Vol. 14(35), pp.

1990-2005, December, 2019

DOI: 10.5897/AJAR2019.14087
Article Number: 74DB1A562458
ISSN: 1991-637X
Copyright ©2019 African Journal of Agricultural
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR Research

Full Length Research Paper

Milk production, marketing practices and qualities

along milk supply chains of Haramaya District, Ethiopia
Mitiku Eshetu*, Mekdes Seyoum and Yesihak Yusuf Mummed
School of Animal and Range Sciences, Haramaya University, P. O. Box 138, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia.
Received 7 April, 2019; Accepted 4 October, 2019

A study was conducted with the aim of evaluating the physicochemical properties and microbial
qualities of raw cow’s milk along the milk supply chain in Haramaya district. A total of 123 smallholder
dairy producers, one dairy cooperative, 3 milk collectors, 6 milk retailers, 8 selling points and 18
consumers were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. Sixty raw milk samples were used
for physicochemical and microbiological analysis. Random sampling method was used to collect
samples from producers and purposive sampling method was used to collect samples from other
sampling sources. The overall mean values for temperature, pH, specific gravity and titratable acidity of
marketed milk in the study area were 24.07°C, 6.32, 1.03, and 0.20, respectively, while the overall mean
value of fat, protein, total solids, solids-not-fat, and lactose contents were 4.50, 3.24, 12.78, 8.28, and
4.27%, respectively. Significant differences (P<0.05) were found between the sources of milk samples
on all measured parameters of chemical composition except fat content. The overall mean total
bacterial, coliform, and yeast and mould counts were 5.48, 4.96 and 4.90 log cfu/ml, respectively. In
conclusion, the result of this study indicated that milk samples collected from all sampling points were
subjected to microbial contamination and did not meet quality standards set by Quality Standard
Authority of Ethiopia. It is, therefore, recommended that awareness should be created among
stakeholders involved in milk production and handling practices on method of quality milk production
and marketing in the study areas.

Key words: Raw milk, milk value chain, physicochemical properties, microbial quality.

INTRODUCTION

Cattle are the main source of milk (95%) in Ethiopia capital average which was about 100 L/year (FAO, 2010).
(CSA, 2010). It is also an economically important farm In Ethiopia, the milk marketing system is not well
commodity and investment option for smallholder farmers developed and for the majority of smallholder producers,
in the country (Zelalem et al., 2011). However, the access to market is limited. In year 2010, for instance,
Ethiopian per capital milk consumption was much lower only less than 7% of the annual milk production was
(17 kg) compared to that of African average which was estimated to be marketed at national level. In 2009, there
about 62.5 kg recommended as a minimum level to were 180 cooperatives involved in milk production and
satisfy the need for a balanced diet and the world’s per marketing in the entire nation, accounting for only 2% of

*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected].

Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 International License
 Eshetu et al. 1991

agriculture based cooperatives. These small proportions determined based on the formula suggested by Yamane (1967).
of existing dairy cooperatives were operating in areas Accordingly, 123 sample farmers were randomly selected from
selected kebeles of Haramaya District having lactating cow on
that are accessible to transportation and market. This has proportionality basis at 95% confidence level with degree of
resulted in the inability of substantial amount of milk to variability of 0.05 level of precision which was recommended to
rarely reached the market in demand of the commodity obtain a sample size, required to represent a true population. The
(Zelalem, 2012). total number of farmers having lactating cow was 178.
In addition to low level of milk production, post-harvest
handling of the product contributed to significant loss
along the value chain. The quality of milk was
compromised by not only milk producers but also by milk
collectors and transporters, vendors and consumers where n=sample size, N=population size and e=level of precision.
across the supply chain (Mattias, 2013). Unhygienic Milk samples were collected from a subset of farmers and
conditions of milking, unclean conditions of handling purposively selected milk supply chain actors that include milk
cooperative, milk collectors, retailers, selling points (who sold boiled
equipment and the use of contaminated cleaning water
milk) and consumers in the district.
were reported among the important sources of milk
contamination (Zelalem, 2012).
Milk is a complex biological fluid and by its nature, a Laboratory work
good growth medium for many microorganisms. It
contains almost all nutrients required for the growth of Milk samples were collected for the determination of the physical
properties, chemical composition and microbial qualities. A total of
newborn; and protein, fat, and lactose are the major 60 milk samples were collected for laboratory analysis directly from
component of milk. Because of its physicochemical sample farmers, dairy cooperative (pooled milk), milk collectors,
properties, it needs strict hygienic condition to avoid retailers, selling points and consumers. The sampling was done
contamination of milk with microorganisms. Therefore, from the different sampling source (milk market chain actors)
examination of physicochemical properties and microbial proportionally based on survey results (Table 1 and Figure 1).
load is a major factor in determining milk quality. A semi-structured questionnaire was developed, pre-tested and
used to collect the required information from sample farmers. The
A research report at Harar Milk Shed in Eastern questionnaires were administered through face to face conversation
Ethiopia revealed that the physicochemical and with sample farmers who had lactating animals during the time of
microbiological properties of raw cow milk samples data collection. While administering the questionnaires, the general
collected from various supply chain actors were not cleanliness and hygienic practices of milk production and handling
significantly different (Estifanos et al., 2015). But there is was also noted through personal observation. Interviews were
conducted at the farm site and/or female and male headed
scanty information on the physical properties, chemical
household were involved. From smallholder producers the
composition and microbial load of raw milk along the milk assessment focused on the hygienic handling practices during milk
chain in the study areas. This research was therefore production such as barn type and cleaning practices, source of
conducted to evaluate handling practices, water used for milk utensils cleaning purpose, milker hygiene and
physicochemical properties, and microbial qualities of milk utensils, type of container used for milk storage, transportation
milk along the market supply chain in Haramaya district, and marketing. Questionnaires survey was also used for data
collection from cooperative, milk collectors and retailers, selling
Eastern Ethiopia. points and consumers.
The physical, major chemical composition and microbial load of
the raw milk were analyzed at Plant Pathology and Dairy
MATERIALS AND METHODS Technology Laboratory of Haramaya University. About 250 ml of
raw milk samples were collected in a sterilize glass bottles.
Description of the study area Samples were labeled and put in an icebox maintained at 4°C to
limit microbial multiplication and transported to the laboratory and
Haramaya district is located at 510 km east of Addis Ababa along transferred into a refrigerator adjusted at a temperature of 4°C.
the main road to Harar town. The altitude of the district ranges from Then, the milk samples were analyzed for microbial qualities within
1400 to 2340 m above sea level. The area is located at 41°59'58"N 24 h of sampling as described by APHA (1992). Samples from the
latitude and 09°24'10" E longitude. The mean annual rainfall is 492 farmers were collected during early morning. Milk samples from
mm ranging from 118 to 866 mm. The district has mean annual cooperative were collected at midday and samples from the milk
temperature and relative humidity of 18°C and 68%, respectively. collectors, retailers, and selling points were collected in the
The district has two ecological zones of which 66.6% mid land and afternoon as milk reached the market. Samples from consumers
33.3% low land (CSA, 2009). were collected during morning until evening.

Sampling techniques and data collection Physicochemical and microbial analysis

The study has two parts, that is, field survey and laboratory Physical quality of raw milk
analysis. The field survey was conducted to assess milk production
and handling practices. For the survey part, 3 kebeles (Beftu Geda, The temperature of milk samples was determined at the collection
Ifa Oromia, and Tuji Gebisa) were purposively selected from point using thermometer while the pH of the milk samples was
Haramaya District based on size of cattle population and availability determined in the laboratory using a digital pH meter based on the
of dairy cooperative. The required sample number of farmers was procedure described by O’Connor (1995). To determine specific
1992 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Table 1. Sampling layout for survey and laboratory work.

Number of respondent Milk samples collected

Milk supply chain actors Name of kebeles/cooperative
taken for field survey for laboratory analysis
Beftu Geda 43 11
Milk producers Ifa Oromia 48 13
Tuji Gebisa 32 9

Cooperative Jiru Siresa* Milk and Milk Product Processing and Marketing Cooperative 1 2
Milk collectors - 3 3
Retailers - 6 6
Selling points - 8 2
Consumers - 18 14
Total - 159 60
*We get permission to use this name from the dairy cooperatives and interview was made with managing board of the cooperatives that were mainly involved in day to day activities of the
cooperative.

gravity, fresh milk samples were filled sufficiently into where ml = millilitres of NaOH and milk samples used. 4°C until analysis. For bacterial count analysis, 1 ml of milk
graduate cylinder (100 ml capacity and a lactometer were Clot on boiling test was performed by boiling a small sample was diluted with 9 ml of peptone water. Each
held by the tip and inserted into the milk. The lactometer amount of milk in a test tube or any other suitable culture was constituted of 1 ml of the diluted solution
was allowed to float freely and then records were taken container. When there was coagulation or precipitation, the poured on a Petri dish, on which 12 to 15 ml of Standard
(O'Mahony, 1988). The following formula was used to milk sample was not considered as fresh milk. The test is Plate Count Agar (SPCA) was added. The media were
calculate the specific gravity of the milk. not sensitive to slightly sour milk (O’Connor, 1995). Alcohol prepared according to the guidelines given by the
test was done by mixing equal amounts of milk and 68% manufacturers. When the solution in the Petri dish
ethanol (usually 2 ml) in a small bottle or test tube. When solidifies, it was put into incubator at 32°C for 48 h. After
there was coagulation or precipitation up on shaking the incubation, all colonies including those of pin point size in
milk sample was not considered as fresh milk (O’Connor, SPCA medium were counted. When the colonies found to
1995). be too many, compromising the accuracy of counting the
where L=corrected lactometer reading at a given same procedure was repeated using higher dilution levels
temperature. For every degree above 15.5°C, 0.2 was as recommended by Francesconi (2006). For analysis
added to lactometer reading but for every degree below Chemical composition of milk purpose, only counts in the normal (25-300) colonies were
15.5°C, 0.2 was subtracted from the lactometer reading taken directly (APHA, 1992). The following formula was
(O'Mahony, 1988). Fresh milk samples were analyzed for determination of the used to calculate the counts for total bacterial and coliform
For the determination of titratable acidity, 10 ml of raw major chemical composition of the milk samples namely counts.
milk samples was pipetted into a beaker and three drops of total-solid (TS), solids-not-fat (SNF), fat, protein and
0.5% phenolphthalein indicator was added into the milk lactose using calibrated milk Milkoscan FT1 (Model
and then titrated with 0.1 N sodium hydroxide (NaOH) MilkoScan™ FT1- FOSS, Hillerød, Denmark).
solution until faint pink colour persists (O'Mahony, 1988).
Acidity was expressed as percent lactic acid (O’Connor,
1994) and calculated as: Microbiological analysis of milk where N = number of colonies per ml of milk; Σ C = sum of
all colonies on all plates counted; n1 = number of plates in
Milk samples were analyzed for total bacterial, coliform and first dilution counted; n2 = number of plates in second
yeast and mould counts following standard procedures dilution counted; d = dilution from which the first counts
(Richardson, 1985). All milk samples were kept cooled at were obtained.
 Eshetu et al. 1993

Figure 1. Sampling layout for laboratory work in each channel (numbers in parenthesis are
number of milk samples).

For coliform count, 1 ml samples of milk were serially diluted with 9 transformed microbial counts were analyzing using General Linear
ml of peptone water following similar methods as for total bacterial Model (GLM) procedure of SAS (SAS, 2003). Mean comparison
count but dilutions were surface plated on Violet Red Bile Agar and was done using the Duncan Multiple Range test for variables that
incubated at 32°C for 24 h, after which typical coliform colonies the F-values showed significant difference at 5% significance level.
were counted. Purplish red colonies in VRBA medium were counted The statistical model used was:
under colony counter less than 100 coliform colonies were
recorded. For colonies beyond this count, the next dilutions were Yij =μ+ Mi + εi.
plated. For yeast and mould count, 1 ml milk samples were serially
diluted with 9 ml of peptone water following similar methods as for where Yij= dependent variable which was milk quality parameters
total bacterial count but dilutions were surface plated on Potato (microbiological qualities and physic-chemical qualities), μ=overall
Dextrose Agar (PDA) (Oxoid, Pvt. Ltd. MU 096: UK). The dried mean, Mi= milk sources (producers, cooperative, milk collectors,
plates were then incubated at 25°C for 3 to 5 days. Colonies with a retailers, selling points and consumers), and εi= error term.
blue green color was counted as yeasts and moulds (Yousef and
Carlstrom, 2003).
RESULTS AND DISCUSION
Statistical analysis Household characteristics
Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics such as Household characteristics of respondents in the study
means, frequency distribution and percentage using SPSS version
20.0 Software (SPSS, 2007). Microbiological counts were first area are shown in Table 2. Most respondents in the
transformed into logarithmic value (log10 cfu ml-1) to get normally present study were male (92.7%) as they were head of
distributed data. Data on the physicochemical quality and log 10 the family. The respondents in the study area had
1994 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Table 2. Household characteristics of respondents in the study areas.

Beftu Geda (N=43) Ifa Oromia (N=48) Tuji Gebisa(N=32) Overall mean [Total (N=123)]
Variable category
N % N % N % N %
Sex of family head
Male 41 95.35 44 91.67 29 90.63 114 92.68
Female 2 4.65 4 8.33 3 9.38 9 7.32

Age category of respondents

21-30 2 4.65 7 14.58 7 21.88 16 13.01
31-40 32 74.42 25 52.08 21 65.63 78 63.41
41-50 8 18.60 16 33.33 3 9.38 27 21.95
>50 1 2.33 - 1 3.13 2 1.63

Education level of the respondents

Illiterate 40 93.00 42 87.50 28 87.50 110 89.43
Read and write - 1 2.10 1 3.13 2 1.63
1-4 2 4.65 4 8.33 1 3.13 7 5.69
5-8 - - 1 3.13 1 0.81
9-10 1 2.33 1 2.10 - - 2 1.63
Religious education - 1 3.13 1 0.81

different educational status with majorities being source of livestock feeds together with natural concentrate to lactating cows only. Inability to
illiterate (89.4%). Most of the respondents pastures. The dominant crop residue available formulate feed was the other limitation for
(63.41%) were in age group of 31 to 40 years. and used as feeding options for dairy production improved feeding.
includes maize and sorghum stovers (Kedija et
al., 2008). Farmers in the study area also grow
Feed resource and breeding practice in the sorghum and maize as fodder for livestock by Gender roles in milk production and marketing
study area intentionally over sowing above the recommended
seeding rate. From the factory outlets, farmers The role of gender in dairy herd management in
Feed resource and breeding practice in the study mainly purchase wheat bran and common salt. the study area is shown in Table 4. Overall, dairy
area are shown in Table 3. About 74% of the The major three feed resources mentioned earlier farm operation was mainly carried out by female
interviewed dairy farmers had grazing land which were reported as critical constraints of milk members of the household. Milk marketing is a
implied that grazing was the major sources of feed production and particularly the price of industrial specialized activity for female members of the
in the study area. Next to grazing on-farm by product was increased from year to year. It is household. Only 1.64% of the respondents
improved forage and crop residues were becoming unaffordable for farmers and had indicated that males take part in milk marketing
supplemented by industrial byproducts. In mixed impacted negatively the supply from smallholder provided that the woman was occupied with other
farming system, crop residues are mainly used as side. This has restricted the supplementary activities and the milk was sold to indirect
 Eshetu et al. 1995

Table 3. Feed resource and breeding practice in the study area.

Beftu Geda (N=43) Ifa Oromia (N=48) Tuji Gebisa (N=32) Overall mean [Total (N=123)]
Variable category
N % N % N % N %
Feed regularly used
Grazing 39 90.70 37 77.08 15 46.88 91 73.98
Did not have grazing land 4 9.30 11 22.92 17 53.13 32 26.02

Breeding
Natural 34 79.10 36 75.00 21 65.60 91 74.00
AI 1 2.30 8 16.70 7 21.90 16 13.00
Both Natural and AI 8 18.60 4 8.30 4 12.50 16 13.00

Table 4. The role of gender in dairy farm operation and herd management in the study area.

Household member
Activity Female Male Both
Total HH
No. % No. % No. %
Dairy farm operations
Milking cows 123 123 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Cleaning of milk containers 123 123 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Barn cleaning 123 123 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Milk marketing 122 120 98.36 0 0.00 2 1.64

Herd management
Feeding of dairy animals 123 29 23.60 63 51.20 31 25.20
Health management 123 46 37.40 43 35.00 34 27.60
Live animal marketing 123 30 24.40 48 39.00 45 36.60
Buying dairy inputs 123 43 35.00 38 30.90 42 34.10

marketing channels. Sintayehu et al. (2008) indicated that household. As indicated in Figure 2, most of the milk
in 60% of the cases housewives and/or other female produced (61.54%) was marketed and about 38.11% was
household members were involved in milking operations retained for home consumption and only 0.35% milk was
in urban dairy production system of Shashemene and processed into other dairy products like Ergo. Most
Dilla areas. Zewdie et al. (2016) also reported that milk (72.13%) of the milk was sold directly to the consumers
marketing is a specialized activity for female members of and the remaining 2.46% to milk collectors, 5.74% to
the household in Fafem Zone, Ethiopian Somali Regional cooperative, 8.2% to retailers and 11.48% to selling
State. Regarding to herd management such as feeding points. The marketing system of milk in the Haramaya
of dairy animals, health management, live animal District can generally be characterized as informal type.
marketing and buying dairy inputs both male and female
members were responsible. This indicated that the
contribution of women in dairy production was important Hygienic quality of milk during productions
and promoting the women in the dairying practices and
marketing can enhance productivity, effectiveness and Housing system and barn cleaning
efficiency of the sector.
About 85.37% of the respondents keep their cattle in
separate barns from family house and 14.63% keep
Milk production inside family house (Table 5). As observed during the
field visit, all barns (100%) were not constructed to
The overall average amount of milk produced by local facilitate drainage of the farm wastes, which leads to
cow breeds was 2.23 L/day. About 2.4% of the soiling of dairy cows and contamination of milk. All
participants have three milking cows, 30.9% own two respondents do not use bedding materials for the animals.
milking cows, and 66.7% own only one milking cow per Yitaye et al. (2009) reported a similar case for farms in
1996 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Dairy farmers/producers
Milk sold (61.54%)

11.48%

8.20%
2.46%
5.74%
Milk
72.13%

Cooperative Collectors Retailers

Selling Points

Consumers

Figure 2. Actors involved in milk marketing of milk in the study area.

Table 5. Types of housing and barn cleaning frequency.

Beftu Geda (N=43) Ifa Oromia (N=48) Tuji Gebisa (N=32) Total (N=123)
Variable
N % N % N % N %
Type of housing
Separate dairy house 36 83.72 41 85.42 28 87.50 105 85.37
Inside family house 7 16.28 7 14.58 4 12.50 18 14.63

Cleaning frequency
Daily 32 74.42 36 75.00 28 87.50 96 78.05
Thrice/Week 7 16.28 8 16.67 2 6.25 17 13.82
Twice/Week 1 2.33 4 8.33 2 6.25 7 5.69
Once/Week 3 6.98 - - - - 3 2.44

Northwestern Ethiopian highlands. Abebe et al. (2012) milking area is an important prerequisite for clean
reported that 90.8% of households share the same house wholesome milk production, and hence daily removal of
with their animals, while 9.2% of the households used manure and cleaning of barn is recommended.
separate houses for the cows in Ezha District of Gurage
Zone. Practices that expose the teat end to organic
bedding sources, wet and muddy pens increase the risk Hygienic practices during milking operations
of occurrence of mastitis and milk contamination (Ruegg,
2006). Mbabazi (2005) reported that milking of cows in The majority of the households (83.7%) reported that
undesignated poorly maintained milking shades/parlors they did not clean animal shed before milking (Table 6).
predisposes the milk to contamination and spoilage. All the interviewed household milk cows using hand
Most of the respondents (78.05%) reportedly remove milking after either washing cow teats or after the calf
manure daily (Table 5). Zelalem (2010) reported similar suckle the dam to stimulate milk let-down. Hygienic
result for smallholder farms in Central Highland of practices are major pathways to produce safe and quality
Ethiopia in which smallholder farmers clean barns on products for consumers thereby reduces microbial
daily basis (87%), once or twice a week (9%) and did not contamination and loss of product. Cleaning the udder of
clean at all (4%). Maintaining the sanitary condition of the cows before milking is one of the most important hygienic
 Eshetu et al. 1997

Table 6. General hygienic practices during milking operations in the study area.

Beftu Geda (N=43) Ifa Oromia (N=48) Tuji Gebisa (N=32) Total (N=123)
Variable
N % N % N % N %
Clean animal shed before milking
Yes 7 16.30 6 12.50 7 21.90 20 16.30
No 36 83.70 42 87.50 25 78.10 103 83.70

Hand washing
Wash hands before milking 40 93.02 45 93.75 31 96.88 116 94.31
No washing 3 6.98 3 6.25 1 3.13 7 5.69

Wash cow's teats before milking

Warm water 7 16.28 11 22.92 1 3.13 19 15.45
Cold water 24 55.81 26 54.17 22 68.75 72 58.54
Both cold and warm water 3 6.98 2 4.17 1 3.13 6 4.88
No washing 9 20.93 9 18.75 8 25.00 26 21.14

