Feed Resources, Productivity of Crossbred Dairy Cows and Microbial Quality of Buttermilk in Damot Pulasa District, Southern Ethiopia

Abstract

This study was conducted to assess feed resources, the productivity of crossbred dairy cows, and microbial quality of buttermilk. Multistage purposive and random sampling techniques were used for study. The district was stratified into two locations based on the distance from the district town as, location close to district town (≤ 5 km) and location far from district town > 5 km). Three kebeles from each location making a total of six representative kebeles were considered for the study. Households having at least three crossbred cattle were identified and listed in each kebeles and finally 100 respondent households (50 from each location) were randomly selected from the list. Data on cattle herd composition, feeds and feeding, productivity of cows, milk microbial quality and dairy production constraints was collected. Twenty-five buttermilk samples were randomly taken from the household level (15) and at the open market (10) for quality evaluation. The major available feed resources in the study area were natural pasture, crop residues, and non-conventional feed resources, ranked first, second, and third, respectively. Feeding practices included grazing with supplementation (69.0%) and stall feeding (31.0%). Age at first service, age at first calving, calving interval, days open, lactation length, and daily milk yield were 32.62 ± 3.81, 42.06 ± 3.83, 16.27 ± 1.86, 6.63 ± 1.86, 9.01 ± 1.35 and 4.32 ± 0.9, respectively. The milk yield of crossbred dairy cows in the residential areas close to the town is much higher than that of those far away. Total bacterial count, entrobacterecea, yeast, mold, and $\text{pH\hspace{0.17em}were\hspace{0.17em}}6.26$ ± 1.19, 4.42 ± 0.66, 5.01 ± 0.78 and 4.33 ± 0.25 respectively. Buttermilk samples obtained from the open market had significantly higher Entrobacteriaceae counts than samples collected from households. Buttermilk collected was subjected to bacterial contamination and does not meet the requirements of milk and dairy product quality standards. Feed shortages and land shortages are the major constraints that hinder the productivity of crossbred dairy cows. Awareness creation and strict quality control are recommended to protect the public health of the consumers. Farmers should be advised to practice feed conservation and to use marginal lands for forage production.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Introduction

Ethiopia has the largest livestock population in Africa [1]. Dairy farming is one of the livestock subsectors that can generate revenue and jobs for smallholder farmers' economic sustainability [2]. However, due to feed shortage, high prevalence of diseases and parasites, low genetic potential of indigenous breeds, the sector’s productivity is very low [3, 4]. Hence, gathering up-to-date information and understanding the overall scenarios of feed resources and feeding systems is highly required to address the constraints and improve milk production in potential areas [5].

Milk and milk products are consumed in Ethiopia’s urban and rural areas. However, the microbial quality of milk and milk products in Ethiopia does not meet the standard [6]. Sanitary practices and handling of milk and milk products in different parts of Ethiopia were substandard. This indicates that the health of the dairy-consuming community is not secure [7].

Crossbreeding has been widely recognized for improving milk production, reproductive efficiency, and adaptability to diverse environmental conditions. By combining the desirable traits of indigenous and exotic breeds, crossbred cows often exhibit higher milk yields, better disease resistance, and improved feed conversion efficiency compared to local breeds [8].

Damot Pulasa district is known for having more crossbred dairy cows. However, no comprehensive studies have been conducted on the crossbred dairy cows’ feed resources, productivity, and buttermilk quality across the District. Assessment of the existing feed resources, feeding and productivity performances of crossbred cows under the farmers’ management is important in order to identify appropriate development interventions to enhance feed availability and performance of crossbred cows. But, no research work had been conducted to see the scenario in Damot Pulasa district. Therefore, this study was conducted to assess the feed resources, productivity, and buttermilk quality of crossbred dairy cows in Damot Pulasa district.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Study Area

Damot Pulasa is one of district in Wolaita zone Southern Ethiopia region. It is Part of the Wolaita Zone bordered on the east and south by Damot Gale, on the west by the Boloso Sore, and on the north by the Zone. The district has two agro-ecologies, that is midland 96% and highland (4%). The Woreda was known by many livestock, comprising cattle 78,484, sheep 19,163, goat 1527 poultry 120,190 and equine 2488. It is about 25 km from Wolaita Sodo to Northwest. Latitude $7^{°}{0}^{\prime }{59}^{″}$ N and Longitude ${38}^{°}{21}^{\prime }{21}^{″}$ 21°E [9].

2.2. Sampling Techniques and Sample Size Determination

Multistage purposive and random sampling techniques were used for this study. In the first stage, the district was stratified into two based on distance from the district town. These were areas close to the district town (≤ 5 km) and areas far from the district town (> 5 km). In the second stage, three kebeles from each area making a total of six were selected purposively based on crossbred cattle population and road accessibility. Thirdly, households having at least three crossbred dairy cattle were identified and listed in each kebeles. Lastly, respondent households were selected randomly from the list. The sample size was determined by using the Cochran formula [10]. Accordingly, 100 households were used for data collection. A Total of 25 buttermilk samples (15 from households and 10 from the open market) were collected and analyzed for their buttermilk quality.

2.3. Data Collection Method

A structured questionnaire interview was used to gather data on livestock holding, feed and feeding practices, productive and reproductive performance of crossbred dairy cows, and problems related to crossbred dairy cow production. In addition, buttermilk quality analysis was conducted on milk samples collected from households and the open market.

2.4. Buttermilk Quality Analysis

Buttermilk samples (15 from households and 10 from the open market) were taken randomly and transported to the Arba Minch University microbial biotechnology laboratory for analysis. Total bacterial count was performed according to National Standard Methods Standard Operational Procedure of Food [11] for milk and milk products. A serial dilution of 10⁻¹ up to 10⁻⁷ was prepared using sterile peptone water. One mL of each serially diluted butter and cheese samples were taken and inoculated onto the sterile petri-dish plates. After autoclaving and cooling of the media at 45°C in water bath, 15 mL of standard plate count (SPC) agar was poured onto the plates which contained inoculum, and then the plates were inverted and incubated at 37°C for 24–48 h. Plates which contain between 30 and 300 colonies were selected. Then, the colony counts were undertaken according to Marth [12] by using digital colony counter. Yeast and mold counts expressed as Colony Forming Units (CFUs) per gram or milliliter was determined. One mL of dilution was poured on a Petri dish and molten dilutions were surface-plated on Potato Dextrose Agar (PDA). The dried plates were then incubated at 25°C for 3–5 days. Colonies with a blue-green color are counted as yeasts and molds [13]. For determination of Enterobacteriaceae dilution of the milk samples followed by plating on a Violet Red Bile Agar (VRBA) and incubating at 37°C for 24 h, then counting the colonies to calculate the Enterobacteriaceae count per milliliter of milk [14]. The pH of the milk samples was determined in the laboratory using a digital pH meter [15].

2.5. Data Analysis

The collected data was checked for normality, analyzed by the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS), version 26 [16]. Statistical variations considered significantly different at $p<0.05$. Independent sample t-test was employed to see the effect of residence location and butter milk sampling points on the productivity of crossbred dairy cows and buttermilk quality, respectively. An index was calculated to provide overall ranking on the opportunities and constraints of crossbred dairy cattle production. The model used to analyze the quantitative data was: Yij = µ + αi + ɛij; Where Yij = the response variable. µ = overall mean, αi = fixed effect of location for survey (i = ≤ 5 km or > 5 km to district town) or buttermilk sampling place (Household level, open market), ɛij = residual error.

3. Results

3.1. Crossbred Cattle Herd Size and Composition

The mean overall crossbred cattle herd size and compositions were significantly higher in areas 5 km away from the town than in areas less than 5 km from the town (Table 1). A significant difference ($p<0.05$) in cattle numbers across residence areas except for crossbred bulls and heifers exists.

Table 1

Crossbred cattle herd size (Mean ± SEM) and composition.

Variables	Residence area distance from district town		Overall (N = 100)	$p$ value
	≤ 5 km (n = 50)	> 5 km (n = 50)
Crossbred cow	1.22 ± 0.41a	1.00 ± 0.00b	1.11 ± 0.2	0.001
Crossbred bull	0.08 ± 0.27	0.06 ± 0.24	0.07 ± 0.25	0.699
Crossbred heifer	0.74 ± 0.48	0.60 ± 0.49	0.67 ± 0.48	0.157
Crossbred calf	1.16 ± 0.37a	1.00 ±0 .00b	1.08 ± 0.18	0.004
Total crossbred cattle	3.20 ± 0.96a	2.66 ± 0.73b	2.93 ± 0.84	0.001

Note: N = total number of respondents, n = number of respondents in each residence area, km = kilometers.

^a,bMeans with different superscripts in a row are significantly different.

3.2. Major Available Feed Resources for Crossbred Dairy Cattle in the Study Areas

Available feed resources are presented in Table 2. Natural pasture was the first ranked feed resource, followed by crop residues and non-conventional feeds.

Table 2

Types of major feed resources in the study area.

Feed Source	Residence area distance from district town
	≤ 5 km (n = 50)		> 5 km (n = 50)
	Index	Rank	Index	Rank
Natural pasture	0.26	1	0.36	1
Crop residues	0.25	2	0.31	2
Improved forage	0.13	4	0.11	4
Concentrate	0.13	5	0.07	5
Non-conventional feed	0.2	3	0.12	3
Crop after math	0.02	6	0.01	6

Note: n = number of respondents, km = kilometer.

3.3. Feeding Management of Crossbred Dairy Cows in the Study Areas

The result indicated significant differences ($p<0.05$) in feeding practice across residence areas (Table 3). Crossbred dairy cows feeding practices in areas close to the district town mainly depend on grazing, supplementation, and stall feeding. While in areas far from the district town feeding heavily depend on grazing with supplementing at night time. Most of the households provided concentrated feed once a day. The less frequent provision of concentrate feed supplementation might be due to its higher price.

Table 3

Feeding practices of crossbred dairy cattle in study.

Variables	Residence area distance from district town		Overall (n = 100)	$p$ value
	≤ 5 km (n = 50)	< 5 km (n = 50)
Stall feeding	29 (58.0)	2 (4.0)	31 (31.0)	0.001
Grazing with supplementation	21 (42.0)	48 (96.0)	69 (69.0)
Group feeding	10 (20.0)	31 (62.0)	41 (41.0)	0.001
Feed individually	40 (80.0)	19 (38.0)	59 (59.0)
Concentrate feeding frequency
Never	3 (6.0)	5 (10.0)	8 (16.0)	0.001
Occasionally	4 (8.0)	21 (42.0)	25 (25.0)
Once per day	16 (32.0)	26 (52.0)	42 (42.0)
Twice per day	12 (24.0)	3 (6.0)	15 (15.0)
Three times per day	11 (22.0)	6 (12.0)	17 (17.0)
Once at every two days	4 (8.0)	2 (4.0)	6 (6.0)

Note: n = number of respondents, km = kilometer.

3.4. Productivity of Crossbred Dairy Cows in Study Areas

3.4.1. Age at First Service

The age at first service of crossbred heifers in the study area was 32.62 ± 3.81 months (Table 4). Significantly longer months of age at service were recorded for heifers in areas > 5 km away from the town than those areas near (< 5 km) to the town.

Table 4

Productivity of crossbred dairy cow in the study area.

Variables	Residence area distance from district town		Overall	$p$ value
	≤ 5 km (n = 50)	> 5 km (n = 50)
Age at first service	28.88 ± 3.92b	36.36 ± 3.70a	32.62 ± 3.81	< 0.001
Number of services per conception	1.36 ± 0.48	1.48 ± 0.50	1.42 ± 0.49	0.260
Age at first calving	38.21 ± 4.16b	45.91 ± 3.50a	42.06 ± 3.83	< 0.001
Calving interval	14.78 ± 1.52b	17.76 ± 2.20a	16.27 ± 1.86	< 0.001
Day open	5.46 ± 1.52b	7.8 ± 2.2a	6.63 ± 1.86	< 0.001
Lactation length	9.10 ± 1.32	8.92 ± 1.39	9.01 ± 1.35	0.511
Mean daily milk yield	5.01 ± 0.8a	3.63 ± 1.01b	4.32 ± 0.90	< 0.001
Early lactation milk yield	6.36 ± 0.1a	4.78 ± 1.20b	5.57 ± 0.65	< 0.001
Mid lactation milk yield	4.90 ± 0.89a	3.45 ± 1.13b	4.18 ± 1.01	< 0.001
Late lactation milk yield	3.88 ± 0 0.73a	2.68 ± 0 0.90b	3.3 ± 0.82	< 0.001

Note: n = number of respondents; km = kilometer.

^a,bMeans with different superscripts in a row are significantly different.

3.4.2. Age at First Calving

The average age at first calving in the study area was 42.06 ± 3.83 months. Significantly longer months of age at first calving were observed in areas 5 km away from the town (45.91 ± 3.5 months) than in areas less than 5 km from the town (38.21 ± 4.16 months). This variation across residence areas might be due to variations in feeding management and health care practices.

3.4.3. Number of Service Per Conception

The overall mean number of service per conception in study area was 1.42 ± 0.49. The number of service per conception across residence area was not significantly different ($p>0.05$).

3.4.4. Days Open

The overall mean day open in the study area was 6.63 ± 1.86 months. Significantly longer days open were observed in areas 5 km away from the town (7.8 ± 2.2 months) than areas less than 5 km from the town (5.46 ± 1.52 months). This outcome may differ due to feed availability, and other management techniques used to distinguish between those breeds during open days.

3.4.5. Calving Interval (CI)

The mean calving interval varies ($p<0.05$) across residence areas. Significantly higher calving interval was observed in areas 5 km away from the town (17.76 ± 2.2 months) than in areas less than 5 km from the town (14.78 ± 1.52 months).

3.4.6. Lactation Length and Milk Yield

The overall mean lactation length recorded in the current study was 9.01 ± 1.35 months.

Significantly higher mean daily milk yield was observed in areas less than or equal 5 km from the town (5.01 ± 0.8 L/cow/day) than in areas 5 km away from the town (3.63 ± 1.01). This variation across residence areas might be due to feeding management, breeding management, and healthcare variation.

3.5. Microbiology of Butter Milk in the Study Area

3.5.1. Total Bacterial Count (TBC)

Total bacterial count (TBC), Entrerobactercea, yeast and mold count (YMC) and pH of buttermilk are presented in Table 5. The mean TBC of buttermilk samples collected from the open market was significantly ($p<0.05$) higher than the mean TBC of buttermilk at the household level.

Table 5

Microbial load (log cfu/mL) of buttermilk in the study area.

Variables	Buttermilk sampling points		Overall	$p$ value
	Household level	Open market
TBC	5.50 ± 1.19b	7.03 ± 1.19a	6.26 ± 1.19	0.006
Enterobacteriaceae	3.93 ±0 .67b	4.91 ± 0.65a	4.42 ± 0.66	0.002
Yeast and mold	4.32 ±0 .42b	5.70 ± 1.15a	5.01 ± 0.78	< 0.001
pH	4.01 ± 0.95b	4.66 ±0 .41a	4.33 ± 0.25	< 0.001

^a–bmeans in the same row with different superscripts are significantly different ($p<0.05$).

3.5.2. Enterobacteriaceae, Yeast and Mold

Buttermilk samples obtained from the open market had significantly higher Entrobacteriaceae counts than samples collected from households.

3.5.3. pH of Butter Milk

The overall mena ph value of the buttermilk test in the present study was 4.33 ± 0.25, and the mean pH was significantly different ($p<0.05$) between buttermilk from the household level and the open market. Generally, the pH value obtained from the current study was out of the recommended range for raw butter cow’s milk (4.4–4.8). This might be due to further contamination due to transportation, the sale place being in an open market, and the absence of cooling facilities.

3.6. Constraints of Crossbred Dairy Cattle Production in the Study Area

Constraints on crossbred dairy cattle production in the study area are listed in Table 6. Feed shortage, land shortage, and lack of capital were the first three ranked constraints. Even if some farmers are aware of the importance of improved technologies that can offer them higher returns than their conventional practices, most of the poor farmers do not have the financial means (capital shortage) required to acquire the associated technological inputs.

Table 6

Constraints of crossbred dairy cattle production in the study area.

Constraint	Residence area distance from district town
	≤ 5 km (n = 50)		> 5 km (n = 50)
	Index	Rank	Index	Rank
Feed shortage	0.40	1	0.30	1
Land shortage	0.30	2	0.23	2
Health problem	0.09	4	0.06	5
Lack of awareness	0.02	5	0.06	5
Breeding problem	0.011	6	0.14	4
Market problem	0.010	7	0.04	7
Lack of capital	0.15	3	0.17	3

Note: n = number of respondent, km = kilometer.

4. Discussion

The study followed a cross-sectional collection of data and was carried out in a specific district of southern Ethiopia. A significantly higher ($p<0.05$) number of crossbred cattle are reared by farmers living close to the district town. Demissu, Haile and Ayantu [17] also reported lower (2) and higher (4.6) number of crossbred cattle respectively in rural and peri-urban dairy production systems in Bako-Tibe District, Ethiopia. The major feed resources in Soro district, Southern Ethiopia were natural pasture, crop residues, concentrate and improved forages [18]. Similarly, natural pasture, crop residues, crop aftermath grazing and fallow land were reported as the major available feeds for dairy cattle in Chencha District, Southern Ethiopia [19]. These feed types are common in almost all agro-ecologies of Ethiopia.

Average ages at first service of 18.7 ± 3.7 and 18.7 ± 3.5 months were reported for cross-breed cattle in Bishoftu and Akaki, respectively [20]. Age at first service (AFS), age at first calving (AFC), calving interval (CI), days open (DO) and number of service per conception (NSC) for Crossbred dairy cattle at Holetta Agricultural Research were reported as 26.8 months, 37.4 months, 476 days, 197 days and 1.8, respectively [21]. Similarly, age at first service (AFS), age at first calving (AFC), number of services per conception (NSC), calving interval (CI) and days open (DO) reported respectively as 29.2 ± 0.2 months, 39.8 ± 0.2 months, 1.76 ± 0.4, 13.2 ± 0.3 months and 94.3 ± 4.3 days for crossbred dairy cows in Ethiopia’s sub humid tropical environments [22].

The current finding was lower than the result of Hunduma [23] who reported that service per conception of 2.5 around Addis Ababa. The lower service per conception might be due to failure in heat detection, the mating method and the body condition of the cows. Kumar and Tkui [24] found a somewhat similar finding, stating that in Mekelle town, there were 1.5 services per conception. The longer CI of crossbred dairy cows might be due to a feed shortage due to high feed prices and inadequate feed components. Lactation and daily milk yields of respectively 2031 ± 20.9 and 6.4 ± 0.06 noted for crossbred dairy cows [25]. Differences in performances of cows such as AFS, AFC, NSC, CI and DO might be due to the variation in agro-ecology, feed availability, and cattle management practices by rural households. The result from the current study clearly presents the productivity status of crossbred cows in the area under farmers’ management practices. This could be used as scientific information for policy makers, government and non-government organizations working on the dairy sector to devise development interventions in milk production endeavors of the study area and country at large.

The average counts of total bacteria, Enterobacteriaceae are higher than the acceptable value of < 10 cfu/gm [26]. These differences could be attributed to the wide variation in hygienic handling during milking, processing, storage and transport to market. The higher total bacterial count (TBC) of the buttermilk from the open market might be due to the possibility of contamination during transportation and marketing in an open area (without shade), the use of containers that have not been properly cleaned, the adulteration of buttermilk with water, and the absence of cooling facilities at buttermilk buying and selling points. The current result is higher than the permissible limit of 1 × 10 to the fifth bacteria per mL [27]. This indicates that buttermilk from different sources is substandard. Total bacterial and yeast and mold counts of 7.00 ± 0.17 and 5.10 ± 0.41 reported for milk collected from Jima Town [28]. Higher aerobic mesophilic bacterial and Yeast and mold counts of 9.0 and 9.2 (log cfu/mL) also noted for cow milk in Assosa District, Ethiopia [29]. High levels of yeast and mold in buttermilk indicate that improper handling of the raw buttermilk resulted in contamination with air, dust, soil, and other pollutants. The higher YMC observed might be attributed to contamination from the air, storage temperature, humidity, the containers, poor hygienic conditions followed by the producers, and poor personal hygiene of individuals.

Increasing use of agro-industrial by-products and commercial concentrate mix, hay, non-conventional feeds, purchasing green feeds and reducing herd size were the strategies adopted for coping with feed scarcity [30].

5. Conclusion

Natural pastures, crop residues, and non-conventional feed resources are the major feed resources for crossbred dairy cattle. The milk yield of crossbred dairy cows in the residential areas close to the town is much higher than those far away from the town. Higher overall TBC, Enterobacteriaceae, yeast and mold counts of butter milk were recorded at open markets. Increasing awareness of dairy producers on improved feed production, conservation and cattle management practices recommended.

Ethics Statement

All the respondent households were informed about the objectives of the study. They were verbally agreed to participate as part informed consent.

Funding

This research was financed by Arba Minch University.

Acknowledgments

Our deepest gratitude is extended to Arba Minch University for funding the study.

References

[1] Central Statistical Agency, "Agricultural Sample Survey on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics (Private Peasant Holdings), Ethiopia," 2021.

[2] FAO, Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change in the Post-Copenhagen Process, An FAO Information Note, 2010.

[3] D. Selamawit, M. Yeshambel, A. Bimrew, "Assessment of Livestock Production System and Feed Balance in Watersheds of North Achefer District, Ethiopia," Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development, vol. 111 no. 1, pp. 175-190, DOI: 10.12895/jaeid.20171.574, 2017.

[4] G. M. Welay, D. G. Tedla, G. G. Teklu, "A Preliminary Survey of Major Diseases of Ruminants and Management Practices in Western Tigray Province, Northern Ethiopia," Bio Medical Central Veterinary Research, vol. 14 no. 1,DOI: 10.1186/s12917-018-1621-y, 2018.

[5] A. Vastolo, F. Serrapica, D. Cavallini, I. Fusaro, A. S. Atzori, M. Todaro, "Editorial: Alternative and Novel Livestock Feed: Reducing Environmental Impact," Frontiers in Veterinary Science, vol. 11,DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1441905, 2024.

[6] T. Muleta, "The Microbiology of Ethiopian Milk and Milk Products: Review," International Journal of current research, vol. 8 no. 07, pp. 34606-34611, 2016.

[7] A. Bereda, Z. Yilma, A. Nurfeta, "Handling, Processing and Utilization of Milk and Milk Products in Ezha District of the Gurage Zone, Southern Ethiopia," Journal of Agricultural Biotechnology and Sustainable Development, vol. 5 no. 6, pp. 91-98, DOI: 10.5897/JABSD2013.0206, 2013.

[8] G. S. Aboagye, "Phenotypic and Genetic Parameters in Cattle Populations in Ghana," Readings on Some Key Issues in Animal Science in Ghana, 2014.

[9] Wzfed, "Wolaita Zone Finance and Economic Development Office," Annual Report, 2018.

[10] W. G. Cochran, Sampling Techniques, 1977.

[11] Nsmsopf, "Enumeration of Bacteria by the Colony Count Technique," National Standard Methods Standard Operational Procedure of Food (NSMSOPF), 2005.

[12] E. H. Marth, Standard Methods for the Examinations of Dairy Products, 1978.

[13] G. H. Richardson, Standard Method for the Examination of Dairy Products, 1985.

[14] Y. Zelalem, "Microbial Properties of Ethiopian Marketed Milk and Milk Products and Associated Critical Points of Contamination: An Epidemiological Perspective," Epidemiology insights, vol. 15, pp. 298-322, 2012.

[15] C. B. O’Connor, Rural Dairy Technology ILRI Training Manual I, 1995.

[16] Spss, "IBM Corporation, SPSS Statistics 29. Documentation," 2022. https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/spss-statistics/29.0.0

[17] H. Demissu, D. Haile, M. Ayantu, "Dairy Cattle Production and Milk Handling Practices under Different Management Systems in Bako-Tibe District, Western Oromia, Ethiopia," Journal of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, vol. 1 no. 1,DOI: 10.20372/afnr.v1i1.608, 2023.

[18] D. Boloche, T. Wato, "Assessment of Major Dairy Cattle Feed Resource Availability and Their Chemical Composition in Soro District of Hadiya Zone, Southern Ethiopia," International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology, vol. 7 no. 4, pp. 253-264, DOI: 10.22161/ijeab.74.27, 2022.

[19] K. Yisehak, K. Adane, "Feed Resources, Feeding System and Feed Balance of Dairy Cattlein Chencha District, Southern Ethiopia," Veterinary Medicine and Science, vol. 10 no. 6,DOI: 10.1002/vms3.70019, 2024.

[20] G. Desselegn, T. Berhan, B. Gebreyohanes, "Study of Productive and Reproductive of Cross Breed Dairy Cattle Under Small Holders Management System in Bishoftu and Akaki Towns," Journal of Reproduction and Infertility, vol. 7 no. 2, pp. 41-46, 2016.

[21] K. Getahun, D. Hunde, M. Tadesse, Y. Tadesse, "Reproductive Performances of Crossbred Dairy Cattle at Holetta Agricultural Research Center," Livestock Research for Rural Development, vol. 31, 2019.

[22] B. Jalata, H. A. Goshu, T. Mediksa, D. Bekele, M. Aliye, "Reproductive Performance of Horro and Horro-Crossbred Dairy Cows in Ethiopia’s Subhumid Tropical Environments," Tropical Animal Health and Production, vol. 55 no. 5,DOI: 10.1007/s11250-023-03718-w, 2023.

[23] D. Hunduma, "The Major Reproductive Disorders of Dairy Cows in And Around Asella Town, Central Ethiopia," Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Health, vol. 5 no. 4, pp. 113-117, DOI: 10.5897/JVMAH2013.0197, 2013.

[24] N. Kumar, K. Tkui, "Reproductive Performance of Crossbred Dairy Cows in Mekelle, Ethiopia," Scientific Journal of Animal Science, vol. 3 no. 2, pp. 35-40, 2014.

[25] G. Gebregziabher, K. Skorn, A. Mauricio, S. Thanathip, "Variance Components and Genetic Parameters for Milk Production and Lactation Pattern in an Ethiopian Multi-Bred Dairy Cattle Population," Asian Australas journal of Animal Science, vol. 26, pp. 1237-1246, DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2013.13040, 2013.

[26] J. F. Mostert, P. J. Jooste, "Quality Control in the Dairy Industry," Dairy Microbiology Handbook, pp. 655-736, 2002.

[27] Ethiopian Standards Authority, Unprocessed Whole/Raw Cow Milk Specification, 2009.

[28] T. Tadesse, A. Gure, K. Kedir, "Physicochemical Properties and Microbial Load Evaluation of Raw Cow Milks of Jimma Town, Ethiopia," Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Ethiopia, vol. 37 no. 3, pp. 553-563, DOI: 10.4314/bcse.v37i3.2, 2023.

[29] A. B. Fereja, N. F. Aboretugn, N. Q. Bulti, "Determination of Microbial Hygiene Indicators of Raw Cow Milk in Assosa District, Ethiopia," Journal of Food Quality, vol. 2023,DOI: 10.1155/2023/6769108, 2023.

[30] B. Duguma, G. P. J. Janssens, "Assessment of Feed Resources, Feeding Practices and Coping Strategies to Feed Scarcity by Smallholder Urban Dairy Producers in Jimma Town, Ethiopia," Springer Plus, vol. 5 no. 1,DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-2417-9, 2016.