[Welcome, everybody !! Thanks to David Steane for this first message of the livestock sector conference, which should run until 12 August: it is a very clear and comprehensive message which considers various aspects of the application of reproductive and molecular technologies in developing countries. The message is longer than the normal limit (600 words), so we ask participants to please try and keep within this limit in future.

For those who joined the Forum and registered for this conference after June 8 (the date that the Background Document for the conference was sent to Forum members), remember that you can receive the Background Document by sending an e-mail message to mailserv@mailserv.fao.org leaving the subject blank and enter the one-line text message as follows: send listlog/biotech-l.jun2000
We hope that the conference will be interesting, constructive and beneficial............Moderator]

This is from David Steane, Thailand. I have recently retired from FAO - the last 6 years were spent in Asia managing the first Regional project on the Management and Use of Animal Genetic Resources. Prior to that, I was an Animal production Officer in FAO headquarters, Rome (in both the Systems group and the Animal Breeding group). In 1989, I moved to FAO from UK where I was Head of Breeding and Applied Genetics for the Meat and Livestock Commission for over 20 years.

The question of why biotechnology is under-utilized in developing countries is not easy to answer but certainly within Asia there has been a lack of clear development policy in many cases. This is not surprising when policy is partly dictated by donors who often have strings attached to the 'aid'. In addition, many scientists tend to parrot the west -partly due to training and partly because developing techniques is not a rapid process especially on small budgets. The questions addressed are frequently more of scientific interest than directly relevant to the field. Certainly there is a dearth of information flow to the decision makers. Often to get support, the basic claims are exaggerated and therefore the technique fails to deliver in a reasonable time scale. In addition, projects have tended to offer 'solutions' without explaining the longer term implications - this has led to some serious difficulties and there is a need to be more transparent. With regard to the forecasts that industrialization of animal production will take place next to urban areas, we really need to think more of the consequences in terms of effluent and of nutrient movement (mining of soil in the growing areas) - perhaps biotechnology should address this problem but I suspect that infrastructural development will have to resolve it - otherwise we will not alleviate poverty and we will move even more people into urban slums.

However, I should restrict my comments to the animal breeding aspects! Artificial insemination (AI), as stated in the Background Document, has contributed greatly - why is it not more widely used ? Partly because conception rates have been low - often because of low numbers for inseminators (a 'chicken and egg' situation). AI has often been free and poorly structured so that when donor funding ends, there is insufficient funds to continue. However, the use of exotics via AI has led to so-called upgrading as the general practice and this has brought with it the serious problems associated with inadequate adapted gene' content. All the evidence shows that either 50% or 75% exotic is as far as one can generally go in adverse environments (the area predicted for most increase in animal production). Very few countries offered AI of local breeds to allow criss-crossing. This is changing slowly.

Embryo transfer (ET) allows a full genotype to be transferred but the potential has not been fully addressed. ET (and MOET) was initially regarded in the developed world as a tool for genetic change (within breed) but its use in the developing world would be much more effective simply as a dissemination tool - of the right genotype of course!! However, most developing countries still think of the technique in the context of operating a selection scheme!! Using it for dissemination means, in dairying, producing an F1 (or possibly an F2) female !! The Research & Development effort really should address those aspects which could make it work - the lab side is reasonably successful (sexing of semen could be better!) but the conception rates for ET need improvement. However, the infrastructure at local level is less demanding for ET in the sense that AI requires urgent transmission of identification of oestrous and similar urgency to get semen there. ET does not require that level of infrastructure since there are several days before insemination BUT, the technique has to be successful. Given such technology, the ability to increase both dairy and beef production would be massive assuming that feed can be available. Much is made of the potential for DNA technology improving rates of genetic change - also marker-assisted selection (MAS) etc - the latter is also a way to reduce overall total progress (see J.P. Gibson, Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Guelph, 21, 201-204, for example).

The question is more to do with the traits we should be improving in the local breeds - is it sensible to follow the 'developed' world and increase mature size, maintenance requirements and reduce reproductive ability as in the Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle (see UK for evidence) or should we use the reproductive capabilities of many local breeds (almost defying belief in producing progeny on virtually nothing) and then exploit crossing structures. Indeed, it is interesting to note that STRUCTURED crossbreeding is not a normal practice in Asia - this needs more consideration and biotechnology can assist to achieve such practices. However, it is not an attractive proposition since there is no real prestige attached to such mundane innovation and requires a good extension service. However, in pigs and poultry (the two main industrialisation candidates) it must be the way forward - the big companies are already to make sure it happens but I am not sure what happens to the large proportion of the national population at present involved in production - how are the economists going to consider this - is it a cost for the industrial animal industry to bear indirectly?

Transgenics are part of the genetically modified organisms (GMO) debate which to date has been strong on emotion and weak on fact. However, the concern to me is the evaluation of such new constructs/introgressions etc. Given the capital investment required, this is a matter for the developed world BUT what level of evaluation will be undertaken and by whom ? The identification of the desirable component will clearly be done but how about the lower level (adverse?) affects - who will test for these ? Biotechnology scientists need to make sure that they can do a proper scientific job (not just the spectacular part) BUT how can they persuade the funding agency to cover the costs ? There needs to be an international forum to set up the regulatory requirements for such evaluations and to make sure that prior to release all tests have been done and fully reported.

The other side of this coin is that much of the potentially valuable material is in the developing world - how do we ensure that those countries benefit fully ? The largest country in transgenics is probably the USA but this country has not yet ratified the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). We really need to get CBD and WTO closer together - globalization is here and will stay - we need to ensure that it has a proper "Village committee' to deal with the 'global village' as it has recently been termed. Without such, the suspicion of the public will not go away and the benefits of biotechnology will not be available to the developing world.

David Steane , Thailand
desteane@chmai2.loxinfo.co.th

[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, June 20, 2000 12:07 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Biotechnology and Developing Countries

This is from Kassim Omar Ali from Zanzibar, currently doing a PhD in Norway.

The background document for this conference gives us some "food for thought" and I think it is a good starting point to begin by a quote from this document.

"Agricultural biotechnology has long been a source of innovation in production and processing, profoundly impacting the sector. Rapid advances in molecular biology and further developments in reproductive biology provide new powerful tools for further innovation. Increasingly, the advanced molecular biotechnology research and development (R&D) activities are conducted by large corporations and are designed to meet the requirements of developed country markets rather than the conditions of small-scale farmers in tropical regions of the world. Whilst the developing countries accommodate an increasing majority of the world's people, farmers and animals, there is a risk that biotechnology R&D may by-pass their requirements."

The few sentences quoted above explain in a nutshell the merits and dangers of biotechnology. It is quite clear that the benefits of biotechnology can only be realised by developing countries if there are sound programmes that could support the biotechnology R&D. A number of questions have been put forward as items for discussion for this conference. However, to my opinion the root of the problem is not addressed. I believe we all know that the world development is currently being run by the dominant market-oriented economies. Large corporations control an immense proportion of world technological resources and are more involved in making super profits rather than facing the day-to-day problems of small farmers who ironically control most of the material inputs required for their R&D programmes.

Unfortunately, the tendency to welcome multinational companies into the economies of developing countries is often seen as a positive step towards achieving economic development and easing many of the crippling problems facing the poor small farmers. Ideally, this could be a positive move if one views it in terms of facilitating the transfer of technology to these countries. Indeed, this is not the case when the interest of these companies are centred at achieving a major breakthrough considered to be "patent worthy" to enable a long term cash flow rather than a short run stream of profit. As a result, small farmers are often ignored and instead of improving their well-being it actually worsens.

Before I complete my contribution to the forum, I would like to comment briefly on the ethical questions with regard to acceptance and rejection of biotechnology. While it is true that some innovations are not compatible with the ethics and cultures of people in developing countries, it is also true that these countries are very variable and innovations not acceptable in one part of the world can be easily welcome elsewhere. Therefore, the ethic question, though very delicate, can be overcome in some form. Furthermore, with sufficient public awareness and thorough information in all spheres, biotechnological innovations can be accepted at least partially. In any case, total acceptance is not possible in a diverse world.

Kassim

| Kassim Omar Ali Tel: +47 64 94 8033 (Office)
| Department of Animal Science +47 93 05 1921 (Home)
| Agricultural Univ. of Norway Fax: +47 64 94 7960
| P.O.Box 5025
| N-1432 Aas, NORWAY
E-mail: ali.kassim@ihf.nlh.no

[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, June 20, 2000 4:56 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Biotechnology and animal breeding

From Pierre Cronje (University of Pretoria, South Africa):

The issue raised by David Steane [20 June] on the impact of biotechnology on genetic resources ("The question is more to do with the traits we should be improving in the local breeds...") is a critical one. Although referring to GMO's, his comment that "The identification of the desirable component will clearly be done but how about the lower level (adverse?) affects - who will test for these?" also holds true for the effect of genetic intervention at the level of artificial insemination (AI) and embryo transfer (ET). In the current scramble to use biotechnology to identify candidate gene markers, few publications adequately define the nutritional status of the animals used, but it is probable that most of these genes were expressed under nutritional conditions far-removed from those in developing areas. There is a dearth of information on nutrition-genotype interactions below 2 x maintenance levels of nutrition, not to mention nutrient-gene interactions.

I believe that genetic selection for single trait characteristics, as practised in the 'developed world', has increased the adaptation to high levels of nutrition at the expense of the animals' ability to adapt to different (especially low) planes of nutrition (adaptibility). A good example of this is the Angora goat where intense selection for fibre production (mohair) has resulted in abortions, susceptibility to cold stress and low weaning performance. It is evident that fibre production enjoys a high priority for nutrients, but of greater importance is the fact that mohair production decreases only slightly during lactation (energetically, the most expensive process during the reproductive cycle), indicating that the priority for mohair is inflexible. The question that arises is "Can we breed an animal capable of high production rates under good nutritional conditions, but in which priorities for nutrients change to favour reproduction and other essential functions when nutrient supply is low?". I believe that we can: when crossed with the Boer goat, mohair production in the cross-breed virtually ceases during lactation, but otherwise maintains a surprisingly high rate of production. Unfortunately, there are no similar examples of such data in other species or for other products. A possible solution to the problem would be to discourage the funding of nutrition experiments that did not include genetic components and vice versa. Until we understand the physiological consequences of genetic manipulation, biotechnology borrowed from 'developed world' conditions will represent a far greater threat than a benefit to developing areas, as genes - once introduces into an indigenous gene pool - are hard to remove when it is discovered that they are inappropriate.

Pierre Cronjé
Associate Professor: Physiology
Dept. Animal and Wildlife Sciences
University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002
South Africa
pbcronje@postino.up.ac.za
Tel: +27 12 420 3273
Cel:083 3727 008
Fax:+27 12 420 3290
____________________________________
Editor: South African Journal of Animal Science
(SASAS website: www.sasas.co.za <http://www.sasas.co.za>)

[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 ]