Abstract
This study evaluated milk production performance, handling and utilization practices, and the compositional quality of local goats in Garda Marta district, Southern Ethiopia. A combination of household survey, on‐farm milk yield measurements, and laboratory‐based milk composition analysis was employed. A total of 138 households were selected using purposive and random sampling techniques to collect data on milking, handling, and utilization practices. For milk yield and composition analysis, 60 lactating does (15 per kebele) were purposively selected. Daily milk yield (DMY) was recorded from the 7th day postpartum until the end of lactation. Milk samples were collected at early, mid, and late lactation stages and analyzed for protein, fat, lactose, solid‐not‐fat (SNF), total solids (TSs), pH, and density. The results indicated that 97.8% of the households consume goat milk, with 55.1% consuming it in the raw form. Traditional containers such as gourds, clay pots, and plastic vessels are commonly used for milk handling and storage. About 58.7% of the households process milk into yoghurt. DMY differed significantly (p < 0.05) across lactation stages, with mean values of 0.79 ± 0.03, 0.85 ± 0.03, and 0.75 ± 0.03 L/day for early, mid, and late lactation, respectively. Lactation milk yield was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in lowland (59.60 L) than that in midland (53.27 L) areas. However, the milk composition was not significantly affected (p > 0.05) by agroecology or other factors. The study demonstrates that goat milk plays a vital role in household nutrition and livelihoods in the study area. Improving husbandry practices, milk handling, and extension services could enhance productivity and contribute to food security and rural development.
Keywords: chemical composition, goat, handling, milk yield, Southern Ethiopia
1. Introduction
Goat production is one of the most efficient low‐input livestock systems, as goats possess broad feeding habits, adaptability to unfavorable environmental conditions, and a short reproductive cycle [1, 2]. In Ethiopia, goats are kept for multiple purposes, including milk and meat production [3], income generation and capital accumulation [4], and provision of skin and manure [5]. The sector plays a significant role in supporting rural livelihoods and contributes to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to food security and health [6, 7].
However, the purposes of keeping goats vary across locations due to economic, cultural, and ecological differences [8, 9]. Goat milk is an important dietary component in pastoral and agropastoral areas of Ethiopia, where a large proportion of the goat population is found [10]. It accounts for approximately 16.7% of the total milk consumed in the country [11], with a reported daily milk yield (DMY) of about 1.13 kg [12].
Goat milk is nutritionally valuable due to its rich composition of protein, fat, lactose, vitamins, and minerals [11, 13, 14]. It can be consumed fresh or processed into various products such as cheese, butter, yoghurt, and other dairy products [15]. Moreover, goat milk plays an important role in human nutrition, particularly for children, malnourished individuals, and people with cow milk allergies [16].
Assessing milk production performance, handling, utilization practices, and compositional quality of local goats is essential for improving productivity and ensuring food safety. Such studies also contribute to achieving SDGs, particularly SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well‐being), and SDG 13 (Climate Action).
Garda Marta district is one of the districts in Gamo Zone with a relatively large goat population (126,657) [17]. Despite this, there is limited information on milk production performance, handling practices, and milk composition in the area. Therefore, this study was initiated to evaluate milk production performance, assess milk handling and utilization practices, and analyze the compositional quality of local goat milk in Garda Marta district, Southern Ethiopia.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
Garda Marta is a district located in Gamo Zone, Southern Ethiopia, at approximately 5°89′N latitude and 37°07′E longitude, covering about 46787.79 ha of land. The total human population of the district is estimated at 88,267 [17]. The altitude ranges from 1000 to 1200 m above the sea level. The district receives an annual rainfall of 1200–1600 mm and experiences mean annual temperatures ranging from 25°C to 28°C. The agroecology of the district is characterized by 30% midland and 70% lowland areas. The dominant farming system is a mixed crop–livestock production system. Major crops grown in the area include maize, sorghum, teff, haricot bean, coffee, and enset (Ensete ventricosum).
The livestock population of the district is estimated at 169,370 cattle, 126,657 goats, 65,790 sheep, 14,742 donkeys, 651 horses, 949 mules, 207,395 chickens, and 102,597 beehives [17, 18]. The study was conducted in Laysha kebele, representing the midland agroecology, and in Shakaro, Gogale, and Lado kebeles, representing the lowland agroecology.
2.2. Sampling and Sample Size
The study consisted of a household survey, field measurements, and milk composition analysis. For the survey, multistage purposive and random sampling techniques were employed to select study kebeles (the smallest administrative units in Ethiopia) and respondent households.
