengesare assessed in the context of the forces drivingchange in livestock production systems. Tools andmethods to enhance the use and development ofanimal genetic resources are explored in sections onthe state of the art in characterization, geneticimprovement, economic evaluation andconservation.The main findings of the report are summarized inThe State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources forFood and Agriculture – in brief. Arabic, Chinese,English, French, Russian and Spanish versions canbe found on the attached CD-ROM and are alsoavailable separately in printed form.As well providing a technical reference document,the country-based preparation of The State of theWorld has led to a process of policy developmentand a Global Plan of Action for Animal GeneticResources, which once adopted, will provide anagenda for action by the international community.

The State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Foodand Agriculture

B. Rischkowsky & D. Pilling (Eds)FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy

Published in 2007, pp. 552ISBN 978-92-5-105762-9

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

132blications

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

133

Editorial Policies andProcedures

The mission of the Animal Genetic ResourcesInformation Bulletin (AGRI) is the promotionof information on the better use of animalgenetic resources of interest to food andagriculture production, under the GlobalStrategy for the Management of Farm AnimalGenetic Resources. All aspects of thecharacterization, conservation and utilizationof these resources are included, in accordancewith the Convention on Biological Diversity.AGRI will highlight information on thegenetic, phenotypic and economic surveyingand comparative description, use,development and maintenance of animalgenetic resources; and on the development ofoperational strategies and procedures whichenable their more cost-effective management.In doing this AGRI will give special attentionto contributions dealing with breeds andprocedures capable of contributing to thesustainable intensification of the world’smedium to low input productionenvironments (agro-ecosystems), whichaccount for the substantial majority of theland area involved in livestock production;the total production of food and agriculturefrom livestock; and of our remaining farmanimal genetic resources.

Views expressed in the paper published inAGRI represent the opinions of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect those of theinstitutions which the authors are affiliated,FAO or the Editors.

The suitability of manuscripts forpublication in AGRI is judged by the Editorsand reviewers.

Electronic publication

AGRI is available in full electronically on theInternet, in addition to being published inhard copy, at:<< http://www.fao.org/dad-is>>

Types of Articles

The following types of articles are publishedin AGRI.

Research articles

Findings of work on characterization,conservation and utilization of farm animalgenetic resources (AnGR) in well describedproduction environments, will be consideredfor publication in AGRI. Quality photographsof these genetic resources viewed in theprimary production environment to whichthey are adapted, accompanying themanuscripts are encouraged.

Review articles

Unsolicited articles reviewingagro-ecosystems, country-level, regional orglobal developments on one or more aspectsof the management of animal geneticresources, including state-of-the-art reviewarticles on specific fields in AnGR, will beconsidered for publication in AGRI.

Position papers

Solicited papers on topical issues will also bepublished as deemed required.

Other published material

This includes book reviews, news and notescovering relevant meetings, training coursesand major national, regional and internationalevents and conclusions and recommendationsassociated with the outcomes of these majorevents. Readers are encouraged to send suchitems to the editors.

Guidelines for Authors

Manuscript submission

Manuscripts prepared in English, French orSpanish with an English summary and

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

134

another summary in either French orSpanish, should be submitted to AGRIEditor, AGAP, FAO, Viale delle Terme diCaracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy. Additionallythe manuscript must be sent as a WinWordElectronic Mail attachment [email protected]. Photographs, colouredor black and white, and figures must bealways sent by mail.

Manuscripts should be typeddouble-spaced and with lines numbered inthe left margin. All pages, including those ofreferences, tables etc., must be consecutivelynumbered. The corresponding author isnotified of the receipt of a manuscript.

For manuscripts that are accepted afterrevision, authors are encouraged to submit alast version (3½” disc format) in Word 6.0 forWindows of their revised manuscript alongwith the printed copy.

Preparation of the manuscript

The first page of the manuscript must includethe running head (abbreviated title), title,names of authors, institutions, full addressesincluding postal codes and telephone numberand other communication details (fax, e-mail,etc.) of the corresponding author. Therunning head not exceeding 45 charactersplus spaces, should appear at the top of page1 of the manuscript entirely in capital letters.The title of the manuscript is typed in upperand lower case letters. The title should be asbrief as possible not exceeding 150 characters(including spaces) with species names whenapplicable. Authors, institutions andaddresses are in upper and lower case italics.There is one blank line between the title andthe authors. Addresses are typed as footnotesto the authors after leaving one blank line.Footnotes are designated numerically. Twolines are left below the footnotes.

Headings

Headings of sections, for example Summary,Introduction, etc., are left-justified. Leave twoblank lines between addresses footnotes andSummary and between the heading Summary

and its text. Summary should not exceed200 words . It should be an objectivesummary briefly describing the proceduresand findings and not simply stating that thestudy was carried on such and such andresults are presented, etc. Leave one linebetween the summary text and Keywordswhich is written in italics as well as thekeywords themselves. All headings ofsections (14 regular) and sub-sections(12 regular) are typed bold and precededand succeeded by one blank line and theirtext begins with no indention. The headingof a sub-subsection is written in italics, andends with a dot after which the text followson the same line. Keywords comeimmediately after the summaries. Theyshould be no more than six, with no “and”or “&”.

Tables and figures

Tables and figures must be enclosed with thepaper and attached at the end of the textaccording their citation in the document.Photos will not be returned

Tables

Tables, including footnotes, should bepreceded and succeeded by 2 blank lines.Table number and caption are written, abovethe table, in italics (12) followed by a dot, thenone blank line. For each column or line title orsub-title, only the 1st letter of the 1st word iscapitalized. Tables should be numberedconsecutively in Arabic numerals. Tables andcaptions should be left justified as is the text.Use horizontal or vertical lines only whennecessary. Do not use tabs or space-bar tocreate a table but only the appropriatecommands.

Figures

Figures including titles and legends should bepreceded and succeeded by two blank lines.Figure number and title are written, below thefigure, in italics (12) and end with a dot. Theterm figures includes photos, line drawings,

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

135

maps, diagrams etc.All the submitted diagrams, must be

accompanied with the original matrix of thedata used to create them. It is stronglyadvised to submit diagrams in Word 6.0 orExcel 5.0. Figures should be numberedconsecutively in Arabic numerals.

References

Every reference cited in the text should beincluded in the reference list and everyreference in the reference list should havebeen mentioned in the text at least once.References should be ordered firstlyalphabetically by the first author’s surnameand secondly by year.• Example for reference in a periodical is:

Köhler-Rollefson, I. 1992. The camelbreeds of India in social and historicalperspective. Animal Genetic ResourcesInformation 10, 53-64.

• When there are more than one author:Matos, C.A.P., D.L. Thomas, D. Gianola,R.J. Tempelman & L.D. Young. 1997.Genetic analysis of discrete reproductive

traits in sheep using linear and nonnlinearmodels: 1. Estimation of geneticparameters 75, 76-87.

• For a book or an ad hoc publication, e.g.,reports, theses, etc.:Cockrill, W.R. (Ed.). 1994. The Husbandryand Health of the Domestic Buffalo. FAO,Rome, Italy, pp 993.

• For an article in the proceedings of ameeting:Hammond, K. 1996. FAO’s programmefor the management of farm animalgenetic resources. In C. Devendra (Ed.),Proceedings of IGA/FAO Round Table onthe Global Management of SmallRuminant Genetic Resources, Beijing,May 1996, FAO, Bangkok, Thailand, 4-13.

• Where information included in the articlehas been obtained or derived from aWorld Wide Web site, then quote in thetext, e.g. “derived from FAO. 1996” andin the References quote the URL standardform:FAO. 1996. Domestic Animal DiversityInformation System, http://www.fao.org/dad-is/, FAO, Rome, Italy.

For all future manuscript dispatch and correspondence regardingAGRI, please use the following mailbox:

[email protected]

Thanks for the collaboration

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

136

Normes et règles éditoriales

L’objectif du Bulletin d’information sur lesressources génétiques animales (AGRI) est lavulgarisation de l’information disponible surla meilleure gestion des ressources génétiquesanimales d’intérêt pour la productionalimentaire et agricole, d’après lesrecommandation de la Stratégie mondialepour la gestion des ressources génétiques desanimaux domestiques. Tous les aspectsrelatifs à la caractérisation, la conservation etl’utilisation de ces ressources seront pris enconsidération, suivant les normes de laConvention pour la Biodiversité.

AGRI désire diffuser de l’information surla génétique, les enquêtes phénotypiques etéconomiques et les desciptions comparatives,l’utilisation et la conservation des ressourcesgénétiques animales, ainsi que touteinformation sur le développement destratégies opérationnelles et de normes quipuissent permettre une meilleure gestion dela relation coût/efficacité. C’est pour cela queAGRI prendra spécialement en considérationtoutes les contributions référées aux races etaux normes capables de permettre uneintensification durable des milieux(agroécosystèmes) à revenus moyens et basdans le monde; qui comprennent la majeurpartie des terres consacrées à l’élevage, à laproduction totale des aliments et l’agricultureprovenants de l’élevage; et tout ce qui restecomme ressources génétiques des animauxdomestiques.

