SEMI-ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT

4th 6 Months (April, 2002 - September, 2002)

PROJECT NO.: PCE-G-OO-OO-OOO29-OO

PROJECT TITLE: MULTINATIONAL APPROACHES TO ENHANCE GOAT PRODUcnON IN THE MIDDLE EAST

I. Technical Progress

LA) Research Objectives

Overall project objectives are:

1) Characterize goat production systems of the Middle East region and distribute improved goat genotypes

2) Increase knowledge of goat milk properties and develop new technologies for production of goat milk products in the Middle East

3) Transfer appropriate available and developed technologies for goats to Middle Eastern farmslhouseholds, in particular regarding proper milk hygiene and processing

Each of these overall project objectives have been addressed in the activities having taken place in the last 6 months. Specific objectives achieved during this time period include:

I) Training in goat milk technologies for project participants

2) Training in goat health management, diseases, and production

3) Characterization of chemical quality and bacteriological status of goat milk in Middle East production systems

4) Characterization of goat production systems in the Middle East with emphasis on specific technology transfer needs

5) Transfer of enhanced technology packages to goat farmers in the Middle East

I

I.B) Research Accomplishments

Goat Milk Quality - Israel

Since the last 6-month progress report (April 2002), work on goat milk quality and properties has continued, especially as related to its suitability for production of consumable products.

The last report ended with a summary table of tank milk bacterial quality and chemical composition of the milk. A statistical analysis of the data revealed that the bacterial quality of the milk was poor on the tank level. It was impossible to find any correlations between the presence of bacteria in tank milk and the management system or the breed of the goats. Qn the other hand, it was noted that chemical composition of the milk was significantly different between the two management regimes, Le., intensive and semi-extensive (for details see the April 2002 Report).

Table 1. Average composition of milk according to husbandry regime (%).

Component Fat Protein Dry matter Ash Intensive farming

Average 3.91 3.52 12.52 0.78 SD 0.93 0.45 1.43 0.06

Semi-extensive farming Average 4.51 3.66 13.11 0.75 SD 1.02 0.33 l.l6 0.04

It is obvious that fat and protein in the semi-extensive farming regimes were higher and statistically different from the intensive system. This was expected since semi-intensive herds were browsing; thus, this milk was more concentrated compared with intensive feeding. It should be noted that in the comparison of this work, detailed information on several aspects of the different herds checked was not included. These items include goat breed, days in milking, age, number of kiddings, etc. Moreover, the bacteriological findings of the collected tank milk did not provide an image of the real situation regarding udder health in the different farms, but they rather were the outcome of husbandry practices and milking practices and facilities. These reflections led the research team to suggest a program that will take all the mentioned drawbacks into account and will treat herds on an individual animal basis, by testing udder halves in order to determine the prevalence of bacterial infection that might influence milk quality and thereby dairy products.

Intramammary infection OMI) is one of the major effects resulting in reduced milk yield and milk quality in dairy cows (Harmon, 1994) and sheep (Watson and Buswell, 1984). In goats, Haenlein and HinckJy (1995) did not observe conclusive trends in productivity losses, possibly due to confounding with stage of lactation, since towards the end of lactation physiological changes raise somatic cell count (SeC) independent from 1M!. Positive cultures of pathogens from aseptically collected milk

2

samples are the only conclusive identification of infected animals. However, sample contamination, low number of colony forming units (CFU) at time of sampling, or other IMI causes that are not routinely tested (virus, anaerobic bacteria, mycoplasma, etc.) can interfere with the results. Therefore, indirect tests such as SCC, Califomia mastitis test (CMT), or N-acetyl-f3-D-glucosaminidase (NAGase) activity are crucial for accurate identification of 1M!. In cows, SCC count is an indication for normal or abnormal milk while for goat milk, it has been found to be inappropriate because of the presence of many cytoplasmic particles resulting from apocrine milk secretion (Maisi, 1990a; Atherton, 1992). In our earlier studies with dairy cows (Chaffer et al., 1999; Leitner et aI., 2001) and dairy sheep (Leitner et al., 2001), changes occurring throughout lactation in the bacteriological status of a mammary gland (quarter or half) were minimal with a high correlation between the pathogens identified and SCC and NAGase activity. These results indicate that testing cows and sheep once in mid-lactation is highly accurate to detect the udder bacteriological status. In goats, indirect tests are questionable days after kidding and towards the end of lactation. The program described below was designed to screen and identifY pathogens causing subclinical udder infections in 10 Israeli dairy goat herds and to determine their influence on milk quality in a single sampling of half udder milk between 25-130 days post parturition.

Herds of different locations and size (150-800 goats) and at different lactation stages (1-11 months), minimum of 25 days and not more then 130 days after kidding, were chosen. Kids were removed immediately after birth and goats were milked mechanically twice a day. Average milk yield in the herds was 350-1200 liter/goatllactation, with a daily yield of 0.5 to 6 liter. In each of the herds, 50 goats were randomly chosen (total of 500 goats) and were included in this study. Udder halves were tested for udder bacterial condition, SCC, NAGase activity, and milk composition. Milk yield was recorded by the owner up to 2 weeks before or after sampling time.

Goats were sampled during the moming or evening milking. Udder halves were cleaned and disinfected prior to sampling with a non-woven towelette moistened with chlorhexidine, cetrimide, and ethanol. The first three squirts of milk were discarded and approximately 5 ml of milk were taken in a sterile tube for bacteriological tests, SCC measurement with a Coulte!® Counter (CC) Model Zl, and NAGase activity testing. Foremilk (50 ml) was taken from each half to determine SCC and milk composition (fat, protein, and lactose) with a Fossomatic 360 (calibrated with goat milk) at the Milk Control Laboratory of the Israeli Cattle Breeders Association. Samples were taken aseptically according to the International Dairy Federation procedures and kept at 4_80

C until being tested at the laboratory (1-5 h). SCC and milk composition were determined according to the revised protocol of the A2B sub-group of Mastitis Experts of the International Dairy Federation (1991).

Bacteriological analysis was performed according to accepted standards (Hogan et aI., 1999). From each milk sample, om ml was spread onto blood-agar plates containing 5% of washed sheep red blood cells and on MacConkey plates. All plates were incubated at 370 C and examined for bacteria growth at 18 and 42 h. Colonies suspected to be staphylococci were tested for coagulase (tube test). Strain identification

3

was carried out with the API STAPH-IDENT, 32 Staph kit (bioMerieux S.A., 69280 Marcy-I'Etoile, France). When the percentage of micrococci-like bacteria that matched the test strain exceeded 90%, the strain was regarded as specified. If the percentage fell below 90%, the strain was registered as unidentified coagulase negative staphylococci (CNS). Gram negative colonies were identified with the API 20 E or API NE kit (bioMerieux S.A., 69280 Marcy-I'Etoile, France). The concentration of N-acetyl-~D­glucosaminidase (NAGase), a lyzosomal enzyme in milk, was fluorometrically determined according to the ADL MILK NAGase test (ADC Applied Diagnostics Corporation, Helsinki, Finland) with a computerized microplate setting. A value of 100 corresponds to the release of product at about 5 Ilmol rl min·1 at 250 C.

Data were statistically analyzed with SAS General Linear Model (GLM) procedures (SAS/ST A T® User's Guide. 1990). Dependent variables were SCC and Log SCC (CC), SCC and Log SCC (Fossomatic 360), fat, protein, lactose, NAGase, and bacteriological status. The independent variables - herd, lactation number, goat, and days in milk (DIM) - were examined according to the model:

Y ijkl = ]l + Hi + Lk + Sljki + DIM + UHmlki + e.ruki.

where: Y = dependent variable; ]l = overall mean; Hi = flock, I = 1 ... ,10; 4: = lactation number, i = 1, .. ,3; Siki = goat I, in flock i, lactation k, I = 1, 1000; UHmlki = udder halfm, of goat 1, in flock i, and in lactation k. I = 1, 2; DIM = days in milk.

The results of the present findings are given below. Five hundred dairy goats were described according to herd, lactation number, and average (± SD) number of days in milk as summarized in Table 1. Of the 350 goats with lactation records, 16.3% (57/350) were in their first lactation, 34% (119/350) were in their second lactation, and 49.7% were in their third or higher lactation (174/350). In the remaining three herds \Vith no lactation record, the majority of the goats were in their second, third, or higher lactation. All the goats were at the stage of high lactation (25-130 days in the lactation), although only six herds recorded kidding date. The percentage of bacteriologically infected udders-halves in the flocks ranged from 35 to 71 % (Table 2). Means and standard errors (SE) of NAGase activity and SCC with the CC or Fossomatic 360, according to flock are presented in Table 2. In general, SCC according to the Fossomatic was higher than that counted with the CC. The correlations between SCC with the CC or Fossomatic 360 and each with the NAGase activity were low. No interaction was found between bacteriological status and herd, in their effects on somatic cells counted with either the CC or the Fossomatic 360, or on NAGase activity.

4

Table 2. Distribution of the 1000 Israeli dairy goats according to herd, lactation number, and average (± SD) of days in milking.

Herd Lactation' DIM' I 2 >3

1 2 36 12 95±50 2 2 8 40 31±5 3 4 6 18 26 5 6 104±114 7 12 13 25 77±17 8 3 9 38 9 15 20 15 50±2 10 17 15 18 105±92

I _ Lactation unknown and day of kidding was not recorded.

The effect of the bacteriological status (infected or uninfected) and flock on all of these parameters was significant (P < 0.005) (Table 3). The effects on SCC of lactation number and days in milk were not significant. Bacteriological status and SCC with Fossomatic 360 over flock is summarized in Table 4. No bacterial growth was detected in the milk of 48% (488 out of 1000 halves), and those were accordingly classified as uninfected. Staphylococcus aureus was detected in eight flocks in only one to six goats per flock, and they caused a strong response in somatic cell count, which increased to over 3 x 106 cells mrl. Various species ofCNSs formed the main pathogen group in the infected udders and for the majority of the CNS species; infection of one half did not affect the other. S. capra and S. epidermidis comprised the majority of the CNSs, and they were found in all of the flocks tested. Other major CNSs were S. chromogenes and S. simulans. All of the CNSs elicited strong responses, with the SCC increasing to 106

cells mrl, and no significant difference was found among the various strains (Table 4). Lactation number (1, 2, and < 3) significantly influenced infection rate of udder halves. The percentage of udder halves where no bacteria was found was higher at first and second lactations than that at the third lactation (54, 56, and 31 %, respectively). Milk composition - fat, protein, and lactose - varied among flocks, with percentages in the ranges of 1.99 - 5.56 for fat, 3.40 - 5.11 for total protein, and 4.74 - 5.11 for lactose (Table 5). The effects of bacteriological status (infected or uninfected) were significant (P> 0.001) (Table 6). Mean total protein was lower in uninfected halves than in infected ones (3.80 and 3.98%, respectively) as well as was fat (3.46 and 3.69%, respectively), while lactose was higher in uninfected than in infected halves (5.01 and 4.84%, respectively). The flock effect on all of the parameters was significant (P > 0.001), whereas that of lactation number was significant for protein and lactose, and that of DIM for fat and protein (Table 6).

5

Table 3. Percentage of udder-half infection (status), NAGase activity, and somatic cells count by Coulter® Counter (CC) or (Fossomatic 360) according to herd.

Herd

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Status' (% Infection)

41 35 55 63 51 52 63 71 43 36

, Total bacterial infection.

NAGase

2 1.9±2. I 33.3±4.4 31.0±4.6 41.1±7.l 21.2±3.1 45.l±4.0 33.3±4.0 53.3±6.4 34.5±6.2 52.7±3.7

SCC x 1000 (CC)

487±82 749±94 245±32 546±II I 613±89 748±118 456±114 825±142 505±65 479±1 03

SCCx 1000 (Fossomatic)

1262±122 953±131 576±100 641±104

1059±131 942±140

II98±154 1414±152 973±134 976±167

Table 4. Mean and SE of NAGase activity and somatic cells count by Coulter® Counter (CC) or (Fossomatic 360) according to udder bacteriology status and herd and bacteriology status effects.

Status

Uninfected (488) Infected (512)

Total (Bulk)

Main effects: Herd Bacteriology

NAGase

15.0±0.8 55.3±2.7

31.3

0.005 < 0.001

6

SCC x 1000 (CC)

225±8.7 906±56.2

871

0.001 < 0.001

SCCx 1000 (Fossomatic)

288±21.1 I 626±70.8

1038

< 0.001 < 0.001

Table 5. Distribution of 8 I 5 dairy goat udders (I 000 halves) from 10 different herds according to udder bacteriology infection and SCC measure with Fossomatic 360.

Bacteria Udder half Herd SCCx 1000 (Fossomatic)

S. aureus 38 8 3593±259 CNS

S. capra 167 10 I 426±205 S. chromogenes 41 8 I 744±236 S. epidermidis 95 10 I 529±208 S. simulans 66 10 I 996±182 S. xylosos 13 4 791±192 Non identified CNS 53 8 I I 89±205 Total CNS 435 10 I 676±74 Other & Not identified 39 9 Total uninfected' 488 (48%) 288±21.I Total infection 512 (52%) I 626±70.8

I Uninfected halves, no bacterial growth on blood-agar and MacConkey plates.

Table 6. Mean and SE of percentages of fat, protein, and lactose of goats according to herd.

Herd Fat (%) Protein (%) Lactose (%) I keren 4.1 6±O.l 2 3.84±0.04 4.89±0.03 2 blumen 3.72±0.09 4.14±0.05 4.98±0.03 3 voturi 1.99±0.09 3.40±0.04 5.05±O.03 4 ben ami 3.53±O.l8 3.84±0.09 4.97±0.05 5 sharki 3.22±0.1O 3.60±0.03 5.JJ±O.04 6 shai 5.56±O.l7 4.l6±0.06 4.74±0.03 7 zipori 3.90±0.1 I 3.82±0.04 4.95±0.03 8 bethanan 3.5J±0.1O 4.14±0.06 4.98±0.03 9blumen 3.43±0.09 3.70±0.05 4.85±0.03 10 himel 2.75±O.lO 4.2J±0.04 4.77±0.05

7

Table 7. Mean and SE of (percentages) of fat, protein, and lactose, according to udder-half bacteriology status and its main effects.

Status

Uninfected (488) Infected (512)

Main effects: Herd Bacteriology Lactation Days in milk

I Bacterial halves status. 2 Days in milk 3 Number of halves.

Fat (%)

3.46±0.06 3.69±0.07

< 0.001 0.003 NS

0.001

4 Mean over DIM and number of lactation.

Protein (%)

3.80±0.02 3.98±0.03

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

0.001

Lactose (%)

5.01±0.01 4.84±O.02

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

NS

S Probability between halves status over DIM and number oflactation.

In summary, it should be noted that in Israeli goat herds there is a relatively large number of infected udder-halves (52%). This situation is of major importance in respect to milk quantity and quality for product production, since it is known from dairy cattle that milk from infected udders have a lower quality in every aspect. Milk tends to bacteriologically deteriorate faster, to develop off-flavors due to enzymatic activity, and to result in poor cheese due to high number of somatic cells. Therefore, the influence of milk from infected udders was compared with that of uninfected in several aspects.

In addition to the bacteriological status of the herds, preliminary work was carried out dealing with milk quantity and quality. These are only preliminary findings, since the work is now in progress and thus will be reported briefly.

To ensure that udder-halves of goats were infected, milk was obtained by milking individual animals into two different containers, infected vs. uninfected. Milk yield was 22% less from infected versus uninfected halves, with a greater difference noted for does close to parturition. A test of curd yield was performed as described by Calvo and Balcones (1998), while at the same time, cheese makers from the two farms made cheese according to their standard practices. Milk of infected halves had a lower yield compared with milk from uninfected ones (Table 8). Additional information presented in Table 8 shows that in addition to data compiled from Tables 1-6, curd yield was reduced by 6%, time of gelation (time elapsed between enzyme addition and initial curdling) was increased by 6%, casein was reduced by 6%, whey proteins and the proteose-peptone fractions markedly increased, and calcium activity decreased. All these variables, which were checked for the first time in this preliminary study, indicate that milk from infected

8

udder-halves is markedly inferior in qualities and properties for cheese making compared with milk from uninfected halves. These results support the report of the cheese makers that the milk from the infected halves resulted in inferior cheese, which at times was unacceptable.

Table 8. Milk, milk composition, SCC, and various proteolytic measures of milk from subclinically infected vs. uninfected goat-udder-halves (mean ± SE of 10 goats). Each goat had one half free of infection, while the other half was infected with coagulase negative staphylococci.

Measure Uninfected half Infected half Ratio %

(Inf./uninf. ) Milk (kg/milking) 0.89±0.07 0.69±0.06 -22.5 SCC (x 1000) 140±35 560±178 400 NAGase (relative units) 4.3±2.0 41±13.9 950 Fat (%) 3.13±0.28 3.26±0.23 4 Protein (%) 3.34±O.l6 3.40±0.l7 2 Lactose (%) 4.83±0.10 4.76±O.lO -2 Curd (%) 22.02±0.01 20.90±0.01 -5 Time of gelation (min) 1 54.9±14.5 164.1±17.3 6 Casein (mg/ml) 19.85±1.48 18.73±1.21 -6 Whey proteins (mg/ml) 4.74±0.01 5.20±17.3 10 Proteose-peptone (mg/ml) 0.11±0.02 0.27±0.04 245 Ca activity (mmol) 1.93±O.l6 I.3I±O.l1 - 32

The above results point to the possibility of finding several markers, which could serve as indicators for early detection of subclinical mastitic udders. Such a finding could help in reducing the infection rate of the udders, thus leading to higher milk yield. The research team is now evaluating the results for better decision making in the future and for understanding the role of each of the parameters tested on milk production and animal health.

Bibliography

Atherton, H.V. 1992. Using somatic cells and antibiotic test for determining the quality of goat milk. In: Gipson, T.A. et al. Proceeding of the National Symposium on Dairy Goat Production and Marketing. Langston University, Langston, OK, pp. 128-135.

