2002 ANIMAL GENETIC RESOURCES INFORMATION · ANIMAL GENETIC RESOURCES INFORMATION BULLETIN D’INFORMATION SUR LE RESSOURCES GÉNÉTIQUES ANIMALES BOLETIN DE INFORMACION SOBRE RECURSOS

ANIMAL GENETIC RESOURCES INFORMATION

BULLETIND’INFORMATIONSUR LE RESSOURCESGÉNÉTIQUES ANIMALES

BOLETINDE INFORMACIONSOBRE RECURSOSGENETICOS ANIMALES

Initiative pourla Diversitédes AnimauxDomestiques

Initiative for Domestic AnimalDiversity

Iniciativa parala Diversidadde los AnimalesDomésticos

322002

FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations

OrganisationdesNationsUniespourl'alimentationetl'agriculture

Organizaciónde lasNacionesUnidaspara laAgriculturay laAlimentatción

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in thispublication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever onthe part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nationsconcerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of itsauthorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Les appellations employées dans cette publication et la présentation desdonnées qui y figurent n’impliquent de la part de l’ Organisation desNations Unies pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture aucune prise de positionquant au statut juridique des pays, territoires, villes ou zones ou de leursautorités, ni quant au tracé de leurs frontières ou limites.

Las denominaciones empleadas en esta publicación y la forma en queaparecen presentados los datos que contiene no implican, de parte de laOrganización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y laAlimentación, juicio alguno sobre la condición jurídica de países,territorios, ciudades o zonas, o de sus autoridades, ni respecto de ladelimitación de sus fronteras o límites.

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in thisinformation product for educational or other non-commercial purposesare authorized without any prior written permission from the copyrightholders provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction ofmaterial in this information product for resale or other commercialpurposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders.Applications for such permission should be addressed to the Chief,Publishing and Multimedia Service, Information Division, FAO, Vialedelle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy or by e-mail [email protected] © FAO 2001

Tous droits réservés. Les informations ci-après peuvent être reproduitesou diffusées à des fins éducatives et non commerciales sans autorisationpréalable du détenteur des droits d’auteur à condition que la source desinformations soit clairement indiquée. Ces informations ne peuventtoutefois pas être reproduites pour la revente ou d’autres finscommerciales sans l’autorisation écrite du détenteur des droits d’auteur.Les demandes d’autorisation devront être adressées au Chef du Servicedes publications et du multimédia, Division de l’information, FAO, Vialedelle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italie ou, par courrier électronique,à [email protected] © FAO 2001

Todos los derechos reservados. Se autoriza la reproducción y difusión dematerial contenido en este producto informativo para fines educativos uotros fines no comerciales sin previa autorización escrita de los titularesde los derechos de autor, siempre que se especifique claramente la fuente.Se prohíbe la reproducción de material contenido en este productoinformativo para reventa u otros fines comerciales sin previa autorizaciónescrita de los titulares de los derechos de autor. Las peticiones para obtenertal autorización deberán dirigirse al Jefe del Servicio de Publicaciones yMultimedia de la Dirección de Información de la FAO, Viale delle Termedi Caracalla, 00100 Roma, Italia, o por correo electrónico [email protected] © FAO 2001

Editors - Editeurs - Editores:S. Galal & J. Boyazoglu

Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome,Italy

Animal Genetic Resources Information ispublished under the auspices of the Food andAgriculture Organization of the UnitedNations (FAO). It is edited in the AnimalGenetic Resources Group of the AnimalProduction and Health Division of FAO. Itis available direct from FAO or through FAOsales agents.

ANIMAL GENETIC RESOURCESINFORMATION will be sent free of chargeto those concerned with the sustainabledevelopment conservation of domesticlivestock. Anyone wishing to receive itregularly should send their name andaddress to the Editor, at the address shownabove.AGRI can also be found in the “Library” ofDAD-IS at www.fao.org/dad-is.

Le Bulletin d’information sur les ressourcesgénétiques animales est publié sous lesauspices de l’Organisation des Nations Uniespour l’alimentation et l’agriculture (FAO).Cette publication est éditée par le Groupe desressources génétiques de la Division de laproduction et de la santé animales de la FAO.On peut se le procurer directement au siègede la FAO ou auprès des dépositaires etagents de vente des publications del’Organisation.

LE BULLETIN D’INFORMATION SUR LESRESSOURCES GÉNÉTIQUES ANIMALESsera envoyé gratuitement aux personnesintéressées par le développement durable etla conservation du cheptel national. Lespersonnes souhaitant recevoir cettepublication régulièrement voudront bienfaire parvenir leurs nom et adresse àl’éditeur, à l’adresse susmentionneé.AGRI peut être consulté également dans la“Librairie” de DAD: www.fao.org/dad-is.

El Boletín de información sobre recursosgenéticos animales se publica bajo losauspicios de la Organización de las NacionesUnidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación(FAO). Se edita en el Grupo de RecursosGenéticos de la Dirección de Producción ySanidad Animal de la FAO. Se puede obtenerdirectamente de la FAO o a través de susagentes de venta.

EL BOLETÍN DE INFORMACIÓN SOBRERECURSOS GENÉTICOS ANIMALES seráenviado gratuitamente a quienes esténinteresados en el desarrollo sostenible y laconservación del ganado doméstico. Si sedesea recibirlo regularmente, se ruegacomunicar nombre, apellido y dirección aleditor a la dirección arriba indicada.AGRI puede consultarse también en la“Librería” de DAD-IS en:www.fao.org/dad-is.

ANIMAL GENETIC

RESOURCES INFORMATION

BULLETIN

D’INFORMATION

SUR LES RESSOURCES

GÉNÉTIQUES ANIMALES

BOLETÍN DE

INFORMACIÓN SOBRE RECURSOS

GENÉTICOS ANIMALES

CONTENTS Page

322002

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES POUR L’ALIMENTATION ET L’AGRICULTURE

ORGANIZACIÓN DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS PARA LA AGRICULTURA Y LA ALIMENTACIÓN

Editorial: The Global Strategy for the Management ofFarm Animal Genetic Resources – an Update .................................................. I

Conservation of farm animal biodiversity:history and prospects ......................................................................................... 1

J. Hodges

Development of a Regional Focal Point for animalgenetic resources: the European example ....................................................... 13

D. Planchenault & L. Ollivier

Establishing a National Focal Point for farm animalgenetic resources in South Africa .................................................................... 19

K. Ramsay

Ongole cattle status in India ................................................................................. 27G.K. Gaur , S.N. Kaushik & R.C. Garg

Deoni cattle breed of India. A study on population dynamicsand morphometric characteristics ................................................................... 35

G. Singh, G.K. Gaur, A.E. Nivsarkar, G.R. Patil & K.R. Mitkari

Leadersheep: the unique strain of Iceland sheepa ................................................ 45Ó.R. Dýrmundsson

La chèvre Draa. Potentiel de production et caractéristiquesd’adaptation aux contraintes de l’environnement aride ................................. 49

J. Hossaini-Hilali & Y. Mouslih

Four Southern African Horse Breeds .................................................................... 57F.J. van der Merwe & J. Martin

On-farm characterization of the indigenous small EastAfrican Shorthorn Zebu cattle (SEAZ) in theSoutheast rangelands of Kenya ....................................................................... 73

J.M. Mwacharo & J.E.O. Rege

Characteristics of indigenous chicken in Iraq ...................................................... 87A.A. Al–Rawi & A.K. Al-Athari

Recent Publications ............................................................................................... 95

Editorial Policies and Procedures ....................................................................... 101

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

I

Animal Genetic Resources Information, No. 32, 2002

The FAO programme entity Global Strategyfor the Management of Farm Animal GeneticResources is to help tap the significantpotential of animal genetic resources to bothfood security and rural economicdiversification and development. To realizethis potential, the use and development ofanimal genetic resources must be effectivelyplanned to achieve the desirable outcomes.Past attempts to increase agriculturalproduction using genetic improvement ofdomestic animals have not always been wellplanned and undertaken with all of theimportant factors to be considered. Locallyadapted breeds are often able to survive andproduce valuable products in low input andvariable environments. A strategy to developthem is likely to be more sustainable over thelong-term than reliance external geneticresources.

Animal genetic diversity is rapidly erodingdespite the strongly growing demand forlivestock products. Conservation anddevelopment of animal genetic resources isessential to enable farmers to adapt tochanging environmental conditions andconsumer demands.

FAO, in using its comparative advantages,is leading efforts to sustainably use, develop,and conserve animal genetic resources, andsince 1993 has been engaged in thepreparation of the Global Strategy for theManagement of Farm Animal GeneticResources. The Global Strategy is intended toserve as a strategic framework to guideinternational efforts in the animal geneticresources sector. Preparation of the FirstReport on the State of the World’s Animal GeneticResources will be an essential element of theGlobal Strategy up to 2004-2005. There is a

specific clear mandate from FAO membercountries through the Commission on GeneticResources for Food and Agriculture todevelop the Global Strategy for theManagement of Animal Genetic Resourcesalong the lines followed by this entity.Further priority actions for the sustainableuse of farm animal genetic diversity will bebased on the First Report. The proposedReport is a country-driven process, endorsingFAO’s guidelines for the preparation ofcountry reports. Furthermore, the FAOWorking Group on Animal Genetic Resourcesrequested that countries, donors, stakeholdersand FAO increase efforts to mobilize theresources necessary, including financialresources, in order to successfully undertakethe preparation of the Report and implementpriority follow-up action. FAO stands readyto assist its member nations in thepreparation of this landmark document andin implementing country assistance forpriority actions in conservation andmanagement of farm animal geneticresources. The country driven State of theWorld’s Animal Genetic Resources processhas already been initiated with the FAODirector-General inviting countries toparticipate in this global effort. To date103 countries have formally accepted. A set oftraining and reporting tools has beendeveloped to assist countries in preparingtheir national reports. A global training efforthas been implemented, reaching 123 countriesand 224 professionals in 2001, and ending upin May 2002 by reaching 53 additionalcountries and 120 more professionals. Thisundertaken is expected to go on to the year2005 until the technical and analytical work

EditorialThe Global Strategy for the Management of Farm AnimalGenetic Resources – an Update

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

II

related to Report has been completed and willexpectedly cost US$ 3 400 000 ofextra-budgetary funds.

This activity will contribute to theintegration of the management of animalgenetic resources into other agriculturalactivities and will lead to the enhancement ofcapacities of communities to utilize local

animal genetic resources for sustainable rurallivelihoods, as it will address more equitableaccess to resources and helps developinternational instruments to regulate globalanimal genetic resources. The activity alsorelates to other activities of concern to FAOlike Biological Diversity, Biotechnology,Ethics and Sustainable Livelihoods.

The Editors

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

III


Le programme de la FAO pour la Stratégiemondiale pour la gestion des ressourcesgénétiques des animaux domestiques vise àexploiter l’important potentiel de ressourcesgénétiques animales tant pour atteindre lasécurité alimentaire que pour ladiversification et développement del’économie rurale. Pour atteindre ce but,l’utilisation et le développement desressources génétiques animales doivent êtreplanifiés de façon effective. Les actionsentreprises par le passé pour augmenter laproduction agricole au moyen del’amélioration génétique des animauxdomestiques n’ont pas toujours été bienplanifiées ni réalisées en tenant compte detous les facteurs nécessaires. Les races localesadaptées sont souvent capables de survivre etde fournir des productions valables avec unminimum d’intrants et dans des conditionsenvironnementales variables. Une stratégieorientée vers le développement de ces racesserait plus durable à long terme plutôt que derecourir à des ressources génétiques externes.

La diversité génétique animale subit uneérosion rapide malgré la forte demandecroissante de produits animaux. Laconservation et le développement desressources génétiques animales sontessentiels pour permettre aux éleveurs des’adapter aux changements des conditions demilieu et de la demande des consommateurs.

La FAO, grâce aux avantages dont elledispose, dirige les efforts pour une utilisation,un développement et une conservation desressources génétiques animales durables.Pour cela, depuis 1993, la FAO a entrepris lapréparation de la Stratégie mondiale pour lagestion des ressources des animaux

EditorialStratégie Mondiale pour la Gestion des Ressources Génétiquesdes Animaux Domestiques - Mise à Jour

domestiques qui doit servir comme cadrestratégique d’orientation des effortsinternationaux dans le secteur des ressourcesgénétiques animales. La préparation duPremier rapport sur la Situation mondiale desressources génétiques animale sera un deséléments essentiels de la Stratégie mondialepour la période 2004-2005. Il existe un mandatspécifique des pays membres de la FAO à laCommission pour les ressources génétiquespour l’alimentation et l’agriculture afin dedévelopper la Stratégie mondiale pour lagestion des ressources génétiques desanimaux domestiques suivant les lignespréconisées par cette entité. Les actionsultérieures pour l’utilisation durable des ladiversité génétique des animaux domestiquesferont référence à ce Premier rapport. CeRapport doit être le résultat d’une procédurenationale de démarrage qui accepte lesnormes de la FAO pour la préparation durapport national. En outre, le Groupe detravail de la FAO pour les Ressourcesgénétiques animales a demandé aux pays,aux donateurs, aux parties prenantes et à laFAO d’augmenter leurs efforts pour mobiliserles ressources nécessaires, y compris desressources financières, afin de pouvoircommencer avec succès la préparation duRapport et mener à terme les actions de suiviprioritaires. La FAO est prête à donner sonassistance aux pays membres pour lapréparation de ce document général et pour laréalisation des actions prioritaires nécessairesà la conservation et la gestion des ressourcesgénétiques des animaux domestiques. Laprocédure nationale sur la Situation mondialedes ressources génétiques animales a déjà étélancée avec l’invitation du Directeur généralaux pays membres pour qu’ils prennent part

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

IV

à cet effort global. Jusqu’à présent 103 paysont confirmé officiellement leur adhésion.Une série d’outils pour la formation et lapréparation du rapport ont été développéespour aider les pays dans la préparation deleur rapport national. Un effort global pour laformation a été réalisé et a bénéficié à123 pays et 224 professionnels en 2001, et53 pays et 120 professionnels jusqu’en mai2002. Cet effort devrait continuer jusqu’en2005, jusqu’à la finalisation du travailtechnique et analytique du Rapport, et ceciavec un coût prévu de US$ 3 400 000 enprovenance des fonds extra budgétaires.