Les opinions exprimées dans les articlespubliés dans AGRI appartiennent seulementaux auteurs et donc ne représentent pasnécessairement l’opinion des instituts pourlesquels ils travaillent, la FAO ou les éditeurs.

L’opportunité ou non de publier un articledans AGRI sera jugée par les éditeurs et lesréviseurs.

Publication électronique

En plus de sa version imprimée, la versiontotale de AGRI se trouve disponible surInternet, sur le site:http://www.fao.org/dad-is/

Types d’articles

Les articles suivants pourront être publiés surAGRI:

Articles de recherche

Seront prises en considération pour leurpublication sur AGRI les études sur lacaractérisation, la conservation et l’utilisationdes ressources génétiques des animauxdomestiques (AnGR) accompagnées d’unebonne description du milieu. On encourageles auteurs à envoyer des photographies debonne qualité qui montrent les races enquestion dans leur milieu naturel deproduction.

Révisions

Occasionnellement, des articles contenant unerévision des agroécosystèmes, au niveaunational, régional ou mondial, avec un ouplusieurs aspects se rapportant à la gestiondes ressources génétiques animales, ycompriss les mises à jour des différenteszones de AnGR, seront pris en considération.

Articles spécifiques

Ponctuellement, des articles sur des thèmesspécifiques pourront être demandés pour lapublication d’éditions spéciales.

Autre matériel pour publication

Ceci comprend la révision de livres, nouvelleset notes de réunions importantes, cours deformation et principaux évènementsnationaux, régionaux et internationaux; ainsique les conclusions et recommandation parrapport aux objectifs des ces principauxévènements. Les auteurs sont priés d’envoyerce genre de matériel aux éditeurs.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

137

Guide pour les auteurs

Présentation du manuscript

Les articles se présenteront en anglais,français ou espagnol, avec un résumé enanglais et sa traduction en français ou enespagnol; ils seront envoyés à l’éditeur deAGRI, AGAP, FAO, Viale delle Terme diCaracalla, 00100 Rome, Italie. En outre,l’article devra être envoyé par courrierélectronique comme document attaché enversion WinWord à [email protected]. Lesphotographies, en couleur ou en blanc etnoir, seront toujours envoyées par courriernormal.

Les manuscripts se présenteront à doubleinterligne et avec le numéro correspondant àchaque ligne sur la marge gauche. Toutes lespages seront numérotées, y compriss cellesavec les références bibliographiques, lestableaux, etc. L’auteur recevra une lettre luidonnant bonne réception de son document.

Lorsqu’un article, après sa révision, seraaccepté, on demandera à l’auteur d’envoyer laversion finale révisée sur disquette (format31/2”) en Word 6.0 x Windows, ainsi qu’unecopie sur papier.

Préparation du manuscript

Sur la première page du manuscript onindiquera le titre de l’article en abrégé, le titreet noms des auteurs, des institutions, lesadresses complètes (y compris code postal etnuméro de téléphone); ainsi que tout autremoyen de contact tel que télécopie, courriel,etc. avec l’auteur principal. Le titre abrégé nedevra pas dépasser 45 caractères, plus lesespaces nécessaires, et s’écrira sur la partiesupérieure de la page 1 du manuscript enmajuscules. Le titre en entier du manuscriptsera écrit en majuscules et minuscules; ildevra être aussi bref que possible, sansdépasser 150 caractères (y compris lesespaces nécessaires), et avec l’indication desnoms des espèces. Les noms des auteurs, desinstitutions et les adresses seront en italiqueet en lettres majuscules et minuscules. Onlaissera un espace en blanc entre le titre et les

noms des auteurs. Les adresses serontindiquées comme de bas à pied de page pourchacun des auteurs après avoir laissé unespace en blanc après les noms. Chaque notede bas de page sera numérotée. On laisseradeux espaces en blanc après les adresses.

