puesta en valor de un sistema tradicional y de sus ... · paraje valle verde s/n cc 277 (8400),...

17○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

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

AGRI 2007, 41: 17-24

ResumenEl sistema tradicional de producción caprina delnorte de Neuquen (Patagonia, Argentina),desarrollado por “crianceros” trashumantes, es unsistema marginal de baja dotación de recursoseconómicos y alta fragilidad ambiental pero quedispone de un alto capital cultural, un recursogenético adaptado y un producto de calidadsuperior reconocida pero no diferenciado. A fin desuperar esta situación se propone la aplicación deuna Denominación de Origen (DO). La propuesta sebasó en la organización de los integrantes de lacadena de valor de la carne caprina regional y ladeterminación de sus cualidades tecnológicasligado a la raza Criolla Neuquina. Se construyó unavisión común sobre el sistema y su identidad,expresada en el Protocolo de la Denominación deOrigen del “Chivito Criollo del Norte Neuquino”.Los estudios sobre la tipicidad y calidad hanpermitido establecer indicadores de la misma y latrazabilidad del producto. El fortalecimiento de lasorganizaciones campesinas y la conformación deun espacio de articulación ha permitido niveles deconcertación inexistentes hasta el presente quepotencian el desarrollo del territorio y locapitalizan, dando proyección a la sostenibilidaddel sistema y del recurso genético.

SummaryThe traditional goat production system from NorthNeuquen (Patagonia, Argentina), developed bytranshumant goat keepers is a marginal systemwith low economic input and fragile environmentbut with a high cultural capital, an adapted genetic

Puesta en valor de un sistema tradicional y de sus recursosgenéticos mediante una Indicación Geográfica: El proceso de la

Carne Caprina del Norte Neuquino en la Patagonia Argentina

M. Pérez Centeno1, M.R. Lanari2, P. Romero1, L. Monacci1, M. Zimerman2, M. Barrionuevo1, A. Vázquez5,M. Champredonde3, J. Rocca1, F. López Raggi4 & E. Domingo2

1Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, AER Chos Malal, Argentina1,2Genética en Rumiantes Menores, Area de Producción Animal, INTA EEA Bariloche, San Carlos de Bariloche,

Paraje Valle Verde S/N CC 277 (8400), Río Negro, Patagonia, Argentina3INTA EEA. Bordenave CC Nro. 44 - 8187 Bordenave, Buenos Aires, Argentina

4Fac. Economía UNCo, Argentina5Dirección de Ganadería de la Prov. del Neuquen, Argentina

resource and a product with high reputation but notdifferentiated. To overcome this situation theapplication of a Geographical Indication wasproposed. This process was based on theorganization of the local goat meat marketing chainand the description of technological properties ofthe product of the Neuquen Criollo breed. The chainactors have constructed a common vision about thesystem and its identity, which is reflected in theProtocol of the Designation of Origin of the “CriolloKid of North Neuquen”. The study on product’stypicity and quality has contributed to definequality indicators and traceability of the product.As a result Goat Keepers organizations have beenempowered, a common ground of communicationhas been established enhancing the understandinglevel among local actors, which was previously notexistent. This has reinforced regional developmentand given projection to system and genetic resourcesustainability.

RésuméLe système traditionnel de production caprine dansle Nord du Neuquen (Patagonie, Argentine),développé par les “crianceros (éleveurs)”transhumants, est un système marginal à faibleinput en ressources économiques et grande fragilitéenvironnementale, mais qui dispose d’un capitalculturel élevé, une ressources génétique adaptée etun produit de qualité supérieure reconnu mais nondifférentié. Pour améliorer cette situation onpropose la demande d’une Dénomination d’Origine(DO). La proposition se base sur l’organisation desdifférentes parties de la chaîne de valeur de laviande caprine dans la région et la définition de ses

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

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

18Indicación Geográfica Carne Caprina del Norte Neuquino

qualités technologiques liées à la race CriollaNeuquina. On a élaboré un plan commun sur lesystème et identité recueilli dans le Protocole de laDénomination d’Origine du “Chivito Criollo delNorte Neuquino”. Les études sur la typicité et laqualité ont permis d’établir des indicateurs de larace et la traceabilité du produit. Le renforcementdes organisations d’éleveurs et la l’établissementd’un espace ont permis des niveaux d’accordinexistants auparavant qui permettent ledéveloppement du territoire et sa capitalisation, cequi porte à une durabilité du système et de laressources génétique.

Keywords: Genetic resources, Traditional systems,Valuation of livestock keepers culture, Designation ofOrigin.

IntroducciónExisten dos planteos básicos sobre la estrategia deintervención para conservar y mantener losrecursos genéticos en animales domésticos: elprimero de ellos considera al animal per se, es decirla conservación de animales o grupos en estacionesexperimentales, zoológicos o granjas educativas(Alderson, 1990), a la que en la actualidad se sumael concepto de conservación in-vitro, medianteconservación de semen u ovocitos congelados. Porel contrario otra corriente considera que ladiversidad genética de las poblaciones de animalesdomésticos puede ser mantenida sólo en el contextosocial y ambiental que les dio origen,fundamentándose en que la diversidad genética esprincipalmente el producto del proceso de seleccióndado por las condiciones ambientales localescombinadas con las estrategias de manejo yselección de las comunidades rurales que las crían(Köhler-Rollefson, 2000). Desde esta perspectiva lacaracterización del recurso genético es el primerpaso dentro de la estrategia de conservación (FAO,1998). Los pasos posteriores deberían asegurar lasostenibilidad del recurso en el largo plazo.

En este sentido el trabajo realizado en relacióncon la Cabra Criolla Neuquina (CCN) adhiere alconcepto de conservación enunciado porKöhler-Rollefson (2000), considerando la raza en elcontexto del sistema rural tradicional del que esparte. A partir de 1997 el Instituto Nacional deTecnología Agropecuaria (INTA) en cooperacióncon la Dirección de Agricultura y Ganadería(DAyG) de la provincia de Neuquén iniciaron unaserie de trabajos de investigación tendentes acomprender el funcionamiento del sistema de

producción y caracterizar la población caprina dela región ubicada en el norte de la provincia deNeuquén, Patagonia, Argentina en un área de unos30 000 km2 (Figura 1). La utilización de enfoquessistémicos orientados a los actores (Long, 1992) ymetodologías de investigación-acción (Albadalejo yCasabianca, 1997) que involucró a los destinatariosen los estudios, buscaba comprender sus prácticasasí como el modelo de gestión de los recursosexistentes.

Los resultados de estos trabajos decaracterización fenotípica, genética y productivahan establecido sus particularidades que en síntesisla muestran como una entidad genética única ydefinida (Lanari, 2004; Lanari et al., 2006). Laconsideración de este enfoque sistémico, implicóinvolucrar los grupos sociales, en este caso decrianceros trashumantes, que son efectivamentequienes han modelado la población y viven de ella(Lanari et al., 2005). El ambiente físico, la historiaeconómica y social de la región así como laimportante intervención de las políticas de

Figura 1. Provincia de Neuquén (Patagonia, Argentina) yzona de intervención.

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

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

19

Animal Genetic Resources Information, No. 41, 2007

Pérez Centeno et al.

desarrollo emanadas desde el estado provincial haninfluido sobre el sistema tradicional (Pérez Centeno,2001).

Los crianceros, constituyen un grupo social demás de 1 500 familias con fuerte arraigo a la tierra.Sus unidades de producción, asentadasgeneralmente sobre tierras públicas, son destinadasesencialmente al autoconsumo, con una inserciónlimitada al mercado. La historia y evolución de lapoblación rural de la región muestran la capacidadde transformación y adaptación de estrategias parasobrevivir en un ambiente físico y social difícil(Pérez Centeno, 2007).

El sistema rural tradicional se caracteriza por serextensivo y trashumante, de estacionalidad estricta(Lanari et al., 2006). El reconocimiento de acuerdossociales internos y de las prácticas culturales deraigambre indígena lo muestran como unarespuesta socialmente construida frente a larealidad en la que se ha desarrollado (PérezCenteno, 2001). El sistema presenta actualmenterestricciones tales como reducción de áreas depastoreo de invierno (invernadas) y particularmentede verano (veranadas) y las correspondientes rutasde arreo, el envejecimiento de los productoresasentados efectivamente en el campo y la migraciónde los jóvenes entre otros problemas, que soncomunes a otras comunidades pastorales (Blench,2000; Leneman y Reid, 2001). Estas se suman a lascondiciones estructurales del sistema que presentauna alta dispersión geográfica, gran distancia a losmercados, estacionalidad marcada en laproducción y bajo nivel de organización de laoferta. Sin embargo el principal producto delsistema, el “chivito del norte neuquino”, no solo esmotivo de orgullo para los crianceros sino quedetenta un alto reconocimiento en los mercadosregionales. La utilización de su nombre comoargumento de venta por parte de loscomercializadores, es un claro indicador delprestigio que goza el producto en sus mercadostradicionales. En la actualidad, no es posible ladiferenciación del “chivito” por parte de losconsumidores respecto a las produccionesprovenientes de otras regiones, ya que no existeningún mecanismo que garantice su procedencia.La falta de diferenciación del producto en elmercado podría promover, como señala Akerlof(1970) una selección adversa ante la imposibilidadde reconocimiento de la calidad que castiga suprecio de venta.

En otras palabras, nos situamos frente a unsistema marginal de baja dotación de recursoseconómicos y alta fragilidad de los recursosnaturales pero que dispone de un alto capital

cultural, un recurso genético adaptado y unproducto de calidad superior reconocida.

El trabajo interinstitucional contribuyó a laconformación de un espacio de diálogo entrecrianceros, intermediarios, organizacionesprofesionales, agentes de desarrollo einvestigadores de diferentes disciplinas quienesconstruyeron una visión consensuada de laactividad, constituyéndose en una plataforma parael desarrollo territorial, basado en la valoración y lajerarquización de la producción caprina regional. Eldesafío que se planteó fue hacer sustentable alsistema, entendiendo que sólo de ese modo podrádar lugar al desarrollo de esta comunidad rural y enconsecuencia la preservación de su recursogenético.

El uso de signos de distinción de calidad comola Denominación de Origen (DO), surge como unaherramienta que beneficia tanto al sector productivocomo a los consumidores (Lacroix et al., 2000) y deimpacto social positivo (Jatib, 1995). Este signo nosólo distingue un producto sino que lo vincula conel saber hacer y la cultura existente detrás de laactividad productiva. Las experiencias existentes selocalizan fundamentalmente en Europamediterránea (Lambert-Derkimba, et al., 2006),siendo los productos lácteos y los vinos los que másaprovechan estos mecanismos. En Argentina no sepresentan ejemplos de DO en productosagroalimentarios a excepción de los vinos que sonregulados según una legislación particular. Enconsecuencia la propuesta de valorizar un productocárnico producido en un sistema tradicional en unaregión marginal de un país en desarrollo, suponeatravesar nuevos caminos, crear condiciones yenfrentar un desafío.

En este trabajo se expone la experienciarealizada en el norte de la Patagonia Argentina,donde pequeños productores, intermediarios,comercializadores, e instituciones públicas sereunieron a fin de construir el marco tecnológico yorganizativo de la Denominación de Origen (DO)para la carne caprina del norte neuquino. Lahipótesis de nuestra experiencia sostiene que losmecanismos de diferenciación basados en el origenson una herramienta eficaz para la promoción deldesarrollo territorial, la valoración de la culturacampesina y del recurso genético local.

Materiales y MétodosLas actividades desarrolladas se enmarcaron en unproyecto de Investigación y Desarrollo financiadopor la Agencia Nacional de Ciencia y Técnica, el

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

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


Municipio de la ciudad de Chos Malal, principalcentro urbano de la región y el INTA. El proyecto seinició en el año 2005.

Los dos aspectos básicos del trabajo fueron: laorganización de los integrantes de la cadena devalor de la carne caprina regional para laconstrucción de la DO y la determinación decualidades tecnológicas y nutricionales de losproductos a proteger. Asimismo se realizaronestudios sobre la actividad comercial y laconceptualización que tienen los diferentes actoressobre la calidad.

La organización de los integrantes de la cadenade valor se consideró a través de talleres endiferentes parajes de la región norte de Neuquén. Enellos se procuró identificar las motivaciones para elinicio de un proceso de diferenciación, así como losniveles de articulación entre los actores. Los talleresefectuados tuvieron dos objetivos diferentes:1. Talleres informativos y de sensibilización.2. Talleres de Construcción de la DO (Figura 2).

Talleres informativos y desensibilización

Se efectuaron diez talleres en los cualesparticiparon más de trescientos productores,comercializadores e integrantes de quinceinstituciones de la región, a los que se informó sobrelas diferentes alternativas para la diferenciación deproductos agroalimentarios (Marcas comerciales,DO, IG, Producto Orgánico), las especificidades delos mismos y las exigencias para su obtención. Estaactividad de sensibilización fue acompañada poruna campaña informativa a través de diferentesmedios locales (radial, gráfico y televisivo)focalizada en los establecimientos educacionalescon el fin de sensibilizar sobre el valor del recursoproductivo y la necesidad de su protección en elmercado.

Talleres de Construcción de la DO

En una segunda etapa a lo largo de cuatro talleres,se indagó sobre la representación que la sociedadtiene del Norte Neuquino, sobre las especificidadesde su identidad, los modos de producción local, asícomo los límites socialmente reconocidos de dichoterritorio.

Los mencionados Talleres fueron la base de lasactividades posteriores que incluyeron: Talleres dediscusión sobre formas de asociación, constitución

del consejo regulador de la DO, reglamentaciones yaspectos legales.

Los aspectos tecnológicos incluyeron ladeterminación de indicadores de calidad para lasdistintas fases de la elaboración del producto, esdecir:• La caracterización de las categorías a proteger, el

grado de terminación in vivo.• La calidad de la canal y la calidad sensorial.

Este trabajo se realizó en el Frigorífico de ChosMalal, cuyas instalaciones y procedimientoshabilitan para la comercialización de los productoscárnicos a destinos diversos. Todos los muestreosrealizados fueron realizados en época normal decomercialización, que corresponde a los meses deoctubre a abril.

Por último se realizó un análisis de la demandaen el ámbito de operadores comerciales medianteencuestas a intermediarios, comercializadores yrestaurantes, localizados en el área de producciónasí como en los centros naturales de consumo: laregión de los Lagos cordilleranos, área de actividadturística, y en el Alto Valle de Río Negro y Neuquen,que con cerca de medio millón de habitantes es el

Figura 2. Foto tomada durante uno de los talleresinformativos.

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

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

21



mayor conglomerado urbano de la Patagonia. Elobjetivo particular de este análisis fue comprenderlos modos de compra y venta a lo largo de la cadenaproductivo-comercial, desde el criancero hasta elconsumidor, así como la forma en que se construyela calidad del producto.

ResultadosLa realización de los talleres informativos permitióconsensuar el concepto de distinción de calidadcomo herramienta para poner en valor laproducción caprina. Se observó un marcado orgullopor el ser “criancero” y por el producto “chivito”,destacándose el valor que le asignan a la razaCriolla Neuquina. Esta autovaloración resultafundamental al momento de construir la DO.

En los Talleres de construcción de la DO, laparticipación de más de cien productores,comercializadores e instituciones permitióexplicitar la imagen común, que resume laespecificidad regional. Los siguientes elementossurgieron como los de mayor importancia:• La presencia de la Cabra Criolla Neuquina en

cualquiera de sus dos biotipos.• La realización de la trashumancia.• La homogeneidad de los pastizales de los

campos de veranada ubicados en la alta cuencadel río Neuquén y Barrancas.Estos elementos delimitan territorios diferentes

que se superponen en el área que define laDenominación de Origen (Figura 3). En ella se

evidencia una identidad comúnconstruida en función del uso delespacio y los modos de circulación. Elárea de la DO está integrada por todaslas unidades de producción que hacentrashumancia en los campos deveranada ubicados en losdepartamentos Minas, Chos Malal,Pehuenches o Ñorquin (Figura 4).Los modos de producción que

caracterizan a la región fuerondescritos en dos talleres, en los cualesdetallaron la gestión del rodeo, elmanejo reproductivo, nutricional,sanitario, así como la rotación entre losdiferentes campos y el arreo. El cicloanual de producción fue definido comoestrictamente estacional, con servicio de

otoño y parición de primavera, gracias al trabajo delcastronero o chivatero1, en lugares alejados fuera de laépoca de servicio. Esta práctica fue desarrollada sinintervención externa surgida frente a la necesidadde regular la época de los nacimientos. Laexistencia de pautas no escritas, como los modos deretribución, los momentos de recepción y entrega delos reproductores y las formas de sancionar losdescuidos en el manejo, permiten reconocerla comouna práctica institucionalizada, que si bien seencuentra en sistemas productivos vecinos, nomanifiesta igual intensidad.

La trashumancia entendida como “... el hecho detrasladarse de un lugar a otro por arreo oexcepcionalmente en camión. No importa el medio...eltema es estar un tiempo en una parte y otro tiempo en otraparte. Esto es lo que nos caracteriza a nosotros;… es unelemento estructurador de las relaciones sociales, ya quela participación de la familia permitió la formación devínculos con pobladores distribuidos a lo largo de la rutade arreo. Esto se constituyó en un elementohomogeneizador de las relaciones sociales y lainformación entre los productores. La alternancia entrelos campos bajos y los campos altos fue señalada como unelemento esencial para la tipicidad del producto: Elcambio de pastura es lo que da el sabor al chivo. Si no secambia de pasto, no hay sabor del chivo…”.

Al definir qué tipo de animal y qué producto sedebería proteger con la DO, se definió claramentepor proteger la raza Criolla Neuquina y al chivito

Figura 3. Foto del grupo delimitando la región.

1Castronero o chivatero: Productor especializado en elcuidado de machos normalmente durante el períodonoviembre a marzo.

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

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


con dos categorías posibles; el “chivito mamón”, dehasta 90 días de edad, lactante y que no hubieserealizado arreos a las pasturas altas, y el “chivito deveranada”, que realiza al menos un arreo y se haalimentado de las pasturas de las veranadas,siendo su edad límite los 180 días. El nombreelegido por los propios participantes fue “ChivitoCriollo del Norte Neuquino” (Figura 5)

El trabajo sobre los aspectos tecnológicos estuvodirigido a establecer los parámetros y losindicadores de cada una de las categorías que losmismos crianceros buscan proteger en la DO. Losresultados de estos estudios fueron detallados porDomingo et al. (2005). En base a estos resultados seestableció una metodología para la clasificación delas canales y los umbrales de calidad pertinentes ala distinción con el sello de la DO, además deldesarrollo de indicadores de calidad in vivo.

Como resultado del trabajo de talleres y sobre losaspectos que hacen a la calidad del producto, seredactó y acordó con los interesados el Protocolo dela DO. Este documento fue presentado ante lasautoridades de la Secretaría de Agricultura,Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentación en diciembre de2005 por el Consejo de Promoción de laDenominación. Dicha presentación fue la primerasolicitud formal en Argentina en el marco de la leyNº 25.380. Simultáneamente se constituyó el ConsejoRegulador conformado por representantes de lacadena de valor (productores, comercializadores ytransformadores) y el Consejo Asesor integrado porlas instituciones tecnológicas, académicas y dedesarrollo vinculadas al sector. Esta iniciativapermitió la organización del sector y la articulaciónentre los actores alrededor de un proyecto común.

Al mismo tiempo, se estudió elmercado local y regional (Alto Valle delRío Negro y Lagos cordilleranos) asícomo las articulaciones entre losdiferentes actores de la cadena(productores, matarifes, restaurantes,supermercados y consumidores) conrespecto a la calidad del producto.Simultáneamente, se evaluarondiferentes alternativas de presentaciónde productos (desarrollo de cortescomerciales, envasado al vacío, etc.), asícomo nuevas vías de comercializaciónpara productos Premium.

DiscusiónLa presente experiencia nos ha permitido laimplementación de nuevos enfoques aplicados a lainvestigación y el desarrollo dirigido a espaciosmultiactorales con énfasis en el sector campesino.Un enfoque orientado a los actores y sureconocimiento como sujetos “capaces” y“competentes” para delinear su propio desarrolloresulta esencial como punto de partida de laintervención pública.

