Value-added products are another method farmers can use to receive a higher price for their product. However, heat-and-serve meals and the introduction of goat meat and processed cuts into large-scale retail grocery stores requires substantial capital investment. Marketing trim as sausage is a simpler process but the common incorporation of pork fat excludes the Muslim or Halal market. Given our reliable customer base, it is generally important to arrange Halal certification through the Islamic Food Nutrition Council of America (IFANCA) if introducing a product over a wide region.

The amount of capital needed to introduce new or branded products can often be obtained by a very large producer or a “new generation” marketing cooperative. Initial funding to help such cooperatives with their product development may be available through USDA value-added grants, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) grants, and state grants promoting local agriculture. Feasibility studies in areas where the demand for goat meat has already been established are probably not cost effective. However, simple surveys of price sensitivity and testing out what proposed products are of most interest to focus groups and distributors is well advised. Rarely does a co-op have the money to discard one processed product and develop another if investing initially in the wrong choice of product. Focus groups can be picked from goat cheese connoisseurs, patrons of upscale ethnic restaurants featuring lamb and goat, and representatives of goat-consuming cultures with an interest in ready-made meals. Coordination is easier if a cooperative initially forms from a small nucleus of producers that communicate well together. Extra animals can be purchased from nonmembers as long as there is a quality assurance program. The cooperative can be expanded later from this pool of reliable non-members.

Conclusion
The health of the goat meat industry hinges on our ability to sustain and expand a strong “cultural” market from our diverse base of US citizens rather than putting the majority of our marketing resources into trying to build an overseas export market. The interest of an increasing portion of the general public in “ethnic” foods, goat products, lean meats and farm-fresh product can build upon this strong, already-present demand.

Anything we can do to make it easier for producers and buyers to locate each other and arrange necessary market logistics will help to maintain and expand our meat goat industry. Regional marketing service directories such as the Marketing Directory at http://www.sheepgoatmarketing.info are crucial, but funding is needed to update and expand them in a timely manner. Land grant institutions, cooperative extension staff, and producer associations can help educate new farmers about market preferences for different ethnic holidays and advantages and disadvantages of different marketing channels. Finally, we may need an industry-wide association focused on goat meat marketing issues. Such an association could determine how to effectively interact with the American Sheep Industry Association (ASI) on marketing and governmental regulations that impact both lamb and meat goat producers.

Factors Affecting Dressing Percentage

Taken from research presented in “Marketing Prime Goat Kids”
 – Paul Greenwood, et.al. New South Wales Agriculture 1996

Dressing percentages (calculated as (hot carcass weight / liveweight) * 100) can vary widely for goat kids from about 35% to 55% with 45% being average for most kids with no Boer breeding. Kids with higher fat scores generally have higher dressing percentages than kids of the same liveweight with lower fat scores.
Dressing percentage is affected by:

live weight

fatness -an increase in one fat score will increase dressing percentage by about 2.5%, fatter kids also suffer less live weight and carcass weight loss from fasting prior to slaughter than do leaner kids

time off feed and water - this affects gut fill and therefore live weight. Liveweight percentage losses average 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, and 12% for goats off feed 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours respectively. Goats coming off lush pastures will generally have a higher dressing percentage than goats on drier feeds if live weight is calculated only a short time after animals are off feed because lush feed passes through the gut faster)

pre-slaughter fasting and stress - affects dressing percentage because of its influence on gut fill and carcass weight loss. If animals are deprived of feed for 6 or more hours, carcass weight will start to decrease and dressing percentage will actually drop even though the goat's live weight is also decreasing. Carcass weight loss is 2-2.5%, 3-4%, and 6-7% after a 12, 24, 48 hour fast, respectively. Deprivation of water results in another 2% loss in carcass weight

skin weight - determined by type of goat and shearing. Skin weight generally averages about 9% of the live weight for a short-haired or shorn goat kid, but can be as high as 15% for an unshorn angora kid

sex - doe kids tend to be slightly fatter than buck kids of the same weight in the same herd. However, this difference is so slight it rarely affects dressing percentage noticeably

breed

weaning - weaned kids tend to have a lower dressing percentage than suckling kids of similar fatness and liveweight.

Feeding Barley to Dairy Cattle
EB-72, December 1999

Vern Anderson, Animal Scientist, Carrington Research Extension Center
J.W. Schroeder, Livestock Specialist -- Dairy, Department of Animal and Range Sciences


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
Barley Grain
Nutrient Profile of Barley
Processing Barley
Using Barley in Dairy Cattle Diets
Management of Barley Diets
Growing and Bred Heifers
Disease
Conclusions
Literature Cited

Click here for a PDF version suitable for printing. (428KB)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
Barley is a versatile feed grain used throughout the world for a wide variety of livestock species. It is grown in temperate to sub-arctic climates with varieties developed for optimum production in respective regions. Barley is the primary livestock feed grain in the areas where it is grown. Feed barley is also transported to grain-deficit areas via truck, train, and ship. Some variation in nutrient content of barley may occur due to variety, weather, and soil fertility, but generally barley provides an excellent balance of protein, energy, and fiber.

Barley is widely used in diets for all types of dairy animals, including young calves and growing animals as well as lactating and non-lactating dairy cows. Nutrient requirements for dairy cattle vary with age and stage of production. Optimum milk production results from diets with balanced proportions of "effective" fiber, protein, energy, minerals, and vitamins. Barley is the only grain used in many northern latitude dairies and supports rolling herd averages of 21,000 to 24,000 lb (7,545 to 10,909 kg). Barley is also imported and used successfully in temperate and warmer semi-arid regions as a protein and energy source for milking herds.




Barley Grain
Barley grain is described by quality criteria as "U.S. No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or Sample Grade" (Table 1). The criteria for grading barley include test weight, percent sound kernels, foreign matter, heat damage, and discoloration. Test weight is the most common quality trait used in marketing barley.



Table 1. Grading standards for barley.a
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Heat     Total
                           Sound  Foreign  Broken  Damaged  Damaged  Discolored
Grade         Test Weight  Grain  Material  Grain  Kernels  Kernels    Grain
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           (lb/bu) (kg/hl)  (%)     (%)      (%)     (%)      (%)       (%)
U.S. No. 1   47     60.2    97       1        5       .2       2         .5
U.S. No. 2   45     58.7    94       2       10       .3       4        1.0
U.S. No. 3   43     55.1    90       3       15       .5       6        2.0
U.S. No. 4   40     51.2    80       4       20      1.0       8        5.0
U.S. No. 5   36     46.1    70       6       30      3.0      10       10.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Sample Grade - Barley which does not fall within the grade requirements
of the above grades or which contains more than 16% moisture, or contains stones,
or is musty, or sour, or heating, or which has any commercially objectionable
odor except of smut or garlic; or which contains a quantity of smut so great
that any one or more of the grade requirements cannot be applied accurately, or
which is otherwise of distinctly low quality.
aAdapted from the Official United States Standards for Grains, USDA, 1975.

 

The barley kernel is composed of the hull, endosperm, and germ. The hull is the high fiber seed coat accounting for 7 to 17% of the seed weight, depending on test weight. The multi-layer endosperm (80 to 90% of seed weight) contains primarily starch and protein. The starch (energy) content is positively related to test weight and inversely related to protein concentration in the endosperm. The germ constitutes 3% of the kernel weight and contributes nitrogen (protein) and fat.

Some barley varieties are grown for malting, but increasing emphasis is being placed on breeding varieties exclusively for livestock feed. Malting barley generally has lower protein levels (<12% crude protein) than feed barley (>12% crude protein). Several types of barley have been developed (two-row, six-row, waxy, and hull-less) and a number of adapted varieties are available in most regions for two-row and six-row types.al. (1986) fed Klages and Steptoe along with other varieties. Feeding Klages increased weight gain once, resulted in no difference three times, and decreased gain twice when compared with Steptoe. Feed efficiency did not differ between varieties.




Nutrient Profile of Barley
The National Research Council (NRC) Nutrient Requirements for Dairy Cattle (1989) is a useful publication for planning diets with barley. A laboratory analysis of samples from actual lots to be used in ration formulation is highly recommended. Nutrient analyses of barley presented in Table 2 are from NRC (1989) and a three-year average of Northern Plains barley samples (Harrold and Kapphahn, 1995, 1996, 1997).



Table 2. Nutrientsa in barley compared to corn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Dry         Crude
Item          Matter  TDN  Protein  ADF  NDF   NEM     NEG     NEL    Ca   Ph   K
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                (%)   (%)    (%)    (%)  (%) (Mc/kg) (Mc/kg) (Mc/kg)  (%)  (%)  (%)
Barleyb          90         12.5     7   21
Northern Plains                                                       .05  .39  .52
Barleyc          88   84    13.5     7   19                           .05  .38  .47
Growing Cattle                                 2.06   1.40
Lactating Cows                                                1.94
Corn, crackedc   89   80    10.0     9    3                           .16  .50  .03
Growing Cattle                                 1.94   1.30
Lactating Cows                                                1.84
Corn, ground     88   85    10.0     9    3                           .16  .50  .03
Growing Cattle                                 2.10   1.43
Lactating Cows                                                1.96
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aTDN = total digestible nutrients; CP = crude protein; ADF = acid detergent fiber;
NDF = neutral detergent fiber; NEM = net energy for maintenance; NEG = net energy
for gain; NEL = net energy for lactation; Ca = calcium; P = phosphorous; K = potassium.
bHarrold, R.L. and M.E. Kapphahn. 1995, 1996, 1997. Nutritional Analysis, Regional
Barley Crop Quality Report. North Dakota Barley Council, Minnesota Barley Research
and Promotion Council and North Dakota State University. (Includes all feed and
malting barley).
cNRC (Nutrient Requirements of Cattle), 1989.

 

The economic feed value of barley is at least equivalent to corn on a weight basis due to higher protein content in barley, despite the slightly reduced energy levels (Anderson, 1998). Nutrient content and test weight of barley can vary somewhat within an eco-region due to variation in temperature, planting date, soil fertility, rainfall, variety, and other factors. Lighter test weight barley exhibits higher protein and fiber content. No dairy studies have evaluated differences in performance due to test weight. Results of beef feedlot trials have been mixed. Grimson et al. (1987) reported no difference in steer performance with 85% barley rations at test weights of 37.3, 43.4, and 52.0 lb/bu (47.8, 55.6, 66.6 kg/hl). Other beef trials (Mathison et al., 1991) suggest a plateau effect with reduced digestibility and increased feed per gain at test weights below 46.0 lb/bu (59 kg/hl). Gains improved with heavier test weight barley according to Hinman (1978). 

Barley is 64.6% starch, compared with corn at 71.9%, wheat at 63.8%, and oats at 44.7% (Waldo, 1973). Starch is a glucan (polymer of glucose) composed of two types of molecules, amylose and amylopectin, held together by hydrogen bonds (Rooney and Pflugfelder, 1986). Rumen microbes digest starch by releasing the enzyme -amylase. This enzyme is used to rapidly reduce molecular size of starch and eventually produce glucose used for microbial energy. Much of the remainder is converted to volatile fatty acids or VFAs and used by the host (cow) as energy. Ruminal starch digestion of dry rolled barley is reported at 79.4% compared with 75.3% for corn with total tract digestibility for barley at 93.4% and corn at 92.5% (Kennelly et al., 1997). Waldo (1973) reported 94% of barley starch was digested in the rumen compared to 74% for corn starch, and Theurer (1986) reports 93% of barley starch digested in the rumen vs 73% for corn without regard to processing.




Processing Barley
Various processing techniques for cereal grains have been developed to increase utilization, improve palatability, and minimize negative effects on ruminal fermentation with the goal of improving animal performance. Rate, site, and extent of protein, fiber, and starch digestion may be affected by grain processing methods. Barley may be fed whole, rolled, tempered, steam flaked, ground (coarse to fine), roasted, pelleted or in some combinations of these processes.

Tempered rolled barley is the preferred processing method for dairy cows (Christen et al., 1996). Tempering is the addition of water to bring the moisture content of barley to 18 to 20%. Barley should be allowed to temper for 24 hours prior to rolling unless a wetting agent is used. The large number of small particles or "fines" produced by aggressive dry rolling or grinding provide more surface area for starch digestion to occur, resulting in increased rate of starch degradation. Fewer small particles are produced with tempered barley compared to dry rolling, resulting in reduced rate of fermentation. Rapid fermentation can lead to reduced pH and acidosis conditions in the rumen. Compared with dry rolled barley, tempering improved milk yield by 5%, feed efficiency 10%, apparent digestibility of dietary DM 6%, NDF 15%, ADF 12%, crude protein 10%, and starch 4% (Christen et al., 1996).

Heat treatment of grain may improve feed conversion by reducing ruminal degradation of barley resulting in increased starch digestion and utilization in the small intestine. Flame roasting barley decreased ruminal degradation of dry matter and crude protein although overall digestibility was not affected (McNiven et al., 1994). In a trial comparing flame-roasted barley with rolled barley, milk yield increased nearly 6.6 lb (3 kg)/day for cows fed roasted barley twice per day compared to rolled barley (McNiven et al., 1994).

If barley is fed whole, tempering is recommended, as whole kernel digestibility is greater than with dry grain. The rapid rate of passage in mixed diets with substantial amounts of forage allows little time for degradation of the intact kernel. Grinding barley, especially fine grinding, may increase the risk of acidosis. Ground barley should be fed in total mixed diets with forages and/or silages with the addition of a buffer recommended. Coarse grinding is strongly recommended over fine grinding. Pelleting, roasting, popping, and other processes may improve animal performance, but are more expensive.

Addition of NaHCO3 (sodium bicarbonate) or other buffers can mitigate acid conditions in the rumen. Addition of yeast culture to dry rolled barley based steer diets increased ruminal pH for four hours after feeding and improved digestibility of forage for 12 hours. In a companion lactation study with dry rolled barley diets, addition of yeast culture improved dry matter intake by 2.6 lb (1.2 kg)/day and milk yield by 3.2 lb (1.5 kg)/day (Williams et al., 1991).

Chemical treatment of whole barley with alkali (e.g. NaOH) has an effect similar to that of rolling or crushing in allowing access of rumen microbes and digestive enzymes to the starch (Orskov and Greenbolgh, 1997). The beneficial effects of treatment of whole barley with NaOH were slower digestion, decreased fluctuation in ruminal pH, and lower incidence of ruminitis.




Using Barley in Dairy Cattle Diets
Comparison of Grains in Lactating Cow Diets
Barley included in balanced lactation rations in comparison with corn did not affect milk yield when both grains were steam rolled (Beauchemin and Rode, 1997; Beauchemin, et al., 1997); in complete mixed cubed diets (DePeters and Taylor, 1985); when barley was dry rolled and corn was ground (Grings et al., 1992); or when both grains were ground (Marx, 1984; Moss et al., 1976; Park, 1988; Rode and Satter, 1988). Dry rolled sorghum and dry rolled barley produced similar milk yield with a tendency for improved feed efficiency with barley (Santos et al., 1997). Ground barley and rolled hull-less oat diets resulted in similar milk yield and milk protein (Fearon et al., 1996). Dry rolled barley and ground corn diets were compared with and without bovine somatotropin (bST) administration. Efficacy of bST, milk yield, composition, somatic cell count, and cow weight were similar for both grains sources (Eisenbeisz et al., 1990). Still others did notice slightly lower milk production and dry matter intake in cattle fed barley in place of corn (Casper and Schingoethe, 1989; McCarthy et al., 1989). The increase in ruminal fermentation of starch from barley can alter pH and potentially decrease cellulolytic activity of rumen bacteria. Thus, a few discrepancies can be found under certain, but undetermined, dietary or geographical factors.

Protein
Protein requirements for dairy cows are calculated as either crude protein or ruminally degradable/undegradable protein. High producing dairy cows require more ruminally undegradable protein (NRC, 1989) than previously known. Undegradable protein is protein that escapes ruminal digestion and is digested by enzymes and absorbed into the blood directly from the lower gastrointestinal tract. Any process, such as tempering or heating, that reduces the rate of ruminal fermentation enhances the feed value and undegradable portion of crude protein in barley.

Fiber
High producing cows require excellent quality forage that provides "effective" fiber in the rumen. Effective fiber stimulates chewing and ruminating, critical activities for thorough digestion and maintenance of stable ruminal pH. Fiber is characterized as neutral detergent fiber (NDF) or acid detergent fiber (ADF). Use NDF as a measure of the cell wall constituents, indicating bulkiness of the diet. Application of the level of ADF is essentially an indication of the indigestible lignin and cellulose components of forage. Reduced fiber digestibility was observed with barley diets (DePeters and Taylor, 1985) and is probably caused by reduction in ruminal pH due to the rapid fermentation rate of barley.

Fiber concentrations in dairy cattle diets are variable because of the composition of concentrates (Weiss et al., 1989) and source and maturity of forages (Mertens, 1983). The NRC (1989) recommends a minimum of 25 to 28% NDF in the total diet, with 75% of the NDF fraction provided by forages. This level will maintain optimum rumen function and avoid potential milk fat depression which occurs at reduced forage levels. High barley diets may provide more NDF from grain, which could effect digestion based on the proportion of forage NDF added (Varga and Hoover, 1983).

