Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


I. Executive Summary and Delineation of Agroecological Zones, Livestock Systems, and Countries


1. Executive Summary
2. Delineation of Agroecological Zones, Livestock Systems, and Countries
3. References

1. Executive Summary

Concerns about degradation of forests and other natural resources, growing awareness about potentially adverse climate changes, and a greater consciousness worldwide about the need for protection of the earth’s environment have led to increased attention on agricultural and animal husbandry practices. These concerns are a natural and predictable reaction as human population continues to increase at unparalleled numbers each year. For example, in 1950 there were just 2.5 billion people in the world. Forty years later, in 1990, this planet had 5 billion. By 2025 human population is expected to reach 8.5 billion people. In just seventy-five years-the life span of an average person in an economically developed country-population will have increased more than it did in all the previous history of the world. Little wonder that agricultural scientists as well as non-agriculturalists feel the time has come to take bold action to save our remaining forest habitat, prevent and even reverse land degradation, and develop a plan which will assure future generations of sustainable agricultural practices.

This report focuses on worldwide livestock grazing and mixed farming systems in Temperate and Humid-Subhumid Tropic and Subtropic Agroecological Zones. Excluded are all lands of Africa, all Tropical Highlands, and Arid and Semiarid Tropics and Subtropics. The scope of this focus is massive as it includes 60 percent of the world’s people, 50 percent of the pasture land, 65 percent of the arable land, 59 percent of the world’s cattle, 44 percent of the sheep and goats, as well as similar proportions of other forage-consuming animals (Table I.1).

The report is partioned into five major parts: one main introduction and an additional introduction each for the Livestock Grazing Systems in Temperate Zones (LGT), Livestock Grazing Systems in Humid-Subhumid Tropic and Subtropic Zones (LGH), Rainfed Mixed Farming Systems in Temperate Zones (MRT), and Rainfed Mixed Farming Systems in Humid-Subhumid tropic and Subtropic Zones (MRH). The differences in these four system/zones, summarized in Table I.1, are striking in that the livestock grazing systems represent extensively managed regions with low densities of humans and animals per unit area compared to the mixed farming systems.

Table I.1 Summary of Characteristics of the Four System/Zones and Comparison to World Totals

Item (mill)

LGT

LGH

MRT

MRH

All Others

Human pop

120.8

257.5

1,436.1

1,463.4

2,187.2

Pasture land (ha)

441.3

428.9

584.3

230.8

1,665.2

Cropland (ha)

33.3

57.2

583.8

204.9

467.2

Cattle

32.0

153.3

314.4

262.4

1,087.7

Sheep

106.5

81.6

306.0

68.5


Goats

53.0

28.4

42.1

71.9

956.9*

Item (%)






Human pop

2.2

4.7

26.3

26.8

40.0

Pasture land

13.2

12.8

17.4

6.9

49.7

Cropland

2.5

4.2

43.4

15.2

34.7

Cattle

2.5

11.9

24.4

20.0

41.2

Sheep and Goats

9.3

6.4

20.3

8.2

55.8

LGT = Livestock Grazing Temperate
LGH = Livestock Grazing Humid-Subhumid Tropics and Subtropics
MRT = Mixed Farming RainfedTemperate
MRH = Mixed Farming Rainfed Humid-Subhumid Tropics and Subtropics

* Sheep plus goats

The overriding issues of primary importance are the role and impact of grazing animals in the sustainability issue, and the methods that can be used to accommodate humankind’s desires and needs for these animals as a source of food, power, fiber, and a host of byproducts. Critics of using animals for humankind’s needs cry out, along with many well-intentioned, yet perhaps uninformed, people, that animals are the culprits for much of the world’s ecological degradation, as though it is the animals themselves that are responsible. However, it is not animals, but rather humans, that are responsible because of rapid increases in human population and shortsighted policies by both national and international policymakers. This observation leads to our first conclusion: Policymakers and institutions associated with them, rather than individual citizens, consumers, or livestock producers, are responsible for resource degradation. Consumers are acting in a predictable manner by increasingly expanding their per capita consumption of livestock products as incomes increase. It is unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future, that consumption habits will significantly shift from livestock products. Furthermore, livestock producers are acting in the most rational and predictable manner in using resources and inputs in the most cost efficient fashion as perceived by producers subject to their own constraints. Changes in behavior of producers takes place when they have sufficient income to allow practices that have long-term implications, when they have land tenure positions that turn their attention to long-term implications, and when they are convinced, cajoled, or forced by government into practices with long-term sustainability goals.

