Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T22:22:10.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Threats to animal genetic resources for food and agriculture – approaches to recording, description, classification and analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2010

D. Pilling
D. Pilling*
Affiliation:
Animal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy
*
Correspondence to: D. Pilling, Animal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy. email: [email protected]
Get access

Summary

Numerous threats to animal genetic resources for food and agriculture (AnGR) have been described in the literature. Yet knowledge regarding the threats facing particular breeds and production systems is patchy and often unavailable to relevant stakeholders. Lack of knowledge about threats often goes hand in hand with a more general lack of knowledge about the characteristics, use, management and distribution of livestock breeds. The study of threats should be an integral part of national surveying and monitoring strategies for AnGR. Field surveys are an opportunity to draw upon the knowledge of livestock keepers and other local stakeholders and to map breed distributions. Insights from the field should be integrated, together with information on economic trends, policy developments and the distribution of risks associated with epidemics and other disasters, into a broader understanding of threats. If a large-scale survey of stakeholder opinion is envisaged, it is important to be clear about the objectives of the exercise when designing any classification framework to be used for data collection and analysis. Analysis of threats should aim not only to record the presence or absence of particular threats but also to provide a better understanding of their spatial and temporal dynamics and how they are affected by context (location, production environment, human attitudes and objectives, etc.).

Résumé

De nombreuses menaces aux ressources zoogénétiques pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture ont été décrites dans bon nombre de publications. Pourtant, les connaissances relatives aux menaces auxquelles sont confrontés certaines races et systèmes de production particuliers sont incomplètes et souvent pas disponibles aux parties intéressées. Ce manque de connaissances relatives aux menaces va souvent de pair avec un manque plus généralisé de connaissances en matière de caractéristiques, d'utilisation, de gestion et de distribution des races d'animaux d’élevage. L’étude des menaces devrait faire partie intégrante des stratégies nationales d'enquête et de suivi sur les ressources zoogénétiques. Les enquêtes sur le terrain offrent la possibilité de puiser dans les connaissances des éleveurs et des autres parties prenantes locales et de cartographier la distribution des races. Les idées issues du terrain devraient être intégrées, ainsi que les informations sur les évolutions économiques, sur les développements des politiques et sur la distribution des risques liés aux épidémies et à d'autres catastrophes, à une compréhension plus élargie des menaces. Si l'on prévoit d'entreprendre une enquête à grande échelle sur les opinions des parties prenantes, il est important d’établir clairement les objectifs de cet exercice lors de la conception de tout cadre de classification à utiliser pour la collecte et l'analyse des données. L'analyse des menaces devrait viser non seulement l'enregistrement de la présence ou de l'absence de menaces particulières, mais également une meilleure compréhension de leurs dynamiques spatiales et temporelles et des façons dont elles sont affectées par le contexte (emplacement, environnement de production, et comportements et objectifs des êtres humains, etc.).

Resumen

En la literatura aparecen descritas numerosas amenazas de los recursos zoogenéticos para la alimentación y la agricultura (AnGR, por sus siglas en inglés). Todavía el grado de conocimiento acerca de las amenazas que afrontan determinadas razas y sistemas de producción es incompleto y frecuentemente no está al alcance de los diferentes agentes implicados. La falta de conocimiento sobres las amenazas a menudo va de la mano con la falta de conocimiento más general sobre las características, utilización, gestión y distribución de las razas de ganado. El estudio de las amenazas debe ser una parte integral de las encuestas y de las estrategias de seguimiento nacionales para los AnGR. Las encuestas de campo representan una oportunidad para recurrir al conocimiento de los propietarios del ganado y otros agentes locales implicados, y diseñar el mapa de la distribución de la raza. Las percepciones del campo deben ser integradas, además de con la información sobre las tendencias económicas, desarrollo de políticas y la distribución de los riesgos asociados con las epidemias y otros desastres, en una comprensión más profunda de las amenazas. Si se prevé una encuesta a gran escala para conocer la opinión de los agentes implicados, es importante tener claro los objetivos del ejercicio a la hora de diseñar clasificaciones en el marco de trabajo para ser usadas en la recopilación y análisis de datos. El análisis de las amenazas debe perseguir no sólo registrar la presencia o ausencia de amenazas particulares, sino también proporcionar una mejor comprensión de sus movimientos, desde el punto de vista espacial y temporal, y como se ve afectados por el contexto (localización, producción medioambiental, y actitud humana y objetivos, etc.).