Chaffer, M., Leitner, G., Winkler, M., Glickman, A., Krifucks, 0., Ezra, E. and Saran, A. 1999. Coagulase-negative Staphylococci and mammary gland infections in cows. J. Vet. Med. B., 46:707-712.

Haenlein, G.W. and Hinckley, L.S. 1995. Goat milk somatic cell count situation in USA. Int. J. Anim. Sci., 10:305.

9

Harmon, RJ. 1994. Physiology of mastitis and factors affecting somatic cell counts. J. Dairy Sci., 77:2103-2112.

International Dairy Federation, 1991. Milk Enumeration of Somatic Cells. International IDF Standard 148. Mastitis Experts, Brussels, Belgium.

Leitner, G., Chaffer, M., Carasso, Y., Ezra, E., Kababea, D., Winkler, M., Glickman, A. and Saran, A. (2002). Udder infection and milk somatic cell count, NAGase activity and milk composition - fat, proteins and lactose - in Israeli Assaf and Awassi sheep. Small Ruminant Res. (in press).

Maisi, P. 1990. Milk NAGase, CMT and antitrypsin as indicators of caprine subclinical mastitis infections. Small Ruminant Res., 83:493-501.

SAS 1995. User's Guide, Release 6.10. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC, USA.

Watson, D.J., Stewart, K.N. and Sears, P.M. 1995. Effects of stage of lactation, production, parity and season on somatic cell counts in infected and uninfected dairy goats. Small Ruminant Res., 16: 165-169.

10

Goat Milk Quality - Jordan

Data on milk chemistry and microbiology covered a period of one year. These data represent variation in chemical composition and numbers and types of microorganisms in goat milk in a lactation period, at the peak of lactation, and during the drying stage (Tables 9-13).

Some traditional products such as white soft cheese, labaneh (concentrated yogurt balls preserved in olive oil), and cheddar cheese were made (Figures 1-4). These products will be evaluated for yield and chemical and microbiological composition in addition to organoleptic properties. Goat breads (Shami, Baladi, and Hybrid) were investigated for milk production, chemical composition, and microbiological characteristics at 18 locations. Statistical analysis of data was performed using the SPSS program. The chemical analysis of milk was performed according to AQAC (1984) methods. The microbiological examination was performed according to standard methods outlined in the Compendium of Methods for the Microbiological Examination of Food (1992).

During the next phase of activities, milk manufacturing technologies will be transferred to farmers via the extension program, through live demonstration in our lab, and on the premises of the farmers during field days.

Table 9. Effect of goat breed on the microbiological content of milk. *

Type of Bacteria Df Mean Square Significance P <0.05

Between Within Between Within groups

groups groups groupS

TBC 2 99 1.8438E+11 1.5268E+ll .303 Yeasts 2 99 7.2125E+II 3.5559E+II .137 Molds 2 99 90643600.580 37597871.408 .095 Staphylo coccus 2 99 1547106.423 3563482.520 .649 Staph. Aureus 2 99 3921.569 1521.093 .081 Streptococcus 2 99 26707520.339 13599226.969 .146 Enterobacteriacea 2 99 2235772477 7976194760 .756 E. coli 2 99 9.734E-02 4.606E-02 .126 Coli/orms 2 99 161292.028 237496.111 .509 Salmonella 2 99 2.80IE-02 1.924E-2 .238 Shigella 2 99 .000 .000

• Shami goat (red color), balady goat (black color), and hybrid (mixed color) .

• Df= Degrees of freedom

11

Table 10. Effect of goat breed on the chemical composition of milk.

Chemical Df Mean Square

Composition Significance Between Within Between Within

P :'S 0.05 groups grouEs grouEs grouEs

PH 2 99 .403 .164 .091 Protein 2 99 1.027 .417 .091 Fat 2 99 6.982 2.652 .077 Moisture 2 99 20.137 I I.SII .179 Lactose 2 99 1.989 1.084 .155 Ash 2 99 2.277E-03 1.I55E-02 .821 Total solids 2 99 6.564 3.317 .144

Table 11. Effect oflocation on microbiological content of goat milk.

Type of Bacteria Df Mean Square Significance

P:'S 0.05 Between Within Between

Within groups groupS grouEs grOUES

TBC 7 94 2.2672E+ll 1.4784E+1I .165 Yeasts 7 94 5.1599E+1I 3.5143E+ll .188 Molds 7 94 29041315.239 39363694.297 .640 Staphylo coccus 7 94 8738642.130 3135196.675 .011 Staph. Aureus 7 94 1853.832 1547.389 .312 Streptococcus 7 94 46034413.377 I 1462740.606 .001* Enterobacteriacea 7 94 46371129041 4994860882 .000 E. coli 7 94 I.S02E-02 4.947E-02 .9S1 Coliforms 7 94 84434.300 247272.967 .933 Salmonella 7 94 6.91SE-02 I.S71E-02 .000 Shigella 7 94 .000 .000

*= Significant at P<O.OS

12

Table 12. Effect of location on chemical composition of goat milk.

Chemical Df Mean Sguare

Composition Between Within

Between groups Within groups groups groups

pH 7 94 .301 1.893 Protein 7 94 1.794 .328 Fat 7 94 5.565 2.527 Moisture 7 94 9.503 11.844 Lactose 7 94 1.526 1.032 Ash 7 94 1.83IE-02 1.084E-02 Total solids 7 94 9.762 2.906

*- Significant at P<0.05

Table 13. Milk yield at different locations.

References

Farm Numbers

1 2,3, 11 4,5,13, 14, 15, 16 6 7, 10, 12 8 9 17,18

Location

Berkat aldeer Eshtafena Elnoaemah Alza'atara Ajloun Alhoson Yubla Anjara

Yearly Milk Yield 20250 37800 69150 20100 40800 15750 11000 56250

Significance

P <0.05 .079 .000 .041 .587 .185 .121

.003*

AOAC (1984). Official Methods of Analysis, 14th edn. Association of official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC

Carl Vanderzant and Don F .Splittstoesser, Compendium of Methods for the Microbiological Examination of Foods, 3rd edition, 1992

13

.--,----------~ ... .. . . ~ . ~ .

Figure I. Goat milk products (Cheddar cheese, white cheese, and Labaneh preserved in olive oil)

Figure 2. Products made from goat milk

14

Figure 3. Jameed dry balls made from goat milk

15

Figure 4. Kishik made from goat milk

Figure 5. Goat flock from Ajloun City

16

Goat Production Systems and Advanced Technology Transfer - Egypt

Objectives The first stage of the project concerned identification and characterization of goat

production systems in the Sinai region. The data base included animal performance measures as well as other agricultural conditions and human features.

Recent project activities entailed: a. Close measuring and recording of the production performance of goats

through monthly visits to selected sample flocks representing different production systems in the region (8 flocks of each production system were targeted).

b. Introducing technology packages to minimize costs of raising goats under the conditions of Bedouin producers.

Current project activities include: a. Continuation of measuring and recording flock perfromance. b. Continuation of the implementation of demonstration packages c. Adding new Bedouins and areas to the implementation process of the

demonstration packages (towards numbers targeted in the project plan). d. Initiate collection of milk samples for analyses as addressed in the milk technology

training function held in June, 2002 at Langston University

Accomplishments There have been many project accomplishments in this first phase of the project.

The first task of the research team was to select farmers to be involved in the monthly follow-up visits. Selection was based on a number of criteria, such as:

• Agreement to cooperate in the project • Having identified the address and location to facilitate periodic visits • Having not less than 8 does (the average number measured for large flocks in the

region)

The field visits were well organized with the assistance of the local extension staff, which was arranged with the authorities personnel of the Animal Production Sector in the region. Several meetings were conducted to explain the general objectives of the project to allow the attainment of the targeted number of flocks.

Regular visits to the target area aimed to closely identifY and quantifY the input/output performance of Bedouin flocks. A data sheet was designed to be filled out every monthly visit to maximize output results. This data sheet includes the following parameters:

• Identification data: o Information on the farmer o Dominant type of the production system o Location of the farm

17

• Productivitiy data o Live body weight o Perfonnance of the kids up to marketing (birth, wearung, and marketing

weights) o Daily milk yield o Milk composition o Milk processing and use

• Reproduction data: o Kidding incidence o Twinning rate o Semen quality

• Management practices o Grazing time o Feed supplements (quality and quantity)

• Hygienic condition o Diseases o Reasons of mortality o Vaccinations

Mobilization of the Target Area:

The project team established the following: • Residence house for accommodation of the team members during field visits. • Acquire and store the different pieces of equipment needed for project activities:

* Movable chopper for cutting plants. * Plastic sheets for silage processing. * Digital balance designed for fieldwork for weighing animals. * Two manual compressors for feed block processing. * Veterinary care equipment.

Field Visits:

The project team has had regular field visits to the target area (twice monthly) aimed at: • Following up on flock perfonnance and filling out data sheets • Adoption of the demonstration trials by Bedouins involved in the project work • Following up on the progress of the demonstration trials

In addition, there were additional weekly visits by the local extension staff to guarantee safe and accurate implementation for the introduced packages, especially during the first implementation.

Data Processing:

The accumulated data will be classified according to the three studied production systems. Then data will be analyzed by least squares analyses using genera1linear models procedures of SAS (1998). A fixed - effects linear model will be used.

18

Advanced Technology Packages Introduced in the Project:

Some of these packages are depicted in Appendix E.

1) Fattening on a high concentrate ration:

The "Fattening on a high concentrate ration" activity has been expanded from seven trials as listed in the proposal to 17 farmers, in order to include all flock owners that will be involved in the follow up study to encourage them to cooperate in the project. At the time of this report, of the 17 farmers participating in the fattening activity, three farms are of the extensive rain-fed production system (S 1) located at Rafah, three farms are of the intensive irrigated production system (S3) located at EI-Sheikh Zoyied, and 11 farms have characteristics of both S 1 and the semi-intensive production system (S2) located at AI-Arish.

The fattening process entails offering 95% of the diet as a concentrate mixture formulated of yellow maize 83%, soybean meal 15%, limestone 1.5%, and salt 0.5 %, with 5% of the diet being hay. Concentrate is offered free-choice for ad libitum consumption, and water is freely available.

The project freely provides each Bedouin with the following facilities: • Wooden trough with metal base store • Soybean meal • Salt block and minerals • Vaccination and treatments against internal and external parasites

2) Making silage:

Four farms participated in this activity. They are located in Al-Arish. Those Bedouins have, in their lands, holes with a capacity of 1 - 4 tons. Materials available in the area such as crop residues (tomatoes, cantaloupe, and maize stock) are used to formulate the silage with addition of molasses and urea. Plastic sheets were used to cover the silage. The silages will be tested periodically until the next drought season.

3) Feed blocks:

This new package has been added to the project activities because of the many advantages it has to offer, such as decreased feed wastage, preservation of feed for long periods of time that allows use during times of feed shortage, and ease of transfer. This activity was offered to four farms located at AI-Arish. The project team demonstrated how to make the feed blocks and when and how they should be used. The project supplies the target area with two manual compressors for feed block processing. Feed blocks were composed of the following ingredients: soybean meal, dates, olives, molasses, and bran. Very positive responses were observed from farmers through providing this technology package. The project hired some laborers from the field to

19

assist in feed block processing and paid their wages.

Characterization of the Current Production Systems in the Target Area:

Results from analyzing questionnaire data implemented in the earlier project period are available. The questionnaire was completed through visits of 234 farms representing the five regions of North Sinai.

The target area

This study was carried out in North Sinai, 320 krn northeast of Cairo. This area extends about 150 krn in length, from Rafah in the east to Romana in the west, with approximately 50 krn depth to Nigila. Annual rainfall averages 100 mm in the ",inter season.

Data

There were three different production systems identified in the target area. The first is extensive rain-fed areas, where animals graze natural range and are supplemented only during the dry season of the year. The second is the semi-intensive production system, where animals receive supplemental feedstuffs all year round. The third production system is the intensive irrigated production system, based on irrigated fodder and continuous supplementation.

Data collected involved information on farmers, flock size, and structure, management practices, productive performance, supplementary feeding, diseases, and veterinary care. The study covered a wide range of flock sizes, estimated as the sum of ewes, does, sires, ewe lambs, and doe kids.

Results

Main features. A common characterization is that Bedouins have a permanent base accommodation in the cultivated areas. The flocks are mostly small in animal numbers, with animals products used mainly for horne consumption and as a source of supplementary income to the family. Feeding is mainly on crop residues and free grazing around the village. Table 14 indicates the main features of the current different production systems.

The average flock size is estimated as 2 1.8 head/farm in the first production system and 30. I head/farm in the third production system. The average goat:sheep ratio in the flocks was estimated as 2: I for the first production system and 4: I in the third production systems. The percentage of goats in the flock increased significantly as flock size increased (System 3).

Most of the household families keep poultry, particularly in system I (93%). A considerable number of Bedouins in system 3 are living in fixed buildings (95%). Family

20

activities vary significantly in the region and, consequently, among the production system. Most Bedouins of system 3 work in cultivation, while 75% of Bedouins of system I shepherd their flocks. Source of family income varies among systems as well. Cultivation constitutes the major source of income in all the studied areas, but with different proportional importance in relation to the other sources (Table 14).

Table 14. Results of the field survey for main features of the different production systems in the target area (North Sinai).

Item System 1

Sample size (farms) 43 Average family size (person) 7.8 Average flock size (head) 21.8 Flock composition

Goat % 67 Sheep % 33

Poultry activity (%) 93 Own camel (%) 9 Type of housing (%)

Buildings 74 Fixed tent 19 Movable tent 7

Family activity: Cultivation 53 Shepherding 75 Off-farm jobs 8

Sources offamily income (%) Livestock 25 Cultivation 65 Off-farm jobs 10

System I: Extensive rain-fed production system System 2: Semi-intensive production system System 3: Intensive irrigated production system

21

System 2

134 8.3

25.5

71 29 90 25

55 43 2

55 70 10

27 43 30

System 3

57 8.8

30.1

80 20 40 23

95 5

87 80 25

20 75 5

Table 15 represents the structures of goats and sheep flocks under the different production systems. Flock structure was quite similar for the studied systems. Adult does and ewes constituted an average of 65% of the flock for both goats and sheep.

Table 15. Flock structure under different production systems in the target area

Category System 1 System 2 System 3 Goat Adult does 65 60 57 Adult bucks 7 7 3 Male kids 5 9 17 Female kids 23 24 23 Sheep Adult ewes 64 71 60 Adult rams 9 9 8 Ram lambs 17 12 26 Ewe lambs 10 8 6

System I: Extensive rain-fed production system System 2: Semi-intensive production system System 3: Intensive irrigated production system

Current management practices. Movement of the flock to the range starts early in the morning at sunrise and they return at sunset. Farmers usually settle around a well, from which their animals drink once per day after returning from the range or every other day depending on the season. When animals return back from the range, they receive some pelleted concentrate as traditional feed supplements. Generally, during the spring season while range plants are succulent, they usually offer no water to animals. Bucks are typically left with does all year, and consequently kidding occurs throughout the year. Availability of pasture is limited to a short period between December and March. Due to the inadequacy of pasture during summer and autumn and also during winter in dry years, most flock owners, especially large ones, rely mainly on concentrates and crop residues.

An appreciable number of farmers, particularly under the intensive production system (system 3), indicated that they usually get two kid crops per year with peak kidding in December and January. The breeding season usually starts in June-July for goats. Bucks used for mating for the first time are at an average age of one year and are kept for about 4 years. When owners do not have their own sires, they borrow one for 20-30 days, with one sire potentially serving 50 females. Sires are given extra feed during the breeding season, such as corn, barley, and other concentrates if possible. Kids are selected as future sires according to their vitality. Kids are weaned at 4-5 months of age. To wean, the udder is often covered with a cloth sack.

22

Table 16. Management practices under the different production systems in the target area (North Sinai).

Item No. of ewes I ram No. of does I buck Breeding season Kidding season Grazing season Shearing season Supplemental feeding (%)*

System 1 7.2 9.4

August - September I>ecember - January November - May

May-June

Concentrate 17 Maize (grained) 57 Maize (grains) 100 Barley 5 Barley straw 17 Hay 71

System2 7.4 8.2

July - August I>ecember-January

I>ecember - June May - June

30 66

100

83 System 1: Extensive rain-fed production system System 2: Semi-intensive production system System 3: Intensive irrigated production system

System 3 7.5

18.8 July - August

I>ecember -January

Lactation performance. Families rely on goats for providing a source of milk. I>oes are usually milked for 3.5 months on average. I>oes are milked mostly once daily and give 0.9 - 1.0 kg/day. Milk is usually drunk fresh or processed to produce sour milk and cheese that are mostly consumed by family.

Table 17. Production and reproduction parameters of goats under different production systems at North Sinai.

Parameters System 1 Age at first service (mo.) 12 Weaning age (mo.) 2.3 Lactation period (mo.) 4.0 I>aily milk yields (kg.) 0.92

System 1: Extensive rain-fed production system System 2: Semi-intensive production system System 3: Intensive irrigated production system

Development Constraints:

System2 12 2.5 3.2

0.80

System 3 12 2.7 3.2 1.03

The major constraints observed by the project team during their regular visits to the target area are:

• The increasing trend of dependency on supplementary feeding and decrease of grazing lands.

23

• Lack of information on tools to improve roughage quality, besides absence of an effective extension service to introduce these technologies.

• The small and fragmented flock sizes. • The lake of institutional support for small ruminants.

Overcoming these constraints necessitates better a understanding of the role of goats within the production system and opportunities to increase their productivity and consequently contribution to the system. Introduced technologies must be acceptable to small farmers. Technologies are acceptable when they are simple, practical, within a farmer's resource capacity, convincing, and consistently reproducible.

IC) Scientific Impact of Cooperation

The training function on milk technologies held in June at Langston University will aid project activities associated with milk sampling, analyses, and processing in Jordan, Egypt, and Israel locations. In addition, the open discussion about activities at each site will help determine future areas of extension emphasis and enhance exchange of knowledge. There will be similar benefits achieved through the September workshop in Jordan on goat health management, diseases, and production.

The results of the present goat milk quality research conducted in Israel and Jordan described above were reported to and discussed with project personnel of the other collaborating locations at the Training function held in June, 2002 at Langston University.

Two researchers with qualifications directly relating to current milk research activities in Israel were added. They are Dr. Nissim Silanikove from the Institute of Animal Science at the Volcani Center and Dr. Gabriel Leitner, from the National Mastitis Laboratory of the Kimron Veterinary Institute.

During the last twelve months project participants from Jordan, Israel, Egypt, and the US enjoyed meeting together in Cyprus and at Langston University. The goat project and other related data were thoroughly discussed and there was much exchange of ideas, gifts, books, cheese making supplies. These meetings have also led to increased communications through email. This regional cooperation is resulting in a very successful project, with generation of new information that will be of great benefit in enhancing the goat production in the Middle East as well as establishing strong ties among the participants that will last beyond the life of this project.

ID) Project Impact

The milk research results from Israel reported above are interesting and do have an effect on local as well as on a world-wide decisions with respect to practical considerations of goat husbandry. It is generally accepted that 70-80% of the estimated $140-300 loss per cow/year from mastitis relates to reduced milk production caused by

24

asymptomatic subclinical mastitis. Although no figures were obtained in this research yet, it is possible that a considerable loss is also involved in goat milk production. This is in addition to losses due to lower curd yield, also noted in the present study. Israeli extension personnel are fully aware of the results and the researchers have already discussed ways to implement the findings on the national level and how to evaluate the national situation regarding the percentage of infected herds.

The results of milk chemical composition and microbiological testing in Jordan will be conveyed to farmers in the next trip to collect milk samples. Farmers have been informed about reasons behind variation of milk composition, the importance of cleaning the udder, hands, and milking containers. They have also received information about the importance of animal hygiene, the environment, and animal feedstuffs. Meetings between the farmers and the staff responsible for milk analyses (Veterinarian Dr. Dema Ajlouni and Food Scientist Rami Muarnmer) were of great importance in guiding the farmer to management actions and measures to be taken to obtain high quality goat milk. In the next 6 months, workshops and field days will be held during which these results will be discussed with the farmers to improve their knowledge about high quality milk and the importance of milk quality to the fresh and final products. This will be part of the extension work. Also, farmers will be trained to produce traditional milk products (Yogurt, White cheese, and Labaneh) and cheddar cheese with milk pasteurization. The variation in milk yield and prices will be clarified for farmers, which will encourage them to introduce a new cheese product to their traditional products.

IE) Strengthening of Middle Eastern Institutions

Investments in training are addressed below. There were two very successful training sessions/workshops held in the last 6 months. The first in June concerned goat milk technologies, with the knowledge gained being currently transported to others at each location.

Regarding institutional constraints, for travel of some project participants to other sites in the Middle East, it is necessary to initiate travel requests long before the period of travel, and specific sites for exchanges require careful consideration and planning.

There were a number of investments in equipment and training in Jordan, which are listed below:

~ A 15-liter stainless steel cheese vat was manufactured to be used with a similar size water bath for milk pasteurization and cheese making o This piece of equipment was used to train Mr. Rami Muamrner and Dr. Dema

Ajlouny to pasteurize milk and to produce white cheese, yogurt, and chedder cheese.

o The required chemicals, media, rennet, cheese cloth, and thermometers were also purchased to conduct the milk analysis

25

~ A workshop of cheese making was held in Rajeb, Ajloun, Swan, and Zaatara areas (17-22 participants from each town were involved) and a handout was distributed. The participants were men and women who own 3-10 goats. At this workshop chocolate-flavored milk was also produced and tasted for acceptability by the participants.

~ Second workshops were held at the same places to teach and train the participants to produce Yogurt, Jameed (hard dry cheese made from whey), Keshk (boiled dry wheat grits and whey), Labaneh, fresh frozen butter, and ghee from goat milk (some pictures are shown) on pages 14-16.

~ All workers involved in this project were trained for milk sample collection, milk testing, and extension data collection.

~ Veterinary drugs were purchased to treat the goats whenever needed, mainly in the goat disease workshop field days.

During the course of this project the need to address goat diseases (diagnosis and treatment) has been encountered. This has been handled mainly during the three field days of the disease workshop through participation by colleagues at the Veterinary School of Jordan University of Science and Technology. Four Veterinarians participated in the goat disease workshop and field days by giving lectures, displaying the veterinary clinic and equipment, and administration of drugs and scheduling farmers and their sick animals to be surgically treated at the Veterinary School Clinic.

Initially it was proposed that milk samples would be collected from farmers throughout Jordan. However, this was found to be impossible because of the expense associated with long distance travel. Therefore, goat farming locations near Irbid that are typical of production in other areas of Jordan were chosen.

IF) Future Work

The plans for the next six-month period in Milk Research in Israel concentrate on the understanding of the impact of the different parameters studied before on milk yield and cheese production. It is planned to produce larger quantities of cheese from milk coming from infected udder halves. This will allow us to quantifY the impact of subclinical udder infection on the goat cheese industry.

The quality of milk from infected halves compared with that from uninfected halves will be assessed in relation to susceptibility to pasteurization techniques. Keeping qualities of the milk coming from the two sources will be evaluated in respect to pasteurization regime, i.e., standard pasteurization and boiling.

26

Work to be done in Jordan in the next year includes:

~ Production of milk products at three stages of lactation ~ Physical, chemical, microbiological, and organoleptic testing of goat milk

products ~ 6-10 workshops or more if necessary to be held to demonstrate milk

pasteurization and cheese making at different locations. Farmers will be trained to produce cheese and to market it.

~ Preparation of papers to be presented in goat conference or to be considered for publication

~ The project is on schedule and no revision of the work plan was made.

There are plans underway for one or two of the training functions to be held in Egypt. These training functions are: 7. Small Ruminant Enterprise Record-Keeping and Management; 8. Small Ruminant Management; and 9. Artificial Insemination.

In Egypt, the project team members have arranged for the following activities in the next 6 months:

• Training course for Bedouin women on goat milk processing • Collecting goat milk samples during the entire lactation season • Distribution of improved bucks for a definite period during the breeding season • Continuation of data collection and extension activities

Overall, the project is progressing quite well. In regards to when funds reached the participating locations in the Middle East, the project is progressing as scheduled.

ll. Project Management and Cooperation

!LA) Managerial Issues

In one instance in the last 6 months there was a problem encountered in getting a check deposited by one of the locations. Also, because of conditions in the region, activities at one location are being delayed. There are no other major managerial issues to be mentioned. The meeting in Cyprus in October of 2001, the milk technology workshop in June of 2002 at Langston University, and the goat health and disease training function in September of 2002 have increased communications among project participants regarding activities at the different locations.

In Jordan, since the last semi-annual report there have been no changes in staff., the time table, or research sites. There are no significant administrative barriers to be noted. However, the budget is too small to expand the work, to conduct more workshops, or to start a goat flock at the Jordan University of Science and Technology, which is unfortunate given the opportunities associated for use in further work such as breeding and reproduction.

27

In Egypt, concerning the questionnaire, the project team increased the size of sample farms to 234; in the proposal only 90 farms were listed. The reason for the increase in sample farms is so that all sectors in the region can be addressed to make the study more valuable.

Concerning the proposed number of extension packages to be employed in Egypt, it was found essential that it be increased. Communications with Bedouins about simply conducting studies and collecting data from their flocks without exhibiting some positive impact seemed disappointing to them. Also, farms and flocks are greatly scattered in the desert. Thus, it was desirable to have implementation sites of demonstration sites dispersed in the region rather than accumulated at one site.

lIB) Special Concerns

No protocols addressing special concerns have changed.

Il.C) Cooperation, Travel, Training, and Publications

Milk Sampling, Handling, and Testing Training (Training Function #4): Principal and Co-Investigator Seminar and Dairy Visit Exchange (Training Function #5): and Milk Analyses Implementation Assistance (Training Function #6)

The aforementioned training functions were achieved through a session held on June 12-27, 2002 at Langston University. Participants were Drs. Hassan EI Shaer (principal Investigator) and Kamal Soryal (Co-Investigator) and Ms. Marwa Desouky (Graduate Student) from Egypt; Dr. Uzi Merin (principal Investigator) and Ms. Solange Bernstein (Technician) from Israel; and Dr. Khalil Ereifej (principal Investigator) from Jordan. Training primarily was provided by Drs. Steve Zeng (Dairy Products Technologist of Langston University), Dr. Kamal Soryal (Desert Research Center, Egypt), Dr. Uzi Merin (Volcani Center, Israel), and Dr. Grant Tomita (Lactational Physiologist, Langston University). In addition to formal training, there were trips to two local dairy goat farms, as well as the Braum's dairy processing facility. Also, on one day Principal Investigators and Ms. Desouky presented seminars for attendees and Langston University personnel and students, followed by specific discussion of current and planned activities on the MERC goat project. An outline of the training activities is given below.

June 12

June I3

Arrival and preparations by trainers

Overview of Langston University facilities and training period activities, meeting with Langston University personnel

28

June 14

June 17

June 18

June 19

Milk chemistry and physical properties (Dr. Kamal Soryal) Chemical composition of milk

Proteins - caseins, whey proteins, amino acids Fat and fatty acids Lactose Ash Vitamins

Physical properties of milk Specific weight Freezing point

Milk bacteriology (Dr. Steve Zeng) Bacteria present in milk

Milking practices and mastitis prevention (Dr. Grant Tomita) Clean milk production Udder health and milking parlor sanitation

Milk testing and properties of fresh and processed milk (Dr. Kamal Soryal)

Fat Protein Ash Acidity Adulteration - added water, other milk Specific gravity Somatic cell count Antibiotic residues

Pasteurization (Dr. Uzi Merin) Low temperature, long time (L TL T) High temperature, short time (HTST) Ultra high temperature (UHT) Cleaning and sanitation

29

June 20

June 21

June 24

June 25

June 26

June 27

Products technology (Dr. Steve Zeng) Fermented products

Yogurt Labnah Fresh cheeses Packaging

Hard cheeses - technology and quality assistance Mould ripened cheeses Low moisture cheeses Quality control

Frozen deserts Ice cream Smoothie

Cheese and yogurt workshops (Drs. Steve Zeng, Kamal Soryal, and Uzi Merin) Dry milk (Dr. Uzi Merin) Federal and state regulations (Dr. Steve Zeng) Tour of Braum's dairy processing plant (Dr. Art Goetsch)

Seminars by Principal Investigators and Ms. Desouky Discussion ofMERC project

Tour of Carver and Alford dairy goat farms

Wrap up discussion and departure

Goat Health Management, Diseases, and Production Training (Training Function # 10)

A workshop on goat health management, diseases, and production, coordinated by Dr. Khaled M. AI-Qudah, was held in Jordan on September 8-12, 2002. Workshop activities involved three speakers from Egypt and four speakers from the Veterinary School of Jordan University of Science and Technology. There were four participants from the Ministry of Agriculture (Ajloun Governerate) and workers involve in the MERC goat project activities at the Jordan location (five Agronomists and one veterinarian). Some Veterinary School students also participated. There were 3 days of field activities. Ten farms were visited in the Ajloun area, with all speakers participating. Goats were examined and treated. Farmers were taught how to treat their goats and how to use medications. Ten types of veterinary drugs were donated to farmers to be used by themselves in case of animal sickness. Three farmers were advised and asked to send three sick goats to the Veterinary Clinic at Jordan University of Science and Technology for examination, surgery, and treatment. All participants made a tour of the Veterinary Clinic and laboratories where MERC project activities are conducted. Pictures of some of the activities and farm sites are in Appendix A. An outline of workshop activities is given below.

30

September 7 Arrival

September 8 Opening ceremony (Drs. K. Al-Qudah, K. Ereifej, and H. El Shaer) Common diseases in the region (Dr. K. Al-Qudah) Pre- and postnatal mortality in kids (Dr. Al-Majali Ahmad) Common surgical conditions in goats (Dr. Zuhair Malkawi) Panel discussion

September 9 Mycotic abortion in goats (Dr. Ahmad El-Naggar) Panel discussion Reproduction of goats, pregnancy diagnosis, artificial insemination

(Dr. Ababneh Muhammad) Chlamydia infection in goats (Dr. Yasser Kamal) Panel discussion

September 10 Veterinary field day in Ajloun region

September 11 Veterinary field day in Ajloun region

September 12 Veterinary field day in Ajloun region

Participants in this workshop are listed below.

Professor Khalil Ereifej Male Principal Investigator

Dr. Khaled Al-Qudah Male Workshop coordinator Dr. Laith Rousan Male InvestigatorlExtension Dr. Ahmad Al-Majali Male Ass.Prof. JUST (Lecturer) Dr. Zuhair Malkawi Male Ass.Prof. JUST (Lecturer) Dr. Mohamad Ababneh Male Ass.Prof. JUST (Lecturer) Dr. Hasan El-Shaer Male Prof. Desert Research Center Dr. Ahmad EI-Nagar Male Desert Research Center Dr. Yasser Kamal Male Desert Research Center Dr. Dema Ajlouni Female Vet. Working in the project Rami Muammar Male Agronomist Working in the

project Ismail Zaiton Male Agronomist Working on the

project Nehaeah Abasi Female Agronomist Working on the

project Samar Manaserah Female Agronomist Working on the

project Ashraf Qawasemah Male Agronomist Working on the

project Anas Ababeneh Male Agronomist Working on the

project

31

Jordan

Jordan Jordan Jordan Jordan Jordan Egypt Egypt Egypt Jordan Jordan

Jordan

Jordan

Jordan

Jordan

Jordan

Maisa Sheyab Female Lab Technician Jordan Dr. Fawaz Qudah Male Local Veterinarian Jordan Dr. Ala Rabadi Male Local Veterinarian Jordan Dr. Malik Mazaherah Male Local Veterinarian Jordan Khalel Johar Male Goat Raiser Jordan RatebNajem Male Goat Raiser Jordan Ahmad Shehadah Male Goat Raiser Jordan Melad Irafej Male Goat Raiser Jordan Loai Jebreen Male Goat Raiser Jordan Radwan Qudah Male Goat Raiser Jordan Yakob Rabadi Male Goat Raiser Jordan Adnan Abdelgani Male Goat Raiser Jordan Fadeah Rabadi Female Goat Raiser Jordan Wardeh Rabadi Female Goat Raiser Jordan Za'al Rabadi Female Goat Raiser Jordan Ibrahem Hamdoon Male Goat Raiser Jordan

Training (Extension) in Jordan

I. Literature Review

Goats are well adapted to the diverse environmental conditions in Jordan. Goats are easy to keep and efficient in utilization of low-quality roughage (Knihts and Gracia, 1996). Due to their unique biological and structural features, goats can be successfully raised in zones with poor grass vegetation such as highland, mountain, desert, semi­deserts, and steppe lands. The goat population in Jordan was about 650,000 in 1998, contributing about 9.6 and 16.9% of total milk and red meat production, respectively (Ministry of Agriculture, 1998). However, goats in Jordan have received little research attention compared with other livestock in the country.

There are several breeds and crosses of goats in Jordan: black or mountain, desert, shame (Damascus), Dhawi, and others. However, differences among goats of different breeds and regions have not been investigated.

The number of goats in Jordan flocks ranges from 22 (35-62) in pure flocks to 67 (53-97) in mixed flocks with sheep where goats account for 45% of the flock. Goats spend 9-10 hours per day browsing in the range. Flocks generally stay in the same range for I week, although this period may be extended to 1 month or more depending on the availability of pasture and water. Supplemental feedstuffs are usually provided to goats for 3 months during winter and for 5-6 months in drought seasons. Ranges consist of green fodder and natural vegetation (shrubs and herbage) that is available primarily from mid-January to late April (AI-Koury, 1997).

Goat production systems are diverse In Jordan. The major system IS the traditional, which consists of the following:

32

I. Extensive Production System: Practiced by nomads who make use of the seasonal rangelands of the deserts and semi-deserts under constant search of grazing and water. Goats in this system are small in number but serve as the main milk supplier for family consumption. 1bis system might be divided into the following two sub-systems:

I -I. Migratory pastoral system, where goats compose I -10% of large sized flocks of sheep or sheep and camels (200-500 head) in desert areas I -2. Alternative pastoral system, where goats are kept in pure flocks or mixed with sheep. Flocks are of small size (30- I 00 head), and are grazed alternatively on riverine or sahels and desert ranges.

2. Semi-Extensive Production System: Practiced by semi-nomads who live in permanent residences or camps and dewell ers in villages surrounding arid, desert, and desert coastal regions. Flock owners have a relatively permanent base ground where flocks graze for more than half of the year, and migrate long distances to another part of the region for the remainder of the year. 1bis system consists of two subsystems:

2-1. Pastoral-agro tribal semi-migratory, where flocks are of 200-300 head of sheep and goats, with the ratio not exceeding 5% in steppe regions. 2-2. Pastoral-agro familial semi-sedentary, where flocks usually consist of goats alone and are commercial, of large size (200-500 head), and serve as an integral activity to the economic life of the family.

3. Semi-Intensive Production System: This system is practiced by village dwellers and residential centers who mayor may not own the agricultural land in dry, semi-dry, semi-humid regions, and coastal plains around cities and riverine lands. Goats are bred in pure flocks in accordance with the following three sub-systems.

3-I. Stable rural agro-pastoral system, where village small holdings of goats (2-I 0) are herded in a combined village flock that makes intensive use of grazing on village communal lands, stables, and crop residues, and provides staple food for the families 3-2. Stable family farming system, which is based on keeping dairy goats in flocks of 5-50 head around cities and large towns. The system makes use of the permanent fodder crops, concentrates, and crop residues. It serves in providing milk for families and urban population in the arid regions. 3-3. Restricted family domestic system, which is based on keeping penned dairy goats in flocks of 2-40 head according to the ability of the owner in purchasing feedstuffs under restricted pastoral and housing conditions. Grazing in this system might be restricted to irrigation banks and roadsides (Harb and Khaled, 1984; AI-Koury, 1997).

