I agree fully with David Steane [30 June], adequate planning is essential, to include aggressive outreach efforts to all sectors of society in developing countries. In regards to planning of studies, there certainly is a need for much more effort to plan what breeds and breeding structure will best achieve sustainable and efficient production. Certainly this will be true in considering the use of indigenous livestock which are better adapted to their environment, especially in terms of disease resistance genes such as trypanotolerant cattle and vaccination practices. Thorough characterization of disease resistance loci in indigenous breeds is essential and efforts to actually classify breeds of livestock in Africa and, from thence, to characterize their genetic makeup will benefit from partnerships between local scientists and those engaged in the identification of useful markers at a more advanced level. The current efforts underway are commendable and need to be extended to facilitate successful utilization of resources and knowledge at all levels. I am very interested in participating in such efforts to define disease resistance loci in indigenous livestock, particularly in Africa. This forum would be a great opportunity for us to share information concerning possible areas for collaboration.
Mulumebet Worku, PhD (worku@ncat.edu)
Adjunct Assistant Professor/Biotechnologist
Department of Animal science
North Carolina A&T University,
USA
[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: Saturday, July 01, 2000 1:11 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Breeding stations versus farm environment
Referring to the first paragraph of Hugh T. Blair's message [30 June]:
"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."
I refer you to
Pierre Cronje's statement (29 June) that
" 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%. "
Under those conditions it is impossible for BLUP or any other procedure to account for the genotype by environment (GxE) interaction in selection of animals. If the correlation is close to zero, that is saying that there is no relationship between performance in one environment with the other. The only way to correct for this problem is to select under the environment of production, in this case not the central test station. The other option is to downgrade the central test station such that the management conditions are the same as that of the farm.
Bill Muir, PhD
Professor of Genetics
Department of Animal Sciences
Purdue University
W. Lafayette IN 47907-1151, USA
Phone 765-494-8032
FAX 765-494-9346
http://www.ansc.purdue.edu/faculty/muir.htm
bmuir@purdue.edu
[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, July 03, 2000 2:50 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Biotechnologie de la reproduction / Amélioration génétique / Afrique subsaharienne
Je suis Dr Adama Traoré du Mali. Je suis vétérinaire de formation et spécialiste de reproduction animale. J'ai eu à conduire pendant plusieurs années des recherches en reproduction et amélioration génétique au Mali avant de rejoindre le CIPEA (actuel ILRI) et la FAO où, tout en m'occupant d'autres domaines de recherche, j'ai continué à me tenir informé de l'évolution des méthodes biotechniques de reproduction et des opportunités qu'elles offraient pour l'amélioration des systèmes d'élevage en Afrique au sud du Sahara. Je m'excuse de m'exprimer en français, mon anglais écrit est encore imparfait.
De retour au Mali depuis deux ans, j'ai eu le plaisir de noter quelques bonnes évolutions mais malheureusement aussi, la persistance de bon nombre de contraintes quant à l'exploitation de ces méthodes. Aussi, je me félicite de l'opportunité offerte par la présente conférence pour réagir à quelques unes des questions suscitées par l'excellent papier introductif ainsi que certaines interventions.
Dans le domaine de la biotechnologie, mon expérience a porté en particulier sur la synchronisation des chaleurs et l'insémination artificielle des bovins de races locales; il s'agissait essentiellement de l'utilisation de ces méthodes biotechniques dans la mise en oeuvre de programmes d'amélioration génétique de bovins de races locales par voie de croisement avec des bovins de races exotiques jugées plus performantes. En guise de réflexion personnelle, je noterai tout d'abord qu'en dépit des innombrables contraintes que continuent de rencontrer les pays en développement dans l'amélioration de leur système élevage, l'exploitation de la biotechnologie dans les domaines de la reproduction et de l'amélioration génétique recèle un réel potentiel de développement. Ce-ci dit, il ne faut surtout pas pas chercher à en généraliser l'application.
Il est actuellement hors de question de considérer l'IA comme une méthode alternative de reproduction comme c'est aujourd'hui le cas dans beaucoup de pays développés. Sa justification dans certains de nos systèmes d'élevage reste largement liée à la conduite de programme d'amélioration génétique. Sont donc principalement concernées, les zones d'intensification de l'élevage où il existe un environnement socio-économique suffisamment incitatif pour justifier la conduite d'opération de croisement, tels les systèmes d'élevage péri-urbain pour la production laitière. L'IA et la pratique du croisement ne se sont réellement développés au Mali qu'avec la libéralisation du prix du lait, l'implantation de petites unités de transformation de lait et l'appropriation de l'initiative du métissage et de l'élevage des animaux croisés par les éleveurs eux-mêmes; on note actuellement un réel "boom" du marché des reproducteurs métis vendus à des prix d'or!
Mais l'IA rencontre encore beaucoup de problèmes à cause du coût de l'azote liquide qui n'a cessé de monter et des problèmes encore réels de détection des chaleurs rendant le plus souvent le recours à la synchronisation préalable des chaleurs indispensables; les frais d'approche de l'IA sont encore relativement élevés et pas à la portée de beaucoup d'éleveurs. Aussi, l'exécution de l'IA comme activité lucrative reste encore très discutable si elle n'est pas associée à l'encadrement zoosanitaire et à l'appui-conseil en amélioration des systèmes d'élevage. On ressent encore un besoin important de l'appui de l'Etat, or nos Etats sont en phase de désengagement des activités à caractère commercial.
La question de l'embryo-transfert? Il faut d'abord reconnaître que son exploitation a dès le départ été trop orientée vers la transplantation de matériel génétique à l'état pur dans nos systèmes d'élevage pour des fins de production ! Mis à part quelques zones climatiques et de forte potentialité une telle pratique reste peu compétitive comparée à l'IA qui a l'avantage d'aboutir à l'obtention de produits croisés relativement plus adaptés. Mais l'embryo-transfert pourrait être très intéressant s'il était exécuté en appui à certains programmes de croisement en particulier pour pallier les situations fréquentes d'obtention en nombre très limité de génotypes visés.
