A Framework for Prioritizing Domestic Animal Breeds for Conservation Purposes at the National Level: a Norwegian Case Study

Abstract

Although encompassing only a handful of species, domestic animals have had profound effects on food production for humankind and on human societies. On a global basis, a large proportion of breeds are currently in danger of becoming extinct in the near future. At this critical time, resources are limited and only a selected number of breeds may be supported by concrete conservation programs. I present a framework to facilitate decision making on a national level as to which breeds to support for conservation. These decisions should be made by a national committee of experts experienced with the different breeds and species. First, they must define the species of interest. Second, they should collate as much data as possible and score each breed for key criteria: degree of endangerment, presence of traits of current economic value, presence of traits of current scientific value, agroecological value in a special landscape, cultural‐historical value, and genetic uniqueness. The degree of endangerment is the most important criterion because great uncertainty about the future means that all breeds may have traits of future economic or scientific value, so the main aim should therefore be to minimize loss of breeds. To illustrate use of the framework, I considered breed prioritization in Norway. I compared and scored 45 breeds from 17 domestic animal species for these key criteria and thus identified Norwegian breeds of high priority for conservation.

Conservation priorities for Ethiopian sheep breeds combining threat status, breed merits and contributions to genetic diversity

“…The primary objective of livestock conservation for developing countries is conservation for sustainable use [22,25]. Conservation is not only about endangered breeds but also about those that are not being utilized efficiently [1].…”

“…However, the human socio-political context needs to be fully understood for conservation priorities to have any impact on human livelihoods [19]. Ruane [22] proposed a framework that incorporates both genetic diversity and non-genetic criteria for prioritizing breeds at the national level. However, applications of this framework are lacking and conservation priorities have largely been based solely on contributions of breeds to genetic diversity.…”

Genetic diversity of Guernsey population using pedigree data and gene-dropping simulations

“…Although there are several criteria to prioritize breeds for conservation programs (Bennewitz and Meuwissen, 2005), the endangerment status of breeds is the most important criterion (Ruane, 2000), which can be expressed in terms of the effective population size. The N e of GSA and GUS population was reported to be higher (165 and 65, respectively) in the past (Weigel, 2001;Maiwashe et al, 2006) than the results observed in this study.…”

An assessment of European pig diversity using molecular markers: Partitioning of diversity among breeds

“…This is indeed reflected in the diversity observed for both markers. Marker diversity, even though properly evaluated, needs to be completed by more detailed breed characterisation, as pointed out by several authors (Ruane 2000;Barker 2001;Alderson 2003). This implies setting a balance between genetic diversity and genetic merit, as the latter may be ''perceived'' (Chaiwong and Kinghorn 1999;Piyasatian and Kinghorn 2003), or, more generally, between distinctiveness and utility (Weitzman 1998).…”