Por otra parte este reconocimiento aplicado a lagestión de los recursos genéticos, conduce areafirmar el derecho de los crianceros sobre elrecurso. En este proceso iniciado en 1997 se hademostrado no sólo que los crianceros han sido losformadores de la raza Criolla Neuquina (Lanari etal., 2005), que han construido y adaptado con suspropios conocimientos y sus propias estrategias desobrevivencia en el marco de su sistema rural (PérezCenteno, 2007), sino que también son activos en la

Figura 4. Mapa del área de la DO

Figura 5. Logo de presentación del producto protegidopor la Denominación de Origen.

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

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

23



formulación de propuestas superadoras. En estesentido este trabajo coincide con el conceptopromovido por Lohkit Pashu-Palak Sansthan (2005)según el cual son los propios campesinos los quepueden y deben tomar sus propias decisiones conrelación a sus recursos genéticos. Estos derechos losresguardan de perder la propiedad sobre losmismos, al tiempo que previene la introduccióninadecuada de germoplasma exótico,frecuentemente promovida por intereses externos alas comunidades.

La valorización de los recursos genéticos y lossaberes locales como capital permitió laconstrucción de un desarrollo alternativo que parteya no de la asimilación de modelos exógenosbasados en producciones estándares sino desde suidentidad cultural.

La metodología de investigación-acción que hapromovido la concertación de los objetivos deinvestigación y la participación activa de losdestinatarios durante la implementación de lasmismas ha posibilitado la estructuración de unespacio de confianza fructífero que facilitó elintercambio de saberes, la comprensión de susprácticas y la apropiación de las acciones públicaspor parte de los beneficiarios.

La protección de un producto ligado a unrecurso genético específico puede estar fundada ensu tipicidad o simplemente estar relacionado almarketing (Lambert-Derkimba, et al., 2006). Ennuestro caso, el recurso genético se halla ligado alsistema y su gente de modo estrecho y por lo tantosu vínculo es genuino.

Desde el punto de vista tecnológico estaexperiencia ha sido innovadora en la puesta envalor de un producto local, al que se le aplicancriterios de calidad y seguridad que protegen alconsumidor y le dan garantías sanitarias ynutricionales. Por otra parte los aspectosproductivos, se ponen del mismo modo en laperspectiva de la calidad y la sostenibilidadambiental, orientando de este modo las decisionesproductivas.

La articulación con otras actividades sociales yproductivas movilizadas a partir de la valoraciónde la identidad local y la cultura, implícitas en laDenominación de Origen, genera una sinergia enlas actividades desarrolladas en la región querefuerzan las interacciones entre los espaciosrurales y los urbanos.

Por otra parte la DO ha favorecido el desarrollode la institucionalidad, como es el Consejo de

Regulador y las Asociaciones profesionales querefuerzan a través de dicho espacio su identidad. Elfortalecimiento de las organizaciones campesinas yla conformación de un espacio multiactoralvinculado al sistema productivo permite niveles deconcertación y articulación inexistentes hasta elpresente que potencian el desarrollo del territorio ylo capitalizan. La DO abre las puertas a larevalorización territorial dando un nuevo horizontea la sostenibilidad del sistema.

ReferenciasAkerlof, A. 1970. The market for lemons:

quality uncertainly and the market mechanism.Quaterly Journal of Economics, (84). 488-500.

Albadalejo, C. & F. Casabianca. 1997.Eléments pour un débat autour des pratiques derecherche-action. Etudes et Recherches sur lesSystèmes Agraires et le Développement, INRA,pp. 127-149.

Alderson, L. 1990. The work of the rareBreeds Survival Trust. In: L. Alderson (Ed.) “GeneticConservation of Domestic Livestock”. CAB Internac.London. Cap. 3: 33-43.

Blench, R. 2000. Extensive PastoralProduction Systems: Issues and Options for thefuture. FAO, pp. 78.

Domingo, E. M. Zimerman, R. Raiman &M.R. Lanari. 2005. Caracterización de las canalesde Chivitos Criollos Neuquinos. Revista Argentinade Producción Animal. 25:(Suplemento 1) pp. 370.

FAO. 1998. Primer documento de líneasdirectrices para la elaboración de planes nacionalesde gestión de los recursos genéticos de animales degranja, pp. 146.

Jatib, M.I. 1995. Propuestas para laimplementación del sistema de denominaciones deorigen en argentina. In: Primer seminariointernacional de denominaciones de origen.SAGPyA. Buenos Aires , 19-20 de abril, pp. 179-204.

Köhler-Rollefson, I. 2000. Management ofanimal genetic diversity at community level.I. Köhler-Rollefson (Ed.), GTZ, GMBH, pp. 24.

Lacroix,A., A. Mollard & B. Pecquer. 2000.Origine et produits de qualité territoriale: du signalá l´attribut? 01-21. (Abstract).

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

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


Lambert-Derkimba, A., F. Casablanca &E. Verrier. 2006. L’inscription du type génétiquedans le reglements techniques des produitsanimaux sous AOC: consequences pour les racesanimales. INRA Prod. Anim. 19: 357-370.

Lanari, M.R. 2004. Variación y diferenciacióngenética y fenotípica de la Cabra Criolla Neuquinaen relación con su sistema rural campesino. Fac.Biología. Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche.Univ. Nacional del Comahue, pp. 234.

Lanari, M.R., E. Domingo, M. Pérez Centeno& L. Gallo. 2005. Pastoral community selection andgenetic structure of a local goat breed in Patagonia.FAO, AGRI 37: 31-42.

Lanari, M.R., M. Pérez Centeno, &E. Domingo. 2006. La Cabra Criolla Neuquina y susistema de producción. En: FAO (2006) People andanimals. Traditional Livestosck keepers: guardiansof domestic animal diversity. A documentation of 13case studies on how communities manage theirlocal animal genetic resources. K. Tempelman andR.A. Cardellino (Eds). FAO InterdepartmentalWorking Group on Biol. Divers. For Food and Agric.Rome, Italy.

Leneman, M. & R. Reid. 2001. Pastoralismbeyond the past. Development, Local/GlobalEncounters 44 (4): 85-89.

Lokhit Pashu-Palak Sansthan. 2005.Indigenous breeds. Local communities.Documenting Animal Breeds and Breeding from aCommunity Perspective. Ed. I. Köhler-Rollefson.Mudra, India, pp. 64.

Long, N. 1992. Battlefields of knowledge. TheInterlocking of Theory and Practice in SocialResearch and Development. Routledge. London &New Cork, pp. 306.

Pérez Centeno, M. 2001. Etude des stratégiesde la petite production familiale minifundiste et deson articulation avec les institutions dudéveloppement. Le cas des éleveurs transhumantsdu Nord de la Province de Neuquén (PatagonieArgentine). Université de Toulouse Le Mirail,pp.123.

Pérez Centeno, M. 2007. Transformationsdes stratégies social et productives des Criancerostranshumants de la province de Neuquén et leursrelations avec les interventions de développement.Thèse de doctorat (In Press).

25○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

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

AGRI 2007, 41: 25-28

SummaryFor many years the performance of the indigenouslivestock of Africa was regarded as inferior. It wasonly when the results of research and performancerecording were published that the value of a breedsuch as the Nguni was acknowledged. Thisresulted in an interest in the breed from commercialfarmers, which lead to the establishment of abreeder’s society in 1986, but with no officialpedigrees it was a challenge to establish a herdbook.

This article describes how the principles ofupgrading were initially used to develop a herdbook until the Nguni was recognized as anestablished breed in 1996. Subsequently a system offirst registration was implemented. This systemcaters for emerging black farmers in South Africawho want to become seed stock breeders and allowsfor the good quality Nguni genetic materialavailable to the communal black farmers to enter theseed stock industry.

RésuméLa performance des animaux indigènes Africains aété pendant longtemps considérée comme médiocre.C’est seulement après la publication des rechercheset résultats de leurs performances que la valeur desraces comme la Nguni a été reconnue; d’où l’intérêtsoudain des fermiers pour cette race; intérêt quirésultera en la formation d’une Associationd’éleveurs de la race Nguni en 1984; toutefois enl’absence des données fiables concernant leurpedigree, il était difficile d’établir le “herd book” deces animaux.

Cet article décrit comment les méthodesd’amélioration génétiques avaient été entreprisespour l’établissement d’un “herd book” qui conduisit

Experience in establishing a herd book for thelocal Nguni breed in South Africa

M.M. Scholtz1,2 & K.A. Ramsay3

¹Post Graduate School in Animal Breeding, University of the Free State, P.O. Box 339,Bloemfontein 9301, South Africa

2(Corresponding address:ARC – Animal Production Institute,Private Bag X2, Irene 0062, South Africa)

3Department of Agriculture, Private Bag X138, Pretoria 0001, South Africa

à la reconnaissance de la Nguni en tant que race en1996; ce qui d’office résultat en la mise sur piedsd’un système d’inscription qui, d’une part pourvoitune place pour les fermiers noirs Sud-africainsdésireux de devenir éleveurs d’animaux de type pursang Nguni; de l’autre ce système prévoit qu’unesemence Nguni de bonne qualité soit disponibleparmi les fermiers noirs; ce qui leur faciliteraitl’accès au sein de l’Association d’éleveurs de la raceNguni.

ResumenDurante mucho tiempo se ha considerado elrendimiento de las razas indígenas africanas comomediocre. A raíz de la publicación de una serie deresultados e investigaciones sobre sus rendimientosel valor de algunas razas como la Ngumi ha sidoreconocido; de ahí el interés de algunos ganaderospor esta raza. Este interés llevo en 1984 a la creaciónde una asociación de ganaderos de la raza Nguni.Sin embargo, dada la escasez de datos fidedignossobre el pedigrí era difícil establecer un librogenealógico de estos animales. Este artículodescribe cómo se llevaron a cabo los métodos demejora genética para establecer un libro genealógicoque llevó al reconocimiento de la Nguni como razaen 1996. Esto fue posible gracias a la puesta enpráctica de un sistema de inscripción que, por unaparte, da espacio a los ganaderos negrossud-africanos que desean criar animales de tipopura sangre Nguni, por otro lado, este sistema preveque el semen de buena calidad de Nguni seadisponible para los ganaderos negros, lo que lefacilitará el acceso a la asociación de ganaderos deraza Nguni.

Keywords: Sanga cattle, Commercial breeders,Upgrading program.