Titres

Les titres de chaque chapitre, par exempleRésumé, Introduction, etc. seront alignés àgauche. Laisser deux espaces en blanc entreles notes de bas de page avec les adresses etle Résumé, et entre le titre Résumé et le textequi suit. Le résumé ne devra pas dépasser les200 mots. Il s’agira d’un résumé objectiffaisant une brève description des processusutilisés et des résultats obtenus, et non pasune simple présentation du travail réaliséavec une description générale des résultats.Laisser un espace en blanc entre la fin dutexte du résumé et les mots clés, qui serontécrits en italique ainsi que le titre Mots clés.Les mots clés seront au maximum six et il nedevra pas y avoir de et ou &. Tous les titresprincipaux de chapitre (14 regular) etsous-chapitre (12 regular) seront en gras avecun espace en blanc avant et après. Le textecommencera sans retrait. Un titre à l’intérieurd’un sous-chapitre s’écrira en italique, suivid’un point, avec le texte à continuation.

Tableaux et figures

Les tableaux et les figures iront à la fin dutexte en suivant l’ordre d’apparition dans letexte. Les photographies ne seront pasdévolues aux auteurs.

Tableaux

Les tableaux, y compris les notes de bas depage, devront avoir un espace en blanc avantet après. Le numéro du tableau et le titres’écriront sur la partie supérieure en italique(12) avec un point à la fin et un espace enblanc en dessous. Sur chaque colonne, titred’en-tête ou sous-titre, seulement la premièrelettre du premier mot sera en majuscule. Lestableaux et leur titre seront alignés à gauche,

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

138

ainsi que le texte. Les lignes verticales ethorizontales seront utilisées seulement sinécessaire. Ne pas utiliser les "tabs" ou labarre d'espacement pour créer un tableau.

Figures

Les figures, y compris les titres et leslégendes, seront précédés et suivis de deuxespaces en blanc. Le numéro de la figure et letitre s’écriront sur la partie supérieure enitalique (12) avec un point à la fin. Sous larubrique figure on trouvera lesphotographies, les graphiques, les cartes, lesdiagrammes, etc. Dans le cas desdiagrammes, la matrice originale avec lesdonnées utilisées pour son élaboration devraêtre envoyée. On recommande l’utilisation deWord 6.0 ou Excel 5.0 pour la présentationdes diagrammes.

Références

Toute référence présente dans le texte devraapparaître sur la liste des références, etchaque référence de la liste aura été citée aumoins une fois dans le texte. Les référencesiront en ordre alphabétique du nom del’auteur, suivi de l’année.• Exemple dans le cas d’une référence sur

une revue:Köhler-Rollefson, I. 1992. The camelbreeds of India in social and historicalperspective. Animal Genetic ResourcesInformation 10, 53-64.

• Lorsqu’il s’agit de plus d’un auteur:Matos, C.A.P., D.L. Thomas, D. Gianola,R.J. Tempelman & L.D. Young. 1997.Genetic analysis of discrete reproductivetraits in sheep using linear and nonnlinearmodels: 1. Estimation of geneticparameters 75, 76-87.

• Dans le cas d’un livre ou d’unepublication ad hoc, par example unrapport, une thèse, etc.:Cockrill, W.R. (Ed.). 1994. The Husbandryand Health of the Domestic Buffalo. FAO,Rome, Italy, pp 993.

• S’il s’agit d’un acte d’une réunion:Hammond, K. 1996. FAO’s programmefor the management of farm animalgenetic resources. In C. Devendra (Ed.),Proceedings of IGA/FAO Round Table onthe Global Management of SmallRuminant Genetic Resources, Beijing, May1996, FAO, Bangkok, Thailand, 4-13.

• Lorsque l’information contenue dansl’article ait été obtenue ou dérive d’un siteWorld Wide Web, il faudra mettre le texteentre guillemets; par example “tiré de laFAO. 1996” et indiquer dans lesRéférences la forme standard URL:FAO. 1996. Domestic Animal DiversityInformation System, http://www.fao.org/dad-is/, FAO, Rome, Italy.

Pour tout envoi de manuscripts ou correspondence au sujet d’AGRI, vous êtesprié d’utiliser l’adresse suivante:

[email protected]

Merci pour votre collaboration

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

139

Reglas y normas editoriales

El objetivo del Boletín de Información sobreRecursos Genéticos Animales (AGRI) es ladivulgación de la información sobre unamejor gestión de los recursos genéticosanimales de interés para la producciónalimentaria y agrícola, siguiendo la EstrategiaMundial para la Gestión de los RecursosGenéticos de los Animales Domésticos. Todoslos aspectos referidos a la caracterización, laconservación y el uso de estos recursos serántomados en consideración, de acuerdo con elConvenio sobre la diversidad biológica.

