Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T07:16:25.566Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conserving animal genetic resources: making priority lists of British and Irish livestock breeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

S.J.G. Hall
S.J.G. Hall*
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lincoln, Riseholme Hall, Lincoln, LN2 2LG, UK
Get access

Abstract

Prioritisation of livestock breeds for conservation is agreed to depend upon the genetic distinctiveness of breeds, on census data and degree of endangerment, and on other factors relating to the present, future, or past function of the breeds in the livestock industry. How these factors can be combined to yield a prioritised list needs to be considered. An objective framework for prioritisation can be deduced if breeds are compared with each other by plotting genetic distinctiveness against distinctiveness of function. In this paper, the native British and Irish cattle breeds (n = 31 commercial, minority and rare breeds) have been prioritised in this way. Those with highest conservation priority are Chillingham, Gloucester, Guernsey, Jersey, Shetland and Irish Moiled. The 25 native British sheep breeds that are not on the Rare Breeds Survival Trust (RBST) Watchlist were also considered. The structure of the British sheep industry means that functional distinctiveness of breeds is not easily deduced. The only fully comparable characterisation data relate to wool fibre fineness class, so genetic distinctiveness was plotted against distinctiveness of this attribute. The non-rare breeds with highest conservation priority by this measure were Herdwick, Hampshire Down and Clun Forest.

Type
Section 4: Conservation in action
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 30: Farm Animal Genetic Resources , 2004 , pp. 311 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barker, J.S.F., Tan, S.G., Moore, S.S., Mukherjee, T.K., Matheson, J.-L. and Selvaraj, O.S. 2001. Genetic variation within and relationships among populations of Asian goats (Capra hircus). Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 118: 213–233.Google Scholar
Barker, J.S.F. 2002. Relevance of animal genetic resources and differences to the plant sector. Landbauforschung Völkenrode, special issue 228: 15–21.Google Scholar
Crandall, K.A., Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P., Mace, G.M. and Wayne, R.K. 2000. Considering evolutionary processes in conservation biology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15: 290–295.Google Scholar
Hall, S. J. G. and Bradley, D. G. 1995. Conserving livestock breed biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10: 267–270.Google Scholar
Hall, S.J.G. and Clutton-Brock, J. 1988. Two Hundred Years of British Farm Livestock. British Museum (Natural History), London, UK.Google Scholar
Hall, S.J.G. and Moore, G.F. 1986. Feral cattle of Swona, Orkney Islands. Mammal Review 16: 89–96.Google Scholar
NSA. 1982. British Sheep. Sixth edition. National Sheep Association, Tring, Hertfordshire, UK.Google Scholar
Ruane, J. 1999. A critical review of the value of genetic distance studies in conservation of animal genetic resources. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 116: 317–323.Google Scholar
Ruane, J. 2000. A framework for prioritising domestic animal breeds for conservation purposes at the national level: a Norwegian case study. Conservation Biology 14:1385–1393.Google Scholar
Scherf, B.D. 2000. World Watch List for Domestic Animal Diversity. 3rd edition. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Simm, G. 1998. Genetic Improvement of Cattle and Sheep. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar