29.06.2000

In my small number of visits to countries with poor control over animal movement, it has struck me that it must be very difficult to control animal reproduction, and therefore genetic improvement. Apart from this obvious practical issue, there are also the problems of knowing who is the best to breed from (poor accuracy) and a typically unknown contemporary group (low selection differential). These latter problems can be overcome if genetic improvement is undertaken in centralised (often government-owned) breeding stations. The problem then becomes one of moving the genetic gain made in the central stations to the farming sector. It seems to me that adult cell cloning has huge potential under these circumstances, as young stock of known genetic merit can be sold (subsidised if necessary) directly to the farmers. This also reduces genetic lag to a minimum.

Hugh T. Blair
Professor of Animal Science
Director of Research and Postgraduate Studies
Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences,
Massey, New Zealand
Phone: +64-6-350-5122
http://ivabs.massey.ac.nz
H.Blair@massey.ac.nz

[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: Thursday, June 29, 2000 10:42 AM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: genetic improvement and adult cloning in developing countries

While I agree with the comments made by Hugh Blair [29 June] regarding acceleration of genetic progress via cloning, the implementation of this technology via 'centralized breeding stations' is associated with problems.

Firstly, the management and levels of nutrition at centralized government-owned breeding stations is almost invariably far superior to that in the environment for which the 'improved' stock is destined. Secondly, the selection criteria at government breeding stations are often based on single trait characteristics as measured in that environment. Putting the two together, it is easy to see that this process can result in the selection of 'superior' animals that are inferior in the farmers' environment. By way of example, a study by Waldron et al 1990 showed that the correlation between results for Suffolk sheep in a central test in the USA where animals were evaluated under feedlot conditions and the performance of their progeny in the commercial environment was less than 2%.

The obvious solution would be to assess genetic merit on-farm, but as pointed out by Hugh, this is impossible where records are not kept or where breeding is not controlled.

A compromise would be a system whereby groups of farmers in the same location purchase a central farm or set aside a central grazing area on which animals contributed by all members are held for comparison of performance under nutritional and management conditions that are nearly identical to those on their surrounding farms. By way of inducement for farmers to invest their own funds in this part of the venture, government could offer free cloning of superior individuals and sale of clones back to the participating farmers at subsidised rates.

Of course, there are those who justify the existence of centralized testing on the basis that there is no such thing as genotype X environment interaction, and that Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP) analysis can remove environmental effects, but I am not one of them.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 2:53 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Genetic improvement and the livestock sector in developing countries

I come from Tanzania and technically what participants are suggesting are feasible approaches to genetic improvement in these countries. However, we need to thoroughly look at what happens on the ground before we can really achieve practical feasibility.

It is important to note that for many people in developing countries, consumption of livestock products is viewed as more of a luxury than a necessity. People have become conditional vegetarians because they cannot afford to buy meat, milk and eggs and those who own livestock usually keep them only as social insurance. Livestock keeping is not done with profit in mind and in this way traditional systems are more than enough. My naïve thinking is that our problems in developing countries are diverse but could be summarised by one syndrome: "poverty". The majority cannot afford buying products from cheaper traditional systems let alone those produced by high cost biotechnologies.

In my opinion, the failure is due to lack of parallel development in other sectors of the economy whereby livestock products do not fetch the correct prices at the market due to poor purchasing power of the general population. One way of tackling this problem is to stimulate internal markets so that they can absorb what we produce by offering prices proportionate to what farmers spend. For many countries, good prices are only available in urban areas where economic growth in other sectors provides a spill over effect to the livestock sector. Unfortunately, the prices in urban areas benefit only few progressive farmers. Therefore, only progressive farmers close to urban areas where quantities produced can be sold at reasonable prices have the ability to employ biotechnologies. In fact, this approach is now common in many countries where successful farmers willingly take their own initiative and search for new innovations all over the world. The role of governments would then be to ease down the policy obstacles that hinder adoption of new technologies.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 4:56 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Bridging the "biotech divide"

The issues raised regarding genetic improvement and adult cloning in developing countries are among the techno-developments resulting from progress in biotechnology that provide new possibilities for development and challenging research and educational opportunities in developing countries. In spite of the promise that biotechnology holds for the future, there are growing disparities in dispersal of science-based information as well as economic development opportunities beneficial to developing countries. Many factors contribute to low participation in the adoption of new technologies-inappropriate, scale-sensitive practices, low profit margins in farming, access to knowledge and information, education and geographic isolation. These issues need to be addressed and efforts need to be directed at bridging relevant biotechnologies and biotechnology information with farmers in developing countries.

It is essential to undertake steps that reduce information and knowledge gaps that exist in agricultural biotechnology dissemination (the biotech-divide) to developing countries. Several approaches need to be taken to include outreach in education, by enhancing overall science education at the K-12 [American schooling "from kindergarden through 12th grade".....Moderator] and college-levels by integrating principles and applications of biotechnology in the curriculum and identification, critical evaluation and promotion of biotechnology-based products and interventions for farmers in developing countries. Furthermore a concerted effort must be undertaken to bridge the biotechnology information gap among extension workers, opinion leaders, small farmers and consumers and to study agricultural biotechnology (agbiotech) needs, factors affecting agbiotech adoption and the impact of education and information provided to individual countries.

There is a critical need for access to emerging scientific education in developing countries. Could agbiotech be utilized as a vehicle to enhance science education (K-12, college, youth, adult/consumer education)? Cooperative efforts with local agricultural extension programs and educational institutions is essential for success in education via extension professional and both pre-service and in-service teacher training, as well as training in agricultural science, vocational education, nutrition and human ecology education. This kind of partnership is essential to address diverse issues of science education, extension and consumer education in the respective developing countries.

Mulumebet Worku, PhD (worku@ncat.edu)
Adjunct Assistant Professor/Biotechnologist
Department of Animal science
North Carolina A&T University,
USA

Return to Logs of Conference 3 or go to the main Forum pages. Note: you must join the Forum to participate in these discussions.