A second conclusion is that myriad technologies exist which can greatly expand productivity of livestock even with rising incomes, increased per capita consumption of livestock products, and expanding human populations. These technologies, management practices, and economic relationships are generally well-known and not especially difficult to implement, provided there are appropriate policies, attention to extension education, and sound analysis.

A third conclusion is that most technologies and practices have lower limits in terms of farm size for effective implementation. Very small units simply are not a viable target for a vision based on rapid productivity increases. The concepts of “small is beautiful” and “a piece of land for everyone” were appropriate in earlier decades when regions and countries were relatively isolated, communication was poor, and human population was relatively small. However, today most middle-income countries, and even some lower-income ones, have much heavier population densities and are becoming increasingly urbanized. Furthermore, many of these countries are projected to have either stable or absolute declines in rural populations. Clearly, there are great variations among countries and among regions in a country. Nevertheless, it is concluded that policy-oriented studies should be made for grazing-based animals about size requirements by type of agroecological zone subject to some predetermined level of productivity.

This report provides substantial information about grazing lands, livestock systems, etc. However, given the complexity of the agroecological zones, it is not possible to even begin to develop more than the broadest strategies for rangeland development. It is concluded that the detailed tables of the zones and information about them can be used by a study group to set goals of animal productivity for future time periods. Once the productivity levels have been set as “working levels,” technologies, inputs, extension needs, and policies can be examined to determine how the goals can be reached. In this way a comprehensive program can be formulated which includes all aspects of animal husbandry and land care. From that, projects will emerge to fill the missing link between research and producer.

2. Delineation of Agroecological Zones, Livestock Systems, and Countries


2.1 Background and Rationale
2.2 Assignment of Primary Characteristics
2.3 Assignment of Secondary Characteristics

2.1 Background and Rationale

The report, provided by FAO, by Carlos Sere does not include specific information as to which countries and/or parts of countries comprise the totals (e.g., population, ha of pasture and crop land, numbers of livestock, etc.) reported for the specified agroecological zone-livestock system (AZ-LS) combinations (e.g., livestock grazing systems in temperate/tropical highland zones [LGT]). Instead, information for each AZ-LS is reported separately for seven geopolitical groupings of countries (e.g., Western Asia-Northern Africa [WANA]), and the countries comprising each grouping are specified. The only additional clues as to which countries, or parts of countries, are included in the totals for an AZ-LS are table footnotes and general discussion in the text of the report, which discuss countries that possess “typical” characteristics for an AZ-LS.

Clearly, if we are to do an adequate job of discussing the primary and secondary indicators of livestock-environmental interaction for our specific AZ-LS combinations, we must be able to determine which countries, and at least approximate areas within countries, that belong to the different AZ-LS combinations. This report details the procedure used to arrive at the necessary reconciliation.

The first step was to obtain as much information from Sere’s report as possible. Sere reported characteristic information for nine AZ-LS combinations. The combinations were made up of three agroecological zones; humid-subhumid tropics-subtropics (H), arid-semiarid tropics-subtopics (A) (which also included some arid temperate areas) and temperate/tropical highland areas (T) and three livestock production systems; predominantly grazing (LG), rainfed mixed farming (MR), and irrigated mixed farming (MI). The nine areas were thus designated LGH, LGA, LGT, MRH, MRA, MRT, MIH, MIA, and MIT. Sere also reported on two landless livestock production systems which were not linked to agroecological zones.

The GMS-FAO contract specifies that GMS is responsible for analyzing livestock-environmental interactions in four AZ-LS combinations that are somewhat different from the nine described by Sere. That is, GMS is responsible for all humid-subhumid tropic-subtropic zones, excluding Africa, and all temperate zones, excluding tropical highlands. Also, GMS is required to differentiate between rainfed and irrigated mixed farming systems. Thus, there are four AZ-LS combinations of interest to GMS: LGT, MRT, LGH, and MRH, excluding Africa and all tropical highlands. All arid zones and irrigated systems were also assigned to other consultants for analysis.

The geopolitical groupings used in Sere’s report were Subsaharan Africa (SSA), Asia (South and Eastern) (ASIA), Central and South America (including the Caribbean and Mexico) (CSA), WANA (described above), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development member countries (primarily North America and Europe, plus Japan) (OECD), Eastern Europe and the Communist Independent States (former) (EE-CIS), and other developed countries (Israel and South Africa) (OTH DVP). Examination of Sere’s reporting of characteristics of the AZ-LS combinations by geopolitical grouping revealed that

1. all SSA could be ignored because it included only data from Africa,

2. the Western Asia part of WANA was almost entirely in the arid AZ with only a small amount in temperate,

3. all of the EE-CIS were assigned to the MR/IT AZ-LS combination; and

4. all of the OTH DVP could be ignored because it was either in an arid AZ or in Africa.

Thus, what remained was the task of determining which countries and/or parts of countries in ASIA, CSA, and OECD belonged in the AZ-LS of interest and which country or countries in WANA contained the temperate AZ.

Requests to FAO for additional information resulted in its providing the Physical Resource Base map which showed the major soil and climatic divisions for SSA, ASIA, CSA, and WANA; and FAO-sponsored reports on crop production potential for the same geopolitical groupings, containing spreadsheets with listings of the portion of each country (total land area and 1990 human population) in each of the major AZ divisions. Unfortunately, there was some inconsistency between the two sources in the definition of AZ division. No information, however, was provided for the OECD countries.

2.2 Assignment of Primary Characteristics

It was decided to approach the task of determining the makeup of the AZ-LS combinations of interest in steps. The first step was to select the primary characteristics of the AZ-LS on which to base the determination. We chose “human population in 1990,” “hectares of pasture,” and “hectares of arable (crop) land” as the three characteristics on which to base the initial assignment of countries to AZ-LS combinations.

The second step was to obtain a source of information on the selected characteristics for the countries in each geopolitical grouping. The “World Resource Database” (WRD) (World Resources Institute 1994) was selected. The close match between WRD data and Sere’s data was confirmed by summing the entries for each characteristic-geopolitical grouping across all AZ-LS combinations (Tables 1 through 9 in Sere’s report) and comparing the totals thus obtained with the totals obtained by summing the WRD entry for the same characteristic across all countries listed as members of each geopolitical group (see the first four columns of Tables I.2, I.3 and I.4 of this report).

The third step was to determine the amounts of each characteristic for each country that belonged in each AZ. This task was accomplished for the ASIA, CIS, and WANA geopolitical group countries by consulting the Physical Resource Base map and spreadsheets furnished by FAO. In cases where a country’s land and human population were in different AZs, the total of pasture and arable land and population were apportioned to each AZ based on the portion of “total land area” and population in the AZ reported in the FAO spreadsheet (see last six columns of Tables I.2 and I.3). For each country with land in the temperate AZ an additional designation was made to differentiate true temperate from tropical highland AZs. By mutual agreement with other consultants and FAO, the Himalayan Mountain areas were included in the tropical highland areas. Specific amounts of pasture and crop land were assigned based on the amount of each type of land in each country and the portion of each type of land in each AZ within the geopolitical group. For the OECD countries, it was first determined that, with the exception of Australia and the United States, all the countries were entirely in the temperate AZ. Australia and U.S. lands and populations were portioned to the three AZs based on the GMS consultants’ familiarity with the countries and the portion of arid and humid AZ in the OECD geopolitical group as reported by Sere (see the last six columns of Table I.4).

The fourth step was to assign the amounts of each characteristic for each country into the appropriate LS within each AZ. These assignments were made by considering the amounts of each characteristic in each AZ-LS combination within the geopolitical group reported by Sere, Sere’s description of which countries were “typical” of specific AZ-LS combinations, and the GMS consultants’ familiarity with the areas (see Appendix Tables A-1, A-2, and A-3).

The final step was to consolidate and summarize the information from Appendix Tables A-1, A-2, and A-3 into a concise listing of the amounts of each country’s characteristics used to comprise each of the four AZ-LS combinations assigned to GMS for analysis. These summaries are contained in Tables I.5 (Human Population), I.6 (Pasture Land), and I.7 (Crop Land) for LGT, LGH, MRT, and MRH, respectively. More detail of the countries in each zone are provided in the introductions in each of the four system-zone sections of this report.

2.3 Assignment of Secondary Characteristics

Additional important characteristics, such as numbers of head of cattle, sheep, and goats, were assigned to the AZ-LS combinations in a manner similar to the last three steps in the procedure described above. The numbers (for 1990) of head of livestock for each country were obtained from the same WRD source as the primary characteristic data. Cattle numbers for Canada, U.S., Japan, and selected European countries were adjusted to account for cattle in feedlots and dry-lot dairies (landless systems). The assignments of each country’s stocks to the specific AZ-LS combination are shown in Appendix Tables A-4 through A-6 for the ASIA, CSA, and OECD geopolitical groups. This data is then summarized for the four AZ-LS of interest in Tables I.8 through I.10.

Table I.2. Human Population, Arable and Pasture Land by Agroecological Zone for ASIA (land in million hectares, population in millions)


 

Pasture land

 

Crop land

Total land

 

Total population

Agroecological Zones

Arid/Semiarid

Humid/Subhumid

Temperate*

land area

pop.

land area

pop.

land area

pop.

Bangladesh

0.6

9.4

10

115.6

0

0

10

115.6

0

0

Bhutan

0.3

0.1

0.4

1.5

0

0

0

0

0.4

1.5

Brunei








0.3



China

400

96.6

496.6

1114.3

58.3

161.4

168.8

541.9

274**

411**

India

11.8

169.6

181.4

817.3

112.5

443.6

45.9

271.6

23

102

Indonesia

11.8

22

33.8

180.5



33.8

180.5



Kampuchea

0.6

3.1

3.7

8.2



3.7

8.2



Laos

0.8

0.9

1.7

4.1



1.7

4.1



Malaysia

4.9

4.9

17.3



4.9

17.3




Mongolia

124.6

1.4

126

2.2

26.1

0.3



100**

1.9**

Myanmar (Burma)

0.4

10.1

10.5

41.7



10.5

41.7



Nepal

2

2.7

4.7

19.1





4.7

19.1

North Korea

0.5

2

2.5

22.3



0.7

13.6

1.4**

8.7**

Pakistan

5

21.1

26.1

122.7

26.1

122.7





P. New Guinea

0.1

0.4

0.5

4


9.3

62.4




Philippines

1.3

8

9.3

62.4



9.3

62.4



Singapore




2.7




2.7



South Korea

0.8

2.1

2.9

42.9



1.7

39.6

0.5**

3.3**

Sri Lanka

0.4

1.9

2.3

17.2



2.3

17.2



Thailand

0.8

23

23.8

48.7

4.6

4.5

19.2

44.2



Vietnam

0.3

6.4

6.7

67.2



6.7

67.2



TOTAL

562.1

385.7

947.8

2712.2

227.6

732.5

319.7

1432.1

404

547.5

Percent

59.3

40.7



23.9

27

33.6

52.8

42.5

20.2










375.9***

424.9***

*Temperate and Tropical Highlands
**True Temperate Areas
***Temperate Total less Tropical Highlands
Table I.3. Human Population, Arable and Pasture Land by Agroecological Zone for Central and South America (land in million hectares, population in millions)


 

Pasture land

Crop land

Total land

 

Total population

 

Agroecological Zones

Arid/Semiarid

Humid/Subhumid

Temperate*

land area

pop.

land area

pop.

land area

pop.

Argentina

142.2

25

167.2

32.3

24.3

2.2

93.5

15.3

49.4**

14.8**

Barbados

0.01

0.03

0.04

0.3

0

0

0

0.3

0

0

Belize

0.05

0.04

0.09

0.2

0

0

0.1

0.2

0

0

Bolivia

26.6

2.1

28.7

7.3

9.6

2.5

13.8

2

5.3

2.8

Brazil

184.2

50.4

234.6

150.4

33.9

20.6

200.7

129.8

0

0

Chile

13.5

4

17.5

13.2

2

1.5

0

0

15.5**

11.7**

Columbia

40.4

3.9

44.3

31.8

0

0

37.5

7.9

6.8

23.9

Costa Rica

2.3

0.3

2.6

3

0

0

1.8

1.5

0.8

1.5

Cuba

3

2.6

5.6

11.5

4.1

7.5

1.5

4

0

0

Dominican Republic

2.1

1

3.1

7.2

0

0

3.1

7.2

0

0

Ecuador

5.2

1.7

6.9

10.6

2.2

3.4

2.8

2.2

1.8

5

El Salvador

0.6

0.6

1.2

5.2

0

0

0.4

1.7

0.8

3.5

French Guiana

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.1

0

0

0

0.1

0

0

Guatemala

1.4

1.4

2.8

9.2

0

0

1.9

4

0.9

5.2

Guyana

1.2

0.5

1.7

1

0

0

1.7

1

0

0

Haiti

0.5

0.5

1

6.5

1.1

6.5

0

0

0

0

Honduras

2.6

1.6

4.2

5.1

0

0

2.3

2

1.9

3.1

Jamaica

0.2

0.2

0.4

2.5

0

0

0.4

2.5

0

0

Martinique

0.02

0.01

0.03

0.3

0

0

0

0.3

0

0

Mexico

74.5

23.1

97.6

88.6

56.6

51.4

33.4

22

7.6

15.2

Nicaragua

5.4

1.1

6.5

3.9

0

0

6.5

3.9

0

0

Panama

1.6

0.5

2.1

2.4

0

0

2.1

2.4

0

0

Paraguay

21.1

2.1

23.2

4.3

0

0

23.2

4.3

0

0

Peru

27.1

3.4

30.5

22.3

0

0

18.3

6.9

12.3

15.4

Puerto Rico

0.3

0.1

0.4

3.7

0

0

0.3

1.4

0.1

2.3

St. Lucia

0

0.01

0.01

0.1

0

0

0

0.1

0

0

Suriname

0.02

0.06

0.08

0.4

0

0

0.1

0.4

0

0

Trinidad and Tobago

0.01

0.07

0.08

1.3

0

0

0.1

1.3

0

0

Uruguay

13.5

1.3

14.8

3.1

0

0

14.8

3.1

0

0

Venezuela

17.7

3.2

20.9

19.4

7.2

9.7

13.7

9.7

0

0

TOTAL

587.32

130.83

718.15

447.2

141

105.3

474

237.5

103.2

104.4

Percent

81.8

18.2



19.6

23.5

66

53.1

14.4

23.3










64.9***

26.5***

*Temperate and Tropical Highlands
**True Temperate Areas
***Temperate Total less Tropical Highland
Table I.4 Human Population, Arable and Pasture Land by Agroecological Zone for OECD (land in million hectares, population in millions)


 

Pasture land

Crop land

 

Total land

 

Total population

Agroecological Zones

Arid/Semiarid

Humid/Subhumid

Temperate*

land area

pop.

land area

pop.

land area

pop.

Australia

415.9

46.9

462.8

17

352.7

4

65.7

7

44.4

6

Austria

2

1.5

3.5

7.7





3.5

7.7

Belgium/Luxembg.

0.7

0.8

1.5

10.4





1.5

10.4

Canada

28

45.9

73.9

26.6





73.9

26.6

Denmark

0.2

2.6

2.8

5.1





2.8

5.1

Finland

0.1

2.5

2.6

5





2.6

5

France

11.2

19.2

30.4

56.7





30.4

56.7

Germany

5.3

12

17.3

79.5





17.3

79.5

Greece

5.3

3.9

9.2

10.1





9.2

10.1

Iceland

2.3

0

2.3

0.3





2.3

0.3

Ireland

4.7

0.9

5.6

3.5





5.6

3.5

Italy

4.9

12

16.9

57.7





16.9

57.7

Japan

0.7

4.6

5.3

123.5





5.3

123.5

Netherlands

1.1

0.9

2

14.9





2

14.9

New Zealand

13.7

0.4

14.1

3.4





14.1

3.4

Norway

0.1

0.9

1

4.2





1

4.2

Portugal

0.8

3.2

4

9.9





4

9.9

Spain

10.3

20.1

30.4

39





30.4

39

Sweden

0.6

2.8

3.4

8.6





3.3

8.6

Switzerland

1.6

0.4

2

6.7





2

6.7

United Kingdom

11.2

6.6

17.8

57.4





17.8

57.4

United States

239.2

187.8

427

250

88.7

50

62.5

44

275.7

156

Yugoslavia

6.4

7.7

14.1

23.8





14.1

23.8

TOTAL

766.3

383.6

1149.9

821

441.4

54

128.2

51

580.1

716

Percent

66.6

33.4



38.4

6.6

11.2

6.2

50.5

87.2


Table I.5 Summary of Human Population by System/Zone and Region with Major Countries

Percent of System/Zone Total

Region\System-Zone

LGT

LGH

MRT

MRH

OECD

8.3

4.4

34.6

2.7


N. America

4.2

3.8

12.4

2.3


S. Pacific

1.0

0.6

0.6

0.4


Europe

3.1

-

21.6

-

CSA

10.2

25.7

1.0

11.6

ASIA

73.7

70.0

23.3

85.7

WANA

8.0

-

-

-

EE&CIS

-

-

26.5

-

Major Countries





Argentina

6.5

3.1

0.5

0.5

Bangladesh

-

-

-

7.9

Brazil

-

11.7

-

6.8

Chile

3.7

-

0.5

-

China

73.7

70.0

22.5

24.7

Columbia

-

3.1

-

-

France

-

-

4.0

-

India

-

-

-

18.6

Indonesia

-

-

-

12.3

Japan

-

-

8.6

-

USA

2.7

3.8

10.6

2.3

USSR

-

-

19.6

-

% of World Zone Total

64.0

78.0

85.0

83.0

% of World Total

2.2

4.7

26.3

26.8


Table I.6. Summary of Pasture Land by System/Zone and Region with Major Countries

Percent of System/Zone Total

Region\System-Zone

LGT

LGH

MRT

MRH

OECD

25.1

19.4

28.6

7.2


N. America

18.1

9.1

14.3

3.8


S. Pacific

4.6

10.3

4.6

3.4


Europe

3.0

-

9.7

-

CSA

10.8

62.4

2.0

53.4

ASIA

60.9

18.2

10.8

39.5

WANA

3.3

-

-

-

EE&CIS

-

-

58.5

-

Major Countries





Argentina

9.7

14.9

0.8

4.6

Australia

3.0

10.3

3.4

3.4

Brazil

-

18.7

-

35.7

China

60.9

18.2

10.4

30.5

Columbia

-

8.4

-

-

Indonesia

-

-

-

5.1

Mexico

-

3.7

-

4.1

Mongolia

21.9

-

0.4

-

USA

15.6

3.8

11.0

3.8

USSR

-

-

56.0

-

% of World Zone Total

86.0

71.0

94.0

76.0

% of World Total

13.2

12.8

17.4

6.9


Table I.7. Summary of Crop Land by System/Zone and Region with Major Countries

Percent of System/Zone Total

Region\System-Zone

LGT

LGH

MRT

MRH

OECD

41.4

21.0

49.1

8.1


N. America

22.2

9.3

31.1

4.7


S. Pacific

7.5

11.7

1.6

3.4


Europe

11.7

-

16.4

-

CSA

9.6

63.4

0.4

22.9

ASIA

45.1

15.7

5.0

69.0

WANA

3.9

-

-

-

EE&CIS

-

-

45.1

-

Major Countries





Argentina

5.4

21.0

0.0

3.4

Australia

7.5

11.7

1.5

3.4

Bangladesh

-

-

-

4.6

Brazil

-

24.5

-

12.0

Canada

12.0

-

7.2

-

Chile

4.2

-

0.4

-

China

45.1

15.7

4.5

5.6

France

-

-

3.3

-

India

-

-

-

20.7

Indonesia

-

-

-

10.7

Mexico

-

5.2

-

2.4

Myanmar

-

-

-

4.9

Spain

6.3

-

3.1

-

USA

10.2

9.3

23.9

4.7

USSR

-

-

38.4

-

% of World Zone Total

83.0

76.0

95.0

88.0

% of World Total

2.5

4.2

43.4

15.2


Table I.8. Summary of Cattle Stocks by System/Zone and Region with Major Countries

