Optimizing the use of breed types in developing country livestock production systems: a neglected research area.

J. Anim. Breed. Genet. ISSN 0931-2668

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Optimizing the use of breed types in developing country livestock production systems: a neglected research area K. Marshall The International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya

Summary

Keywords Animal genetic resources; breeds; crossbreeds; developing country livestock productions systems; impact assessment. Correspondence K. Marshall, The International Livestock Research Institute, PO BOX 30709, Nairobi 001000, Kenya. Tel: +254 20 42 3000; Fax: +254 20 422 3001; E-mail: [email protected] Received: 30 August 2013; accepted: 22 December 2013

Developing country livestock production systems are diverse and dynamic, and include those where existing indigenous breeds are currently optimal and likely to remain so, those where non-indigenous breed types are already in common use, and systems that are changing, such as by intensification, where the introduction of new breed types represents significant opportunities. These include opportunities to improve the livelihood of the world’s poor, increase food and nutrition security and enhance environmental sustainability. At present, very little research has focused on this issue, such that significant knowledge gaps in relation to breed-change interventions remain. The purpose of this study is to raise awareness of this issue and suggests strategic research areas to begin filling these knowledge gaps. Such strategic research would include (i) assessing the impact of differing breed types in developing country livestock productions systems, from a range of viewpoints including intrahousehold livelihood benefit, food and nutrition security at different scales, and environmental sustainability; (ii) identification of specific livestock production systems within developing countries, and the type of livestock keepers within these system, that are most likely to benefit from new breed types; and (iii) identification of new breed types as candidates for in-situ testing within these systems, such as through the use of spatial analysis to identify similar production environments combined with community acceptance studies. Results of these studies would primarily assist stakeholders in agriculture, including both policy makers and livestock keepers, to make informed decisions on the potential use of new breed types.

Introduction The great genetic diversity that currently exists amongst the world’s livestock populations is a result of thousands of years of events including natural and human selection, amongst others (FAO 2007). For all of the major livestock species – cattle, sheep, goat, pig and chicken – animals specifically bred to produce a uniform product under high input conditions (common to developed countries) co-exist with the multipurpose animals typically kept by farmers in lowinput systems (common to developing countries) (FAO 2007). © 2014 Blackwell Verlag GmbH

• J. Anim. Breed. Genet. (2014) 1–12

In a number of livestock production systems in developing countries, and including traditionally lowinput systems that are now intensifying (de Haan et al. 2010), livestock keepers are experimenting with this genetic diversity. New, often termed exotic, breeds are being introduced and used for cross-breeding with local breeds or, less commonly, straight breed substitution (Rege et al. 2011). Substantial increases in the level of production (for traits such as growth rate or milk yield) have been achieved in situations where the new breed type is coupled with improved animal management, such as better feed and health care (Rege et al. 2011). Despite this, relatively little is

doi:10.1111/jbg.12080

Optimizing livestock breed use in developing countries

known about the socio-economics of keeping different breed types within these systems (taking into account not only the additional outputs, but also the additional inputs) at the household or broader levels, nor the impact associated with the different breed types on issues such as food and nutrition security, environmental sustainability, and the social, cultural and other functions that livestock fulfil. The aim of this study is to raise awareness of the potential benefits from optimizing livestock breed types in certain livestock production systems in developing countries and the need for research to underpin this. To provide background context, the study first contrasts the evolution and use of livestock populations in developed versus developing countries. From here, the study focuses on developing country livestock production systems, including breed use in systems with different levels of intensification potential, how the impact of introducing new breed types into these systems could be assessed, and a review of the limited number of such studies to date. Finally, a way forward in terms of research priorities is discussed.

Background context on the development, use and current status of breeds globally Concept of ‘breed’

Despite the term ‘breed’ being commonly used in relation to domesticated animals, there is no universally accepted definition of the term or objective way of classifying animals into a particular breed. Instead, it is a term of art (i.e. a word that has special meaning in a particular context). For example, in Britain, the concept of cattle breeds emerged in the late 18th century when there was a period of intensive inbreeding and culling to achieve specific breeding goals (Porter 1991; Wiener et al. 2004). The breeds became phenotypically, and to some extent genotypically, distinct and were given a specific name. This notion of breed in the context of developing countries is more complex. There is often a large number of locally adapted genotypes, and phenotypically (and possibly genotypically) similar animals may be given different ‘breed’ names (such as by different ethnic groups), and conversely, phenotypically/genotypically diverse animals can be grouped under a common name. The FAO (1999) presented a definition of breed as ‘Either a subspecific group of domestic livestock with definable and identifiable external characteristics that enable it to be separated by visual appraisal from other similarly defined groups within the same species, or a group for which geographical and/or cultural 2

K. Marshall

separation from phenotypically similar groups has led to acceptance of its separate identity’. This study adopts this definition of breed, and further uses the term ‘breed type’ as short hand to encompass pure breeds, cross-breeds and synthetic/composite breeds. Breed development and use in developed versus developing countries

All major livestock species were domesticated at least several thousand years ago, with the majority of livestock species resulting from multiple domestication events in different geographical regions (for details see FAO 2007). Following domestication, there was subsequent movement of the domesticated species within and across continents, allowing for genetic admixture between populations arising from the different domestication centres. In addition, there is evidence of genetic introgression from wild populations after the initial domestication events. It is thought that localized livestock populations with unique genetic backgrounds were created when this wild introgression occurred with populations outside their region of origin. Throughout and following these events, livestock genetic diversity was further modified by natural selection (as animals adapted to new environments), human-mediated selection, mutation and genetic drift (Valle Z arate et al. 2006; FAO 2007). Modern livestock breeding, as mainly applied in developed countries, is generally recognized as being initiated in the 1700s in Britain by the agriculturist Robert Bakewell. Bakewell used specific selection and mating strategies to create breeds with traits he considered desirable (Pawson 1957). In 1783, he initiated the Dishley society, essentially the first breed association, and in 1791, he published a stud book (breed registry) (Bixby 2003). Throughout the 1800s, animal genetic improvement followed from Bakewell’s initiatives, with a heavy focus on breed development and breed societies, with breed loss also taking place (Bixby 2003; Valle Z arate et al. 2006). During the 1900s, breed development continued and, largely attributed to the efforts of Jay Lush, animal breeding as a formal science became well established. Various livestock sectors adopted or refined the use of structured cross-breeding strategies, synthetic breeds were developed, numerous commercial breeding companies were established, and performance recording was promoted. In the second half of the 1990s, the use of advanced reproductive technologies became widespread, particularly for dairy cattle, pigs and poultry. A relatively limited number of breeds became popular, such as the Holstein-Friesian © 2014 Blackwell Verlag GmbH