Towel used for udder drying

Common towel 2 4.70 1 2.10 1 3.10 4 3.25
No drying 41 95.30 47 97.90 31 96.90 119 96.75

practices required to ensure clean milk production. This is production of quality milk (Zelalem, 2010). However,
important since the udder of milking cows could have about 96.75% of the households reported that they did
direct contact with the ground, urine, dung and feed not use towels for udder drying before milking but
refusals (Zelalem, 2010). Improper milking practices can massage the udder with hand to stimulate milk let down,
predispose milk to contamination for instance milking can and only 3.25% of the respondents use common towel for
be done following calf suckling without cleaning the teats udder drying. Milking in dry condition significantly reduces
and same reports indicated that saliva from the calf bacterial count. This is because there is no surplus water
mouth and unwashed teats increases bacterial counts of remains on the surface of the udder to drip into the milk
milk (Kurwijila, 1989). and less chance of contamination by dirt and bacteria
Majority of respondent milk producers (94.31%) from udder, teats and hands into milk (Islam et al., 2009).
reported to wash their hands before milking in the study In Ethiopia, there is no standard hygienic condition
areas (Table 6) and the proportion was higher in Tuji followed by producers during milk production. The
Gebisa than that of Beftu Geda and Ifa Oromia. Similarly, hygienic conditions are different according to the
Tadele et al. (2016) reported that in Eastern Hararghe, production system, adapted practices, level of awareness,
milk producers wash their hands before milking. and availability of resources (Zelalem, 2003).
However, none of them use warm water and detergent
for hand washing but use cold water without detergent.
Washing hands with cold water without detergent is not Milk equipment and sanitary practices
sufficient to remove germs and can serve as a major
source of microbial contamination of milk. Therefore, milk One of the major factors affecting the quality of dairy
handlers should always wash their hands with warm products is milking utensils. The interviewed milk
water and detergent, and then dry it properly with proper producer households reported to mainly use traditional
towels before start of milking, milk handling or gourd vessels (67.48%) and plastic jerry can (28.45%)
preparation (Zelalem, 2012). Hand washing (especially in (Table 7). For transport purposes, traditional gourd
the developing countries) between milking, during, pre vessels are dominantly used (59.02%) followed by plastic
and post milking stages using safe disinfectants can jerry cans (40.98%) at producer level. All sample milk
reduce bacterial load and enhance production of safe collectors and selling points as well as 83.3% of retailer’s
fresh milk (Oliver et al., 2005). The milker can be an reported to uses plastic jerry cans for milk collection and
important source of milk contamination. In addition to storage (Table 8). In general, plastic jerry cans were the
keep good personal hygiene, milkers should be in good dominant type of containers used for milk marketing and
health during milking operation (Zelalem, 2010). storage; while traditional gourd vessels are mainly used
The use of individual towel and following essential for milking. Such utensils can contribute for the rapid
cleaning practices during milking is important for the spoilage of milk, as plastic jerry cans cannot be cleaned
1998 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Table 7. Milk equipment used for milking, transportation and sanitary practices in the study areas.

Biftu Geda Ifa Oromia Tuji Gebisa Total

Variable
N=43 % N=48 % N=32 % N=123 %
Milk utensils used for milking
Traditional Gourd vessel 27 62.80 38 79.17 18 56.25 83 67.48
Aluminum vessel 4 9.30 1 2.08 0 0.00 5 4.07
Plastic jerry can 12 27.90 9 18.75 14 43.75 35 28.45

Cleaning frequency of milk utensils

Before every use 2 4.65 1 2.08 3 9.38 6 4.88
After every use 29 67.44 38 79.17 24 75.00 91 73.98
Before and after every use 12 27.91 9 18.75 5 15.63 26 21.14

Transportation N=42 % N=48 % N=32 % N=122 %

Traditional Gourd vessel 26 61.90 28 58.33 18 56.25 72 59.02
Plastic jerry-can 16 38.10 20 41.67 14 43.75 50 40.98

properly, due to their shape and narrow opening. This is and restaurants) and 66.7% milk collectors and 33.3%
in line with the findings of Yitaye et al. (2009), retailers reported to use tap water (Table 9). About 99.2%
Teklemichael et al. (2015b) and Tadele et al. (2016) who of the farmers and 22.2% of consumers reported the use
reported that 83% of the surveyed urban dairy farms in of hand dung well water for cleaning. All of the
Bahir Dar and Gondar, 75% of the surveyed farms in Dire respondents that reported to use water from non-tap
Dawa Town and 87.5 to 97.5% milk producers, all milk sources were neither boil nor filter it before use. For
collectors and transporters as well as vendors in Eastern production of quality milk, a good supply of clean water is
Ethiopia were using plastic containers, respectively. The essential. Water used for washing and rinsing milk
left-over of milk and other dirt particles within the equipment and milk containers should be of the same in
container may result in contamination of the subsequent safety and purity as drinking water (Younan et al., 2007).
milk. Omore et al. (2005) also reported that lack of formal Jay (1992) also reported that water obtained from
training and use of plastic containers are the main factors different sources such as wells, rivers and springs can
that contribute to the poor quality of raw milk sold by easily be contaminated by human and animal organic
producers and informal milk traders. Since proper metal wastes gaining entry by drainage.
milk containers are expensive, milk producers use plastic
containers which are difficult to clean and disinfect and
thus it might contribute to poor quality of the milk. Non- Milk transportation and storage condition
food grade plastic cans, buckets and jerry cans are not
appropriate thus must not be used for milk storage and All the respondent small-scale milk producers did not use
transportation (Kurwijila, 2006). Aluminium containers are cooling systems while storing milk before selling (Table
recommended because they do not have adhesive 9). The sample dairy cooperative, 66.7% of milk
properties and therefore easy to clean as compared to collectors, and 75% of selling points kept milk in a
plastic containers. refrigerator; while the rest stored at room temperature.
In the present study, the majority of the respondent in Due to the absence of appropriate cooling systems at
the study areas washed milk utensils after every use small-scale milk producer’s level, milk is transported at
(Table 8). Moreover, all milk producers reported to smoke ambient temperatures to selling points. FAO (2007)
milk utensils. Smoking is done by using wood splinters of recommended that milk should be cooled below 4°C or
‘Ejersa’ (Olea africana). They assume that smoking is processed and conserved well immediately after milking
used to develop desirable flavor in the milk. In addition, or processing. Therefore, it would be beneficial to have
smoking has anti-microbial activity and thus inhibits an access to cooling facilities for retarding bacterial
growth of microorganisms in milk (Mogessie and Fekadu, growth in raw milk during collection and transportation to
1993). selling points.

Source of water for cleaning Milk marketing

The sample dairy cooperative, selling points (cafeteria The sale of fresh whole milk is the common practice in
 Eshetu et al. 1999

Table 8. Milk equipment and sanitary practices for traders and consumers.

cooperative (n= 1) Milk collectors (n=3) Retails (n=6) Selling points (n=8) Consumers (n=18)
Variable
% % % % %
Types of containers used for milk collection, transportation and storage
Traditional Gourd vessel - - 16.70 - -
Plastic jerry can - 100.00 83.30 100.00 -
Aluminum vessel - - - - 38.90
Plastic jerry-can and aluminum vessel 100.00 - - -
Plastic water bottle - - - - 33.30
Plastic bag - - - - 27.80

Methods of cleaning milk containers

Before every use - - - - 22.20
After every use 100.00 66.70 66.70 75.00 44.40
Before and after every use - 33.30 33.30 25.00 33.40

Table 9. Water sources for cleaning and transportation condition at different actors in the supply chain.

Variable Producers (%) Cooperative (%) Milk collectors (%) Retailer (%) Selling points (%) Consumers (%)
Water source for cleaning purpose N=123 N=1 N=3 N=6 N=8 N=18
Tap water - 100.00 66.70 33.30 100.00 77.80
Hand dung well 99.20 - 33.30 66.70 - 22.20
Lake water 0.80 - - - - -

Storage condition
At room temperature 100.00 - 33.30 100.00 25.00 77.80
Use of refrigerator - 100.00 66.70 - 75.00 22.20

the study areas. Marketing system of milk is cooperative, selling points (cafe and restaurants) participate in group ranges from 2 to 10. Members
unorganized informal and is carried out through and consumers. There were two different milk are organized to sell out whole fresh cow milk turn
direct sellers (milk passes directly from the outlets identified under direct selling; namely by turn. In the Faraqa Annanni, members
producer to the consumer) and indirect marketing traditional milk association group locally called contribute an agreed amount of milk on a daily
channels where several agents operate between Faraqa Annanni selling system and individual basis and the collected milk is given to one of the
producers and consumers. The channel actors in seller system. Faraqa Annanni is self-organized member woman to sell out in the nearby market.
marketing of milk in the study area include women groups who have milking cows and The woman sells the milk and the daily income
producers, milk collectors, retailers, milk produce saleable milk. The number of women that generated belongs to her. The cycle continues
2000 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Figure 3. A generic schematic diagram representing fluid milk market chain at Haramaya
district.

until every group member gets her share of the milk along the chain include input suppliers, producers,
income. This system has several advantages. It saves distributor and consumers.
time and labor spent because of daily travel to milk There are various milk marketing channels in the study
market places, which is mostly to nearby towns such as areas through which smallholder dairy farmers channel
Bate, Haramaya, Awaday and Dengago. Moreover, it their milk to dairy cooperative, milk collectors, retailers,
helps the women to save money since they obtain income selling points and consumers. About 94.3% of the sample
on a weekly basis. milk producers channel milk through the informal
About 99% of the respondent sample households marketing system. Retailers buy milk either from dairy
participate in milk marketing. In similar situation, Amistu farms or wholesalers/milk collectors. The retailers are
et al. (2015) reported that 99% of the respondent sample involved in milk marketing to restaurants and cafeterias.
farmers are involved in whole milk marketing in Holetta, Most of the dairy farmers in the study area prefer to sell
Sebeta and Sululta area of Oromia Special Zone. milk through the informal chain where they get high price
per liter of milk. In informal markets, sellers need to trade
through bilateral bargaining so as to remain anonymous
Fluid milk supply chain from the taxing authority whereas in formal markets,
sellers can publicly advertise their prices and locations.
A generic schematic diagram representing the fluid milk Van der Valk and Abebe (2010) also reported that 98% of
supply chain in the study areas based on the information the milk produced in rural areas was sold through
gathered during the present assessment is sketched and informal chain in Addis Ababa Ethiopia. Girma and
presented in Figure 3. The main supply chain fractions Verschurr (2013) also reported 35% of the sample
identified are: input supply, production, marketing respondents to sell their milk both thorough the informal
(distribution) and consumption. Similarly, the key actors and formal channels; 25% of them through formal
 Eshetu et al. 2001

Table 10. Results of alcohol and clot on boiling test of milk samples in the study areas.

Positive results (%)

Milk source N
Alcohol test (%) Clot-on-boiling test (%)
Producer level 33 12.10 3.00
Cooperative 2 50.00 50.00
Milk collector level 3 33.30 33.30
Retailer level 6 50.00 33.30
selling point 2 50.00 50.00
Consumers 14 64.30 57.10
Total 60 31.70 23.30

Table 11. Physical properties of raw cow milk samples in Haramaya district (Mean ± SD).

Variable
Milk source
Temperature (°C) pH Specific gravity Titratable acidity
Producers 26.00±0.83a 6.66±0.26a 1.031±0.0036a 0.17±0.059b
Cooperative 24.50±0.71b 6.17±0.46ab 1.027±0.0007b 0.21±0.007ab
Milk collectors 24.30±0.58b 6.26±0.44ab 1.026±0.0010b 0.19±0.055ab
Retailers 24.00±0.89b 6.06±0.44ab 1.025±0.0019b 0.22±0.04ab
Selling points 21.00±0.00c 6.14±0.54ab 1.024±0.0014b 0.24±0.014ab
Consumers 19.90±0.77c 5.67±0.78b 1.026±0.0019b 0.26±0.019a
abc
Different superscripts in the same column differ significantly (P<0.05).

marketing channels and the remaining 40% through the respectively. Asaminew and Eyassu (2011) also reported
informal marketing channels in Ada’a District East Shawa that 51% of smallholder and dairy cooperatives milk
Zone of Oromia Regional State. sample clot by alcohol test and only 23% clot on boiling
test in Bahir Dar Zuria and Mecha District.

Physicochemical properties
Temperature and pH
Alcohol and clot on boiling tests
The mean temperature of raw milk samples was
From the total number of collected milk samples, 31.70 significantly different (P < 0.05) among milk sample
and 23.30% were positive to alcohol and clot on boiling sources (Table 11). The temperature of milk samples
tests, respectively (Table 10). The highest values for collected from milk producer households was significantly
positive alcohol tests were recorded for samples higher than those collected from cooperative, milk
collected at consumer level. This result shows that milk collectors, retailers, selling points and consumers. This
quality decline as the milk moves from producer to might be due to cooling of milk from cow body
consumers. Rapid elevation of milk acidity is more than temperature to the ambient temperature while being
0.21% acid results in coagulation of the milk proteins thus transported from farm to milk markets. Fresh milk should
the milk is positive on alcohol test (Pandey and Voskuil, be cooled to 4°C within 2 h after production, and
2011). These observations support the view that alcohol inadequate cooling increases bacterial counts by creating
test is more sensitive than the clot on boiling test a better environment for bacterial growth during storage
(O’Connor, 1994). Zelalem (2010) reported that 21% of (Reinemann et al., 2005).
milk samples checked with alcohol test were positive, The milk pH gives an indication of milk hygiene and
while only 14% of the samples were positive for clot on freshness and it usually ranges between 6.6 and 6.8
boiling test for samples collected from the Central (FAO, 1999). According to the result obtained in the
Highland of Ethiopia. The report of Alganesh (2002) also present study, pH of milk samples from milk producer
indicated that 58 and 21% of cow milk samples collected households (6.66) were within the range of fresh cow
from smallholder farmers in Eastern Wollega of Oromia milk; while milk samples obtained from market
Region were positive to alcohol and clot on boiling tests, (cooperative, milk collectors, retailers and selling points)
2002 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

Table 12. Chemical composition of raw cow milk along the milk supply chain (Mean ± SD).

Chemical quality Mean value of chemical quality along milk value chain actors
parameter Producers Cooperative Milk collectors Retailers Selling points consumers
Fat 4.60±0.74a 3.59±0.05b 3.88±0.50b 4.45±0.78a 4.31±0.53a 4.59±0.70a
3.31±0.41a b ab a
Protein 2.40±0.08 2.84±0.14 3.27±0.42 3.25±0.08a 3.30±0.24a
8.50±0.54a abc bc ab
SNF 7.69±0.39 7.48±0.46 8.28±0.46 7.11±0.82c 8.17±0.46ab
TS 13.10±0.84a 11.27±0.34b 11.36±0.42b 12.73±0.47a 11.43±0.29b 12.76±0.63a
4.07±0.33bc a ab ab
Lactose 4.83±0.16 4.38±0.53 4.50±0.39 3.79±0.75c 4.59±0.43ab
abc
Different superscripts in the same row differ significantly (P<0.05), SNF=Solid not fat, TS=total solid.

were not within the normal ranges. The pH of milk (O’Connor, 1995).
samples collected from consumers was lower than the
normal pH value of fresh cow milk and significantly lower
(P<0.05) than the pH of milk obtained from producers and Chemical quality of raw cow’s milk
other milk market actors in the supply chain. This result
indicates that milk is clearly under fermentation resulting The overall mean value of milk fat (4.5%) in the current
from bacterial multiplication during the time that elapsed study area was higher than that (3.50%) indicated in the
between production and until it reaches consumers. Quality Standard Authority of Ethiopian (ES, 2009) for
Teklemichael et al. (2015a) indicated that in Dire Dawa milk produced and marketed in Ethiopia regardless of
Town the pH of milk samples collected from vendors was cow breed (Table 12). The Food and Drug Administration
lower than milk obtained from dairy farms. The pH values (FDA) and Milk Ordinance and Code of USA
higher than 6.8 indicates mastitic milk and pH values recommended that acceptable milk fat contents require
below 6.6 indicates increased acidity of milk due to not less than 3.25% milk fat for fluid milk (Raff, 2011). In
bacterial multiplication (O’Connor, 1995). the current study, the fat content of milk was comparable
with values reported by earlier findings of Estifanos et al.
(2015) for milk collected from Harar Milk Shed in Eastern
Specific gravity Ethiopia.
The average protein content of milk as observed in the
The specific gravity of normal milk ranges from 1.027 and current study was 3.24%. According to Ethiopian
1.035 with an average value of 1.032 at 16°C (FAO, standards (ES, 2009) for protein content of unprocessed
1999). The mean specific gravity of raw milk samples whole cow, milk should not be less than 3.20%.
was 1.031 (Table 11) for household milk producers which Therefore, the average protein content observed from all
fall within this range. The specific gravity of raw milk milk sampling source were within the recommended
samples obtained from other sources in a milk supply standard. The result of the present study is also
chain however is lower than that obtained from producers consistent with that reported by Rahel (2008) and Zelalem
and also below the acceptable limit. These variations (2010) for milk samples collected from smallholder
might be due to the different sources of milk mixed farmers in Delbo area of Wollayta Zone and Central
together that might have been adulterated with water. A Highlands of Ethiopia, respectively.
similar result was also reported by Teklemichael et al. According to Quality Standards Authority of Ethiopian,
(2015a) where specific gravity of milk samples collected total solids content of unpasteurized cow milk should not
from vendors was significantly lower (P<0.05) than that be less than 12.80% (ES, 2009). The overall mean TS
obtained from dairy farms in Dire Dawa Town, Eastern (12.78%) content obtained in the current study almost
Ethiopia. Teshome et al. (2015) however, reported no met this quality standard. The TS content of milk samples
significant difference in specific gravity among milk collected from cooperatives was significantly (P<0.05)
samples collected from dairy cooperatives, milk collection lower than that sampled from other milk sources in the
centers, hotels, small milk shops and small-scale milk milk supply chain. Estifanos et al. (2015) reported higher
producers in Shashemene Town, Southern Ethiopia. (13.1%) TS value for milk samples obtained from Harar
Zelalem (2010) also reported that the specific gravity of Milk Shed, Eastern Ethiopia. The values obtained in the
most raw whole milk samples collected from Holetta and present study are consistent with 12.58% reported by
Selale areas fall within the range 1.028 and 1.032. The Teklemichael et al. (2015a).
specific gravity of milk can be affected by various factors. According to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as
For instance, the specific gravity of milk decreases by well as European Union (EU) quality standards, a
addition of water and addition of cream; while it is minimum solid not fat (SNF) content of whole milk is
increased by removal of fat and reduction of temperature 8.25% by Raff (2011). In view of that, the result obtained
 Eshetu et al. 2003

Table 13. TBC, CC and YMC of raw milk samples collected along milk market chain (Mean ± SD).

Milk source along milk value chain actors TBC CC YMC

Producers 5.17±0.39b 4.64±0.41b 4.58±0.38b
Cooperative 5.57±0.73ab 5.08±0.77ab 5.14± 0.97ab
Milk collectors 5.41±0.57b 4.90±0.57b 4.97±0.47ab
Retailers 5.59±0.55ab 5.10±0.54ab 4.95±0.52ab
Selling points 5.60±0.71ab 5.13±0.69ab 5.12±0.77ab
Consumers 6.12±0.01a 5.62±0.03a 5.54±0.14a
Over all mean 5.48±0.54 4.96± 0.56 4.90±0.55
abc
Superscripts in the same column differ significantly (P<0.05), TBC=Total bacterial count, CC=coliform count, YMC=yeast
and mould count.

in the present study is in quality standards given by FDA rate of fermentation.

and EU. But the overall mean SNF content (8.27%)
obtained in the current study was lower than that reported
by Teklemichael et al. (2015a) for milk obtained from Coliform count (CC)
dairy farms (8.75%) in Dire Dawa Town. Similarly, EU
and FDA set that unprocessed whole milk lactose content The overall mean CC of milk produced in the study area
should not be less than 4.2% (Tamine, 2009). Therefore, was 4.96 log cfu/ml (Table 13). Coliform counts observed
the average lactose content of 4.27% is within the in the current study were higher when compared with the
recommended standard. acceptable limit given by the American Public Health
Service: <2 log cfc/ml for Grade A milk and 2-2.3 log
cfc/ml for Grade B milk (APHA, 1992). The CC obtained
Microbial properties of raw milk in the present study is similar with that reported by
Asaminew and Eyassu (2011) who found CC of 4.49 log
Total bacterial count (TBC) cfu/ml in Bahir Dar Zuria and Mecha Districts. CC can
indicate fecal contamination or contamination from
The overall mean total bacterial count of raw milk equipment that has not been properly cleaned and
produced in the study area was 5.48 log cfu/ml (Table sanitized (Bintsis et al., 2008; Biruk et al., 2009). Since it
13). This value was higher as compared to acceptable is not practical to produce milk that is always free of
level of 5 log cfu/ml of raw milk (O’Connor, 1994). This coliform, even at high level of hygienic condition, their
high level of contamination of milk might be attributed to presence in raw milk to a certain extent may be tolerated.
initial contamination originating from the udder surface, However, their presence in large numbers in dairy
cleaning water, and milking utensils. This implies that the products is an indication that the products are potentially
sanitary conditions in which milk is been produced, hazardous to the consumers’ health (Godefay and Molla,
handled, and sold were substandard. 2000).
The present result is comparable with that of
Teklemichael et al. (2015b) who reported mean TBC of Yeast and mould counts (YMC)
5.84 log cfu/ml in milk sampled from Dire Dawa Town
Dairy Farms. Estifanos et al. (2015) also reported mean The overall mean YMC was 4.90 log cfu/ml samples
TBC of 6.25 log cfu/ml for Harar Milk Shed, Eastern collected from different sampling point in the milk market
Ethiopia. The TBC observed in the current study is lower chain (Table 13). These values are higher than the
than the value (7.08 log cfu/ml) reported by Fikrineh et al. acceptable value (<10 cfu/ml) (Mostert and Jooste,
(2012) in Shashemene, Arsi Negele, Adami Tullu-Jiddo 2002). This might be due to lack of hygienic practices
Kombolcha, Adama and Lume Districts at Mid Rift Valley especially washing milking and milk storing utensils,
of Ethiopia. Asaminew and Eyassu (2011) also reported improper sanitary conditions in milking area, poor
higher value (7.58 log cfu/ml) for cow milk sampled from personal hygiene of milkers and milk sellers, mixing of old
Bahir Dar Zuria and Mecha Districts. Comparatively, the and newly drawn milk and storing together. Milk from
lower total bacterial count in this study could be due to market had higher yeast and mould counts which were
smoking of milk containers, which reduces microbial load significantly different (P < 0.05) from milk producer
in milk. This agrees with the finding of Mogessie and households. Haile et al. (2012) also reported higher yeast
Fekadu (1993) who reported that smoking reduced the and mould counts (4.65 log cfu/ml) for milk samples
undesirable microbial contaminants that enhances the collected from storage containers and for milk samples
2004 Afr. J. Agric. Res.

collected from distribution containers (7.13 log cfu/ml) in for their cooperation for laboratory analysis.
Hawassa, Southern Ethiopia.

REFERANCES
Conclusions Abebe B, Zelalem Y, Ajebu N (2012). Hygienic and microbial quality of
raw whole cow’s milk produced in Ezha District of the Gurage zone,
In the study areas, we found that milk marketing was the Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Research 1(11):459-465.
common practice in which 62% milk produced was Alganesh T (2002). Traditional milk and milk products handling
practices and raw milk quality in Eastern Wollega, M.Sc. Thesis,
marketed and this marketing was mostly done by women
Alemaya University. Dire Dawa, Ethiopia.
that organized into a traditional milk association group Amistu K, Degefa T, Melese A (2015). Assessment of raw milk microbial
called Faraqa Annanni. This group consists of milk quality at different critical points of Oromia to Milk Retail Centers in
producing and selling women of two to ten individuals. Addis Ababa. Food Science and Quality Management 38:1-9.
APHA (1992). Standard Method for the Examination of Dairy Products.
This group of women could be an entry point for th
16 Edition. APHA, Washington 1992:213-223.
intervention to improve milk production and marketing in Asaminew T, Eyassu S (2011). Microbial quality of raw cow’s milk
the study areas through organizing and providing collected from farmers and dairy cooperatives in Bahir Dar Zuria and
necessary technical and financial supports. For example, Mecha District, Ethiopia. Agricultural and Biology Journal of North
America 2(1):29-33.
in rural areas where there is no grid electricity supply
Bintsis T, Angelidis AS, Psoni L (2008). Modern Laboratory Practices,
solar milk cooling system could be used by Faraqa Analysis of Dairy Products. In: Advanced Dairy Science and
Annanni to cool milk up until marketing. This will ultimately Technology. Britz TJ and Robinson RK (Eds.). Blackwell Publishing
reduce postharvest milk loss as well as increases income Ltd, UK.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470697634
of the milk producing women. It is therefore recommended
Biruk H, Samson W, Zelalem Y (2009). Microbial Properties of Milk and
to encourage and empower Faraqa Annanni group for Traditionally Produced Ethiopian Fermented Milk Products: a review.
sustainable development of the dairy sector in the study th
Proceedings of the 17 Annual conference of the Ethiopian Society of
areas. It is also equally important to create awareness Animal Production (ESAP) held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia pp. 137-
148.
among concerned actors about quality milk production
Central Statistics Agency (CSA) (2009). Federal Democratic Republic of
and marketing as the hygienic and microbiological Ethiopia; Agricultural sample enumeration statistical abstract.
qualities of milk were poor and did not meet national as https://harvestchoice.org/publications/ethiopia-agricultural-sample-
well international quality standards. survey-200910-2002-ec-volume-ii-report-livestock-and-lives
Central Statistics Agency (CSA) (2010). Agricultural Sample Survey,
Livestock, Poultry and Beehives Population (private peasant
holdings). Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistical
RECOMMENDATIONS Authority (CSA), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Ethiopian Standard (ES) (2009). Ethiopian Standards. Catalogue. Addis
From results of the current study, the hygienic status of Ababa, Ethiopia P 678.
Estifanos H, Tarekegn G, Yonas H, Eyassu S, Mengistu K, Mohammed
milk along the milk supply chain was sub-standard and
A (2015). Physicochemical properties and microbial quality of raw
both the physicochemical as well as microbial qualities of cow milk collected from Harar Milkshed, Eastern Ethiopia. Journal of
raw milk samples were poor. It is, therefore, Biological and Chemical Research 32(2):606-616.
recommended that farmers should be trained on proper Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1999).
Extension Services for Quality Milk Production. Proceedings of an
hygienic milk production and handling; ensure
International Workshop in Conjunction with the East-West-Forum of
implementation of good production and hygiene practices the Federal Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Forestry, Germany P
throughout the milk market chain; responsible authorities 35.
like Ethiopian Food and Drug Authority must ensure that Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2007).
“Overview of the Turkish Dairy Sector within the Framework of
existing rules and regulations are put into practice for
European Union-Accession”, Rome, Italy.
screening of milk; and inspection of milk production Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2010).
facilities with physiochemical and microbiological controls. Status and prospects for smallholder milk production. A global
perspective, By Hemme T and Otte J, Rome, Italy.
http://www.fao.org/3/i1522e/i1522e.pdf
Fatine H, Abdelmoula E, Doha B, Hinde H (2012). Bacterial quality of
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS informally marketed raw milk in Kenitra City, Morocco. Pakistan
Journal of Nutrition 11(8):662-669.
The authors have not declared any conflict of interests. Fikrineh N, Estefanos T, Tatek W (2012). Microbial quality and chemical
composition of raw milk in the Mid-Rift Valley of Ethiopia. African
Journal of Agricultural Research 7(29):4167-4170
Francesconi GN (2006). Promoting Milk Quality of Cooperative
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Smallholders: Evidence from Ethiopia and Implications for Policy. In
th
Proceedings of the 14 Annual conference of the Ethiopian Society of
The authors would like to acknowledge Swedish Animal Production (ESAP), Part II: Technical Papers Held on
International Development Agency (SIDA-SAREC) and September 5 –7, 2006, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia pp. 31-41.
Girma D, Marco V (2013). Assessment of factors and factors affecting
Haramaya University for financial, institutional and facility
milk value chain in smallholder dairy farmers: A case study of Ada’a
support. Plant Pathology and Dairy Technology Labo- District, East Shawa Zone of Oromia regional State, Ethiopia. African
ratories of Haramaya University are also acknowledged Journal of Agricultural Research 9(3):345-352.
 Eshetu et al. 2005

Godefay B, Molla B (2000). Bacteriological quality of raw cow’s milk Ruegg L (2006). Role of hygienic in efficient milking. Advances in Dairy
from four dairy farms and a milk collection center in and around Addis Technology 18:285-293.
Ababa. Berl, Munch,Tierarztl, Wochenschr 113:276-278. Statistical Analysis System (SAS) (2003). SAS User’s guide. Inc. Cary,
Haile W, Zelalem Y, Yosef TG (2012). Hygienic Practices and NC. 33.
Microbiological Quality of Raw Milk Produced under Different Farm Sintayehu Y, Fekadu B, Azage T, Berhanu G (2008). Dairy production,
Size in Hawassa, Southern Ethiopia. Agricultural Research and processing and marketing systems of Shashemene–Dilla area, South
Review 1(4):132-142. Ethiopia. IPMS Working Paper 9. Nairobi: ILRI.
Islam MA, Islam MN, Khan MAS, Rashid MH, Obaidullah SM (2009). Statistical Procedures for Social Sciences (SPSS) (2007). Statistical.
Effect of different hygienic condition during milking on bacterial count SPSS BI Survey Tips. Inc. Chicaco, USA.
of cows’ milk. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science 38:108-114. Tadele A, Mitiku E, Yoseph M, Amha K (2016). Milk postharvest
th
Jay MJ (1992). Modern Food Microbiology, 4 Edition. Van Nostrand handling practices across the supply chain in Eastern Ethiopia.
Reinhold, New York. Journal of Advanced Veterinary and Animal Research 3(2):112-126.
Kedija H, Azage T, Mohammed YK, Berhanu G (2008). Traditional cow Tamine AY (2009). Milk processing and quality management, Society of
and camel milk production and marketing in agro-pastoral and mixed Dairy Technology (SDS) series. Wiley-Blackwell.
crop–livestock systems: The case of Mieso District, Oromia Regional Teklemichael T, Ameha K, Eyassu S (2015a). Physicochemical
State, Ethiopia. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Properties of Cow Milk Produced and Marketed in Dire Dawa Town,
Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper 13. ILRI (International Eastern Ethiopia. Food Science and Quality Management 42:56-61.
Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya 56:1-3. Teklemichael T, Ameha K, Eyassu S (2015b). Quality and Safety of
Kurwijila LR (1989). Technology of traditional milk products in Cow Milk Produced and Marketed in Dire Dawa Town, Eastern
developing countries; Southern and Eastern Africa, FAO Manuscript. Ethiopia. International Journal of Integrative Sciences 2(6):01-05.
(www.fao.org). Teshome G, Fekadu B, Mitiku E (2015). Handling Practices and
Kurwijila LR (2006). Hygienic milk handling, processing and marketing: Microbial Quality of Raw Cow's Milk Produced and Marketed in
reference guide for training and certification of small-scale milk Shashemene Town, Southern Ethiopia. International Journal of
traders in Eastern Africa. ILRI (International Livestock Research Agricultural and Soil Science 2(9):153-162.
Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. United State Development Agency (USDA) (2003). Dairy Programs
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/1697/TrainerGuide Agricultural Marketing Service United States Department of
Vol-1_C.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Agriculture. Raising the Minimum Nonfat Solids Standard to the
Mattias O (2013). Quality analysis of raw milk along the value chain of National Average in Raw Milk: A Study of Fluid Milk Identity
the informal milk market in Kiambu County, Kenya, M.Sc. Thesis. Standards.
Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Natural Resources and Valk VO, Abebe T (2010). The formal dairy chain of Addis Ababa: an
Agricultural Sciences, School of Graduate Studies, Swedish analysis of the integration of small-scale dairy farmers in Ethiopian.
University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden pp. 7-30. LEI-report 2010-033, LEI, part of Wageningen UR, The Hague.
st nd
Mbabazi P (2005). Milk industry in Uganda, 1 Edition. Fountain Yamane T (1967). Statistics, an Introductory Analysis, 2 Edition. New
Publishers, Kampala pp. 27-52. York.
Mogessie A, Fekadu B (1993). Effect of container smoking and cleaning Yitaye AA, Maria W, Azage T, Zollitsch W (2009). Performance and
on the microflora and keeping quality of raw milk from a dairy farm in limitation of two dairy productions System in the North western
Awassa, Ethiopia. Tropical Science 33:368-376. Ethiopian highlands. Tropical Animal production and Health
Mostert JF, Jooste PJ (2002). Quality Control in the Dairy Industry. 41(7):1143-1150.
rd
Dairy Microbiology Handbook. 3 Ed. Edited by Richard K Robinson. Younan M, Zakaria F, Matthias M, Ragge D (2007). Camel dairy in
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York pp. 655-736. Somalia: Limiting factors and development potential.CH-8092 Zurich,
O’Connor CB (1994). Rural Dairy Technology. ILRI Training Manual Switzerland, (www.sciencedirect.com).
No.1. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa, Yousef AE, Carlstrom C (2003). Food Microbiology; a Laboratory
Ethiopia. Manual. A John Weiley and Son, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey,
O’Connor CB (1995). Rural Dairy Technology. ILRI Training Manual Canada. https://www.wiley.com/en-
No.1. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa, us/Food+Microbiology%3A+A+Laboratory+Manual-p-
Ethiopia. 9780471391050
O’Mahony F (1988). Rural dairy technology experiences in Ethiopia. Zelalem Y (2003). Sanitary Conditions and microbial qualities of dairy
ILCA Manual No. 4. Dairy Technology Unit. ILCA, Addis Ababa, products in urban and peri-urban dairy shed of the central Ethiopia.
Ethiopia P 64. MSc Thesis, Universite Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
Oliver SP, Jayarao BM, Almeida RA (2005). Food borne pathogens in Zelalem Y (2010). Quality factors that affect Ethiopian formal milk
milk and the dairy farm environment: food safety and public health business: Experiences from selected dairy potential areas. SNV
implications. Journal of Dairy Science 2(2):115-129. (Netherlands Development Organization), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia P
Omore A, Loure T, Staal S, Kutwa J, Ouma R, Arimi S, Kang’the E 114.
(2005). Addressing the public health and quality concerns towards Zelalem Y (2012). Microbial Properties of Ethiopian Marketed Milk and
marketed milk in Kenya. SDP Research and Development Report Milk Products and Associated Critical Points of Contamination: An
No.3, Smallholder Dairy (R and D) Project, Nairobi (Kenya) pp. 1-45. Epidemiological Perspective. In Epidemiology Insights, Dr. Maria De
Pandey GS, Voskuil GCJ (2011). Manual of milk safety, quality and Lourdes Ribeiro De Souza Da Cunha (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51-0565-
hygiene. Lusaka, Zambia. 7.
Raff H (2011). Market implications of changing fat content of milk and Zelalem Y, Emannuelle GB, Ameha S (2011). A Review of the Ethiopian
dairy products, fat content and composition of animal products. Dairy Sector. Ed. Rudolf Fombad, Food and Agriculture Organization
Journal of Food Science and Technology 5(2):6-17. of the United Nations, Sub Regional Office for Eastern Africa
Rahel N (2008). Traditional and improved milk and milk products (FAO/SFE), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia P 81.
handling practices and compositional and microbial quality of raw Zewdie AK, Medin G, Silaie G, Weldaye K (2016). Small Scale Dairy
milk and butter in Delbo, Water shed of Wollayta Zone. MSc Thesis, Production System Challenges and Prospects in Fafen Zone,
Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Somali Regional State, Eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Animal
Reinemann JD, Mein GA, Bray DR, Britt JS (2005). “Trouble shooting Production Advance 6(1):860-875.
High Bacteria Counts in Farm Milk”. Sources of Bacterial
Contamination in Raw Milk.
Richardson GH (1985). Standard Methods for the Examination of Dairy
th
Products. 15 ed. American Public Health Association, Washington,
D.C. pp. 168-196.