Dairy technology adoption on milk handling quality, consumption pattern and income level of farmers in dairy technology adopters and non-adopter households in Sidama Zone, Southern Ethopia

Table of Contents

Contents Pages

Dedication

List of Abbreviations/Acronyms

Acknowledgements

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
1.2. Problem Statements and justification
1.3. Objectives
1.3.1 General objective of the study
1.3.2 Specific objectives

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Importance of the Livestock Sector in Ethiopia
2.2. Overview of the Importance of Dairy Production in Ethiopia
2.3. Dairy Products Marketing System in Ethiopia
2.4. Milk Consumption Patterns
2.4.1. Milk and milk product consumption in urban areas
2.4.2. Milk and milk product consumption in rural areas
2.4.3. Milk and milk product consumption in pastoral areas
2.5. Milk’s role for food security and household nutrition
2.6. Traditional Milk Handling and Processing Practices in Ethiopia
2.7. Definition of Technology Adoption
2.8. Determinants of Adoption of Dairy Technologies
2.9. Microbial Quality and Sources of Bacterial Contamination
2.10. Dairy Development Projects in Study Area

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Description of Study Area
3.2. Sample Size and Sampling Procedures
3.2.1 Household survey
3.2.2 Milk sample collection
3.3. Milk Microbial Analysis
3.4 Data Analysis

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSION
4.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
4.2. Purpose of Milk Production in Adopter and Non-Adopter Farmers
4.3. Dairy Products Consumption
4.4. Income Sources for Households
4.5. Dairy Source Income for Households
4.6. Dairy Products Marketing
4.7. Water Source Used to Clean Udder and Equipments
4.8. Hygienic Practices Followed During Milk Production
4.9. Plants Used for Washing and Smoking Milk Equipment
4.10. Hygienic Practices of Dairy Products Handling Equipment
4.11. Housing and Cleaning Practices of Dairy Farm
4.12. Dairy Herd Size and Compositions at Household Levels
4.13. Land Holding
4.14. Feed Resources for Dairy Cattle
4.15. Dairy Technology Adoption Practice
4.16. Microbial Quality of Raw Milk in Technology Adopter and Non-Adopter farmers

5.1. Conclusions
5.2. Recommendations

6. REFERENCES

Annex: Study questionnaire

Dedication

In memory, this thesis is dedicated to my father Tesfaye Doelaso.

List of Abbreviations/Acronyms

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Acknowledgements

First I would like to thank my God for his endless love and help me to successfully finish my study. Secondly, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my major advisor Sintayehu Yigrem (PhD) and Co-advisor Mestawet Taye (PhD) for their constructive comments and for their guidance facilitation of dairy laboratory work with every necessary input for this work. My deepest thanks also goes to my families and Sanago S, Who offered me comprehensive moral and technical support that enabled me, succeed though out my academic life. At the last special thanks to Mr. Teshale Endalemaw and W/t Neima Guluma who gave me enough time for this study beside of work. I owe them more than a mere expression of thanks.

List of Tables

Table 1 : Household socio-demographic characteristics (N=180)

Table 2: Purpose of milk production in adopter and non-adopter farmers (N=180)

Table 3: Consumption level of dairy products per month per person at different seasons (N=180)

Table 4: Major income source for dairy producer household (N=180)

Table 5: Dairy source income for households (N=180)

Table 6: Major marketable dairy products (N=180)

Table 7: Monthly income of dairy products (N=180)

Table 8: Water source used to clean udder and milk equipments (N=180)

Table 9: Hygienic practices of dairy production activities (N=180)

Table 10: Plants used to smoke and wash milk storage containers (N=180)

Table 11: Hygienic practices of dairy products handling equipment (N=180)

Table 12: Housing system, barn type and barn cleaning frequency (N=180)

Table 13: The average number of dairy cattle holding and breed type (N=180)

Table 14: Major feed types using for dairy herd (N=180)

Table 15: Dairy technology practicing households and benefits (N=180)

Table 16: Microbial quality of raw milk in dairy technology adopter and non-adopter HHs

Assessment of Dairy Production Practices and Household Benefits among Improved Dairy Production Practice Adopter and Non-Adopters of Selected District of Sidama Zone, Southern Ethiopia

By: Endale Tesfaye Doelaso

ABSTRACT

The study was carried out in three districts of sidama zone (Hawassa zuria, Wondo Genet and Malga) in southern Ethiopia, with the objectives of identifying the impacts of dairy interventions on dairy cattle husbandry practices, income from dairy products, consumption patterns of dairy products and safety and quality dairy products by comparing dairy technology adopter and non-adopter groups. A total of 180 households each of 90 households from adopter and non-adopter groups were selected randomly. For microbial analysis a total of 90 raw milk samples were collected aseptically using sterile sample bottles. The microbial count data was transformed to logarithmic values (log10) and then analyzed using (SPSS soft ware version 20). The result shows that all of dairy technology adopter households and about 20% of non-adopter households attended different dairy development trainings. Education level of respondents observed from adopter groups were 32.1% Illiterate, 62.3% elementary , 4.4% high school and 2.2% Diploma and above ; while it was observed 67.8% illiterate , 28.8% elementary , 3.3% High school in the non-adopter groups . The present study shows dairy products consumption and incomes from dairy products were higher in adopter than non-adopter groups . The present study indicated that milk production for household consumption purpose accounts about 34.4%, 18.9% for sale and 46.7% for consumption and sale in adopter households; while it accounts 63.3% 3.33% and 33.4% in adopter households. Dairy production contributed to about 28.9% and 11.1% household income of adopter and non-adopter groups of the respondent’s respectively. Sales of dairy products are the major income source for adopter and non-adopter households, which account for 70% and 87.7% of the total dairy related incomes adopter and non-adopter households respectively. The water sources used for general sanitation were from pond 4.4%, tap and pond 28.9%, tap and river 33.3%, tape and lake 16.7% and Lake 16.7% in adopter households; while in non-adopter households it was observed river14.1%, pond 33.3%, tap and river 18.9%, tape and lake 22.2% and Lake 11.1% in adopter households About 81.1% of adopter farmers used cold water for udder stimulation, while it accounts for 91.1% the non-adopter groups. The majority of farmers didn’t at all use milking towels, while about 24.4% and 8.9% of adopter and non-adopter respondents respectively, used common towel to dry udder after washing; none of respondents use individual towels during milking. About 61.1%, 18.9% and 20% of adopter and 48.9%, 30% and 21.1% of non-adopter dairy producers respectively, used Eucalyptus globules, Ruta chalepensis and Agave sisalena to wash milk and milk products handling equipment. Overall, 96.1% of the interviewed households shared the same residence house with their dairy animals. T he mean (±SD) TBC and CC loads observed from raw milk collected from adopter groups were 6.08 ( ± 0.25) and 5.83( ± 0.17) log10cfu/ml, respectively; while it was observed 6.73 ( ± 0.48) and 6.41 ( ± 0.50) log10cfu/ml in the non-adopter groups . The study concluded that income level and consumption of dairy products were higher in adopter groups than non-adopters. The lower microbial loads from adopter groups are an indication to the better awareness of farmers in properly handling milk and milk products. It is highly recommended that in dairy development interventions, a holistic approach rather than focusing in selected dairy technologies is necessary to address multifaceted benefits to the farmers to bring a greater impact to society, including consumers.

Keywords: Adopters, income, milk consumption, non-adopters, hygienic practices

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

In spite of the large livestock population, the contribution of the Ethiopian livestock sector in general and the dairy sector in particular is below its potential at both the national and household level (Berhanu et al., 2007). This low production level of the sector is attributed to inefficient productivity of the livestock as a result of the traditional method of production, poor breeds, poor feeding, inferior health care and services, and low capital investment in human and fixed assets. According to the central statistical agency estimation (CSA, 2011), the total cow milk production (excluding milk suckled) for the rural sedentary areas of the country during the reference period, is about 4.06 billion liters Average lactation period per cow during the reference period at country level was estimated to be about six months and average milk yield per cow per day was about 1.85 liters. Most milk produced in the rural areas of Ethiopia is consumed at home or marketed, either fresh or sour, and only in the vicinity of urban markets that surplus milk is processed into dairy products especially butter with longer shelf life (O’Mahoney and Peters, 1987).

In Ethiopia, dairy production is mainly of subsistent which is type largely based on indigenous breeds of cattle. Milk production from this system is low to support the demand for the continuously increasing human population, particularly in urban centers (Azage and Alemu, 1998). Traditional methods of milk processing generally give low yields of final products per unit of milk and require high labor inputs (O’Connor, 1993), and manufactured products have low stability and are hygienically inferior to similar products produced in large-scale dairy plants (Fekadu, 1994). The traditional handling, processing and utilization of milk in southern (Beyene, 1994), western (Tola, 2002) and central Ethiopia (Yilma and Inger, 2001a) have been assessed and reported. Identification and understanding of traditional dairy products are essential in order to devise appropriate development interventions that would result in improved production and quality of dairy products.

Over the last decade the dairy sector in Ethiopia has shown considerable progress. The progress achieved is mainly due to technological intervention, policy reforms and population pressure. The sector is expected to continue growing over the next one to two decades due the government directives through its Livestock Master Plan (LMP). Different dairy technologies have been transferred through both governmental, NGOs and private sectors. Even though large efforts have been made to disseminate dairy technologies through the support of Governmental and NGOs in different parts of the country, including the study area, In study areas NGOs (SNV-EDGET, AGP-LMD and ACDI/VOCA-FEED-II) working by providing different dairy technology inputs and trainings: introducing improved methods of fodder production for dairy cattle, Dairy cow management, Breed improvement, Awareness creation on dairy products consumption and Market chain, Experience sharing visit, Dairy processing unit establishing, Hygienic handling of dairy products and utensils. Accordingly, the contribution and benefits of dairy technologies by farm households varies widely across different agro-ecologies and within the same agro-ecology based on various technical and non-technical factors.

On the other hand, for policy design and effective management of extension programmes, information on the adoption and non-adoption of dairy technology on the smallholder households is very important and would help to come up with workable recommendations to improve the performance of the sector. Therefore, this study was aimed to assess the impact of technology adoption on milk handling quality, consumption pattern and income level of farmers in dairy technology adopters and non-adopter households.

1.2. Problem Statements and justification

Dairy technology adoption has many impacts on dairy cattle management, income from dairy products, consumption patterns of dairy products and handling of dairy products between dairy technology adopter and non-adopter groups. Despite considerable work done to enhance dairy development technology in the past, there is a shortage of scientific evidence on factors situated at different aggregation levels which affect dairy technology adoption in the dairy development sector. However, inappropriate dairy technologies distribution to smallholder farmers with a limited follow up could have undue effect. In Sidama zone quite multiple NGOs (such as EDGET/SNV, ACDI/VOCA, LIVE/ILRI, LMD/USAID) and GOs have been introducing dairy technologies by focusing on various needs of smallholder dairy farmers.This study was initiated to assess the impacts of those interventions in terms of dairy products consumption pattern, income level and milk handling practices, by comparing adopters and non-adopter groups.

1.3. Objectives

1.3.1 General objective of the study

To assess the impact of dairy technology interventions on milk handling, consumption pattern, microbial quality and income level of smallholder farmers.

1.3.2 Specific objectives

- To determine milk handling practices and quality of raw cow milk in dairy technology adopter and non-adopter households,
- To compare the dairy products consumption pattern between dairy technology adopter and non-adopter households and
- To compare household income from dairy products between dairy technology adopter and non-adopter households

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Importance of the Livestock Sector in Ethiopia

Livestock in Ethiopia perform important functions in the livelihoods of farm owners, pastoralists and agro-pastoralists. Livestock are sources of food (meat and milk), services (transport and traction) cash income, manure (for soil fertility and fuel), and serve as store of wealth and hedge against inflation. The subsector also provides year-round employment for a significant part of the rural population, which would perhaps remain unemployed otherwise (MEDaC 1999; Berhanu et al., 2009). Livestock are especially important sources of cash income to the poorer sections of the Ethiopian rural population and women, as is also true in many other developing countries (Delgado et al., 1999; Thornton et al. 2002; Berhanu et al., 2009). Beneficial income diversification investments can arise from cash income generated from livestock (Little et al., 2001; Berhanu et al., 2009).

The livestock population (in millions) is estimated at 53.4 cattle, 25.51 sheep, 22.79 goats, 2.03 horses, 6.21 donkeys, 0.39 mules, 1.10 camels and 49.29 poultry (CSA, 2011). Among these cattle population 99.26% (52.99 million), 0.64% (0.34 million) and 0.1% (0.05 million) are indigenous, crossbred and pure exotic breed cattle, respectively. This indicates that livestock production is an important component in local economies at both the national and farm household level, where cattle constitute the main livestock species kept by farm owners (Dehinenet, 2008). Cattle, which are more suitable for intensive production than other dairy species, contribute about 85% of the country’s annual milk production, with goats, sheep and camels combined making up the remaining 15% (FAO, 1999). Therefore, the main source of milk in Ethiopia is the cow and smallholder farm owners represent about 85% of the population and are responsible for 98% of total milk production (Tsehay, 2001).

The estimated annual net milk production (exclude milk suckled) from cattle is about 4.06 billion liters, average lactation period per cow during the reference period at country level is estimated to be about six months and average milk yield per cow per day is about 1.85 liters (CSA, 2011). Despite the large livestock population in Ethiopia, the sector’s contribution at the micro or the macro level is well below its potential due to various reasons, notably feed shortage and diseases. These problems are compounded by inefficiencies in the input (feed, genetic material and veterinary services) and output (livestock products) marketing, including poor market infrastructure, lack of marketing support services and limited market information (Berhanu et al., 2009).

2.2. Overview of the Importance of Dairy Production in Ethiopia

Livestock represents major national resources and form an integral part of agricultural production system (Gebrewold et al., 2000). Cows contribute to about 95% of the total annual milk produced at national level, while small ruminants and camels contribute 12.5% and 6.3%, respectively (CSA, 2010). More than 75% of the product is used locally for consumption (Getachew and Gashaw, 2001). Dairy production, among the sector of livestock production systems, is a critical issue in Ethiopia where livestock and its products are important source of food and income, and dairying have not been fully exploited and promoted in the country (Sintayehu et al., 2008). To be effective, the efforts to improve the productivity of smallholder dairy production and improve its market orientation needs to be supported and informed by detailed understanding of the current and dynamic condition of production, marketing, processing and consumption of milk and dairy products (Asfaw, 2008).

In the context of developing countries, the potential advantages of market-oriented smallholder dairying is improving the welfare of farm households and its multiplier effects on other sectors of the economy. Milk and milk products generates income for the farm households on regular basis, milk provides a highly nutritious food for people of all age groups and particularly for infants and lactating mothers thus reducing the problem of malnutrition among rural households and the value adding activities such as the processing, marketing and distribution of milk and milk products (Asfaw, 2008).

FAO (2010) estimated that 12-14% of the world population lives are sustained by dairy farming. World milk production is expected to increase by 153 million tons between 2010 and 2020 of which 73% is anticipated to come from developing countries (FAO, 2011).The rural system is non-market oriented and most of the milk produced in this system is retained for home consumption. The level of milk surplus is determined by the demand for milk by the household and its neighbors, the potential to produce milk in terms of herd size and production season, and access to a nearby market. The surplus is mainly processed using traditional technologies and the processed milk products such as butter, ghee, cheese and sour milk are usually marketed through the informal market after the households satisfy their needs (Tsehay, 2001).

Peri-urban milk production is developed in areas where the population density is high and agricultural land is shrinking due to urbanization around big cities like Addis Ababa. It possesses animal types ranging from 50% crosses to high grade Friesian in small to medium-sized farms. The peri-urban milk system includes smallholder and commercial dairy farmers in the proximity of Addis Ababa and other regional towns. This sector owns most of the country’s improved dairy stock (Redda, 2001). The main source of feed is both home produced or purchased hay; and the primary objective is to get additional cash income from milk sale. This production system is now expanding in the highlands among mixed crop–livestock farmers, such as those found in Selale and Holetta, and serves as the major milk supplier to the urban market (Gebre Wold et al. 2000).

Urban dairy farming is a system involving highly specialized, state or businessmen owned farms, which are mainly concentrated in major cities of the country. They have no access to grazing land. Currently, a number of smallholder and commercial dairy farms are emerging mainly in the urban and peri-urban areas of the capital (Felleke 2001; Azage, 2003) and most regional towns and districts (Ike, 2002; Nigussie, 2006). Smallholder rural dairy farms are also increasing in number in areas where there is market access.

2.3. Dairy Products Marketing System in Ethiopia

The Ethiopian dairy production and market systems face severe constraints. The average milk production per cow is 1.5 liters per day, well below international benchmarks. Poor genetics, insufficient access to proper animal feed and poor management practices all contribute to the low productivity levels. Similarly, dairy producers and downstream actors in the value chains face many challenges in getting milk to market. For the most part, milk collection, chilling and transport are not well organized and there are few economies of scale. Transaction costs are high and up 20-35% of milk is spoiled (Feleke et al, 2010).As is common in other African countries (e.g., Kenya and Uganda); dairy products in Ethiopia are channeled to consumers through both formal and informal dairy marketing systems (Mohammed et.al, 2004).

Until 1991, the formal market of cold chain, pasteurized milk was exclusively dominated by the Dairy development Enterprises) which supplied 12 percent of the total fresh milk in the Addis Ababa area (Holloway et al. 2000). The informal (traditional) market has remained dominant in Ethiopia. The traditional processing and trade of dairy products, especially traditional soured butter, dominate the Ethiopian dairy sector and only 5 percent is marketed as liquid milk due to underdevelopment of infrastructures in rural areas (Redda, 2001).Recently, private businesses have begun collecting, processing, packing and distributing milk and other dairy products. However, the proportion of total production being marketed through the formal markets remains small (Muriuki and Thorpe 2001).

The reasons for low capacity utilization and low volume supply of milk and milk products of Ethiopian dairy development enterprises include; management problems, financial difficulties, and unstable and low consumption levels of processed milk in the society due to fasting that prohibits the orthodox Christians (about 35- 40 percent of the population) from consuming dairy products for almost 200 days every year (Yigezu, 2000).According to (Van der Valk and Tessema 2010) 98% of milk produced in rural area were sold through informal chain where as only 2% of the milk produced is reached the final consumers through formal chain. Share of milk sold in the formal market is insignificant in Ethiopia, less than 2%, compared to 15% share in Kenya and 5% in Uganda (Muriuki and Thorpe, 2001). This tells us that in Ethiopia there is no market for dairy, exception in few major urban areas. Absent markets, affect the overall dairy production and consumption in the country.

2.4. Milk Consumption Patterns

Ethiopia consumes approximately 17 kg/capita. (GOE, LMP, 2007). Approximately 83% of the total milk produced is consumed at the household level and only 7% is supplied to the formal and informal markets. The remaining balance is distributed between in-kind wages (0.43%), and used for processing local butter, yogurt, and cheese (10.06%) primarily as a means of extending the shelf life during times of surplus. Milk and milk products form part of the diet for many Ethiopians. They consume dairy products either as fresh milk or in fermented or soured form. Felleke and Geda (2001) estimated that 68% of the total milk produced is used for human consumption in the form of fresh milk, butter, cheese and yogurt while the rest is given to calves and wasted in the process. Butter produced from whole milk is estimated to have 65% fat and is the most widely consumed milk product in Ethiopia.

The consumption of milk and milk products vary geographically between the highlands and the low lands and level of urbanization. In the lowlands, all segments of the population consume dairy products while in the highlands major consumers include primarily children and some vulnerable groups of women. The limited statistical data available on potential milk demand suggest that demand for milk will increase, at least in the urban centers and among the people with high purchasing power. The demand for milk depends on many factors including consumer preference, consumer’s income, population size, price of the product, price of substitutes and other factors. Felleke and Geda (2001) indicated that the demand for milk is inelastic with respect to income and price. In general, increasing population growth, rising real income and decreasing consumer prices are expected to expand the demand for milk and milk products.

The rural population is estimated to be 85% of the total population and its milk consumption largely depends on livestock holding. In the mixed highland regions, it is estimated that 50% of households own cattle of which 56% are dairy cattle. Consequently, most households have access to milk. Similarly, in the lowlands more than 80% of the households own cattle, significant number of small ruminates and camel. In this area, it is likely that all households consume milk (Felleke and Geda 2001).

2.4.1. Milk and milk product consumption in urban areas

Income will be a key driver of levels of milk consumption. As individual’s income rises there is a greater proportional rise in their expenditures on dairy products. The highest expenditure group, which makes up around 10% of the Addis Ababa market, consumes 38% of the milk. On the other hand, 61% of the population who are in the lowest expenditure group consumed only 23% of the milk. Based on 2005 data, workers in the lowest income class would have to work 2.71 hours for one kg of milk, 27 hours for one kg of butter, and five hours for 1 kg of ayib (MOA, 2005). In the Addis Ababa market, 5,000 commercial producers (estimate in 2002) sold 73% of their production, 10% went to household consumption, 10% to calves, and 8% was processed (Azage, et al, 2002.) The other source of milk serving Addis Ababa is primarily dairy enterprises processing and selling milk. Addis Ababa is the dominant market with other towns like Bahir Dar, Jimma, Hawassa and Dire Dawa offering opportunities for milk marketing.

The primary outlet for processed milk is Ethiopia’s urban centers, namely Addis Ababa, Bahir Dar, Debre Zeit, and Hawassa. However, the majority of the milk consumed by most urban and semi-urban homes is supplied through the informal sector: smallholder milk producers and traders directly supplying households, kiosks, hotels, coffee shops and the like. The impact of fasting days on milk demand is more evident in urban markets. With over 200 days of fasting, the milk processing companies will be more negatively affected than small milk collectors.

The tradition of fasting within the Ethiopian Orthodox community creates a double-induced excess supply of milk; Ethiopian Orthodox households producing milk will not keep milk for household consumption, instead seeking a market to sell all milk, while the demand for milk within rural, urban, and semi-urban communities is less as people observe the Fast. On the flip-side, demand for dairy products within Muslim communities increases during fasting periods, approximately 30 days/year.

2.4.2. Milk and milk product consumption in rural areas

In the rural areas, the consumption of milk will be determined by livestock ownership and season. The demand for milk is mainly for fresh whole milk which is satisfied by own production or purchased from neighbors. Processed milk is currently not sold in rural markets. In the rural areas producers will consume fresh milk and will convert their milk to butter. It is estimated that 40% of the milk produced is converted to butter, while only 9% is converted to cheese (GOE, LMP, 2007).

Traditional butter ferments slowly at room temperature and can be kept for a year or longer, offering rural consumers a readily storable and durable dairy product (GOE, LMP, 2007). Milk consumption in a region will depend on its herd size and the volume of milk produced.

2.4.3. Milk and milk product consumption in pastoral areas

Pastoral communities are acutely aware of the nutritional value of milk. Women in Somali Region perceive milk from camels and goats to be the most beneficial for children’s overall health, strength, and growth. In the wet season, milk consumed by pastoral children can account for 67% of the mean daily energy they require and 100 % of their protein requirements. (Sadler and Catley 2009). Lack of availability and access to milk in the dry season decreased daily consumption amounts by almost 25% with milk contributing only 16% and 50% of energy and protein requirements respectively.

Consumption of milk within households decreases during the dry season due to lack of feed and fodder resources and general decline in the lactating animals. Herders will often try to time cattle pregnancies and calving periods so that the natural drying off period for a lactating animal coincides with the dry season. For women and children, the shortage of dry season milk availability in pastoral communities is exacerbated because herds are moved far from settled family members as boys and men seek out water and grazing lands for their animals.

2.5. Milk’s role for food security and household nutrition

Livestock, milk, and milk products play an important role in the food security status in both highland and pastoral communities. In pastoralist regions, livestock are owned by a large percentage of the population. Women play a large role in decision-making regarding the processing and marketing of milk. Highland areas of the country contain over 65 - 75% of the livestock population; cattle provide traction power for 95% of grain production and also provide food, manure, cast income as well as serve as insurance during times of drought or a household emergency. In highland areas, income earned from daily milk production is used to purchase agriculture inputs or hire labor and land, effectively increasing a household’s food production potential. Although the daily income earned is marginal, especially from low milk producing local breed animals, milk sales and livestock ownership is necessary for food security.

Dairy provides importance sources of vitamins and minerals, particularly zinc, potassium, calcium and riboflavin. (Murphy and Allan, 2003; Sadler et al, 2009) These micronutrients, particularly important for infants and young children, are largely insufficient, absent, or poorly bio-available in plant-based diets, making dairy an important and essential source of nutrition. (Randolph et al, 2007) Research has demonstrated the positive nutritional impacts of dairy, including an association between increased consumption of milk and improved child growth (Zhu et al, 2004 and Hoppe et al, 2004). Thus, the consumption of even small quantities of milk can markedly improve the nutritional quality and diversity of the diet. Due to the important nutritional value of milk, increasing consumption of milk either directly or through fortified foods is often a priority of national health and nutrition programs.

2.6. Traditional Milk Handling and Processing Practices in Ethiopia

Cows are the main source of milk, and it is cows’ milk that is the focus of processing in Ethiopia (Layne et al., 1990). Dairy processing in Ethiopia is generally based on ergo (fermented milk in Ethiopia), without any defined starter culture, with natural starter culture. Raw milk is either kept at ambient temperature or kept in a warm place to ferment prior to processing (Mogessie, 2002).Dairy processing in the country is basically limited to smallholder level and hygienic qualities of products are generally poor (Zelalem and Faye, 2006). According to Zelalem and Faye (2006), about 52% of smallholder producers and 58% of large-scale producers used common towel to clean the udder or they did not at all. Above all they do not use clean water to clean the udder and other milk utensils. Among the interviewed small-scale producers, 45% did not treat milk before consumption, and organoleptic properties of dairy products are the commonly used quality tests.

In a study conducted in the Borana region of Ethiopia, butter was found to be an important source of energy as food for humans, and is used for cooking and as a cosmetic. The storage stability of butter, while not comparable to ghee, is still in the order of four to six weeks. This gives butter a distinct advantage over fresh milk in terms of more temporal flexibility for household use and marketing (Layne et al., 1990). Efficiency of traditional butter production was measured for 28 instances in which soured milk was churned by women in 20 households of Borana region. Prior to churning, the milk had a temperature of 20.0 ± 0.42oC and an acidity of 1.06 ± 0.03%. The milk was churned for 40.0 ± 2.5 minutes and afterwards the temperature of the buttermilk was 23.7 ± 0.32oC. The sour milk contained about 46.8 g of fat, compared with 7 g of fat in the buttermilk after churning. Thus some 85% of the butterfat was extracted by churning. Butter yield was 66.9 ± 5.6 g but moisture content of the butter was not determined (Layne et al., 1990).

2.7. Definition of Technology Adoption

New agricultural technology is generally a bundle or package of different technological elements such as improved production and productivity; plus the technical practices and skills needed for their effective use (SAMY, 1998; Shahin, 2004). Any definition of technology encompasses a wide range of phenomena. In the broadest sense, technology is defined as the translation of scientific laws into machines, tools, mechanical devices, instruments, innovation, procedures and techniques to accomplish tangible ends, attain specific needs, or manipulate the environment for practical purposes (Shahin, 2004).

2.8. Determinants of Adoption of Dairy Technologies

Adoption is a mental process through which an individual passes from hearing about an innovation to its adoption that follows awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption stages .Adoption of any agricultural innovation can be measured in two ways: (1)In terms of the number of farmers who adopt the innovation and (2) in terms of the total area on which the innovation is adopted. Different studies conducted in different countries revealed that demographic, social and economic factors affect adoption of improved agricultural technologies more specifically dairy technologies. Lemma et al., (2012) revealed that mass media exposure, training on dairy farming and knowledge of the dairy farmers on dairy husbandry practices had positive and highly significant relationship with the adoption of improved dairy husbandry practices. Education status and experiences of the dairy farmers on dairy farming and participation of the dairy farmers in various dairy farming related organizations also had positive and significant relationship with the adoption of the improved dairy husbandry practices. Farmers in the areas of training availability could adopt AI than non-training areas` farmers (Quddus, 2013). On other hands, the study stated that the probability of adoption decreased with the increase in age of household heads and increases with level of farmer’s education, farming experience and household income. Dehinenet et al., (2014) also reported that both age of the household and off-farm activities negatively and significantly related to adoption of improved dairy technologies. Family size, farming experience, availability of extension services, availability of training and accessibility of credit and saving institution affects adoption of the technologies positively and significantly.

2.9. Microbial Quality and Sources of Bacterial Contamination

The microbial load of milk is a major factor in determining its quality. It indicates the hygienic level exercised during milking, that is, cleanliness of the milking utensils, condition of storage, manner of transport as well as the cleanliness of the udder of the individual animal (Gandiya, 2001).Sources of bacterial contaminations of raw milk can be divided into three general categories: environment, udder and milking equipment. Inadequate cooling of the milk, improper udder preparation methods, unclean milking equipment and the water used for cleaning purposes are considered as the main source of milk contamination (De Graaf et al., 1997).

The conditions necessary for bacterial multiplication are moisture, suitable temperature, air and nutrient. Milk which supplies all these essentials to bacterial existence is one of the most favorable media for the growth of microorganisms (Garry, 2003). Although the air of the milking environment rarely contributes a significant number of the total microbial count of milk, extremely dusty conditions may increase the counts. Milk handling personnel (milkier, butter maker, cheese maker, etc.) may contribute various organisms including pathogens especially when they are careless, willfully negligent, directly to milk (Ashenafi and Beyene, 1994). The soils, while the cows are in pasture, manure, the animal tails are some of the possible sources of contamination of milk (Gebra-Emanuel Teka, 1997).

2.10. Dairy Development Projects in Study Area

Over the years various governmental and non-governmental organizations have been operating in different capacity. The main ones have been presented as follows.

SNV-Dairy EDGET project is being implemented in Hawassa Zuria woreda with the objectives to improve household’s income and nutritional status of children through increased dairy production and enhanced dairy processing and marketing by: enhancing sustainable dairy production and productivity, input supply and related services, increase processing and marketing of dairy products, contribute to development of institutions and to dairy sector wide initiatives and improve nutritional status of children, through dairy consumption in the district Since 2014 (SNV, 2013). In Malga woreda with the objectives to improve smallholder incomes and nutritional status by: Increase productivity and competitiveness of selected value chains, Strengthen enabling environment for livestock value chains and Improve quality and diversity of household diet through intake of livestock products in the district, since 2012(AGP-LMD,2015).

ACDI/VOCA–(feed) in Wondo-genet woreda with the objectives to increase the income of Ethiopian smallholder livestock producers by improving access to, and use of, consistent, affordable, high quality animal feed that can support greater livestock productivity and efficiency by: Developing the feed ingredient supply chain and service sector, Developing feed manufacturing enterprises, Developing sustainable forage production systems, Introducing and expanding feedlot, dairy enterprise, and Promoting improved on-farm feeding practices; and Expanding trade of agricultural products in the livestock sector by introducing and expanding dairy enterprise in the district, since 2014(ACDI/VOCA, 2014).

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Description of Study Area

The study was conducted in three districts of Sidama Zone (Hawassa Zuria, Wondo Genet and Malga), Ethiopia. Sidama Zone is bordered on the south by the Oromia Regional state (except for a short stretch in the middle where it shares a border with Gedeo zone), on the west by the Bilate River, which separates it from Wolayita zone, and on the north and east by the Oromia Region again. Sidama has geographic coordinates of latitude, north: 5′ 45″ and 6′ 45″ and longitude, East, 38′ and 39′ some 275km south of Addis Ababa. It has a total area of 10,000 km2, of which 97.71% is land and 2.29% is covered by water. The total population in this zone is over 3.5 million (CSA, 2012).

As depicted in figure 1, the three districts were purposively selected, namely Wondo Genet, Hawassa Zuria and Malga as they were among dairy intervention areas by various NGO projects, where dairy technology adopters and non-adopters prevails for comparisons. From each district two kebeles were selected.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 1: Selected districts and their respective kebeles in the study area

3.2. Sample Size and Sampling Procedures

Farm household were categorized in two: dairy technology adopter and non-adopter households. The technology adopter households were farmers who benefit and practice dairy technologies which were introduced by dairy technology introducing NGOs.On the other hand, the non-adopter households were farmers who do not benefit or adopt dairy technologies from the NGOs in their area. In total 180 households were selected randomly, 90 from each categories, based on the above mentioned criteria and those farmers who have at least one lactating dairy cow on the farm at the time of survey. The lists of farmers were provided by the respective kebeles administration offices. To select households, equal number of households were selected from each districts, Hawassa zuria=60 (30 adopter and 30 non-adopter), Wondo genet=60 (30 adopter and 30 non-adopter) and Malga=60 (30 adopter and 30 non-adopter) households were selected.

3.2.1 Household survey

A pre-tested questionnaire was used to collect data in the study that include households regarding milk consumption, milk handling practices, dairy products income level, milk production, types of equipment used for milking and storage of milk. The household survey was conducted as face to face interview method. Additional data such as: housing condition and milk equipments were collected by observation or monitoring during interview.

3.2.2 Milk sample collection

In total, 90 raw milk samples(45 from adopter and 45 from non-adopter households) were taken aseptically using sterile sample bottles and carefully labelled and transported using an Ice box covered by Ice bags at 40c to inhibit microbial growth from sampling points to laboratory work and serial dilutions were prepared following the standard steps. Laboratory analysis was done in Hawassa University College of Agriculture in Dairy Science laboratory.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2: Milk sample size used for laboratory analysis in the study areas

3.3. Milk Microbial Analysis

3.3.1. Total Bacteria Count (TBC).

One ml of liquid milk samples was dispensed into sterile test tubes containing 9ml of 0.1% peptone water and thoroughly mixed using whirl mixer. Subsequent serial decimal dilutions were prepared in a similar manner using 0.1% peptone water. Duplicate appropriate decimal dilutions were pour plated on Standard Plate Count Agar (SPCA) which have autoclaved at 121º C for 15 minutes. India) and the sample and the agar were gently mixed by clock and anti-clockwise rotations. Then the plates was inverted and incubated at 37°C for 48hrs.

3.3.2. Coliform Count (CC):

One ml of liquid milk samples was dispensed into sterile test tubes containing 9ml of 0.1% peptone water (HiMedia, India) and thoroughly mixed using whirl mixer. Subsequent serial decimal dilutions were prepared in a similar manner using 0.1% peptone water. Duplicate appropriate decimal dilutions were pour plated on Violet Red Bile Agar (VRBA) (HiMedia, India) and incubated at 45°C for 24 hours. After complete incubations, typical dark red colonies on uncrowned plates were considered as Coliform for colony counts. This was followed by a confirmatory test by transferring four to five colonies from each plate to tubes of Lactose Broth (LB) (Pharma, US) with inverted Durham tubes. Gas production after 24 hours of incubation at 32°C was considered sufficient evidence of presence of Coliform (Richardson, 1985).

3.4 Data Analysis

Data collected from survey questionnaire and microbial quality analyses were analyzed using SPSS version 20. Microbial counts were transformed in to log10, using Microsoft office excel 2007, and counted colonies were expressed as colony forming units per ml (CFU/ml) using the following mathematical formula as recommended by IDF (1987).

Using General Linear Model (GLM) of SPSS Version 20 descriptive statistics such as frequencies and percentages were computed to describe relevant variables and the results were summarized in tables and graphs. The Least Significant Difference (LSD) test was used for means differences for significance at p <0.05

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSION

4.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Demographic information of the interviewed respondents is presented in Table 1. From the total interviewed households 94.4% were male headed. Younger age groups observed in adopter household were higher than non-adopter. As shown in Table 1, most of young adopter household heads age fall intervals of 30 to 40 years. There is a significant intervention (p<0.05) in age groups between intervention adopter and non-adopter. Education level of dairy technology adopter and non-adopter households observed in the study area were significantly different (p<0.05). From the total households 49.4% were illiterate while 45.6% attended up to elementary education levels. These result revealed as education plays an important role in the adoption of new dairy technologies. Under the current study, the average family size (Mean ±SE) between the two groups varied with an overall average of 6.73±1.7 persons. Dairy production is a labor and capital intensive economic activity, and large family size is an indication of the availability of sufficient labor (Woldemichael, 2014).

Table 1: Household socio-demographic characteristics (N=180)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

N=number of respondents, DTA=Dairy technology adopter, DTNA= Dairy technology non-adopter

4.2. Purpose of Milk Production in Adopter and Non-Adopter Farmers

As shown in Table 2; the purposes of milk production between adopter and non-adopter households were for different purposes. The overall result indicated that, milk production for household consumption accounts for about 48.7%, for market about 11.2% and both Consumption and Sale purpose accounts about 40.1%. In the present study areas about 63.3% of non-adopter farmer’s milk produce for household consumption and about 46.7% of adopter household’s produce milk both for consumption and sale. The overall t-test result showed that, the major purpose of milk production purpose is significantly different (p<0.05) for adopter and non-adopters (Table 2).

Table 2: Purpose of milk production in adopter and non-adopter farmers (N=180)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

N=number of respondents, DTN=Dairy technology adopter, DTNA= Dairy technology non-adopter

4.3. Dairy Products Consumption

The consumption level of dairy products was different at different seasons between dairy technology adopter and non-adopter households in the study areas. This could be attributed to the seasonal variability of forage for dairy cows. It has been also found out that dairy technology adopter household monthly milk consumption level at different season was higher compared to non-adopter households (Table 3). This could be attributed to the high milk production from the cows owned by the adopter group which had the advantage of owning improved animals and also growing improved forage crops.

Table 3: Consumption of dairy products per month per person at different seasons (N=180)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

N=number of respondents, DTN=Dairy technology adopter, DTNA=Dairy technology non-adopter

4.4. Income Sources for Households

Dairy cattle owners household generate their income from different sources. The source of household income under the current study in adopter and non-adopter is found to be variable. Overall, dairy production contributed to about 20% household income. There are significantly different (p<0.05) in major income source between adopter and non-adopter households in the study areas.

Table 4: Major income source for dairy producer household (N=180)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

N=number of respondents, DTN=Dairy technology adopter, DTNA= Dairy technology non-adopter

4.5. Dairy Source Income for Households

Present study indicated that dairy products are important source of income through sale of dairy products such as raw milk, butter and butter milk. Dairy production provides various sources of income for the households in the present study area (Table 5). Sale of dairy products (Raw milk, butter, butter milk and cheese) was the major source of Income for both dairy technology adopter and non-adopter households in the study areas which accounted for overall dairy source income of about 78.9%.

Table 5: Dairy source income for households (N=180)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

N=number of respondents, DTN=Dairy technology adopter, DTNA= Dairy technology non-adopter

4.6. Dairy Products Marketing

In the current study, the majority of farmers use an informal marketing system to sell their milk and milk products in the local markets. The dairy products sold in the study area were fresh whole milk, butter, butter milk, cottage cheese and yogurt (Table 7). Overall results indicated that butter was the major dairy product marketed in the study areas.

Table 6: Major marketable dairy products (N=180)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

N=number of respondents, DTN=Dairy technology adopter, DTNA= Dairy technology non-adopter

According to the current study, significant differences (p<0.05) were observed in income of dairy products between dairy technology adopter and non-adopter (Table 6). Technology adopter households could get more income from milk production than the non-adopter smallholder farmers. These significant differences in income generation from dairy products might be due to technology adopter farmer households using improved breeds, improved techniques and animal health care to increase milk production and productivity. This result is in agreement with the result of Mosnier and Wiek (2010) who stated that technology plays a major role in dairy production because production can be done anywhere as long as traditional constraints are substituted by improved technology.

Table 7: Monthly income of dairy products (N=180)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

N=number of respondents, DTN=Dairy technology adopter, DTNA= Dairy technology non-adopter

4.7. Water Source Used to Clean Udder and Equipments

The water sources used for cleaning purpose of milk handling equipment in adopter and non-adopter households were from river 7.2%, pond 18.9%, tap and pond 14.4%, tap and river 26.1%, tape and lake 19.4% and Lake 13.9%. Overall, about 86.1% and 13.9% of the adopter and non-adopter households respectively used cold water and warm water for udder and milk handling equipments cleaning. The proportion of households that used warm water was not significantly different (p<0.05) among the adopter and non-adopters respondents. Using hot water to clean milk handling materials helps to remove fat from the milk vessels that could be dumped in the fracture of the rough surface and would facilitate the multiplication of microorganisms. The quality of pond waters used for cleaning may not be to the required standard, thus to contribute to the poor quality of milk in the study area.

Table 8: Water source used to clean udder and milk equipments (N=180)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

N=number of respondents, DTA=Dairy technology adopter, DTNA= Dairy technology non-adopter

4.8. Hygienic Practices Followed During Milk Production

Higher proportion of dairy producers do not practice udder washing (Table 9). Among the household who practice udder washing higher proportion belonged to adopter group which probably should be due to the intervention by the actively working organization. The proportion of households using towel was also variable with about 16.7% using common towel to dry udder after washing; while 4.4% do not use towel to dry udder after washing. About 78.9% of the respondents reported that they do not practice both udder washing and drying. None of respondents use individual towel for each cow.

Under the current study it has been observed that teats and udders of dairy cows was visibly soiled with soil while they are laying in stalls or when they are allowed to stay in muddy barn yard. This finding is similar to a reported by Murphy and Boor (2000) who reported that bedding material has been shown to harbor large numbers of microorganisms. Practices that expose the teat end to organic bedding sources and wet and muddy pens increase the risk of occurrence of mastitis and milk contamination (Ruegg, 2006). Clean, dry and comfortable bedding condition is important to minimize the growth of pathogenic microorganisms. Production of milk of good hygienic quality for consumers require good hygienic practices including clean milking utensils, clean milker’s hands, washing the udder and use of individual towels during milking and handling, before delivery to consumers or processors (Getachew, 2003). Cleaning the udder of cows before milking is important since it could have direct contact with the ground, urine, dung and feed refusals while resting. Gran et al (2002) who also reported that insufficient cleaning of udder may results in contaminations of milk.FSA (2006) reported that cleaning of the udder before milking is important to remove both visible dirt and bacteria from the outer surface of the udder. Unless properly handled, milk can be contaminated by microorganisms at any point from production to consumption. Producers should therefore make udder washing a regular practice with warm water in order to minimize contamination and produce good quality milk.

Table 9: Hygienic practices of dairy production activities (N=180)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

N=number of respondents, DTA=Dairy technology adopter, DTNA= Dairy technology non-adopter

4.9. Plants Used for Washing and Smoking Milk Equipment

The current assessment result indicated that dairy producers practice washing of milk handling equipment with plants. Overall 55% of the producers used “Nech bahirzaf” (Eucalyptus globules), 24.4% used “Tenadam” (Ruta chalepensis) and 20.6% used “Kacha” (Agave sisalena) to wash milk and milk products handling equipment. Smoking of milk and milk handling equipments is a common practice in many parts of Ethiopia and milk vessels are usually smoked using wood splinters of “Weyra” (Olea africana) to bring desirable aroma to the milk. Interviewed respondents mentioned that smoking is used to develop desirable flavor in the milk and increased shelf life of the products. This is comparable with, the report that stated in addition to imparting pleasant flavor, smoking has anti-microbial activity and thus inhibits growth of microorganisms in milk (Mogessie and Fekadu, 1993). About 96.7% of respondents in current study area use “Weyra” (Olea africana) to smoke milk handling equipment and 3.3% not used smoking practice.

Table 10: Plants used to smoke and wash milk storage containers (N=180)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

N=number of respondents, DTA=Dairy technology adopter, DTNA= Dairy technology non-adopter

4.10. Hygienic Practices of Dairy Products Handling Equipment

Under the current study it has been found out that household’s practices hand milking their animals in the same place they are staying after cleaning it. All of the adopter and non-adopter respondents had milked their cows twice a day, early in the morning and at the evening. From interviewed respondents 78.9% cleaned dairy barns once a day, 11.7% every other day and 9.4% practice sometimes. All interviewed respondents 100% practiced washing of milking utensils before milking in the study areas. Present study indicated that almost all responsibility of milking and milk processing practice were done by women and young female of family members.

The present study is comparable with Asaminew and Eyassu (2009) who reported that highest share of practice of milk processing is accountable to the women 71.98%. Under some circumstances, research findings indicate that men and hired labor do not involve in processing of milk and also with share of responsibility for milk processing by children having greater value 28.02%. However, social definitions of dairy tasks carried out by men or women varies from one society, region, class or ethnic group to another depending on their social and economic status within the household setting (Aklilu, 2014).

Overall 30% of the respondents used clay pot and metal utensils to keep milk and milk products, 37.2% used glass, Metal and plastic and the rest 32.8% used Clay pot, Metal and Plastic. The proportion of households using appropriate milking equipment is high among the adopters than the non-adopter which could be attributed to the influence of the extension work by the different organization working in the area. Equipment used for milking, processing and storage determine the quality of milk and milk products. Traditional milk equipment are reported to be often porous and therefore a reservoir for many organisms and difficult to clean (O'Connor 1994). Proper metal (food grade) milking containers are expensive, milk producers use plastic containers which are difficult to clean and disinfect and thus it might contribute to poor quality of the milk (Omore et al., 2005). The left-over of milk and other dirt particles within the container may result in the contamination of milk. Omore et al. ( 2005) had also reported that lack of formal training and use of plastic containers are the main factors that contribute to the low quality of raw milk sold by producers and informal milk traders.

Traditional containers can be a potential source for the contamination of milk by bacteria, because this allows the multiplication of bacteria on milk contact surfaces during the interval between milking. This is mainly due to the difficulty of removing all milk residues from traditional containers that are porous by nature with the common cleaning systems. Producers need, therefore, to pay particular attention for the type as well as cleanliness of milk equipment. Non- food grade plastic cans, buckets and Jerry-cans must not be used (Kurwijila, 2006).Milking equipment should be easy to clean. Aluminum and stainless steel equipment are mostly preferred. As shown in figure 4, some of dairy technology adopter households practice milking with improved milking equipment which was supported by SNV.

The present study result is comparable with reported by Depiazzi and Bell (2002) who reported pre-milking udder preparation and teat sanitation play important part in the microbial load of milk, infection with mastitis, and environmental contamination of raw milk during milking. The milkier can be an important source of milk contamination. Therefore, keeping good personal hygiene and milkier should be in good health during milking operation (Zelalem, 2010). Rizwan et al. (2011) had reported that contamination of raw milk originates during milking, transportation and storage. Among the different direct means of milk contamination factors, unclean hands and milking equipment are the most important ones. As a result, milk is contaminated because it is not common to clean the udder and hindquarters of the cow (Alganesh, 2002).The use of detergent and good-quality water for cleaning could be expected to remove milk remains, including microorganisms that affect the microbial quality of milk.

Table 11: Hygienic practices of dairy products handling equipment (N=180)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

N=number of respondents, DTN=Dairy technology adopter, DTNA= Dairy technology non-adopter

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 3 : Milking with improved equipment provided to farmers by SNV/EDGET project

4.11. Housing and Cleaning Practices of Dairy Farm

According to the present study 96.1% of the interviewed households shared the same house with their animals while about 3.9% used separate house (Table 12). The majority of households 66.7% use grass as bedding materials, while others do not use. Housing conditions in many of respondents were unclear. This may have a negative impact on the quality of milk and milk products produced and processed. It is hypothesized that differences in feeding and housing strategies of cows may influence the microbial quality of milk (Coorevits et al., 2008). Proper and clean housing environment is a prerequisite to produce milk and milk products of acceptable quality (Asaminew, 2007). No differences were observed in the floor type between the two groups. Higher proportion of the respondents from the adopter group cleaned their barns every day as compared to the non-adopter group which could be due to the effect of the extension service.

Table 12: Housing system, barn type and barn cleaning frequency (N=180)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

N=number of respondents, DTN=Dairy technology adopter, DTNA= Dairy technology non-adopter

4.12. Dairy Herd Size and Compositions at Household Levels

As presented in Table 13, the number of dairy herd and breed types observed in the present study were significantly different (p<0.05) between dairy technology adopter and non-adopter households with improved breed being high among the adopter households. If the milking herd was more productive, the more milk the farmers produced and the more income they received from selling it in the area where the milk market is easily accessible. This result is in line with the finding of (Medola, 2007) which stated that farmers who gained from new agricultural technology have a direct employment and wage rates on landless laborers.

Table 13: The average number of dairy cattle holding and breed type (N=180)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

N=number of respondents, DTN=Dairy technology adopter, DTNA= Dairy technology non-adopter

4.13. Land Holding

In the present study area land holding size was measured in hectares and overall average land owned by household was 1.88±0.5. It is hypothesized that there was a direct relationship between the size of land holding by farm households and dairy technology adoption. Farmers with less land tend to be not willing to adopt dairy technology since they were thinking that the technology needs more land for improved forage development.

4.14. Feed Resources for Dairy Cattle

The feed sources of dairy cattle in the study areas were from own source and market which included concentrate feed, improved forage, enset leaf, crop by-products, green leaf and wheat bran. Present study shows that, most of dairy technology adopter households practice development of improved forage like, Desho grass, Elephant grass and Rhodes grass for their dairy cattle in figure 4. Out of the 180 respondents under the current study, 35% of them provided concentrate, improved forage, enset leaf, crop by-products and green leaf for cattle, 27.8% of them improved forage, enset leaf, crop by-products, and green leaf and 37.2% of them wheat bran, crop by products and green leaf (Table 14).The current result is in agreement with the report in the mixed-crop production system where majority 53.7% of the households use animal feeds from their own crop farm, while 23.7% use a combination of own farm and communal grazing (Sintayehu et al.,2008). Study by Dayanandan (2011) on production efficiency of dairy farm in highland of Ethiopia indicated that the share of variable and fixed cost of smallholder dairy farm was 90% and 10%, respectively. On the other hand, Ergano and Nurfeta (2006) reported that feed cost alone accounted for 80% of total cost.

Table 14: Major feed resource for dairy herd (N=180)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

N=number of respondents, DTN=Dairy technology adopter, DTNA= Dairy technology non-adopter

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 4: Improved forage (Elephant grass)

4.15. Dairy Technology Adoption Practice

Dairy technology adoption practices between dairy technology adopter and non-adopter households were given (Table 15). About 100% of dairy technology adopter households and about 20% of non-adopter households attended different dairy development training. This also indicates the existence of significance difference (p<0.05) among dairy technology adopter and non-adopter households regarding dairy technology adoption.

Table 15: Dairy technology practicing households and benefits (N=180)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

N=number of respondents, DTN=Dairy technology adopter, DTNA= Dairy technology non-adopter

4.16. Microbial Quality of Raw Milk in Technology Adopter and Non-Adopter farmers

4.16.1. Total Bacteria Count

The average total bacteria counted from raw milk samples collected from technology adopter and non-adopter household were 6.08 and 6.73 log10 cfu/ml, respectively. This high level of contamination of milk might be due to initial contamination of milk originating from the udder surface, source of cleaning water, milkier hygienic condition and milking utensils. The present study result is lower than the finding of Fikrineh et al., (2012) who reported 7.08 log cfu/ml of TBC in mid Rift valley Ethiopia and Asaminew and Eyassu, (2011) who reported 7.58 log cfu/ml of TBC in cow milk sampled from around Bahir Dar and Mecha district. Higher results have been reported by other scholars such as by Zelalem (2010) in the central highlands of Ethiopia (9.10 log cfu/ml) and Abebe et al. (2012) in Southern Ethiopia (9.82 log cfu/ml). The variation could be attributed to the milk handling and management associated with the milking and handling process. Therefore, total bacterial count is a good indicator for monitoring the sanitary conditions practiced during production and handling of raw milk (Chambers, 2002). A good instance merit mentioning was reduced total bacterial count observed in milk sampled from farmers who received training on hygienic milk production and handling, and who used recommended milk containers as compared to that produced by the traditional milk producers (Rahel, 2008; Sintayehu et al., 2008).

4.16.2. Coliform Count

The mean CC from raw milk samples collected from technology adopter and non-adopter household was 5.80 and 6.41 log10 cfu/ml respectively. The overall Coliform count of raw milk obtained in the current study 6.07log10 cfu/ml from smallholder producing household was higher than a study conducted on raw milk from smallholder dairy farms which was about 4.46 log cfu/ml in cow milk (Alganesh, 2002). However, it was lower than 6.11 and 6.61log10 cfu/ml observed from Omdurman and Khartoum north districts of Khartoum respectively. Abebe (2012) 4.03 log cfu/ml in Southern Ethiopia and Zelalem (2010) 4.58 log cfu/ml in the central Highland Ethiopia also have reported lower values. The variation between the different sources could be attributed to the overall management and handling practices of milk from the different sources.

According to the European Union standards, Coliform Count of raw milk should be less than 102cfu/ml (Fernandez, 2009). Coliform Count less than 100 Colony Forming Units (CFU)/ml are considered acceptable for milk intended to be pasteurized before consumption. Counts of 10cfu/ml or less are achievable and desirable if raw milk will be consumed directly (Jones and Sumner, 1999; Ruegg, 2003). Although, milk samples collected from the adopter group had lower Coliform Count than non-adopter, this high amount of milk contamination could be associated to milking of cows within the same barn and hygienic practices implemented while milking. This practice might have led to soil, dung and urine contamination of milk and failure to milk quality production at household. This could lead to consumer health problem and loss of income from milk and milk products to households. Generally, the presence of high numbers of Coliform in milk indicates that the milk has been contaminated with fecal materials, because of unclean udder and teats of cow’s, inefficient cleaning of the milking containers, poor hygiene of the milking environment, unclean water sources and cows with subclinical or clinical mastitis can all lead to elevated Coliform count in raw milk (Jayarao et al., 2004).

Table 16: Microbial quality of milk in dairy technology adopter and non-adopter farmers

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

CFU= Colony Forming Unit, SD=standard deviation, TBC=Total Bacteria Count, CC=Coliform Count and N =number of samples, mean with different superscript letter across column are SD at p<0.05

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION S

5.1. Conclusions

The overall purpose of this study was to assess dairy products consumption pattern, income level and raw milk handling practices in dairy technology adopters and non-adopters smallholder farmers. The present study shows that adoption of dairy technology is resulted with increased milk production and income which results in improving the smallholder livelihoods. The present study revealed that dairy technology adopter household’s dairy products consumption pattern and income level from dairy products were higher in adopter than non-adopter groups. TBC and CC value obtained from the adopter household were lower than non-adopter groups, which imply that the adopters were more aware about hygienic practices in dairy cattle management and dairy products handling. Such high loads of microorganisms indicate that there were contaminations due to mishandling practices during milk productions. Assessment showed that there are many poor practices undertaken at smallholder farmer level such as type of dairy cattle floor, waste management system, level of house cleanliness, water source used for sanitation, and the place of milking performed. These may predispose dairy products to microbial contaminations. The unhygienic milk handling practices were due to lack of material resources (such as lack of clean water), untargeted training and lack of access to new dairy technology adoption.

5.2. Recommendations

- In dairy development interventions, a holistic approach rather than focusing in selected dairy technologies is necessary to address multifaceted benefits to the farmers to bring a greater impact to society, including consumers .
- Introducing and disseminating appropriate dairy technologies to smallholder farmers at specific time with a continuous follow up could be a means through which their livelihoods and income can be improved
- Dairy technology adoption enables to increase milk production and quality in smallholder farmers
- Empowering the target group through providing training and new dairy technology and improving handling of dairy products would improve milk quality
- The milk used for consumption as well as the water used for udder washing and cleaning of dairy products handling equipment should be heat treated

6. REFERENCES

Abebe B, Zelalem Y, Ajebu N. 2012. Hygienic and microbial quality of raw whole cow’s milk produced in Ezha District of the Gurage Zone, Southern Ethiopia

ACDI/VOCA (2014): Feed-II Project agreement document–SNNPRS, Hawassa, Ethiopia, Pp 1-4, (unpublished data).

AGP-LMD (2015): Project external mid-term performance evaluation report, May 2015, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Pp 1-2.

Akililu, N., 2014. Women’s workload and their roles in livestock production in pastoral and agro Pastoral communities of Ethiopia. A research brief of Ethiopian Institutes of Agricultural Research

Alganesh T (2002). Traditional milk and milk products handling practices and raw milk quality in eastern Wollega. MSc thesis, School of Graduate Studies, Alemaya University, Alemaya, Ethiopia;108.

Asaminew T, Eyassu S. 2011. Microbial quality of raw cow’s milk collected from farmer and dairy cooperatives in Bahir Dar Zuria and Mecha district, Ethiopia.

Asaminew T, Eyassu S., 2009. Smallholder dairy production system and emergence of dairy cooperatives in Bahir Dar Zuria and Mecha Woredas, Northwestern Ethiopia. Dairy and Food Sciences, No 4, pp 185-192.

Asaminew T. 2007. Production handling, traditional processing practices and quality of milk in Bahir Dar milk shed area, Ethiopia. MSc thesis presented to school of graduate studies Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia.

Asfaw M. 2008. Assessments of processing techniques and quality attributes of butter produced in Delebo water shade of wolayita zone southern ethiopia. Hwassa University MSc. Thesis.

Ashenafi, M. and Beyene, F., 1994. Microbial load, microflora, and keeping quality of raw and pasteurized milk from a dairy Farm. Bull.Anim. Hlth. Prod. Afr., 42; 55-59.

Azage Tegegne (2003): Financing Market-Oriented Dairy Development. The Case of Ada`a-Liben Woreda Dairy Association. Urban Agriculture Magazine (the Netherlands),9:25-7.

Azage, T., Z. Sileshi, M. Tadesse and M. Alemayehu. “Scoping Study on Urban and Peri-Urban livestock keeping practices in Addis Abba”. Part I. Literature review on Dairy Production Management and Marketing – ILRI and EARO. 2002

Berhanu G. (2007): Heading Towards Commercialization? The Case of Live Animal Marketing in Ethiopia. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farm Owners Project Working Paper5. ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya.

Berhanu Gebremedhin, Adane hirpa and Kahsay Berhe (2009): Feed Marketing in Ethiopia: Results Of Rapid Market Appraisal. Improving Productivity and Market Success (IPMS) of Ethiopian Farm Owners Project Working Paper 15. ILRI, Nairobi Kenya. Pp 64.

Beyene, F., 1994. Present situation and future aspects of milk production, milk handling and processing of dairy products in Southern Ethiopia. PhD Thesis, Agricultural University of Norway. Norway.

Chambers JV (2002). The microbiology of raw milk in Dairy Microbiology Handbook. 3rd ed. R. K. Robinson, ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY,39–90.

Coorevits A, De Jonghe V, Vandroemme J, Reekmans R, Heyrman J, Messens W, De Vos P, Heyndrickx M (2008). Comparative analysis of the diversity of aerobic-spore-forming bacteria in raw milk from organic and conventional dairy farms system. Appl. Microbiol., in press.

CSA (2011): Central Statistics Authority of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Agricultural Sample Survey 2010/2011 (2003E.C).Vol. II. Report on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics. Statistical bulletin.

CSA (Central Statistics Authority). 2010. Agricultural sample survey 2010/2011. Vol. II. CSA of Ethiopia (2012) population. Addis Ababa: central statistic agency.

Dayanandan R., 2011. Production and marketing efficiency of dairy farms in highland of Ethiopia- an economic analysis.

De Graaf, T., Romero Zuniga, J.J., Cabalellero,M.,Dwingler, R.H.,1997. Microbiological quality aspects of cow’s milk at a smallholder cooperative in Turrialba,Costa Rica.PP.57-64.

Dehinenet G. (2008): Smallholder Dairy Production Technologies Uptake in Mixed Farming System in Dejen Woreda of East Gojjam Zone, Amhara National Regional State. MSc thesis, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia.

Dehinenet G. Factors influencing adoption of dairy technology on small holder dairy farmers in selected zones of Amhara and Oromia National Regional States, Ethiopia. Discourse Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences www.resjournals.org/JAFS ISSN: 2346-7002 Vol. 2(5): 126-135, May, 2014.

Delgado C, Rosegrant M, Steinfeld H, Ehui S and Courbois C. (1999): Livestock to 2020: The Next Food Revolution. Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper No. 28. IFPRI ,FAO, and ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya. Pp 83. FAO (1999): FAO Production Year Book. Rome, Italy.

Depiazzi LJ, Bell JR (2002). Effect of pre-milking teat sanitation on the quality of raw milk. Department of Agriculture, Government of Western Australia. South Western Highway Bunbury, W.A. 6230, Bulletin 4563.

Ergano, K, and Nurfeta, A., 2006. Economic performance of case study dairy farm in Southern Ethiopia . Livestock Research for Rural Development.18 (8) Ethiopia.

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) (1999): FAO Production Year Book. Rome, Italy.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2010b. recommendations for smallholder dairy development.

Fekadu Beyene and Abrhamsan,R.K.1994b. Present situation and Future Aspect of Milk production, Milk handling and Processing of Dairy products in Southern Ethiopia. Farm made milk products in Southern Ethiopia: 1.Chemical and Microbial quality. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of food Science, Agricultural University of Norway.pp1 11.

Felleke Getachew and Gashaw Geda (2001): The Ethiopian Dairy Development Policy: A Draft Policy Document. Ministry of Agriculture/AFRDRD/AFRDT Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/SSFF, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Felleke Getachew, Medhin Woldearegay, and Getnet Haile (2010): Inventory of Dairy Policy Rep.: Target Business Consultants Plc. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Fernandes, R.2009. Microbiology Handbook Dairy Products. Leatherhead Food International Ltd., London.

Fikrineh N., Estefanos T. and Tatek W.(2012): Microbial Quality and Chemical Composition of Raw Milk in the Mid-Rift Valley of Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 7:4167-4170.

FSA (Food Standards Agency)., 2006. Milk Hygiene on the Dairy Farm. Practical Guides for Milk Producers, England.

Gandiya, F., 2001. Where quality begins: Cow management factors affecting the quality of milk. Bulletin of IDF (International Dairy Federation). 361: 6-8.

Garry, H., 2003. Clean Milk. H.K.Lewis and Co Ltd, London.PP.7-9.

Gebra-Emanuael, Teka, 1997. Food Hygiene- principles and methods of food borne disease control with special Reference to Ethiopia. 1st edition, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Community Health, Addis Ababa University. PP.73-87.

Gebre Wold A., Alemayehu M., Demeke S., Bediye S. and Tadesse A. (2000): Status of Dairy Development. In: proceedings of the Role of Village Dairy Co-Operatives in Dairy Development, SDDP, MOA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Pp 73-81.

Getachew F. and Gashaw G. 2001. The Ethiopian dairy development policy document. Ministry of Agriculture/AFRDRD/AFRDT Food and agriculture Organization/SSFF, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia pp. , 171

Government of Ethiopia. The Livestock Master Plan Study Report. Addis Ababa. 2007.high lands. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 21, Article #97.

Hoppe, C. Animal protein intake, serum insulin-like growth factor I, and growth in healthy 2.5-y-old Danish children. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2004, 80(2):447-452.

Gran HM., Mutukumira AN., Wetlesen A, Narvhus JA. 2002. Smallholder dairy processing in Zimbabwe: hygienic practices during milking and the microbiological quality of the milk at the farm and on delivery. Food Control, 13: 41-47.

Holloway G., C. Nicholson, C. Delgado, S. Staal and S. Ehui (2000): How to Make Milk Market: A Case Study From Ethiopian High Lands. Socio-economic and Policy Research Working Paper 28. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya, Pp 28.

IDF(International Dairy Federation).1987. Milk and Milk products. Enumeration of Microorganisms. International dairy federation(IDF). International Dairy Federation. Belgium: Standard 100A. Brussels, Belgium

Ike, A. 2002. Urban Dairy in Hawassa Ethiopia. MSc. thesis University of Hohenheim. stuttgart-Hohenheim, Germany , 113.

Jayarao BM, Pillai SR, Sawant AA, Wolfgang DR, Hegde NV(2004).Guidelines for monitoring bulk tank milk somatic cell and bacterial counts. J. Dairy Sci. 87:3561–3573.

Jones G.M. and Sumner S., 1999. Testing bulk milk samples. Virginia Cooperative Extension. Virginia State University. P404-405.

Kurwijila L.R. (2006): Hygienic Milk Handling, Processing and Marketing: Reference Guidefor Training and Certification of Small-Scale Milk Traders in Eastern Africa. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya, Pp11-26.

Layne, CD, Holden SJ. and Mulugeta A. 1990. Review of dairy marketing and processing in a semi 52 arid pastoral system in Ethiopia. In: Brokken RF and Senait Seyoum (eds), Dairy marketing in sub-Saharan Africa: Proceedings of symposium held at ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 26–30 November 1990.

Lemma F., Trivedi M.M., Bekele T. (2012). Adoption of improved dairy husbandry practices and its relationship with the socio-economic characteristics of dairy farmers in Ada’a district of Oromia State, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development Vol. 4(14), pp. 392-395, 8 August, 2012, 2012.

Little PD, Tegegne Teka and Alemayehu Azeze (2001): Cross Border Livestock Trade and Food Security in the Horn of Africa: An Overview. A Research Report of the Broadening Access to Markets and Input systems-Collaborative Research Support Program (BASIS-CRSP) and OSSREA Project on Cross border Trade and Food Security in the Horn of Africa. Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison Wisconsin, USA.

Marth E H (ed.) 1978 Standard Methods for the Examinations of Dairy Products. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC. 416p.MEDaC (Ministry of Economic Development and Cooperation) (1999): Survey of Ethiopian Economy: A Review of Post-reform Developments. MEDaC, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Medola M (2007).„Agricultural Technology Adoption and Poverty reduction: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis for Rural Bangladesh. Food Policy, Elsevier. Volume 32, 372-393.

Mogessie A. 2002. The Microbiology of Ethiopian foods and beverages: A review. SENET: Ethiopian Journal of Science. 25 (1):97-140.

Mogessie, A. and Fekadu, B. 1993. Effect of container smoking and cleaning on the microflora and keeping quality of raw milk from a dairy farm in Hawassa, Ethiopia. Tropical Science. 33. 365-376.

Mosnier Claire and Wieck Christine (2010): Determinants of Spatial Dynamics of Dairy Production: A Review. Agricultural and Resource Economics, Discussion Paper 2010, University of Bonn, Germany.

Mohammed A.M., Ahmed Simeon Ehui and Yemeserach Assefa (2004): Dairy Development in Ethiopia. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 123. International Food Policy Research Institute, NW Washington, D.C.

Muriuki H.G. and W. Thorpe (2001): Smallholder Dairy Production and Marketing: Constraints and Opportunities. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Murphy SC, Boor KJ. 2000. Trouble-shooting sources and causes of high bacteria counts in raw milk. Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation 20: pp: 606-611.

Murphy, S. P. and L. H. Allen. Nutritional importance of animal source foods. Journal of Nutrition 2003, 133:3932S-3935S. Nairobi, Kenya, Pp 62.

Nigussie Gebreselassie. 2006. Characterization and evaluation of urban dairy production system in Mekelle city, Tigray region, Ethiopia. MSc thesis, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia. 54 pp.

O’Connor, C.B., 1993. Traditional cheese making manual, No.1. International Livestock Center for Africa. Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.

O’Connor, C.B.1994. Rural Dairy Technology. ILRI training manual No.1. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.133.

O’Mahony F, Peters J (1987). Options for Smallholder Milk Processing in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Livestock Center for Africa (ILCA) Bulletin 27. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp. 206-247.

Omore, A.(2005).Addressing the public health and quality concerns towards marketed milk in Kenya. Smallholder Dairy Project Research and Development, Report 3. ISBN 92-9146-168-7.

Quddus M.A., (2013). Adoption of Dairy Farming technologies by Small Farm Holders: Practices and Constraints. Department of Agricultural Statistics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Bangladesh. Bang. J. Anim. Sci. 41(2):124-135.

Rahel N (2008).Traditional and improved milk and milk products handling practices and compositional and microbial quality of milk and buttermilk in delbo watershed of wolayta zone, Ethiopia. Department of Animal and Range Sciences, Hawassa College of Agriculture, School of Graduate Studies, University of Hawassa, M.Sc.thesis.

Randolph, T. Invited Review: Role of livestock in human nutrition and health for poverty reduction in developing countries. Journal of Animal Science 2007, 85:2788-2800.

Redda T.2001. Small–scale Milk Marketing and Processing in Ethiopia. In: Proceedings of the South – South Workshop on Smallholder Dairy Production and Marketing – Constraints and Opportunities. March 12th – 16th 2001, Anand, India.

Report on livestock and livestock characteristics. Statistical Bulletin. Addis Ababa,

Richardson HG.1985. Standard Methods for the Examination of Dairy Products. 6th edn., American Public Health Association, Washington DC. pp. 133-150.

Ruegg L (2006). Role of hygienic in efficient milking.WCDS advances in Dairy Technology. Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin, 18: 285-293.

Sadler and Catley Milk Matters: the role and value of milk in the diets of Somali pastoralist children in Liben and Shinile, Ethiopia, 2009.

Sintayehu Yigrem, Fekadu Beyene, Azage Tegegne and Berhanu Gebremedhin (2008): Dairy Production, Processing and Marketing Systems of Shashemene–Dilla Area, South Ethiopia. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) Of Ethiopian Farm Owners Project Working Paper 9, ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya, Pp 62.

SAMY M.M. (1998): Constraints to Effective Transfer of Corn Technology as Identified by Farmers in Menoufia Governorate, Egypt. Alexandria Journal of Agric., 43: 1-10.

Shahin A.S.A (2004): Adoption of Innovations in Smallholder Buffalo Dairy Farms in the Menoufia Province in Egypt. PhD thesis, Menoufia University, Egypt.

SNV (2013): EDGET Project woreda level five years plan document: Pp 1, 4-7, (Unpublished data).

Thornton P, Kruska R, Henninger N, Kristjanson P, Reid R, Atieno F, Odero A and Ndegwa T. (2002): Mapping Poverty and Livestock in the Developing World . ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya.

Tola, A., 2002. Traditional milk and milk products handling practices and raw milk quality in Eastern Wollega. MSc Thesis, Alemaya University. Ethiopia.

Van der en O. Valk and Abebe Tessema (2010): The Formal Dairy Chain of Addis Ababa: An Analysis of the Integration of Small-Scale Farmers, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Pp 78.

Woldemichael Somano. 2014. Economics of Smallholder Dairy Production and Gender Roles in Dale District of Sidama Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Applied Science and Technology. 5(1): 85 – 110.

Yigezu Zegeye (2000): “DDE’s Experience in Milk Collection, Processing and Marketing: In: Proceedings of the Role of Village Dairy Co-Operatives in Dairy Development.”Smallholder Dairy Development Project (SDDP), (MOA) Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Pp49-58.

Yilma, Z. and L. Inger, 2001a. Milk production, processing, marketing and the role of milk and milk products on smallholder farmers’ income in the central highlands of Ethiopia. In: Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP). ESAP, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 24-26 August 2000: pp: 139-154.

Zelalem Yilma. 2010. Microbial Properties of Ethiopian Marketed Milk and Milk Products and Associated Critical Points of Contamination: An Epidemiological Perspective, East Africa Dairy Development (EADD) Program, Addis Ababa Ethiopia.

Zelalem, Y., Faye, B.2006. Handling and microbial load of cow’s milk and irgo - fermented milk collected from different shops and producers in central highlands of Ethiopia. Ethiopian J. of Ani. Prod. 6(2):67-82.

Zhu, K., Greenfield. School-milk intervention trial enhances growth and bone mineral accretion in Chinese girls aged 10-12 in Beijing. British Journal of Nutrition 2004, 92(1)159-168.

Annex: Study questionnaire

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

[...]