Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T05:01:55.848Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Review: Towards the agroecological management of ruminants, pigs and poultry through the development of sustainable breeding programmes. II. Breeding strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2016

F. Phocas ,
C. Belloc ,
J. Bidanel ,
L. Delaby ,
J. Y. Dourmad ,
B. Dumont ,
P. Ezanno ,
L. Fortun-Lamothe ,
G. Foucras  and
B. Frappat
...Show all authors
F. Phocas*
Affiliation:
GABI, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, 78350 Jouy-en-Josas, France
C. Belloc
Affiliation:
INRA, Oniris, LUNAM Université, UMR1300 BioEpAR, CS40706, 44307 Nantes, France
J. Bidanel
Affiliation:
IFIP-Institut du porc, La motte au Vicomte, 35650 Le Rheu, France
L. Delaby
Affiliation:
PEGASE, INRA, AgroCampus, 35590 Saint Gilles, France
J. Y. Dourmad
Affiliation:
PEGASE, INRA, AgroCampus, 35590 Saint Gilles, France
B. Dumont
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, Theix, 63122 Saint Genès-Champanelle, France
P. Ezanno
Affiliation:
INRA, Oniris, LUNAM Université, UMR1300 BioEpAR, CS40706, 44307 Nantes, France
L. Fortun-Lamothe
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, INRA, INPT, Université de Toulouse, INP-ENSAT, INP-ENVT, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
G. Foucras
Affiliation:
IHAP, INRA, INPT, Université de Toulouse, INP- ENVT, 31076 Toulouse, France
B. Frappat
Affiliation:
Institut de l’Elevage, 149 rue de Bercy, 75595 Paris, France
E. González-García
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR868, Systèmes d’Elevage Méditerranées et Tropicaux (SELMET), Montpellier 34060, France
D. Hazard
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, INRA, INPT, Université de Toulouse, INP-ENSAT, INP-ENVT, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
C. Larzul
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, INRA, INPT, Université de Toulouse, INP-ENSAT, INP-ENVT, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
S. Lubac
Affiliation:
Institut Technique de l’Aviculture, 23 rue Baldassini, 69 364 Lyon cedex 07, France
S. Mignon-Grasteau
Affiliation:
URA, INRA, 37380 Nouzilly, France
C. R. Moreno
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, INRA, INPT, Université de Toulouse, INP-ENSAT, INP-ENVT, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
M. Tixier-Boichard
Affiliation:
GABI, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, 78350 Jouy-en-Josas, France
M. Brochard
Affiliation:
Institut de l’Elevage, 149 rue de Bercy, 75595 Paris, France
*
† E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Agroecology uses ecological processes and local resources rather than chemical inputs to develop productive and resilient livestock and crop production systems. In this context, breeding innovations are necessary to obtain animals that are both productive and adapted to a broad range of local contexts and diversity of systems. Breeding strategies to promote agroecological systems are similar for different animal species. However, current practices differ regarding the breeding of ruminants, pigs and poultry. Ruminant breeding is still an open system where farmers continue to choose their own breeds and strategies. Conversely, pig and poultry breeding is more or less the exclusive domain of international breeding companies which supply farmers with hybrid animals. Innovations in breeding strategies must therefore be adapted to the different species. In developed countries, reorienting current breeding programmes seems to be more effective than developing programmes dedicated to agroecological systems that will struggle to be really effective because of the small size of the populations currently concerned by such systems. Particular attention needs to be paid to determining the respective usefulness of cross-breeding v. straight breeding strategies of well-adapted local breeds. While cross-breeding may offer some immediate benefits in terms of improving certain traits that enable the animals to adapt well to local environmental conditions, it may be difficult to sustain these benefits in the longer term and could also induce an important loss of genetic diversity if the initial pure-bred populations are no longer produced. As well as supporting the value of within-breed diversity, we must preserve between-breed diversity in order to maintain numerous options for adaptation to a variety of production environments and contexts. This may involve specific public policies to maintain and characterize local breeds (in terms of both phenotypes and genotypes), which could be used more effectively if they benefited from the scientific and technical resources currently available for more common breeds. Last but not least, public policies need to enable improved information concerning the genetic resources and breeding tools available for the agroecological management of livestock production systems, and facilitate its assimilation by farmers and farm technicians.

