I have been involved in the AI and ET industries for the last 20 years both in the USA and in developing countries. My question to the participants in this panel is: Has any study been done to thoroughly evaluate the impact of biotechnology on the animal industry in developing countries?
My experience has been that the use of these technologies is usually erratic and depends on funds provided by "development projects" and as soon as these funds are gone the activity ceases. The farmer realizes that this is not a reliable method for animal breeding and revert back to using natural mating.
The inefficiency of biotechnological methods from an economic point of view is not a characteristic of developing countries. Some of the largest western dairies in the USA, that I visit today rely almost exclusively on bull breeding.
I would like to point out that when there funds are available and there is a genuine interest in developing these techniques, backed by good results, it is easy to bypass almost any of the so-called "cultural" problems. I have personally convinced many small farmers to use artificial insemination in the bovine and even in the ovine species, they usually look at these technologies with some reservation at the beginning but as soon as the results are seen the technique is accepted.
My opinion is that in many instances the use of biotechnology has been looked at as a magic solution to the growing demand on animal product. We all know that genetic improvement can only be expressed if other facets of livestock management are improved namely Health and nutrition. It is therefore mandatory that any implementation of reproductive biotechnology be part of a larger program to improve health and forage production.
Ahmed Tibary D.M.V., MS, Ph.D.
Diplomate, American College of Theriogenologists
Dept. Veterinary Clinical Sciences
College of Veterinary Medicine
Washington State University
Pullman, WA 99164-6610
Phone: 509-335-1963
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 2:00 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Biotech, environment and socio-economics
My name is Keith Woodford, currently Reader in Rural Management & Agribusiness at The University of Queensland, but as from ten days time Professor of Farm Management & Agribusiness at Lincoln University in New Zealand. Until now I have been a non-participating observer in both this and the previous conference (on crops), content as a non-geneticist to learn from listening to the debate. However, as someone closely involved in rural development issues in a range of countries, I believe that the recent discussion on genotype by environment (GxE) interactions is fundamental and needs re-inforcing. Also, although the aim of the biotech conference organisers might well have been to focus primarily on technical issues, the reality is that any discussion on the relevance of these technologies only makes sense when placed within a socio-economic context.
If we think back to the fundamentals of ecology and evolution, then a fundamental principle is that animals are 'fit' for the environment in which they evolved. Genetic improvement does not come as a 'free lunch'. If we change the genetics then the chances are that we must also change the environment. My own observations in the Pacific and Asia over the last 20 years are that too often those of us from developed countries have advocated so-called improved animals (often from our own countries) for the developing world. Graduates from these less developed countries have themselves, on returning to their own countries after completing their PhDs, often been evangelistic in their fervour for improved (often imported) genotypes. Indeed for some antipodean exporters (and no doubt for some European and American exporters as well) it has been a magnificent business. The so-called superior animals soon die or fail to reproduce in their new tropical environments and this creates a need for more animals to be sent to replace the poor unfortunates who died from supposed mismanagement. It can be (and is) a never ending business cycle! I do not wish to be misinterpreted as advocating that genetic improvement can only be achieved by selecting within the bio/socio/economic environment where the animals will be farmed, but I do make the observation that geneticists and rural development practitioners often seem to under-estimate the importance of this environment. Pierre Cronje [June 29] has commented that in situations where the phenotypic ranking within a herd for a trait (such as yield or longevity) is dependent on environment, then no level of technical sophistication in 'other environments' (including within-country research farms ) will produce the hoped-for gains. This is an important message which in practice is too often ignored.
My other comment relates to the idea, pervasive in many communications both in this and the crops conference, that subsistence and very small scale agriculture are appropriate and/or inevitable models for the future for agriculture in developing countries. Within the developed world there has been a steady transition over some four hundred or more years from an agrarian to an urban based society. (By chance, as I write this note I have in front of me statistics showing that in each of Australia, USA and the Netherlands the number of farmers has declined by approximately 50% since 1960.) The same transition from rural based to urban based societies is now occurring within the less developed countries but it will occur and is occurring much faster. People remain in subsistence agriculture when there are no other options, but it is not by choice. Subsistence agriculture cannot produce the cash surpluses required to provide health, education and general consumption to which people aspire. The biotech revolution provides an example of how subsistence and a lot of small holder agriculture will always struggle to compete with modernisation forces. The challenge for those of us working in the field of rural development (and that includes both geneticists and farming systems practitioners) is to figure out ways in which developing country agriculture can be modernised without causing undue social dislocation. We have to work out where agriculture fits within the greater system of human settlements. We do not have the answers to many of the problems. However, it is inevitable that agriculture in the less developed countries will undergo enormous change in relation to socio-economics and farming systems. When seen in this context, the long term role for biotech within the developing countries is likely to be just as great as in the more developed world. But it may not be in the next ten years.
Keith Woodford
School of Natural & Rural Systems Management
University of Queensland
email: woodford@uqg.uq.edu.au
as from 14 July:
Division of Applied Management & Computing
Lincoln University
Canterbury, New Zealand
email: woodfork@lincoln.ac.nz
[This message is longer than the normal limit (600 words), so we ask participants to please keep within the limit in future. However, Dr. Woodford has raised some interesting points here.......Moderator]
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]