Beauchemin and Rode (1996) suggest the minimum amount of forage should be greater for barley-based lactation diets to maintain optimum pH in the rumen. Populations of fiber-digesting bacteria and starch-digesting bacteria occur in a dynamic state in the rumen with greater growth based on proportion of preferred substrate in the diet. Both are required at some degree of equilibrium for optimum digestion. Decreased pH in the rumen changes the proportions of volatile fatty acids (VFA) by decreasing acetate, which is required for milk fat synthesis, to increasing propionate. Populations of cellulolytic (fiber digesting) bacteria can be maintained in the rumen as long as pH is maintained above 6.2. Addition of yeast cultures and tempering grain can also help stabilize ruminal pH. However, the quality and digestibility of forage are still major factors in developing diets for optimum milk production.




Management of Barley Diets
Good nutritional management is important to optimize milk production. Recommended practices include feeding tempered rolled barley in total mixed rations (TMR) or feeding small amounts several times during the day. Some dairymen feed small amounts of barley before and after each milking with research results supporting improved dry matter intake and yield of milk, protein, and lactose (Robinson and McNiven, 1994). Feeding individual cows according to milk production is the most efficient use of feed but requires added labor or automated equipment. Practices such as feeding in a total mixed ration (TMR) are very useful for feeding barley. Major ration changes should be made in small increments over a minimum of two to three weeks to allow rumen microbial populations to adapt to changing feeds.

Mineral supplementation is usually required for all lactation diets as grains are high in phosphorus and extra calcium is needed to achieve the desired calcium to phosphorus ratio of 1.6 to 1. Barley has more than 10 times as much potassium as corn (Table 2) but may require slightly more calcium for the correct ratio in the complete ration.

Growing and Bred Heifers
Protein, energy, and fiber are essential for growing calves, and barley can contribute to balanced rations for these animals. Total mixed diets with modest grain levels are often used for growing and bred replacement heifers. Starter diets with high protein barley as a replacement for soybean meal have been formulated and successfully evaluated for young calves (Munck et al., 1969). Maiga et al. (1994) found body weight gain on barley- based diets was nearly that of corn-based diets and depended on associative effects of feeds and experimental conditions. Barley is cost competitive in growing diets and simplifies ration formulation by reducing the number of other ingredients.




Disease
The only mycotoxin associated with growing barley has been deoxynivalenol (DON), commonly referred to as vomitoxin. Vomitoxin is caused by fusarium head blight (scab), which occurs in barley and wheat during periods of high moisture and humidity during the early heading stages. However, experiments suggest its presence in the grain has no effect on feed intake or milk yield of lactating cows for all levels tested (Anderson et al., 1996; Charmley et al., 1993; Ingalls, 1996).

Concentrate feeding, regardless of source, has not been implicated as a cause of lameness in production dairy cattle; however, cows fed high amounts of grain experienced greater incidence of lameness (Kelly and Leaver, 1990). High levels of ground cereals are a predisposing factor to lameness, a direct result of subclinical acidosis in the rumen. Care should be taken in feeding any ground cereal grain at high levels. Additives, such as yeasts or buffers, may be useful.

Age, stage of lactation, and milk production level are key factors when considering nutrient requirements (NRC, 1989) for dairy cattle (Table 3). Diets fed to higher producing cows are lower in fiber and more nutrient dense, resulting in increased intake and increased nutrient consumption per unit of intake. Diets fed to cows with less milk production potential should be higher in fiber and lower in energy and protein. Optimum returns occur when cow diets are formulated to meet requirements and production potential.



Table 3. Recommended nutrient concentrations in diets of
lactating dairy cattle (1300 lb [590 kg] cow producing
4.0% milkfat and gaining 0.7 lb [0.3 kg] per day).a
------------------------------------------------------------------
            - - - Milk Yield (kg/day) - -
              10    21    32    42    53      Early
            - - - Milk Yield (lb/day) - -    Dry Cow   Lactation
              23    47    70    93   117     Pregnant  (0-3 weeks)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutrientb
------------------------------------------------------------------
            - - Mcal/kg of Dry Matter - -
Energy, NEL  1.43  1.52  1.61  1.72  1.72      1.25       1.67
            - - Mcal/lb of Dry Matter - -
             0.65  0.69  0.73  0.78  0.78      0.57       0.76
            - Percent of Diet Dry Matter -
  TDN         63    67    71    75    75        56         73
  CP          12    15    16    17    18        12         19
Fiber
  ADF         21    21    21    19    19        27         21
  NDF         28    28    28    25    25        35         28
Minerals
  Ca         0.43  0.53  0.60  0.65  0.66      0.39       0.77
  P          0.28  0.34  0.38  0.42  0.41      0.24       0.49
  Mg         0.20  0.20  0.20  0.25  0.25      0.16       0.25
  K          0.90  0.90  0.90  1.00  1.00      0.65       1.00
------------------------------------------------------------------
aAdapted from NRC Dairy, 1989.
bNEL = net energy for lactation; TDN = total digestible nutrients;
CP = crude protein; ADF = acid detergent fiber; NDF = neutral
detergent fiber; Ca = calcium; P = phosphorous; Mg = magnesium;
K = potassium.

 




Conclusions
Barley is a very useful grain source for growing, gestating, and lactating dairy cattle, providing more protein than most other grains, highly digestible starch (energy), and useful fiber. Cows fed diets with barley as the primary concentrate produce the same amount of milk as cows fed other grains. Processing barley by tempering and rolling improves digestion in the rumen, feed efficiency, and animal performance. Feeding properly processed barley with the appropriate amount and quality of forage in mixed rations maintains optimum ruminal pH and nutrient digestibility. Addition of yeast culture appears to be beneficial. Barley is an economical nutrient source that should be strongly considered in formulating rations for dairy cattle.




Literature Cited
Anderson, V. L. 1998. The feeding value of barley. N.D. Barley Council Special Publication.

Anderson, V.L., E.W. Boland, and H.H. Casper. 1996. Effects of vomitoxin (deoxynivalenol) from scab infested barley on performance of feedlot and breeding beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 74 (Suppl. 1):208(Abstr.).

Beauchemin, K.A. and L.M. Rode. 1997. Minimum versus optimum concentrations of fiber in dairy cow diets based on barley silage and concentrates of barley or corn. J. Dairy Sci. 80:1629-1639.

Beauchemin, K.A., L.M. Rode, and W.Z. Yang. 1997. Effects of non-structural carbohydrates and source of cereal grain in high concentrate diets of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 80:1640-1650.

Casper, D.P. and D.J. Schingoethe. 1989. Lactational response of dairy cows to diets varying in ruminal solubilities of carbohydrates and crude protein. J. Dairy Sci. 72:928-941.

Charmley, E,. H.L. Trenholm, B.K. Thompson, D. Vudathala, J.W.G. Nicholson, and L.L. Charmley. 1993. Influence of level of deoxynivalenol in the diet of dairy cows on feed intake, milk production and its composition. J. Dairy Sci. 76:3580-3587.

Christen, S.D., T.M. Hill, and M.S. Williams. 1996. Effects of tempered barley on milk yield, intake, and digestion kinetics of lactating Holstein cows. J. Dairy. Sci. 79:1394-1399.

DePeters, E.J. and S.J. Taylor. 1985. Effects of feeding corn or barley on composition of milk and diet digestibility. J. Dairy Sci. 68:2027-2032.

Eisenbeisz, W.A., D.J. Schingoethe, D.P. Casper, R. D. Shaver, and R.M. Cleale. 1990. Lactational evaluation of recombinant bovine somatotropin with corn and barley diets. J. Dairy Sci. 73:1269-1279.

Fearon, A.M., C.S. Mayne, and S. Marsden. 1996. The effect of inclusion of naked oats in the concentrate offered to dairy cows on milk production, milk fat composition and properties. J. Sci. Food Agric. 72:273-282.

Grimson, R.E., R.D. Weisenburger, J.A. Basarab, and R.P. Stilborn. 1987. Effects of barley volume-weight and processing method on feedlot performance of finishing steers. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 67:43-53.

Grings., E.E., R.E. Roffler, and D.P. Deitelhoff. 1992. Evaluation of corn and barley as energy sources for cows in early lactation fed alfalfa-based diets. J. Dairy Sci. 75:193.

Harrold, R.L. and M.E. Kapphahn. 1995. Nutritional Analysis, Regional Barley Crop Quality Report. North Dakota Barley Council, Minnesota Barley Research and Promotion Council and North Dakota State University.

Harrold, R.L. and M.E. Kapphahn. 1996. Nutritional Analysis, Regional Barley Crop Quality Report. North Dakota Barley Council, Minnesota Barley Research and Promotion Council and North Dakota State University.

Harrold, R.L. and M.E. Kapphahn. 1997. Nutritional Analysis, Regional Barley Crop Quality Report. North Dakota Barley Council, Minnesota Barley Research and Promotion Council and North Dakota State University.

