Livestock Research for Rural Development 24 (9) 2012 Guide for preparation of papers LRRD Newsletter

Citation of this paper

Production, handling, processing, utilization and marketing of milk in the Mid Rift Valley of Ethiopia

Fikrineh Negash, Estefanos Tadesse, Esayas Aseffa*, Chali Yimamu and Feyisa Hundessa

Adami Tulu Agricultural Research Center, P.O.Box 35, Ziway, Ethiopia
fiker_2mesi@yahoo.com
* Ethiopian Meat and Dairy Technology Institute, P.O.Box 1573, Bishoftu, Ethiopia

Abstract

The study was conducted in purposively selected districts of East Shoa and West Arsi Zones of Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia by selecting 150 dairy owning households using structured questionnaire to identify milk production, handling, processing, dairy products utilization and marketing system.

 

The results of the study show that the overall average holding of milking cows per household in the study area were 1.920.09. Among 40% of the farmers holding crossbred dairy cows the majority were farmers of peri-urban area. Cow milk production was the major activity as a source of food and income in the area. However, small amount of milk was produced from goat and sheep. Hygienic practices during milking were found to be better as compared to other similar studies done in the past. About 52.7% and 10.3% of farmers were washing udder of their cows before and after milking respectively. Different plant materials were used for cleaning and smoking of milking and storing utensils to increase the shelf life of milk. Milk was traditionally processed to convert it into more stable products like traditional butter (Kibe), buttermilk (Arrera), cottage cheese (Ayib) and whey (Aguat). These milk products were consumed by the farmers in addition to fresh liquid milk. Milk and milk products were sold both through formal and informal market. Milk was sold both by rural (crop-livestock mixed) and peri-urban farmers in the area. The amount sold was higher for the peri-urban farmers than the rural farmers.         

Key words: crop-livestock mixed, dairy, peri-urban, production system, rural


Introduction

Ethiopia is believed to have the largest livestock population in Africa. Despite its huge population, the livestock subsector in the country is less productive in general, and compared to its potential, the direct contribution to the national economy is limited (Kedija et al 2008; Sintayehu et al 2008). Consequently, the national milk production and the overall milk consumption in Ethiopia are very low, even compared with other least developed African countries (Zegeye 2003; Melesse K and Beyene F 2009). Per capita consumption of milk in the country is as low as 17 kg per head while the average figure for Africa is 26 kg per head (Gebrewold et al 1998).

 

Dairy production, among the sector of livestock production systems, is a critical issue in Ethiopia where livestock and its products are important sources of food and income, and dairying has not been fully exploited and promoted in the country (Sintayehu et al 2008). Due to the pivotal role that dairy production plays in the economy of the country as well as the enhancement of the nutritional status of the citizens, development of the sector is crucial. To be effective, the efforts to improve the productivity of smallholder dairy production and improve its market orientation needs to be supported and informed by detailed understanding of the current and dynamic conditions of production, marketing, processing and consumption of milk and dairy products (Asfaw 2009).

 

In general, more than 75% of the produce is absorbed locally for consumption (Getachew F and Gashaw G 2001). However, in the country, milk production, handling, processing, consumption and marketing is traditional and constrained by multiple problems. Moreover very limited researches were done to identify the handling, processing and consumption of milk in East Shoa and West Arsi zones of Oromia region. This study was conducted to identify dairy production, dairy products handling, processing and utilization practices and to evaluate dairy marketing system in rural (crop-livestock mixed) and peri-urban areas of Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia.


Materials and Methods

Description of the study area

 

The study was conducted in three districts of East Shoa zone (Adama, Lume and Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha) and two districts of West Arsi zone (Arsi Negele and Shashemene) of Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. These five districts were purposively selected since they are potential milk shed in the area. The districts are found in the Mid-Rift Valley of Ethiopia. The altitudes of these areas range from 1500 to 2300 meter above sea level and have a semi-arid type of climate. The Mid- Rift Valley has an erratic, unreliable and low rainfall averaging between 500 and 900 mm per annum. The rainfall is bimodal with the short rains from February to May and long rains from June to September. The predominant production system in these areas is mixed crop-livestock farming. Cattle are the most important livestock species in the areas (Lemma 2004).

 

Data collection

 

A structured questionnaire was used to assess milk and milk products production, handling, processing, preservation, consumption and marketing. One-hundred-fifty dairy farmers were purposively selected from rural (crop-livestock mixed) and peri-urban areas of five districts namely Adama, Lume, Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha, Arsi Negele and Shashemene and interviewed from January to April 2008.  Three peasant association (PA) from each district and ten farmers from each PA were selected and interviewed.

 

Statistical analysis

 

The data were analyzed by descriptive statistics using Statistical Procedure for Social Science (SPSS) version 13.0 (SPPS 2004).


Results and Discussion

Milk production

 

The average milking cows per households in the study area is presented in Table 1. The result was lower than finding of Lemma (2004) who reported that 3.2, 3.1 and 2.2 for Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha, Arsi Negele and Lume districts, respectively and also lower than the report of Tesfaye (2007) which indicated 3.00.15 cows holding in Metema district. Smaller milking cow holding in the present study could be justified by shrinkage of grazing land due to expansion of cultivation land, urbanization in the area and population growth farmers were forced to reduce their cattle number.

 

Out of the interviewed farmers across the districts only 40% had crossbred cows. Among the farmers own crossbred cows, the majority (76.7%) were farmers of peri-urban areas. However, 23.3% of farmers in the rural area own crossbred cows. These may be related to preference of peri-urban farmers to manage few graded dairy cows because of access to input (agro industrial by product feed) and better market availability as compared to rural farmers.

 

Table 1. Number of milking cows per household

District

Production system

Mean SE

N

Minimum

Maximum

Arsi Negele

 

 

Crop-livestock mixed

2.950.29

20

1

6

Peri-urban

2.100.23

10

1

4

Total

2.670.22

30

1

6

Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha

Crop-livestock mixed

2.550.32

20

1

6

Peri-urban

1.500.17

10

1

2

Total

2.200.24

30

1

6

Adama

 

 

Crop-livestock mixed

1.500.22

10

1

3

Peri-urban

1.300.13

20

1

3

Total

1.370.11

30

1

3

Lume

 

Peri-urban

1.430.12

30

1

3

Total

1.430.12

30

1

3

Shashemene

 

 

Crop-livestock mixed

2.150.23

20

1

4

Peri-urban

1.500.27

10

1

3

Total

1.930.19

30

1

4

Total

 

 

Crop-livestock mixed

2.400.15

70

1

6

Peri-urban

1.500.08

80

1

4

Total

1.920.09

150

1

6

 

The overall daily milk production per cow was 1.710.08 liters from local breed (indigenous Arsi zebu) cows and 8.950.69 liters from crossbred cows in the study area. About 74.0% of the farmers were responding that the daily milk production of their cow was not enough. The present finding was higher than the finding of Lemma (2004) reported that 1.0 liter for local Arsi cow and 5.8 liters for crossbred cows. The result of present study was lower than the report of Coppock et al (1992) who indicated that 2 liters from local cows and higher in the case of crossbred cows which was about 6 liters. Similarly the finding of current study was lower than the result of Belete et al (2010) reported that 3.4 liter of milk production from local cows and higher than milk production from crossbred cows which was 5.5 liters. The present finding was also lower than the finding of Tesfaye (2007) who reported 1.90.045 liters for indigenous cows. Technological interventions like on-farm improved forage production and improved management of the dairy cattle were among the factors which might contribute for variation in milk production in the study area. The variation between the present study and the result of Lemma (2004) could be justified with the dynamic in production system and/or increase in human population in the study area.

 

Within the study area milk was produced from goat and sheep in addition to cow (Table 2). The present finding indicated that goats are important livestock species for milk production in the semi-arid areas like Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha district. Also sheep are milked in the rural mid altitude and high land area like Arsi Negele and Shashemene districts. Although, cattle, camel and goats are the main livestock species that supply milk and milk products, cow milk production is the major activity as source of food and income in the study area. Similar result was reported by (MoARD 2007; Kedija et al 2008) indicated that cattle produce the major milk in the country. Goat milk was preferred by the respondent farmers due to its taste and medicinal value. Similar explanation was given by Kedija et al (2008) stated that goat milk is also used to cure wounds by mixing it with different herbs.

 

Table 2. Production of milk from other livestock species

 

Respondents producing milk from

Goat

Sheep

N

%

N

%

Districts

Arsi Negele

4

2.7

7

4.8

Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha

22

15.1

0

0

Adama

0

0

0

0

Lume

0

0

0

0

Shashemene

6

4.1

2

1.4

District total

32

21.9

9

6.2

Production system

Crop-livestock mixed

23

15.8

9

6.2

Peri-urban

9

6.2

0

0

Production systems total

32

21.9

9

6.2

 
Milking and milk handling practices  

 

Among the many direct means of milk contamination, unclean hands and milking equipment is the one. Milking system among smallholder farmers of both production systems in the study area was entirely hand milking. The majority of the farmers (52.7%) were washing udder before milking of their cows. Although, washing udder of local cows were being paid low attention than crossbreed cows unless it is becoming dirty due to contamination with cow dung. The current study disagreed with the report of Lemma (2004) who indicated that udder of the cow is washed before milking only by few farmers (5.6%).

 

Washing of udder before milking was mainly practiced by farmers of peri-urban system (34.5%) than rural system (18.2%). Only few respondents (10.3%) were washing udder of their cow after milking. This was highly practiced by peri-urban farmers (8.3%) than rural farmers. Among the farmers practicing washing of udder of the cows either before or after milking, about 5.0%, 18.0% and 76.9% were using collective, individual and no towel or bare hand, respectively.

 

The material used for milking, storage/fermentation and processing are different and diversified in the study area. About 40.1% of the respondents, with the majority (29.6%) in the rural areas were using traditional equipment for milking. On the other hand, 72.2% (26.7% in rural verses 46.5% in peri-urban system) using plastic and 17.0% (6.7% in rural verses 10.4% in peri-urban system) metallic equipment for milking purpose. Farmers in the study area were using locally made traditional equipments for milking purpose. Among them, “Elemtuu” and “Ciicoo” was used by 41.5% and 18.9% of the respondents, respectively. These milking and storage equipments are locally called “Qodaa” which are woven from grass and gourd locally termed as “Migra” and “Buqqee” respectively and decorated with seashells and has various sizes (Lemma 2004).

 

Similarly, majority of the respondents (81.0%) were using traditional equipment for storage or fermentation of milk with equal proportion in both production systems. In addition to traditional equipments, about 31.5% (9.45% in rural verses 22.0% in peri-urban system) and 12.0% (3.2% in rural verses 8.8% in peri-urban system) farmers were using plastic and metallic equipments for the storage or fermentation of milk. Farmers were also using traditional equipments for storage and fermentation purpose. Out of these equipments, “Okootee” or “Ensira” (clay pot) and “Orooboo” or “Baarree” were used by 67.0% and 15.2% of farmers respectively.

 

The plants used for the cleaning of milking and fermenting utensils are presented in Table 3. However cleaning plants differ from place to place and even from household to household based up on preferences (Lemma 2004). Similarly plants used for the smoking of milking and fermenting equipments are presented in Table 4. This result is in agreement with study of Lemma (2004) reported that Olea africana was the most frequently used plant for smoking milk vessels followed by Juniperous procera. This result also agreed with the result of Sintayehu et al (2008) reported that milking utensils were smoked with different aroma producing plants like Olea africana and Juniperous procera.

 

The equipments were washed thoroughly using different plants prior to smoking. The majority (99.3%) of the farmers were used these plants for smoking of utensils to give the product good flavor and aroma, to increase shelf life of the milk (83.8%) and since it is the tradition of the society (77.3%). The finding of the current study was in line with the report of Tesfaye (2007) stated that nearly all inhabitants of Metema district were smoked milk vessels as a traditional preservative method to improve the taste and quality of milk and milk products.

 

Milk processing

 

The produced milk was traditionally processed to different products in both studied production systems. In both systems, Ethiopian fermented milk/yoghurt-like sour milk (Ergo) was produced by 98.0%, traditional butter (Kibe) was by 96.7%, buttermilk (Arrera) was by 78.8%, cottage cheese (Ayib) by 75% and whey (Aguat) by 75.8% of the interviewed farmers. Milk has to be fermented before it has been processed to further products. Farmers were preferred to ferment and process milk from local cows due to its high fat content. Fermentation preserves the high quality of nutrients present in milk in a relatively more stable form (Ashenafi 1996) could be another reason. It is prepared by keeping milk in a container and letting it to ferment naturally with out using any starter culture. This is made possible only through the proliferation of the initial milk flora (Ashenafi 1996). Butter is prepared by manually churning (by shaking the clay pot back and forth until butter granules are formed) the fermented milk in a clay pot (Ensira). Butter is used for cooking and sometimes for cosmetic purpose of both skin and hair. It may be also sold. Buttermilk is the product left after the fermented milk has been churned and butter is made. The buttermilk is used for home consumption especially for children and the elderly. Cottage cheese is made by mild heating of the buttermilk and extracting the solids out of the liquid. Whey is the last remaining residue in the traditional milk processing system. While, its use varies from place to place and from society and society; it is used as a supplement to feeding calves in the study area.

 

Table 3. Plants used for the cleaning of milking equipments

Types of plants

Total

Production system

Local name (Oromoo Language)

Scientific name

Rural

Peri-urban

N

%

N

%

N

%

Bargamoo adii

Eucalyptus globulus

21

20.2

8

7.7

13

12.5

Kosarata or sokarata

Ocimum hardiense

15

14.4

12

11.5

3

2.9

Urgo

Ocimum basilicym

10

9.7

9

8.7

1

1.0

Qoxaxxee

Eruchstrum arabicum

10

9.6

0

0

10

9.6

Guftee  

Sida cuneifolia

10

9.6

0

0

10

9.6

Waahalle

Withania somnifera

9

8.7

2

1.9

7

6.7

Xiquree

Rbus steudneri

8

7.7

6

5.8

2

1.9

Tenadam

Ruta chalepensis

7

6.7

4

3.8

3

2.9

Sukaayee or kusaayee

Lantana trifolia

5

4.8

3

2.9

2

1.9

Kasee

Ocimum lamifolium

5

4.8

0

0

5

4.8

Hiddii hoolotaa

Cucumis prophetarum

5

4.8

1

1.0

4

3.8

Igirii or dhigrii

Phyllonthus sepialis

4

3.8

0

0

4

3.8

Darguu

Achyranthes aspera

3

2.9

1

1.0

2

1.9

Kalalaa

Stephaia abyssinica

2

1.9

2

1.9

0

0

Oromoo

Solanum incanum

2

1.9

2

1.9

0

0

Gogoroo  

Capparis tumentosa

2

1.9

2

1.9

0

0

Etichoo

Dodonaea angustia

2

1.9

2

1.9

0

0

Basobilaa  

Ocimum sanctum

2

1.9

1

1.0

1

1.0

Giraawaa

Vernonia amygdalina

1

1.0

0

0

1

1.0

Garamboo

Hypericum spp.

1

1.0

1

1.0

0

0

Xoshinee

Satujera sp.

1

1.0

1

1.0

0

0

Kahee

Agave sisalana

1

1.0

1

1.0

0

0

Dufaa chita

Hyparrhenia spp.

1

1.0

1

1.0

0

0

Sariitii

Asparagus asiaticus

1

1.0

0

0

1

1.0

Xaaxessaa

Rhus natalensis

1

1.0

1

1.0

0

0

Bakkanniisa/Mokkonniisa

Croton macrostachyus

1

1.0

1

1.0

0

0

Giche

Pennisetum schimperi

1

1.0

0

0

1

1.0

Gurra harree

Verbascum sinaiticum

1

1.0

0

0

1

1.0

Xajisaara

Cymbopogon citrates

1

1.0

1

1.0

0

0

 

Table 4. Type of plants used for the smoking of milking equipments

Types of plants

Total

Production system

Local name(Oromoo Language)

Scientific name

Rural

Peri-urban

N

%

N

%

N

%

Ejersa

Olea africana

120

81.1

44

29.7

76

51.4

Gaattiraa or hindhessaa

Juniperous procera

29

19.6

25

16.9

4

2.7

Bakkanniisa/Mokkonniisa

Croton macrostachyus

4

2.7

4

2.7

0

0

Kalalaa

Stephaia abyssinica

4

2.7

4

2.7

0

0

Bargamoo adii

Eucalyptus globulus

2

1.4

0

0

2

1.4

Karaakee

Arundinaria alpina 

2

1.4

2

1.4

0

0

Anshaa

Schefflera volkensii

1

0.7

1

0.7

0

0

Gogoroo

Capparis tumentosa

1

0.7

1

0.7

0

0

 

The majority (98.7%) of the farmers in both rural and peri-urban production systems were processing milk for several reasons. About 97.2%, 57.1%, 38.8%, 7.4% and 3.4% of respondents were process milk for home consumption, for marketing, to increase shelf life of the product, due to surplus production of milk and to diversify products, respectively. The finding of this study was agreed with the report of Lemma (2004) who indicated that milk was processed in these area in order to increase the family income through sale, diversify the products for consumption and to increase the shelf life of the products as marketing is limited once a week due to the need to travel to long distance to reach market places.

 

Although fermentation time or length was affected by several factors; it takes 41.61.48 hours to ferment, according to the farmers’ response. Milk fermentation time in Lume (52.8 hours) and Adama (49.2 hours) districts were higher than Shashemene (41.6 hours), Arsi Negele (33.6 hours) and Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha (30.8 hours) districts. This could be due to the temperature of the area and regular smoking of their milking and storage equipment. The result of current study was higher than the report of similar study conducted by Lemma (2004) reported that fermentation takes 1.5 days (36 hours). The current finding was also supported by the result of Lemma (2004) reported that the duration of milk fermentation in Lume district (2.4 days/57.6 hours) was relatively higher than Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha and Arsi Negele districts (1.1 days/26.4 hours). The result of present study was also higher than the report of Tesfaye (2007) indicated that the average fermentation time of milk was 26.531.23 hours in dry season and 34.90.82 hours in wet seasons. In general, according to Belete et al (2010) the traditional Ethiopian practice is to accumulate the milk for two to three days until it sours. Although, fermentation length is vary for district to district based on the temperature of the area.

 

Nearly all (98.0%) respondent farmers were aware of factors affecting fermentation time. Among these factors, temperature (87.8%), smoking of storage equipments with Olea africana (42.2%), proper hygiene of storage equipments (23.8%), storing milk separately (raw and fermented or morning and evening milked milk) (4.8%) and type of equipments used (2.7%) were the essential ones. Smoking of equipment with Olea africana to increase the fermentation time was mainly practiced by the rural farmers than peri-urban farmers (26.5% verses 15.6%). This is in line with the study of Ashenafi (1996) reported that smoking of the equipment with Olea africana had an inhibitory effect on microbial growth in milk.

 

Milk being a highly perishable commodity that deteriorates quickly under ambient temperature that makes utilization and marketing difficult unless it is properly preserved. With this background, the respondent farmers were using locally available preservatives and their indigenous methods of preservation. About 36.8%, 26.3%, 10.5%, 10.5% and 5.3% of the farmers were using placed Ocimum basilicym, Ruta chalepensis, Allium ursinum, Lantana trifolia and Eucalyptus globulus respectively for preservation of milk and dairy products. These plants used simply through immersing in the products.

 

Dairy product consumption and utilization

 

The primary objective of dairy production is to satisfy the nutritional requirement of the farming society in general and the family in particular. Since milk and milk products form part of the diet for many Ethiopians. Milk is used in a variety of ways in the study area: as fresh liquid milk, as fermented milk (Ergo), as butter (Kibe), as cottage cheese (Ayib), as buttermilk (Arrera) and as whey (Aguat). In the study area daily produced milk was consumed raw, boiled, fermented and after it has been fermented and processed by 50%, 68%, 93.8% and 95.3% of the farmers respectively. On average, 28.501.68% and 52.162.93% of raw and fermented milk respectively were daily consumed by family members of each respondent across the districts. The majority (95.3%) of the farmer consume milk after it has been fermented. This finding was supported by the study of Lemma (2004) reported that in most cases fresh milk and fermented milk were not consumed on the daily bases, as they were reserved for further processing. This author added that out of the total milk produced per household per day; about 83.3% was accumulated for further processing.

 

This study was in line with the result of Ashenafi (1996) pointed out that in Ethiopia a considerable proportion of milk is consumed in a fermented state as “ergo”. The result of this study was also in agreement with the study conducted among pastoralists on the Borana plateau by Coppock et al (1992) stated that 69% of total off-take (milk produced) was variously used as fresh milk. Mohamed et al (2004) supported this finding in that the consumption of milk and milk products vary geographically between the highlands and the low lands and level of urbanization.

 

Among the farmers consumed raw milk, more than half (58.3%) were rural dweller farmers. This is because, (MoARD 2007) the demand for milk in rural areas is for fresh whole milk mainly and this demand is satisfied by home production and/or purchased from neighboring producers. This could be due to the distance and access to markets.

 

The majority of the farmers in the study area (90.7%) were used milk or milk products as a medical treatment of several diseases. This finding was in line with that sour milks have also prescribed for curing disorder of the stomach, intestine and other troubles (Fernandes et al 1987; as cited by Ashenafi 1996).

 

Milk and milk products marketing

 

Both formal and/or informal marketing of milk and milk products were practiced in the study area. The formal market were sell of milk and milk products in market places and directly to cooperatives, while informal market involves direct delivery of the product to consumers in the immediate neighborhood or to any interested individuals in near by towns. About 28.4% and 40.4% of the respondents were sold raw milk and milk products, respectively. Out of the total farmers who sell raw milk the majority (23.0%) were peri-urban farmers and only 5.4% were from rural production. In the study area formal dairy markets are particularly limited to urban areas where collection centers are found. This might indicate that demand for fresh whole milk and market access for fresh milk is higher in peri-urban than rural areas. Moreover raw milk was used as a source of immediate cash income more in peri-urban than rural areas of the studied region. The rural community in the study area did not use raw milk as a source of immediate cash income either because of absence of infrastructure and/or cultural taboo.

 

Within the study area butter and cottage cheese were the only marketable dairy products sold by 40.4% (with equal proportion in both production systems) of the respondents. As far as sell of cottage cheese concerned, the finding of present study disagreed with the work of Tesfaye (2007) who reported that household was not observed in selling traditional cottage cheese (Ayib) in all the surveyed areas rather it was consumed by the family and given to animals (calves and pet animals) together with the whey (Aguat). Sell of buttermilk was not practiced in the present study area unlike the report of Tesfaye (2007), which reported butter milk was equally important marketable milk products sold by 60% of Gendawuha town of Metema district. In the current study area whey was used to fed calves and pet animals.

 

Milk and milk products were sold at different places (Table 5). Among the farmers sold raw milk at dairy cooperatives, 17.7% were farmers of Lume district. This might be due to the availability of dairy cooperatives in the capital of the district called Modjo town. These cooperatives were collecting fluid milk at farmers’ house gate.

 

The result of present study disagreed with the report of Asfaw (2009) conducted in Arsi zone that percentage of households who sold fluid milk was 57%.  The current study is in agreement with the report of MoARD (2007) which indicated that out of the total milk produced in the country only 5% is marketed as fluid milk due to the underdevelopment of the infrastructure in rural areas. Similarly this finding was in line with Lemma (2004) who reported sell of raw milk was not common in the study area.

 

The average distances of market place from the residence of the farmers were 4.86.44 km. According to the response of the farmers, there are multiple factors that affect the marketing price of milk and milk products. Among the factors, season and quality accounts for about 82.6% and 57.0%, respectively. Out of the factors related with season, fasting season is the first. Followers of Ethiopian Orthodox church abstains from consuming food of animal origin during the fasting period. During this period, farmers are forced to sell their dairy products at low price. Dry season is the second factor, during which milk production from their cattle is becoming low and insufficient due to shortage of feed. In the study area, milk, butter and cottage cheese were sold in most of the cases. The average market prices of milk, butter and cottage cheese were 3.390.11 ETB per liter, 47.412.52 ETB per kg and 9.502.96 ETB per kg, respectively (In January 2008 1ETB = 9.2007USD).

 

There were also numerous problems related with dairy marketing in the study area (Table 6). This study was agreed with the report of Lemma (2004) stated that among the many reasons reported by farmers for not selling fresh whole milk, insufficient amount of milk production was the most common factors. The finding of this study was similarly agreed with the report of Tesfaye (2007). He was stated that attributing to the reasons why it was uncommon to sell whole milk, majority of the households said shortage of milk (49.8%) as the main reason, while some said lack of access to market (21.2%), cultural restriction (20.8%) and the desire to convert whole milk into other dairy products (8.2%) as the reasons for not selling whole milk.


Table 5. Milk and milk products marketing places

The places

Total

Production systems

Crop-livestock mixed

Peri-urban

N

%

N

%

N

%

Local market

57

71.3

25

31.3

32

40.0

Home

42

59.2

12

16.9

30

42.3

Dairy cooperatives

13

21.0

2

3.2

11

17.7

Shop

3

3.3

0

0

3

3.3

Cafeteria

2

2.2

1

1.1

1

1.1


Table 6. Problems in dairy marketing

Problems

Total

Production systems

Crop-livestock mixed

Peri-urban

N

%

N

%

N

%

Scarcity of milk

64

72.7

25

28.4

39

44.3

Lack of market or collection center

48

60.0

22

27.5

26

32.5

Quality

39

44.8

6

6.9

33

37.9

Low price

33

38.8

8

9.4

25

29.4

Lack of demand

10

11.5

2

2.3

8

9.2

Cultural restriction

3

4.1

0

0

3

4.1

 

Most of the farmers, who far from market places have to transport their dairy products to the market places to sell. Farmers used different means of transportation namely foot, vehicle, donkey cart and bicycle. About 81.0% of the respondents were traviling on foot, 77.8% used vehicle, 46.3% used donkey cart and 1.3% used bicycle to transport milk and milk products to market place. Among the respondents using donkey cart as a means of transportation 52.6% were farmers of Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha district and followed by Arsi Negele (26.3%) and Lume (21.1%) districts. In view of the fact that, donkey cart is the dominant means of transportation in this district.

 

Market information is vital for the farmers to sell any commodity or farm products. As far as market information concerns, farmers were used different sources of information for existing market prices of dairy products. About 48.8% and 39.9% respondents were get market information from neighbors or individuals and from market places, respectively. Few farmers were get information from dairy cooperatives and traders.

 

The time which farmers are traveled to arrive at near by market place affects the freshness of the milk. As they travel longer distance, the more likelihood for the milk to be spoiled. The average time the market place takes in the study area was 0.770.10 hours. The minimum and maximum time was 0.05 and 5.00 hours, respectively. Additionally, the average time for the milk to get spoiled was 7.861.32 hours. On the top of this, farmers have traditional knowledge to identify either milk is fresh or spoiled. About 93.5% of the respondent farmers have an idea about the traditional knowledge how milk or milk product was identified either it is fresh or spoiled. The majority of the farmers (84.5%) were identified through visual observation followed by 41.1% and 16.3% of the respondents which can identify through tasting and smelling of the products respectively. 


Conclusions


Acknowledgments

The authors would like to appreciate Oromia Agricultural Research Institute (OARI) for providing financial support to conduct this study. 


References

Ahmed M A M, Ehui S and Yemesrach Assefa 2004 Dairy development in Ethiopia. EPTD (Environment and Production Technology Division) Discussion Paper No. 123. International Food Policy Research Institute. U.S.A.

 

Asfaw Negassa 2009 Improving smallholder farmers’ marketed supply and market access for dairy products in Arsi Zone, Ethiopia. Research Report 21. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute). Nairobi, Kenya.

 

Ashenafi M 1996 Effect of container smoking and incubation temperature on the microbial and some biochemical qualities of fermenting Ergo, a traditional Ethiopian sour milk. International Dairy Journal 6. pp. 95-104

 

Belete Anteneh, Azage Tegegne, Fekadu Beyene and Berhanu Gebremedhin 2010 Cattle milk and meat production and marketing systems and opportunities for market-orientation in Fogera woreda, Amhara region, Ethiopia. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper 19. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute). Nairobi, Kenya.

 

Coppock D L, Holden S J and Mulugeta Asefa 1992 Review of dairy marketing and processing in a semiarid pastoral system in Ethiopia. In: R.F. Brokken and S.Senait (ed.), 1992. Dairy marketing in sub-Saharan Africa. Proceedings of a symposium held at International Livestock Center for Africa (ILCA). 26-30 November, 1990. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp. 313-332.

 

Fernandes C F, Shahani K M and Amer M A 1987 Therapeutic role of dietary lactobacilli and lactobacilli fermented dairy products. FEMS Microbial. Rev., 46, 347-56.

 

Gebrewold A, Alemayehu M, Demeke S, Bediye S and Tadesse A 1998 Status of dairy research in Ethiopia. In The role of village dairy co-operatives in dairy development. Smallholder Dairy Development Project (SDDP) proceeding, Ministry of Agriculture (MOA). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

 

Getachew Feleke and Gashaw Geda 2001 The Ethiopian Dairy Development Policy. A draft policy document.

 

Melesse K and Beyene F 2009 Consumption pattern of milk and milk products in Ada’a woreda, East Shoa Zone, central Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 21, Article #56. Retrieved July 28, 2011, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd21/4/mele21056.htm

 

Kedija Hussen, Azage Tegegne, Mohammed Yousuf Kurtu and Berhanu Gebremedhin 2008 Traditional cow and camel milk production and marketing in agropastoral and mixed crop–livestock systems: The case of Mieso District, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper 13. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute). Nairobi, Kenya.

 

Lemma Fita 2004 Assessment of butter quality and butter making efficiency of new churns compared to smallholders’ butter making techniques in East Shoa Zone of Oromia. MSc thesis. Alemaya University, Alemaya, Ethiopia.

 

MoARD (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development) 2007 Livestock Development Master Plan Study. Phase I. Volume I. Dairy. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

 

Sintayehu Y, Fekadu B, Azage T and Berhanu G 2008 Dairy production, processing and marketing systems of Shashemene–Dilla area, South Ethiopia. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper 9. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute). Nairobi, Kenya.

 

SPSS (Statistical Procedures for Social Sciences) 2004 SPSS version 13.0. Chicago, Illinois, USA.

 

Tesfaye Mengsitie 2007 Characterization of cattle milk and meat production, processing and marketing system in Metema district, Ethiopia. MSc thesis, Hawassa University, Awassa, Ethiopia.209 pp.

 

Zegeye Y 2003 Imperative and challenges of dairy production, processing and marketing in Ethiopia. In Proceedings of the 10th annual conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP). 21 – 23 August 2003. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp 61-67


Received 6 February 2012; Accepted 13 July 2012; Published 3 September 2012

Go to top