Conference 3, Animals: Summary for June 2000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 12:07 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Biotechnology and Developing Countries

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kassim

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 4:56 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Biotechnology and animal breeding

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

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

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 8:53 AM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Animal fiber

This is from Ron Santo. I am trained as a synthetic organic chemist. I've become involved in an antisense company, initially known as antivirals and now known as avi biopharma where I've been involved with adapting a solid phase synthesis strategy to the synthesis of the company's proprietary morpholino backbone oligonucleotide analogs.

Referring to the message of Pierre Cronje (20 June): Not to underplay the importance of fiber production to developing economies, isn't a higher priority assigned to milk and meat production ? Doesn't fiber come more into play when they attempt some sort of industrial adaptation, e.g., British colonialism, trade or tourist goods ?

Ron Sato
satori@avibio.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 5:16 PM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Views of reproductive technologies in livestock sector

I am Dr. Caroline Wiwie, I graduated from James Cook University, Australia, but now I live in Indonesia. My major is reproductive biotechnologies.

I would like to give you my views about reproductive technologies in the livestock sector. First of all, as we can see easily, there is a big difference in the livestock sector between Australia and Indonesia, and the main problem is income per capita: for Indonesian people it is too low if we compare with Australian. Starting from this point of view, we cannot expect too much in this minimum condition in Indonesia. For example, in Indonesia, farmers usually only have a few head of cattle (one to three) and keep them near their little houses and the same thing with goats and sheep, they only have a few head, they keep their animals as money saved for future use, so it is so hard to improve this condition unless the government help them.

Talking about the government, again we would come across many problems, as I had experience as a consultant for the livestock sector for some projects of Asian Development Bank (ADB) and also World Bank projects, one of my team's proposals was accepted by ADB and funded about US $ 35 million (in 1994), but I don't think this project was well run. The problems are too many, no professionalism, no discipline, etc.

I think as a developing country, Indonesia for the time being only needs to multiply the livestock population with good quality of animals through reproductive biotechnologies, such as embryo transfer and artificial insemination as a basic need. If budget is provided for this project, there should be professionals who handle everything, otherwise it would be a waste of everything.

I think I'll stop my comments here and am happy for your response.

Caroline Wiwie, Indonesia
wcaroline@dnet.net.id

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 8:31 AM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Genetic improvement and adult cloning in developing countries

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

-----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

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod3
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 8:53 AM
To: 'biotech-room3@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: genetic improvement and adult cloning in developing countries

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.

-----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

Return to Logs of Conference 3 or go to the main Forum pages.