K. Marshall

breed of dairy cattle and the Large White breed of pig. Currently, in the 2000s, the era of the genomic revolution, there is increased use of genomic information to aid selection of breeding animals and to understand the genetic architecture underpinning economically important livestock production traits (Goddard & Hayes 2007, 2009). In developing countries, however, the history is quite different. Here, the development of indigenous livestock breeds has largely resulted from the selection practices of local livestock keepers, who often have strong trait preferences, and the environmental conditions the animals are raised in, which are often harsh. In contrast to developed countries, within breed improvement programmes have had limited success in terms of impact at scale, the use of reproductive technologies is restricted to specific livestock sectors in specific countries, and the widespread use of genomic information for improved livestock productivity has not yet transpired (Marshall et al. 2011; Rege et al. 2011). Overall, the ‘breed development, breed replacement and breed loss’ course of the developed world during the 1800s and 1900s was not followed by the developing world to anywhere near the same extent. The global breed status

Recently, a comprehensive study ‘The State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture’ was completed (FAO 2007). In brief, the report indicated 6929 breeds of livestock currently existing (both mammalian and avian), of which 5855 (85%) are found only in one country, whilst the remaining 1071 (15%) are transboundary. Many of these breeds, particularly those found in developing countries, are without population data and largely uncharacterized. Table 1 gives further information on breed numbers for the five major livestock species worldwide (cattle, sheep, chickens, goats and pigs). Whilst these numbers may not be exact (the report being based on national-level data of different reliability), it does indicate the present wealth of genetic diversity in both developed and developing countries that can be capitalized on.

Use of breed types in developing country livestock production systems Breed types used in differing systems

Livestock production systems within developing countries vary, as do the species and breed type used © 2014 Blackwell Verlag GmbH


Table 1 Breed numbers for the five major livestock species, worldwide and specifically for Africa, Asia and North America (as example regions), as reported in FAO (2007)1 Worldwide

Africa

Asia

North America

154 109 89 86 49

239 265 243 182 229

29 31 12 3 18

35 27 6 15 2

19 13 2 11 2

3 6 1 5 1

2

Local Cattle 897 Sheep 995 Chicken 1077 Goats 512 Pigs 541 Regional transboundary3 Cattle 93 Sheep 134 Chicken 55 Goats 47 Pigs 25 International transboundary4 Cattle 112 Sheep 100 Chicken 101 Goats 40 Pigs 33 1

Excluding extinct breeds. Local breeds are breeds that occur in a single country. 3 Regional transboundary breeds occur in more than one country, but within only one region (where region is defined as Africa, Asia, Europe and the Caucasus, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Near and Middle East, North America, and the Southwest Pacific). 4 International transboundary breeds occur in more than one region (where region is defined as above). 2

within them. One typology of livestock systems, providing a measure of intensification potential, is ‘agro-pastoral and pastoral’, ‘extensive mixed croplivestock’, ‘intensive mixed crop-livestock’ and ‘industrial’ (McDermott et al. 2010), with the majority of poor livestock keepers living in mixed systems (Thornton et al. 2002). Using this typology, and generalizing in relation to current breed use in developing countries, it is probably fair to say that indigenous breed types predominate in the ‘agro-pastoral and pastoral’ and ‘extensive mixed crop-livestock’ systems, whilst in the ‘intensive mixed crop-livestock’ and ‘industrial’ systems (which do exist in developing countries, although less commonly than in developed countries), there is a mix of indigenous, cross-breed (particularly between indigenous and exotic) and exotic breed types (Table 2). The above distribution of livestock breed type by livestock production system is likely due to two underlying causes. The first relates to the general need for exotic breeds and their crosses with indigenous breeds to be supported by improved management, such as improved feed, health care and 3


K. Marshall

Table 2 Livestock systems and the breed types generally associated with them within developing countries Livestock system

Description1

Breed types2

Agro-pastoral and pastoral

Characterized by low-population densities3, low agro-ecological potential, and weak linkage to markets: livestock is the predominate source of livestock and crop production is marginal Rain-fed agriculture, medium population density, moderate agro-ecological potential, weak linkages to markets: both crops and livestock but with limited use of purchased inputs Irrigation of high agro-ecological potential, high population densities, good linkages to markets: both crops and livestock with intensive use of purchased inputs Large vertically integrated production units

Almost exclusively indigenous

Extensive mixed crop-livestock systems Intensive mixed crop-livestock systems Industrial

Predominantly indigenous

Mix of indigenous, cross-breed (commonly between indigenous and exotic breeds) and exotic, with the proportion of each breed type highly system dependant Predominantly exotic, but also cross-breeds

From McDermott et al. 2010. Indigenous breeds are those that have evolved locally over a long-time period; exotic breeds are specialized breeds introduced from elsewhere (which could be either a developed or developing country); cross-breeds are typically crosses between an indigenous breed and an exotic breed, but could be another type of cross. Within this context, synthetic or composite breeds (those generated by crossing two or more breeds following by generations of inter se mating to stabilize the breed composition) could fall under either the indigenous or exotic category. 3 Refers to both human and livestock populations. 1 2

housing, to be able to survive and produce. Attempting to keep these ‘high output – high input’ breed types under low-input management conditions (characteristic of ‘agro-pastoral and pastoral’ and ‘extensive mixed crop-livestock’ systems) is generally not successful due to high rates of mortality and morbidity. In contrast, the indigenous breeds do well in lowinput situations, as they are well adapted to the local environmental conditions. The second relates to the role of livestock to the livelihood of their keeper, which can be diverse (see Table 3) and also varies by system. In ‘agro-pastoral and pastoral’ and ‘extensive mixed crop-livestock’ systems, livelihood risk mitigation is of high importance, and the keeping of particular livestock species for savings and insurance purposes can be as, or more, important than the keep-