Keywords

agroecologylivestockcross-breedinglocal breedbreeding scheme
Type
Review Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 11 , November 2016 , pp. 1760 - 1769
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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

Ahlman, T, Ljung, M, Rydhmer, L, Röcklinsberg, H, Strandberg, E and Wallenbeck, A 2014. Differences in preferences for breeding traits between organic and conventional dairy producers in Sweden. Livestock Science 162, 5–14.Google Scholar
Alexandre, G, González-García, E, Lallo, CHO, Ortega-Jimenez, E, Pariacote, F, Archimède, H, Mandonnet, N and Mahieu, M 2010. Goat management and systems of production: global framework and study cases in the Caribbean. Small Ruminant Research 89, 93–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altieri, MA, Nicholls, CI, Henao, A and Lana, MA 2015. Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 35, 869–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansah, GA 2000. Matching genetic potential for performance with field conditions. The layer industry worldwide. Proceedings of 21th World Poultry Congress, Montreal, Canada, electronic publication.Google Scholar
Bittante, G, Gallo, L, Carnier, P, Cassandro, M, Mantovani, R and Pastore, E 1996. Effects on fertility and litter traits under accelerated lambing scheme in crossbreeding between Finn sheep and an Alpine sheep breed. Small Ruminant Research 23, 43–50.Google Scholar
Blanc, F, Ollion, E, Puillet, L, Delaby, L, Ingrand, S, Tichit, M and Friggens, NC 2013. Evaluation quantitative de la robustesse des animaux et du troupeau: quels principes retenir? Rencontres Autour des Recherches sur les Ruminants 20, 265–272.Google Scholar
Bonneau, M, de Greef, K, Brinkman, D, Cinar, MU, Dourmad, JY, Edge, HL, Fàbrega, E, Gonzàlez, J, Houwers, HWJ, Hviid, M, Ilari-Antoine, E, Klauke, TN, Phatsara, C, Rydhmer, L, van der Oever, B, Zimmer, C and Edwards, SA 2014a. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: the procedure, the evaluated systems and the evaluation tools. Animal 8, 2011–2015.Google Scholar
Bonneau, M, Klauke, TN, Gonzàlez, J, Rydhmer, L, Ilari-Antoine, E, Dourmad, JY, de Greef, K, Houwers, HWJ, Cinar, MU, Fàbrega, E, Zimmer, C, Hviid, M, van der Oever, B and Edwards, SA 2014b. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: integrated evaluation. Animal 8, 2058–2068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browning, R, Leite-Browning, ML and Byars, MJR 2011. Reproductive and health traits among Boer, Kiko and Spanish meat goat does under humid, subtropical pasture conditions of the southeastern United States. Journal of Animal Science 89, 648–660.Google Scholar
Brunberg, EI, Grova, L and Serikstad, GL 2014. Genetics and welfare in organic poultry production: a discussion on the suitability of available breeds and hybrids. In Bioforsk report, vol. 9 (ed. Bioforsk), pp. 1–28 Tingvoll, Norway.Google Scholar
d’Alexis, S, Sauvant, D and Boval, M 2014. Mixed grazing systems of sheep and cattle to improve liveweight gain: a quantitative review. Journal of Agricultural Science 152, 655–666.Google Scholar
de Haas, Y, Smolders, EAA, Hoorneman, JN, Nauta, WL and Veerkamp, RF 2013. Suitability of cross-bred cows for organic farms baesd on cross-breeding effects on production and functional traits. Animal 7, 655–664.Google Scholar
de la Torre, A, Recoules, E, Blanc, F, Ortigues-Marty, I, D’Hour, P and Agabriel, J 2015. Changes in calculated residual energy in variable nutritional environments: an indirect approach to apprehend suckling beef cows’ robustness. Livestock Science 176, 75–84.Google Scholar
Dezetter, C, Leclerc, H, Mattalia, S, Barbat, A, Boichard, D and Ducrocq, V 2015. Inbreeding and crossbreeding parameters for production and fertility traits in Holstein, Montbéliarde and Normande cows. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 4904–4913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dumont, B, Fortun-Lamothe, L, Jouven, M, Thomas, M and Tichit, M 2013. Prospects from agroecology and industrial ecology for animal production in the 21st century. Animal 7, 1028–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumont, B, González-García, E, Thomas, M, Fortun-Lamothe, L, Ducrot, C, Dourmad, JY and Tichit, M 2014. Forty research issues for the redesign of animal production systems in the 21st century. Animal 8, 1382–1393.Google Scholar
Fanatico, AC, O’Connor-Dennie, T, Owens, CM and Emmert, JL 2007. Performance of alternative meat chickens for organic markets: impact of genotype, methionine level, and methionine source. Journal of Animal Science 85 (suppl.), 522–523.Google Scholar
FAO 2007. The state of the world’s animal genetic resources for food and agriculture (ed. B Rischkowsky, D Pilling). FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
FAO 2010. Breeding strategies for sustainable management of animal genetic resources, FAO Animal Production and Health Guidelines No. 3. Rome, Italy. Retrieved June 2, 2016, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1103e/i1103e.pdf.Google Scholar
FAO 2015. Coping with climate change. The roles of genetic resources for food and agriculture, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Fric, D and Spengler Neff, A 2014. Adéquation de l’élevage aux conditions locales. Actes des Journées Techniques – Sélection animale en AB – 5 et 6 novembre 2014 à Châteauroux, 45–53. Retrieved June 2, 2016, from http://www.itab.asso.fr/downloads/jt-select-animale/actes_compiles_pdf2.pdf.Google Scholar
Golden, BL, Garrick, BJ and Benyshek, LL 2009. Milestones in beef cattle genetic evaluation. Journal of Animal Science 87, E3–E10.Google Scholar
Haas, E and Bapst, B 2004. Swiss organic farmer survey: which path for the organic cow in the future? In Proceedings of the 2nd SAFO workshop, Witzenhausen, Germany, pp. 35–41. http://orgprints.org/00003168/.Google Scholar
Hunt, PW, Kijas, J and Ingham, A 2013. Understanding parasitic infection in sheep to design more efficient animal selection strategies. The Veterinary Journal 197, 143–152.Google Scholar
Icken, W and Schmutz, M 2013. LOHMANN DUAL – Layer and Broiler at the very same time. Poultry News, Lohmann Tierzucht 2, 8–10.Google Scholar
Laval, G, Jannuccelli, N, Legault, C, Milan, D, Groenen, MAM, Giuffra, E, Andersson, L, Nissen, PH, Jorgensen, CB, Beeckmann, P, Geldermann, H, Foulley, JL, Chevalet, C and Ollivier, L 2000. Genetic diversity of eleven European pig breeds. Genetics Selection Evolution 32, 187–203.Google Scholar
Leroy, G, Baumung, R, Boettcher, P, Scherf, B and Hoffmann, I 2016. Review: Sustainability of crossbreeding in developing countries; definitely not like crossing a meadow. Animal 10, 262–273.Google Scholar
Marshall, K, Quiros-Campos, C, van der Werf, JHJ and Kinghirn, B 2011. Marker-based selection within smallholder production systems in developing countries. Livestock Science 136, 45–54.Google Scholar
Marshall, K 2014. Optimizing the use of breed types in developping country livestock production systems: a neglected research area. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 131, 329–340.Google Scholar
Miglior, F, Muir, BL and Van Doormaal, BJ 2005. Selection indices in Holstein cattle of various countries. Journal of Dairy Science 881, 255–1263.Google Scholar
Nauta, WJ, Baars, T, Groen, AF, Veerkamp, RF and Roep, D 2001. Animal breeding in organic farming. Discussion paper. Retrieved on 21 September 2015 from http://orgprints.org/4824/1/4824.pdf.Google Scholar
