Trends in small ruminant husbandry and nutrition and specific reference to Egypt

Small Ruminant Research 51 (2004) 185–200

Trends in small ruminant husbandry and nutrition and specific reference to Egypt G.F.W. Haenlein a,∗ , M.A. Abdellatif b a

Department of Animal and Food Science, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19717-1303, USA b Department of Animal and Poultry Production, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt

Abstract Livestock numbers have changed around the world during the past decade; dairy cattle +1.3%, buffaloes +9.4%, beef cattle +5.1%, sheep −10.8%, goats +21.3%, chicken +26.6%, while the numbers of people increased by 12.1% during that time. In Egypt the population dynamics tells a different but interesting situation: dairy cattle −5.3%, buffaloes +12.1%, beef cattle +50.0%, sheep +29.9%, goats +32.8%, chicken +126.3%, while people numbers increased by 17.8%. Nevertheless, there is a shortage of protein and calcium from animal sources produced in Egypt in comparison to nutritional requirements, and there is an increasing gap between dairy products produced domestically and the amount consumed. Production improvements can be achieved by using new genetic technology; by changing nutritional management towards greater intensification; by adopting elevated housing systems for better internal parasite control; by using body condition scoring for improved reproduction; by using linear type appraisal for better selection of heritable traits; by supplementing veterinary services with mail order supplies and paramedic training; and by seeking Extension Service support and workshop participation. Justification for greater intensification comes from research in many countries, which has demonstrated higher net income to small ruminant farmers when changing from extensive systems of management even in developing countries. © 2003 Published by Elsevier B.V. Keywords: Dairy goat production; Dairy sheep production; Small ruminants; Production improvement; Egypt

1. Trends in population dynamics Livestock populations around the world have increased significantly during recent years and decades, apparently in response to increasing numbers of people to be fed (Table 1, FAO, 1998). World numbers of people increased by 12.1%, in USA by 7.9%, and in Egypt by 17.8%, during the past decade. For the supply of meat in the world, in the USA, and in Egypt, chickens lead all livestock numbers and tonnage increased by 47.5, 41.1, and 63.3%, respectively; ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-302-831-2523; fax: +1-302-831-2822. E-mail address: [email protected] (G.F.W. Haenlein).

0921-4488/$ – see front matter © 2003 Published by Elsevier B.V. doi:10.1016/j.smallrumres.2003.08.011

while beef changed 1.9, 11.4, and 33.3%; mutton and lambs changed 7.1, −31.2, and 26.9%; but goats and kids increased by 42.3%, unknown %, and 72.7%, respectively, during the 10 years from 1989 to 1999. During the same time (Table 1, FAO, 1998), the tonnage supply of milk from dairy cattle around the world changed by −1.9%, in the USA by +7.5%, but in Egypt by +39.2%; and the milk tonnage from buffaloes increased even more by 39.0% around the world, 0% in USA, and 50.0% in Egypt; from sheep by 4.2, 0, and 75.5%; and from goats by 26.6%, unknown %, and ±0%, respectively. The contribution of small ruminants to the meat and milk supplies varies much among countries. In Greece, Somalia, Bangladesh, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Indonesia,

186

G.F.W. Haenlein, M.A. Abdellatif / Small Ruminant Research 51 (2004) 185–200

Table 1 Livestock statistics (FAO, 1998) World

Dairy cattle (mil. hd.) Milk/cow (kg) Milk (million T) Buffaloes (mil. hd.) Buffalo milk (million T) Sheep (mil. hd.) Sheep milk (million T) Goats (mil. hd.) Goat milk (million T) Chicken (mil. hd.) Chicken (million T) Beef (mil. hd.) Beef (million T) Mutton (million T) Goat meat (million T) People (mil. hd.) Protein/hd./day (ga ) From animal productsa Calcium/hd./day (mga ) From animal productsa a

USA

Egypt

1998

10 years (% change)

1998

10 years (% change)

1998

10 yezars (% change)

230 2035 466 162 57 1064 8.21 700 12.21 13478 60.2 269 53.7 7.5 3.7 5901

+1.3 −2.7 −1.9 +9.4 +39.0 −10.8 +4.2 +21.3 +26.6 +26.6 +47.5 +5.1 +1.9 +7.1 +42.3 +12.1

9.19 7767 71.4 – – 7.62 – – – 1700 15.1 36.9 11.7 0.11 – 274 107 72 940 729

−7.7 +16.4 +7.5 – – −31.5 – – – +27.5 +41.1 +4.5 +11.4 −31.2 – +7.9 +2.9 +1.4 −3.6 −8.9

1.25 1080 1.35 3.15 1.89 4.30 0.093 3.20 0.015 86 0.49 1.8 0.32 0.066 0.057 66 77 12 412 141

−5.3 +45.9 +39.2 +12.1 +50.0 +29.9 +75.5 +32.8 +/− 0 +126.3 +63.3 +50.0 +33.3 +26.9 +72.7 +17.8 +8.4 +9.1 +5.4 +18.5

FAO (1981).

Algeria, and Sudan the contribution of sheep and goat milk is economically very important with up to 76% of total domestic milk production (Haenlein, 2001), although the supply from all milk/person/year in these countries is not as high as desirable to meet dietary nutrient requirement standards, 178, 76, 15, 26, 59, 27, 99, 3, 38, and 132 kg, respectively. The reason is the low productivity of dairy goats in most countries, and the even worse average level of milk yield of dairy sheep (Table 2). Egypt produces about 50 kg of all milk per person per year, and has made great improvement in cow and buffalo milk production by +45.7% during the past 10 years (Table 3). However, milk yield/cow/ year at 1080 kg in Egypt compared to 7767 kg in the USA (Table 1) leaves much room for improvement. This concerns also the supply of protein and calcium/person/day in Egypt from all plant and animal sources combined, 77 g and 412 mg, respectively, compared to 107 g and 940 mg in the USA; but only 12 g protein and 141 mg calcium from animal product sources in Egypt compared to 72 g and 729 mg in the USA (Table 1; Haenlein, 1996a).

Obviously, the domestic livestock sector needs to supply more protein and calcium in Egypt and in many other countries, when the recommended nutrient allowances/person/day are about 60 g protein and 1000 mg calcium, respectively. The challenge to meet these nutrient needs has been met in some countries by costly imports, or by increasing numbers and performance of livestock, but the pasture growing capacity has not kept pace with the increasing numbers of livestock in many regions. In areas with mountains or desert terrain, it is the small ruminant which can make a significant contribution to the needed domestic protein and calcium supply, if managed properly (Haenlein, 1996a, 1998). However, the danger exists here too that livestock numbers and stocking rate exceed the natural re-growth capacity of pasture vegetations. The trend in recent years in some countries has been to secure production improvement by other means than increasing population numbers. These means are genetics, nutrition, housing, veterinary care, and improved communications, which have even allowed decreases in animal numbers, for example

G.F.W. Haenlein, M.A. Abdellatif / Small Ruminant Research 51 (2004) 185–200

187

Table 2 Milk productivity of leading countries in ewe and goat milk production (FAO, 1981) Goat milk

Ewe milk kg/goat/year

Total 1000 MT

kg/ewe/year

Total 1000 MT

France Ukraine Bulgaria Russia Spain

400 294 168 125 121

480 206 162 200 350

Greece Italy Iran Bulgaria Romania

71 70 67 39 38

670 759 463 110 340

Italy Greece Syria Algeria Bangladesh

115 78 73 47 40

150 460 80 145 1328

Syria Somalia Turkey France Iraq

37 32 27 24 23

515 430 826 243 155

35 31 31 30 26

53 390 1151 249 3128

Bangladesh Mali Ukraine Afghanistan Spain

18 15 14 14 12

22 89 23 201 300

Iraq Somalia Sudan Turkey India

of dairy cattle in the USA, without affecting total production tonnage (Table 1). Efforts to augment potential improvement programs in Egypt have been well discussed and documented (Aboul-Naga, 1990; ESAP, 2000). Some major conclusions were: “The vast tracts of arid range lands can only be utilized well by indigenous sheep and goats. The substantial sheep and goat populations subsisting on meager forages are a valuable resource, and there are large possibilities of improving their productivity. Where almost barren and uncultivable land is the main source of feed and where family labor is available, the goat is the most beneficial animal to be reared” (Qureshi, 1990). According to an economic study by Soliman (1990), small ruminant meat represents a major part of all red meat consumption in 19 Arab countries, averagTable 3 Milk statistics in Egypt (FAO, 1998; Soryal, 2000)

Total milk produced (million T) Cheese produced (1000 T) Butter produced (1000 T) Dairy consumed (million T) Dairy gap (1000 T)

1989

1998

10 years (% change)

2298 268 79 3138 840

3348 402 91 5429 2081

+45.7 +50.0 +15.2 +73.0 +147.7

ing 59%, with 5 countries (Jordan, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria) above 70%, 11 countries between 40 and 60%, and Iraq (36%), Morocco (30%), and Egypt (17%) on the low end. The contribution of sheep and goats to the livestock income of Egyptian farmers was 9% on farms less than 5 Feddans (1 Feddan = 0.42 ha) but 2% on larger farms (Soliman, 1990). A significant relationship between Egyptian per capita income and red meat consumption was determined. The income elasticity for small ruminant meat was a 4% increase for a 10% rise in real income, but 14% for beef and 8% for veal. On the other hand, Gihad and El-Bedawy (2000) determined, that for the price of one buffalo, the predominant dairy animal in Egypt, a farmer could buy 10 goats, which however would produce 25% more cash income from the suckled kids than the buffalo would produce from its calf and extra milk. Furthermore, the surveyed Egyptian farmers stated that goats are more profitable than sheep, because they have more twins, and are more tolerant to the harsh environment. Yet, goat milk was not preferred by the farmers over milk from the three other animal sources (Table 4), while goat meat clearly was. Also, goat milk was not marketed presumably because of low productivity and difficulties in cheese processing, including the problem of no refrigeration facilities. On the other hand, Peraza

188

G.F.W. Haenlein, M.A. Abdellatif / Small Ruminant Research 51 (2004) 185–200

Table 4 Preference by Egyptian farmers (%, n = 150) for milk and meat from buffaloes, cows, sheep or goats (Gihad and El-Bedawy, 2000)

Buffaloes Cows Sheep Goats

Extensive system

Intensive system

Milk

Meat

Milk

Meat

70 14 16 0

2 30 16 52

88 5 7 0

15 25 20 40

(1987) has reported that processing of goat and sheep milk into cheese and yoghurt can be profitable for small farmers in Mexico under conditions not too different from those in Egypt.

2. Genetic improvements Genetic improvement of dairy cattle has probably been a model for all livestock worldwide on what can be done, if reliable record keeping is practiced and the data are used for sire proving. A few countries, the USA, Canada, Netherlands, France, Italy, Great Britain, Germany, the Scandinavian nations Australia, and New Zealand, have become leaders in making superior sires and embryos available world wide for genetic improvement through the practice of artificial insemination (AI) and embryo transfer (ET) within particular breeds and for crossbreeding purposes (Wiggans, 1985). Genetic improvement plans have been successful in a number of developing countries including Egypt (Aboul-Naga, 1990; Mourad, 1993; Soryal, 2000; Soryal et al., 2002), importing “improver” breeds and crossbreeding with native, climate-adapted breeds. For example, a selected Zaraibi (also called Nubian) goat herd in Egypt had an average productivity of 230 kg milk in 6–7 months lactations. An imported Saanen herd of 700 head averaged 600 kg milk/lactation (2.7 kg/day) for the last 10 years in Egypt, and the milk was processed into high quality semi-hard cheeses. Native Baladi goats milked 53–60 kg in 3–4 months lactations, while Zaraibi goats produced 80 kg during 3 months suckling periods in a study by Soryal et al. (2002). Crossbreeding of Barki goats with Zaraibis increased twinning rate by 30% and body weight of kids born/goat bred by 16%.

Awassi sheep have the potential of producing more than 400 kg milk in lactations under Near East conditions (Guirgis, 1990). Chios sheep also have been successfully selected for prolificacy and high milk production (1.7 lambs/ewe and 220 kg milk in 7 months, respectively). Damascus goats can produce more than 600 kg milk and average 2.25 kids/goat. These breeds have been used successfully in crossbreeding programs under different “stratification” schemes. The systems of possible stratifications were discussed in detail by Galal (1990) and an example simulation study with Egyptian Barki sheep showed that the three strata crossbreeding system can improve the marketing weight of lambs/ewe by 45% compared to the traditional single strata Barki management. The practice of record keeping (Dairy Herd Improvement Association—DHIA in the USA) (Table 12) is still in its infancy in many countries for dairy cattle and even more so for all other livestock, especially small ruminants (Lawrence and Murrill, 1985; Galal and Younis, 1990; Holst, 1999). Likewise, the practice of using superior genetics by way of artificial insemination (AI) and embryo transfer (ET) for small ruminants has not become as widespread as for dairy cattle, although much practical information is now available through a series of national and international conferences (Galal, 1987; Boyazoglu and Morand-Fehr, 1999; Haenlein and Fahmy, 1999; Gruner and Chabert, 2000), computer networks especially from France (CIRVAL), and technical journals, in particular the Small Ruminant Research journal since 1988. A number of countries and non-profit agencies have made strong financial foreign aid investments in developing countries, as it was recognized for better feeding of malnourished and poor people in developing countries, that the greatest potential help would come from improvements in small ruminant productivity. Table 5 shows in an example from India and the work of a Swiss foreign aid project, that more net income money can be put into the pockets of small farmers by increasing the productivity per animal, in this case dairy goats. Wool production from sheep has been decreasing in profitability in many countries in recent years, which is reflected in the decreased numbers of sheep world wide and in the USA (Table 1). Egypt as an exception has increased sheep numbers for greater mutton, lamb and sheep milk production. In the USA as well

G.F.W. Haenlein, M.A. Abdellatif / Small Ruminant Research 51 (2004) 185–200

189

Table 5 Economics of goat husbandry in small herds in India (Sagar et al., 1993)a Districts of Rajasthan

Value of goat milk per surveyed goat household Value of goats sold Total income Total expenditures No. of does Milk production, liters/doe/year Expenditures per doe/year Net income per doe/yearb In US $

1

2

3

4

1166

1887

1194

2050

820 1986 869 5.3 375 164 211 5

2152 4039 745 9.3 434 80 354 8

1454 2648 735 4.6 576 160 416 10

1757 3807 1116 6.4 595 174 420 10

5 684 1042 1726 328 6.8 254 48 206 5

6

7

395

469

217 622 107 4.6 135 23 112 3

675 1144 296 10.1 113 29 84 2

8 711 286 997 571 5.6 178 102 76 2

a Districts 1–8 are: Sikar (56), Jaipur (188), Nagpur (133), Ajmer (75), Bhilwara (141), Udaipur (293), Sirohi (84), Barmer (60), (# of households), respectively. b All data are in Indian rupees; US $ 1.00=43 rupees.

as in Great Britain there has been a revival of dairy sheep for cheese production, but the small numbers have not yet entered into official FAO statistics. It has been demonstrated in the USA, that farm income from dairy sheep is much more profitable than from wool and meat sheep breeds (Table 6), which means that great changes in the emphasis of breeding and genetic selection can and have to be made. The genetic improvement of dairy goats has by far exceeded that of dairy sheep in recent years (Table 2). In the USA, France and a few other countries, dairy goat sire proving is being financed by dairy goat farmers and the governments like that of dairy cattle sire proving, and superior semen and embryos are thus readily available for genetic improvements around the world (Wiggans, 1985). Once dairy sheep numbers reach a feasibility stage, their electronic sire proving will also become organized in these countries, as it is very much needed considering their slow progress during the last decades in terms of milk yield/ewe/year and their lactation length (Haenlein, 2001). The need for genetic progress applies equally to meat sheep and meat goats. The relatively new breed of Boer goats, developed in South Africa, has a meat producing capacity superior to most other goat breeds and thus has been introduced into many countries in recent years with good justification as a new breed, for example in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, by way of AI and ET. Likewise, Cashmere and Angora goats have received new interest

and have been imported into North America, Europe, and Australia, while wool sheep have suffered great reductions in numbers due to the difficult market situations. As an alternative, hair sheep have not made much progress in those areas.

Table 6 Economics of dairy vs. non-dairy sheep flocks in USA (Berger, 1998)a

eweb

Milk sale, per ($) Ram salec Cull ewe saled Lamb salee Wool salef Manure valueg Total flock gross income ($) Per ewe ($) Feed expenses ($) Management expenses Fixed expenses Total flock expenses ($) Per ewe ($) Net income/flock ($) Per ewe ($) a

Dairy

Non-dairy

200 10 11 149 4 6 114044 380 132 85 43 78238 261 35806 119

0 2 9 233 2 3 74656 249 107 64 23 58328 194 16328 54

300 US ewe flocks. 152 l milk/ewe/year at $ 1.32/l farm price. c 6 at 500—for dairy; 2 at 300—for non-dairy. d 69 at 48—for dairy; 54 at 48—for non-dairy. e $ 1.54/kg; $ 84/head. f $ 5.50/kg for dairy; $ 6.24/kg for non-dairy. g 400 MT for dairy; 200 MT for non-dairy. b

190

G.F.W. Haenlein, M.A. Abdellatif / Small Ruminant Research 51 (2004) 185–200

3. Nutritional improvements In order to implement genetic improvements, it is necessary for the small ruminant farmer to improve the provision and nutrient contents of the daily feeding ration (Haenlein, 1978, 1983; Haenlein and Devendra, 1983; Devendra, 1990; Morand-Fehr, 1990; Bretzlaff et al., 1991; Devendra and Gardiner, 1995). Traditionally, sheep and goats are herded or are freely roaming to graze what they can find. Transhumance or migratory and nomadic herding of small ruminants has been the tradition in many countries, but this is becoming more difficult economically, politically and especially because of labor shortage, although it is environmentally often very positive in sustaining open mountain meadows and preventing brush encroachment. In nutritional-metabolic terms it is wasting feed and nutrients, that are required by the animals walking miles to find feed, besides the problem of nutrient deficiencies occurring during certain seasons, especially drought (Table 7). Studies in Mexico (Ramirez et al., 1991) have shown, that during certain months of the year the mineral intake of free ranging goats is often quite deficient for Ca, Mg, Na, K, Mn, Zn and for Cu all year. A few countries, for example France, Taiwan, the USA, and Canada are leading in systems of controlled feeding and rations for greater nutritional efficiency and higher yields per animal. The advantage of nutritional improvement has been demonstrated even under conditions of developing countries, like India, Malaysia, Indonesia and Greece (Tables 8–11). Many

Table 8 Effect of nutrition on lactation milk yield (kg) of dairy goats in India (Devendra, 1987)a Barbari

Lactation 1 2 3 4 5

Jamnapari

MH

LL

HH

LL

101 130 100 107 109

28 30 22 – –

154 196 132 128 –

44 58 45 – –

a MH: medium plane of nutrition before kidding and high plane during lactation; LL: low plane before and after kidding; HH: high plane before and after kidding.

Table 9 Improvement potential in indigenous adult Malaysian goats as a result of improved nutritional management (Devendra, 1987) Management

Live weight at slaughter (kg) Hot carcass weight (kg) Dressing (%) Weight of meat (kg) Meat-bone ratio Forequarter (kg) Hind leg (kg) Total edible weight (kg) Total saleable weight (kg)

Improved results (%)

Conventional feeding

Improved feeding

18.6

28.6

53.8

8.2 44.2 5.5 4.1 1.2 1.2 13.2

14.7 51.3 8.1 4.9 2.9 2.2 18.2

79.3 16.1 47.3 19.5 141.7 83.3 37.9

17.9

24.0

34.1

Table 7 Nutrient intake by free ranging goats in Mexico (Ramirez et al., 1991; Haenlein, 1992) DRa CP Lignin IVOMD OM Ca Mg Na K Cu∗ Mn∗ Fe∗ Zn∗ a

Diet contents (OM) (%)

Voluntary daily intake (OM), g, mg∗

15.9 (January)–21.4 (December) 10.6 (May)–20.6 (January) 24.7 (January)–46.1 (June) 13.5 5.3 5.2 7.1 23 40 100 50

10.9 (April)–40.7 (December) 1.8 (March)–11.0 (August) 9.0 (March)–22.3 (August) 14.0 (August)–22.1 (May) 11.1 (December)–36.6 (April) 46.1 (July)–76.9 (May) 174.1 (July)–755.6 (May) 33.9 (March)–50.3 (February)

Daily recommended allowances in g or (∗ ) mg for 40 kg goats milking 1 kg/day and pregnant.

412 (January)–1267 (August) 10.4 (April)–21.6 (November) 1.1 (January)–5.5 (March, August) 4.0 (April)–17.8 (November) 4.0 (January)–18.0 (August) 4.5 (April)–18.3 (September) 36.7 (January)–94.6 (May) 266.7 (January)–804.7 (September) 21.7 (January)–72.1 (October)

G.F.W. Haenlein, M.A. Abdellatif / Small Ruminant Research 51 (2004) 185–200 Table 10 Effect of feeding urea–ammonia treated rice straw on weight gain of young Indonesian goats (Devendra, 1987)

Table 12 Management efficiency from DHI data of 120 goat herds in the NE-USAa

Daily weight gain (g)

Rice straw 75% + cassava leaves 25% Rice straw 50% + cassava leaves 50% Treated rice straw 75% + cassava 25% Treated rice straw 50% + cassava 50% Treated rice straw 100%

9 weeks

13 weeks

53 91 93 105 11

45 92 84 101 27

Table 11 Economics of goat husbandry in Greece (Hatziminaoglu and Zervas, 1995) Intensive farming

Extensive farming

Gross income/goat/year (US $)

135

66

Expenses/goat/year (US $) Labor (%) Feed (%) Capital (%) Housing (%) Others (%) Net income/goat/year (US $)

111 39 43 12 4 2 24

58 52 32 13 2 1 8

different economical approaches, especially using non-protein nitrogen such as urea in combination with feed supplements have been studied under village conditions in developing countries, during drought and when only poor quality roughages and scrub land vegetation was available (Devendra, 1976; Haenlein, 1978, 2001; Haenlein and Devendra, 1983; Devendra and Gardiner, 1995; Galina et al., 2000), as published in the Small Ruminant Research journal and in proceedings of international conferences (Gruner and Chabert, 2000).

4. Husbandry and housing improvements The transition from extensive grazing management to intensive dry lot and indoor feeding systems requires financial investments in housing, facilities and equipment. This has successfully progressed especially in countries like France, Taiwan, Great Britain, and in North America. The more efficient productiv-

191

Milk yield/305 days (kg) Fat (%) Protein (%) Concentrates (kg) Cost of concentrates ($) NE from concentrates (%) Hay fed (kg) Cost of feed ($) Cost of feed/100 kg milk ($) Income over feed cost ($)

1

2

3

4

514 4.3 3.5 399 83 49 752 141 9.35 183

701 3.8 3.3 432 91 51 720 147 15.05 262

820 1050 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.4 464 510 98 109 53 54 727 718 155 178 15.27 14.89 302 395

a Cornell University, personal comm.; data grouped by quartiles 1–4 about the mean.

ity per animal at higher yield levels and growth rates has been rewarded with greater net income for the farmer (Table 12). The principle of economies of scale, i.e. more animal units managed per laborer can make small ruminant meat and milk production more competitive to that from cattle and buffaloes. Husbandry of small ruminants remains more labor and investment intensive per animal unit, however, unless productivity levels per animal are significantly increased. Aiding the market competitiveness of sheep and goat products are some of their unique qualities and the official designations of origin control (AOC) for improved marketing (Morand-Fehr and Boyazoglu, 1999). Meat, milk, yoghurt and cheese from sheep and goats have unique compositions compared to similar products from cattle and buffaloes (Table 13) (Haenlein, 1980, 1996b), which give them definite nutritional Table 13 Milk fat composition (%) (Anifantakis, 1991) Sheep

Goat

Cow

C6:0—caproic acid C8:0—caprylic acid C10:0—capric acid C12:0—lauric acid C14:0—myristic acid

2 2 6 3 6

3 3 10 6 12

2 1 3 3 9

Total C6–C14 C16:0—palmitic acid C18:0—stearic acid C18:1—oleic acid Others

19 17 16 39 9

34 27 6 21 12

18 25 14 32 11

192

G.F.W. Haenlein, M.A. Abdellatif / Small Ruminant Research 51 (2004) 185–200

advantages for people with health concerns and those with gourmet interests. There is a great shortage of medical research substantiating the empirically experienced nutritional benefits of meat and milk from sheep and goats by people, especially infants, children and older people, with gastro-intestinal afflictions, cardiology problems, and allergies. The official designations of traditional origin (AOC) and geographical uniqueness have made considerable progress in recent years in France, Spain, and Italy, and is promising to aid small ruminant farmers significantly in their competitiveness with large ruminant farmers also in other countries, if adopted (Boyazoglu and Morand-Fehr, 1999). Elevated housing with slatted floors for small ruminants has become popular in several countries for intensive husbandry, controlled feeding, nursing, internal parasite control, and machine milking (Haenlein and Ace, 1984; Haenlein, 1985). It is particularly suitable for hot tropical countries. It is also environmentally friendly, because there is no more concern

Table 14 Target body condition scores (Sniffen and Ferguson, 1991) Stage of lactation

Ideal score

Range

Dry Kidding Early lactation Mid lactation Late lactation Growing kids Kids kidding

3.50 3.50 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.00 3.50

3.25–3.75 3.25–3.75 2.50–3.25 2.75–3.25 3.00–3.50 2.75–3.25 3.25–3.75

Table 15 Effect of body condition score in dry cows on subsequent reproductive performance (Sniffen and Ferguson, 1991) 3.7 group 1 Intervals between calving and First ovulation (days) 27 First heat (days) 48 Conception (days) 74 First-service 65 conception rate (%)

4.1 group 2

4.5 score group 3

31 41 90 53

42 62 116 17

Table 16 Body condition scoring of goats (Santucci et al., 1991) Score 1 Animal aspect: Emaciated, backbone is highly visible, forming a continuous ridge, flank is hollow, ribs can be seen, pelvic bones are prominent Sternum: Sternal fat is easily grabbed with the fingers, is flat, slightly hard, moves with the hand, sternal joints and beginning of ribs can be felt with slight touch of fingers Lumbar: Lumbar vertebrae can be grabbed with the hand, are rough, prominent, no muscle or fat thickness noted between skin and bones, transverse and articular processes easily felt with fingers Score 2 Animal aspect: Slightly rough boned, backbone still visible with continuous ridge, prominent pelvis Sternum: Sternal fat is thicker, still can be grabbed with the fingers, there is a small tissue layer between the skin and the sternal joints Lumbar: Vertebrae can be grabbed with hand still, but tissue mass appears over transverse processes, outlines of transverse processes more difficult to follow with fingers, spinous processes less prominent, articular processes can still be felt with the fingers Score 3 Animal aspect: Backbone not prominent, pelvis well covered Sternum: Sternal fat is thick, not mobile, difficult to grab, surrounded by tissue, palpation is needed to find the sternal joints Lumbar: Tissue is covering lumbar vertebrae, but can be grabbed with 3 fingers, gliding with the fingers over the spinous processes a slight hollow is felt, articular and transverse processes are no longer found Score 4 Sternum: Difficult to grab sternal fat because of its thickness, covering the sternal joints Lumbar: Difficult to put fingers under transverse processes, wrapped in thick layer of tissue, spinous processes can no longer be felt, are continuous Score 5 Sternum: Sternal fat cannot be identified nor grabbed, thick mass covers ribs and sternum Lumbar: Thickness of tissues obscures transverse and spinous processes

G.F.W. Haenlein, M.A. Abdellatif / Small Ruminant Research 51 (2004) 185–200

193

Fig. 1. Selection for heritable type traits (adapted after Maxey, 1990): (a) form—dairyness with ideal type in the middle between too fat and too skinny form; (b) mammary—fore udder attachment and rear udder height ideals on the right; (c) mammary—udder depth ideal in the middle between the extremes of too low and too shallow, and teat placement (rear view) ideal in the middle between too far out and too narrow in the center; (d) mammary—rear udder arch ideal on the right and rear udder (attachment) side view ideal in the middle between two bad extremes; (e) mammary—medial suspensory ligament and teat diameter ideals in the middle between two bad extremes; (f) form—strength ideal and rump angle ideal in the middle between two bad extremes; (g) structure—rear legs (side view) ideal in the middle between too straight and too crooked and rump width ideal on the right.

194

G.F.W. Haenlein, M.A. Abdellatif / Small Ruminant Research 51 (2004) 185–200

Fig. 1. (Continued ).

G.F.W. Haenlein, M.A. Abdellatif / Small Ruminant Research 51 (2004) 185–200

Fig. 1. (Continued ).

195

196

G.F.W. Haenlein, M.A. Abdellatif / Small Ruminant Research 51 (2004) 185–200

Fig. 1. (Continued ).

by forestry officials about too many small ruminants destroying forest vegetation. This system is very labor friendly compared to partial or total transhumance; it enables high quality of milk and meat production with superior sanitation practices, better disease and internal parasite control and reduced mortality; and it provides additional income to the farmer from the manure collected underneath the elevated housing. Examples of successful management with elevated slatted floor housing can be found in Panama, Puerto Rico, other tropical countries, and in particular for the total 1/2 million commercial dairy goat population in Taiwan (Morgan, 1996). Two husbandry tools, body condition scoring (Tables 14–16) and linear type appraisal (Fig. 1a–g) (Maxey, 1990), have become popular in recent years, because of their easy application for breed improvement, demonstration of feeding success or failure, and of genetic selection and breeding success or failure. Body condition scoring of goats and sheep can

be practiced by farmers after little training as now widely practiced by dairy cattle farmers (Sniffen and Ferguson, 1991; Santucci et al., 1991; Russel, 1991). On a scale from 1 to 5, the most desirable body condition score of sheep and goats for different stages of production and reproduction can be periodically assessed and translated into improved feeding practices on an individual animal basis. Linear type appraisal can also be learned easily by farmers comparing the body type of their own animals with that of the ideal animal in the visual examples. Farmers need to be shown that the different body type components such as dairyness (Fig. 1a), fore udder attachment and rear udder height (Fig. 1b), udder depth and teat placement (Fig. 1c), rear udder arch and rear udder attachment (Fig. 1d), medial suspensory ligament and teat diameter (Fig. 1e), body strength and rump angle (Fig. 1f), and rear legs and rump width (Fig. 1g) vary widely between bad extremes among the animals in a herd and that selection for the one type closest to the

G.F.W. Haenlein, M.A. Abdellatif / Small Ruminant Research 51 (2004) 185–200

ideal type will bring valuable genetic and production progress. In some countries this linear type appraisal is recorded officially and periodically by an outside unbiased person as a service from a breed organization to aid in this selection process, and the data can be used in official sire proving programs. It is known that body type components are directly related to body function and have certain levels of heritability, between 10 and 30%, which makes genetic progress predictable from using the formula: selection differential of a certain trait × heritability of that trait divided by generation interval (Haenlein, 1984).

5. Veterinary concerns Different countries have different disease and parasite problems. Veterinary medical research has focused more on the problems of large ruminants in many countries, but control of certain diseases, such as brucellosis and tuberculosis, of concern for transmission to people, has made progress. Yet little government support for control programs and research in diseases and parasites in small ruminants is found in many countries. This has lead to increasing demands by consumers and health officials to call for mandatory cooking and/or pasteurization of milk, even in the production of hard cheeses from raw milk, where bacterial safety after 60 days of cheese fermentation has been documented (Haenlein, 1996a). In some countries the marketing of milk, even goat milk, after UHT processing has become popular, because it eliminates the need of refrigeration, which in many countries is not widely available. Unless stricter self-control measures are adopted more effectively by countries with traditional raw milk cheese production, the World Health Organization under the CODEX system may step in with mandatory controls, which can endanger the livelihood not only of small farmers, but the future of original artisanal and traditional cheeses (Boyazoglu and Morand-Fehr, 1999; Morand-Fehr and Boyazoglu, 1999). Veterinary services for small ruminant farmers are not only difficult to find, but often hard to pay for, when found, in developing countries as well as in North America and Europe. This has lead to veterinary supplies to farmers from mail order catalogs and paramedic veterinary practice by farmers, by ne-

197

cessity. Internal parasites are much more prevalent in small ruminants than in cattle and buffaloes, and their control can be difficult and costly. Therefore, elevated slatted floor housing has such a tremendous advantage for internal parasite control, because goats do not lie on their feces, and thus the recycling and re-entry of parasite eggs and larvae is interrupted. Of course, transhumance has similar effects, while a stationary pasture system would require several separately fenced pasture lots within a monthly rotation cycle. Identification of causes of mortality is important for the improvement of sheep and goat production, as it may reach more than 50% for lambs and sheep, as found in one study (Mourad, 2001), due to pneumonia, gastritis, light body weight at birth, hypothermia at birth, and generally poor management. In Egypt it was found that seasons had a significant influence on mortality with none in autumn and little in winter for lambs, while sheep had none in autumn and low mortality in spring. A serious problem is arising for commercial goat milk farmers from the efforts of health officials to control milk quality and occurrence of mastitis by using somatic cell counts (SCC) as a monitor and tool to reject milk that does not meet standards (Haenlein, 1980; Haenlein and Hinckley, 1995). This practice has been successful in dairy cattle milk marketing thanks to extensive research. In the absence of such research on SCC in goat and sheep milk, cow milk standards have been used by health officials on goat and sheep milk. New research, especially on goat milk has demonstrated however, that the physiology and pathology of milk secretion is different in the goat udder compared to the cow udder, and SCC in goat milk are often normally much higher than in cow milk, and without any relation to mastitis (Paape et al., 2001). Therefore, the application of cow milk standards for quality control of goat milk will be discriminatory to goat milk and endanger the livelihood of goat farmers. The same probably applies also to dairy sheep farmers, but there is much more research needed yet.

6. Tools of communication for improvements Communications to small ruminant farmers of the above discussed tools and methods for improvement

198

G.F.W. Haenlein, M.A. Abdellatif / Small Ruminant Research 51 (2004) 185–200

of animal productivity are of critical importance, but often it is difficult to reach them in their widespread locations, due to lack of financial affordability and absence of government service infrastructure. In the USA there has been by Federal law a strong government financed system of farm advisors, who are well experienced, trusted and free of charge to farmers, and who translate through the principle of “Extension” the most recent findings of research in an unbiased way to the practice of the farmers in individual approaches and through group meetings and mass media (Rasmussen, 1989). This system has worked well for more than 100 years, is taken for granted by society to assure efficient, safe and affordable food production, and is largely credited for the great progress in plant and livestock productivity in the USA to world record levels. The Mediterranean basin under French leadership has established computer networks, which make information from research around the world freely available, but a personal direct contact to farmers at their farm, which is the secret of the US Extension Service, is not made. Instead, workshops and conferences on a local level and Internet access to Websites have been the goal in recent years, and have been credited with much success. CIRVAL (Centre International de Ressources et de Valorisation de l’Information dans les Filieres Laitieres des petits ruminants) (http://www.cirval.asso.fr) is probably the most visible and most active network. However, there are now also other well established organizations, many non-profit and non-governmental, like IDRC, ILRI, IDF, IFS, HPI, GTZ, CIHEAM, who have had considerable impact on improving livestock productivity, especially of small ruminants, in certain target areas. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute) with stations in Kenya, Addis Ababa, India, Malaysia and with its several publications is a particularly good example (Devendra and Gardiner, 1995; Devendra et al., 2000).

References Aboul-Naga, A.M., 1990. In: Proceedings Workshop on Small Ruminant Research and Development in the Near East, Cairo, Egypt, November 2–4, 1988, IDRC-MR 237e. IDRC Publ., Ottawa, Canada, 223 pp.

Anifantakis, E., 1991. Greek Cheeses. National Dairy Communication of Greece Publication, Athens, Greece, 96 pp. Berger, Y.M., 1998. An economic comparison between a dairy sheep and a non-dairy sheep operation. In: Thomas, D.L., Rowe, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Great Lakes Dairy Sheep Symposium, Spooner Agricultural Research Station, Spooner, WI, June 26–27, 1998. University of Wisconsin, Babcock Institute and International Dairy Research Development Publication, Madison, WI, USA, pp. 32–39. Boyazoglu, J., Morand-Fehr, P., 1999. A note on the sheep and goat products and their quality. In: Proceedings of the Second Slovenian Congress on Milk and Dairy Products, Portorose, Slovenia, November 14–16, 1999, 10 pp. Bretzlaff, K., Haenlein, G., Huston, E., 1991. The goat industry: feeding for optimal production. In: Naylor, J.M., Ralston, S.L. (Eds.), Large Animal Clinical Nutrition, Mosby Yearbook Publication, St. Louis, Missouri, pp. 339–350. Devendra, C., 1976. Goat and sheep production systems in the tropic and sub-tropic regions. In: Proceedings of the Winrock International Livestock Research Training Centre Conference, Morrilton, Arkansas, USA, 12 pp. Devendra, C., 1987. Strategies other than breeding for the development of small ruminants. In: Devendra, C. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Small Ruminant Production Systems in South and Southeast Asia Workshop, Bogor, Indonesia, October 6–10, 1986. IDRC Publ., Ottawa, Canada, pp. 332–353. Devendra, C., 1990. In: Aboul-Naga, A.M. (Ed.), Proceedings Workshop on Goat Production in Small Farm Systems, Cairo, Egypt, November 2–4, 1988, IDRC-MR 237e. IDRC Publ., Ottawa, Canada, pp. 120–131. Devendra, C., Gardiner, P. (Eds.), 1995. Global agenda for livestock research. Proceedings of the South Asia Region Consultation Conference, ICRISAT Centre, Patancheru, India, June 6–8, 1995. ILRI Publ., Nairobi, Kenya, 146 pp. Devendra, C., Thomas, D., Jabbar, M.A., Zerbini, E., 2000. Improvement of Livestock Production in Crop–animal Systems in Agro-ecological Zones of South Asia. ILRI Publisher, Nairobi, Kenya, 117 pp. ESAP, 2000. In: Proceedings of the Third All Africa Conference on Animal Agriculture and 11th Conference on Egyptian Society of Animal Production, November 6–9, 2000. ESAP and Fac. Agric. Publ., Alexandria, Egypt, 146 pp. FAO, 1981. Production Yearbook, vol. 35. FAO Publ., Rome, Italy, 306 pp. FAO, 1998. Production Yearbook, vol. 52. FAO Publ., Rome, Italy, 235 pp. Galal, E.S.E., 1987. Biological aspects of increasing production. In: Santana, O.P. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Goats, Brasilia, Brazil, March 8–13, 1987, vol. I. EMBRAPA Publ., Brasilia, Brazil, pp. 56–74. Galal, E.S.E. 1990. In: Aboul-Naga, A.M. (Ed.), Proceedings Workshop on Stratification of Small Ruminants Production Systems, Cairo, Egypt, November 2–4, 1988, IDRC-MR 237e. IDRC Publ., Ottawa, Canada, pp. 111–119. Galal, E.S.E., Younis, 1990. In: Aboul-Naga, A.M. (Ed.), Proceedings Workshop on Methods of Evaluating Productivity of Native Sheep Under Both Research Farm and Producers

G.F.W. Haenlein, M.A. Abdellatif / Small Ruminant Research 51 (2004) 185–200 Conditions, Cairo, Egypt, November 2–4, 1988, IDRC-MR 237e. IDRC Publ., Ottawa, Canada, pp. 184–191. Galina, M.A., Guerrero, M., Searrano, G., Morales, R., Haenlein, G.F.W., 2000. Effect of complex catalytic supplementation with non-protein nitrogen on the ruminal ecosystem of growing goats pasturing on shrub land in Mexico. Small Rumin. Res. 36, 33–42. Gihad, E.A., El-Bedawy, T.M., 2000. Contribution of goats to Egyptian small farmer food and income. In: Gruner, L., Chabert, Y. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Goats, Tours, France, vol. II. INRA Publ., Paris, France, pp. 531–534. Gruner, L., Chabert, Y. (Eds.) 2000. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Goats, Tours, France, May 15–18, 2000, 2 Vols. INRA Publ., Paris, France, 1049 pp. Guirgis, R.A., 1990. In: Aboul-Naga, A.M. (Ed.), Proceedings Workshop on Potential Sheep and Goat Breeds in the Near East, Cairo, Egypt, November 2–4, 1988, IDRC-MR 237e. IDRC Publ., Ottawa, Canada, pp. 54–66. Haenlein, G.F.W., 1978. Dairy goat management. J. Dairy Sci. 61, 1011–1022. Haenlein, G.F.W., 1980. Goats: are they physiologically different from other domestic food animals? Int. Goat Sheep Res. 1, 173–175. Haenlein, G.F.W., 1983. Feeding dairy goats to maximize production. Dairy Goat J. 61 (958), 1024–1027. Haenlein, G.F.W., 1984. Inheritance of type and milk production in goats. In: Baker, F.H., Miller, M.E. (Eds.), Sheep and Goat Handbook, vol. 4, No. 58. Westview Press, Denver, CO, pp. 491–498. Haenlein, G.F.W., 1985. Cabana answers ventilation needs. Dairy Goat Guide 10, 11. Haenlein, G.F.W., 1992. Advances in the nutrition of macro- and micro-elements in goats. In: Lokeshwar, R.R. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Goats, New Delhi, India, March 2–8, 1992. B.L. Kansal Publ., New Delhi, India, pp. 933–950. Haenlein, G.F.W., 1996a. Status and prospects of the dairy goat industry in the United States. J. Anim. Sci. 74, 1173–1181. Haenlein, G.F.W., 1996b. Nutritional value of dairy products of ewe and goat milk. In: Proceedings of the IDF/Greek Nat. Comm./CIRVAL Seminar, Production and Utilization of Ewe and Goat Milk, SI 9603. IDF Publ., Brussels, Belgium, pp. 159–178. Haenlein, G.F.W., 1998. The value of goat and sheep to sustain mountain farmers. Int. J. Anim. Sci. 13, 187–194. Haenlein, G.F.W., 2001. Past, present, and future perspectives of small ruminant dairy research. In: Proceedings of the 100th Annual Meeting, American Dairy Science Association, Baltimore, MD, July 25, 2000. J. Dairy Sci. 84, 2097–2115. Haenlein, G.F.W., Ace, D.L., 1984. Extension Goat Handbook. USDA-ES Publ., Washington, DC, 174 pp. Haenlein, G.F.W., Devendra, C., 1983. Appropriate nutrition for goat production in the tropics. In: Proceedings of the Joint IFS/ILCA Conference on Small Ruminant Research in the Tropics, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, October, IFS Province Report No. 14, pp. 79–109.

199

Haenlein, G.F.W., Fahmy, M.H. (Eds.) 1999. Role of small ruminants in the supply of animal products. In: Proceedings of the Eighth World Conference on Animal Production, Seoul, South Korea, June 28–July 4, 1998. Small Rumin. Res. 34, 175–308. Haenlein, G.F.W., Hinckley, L.S., 1995. Goat milk somatic cell count situation in USA. Int. J. Anim. Sci. 10, 305–310. Hatziminaoglu, J., Zervas, N.P., Boyazoglu, J., 1995. Goat production systems in the Mediterranean area: the case of Greece. In: El-Aich A., et al. (Eds.), Goat Production Systems in the Mediterranean, Wageningen Press, Wageningen, The Netherlands, EAAP Publ., vol. 71, pp. 82–109. Holst, P.J., 1999. Recording and on-farm evaluations and monitoring: breeding and selection. In: Haenlein, G.F.W., Fahmy, M.H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth World Conference on Animal Production, Seoul, Korea, June 28–July 4, 1998. Small Rumin. Res. 34, 197–202. Lawrence, C.M., Murrill, F.D., 1985. The national cooperative dairy herd improvement program, dairy goat field methods. In: Majeskie, J.L. (Ed.), National Cooperative Dairy Herd Improvement Program Handbook, L5. National DHIA Publ., Columbus, OH, pp. 1–4. Maxey, K., 1990. Linear appraisal system of dairy goats of the American Dairy Goat Association. In: Gelaye, S., Amoah, E., Lilja, B.K., Torando, B. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Goat Production Symposium, Fort Valley, GA, USA, August 24, 1990. FVS-ARS Publ., Fort Valley, GA, pp. 109–111. Morand-Fehr, P., 1990. In: Aboul-Naga, A.M. (Ed.), Proceedings Workshop on Strategies of Goat Feeding in Intensive and Extensive Systems of Production, Cairo, Egypt, November 2–4, 1988, IDRC-MR 237e. IDRC Publ., Ottawa, Canada, pp. 140–157. Morand-Fehr, P., Boyazoglu, J., 1999. Present state and future outlook of the small ruminant sector. In: Haenlein, G.F.W., Fahmy, M.H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eight World Conference on Animal Production, Seoul, Korea, June 28–July 4, 1998. Small Rumin. Res. 34, 175–188. Morgan, S., 1996. Haenlein brings milk “magic” to Taiwanese. Delmarva Farmer 21 (23), 1, 24. Mourad, M., 1993. Reproductive performance of Alpine and Zaraibi goats and growth of their first cross in Egypt. Small Rumin. Res. 12, 379–384. Mourad, M., 2001. Causes of Ossimi sheep mortality in a university flock under semi-intensive system of productivity in Egypt. Int. J. Anim. Sci. 16, 247–252. Paape, M.J., Poutrel, B., Contreras, A., Marco, J.C., Capuco, A.V., 2001. Milk somatic cells and lactation in small ruminants. J. Dairy Sci. 84, E237. Peraza, C.C., 1987. Processing of goats milk under less favorable conditions in small rural familiar agroindustry: Present situation and perspectives. In: Santana, O.P. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Goats, Brasilia, Brazil, March 8–13, 1987, vol. I. EMBRAPA Publ., Brasilia, Brazil, pp. 283–304. Qureshi, A.W., 1990. In: Aboul-Naga, A.M. (Ed.), Proceedings Workshop on Planning Requirements for Executing Small Ruminants Development Programs, Cairo, Egypt, November

200

G.F.W. Haenlein, M.A. Abdellatif / Small Ruminant Research 51 (2004) 185–200

2–4, 1988, IDRC-MR 237e. IDRC Publ., Ottawa, Canada, pp. 201–214. Ramirez, R.G., Loyo, A., Mora, R., Sanchez, E.M., Chaire, A., 1991. Forage intake and nutrition of range goats in a shrubland in northeastern Mexico. J. Anim. Sci. 69, 879–885. Rasmussen, W.D., 1989.Taking the university to the people. Seventyfive Years of Cooperative Extension. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, 300 pp. Russel, A., 1991. Body condition scoring of sheep. In: Boden, E. (Ed.), Sheep and Goat Practice. Bailliere Tindall Publ., London, pp. 3–10. Sagar, Vidya, Kanta Ahuja, 1993. Economics of goat keeping. Indo-Swiss Goat Development and Fodder Production Project Publication, Jaipur, India. Stud Goat Prod. Fodder Resour. Manage. Rajasthan Bull., 58. Santucci, P.M., Branca, A., Napoleone, M., Bouche, R., Aumont, G., Poisot, F., Alexandre, G., 1991. Body condition scoring of goats in extensive conditions. In: Morand-Fehr, P. (Ed.), Goat Nutrition, vol. 46. Pudoc Wageningen Publ., EAAP Publ., pp. 240–250.

Sniffen, C., Ferguson, J., 1991. Body Condition Scoring Guide. Church and Dwight Co. Publ., Princeton, NJ, 11 pp. Soliman, I., 1990. In: Aboul-Naga, A.M. (Ed.), Proceedings Workshop on Some Economic Aspects Affecting Small Ruminants Development in Near East Countries, Cairo, November 2–4, 1988, IDRC-MR 237e. IDRC Publ., Ottawa, Canada, pp. 192–198. Soryal, K.A., 2000. Future prospects of goats, as a source of milk, to decrease the gap between milk production and consumption in Egypt. In: Gruner, L., Chabert, Y. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Goats, Tours, France, May 15–18, 2000, vol. II, pp. 543–545. Soryal, K.A., El-Sherif, M.M.A., Gawish, H.M., Badawy, M.T., 2002. Future prospects of goats, as a source of milk, to decrease the milk gap in Egypt. 5. Zaraibi and Zaraibi × Barki F1 kids, production and adaptability at northwestern coastal desert of Egypt. Small Rumin. Res., in press. Wiggans, G.R., 1985. National Buck evaluations. In: Majeskie, J.L. (Ed.), National Cooperative Dairy Herd Improvement Program Handbook, L2. National DHIA Publ., Columbus, OH, pp. 1–4.