[en] Our aim was to identify elements useful in designing policies and programmes for conservation of farm animal genetic resources, taking as case study a group of European local cattle breeds. We first investigated the implications of differences among countries in the policies and programmes to be developed. Secondly, we analysed key elements common to countries, which may affect local breed viability. We used the herd size trend expected by the farmer in the near future as an indicator of breed viability. Fifteen breeds, for a total of 355 farms, were surveyed. To take into account the multiple factors influencing breeds’ demographic trends, the questionnaire included economical, technical and social aspects. Among the major differences across countries was the perception of the farmer on the value attributed to the local breed by society. Concerning the elements common to countries and their association to breed viability, the greater the collaboration among farmers and the stakeholders’ appreciation as perceived by the farmer, the greater the viability of the farm. An opposite trend was observed for the age of the farmer. Older farmers generally planned to soon cease farming or decrease herd size, whereas young farmers planned to increase the size of their herds. Implications of including these elements in conservation polices are discussed.
Disciplines :
Animal production & animal husbandry
Author, co-author :
Gandini, G; University of Milan (Italy) > Faculty of Veterinary Medicine > Department DIVET
Martin-Collado, D; INIA (Madrid, Spain) > Departamento de Mejora Genética Animal
DG AGRI - Commission Européenne. Direction Générale de l'Agriculture et du Développement rural SPW DG03-DGARNE - Service Public de Wallonie. Direction Générale Opérationnelle Agriculture, Ressources naturelles et Environnement
Commentary :
Action EURECA 012 AGRI GEN RES 870/2004 receives financial support from the European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Developpment, under Council Regulation (EC) No 870/2004
Burton R.J.F. (2006) An alternative to farmer age as an indicator of life-cycle stage: the case for a farm family age index. J. Rural Stud., 22, 485-492.
Delgado C., Rosegrant M., Steinfeld H., Ehui S., Courbois C. (1999) Livestock to 2020, the next food revolution. Food, Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper 28, IFPRI, FAO and ILRI.
Dillon W.R., Goldstein M. (1984) Multivariate Analysis: Methods and Applications. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
European Commission (2010) EUROSTAT EU-27 (available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/; last accessed 15 March 2012).
FAO (1998) Secondary Guidelines for the Development of National Farm Animal Genetic Resources Management Plans. FAO, Rome.
FAO (2007) The State of the World's Animal genetic resources for Food and Agriculture. Commission on genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome.
FAO (2010) Adding value to livestock diversity. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper n. 168. FAO, Rome.
Gandini G., Oldenbroek K. (2007) Strategies for moving from conservation to utilisation. In K. Oldenbroek (ed.), Utilisation and Conservation of Farm Animal Genetic Resources. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp. 29-54.
Gandini G., Avon L., Bohte-Wilhelmus D., Bay E., Colinet F.G., Choroszy Z., Díaz C., Duclos D., Fernández J., Gengler N., Hoving-Bolink R., Kearney F., Lilja T., Mäki-Tanila A., Martín-Collado D., Maurice-van Eijndhoven M., Musella M., Pizzi F., Soini K., Toro M., Turri F., Viinalas H., the EURECA Consortium, Hiemstra S.J. (2010a) Motives and values in farming local cattle breeds in Europe: a survey on fifteen breeds. Anim. Genet. Resour., 47, 45-58.
Gandini G., Díaz C., Soini K., Lilja T., Martín-Collado D. (2010b) Viewing differences and similarities across local cattle farming in Europe. in: S.J. Hiemstra, Y. de Haas, A. Mäki-Tanila, G. Gandini (eds.) Local Cattle Breeds in Europe. Development of Policies and Strategies for Self-Sustainable Breeds. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp. 58-77.
Gill J. (2001) Generalized Lineal Models: A Unified Approach. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hosmer D.W., Lemeshow S. (2000) Applied Logistic Regression. Wiley, New York.
Johnson R.A., Wichern D.W. (1998) Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
Lauvie A., Audiot A., Couix N., Casabianca F., Brives H., Verrier E. (2011) Diversity of rare breed management programs: between conservation and development. Livest. Sci., 140, 161-170.
Martin-Collado D., Gandini G., de Haas Y., Diaz C. (2010) Decision-Making tools for the development of breed strategies. In: S.J. Hiemstra, Y. de Haas, A. Mäki-Tanila, G. Gandini (eds) Local Cattle Breeds in Europe. Development of Policies and Strategies for Self-Sustainable Breeds. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp. 120-140.
Nahed-Toral J., Garcia-Barros L., Mena Y., Castel J.M. (2008) Use of indicators to evaluate sustainability of animal production systems. Options Méditerranéennes, Series A, 70, 205-211.
Norton A.N., Phipps T.T., Fletcher J.J. (1994) Role of Voluntary Programs in Agricultural Non-point Pollution. Policy Contemp. Econ. Policy, 12, 113-121.
Oldenbroek K. (2007) Introduction. In: K. Oldenbroek (ed.) Utilisation and Conservation of Farm Animal Genetic Resources. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp. 13-27.
Rigby D., Woodhouse P., Young T., Burton M. (2001) Constructing a farm level indicator of sustainable agricultural practice. Ecol. Econ., 39, 463-478.
SAS Institute Inc. (2004) SAS/IML 9.1 User's Guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
Scarpa R., Ruto E.S.K., Kristjanson P., Radeny M., Drucker A.G., Rege J.E.O. (2003) Valuing indigenous cattle breeds in Kenya: an empirical comparison of stated and revealed preference value estimates. Ecol. Econ., 45, 409-426.
Signorello G., Pappalardo G. (2003) Domestic animal biodiversity conservation: a case study of rural development plans in the European Union. Ecol. Econ., 45, 487-499.
Tisdell C. (2003) Socioeconomic causes of loss of animal genetic diversity: analysis and assessment. Ecol. Econ., 45, 365-376.