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

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

26Establishing a herd book for local breeds

IntroductionThe Sanga cattle (Bos Taurus africanis) (Meyer, 1984)originally found along the east coast of SouthernAfrica are known as the Nguni. Due to a lack ofperformance recording during the period ofcolonization, these cattle and many otherindigenous livestock of Africa were regarded asinferior. This perception was the result of Africanman living in a symbiotic relationship with hisanimals. His animals were invaluable as theyprovided for most of his needs (Matjuda, 2005). Inaddition, the status value of animals resulted inmore animals being kept and overstocking becamethe order of the day (Scholtz, 1988). A second reasonfor the earlier ignorance surrounding the qualitiesof the Nguni stemmed from the variety of coloursand colour patterns often encountered amongstanimals of the breed. These wide ranges of coloursand colour patterns are in sharp contrast to thegeneral tendency in the stud breeding industry toemphasize uniformity. As a result of this, the studbreeding industry was unable to identify the muchemphasized antiquated breed standards (Bonsma,1980), and regarded these animals as anindiscriminate mixture of breeds (Scholtz, 1988).

In South Africa, this perception of inferiority ledto the promulgation of an Act in 1934 in whichindigenous breeds and types were regarded as‘scrub’ (non descript). Inspectors were appointed toinspect the bulls in communal areas (those inpossession of indigenous Africans) and to castratethem if regarded as inferior. Fortunately this Actwas applied effectively for only a few years, since itwas very unpopular (Hofmeyr, 1994). During thefirst part of the previous century little or noattention was paid to the improvement or study ofthe potential of indigenous cattle breeds in SouthAfrica, except for the Afrikaner.

The potential of the Nguni was onlydemonstrated following the introduction of a beefcattle recording scheme in 1959 in South Africa andthe publication of research results on the Nguni inthe early 1980’s. This resulted in a keen interest inthe Nguni by the commercial farmers of SouthAfrica, and the Nguni has now grown numericallyto be the second largest stud beef breed in SouthAfrica, according to the information obtained fromSouth Africa’s national database (IntegratedRegistration and Genetic InformationSystem-INTERGIS) on 1 April 2007.

All the seed stock (stud) of Ngunis originatesfrom the original custodians (communal farmers)that maintained the breed over many centuries.However, there was no benefit sharing by these

original custodians and in many cases they wereexploited by the commercial farmers in order to takepossesion of their animals. Currently there is stillvery good quality Nguni genetic material availableto South Africa’s communal black farmers.Recognizing the value of such genetic material, theNguni Cattle Breeder’s Society in collaboration withthe Agricultural Research Council (ARC) developeda process of first registration to cater for suchanimals. This system specifically caters foremerging black farmers that want to become Ngunistud breeders.

MethodsThe interest in the Nguni from commercial breedershad already begun in the 1970’s, when the onlysource of Ngunis was in remote tribal areas wherethe influence of imported exotic breeds was lessprevalent (Hobbs, 2006). The initial attempts tocollect animals from these areas were difficult. Thecommercial breeders were lucky to find animals thatcould be bought as “nothing was for sale” and suchattempts would on many occasions result in thecollection of only one heifer and an old cow or twowith only one teat that had survived the onslaughtof ticks.

In the 1980’s the interest in the Nguni from thecommercial sector accelerated and in August 1983the breed was recognized as a developing breedunder the Livestock Improvement Act (No. 25 of1977) and a breeder’s society was established in1986. At that stage there were about 3 000 Ngunifemales in a few well managed herds (mostlygovernment farms). However, the Nguni in thecommunal areas was under severe threat, mainlydue to crossbreeding with the Brahman (Scholtz,2005). During this period there were no effectivemechanisms in place to control the acquisition ofNgunis, and the original custodians in many caseswere exploited by commercial farmers in order totake possesion of their animals; inter alia twoBrahman heifers would be swapped for one Nguniheifer.

With a breeder’s society in place, but with nopedigree information, it was a challenge to establisha herd book. The usual techniques, namely topcrossing or upgrading (Dalton, 1980) were notapplicable to the Nguni. A top cross is when abreeder or breeders go back to the original source ofthe breed for some new genetic material. In the caseof the Nguni this could not be done, since there wasno herd book.

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

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

27


Scholtz & Ramsay

Upgrading is where one breed is changed (gradedup) to another by continued crossing. It has beenwidely used throughout the world where stock wasgraded up by a number of crosses with registeredStudbook Proper (SP) sires from a specific breed. It iscommonly accepted that four generations ofcrossing with a registered sire (SP) will result inpurebred status.

An upgrading program will work as follows:Unspecified original Female x Registered Sire (SP)

(50% pure) Female x Registered Sire (SP) (F1)

(75% pure) Female x Registered Sire (SP) (F2)

(87.5% pure) Female x Registered Sire (SP) (F3)

(93.75% pure) Female (SP) (F4)

These principles of upgrading were adapted inthe initial development of a herd book for theNguni. In contrast to normal upgrading where theF1 is 50% pure, in this case F1 referred to animalsthat were phenotypically Nguni, but with nopedigree information. In cases where the farmershad pedigree information, their animals wereaccepted as F2, irrespective of the number ofpedigree generations.

The development process was thus as follows:

F1 x F1, F2, F3 or F4 = F2

F2 x F2, F3 or F4 = F3

F3 x F3 or F4 = F4

F4 x F4 = F4

F1 referred to animals that were phenotypicallyNguni, but with no pedigree information. In caseswhere the farmers had pedigree information, theiranimals were accepted as F2, irrespective of thenumber of pedigree generations.

In 1996 the Nguni was recognized as anestablished (developed) breed, and the systemchanged from the F rating to an appendix andSP (Studbook Proper) system. All F1 and F2 animalsthat met the breed standards were classified as

Appendix A, F3 animals as Appendix B and F4animals as SP.

This system worked as follows:

Appendix A x A, B or SP = Appendix BAppendix B x B or SP = Studbook Proper

Results and DiscussionThe interest from the seed stock industry in theNguni resulted in revived interest in the Nguni fromthe emerging/small scale sector. It is now generallyaccepted that the research and performance resultsthat were published saved the Nguni from thepossible threat of extinction. The Nguni has nowgrown numerically to the second largest stud beefbreed in South Africa. The stud animals currentlyconsist of over 30 000 females with an estimated1.8 million Nguni type animals in South Africa.This clearly demonstrates the important role abreeder’s society can play in in-situ conservation.

Currently there is still very high quality Ngunigenetic material available amongst the cattle ofSouth Africa's communal black farmers. However,up to now there has not been an easy way that thisgenetic material could enter the seed stock industry.Recognizing the value of such genetic material, theNguni Cattle Breeder's Society in collaboration withthe ARC developed a process of First Registration tocater for such animals. First Registration (FR) refersto phenotypically Nguni animals that enter theNguni register from the first time, e.g. a farmer whohas been farming commercially with Ngunis andnow wants to become a Stud Breeder. This systemalso specifically caters for emerging black farmerswho want to become Nguni Stud Breeders, and theyare encouraged to enter the Seed Stock Industry.

This system works as follows :

First Registration (FR) x FR, A, B or SP=Appendix A(Phenotypic Nguni)

Appendix A x A, B or SP = Appendix BAppendix B x B or SP = Studbook Proper

Restriction is placed on the sale of FR animalsfirstly to ensure that not only do they look like pureNgunis, but also that they breed and perform likepure Ngunis and meet the minimum breedstandards. Secondly the restriction ensures that theFR animals remain in the ownership of emerging

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

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

28Establishing a herd book for local breeds

farmers for a period of time, and are not exploited byestablished seed stock breeders who want to takepossession of their good quality animals.

In the case of females a cow must have at leastone calving interval and her average calvinginterval must not exceed 550 days. At least one ofher calves must also have passed an inspectionbefore she can be sold. Bulls must have at least20 progeny submitted for inspection of which 50%have passed the inspection, before it can be sold.

The ARC launched an alien plant controlprogramme in communal areas north of Pongola inKwaZulu-Natal. Following this project one of thecommunities demonstrated their intentions tocommercialize their livestock enterprise. TheEmoyeni community of 18 families secured thegrazing rights to approximately 1 500 hectare ofcommunal land. They have 85 sexual maturefemales most of which are Ngunis of high geneticquality that can enter the system of FirstRegistration of the Nguni Cattle Breeders Society,and the ARC is busy assisting them with thisprocess.

ConclusionIf the intervention in the Emoyeni community issuccessful it will be the first instance in SouthAfrica and probably the world, where a communalcommunity progressed to be stud farmers usingtheir own original animals. For the first time it willbe possible for communal farmers to benefit from theexceptionally high prices that are currently beingpaid for Stud Nguni cattle in South Africa.

A Breeder's Society can play a pivotal role in thesustainable use of local livestock genetic resources,since it can act as the modern custodians for thesustainable utilization of such breeds. However,they should move away from the antiquatedoveremphasis on uniformity and artificial breed

standards, while ensuring that such breeds remainor become competitive. This will necessitate properpedigree and performance recording in order toidentify any undesirable genetic drift and to ensurecompetitiveness through proper breeding programsdesigned for local conditions.

List of ReferencesDalton, D.C. 1980. An introduction to

practical animal breeding. Granada Publishing,Great Britain.

Bonsma, J.C. 1980. Livestock Production - Aglobal approach. Tafelberg, Cape Town.

Hobbs, P. 2006. Musings of a (white) Nguniveteran. Nguni Journal, 3-9.

Hofmeyr, J.H. 1994. Findings of a committeere a gene bank for Livestock. Proc. Conf.Conservation Early Domesticated Animals ofSouthern Africa, Pretoria, 3-4 March 1994.

Matjuda, L.E. 2005. The role of the Angusbreed in the emerging beef sector in South Africa.Proc. 9th World Angus Forum Technical Meeting.Cape Town, 19 March 2005, 61-65.

Meyer, E.H.H. 1984. Chromosomal andbiochemical gentic markers of cattel breeds insouthern Africa. Proceedings of th 2nd WorldCongress on Sheep and beef Cattle Breeding,328-339.

Scholtz, M.M. 1988. Selection possibilities ofhardy beef breeds in Africa:The Nguni example.Proc. 3rd World Congr. Sheep Beef Cattle Breed.Paris, 19–23 June 1988, 303–319.

Scholtz. M.M. 2005. History and backgroundof the Nguni in South Africa. Nguni Journal, 7-9.