In the first stage, the district was stratified into two agroecological zones: midland and lowland. In the second stage, study kebeles were purposively selected based on road accessibility, goat population size, and representation of the agroecological zones. In the third stage, households rearing goats in each selected kebele were identified and listed. Finally, respondent households were selected randomly from the prepared household lists. The total sample size was determined by using the Cochran formula [19]: n o = Z 2∗(P)(q)/e 2, where n o = desired sample size, Z = standard normal deviation (1.96 for 95% confidence level), P = 0.1 (proportion of population to be included in sample), q = 1−0.1, i.e., (0.9), and e = desired level of precision (margin of error, e.g., 0.05 for 5%).
Based on the sample size determination, a total of 138 households were selected from 1380 goat‐rearing households in the study kebeles. The sample was proportionally allocated across the kebeles according to the number of goat‐rearing households, resulting in 39 households from Laysha (midland), 17 from Lado (lowland), 39 from Shakaro (lowland), and 43 from Gogale (lowland). This ensured adequate representation of households across the different agroecological zones.
For the evaluation of milk yield and composition, a total of 60 lactating does (15 from each study kebele) were purposively selected to ensure that only healthy animals with comparable lactation stage and parity were included. Milk samples were collected starting from 7 days after kidding to allow kids to suckle colostrum from their dams.
2.3. Methods of Data Collection
Primary data were collected using a questionnaire survey, field measurements, and laboratory analysis of milk composition.
2.3.1. Household Survey
Experts from the Livestock and Fishery Resources Development Office who are familiar with the local language were recruited and trained on the administration of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was initially prepared in English and then translated into the local language. A structured questionnaire interview was employed to collect data on the socioeconomic characteristics of households, goat milking and milk handling practices, milk processing, milk utilization practices, and associated constraints.
2.3.2. Milk Yield Measurement
DMY was recorded on‐farm starting from the 7th day after kidding until the end of lactation by trained livestock development experts in each kebele under close supervision of the researchers. Milk samples were collected at three stages of lactation: early, mid, and late. The lactating does were categorized based on days in milk as early (34–49 days postkidding; n = 20), mid (53–70 days postkidding; n = 20), and late (87–137 days postkidding; n = 20).
Milk was collected from manually milked does and measured for each animal. Sampling was conducted twice daily (morning at 06:00 h and evening at 18:00 h). Milk yield was measured using a graduated measuring cylinder, and readings were taken at the lower meniscus during each milking. Morning and evening milk yields (liters/doe) were recorded, and total DMY was calculated accordingly.
The weigh–suckle–weigh method was used to estimate the amount of milk consumed by kids [20]. The total DMY was calculated as the sum of milk obtained through hand milking and the amount suckled by the kids during both morning and evening sessions. Lactation length (LL) was determined by recording the kidding date of each doe and subtracting it from the date of data collection.
2.4. Milk Composition Analysis
Approximately 20 mL of milk was collected from each goat in a 50 mL plastic bottle twice per week and stored in a cool box until analysis. Samples were analyzed shortly after collection (within 1‐2 h) using a Lacto Scan SP/60 analyzer (Model 328,617, Bulgaria). A total of 240 milk samples were obtained from the 60 lactating goats. Each sample was analyzed for protein, fat, lactose, solid‐not‐fat (SNF), total solids (TSs), pH, and density.
2.5. Data Analysis
All collected data were checked for errors that may have occurred during data collection. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize and describe categorical variables. The chi‐square test was employed to examine significant associations among categorical variables and agro‐ecological zones. Quantitative variables were analyzed using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure (PROC GLM) of SAS Version 9.2 [21]. Differences in milk yield and composition between two groups (e.g., agroecology: midland vs. lowland and birth type: single vs. twin) were analyzed using the independent samples t‐test. For variables with three or more groups (e.g., age of doe, lactation stage, and parity), one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted. Where significant differences were observed, mean separation was performed using Tukey’s test, and statistical significance was declared at p < 0.05.
Two different models were used. The first model to analyze milk yield and composition between two groups was Y i j = μ + α i + ɛ i j , where Y i j = the response variable, μ = overall mean, α i = fixed effect of agro ecology (i = mid land and ii = highland) or birth type (single, twin), and ɛ i j = residual error.
The second model to analyze variables with three or more groups (age of doe, lactation stage, and parity) was Y i j l = μ + A i + L j + P l + ε i j l , where: Y i j l = milk yield or milk composition, μ = overall mean; A i = fixed effect of the ith age of doe (i = 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), L j = fixed effect of the jth lactation stage (j = early, mid, and late), P l = fixed effect of lth parity (l = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and ≥ 6), and ε i j l = random error.
3. Results
3.1. Milk Yield of Goats
The milk yield and LL of goats in the study area are presented in Table 1. Mean DMY and total lactation yield differed significantly (p < 0.05) between agroecologies, with goats in the lowlands producing higher yields than those in the midlands. Milk yield also varied significantly (p < 0.05) with the birth type, where does that kidded twins produced more milk than those with a single kid. Lactation stage had a significant effect (p < 0.05) on DMY, with the midlactation stage yielding higher milk than early and late stages. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed in DMY among different age groups or parities of does.
TABLE 1.
Mean DMY, LMY, and LL of local goats.
| Variables | N | DMY (L) | LMY (L) | LL (days) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agro‐ecology | ||||
| Midland | 15 | 0.75b | 53.27b | 71.77 |
| Lowland | 45 | 0.84a | 59.60a | 71.37 |
| p value | 0.0080 | 0.0272 | 0.5101 | |
| Birth type | ||||
| Single | 40 | 0.64b | 47.53b | 75.75a |
| Twins | 20 | 0.95a | 65.35a | 67.39b |
| p value | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | 0.0100 | |
| Age of the doe | ||||
| 1 year | 14 | 0.75 | 55.3 | 77.96 |
| 2 years | 22 | 0.79 | 52.9 | 66.69 |
| 3 years | 21 | 0.84 | 60.54 | 72.2 |
| 4 years | 3 | 0.79 | 57.03 | 69.42 |
| p value | 0.4853 | 0.2279 | 0.5101 | |
| Lactation stage | ||||
| Early | 20 | 0.79ab | 34.56c | |
| Mid | 20 | 0.853a | 53.24b | |
| Late | 20 | 0.75b | 81.52a | |
| p value | 0.0160 | < 0.0001 | ||
| Parity | ||||
| 1 | 14 | 0.80 | 53.59 | 66.18 |
| 2 | 2 | 0.87 | 58.90 | 67.78 |
| 3 | 19 | 0.84 | 60.54 | 72.81 |
| 4 | 13 | 0.83 | 59.19 | 71.89 |
| 5 | 9 | 0.74 | 51.44 | 73.00 |
| 6 | 3 | 0.68 | 54.97 | 77.77 |
| p value | 0.4853 | 0.2279 | 0.4858 |
Note: Means within the column with different superscript are significant different at p < 0.05, N = number of milking goats.
Abbreviations: DMY, daily milk yield; LL, lactation length; LMY, lactation milk yield.
3.2. Utilization of Goat Milk in the Study Area
Almost all households (97.8%) in the study area reported consuming goat milk, while 2.2% did not (Table 2). Low milk yield from local goats and lack of awareness were cited as the main reasons for limited milk consumption. About half of the respondents (50%) indicated that children are primary consumers of goat milk.
TABLE 2.
Goat milk utilization practices in the study area.
| Parameter | Agro‐ecology | Overall N (%) | X 2 | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Midland N (%) | Lowland N (%) | ||||
| Do you consume goat milk? | |||||
| Yes | 39 (100.0) | 96 (97.0) | 135 (97.8) | 12.22 | 0.01 |
| No | 0 (0.0) | 3 (3.0) | 3 (2.2) | ||
| Reasons for less goat milk consumption | |||||
| Low milk yield of local goats | 16 (41.1) | 59 (59.6) | 75 (54.4) | 10.91 | 0.012 |
| Lack of awareness | 23 (58.9) | 24 (40.4) | 34 (45.6) | ||
| Goat milk utilizers | |||||
| Nursing mothers | 2 (5.1) | 6 (6.1) | 8 (5.8) | 9.49 | 0.024 |
| Children | 23 (59) | 46 (46.5) | 69 (50) | ||
| Adults/aged people | 9 (23.1) | 33 (33.3) | 42 (30.4) | ||
| Sick individuals | 3 (7.7) | 7 (7.1) | 10 (7.3) | ||
| Pregnant mothers | 2 (5.1) | 4 (4) | 6 (4.3) | ||
| How milk is consumed? | |||||
| Raw milk | 20 (51.3) | 56 (56.6) | 76 (55.1) | 11.2 | 0.004 |
| After souring | 9 (23.1) | 15 (15.2) | 24 (17.4) | ||
| After boiling | 10 (25.6) | 25 (25.2) | 35 (25.3) | ||
Note: N = number of respondents.
3.3. Milking and Milk Handling Practices
All households (100%) in the study area reported using clean milking equipment (Table 3). Water, detergent, and tree leaves were commonly used for cleaning. A majority of households (63.7%) wash their hands and milking utensils before milking. Most respondents (81.2%) use gourds (dried fruit shells) for milk storage, while 15.9% use plastic containers and 2.9% use clay pots.
TABLE 3.
Traditional dairy goat milking and handling practices in the study area.
| Variables | Agroecology | Overall N (%) | X 2 | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Midland N (%) | Lowland N (%) | ||||
| Milking frequency | |||||
| Once/day | 0 (0) | 18 (18.2) | 18 (13) | 13.97 0.001 | |
| Twice/day | 39 (100) | 81 (81.8) | 120 (87) | ||
| Do you clean milking and milk utensils? | |||||
| Yes | 39 (100) | 99 (100) | 138 (100) | ||
| How do you clean the equipment? | |||||
| Washing with water and detergent | 11 (28.2) | 28 (28.3) | 39 (28.3) | 10.72 | 0.032 |
| Washing with water and tree leaves | 23 (59) | 56 (56.6) | 79 (57.2) | ||
| Washing with water, detergent and tree leaves | 5 (12.8) | 15 (15.1) | 20 (14.5) | ||
| How do you perform hygienic practices? | |||||
| Wash milker hands and milking utensils | 22 (56.4) | 66 (66.7) | 88 (63.7) | 9.87 | 0.041 |
| Washing udder before milking | 14 (35.9) | 25 (25.2) | 39 (28.3) | ||
| Washing udder after milking | 3 (7.7) | 8 (8.1) | 11 (8) | ||
| Materials used for milk storing | |||||
| Clay pot | 4 (10.2) | 0 (0) | 4 (2.9) | 11.21 | 0.02 |
| Gourd | 34 (87.2) | 78 (78.8) | 112 (81.2) | ||
| Plastic material | 1 (2.6) | 21 (21.2) | 22 (15.9) | ||
Note: N = number of respondents.
3.4. Yoghurt Making Practice
The majority of households (58.7%) in the study area produce yoghurt from goat milk (Table 4). About 33% of households allow the milk to ferment for 3 days, while 23% let it ferment for 2 days.
TABLE 4.
Yoghurt making practice in the study area.
| Variables | Agroecology | Overall N (%) | X 2 | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Midland N (%) | Lowland N (%) | ||||
| Do you process goat milk? | |||||
| Yes | 23 (59) | 58 (58.6) | 81 (58.7) | 4.12 | 0.53 |
| No | 16 (41) | 41 (41.4) | 57 (41.3) | ||
| What product do you process? | |||||
| Yoghurt | 23 (59) | 58 (58.6) | 81 (58.7) | ||
| Do you make yoghurt? | |||||
| Yes | 23 (59) | 58 (58.6) | 81 (58.7) | 5.46 | 0.13 |
| No | 16 (41) | 41 (41.4) | 57 (41.3) | ||
| How long time do you store milk for yoghurt making? | |||||
| 2 days | 10 (25.6) | 22 (22.2) | 32 (23.2) | 10.30 | 0.035 |
| 3 days | 11 (28.2) | 35 (35.4) | 46 (33.3) | ||
| 4 days | 2 (5.2) | 1 (1.0) | 3 (2.2) | ||
| Yoghurt storing material | |||||
| Gourd | 17 (43.6) | 52 (52.5) | 69 (50) | 9.78 | 0.047 |
| Plastic material | 6 (15.4) | 6 (6.1) | 12 (8.7) | ||
Note: N = number of respondents.
3.5. Milk Composition of Dairy Goats
The milk composition of dairy goats in the study area, including protein, fat, lactose, SNF, TSs, pH, and milk density, is presented in Table 5. There were no significant effects (p > 0.05) of agroecology, birth type, age, lactation stage, or parity on any of the milk composition traits.
TABLE 5.
Milk composition (% DM) of local goats in the study area.
| Variable | N | Protein | Fat | Lactose | SNF | TS | pH | Density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agroecology | ||||||||
| Midland | 15 | 4.57 | 5.43 | 4.66 | 9.97 | 15.37 | 6.73 | 1035.8 |
| Lowland | 45 | 4.73 | 6.18 | 4.71 | 9.96 | 16.18 | 6.64 | 1032.6 |
| p‐value | 0.3401 | 0.1256 | 0.7395 | 0.9631 | 0.1499 | 0.2256 | 0.0563 | |
| Birth type | ||||||||
| Single | 40 | 4.77 | 6.17 | 4.59 | 9.68 | 15.89 | 6.69 | 1033.7 |
| Twins | 20 | 4.53 | 5.44 | 4.77 | 10.25 | 15.66 | 6.69 | 1034.7 |
| p value | 0.1071 | 0.1017 | 0.2145 | 0.1059 | 0.6659 | 0.8770 | 0.4981 | |
| Age of the doe | ||||||||
| 1 year | 14 | 4.11 | 6.15 | 4.30 | 10.40 | 16.56 | 6.65 | 1034.1 |
| 2 years | 22 | 4.95 | 6.19 | 4.67 | 9.56 | 15.7 | 6.7 | 1032.2 |
| 3 years | 21 | 4.83 | 5.43 | 4.74 | 10 | 15.43 | 6.7 | 1034.4 |
| 4 years | 3 | 4.71 | 5.44 | 5.02 | 9.91 | 15.39 | 6.71 | 1036.2 |
| p value | 0.2744 | 0.6992 | 0.5551 | 0.7911 | 0.8677 | 0.9782 | 0.7556 | |
| Lactation stage | ||||||||
| Early | 20 | 4.53 | 6.10 | 4.49 | 9.62 | 15.68 | 6.70 | 1032 |
| Mid | 20 | 4.64 | 5.35 | 4.77 | 10.28 | 15.63 | 6.72 | 1035.2 |
| Late | 20 | 4.78 | 5.96 | 4.78 | 10.01 | 16.02 | 6.65 | 1035.5 |
| p value | 0.3053 | 0.2880 | 0.1086 | 0.2515 | 0.7542 | 0.2466 | 0.0751 | |
| Parity | ||||||||
| 1 | 14 | 5.18 | 4.95 | 5.08 | 10.31 | 15.29 | 6.65 | 1034.5 |
| 2 | 2 | 5.23 | 6.4 | 5.27 | 9.5 | 15.93 | 6.77 | 1034.8 |
| 3 | 19 | 4.31 | 5.82 | 4.55 | 10.48 | 16.32 | 6.7 | 1036.5 |
| 4 | 13 | 4.43 | 5.28 | 4.75 | 10.14 | 15.4 | 6.63 | 1034.5 |
| 5 | 9 | 4.48 | 5.7 | 4.53 | 10.1 | 15.77 | 6.71 | 1033.6 |
| 6 | 3 | 4.26 | 6.69 | 3.92 | 9.26 | 15.94 | 6.68 | 1031.6 |
| p value | 0.2877 | 0.6159 | 0.0762 | 0.6678 | 0.8948 | 0.5057 | 0.8712 |
Note: N = number of milking goats.
Abbreviations: SNF, solid‐not‐fat; TS, total solids.
4. Discussion
Variation in milk yield among goats may result from differences in management, environmental conditions, and mammary gland activity [22]. Matebesi et al. [23] reported that lowland goats in Lesotho produced more milk (0.42 L/day) than mountain goats (0.32 L/day). Comparable yields include 0.85 ± 0.12 L/day for Somali goats [12] and 0.75 L/day for Begait goats [9]. Lower yields were reported for Hararghe highland goats (0.40 L/day; [24]), Somali goats (0.53 L/day; [25]), and Central highland goats (0.34 ± 0.02 L/day; [26]). DMY in this study was lower than 1.13 ± 0.13 L/day reported for Arsi‐Bale goats [12]. LL was also shorter than Begait (111 days; [9]), Hararghe highland (108 days; [24]), and Central highland goats (104.2 ± 4.45 days; [26]).
Does with twin kids produced more milk than single‐kidded does, consistent with Dhaba et al. [4], likely due to enhanced mammary development and suckling stimulation [27]. Milk yield was highest at midlactation [28] but differs from Norris et al. [29], who reported higher early‐stage yields. Parity had no significant effect, aligning with Norris et al. [29].
Goat milk is consumed by all family members, mainly children, though consumption varies due to low awareness and cultural taboos [30, 31]. Similar low consumption was reported in Humbo district (96.2%; [31]) and child‐focused consumption in Hadiya zone (88%; [32]). Most households consumed milk raw (55.1%), while others boiled (25.3%) or soured it (17.4%), consistent with 60% raw consumption in Kolla Tembien, Tigray [33].
Hygiene practices varied: 31%–35% of the households washed hands before milking in Karat Zuria and Uba Debra Tsehay [34], with no udder washing. Milk container cleaning ranged from 43.3% in pastoralists to 76.67% in agropastoralists in Degahbur [35]. In the study area, 87% milked goats twice daily, similar to Alefe [25]. Milk storage included gourd, plastic, and stainless steel [36]. Yogurt was naturally fermented without starter culture [37], with 7.69%–8.70% of the households preparing it in Karat Zuria and Uba Debra Tsehay [34].
Milk composition for Arsi‐Bale goats under semi‐intensive management included protein 4.8 ± 0.14%, fat 5.15 ± 0.04%, TS 16.27 ± 0.76%, and lactose 4.93 ± 0.11% [12]. Fat content of 5.3% was reported by Andualem et al. [28], while Nurfeta et al. [38] reported protein 3.5 ± 0.12%, fat 4.2 ± 0.17%, and TS 13.4 ± 0.15% under extensive management. Higher values were reported for Abergelle goats under semi‐intensive management (fat 8.71 ± 0.36% and TS 18.6 ± 0.45%; [39]). Milk pH ranged from 6.62 ± 0.01 to 6.64 ± 0.01 in Hair and Sannen × Hair goats [40]. Lactation stage affected lactose, increasing from early to late lactation [41], while parity had no effect on milk fat or protein [42].
The findings of this study highlight the significant contribution of local goat milk production and consumption to household nutrition and livelihoods, directly supporting the achievement of SDGs, particularly SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) through enhanced food security and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well‐being) by providing nutrient‐rich dairy for vulnerable populations.
5. Conclusions
Goat milk is widely consumed and supports household nutrition. Milk yield is influenced by agroecology, birth type, and lactation stage, with higher yields in lowlands and twin‐kidded does. Milk composition was not significantly affected by evaluated factors. Low milk yield and shorter LL indicate the need for improved feeding and management. Enhancing milk handling, husbandry practices, and extension services could improve productivity and food security.
Author Contributions
Mardofe Manta: investigation, methodology, and writing–original draft preparation; Yilkal Tadele and Seifu Birhanu: analysis, supervision, resources, and writing–review and editing.
Funding
No external funding was received for this study.
Disclosure
All authors have approved the manuscript.
Consent
Written informed consent obtained from all participants.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Arba Minch University for the financial support received during the field work.
Manta, Mardofe , Birhanu, Seifu , Tadele, Yilkal , Milk Production Performance, Handling and Utilization Practices, and Compositional Analysis of Local Goats in Garda Marta District, Southern Ethiopia, Veterinary Medicine International, 2026, 4334987, 8 pages, 2026. 10.1155/vmi/4334987
Academic Editor: Lipi Buch
Contributor Information
Yilkal Tadele, Email: yilkaltadele@gmail.com.
Lipi Buch, Email: lbuch@wiley.com.
Data Availability Statement
Data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
- 1. Lebbie S. H. B., Goats Under Household Conditions, Small Ruminant Research. (2004) 51, no. 2, 131–136, 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2003.08.015, 2-s2.0-1642486593. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Ahmed S., Breeding Practices and Strategies for Genetic Improvement of Indigenous Goats in Ethiopia: Review, Greener Journals of Agricultural Science. (2017) 7, no. 4, 090–096, 10.15580/GJAS.2017.4.051817064. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3. CSA (Central Statistical Authority), Agricultural Sample Survey 2020/21 (2013 E.C). Report on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics, 2021, CentralStatistical Authority. [Google Scholar]
- 4. Dhaba U., Belay D., Solomon D., and Taye T., Sheep and Goat Production Systems in Ilu Abba Bora zone of Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia: Feeding and Management Strategies, Global Veterinaria. (2012) 2012, 421–429. [Google Scholar]
- 5. Urgessa D., Sheep and Goat Production Systems in Ilu Abba Bora zone of Oromia Regional State. Ethiopia, 2013, 9, no. 4, Jimma university. Global Veterinaria, 676–679, MSc. thesis. [Google Scholar]
- 6. Utaaker K. S., Chaudhary S., Kifleyohannes T., and Robertson L. J., Global Goat is the Expanding Goat Population an Important Reservoir of Cryptosporidium?, Frontiers in Veterinary Science. (2021) 8, no. 2021, 10.3389/fvets.2021.648500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Daniel G., Márcio C., Lillian B. et al., Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals in the Dairy Sector: Perspectives on the Use of Agro-Industrial Side-Atreams to Design Functional Foods, Trends in Food Science & Technology. (2022) 124, 128–139, 10.1016/j.tifs.2022.04.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Dereje T., Mengistu U., Getachew A., and Yoseph M., A Review of Productive and Reproductive Characteristics of Indigenous Goats in Ethiopia, 2015, Livestock Research for Rural Development, http://lrrd.cipav.org.co/lrrd27/2/dere27034.html. [Google Scholar]
- 9. Abraham H., Selomon G., and Urge M., Begait Goat Production Systems and Breeding Practices in Western Tigray, North Ethiopia, Open Journal of Animal Sciences. (2017) 7, 198–212, 10.4236/ojas.2017.72016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Kefyalew A., Small Ruminant Trait Selection and Genetic Improvement in Ethiopia, Achievements, Challenges and Lesson Learnt: A Comprehensive Review, Journal of Applied Animal Science. (2018) 11, no. 3, 9–24. [Google Scholar]
- 11. Tesema Z. and Kefyalew A., Milk Production Performance of Ethiopia Goats and Its Inputs for Marker-Assisted Selection: A Review, Journals of Applied Agriculture and Biotechnology. (2018) 3, no. 1, 14–28. [Google Scholar]
- 12. Mestawet T. A., Girma A., Adnoy T., Devold T. G., Narvhus J. A., and Vegarud G. E., Milk Production, Composition and Variation at Different Lactation Stages of Four Goat Breeds in Ethiopia. Short Communication, Small Ruminant Research. (2012) 10, no. 5, 176–181. [Google Scholar]
- 13. Silanikove N., Leitner G., Merin U., and Prosser C. G., Recent Advances in Exploiting Goat’s Milk: Quality, Safety and Production Aspects, Small Ruminant Research. (2010) 89, no. 2-3, 110–124, 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2009.12.033, 2-s2.0-77950519984. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Tilahun Z., Nejash A., Tadele K., and Girma K., Review on Medical and Nutritional Values of Goat Milk, Academic Journak of Nutrition. (2014) 3, no. 1, 30–39. [Google Scholar]
- 15. Agatha P., Study Regarding the Trends in the World and European Goat Milk Production, Lucrări Ştiinţifice—Seria Zootehnie. (2013) 59, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- 16. Haenlein G. F. W., Goat Milk in Human Nutrition, Small Ruminant Research. (2004) 51, no. 2, 155–163, 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2003.08.010, 2-s2.0-1642445492. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Gardamarta District Livestock and Fishery Resource Development Office (GMDLFDO), 2024, Livestock Population Report. [Google Scholar]
- 18. Bukuno S., Asholie A., Girma Z., and Haji Y., Measles Outbreak Investigation in Garda MartaDistrict, Southwestern Ethiopia, 2022: Community-Based Case-Control Study, Infection and Drug Resistance. (2023) 16, 281–294, 10.2147/IDR.S405802. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Cochran W. G., Sampling Techniques, 1977, 3rd edition, John Wiley and sons. [Google Scholar]
- 20. Benson M. E., Henry M. J., and Cardellino R. A., Comparison of Weigh-Suckle-Weigh and Machine Milking for Measuring Ewe Milk Production, Journal of Animal Science. (1999) 77, no. 9, 2330–2335, 10.2527/1999.7792330x, 2-s2.0-0033192519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. SAS, Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, 2008, SAS Institute Inc. [Google Scholar]
- 22. Song X., Zhao M., Cao Q. et al., Transcriptome Provides Insights Into Bovine Mammary Regulatory Mechanisms During the Lactation Cycle, Journal of Applied Animal Research. (2022) 50, no. 1, 175–288, 10.1080/09712119.2022.2064865. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Matebesi A. P., Norris D., Ngambi W. J., and Khitsane L., Productivity of Angora Goats in the Communal Rangelands of Malimo-Nthuse Area in Lesetho, Tropical Animal Health and Production. (2006) 38, no. 7-8, 597–603, 10.1007/s11250-006-4438-9, 2-s2.0-33845617992. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Dereje T., Herd Husbandry and Breeding Practices of Goat in Different Agro-Ecologies of Western Hararghe, Ethiopia, 2011, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia, An MSc thesis. [Google Scholar]
- 25. Alefe T., Phenotypic Characterization Indigenous Goat Types and Their Production System in Shabelle Zone, Southeastern Ethiopia, International Journal of Innovative Research & Development. (2016) 5, no. 14, 234–252. [Google Scholar]
- 26. Tesema Z., Kefyalew A., Damitie K., Tesfaye G., Alemu K., and Belay D., Reproductive Performance and Milk Production of Central Highland and Boer X Central Highland Goats, Heliyon. (2020) 1–6, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05836. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Ketto I. A., Massawe I., and Kifaro G. C., Effect of Supplementation, Birth Type, Age and Stage of Lactation and Composition of Norwegian X Small East African Goats in Morogoro, Tanzania, Livestock Research for Rural Development. (2014) 26, no. 12. [Google Scholar]
- 28. Andualem D., Negesse T., and Tolera A., Milk Yield and Composition of Grazing Arsi-Bale Does Supplemented With Dried Stinging Nettle (Urtica simensis) Leaf Meal and Growth Rate of Their Suckling Kids, Advances in Biological Research. (2016) 10, no. 3, 191–199, 10.5829/idosi.abr.2016.10.3.102187. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Norris D., Ngambi J. W., Benyi K., and Mbajiorgu C. A., Milk Production of Three Exotic Dairy Goat Genotypic in Limpopo Province, South Africa, Asian Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances. (2011) 6, no. 3, 274–281, 10.3923/ajava.2011.274.281, 2-s2.0-77955017455. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Tuan L. T., Phuong N. T. T., Ngoc L. T. B., and Mai L. H., Powdered Milk Consumers’ Buying Behavior, International Journal of Business and Management. (2013) 8, no. 2, 10.5539/ijbm.v8n2p29. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Gebreegziabher Z., Merkine M., and Mathewos S., Assessment of Goat Production System and Factors Affecting Production and Utilization of Goat Milk in Humbo District of Wolaita Zone, Outhern Ethiopia. Journals of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare. (2016) 6, no. 5, 46–51. [Google Scholar]
- 32. Tsedey A., Zelalem Y., and Ajebu N., Smallholder Goat Husbandry Practices in Badwacho District Hadiya Zone, Southern Ethiopia, International Journal for Research in Mechanical Engineering. (2016) 1, no. 7, 19–30. [Google Scholar]
- 33. Tsegay T. G., Solomon T., and Awot T., Management Practices and Utilization of Milk and Milk Products of Abergelle Breed of Goats in Extensive Production Systems in Kolla Tembien District, Tigray, Northern Ethiopia, Nigerian Journal of Animal Science (NJAS). (2020) 22, no. 1, 194–200. [Google Scholar]
- 34. Karra T. K. and Gage A. A., Assessment of Woyto-Guji Goat Milk Production, Handling, Processing, and Utilization Practices in Konso and Gofa Zones of South Ethiopia, International Journal of Animal Sciences. (2024) 5. [Google Scholar]
- 35. Ahmed A., Amentie T., Abdimahad K., and Mohamed M., Handling and Hygienic Production Practices of Goat Milk in Degahbur District of Jarar Zone, Somali Regional State, Ethiopia, Open Journal of Animal Sciences. (2022) 12, no. 03, 524–536, 10.4236/ojas.2022.123040. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Ahmed H., Serkalem A., Belete K., and Bushra B., Breeding and Milking Managements and Goat Production Constraints in Siltie Zone SNNPR, Ethiopia, Heliyon. (2023) 9, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22573. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Getaneh D., Assessment of Dairy Production System, Handling, Processing, and Utilization Practices in South Ari and Malle District of South Omo Zone, Ethiopia, Research on World Agricultural Economy. (2023) 4, no. 1, 10–24, 10.36956/rwae.v4i1.773. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Nurfeta A., Bino G., and Abebe G., On-Farm Evaluation of Enset (Ensete ventricosum) Leaf Supplementation on Does Milk Yield and Composition and Growth Rates of Their Kids, Ethiopian Journal of Applied Sciences and Technology. (2012) 3, no. 1, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- 39. Berhane G. and Eik L. O., Effect of Vetch (Vicia sativa) Hay Supplementation on Performance of Begait and Abergelle Goats in Northern Ethiopia. I. Milk Yield and Composition, Small Ruminant Research. (2006) 64, no. 3, 225–232, 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.04.021, 2-s2.0-33646256911. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Cak B., Yilmaz O. O., and Demirel A. F., A Study on Milk Composition of Hair Goat and Sannen X Hair Goat Crossbreed (F1) Under Semi-Intensive Condition, Journal of Agricultural Sciences. (2021) 27, no. 1, 83–87. [Google Scholar]
- 41. Hassan M. R., Talukder M. A. I., and Sultan S., Evaluation of the Production Characteristics of the Jamunapari Goat and Its Adaptability to Farm Conditions in Bangladish, Bangladesh Veterinarian. (2010) 27, no. 1, 26–35. [Google Scholar]
- 42. Zamuner F., Digiacomo K., Cameron A. W. N., and Leury J., Effects of Month of Kidding, Parity Number and Litter Size on Milk Yield of Commercial Dairy Goats in Australia, Journal of Dairy Science. (2019) 103, no. 1, 954–964, 10.3168/jds.2019-17051, 2-s2.0-85074092001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.