Socioeconomic causes of loss of animal genetic diversity: analysis and assessment
The number of breeds of domesticated animals, especially livestock, have declined rapidly. The proximate causes and processes involved in loss of breeds are outlined. Also the path-dependent effect and Swanson’s dominance-effect are discussed in relation to lock-in of breed selection. While these effects help to explain genetic erosion, they need to be supplemented to provide further explanation of biodiversity loss. In the respect, it is shown that the extension of markets and economic globalisation have contributed significantly to the loss of breeds. In addition, the decoupling of animal husbandry from surrounding natural environmental conditions, particularly industrialised intensive animal husbandry, is further eroding the stock of genetic resources. Recent trends in animal husbandry raise serious sustainability issues, apart from animal welfare concerns.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Seidl, Irmi & Tisdell, Clement A., 2000.
"Neglected Features of the Safe Minimum Standard: Socio-economics and Institutional Dimensions,"
Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers
48000, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
- Irmi Seidl & Clem Tisdell, 2001. "Neglected Features of the Safe Minimum Standard: Socio-economic and Institutional Dimensions," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(4), pages 417-442.
- Romer, Paul M, 1990.
"Endogenous Technological Change,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 71-102, October.
- Romer, Paul M, 1990.
"Are Nonconvexities Important for Understanding Growth?,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 97-103, May.
- Paul Romer, 1990. "Are Nonconvexities Important For Understanding Growth?," NBER Working Papers 3271, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Clem Tisdell, 2000.
"Coevolution, agricultural practices and sustainability: some major social and ecological issues,"
International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology,
Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(1), pages 6-16.
- Tisdell, Clement A., 1999. "Coevolution: Agricultural Practices and Sustainability: Some Major Social and Ecological Issues," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 47991, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
- Romer, Paul M, 1987. "Growth Based on Increasing Returns Due to Specialization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(2), pages 56-62, May.
- Tisdell, Clement A. & Seidl, Irmi, 2001.
"Niches and Economic Competition: Implications for Economic Efficiency, Growth and Diversity,"
Economic Theory, Applications and Issues Working Papers
90508, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
- Tisdell, Clem & Seidl, Irmi, 2004. "Niches and economic competition: implications for economic efficiency, growth and diversity," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 119-135, June.
- Svizzero, Serge & Tisdell, Clement A., 2001. "Concepts of Competition in Theory and Practice," Economic Theory, Applications and Issues Working Papers 90469, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
- Jack High (ed.), 2001. "Competition," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1751.
- Tisdell, Clem, 1990. "Economics and the debate about preservation of species, crop varieties and genetic diversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 77-90, April.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:45:y:2003:i:3:p:365-376. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.