AGRI publicará información sobregenética, encuestas fenotípicas y económicasy descripciones comparativas, uso, desarrolloy conservación de los recursos genéticosanimales, así como sobre el desarrollo deestrategias operacionales y normas quepermitan una gestión más eficaz de la relacióncosto/eficacia. Por ello, AGRI prestaráespecial atención a las contribucionesreferidas a razas y normas capaces decontribuir a la intensificación sostenible de losmedios (agroecosistemas) con ingresosmedios y bajos en el mundo, quecomprenden casi la mayor parte de lastierras dedicadas a la producción ganadera;la producción total de alimentos yagricultura provenientes de la ganadería; yel resto de los recursos genéticos de animalesdomésticos.

Los puntos de vista expresados en losartículos publicados en AGRI son solamentelas opiniones de los autores y, por tanto, noreflejan necesariamente la opinión de lasinstituciones para las cuales trabajan dichosautores, de la FAO o de los editores.

La oportunidad o no de publicar unartículo en AGRI será juzgada por los editoresy revisores.

Publicación electrónica

Además de su publicación impresa, la versióníntegra de AGRI se encuentra disponibleelectrónicamente en Internet, en el sitio:www.fao.org/dad-is/

Tipos de artículos

Serán publicados en AGRI los siguientes tiposde artículos:

Artículos sobre investigación

Se tomarán en consideración para supublicación en AGRI los estudios sobre lacaracterización, conservación y uso de losrecursos genéticos de los animales domésticos(AnGR) con una buena descripción delentorno. Se agradecerá el envío de fotografíasde calidad que presenten a las razas encuestión en su ambiente natural deproducción.

Artículos de revisión

Se podrán tomar en consideraciónocasionalmente aquellos artículos quepresenten una revisión de losagroecosistemas, a nivel nacional, regional omundial, con el desarrollo de uno o másaspectos referidos a la gestión de los recursosgenéticos animales, incluidas las revisionessobre el estado actual de las distintas áreasde AnGR.

Artículos específicos

Se solicitarán puntualmente artículos sobretemas específicos para ediciones especiales.

Otro material para publicación

Incluye la revisión de libros, noticias y notasreferidas a reuniones importantes, cursos deformación y principales eventos nacionales,regionales e internacionales, así comoconclusiones y recomendaciones relacionadascon los objetivos de estos principales eventos.Se invita a los lectores a enviar este tipo dematerial a los editores.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

140

Guía para los autores

Presentación del manuscrito

Los artículos se presentarán en inglés, francéso español, junto con un resumen en inglés ysu traducción en francés o español, y seenviarán al editor de AGRI, AGAP, FAO,Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Roma,Italia. El artículo deberá ser enviado enversión WinWord en fichero adjunto porcorreo electrónico a [email protected] fotografías, color o en blanco y negro, seenviarán siempre por correo normal.

Los manuscritos se presentarán con dobleespacio y con el número correspondiente acada línea en el margen izquierdo. Todas laspáginas serán numeradas, incluidas las de lasreferencias bibliográficas, cuadros, etc. Elautor recibirá una notificación sobre larecepción de su documento.

En el caso de aceptación de un artículodespués de su revisión, se solicitará al autoruna versión final de su artículo revisado endisquete (formato 31/2”) en Word 6.0 xWindows, así como una copia impresa delmismo.

Preparación del manuscrito

En la primera página del manuscrito seindicará el título abreviado del artículo, títulosy nombres de los autores, instituciones,direcciones completas (incluido código postaly número de teléfono); así como otros mediosde contacto tales como fax, correoelectrónico, etc. del autor principal. El títuloabreviado no deberá sobrepasar los45 caracteres más los espacioscorrespondientes, y aparecerá en la partesuperior de la página 1 del manuscrito enmayúsculas. El título entero del manuscritose escibirá en mayúsculas y minúsculas.Dicho título debe ser lo más breve posible yno sobrepasar los 150 caracteres (incluidoslos espacios necesarios), con los nombres delas especies, si necesario. Los nombres de losautores, instituciones y direcciones seescribirán en cursiva y en letras mayúsculasy minúsculas. Se dejará una línea en blanco

entre el título y los nombres de los autores.Las direcciones se escribirán como notas depie de página de cada autor después de dejaruna línea en blanco entre los nombres yéstas. Cada nota de pie de página con ladirección será indicada numéricamente. Sedejarán dos líneas en blanco después de lasdirecciones.