Cette activité contribuera à l’intégration dela gestion des ressources génétiques animalesdans d’autres activités agricoles et renforcerales capacités des communautés rurales à

utiliser les ressources génétiques animaleslocales pour subvenir durablement à leursbesoins, étant donné qu’elle permettra unaccès plus équitable aux ressources et aiderale développement des moyens internationauxpour réglementer les ressources génétiquesanimales mondialement. Cette activité a aussides liens avec d’autres activités quiconcernent la FAO, telles que la diversitébiologique, la biotechnologie, l’éthique et lesmoyens d’existence durables.

Les Editeurs

V

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

El programa de la FAO para la Estrategiamundial para la gestión de los recursoszoogenéticos fomenta en un primer momentola importancia del potencial de los recursoszoogenéticos con el fin de alcanzar laseguridad alimentaria y mantener ladiversificación y el desarrollo de la economíarural. Para alcanzar este objetivo, lautilización y el desarrollo de los recursoszoogenéticos deben ser planificados de formaefectiva. Las acciones llevadas a cabo en elpasado para aumentar la producción agrícolaa través el uso de la mejora genética de losanimales domésticos no siempre fueronplanificadas correctamente ni llevadas a caboteniendo en cuenta todos los factoresimplicados. Las razas locales adaptadas son amenudo capaces de sobrevivir y proporcionarproductos válidos con un mínimo de aportesy en condiciones ambientales variables. Unaestrategia orientada hacia el desarrollo deestas razas sería más sostenible a largo plazoen vez de cubrir simplemente las necesidadesnacionales con recursos genéticos externos.

La diversidad genética animal presentauna erosión rápida a pesar de la fuertedemanda creciente de productos animales. Laconservación y el desarrollo de los recursosgenéticos animales son esenciales parapermitir a los agricultores adaptarse a loscambios de condiciones del ambiente y de lademanda de los consumidores.

La FAO, gracias a las ventajas de quedispone, dirige sus esfuerzos hacia unautilización, un desarrollo y una conservaciónsostenible de los recursos zoogenéticos . Paraello, y desde 1993, la FAO ha dado inicio a lapreparación de la Estrategia mundial para lagestión de los recursos zoogenéticos de losanimales domésticos que deberá servir de

EditorialEstrategia Mundial para la Gestión de los RecursosZoogenéticos - Actualización

marco estratégico de orientación a losesfuerzos internacionales dentro del sector delos recursos zoogenéticos . La preparación delPrimer informe sobre la Situación mundial delos recursos genéticos animales será uno delos elementos esenciales de la Estrategiamundial para el período 2004-2005. Existe unmandato específico de los países miembros dela FAO a la Comisión para los recursosgenéticos para la alimentación y laagricultura, para que desarrolle la Estrategiamundial para la gestión de los recursosgenéticos de los animales domésticos en basea las normas establecidas por esta entidad.Las acciones posteriores para el uso sosteniblede la diversidad genética de los animalesdomésticos harán referencia a este Primerinforme. Este Informe debe ser el resultado deun acuerdo nacional inicial que acepte lasnormas de la FAO para la preparación delinforme nacional. En un segundo momento,el Grupo de trabajo de la FAO para losRecursos zoogenéticos solicitará a estospaíses, a los donantes, a los agricultores, a losganaderos y a la FAO, que aumenten susesfuerzos para movilizar los recursosnecesarios, incluidos los financieros, parapoder iniciar con éxito la preparación delInforme y llevar a cabo las actividadesprioritarias de seguimiento. La FAO estádispuesta a aportar su asistencia a los paísesmiembros en la preparación de estedocumento general y en la realización de lasactividades prioritarias necesarias para laconservación y la gestión de los recursoszoogenéticos . El informe nacional sobre laSituación mundial de los recursos genéticosanimales ha iniciado ya con la invitación delDirector general a los países miembros paraque tomen parte en este esfuerzo global.

VI

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Hasta hoy, 103 países han confirmadooficialmente su adhesión. Se ha puesto apunto una metodología para la formación y lapreparación del informe, y ayudar a los paísesen la preparación del informe nacional.También se ha realizado un esfuerzo globalde formación que ha beneficiado en 2001 a123 países y 224 profesionales, y 53 países y120 profesionales hasta mayo 2002. Estasituación debería seguir hasta el 2005, esdecir, hasta la finalización del trabajo técnicoy analítico del Informe, y esto con un costoprevisto de $EE.UU. 3 400 000 con cargo a losfondos provenientes de los presupuestosextraordinarios.

Esta actividad contribuirá en la integraciónde la gestión de los recursos genéticosanimales con otras actividades agrícolas y

llevará a fomentar las capacidades de lascomunidades en la utilización de los recursosgenéticos de animales locales a través demedios de existencia rurales sostenibles, dadoque permitirá un acceso más equitativo a losrecursos y ayudará al desarrollo de losmedios internacionales para normalizar losrecursos zoogenéticos globalmente. Elinforme se refiere también a otros actividadesque conciernen a la FAO, tales como labiodiversidad biológica, la biotecnología, laética y los medios de subsistencia sostenibles.

Los Editores

1

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

AGRI 2002, 32: 1-12

a Paper presented at the joint RBI/EAAPInternational Symposium on "Conservation,management and use of rare livestock geneticresources", held in Budapest on 23rd August 2001

Summary

The conservation and sustainable use ofanimal genetic resources (AGR) is nowrecognized as a legitimate activity of publicconcern in which inter-governmental,governmental, non-governmental and privatesectors are involved. Livestock breeds becamethreatened on a large scale only in the secondhalf of the 20th century. They are nowrecognized as a significant human heritageresulting from domestication whose losswould deplete the quality of human life.Conservation as a conscious and organizedactivity is therefore a new item on the publicagenda. This paper traces the origin oflivestock conservation from the Vision in the1950s and 1960s through the awakening ofthe environmental movement with thecreation of UNEP in 1972, followed by thedevelopment of a Joint ConservationInfrastructure and Programme for animalgenetic resources in the 1980s by FAO andUNEP.

The paper describes the context,participants, constraints, opposition andactivities of building the AGR ConservationInfrastructure and Programme . Although theconcept of conservation was opposed bysome and there were both financial andpolitical difficulties, an effective institutionalinfrastructure for conservation was built byFAO by 1990 using UNEP funds. In 1992, theadvent of the Convention on BioDiversityoffered substantial funding for projectactivities for the first time through the GlobalEnvironmental Facility (GEF). At that point itwas desirable to move activities from centralplanning to the design, funding andoperation of local or national conservation

projects. “Top-down” institutional controlshould have been replaced by “Bottom-up”conservation activities. Regrettably this didnot happen during the 1990s and, as shownby successive editions of the World WatchList, the number of endangered livestockbreeds has continued to increase. Now thatthe conservation vision is accepted and theinstitutional infrastructures are in place it istime for a new dynamic by creating andfunding specific conservation projects whichharness the local human resources ofknowledge and enthusiasm.

Resumen

La conservación y utilización sostenible de losrecursos genéticos animales (ANGR) ha sidoahora reconocida como actividad legítima debeneficio público en cuanto se refiere a lossectores interesados a nivelintergubernamental, gubernamental, nogubernamental y privados. Sólo a partir de lasegunda mitad del siglo XX las razasdomésticas empezaron a estar en peligro de

Conservation of farm animal biodiversity:history and prospectsa

J. Hodgesb

Lofererfeld 16, Mittersill A-5730, Austria1

b John Hodges was responsible for animalbreeding and genetic resources in FAO from1982 to 1990. Previously he was Professor ofAnimal Genetics at the University of BritishColumbia, Canada and earlier taught atCambridge University. He is former Head ofProduction Division of the Milk Marketing Boardof England and Wales.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

2Conservation of farm animal biodiversity

Keywords: Strategy for conservation, Technicaland financial infrastructures, Policy decision,Convention on Biological Diversity

Introduction

Entry into a new century and a newmillennium is an appropriate time to standback and review the Conservation of AnimalGenetic Resources. The domestication and useof animals by humans dates back about12 thousand years. Despite the small numberof mammalian species which mankind choseto domesticate in the few primary andsecondary (or copy-cat) Centres of Origin(Payne and Hodges, 1997) several thousanddistinct breeds or races have spread across theearth. This bio-diversity results both fromnatural selection for adaptation as peopleemigrated with their animals over the surfaceof the earth and also from human choices foruse or aesthetic appearance. The preferentialselection of distinct genetic traits is reflectedin the breeds, types or races that are adaptedto specific uses or environments and that areoften named after the language, people orlocality where they are dominant. This vastarray of thousands of breeds is a humanheritage worthy of conservation.

In the twentieth century, humanity whichshaped animal bio-diversity over themillennia suddenly became the destroyer ofthose same domestic animal breeds. Thisaggression is driven by intensification of foodproduction which favours only a few breeds.Biodiversity accumulated over thousands ofgenerations is today challenged by anaccelerating process of extinction. Whilemankind behaved wisely, though almostunconsciously, in building-up bio-wealth weare now foolishly squandering animal-capitalfor short-term gains. And we are aware ofwhat we are doing.

manera importante. Actualmente estas razasestán reconocidas como parte importante dela herencia de la humanidad y una pérdidasupondría una disminución en la calidad dela vida. La conservación, como actividadconsciente y organizada, es por lo tanto untema nuevo en la agenda pública. Esteartículo presenta el origen de la conservaciónanimal desde su visión en los años 50 y 60 yposteriormente a través del despertar delmovimiento ambiental con la creación delUNPE en 1972, seguida del establecimiento dela Infraestructura y Programa Conjunto deConservación para los recursos genéticosanimales en los años 80 por la FAO y elUNEP.

El artículo describe el contexto, losparticipantes, los límites, la oposición y lasactividades en la creación del Programa eInfraestructura de Conservación de losrecursos genéticos animales. A pesar de queel concepto de conservación encontrase unacierta oposición y, por consiguiente,dificultades tanto financieras comoeconómicas, la FAO durante los '90 con laayuda de los fondos del UNEP, consiguiócrear una infraestructura institucionalefectiva. En 1992, el avenimiento de laConveción sobre Biodiversidad ofreció unfinanciamiento substancial para lasactividades del proyecto por primera vez através del GEF (Global EnvironmentalFacility). En aquel momento era preferibletrasferir las actividades desde la planificacióncentral hacia un diseño, financiamiento yoperación de proyectos de conservación localo nacional. El control institucional deberíahaber sido substituido por las actividades deconservación, pero desgraciadamente no fueasí en los años 90 y, como se observa en lasediciones sucesivas de la World Watch List, elnúmero de razas de animales domésticos enpeligro ha seguido aumentando. Ahora que lavisión de conservación ha sido aceptada y quelas infraestructuras institucionales han sidoestablecidas, ha llegado el momento de unanueva dinámica a través de la creación yfundación de proyectos de conservaciónespecíficos que fomenten los conocimientos yel entusiasmo en los recursos humanos.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

3


Hodges

The Three Stages of HumanEndeavour

Fortunately, the twentieth century alsoproduced some people of wisdom and visionwho saw the danger and several decades agocalled for a new movement for theConservation and Improved Use of AnimalGenetic Resources. The idea of conservingendangered farm animals was an innovativeidea in the 1960s. Like all novel and importantideas, it had opponents. The new vision calledfor global action involving cooperation atlocal, national and international levels.During the decades since the 1960s the FarmAnimal Conservation Movement has passedthrough the predictable phases of mosthuman innovations (Table 1). They are:Vision, Programme Infrastructures; andProjects.

In small projects at one location the threephases may all be carried out by a small teamworking together. When a new endeavourcalls for change on a large or global scale, thethree phases of human endeavours must beseparated. Each phase needs special skills,resources and people. Visionaries are rarelyable to build effective infrastructure;institutions are rarely skilled at hands-onproject operations. The vision for AnimalGenetic Conservation calls for change globallyand needs co-operation and division of labourat local, national and international levels. It ispart of the thesis of this paper that thedistinction between ProgrammeInfrastructures and Project Activities in theConservation of Animal Genetic Resourceshas not yet been recognized.

Top-Down and Bottom-UpApproaches to AnimalConservation

New human enterprises can also be viewed as“Top-Down” and “Bottom-Up” models.These two terms can be illustrated byapplying them to the three phases of humanendeavour. Offering a new vision is veryunusual work and nearly always flows fromindividuals who rarely have the skills forimplementation. It is the essential first step.We may paraphrase the biblical observation(Bible, Proverbs, 29, 18): “Where there is novision, the people perish” by saying “Wherethere is no vision for conservation the animalswill perish”. The Vision may come fromTop-Down or Bottom-Up. A visionary may bea scholarly, academic thinker or a practicalhands-on activist at a local level. Visionariesrarely become the operators of successfullarge-scale operations.

By contrast, Creation of Infrastructures isusually a Top-Down task requiringcentralized planning, analysis, budgeting, andthinking on the grand scale. The global Visionhas to be clothed with reality so thatInfrastructures are created which will trulysupport field projects. ProgrammeInfrastructures must be neither so large, norexpensive nor cumbersome that they stand inthe way of local action; but they must beauthentically related to reality, strong andflexible enough to encourage local projects.The great danger, which regrettably hasrecently happened in Animal GeneticConservation, is to try and use TechnicalInfrastructure from the centre to control local

Table 1. Three typical stages of new human endeavours. • Vision originating from individuals - thinkers and activists. • Creation of Programme Infrastructures – institutions. • Project Activities in the field – local people.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Project Activity. Such a model may besuitable for deployment of nuclear armsaround the world by a super-power where alllocal actions are controlled by aCommander-in-Chief. It does not work inDomestic Animal Conservation where eachlocal project has unique characteristics,specific breeds and environments, indigenousknowledge and cultures. The danger ofcreating Infrastructure is that the people incharge are tempted to see themselves asresponsible for organizing the whole globalactivity. In other words they have a Top-Down approach in which they think it ispossible for the centre to decide how theprojects will operate on the ground. This isclearly nonsense on a world scale withanimals. Individual conservation projectsmust germinate in the local seedbed in aBottom-Up model using local knowledge andresources which are linked into national andglobal infrastructures that provides technicalinformation, publications, training andsupport.

The parties to the farm animalconservation movement are the following:governments, UN inter-governmentalagencies, and local people often grouped asnon-governmental organizations (NGOs).Effective action requires the parties toco-operate. The Intergovernmental UNagencies can create the technical and financialinfrastructures; governments can provide anintegrated national approach to conservationand supply local resources and support toprojects; and local people as NGOs can runProject Activities to save the animals that areso often in remote locations. Thus competentProgramme Infrastructures empower localpeople with training, technical knowledgeand funds (Top-Down) while theconservation projects on the ground areimplemented by committed local people,often livestock owners with long-terminterests in the animals (Bottom-Up). Furtherdiscussion of the role of the parties is given inHodges, 1997.