Table 3 The diverse role that livestock can play to their keepers in developing country livestock production systems Role Savings and insurance Food security – provision of meat and milk Income – from sale of livestock and/or their products Means of reducing vulnerability through diversifying livelihood options – such as in mixed crop-livestock systems Inputs to crop production – draught power, manure for soil fertilization Transportation Allow households to benefit from common-property resources, such as communal grazing areas Social/cultural – being used for festivals/dowry, source of pride

4

ing of that species as a productive asset (see, for example, Ejlersten et al. 2012). To this end, the more adapted, indigenous breed types are superior. In contrast, in the more intensive systems, the importance of livestock as a productive asset tends to increase and, in some cases, non-indigenous breed types may better fulfil this role. Extent and drivers of breed change

The extent of breed change in livestock production systems in developing countries has not been quantitatively documented although is discussed in FAO (2007). Some illustrative examples (amongst many others) are given in Table 4. Historically, the exchange of breeds has primarily been North-North, with less frequent North-South and South-South exchanges, and limited South-North exchange (FAO 2007). Given the recognition that the introduction of new breed types into certain developing country livestock systems can create significant opportunities for improving livelihoods as well as food security (Rege et al. 2011), the rate of introduction of new breeds into, or exchange of breeds between, developing countries may well increase in the future. How new breed types are currently being introduced into developing countries varies by location and system, as does government policies in relation to his. In some situations, the government has promoted the use of new breed types and facilitated access to them (such as through importing live animals or © 2014 Blackwell Verlag GmbH



K. Marshall

Table 4 Examples of breed introduction in livestock production systems in Africa and South/South-East Asia. For most livestock types, two examples are given: one where the breed originated in a developed country and one where the breed originated in a developing country1 Livestock type

Example

Cattle – dairy

European dairy breeds (including Holstein-Friesian and Jersey, amongst others) in 26 African and 12 South and South-East Asian countries The Sahiwal dairy breed of Pakistan/India in 12 African and 6 other South and South-East Asian countries The Braham, developed in North America from Indian stock, in 15 African and 3 South and South-East Asian countries The Boran of Kenya and Ethiopia in 7 other African countries The Suffolk of Europe in 6 African and 2 South and South-East Asian countries The Blackhead Persian from Somali in 12 other African and 1 South and South-East Asian countries The Rhode Island Red of North America in 16 African and 8 South and South-East Asian countries The Aseel from India in 2 other South and South-East Asian countries The Saanen dairy goat of Europe in 17 African and 6 South and South-East Asian countries The Jamnapari of India in 7 other South and South-East Asian countries The Large White of Europe in 24 African and 10 South and South-East Asian countries

Cattle – meat or dual-purpose Sheep Chicken Goat Pig 1

FAO 2007 and according to the Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (DAD-IS: http://dad.fao.org/) accessed September 2012.

semen and subsidizing artificial insemination); in other cases, new breed types (either as live animals, semen or embryos) have been introduced by research organizations, non-government organizations and/or private companies or individuals. At present, Africa and Asia trade less in animal genetics than other world regions, for example receiving only about 5% of the total international semen trade in cattle (Eurostat, cited in Mergenthaler et al. 2006). Broad drivers of change in developing country livestock production systems include population growth, rising incomes and urbanization, the effects of environmental impacts including climate change, as well as science and technology trends (Steinfeld et al. 2006; Rege et al. 2011; Herrero et al. 2012). There is an increased demand for livestock products both in terms of quantity and quality, with projections that by 2050, total meat and milk consumption in the developing world will be more than double that in the developed world (Rosegrant et al. 2009). These have resulted in livestock production systems that are, or have the potential for, intensifying (McDermott et al. 2010; Steinfeld et al., 2010; Robinson et al. 2011), creating more interest in, and opportunities for, the use of ‘high output – high input’ breed types. Intensification can be defined as the increased use of external inputs and services to increase the output quantity and value per unit of input (Bebe et al. 2002). Specialization in the production of a single commodity is usually part of the intensification process, as well as clustering of operations (for example, around urban centres, feed suppliers or mills, or points of export) (de Haan et al. 2010). Globally, intensification is strongest in the pig, poultry and dairy sectors, due to factors such as high feed conversion ratio and short generation intervals (pigs and © 2014 Blackwell Verlag GmbH


poultry), and rapid conversion of inputs into outputs (dairy), and this also appears to hold for developing countries (de Haan et al. 2010; Robinson et al. 2011). Within developing countries, however, there is marked variation in the level of intensification across systems and regions, and the complication that producers may intensify only selected parts of their production system (for example, health care, feed or genetics) (Robinson et al. 2011). In terms of ranking smallholder faming systems by degree of intensification, peri-urban feeder operations rank higher than smallholder dairy systems, in turn higher than mixed crop-livestock systems, in turn higher than extensive pastoral systems and systems where livestock is mainly used for traction (McDermott et al. 1999). Amongst the developing countries, intensification has been most pronounced in South, East and South-East Asia, due to this region’s fast growth in terms of human population, the economy and rate of urbanisation (Gerber et al. 2005; de Haan et al. 2010).

Impact assessment in relation to the use of different breed types in developing country livestock production systems Considerations

The potential impact from utilizing a more appropriate livestock breed type in developing country livestock production systems can be accessed from a number of viewpoints. These include that of livelihood (of the livestock keepers as well as other value chain actors), food and nutrition security, the natural resource base, climate change adaptation or mitigation, the level of zoonotic disease exposure, and animal genetic resource diversity, amongst others. 5


Various issues in relation to assessing impact from some of these viewpoints are discussed below. From the point of view of a poor livestock keeper within a developing country, a ‘more appropriate breed type’ could be one that maximizes socio-economic benefit, minimizes risk (for example, of income or animal yield falling below a certain level within any one time period), or jointly considers these. In terms of socio-economic benefit to the household, moving from a low to high output breed type has the potential to be associated with significant livelihood gains, although this will not always be the case (see the following section ‘Results from studies to date’). In addition to considering benefit at the household level, benefit should also be considered at the intrahousehold level (i.e. for different types of household members such as adult males, adult females, boys, girls and infants). This is because many studies have shown that it is rare for the members of poor households in developing countries to pool income or jointly allocate resources, and that all household members do not benefit equally from an overall improvement in the household’s livelihood status (Haddad et al. 1994; Njuki et al. 2011). In addition, it is common for women to control commodities that generate low average income and men to control commodities with higher average income (Njuki et al. 2011). Thus, the risk of moving a low income livelihood activity controlled by women to a high income activity is that men will take control of the activity with the income generated being less accessible, or not available at all, to the women (who typically pay for household expenses such as food). Both of these issues require monitoring and, where of concern, management such as through the use of gender transformative approaches (Njuki et al. 2011; Kantor 2013). The issue of risk is important as poor households operate within a vulnerability context (particular to their situation), often with few coping mechanisms available (DFID 2001; Marshall et al. 2009). Thus, a low-risk low-return investment may be more attractive to some livestock keepers than a high-risk, highreturn investment. Livestock keepers may associate different livestock breed types with different levels of risk. For example, a highly producing but lowly adapted genotype may be considered risky due to poor performance in times of stress or shocks, such as dry years associated with fodder and water shortages or disease outbreak. For this reason, some livestock keepers may choose not to keep them, to use a crossbreed (combining both the productive and adaptive traits), or keep more than one breed type (one considered to be a high performer in good years and one 6

K. Marshall

with positive attributes for survival in bad years). Livestock keepers may also associate risk with replacing a high number of low producing animals with a low number of high producing animals (as in the later case, the death of any one individual represents a greater loss to the household’s livestock asset base), with increased reliance on external inputs, such as supplementary feed, health care or non-household labour, common to ‘high output – high input’ breed types (as these inputs may not always be available) and unstable markets for sale of increased amounts of product (Marshall et al. 2009). Inclusion of risk in a household benefit analysis should thus be considered, particularly in relation to the ‘agro-pastoral and pastoral’ and ‘extensive mixed crop-livestock’ systems where maintaining or improving resilience is a key concern, but also in relation to the more vulnerable households/household members in other systems. Food and nutrition security can be assessed at a number of levels, including regional, local, household and intrahousehold. At the higher levels (e.g. regional), ‘high output – high input’ breed types may be considered favourable for food security as they can result in more food available for consumption in comparison with the ‘low output – low input’ breed types. However, this assumes the keeping of ‘high output – high input’ breed types is sustainable, which may or may not be the case depending on the pressures placed on the natural resource base and ability to deal with these. This issue requires examination in more detail, for example by modelling studies, as does the level of breed change required to achieve improved food security at scale. At the household and intrahousehold level, it should be born in mind that household food security is influenced by total household income as well as the proportion of that income controlled by women, and further that increased household production of livestock product does not necessarily translate to increased food security of all household members (Maxwell & Marisol 1992). Livestock have a complex relationship with the environment, with major areas of concern being land degradation, greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, water depletion and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity (Steinfeld et al. 2006). Livestock development strategies often promote the keeping of fewer, more productive animals as a way of lessening livestock’s impact on the environment and the natural resource base. For example, increased productivity of individual animals can result in less feed and water requirement per unit of product (such as kg of meat or milk), as a lower proportion of the feed is used for © 2014 Blackwell Verlag GmbH



K. Marshall

non-productive maintenance and because feed production accounts for the majority of the water requirement of livestock systems, particularly in intensive systems (Peden et al. 2007). Similarly, increased livestock productivity can reduce greenhouse gas emission intensity (Stott et al. 2010; Gerber et al. 2011). However, it is currently an assumption that the adoption of more productive breed types will result in the keeping of fewer animals, and, whilst there is some anecdotal evidence to this end in specific systems, this has not been systematically verified. Further, there may be negative environmental impacts from using more productive breed types even if kept in lower numbers, such as if it results in the use of concentrate feeds rather than the use of crop residues that are non-nutritive to humans, or biomass from non-arable land. Approaches such as life cycle assessment (Finnveden et al. 2009) could be used to help evaluate these issues further. Whilst the issue of conservation of farm animal genetic resources is extremely important and the introduction of new breed types can negatively impact on indigenous livestock numbers, this alone should not be a deterrent to the introduction of new breed type into a system that may benefit from it, as the indigenous populations can be conserved by various means (including via ex-situ conservation approaches and as an input into crossing schemes). Poor livestock keepers generally do not consider the issue of conservation when evaluating the benefit of a specific breed type (excepting possible rare cases where specific incentives for conservation exist, such as payment schemes) and should not be expected to pay for this public good at the expense of their livelihood. The impact of the introduction of new breed types on indigenous livestock populations should be monitored by regular census and, where appropriate, conservation strategies for breeds moving into at-risk categories set in place. Performing impact assessment at the levels discussed above, whether ex-ante or concurrent to farmers experimenting with new breed types, and weighing up the potential trade-offs between livelihood improvement/poverty reduction, food and nutritional security, and environmental sustainability (amongst others) will not be a straight-forward task. However, means to this end should be set in place, where possible capitalizing on existing approaches and models (see section Results from studies to date below and, for example van Wijk et al. 2012). As consideration of the benefits and trade-offs suggested by the impact assessments would primarily be in the hands of policy makers, livestock keepers and other © 2014 Blackwell Verlag GmbH


stakeholders in agriculture, the assessment outputs should be regarded as decision support information. Results from studies to date

Whilst a large number of studies have documented breed-type performance in developing countries at an output level, such as phenotypic performance, few studies have compared performance from a socio-economic or economic viewpoint of the livestock keeper, let alone the other viewpoints discussed above. Reasons for this likely include the lack of recognition of the need for this research or lack of resources to support it, the difficulty accessing or generating the required data for such analysis, and, prior to the development of recent genomic tools, the difficulty in assigning breed type in the absence of pedigree information. Following a search of the scientific literature, using selected keywords, only thirteen studies were identified that performed socio-economic or economic comparisons of breed types from the point of view of the livestock keeper, for livestock production systems in developing countries of Africa and Asia, and using in-situ (i.e. field) data, rather than research station data1. These comprised seven studies on dairy cattle in Ethiopia, India and Bangladesh (Sayeed et al. 1994; Ali et al. 2000; Islam et al. 2008, 2010; Mondal et al., 2010; Dayanandan 2011; Tekeba et al. 2012), one study on dual-purpose cattle in Kenya (Maichomo et al. 2009), two studies on chicken in Bangladesh (Rahman et al. 1997; Zaman et al. 2008), one study on goats in Ethiopia (Ayalew et al. 2003), and two studies on pigs in Vietnam and Zimbabwe (van Eckert 1993; Lemke et al. 2006). Of these, the main type of analysis was benefit to cost ratio (calculated, for example, as the net present value of annual benefits to the net present value of annual costs), and/or profit or net benefit, determined for each breed type. Studies of this nature in developing countries outside of Asia and Africa are not considered in this review, although some such studies exist, most commonly for Latin America (Blake 2004; Madalena et al. 2012). For the dairy studies, the benefit to cost ratio or profitability (depending on study) was found to be higher for cross-breeds (where stated, defined as an indigenous by exotic breed cross) in comparison with indigenous breeds, although the relative advantage of 1

There are likely other studies of this nature reported in ‘grey literature’, and in addition, there are several ongoing studies (see, for example, http://senegaldairy.wordpress.com/ and http://www.ilri.org/ ilrinews/index.php/archives/tag/dairy-genetics-east-africa-project)

7


the cross-breed over the indigenous breed varied between studies (Sayeed et al. 1994; Ali et al. 2000; Islam et al. 2008, 2010; Mondal et al., 2010; Dayanandan 2011; Tekeba et al. 2012). For example, in the Ethiopian study (Dayanandan 2011), the benefit to cost ratio for households with 1–3 cross-bred versus local cows was 2.74:1.00 and 1.41:1.00, respectively, whilst for one of the Bangladesh studies (Ali et al. 2000), the benefit to cost ratios for households with cross-bred versus indigenous cows were 1.13:1.00 and 1.02:1.00, respectively. Further, several of the studies showed the benefit to cost ratio to vary for different levels of production within a system. For example, Sayeed et al. (1994) reported benefit to cost ratios for cross-breed dairy cattle in Bangladesh in small (up to 1 hectare land holding), medium (1–2 hectares) and large (more than 2 hectares) holdings of 1.41:1.00, 1.37:1.00 and 1.19:1.00, respectively, and Dayanandan (2011) reported benefit to cost ratios of cross-bred dairy cattle in Ethiopia in small (1–3 dairy cows), medium (4–10) and large (>10) farms to be 2.74:1.00, 3.45:1.00 and 3.02:1.00, respectively. The single study on dual-purpose cattle (Maichomo et al. 2009) compared two Zebu cross-breed types, considered to differ in their level of disease resistance, within an agro-pastoral system of Kenya, and found the economic benefits of the two breed types to be comparable. The two chicken studies in Bangladesh focused on egg production under particular feeding conditions. The first study (Rahman et al. 1997) compared eight breed types, all two or three breed crosses of various exotic breeds except for one which was a pure exotic breed. The second study (Zaman et al. 2008) compared four breed types, two indigenous by exotic breed crosses, one exotic breed cross and one pure exotic breed. In both cases, the same breed type, which was an exotic breed cross, gave the highest profit (Rahman et al. 1997) or cost to benefit ratio (Zaman et al. 2008). The goat study in Ethiopia (Ayalew et al. 2003) considered net benefit per unit of major limiting resource (flock metabolic size, land and labour). Comparing cross-breed (indigenous by exotic) and indigenous goats, both under improved management conditions, no difference in net benefit was found. Finally, the pig study in Vietnam (Lemke et al. 2006) compared an improved Vietnamese breed in a semi-intensive system near town with good market access to an indigenous breed in an extensive system away from town. The net benefit was found not to differ between systems, whilst the benefit to cost ratio was higher for the indigenous breed in the extensive 8

K. Marshall

system (at 2.7:1.0 and 3.0:1.0 for two villages in the extensive system and 1.2:1 and 2.1:1 for two villages in the semi-intensive system). A study of intensive pig keepers in Zimbabwe (van Eckert 1993; cited in Lemke et al. 2006) found a local breed in a traditional pig keeping system to yield higher gross margins than an improved breed in intensive systems. In relation to the methodological approaches used in these studies, the economic data were collected either by longitudinal monitoring of farms or via a retrospective survey where farmers were asked to recall events and associated costs over a set time period. Whilst the longitudinal approach is more accurate, it is also more costly and time-consuming. The extent to which all benefits and costs were included in the analysis varied considerably between studies, from a single cost/benefit (Tekeba et al. 2012) to a more comprehensive consideration of costs/benefits (for example, Lemke et al. 2006; Dayanandan 2011). The economic data appeared relatively straightforward to obtain when it could be easily assigned to an individual animal (such as the cost of veterinary care or the benefit from milk sales), however, more difficult in other cases (such as feed costs under a group feeding situation) where various assumptions needed to be made to assign costs to an individual animal. In no case was analysis at the intrahousehold level or full inclusion of risk in the analysis. A further common limitation to the methodology was evaluation over a single 1-year period or shorter, meaning that annual variations were not considered (such as input and output prices, and in relation to productivity levels). As such variations can be large in smallholders systems (Lemke et al. 2006), longer evaluation periods or sensitivity analysis to explore this issue would be beneficial. Finally, breed type was typically assigned in the absence of genotypic information, which was probably sufficient for these systems where the breed types tended to be distinct. However, many systems will have an undefined mix of breed types, due to generations of unstructured crossing, and in these cases, breed composition can now be determined based on genomic approaches (Kuehn et al. 2011; Frkonja et al. 2012). Overall, these results indicate that the socio-economic benefit to household of keeping different breed types vary by system, as well as to different types of livestock keepers within a system. Due to the low number of studies, generalizations in relation to benefit associated with the different breed type are difficult to make at the system or species level. The possible exception to this is intensifying dairy systems where crosses between the local indigenous and more pro© 2014 Blackwell Verlag GmbH