Odegard, J, Sonesson, AK, Yazdi, MH and Meuwissen, THE 2009. Introgression of a major QTL from an inferior into a superior population using genomic selection. Genetics Selection Evolution 41, 38.Google Scholar
Ollion, E, Ingrand, S, Delaby, L, Trommenschlager, JM, Colette-Leurent, S and Blanc, F 2016. Assessing the diversity of trade-offs between life functions in early lactation dairy cows. Livestock Science 183, 98–107.Google Scholar
Phocas, F, Belloc, C, Bidanel, J, Delaby, L, Dourmad, JY, Dumont, B, Ezanno, P, Fortun-Lamothe, L, Foucras, G, Gonzales-Garcia, E, Hazard, D, Larzul, C, Lubac, S, Mignon-Grasteau, S, Moreno, CR, Tixier-Boichard, M and Brochard, M 2016. Review: Towards the agroecological management of ruminants, pigs and poultry through the development of sustainable breeding programmes: I. Selection goals and criteria. Animal, first published online 12 May 2016, doi:10.1017/S1751731116000926.Google Scholar
Phocas, F, Belloc, C, Delaby, L, Dourmad, JY, Ducrot, C, Dumont, B, Ezanno, P, Foucras, G, Gonzales-Garcia, E, Hazard, D, Lamothe, L, Larzul, C, Mignon-Grasteau, S, Moreno, CR, Tixier-Boichard, M, Brochard, M, Bidanel, J and Lubac, S 2015. Outils et leviers pour favoriser le développement d’une génétique animale adaptée aux enjeux de l’agroécologie. Rapport de l’étude no. SSP-2014-061 commanditée par le Ministère de l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et la Forêt, septembre 2015. 120 p. Retrieved June 2, 2016, from http://agriculture.gouv.fr/outils-et-leviers-pour-favoriser-le-developpement-dune-genetique-animale-adaptee-aux-enjeux-de-lagro.Google Scholar
Puillet, L, Martin, O, Sauvant, D and Tichit, M 2010. An individual-based model simulating goat response variability and long term herd performance. Animal 4, 2084–2098.Google Scholar
Rozzi, P, Miglior, F and Hand, KJ 2007. A total merit selection index for Ontario organic dairy farmers. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 1584–1593.Google Scholar
Rydhmer, L, Gourdine, JL, De Greef, K and Bonneau, M 2014. Evaluation of the sustainability of contrasted pig farming systems: breeding programmes. Animal 8, 2016–2026.Google Scholar
Santos, BFS, McHugh, N, Byrne, TJ, Berry, DP and Amer, PR 2015. Comparison of breeding objectives across countries with application to sheep indexes in New Zealand and Ireland. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 132, 144–154.Google Scholar
Sidani, C, Astruc, JM, Baelden, M, Barillet, F, Bibé, B, Bonnot, A, Boscher, MY, Bouchel, D, Bouffartigue, B, Bouix, J, Brochard, M, Dion, F, Francois, D, Jouhet, E, Jullien, E, Leymarie, C, Moreno, CR, Orlianges, M, Palhière, I, Perret, G, Raoul, J, Raynal, A, Tiphine, L and Tribon, P 2010. The French Ovine Scrapie Plan: Results And Prospects. 9th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 1 to 6 August 2010, Leipzig, Germany.Google Scholar
Springbett, AJ, MacKenzie, K, Wooliams, JA and Bishop, SC 2003. The contribution of genetic diversity to the spread of infectious diseases in livetsock populations. Genetics 165, 1465–1474.Google Scholar
Tichit, M, Puillet, L, Sabatier, R and Teillard, F 2011. Multicriteria performance and sustainability in livestock farming systems: functional diversity matters. Livestock Science 139, 161–171.Google Scholar
Tixier-Boichard, M, Verrier, E, Rognon, X and Zerjal, T 2015. Farm animal genetic and genomic resources from an agroecological perspective. Frontiers in Genetics 6, 1–3.Google Scholar
Vanderick, S, Faux, P and Gengler, N 2011. Is it possible to define a European total merit index? Interbull Bulletin 44, 95–99.Google Scholar
Vinet, A, Drouilhet, L, Bodin, L, Mulsant, P, Fabre, S and Phocas, F 2012. Genetic control of multiple births in low ovulating mammalian species. Mammalian Genome 23, 727–740.Google Scholar