29○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

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

AGRI 2007, 41: 29-43

SummaryA large proportion of dairy foods consumed byhumans are produced using milk from commercialdairy breeds. The result of high selection intensities,narrow breeding objectives and ignoring inbreedingin past decades is that much attention now needs tobe given to conserving these commercial breeds tomaintain and increase food production and meetfuture demands. The characteristics of a sustainablebreeding program are broad breeding objectives,measures to control inbreeding rates andcontinuous genetic improvement to keeppopulations competitive. It is necessary to includetraits in the breeding objectives that reduce the costprice of products in addition to traits that increasethe output of products. Breeding objectives differbetween countries (production environments), andtogether with genotype-environment interaction forsingle traits (e.g. milk yield) the implication is thatranking of animals for local breeding goals differsbetween countries (production environments).Acknowledging this in selection programs leads tolarger number of selected animals - at least on aglobal level, adding to the global diversity incommercial dairy cattle populations. Interbullprovides international comparisons of bulls fromsix dairy breeds for most of the economicallyimportant traits, thereby enabling global selectionfor broad breeding objectives in many countriesaround the world.

RésuméUne grande partie des produits laitiers pour laconsommation humaine provient de lait de racescommerciales. Le résultat d’une sélection intense,d’objectifs d’amélioration limités et ne pas tenircompte des problèmes de consanguinité dans lepassé nous portent aujourd’hui à la nécessité d’une

Development of international genetic evaluations of dairy cattle forsustainable breeding programs

W.F. Fikse & J. Philipsson

Interbull Centre, Dept. of Animal Breeding and Genetics,Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Uppsala, Sweden

majeure attention à la conservation de ces racescommerciales tout en conservant et augmentant laproduction alimentaire pour faire face à la demandedans le futur. Les caractéristiques d’un programmed’amélioration durable sont les objectifs plus larges,les mesures pour contrôler les niveaux deconsanguinité et l’amélioration génétique continuepour obtenir que les populations soientcompétitives. Il est nécessaire d’inclure certainstraits dans les objectifs d’amélioration qui aident àréduire le coût des produits, ainsi que d’autres quipermettent d’augmenter la production de ces mêmeproduits. Les objectifs d’amélioration dépendentdes pays (p.e. milieu de production) et del’interaction génotype-milieu pour chacune de cesraces (p.e. performances lait), ce qui entraîne que lamarge du nombre d’animaux disponible pour lesobjectifs d’amélioration soit différente d’un pays àl’autre (milieu de production). Prenant enconsidération ce point nous pouvons augmenter lenombre d’animaux sélectionnés, au moins auniveau mondial, ainsi que la diversité mondialedans les populations de bovin à lait. Interbullfournis des comparaisons au niveau internationalede taureaux appartenant à six races laitières parmiles plus rentables et importantes du point de vuecommercial, ce qui permet une sélection mondialepour des plus amples objectifs d’amélioration dansbeaucoup de pays dans le monde.

ResumenUna amplia parte de los productos lácteos paraconsumo humano provienen de leche de razascomerciales. El resultado de una selecciónintensificada, objetivos de mejora limitados y notener en cuenta los problemas de consanguinidaden las pasadas décadas hacen que ahora seanecesaria una mayor atención para conservar estasrazas comerciales al mismo tiempo que se mantienee incrementa la producción alimentaria para hacer

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

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

30International evaluations for sustainable breeding

frente a la demanda futura. Las características deun programa de mejora sostenible son los ampliosobjetivos de mejora, las medidas para controlar losniveles de consanguinidad y una mejora genéticacontinua para conseguir que las poblaciones seancompetitivas. Es necesario incluir algunos rasgos enlos objetivos de mejora que reduzcan el costo de losproductos , así como otros que incrementen laproducción de los mismos. Los objetivos de mejoradependen de los países (p.e. ambiente deproducción), y junto con la interaccióngenotipo-ambiente para cada una de las razas(p.e. rendimiento en leche), hacen que el margen deanimales para los objetivos de mejora local difierende un país a otro (ambientes de producción). Elreconocer esto en un programa de selección permiteampliar el número de animales seleccionados, porlo menos a nivel mundial, ampliando la diversidadmundial en las poblaciones de vacuno de leche.Interbull proporciona comparacionesinternacionales de toros pertenecientes a seis razaslecheras provenientes de entre las máseconómicamente importantes, lo que permite unaselección mundial para mayores objetivos de mejoraen muchos países del mundo.

Keywords: Sustainability, Breeding objectives,Inbreeding, International genetic evaluations.

IntroductionGlobally, milk is one of the most important source ofnutrients for human consumption. The so-calledlivestock revolution, envisaged by Delgado et al.(1999), predicts that the global demand for milk willincrease considerably over a 20-year period.Developing countries will more than double theirproduction (133%), whereas the developed worldneeds to increase production by just 7% to meetfuture demands. Most milk is produced by cattle,although buffalo, sheep and goats play veryimportant roles for milk production in certaincountries. Future demands for milk cannot be metby an increased number of animals but must resultfrom increased productivity per animal andefficiency in the use of feed resources consideringavailing environments and production systems. Theincreased global demand for dairy products pointsto the importance of the commercial dairy breeds,and the need to ensure that breeding programs forthese breeds are sustainable.

So far much of the national and internationalconservation efforts have been directed towardsalready endangered or nearly extinct breeds,whereas little emphasis has been put on the‘mainstream breeds’ as their numbers are still quitehigh. In a developed country like Sweden, forexample, only about 0.5% of the dairy herdpopulation consists of endangered breeds and theyproduce about 0.3% of the milk.

If breeding programs for the major dairy breedsof the world fail to be sustainable the effects may bedramatic in several ways: demands for food will notbe met, major losses in animal genetic diversity willoccur and severe effects on land use and cropdiversity may follow. Modern reproductiontechnologies, such as artificial insemination (AI)and embryo transfer (ET), have been proven to bevery powerful tools in changing the genetics ofcattle populations. The dynamics of thesecommercial populations effectively using AI and ETare therefore more important to monitor than justactual numbers of animals at a given time. The issueof genetic diversity is related to the number ofbreeds with distinctly different characteristics, theeffective population size of each of these breeds, andeffects of the within breed selection programspracticed.

The objectives of this paper are to illustrate theglobalization of six major breeds or groups of breedsused for dairy production as a result of extensiveuse of AI and ET, some circumstances threateningthe sustainability of the breeding programspracticed, and measures taken to improve the use ofthese genetic resources in such a way that demandsfor genetic diversity and sustainability can be metalong with continuously improved production.Opportunities to monitor important genetic changesin the world’s major dairy production breeds havebeen made possible since the establishment ofInterbull, initially founded by EuropeanAssociation of Animal Production (EAAP),International Dairy Federation (IDF) and theInternational Committee of Animal Recording(ICAR). Nowadays regular exchange of data takesplace between Interbull and nearly 30 countries inorder to conduct international genetic evaluation ofbulls. Nearly all continents are represented amongthese developed countries with two from NorthAmerica, two from Oceania, one from Africa, onefrom Asia and the remainder from Europe.

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

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

31


Fikse & Philipsson

Globalization of BreedsIncluded in InterbullEvaluationsAn enormous increase in the semen trade followedthe disclosure of results from the extensiveFAO-experiment conducted in Poland, where10 Friesian strains of dairy cattle were compared(Stolzmann et al., 1981). The results showed anunexpectedly significant superiority ofNorth-American Holstein-Friesians (HF) inproduction over their European ancestralpopulations. The New Zealand and Israelipopulations also surprised many with their highproductivity. A wave of importation of HF semenfollowed, and in a decade or two the black andwhite dairy cattle populations around the worldhad been ‘Holsteinized’ and the effectivepopulation size declined dramatically. Figure 1shows that the Friesian cattle in northern Europealso went through a dramatic morphologicalchange.

A parallel development also took place in otherbreeds. Braunvieh cattle had, similarly to Friesiancattle, been exported from western Europe to NorthAmerica, where a new type of Brown Swiss wasdeveloped. Although this population was small ithas provided the European ancestral populationswith a lot of semen in the last 3-4 decades. The Redbreed group, with Ayrshire ancestry, of Finland(Finnish Ayrshire), Norway (Norwegian Red) andSweden (Swedish Red) started an early exchange ofbull sire semen and became genetically closelylinked. Ayrshire cattle, although only in smallpopulations, were also part of the dairy populationsin other regions of the world, e.g. North America,South Africa, Australia and in its area of origin inthe UK. The Jersey breed had at an early stage

become a globally utilised breed, well adapted tomany different environmental conditions, includingtropical areas. Genetically it differs markedly frommost other commercial dairy breeds in live weightand milk composition. The Jersey breed has beenvery competitive in many countries, especially inDenmark, the USA and New Zealand, where thebiggest populations are found. The other ChannelIsland breed, the Guernsey, has also been used aglobally, but in a limited number of primarilyCommonwealth countries. Major populations arefound in the USA, the UK and Australia, but thenumber of cows has been rapidly decreasing in thelast decades, despite its many interesting features.Another breed which has been spread to manycountries is the Fleckvieh, primarily from centralEurope, and internationally named as theSimmental. It is a dual purpose breed, but has beendiverted into different lines for milk and beefvs. only for beef in some countries. The populationused for dairy production is seen only in Europeand has largely been developed by use of RedHolstein semen imported from North America.

Need for comparable information

These breed and industry developmentsemphasized the need for methods to compare thegenetic merit of bulls across countries in order toimprove efficiency in the global selection of bulls.This challenge was taken up by both the IDF andEAAP, which in 1983 led to the formation ofInterbull as an international committee forimproved transparency of genetic evaluations ofdairy cattle around the world. Following thisdevelopment the Interbull Centre was established in1991 aiming at conducting international genetic

Figure 1. European Friesian before (a)…… and after ‘Holsteinization’ (b).

a) b)

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

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


evaluations of bulls including the breeds mentionedabove (Philipsson, 1998).

Exchange of Genetic MaterialThe magnitude of exchange of genetic material canbe illustrated in many ways. For example, the USAexported nine million semen doses (dairy bulls) in2005, an increase of nearly 20% in 10 years.European AI organizations exported approximatelyfive million semen doses in 2004. Through theInterbull system pedigree data on AI bulls iscollected from 26 different countries on a routinebasis, which makes it possible to monitordevelopments for the various breeds at the globallevel. The exchange of genetic material will beillustrated below based on information in theInterbull pedigree database.

Young bulls are typically tested in the country ofbirth and first registration (Table 1). The Guernseysand Holsteins showed the most exchange at thelevel of young bulls among the breed groups andcountries considered in the Interbull evaluations;approximately 15% of the progeny tested bulls did

not originate from the country in which they weretested. The trend for Guernsey, Holstein and Jerseyis to import more young bulls from other countries,whereas the converse is true for the Brown Swissand Red Dairy cattle breed groups.

The exchange of genetic material betweencountries is much more intense at the level of siresof sons. Between 13% and 67% of the progeny testedbulls had a foreign sire (Table 2). Selection of sires ofsons is most global for the Brown Swiss andHolstein breed groups. The trend is generallyincreasing, particularly for the Guernsey and Jerseybreed groups. Similar patterns were observed for theorigin of maternal grand sires of progeny testedbulls.

By comparing table 1 and table 2 it becomes clearthat, not surprisingly, the exchange of semen at thelevel of sires of sons is more frequent than theimportation of calves to be put on progeny test.Fikse et al. (2006) reported that the proportion offoreign proven bulls used to breed cows for thecommercial population ranged from 3% to 12%,with large variations between countries, and theimpact of semen exchange at the level of provenbulls is less than that for sires of sons.

Table 1. Percentage of bulls progeny tested1 in country of origin2.

Birth year of bull Breed group 1981-1985 1986-1990 1991-1995 Brown Swiss 93.2 94.7 94.6 Guernsey 96.1 88.5 84.9 Holstein 89.1 86.4 Jersey 98.1 95.6 94.5 Red Dairy Cattle 97.4 98.6 99.3 Simmental 97.9 98.4 97.3

1Country of test is defined as the country with most daughters. 2Origin is defined as country of first registration. Table 2. Percentage of progeny tested bulls with foreign sire.

Birth year of bull Breed group 1981-1985 1986-1990 1991-1995 Brown Swiss 67.3 57.4 64.9 Guernsey 14.6 13.0 32.7 Holstein 60.2 59.4 Jersey 14.9 26.1 35.0 Red Dairy Cattle 16.7 27.1 26.9 Simmental 23.6 26.0 28.6

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

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

33


Fikse & Philipsson

Importance of Broad BreedingObjectivesThere is accumulating evidence that single-traitselection for milk production has negativeside-effects on the health and reproduction of dairycows. These functional traits, i.e. characters of ananimal that increase efficiency not by higheroutputs of products but by reduced costs (Groen etal., 1997), are unfavorably correlated with milkproduction, the magnitude of the geneticcorrelations being 0.2-0.5 (e.g. Roxström, 2001; Wallet al., 2003). The complexity of functional traits,reflected in the categorical nature of data recordsand low heritabilities, is often given as a reason toignore these traits in breeding objectives andbreeding programs.

The considerable amount of genetic variationthat exists for functional traits (Philipsson andLindhé, 2003) justifies inclusion of these traits inbreeding objectives. Aamand (2007) illustrated forexample that the incidence of mastitis was abouttwice as high among daughters of sires with anindex below 86 (2 SD below average) compared tosires with an index above 113 (2 SD above average).Zwald et al. (2004) also reported large differences inincidence (by a factor of between 1 and 5) of severaldiseases (ketosis, mastitis, lameness, cystic ovariesand metritis) depending on the genetic merit fordisease susceptibility.

The merging of Nordic health and reproductiondata with North American production andconformation data revealed an unfavorablerelationship between health and dairy character(Rogers et al., 1999). The emphasis on dairycharacter and the determination to breed for ‘sharp’cows may indeed have contributed to the increasein health and reproductive problems in somebreeds.

Given the existence of genetic variation and thenegative relationship with production, ignoringfunctional traits will lead to deterioration offunctional traits and ultimately an increase in costsof producing milk due to increased diseaseincidence, reproductive failures and involuntaryculling of cows. On average, the length ofproductive life is 2-3 lactations. This measure must,however, be cautiously interpreted as it merelyreflects the economics of markets and theproduction systems practiced rather than just thegenetic stayability of the cows. The emphasis ofdairy cattle breeding objectives has graduallyshifted from production and conformation traitsonly to include more functional traits during thepast couple of decades (Miglior et al., 2005) and

many countries now have genetic evaluations inplace for important functional traits such as health,fertility, longevity and calving traits (Mark, 2004).

The inclusion of functional traits in selectionindexes and breeding objectives not only increasesgenetic progress for total genetic merit in economicterms but has also positive implications for geneticdiversity. Sorensen et al. (1999) observed withsimulations that selection for milk yield was inferiorto selection for total merit index in terms of geneticgain for total genetic merit and inbreeding rates.

Interbull International GeneticEvaluationsTraditionally, countries perform national geneticevaluations to assess the genetic merit of bulls, butthe results of these evaluations are not directlycomparable across countries. The main reasons(Philipsson, 1987) are1. Differences in trait definitions and recording

and evaluations practices.2. Differences in genetic levels among countries.3. Differences in animal performance under

varying production systems(genotype-environment interaction).It was nearly impossible for breeders to compare

the genetic merit of domestic and foreign geneticmaterial, complicating the process of identifyingsuperior animals and realizing the potentialbenefits of exchange of genetic material betweencountries. The recognition of this problem formedthe basis of developments and activities, initially byEAAP and IDF, that led to the establishment ofInterbull and the launch of international geneticevaluations by Interbull.

MACEThe routine international genetic evaluationsperformed by Interbull combine the results ofnational genetic evaluations from various countriesin a joint analysis often referred to as Multiple-traitAcross Country Evaluation (MACE; Schaeffer,1994). MACE is essentially a multiple-trait siremodel where performance in each country is treatedas a different trait. Important features of MACE arethe ability to accommodate different parameters(heritability, genetic and residual variances)between countries and the possibility of consideringrelationships between bulls.

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

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


Genetic correlations between countries areaccounted for in MACE to reflect the fact thatperformance in different environments can beviewed as different traits. Genetic correlationsbetween countries less than unity indicate thepresence of genotype-environment interaction,which means that ranking of animals (genotypes)differs between countries (environments). Forexample, if cows are fed on high quality feed thenthe cows’ appetite and feed intake could be thefactor that causes some cows to be superior in milkproduction over others, whereas if the cows are fedon poor feed it is likely that cows with the best feedutilization will be superior. Hence, a separate list ofbulls with breeding values is computed for eachparticipating country, expressed in their own unitsand relative to their own base group of animals(Figure 2).

Genetic correlations between countries

Genetic correlations between countries are onaverage highest for milk production and somaticcells and lowest for longevity and stillbirth(Table 3). These correlations reflect on one hand theharmonization in recording and evaluation of traitsand on the other hand the degree ofgenotype-environment interaction betweencountries. Both milk yield and somatic cells arerecorded and evaluated reasonably uniformlyacross countries, which is reflected in the high

genetic correlations between countries. Longevity,on the other hand, is a more complex trait andgenetic correlations between countries are relativelylow and variable. Reasons for culling differ betweencountries due to economic conditions, climate andother production factors.

A closer look at the genetic correlations revealsthat correlations are usually highest amongcountries in the same hemisphere and lowestamong countries from different hemispheres(North vs. South). For example, the geneticcorrelations for milk production among countriesfrom the same hemispheres range between 0.85 and0.95, and are between 0.75 and 0.85 amongcountries from different hemispheres. Thus, milkproduction in the northern and southernhemispheres can be viewed as different traits, anddifferent rankings of sires are to be expected in bothhemispheres.

Global perspective on selection of dairybulls

A consequence of genotype-environment interactionand genetic correlations among countries less thanunity, is the re-ranking of animals acrossenvironments (illustrated in Figure 2). Table 4 isbased on data available through Interbull andshows that bulls with high genetic merit for proteinyield in Sweden, USA or the Netherlands do notalways have high genetic merit for protein yield in

Table 3. Weighted1 average and range in estimated genetic correlations (rg) across different Holstein populations for selected traits (February 2007).

Trait Populations Mean rg SD of rg Range of rg Protein yield 24 0.84 0.05 0.18 Somatic cells 23 0.90 0.05 0.23 Clinical mastitis2 4 0.85 0.07 0.18 Longevity 19 0.71 0.14 0.61 Direct calving ease 12 0.78 0.11 0.51 Maternal calving ease 11 0.77 0.09 0.35 Direct stillbirth 5 0.69 0.11 0.29 Maternal stillbirth 5 0.80 0.07 0.21 Interval calving-first insemination 5 0.81 0.17 0.43 Non-return rate 5 0.74 0.09 0.32 Days open/calving interval 8 0.81 0.10 0.34 Body condition score3 2 0.92

1Weighted by number of bulls with evaluations in both of the concerned countries. 2Taken from the Interbull March 2005 test evaluation. 3Estimated by Jorjani (2005).

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

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

35


Fikse & Philipsson

New Zealand. The top 100 lists of the northernhemisphere countries had approximately 90 bullsin common, but only 75-80 with New Zealand. Thesituation is more extreme for somatic cells andespecially longevity for which none of the top100 bulls in Sweden and the Netherlands wereamong the top 100 in New Zealand (Table 4). Itappears that due to the seasonal calving patternsand the grazing system, cows have to meet differentrequirements to survive in New Zealand comparedwith northern hemisphere countries.

Considering genotype-environment interactionin international comparisons leads to the selectionof more bulls on a global level (Table 5). Forexample, treating protein yields as different traits ineach of the 24 populations participating in theInterbull evaluation (Holstein), 309 different bullswere among the top 100 in any given country.Similarly, there were 611 different bulls among thetop 100 lists for longevity in each of the 19 countries(Holstein). Different sires and dams are selected indifferent countries, which can increase the globaleffective population size (Goddard, 1992). Thus,taking genotype-environment interaction intoaccount in international comparisons has adesirable effect on the utilization of animal geneticresources, in addition to accommodating differencesin production environments around the world.

The number of potential selection candidatesincreases when selection is across-country rather

than within-country. Consequently, higher selectionintensities can be achieved which is especiallybeneficial for small and genetically inferiorpopulations (Banos and Smith, 1991; Lohuis andDekkers, 1998). Using the Interbull evaluationresults it has been shown that the potential toincrease selection differentials is up to 2.5 geneticstandard deviation units for across-countryselection compared to within-country selection(Fikse, 2004; Mark, 2005). Rather than exploiting theincreased selection potential for increasing geneticprogress, it can also be used to select less-relatedanimals, thus reducing the inbreeding rate.

The combination of 1) genotype-environmentinteractions for individual traits and 2) differencesin breeding objectives across countries (i.e. weightsgiven to individual traits in an index for totalgenetic merit) results in relatively low geneticcorrelations between breeding objectives in differentcountries. Sonesson (2006) estimated the geneticcorrelation between the breeding objectives for theNordic Red breeds to be around 0.8. Miglior et al.(2005) observed rather low numbers of bulls incommon between the top 100 lists for total geneticmerit in a range of countries, indicatingconsiderable re-ranking of bulls across countries.

The presence of genotype-environmentinteraction for total genetic merit actualizes thequestion of whether separate breeding programsshould be maintained for different environments

Table 4. Number of bulls in common between the top 100 lists of Holstein bulls on four different country scales1.

Protein Somatic cells Longevity NLD USA NZL NLD USA NZL NLD USA NZL

SWE 86 90 80 75 70 39 41 46 0 NLD 82 75 69 41 48 0 USA 75 34 3

1 NLD = The Netherlands; SWE = Sweden; USA = United States of America; NZL = New Zealand Table 5. Increase in total number of top 100 bulls when considering genotype-environment interaction by applying genetic correlations (rg) less than unity (February 2007).

Number of top bulls Breed group Number of populations rg = 1 rg < 1 Brown Swiss 9 100 179 Guernsey 6 100 140 Holstein 24 100 309 Jersey 10 100 282 Red Dairy Cattle 10 100 192 Simmental 10 100 179

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

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


and whether cooperation between breedingprograms is beneficial. Sonesson (2006) investigatedthe difference between one breeding program for allcountries and separate breeding programs in eachcountry for the Nordic Red breeds and concludedthere was little difference in overall genetic gain atconstrained levels of inbreeding rate. A generalrule-of-thumb is that multiple breeding programsare justifiable when the genetic correlation betweenbreeding objectives is below 0.8 (e.g. Robertson,1959), but this depends on the actual scenario(testing capacity, genetic parameters, selectionintensity, etc.; Mulder and Bijma, 2006).

Interbull evaluations

Interbull started international genetic evaluationsfor production traits in 1994 and data from fourcountries and two breed groups were considered(Philipsson, 1998). Since then, Interbull serviceshave expanded and they nowadays consider sixbreed groups and 26 countries (Table 6). SinceFebruary 2007, international evaluations for fertilityhave been computed, in addition to production,conformation, udder health, longevity and calvingperformance. Thus, international geneticevaluations are available for all economicallyimportant trait groups.

Routine evaluations are performed three timesper year. For the Interbull evaluation of February2007 the pedigree database included nearly400 000 bulls (Table 7) and internationalevaluations were computed for 140 000 bulls. Itshould be noted that Interbull does not publishinternational breeding values; Interbull simplydistributes them to participating countries. It is thenthe responsibility of these countries to rank the bullswithin country according to their own breedingobjectives, and publish these results.

The joint analysis of national geneticevaluations (MACE) depends on the results ofnational genetic evaluations systems (Figure 2).Therefore, international comparisons are only asgood as the various national evaluation systemsthat provide the input. Procedures have beendeveloped and are applied on a regular basis tocheck the quality of data used in Interbullevaluations (Klei et al., 2002; Boichard et al., 1995).In addition, Interbull organizes special workshops,conducted surveys and compiled guidelines fornational genetic evaluation systems to monitordevelopments and promote standardization ofnational evaluation systems and their results.

Monitoring Global Trends inDairy Cattle Breeding

Genetic progress

The genetic level for protein yield has increasednoticeably during the past two decades for both theHolstein and Red Dairy cattle breed groups(Figure 3). The genetic trends were slightly negative(unfavorable) for clinical mastitis and directlongevity for the Holstein breed group. On the otherhand, the genetic trend for clinical mastitis anddirect longevity for the Red Dairy cattle breed groupwere slightly positive.

Philipsson and Lindhé (2003) illustrated theimportance of having comparable information forall traits of economic importance for selectioncandidates by comparing the genetic trend in femalefertility for the Swedish Holstein and the SwedishRed populations. The genetic trend for fertility inthe Swedish Red population was slightly favorable,due to the availability of genetic evaluations forprogeny tested bulls that were candidates forselection as sires of sons. The majority (~75%) of thebulls belonging to the Red Dairy cattle breed groupare tested in Nordic countries where recording andevaluation of female fertility traits has beenpracticed for a long time. The situation for theHolstein breed group was much worse, because atthe time of selection as sires of sons no femalefertility information was available for the majority ofbulls (> 90%). Selection emphasis was instead puton production and conformation, leading to anunfavorable correlated response for female fertility.

Inbreeding

The intensity of use of sires of sons has been highestfor the Holstein breed group, as indicated by thenumber of sons per bull sire (Figure 4). For the otherbreed groups about ten sons per bull sire weretested on average. The oscillating pattern for theHolstein breed group is caused by a few verypopular bull sires with hundreds or thousands ofprogeny tested sons. In 1983 and 1985, half of allprogeny tested bulls were sired by one bull sire.Extreme use of Holstein bull sires has beentempered for bulls born after 1987 (Figure 5). For theJersey breed group the intensity of use of bull sireshas been tempered lately as well, whereas the trendis increasing for the Brown Swiss breed group. Dueto the limited population size not more than five

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

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


Figure 3. Estimated genetic trends in Holstein and Red Dairy cattlecow populations for protein yield (thick-solid line), clinical mastitis(dotted line) and direct longevity (thin-solid line) on Swedish scales(weighted average of international bull breeding values from February2007 Interbull evaluations; weighted by total number of daughtersacross all countries; high breeding values are favorable; all breedingvalues are expressed with a standard deviation of 10).

80

90

100

110

120

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Birth year of bull (Holstein)

Mea

n R

BV

70

80

90

100

110

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

Birth year of bull (RDC)

Mea

n R

BV

noticeable, for example by the increased problemsdue to recessive genetic defects or inbreedingdepression.

Dairy farmers in the US and other countriesstarted to explore crossbreeding Holsteins withother breeds (Hansen, 2006) to circumvent problemsdue to increased inbreeding rates and deteriorationof functional traits. The first experiences from thesecrossbreeding experiments are positive, resulting inF1 females with lower stillbirth rates, decreasedcalving difficulty, improved cow fertility, andenhanced survival with little, if any, loss of

production (kg) of fat plus protein (Heins et al.,2006a; 2006b; 2006c). The prospects ofcrossbreeding as a means to deal with problems inpurebred populations depends on theimplementation of crossbreeding programs on aherd basis that capture as much heterosis aspossible, are easy to manage and result in as littlevariation among crossbred animals as possible.Most importantly, crossbreeding is only successfulif continuous progress is made in the purebredpopulations.

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

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

39


Fikse & Philipsson

Figure 4. Average number of progeny tested sons per bull sire (February 2007).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

Birth year of bull sire

Num

ber o

f son

s

BSW JER GUE HOL RDC SIM

Figure 5. Percentage progeny tested bulls after the five most popular bull sires(February 2007).

0

20

40

60

80

100

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

Birth year

Perc

enta

ge

BSW JER GUE HOL RDC SIM

Several tools to aid selection of parents havebeen developed that can maximize progress atrestricted inbreeding rates (Meuwissen andSonesson, 1998; Berg et al., 2006). While powerful,the success of these tools depends on the extent oftheir use. Important selection decisions in dairycattle breeding (bull sire and bull dam selection) aretaken by AI organizations that are in competitionwith each other. The challenge for these

organizations is to balance the short-term interest inincreasing genetic gain with the long-term need toavoid depletion of genetic resources. Initiatives likethe European Forum of Farm Animal Breeders andthe development of a Code of Good Practice forFarm Animal Breeding and ReproductionOrganizations are steps in the right direction.

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

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


Measures to be taken for sustainability

A sustainable dairy cattle breeding program shouldbe characterized by:• A continuous genetic improvement of

productivity to keep the populationcommercially competitive in relevant areas forproduction.

• The generation of products which have suchvalue that they are marketable at a profitablefarm-gate price.

• A broad definition of breeding objectives to takeinto account selection for all major economicallyimportant traits with a special restriction thatfundamental characteristics of fertility, healthand survival do not decline.

• Management of inbreeding at such a level thatno depression of important traits resulting fromincreased inbreeding occurs. The effectivepopulation size should be monitored andselection practiced to keep it above levels atwhich the breed is considered to be at risk ofendangerment.In any dairy cattle population the most

important assumption for a sustainable breedingprogram is that there is a comprehensive milk-recording scheme and links to other recordings oftraits, e.g. health and fertility, to enable geneticevaluation of bulls for broad breeding objectives(Philipsson et al., 2005).

As regards the design of breeding programs, theuse of young bulls is essential in all systems. Inlarge populations extensive use of young bullsenables progeny testing of many bulls, providingopportunities for strong selection of bulls to be usedas sires of cows and sons. With large progenygroups, i.e. 100-150 daughters, reasonably accuratebreeding values can also be obtained for mostfunctional traits. In small populations progenytesting is of limited value for selection of bulls forwide-spread use, as such use is not possible froman inbreeding point of view. However, progenyinformation, as well as records of all relatives, canbe used for evaluation and selection of parents ofyoung bulls, each one of which should be limited inuse.

The globalization of practically all breeds is afact and the advantages of this should be capturedwhile possible disadvantages must be avoided. Toreach this goal it is important that all bulls in thecountries in question are evaluated nationally (orregionally) for domestically defined broad breedingobjectives and that these domestic breeding valuesbecome part of the international genetic evaluationsthat Interbull provides. In this way wise selection of

bulls across countries is made possible for the broadbreeding objectives set for each country (or region).This scenario is based on the assumption that theInterbull evaluations are published in each countryin such a way that they are easily accessible byAI stud managers and progressive farmers.

Options for developing countries

Livestock recording schemes are well developed inmost industrialized countries and may then providethe information necessary to conduct advancedgenetic evaluations of cows and bulls. In mostdeveloping countries the situation is quite different.The most limiting factor for adoption of sustainablebreeding programs is the lack of relevant recordingschemes as a basis for both management andgenetic evaluation purposes (Philipsson, 2000). Forlocal breeds, variants of nucleus breeding schemesare plausible, but problems exist in selecting bulls of‘exotic’ breeds, e.g. Holstein, Brown Swiss andAyrshire. If no domestic evaluations exist in thedeveloping countries, there are no opportunities toparticipate in international evaluations, and thus toselect the best bulls for the country in question. Thebest advice so far is for each country to compare itsenvironment and production system with thosecountries already participating in the Interbullevaluations and rely on the results of a countryhaving the most similar environment. For instance,international breeding values published for NewZealand may indicate which bulls are best for othercountries heavily relying on grazing systems,whereas Israeli results may be the best to use inother countries characterized by a hot climate andhigh intensity of grain feeding. In any case,breeding organizations in developing countriesneed to put more emphasis on defining their ownbreeding objectives and select for these according tothe principle proposed above, rather than just usingsemen of any bulls advertised by foreign companies.

Do Commercial Breeds Need toBe Conserved?In scrutinizing the criteria for sustainability ofbreeding programs for dairy cattle, and the reviewof what has happened in the most globallyprominent breeds used for dairy production, it isobvious that certain facts indicate that some breeds,especially Holstein, are faced with severe problemsthat question the sustainability of the breed. The

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

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

41


Fikse & Philipsson

unfavorable correlations between e.g. productionand fertility, or the rising stillbirth trend, have notbeen met globally by adequate means for geneticevaluation and selection until very recently. Still, forthese breeds used globally there is no body thattakes the overall responsibility for directing theirdevelopment into more harmonized breedingprograms in line with the criteria for sustainabilityrather than focusing on traditional breeding forconformation, and especially for such traits that areunfavorably correlated with fitness of the animals.However, there are notable exceptions. InScandinavia, quite well harmonized breedingprograms have long since been established for theRed Dairy breeds, considering broad breedingobjectives. As a consequence semen of these breedsis now successfully used internationally in crossingHolsteins to capture not only effects of heterosis, butalso to effectively incorporate genes for good fertilityand health along with high production and toavoid further inbreeding (Hansen, 2006).

Another example and problem is demonstratedby the Guernsey breed, which has been declining innumbers for some time. In most countries thebreeding program is characterized by traditionalselection for just production and conformation, thelatter leading to bigger and less fertile cows.However, the World Guernsey Cattle Federation hastaken the initiative to launch a global breedingprogram based on sound scientific principles,whereby the genetic diversity is considered incombination with selection for a continuouslybroader breeding objective (Luff, 2006). It takes time,however, to harmonize ideas and breedingobjectives and principles of selection acrosscontinents used with different breeding traditions,but such global efforts are very well worthsupporting. This is also emphasized by the fact thatthe breed seems to offer certain characteristics in itsmilk that differ from other major breeds.

List of ReferencesAamand, G.P. 2007. Use of health data in

genetic evaluation and breeding. Proceedings of the35th Biennial session of ICAR. EAAP publicationno. 121: 275-282.

Banos, G. & C. Smith. 1991. Selecting bullsacross countries to maximize genetic improvementin dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Breeding andGenetics 108: 174-181.

Berg, P., J. Nielsen & M.K. Sorensen. 2006.EVA: realized and predicted optimal geneticcontributions. Proceedings of the 8th WorldCongress on Genetics Applied to LivestockProduction, communication no. 27-09.

Boichard, D., B. Bonaiti, A. Barbat &S. Mattalia. 1995. Three methods to validate theestimation of genetic trend for dairy cattle. Journalof Dairy Science 78: 431-437.

Delgado, C., M. Rosegrant, H. Steinfeld,S. Ehui & C. Courbois. 1999. Livestock to 2020-Thenext food revolution. Food, Agriculture, and theEnvironment Discussion Paper 28. IFPRI(International Food Policy Research Institute),Washington, DC, USA, pp. 72.

Fikse, W.F. 2004. Interbull guides through thelabyrinth of national genetic evaluations.Proceeding of the 55th meeting of the EAAP. EAAPBook of Abstracts 10, 326.

Fikse, W.F., J.H. Jakobsen & C. Gustafsson.2006. Selection of sires in different countries forglobal dairy breeds. Proceedings of the 8th WorldCongress on Genetics Applied to LivestockProduction, communication no. 01-31.

Groen, A.F., T. Steine, J.J. Colleau,J. Pedersen, J. Pribyl & N. Reinsch. 1997. Economicvalues in dairy cattle breeding, with specialreference to functional traits. Report of anEAAP-working group. Livestock Production Science49:1-21.

Goddard, M.E. 1992. Optimal effectivepopulation size for the global population of blackand white dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 75:2902-2911.

Hansen, L.B. 2006. Monitoring theworldwide genetic supply for cattle with emphasison managing crossbreeding and inbreeding.Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on GeneticsApplied to Livestock Production, communicationno. 01-01.

Heins, B.J., L.B. Hansen & A.J. Seykora.2006a. Production of pure Holsteins versuscrossbreds of Holstein with Normande,Montbeliarde, and Scandinavian Red. Journal ofDairy Science 89: 2799-2804.

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

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


Heins, B.J., L.B. Hansen & A.J. Seykora.2006b. Calving difficulty and stillbirths of pureHolsteins versus crossbreds of Holstein withNormande, Montbeliarde, and Scandinavian Red.Journal of Dairy Science 89: 2805-2810.

Heins, B.J., L.B. Hansen & A.J. Seykora.2006c. Fertility and survival of pure Holsteinsversus crossbreds of Holstein with Normande,Montbeliarde, and Scandinavian Red. Journal ofDairy Science 89: 4944-4951.

Klei, L., T. Mark, W.F. Fikse & T. Lawlor.2002. A method for verifying genetic evaluationresults. Interbull Bulletin 29: 178-182.

Lohuis, M.M. & J.C.M. Dekkers. 1998. Meritsof borderless evaluations. Proceedings of the 6th

World Congress on Genetics Applied to LivestockProduction 26: 169-172.

Luff, B. 2006. Guernsey Global BreedingProgramme. http://www.worldguernseys.org/.

Mark, T. 2004. Applied genetic evaluationsfor production and functional traits in dairy cattle.Journal of Dairy Science 87: 2641-2652.

Mark, T. 2005. International geneticevaluations for udder health traits in dairy cattle.PhD thesis. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae,2005: 93. Swedish University of AgriculturalSciences, Uppsala, Sweden.

Meuwissen, T.H.E. & A.K. Sonesson. 1998.Maximizing the response of selection with apredefined rate of inbreeding- overlappinggenerations. Journal of Animal Science 76:2575-2583.

Miglior, F., B.L. Muir & B. J. Van Doormaal.2005. Selection indices in Holstein cattle of variouscountries. Journal of Dairy Science 88: 1255-1263.

Mulder, H.A., R.F. Veerkamp, B.J. Ducro,J.A.M. van Arendonk & P. Bijma. 2006.Optimization of dairy cattle breeding programs fordifferent environments with genotype byenvironment interaction. Journal of Dairy Science89: 1740-1752.

Philipsson, J. 1987. Standards andprocedures for international genetic evaluation ofdairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 70: 418-424.

Philipsson, J. 1998. Global use of bulls andthe “INTERBULL System”. Agric. Scand., Sect.A,Animal Science 1998: Supplement 29: 98-107.

Philipsson, J. 2000. Sustainability of dairycattle breeding systems utilising artificialinsemination in less developed countries-examplesof problems and prospects. ICAR Technical Seriesno. 3: 551-562.

Philipsson, J., J-Å. Eriksson &H. Stålhammar. 2005. Know-how transfer inanimal breeding-the power of integrated cow databases for farmer’s selection of bulls to improvefunctional traits in dairy cows. In: Knowledgetransfer in cattle husbandry. EAAP Publicationno. 117: 85-95.

Philipsson, J. & B. Lindhé. 2003. Experiencesof including reproduction and health traits inScandinavian dairy cattle breeding programmes.Livestock Production Science 83: 99-112.

Robertson, A. 1959. The sampling variance ofthe genetic correlation coefficient. Biometrics 15:469-485.

Rogers, G.W., G. Banos & U.S. Nielsen.1999. Genetic correlations among protein yield,productive life, and type traits from the UnitedStates and diseases other than mastitis fromDenmark and Sweden. Journal of Dairy Science 82:1331-1338.

Roxström, A. 2001. Genetic aspects of fertilityand longevity in dairy cattle. PhD thesis. ActaUniversitatis Agriculturae Sueciae, Agraria 276.Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,Uppsala, Sweden.

Schaeffer, L.R. 1994. Multiple-countrycomparisons of dairy sires. Journal of Dairy Science77: 2671-2678.

Sonesson, A.K. 2006. Assessing total profit ofalternative levels of co-operation between Nordiccattle populations. In: Project report: SustainableBreeding in the Nordic Red Dairy Breeds.

Sorensen, M.K., P. Berg, J. Jensen &L.G. Christensen. 1999. Stochastic simulation ofbreeding schemes for total merit in dairy cattle.Interbull Bulletin 23: 183-192.

Sorensen, A.C., M.K. Sorensen & P. Berg.2005. Inbreeding in Danish dairy cattle breeds.Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1865-1872.

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

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

43


Fikse & Philipsson

Stolzmann, M., H. Jasiorowski, Z.Reklewski, A. Zarnecki & G. Kalinowska. 1981.Friesian cattle in Poland. Preliminary results oftesting different strains. World Animal Review, 38:9-15.

Wall, E., S. Brotherstone, J.A. Woolliam,G. Banos & M.P. Coffey. 2003. Genetic evaluationof fertility using direct and correlated traits. Journalof Dairy Science 86: 4093-5102.

Weigel, K.A. 2001. Controlling inbreeding inmodern breeding programs. Journal of DairyScience 84 (E. supplement): E177-E184.

Zwald, N.R., K.A. Weigel, Y.M. Chang,R.D. Welper & J.S. Clay. 2004. Genetic selection forhealth traits using producer-recorded data. I.Incidence rates, heritability estimates, and sirebreeding values. Journal of Dairy Science 87:4287-4294.

puesta en valor de un sistema tradicional y de sus ... · paraje valle verde s/n cc 277 (8400),...

Documents