K. Marshall

ductive exotic breeds appear promising. The high number of indigenous by exotic cross-bred dairy cattle in tropical countries is also evidence to this end. In addition to the above livelihood focused studies, there are a limited number of publications considering the impact of keeping different breed types from other viewpoints. For example, those considering the relationship between the market orientation of livestock production, including the keeping of cross-breeds, and household food consumption and nutrient intake (Tangka et al. 2002; Ahmed et al. 2003), and those considering the relationship between the prevalence of zoonoses and breed type (McDermott et al. 1987; Karimuribo et al. 2007). However, no study, or series of studies, attempting to provide a comprehensive assessment of impact from a range of viewpoints were identified. Directions for future research and conclusions Developing country livestock production systems are diverse and dynamic, and include those where existing indigenous breeds are currently optimal and likely to remain so, those where non-indigenous breed types are already in common use, and systems that are changing, such as via intensification, where the introduction of new breed types represents significant opportunities. These include opportunities to improve the livelihood of the world’s poor, increase food and nutrition security and enhance environmental sustainability, although there may be tradeoffs between these as well as other considerations. In addition, the use of new breed types in certain systems could contribute to climate change adaptation (via introducing new breed types into a changed environment) as well as mitigation (through the use of more productive animals). There are, however, significant knowledge gaps in relation to this intervention, which require addressing to better ensure its successful implementation. To this end, research (including the development of methodological approaches) is required to: (i) Evaluate the impact of differing livestock breed types in developing country livestock production systems, from a number of viewpoints including, for example, intrahousehold benefit, food and nutrition security, and environmental sustainability, both singly and in combination, for provision to policy makers, livestock keepers, and other stakeholders in agriculture as decision support information.

© 2014 Blackwell Verlag GmbH


(ii) Identify specific livestock production systems within developing countries, and the type of livestock keepers within those system, that are most likely to benefit from new breed types, both currently and in the future (as targets for introducing new breed types). (iii) Identify new breed types of interest to specific livestock production systems, such as through the use of spatial analysis to identify similar production environments combined with community acceptance studies, for in-situ testing. (iv) Identify means to overcome challenges associated with establishing economical and sustainable germplasm delivery systems so that livestock keepers can access the breed types they desire (for example by identifying ways to extend the lifespan of fresh or thawed semen). In relation to systems using cross-breeds, consider the socioeconomics of highly structured versus semistructured crossing systems. (v) Identify enabling factors for new breed types, for example supportive government policies and institutional arrangements, improved stakeholder access to inputs and services, and improved livestock keeper capacity to manage new breed types. (vi) Examine why new breed types have, or have not, succeeded in livestock production systems in developing countries, as well as newly industrialized countries such as Brazil, to better understand the drivers behind sustained uptake of new breed types. Of the range of interventions around the use of animal genetic resources in developing countries, optimizing the use of breed type in changing systems appears one of the most promising in terms of delivering beneficial impact within a reasonable time frame and at-scale. Awareness raising and action on this issue are thus urgently required. Acknowledgements I am very grateful to ILRI colleagues, and anonymous reviewers, for their input into this manuscript. References Ahmed M.M., Emana B., Jabbar M.A., Tangka F., Ehui S. (2003) Economic and nutritional impacts of market-oriented dairy production in the Ethiopian highlands. Socio-economics and Policy Research Working Paper 51. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi.

9


Ali M.H., Miah A.G., Ali M.L., Salma U., Khan M.A.S., Islam M.N. (2000) A comparative study on the performance of crossbred and indigenous (Zebu) cows under the small holder dairy farming conditions in Giabandha District. Pakistan J. Biol. Sci., 3, 1080– 1082. Ayalew W., Rischkowsky B., King J.M., Bruns E. (2003) Crossbreds did not create more net benefits than indigenous goats in Ethiopian smallholdings. Agric. Sys., 76, 1137–1156. Bebe B.O., Udo H.M.J., Thorpe W. (2002) Development of smallholder dairy systems in the Kenya highlands. Outlook Agric., 31, 113–120. Bixby D.E. (2003) What is animal breeding? In: M. Sligh, L. Lauffer (eds), Summit Proceedings: Summit on Seeds and Breeds for 21st Century Agriculture. Rural Advancement Foundation International, Pittsboro, NC, pp. 31–37. Blake R.W. (2004) Dairy cattle performance in difficult environments. Proceedings of the 7th World Bruna Conference. Fieragricola, Verona, pp. 125–131. Dayanandan R. (2011) Production and marketing efficiency of dairy farms in highland of Ethiopia – an economic analysis. Int. J. Enterprise Comput. Bus. Syst., 1. [online]. Paper ID: ISSN22308849-V1I2M16-072011. DFID (2001) Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. DFID, London. van Eckert M. (1993) Smallholder pig farms in Zimbabwe. A socio-economic analysis of farming systems in the communal areas (Kleinb€auerliche Schweinehaltung in Simbabwe. Eine sozio€ okonomische Analyse von Tierhaltungssystemen in den kommunalen Gebieten), AlanoVerlag, Aachen. Ejlersten J., Poole J., Marshall K. (2012) Traditional breeding objectives and practices of goat, sheep and cattle smallholders in The Gambia and implications in relation to the design of breeding interventions. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 45, 219–229. FAO (1999) The Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources – Executive Brief. FAO, Rome. FAO (2007) B. Rischkowsky, D. Pilling (eds), The State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. FAO, Rome. Finnveden G., Hauschild M.Z., Ekvall T., Guinee J., Jeokimgs R., Hellweg S., Koehler A., Pennington D., Sangwon S. (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J. Environ. Manage., 91, 1–21. Frkonja A., Gredler B., Schnyder U., Curik I., S€ olkner J. (2012) Prediction of breed composition in an admixed cattle population. Anim. Genet., 43, 696–703. Gerber P., Chilonda P., Fraenceschini G., Menzi H. (2005) Geographical determinants and environmental implications of livestock production intensification in Asia. Bioresour. Technol., 96, 263–276.

