College of Agriculture

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://etd.hu.edu.et/handle/123456789/40

The College of Agriculture is committed to advancing agricultural education, research, and community service. It serves as a center for knowledge creation and dissemination in crop science, animal production, natural resource management, and sustainable agriculture.

News

Latest research publications, theses, and academic resources from the College of Agriculture are now available.

Browse

Filters

2020 - 20252

Settings

Subject: search.filters.subject.production

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    PRODUCTION PRACTICES, CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND MICROBIAL QUALITY OF RAW COW MILK PRODUCED BY SMALL HOLDER DAIRY FARMERS IN DALE DISTRICT, SIDAMA NATIONAL REGIONAL STATE, ETHIOPIA.
    (Hawassa University College of Agriculture, 2025) TIZITA LAMESGIN
    This study was carried out in Dale district to assess milk production practices, chemical composition, and microbial quality of raw cow milk from smallholder farms in both rural and urban areas. A mix of purposive and random sampling was used to select four kebeles. A total of 185 randomly selected farmers were interviewed using semi-structured questionnaires and key informant interviews. Sixty milk samples were collected from unidentified cross-bred cows for laboratory analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data.Most dairy producers (89.2%) were male. In rural areas, 73.1% raised local breeds, while in urban areas, 29.4% did so. Artificial Insemination (AI) was the preferred breeding method for 49.9% of farmers. Daily milk yield was 1.91±0.61 liters (rural) and 2.27±0.63 liters (urban) for local breeds, and 5.29±0.72 liters (rural) and 7.17±0.82 liters (urban) for cross-breeds.The overall lactation periode of local breed cow 55.1%were 7-8 month while,Lactation periods of cross breeds cows48.6% were9-11 months, About 63.2% kept cattle in separate barns. Most rural barns had muddy floors (81.1%), while urban barns used concrete (62.7%). Bedding was mostly absent (77.8%). Nearly all rural farmers (97.8%) used manure as fertilizer, whereas urban farmers disposed of it. Barn cleaning was done once daily in rural (73.1%) and twice daily in urban areas (80.4%).All farmers practiced hand milking, and 89.2% milked twice daily. Rural farmers mostly stored milk in cool places, while urban farmers sold it immediately. Plastic containers were commonly used for milking (68.6%) and transport (65.4%). Almost all respondents cleaned milk equipment (98.9%) with hot and cold water. Most used Olea Africana smoke to clean containers (96.8%). However, 53.7% of rural farmers did not wash the udder before milking, compared to 74.5% of urban farmers who did. Only 45.5% used individual towels. Key issues affecting milk quality were lack of awareness, poor hygiene, no clean water, and absence of milk cooling systems.The average fat, protein, total solids, solids-not-fat, and lactose contents in rural milk samples were 4.30±0.42, 3.07±0.12, 12.81±0.80, 8.51±0.91, and 4.19±0.32, respectively. In urban areas, the values were 3.90±0.43, 3.04±0.28, 13.33±0.71, 8.43±0.80, and 4.25±0.29, respectively. The overall average values were 4.06±0.47 (fat), 3.09±0.18 (protein), 12.53±0.77 (total solids), 8.46±0.84 (solids-not-fat), and 4.23±0.30 (lactose). There were significant differences (P<0.05) in fat and total solids between rural and urban areas. Regarding microbial quality, total bacterial, coliform, yeast, and mold counts were 7.03±0.28, 4.75±0.20, and 4.63±0.15 log cfu/mL in rural areas, and 6.79±0.19, 4.63±0.13, and 4.54±0.08 log cfu/mL in urban areas, respectively. The overall averages were 6.88±0.25 (total bacteria), 4.68±0.17 (coliform), and 4.58±0.08 (yeast and mold) log cfu/mL. These values showed significant differences between rural and urban milk samples. In conclusion, the study found that raw cow milk in the area were often contaminated and did not meet the Ethiopian quality standards. Therefore, it is recommended that awareness be raised among smallholder dairy farmers about proper milk production methods, hygiene practices, and quality control systems.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    ASSESSMENT OF PRODUCTION PRACTICE, FEED RESOURCE AVAILABLITY AND MARKETING SYSTEM OF SMALL RUMINANTS IN BONA ZURIYA DISTRICT SIDAMA RIGION ETHIOPIA
    (Hawassa University College of Agriculture, 2020) TESHOME TAFESE SHURA
    This study was conducted to assess production practices, feed resources availability and marketing systems of small ruminant in Bona zuriya district, Sidama regional state, Ethiopia. Results are based on survey of 126 households. Sites were stratified into mixed sheep-goat flock, goat dominating and sheep dominating. Average family size in the study area was 6.7. With respect to livestock holdings more than half of the total TLU was accounted for sheep and goats. Small ruminant was primarily kept for sale to generate cash and majorities (98.9%) of small ruminant owners extensively milk their flock for household consumption. Sucking young (22.8% lambs; 26.7% kids) and breeding female (39.3% ewes; 39.4% does) dominate the flock. Respondents reported that grazing on crop stubble (13.4%), private pastures (13.3%) and road sides (13.2%), weeds (11.6%), tillers and fillers (8.9%) from crop fields, cut-and-carry of browse species and grasses (9.1%) and communal pastures (9.4%) was major feed resources of sheep and goats. Drinking water for flock largely comes from rivers (55.2%), artificial ponds (21.9%), trough and harvested water. Diseases and parasites cause losses of flocks (34.6%). Rate of loss was higher in young (35.0% lambs; 35.5% in kids) and mothers (42.9% in ewes; 30.6% in does). Losses by predators were noticeably higher in sheep and goats dominating site. Body conformation, physical characteristics (coat color, horn and tail), age were the major criteria household considers in selecting small ruminant for castration and fattening. Smallholder farmers make targeting the seasonal holiday markets. Major destination of fattened flocks was the Bona, Bensa Daye, Hula, Bursa, Xexicha, Aleta Wondo and Hawasa Markets. Consumers demonstrated high preferences to animals from study areas and evidently pay higher prices. This is largely exploitable opportunity for development of smallholder small ruminant production. Small ruminant production is constrained by outbreaks of disease and parasite, predators, feed and water shortage, lack of production technology and seasonality of markets. Interventions covering health, feed production and managements, marketing, and extension supports delivering the necessary training and production technologies/inputs could help farmers to build their flock and improve productivity.