Review Sustainability - a challenge to anima production and breeding Heidi Torp-Donner, Jarmo Juga Department ofAnimal Science, FIN-00014 University ofHelsinki, Finland. Current address: Finnish Animal Breeding Association, PO Box 40, 01301 Vantaa, Finland, e-mail: heidi.torp@mloy.fi Prospects of sustainable animal breeding are briefly reviewed from the animal breeding point of view. The aspects of sustainability included are: ecological sustainability such as environmental sus- tainability and maintenance of biodiversity as well as ethical and economical sustainability. Environ- mental degradation can be reduced by intensive production at least on intermediate production levels. Biodiversity of livestock breeds can be maintained with globally diverse breeding goals containing several traits and with national conservation schemes for rare local breeds. Ethical sustainability can be taken into account by improving health and longevity traits. Production must also be economically profitable, otherwise it is not sustainable. In optimising all these aspects, the animal breeders have to lay down criteria for conservation programmes and re-evaluate breeding goals so that sustainability is taken into account. Key words', biodiversity, ecological, economical, environmental sustainability, ethical, sustainable livestock production ntroduction Sustainable livestock production means a pro- duction that is ecologically, taking into account the environment and biodiversity, ethically and economically sustainable. No concise, universal- ly acceptable definition of sustainable agricul- ture has yet emerged, but most agriculturists agree that the concept of sustainable agriculture is of paramount importance to the sustainability of our biosphere and its ever-increasing human population (Heitschmidt et al. 1996). Sustainable agricultural systems should maintain or enhance environmental quality, use non-renewable resources wisely, promote the maintenance of renewable resources including animal and plant biodiversity and promote eco- nomic viability. According to Vavra (1996) sus- tainable systems are those that exist in the over- lap of what the current generation wants for it- self and future generations and what is biologi- cally and physically achievable in the long run. In livestock production, sustainability could mean being able to harvest the same quantity of meat, milk or fibre from a given land base in- © Agricultural and Food Science in Finland Manuscript received May 1997 229 Vol. 6 (1997): 229-239. AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND https://www.c-info.fi/en/info/?token=19Vn9MYKOe4vnLqE.W16KQy-tXgN89jnGBzZmeA.PSRnlEqSNTFF_qYu3bhlgCUPoIz-jjouoD-T1D9Ueg1gvt8rE3zY_ugyho1Ru46pMal88Ox-BilzFaPcDN5isFoU25cCivPHzSvx6aLluEvxGcuejcVgT9jat-Kotjg9lWEpFXsVBHneMR4DJ-lyDMAIcJIAi7f3WO_eVf-vHWo7Wn5mekGr7z_A2xZtfncOBuMERq-GiF_-iAONgWbsPlsJZ5UAJqLe1V9te0AMXV1LreUtsVfiNZclv4bU5xu1AtSng2or9YGFKrP2SN0hZZ2VPHk Torp-Donner, H. & Juga, J. Sustainability - animal production and breeding definitely (Vavra 1996 and Heitschmidt et al. 1996). Because of the large heterogeneity of live- stock production systems, a system-specific anal- ysis is needed to evaluate all these criteria for sustainability. Research and extension services need to pro- vide leadership in developing alternative systems that provide the broad view of sustainability be- fore we are painfully forced into it by restrictive legislation (Vavra 1996).An environmental pro- gramme of agriculture resulting from the regu- lations of the European Union has already been prepared by the Ministry ofAgriculture and For- estry in Finland (The Ministry ofAgriculture and Forestry 1995). The requirements listed in the programme will lead to substantial investment costs for farmers and the effects of these costs on livestock production have not been studied. The goal of this review is to discuss the fol- lowing criteria that are used to describe sustain- able livestock production: 1) the environment: air, surface and groundwater quality and degra- dation, 2) the biodiversity of livestock, its meas- ures and the opportunities and dangers of bio- technology, 3) the ethical aspects of livestock production that consist of human attitudes and the welfare and health of animals, and 4) the economical aspects of the three previous crite- ria. Animal breeding methods that could enhance sustainable livestock production are also dis- cussed. Future research for defining and evalu- ating sustainability will also be suggested. Environment Air quality Emissions from agriculture into the air include methane (CH4 ), carbon dioxide(C02 ) and nitrous oxide (N20), which speed up climate change, as well as ammonia (NH ), which causes eutrophi- cation of the soil and water. Agriculture, espe- cially livestock production, is the main source of methane emissions in Finland (55% of all methane emissions). Emissions from other sources are not so great (Yläranta 1991). Emission of methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide can be reduced to some extent by new methods and technologies for manure and urine storage and handling. The major cause of methane emission is, however, ruminant digestion. That emission can be diminished by reducing the number of ani- mals and by optimising the feeding of animals. On the other hand, if food production needs to be maintained at the present level, one possible way to diminish methane emission is to increase the production efficiency per animal. Calcula- tions show that methane emissions are reduced from 30 g/kg of milk produced to 15 g/kg when annual milk production is increased from 4 000 kg ofmilk per animal to 8 000 kg (Flachovsky 1994). Surface and ground water quality Phosphorus and other nutrient loads in surface water is a major problem in Finland because of rainy autumns and melting snow in spring. Nu- trient loads in surface water cause eutrophica- tion. Over 80% of arable land in Finland is in grass production, which prevents the nutrient load from reaching the surface water. Livestock production is thus superior to crop production from the nutrient load point of view (The Minis- try of Agriculture and Forestry 1995). Nutrient load in surface water as well as in ground water can be diminishedby improved cultivation meth- ods and by increasing grass production. Preliminary calculations show a reduction in N-emissions from 337 g/kg of meat produced to 231 g/kg, when the daily growth of a beef ani- mal is increased from 800 g/day to 1600 g/day (Korhonen 1996). It is also estimated that the improvement of the production performance of animals realised in the last decade by improved breeding programmes has contributed to reduce the polluting power by, approximately 25% in swine and 30% in poultry (Matassino et al. 1991). These results suggest that increased effi- ciency is environmentally more sustainable than 230 AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND Table I. Total N- and P- emissions (kg) per 1 million kg product (meat or milk) and returns (FIM per kg N- or P- emission) in different production levels in meat and in dairy production. Meat production (g/day) Milk production (kg/year) 8(K) 1200 1600 4000 6000 8000 Return (FIM/year)" 3 998 5 998 7 997 7 840 11760 15 680 N (kg/1 mill.kg prod.) 2 > 326 300 243 100 224 000 "20 000 16 000 15 000 Return (FIM/N-kg) 43 57 62 98 123 131 P (kg/1 mill.kg prod.) 2 » 66 000 55 600 57 300 "3 000 2 000 1500 Return (FIM/P-kg) 210 250 242 653 980 1307 •> Evaluated from the basis of the mean producer prices in year 1995 paid in Finland (Maaseudun Tulevaisuus 23.3.1996). 2> Evaluated from the basis of calculations about feed costs and N- and P-emissions in meat production (Korhonen 1996). 3) Evaluated from the basis of calculations made by Flachowsky 1994. extensive goals. This is certainly the case for low and intermediate production levels, but more in- formation about environmental efficiency is still needed for very intense production systems. A very intense beef production system, which has a heavy reliance on fossil fuels and extra pro- tein foods to maintain a productive cow herd in regions where nutrient shortfalls are common, carries with it some ecological and economic risks (Heitschmidt et al. 1996). These risks arise from the assumption of the availability of cheap sources of exogenous energy and the potential disruption of critical life-supporting ecological systems due to continued generation of de- gradants (Heitschmidt et al. 1996). In Table 1 the incomes (FIM) are evaluated per kg of N- and P-emissions from manure and urine for dairy cows and for meat production. Dairy cows bring in twice as much money per kg of N emitted as do meat animals and the dif- ference in P-emission is even bigger. Thus milk production could better cover the costs that arise when accounting for environmentalaspects. The calculations also show that the financial incomes are proportionally higher when the production increases from a low production level to an in- termediate level than from an intermediate level to a high production level. The P-emissions pro- duced by meat production turned out to be even higher in high production levels than in inter- mediate production levels. Biologically sustainable husbandry systems for cattle and sheep can be achieved by sustain- able nutrient management. This implies fine tun- ing of nutrient (N, P and K) input and output to achieve and maintain agronomically desired and ecologically acceptable reserves of nutrients in the soil (Hermans and Vereijken 1994). The an- nual in- and output balance sheets of various nutrients at a farm or regional level should be maintained and the available soil reserves of nutrients should also be evaluated. Nutrient flows are as follows: nutrient input to an agri-environ- mental system comes from fertilisers, feeds and biological nutrient fixation and nutrient output contains products and manure, if transported from the farm, losses as nutrient volatilisation, run-off and leaching (Hermans and Vereijken 1994). Selection of livestock for efficiency of feed utilisation resulted in decreased losses in the poultry meat production cycle through manure, slaughter offal and mortality. Feed costs were also reduced and the slaughter yield was equiv- alent or improved when compared with selec- tion for growth rate (Leenstra and Ehlhardt 1994). These direct and correlated effects of se- lection of livestock on the efficiency of feed uti- 231 Vol. 6 (1997): 229-239. AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND Torp-Donner, H. & Juga, J. Sustainability - animal production and breeding lisation indicate good means for establishing environmentally acceptable poultry meat produc- tion. Two aspects did not favour the selection for efficiency of feed utilisation: the increased rearing period and the increased costs of the se- lection itself (Leenstra and Ehlhardt 1994). How- ever, if environmental degradation is included as an extra cost, it will make the more costly selec- tion of livestock profitable. Another important measure of production efficiency is the efficiency of converting vege- table energy and protein into meat or milk (Oltjen and Beckett 1996). Dairy production efficiency ranges from 96% to 276% on the basis of pro- duction of humanly consumable protein. The protein resulting from ruminant livestock pro- duction is of higher quality with greater biolog- ical value than the protein in the substrate feeds (Oltjen and Beckett 1996) Thus the argument that ruminant livestock belong in sustainable live- stock production is convincing. Biodiversity Biodiversity ofall ecosystems stabilises the func- tionsof these systems and their interactions with surrounding ecosystems. Thus, agri-ecosystems influence their surroundings and vice versa. Sus- tainable management of diversity in livestock production aims for the sustainable use of ge- netic resources and the maintenance of genetic variability for present and future needs. The Finnish agri-environmental programme pays pre- miums for preserving traditional biotopes and rare local breeds (The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 1996), which has sometimes been justified by the future needs of animal breeding, but has more to do with conserving the Finnish cultural heritage. The agri-ecosystem accounts for a small proportion of total biological diver- sity, but impact on human survival is of great importance. This means that agricultural biodi- versity enables continuous food production for man in different environments, but has little meaning if the evolution of all ecological biodi- versity is considered (Haila 1995). Specific ag- ricultural environments around the world impose biological limitations for the production animals, and thus breeding goals for specific environ- ments are needed, which on the other hand, en- hance global biodiversity (Beilharz et al. 1993). New mutations Variability between and within different species and breeds is caused by evolutionary forces like mutation, natural selection, isolation, migration and random drift. In proteins, neutral mutations are more frequent than the ones which are strong- ly selected against. Mutations provide new vari- ation, and thus new response in selection can be achieved. The effects of mutations are usually small or neutral, but the balance between muta- tions and selection the response to selection has been achieved in long-term selection pro- grammes, as the number of mutative loci is great in quantitative traits. Mutations with large ef- fects can cause new achievements or changes in breeding programmes (Hill 1989). Well-known examples of major genes in animal breeding are: the halothane gene in swine, the dwarf gene in poultry, the double muscling gene in cattle and the boorola gene in sheep (Mackay 1989). Many of these major genes have negative effects on viability and fertility. Mutations with negative effects on fitness are quickly eliminated. Thus variability caused by mutations is greater, the more neutral mutations are involved (Crow 1986). Nearly all mutations are lost in a few gen- erations through random genetic drift even if they were favourable, because their frequencies are low (mutation frequency / locus / generation = IOMO' 8 ). Maintenance of variation in breeding populations Selection decreases the genetic variance in breeding populations. The loss ofgenetic varia- 232 AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND tion depends on the intensity of the selection of the parents of the next generation, the heritabil- ity, the population size and the mating design (Falconer 1989). Even the use of modern pre- diction methods like the animal model BLUP accelerates the reduction in genetic variation due to within-family selection (Meuwissen and Woolliams 1994b). Use of marker-assisted se- lection might also result in a lower long-term selection response due to reduced genetic varia- bility (Gibson 1994). The population size is very important in maintaining biodiversity. When population size decreases, the inbreeding rate increases as does homozygosity. The increased inbreeding rate leads to a reduction in heterozygosity and to in- creased homozygosity in the population, which means decreased genetic variability. Heterozy- gosity as a measurement of variability describes to what extent variability remains in the popula- tion (Crow 1986). Heterozygosity in one locus can be calculated as: Het = 1 -X"' p 2,sl r, > where p is the frequency of an allele in a lo- cus and m is the number of different alleles. The mean ofheterozygosity in different loci indicates the genetic variability within a breed. Heterozy- gosity decreases in each generation by M 1Ne (Ne = effective population size) (Crow 1986). In large populations mutations balance genetic fixation, but in small populations a random increase in homozygosity is more probable. Hence breed- ers should ensure that the effective population size remains large in order to avoid losing varia- tion by random drift (Dempfle 1990). When the inbreeding rate increases, function- al traits such as reproduction and fitness decrease 3-5% per 10% increase in the inbreeding coef- ficient (Cunningham 1995). However, the de- crease in functional traits can also be due to neg- ative genetic correlations with the traits in breed- ing goals. On the other hand, fitness in a popu- lation can increase by natural selection that fa- vours more viable individuals. In the absence of correlated responses due to artificial selection, the critical population size, at which the increase in fitness due to natural selection and the de- crease due to inbreeding depression are in bal- ance is approximately: D I 2a wa, where D = the inbreeding depression with complete inbreeding and o = the additive genetic variance of fit- ness (Meuwissen and Woolliams 1994a). The correlations between quantitative pro- duction traits and the fitness traits affect the re- sponse to selection in the long term. If fitness is high at an optimum level of production traits, the selection for fitness will maintain variability in production traits in the long term (Hill 1989). If fitness declines due to a correlated negative response to artificial selection, then a large in- crease in the critical population size is needed. However if the negative response is larger than the response to natural selection, a reduction in fitness cannot be prevented. Effective population sizes that prevent a decline in fitness are usually greater than those which maximise the genetic gain of production efficiency, so the former is a more stringent restriction on effective popula- tion size (Meuwissen and Woolliams 1994a). Another requirement for population size is set by the need to reduce uncertainties in predicting the changes from the selection applied (Meuwis- sen and Woolliams 1994b). The between-breed variation in quantitative traits is often overlapping, which means that the breeds are alike. Therefore it is difficult to use quantitative traits to determine exact differenc- es between the breeding populations and hence to define criteria for conservation purposes. This means that small populations with overlapping variation could be jointly used as a breeding population with lower risk of inbreeding and better chances to compete with other breeding populations. Since future needs cannot be predicted, the easiest way to maintain variability is to main- tain pure breeds either with in situ or ex situ methods. The best way to do this is to maintain several competitive breeds in production, be- cause ex situ maintenance and the introgression for future needs is more expensive and time con- suming than the maintenance in situ (Smith 1984). 233 Vol. 6 (1997): 229-239. AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND Torp-Donner, H. & Juga, J. Sustainability - animal production and breeding Implications to breeding programmes A practical question in any conservation pro- gramme is the level ofdiversity to be maintained. How much of the diversity has to be maintained within a country, or does global diversity be- tween the different countries satisfy the neces- sary level of diversity? In addition to the poten- tial loss of breeds, there can be a potentially high loss of genes within a breed. In cattle, for exam- ple, this has been accelerated by new techniques such as artificial insemination, including frozen semen, multiple ovulation and embryo transfer, which makes it possible to use the same animals in many countries, and new genetic evaluation methods as the animal model BLUP (Hodges 1991). The aim in conserving local and rare breeds is complex. The importance of conservation of such breeds for future animal breeding is diffi- cult to forecast and involves high costs compared to the possible gains. The original breeds should be maintained because of their possible special traits in production or, as for example in devel- oping countries, the adaptation to local climate or better resistance to local diseases. More im- portant to many countries is, however, the cul- tural heritage. This means that global conserva- tion programmes will have problems in defining which conservation programmes should be fi- nanced. Hence the funding of these programmes would be more logical on a national basis and global funds shouldbe reserved for programmes in developing countries. Rapid changes are taking place for example in the black and white dairy cattle populations due to the impact of the North American Hol- stein. In theFinnish Friesian population, the pro- portion of Holstein genes has increased during the past ten years. In Friesian cows born in 1980, the proportion of Holstein genes was only 2%, but in cows born in 1990 the proportion was 31%. In Finnish Friesian bulls the proportion of Hol- stein genes was 26.5% and 56.8%, respectively. In otherFinnish dairy breeds some changes have also occurred in breed contribution, but the changes have been much smaller than in Finn- ish Friesian cattle (Lidauer, personal communi- cation). The management of genetic variability in Finnish dairy breeds is monitored by Al-associ- ations freezing sperm in long-term storage. How- ever, the conservation of genetic material is not explicitly included in the breeding programme. The national breeding goals maintain genet- ic variability within a breed if the goals differ between countries. For example the use of Hol- stein breed has spread to many countries, but if the breeding goals are not the same, the differ- ent lines of Holstein will increase the diversity between the countries. Diverse national breed- ing goals which include many traits should main- tain genetic diversity both globally and locally, although this has not been quantified in any re- search report to date. Goddard (1992) has shown that if the genet- ic correlation between the breeding goals in two countries is 0.60 at most, countries tend to se- lect different bull sires. A pilot study on Finnish Ayrshire bulls gave a correlation of 0.84 between the total merit indices in Sweden and Finland, 0.66 between Norway and Finland and 0.84 be- tween Norway and Sweden. The Nordic coun- tries share a preference for breeding for total economic merit which includes yield traits and functional traits. The correlations suggest that some common bull sires could be used in Nor- dic breeding, but that the breeding goals are far from a consensus. The total rate of genetic gain increases con- siderably by increasing population size. Com- bining all Nordic red dairy cattle populations would increase the totalrecorded population size to 757 800, the total performance testing capac- ity to 1 110 and the total number of young bulls progeny tested to 450 (Lindhé 1995) and hence improve the management ofgenetic resources in red breeds. in pigs, the genetic process for reducing fat and increasing the percentage of lean meat has been rapid in many countries and has been ac- companied by problems in meat quality and stress susceptibility, especially in some Landrace populations in which the halothane gene has ap- 234 AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND proached the frequency of 0.9 (Hodges 1991). In the Finnish swine population, the eradication of halothane gene was very effective, and the gene was culled rapidly from both Finnish pig breeds, Landrace and Yorkshire (Puonti and Schulman 1988).The animal model BLUP -eval- uations have been calculated for fertility traits (Nylander and Mäntysaari 1991) and for produc- tion traits (Haltia et al. 1993), but more research is needed to achieve sustainable breeding goals. Similar selection goals for both Finnish Landrace and Finnish Yorkshire have already increased the similarity of these breeds. Ethical aspects Human attitudes Ethical aspects of livestock production methods should be evaluated together with technical and economical aspects before including them in animal production. The ethical evaluation done by consumers is, however, based on attitudes and not on research facts. In a contingent evaluation research study (Siikamäki, personal communi- cation) on the willingness of consumers to pay more for the decrease in use of pesticides in ag- riculture, it was concluded that consumers are willing to pay a somewhat higher price for a product to lower the use of pesticides in Finland, but they do not ask for a total ban on pesticides. In another study (Sihvonen 1993) it was conclud- ed that consumers are ready to pay something to improve animal production from an ethical point of view. Organic products, which also have high- er prices, have been selling quite well, so some consumers are acting on the basis of their atti- tudes. However, in the long run difficultiesmight arise in marketing organic products with higher prices, if their supply increases. It is also not clear that consumers will ac- cept genetic manipulation in food products. The ethical aspects of new breeding techniques like marker-assisted selection and gene transfer should also be included in future breeding goals. That is why optimised production, known as “In- tegrated Production” (El Titi et al. 1993), will probably be the future trend, when considering all aspects affecting sustainable production. The welfare and health of production animals Breeding methods for sustainable and healthy animals which have genetic resistance to produc- tion-related diseases should be taken into con- sideration more in future breeding goals, when production levels increase. Yield traits are in fact genetically negatively correlated to fertility traits (Pösö and Mäntysaari 1996b) and udder health (Pösö and Mäntysaari 1996a). New techniques of marker-assisted selection might offer possi- bilities for selection based on traits that affect production sustainability or production-linked disease resistance especially in traits that have low heritability. In research concerning breeding and animal welfare, the economic influence of health and diseases shouldbe evaluated in more detail.The economic, as well as the ethical impact of a pro- duction related-disease is always negative, so breeding goals for animal health also warrant more research in the future. Economic aspects Costs and premiums in Finland Modelling sustainability economically, ecolog- ically and ethically forces us to evaluate costs and benefits from a new perspective compared to previous production methods. The environ- mental and ethical aspects are very difficult to evaluate in monetary terms, but they should be taken into account in the modelling of produc- tion which optimises environmental and econom- ical aspects in every production scheme (El Titi 235 Vol. 6 (1997): 229-239. AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND Torp-Donner, H. & Juga, J. Sustainability - animalproduction and breeding et al. 1993). The focus should be on merging ecology and economics so as to ensure that what is economically sound in the short term is eco- logically sound in the long term (Heitschmidt et al. 1996). In the Finnish agri-environmental programme the costs of environmental protection are evalu- ated and premiums are paid to farmers accord- ing to those evaluations. The premiums for live- stock production that are paid at the moment are for: organic production, riparian zones, treatment of run-off waters from arable land, balanced use of manure nutrients, landscape and biodiversity management, extensive production and produc- tion based on local breeds (The Ministry of Ag- riculture and Forestry 1995). Costs of sustainable breeding strategies The conservation of genetic material generates extra costs, but the possible returns may also be large. Unfortunately thereturns are hard to quan- tify because future needs and conditions cannot be predicted. Some principles in conservation are: to store small samples of many stocks, to choose diverse stocks, to store stocks with spe- cial traits and to store locally adapted breeds (Smith 1984). However, continuous genetic im- provement in current stocks may make it increas- ingly difficult for unimproved conserved stocks to compete, unless there are reversals in breed- ing goals or drastic changes in husbandry prac- tices (Smith 1984). The expected benefit (B ) in any year might be expressed by the equation: B = P (R - R 0) - nC, where P is the probability that one of the conserved stocks has a perform- ance greater than the original stock and so has an economic return R which is higher than the return R () from the original stocks, and n stocks are stored, each at cost C (Smith 1984). With many stocks stored, the probability of getting one stock with better performance than the original is increased. However, the above equation does not include the costs of introgression and test- ing the new genes or animals. Those costs might become substantial especially ifthere is only one gene wanted from the conserved stock, which also could be probable (Groen and Smith 1995). The costs of gene transfer and testing are at present high, so the benefit should also be very large (Smith 1984). Very long-term support programmes, partic- ularly at high discountrates, require an enormous ultimate pay off if the costs are to be recovered (Cunningham 1995). However, the normal hori- zon for such programmes is similar to a human generation, and discount rates of under 5% are commonly applied in cases like this. As a rough guide, one could say that an expected benefit of 100-200 times the annual cost could repay a 50- year investment in the conservation of a breed (Cunningham 1995). The probability of a bene- ficial characteristic being found in the future from a gene bank population is very small. ndicators of sustainability Proposals for implementation Heinonen(1995) proposed modelling for sustain- able agriculture in an index form. This index aims to combine all the aspects that influence sustainability of agriculture systems and contains eight main indicators, all of which contain sev- eral variables. It is built to have values from 0 to 10, where 10describes a wholly sustainable pro- duction system. The indicators are: I) Human (the enjoyability of work); 2) Dependence on outside energy (fertilisers, etc.); 3) Environmen- tal effects; 4) Economics; 5) Biological efficien- cy; 6) Animal (need, etc.); 7) Social aspects; 8) Soil (erosion, etc.) (Heinonen 1995). This kind of model cannot be used in divergent produc- tion systems as the principles are quite general, but the main idea could be applied to divergent livestock production systems although more re- search for the modelling is needed. In another research paper about the possibil- ities of modelling sustainability, the criteria were derived from explicit but complex issues of un- 236 AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND sustainability (de Wit et al, 1995), which result- ed in the conclusion that a system-specific anal- ysis is needed to assess the overall effect oflive- stock inclusion in an agricultural system on each of the proposed general criteria for sustainabili- ty. The criteria of unsustainability in thatresearch were defined as: land scarcity, soil degradation, inefficient use of resources, environmental deg- radation and declining biodiversity (de Wit et al. 1995). The criteria were quite general, and from these criteria it is a long way to developing prac- tical measurements of sustainability of livestock production. Discussion The environmental effects of breeding pro- grammesare of great importance for future live- stock production. If food production is to be maintained at the present level, it is unwise to decrease the intensity of production, when the increased number of animals would thus produce more negative environmental effects. At least at intermediate levels, more intense production decreases degradation. However, it is not clear how much of the degradation, such as methane emissions, does not recycle naturally into grass and crop production for livestock food. Nor is it obvious that increased intensification will reduce environmental problems at very intense levels. The interactions between divergent environ- ments, management systems and intensity lev- els and production traits should be evaluated to find a sustainable way of animal production. The traits that affect the longevity ofanimals, like viability, health, genetic resistance and fer- tility, have lower heritability than do production traits, and thus genetic progress in those traits is not as easy to attain with traditional breeding methods. However, these traits are of great im- portance in ethical livestock production and their impact on economics is often ignored. In big European livestock production countries, these traits are not included in the breeding goals as they are in Nordic countries. Alternative breed- ing programmes (e.g. MOET), the use of new techniques like marker-assisted selection and biotechnological methods like gene transfer should be studied, to discover how they enhance achievements in breeding, especially for traits that have low heritability, and how they can in- crease the competitiveness of differentbreeding populations and hence maintain genetic diversi- ty. Although it is not clear that consumers will accept genetic manipulation in food products, the ethical aspect should be studied all the same time. Genetically variable populations are more capable of adapting to in new situations than populations that have been developed for very narrow breeding goals. Therefore the genetic diversity of production animals should be eval- uated on a national basis as well as on a global basis. The breeding goals for each breed should be evaluated considering the special traits that should be maintained and used in production. Also the effects of breeding programmes on ge- netic diversity should be evaluated both nation- ally and globally. The possible costs and bene- fits due to gene conservation programmes and introgression should be taken in account when planning breeding and conservation pro- grammes. Finally, a criteria on which breed con- servation is based should be laid down. Acknowledgements. We are grateful to Esa Mäntysaari, the editor ofAgricultural and Food Science in Finland, profes- sor Kalle Maijala, the staff at theAgricultural University of Norway and two referees for theiruseful comments. 237 Vol. 6 (1997): 229-239. AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND Torp-Donner, H. & Juga, J. Sustainability- animal production and breeding References Beilharz, R., Luxford, B. & Wilkinson J. 1993. Quantita- tive genetics and evolution: Is our understanding of genetics sufficient to explain evolution? Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 110/3: 161-170. Crow, J.F. 1986. Basic concepts in population, quantita- tive, and evolutionary genetics. W.H. Freeman and company, New York. 273 p. Cunningham, P. 1995. Genetics, origin and conservation of domestic bovids. 35 p. (Mimeogr. available at De- partment of Genetics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ire- land). Dempfle, L. 1990. Conservation, creation, and utilization of genetic variation. Journal of Animal Science 73: 2593-2600. El Till, A., Boiler, E.F. & Gendrier, J.P. 1993. Integrated Production. Principles and Technical Guidelines. lOBC/WPFIS Bulletin 16, 1: 1-38. Falconer, D.S. 1989. Introduction to quantitative genet- ics. Fourth edition, Longman Scientific & Technical, USA. 464 p. Flachovsky, G. 1994. Sind unsere Milchkuhe “Umwelts- under"? Milchrind. Journal fur Zuchtung, Biotech- nologie und Leistungsprufung 4/94: 12-15. Gibson, J.P. 1994. Short-term gain at the expence of long term response with selection of identified loci. In: Proceedings of the sth WGALP. Vol. 21. p. 201-204. Goddard, M. 1992. Optimal effective population size for the global population of black and white dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 75: 2902-291. Groen, A.F. & Smith, C. 1995. A stochastic simulation study of the efficiency of marker-assisted introgres- sion in livestock. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 12/95: 161-170. Haila, Y. 1995. Biodiversiteetti ja luonnonsuojelu. In: Hiedanpää, J. (ed.) Biodiversity and production. Satakunnan ympäristön tutkimuskeskus & Porin kou- lutus- ja tutkimuskeskus, p. 27- 40. Haltia, S. & Mäntysaari, E, 1993. Eläinmalli on tulossa kantakoeindeksien laskentaan. Sika 4/95: 5. Heinonen, E. 1995. Kestävän kehityksen mukainen maataloustuotanto Suomessa. Maa-ja Metsätalous- ministeriö, Luonnonvaraneuvosto. MMM.n julkaisuja 3/1995. 54 p. Heitschmidt, R.K., Short, R E. & Grings, E.E. 1996. Eco- systems, sustainability, and animal agriculture. Jour- nal of Animal Science 74: 1395-1404. Hermans, C.M.L. & Vereijken, P.H. 1994. Grazing hus- bandry based on sustainable nutrient management. In: Biological basis of sustainable animal production. EAAP Publication No. 67. p. 113-122. Hill, W. 1989. Mutation and maintenance of quantitative genetic variation. In: Hill, W. & Mackay, T.F.C. (eds.). Evolution and Animal Breeding. Reviews on molecu- lar and quantitative approaches in honour of Alan Robertson. C.A.B. International, p. 105-111. Hodges, J. 1991. Sustainable development of animal genetic resources. World review of animal zootech- nie. Animal Genetic Resources 3/91. p. 2-10. Kimura, M. 1989. Neutral theory. In: Hill, W. & Mackay, T.F.C. (eds.). Evolution and animalbreeding.Reviews on molecular and quantitative approaches in honour of Alan Robertson. C.A.B. International, p. 13-16. Korhonen, T. 1996. Tuotosjalostus tukee kestävää kehi- tystä. Nauta 3/96. p. 26-27. Leensfra, F.R. & Ehlhardt, D.A. 1994. Breeding goals for intensive but sustainable poultry meat production. In: Biological basis of sustainable animal production. EAAP Publication No. 67. p. 169-175. Lindhé, B. 1995. Volvo-Qualität in Skandinaviens Stäl- len. Tierzuchter A/95. p. 30-33. Mackay, T. 1989. Mutation and the origin of quantitative variation. In: Hill, W. & Mackay, F. (eds.). Evolution and Animal Breeding. Reviews on molecular and quantitative approaches in honour of Alan Robert- son. C.A.B. International, p. 111-119. Matassino, D., Zucchi, G. & di Berardino, D. 1991. Man- agement of consumption, demand, supply and ex- changes. EAAP Publication No. 48: 105-126. Meuwissen, J. & Woolliams, J. 1994a. Effective sizes of livestock populations to prevent a decline in fitness. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 89; 1019-1026, - & Woolliams, J, 1994b. Response versus risk in breeding schemes. Proceedings of the sth World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Produc- tion. Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Vol. 18, p. 236-243. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 1995. The agri- environmental programme for Finland. MMM 17.2.1995, updated in 20.10.1995. 42 p. - 1996. Uusiutuvat luonnonvarat jabiologinen monimuo- toisuus. MMM:n biodiversiteettityöryhmän ehdotus monimuotoisuuden kestävästä käytöstä. Työryhmä- muistio 1/1996. 79 p. Nylander, A. & Mäntysaari, E. 1991.Valtakunnalliset ar- vostelut eläinmallilla. Sika 2/91. p.B. Oltjen, W. & Beckett, L. 1996. Role of ruminant livestock in sustainable agricultural systems. Journal of Ani- mal Science 74: 1406-1409. Pösö, J. & Mäntysaari, E. 1996a. Relationships between clinical mastitis, somatic cell score, and production for the first three lactations of Finnish Ayrshire. Jour- nal of Dairy Science 79: 1284- 1291. - & Mäntysaari, E. 1996b. Genetic relationships be- tween reproductive disorders, operationaldays open and milk yield. Livestock Production Science 79: 41- 48. Puonti, M. & Schulman, A. 1988, Eradication of haloth- ane gene from Finnish pig population. In: VI World conference on animal production, Helsinki, p. 478. Sihvonen, T. 1993. KotieläintuotteidenJa -tuotannoneet- tisyys taloudellisena tekijänä. Maatalouspolitiikan pro gradu -työ. Helsingin yliopiston taloustieteen laitos. 80 p. Smith, C. 1984. Genetic aspects of conservation in farm livestock. Livestock Production Science 11: 37-48. Vavra, M. 1996. Sustainability of animal production sys- tems: an ecological perspective. Journal of Animal 238 AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND Science 74: 1418-1423. Wit, J, de, Oldenbrock, J.K., van Keulen, H. & Zwart, D. 1995. Criteria for sustainable livestock production; a proposal for implementation. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 53: 219-229. Yläranta, T. 1991. Maataloustuotannon vaikutus kasvi- huoneilmiöön Suomessa. Kasvihuonekaasu- päästöjen vähentäminen. Maatalouden tut- kimuskeskus, Tiedote 5/1991. 18 p. SELOSTUS Kestävän kehityksen vaatimukset kotieläintuotannossa ja -jalostuksessa Heidi Torp-Donner ja Jarmo Juga Helsingin yliopisto Kestävän maataloustuotannon tavoitteena on käyttää luonnonvaroja taloudellisesti, yhteiskunnallisesti ja ekologisesti kestävällä tavalla. Kestävä käyttö ei ku- luta pääomaa, vaan luonnonvarojen uusiutumiskyky säilyy ja niiden määrä pysyy vähintään entisen suu- ruisena, Luonnon elinkykyä ylläpitää myös lajien si- säinen ja niiden välinen monimuotoisuus eli geneet- tinen diversiteetti. Biodiversiteetin säilyttäminen ta- kaa myös ekosysteemien monimuotoisuuden, mikä edellyttää monenlaisten kasvu-ja elinpaikkojen ole- massaoloa. Tämä kirjallisuuskatsaus perehtyy koti- eläintuotannon ja kotieläinten jalostuksen vaikutuk- siin ja mahdollisuuksiin kestävän kehityksen turvaa- misessa. Lisätutkimusta tarvitaan optimoitujen jalos- tusohjelmien löytämiseksi, sillä tuotannon intensitee- tin nousu/eläinyksikkö keskinkertaisilla tuotostasoilla vähentää ympäristöhaittoja, mutta tuotantointensisee- tin edelleen noustessa ei ympäristöhaittojen vähene- minen enää olekaan selvää. Oikea painotus kestävyy- den, eettisten arvojen, taloudellisuuden ja tuotanto- ominaisuuksien välillä on löydettävä. Kaikkia jalostuskohteita ei biodiversiteetin takia kannata ottaa yhteen jalostusohjelmaan, vaan eri- koisominaisuuksien säilyttämisen taloudellinen arvo eri roduilla on arvioitava. Kestävyyden, tuotantosai- rauksien ja geneettisen resistenssin periytymisasteet tulee määrittää, jotta voidaan löytää edistymisen kan- nalta tarkoituksenmukaiset painotukset. Lisäksi uu- sien tekniikoiden, kuten alkionsiirron, geenisiirron ja markkeriavusteisen valinnan käyttöä jalostuksen edis- täjinä ja monimuotoisuuden ylläpitäjinä varsinkin heikosti periytyvissä terveys-, hedelmällisyys- ja re- sistenssiominaisuuksissa on mahdollisuuksien mu- kaan tehostettava. Eri ominaisuuksien vuorovaikutukset eri ruokin- tamuotojen, tuotantoympäristöjen ja olosuhteiden kanssa vaihtelevat ja järkevä yhdistelmä saattaa olla hyvinkin erilainen eri maissa. Juuri tähän erilaistu- miseen pohjautuu jalostuspopulaatioiden maailman- laajuinen vaihtelu. Kukin tuotantoeläinlaji ja -systee- mi on mallitettava eri pääkohdat huomioon ottaen. Geenipankkitoiminnan ja säilytettyjen geenien käyt- töönoton todelliset taloudelliset kustannukset ja hyö- dyt vaihtelevat suuresti säilytettävän rodun erikois- ominaisuuksien taloudellisten käyttö-ja kulttuuriarvo- jen mukaan. Kansallisten jalostustavoitteiden vaiku- tus perinnölliseen muunteluun maailmanlaajuisesti juuri erikoistumalla on merkittävää ja erilaisilla ja- lostusohjelmilla on mahdollisuuksia säilyttää useampi jalostuspopulaatio kilpailukykyisenä. Tuotannon kokonaisvaltainen mallittaminen eri aloilla tulee olemaan ehto kestävälle kehitykselle. Jalostuksen sopeuttaminen kestävän kehityksen vaa- timuksiin ei ole ristiriidassa nykyisen linjan kanssa, vaan kyse on järkevästi toteutettavasta optimointipro- sessista. 239 Vol. 6 (1997): 229-239. AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND