Referring to the first paragraph of Pierre Cronjé's message [29 June]:

Actually, the way in which I suggest that cloning might be used does not necessarily impact on genetic gain but rather it would decrease genetic lag by providing a practical and achievable means of getting high merit stock from central breeding stations to the farmers.

I agree that central breeding stations can 'get it wrong', but that simply means the breeding objective hasn't been correctly specified. Nothing wrong with the techniques, only the application.

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: Friday, June 30, 2000 9:03 AM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: reproductive biotechnologies // extension // animal health

There have been several contributions regarding the benefits of reproductive technology but most do not address the real difficulties. Mulumebet Worku [29 June] raises some of the main issues which, if coupled to other comments, indicates why the 'new' biotech has not /cannot realistically contribute at present.

In most countries, cattle/buffalo herds are small (1-3 adults) and oestrous detection is not easy due to a variety of factors. Even artificial insemination (AI) is failing to provide reasonable conception rates in many places - due to poor oestrous detection, poor communication and infrastructure and because inseminators are not carrying out sufficient inseminations to achieve high success rates! Embryo transfer, whether of in vitro maturation/fertilisation (IVM/IVF) or cloned embryos faces similar difficulties although, as I have said before [message of 20 June ...Moderator], the time interval is better. However the technique MUST achieve good conception rates if it is to be considered and this is not the case yet.

BUT before these new techniques are considered, there needs to be much more effort to plan what breeds and breeding structure will best achieve sustainable and efficient production - in terms of use of all resources NOT 'feed conversion rates'! Should local cattle be used or a criss-cross programme or would a three way slaughter structure be best? Should an Open Nucleus Breeding scheme (or even a closed one) be established as suggested by Pierre Cronje [29 June] ? These are not mutually exclusive but there is little use in discussing technologies without the proper studies and planning of its use. Similar arguments apply across the species - simple well structured crossing programmes could increase output (estimates of 30-50%) with little increase in resource requirement in several countries using goats for meat.

Unless planning is done, and then the extension services properly informed, nothing sustainable will be achieved. Extension people need to know the whole story not the fantasies of the 'potential' as frequently portrayed. I acknowledge that scientists need to point out the major potentials especially if they are to get funds, but the whole information available needs giving to decision makers, extensionists and to farmers. However we have a situation where developing countries are being advised (pushed?) by some donors to make extension services financially viable. I do not disagree with this in principle but we really need to get it achieved in the 'developed' world before we hassle others to do it!! Most developed countries are nowhere near this position after 40/50 years of investment in extension.

We need to prepare senior livestock people much better in the pitfalls (and potentials) of these new technologies. This will be even more true for genetic engineering and GMOs - a term which at present is used for plants but applies equally to animals. The latest achievement in 'placing' genes, just announced, will have a major potential role in getting genes moved BUT still the need for full evaluation has to be addressed.

The comments on extension are not directly related to biotechnology but if we ignore the vehicle which carries the message then the techniques will not be delivered. The developed world has many 'models' which could be useful in assisting developing countries to assess different options while remembering always that they are only models. Perhaps a central list could be held by FAO?? However results of models are only 'good' guesses and need discussing with others, including real farmers as well. In Asia, I have found frequently that farmers can quickly /have already appreciate(d) the potential of different techniques - or what level of success would be acceptable - but no one asked them!

The potential for new vaccines/disease resistance genes being moved etc does not appear to have been raised whereas, as a non-vet, I see biotechnology holding massive potential - probably greater than in most other aspects of animal production. Is this a classic case of the untrained(me) not knowing enough or what - any comments? How about the feed aspects or is this restricted to the plant discussion only?

David Steane ,Thailand
Tel/Fax (66) 53 429918

[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 ]