The great danger, which leads to waste offunding, confusion, rivalry and minimumconservation is to imagine that animal

projects can be organized centrally by officialsin governments or in the UN agencies(Top-Down). Live animal conservation is adaily, hands-on job, perhaps with semen andembryos stored nearby. The idea of aCommand Centre at FAO in Rome foroperating farm animal conservation projectsthroughout the world is totally inappropriate.It may work with plant genetic conservationwhere some seeds can be stored centrallyex situ. On the other hand, FAO isindispensable to provide Top-DownProgramme Infrastructures, the types ofwhich are listed later in this paper.

Structure of This Paper

This paper now examines the history andprospects of farm animal conservation withinthe framework of the three normative stagesof developing human projects describedabove and the Top-Down/Bottom-Upapproaches. The paper follows this pattern.

The origin of the vision for farmanimal conservation

A historic account of the origin of the Visionis given. It is assumed here that the Vision isaccepted and needs no further justification.The role of NGOs as the first organizations tocatch the vision is summarized.

Building technical and financialinfrastructure for the farm animalconservation programme

The paper shows how the UN later caught thevision and moved into farm animalconservation. Actions by UNEP and FAOthen rapidly built up a TechnicalInfrastructure. The list of the manyFAO/UNEP publications which provide thisTechnical Infrastructure is given in FAO,1990. The inability of FAO to provide aFinancial Infrastructure for projectimplementation is noted. The impact of the

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

5


Hodges

Convention on Biological Diversity uponfunding local conservation projects isexamined.

Farm animal conservation projectimplementation at the local level

The roles of FAO and national governmentsin empowering local people and NGOs inconserving farm animal bio-diversity isoutlined showing that successful action stillawaits international co-operation between thevarious parties.

Origin of the vision for farm animalconservation

The vision for farm animal conservation aroseamong thinking people who saw the comingmonoculture of animal production. A veryearly visionary was the UK animal geneticistIan Mason who began in the 1940s and 1950sto collect data on individual breeds indeveloping countries, also showingpopulation statistics. Mason was, at that time,a solitary visionary who authored the firstWorld Dictionary of Livestock Breeds, Typesand Varieties in 1951 (latest 4th edition, 1996).

I recall hearing Mason speak in 1961 at aUK cattle breeders’ conference about thethreat to biodiversity of breeds in developingcountries. Live animal conservation wasinitiated in the UK in 1964 by anotheracademic, Dr. I. Rowlands, who gatheredsmall groups of domestic breeds in a zoo. In1968 the first NGO for farm animalconservation was formed, also in the UK, theRare Breeds Survival Trust, which startedfarm parks and conservation on individualfarms. Much credit for this NGO initiativegoes to Lawrence Alderson and his associates.He was also a leader in later forming RareBreeds International (RBI) the InternationalNGO that coordinates and supports nationalNGOs in their conservation activities. In theearly 1960s also, the Milk Marketing Board ofEngland and Wales, a farmers’ co-operativebody, noted that some traditional breeds ofBritish cattle were declining rapidly in

numbers as the Holstein-Friesian grew todominance. Cryo-conservation was used tosave semen from threatened British breeds.

Thus, the vision came from individualthinkers, visionaries and people of actionclose to the ground in agriculture. Earlypioneers also existed in some DevelopingRegions. The vision of farm animalconservation did NOT originate within theranks of mainstream animal scientists; nor didit arise within the international developmentagencies like FAO who joined theconservation scene much later in the 1980s;nor did it arise primarily in nationalgovernments. Like so many creative ideas,the vision came from individuals. There wasresistance. In the 1960s and 1970s, mostanimal scientists were locked into theparadigm of economic progress as the onlyvalue. Conservation of biodiversity was seenas uneconomic. The old-fashioned breeds ofprevious centuries were regarded as obsoleteand many scientists argued that, in the nameof progress, these breeds should be allowed todisappear.

FAO did not start a programme for animalgenetic conservation until 1980. This isextraordinary as FAO had been advised by itsexpert consultations in the 1960s of the needto study adaptation and the relative merits ofexotic and indigenous breeds in the tropics(see Payne and Hodges, 1997). The prevailinganimal production policy within FAOthroughout the 1960s and 1970s was to try tointroduce temperate breeds with high geneticmerit to the tropics. This philosophy is wellillustrated by the FAO scheme, started in the1970s, to donate Holstein-Friesian semenfrom the West to developing countries. Thephilosophy of increasing animal productionin the tropics with temperate genes not onlyfailed but also damaged indigenous breedresources (Payne and Hodges, 1997). On theother hand, the vision of conservation creptunnoticed into FAO in the 1970s when IanMason was appointed in FAO Rome incharge of animal breeding projects. Inaddition to his duties, he continued tobuild-up data on tropical breeds which, much

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


later, contributed substantially to the firstedition of the World Watch List (Loftus andScherf, 1st Edition, 1993).

Building technical and financialinfrastructure for the farm animalconservation programme

The conservation vision for farm animals,born in the 1960s, first moved onto theinternational stage at the UN Conference onthe Environment in 1972 in Stockholmfollowing which the United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP) wascreated. Some thought that UNEP was theappropriate UN organization to establish thefarm animal conservation programme withinits broad mandate for the environment.However, it was recognized that within theUN system FAO is the Specialized Agencywith a technical brief for agriculture,especially to assist Governments ofdeveloping countries. Therefore UNEP andFAO started working together in the newlyidentified field of conservingagro-biodiversity. Their first joint activity wasin 1980 when they held the FAO/UNEP JointInter-Governmental Consultation on AnimalGenetic Resources in Rome (FAO, 1981) atwhich I was privileged to represent Canada.That 1980 Consultation moved the rationalefor conservation from being a fringe topiconto the international agenda and recognitionwithin animal science.

The Consultation recommended actions toGovernments, to FAO and UNEP, to theprivate sector and to NGOs. Governmentswere asked to initiate and facilitateconservation programmes themselves and toencourage NGOs and others in the privatesector. The Consultation called upon FAOand UNEP to provide TechnicalInfrastructures. These included scientificallysound techniques for identifying andconserving threatened breeds; trainingcourses; collection of accurate information onbreed characterizations; documentation ofdistribution of farm animal diversity

throughout the world etc. Financial supportfor building this new Infrastructure wasprovided by UNEP. Thus, Phase Two of theFarm Animal Conservation Movementstarted in 1982.

FAO added the new Farm AnimalConservation Programme to the HQ Group ofstaff responsible for existing animal breedingdevelopment projects. I was privileged to leadthis group in FAO Rome from 1982 to 1990.Our conservation activities were funded byUNEP while animal breeding activitiescontinued within the FAO/UNDP fundedprogramme. We were supported scientificallyby the newly established worldwideFAO/UNEP Joint Expert Panel on AnimalGenetic Resources which brought theenthusiasm and expertise of about 35 eminentscientists from developing and developedcountries chaired by the sheep geneticist, thelate Dr. Helen Newton-Turner from Australia.

Institutional environment withinFAO in the 1980s

Although the mandate for farm animalconservation was given by the 1980FAO/UNEP Consultation, actual progress isalways influenced by the prevailing internalinstitutional environment. Thus, the first taskwas to explain the new ideas within FAO. Theconcept of “sustainable development” wasnot current in the early 1980s in developmentagriculture. We had to define the terms“preservation” and “conservation” for thefirst time in terms of domestic breeds. We hadto explain that conservation and use are twosides of the same coin. These were newconcepts. UN Specialized Agencies areslow-moving bodies. Policy-makers andBudget Directors within FAO had for yearsfelt that the only legitimate business of FAOwas to increase animal production. Thefunding from UNEP was the key to change asthese funds were designated for animalconservation. A further stimulus was the fearwithin FAO that UNEP might take overFAO’s traditional role in agriculture throughits environmental mandate within the UN.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

7


Hodges

The 1980s saw four specific issues arisewithin FAO which deeply affected the animalgenetic conservation programme. They weresufficiently important to be mentioned brieflyhere relative to their impact upon the newprogramme for conservation of farm animalgenetic resources.1. Policy decision on animal genetic data and

gene banks;2. Controversy on plant genetic resources;3. Conflict over FAO’s regular programme

budget;4. Convention on Biological Diversity.

Policy decision on animal genetic dataand gene banks

A high level policy decision was made when Ifirst arrived in FAO in 1982 not to establish asingle global data centre nor a singlecryogenic storage bank at FAO in Rome.Rather it was decided to provide theTechnical Infrastructure as guidelines,training and scientific support for theestablishment of regional and national datacentres and gene banks in Africa, Asia, andLatin America. This policy decision was inline with our view that the role of FAO was tobuild infrastructure to support activities closeto where conservation will occur.

Controversy on plant geneticresources

The development of FAO’s InfrastructureProgramme for farm animal conservation wascomplicated in the 1980s by the global plantgenetic resource programme. The plantprogramme had been in operation for someyears and the key body at that time was theInternational Bureau of Plant GeneticResources (IBPGR) which was located withinthe FAO Plant Production and ProtectionDivision in Rome. The FAO/UNEP 1980Animal Consultation had proposed acomparable body within FAO to be called theInternational Bureau of Animal GeneticResources. However, in the 1980s a politicalferment erupted within the FAO Governing

Bodies about plant breeders’ rights, farmers’rights, ownership of seed banks and access toconserved stocks. Consequently, theDirector-General of FAO decided that it wasessential to consolidate the plant situationbefore starting any such comparable body foranimals. That commotion on plants resultedin the formation in the 1980s of the FAOCommission and Undertaking on PlantGenetic Resources. Only recently has thatbody been reshaped to include AnimalGenetic Diversity along with Plants.

Conflict over FAO’s regularprogramme budget

In the 1980s the USA, which contributednearly 25% of the FAO Regular ProgrammeBudget, withheld its contributions for someyears as a protest against the FAOmanagement style. Within FAO it wasimpossible to gain new funds at that time andso we managed to continue our conservationmandate with the UNEP funds and by liaisonwith UNDP and bi-lateral donors. Howeverour small staff resources were cut as thesewere supported from the FAO RegularProgramme.

Convention on Biological Diversity

In 1988 a new feature appeared on theinternational landscape which affected thepossibilities of funding for animalconservation projects. This was the proposalto bring the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD) to the planned UNConference on Environment andDevelopment, UNCED, to be held in Rio deJaneiro in 1992 as the successor to theStockholm Conference. This proposal had alarge impact within FAO itself, one mighteven call it a conversion, to accept thatconservation and improved use of animalgenetic diversity are complementary. FAOwas invited to the negotiating sessions inGeneva for the Convention on BiologicalDiversity and I was privileged to lead theFAO delegation. Conservation andsustainable development entered the FAO


project vocabulary. As a result, in 1989, one ofthe FAO Governing Bodies, the FAOCommittee on Agriculture (COAG), spent aday considering the conservation andimproved use of farm animals. Theyenthusiastically approved our TechnicalInfrastructure Programme and proposedseeking funds for Project Activity from theforthcoming Convention on BiologicalDiversity. One might say that animal geneticresources conservation had, at last, becomerespectable although Financial Infrastructurefor the large-scale development of Projectswould have to wait for the Convention (CBD)in 1992.

Creation of the technicalinfrastructure

During the 1980s the appropriate newTechnical Infrastructure was created. Much ofthe technical work was done by consultantspecialists on contract. The TechnicalInfrastructure and outline Global Programmewas created as a knowledge base, discussedwith leaders in developing countries,published, given to governments and used inmany training courses for developing countryleaders. The Technical Infrastructure wasmonitored by the FAO/UNEP Joint ExpertPanel and components are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Components of Technical Infrastructure created by FAO from 1982-1990. • Scientific criteria for defining breeds at risk; • Sampling techniques; • Conservation standards for declining populations; • Cryogenic and live animal conservation methodologies; • Regional networks of concerned scientists; • Training programmes for developing country scientists; • Collection, analysis, and publication of surveys of breeds in developing countries; • Publication of the first comprehensive books on farm animal diversity of the USSR

and China in UN languages; • Design of animal genetic descriptors; • Pilot national data banks and later regional data banks; • Technical support and training to regional cryogenic gene banks; • Provision of pilot funding and technical support to governments for national and

regional conservation programmes; • Publication of operating manuals; • Guidelines for setting up live animal conservation projects; • Promotion of study of biotechnology as a potential new tool for production and

conservation; • Establishment of contacts with the national and international organizations with

interests, concerns and activities in conservation of agro-biodiversity and wild relatives of farm animals;

• Provision of technical support to Governments and NGOs wishing to start national or local conservation programmes;

• Publication of technical bulletins and launch of the new periodical Animal Genetic Resources Information;

• Regular consultation with the joint UNEP/FAO Expert Panel.

9


Hodges

The creation of this FAO/UNEPNewsletter, Animal Genetic ResourcesInformation (AGRI) opened a newcommunication channel between all engagedin animal conservation. It is amazing thatonly 20 years ago in 1982 all FAOcommunication to and from developingcountries was by diplomatic mailbags withletters prepared on electric typewriters pluscarbon copies. Urgent messages were sentand received by telex. In 1982 in FAO, therewere no fax machines, no desk-topcomputers, no courier services, no email andof course no internet.

Important conservation activities inEurope, for which FAO has no mandate, wereundertaken by the European Association forAnimal Production (EAAP), an internationalNGO, which carried out and then repeating aEuropean breed survey (Maijala et al., 1984).Then in 1988, EAAP established the EuropeanAnimal Genetic Data Bank at Hannover,Germany. FAO cooperated with thisEuropean Data Bank Centre by sendingdeveloping country scientists there fortraining. EAAP subsequently published theinformation from the European Data Bank(Simon and Buchenauer, 1993). Later in the1990s new leadership at FAO decided toestablish a Global Data Bank for AnimalGenetic Resources at Rome. The transfer ofthe European data to FAO Rome from theEAAP Data Bank in Hannover provided agood foundation together with the data fromthe regional data banks.

Farm animal conservation projectimplementation at the local level

By 1990 therefore, FAO had successfully builta Technical Infrastructure on farm animalconservation, had established workingrelationships with the existing nationalprogrammes and had trained leaders in manydeveloping countries. The missing factor wasa Financial Infrastructure to fund national andlocal projects. All hopes were fixed uponobtaining finance from the Convention onBiological Diversity which was approved atRio in 1992 and subsequently ratified by asignificant number of governments who heldtheir First Meeting of the Parties to theConvention in 1994 in The Bahamas (Hodges,1995). This marked a new political andfinancial statement by governments whichplaced six billion US dollars forbioconservation. This fund offered – and stilloffers - a remarkable new possibility forfinancing the third and operational phase ofthe Conservation of Farm AnimalBiodiversity to be undertaken as projects bynational governments and by NGOs. The keyfeatures defined by the CBD to approvefinancial support for conservation projects indeveloping countries and in transitioncountries of Central and Eastern Europe areshown in Table 3.

The way was at last open for credible farmanimal conservation projects to be funded.The intended route was for FAO, as the UNSpecialized Agency, to provide nationalgovernments and NGOs with TechnicalInformation and assistance in the design and

Table 3. Specification by Convention on Biological Diversity for Project Funding. • Conservation of threatened indigenous breeds; • Improved and sustainable food production; • Enhancement of the quality of rural life; • Conservation of the natural environment and resources used by farm animals; • Recognition of the traditional life-styles and ownership rights of the indigenous

people whose animals are to be conserved; • Approval by the government as a part of a national strategy.


format of project proposals for submission bygovernments to the Global EnvironmentalFacility (GEF) which was established toadminister the six billion US dollars funding.Governments clearly need help in preparingtheir project proposals as they are approvedonly when the project is well defined,technically competent and integrated intonational and local needs. A major role of FAOis to help to prepare these project proposals.FAO has decades of experience in this taskand has almost turned it into an art form indevelopment programmes generally. Givenapproval, the project is then operated by thegovernment or national NGO. GEF alsoearmarked a substantial amount of thefunding for projects specifically designed andoperated by NGOs with national governmentapproval.

Regrettably, an alternative route wasapparently followed. When the fundingbecame available in 1994, FAO sought largefunding directly from the GEF to support itsown newly-created Global Programme ofAnimal Genetic Conservation (DADIS). Thisapproach for funding was unsuccessful andthe rejection can be well understood in thelight of the historic developments describedin this paper. The GEF and the governmentsproviding the funds prefer to put their fundsdirectly into projects rather than into thehands of an agency. There is always theproblem of enthusiastic individuals within anInter-Governmental Agency wanting to buildan empire. But, the conservation ofendangered farm animal diversity isessentially a field task to be carried out bythose who live, work and use the farm animaldiversity. The role of the UNInter-Governmental Agencies like FAO is toprovide technical infrastructures and tosupport projects submitted by governmentsfor financial assistance. FAO had followedthis pattern with projects funded by UNDPfor decades. By contrast, no GEF funds hadbeen awarded by 2000 for farm animalconservation projects, although about onebillion US dollars remained available fromthis first CBD tranche (Personalcommunication, 2001).

This tragedy is recorded by FAO’s owndocumentation of erosion of biodiversity infarm animals. The World Watch List (Loftusand Scherf, 1st Edition, 1993), (Scherf,2nd Edition, 1995, and 3rd Edition, 2000), whichis a valuable publication, shows that between1993 and 2000 the number of breeds at riskhas increased. The vision for conservation hasnot been matched by action on the ground.FAO’s other technical publications show that,during the 1990s, attention within FAO wasdirected to further development of thescientific aspects of its own GlobalProgramme for Domestic Animal Diversityrather than upon enabling and facilitatinggovernments and NGOs to submit projects toGEF for funding.

Prospects for the future: Where is thecutting edge of animal conservation?

Conservation activities are well established inthe developed regions where national NGOsand most governments have made excellentprogress. Rare Breeds International (RBI) withits limited budget has successfully startedsome grass roots projects, as have creativeprivate sources. Some larger developingcountries for example, Brazil, China and Indiaaccepted the FAO Technical Infrastructureduring the 1980s and, with their own funds,established national conservation projects.

Farm animal biodiversity now most at riskis in the poorer and least developed countriesand in the newly Independent States (NIS) ofthe former Soviet Union. These countries arestruggling with poverty and are most in needof external funding to start projects. Theconservation needs of these countries can beaddressed with funds from GEF and frominternational and bi-lateral donors providedthe Governments and NGOs submit validproposals. The current FAO project State ofthe World - Animal Genetic Resources(SoW-AnGR) is another move to documentwhere there is most urgent need for projectactivity. However, the SoW-AnGR alone willnot initiate conservation activities for it isbasically another Top-Down approach. UnlessFAO with its technical and project

11


Hodges

formulation expertise moves alongside thegovernments and NGOs able to operateprojects, the new information on decliningbiodiversity will simply remain asdocumentation. Meanwhile, farm animalbiodiversity will be further depleted.

FAO, like all UN bodies, frequently losesits institutional memory by relatively frequentchanges in staff. One of the purposes of thispaper is to restore some of FAO’s lostinstitutional memory on the Conservation ofFarm Animal Diversity. An effective futuremust be built upon knowledge of the past.Otherwise the same mistakes are repeatedand work already done is duplicated.

We know there is a large fund ofenthusiastic knowledge at the grass rootslevel. Live animal conservation can often becombined into integrated communityprojects, sustainable developmentprogrammes, quality food product systems,organic farming or agrotourism - and at lesscost than high technology proposals. Theurgent need is to equip and empower localpeople to gain funding for their animalconservation projects for animal geneticconservation through national or local NGOsworking together with Governments. FAOalone, as the UN Specialized Agency, has theunique mandate to provide technical help inthe design of conservation project proposals.

In summary, the view expressed in thispaper is simple. The vision for conservation isclear. The technical knowledge on how to doit is available and there is minimum need tospend more time and resources on refiningscientific techniques of conservation. We arein Phase Three of this great endeavour. Theneed is for Project Activities to be initiated,funded and supported. That is a Bottom-Upactivity. It has been well demonstrated thatsuch conservation projects cannot beimplemented by a Top-Down approach.

References

Bible. Proverbs 29, verse 18. Wherethere is no vision the people perish.

FAO. 1981. Animal Genetic ResourcesConservation and Management. AnimalProduction and Health Paper No. 24, pp. 388.

FAO. 1990. Animal Genetic Resources:A Global Programme for SustainableDevelopment. Animal Production and HealthPaper No. 80, pp. 300.

Hodges, J. 1995. Convention onBiological Diversity: a description andappraisal of the Convention relative todomestic livestock and poultry following theFirst Conference of the Parties held in TheBahamas, 28 November to 9 December 1994,pp. 130.

Hodges, J. 1997. InternationalSymposium on Mediterranean AnimalGermplasm and Future Human Challenges.Proceedings of a Symposium, Benevento,Italy, 26-29 November 1995. EAAPPublication Series No. 85. Published byWageningen Pers, Wageningen, TheNetherlands, 5-14.

Loftus, R. & Scherf, B. 1993. WorldWatch List for Domestic Animal Diversity.1st Edition. FAO, Rome, Italy, pp. 376.

Maijala, K, Cherekaev, J.M.,Devillard, J.M., Reklewski, Z., Rognoni, G.,Simon, D.L. & Steane, D. 1984. Conservationof Animal Genetic Resources in Europe. Finalreport of the EAAP Working Party. Livest.Prod. Sc. 11: 3-22.

Mason, I.L. 1996. A world dictionary oflivestock breeds, types and varieties.4th Edition. CAB International, Wallingford,Oxford, UK, pp. 273.

Payne, W.J.A. & Hodges, J. 1997.Tropical Cattle: Origins, Breeds and BreedingPolicies. Blackwell Science Co., Oxford, UK,pp. 328.


Scherf, B. 1995. World Watch List forDomestic Animal Diversity. 2nd Edition. FAO,Rome, Italy, pp. 767.

Scherf B. 2000. World Watch List forDomestic Animal Diversity. 3rd Edition. FAO,Rome, Italy, pp. 726.

Simon, D.L. & Buchenauer, D. 1993.Genetic diversity of European livestockbreeds. European Association for AnimalProduction (EAAP) publication No. 66.Wageningen Pers, Wageningen, TheNetherlands, pp. 581.

13

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

AGRI 2002, 32: 13-17

Summary

This paper describes the process that lead tothe creation of the European Regional FocalPoint (ERFP). The action was suggested bythe FAO Global Strategy (1995) aimed toassist countries to stop animal diversityerosion by helping them with a better use andpreservation of their livestock resources.

In 1997, France accepted the responsibilityof developing an ERFP though its Bureau desRessources Génétiques (BRG). During thefirst year, the ERFP held meaningfuldiscussions with the different Europeancountries with the objective of finding ageneral agreement for an organisationalstructure as well as a medium-term workprogramme. The following step was settledduring the Annual Meeting of the EuropeanAssociation for Animal Production (EAAP) inWarsaw where it was agreed that the newbody had to have a light structure and respectnational sovereignty regarding the AnGR.

In February 2000, following a difficultinternal debate involving the establishment ofa basic strategy and further steps, an enquirywas launched among the NationalCoordinators in order to have an overallpicture and to evaluate the usefulness of theproposed organisation to be established.In 2000 during the 6th Workshop of theEuropean NCs, the ERFP was created.

The new structure is based ona) an Annual Meeting of National Focal

Points;b) a Steering Committee; andc) a Secretariat to be elected among the

National Focal Points to serve for a limitedperiod.

Résumé

Cet article présente le processus qui a porté àla création des Points focaux régionauxeuropéens (ERFP). L’action a été suggérée parla Stratégie mondiale de la FAO (1995) quiprévoit l’assistance aux pays pour empêcherl’érosion de la diversité animale en les aidantà mieux utiliser et préserver leurs ressourcesanimales.

En 1997 la France a accepté laresponsabilité de développer le ERFP àtravers son Bureau des RessourcesGénétiques (BRG). Pendant la première annéele ERFP a maintenu d’importantesdiscussions avec les différents pays européensdans le but d’établir un accord général pour ledéveloppement d’une structured’organisation ainsi que d’un programme àmoyen terme. Le passage suivant a été réalisépendant la Réunion annuelle de la Fédérationeuropéenne de zootechnie (FEZ) qui s’esttenue à Varsovie et où il a été accordé quecette nouvelle structure devait être flexible etdans le respect des AnGR existant danschaque pays.

En février 2000, après un débat difficil ausujet de la stratégie de base et le futurinmédiat, une enquête a été lancée auprès desCoordinateurs nationaux dans le butd’obtenir une vision globale et d’évaluerl’intérêt réel pour établir une organisation dece genre.

Development of a Regional Focal Point for animal geneticresources: the European examplea

D. Planchenault1 & L. Ollivier2

1BRG 16, rue Claude Bernard, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France2SGQA - INRA 78352 Jouy en Josas Cedex, France


○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

14A Regional Focal Point for AnGR: an European example

En 2000 encore, pendant le 6ème Ateliereuropéen des Coordinateurs nationaux, leERF a été créé.

La nouvelle structure se base sur:a) Une Réunion annuelle des Points focaux

nationaux.b) Un Comité directeurc) Un Secrétariat élu parmi les Points focaux

nationaux pour une période limitée.

Keywords: Global Strategy, Conservation,Europe.

Introduction

Since 1995, the FAO Global Strategy wasdeveloped to assist countries to halt erosionof animal diversity by helping the countries touse better and preserve their pricelessresources. The setting up of the componentsof the Global Strategy is in hand. It remainsstill perfectly flexible.

The Global Strategy’s framework consistsof four fundamental components with set ofelements. Whilst elements may bereconfigured, the Strategy is designed to becomprehensive to emphasise the balanceapproach required to cost-effectively betterunderstand, utilise and maintain animalgenetic resources over time.

The Global Strategy’s four fundamentalcomponents are:a. An intergovernmental mechanism

involving the direct countries participationthrough centres and networks to assistcountries design, implement and maintaincomprehensive strategies for themanagement of their animal geneticresources. The need has been clearlydemonstrated to distribute the focal pointsto at least three levels - country, regionaland global.

b. A technical program of activity aimed atsupporting effectives management actionat the country level, in harmony with theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

It includes a set of six elements:• characterization, encompassing

demographic and environmentalfactors, phenotypic and geneticindicators and assessment;

• in-situ utilization and conservation;• ex-situ conservation;• communication and information system

development, including thedevelopment of Domestic AnimalDiversity Information System (DAD-IS)and training;

• guidelines development and actionplanning;

• collaboration, coordination and policyinstrument development.

c. Cadres of experts to guide development ofthe Strategy and maximise itscost-effectiveness.

d. An intergovernmental mechanism fordirect government involvement, policydevelopment and support and to maintaina national strategy adapted of themanagement of its own resources. This isprovided by the Commission on GeneticResources for Food and Agriculture(CGRFA).

For the implementation of the GlobalStrategy for Europe, FAO has closelycollaborated with the EAAP (EuropeanAssociation for Animal Production). Createdsince a long time by EAAP, the existingnetworks were used by FAO. The relationalaspects between the researchers, the variousnational and international organizations andall the animal genetic resources managementactors were implied. In the field of theexchanges, many aspects were also impliedmainly in the data processing from variouscountries. Collaboration between FAO andEAAP has been remarkable. It constitutes afundamental difference between the GlobalStrategy set up in Europe and those carriedout in other parts of the world.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

15


Planchenault & Ollivier

History

In 1995, 37 European countries haveresponded to an invitation by FAO,nominated an institution as National FocalPoint (NFP) and identified a national technicalcoordinator (NC). The NC serves as the pointof contact for the country’s involvement in theGlobal Strategy and will assist in organisingthe essential in-country networking,facilitating and coordinating activity. Thisaspect is regarded as essential for a goodcoordination of the national activities. Toensure the country level has access to thenecessary level of assistance and to bestutilise the limited resources of the GlobalFocus, the planned coordination structureprovides for decentralisation to the regionlevel - Regional Focal Point (RFP) - is beingimplemented in each major geneticstorehouse region of the world.

In 1997, France has kindly agreed to acceptthe responsibility of developing a RegionalFocal Point for Europe through its Bureau desRessources Génétiques (BRG). This wouldinitially occur on an interim basis and for aperiod of one renewable year. During thisperiod the RFP-Europe would have in depthdiscussions with the different Europeancountries with the objectives to come to aconsensus for an organisational structuretogether with medium-term workprogramme. The financial implications for anoperational RFP-Europe as for the othertechnical activities were to be clearlyidentified and some proposals for the fundingwere to be made. In this work, the BRGreceived the strong assistance from the NFPof Poland which was a true relay for thevarious exchanges between the EasternEuropean countries.

In 1998, in order to continue this set-up, astrong option was taken during the Warsawmeeting. First, only one RFP for Europe mustbe able to meet the various countries needs,but this solution must take care not to stopduring the following evolutions. This RFPshould have a light organisational structuretaking into account the relatively weakmeans, which could be devoted by a majority

of the countries. During this first period,which could last 3 or 4 years, wisely, themajority of the countries did not want to giveto the RFP a fundamental role in thedecision-making processes. In the field of thefarm animals genetic resources management,the decisions aiming at the conservation orthe use of these resources must a nationalresponsibility. However, this solution doesnot exclude a strong need for an internationalco-operation at the political and technicallevel.

Keeping in mind, these two basicconsiderations:• set up a light structure in order to support

important and future evolution,• respect of national sovereignty in the farm

animals genetic resources managementand the free adhesion of the countries atthis co-ordinating structure ;

It should be possible to create a RFPensuring a platform to exchange experimentsand information in the field of the farmanimals genetic resources management.Having a regard for the national differences,it is necessary, for economic reasons, this RFPcan provide technical councils or supports incommon fields. All countries shouldparticipate in these exchanges where totalityof the actors who act at the local level,regional or international and fromgovernmental or non-governmentalorganizations, is requested.

France was asked to continue to act as thetemporary RFP Europe for one more year.During the 5th workshop for the EuropeanNational Co-ordinators (NCs) for themanagement of Farm Animal GeneticResources (FAnGR) in Zurich (1999), anagreement could not be made between thedifferent European countries to allow theEuropean Regional Focal Point (ERFP)creation. However, a new step was reached:the European countries recognized that it wasnot possible to establish an ERFP by atime-limited project. No formal or informalstructure could continue the required work atEuropean level. France did not have anymandate to act as the temporary ERFP.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

16A Regional Focal Point for AnGR: an European example

However, it was difficult to conclude witha failure for this Zurich Workshop and theend of the ERFP set up to stimulate exchangesand dialogue between countries in the field ofFarm Animal Genetic Resources (FAnGR).That is why, a small group of countries underthe sponsorship of EAAP and FAO wished tocarry on this work. They asked the Frenchnational coordinator to organize a vote amongall the NCs in order to have an overall pictureand to evaluate the usefulness of theproposed organisation with sufficientprecision.

During this new process, the first objectivewas to set a voting to know the countriesposition concerning the ERFP creation. Thefirst circular was sent on September 27, 1999.It proposed a vote on an “idea” or on astarting point for next fruitful discussions.

There were four main points in thisproposal.• General objectives of a European

Co-ordination and benefits to be expected.• Co-ordination ensured by one NC, based

on a light structure.• Funding provided by a dedicated trust

fund financially managed and fully editedby EAAP (Rome).

• The French NFP offers to take thisco-ordination in charge for a period of 4years renewable – under the control of theannual NCs workshop

The results were published in February2000.• Thirty-seven contacted countries.• Twenty-three answers.• One country was against this proposal.• Two countries require more time for

governmental discussions.• One country accepts partially.• Nineteen countries accepted this proposal.

In addition, four countries (U.K.,Switzerland, Italy, France) were ready tofinance a part of ERFP actions if ten countriesjoined this international will for collaborating.

In 2000, during the 6th Workshop for theEuropean NCs, the ERFP was created. Afterthree years discussions, it appeared that a

light organisational structure and a simpleand country driven functional structure couldensure the sustainability of a ERFP.

Terms of Reference for theERFP

ERFP is to be established in the framework ofFAO’s Global Strategy on Animal GeneticResources to serve the following needs:• To assist and enhance the AnGR activities

of National Focal Points (NFPs) at theEuropean level and to assist inco-ordinating those activities within andbetween other European organisationssuch as the EU and the CEE.

• To develop and maintain regular contactand exchange of relevant information onAnGR horizontally among European NFPsand vertically with the Global Focal Pointin Rome within FAO’s agreed globalstructure.

• To stimulate the funding and organisationof regional projects, workshops andnational programmes on AnGR within theEuropean Region.

• To stimulate and co-ordinate themaintenance and further development ofnational databases within the EuropeanRegion and encourage Europeaninformation networking on AnGR.

Its structure is based on:1) Annual Meeting of National Focal Points

• to bring together all NCs of FAO’sEuropean Region annually andnormally chaired by the host country;

• to exchange information on relevantnational and sub-regional activities;

• to decide on the ERFP budget, thegeneral rules of the annual meeting,ERFP Steering Committee andSecretariat and the future activities ofthe ERFP;

• to elect the Secretariat NFP and theSteering Committee;

• to be advised by technical (e.g. EAAP)political (e.g. EU Commission) andorganisational (e.g. FAO Global FocalPoint) experts as appropriate.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

17


Planchenault & Ollivier

2) Steering Committee• to consist of members elected from

among the NCs (initially 5 membersincluding representatives of each of theEuropean sub-regions). The preliminarySteering Committee will consist of theNCs of France Greece, the Netherlands,Poland and the UK (Chair) for one yearfrom August 2000;

• to plan or execute activities of the ERFPas decided upon by the Annual Meetingof NFPs;

• to represent the ERFP in contact withother institutions under the mandate ofthe Annual Meeting;

• to ensure that decisions with financialimplications are not taken against themajority of countries that regularly fundthe ERFP.

3) Secretariat• to be elected from among the NFPs to

serve for a limited period. France hasagreed to serve for the first 4 years;

• to be headed by an executive officer ofthe elected NFP (usually the NC);

• to organise the Annual Meeting of theNFPs;

• to give secretarial support to theSteering Committee of the ERFP;

• to execute decisions or support projectsdecided on by the Annual Meeting orSteering Committee;

• to distribute relevant information onAnGR to and from NFPs and pass oninformation from within the FAO globalnetwork usingnewsletters/email/internet homepageetc.

The ERFP is funded through financialcontributions made by donor countries placedin a Trust Fund administered by the SteeringCommittee through the Secretariat but heldby and fully audited by the EuropeanAssociation of Animal Production (EAAP).These funds cover basic additional costs ofthe Secretariat (time, communications, travel)when engaged on ERFP business, the SteeringCommittee and any costs for specific activitiesapproved by the Annual Meeting.

Donors for specific programmes or projectsco-ordinated by the ERFP may also makevoluntary additional financial contributions.

The hosting country of the ERFPSecretariat will be expected to cover theoverhead costs of office accommodation,administrative and clerical staff andcommunications equipment.For the ERFP to be created, at least 10 donorEuropean Countries must contribute to theTrust Fund a maximum of Euro 10 000 perannum each for the first 4 years to meet thebudgeted costs.

Conclusion

The ERFP is now operational. To date,10 countries decided to support the ERFP(Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece,Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Spain,Switzerland, United Kingdom). Now, manycountries are convinced that the ERFP isimportant for the reliable management ofAnGR in Europe. Important problems start tocome up. With the ERFP, the countries can bebetter armed for them.

19

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

AGRI 2002, 32: 19-25


Establishing a National Focal Point for farm animalgenetic resources in South Africa

K. Ramsay

National Coordinator FAnGR, Registrar of Livestock Improvement andIdentification, Private Bag X 138, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa

Summary

The recent call from FAO to take part in theprocess of preparing the First Report on theState of the World Animal Genetic Resources(SoW) stressed the need to developmanagement capacity at country level tofacilitate the preparation of country reports(CRs). A key role is played by the NationalFocal Points (NFPs) and the NationalCoordinators (NCs).

A national workshop was held in SouthAfrica in1998 and a National Committee forFarm Animal Genetic Resources (FanGR) wasestablished. The existing IndigenousLivestock Committee was reviewed andadapted to make it more focused on themanagement of FAnGR. At the same time aNational Coordinator was also identified andthe Animal Improvement Institute wasnominated as national coordinating institutefor FAnGR.

The collaboration with some NGOs wasstrongly suggested, particularly with:a) the Farm Animal Conservation Trust

(FACT), to assist with the conservation offarm animal genetic resources. This NGOwas modelled on the Rare Breeds SurvivalTrust (RBST) in the United Kingdom andon Rare Breeds International (RBI)

b) The South African Stud Book andLivestock Improvement Association(SASB) and

c) many Rural Communities and Nationaland Provincial animal genetic resourcecentres

The institutional frame for AnGRconservation in South Africa is brieflydescribed, together with the aims of the SouthAfrican conservation activities.

Résumé

Le récent appel lancé par la FAO pourprendre part au proces de préparation duPremier Rapport sur la Situation mondialedes ressources génétiques animales (SoW) asouligné la nécessité de développer lescapacités de gestion au niveau national pourfaciliter la préparation du rapport national(RN). Les Points focaux nationaux et lesCoordinateurs nationaux jouent un rôleimportant dans proces.

Un atelier national a été tenu en Afriquedu Sud en 1998 suit auquel un Comiténational pour les ressources génétiquesanimales (FanGR) a été établi. Le Comité pourles races indigènes a été revu et adapté afin del’orienter vers la gestion des FanGR. Aumême moment, un Coordinateur national aété nomé et le Animal Imporvement Instituteest devenu l’institut de coordination pour lesFanGR.

On suggère vivement la collaboration aveccertaines ONG, en particulier:a) le Fonds pour la conservation des animaux

d’élevages (FACT), pour aider à laconservation des ressources génétiques

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

20A Regional Focal Point for AnGR: the South Africa example

animales. Cette ONG s’est inspirée au RareBreeds Survival Trust (RBST) au RoyaumeUni et au Rare Breeds International (RBI).

b) Le South Africa Studbook et le LivestockImprovement Association (SASB).

c) Plusieurs centres de ressources génétiquesanimales au niveau des Communautésrurales, nationales et de province.Le cadre institutionnel pour la

conservation des Ressources génétiquesanimales (AnGR) en Afrique du Sud estprésenté brièvement dans cette article ainsique les objectifs pricipaux des activités deconservation en Afrique du Sud.

Keywords: National Advisory Committee,Stakeholders, NGO, Rural communities.

Introduction

Recent global concerns on the loss of diversityof farm animal genetic resources have led torenewed initiatives to identify, characterizeand conserve animals that were onceconsidered inferior to more conventionalinternational breeds.

The future of these breeds is oftendependent on their economic value, either aspure breeds or as a source of genetic materialwith traits such as disease and parasitetolerance and general hardiness.

Characterizing breeds, investigating valueadded traits and developing products andmarkets all contribute towards the valueadding and information process.

To be effective, information must flow toall levels and genetic material must beavailable to all levels as well.Where a breed has no immediate economicvalue, it needs to be conserved for possiblelater use and where a breed is endangered, allefforts should be made to preserve it andincrease numbers.

These actions are often key elements ofbreed conservation initiatives, the success ofwhich is largely dependent on effectivecoordination and public sector support. Past

failures have often been due to fragmentationand a lack of focus, hence the need to have afocal point at National and regional level.

The recent invitation from FAO to allcountries to participate in the process ofpreparing the first report on the State of theWorlds Animal Genetic Resources (SoW)highlighted the need to develop managementcapacity at country level to facilitate thedrafting of Country Reports. Those countrieswith established structures for themanagement of Farm Animal GeneticResources (FAnGR) have been in thefortunate position of having the basicframework needed for this process andcentral to this has been the existence ofNational Focal Points (NFP’s)

Initial FAO communications on themanagement of FAnGR often included thefollowing statements:

“Successful global management must becountry-led and sound programmes of

management must involve all stakeholders”“ To take full advantage of FAO’s Global Strategy,

countries must appoint an institution as aNational Focal Point and identify a technical

coordinator”

While a number of effective National FocalPoints (NFP’s) have been established, thegeneral principles and procedures could beuseful for the many countries in the processof developing local capacity to manageFAnGR and could also be useful in setting upthe structures needed to draft country reportsas part of the SOW process.

The Global strategy for the Management ofFAnGR listed the following key objectives:• Establish a national focal point (NFP) and a

National Coordinator (NC).• Train and support these coordinators.• Establish regional focal points to work

closely with national focal points.• Develop basic guidelines, protocols and

tool kits to assist countries to establishtheir own cost-effective managementstrategies.

• Conduct sub-regional missions to facilitatecollaborative action.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

21


Ramsay

• Conduct donors meetings to facilitatefunding.

• Preparation of intergovernmentalmechanisms for AnGR.

• Develop the Domestic Animal DiversityInformation System (DAD-IS).

• Promote the in situ use of adapted geneticresources and in situ and ex situconservation of unique resources currentlynot in demand.

• Coordinate and Facilitate the general andgenetic characterization of AnGR.

• Develop a supportive communicationsnetwork.

• Use technical expertise around the worldto maximize cost-effectiveness.

• Report on progress with theimplementation of the strategy.

• Assist with policy development for wiseuse and benefit sharing.

Many of these objectives can be used asguidelines for general terms of reference forNational Focal Points (NFP’s). They also serveto illustrate the range of activities.

Developing ManagementCapacity at Country Level

The initial process of establishing a NFP isfairly straightforward. It includes thefollowing:• Identifying and enabling a National

Coordinator.• Establishing a National Advisory

Committee (NAC) for FAnGR with thenecessary technical and practical skills andexperience to advise and lead wherenecessary.

Supportive legislation is of criticalimportance. This may often determine thedegree of acceptance of the NAC at local,provincial and National level.

Who should serve on a NationalAdvisory Committee?

• Government – AnGR and Animal health.• Universities with relevant faculties.

Industry (beef, dairy, mutton, wool,poultry, ostrich etc.).

• National Animal Recording schemes.• Breed Conservation NGO’s.• Relevant research institutes.• The traditional livestock sector (Indigenous

peoples knowledge).• The AI and embryo industry.• The pedigree livestock industry.• Independent breed conservation and

animal breeding specialists.

Location of a NFP

As policy is involved, it may be advisable tolocate the NFP in the relevant GovernmentDepartment or Government Institute, usuallythe National Department of Agriculture orresearch institute. This facilitates two-waycommunication between the NAC and policymakers.

It is equally important to obtain formalrecognition for the NAC to ensure that advicewill be accepted and acted upon. This is ofparticular importance where emergencyconservation actions are called for. Thiswould include the conservation ofnon-infected herds and flocks duringoutbreaks of diseases such as Foot and MouthDisease (FMD).

Reviewing existing structures andsupportive legislation: The SouthAfrican situation

When the initial FAnGR ‘challenge’ wasissued, South Africa had existing structuresand support services that included thefollowing:• Livestock Improvement legislation.• National animal recording and

improvement schemes.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


• An indigenous livestock committee thatincluded representatives from theCommunal sector, Provinces, Universitiesand the research sector.

