Dairy Goat Management1

Dairy Goat Management 1 G. F. W. H A E N L E I N Department of Animal Science and Agricultural Biochemistry University of Delaware Newark 19711 ABSTRACT

Statistically significant published research into the nutritional and breeding management, behavior, and economics of milk production of dairy goats is sparse. Goat numbers in affluent Central Europe have declined greatly since World War II. In Mediterranean, African, Asian, and South American countries, dairy goats have considerable economic importance. New interest in dairy goats is developing in affluent societies because of special health and nutritive value attached to goat milk and goat milk products. The annual production of goat milk in the US is estimated at 350 million kg. Formulae and tables of nutrient requirements, sample feed rations, and land requirements for dairy goats are presented. Estimates of production costs and comparative economic advantages between cattle and goats are discussed. Salient work concerning breeding management of dairy goats is reviewed. INTRODUCTION

Dairy goat management is a subdivision of goat or caprine management. Certain principles apply equally to dairy, meat, wool, and hair goat management as represented in their respective single or dual-purpose breeds. Goat management consists of five basic elements; 1) nutritional biochemistry, 2 ) r e p r o d u c t i v e physiology, 3) genetics, 4) behavior, and 5) economics as these apply to the genera of Capra and Hernitragus within the species tribe of Caprini, goats, and they may be contrasted with the characteristics and needs of

Received October 17, 1977. ~Published with the approval of the director of the Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station as Miscellaneous Paper No. 797, Contribution No. 36 of the Department of Animal Science and Agricultural Biochemistry, University of Delaware, Newark 19711.

1978 J Dairy Sci 61:1011--1022

other ruminating Artiodactyla, the cattle and sheep (10). This symposium on dairy goats deals first with the nutrition of goats, then with the breeding and reproductive aspects including behavior. Dairy goat management, the third topic, is concerned with dairy breeds under three assumptions; that management is a business rather than a h o b b y or retirement occupation, that skilled labor and appropriate equipment for daily milking, cooling and processing are available all year, and that markets for fresh milk and dairy products in the form of butter, yogurt, and cheese are profitable all year. Most of the high producing breeds of dairy goats such as Saanen, Toggenburg, French Alpine, Appenzell, Pinzgau, Chamoisee, Graub~ndner, Verzasca, and Anglo-Nubian, originated in Europe. Many dairy goats listed in the official European census statistics were and are the "cows of the poor man" and had great value during wars and economic depressions. They assured a degree of food self-sufficiency and political stability when many thousands of people were starving because of food shortage during the rationing systems, unemployment, or low buying power of their incomes. Dairy goats then were in great numbers in Europe as illustrated by the example of Austria from 1850 to 1976 in Table 1. Dairy goats usually were managed in small lots as a freetime occupation, n o t as a business, and grass and hay from along the highways was often the main source of feed. Breeding managem e n t was easy because townships and villages provided and maintained male goats for service by law. Breeding associations, state extension services, milk testing associations, state fair shows, and consignment sales all helped goat owners in the selection and management of productive female stock. A G R I C U L T U R A L POLICIES

Official agricultural policies have had strong influences on numbers of dairy goats. During

1011

1012

HAENLEIN

TABLE 1. Statistics of agricultural animals in Austria in thousands (30). Year

Goats

Sheep

Cattle

Horses

Pigs

1850 1890 1910 1923 1934 1938 1951 1957 1963 1969 1974 1976

90 150 239 382 326 349 310 209 120 69 46 40

301 597 263 315 332 207 145 121 154 174

2353 2162 2349 2579 2284 2297 2311 2418 2581 2502

318 283 261 247 276 200 109 53 40 41

1931 1473 2823 2868 2448 2917 2925 3196 3517 3878

6404 5909 8872 9046 6920 9412 10348 11543 12250 13359

19018

22184

200253

20494

240909

275020

No. ownersin 1976

the two World Wars, dairy goats were favored indirectly by the national food rationing systems because goats were n o t subject to the official food production census as were cattle, pigs, sheep, and poultry. Goats could be raised, milked, and slaughtered freely in any numbers, and this provided a welcome additional source of much needed food. Today, in times of relative affluence in much of Europe, goat numbers have declined considerably (10) (Table 1) because food self-sufficiency is no longer of interest but reduced hours ,of hand labor are. Goat numbers have also suffered because in regions where strong lobbies for forest management influence national policies, goats actually have become restricted by law. Such restrictions are debated again today because they are discriminatory against poor people, and because the alleged damages to trees in reforestations must in part be credited to an abundance of deer rather than uncontrolled goats. In parts of the European Alps and Balkan Mountains, which used to be populated heavily with grazing dairy goats and where there are none any more, reforestation is progressing (15, 25, 43). Whether reforestation is always desirable is debated also, however. An economic necessity of alpine countries appears to favor tourism, but tourism favors a cultivated and animated landscape, n o t areas of 100% forest. Therefore, if tourism is needed, farmers pasturing their animals must keep cattle on medium slopes and goats and sheep on the steeper slopes (15, 25). Ski slopes, which are financially most important in the mounJournal of Dairy Science Vol. 61, No. 7, 1978

Poultry

tain economy, must be grazed carefully and frequently to maintain a tight sod and prevent damage from soil erosion (3). Mountain grazing requires skill and judgement to avoid overgrazing or undergrazing, both harmful to a tight sod, and to avoid soil damage known as "Viehgangl" from too heavy animals, such as cattle, pushing the soil downhill with their hoofs. In former days, grazing supervision was the burden of hired goatherders, often boys, but this has become an almost extinct profession in many regions of Central Europe because of laws requiring school attendance (3, 15). The dynamics of free enterprise and the absence of protective umbrellas of agricultural policies have lead to dairy goat management in some areas and conditions, such as the US, where it can be competitive, profitable, and a valuable partner or alternative to cattle and sheep management. Worldwide goat numbers have increased by 34% during recent years (10) (Table 2). Some problems still are unsolved. For instance, if the typical and somewhat obnoxious goat scent were eliminated surgically or genetically, dairy goat management might become more attractive to many people. Furthermore, the often desirable absence of horns has not been satisfactorily solved through genetic selection. In some parts of Europe more than one-third of naturally polled goats were born zwitters or otherwise infertile because of a genetically linked sterility (10, 30). Furthermore, if 7-day labor of milking is an obstacle

SYMPOSIUM: DAIRY GOATS

1013

TABLE 2. Comparative 20-year statistics of goats, sheep, and cattle in million head (10). Goats

Sheep

Cattle

Area

1947--52

1965--66

1947--52

Europe U.S.S.R. North America South America Near East Far East China Africa Oceania World

21.1 15.6 2.6 29.7 49.3 65.4 23.7 73.7 .2 280.9

13.4 5.6 4.2 43.5 58.6 89.1 55.0 107.7 .2 377.2

110.7

133.7

76.9

129.8

32.8 130.9 85.8 49.8 31.1 106.5 145.4 766.5

25.6 133.3 125.1 60.3 68.4 135.3 214.9 1026.2

to dairy goat management, then alternative systems of rotating labor or letting kids and lambs nurse should be considered. Finally, participation in a production testing program is a necessity for an efficient, profitable dairy goat management and effective selection of dairy goat sires. The benefits of DHIA and AI to the progress of dairy cattle management are well known and should be brought to bear also on dairy goat improvement. J U S T I F I C A T I O N S FOR D A I R Y G O A T S

If these problems in dairy goat management are solved, then dairy goats can be a unique and sometimes even superior alternative to cattle and sheep when the following human or natural predisposing conditions exist: 1) Some people, especially babies, cannot consume cow milk because of allergies or other health reasons. 2) Some people by taste preference or tradition choose goat milk, goat cheese, butter, and yogurt, e.g. in France, Norway, and Greece. A higher price is paid for these goat products than for comparable products of cow milk usually. 3) Some people do not eat pork, fat meat, or beef for religious or other reasons (e.g., Moslems, Jews, Hindus) but may eat goat meat. 4) Mixed herd pasture management saves the need of clipping pasture weeds and brush invasions; for example, goats and cattle at a ratio of 1:1 are considered

1965-66

1947--52

1965--66

100.1 55.8 144.1 135.0 24.5 204.7 46.4 86.1 19.7 784.5

121.4 93.0 170.3 184.8 36.0 258.0 62.8 123.2 25.6 1075.1

ideal in some areas of the African savanna to prevent encroachment of brush (17). 5) Semiarid areas with sparse vegetation, brushes, and shrubs cannot support cattle and suit the browsing taste of goats even more than sheep. 6) Mountainous areas with steep slopes (above 30 ° and higher than 2000 m above sea level) cannot be used safely by cattle, b u t may be used by goats. Under such conditions, dairy goat management without protective agricultural policies is a business decision based on a cost to benefit ratio calculation which is less than 1.0 in favor of economic benefits. In practical terms, the six predisposing conditions can be translated into four types of dairy goat management (13), 1) freely grazing goats, 2) herded goats, 3) tethered goats, and 4) stabled goats. Investment and production differ greatly among these four types, as do the opportunities or limitations to improvement. Nutrition as one major limit to high milk production can be the basis for further distinguishing two categories, extensively managed dairy goats and intensively managed dairy goats. The first three types of m a n a g e m e n t freely grazing, herded, and tethered g o a t s are influenced by tradition, climate, soil, and cash flow, and usually are extensively managed. Stabled goats require greater skill and knowledge in feeding and breeding, i.e. intensive management. However, there is also a greater opportunity to make higher investments profitable with this category of Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 61, No. 7, 1978

1014

HAENLEIN

intensive management. This can be of future significance in the societies of developed countries of Europe and North America. On the other hand, the developing countries of the Near and Far East, Africa, and South America still may undergo considerable downward changes in their dairy goat numbers as these countries evolve from traditional agrarian or tribal systems to industrialized societies with new affluence and its consequences. NUTRITIONAL MANAGEMENT

Scientific research in agricultural economics, nutrition, and genetics has not concerned itself with the specific subject of dairy goats and their management as much as with cattle and sheep, although in some countries of the world there are more goats than cattle or sheep and more than half the population of the world is drinking goat milk (10). A few comprehensive publications, mostly foreign, are available (5, 8, 10, 14, 20, 23, 26, 32, 34, 41), but much of the work and data either are derived from research with sheep or cows or are of a popular nature without statistical significance to differences which are postulated. Even the most recent and comprehensive works on feeds and feeding of agricultural animals do n o t deal with goats (2, 27, 28, 33). One has to extrapolate 500 kg cows down to 50, 40, or 60 kg goats or has to translate nursing ewe requirements into those of milking goats. A t present, intensive dairy goat management is subject to more uncertainties than that of cattle or sheep. Nevertheless, top production records by Saanen does of 2300 kg milk and 94 kg butterfat (4.09% fat) in 365 days were reported 30 yr ago (32); averages of 7600 West German Saanen does exceeded 1000 kg milk during the 1950's (19); and the allbreed world record was made in 1960 by a US Toggenburg doe with 2614 kg milk in 305 days (20). The exact nutritional needs of dairy goats under intensive management, especially their energy requirements, have not been studied much. This may be due in part to the breeding and selection goals which have n o t concentrated on characteristics of stabling goats as opposed to freely grazing or herded goats. The literature contains comments (10, 23, 32, 34) which indicate that goats strongly Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 61, No. 7, 1978

look for and prefer nutritional variety, that tethering may result in production losses which exceed the work expenditures in moving long distances from and to pastures, and that it has been difficult to subject goats to a rigorous, uniform, monodiet feeding regime over longer times in studies of digestibility of nutrients, metabolizable, and net energy. On the other hand, the only work with indirect calorimetry in goats indicates that their basal metabolism equals the same approximate 1000 kcal/m 2 body surface as in cattle and sheep (24). This can be translated into useful formulae for management purposes as in Table 3 (13). A verification of the different reports for US conditions is desirable. The current NRC committee on goat nutrient requirements should be able to establish definite guidelines with the aid of extensive work being completed at Agra, India, and San Angelo, TX. In other practical experiments in Holland, it was determined how much land area is needed for does, kids, and bucks under satisfactory nutritional management (42) (Table 4). F o r supplementary silage feeding, a daily rate of 3 kg per doe was recommended. In pasturing, the daily consumption ranged between 10 and 12 kg of fresh grass while hay consumption was between 2 and 4 kg and that of fodder beets or potatoes 2 to 3 kg. These practical experiences were formulated into recommended feed allowances (42) (Table 5). More recently, recommendations were published based on the Rostock net energy research (2, 27, 28, 33, 40) which include measures of PEQ (digestible protein/energy quotient) and ED (energy concentration/ dry matter). For dairy goats producing 2.5 kg milk per day PEQ = 185 and EC = 500 is required while lower producing goats can be fed with PEQ = 175 and EC = 470. In table 6, recommended daily examples of feed rations under conditions of temperate zones are listed. The two maintenance rations (summer, winter) have PEQ = 153 and 150 and EC = 513 and 485; the production rations have PEQ = 190 and 185 and EC = 550 and 520. The energy needs of 1200 EFr (energy feed units) and 225 g digestible protein are met by the example rations. In addition, recommendations for minerals and trace elements are: Ca 4.7g, P 3.3g, Mg .8g, Na 1.Og, Fe 50 rag,

SYMPOSIUM: DAIRY GOATS

1015

TABLE 3. Formulae to satisfy nutrient requirements of goats. Maintenance of 50 kg dairy goats: 500 European starch units + 50 g digestible proteina .6-.7 (W/50) "Ts Scandinavian feed units b 390 Energy feed units + 60 g digestible protein c Milk production per kg: 200-300 European starch units + 40--60 g digestible protein a .4 Scandinavian feed units per kg of 4% FCM (700 kcal) b 300 Energy feed units + 65 g digestible protein c Feed intake (roughage) in g dry matter per goat per day: I = 702 + .16W 'Ts -- 8.08Y + 4.00D + .15MY c aReference: 1 3 : 1 European Starch Unit = 2.356 Kcal Net Energy (Fat) (27); adjustment of body weight according to Meh's body surface formula: S m 2 = 10 3x/-~ kg. bReference: 29; W = body weight; Y = age in years; D = days post partum; MY = milk yield in g 4% FCM per goat per day. CReference: 40; 1 Energy Feed Unit = 2.500 kcal Net Energy (Fat) (27).

Mn 40 rag, Zn 40 mg, Cu 7mg, Co .1 mg, I .1 mg per kg dry matter, for a c o n s u m p t i o n of 1.5 kg dry m a t t e r in the ration per day (40). It also is emphasized t h a t milking goats lose a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1.3 g Ca and 1.1 g P with each kg of milk, which has to be considered in the nutritional m a n a g e m e n t . R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s for vitamin supplies per 100 kg b o d y weight are, vitamin A = 11,000 IU, vitamin D = 650 IU, vitamin E = 55 IU. It has been r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t the energy allowances be increased by 15% for male goats because of their supposedly higher basal m e t a b o l i c rates due to m o r e intensive t h y r o i d activities (40). S o m e authors have dealt with the composi-

TABLE 4. Land requirements (m 2) for goats in Holland (42). Feed source

Dairy goat

Kid yearling

Hay Fodder beets Silage Corn Beans Oats Pasture

600 150 100 150 1O0 ... 400

150 500 ... 100 . . . . . . 50 . .. . . . . . . 500 500 100 200

Total

1500

800

Buck

1300

tion and i m p o r t a n c e of weeds in dairy goat nutritional m a n a g e m e n t (23), pointing o u t their relative richness in mineral c o n c e n t r a t i o n which supposedly makes grasses less satisf a c t o r y feeds for goats. If high mineral needs of milking goats and high mineral concentrations in herbs, especially in their flowering parts, can be correlated, t h e n this m i g h t explain the weeds' survival value in the selective grazing and browsing feeding b e h a v i o r o f goats, which includes even tree barks, y o u n g branches, and brush tip s. F e e d costs in c o m p r e h e n s i v e studies o f Indian dairy goats ranged f r o m .36 to 2.12 rupies for Barbari, and .73 to 8.96 rupies f o r Jamunapari goats (31, 37). Milk yields for 97 Barbari goats were 100 to 130 liters with c o n t e n t s of 3.3 to 5.0% fat, 8.9 to 9.8% SNF, 3.4 to 4.4% p r o t e i n ; f o r 87 J a m u n a p a r i goats the milk yields ranged 128 to 196 liters with contents of 3.2 to 5.6% fat, 8.5 to 9.9% SNF, and 2.9 to 4.6% protein. These studies are i m p o r t a n t since india, with 20% o f the world's goat p o p u l a t i o n (over 60 million), contributes m u c h goat milk and goat m e a t to alleviate the world's need for protein. F e e d r e q u i r e m e n t s o f growing Barbari kid goats were 5.1 to 5.7 kg T D N per kg b o d y weight gain and 5.9 to 7.9 kg T D N for J a m u n a p a r i kids (37). O t h e r studies in tropical and subtropical regions have s h o w n that in J a m a i c a a carrying Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 61, No. 7, 1978

Ox

TABLE 5. Recommended feed allowances for dairy goats (42).

W < o

Weight kg

Dry matter g

Digestible protein g

Fat g

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

6.5 10.3 13.7 16.7 19.4 21.6 22.0 24.2

200 200 400 525 650 775 900 1000

50 50 50 65 75 80 90 100

65 40 30 35 35 30 30 30

1 2 4 8

6.8 10.8 17.5 29.0

225 225 600 1350

55 55 75 120

Pregnant

10 12

32.0 40.0

1500 1550

1st Lactation a

13 20

42.0 44.0

Dry

24

2rid Lactation b Dry

Class Female kids

Age months

Crude fiber g

NFE g

European starch units g

lO 45 60 75 85 lO5 12o

65 60 125 170 210 255 300 315

265 200 250 320 375 405 470 550

75 45 40 35

lO 65 125

75 70 195 345

305 250 365 635

100 110

30 30

30o 21o

510 560

590 690

1800 1800

170 170

50 40

21o 25o

750 710

1000 850

48.0

1800

130

40

225

620

8OO

33

51.0

1900

175

45

230

740

1060

37

55.0

1800

140

45

300

800

9OO

Bucks, breeding

65.0

2700

190

50

360

980

1200

Bucks, not breeding

85.0

3000

250

45

38o

885

1080

O~

Z 9 .q

•

.

.

00

Male kids

aMilking 1.5 liters/day. bMIlking 2.0 liters/day.

> Z

SYMPOSIUM: DAIRY GOATS

1017

TABLE 6. Recommended examples of daily feed rations (40). Composition in g Quantity (kg)

Energy feed unit

Dry matter

Feed

Digestible protein

Maintenance only of 50--60 kg dairy goats during summer 2.5 •3 .15 .025

Medium quality pasture grass Oat straw Dry beet pulp Mineral mixture Total

400 255 135 . . . 790

53 2 7

220 105 80 .

.

. 405

Maintenance only of 5 0 - 6 0 kg dairy goats during winter .7 .5 .05 .05 .05 .030 .025

Medium quality hay Carrots Dry beet pulp Wheat bran Oats Oil meal (rapeseed) Mineral mixture Total

600 60 45 43 42 27

35 3 3 5 5 9

260 40 27 30 30 15

"817

;o

402 "

Production of 2.5 kg milk plus maintenance during summer 7.0 •3 .5 .6 .025

1st growth pasture Oat straw Medium quality meadow hay Dry beet pulp Mineral mixture Total

1085 170 425 540

665 70 170 320

175 1 25 32

2220

1225

i3;

Production of 2.5 kg milk plus maintenance during winter 2.0 1•5 1•25 .5 .25 .1 .1 .015 .025

Sugar beet leaf silage Carrots Good quality hay Oat straw Wheat bran Oil meal (sunflower) Oats Ureaa Mineral mixture Total

310 195 1060 437 220 85 85 . . . 2392

135 130 575 173 123 46 61 .

.

40 12 70 3 29 30 9 36

. . . . 1243

.

.

. 229

alf no urea is desired, then the .1 kg oats may be replaced by .1 kg soybean oil meal•

c a p a c i t y of 37 to 45 goats p e r h e c t a r e is n o t d i f f i c u l t o n P a n g o l a grass (Digitaria decumbens Steut) (4, 5). In c o u n t r i e s g r o w i n g rice, goats can graze the s t u b b l e . Rice s t r a w s u p p l e m e n t e d with m o l a s s e s a n d u r e a is also an e c o n o m i c a l way o f f e e d i n g s t a b l e d or f e e d - l o t dairy goats• I n t e g r a t i o n o f goats w i t h r u b b e r a n d c o c o n u t p l a n t a t i o n s f o r t h e c o n t r o l a n d u t i l i z a t i o n of u n d e r g r o w t h also has e c o n o m i c benefits• P r o d u c t i o n costs of g o a t m i l k a n d b u t t e r in E u r o p e have b e e n r e p o r t e d f o r a price of

.20 G e r m a n m a r k s per kg g o a t milk, regardless of f a t c o n t e n t (22) ( T a b l e 7). T h e partit i o n i n g o f e x p e n d i t u r e s was a p p r o x i m a t e l y 50% f o r feed grains, 10% f o r b r e e d i n g a n d vete r i n a r y costs, 10% f o r b r e e d a s s o c i a t i o n s a n d p r o m o t i o n , 30% f o r seeds, fertilizer, l a n d r e n t , a n d h o u s i n g (38). As T a b l e 7 indicates, h i g h e r p r o d u c t i o n or m o r e i n t e n s i v e m a n a g e m e n t o f dairy goats was m o r e p r o f i t a b l e t h a n t h e l o w e r u n d e r t h e prevailing prices. With i n c r e a s i n g a f f l u e n c e of society, dairy Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 61, No. 7, 1978

1018

HAENLEIN

TABLE 7. Production costs of goat milk and butter in Germany (22). Item

Goat #1

Goat #2

Production of milk, kg Butterfat, % Butter, kg Lactation, days Income, milk, German marks a Expenditures, feed, German marks Balance, German marks Cost for 1 kg milk, German marks Cost for 1 kg butter, German marks

968 4.03 39.10 365 193.60 94.32 +99.28 .097 2.41

810 2.88 23.33 314 162.00 85.5O +76.50 .106 3.66

abased on a price of goat milk of .20 German marks per kg.

goats find themselves often in changed roles, from "cows of the poor man" to "suppliers of health food," even on subscriptions of physicians. The health food value of goat milk deserves further research. Dairy goat farms as a business with large numbers of stabled milking does are a relatively new development. In southwest Germany, where the average dairy goat herd used to number 2 to 3, the average size herd today is 35 tested goats with the largest herd milking 150 does (11). It has been estimated that 10 dairy goats with a total combined body weight of 550 kg consume for production of 8 to 10,000 kg milk plus maintenance and reproductive needs, as much feed as one 550 kg cow, which may not produce and reproduce as easily the same amount. However, 100 dairy goats require more labor than 10 cows, making

the higher prices for goat milk and products, e.g. yogurt and cheese, a business necessity. Comparative calculations of efficiency of goats versus other ruminants are in various publications but have to be treated with caution since they rarely contain calculations of statistical probability and significance (13). Here is a comparison between raising veal or goat kids, although not recent (35). The average birthweight of calves was 45 kg, that of kids 3.5 kg. The time required to double the birthweight was 35 days for the calf but 20 days for the kid. During this time the calf consumed 250 kg milk, the kid 25 kg. The time required for 1 kg body weight gain was only .8 days for the calf versus 5.7 days for the goat kid. This meant that per day the calf consumed 7.15 kg milk and the kid 1.25 kg, but milk requirements per kg gain for the calf were 5.72 kg versus

TABLE 8. Comparative economic advantage of goat versus cattle production on Guinea grass (Panicum maximum) in Malaysia (4). Characteristic

Goats

Cattle

Carrying capacity, animals/hectar/year Carrying capacity, live weight, kg/hectar/year Total dry matter requirements, kg/animal/year Dry matter requirements, kg/animal/day Live weight gain, tons/hectar/year Total daily live weight response, kg/hectar Value of total daily live weight response, M$/hectar a Cost of feeding grass and labor, M$b Gross margin of profits, M$/animal/hectar Ecotlomic advantage of goats, MS

45.6 1276.8 307 .84 1.33 3.65 12.05 1.05 11.00 +6.44

5.6 1271.2 2486 6.81 .93 2.55 5.61 .73 4.88

abased on 1 kg live weight costing 3.00 M$ (Malaysian dollars) for goats and 2.20 for cattle. bcost at 1.8 Malaysian cents/kg fresh weight and an efficiency of feed conversion of 16 for both species. Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 61, No. 7, 1978

SYMPOSIUM: DAIRY GOATS 7.12 kg for the kid, and in terms of net energy (fat) 3100 kcal versus 3850. Another comparative calculation has been under tropical conditions for the production of goat meat (4) (Table 8). The prevailing prices show a clear economic advantage for goats. In other studies comparing goats and sheep under similar nutritional conditions, goats consumed more dry matter per unit metabolic body weight, but their water intake was less (12). Crude fiber digestibility of natural tropical grasses was 60.2% for goats, significantly higher than for sheep, 56.5% (P<.05). BREEDING MANAGEMENT

This discussion can be short since aspects which are specific for dairy goats are few. The major goals of dairy goat breeding management are to 1) improve milk production without change in milk composition, 2) eliminate seasonal infertility, 3) eliminate short lactations, 4) eliminate specific goat scents, and 5) eliminate horns without loss of fertility. The paucity of published research on breeding and dairy goat herd improvement has been stressed (5). It should n o t be difficult to demonstrate that progress towards the listed goals is directly related to the degree of intensity of management which favors stabled goats. It also must be recognized that AI is the most effective tool towards these goals. However, the use of AI depends on cash flow considerations and a certain minimum population density per area. Formerly, state laws of some European countries provided for male service; then goat numbers and population densities declined below a level which no longer justified public support (30, 43). On the other hand, official agricultural policies still have considerable positive influence in other countries. F o r instance, the Soviet Union officially supports a broad network of 1446 AI stations across the country which inseminated 1.1 million sows, 26.1 million cows, and 43.3 million sheep and goats in 1973 (1). Present DHIA programs in the US have approximately 17,000 pedigreed goat lactations on record that are usable in genetic evaluations of sires and for selection decisions using AI (39). In 1976, more than 7,000 lactations were added which are, however, only 1% of all milking dairy goats in the US (39).

1019

Their average production has been estimated at 500 kg milk per year. This would be an annual production of 350 million kg goat milk in the US per year compared with 50 billion kg cow milk in the US produced annually. Admittedly, formal research efforts on improvement of dairy goats is practically nonexistent in the USA, but the potential economic benefits to producers and consumers from increasing average goat milk production has been estimated in the millions of dollars (39). Production averages of 11,219 records by the leading five US dairy goat breeds (% of total), Alpine (31%), LaMancha (8%), Nubian (23%), Saanen (16%), and Toggenburg (20%) range between 817 and 979 kg (276 to 305 days lactation length, 1st to 5th lactation) (6). The four leading US states out of 15 with official goat production records were California (49% of all records), Wisconsin (13%), Oregon (10%), and Washington State (7%). The distribution by lactation number was 39% for first, 25% for second, 16% for third, 9% for fourth, and 10% for fifth to tenth lactation. Recent statistics of goat production from the home land of dairy goats, Switzerland, and its leading six breeds are in Table 9. Stabled dairy goat breeding management favors the use of AI, and it makes an understanding of goat behavior now more important than under extensive management conditions (14). The physical presence of bucks is an important factor in stimulating female reproduction (36). The adequate supply of nutrients under stabled management affects the success of breeding. In particular, protein intake during the last 8 wk of pregnancy is critical, and undernutrition causes abortions, low birth rates, and low birth weights of kids (16). Modifying the length of daylight is another factor in breeding management (21). Dairy goat breeds originating from latitudes distant from the equator are by evolution short-daylight breeders. Work at the USDA at Beltsville and other experiment stations has shown that simulation of October light conditions together with cool temperatures effectively reduce seasonal infertility, in addition to efforts of selection (5, 21). Dairy goat breeds originating near the equator are valuable in the selection and crossbreeding effort to eliminate seasonal infertility, e.g. the Nubian breed (21) and the Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 6I, No. 7, 1978

tx~ O

o

e~

TABLE 9. Recent dairy goat statistics in Switzerland a (9). Breed

< Item

Saanen

Toggenburg

Chamois~e b

Appenzell

Graub[~ndner c

Verzasca

Hair length

Short

Long

Short

Long

Short

Long

Color

White

Brown/White

Brown/Black

White

Black/White

Black

Horns

Hornless

Hornless

Horned, Hornless

Hornless

Horned

Horned

Height at withers, cm male female

80-95 74-85

75-85 70-80

75-85 7 0 - 80

70-80 65-75

75-85 7 0 - 80

80-90 75-85

Weight, kg male female

75 50

65 45

65 45

65 45

65 45

70 50

Part of total Swiss dairy goat population %

26

10

17

3

10

13

Ox

O ,q

.q 00

Average milk yield, over 2.5 yr old, kg

720 -+ 200

700 -+ 190

634 -+ 186

670 +- 190

480 -+ 100

490 +- 90

Average length of lactation, days

280 -+ 22

276 +- 23

277 -+ 23

273 -+ 22

238 -+ 25

220 -+ 19

aThe 1966 census listed 74,707 dairy goats. bChamois~e or Oberhasli-Brienzer or Oberhaslian Swiss Alpine. c

vl

.

Graubundner or Bundner Strahlen goat.

,v Z

SYMPOSIUM: DAIRY GOATS Chinese M a - T ' o u (7). A discussion o f h o u s i n g , m i l k i n g parlors, a n d e q u i p m e n t w o u l d be o f i n t e r e s t b u t e x c e e d s t h e s c o p e o f this paper. CONCLUSIONS

This review m i g h t be s u m m a r i z e d b y t w o c o n c l u s i o n s . M a n a g e m e n t o f dairy g o a t s can have c o n s i d e r a b l e e c o n o m i c benefits, a n d its g r e a t p r o d u c t i o n reserves p r o m i s e p r o f i t a b l e d e v e l o p m e n t in a f f l u e n t as well as in d e v e l o p ing c o u n t r i e s . Dairy g o a t m a n a g e m e n t r e q u i r e s a n d deserves r e n e w e d a t t e n t i o n in r e s e a r c h a n d e d u c a t i o n , especially in view o f t h e n e e d to serve t h e d e m a n d s f o r p r o t e i n , h e a l t h , a n d specialty f o o d s o f w e a l t h y a n d p o o r n a t i o n s . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The early guidance of Professor Werner W~hlbier, U n i v e r s i t y H o h e n h e i m a n d L u d w i g Fischer, Sr., S c h w a b e n h e i m is a c k n o w l e d g e d gratefully. REFERENCES

1 Anonymous. 1975. Besamung in der USSR. Wllrtt. Wochenbl. Landw. 142:385. 2 Beyer, M., A. Chudy, B. Hoffmann, L. Hoffmann, W. Jentsch, W. Laube, K. Nehring, and R. Schiemann. 1971. Das DDR Futterbewertungssystem. VEB Deutscher Landwirtschaftsverlag Berlin, East Germany. 3 Brugger, R. 1977. Personal communication. State Dep. Agr. Innsbruck, Austria. 4 Devendra, C. 1976. Goat and sheep production systems in the tropic and sub-tropic regions. Paper presented Winrock Int'l. Livestock Res. Training Center, Morrilton, AR. 5 Devendra, C., and M. Burns. 1970. Goat production in the tropics. Commonwealth Agr. Bureaux, Farnham Royal, Bucks, England. 6 Dickinson, F. N., and G. J. King. 1977. Phenotypic parameters of dairy goat lactation records. J. Dairy Sci. 60 Suppl:104. (Abstr.) 7 Epstein, H. 1969. Domestic animals of China. Techn. Commun. Commonwealth Bureaux Animal Breeding Genet. No. 18, Farnham Royal, Bucks, England. 8 Fehr, P. M. 1976. Caprins. Techniques Agricoles 6, No. 3500, 3501, 3502. France. 9 Fehse, R., and R. Kunzi. 1977. Goat Breeding in Switzerland. Eidgen. Volkswirtschaftsdept., Abt. Landw., Bern, Switzerland. 10 French, M. H. 1970. Observations on the goat. FAO AgE Studies No. 80, Rome, Italy. 11 Gall, C. 1972. Ziegenzucht-mit Zukunft? Tierii zuchter 24: 283. 12 Gihad, E. A. 1976. Intake, digestibility and nitrogen utilization of tropical natural grass hay by

1021

goats and sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 43:879. 13 Haenlein, G. F. W. 1950. Stoffwechsel und Energiehaushalt der Ziege. Thesis, Dep. Anim. Nutr., Univ. Hohenheim-Stuttgart, West Germany. 14 Hafez, E. S. E., and J. P. Scott. 1962. The behavior of sheep and goats. In The behavior of domestic animals, by E. S. E. Hafez. Williams & Wilkins Publ., Baltimore. 15 Haiger, A. 1977. Lectures on animal industry with emphasis on alpine regions. Dep. Anim. Prod., Univ. Agr., Vienna, Austria. 16 Huston, J. E., M. Shelton, and W. C. Ellis. 1971. Nutritional requirements of the Angora goat. Texas A & M Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. B-1105. 17 Joubert, D. M. 1973. Goats in the animal agriculture of Southern Africa. Z. Tlerz.uchtungsblol. 90:245. 18 Knoss, K. H. 1971. Fruchtbarkeit, Wachstum und Leistungen bei Schaf und Ziege in einem nordindischen Biotop. Diss., J. L. Univ. HohenheimGermany. 19 Lezius, G. 1943. N~/hrstoffbedarf und N[ihrstoffhaushalt der Milchziege. Diss., Univ. HohenheimStuttgart, West Germany. 20 Lindahl, I. L. 1972. Nutrition and feeding of gnats. In Digestive physiology and nutrition of ruminants. D. C. Church, ed. Anim. Sci., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 21 Lindahl, I. L. 1972. Some factors affecting reproductive performance in goats. Paper pres. Maine Dairy Goat Council Meeting, Farmingdale, USDAARS, Beltsville, MD. 22 Lomberg, O. 1949. Die F~tterung der Ziege. Ziegenzllchter 40:109. 23 MacKenzie, D. 1975. Goat husbandry. Faber & Faber Ltd., London, England. 24 Magee, H. E. 1924. Studies on the metabolism of the ruminant by indirect calorimetry. J. Agr. Sci. Cambridge 14:506. 25 M~hlgassner, D. 1977. Lectures on mountain farming in Austria. Dept. Geography, Univ. Vienna, Austria. 26 National Research Council, Inst. of Lab. Animal Res., Subcom. on Standards f. Large (Domestic) Lab Animals. 1974. Ruminants, cattle, sheep and goats. Nat. Academy of Science, Washington, DC. 27 Nehring, K. 1972. Lehrbuch der Tierernlhrung und Futtermittelkunde. Neumann Verlag, Radebeul, East Germany. 28 Nehring, K., M. Beyer, and B. Hoffmann. 1970. Futtermitteltabellenwerk. VED Deutscher Landwirtschaftsverlag, Berlin, East Germany. 29 Opstvedt, J. 1967. Norwegian experiments on nutrition and milk quality in goats. Europ. Ass. Anita. Prod., Rep. No. 2, Study Comm. on Anim. Nutr., Rome, Italy. 30 Pobisch, A., and O. Limberger. 1977. Austrian domestic animal statistics. Fed. Dep. Agr. Forestry, Vienna, Austria. 31 Sachdeva, K. K., O. P. S. Sengar, S. N. Singh, and I. L. Lindahl. 1974. Studies on goats• 2. Effect of plane of nutrition on milk production and composition. Milchwissensch. 29:471. Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 61, No. 7, 1978

1022

HAENLEIN

32 Schaper, H., and J. Geriets. 1948. Der kleine Ziegenz~lchter. Verlag Neumann, Berlin, East Germany• 33 Schiemann, R., K. Nehring, L. Hoffmann, W. Jentsch, and A. Chudy. 1971. Energetische Futterbewertung und Energienormen. VEB Deutscher Landwirtschaftsverlag, Berlin, East Germany. 34 Schmid, A. 1946. Die ZUchtung und Haltung der Ziege. Buchverlag, Bern, Switzerland. 35 Schmidt, J. E. Lauprecht,, , D• Dschapandse" and H. Bergrnann. 1935. Uber Wachstum und Futterverwertung der deutschen bunten Edelziege im ersten Lebensjahr. Zuchtungskunde " 10:161. 36 Shelton, M. 1960. Influence of the presence of a male goat on the initiation of estrus cycling and ovulation of Angora does. J. Anim. Sci. 19:368. 37 Singh, S. N., and O. P. S. Sengar. 1970. Final technical report of P. L. 480 Research Project No. A7-AH-18, Investigations on milk and meat po-

Journal of Dairy Science VoI. 61, No. 7, 1978

38 39

40 41

42 43

tentialities of Indian goats. Dept. Anita. Hush. Dairying, R. B. S. (Formerly B. R.) College, Bichpuri, Agra, India. Unger, O. 1950. Gewinn- und Verlustrechnung im Ziegenstall. Ziegenz{Jchter 41:76• United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Program Staff. 1976. National Research Program #20380. Production of sheep and other animals. Washington, DC. Winter, J., and R. G~rsch. 1974. Ziegen als Versuchstiere--ein Beitrag zur F{~tterungsoptimierung. Z. Versuchstierkd. 16:256. Zeeb, R. 1947. Der praktische Ziegenz~chter und Ziegenhalter. Verlag E. Ulmer, Stuttgart, West Germany. Zwagermann, O. 1921. Das FLtttern der Ziegen und Futternormen. Ziegenz{lchter 16:362. Zwittkovits, F. 1974. Die Almen Osterreichs. Selbstverlag, Zdhngdoff, NO, Austria. II

•

•

iv