Souvent à l'issue d'un réel parcour de combattant nous nous trouvions avec moins d'une dizaine de taurillons et de génisses du génotype recherché (par exemple un 5/8 de sang amélioré). Il est évident que s'il était possible d'exploiter ces génisses plus tôt et plus fréquemment pour produire des ovules fécondables, nous pourrions raccourcir les intervalles entre générations et multiplier le nombre de descendants. Je m'étais beaucoup intéressé à l'époque à l'ovulation précoce chez les femelles immatures, à la polyovulation et l'embryo-transfert, bref ce qui est aujourd'hui réuni autour du MOET, mais cela n'intéressait pas grand monde.
Avec les avancées actuelles de la biotechnologie en reproduction et en génétique, je reste convaincu que les chercheurs des pays en développement ont tout à fait intérêt à participer au débat et à s'insérer dans une coopération féconde avec des équipes de recherche des pays avancés pour s'approprier et adapter davantage ces technologies à leurs propres besoins. L'embryo-transfert tel que proposé ne semble pas repondre à une demande immédiate si ce n'est dans le domaine de la conservation des ressources génétiques fortement menacées! Contrairement à l'IA l'embryo-transfert relèvera encore longtemps du domaine de la recherche. Comme d'autres l'ont signalé au cours de leurs interventions, le besoin en information et formation ainsi qu'en recherche d'accompagnement reste très important.
Dr Adama TRAORE
-----Original Message-----
Referring to the following messages Hugh Blair (29 June), Pierre Cronje (29
June
), Hugh Blair (30 June) and Bill Muir (1 July), regarding central
breeding stations and (commercial) progeny performance.
My apologies if the brevity of my reply to Pierre Cronje's posting indicated
disagreement - that was not my intent. I agree that:
However, I reiterate that this is a problem of application of the theory,
not the theory itself.
The first task of any animal breeder is to accurately specify the selection
objective. The selection objective must reflect performance of animals in
the commercial sector (a point made by Pierre Cronje), since that is where
the majority of product (meat, milk, fibre) is generated. To effect change
in the selection objective, a selection index (or similar) is required. The
selection index will be based on traits measured on animals in the central
station (or their relatives who may be on-station, or off-station). If
genotype by environment interactions exist, the correlation between the
objective and the index (rTI) will be reduced (in the example of Waldron et
al 1990 quoted by Pierre Cronje, the rTI is near zero). A smaller rTI will
lead to slower genetic progress (delta G).
No selection scheme should be allowed to proceed based on a predicted delta
G of near zero (because rTI is near zero) in the commercial population. The
solution is to change the ranking process in the central station which would
require either assessing new traits on the nucleus animals, assessing
relatives of central station stock in the commercial environment (as hinted
by Pierre Cronje) or modifying the environment to better reflect that of the
commercial sector (as proposed by Bill Muir).
I trust that this clarifies my original statement.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original Message-----
I wish to make a contribution to this forum, speaking from
several perspectives. Primarily I am an organic farmer; my husband and I
raise over 1100 acres of certified organic corn, soybeans, small grains
and processing vegetables in New York. Also, I have a MS degree from
Cornell University in plant breeding and have worked for many years at
the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station in grape breeding and
genetics, with an emphasis on biotechnological applications to plant
improvement. I serve on the USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural
Biotechnology. So, hopefully I can add some perspective both from
research experience and from practical commercial-scale, on-farm
experience.
Before any new GE-derived agricultural advance is widely hailed in the
press or to other scientists, such as the 'golden' rice, it should be
extensively and stringently tested under the actual farm conditions in
the areas that it is intended for, in order to test both the effects of
genotype x environment interaction, and to determine whether the
introduced characteristic is adequately expressed and whether other
essential nutritional and agronomic characteristics are unchanged under
actual farm conditions. Experiment Station test plots or feedlots are
simply not sufficient to evaluate performance under actual on-farm
conditions, especially if the product is intended for developing
countries where farm practices and native soil characteristics may be
quite different from Experiment Station conditions. The interaction
between native soil fertility and crop performance must be evaluated
before introduction of any novel products, not just for GE-derived crops,
but also for GE-derived animals whose performance should be tested with
feed rations based on local crops and local animal management practices.
Yield and performance should be also tested using typical on-farm
equipment. Too often in my experience with plant breeding research, I
have seen yields reported to farmers that were based on intensively
managed small plots, often hand harvested - this is certainly not typical
farm management. Also, an honest on-farm cost analysis should be
provided. Experimental yields and animal performance results should not
be obtained by using expensive fertilizers, pesticides, medications,
growth promoters, or other active intervention materials that the most
indigenous farmers could not afford or would not have access to.
If the organization/company developing the product stands to make a
profit from the introduction, this testing ideally should be done by a
third party independent agency with no financial interest in the success
of the product.
Any announcements, especially to the press, made before such on-farm
testing occurs and can be clearly and publically documented are
premature.
Also - before researchers announce to the press that a new GE-derived
product will be given to developing countries 'free of charge', they
should first obtain all necessary waivers from all IPR and patent holders
involved.
Mary-Howell Martens
[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-----
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.
[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-----
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
as from 14 July:
[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 ]
-----Original Message-----
Referring to the second paragraph of Ahmed Tibary's message (4 July):
I agree with him about the fate of "development projects" in the
developing country that usually stop when the budget is gone, but I
think we can change this to a better condition if we apply the step-by-step
plan, not with a big project as "one go" and also not in a too wide area.
It is better to start with a pilot project where we can be sure that the
success goal is in our hand, in other words, we should be able to prove
that artificial insemination (AI) and embryo transfer (ET) technologies can
benefit the farmers.
I have experience early this year where I did ET in one location for
dairy cattle. We transferred the embryos (that have better milk
production and adaptive to the local environment) to local dairy cattle
and got quite a good pregnancy rate. Now, there are many farmer groups
asking me and my team to serve their cattle, for I am sure the farmers
would not mind paying for the service (ET) as they did for AI.
Unfortunately, at the moment we are running out of the budget, so we cannot
cover bigger area for the service.
My point for this explanation is: we better start the project not in a
big area but slowly and surely, we could cover more area if we can prove
our success technology. One thing that is really important is that the
farmers
are involved in this business by paying the service because they feel
the need for the technology for their benefit, so the supply and demand
of the technology starts to roll over that make the economic growth to
develop. I think we can start the animal industry (dairy or beef cattle)
through biotechnology in the developing countries using the step by step
method. This forum would be a great opportunity for me and my team for
possible collaboration in AI and ET industries.