Hinman, D. D. 1978. Influence of barley bushel weight on beef cattle performance. Proc. West. Sec. Am. Soc. Anim. Sci. 29:390.

Ingalls, J.R. 1996. Influence of deoxynivalenol on feed consumption by dairy cows. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 60:297-300.

Kelly, E.F. and J.D. Leaver. 1990. Lameness in dairy cattle and the type of concentrate given. Anim. Prod. 51:221-227.

Kennelly, J., E. Okine, and R. Khorasani. 1997. Barley as a grain and forage source for ruminants. Univ. of Alberta. [Online] Available at the following web page: http://www.afns.ualberta.ca/wcdairy/wcd95259.htm

Maiga, H.A., D.J. Schingoethe, F.C. Ludens, W.L. Tucker, and D.P. Casper. 1994. Response of calves to diets that varied in amount of ruminally degradable carbohydrate and protein. J. Dairy Sci. 77:278-283.

Marx, G.D. 1984. Feeding barley to dairy cattle. Minn. Dairy Rep., Univ. of Minn. Crookston.

Mathison, B.W., R Hironaka, B.K. Kerrigan, I. Vlach, L.P. Milligan, and R.D. Weisenburger. 1991. Rate of starch degradation, apparent digestibility, and rate and efficiency of steer gain as influenced by barley grain volume-weight and processing method. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 71:867-878.

McCarthy, R.D., Jr., T.H. Klusmeyer, J.L. Vicini, and J.H. Clark. 1989. Effects of source of protein and carbohydrates on ruminal fermentation and passage of nutrients to the small intestine of lactating cows. J. Dairy Sci. 72:2002-2016.

McNiven, MA., R.M.G. Hamilton, P.H. Robinson, and J.W. deLeeuiwe. 1994. Effect of flame roasting on the nutritional quality of common cereal grains for ruminants and non-ruminants. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol 47:31-40.

Mertens, D.R. 1983. Using neutral detergent fiber to formulate dairy rations and estimate the net energy content of forages. Page 60 in Proc. Cornell Nutr. Conf. Feed Mfg. Syracuse, NY, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY.

Moss. B.R., C.R. Miller, and C.W. Newman. 1976. Utilization of barley varieties by dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 59:208.

Munck, L., K.E. Karlsson, and A. Hagberg. 1969. High nutritional value in cereal protein. J. Seed Assoc. 79:194.

NRC. 1989. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. Sixth Revised Edition. National Academy Press. Washington, DC.

Orkskov, E.R. and J.F.E.T Greenbolgh. 1977. Alkali treatment as a method of processing whole grain for cattle. J. Agric. Sci. (Camb) 89:253.

Park, C.S. 1988. Feeding barley to dairy cattle. North Dakota Farm Research 46:18-19.

Robinson, P.H. and M.A. McNiven. 1994. Influence of flame roasting and feeding frequency of barley on performance of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 77:3631:3643.

Rode, L.M. and L.D. Satter. 1988. Effect of amount and length of alfalfa hay in diets containing barley or corn on site of digestion and rumen microbial protein synthesis in dairy cows. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 68:445-454.

Rooney, L.W. and R.L. Pflugfelder. 1986. Factors affecting starch digestibility with special emphasis on sorghum and corn. J. Anim. Sci. 63:1607-1623.

Santos, F.A.P., J.T. Huber, C.B. Theurer, R.S. Swingle, Z. Wu, J.M. Simas, K.H. Chen, S.C. Chan, J. Santos, and E.J. DePeters. 1997. Comparison of barley and sorghum grain processed at different densities for lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 80:2098-2103.

Theurer, C.B. 1986. Grain processing effects on starch utilization by ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 63:1649-1662.

USDA. 1997. The United States Standards for Grain. Washington, DC. http://www.usda.gov/gipsa/strulreg/standard/

Varga, G.A. and W.H. Hoover. 1983. Rate and extent of neutral detergent fiber degradation of feedstuffs in situ. J. Dairy Sci. 66:2109-2115.

Waldo, D.R. 1973. Extent and partition of cereal grain starch digestion in ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 37:1062-1074.

Weiss, W.P., G.R. Fisher, and G.M. Erickson. 1989. Effect of source of neutral detergent fiber and starch on nutrient utilization by dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 72:2308-2315.

Williams, P.E.V., C.A.G. Tait, G.M. Innes, and C.J. Newbold. 1991. Effects of the inclusion of yeast culture (Saccharomyces cerevisiae plus growth medium) in the diet of dairy cows on milk yield and forage degradation and fermentation patterns in the rumen of steers. J. Anim. Sci. 69:3016-3026.

 

 Funding support provided in part by North Dakota Barley Council
Cover barley photo: North Dakota Barley Council
Cover dairy cattle photo: Holstein Association USA

New animal virus takes northern Europe by surprise

Date of publication : 1/27/2012

Source : Veterinary Sciences Tomorrow


Scientists in northern Europe are scrambling to learn more about a new virus that causes fetal malformations and stillbirths in cattle, sheep, and goats. For now, they don't have a clue about the virus's origins or why it's suddenly causing an outbreak; in order to speed up the process, they want to share the virus and protocols for detecting it with anyone interested in studying the disease or developing diagnostic tools and vaccines. The virus, provisionally named "Schmallenberg virus" after the German town from which the first positive samples came, was detected in November in dairy cows that had shown signs of infection with fever and a drastic reduction in milk production. Now it has also been detected in sheep and goats, and it has shown up at dozens of farms in neighboring Netherlands and in Belgium as well. According to the European Commission's Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, cases have been detected on 20 farms in Germany, 52 in the Netherlands, and 14 in Belgium. Many more suspected cases are being investigated. "A lot of lambs are stillborn or have serious malformations," Wim van der Poel of the Dutch Central Veterinary Institute in Lelystad says. "This is a serious threat to animal health in Europe."
 
"We are taking this very, very seriously," adds Thomas Mettenleiter, head of the Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute (FLI), the German federal animal health lab located on the island of Riems. The virus appears to be transmitted by midges (Culicoides spp.), and infections likely occurred in summer and autumn of last year, but fetuses that were exposed to the virus in the womb are only now being born. The first cases of lambs with congenital malformations such as hydranencephaly-where parts of the brain are replaced by sacs filled with fluid-and scoliosis (a curved spine) appeared before Christmas. "Now, in some herds 20% to 50% of lambs show such malformations," Mettenleiter says. "And most of these animals are born dead." Scientists are bracing for many more cases to appear, especially in cattle, because bovine fetuses infected in summer 2011 would be expected to be born in February and March.
 
Virologists have made some headway since they first announced the detection of the Schmallenberg virus in November. They have been able to isolate the virus and to culture it in insect and hamster cells. Evidence that it's responsible for the observed symptoms has become stronger with its isolation from brain tissue of affected lambs. "The characteristic malformations, together with the frequent virus detection in brains of malformed animals, clearly support a causal link," FLI's Martin Beer says. In a first animal experiment, scientists at FLI also infected three cows with the virus and showed that the virus replicated in them; one developed fever and diarrhea. FLI researchers have already sequenced the genome of the new pathogen. Comparisons indicate it is a member of a group called the orthobunyaviruses. These viruses consist of three segments called S (short), M (middle), and L (long) and are mainly transmitted by mosquitoes and midges. Although the viruses are best known from Asia, some have been circulating in Europe for decades. Initially, scientists said the virus most closely resembled the Akabane virus, a pathogen that has been found in cattle, buffalo, sheep, camels, dogs, and other species, leading them to call it an "Akabane-like virus."
 
Now they say that at least the S segment of Schmallenberg's genome is most closely related to sequences of a different orthobunyavirus called Shamonda virus. Both Akabane and Shamonda virus belong to the so-called Simbu serogroup and are known to infect ruminants and to be transmitted by midges. But there are few orthobunyavirus sequences available with which to compare the new virus, so scientists are starting to sequence more members of the family. "Orthobunyaviruses have been neglected for a long time, and we just don't know a lot about them," says Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit of the Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine in Hamburg, Germany. A host of questions remains unanswered. Which vector species is transmitting the disease? Can animals infect each other directly? And of course, where did the virus come from? "The problem with orthobunyaviruses is that their segmented genome makes the emergence of new combinations very easy, just like with influenza viruses," Schmidt-Chanasit says. He points to a recent outbreak of a new orthobunyavirus in Peru. The pathogen, named Iquitos virus, turned out to have combined S and L segments of a known virus called Oropouche and the M segment of a new virus.
 
Whether the Schmallenberg virus could sicken humans is unknown. At least 30 orthobunyaviruses have been associated with human disease; the Oropouche virus, also a member of the Simbu serogroup, causes a febrile disease often associated with headaches, dizziness, skin rash, and malaise, whereas the Iquitos virus can cause diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea. But these viruses seem to be dependent on midges to infect humans and are not known to be directly transmitted from infected farm animals. Midges are less likely to bite humans than mosquitoes, and there have been no reports of unusual human illnesses from farmers whose livestock is infected. A risk assessment by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control in Stockholm, issued just before Christmas, concluded that "it is unlikely that this new orthobunyavirus can cause disease in humans, but it cannot be excluded at this stage." But the experts recommended closely monitoring the health of farmers and vets.