• An advisory board for animal production,established in terms of National legislation.

• An established pedigree livestock industrywith a National herd book, SA Stud Book.

• An established conservation NGO.• An Agricultural research council with a

commitment to the conservation ofFAnGR.

• Support from the National Department ofAgriculture, the National Cultural HistoryMuseum and the ARC AnimalImprovement Institute.

• Legislation had recently been reviewed toinclude aspects of FAnGR

Many countries may have similarstructures, supportive services andlegislation. By reviewing the situation, it maybe possible to adapt existing infrastructure

with relatively minimal costs. Thesestructures may also be more acceptable tolocal stockowners.

National workshop

A National workshop was held as early as1998 and a committee for FAnGR wasestablished.

It was therefore not necessary to ‘reinventthe wheel’ when establishing the basicinfrastructure for a National focal point.

The existing indigenous livestockcommittee was reviewed and adapted tomake it more focused on the management ofFAnGR.

A National coordinator was also identifiedand it was decided to split the functions byusing the Animal Improvement Institute asthe National coordinating institute forFAnGR. Figure 1 illustrates this basicframework

Figure 1. The basic framework of the national focal point in South Africa.

/cgi-dad/$cgi_dad.dll/world?477,afr

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

23


Ramsay

The importance of effectivecommunication as a first step

The development of an effectivecommunication network – both locally,regionally and internationally is a criticalsuccess factor that must run parallel with theother initiatives. It is essential to haveestablished communication links with all themajor stakeholder groups. This shouldinclude electronic communication betweenNAC members. A link to DAD-is should beestablished in the NC office and links toInternational bodies such as RBI, SAVE,ALBC etc. are highly recommended.

Some Key Stakeholders

Breed Conservation NGO’s

South Africa has used a NGO, the FarmAnimal Conservation Trust (FACT) - to assistwith the conservation of farm animal geneticresources for the past six years. This NGOwas modeled on the Rare Breeds SurvivalTrust (RBST) in the United Kingdom and onRare Breeds International (RBI).

RBST and RBI structures and objectiveswere adapted for local use, withoutcompromising the basic principle ofconservation through sustainable use.

Guidelines for establishing breedconservation NGO’s are available from RBI.

FACT is an active partner in a Nationalinitiative to create awareness and marketsand to add value to endangered andindigenous breeds. This partnership includesthe National Department of Agriculture, theAgricultural Research Council, the NationalCultural History Museum and Universities.

FACT activities include the preparationand distribution of farmer friendlyinformation on lesser known and endangeredfarm animals and facilitating conservationthrough the sustainable use of these breeds incommercial farming systems.

National registration/herd bookorganizations

The South African Stud Book and LivestockImprovement Association (SASB) is anAssociation of 60 livestock- and animalbreeders’ societies and their members. Interms of its constitution the aims of theorganization are, amongst other things, to:• Encourage and promote the breeding,

conservation and genetic improvement ofthe production potential of animals underits jurisdiction.

• Keep records of the pedigrees, productionand performance of animals and issuecertificates of registration and recording forsuch animals.

• Safeguard and advance the collectiveinterests of stud breeders and theirbreeders’ societies and act as a mouthpiecefor the stud breeding industry.

• Represent the collective interest of animalbreeders and their societies on variousnational and international bodies andforums.

• Render technical and advisory services tobreeders’ societies, their members andparticipants in the Integrated Registrationand Genetic Information System(INTERGIS).

• Promote the export of animals withpedigrees registered or recorded with theAssociation, and of semen, ova or embryosfrom animals thus registered or recorded

Rural communities: Indigenouspeoples knowledge

Many rural communities still have large areasunder communal land tenure.In the past, reasons for keeping animals,along with the intricacies of communal landtenure and traditional herd structures wereoften seen as barriers hampering progress.Many efforts were made to ‘improve’ animalsthat were, in fact better suited to the totalproduction environment than exoticalternatives, often introduced at the expenseof local breeds. Failure to understand and

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


appreciate the complexity of livestockownership and to incorporate traditionalknowledge and experience in animalproduction systems in rural areas almost ledto the disappearance of a number ofeconomically important breeds and thoseinvolved in the promotion of sustainable farmsystems in developing areas are now facedwith the challenge of reversing years ofnegative extension.Despite this, however, it is this sector thatoften has the biggest potential to conservethrough sustainable use.

National and provincial animalgenetic resource centers

An awareness of the value of indigenouscattle, sheep and goats led to theestablishment of a number of Nationalfacilities to multiply and improve specificbreeds and ecotypes. At the facilities servingthe commercial sector, more attention wasgiven to the improvement of breeds such asthe Boer goat, Afrikaner sheep and Afrikanercattle and the development of product-orientated composites.The facilities serving the developing sectorconcentrated on Nguni cattle ecotypes, Pedisheep and local unimproved goats.Some of these facilities face closure due tofinancial constraints and it is here that theNAC could play a major role in convincingthe authorities to maintain these centers as amatter of National importance

National agricultural researchinstitutes

Some research institutes may have mandatesto investigate and develop the geneticpotential of breeds and to conserve less usefulbreeds. As such, they are key stakeholderswith the potential to serve as Focal points orCoordinating institutes. Close ties should beestablished and maintained.

National museums

Some Institutions have a mandate to establishand maintain living museums. In SouthAfrica’s case, the National Cultural HistoryMuseum had the necessary infrastructure atan Agricultural Museum close to Pretoria.The Museum played a major role in theestablishment of the local breed conservationNGO, FACT and remains a major supporter.

Facilities at the Museum were also used fora number of meetings and workshops,including the initial workshop to establish aNAC for FAnGR.

Making the best of existinginstitutional support for themanagement of FAnGR

Institutional support for the conservation andsustainable use of FAnGR in South Africaincludes the following:• Legislation to facilitate and support the

identification and improvement of animals(The Livestock Brands Act, 1987 (Act 62 of1987); The Livestock Improvement Act,1977 (Act 25 of 1977) The AnimalImprovement Act, 1998 (Act 62 of 1998).

• The establishment of breeding andimprovement schemes.

• Supportive research at research anddevelopment centres in the mainproduction areas.

• The establishment of animal recording andevaluation schemes.

• Information/Extension on all aspects ofanimal husbandry.

• Regulations to monitor/control theimportation and exportation of geneticmaterial.

• Support to establish and maintain a centralintegrated registration and geneticinformation system.

By focussing and co-ordinating activities,the following actions were initiated. Thisserves to illustrate the way in which a NFP

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

25


Ramsay

could assist with the facilitation of breedconservation initiatives and policyformulation.• Early breed surveys• Establishing breeding units for indigenous

breeds• Support for the establishment of a

conservation NGO, linked to internationalconservation bodies

• Liaison with the FAO and links to the FAOinitiative on Domestic animal Diversity

• Revised legislation to control theexportation genetic material fromindigenous and locally developed breeds.

• The implementation of biological impactstudies to evaluate any proposedintroductions of new breeds.

• New legislation to align South Africa withregional and international breedconservation and improvement initiatives.

Concluding Remarks

While this paper may appear to befragmented, as far as some of the discussionsare concerned, the purpose was to illustratethe range of activities in the management ofFAnGR and the subsequent need for afocussed and co-ordinated approach.

Establishing a NFP is fairlystraightforward and many countries alreadyhave the basic ingredients in the form oflegislation, national facilities and a wide rangeof stakeholders.

While each individual situation will differ,the following basic procedures can be used toestablish an effective NFP:1. Review all existing structures for the

management of FAnGR – and identify(where possible) the most suitable to be theNFP. Take issues such as policy andlegislation into account.

2. Identify existing and potential role playersand stakeholders and hold a Nationalworkshop to establish both a NAC and asystem of communication

3. Identify a suitable NC – and ratify thisappointment

4. Establish a NFP – with the full support ofNational and local government

5. Develop and establish a communicationnetwork

6. Consider establishing a breed conservationNGO where no such structure exists

7. Review existing and relevant legislation (Atask that could be given to the NAC)

References

Hunlun, C. 1999. The link between SAStud Book, the Pedigree Livestock Industryand Resource Poor Agriculture. Proc. AnnualMeeting of the Developing AnimalAgriculture Interest Group of the SA Societyfor Animal Science. Mmabatho, October 1999.

FAO. 1999. Introducing the globalstrategy for the management of farm animalgenetic resources. initiative for domesticanimal diversity, Rome Italy.

Ramsay, K.A. & Kotze, A. 2000. Therole of Non-Governmental Organizations inthe conservation of farm animal geneticresources – a review of the South AfricanFarm Animal Conservation Trust as apossible model. Proc. 5th Global Conferenceon Conservation of animal genetic resources.Brasilia, Brazil November 2000.

Ramsay, K.A. 2001. Mobilizing ruralcommunities in South Africa to conserve farmanimal genetic resources through sustainableuse. Proceedings of an IUCN workshop onconserving Agro biodiversity in South Africa(In press)

FAO. 1999. Taking up the managementchallenge for animal genetic resources.Initiative for domestic animal diversity,Rome, Italy.

27

AGRI 2002, 32: 27-34

Summary

The Ongole cattle breed, also known asNellore, is the native of the coastal districtsGuntur, Prakasham and Nellore of AndhraPradesh. This is a dual-purpose breed.Bullocks are very powerful and suitable forploughing and cart pulling. These animals areresistant to various insect-born diseases. Thecoat colour of Ongoles is glossy white butsome males have grey markings on theirhump and grey markings on the backquarters have also been noticed. The animalsof this breed are heavy having long/largeears, dewlap, hump, limbs and barrel. Thesize of a tail, neck and horns is in generalshort. Ears are alert with a moderately shortblack tip. Horns are short and stumpy. Thedewlap is large, fan shaped, fleshy andslightly pendulous. The udder is well formedwith well-placed and developed teats. Asurvey was conducted in 60 villages in thebreeding tract and 7 341 cattle true to thebreed (Ongole) type were found. A geneticimprovement/conservation programme forOngoles is being executed by the IndianCouncil of Agricultural Research incollaboration with Acharya N G RangaAgricultural University, Hyderabad (AndhraPradesh). The progress of the programmewas presented.

Resumen

La raza vacuna Ongole, también conocidacomo Nellore, es nativa de la zona de la costade los distritos de Guntur, Prakasham yNellore en la región de Andhra Pradesh. Setrata de una raza a doble propósito. Los

machos castrados son poderosos yapropiados para el arado y la tracción. Estosanimales son resistentes a variasenfermedades transmitidas por insectos. Elmanto de la raza Ongole es mayormenteblanco pero en algunos machos se observanmanchas grises en la parte superior y enocasiones se han observados también dichasmanchas en el cuarto trasero. Son animales depeso elevado con largas y anchas orejas,papada, joroba, y extremidades. El rabo, elcuello y los cuernos son en general cortos. Lasorejas se presentan erectas con las puntasligeramente negras. La papada se presentaamplia, flaccida y ligeramente colgante. Lasubres están bien formadas y colocadas. Unaencuesta fue llevada a cabo en 60 poblados enla zona originaria y se encontraron7 341 animales puros pertenecientes a la razaOngole. El Indian Council of AgriculturalResearch está realizando un programa demejora/conservación de la raza encolaboración con Acharya N.G. RangaAgricultural University en Hyderabad (regiónde Andhra Pradesh). En este artículo sepresentan los progresos alcanzados hasta lafecha por el programa.

Keywords: Physical and genetic characteristics,Conformation traits, Statistics, Production andreproduction performance.

Ongole cattle status in India

G.K. Gaur1 , S.N. Kaushik & R.C. Garg

Project Directorate on Cattle, PH-7, Pallavpuram Phase 2,Modipuram, Meerut- 250 110, Uttar Pradesh, India

1 Present address: National Bureau of AnimalGenetic Resources, P.B.N.129, G.T.Road Bypass,Karnal, Haryana, India

28Ongole cattle in India

Introduction

The Ongole cattle breed, also known asNellore, is the native of the coastal districtsGuntur, Prakasham and Nellore of AndhraPradesh (Figure 1). The districts of Kurnool,Cuddapan and part of Mahabubnagar formthe rearing tracts where bull calves afterweaning are taken and reared till maturityand trained for farm work. The breed hasbeen developed in the deltas of the riversPenna, Krishna and Godawari, on the eastcoast of the Peninsular under the selectionand patronage of farmers in these areas.

The best draught animals of this breedwere developed between the south of theriver Krishna and north of river Penna (Aroraand Garg, 1997). The best milk-producinganimals were developed in the deltas of theriver Godavari. The animals of this breedhave also been transported to many tropicalcountries of America, West Indies, South EastAsia and Australia and have earnedinternational recognition for its better survivaland performance on tropical pastures.

Physical Characteristics

The coat colour of Ongoles is glossywhite (Figure 2 and 3) but somemales with grey markings on thehump and back quarters have alsobeen noticed. Calves are generallywhite but sometimes are born withreddish brown patches (Figure 4).The Muzzle is black with widenostrils. The animals of this breedare heavy having long/large ears,dewlap, hump, limbs and barrel.The size of tail, neck and horns is ingeneral short. Ears are alert with amoderately short black tip. Hornsare short and stumpy. The dewlapis large, fan shaped, fleshy and

slightly pendulous. The udder is well formedwith well-placed and developed teats. Theseanimals are famous for adaptability to heatstress due to development of large dewlapforming folds and skin with sweat sporescovered by short shining and smooth hairs.This is a dual-purpose breed. Bullocks arevery powerful and suitable for the ploughingand cart pulling. These animals are alsoresistant to various insect-born diseases.

Population Statistics

India possesses about 200 million cattle out ofwhich 12 million are crossbreds (Dairy India,1997). Cattle population of Andhra Pradesh isabout 12.5 million including 0.4 millioncrossbreds. A breed-wise census has not beenconducted in India to date. However, theLivestock Research Station, Lam, Guntur(Andhra Pradesh) has recently conducted asurvey under the Network Project of theNational Bureau of Animal GeneticResources, Karnal (Indian Council ofAgricultural Research). A survey wasconducted in 60 villages in the breeding tractand 7 341 cattle true to the breed (Ongole)type were found (Annual Report of NationalBureau of Animal Genetic Resources,1998-99). The average number of cattle reared

Figure 1. Digital map of Ongole cattle breedingtract.

/cgi-dad/$cgi_dad.dll/world?591,asi

29


Gaur et al.

by each farmer was 4.7. Table 1 summarisesstatistics and performance of Ongole cowsunder network project

Topography and Management

The Ongole breed is found within 14°.27' to16°.8' N latitude and 80°.02' to 80°.29' Elongitude at an average height of 600 feet

above sea level. The average annual rainfall inthe breeding tract varies from 40 to 100 cm indifferent seasons and temperature reaches45°C in summer. Ongole cattle are mainlyreared by farmers of a higher income group.The majority of the animals are reared underopen type housing at night and put out tograze for the entire day. Natural mating is

Table 1. Statistics and performance of Ongole cows under network project. S. N. Characteristic Estimate 1. Female population 789

2. Breedable females 475 3. Bulls (breeding ± young) 15 (15+0) 4. Mortality 3.8% 5. Highest mortality Due to Pneumo- Enteritis

21% 6. Calving abnormality 7.6% 7. Chief cause of calving

abnormality Retention of placenta

55% 8. Conception rate (%) Heifers 46

Cows 54 9. No. of insemination/conception 1.9

Figure 2. An Ongole cow.



used in the whole breeding tract of the breedexcept at the University/State Governmentfarms and their surrounding areas.

Research and Development

The Project Directorate on Cattle, Meerut,Uttar Pradesh, India (Indian Council ofAgricultural Research) initiated a GeneticImprovement Programme in Ongoles incollaboration with the Livestock ResearchStation, Lam, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh(Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural University,Hyderabad) during 1987. The programmeaims at associating the existing organizedfarms maintaining the Ongole breed underState/Central Government, ICAR Institutesand State Agricultural Universities into anetwork programme for undertaking progenytesting of bulls, their selection on the basis ofprogeny performance for milk and draughtand production of superior germplasm forutilization in cattle developmentprogrammes.

Statistics, Mortality andCalving Abnormality

Female herd (Figure 5) strength in thenetwork project was 789 at the end of the yearas a result of 138 normal calvings and289 disposals (153 surplus, 20 auction,59 reproductive disorders, 28 weak and29 deaths) . Population of breeding females atthe end of the year was 475. A total of15 breeding bulls was also available on theclosing date. Overall mortality at the Ongoleunit was very low (3.8 percent). Highestmortality was reported due toPneumo-Enteritis (21 percent) among all themajor diseases. The lowest mortality on thefarm revealed that the animals of this breedare very resistant to various diseases. A fewcases of calving abnormality were alsoobserved at different centres (7.6 percent). Themain cause of calving abnormality wasretention of placenta (55 percent).

Figure 3. An Ongole bull.


31


Gaur et al.

Fertility Status

The overall conception rate in heifers andcows was low (46 and 54 percent). Theaverage number of inseminations/conceptionwas 1.86. Twenty-four bulls were inductedunder the test mating in three sets of eighteach. Nine hundred and thirty nine daughtershave so far been produced from the three sets.Daughters of the first set will complete theirfirst lactation which will be the source forevaluation of genetic worth of the bulls. Morethan 66 000 doses of semen of test bulls wereavailable on the closing date.

Table 2. Conformation characters in Ongoles under network project. Character Sex Estimate Body weight at birth (kg) Male

Female Both

27.1±0.2 25.3±0.3 26.2±0.7

Body weight at 24 months (kg) Male Female Both

302.0±9.8 223.9±3.6 237.2±6.4

Body height at birth (cm) Male Female Both

72.8±0.6 71.6±0.6 72.2±0.9

Body height at 24 months (cm) Male Female Both

135.2±1.4 126.8±0.9 128.3±0.5

Heart girth at birth (cm) Male Female Both

68.6±0.4 67.0±0.7 67.8±0.7

Heart girth at 24 months (cm) Male Female Both

155.1±1.9 141.1±1.2 143.7±0.7

Body length at birth (cm) Male Female Both

60.7±0.7 60.6±0.3

60.67±0.9 Body length at 24 months (cm) Male

Female Both

130.2±2.1 122.0±1.1 123.5±1.2

Conformation Traits

Weight at birth and at 24 months averaged26 and 237 kg, respectively. Males wereheavier than females (Table 2). Birth weight inthe present study was similar to that reportedby Krishna et al. (1970). However, bodyweight at two years of age was lower thanthat reported in literature (Joshi and Phillips,1953). This reveals that adult body weight hasbeen declining in the last decades and needsspecial attention. Average body height atbirth and at 24 months was 72 and 128 cm,respectively. Males had higher body height ascompared to females. Heart girth averaged68 cm at birth and 144 cm at 24 months ofage. It was also higher in males than females.Average body length at birth and 24 monthswas 61 and 124 cm, respectively.


Table 3. Production and reproduction characters in Ongoles under network project. S.N. Character Estimate 1. Cows (%) in milk 41.6 2. Wet average (kg) 2.8±0.0 3. Herd average (kg) 1.2±0.0 4. Age at 1st calving (months) 52.7±5.9 5. First lactation yield (kg) 584±30.4 6. 300 days lactation yield (kg) 675±35.2 7. Lactation length (days) 231±15.9 8. Dry period (days) 289±22.2 9. Service period (days) 203±12.2 10. Calving interval (days) 502±18.2 11. Peak yield (kg/day) 3.8±0.1 12. Fat % 4.4±0.4 13. Total solids % 12.9±0.6 14. Solids-not-fat % 8.5±0.5

Figure 4. A group of Ongole calves.

Production and ReproductionPerformance

Forty-two percent of cows was in milkthroughout the year and yielded 2.8 kg wetand 1.2 kg herd average. Table 3 show thatthe proportion of milk and dry cows is lower

than the optimum (70:30). This needs to beimproved. Furthermore, the effective selectionprogramme has not been implemented on thefarms to increase the milk yield. Average ageat first calving was 53 months. Age at firstcalving was reported between 39 and42 months in the previous literature (Rao,1966; Acharya and Bhat, 1984; Bhat and


33


Gaur et al.

Taneja, 1989). This further revealed the poorgrowth of the heifers and as a result increasesin age at first calving. This suggests thatmanagement practices need to be improvedin order to reduce age at first calving.

First lactation milk yield averaged 584 kg.Per lactation yield in 300 days was 675 kg.Average lactation length and peak yield were231 days and 3.8 kg, respectively. Averagelactation yield and length were similar tothose reported by Bhat (1977) and Katpatal(1979). Dry period, service period and calvinginterval averaged 289, 203 and 502 days,respectively. Rao (1966) also reported theservice period in Ongole cows as 210 days,which is almost similar to the present study.Average fat, total solids and solids-not-fatpercentage was 4.4, 12.9 and 8.5, respectively.These values corroborated with the findingsof Katpatal (1979).

Genetic Parameters

Heritability of lactation length, 305 days milkyield and service period were high andranged between 0.43±0.24 to 0.51±0.25

revealing relatively high genetic variation inthe traits. Peak yield (0.48±0.23), days taken topeak (0.43±0.23) and age at first calving(0.58±0.25) also had high heritabilityestimates. These results suggest that selectionwith optimum intensity might bringreasonable genetic improvement in theperformance traits.

Age at first calving had high negativegenetic correlation with 305 days milk yield(-0.73±0.02), medium negative with peak yield(-0.48±0.17) and medium positive withlactation length (0.41±0.15). Geneticcorrelation of the service period wasnegatively high with 305 days milk yield(-0.63±0.07) and medium positive with a dryperiod (0.42±0.23) and lactation length(0.43±0.21). High negative genetic correlationbetween age at first calving and 305 days milkyield suggest that efforts should be made toreduce age at first calving to optimum level.

Figure 5. Ongole cows in a herd.



Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the Director,PDC, Meerut for providing necessary help inthe preparation of this article and to theIn-charge, Lam Farm, Guntur for supplyingthe information.

References

Acharya, R.M. & Bhat, P.N. 1984.Research Bulletin No.1. I.V.R.I., Izatnagar,India, 35-38.

Arora, C.L. & Garg, R.C. 1997.Agricultural Review, 18: 1-12.

Bhat, P.N. 1977. Indian Dairyman, 29:401-411.

Bhat, P.N. & Taneja, V.K. 1989. AnimalProductivity. Oxford & IBH, New Delhi,75-95.

Dairy India. 1997, 163-64.

Krishna, V. et al . 1970. IndianVeterinary Journal., 47: 538-43.

Joshi, N.R. & Philips, R.W. 1953. FAOAgricultural Studies No. 19, Rome, Italy,117-34.

Katpatal, B.G. 1979. Paper presented atFAO Expert Consultation held in HAU, Hisar,India on 12-17 Feb., 1979.

National Bureau of Animal GeneticResources Annual Report 1998-99. 2000.41-42.

Rao, C.K. 1966. Indian VeterinaryJournal, 43: 981-85.

35

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

AGRI 2002, 32: 35-43

Summary

Deoni is an important dual-purpose breed ofcattle in Maharashtra. These animals aremainly found in the Latur district and theadjoining area of Prabhani, Nanded andOsmanabad districts of the Marathwadaregion of Maharashtra. From 1996 to 1999, asystematic survey was conducted in 13 stratainvolving 69 villages to determine geographicdistribution, establish breed characteristics,determine socioeconomic status and existingmanagement practices as well as to estimatethe approximate population of Deoni cattle inits breeding tract. The total number ofhouseholds enumerated was 9 132. Theaverage herd size was 2.5 animals with arange of 1 to 16. About 30 percent of farmerswere found rearing Deoni cattle. The totalpopulation of the Deoni in the entire breedingtract was estimated at 118 945. A decrease inDeoni cattle population (8.78 percent) wasalso noticed from August 1996 to August1998.

Deoni is a medium heavy animal. It isfound in three-colour variations viz.Wannera, Balankya and Shevera. The body ismoderately developed and symmetrical withdistinct muscles. Horn length, ear length,head length, chest girth, body length andheight averaged 17.61, 26.18, 49.82, 151.82,120.11 and 122.22 cm in adult cows and 19.97,26.67, 53.68, 163.55, 129.59 and 134.36 cm inbullocks. Lactation milk yield averaged868 litres. The average fat content in the milkof Deoni cows was 4.3 percent. Cows showed

their first estrus at the average age of36 months. Average age at first calving was46 months. Service period and inter-calvingperiod averaged 170 and 447 days. Theselected bulls started breeding at the age of30 months. Calf and adult mortality wasfound to be negligible and the breed wasfound to be hardy and well adapted totropical draught prone areas. The decliningtrend of the Deoni cattle breed calls forimmediate steps to control the reasons.Regarding conservation and improvement,both models need to be implementedeffectively to make the programmesuccessful.

Resumen

La Deoni es una raza vacuna de doblepropósito originaria de Maharashtra. Estosanimales se encuentran principalmente en eldistrito de Latur y las zonas vecinas dePraghani, Nanded y Osmanabad, en eldistrito Marathwada de en la región deMaharashtra. Entre 1996 y 1999 se llevó acabo una encuesta sistemática en 13 zonasque comprendían 69 poblados con el fin dedeterminar la distribución geográfica,establecer las características de la raza,determinar el estatus socioeconómico y lasprácticas de conducta existentes, así comohacer una estimación de la poblaciónaproximada existente de la raza Deoni en suhabitat. El total de familias propietarias fue de9 132, y la media de animales por familia de2,5, con un espectro de 1 a 16. Alrededor del

Deoni cattle breed of India. A study onpopulation dynamics and morphometric

characteristics

G. Singh, G.K. Gaur, A.E. Nivsarkar, G.R. Patil & K.R. Mitkari

National Bureau of Animal Genetic Resources, Post Box No. 129,G. T. Road Bypass, Karnal 132 001 Haryana, India

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

36Deoni cattle breed of India

30% de los agricultores resultó ser criados dela raza Deoni. La población total de Deoni enla zona originaria fue establecida en 118 945, yse observó una diminución de la raza del8,78% entre agosto 1996 y agosto 1998.

Se trata de una raza de peso medio que sesubdivide según una variación de tres colores:Wannera, Balankya y Shevera. El cuerpo sepresenta bastante desarrollado y simétricocon músculos visibles. La longitud de loscuernos, orejas, cabeza, circunferenciatorácica, longitud del cuerpo y altura mediason respectivamente de 17,61; 26,18; 49,82;151,82; 120,11; y 122,22 cm en los animalesadultos y de 19,97; 26,67; 53,68; 163,55; 129,59;y 134,36 cm en los novillos. El rendimientomedio por lactación es de 868 litros. Elcontenido medio en grasa en la leche de laraza Deoni es de 4,3%. Las hembras presentanel primer estro hacia la edad de 36 meses, y lamedia de edad al primer parto es de 46meses. El periodo de monta y el intervaloentre partos es de 170 y 447 días. Los machosseleccionados se utilizan en reproducción apartir de los 30 meses. Se consideró que lamortalidad de crías y adultos norepresentaban un dato importante ya que la

raza se presenta fuerte y bien adaptada a laszonas secas tropicales. El declive de la razaDeoni ha provocado una serie de medidasinmediatas para averiguar los motivos. Encuanto a la conservación y la mejora ambosmodelos necesitán ser mejorados paraconseguir un programa de éxito.

Keywords: Distribution, Characteristics,Population dynamics, Management practices.

Introduction

Deoni is an important dual-purpose cattlebreed of Maharashtra. These animals aremainly found in the Latur district and theadjoining area of Parbhani, Nanded andOsmanabad districts of the Marathwadaregion of Maharashtra. The name of the breedis derived from Deoni Taluk of the Laturdistrict. The breed is also known as Surti,Dongarpati and Dongri. It is found in threecolour variations viz. Wannera (clear whitewith black colour at the sides of the face),Balankya (clear white with black spots on thelower side of the body) and Shevera (white

Figure 1. A Deoni cow.


○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

37


Singh et al.

body with irregular black spots). Deoni cattleare hardy and well adapted to their breedingtract constituting an important cattle geneticresource of Maharashtra.

Present status of a livestock breed in termsof population size and the breedcharacteristics is essential to formulate theconservation and improvement strategies forthe breed. A systematic survey was, therefore,undertaken to determine geographicdistribution, establish breed characteristics,determine socioeconomic status and existingmanagement practices and to estimate theapproximate population of Deoni cattle in itsbreeding tract during the period 1996 to 1999.

Materials and methods

The Deoni breeding tract with a total area ofabout 11 240 km² is located approximatelybetween 17° 35’ and 20° 05’N and between75° 16’ and 78° 15’E. The elevation of thebreeding tract ranges from 409 to 455 m abovemean sea level. The climate of the Deonibreeding tract is generally hot throughout the

year except for some winter months. Theaverage temperature varies from 9 to 44°Cand the average relative humidity from 40 to54 percent. The tract receives maximum rainsduring June to September. The mean annualrainfall varies from 750 to 990 mm.

A total of 10 strata from the Latur districtand one stratum each from the Parbhani,Nanded and Osmanabad districts ofMaharashtra State (India) were selected forthe survey of Deoni cattle. From each stratumfive to six villages were further randomlyselected. Thus, the total survey wasconducted in 13 strata involving 69 villages.Information on geographical distribution ofbreed, socioeconomic status of the farmers,category wise enumeration of the population(calves, young stock, milking females, dryfemales, working males and bulls), feedingand management practices followed anddisease aspects were collected.Morphological, conformational as well asproduction and reproduction characteristicsof Deoni cattle were recorded for phenotypiccharacterization of Deoni breed.

Figure 2. A Deoni bull.


○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Tabl

e 1.

Bod

y m

easu

rem

ents

+ S

E o

f diff

eren

t cat

egor

y of

Deo

ni c

attl

e.

S. N

. C

ateg

ory

Rec

ord

s H

orn

leng

th

(cm

) E

ar le

ngth

(c

m)

Hea

d le

ngth

(c

m)

Che

st g

irth

(c

m)

Bod

y le

ngth

(c

m)

Hei

ght a

t w

ithe

r (c

m)

1.

Cal

ves

(0-3

mon

ths)

18

8 --

17

.34±

0.52

27

.22±

0.83

78

.82±

2.19

68

.18±

1.43

76

.42±

1.32

2.

Cal

ves

(4-6

mon

ths)

24

6 --

19

.57±

0.60

31

.88±

1.20

94

.56±

3.85

78

.45±

1.86

86

.45±

1.87

3.

Cal

ves

(7-9

mon

ths)

28

8 --

21

.54±

0.48

36

.39±

1.03

10

7.01

±3.2

6 87

.93±

1.98

93

.78±

2.20

4.

Cal

ves

(10-

12 m

onth

s)

317

0.95

±0.3

8 23

.06±

0.46

38

.86±

1.03

11

4.53

±3.3

1 93

.30±

2.34

98

.51±

3.46

5.

Cal

ves

(13-

18 m

onth

s)

373

2.39

±0.3

5 24

.58±

0.34

41

.94±

1.09

12

4.97

±2.7

3 10

1.56

±1.5

0 10

7.94

±2.3

2

6.

Cal

ves

(19-

24 m

onth

s)

354

3.76

±0.4

6 25

.39±

0.43

44

.73±

1.06

12

9.73

±5.3

1 10

3.52

±2.5

9 11

2.50

±2.2

3

7.

Cal

ves

(> 2

4 m

onth

s)

368

6.16

±0.7

4 27

.52±

0.35

48

.01±

0.93

14

4.83

±2.8

1 11

6.43

±2.0

6 12

2.06

±2.3

9

8.

Bu

lls

52

7.19

±1.2

9 25

.48±

1.30

54

.87±

7.10

17

3.61

±6.0

8 13

5.13

±7.6

0 13

9.55

±6.2

5 9.

B

ullo

cks

731

19.9

7±0.

92

26.6

7±0.

34

53.6

8±0.

83

163.

55±1

.55

129.

59±2

.28

134.

36±2

.03

10.

Cow

s 10

07

17.6

1±0.

74

26.1

8±0.

52

49.8

2±0.

91

151.

82±1

.92

120.

11±2

.16

122.

22±1

.23

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

39


Singh et al.

Seventy animals from each village and350 from each stratum were taken for thestudy. Physical measurements of the calveswere recorded every month up to one year.Young stock was physically measured once insix months. Measurements on adult animalswere taken only once in the three years ofstudy. The feeding and management of allmarked animals was recorded once in threemonths. Milk recording were done once amonth from the month of lactation by milkingtwice. Reproduction and disease aspects ofthese animals were also noted byobservations and on the basis of informationprovided by the farmers. The total populationof the Deoni breed was estimated bysuperimposing the population obtained by asurvey on the Livestock Census Data alreadyavailable with the State Department ofAnimal Husbandry. The breed descriptor wasdeveloped. The study was completed with thehelp of enumerators and supervisors.

Results and Discussion

General observations

The total number of households enumeratedwas 9 132. The average family size was aboutseven. The literacy percentage varied from40 to 75 in the breeding tract. The averageland holding was 8.5 acres out of which about12 percent was irrigated and the remainderrainfed. The average herd size was2.5 animals with a range of 1 to 16. About30 percent of farmers were found rearingDeoni cattle.

Population statistics

Out of the 69 villages surveyed, 49 were inhigh-density areas whereas 20 others were inlow-density areas, which were nearer to theborders of the breeding tract. The populationof Deoni breed was 1.35 (Mulaj) to58.58 percent (Deverjan) of total cattle

Figure 3. A Deoni cow with a calf.


○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


population in different strata. A total of6 244 animals of this breed consisting of541 calves (0-6 months), 783 calves(6-24 months), 328 calves (above 24 months),1 212 females in milk, 719 females dry,2 563 working males and 98 breeding maleswere found in the strata under survey. Thetotal superimposed population of the Deoniin the entire breeding tract was estimated as1 18 945 involving 5 014 from Parbhani,97 002 from Latur, 14 882 from Nanded and1 947 from the Osmanabad districts. The totalsuperimposed population constitutedapproximately 39 977 (33.6 percent) breedingfemales, 1 784 (1.5 percent) breeding bulls and48 827 (41.1 percent) working bullocks.

The Deoni cattle population enumeratedfrom the villages at the initial stage (August1996) was also compared to that enumeratedafter two years (August 1998). It wasobserved that the Deoni cattle populationdecreased by 8.78 percent during the periodunder study. This revealed that the Deoni

cattle population is decreasing continuouslyin the breeding tract and warrants urgentsteps against its further decline.

Physical characteristics

Deoni is a medium heavy animal. It is foundin three colour variations viz. Wannera,Balankya and Shevera. The body ismoderately developed and symmetrical withdistinct muscles. Males are more developedthan females. Body colour is clear white inWannera and Balankya strain. Irregular blackspots are found on the body in Shevera. Thehead is partially white in Wannera. Head ismasculine, alert, broad and slightly convex.The colour of the head is black and white inWannera and Shevera and completely whitein the Balankya strain. The forehead isprominent, broad, slightly bulged and whitein all the strains; ears are long and droopingwith slightly curved tips; horns are medium,thick, apart and emerge from the sides of the

Table 2. Production and reproduction characteristics in Deoni cattle. S. No. Characteristics Records Average+ SE 1. Milk yield in 1st month (litres) 310 106.77±6.23 2. Milk yield in 2nd month (litres) 383 107.63±6.17 3. Milk yield in 3rd month (litres) 466 106.25±2.79 4. Milk yield in 4th month (litres) 516 101.83±5.76 5. Milk yield in 5th month (litres) 531 97.95±6.35 6. Milk yield in 6th month (litres) 573 88.20±6.75 7. Milk yield in 7th month (litres) 556 76.70±5.93 8. Milk yield in 8th month (litres) 523 59.27±6.51 9. Milk yield in 9th month (litres) 426 46.65±5.39 10. Milk yield in 10th month (litres) 329 33.23±5.45 11. Milk yield in 11th month (litres) 71 15.61±5.77 12. Lactation Yield (litres) 597 868.24±49.56 13. Average fat % 200 4.3±0.14 14. Age at estrus (months) 1007 35.6±0.53 15. Age at 1st conception (months) 1007 36.6±0.54 16. Age at 1st calving (months) 1007 45.7±0.52 17. Service period (days) 1007 170.0±7.0 18. Inter-calving period (days) 1007 447.0±8.0 19. Gestation length (days) 1007 277.0±1.0

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

41


Singh et al.

poles; tips of the horns are blunt; and eyes areprominent, bright and alert with blackeyebrows.

The hump is massive and well developedin males and small in females. The neck isshort, strong and well developed. Dewlap isthick, pendulous, and muscular with folds. Itis more pendulous in males than in females.The chest is deep and wide. The skin of theseanimals is thick and loosely attached to thebody. The tail is long reaching below the hockwith black and white switch. The udder iswell attached and medium in size withsquarely placed black teats. Bulls arecharacterized by blackish scrotums of a goodsize. The animals are docile and calm.

Physical measurements

The linear measurements viz. height atwithers, body length, chest girth, horn length,ear length and head length of all categories ofDeoni cattle were recorded on 3 924 animals(Table 1). It was revealed that measurementsincreased with increase in age. The ear lengthin adult animals was similar in both sexes.The chest girth, body length and height at

withers were more in bulls than bullocks andmilk/dry cows. Horn length, ear length, headlength, chest girth, body length and heightaveraged 17.61, 26.18, 49.82, 151.82, 120.11and 122.22 cm in cows and 19.97, 26.67, 53.68,163.55, 129.59 and 134.36 cm in bullocks.Average chest girth, body length and heightat wither in the present study were lowerthan that reported by Deshpande and Singh(1978). They reported 168.3 cm chest girth,132.2 cm body length and 126.2 cm height atwither in adult cows in an organized herd.

Production and reproductioncharacteristics

The milk recording was carried out atmonthly intervals in all the villages includedin the project. The recording on 597 cows ofdifferent lactations was made. The milkconsumed by the calf at the initial and laststage of milking was not included in the milkyield. The production and reproductioncharacters are shown in Table 2. Lactationmilk yield averaged 868 litres. Milk yield wasalmost similar in first three months oflactation (106 to 107 litres) and declined

Figure 4. A Deoni calf.


○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


thereafter from the fourth month (102 litres)to the tenth month (33 litres). The average fatcontent in the milk of Deoni cows was4.3 percent with a range of 2.5 to 5.3 percent.Cows showed their first oestrus at theaverage age of 36 months. Average age at firstcalving was 46 months. The service periodand inter-calving period averaged 170 and447 days. The average number of calvings percow was six to seven. The selected bulls startbreeding at the age of 30 months.

The production and reproductionperformance of Deoni cattle in the presentinvestigation was similar to that reported inthe literature. Deshpande and Singh (1977A)observed lactation milk yield in Deoni herdsranging from 800 to 1 000 kg. Kakde et al.(1976) reported age at first calving in Deonicows as 47 months. A service period of184 days and calving interval of 466 days wasreported in Deoni cows by Deshpande andSingh (1977B). Sontakke et al .(1978) reportedaverage fat percent of 4.29 in 100 samples ofDeoni cow milk.

Draught capacity

The observations were recorded on 25 pairs ofbullocks at different locations. A bullock pairwas able to pull the load of 10-11 quintalsusing wooden heavy cart with woodenwheels on katcha (muddy) road. They areable to pull a maximum of 28-30 quintals ofload using a light steel bullock cart with tyrewheels on the tar roads for about 10-15 km.One pair of bullocks can pull the mediumplough for about seven to eight hours a dayand can plough about half an acre of land.The bullocks show their maximum potentialat five to six years of age and maintain it upto 10-12 years of age.

Management practices

Deoni cattle are maintainedunder asemi-intensive system of management. Theyare traditionally reared on grazing in fallowlands, dry lands or bunds of the farms. Theanimals are allowed to graze from 8.00 a.m. to

5.00 p.m. The breeding bulls are usually stallfed. Only 12.7 percent of farmers grow greenfodder (maize and sorghum). The animals arealso provided with maize/sorghum stovers,paddy straw, wheat straw and sugarcane topsas well as groundnut, urd (Vigno mungo) andarhar (Cajanus cajan) haulms. The cows suckletheir dams before and after milking. Quantityof the dry fodder mainly depends onavailability of green fodder in the grazingareas. Some amount of concentrate is alsogiven to the milking cows and workingbullocks.

The animals are housed in either separatehouses or part of the owner’s residenceduring the night. About 50 percent of ownershouse their animals in open area, 3 percentkeep their animals in pucca (cemented) housesand the remaining house their animals inkatcha (muddy) house thatched with dry grassor sugarcane dry leaves. No weaning ispractised in the breeding tract. The males areseparated after 20 months of age and trainedfor agriculture operations. They are usuallycastrated at 30 months of age and used fortransportation at three years of age.

Disease prevalence

The occurrence of foot-and-mouth diseasewas reported even after regular vaccination.Incidence of the other diseases likeRinderpest, Black Quarter, Coccidiosis,Mastitis and Pneumonia were also recorded.The calf and adult mortality was found to benegligible and the breed was found to behardy and well adapted to tropical draughtprone areas. Some cases of mastitis have alsobeen reported by Deshmukh et al. (1995).Norladkar et al. (1994) reported occurrence ofreproductive disorders in Deoni cows rangingfrom 2 to 4 percent.

Acknowledgement

The authors thank the Director, NBAGR,Karnal for guidance throughout the tenure ofthe study.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

43


Singh et al.

References

Deshmukh, V.V., Markandeya, N.M. &Shastri, U.V. 1995. Bovine mastitis caused byB. cereus. Indian Journal of Animal Research,29: 62-63.

Deshpande, K.S. & Singh, B.P. 1977A.Genetic studies on Deoni cattle II. Lactationmilk yield. Indian Veterinary Journal, 54:727-31.

Deshpande, K.S. & Singh, B.P. 1977B.Genetic studies on Deoni cattle IV. Serviceperiod and calving interval. Indian VeterinaryJournal, 54: 956-58.

Deshpande, K.S. & Singh, B.P. 1978.Genetic studies on Deoni cattle V. Bodymeasurements. Indian Veterinary Journal, 55:727-304-05.

Kakde, P.V., Rotte, S.G., Deshpande,K.S. & Bonde, H.S. 1976. Age at 1st calvingand days open in Deoni cattle. Food Farmingand Agriculture, 8: 26-28.

Narladkar, B.W., Bakshi, S.A.,Pargaonkar, D.R. & Digraskar, S.U. 1994.Incidence of various reproductive disorders inDeoni cows and their crossbreds. LivestockAdviser, 19: 28-30.

Sontakke, A.T., Ingle, U.M., Joglekar,V.V. & Bonde, H.S. 1978. Studies onphysico-chemical properties and quality ofDeoni cow milk. Journal of MaharashtraAgricultural University, 3: 229-31.

Documents

2002 ANIMAL GENETIC RESOURCES INFORMATION · ANIMAL GENETIC RESOURCES INFORMATION BULLETIN D’INFORMATION SUR LE RESSOURCES GÉNÉTIQUES ANIMALES BOLETIN DE INFORMACION SOBRE RECURSOS