Wildlife farming: an alternative to unsustainable hunting and ... - UESC

Biodivers Conserv (2011) 20:1385–1397 DOI 10.1007/s10531-011-0047-7 REVIEW PAPER

Wildlife farming: an alternative to unsustainable hunting and deforestation in Neotropical forests? Selene S. C. Nogueira • Se´rgio L. G. Nogueira-Filho

Received: 24 May 2010 / Accepted: 2 April 2011 / Published online: 16 April 2011 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract Wild animals have been a source of food and income through subsistence hunting by forest-dwelling people in Neotropical countries in spite of the fact that hunting appears to be unsustainable as it leads to the depletion of wild fauna. Laws in Brazil and other Latin American countries forbid hunting but allow the commercial use of captivebred animals. Notwithstanding the fact that this is a controversial topic among conservationists, in this paper we propose that wildlife farming in the Neotropics can be an alternative to the over-hunting and deforestation that are carried out for the production of traditional food and pastures for livestock. This review sets out this proposal, and discusses the implications for tropical forest integrity and rural population dependency on forest resources. We discuss the ecological and economical advantages of wildlife farming and its constraints as a conservation tool, using collared peccary (Pecari tajacu) farming in the Amazon region as a model. Productivity levels may reach 19,000 times higher than those obtained from the management of peccaries from forests in the Amazon region. This can be achieved with an easily obtainable diet composed of forest fruits and locally available agricultural by-products. Therefore, establishing captive management programs for peccaries is an effective way of avoiding wild stock depletion, deforestation, and guaranteeing the livelihood of forest dwellers in the Neotropics. However, it is essential that governmental and/or non-governmental agencies be involved in providing subsides to establish peccary farms, provide technical assistance, and introducing peccary captive breeding centers to supply founder stock. Keywords

Captive breeding Food security Rearing of game Wildlife husbandry

S. S. C. Nogueira (&) Laborato´rio de Etologia Aplicada, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Rod. Ilheús Itabuna km 16, Ilheús, BA 45662-900, Brazil e-mail: [email protected] S. L. G. Nogueira-Filho Laborato´rio de Manejo de Fauna Silvestre e Conservaçaõ, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Rod. Ilheús Itabuna km 16, Ilheús, BA 45662-900, Brazil

123

1386

Biodivers Conserv (2011) 20:1385–1397

Introduction Wildlife farming is defined as the rearing of non-domesticated animals for the purpose of captive breeding. It is a polemical and controversial topic among conservationists in terms of its ecological suitability and profitability compared with subsistence hunting. Some researchers believe that wildlife farming is unlikely to contribute to the conservation of fauna. They argue that the high costs of farming compared to hunting, lack of appropriate technical skills and funds, and cultural constraints hinder such initiatives (Mockrin et al. 2005; Nasi et al. 2008). These authors recommend the expansion of domestic livestock production (Mockrin et al. 2005) as an answer to the social and economic demands of traditional communities, which effectively depend on wildlife as a major source of food and income. Others consider wildlife farming an alternative to subsistence hunting which has less negative impact on the environment, as it reduces the pressure and dependence on wild animal populations (Garcia et al. 2005; Roe 2008). Additionally, it can provide food and income in areas where local conditions limit traditional agricultural production (Ojasti 1991; Cooper 1995; Jori et al. 1995; Chardonnet et al. 2002; Nogueira-Filho and Nogueira 2004; Garcia et al. 2005). This controversy may stem from the fact that variations of the ecological, social, and economical circumstances (Robinson and Bennett 2000) require different strategies depending on the local conditions. However, it is proposed that in many cases captive breeding of wildlife can be beneficial to both the environment and traditional communities. A successful example of the implementation of a management program that included the captive rearing approach is the population recovery of the caiman crocodile (Caiman crocodilus yacare) in the Pantanal region of Brazil (Roe 2008). The Brazilian Environmental Agency (IBAMA) developed a caiman management program in 1980s, caiman ranching, which involved the collection of a limited number of eggs from the wild for hatching and rearing in captivity (CITES 2007). These animals are then used for acquisition of hides. The number of eggs that people was allowed to collect depended on the free-range caiman population on each farm. As a result, the farmers began to protect the species in order to continually collect the eggs, providing incentives for people to conserve the wild population. Prior to the implementation of this ranching program one million yacare caimans were hunted per year in this Brazilian region (David 1989; Thorbjarnarson 1999). This decreased drastically as a result of the measures associated with full farming implemented in Colombia, which involve stocking of breeders, and harvest management practices in Venezuela, Guyana, Argentina, and Bolivia (Thorbjarnarson 1999). Presently, the caiman skin trade is centered on farmed caiman production. The species is now listed as ‘‘Lower Risk’’ on the IUCN due to the wild caiman populations’ recovery (Thorbjarnarson 1999; Roe 2008). The enforcement of national and international trade laws and the ban on trading hides from unmanaged populations have also discouraged poachers (Thorbjarnarson 1999). Hence, both this species and the local population have benefited from this approach. Indeed, this example indicates that wildlife ranching and full farming can decrease hunting pressure on wild populations because market demands can be satisfied with a cheaper and more acceptable alternative to hunting (Jori et al. 1995; Bulte and Damania 2005; Abbott and van Kooten 2011). Other positive advantages of wildlife farming are the possibilities of supplying animals for re-introduction in areas where they have become extinct or their populations are endangered, besides the potential for collecting biological data on such captive species. Furthermore, wildlife farms could be used for environmental education programs.

123


1387

Therefore, several reasons exist why captive breeding programs should be introduced to assist in wildlife conservation efforts (Thorbjarnarson 1999). Additionally, both the harvest management approach and the farming programs can be complementary rather than opposing approaches (Pukazhenthi et al. 2006). This review highlights the harvest management versus wildlife farming polemics and discusses the implications for tropical forest integrity, and the rural populations who are dependent on these forest resources. This article is divided into two sections. First, an overview of subsistence hunting is presented. Second, the paper discusses the advantages of wildlife farming as an alternative approach to over-hunting and deforestation in Neotropical forests, using peccary farming as a model, as well as the constraints and policy implications.

Subsistence hunting: the importance and concerns In Brazil, as well as in other Neotropical countries, wildlife hunting is an important source of food for forest communities (Redford and Robinson 1991; Chardonnet et al. 2002; Fa et al. 2002). In some regions of the rainforest, the meat of several species represents approximately 90% of the animal protein consumed (Redford 1992). An estimated 150,000 kg of wild mammalian meat feeds more than 8,150,000 inhabitants in Amazon forests annually (Fa et al. 2002). However, these animals have been harvested through uncontrolled hunting and the species traditionally targeted are under threat of endangerment and extinction (Lopes and Ferrari 2000; Cullen et al. 2001; Peres 2001). They are also being threatened by destruction of their natural habitats through clearing of land for pastures and agriculture (Lopes and Ferrari 2000; Peres 2001). In the Brazilian Amazon some mammalian species densities have declined by up to 80% in moderately and heavily hunted forest patches (Peres 2000). Such reductions have resulted in a ‘bushmeat crisis’, as it has been called in Africa. This is alarming because it is intimately link to the food security and livelihood of forest-dependent people who have few alternative sources of animal protein and income (Robinson and Bennett 2002; Nasi et al. 2008). It has taken time for the international community to realize the value of wildlife (Chardonnet et al. 2002). These values have been classified into direct and indirect categories (McNeely et al. 1990). The direct values include the consumptive use value and the productive use value of such resources. The indirect values are non-consumptive use values, such as scientific research, bird watching, and option values, such as those related to the reserve of natural resources for future uses. Finally, there are existence values, the value of ethical feelings from the existence of wildlife (McNeely et al. 1990). Wildlife hunting, a direct value, may be classified into three categories: subsistence hunting, sport hunting, and trade or commercial hunting (Chardonnet et al. 2002). Laws in Brazil and other Latin American countries prohibit commercial hunting. Sport hunting, previously allowed by Brazilian legislation, was banned in 2006 due to environmental contamination caused by the release of ammunition. Therefore, in Brazil, hunting is only legally tolerated for indigenous people’s subsistence purposes. Subsistence hunting dates back millions of years, when humans depended on hunting and collecting for survival (Larsen 2003). Approximately 10,000 years ago, animals were domesticated as societies developed and became organized, thus reducing the need for hunting. However, subsistence hunting is still equally important to many forest-dependent people. At present, Latin American societies can be classified into different profiles depending on their reliance on wildlife. Some of them live off agriculture and/or livestock,

123

1388


others live in urban areas, or even large/industrialized cities and do not depend on wildlife for their survival. However, most people living in the Amazon forest or in forest–farm– fallow mosaics are still dependent on hunting and harvesting forest resources for their survival (Robinson and Bennett 2000), and are normally referred to as ‘‘hunter-gatherers’’. The co-existence of these different societies promotes conceptual and philosophical conflicts. In the Amazon forest there are both traditional societies, such as indigenous people, and colonists of European descent. Both groups use wild fauna as sources of meat and/or medicinal proposes, or for mystic rituals (Redford and Robinson 1991). The indigenous people are not selective towards game. They hunt a great variety of species such as reptiles, birds, and mammals opportunistically (Redford 1992). Therefore, the low selectivity of traditional hunters may be a positive factor for wildlife conservation, as no specific species is constantly targeted, especially in those regions where hunting pressure is low (Robinson and Redford 1991). The difficulty of reaching sustainable harvest The continuous arrival of settlers in the Amazon region and the consequent increase of hunting pressure and deforestation for agricultural and livestock production has eroded the possibility of achieving sustainable hunting in these regions (Robinson and Bennett 2000). The newly arrived colonists are more selective, showing preferences for ungulates and large birds, and unlike the indigenous inhabitants they harvest more than their immediate protein needs (Redford and Robinson 1991). This type of hunting tends to negatively affect the populations of mammals and large wild birds, whose role is essential in maintaining the forests’ ecology through, for example, their actions in dispersion and predation of seeds and seedlings (Redford 1992; Cullen et al. 2001). These problems are accentuated due to the relatively low natural game productivity in the Neotropical forests. In the Amazon region, the annual production ranges from 152 to 488 kg/km2 (Robinson and Bennett 2000; Fa et al. 2002). Robinson and Redford (1991) suggested that the lowest productivity values should be considered when evaluating sustainability (152 kg/km2 which is equivalent to just 1.52 kg/hectare). As human populations increase above 1.0 person/km2, the sustainability of hunting many of the preferred species was lost due to this low productivity (Robinson and Bennett 2000). Therefore, the possibility of attaining sustainable hunting can only be achieved with the implementation of management strategies. One such strategy could be the implementation of a source–sink model such as no-hunting or limited-hunting zones, as was adopted in the TamshiacuTahuayo Community Reserve in the Peruvian Amazon (Bodmer and Robinson 2004). Data collected from the Peruvian Amazon, which included impacts other than hunting on animal populations, such as disease and migration, were used to estimate the maximum sustainable annual harvest for some species (Bodmer and Robinson 2004). The annual maximum sustainable harvest for the collared peccary (Pecari tajacu) is approximately 0.3 animals/km2. The live weight of an average hunted peccary is 17.5 kg (Robinson and Redford 1991), thus the annual harvest of 0.3 animals/km2 is equivalent to 5.2 kg/km2, which equates to barely 36 g of peccary meat/hectare/year. This figure is far below the reported mean meat consumption for the Neotropics (205.9 g/person/day) (Jerozolimski 1998). Even when other species besides peccary are included, the total sustainable harvest of 1.52 kg of animals per hectare or 1.0 kg of game meat/hectare/year (Robinson and Redford 1991) is not enough to supply the demand for meat by the increasing human population living in the Amazon region.

