MEKELLE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SCIENCES

HANDLING PRACTICES AND POST-HARVEST LOSSES OF RAW COW MILK

PRODUCED AND MARKETED IN MEKELLE CITY, TIGRAY REGION, ETHIOPIA

By

Teame Ataklti Gebrehiwot

A Thesis Submitted to the College of Veterinary Sciences, Mekelle University, in

Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of science in

Dairy Product Processing Technology

November, 2023

Mekelle, Ethiopia
DECLARATION

I,TEAME ATAKLTI GEBREHIWOT, hereby declare that the research thesis work entitled
―Handling Practices and Post-harvest Losses of Raw Cow Milk Produced and Marketed in
Mekelle City, Tigray Region, Ethiopia‖ submitted by me for the award of the Degree of
Master of Science in Dairy Product Processing Technology is my original work and it has not
been presented for the award to any other Degree, Diploma, Certificate or other similar titles of
any other University or institution. Finally, I also confirm that all source materials used in the
material are recognized and dully acknowledged.

Teame Ataklti Gebrehiwot Signature……………. Date……………

November, 2023

Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia

I
CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Handling Practices and Post-harvest Losses of Raw
Cow Milk Produced and Marketed in Mekelle City, Tigray Region, Ethiopia”, submitted in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree Master of science in
Dairy Product Processing Technology to the Department of Veterinary Theriogenology and
Welfare, College of Veterinary Sciences, Mekelle University. The thesis is carried out by Mr.
Teame Ataklti Gebrehiwot under our supervision.

Muez Gebru (DVM, Associate prof.) ___________ ______________

Main advisor Signature Date

Tesfay Hailu (DVM, Assistant prof.) ______________ ________________

Co-advisor Signature Date

We, the undersigned, members of the Board of Examiners of MSc Thesis Open Defence
Examination, have read and evaluated the Thesis prepared by Teame Ataklti Gebrehiwot and
examined the candidate. This is therefore to certify that the thesis be accepted as fulfilling
the Thesis requirement for the Degree of Master of Sciences in Dairy Product Processing
Technology.

………………….. _________________ _________________

External Examiner Signature Date

…………………………… _______________ ________________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

II
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
DECLARATION ______________________________________________________________ I
CERTIFICATION ____________________________________________________________ II
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS _____________________________________________________ VI
LIST OF TABLES __________________________________________________________ VII
LIST OF FIGURES _________________________________________________________ VIII
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ___________________________________________________ IX
ABSTRACT _________________________________________________________________ X
1. CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION _____________________________________________ 1
1.1. Background and Justification _____________________________________________ 1
1.2. Statement of the Problems _______________________________________________ 2
1.3. Objectives ____________________________________________________________ 2
1.3.1. General objective __________________________________________________ 2
1.3.2. Specific objectives _________________________________________________ 2
1.4. Research Questions ____________________________________________________ 2
1.5. Significance of the Study ________________________________________________ 3
2. CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW _______________________________________ 4
2.1. Milk Production System in Ethiopia _______________________________________ 4
2.2. Milk Production in Ethiopia ______________________________________________ 4
2.3. Milk marketing in Ethiopia ______________________________________________ 5
2.4. Milking Techniques ____________________________________________________ 6
2.5. Hygienic Milk Handling Practice __________________________________________ 6
2.6. Traditional Milk Processing and Preservation ________________________________ 7
2.6.1. Traditional milk processing __________________________________________ 7
2.6.2. Traditional milk preservation _________________________________________ 8
2.7. Post-Harvest Losses of Milk _____________________________________________ 8
3. CHAPTER III: MATERIALS AND METHODS ________________________________ 10
3.1. Description of the Study Area ___________________________________________ 10
3.2. Study Design ________________________________________________________ 11
3.3. Sample Size Determination and Sampling Strategy __________________________ 11
3.3.1. Sample size determination __________________________________________ 11

III
 3.3.2. Sampling strategy _________________________________________________ 12
3.4. Data Collection _______________________________________________________ 12
3.4.1. Questionnaire survey ______________________________________________ 12
3.4.2. Observational survey ______________________________________________ 12
3.5. Data Analysis ________________________________________________________ 12
3.6. Ethical consideration __________________________________________________ 13
4. CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS _______________________________ 14
4.1. Characteristics of the Respondents _______________________________________ 14
4.2. Milk Production ______________________________________________________ 15
4.3. Hygienic Milk Handling Practices ________________________________________ 15
4.3.1. Type of housing and cleaning practices ________________________________ 15
4.3.2. Hygienic condition of cows and milker ________________________________ 16
4.3.3. Types of milking containers used for milking, storage and transportation______ 18
4.3.4. Cleaning methods of milk handling equipment __________________________ 18
4.3.5. Source of water used for cleaning _____________________________________ 19
4.3.6. Smoking practice of milk containers __________________________________ 20
4.3.7. Mode of milk transportation _________________________________________ 23
4.4. Milk Marketing Channels_______________________________________________ 23
4.5. Methods of milk quality test_____________________________________________ 25
4.6. Traditional Milk Processing _____________________________________________ 26
4.7. Milk Utilization ______________________________________________________ 27
4.8. Sources, Sales and Condition of the Milk Premise in Milk Vendors and Cafeteria __ 28
4.9. Post-Harvest Losses of Milk ____________________________________________ 29
4.10. Gender Participation in Milking, Processing and Marketing of Milk _____________ 31
4.11. Milk Production, Processing and Marketing Constraints_______________________ 33
4.11.1. Production constraints ______________________________________________ 33
4.11.2. Processing constraints ______________________________________________ 33
4.11.3. Marketing constraints ______________________________________________ 33
4.12. Association of Sex, Age and Level of Education with Milk Handling Practices ____ 34
4.12.1. Association of sex with milk handling practices of milk producers ___________ 34
4.12.2. Association of age with milk handling practices of milk vendors ____________ 34

IV
 4.12.3. Association of level of education with milk handling practices of milk cafeteria 34
5. CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION _____________________ 36
6. REFERENCES __________________________________________________________ 38

V
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am profoundly grateful to Mekelle University College of Veterinary Sciences for offering

me MSc study and Ethiopian Meat and Dairy Industry Development Institute (EMDIDI) for
sponsoring my MSc thesis research work.

I would like to express my deepest and sincere gratitude to Dr. Muez Gebru (Major Advisor) and
Dr. Tesfay Hailu (Co-Advisor) for their unreserved advice, encouragement, useful comments,
suggestions and constructive criticisms.

I would like to express my special appreciation to Mr. Tkabo Gebremariam for his devotion in
editing and commenting the manuscript.

I extend my thanks to the milk producers, vendors and cafeterias of the Adi-haki, Hadnet,
Hawelti and Semen sub-cities for their cooperation and generous response to requested
information during the survey data collection.

Last but not least, I would like to thanks to Mr. Amanuel Berhe who helped me in data
collection.

VI
LIST OF TABLES PAGE
Table 1: Sex, age, marital status and level of education of the respondents ................................. 14
Table 2: Weekly milk production in Mekelle city ........................................................................ 15
Table 3: Types of housing and cleanliness of the farm ................................................................ 16
Table 4: Hygienic condition of cows and milkers ........................................................................ 17
Table 5: Types of milk storage, sources of water and methods of cleaning milk containers ....... 19
Table 6: Practice, reason, frequency and plant used for smoking ................................................ 21
Table 7: Mode of transportation for milk vendors and producers ................................................ 23
Table 8: Traditional milk processing equipment and its problems ............................................... 28
Table 9: Milk utilization and estimated milk post-harvest losses ................................................. 28
Table 10: Condition of the premise, sources and sales of milk .................................................... 29
Table 11: Reasons for facing milk post-harvest losses and milk rejection problems ................... 30
Table 12: Gender participation in milking, processing and marketing of milk ............................ 31
Table 13: Milk production, processing and marketing constraints ............................................... 32
Table 14: Association of sex with milk handling practices of milk producers ............................. 34
Table 15: Association of age with milk handling practices of milk vendors................................ 35
Table 16: Association of level of education with milk handling practices ................................... 35

VII
LIST OF FIGURES PAGE
Figure 1: Ddifferent types of plastic milk storage containers of milk vendor at Hadnet sub-city 20
Figure 2: Traditional milk processing/churning equipment ____________________________ 20
Figure 3: Marketing channel of milk producers _____________________________________ 24
Figure 4: Marketing channel of milk cafeteria _____________________________________ 24
Figure 5: Methods of milk quality test used by milk vendors __________________________ 25
Figure 6: Acceptable limit of milk quality test ____________________________________ 25
Figure 7: Process flow of traditional milk processing and utilization ____________________ 27

VIII
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AI Artificial Insemination
CSA Central Statistical Agency
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
PHL Post-harvest Losses
SPSS Statistical package for Social Sciences

IX
ABSTRACT

The study was conducted from December 2022 to November 2023 in four selected sub-cities of
Mekelle, Tigray region, Ethiopia, aimed to assess the general hygienic handling practice and
post-harvest losses of raw cow milk produced and marketed in Mekelle city. A total of 160
respondents were interviewed to collect the required information from milk producers, vendors
and cafeteria using a semi-structured questionnaire and observational check lists. About 52.5%
of the respondents were females and the rest 47.5% were males. From the total interviewed
members about 33.8% were attend elementary school followed by high school (26.9%), diploma
(22.5%), read and write (6.9%), degree (3.1%) and illiterates (2.5%). In the current study area,
the average milk production per week was 123.09 liters/week. In the present study showed that
majority of the respondents clean the barn once a day. Nearly all respondents used plastic
containers for milking, storage and transportation purpose. This survey results revealed that
cleaning of milk handling equipment is common in all respondents. The water source for milk
producers (46.5%), vendors (100%) and cafeteria (100%) was tap water. The entire household in
the study area were washed and smoked their milk containers for the purpose of improving
flavor and increasing shelf life. Organoleptic and density test were the main methods of milk
quality test. The weekly milk post-harvest losses for milk producers, vendors and cafeteria were
0.60%, 0.25% and 0.70% respectively. The main constraints of milk processing in the study area
were lack of small scale processing equipment, low milk supply and poor milk quality. Among
the milk handling practices conducted by milk vendors, sources of milk, types of milk containers
and cleaning agents were significantly (p<0.05) associated with the age of the respondents.
Training of milk producers, vendors and cafeteria on hygienic milk handling practices and
quality testing can play a great role in lowering milk spillage, contamination and microbial
spoilage.

Key words: raw milk, handling practices, post-harvest losses

X
1. CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background and Justification

The total cattle population in Ethiopia is estimated to be about 66 million. Out of this total cattle
population, the female cattle constitute about 57 percent and the remaining 43 percent are male
cattle. On the other hand, 96.76 percent of the total cattle in the country are local breeds. The
remaining are hybrid and exotic breeds that accounted for about 2.71 percent and 0.41 percent,
respectively. Dairy-cows are estimated to be around 12.8 million and milking-cows are about 7.8
million heads during the reference period (CSA, 2022).

Dairy production is a major contributor to economic development, especially among the

developing countries, both driving economic growth and benefiting from it. As an engine of
growth, it provides increased income, employment, food and foreign exchange earnings as well
as better nutrition.

The demand in consumption of milk and milk product is steadily increasing in the country.
Given the considerable potential for smallholder income and employment generation from
high-value dairy products, the development of the dairy sector, can significantly contribute to
poverty alleviation and nutrition in the country (Tsadkan and Amanuel, 2016).

High spoilage is reported frequently in milk coming from lowland regions due to high ambient
temperatures prevalent in the area combined with lack of cooling facilities as well as transport,
scattered distribution of producers and long distance to markets, which make difficult to
deliver milk (especially raw milk) to urban centers (Lumadede et al., 2010). On-farm milk
losses caused by spillage during milking and transportation, and spoilage caused by poor hygiene
and use of inappropriate containers for milk storage whereas the Off-farm losses were
largely due to spillage during transportation and at retailers‘ premises due to poor
handling and use of inappropriate containers.

According to Ayantu (2021) and Tsedey and Bereket (2016) report, reviewing the causes of post-
harvest loss of milk and dairy product was necessary to find solutions to the problem and
justifying interventions aimed at reducing or eliminating these losses at country level. Other
major Influencing factors of milk and milk product losses attributed to marketing constraints

1
were poor rural infrastructure such as lack of cooling facilities, unreliable or non-existent
electricity supply; lack of technical knowledge on safe handling of milk (Tsedey and Bereket,
2016).

Milk processing is one of the mitigation systems used to minimize the loss of raw milk especially
in areas where infrastructure is underdeveloped to sale raw milk. Assessment of the quality of
traded milk and milk products has shown that value addition through small-scale processing is
important for income generation and reduction of post-harvest losses (Lusato, 2006 and Tsadkan
and Amanuel, 2016).

1.2. Statement of the Problems

This implies that dairy processing in the country is basically limited to smallholder level and
hygienic qualities of products are generally poor. Information on the hygienic handling of dairy
products and postharvest losses of cow milk are generally lacked and limited. Hence, the aim of
this study was to generate basic information on the hygienic handling practice of milk and its
products as well as the causes of milk post- harvest losses.

1.3. Objectives

1.3.1. General objective

 To assess the handling practice and post-harvest losses of raw cow milk

1.3.2. Specific objectives

 To assess the hygienic handling practice of milk and milk products

 To investigate the traditional milk processing and preservation techniques
 To identify the causes of post-harvest losses of raw milk
 To determine the post-harvest losses of milk

1.4. Research Questions

1. How is the hygienic condition of the cows and milkers?

2. What are the causes of milk post-harvest losses?
3. What are the plants species used for smoking milk equipment?

2
 4. What are the problems of using traditional milk processing equipment?

1.5. Significance of the Study

The study is attempted to assess the handling practices and post-harvest losses of milk in
Mekelle city. Besides, the study identified the basic hygienic milk handling practices carried out
by milk producers, vendors and cafeteria which are significantly important inputs for designing
appropriate strategies in order to improve the quality of milk produced and marketed in urban
and peri-urban area, and hence maintain the health of the end users or consumers. This study also
provided information on causes of milk losses and rejection problems, and in addition to this
provided the constraints of milk production, processing and marketing in the study area.

Government and Non-Government Organizations which are involved in the development of

dairy will be beneficiary from the results of this study. The findings of this study are also
believed to be useful to dairy producers, traders and retailers. The study can also serve as an
additional source for researchers to conduct studies on the same or related kinds in other
parts of the country.

3
2. CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Milk Production System in Ethiopia

Milk production system can be categorized based on agro-ecology, socio-economic structures of

the population and type of breed and species used for milk production can be classified into two
major systems, namely rural dairy system (pastoralists, agro-pastoralists, and mixed crop–
livestock producers) and urban and peri-urban dairy systems (Getachew and Gashaw, 2001).
Milk production depends on mainly indigenous livestock genetic resources dominated by
small holder farmers specifically on cattle, goats and camels.

The indigenous breeds accounted for 99.19 percent, while the hybrids and pure exotic breeds
were represented by 0.72 and 0.09 percent, respectively. Milking cows in the traditional sector
have an average lactation length of 190 days and an average milk yield 1.9 liters per day
excluding the calf has suckled. The total annual national milk production in Ethiopia received
from 9.6 million dairy cows and the product is estimated to be 2.9 billion liters which is, 1.69
liters yield per cow per day on average (Ayantu, 2021).

2.2. Milk Production in Ethiopia

Ethiopia has the largest livestock population in Africa with the latest estimate of 60.39 million
cattle, 30.7 million sheep and 30.2 million goats, 8.4 million donkeys, 409,877 mules, 2.2,
million, horses, and 59.5 million chickens (CSA, 2018). Despite its huge population, the
livestock sub-sector in the country was less productive in general, and compared to its potential,
the direct contribution to the national economy is limited (Yigrem et al., 2008). Out of this total
cattle population, female cattle constitute about 54.65% and the remaining 32% are male cattle.
This livestock is mostly maintained by smallholder, commercial, and pastoral farmers; and more
than 99% are indigenous low yielders that creates a high gap between demand and supply of
milk and milk products. The traditional (smallholder) milk production system, which is
dominated by indigenous breeds, accounts for about 97- 98% of the total annual milk production
in the country (YONAD, 2009).

Although the country holds more than 10 million dairy cows, the annual production is only less
than 5 billion liters leaving the country a net dairy importer. Productivity of the dominant

4
tropical cattle breed, Zebu types, is very low in terms of lactation period and daily production, 6
months and 1.35 liters per day, respectively. A number of factors affect this yield level; feed
quality and quantity, water availability, diseases, genetic potential and husbandry practices
(Biniam et al., 2016 and CSA, 2015).

According to (Getachew and Asfaw 2004 and Biniam et al., 2016) reports, estimated that from
the total milk produced it was estimated that 68.4% of the annual milk production is used for
home consumption, mainly rural and only 14.6% is marketed leaving 17% for calves suckling.
The same report also indicated values of 44.1% of the milk produced as home retained and
55.1% as sale from the total milk produced on the farms surveyed, the remaining 0.8%
considered as loss. These figures are dynamic and may not represent the current situation but the
magnitude is worth noting. Getachew and Asfaw (2004) reported that peri - urban dairy farmers
that have proximity advantage than rural farmers sell 61.0% to 75.2% of their milk through co-
operatives and self -help groups. Urban dairy farmers sell 56% to 71.6% to consumers.
Smallholders with indigenous stock use most of the milk for home consumption and processing
only. Road access is the key bottleneck to limited market off take of rural dairy farms.

2.3. Milk marketing in Ethiopia

In Ethiopia, liquid milk is marketed through both formal and informal channels. The informal
channel involves direct and indirect sales to consumers. In direct transactions, producers sell
their milk to final consumers at the farm gate, in their immediate neighborhoods or in the city of
Addis Ababa or nearby towns. People transport the milk on foot, by horse, by donkey or by
public or private transport. Producers also sell indirectly to consumers through itinerant traders
(Azage and Alemu, 1998).

About 95 percent of the marketed milk at national level is channeled through the informal
system. In this marketing system, milk and milk products may pass from producers to
consumers directly or through one or more market agents. Producers sell the surplus milk
produced to their neighbors and/or in the local markets, either as liquid milk or in the form of
butter and/or Ayib (O‘Connor, 1992 and Tenagnework, 2016).

The informal milk marketing system dominates the supply of milk and dairy products to
consumers in Ethiopia. Of the total urban milk production, 73 % is sold, 10% is left for

5
household consumption, 9.4 % goes to calves and the 7.6 % is processed into butter and cheese.
In terms of marketing, 71% of the producers sell milk directly to consumers. But in rural areas
especially pastoralists use the milk and the products mostly for home consumption; few
households sell their milk to the market ( Bruktawit, 2016).

2.4. Milking Techniques

It is important to follow proper milking procedures in order to obtain milk of good and consistent
quality. A properly executed routine milking procedure is part and parcel of clean milk
production. Milking is the most important activity in producing quality milk. Milk can be
extracted either by hand or by machine. Hand milking is an art, which can be improved with
practice. Traditionally, hand milking is mostly performed in open air and with hand and this may
expose the milk to contamination (Biniam et al., 2016).

Hand milking is the common method of milking. It is important that before milking the hands
should be washed using clean water and soap and dried well and fore-stripping should be done to
discard the first few strokes of milking in order to avoid milk contamination by
extraneous bacteria and allow a quick check for signs of clinical mastitis. Farmers are advised
to use pre and post dipping in order to reduce the resident teat skin bacterial population
and prevent the transmission of contagious bacteria respectively. The teats of the cow should
be dried after washing to avoid milk contamination with water remaining on the teats.
Moistening hand in milk, water or oil is not recommended and the technique of pulling
teats in milking should be avoided as it can cause irreparable damage to the udder due to the fact
that the udder is made by tissues and ligaments (Hyera, 2015).

2.5. Hygienic Milk Handling Practice

At farm level, milk quality is directly related to the farmer‗s capacity to apply handling
practices that reduce exposure to pathogens and eliminate their transmission during milking.
These practices include the animal factor which can, due to latent diseases (e.g. mastitis)
contaminate the milk and unhygienic milk handling practices. These hygienic practices
include cleanliness of animals (udder), milking environment, milking person and milk storage
containers (Lore et al., 2006). Mixing of evening and morning milk can also contribute to milk
spoilage depending on the preservation of evening milk (Younan, 2004).The handling and safety
6
of milk and milk products is of great concern around the world, this is especially true in the
developing countries where production of milk and its product take place under unsanitary
condition (Oliver, 2017).

The equipment‘s used for milk handling and the sanitary practices related to milk handling
include any material made up of locally available input or plastic jar in the market used from
milk collection up to product arrive to final consumer. The majority of milk producers and all
milk collectors and transporters as well as vendors and some consumers in the eastern part of the
country using plastic containers for raw milk handling (Ayantu, 2021).

The use of plastic containers is not advisable as it is sensitive to heat. Moreover, its surface is
easily scratched by nature with the common cleaning systems. As a result, after some time the
surface will contain a number of scratches, which can hardly be seen but are nearly
impossible to clean with the common cleaning systems and provide hiding places for bacteria
during cleaning and sanitization. This allows the multiplication of bacteria on milk contact
surfaces during the intervals between milk handlings and becomes a potential source for
contamination of milk with spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms (Tadele et al, 2016).

Raw milk is also known to be associated with pathogenic bacteria which cause milk -borne
diseases such as tuberculosis, brucellosis or typhoid fever, among others. Hygienic milk
production, proper handling and storage of milk, and appropriate heat treatment can reduce or
eliminate pathogens in milk. Hygienic milk handling includes using clean equipment,
maintaining a clean milking environment, observing good personal hygiene and preserving the
quality of milk during storage and transportation to the consumer or processing plant (Biniam et
al., 2016).

2.6. Traditional Milk Processing and Preservation

2.6.1. Traditional milk processing

Farmer process milk produced in their farms to other milk product in order to increase its shelf
life. Out of the total milk produced was used for traditional processing and convert it into dairy
products. The major products of the traditional milk processing were naturally fermented milk,
traditional butter, butter milk, cottage cheese, whey and ghee (Alganesh, 2002). Much of the

7
milk produced by rural smallholders is processed on-farm using traditional technologies which is
why it is important to describe such systems. While the processes used have not been subject to
extensive scientific studies, traditional milk processing methods appear to be effective methods
of converting milk into stable marketable products and have long been used for processing
surplus milk (Biniam et al., 2016).

2.6.2. Traditional milk preservation

While most smallholder farmers do not have cooling facilities, it is important to cool milk and
store it at as low a temperature as is practically possible if it cannot be delivered within 2-3 hours
after milking. This is particularly important for evening milk or where morning milk cannot be
transported to the milk collection point within 2-3 hours. Simple means of cooling, such as
immersing milk cans in ice blocks or cold water in a trough, are better than leaving the milk
uncooled. Where available, domestic refrigerators may be used but avoid freezing milk as this
destabilizes the fat (Biniam et al., 2016).

The milk producers used different techniques to preserve fresh milk without clotting, such as
smoking of the container and boiling of fresh milk before collection, or refrigeration. In different
production systems, smoking was the predominant practiced. The most of urban farmers uses a
refrigerator, an option which was almost not present in the peri-urban areas (Zollitsch et al,
2009). It is obvious therefore, that for technical and economic reasons technologies in fluid
milk processing such as steam-pasteurization, sterilization and aseptic packing are not common
on Ethiopian smallholder farms(Sintayehu et al., 2008 ).

The practice and purpose of smoking was to improve taste and flavor of milk and milk products.
Smoking was also practiced to destroy bad microorganism and improve milk fermentation. The
smoking practice in urban area to kill bad microorganism was because of better awareness of
community in proper handling of dairy products (Japaro, 2021).

2.7. Post-Harvest Losses of Milk

Post-harvest milk losses (PHL) are of substantial volumes (spillage) and quality (spoilage) and
forced consumption (Oliver, 2017). Post-harvest losses in the dairy industry can be described as
losses at the farm level after milking and through the market chain up to the consumption. This

8
is the milk, either raw, fresh or in its various products forms that gets spoilt due to poor handling
and lack of cooling facilities. The spillage losses are most likely on the minimum side. Most of
the milk is lost through spoilage (FAO, 2003).

Postharvest loss is a major problem of the dairy sector in tropical countries. The high
temperature coupled with the absence of cooling facilities and inadequate transportation
means hasten the spoilage of milk produced in these countries (O‘Mahoney and Peters,
1987). Postharvest loss of milk and dairy products reported about 40%,estimated to cost the
Eastern Africa countries over 90 million USD annually (www.fao.org). In Ethiopia, the rural
milk production system accounts for about 97% of the total milk production in the
country where it is difficult to transport the raw milk to the market areas or to the processing
plants due to poor infrastructure (Staal and Shapiro, 1996). Only about 5 % of the milk
reaches the market area and the rest is processed at the farm into different dairy products
(Mohammed et al, 2004).

According to Ayantu (2021) report, the largest proportion of milk post-harvest losses in Ethiopia
are experienced in the small-scale informal dairy sector and formal milk processors
generally incur minimal losses. In terms of quantity, significant milk losses occur at the farm
level. These losses are occasioned by poor road infrastructure and inadequate markets for raw
milk are the main causes of farm-level losses, which are largely in form of spoilage, spillage, and
forced home consumption (including by calves and humans) over and above normal household
consumption as well as irregular power supply in milk processing plants.

From the total amount of milk postharvest losses, the largest proportion is caused by
milk spillage due to different post-harvest handling practice. Milk spillage problem was one
among the several postharvest loss problems accounting for about 43% and 47% milk
producing households in Ada‘a and Lume districts (central Ethiopia), respectively (Kassahun et
al., 2014). According to FAO (2001) most postharvest loss of milk and milk product are
associated with poor handling, contamination, poor level of technology applied in the
preservation of milk to extend its shelf life and lack of market. Smoking of milk handling
equipment using different plant materials and processing of milk by traditional way are among
the mechanisms used to minimize the post-harvest losses of milk (Tsedey and Bereket, 2016).

9
3. CHAPTER III: MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Description of the Study Area

This study was conducted from March 2022 to November 2023 in Mekelle city, Tigray regional
capital, Northern Ethiopia having a total human population of 310,436 (CSA, 2018). About
90% of the total population was believed to be orthodox Christians, 6% Muslims and the
remaining 4% being Catholic and Protestants (Mekelle City Development Plan and CSA, 2007).
Mekelle is administrated by a mayor council system, in which municipal aspects are managed by
a city manager. The total area of Mekelle city is 53 km square ( Mekelle Strategic Plan 2005-
2007). Geographically, Mekelle is situated at 783 km from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and lies at an
elevation of 2,254 meters (7,395 ft.) above sea level (at the airport), close to the edge of the
northern portion of the Ethiopian Rift Valley, on a Jurassic limestone plateau, in a semi-arid area
with a mean annual rainfall of 714 millimeters and its monthly average temperature is 18 oc.
Mekelle is divided into seven local administrations: Hawelti, Adi-Haki, Kedamay Weyane,
Hadnet, Ayder, Semien and Quiha. Within each local administration there are kebeles or ketenas.

In recent years, Mekelle has experienced increased agricultural production due to improved
farming techniques and a transition from subsistence to cash crop farming. There are
numerous opportunities for investment in Mekelle. One area of particular interest is agriculture
and agro processing. Livestock-based agro-processing can provide a myriad of opportunities for
investors in the dairy, meat and leather industries.

In the year 2013, the Office of Urban Agriculture Development of Mekelle City registered 770
small dairy farmers and 20 dairy cooperatives having 36,516 total numbers of cattle; from this
25,369 are female cows and 9,014 are milking cows (Solomon, 2014).

10
Location map of the study area

3.2. Study Design

The study involved a cross-sectional survey method aimed to assess handling practices and
post-harvest losses of raw cow‘s milk produced and marketed in Mekelle city . A total of
160 respondents were selected using purposive sampling technique and interviewed using a
semi structured questionnaires.

3.3. Sample Size Determination and Sampling Strategy

3.3.1. Sample size determination

A formula by Kothari (2004) for unknown population (i.e. n = Z2SD2/e2) was used to calculate
the sample size for this study. Where Z, is the level of significance at 95% confidence interval
(CI) which was considered the point of the normal distribution corresponding to the level of
significance (Z=1.96). Standard deviation (SD) was estimated at 0.15 or 15% and e, is the
estimated error and was considered at 0.05 or 5%. Therefore, the sample size ‗n‘ was calculated
as:

n = (1.96)2 x (0.15)2/ (0.05)2

= 34.6 approximately n = 35 samples per each sub-city

11
But the researcher was supposed 40 samples per each sub-city (40*4=160) to be collected
through the semi-structured questionnaires from the respondents (milk producers, vendors and
cafeteria). The sample sizes were distributed to each study area on proportional bases.

3.3.2. Sampling strategy

Household milk producers, milk vendors and milk cafeteria that involved in the study were
selected based on potential of milk production, market orientation and willingness of the
households to provide information. Purposive sampling method is used to select respondents
and a total of 160 respondents (80 milk producers,40 milk vendors and 40 milk cafeteria)
respondents were selected from four sub-cities (Adi-haki, Hadnet, Hawelti and Semen) which
were chosen deliberately based on production potential.

3.4. Data Collection

3.4.1. Questionnaire survey

A cross-sectional survey was employed to collect data through semi-structured questionnaires.

Detail information related to household characteristics, milking techniques, hygienic milk
handling practices, milk collection and distribution, delivery and sale of milk, preparation and
serving milk for consumption, traditional milk processing and preservation techniques, milk
storage equipment, constraints of milk production, processing and marketing and post-harvest
milk losses and its causes were collected.

3.4.2. Observational survey

Personal observation was performed during questionnaire survey. Data related to types of
housing, floor, roof, drainage, cleanliness of farm, kitchen and vendor/server, and storage
equipment status were recorded on respective format and check lists prepared for specific
activity.

3.5. Data Analysis

The primary data collected from household survey through semi-structured questionnaires
was processed (data was checked for accuracy, data entries was coded, coded data was

12
entered in to computer). Processed data was analyzed by using Statistical Package for Social
Science (SPSS) version 16.0 software. Descriptive statistics such as mean, percentage and
frequency were used to analyze the data quantitatively.

3.6. Ethical consideration

Ethical clearance was obtained from Mekelle University College of Veterinary Sciences
Research and Community services council before undertaking the research. Verbal consent was
also obtained from participants for the questionnaire-based survey.

13
4. CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1. Characteristics of the Respondents

From a total of 160 interviewees, 52.5% of them were females and the rest 47.5% were males
(Table 1).The highest age groups of the interviewed were ranged 18-28 years which accounts
about 45% and followed by 29-39 years (27.5%), 40-50 years (18.1%), and 51-61 year
(6.9%) years and above 61 years (2.5%).

Table 1: Sex, age, marital status and level of education of the respondents

Variables Frequency Percent

(N=160)
Sex
Males 76 47.5
Females 84 52.5
Age groups
18-28 72 45.0
29-39 44 27.5
40-50 29 18.1
51-61 11 6.9
Above 61 4 2.5
Marital status
Single 53 33.1
Married 100 62.5
Widowed 5 3.1
Divorced 2 1.2
Level of education
Illiterate 4 2.5
Read and write 11 6.9
Elementary (1-8) 54 33.8
High school(9-10) 43 26.9
Preparatory(11 -12) 7 4.4
Diploma 36 22.5
Degree 5 3.1

N=number of respondents

14
The highest percent (33.8%) of the interviewed members were attended elementary school
(grade 1-8), while (2.5%) of them were illiterates (Table 1). This illiteracy was observed in milk
producers but, there were higher literacy in milk vendors and cafeteria as compared to milk
producers. From the entire respondents of the study area, 62.5% have got married. The rest
33.1%, 3.1% and 1.2% were single, widowed and divorced respectively.

4.2. Milk Production

The total annual national milk production in Ethiopia received from 9.6 million dairy cows and
the product is estimated to be 2.9 billion liters which is, 1.69 liters yield per cow per day on
average (Ayantu, 2021). According to the current study result in Mekele city, the average milk
production per week per household was 123.09 liters/week (Table 2).The highest milk
production was observed in Hadnet sub-city (164.85L/wk, 33.5%) ,whereas the lowest milk
production was observed in Semien (44.45L/wk, 9%).

Table 2: Weekly milk production in Mekelle city

Sub-city Mean(liters/week) N % of total sum

Adihaki 120.65 20 24.5%
Semien 44.45 20 9.0%
Hadnet 164.85 20 33.5%
Hawelti 162.40 20 33.0%
Average 123.09 80 100.0%
N=number of respondents
4.3. Hygienic Milk Handling Practices

4.3.1. Type of housing and cleaning practices

According to the current study, about 60% of housing (barn) type of dairy farm was semi –
opened and the rest 40% was a closed type (Table 3). While the floor and the roof of the barn
were concrete (66.2%) and metal sheet (96.2%) respectively. Maintaining the sanitary condition
of barn is important for the production of good quality milk. Clean, dry and comfortable bedding
condition is important to minimize the growth of pathogenic microorganisms (Gurmesa, 2015).

In the present study showed that 83.8% of the respondents clean the barn once a day, while the
rest 16.2% clean their barn three times a week (Table 3). However, proper and clean housing

15
environment is a prerequisite to produce milk and milk products of acceptable quality
(Gurmesa, 2015).

Table 3: Types of housing and cleanliness of the farm

Variables Frequency(N=80) Percent
Housing type
Closed type 32 40
semi-open 48 60
Floor type
Concrete 53 66.2
Stone 13 16.2
Muddy 14 17.2
Roof type
Metal sheet 77 96.5
Grass 2 2.5
Plastic 1 1.2
Drainage
Good 10 12.5
Satisfactory 51 63.8
Poor 19 23.8
Cleaning frequency of the barn
Once a day 67 83.8
Three times a week 13 16.2
Farm cleanliness
Excellent 13 16.2
Satisfactory 60 75
Poor 7 8.8
Storage condition of the hay and concentrate
Excellent 11 13.8
Satisfactory 62 77.5
Poor 7 8.8

N=number of respondents

4.3.2. Hygienic condition of cows and milker

In the study area, all the interviewed milk producers practice hand milking. In addition to that
these all milk producers wash their hand before milking, milk their cows twice a day during the
morning and evening times as well as wash the cow‘s udder before milking (Table 4). This
result contradicted with (Abebe et al. ,2012) who reported that all respondents did not use udder

16
washing before milking in Gurage Zone, Ezha district, southern Ethiopia. Cleaning of the udder
of cows before milking is one of the most important hygienic practices required to ensure clean
milk production. This is important since the udder of the milking cows could have direct contact
with the ground, urine, dung and feed refusals (Zelalem, 2010; Saba, 2015).

The use of individual towel and following essential cleaning practices during milking is crucial
for the production of quality milk (Saba, 2015). In Mekelle city from the total respondents of
milk producers, 51.25 % use individual towels to dry udder before milking (Table 4). However,
about 27.5% of the milk producers do not use towels or just use hands for udder drying, whereas
the remaining 21.25% use collective towels. (Zelalem, 2010; Saba, 2015) reported that carefully
cleaning of the udder followed by drying with a clean cloth was effective in reducing
the number of bacteria in milk contributed from soiled teats.

Table 4: Hygienic condition of cows and milkers

Milk Producers (N=80)

Variables Frequency Percent

Washing hands before milking

Yes 80 100

When do you wash your hand?

Before milking only 10 12.5

Before and after milking 70 87.5

Washing udder before milking

Yes 80 100

Towel used for drying udder

Collective towel 17 21.25
Individual towel 41 51.25

Just with hands 22 27.5

Milking methods
Hand milking 80 100

Milking frequency/day

Twice 80 100

N=number of respondents

17
4.3.3. Types of milking containers used for milking, storage and transportation

In the current study, about 95% of the interviewed milk producers used plastic container and
only 5 % of the interviewed used stainless steel as milking, storage and transportation vessels
(Table 5). This report agreed with the finding of (Gashaw and Gebrehiwot, 2018) who reported
that about 88.13% of respondents used plastic utensils and only 11.87% of respondents used
metallic utensils. The main types of plastic containers used to handle milk were plastic jerry cans
(recycled cooking oil containers, of capacity 3 to 20 liters). These were used because they were
cheap, light weight and better suited for transport in vehicles. The equipment used for milking,
storage and transportation determine the quality of milk and milk products. Milk storage and
transportation are aimed at having good quality milk available where and when needed for
processing (Gurmesa, 2015; Walstra et al., 1999). Therefore, producers need to pay particular
attention for the type as well as cleanliness of milk equipment.

The use of plastic containers can be a potential source for the contamination of milk by bacteria,
because it allows the multiplication of bacteria on milk contact surfaces during the interval
between milking. Unlike metal containers, plastic containers are less expensive hence easily
affordable by majority of farmers. They are also easy to replace when taken away by regulatory
bodies. Plastic containers were linked to poor milk quality due to the inability to fully clean and
sterilize them (Ndungu, 2019).

4.3.4. Cleaning methods of milk handling equipment

This survey results revealed that cleaning of milk handling equipment is common in all
respondents. According to this survey, 61.2% of the producers, 85% of the milk vendors and
87.5% of milk cafeteria used detergents and hot water to wash milk handling equipment whereas
only 2.5%, 7.5, 10% and 18.8% of the milk producers cleaned their milk vessels with cold water,
hot water, cold water and soap, hot water and soap respectively. All respondents in this survey
study reported that they washed and rinsed their milk containers before and after every use
(Table 5).

18
4.3.5. Source of water used for cleaning

For production of quality milk a good supply of clean water is essential. Water used for
washing and rinsing milk equipment during milk handling must be the same safety and purity as
drinking water (Saba, 2015). Milk producers in Mekelle city used different water sources for
cleaning purpose. According to the current study results, the water source for milk producers
were piped water (46.2%) followed by piped and river water (23.8%), hand dug well (22.5%),
and piped and hand dug well (3.8%) (Table 5). Water from non-tap sources used for different
purposes can definitely contribute to poor quality milk and milk products. Therefore, it is
important that producers should at least filter and heat treat it before use (Zelalem, 2010).

Table 5: Types of milk storage, sources of water and methods of cleaning milk containers

Variables producers(n 80) vendors(n 40) cafeteria(n 40)

Types of milk storage (%)
Plastic container 95 95 97.5
Stainless steel 5 5 2.5
Water source for cleaning (%)
Piped water 46.2 100 100
River 3.8
Hand dug well 22.5
Piped water and river 23.8
Piped water and hand dug well 3.8
Methods of cleaning milk containers (%)
Cold water 2.5
Hot water 10
cold water and soap 7.5
hot water and soap 18.8 15 12.5
detergent and hot water 61.2 85 87.5
Frequency of washing milk containers (%)
Before and after every use 100 100 100

N=number of respondents

19
 Figure 1: Different types of plastic milk storage containers of milk vendor at Hadnet sub-city

Figure 2: Traditional milk processing/churning equipment

4.3.6. Smoking practice of milk containers

The entire household in the study area were washed and smoked their milk containers.
According to the study results, the main purposes of fumigation (smoking practice) were
improving flavor (28.8%, 27.5% and 32.5% for milk producers, vendors and cafeteria
respectively), increasing shelf life (22.5%,22.5% and 5% for producers, vendors and cafeteria
respectively), and both improving flavor and increasing shelf life (48.8%,50% and 62.5% for
producers, vendors and cafeteria respectively) (Table 6). In the study area, all milk vendors and
cafeteria were fumigated their milk containers before every use. However, 57.5%, 17.5% and
25% of the milk producers were smoked the milk utensils before every use, after every use and
before and after every use respectively (Table 6).

20
The milk containers were fumigated with smoke from burned wood of specific tree species such
as Olea africana (Awlie), Acacia nilotica (Seraw), Dodenea anguistifolia (Tahses), Euclea
schimperi (Kliewo) and Solanum incanum (Qorenet) (Table 6). The milk containers were
fumigated by inverting them over smoking chips until the smoke died out (about 5 to 10
minutes). The residual charcoal pieces were brushed out with special twigs, followed by rinsing
with water (Wayua, 2012).

According to the local understanding, smoking of milk containers imparted special taste and
flavour to the milk, and disinfected the containers, thus reducing the numbers of microorganisms
and thereby extending the shelf life of milk (Wayua, 2012). Similarly, Endrias (2019) reported
that the purpose of smoking was to facilitate fermentation and to bring good taste or aroma to the
dairy product.

Table 6: Practice, reason, frequency and plant used for smoking

Variables Milk producers Milk vendors Milk cafeteria (N=40)

(N=80) (N=40)
Frequency Percent Frequency Percen frequency Percent
t
Smoking
Yes 80 100 40 100 40 100
Reason for
smoking
Improving flavor 23 28.8 11 27.5 13 32.5
Increasing shelf 18 22.5 9 22.5 2 5
life
Improving flavor 39 48.8 20 50 25 62.5
and shelf life
Smoking
frequency
Before every use 46 57.5 40 100 40 100
After every use 14 17.5

21
Before and after 20 25
every use
Plant used for
smoking
Olea africana 11 13.8 9 22.5 2 5
(Awlie)
Acacia Bussei 38 47.5 17 42.5 14 35
(Seraw)
Solanum incanum 3 3.8 5 12.5 2 5
(Qorenet)
Dodenea 3 3.8 4 10 6 15
Anguistifolia
(Tahses)
Euclea schimperi 10 12.5 4 10
(Kliewo)
Olea Africana and 13 1.5 1 2.5 4 10
Acacia Bussei
Olea africana , 1 2.5
Acacia Bussei and
qorenet
Acacia Bussei and 2 2.5 3 7.5 8 20
qorenet

N = number of respondents

22
Table 7: Mode of transportation for milk vendors and producers

Milk producers (N=80) Milk vendors (N=40)

Variables Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
on foot 34 42.5 14 35
Bicycle 23 28.8 10 25
on foot and 10 25
bicycle
Cart 15 18.8 1 2.5
motor cycle 3 3.8
Vehicle 5 6.2 5 12.5
Total 80 100.0 40 100

4.3.7. Mode of milk transportation

The means of milk transportation used by majority of the respondents in the study area for milk
producers were on foot (42.5%) , bicycle (28.8%),cart (18.8%), motor cycle (3.8%) and public
transport vehicle (6.2%), while the milk vendors were used on foot (35%), bicycle (25%), on
foot and bicycle (25%) and the remaining were cart (12.5%) and public transport vehicle
(12.5%)(Table 7). This result agreed with Shiga (2013) who reported that means of delivery milk
was done on foot (56.9%), by bicycle (13.8%) and motorcycle (4.6%).

4.4. Milk Marketing Channels

There are many milk marketing channels through which smallholder dairy farmers sell their
dairy products. However, most of the dairy farmers in the study area preferred to sell their milk
through informal chain where they get high price per litre of milk (Debele and Verschuur, 2013).
As indicated in Figure 3, milk producers‘ in the current study area were sold their raw cow milk
to milk vendors (42.5%), individual households (18.2%), and cafeteria (6.2%). In other hand, the
milk cafeterias collect their 77.5% milk from urban and peri-urban milk producers (Figure 4).
Tsegaye (2016) has also reported that milk produced in Bona district, Southern Ethiopia was sold
to consumers (68%) and traders (32%).

Marketing channels are routes through which products pass as they are moved from the farm to
the consumer (Winrock, 1989). Marketing outlet is the final market place to deliver the milk

23
product, where it may pass through various channels. In the study area, milk was sold for the
consumers through tracing of different channels and outlets.
Producers-consumers
Producers‘ → vendors→ Consumers
Producers‘ → vendors→cafeteria →Consumers
Producers‘ → cafeteria→ Consumers

Figure 3: Marketing channel of milk producers

Figure 4: Marketing channel of milk cafeteria

24
Figure 5: Methods of milk quality test used by milk vendors

Figure 6: Acceptable limit of milk quality test

4.5. Methods of milk quality test

The milk vendors in the current study area were tested the quality of milk by using organoleptic
and density test. Testing milk for organoleptic characteristics is often called sensory testing
and done using the normal senses of sight, smell and taste in order to know the overall
quality. The density of milk, among others, is usually used for quality test mainly to check
for addition of water to milk or removal of cream. Addition of water to milk minimizes milk
density, while removal of cream increases it.

25
As indicated in Figure 5, about 45% of the milk vendor respondents used organoleptic test
followed by density test (32.5%) and by both organoleptic and density test (22.5%).The
acceptable limits of milk quality tested by milk vendors using a lactometer (milk density) in the
study area was 12.82% for lactometer reading 20-25, 71.79% for 25-30 and 15.38% for
lactometer reading was above 30 (figure 6). Normal milk has a density of 1.026 -1.032 g/ml
(or 26 - 32 on the lactometer reading). If water has been added, the lactometer reading will be
below 26. If any solid such as flour has been added, the reading will be above 32.

4.6. Traditional Milk Processing

In Ethiopia, milk processing is generally based on Rg‘o (Ethiopian naturally fermented milk)
without any defined starter culture. This is due to a number of reasons including high ambient
temperatures, small daily quantities of milk, consumer preference and increased keeping quality
of sour milk. Milk processing is an important measure for the preservation of food constituents
as sources of nutrients and cash for many people in the world (Abebe et al., 2014).

In industrialized countries fresh cow‘s milk is usually extensively processed to be safe for human
consumption, to meet consumer requirements and also to prolong its shelf life. After harvesting,
milk is immediately cooled and transported to milk factories. The raw milk is subjected to
different processes to inactivate pathogenic microorganisms such as bacteria, spores, yeast,
molds, and viruses, which can cause health problems in humans (Geiselhart et al., 2021).

Milk processing is usually designed to remove water from milk or reduce the moisture content of
the product. Milk producers, vendors and cafeteria in the current study area, processed fresh
whole milk into sour milk prior to churning. Out of the total weekly milk produced, most of
it was sold (73.61%), 19.16% was processed while the left was consumed within the household
(6.63%). Out of the milk bought by milk vendors, 53.49% and 46.26% was sold and processed
respectively. Whereas out of the milk bought by milk cafeteria, 57.52% and 41.76% was sold
and processed respectively (Table 9). In the current study area milk was converted traditionally
in to yoghurt (Rg’o), butter (Tesmi), buttermilk (Awso), Ethiopian cottage cheese (Ajbo), ghee
(Fluh tesmi) and whey (Maycheba) (Figure 7).

In the study area, only traditional milk processing equipments were used for all processing
activities. The traditional milk processing is generally time consuming, varieties of products was

26
limited. Naturally fermented milk is the basis of diversified milk products such as butter, ghee,
yoghurt, cheese, buttermilk and whey manufacturing. The traditional milk processing equipment
and its problem is summarized in (Table 8).

Fresh cow milk

Rg'o/fermented
milk

Tesmi/Butter Awso/Buttermilk

Fluh tesmi/Ghee Ajbo/cheese Maycheba/whey

Figure 7: Process flow of traditional milk processing and utilization

4.7. Milk Utilization

Milk is utilized in different forms in the study area: as fresh liquid milk, as fermented milk
(Rg'o), butter (Tesmi), cottage cheese (Locally called Ajbo), buttermilk (Awso/Hquan) and whey
(Maycheba). Milk in the studied area was sold to local markets, processed to different milk
products and used for family consumption. The remaining considered as milk post-harvest
losses. The current study revealed that about 8.231 liters of fresh whole milk was consumed per
week (Table 9). According to the result, the majority of the milk produced was sold to local
markets and processed to fermented milk. This finding was opposed to Tsedey and Bereket
(2016) who reported that the majority of the milk produced in Southern Ethiopia was used for
home consumption and that is in the form of fresh whole milk.

27
Table 8: Traditional milk processing equipment and its problems

Variables Producers(N=80) Vendors(N=40) Cafeteria(N=40)

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Traditional milk processing equipment
Clay 1 1.2
Hamham 1 1.2 1 2.5
Plastic containers 78 97.5 40 100 39 97.5
Problems of using traditional milk equipment
Difficult for cleaning 16 20 2 5 12 30
Easily broken 2 2.5 3 7.5
Difficult for handling 50 62.5 16 40 18 45
Difficult for cleaning and easily 2 2.5
broken
Difficult for cleaning and handling 10 12.5 22 55 6 15
Easily broken and difficult for 1 2.5
handling
Milk serving equipment
Clay cup/Wancha 33 82.5
Plastic cup 2 5
Ceramic cup 3 7.5
Glass cup 2 5

N=number of respondents

Table 9: Milk utilization and estimated milk post-harvest losses

Variables Milk producers Milk vendors Milk cafeteria

N Mean N Mean N Mean
Milk produced L /wk 80 124.14
Milk bought L/wk 40 634.73 40 188.52
Milk sold L/wk 80 91.38 40 339.5 40 108.45
Milk consumed L/wk 80 8.23 40
Milk processed L/wk 80 23.79 40 293.65 40 78.74
Milk post-harvest 80 0.74(0.6%) 40 1.58(0.25%) 40 1.33(0.7%)
losses L/wk

N=number of respondents

4.8. Sources, Sales and Condition of the Milk Premise in Milk Vendors and Cafeteria

Most of the milk vendors and cafeteria in the present study area responded that they bought their
milk from rural and, urban and peri-urban producers. As indicated in (Table 10), all milk types
were sold by all milk vendors. Whereas 62.5% of the milk cafeteria respondents sold all types of
milk, 10% sold boiled milk only and the rest 27.5% of the respondents were sold raw and
fermented milk only. All the milk selling area (premise) of the milk vendors was closed area;

28
however 17.5% of the milk cafeteria was semi-opened; the left 82.5% was closed area.
Cleanliness of the storage equipment, floor, server and kitchen were summarized in Table 10.

Table 10: Condition of the premise, sources and sales of milk

Variables Milk vendors (N=40) Milk cafeteria (N=40)

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Sources of milk
rural producers 4 10 6 15
Urban and peri- urban producers 34 85 31 77.5
From their own dairy farm 2 5 3 7.5
Types of milk sold
Boiled milk only 4 10
Raw and fermented milk only 11 27.5
Raw, boiled and fermented milk 40 100 25 62.5
Serving milk to customers
By immersing a cup in to the large container/cooking pan 40 100
Hot from a thermal flask and put in a cup 1 2.5
Hot from the cooking pan and put in a cup 39 97.5
Types of containers used to fetch from large containers
A cup with handle 40 100 40 100
Storage equipment status
Very clean 24 60 22 55
Clean 16 40 18 45
Covering storage equipment
Yes
Cleanliness of the server
Very clean 21 52.5 17 42.5
Clean 19 47.5 23 57.5
Condition of the premise
Open area 7 17.5
Closed area 40 100 33 82.5
Cleanliness of the kitchen
Very clean 28 70
Clean 12 30
Cleanliness of the floor
Very clean 30 75 25 62.5
Clean 10 25 15 37.5

N= numbers of respondents

4.9. Post-Harvest Losses of Milk

Farm losses in Ethiopia were quantified at 1.3 per cent and this was mainly due to spillage during
milking and transportation, and spoilage caused by poor hygiene and use of inappropriate
containers for milk storage. However, farm losses represent only a partial loss in value since in
many cases unsold fresh milk that goes sour is sold later at a lower price. Off-farm losses were
largely due to spillage during transportation and at retailers‘ premises due to poor handling and
use of inappropriate containers. Transporters delivering milk from farms to private processors
reported spillage losses of up to 2 percent of milk handled. Informal sector transporters who

29
usually deliver milk door-to-door reported 1.5 per cent of milk lost through spillage (Lore et al.,
2005).
The estimation of postharvest losses of milk in the current study was assumed only milk that is
rejected from sale and milk dumped due to different reasons. The estimated post-harvest losses
of milk in the study area were 0.6%, 0.25% and 0.70% for milk producers, vendors and cafeteria
respectively. These results obtained by dividing milk post-harvest losses to weekly milk
produced for milk producers and to weekly milk bought for vendors and cafeteria (Table 9). The
major reasons for facing milk post-harvest losses and milk rejection problems were summarized
in (Table 11).

Table 11: Reasons for facing milk post-harvest losses and milk rejection problems
Variables Milk producers Milk vendors Milk cafeteria
(N ) ) )
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Milk post-harvest
losses
Yes 65 81.2 40 100 28 70
No 15 18.8 - - 12 30
Total 80 100 40 100 40 100
Causes of milk losses
Spoilage 4 6.2 1 2.5 20 71.4
Spillage 3 4.6 - - - -
Lack of market 58 89.2 18 45 7 25
Spoilage and spillage - - - 1 3.6
Spoilage and lack of - - 21 52.5 - -
market
Total 65 100 40 100 28 100
Facing milk rejection
problems
Yes 63 78.8 12 30 20 50
No 17 21.2 28 70 20 50
Total 80 100 40 100 40 100
Reason for rejection
Poor milk handling 26 41.3 9 75 13 65
practices
Long distance to market 2 3.2 1 8.3 - -
Use of inappropriate 15 23.8 - - - -
containers
Lack of cooling 11 17.5 - - 1 5
facilities
Cleaning problems 9 14.3 2 16.7 - -
Adulteration with water - - 6 30
Total 63 100 12 100 20 100

30
4.10. Gender Participation in Milking, Processing and Marketing of Milk

Labor division among family members concerning dairying activities such as milking, milk
processing and milk marketing in the study area are shown in the (Table 12). From milk
producer‘s respondents, 62.5% of the milking activity was done by males, 27.5% by both male
and female and the remaining 10% by female only (Table 10). This result was contradicted with
a research done in Toch district, Southern Ethiopia by Endrias (2019) who reported that 88.7%
of milking activity is done by women, and the rest 11.3% of the milking activity was done by
both genders.

The highest engagement of females in dairy activity was observed in milk processing (95%,
100%, and 100% of milk producers, vendors and cafeteria respectively). This finding was in
good agreement with the observation of Endrias (2019) who reported that 94.89% of milk
processing in the Konta special district, Southern Ethiopia was done by women and the rest
5.11% of milk processing was done by both males and females.

Table 12: Gender participation in milking, processing and marketing of milk

Variables Milk producers Milk vendors Milk cafeteria

(N ) ) )
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Milking
Male 50 62.5
Female 8 10
Male and female 22 27.5
Total 80 100
Processing
Male 3 3.8
Female 76 95 40 100 40 100
Male and female 1 1.2
Total 80 100 40 100 40 100
Marketing
Male 7 8.8
Female 22 27.5 33 82.5 36 90
Male and female 51 63.8 7 17.5 4 10
Total 80 100 40 100 40 100

N=number of respondents

31
Table 13: Milk production, processing and marketing constraints
Variables Milk producers Milk vendors Milk cafeteria
(N ) ) )
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Production constraints
Low milk yield 8 10
Shortage and high feed cost 42 52.5
Lack of veterinary and AI services 18 22.5
Lack of credit services 3 3.8
Lack of forage lands 9 11.2
Total 80 100
Processing constraints
Low milk yield/supply 13 16.2 16 40 1 2.5
Lack of training 15 18.8 9 22.5 2 5
Poor milk infrastructure 19 23.8 5 2.5 1 2.5
Poor milk quality 2 5 13 32.5
Lack of small scale processing 23 28.8 7 17.5 22 55
equipment
Lack of credit service 10 12.5 1 2.5
Expensiveness of house rent 1 2.5
Total 80 100 40 100 40 100
Market constraints
Low milk yield/supply 7 8.8 6 15 2 5
Low price of milk 8 10
Poor milk infrastructure 13 16.2 4 10 2 5
Expensiveness of house rent 5 6.2 5 12.5 7 17.5
Lack of linkage 24 30 4 10
Lack of market during fasting 23 28.8 18 45 20 50
period
Lack of credit services 4 10 2 5
Poor milk quality 3 7.5 3 7.5
Total 80 100 40 100 40 100

N=number of respondents

32
4.11. Milk Production, Processing and Marketing Constraints

4.11.1. Production constraints

There are different factors contributing for low production of milk in Ethiopia. The major milk
production constraints in the present study areas were shortage and high cost of feed
(52.5%),followed by lack of veterinary and AI services (22.5%), lack of forage land (11.2%),
low milk yield (10%), and lack of credit services (3.8%) (Table13). Similarly, Tsedey and
Bereket (2016) and Tsadkan and Amanuel (2016) reported that poor milk production and
reproduction potential of dairy were associated with feed shortage, unavailability of improved
breed, lack of veterinary services and low milk yield.

4.11.2. Processing constraints

There are different determinants contribute for a very poor trend of processing in the studied sub-
cities. The result of the current study revealed that the main constraints of milk processing were
lack of small scale processing equipment (28.8% and 55% of milk producers and milk cafeteria
respectively), low milk supply (40% in milk vendors) and poor milk quality(32.5% in milk
cafeteria) (Table 13).

The major challenges in milk processing industries of Ethiopia were milk supply through
informal market, shortage of milk in quality and quantity, lack of cold truck vehicles to collect
milk from milk producer or collection center and final products to market or consumers, lack of
quality and quantity packaging material, interruption of electric power and irregular current flow
of electric power, lack of existing original milk processing machine spare parts producing
factories, lack of trained man power on machine maintenance or repair, lack of well-equipped
laboratory facilities especially in microbiology laboratory and milk consuming habit of the
country (Japaro, 2021).

4.11.3. Marketing constraints

The major marketing constraints of milk and milk products in the current study area were
summarized in Table 13. Among the milk marketing constraints, lack of linkage (30% in milk
producers) and lack of marketing during the fasting period of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church
followers (28.8%,45%,and 50% observed in milk producers, vendors and cafeteria respectively)

33
took the lion shares. A research study conducted by Jiregna et al, (2013) reported that fluctuation
in demand and supply of dairy products (as a result of feed shortage and different socio cultural
reasons), poor infrastructure (Lack of cooling facilities, simple processing equipment and
quality testing skills and equipment) and the long time fasting of the members of the
Ethiopian Orthodox churches are constraints for marketing.

4.12. Association of Sex, Age and Level of Education with Milk Handling Practices

4.12.1. Association of sex with milk handling practices of milk producers

Among the milk handling practices carried out by milk producers, none of them were
significantly (p>0.05) associated with the sex of the respondents (Table 14).

4.12.2. Association of age with milk handling practices of milk vendors

Among the milk handling practices conducted by milk vendors, sources of milk, types of milk
containers and cleaning agents were significantly (p<0.05) associated with the age of the
respondents (Table 15).

4.12.3. Association of level of education with milk handling practices of milk cafeteria

Among the milk handling practices performed by milk cafeteria, milk reception time and reason
for milk rejection problems were significantly (p<0.05) associated with the level of education
(Table 16).

Table 14: Association of sex with milk handling practices of milk producers

Parameters of handling practices Sex

X2 p-value

Towel for drying 0.624 0.732

Source of water 6.768 0.149
Types of milk containers 1.404 0.236
Cleaning agents 2.311 0.679
Mean of transportation 7.775 0.101

34
Table 15: Association of age with milk handling practices of milk vendors

Parameters of handling practices Age

2
X p-value

Sources of milk 42.987 0.000

Milk delivery time 2.654 0.448
Types of milk containers 40.000 0.000
Means of transportation 20.045 0.066
Cleaning agents 3.331 0.343
Methods of quality test 15.678 0.016
Causes of milk losses 7.603 0.269
Milk rejection problems 5.615 0.132

Table 16: Association of level of education with milk handling practices

Parameters of handling practices Level of education

X2 p-value

Types of milk sold 10.743 0.097

Milk reception time 13.109 0.004
Types of milk containers 1.905 0.592
Milk bought from 4.088 0.665
Facing milk losses 4.319 0.229
Causes of milk losses 3.182 0.786
Facing milk rejection problems 3.254 0.354
Reason for milk rejection 24.654 0.000

35
5. CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

In the study area, the handling practice and post-harvest losses of milk were assessed. The
participation of females in milk handling activities was higher in milk vendors and cafeteria as
compared to in milk producers, whereas the involvement of these females with in milk producers
was lower as compared to the males. There were a fewer percentage (2.5%) of illiteracy in milk
producers. About 60% of the housing (barn) type of the dairy cows were semi-opened. This
semi-openness of the barn will expose the animal for unwanted hot condition, wind and rain.
Half of the milk producers use individual towel for drying the cow‘s udder. However, some
respondents use collective towel and bare hand to dry the udder. The use of collective towel and
bare hand for drying udder may result in contamination of the udder. Majority of the milk
producers, vendors and cafeteria used plastic containers for milking, storage and transportation
purposes. The use of plastic containers can affect milk quality because plastic containers can
easily crack, hide spoilage bacteria and are difficult to clean. All milk vendors and cafeterias
used pipe water, but the milk producers used river water and hand dug well in addition to pipe
water for washing and rinsing milk equipment. Water from non-tap sources used for different
purposes can definitely contribute to poor quality milk and milk products. Even if the majority of
respondents used detergents and hot water, there were fewer milk producers who used cold water
for cleaning the hands, milk utensils and the cow‘s udder. All interviewed in the study area
practiced smoking of milk containers by using different plant species in order to improve the
flavor and increase shelf life of the milk. The means of milk transportation used by majority of
the respondents in the study area were on foot, bicycle, cart, motor cycle and public
transport vehicle .The milk vendors tested the quality of milk by using organoleptic and density
test. Fresh cow milk converted in to yoghurt (Rg’o), butter (Tesmi), buttermilk (Awso), Ethiopian
cottage cheese (Ajbo), ghee (Fluh tesmi) and whey (Maycheba) by using traditional milk
processing equipmet. These equipments‘ are easily broken, difficult for cleaning and handling.
Milk post-harvest losses and rejection problems were faced in majority of the respondents. The
main causes of milk losses were spoilage, spillage and lack of market. The major milk
production constraints in the present study areas were shortage and high cost of feed , lack of
veterinary and AI services, lack of forage land, low milk yield, and lack of credit services.
Whereas the main constraints of milk processing were lack of small scale processing equipment,
low milk supply, lack of training and poor milk quality and infrastructure.
36
Depending on the findings, the following recommendations are made:

 Training of milk producers, vendors and cafeteria on hygienic milk handling practices
and quality testing can play a great role in lowering milk spillage, contamination and
microbial spoilage.
 Awareness should be created among milk producers on the importance of adequate
udder preparation, hygienic milking technique, use of clean milk equipment, washing
of milk containers and milkers hands using well treated water to improve the milk
hygienic quality and shelf life.
 If possible, drinkable water should be available for effective cleaning and sanitizing of
milk equipment and udder preparations, otherwise boiled water should be used for such
purposes.
 Milking, storing and transporting milk in non-food grade plastic containers are difficult to
sterilize and thus their use for milk handling contributes to milk spoilage. For this reason,
the regulatory authorities do not approve of/should ban using plastic containers in milk
marketing.
 Creating awareness among dairy industry stakeholders on the causes and levels of post-
harvest milk loss can contribute towards reducing the amount of milk lost along the
market chain, by making available technology and training information to users.
 Improve access to essential veterinary and AI services to maintain the health and
productivity of dairy cow.
 Ensure availability of quality feed and fodder at affordable prices and encourage the
cultivation of forage crops and green fodder.

37
6. REFERENCES

Abebe B., Zelalem Y., and Ajebu N., 2012. Hygienic and microbial quality of raw whole
cow‘s milk produced in Ezha district of the Gurage zone, Southern Ethiopia.
Wudpecker Journal of Agricultural Research 1(11):459 – 465
Abebe B., Mohammed Y., and Zelalem Y., 2014. Handling, Processing and Utilization of Milk
and Milk Products in Ethiopia: A Review. World Journal of Dairy & Food Sciences 9 (2):
105-112, 2014.
Alganesh T., 2002. Traditional milk and milk products handling practices and raw milk quality
in eastern Wollega.MSc thesis, Alemaya University, Ethiopia. 2002.
Ayantu A., 2021. Review on Determinants of Milk and Milk Product Post-Harvest Loss in
Ethiopia. College of Business and Economics Ambo University, Ambo
Azage T. and Alemu G., 1998. Prospects for peri-urban dairy development in Ethiopia. In: Fifth
national conference of ESAP (Ethiopian Society of Animal Production).ESAP, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
Biniam, K., Stephen, H., Jennifer, L., Gizaw, T., Yigzaw, D. and Amogne, D., 2016. Post-
Harvest Handling, Storage and Preservation Manual for Small Holder Farmers. Feed the
Future Ethiopia. Growth through Nutrition Activity.
Bruktawit S., 2016. Physicochemical Properties And Microbial Quality Of Cow Milk Collected
From Selected Subcity Of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. A master thesis in tropical animal
production and health.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency), 2007. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Agricultural
sample survey. Livestock and livestock characteristics bulletin, Volume II. Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency), 2018. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central
Statistical Agency of Agricultural Sample Survey 2017/18, Volume II Report on Livestock
and livestock characteristics (Private Peasant Holdings) Statistical Bulletin 586, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency), 2022. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central
Statistical Agency of Agricultural Sample Survey 2021/22, Volume II Report on Livestock
and livestock characteristics (Private Peasant Holdings) Statistical Bulletin 594, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.

38
Debele, G. and Verschuur, M., 2013. Assessment of factors and factors affecting milk value
chain in smallholder dairy farmers: A case study of Ada‘a District, East Shawa Zone of
Oromia regional State, Ethiopia.
Endrias, D., K., 2019. Assessment of postharvest losses of dairy products in Dawuro Zone and
Konta special woreda of SNNPR. Academic Research Journal of Agricultural Science and
Research.
FAO, 2001. (Food and Agricultural Organization). Milk and dairy products, post-harvest losses
and food safety I sub-Saharan Africa. Available on:
www.fao.org/againfo/projects/en/pfl/home.html-19k
FAO, 2003. Prevention of Food Losses Programme, 2003. Milk and Dairy Products, Post-harvest
Losses and Food Safety in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Near East. A Review of the Small
Scale Dairy Sector – Kenya
Gashaw, A. and Gebrehiwot, E., 2018. Study on Milk Hygiene, Quality Control in the Market
Chain in Jimma. J Adv Dairy Res 2018
Geiselhart, S., Podzhilkova, A. and Hoffmann-Sommergruber, K., 2021. Cow‘s milk
processing—friend or foe in food allergy?. Foods, 10(3), p.572.
Getachew F. and Gashaw G., 2001. The Ethiopian Dairy development Policy options, Ministry
of Agriculture and Food and Agriculture Organization, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Getachew F. and Asfaw T., 2004. Assessment of the type, level and value of post-harvest milk
losses in Ethipia. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development/ Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nations.
Gurmesa T., 2015. Microbiological quality and impact of hygienic practices on raw cow's milk
obtained from pastoralists and market. The case of Yabello District, Borana zone, Ethiopia
Hyera E., 2015. Evaluation of Microbial Contamination along the Milk Value Chain in Two
Districts of Tanzania. A master thesis. Morogoro, Tanzania.
Japaro A., 2021. Dairy Product Processing and It‘s Marketing in Ethiopia: Current Scenario and
Way Forward. J Vet Med Animal Sci. 2021; 4(2): 1090.
Jiregna D., Alganesh T., Shiv P., and Mulugeta K., 2013. Dairy Production Potential and
Challenges in Western Oromia Milk Value Chain, Oromia, Ethiopia. Journal of Agriculture
and Sustainability ISSN 2201-4357 Volume 2 (2013), Number 1, 1-21

39
Kashongwe B., 2017. Assessing farm level practices affecting milk production, quality and
postharvest losses in smallholder dairy and pastoral camel herds of Kenya (Doctoral
dissertation, Egerton University).
Kassahun M., Bilatu A. and Adey M., 2014. Milk marketing and post-harvest loss problem in
Ada‘a and Lume districts of east Shoa Zone, Central Ethiopia. Journal of Food Science Vol.
3(4), pp. 027 – 033.
Kothari C.R., 2004. Research methodology. new Age.
Lore T., Kurwijila L. 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
Lore T., Omore, A. and Staal, S., 2005. Types, Levels and Causes of Post-Harvest Milk and
Dairy Losses in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Near East. Phase Two Synthesis Report.
International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi.
Lumadede A., Owuor G., Laqua H., Gluecks I., 2010. Pastoral milk production and market
chain analysis in dollo ado and dollo bay, Somali region of Ethiopia for save the
children/US-Version 1, pp 1-34.
Lusato R., 2006. Hygienic milk handling, processing and marketing. Reference guide for
training and certification of small-scale milk traders in East Africa. Volume 1. Regal Press
Kenya Limited, Nairobi, Kenya.
Mekelle City Administration, 2005/06. Mekelle City Strategic Plan, 2005-2007. Mekelle,
Tigray, Ethiopia
Mekelle Municipality, 2003. Mekelle City Profile (Unpublished Document), Mekelle, Tigray,
Ethiopia.
Mohamed A., Simeon E., Yemesrach A., 2004. Dairy development in Ethiopia. EPTD
discussion paper No. 123. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington, DC
20006. U.S.A.
Ndungu M., 2019. Determinants of Post-Harvest Milk Losses among Milk Producers and
Transporters in the Dairy Value Chain in Nyandarua North Sub-County, Kenya.
O‘Connor C., 1995. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Training manual 1. Rural
dairy technology. International Livestock Research Institute Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Accessed at 192.156.1 37.110/website/html/training Mat/Manual.pdf on 12th August 2011.

40
O‘Mahoney F., and Peters J., 1987. Options for smallholders Milk Processing. World Animal
Rev., 62: 16 30.
Olivier K., 2017. Assessing Farm Level Practices Affecting Milk Production, Quality and
Postharvest Losses in Smallholder Dairy And Pastoral Camel Herds Of Kenya
Saba H., 2015. Quality Assessment of Cattle Milk In Adea Berga, EJERIE DISTRICTS OF
WEST SHOA ZONE, ETHIOPIA. Msc.Thesis. Haramaya University, Ethiopia, Ethiopia.
Sintayehu Y., Fekadu B., Azage T. and Berhanu G., 2008. Dairy production, processing and
marketing systems of Shashemene-Dilla area, South Ethiopia. IPMS (Improving
Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper 9, ILRI
(Inter -national Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. 2008; 62
Solomon, 2014. Explanation of Challenges and Prospects of Milk Production (A Survey Study
on Mekelle City). MSc. Thesis.
Staal S. and Shapiro K., 1996. The economic impact of public policy on smallholder peri-urban
dairy producers in and around Addis Ababa. ESAP (Ethiopian Society of Animal
Production) Publication. No. 2.
Tadele A., Mitiku E., Yoseph M. and Ameha K., 2016. Milk postharvest handling practices back
across the supply chain in Eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Advanced Veterinary and Animal
Research, 3(2): 112-126.
Tenagnework, 2016. Cow Milk Market Value Chain Analysis And Raw Milk Adulteration Test
In Gorodola District, Guji Zone, Oromia Region. Master Thesis.
Tigray Bureau of Agriculture, 2008. Regional Strategy of Livestock Resource Development.
Tollosa W., Edessa N., Ajebu N. and Haile W., 2014. Milk handling practices and its challenges
in Borena pastoral community, Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research.
Tsadkan Z. and Amaniel, T., 2016. Assessment of Post-Harvest Loss of Milk and Milk Products
and Traditional Mitigation Systems in Mekelle Milk Shed, Northern Ethiopia. Mekelle
Agricultural Research Center, PO Box 258 Mekelle, Tigray, Ethiopia.
Tsedey A. and Bereket H., 2016. Assessment of Post-Harvest Loss of Milk and Milk Products
and Traditional Mitigation Systems in Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Food Science and
Quality Management vol. 48, pp 1

41
Tsegaye, k., 2016. Assessment of milk production and marketing systems, and evaluation of the
productive performances of crossbred dairy cows in Bona Zuria district of Sidama Zone,
Southern Ethiopia
Walstra P., Geurts T., Noomen A. and Van Boekel M., 1999. Dairy Technology: Principles of
Milk Properties and Processes. 1st.ed. Newyork: Marcel Dekker. PP 149-170.
Wayua F., Okoth M. and Wangoh J., 2012. Survey of Postharvest Handling, Preservation and
Processing Practices along the Camel Milk Chain in Isiolo District, Kenya. African journal
food, agriculture, nutrition and development, volume 12 No, 7.
Winrock J., 1989. Conducting on-farm animal research: Procedures and economic analysis.
National printers Ltd, Singapore.
Yigrem S., Beyene F., Tegegne A., and Gebremedhin B., 2008. Dairy production, processing and
marketing systems of Shashemene-Dilla area, South Ethiopia. IPMS Working Paper.
YONAD, 2009. Value chain analysis of milk and milk products in Borana pastoralist area.
Regional Resilience Enhancement against Drought Project. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Younan M., 2004. Milk hygiene and udder health.
Zelalem Y., 2010. Quality factors that affect Ethiopian milk business: Experiences from selected
dairy potential areas. Netherlands Development Organization, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

42