A distinctly unseasonal row has broken out between leading charities over the value of goats, cows and other animals marketed as gifts ideas for Christmas.

Oxfam, Christian Aid and Help the Aged have been successfully targeting ethical shoppers for years with an array of animals for villages in the developing world. But they have been accused of adding to the problems of some of the world’s poorest countries. The World Land Trust and Animal Aid said that it was “madness” to send goats, cows and chickens to Africa and Asia and that livestock worsened drought and desertification.

John Burton, director of the World Land Trust, even accused Oxfam of refusing to discuss the matter with him in case it got in the way of raising funds.

He said: “In the beginning I was prepared to put this down to ignorance of the issues last year, but now it seems utterly cynical. They seem to be doing this just to make money at Christmas. It’s a gimmick.”

He said goats have a devastating effect on land because they “eat everything in sight”.

“The goat campaign may be a pleasing gift and a short-term fix for milk and meat for a few individuals, but in the long term the quality of life for these people will slowly be reduced with devastating effect.”

Andrew Tyler, the director of Animal Aid, also weighed in.

“The message might bring comfort to the target audience but these schemes, sadly, are not a good thing. All farmed animals require proper nourishment, large quantities of water, shelter from extremes and veterinary care. Such resources are in critically short supply in much of Africa,” he said.

Oxfam denied the row had affected sales of livestock gifts, although the latest figures show goats and alpacas are trailing behind school dinners, trees and textbooks. A spokeswoman said the charity was saddened that the criticisms of animals have misrepresented how the catalogue works, and may lead people that were tempted to buy a goat for a developing country to buy non-charitable gifts instead.

Other charities mounted a more imaginative defence: Christian Aid said there had been a misunderstanding. The purchase of a goat did not really mean that a goat was bought. The money would go into a farming and livestock fund that would be distributed by local project managers.

A spokesman said: “We know we have to be sensitive about where animals are distributed. It is about what is most appropriate in each country at that time. There is a huge appetite for ethical gifts — it has trebled in the last three years. It is a fundraising mechanism, a way of giving to charity and giving someone a virtual gift at the same time.”

But if Christian Aid thought that would see off its critics, it was mistaken. Intelligent Giving, the charities analyst, said it was appalled by its own research, which showed that few charities delivered the animals that they said they would. Adam Rothwell, a researcher at IG, said: “We have looked at what your money actually buys you, because what you see isn’t always what your African farmer gets.”

Of all the charities IG investigated, only three — The Good Gifts Catalogue, Save the Children and Help the Aged’s Cows ‘n’ Things, guaranteed to buy what present-givers had donated for.

Rothwell was unimpressed with promises from charities that the money would go to useful projects elsewhere.

“The usual explanation was that the money would go to something like a goat, or that the charity would spend the money on something else entirely, where it judged there was the greatest need. But that’s like paying for an iPod and getting a radio,” he said.

“We don’t think most people would be happy with that.”