123


1389

The potential of livestock to address the problem The introduction of some domestic species has been proposed by some researchers and policy makers to supply the subsistence needs of the communities in Neotropical forested areas (e.g., Mockrin et al. 2005). One example cited is the domestic Asian water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) that thrives despite severe local weather conditions; in addition this species is less susceptible to humid tropical diseases. However, the advocates of this strategy probably did not consider the potential ecological dangers of introducing exotic species into such fragile ecosystems. An example is the presence of a feral buffalo population inside the Guapore´ Biologic Reserve in Rondoˆnia, Brazilian Amazon region. These animals escaped 30 years ago from a nearby experimental government farm and are responsible for a range of ecological damages in this reserve ecosystem (Fernando Dal’Ava, coordinator of the Wild Fauna and Flora Division of the IBAMA, personal communication). Another example in the Brazilian Amazon region is the spread of domestic pigs (IBGE 2008), which are generally reared in open areas around human dwellings. These domestic pigs have continuously escaped from captivity and increased the feral pig populations. The high reproductive potential of these domestic breeds, together with their omnivorous habits, allowed their populations to grow and spread rapidly with subsequent negative impacts on the environment they inhabit. These impacts include changes in vegetation and soil characteristics (Hone 2002; Tierney and Cushman 2006; Nogueira-Filho et al. 2009).

The ecological and economical advantages and constraints of peccary farming Laws in Brazil and other Latin American countries allow only the commercial use of wildlife fauna and products from captive-bred animals. In Brazil, specifically, there is a total ban on hunting of wild animals by non-indigenous people, but subsistence hunting is permitted elsewhere, such as in Colombia, Venezuela, and Peru (Beck et al. 2008). However, in these countries, there are not enough resources and trained personnel for the enforcement of protective legislation for protection of threaten species (Lopes and Ferrari 2000; Cullen et al. 2001; Peres 2001; Beck et al. 2008). Consequently, wildlife farming of some species could be an alternative to unsustainable hunting and deforestation in such regions. The main arguments supporting wildlife farming are the importance of providing protein and economic alternatives for forest-dwelling people, which would reduce the hunting pressure on wild populations (Ojasti 1991; Cooper 1995; Hardouin 1995; Jori et al. 1995; Revol 1995 Chardonnet et al. 2002; Nogueira-Filho and Nogueira 2004; Garcia et al. 2005; Abbott and van Kooten 2011). Finally, this activity might decrease the expansion of pastures being established for rearing livestock in the Amazon forest. Suitability of the collared peccary for farming Among Neotropical wild mammals, the collared peccary is very adaptable and could be an ideal animal for incorporation into agro-forestry projects (Sowls 1997). This animal resembles a pig but is distantly related to the pig family. Unique anatomical features of the Tayassuidae, such as their specialized digestive tract and dorsal scent gland distinguish them from other Suiformes (Sowls 1997). This species is found in almost all Latin American countries, and lives in habitats ranging from arid environments to tropical

