Review: Towards the agroecological management of ruminants, pigs and poultry through the development of sustainable breeding programmes: I-selection goals and criteria
F. Phocas,
C. Belloc,
J. Bidanel,
L. Delaby,
J.Y. Dourmad,
B. Dumont,
P. Ezanno,
L. Fortun-Lamothe,
G. Foucras,
B. Frappat,
E. González-García,
D. Hazard,
C. Larzul,
S. Lubac,
S. Mignon-Grasteau,
C.R. Moreno,
M. Tixier-Boichard,
M. Brochard
Affiliations
F. Phocas
GABI, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, 78350 Jouy-en-Josas, France
C. Belloc
INRA, Oniris, LUNAM Université, UMR1300 BioEpAR, CS40706, 44307 Nantes, France
J. Bidanel
IFIP-Institut du Porc, La Motte au Vicomte, 35650 Le Rheu, France
L. Delaby
PEGASE, INRA, AgroCampus, 35590 Saint Gilles, France
J.Y. Dourmad
PEGASE, INRA, AgroCampus, 35590 Saint Gilles, France
B. Dumont
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, Theix, 63122 Saint Genès-Champanelle, France
P. Ezanno
INRA, Oniris, LUNAM Université, UMR1300 BioEpAR, CS40706, 44307 Nantes, France
L. Fortun-Lamothe
GenPhySE, INRA, INPT, Université de Toulouse, INP-ENSAT, INP-ENVT, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
G. Foucras
IHAP, INRA, INPT, Université de Toulouse, INP- ENVT, 31076 Toulouse, France
B. Frappat
Institut de l’Elevage, 149 rue de Bercy, 75595 Paris, France
E. González-García
INRA, UMR868, Systèmes d’Elevage Méditerranées et Tropicaux (SELMET), Montpellier 34060, France
D. Hazard
GenPhySE, INRA, INPT, Université de Toulouse, INP-ENSAT, INP-ENVT, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
C. Larzul
GenPhySE, INRA, INPT, Université de Toulouse, INP-ENSAT, INP-ENVT, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
S. Lubac
Institut Technique de l’Aviculture, 23 rue Baldassini, 69 364 Lyon cedex 07, France
S. Mignon-Grasteau
URA, INRA, 37380 Nouzilly, France
C.R. Moreno
GenPhySE, INRA, INPT, Université de Toulouse, INP-ENSAT, INP-ENVT, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
M. Tixier-Boichard
GABI, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, 78350 Jouy-en-Josas, France
M. Brochard
Institut de l’Elevage, 149 rue de Bercy, 75595 Paris, France
Agroecology uses natural processes and local resources rather than chemical inputs to ensure production while limiting the environmental footprint of livestock and crop production systems. Selecting to achieve a maximization of target production criteria has long proved detrimental to fitness traits. However, since the 1990s, developments in animal breeding have also focussed on animal robustness by balancing production and functional traits within overall breeding goals. We discuss here how an agroecological perspective should further shift breeding goals towards functional traits rather than production traits. Breeding for robustness aims to promote individual adaptive capacities by considering diverse selection criteria which include reproduction, animal health and welfare, and adaptation to rough feed resources, a warm climate or fluctuating environmental conditions. It requires the consideration of genotype×environment interactions in the prediction of breeding values. Animal performance must be evaluated in low-input systems in order to select those animals that are adapted to limiting conditions, including feed and water availability, climate variations and diseases. Finally, we argue that there is no single agroecological animal type, but animals with a variety of profiles that can meet the expectations of agroecology. The standardization of both animals and breeding conditions indeed appears contradictory to the agroecological paradigm that calls for an adaptation of animals to local opportunities and constraints in weakly artificialized systems tied to their physical environment.