Títulos

Los títulos de cada sección, por ejemploResumen, Introducción, etc., serán alineadosa la izquierda. Dejar dos líneas en blancoentre las notas de pie de página con lasdirecciones y el Resumen y entre el títuloResumen y el texto que sigue. El resumen nodeberá exceder de 200 palabras. Deberá serun resumen objetivo que describabrevemente los procesos y logros obtenidos, yno una presentación de cómo se ha llevado acabo el estudio y una descripción genérica delos resultados. Dejar una línea en blancoentre el final del texto del resumen y laspalabras clave, que se escribirán en cursivaasí como el titulo Palabras clave. No deberánser más de seis y no deberán contener “y” o“&”. Todos los títulos principales de capítulo(14 regular) y subcapítulo (12 regular) seránen negrita e irán precedidos y seguidos deuna línea en blanco. El texto correspondienteempezará sin sangrado. Un título dentro deun subcapítulo se escribirá en cursiva e iráseguido de un punto con a continuación eltexto correspondiente.

Cuadros y figuras

Los cuadros y las figuras se incluirán al finaldel texto siguiendo el orden de cita dentro delmismo. Las fotografías no serán devueltas asus autores.

Cuadros

Los cuadros, incluidas las notas de pie depágina, deberán ir precedidos y seguidos pordos líneas en blanco. El número del cuadro ysu título se escribirán en la parte superior encursiva (12) con un punto al final y seguido

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

141

de una línea en blanco. En cada columna otítulo de encabezamiento o subtítulo, sólo laprimera letra de la primera palabra irá enmayúscula. Los cuadros irán numerados deforma consecutiva con números árabes. Loscuadros y sus títulos se alinearán a laizquierda, así como el texto. Se utilizaránlíneas horizontales o verticales sólo cuandosea necesario. No utilizar tabuladores o labarra espaciadora para crear un cuadro.

Figuras

Las figuras, incluidos los títulos y leyendas,irán precedidas y seguidas de dos líneas enblanco. El número de la figura y el título seescribirán en la parte superior en cursiva (12)con un punto al final. La palabra figuraincluye las fotografías, los gráficos, los mapas,los diagramas, etc. En el caso del diagrama seenviará la matriz original con los datosutilizados para crearlo. Se recomiendaencarecidamente la utilización de Word 6.0 oExcel 5.0 para la presentación de losdiagramas.

Referencias

Toda referencia presente en el texto deberáaparecer en la lista de referencias y, de lamisma manera, cada referencia de la listadeberá haber sido citada por lo menos unavez en el texto. Las referencias deben ir enorden alfabético del apellido del autor,seguido por el año.

• Ejemplo en el caso de una referencia deuna revista:Köhler-Rollefson, I. 1992. The camelbreeds of India in social and historicalperspective. Animal Genetic ResourcesInformation 10, 53-64.

• Cuando se trate de más de un autor:Matos, C.A.P., D.L. Thomas, D. Gianola,R.J. Tempelman & L.D. Young. 1997.Genetic analysis of discrete reproductivetraits in sheep using linear and nonnlinearmodels: 1. Estimation of geneticparameters 75, 76-87.

• En el caso de un libro o de unapublicación ad hoc, por ejemplo informes,tesis, etc.:Cockrill, W.R. (Ed.). 1994. The Husbandryand Health of the Domestic Buffalo. FAO,Rome, Italy, pp 993.

• Cuando se trate de un artículo dentro delas actas de una reunión:Hammond, K. 1996. FAO’s programmefor the management of farm animalgenetic resources. In C. Devendra (Ed.),Proceedings of IGA/FAO Round Table onthe Global Management of SmallRuminant Genetic Resources, Beijing,May 1996, FAO, Bangkok, Thailand, 4-13.

• Cuando la información contenida en elartículo haya sido obtenida o derive de unsitio World Wide Web, poner el texto entrecomillas; por ejemplo “sacado de la FAO.1996” e indicar en las Referencias laforma estándar URL:FAO. 1996. Domestic Animal DiversityInformation System, http://www.fao.org/dad-is/, FAO, Rome, Italy.

Se ruega enviar los manuscritos o la correspondencia relativa a AGRI a ladirección siguiente:

[email protected]

Gracias por su colaboración

412007

2 0

0 7

41

Special issue:Interlaken International Conference

Numero especial:Conferencia Internacional de Interlaken

Numéro spécial:Conférence Internationale d’Interlaken

9 7 8 9 2 5 0 0 5 7 6 4 4TC/D/A1206Tri/1/07.07/2400

ISBN 978-92-5-005764-4 ISSN 1014-2339

Special issue: Interlaken International Conference Numero especial ...

Documents

Transcript of Special issue: Interlaken International Conference Numero especial ...