My name is Ned Donkin, and I teach at the Faculty of Veterinary Science of the University of Pretoria in South Africa. I have been involved in research in crossbreeding milk goats with Indigenous goats, intended for development projects.
Professor E.F. Donkin
Department of Veterinary Production and Ethology
Faculty of Veterinary Science
University of Pretoria
Private Bag X04
Onderstepoort 0110
South Africa
I endorse the communication from Keith Ramsay [17.08]. Years of experience in development projects accrued by myself and others have led to the following conclusions:
1. ENTHUSIASM MUST BE DIRECTED APPROPRIATELY
Scientists are (naturally) very enthusiastic about their latest
technological advances. They are keen to find ways of applying this new
technology, if possible to the benefit of people they perceive need to
be helped. Such altruistic feelings are to be welcomed, and it is good
that they should seek justification for the scientific research that has
been carried out. But this enthusiasm must be directed appropriately.
2. INVOLVE THE PEOPLE YOU ARE TRYING TO HELP
Development is all about people. Livestock development is one of the
ways in which we can help people to develop themselves or their ways of
doing things. The people we are seeking to help should be part of the
equation. In other words, most scientists should look carefully at
themselves and their own motives before they attempt to help others.
3. NO QUICK-FIX SOLUTIONS IN DEVELOPMENT
The temptation is to look upon new technology as being able to provide a
"quick-fix" solution. This seldom works. The problems are usually more
complex than would appear after a superficial appraisal. The people
themselves have to be involved in any changes that occur. You cannot
simply " tack-on " new and sophisticated technology into an existing
situation.
4. THE PEOPLE HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE RESULTS
Very often the real problems are well understood by the people, and the
solution may not even be in technology, but in attitudes, political
structures and similar sociological difficulties. Whatever interventions
take place, the people will have to live with the results....perhaps for
generations. On-farm research has to be done to assess the short-term
and long-term effects.
5. NEW TECHNOLOGY MIGHT ALSO BE HARMFUL
An intervention like the introduction of new genetic material might be
inappropriate or even harmful.
(a) The existing adapted genetic material might be diluted or lost.
Biodiversity is a strength, and needed for adaptability to changes in
environment and disease incidence.
(b) Diseases might inadvertently be introduced. For example,
introduction of milk goat breeding stock into both Zimbabwe and
Mozambique in recent years has been associated with the introduction of
Caprine Arthritis Encephalitis Virus (CAEV), a disease rife in many
countries of the world, but apparently not prevalent in Southern Africa.
These imported goats were destroyed.
(c) No genetic improvement should be introduced without making provision
for other improvements in aspects such as nutrition, disease control, or
simply in the organization and control of breeding ( selection of sires
and castration of undesirable animals; prevention of inbreeding).
6. SHOULD WE BE USING THE MONEY MORE EFFECTIVELY?
Often these new technologies are very expensive, requiring sophisticated
back-up services, facilities and technical staff. We should ask
ourselves if the resource allocation could be used more effectively.
Organizations such as Heifer Project International and Farm Africa have
long track records of experience in applying livestock development
successfully and in a sustainable way to help developing communities.
Would it not be a better investment of resources to support such
organizations, using the technology we already have?
Many of these aspects were topics for debate at the recently held
Regional Workshop on Small Ruminant Development at the Bunda School of
Agriculture of the University of Malawi. This Workshop set up a network
for the Southern African Development Community (SADC-SRNET). Some of the
participants in this forum may wish to contact the convenors to get
copies of the Proceedings:
Please contact Dr James Banda, anscconf@sdnp.org.mw
[The last day for posting messages in this conference is Friday 25 August. 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: Monday, August 21, 2000 10:40 AM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Conservation Biology
I have read with interest the discussion on the importance of conservation of our genetic resources. The importance of ancestral breeds to advancements in plant or animal breeding was highlighted by research with tomatoes where it was shown that several major genes contributing to "solids", a very important trait in tomatoes, were lost in the domestication process. Loss of alleles is an inevitable result of working with finite populations and it is likely that all domesticated breeds have lost major genes for important productivity traits. Hopefully those lost alleles can still be found in the ancestral breeds, they are the true gold mines. This really highlights what needs to be preserved and why.
All budgets are limited so priorities must be set to determine the most critical resources to preserve. For example, is it necessary to preserve every strain and breed that has ever been developed for a species, such as the Landrace breed that was mentioned? It would seem to me that while the Landrace may very well have important alleles that are not present in other breeds, it is most likely that the breed from which the Landrace was developed will also have those alleles. As with tomatoes, can conservation efforts in swine be reduced to simply maintaining the ancestral wild populations? Note that these wild populations will have poor performance, but that should not be used as a factor in determining which ancestral breeds to maintain.
Because it is relatively easy to determine which breeds are the ancestral breeds, characterization may not be as important a step as suggested. Although there may be several ancestral breeds for a given domesticated stock, except for academic interest, is it important to know which ones contributed to which domesticated breed? Will that influence in any way the decision on which ancestral breeds to keep? Shouldn't we keep all ancestral breeds at all costs? If the answer is yes, then the question is where does biotechnology come into play in the decision making process? The answer seems to be the next step. Biotechnology is vitally important in identifying alleles lost in domesticated breeds but present in the ancestral breeds, and more importantly introgressing those alleles back into improved domesticated breeds without the linkage drag associated with linked undesirable alleles.
--
Bill Muir, Professor of Genetics, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN
47907-1151
[The last day for posting messages in this conference is Friday 25 August. 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 ]