Percent of System/Zone Total

Region\System-Zone

LGT

LGH

MRT

MRH

OECD

50.2

4.5

49.3

4.2


N. America

26.9

2.0

17.5

3.4


S. Pacific

9.0

2.5

4.6

0.8


Europe

14.3

-

25.8

-

CSA

36.5

82.8

1.7

42.0

ASIA

26.5

12.7

3.5

53.6

WANA

3.4

-

-

-

EE&CIS

-

-

45.6

-

Major Countries





Argentina

33.4

13.5

1.2

3.2

Bangladesh

-

-

-

8.8

Brazil

-

37.8

-

29.0

China

20.9

12.7

3.2

12.1

Columbia

-

9.3

-

-

France

-

-

6.5

-

Germany

-

-

6.1

-

India

-

-

-

19.4

Indonesia

-

-

-

4.1

Myanmar

-

-

-

3.5

USA

18.8

2.0

14.7

3.4

USSR

-

-

37.6

-

% of World Zone Total

46.4

81.5

83.0

90.1

% of World Total

2.5

11.9

20.0

20.0


Table I.9. Summary of Sheep Stocks by System/Zone and Region with Major Countries

Percent of System/Zone Total

Region\System-Zone

LGT

LGH

MRT

MRH

OECD

58.6

28.9

36.3

0.8


N. America

1.6

5.0

0.6

0.6


S. Pacific

39.0

23.9

13.6

0.2


Europe

18.0

-

22.1

-

CSA

9.3

57.0

1.4

30.8

ASIA

34.1

14.1

6.48

68.8

WANA

4.2

-

-

-

EE&CIS

-

-

55.8

-

Major Countries





Argentina

7.0

9.8

0.3

4.1

Australia

3.0

23.9

6.4

0.2

Brazil

-

9.3

-

9.2

China

24.8

14.1

5.8

37.2

India

-

-

-

20.4

Indonesia

-

-

-

8.6

Mongolia

9.3

-

0.6

-

New Zealand

36.0

-

7.2

-

Spain

8.0

-

5.2

-

Uruguay

-

22.1

-

10.5

USSR

-

-

45.2

-

% of World Zone Total

86.4*

74.5*

84.7*

70.2*

% of World Total

9.3*

6.4*

20.3*

8.2*

* Includes sheep and goats
Table I.10. Summary of Goat Stocks by System/Zone and Region with Major Countries

Percent of System/Zone Total

Region\System-Zone

LGT

LGH

MRT

MRH

OECD

10.8

2.2

19.4

0.1


N. America

0.2

1.8

0.2

0.1


S. Pacific

1.7

0.4

0.7

0.0


Europe

8.9

-

18.5

-

CSA

4.0

40.8

1.5

6.6

ASIA

83.4

57.4

57.0

92.5

WANA

3.8

-

-

-

EE&CIS

-

-

21.9

-

Major Countries





Argentina

3.4

1.6

1.0

0.3

Bangladesh

-

-

-

29.2

Brazil

-

21.1

-

3.5

China

76.8

57.4

55.6

6.4

Greece

4.3

-

7.1

-

India

-

-

-

34.8

Indonesia

-

-

-

15.6

Mexico

-

8.5

-

1.4

Mongolia

6.6

-

1.2

-

Spain

3.8

-

4.0

-

USSR

-

-

15.7

-

% of World Zone Total

86.4*

75.4*

84.7*

70.2*

% of World Total

9.3*

6.4*

20.3*

8.2*

* Includes sheep and goats.

3. References

Sere, C. 1994. Characterisation and Quantification of Livestock Production Systems. FAO/OPHD.

FAO. 1983. Main Climatic and Soil Divisions in the Developing World.

FAO. n.d. Various Studies of Cropping Potential for the Developing Countries.


Previous Page Top of Page Next Page