Nutrition & Feeding Boer Goats

Nutrition is one of the three legs upon which any successful livestock breeding is based (the other two being genetics and animal health). Below are some guidelines regarding feeding for various classes of animals.

Feeding pregnant does

Four weeks prior to kidding a throughflow protein concentrate, can be fed. The following benefits have been recorded:

 Improves kidding
Improves udder development and increases milk production.
Kids is stronger and heavier at birth.
Dam is on her feet faster after kidding, thus allowing the kid to drink earlier. This can improve the kid's survival rate by between 15% and 50%.
Reduces the chance of retained afterbirth.
Improves mothering.
Has led to increased weights in suckling kids.


 Signs that your dam may have a throughflow protein deficiency:
Dam kids with difficulty
Dam ignores kid after birth
Kid is lighter than 3,5kg (ideal weight is 3,5kg - 5kg)
Kid is yellowish in colour
Kid mortalities after birth are high
Dam produces thick, sticky colostrum
Weak udder development with low milk production

Tetanus
A Nightmare That Could Have Been Prevented

By Elaine Puckett

Dairy goats can get tetanus—a devastating disease which often results in death. One of our doelings got it last year, but she survived and we tell her story with the hopes it will prevent other dairy goat breeders from making the same little mistakes we did. I also hope the story of our little Alpine doe, Tenacity, will give others battling goat diseases the information needed for success in conquering disaster. A good veterinarian is the key to survival for many cases like ours, but some real-life information on dealing with tetanus is sure to inspire someone, somewhere, to improve or enhance their own goat management skills.
 
I will tell the end of our story first. At Puckett's Alpines near Council Grove, Kansas, we raise top quality, heavy milking American Alpines. Last year we had a little doeling who earned the name Tenacity, after she survived a difficult battle with a preventable disease—tetanus. She was called only Jessie's Doeling when we first realized she had a problem and took her to a veterinarian. I made some management mistakes but unfortunately I fear they are not so different from the way many of us might manage our goats. These mistakes were in the form of several small steps taken in the wrong direction and put together in the wrong order for an almost devastating result.
 

Step one: Horses and cattle and perhaps other animals carry tetanus in their digestive tracts. They contaminate the ground with the tetanus causing bacteria. Many dairy goat breeders often also keep other animals in or near their goat yards. This seemingly innocent practice increases the odds of having tetanus in the soil. In my case, my goats were kept in a pen that was down the hill from the neighbor's horses. These were working horses sometimes used in a feedlot situation. More than likely they shed bacteria in manure, which entered our yard through run-off after heavy rains. I have been a goat breeder on the same farm for almost 30 years and never before had a problem with tetanus. But, like I said earlier, there were a few other steps that fell into place, changing the whole situation for our one unlucky little goat.
 
Step two: The tetanus bacteria must enter the body. This bacterium grows best in a wound sealed over without air, anaerobic. Puncture wounds are the right anaerobic environment, so are scabbed over wounds. In Tenacity's case she was disbudded a little late. I don't write down when we disbud each kid so I can't tell an exact date. Looking back I do remember her knocking off one of the horn scabs quite early. When this happens it is usually accomplished by scratching at the horn scab with a hind foot. It bled some. However Tenacity was a dam raised kid and not tame. I tried to catch her to apply an antiseptic. She was not willing and I decided the wound would bleed worse being chased about than if I just left her alone. Next morning there was no bleeding and the wound had sealed over.
 
Step three: The animal must be susceptible to the germ. That is not having enough immunity so that the body does not have the ability to fight off the bacterial invasion. Immunity to tetanus is achieved by routine immunization both in animals and people. Our routine, one I feel is generally accepted practice in most dairy goat herds, was to vaccinate the pregnant doe four-to-six weeks before her due date. If this is done, then vaccinate the kids at six to eight weeks of age, again in four weeks, and annually thereafter. Further reading has uncovered the possibility that the antibody protection from colostrum may diminish by three to four weeks. This source recommends vaccinating the doe three to four weeks pre kidding. Then vaccinate kids at three-to-four weeks and again six-to-eight weeks later.
 
My record keeping again failed me. I feel Jessie was given her tetanus and enterotoxaemia immunization during that four-to-six week period before she kidded, but I cannot find it written down. However Jessie did not go dry, she was milked through her pregnancy. Therefore she had no colostrum. Knowing this I had frozen colostrum and fed each of the kids approximately eight ounces soon after birth. They were then left to nurse their dam. I have since visited with people about human babies and have been told that frozen colostrum may have lost much of its immunity giving properties during the freezing. Fresh colostrum is much preferred. I suspect the same is true of animal colostrum.

So there it is. Tetanus can strike if: 1) the germ is present; 2) the germ has a port of entry; and 3) the host has a poor immune system. I guess our little Tenacity struck out on all three steps and soon she was in a fight for her life.
 
Whenever I have a question about dairy goat management, I turn to the book Goat Medicine by Mary C. Smith and David M. Sherman as my medical reference. This is where I first began frantically looking for clues as to what could be wrong, when I first discovered Tenacity has a problem one evening when I went to do chores. She was on a slope and appeared to be tangles in some tree roots. She was crying out for help. When I went to her she was not tangled but could not get up and had slid until the roots had stopped her. When I picked her up she was stiff and when I set her on her feet she could stand and walk, but not run away from me. I noted that her dam, Jessie had not been nursed. Jessie's twins, Tenacity and Sister, each very definitely had staked out their own teat and didn't vary where they nursed. Tenacity had not nursed. Sister was fine.
 
I hurried through chores even though it was milk test evening. Then off to the veterinarian we went, Tenacity in my arms. It was a 45-minute drive to a veterinarian kind enough to stay open late just for us. By the time we arrived I knew it was a neurological problem and suspected it was due to the disbudding or subsequent injury to the scab. Tetanus was on my mind.
 
The veterinarian did a neurologic exam. She examined the horn area. Nothing appeared unusual about the scab, but the whole side of Tenacity's head was swollen. There was no wound to clean. We learned the incubation period for tetanus is usually 10-20 days. It can take as little as four days or as long as several months. If a wound is still present the veterinarian can inject the wound with tetanus antitoxin to reduce the release of pre-existing toxins into the blood stream. The wound can then be cleaned of any dead tissue and flushed with hydrogen peroxide. Once clean the wound is filled with penicillin. Our veterinarian prescribed large doses of penicillin given SQ and gave tetanus antitoxin. Off to home again, the prognosis was not good. Tenacity relaxed a little on the ride home. But each time we hit a bump, a loud noise, or I moved she stiffened up again. This is called hyperesthesia, the increased sensitivity to stimulation particularly to touch.
 
Once home I began to read. What was I up against and how could I care for this baby? She was just five weeks old. The name tetanus or tetany refers to a continuous tonic muscular spasm. It starts with a stiff gait and a wide base or sawhorse stance. The victim is reluctant to move and has difficulty opening its mouth. Bloat is often present. Response to a sudden loud noise is very similar to that of a fainting goat. The tetanus-affected goat does not recover from the rigidity as the fainting goat does. Hyperflexia follows with a recumbent rigid extension of all limbs and the back arched. Convulsions and death follow.
 
The tetanus bacterium is usually localized at the wound infection. The bacteria produce a neurotoxin that enters the blood stream. By the time the toxin produces signs and symptoms it cannot be neutralized. The toxin gradually degrades relieving symptoms. The goal of treatment is to inhibit additional toxin production, neutralize existing unbound toxin, and lessen the effects of bound toxin. Penicillin is the drug of choice to kill the bacteria ending the toxin production. Neutralization of existing unbound toxin is accomplished by injecting antitoxin. In a veterinarian hospital situation, the antitoxin could be given intravenously. The use of anticonvulsants, tranquilizers, and muscle relaxants would also be possible as indicated. Intravenous fluids and tube feedings would be used. Enemas or tubes to relieve the bloat might be necessary.
 
Tenacity's treatment was conservative. She was not hospitalized. Supportive treatment included dark quiet surroundings and frequent position changes. When Tenacity came home I attempted to feed her a bottle. She either would not take milk from a bottle. The weather was warm and we decided to keep Tenacity in the barn in familiar surroundings. She was placed in a large pet carrier, one large enough to lie down in her extended position. An overstuffed toy best describes how incapacitated the little goat was. I could stand her up and she stayed there in the wide square stance. I could lay her down and she stayed there—legs out straight. The upper legs did relax enough to rest on the ground but were held straight at the knees.
 
Next morning I again attempted to bottle feed the little goat. Still no luck. I put Jessie on the milk stand and braced the little goat's butt on the headstand and watched as she tried to nurse but could not turn her head or open her mouth enough to get on the teat. I squashed the teat flat and brought it to her mouth. She could suckle and swallow. Hooray! Four times a day I assisted Tenacity to nurse. I alternated between standing her up and laying her down. I changed her position every two hours when possible. She would stand until I laid her down or she fell down. When I laid Tenacity down I placed her on a pile of hay with her head uphill. I placed a towel under her head to prevent injury to her eyes. At night she had to lie all night on her side in the pet carrier. I alternated sides. I elevated the head end of the carrier. I had learned that death usually came from respiratory failure. So I did all I could to prevent this.
 
Day two showed no improvement, a little worse in fact. I returned to the local veterinarian for more antitoxin. They recommended large doses once a day for three days. I gave slightly smaller doses twice a day for five days. I also gave the penicillin twice a day at the prescribed dose. Tenacity was a pincushion, even though I rotated sites I know she hurt all over. Her condition leveled out and for four days there was no change. On day six she was a little better. Day seven her legs began to bend a little again. She actually was able to get herself to standing from the hay pile on day eight. It was daily improvement from there. Tenacity spent two weeks in the barn alleyway by day and in a pet carrier in the alley by night. Her mental capacity always seemed intact. She was an alert normal lively baby goat caught in a body that would not move. By the end of week two she could get up and lay down by herself. Her legs bent enough to assume an almost normal upright position when lying down. She was placed back in with the herd when she could again nurse on her own. At the end of a month she was running and jumping with the others.
 
In no time at all, we witnessed her doing the "I'm happy to be alive," baby goat dance. We were very happy she was alive too. Tenacity earned her name. She held tenaciously to life even when the going was really tough, and I learned to pay more attention to the management techniques that have always worked in the past. Tenacity's story was one of coincidence and bad luck, but I still believe it could have been prevented. I am just glad she survived and we all learned our lessons.
 
note:one must be very careful when mixing others livestocks with your goats.Allowing cattle/horses to graze with your goats might end up costing your trouble than its worth.

The earthquake that struck our region has done some damage to our operation but we came out of this better than most.Some does did kid on time and we hope the worse is over and we can start the needed repairs as soon as possible.This has also delayed our plans to start selling our own goat meat product lines as this will allow us a better price margin than selling live animals and will also help to promote the benefits of eating leaner muscle protein over pork.Might be a hard sell but one has to start somewhere and be prepared for the long haul and keep promoting goat meat,inventing new goat meat dishes that will have customer appeal.It appears to me that promoting goat meat is really at the producers level as I have yet to see any promoting coming from any goat association so far in country.We have left the AMGA,(American Meat Goat Association) and hope to join the CMGA,(Canadian Meat Goat Association) this coming summer and use some of their ideas for our own operations in the country as we cannot find any ideas coming from goat associations in the Philippines at this time.Appears to us there seems to be a gap in direction for meat goats in country and this might be explained by the interest in dairy goats over meat goats.

We still plan to produce purebred boers and anglos for meat with our 3rd line, the RP Genemaxer still under construction being built on the back of the 3 way cross,still in early developement and many years away from the final product,dual breed.

Two of our properties,bloke #1,squatter area #1 and bloke #2,squatter area#2 have been declared unsafe for humans to live and the state under the direction of the President have bought a piece of land so the people will have a safe place to live.Bloke #2 is the area where the big landslide took place and many people were buried alive.Our hearts go out to all those who have been killed by this diseaster.

Every year I wait and see what news if any is forth coming with respect to meat goat production in the country,every year pretty much the same news,no news at all.Appears on the surface to me the whole idea of meat goat production in the country is all a stand still.Seems like each producer is trying to figure what is the best direction to take for their own respected businesses due in part, there is lack of leadership coming from those who are suppose to be heading the industry as a whole.In the past the only word was,build up the national herd first.What happens when the national herd to built up to the point there will be a surplus of animals and with any surplus comes price reductions and no one is able to realize any profit coming from this end of the business?How does anyone expect to attract newcomes to this end of the goat business when there is no direction in the first place?There needs to be a plan of action,some goal set and something to look forward to or people will give up and find something else to invest into.Maybe each region,each island will have to formulate their own plan of action,something that will work for that area and see where it all leads to.Maybe those in a position will join,link up with outside assocations to borrow ideas from them and try and make some of those ideas work for their own operations because at this time in country,does not appear to be any ideas,new or old or leadership coming from those who are suppose to be leading this industry in the first place.As an outsider looking in,I see, disassociation of the association.

Filipino Kalderetang Kambing Recipe (Goat Meat Caldereta)

 July 7, 2010 · Posted in Philippine Recipes 




Kalderetang kambing is a very common dish in the Philippines. The main ingredient is goat meat known for its tenderness and nostalgic taste. This dish is pinoys favorite pulutan and is a requisite during fiestas and any occasions too. There are plenty of restaurants in the country that serves Caldereta with their unique cooking style but one thing is for sure, they always made it a mouth-watering taste. Goat meat is a very nutritious red meat which is excellent for those watching the waistline, cholesterol levels, and needing an alternative to the average hum-drum food.
 
Below are simple ways on how to cook a delicious and nutritious kalderetang kambing.
 
Ingredients:
 
•    3 lb goat meat
 •    1 c Vinegar
 •    2 Whole garlic bulbs
 •    4 siling labuyo
 •    1 lb Onions
 •    6 oz Tomato paste
 •    1 1/2 c water
 •    1/2 lb Potatoes
 •    1 Red bell pepper
 •    1/2 lb ground beef liver
 •    1/8 c quezo de bola
 •    1/2 c olive oil
 •    1 t Cooking oil
 •    1 t vetsin
 •    Dash Red pepper
 •    1 t Salt
 


Procedure:
 
1.    Skin and mince the garlic and combine with the vinegar in a non-reactive dish large enough to hold the goat meat and marinate for 5 hours.
 2.    When marination is nearly complete, Slice the onions, peel the potatoes and cut them into 1 inch cubes, and julienne the bell pepper.
 3.    Fry the siling labuyo (pepper) in some cooking oil; remove from pan and set aside.
 4.    Add more cooking oil and brown the meat.
 5.    Remove meat and set aside.
 6.    In same pan, saute one tbs garlic and onions.
 7.    Return meat to pan along with the tomato paste and water and simmer until the meat is tender.
 8.    Add the tomatoes, red pepper, beef liver, quezo de bola and the fried siling labuyo.
 9.    Stir in the olive oil and season with salt, pepper, and vetsin.
 10.    Cook for 5 more minutes and serve.

Kid Structure Can Be Used to
Make KEEP or CULL Decisions

By Shelene Costello

 
Every year we have all these cute little baby goats. It can be challenging to decide which of the kids we are going to keep, and which we need to sell to keep the herd numbers manageable. Figuring out how to pick and choose the right kid or kids that have the best potential of meeting our specific goals is one of the hardest things that I have to do. They are all so cute, and so many of them have qualities I've been looking for in a dairy goat. Realistically though, it is not possible to keep them all, and there are early indicators of traits I like to see in dairy goats, and a method I developed to make those painful decisions easier.
 
First, before we ever have kids born, I spend time looking over pedigrees and the traits that individual does in my herd have. I bred them to bucks that hopefully will produce traits we need improving on, while not losing too much of what I already like in those does. I look at the sire's female relatives, particularly, as they are going to show milking traits that just can't be seen on buck.
 
By the time kids are actually born, I have a general idea of what we ‘"may" produce in the breeding. What we actually get, may be entirely different sometimes, or it may be exactly what I'm looking for. Nature can be tricky that way.
 
As the kids are born, my first go over is to make sure everyone has the outward working body parts. Some kids are born without the proper parts to survive...I have had kids born with no opening in the anus, or without one of its legs, or with a cleft palate, etc. If anyone breeds long enough they will see plenty of oddities born, but usually they are rare.
 










Nigerian Dwarf, Promessa's Golden Touch, as a pale cream kid (above) and as a milker (below). She darkened up to a dark golden brown. As a kid, we can see the solid structure that supported her growing into a functional dairy goat. Her wide long body with good feet and legs, and wide open escutcheon had room for a capacious well-attached udder.






 

Next, I check to see what sex the new kid is, and if the proper sex organs appear where they should. I check to see if the doeling's vulva set under her tail, and if the buckling's penis and scrotum (including testicles) are properly placed and normal looking. It is very important to check for two teats of normal shape and size.
 
Teats will grow with the animal so spur teats and extra teats may not be visible right away. Sometimes too, testicles may not be down in the scrotum at birth but may drop a bit later. Typically in goats though, if the testicles are not down within a short time after birth, I do not expect them to drop on down.
 
Using my knowledge of basic goat structure and the dairy goat scorecard along with my experience with the bloodlines and individual animals I'm working with, I then begin to evaluate each kid more thoroughly.
 
Some things in kids can be seen and will stay very similar throughout life, others are an educated guess as to how they will develop.
 
The dairy goat scorecard allots 25 points to feet, legs and pasterns for junior does. That is one quarter of all points available. So it is a very important part of evaluating young kids. If the feet and legs, including the pasterns, are not strong and solid as a kid, they are going to break down even more as the goat grows and gains weight.
 
Strong and straight legs start with toes that point ahead and are well held together with solid hooves that are level front to back with deep heels. I want legs that have good bone, without being too coarse and round, solid joints, knees pointing forward, with plenty of width between those front legs leaving room for a wide chest floor. The back legs should also be wide leaving room for a capacious udder to fit in as the doe matures. Short strong pasterns that are relatively upright are needed and desirable in the correct dairy goat.
 
There are 10 points each for front end assembly and back structure. Now, I consider the front end assembly as part of leg construction myself, but the score card actually allots it it's own points, which bump leg points to 35, more than one-third of the total 100. When looking at legs, I consider the shoulder and upper arm construction, as that is how the leg is held to the body and supports nearly two thirds of the weight of a goat. It needs to be tightly held to the body, and well angled with a proper length of upper arm.
 
Something I stress over and over to myself, as well as any who ask, that I want a kid to grow up and be a functional dairy goat. Anything I can do to breed and keep animals that will be functional for a long productive life is what I am going to choose to keep. Tightly held shoulders, flat muscled, strong straight legs that are standing on strong pasterns with solid feet will support a dairy goat for a long life.
 
The more deviation from the ideal, the more issues may surface during that life and may shorten the usefulness of the doe and impair the quality of her life.
 
Moving along, the back is the support for the heavy body of a doe hung between those legs, so it's important to have a kid with a solid strong level back that is wide and well muscled. Any weakness in the topline in a kid, tends to worsen as the animal matures.
 
There are 10 points for head, breed character and stature. Now, I personally love the breed type that sets each breed apart from the others, but the scorecard has few points over all to allot to it. The main thing I remember is that a head often matches the body behind it, so a nice strong long wide head, of sufficient breed type and refinement as befits a dairy animal will play a part in my decision on which particular kids appeal to me. Stature is the size and growth appropriate for the breed and age of a goat. That is only two points, but in functionality, it is a bigger part of what I will look at. I want a kid who grows fast and easy with little care. To me, a fast growing kid is a sign of good overall health of the animal. A small runty, spindly kid is not a good choice for me. One of those may or may not outgrow it with extra care. I tend to look for an animal that does not need special care to thrive so that I can spend my time and money enjoying my goats rather than providing work to maintain.
 
Again on the scorecard, body capacity has 15 points. To me, I consider body capacity a good part of what I'm looking for. I want a goat that is long enough and wide enough to eat well, to carry kids and lots of milk. I want a deep heart girth, showing good heart and lung capacity.
 
Dairy character has the remaining 30 points on the scorecard. This is where the flat bone, flat muscling, and lean neck, sharp withers, flat incurving thighs, fine skin, wide rumps, and open escutcheons all come into play. This is where we find the refined yet strong look that makes a dairy goat different from a meat goat or a pet goat, or a fiber goat.
 
We want to see all of this evidenced in a kid. It gives us a good idea that this kid who is solidly built, strong, well grown for its age will indeed grow into a functional dairy goat who will give us years of productive milking.
 
Now, having given all of the scorecard ideals of what to look for, I'll actually tell how I decide which of those kids meets my goals for my breeding program.
 










La Mancha Promessa's Blizzard, as a six-week-old kid (above), shows the solid structure that lets her grow into her promise as a long, level well-built milker (below).






 

I want strong functional goats. But no goat is ideal so I have to accept that there are some things I can compromise on and still have a solid dairy animal.
 
I first look at those feet and legs. I spend hours watching my kids run, jump and play. I see how they land on the ground and stand hanging out in the pen. Do their legs come down square? If not, how much deviation is there?
 
I put a large importance on wide flat rumps, particularly, wide and flat from side to side, and it's a bonus if I get plenty of length as well.
 
I want young kids to be balanced in overall proportions. Do they appear to be all of a piece or do they show disharmony of parts? Can I figure out what isn't meshing with the rest by looking and feeling?
 
I want body capacity and dairy character and I'll compare kids not only to the other kids, but to the ideal in my mind. I personally have chosen to give a bit more consideration to body depth and width than the scorecard does in kids, as I see how it impacts my herd later in life. The kids I've kept with a bit less have not always thrived as well down the road as the ones with good width and depth through the heart girth and to the rear end.
 
I take photos of the kids playing and with me stacking them at several ages to see if what I think I see is in my mind or really in the kid. I find for me that emotion can cloud my judgment, so photos really help me see a clearer picture. I compare escutcheons, and yes, teat placement on kids, though the scorecard doesn't mention the teats at all. To some extent I can give an educated guess as to teat placement on an udder, by studying how my goats grow and age. I want to try to weed out as much as I can early on, so that I don't have time to get attached and realize a major fault is hiding under there.
 
I mentally place my kids as I would in a class, when I'm out playing with them. They will vary as they grow, but the kids that I continue to place highest tend to end up my keepers. I run my hands over my kids regularly. Not just watch them from a distance. I want to get a feel for their bodies. Part of that also gives me a good idea of their health, but a lot teaches me their feel and how they are going to mature.
 
With all of this said, I then compare what I see and feel in the kids to how the parents look. What traits do I see that I want in those parents and what do I want to improve? Some years I may keep a kid that I may not in another year, because I want something particular out of that breeding.
 
For instance, this year, the buck I used on my Nigerian does has tight sharp withers, flat, flat bone, solid feet and legs, and overall smoothness of blending. This is something I really want to improve in my herd over all. So I'm going to really pay attention to those traits in these kids. I may give up a bit on some other traits, to keep the ones with the best of what that buck throws.
 
Next year, I'll be using different bucks and will choose the kids then based on how this year's kids freshen, and what traits the new kids show.
 

Goats: Market Conditions Favorable;
Future Looks Promising


July 2011
By Michael Shirley, TFBF Intern

Few agricultural commodities have enjoyed strong market growth in the past few years in Tennessee. One market that has continued to expand and at the same time maintain a favorable price is the goat industry. The goat population in Tennessee is estimated to be around fifty thousand, second only to Texas, based on the USDA's 1997 census of agriculture. There are several reasons behind the boom in the Tennessee goat industry. The higher number of small farms, increase in ethnic populations, and the need for alternative crops for traditonal farmers have all played key roles in the goat numbers.

As more of Tennessee's rural landscape shifts from large family farms to houses with acreage plots, the type and quantity of livestock the land can sustain has changed as well. Goats can thrive on all of Tennessee's different landscapes. Charles Lawson, board member for the Tennessee Goat Producers Association, says that you can run about six to eight goats per acre on average depending on type of terrain and quality of forages. Goats are an easy animal for small landowners to care for, and they offer a chance to make a profit on a small set-up.

The most popular breeds of goat in Tennessee are the meat type breeds such as Boer, Kiko, and crosses of these varieties. The popularity of these breeds is due in large part to demand for goat meat continuing to rise as more ethnic populations move to the area. But not all of the goats sold in Tennessee are consumed in Tennessee. Many of the goats purchased at stockbarns all around Tennessee are shipped to the New England area where demand for goat meat is the strongest.

Margie Baker, a livestock marketing specialist for the Tennessee Department of Agriculture (TDA), says that several programs have been started to help the goat industry. One of the things that the Tennessee Department of Agriculture is doing to assist the goat industry is by having graded sales. This is where one of our livestock graders will attend the sale and grade the goats. Goats are graded either choice, prime, or utility. Goat prices at these graded sales have tended to be considerably higher than other area sales where the goats are not graded. Baker explains this trend, when [the goats] go through the auction, the buyers know what type of goat they're getting. They know whether it's going to be something to take home and feed to fatten up for a better sale or if it's going to be ready to go to slaughter now and what type quality they are getting. Currently, there are two regular graded sales in Tennessee. The Tennessee Livestock Producers have a graded sale at Thompson Station the second and fourth Friday of every month, and at Sommerville on the first Friday of each month.

Many tobacco farmers are also beginning to raise goats as an alternative crop. Many areas where tobacco is grown make ideal locations for goat farms. Baker suggests using existing tobacco barns as shelters for goats. You can very easily take an old tobacco barn and economically put some pens in it and turn it into a goat barn.

The future of the Tennessee goat industry appears bright. With the continuing demand for goat meat from the ethnic populations and the increasing acceptance of goat meat from other consumers, the market should continue to expand. Wayne Barnes, manager of the Thompson Station Sheep and Goat Sale, echoes this sentiment and adds another thought. More people are eating goats now and one thing I¹ve found is that in Texas, a lot of the big ranches are being sold off and split up. That means less goats in that area. That will open the market up for more goats in the Southeast to be produced and a bigger, better market. If it stays like it is, it¹s a good thing to be into.

 

Goat meat, the final frontier

By Mark Scarbrough and Bruce Weinstein, Published: April 5, 2011

In 30 short years, we have watched goat cheese morph from a high “ick” factor to an outright cliche. Goat’s milk and goat butter have become supermarket staples, no longer relegated to health-food stores. Yet goat meat sits out on the horizon, with trendspotters periodically informing us that it’s the next big thing.

Pam Adams, head of the Maryland-Pennsylvania-West Virginia Meat Goat Producers Association, says demand for the goods from the group’s 64 farms has increased 20 percent over the past five years.

“I’ve even had to band growers into collectives to keep up with the requests,” she said from her Bridgestone Manor Farms in Eldersburg, Md. “I’ve got an order for 60 goats right now to go down to North Carolina. I’m scrambling.”

This does, in fact, reflect a national trend. Goat meat production is ramping up in the United States. The number of goats slaughtered has doubled every 10 years for the past three decades, according to the USDA. We’re closing in on 1 million meat goats a year — and still growing, despite the economic downturn.

It’s no surprise, given that goat is the world’s most-consumed meat: almost 70 percent of the red meat eaten globally. Its cultural caveats are few, as it can be kosher and halal as well.

Nutrition-wise, goat meat is a wonder. A similarly sized serving has a third fewer calories than beef, a quarter fewer than chicken and much less fat: up to two-thirds less than a similar portion of pork and lamb; less than half as much as chicken.

More good news: Goats represent sustainability, without the curse of factory production. They are browsers, not grazers.

“The meat’s better for you, and the animals are easier on the land,” Adams says. “I can put at most two steers on an acre, but at least 10 goats. Maybe more.”

Out in California in 2008, Bill Niman originally fielded a herd to tend his cow pastures. The goats would even out what the cows mangled, chewing down the less-desirable weeds, giving the plants a haircut before the bovines tromped about.

The founder of Niman Ranch, a well-respected network of farmers who produce humanely raised pork, beef and lamb, soon found that meat goats were for more than just lawn-mowing. He is now on the cusp of doing for goat what he did for pork years ago: putting together a consortium of ethical, mindful farmers and ranchers who can demand a higher price for a superior product.

That said, goat farming is still not big business. “People call me up and ask if they can have goat meat at their dinner party this weekend,” Adams says. “I have to tell them it still doesn’t work that way.” It’s akin to putting in reservations for kid goats being born, or lucking into a goat someone no longer wants.

Which is, in truth, a good thing. If you want to try goat, you’ve got to get local. Kathy Weld raises the critters at Sugarloaf’s Breezy Valley Farm in Frederick County. The farm nurtures the animals for at least six months, then takes them to a processing plant. You pick up meat from the plant that you custom-ordered (whole animal, half, leg, etc.), vacuum-sealed or paper-wrapped.

Stats just released is talking about a hugh increase of dairy products needed for Asia coming in the next 10 years.Dairy products consumed today in Asia is small compared to the west but this is about to change.Farms like Alaminos and others with their leading advances in diary goat production is one hopeful sign that dairy products can in fact be produced in country and the need for imports from outside will not over take local production.On the surface,it appears, the Philippines is far more advanced in dairy goat production than some Asian countries to take full advantage of this growing need.Advancement is made every year with respect to dairy goat production and with new found interest for others to follow the examples set forth by others.The country needs to attract new people who will express an interest in dairy goat farming or countries like the USA with its highway systems and trucks and ports from which to export from will be more than happy to fill any or all voids in the supply chain.By 2020,we may in fact see the goat populations, triple in some countries along with increases with dairy cattle numbers.This side of the industry needs to attract fresh faces to take up the challenge that lies ahead.Future looks bright for the goat.

Utilizing Performance Data from Your Herd:

If all your herd kidded within the sixty-day interval and all does and kids were treated alike until weaning at
about 90 days of age, you could use the Ratios shown to select keeper-does and to choose keeper kids from particular
does. If you have two, or more, kidding periods, there is the problem of choosing between does with similar Ratios, but
in different groups—a toughie only you can decide because only you know the seasonal situations, but look first at the
group averages for guidance.

Caveat: the ‘degree of selection pressure’ you could apply across the entire herd would be dependent on your particular
situation (herd size, expansion/contraction plans, cash-flow needs, prospective sales, expected feed supply, any resource
limitations, etc.). For instance, if you were positioned to do so, you could immediately improve average herd
performance appreciably by culling ‘deeply’, say, by selling all does that had below 100 Ratio scores. Assuming no
outside replacements, your herd would be smaller, but of higher genetic worth. If you could only cull the bottom
fourth of the herd, the rate of genetic progress would be noticeably slowed.

There are additional considerations. The average commercial herd typically replaces about 20% of its does every year. A
few die, some are not decent producers, some leave for health reasons, some for old age, whatever. To maintain herd
size (without outside purchases), one must save at least 25% replacement doelings.
If a 100 head doe herd is reproducing at the rate of 175% kid crop weaned (good), among the 175 kids born, there will
be 80 or so doelings surviving from which to chose the 25 replacement doelings. These replacements should come from
does scoring in the top half (Ratio of over 100) of all does or, better yet, the top third, but only if the individual
doelings warrant saving. (There can be issues of poor conformation, bad mouths, and unacceptable rates of daily gain
when a given doeling has really sterling littermates from a top litter).

And then there is the matter of saving buck kids. All else being equal (ADG pre-weaning, conformation, etc.), they
should come from the top 5% or so of the does on test. They should be retained for further evaluation, post-weaning,
before the final selection is made (and he should be re-evaluated after his first kids are weaned).

On-farm performance test programs are particularly good venues for comparing multiple herds sires, but only if the
objects of their affection are ‘randomly’ chosen and treated equally during the test period. Otherwise, the comparison
will be compromised. Putting buck A on your top does and buck B on your bottom does is unfair—worse still, it is
inaccurate.

And then there is the too typical farm situation where the ‘top’ buck is untested but is really horny and very pretty
and cost a lot of money and stood real high in the Ring and/or has mighty ancestors, however defined (but also not
performance tested). A scale under his progeny and another scale under his daughter’s progeny can be an
enlightening, sometimes sobering, experience indeed; if so, I can recommend a really good sausage recipe.


Sustained participation in this performance-based program would allow you to cull-or-keep with more accuracy and
confidence than your current procedure likely permits. You may have a keen eye for phenotypic evaluation of does and
a good eye for estimating weaning weights of kids. However, if you document doe and kid performance via scale
weights, you don’t have to guess at their performance; you know their performance—and so would a prospective
buyer who could peruse the Doe Summary and Sire Summary furnished by Dr. Andries (who doesn’t have a dog in
your hunt).

When deciding among keeper does from these records, the choice between does with very close Ratios can be dicey. One
way to solve such a dilemma, would be to calculate an ‘efficiency rating’ (ER) of the individual does by dividing her
adjusted litter weaning weight by her body weight at weaning time. Litter weight per pound of doe is the ultimate
evaluation for keepers. For example, if doe A produced 120lb.=54kg. litter weight and weighed 130 lb=58kg at weaning; her ER
would be .92 (120/130). If Doe B also produced 120 lb=54kg litter weight, but weighed 110lb.=49kg. at weaning; her ER rating
would be 1.09. Mathematically speaking, doe B would be about 18% better (more efficient) than doe A (1.09 - .92 = .17/.
92 x 100 = 18.4).

Such efficiency ratings could of course be determined on all your does and then ranked from high to low. Such
rankings could be more useful to you (and prospective customers) than the Ratio figures shown in the Doe Summary.
Doubtless Ken’s computer program could be modified to derive such efficiency figures and their rankings; he just needs
participants to start furnishing doe weights. Personally, I would prefer using ER rankings over Ratio rankings. (If I
were pressed for time, I would opt for doe weights-at-weaning over obtaining birth weights of kids).

To pose a further problem for your consideration/education, suppose doe A above had an obviously superior
phenotype (larger/day of age and better conformation… prettier, so to speak) than did doe B. The same litter weight
from a prettier doe (perhaps with a ribbon or two to ‘prove’ it). What to do? If you were not flogging 4-H kids at
premium prices, offer doe A, (but try for a premium on ‘potential’). In any case, try
not to cry as you load her for sale and retain doe B for herd improvement. Doe B costs less to feed over doe A.

Hopes this helps with respect to retaining future breeding does from within your herd as opposed to bringing in outsiders.Quality over quantity.