China’s Pork Industry: Looking Forward
China’s status as a major pork importer will likely continue to grow, forecast Fred Gale, Daniel Marti and Dinghuan Hu in the final part of their report entitled ‘China’s Volatile Pork Industry’ from the USDA Economic Research Service.



China’s tradition of self-sufficiency in pork will be hard to maintain as feed costs rise and as land for expanding farms and processing facilities becomes scarce and expensive. The environmental and food safety impacts of producing large numbers of hogs in China will become more apparent. Interregional shipments of pork within China are limited by lack of reliable transportation and temperature-controlled storage.

Stricter regulatory enforcement in the United States, greater investments in animal housing and manure handling, wider dissemination of technical expertise, and closer coordination between producers and processing companies help US farmers produce pork with less of an impact on the environment, fewer food safety incidents, and fewer disease outbreaks than in China. Demand from China raises the value of variety meats and offal that are not widely used as food in the US market.

Chinese restaurant chains, hotels, and other buyers who demand pork with high and consistent quality are important potential customers for imported pork (Fabiosa et al., 2005). With diversifying consumer tastes and growing segmentation in the market, imported pork can coexist in the Chinese market with domestic grain-fed pork and meat from local pig breeds.21

Strong resistance to pork imports in China can disrupt trade and affect exporters. China lowered tariffs on pork after its accession to the World Trade Organization, but pork imports still face resistance similar to that described by Hayes and Clemens (1997). Evidence of this can be seen among the policy responses listed in the Chinese ‘hog price alert’ programme, which include unspecified ‘limits’ on imported pork to reduce the market supply and ‘encouragement’ of pork exports. When Chinese pork prices were soaring in 2007, officials made announcements to assure the public that China would not import large amounts of pork (Xinhua, 2007).22

In June 2010 (after China lifted its H1N1-related ban on US pork), an article entitled Be on Guard! American Pork’s ’Soybean Appetite’ warned that imports could eat up China’s pork industry if the industry was not protected (Li, 2009). An analyst quoted in the article cautioned readers to ‘Be careful of the trap set by the Americans’” warning that if US pork imports are not limited, the pork industry ‘is likely to repeat the mistakes of the soybean industry with disastrous consequences’.23

Similarly, Liu (2010) reported that Chinese officials were wary of foreign investment in the pork industry because officials feared losing “guidance power” over the industry.

Thursday, April 05, 2012
Could the Spanish Dairy Sector Collapse?
ANALYSIS - This week, the Spanish Small Farmers Union (UPA) has said that the Spanish milk market is on the brink of a collapse. The union says that rising production costs are crippling farmers, and farmgate milk prices are falling.
 


For the dairy industry, feed accounts for around 70 per cent of production costs. These feed costs have reportedly increased by 50 per cent since 2010 and the current drought situation is set to make this worse.

UPA has said that demand for dairy products is increasing, which should economically speaking increase prices, but as yet Spanish and European milk producers, have not seen this.

Spanish producers are set to organise protests over the coming month, demanding a fair price for milk.

Arnaud Petit, Director of Commodities and Trade for Copa-Cogeca told TheCattleSite that Spain was not the only country suffering from falling milk prices. In fact, it is a trend that has been seen across Europe in the last couple of months.

Passing the cost of production on from producers to retailers and onto the consumer is a global problem, he explained.

Whilst Spain is suffering from drought, it also has a feed advantage due to the trade deal it has with South America, he says. Through this trade deal Spain can import around two million tonnes of maize and sorghum at a low duty, providing low cost feed for producers. However, Mr Petit points out that South America is also currently suffering from severe drought, which has lowered harvest estimations, particularly for maize.

Whether the Spanish industry is on the brink of a collapse or not is unknown. Certainly producers are struggling with high production costs and a low milk price. Whilst it is too early to see any impact of the European Milk Package, which was given the go ahead last month, it is hoped that when it comes into play, it will give producers more power to negotiate with processors for a fair milk price.


Charlotte Johnston, Editor

Cattle Outlook: Pink Slime Impacts Beef Prices

US - The publicity about Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB) and the unappealing new nickname associated with it is having a big impact on beef prices, writes Ron Plain, University of Missouri.

 
Ron Plain
 
The price spread between 90 per cent lean fresh beef trimmings and 50% lean trimmings during the last week of March was a record $134.77/cwt. Fresh 90 per cent lean trimmings averaged $217.71/cwt and fresh 50 per cent lean trimmings were $82.94/cwt. The price spread widened further this week.
 
The LFTB process has been used for years to remove fat from beef trimmings. The recent adverse publicity from calling the product "pink slime" has caused the value of high fat beef trimmings to plummet. Yesterday, fresh 50% lean beef trimmings averaged $54.80/cwt. Five weeks ago, these trimmings averaged $100.66/cwt.
 
The beef cutout value was lower again this week for the fifth consecutive week. On Friday morning, the choice boxed beef carcass cutout value was $177.41/cwt, down $6.40 from last week. The select carcass cutout was down $8.17 from the previous Friday to $174.98 per hundred pounds of carcass weight. The choice-select price spread is $2.43, up from $0.65/cwt a week ago.
 
Fed cattle prices were sharply lower this week and are now below year-ago for the first time since early January 2010. Through Thursday, the 5-area average price for slaughter steers sold on a live weight basis was $121.91/cwt, down $3.81 from last week and down $1.21/cwt from the same week last year.

Steer prices on a dressed basis averaged $193.39/cwt this week, down $8.49 from a week ago and down $3.03 from a year ago. Steer dressed prices are $15.98/cwt above the choice cutout value. This week's cattle slaughter totaled 622,000 head, up 3.3 per cent from the week before, but down 1.3 per cent from a year ago. The average dressed weight for slaughter steers for the week ending on March 24 was 844 pounds, up 2 pounds from the week before, up 17 pounds from a year ago, and above a year earlier for the 11th consecutive week.
 
Feeder cattle prices were generally lower this week. Oklahoma City prices were mostly $4 to $8 lower with the ranges for medium and large frame #1 steers: 400-450# $213-$220, 450-500# $201-$214, 500-550# $188-$200, 550-600# $177-$191, 600-650# $169-$175, 650-700# $152-$168, 700-750# $149-$156.50, 750-800# $143.50-$152, 800-900# $134.25-$147, and 900-1000# $128-$134.25/cwt.
 
For the fifth consecutive week, live cattle futures contracts were lower this week. Because of the Good Friday holiday, the futures markets ended the week a day early. The April live cattle futures contract settled at $118.32/cwt on Thursday, down $2.13 compared to last Friday and down $12.60 from 5 weeks earlier. The June contract closed at $115.82/cwt, down 33 cents for the week. August fed cattle settled at $118.47 and October at $123.97/cwt.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Food Prices Remain Nearly Unchanged in March
GLOBAL - World food prices in March remained virtually unchanged from their February levels, according to the latest FAO Food Price Index, published last week. The Index averaged 216 points in March, compared to 215 in February.


According to FAO, among the various commodity groups, only oils prices showed strength, whereas dairy prices fell.

The FAO Cereal Price Index averaged 227 points in March, up 1 point from February. Maize prices registered some gain, supported by low inventories and a strong soybean market, but wheat changed little as supplies remained ample. After several months of declines, prices of rice recovered somewhat in March, underpinned by large purchases by China and Nigeria.

The FAO Oils/Fats Price index rose in March to 245 points, up 6 points or 2.5 per cent from February, as markets reacted to the prospect of growing tightness in the 2011/12. Weak growth in world palm oil production and limited global soy oil export availabilities combined with declining rapeseed production contributed to the rise in oils prices.

The FAO Meat Price Index averaged 178 points in March, up marginally from the previous month, sustained by a slight rise of bovine meat price but still reaching an all time high. Prices of pig meat and sheep meat changed little, while they weakened in the case of poultry amid slowing import demand and generally ample export availabilities. On average, meat prices in the first quarter were 3.5 per cent higher than last year.

The FAO Dairy Price Index averaged 197 points in March, down 5 points or 2.5 per cent from February and registered the lowest level since August 2010. All the dairy products showed weakness last month, in particular butter, as well as skim milk powder and casein. Since reaching record levels in March 2011, dairy prices have followed a downward trend, as supplies rose in Oceania, Europe and North America. As a result, prices in the first quarter were 12 per cent lower in 2012 than last year.

The FAO Sugar Price Index averaged 342 points in March, and remained unchanged from February but was 30 points or 8 per cent lower than in March 2011. Overall, sugar prices were volatile, as the market looked for direction ahead of the beginning of the new season in Brazil, the world's largest sugar producer and exporter. India, the EU and Thailand, have all reported increased output, which contributed to keeping prices below their high levels of last season.

Cereal stocks expected to rise
The forecast for world cereal carryover stocks in 2012 has been raised by 1 million tonnes over the previous month to 519 million tonnes. Much of the upward revision relates to expectations of higher rice inventories.

At the current forecast level, the world cereal stocks-to-use ratio in 2011/12 reaches 22.1 per cent, up slightly from 21.7 per cent in 2010/11. Among the major cereals, rice inventories are forecast to increase the most - by 11 million tonnes to 152 million tonnes, the highest level since 2000. Wheat stocks are also expected to rise sharply by 7 million tonnes to 196 million tonnes, the second highest level since 2003; however, coarse grains stocks could decline by nearly 3 million tonnes to 171 million tonnes, the lowest level since 2008.

