|
|||||
|
|
Comparative costs of programmes to conserve chicken genetic variation based on maintaining living populations or storing cryopreserved material |
|
| Authors: | Dr F.G. Silversides P.H. Purdy H.D. Blackburn |
| Affiliation: | 1. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Research Centre , Agassiz , BC, V0M 1A0 , Canada;2. USDA-Agricultural Research Service-National Centre for Genetic Resources Preservation , National Animal Germplasm Program, 1111 S. Mason St., Fort Collins , CO 80521-4500 , USA |
| Abstract: | 1. There have been substantial losses of chicken lines kept for research in recent years and the objective of this research was to critically review alternative methods of preserving genetic resources. 2. The costs of programmes using living populations, semen cryopreservation and reconstitution, and ovary and semen cryopreservation and reconstitution were evaluated over 20 years using biological parameters of cryopreservation and population reconstitution that were derived from the literature. 3. Keeping live populations was most cost effective for periods of up to three years, but keeping live populations is increasingly difficult to justify with longer periods and any research population that will not be used within five years should be cryoconserved and in situ maintenance discontinued. 4. The rapid reconstitution possible using ovaries and semen would allow the inclusion of cryopreserved material in a short-term research project with the cost of recovery included in the budget. The low cost of cryoconservation suggests that all avian material should be conserved and reconstituted when needed for research. |
| Keywords: | |