123

1390


rainforest (Sowls 1997). It easily adapts to and reproduces in captivity (Mayor et al. 2007). The collared peccary is largely frugivorous but also eats a wide variety of roots, tubers, greens, bulbs, and rhizomes (Kiltie 1981; Sowls 1997; Fragoso 1999). This species has a forestomach with active microbial fermentation (Langer 1979; Carl and Brown 1983; Cavalcante-Filho et al. 1998; Oliveira et al. 2009). Therefore, digestion of forages in the collared peccary is comparable with that in ruminants (Galagher et al. 1984; Comizzoli et al. 1997; Nogueira-Filho 2005; Santos et al. 2009). Breeders can take advantage of this physiological trait in the peccary by utilizing locally available feed resources in their production systems, such as pupunha (Bactris gasipaes), cupuaçu (Theobroma grandiflorum), cassava, banana pseudo-stem, cassava hulls, babaçu (Orbignya phalerata), and babaçu meal (Garcia et al. 2005; Nogueira-Filho et al. 2006a; Albuquerque et al. 2009; Andrade et al. 2011). These products are less expensive than the corn and soybean meal normally incorporated into feed for livestock production. Furthermore, they are obtained locally and need not involve deforestation for planting these crops. Peccary husbandry The welfare of farmed peccary must be addressed by applying appropriate husbandry practices that respect the species’ natural behavior, thus increasing productivity and reducing production costs (Nogueira et al. 2010). Producing peccaries in pig-like intensive production systems results in low productivity, abandonment of young, infanticide, and consequently higher production costs than those associated with semi-intensive production systems (Packard et al. 1990; Nogueira-Filho and Nogueira 2004). In addition, unnecessary animal discomfort may occur (Nogueira-Filho and Nogueira 2004; Mayor et al. 2007; Andrade et al. 2011; Nogueira et al. 2010). Andrade et al. (2011) compared the two usual collared peccary production systems: semi-intensive and the intensive. Breeding collared peccary in 1.0 hectare forested paddocks (semi-intensive) associated with appropriate animal welfare practices resulted in higher production performance when compared to the intensive production systems (Andrade et al. 2011). In the semi-intensive production system the young showed a daily weight gain of 60 g/day. This was almost three times higher than the daily weight gain recorded for young peccaries reared in pig-like facilities (Andrade et al. 2011). Young peccaries reared under semi-intensive system reached 19.0 kg, the slaughter weight (Garcia et al. 2005), within 15 months when fed rations that included forest fruits and locally available agricultural by-products (Andrade et al. 2011). Moreover, a birth rate of 2.6 young/year/female was observed among peccaries maintained in semi-intensive production systems compared to a birth rate of 1.7 young/year/female intensive systems (Mayor et al. 2007). Forested areas ranging from 1,000 to 50,000 m2 may be enclosed with wood or meshwire fences to provide paddocks for housing peccaries in semi-intensive production systems (Nogueira-Filho and Nogueira 2004). Thus, there is no need to clear forests for this practice as the peccaries’ entire life cycle can be spent within these enclosures. Founder stock are purchased from other breeders or captured in the wild. Brazilian law allows the capture of some wild animals, such as peccaries, in places where they are considered agricultural pests. The animals are then introduced into the paddock as a group consisting of one male and four or five females (Nogueira-Filho and Nogueira 2004; Garcia et al. 2005). The captive group will reproduce and increase their numbers. However, the peccary’s density should not be higher than one adult animal per 250 m2 as higher animal densities may lead to infanticide (Nogueira-Filho et al. 2006b).

123


1391

One stockperson can manage up to 450 peccaries when the following system is employed (Nogueira-Filho et al. 2004). A corral trap is required in the breeding area to restrain and handle the animals, allowing the rancher to hold and select animals for slaughter. The peccaries are conditioned to enter such traps by providing supplementary feed in these traps daily. Feeds may include agricultural by-products and mineral salts. These management procedures can be accomplished by one stockperson and occupy on average less than 1 h per day in preparing and providing feedstuffs, and any necessary animal handling. Peccary productivity Data collected from experiments on peccary farming over a 10 year period indicated that it is feasible to farm peccary in the Amazon region (Andrade et al. 2011). One hectare of forest land was fenced and a peccary herd consisting of 10 adult peccaries, two males and eight females, were introduced into the enclosure. The herd size increased to 40 adult animals by the third year and annual production was at least 1,000 kg of peccary per hectare (700 kg of meat/hectare/year) in the fourth year. The importance of such productivity can be emphasized by comparing these figures to the ones obtained from beef cattle production under similar conditions. Data from the Brazilian State of Acre, in the Amazon region, indicate that one head of cattle usually requires an average conversion of 1.0–1.5 hectare of forest into pasture for its survival. An animal needs from 2.5 to 3.0 years to reach the slaughter weight, an annual production of 100 kg per hectare (Andrade et al. 2003). This production level is 10 times lower than that obtained from the peccary farming. Conservation impact The productivity level obtained through semi-intensive peccary production is 19,000 times higher than that obtained through the sustainable harvest of peccary from the Peruvian Amazon forest (36 g of peccary meat/hectare/year, according to Bodmer and Robinson 2004). This favors peccary farming, which can contribute significantly to the provision of food security for forest-dependent people, decreasing the subsistence hunting of threatened species. Thus, other alternatives, such as the introduction of exotic species or forest clearing for livestock feedstuff production are not necessary. However, some impacts that peccary farms might cause include adverse effects to the forest soil resulting from the tramping action of the peccaries reared under semi-intensive production systems. These soil impacts affect vegetation growth and development, causing changes to the paddocks’ vegetation structure. However, such changes are minor when compared to the changes occurring when forests are converted to pastures. It is possible that a rotation of paddock areas could minimize the long term negative impact to forest soil, but this remains to be determined. Other concerns must be considered, such as the impacts on surrounding forest because of the harvesting of food for peccaries which affects the survival of free-range wild frugivores. However, such impacts certainly are minor compared to those caused by deforestation for livestock breeding. Wildlife farming on a significant scale almost inevitably results in animals eventually escaping (Mockrin et al. 2005). In this case, the main concern is genetic mixing with wild populations and the potential for genetic homogenization. This ecological process is defined as an increase in the genetic similarity of gene pools over time due to intra- and inter-specific hybridization (Olden 2006). However, this process is not likely to pose major

123

1392


problems, again because such impacts certainly are of lesser importance than the impacts caused by domestic species escaping into such fragile ecosystems. A more relevant conservation issue to be considered is illegal taking peccaries from the wild to stock peccary farms. The dramatic decline in the wild population of porcupines (Hystrix brachyura) across the northwest Vietnamese region is an example of such concern. Although the porcupine farmers are obliged by law to propagate stock solely from farm-bred animals, almost 60% of these farmers obtained their founder stock from the wild (Brooks et al. 2010). The establishment of captive breeding centers by governmental and non-governmental development agencies could supply founder stock which may reduce harvesting rates from the wild. Economic potential The investment required to establish a peccary farm is relatively low. The cost of establishing a semi-intensive peccary farm (R $126.70 per adult, ca. US $75.00) is much less than the investment required to establish a semi-intensive pig farm (ca. US $490.00 per adult) or an intensive farm (ca. US $700.00 per adult). This is mainly due to the reduced requirements for infrastructure and management inputs in peccary farms (Santos et al. 2009). The initial investment may be reduced even further if the farmer uses already available materials, such as forest timber, to construct fences, and restraint facilities instead of the expensive commercial material (Nogueira-Filho et al. 2004). The lack of economic viability is often cited as the reason why wildlife farming is often unsuccessful (Mockrin et al. 2005). Unquestionably, farmed peccaries are more expensive than their wild relatives. Santos et al. (2009) estimated that the total expense to produce a 19 kg collared peccary under a semi-intensive system was US $45.00 (US $2.37/kg live weight). However, this figure was developed based on the worst economic scenario in order to illuminate the low production cost of the peccary. Such a scenario included bank credits for purchasing building materials for the animals’ facilities and to acquire the foundation stock. Also included were the payment of wages and veterinary services, and purchasing concentrated feedstuffs. Peccaries require minimal management and have relatively fast growth rates even when fed fruits and agricultural by-products (Nogueira-Filho and Nogueira 2004; Garcia et al. 2005; Andrade et al. 2011). Therefore, the existing labor can be maximized by integrating peccary farming with cropping activities on smallholder farms, thus reducing production costs. This type of system is suitable for remote areas in the Amazon where there are few employment opportunities and the farmer and/or famer’s family members are the work force and no payment of wages are required. Furthermore, in such areas there are several non-commercial products that can be fed to the peccaries, such as fruits and agricultural by-products, including banana pseudo-stem, cassava hulls, babaçu, and babaçu meal (Garcia et al. 2005; Nogueira-Filho et al. 2006a; Albuquerque et al. 2009; Andrade et al. 2011), instead of expensive feedstuff concentrates. Moreover, peccary production does not compete for land with other crops. Peccary breeders can use areas of their properties that are not suitable for traditional agriculture because of edaphic and/or topographic factors. Peccaries may thrive as meat producers in these conditions, which are similar to their native habitat, because they possess heat tolerance, and resistance to local diseases and parasites (Nogueira-Filho and Nogueira 2004). Besides the subsistence production of meat, peccary farmers also would increase their income-earning capability by supplying the hides to international leather markets. The ban on commercial hunting in Brazil and other Latin American countries has allowed Peru to

123


1393

legally exports peccary hides, an estimated 56,000 per year mainly to Europe and the USA (Fang et al. 2008). Legally available farmed commodities may arouse the interest of new consumers and eventually the demand for such authentic products may increase (Damania and Bulte 2007). Captive-bred peccary leather is of better quality than wild peccary leather. Therefore, the market may eventually prefer leather made from captive-bred peccaries. This situation is similar to the events that occurred with crocodile skins (Thorbjarnarson 1999). Peccary farming can also be another income alternative for communities located near communication routes, such as roads and navigable rivers. Surplus products can be traded to urban markets where such exotic meats fetch the highest prices (Nogueira-Filho and Nogueira 2004). Such consumers demand the peccary meat because of its low fat (8%) and cholesterol (48.8 mg/kg) content, which is lower than domestic pork (Saadoun and Cabrera 2008). Peccary meat contains higher mono- and poly-unsaturated fatty acids than concentrations of saturated fatty acids (Albuquerque et al. 2009). These characteristics suggest that the peccary meat is a healthy alternative source of animal protein. Therefore, a marketing program could take advantage of consumer preferences for low fat, low cholesterol peccary meat. Peccary meat and skins could be processed and delivered to local, national, and international markets through the same mechanisms already existing for the distribution and export of beef, which represents 52.6% of the beef production from the Amazon region (Andrade et al. 2003). However, some modifications to existing transport and slaughter facilities used for cattle would be required for appropriate peccary meat processing and shipping. Nevertheless, there is a real threat that the markets created for farmed wildlife products could increase pressure on wild populations for founder stock and that established peccary farms can be used for laundering illegally caught animals (Damania and Bulte 2007; Mockrin et al. 2005). Brazilian laws demand that an animal be registered with the government at birth and identified by ear tags or microchip. This distinguishes it from wild peccaries, and reduces the chances of wild stock being ‘laundered’ through captive breeding systems. Furthermore, the registration system could be monitored for compliance, not only by governmental agencies but also by an outside certifier, such as CITES. In 1986, the collared peccary was placed on Appendix II of CITES (except the populations of Mexico and the United States of America, which are not included in the Appendices). Captive breeding of species listed on any CITES Appendix can only be granted a CITES permit for international trade if the breeding facility is certified by the CITES Secretariat. CITES has many regulations and procedures to ensure and monitor compliance by members (Beck et al. 2008, Abbott and van Kooten 2011). Constraints to production and policy implications The production of non-domesticated animals may be more efficient if there is effective investment in scientific research. For example, several advances were obtained through the collaborative project on collared peccary between Europeans and South American partners entitled ‘‘Development of different production systems for the sustainable exploitation of the collared peccary in Latin America’’. Through this project a better understanding of the reproduction potential of the female peccary was attained (Mayor et al. 2007); balanced diets with locally available feed resources were formulated (Nogueira-Filho et al. 2006a); and breeding programs were designed that considered and included animal welfare issues directly related to the collared peccary (Nogueira et al. 2010). However, many questions

123

1394


still remain unanswered and research on animal nutrition, health, husbandry, and the biotechnology of wild species should be considered as part of the research agendas of universities and research institutes in Neotropical countries. Other constraints that limit the expansion of peccary production include the difficulties in acquiring breeding stock and the lack of state support for wildlife farming (Garcia et al. 2005). Therefore, a major challenge is the ability to provide populations of manageable animals large enough to sustain captive breeding programs. Benefits from such initiatives would only be realized after they have been firmly established. As note previously, success may require the establishment of captive breeding centers by governmental and nongovernmental development agencies. These centers could supply founder stock which might reduce harvesting rates from the wild. In addition, genetic selection programs aimed at developing higher reproduction indexes could be pursued. The improvement and selection processes adopted for guinea pigs (Cavia porcelus) in Peru can be used as a model. In less than two decades Peruvian research developed three guinea pig lines that were more productive and had higher reproduction indexes. Such a selection process occurred in captive breeding centers that supplied founder stock to smallholder farms and resulted in an annual production of 100,000 tons of guinea pig meat (Zaldı´var 1995). It is essential to encourage the involvement of governmental and/or non-governmental agencies that could be able to provide subsidies for establishing wildlife farms and support services such as technical assistance to captive breeders (Nogueira-Filho and Nogueira 2004; Santos et al. 2009). Furthermore, there is also a concern that consumption of game meat may be the origin and factor responsible for the emergence of zoonotic infectious diseases (Swift et al. 2007). Finally, because leptospirosis and brucellosis affect the reproduction of captive peccaries (Mayor et al. 2010) special attention must be given to health for the peccaries health and for the people involved in animal production and meat processing.

Conclusion The productivity levels obtained in the semi-intensive production system for collared peccary are encouraging and the establishment of certified peccary captive breeding sites could be a way to enhance the animal protein intake of forest-dwelling people. However, to become an effective alternative to the over-hunting and deforestation in the Neotropics, peccary farms must be based on feeding local and available feedstuffs. These farms must also be integrated with cropping activities, especially on smallholder farms, so as to improve the use of available labor and reduce production costs. The captive breeding of collared peccary needs to reach a certain scale before the wider benefits are realized. Therefore, it is necessary to procure the involvement of governmental and/or non-governmental agencies for establishing peccary captive breeding centers, in order to supply founder stock and provide subsidies and technical assistance for establishing peccary farms. Acknowledgments Our research in Wildlife Use and Conservation has been sponsored by CNPq (Proc. # 551721/2007-3), CAPES, FINEP, FAPESP, FAPESB, UESC, and European Commission (INCODEV ICA-4CT-2001-10045). We are also grateful to Dr. Sabine Pompeía, Dr. Ferran Jori, Dr. William Mollineau, and BC’s editor and anonymous reviewers for providing helpful comments to improve the final manuscript. SSCN and SLGNF were supported by CNPq.

