|
|
| The Context |
|
Who?
Targeted at ...
|
The technology is aimed primarily at smallholder mixed farmers with young children as part of the household. Secondarily the technology is directed to agricultural, livestock and veterinary extension and other advisory personnel (public and private sectors including NGOs). Primary health care workers in human health could also be targeted and encouraged to promote the technology to mothers during ante and post natal discussions and treatments.
. |
When?
|
The tool can be used at all times of the year (as goats are largely non-seasonal breeders and produce young throughout the year) by families with young children. |
Where?
|
Areas of the tropics with semiarid to (mainly) subhumid climates where mixed crop/livestock farming is practised and where there are no local inhibitions or taboos on the use of goat milk for human consumption are most likely to see widespread and successful uptake of the recommended technology. |
| Methods |
These ideas are aimed at increasing milk production in native goats whilst taking care that there are no or only minor adverse effects on other aspects of production by the goat itself. These aspects include:
- No reduced reproductive performance (from delayed onset of oestrus after parturition or reduced kidding rates from a smaller proportion of multiple births),
- No increased mortality of kids (which in most cases is probably already high) or breeding goats, and
- No adverse effects on kid growth rates.
Higher milk yields are achieved through providing maize bran as a supplement to the natural feed resources. In the trial that was the basis of this tool maize bran was offered at an amount of approximately 250 g (or about one double handful) per breeding female per day during the course of her lactation. |
| Resources Required |
The tool should be used at least initially only by families who already own and are familiar with goats and goat production. An assured supply (preferably from within the household) of maize and/or maize bran is needed for supplementary feeding of the goats. |
| Support |
Some support will normally be required from public and private advisory services in order to ensure the technology is correctly transferred and properly used. The extension personnel themselves will need to be trained in the technology. If primary health care workers are also to be included in creating awareness of the use and benefits of the technology they will also need to be included in a training programme. |
| Costs |
Additional financial costs are likely to be small. There may be a need for housing that is somewhat better than the traditional system. In the trial that formed the basis for the development of this tool special and probably rather expensive and perhaps overelaborate sheds were constructed of gum (Eucalyptus) poles, corrugated iron sheeting and chain link fencing. It should certainly be possible to find and use lower cost local alternatives for the corrugated iron and chain link (such as thatch for the roof and woven grass mats for the sides). The main costs are almost certainly going to be non financial and might involve improved or adapted management including separation of kids from dams (best done overnight) to allow milk to accumulate in the udder. More time will also need to be spent with animals in preparation and provision of supplementary feed and in the actual milking of the animal. As farmers do place an intrinsic value on their time it is important to ensure that the perceived benefits assume dominance over the perceived inconveniences. |
| Benefits |
The basal benefits are a daily milk "yield" (that is milk offtake for human consumption) that is higher for supplemented than for unsupplemented animals as well as a longer lactation (in the Malawi trial lactation length increased from 117 days for animals not receiving supplementation to 147 days for those that did receive maize bran as a supplement). None of the performance traits of dams and kids already enumerated in the "Methods" section were adversely affected as a result of taking milk from the dams. These benefits are immediate and obvious and there is no reason they should not be sustainable.
The benefits to child health and welfare were not studied in the Malawi trial. There is, however, more than sufficient evidence from multiple sources that a better diet that includes milk and milk products has beneficial effects on the physical and mental health of young children. The milk of Malawi goats is of very high quality for human nutrition. An amount of 200 ml provides 10 g protein, 13 g fat and 250 mg calcium. Fed to young children this would go a long way towards providing their daily requirements of these important elements of the diet. |
| Risks |
There appear to be few risks associated with the use of the technology. It should be noted, however, that the mineral composition of goat milk is not suitable for very young babies of less than one year old although as most are still suckling their mothers up to this age the risk is reduced. |
| Alternatives |
There are few or no low cost alternatives. Most smallholder do not keep cattle and the cost of purchase of milk or of milk substitutes or replacements is likely to be too high for most families in the target group. |
| Impacts |
Positive and negative impacts have been covered in the preceding sections. |
| Policy Implications |
Improved nutrition of goats as an intermediate step in the improved nutrition and welfare of young children should form part of the policy of national, regional and district administrations. |
|
| Research Findings |
If the milk taken from indigenous does is to be useful then daily production needs to be in excess of 150ml. The compositional quality of this milk has been shown to be high with 53g protein/kg. Two hundred millilitres can thus provide a child with over 109 high quality protein (50% of RDA) as well as valuable amounts of Calcium and Vitamin A. In these trials supplemented animals sustained these production levels for an average of 20 weeks in 1993-94 and 12 weeks in 1994. The lower production of unsupplemented animals would still make a contribution to the diets of small children but would be unlikely to justify the effort involved.
However, any such production will only be acceptable if it does not prejudice other outputs and outcomes. Where does were milked but not supplemented kidding was 130%. This figure is not high, in view of the perception of the goat as a fecund animal, but it is better than the 109% reported by Reynolds (1979) and the 107% of Karua (1988). It is clear that supplementation in the period leading up to service improved ovulation rate and hence litter size, as would be expected. Kid mortality is clearly a potential problem, though variations between years have been shown to be considerable. Of the 5 years covered, four have not produced any treatment effects. Over that period overall kid mortality has averaged 38%. The 60% mortality experienced in kids from milked does in 1993 was thus both distressing and unexpected and the outbreak of bacterial scour aside, not easily explained. In terms of growth the 9.18+/-1:1.64 kg at 18 weeks attained by those surviving to that age was higher than those attained in the earlier trials and in line with those reported by Renolds (1979), for kids from unmilked does, which averaged 8.2+/-2.0kg at 12 wks and 11.9+/-2.7kg at 24 weeks. Malnutrition does not therefore appear to have been a problem, in surviving kids at least!
It is normally expected that lactating females lose weight in early lactation and this weight loss may be associated with delays in re-establishment of oestrus and/or poor conception rates, especially if it exceeds 5% of bodyweight. All three trial groups lost weight, as expected, but losses were within the acceptable range and did not affect subsequent reproductive performance. It is therefore suggested that the hand-milking of does is a practice which may be undertaken without detriment to the doe or to her production. It is clear, however that kid mortality may be substantial and that the benefits of having milk available will need to be weighed against these potential losses. Nonetheless, it is accepted that, despite attempts to mirror subsistence farming conditions, it is possible that in a genuine village situation the impact of the strategy might be greater. It is considered desirable that an evaluation of the technique be carried out under village conditions. Further, given that the routine, daily milking of does with very small teats might be considered tedious, such an evaluation would allow evaluation of the acceptability of the technique and the likelihood of its uptake. In view of the intention to make any milk produced available to the younger children in a family, it is desirable that the woman of the house be the main participant in any such trial. |
|
| References and Further Reading |
|