Caroline Wiwie, PhD
[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-----
To use the existence of genotype x environment (G xE) interactions as an
argument to defer the application of biotechnology until all genotypes have
been tested in all environments is clearly unacceptable, given the
time-frame imposed on us by the demand for food for a growing human
population. To my mind, this problem can only be solved using biotechnology,
but two paradigm shifts are necessary:
1. Simplistically stated, many interactions between genotype and the
nutritional environment arise from interactions between nutrients and genes
at the molecular level. There is growing awareness that many differences
between individuals can be ascribed not only to differences in the DNA code
but, more importantly, to regulation of the steps between the reading of the
DNA code and its conversion into a functional protein (transcription and
translation). There is also mounting evidence that the concentrations of
individual nutrients are important regulators of this process. Most of the
effort in the race to decipher the human genome and to a lesser extent in
animal genomics has been devoted to the sequencing of the DNA itself. Over
the next few years, the focus of pharmaceutical companies will likely turn
from the DNA code itself to the understanding of the regulation of the
expression of genes encoded by DNA so that agents that manipulate this
process can be patented. Although much of this information will probably not
enter the public domain, and little attention will be given to domestic
livestock, it is probable that there will be advances in biotechnological
methodology (e.g. gene array kits) that would enable sensible use to be made
of biotechnology to unravel GXE interactions and develop diagnostic indices
without resorting only to the endless cycle of testing every genotype in
every environment.
2. If the above approach is to be followed, then the conventional feeding
standard approach of lumping all types of energy under generic 'black box'
categories such as metabolisable energy (ME) or net energy (NE) must be
abandoned in favour of an individual nutrient approach, as it is individual
nutrients that interact with genes, not ME (UK and US feeding standards just
don't work with ruminants in my country and, I suspect, in many others, and
I will not be told otherwise - sorry !). The individual nutrient approach
has, in fact, been strongly advocated in the latest review of the British
feeding standards for Dairy Cows (see Nutrition abstracts & reviews, series
B, Vol 68 no 11) with the rather telling comment that "they (the current
systems) lack relevance to the future needs of milk producers". The merit of
hormone challenges and blood metabolite concentrations to assess G X E
interactions has already be shown by Hugh Blair's group in New Zealand, and
in my opinion, this is the most viable measure of nutrient status for
free-ranging animals in developing areas. Here too, the use of biotechnology
to develop quick and simple (dipstick, elisa) methods of quantifying
metabolite and hormone concentrations in blood, milk and other body fluids
would be warranted.
The bottom line is that biotechnology is appropriate, indeed vital, for the
developing world, but a paradigm shift is necessary in terms of the relative
importance of the various applications thereof (molecular biology (gene
arrays, nutrient gene interactions,etc) vs AI vs ET), and also in terms of
an appropriate system for animal nutrition.
Pierre Cronjé
[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-----
Assuming that all the technical problems of artificail insemination (AI) or
embryo transfer (ET) are surmounted, the
central questions still remain:
1) How does the technology transfer agent provide the best information
to the client agriculturist for his decision or
2) Does the best advice necessarily fit the existing environment or that
most likely to obtain in the immediate future resulting from the
interference
introduced by this technology, a presumption of the technologist ?
Ron Sato
[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-----
Following several requests to make my contribution, posted in French on 3
July
, available in English, I try it. Please find hereunder the English
version of my message.
I'm Dr. Adama Traoré from Mali. I am a veterinarian and a specialist in
animal reproduction. I have been involved for several years in research into
reproduction and genetic improvement in Mali, before joining ILCA (what is
now the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)) and FAO, where,
while involved in other areas of research, I kept myself informed on
progress in biotechnological methods of reproduction and the oppurtunity
they offer for the improvement of breeding systems in sub-Saharan Africa.
Back in Mali since 2 years, I've had the pleasure to note some good progress
but unfortunately also the persistance of a good number of constraints to
the exploitation of these methods. Therefore, I thank for the opportunity
offered by this conference to react to some of the issues raised in the
excellent Background Document and to some contributions posted in the
conference so far.
In the field of biotechnology, my experience in particular is in heat
synchronisation and artificial insemination (AI) of cattle of local breeds.
It consists primarily of the use of these biotechnology methods in the
application of genetic improvement programmes of cattle from local breeds in
carrying out crossbreeding programmes betwen local breeds and exotic breeds,
commonly considered to be of better performance, in particular for milk
production.
From my point of view, despite the numerous difficulties that developing
countries face regarding the improvement of their animal production system,
the use of biotechnologies in reproduction and genetic improvement is still
a potential development factor that needs to be considered, as it can
contribute to achieving faster some development goal. Having said this, one
should not try to generalise the application. At the present status, it is
out of the question to consider AI as an alternative reproductive method to
natural service (as is often the case in developed countries today) ! The
justification of AI in some of our breeding systems is mainly linked to the
implementation of breed improvement programmes involving crossbreeding with
exotic breeds. Those that are thus primarily concerned are the areas of
intensification of production where there is a socio-economic environment
that offers sufficient incentives to justify the crossbreeding operation,
such as in peri-urban milk production systems. In Mali, AI and the
crossbreeding practice were only really developed after the liberalization
of milk prices, the setting-up of small units of milk transformation and the
appropriation by the animal owners themselves of the crossbreeding
initiative !
But, AI is still facing lots of problems because of the cost for liquid
nitrogen (which has not ceased to increase) and real problems of heat
detection, which most often make the need for heat synchronisation
necessary. The expences for the AI approach are still relatively high and
not within the reach of many breeders. In addition, the application of AI as
a lucrative activity remains questionable if it is not linked to some other
activities, such as health care and advice on animal husbandry practice.
There is still an important need for State support, but our States are in
the new policy of disengagement from activities of a commercial nature.
What about embryo transfer (ET) ? We must recognize that the exploitation of
this technology has, since the beginning, been too directed towards the
transfer of purebred genetic material for commercial production aims !
Except for some climatic zones of high potential, ET remains less
competitive in comparison to AI, because through AI the farmers are dealing
with crossbreeds that are clearly more adapted. The problem of adoption of
ET is that it does not correspond to an actual demand ! ET can be helpful
for the conservation of endangered local breed. ET can be used in addition
to some crossbreeding programmes for disseminating the terminal genotype in
very fast manner; it can help to face the frequent situation of obtaining
just in a very limited number the targeted genotype! Used in the Multiple
Ovulation and Embryo Transfer (MOET) concept, maybe with the use of
prepubertal heifers, ET can contribute to reduce generation intervals and to
reach faster the breeding objective.
With the current advances in reproduction and genetic biotechnologies, I am
convinced that researchers in developing countries have a lot to gain from
participating in the debate and in joining in a fertile co-operation with
research teams in developed countries in order to appropriate and to adapt
more these technologies to their own needs. ET as it is proposed does not
seem to respond to an immediate need except in the area of conservation of
genetic resources seriously threatened. Contrary to AI, ET will still belong
for a long time to the field of research.
As said by several contributors, the use of biotechnology in reproduction
and breed improvement needs an emphasis on investment in information and
training and also in research.
Dr Adama TRAORE
[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-----
Referring to Pierre Cronjé message on genotype X nutritional
environment interaction [5 July]
One is left with the impression that biotechnology will solve the
problems of the world and, in particular, plant or animal breeding. A
common viewpoint of a biotechnologist is that of a reductionist, i.e.
everything can be reduced to simple parts and the whole can be explained
from the parts. Or, in this case, the reductionist would say that the
phenotype, and all it's interactions with the environment, can be
explained by studying individual genes controlling expression. To a
certain extent this is true but it is much like saying that because we
understand the atom we can predict the behavior of all material made
from atoms. Another analogy is micro vs. macro economics. Which is
better for predicting economic growth of a country?
The opposite of reductionism is holism: "The theory that living matter
or reality is made up of organic or unified wholes that are greater than
the simple sum of their parts" ( Third Edition copyright © 1992 by
Houghton Mifflin Company). A holistic scientist is more of a
statistician working with large sample theory (the central limit
theorem) or asymptotic theory and it works quite well in animal
breeding. Broilers only a few decades ago took 18 weeks to reach market
weight, now they reach that weight in 6.5 weeks and with much improved
feed efficiency. This improvement was possible without biotechnology
and continues to be possible.
The point I am trying to make is that biotechnology (functional
genomics) will certainly help us understand gene interactions and will
have profound impacts on pharmaceuticals, health and well-being.
However, the notion that it should be used for all, or even most,
aspects of breeding is misplaced trust. High tech does not necessarily
equate with good tech. Good tech is that which is cost effective and
appropriate for the situation. For example, simulations (Muir, W.M.
1999. Molecular Genetics in Poultry Breeding. Proc. International
Symposium on Animal Breeding and Genetics.. Eds. Lopes P.S, Euclydes RC,
Torres RA, and Guimaraes, EF. pp 243-268) have shown that for non sex
limited traits with moderate heritability (.35), incorporation of
molecular information optimally applied in breeding programs, will only
increase response by a few percentage points over several years and in
the long term is actually detrimental (due to increase in rate of
inbreeding and loss of polygenes from diverted attention on candidate
genes). The optimal selection program is to weight each allele by it's
contribution to the phenotype in a given environment. This weighting
automatically occurs in standard breeding programs selecting on the
phenotype (the whole is certainly easier and cheaper to measure than the
sum of the parts). The few percentage points that can be gained in
breeding programs using biotechnology may be crucial to large
multi-national companies with unlimited budgets and where a few
percentage points can make or break a company, but for developing
countries is this where large amounts of resources should be invested?
The economic resources could be better utilized bringing the management
skills of the farmer up to the level of test stations. Perhaps
investments in extension would be more profitable than biotechnology in
those cases.
In contrast to the use of biotechnology in standard breeding programs,
transgenic technology offers tremendous potential for developed and
developing countries. Transgene technology offers the potential to
increase food nutrient value, reduce chemical use and dependence, and
improve disease resistance with sustainable impact. I strongly support
this technology, however, possible adverse ecological impacts also need
to be assessed and addressed to avoid potential negative impacts. The
negative impacts also need to be evaluated relative to the true cost of
the technology; which is the alternative. For example, BT impact needs
to be compared to conventional insecticide usage and it's impact, but
that is a discussion for another forum.
Bill Muir, PhD
[In the last paragraph, it is slightly unclear if Professor Muir is
referring only to transgenic crops. If his comments also refer to transgenic
animals, it would be interesting if he (or anyone else) would like to
provide more comments/views on the appropriateness of transgenic technology
for the livestock sector in developing countries. This subject is currently
quite topical following the article of McCreath et al in Nature 29 June (
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v405/n6790/f
ull/4051066a0_fs.html
), which describes a technique which could provide a
general way of introducing specific genetic changes (gene-targeting), such
as the inactivation of undesirable genes or the precise positioning of
foreign genes, to other mammalian species (previously it was only possible
in mice).
In addition, if anyone is interested in reading more about Bt and transgenic
crops, I would refer to the Background Document and the archives of
Conference 1 of this Forum ( http://www.fao.org/biotech/Conf1.htm ) held
from March 20 - May 26 on the appropriateness of currently available
biotechnologies in the crop sector for food production and agriculture in
developing countries......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 ]
-----Original Message-----
Referring to the comments on artificial insemination (AI) and embryo
transfer (ET) [Ron Sato, 6 July; also, Adama Traore in his message of 6 July
said "At the present status, it is
out of the question to consider AI as an alternative reproductive method to
natural service (as is often the case in developed countries today) !
".......Moderator] : I think in Indonesia, we consider AI as an alternative
reproductive method to natural service because of many factors:
1. We don't need (for the time being) heat synchronisation to detect
heat because usually farmers only have a few cattle and always keep
their cattle in the pen. So, it is easy for them to detect the heat and
report it to the inseminators nearby.
2. It is more expensive for the farmers to look after the bulls for
reproduction.
3. AI is a much simpler method than carrying the bulls, especially in
Indonesia which consists of many islands, so the transportation is very
expensive.
For the time being in Indonesia, ET is only done by a few experts,
unlike AI which has many inseminators. However, good responses for ET
have come up from many groups of farmers, as I said in my comments
before [5 July], and the embryos were produced by MOET method and in vitro
maturation/in vitro fertilization/in vitro culture (IVM/IVF/IVC). So, we
can use ET as one good alternative to increase the livestock population and
also for breed improvement beside AI.
I think the basic need for the present condition in Indonesia is how to
increase animal population as quickly as possible and the answer is AI and
ET and, of course, we have to consider the need for the feed and
environment where we can get optimum production. The best information to
spread out these technologies is that we have to be able to prove to the
client
agriculturist or farmers that these technologies are good for their
benefit.
Caroline W. PhD
[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-----
This is Saturnina C. Halos of the Philippines, Bureau of Agricultural
Research.
One of the major problems in livestock production services is
the availability of effective vaccines in areas away from major urban
centers. The vaccines available need refrigeration and are thus
difficult to bring far afield. DNA vaccines may help solve this problem
since DNA is relatively more stable than cells or proteins. Also, DNA
amplification and processing can be done in small fermentors and
centrifuges to produce enough material. Further, DNA isolation and
drying is relatively straight forward. It seems to me that we in the
developing countries should try this technology. This is one research
project that we have just funded and we would like to know from those
who have tried it what pitfalls we should expect.
As for the discussion on animal breeding, I think the value of such an
effort could be maximized if the breeding program includes
local/indigenous or even wild breeds. In which case, a greater genetic
variability among the breeding population is expected. DNA
fingerprinting of these breeds would enable us to gauge this genetic
diversity. Further, we might be able to develop from such exercises,
hybrids that are more responsive to the local feed materials and
environment. In the Philippines, foreign breeds are used in commercial
poultry and livestock raising. These breeds are very responsive to feed
formula with soybean and corn components, both of which we import, and
require special housing. Hence, small farmers can no longer raise their
animals solely on farm by-products or kitchen waste which they used to
do. Hence, this foreign breed-based technology which is promoted by the
government resulted in the loss of traditional breeds and has deprived
our small farmers of another income opportunity. Hog raising has
traditionally been literally the "piggy bank" of small farm households
or a means to convert farm by-products and kitchen refuse to disposable
income. In the case of chickens, we have private individuals trying to
raise organic chicken from hybrids between native and imported breeds
grown on the range. This is a relatively new effort.
Saturnina C Halos ( Ph.D Genetics)
[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-----
With the present state of knowledge, the manipulation of plants is likely to
improve the utilisation of feed resources by livestock with lesser
investment of efforts and money compared to the manipulation of rumen
microbes. The limitations associated with engineering of rumen microbes,
establishment of engineered microbes in the rumen and their functional
contribution have been highlighted in the Background Document posted on 8
June. In addition, exploitation of
the benefits of engineered microbes and
animals will require considerably more time, including a lengthy process to
obtain regulatory approval because of animal welfare, ethical and safety
concerns.
Plant biotechnologies to improve the nutritional quality of plant
feedstuffs and by-products offer many more opportunities and potential in
animal nutrition. Tremendous strides have been made in the recent past. The
genetic engineering of a golden rice with high levels of beta-carotene and
iron (likely to have vast implications for developing countries) has
demonstrated that it is now possible to transfer not only a single gene, but
the entire genetic pathway for producing a nutritionally advantageous
constituent in a plant.
There are several examples where the composition of
oils, proteins and carbohydrates in seeds of corn and soyabean, and other
crops has been modified to produce grains with enhanced value using plant
breeding and molecular technologies. Traditional plant breeders have focused
on improving the agronomic characteristics of crops, including yield,
disease resistance and quality characteristics for human food. More
dialogue, interactions and collaborative projects between plant breeders and
animal nutritionists are required so that trait modification will benefit
both crop and livestock industry.
Improving feed quality through genetic manipulation holds great promise,
e.g.,
1) increase in digestibility of
existing nutrients especially of fibre for tropical forages,
Transgenic expression in plants of edible antibodies and other novel
proteins of industrial applications are at a very early stage of
development.
The reduction or elimination of plant secondary metabolites by plant
breeding and molecular technologies might not be a right approach,
especially
for developing countries where the plants are faced with various
environmental vagaries and the plant secondary metabolites have a defensive
role for the plant to ensure survival by protecting it against
insect predation or by restricting grazing of herbivores. Transfer of rumen
microbes from resistant ruminants to susceptible ruminants has been shown to
be promising for mitigating problems associated with the presence of plant
secondary metabolites (antinutrients) such as mimosine, flurocaetate, to
some extent for tannins, and a toxic accession of Acacia angustissima (toxic
principle has not yet been identified). The establishment of microbes
converting these toxins/antinutrients to innocous compounds in the rumen and
enumeration of oxalate-degrading microbes when plants containing oxalate is
gradually introduced into the diet, can be monitored using competitive PCR
method and 16S rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes which do not require
culturing of microbes.
Probes designed for ruminal methanogens would enable us
to understand localization of the methanogens and to take into account
their ecological control to reduce methane production. These probes also
have the potential to evaluate factors influencing the rumen ecology and to
devise better feeding strategies, to exploit fully the known additive and to
identify new additives. These probes and other molecular techniques such as
restricted fragmented length polymorphism, PCR, monoclonal antibodies have
also opened up the possibilities to evaluate risk of dissemination of
transgenes into the environment and detection in human food chain, and
detection of pathogens and trace residues of drugs and other undesirable
compounds in animal products.
Harinder P.S. Makkar, PhD
[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
This is from Stanislaus Dundon, an agricultural biotechnology ethicist, who
does that sort
of work at UC Davis-California (or did, depending on tensions there over
any kind of criticism of biotech).
Harinder P.S. Makkar's survey [17 July] of
opportunities in animal husbandry is a valuable piece. His awareness that
"undesireable" characteristics of some actual or potential feed plants may
serve some purpose [Presumably referring to Harinder's comments on plant
secondary metabolites (antinutritional factors).....Moderator] brought to my
mind the likely areas of ethical
concern--mainly focused on risk. As an ethicist looking over the past, I
could only suggest that we try to remain as aware of the efficiency of
evolution and work with a presupposition that not only does everything have
some purpose, but that that purpose is probably multifaceted and deeply
entwined, not merely with the plant, but its neighboring plant species, with
whatever it feeds and whatever it is evolutionarily designed to not feed. A
multifaceted ecological survey of any proposed engineering seems required
for responsible progress here. Don't wait for the critics to do it. They
won't do it as well as you can.
Stanislaus J. Dundon
[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-----
This is from Gregory Harper, Australia.
I appreciate the energy so many of you are putting into this conference.