33

References

AI-Koury, H. 1997. The Encyclopedia of Goat Breeds in the Arab Countries. Conservation of Biodiversity and Environments in the Arab Countries. The Arab Center for Studies of Arid Zones and Dry Lands (ACSAD/ASIP 158/1996), Damascus, Syrian Arab RepUblic.

Harb, M. Y. and Khaled, M. K. 1984. Encyclopedia of Animal Resources in the Arab Countries, the Hashimite Kingdom of Jordan. The Arab Center for the Studies of Arid Zones and Dry lands (ACSAD), Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic.

Knights, M. and Gracia, G. W. 1996. The status and Characteristics of the Goat (Capra Hircus) and its Potential Role as a Significant Milk Producer in the Tropics: A Review. Small Ruminant Research, 26: 203-215.

Ministry of Agriculture. Directorate of Animal Production and Health. Annual Report, 1998.

II. Instrumentation

A household goat farmer survey questionnaire was developed to study and understand all aspects of goat production in Jordan. This questionnaire consists of two main broad parts. The first part consists of general and demographic information, such as farmer age, education level, number of family members, years of goat breeding, work nature, animal keeping recorders, family and hired labor activities, and farmer property type. The second part includes the following:

1. Flock structure, mortality reasons, and (buck and doe) sources. 2. Nutrition information: What is the type, quantity, price, and source of feed. What are the available water sources and their costs. 3. Products and marketing: Contains some information about the quantity, price, and destiny of the products. Factors that change goat numbers and price are included. Also, the main marketing problems are included. 4. Diseases and therapy: Includes information about the most important diseases that the flock is affected by. Also addressed are mortality reasons and efficiency of medicines available at the local market. 5. Problems of rearing: This part relates to problems encountered in goat rearing and participation in extension programs. 6. Application of modem techniques (innovations) or (available technology packages): Farmer awareness of existing innovations and the frequency and usage of these innovations. Also addressed are relative advantages, complexity, trainability, and compatibility of these innovations. 7. Extension education: The place, visits, and services of the agricultural extension centers and what are the benefits from these centers.

34

Validity and reliability of the questionnaire were checked through field and pilot testing during the month of August.

III. Other Extension Activities

1. Goat farmer field day: (June 12, 2002). Team members were Dr. Rousan, Mr. Ismaile Zaiton, Miss. N. Abbassi, Miss. S. Manassrih, Mr. A. Abbabnih, Mr. R. Mummer, and Mr. A. Quassmeh. These team members met 12 goat farmers in the Ajloun region to discuss the main existing technology packages available for goat farmers as shown in the attached Arabic version questionnaire (Appendix D). This session also covered the main problems and constraints encountered by farmers in their goat production system in that area. 2. Field and pilot testing of the questionnaire: Dr. Rousan, Mr. Ismaile Zaiton, and Miss. N. Abbassi met 14 goat farmers on August 11,2002. Farmers were from Zaatra, Sowaan, Ishtafinh, and Der-Smadeh in north Jordan. On August 25, 2002 the same farmers were met by the same team to fill out the second round of the questionnaire. This was an important procedure for Reliability and Validity of the questionnaire. 3. Other visits were made at a different time table to meet goat farmers at different regions in Jordan (Irbid area, Jordan valley area, Ajloun area, Jerash area, Madaba area, Maan area, and east Mafraq area). These meetings were necessary to identifY leader farmers in each area. These identified persons will help in conducting a rapid rural appraisal (RRA), demonstrations, and workshops in their regions that will be held in the second phase of the project. 4. A copy of the Arabic version of the Questionnaire is shown in (Appendix D). 5. Photos of several farms in the region are included in (Appendix B). 6. A cheese making workshop was held at Rajeb town (17-5-2002). Approximately 20 men and women participated in this workshop. The participants owned about 3 to 20 goats. They learned how to make white soft cheese. Dr. Ereifej was the instructor. 7. A goat milk processing workshop was held at Ajloun city (2-9-2002). This workshop was held at the Ajloun Women Center to demonstrate Laban, Labaneh, and Kiskik making from goat milk for 17 women from Ajloun, Ein Jana, and Anjara towns. 8. A goat milk processing workshop was held at Ein Jana town to demonstrate preparation of Jammed, butter, and ghee from goat milk. 21 participants attended, mainly housewives and members of the Ajloun Women Cooperative Association. 9. Photos of some of the cheese making technologies transferred in the aforementioned workshops are shown in Appendix C.

35

IV. Goat Health Extension Activities

Information relating to goat diseases and health status in Jordan are limited from both clinical and pathological aspects. Epidemiological studies are very important to know more about these problems.

Eighteen flocks involved in our project were placed under our veterinary monitoring. General clinical examinations were conducted with each flock. Owners were asked about any individual animal with an abnormal condition, such as isolating itself or lagging behind the entire flock. To detect the presence of any health problems, in some cases we had to force the movement of all animals in the flock. Affected ones frequently showed varying amounts of coughing or just lagged behind the others in the group when forced to move. The suspected animals were detected and separated from the flock. For these animals, an examination from distance and a thorough physical examination were conducted, including recording of pulse rate, respiratory movement, and rectal temperature. Gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems were examined. Also, the mucus membranes of the mouth and nose were examined. The eyes and conjunctiva also were examined. Auscultation of the heart and the chest were also conducted.

After the general clinical examination, blood, fecal, and sometimes skin samples were taken for further investigations. After establishing a diagnosis, treatment was provided to all sick animals in the flock, and advice to correct any errors in management were discussed with the owners. Prophylactic programs were also suggested to protect the flock from the endemic diseases in the area.

Several goats were referred to the Veterinary Teaching Center at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine for further investigation and follow up, some for pregnancy diagnosis by ultrasound, some to remove plastic foreign bodies from their rumens, etc.

The following problems are the most common in goat flocks involved in our study based on interviewing the owners and our clinical observation and examination of the flocks:

I. Abortion 2. Neonatal diarrhea 3. Neonatal death 4. Hypogarnmaglobulinemia (colostrum deprivation) 5. Enterotoxaemia 6. Mastitis 7. Gastrointestinal parasites 8. External parasites (lice, mange, and ticks) 9. Caseous lymphadenitis 10. John's disease 11. Clostridial diseases

36

12. Blood parasites (Babesia) 13. Foot and Mouth Disease 14. GoatBox 15. Orf 16. Pneumonia 17. Mycoplasmal infection 18. Blue tongue 19. Coccidiosis 20. Metabolic diseases (colostrums deprivation) 21. Pregnancy toxemia 22. Goiter 23. Grain overload (carbohydrate engorgement) 24. Rumen acidosis 25. Bloat 26. Foreign bodies in the rumen (mainly plastic) 27. Suspected cases of Caprine Arthritis Encephalitis are under

investigations.(This disease is not reported in Jordan)

During our regular visits to the target flocks, several types of veterinary drugs were administered or distributed (gift) to the owners. These drugs includes:

1. Antibiotics 2. Anthelmintics 3. Anti-inflammatory 4. Anti-coccidial 5. Anti-babesial drugs (lmidocarbs) 6. Vitamins 7. Minerals 8. Anti-fungal skin ointments 9. Anti-tympanic agents 10. Mineral food supplements

As mentioned earlier, a workshop in goat health and production in the Middle East was held on the campus of Jordan University of Science and Technology during the period of September 8-12, 2002. The program was highlighted earlier. During the workshop there were 3 days of practical training in the field. Nine veterinarians participated in this outdoor activity. The owners were asked to have their sick animals ready to be examined by the veterinarians. A complete physical examination was conducted for each individual animal. A definitive diagnosis was established and a comprehensive protocol of treatment was implemented. A discussion about prophylactic measures between the owners and the veterinarians was made. Different types of veterinary drugs were used to treat the sick animals and some drugs were also donated to the farmers by the vets. There are frequent such meetings and discussions with the owners. Our veterinarians are always ready to provide any medical assistance to all flocks involved in our study. A conclusion that can be obtained from our experience in dealing with the goat population in Jordan is that health problems is crucial issue and

37

needs to be given more attention and support.

ILD) Request for USAID Actions

There are no requests for USAID actions at this stage in the project, other than that the project continue.

38

,Appendix A: Goat Field Days

, - -.... - .

Appendix: B Goat Farming System & Activities

Appendix: C Cheese Making demonstration

b1

AppendixD

0lS.. .......•• ",,~I 1""'1 •••••••••••. ,-!.;-ill

. . • • • • • • • . •• L.u.411 i""'1

......• I.,.nll iliWI •••••• ~ ...... J..A:i....:'l1 ~.J

................ 1i')I1 : .• t.. .. <5.Jl-l1J .,....;01 ~

<'!""II...,~"lI,jSoI'" V i.}ol!'" ",...pus .. .,;...I <'!""II"" ~ <llI,jSoI'; V i.}ol!'" ,:j.,;..l,p J"'I <r' 30-21

"'''' -«)-31 Ii.:l~!

50-41

oj"" 60-$1

(..,..".) ,"" .iJiW-61

...•..... .!.U! . ......... J.Pl !i.;Jil JljI =­

:.pLd ~ . ~ ~ iJPl.:Afo. =-~1.01 ~"'i..vU,:j";"""" '..vU ,:j";"

5-1

10-6

15-11

20-15

J.,iW-21

!

, 'pLd z:-~ ~ wi 4l..J ~,. L. i~<J....I ~<J....I ~

(f.JIAl) Jfo'll ..... ~ .Uj11 ~.JJI iJY'll y~ .F>' <-# ~ <.,::b

..,."hl~

~ .>;1-,""" ~

a.Pl

'~I.;jII ~ va tJj.olI ~ ... L. (,.;.,..)~ ..... d iE'

A»J j u-"" (""Jj)~ ~-~

~I..:..k.~~

71

I I

,

i

~'11 .:.t..". WL~ >ij~ .;~ ,);,. ..,"-' ".]I 1;I.,.J1 ~.):W <;lWIWI <;lWIWI ..w H,tiI

I I

.:,I .,w 3<';'..,:

.:,I .,w 3> J" ..,:

(-"'" 12».;fo ~ tj..t:

u"w3 < ~y::. ; (-"'" 12» j.;....

I ,1£1 I I ft.'1

! ¥I"..n W.,IdJia ~ "" l.o •.........•.••.••...........•.•••...............••••.•............••.....•............•....•......•..• 1 ...................................................................................................... 2

~ ..................................................................................................... .)

. . rY.. ~ !y.w .,.......,...." ..... ,'1.,1 0-(,-"'.-I,.s..., I

.;4-\1 ..s.>l .... .;yJI ~ .... .:.II ",.>;JI

~dI""..,.-I-" UJJI I oy..I1 i '.;Lo I ~ I = ....,J ...:.:.J1J:tjic:. ~ !

I I ".]II

~I e::.;~ <J.o 4.~1 <J.o - ! O"~ ~.,.l.o 'J . - ~ ClF-)jo Do O".H' o~ /'~ 0.

~ US ~C· :...= !'DodlIc!.I~~~~

-: tyW ~.J~~"" l.o Ulo.Il~ jc}ot.;..AJ ~~j~~

~.Jl ~'lI olfoW ~

~y~

~.."..:

~.."..: J.,-..IA

#'" -- -

->->' '" "';)<h ~

.:,Ij~1A

- - ~ . -~IJJ~

2

.................... ~.)!

.................... tJJY

I.,.. J#. !rS

§ ............ !~~.:...il~rs

0'...,.;11 )SO ! ~'JI j>1~.Jl-o"" ... : ~ j<lI.:.uJ~ ~~ l.h.,i

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ (yo ~ .r jJ f"Y'

........................ ~ ~jilIt'"

J#. .l...j>.o Jfo Jjl.d c:P ~ jill ~ I !rS !rS !rS

~'II .... ~,,:;O(jW'" ,/ 'J..l!~ I :~W.;,..1

• J~ . ,,...Iu' ... .

~t..1...I4~ ~t"'i I J i

!~ . .

1 ,...Iu'''' . ~ .:L.lJ E., • . .,.

~J.olI ~~~ <S.,l..d <,..1.;.)1 ~ J1I .1

~ ~r"".;>J ~3il.2 .........,j.Iy:.i.~.~~.3

~.)~.4

=.·"ftI.5r

T eJJ.oI .. Jl .... foI.1id JlI-o.,.. La

................... ,.",./ {] J ~-D ~ -U U .~ illQ &W~~4ilU

3

i

-,..,h.I r"".J" J.,b \.0

'J ro.i "'i~.;u. -,..,h.I ~ J-'J ro.i &..ii,4¥J-

t~ .......... JoJ.O I ~jld~J •••••• " .. roU¥~

! JjW.., -,..,h.I ~ "'"

J.,b llo:W ,:, .. H .. 6. .,; ; 0' ~,.. ~ ~t.. ,..~ .. ..)l~..F- .

<sftl ~ o~j ~ 0!l ~lJ

6$&J ~..-<5.;:io.1 cJ.JP.- o.i-io-~

~

I

!

~ .I~-- .»tJ

4

;

!~

! JjW.., -,..,h.I "'" t'--J l::to

. . .. :~~~

~~I~I W6:U.JI 0-~ ~ L.

~~~ F'

t"SI.,.pl t"SIiJil ~

t"SI-t"SI ..... t"SI.>ij t"SI~

""',....

~ t.Jll

~-- .»tJ

O'.M' ~

i ,

'~i ..

Jl ~~ . ............... .=..'<s~ LJ

.......... I:'W u;.?[}; .Y .......... ':,wU;..J'D.i !jeW!.;y.:;; ....

DJ' J..,;., ·UU .i:=:

D ~'F.USB . t)j..l:8 !jeW!.;y.:;;.)0-y.1 .' i:=: !~ -5'-- I - ~h "" h t.. • <.>.! ........ Y <r' U>~. <sA

.........•••••••.•...................•••••....................••.••.....................••.•.... 1

................................................................................................ 2 .................................................................................... .3

Y~I';; ~I ~I JSt.WI .... I

(~;:~:::.~;; ,::.~~ I .=.. <s ;;.....J,YI ~ J.lI.L .I..?-

'1 ~ Y t.;.,;.. ~ ~ ................................•.••................... ~~I ..y.ly>YI <sA t..

Y~I <.;.,..11 .) •• );; .• 1\ i...;yYI <;lc.~ ..<I,~J t..

-ju...-i:=: I~_* 0 -* -yDu.....;.D <s#TIi D '1 c9 . I· 0 .. WI"" - ~ L1 ~ I I .... US C, I.

'1 ...... Ul V' _ : JC- ; . .>'!. ..... - J. ~;J!J-: ~ _ J '-'"

...r-l ~ je .. .>'! ~ ltl ~) (',;"'1..>1 J"""'..r <SJ~ ..r ~ 0. -~ ~ u-",)~.:.L.J .,'i l ~ jeWI ~.;.) Uj..ll ~.;;.? JSt.WI <sA t..

~I~'~.l ~.;!" ~ ,,_jSy>11 ~YI y......i till)

( ..... 1.~1I jeW\S) t,;..~! _~..:Ay.lI JW till}

jeWl .,.IS ~ <'''' J ' ~.l ~ jeWI t...,..J yt-...k JU;YI.l twc~1 tyJ! ~I ~

~I . <Ii> - t;,"JI •• \:.;;. .. "" !..;;.:..u....,.., "'" ..r """"i:=: "' .....,...,..., _.l _. ~.lr-jeW! c..4.- .} 0; 0 0; ~ ., = <.J;

! IfW .:hIfo'iI.,.. ............................................................................................. -1 ............................................................................................. -2 ............................................................................................. -3 ............................................................................................. -4

5

t J} !r !

Er

o!

... <

s

~ It

-'-

--

~ ~t

1.

c..

&;" •

.... - ...

.' ~

f 'E;

(;

,

If.

~~

L.

, k

f '-

c·

'L

,f

~

r [~

c·

~\-

r;; ...

v;

c' v;

\;

l f'

t l,

,t'

·f

~ .c

..'t

t f1

. ,t'

,

r. t

f't

L I..

. g

~~ \..

ft

<i..

r f

;f' !

C£

-.'

-.<

; ~

ft !~

[.

O{

~

'r" f

" \-

{ If,

....

.-k

l,

~ 1;

; ,

l -[

t

f't

{ c-

l!t.

L ,,,

." &

. r'"

-'r-

{'

I,...

, r.

f't

_

Dr

r .

L.

f L

L.

1. .'

f't

L ',.

;.

.' q

. -.,

!; ...

. .-

oi

\..

C' .1

: ...

,

, r: ~

' ,~'

,r

[ '"-

r. -[

C

\ , ~

Q,

!...'L

['

, 'r"

r. -

-[

.\-'

1...,

'.".

;

0 ,

c' k

N

c· \,

"'"

, c

-[

c.

1, f-

... l'

0

, ,

0 0

0 0 -

1. P

);

0 ,~:

LJ f

c.

0 :

t c' c

f c'

.c-

D

f L

·

(,

0 0

~

0 0

LJ

0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 g .j:>.

c·

c;

); w .. t '- .. );

tv

<\..

L Ie- "L -

0'

'<!

L. ft

, -[

, \

'" L

1.

'E=

f

r. '...

.. '0

' 'L

t

~~ r Of

[ ~~ v;

~'

~~ ,~

f;J '..

...1 00

~ [ 1:

] 0

[: Q

~ 1

-..l

l ~

D

D

If

I

t(

i ! 0

'

. I

I ~i

·1

I

~ tl

't .

-G,

i ,

·t,

, I

i I

-, i

I i

~~

i

AppendixE

-

,-

-:~:'-L-... --::.~~-:~ .. ;:~ ~.:.;/" -_ ........ '. -~----- ..... i

l.. ,-

j-'

Making urea treated straw. Chopping straw,

Spreading plastic for straw/urea mixture

z1

Mixing straw with water/urea mixture.

~ .•.

Mixing straw with water/urea mixture.

Urea straw mixture placed in plastic.

Digging a silage pit.

Mixing feed for the formation of feed blocks.

Packing feed block forms. Pressing blocks.

Pressed feed blocks.

Feeding pressed feed blocks.

Shrub chopper.

Medicating goats.

Semi-intensive goat farm.

Weighing goats.