123


1395

References Abbott B, van Kooten GC (2011) Can domestication of wildlife lead to conservation? The economics of tiger farming in China. Ecol Econ 70:721–728 Albuquerque NI, Contreras CC, Alencar S et al (2009) Propriedade da carne crua e perfil de aćidos graxos do pernil de catetos (Tayassu tajacu) alimentados com torta de babaçu (Orbignya phalerata). Meat properties and fatty acids profile of the ham of peccaries (Tayassu tajacu) fed babassu (Orbignya phalerata) meal. Arq Bras Med Vet Zootec 61:1419–1427 Andrade CMS, Sa´ CP, Amaral EF et al (2003) Sistema de produçaõ de gado de corte. http://sistemasde producao.cnptia.embrapa.br/FontesHTML/BovinoCorte/BovinoCorteAcre. Accessed 18 May 2010 Andrade PCM, Silva RJA, Duarte JAM et al (2011) Management and feeding of collared peccary (Tayassu tajacu) and white-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari) captive in Central Amazon. Rev El Man Fauna Silv en Latinoamerica (in press) Beck H, Taber A, Altrichter M, Keuroghlian A, Reyna R (2008) Pecari tajacu. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 17 Feb 2011 Bodmer RE, Robinson JG (2004) Evaluating the sustainability of hunting in the Neotropics. In: Kirsten S, Fragoso J, Bodmer R (eds) People in nature: wildlife management and conservation in Latin America. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 299–323 Brooks EGE, Roberton SI, Bell DJ (2010) The conservation impact of commercial wildlife farming of porcupines in Vietnam. Biol Conserv 143:2808–2814 Bulte EH, Damania R (2005) An economic assessment of wildlife farming and conservation. Conserv Biol 19:1222–1233 Carl GR, Brown RD (1983) Protozoa in the forestomach of the collared peccary. J Mammal 64:709 Cavalcante-Filho MF, Miglino MA, Machado GV, Bevilacqua E, Neves WC (1998) Estudo comparativo sobre o suprimento arterial do estoˆmago do queixada (Tayassu pecari) e do caititu (Tayassu tajacu Linnaeus, 1789). Braz J Vet Res Anim Sci 35:20–24 Chardonnet P, Clers B, Fischer J et al (2002) The value of wildlife. Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epizoot 21:15–51 CITES (2007) Document CoP 14. Prop. 13 (Rev. 1). In: Proceedings of the 14th meeting of the conference of the parties to CITES, The Hague, Netherlands, 3–15 June 2007 Comizzoli P, Peiniau J, Dutertre C, Planquette P, Aumaitre A (1997) Digestive utilization of concentrated and fibrous diets by two peccary species (Tayassu peccari, Tayassu tajacu) raised in French Guyana. Anim Feed Sci Technol 64:215–226 Cooper JE (1995) Wildlife species for sustainable food production. Biodivers Conserv 4:215–219 Cullen L Jr., Bodmer ER, Valladares-Padua C (2001) Ecological consequences of hunting in Atlantic forest patches, Saõ Paulo, Brazil. Oryx 35:137–144 Damania R, Bulte EH (2007) The economics of wildlife farming and endangered species conservation. Ecol Econ 62:461–472 David D (1989) The first meeting for caiman conservation in the Pantanal. Crocodile Specialist Group Newslett 8:10–12 Fa JE, Peres CA, Meeuwig J (2002) Bushmeat exploitation in tropical forests: an international comparison. Conserv Biol 16:232–237 Fang T, Bodmer R, Puertas P et al (2008) Certificacioń de pieles de pecaries (Tayassu tajacu y T. pecari) en la Amazonıá peruana: una estrategia para la conservacioń y manejo de fauna Silvestre en la Amazonia peruana. Wust Editions-Darwin Institute, Lima, Peru Fragoso JMV (1999) Perception of scale and resource partitioning by peccaries: behavioral causes and ecological implications. J Mammal 80:993–1003 Galagher JF, Varner LW, Grant WE (1984) Nutrition of the collared peccary in South Texas. J Wildl Manage 48:749–761 Garcia G, Young G, Amour KM et al (2005) The Collard Peccary/Javelina/Sajino/Poco do Monte/Wild Hog/Pakira/Patira/Taitetu/Catete/CAtto/Quenk (Tayassu tajacu, Pecari tajacu) Booklet and Producers’ Manual. GWG Publications, Trinidad and Tobago Hardouin J (1995) Minilivestock—from gathering to controlled production. Biodiver Conserv 4:220–232 Hone J (2002) Feral pigs in Namadgi National Park, Australia: dynamics, impacts and management. Biol Conserv 105:231–242 IBGE (2008) Produçaõ da Pecua´ria Municipal 2007 v. 35 Municipal Livestock Production, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp 1–62 Jerozolimski A (1998) Effect of subsistence hunting on the structure of mammal assemblages in Neotropical forests. M.S. thesis. University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom Jori F, Mensah GA, Adjanohoun E (1995) Grasscutter production—an example of rational exploitation of wildlife. Biodiver Conserv 4:257–265

123

1396


Kiltie R (1981) Stomach contents of rain forest peccaries. Biotropica 13:234–236 Langer P (1979) Adaptational significance of the fore-stomach of the collared peccary (Dicotyles tajacu). Mammalia 43:235–245 Larsen CS (2003) Animal source foods and human health during evolution. J Nutr 133:3893S–3897S Lopes MA, Ferrari SE (2000) Effects of human colonization on the abundance and diversity of mammals in Eastern Brazilian Amazonia. Conserv Biol 14:1658–1665 Mayor P, Guimara˜es DAA, Le Pendu Y et al (2007) Reproductive performance of captive collared peccaries (Tayassu tajacu) in the eastern Amazon. Anim Reprod Sci 102:88–97 Mayor P, Bodmer RE, Cornejo C, Ga´lvez H, Lo´pez-Be´jar M (2010) Comparative reproductive biology of collared peccary (Tayassu tajacu) populations in the wild and in captivity under semi-extensive conditions in the Northeastern Peruvian Amazon. Suiform Sound 10:7–21 McNeely J, Miller K, Reid W et al (1990) Conserving the world’s biological diversity. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (The World Conservation Union/IUCN), World Resources Institute, Conservation International. World Wildlife Fund-US & The World Bank, Gland and Washington, DC Mockrin, MH, Bennett EL, LaBruna DT (2005) Wildlife farming: a viable alternative to hunting in Tropical forests? WCS Working Paper No. 23. Wildlife Conservation Society, New York Nasi R, Brown D, Wilkie D et al (2008) Conservation and use of wildlife-based resources: the bushmeat crisis. In: CBD Technical Series no. 33. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada Nogueira SSC, Silva MG, Dias CTS et al (2010) Social behavior of collared peccary (Pecari tajacu) under three space allowances. Anim Welf 19:243–248 Nogueira-Filho SLG (2005) The effects of increasing levels of roughage on collared peccary’s nutrient digestibility coefficients. Anim Feed Sci Technol 120:151–157 Nogueira-Filho SLG, Nogueira SSC (2004) Captive breeding programs as an alternative for wildlife conservation in Brazil. In: Kirsten S, Fragoso J, Bodmer R (eds) People in nature: wildlife management and conservation in Latin America. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 171–190 Nogueira-Filho SLG, Nogueira SSC, Mendes A, Jori F (2004) A large-scale commercial farming of collared peccary (Tayassu tajacu) in North-Eastern Brazil. Game Wildl Sci 21:413–420 Nogueira-Filho SLG, Santos DO, Mendes A, Nogueira SSC (2006a) Developing diets for collared peccary (Tayassu tajacu) from locally available food resources in Bahia, Brazil. Rev El Man Fauna Silv en Latinoamerica 1:1–6 Nogueira-Filho SLG, Engel RL, Mendes A, Nogueira SSC (2006b) The population density to stock collared peccary (Tayassu tajacu) in semi-captivity: a preliminary review. Suiform Sound 6:19–23 Nogueira-Filho SLG, Nogueira SSC, Fragoso JMV (2009) Ecological impacts of feral pigs in the Hawaiian Islands. Biodiver Conserv 18:3677–3683 Ojasti J (1991) Human explotation of capybara. In: Robinson JG, Redford KH (eds) Neotropical wildlife use and conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 252–336 Olden JD (2006) Biotic homogenization: a new research agenda for conservation biogeography. J Biogeogr 33:2027–2039 Oliveira EG, Santos ACF, Dias JCT et al (2009) The influence of urea feeding on the bacterial and archaeal community in the forestomach of collared peccary (Artiodactyla, Tayassuidae). J Appl Microbiol 107:1711–1718 Packard JM, Babbitt KJ, Hannon PG, Grant WE (1990) Infanticide on collared peccary (Tayassu tajacu). Zoo Biol 9:49–53 Peres CA (2000) Effects of subsistence hunting on vertebrate community structure in Amazonian forests. Conserv Biol 14:240–253 Peres CA (2001) Synergistic effects of subsistence hunting and habitat fragmentation on Amazonian forest vertebrates. Conserv Biol 15:1490–1505 Pukazhenthi B, Comizzoli P, Travis AJ, Wildt DE (2006) Applications of emerging technologies to the review and conservation of threatened and endangered species. Reprod Fertil Dev 18:77–90 Redford KH (1992) The empty forest. Bioscience 42:412–422 Redford KH, Robinson JG (1991) Subsistence and commercial uses of wildlife. In: Robinson JG, Redford KH (eds) Neotropical wildlife use and conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 6–23 Revol B (1995) Crocodile farming and conservation, the example of Zimbabwe. Biodiver Conserv 4:299–305 Robinson JG, Bennett EL (2000) Carrying capacity limits to sustainable hunting in tropical forests. In: Robinson JG, Bennett EL (eds) Hunting for sustainability in tropical forests. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 521–524 Robinson JG, Bennett EL (2002) Will alleviating poverty solve the bushmeat crisis? Oryx 36:332

123


1397

Robinson JG, Redford KH (1991) Sustainable harvest of Neotropical forest mammals. In: Robinson JG, Redford KH (eds) Neotropical wildlife use and conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 415–429 Roe D (2008) Trading Nature. A report, with case studies, on the contribution of wildlife trade management to sustainable livelihoods and the Millennium Development Goals. TRAFFIC International and WWF International, Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland Saadoun A, Cabrera MC (2008) A review of the nutritional content and technological parameters of indigenous sources of meat in South America. Meat Sci 80:570–581 Santos DO, Mendes A, Nogueira SSC, Nogueira Filho SLG (2009) Criaçaõ comercial de caititus (Pecari tajacu): uma alternativa para o agronegoćio (Captive breeding of the collared-peccary: an agribusiness alternative. Rev Bras Sau´de Prod An 10:1–10 Sowls LK (1997) Javelinas and other peccaries: their biology, management and use, 2nd edn. Texas A&M University Press, Texas Swift L, Hunter PR, Lees AC, Bell DJ (2007) Wildlife trade and the emergence of infectious diseases. EcoHealth 4:25–30 Thorbjarnarson J (1999) Crocodile tears and skins: international trade, economic constraints, and limits to the sustainable use of crocodilians. Conserv Biol 13:465–470 Tierney TA, Cushman JH (2006) Temporal changes in native and exotic vegetation and soil characteristics following disturbances by feral pigs in California grassland. Biol Invasions 8:1073–1089 Zaldı´var LC (1995) Guinea pig (Cavia porcellus) in the Andean countries. World Anim Rev 83:9–19

123