Open Access

Journal of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry

Research Article

Assessment of Milk Quality and Dairy Production Practices

in Sebeta Town of Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia
Abdi Ahmed Umer1*; Samuel Abose Bongase2; Taye Abstract
Tolemariam2; Abebe Olani Bulto1
The study was conducted in Sebeta town South West Shoa Zone,
1
Animal Health Institute, Microbiology Research
from February to July, 2020 with the objectives of assessment of milk
Laboratory, Ethiopia quality and dairy production. From a total of nine kebeles of Sebeta
2
Jimma University College of Agriculture and Veterinary town, three representative kebeles were selected, purposively based
Medicine, Ethiopia on their dairy production potential. From the selected kebeles, 36
smallholder farmers and 51 smallholder micro- enterprises were ran-
*Corresponding author: Abdi Ahmed Umer domly selected and interviewed. Twenty one pooled milk samples
Animal Health Institute, Microbiology Research were taken from smallholder farmers (9), smallholder micro-enter-
Laboratory, PO Box, 04 Sebeta, Ethiopia. prises (9) and selling point of shops (3) were evaluated for microbial
Email: abdivet2014@gmail.com and chemical compositions. The result showed that male respon-
dents dominant at both smallholder farmers (77.8%) and smallholder
Received: March 29, 2023 micro- enterprises (64.7%). The present study has identified two pro-
Accepted: June 28, 2023 duction systems; namely, peri-urban and urban dairy production sys-
Published: July 05, 2023 tems where the later type is dominating. Purebred dairy cattle were
dominantly owned at both systems. The average milk yield per cow
per day in Sebeta town was 11.5 liters. The major feed resources were
agro-industrial byproducts, industrial byproducts (brewery grain) and
purchased hay grasses. Tape water was the main sources of water
and animals were housed in constructed separate sheds/barns with
concrete floor. AI was the most common methods for cattle breed-
ing. Feed shortage, cost of feed and shortage of land are the major
challenges in the study area. Laboratory examination revealed that
the overall mean percent fat content, Solid Nonfat (SNF), total solid,
protein, lactose, added water and solid were; 2.56±0.28, 7.96±0.8,
10.51±1.10, 3.08±0.35, 4.16±0.42, 18.26±11.93 and 0.63±0.05 re-
spectively. The specific gravity of the raw milk ranged from 1.023-
1.031g/cm3. All milk samples from milk shops, 77.8% from smallhold-
er micro- enterprises and 44.5% from smallholder farmers showed
presence of mastitis in the milk. The most important bacteria isolated
were E. coli and S. aureus. Milk collected from small micro- enter-
prise, smallholder farmers and selling point of milk shops were sub-
jected to bacterial infection and does not meet the requirements of
international milk quality standard. Therefore, awareness creation
and strict quality control is recommended to safeguard public health
of the consumers.
Keywords: Dairy cattle; Production; Evaluation; Bacterial; Milk
composition; Sebeta
Introduction
On the world about 150 million farm house hold are engaged With almost 60 million cattle, Ethiopia is estimated to be
in milk production and the majority of them is from develop- home to the largest livestock population in Africa; however,
ing countries where annual growth rate in milk consumption is the productivity of the largely local breed (accounting for over
between 3.3-4 percent in 1995-2005 [36]. In most developing 98%), is said to fall below the Africa average in terms of milk
countries, milk is produce by smallholders and contributes to yields. The diverse and wide- range of agro ecological zones and
household livelihoods, food security and nutrition (Tedasse et the importance of livestock in livelihood strategies make Ethio-
al., 2017). pia home to large numbers of livestock [17].
Austin J Vet Sci & Anim Husb Citation: Umer AA, Bongase SA, Tolemariam T, Bulto AO. Assessment of Milk Quality and
Volume 10, Issue 3 (2023) Dairy Production Practices in Sebeta Town of Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. Austin J Vet
www.austinpublishinggroup.com Sci & Anim Husb. 2023; 10(3): 1124.
Umer AA © All rights are reserved
 Umer AA Austin Publishing Group

Ethiopian national livestock master plan seeks to enhance Materials and Methods
investments in improved breeds, feeds and health of cattle to
increase milk production by over 90% by 2020. The increased Description of the Study Area
supply in dairy as well as meat from the improved cross breeds The study was conducted at Sebeta town, South West Showa
is expected to meet the demands of the integrated agro indus- zone. Sebeta town is located 25km far away from the capital city
trial parks for both local use and export sector (Shapiro et al., of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa on the ways of main Jimma road. The
2015). present Sebeta town consists of nine major Kebele [58]. The
Dairy sector is a major contributor to economic develop- map of the study area shown below Figure 1.
ment mainly among the developing countries used as an en-
gine of growth; it goes increased income, employment, food
and foreign exchange earnings as well as better diet (Yilma, et
al., 2011). The traditional system of milk production in Ethio-
pia, containing small rural and peri-urban farmers, uses local
breeds, which produce about 400-680kg of milk per cow per
lactation period [38]. Intensive systems as diverse as state en-
terprises, small and large private farms use exotic breeds and
their crosses, which have the potential to produce 1120-2500
liters over 279-day lactation [4].
Quality is an important issue in production of hygienic prod-
ucts especially for safety of consumers in which both microbial
and chemical properties of milks in normal state [7]. Urban and Figure 1: Map of the Sebeta town.
peri-urban smallholder producers are the main suppliers of raw
milk to milk processors of different scales in Ethiopia (Haile,
2009).
Microbial contamination in milk may cause milk-borne dis-
eases to humans, while others are known to cause milk spoil-
age. Many milk-borne epidemics of human diseases are spread
through milk contamination. Sources of microbial contamina-
tion in milk include primary microbial contamination from the
infected or sick lactating animal. The secondary causes of mi-
crobial contamination occurs along the milk value chain which Figure 2: Determination of population and target Sample size
may include contamination during milking by milkers, milk han- equation.
dlers, unsanitary utensils and/or milking equipment‟s and wa-
ter supplies used in sanitary activities. Other secondary sources
of microbial contamination occur during milk handling, trans-
portation and storage of milk [14]. In Ethiopia, dairy production
is one of the sub-sectors of livestock production that contrib-
Table 1: Proportion of sample taken from each kebeles.
utes to the livelihood of the owners through important sources
of food and income; even though dairying has not been fully
exploited and promoted in the country [67].
Where n1, n2 and n3: are sample sizes of respondents in each Kebele‟s, N1,
Milk differs in composition due to different factors like spe- N2 an N3: are total number of dairy producers in each Kebele, n=total sample
size of respondents in each Kebele. N = is the total number of dairy producers
cies of animal, variety, individuality, lactation‟s phase, incidence in Sebeta town.
of milking, age, feed, disease, administration of hormones and Table 2: Distribution of total population and Sample size determina-
drugs [25]. The term quality for milk means absence of harm- tion in sebeta town.
ful bacteria, dirt, antibodies, bad flavors, abnormal numbers Sebeta town smallholder dairy producers SHF (N= 36) SHMEs (N=51)
somatic cell count, chemical analysis to check presence of suf- Kebeles 01 05 07 Total
ficient amounts of nutrients, removal of fat and other adulter- Total population of SHF 33 41 25 99
ants, verification of hygiene through microbial investigation Target sample size of SHF 12 15 9 36
[25]. Total population of SHMEs 39 54 38 131
Sebeta town known by the intensification of smallholder Target sample size of SHMEs 15 21 15 51
dairy production, but its production system with the relation SHF: Smallholder Farmers; SHMEs: Smallholder Micro-Enterprises
to feeding practice, breed type, housing system, husbandry
practice and milk quality handled methods are not well re-
corded. To fill the gap, a cross-sectional study was design to
assess dairy production system and evaluation of milk qual-
ity, particularly by using information from smallholder farmers
and smallholder micro-enterprises dairy producers with the
following objectives; To describe a dairy production practices
and evaluation of milk quality by evaluate physico-chemical
properties and microbial quality of raw milk in the study area Figure 3: Milk produced in different months of the year in study
area.

Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com Austin J Vet Sci & Anim Husb 10(3): id1124 (2023) - Page - 02
 Austin Publishing Group

Table 4: Number and breeds of dairy cows owned, and purpose of Table 7: The main water source used for dairy production in study
milk production. area.
Respondents Respondents
Variable SHF (N=36) SHMEs (N= 51) SHF (N=36) SHMEs (N=51)
Variable
Number of dairy cows holder N(%) N(%) N (%) N (%)
2- 5 cows 8(22.2) 30(58.8) Source of water
6-10 cows 14(38.9) 15(29.4) Well water 4(11.1) 6(11.8)
11-15 cows 7(19.4) 5(9.8) Tape water 32(88.9) 45(88.2)
16-20 cows 2(5.6) 1(2.0) N: Number of Respondent; HF: Holder Farmers; SHMEs: Smallholder Microen-
terprises
>20 cows 5(13.9) -- The climate of Sebeta is predominantly known by Wayina
Purpose of milk production Dega- (mid-altitude) with geographical co-ordinate between a
For consumption 5(13.9) 6(11.8) latitude 8°55′N 38°37′E and longitude of 8.917°N 38.617°E and
For market 30(83.3) 45(88.2) has an altitude of 2,356 meters above sea level (SCEFCCA, 2019).
For processing 1(2.8) __ The majority of rainfall in the area is obtain during the Ethiopian
Types of dairy breed
rainy season (May, June, July and August) which covers 76.4%
of the total annual rainfall. The minimum rain records in the
Pure breed 33(91.7) 48(94.1)
months of September, October, and November with other short
Crossbreed 3(8.3) 3(5.9)
rain during March and April. The average annual rainfall varies
Types of Exotic dairy breed
between 783.6-1422.7mm with mean annual temperature of
Holstein breed 5(13.9) 4(7.8) 12.7°C-24.4°C; this is suitable for dairy production system (SCE-
Jersey breed FCCA, 2019).
N: Number of Respondents; SHF: Smallholder Farmers; SHMEs: Smallholder
Microenterprises Sampling Technique and Sample Size
Table 5: Reason of dairy production, Frequency of milking and milking
method. Sebeta town has nine major Kebeles and selected purpo-
Respondents sively based onpotential ofmilk production of the area (SCALM,
Parameters SHF (N=36) N(%) SHMEs (N=51) N(%) 2019). Among the nine Kebeles of Sebeta town, 3 representa-
Reasons for engagement in dairy production tives Kebeleswere selected purposively based on their dairy
income generation 27(75.0) 16(31.4) cattle population and per households with random sampling
Job creation 1(2.8) 33(64.7) technique. Generally, a sample size of 36 smallholder farmers
and 51 smallholder microenterprises of dairy producer respon-
Consumption 8(22.2) 2(3.9)
dents were proportionally, selected from the three representa-
Method of milking
tive kebeles. Accordingly, from the 230 total populations, 131
Hand milking 36(100.0) 51(100.0)
smallholder microenterprises and 99 smallholder farmers are
Frequency of milking per days present in study areas [59].
Twice 36(100.0) 51(100.0)
N: Number of Respondents; SHF: Smallholder Farmers; SHMEs: Smallholder The study consisted of survey study and laboratory analysis.
Microenterprises The survey study focused on dairy production practices by using
Table 6: Types of house and use of manure in study area. semi-structural questioner. The interview check lists focused on
Respondents dairy production practices (feed types, housing, manure han-
SHF(N=36) SHMEs(N=51) Total dling, water resource, milking times and breeding methods),
Variable
N(%) N(%) N(%) milk quality characteristic and milk adulteration methods (Fat
Types of dairy house removing and addition of water). Laboratory analysis focused
Closed concrete floor 29(80.6) 46(90.2) 75(85.4) on milk quality tests like bacterial isolation and identification
Open muddy floor -- 2(2.9) 2(1.45) such as (mastitis, E. coli. and S. aureus). Chemical composition
Both 7(19.4) 3(3.9) 10(11.65)
such as (fat, solid nonfat, protein, lactose, added water and sol-
id) and physical properties such as (density and freezing points)
Use of manure
were analyzed by using lactoscan machine. The milk samples
For fertilizer 10(27.8) 5(9.8) 15(18.8)
were collected from smallholder microenterprises, smallholder
Source of energy by drying 26(72.2) 46(90.2) 72(81.2) farmers and selling point of shops. In the study, 87-target popu-
As biogas -- -- -- lation sizes were used for data collection the dairy producers for
N: Number of Respondent; HF: Holder Farmers; SHMEs: Smallholder Microen- responding questionnaires were determined by using equation
terprises
1 and 2 of the Cochran formula (1977) with 5% sampling er-
ror (95% CI). (https://www.statisticshowto.datasciencecentral.
com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/cochran- 1.jpeg).
Accordingly, 87-target samples size population of (51 small-
holder micro-enterprises and 36 smallholder farmers) dairy cat-
tle producers were randomly, taken from the three representa-
tive Kebeles of Sebeta town.
Method of Data Collection
Figure 4: Image for S. aureus (a) and E. coli (b) incubated on media
in the lab. Survey Data collection: Both secondary and primary data
A) Yellow colon shows prevalence S.aureus. B) Metallic sheen colon milk were collected from the three selected Kebeles. A semi- struc-
shows prevalence E. coli. tured questionnaire was prepared to collect information from

Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com Austin J Vet Sci & Anim Husb 10(3): id1124 (2023) - Page - 03
 Austin Publishing Group

Table 8: Types of feed resources and feeding practice in stud area. Laboratory Diagnosis
Respondents
Bacterial isolation: Twenty-one pooled and bulk samples
Small HMEs
Small HF (N=36)
(N=51)
Overall of milk were collected from selling points of shops (1bulk milk
Source of feeds
sample from each of the 3 Kebeles), SHMEs (3 pooled milk
N(%) N(%) N(%)
sample from each of the 3 Kebeles) and smallholder farmers (3
Types of feedstuff available for milk production
pooled milk samples from each of the 3 Kebeles) and taken to
Concentrate 25(69.5) 37(72.5) 62(71) investigation center by using a sterile sampling bottle of 50ml
Roughage 11(30.5) 14(27.5) 25(29) capacity. Immediately after the samples were taken from the
Kind of roughage feeds delivery place, it was placed in the icebox and transported to
Hay grasses 8(77.8) 49(96.1) 57(86.95) Sebeta National animal health diagnosis investigation center
Crop residue 8(22.2) -- 8(11.1) (NAHDIC) for bacterial analysis.
Pasture -- 2(3.9) 2(1.95)
I. The twenty-one pooled milk samples taken from milk
Types of Concentrate feeds shops, SHMEs and SHF were screened by Californian Mastitis
Brewery (beer byproduct) 26(72.2) 32(62.7) 58(67.45) Test (CMT) to identify prevalence of Subclinical Mastitis. The
Agro-industrial byproducts 10(27.8) 19(37.3) 29(32.55) positive milk samples were analyzed for milk quality and isola-
Types of Agro-industrial byproducts tion of milk born bacteria that cause mastitis. The pooled milk
Oil-seed cake 4(11.1) 3(5.9) 7(8.5) sample collected was examined for specific milk born patho-
Wheat bran 20(55.6) 9(17.6) 29(36.6) genic bacterial presence (like E. coli and S. aureus) in replicates
Flour mill by product 7(19.4) 3(5.9) 10(12.65) following the standard techniques recommended by the Inter-
All mixes 36(70.6) 41(42.25)
national Organization for Standardization (ISO) via culturing on
bacteriological media and testing using a series of biochemical
Concentra feeds provide for a dairy cow per day
test California Mastitis Test (CMT): The California Mastitis Test
7kg-9kg 24(66.7) 18(35.3) 42(51)
(CMT) was performed according to the manufacturer‟s instruc-
10kg-12kg 12(33.3) 30(58.8) 42(46.05) tion.
>12kg -- 3(5.9) 3(2.95)
Roughage feeds provide for dairy cow per day II. Escherichia coli: Identification of E. coli was carried
Adlibtum 36(100.0) 47(92.2) 83(96.1)
out according to the protocol of ISO- 16654: 2001 standard.
The samples were collected under strict aseptic procedures
Measured quantity -- 4(7.8) 4(3.9)
and transported in ice box to Sebeta National Animal Health
Table 9: Breeding practice of dairy cows and source of semen in study
Diagnosis Center (NAHDIC), stored at +4°C until processed. For
area.
Respondents
isolation and identification, milk was cultured primarily on Mac-
Conkey agar and incubated aerobically at 37°C for 24 hours. A
SHF (N=36) SHMEs (N=51)
Variable single, isolated colony was picked and sub-cultured on Eosin
N(%) N(%)
Methylene Blue (EMB) agar for formation of metallic sheen.
Methods of mating system cows
AI only 28(77.8) 43(84.3) III. Staphylococcus aureus: Initial culturing was made by
Natural mating only 4(11.1) 2(3.9) streaking 50µl of each milk sample on Tryptic Soy Agar (TSA)
Both 4(11.1) 6(11.8) with a 5% horse blood. Plates were incubated at 37°C for 24
Identifies cow’s coming to heat hours. Staphylococcus isolation and identification at the species
Farmers 32(88.9) 43(84.3) level was conducted according to ISO-6888-3 using biochemi-
AI inseminator technician 1(2.8) 8(15.7) cal characteristics. Pathogens isolates was identified by MacCo-
Natural bull 3(8.3) -- nkey agar, hemolytic patterns, and growth on blood agar and
Source of bull for natural mating
Mannitol salt agar and biochemical tests (Kumar et al., 2011).
Own growth 7(19.4) 3(5.9)
Finally, identification of S. aureus was conducted using Gram
staining. Yellow colonies formation with yellow zones after 24
Rental 29(80.6) 46(90.2)
hours of incubation at 37°C on Mannitol Salt Agar and clotted
Extension service(DA) -- 2(3.9)
when mixed with 0.5 ml of horse plasma and incubated at 37°C
Source of semen for Artificial insemination
for 24 hours.
Government extension 36(100.0) 48(94.1)
Table 10: Calves colostrum feeding and management methods.
Private -- 3(5.9) Respondents
Lactation length cow SHF(N=36) SHMEs(N=51) Overall
Variable
10-moths 16(44.4) 32(62.7) N(%) N(%) N(%)
Colostrum feeding methods
1- Years 20(55.6) 19(37.3)
In bucket 36(100.0) 51(100.0) 87(100.0)
N: Number of Respondents; SHF: Smallholder Farmers; SHMEs: Smallholder
Microenterprises Suckling dam -- -- --
smallholder farmers and smallholder micro-enterprises to eval- Days of Colostrum feeding
Three days -- 3(5.9) 3(5.9)
uate dairy production system. 5 days 28(77.8) 34(66.7) 31(72.25)
7 days 8(22.2) 4(27.4) 22(24.8)
The questionnaire was prepared with some open and close
Fate of male calve born
ended questions. Secondary data was collected from record Sold as veal 34(94.4) 50(98.0) 84(96.2)
kept by the Sebeta town Livestock and Fishery, Agriculture of- Growth for natural mating 2(5.6) 1(2.0) 3(3.8)
fice as well as through reviewed documents and publications. 5 days of birth 4(11.1) 18(35.29) 22(46.39)
Primary data was collected through interviews by using ques- 7 days of birth 30(83.3) 30(58.12) 60(70.71)
10 days of birth 2(5.5) 3(5.89) 5(11.49)
tionnaires, field observation and milk samples collected for N: Number of Respondents; SHF: Smallholder Farmers; SHMEs: Smallholder
laboratory work. Microenterprises

Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com Austin J Vet Sci & Anim Husb 10(3): id1124 (2023) - Page - 04
 Austin Publishing Group

Table 11: Amounts of milk produced per day as perceived by respon- Table 14: Experience of dairy farmers on milk quality and handling
dents of the study area. systems.
Respondents Parameters Respondents
SHF (N=36) SHMES (N=51) SHF (n=36) SHMEs ( N= 51)
Variable
N(%) N(%) Frequency of cleaning house per week
Milk in liters per day Daily 29(80.6) 43(84.3)
2-5 liters 1(2.8) 2-5 liters Four times 6(16.7) --
6-9 liters 18 (50) 14(27.5) Three times 1(2.8) 8(15.7)
10-13 liters 14(38.9) 21(41.2) Constraints of clean milk production
14-17 liters 2(5.6) 5(9.8) Lack of awareness 15(41.7) 16(31.4)
18 and above liters 1(2.8) 3(5.9) Lack of clean water 3(8.3) 13(25.5)
N: Number of Respondents; SHF: Smallholder Farmers; SHMEs: Smallholder
Lack of clean environment 8(50.0) 22(43.1)
Microenterprises
The main reason for milk adulteration
Table 12: Constraints of dairy production in the study area.
For processing -- 5(9.8)
Respondents
For preservation -- 3(5.9)
SHF(N=36) SHMEs (N=51) Overall
Parameters For economic gain 36(100.0) 43(84.3)
N(%) N(%) N(%)
N: Number of Respondents
Types of constraints Table 15: Prevalence of mastitis in study area.
Technical 34(94.4) 44(86.3) 78(90.35) No. of Sample Positive Samples N
Collection Centers
Non-technical 2(5.6) 7(13.7) 9(9.65) Examined (%)
The main technical constraint Smallholder micro-enterprise 9 7(77.8)
Low feed availability 25(69.4) 37(72.5) 62(70.95) Smallholder Farmers 9 4(44.5)
High feed cost 6(16.7) 4(7.8) 10(12.25) Milk of selling points of Shops 3 3(100.0)
Disease 2(5.6) 4(7.8) 6(6.7) Table 16: Prevalence S. aureus and E. coli from milk samples collected
Shortage of land 1(2.8) 7(13.7) 8(8.25) in the study area.
Dairy breed 2(5.6) 1(2.0) 3(3.8) Source of sample
N: Number of Respondent; HF: Holder Farmers; SHMEs: Smallholder Microen- Number Small Micro- Milk
terprises Bacterial Smallholder Overall N
of Positive Enterprise Shops N
Table 13: Experience of dairy farmers on milk quality and handling Isolated Farmers N (%) (%)
Sample N (%) (%)
system. E. coli 7 4(44.44) 3(11.11) -- 7(27.78)
Parameters Respondents S. aureus 3 1(11.11) 1(11.11) 1(33.33) 3(18.52)
SHF (N=36) SHMEs ( N= 51) No. p: Number of Positive Sample; SHF: Smallholder Farmers; SHMEs: Small-
Milk Quality detection N(%) N(%) holder Micro- Enterprises; N(%): Number in Percent; S: Staphylococcus
Table 17: Mean value ± SE for chemical composition and sample col-
Odor/smelling 14(38.9) 37(72.5)
lected.
Color 22(61.1) 30(58.8) Respondents
Source of milk adulteration Milk Shop Over All
Addition of water 14(38.9) 21(41.2) Nutrient SMEs (N=9) SHF (N=9)
(N=3) Mean
Addition of flour 22(61.1 30(58.8) Mean±SE Mean±SE Mean±SE Mean±SE p-value
Experience of washing equipment before milking Fat 2.81±0.13b 3.48±0.46a 1.37±0.25b 2.56±0.28 0.015
Yes 36(100) 51(100) SNF 8.24±0.26 b
9.05±0.78 a
6.6±1.44 b
7.96±0.83 0.17
No -- -- Total solid 11.05±0.39 12.53±1.24 7.97±1.69 10.51±1.10 0.07
Type of Water used for wash equipment’s before milking Protein 3.16±0.11b 3.47±0.32a 2.62±0.63b 3.08±0.35 0.27
Cold 17(47.2) 24(47.1) Lactose 4.35±0.13b 4.74±0.41a 3.39±0.71b 4.16±0.42 0.13
Hot 19(52.8) 27(52.9) Added
5.43±2.61b 8.25 ±3.65b 41.09±29.53a 18.26±11.93 0.034
Experience of washing udder before milking Water
Yes 21(58.3) 49(96.1) Solid 0.66±0.016b 0.49±0.10b 0.75±0.04a 0.63±0.05 0.016
Mean within the same row that different as superscripts are significantly differ-
No 15(41.7) 2(3.9)
ent at (p<0.05). SE=Standard Error of mean, SNF= Solid Not Fat, SHMEs: Small-
Experience of Dipping teat in sanitizer after milking Holder Micro-Enterprises; SHF: Smallholder Farmers; N: Number of Sample;
Yes 1(2.8) 9(17.6) Added Water: is a not water content. The water added by producer or by milk
sale men. Solid: is not total solid (only solid part).
No 35(97.2) 42(82.4) Table 17: Specific gravity and Freezing points of milk sample from
N: Numbers of Respondents study area.
Analysis of Milk Chemical Composition and Density: Twen- Sampling
N Specific GravityMean ±SE Freezing Point Mean ±SE
ty-one bulk and pooled milk samples collected were immedi- Source
ately, taken from the delivery place, put in to the icebox and SHMEs 9 29.31±0.92b - 0.51±0.02b
transported to Sebeta agro-industry (Mama Milk) plc. for analy- SHF 9 31.34±2.91 b
-0.55±0.06b
sis of chemical and physical properties. Chemical properties of Milk Shop 3 2 3.38±4.89 a
-0.31±0.15a
milk samples analyzed include percent fat content, solid, pro- Over all
21 28.01±2.90 -0.46±0.08
tein, Solid Nonfat (SNF), lactose and added water to milk and means
specific gravity (density) and freezing points of milk were deter- Significance 0.234 0.082
mined with calibrated milk analyzer of lactoscan machine. Mean within the same column having different as superscripts are significantly
different at (p<0.05). SE=Standard Error of mean, SHMEs: Smallholder Micro-
Enterprises; SHF: Small Holder Farmers; N: Number of Sample.

Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com Austin J Vet Sci & Anim Husb 10(3): id1124 (2023) - Page - 05
 Austin Publishing Group

Data Analysis were not only for sale, but also used for house consumption and
small amount is processed to yoghurt and cheeses. It was found
Data collected from study area was entered into excel spread that pure exotic breeds mainly form (86.1%) Holstein Friesian
sheet and analyzed by using statistical package for the social dairy cows are dominating with (13.9%) Jersey in Table 4 imply-
science (SPSS, 2011, version 20). Descriptive statistics such as ing they are mainly targeting towards a commercial dairy pro-
mean, percentage and standard error were used to present the duction but limited with small number of cows. The main feed
result. resources are agro-industrial by- products, purchased roughage
Results and Discussion and in addition, they use crop residue and pasture land. This
result is similar with Anteneh et al. (2010) who reported the
Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents main feed resources are agro- industrial by-products and crop
The information on socio-economic demographic character- residue.
istics of the respondents in the study areas are summarize in In this study, urban dairy production system was comprised
Table 3. Male respondents were dominant at both smallholder of the majority of both smallholder farmers and smallholder mi-
farmers and micro-enterprises (71.25%). This result is similar cro-enterprises production system. Both dairy producers locat-
with Haile (2015) who reported that the overall mean male and ed mainly in Sebeta town. This result was similar with Tegegne
female households were 97% and 3% respectively in AdeaBerga et al. (2013) who reported urban dairy production system char-
in West Shewa Zone and Wondatir (2010) who reported 86.7% acterized by fresh fluid market orientation central highlands of
of respondents were male dairy farmers in the Highland (De- Ethiopia.
bre Birhan, Sebeta and Jimma) system. In Ethiopia, male are the
household leaders who participate in most of the trainings and The urban dairy productions system identified in study area
meeting including response to existing questions. were characterized by dominance of purebred which are re-
stricted in closed housing and managed by zero grazing, fed
The marital status of dairy producers indicated that (86.1%) from purchased hay. The major feed resources: include industri-
smallholder farmers and (56.9%) smallholder micro enterprises al by products like brewery, purchased hay and agro-industrial
were married in Table 3. The study result is an indicated that by products indicated in Table 4.
dairy production might have positive effect on households‟
livelihood; because of milk related work is generating enough As indicated in Table 5, this finding is similar with the milk-
income for the family besides the home consumption. ing frequency of practiced in many parts of the country by Sin-
tayehu et al. (2008) who reported 96.3% of households milked
The mean age group (37.3%) of smallholder microenter- their cows twice per day in Shashemene-Dilla areas. On the
prises dairy producers were having between 26-33 years indi- other hand, Tegegne et al (2013) reported that hand milking is
cates that the dairy producers are at the productive age and the sole milking method and milking frequency was twice per
provided employment to the youth. Similarly, majority of the day across all the production systems in Ethiopia. The difference
smallholder dairy producers were at age group of 50 and above between the various studies could be attributed time of study
(44.4%), which could be due to the fact that dairy required a and range of data collected by the researchers.
higher investment and it can take longer time to accumulate
wealth before being engaged in dairy business. Present result Housing systems and Uses of manure
is similar with Aleganesh et al. (2019) who reported productive Housing of dairy cattle is important for protection of the
age group was dominants for dairy production in central high- animals from adverse climatic conditions and to confine or
lands of Jimma. control the animals. This study was more or less in agreement
Education is entry point for enabling of community and tool with Fekadeand Mekasha (2012) who reported 100% and 86.5%
for sustainably improves dairy production through knowledge, small and medium urban respondents keep their dairy animals
attitude and skill. From both smallholders, the majority of the within closed and attached housing type in Adama milk shade.
respondents have passed through secondary school about In study areas, about (81.2%) dairy farmers used manure for
(60%) and diplomas level counts about (23.85%). This finding in- energy by drying in the sun and also as sources of income gen-
dicated more numbers of respondents were educated and that eration by selling to other costumers for making injera (local
contributed for the development of dairy production. Education bread).
makes easy adoption of new technologies; production of qual- Water resources used for Dairy production
ity milk and food safety practices would be possible.
The main sources of water in the present study area were
Dairy Cattle Production System tape water and well water. Majority of both smallholder re-
In the study area, based on own observation and interview spondents (88%) used tape water as source of water for dairy
results of respondents, two main dairy cattle production sys- cattle in Table 7. About (11%) of both smallholders used water
tems were identified; namely peri-urban and urban. The pres- from well for their dairy cattle production. Respondents indi-
ent study is more or less similar with Ayzaet al. (2013) who re- cated that frequency of watering their animals by most of small-
ported two major dairy cattle production systems: peri-urban holders was three times in a day and all time after feeding. Pres-
and urban dairy production system in Boditti town and reports ent study result is similar with Shimeles (2016) who reported
at national level by Tegegne et al. (2013). (98.9%) the main source of water is tape water in Addis Ababa
(Bole sub-city, Nifas silk and Akaki).
In this study, peri-urban production system was comprised of
majority of smallholder farmers. (Over 80%) of milk is produced, Feed Resources for Dairy Cattle Production in Study Areas
mainly for marketing, whereas (13.9%) consumption and (2.8%) Animal feeds are the major input for any animals‟ produc-
processing at smallholder farmers. This difference shows that tion activities. The major feed sources for dairy cattle in the
the main objectives of milk production of smallholder farmers study area include roughage feed (hay grasses and crop resi-

Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com Austin J Vet Sci & Anim Husb 10(3): id1124 (2023) - Page - 06
 Austin Publishing Group

due) and concentrate feed (brewery grain and agro-industrial reported by both respondents between August and December
byproducts) indicated in Table 8. indicated in Figure 3). The respondent dairy farmers indicated
that milk productions were dependent on availability of green
This variation could be due to the fact that some smallholder pasture of grasses and the season of the month in a year. The
farmers having their own land for pasture cultivation. The other most of favorable temperature for peak milk production is
major feed sources for dairy cattle production were industrial mid-summer due to abundance of grasses which is commonly
byproducts (Meta brewery grain) as well as some agro-indus- the farmers are feeding their animals in zero grazing. Major-
trial by products (corn flour, wheat barn and oil seed cake) at ity of the smallholder farmers (70.6%) and smallholder micro-
both categories of the respondents. In study areas, the use of enterprises (72.2%), the both smallholder getting the highest
industrial byproducts from Meta brewery grain is very common amounts of milk recorded in between August and December,
due to availability of Meta berry byproducts in the area and its while the lowest milk yield was recorded in between January
suitability for milk production. This result was in line with Galm- and July, because both smallholders‟ producers are preserving
essa et al. (2013) who reported in Jimma area, natural pasture the grasses as hay. So that would be indicated that shortage
has little importance as the system is almost zero grazing (peri- of free accesses of grasses for the animals. Even if there were
urban production) and Ayza et al. (2013) reported 86.8% of availability of purchased concentrate from agro-industrial by
dairy producers in the urban production system use purchased products with high cost in study areas, yet season had greater
feed Boditi. influence in relation to forage availability. This result is in agree-
Generally, concentrate feed is significantly vital for milk pro- ments with Ayalew (2017) who reported that breed and season
duction and provided by calculation by its cost effectiveness, affect milk yield in south wollo zone, Ahmara Region.
while feeding roughage was (adlibtum) without considering Constraints of Dairy Production in Study Area: Dairy pro-
the quality and quantity. This finding is similar with Ayalew and ductions in the studied areas were constrained by different
Abateneh, (2018) who reported urban dairy production system problems: mostly, by technical constraint including low feed
common feed practiced in Dessie town and Mohammed et al. availability, high feed cost, disease, shortage of land and dairy
(2004) reported the urban and peri-urban milk production sys- breed (access of improved gene) in Table 12. The present find-
tem feeding industrial byproducts and agro-industrial byprod- ing is similar with Galmessa and Fita (2018) who reported the
uct (like corn flour) in the central highland of Ethiopia. primary constraints to increased milk production under all dairy
Breeding Practices and Reproductive Performance production systems are inadequate feed resources and the ev-
er-increasing feed prices.
Both Artificial Insemination (AI) and natural services were
used to breeding the dairy cows (Table 9). Evaluation of Milk Quality and Milk Handling System

Calf Management System and Colostrum Feeding Milk handling and hygienic practices: As indicated in Table
13, both smallholders (over 52%) respondents in study areas
Respondents from Both smallholder farmers and small- used hot water for cleaning of their milking equipment, while
holder microenterprises didn’t allow suckling for calve before (over 47.2%) of both respondents used cold water. The varia-
and after milking. Both smallholder dairy cattle producers prac- tion might be due the difference in training and experience be-
ticed calf feeding by hand starting from the first day to five days tween the smallholders in study area. The present study result
drenched colostrum by bottle. After five days, calves practiced was higher than the result reported by Tegegneet al. (2013) in
freely in bucket feeding (Table 10). This study indicated that the peri-urban and urban dairy production system in Shashemene
dairy farmers in the study area have prioritized for fluid milk – Dilla milk- sheds 23% of the producers‟ clean milk utensil by
marketing than feeding a calf. hot water.
This result shows that, urban producers follow early weaning Generally, the practice of properly cleaning of milk equip-
practices with the intention of profit maximizations from sale of ment as well as maintenance of equipment is preventing spoil-
milk. This result is similar with Sintayehu et al., (2008) who re- age of milk and milk product by spoilage microbes. However,
ported Colostrum feeding for early weaning calves in the urban awareness creation and quality control mechanism should be
system lasted for 4 to 7 day in shashemane and Addis Ababa. installing to prevent the practice of adulteration to safeguard
Generally, colostrum feeding is the important management is- public health of the consumers.
sue in determining calf health and survival. All calves must re-
ceive sufficient colostrum immediately after birth to support As indicated Table 14, all respondents had the culture of
their growth and improve their welfare. cleaning dairy cows shade/house for hygienic quality of milk
and subsequent public health safety issues. The most limiting
Milk Production Potential of Dairy Cows factor forquality milk productions is lack of awareness and lack
Milk yield potential of cows at study area: As shown in Table of clean environment (over 31% and 43%) respectively report-
11, this variation is due to handling method and uses of superi- ed from both smallholders. This results was better than Haile
or milk production potential bred. The study area had relatively (2015) who reported 65% clean manure from dairy house daily
better access to basic input likes concentrate feeds, AI, veteri- in Ejerie west Shewa.
nary service and handling methods. This study is similar with The main reason (over 84%) for milk adulteration in study
Saba (2015) who reported 11 litter/cows per days and Alemu area were for maximizing their daily income through addition
(2019) with 11.6 and 10.8 liters per day per cow in Bishoftu and of water to increase volume of milk and removing of fat from
Akaki towns respectively, in peri-urban and urban dairy produc- fresh milk. Therefore, smallholder dairy producers should pay
tion systems. special care for the type as well as sanitation of milk equipment
Seasonal distribution of milk yield in study area: According indicated in Table 14. This result is similar with Bereda et al.
to the current study result, the highest milk productions were (2014) who reported the milkers, udder of the cow, the milking

Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com Austin J Vet Sci & Anim Husb 10(3): id1124 (2023) - Page - 07
 Austin Publishing Group

environment and the milking equipment the chief sources of Among 21- pooled milk samples examined, overall (18.52%)
the initial milk contamination. were positive for S. aureus. This indicates from the total sample,
(11.11%, 11.11% and 33.33%) from smallholder micro- enter-
Evaluation of Milk Sample for Microbial and Chemical Com- prises, smallholder farmers and selling point of shops respec-
position tively, positive for S. aureus and that is the potential for rejec-
Identification of Mastitis: From 21 pooled milk samples tion at commercial processing units. The occurrence of milk
collected, (100.0%) of from the selling points of milk shops, born pathogenic in milk could be hazardous for consumers. This
(77.5%) smallholder micro-enterprises and (44.5%) smallhold- result is similar with Abunna et al. (2013); Mekuriaet al. (2013)
er farmers were positive for mastitis test with California Mas- reported about 21.13% and 16.2% S. aureus prevalence, re-
titis Test (CMT) indicated in Table 15. The result that positive spectively in Addis Ababa milk shed and also Addis et al. (2011)
for mastitis milk sample collected from selling points of shops who reported milk collected from farms (19.6%) S. aureusin De-
was higher than that of milk sample collected from smallholder brezeit.
farmers and smallholder microenterprises. The variation be- The study has indicated relatively the similar contamination
tween them might be due to the unhealthy cow, feed relating, rate of S. aureus at smallholder farmers and smallholder micro-
possibility of contamination by adulterants along supply chain enterprises. In generally, the variation of bacterial load in raw
as well as low awareness of milk handling stem. The fact that milk might be due to many factors such as unhealthy animals
all samples at selling point of milk shops being positive for mas- and unhygienic condition like uncleanliness of milk sheds, types
titis could be associated with lack of hygienic, addition of pow- of feed, unclean condition of milkers and adulteration practice
der material, milking equipment, milk storage, cows being not that cause food poising and affect gastrointestinal of consum-
regular checked for mastitis. Such situations can cause ill effect ers. However, during survey study all of smallholders practiced
on human health status specially, for milk consumer and new- washing of dairy equipment with hot water before milking,
borns, cause food safety issue and not only in study areas but while some of smallholder microenterprises used cold water
also along the milk supply chain. The positive result for masti- for washing of udder before milking.
tis in milk sample collected from smallholder micro-enterprises
higher than that of smallholder farmers. The difference might Generally, milk is an ideal environment for growth of micro-
be due to unhealthy cow, feed related and hygienic condition. organism like bacteria to reproduce, especially in warm condi-
The Present study is similar with (Yilma, 2010) who reported tions. Microorganisms may cause souring of the milk and hence
mastitis infections result in large numbers of bacteria in milk rejection by the consumer or the milk sample collected for ex-
that caused by S. aureus which constitute a health hazard to amination of prevalence of S. aureus.
consumer.
Chemical Composition of Milk Samples Collected at Study
Generally, infection such as mastitis (inflammation of udder) Area
observed in milk sample in the present study that changes the
milk content such as reduction of fat and main protein (casein) Avery important aspect of raw milk quality is its composi-
content of milk and thus need training(awareness creation) for tion as well known that milk composition is influenced by many
milk producers and sellers about milk handling, caustic agents factors such as breed, age, parity, stage of lactation, feeding,
for mastitis and control practice of adulteration. health, milking technique and the milker [26]. According to
Ethiopian Standards authority Agency recommended composi-
Identification of Eschertial coli and Staphylococcus aureus tion of milk, ESA (Ref No ES 3460:2009) and the specification of
from milk samples all nutrients of milk by Abebe (2015) from Ethiopian Meat and
Dairy Industry Development Institute.
The result of E. coli and S. aureus isolated and identified from
milk sample collected from smallholder farmers, smallholder All chemical compositions of milk have shown significantly
microenterprises and selling points of shops are indicated in different values among the collections sites as shown in Table
Table 16. From the current 21-pooled milk samples were ex- 17 below. The fat contents of milk collected from smallholder
amined, overall (27.78%) were found to be positive for E. coli. micro-enterprises, smallholder farmers and selling points of
Milk samples collected from smallholder micro-enterprises shops were 2.81±0.13, 3.47±0.46 and 1.37±0.25 respectively
was (44.44%) higher than that of milk sample collected from and the differences were significant at (P<0.05). The overall
smallholder farmers (11.11%) and selling points of shops. How- mean value of milk fat (2.56%) in the current study areas were
ever, E. coli was not found in milk sample collected from selling lower than that (3.50%) indicated in the Quality Standard Au-
point of milk shops. Therefore, among the three milk collection thority of Ethiopian (ES, 2009) reported by Eshetu et al. (2019)
centers, highest (P<0.05) contamination of E. coli (44.44%) was and Abebe (2015). In the current study, the mean fat contents
observed at smallholder micro-enterprise. The variation might of milk sample collected from smallholder farmers was higher
be due to unhygienic milking practices, contaminated feed,
than milk sample that collected from smallholder micro-enter-
contamination from udder of animals through environment
prise and selling points of shop. The wide range of variation in
(uncleanliness milking areas, type of feeding and utensils).The
fat percent content of milk might be due to possible adultera-
current study result is similar with Fatine et al. (2012) who re-
tion of milk by fat removal and/or addition of water to increase
ported adulterated milk exercised during milking like unhygienic
condition, cleanliness of milking utensils, condition of storage, milk volume and to gain additional income. This result strengths
as well as cleanliness of the udder of the individual animal. the response of farmers during survey study, which revealed
The laboratory result agrees with survey study interviewed the that the main milk adulteration activities were practiced by re-
most of smallholder micro- enterprises were used industrials moving fat from fresh milk. Especially, the lowest fat content
byproducts feed like meta juice(brewery grain) as main feed to from the milk sample collected from selling milk shops indicat-
produce milk, it might be the reason for high percent of preva- ed double adulteration by addition of water and fat removed
lence of E. coli in milk sample collected from smallholder micro- from fresh milk after arrival at shops.
enterprises.

Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com Austin J Vet Sci & Anim Husb 10(3): id1124 (2023) - Page - 08
 Austin Publishing Group

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Milk Ordinance 4.2% [62]. However, the lactose content (3.39%) of milk sample
and Code of USA recommended that acceptable milk fat con- collected from selling points of shops is lower than that small-
tents require not less than 3.25% milk fat for fluid milk by (Es- holder micro-enterprises and smallholder farmers. These might
hetu et al., 2019). A study made by Alganesh et al. (2019) has be due to considerably affected by the extraneous addition of
shown that adulteration of milk and milk products increased water and adulteration is practiced we progress from produc-
along the value chain from producers to whole seller or con- tion to consumption areas of the milk supply chain.
sumption site.
The added water percent (not water content, only added
The overall Solid Nonfat (SNF) of milk samples in the study water) contents of milk collected from smallholder micro-en-
areas was (7.96%). According to Food and Drug Administra- terprises, smallholder farmers and selling points of shops were
tion (FDA) as well as European Union (EU) quality standards, a 5.43±2.61, 8.25±3.65 and 41.09±29.53, respectively. The con-
minimum Solid Not Fat (SNF) content of completely fresh milk clusion from this result is more diluted milk by addition of wa-
is (8.25%). Therefore, the mean SNF content of milk sample ter is significant. The overall mean added water percentage of
collected from smallholder micro-enterprises and smallholder milk sample in the study areas was (18.26±11.93) percentage.
farmers at acceptable level; while milk collected from selling Accordingly, added water to milk sample collected from small-
points of shops had lower than recommended value. The differ- holder micro-enterprises and smallholder farmers were lower
ence in values among the source of sample collected might be than of selling points of milk shops: these indicated addition
due to adulteration activities like removing of fat that decrease of much water to milk significantly seen as far from production
SNF contents of milk. areas. Present result higher than Genzebu et al. (2016) who re-
ported overall mean value of added water 2.80±3.6 in Bishoftu
Total solids are one of the parameter used for the quality and Akaki towns of urban milk production.
of milk and the total addition of (fat and solid nonfat). Among
the milk samples the total solids content of milk obtained from Generally, addition of water to milk caused big problem
selling points of shops (7.97%) lower compared to that of milk where we have unfaithful farm workers, milk transporters and
samples obtained from the smallholder farmers (12.53%) and greedy milk sales persons. Many of urban residences and a few
smallholder micro-enterprises (11.05%) respectively. The over- farmers also full sufferer of this illegal practice. This finding
all mean total solids content in the present study (10.51%) was showed the reason of adding water to increase the quantity of
lower than with Ayshim et al. (2015) who reported total solid milk to gain more income, this result makes sure the reason of
(13.48 %) of crossbred dairy cows in Western Amhara Region. adulteration observed during survey study in this study areas.
The overall mean total solid of milk samples in the study areas
were (10.51%) and this value is lower to Ethiopian standards The solid percent (dried powder left after all the water is
(ES, 2009) for total solid content of fresh cows ‟milk should not removed from liquid milk) contents of milk collected from
be less than (12.8%) by Haftu and Degnet and (2018) and Euro- smallholder micro-enterprises, smallholder farmers and sell-
pean Union (EU) quality standards not less than (12.5%) by Raff ing points of shops were 0.66±0.016, 0.49±0.1, and 0.75±0.04
( 2011). In view of that, the total solid content obtained from respectively, indicate in Table 17. The overall mean of solids
the smallholder microenterprises milk producers and selling content of the current study was (0.63%) lower. The variations
points of shops were below the quality standard due to adul- of this study are might be due to lactation stage, fat removed
teration practices. and type of feed consumed. The solid of milk contents refers
to all non‐water components (whether fat or not) of including
The protein contents of milk samples collected from small- fat, proteins, vitamins, lactose and minerals. However, in these
holder micro-enterprises, smallholder farmers and selling work the only solid part was examine to identify solid parts of
points of shops were (3.16±0.11, 3.47±0.32 and 2.62±0.63) re- milk was either removed or added. In generally, the difference
spectively. The average protein content of milk as observed in in milk composition was described in this research among dif-
the current study was (3.08%) and this value is close to Ethiopi- ferent milk collection centers with in Sebeta town, might be due
an standards (ES, 2009) for protein content of fresh cows‟ milk to many factors including stage of lactation, type of feed, fat
should not be less than (3.20%) except the lower values record- removed, addition of powder and water.
ed from selling shops. According to ISO (2013), protein percent
is not less than 3.5% of milk protein. Therefore, the average Physical Properties of Milk: Density and Freezing points of
protein content observed from all sources of milk sampling was Milk
below this recommended standard. Milk sample collected from The specific gravity recorded in study areas ranged from
selling points of milk shops lower than smallholder micro-enter- 1.023g/cm3-1.031 g/cm3 indicated in Table 18. This result is
prises and smallholder farmers. This might be due to adultera- more or less similar with Haile (2015) who reported specific
tion practiced after arrived shops, these activity cause frauds gravity range 1.022g/cm3-1.031 g/cm3 in AdeaBerga districts,
food quality issue. This finding is close to the acceptable level of but higher than report of Mebratu (2015) overall density
protein percent when compared with FAO (2008) milk and milk 1.023g/cm3 in Addis Ababa.
product training manual. The present study similar with Alga-
nesh (2016) who reported the overall mean protein in milk sam- The normal density of raw milk depends on its composition
ples from Ejere, Walmera, Selale and Debre Birhan was 3.10 %. and temperature can usually found in the range of 1.026g/cm3-
1.032 g/cm3 at 20°C [27]. Whereas samples of milk from herds
The lactose percent contents of milk collected from small- should have reading the average milk, but wrong feeding might
holder micro-enterprises, smallholder farmers and selling points result in low readings. According to current result, the most of
of shops were 4.35±0.13, 4.74±0.41 and 3.39±0.71) respectively the milk samples collected from smallholder micro-enterprises
(Table 17). This result is significant difference at (p<0.05). The and smallholder farmers were within normal range for specif-
overall lactose percentage of milk samples in the study areas ic gravity. However, samples collected from milk selling shops
were (4.16%). These finding is similar with EU and FDA who set were not in the normal range of specific gravity. These varia-
that fresh whole milk lactose content should not be less than

Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com Austin J Vet Sci & Anim Husb 10(3): id1124 (2023) - Page - 09
 Austin Publishing Group

tions might be due to the different sources of milk in the mixed, meet quality standards set by quality standard authority of Ethi-
adulterated with water and removal of fat. In general, addition opia and the world. Therefore, it is recommended to provide
of water and removal of fat decreases the density of milk, while awareness creation about hygienic practice of milk handling
addition of solids increases the density of milk. The density and production among smallholder farmers, smallholder micro-
measurement of milk quickly indicates nonconformities from enterprises, milk shops and consumers in addition to strong
the normal milk composition due addition of water. A similar regulatory mechanism by the relevant authorities.
result was also reported by Teklemichael et al. (2015) where
specific gravity of milk samples collected from milk wholesalers References
were significantly lower (P<0.05) than that obtained from dairy 1. Abebe Bereda. Milk Quality for Consumers‟ Safety. Ethiopian
farms in Dire Dawa Town, Eastern Ethiopia. Meat and Dairy Industry, Development Institute: Proceedings.
2015; 5: 284-291.
The overall mean freezing point content of the current
study was (-0.46±0.08). When compared with FAO (2008) who 2. Abunna F, Fufa G, Megersa B, Regassa A. Bovine mastitis: preva-
reported standards freezing points (-0.521) in Ethiopia, the lence, risk factors and bacterial isolation smallholder dairy farms
study result was below quality Standard Authority of Ethiopia in Addis Ababa city. Ethiopia Glob. 2013; 10: 647–52.
recommended. These result is higher than that of Genzebu 3. Addis M, Pal M, Kyule M. Isolation and identification of Staphy-
et al. (2016) who reported freezing point of milk in Bishoftu lococcus species from raw bovine milk in Debrezeit. Ethiop Vet
(-0.54±0.03) and Akaki (-0.56±0.02). As indicated in Table 18, Rese. 2011; 4: 45–9.
milk sample collected from smallholder micro-enterprises and
4. Ahmed MM, Jabbar M, Ehui S. Household-level economic and
smallholder farmers were in the range of acceptable level.
nutritional impacts of market-oriented dairy production in the
While milk sample collected from selling points of shops be- Ethiopian highlands. Food and Nutrition Bulletin. 2000; 21: 460-
low normal acceptance level of freezing point. The variation of 465.
these result among sample collected in study areas were due to
adulteration of milk by addition of water as well as removal of 5. Alemu MM. Urban and peri-urban dairy cattle production in
fat for the reason of economic gain. Ethiopia: a review. Online J Anim Feed Res. 2019; 9: 173-7.

Generalization, the overall milk obtained from selling shops 6. Alganesh T, Tesfa K, Yetnayet B, Taye T, Fekadu. Assessment of
butter adulteration practices and associated food safety issues
had the lowest quality in terms of both chemical composition
along the supply chain in central highlands and south west mid
as well as bacteriological quality compared to the smallholder
lands of Ethiopia; 2019.
farmers and smallholder micro-enterprises.
7. AOAC. Official methods of analysis of the AOAC. 15th ed; 1990
Conclusion and Reccommedation Methods 932.06, 925.09. Asrat A, Feleke A, Ermias B. Character-
ization of dairy cattle production systems in and around Wolai-
The study was conducted in Sebeta town, South West Showa
taSodo town, Southern Ethiopia. Schj Agric Sci. 2016; 6: 62-70.
Zone with the general objectives to describe dairy production
system and evaluation of milk quality. The present study has 8. Ayalew H, Abatenhe A. Dairy cattle production, processing and
identified two production systems; namely, peri-urban and ur- handling of milk and milk products in Enemay District, east Goj-
ban dairy production systems. In study area, purebred dairy cat- jam, Amhara, Ethiopia. J Adv Dairy Res. 2018; 06: 2.
tle are dominant when compared to local breeds and crossbred. 9. Ayalew M. Assessment and monitoring of traditional milking
Dairy production was the main source of income for smallhold- and milk product handling, processing and marketing in Dessie-
er farmers (975%) and job opportunity (64.7%) for the youth ZurieaWoreda and Dessie Town, south Wollo zone, Amhara,
organized as smallholder micro-enterprises. Ethiopia; 2017 ([doctoral dissertation]. Bahir Dar University).
The major feed resource available for dairy animals was agro- 10. Barbano DM, Ma Y, Santos MV. Influence of raw milk quality on
industrial byproducts (bran of cereal crops, oilseeds cake), in- fluid milk shelf life. J Dairy Sci. 2006; 89: E15-9.
dustrial byproducts like Meta brewery (brewery grain) and pur-
11. Bekele A, Fekadu B, Mitiku E. Chemical composition and micro-
chased hay grasses. Tape water was the main sources of water bial quality of cow milk in urban and peri urban area of Dangila
for the dairy animals in study areas. Most of dairy cattle owners town, Western Amhara Region. Ethiopia. Glob J Dairy Farming
have constructed separate sheds/barns with concrete floor for Milk Prod. 2014; 3: 081-5.
their dairy cattle. AI was the most common methods for cattle
breeding. All smallholders have practiced hand milking as the 12. Beyene B, Hundie D, Gobena G. Assessment on dairy production
only methods of milking but they had practice of washing their system and its constraints in HoroguduruWollega Zone, Western
Ethiopia. Sci Technol Arts Res J. 2015; 4: 215-21.
hand prior to milking. The average daily milk yield from pure
bred and crossbred was 11.5 liters per day per cow. The current 13. Bille PG, Haradoeb BR, Shigwedha N. Evaluation of chemical and
study result showed the highest milk production was possible bacteriological quality of raw milk from Neudamm dairy farm in
during August to December from both categories of respon- Namibia. Afr J Food Agric Nutr Dev. 2009; 9.
dents in study areas. Therefore, the current study presented
14. Chala Adugna, Yosef T, Mitiku E. Dairy Cattle Production Practice,
that milk production has relation with green harvest during wet Microbial milk quality, and Marketing of milk and milk product in
season. The main constraints of Eastern Wolega zone of Sibu Sire District. Ethiopia. 2017; 27-31.
99 Dairy production in study area was challenged by low 15. Cochran WG. Sampling techniques. 3rd ed. New York: John
availability and high cost of feeds. Therefore, farmers need to Wiley & Sons; 1977.
be supported with more access to feed production and/or pur-
16. CSA (Central Statistical Agency). Agricultural sample survey. Fed-
chase as well as training skills for feed conservations.
eral Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency.
99 Milk samples collected from all sampling points were Private peasant holdings. Stat Bull. 2017; 570.
indicative of bacterial contamination, adulteration and did not

Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com Austin J Vet Sci & Anim Husb 10(3): id1124 (2023) - Page - 10
 Austin Publishing Group

17. CSA (Central Statistical Authority). Agricultural sample survey 36. Hemme T, Otte J. Status and prospects for smallholder milk pro-
and livestock characteristics (private peasant holdings), Ethio- duction: a global perspective. Food and Agriculture Organization
pia. Stat Bull. 2018; 587. of the United Nations (FAO); 2010.

18. Dehinenet G, Mekonnen H, Ashenafi M, Emmanuelle G. Deter- 37. Herikstad H, Motarjemi Y, Tauxe RV. Salmonella surveillance:
minants of raw milk quality under a smallholder production sys- survey of public health serotyping. Epidemiol Infect. 2002; 129:
tem in selected areas of Amhara and Oromia National Regional 18.
States, Ethiopia. Agric Biol J N Am. 2013; 4: 84-90.
38. Holloway GJ. How to make a milk market: A case study from the
19. Drewnowski A. The contribution of milk and milk products to Ethiopian Highlands. ILRI (aka ILCA and ILRAD). 2000; 28.
micronutrient density andaffordability of the US diet. J Am Coll
Nutr. 2011; 30: 422S-8S. 39. Hu W, Murphy MR, Constable PD, Block E. Dietary cation-anion
difference effects on performance and acid-base status of dairy
20. Dugdill BT. Training Program for the Small-scale Dairy Sector in cows postpartum. J Dairy Sci. 2007; 90: 3367-75.
Kenya; 2001 (FAO. TCP/KEN/6611).Discussion paper 3.3.
40. Hussen K, Tegegne A, Kurtu MY, Gebremedhin B. Traditional cow
21. Duguma B, Janssens GPJ. Assessment of feed resources, feeding an camel milk production and marketing in agro-pastoral and
practices and coping strategies to feed scarcity by smallholder mixed crop-livestock systems:the case of Mieso District, Oromia
urban dairy producers in Jimma town, Ethiopia. SpringerPlus. regional state, Ethiopia (No. 13). ILRI (aka ILCA and ILRAD). 2008.
2016; 5: 717.
41. ISO. Sample collection culturing on bacteriological media and
22. Elmoslemany AM, Keefe GP, Dohoo IR, Wichtel JJ, Stryhn H, testing using a series of biochemical. Int Stand Organ. 2001: ISO-
et al. The association between bulk tank milk analysis for raw 16654.
milk quality andon- farm management practices. Prev Vet Med.
2010; 95: 32-40. 42. Kamthania M, Saxena J, Saxena K, Sharma DK. Milk adulteration:
methods of detection &Remedial measures. Int J Eng Tech Res.
23. Abd El-Salam MHA, El-Shibiny S. A comprehensive review on 2014; 1: 15-20.
the composition and properties of buffalo milk. Dairy Science &
Technol. 2011; 91: 663-99. 43. Kassa T, Dekamo F. Dairy production and marketing systems
in Kaffa and Sheka Zones, Southern Ethiopia. J Mark Cons Res.
24. Dehinenet G, Mekonnen H, Ashenafi M, Emmanuelle G. Deter- 2016; 27: 242-56.
minants of raw milk quality under a smallholder production sys-
tem in selected areas of Amhara and Oromia National Regional 44. Kurwijila LR. Hygienic milk handling, processing and marketing:
States, Ethiopia. Agric Biol JN Am. 2013; 4. guide for training and certification of small-scale milk traders in
eastern Africa. Lactoperoxidase method preserving raw milk in
25. Fahmid S, Sajjad A, Khan M, Jamil N, Ali J. Determination of areas without cooling facilities. Afr J Food Agric Nutr Dev. 2006;
chemical composition of milk marketed in Quetta, Pakistan. Int J 7: 1.
Adv Res Biol Sci. 2016; 3: 98-103.
45. Mebratu A. Evaluation of the chemical and microbial proper-
26. FAO. Characteristic and composition of hygienic and quality Milk ties of domestic commercial pasteurized milk available in Ad-
production manual in Kenya and Ethiopia, Rome, Italy; 2008. dis Ababa, Ethiopia; 2015 ([doctoral dissertation]. Addis Ababa
University). 2015.
27. FAO. Gender assessment of dairy value chains: evidence from
Ethiopia. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome, 46. Mekuria AD, Asrat YW, Tefera G. Identification and antimicrobial
Italy; 2017. Hygienic and Quality Milk Production Training Man- susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from milk sam-
ual I and II dairy extension. ples of dairy cows and nasal swabs of farm workers in selected
dairy farms around Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Afr J Microbiol. 2013;
28. FAO, TCP/KEN/6611. Milk testing and quality control. Training 7: 3501-10.
Programme for Small Scale Dairy Sector and Dairy Training Insti-
tute Naivasha. 2017; 2: 4-18. 47. Mitiku E, Mekdes S, Yesihak YM. Milk production, marketing
practices and qualities along milk supply chains of Haramaya
29. Fatine H, Abdelmoula E, Doha B, Hinde H. Bacterial Quality of District, Ethiopia. Afr J Agric Res. 2019; 14: 1990-2005.
Informal marketed raw milk Kenitra City, Morocco. Park. J Nurtr.
2012; 11: 662-9. 48. Pandey R, Verma MR. Sample allocation in different strata,
impact evaluation of developmental program. Rev Mar Estat.
30. Faye B, Konuspayeva G. The sustainability challenge to the dairy 2008; 24: 103-12.
sector–The growing importance of non-cattle milk production
worldwide. Int Dairy J. 2012; 24: 50-6. 49. Perera P, Munasinghe H, Marapana RAUJ. Quality assessment
dairy products in Sri Lankan market. J Food Qual. 2019; 2019.
31. Fekade N, Mekasha Y. Evaluation of urban and peri-urban dairy
50. Powell JM, MacLeod M, Vellinga TV, Opio C, Falcucci A, et al.
production SystemsinAdama milk shed east Shoa zone Oromia
Feed–milk–manure nitrogen relation dairy production systems.
National Regional state Ethiopia; 2012.
Livest Sci. 2013; 152: 261-72.
32. Food US. Drug Administration (FDA). Production record of health
51. Raff H. Market implications of changing fat content of milk and
functional food and analysis result of that inFDA. Retrieved from dairy products, fat content and composition; 2011.
FDA. 2011; 2008.
52. Rao PS, Reddy BR. An overview of dairy Industry in India. Pro-
33. Fiseha KTD. Dairy production and marketing systems in kaffa and ductivity. 2014; 55: 43.
Sheka Zones, Southern Ethiopia. Age. 21: 31-40.
53. Rizani H, Cabeli P, Jashari B, Shala S, Rizani M, et al. Determina-
34. Gadaga TH, Nyanga LK, Mutukumira AN. The occurrence, growth tion of aerobic mesophilic bacteria and coliforms in raw milk in
and control of pathogens in African fermented foods. 2004. the region of Kosovo. Albanian J Agric Sci. 2018; 17: 37-4.
35. Haftu KS, Degnet HM. Determination of adulteration and chemi- 54. Santos MV, Ma Y, Barbano DM. Effect of somatic cell count on
cal composition of raw milk sold in Hossana town, South Ethio- proteolysis and lipolysis in pasteurized fluid milk during shelf-life
pia; 2018. storage. J Dairy Sci. 2003; 86: 2491-503.

Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com Austin J Vet Sci & Anim Husb 10(3): id1124 (2023) - Page - 11
 Austin Publishing Group

55. Sarkar U, Gupta AK, Sarkar V, Mohanty TK, Raina VS, et al. Fac- 64. Teklemichael T, Ameha K, Eyassu S. Physicochemical properties
tors affecting milk yield and milk composition in dairy animals. J of cow milk produced and marketed in Dire Dawa town, Eastern
Dairying Foods Home Sci. 2006; 25: 129-32. Ethiopia. Food Sci Qual Manag. 2015; 42: 56-61.

56. Limit Compainy SA-IP. The plan collects milk from nearby small- 65. Verdi RJ, Barbano DM. Preliminary investigation of the proper-
holder dairy farmers and small micro enterprise processing in to ties of somatic cell proteases. J Dairy Sci. 1988; 71: 534-8.
different products; 2019.
66. Wondatir Z. Livestock production systems in relation with feed
57. Sebeta city administration environment, forest and climatic availability in the highlands and central rift valley of Ethiopia;
change authority. Environment and weather condition study in 2010.
Sebeta and its surrounding. 2019.
67. Yigrem S, Beyene F, Tegegne A, Gebremedhin B. Dairy produc-
58. Sebeta City Administration and Land Managements. Demogra- tion, processing and marketing systems of Shashemene–Dilla
phy of population and location of the town. 2019. area, South Ethiopia. Improving Productivity and Market Suc-
cess (IPMS) of Ethiopian farmers‟ project. International Live-
59. Sebeta Town Livestock and Fisher, agriculture office. Dairy cattle stock Research Institute (ILRI). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 2008.
population distribution in kebeles. 2019.
68. Zelalem Y, Guernebleich E, Sebsibe A. A review of the Ethiopian
60. Shimeles B. Physicochemical Properties and Microbial Quality dairy sector. Addis Ababa: Food and Agriculture Organization of
of Cow Milk Collected from Selected Sub city of Addis Ababa, the United Nations, Sub Regional Office for Eastern Africa (FAO/
Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation. Addis Ababa university. 2016. Society for Endocrinology). Fombad R, editor. 2011; 81.
61. Soomro AA, Khaskheli M, Memon MA, Barham GS, Haq IU, et al. 69. Zelalem Y, Guernebleich E, Sebsibe A, Fombad R. A review of the
Study on adulteration and composition of milk sold in Badin. Int Ethiopian dairy sector. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Food and Agricul-
J Res Appl Nat Soc. 2014; 2: 57-70. ture Organization Sub Regional Office for Eastern Africa (FAO/
62. Tamine AY. Milk processing and quality management. United Society for Endocrinology); 2011; 10.
Kingdom: Society of Dairy Technology; 2009.

63. Tekliye M, Gizaw M. Handling practices, evaluation, adulteration

and microbial quality of raw cow milk around Bahir Dar, Ethio-
pia; 2017.

Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com Austin J Vet Sci & Anim Husb 10(3): id1124 (2023) - Page - 12