I was recently involved in the 15th Australasian Biotechnology Conference
in Brisbane, Australia. Amongst the enthusiasm for "red biotech" (human
medicine) and the fears for "green biotech" (agricultural biotech), I think
some common themes emerged.
Firstly, I think we as scientists need to be even more active about
explaining and discussing our plans for agricultural biotech than we have
been. I guess this may be quite hackneyed now for some of us, but I think
the Australian community is just now starting to hear the debate and become
involved. At our conference [we] were lucky that so many of the groups who
have
not previously had an opinion about biotech, were seeking information. By
this I mean local government, the investment, public policy and legal
communities. I think this role for scientists is likely to grow over the
next decade.
In the context of continuing the international debate, I think the petition
approach of Prakash from Tuskegee University, is important:
http://www.agbioworld.org.
Secondly, I think it is appropriate for us to spend more energy integrating
our particular biotechnologies into the production systems that we work on.
In my field, beef production, I think it is important to communicate the
role that
biotech is already playing in selective breeding, accellerated
reproduction, growth management, health diagnostics, eating quality
management, species verification, trace-back and product differentiation in
the market place. I think that it is our role as biotechnologists, to
broaden the debate from undue focus on genetic modification to encompass
all the various applications of bioscience. In so doing we will help the
community to see biotechnology in relation to products and processes they
are
familiar with. By over-emphasising the importance of transgenic solutions,
we are likely to lose the support of people within the value chain who are
dealing with more urgent problems of profitability and sustainability.
Gregory S. Harper PhD
Ph 61 7 3214 2441
[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-----
[Thanks to Dr. Jeggo for this very clear and thought-provoking
contribution.....Moderator]
The Animal Production and Health Sub-programme of the Joint FAO/IAEA
Division has increasingly looked at ways to ensure that developing
countries have an opportunity to utilise and gain value from the benefits
that can arise through the use of biotechnologies for improving and
optimising livestock production. During the past three years we have been
supporting an FAO/IAEA Co-ordinated Research Programme (CRP) on the
development of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the diagnosis of
rinderpest and contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP) and we are
starting this year a new CRP on the potential for the use of PCR for the
diagnosis of trypanosomosis. In our Medium Term Strategy we are looking to
ways in which genetic markers can be used to increase livestock productivity
and make maximum use of locally available genetic resources. As part of
this we intend to hold an international FAO/IAEA Symposium on "Application
of gene-based technologies for improving animal production and health in
developing countries" in India in 2003.
In developing these current and proposed activities, we have constantly
revisited how best to introduce and use biotechnology. I would highlight
the following as current issues in this general area.
1. Biotechnology does offer considerable potential for improving livestock
production but it is not clear how this can be best realised or maximised
2. There is an increasing gap between the ability of developing and
developed countries to utilise biotechnology in this area. The problems and
solutions to livestock production are not the same between these the "north"
and the "south" or indeed between many farming systems. It is critical to
bridge this growing north - south technology gap. [A point that was also
made by Malumebet Worku, 29 June....Moderator]
3. Some biotechnologies offer significant advantageous to developing
countries that do not hold for the developed world. These will not be
realised without support for the introduction and use of these technologies
in these regions.
4. Genetic conservation and the maximum use of genetic resources in
developing countries is a massive problem but can be solved in part, through
the use of specific biotechnologies. Support is clearly needed in this area.
5. Much has been developed and characterised in research institutes. Every
effort should be made to "not re-invent the wheel" but to build on what is
available. This is going to involve innovative partnerships particularly
between the Government and private sector and between the potential
financial rewards for marketing such research in the developed world as
opposed to the often real but financially unrewarding application in the
developing world.
6. One key advantage in the animal diagnostic sector is the specificity and
sensitivity of PCR-based diagnostic systems. Improvements in control
procedures, reductions in the cost of equipment (thermocyclers) and reagents
(polymerase) are making this technology particularly attractive. The ability
to now get primers made on demand is making this approach even more viable
in the developing country situation. Without doubt though, the problem of
assay control and contamination continue to limits the use of PCR technology
in these situations.
7. In animal vaccine there is a long way to go. That is not to say that
biotechnology does not offer solutions, it clearly does. Recombinant
vaccines, DNA vaccines and genetically modified marker vaccines are obvious
roads to go down but the GMO debate in Europe is a huge problem. Linked to
this is the limited research funds now available for work on diseases that
principally occur in the developing world - and thus the inputs needed to
develop such vaccines. For many of the diseases the basic immunology has yet
to be unravelled (CBPP, African Swine Fever, trypanosomosis) and to develop
a molecular-based vaccine in the absence of this knowledge is difficult, if
not futile.
But who will support this research and the capacity to do this in the
developing world is limited. I am sure that if malaria occurred throughout
Europe we would now have a vaccine against this disease! Many of the
potential disease control approaches for developing countries are curtailed
by an inability to separate a vaccinated from a naturally infected animal.
Marker vaccines offer a "simple" way forward but their introduction is being
slowed by the current debates on GMOs.
8. The potential to manipulate the genome of livestock in the way that is
currently taking place in plants is limited. Most production constraints are
multifactorial and there would be major genetic interdependencies that would
prevent any real gains in this area. However the use of micro-satellite
technology to identify specific production characteristics may offer ways to
best utilise advantageous genetic traits in indigenous livestock and speed
up selection of progeny. This biotechnology needs to be on offer in the
countries and within the species of interest. Unless the developing
countries have this technology on-tap to investigate their own livestock,
nothing is likely to change. The introduction and support for the use of
this technology therefore needs to be provided in the countries themselves.
How best to do this, and which methodology to use is debatable.
A few thoughts that I hope will stimulate further discussion,
Dr. Martyn Jeggo
[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-----
I am A.D.N. Chandrasiri (PhD), Veterinary Research Officer
Although AI can be considered as an alternative reproductive method to
natural service, this technique is not very popular among the small scale
dairy farmers. [Some further information on why AI is not popular with the
small scale farmers or not extensively used would be very
useful....Moderator]. In Sri Lanka, the first AI calf was born in 1938.
A.D.N. Chandrasiri, PhD
[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-----
[Thanks to Professor Gibson for this long (messages should not exceed 600
words) but highly relevant and clear contribution, touching on the
appropriateness for developing countries of the different biotechnologies
available in the livestock sector.....Moderator]
I would like to commend Dr Martyn Jeggo's well thought through and tempered
comments [20 July] on some of the potential benefits of biotechnologies and
the difficulties in applying them.
Clearly there are many difficulties in applying new technologies in general
in the developing world when compared to the developed world. The chief
among these is that the vast majority of new technologies build upon and
depend upon a highly developed physical, social and educational
infrastructure, which makes transplantation to other settings very
difficult. Sometimes even technologies that have been routine for 30 or 40
years and which we now take for granted in developed countries have only
rarely been sustainable when set up in developing country settings. Breeding
of cattle using frozen semen is a good example, which has proven sustainable
in a few settings, but in most cases has collapsed once international or
national aid has been withdrawn.
Through experience we have learned that development that is based locally
and driven locally will have the greatest chance of being sustainable.
Coupled with that is the natural human aspiration, which translates to
national aspirations, to control one's own destiny and take pride in
ownership. But, pushing in the other direction, the complexity of
infrastructure (physical, social and educational) and the scale of effort
(financial and human) required to run effective biotechnology research and
development puts it out of the reach of all but the wealthiest economies.
Thus, while the trend at present is to devolve development activities to the
regional level and move away from large centres serving multinational and
multiregional needs, a powerful argument can be made that the need for, and
the opportunity for meaningful effect of, large international centres of
specialised technologies has never been greater.
The application of biotechnologies to developing world livestock agriculture
will form a continuum. At one end, certain products of biotechnology could
be applied in virtually any setting (two examples would be recombinant
vaccines that can be stored without refrigeration, and genetically improved
livestock). At the next level are relatively straightforward technologies
that can be applied in more limited areas where a moderate amount of
infrastructure support allows (examples might be, artificial insemination in
cattle, and molecular diagnostic tools). At the next level are more complex
technologies requiring fairly advanced laboratories and infrastructure (an
example might be development of breeding stock using embryo transfer and/or
molecular marker techniques). At the highest level are the most complex
technologies and research leading to products which requires very high
levels of infrastructure which are only likely to be available in the
wealthiest of developing countries or at major international research
centres linked to developed world laboratories (examples might include
development of recombinant vaccines, detection of quantitative trait loci
(QTL) and initial design of breeding programs, advanced genomics based
research and research and development of genetically modified livestock).
I think also in this debate about potential applications of biotechnologies
to developing world livestock production it behoves us to stick fairly
closely to foreseeable realities. Thus, for example, despite the major
research effort in developed countries, there is no evidence that cloning
technologies can be developed to the point of being economically viable for
dissemination of livestock in developed countries. And even if that level of
success can be developed, costs would have to be further reduced manifold
before use of clones in routine production was viable. The almost total lack
of improvement in embryo transfer (ET) technologies observed over the past
25 years and in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) over the past 8 years or so
suggests that we should exercise extreme caution in predicting future
applications of cloning technologies.
The one area where cloning technologies might have major effect is in
production of genetically modified livestock, where the associated stem-cell
like properties of the cultured cells used to produce clones can allow
targeted gene insertions/mutations. These technologies are likely to remain
expensive, but can easily be justified when set against the potential
benefits of genetically modified (GM) livestock in the developed world.
On genetically modified livestock, I take a rather different stance to some
previous contributors. The testing of new technologies has always to be set
in the context of potential benefits and harm and should be applied
consistently across technologies (an important point that is entirely
missing from the rather hysterical debates about GM crops in the developed
world, where potentially damaging technologies are already allowed and
continually being developed without debate, while the fairly innocuous GM
technologies receive intense debate). It is right and proper that a debate
on testing GM livestock take place, but I firmly believe that when put into
its proper context, appropriate testing is not a substantive issue or
limitation. The point was also made that GM may have less potential for
livestock than crops at present. I'm not convinced that this is true. There
is a great deal of research on GM livestock going on behind closed doors in
developed countries that demonstrates that innovative and potentially
profound changes can be made. The developments in transgenic technologies
have already made production of GM livestock economically feasible (but not
cheap), and current developments of cloning and stem-cell like properties
promise an order of magnitude increase in ease of production (some companies
claim already to be applying these technologies). The issue for the
international community is whether it is prepared to provide the resources
to explore genetic modifications of livestock that could be of benefit to
the developing world. I personally would focus on efforts to modify
resistance to disease and parasites. But I'm sure that innovative thinkers
could come up with several, perhaps many other useful types of change. Such
research is long-term, but the potential benefits are enormous and we need
to start substantial research in this field as soon as possible.
John Gibson
___________________________________________
[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-----
[Thanks to Dr. Chandrasiri for providing more background to his initial
message of 21 July....Moderator]
I am A.D.N. Chandrasiri (PhD), Veterinary Research Officer attached
to the Veterinary Research Institute, Sri Lanka.
Although AI can be considered as an alternative reproductive method to
natural service, this technique is not very popular among the small scale
dairy farmers. In Sri Lanka, the first AI calf was born in 1952. Although
there are many advantages of the technique, the present AI coverage is
approximately 15%. In other words, 85% of the breedable cows are naturally
bred. Although it is very expensive to maintain a stud bull, in tea
plantation areas where high yielding temperate type of cows are being
maintained, the majority of the cows are still naturally bred.
There are many reasons for this situation. But I feel the most important
factor is lack of
farmer education. A recent study carried out in Sri Lanka indicated that 12%
of the AIs have been performed during the luteal phase (based on milk
progesterone levels at day 0 samples). I believe the situation is the same
in many of the developing countries. If the farmers can be educated on
proper
heat detection and correct time of AI, that alone may cause significant
improvement in the AI service.
In Sri Lanka, embryo transfer (ET) technique is still under experimental
basis. It will take
few more years to get the ET technique established on commercial basis. Once
it is established, multiple ovulation and embryo transfer (MOET) technique
will have a greater impact on livestock production. MOET can be practiced in
the farms where elite herds are
maintained and more animals can be made available to the farmers.