Keywords

threatanimal genetic resourcessurveyclassificationmenaceressources zoogénétiquesenquêteclassificationamenazarecursos zoogenéticosencuestaclasificación
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Genetic Resources/Resources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales , Volume 47 , July 2010 , pp. 11 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carson, A., Elliott, M., Groom, J., Winter, A. & Bowles, D. 2009. Geographical isolation of native sheep breeds in the UK – evidence of endemism as a risk factor to genetic resources. Livestock Sci., 123(2–3): 288–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dýrmundsson, Ó.R. 2002. Leadersheep – the unique strain of Iceland sheep. Inf., 32: 45–48.Google Scholar
EEA. 2006. EEA glossary. Copenhagen, European Environmental Agency (available at http://glossary.eea.europa.eu/).Google Scholar
EEA. 2007. Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe. EEA Technical Report No. 11/2007. Copenhagen, European Environmental Agency (available at www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2007_11/#documentContent).Google Scholar
FAO. 2006. The impact of disasters and emergencies on animal genetic resources, by C. Heffernan & M. Goe. Background Study Paper No. 32. Rome, Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/015/j8939e.pdf).Google Scholar
FAO. 2007a. The state of the world's animal genetic resources for food and agriculture, edited by Rischkowsky, B. & Pilling, D.. Rome (available at www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1250e/a1250e00.htm).Google Scholar
FAO. 2007b. The global plan of action for animal genetic resources. Rome (available at www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1404e/a1404e00.htm).Google Scholar
FAO. 2009a. Threats to animal genetic resources – their relevance, importance and opportunities to decrease their impact. Background Study Paper No. 50. Rome, Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/017/ak572e.pdf).Google Scholar
FAO. 2009b. Preparation of national strategies and action plans for animal genetic resources. Rome (available at www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0770e/i0770e00.htm).Google Scholar
FAO. 2010a. Breeding strategies for sustainable management of animal genetic resources. Rome (available at www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1103e/i1103e00.htm).Google Scholar
FAO. 2010b. Adding value to livestock diversity – marketing to promote local breeds and improve livelihoods. Rome (available at www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1283e/i1283e00.htm).Google Scholar
FAO/WAAP. 2008. Production environment descriptors for animal genetic resources. Report of the FAO/WAAP Workshop held in Capralola, Italy, 6–8 May 2008, edited by Pilling, D., Rischkowsky, B. & Scherf, B.. Rome (available at http://dad.fao.org/cgi-bin/getblob.cgi?sid=-1,593).Google Scholar
Gandini, G., Díaz, C., Soini, K., Taina, L. & Martín-Collado, D. 2010. Viewing differences and similarities across local cattle farming in Europe. In Hiemstra, S.J., de Haas, Y., Mäki-Tanila, A. & Gandini, G., eds. Local cattle breeds in Europe. Development of policies and strategies for self-sustaining breeds. Wageningen, The Netherlands, Wageningen Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Gibson, J., Gamage, S., Hanotte, O., Iñiguez, L., Maillard, J.C., Rischkowsky, B., Semambo, D. & Toll, J. 2006. Options and strategies for the conservation of farm animal genetic resources. Report of an international workshop (7–10 November 2005, Montpellier, France). Rome, CGIAR System-wide Genetic Resources Programme (SGRP)/Bioversity International.Google Scholar
Heffernan, C. 2009. Biodiversity versus emergencies: the impact of restocking on animal genetic resources after disaster. Disasters, 33(2): 239–252.Google Scholar
Hoffman, I. 2010. Livestock genetic diversity and sustainability. Livestock Sci., submitted.Google Scholar
Joost, S. & Matasci, G. 2010. An integrated sustainability index for the geo-monitoring of the Swiss Brown Original Local: socio-economic, socio-demographic and environmental context. Presentation, at Globaldiv Livestock Biodiversity Workshop, May 2010.Google Scholar
Kubbinga, B., Hoffmann, I. & Scherf, B. 2007. Passing on the fire – to further inspire people to contribute to the management of animal genetic resources. Anim. Genet. Res. Inf., 41: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LPPS & Köhler-Rollefson, I. 2005. Documenting animal breeds and breeding from a community perspective. Sadri, Rajasthan, India, Lokhit Pashu-Palak Sansthan (available at www.pastoralpeoples.org/docs/ikab.pdf).Google Scholar
Martynuik, E., Pilling, D. & Scherf, B. 2010. Do we have effective tools to measure trends in genetic diversity of domesticated animals? Anim. Genet. Res., 47: 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxim, L., Spangentberg, J.H. & O'Connor, M. 2009. An analysis of risks for biodiversity under the DPSIR framework. Ecol. Econ., 69: 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MIRBSE. 2007. Continuous monitoring of agricultural biodiversity in the Alpine region: the Alpine Delphi final report 2007. St. Gallen, Switzerland, Monitoring Institute for Rare Breeds and Seeds in Europe in collaboration with SAVE Foundation (available at www.save-foundation.net/pdf/ALM_Summary.pdf).Google Scholar
OECD. 1993. Environmental indicators for environmental performance reviews. Paris.Google Scholar
OECD. 1999. Environmental indicators for agriculture. Vol. 1. Concepts and framework. Paris, OECD Publications Service.Google Scholar
OED. 2010. Oxford English dictionary, On-line edition.Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Open2.Net. 2005. The Suffolk Horse. An interview with Philip Ryder-Davis, Professional Vet & Secretary of the Suffolk Horse Society. Open University/BBC (available at www.open2.net/sciencetechnologynature/worldaroundus/historyofthesuffolkhorse.html).Google Scholar
Rege, J.E.O. 1999. The state of African cattle genetic resources I. Classification framework and identification of threatened and extinct breeds. Anim. Genet. Res. Inf., 25: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rege, J.E.O. & Gibson, J.P. 2003. Animal genetic resources and economic development: issues in relation to economic valuation. Ecol. Econ., 45(3): 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roper, M. 2005. Effects of disease on diversity. Paper presented at the International Conference on Options and Strategies for the Conservation of Farm Animal Genetic Resources, Agropolis, Montpellier, France, 7–10 November 2005.Google Scholar
Seré, C., van der Zijpp, A., Persely, G. & Rege, E. 2008. Dynamics of livestock production systems, drivers of change and prospects for animal genetic resources. Anim. Gen. Resour. Inf., 22: 1–24.Google Scholar
Tisdell, C. 2003. Socioeconomic of animal genetic diversity: analysis and assessment. Ecol. Econ., 45(3): 365–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolliams, J.A., Pilling, D. & Scherf, B. 2010. Surveying animal genetic resources: a prerequisite for the management of livestock diversity. Anim. Genet. Res., 47: 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar