aistand south~ern afrkca - (PDF, 101 mb) - USAID

mate them inter se. As of June 1992, there were
82 mature does and 38 female kids; these
numbers indicate a slow development process.
Mgeta (on-farm)
It was hypothesised that pure Norwegian goats
were not adaptable to the high ambient
temperatures of Morogoro. However, SUA did
not have an alternative site for on-station
research and therefore resorted to an on-farm
research approach. The Mgeta highlands were
selected for several reasons including proximity
to the SUA campus (about 60 kin), its high
altitude (>1600 m) and hence pleasant cool
climate and all year-round availability of
forages and vegetable wastes. A very important
consideration in selection was the local farmers'
experience with stall-feeding local goats and pigs
and their expressed interest in goat milk production.
Having identified interested farmers, 10
pregnant half-bred (Norwegian and Tanzania
cross) does were transferred to Mgeta in May
1988 to the first five farmers while 10 other
pregnant goats were transferred to the second
five farmers in May 1990. In addition, the
remaining 10 pure Norwegian does were also
distributed to the first five farmers. Thereafter,
follow up was made on feeding, management,
breeding, record keeping, growth, health and
milk production through monthly visits. Three
pure Norwegian bucks were placed in Mgeta
(about one for every three farmers) at three
centres and were rotated between these centres
and replac,:d every three y ars.
Project administration
Initially, a multidisciplinary team that included
Iallyma ulrtiisipliy eam itainc d
a human nutritionist, a sociologist, an economist,
a breeder, a veterinarian, a forestry
and an animal nutritionist was
biologist
consulted. This team was later reduced to three,
namely an animal nutritionist, a breeder and a
veterinarian, to keep the many conflicting
interests among the scientists during the initial
stages of the project manageable.
Results and observations
Table 3 outlines the present management of
dairy goats in Mgeta compared to that ofthe SUA
experimental tarm. It appears that the feeding
in Mgeta was superior to that of SUA experimental
farm in the amounts and quality of
green fodder available and also in the more
liberal provision of concentrates. The feeding of
horticultural vegetable by-products especially
cabbage should be noted. Chemical analysis at
SUA showed that cabbage leaves were extremely
digestible and had a high content of protein,
equalling that of concentrates. Another notable
development was that farmers paid particular
attention to providing water to goats.
The most important difference to emerge
between kid-rearing at SUA versus Mgeta was
76
the level of housing hygiene. At SUA the kids
were kept mainly in doors up to four months of
age. They shared the I ans with dams overnight
or were kept in overcrowded kid pens. The kids
at Mgeta spent most of their early life outdoors
during the day and had free access to young
grass.
The data in Table 3 on preventive treatments
indicatednodifferencesbetweenSUAandMgeta
except for incidences of hoof tijmming. Hoof
trimming in itself is important, as bad hoofs
cause discomfort to the animal and may eventually
lead to foot-rot. Furthermore, the frequency
ofhooftrimmingatMgetawasanindicatorofthe
very careful attention given to the goats by
farmers. Despite similar preventive t. eatments,
SUA goats were observed to have more coughing
and respiratory problems and larger worm
burdens than Mgeta goats.
Tables 4 and 5 show the development of the
Norwegian dairy goats and their crosses at SUA
farm and in Mgeta, respectively.
At SUA, the 53 Norwegion female kids
imported during 1983 and 1984 had produced 65
Norwegian females by October 1985. However,
over the following three years the number was
drastically reduced. The 10 females remaining
by May 1989 were transferred to the five Mgeta
dairy goat keepers.
During the same period 1983-84, the crossbreeding
programme at SUA was more
successful. From 38 local mothers a total of 142
crossbred females (excluding the 21 taken to
Mgeta) had been produced. The slow population
increase of half-breds from 1990 was partly due
to the reduction of local goats from 40 to 18 in
1990 and the high mortality rates. More than 40
farmers have purchased goats for breeding from
sUa
At Mgeta the number of crossed females
increased to 60 up to June 1992 indicating a
notable prolificacy of the transferred crosses and
three local does (Table 5). The Mgeta farmers
have sold about 54 males and 13 females to nonproject
farmers. In addition, 25 farmers used
project bucks for upgrading their local goats.
Tables 61 and 7 show the performances of the
animals at SUA experimental farm and Mgeta of
does and kids, respectively. It is obvious from
Table6thatthelactationperiodat SUAwasvery
short for all breeds. For Norwegian goats and
their crosses, the period was 50% longer than
that for local goats. The total yield of the crosses
was 86% higher than that for the locals, while
the Norwegians produced 50% more than the
crosses due to their higher daily yield.
The crosses in Mgeta were superior to all
breeds at SUA especially when their length of
lactation and total milk yield was considered.
Crossbreds in Mgeta gave 2.5 times more milk
than goats at SUA. The data on kid performance
in Table 7 show that kids at SUA had low birth