10

K. Marshall

Gerber P., Vellinga T., Opio C., Steinfeld H. (2011) Productivity gains and greenhouse gas emissions intensity in dairy systems. Liv. Sci., 139, 100–108. Goddard M.E., Hayes B.J. (2007) Genomic selection. J. Anim. Breed. Genet., 124, 323–330. Goddard M.E., Hayes B.J. (2009) Mapping genets for complex traits in domestic animals and their use in breeding programmes. Nat. Rev. Genet., 10, 381–391. de Haan C., Gerber P., Optio C. (2010). Structural change in the livestock sector. In: H. Steinfeld, H.A. Mooney, F. Schneider, L.E. Neville (eds), Livestock in a Changing Landscape. Volume 1. Drivers, Consequences, and Responses. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 35–50. Haddad L., Hoddinott J., Alderman H. (1994) Intrahousehold Resource Allocation: An Overview. Policy Research Working Paper 1255, The World Bank. Herrero M., Thornton P.K., Notenbaert A., Msangi S., Wood S., Kruska R., Dixon J., Bossio D., van de Steeg J.A., Freeman H.A., Li X., Rao P.P. (2012) Drivers of Change in Crop–Livestock Systems and Their Potential Impacts on Agroecosystems Services and Human Well-being to 2030. A Study Commissioned by the CGIAR Systemwide Livestock Programme. ILRI, Nairobi. Islam S., Goswami A., Mazumdar D. (2008) Comparative profitability of cross breed and indigenous cattle in West Bengal. Indian Res. J. Ext. Edu., 8, 28–30. Islam M.M., Topader A.H., Rob A. (2010) Comparative study on the cost benefit between indigenous and cross bred cows reared in rural area of Dinajpur district. Bang. J. Anim. Sci., 39, 191–196. Kantor P. 2013. Transforming gender relations: key to positive development outcomes in aquatic agricultural systems. Brief AAS-2013-12, CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems. Karimuribo E.D., Ngowi H.A., Swai E.S., Kambarage D.M. (2007) Prevalence of brucellosis in crossbred and indigenous cattle in Tanzania. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 19, Article # 148. Kuehn L.A., Keele J.W., Bennett G.L., McDonald T.G., Smith T.P.L., Snelling W.M., Sonstegard T.S., Thallman R.M. (2011) Predicting breed composition using breed frequencies of 50,000 markers from the US Meat Animal Research Centre 2,000 Bull Project. J. Anim. Sci., 89, 1742–1750. Lemke U., Kaufmann B., Thuy L.T., Emrich K., Valle Zarate A. (2006) Evaluation of smallholder pig production systems in North Vietnam. Pig production management and pig performances. Liv. Sci., 105, 229–243. Madalena F.E., Peixoto M.G.C.D., Gibson J. (2012) Dairy cattle genetics and its application in Brazil. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 24, Article # 97. Maichomo M.W., Kosura W.O., Gathuma J.M., Gitau G.K., Ndung’u J.M., Nyamwaro S.O. (2009) Economic




K. Marshall

assessment of the performance of trypanotolerant cattle breeds in a pastoral production system in Kenya. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc., 80, 157–162. Marshall K., Okeyo A.M., Johnson N. (2009) Translating animal breeding research into the real world: use of the sustainable livelihoods framework. In: S.W. WalkdenBrown, J.H.J. van der Werf, C. Nimbkar, V.S. Gupta (eds), Use of the FecB (Booroola) gene in Sheep-breeding Programs. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, ACT, Proceedings No. 133, pp. 190–198. Marshall K., Quiros-Campos C., van der Werf J.H.J., Kinghorn B. (2011) Marker-based selection within smallholder production systems in developing countries. Liv. Sci., 136, 45–54. Maxwell S., Marisol S. (1992) Household food security: a conceptual review. In: S. Maxwell, T. Frankenberger (eds), Household Food Security: Concepts, Indicators, Measurements. IFAD and UNICEF, New York and Rome. McDermott J.J., Dent K.A., Jayatileka T.N., El Jack M.A. (1987) A cross-sectional cattle disease study in Kongor rural council, southern Sudan: prevalence estimates and age, sex and breed associations for brucellosis and contagious bovine pleuropneumonia. Prev. Vet. Med., 5, 111– 123. McDermott J.J., Randolph T.F., Stall S.J. (1999) The economics of optimal health and productivity in smallholder livestock systems in developing countries. Rev. Sci. Tech., 13, 399–424. McDermott J.J., Staal S.J., Freeman H.A., Herrero M., Van de Steeg J.A. (2010) Sustainable intensification of smallholder livestock systems in the tropics. Liv. Sci., 130, 95– 109. Mergenthaler M., Momm H., Valle Zarate A. (2006) Global gene flow in cattle. In: A. Valle Zarate, K. Musavaya, C. Sch€afer (eds), Gene Flow In Animal Genetic Resources: A Study On Status, Impact And Trends. Institute of Animal Production in the Tropics and Subtropics, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, pp. 241–280. Mondal R.K., Sen S., Rayhan S.J. (2010) A comparative economic analysis of local breed and cross breed milk cow in a selected area of Bangladesh. J. Sci. Foundation, 8, 23–29. Njuki J., Kaaria S., Chamunorwa A., Chiuri W. (2011) Linking smallholder farmers to markets, gender and intra-household dynamics: does the choice of commodity matter? Eur. J. Dev. Res., 23, 426–443. Pawson H.C. (1957) Robert Bakewell (Pioneer Livestock Breeder). Crosby Lockwood, London. Peden D., Tadesse G., MIsra A.K., Ahmed F.W., Astatke A., Ayalneh W., Herrero M., Kiwuwa G., Kumsa T., Mati B., Mpairwe D., Wassenaar T., Yimegnuhal A. (2007) Water and livestock for human development. In: D. Molden (ed.), Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive



Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. Earthscan and International Water Management Institute, Colombo, pp. 485–514. Porter V. (1991) Cattle, A Handbook to the Breeds of the World. A & C Black, London. Rahman M., Sorensen P., Jensen H.A., Dolberg F. (1997) Exotic hens under semiscavenging conditions in Bangladesh. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 9, Article # 23. Rege J.E.O., Marshall K., Notenbasert A., Ojango J.M.K., Okeyo A.M. (2011) Pro-poor animal improvement and breeding – What can science do? Liv. Sci., 136, 15–28. Robinson T.P., Thornton P.K., Franceschini G., Kruska R.L., Chiozza F., Notenbaert A., Cecchi G., Herrero M., Epprecht M., Fritz S., You L., Conchedda G., See L. (2011). Global Livestock Production Systems. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and International Livestock Research Institute, Rome. Rosegrant M.W., Fernandez M., Sinha A., Alder J., Ahammad H., de Fraiture C., Eickhout B., Fonseca J., Huang J., Koyama O., Omezzine A.M., Pingali P., Ramirez R., Ringler C., Robinson S., Thornton P., van Vuuren D., Yana-Shapiro H. (2009) Looking into the future for agriculture and AKST (agricultural knowledge science and technology). In: B.D. McIntyre, H.R. Herren, J. Wakhungu, R.T. Watson (eds), Agriculture at a Crossroads. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 307–376. Sayeed M.A., Rashman S.M.A., Alam J., Begum J. (1994) Economics of milk production in Dhaka district – a case for Savar Thana. Asian Aust. J. Anim., 7, 49–55. Steinfeld H., Gerber P., Wassenaar T., Castel V., Rosales M., de Haan C. (2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. FAO, Rome. Steinfeld H., Mooney H.A., Schneider F., Neville. (2010) Livestock in a Changing Landscape. Volume 1. Drivers, Consequences, and Responses. Island Press, Washington, DC. Stott A., MacLeod M., Moran D. (2010) Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Through Better Animal Health. Policy briefing, Rural Policy Centre, Scottish Agricultural Colledge, Scotland. Tangka F.K., Emerson R.D., Jabbar M.A. (2002) Food security effects of intensified dairying: Evidence from the Ethiopian highlands. Socio-economics and Policy Research Working Paper 44. The International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi. Tekeba E., Wurzinger M., Zollitsch W. (2012) Effects of urea-molasses multi-nutrient blocks as a dietary supplement for dairy cows in two milk productions systems in north-western Ethiopia. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 24, Article # 130. Thornton P.K., Kruska R.L., Henninger N., Kristjanson P.M., Reid R.S., Atieno F., Odero A., Ndegwa T. (2002) Mapping Poverty and Livestock in the Developing

11


World. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi. Valle Zarate A., Musavaya K., Sch€afer C. (2006) Gene Flow in Animal Genetic Resources. A Study on Status, Impact and Trends. Institute of Animal Production in the Tropics and Subtropics, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart. Wiener P., Burton D., Williams J.L. (2004) Breed relationships and definition in British cattle: a genetic analysis. Heredity, 93, 597–602. van Wijk M.T., Rufino M.C., Enahoro D., Parsons D., Silvestri S., Valdivia R.O., Herrero M. (2012). A review on

12

K. Marshall

farm household modelling with a focus on climate change adaptation and mitigation. Working Paper No. 20. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Copenhagen, Denmark. Available online at: www.ccafs.cgiar.org. Zaman M.A., Sorensen P., Karim M.R., Rume F.I. (2008) Studies on the laying rate nad cost-benefit ratio of semiscavenging hens fed with different levels of supplementary feed. Bangladesh Res. Publ. J., 1, 38–46.



Socioeconomic scoring in an urban area of a developing country.

Treatment outcome: a neglected area of drug abuse research.

Strategies for improving water use efficiency of livestock production in rain-fed systems.

The incidence rate of inflammatory bowel disease in an urban area of iran: a developing country.

Towards a sustainable livestock production in developing countries and the importance of animal health strategy therein.

Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems.

Migration and allergic diseases in a rural area of a developing country.

Mixed grazing systems benefit both upland biodiversity and livestock production.

Determinants of the citation rate of medical research publications from a developing country.

Post stroke hemi-dystonia in children: a neglected area of research.

Provision of medicines in a developing country.

[The role of a virology laboratory in a developing country].

Integrating web 2.0 in clinical research education in a developing country.

Teaching ultrasound in a developing country.

Developing the African national health research systems barometer.

Towards the Elimination of Syphilis in a Small Developing Country.

The I.C.U. treatment of acute laryngotracheobronchitis in a developing country.

Sustainable livestock production.

The whales beneath the surface: the muddled story of doing research with poor mothers in a developing country.

Public trust in the healthcare system in a developing country.

Geriatrics and Gerontology: Neglected Areas of Research in Most Developing Countries.

The use of technology enhanced learning in health research capacity development: lessons from a cross country research partnership.

Clearing the cataract backlog in a (not so) developing country.

Characterization of transgenic livestock production.