Policy Document, January 2003

POLICY DOCUMENT, JANUARY 2003

CANADIAN FARM ANIMAL GENETIC RESOURCES FOUNDATION

“THE NEED FOR AN ANIMAL GENETIC RESOURCE POLICY FOR CANADA”

THE CHALLENGE

Animal products provide Canadians with 70% of their protein, 35% of their energy, 80% of their calcium, 60% of their phosphorus, 40% of their iron, nearly all of their vitamin B₁₂ and substantial amounts of other nutrients. Farm cash receipts from animal agriculture represent 55% of all farm income. In spite of this there is virtually no effort in Canada to conserve animal genetic resources.

Canadian farmers, indeed farmers worldwide, want the best, most productive livestock and poultry they can buy. Being in a highly competitive, dynamic industry, there is constant striving for improved performance including, among other factors, greater efficiency of production, higher quality meat and eggs, and greater resistance to contemporary diseases. Primary breeders, Artificial Insemination services and other suppliers of farm animal genetics have responded by adopting very successful breeding programs to bring about rapid and constant improvement. However, this has resulted in considerable uniformity in the genotype of stock used in the major industrial countries. The goals and objectives are similar, and so the breeding stock tends to be similar too, even though it may come from several competing sources.

The swine industry is following closely in the footsteps of the poultry industry. Limited numbers of breeders, corporate amalgamations and industry concentration are rife. The beef industry is probably least affected at this point in time, but could soon follow the dairy breeders if certain conditions transpire. It is a common failing of the international breeders of all species that they do not retain any genetic reserves beyond those actively involved in their contemporary breeding programs. And they cannot be blamed: they are highly competitive and cannot extend their horizons beyond about ten years.

The emergence of new demands from customers, new disease situations, requirement to thrive on different feeding programs and environmental conditions, would create serious consequences for the livestock sectors, and eventually, customers.

The need for conservation is recognized by many, but individuals have little chance of accomplishing anything of value. The cost in time, resources and energy is simply too great. But the fact that crop agriculture has recognized the challenge, and acted upon it, should give us the needed incentive. The technology for plant germplasm preservation is not nearly as complex as it will be for animals. That is probably why it was more easily applied, at lower cost. But the challenge is clear for the world’s farm animal populations : begin a conservation program now, or face extremely great difficulties in the future.

There are three important steps in the process of conservation. They are, first, identification of the existing resources, second, evaluation of them in the context of conservation priority, and third, conservation where appropriate.

On an international basis, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has been working for several years in the area of animal germplasm conservation. Under its auspices, the World Watch List for Domestic Animal Diversity has reached its third edition, published in 2000. This is a partial inventory of the world’s animal genetic resources. A complete inventory is planned by FAO for publication in 2006. Every member country, including Canada, is working on its report for this inventory.

Some individual countries have established National Animal Germplasm programs to conserve their own animal resources. An example of this is the US National Animal Germplasm Program, established about ten years ago. This organization has its headquarters in Fort Collins, CO and has already begun to collect and store semen, ova and embryos from important species. Several European countries are in various stages of development of their national programs. So far, Canada has done nothing.

As indicated above, conservation of plant genetic resources has proceeded more rapidly. Several international facilities have been created, and the FAO has a good inventory of Plant genetic resources. Canada has a well-established Plant Germplasm Resources Centre at Saskatoon, created and funded by government. To ensure progress in the development of Animal Genetics Conservation, and indeed all Animal Research, the Foundation believes that a senior bureaucrat, with appropriate experience and authority, should be appointed at a senior level.

A Canadian Centre for Animal Germplasm Conservation is urgently needed to halt the loss of more Canadian farm animal genetic resources. Preserving contemporary stocks, breeds and lines considered threatened, and resources developed in the future, are all priority areas for such a centre. In addition, tax relief for breeders who contribute to the conservation should be introduced.

The conservation of live animals is considered the most expensive method, due to both initial and ongoing costs. Nevertheless, there must be some capability for live animal conservation because the science is lacking for cryopreservation in many cases. For example, freezing of poultry semen, while technically feasible, is unreliable. There is currently no method of preserving avian ova or embryos, due to their association with the large yolk mass which cannot be frozen and thawed without major changes in physical composition. Similarly, much research remains to be done to improve cryopreservation of gametes and embryos from swine and many other species.

The Canadian Centre for Animal Germplasm Conservation should consist of a research team to develop new technology, and a storage facility in which germplasm of various types can be preserved.

The Centre should also have the capability to directly and/or indirectly maintain an ongoing inventory of livestock and poultry breeds, strains and research populations so that early warning of possible losses can be provided, and action taken.

THE ACTIVITIES OF THE FOUNDATION

The Foundation has been extremely active in the past two years. In 2001, it commissioned a report, prepared by Dr. Larry Milligan, University of Guelph, entitled “Canada’s Livestock Animal Genetic Resource : Need for a National Conservancy Strategy”.

The Executive Summary of this Report reads :

“The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has recognized the major depletion of livestock genetic resources throughout the world and has taken action. FAO is, therefore, leading an international initiative to address the issue of conservation of livestock genetic resources and Canada is a participant in these discussions. Canada is expected to report and act effectively and seriously. However, within the country, conservation of livestock genetic resources is dealt with by scattered groups driven largely by their own determination, philanthropy and agenda. This does not constitute a meaningful national investment, or effort, in future livestock adaptability and advancement of livestock genomic knowledge.

There now must be national leadership and funding (i.e. appointment of an internationally recognized champion and a prestigious steering committee) dedicated to the immediate development and rapid implementation of an effective plan of action. This plan must be comprehensive in its involvement of people, research needs, collaborations and time lines.”

Foundation’s Conservation Assessment Committee

In the summer of 2002, the several of the Foundation’s Conservation Assessment sub-committees discussed priorities for conservation within individual species. Avian, beef, dairy and swine meetings were held. All these groups concluded that an Action Plan was urgently needed, and the Foundation commissioned Dr. Rob S. Gowe, former Director of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Centre for Food and Animal Research to prepare such a document. Part of Dr. Gowe’s report follows :

“The Canadian Farm Animal Genetics Resource Foundation (CFAGRF), industry specialists and scientists that work with animals and poultry breeding problems are convinced there is an urgent need for action on this subject. The first step is for a clear achievable plan to start preserving at-risk genetic material to prevent further losses. In a series of reports and articles, the CFAGRF has pointed out the general direction the Canadian Government should take to actively stop the loss of important genetic stocks, and also slow down the great loss in genetic variation that is taking place in several important, widely used domestic breeds of livestock and poultry. This report outlines a plan of action to achieve this goal.

Special sub-programs will be needed to take into account the current differential state of knowledge on techniques for preserving sperm, eggs and embryos of different species. There will need to be full cooperation from the different breed and species teams, and breed industry organizations, for the program to be successful. This has already been assured by the establishment by the Foundation of species committees and breed sub-groups. Their subsequent meetings and reports indicate full support for the priority needs and general approach proposed here. A standing technical committee of Canadian experts in the field of germplasm conservation will be required.

The need for systematic national programs to preserve genetic material has been recommended by knowledgeable and involved scientists for many years. A symposium on this subject with eight speakers under the chairmanship of Dr. I. Mason was presented at the 1^st World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production in 1974. In 1979, at an FAO Expert Consultation in India, the importance of the preservation of tropical breeds of dairy animals was the subject of several papers. In 1986, Dr. Barker of Australia, in a paper on the preservation of animal genetic resources, pointed out that for 25 years before then, the subject has been discussed but little action taken, and it is desperately needed. The USA has recently put in place a strong program for the preservation of their genetic resources. This program, summarized by Dr. Blackburn at the 7^th World Congress on Genetic Applied to Livestock Production in 2002, will include extensive cooperation with the breeding industry to ensure the program will not infringe on the private ownership of stocks, and procedures to ensure the owners are protected. Other countries are finally recognizing that action must be taken before it is too late. Plant scientists in Canada, the USA and many other countries recognized many years ago the need to preserve plant genetic material, and they have obtained the strong support of their governments. Canada has a very comprehensive program in this area. It is difficult to understand why there is not a similar program for livestock and poultry.”

In November 2002, members of the Foundation’s Executive Committee met with the Government Caucus on Post Secondary Education and Research. In his preamble, Foundation Chair’s, Dr Donald McQueen Shaver, introduced the concept of Livestock Genetic Resource Conservation :

“I have devoted a lifetime to food production and traveled the world in this cause. As a young man I was influenced by a quotation from Mahatma Gandhi : “The earth provides enough for each man’s need, but not every man’s greed.”

Governments support the preservation of many historic sites, ancient ruins and vast museums. These endeavours are of much interest to the public, but maintenance of the genetic material that provides food could be more significant to humanity.

Future world food supply will be heavily dependent on the availability of a substantial reserve of diverse genetic material within the main species of crops and animals.

One of the Foundation’s main objectives is to convince the Federal Government that Farm Animal Gene Conservation is an important societal responsibility, and the Government must assume the role of implementing a sound conservation program without delay.

Canada’s average annual Agricultural receipts approximate thirty billion dollars, the livestock and poultry sector accounts for 55 % of this, and the crop sector, 45 %. On the other hand, this year’s Federal Research budget for agriculture invests 47 % for plants and 10 % for animals. This investment disparity is long-standing.

Dr. Henry Friesen, Chairman of Genome Canada, writing in the Globe and Mail with reference to the Gairdner Awards for Science, stated : “The fact that the Gairdner Awards are Canadian and the fact that this year 10 of the world’s greatest genomic scientists have come to Toronto to accept their awards, is certainly a tribute to the Gairdner Foundation. But the fact that none of the scientists honoured is Canadian, is a marker of how committed we will have to be in providing research resources if Canada is to be a meaningful participant in the golden age of genomic science and discovery.”

Members of the Foundation Executive Committee then made presentations to the Caucus.

In his submission, Dr. Roger Buckland, former Dean of McGill University’s Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, stated :

“First I will outline the areas of expertise that should be included in the establishment of the “Canadian Centre for Animal Germplasm Conservation.” I will then outline how the human and physical resources might be put in place to achieve this. I will close with a comment on the administration of such a Centre and the role our Foundation might play.

EXPERTISE AND HUMAN RESOURCES

Under expertise I will outline research/conservation areas that in our view should be considered and indicate how they might be covered with a research team. The major focus of the work would be to develop Ex situ technologies for the conservation of farm animal genetic resources.

Cryopreservation of sperm, eggs and embryos and here there might be two scientists.
Poultry species are unique in that the advances in cryopreservation and other reproductive technologies lag far behind those of most mammalian species so a third scientist could be in this area.
Cloning should be covered and would involve a fourth scientist.
Pluripotential cell culture (stem cells) would require a fifth scientist.
Expertise in gene transfer would be required and represent a sixth scientist
For all of the above research/conservation thrusts, expertise in the endocrine control of reproduction would be required and represents a seventh scientist.
Finally a scientist would be required to work with the breed organizations and Canadian studs to assist them in their efforts in the conservation of farm animal genetic resources, to assess the requirements in each sector and to so build links between the Ex situ technologies of the Centre and their efforts. This would represent an eighth scientist.

Next is the question of how Canada can bring together a team such as this. First it is the Foundation’s view that it is not realistic to think that Canada can immediately go out and hire 8 scientists at a cost of $500,000 per scientist. This is what it costs to put a scientist in the field today. Rather it is obvious that for Canada to do this will require teamwork, collaboration and the sharing of resources by the Canadian scientific community. To accomplish this will require strong leadership.

To begin with, the Foundation believes that a critical core of scientists is vital as is the case with Plant Gene Resources of Canada. Thus the proposal of how Canada is to establish this Centre can be viewed from two aspects with respect to human resources. The first is to identify/hire a scientist who will be director of the Centre and to then have he/she be physically part of a team of 3 scientists and their support staff.

The second aspect is to identify scientists in Canada who can cover the remaining areas of expertise and to have them join the Centre while remaining at their existing locations. In order to have them direct some of their research efforts towards the objectives of the Centre discussions with NSERC and Agriculture and AgriFood Canada would be required to have them assign some resources to this priority. To develop a Centre taking this approach covering the above areas of expertise with the appropriate scientists as indicated would take 5 to 10 years.

EQUIPMENT AND PHYSICAL RESOURCES

For the core group of three scientists the laboratory equipment, in all likelihood, would have to be purchased.

We would like to emphasize that the Foundation believes that state of the art facilities will be required both for laboratories and the facilities for livestock and poultry stocks.

Livestock and poultry facilities will be required for experimental animals. To meet this need there are probably a number of facilities that can be brought under the umbrella of the Centre for its use. This could probably be done in part through renovation and in part through lease/contract arrangements.

Before leaving the area of physical resources I would like to make two points with respect to geography. The first is that the separation of sciences related to our Agri-food sector and the broad area of biological and environmental sciences no longer exists. Thus the Centre must be structured so that it can make full use of Canada’s scientific community. Secondly, livestock and poultry facilities will be required and there are some existing facilities in various locations in Canada.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE CENTRE AND ROLE OF THE FOUNDATION

The Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations recommends that each country establish a National Focal Point. Briefly they recommend that this include the Government, the commercial sector, training institutions and research institutions. What the Foundation sees is that a National Advisory Board might be structured in accordance with these suggestions and that the Foundation would take on this role and over the next year or so cease to exist as the Foundation and evolve into this advisory board.”

Dr. Buckland also presented a draft budget for the capital and operating costs of the Centre as proposed.

This was as follows :

Annual operating budget

	Three scientists	$1,500,000
	Livestock and poultry lease/contract arrangements	$ 500,000

	Total	$2,000,000

Annual fixed costs for a three-year period

	Equipment ($3,000,000 total)	$1,000,000
	Laboratory office space ($1,000,000 total)	$ 333,000
	Renovating existing livestock and poultry facilities ($3,000,000)	$1,000,000

	Total annual fixed costs	$2,333,000

In his closing remarks to the Caucus, Donald Shaver referred to Canada’s distinguished history in the field of animal and poultry research. Cuts and closures (specifically of the Animal Research Centre in Ottawa) have reduced this capability dramatically. Mr. Shaver suggested that sub-committees consisting of Caucus members and scientists might serve as review boards which would ensure that parliament is made aware of such proposals before the institutions are axed, and that they are examined in light of Canada’s long term national interest.

Following the Foundation’s interview with the caucus, Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) raised the question of Livestock genetics in a statement to the House of Commons (Hansard, Nov. 29^th, 2002)

“Mr. Speaker, diversity of species is a critical foundation of the success of life on the planet. In the same way, genetic diversity of livestock, cattle, hogs, poultry and so on in Canada, is the foundation of the quality and security of our food supply.

While Canada is doing a good job of nurturing the genetic diversity of food plants, we are doing little to preserve and promote livestock diversity. As a result we are depending upon fewer and fewer strains of farm animals. For example, most dairy cows in Canada are very closely related to each other. This is a dangerous situation in terms of risk of disease and future development of livestock varieties.

I urge that livestock genetics be given special attention in the budget. We need a national centre for the conservation of our research into livestock genetics like the one we have for plants in Saskatchewan. Let us listen to the Canadian Farm Animal Genetic Resources Foundation and act soon before it is too late.”

At the Foundation’s Annual Meeting on November 20^th, 2002, Dr. Steve Morgan Jones, from AAFC spoke on the subject of Livestock Genetic Conservation. He confirmed that AAFC has no resources currently invested, and relies on volunteer groups for this activity. He confirmed that AAFC has a major plant collection at the Centre in Saskatoon which is well funded. This centre exchanges genetic material worldwide. Dr. Morgan Jones went on to identify why a Livestock Germplasm Conservatory is needed, under the following headings :

• Importance of livestock to Canada’s agriculture (55% of farm income)

• Intensive agriculture: specialized breeds (poultry, pigs, dairy) and increasing susceptibility to disease

• Consumer expectations

• Major crises such as Foot and Mouth/Newcastle disease

• Potential to find useful genes in diverse populations

He then presented a budget recommendation as follows :

The Foundation members were impressed by the close similarity between Dr. Buckland’s and Dr. Morgan Jones’ estimates of the cost of establishing the Centre, even though these scientists worked completely independently.

The Foundation now believes that government action must follow swiftly and decisively. The establishment of a Canadian Centre for Animal Germplasm Conservation should become a priority for Agriculture and AgriFood Canada in the next few months. The Foundation looks forward to playing an appropriate part in this important development.

² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ²

Canadian Farm Animal Genetic Resources Foundation

Box 610 (civic: 20 Corporate Place) Brantford, ON, Canada N3T 5R4

Telephone : (519) 756-8300 ext. 211 Fax : (519) 756-5878

Top of Page

Return to home page