Early outlook for 2012/12
The FAO's production forecast for wheat in 2012 remains at 690 million tonnes, 1.4 per cent below the record in 2011 and unchanged from last month. In spite of this decline, world wheat supplies in 2012/13 would still exceed projected need because of large inventories, according to this month's report. Rice markets also appear to be well supplied in 2012/13 given consecutive years of record production which have helped boost inventories. However, coarse grain supplies will be particularly tight in the coming months, especially for maize in the United States, the world's largest producer and exporter.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012
CME: Pork Packer Margins Down
US - Our April 4 discussion about pig flows and the debate over whether pigs have been backed up due to low packer margins or pulled forward due to exceptional performance still rings true, write Steve Meyer and Len Steiner.


That debate is ongoing and still not completely resolved. But the numbers I included in that discussion were wrong. Spreadsheets are wonderful things are they not? They can also make an absolute fool of you and that is what befell me today when I realized that the historical data on which my slaughter forecasts were based were one year older than they were supposed to be. Duh. So, if you have been scratching your head and wondering just what Meyer was talking about, I apologize for the hair loss and time loss if any was, in fact, lost over the issue. Let’s consider the correct numbers, shall we?

The chart at below shows actual weekly slaughter for 2012 to-date (those data were correct in the original chart) and predicted weekly slaughter totals for 2012 based on the December and March quarterly Hogs and Pigs reports from USDA. It is clear that both predicted slaughter series are much closer to actual slaughter this year than was depicted in last week’s chart. In fact, about the only number that one can quibble with much is the December report’s slight over-estimation of hog numbers since January 1. And that 1.2% discrepancy between the predicted and actual numbers is hardly cause for alarm and could well be explained by excellent performance this winter. When data back to December 1 are considered, the December report was remarkably close, overestimating total slaughter for Dec-Feb by only 0.2%. And the March report has performed even better so far, missing actual slaughter from March 1 to April 7 by just 0.1% to the low side.

Using correct data, the argument for pulling some hogs forward is much more plausible. But the slaughter and weight data really suggest that hogs have moved to market at a relatively normal pace and have simply arrived at plants heavier due to exceptional performance this winter. If feed efficiencies are as good as growth rates, average costs for this winter’s hog supply are likely lower than normal, suggesting slightly higher profit margins. Now if I can ever trust my spreadsheets again!! My apologies for any confusion I may have caused.

And just how bad have pork packer margins been? As can be seen in the chart below, pork “meat margins”, the difference between the proceeds of selling the standard pork carcass and the cost of the animal, were RECORD LOW at -$14/head two weeks ago. They have rebounded a bit since then but remain near $10 in the red. Packers’ saving grace has been the value of by-products such as organ meats, head products, hair and blood. The per-head value of these very items has been over $20 for well over a year now and shows no sign of declining. As you might expect, these items are very dependent on ethic markets at home and exports markets. China and Mexico account for over 75% of U.S. variety meat exports in terms of both volume and value.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Pork Tests Confirm Serious Steroid Problem
VIET NAM - Husbandry authorities announced last week that many samples taken from pork, pigs and their feed nationwide tested positive for banned steroids.


The results came from nine Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development laboratories as part of a large-scale investigation following a 29 February Thanh Nien report which said that illegal growth-promoting beta-agonist agents were being used by many pig farmers in Dong Nai Province, a major pig and pork supplier in southern Viet Nam.

According to the ministry, 4.8 per cent of the animal feed samples taken from the southern region showed traces of the agents - ractopamine and salbutamol, as did 11 percent of animal drug samples and 4.4 per cent of pork and pig livers.

“4.4 per cent of pork and livers testing positive for the chemical is serious,” Cao Duc Phat, minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, said at the Thursday meeting.
Beta-agonist agents, popular with body builders, can cause increased heart rates, indigestion and various other harmful side effects.

In northern Viet Nam, more than 150 samples have been taken and the chemical was found in one liver sample in Bac Ninh Province, and two animal feed samples in Hoa Binh and Hai Duong Provinces.

Mr Phat said, “I request related agencies work closely with local governments to continue tracking down the banned substances to determine the persons supplying them.”

Hoang Van Nam, head of the Animal Health Department at the ministry, also said the test figures revealed an alarming situation.

“If we fail to keep up the strong inspections, the situation will become complicated and impossible to control,” Mr Nam said at the meeting.

Investigations since early March have led to two pig farms in Binh Duong Province in the south being fined VND25 million each for using the chemical.

Eleven other farms in Dong Nai await punishment, while animal feed stores known to sell the chemical in the province and elsewhere in the north are being investigated by the police, Duong said.

The National Assembly has demanded that a full report be issued by the ministry on the steroid use in pig breeding by 17 April.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Adjumani Residents Defy Quarantine on Pigs
UGANDA - Efforts to contain African swine fever, which broke out in Adjumani District seven months ago, is being hindered by residents' defiance of a quarantine imposed by the veterinary department.

African Swine Fever
Resource Centre


The District Veterinary Officer, Dr David Okello, yesterday told Daily Monitor that residents have continued to transport and slaughter pigs and sell pork in disregard of the quarantine.

Dr Okello identified the affected villages as Patua, Pagirinya, Pavuraga and Molupoda. The disease has killed more than 250 pigs.

He noted that there has been laxity in the enforcement of the quarantine, adding that the district does not have a specific by-law that could be used to enforce the quarantine.

Dr Okello urged local leaders, law enforcers and the public to ensure that the quarantine is followed.

He warned that people who continue to disregard the quarantine would be prosecuted.

Dr Okello said some farmers smoke the carcasses of the dead pigs and sell them to people claiming they are dry bush meat which is on high demand in the district.

He said: “This is very wrong and can only escalate the spread of the disease.”

A farmer in Pavuraga Village, Mr Emmanuel Mori, said: “More sensitisation should be done and a by-law should be passed so that enforcement can be efficient.”

Fundamental principles of successful goat meat production


    The production of goat meat is increasingly becoming a viable agricultural enterprise in the Southeast United States. I want to examine some of the characteristics of goats suitable for meat production and then look at some of the management practices
that are required to produce goat meat successfully.
    Right at the outset, I want to distinguish between producing meat goats and producing goat meat. The distinction is important because at its heart lies the difference between the servicing of a haphazard and idiosyncratic localized market and the development of a sustainable land-
based industry.
    Just about anyone can produce meat goats. By meat goats, I mean the breeds of goat usually included within the generic catch-all of the phrase. In the United States, that pretty much encompasses any goat not bred for the production of hair or milk. Some ranchers will do it well; some will do it not so well. Some will opt for low input systems (such as the open range systems found in West Texas); others will elect a more intensive route (pen feeding and the like). They will find periodic markets for their products but they will generally be price takers from order buyers. They'll have periods of relative prosperity (particularly when there is a demand for breeding stock) and lengthy periods of penury. The enterprise will usually be conducted in conjunction with a wage-paying job or as a diversification of a larger agricultural enterprise.
    By contrast goat meat production requires a different mindset, and it's goat meat production I want to focus on. Goat meat production concentrates on a larger picture. It looks to the ultimate consumer rather than the buyer at the farm gate, focusing on the product that is to be harvested from the animal raised rather than the animal itself. If I were to define what goat meat production entails it would be along these lines - the aim of goat meat production is the production, in sustainable quantities on a replicable basis, of the product required in the consumer market by the selection of appropriate purpose bred goat types and the implementation of targeted management systems. Goat meat production can be an agricultural livelihood for those who have the opportunity for production on the appropriate scale. For those who opt for smaller scale production it will represent significantly enhanced returns against the production of meat goats.
    Two major factors have historically acted as barriers to capitalizing upon the opportunities that exist in respect of the production of goat meat. The most important of these has been the lack of a breed of goat suitable for commercial production. In the United States the market has been provided with the carcasses of Spanish goats of uncertain origin ranged under a variety of husbandry regimes, and cull Angora goats. Very small numbers of dairy goats have also been slaughtered.
    The second factor is a poor understanding of the management practices necessary for the profitable production of goat meat. Spanish goats have generally been ranged with little or no management supervision and with the rancher accepting high mortality, unthriftiness, poor body weights and slow rates of growth as the vagaries of a low cost/minimal input agricultural system.
    In the last decade, two occurrences have served to extinguish these barriers. The
first is the release into the United States of goats purpose bred for meat production. The Boer goat from South Africa and Kiko goat from New Zealand both exhibit production traits which can contribute significant improvements in feed conversion, growth rates, carcass conformation and production capacity to the base U.S. herd.
    The second is the development in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa of broad acre management programs for the production of goat meat. These programs have resulted from research undertaken into small ruminant production in those countries and have substantially altered the viability of production for goat meat there. In addition, there has been substantial research undertaken in the U.S. on goat health and nutrition. Today an understanding of the management principles necessary for goat meat production is available to North American ranchers.
    Now that the barriers have been overcome, goat meat production can be a profitable enterprise for American ranchers who have the land available and who are prepared to devote time and capital to put in place the necessary components of a goat meat production enterprise.
    Let me give some consideration to the three critical elements of goat meat production: availability of suitable purpose bred goats, appropriately targeted management systems and available viable consumer markets.

Characteristics of purpose bred goats
    When it comes to goat meat production, breed of goat takes second place to the characteristics required for commercial production. I want you to put breeds of goat right out of your mind and focus for a spell on the necessary characteristics.
    There are two critical characteristics required - without them the battle is lost before it is begun. They are rate of growth and ease of management.
    Rate of growth is of paramount importance. Producers often overlook the fact that it is not how big an animal grows that is important: it is how fast the animal grows. And it is the rate of growth at critical times in the animal's life that is the most important. The most important period is between birth and weaning. The next most important time is between weaning and six months.
    Why? There are three reasons: firstly, because the early rate of growth will go a long way to determining the size of the mature animal. Secondly, because a rapid rate of growth at an early age brings the animal to slaughter weight faster. And thirdly, because profitable markets for goat meat tend to focus on younger animals rather than older animals, rapidly growing young animals reaching slaughter weight faster will require less management inputs than slower growing animals.
    Ease of management is equally important. What do I mean by ease of management? Well there are a whole heap of factors involved but these are some of the more important:
¥ Resistance to internal parasites. Some goat breeds (and some individual goats within breeds) demonstrate a reduced requirement for deworming because they are less prone to internal parasite infestation. This translates into substantial saving in terms of dewormer and management time since they can be dewormed less frequently than goats without a reduced requirement for deworming.
¥ Soundness of hooves. Goats that go lame through footrot and/or footscald create a huge management burden. Sound hooves are essential. Animals with unsound hooves should be culled as a matter of course.
¥ Easy care kidding. Goats that require no assistance at kidding are to be preferred over those that require close shepherding.
¥ Browsing vigor. This is the ability to browse aggressively and traveling distances to do so. Aggressive browsers seek their own nutrition rather than waiting for it to be brought to them. Goats of a sedentary disposition are undesirable in production terms.
¥ Fecundity. This encompasses the ability of females to conceive twin offspring on the first exposure to the buck and to carry those kids to parturition and raise them unaided to weaning. Accomplishment of each of these factors aids in the minimization of management intervention - a more compressed kidding season, less bottle babies, more live kids.
    The commercial production of goat meat requires animals that display all these characteristics because the single greatest barrier to profitable production is the cost of the management inputs. Accordingly, the less management time devoted to individual animals, the greater the rancher's ability to concentrate on the management of the herd as a whole. And that is a major consideration where larger sized herds are being run.
    In a phrase, what you look for in a goat for meat production are hardiness, fertility and vigor.

Management principles for goat meat production
    Now I want to give some consideration to what's involved in the management of goats for meat production. And the first thing I want to emphasize is that management means integrated herd management, not the management of individuals or small groups of animals. Too often in the United States I find that the mindset is on the management of individuals, not on the management of the whole herd.
    In a goat meat program, the rancher is the CEO of a production enterprise. He's got to have an overview of the whole operation. He's got to have a strategic management plan that projects at least a year into the future. He's got to have a basic set of financial projections that he can compare his actual returns against. He has to be prepared to take the advice of a management consultant when he needs it. When a rancher focuses too closely on individual animals or small groups he becomes a personnel manager, neglecting his tasks as financial controller, production manager and marketing manager.
    Management for goat meat production means focusing on the herd as a whole. That entails notionally separating it into groups of like animals - the larger the better, the fewer groups the better. Like animals require like management. The more similar the management, the less work it entails. The less work it entails the less manpower required. The less manpower required the more profitable the enterprise.
    The rancher should never fall into the trap of discounting the worth of his own time. Time spent working goats unnecessarily is time that has been squandered and is time that might have been spent more profitably, on the ranch or off it.
    Let me give you some of the principles I employ in the management of large herds (by that I mean anything from a thousand breeding does upwards). But, they are also the principles I advise folks with only a hundred does to use. And they apply equally well if you have only twenty does.
    First, separation into groups. The primary separation is males from females. Entire bucks (that is, uncastrated males) have no place running with females of any age. They should be kept separate and apart save for the period of time when they are actually going to be asked to earn their keep by serving the breeding females. Time and duration of mating is a management function, not a happenstance of nature. Bucks allowed to run with females without constraint make for unwanted pregnancies, prolonged and out of season kiddings and handling difficulties.
    The secondary separation is grouping of females. Firstly, all females of breeding age should be run as a single group. Secondly, all kids (doe kids and wether kids) should be run as a grow-out group. Since this group is going to contribute the majority of your animals for slaughter (the balance being cost for age and dry does) these animals get the best attention. The simple way to manage this group is to send for slaughter first the wethers then the does until you are left with the number of doe kids that are required to provide replacement females for the breeding herd.
    These are the basic divisions I make. At mating time there may be more to accommodate single sire mating programs, or artificial insemination programs or the like. But these are the basic ones. Three groups-three programs.
    The next principle is to establish the time of mating. Mating marks the commencement of the annual production cycle. The time of mating establishes the time of kidding, hugely influences the time of weaning and provides a fairly accurate indicator of when you will have animals available for slaughter. Here're the crude rules of thumb I use to calculate the date on which mating will commence. I take a date when I know that there is going to be good spring growth for the part of the country I'm working in. Let me use our ranch in Texas as an example (and bear in mind that here I'm dealing with Hill Country brushland, not improved posture). That date is the date that will determine all the other dates in the mating calendar.
    I know that by April 1 there will be good spring growth, providing there has not been a devastating winter drought and that there has been reasonable rainfall. So April 1 is the date upon which I want to wean so that the weaned kids will have the benefit of the best feed conditions that the year is likely to produce. Also, they will have the opportunity to grow apace before the devastating heat of June, July and August.
    From April 1, I count back 90 days. That is going to give me the commencement of kidding date. That takes me back to January 1.
    From that date, I count back five months. That is the date upon which I want mating to begin. That date is the first of August. On that date, I introduce the bucks that I want to use in my mating program for the year to the does that are to be mated.
    I leave them running with the does for 32 days. That represents one and a half reproductive cycles. That means that all my kids will be born roughly within a one-month period. That reduces the amount of supervision they will require at kidding and gives me a kid crop that can be treated as a group, not as a collection of individuals. That means that I will be able to deworm, vaccinate, castrate, mark and wean to common dates because all the animals will all be much the same size and age.
    After 32 days the bucks are removed. Their job for the year is finished.
    The third principle is to ruthlessly cull unproductive animals. Unproductive animals are females that:
    ¥ Fail to conceive within the 32-day exposure period. Providing they are not being asked to conceive outside a seasonal mating period, they are not sufficiently fertile to warrant maintaining in the herd.
    ¥ Fail to carry their kids to parturition. Unless, of course, there are good reasons for the does aborting - outbreaks of toxoplasmosis, campylobacter, border disease and the like or savagely inclement weather affecting unsheltered stock.
    ¥ Fail to raise to weaning any kids they carry and bear - but once again outbreaks of disease (coccidiosis, for example) or very bad weather may be taken into account.
    ¥ Produce offspring with genetically undesirable traits (hemaphrodatism) or with physical abnormalities (parrot mouth).
    And any mature male that fails to aggressively cover at least 100 females.
    None of these animals are worth retaining in a commercial herd maintained for goat meat production.
    The fourth principle is to replace at least 20% of the breeding females annually. If enhanced production is the aim of your program, then you have to be consciously improving the quality of your doe herd. This is best accomplished by choosing a single trait of commercial significance and selecting replacement breeding females from within your female kids by ranking them according to their performance in respect of that trait and selecting the superior performers.
    I use rate of growth, usually that between birth and weaning. I use a computer program, which ranks all the offspring and then selects the number I require. These animals are run through to breeding age at which time they are substituted for the animals that are culled for poor productivity. In this way I reduce the generation interval, and keep my doe herd comparatively young.
    The fifth principle is that animal health programs must be prophylactic, not remedial. Most animal health programs involve deworming and vaccination. The golden rule in respect of both is that if you are deworming or vaccinating because you think the animals look as though they need it, you are too late. Animal health programs need to be planned for the forthcoming year, and implemented in a considered manner.
They are designed to prevent worm build up, not to treat it; to prevent bacterial conditions, not to treat them. Animal health programs must be multifaceted and not rely on drugs alone - they should include pasture rotation and other management approaches to minimize the risk of health challenges.
    These are basic principles - principles that must be applied in all goat meat production operations. Each operation wiII require its own degree of fine-tuning to suit its circumstances, size and location. Obviously these principles don't tell the whole story, but they are all factors that must be taken into account if you want to operate a commercially successful operation targeting goat meat production.

Simple aims for herd improvement
    Enhanced production is the consequence of herd improvement. Every commercial enterprise should have a clear understanding of the herd improvement aims they are targeting and the manner in which they are going to be accomplished.
Herd improvement can be accomplished by focussing on two simple propositions:
    ¥ Increase rates of growth.
    ¥ Increase kidding percentages.
    The former can be accomplished by breed selection to attain more rapid rates of growth. The latter can be accomplished by retaining female replacements that are twins and the daughters of twins. By selecting females with strong twinning dispositions, a single gestation maximizes the number of offspring available for slaughter or retention in the herd. The rationale for this approach is that a single female having a single kid has put on the ground say 44 pounds of liveweight at 100 days. A single female having twins (allowing for a slightly slower rate of growth) has put on the ground 2 x 40 pounds = 80 pounds of live weight for the same 100 days. The latter female is therefore infinitely more profitable.
    As a standing rule of thumb, I work on the principle that if your kidding percentage is below 100% then you are unlikely to make significant profits in goat meat production. If your kidding percentage is around 130% then you are well in the ballpark for making money in this enterprise.
    Remember, commercial goat meat production aims to produce the maximum weight of meat in the minimum time for the least possible cost. Programs targeting this outcome are the ones that succeed in profitable production.
    Finally, a brief word about markets. Worldwide, goat meat is the most widely consumed of the red meats. In the majority of countries, however, it never rises above commodity status because of the low gross domestic product (GDP) of third world countries and their subsistence forms of agriculture. The exception is the Middle East, where high GDP and religious fundamentalism have combined to develop a more discerning market. The Middle East market is characterized, however, by seasonal demand and a marked preference for live animals.
    Generally, the best markets for goat meat (and by best I mean most profitable) exhibit the following characteristics:
    ¥ A developed economy with high per capita income.
    ¥ Significant concentrations of ethnic communities, in particular Islamic, Hispanic and Asian.
    ¥ Relatively well developed distribution systems allowing a reliable flow of product to the consumer.
  

  Graham Culliford is the managing partner of Goatex Group LLC and of Tasman Livest.These are the same people who are responsible for the Kiko breed.

Thursday, April 05, 2012
Interesting Three Months Ahead for Markets
AUSTRALIA - With another very wet first quarter of the year coming to a close, the next three months are set to pose some interesting questions and challenges for cattle and beef markets. While the path of the A$ and the strength of export demand in coming months will make for interesting watching, the largest questions being posed surround the anticipated supply of cattle heading into the traditionally higher turnoff months of May and June.

With the two wettest years on record across the key cattle producing regions of Australia underpinning female retention and herd growth, supplies are anticipated to increase in the second quarter of 2012. Indeed, the disruption caused by flooding to the logistics throughout the first quarter of 2012 may even add to the number of cattle that enter the market between April and June.

However, when looking at the anticipated increase in cattle coming to the market in the second quarter, it must be noted that seasonal influences almost always see slaughter numbers increase into May and June, as producers in the north sell cattle following the cessation of the wet season, while southern producers look to reduce numbers heading into winter.

A review of historical numbers for the past decade shows that given the seasonality associated with adult cattle slaughter during the second quarter of the calendar year, throughput numbers have always been greater than the first quarter – averaging 11 per cent higher.

Given the increased supply in the second quarter, it should also be noted that a similar review of average prices between the first and second quarters of the calendar year shows a tendency to lower prices in the second quarter, but with no clear trend.

Indeed, according to MLA’s NLRS national saleyard averages, for the past 10 years, the average price for heavy steers in June has been below the average in March for six of the ten years, but only averaging a decline of one per cent over the ten year period. Demonstrating the contrasting market factors from year-to year, in 2011 the average heavy steer price in June was 12 per cent below the average in March, while the average monthly price in June was higher than March in 2008 (nine per cent), 2009 (three per cent) and 2010 (four per cent).

Assuming an increase in cattle supplies in the coming three months, there is expected to be additional downward pressure upon cattle prices. Indeed, if the current malaise for Australian beef in export markets, especially Japan and Korea, continues through to June, the pressure upon prices could be magnified. However the recent decline in the A$ will provide some hope for an improvement in export demand and prices, along with the expectation for demand from the US to remain positive.

However, the one elusive factor to consider for the coming three months is how producers will react to any decline in cattle prices, given that most would be flush with feed and water, providing the flexibility to hold cattle if prices are deemed unfavourable.

Positive Indicators for the US Turkey Market

The US turkey market enjoyed another profitable year in 2011 and could extend its success into this year, according to Joel Brandenberger, president of the US National Turkey Federation. Senior editor, Jackie Linden, reports from the Turkey Science and Production Conference, held on 22 and 23 March 2012 in Macclesfield, UK.

Among the positive indicators are slow and managed growth in output, less volatile feed costs, good export markets and a strengthening domestic economy, which is helping bolster demand at home, said Mr Brandenberger. There are warning signs, however. These include an increase in the volumes in cold storage, a softening of the ground turkey and parts market, long-term instability in production costs and a highly uncertain regulatory position.




Figure 1. US turkey production
 
Interesting to note from Figure 1 is that 2008 produced a peak in both turkey numbers and meat output, which led to a jump in the volume of turkey meat in cold storage and a slump in profitabilty the following year. Bird numbers and turkey meat production have since been stable, said Mr Brandenberger, and the volumes in cold storage have declined again to steady levels. There has been gradual growth in exports since 2009, approaching 600 million pounds for 2011, he indicated.

In the US, chicken consumption overtook that of beef in the 1990s to become the nation's favourite meat and the figures for last year indicate average annual per–capita chicken consumption at between 80 and 90lbs, which compares with between 16 and 16.5lbs for turkey meat. This is a good sustainable level for the turkey industry, explained Mr Brandenberger, and one which is profitable. Interestingly, years in which per–capita consumption has reached or exceeded 17lbs have not generated good returns for the industry.

Furthermore, the US regulatory environment is changing, said Mr Brandenberger, both on farm and in the processing plant. The biggest changes are being seen in food safety, driven by three main factors: recalls of ground turkey last year; the USDA’s desire to continue modernising the inspection systems and a shrinking federal budget.
 
2011 Turkey Meat Recalls
 
There were three major recalls of turkey meat in the US in 2011:
 •frozen turkey burgers for Salmonella Hadar in March
•fresh ground turkey for Salmonella Heidelberg in August, which became the biggest turkey meat recall in US history (36 million pounds), and
•fresh ground turkey for Salmonella Heidelberg in September.

Mr Brandenberger explained that National Turkey Federation members convened a ‘Turkey and Salmonella Summit’ three weeks after the biggest recall, during which the participants developed a comprehensive action plan to enhance Salmonella control in turkey.

The key components of the plan, he explained, were: reassessment of HACCP/Salmonella control plans; a comprehensive survey of ground turkey; clarification of MST definition; review of Salmonella performance standards, and identification of pre–harvest research needs.

The Government response came from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which developed a comprehensive response, covering both turkey only and all ground meats.

The biggest issue, explained Mr Brandenberger, was the USDA setting very strict criteria for the plant where the recall had occurred before it could resume grinding. This followed the Department’s finding that the plant’s initial response was inadequate. The government tried to set standards that would effectively have declared Salmonella Heidelberg an adulterant in raw ground turkey meat but the lack of a rapid serotyping test prevented what would have been a zero–tolerance policy for Salmonella.

USDA followed this with the first steps towards pre–harvest testing.
 
Current Situation
 
Ultimately, USDA settled for a plan that was more stringent but did not fundamentally change the regulatory structure, said Mr Brandenberger. In the meantime, the government continues to increase its scrutiny of grinding operations but it is struggling to address the issue of certain Salmonella strains. A meeting is planned for later this year on pre–harvest controls.

The turkey industry continues with its action plan and is beginning to focus on the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in foodborne illness investigations and recalls.
 
Other Regulatory Issues
 
USDA is moving forward with a major modernisation of poultry meat inspection, said Mr Brandenberger, and it is focusing more and more on Campylobacter. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), meanwhile, is on the verge of initiating a process to eliminate sub-therapeutic label claims for antibiotics in farm animals.

Environmental regulations remain a major issue, he added, as do non–tariff trade barriers. He mentioned that the issues with the EU remain unresolved.
 
Feed Costs
 
Starting with some background, Mr Brandenberger explained that Congress created the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) in 2005, which took effect the following year and was further expanded in 2007. At the beginning of 2006, corn (maize) sold for US$3 per bushel in the US. Now, it is around $6.00, he said.

According to Mr Brandenbeger, the diversion of maize from food/feed to fuel has led to the most fundamental restructuring of production costs and resulting food costs in a generation. In 2011, the volume of maize used for ethanol exceeded that for animal feed. Citing data from Thomas E. Elam, Mr Brandenberger showed that the ending stocks/use ratio in the US is forecast to be just seven per cent for the 2011/2012 year, adding that levels below 10 per cent have been critical historically.

From the same source, he showed how the average farm price from maize has risen alongside the proportion used for ethanol from around $2 per bushel in 2005/2006 to a projected $6 for 2011/2012. Over this period, the percentage of maize going to ethanol has increased from around 12 per cent to 40 per cent of the total harvest.
 



Figure 2. Major US feed ingredients
 (Data from Thomas E. Elam)
 
Another impact of the ethanol policy has been that the byproduct, distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS), has overtaken soybean meal as the number two feed ingredient in the US behind maize.

However, the backlash has begun, Mr Brandenberger said, as Congress last year allowed two key ethanol supports to expire, while some in Congress are expected to begin pushing for additional ethanol reforms and action could start this year.

Finally, Mr Brandenberger turned his attention to other government issues. He highlighted the struggle between Congress and the USDA over the latter's efforts to regulate production poultry and livestock contracts. Furthermore, the Obama Administration and Congress will continue to wrestle over human nutrition issues, including obesity, which will likely have implications for the turkey industry in future, he said.
 March 2012

Tuesday, April 03, 2012
JSR Launches ‘Faster Finishing’ Boar
UK - Pig and Poultry Fair 2012 will see the launch of a keenly anticipated new Sireline, the ‘faster finishing’ JSR Geneconverter 800m Boar, by leading global pig breeders, JSR Genetics.
 

Bred specifically for speed of growth, JSR Geneconverter 800m progeny are up to three days faster to finish, giving an extra five kilos for those wanting more weight at the end of the production cycle. In JSR’s nucleus units, the top 10 per cent of animals are consistently achieving 100kg in 120 days with weaning–to–finish growth rates well in excess of 900g per day.

The new Sireline, whose development is a result of JSR’s international breeding programmes and advanced development technologies, is also a response to direct customer demand.

Dr Grant Walling, JSR Genetics Managing Director, said: “We enjoy very close links with our customers and had become aware that for many, faster growth – so reducing days to slaughter – is a real priority that’s not being adequately met."

With its genetic development programmes continually developing new lines, JSR has been able to focus on traits that have now delivered market leading products.

Stephen Waite, Head of Science for JSR Genetics, commented: “We are always seeking new products, and constantly have new innovations in the pipeline. It means we have been able to focus on providing new genetics that we believe will provide these much needed traits for producers. Interestingly, it was by looking at the early growth stages, often neglected, that we have been able to achieve such remarkable results.

“We now have a new, very exciting boar that is exceptionally fast growing. The animals that we are selecting from on our nucleus farms are consistently exhibiting exceptional growth,” added Mr Waite.



JSR Geneconverter 800m
JSR Geneconverter 800m – top 10% nucleus performance
100kg in 120 days
40kg in 63 days
630g per day from birth up to 40kg
1320g per day in the 40–91kg growth stage
900g per day from weaning to finish
“630 g/day is remarkable growth in small piglets,” added Dr Walling, “making the JSR Geneconverter 800m ideal not only for producers looking for quicker returns but also those wanting to improve productivity by getting more kilos in a set period of time. Our commercial trials on GC800m progeny have confirmed the ability of these genetics to consistently deliver outstanding results on farm.”

Commercial progeny trial data
Birth weight: 1.81kg
Weaning weight: 9.32kg
Weaning age: 27.60 days
Weight at slaughter: 106.20kg
Days to slaughter: 151.64
The new ‘faster growing’ JSR Geneconverter 800m boar will now take its place in the JSR Sireline range alongside the JSR Geneconverter 700, the choice for feed efficiency; the JSR Geneconverter 600, chosen for carcass yields and the Geneconverter 500 which gives exceptional meat eating quality.

The benefit of JSR research and development is that each and every candidate line – whilst bred to focus on individual characteristics – is subject to all of the breeding technologies that JSR have invested in.

Dr Walling confirmed: “Every breed routinely undergoes intra–muscular fat (IMF) scanning to determine subcutaneous fat, muscle and intra muscular fat percentages and also CT scanning to ensure large yields in the most profitable cuts. They are also tested for feed efficiency in our custom built FIRE (feed intake recording equipment) testing house.

“For the JSR Geneconverter 800m, this means that good grading, very competitive feed efficiency figures – and of course, being robust, healthy and easy to handle – have all been delivered alongside its key strength of strong growth and fast finishing. That’s where it really excels.”

Recommended for use with the JSR Genepacker 90 for indoor production units, or outdoor producers with a predominantly white genetic makeup, JSR Geneconverter 800m genetics will be available only from JSR AI studs with a limited opportunity to purchase boars for AI collection on farm.

Visitors to the Pig & Poultry Fair are invited to visit JSR’s stand to find our more about the new JSR Geneconverter 800m – including how it tastes! Bacon rolls and sausages sandwiches, provided by the Geneconverter 800m will be available.

Meet the JSR team and find out more about the new JSR Geneconverter 800m at the Pig & Poultry Fair on 15 and 16 May 2012 on JSR Stand 98 in Hall 02 or visit the company’s web site.

Environmental and Food Safety Pressures on China’s Pig Industry
Producing large quantities of pork in China entails additional costs related to the environment and food safety that are not factored into the market price of pork, explain Fred Gale, Daniel Marti and Dinghuan Hu in a report entitled ‘China’s Volatile Pork Industry’ from the USDA Economic Research Service.


According to Wang et al (2006), one Chinese hog produces 5.3kg of waste daily, which contains large amounts of nutrients not absorbed by the animal as well as heavy metals and pharmaceutical residues. During the 1950s and 1960s, Chinese officials encouraged individual households to raise hogs as a means of producing organic fertiliser to spread on fields to raise grain yields. In later decades, chemical fertiliser became available and the rising demand for meat prompted a large increase in the number of hogs. Consequently, the production of manure exceeded the capacity of the surrounding farmland to absorb its nutrients.

Small farms rarely treat manure but large farms are usually required to invest in treatment facilities. Gao et al. (2006) estimated that 80 per cent of commercial–scale farms lack equipment and facilities to dispose of waste properly, which causes ‘serious pollution of water, soil, and air and threatens the health of animals and humans.’ Waste often washes into streams and rivers, fouling drinking water and contributing to eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) of major bodies of water.

Several Chinese studies estimated that pollution from livestock farms totalled roughly three billion metric tons annually, about three times the pollution emitted from industrial sources (Gao et al., 2006; Liu, 2009; and Wang et al., 2006). Gao et al. estimated China’s hog waste at 1.29 billion metric tons annually, 47 per cent of the total livestock and poultry waste generated. A census of pollution sources released in 2009 found that livestock waste was a chief cause of water pollution in China (China Ministry of Environmental Protection, 2010).

While Chinese officials are taking steps to address these problems, the dense population of hogs strains the capacity of the land to supply feed for hogs and absorb their waste and also makes it difficult to control and prevent animal diseases (FAO, 2006). China has many regions with high hog population densities. ERS calculations using provincial– and state–level data on hog inventories and crop–land for China and the United States show that China had 94 hogs for every 100 acres of crop–land nationwide at year–end in 2008, more than four times the US ratio of 20 hogs per 100 acres.

In many of China’s leading hog–producing provinces, the density exceeded 100 hogs per 100 acres, and the density exceeded 200 in Sichuan, Hunan and Guangdong Provinces. North Carolina was the only US State with over 200 hogs per 100 acres (similar to the density in Sichuan), and Iowa had 82 (slightly below the China average and similar to the density in Hebei and Jiangsu Provinces). Other US States had densities of fewer than 40 hogs per 100 acres, far less than in China. With an already–high density of hogs, the environmental impact of hog production and tight supplies of feed may constrain growth of China’s hog industry.


Chinese officials are promoting ‘ecological’ modes of hog production that use hog waste to feed fish or fertilise crops and use bacteria to break down hog waste. China’s 2011-2015 five–year plan will emphasise the importance of controlling livestock waste (Zhang, 2010b). However, a number of cities and provinces in China have introduced regulations that ban hog farms and slaughterhouses from operating near residential areas and waterways. Draft regulations prepared by Shandong Province in 2010 banned new livestock farms in urban areas, near sources of drinking water, in scenic areas and in places where toxic substances exceed prescribed limits.

Food safety is also a major concern for Chinese consumers of pork. The news media in China has frequently reported on the hog industry’s use of clenbuterol and other illegal feed additives, the slaughter of sick hogs, the pumping of potentially contaminated water into hogs prior to slaughter and the contamination of feed with heavy metals. Chinese consumers are also becoming more wary of pork products that contain dyes, preservatives, and other food additives.

In March 2011, a widely publicised report that a subsidiary of China’s largest processed pork manufacturer purchased hogs raised with illegal feed additives had little direct impact on the pork market (Woolsey and Zhang, 2011). However, industry reports claim that the incident helped drive the trend toward consolidation of hog farms discussed earlier in this report. For example, the company implicated in the incident pledged to open a 10,000–head company–operated farm to supply each slaughterhouse it builds to gain more control over the production process .

Food safety concerns are also contributing to changes in purchase patterns that may make consumers more receptive to imported pork. Traditionally, Chinese consumers preferred to purchase freshly slaughtered pork from small wet market vendors but food safety concerns have encouraged them to shift purchases to supermarkets where pork is believed to be more sanitary and free of illegal feed additives. Government plans to consolidate slaughterhouses by 2015 entail an increase in inter–regional trade in chilled or frozen pork.

The diminishing role of localised wet markets and the development of modern market channels with cold–chain facilities may create more opportunities for imported pork to reach Chinese consumers. Many Chinese consumers responded to the dairy industry’s melamine adulteration crisis by purchasing imported milk products, and demand for imported pork could similarly be boosted by domestic food safety concerns

2010 DHIR Breed Averages










2010 DHIR Breed Averages...

 





ADGA BREED AVERAGES – 2010 LACTATIONS
 



DOES 275-305 DAYS in MILK
 

N=
 

AVG. AGE at START of LACTATION
 

MILK lbs
 

RANGE
 

B-FAT

 % / lbs
 

PROTEIN

 % / lbs
 
 ECM*lbs



ALPINE

509

3y5m

2396


 810-5080
 
3.3 / 80

2.8 / 66

2298



LAMANCHA

200

3y6m

2246


 940-4830
 
3.9 / 86

3.1 / 70

2356



 NIGERIAN DWARF

79

2y6m

729


 360-1300
 
6.1 / 45

4.4 / 32

1053



NUBIAN

350

3y6m

1835


 380-4320
 
4.6 / 85

3.7 / 68

2195



OBERHASLI

38

3y6m

2256


 1180-4080
 
3.5 / 79

2.9 / 67

2247



SAANEN

424

2y6m

2545


 1190-4730
 
3.2 / 82

2.8 / 72

2416



SABLE

12

2y4m

2344


 1570-2970
 
3.3 / 77

2.8 / 66

2242



TOGGENBURG

148

3y5m

2047


 830-4120
 
3.0 / 62

2.7 / 56

1878

 Based on 2010 ADGA DHIR Individual Doe Records not corrected for age* ECM = Energy Corrected Milk                                       




AVERAGES of DHI GOAT HERDS by BREED, 2010
 
 




 HERD BREED
 

Herd N=
 

Doe Years N=
 

MILK LBS.
 

BUTTERFAT %/ lbs
 

PROTEIN

 %/ lbs
 


ALPINE

52

1474

2014

3.3 / 66

2.9 / 58



LAMANCHA

34

563

2119

4.0 / 84

3.1 / 65



NUBIAN

73

1064

1421

4.6 / 65

3.7 / 52



OBERHASLI

13

183

1617

3.3 / 54

2.8 / 45



SAANEN

28

590

2283

3.3 / 76

2.9 / 66



TOGGENBURG

17

231

1668

3.2 / 54

2.8 / 46



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Based on 2010 USDA DHI Herd Records of those herds comprised of 75% of a single breedMixed breed & Experimental Herd data available at AIPL


Last Updated ( Friday, 03 June 2011 16:59 )

Ear tags

Ear tags are an easy way to permanently identify each goat in the herd. Unlike tattoos, they can be read without actually having to catch the goat. Unfortunately, unlike tattoos, they can break or be ripped out of the goat’s ear. Some producers use two ear tags because of this problem. Goats that are shipped are required to have a scrapie ear tag and these can be used for animal identification. Before putting in the ear tag, it is important to record what ear tag number is assigned to the goat. Ensure the ear tags are inserted between the cartilage ribs on the ears. The producer whose goats have been ear tagged will have an easy-to-read identification number which can be used for herd records.

Microchip

The insertion of a microchip in the base of the ear or tail web of the animal is another form of permanent identification. After insertion, the microchip should be scanned to ensure that it is reading correctly. Care should be taken in recording the microchip number against the tag number of the animal to ensure the integrity of the microchip identification. Exhibitors are required to provide their own reader at many livestock shows.

Ear notching

 Ear notching is commonly practiced in identifying goats. It has the advantage of being visible from a distance allowing identification without the necessity of catching the animal and can accommodate numbers up to 9999. An ear notching pliers are used to put “V”-shaped notches in the edges of the ear and a hole punch is used to punch holes in the middle of the ear, if necessary. The animal is restrained and notches and holes may be treated with iodine. As this process results in bleeding, the notching pliers should be disinfected between animals to prevent transmission of any blood-borne diseases. The notching system used is that begun in the Angora industry and adapted for meat goats. However, some producers may use alternate numbering system. Generally, notches on the goat’s left ear mean: 10 (top), 1 (bottom), 100 (end); and 1,000 (center hole). On the goat’s right ear, notch values are: 30 (top), 3 (bottom), 300 (end); and 3,000 (center hole). Thus, a goat with the number 135 would look as follows: 1 notch on end of left ear (100); 1 notch on top of right ear (30), 2 notches on bottom of left ear (2); 1 notch on bottom of right ear (3) with a total value equaling 135.



Hoof Trimming
Hoof trimming goats is a simple task that can be easily learned. The goal of hoof trimming is to allow your goat to walk normally. The lack of trimming, or improper trimming, can lead to foot and leg problems. The amount of time between trimmings depends on many factors, such as type of terrain, the goat's age, level of activity, nutritional level, and genetics. In environmental areas where natural wearing does not occur, producers need to trim hooves on a regular basis. Goats raised in relative confinement and on small acreages may require more frequent trimmings than goats raised in vast pastures. Generally, foot trimming should be done as needed.

Each hoof of the goat has two toes. The wall of each toe tends to overgrow and must be trimmed. The heels of the hoof and the dewclaws (especially on an older goat) may also develop extra tissue that needs to be trimmed. Most producers use foot shears or hoof trimmers. Other tools used may include a hoof knife with sharp edges, a pocketknife or a rasp. Pocketknives or a hoof knife can be dangerous to use for both operator and animal as goats may jump. Some people like to use hoof nippers to cut off the tip of the hoof or file it down with rasps.

Initially, use the point of the hoof trimmers to remove any dirt from the outside and the bottom of the hoof. The front of badly overgrown hooves can then be removed. The sides of the hoof should be cut back even with the sole of the foot. Continue to trim the sides around one toe and repeat the process on the other toe. Trim the frog and heel flat until the sole is parallel to the hairline of the pastern. Trim off thin slices. A good rule to follow is to stop when you see pink. If blood appears stop trimming and apply blood stop powder and finish the trimming at a later time.
 

Disbudding
Disbudding or dehorning is a management practice used in some meat goat herds. At the present time, there is no commercial market incentive offered for disbudded meat goat kids. However, two management decisions warrant the consideration of disbudding: 1) if resident fence(s) are constructed of materials capable of entrapping horned goats and are too expensive to replace or alter, or 2) if show wether production and marketing is a management objective. Some shows require and some exhibitors prefer disbudded kids.

The ideal time to disbud kids is from 3 days to 3 weeks of age. Fewer scurs (small, misshapen horn growth resulting from inadequate disbudding) are seen with disbudding earlier in that time frame. Kids need to be restrained during the procedure with use of a disbudding box preferable. A hot disbudding iron is placed over the horn and pressure applied to ensure complete contact with the skin surrounding the base of the horn. Leave the disbudding iron in place 4 to 6 seconds or until a ring the color of new leather encircles the horn base. Remove the horn tip and underlying loose skin. This process is repeated for the opposite horn. Return to the first location, and use the edge of the heated iron to sear the horn bud until it turns slightly yellow, usually not more than 2 to 3 seconds. This process is repeated for the opposite horn. Remove kid from restraints. The single most important determinant of successful disbudding is size of the horn base. Smaller horns generally result in greater success.


Horn growth rate appears to differ between individual animals. Goats use their horns mainly for fighting and for defense from predators. If they are horned, injury may occur to one or both of the goats involved. Horned goats can on occasion also injure their handlers. In some breeds, the horn structure can provide some insight into some characteristic of the animal. Producers should consider not mixing horned and disbudded animals in the same pen due to the horned animals having a competitive advantage.

Castration
All young bucklings that are not to be evaluated as replacement bucks should be castrated. For some producers, this means castrating between the ages of 2 and 4 weeks. Castration of young animals produces less stress in the animals and there is less chance of complications occurring due to the procedure. Young bucks are capable of breeding females as early as 4 to 5 months of age. If a decision is made to not castrate young males, management practices should be in place to prevent unwanted matings.

Three common ways to castrate bucks is through the use of an elastrator that places a rubber ring around the scrotum, a Burdizzo® clamp that crushes the spermatic cord, and the use of a knife to cut the scrotum and remove the testicles.

Elastrator

Using an elastrator is an inexpensive, quick, and bloodless method of castration. It involves putting a heavy rubber ring around the scrotum near the body. The ring stops blood circulation to the scrotum and testicles and these will dry, shrivel, and slough off in 10 to 14 days. It must be done while the scrotum is still very small, i.e., from three days to three weeks of age depending on breed size, before the scrotal muscles and associated tissues develop.

The rubber ring is first put on the prongs of the elastrator (a pliers-like device that when squeezed will open the ring allowing the scrotum and testes to pass through). The male kid is restrained and the scrotum is passed through the open ring with the prongs of the elastrator facing the kid’s body. The producer must feel the scrotum to ensure that both testicles are in the scrotum below the ring. The rubber ring is positioned close to the body and then slipped off the elastrator prongs. Care must be taken to not inadvertently disturb the rudimentary teats of the male kid.

   

Animals should suffer minimal discomfort until the area becomes numb. However, kids should be monitored during the period prior to sloughing of the scrotum. This method has a higher risk of tetanus than many other castration methods. Some producers may wish to give tetanus antitoxin at the time of castration. If the banded scrotum does not fall off in an appropriate period of time, it may need to be removed manually.

Burdizzo®

Another quick, bloodless method of castration is to use a Burdizzo® clamp, or emasculatome, to crush and rupture the spermatic cords. This method can be used on older animals, however, it is best to castrate goats when young.

It is important to remember that the spermatic cords must be crushed one side at a time. After restraining the animal, grab the scrotum and manipulate one of the testicles deep in the scrotal sac and find the spermatic cord. Place the clamp over the spermatic cord one-third of the way down the scrotum. Clamp down and hold for 15 to 20 seconds. Release the clamp, reposition it over the spermatic cord one-half inch lower and repeat the procedure. Perform the same steps on the other side to crush the other spermatic cord. Always check the position of the spermatic cord before and after each clamping to ensure no mistakes are made. With this method, the scrotal sac will not slough off, but the will remain on the animal. The testicles will atrophy and disappear.

This method is the best to use during fly season because it leaves no big open wound. Goats must be between four weeks to four months of age with eight to 12 weeks being ideal. Because of the difficulty in telling if the spermatic cords have been crushed, this method may be perceived as less reliable than other methods.

Knife

A third method of castration is the use of a knife. As with the other methods, knife castration is best done on young kids. This will result in less blood loss and stress on the animal. The animal should be restrained and the scrotal area washed if necessary. The producer’s hands should be washed and knife sanitized with alcohol. The scrotum is grasped with the testicles pushed to the upper portion and the lower third of the scrotum is cut off. Removing the lower third of the scrotum allows for wound drainage and helps prevent infection. Each testicle is slowly pulled down and away from the body until the cord breaks. If the animal is more than 4 or 5 weeks old, the cord should be scraped through with the knife rather than broken. This will result in less bleeding. The scrotum is sprayed with an antibacterial spray that also repels or kills flies. The kids will be lethargic for several days and then gradually recover. The kids should not be confined to a muddy or filthy area while they are healing from the castration.

Body Condition Score
An easy tool that producers can utilize to assess the overall condition of their goats is that of body condition scoring (BCS). BCS is a simple, fast method of assessing the thinness or fatness of your goats and getting an indication of available fat reserves that can be used by the animal. Goats should be normally be maintained with a moderate amount of body condition. When overall body condition starts to decrease in the herd and goats become too thin (under-conditioned), management intervention is needed. This could be supplemental feeding, deworming, pasture rotation, etc. Conversely, when overall body condition starts to increase in the herd and animals carry too much fat (over-conditioned) the producer should reduce supplemental feeding or could provide a lesser quality diet.

Assessing body condition and making feeding and management adjustments can prevent the occurrence of some diseases or production problems. As an example, does that are too thin will have kids with low birth weights; whereas overly conditioned (fat) does can suffer pregnancy toxemia and kidding problems. Producers need to develop skills in assessing body condition of their goats so that a desired moderate body condition can be maintained. With practice, evaluating the BCS of an animal will only take about 10 to 15 seconds. Adding BCS as a regular part of a management program will help producers to more effectively monitor feeding and herd health programs for a healthy and productive herd.

How to Body Condition Score

Scoring is performed in goats using a BCS ranging from 1.0 to 5.0, with 0.5 increments. A BCS of 1.0 is an extremely thin goat with no fat reserves and a BCS of 5.0 is a very over-conditioned (obese) goat. In most cases, healthy goats should have a BCS of 2.5 to 4.0. Scores of 1.0, 1.5, or 2.0 indicate a management or health problem. Scores of 4.5 or 5 are rarely observed in goats under normal management conditions; however, these scores can sometimes be observed in show goats.

Does should have a body condition of at least 2.5 but no more than 4.0 at the beginning of the breeding season. Prior to entering the winter a minimum score of 3.0 is desirable. Also, if body condition score is 4.5 or greater, pregnancy toxemia prior to kidding is likely as may also occur in animals with a score of 2.0 or less.

Three areas are evaluated in assigning a BCS: the lumbar region, or area containing the loin muscle; the sternum; and the rib cage. Scoring in the lumbar area is based on determining the amount of muscle and fat cover over the vertebrae. Lumbar vertebrae have a vertical protrusion (spinous process) and a horizontal protrusion (transverse process). Both processes are used in determining BCS. Run your fingertips over the spinous process to feel for the vertebrae. Try to grasp the spinous process between your thumb and forefinger. Use your whole hand to feel the loin muscle and fat cover. Try to slip your fingers underneath the tranverse process.

The second body area to feel is the fat covering on the sternum (breastbone). Scoring in this area is based upon the size of the fat pad on the sternum that can be pinched.

A third area is the rib cage and fat cover over the ribs.
   

Kidding Management
Kidding season can be an anxious time for a producer. Proper kidding management begins with proper nutrition and care of the pregnant doe. Proper nutrition during pregnancy will increase the chances for birth of healthy kids with few problems. Kid mortality in the first 10 days is highest among kids born underweight either due to a premature parturition or poor doe nutrition.

Routine procedures

Most meat goats will give birth on pasture, although some producers may bring certain animals into a shelter. Animals and pastures should be checked frequently, at a minimum twice daily, for new arrivals. The navel cord should be dipped in a solution of tincture of iodine to prevent entry of disease-causing organisms and to promote rapid drying of the umbilical cord. If necessary, a long navel cord can be cut to one to two inches in length. A bleeding cord should be tied with surgical suture material. Kids should be weighed and ear tagged or identified in some way. The doe’s ID number should be recorded along with the kid data. Finally, kids should be checked carefully at birth for any deformities or abnormalities.

Abnormal births

At times birthing difficulties will occur. Abnormal deliveries include breech births (buttocks first), improperly positioned fetuses (one limb forward, the other back), or multiple births where one or more limbs of different kids are intertwined in the birth canal. These situations require human assistance. A lubricated gloved, or washed, hand should gently be inserted into the birth canal and the fetus pushed backwards slightly to reposition it. When either the front or hind legs can be grasped, the fetus should be pulled gently out and downwards. Ensure the kid is breathing and perform normal management procedures.

Birth to Weaning Management
It is very essential that newborn kids consume colostrum, or first milk, as soon as possible after birth. Colostrum contains antibodies that will help protect the kid as it develops its own immune system. The ability of kids to absorb the antibodies contained in colostrum decreases rapidly after the first 24 hours of life making it essential that consumption occurs as early as possible and certainly prior to 18 hours after birth. Excess colostrum can be frozen for use in orphan or for kids from large litters. If colostrum is hand-fed, amounts of 2 to 4 ounces should be fed to each kid 3 to 4 times per day. If the doe dies and no goat colostrum is available, cow colostrum could be used. This could perhaps be obtained from a nearby dairy farm. An additional practice at birth that enhances the health of the newborn kid is to give injections of iron dextran and vitamins A and D.

Milk is the principal component of the diet of the pre-weaning kid. Under natural suckling, kids consume small amounts of milk at frequent intervals. For kids that need assistance, there are numerous ways to feed milk, including the use of bottles or pails, suckling a nurse doe, and self-feeder units. The method chosen will depend upon factors such as the size of the herd and available labor, as well as personnel preference. Ideally, artificial rearing should mimic natural suckling. Small, frequent feedings increase digestibility and decrease digestive disturbances. Kids can be fed all the milk they will consume in three feedings per day. Begin with 6 to 10 ounces per feeding and adjust accordingly. After four weeks of age, kids can be limit fed one pint (16 ounces) twice daily until weaning. Some producers place cold milk in a cooler and make it available to the kids free-choice throughout the day to more closely mimic natural rearing.

Consumption of large quantities of milk may lead to bloat due to entry of milk into the reticulo-rumen or rapid passage of milk through the abomasum and small intestines resulting in diarrhea or nutritional scours. Research conducted on raising kids on milk replacer fed from four days of age to weaning at six weeks indicates that growth performance is lower and the incidence of digestive disturbances such as scours and bloat are increased compared to goat’s milk under the same system.

Dry feed consumption is important in developing the rumen of the kid and preparing it for weaning. Many goat producers will creep feed kids to maximize growth and weight gain. A creep feed or starter grain along with high quality pasture grass or hay should be made available to kids by two weeks of age. Weaning generally occurs at three months. Weaning can be a stressful event in a kid’s life but is necessary for the health of the doe.

We do not practice all but try and follow the most important aspects when it applies to our situation raising meat goats in a tropical country.

Meat goat Management-Mustang Sally Farm:

Goat Selection
Animal selection is a skill that meat goat producers needs to master. Animal selection relies on the ability of the producer to identify parent animals that possess desirable traits to contribute to their offspring. These characteristic are economic important traits which should allow the producer to achieve defined production goals. Commercial producers may place greater emphasis on growth measurements. Seed stock producers or purebred producers may place more importance on reproduction and carcass traits to meet their production goals.

The animals selected or not selected fall into two general categories or methods of selection.

Breeding and(or) herd replacements
Cull animals
Breeding or herd replacements can be defined as animals selected to produce offspring. These animals are selected for their desirable characteristics or traits. Selection by culling, on the other hand, is the process by which a producer removes animals from the herd. Animals are culled for not meeting the goals of the producer. Despite the different needs within the meat goat industry, a balanced approach is the key to sound animal selection.

Selection Methods and Tools
Producers have many tools to aid them in selection with visual appraisal as the most common method. Under this method, producers visually review the live animal much in the same way a livestock judge evaluates livestock during a goat show. Common selection tools include the following:

General visual appraisal
Breeder records
Performance data
Genetic Animal Evaluation - EPDs
Show records
Pedigree data
Industry standards
Breed standards

Utilizing a combination of selection tools can provide insight into the genetic makeup of the animal which may not be determined from visual appraisal alone. When using the selection tools together, the producer will come closer to meeting the desirable production or herd goals

Visual appraisal begins with the general appearance of the goat (buck and doe). For commercial meat goats a producer wants an animal that exhibits a long body which is desirable with leg and cannon bone in proportion to the animal. Extremely long legs are more desirable than extremely short legs. The goat should exhibit a strong level back extending from the neck to the hook bones. A producer should keep in mind that older animals are more likely to have a weaker line than young animals. You want the back to be long, wide and strong.

The width and length of the loin are important for volume of meat in the carcass. You want the back to be wide from withers to the rump with smooth shoulders to blend into the neck. The rump should be long and wide also, with the same width between hooks (hip bone) as pins, if not wider between the pin bones. You want the rump to have a slight slope from the hook bones to the pin bones, but should not be overly steep. Some angle to the rump is necessary for easy kidding.

The front end of the commercial meat goat should be wide and smooth. The front legs should be well-spaced representing a wide chest floor and perpendicular to the ground. The forearm should show evidence of muscling and the feet should point straight ahead. Meat goats showing structural signs as knock-knee, buck-knees, pigeon-toed, or splay-footed are animals that should not be selected as animals to place within the goat herd. Select goats where the barrel projects adequate spring of rib which indicates capacity for foraging, pregnancy, and maintenance of body condition.

The rear legs should be wide apart and straight when viewing from the rear. Muscling will be demonstrated by a thick thigh and the depth of the twist. The side view should project a vertical line from pin bone to point of hock and touching the ground just behind the hind hoof. This angle is more desirable for a correct free movement on the hind legs. The pasterns should be strong and straight. The feet should have tight toes and a level sole.

Frame size indicates growth potential. Adequate to moderate bone is acceptable. Avoid selecting animals that are sickle hocked, post legged and cow hocked. Skin coloring or skin pigmentation in the anal area is important to reduce the chance of skin cancer in that area.   

Does

You want a replacement doe to exhibit a feminine head and a feminine wedge appearance to the body with a long elegant neck that blends smoothly into a wide shoulder and back. The doe should project good spring of rib and depth of body which is a good indicator of volume. There should be adequate muscling in the rear leg without losing feminity. The body should have volume and capacity which demonstrates the ability to breed, carry several kids, and rear young in a pasture environment. The external genitalia of the female should be well developed and properly structured. Vulvas which turn up on end can cause a problem when the buck is serving the doe and can result in poor doe fertility.

Does should have well formed udders with good attachment. It is important that the udder is constructed so that the offspring are able to nurse unassisted. The number of functional teats should not exceed two per side with one teat per side as more desirable. Cull faults include udder and teat abnormalities or defects to include, but not limited to, oversized or bulbous teats, and pendulous udder. Other culling characteristics include cluster teats, fishtail teats, or a doe that has not kidded or exhibited signs of pregnancy by 18 months of age. Goats are prolific animals which will naturally reach puberty and be fertile at 6 to 7 months of age. Breeding age females should show evidence of having kidded by the age of two years.

Bucks

You want the breeding buck to show masculinity and exhibit adequate muscling. The head should be masculine with a broad strong muzzle and horns set far apart enough to not rap or break legs of other goats. The neck should smoothly flow into wide smooth shoulders. The body should exhibit a masculine profile with a heavier chest and forebody. Because of manifestation of testosterone, older bucks may demonstrate higher, heavier, and more coarse shoulders.

Bucks must have two large, well- formed, functional, equal-sized testes in a single scrotum. Sperm production is related to the circumference of the testicles. More semen is produced by bucks with greater scrotal circumference. Mature bucks should have a scrotum circumference of 25 cm or 10 inches. In young bucks, testicles should be of equal size and large for day of age. Avoid selecting bucks that exhibit sizeable splits in the scrotum (see photo). Avoid selecting bucks that show overly pendulous testicles. Testicles should be free of bumps or lumps and should be smooth.

Cull faults include single testicle, testicles too small, abnormal or diseased testes, excessive split in scrotum. The teat structure of the buck should also be reviewed as the buck has a large impact on the herd if his daughters are retained as replacements.

Mouth

The length of the upper and lower jaw should be equal. The teeth should touch the dental pad in young goats. However with older goats some leaning of the teeth is acceptable as long as the length of the jaw and dental pad when viewed from the side is equal. Avoid selecting replacement animals that exhibit undershot jaw.
 

Breeder records

Breeder records can provide valuable insight into the productivity of an animal over its productive life. Utilizing breeder records to meet production goals can enhance selection decisions. Visual appraisal is not always a true indication of how an animal will produce in a goat herd. Basic records should include the following:

Birth date
Birth weight
Animal ID
Sire
Dam
Sex of offspring
Number born
Birthing difficulties
Time of kidding
Frequency of kidding
Total pounds of kids weaned

As the animal matures, the breeder can add other records such as health, vaccinations, and marketing results. The resistance to foot rot or internal parasites can also be recorded to aid the producer in identifying superior genetics for future selection and mating. The number of kids born is extremely important, but the number of kids weaned is more important in determining profitability. The number of kids weaned is also related to the mothering ability of the doe and herd management. Time of kidding refers to the days of the gestation period of which is 150 days for goats.

Producers would like every doe to breed in the first cycle. Replacement animals from does that kidded early in the breeding season will be more productive over their lifetime compared to kids from does that did not breed until the third or fourth heat cycles. Recording the frequency of kidding will allow producers to cull does that do not kid every year.

Performance records

Performance records can aid the producer in animal selection and culling. Performance records are recorded at different phases of growth of the animal. Pre-weaning growth rate is how kids grow from birth to weaning and is primarily a function of milk production in the dam. Kids should be weighed at weaning which generally occurs at 60 to 90 days of age.

The total pounds of kids weaned are also important as the total weight of twin kids will be greater than that of a single raised kid. In most cases, the same inputs will be used to produce twins versus a single kid. However, as the number of kids increase, management inputs increase.

Once the kids are weaned they no longer have the dam’s milk to make them grow. They are now depending on their own genetic potential for growth, assuming proper nutrition. This is known as post-weaning growth rate or post-weaning gain. Purebred producers may place buck kids on a gain test to determine post weaning growth rate.

Other performance weights such as birth, 150-day and 365-day weights may aid the producer in making culling and mating decisions.

Genetic evaluation

Although genetic evaluation programs are new to the goat industry, producers of other species have used genetic evaluations for rapid improvement. Most genetic evaluation programs are provided by breed associations and are particular to the breed. Breeders within the breed record individual animal performance measures. Programs predict future performance based on performance of relatives and current performance of the individual animal. Most of the major sheep breeds including Katahdin have a breed improvement program in place and the American Boer Goat Association is evaluating the feasibility of implementing such a program for Boer Goats.

Expected Progeny Difference (EPD) is an estimate of the genetic merit of an animal for a single trait. The purposes of the genetic evaluation programs are as follows:

Identify and document genetic merit for major economically important traits.
Predict performance of the next generation.
Provide breeders with EPDs to be used as another tool in selecting breeding stock.
Provide the documentation for breeding stock customers to make informed decisions about their purchases.

The expected progeny difference (EPD) for a young animal will be mostly based on his parents’ performance records such as birth, weaning, and(or) yearling weights. After the kid’s own performance records have been processed, his EPD will be based on a combination of his parents’ records and his own performance. If that kid is selected as a breeding animal, and records on his kids are reported, the records on his progeny will also be used to calculate his EPD. Because all relationships (parent-offspring, half-siblings, cousins) among animals are taken into account, records on related animals will be used to improve the accuracy of predictions.

Producers can compare goats using EPDs. For example, a buck with a Weaning Weight EPD of +1.0 is good, but a different buck with a Weaning Weight EPD of +2.0 is better. EPDs give the most objective and reliable estimation of genetic value possible. The EPDs provided by a breed association will vary. The more common EPDs included the following:

Birth Weight EPD
Maternal Birth Weight EPD
90-Day Weaning Weight EPD
150-day Post-weaning Weight EPD
Maternal Milk EPD
Milk plus Growth EPD
Number Born, or Percent Kid Crop
Carcass EPD
Reproduction EPD
Production Life EPD

The breed association calculating the EPDs can provide more information on genetic animal evaluation programs and how to use EPDs as a selection tool to meet production goals.

Heritability

IProducers need to consider the heritability of a trait when selecting for genetic improvement. How well a goat performs is due to its 1) genetic makeup, 2) environment; and 3) management. When goats are selected for the breeding herd, the breeder expects that their better production performance will be inherited by their offspring. The percentage of superiority of the parents passed to their offspring is called heritability. Faster progress can potentially be made in improving a trait with a high degree of heritability than in improving a trait with a low degree of heritability. The heritability levels are consider in the following ranges: low 10-20%, moderate 25-45%, and high 50-70%. The heritability values of some economically important traits in goats are in Table 1.

Table 1. Heritability estimates of some economically important traits in goats.

Trait(s) Heritability, %
Birth interval 5 - 10
Birth weight 30 - 40
Number born 15
Motherability 40
Weaning weight 20 - 30
Yearling weight 40
Mature weight 65
Milk yield 25
Milk fat % 55
Milk protein % 50
Udder support 20
Teat placement 30
Feed conversion 40
Stature (Conformation & Frame) 45 - 50
Rear legs 15
Wither height 40
Cannon bone circumference 45
Carcass weight 45 - 50
Quality grade 40
Fat depth 40 - 45
Ribeye (loin) area 40 - 45
Cutability 25 - 30
Muscling 40 - 45
Temperament 25
Scrotal circumference 50

Ageing Goats
Number and arrangement of teeth

Estimating the age of goats is done by looking at the teeth. The arrangement of teeth on the jaw, from front to back, is incisors, canines, premolars, and molars. Ruminants only have incisors on the bottom jaw. The top jaw has a thick layer of tissue called the “dental pad.” Ruminants do not have canine teeth and this open space along the jaw is useful when needing to insert one’s fingers to pry open a goat’s mouth for drenching, tubing, or other purposes.

Mature goats will have a total of 8 incisors (4 pair), 6 premolars (3 pair), and 6 molars (3 pair). It is customary when ageing goats by looking at their teeth to discuss teeth in terms of “pairs” rather than in total.

Telling the age of goats

Young goats have deciduous or “baby” teeth that are replaced by permanent teeth at a later age. Kids are generally born with the central pair of deciduous incisors (incisors erupt from the center outward) with the second pair erupting at 1 to 2 weeks, third pair at 2 to 3 weeks and the fourth pair erupting at 3 to 4 weeks of age. Kids also will develop 3 pairs of deciduous premolars but no molars.

As kids age, the deciduous incisors are replaced by permanent incisors, again from the center pair outward. The middle pair of deciduous incisors will be replaced sometime around 12 months. The second, third, and fourth pairs are replaced at roughly yearly intervals at 1.5 to 2 years, 2.5 to 3 years, and 3.5 to 4 years of age. Thus, a goat with 1 pair of permanent incisors is roughly 1 year of age, 2 pair of permanent incisors is 2 years of age, and so on. At four years of age when all permanent teeth are in place, the animal may be referred to as having a “full mouth.”

Ageing goats over 4 years of age is more difficult. Over time, the gums recede and teeth appear elongated. Teeth may also become broken or worn down from grazing and foraging. Animals that have broken or lost teeth are often referred to as “broken mouthed.” “Undershot” is a condition in which the lower jaw is longer than the upper jaw whereas “overshot” is the opposite. Malformed teeth can affect the ability to graze and consume nutrients.
 

Animal Identification
The proper identification of animals is essential. Proper identification enables the producer to keep comprehensive records for milk production, reproduction, health problems, and management practices. The efficient maintenance of this information requires a permanent identification system. Several systems of identification may be used. The system selected will depend upon the size of the herd, the environmental conditions, the primary purpose for identifying individual animals, and regulations of federal government and breed-governing bodies. There are two basic types of identification: permanent and non-permanent. Permanent identification includes tattooing, ear notches or microchips. Non-permanent identification includes paint, chalk and tags.

Tattooing

Tattooing is one method of identification that is permanent if properly done. However, it is not easily viewed and may require another complementary method of identification, such as an ear tag, that is visible from short distances. Tattooing involves making needlelike projections in the goat's skin. The tattoo ink is forced into the punctures and remains visible after the puncture wounds heal. It is a good idea to sterilize the equipment and clean the goat's ears to help prevent the spread of some blood-borne diseases. On older animals some tattoos may be difficult to read; holding a bright light source such as a flashlight behind the ear when reading may make the tattoo more legible.

To tattoo an animal, begin by inserting the proper digits into the tattoo pliers. Check for correctness by pressing the pliers onto a piece of paper or cardboard. Secure the goat with a halter or head gate and clean the ear to be tattooed with alcohol. Don’t use water for cleaning as it could enter the ear canal and result in infection. Clip or trim any excessive hair present. A generous amount of ink should be applied to the center of the ear between the ribs of cartilage (green ink should be used for dark ears). Position the tattooing pliers between the ribs of cartilage and squeeze firmly forcing the needle-like numbers into the ear tissue. Care should be taken in removing the tattoo pliers from the ear to not scratch the tattooed area. Ink should be reapplied and rubbed into the tattoo. Using an old toothbrush will assist in pushing the ink into the punctures. Afterwards, the equipment and individual tattoo pieces should be cleaned and sprayed with alcohol.