HYGIENIC MILK PRODUCTION PRACTICES, PREVALENCE OF

MASTITIS AND ASSOCIATED RISK FACTORS IN LACTATING

COWS IN DARA OTILCHO DISTRICT OF SIDAMA REGIONAL
STATE, ETHIOPIA

MSc Thesis

BEYENE BEKELE HANKALO

HAWASSA UNIVERSITY
College of Agriculture

Hawassa, Ethiopia

April 2022
 HYGIENIC MILK PRODUCTION PRACTICES, PREVALENCE OF
MASTITIS AND ASSOCIATED RISK FACTORS IN LACTATING COWS
IN DARA OTILCHO DISTRICT OF SIDAMA REGIONAL STATE,
ETHIOPIA

BEYENE BEKELE HANKALO

ADVISOR: Haile Welearegay (PhD)

A Thesis Submitted to the School of Animal and Range Science

HAWASSA UNIVERSITY
College of Agriculture

In partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ANIMAL AND RANGE SCIENCES
(Specialization: Animal Production)

Hawassa, Ethiopia
April 2022
ii
 APPROVAL SHEET– 1

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

HAWASSA UNIVERSITY

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Hygienic Milk Production Practices, Prevalence

of Mastitis and Associated Risk Factors in Lactating Cows in Dara Otilcho District of

Sidama Regional State, Ethiopia”, submitted to partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of Master of Science in Agriculture with a specialization in Animal Production of

the Graduate Program of the School of Animal and Range Sciences, Hawassa University.

The thesis is a record of original research carried out by Beyene Bekele Hankalo, ID. No.

GpAproR/0002/12 under my supervision and no part of the thesis has been submitted for

any other degree or diploma. The assistance and the help received during the course of this

investigation have been duly acknowledged. Therefore, I recommend that it will be accepted

as fulfilling the thesis requirements.

Haile Welaregay (PhD) _____________ _________________

Name of Advisor Signature Date

iii
 APPROVAL SHEET -2

MEMBERS OF BOARD OF EXAMINERS

We, the undersigned, members of the Board of Examiners of M.Sc Thesis Open Defense

examination, have read and evaluated the Thesis prepared by Beyene Bekele Hankalo

andexamined the candidate. This is therefore to certify that the thesis be accepted as

fulfilling theThesis requirement for the Degree of Master of Science in Agriculture

(Specialization: Animal Production).

_______________________ __________________ _____________________

Name of Chair Person Signature Date
_______________________ __________________ _____________________
Name of advisor Signature Date
_______________________ __________________ _____________________
Name of Internal Examiner Signature Date
_______________________ __________________ _____________________
Name of External Examiner Signature Date

_______________________ __________________ _____________________

Name of SGS coordinator Signature Date

iv
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this thesis manuscript to my beloved father Bekele Hankalo Ajjie who passed

away without seeing my current success. He was always strived for my success though death

comes ahead of his revels a bit before my success in joining the MSc. His love and

encouragement arethe cornerstones for my today’s success. It is my deepest pleasure and

prayer for his soul to stay in eternal rest.

v
 STATEMENT OF AUTHOR

First, I declare that this thesis is my bonafidework and that all sources of materials used for

this thesis have been duly acknowledged. This thesis has been submitted in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (MSc) at Hawassa

University School of animal and range science and is deposited at the University Library to

be made available to borrowers under the rules of the Library. I truly declare that this thesis

is not submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any academic degree,

diploma or certificate.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission provided that

accurate acknowledgment of the source is made. Requests for permission for extended

quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the

Head of Department of Animal and Range Sciences or the Dean of the School of Graduate

Studies when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interest of

scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

Name of Author: Beyene Bekele Hankalo: Signature: ____________

Place: Hawassa University, College of agriculture

Hawassa

Date of Submission: ________________________

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Above all, I would like to thank my Almighty God for gifting me health, wisdom and
strength in my work and for his perfect protection and guidance of my life.

I would like to express my deepest and sincere appreciation to my advisor Dr.Haile

Welearegay for his guidance, sound advice, and encouragement at all stages of my work.
His excellent and brotherly teaching and constructive criticism and comments from the
initial conception to the end of this work are highly appreciated.

I am grateful to the Dara Otilcho district office of Livestock, fishery resource for providing
me study leave and guaranteeing my salary during the study time, and specially I am
thankful to Dr. Mesafint Mitiku, and all colleagues for their love and encouragement to me.

My heartfull gratitude also goes to the Dara Otilcho Woreda’s administration for their
financial support. I am grateful to the development agents (DAs) and managers of the
kebeles for their help by selecting farmers and giving information during data collection. I
am also thankful for farmers participating in this study for providing their time and their
animal free.

I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to the school of Animal and Range Science,
Department Graduate Committee of the Animal and range Science and the School of
Graduate Studies (SGS) of Hawassa University for their contribution in the process of
developing the research proposal and provision of various services.

My special appreciation goes to Prof. Zinabu Gebiremariam for his valuable help and he is
my role model for my future life.

I wish to express my deepest love and gratitude to my mother Zenebech Hammo for nursing
me with love, I owe a great debt to my mother, her prayer, and thoughts have been always
with me. I would like to extend my special thanks tomy big brothers, Yirdaw, Solomon and
Belachew for their all-round support to me.

I am also grateful toall my beloved friends, who were all giving me moral support in my
academic success and providing a loving environment for me.

“Lord, I’m overflowing with your blessings, just as you promised.”Psalms 119:65

vii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADMY Average Daily Milk Yield

AI Artificial Insemination

CMT California Mastitis Test

CAC Codex Alimentarius Commission

CSA Central Statistics Agency

CR Crop Residue

ETB Ethiopian Birr

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GDP Gross Domestic Product

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

LF Left Front

LR Left Rear

MOARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

NMC National Mastitis Council

RF Right Front

RR Right Rear

SCC Somatic Cell Count

SCM Sub Clinical Mastitis

SPC Standard Plate Counts

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
APPROVAL SHEET– 1 ...................................................................................................................... iii
APPROVAL SHEET -2 ....................................................................................................................... iv
DEDICATION ...................................................................................................................................... v
STATEMENT OF AUTHOR .............................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................ viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................. xii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF APPENDDICES ................................................................................................................. xiv
LIST OF TABLE IN THE APPENDICES ......................................................................................... xv
LIST OF FIGURES IN APPENDICES ............................................................................................. xvi
ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................................................xvii
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Background and justification ..................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Objective of the study ................................................................................................................ 4
1.2.1. General Objective:- ............................................................................................................. 4
1.2.2. Specific Objectives:- ........................................................................................................... 4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................................................. 5
2.1. Dairy Production in Ethiopia ..................................................................................................... 5
2.2. Management and Hygienic Practicesof cowmilk production..................................................... 6
2.2.1. Practices of Hygienic Milk Production in Ethiopia............................................................. 6
2.2.2. Milk Handling Practices in Ethiopia ................................................................................... 8
2.2.3. Milking procedures ............................................................................................................. 9
2.2.4. Factors Affecting Milk Quality ......................................................................................... 10
2.2.5. Milking and storage equipment management ................................................................... 13
2.2.6. Storage of raw milk ........................................................................................................... 14
2.2.7. Overview of milk safety and standards in Ethiopia .......................................................... 16
2.2.8. Control of milk spoilage .................................................................................................... 16
2.2.9. Raw milk safety concerns ................................................................................................. 18
2.2.10. Public Health Impact of unhygienic and spoiled milk .................................................... 19

ix
 2.3. Mastitis ..................................................................................................................................... 20
2.3.1. Mastitis Causing Bacteria.................................................................................................. 22
2.3.2. Diagnosis of mastitis using California mastitis test (CMT) .............................................. 23
2.3.3. Control of mastitis ............................................................................................................. 24
2.3.4. Prevalence of bovine mastitis in Ethiopia ......................................................................... 24
2.3.5. Risk factors influencing prevalence of mastitis ................................................................ 25
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS .................................................................................................... 28
3.1. Description of the Study Area .................................................................................................. 28
3.2. Study animals ........................................................................................................................... 30
3.3. Sampling procedure and Sample size determination ............................................................... 30
3.4. Study design and methodology................................................................................................ 30
3.4.1. Questionnaire Survey ........................................................................................................ 30
3.4.2. Focus group discussion ..................................................................................................... 31
3.4.3. Milk sample collection for mastitis test ............................................................................ 31
3.4.4. Clinical inspection of cow’s udder .................................................................................... 32
3.4.5. California Mastitis Test (CMT)......................................................................................... 32
3.4.6. Measuring Milk yield performance of cows ..................................................................... 33
3.5. Methods of Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 33
3.6. Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 34
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 35
4.1. Household characteristics of the study areas............................................................................ 35
4.2. Livestock holding and management in study area ................................................................... 38
4.2.1. Livestock holding capacity in study area .......................................................................... 38
4.2.2. Constraints of livestock production and productivity in study area .................................. 40
4.2.3. Purpose of keeping cattle in study area ............................................................................. 41
4.2.4. Cattle feed resources and its availability in study area ..................................................... 41
4.3. Milk Production ....................................................................................................................... 43
4.3.1. Milk yield of cows in study area ....................................................................................... 43
4.3.2. Breed and milk yield performance in study area ............................................................... 45
4.4. Hygienic Milk production and milk handling practices in study area ..................................... 46
4.4.1. Hygienic Milk Production Practices ................................................................................. 46
4.4.2. Milking Practices .............................................................................................................. 48

x
 4.4.3. Milk and milk product handling practice .......................................................................... 49
4.4.4. Sanitary practices of milk and milk products handling equipment ................................... 53
4.4.5. Major Milk hygiene Related Constraints .......................................................................... 56
4.5. Animal health delivery in study area........................................................................................ 58
4.5.1. Major constraints of Animal health delivery in study area ............................................... 60
4.6. Prevalence of mastitis and its associated risk factors in dairy cows ........................................ 61
4.6.1. Prevalence of mastitis in dairy cows ................................................................................. 61
4.6.2. Comparison of level of attack by mastitis between local and cross breed milking cows in
study area .................................................................................................................................... 64
4.6.3. Prevalence and distribution of sub-clinical mastitis across the four quarters and degree of
attack in milking cows in study area ........................................................................................... 65
4.6.4. Risk factors associated with dairy cow mastitis ................................................................ 66
4.7. Traditional treatment and control mechanisms of mastitis in Dara Otilcho district................. 72
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .............................................................................. 74
6. REFERENCES............................................................................................................................... 77
7. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................ 87

xi
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Interpretation of CMT scores .................................................................................. 23
Table 2: Socio-economic profile of the respondents in Dara Otilcho District of Sidama
region. .................................................................................................................................... 37
Table 3: Livestock holding capacity in households of four studied Kebeles of Dara Otilcho
District. .................................................................................................................................. 39
Table 4: Major Constraints of livestock production and productivity in study area ............. 40
Table 5: Purpose of keeping cattle in Dara Otilcho Woreda ................................................. 41
Table 6: The main feed sources for cattle in Dara Otilcho Woreda ...................................... 42
Table 7: Milk yield (Liters) and lactation length (days) of cattle in dara Otilcho district,
Sidama Regional state............................................................................................................ 44
Table 8: Breed and milk yield in study area .......................................................................... 46
Table 9: Hygienic practices followed during milking and barn cleaning frequency by dairy
farmers in Dara Otilcho District of Sidama region. ............................................................... 48
Table 10: Milking practices by dairy farmers in selected kebeles of Dara Otilcho District of
Sidama region. ....................................................................................................................... 49
Table 11: Milking and milk storage material ........................................................................ 52
Table 12: Milk sanitary practices in Dara Otilcho Woreda ................................................... 55
Table 13: Major Milk hygiene Related Constraints in Dara Otilcho district ........................ 56
Table 14: Animal Health Service delivery system, udder health management and drug
withdrawal practices in the Dara Otilcho woreda.................................................................. 59
Table 15: Major constraints of animal health delivery in Dara Otilcho woreda ................... 60
Table 16: Overall prevalence of clinical and sub-clinical mastitis at cow levels and quarter
level in study area .................................................................................................................. 62
Table 17: Comparison of level of attack by mastitis between local and cross breed milking
cows in study area .................................................................................................................. 64
Table 18: Relation between subclinical mastitis and degree of quarter attacked using CMT
Quarter-wise. ......................................................................................................................... 66
Table 19: The prevalence of dairy both clinical and sub-clinical cow mastitis based on
intrinsic risk factors ............................................................................................................... 69
Table 20: The prevalence of bovine mastitis based on some of the extrinsic risk factors .... 71

xii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Map of the study area. ......................................................................................................... 29

xiii
 LIST OF APPENDDICES

Appendix 1: Questionnaire for hygienic milk production survey ......................................... 87

Appendix 2: Distribution of udder infection across the four quarters in dairy cows ............ 92
Appendix 3: Questions for group discussion ......................................................................... 96

xiv
 LIST OF TABLE IN THE APPENDICES

Appendix table 1: Purpose of keeping cattle in study area .................................................... 88

Appendix table 2: Feeding practice of livestock in study area .............................................. 89
Appendix table 3: milk yield of local and cross breed cows in study area ............................ 89
Appendix table 4: Chi-Square Tests for milk yield among local and cross breed cows in
study area ............................................................................................................................... 90
Appendix table 5: Distribution of udder infection across quarters ........................................ 92
Appendix table 6: Chi-Square Tests for mastitis case among agro-ecologies in study area . 93
Appendix table 7: Chi-Square Tests for mastitis among different breeds ............................. 95
Appendix table 8: Chi-Square test for mastitis case among different milking conditions .... 95
Appendix table 9: Mastitis case among different agro-ecologies .......................................... 96

xv
 LIST OF FIGURES IN APPENDICES

Figure in Appendix 1: Graphical presentation Overall prevalence of clinical and sub-clinical

mastitis at cow levels and quarter level ................................................................................. 93
Figure in Appendix 2: Prevalence and distribution of udder infection across the four quarters
in dairy cows based on their clinical stages in percentage .................................................... 93
Figure in Appendix 3: Prevalence and distribution of sub-clinical mastitis udder infection in
percentage across the four quarters in dairy cows in study area ............................................ 94
Figure in appendix 4: The plant locally called "Hatawo" used as traditional medicinal plant
to cure mastitis ....................................................................................................................... 97
Figure in appendix 5: The plant locally called "Haliila", tree climbing plant used as
traditional medicinal plant to cure mastitis ............................................................................ 97

xvi
 Hygienic Milk Production Practices, Prevalence of Mastitis and Associated Risk Factors
in Lactating Cows in Dara Otilcho District of Sidama Regional State, Ethiopia

Beyene Bekele (GpAproR/0002/12)

Haile Welearegay (PhD), Hawassa University, College of Agriculture, Hawassa, Ethiopia

ABSTRACT
This study was carried out to assess the hygienic milk production practices, prevalence of
mastitis, and associated risk factors in lactating cows in Dara Otilcho district. A total of 200
randomly selected households were interviewed and 380 milking cows were tested for
California Mastitis Test (CMT). Among the interviewed households, 99% were not practiced
washing udder. About 50.5% of households mixed fresh milk with left over milk.70% stored
milk for several hours. Materials used to wash and clean milk-handling equipment were
usually Enset kancha, ash, different grass leaves, and sponge. Milk yield of local cows was
1.43±0.02, 0.73±0.01 and 0.33±0.00 liters per milking in early, mid and late lactation,
respectively. Crossbred cows were yielding 1.95±0.02, 1.17±0.03 and 0.59±0.00 liters per
milking in early, mid and late lactation, respectively and which was statistically significant
(P=0.005).Of the CMT tested lactating cows, 66.4% were showed positive for mastitis cases.
The prevalence of clinical mastitis (CM) was 11.3% and 17.6% at cow level and 4.3% and
9% at a quarter level in local and crossbred cows, respectively. Overall, among all quarters
prevalence was 6.25%. The prevalence of sub-clinical mastitis (SCM) at cow level was 43%
and 66.6% in local and in crossbredcows, respectively. Among 1520 quarters tested,
theprevalence of SCM was 24% in local cows and 38.5% in crossbred cows.The incidence
of mastitis based on breed was significantly higher in crossbred (χ2=0.000, p<0.000).
Theintrinsic risk factors such as age, breed, stage of lactation, parity and milk yield of cows
was significantly higher in adult cows (>10 years) (χ2 =0.000, P<0.003), in early lactation
(χ2 =0.000, P<0.001) and in a cow with many parities (> 6 calves) (χ2=0.000, P<0.002),
respectively. Based on extrinsic risk factors such as floor type, udder hygiene, complete
milking and agro-ecological location was significantly higher in cow with muddy floor type
(χ2=0.000, P<0.010), in poor udder hygienic cows (χ2 =0.000, P< 0.000,), and low
significantly in cows in highland agro-ecology (χ2 =0.022, P<0.048,) and in cows with no
complete milking (χ2=0.721, P<0.030, F=0.743), respectively.The results from this study
revealed that poor milk handling practices and unhygienic milk processing were common
problem observed in the study area andMastitis was a major health problem of dairy cows,
which undoubtedly will have drawbacks on the production and productivity of dairy cows in
the study area and hence,needsserious attention.Therefore, coordinated effort is required to
address the constraints of hygienic milk product handling, and developing effective control
and prevention mechanisms of mastitis is crucial.

Key Words: Dara Otilcho, Milking cows, Milk hygiene, Mastitis, Prevalence, Risk factors

xvii
 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background and justification

Agriculture in Ethiopia is the foundation of the country’s economy, engaging 72.7% of the

population, contributes 27.5 billion dollars or 32.7% of the gross domestic product (GDP)

and 77% of the foreign earnings, and is the major sources of raw material and capital

investment and market (PDC, 2020). The livestock sub-sector alone contributes 12% of the

total and over 45% of the agricultural GDP, and over 85% and 90% of the farm and pastoral

incomes, respectively, are generated by or from livestock (MOARD, 2005).The majority of

the world’s estimated 1.3 billion poor people live in developing countries where they depend

directly or indirectly on livestock for their livelihoods (World Bank, 2008; FAO, 2009).In

Ethiopia, the contribution of livestock to the country’s food supply, family nutrition,

incomes, employment, soil fertility, livelihoods, transport, and sustainable agricultural

production continues to be a subject of significant review and debate (FAO, 2009).

In this context, livestock production is of strategic economic importance, because of its not

only numbers and diversity but also because the majority of the rural people kept either

livestock as a livelihood or use livestock for various other activities like farming and

transportation of people and products (MOARD, 2007). Due to its large livestock population

coupled with the relatively suitable environment for livestock production, Ethiopia holds a

substantial potential for dairy development mainly (Beredaet al., 2014). With more than

70.3million cattle, 42.9million sheep, 52.50million goats, and about 57.0million poultry,

Ethiopia is the largest livestock producer in Africa (CSA, 2021). Dairy cows are biologically

the most efficient cattle group in converting feeds/roughages to milk that is a highly

nutritious component for human beings.

1
Milk is universally recognized as a complete diet due to its essential nutritional components

(Bentaet al., 2012). It is composed of approximately 87.2% water, 3.7% fat, 3.5% protein,

4.9% lactose 0.7% ash and has a pH 6.8 (Olatunji, 2012). The composition of milk makes it

an optimum medium for the growth of microorganisms that may come from the interior of

the udder, exterior surfaces of the animal, milk handling equipment and other miscellaneous

sources such as the air of the milking environment (Workuet al., 2012). Milk has nutrients

that make it suitable for the rapid multiplication of bacteria that cause spoilage. Unhygienic

production, improper handling, and undesirable practices such as addition of water or other

substances can introduce bacteria or germs that cause spoilage (Paulet al., 2004).

In Ethiopia, the traditional processing and marketing milk and milk products dominates the

Ethiopian dairy sector, and the traditional, unreliable and unhygienic processing methods

contributes to poor product quality (PDC, 2020). Traditionally processed milk products are

generally reported to be of substandard quality mainly due to inadequate dairy infrastructure

such as refrigeration facility, absence of clean water and limited knowledge of the hygienic

handling of milk and milk products (Beredaet al., 2013). There are several types of diseases

that potentially affect the wellbeing of livestock population, among which mastitis is the

common and economical important disease that causes loss in milk yield and treatment cost

for dairy farmers (Nibretet al., 2012).

Mastitis is complex disease that generally involves interplay between management practices

and infectious agents, having different degrees of intensity and variations in duration and

residual effects (Lidetet al., 2013). Mastitis is amulti-etiologic disease of the mammary

gland characterized mainly by reduction in milk production and considered an economically

important disease in most dairy farms in Ethiopia. Furthermore, mastitis could be a danger

2
to human health because milk from mastitis udder of animal is contaminated with bacteria

which could be potential source of infection to consumers (Mungube, 2001) and many of

them are responsible for diseases like tuberculosis, streptococcal intoxication, colibacillosis,

streptococcal sore throat, and brucellosis in human (Radostitset al., 2007). However,

mastitis as a disease, particularly the subclinical mastitis, has received very little attention.

Production loss due to mastitis in Ethiopia have been estimated to be 38 USD per lactation

per cow, and sub clinical mastitis accounts for over 90% of the total loss (Mungubeet al.

2005).In Ethiopia, urban and peri-urban areas of Addis Ababa, Mungube (2001) estimated

the economic losses from mastitis to be 210.8 Birr per cow per lactation. The average total

failure of cost of mastitis was estimated to be 4765 ETB, (1 ETB= 0.0449.USD) per farm

per year of which sub-clinical mastitis (SCM) contributed 54% of the cost. The average total

failure cost per lactating cow per farm per year was 1961 ETB, with a large variation

between farms (range 0 to 35084 ETB) (Mekonnenet al., 2019). According to Fentayeet al

(2014) reported that the prevalence of mastitis in Hawassa and Wendo-genet area of Sidama

region was 63.11% at cows’ level and 31.15% at quarter level. Likewise, the overall

prevalence of mastitis in Sidama zonewere 42.71 % (Tekle and Berihe, 2016).

The hygienic milk production practices and prevalence of mastitis in dairy cows in Dara

Otilcho district of Sidama Regional State has not yet been assessed. The sanitary and

hygienicpractices of dairy products and milk handling equipmentare below the standards in

many partsof Ethiopia in generaland in the study area in particular due to insufficient pre-

milking and post-harvesting handling practices. The unhygienic and poor handling practices

lead to a high microbial load in milk and milk products which results in poor quality and are

unsafe for consumption. Mastitis also resulted in alternation of milk composition and

3
appearance, decrease milk production. Production loss due to mastitis in Ethiopia has been

estimated to be 38 USD per lactation per cow, and sub-clinical mastitis accounts for over

90% of the total loss (Mungube et al. 2005). However, most dairy farmers in the country in

general and in the study area particularly do not recognize sub-clinical mastitis, which

incidentally occurs at higher frequency than that of clinical mastitis. Information about the

prevalence of the disease and risk factors associated with the disease as well as pathogens

involved is essential in designing prevention and possible controlling measure against the

disease. Thus, this studyis, therefore, intended with the following objectives.

1.2. Objective of the study

1.2.1. General Objective:-

To assess practices of hygienic milk production and estimate the prevalence of clinical and

sub-clinical mastitis in dairy cows in Dara Otilcho District of Sidama regional state.

1.2.2. Specific Objectives:-

• To assess hygienic production practices of milk and milk handling safety in study

area.

• To assess the prevalence of sub-clinical mastitis in lactating cows in study area

• To identify the major risk factors associated with mastitis in Dara Otilcho District of

Sidama regional state.

4
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Dairy Production in Ethiopia

About 97.8 % of the cattle population in the country is local breeds, dairy production in

Ethiopia is mainly dependent on indigenous breeds. The remaining are hybrid and exotic

breeds that accounted for about 1.9% and 0.3%, respectively (CSA, 2020. As a result, milk

production in Ethiopia is mainly dependent on indigenous breeds; more specifically on

cattle, goats, camels and sheep. Cattle have the largest contribution (81.2%) of the total

national annual milk output, followed by goats (7.9%), camels (6.3%) and sheep (4.6%)

(CSA, 2014). According to estimations, a total annual cow milk production for the rural

areasof the country in 2019/2020 was about 3.82 billion liters (CSA, 2020).

Dairying in Ethiopia is practiced almost all over the country with the intensity of small or

medium or large-sized, subsistence or market-oriented farms. The dairy system of the

country is categorized based on agro-ecology characterization of the area or climate, socio-

economic structures of the population, holdings, type of breed and species used for milk

production, and the integration with crop production as a criterion (Getachew et al., 2014).

There are different classifications of dairy production systems in Ethiopia given by different

scholars, but according to the dairy development and policies inventory, dairy systems in

Ethiopia can be categorized under five systems of operation; pastoral (traditional pastoral

livestock farming), Agro-pastoral (Traditional low land mixed livestock farming), mixed

crop-livestock system (traditional highland mixed farming), Urban and Peri-urban (the

emerging smallholder dairy farming) and Commercial (specialized commercial intensive

dairy farming) (Getachew et al., 2014).

5
Among dairy products, milk and milk products are major food for human all over the world.

The estimate of total cow milk production for the rural sedentary areas of Ethiopia is about

3.91 billion liters (CSA, 2018). The average daily milk yield (ADMY) performances of

indigenous cows is 1.85 liters/day and ranges from 1.24 liters in rural lowland agro-pastoral

system of Mieso to 2.31 liters in rural highland dairy production system of Fogera (Azage et

al., 2013). For hybrid cows, milk production per day is 8 to 10 liters (Tadesse et al., 2015).

In Ethiopia per capital consumption of milk is very low, estimated at about 19 liters per

person, but urbanization is driving up consumption in Addis Ababa about 52 liters per

person per year (Azage, 2018).

2.2. Management and Hygienic Practicesof cowmilk production

2.2.1. Practices of Hygienic Milk Production in Ethiopia

Hygienic production of milk is important for the safety of consumers. In Ethiopia, there is

no standard hygienic condition followed by producers during milk production. The hygienic

conditions are different according to the production system, adapted practices, level of

awareness, and availability of resources (Zelalem, 2003). Lack of good agricultural, animal

feeding and veterinary practices and inadequate general hygiene of milking personnel and

equipment and inappropriate milking methods may lead to unacceptable levels of

contamination with chemical residues and other contaminants during primary production

(CAC, 2004). The hygienic quality of milk at the point of production is also of importance

from both public health and consumer perception points of view, making important for milk

to be produced with a low bacterial count and the count, by adequate temperature control, is

to be kept low until the point of processing (Harding, 1999).

6
Effective handling practice during milking is important and necessary element to produce

safe and suitable milk and milk products. Failure to maintain adequate sanitation practices

has been shown to contribute to contamination of milk with undesirable or pathogenic

microorganisms or chemical or physical hazards. Because quality of dairy products are

easily affected due to different factors of which performance of milking procedures and

cleanness of the milking utensils and equipment are the major one (Lore et al., 2006). Poor

hygiene introduces additional bacteria that cause the milk to get spoilt very quickly. To

ensure that raw milk remains fresh for a longer time, you need to practice good hygiene

during milking and when handling the milk afterwards. Production of quality milk is a

complicated process (Pandey et al., 2011).

In Ethiopia, milk and milk products mainly used for home consumption as it have high

nutritional value. In addition, it is a source of cash income to purchase farm inputs like feed,

fertilizer and improved crop varieties as well as food and non-food items like educational

materials for their children (Melese and Tesfaye, 2015). However, the quality of milk

produced in Ethiopia is poor and below the standard. This is due to poor pre-milking and

post-harvest handling practices and highly perishable characteristics of the milk (Tsadkan

and Gurja, 2018).

Mishandling and disregard of hygienic measures by milk handling personnel may enable

undesirable microbes to come into contact with milk and in some cases to survive and

multiply in sufficient numbers and make the milk unsafe for both direct consumption and

further processing (Chatterje et al., 2006).

7
2.2.2. Milk Handling Practices in Ethiopia

With consideration given to the end use of the milk, handling, storage and transport of milk

should be conducted in a manner that will avoid contamination and minimize any increase in

the microbiological load of milk. Proper handling, storage and transport of milk are

important elements of the system of controls necessary toproduce safe and suitable milk and

milk products. Contact with unsanitary equipment and foreign materials areknown causes of

milk contamination. Temperature abuse is known to increase the microbiological load of

milk (CAC, 2004).Milk is virtually sterile when it is synthesized in a healthy cow’s udder.

However, as soon as it leaves from the heat becomes contaminated with microorganism and

spoiled till consumption or further processing (Tollessa, 2016). It is an ideal medium for

Microorganisms and as it is a liquid and nutritious, it is very easily contaminated and

invaded by bacteria. As a result, hygienic milk handling practices should take into account

such as the sanitation of milking environment, the hygiene of the milker and utensils used to

collect and store milk (Tsedey and Asrat, 2015).

In Ethiopia, milk hygiene handling practice is below the standard due to insufficient pre-

milking handling practices like washing udder with clean water, cleaning milking barn,

drying the udder with individual towel, washing of milkers’ hands and milking utensils,

using of poor quality and non-boiled water for cleaning of udder and insufficient post

handling practice like poor hygiene of milk equipment and storage containers, prolonged

storage, transportation and retailing practices predispose the milk to microbial contamination

(Tsedey and Asrat, 2015; Fufa et al., 2019). Moreover, use of plastic containers for handling

and transporting of milk increase the risk of contamination of milk higher, since as the

number of plastic containers increased the chance of contamination is also increased and

8
most plastic containers have characteristics that make them unsuitable for milk handling

(Tsedey and Asrat, 2015). In addition, using clay pot for storing milk is another factor. This

device for producers is inconvenient for hygienic cleaning, it also harbors bacteria which

causes milk spoilage and consequently imposes risk of quality deterioration (Tsedey and

Asrat, 2015). The dairy producers clean their milking utensils in different ways, for instance,

washing with or without hot water followed by smoking with different aroma producing

plants like Woira (Oleaafrican), and Tid (Juniperousprocera) used for flavoring and

extending the shelf life, since fumigation have the power of disinfecting (sterilizing) the

milking equipment. Thus, reducing the numbers of microorganisms and thereby extending

the shelf life of milk and milk products, and thereby reducing spoilage (Tsedey and Asrat,

2015). Generally, poor handling practices result in higher the bacterial count, which in turn

may cause spoilage of the milk and poor yields of its products. Moreover, the rise of

bacterial count is unsafe since it causes food borne diseases and imposes a great health risk

on the consumers (Tolessa, 2016).

2.2.3. Milking procedures

Milking should be carried out in such a manner that minimizes contamination of the milk

being produced. Effective hygienic practice during milking is an important element of the

system of controls necessary toproduce safe and suitable milk and milk products. Failure to

maintain adequate sanitation and employeepractices has been shown to contribute to the

contamination of milk with undesirable or pathogenic microorganismsor chemical or

physical hazards (CAC, 2004).It is important to remember that quality control must begin at

the farm. This will make the milk to have fewer bacteria that cause spoilage and diseases. To

ensure good quality and protect the health of consumers, one must always carry out milking

9
in accordance with good hygienic practice (Lore et al., 2006). Follow these rules on the

correct procedures of milking by hand. A good milking technique is essential for the

production of safe, raw milk. The procedure will encompass by cleaning teats, udder and

adjacent parts before cluster attachment, teat dips/sprays must be used in accordance with

manufacturer’s instructions. Milk from each animal must be examined at each milking,

when identified, abnormal milk must be kept separate and not used for human consumption,

and milk from animals showing clinical signs of udder disease must be kept separate and not

used for human consumption. Animals producing milk that is unfit for human consumption

must be clearly identified, milking equipment must be kept clean at all times, and must be

cleaned before milking and kept clean during milking and milk handling, exposed skin

wounds must be hygienically covered (FSA, 2006). Careful udder preparationandcleaning of

the cow prior to milking significantly reduces contamination. Clipping the flanks,

escutcheon, and udder reduces contamination from hair and adhering debris. A maximum

reduction of teat contamination of 90% can be achieved with good udder preparation

(washing with disinfectant and drying with paper towel) before milking. This depends on the

initial level of contamination and the way of udder preparation. Thus, with high initial

contamination levels this 90 % reduction might not be reached (Alehegne, 2004).

2.2.4. Factors Affecting Milk Quality

Extrinsic factors

Refer to factors influencing the product from the environment in which the milk is placed.

Examples include storage equipment, temperature, and time, housing condition, udder

cleanliness, teat contamination and relative humidity of the air (CAC, 2004). The exterior of

the udder can be an important source of contamination. However, the exterior of the udder is

10
influenced by the environment of the cows, in which cows are housed and milked

(Alehegne, 2004). The bacteria that are naturally present on the skin of animal enter into

milk from the surface of the udder and teats; these also include the bacteria that are present

in milking and housing places of animals (Ali et al., 2011). When cows are housed, bedding

material and feedstuffs can be contamination sources. In both cases (housing and pasturing)

faces and dung is also an important contamination source. Contamination of bedding

material can be very high due to absorption of urine and faeces (Alehegne, 2004).

The cows’ udder and teats can contribute microorganisms that are naturally associated with

the skin of the animal as well as microorganisms that are derived from the environment in

which the cow is housed and milked (Nangamso, 2006). Microorganisms are mainly

transferred from the farm environment to milk via dirt (e.g. faeces, bedding and soil)

attached to the exterior of teats; in addition, microorganisms attached to the exterior of the

teats can enter the teat canal and cause mastitis (Vissers and Driehuis, 2008). Teat surfaces

are also sources of clostridial spores in milk. Sources of these spores are feed stuff, silage

and bedding. The number declines markedly when cows go out to pasture because the

pasture environment is cleaner than housing conditions (Alehegne, 2004). It is also unlikely

that personnel contribute significantly as a source of microbial contamination of milk during

machine milking, although workers suffering from certain zoonoses, such as Q fever, may

pose a potential risk (Bramley and Mckinnon, 2004).

Intrinsic factors

Refer to internal factors in the product itself (food matrix), influenced by or as consequence

of extrinsic factors, that have an impact on the growth and/or survival of micro-organisms.

11
Examples include water activity, pH, nutrient availability, competition of micro-organisms,

and bacteriocins or other growth inhibitors (CAC, 2004).

The bacterial contamination in milk emanates from a number of sources including mastitis,

external udder surfaces and from the milking plant (Aberra, 2010). Milk is virtually a sterile

fluid when secreted into alveoli of udder. However, beyond this stage of production,

microbial contamination might generally occur from three main sources; within the udder,

exterior to the udder and from the surface of milk handling and storage equipment, but the

surrounding air, feed, soil, feces and grass are also possible sources of contamination

(Mosuet et al., 2013). Microorganisms are mainly transferred from the farm environment to

milk via dirt (e.g. faeces, bedding, and soil) attached to the exterior of teats. In addition,

microorganisms attached to the exterior of the teats can enter the teat canal and cause

mastitis. Finally, contamination can originate from insufficiently cleaned milking equipment

when, during milking, microorganisms adhered to surfaces of the milking equipment are

released into the milk (Vissers and Driehuis, 2008).

Raw milk as it leaves the udder of healthy cows normally contains very low numbers of

microorganisms and generally will contain less than 1000 total bacteria per ml (Murphy,

1996). Natural flora within the udder of healthy animals is not considered to contribute

significantly to the total numbers of microorganisms in the bulk milk, nor the potential

increase in bacterial numbers during refrigerated storage. Natural floras of the cow generally

have little influence on standard plate counts (SPC) (Alehegne, 2004).

In mastitic udder, bacteria can also end up in the milk and result in illness if the milk is

consumed. In case of mastitis counts of Streptococci, Staphylococcior coliforms will be as

12
high as the total plate count and can be very high up to 107cfu/ml. Bulk milk count may even

increase to 105cfu/ml under certain circumstances (Alehegne, 2004).

2.2.5. Milking and storage equipment management

Milking equipment is normally designed and constructed according to recognized standards

that avoid the introduction of contaminants into milk. Equipment selected for installation on

dairy farms should meet recognized design and construction standards. Recognized

guidelines also exist for the proper use, cleaning and maintenance of milking equipment;

such guidelines should be followed to avoid transfer of disease between animals through

milking equipment and to help ensure obtaining milk that is safe and suitable (CAC., 2004).

Contamination of milk via the milking equipment occurs when (a) microorganisms adhere to

surfaces of the milking equipment and, (b) milk residues that remain in the equipment after

the cleaning cycle. Under these conditions, growth of adhered microorganisms may occur,

especially in cracked and decayed rubber parts that are sensitive to accumulation of

microorganisms. During the next milking, adhered microorganisms can be released into the

milk (Vissers and Driehuis, 2008).

Thorough cleaning of dairy utensils and equipment is essential. Anyone handling milk must

also pay great attention to hygiene. Lack of hygiene can contaminate milk with other types

of bacteria, which turn it sour and reduce its storage life (Pauline and Karin, 2006). The

utensils and equipment used during milking should be made of non-absorbent, corrosion-

resistant material. Use of plastic containers for handling and transporting of milk increase

the risk of contamination of milk higher, since as the number of plastic containers increased

the chance of contamination is also increased and most plastic containers have

characteristics that make them unsuitable for milk handling (Tsedey and Asrat, 2015). In

13
addition, using clay pot for storing milk is another factor. This device for producers is

inconvenient for hygienic cleaning, it also harbors bacteria which causes milk spoilage and

consequently imposes risk of quality deterioration (Tsedey and Asrat, 2015).

Cleaning of milk equipment

Milk storage equipment should be properly installed, maintained and tested in accordance

with manufacturer’s instructions and in accordance with any available technical standards

that have been established by appropriate technical standards setting organizations for such

equipment in order to assist in assuring that the equipment is functioning properly (CAC,

2004). There are various types of cleaning and sanitation agents that have been specially

designed to clean and disinfect milk-handling equipment (Lore et al., 2006). First wash the

utensils with hot water and a detergent. A clean brush with good bristles should be used,

which is only designated for the cleaning of the milk equipment. Detergents are necessary to

clean milking equipment effectively before disinfection. The effectiveness is increased when

warm water is used. This helps to displace milk deposits and to remove dirt, dissolve milk

protein and emulsify the fat.

Disinfections of milk equipments

Disinfectants are required to destroy the bacteria remaining after washing and to prevent

these subsequently from multiplying on the cleaned surfaces. Similarly, their effectiveness is

increased with temperature. Sufficient contact time should be allowed with the surfaces to

be cleaned and disinfected (Pandey and Voskuil, 2011).

2.2.6. Storage of raw milk

After production, milk can be stored in cans and in bulk tanks before collection. Time and

temperature control is important during storage and transport of milk and depends highly on

14
the type and effectiveness of the control measures applied during and after processing. The

multiplication of bacteria in milk is dependent on both the temperature and time of storage.

Therefore, the needs for time/temperature control at farm level should be clearly

communicated by the producers of the milk products (CAC, 2004). The storage temperature

influences the types of bacteria which grow and their spoilage characteristics. Spoilage of

raw milk is due to streptococci and coliforms, resulting in souring of milk. During storage in

bulk tanks and transport, the micro flora of the milk changes from micrococci to

psychrotrophic gram-negative rods. There are many different microorganisms (mainly

bacteria), which can find access to milk, and there are three broad temperature ranges

classifying their optimum growth rates. Organisms with an optimum growth rate at low

temperatures (0-15°C) are psychrophiles, at medium temperatures (20-40°C) are called the

mesophiles and at high temperatures (45-55°C) the thermophiles ((Nangamso, 2006).

In Ethiopia, smallholder milk processing is based on sour milk mainly due to high ambient

temperatures, consumer’s preference and increasing keeping quality of sour milk. Raw and

pasteurized milk could be kept for 2 and 7.5 days at refrigeration temperature respectively

whereas at room temperature it is only 0.9 and 4.3 days respectively (Alehegne,

2004).Having limited the number of bacteria entering milk during milking, it is essential that

contamination from equipment situated between the cow and the refrigerated storage unit is

kept to a minimum. Bacteria are present in the air, dust and water, especially any water

containing traces of milk residues which may have been left in the milking plant overnight,

as such residues provide a very good source of food for bacteria, thereby enabling the

bacterial counts to increase rapidly. In tropical conditions, raw milk, i.e. non-pasteurized

15
milk, goes off within a few hours. It must therefore be kept cool and quickly pasteurized and

again cooled to a temperature of 4°C if possible (Pauline and Karin, 2006).

2.2.7. Overview of milk safety and standards in Ethiopia

In Ethiopia, indigenous dairy products are produced by using traditional materials and

methods, thus becoming potential hosts for many microorganisms (Alganesh and Fekadu,

2012; Abebe et al., 2013). Previous studies have emphasized that the hygienic practices

during production, processing and handling of milk and milk products in different parts of

the country are substandard, which made the quality and safety of milk products

questionable (Amistuet al., 2015). Milk and milk products in Ethiopia are channeled to

consumers through both formal (2%) and informal (95%) marketing systems (Netherlands

Development Organization, 2008). The hygienic condition of milk and milk products

channeled through these systems is poor due to limited knowledge of dairy product handling

accompanied with the inadequacy of dairy infrastructure, such as cooling facilities and

unavailability of clean water in the production areas.

2.2.8. Control of milk spoilage

It is important that control measures are applied during both primary production and

processing to minimize or prevent the microbiological, chemical or physical contamination

of milk. In addition, special attention should be given during the processing of different milk

products so that inadvertent cross-contamination does not occur, including with respect to

ingredients that may contain allergenic substances (CAC, 2004). The control measures used

for chemical and physical hazards in food are generally preventive in nature, i.e., they focus

on avoiding the contamination of food with chemical or physical hazards in the first place

rather than on reducing or eliminating such hazards once they have been introduced into the

16
product. It should be noted however that there are some exceptions to this type of

distinction, e.g., the use of filters, screens and metal detectors to remove certain physical

hazards (CAC, 2004).

Milk is a bulky product containing more than 80% water and is difficult to transport. It has a

short storage life and must be consumed immediately unless it is processed to other products

it deteriorates very fast (Matthewmanet al. 2003). Previous researches have indicated

presence of coliforms in milk at farm level but these have been controlled by chilling

temperatures and totally destroyed at pasteurization temperatures. Milk quality across the

value chain could be improved through; changing milking practices to ensure better hygienic

conditions, improvement of milk handling and improvement of storage conditions

maintaining the cold chain (Mbabazi, 2005).

For production of quality milk, a good supply of clean cold water is essential. Water used in

washing and rinsing milk equipments and containers for handling milk must be of the same

safety and purity as drinking water. If water is obtained from an open water supply, care

should be taken to prevent drainage that may contain human faeces and other contaminants

entering the source. Milk should be handled in containers which are made of seamless

stainless steel without cracks where bacteria can lodge and multiply leading to spoilage and

these containers should be unaffected by milk or by chemicals used in cleansing. Poorly

cleaned and sanitized milking utensils may be the source of many microorganisms which

transform high quality milk to an unacceptable product; therefore, thoroughly cleaned

utensils should be used to handle milk (Mbabazi, 2005).

Milking cows should be kept clean, groomed every day and the udders and teats thoroughly

washed before every milking as the coat and skin are always dirty as this could act as a

17
source of spoilage bacteria (Matthewmanet al. 2003). Dampening of the milking parlour

floor prior to milking is an effective method of preventing dust from rising. This floor

should he solid, well drained, kept clean and manure should he kept as far as possible from

the milking places as these could be sources of contaminants causing milk spoilage.

Personnel connected with the milking and handling of milk should be healthy and should

acknowledge the importance of cleanliness by wearing clean overalls and wash hands with

soap and clean water prior to milking (Mbabazi, 2005). Wet milking should be avoided as

organisms present on the milker’s hands, teats and udder of the cow are washed into milking

utensil contaminating the milk and leading to spoilage (Mbabazi, 2005). Before milking,

excess water on the udder should be cleaned with a clean cloth or udder towel and the first

draw of milk should be collected into a strip cup to exclude mastitis milk from mixing with

normal milk as this will limit spoilage (Lore et al., 2006). Milk should be transferred

between containers by pouring and not scooping since this may introduce spoilage bacteria

into the milk and delivery of milk to collecting centers and processing plants shall be within

three hours of milking to avoid deterioration (Lore et al. 2006). Excessive shaking of milk

should be avoided during transportation and this is achieved by minimizing the head space

when filling the containers and these containers should not be kept under direct sunlight

(Lore et al., 2006).

2.2.9. Raw milk safety concerns

Environmental impact, markets, health (human health, food safety, and animal health), and

institutional arrangements need to be addressed in order to alleviate their negative effects

and enhance the useful contributions of sustainable livestock intensification (Zijppet al.,

2010; HLPE, 2016). The presence of food borne pathogens in milk is determined by the

18
health and hygiene of the dairy stock, environment, the raw milk quality, milking and pre-

storage conditions, available storage facilities, and the workforce (FAO, 2013). More than

90% of all reported cases of dairy-related illness are of bacterial origin, which is mainly due

to consumption of unpasteurized milk (Giffel, 2003). Milk production losses of up to 20

percent in many herds have occurred as the result of high TBC and SCC. Thus, testing raw

milk is crucial to help ensure safety and quality, such as microbial quality, water

adulteration, and the presence of mastitis in the herd. However, problems associated with the

analysis of milk microbial quality have been encountered due to variations in sampling

techniques, laboratory quality, data cleaning (outliers), and lack of interdisciplinary research

and interventions by dairy and public health professionals, etc. The source of microbial

contamination of milk can be from within the udder, from the exterior of the teats and udder,

and from the milk handling and storage equipment (Robinson, 2002). These can be reduced

by cleaning and disinfection of equipment, teats, and udders before and after milking

(Slaghuiset al., 2002).

2.2.10. Public Health Impact of unhygienic and spoiled milk

The economic and nutritional value of milk and dairy products in developing countries is

evident. However, as the industry grows and becomes more market oriented, focus needs to

be placed on the potential risks associated with dairy production and consumption. Milk and

dairy products are a potential source of transmission for many food-borne pathogens due to

a neutral pH and rich nutrient composition (LeJeune and Rajala-Schultz, 2009; Pal and

Jahdav, 2013). Throughout the developing world, over 80% of the milk consumed is

unregulated, and in Ethiopia less than 1% of the milk consumed is pasteurized (FAO, 2009).

Again, there is limited information on the impact of milk-borne disease in these regions, but

19
based on the large amount of unregulated milk consumed and the risks of consuming

unpasteurized dairy products, the impact is likely to be great. Milk can be contaminated with

bacteria of both human and animal origin at any stage in the production to consumption

process. Pathogenic organisms can be excreted in the milk from an infected animal (pre-

harvest), or the contamination can occur at the time of collection, processing, distribution,

and storage (postharvest) (LeJeune and Rajala-Schultz, 2009). When there is contamination

with mass distribution, outbreaks affect more people and cause a greater economic impact.

Focus needs to be placed on food safety standards and procedures for both pre-harvest and

post-harvest activities (LeJeune and Rajala-Schultz, 2009).

2.3. Mastitis

Mastitis is one of the most important diseases affecting dairy cattle (Shook et al., 1994).

Mastitis has an impact on economic, animal productivity, international trade, and animal

welfare issues (Owen et al., 2000).

Mastitis is an inflammation of mammary gland, which can be caused by physical or

chemical agents put the majority of cases are infectious are caused by a variety of

microorganisms, mostly bacteria, which gain access to the interior of the mammary gland

through the teat canal (Quinn et al., 1994). Initially, the small numbers of somatic cells that

are normally present in the milk attempt to resolve this intra-mammary infection (IMI)

immediately. Both bacteria and leukocytes in the infected quarters release chemical

products, many of which are chemo-attractants for the leukocytes. In response, neutrophils

move rapidly from the blood stream into the milk in order to fight the infection. This

constitutes the inflammatory response, which may go unnoticed in the form of SCM or it

may be severe enough to be classified as clinical mastitis (CM) (Suriyaet al., 2000). If the

20
bacteria are contained or destroyed, the recruitment of neutrophils from blood in to the

mammary gland ceases and only a mild inflammatory episode will be required to restore

health in the gland. Occasionally, the innate defense mechanisms of the infected mammary

gland lose the battle with bacteria, which subsequently multiply out of control. This leads to

a prolonged immune response within the mammary gland. Various cell types in the udder

produce abundant soluble factors, such as cytokines, which eventually cause the clinical

signs of mastitis characterized by physical, chemical, and usually bacteriological changes in

the milk and by a pathological change in the mammary tissue (Suriyaet al., 200). Hence, the

udder inflammatory response to IMI can result in an absence or a presence of clinical signs.

Additionally, there may be clinical cases of mastitis in which no pathogens can be detected,

usually defined as bacteriological negative or aseptic mastitis (Radostitset al., 2000)

According to severity mastitis can be characterized as per acute when there is severe

inflammation with a welling, heat and pain of the quarter, with a marked system reaction,

which may be fatal. As acute when there is a severe inflammation without the marked

systemic reaction .As sub-acute when mild inflammation with a persistent abnormality of

the milk, and as sub –clinical when there is evidence of inflammation e.g. high somatic cell

counts (SCC) in the milk without any visible abnormality of the milk or infections by

environmental pathogens can occur at milking, primary exposure appears to be between

milking. Other environmental pathogens reported in this subgroup include proteus, yeasts,

protopathic a species, and Nacardia species, which are opportunistic in nature (watts et al.,

1988. Individual cases or sporadic outbreaks of mastitis may be caused by Pseudomonas

species, Arcanobacterpyogenes, Serratia species, or other unusual pathogens (Radostitset al.,

2000).

21
2.3.1. Mastitis Causing Bacteria

Bacteria cells of Staphylococcus aureus are the cause of mastitis in a dairy cow. Its large

capsule protects the organism from attacks by the cows’ immunological defenses.Bacteria

are known to cause mastitis. Include:- Pseudomonaeruginisa, staphylococcus aureus,

Staphylococcus epidermidis, Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus uberis,

Brucellamalitensis, Corynebacteriumbovis, mycoplapma Species, Escherichia coli (E. Coli),

Klebsiell pneumonia, Kledsienaoxytoca, Eneterbactoracrogens, Pasteurella Species,

Truepereuapyrogens (provision arcane bacterium pyozenses), Protense Species,

Protothecazopfii(achlorophylcalge),Protothecawikerhamili(achlorophyllicalge) (Keneth et

al., 2013).

Major bacteria (pathogens)

These bacteria can cause clinical mastitis, udder tissue damage, and long term or chronic

subclinical infections. The major bacteria can be split into two categories, those that are cow

associated (or contagious), and those which are environmental in origin. The cow-associated

bacteria are Staph. aurous and Strep. agalactiae while the main environmental bacteria are

Strep. uberis, Strep. Dysgalactiae and coliforms (LI, 2001). The most important major

pathogens involved in bovine mastitis worldwide are Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus

uberis, Streptococcus dysgalactiae, Streptococcus agalactiae, Escherichia coli and

Klebsiella spp. (Idriss et al., 2013).

Minor bacteria (pathogen)

These bacteria cause less udder damage but cause slight to moderate increases in SCC.

While these infections usually remain subclinical, clinical episodes can occur (LI, 2001).

Some organisms, particularly non-hemolytic coagulase negative Staphylococci (CNS) and

22
Corynebacterium bovis are almost ubiquitous inhabitants of the bovine mammary gland and

are regarded as part of the normal flora (Gizat, 2004). Minor bacteria can be contagious;

especially C. bovisbut can be readily controlled by effective post-milking teat sanitation.

There is growing evidence that subclinical infections by either CNS or C. bovismay put the

udder more at risk of developing an infection by major bacteria (LI, 2001).

2.3.2. Diagnosis of mastitis using California mastitis test (CMT)

The early detection of disease is very important because in the early stages it is amenable to

treatment. Physical examination of the udder helps in detecting cases where changes have

occurred. The California mastitis test is most commonly used and has proved to be very

efficient, After mixing milk and the reagent the result is read as - (negative), + (weakly

positive), ++ (distinct positive), +++ (Strongly positive), depending upon the gel formation

in the milk sample (Quinn et al., 2002).

Table 1: Interpretation of CMT scores

CMT Score Interpretation

- Negative (Healthy Quarter)
+ Weak positive
++ Distinct positive
+++ Strong positive Serious Mastitis Infection

Others have suggested that SCC in milk from a healthy udder should be below 100,000

cells/ml milk (Forsbäck, 2009). And some authors have even mentioned 50 000 cells/ml per

udder quarter (Merle et al., 2007). It is well known that good environmental hygiene

(Barberget al., 2007).Cleanliness of dairy cows, washing and dipping teats after milking and

23
good milking routines are important for ensuring udder health. Clean bedding, the housing

system, and stocking density are also important (Veissieret al., 2004).

2.3.3. Control of mastitis

Mastitis in the dairy cow is a disease complex in which bacterial infections, trauma, and

faulty managerial practices play important roles. Experiences in attempts to control mastitis

indicate that while the occurrence of inflammation in the udder may not be entirely

preventable in all cows, the frequency of appearance among cows with in a herd and the

intensity of clinical attacks may be lessened significantly through better management

(Fincher et al., 2001). According to Radostitset al. (2006), Components of Mastitis Control

Program includes, Use proper milking management methods, Proper installation, function,

and maintenance of milking equipment, Dry cow management, Appropriate therapy of

mastitis during lactation, Culling chronically infected cows, Maintenance of an appropriate

environment, Good record keeping, Monitoring udder health status, Periodic review of the

udder health management program and Setting goals for udder health status. Dry cow

therapy is the use of intramammary antimicrobial therapy immediately after the last milking

of lactation and is an important component of an effective mastitis control program (LI,

2001). Prior to 1940, chronic bovine mastitis was an incurable disease, at least in the United

States. Then in quick succession, acriflavine, silver oxide, iodine, sulfanilamide, and

tyrothricinwere used for intramammary treatment of chronic mastitis caused by

streptococcus agalactiae (Fincher et al., 2001).

2.3.4. Prevalence of bovine mastitis in Ethiopia

Different studies conducted in different parts of Ethiopia showed variable prevalence of

mastitis depending on the type of farm and managements systems. Biffa et al. (2005)

24
conducted a study on mastitis of 974 lactating dairy cows in Southern Ethiopia as, 34.9%

had mastitis; 11.9% clinical, and 23.0% subclinical mastitis respectively. Mastitis

prevalence in dairy farms of Holleta town, Central Ethiopia at cow level was 71.0% out of

which 22.4% and 48.6% were clinical and subclinical, respectively. The Holleta study also

revealed the quarter level prevalence of mastitis as 44.9%; from this the clinical form was

10.0% and the subclinical was 34.8% (Mekibib et al., 2010). Mulugeta and Wassie (2013)

also carried out a research on Prevalence of bovine mastitis in and around Wolaita Sodo,

Southern Ethiopia. From the total of 349 lactating cows examined, 29.5%were positive for

mastitis. Of these (2.6%) and (26.9%) were found to be positive for clinical mastitis and

subclinical mastitis, respectively. According to Zerihun et al. (2013), a total of 499 cross-

bred cows from 38 dairy farms were examined for mastitis detection and out of which

74.7% cows were found to be affected with clinical and sub clinical mastitis based on the

clinical diagnosis and CMT.

2.3.5. Risk factors influencing prevalence of mastitis

Host risk factor

A great number of cow-specific risk factors for CM have been identified, including breed,

parity, period of lactation, udder and teat morphology, age, milk production and number of

milk somatic cells increase (Peeler et al., 2000; Nyman et al., 2007; Valde et al., 2007). The

levels of SCC are elevated in early lactation and gradually increase towards the end of

lactation (Schepers et al., 1997). Early stage and late stage of the mammary glands were the

most susceptible stages. This is possibly due to absence of dry cow therapy that is

considered major factor contributing to high prevalence at early lactation (Biffa et al., 2005).

Prevalence of mastitis is highest in pure breeds followed by crosses; and indigenous zebu

25
being less frequently affected than others. The increase in prevalence in exotic breeds as

opposed to local indigenous zebus could be the indigenous zebu are low in milk production

and Higher yielding cows are more susceptible to mastitis (Radostits et al., 2006; Moges et

al., 2012). Age of cows has effects in occurring of mastitis. It has been shown that

manifestation of mastitis in infected quarter’s increases with advancement of age in cows

(Harmon et al., 1994). This may be due to more dilated teat canals in older age, permanent

udder tissue damage resulting from the primary infection or due to an increased cellular

response to intra mammary infection after parturition, early lactation and during the dry

period and the incidence of mastitis is reported to be higher during these times (Sharma et

al., 2011).

The prevalence of SCM increases with increasing lactation number and parities (Awaleet

al., 2012). Cows with the most pendulous quarters appear to be the most susceptible to

mammary infections, the pendulous udder exposes the teat and udder to injury and

pathogens easily adhere to the teat and gain access to the gland tissue (Sori et al., 2005).

Environmental and Pathogen Risk Factors

The cows’ environment influences the number and types of bacteria exposed to their ability

to resist those organisms. The design of housing system, hygiene, and size of milking cow

herd, milking practice and the climate interact to influence the degree of exposure of a cow

to mastitis pathogens (Radostits et al., 2006). Moisture, mud and manure present in exposure

for environmental mastitis pathogens. In fact in many studies in Ethiopia such as those

conducted by Lakew et al.(2009) a higher prevalence is recorded in cows with poor hygiene

in the milking process. Intensively managed cows present a higher risk for the development

26
of mastitis, followed by semi-intensive, with least risk among extensively managed animals

(Sori et al., 2005).

The occurrence of mastitis varies from season to season, because growth and multiplication

of organisms depends on specific temperature and humidity. Incorrect ventilation, with high

temperature and relative humidity, encourages the multiplication of various bacteria.

Exposure of animals to high temperature can increase the stress of the animal and alter

immune functions (Sudhan and Sharma, 2010). In Ethiopia, it was noticed by Dego and

Tareke (2003) that the prevalence was higher in the rainy season than in the dry season.

Different types of milking methods (stripping, knuckling, full hand method, machine

milking) are practiced by dairy farmers. Faulty milking practices, especially knuckling,

cause great harm to tissue and they become prone to infection (Sudhan and Sharma, 2010).

27
 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1. Description of the Study Area

The study was conducted in Dara Otilcho District of Sidama People’s National Regional

State located in southern part of Ethiopia (Fig. 1). The District is located 77 km away from

the regional city Hawassa. It extends between 6°50’4’’ N latitude and 38°23’36’’ E

longitude (Dara Otilcho District Agriculture Office, 2020). The altitude of the District town

called Teferikela is 1855 meters above sea level. The study area receives an annual rainfall

of 900 mm to 1200 mm and an annual temperature ranges from 20 °C to 25 °C. The study

area has a wet season from April to October and dry season is November to March. The

District borders with Aleta wondo District to the North, Dara District to the South, Oromiya

region to the East and Aletachuko District to the West direction. The total land area of the

District is about 9501.38 hectares (Dara Otilcho District Agriculture Office, 2020).

The District has a suitable climatic condition for agricultural products mainly Inset, Coffee

and others like Corn, teff and other crops and cattle breed is the Borena cattle. The District is

classified into Dega and Woina-dega agro-climatic zones. Soil types are mainly clay and silt

is dominant. Some forests are available in the district; however, no wild conservations areas

are found (Dara Otilcho District Public Relation Office, 2020). The farming system

practiced in District is a mixed farming system and the grazing lands are covered by

different vegetation types. According to the Dara Otilcho District livestock and fishery

resource development office report, the total livestock population of the District is consists

of more than 32770 local and 7923 crossbred cattle, 16893 sheep, 14717 goats, 7963 local

12170 exotic poultry and 1853 horse, 489 donkeys, and 133 mules. The total livestock

population of the District is 94,911. The total human population of the Dara Otilcho District

28
is 109,747. Among these 53,776 (49%) male and 55971 (51%) female (Dara Otilcho District

Public Relation Office., 2020).

Sidama national regional state

Dara Otilcho district

Figure 1: Map of the study area.

29
3.2. Study animals
The major cattle breeds of the study area included indigenous (Local (highland zebu)),
Local×Jersey andLocal x Holstein Friesian crossbreds.

3.3. Sampling procedure and Sample size determination

The sampling procedure was stratified and then both random and purposive sampling

procedures were employed. Study Kebeles were selected based on their agro-ecologies (i.e.,

Dega and Woina-dega), and two kebeles from each Agro-ecologywere selected purposively

based on the obtained information from the rapid field visit together with available

secondary information depending onpoental of dairy cow . Households and sampling cows

were selected randomly. The sample size of CMT tasted cows was determined using the

formula recommended by Thrusfield (2007).

𝟏.𝟗𝟔𝟐 𝐏𝐞𝐱𝐩 (𝟏−𝐏𝐞𝐱𝐩)

N=
𝐝𝟐

Where; N is the required sample size, 1.96 is the value of 𝑍 at the 95% confidence level,

Pexpis the expected prevalence of mastitis which is assumed to be 45% because of

noprevious study in the area, thus, it was assumed by referring other studies with

similarcondition in Sidama region. 𝑑 is the desired absolute precision, which is 5%.

3.4. Study design and methodology

3.4.1. Questionnaire Survey

The survey was conducted to gather relevant information from those who have better

experience in the subject. The questionnaire was used to collect primary data from selected

respondents. The questionnaires were pre-tested and all essential amendments were made

for it. Four kebeleswere purposively selected from 18 kebeles of the Dara Otilcho district

namely Bamisa, Tula Hiricha, Shoicho and Lelawomerera based on agro-ecology, i.e

30
(Degaand Woina-dega) of the district and based on number of lactating cows in the kebele.

From Dega agro-ecology, Bamisa and Tula Hirichawere selected and from Woina-dega,

Shoicho and LelawomereraKebeles were selected. A semi-structured questionnaire survey

was conducted on the randomly selected 50 households from each selected Kebele and a

total of 200 households were selected for survey.

3.4.2. Focus group discussion

Focus group discussion was undertaken in each of the 4 selected kebeles to discuss on the

hygienic milk production practices and prevalence of dairy cow mastitis, and major

challenges/constraints and opportunities for hygienic milk production and mastitis

prevalence in the area. The discussion was based on the checklist and facilitated by

researchers. There were 4 focus group discussions (one per kebele) and the number of

participants per focus group discussion was 12. The outcome of the FGD also enabled to

refine the questionnaire to be used for household survey.

3.4.3. Milk sample collection for mastitis test

From these selected kebeles, (2 kebeles from each agro-ecology), a total of 380 milking

cows (95 milking cows from the each kebeles) were selected randomly for California

Mastitis Test (CMT) test. Prevalence of mastitis was determined at cow as well as at quarter

levels (LF, LR, RF, RR) using CMT from taken cows of the four kebeles. All the animals

selected as sampling unit were checked. Then, the selected study animal was properly

restrained and milk samples were collected from four quarters by taking about 1 teaspoon

(2ml) milk sample from each quarter into CMT paddle. CMT paddle has four shallow cups

marked A, B, C and D to help identify the individual quarter from which the milk samples

were obtained. Equal amount of CMT solution were added into each cup in the paddle then,

31
rotated the CMT paddle in a circular motion for few seconds to be able thoroughly mix the

contents. The test was observed immediately for visible reaction disintegrates after about 20

seconds. The reaction of each milk sample was scored as more gel formation (the higher the

score) and as negative if no thickening of the mixture were observed and remains liquid

(NMC, 1991), (Pamela et al., 2005).

3.4.4. Clinical inspection of cow’s udder

The udder and teats were first examined visually and then by palpation to detect possible

fibrosis, inflammatory swellings, visible injury, tick infestation, atrophy of the tissue and

swellings of supra mammary lymph nodes. The teat condition (color changes, swelling at or

near the teat base, swelling or firmness at or near the teat end, openness of the teat orifice,

teat skin condition, signs of vascular damage like petechial hemorrhage, etc.) was evaluated

during clinical examination (More,1989), (Radostits et al., 2007). Upon palpation, one can

feel hot, painful swelling on udder and ventral abdomen and mis-shaped and any blind, hard

and fibrotic quarters that was manifested by loss of appetite, depression, recumbence and

blood mixed milk was considered to have acute clinical mastitis. In chronic mastitis,

continuous or intermittent discharge of pus, clots, flakes or watery secretion will be seen

from the udder (Chauhan and Agarwal, 2006; Lakew et al., 2009; NMC, 1990).

3.4.5. California Mastitis Test (CMT)

The udder, especially teats were cleaned and dried by a sterile towel before sample

collection. Each teatwas scrubbed with cotton moistened with 70% ethyl alcohol. The first

three strips of milk was discarded then after about 2ml of milk from each quarter was placed

in each of four marked (with A,B,C,D) cups of CMT plastic paddle. To perform CMT, the

first squirt of foremilk wasdiscarded and then 2 ml of milk from each quarter was placed in

32
each plastic paddlecompartment of cups.The paddle was tiltedto equalize milk quantities in

the cup, and equal amount of commercial reagent (Sodium lauryl sulphate)was added. The

paddle was rotatedto mix the sample with the reagent added.Thickness of a gel formed and

changes in color were considered as indicators of severity level of inflammation of udder

due tomastitis (Davidet al., 2005). Results were recorded based on the thickness of the gel

formed by CMT reagent and milk mixture. The interpretation of the CMT was evocated and

the results were graded as – (negative), + (weak positive), ++ (distinct positive), +++

(strongly positive) and B (Blind) according to Quinn et al. (2002) and NMC (1990).

3.4.6. Measuring Milk yield performance of cows

Milk yield (MY) was recorded daily morning and evening for a period of three weeks. All

selected milking cows were categorized under 3 lactation stages. The cows were considered

at their early, mid and late lactation stages when they are at 1-12 weeks, 13-31 weeks and

32-42 weeks after calving, respectively. Thus, the milk yield of each cows was considered

for due stage of lactations which the cow was in. MY was recorded for individual animals

both in the morning and evening milking a total of 42 records was reported. The

measurement using hand milking. The sum of recorded liters, whichwas then reportedas the

individual milk yield per cow per day. A total of 380 cows were recorded for MY per day,

of which 186 cows were at early, 130 cows at mid , and 64 cows at late stages of their

lactation .

3.5. Methods of Data Collection

Primary data was collected through field observations, semi-structured questionnaire, and

physical observation of cow udder, focus group discussion, and California mastitis test

(CMT). For the secondary data, previous studies and literatures was reviewed to assess

33
current cattle and hygienic milk production in the study area. The secondary data relevant to

the investigation with respect to study district was collected from government organizations

and other stakeholders.

3.6. Data Analysis

The collected data was checked for any debugand incompatibilityand entered to Excel

spread sheet, coded, and transferred to SPSS version 20. Both the survey and CMT data was

analyzed using SPSS software. For descriptive statistics presentation of categorical data Chi-

square test (𝑋 2 ) wasapplied to compare the different groups of age, sex, and various risk

factors, with the outcome variable (mastitis). P-value less than or equals to 5% (0.05) was

considered statistically significant. The Conistraints was calculated by summarizing the

single item of ranks and dividing this by the sum of all weighed item listed by number of

respondents.

34
 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Household characteristics of the study areas

Overall, among the interviewed households, 94% were male headed and the remaining (6%)

were female headed. The values of the male and female-headed households were

comparable in both agro-ecology (Table 2). The survey result indicated that the farms were

owned by male headed households andconsiderable role of female member of the

households in farm related activities.The current result is in line with the result of Kiros

(2019) who reported in peri-urban areas of Assela 95% of the household heads were

male.As general issue in Ethiopian context, current result is agreed with most of published

researches regarding to ownership of livestock in sex differences (Zahra et al. 2014,

Mulemaet al. 2017)

The mean and standard error of the family size in the studiedkebeles was 6.1±0.28 persons

per household and it is slightly higher in the highland (Dega) kebeles that the mid highland

(Weina-Daga) kebeles (Table 2). The present finding was comparable with the one reported

by Kedija (2008) for Meiso district (6.62) ofEastern Ethiopia and Kiros (2019) for Asela

area (6.1). Desalegnet al (2020) also reported that mean family size 6.2±0.19 in Nort

western and western zones of Tigray.

Majority (43%) of the interviewed households wereilliterate, and followed by read and write

(18%) and by those who attended primary school (28%).The remaininginterviewed

households (11%) were attended above6 grade, respectively. However, there was

differencein educational background of the interviewed householdsbetween the kebeles. The

results showed above 50% of respondents from the highland kebeles were illiterate, while

less than 35% of the respondents from mid-highland kebeles were illiterate. The high

35
illiteracy ration reported in this study particularly in the highland kebeles indicated that may

affect the transfer and adoption of technology, indicating that with good extension and

training program they can improve their dairy production and marketing systems which are

mainly based on traditional system currently.

The interviewed households in the study area are engaged in other income generation

activities in addition to dairy farming (Table 2). Overall, majority (94.5%) of the dairy farms

were owned by farmers engaged in farming (both crop and livestock), followed by

employee (3.5%) and off-farm business (2%) such as earning money by hand crafts such as

basket making, mat making, etc.Regarding farming, 47.25±1.25 of respondents among all

kebelespracticed farming (both crop and livestock) as their main occupation. This is because

the area is suitable for both crop and livestock production and the soil type are mostly good

for different crop production as well as livestock feed growth. About (2%) of the people

participated in some off-farm activities such as merchants of different goods and different

hand crafts such as making mats, baskets, etcas an income source and about (3.5%)

respondents have formal employed by government (civil servants).

Age category of majority of respondents (59%) were falls within the age group of >46

yearsand 38% of respondents falls within 36-45 age category. Based on this result, we can

conclude that majority of respondents are not in productive age category and this may hinder

agricultural productivity in study area (Table 2). The result of this study showed that 188

(94%) of the respondents, household head (husband) is the owner of cattle in the family and

wife owners were (6%) because of in absence (death) of husband or he may have running

off-farm business.

36
Table 2: Socio-economic profile of the respondents in Dara Otilcho District of Sidama region.
Variables Agro-ecology Overall
Dega Woina-dega (n=200)
Bamisa T/ hiricha Shoicho L/wome
(n=50) (n=50) (n=50) (n=50)
Gender of HHs head , % (n)
Male 97% (47) 96%(48) 94%(47) 92%(46) 94%(188)
Female 6%(3) 4%(2) 6%(2) 8%(4) 6%(12)
Educational level, % (n)
Illiterate 62%(31) 54%(27) 22%(11) 34%(17) 43%(86)
Read and write 14%(7) 14%(7) 28%(14) 16%(8) 18%(36)
Primary school 18%(9) 20%(10) 38%(19) 36%(18) 28%(56)
Above grade 6 6%(3) 12%(6) 12%(6) 14%(7) 11%(22)
Major occupation of HHs head , % (n)
Crop&Lvsk farming 100%(50) 96%(48) 88%(44) 94%(47) 94.5%(189)
Off-farm activities - - 6%(3) 2%(1) 2%(3)
Employee (Gov.insti.) - 4%(2) 6%(3) 4%(2) 3.5%(7)
Age of HHs heads. % (n)
<20 years - - - - -
21-35 years 8%(4) 4%(2) - - 3%(6)
36-45 years 44%(22) 42%(21) 30%(15) 36%(18) 38%(76)
>46 years 48%(24) 54%(27) 70%(35) 64%(32) 59%(118)
Family size (Mean±SE) 6.9±047 6.2±0.77 5.8±0.93 5.6±1.02 -
SE=Standard Error, N= Number, SE=Standard error, T/hiricha= Tula Hiricha, L/wome= LellaWomerera, Gov. instu = employed in governmental
institution, Lvsk=Livestock, HHs=House holds

37
4.2. Livestock holding and management in study area

4.2.1. Livestock holding capacity in study area

Livestock compositions of the randomly sampled households in studied districtare presented

in Table 3.From the overall interviewed households from all kebeles, cattle were composed

of calves (male 0.68±0.09, and female 0.85±0.51),cows (lactating 1.26±0.10 and dry

1.74±0.08), and oxen (castrated 0.23±1.16 and bull 0.51±0.75).Regarding the small

ruminant species, goat, kids (male 0.29±0.43 and female 0.47±0.39) and mature goat (male

0.22±1.26and female 0.50±0.62). Regarding sheep species, lambs comprises (male

0.45±0.55 and female 0.68±0.61) and mature sheep (male 0.22±1.26 and female0.76±0.71).

Regarding equine species comprises 0.11±1.49 and 0.35±1.08 donkeys and horses

respectively and 4.89±0.10 poultry were holded in each household in average.Cattle species

were the most dominant among other livestock totaling up to 5.28±1.00 per household and

equines covering the less proportion (0.47±0.90 per household) in study kebeles.The

livestock species kept in the area include cattle, poultry, small ruminants and equine. Cattle

are the dominant livestock type in the study area.

38
Table 3: Livestock holding capacity in households of four studied Kebeles of Dara Otilcho District.

Livestock Species Agro-ecology Overall

Dega (Mean±SE) Woina-dega (Mean±SE) (Mean±SE)
Bamisa T/ hircha Shoicho L/wome
Calves Male 0.82±0.71 0.76±0.68 0.52±0.86 0.62±0.66 0.68±0.09
Female 1±0.09 1.02±0.11 0.62±0.74 0.76±0.55 0.85±0.51
Total 1.82±0.06 1.77±0.08 1.14±0.11 1.38±0.10 1.53±0.09
Cows Lactating 1.64±0.10 1.52±0.09 0.92±0.08 0.98±0.01 1.26±0.10
Dry 2±0.12 1.8±0.10 1.54±0.04 1.62±0.04 1.74±0.08
Total 3.64±0.12 3.32±0.11 2.46±0.12 2.6±0.11 3.00±1.01
Oxen Castrated 0.54±1.37 0.26±1.62 0.08±1.71 0.06±1.80 0.23±1.16
Bull 0.82±0.77 0.6±0.80 0.24±0.94 0.4±0.84 0.51±0.75
Total 1.36±0.19 0.86±0.29 0.32±0.33 0.46±0.30 0.75±0.37
Total cattle spp. 6.82±0.82 5.96±0.10 3.92±0.11 4.44±0.99 5.28±1.00
Goat (Kid) Male 0.16±0.83 0.2±0.89 0.4±0.44 0.42±0.57 0.29±0.43
Female 0.32±0.77 0.46±0.62 0.56±0.29 0.56±0.44 0.47±0.39
Total 0.48±0.64 0.66±0.53 0.96±0.09 0.98±0.22 0.77±0.16
(Mature goat) Male 0.14±1.77 0.16±1.49 0.26±1.13 0.32±1.08 0.22±1.26
Female 0.44±0.74 0.48±0.81 0.58±0.51 0.52±0.63 0.50±0.62
Total 0.58±0.55 0.64±0.46 0.84±0.38 0.84±0.44 0.72±0.38
Total goat spp. 1.06±0.46 1.3±0.31 1.8±0.27 1.82±0.21 1.49±0.36
Sheep (lamb) Male 0.78±0.73 0.72±0.66 0.12±1.22 0.18±0.94 0.45±0.55
Female 1.12±0.47 1.2±0.47 0.18±0.99 0.22±0.84 0.68±0.61
Total 1.9±0.32 1.92±0.35 0.3±1.00 0.4±0.96 1.13±0.23
Mature sheep Male 0.56±0.55 0.38±0.33 0.08±0.88 0.06±1.92 0.27±0.92
Female 1.12±0.77 1.2±0.92 0.36±0.67 0.36±0.96 0.76±0.71
Total 1.68±0.78 1.58±0.80 0.44±0.95 0.42±1.10 1.03±0.31
Total sheep spp. 3.58±1.02 3.5±0.50 0.74±1.11 0.82±0.81 2.16±0.88
Equine Donkey 0.06±1.52 0.1±01.02 0.12±1.15 0.18±1.33 0.11±1.49
Horse 0.8±0.77 0.56±0.51 0.04±1.39 0.02±1.20 0.35±1.08
Total 0.86±0.91 0.66±0.77 0.16±1.02 0.2±0.97 0.47±0.99
Poultry Total 3.5±0.21 4.02±0.18 5.29±0.11 6.12±0.10 4.89±0.10
SE=Standard Error, T/Hiricha=Tula hiricha, L/wome= Lellawomerera

39
4.2.2. Constraints of livestock production and productivity in study area

According to the focus group members revealed, Dara Otilcho woreda have several common

problems that limit livestock production. Livestock husbandry knowledge gaps, shortage of

grazing land availability, feed shortage, livestock disease and lack of improved breed are

mentioned among others as major constraints of livestock production and productivity in

study area. The participants of the FGDs in each of the four Kebeles identified several

limitations to livestock production and listed them in ranked order through ranking(Table 4).

Table 4: Major Constraints of livestock production and productivity in Dara Otilcho district
based on Focus group discussion

Major issues Rank Suggested solutions by focus group discussion

Lack of knowledge Rank 1 Intensive capacity building in line with different needs,
Trainings needed for farmers and extension workers.
Shortage of Grazing Rank 2 Farmers should leave fixed piece of land for grazing
landavailability purpose only, Farmers should agree to create communal
grazing lands in each villages and avoiding transferring of
grazing lands to cultivation for cropping.
Feed shortage Rank 3 Alternative livestock feed resources should be potentially
utilized effectively, Proper preservation and utilization of
crop residue (CR) and intensive production of improved
forage species and using different industry by-products are
vital solutions.
Livestock disease Rank 4 Utilization of traditional and veterinary medicine, Isolation
of the diseased animals.
Lack of improved Rank 6 The using of AI services effectively, Avoiding mating
breed cows with home (parent) bulls.
Water shortage Rank 5 Spring development for home and livestock consumption
and constructing dug well water burrows are important
solutions.

40
Therefore, Intensive capacity building in line with different needs, alternative livestock feed

resources utilization, Proper preservation and utilization of crop residue (CR), intensive

production of improved forage species, utilization of traditional and veterinary medicine

services, effective using of AI services, etc are a vital solutions for such constraints.

4.2.3. Purpose of keeping cattle in study area

According tothe survey result, farmers kept cattle mostly for milk (95.5%), cash earning

(94%) by selling live animals and their products and/or both, soil fertility (89.5%), social

prestige (wealth measurement) (45%) and Draft power (8.5%) respectively (Table 5).

Table 5: Purpose of keeping cattle in Dara Otilcho Woreda

Purpose Frequency (N= 200 ) Percentage (%)

Milk 191 95.5%
Cash earning 188 94%
Soil fertility 179 89.5%
Social prestige 90 45%
Draft power 17 8.5%

4.2.4. Cattle feed resources and its availability in study area

As majority of the respondents indicated, the main source of feed of cattle in the study area

was natural pasture (Table 6). From theis the respondents ranked Inset is the 2nd mostly used

feed type in study area because of the shortage of other feed types and inset is mostly use in

dry seasons and its parts used are leaf, steam and tuber. Respondents also agreed that crop

residues/Stover of maize and sorghum as the 3rd major sources of feed for cattle. Avocado

leaves, other local available leafy plants and cultivated pastures were ranked 4th, 5th, and 6th

respectively. Other leafy plants locally called birbira, wanza. The feeding system practiced

41
was commonly free grazing system in own land and communally land where cattle could

graze freely.

Table 6: Weighted rank of the main feed sources for cattle in Dara Otilcho district of Sidama
Regional State

Type of animal feed 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th RI Rank
Natural pastures 61 50 0.601 1st
Inset 27 13 - 2 1 - 0.230 2nd
Crop residue 9 6 5 3 - - 0.110 3rd
Avocado leaves - 2 3 2 3 1 0.034 4th
Cultivated pastures - - 1 1 - 1 0.008 6th
Other leafy plants - - 1 1 3 4 0.017 5th
Total 97 71 10 9 7 6 1

Livestock feeds are the major inputs in any milk production activity (Sintayehu et al., 2008).

As all the respondents indicated, the main source of feed of cattle in the study area was

natural pasture (grazing) and crop-residue next to Inset. In general crop residues and natural

pasture are the major feed resources of the area which agree with the report of Tolera et al.

(2012) who indicated that natural pasture and crop residue to be the major feed resources for

highlands of Ethiopia. This indicated that farmers have no awareness and motivations for

intensive production of improved forage species and using different industry by-products are

and this leads to low productivity of milking cows due to the shortage of balanced feed

resources in study area. In study area, grazing lands are steadily shrinking due to the

conversion of grazing lands to crop lands, and are restricted to the areas that have little value

of farming potential. This was a bottle neck for livestock feed production in study district.

This finding is in line with the report of Seyoum et al. (2007) who indicated that the major

42
basal feed resources for cattle in Mecha districts and the highlands of Ethiopia, respectively,

are natural pasture, crop residue and stubble grazing.

4.3. Milk Production

4.3.1. Milk yield of cows in study area

The Average daily milk yield of local cows at households level was estimated to be

1.43±0.02, 0.73±0.01 and 0.33±0.00 Liters for early, mid and late lactation, respectively

(Table 7). In case of crossbred cows, the average daily MY was 1.95±0.02, 1.17±0.03 and

0.59±0.00 Liters for early, mid and late lactation stages, respectively.Breed wise, the results

showed a statistically significant (P=0.003) between local and cross breedsin each lactation

stages. The maximum milk yield was found to be 1.5 liter per milking in Lellawomerera

kebele which is very rare, and the minimum milk yield was found in Bamisa and Tula

hiricha kebeles (1.4 liter) from local cow in early lactation stage respectively and maximum

and minimum milk yield from cross breed cows was recorder 2 liters and 1.9 liters in

Lellawomerera and Bamisa kebeles respectively (Table 7). This indicates that these two

kebeles are found in different agro-ecologies, woina-dega and dega respectively and the

variation is because of the availability of quality feed resources, management practices and

environmental variations such as coldness and uncomfortable muddy bedding in Bamisa

environment and the cows are susceptible to different diseases, among the diseases the

mastitis is the highly prevalent in this kebele and generally, the area of Bamisa and Tula

hiricha kebeles is not suitable and comfortable for dairy cows bedding. Average lactation

length in study area (Table 7) in this study was found to be 277.5±0.84 for local cows and

198.7±1.01 for improved cows, as dairy cow owners said. The current finding has difference

from the one reported by Desalegn et al (2020) that the average lactation length in dairy cow

43
found to be 189 ±0.19 days or 6.3 months in North western zone of Tigray. This difference

may be resulted in the variation of agro-ecology and breed reared in those study areas.

Table 7: Milk yield (Liters) and lactation length (days) of cattle in Dara Otilcho district,
Sidama Regional state.

Variables Lactation Milk yield (Mean + SE) Overall

stage Dega Woina-dega Mean Sig.
Bamisa T/Hircha Shoicho L/wome
Early 1.4±0.05 1.4±0.04 1.45±0.05 1.5±0.05 1.43±0.02
Local cow Mid 0.71±0.02 0.73±0.02 0.73±0.03 0.75±0.03 0.73±0.01
Late 0.33±0.02 0.36±0.03 0.33±0.03 0.33±0.03 0.33±0.00 0.003
Crossbre Early 1.90±0.04 1.94±0.03 1.97±0.03 2.00±0.03 1.95±0.02
dcow Mid 1.08±0.02 1.17±0.03 1.18±0.03 1.27±0.03 1.17±0.03
Late 0.58±0.03 0.59±0.02 0.61±0.03 0.61±0.03 0.59±0.00
Local cow 300±0.90 300±1.00 270±1.01 240±1.10 277.5±0.4
Lactati

in days
length
on

Crossbred 210±1.21 210±1.13 195±0.99 180±1.21 198.7±1.01

cow
SE= Standard error, E.L=Early lactation, M.La=Mid-lactation, L.La=Late lactation, T/Hiricha= Tula
Hiricha, L/wome= Lela womerera

The current result is in line with the result of Saba (2015) who reported that, the overall

average amount of milk produced by local breed cows was 1.4 litters /day for 180 days of

lactation in Ejerie district of West Shoa zone. On the other hand, the present estimate is

lower as compare with Getu et al (2009) who reported 11.9 litter/day for 270 days lactation

length for crossbred cows. The current results were also lower than the overall average

lactation lengths of local and crossbred cows were 9.8 and 10.1 months, respectively in

Burie district (Adebabay, 2009). There was a variation, it may because of the difference in

agro-ecology, breed performance and management practices including feed resource

availability and utilization variations.

44
4.3.2. Breed and milk yield performance in study area

Milk yield was recorded for both local and cross breeds individual animals in study area and

milk yield was categorized in average under three categories (Table 8). Among the total 159

of cross breed cows which has average milk yield of 1.75 litre, 0.725 litre and 1.2 liters was

(62.9%), (8.2%) and (28.9%) respectively. Among the total of 221 local breed cows which

has milk yield between 1.5-2,0.45-1 and 1-1.4 liters was (19.9%), (18.6%) and (61.5%)

respectively. Among the total of 380 cows their milk yield recorded, a number of cows

which has yielding in average 1.75 litre, 0.725 litre and 1.2 liters was 236, 54 and 90 and

which was statistically significant (P= 0.005).The contribution of milk production in study

area was found to be 41.8% from cross breed dairy cow and 58.2% of from indigenous local

breed dairy cows.

45
Table 8: Breed and average milk yield in Dara Otilcho district, Sidama Regional state.

Average Milk yield

Total P-value
1.75 Ɩit. 0.725 Ɩit. 1.2 Ɩit.
Count 100a 13b 46c 159
Expected Count 98.7 22.6 37.7 159.0
Cross % within Breed 62.9% 8.2% 28.9% 100.0%
42.4% 24.1% 51.1% 41.8% 0.005
Breed % within MY
Count 44a 41b 136a 221
Expected Count 52.3 31.4 137.3 221.0
Local % within Breed 19.9% 18.6% 61.5% 100.0%
% within MY 48.9% 75.9% 57.6% 58.2%

Count 144 54 182 380

Expected Count 151.0 54.0 175.0 380.0
Total % within Breed 23.7% 14.2% 62.1% 100.0%

% within milk yield 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

MY=Milk yield, Ɩit.=Litre, P=P-value≤ (0.05) was considered statistically significant.

a,b,c= Each subscript letter denotes a subset of milk yield categories whose column proportions do not differ
significantly from each other at the 0.05 level.

4.4. Hygienic Milk production and milk handling practices in study area

4.4.1. Hygienic Milk Production Practices

Washing of udder before milking was not a common practice (1%) in the study area and

none of the farm owning respondentsreported to wash udder after milking (Table 9)

believing that the calve could wash it with saliva when they are allowed to have few

suckling before and after milking. It is found that, about 99% of respondents in do not wash

udder at all before milking and after milking. However, majority (84%) of dairy farmers

owning households reported that washing hand is practiced before milking. It was reported

by Tsegaye and Gebre-egziabher (2015) that farmers in Wolaita zone, southern Ethiopia

46
practiced udder washing before milking and after they washed udder of their cows, about

16.8% of respondents used individual towel to dry the udder of milking cow while the rest

did not use any towel. In the current study, only 1% of the respondents practiced udder

washing and do not use towel to dry after udder washing. This is because they didn’t get any

knowledge about milk hygienic production practices and most of them are negligent to do

this. The current result is far from the report of Haile et al. (2012) resulted from Hawassa,

southern Ethiopia about 48% of all the interviewees in all farm size groups do not use towel

to dry udder after washing rather they massage the udder with bare hands; while about 44%

of them reported to use common towel while 4.6% reported that they do not practice udder

washing and drying and only 3.8% used separate towel for each cow. (84%)of respondents

practicing washing milker’s hand before milking only and a few farmers wash their hands

after milking and before milking next cow who have two or more milking cows at one

moment. (14%) of milkers was no washing their hands at all, because of the Poor awareness

regarding milk-borne diseases and no any knowledge and experience about milk handling

issue and most of them are negligent to do this.

In the current study, about 56% of the respondents clean their barns once a day, while 33.5%

and 14.5% of the respondents clean their barns 3 times a week and four times a week,

respectively. In comparison, respondents (58.9%) in the highland area were more

experienced in daily barn cleaning practice than respondents (26.7%) of midland in the

study area. This might be the cause of variation in milk quality due to udder contamination

with unclean barn. In line with the current finding, Babege et al., (2020) reported that about

42.8% of the respondents clean their barns daily, while 30.6% and 26.7% of the respondents

clean their barns 2 - 3 times a week and once a week, respectively in Gurage zone, SNNPR.

47
Table 9: Hygienic practices followed during milking and barn cleaning frequency by dairy
farmers in Dara Otilcho District of Sidama region.

Agro-ecology Overall
Variables Dega Woina-dega (N=200)
Bamisa T/Hiricha Shoicho L/wome
(N=50) (N=50) (N=50) (N=50)
Farmers followed during milking , %(n)
Washing udder before milking only - - - 4%(2) 4% (2)
No washing udder at all 100%(50) 100%(50) 100%(50) 96%(48) 99% (198)
Washing hand before milking only 74%(37) 80%(40) 88%(44) 97%(47) 84%(168)
Washing hand after milking before - - 2%(1) 6%(3) 2%(4)
milking next cow
No washing hand at all 26%(13) 20%(10) 10%(5) 4%(2) 14%(28)
Barn cleaning frequency day, %(n)
Once a day 40%(20) 40%(20) 66%(33) 78%(39) 56%(112)
Three times a week 54%(27) 46%(23) 12%(6) 6%(3) 33.5%(59)
Four times a week 6%(3) 14%97) 22%11) 16%(8) 14.5%(29)

4.4.2. Milking Practices

In the studied kebeles, all interviewed households practiced hand milking and interviewed

producers were let calves few suckling before and after milking. The current study is not in

agreed with the study reported by Kassu (2018) for Bona zuria district in Sidama region and

in his report indicated that 54.7% of the respondents were practiced suckling before milking,

while 43.3% of them exercise suckling before and after milking in the rural production

systems.

48
Table 10: Milking practices by dairy farmers in selected kebeles of Dara Otilcho District of
Sidama region.

Dega Woina-dega Overall

Variables Bamisa T/Hircha Shoicho L/wome (N=200)
(N=50) (N=50) (N=50) (N=50)
Frequency of milking per day (%)n
Two times day 14%(7) 10%(5) 6%(3) 4%(2) 8.5%(17)
Three times day 86%(43) 90%(45) 94%(47) 96%(48) 91.5%(183)
Milking practices (%)n
Milking without suckling 12%(6) 6%(3) 4%(2) 8%(4) 7.5%(15)
Suckling before & after milking 88%(44) 94%(47) 96%(48) 92%(46) 92.5%(185)
Person who engaged in milking operation (%)n
House wife 98%(49) 100%(50) 96%(48) - 98.5%(197)
Daughter 2%(1) - 4%(2) - 1.5%(3)
N=Number of respondents; T/Hiricha=Tula hiricha; L/wome=Lellawomerera

Majority (91.5%) of respondents revealed that they milk their cows three times a day during

the morning (7-9AM), Noon (12-1 PM) and evening (6-7 PM) and only 8.5% of respondents

milk their cows two times a day In the present study it was revealed that milking operation

is done by women (housewife) in all studied kebeles (Table 10). Few farmers (<2%)

reported daughters or female household members were involved in milking operations in the

studied areas.

4.4.3. Milk and milk product handling practice

The result of this study revealed that, (50.5%) of respondents mix fresh milk with left over

milk and (49.5%) of did not mix fresh milk with leftover milk in storage material. (70%) of

respondents store milk for several hours and after storing too much milk, they churning it

using a big clay pot storage material (Gembo) for churning and after churning they hoick a

49
butter. Only (30%) of respondents did not store a milk because of these respondents use

whole milk for home consumption only.

This study also revealed that, about (88%), (94%), (96%) and (100%) of respondents in

Bamisa, Tula hiricha, Shoicho and Lellawomerera Kebeles use plastic material for milking a

cow respectively and (12%), (6%) and (4%) of respondents use small clay pot in Bamisa,

Tula hiricha and Shoicho Kebeles respectively. The current result is not fulfilling the

recommendation Karuga (2009) who recommended that all of milk of producers should pay

particular attention to the type of equipment used and in this regard, aluminum or stainless-

steel containers are recommended because of easiness to clean and anti-corrosion properties

of the materials as compared to plastic containers (Karuga., 2009). With consideration given

to the end use of the milk, handling, storage and transport of milk should be conducted in a

manner that will avoid contamination and minimize any increase in the microbiological load

of milk. Proper handling, storage and transport of milk are important elements of thesystem

of controls necessary to produce safe and suitable milk and milk products.Contact with

unsanitary equipment and foreign materials are known causes of milkcontamination

(CAC/RCP, 2004). In this context, milk handling in current study area was not fulfilling the

criteria mentioned in this code.

In contrast, the current finding is in line with (Amistu et al, 2015) who found that almost all

of the participants in Sululta, Holeta, and Sebeta areas use plastic materials for milking. But

he revealed that only 1.1 % used clay pots for storage before transportation. This finding

disaffirmed with the current result because there is sufficient availability of locally made

clay pots for milk storage in Dara Otilcho area and many respondents can easily get them in

local markets. Almaz (2014) reported that 66.7% of producers in the dairy farms used plastic

50
containers for storage in Mekelle, Northern Ethiopia, due to the accessibility of milking and

storage materials in the study areas. This finding is also a little bit different from the current

result the variation is because of the difference in study area and availability of such material

in study areas. In agreement with this finding, plastic containers were frequently used for

milking. The study conducted by Babege et al., (2020) in the Gurage zone reported as, the

majority of the interviewed households (95.6%) were using plastic containers as milking

equipment, while only 4.4% of them used stainless steel. This might be due to the absence of

recommended milking and storage equipment in the local market of the study areas. Another

finding reported by Mesfin (2015) from Sidama, around Bona, Bansazuria, and Arbegona

districts, interviewed households (82.5%) use plastic jars while (17.5%) use clay pots as

milking utensils. According to a report by Saba (2015), all of the interviewed milk producer

farmers used plastic-made milk containers during milking and transported the milk to

collection centers in the Ejerie district of the West Shoa zone. Abebe et al. (2013) reported a

similar result in Ezha district of Gurage Zone where all farmers used plastic jars as milking

utensils. Tsedey and Asrat, (2015) reported that the use of plastic containers for handling

and transporting milk increases the risk of contamination of milk higher since as the number

of plastic containers increases the chance of contamination is also increased and most plastic

containers have characteristics that make them unsuitable for milk handling. In addition,

using clay pots for storing milk is another factor. This device for producers is inconvenient

for hygienic cleaning, it also harbors bacteria which causes milk spoilage and consequently

imposes a risk of quality deterioration (Tsedey and Asrat, 2015).

51
Table 11: Milking and milk storage material

Kebeles
Parameters Dega Woina-dega Total
Bamisa T/Hircha Shoicho L/wome (%)N X² P-
(%)N (%)N (%)N (%)N value
Mix fresh &left over milk for_cons/n (%)n
Yes 52%(26) 70%(35) 42%(21) 38%(19) 50.5%(101) 1.471 0.886
No 48%(24) 30%(15) 58%(29) 62%(31) 49.5%(99)
Store the milk(%)n
Yes 82%(41) 80%(40) 60%(30) 58%(29) 70%(140) 0.471 0.466
No 18%(9) 20%(10) 40%(20) 42%(21) 30%(60)
Materials used for milking (%)n
Plastic 88%(44) 94%(47) 96%(48) 100%(50) 94.5%(189) 1.171 0.044
material
Clay pot 12%(6) 6%(3) 4%(2) - 5.5%(11)
Milk storage materials(%)n
Plastic - - 2%(1) 4%(2) 1.5%(3) 0.577 0.032
material
Clay pot 100%(50) 100%(50) 98%(49) 96%(48) 98.5%(98)
Sale raw cow milk(%)n
Yes 84%(42) 82%(41) 88%(44) 82%(41) 84%(168) 0.813 0.027
No 16%(8) 18%(9) 12%(6) 18%(9) 16%(32)
N=Number of respondents, Cons/n=Consumption, X²=Chi-square, P-value=Predictive value

According to CAC/RCP (2004), from milk production through to finished products,

products should be stored at appropriatetemperatures and for appropriate times such that the

growth or development of a food safety hazard will be minimized and the product’s

suitability will not be adversely affected. Because milk and many milk products have

sufficient moisture content to support the growth of pathogens, temperature and time

controls represent key microbiological control measures to control growth throughout

themanufacturing process, from the handling of milk to the distribution and storage of

52
perishable milk products (e.g., pasteurized drinking milk, desserts, and soft cheeses,

depending on shelf life). For instance, for liquidmilk, increased storage temperature will

decrease the shelf life. In this sense, milk stored for several hours is generally said to be

unsafe and not hygienic for consumption.Pre-milking udder preparation and teat sanitation

play an important part in the microbial load of milk, infection with mastitis, and

environmental contamination of raw milk during milking (Depiazzi and Bell 2002).

Cleaning the udder of cows before milking is important since it could have direct contact

with the ground, urine, dung and feed refusals while resting. Lack of washing udder before

milking can impart possible contaminants into the milk. It is far different from the result of

the current study and the result reported by (Haile et al. 2012) reported that 82.5% of the

small size farms owning households in Hawassa city are practicing pre milking udder

washing. This variation is because of the difference in awareness about milk hygienic

production among city and rural farmers. Producers should therefore make udder washing a

regular practice in order to minimize contamination and produce good quality milk.

4.4.4. Sanitary practices of milk and milk products handling equipment

Milking and milk storage utensils need to be properly cleaned and dried in an inverted

position prior to use. These are important practices to reduce milk contamination raised from

the milk utensils (Murphy, 2006).Moreover; producers should pay particular attention to the

type of equipment used. In this regard, aluminum or stainless-steel containers are

recommended because of easiness to clean and anti-corrosion properties of the materials as

compared to plastic containers (Karuga, 2009).The cleaning of milk handling equipment in

the current study is common among most of the respondents but it is not commendable. The

cleaning frequency of milk handling containers using either cold or warm water depends

53
upon the cleanliness of the containers. However, Mesfin (2015) reported from Sidama

region in Bona, Bansa zuria and Aroresa districts, the majority of the respondents (85%)

practiced washing of their milk utensils daily; while 15% clean three times a week before

milking. Conversely, the cleaning is not efficient and utensils are not properly dried. This

report was a little bit different from the current result because of the milk hygiene related

constraints that ranked below in current study area. On another hand, Kassu(2018) reported

that the majority of the respondents clean their milk utensils once per day (79.3%) followed

by twice (15.3%) and three times (5.4%) per day in Bona zuria district of Sidama region.A

routine program to verify the adequacy of cleaning should be in place. All equipment and

utensils used in processing should, as necessary, be cleaned and disinfected, rinsed

withwater that is safe and suitable for its intended purpose (unless the manufacturer’s

instructions indicaterinsing is not necessary), then drained and air dried where appropriate

(CAC/RCP, 2004).

In the current study, materials used to wash and clean milk handling equipment in the study

area are usually Inset kancha (29%), ash (27.5%), different grass leaves (24.5%) and sponge

(19%). Any other locally available materials that may remove the dirt to clean milk handling

equipment can be used as cleaning materials of milk handling equipment (Table 12).

Regarding sources of water for cleaning purposes, 78%, 10.5%, 7.5%, and 4% of the

respondents used Stream water, River water, Hand dug well water and Hand pump water

respectively (Table 13). The survey result showed that the majority of the respondents use

Stream water because of the availability of streams in many areas (almost in all villages) of

each Kebeles.Water used in the production of milk should be of potable quality. Problems

may arise when untreated water supplies are used to rinse and wash equipment. Such water

54
may contain a diverse array of microorganisms including Pseudomonas spp., coliforms,

Bacillus spp. and numerous other types of bacteria (Bramley and Mckinnon, 2004). Indeed,

Perkins et al. (2007) have demonstrated the potential for contamination of milk with E. coli

through washing water.

Table 12: Milk sanitary practices in Dara Otilcho District of Sidama Regional State.

Dega Woina-dega
Sanitary practices Bamisa T/Hiricha Shoicho L/Wome Total(N=200)
(%)N (%)N (%)N (%)N (%)N
Cleaning frequency of milk storage and handling containers
Once a day using cold 12%(6) 16%(8) 20%(10) 18%(9) 16.5%(33)
water
Once a day using warm 2%(1) 4%(2) 6%(3) 8%(4) 5%(10)
water
After each usage using 6%(3) 6%(3) 4%(2) 6%(3) 5.5%(11)
cold water
After each usage using 2%(1) 4%(2) 4%(2) 4%(2) 3.5%(7)
warm water
Two times a week 42%(21) 40%(20) 40%(20) 44%22) 41.5%(83)
Three times a week 36%(18) 30%(15) 26%(13) 20%(10) 28%(56)
Materials used to wash milk handling equipment
Sponge 8%(4) 12%(6) 24%(12) 32%(16) 19%(38)
Ashe 36%(18) 32%(16) 20%(10) 22%(11) 27.5%(55)
Grass leaves 24%(12) 20%(10) 34%(17) 20%(10) 24.5%(49)
Inset kancha 32%(12) 36%(18) 22%(11) 26%(13) 29%(58)
Sources of water for washing purpose
Hand pump water - - 6%(3) 10%(5) 4%(8)
Hand dug well water 4%(2) 10%(5) 10%(5) 6%(3) 7.5%(13)
Stream water 96%(48) 78%(39) 66%(33) 72%(36) 78%(156)
River water - 12%(6) 18%(9) 12%(6) 10.5%(21)
N=Number of respondents

55
Results from survey and observations in the present study revealed that dairy producers

under unhygienic environmental conditions generally produced milk. This study further

revealed that most smallholder dairy farmers managed their cattle in poor cattle houses that

are not cleaned regularly and may have implications on sources of pathogens for mastitis

and other diseases to animals. Meanwhile, such dirty environments are also likely to be

sources of milk contaminations. Mesfin (2015) in Bansa and Aroresa districts of Sidama

region has reported a similar report that 99% of respondents in the present study do not

clean their cow’s udder and teat with water.

4.4.5. Major Milk hygiene Related Constraints

Milk hygiene related constraints in the study areas prioritized by the respondents during

group discussions were and also farmers answered that limited awareness of hygienic

handling of milk, Lack of effective quality control system, Absence of quality based

payment system in the milk market, Negligence of milk handlers in home and Shortage of

clean water. In the study district, milk hygiene related constraints were ranked as follows

depending on farmer’s response to questions they asked (Table 13).

56
Table 13: Major Milk hygiene Related Constraints in Dara Otilcho district in Sidama

Regional State.

Variables 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th RI Rank

Limited awareness of hygienic 44 36 - - - 0.420 1st
quality of milk
Lack of effective quality control 29 21 - 1 - 0.300 2nd
system
Absence of quality based payment 9 8 5 - - 0.108 3rd
system on milk market
Negligence of milk handlers in 7 5 6 4 1 0.096 4th
home
Shortage of clean water - 4 13 4 3 0.077 5th
Total 89 74 24 9 4 1
RI (Rank Index) =[Sum of(5xNranking as1strank+4xNranking as 2nd rank+3xN ranking as3rd rank
+2xN ranking as4th rank+1xN ranking as5th rank)for individual variables divided by
Sum of (5xTotal N ranking as1st rank+4xTotal N ranking as2nd rank+3xTotalN
ranking as3rd rank2x Total N ranking as4thrank+1xTotal N ranking as5th rank)
for all variables]divided by sum of all weighed for the prevailing constraints
listed by the respondents.

Generally, this study was conducted in Dara Otilcho district in Sidama regional state with

the core purpose to assess the hygienic production practices and handling conditions of raw

cow milk and determining the prevalence of dairy cows mastitis prevalence in the study

area. This was due to the fact that milk produced in Ethiopia by the farmer is not regulated

by any agency and such milk may pose a health hazard due to unhygienic handling and

contamination with pathogens. Generally, the present findings showed that there are several

practices undertaken at the farm level such as type of animal house floor, not washing hands

and udder/teats before milking, water used for cleanliness (hands and milk equipment). The

type of storage containers used and milk storage duration under room temperature

57
predispose raw milk to poor hygienic conditions and not fulfilling the criteria of the

International Code of hygienic practice for milk and milk products (CAC/RCP,2004).

4.5. Animal health delivery in study area

In the four Kebeles of the study area, majority 54.5% of the respondents replied as they get

animal health service in their area, while only 48.5%have no access for animal health

services (Table 14). From the respondents (91.5%) milked sick animals depending on

severity and the types of disease and only (8.5%) of respondents did not milk sick cows. The

present study indicates that (97%) of the farmers experienced milking of drug treated animal

immediately and only (3%) respondents did not milk drug treated cow immediately cause of

they have near experience with veterinary service technicians. Most of the respondents

answered that milking of sick animals and milking of drug treated animal immediately was

due to lack of awareness about its effects on consumers. According to the Interinational

Code of practices of general principles of food hygiene (CAC/RCP, 2004), milk should

come from animals in good health so that, considering the end use, it does not adversely

affect the safety and suitability of the end product.Milk and milk products produced from

milk obtained from certain diseased animals has been known to be neither safe nor suitable

for human consumption. Milk from animals that have been treated with veterinary drugs that

can betransferred to milk should be discarded appropriately until the withdrawal period

specified for the particular veterinary drug has been achieved (CAC/RCP,2004). Therefore,

in study area, milk obtained from drug treated cow immediately is generally not safe and

unhygienic for consumption.

In the current study, majority of respondents reported that (78%) of them have encountered

udder health problems and this is due to lack of knowledge about udder health problems,

58
low treatment of mastitis cases and low experience of complete milking practices. Similarly,

higher proportion of the respondents (97.9%) experienced udder health problem among the

herds in Nuer zone, Gambella region, Ethiopia (Yien, 2014). It is found that most of the

respondents (72.2%) produced milk from infected udder (during treatment) and supplied to

calves while the remaining 20% of the respondents discard the milk until the end of drug

withdrawal period as suggested by animal health technicians.

Table 14: Animal Health Service delivery system, udder health management and drug

withdrawal practices in the Dara Otilcho woreda of Sidama Regional State.

Variables Dega Woina-dega Overall

Bamisa T/Hiricha Shoicho L/wome (N=200)
(N=50) (N=50) (N=50) (N=50)
Get Animal health services %(n)
Yes 20%(10) 32%(16) 72%(37) 80%(40) 54.5%(103)
No 80%(40) 68%(34) 26%(13) 20%(10) 48.5%(97)
Udder health problems %(n)
Yes 84%(42) (80%(40) 76%(38) 72%(36) 78%(156)
No 16%(8) 20%(10) 24%(12) 28%(14) 22%(44)
Udder health management %(n)
Treated by veterinarian 6%(3) 22%(11) 26%(13) 32%(16) 21.5%(43)
Treated traditionally 70%(35) 58%(29) 22%(11) 26%(13) 44%(88)
Left to cure by itself 24%(12) 20%(10) 52%(26) 42%(21) 34.5%(69)
Milking of sick animals %(n)
Yes 98%(49) 94%947) 88%(44) 86%(43) 91.5%(183)
No 2%(1) 6%(3) 12%(6) 14%(7) 8.5%(17)
Milking of drug treated animals immediately %(n)
Yes 98%(49) 100%(50) 94%(47) 96%(48) 97%(194)
No 2%(1) - 6%(3) 4%(2) 3%(6)
N=Number of respondents, T/Hiricha=Tula hiricha, L/wome=Lellawomerera

59
4.5.1. Major constraints of Animal health delivery in study area

According to focus group discussion and farmers response, farmers in study area are facing

some livestock health delivery constraints. Those constraints were ranked as follows. Lack

of awareness was ranked as the first constraint that can hinders the animal health delivery

system and shortage (lack) of money, lack of knowledge about livestock disease types and

how it can be treated, lack of public veterinary service clinics, drugs of black market that the

farmers exposed to buy in illegal price, lack of incentives and lack of private veterinary

clinics in rural areas was ranked from number one up to seven in the order of importance in

study area. There was only one veterinary drug pharmacy in Teferikela town and no any

public and private clinic existing in the district.

Table 15: Major constraints of animal health delivery in Dara Otilcho woreda

Variables 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th RI Rank

Lack of awareness 52 35 - - - - - 0.519 1st
Shortage of money 24 22 5 - - - 0.293 2nd
Lack of knowledge of animal disease - - 8 6 6 - - 0.075 3rd
Lack of public veterinary service - - 7 6 5 2 1 0.071 4th
clinics
Drugs of black market - - - 3 1 3 - 0.020 5th
Lack of incentives - - 1 - 4 6 0.017 6th
Lack of private veterinary service - - - - - 2 1 0.005 7th
clinics
Total 77 57 20 15 12 11 8 1
RI (Rank Index)= [Sum of (7xN ranking as1st rank + 6xN ranking as2nd rank + 5xN ranking as3rd
rank + 4xN ranking as4th rank + 3xN ranking as5th + 2xN ranking as6th rank +
1XN ranking as 7thrank) for individual variables divided by Sum of (7xTotal N
ranking as1st rank +6x Total N ranking as2nd rank + 5xTotal N ranking as3rd
rank + 4xTotal N ranking as4th rank + 3xTotal N ranking as5th rank + 2xTotal N
ranking as6th rank + 1xTotal N ranking as7th rank) for all variables]

60
4.6. Prevalence of mastitis and its associated risk factors in dairy cows

4.6.1. Prevalence of mastitis in dairy cows

Out of the total 380cows examined, 11.3% of local cows and 17.6% of crossbred cows were

found to be affected with clinical mastitis cases.The overall value of cows with a positive

result for clinical mastitis from the two genotypes (local and crossbred) were 14%at cow

level. This result shows that the local cattle (endogenous zebu breeds) have low

susceptibility to mastitis (Table 16). Out of the total 1520 udder quarters examined, 4.3% of

quarters of local breed cows were positive and 8.9% of crossbred’s quarters were positive

for clinical mastitis.The overall quarter level prevalence of clinical mastitis in both

indigenous and crossbreed cows were found to be 6.25%. This result indicated that at

quarter level prevalence of mastitis is needs serious attention sincethis may lead to high

economic loss. Yohanes et al., (2013) reported that the prevalence of clinical mastitis around

Wolaita in SNNPR was 2.60% and the current result indicated that the prevalence was high

in this study area. In another way, the prevalence of clinical mastitis was 10.39% in

Horogurdu districtof Wollega zone (Beyene et al., 2017). Among four Kebeles selected for

this study, two (i.e., Bamisa and Tula hiricha) Kebeles are found in dega zone where both

clinical and sub-clinical mastitis were highly prevalent in this areas. This is because of the

coldness of the environmentmakes bedding uncomfortable and muddy, thus the animals

were easily susceptible to disease.

A total of 380 cows were examined for prevalence of subclinical mastitis at cow and udder

quarter level, of which 221 were local breed cows and 159 were crossbred cows. Among

these, 43% of local cows and 66.6% of cross bred cows were found to be affected with sub-

clinical mastitis. On the other hand, among the 1520 milk samples were tested from each

61
quarter for SCM in lactating cows of both local and crossbred cows. A total of 24% local

cow’s were positive for CMT and 38.5% of crossbred cow’s milk samples were CMT

positive. The overall prevalence of sub-clinical mastitis based on CMT test result in Dara

Otilcho district was found to be 52.9% at cow-level and 30% at quarter level

Table 16: Overall prevalence of clinical and sub-clinical mastitis at cow levels and quarter
level in study area

Udder Breed At cow level At quarter level

health of cow Cows Positive quarters Positive
problem examined cows Prevalence examined quarters Prevalence
Clinical Local 221 25 11.31% 884 38 4.3%
Cross 159 28 17.61% 636 57 8.9%
Total 380 53 14% 1520 95 6.25%
Sub- Local 221 95 43% 884 212 23.9%
clinical Cross 159 106 66.6% 636 245 38.5%
Total 380 201 52.9% 1520 457 30%
Total Local 221 120 54.3% 884 250 28.2%
mastitis Cross 159 134 84.3% 636 302 47.4%
case Total 380 254 66.84% 1520 552 36.3%
Blind teat Local 221 11 5% 884 14 1.5%
Cross 159 15 9.4% 636 20 3.1%
Total 380 30 7.9% 1520 34 2.2%
Total Local 221 131 58.3% 884 264 29.8%
udder Cross 159 149 93% 636 322 50.6%
problems Total 380 280 73.6% 1520 586 38.5%

Regarding blind teats, among 380 of total cows examined, 5% of local cows and 9.79% of

cross bred cows had blind teats that cannot give any milk and this infection in quarter level

was, among a total of 1520 quarters examined, 2.2% of quarters were blind. The result

reported by Yibrah et al., (2015) from Hawassa Zuria of Sidama region is nestle with current

result, who reported of384quarters examined, (1.3 %) were blind teats.

62
A total udder health problem in study area was found to be 73.6% at cow level and 38.5% at

quarter level. In this study, there was found high mastitis prevalence and high total udder

health problems in cross breed cows comparatively with local cows (93% at cow level and

50.6% at quarter level) (Table 16). In cold environments like Bamisa and Tula Hiricha

Kebeles the prevalence of disease was high. The current study is nestle with the result

reported by (Abebe et al., 2016) they conduct a research in Hawassa milk sheds. They

reported that the overall cow-level prevalence of mastitis was 62.6% and it was largely

accounted from sub-clinical mastitis (59.2%) and the smallest proportion (3.4%) from

clinical mastitis. Yibrah et al., (2015) reported nearly different result from around Woredas

of the current study area, who reported that the subclinical mastitis was highly prevalent

(58.06% in Alta wondo, 4.75% in Hawella Tula and 27.27% in Aleta Chuko) than the

clinical mastitis(3.23% in Alta wondo, 3.13% in Hawella Tula and zero percent in Aleta

Chuko). This difference may because of the management practices and somewhat,

environmental conditions difference from Dara Otilcho woreda.The earlier findings was

close to current study findings from Tanzania, Rwanda and Egypt the prevalence of mastitis

at cow-level was 51.6%, 51.8% and 42.9% respectively (Mdegela et al., 2009) (Iraguha et

al., 2015) (Elbably et al., 2013). In contrast, higher prevalence was reported from Uganda,

which was 85.3% (Shittu et al., 2012).

The current result is in line with finding of Birhanu et al., (2013), who reported that the

overall mastitis prevalence in the farm was 66.6% and 42% at cow and quarter level,

respectively in Assella Dairy Farm in Oromia Region, Ethiopia. The present findings were

found to be higher than previous findings in some parts of the country (Girma, 2010, Tigre

2011 and Aberra, 2013), which could be due to lack of awareness, housing and milking

63
practices they are accustomed. Therefore, the current status of prevalence of mastitis both in

clinical and sub-clinical indicated in this study requires a serious attention in study area.

4.6.2. Comparison of level of attack by mastitis between local and cross breed milking

cows in study area

In current study, 159 cross breed and 221 local cows were tested for mastitis. Among these,

only 15.7% of cross breed cows was negative for mastitis, 84.3% was exposed to clinical

and sub-clinical mastitis, and comparatively, 45.7% of local breed cows were negative for

mastitis. The mastitis case within two breeds in study area in proportion was found to be

41.8% in cross breeds and 58.2% in local breeds (Table 20). The large percentage of

proportion in local cows is because large number of local cows tested for mastitis. But the

overall prevalence of mastitis in cross breeds was high comparatively. Accordingly, the

occurrence of mastitis based on breed was significantly higher in cross breed (χ2=0.000,

F=0.000).

Table 17: Comparison of level of attack by mastitis between local and cross breed milking
cows in study area

Total Mastitis case

Variables (clinical and sub-clinical) 𝐗𝟐 F
Negative Positive Total
Count 25a 134b 159
% within Breed 15.7% 84.3% 100.0%
Cross % within mastitis case 19.8% 52.8% 41.8%
Breed

Count 101a 120b 221

Local % within Breed 45.7% 54.3% 100.0% 0.000 0.000
% within mastitis case 80.2% 47.2% 58.2%
Count 126 254 380
Total

% within Breed 33.2% 66.8% 100.0%

% within mastitis case 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
𝑿𝟐 =Pearson Chi-square test, F= Fisher's Exact Test
a,b,c= Each subscript letter denotes a subset of mastitis case categories whose column proportions do not
differ significantly from each other at the .05 level.

64
4.6.3. Prevalence and distribution of sub-clinical mastitis across the four quarters and
degree of attack in milking cows in study area

Out of 1520 quarters, 636 and 884 quarters examined for mastitis by California Mastitis Test

(CMT) in cross-bred cows and local cows respectively. Quarters which was found to be

positive in testing by CMT screening was categorized depending on the degree of jelly

formation of milk sample when tested by CMT. Thus, a total of (13.4%) were categorized as

weak positive (+), (19.5%) were categorized under distinct positive (++), (12.4%) of udder

were categorized as strong positive (+++) based on the thickness of the gel formed by CMT

reagent and milk mixture. The result of the test was indicated on the basis of gel formation

according to (Quinn et al., 2002). Regarding the degree of attack, RF quarters was highly

attacked this is because the it is milked first (majority, more than 78% of milkers sit on right

hand side to milk their cows and then they milk firstly RF teat by their unwashed hands.

Therefore, RF quarter was easily exposed to contamination by microorganisms. LF quarters

were low susceptibility to be attacked.The relative high prevalence of mastitis in RF

quarter(32.12%) in this study agreed with the finding of Shirmeko G (1996) and Belay et al

(2019) who reported that high prevalence in RF and RR quarters 50.78% and 48.4%

respectively. However, the current result is not agreed with Sudhan et al. (2005) who

reported that the right hind quarter was the most affected (38.18%) compared with the other

quarters. In current study, the prevalence may be due to ease of first grasping by milker’s

hand which is usually not cleaned and disinfected and easy for contamination. But the RR

was(29.36%) this may be due to greater contamination with faces, urine and easy contact

with any other debris materials. In another hand, prevalence across LF and LR quarters was

16.56% and 21.94% respectively. This is due to in similar way, the contamination of hind

65
quarters by different debris, urine, faces and the discharge during delivery. The high

occurrence of mastitis-induced blind mammary quarters, which has a direct influence on

milk production with a subsequent impact on food security and economic loss, signifies the

importance of the problem.

The current result is opposed with the report of Yibrah et al., (2015) who reported from

Sidama region and showed that the prevalence of mastitis in quarter level as LR 19.8%, RR

18.8%, RF 17.7% and LF 16.7% recorded. The LR quarters shows the highest infection rate

followed by the right hind.

Table 18: Relation between subclinical mastitis and degree of quarter attacked using CMT
Quarter-wise.

Degree of Quarters examined

attack in RF RR LF LR Total Prevalence
CMT
_ 159 229 178 266 832 54.7%
+ 48 93 27 36 204 13.4%
++ 73 78 81 64 296 19.5%
+++ 100 31 6 51 188 12.4%
Total 221 202 114 151 688 45.3%
Prevalence 14.5% 13.3% 7.5% 9.9%
Blind 12 7 6 9 34 2.2%
Prevalence 0.8% 0.46% 0.4% 0.6%
-(negative), +(weak positive), ++(distinct positive), +++(strong positive), B(blind, RF=Right front quarter,
RR=Right rear quarter, LF= Left front quarter, LR=Left rear quarter

4.6.4. Risk factors associated with dairy cow mastitis

Information on animal and environmental risk factors were collected using pre-designed

semi structured questionnaires, direct observations, and group discussions involving farmers

and extension workers. The intrinsic (host risk factors) risk factors such as cows’ age, breed,

parity, lactation stage, and milk yield. Environmental (extrinsic) risk factors considered were

teat floor type, udder hygiene, cleaning complete milking, and agro-ecology.
66
Breed, age, parity and lactation stages have significant influence (P<0.05) on the prevalence

of dairy cows mastitis in study area (Table 19).The association of the different potential host

risk factors and the occurrence of mastitis in Dara Otilcho district are shown in (Table 22).

Accordingly, the occurrence of mastitis based on age, breed, stage of lactation, parity and

milk yield of cows was significantly higher in adult cow (>10 years) (χ2 =0.000, P=0.003),

in early lactation cows (χ2 =0.000, P=0.001), and in cow with many parity (> 6 calves)

(χ2=0.000, P=0.002) respectively and this was highly significant. Similar findings were also

reported by several investigators to have association with the occurrence of mastitis. The

current result is disagree with Kefele et al (2018) reported from Soddo zuria woreda of

SNNPR, the prevalence of mastitis in different breeds was analyzed with an infection rate of

Holstein-Fresian (8.6%), local Zebu (8.2%) and jersey (7.75%) with no significance

difference (0.0673) and the prevalence of mastitis on early lactating cows were higher than

the mid and late lactation stage with the ratio of 11%, 6.93% and 6.5% respectively with no

statistical significance (0.064) that disagree with current result, in current result, there was

significant difference between each risk factors (Table 19. In otherwise, the report of

Kefele., et al (2018) agreed with the cirrent result with prevalence of mastitis was higher in

aged (13.7%) than adult (9.7%) and young (0.8%) and The association between age groups

showed statistically strong significant effect (P = 0.0001). In another way, Zelalem et al.,

(2017) from Lemo woreda of SNNP reported that, from the stage of lactation, mid-lactation

stage had higher prevalence (65.9%) than early (41.2%) and late (48.7%), and the current

result is opposed with this while in current result, the prevalence of mastitis is high in early

lactation stage (78.4%). This was in agreement with the report of Zerihun et al., (2000) who

stated higher infection rate (87.2%) during early lactation stages.Regarding parity, higher

67
rate of infection in the current study area is in cows with many parity />7 calves/ (90%). The

current result also opposed with Yibrah et al., (2015) who reported from Aleta wondo, Aleta

chuko and Shebedino woredas of Sidama region, reported as the prevalence of mastitis on

early, mid and late stage of lactation was (47.62%), (28.57%) and (57.56%) respectively and

the highest prevalence is in late lactation stage.

The current result is agreed with Zelalem et al., (2017) who indicated that Cows with many

calves have high rate of infection 58.9% than the cows having few calves which is 45.6% in

the present study. Regarding age of cow, the current result finding is in agreementwith the

report of Zeryehun et al., (2013) who reported higher prevalence in adult cows (93.2%) than

young adults (65%).

68
Table 19: The prevalence of dairy both clinical and sub-clinical cow mastitis based on intrinsic risk factors

Environmental Risk factors № of cows Cows Prevalence F χ2 Level of

Examined Affected significanc
e
Age <6 years 76 48 63.1%
6-10 years 179 112 62.6% -- 0.000 ***
>10 years 125 101 80.8%
Breed Local cows 221 120 54.3%
Cross breed cow 159 134 84.3% 0.000 0.000 ***
Stage of lactation Early(<4m) 186 138 78.4%
Mid(5-7m) 130 79 60.7% -- 0.000 ***
Late(>7m) 64 37 57.8%
Parity 1-3 190 119 62.6%
4-6 160 108 67.5% -- 0.000 ***
>7 30 27 90%
Av. MY/day/liter 1.5 – 2 256 198 77.3%
1.0 – 1.5 91 47 51.6% -- 0.000 ***
0.4 – 1.0 33 9 27%
F= Fisher's Exact Test, χ2= Chi-square, ***= Highly Significant at 5% level (P≤0.05), MY=Milk Yield

69
In similar way, the result of association between the occurrence of mastitis and some of the

environmental risk factors summarized in Table 20. The occurrence of mastitis based on

floor type, udder hygiene, complete milking and agro-ecological location (i.e., Dega and

woina-dega) was significantly higher in cow with muddy floor type (χ2=0.000, P<0.010), in

poor udder hygienic cows (χ2 =0.000, P= 0.000, F=0.000), and low significantly high in

cows in Dega agro ecology (χ2 =0.022, P<0.048, F=0.027) and in cows with no complete

milking (χ2=0.721, P<0.030, F=0.743) respectively. The current result is agreed with the

report of Zelalm et al., (2017) who reported from Lemu woreda of SNNPR udder hygiene

and floor type has statistically significant association with the prevalence rate of mastitis (P

<0.05). Muddy soil floor house had higher prevalence (28.6%) of mastitis than bad concrete

(14.5) and good concrete (7%)

70
Table 20: The prevalence of bovine mastitis based on some of the extrinsic risk factors

Environmental Risk factors № of Cows Prevalenc F χ2 (2 sided) Level of

cows Affected e 2 sided 1 sided significance
Examined
Floor type Woody 141 58 41.1%
Concrete 60 2 3.3% -- -- 0.000 ***
Muddy 179 194 84.3%
Udder hygiene Good 58 30 51.7%
Poor 322 224 69.5% 0.000 0.000 0.000 ***
Complete milking Yes 341 222 65.1%
No 39 32 82.0% 0.743 0.402 0.721 *
Agro-ecology Dega 222 138 58.4%
Woina-dega 158 116 41.6% 0.027 0.014 0.022 **
F= Fisher's Exact Test, χ2= Chi-square, ***= Highly Significant at 5% level (P≤0.05), №= Number

71
4.7. Traditional treatment and control mechanisms of mastitis in Dara Otilcho district

Majority of the respondents (78%) experienced udder health problems among the cows.

Concerning udder health management, animal health technician treated only 21.5% of the

udder case, 44% treated traditionally and 34.5% left to cure by itself (Table 14).

Based on the focus group discussion, farmers long ago have no knowledge about mastitis as

a disease caused by microorganisms. They believe that the evil eyes were the one who cast a

spell on the cow by looking at them, so that udder problem could occur locally called

“Gadansa”. Eventually they became aware that the udder health problems could occur either

as a disease which they locally called “Gadansa” (mastitis) or from evil eye.

In this case, they were using traditionally different types of type of healing plants and

methods to cure the disease called “Gadansa” such as locally called “Hatawo”, “Halila”,

and euphorbia (locally called “charicho”) plants by pounding (grinding) them in woody

made mortar and after grinded, smashed floor mixed with due amount of water in bottle then

drenching gently for the sick cows from “Gadansa”. However, euphorbia (locally called

“charicho”) plants is burn down and dried in fire then smoking it near the nose and udder of

affected cow by the disease called “Gadansa” or mastitis. Yien Deg (2014) reported a far

different traditional treatment and curing mechanisms practiced by farmers in Gambela

region. Farmers using two type of healing to cure the disease based on either the disease is

clinical (wounded) or subclinical. Boiled water mixed with salt was used to treated cow with

clinical mastitis or wounded udder. Traditional they use stone and touched each quarters

with it and put the stone under small piece of wood (peg) where the cow was stalled

(tethered) on, so that udder problems may be healed. The difference between two studies

result is because of the difference of study area, production system and agro-ecologies

72
between study areas and also the difference of traditional beliefs and knowledge of

pastoralist and another areas. By these two results, we can understand that livestock

producer have different mechanisms to disease treatment and healing mechanisms based on

their natural environment and there are many natural knowledge that we should modify it

scientifically.

73
 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Hygienic production and processing of milk and milk products has the great role on public

health in milk producer and consumer society. In the study area, there are various factors

that were observed to affect practices of hygienic milk production such as herd management,

Limited awareness of hygienic quality of milk, diseases like mastitis and its associated risk

factors and Negligence of milk handlers in home. The poor milk handling practices and

unhygienic milk processing system was a common problem observed in the study area. The

unhygienic conditions of milking, unclean milk handling equipment and the use of

contaminated cleaning water were among the important determinant factors of milk

contamination in the study area.Milk produced by farmers inDara Otilcho district contains

unacceptable levels of hygiene production and handling practices and this indicates a

potential source of milk-borne infections. This raises a public health concern about its safety

to consumers.

However, mastitis as a disease, particularly the subclinical mastitis, has received very little

attention. The California mastitis test (CMT) method also indicated that mastitis of both

clinical and subclinical types were major health problems of the dairy cows, which cause

huge loss of milk production that assure serious attention in creating awareness to farmers

and prevention strategy. The present study recorded a prevalence of 84.3% at cow level and

25.6% at quarter level in cross breed dairy cows and 54.3% at cow level and 16.85 at quarter

level in local milking cows in Dara Otilcho district. The overall prevalence of mastitis in

both genotypes was recorded as 66.84%, which might entail that mastitis was a major health

problem of dairy cows which undoubtedly will have drawback on productivity of dairy

industry of country in general and dairy cows production and productivity in study area in

74
particularly and hence needs serious attention. Particularly the prevalence of subclinical

mastitis was high in the study areas (53%) which might mean dairy farm managers are only

concerned with clinical form of mastitis and often are unawareness of the status of

subclinical infection in the herd. The bovine mastitis has been a serious issue for farmers in

most developing countries, such as Ethiopia. The disease has been reported in different parts

of Ethiopia, with overall prevalence of 39.5%-62.6% (Tadele et al. 2021). The current result

(66.84%) is over out of this range, thus in this area, the incidence is in serious status. The

study also showed various risk factors, which are intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors such as

breed of cows, age, parity number, milk yield, lactation stages, floor type, complete milking

and agro-ecology. Among these risk factors age, breed, stage of lactation, milk yield, and

floor type and udder hygiene are statistically significant (P≤0.05) and required intervention.

The finding of the current study reviles that there is high rate of mastitis infection in

smallholder dairy farms in Dara otilcho Woreda.

Based on the above conclusions the following points are recommended:

 Farmers in the study area need be aware about the importance of hygienic milk

production and hygienic milk handling practices.

 Farm owners require to practices hygienic milking, the culling of chronically

infected cows, good housing management, and effective dairy cattle nutrition to

promote good cow health.

 There should be implementation of good hygiene practices throughout the milk chain

by training of all stakeholders involved in milking, milk collection and processing, to

ensure the safety and quality of milk.

75
 Awareness creation need to be given to farmers in order to avoid immediate milking

of drug treated cow and milking of sick cow

 Further investigation and diagnosis on mastitis causative agents should be done in

order to apply the proper prevention and treatment scheme.

 External parasites especially tick prevention program should be applied

 Keeping the hygiene of the cow and housing area are important to ensure reduced

exposure to mastitis pathogens.

 Public health sector in Dara Otilcho woreda should play effective role in controlling

milk and milk products safety and hygiene during production, storage and selling

time and should aware farmers about this issuesin order to control food born

diseases.

76
 6. REFERENCES

Abebe G., Frew W. and Mulugeta S. 2011.Assessment of small holder production system
and their reproductive health problems in Jimma town, south western Ethiopia.
Intern J Appl Res Vet Med, 9(1): 80-86.

Aberra A., 2010. Microbiological safety of pasteurized and raw milk from processing plants
in and around Addis Ababa. MSC Thesis submitted to School of Graduate Studies
Addis Ababa University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Masters of Science in Environmental Science.

Aberra B., Lemma D. and Iticha I. 2013. Study of bovine mastitis in Assella government
dairy farm of Oromia Regional state, South Eastern Ethiopia international journal of
current research and academic review Int.J.Curr.Res, Aca, Rev.1 (2), 134- 145

Aberra M., Demie, B., Aragaw K., Regassa, F. and Regassa, A., 2013.Isolation and
identification of Staphylococcus aureus from bovine mastitic milk and their drug
resistance patterns in Adama town, Ethiopia.Afr. J. of Agri. Res. Vol. 7(45), pp.
5986- 5994

Adebabay Kebede. 2009. Characterization of milk production Systems, Marketing and On-
Farm Evaluation of the Effect of Feed Supplementation on Milk Yield and
MilkComposition of Cows at Bure District, Ethiopia A Thesis Submitted to the
Department of Animal Science and Technology School of Graduate Studies. Bahir
Dar University Bhair Dar Ethiopia.

Alehegne W., 2004. Bacteriological quality of bovine milk in small holder dairy farms in
Debrezeit, Ethiopia, an MSc Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Veterinary
Medicine, Addis Ababa University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement of the
Degree of Master of Science in Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Pp 2-13.

Alemayehu M. 2004. Rangeland Biodiversity: Concepts, Approaches and the way

forward. Addis Ababa University, Faculty of Science, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Pp.
80.

77
Ali, A., M.S. Mahmood, Iftikhar, H. and Masood, A. 2011.Adulteration and
Microbiological Quality of Milk (A Review). Institute of Microbiology, Department
of Parasitology, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Agriculture,
Faisalabad, 38040, Pakistan, Pakistan J. Nutri. 10 (12): 1195-1202. 55.

Arafa, M. 2013. Bacteriological Quality and Safety of Raw Cow’s Milk and Fresh
Cream. Food Hygiene Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Beni- Suef
University, Egypt, Slov Vet Res, 50 (1): 21-30.

Asrat A., Yilma Z. and Nurfeta A., 2013.Characterization of milk production systems in
and around Boditti, South Ethiopia.

Ayalew T., DugumaB. and Tolemariam T, 2013. Smallholder Cattle Producers in Ilu Aba
Bora Zone of Oromia Regional State, South Western Ethiopia. Global
Veterinaria10 (5): 607- 613.

Babege, K., Eshetu, M. and Kassa, F. (2020) Hygienic Production Practices and Microbial
Quality of Cow Milk in Cheha District of Gurage Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Open
Journal of Animal Sciences, 10, 592-607. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojas.2020.103038

Bankole AA, Secka A, Ly C 2011. Risk behaviors for milk-borne diseases transmission
along the milk chain in The Gambia and Senegal. Journal of Tropical Animal
Health and Production 43(1): 103-109.

Belay D., Kechero Y. and Janssens, P.J. 2012. Survey of Major Diseases Affecting Dairy
cattle in Jimma Town, Oromia, Ethiopia Global Veterinaria8(1): 62-66

Benta D., Abtamu T. 2011. Study on Prevalence of Mastitis and its Associated Risk
Factors in Lactating Dairy Cows in Batu and its Environs, Ethiopia, Global
veterinarian 7(6): 632-637.

Benta D. and Abtamu T. 2011. study on Prevalence of Mastitis and its Associated Risk
factors in Lactating Dairy Cows in Batu and its Environs, Ethiopia, Global
veterinaria 7(6): 632- 637.

78
Bereda A., Yilma Z., Nurfeta A. 2014. Dairy Production System and Constraints in Ezha
Districts of the Gurage Zone Southern Ethiopia. Global Veterinaria 12(2): 181-186.

Bereda A., Yilma Z. and Nurfeta A., 2012. Hygienic and microbial quality of raw whole
cow’s milk produced in Ezhadistrict of the Gurage zone, Southern Ethiopia.
Wudpecker J. Agri. Res. 1(11), pp. 459 – 465

Bereda A., Yilma Z. and Nurfeta, A., 2013. Handling, processing and utilization of milk
and milk products in Ezha district of the Gurage zone, Southern Ethiopia. J.Agri.
boil.and sustainable deve., 5(6), Pp 91-98

Bereda A., Yilma Z. and Nurfeta A., 2014.Dairy Production System and Constraints in
Ezha districts of the Gurage Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Global Veterinaria12 (2):
181-186

Berry D.P. And Meaney W.J. 2005.Cow factors affecting the risk of Clinical mastitis
Irish J. agri. and Food Res. 44: 147–156

Biffa D., Debela E., and Beyene F., 2005.Prevalence and Risk Factors of Mastitis in
lactating Dairy Cows in Southern Ethiopia.Intern. J. Appl. Res. Vet. Med.3(3) Pp
189 192 56.

Bitew M., Tafere A., and Tolosa T. 2010. Study on Bovine Mastitis in Dairy Farms of
Bahir dar and its Environs. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 9(23):2912-2917.

Buncic S. 2006. Integrated food safety and veterinary public health. School of Veterinary
science University of Bristol, UK, Pp 283-287

Central Statistics Agency (CSA). 2011. Report on Livestock and Livestock

Characteristics, agricultural Sample Survey Vol. 2, Statistical Bulletin 505, Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.

Central Statistics Agency (CSA). 2012. Report on Livestock and Livestock

Characteristics, agricultural Sample Survey Vol. 2, Statistical Bulletin 532, Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.

79
Central Statistics Agency (CSA).2017. Agricultural sample survey 2016/2017 on livestock
and livestock characteristics.Central Statistics Authority. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Code of hygienic practice for milk and milk products: CAC/RCP 57-2004.

Edward K.C. and Inya I.M., 2013. The Microbial Quality of Raw Milk from four locations
in Abia State, Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Pharmacy and Biological Sciences, (5): 30-
33.

E. O. Mungube, anagement and economics of dairy cow mastitis in the urban and periurban
areas of Addis Ababa (Addis Ababa milk shed) [M.S. thesis], Addis Ababa
University, Debre Zeit,Ethiopia, 2001.

FAO.(2013). Milk and Dairy Products in Human Nutrition. Rome, Italy.

Fincher M.G., Gibbons W.J., Mayer K. and Park S.E., 2001.Diseases of cattle, 1st ED. A
text book and reference work, India Pp 302-325

Food Standards Agency (FSA). 2006. Milk hygiene on the dairy farm a practical guide for
milk producers to the food hygiene (England) and to food hygiene (whale), PP. 1-
10.

Fufa A., Nigus T., Fikru R., Dinka A., Kebede A. (2019). Handling Practices, Quality
and Safety of Milk along the Dairy Value Chains in Selected Sub Cites of
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Journal of Scientific Techinical Research.13(1)

Getachew F., Medhin W. and Getnet H. 2014.Inventory of dairy policy-Ethiopia. Pp 13- 21

Giffel, M. C., Wells-Bennik, M. H. J. (2010). Good hygienic practice in milk production and
processing. In: Griffiths MW (ed.) Improving the Safetyand Quality of Milk. Vol 1.
Woodhead Publishing limited, UK.

Girma D., 2010. Study on prevalence of bovine mastitis on cross breed dairy cow around
Holeta areas, west Shewa zone of Oromia, Ethiopia, Global Veterinaria 5(6): 318-
323

80
Gizat A., 2004. A Cross-sectional Study of Bovine Mastitis in and Around Bahir Dar and
Antibiotic Resistance Patterns of Major Pathogens, A thesis submitted to the Faculty
of Veterinary Medicine, Addis Ababa University in the partial fulfillment for the
requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Tropical Veterinary Medicine,
Debrezeit, Ethiopia.

Getu Kitaw, Liyusew Ayalew, Fekede Feyisa and Gezahegn Kebede. 2012. Liquid milk
and feed value chain analysis in Wolmera District, Ethiopia.

Grillet N., Grimaud P., Sserunjogi ML. 2007. African Journal of Food, Agriculture,
Nutrition and Development, Issue 16(7).

Haile W., Zelalem Y. and Yosef T.G. (2012). Hygienic practices and microbiological
quality of raw milk produced under different farm size in Hawassa, southern
Ethiopia .Wud pecker Research Journals .Agricultural Research and Reviews Vol.
1(4), pp. 132 - 142, May 2012. Available online at
http://www.wudpeckerresearchjournals.org/ARR

Harding F. 1999. Milk Quality. 2nd.ed. Gaithers burg, Maryland: Aspen. PP 25-38, 104-
105.

Hiwot D., 2013. Hygienic practices during milking and bacteriological quality of the milk
in raw bovine bulk milk in the selected milk collection centers: small holder dairy
processing Ethiopia. Doctoral Program in Animal Nutrition and Food, Safety
Università DegliStudi di Milano Pp23-24

IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development).2004.Livestock services and the

poor. A global initiative. Collecting, coordinating and sharing experiences. IFAD,
Rome, Italy. 132 p. Available at http://www.ifad.org/lrkm/book/ english.pdf
Accessed 2013-07-08.

Idriss S., H. E., Foltys, V., Tančin, V., kirchnerová, K. and Zaujec, K., 2013. mastitis
pathogens in milk of dairy cows in Slovakia. Slovak J. Anim. Sci., 46(3): 115-119

81
Islam M. A., Rahman A.K.M., Rony S. A and Islam M. S., 2010. Prevalence and risk
factors of mastitis in lactating dairy cows at baghabari milk shed area of sirajganj.
Bangl. J. Vet. Med. 8(2): 157 – 162.

Iraguha B., Hamudikuwanda H, Mushonga B. Bovine mastitis prevalence and associated

risk factors in dairy cows in Nyagatare district, Rwanda. J S Afr Vet Assoc.
2015;86:1228.

Kivaria F.M.1., Noordhuizen J.P.T.M. and Kapaga A.M. (2006).Prospects and Constraints
of Smallholder Dairy Husbandry in Dar es Salaam Region, Tanzania. Outlook on
Agriculture (2006) 35(3) 209-215

Lidet G., Deressa B., Begna F. and Mekuria A., 2013. Study on prevalence of bovine
mastitis in lactating cows and associated risk factors in and around Areka town,
Southern of Ethiopia. African journal of microbiology research, 7(43): Pp. 5051-
5056

Lore T.A., Kurwijila, L.R. and Omore, A. 2006. Hygienic milk production: a training
guide for farm-level workers and milk handlers in Eastern Africa. ILRI
(International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya, Pp 1-12.

M.Thrusfield. Veterinary Epidemiology, Blackwell science Ltd, Oxford, UK, 3rd edition,
2005.

Martin K. and Terry G. 2007.Raw Milk Use and Safety Fact Sheet. Pp 5

Matthewman Richard., W. NoëlChabeuf. 2003. Dairying; The Tropical Agriculturalist

(1st Edn), Macmillan, London, UK, pp. 152.

Mbabazi P. 2005.Milk industry in Uganda, 1st (edn), Fountain Publishers Kampala,

medicine. 10th (edn), A textbook of the diseases of cattle, horses, sheep, pigs
and goats, Meeting Proceedings. pp. 11.

82
Mekibib B., M. Furgasa., F. Abunna., B. Megersa and A. Regassa 2010. Bovine Mastitis:
Prevalence, Risk Factors and Major Pathogens in Dairy Farms of Holeta Town,
Central Ethiopia. Vet. World 3(9):397-403.

Mekonnen SA, Koop G., Getaneh AM., Lam TJGM, Hogeveen H. Failure costs associated
with mastitis in smallholder dairy farms keeping Holstein Friesian × Zebu
crossbreed cows. Animal. 2019 Nov 13(11): 2650-2659. doi:
10.1017/S175173111900082X. Epub 2019 May 16. PMID: 31094307.

Melese A, Tesfaye W (2015).Bacteriological Quality and Safety of Raw Cow’s Milk in and
around Jigjiga City of Somali Region, Eastern Ethiopia.International Journal of
Research Studies in Biosciences. 3(5):48-55.

Ministry of Agriculture (MOA). 2010. Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Directorate,
Animal Health Yearbook.

MOARD (Minister of Agricultural Rural Development). 2007. Livestock Development

Master Plan Study Phase I Report – Data Collection and Analysis Volume I –
Dairy, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Pp 2.

MOARD (Minister of Agricultural Rural Development). 2005. Agricultural marketing

strategy, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Mosu S., Megersa M., Muhie Y., Gebremedin D. and Keskes S. (2013). Bacteriological
quality of bovine raw milk at selected dairy farms in Debre Zeit town,
Ethiopia.Comprehensive Journal of Food Sciences and Technology Research 1(1),
pp. 1 – 8.

Mungube E. O. 2001. Management and economics of dairy cow mastitis in the urban and
peri urban areas of Addis Ababa (Addis Ababa milk shed), Faculty of
Veterinary Medicine, Addis Ababa University, Debre Zeit, MSc Thesis.

Nibret M., Hailemariam T., Fentahun T., Chanie M. and Melaku A., 2012. Bovine
Mastitis and Associated Risk Factors in Small Holder Lactating Dairy Farms in
Hawassa, Southern Ethiopia, Global Veterinaria 9 (4): 441-446

83
O. M. Radostits, K.W. Gay, C. C.Hinchcliff, and P.D.Constable, “Mastitis,” in Veterinary
Medicine: A Text Book of Disease ofCattle, Sheep, Pigs, Goats, and Horses, pp.
674–762, Bailliere Tindall, London, UK, 10th edition, 2007.

Paul G., Angela W., Brian D. 2004. Training guide for small-scale informal milk traders
peri- urban dairy shed of the central Ethiopia. DEA. Lyon, France.

Quinn P.J., M.E., Carter B., Markey, and Carter, G.R. 2004.Clinical Veterinary
Microbiology. Mosby Publishing, London, pp: 43-55, 327-344. 60

Radostits O. M., Gay, C.C., Hinchcliff, K. W., and Constable, P. D. 2006. Veterinary
medicine. 10TH ED, A textbook of the diseases of cattle, horses, sheep, pigs and
goats, London, Pp 674-676

Shewangzaw A., Ahmed M., Nunu H. 2016. Handling, Processing and Utilization of
Milk and Its Products in Gondar Town, Ethiopia. Journal of Life Science and
Biomedicine. 6(6):120- 126.

Shittu M., Abdullahi J., Jibril A., Mohammed AA., and Fasina FO. Sub-clinical mastitis and
associated risk factors on lactating cows in the savannah region of Nigeria. BMC Vet
Res. 2012;8:134.

SPSS.(2011). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.Vision 20.IBM Corporation, SPSS
Inc., Chicago IL.

Tesfaye F.Y., Regassa F.G. and Kelay B. 2010. Milk yield and associated economic losses
in quarters with subclinical mastitis due to Staphylococcus aureus in Ethiopian
crossbred dairy cows, Trop Anim Health Prop 45(5): 925-931

Tesfaye Y., 2010. Feed Resources Availability in Tigray Region, northern Ethiopia, for
Production of Export Quality Meat and Livestock, Mekelle University, Ethiopia Pp
52-57

Teshager A., Duguma B., and Tolemariam T. 2013a.Smallholder Cattle Production

Systems in Three Districts of Ilu Aba Bora Zone of Oromia Regional State,

84
 South Western Ethiopia. American-Eurasian Journal of Scientific Research 8
(1): 38-46.

Thrusfield M. 2007. Sampling-Veterinary Epidemiology, Blackwell Science. Oxford,

UK. P 232 ;61

Tsegay Lijalem and Gebreegziabher Zereu,. 2015. Hygienic Milk Handling and Processing
at Farmer Level in Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Food Science and Quality
Management www.iiste.orgISSN 2224-6088 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0557
(Online)Vol.41, 2015

Worku T., Negera E., Nurfeta A. and Welearegay H. 2012. Microbiological quality and
safety of raw milk collected from Borena pastoral community. Oromia Regional
State, African J. Food Scie. and Technol., 3(9) : pp. 213-222.

Yibrah Tekle, Tsega Berihe. 2015. Bovine Mastitis: Prevalence, Risk Factors and Major
Pathogens in Sidama Zone SNNPRS, Ethiopia. International Journal of Innovation in
Science and Mathematics, Volume 3, Issue 5, ISSN (Online): 2347–9051

Yigrem S., Beyene F., Tegegne A., and Gebremedhin B. 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 62 pp

Zelalem Y., and Faye B., 2006. Handling and microbial load of cow’s milk and irgo
fermented milk collected from different shops and producers in central highlands of
Ethiopia, Ethiopian J. Ani. Prod’s 6(2): 2006:67-82.

Zelalem, Y. (2010) Microbial Properties of Ethiopian Marketed Milk and Milk Products and
Associated Critical Points of Contamination: An Epidemiological Perspective. Addis
Ababa.

85
Zelalem YK (2003) Sanitary Conditions and microbial qualities of dairy products in urban
and peri-urban dairy shed in the Ethiopian central highlands. EIAR DSpace. p. 43.

Zeryehun T., Aya T., and Bayecha R., 2013. Study on prevalence, bacterial pathogens and
associated risk factors of bovine mastitis in smallholder dairy farms in and around
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The J.of Ani & Plant Scie., 23(1): Pp: 50-55

86
 7. APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Questionnaire for hygienic milk production survey

1. Socio economic characters of the respondents

1.1. Code_________Name of the farmer ________________Phone no. _______________

1.2. Date of interview____________ Kebele ________________village_______________

1.4. Owner’s sex: Male [ ] Female [ ]

1.5. Owners educational level: No [ ] Reading and writing [ ] grades [] >6 grade [ ]

1.6. Religious: Christian [ ] Muslim [ ] Others [ ]

1.7. Number of family members :< 15 years [ ] >15 years [ ]

1.8. Main occupation: Farming [ ] Livestock production [ ] Off-farm business [ ]

Formal employment [ ] Informal employment [ ]

2. Production system

2.1. Major production systems exercised by the smallholder/farmers

Livestock rearing [ ] livestock rearing and crop farming (mixed farming) [ ] Crop farming
[ ] others (specify) [ ]

2.2. What is your main source of household revenue?

Crop cultivation [ ] livestock production [ ] mixed crop- livestock farming [ ] fishing [

] other (specify)

3. Livestock inventory

Species: Cattle

Calves _____Cow______ Oxen______ Total______

Male______ Female______ Dry______ Lactating______ Castrated______ Bull______

87
Species: Goat

Kid /Lamb: Male______ Female______

Yearling: Male______ Female______

Doe ______ Ewe ______ castrated ______ Buck/__________ram______

total__________

Species: sheep

Young ______ mature female ______ mature male______ Total ______

Species: Donkey ______ Horse______ Poultry______ Bees______

3.1. Rank the most preferred livestock species in the area in order of importance (1, for most
preferred and 2, 3…)

Cattle [ ] Sheep [ ] Goats [ ] Poultry [ ] Equines [] Camel [ ]

4. Purpose of keeping cattle (√)

Appendix table 1: Purpose of keeping cattle in study area

Services Rank1 Rank2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 Rank 6 Rank 7

Milk
Meat
Draft power
Cash earnings
Soil fertility mgt
Social prestige
Ritual ceremony
Others

88
5. Feeding practice (prioritize according to order)

Appendix table 2: Feeding practice of livestock in study area

Type feeds Rank

Natural pasture
Cultivated pasture
Cereal straws (‘teff’, barley, wheat…)
Stover (sorghum and maize)
Inset
Avocado leaves
Other leafy plants (specify their local names)
Fruits of different plants (like banana,
avocado…)
Salt and minerals
Other

6. Milk production
6.1. Where do you milk the cow? In barn [ ] in milking room [ ] others (specify)

6.2. Average Milk yield in each stage of lactation

Appendix table 3: milk yield of local and cross breed cows in study area

Breed Milk yield/day/liter

Early lactation Mid-lactation Late-lactation
Morning Evening Morning Evening Morning Evening
Local
Cross (write B.L)
Exotic
B.L= Blood level (less than 50%, 50% to 75%, >75%)

89
Appendix table 4: Chi-Square Tests for milk yield among local and cross breed cows in
study area

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi- 10.211a 2 .006
Square
Likelihood Ratio 10.648 2 .005
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The
minimum expected count is 22.59.

6.3. Type of milking practices:

Milking without suckling [ ] Few suckle before & after milking [ ] Suckling before milking
only [ ] others______

6.4. Do you practice complete milking practice? Yes [] No [ ]

6.5. If yes, why? To get more milk [ ] prevention of mastitis [ ]

6.6. Do you milk your animals in the absence (death) of their calves? Yes [ ] No [ ]

If the above question is yes, how? __________________________________

7. Hygienic and sanitary practices

7.1. How often do you clean milking room or Barn? Once a day [ ] Twice a day [ ]
Threetimes a day [ ] others _____________________

7.2. What kind of milker’s clothing do you use?

7.3. What kind of milking equipment’s do you use? Plastic material [ ] metal material [ ]
soil made [ ] other___

90
7.4. What materials used to wash milk handling equipment? Sponge [ ] Ash [ ] grass and
other leaves [ ] other local available materials (specify) ________-

7.5. Where do you store the milk after milking?

In refrigerator [ ] at room temperature [ ]

7.6. How do you consume the milk? Raw milk [ ] after boiling [ ] by processing the milk [
] other _____________

8. Hygienic practices, housing and bedding used by the smallholder dairy farmers in
Dara Otilcho woreda

8.1. Hygienic practices during milking:

Washing udder before and after milking [] Washing udder before milking only [ ] No
washing at all [ ]

8.2. Types of housing:

The same house with family [ ] Separate housing [ ] Outside house [ ]

8.3. Bedding used:

Grass [ ] Cereal straw [ ] Dry manure and dry barn waste [ ] others [ ]

9. Milking operation in Dara Otilcho district woreda

9.1. Who is frequently engaged in milking practices?

Mother [] Father [ ] Daughter [ ] Son [] Hired laborer [ ]

10. Sanitary practices for milk handling equipment used by dairy farmers and animal
health condition in Dara Otilcho district

10.1. Cleaning frequency of milk handling containers:

After each usage using cold water [ ] After each usage using warm water [ ]

Both [ ] None [ ]

91
10.2. Materials used for Washing of milk handling equipment.

a)___________ b)__________ c) ___________d)_______________ e) _____________

10.3. Animal health: Get animal health serves [ ] Do not get animal health serves [ ]

10.4. Have you encountered udder health problem? Yes [ ] No [ ]

10.5. If yes, what did you done to it? Treated by veterinarian [ ] left to cure by itself [ ]
treated traditionally [ ]

10.6. What are the major constraints of animal health delivery in study area?

__________________________________________________________________________

10.7. If you treat traditionally, what traditional treatment do you practiced usually?
_________________________________________________________________________

10.8. Do you milk a sick animal? Yes [ ] No [ ]

10.9. If yes, why? ____________________________________

10.10. Do you consume sick animal’s milk? Yes [ ] No [ ]

10.11. Do you milk a drug treated animal immediately? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Appendix 2: Distribution of udder infection across the four quarters in dairy cows

Appendix table 5: Distribution of udder infection across quarters

Quarters Clinical case Sub clinical case

examined positive negative CMT CMT negative
positive
Left Front (LL)
Left Rear (LR)
Right Front
(RF)
Right Rear (RR)

92
 100.00%

80.00%

60.00%

40.00%
Prevalence at
20.00% cow-level
Prevalence at
0.00% quarter-level
Local

Local

Local

Local

Local
Total

Total
Cross

Cross

Cross

Cross

Cross
Total

Total

Total
Clinical Sub- Total Blind teat Total udder
clinical mastitis problems
case

Figure in Appendix 1: Graphical presentation Overall prevalence of clinical and sub-clinical

mastitis at cow levels and quarter level

40.00%
35.00%
30.00% Bamisa
25.00% Tula hiricha
20.00% Shoicho
15.00% Lella womerera
10.00% Total
5.00%
0.00%
RF RR LF LR Total

Figure in Appendix 2: Prevalence and distribution of udder infection across the four quarters
in dairy cows based on their clinical stages in percentage

93
 80.00%

70.00%

60.00%
Bamisa
50.00%
Tula hiricha
40.00% Shoicho
30.00% L/womerera
Total
20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
RF RR LF LR Total

Figure in Appendix 3: Prevalence and distribution of sub-clinical mastitis udder infection in

percentage across the four quarters in dairy cows in study area
Appendix table 6: Chi-Square Tests for mastitis case among agro-ecologies in study area

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig.
Value Df (2-sided) sided) (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.276a 1 .022
Continuity 4.781 1 .029
Correctionb
Likelihood Ratio 5.349 1 .021
Fisher's Exact Test .027 .014
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 52.39.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

94
Appendix table 7: Chi-Square Tests for mastitis among different breeds

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig.
Value Df (2-sided) sided) (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 37.495a 1 .000
Continuity 36.155 1 .000
Correctionb
Likelihood Ratio 39.739 1 .000
Fisher's Exact Test .000 .000
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 52.72.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

Appendix table 8: Chi-Square test for mastitis case among different milking conditions

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig.
Value Df (2-sided) sided) (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .128a 1 .721
Continuity .061 1 .804
Correctionb
Likelihood Ratio .128 1 .721
Fisher's Exact Test .743 .402
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 56.37.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

95
Appendix table 9: Mastitis case among different agro-ecologies

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. (2- Exact Sig.
Value df (2-sided) sided) (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.276a 1 .022
Continuity 4.781 1 .029
Correctionb
Likelihood Ratio 5.349 1 .021
Fisher's Exact Test .027 .014
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 52.39.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

Appendix 3: Questions for group discussion

1. Types of Production system commonly and rarely practice?

2. What major constraints are challenging the livestock production system in study area?

2. What kind of off farm business are practicing by farmers and by whom they are handled?

3. What are the general hygienic conditions of farm activities?

4. Constraints affecting production system?

5. Who has the ownership of cattle in household?

6. Purpose of keeping cattle (meat, drought, soil mgt, etc?

7. Farmer Perception for the cause of mastitis and way of mgt?

8. How can farmers treat and heal to cure mastitis disease traditionally?

9. What major constraints are challenging animal health delivery in study area?

96
Figure in appendix 4: The plant locally called "Hatawo" used as traditional medicinal plant
to cure mastitis

Figure in appendix 5: The plant locally called "Haliila", tree climbing plant used as
traditional medicinal plant to cure mastitis

97