As slaughter of buffaloes and female cattle is prohibited in Sri Lanka,
slaughter house ovaries are not freely available. Therefore in-vitro
maturation/fertilisation/culture (IVM/IVF/IVC) procedures to produce embryos
cannot be applied. Collaborative programs with
the countries where slaughterhouse ovaries are freely available would solve
this problem. For example, in certain provinces in India where buffaloes and
cattle are being slaughtered in a large scale, slaughterhouse ovaries can be
used to produce IVF embryos. It will be able to produce sexed embryos with
known genetic composition to suit the breeding programs of the recipient
country. Such type of program will certainly help to develop the livestock
industry in the region. Much faster development can be achieved, if the
countries with different resources get together and work for common
objectives than attempting to solve the problems individually.
A.D.N. Chandrasiri, PhD
[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 ]
Président du Comité National de la Recherche Agronomique
CNRA Bamako (MALI) tel/fax : (223) 22 71 65
atraore@spider.toolnet.org
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 2:55 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Breeding stations versus farm environment
1. Central breeding stations can (and do!) have breeding objectives and
farming conditions that are different from those in the commercial sector.
2. Genotype by environment interactions do occur and can lead to ineffective
genetic progress for those in the commercial sector.
Hugh T. Blair
Professor of Animal Science
Director of Research and Postgraduate Studies
Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences
Phone: +64-6-350-5122
http://ivabs.massey.ac.nz
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 4:54 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Experiment Station vs. Farm Performance
New York, USA
kandmhfarm@sprintmail.com
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 11:43 AM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Biotechnology and animal breeding
Diplomate, American College of Theriogenologists
Dept. Veterinary Clinical Sciences
College of Veterinary Medicine
Washington State University
Pullman, WA 99164-6610
Phone: 509-335-1963
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 2:00 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Biotech, environment and socio-economics
School of Natural & Rural Systems Management
University of Queensland
email: woodford@uqg.uq.edu.au
Division of Applied Management & Computing
Lincoln University
Canterbury, New Zealand
email: woodfork@lincoln.ac.nz
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 3:51 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: "development projects" in developing countries
Researcher at The Research Institute for Animal Production
Bogor, Ciawi, Indonesia
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 3:55 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: genotype X nutritional environment interaction
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
Editor: South African Journal of Animal Science
(SASAS website: www.sasas.co.za: http://www.sasas.co.za )
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 9:14 AM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: AI and ET
Avi Biopharma,
USA
satori@avibio.com
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 10:42 AM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Reproductive biotechnologies/breed improvement/sub-saharan Africa
Chairman of the National research council for agricultural research
CNRA Bamako (MALI) tel /fax: (223) 22 71 65
atraore@spider.toolnet.org
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 9:50 AM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: holism // functional genomics // transgenics
Professor of Genetics
Department of Animal Sciences
Purdue University
W. Lafayette IN 47907-1151, USA
Phone
765-494-8032
FAX 765-494-9346
bmuir@purdue.edu
http://www.ansc.purdue.edu/faculty/muir.htm
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 3:57 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: AI and ET
Researcher at The Research Institute for Animal Production
Bogor, Ciawi, Indonesia
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 4:12 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: DNA technology and vaccines ; foreign breeds
Senior Project Development Adviser ( Biotechnology)
Bureau of Agricultural Research
Department of Agriculture, Philippines
Tel. No. 63(2)920-0226, 63(49)536-3224
Fax No. 63(2)925-2965, 63(2)927-5691
halos@mozcom.com
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 5:04 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Animal nutrition: Manipulation of plants or the rumen to
increase livestock productivity ?
2) decrease in fibre content and increase in cell solubles,
3) addition of beta-glucanase, arabinoxylanase and phytase in barley, rye
and other grains for use in diets
for monogastrics,
4) increase in soluble carbohydrate in roughages,
5) increase of protein in tropical forages and decrease in degradability of
protein in the
rumen for temperate forages,
6) increase in sulphur amino acids in leguminous forage,
7) regulation of protein and carbohydrate contents and their
degradation to achieve maximum microbial protein synthesis in the rumen.
Animal Production and Health Section
Joint FAO/IAEA Division
International Atomic Energy Agency
Wagramerstr 5, A-1400 Vienna
Austria
e-mail:H.Makkar@iaea.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 9:06 AM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Animal nutrition: Manipulation of plants or the rumen to
increase livestock productivity ?
Coordinator, Soul of Agriculture Project
P.O. Box 72084, Davis CA. 95617, USA
Home Phone 530-756-9679 Toll Free 1-888-393-4047, pin 3903
Office (Community Alliance with Family Farmers, CAFF) 530-756-8518 ext 31
Fax 530-756-7857. Toll Free to Dundon at CAFF 1-888-393-4047, pin 7183, ext
31
sjdundon@davis.com
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 9:18 AM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Biotechnology in beef production
Project Leader
Fat deposition project
Cattle and Beef Quality Cooperative Research Centre
CSIRO Livestock Industries
Molecular Animal Genetics Centre
Level 3, Gehrmann Laboratories
University of Queensland
St. Lucia, 4067
Brisbane, Australia
Fax 61 7 3214 2480
mobile 0418 790 486
Email gregory.harper@tag.csiro.au
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 3:18 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: How best to use biotechnology in developing countries
Head,
Animal Production and Health Section
Joint FAO/IAEA Division
of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture
Wagramer Strasse 5
P.O. Box 100
A-1400 Vienna, Austria
M.H.Jeggo@iaea.org
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 8:31 AM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: AI service in Sri Lanka
Veterinary Research Institute
P. O. Box 28
Peradeniya
Sri Lanka
Tel: 0094 8 388311-2
Fax: 0094 8 388125
E mail: ddvri@slt.lk
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 4:22 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: How best to use biotechnology in developing countries
***** NOTE NEW EDINBURGH ADDRESS FROM JULY 3RD******
Professor John P. Gibson
Program Leader, Genetics and Genomics
International Livestock Research Institute
P.O. Box 30709, Nairobi, Kenya
tel [254] 2 630743 ext 4709 or [1] 650-833-6660 ext 4709
facs [254] 2 631499 or [1] 650-833-6661
E-mail: j.gibson@cgiar.org
{Note that telephone calls from most countries will be cheaper and
receive better connections if routed via the USA numbers given above}
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 12:06 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: AI, ET, IVM/IVF, Sexed Embryos in Sri Lanka
Veterinary Research Institute
P. O. Box 28
Peradeniya
Sri Lanka
Tel: 0094 8 388311-2
Fax: 0094 8 388125
E mail: ddvri@slt.lk