Use traditional breeds of livestock

How is the evidence assessed?

Study locations

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects of using traditional breeds of livestock on wild mammals. This study was carried out in four European countries.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2002–2004 on grassland in France, Germany, Italy and the UK (Wallis De Vries et al. 2007) found that areas grazed by traditional livestock breeds did not have more European hares Lepus europaeus than did areas grazed by commercial breeds. Too few hares were recorded to enable statistical analyses. At the UK site, where most hares were recorded, numbers were similar between areas grazed by traditional breeds (15 hares) and commercial breeds (14 hares). Traditional cattle breeds were Devon, German Angus and Salers, compared with commercial Charolais × Fresian, Simmental and Charolais, in the UK, Germany and France respectively. In Italy traditional Karst sheep were compared with commercial Finnish Romanovs. There were three traditional breed paddocks and three commercial breed paddocks (paddock size 0.4–3.6 ha) at single sites in each of the four countries. Hares were counted every two weeks in early morning, from May to October of 2002–2004, during seven minutes of observation and by walking a transect in each paddock.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation - Published 2020

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust