STATE OF THE INDUSTRY

STATE OF THE INDUSTRY Goat is the most widely-consumed meat in the world, making up almost 70 percent of the red meat eaten worldwide. In the U.S. alone, the number of goats slaughtered (for food) has doubled every ten years for the past three decades, and in 2011 Americans were consuming about one million meat goats per year. This figure is likely to rise, in part, due to the increasing numbers of immigrants coming to the U.S. The Census Bureau projects that between 1995 and 2050, Hispanics will account for 57% of the immigration into the U.S. By 2050 Hispanics will account for 25% of the U.S. population. These are compelling statistics for the goat industry as Hispanics (along with Muslims and immigrants from Caribbean countries) have traditionally been some of the largest purchasers and consumers of goat meat domestically. In addition, given the obesity epidemic this country faces (with more than one-third of adults considered obese) goat has become an attractive, healthy meat option. It has one-third fewer calories than beef and chicken and half the fat of chicken. Goat production also provides an ecologically-sound form of vegetation and pest control. A concurrent rise in the growth of the American goat-cheese industry has led to an increased supply of dairy goats in the U.S. (360,000 goats in 2011 up from 335,000 in 2007). (Reference: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service).

This section will address the myriad of issues that dairy-goat farmers face on a daily basis on the farm, including crossbreeding and breeding out of season, artificial insemination, meningeal and barber’s pole worm, biosecurity and fecal testing. Leading the On the Farm discussion will be René De Leeuw, manager of Ayers Brook Goat Dairy in Randolph, Vermont. Ayers Brook is the brainchild of Vermont Butter & Cheese’s Allison Hooper, Bob Reese and the Castanea Foundation’s Tim Storrow. It is slated to become Vermont’s largest dairy-goat operation, with 700 to 800 goats. De Leeuw, a native of Holland, has over 30 years of experience as a successful goat-farm manager. He previously worked at a large goat operation in Pine Plains, N.Y. where he managed 900 goats. Together, Hooper, Reese, Storrow and De Leeuw have plotted a new, innovative layout for Ayers Brook that includes two barns—without stalls—for the goats. The goats will also have outdoor exercise yards with small rocky clumps that De Leeuw calls “cairns,” which goats like to climb. The farm will pay great attention to genetics and will start with four breeds—Alpine, Saanens, Toggenburgs and LaMancha. Please see the reference documents in this section of your binder for information related to this discussion topic.

ON THE FARM

ON THE FARM

Scaling-­Up  New  England’s  Value  Added   Meat  Industry   Goals  and  Objectives   The goal of this project is to promote viability and vibrancy of New England’s value-added meat industry, with a focus on providing education, marketing tools, and exposure to innovation at the producer-processor nexus. Objectives Research I.

Market Analysis to determine which characteristics of the meat processing stage of the supply chain carry the highest value for marketing to the end user Market research in the Boston and New York has shown that consumers are willing to pay a premium for products that are made using environmentally friendly methods, ensure fair wages for farmers and farm workers, and have unique flavors that reflect the region where they are made. However, meat processors have not been able to capture enough of the consumer dollar to achieve profitability at a level that will expand the sector. A marketing consultant will be hired to conduct targeted key-informant interviews with buyers and distributors, and glean information on how meat processors might better market the value that they currently add (e.g. humane handling, quality and consistent cuts of meat) for any kind of meat animal, and what they can do better to increase that value, and ultimately their market share. In subsequent years, this information will be used to launch a “Know Your Processor” marketing campaign that heightens the profile of our butchers and slaughter facility owners. II. Exposure to appropriately scaled technology and process innovation at the American Association of Meat Processors (AAMP) Convention. The AAMP Convention is the annual convening of meat industry leaders. Hundreds of meat processors, service providers and suppliers gather each summer to learn about the newest technologies and current market trends. Funding will offset the costs of 5 New England processors and 2 project leads to attend the convention. Networking meetings with successful meat processing associations from across the country will demonstrate best practices for industry organization development and sustainability. New technology and process innovations will be integrated into the producer-processor workshops and the New England Meat Conference (see below). Education III. Promoting partnership and sharing innovation through Producer-Processor Workshops In 2011, three Vermont Meat Processing Task Force members partnered to offer a series of workshops that brought livestock producers and meat processors together around specific issues that impact the development of the regional meat industry. Workshop topics included achieving consistency throughout the seasons, carcass quality, humane handling, branding and third party certifications, and accessing the institutional marketplace. It became clear through these workshops that there is both strong interest in New England-produced meats, and a great value in providing networking and collaboration space for producers and processors. We witnessed producers starting to turn to processors for technical assistance, and processors turn to producers for information on market trends.

These workshops will continue to be the primary channel for education and innovation diffusion. The following workshop topics are proposed: Regulatory literacy and food safety; Dairy beef quality and profitability; Brand development and marketing plans; and Cooperatives and other aggregation models for scaling up. IV. Industry development education at the New England Meat Conference The New England Meat Conference will bring together producers, processors, distributors, chefs, technical assistance providers, government representatives, and many other industry stakeholders to network and learn from their counterparts in other states. While there are many agricultural conferences in New England, there are none that focus specifically on meat production and are regional in scale. A trade show will attract national suppliers of new technologies that may be adopted by local producers and processors. Presenters from other regions will share lessons learned from other regional food systems. Market Development V.

Scaling up supply through targeted technical assistance and matchmaking for Institutional Market Coordination The goal of the New England Beef-to-Institution (NEBI) Initiative is to increase the amount of local ground beef entering New England institutions and increase farm viability by offering access to a large-scale marketing stream. This proposal represents the launch of Phase II of NEBI marketing plan implementation: targeted state-level coordination and relationship building between meat processors and institutional buyers. State leads in each of the six states will work closely with meat processors and provide technical assistance on institutional procurement, product specifications, and supply management. The NEBI Steering Committee will participate in the following activities: • Attend two trainings: 1) The state of the meat processing industry: opportunities and challenges for the next phase of development; and 2) Advanced institutional procurement: regulations and best practices for selling meat to institutions • Build relationships between meat processors, institutional buyers and distributors through strategic partnership meetings and one-on-one matchmaking • Monitor and evaluate the pilot project selected to receive the mini-grant in Phase I • Participate in monthly conference calls • Track success of the NEBI initiative VI.

The creation of a New England branded meat program which promotes locally produced, source-verified meat for large-scale wholesale and institutional buyers. Based on the results of the NEBI marketing study, a processor-driven model will be most effective at opening the institutional market, as processors are able to aggregate the quantities of meat demanded by these larger buyers. However, few slaughter facilities have experience developing a branded product. A branding specialist will be hired to create a logo and develop the value proposition that resonates best with consumers. Point of sale material will be developed to spur demand for local meat in institutional settings, and identify New England as a premier source for high quality, value-added meat. Two stakeholder meetings will be held, bringing together meat processors, distributors, and institutional buyers to make final decisions on the brand.

Work  Plan  and  Timeline   Task Marketing Analysis Issue RFP for Marketing Contractor1 Select Marketing Contractor

Partners Responsible

VAAFM (lead), Vermont Meat Processing Task Force VAAFM (lead), Vermont Meat Processing Task Force 2 Interviews conducted Marketing Contractor Preliminary results reported at Marketing Contractor Meat Conference Marketing Report Published Marketing Contractor Dissemination and Outreach VAAFM (lead), Vermont Meat Processing Task Force Develop Campaign VAAFM (lead), Vermont Implementation Plan Meat Processing Task Force Industry Research at Association of Meat Processors (AAMP) Convention Recruit Processors to attend VAAFM (lead), New England Convention Partners Pre-trip Orientation VAAFM Attend Convention Processors and project leads (VAAFM, NOFA-VT) Post-trip evaluation VAAFM Key findings implemented VAAFM, NOFA-VT, UVMinto Producer-Processor Extension Workshop 3 Producer-Processor Workshops Develop content and schedule VAAFM, NOFA-VT, UVMfor workshops Extension Outreach to producers and VAAFM, NOFA-VT, UVMprocessors Extension Workshop 1 held VAAFM, NOFA-VT, UVMExtension

Date Complete Nov 2012 Jan 2013 Feb 2013 March 2013 June 2013 July 2013 September 2013

February 2013 May 2013 July 2013 August 2013 August 2013

January 2013 March 2013 May 2013

1 Desired qualifications for marketing contractor include: experience in the agriculture or food sector; strong experience with consumer research methodologies; ability to work as part of a multi-stakeholder process. 2 Interviews will include questions on consumer values related to meat processing (e.g. humane handling, artisanal quality cutting, fair prices to the processor, etc.)

Workshop 2 held VAAFM, NOFA-VT, UVMExtension Workshop 3 held VAAFM, NOFA-VT, UVMExtension Project evaluation VAAFM, NOFA-VT, UVMExtension New England Meat Conference Save the Date sent with VAAFM/NOFA-VT (lead), location finalized NEMC Steering Committee Keynote speaker and VAAFM/NOFA-VT (lead), presenters recruited3 NEMC Steering Committee Trade show exhibitors VAAFM/NOFA-VT (lead), recruited NEMC Steering Committee Workshops finalized VAAFM/NOFA-VT (lead), NEMC Steering Committee PR and Outreach campaign VAAFM/NOFA-VT (lead), NEMC Steering Committee Targeted recruitment to VAAFM/NOFA-VT (lead), producers and processors NEMC Steering Committee Conference VAAFM/NOFA-VT (lead), NEMC Steering Committee Post-Conference evaluation VAAFM/NOFA-VT (lead), NEMC Steering Committee Institutional Market Coordination Finalize NEBI Steering VAAFM Committee Monthly Networking Calls VAAFM (lead), NEBI Steering Committee Direct TA to processors, NEBI Steering Committee institutional buyers, and distributors Monitor and evaluate pilot NEBI Steering Committee programs and publicize success stories State Lead Training 1 VAAFM (lead), NEBI Steering Committee Design NEBI pre-conference VAAFM (lead), NEBI session for NEMC Steering Committee State Lead Training 2 VAAFM (lead), NEBI

July 2013 September 2013 October 2013

November 2012 December 2012 January 2012 January 2013 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013

November 2012 Throughout grant period Throughout grant period Throughout grant period December 2012 January 2013 February 2013

3 Qualifications for presenters and keynote speaker include: strong experience in the meat industry, or fields related to meat industry development, including marketing, distribution, leadership development, business management, supply chain management, or network development.

Pre-conference session at NEMC Mid-point evaluation and outcome measurement Interview suppliers and buyers to evaluate success of project and determine next steps New England branded meat program Issue RFP for Branding Contractor Select Branding Contractor

Steering Committee VAAFM (lead), NEBI Steering Committee VAAFM (lead), NEBI Steering Committee NEBI Steering Committee

VAAFM (lead), NEBI Steering Committee VAAFM (lead), NEBI Steering Committee Stakeholder meeting I (at New VAAFM (lead), NEBI England Meat Conference) Steering Committee, Branding Contractor Draft Logo and value Branding Contractor proposition developed Stakeholder Meeting II Branding Contractor Logo and Branding materials Branding Contractor finalized; Soft Launch of Brand Official Launch of Brand VAAFM (lead), NEBI Steering Committee, Branding Contractor Evaluation and Outcome VAAFM (lead), NEBI measurement Steering Committee, Branding Contractor

March 2013 June 2013 October 2013

January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 July 2013 August 2013 November 2013

Project  Deliverables   1. Marketing Report outlining how meat processors might better market the value that they currently add (e.g. humane handling, quality and consistent cuts of meat) for any kind of meat animal, and what they can do better to increase that value, and ultimately their market share. In subsequent years, this information will be used to launch a “Know Your Processor” marketing campaign that heightens the profile of our butchers and slaughter facility owners. 2. Report of findings from the American Association of Meat Processors Convention 3. Logo and design for point of sale materials for New England Beef

Meningeal Worm Brain Worm - Deer Worm Paralaphostrongylus tenius

by Susan Schoenian Sheep & Goat Specialist Western Maryland Research & Education Center University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Date created or revised: 23-Oct-2007

What is it?

The meningeal worm is an internal parasite (Paralaphostrongylus tenius) of the white-tailed deer that usually completes its life cycle in the deer without causing significant problems. However, when unnatural hosts, such as sheep and goats, become infested with meningeal worm, the parasite moves into the brain and/or spinal cord and causes neurological problems that can be fatal. Llamas and alpacas are even more susceptible to meningeal worm infection than sheep or goats. Cattle are not known to be affected. Meningeal worm is not a health concern to humans. The life cycle of the meningeal worm requires terrestrial snails or slugs as intermediate hosts. White-tailed deer become infested with P. tenius by eating snails or slugs that contain the infective stage of the larvae. The larvae migrate through the deer’s gut and eventually move into the central nervous system where they mature into adults, produce eggs, and the life cycle begins again. However, when P. tenius-infected snails and slugs are ingested by aberrant hosts, the larvae migrate into the brain and/or spinal cord. The larvae do not mature into adults, but rather wander through the central nervous system causing inflammation and swelling which damages sensitive nervous tissue producing a variety of neurologic symptoms. Experimental evidence suggests that it takes 10 to 14 days for the parasite to reach the brain and/or spinal cord after the animal eats the infected snail or slug.

Symptoms

The neurologic signs observed in infected sheep and goats depend upon the number of larvae present in the nervous tissue and the portion of the brain or spinal cord that has been affected. A mild infection may produce a slight limp or weakness in one or more legs, while a more severe infection may cause an animal to be partially or completely paralyzed. When larvae migrate to the brain, they may cause blindness, head tilt, circling, disinterest in or inability to eat, or other signs that mimic brain diseases. Affected animals may get progressively worse, remain static, or in some cases improve without therapeutic involvement. In most cases, infected animals remain alert and continue to eat and drink normally.

Diagnosis

Meningeal worm infection cannot be diagnosed in the live animal. A fecal examination is not useful since sheep and goats are “dead end” hosts for the parasite and the larvae do not produce eggs or pass larvae into the feces. The parasites cannot be detected by blood testing. The only way to confirm diagnosis is to find the parasite in the nervous system, which requires a necropsy examination. Testing the cerebrospinal fluid, which requires the animal to be tranquilized or anesthetized for extraction, may help to support suspicions of brain worm infection. Thus, diagnosis of meningeal worm in the live animal is based on symptoms and clinical history. Usually animals have been grazing for at least two months and there is a history of deer in the area. Diseases which look similar to meningeal worm infection include: listeriosis, CAE, scrapie, rabies, trauma, copper deficiency, vitamin E/selenium deficiency, spinal cord or brain abscesses, or polioencephalomalacia.

Treatment

Treatment regimes usually involve high, repetitive doses of anthelmintics, along with steroids, and other supportive therapies. Many different anthelmintics (levamisol, ivermectin, albendazole, fenbendazole, thiabendazole) have been used o treat meningeal worm infection. It is believed that some anthelmintics can kill the larvae before it enters the central nervous system, while others may be able to cross the blood-brain barrier and kill the larvae regardless of its location in the body. However, it is important to note that no controlled studies have confirmed or refuted the efficacy of different treatment regimes. Nor does treatment repair damaged nervous tissue. Producers who suspect meningeal worm should contact their veterinarian for treament recommendations.

Prevention

As with other disease conditions, prevention is usually more satisfying than treatment. Unfortunately, the meningeal worm is a hard one to prevent. Reducing deer populations is usually impractical. A single deer can shed thousands of eggs per gram of feces, and the larvae are highly resistant to environmental forces. However if feasible, sheep and goats should not be pastured in areas which receive high deer utilization or removed from these pastures before the weather turns wet and cool. It may be helpful to limit sheep and goat pasturing to fields without contiguous woodlands and to pastures that are on high ground and well-drained. Controlling the intermediate hosts may be a more effective means of prevention. Sheep and goats can be fenced away from likely snail and slug habitats: ponds, swamps, wetlands, low-lying, poorly-drained fields, and woodlands. Some veterinarians advocate strategic deworming as a means of preventing infection. However, it is important to realize that regular use of anthelmintics (e.g. monthly treatments) rapidly leads to anthelmintic resistance, so while regular treatments may help to control the meningeal worm, eventually those drugs will lose their efficacy against ordinary stomach worms, which may be an even greater problem on most sheep and goat farms. References: P. tenuis - The White-tailed Deer Parasite, Michigan State University College of Veterinary Medicine and Goat Medicine (1994) by Smith and Sherman. ©Copyright 2004. Maryland Small Ruminant Page.

Fecal testing In August of 2006 a workshop on small ruminant fecal exams was held at the high school in our town. Who could miss such a convenient opportunity to learn about fun things to do with goat berries! The workshop was sponsored by the University of Vermont, the Vermont Sheep and Goat Association among others. The workshop was conducted by Dr. Anne Zajac from the Virginia/Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine. Dr Zajac has given this workshop all over the Eastern US. One of the workshop objectives was to learn how to do a fecal exam and the attendees were asked to bring fecal samples from small ruminants. So I collected some fresh goat berries from a few of our goats and along with 12 other eager students, we met in the biology lab of the Danville High School ready to learn. I had been doing our own fecal testing for over a year. The motivation to do the testing was primarily financial. After the hassle of getting fresh fecal samples to a vet, paying for the test and then, a day or two latter, being told that we don't need to treat the goat for anything; I decided that I'd take a look into goat berries myself. I went onto the Internet and “googled” in “goat fecal counting” and quickly learned that fecal testing was a pretty simple process and there are test kits and instructions readily available. I was fortunate to have a microscope handy so I ordered up a test kit and soon I was out there in the pasture following around a goat or two so I could collect some fresh berries to try out my new “toy.” The instructions in the kit were clear and within a few minutes I was looking through the microscope trying to figure out what I was seeing. To make a long story short, I could find no parasite eggs and I thought I saw a coccidia or two. I was not sure whether I was not doing things correctly or our goats were pretty much parasite free. I was quite possible that the goats were parasite free as they had been previously regularly dewormed and since we were new at raising goats our pastures were “fresh,” besides the vet had said there had been no parasites. Still, since I had not found any eggs I still was not sure that I was doing the fecal count correctly. Subsequent testing sessions found the same results, a few coccidia and no parasite eggs. The hometown fecal testing workshop provided a great opportunity to find out how my testing technique fared. So on to the workshop... The workshop started with a lecture on the whys of fecal testing, an introduction to the worms that we would be trying to find and an overview of the fecal counting procedure. Next came a lab were we learned the techniques for fecal counting. Lastly there was a short lecture on worm treatments and a free ranging discussion on what we had covered. The below information is extracted for Dr Zajac's workshop handout and my notes. Overview of fecal testing: Dr. Zajac began with a discussion why do fecal testing and what to expect from testing. She considers fecal testing to be primarily used for evaluating parasite control programs as opposed to determining if an animal should be given a dewormer. Symptoms such as bottle jaw, anemia, poor weight gain, scours are key indications of parasite problems and treatment is probably warranted regardless of fecal test results. Her view is that fecal testing is mostly useful to see if a parasite control program is working and/or to see if the parasite control drugs are still effective. In other words fecal testing to see if goats should be dewormed is backwards. A pest control program comes first and if you suspect there are still parasite problems fecal testing would help identify problems that need to be dealt with. What do you see in fecal exams: The most important parasites are Strongylids, (ex: barber pole worms)and coccidia. Tapeworms are

less important and other types of worms are not important or non-parasitic. The workshop did not cover tape worms as diagnosing tape worms is usually not done by fecal testing. If the important parasites are present then any other worms will contribute to any problems. Treating the important parasites should be sufficient to take care of the other parasites. Fecal testing will not help in diagnosing parasites such as Lungworms, Deer (meningeal) Worm, and Giardia. Life as a worm: The common parasitic worms all have the same life cycle. The adult worms live in the GI tract and produce eggs that are passed in manure. The eggs hatch into larvae that eat and molt a number of times in the feces until they become potentially infective. This first stage takes at least a week and more time in cold weather. The larvae move onto grass and sheep and goats ingest the larvae. Dew or rain wet the grass which helps the larvae get higher in the grass. Dr Zajac was asked about the idea that the worms will not get higher than two inches up the grass. She responded that the dew or rain can bend the grass so that the worms can end up much higher than two inches off the ground. The larvae in the GI tract take 2-4 days to mature into adult worms to complete the cycle. The eggs and larvae are viable for weeks and months and some can survive cycles of drying or freezing and thawing. Some worms survive the winter as eggs or larvae in the pasture land. Severe cold can kill the eggs or larvae but eggs can be viable for at least a year. Some worms winter over in the host as larvae in a dormant state which means there may be no eggs in fecal samples collected in winter. Dr Zajac noted that deworming animals in the winter was not recommended as this practice would tend to select drug resistant worms. Finding Worms aka Fecal Counting Procedure: Of course you start with the products of the South end of a goat. It is best if you can identify the goat and if the samples are fresh. Fecal samples that sit on the ground can be invaded by other critters that also like goat berries but are not helpful in fecal counting. The sample can be stored in a plastic bag with the goats identification written on the bag . The air in the plastic bag can removed by wrapping the bag tightly in tinfoil and the bag can be refrigerated for up to a week and still be “fresh.”. You will need about 4 grams of goat feces (approx. 1-2 tablespoons) for each goat that you would like to get a fecal count. Make sure you get plenty of berries, better too much than too little. The next step is to do a fecal flotation. Rather than attempt to go into detail on the procedure of doing the flotation here are a couple of things that might be handy to know. Small paper or plastic cups and plastic spoons are good for preparing the fecal sample as well as cheap and readily disposable. A perfectly good fecal flotation solution can be easily made with table salt and water. Use a glass jar or plastic bottle (12 ounce minimum for 6-8 goats) mostly filled with warm tap water and keep adding salt until some of the salt stays undissolved, i.e. the solution is saturated. Let the solution stand overnight and decant off some of the solution for use. A McMasters Slide makes examining the fecal sample very easy as the flotation step is done in the slide itself. Again it is more important to be consistent in your technique than to have fancy lab ware. Also it is easy (and good) to avoid touching any of the fecal solution by taking your time and being careful. Soap and water are normally all that is needed to clean up. Once we had the fecal sample in the McMasters Slide under the microscope we tried to find some interesting parasites. I had brought fecal samples from five goats and we processed all the samples. None of the five samples had more than an occasional coccidia and no one could find any worm eggs. We were able to see a couple of eggs from a fecal sample from a sheep so at least I got to see an actual worm egg. I did feel somewhat more confident about my testing technique but for better or worse, it

would have been nice to see an egg or two in the samples from our goats. Dr Zajac did comment that she usually sees more parasites in other workshops than she did seen in this workshop. She thought that possibly our long cold Northern Vermont winters may be helpful in keeping the worms from building up in our pastures. Dealing with worms: After we learned how to count worms Dr Zajac discussed treating worms. She noted that a lot of research, hers included, is sponsored by the companies the produce worm medicine. These companies are very concerned about worms developing resistance to worm medicines and are supporting research into parasite management methods that reduce reliance on drugs. If any one worm medicine became ineffective due to drug resistant worms then the sales of that drug would collapse and that would not be good for the drug company. There are three groups of worm control drugs in common use: 1) Benzimidazole (Panacure/Valblazen) 2) Macroldes (Ivermec) and 3) Nictonic Agnost (Tranisal/Levisoe) and the worms can develop resistance to the drugs usually in one group. Any worming program based on any one of the groups of worm control drugs can use fecal counting to determine if worms are developing resistance to the group of drugs. The ability of individual animals to tolerate worms can vary widely thus a goat with a “high” worm count may show no symptoms such as anemia while another goat with a “low” worm count may have clear symptoms of worms. Dr Zajac had no easy formula for dealing with worms and suggested that each goat farmer needed be aware of as many issues as possible and develop a parasite control program consistent with herd size, feeding program and locale. Fecal testing is mostly a tool to help understand the effectiveness of a parasite control program. So here we are about a year later. We do an occasional fecal count and have yet to find any worms. We do check the goats eyelid color looking for signs of worm induced anemia. We have an occasional kid that has diarrhea and we usually give it some yogurt and will do a fecal exam if the problem does not clear up within a few days. I suspect that some summer down road that we will start to have a worm problem and we will have start an aggressive drug based worm control program. But right now, so far so good... This Internet site as a lot of interesting links related to fecal testing as well much other parasite related links: http://www.sheepandgoat.com/parasitecontrol.html

Introduction to a Meat Goat Quality Assurance Program and HACCP Roger Merkel Langston University

Biosecurity PPP #1 - Establish a biosecurity plan for your farm Consider your production operation and devise a plan to ensure your animals are protected from diseases entering your herd. Potential ways in which diseases could enter your farm include: visitors, feed deliveries, new animal acquisition, and show animals returning to the herd, stray animals, rodents, birds, and others. The potential risk from these various areas should be examined in the context of your production situation. Plans should be made to protect animals from identified risks and to deal with animals that become ill so that diseases occurring on your farm are not transmitted beyond your farm gate. Biosecurity PPP #2 - Minimize or avoid contact between your animals and animals not on your farm Many diseases are transmitted through animal to animal contact. Avoiding contact with animals not on your farm will reduce disease outbreaks. Consider the location of pastures and grazing areas in relation to your neighbors’ animals. If new facilities are planned, consider the location of neighboring livestock barns and pens. Do not build facilities in or near drainage areas from livestock facilities. If your animals are very valuable, for example breeding males whose semen is collected for sale; consider double fencing along adjoining property lines to further protect them from neighboring animals. At exhibitions, house animals using solid partitions to minimize contact. Control stray animals, both domestic and wild. Maintain quarantine procedures. Do not haul other animals with your own and clean mud and manure from livestock trailers. Biosecurity PPP #3 - Establish a quarantine protocol for animals entering your herd Preventing diseases entering your herd from new animals begins during purchase. Be sure to ask the seller for health and production records on animals you plan to buy. Ask about the disease or herd health program followed. Also, look at the whole herd, not just the few animals you plan to purchase. This will give an indication of the health program followed. Upon arrival at your farm, place new animals in quarantine for a minimum of 30 days. Consult a veterinarian for a quarantine vaccination and deworming protocol and any diagnostic tests that should be performed. Buckets, shovels, fencing, etc., used in the quarantine area should not be moved and used in the general herd. Feed and care for quarantined animals last and do not re-enter your herd before changing clothing and washing boots to prevent carrying diseases from new animals to your herd. As an example, if a quarantined animal has a caseous lymphadenitis abscess that bursts, a person may inadvertently step in the pus from that abscess and carry that on his or her boots. If that person then reenters the farm herd, he may contaminate the ground or other animals. Quarantine animals upon return from exhibitions or fairs if they have had contact with other animals. Follow the same quarantine guidelines for these animals as with purchased animals. Do not haul animals other than your own to and from shows.

Biosecurity PPP #4 - Establish a protocol for visitors to your farm Many visitors to your farm will likely be producers themselves. To ensure that diseases are kept from entering your farm area, establish a protocol for any visitors and their vehicles. Control traffic entering your farm and have a separate parking area or ensure that vehicles are clean of mud and manure. This includes livestock trailers, feed delivery trucks, and veterinary vehicles. Consider having disposable boots available for visitors who wish to tour your facilities and herd. Alternatively, have a footbath with disinfectant where visitors can clean their shoes before and after seeing your animals. Have a wash basin or facility for visitors to wash their hands before and after handling animals. Explain that your procedures protect not only your herd, but theirs as well.

Biosecurity PPP #5 - Do not allow persons who have had contact with livestock in foreign countries on your farm, or bring clothing or other items from them to your farm, for a period of 5 days after their arrival in the U.S. Largely in response to outbreaks of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in other countries, the USDA published guidelines for persons from, or who have traveled to, foreign countries where FMD is present. These persons are encouraged not to have contact with livestock for 5 days after entering the U.S. Some states or institutions, such as Langston University, recommend a 10-day waiting period. The virus causing FMD can be carried in hair and nasal passages, clothing, luggage, shoes, etc. Following this PPP helps safeguard the entire U.S. livestock industry. Outbreaks of FMD, while not a threat to humans, result in the necessary destruction of all infected and potentially infected animals with enormous industry and economic consequences. Preventing or minimizing contact between foreign travelers and your herd for the period after their arrival may also prevent the spread of other diseases as well. Posted by NWCA at 22.4.10 Links to this post

Artificial Insemination of Dairy Goats Guide D-704 Reviewed by Chris Allison and G. Robert Hagevoort1

Cooperative Extension Service • College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences This publication is scheduled to be updated and reissued 04/14.

INTRODUCTION Artificial insemination (AI) involves collection of semen from a buck and transfer of the semen to the reproductive tract of the doe. Does can be inseminated with either fresh semen or with commercially available frozen semen. This publication discusses the use of frozen semen to artificially inseminate does. Reasons the dairy goat producer may consider using AI include the following: 1. Eliminate or reduce the cost of maintaining bucks. 2. Increase the rate of genetic improvement. 3. Increase the number of does to which a buck could be bred. 4. Breed several does the same day through use of AI and estrous synchronization. Whatever the reasons for using AI, it is important that the producer fully understands the reproductive cycle of the doe and correct semen handling and insemination procedures. REPRODUCTIVE CYCLE OF THE DOE In general, dairy goats are seasonal breeders. The breeding season is initiated by decreasing daylight and runs from late August to January in the United States. Estrous cycles can be initiated out of season by controlling artificial lights to simulate decreasing daylight. The goat’s average estrous cycle is 21 days. However, individual does can have either longer or shorter intervals between heat periods. For this reason, it is important to keep individual reproductive records on each doe. The duration of heat or estrus is typically 24 to 36 hours, with ovulation occurring near the end of estrus. HEAT DETECTION A producer’s heat detection program is an important factor in determining whether an artificial insemination

program will succeed. Knowing when a doe comes into estrus lets the technician time insemination so it more nearly coincides with ovulation. Symptoms of does in heat are: 1. Does that are unusually aggressive, noisy, or active. 2. Females that stand to be mounted by herdmates. 3. Decreased appetite and milk production. 4. A clear mucous discharge from the vulva. It is important to establish a heat detection schedule during the breeding season. Does that are to be inseminated should be observed twice daily for 15–20 minutes. Early morning and late afternoon are good times to observe estrus. Observing does for heat detection only during chore time may result in estrus ewes being overlooked because of their change in behavior as they anticipate feeding. Accurate records should be maintained, including time of heat, length of heat, and length of time between heat periods. These records will help a producer accurately anticipate and detect heat in individual does, and time insemination with ovulation. TIME OF INSEMINATION As discussed earlier, a doe is a seasonal breeder that cycles about every 21 days. The average heat or estrus will last from 24 to 36 hours, with ovulation occurring near the end of estrus. The standard AI recommendation is to breed does two (or three) times at 12-hr intervals. This breeding schedule increases the possibility of a healthy sperm contacting a healthy ovum. It is essential that does be inseminated before ovulation so that sperm cells can undergo a process called capacitation. If records establish the average length of a particular doe’s heat period, one can breed the doe once using the schedule shown in Table 1 and probably achieve satisfactory fertility.

Respectively, Department Head, Department of Extension Animal Sciences and Natural Resources, Las Cruces and Extension Dairy Specialist, Agricultural Science Center at Clovis, both of New Mexico State University.

1

To find more resources for your business, home, or family, visit the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences on the World Wide Web at aces.nmsu.edu

Table 1. Breeding Time Chart* If doe’s normal heat period length is:

Breed her at this time after first observed signs of heat:

24 hr

As soon as the doe shows estrus

36 hr

Within 12 hr of estrus

48 hr

24 hr after estrus

72 hr

48 hr after estrus

* In all cases, if doe is still in heat 24 hrs after first breeding, breed her again.

EQUIPMENT NEEDED TO INSEMINATE DOES WITH FROZEN SEMEN 1. Liquid nitrogen tank 2. Speculum (25 x 175 mm for doelings or 25 x 200 mm for does) 3. AI light or headlight 4. Straw tweezers 5. Sterile lubricant (non-spermicidal) 6. Insemination gun (for straws) 7. Breeding stand or facilities to restrain the doe 8. Thaw box 9. Paper towels 10. Straw cutter 11. Thermometer These supplies can be obtained from several livestock supply companies. The liquid nitrogen tank will be the largest single expense and will cost approximately $500. SEMEN THAWING AND INSEMINATION PROCEDURES The first step is to restrain the doe to be inseminated. This can be done with a breeding stand or any other satisfactory facility. After the doe is restrained, the semen is thawed and the insemination gun is prepared. Frozen semen should be thawed according to the processor’s recommendations. If these recommendations are not available, remove the frozen straw from the liquid nitrogen tank with the straw tweezers and place it in a thaw box filled with warm water (95ºF) for 30 seconds. After thawing, dry the straw thoroughly with a paper towel. Semen must be kept warm and must not be exposed to sunlight or water during the thawing and inseminating process to

prevent damaging or killing sperm cells. Pull the plunger back 4 to 6 inches on the insemination gun and place the straw into the gun with the cotton plug toward the plunger. After the straw has been secured in the gun, the sealed end of the straw must be cut off with the straw cutter. The cover sheath should now be placed over the insemination gun and secured with an O ring. The next step is the actual insemination process. It may be necessary to lift the doe’s hindquarters if she will not stand. If working alone, hold the insemination gun in your mouth, or have an assistant hand the insemination gun to you at the appropriate time. Turn your headlight on. Lubricate the speculum with a non-spermicidal lubricant. Clean the doe’s vulva with a dry paper towel and insert the lubricated speculum slowly into the vulva. Insert the speculum at an upward angle to prevent vaginal irritation. Once the speculum has been inserted, visually locate the cervix. The cervix should have a red-purple color, and white mucus will be present if the doe is in heat. Center the speculum over the opening of the cervix. Insert the insemination gun into the speculum and thread it into the opening of the cervix. Use a circular motion and slight pressure to work the insemination gun through the rings of the cervix. Do not penetrate the cervix more than 1.5 inches. It is a good idea to draw a red ring around the cover sheath of the insemination gun 1.5 inches from the tip. This mark lets you to know how far you have penetrated the cervix. Deposit the semen slowly by pushing the plunger forward. Remove the insemination gun slowly and remove the speculum. Record all important information in a breeding journal. Artificial insemination is a powerful tool that can allow dairy goat breeders the flexibility to increase the rate of genetic improvement in their herds. Although AI is a powerful tool, it requires proper technique and attention to detail for a high level of success. With good heat detection, records, and semen handling techniques, individuals can become successful AI technicians.

Original author: John F. Smith, former Extension Dairy Specialist

Contents of publications may be freely reproduced for educational purposes. All other rights reserved. For permission to use publications for other purposes, contact [email protected] or the authors listed on the publication. New Mexico State University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer and educator. NMSU and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating.

Revised April 2009

Las Cruces, NM Guide D-704 • Page 2

GROWING

Please see the reference documents in this section of your binder for information related to this discussion topic.

GROWING

The Growing discussion will hone in on the specific factors that can affect the growth of a healthy goat herd. In the case of raising dairy-goats for meat, the small size of the animal makes transportation and processing costs essentially fixed. The scale of the system becomes even more of a factor in determining potential profitability. This section will focus on the following issues related to growing: feeding the goats, silage and hay needs for goats, goat-grade examples, use of whey, vitamins and minerals and carcass traits. Leonard Bull, PhD and Professional Animal Scientist (P.A.S.) will lead the discussion on Growing. Dr. Bull has held faculty positions at the Universities of Maryland, Kentucky and Maine. He was the Animal Science Chair at the University of Vermont, Animal Science Head at North Carolina State University and the Associate Vice Chancellor of International Programs for North Carolina State University. Dr. Bull’s consulting interests provide expertise and experience for agriculture enterprises in the areas of animal nutrition, animal production systems and waste management. With over 200 publications related to his professional work, we are pleased to have Dr. Bull join us.

VITAMIN AND MINERAL DEFICIENCIES IN GOATS Suzanne W. Gasparotto HC 70 Box 70 Lohn, TX 76852 Phone 325/344-5775 Originators of Tennessee Meat Goats VITAMIN AND MINERAL DEFICIENCIES IN GOATS Proper vitamin and mineral levels are essential to the good health of goats. Although no single mineral can be singled out as more important than others, copper, zinc, and selenium levels are especially critical. The interaction of minerals is astoundingly complex. The most difficult task in raising goats is getting nutrition right, and vitamins and minerals are key. Most producers are not knowledgeable enough to formulate their own feed ration with appropriate levels of minerals and vitamins included. Achieving this is a complex task that is best left to a trained goat nutritionist. Selenium: Major portions of the United States have soils that are deficient in selenium. Selenium deficiency is widespread in most of the eastern coast of the U.S., into the Great Lakes area, and throughout the northwestern part of this country. Plants grown in these soils are selenium deficient and therefore cannot provide adequate selenium to the goats that eat them. Selenium deficiency, like Vitamin E deficiency, can cause white muscle disease (nutritional muscular dystrophy), causing the goat to have difficulty controlling its muscles. Newborns with weak rear legs may be selenium-deficient. Kids may be too weak to nurse their dams. Pneumonia may result from weakness in muscles that control breathing. Producers raising goats in areas having selenium-deficient soil must make sure that this mineral is added to feed. Many producers give BoSe injections to newborn kids, as well as to adult goats. BoSe is a vet prescription item. Contact the local county extension agent or your veterinarian for information on your particular area or google 'selenium levels United States' for data. Zinc: Zinc is needed in the synthesis of proteins and DNA and in cell division. Excessive salivation, deformed hooves, stiff joints, chronic skin problems, abnormally small testicles, and reduced interest in mating are some of the signs. Copper and Molybdenum: Unlike sheep, for whom copper is toxic, goats must have copper in their diet. Inadequate copper levels can cause loss of hair color, coarse hair that has hooked end tips, abortions, stillbirths, anemia, frequent bone fractures, poor appetite, weight loss, and decreased milk production. Molybdenum and copper amounts must be balanced or health problems appear. More than 3 ppm of molybdenum binds up copper and creates a deficiency of copper in the goat.

It is also possible to cause copper toxicity in goats by feeding too much copper. Researchers and producer experiences seem to be proving that goats need more copper than originally believed. Make sure that the copper level in feed is correct for your goats by consulting a trained caprine nutritionist knowledgeable about your area. Water: Yes, water. The goat's body is normally more than 60% water. Rumen contents must be about 70% water to function properly. Even a slight dip in water consumption can result in a goat with fever and off feed. Iron: Unless a goat is anemic, iron deficiency is generally not a problem in foraging goats. Certain onion-type plants can, however, cause anemia. Stomach worms, sucking lice, and blood loss are common causes of anemia in goats. Goats that are seriously ill with anemia may be supplemented with injectable iron (Ferrodex 100) or oral adminstration of Red Cell. Conversely, an excess of iron can contribute to decreased fertility in goats. Iodine: Iodine is as essential in goats' diets as it is in humans. Goiters are the most visible sign of iodine deficiency. Newborns whose dams are iodine deficient can be born with goiters. Commercial feeds and minerals contain non-iodized salt, so it may be necessary to offer iodized salt on a free-choice basis. A quicker method of getting iodine into the goat is to paint 7% iodine on the hairless tailweb and to offer kelp (seaweed) free choice. Calcium and Phosphorus: Calcium and phosphorus must be in proper balance or serious illnesses can occur. Female goats that have been bred at too young of an age can develop lameness and/or bowed legs if they are calcium deficient. Calcium is essential to bone formation and muscle contractions (including labor contractions). A calcium-to-phosphorus ratio of 2-1/2 to 1 is proper and helps prevent urinary calculi. Too much phosphorus in relation to calcium causes urinary calculi. An imbalance of calcium and phosphorus can result in birth defects. Salt: If a goat lacks salt in its diet, it may be seen licking the ground -- trying to get salt from the dirt. Offer salt as part of an appropriate mineral mix on a free-choice basis. Do not force-feed salt by mixing it with processed feed; this procedure is used to limit feed consumption. Salt is often used as a feed limiter, as heavily salted rations cause goats to eat less. A pregnant doe who consumes too much salt may have udder problems -- edema (subcutaneous accumulation of fluids). Sulfur: Excessive salivation may be a sign of sulfur deficiency. A properly balanced loose mineral and vitamin mix is required. Direct supplementation of sulfur can result in the binding up of iron and copper. Potassium: Goats on forage usually get all the potassium they need. Penned animals need potassium added to their processed grain mix. Emaciation and muscle weakness are signs of severe potassium deficiency. Magnesium: Goats deficient in magnesium have lowered urine and milk production and may become anorexic.

Manganese: Slow growth rates in kids (especially buck kids), reduced fertility and abortions in does, improperly formed legs, and difficulty in walking are general signs of manganese deficiency. Too much calcium interferes with manganese absorption. Vitamin A: Inadequate amounts of Vitamin A in a goat's diet can lead to thick nasal discharge, difficulty in seeing or blindness, respiratory diseases, susceptibility to parasites, scruffy hair coat, and diarrhea. Kids with coccidiosis need more Vitamin A because they have reduced intestinal absorption of nutrients. Adults are likely to be less fertile and more susceptible to diseases if they do not have adequate levels of this essential fat-soluble vitamin. B Vitamins: A sick goat must be supplemented with B vitamins, particularly Vitamin B 1 (thiamine). The B vitamins are water soluble, so they need to be replenished daily. One of many conditions that depletes the goat's body of B vitamins is diarrhea (which is a symptom of greater problems). Goats whose rumens are not functioning properly or have had their feed regimen changed should be supplemented with B vitamins, particularly B1 (thiamine). One of the most common examples of Vitamin B1 (thiamine) deficiency is polioencephalomalacia (goat polio). Thiamine must be given to counteract severe neurological problems. Thiamine-deficient goats display rigid bent necks that won't straighten and a loss of eye focus. This disease usually results from eating moldy hay, feed, or sileage; however, it occasionally occurs because the organism exists under certain environmental conditions and a susceptible goat picks it up. The symptoms mimic those of tetanus and dehydration. Because all B vitamins are water soluble, it is difficult to overdose them. Vitamin B12, an injectable red liquid requiring a vet prescription, is essential in the treatment of anemia. Vitamin D: Enlarged joints and bowed legs (rickets) are a result of Vitamin D deficiency. Penned goats must have Vitamin D added to their feed. Vitamin E: Feeding sileage or old hay can produce Vitamin E deficiency and result in white muscle disease. The injectable prescription product BoSe contains both selenium and vitamin E and is often given to newborns in selenium-deficient areas. Vitamin A-D-E Gel is available for supplemental oral use. Conclusion This list is by no means comprehensive but is intended to provide a producer overview. If you get nothing else from this article, understand that proper goat nutrition is very complex and not for amateurs. For producers affected by Tall Fescue Toxicity, several companies around the USA make a fescue-balancer loose mineral. If mineral deficiencies are widespread in your herd, Mineral Max II is available. An injectable cobalt-blue colored liquid that must be obtained from a vet, Mineral Max II contains zinc, manganese, selenium, and copper in chelated (timed-release) form. It is given to goats IM (into the muscle) usually one injection per year and in decreasing amounts as

the goat ages. Mineral Max II is made by Sparhawk Labs in Lenexa, Kansas for RXV Products in Westlake, Texas. It may be available under other brand names. Do not give BoSe and Mineral Max II together. Producers who live near a feed mill that makes commercial goat feed are encouraged to use their services and purchase their products. Such firms employ livestock nutritionists who have knowledge of the nutritional needs of goats in the areas for which they manufacture their products. If such mills are non-existent in your area, contact your county extension agent or closest agricultural university for assistance. These folks should have knowledge about feed mixtures that the average producer does not possess. Find out what your area is deficient in and make sure that is added into your feed supply. Do not attempt to formulate your own feed unless you are a trained goat nutritionist. If such expertise is not available in your area, locate and hire a goat nutritionist to formulate a feed ration for you. This service is not expensive but you may be required to buy four to six tons of feed, so contact your neighboring goat producers about working together on this purchase. There are computer programs into which the nutritionist can input information unique to your farm and your management techniques to develop a feed mix specifically for your needs. The health and well-being of your goats are depending upon your making wise decisions about their nutrition. Find a place to cut costs other than goat nutrition. You cannot starve a profit out of a goat. Suzanne W. Gasparotto ONION CREEK RANCH 5-11-09

Use of whey in feeding ruminants with particular reference to pollution problems Pierre Thivend Whey is a slightly acid, yellow-green liquid which is the residue obtained from the coagulation of milk by rennet or by the lowering of its pH. A considerable volume of whey is produced in the world, and it has continued to increase in recent years (Table 1). In 1973 France, the world's second largest producer after the United states, produced 6 million metric tons of whey, of which about 20 percent was wasted. P. THIVEND is at the Ruminant Production Research Station, Animal Production and Health Research Centre (Institute national dela recherche agronomique), Theix -63110 Beaumont, France.

Whey is a strong pollutant when discharged into streams, its high organic matter content leading to a biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) ranging from 30 to 40 g of oxygen per litre. As a result, the pollution load from a cheese factory processing 100000 litres of milk per day would be equivalent to the pollution of a city of 60 000 inhabitants (Petillot, 1976). Given the large quantity of whey produced worldwide each year, the risks of pollution are therefore extremely high. There are various methods of utilizing or disposing of whey. It can be dumped at the production site, provided that the land area is large enough and the soil permits the absorption of the mineral elements and the organic matter. The principal constituents of whey can also be separated either by precipitation or by passing through an ultrafilter. The resulting proteins can be utilized for the manufacture of certain types of cheese; the lactose obtained by the crystalization of the raw or concentrated product could be utilized for human food or by the pharmaceutical industry. Whey is also an excellent substrate for the cultivation of yeasts; there are various procedures which make it possible to obtain large quantities of protein, lactic acid, ethyl alcohol and vitamins by this technique. However, animal feed is by far the principal outlet for whey. It has been used in liquid form, principally for pigs, when the available quantity was not large and could be used nearby, but for practical reasons of transport and storage this pattern of use has been progressively superseded by drying for animal feed. This involves increased production costs which limit its use to the feeding of young animals (calves or young pigs) or fattening pigs. With the growth of the cheesemaking industry the increasingly larger quantities of nonutilized whey have resulted in greater pollution hazards, but the organization of a pollution abatement campaign and better knowledge of the nutritional value of whey have led to a search for new ways of disposing of this by-product. Among the different solutions proposed, the utilization of whey in feeds for ruminants constitutes one of the newest and most rapidly exploitable means that may be adopted in the future. It is inexpensive, easy to put into practice, and offers a good method of utilizing nonprotein nitrogen sources suitable for ruminants. The techniques for limiting the pollution resulting from surplus whey production are discussed below.

Source: Maubois (1974).

FIGURE 1. Ultrafiltration of whey separates high-quality proteins which could be used in food for humans from the ultrafiltrate residue, which can provide an excellent and inexpensive ruminant feed. Composition of whey The dry matter content of whey is very low (6.0 to 7.5%). It is composed essentially of lactose (70 to 73%), protein (N × 6.25 = 12 to 13%) and mineral salts (7 to 11%). It also contains lactic acid in variable quantity (0.5 to 10%), citric acid (about 1%) and some nonprotein nitrogen (0.5 to 0.8%). The composition of whey varies essentially with the type of cheese of which it is a byproduct; sweet whey comes from the production of cooked or pressed cheese curd, while acid or sour whey, which is richer in lactic acid and minerals, is a by-product of fresh cheese. The composition also varies with the method of preservation and with the origin of the milk. Whey proteins (lactoalbumins and globulins) are of excellent quality; their essential amino acid content is superior to that of egg or casein proteins. They are quite rich in lysine and tryptophane and in the sulphur-containing amino acids (methionine and cystine). Whey is also relatively rich in calcium, phosphorus, sodium, potassium and

chlorine. The concentration of these last three elements in whey is constant irrespective of the origin of the product, but the calcium and phosphorus concentrations are greater in sour than in sweet whey. Digestion of whey Schingoethe (1976) stipulated the maximum usable quantities of whey in the feeding of poultry, pigs, rats and ruminants. From these results and from more recent work done, particularly in France (Ehouinsou, 1976; Vermorel and Thivend, 1977), it is evident that adult ruminants are able to use much larger quantities of whey or derived products (ultrafiltrates) than other species. A considerable amount of research has been done on the digestion of these products. In the rumen, lactose is broken down quite rapidly by bacteria and protozoa and converted into lactic acid, which is metabolized into volatile fatty acids, principally butyric acid. Under normal feeding conditions very little lactic acid is absorbed into the blood, but if the animals are given large quantities of lactose before the microbial population of the rumen has become adjusted to its use, severe fermentation problems may result. Lactic acid in excess penetrates the wall of the rumen and may cause serious metabolic disorders (acidosis). Lactose is an energy source which makes possible the utilization of nonprotein nitrogen in the rumen. The ammonia concentration of the rumen fluid is not increased by the addition of urea to the ration, provided a proportionately large amount of lactose is combined with it (Thivend and Ehouinsou, 1977); the lactose/urea ratio should be around 5:1 or 6:1. The synthesis of microbial proteins in the rumen is improved by this process. The digestibility of the nitrogenous matter in whey has been studied only to a very limited extent in adult ruminants. The nitrogen in the whey is converted in the rumen into microbial protein; its apparent digestibility is of the order of 70% (Anderson, 1975). When it is not degraded in the rumen, its digestibility in the intestine is much higher (91% in preruminant calves, according to Toullec et al., 1974). It would therefore be more satisfactory if whey could by-pass rumen fermentation so that the proteins could be absorbed in the intestine, but this is usually difficult to realize in practice. In fact, these proteins should be reserved first and foremost for human food or for monogastric animals. Modern procedures of separation of the different whey constituents (ultrafiltration) will doubtless permit the attainment of this objective. There is limited data on the digestive utilization of various whey minerals. According to Schingoethe and Rook (1976), the addition of 5% whey to a concentrate feed for dairy cows does not improve absorption or retention of the minerals in the ration. It is important to ascertain whether the use of a higher percentage of whey changes mineral nutrition in ruminants. The digestibility of the dry matter of whey in ruminants is excellent and amounts to 87% when whey constitutes 30% of the total feed intake (Anderson, 1975). Its net energy value has not been determined but is probably close to that of barley. Methods of using whey

IN LIQUID FORM This is the least expensive method of feeding whey to animals when they are located close to the cheese processing plants. Various trials have shown that ruminants, both young and adult, are able to ingest very large quantities of fresh whey in partial or total substitution for drinking water; according to Anderson et al. (1974), dairy cows can drink as much as 100 litres per day, which corresponds to over 30% of the total dry matter intake. Under these circumstances no depressive effect on milk production, duration of lactation or butterfat content has been reported. Growing calves are also able to absorb very high quantities of liquid whey (from 40 to 50 litres per day, or 30 to 50% of the total dry matter intake), and it is estimated that ruminants can generally ingest from 12 to 15 litres of fresh whey per 100 kg live weight. The intake of liquid whey reduces the amounts of hay or grain consumed, since substitution for grains on a dry matter basis can be virtually total. As a rule sour whey is found to be less palatable than sweet whey, so that it is desirable to provide fresh supplies daily. It is also necessary to ensure that the whey is free of any pathogenic organisms, and during hot weather particular care has to be taken over the cleanliness of feed distribution facilities to prevent both fermentation and an increase in the fly population. The increased urine excretion sometimes observed when large quantities of whey are consumed presents no danger to the animals; on the other hand, digestive disorders such as diarrhea or bloat may occur if the period allowed for adaptation to whey feeding is less than one week. TABLE 1. - Estimates of world whey production Country

1966

1971

1973

Thousand metric tons United States

8 618

10 883

11 836

France

4 878

5 603

6 136

U.S.S.R.

3 456

3 624

4 016

Italy

3 912

3 840

3 960

Germany, Fed. Rep. of

2 512

3 825

3 568

Other countries of the EEC

4 154

5 234

5 645

Other west European countries

4 649

5 083

5 232

East European countries

4 968

6 088

6 300

Australia and New Zealand

1 352

1 440

1 512

Developing countries

17 344

19 344

20 723

World production

57 113

66 190

70 695

Source: Krostitz and Zegarra (1975).

IN CONCENTRATED FORM Whey can be used in concentrated form, with a dry matter content ranging from 50 to 60%. If utilized by itself this product is not very palatable and usually rapid sedimentation

occurs as a result of lactose crystallization. When it is mixed with molasses in equal proportions, dairy cows accept it readily (Welch, Nilson and Smith, 1974); when urea and minerals other than calcium (which for technological reasons cannot be added) are added the mixture can be used as a supplemental liquid nitrogen feed for ruminants. In the U.S.A. concentrated whey is sometimes used after it has undergone lactic fermentation and neutralization with ammonia (Henderson, Crikenberger and Reddy, 1974). The product obtained has a 7 to 10% nitrogen content and is used to supplement staple rations of ensiled maize for dairy cows or growing animals. It is very palatable and reportedly results in performance levels similar to those obtained by supplementation with urea or soybean oilcake. IN DRIED FORM (WHEY SOLIDS) Whey in the form of dried solids can also be used by ruminants. When introduced in relatively moderate doses (14% of total dry matter) in concentrate feeds, it prevents the lowering of the butterfat content generally observed in dairy cattle when this type of feed is consumed in large quantities (Schingoethe, Stake and Owens, 1973), this phenomenon apparently being due to the presence of both lactose and minerals. If used in small quantities in the rations of fattening lambs or finishing steers, dried whey improves animal performance considerably (Larsen et al., 1963; Woods and Burroughs, 1962). For calves that are being weaned, the introduction of whey at the rate of 10% of the concentrate feeds increases feed intake (Morrill and Dayton, 1974), but if whey is introduced at a rate higher than 20%, the concentrate feed intake decreases. The high cost of whey drying and the technological difficulties of incorporation of the powder in concentrate feeds have limited the use of dried whey in feeds for adult ruminants. Apart from the trials of Huber, Polan and Rosser (1967), in which whey constituted 50% of the dry matter intake of dairy cows, no other data are available on the use of large quantities of whey over long periods. However, the work of French researchers who used the ultrafiltrate of dried whey (Thivend, 1977) shows that ruminants can consume very large quantities of lactose (up to 72% of the dry matter) without exhibiting digestive disorders. This source of energy could well replace a large part of the cereals in fattening rations for ruminants (Table 3) and enhance the use of nonprotein nitrogen by the rumen microflora. TABLE 2. - Composition of different types of whey Type of origin

Whey Sweet

Sheep

Goats

Sour

Percentage of defatted extract Lactose

78.8

69.7

65.9

63.0

Protein nitrogen (N x 6.25)

13.7

11.7

23.7

14.7

Nonprotein nitrogen

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.1

Lactic acid

0.5

11.6

2.3

13.9

Citric acid

2.0

0.4

1.3

0.2

Minerals

8.0

11.3

7.3

13.4

Phosphorus

0.6

1.0

0.7

1.1

Calcium

0.7

1.9

0.6

2.1

Potassium

2.2

2.3

1.7

2.9

Sodium

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.7

Chlorine

3.3

3.2

3.1

5.3

Source: Collet and Février (1975).

At present dried whey is used primarily for feeding young calves. A considerable volume of research (Schingoethe, 1976) has shown that it could supply most, or even all, of the lactose in calf feeds from 6 to 8 weeks before weaning. In the case of veal calves which are fed exclusively on milk for longer periods (3 to 4 months), the proportion of whey used does not usually exceed 15% of the dry matter because of the large quantity of skim milk powder already included in their feeds. However, Toullec et al. (1974) have shown that it is possible to produce veal calves weighing about 160 kg by using feeds in which the lactose and protein is provided solely by whey. Similarly, lactose can also be supplied exclusively by the ultrafiltrate of whey (Toullec et al., 1976). Whey can also be used to improve the preservation and quality of silage, particularly that made from forage with a low content of rapidly fermentable carbohydrates. The addition of a small quantity of whey (2% of the total dry matter content) to grass or maize silage in dried, concentrated or liquid form improves the digestibility of the main constituents of the mixture (Schingoethe, 1976). Ammonia nitrogen losses are reduced and the silage is made more palatable; moreover, beneficial effects are reflected in the performance of the animals (Schingoethe and Beardsley, 1975). TABLE 3. - Utilization of dry whey ultrafiltrate for finishing steers Group I

Group II

Group III

Ground maize

50

25

0

Dry ultrafiltrate

0

25

50

Soybean oilcake

10

12.5

15

Coarse bran

14.5

22.5

30

Beet pulp

19

9.5

0

Ground straw

0

1.5

3

Molasses

5

2

0

Mineral and vitamin premix

1.5

2.0

2

Number of animals

10

11

12

Dry matter intake (kg/day)

7.76

7.66

7.79

Average daily gain (g)

1 283

1 254

1 149

6.05

6.11

6.78

Feed composition

Animal production

Feed conversion rate: kg dry matter intake per kg of gain

net energy (F.U.) intake per kg of gain

6.74

6.38

6.69

Source: Vermorel and Thivend (1977).

Possible utilization of whey Whey is one source of energy and nitrogen that is very well utilized by both preruminants and ruminants. Moreover, insofar as ruminants are concerned, the presence of lactose in the ration improves the use of nonprotein nitrogen. The beneficial effects of whey in ruminant feeding have now been fully demonstrated, provided that certain rules for its use are followed: •

• •

•

The microbial population in the rumen should be allowed to adapt itself to the fermentation of lactose by gradually increasing the amount of whey used over a period of at least one week. The bacteriological properties of the feed should be carefully observed, especially when the whey is given in liquid form. The ration has to be balanced, care being taken to avoid the simultaneous use of whey and other feeds that may produce an excess of lactic acid, such as beets, cabbage and certain types of silage. The mineral imbalance that may result from considerably prolonged periods of whey feeding, especially in dairy cows, must be corrected.

If such precautions are taken, the feeding of whey to ruminants would be a very useful outlet for this product and would limit to the minimum possible the pollution caused by whey. The dried form of whey (whey solids) is generally too costly except when it is used to replace the skim milk powder usually incorporated in the manufacture of feeds for young ruminant calves. Liquid whey or concentrated whey will probably come into greater use when regular supplies can be assured and when the animals are located close to where the whey is produced; also, because they are highly fermentable products, climatic conditions would affect their possible use. Conclusion The use of whey in ruminant feeding could result in an inefficient utilization of the protein that it contains, unless modern techniques for the separation of whey proteins are more universally adopted. Ultrafiltration of whey, for instance, makes it possible to separate the proteins, which are of excellent quality and could be utilized as food for human beings, from the ultrafiltrate residue, which is composed essentially of lactose and minerals (Fig. 1). The ultrafiltrate can be used by ruminants either alone or in combination with nonprotein nitrogen and would provide an inexpensive liquid or concentrate feed (Thivend, 1977). Ultrafiltration of whey should make it possible to recover an appreciable quantity of proteins for human food, to supply ruminant feeds which, if supplemented with urea, could replace grain, and at the same time to reduce considerably the pollution caused by the dairy industry. References

ANDERSON M.J. 1975 Metabolism of liquid whey fed to sheep. J. Dairy Sci., 58(12): 1856–1859. ANDERSON M.J., LAMB R.C., MICKELSEN C.H. & W ISCOMBE R.L. 1974 Feeding liquid whey to dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci., 57(10): 1206–1210. COLLET J. & FÉVRIER C. 1975 Considérations sur l'utilisation du lactosérum dans l'industrie alimentaire. Rev. lait, franç., 332: 403–419. EHOUINSOU M. 1976 Etude de la digestion du lactose chez le mouton. Université de Clermont II. No. 77. 105 p. (Thesis) HENDERSON H.E., CRIKENBERGER R.G. & REDDY C.A. 1974 Effect of fermented ammoniated, condensed whey on dry matter consumption. J. Dairy Sci., 57(5): 635. (Abstract) HUBER J.T., POLAN C.E. & ROSSER R.A. 1967 Effect of whey on milk composition and rumen volatile fatty acids in restricted-roughage rations. J. Dairy Sci., 50(5): 687– 691. KROSTITZ W. & ZEGARRA F. 1975 In Considérations sur l'utilisation du lactosérum dans l'industrie alimentaire. Rev. Lait. Franç., 332: 403– 419. LARSEN R.E., EWING S.A., TRENKLE A., VETTER R.L. & BURROUGHS W. 1963 Dried whey and lactose additions to finishing rations for lambs. J. Anim. Sci., 22(4): 1126. (Abstract) MAUBOIS J.L. 1974 Utilisation des techniques à membranes, osmose inverse et ultrafiltration, dans les industries agricoles et alimentaires. Bull. tech. Inf., 291: 1–9. MORRILL J.L. & DAYTON A.D. 1974 Effect of whey on calf starter palatability. J. Dairy Sci., 57(4): 430–433. PETILLOT F. 1976 Prévention et lutte contre les pollutions et nuisances des laiteriesfromageries. 102 p. Paris, Ministère de la qualité de la vie. SCHINGOETHE D.J. 1976 Whey utilization in animal feeding: a summary and evaluation. J. Dairy Sci., 59(3): 556–570. SCHINGOETHE D.J. & BEARDSLEY G.L. 1975 Feeding value of corn silage containing added urea and dried whey. J. Dairy Sci., 58(2): 196– 201. SCHINGOETHE D.J. & ROOK J.A. 1976 Ration digestibility and mineral balance in lactating cows fed rations containing dried whey. J. Dairy Sci., 59(5): 992–996. SCHINGOETHE D.J. STAKE P.E. & OWENS M.J. 1973 Whey components in restrictedroughage rations, milk composition, and rumen volatile fatty acids. J. Dairy Sci., 56(7): 909–914.

THIVEND P. 1977 Utilisation de l'ultrafiltrat de lactosérum dans l'alimentation du ruminant. Econ, agric., (3): (In press) THIVEND P. & EHOUINSOU M. 1977 Digestion of lactose in the rumen of sheep. Proc. Nutr. Soc. (In press) TOULLEC R., MATHIEU C.M. & PION R. 1974 Utilisation des protéines du lactosérum par le veau préruminant à l'engrais. II. Digestibilité et utilisation pour la croissance. Ann. Zootech., 23(1): 75–87. TOULLEC R., PARUELLE J.L., COROLER J.Y. & LE TREUT J.H. 1976 Utilisation digestive par le veau préruminant de laits de remplacement contenant de l'ultrafiltrat de lactosérum. Ann. Zootech. (In press) VERMOREL D. & THIVEND P. 1977 Utilisation de l'ultrafiltrat de lactosérum comme source d'énergie dans l'alimentation du taurillon. Bull. Tech. CRZV-INRA: 27. (In press) WELCH J.G., NILSON K.M. & SMITH A. M. 1974 Acceptability of whey concentrate mixtures for dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci., 57(5): 634. (Abstract) WOODS W. & BURROUGHS W. 1962 Effect of whey and lactose in beef cattle rations. J. Dairy Sci., 45(12): 1539–1541.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/X6512E/X6512E09.htm

Silage for Goats By John Hibma

Goats are natural browsers in the wild, being very selective of what they eat. If the seasonal nutritive values of browse and other feedstuffs decline or fluctuate, silage can be a good alternative, especially in production situations that require consistent nutrition on a daily basis. Feeding silage to goats is generally safe but does come with some risks and challenges. There is nothing inherently wrong with feeding silage to goats. Like all ruminants, goats can digest fermented feeds quite well. However, as with all forages, quality and nutritional value, as well as price, should be the deciding factors when considering feeding silage to dairy goats. While silages are an excellent way to preserve forages, improperly processing, ensiling and possible mishandling after ensiling can result in a dangerous product that will have an ill effect on goats. As with any forage, maturity and preparation at the time of harvest is critical to its quality and nutritional value. Silage is the product formed when a forage crop such as grass, alfalfa or corn is fermented so as to preserve it in a state of high moisture while at the same time preventing it from decay. In theory, any organic material containing sugar or starch can be ensiled provided there’s enough of it to justify the effort. Ensiling grass is a good alternative to baling when the weather doesn’t cooperate. The key to making good silage is to use the weight of the crop to squeeze out all of the air, arresting the natural process of oxidation and decay after the crop Len Woodis mixes his TMR outside and transfers it to a push cart and feeds it out by hand in the barn. He’s milking about 85 does now and has been harvested. There are essentially three ways likes the economical and high nutritive value of silage for his goats. of ensiling crops: in a vertical silo (the kind visible Photos by John Hibma on many dairy farms throughout the country), in horizontal bunkers (usually constructed of cement floors and walls), and in the long, plastic, tubular bags that are generically referred to as “ag bags” by those in the know. Each method, when done correctly, will yield high quality silage for animal feed. In Riverdale, California, Tony Brady milks about 1,800 goats—mostly Saanens—and has been feeding them silage as part of their diet for over 10 years. He feeds both corn silage and oat silage and ensiles them in ag bags. Brady said that when he first put up silage, he tried the pit style bunker and his herd developed major health issues. Two hundred goats died. He said there was never a positive conclusion reached as to what caused the deaths, but the silage was heavily implicated. His suspicion was that something went awry with fermentation in a poorly packed bunker. He’s been using ag bags ever since with no problems. Brady feels the ag bags give him much better control of the ensiling process. The ensiling process is one of fermentation and acidification, where naturally occurring bacteria consume the starches and sugars present in the forage, eventually consuming all of the oxygen and shutting off the decaying process. Once the proper level of acidity has been reached in the pile, the organic matter will then stabilize and cool, leaving a sweet smelling, “pickled” product that will keep for many months, sometimes years, so long as it isn’t disturbed and more oxygen is introduced, which will begin the decaying process all over again.

The single most important factor to consider when ensiling any forage is the moisture content at the time of harvest. The bacteria need a certain amount moisture to synthesize the fermentation acids. There are a number of fermentation acids that develop in a pile of silage. The good ones are lactic acid and acetic acid. The bad ones are propionic acid and butyric acid. Secondary by-products such as ammonia and alcohol are also formed during fermentation. Lactic acid should be the predominant acid present in any silage. It is odorless so there is no way to tell how much is present without a laboratory test. The presence of lactic acid from 8% to 10% indicates a good fermentation and the fermentation process progressed rapidly with a minimum of total spoilage in the pile. Acetic acid will also be present in silages and should be about 1/3 the level of lactic acid. The smell of acetic acid is similar to that of vinegar. If there’s a lot of acetic acid present, it indicates the pile went through a slower fermentation with a greater loss of organic matter usually due to slow packing of the bunk or the forage was too dry when harvested. There’s no real danger of high acetic acid levels in a silage pile; it only indicates that the pile took longer to stabilize and more organic matter vanished into thin air before the oxidation process came to an end. The longer a pile takes to stabilize, the greater the chance of undesirable bacteria getting into the silage such as clostridiums. Extended fermentation and heat will also degrade protein so that it will vanish as ammonia. If butyric acid is present in significant amounts, it quite often means the forage crop was much too wet when chopped. The silage will have an extremely putrid smell, making it very unpleasant to handle. Aside from the fact that goats will probably turn their noses up at this foul smelling forage, silage with high levels of butyric acid should never be offered to goats. It will do bad things in the rumen. Corn silage, by far the most ensiled forage in United States agriculture, ideally needs to have a dry matter level of around 28% to 32%. The high level of starch present in corn grain is a natural food-source for the bacteria and, when properly chopped and packed, corn silage makes an excellent feed. The best corn silage is made when the grain is in mild dent and still doughy and the leaves are still plenty green. When examining a pile of corn silage to dairy goat feed, the grain kernels should be soft and easily broken apart with a finger nail and the chop length of the crop should be around 3/8 inch long. Whether it’s put in upright silos, horizontal bunks, or bags, corn silage needs to be packed very tightly with heavy equipment to squeeze out all the air in order to accomplish a good fermentation. Grass and/or alfalfa crops pose a bit more of a challenge when making silage—commonly called “haylage.” Hay crops are often cut longer when harvested, making the packing process more difficult which causes more degradation of organic matter. Hay crops are lower in starch, tending to be higher in sugar and protein, making them more susceptible to poor fermentation. Butyric acid can be much more of a problem in haylage than in corn silage due to high moisture levels at the time of harvest. Haylage should be drier than corn silage when put up in a silo or bunker—the dry matter being around 35% to 40%. Often a hay crop needs to be left in a windrow for a number of hours to allow time for some of the moisture to evaporate before ensiling.

When examining haylage, pay particular attention to the color of the forage. It should be a dark, olive green. If haylage is black, it means it has been subjected to a very high temperature while fermenting, and much of the feed value will be unavailable, regardless of what a laboratory analysis says. Often, very dark or blackened haylage will have a strong ammonia smell indicating the breakdown of protein. Again, the presence of butyric acid should be very small—less than 1%. If, after handling any haylage, a smell remains on hands and continues to smell (i.e. stink), even after multiple washings, pass up the pile of haylage as a possible feed source for goats. High-moisture wrapped bales—the kind that look like a big marshmallow—are also a good way to put up hay crops. Again, the key is to pack it tightly, keeping the air out. There has been instances of listeria, a highly toxic organism, being found in some haylages. When ensiling a pile of forage, the heat production of fermentation must come to an end in a few days. Someone who attempts to ensile a few hundred pounds of grass or corn, will most likely end up with a spoiled product since there isn’t enough mass to weigh itself down—air will continue to seep into the pile and the pile will continue to cook. Attempting to ensile grass in garbage bags is most likely going to result in failure. The ag bag will work well for moderate amounts of tonnage. If attempting to put up a horizontal type bunk, consider at least 100 tons in order to ensile properly. For many goat owners, this kind of tonnage might be out of reach and the next best alternative is to purchase silage from a neighboring cow dairy or feedlot that has put it up properly. Be aware of the fact that once silage is disturbed when it’s taken from the silo or bunk, it will begin a secondary fermentation, so it should never be left lying around for more than two days before it’s fed. Once the feed begins to ferment again, it takes on characteristics that make it unpalatable and goats will not be very inclined to eat it. Extended exposure to air and the elements quickly spoils silage. Often this spoilage will contain molds that will be found at the outer edges of a pile. If any noticeable, musty traces of mold are detected the silage should be discarded. The presence of mycotoxins is a significant problem in corn silages. Mycotoxins are toxins produced by molds and can be found in varying degrees in nearly any corn silage. There are a multitude of different strains such as aflatoxin, vomitoxin, zearalenone, T-2 and fumonisins. At high enough levels, mycotoxins will affect the immune systems, milk production and reproduction in goats. For those who choose to feed corn silage to goats, it’s always good insurance to include a mycotoxin binder in any purchased grain mix—there are a number of different types on the market. If there’s one strong argument for avoiding silage as a feed for goats, it’s probably the uncertainty of mycotoxins and other molds. Because goats are selective eaters, they, better than us, can tell if there’s something amiss with the feed offered to them. Incorporating silages into a feeding program probably works best in a confinement operation where close attention can be paid to daily consumption and the possibility of spoiled feed.

High quality corn silage will provide a good deal of energy to the diet—a good thing when your does are milking in early lactation. Four or five pounds of corn silage in a lactating diet (remember, it’s about ¾ water) should be properly balanced with an adequate protein and vitamin/mineral source. Corn silage tends to be low in calcium compared to a legume forage such as alfalfa. Extra calcium must be supplemented in the diet. Haylage can be high in protein so levels of protein in the grain should be adjusted accordingly. Len Woodis, New Braintree, Massachusetts, has been milking about 80 Saanens for several years. To trim feed costs he began purchasing a TMR (total mixed ration) ration which included corn silage from a dairy farm neighbor during the 2007 season. His goats quickly adapted to it and milked very well for the season. This past fall he ensiled both a couple hundred tons of corn silage and haylage in horizontal bunks at his farm. This year he’s been feeding the silages together in a 50/50 ratio along with two pounds of an 18% protein pellet and a pound of corn meal for added energy—all mixed as a TMR. The goats get another one and a half pounds of the pellet each time they’re milked in the parlor. The daily silage consumption works out to about seven and a half pounds on an as-fed basis. Dry matter of the ration tested about 54% and the percentage of forage in the ration was just under 40% (40:60 forage to concentrate ratio). In mid March the herd was averaging just over seven pounds milk, including first year does, with a butterfat test of over 4%. Care must be taken to not over-feed corn silage to late lactation and dry goats. They’ll get over-conditioned very quickly which may lead to metabolic problems at kidding. However, the goat owner need not be afraid to feed silage to goats. Each situation needs to be evaluated individually and the economics and availability must be considered. Those who make goat milk cheeses may find that the fermented feed will impart a different taste to the cheese. Yet, when silages are managed correctly they provide goats with an economical and high source of nutrition. Silage for goats should: • Always be tested for nutritional levels and mycotoxins. • Be balanced with the rest of the ration. • Be fed in a closely managed environment to avoid spoilage. • Not be fed if molds or mycotoxins are present. • Not be fed if fermentation profiles are suspect.

LAND GRANT PROGRAM - COOPERATIVE EXTENSION

Estimating Winter Hay Needs For Meat Goats Prepared by: Dr. Ken Andries, Animal Science Specialist, Kentucky State University Adapted from: Bill Halfman, University of Minnesota Extension Service 1) Weigh several bales of hay to get an average bale weight: (add weights of bales and divide by number of bales) ____ _____ ____ ____ ____ lb.

Average Bale Wt: _______ lb X Number of bales: ________ X Loss Factor ________ = Total lb Hay Available: _________ lb.

2) Count the number of bales available for feed: 3) Account for storage/feeding loss (see below) (loss factor is from published data) Type of Storage Inside on ground Inside on Crushed Stone Outside on ground, uncovered Outside on ground, covered Outside on stone, uncovered Outside on stone, covered Outside on other base, covered

Loss Factor .93 - .95 .95 - .97 .65 -.80 .65 - .85 .80 - .87 .83 - 90 .80 - .88

We can normally expect to feed hay from December through March in Kentucky (120 days). Feeding can start in November depending on weather conditions and grazing starts in late March or early April. Because of this you should plan for 150 to 160 days of winter feeding. Goats are rated between 0.14 and 0.18 AU depending on class. Animal units are based on the pounds of dry matter an animal will consume and 1 AU is the amount of DM for a 1000 lb cow.

4) Animals Units to Feed per day (Animal Unit Days) Class # Head X Days Fed X Bucks X X Does X X Weaned Kids X X

Factor 0.18 0.17 0.14

= = = =

Animal Unit Days

Total Animal Unit Days: __________ 5) Daily hay Allocation/Animal Units: Pounds Hay/Animal Unit Day: _______ (Calculate this from a balanced ration. 20 to 30 lbs of hay/AUD would be a good estimate, but does not replace the need for a balanced ration) _____________ Animal Unit Days

X

_______________ Daily Hay Allocation

=

_______________ Lbs. Hay Needed

_____________ _______________ ________________ Lbs. Hay Lbs. Hay = Surplus or Shortage Available Needed The above is an estimate, feeding waste is included at 3% but can range up to 20% depending on type of forage and how it is feed. Most hay feeders reduce loss to between 3 and 15%. For more information contact: Animal Science Specialist Kentucky State University, Cooperative Extension Program, 400 East Main Street, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601, Email: [email protected], www.kysu.edu Educational programs of the Cooperative Extension System serve all people regardless of race, color, age, sex, religion, disability, or national origin.

Goat Grade Examples Selection No. 1 Wide chest Wide, flat top Heavily muscled rear leg Wide base

Selection No. 2 Moderately muscled rear leg Moderately wide, flat top Adequate width of chest Moderately wide base

Selection No. 3 Narrow chest Narrow, sharp top Little rear leg muscling Narrow base Tess Caudill, Marketing Specialist Kentucky Department of Agriculture (502) 564-4983 [email protected]

USDA Photo

United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service

Food Safety Information

Goat from Farm to Table W

ith the growing popularity of Caribbean and Indian cuisine in America, goat meat is finding its way into many more recipes. Goats are under mandatory USDA inspection. Read on for more information about this red meat.

Background on Goat

Goat is thought to have been one of the earliest domesticated animals. Cave art 10,000 to 20,000 years ago indicates that goats were common and important food animals. At the present time, goats provide the principle source of animal protein in many North African and Middle Eastern nations. Goat is also important in the Caribbean, in Southeast Asia, and developing tropical countries. Three-fourths of all the goats in the world are located in the developing regions of the world. Kids (goats under a year of age) are often slaughtered when 3 to 5 months of age and weighing from 25 to 50 pounds. Kids do not store much body fat until they are about a year old. Many goats are older than a year and heavier when marketed, but most, except aged cull goats, are slaughtered when less than a year of age. The meat of older goats is darker and less tender, but more juicy and flavorful than kid. The meat from male goats is lighter in color and lower in fat. The meat from female goats is more desirable for steaks and chops because it is more tender.

How are goats raised for food?

In the U.S., there are four distinct types of goats: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Dairy goats, raised primarily for milk; Spanish or Mexican goats, produced for meat on a variety of open rangeland; South African Boer goats, a recently introduced breed that can adapt to various climates and can rebreed while still nursing; and Angora goats, raised primarily for their wool used to make cloth.

Excess males and cull goats are also used for meat. The Spanish and Angora goats are increasing in numbers in the Southwestern States, primarily in Texas. On brushy ranges, they improve the pasture for cattle and sheep by eating large amounts of twigs, shrubs, and brush.

Are goats inspected?

Yes. Goats are covered under the U.S. Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906 and thus must be slaughtered under Federal or State inspection. Any carcasses slaughtered for sale must be inspected. Following are the number of goats federally inspected in various years.

2010 779,000 2004 558,857 1999 463,249 1994 364,905 1989 230,297 1984 107,299

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is the public health agency in the U.S. Department of Agriculture responsible for ensuring that the nation’s commercial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged.

USDA Meat & Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854)

Goat from Farm to Table

Is goat meat graded?

No. There are no quality or yield grades for goat meat.

Can hormones and antibiotics be used when raising goats?

No. Hormones are not approved for growth promotion in goats. Antibiotics may be given to prevent or treat diseases in goats. A “withdrawal” period is required from the time most antibiotics are administered until it is legal to slaughter the animal. This is so residues have enough time to exit the animal’s system. Goat meat is tested for antibiotics, sulfonamides, and pesticide residues if problems are suspected. Imported goat meat is sampled at ports of entry for residues that may result from the use of animal drugs, pesticides, or environmental contaminants. Data from residue monitoring rarely show residue violations.

Retail Cuts of Goat

Retail cuts of goat are similar to those for lamb or mutton. Goat should have light pink to bright red, firm, fine-grained flesh with well-distributed white fat. In some breeds of goat, there can be color variation between males and females; in other breeds, there is no difference.

Where is goat meat consumed?

The demand for meat from goats has increased in some markets of the Southeastern USA, which has led to new marketing opportunities for the small farmer/rancher. There has been an increase in the influx of ethnic groups from areas of the world where goat meat comprises a significant portion of the diet. In addition, there has been an increase in the consumption of “ethnic” foods as consumers explore and broaden their culinary experiences. Goat meat is often served in specialty dishes centered at festival or holiday events.

Is goat classified as “red” meat?

Yes, goat is considered red meat.

Safe Handling of Goat Meat

Handle goat the same as any other type of meat. At the grocery store, make your selection of goat meat from the refrigerator case just before checking out at the register. Put packages of raw meat in disposable plastic bags (if available) to contain any leakage, which could cross-contaminate cooked foods or raw produce. Take packaged meat home immediately and refrigerate it at 40 °F or below; use within 3 to 5 days (1 or 2 days for ground goat meat), or freeze (0 °F or below) for up to a year. However, if kept frozen continuously, it will be safe indefinitely. Before and after handling any raw meat or poultry, always wash hands in warm, soapy water for 20 seconds.

Safe Thawing

There are three ways to thaw meat: in the refrigerator, in cold water, and in the microwave. Never thaw on the counter or in other non-refrigerated locations. It’s best to plan ahead for slow, safe thawing in the refrigerator. To thaw in cold water, do not remove packaging. Be sure the package is airtight or put it into a leakproof bag. Submerge the package in cold water, changing the water every 30 minutes to be sure it stays cold. Cook immediately. When microwave-defrosting meat, plan to cook it immediately after thawing because some areas of the food may become warm and begin to cook during microwaving-defrosting. Partially cooking food is not recommended because any bacteria present wouldn’t have been destroyed. Foods defrosted in the microwave or by the cold water method should be cooked before refrigerating or refreezing because they may have been held at temperatures above 40 °F, where bacteria multiply rapidly.

Food Safety Information

2

Goat from Farm to Table

Cooking of Goat Meat

For safety, cook ground goat meat to 160 °F as measured with a food thermometer. Cook all raw goat beef steaks, chops, and roasts to a minimum internal temperature of 145°F as measured with a food thermometer before removing meat from the heat source. For safety and quality, allow meat to rest for at least three minutes before carving or consuming. For reasons of personal preference, consumers may choose to cook meat to higher temperatures. Less tender cuts should be braised (roasted or simmered with a small amount of liquid in a tightly covered pan) or stewed. Kid meat lends itself to all recipes for lamb: chops, leg or shoulder, crown roasts, rack or saddle, and kebabs. A goat carcass rarely has much fat to protect it from drying. Goat meat is generally quite lean, although its higher moisture content makes it tender when handled properly.

Storage Times

The meat of adult goats is almost always subjected to stewing because of its relative toughness, but in stews, it is flavorful and tender. Consumers should follow these tips for home storage of goat meat. •

Follow handling recommendations on the product. Keep meat in its package until it’s ready to be used.

•

Take goat meat home immediately and refrigerate at 40 °F or below.

•

For best quality, use ground or cubed goat meat (such as stew meat) within 2 days of purchase and larger cuts within 3 to 5 days, or freeze the meat at 0 °F or below.

•

It is safe to freeze meat in its original packaging. If freezing longer than 2 months, overwrap as you would any food for long-term storage.

•

Ground or cubed goat meat will keep its best quality in the freezer for 4 months. Larger cuts, such as chops, steaks, legs, or loins, will keep their best quality 6 to 9 months; ground meat, 3 to 4 months. Frozen goat meat remains safe indefinitely if kept frozen continuously.

Food Safety Questions? Call the USDA Meat & Poultry Hotline If you have a question about meat, poultry, or egg products, call the USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline toll free at 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854).

The hotline is open Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET (English or Spanish). Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. Check out the FSIS Web site at www.fsis.usda.gov

Send E-mail questions to [email protected]. FSIS encourages the reprint and distribution of this publication for food safety education purposes. However, USDA symbols or logos may not be used separately to imply endorsement of a commercial product or service.

AskKaren.gov FSIS’ automated response system can provide food safety information 24/7 and a live chat during Hotline hours. Mobile phone users can access m.askkaren.gov PregunteleaKaren.gov The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. September 2011

Effect of Breed-Type and Feeding Regimen on Goat Carcass Traits1 J. S. Oman, D. F. Waldron2, D. B. Griffin, and J. W. Savell3 Department of Animal Science, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, College Station 77843-2471

ABSTRACT: Meat-type (Boer × Spanish and Spanish) goats from two feeding regimens (feedlot and range) were slaughtered and live and carcass weights were obtained. At 24 h after death, various yield and quality measurements were collected. One side from each carcass was fabricated into major wholesale cuts for dissection into major carcass components. Feedlot goats had heavier (P < .05) live and carcass weights and carcasses that yielded more (P < .05) dissectible fat and lean and less (P < .05) bone, as a percentage of carcass weight, than did the carcasses of range goats. In the feedlot

environment, Boer × Spanish goats had greater (P < .05) live weights, carcass weights, actual and adjusted fat thicknesses, carcass conformation scores, and leg circumference scores than did Spanish goats of similar age. The only breed-type differences that were significant after adjusting for live weight using analysis of covariance were that Boer × Spanish goats in the feedlot treatment had greater (P < .05) actual and adjusted fat thickness and carcass conformation than Spanish goats on the feedlot treatment. The Boer × Spanish goat carcass trait advantage could mainly be attributed to their larger size and enhanced capacity for growth.

Key Words: Goat Feeding, Goats, Goat Breeds, Goat Meat 1999 American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved.

Introduction A rising interest and demand for goat meat in Texas and the United States has resulted from increased ethnic diversity. In the last decade, immigration into the United States has averaged 61,150 persons each month; many of these immigrants are goat meat consumers (Pinkerton et al., 1994). The USDA slaughter numbers reflect the growing demand for goat meat. Approximately 60,000 meat goats were slaughtered at USDAinspected plants in 1981; in 1990, approximately 200,000 goats were slaughtered in USDA-inspected plants (NASS, 1991). Goat production in Texas and the United States historically has been a low-labor enterprise with little emphasis on animal productivity and management practices. The majority of the meat-type goats in the U.S. are Spanish goats. The term “Spanish” is used to describe common, meat-type goats and to distinguish them from dairy- and fiber-type goats; technically, “Spanish” is not a breed (Shelton, 1978).

1

Technical article from the Texas Agric. Exp. Sta. This study was supported, in part, by the Texas Food and Fibers Commission, Austin. 2 Texas Agric. Res. and Ext. Center, 7887 U.S. Highway 87 North, San Angelo 76901. 3 To whom correspondence should be addressed (phone: 409/8453935; fax: 409/845-9454; E-mail: [email protected]). Received August 27, 1998. Accepted May 7, 1999.

J. Anim. Sci. 1999. 77:3215–3218

The Boer breed was developed in South Africa for the purpose of meat production. This breed is known for its large frame size, muscularity, and characteristic white body and brown or red-colored head (Van Niekerk and Casey, 1988). Boer goats were imported into the United States in April 1993. According to a simulation study reported by Blackburn (1995), Boer goats should produce more saleable weight per doe than Spanish goats when forage conditions are not limited; however, under less than optimal conditions, they are not more productive. The effect of breed-type and diet on goat carcass characteristics has been investigated in only a limited number of studies. The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of breed-type and feeding regimen on carcass characteristics of meat-type goats.

Materials and Methods This study included Boer × Spanish and Spanish kids obtained from the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station at San Angelo. All animals were intact males from the spring 1994 kidding season. The Boer × Spanish and Spanish kids were a subset of those used in a breed comparison trial (Waldron et al., 1996). The kids in this study were chosen to be representative of each of the sires. Boer × Spanish (n = 24) and Spanish (n = 24) kids were assigned randomly to either a feedlot (n = 12 for each breed-type) or a range (n = 12 for each breed-

3215

3216

OMAN ET AL.

One side from each carcass was dissected into knifeseparable components of subcutaneous fat, intermuscular fat, internal fat, lean, and bone to determine physical composition. Analysis followed a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement with breed-type (Boer × Spanish and Spanish) and feeding regimen (feedlot and range) as the main effects. All data were analyzed with PROC GLM (SAS, 1991). Analyses were conducted with a model that included breed-type (Boer × Spanish and Spanish) and feeding regimen (feedlot and range) as main effects and the two-way interaction between them. Least squares means were estimated, and mean separation was performed using pairwise t-tests (α = .05). A second model was used for carcass yield traits, which also included live weight as a covariate in order to compare carcass traits adjusted for differences in live weight. Figure 1. Conformation score scale.

type) treatment for a 130-d postweaning growth period starting when the average age of kids was 124 d. Kids assigned to the feedlot treatment were fed an 80% concentrate, either a 12.5 or 15% CP, diet for ad libitum consumption. Range kids were turned out on rangeland consisting of multiple species of native grasses and forbs; no supplemental feed was given, and rainfall was atypically low. Kids were slaughtered at the Rosenthal Meat Science and Technology Center on the Texas A&M University campus at an average age of 254 d. Live weights and hot carcass weights were collected. Carcasses were chilled at 2°C, and, at approximately 24 h postmortem, the following measurements were taken: longissimus muscle area at the 12th rib; actual and adjusted (visually adjusted for variations in fat thickness over the leg, loin, rack, and shoulder) 12th rib fat thickness; body wall thickness (5.1 cm from the ventral edge of the longissimus dorsi); leg circumference (across the stifle area of the leg, encompassing both legs); and carcass length (measured from the point of the hock to the point of the shoulder). Scores for marbling, flank streaking, maturity, color, and buckiness (a measure of carcass masculinity based on a 5-point scale where 1 = no buckiness and 5 = extremely bucky) also were assigned to each carcass by Texas Agricultural Experiment Station personnel. Because no official grading standards exist that are designed specifically for U.S. goat carcasses, number scores and general descriptions were assigned for carcass conformation based on muscle shape and thickness of the leg, loin, rack, and shoulder. A scale was developed by selecting carcasses representative of eight conformation types given even-numbered scores of 0 to 14. Animals falling between the categories were assigned odd-numbered scores, resulting in a 15-point scale: 1 = very thin and angular and 15 = very thick and bulging. Figure 1 illustrates animals representative of conformation scores 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12.

Results and Discussion Mean live weights, carcass weights, and carcass measurements for meat-type goats are reported in Table 1. In the feedlot, Boer × Spanish goats possessed heavier (P < .05) live and carcass weights, greater (P < .05) actual and adjusted fat thicknesses, higher (P < .05) carcass conformation scores, and larger (P < .05) leg circumferences than did Spanish goats. There were no significant differences observed between the Boer × Spanish range goats and the Spanish range goats. Diet had a significant effect on live and carcass weights and carcass measurements. Feedlot goats possessed heavier (P < .05) live and carcass weights, larger (P < .05) longissimus muscle areas, greater (P < .05) actual and adjusted fat thicknesses, and greater (P < .05) body wall thicknesses, carcass conformation scores, carcass lengths, leg circumferences, skeletal maturity scores, marbling scores, flank streaking scores, and buckiness scores. Lean maturity scores were not different (P > .05) between feedlot and range goats. There was a significant interaction between breed and feeding regimen only for actual and adjusted fat thickness. Feedlot Boer × Spanish goat carcasses possessed greater (P < .05) actual and adjusted fat thicknesses than did feedlot Spanish goat carcasses, whereas there was no significant difference between Boer × Spanish range goat carcasses and Spanish range goat carcasses (Table 1). Additionally, feedlot goat carcasses had higher (P < .05) actual and adjusted fat thicknesses than did range goat carcasses. The results from the analyses that included live weight as a covariate indicate that the significant differences among traits shown in Table 1 are largely a function of live weight differences. The only breed-type differences that were significant after adjusting for live weight were that Boer × Spanish goat carcasses in the feedlot treatment had greater actual and adjusted fat thicknesses and carcass conformation scores than Spanish goat carcasses in the feedlot treatment (data not shown). These results suggest that the choice of the basis of comparison of carcasses from Boer × Spanish and Spanish goats affects

3217

BREED AND FEED EFFECTS ON GOAT CARCASS TRAITS

types within a feeding regimen, it can be observed in Table 2 that Boer × Spanish least squares means were higher than those for Spanish goats on the feedlot treatment and lower than those for Spanish goats on the range treatment. The actual and adjusted fat thickness (Table 1) traits also showed a significant interaction; the Boer × Spanish goats were fatter on the feedlot treatment, and little or no difference was evident between the breed-types on the range treatment. Diet has been found to affect carcass characteristics in other species. Tatum et al. (1989) reported that lambs fed in a feedlot produced fatter carcasses than lambs fed limited or no grain. Several studies have verified this for beef cattle as well (Bowling et al., 1977; Burson et al., 1980; Schroeder et al., 1980). The results from the present study with goats agree with the results from these studies with other species, in that they indicate that a feedlot diet did result in fatter carcasses.

the evaluation. Data shown in Table 1 are relevant for comparisons at a mean age of 254 d. The analysis that included live weight as a covariate is relevant for comparisons at a common live weight of 36 kg for feedlot goats and 19 kg for range goats. Mean percentages of carcass components within breed-type and feeding regimen are reported in Table 2. Feedlot Boer × Spanish and Spanish goat carcasses had a higher (P .05) from range Boer × Spanish goat carcasses for lean percentage. Feedlot goat carcasses possessed higher (P < .05) fat percentages and lower (P < .05) bone percentages than range goat carcasses. This trend was generally observed for most major wholesale cuts. When live weight was added to the model for analysis of the composition traits of Table 2, the results were not substantially different from those shown in Table 1. The breedtype × feeding regimen interaction was not a significant source of variation (P > .05) for percentage of lean or bone for the side or any of the cuts. The interaction was a significant source of variation (P < .05) for percentage of fat for the shoulder and rack and tended toward significance (P < .10) for the side and sirloin. Although there were no significant differences between the breed-

Implications Feeding goats results in heavier live and carcass weights and more heavily muscled, fatter carcasses. Crossbreeding using Boer influence results in heavier live and carcass weights, higher conformation scores, and larger leg circumferences when goats are compared

Table 1. Least squares means of carcass yield and quality measurements for meat-type goats within breed-type and feeding regimen Boer × Spanish Item Live wt, kg Hot carcass wt, kg Longissimus muscle area, cm2 Actual fat thickness, cm Adjusted fat thickness, cm Body wall thickness, cm Carcass conformation scorea Carcass length, cm Leg circumference, cm Lean maturity scoreb Skeletal maturity scoreb Marbling scorec Flank streaking scorec Buckiness scored

Spanish

Feedlot

Range

Feedlot

Range

SEM

e

38.17 21.72e 12.51e

g

20.51 10.00g 6.25f

f

33.52 19.24f 11.51e

g

18.42 8.75g 5.28f

1.21 .60 .39

.12e

.03g

.07e

.03g

.01

.16e

.04g

.11f

.04g

.01

1.32e

.62f

1.40e

.53f

.08

11.42e

3.25g

8.33f

1.83g

.65

106.94e 54.87e

92.13f 44.03g

104.88e 52.61f

90.49f 42.60g

1.13 .63

1.42e 1.70e

1.37e 1.42f

1.45e 1.67e

1.42e 1.47f

.04 .06

3.35e 3.62e

1.70f 2.01f

3.06e 3.40e

1.80f 1.78f

.20 .16

4.42e

1.58f

4.00e

1.33f

.26

a Means based on a 15-point descriptive scale (1.0 = very angular, narrow, and thin; 15.0 = extremely thick and bulging). b Means based on USDA (1992) skeletal and lean maturity scores for lamb where 1.00 = A00 and 2.00 = B00. c Means based on USDA (1992) marbling and flank streaking scores where 1.0 = Practically Devoid00, 3.0 = Slight00, and 5.0 = Modest00). d Means based on a 5-point scale (1.0 = no buckiness; 5.0 = extremely bucky). e,f,g Within a row, means lacking a common superscript letter differ (P < .05).

3218

OMAN ET AL.

Table 2. Least squares means of carcass components for meat-type goats within breed-type and feeding regimen Boer × Spanish Cut and component

Feedlot

Spanish

Range

Feedlot

Range

SEM

a

Side Lean, % Bone, % Fat, %

57.79b 26.50c 15.71b

55.78bc 36.89b 7.34c

57.61b 27.58c 13.40b

55.28c 36.48b 8.24c

.65 .82 .81

Shoulder Lean, % Bone, % Fat, %

61.43bc 21.57c 16.88b

59.59c 31.93b 8.16c

63.30b 22.17c 14.40b

60.85bc 29.42b 9.45c

1.13 1.43 .89

Rack Lean, % Bone, % Fat, %

54.16bc 29.43c 16.41b

50.96d 43.97b 5.07c

56.16b 30.61c 13.24b

52.19cd 40.38b 7.43c

1.04 1.25 1.21

Shortloin Lean, % Bone, % Fat, %

56.54b 24.40c 19.06b

50.49c 42.68b 6.83c

52.83bc 25.27c 21.89b

50.34c 39.47b 10.19c

1.83 2.20 1.87

Sirloin Lean, % Bone, % Fat, %

57.17 21.02c 21.81b

54.36 35.90b 9.74c

56.41 25.34c 18.25b

54.18 34.41b 11.41c

1.48 1.90 1.43

Leg Lean, % Bone, % Fat, %

62.23b 29.54c 8.23b

59.56c 35.47b 4.97d

62.52b 31.01c 6.74c

59.05c 35.90b 5.05d

.59 .57 .51

a

Side includes major wholesale cuts plus neck, shank, breast, plate, and flank. Within a row, means lacking a common superscript letter differ (P < .05).

b,c,d

at the same age. Boer × Spanish and Spanish goats differed only for conformation scores and actual and adjusted fat thicknesses in the feedlot treatment, when carcass traits were adjusted to a common live weight. Thus, the advantage of the Boer × Spanish kids is primarily in the greater live weight at a given age. There is a need for standardized grades to facilitate marketing of the various sizes and types of goats currently being produced. Because much of the goat meat consumed today is by ethnic groups with different preferences in terms of age, weight, and quality, future research should focus on market development and determining the demand for various types and sizes of goats.

Literature Cited Blackburn, H. D. 1995. Comparison of performance of Boer and Spanish goats in two U.S. locations. J. Anim. Sci. 73:302–309. Bowling, R. A., G. C. Smith, Z. L. Carpenter, T. R. Dutson, and W. M. Oliver. 1977. Comparison of forage-finished and grainfinished beef carcasses. J. Anim. Sci. 45:209–215. Burson, D. E., M. C. Hunt, D. M. Allen, C. L. Kastner, and D. H. Kropf. 1980. Diet energy density and time on feed effects on beef longissimus palatability. J. Anim. Sci. 51:875–881.

NASS. 1991. National Agricultural Statistical Service. USDA, Washington, DC. Pinkerton, F., N. Escobar, L. Harwell, and W. Drinkwater. 1994. A survey of prevalent production and marketing practices in meat goats of southern origin. p 10. Southern Rural Development Center, Mississippi State. SAS. 1991. SAS User’s Guide: Statistics (4th Ed.). SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC. Schroeder, J. W., D. A. Cramer, R. A. Bowling, and C. W. Cook. 1980. Palatability, shelflife and chemical differences between forageand grain-finished beef. J. Anim. Sci. 50:852–859. Shelton, M. 1978. Reproduction and breeding of goats. J. Dairy Sci. 61:994–1010. Tatum, J. D., J. W. Savell, H. R. Cross, and J. G. Butler. 1989. A national survey of lamb carcass cutability traits. SID Res. J. 5(1):23–31. USDA. 1992. Official United States standards for grades of lamb, yearling mutton, and mutton carcasses. Livestock and Seed Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Van Niekerk, W. A., and N. H. Casey. 1988. The Boer goat II. Growth, nutrient requirements, carcass and meat quality. Small Ruminant Res. 1:355–368. Waldron, D. F., T. D. Willingham, P. V. Thompson, and J. E. Huston. 1996. Growth rate and feed efficiency of Boer × Spanish compared to Spanish goats. Tex. Agric. Exp. Sta. Prog. Rep. CPR5257:2–15.

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION

This discussion will focus on the following key processes including transportation from farm to slaughter, transportation to the customer, space and time for slaughter of small ruminants in Vermont’s existing processing facilities, cost of processing and storage. Please see the reference documents in this section of your binder for information related to this discussion topic.

PROCESSING & DISTRIBTION

The Processing & Distribution discussions will be led by Sean Buchanan, Business Development Manager for Black River Produce. Sean has worked as executive chef at the Middlebury Inn, where he wrote and filmed the six-episode series Feast in the Making, about local farmers, producers and chefs for Vermont Public Television. Sean also worked as the executive chef at Solstice at Stowe Mountain Lodge where he proved that farm-to-hotel dining can be profitable and that high volume is not a barrier to local foods. As Business Development Manager for Black River Produce, a local produce and specialty-foods distributor, Sean helps local chefs integrate sustainable ingredients into their menus. He is familiar with the issues that farmers and producers face in getting their product to market.

Meat Goat

Selection, Carcass Evaluation & Fabrication Guide

This manual has been developed as a guide to the meat goat industry in evaluating live meat goats, measuring important carcass traits and standardizing cutting procedures for goat carcasses. The terminology in this manual has been adapted from USDA Agricultural Marketing Service Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications (IMPS) selection criteria for live goats and goat carcasses in Series 11 Fresh Goat. Traits that influence meat yield are conformation, relative proportion of muscle to fat and bone, and the relative body size as weight or the heart girth/barrel circumference measurement.

innovate • educate • improve lives



Meat Goat

Conformation Selection Criteria The USDA Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications criteria for live goats and carcasses are based on consideration of conformation (muscle to bone). Selection 1 goats have a high proportion (by weight) of meat to bone. Selection 3 goats and carcasses have a low ratio of meat to bone. External or subcutaneous fat is deposited on kid goats over the ribs and behind the shoulder with minimal fat deposition over the back muscle (Longissimus dorsi), except with high concentrate feeding regimes. Terminology from USDA Agricultural Marketing Service Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications for Fresh Goat Series 11 is used to describe characteristics for each selection classification. Selection 1 live goats and/or carcasses have a superior meat-type conformation without regard to the presence of fat cover. They shall be thickly muscled throughout the body as indicated by: • A pronounced (bulging) outside leg (Biceps femoris and Semitendinosus). • A full (rounded) back strip (rib and loin, Longissimus dorsi). • A moderately thick outside shoulder (Triceps brachii group). Selection 2 live goats and/or carcasses have an average meat-type conformation without regard to the presence of fat cover. They shall be moderately muscled throughout the body as indicated by: • A slightly thick and a slightly pronounced outside leg (Biceps femoris and Semitendinosus). • A slightly full (flat or slightly shallow) back strip (rib and loin, Longissimus dorsi). • A slightly thick to slightly thin outside shoulder (Triceps brachii group). Selection 3 live goats and/or carcasses have an inferior meat-type conformation without regard to the presence of fat cover. The legs, back and shoulders are narrow in relation with its length and they have a very angular and sunken appearance.

Numbering System for Selection Classifications Each selection classification can be divided into 100 parts. The highest selection for live goats is 199, and 300 is the lowest selection score. Selection scores are usually assigned to the nearest 10 parts, e.g. 110, 240 or 320. Selection Classification Relative Conformation

No. 1

No. 2

No. 3

Highest conformation score

1

2

99

399

Middle conformation score

150

250

350

Lowest conformation score

100

200

300



99

Selection 1 150

Selection 1 kid goat is a typical meat goat in the middle of the classification or 150. The three views of this goat show superior meat conformation with thick muscling throughout the body that will give a high meatto-bone ratio. Moderately thick muscling appears through the chest, and the muscling over the back strip is full and rounded. The outside leg has bulging muscling, and the outside shoulder is moderately thick. The kid goat exhibits the desired muscle-to-bone ratio desired to give superior meat yield.

Selection 2 250

Selection 2 classification requires moderate muscling throughout the body. This goat has average muscling desired for the conformation selection class, a Selection 250. The chest muscling is moderate, and the back strip muscling is flat, reflecting slight fullness along the back. The outside leg has only slightly thick muscling, and the shoulder muscling is slightly thin. The leg muscling is slightly higher than expected for a goat with 250 selection classification, and the shoulder muscling is thinner than desired for a goat in the middle of Selection 2 classification. This goat with Selection 250 classification will have a medium meat yield, because of the average muscle-to-bone ratio.

Selection 3 370

Selection 3 goats have inferior meat conformation. This goat has slightly thin muscling through the breast and along the back and very thin muscling through the leg. The legs, back and shoulder are narrow compared with the body length. The sunken appearance at the top of the shoulder, below the loin, top of the rump and base of the leg indicates the lack of conformation and poor yield of meat from this goat.

Market Kid Goats Selection Classification Comparisons

Selection 1 150

Selection 2 250

Selection 3 370 These pictures also show that goats will appear different in different lighting conditions. The three views above show the same goat, but under different light, so that the coat color is a different shade in the three pictures. Shadows also will change the visual impressions of live animals. 

Goat Carcass Evaluation Selection Classification Comparisons

Carcasses of meat species are evaluated to give an estimation of the ratio of muscle to fat and bone or the amount of edible meat that will be obtained. Goats have a distinctive hip and leg structure that changes during cooling of carcasses to give the carcasses a more elongated and stretched appearance than with other meat species. The relative proportion of lean meat yield from the carcass is influenced by carcass weight, carcass conformation, amount of kidney, heart, and pelvic fat within the body cavity, and relative extent and depth of subcutaneous fat over the shoulder and ribs. Goats and their carcasses have unique muscle, fat and bone growth and development that require evaluation of different carcass traits than the traits evaluated in other red meat species. The major back muscle (Longissimus dorsi) is usually too small to be measured accurately in most goat carcasses weighing less than 60 pounds, so the thickness of muscles in the different carcass parts is used to determine the carcass conformation. Lean flank color

is indicative of relative physiological age of the live goat, with a paler red color more highly desired by consumers. The same descriptive conformation terminology is used for live goats and goat carcasses. Carcass traits that can be easily evaluated and highly influence muscle to bone ratios or consumer desirability are: • Carcass weight (usually hot carcass weight before the carcass is chilled after slaughter) • Conformation as Selection 1, Selection 2 or Selection 3. • External fat score as 1 = minimal/none, 2 = fat over rib and shoulder, 3 = excessive fat cover. • Kidney, heart and pelvic internal fat as a percentage of hot carcass weight. • Lean color as A (pale red, B (dark red), C (very dark red).

Selection 1 150

Goat carcasses in selection 1 have superior meat-type conformation with the highest meatto-bone ratios and highest yields of meat. This carcass has thick leg muscling with bulging outside leg muscles. The back muscle (L. dorsi) is full through the loin and ribs. The loin and leg junction and the shoulder show thick muscling. The muscling is uniform throughout the body. The carcass shown is typical of a selection 150 carcass that is midway between the highest selection 199 and lowest selection 100 conformation scores.

Selection 2 250

This selection 2 goat carcass exhibits moderate muscling throughout. The leg is slightly thickmuscled with slightly bulging outside-leg muscling. The L. dorsi in the loin and rib along the back is slightly full. A depression at the loin and leg junction indicates a lack of muscling in this region. The shoulders are slightly thick. The side view shows a deficiency of leg depth and lack of muscle thickness in the back and shoulder areas. This carcass is typical of a carcass in the Selection 250 classification.

Selection 3 370

Selection 3 goat carcasses produce a lower yield of lean meat compared to the body weight and size. The carcass narrowness indicates the lack of muscling throughout the carcass. The leg muscling on this carcass is moderate, with a slightly full outside leg. The loin and ribs have very shallow muscling, as indicated by the depression along the top of the back. The shoulder muscling is slightly thin. The thinness of the carcass gives a shrunken appearance. This carcass is typical of one in the midrange of the selection 3 classification.



150

250

350

Kid Goat Carcass Evaluation Traits Flank Lean Color

Lean color is observed on the inner portion of the flank muscle. The amount of pigment in the muscle increases with animal age, resulting in a darker color. Color score A is the lightest and pinkest; C is the darkest flank muscle color; color score B is the intermediate. Color of the lean is not necessarily related to overall palatability, but a lighter, pinker flank muscle indicates a goat with less physiological maturity. Meat from younger goats is generally preferred by consumers to meat from yearling or older goats. Meat goat consumers have indicated preference for meat with a lighter color, which is usually obtained with younger kid goats.

A30

B30

Kidney, Heart and Pelvic Fat

Goats deposit fat in the kidney and pelvic regions before depositing fat behind the shoulders and over the ribs. Kidney, pelvic and heart fat are reported as a percentage of the carcass weight. Trained observers can make accurate visual estimations of the actual percent KPH fat based upon the degree to which the KPH fat fills the body cavity relative to the carcass size. Learning to estimate the amount of KPH fat is best accomplished by removing the fat from the body cavity and weighing it to calculate the percentage of KPH fat of the total carcass weight. KPH fat is left in goat carcasses until carcass fabrication into cuts to reduce moisture loss and to add weight for sales of carcasses through the different meat marketing channels.

1%

3.5%

2%

Subcutaneous Fat Cover Score

Subcutaneous body fat is deposited differently in goats than in the other red meat species. The external fat is usually deposited behind the shoulder and over the ribs, but not over the back. The objective measurement of external fat depth is difficult, but the estimation of external fat is important because the fat will be trimmed from the carcass or cuts before sale of retail cuts to the consumer, which reduces the lean meat yield. The subjective fat cover scores of 1, 2 and 3 reflect the relative degree of fat covering the carcass. More fat is typically deposited over the ribs and behind the shoulder than over the rear legs and back. Overly fat carcasses have a thin layer of fat over the back and a very thick pad of fat over the shoulders and ribs, as shown for fat score 3.



1

2

3

USDA Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications Fresh Goat Series 11

The USDA IMPS for Fresh Goat Series 11 describe five cutting styles that correspond to different carcass weights and subsequent cuts for institutional and retail purchasers. The IMPS codification system has platter, roasting, barbeque, food service and hotel styles with identification codes that give common language and uniform specifications for carcasses, cuts and products. Meat cuts from the different styles include foreshank, hindshank, neck, foresaddle, shoulder, outside shoulder, inside shoulder, rack, ribs, breast, back, loin, sirloin and legs.



Average Weights and Weight Ranges of IMPS Cuts with Different Goat Carcass Styles Style Carcass weight lb. Cut name Leg

Platter 15 or less

Roasting 15 to 30 Average Weight weight range 3

2-4

Barbeque 20 to 40 Average Weight weight range 7.5

3.3-10

Hind shank Loin

4

Food Service 30 to 40 Average Weight weight range 8.2

1.7-12

11.3

7.6-19

1.4

0.6-6.7

1.6

1.1-2.4

2.8

1.8-3.8

6.5

4-17.4

6.2

3.3-13.6

10.5

6.5-21.2

2.2

1.3-8.9

1.7

0.8-3.3

3-6

Back

2

1.2-5

5.8

4 -8.8

Rack (rib) Ribs Shoulder

9.6

7.5

4.7-12.6

3.7

2.7-5.6

3.8

0.9-6.6

6.3

1.1-7.7

7-11.5

Outside shoulder Square shoulder Fore shank Neck

Hotel 40 and above Average Weight weight range

1

0.5-1.5

0.8

0.5-1.4

1.2

0.8-1.9

1.5

0.7-2.3

Fresh Goat IMPS Purchaser Specified Options Purchaser specified options in IMPS allow the customer to precisely define the parameters of the meat product to be purchased. The options also may guide the processor in fabricating carcasses into cuts to provide uniformity in the product appearance, composition and quality. Additional details are in the Fresh Goat series 11 IMPS at http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/imps.htm.

• • • • • • • • • • • • •



Style (platter, roasting, barbeque, food service, hotel) Cut identification (primal cut or location on carcass) Boneless or bone-in, tail length, special cutting instructions Added ingredients such as enhancement solutions Conformation selection (1, 2, 3) Class – buck, doe, wether Maturity – kid, yearling, goat Breed type, forage type, organic certification Slaughter – Halal, Kosher Refrigeration – fresh (refrigerated) or frozen Weight or thickness of portion cut, cut fat trimming Netting/tying and packaging and packing requirements Quality assurance requirements

This manual was funded as part of a National Sheep and Goat Industry Improvement Grant from the USDA National Sheep Improvement Center, Washington, DC. The information in the manual was derived from projects funded by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program, USDA Cooperative States Research Service, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Southern University Agricultural Research and Extension Center and Prairie View A&M University and used information from the USDA AMS Livestock and Seed Program Meat Grading and Certification Branch as interpreted by the editors and the expert evaluation panel. The historical basis for this guide has been to improve the marketing of meat goats by establishing uniform communication terminology to facilitate trade in the industry. Studies for potential brand identity marketing determined that consumers were unable to distinguish meat from kid and yearling goats when goats had high and medium conformation. The fresh goat IMPS developed criteria to assess relative lean to fat and bone and provided a written description of attributes for selection criteria for live goats and meat goat carcasses. Pictures of live goats and carcasses were obtained in numerous cooperative research and service projects. An expert panel determined the most accurate depictions and appropriate descriptive information for the live animal, carcass and cut representations in the manual. It is intended that this manual will undergo revisions as the meat goat industry continues to produce kid goats with higher conformation and heavier muscling. Ken McMillin and Frank Pinkerton, editors, are, respectively, Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Goat Extension Specialist (retired), Langston University, Martindale, Texas. Members of the expert evaluation panel were: Mr. David Foster, Director (retired), Livestock Market News, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Ms. Rebecca Sauder, Livestock Market News, USDA, San Angelo, Texas Mr. Mike Windham, Program Manager (retired), Meat Inspection, Grading and Certification, Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Mr. Curtis Chisley, Livestock and Meat Specialist, Southern University Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Mr. Orlando Phelps, USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, Livestock and Seed, Meat Grading and Certification Branch, Golden, Colorado

For the latest research-based information on just about anything, visit our Web site www.lsuagcenter.com Louisiana State University Agricultural Center William B. Richardson, Chancellor Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station David J. Boethel, Vice Chancellor and Director Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service Paul D. Coreil, Vice Chancellor and Director Pub. 2951 (3M) 01/08 Rev.

Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. The Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service provides equal opportunities in programs and employment.





Meat, Carcass and Offal Yields of Goats •

Bruce McGregor, Goat Specialist Agriculture Victoria, Victorian Institute of Animal Science

Introduction Over the years I have often been asked about the amount of meat and the amount of fat in goat carcasses. A common misconception about goats was that they were lean, in fact leaner than sheep. This myth was based, I believe, on observations made on dairy type goats. For many years the most widely read book on goats was the bible of dairy goat keepers, David Mackenzie's "Goat Husbandry" first published in 1957. In the chapter on Goat Meat Mackenzie discusses meat from castrated male (wether) goats of 9 to 18 months of age and states that the problem is "lack of fat". He quotes a Spanish reference "The goat is a bad butchers beast". The problem of lack of fat can be overcome by "larding" (running strips of pork fat through the flesh) or by "marinating" in olive oil for 3 or 4 days. It seems that the butchers' problem was actually a cooks' problem! and now cooks are looking for lean meat. In recent years Australian goat meat buyers have discriminated against goats if their carcasses were too fat. So how much meat and fat are in Australian goat carcasses? This article provides information on the meat yield, carcass composition and yield of other components (offal) from Australian goats. Offal yield can be important as sometimes the offal value can exceed the value of the carcass. The skin can also be valuable if suitable skin markets exist.

What are the body components of a live goat? To determine the components of a live Angora goat, 30 Angora wethers were grazed on annual pastures from 6 months of age, for periods up to 4 years of age. At intervals, goats were randomly selected and slaughtered. The mean live weight of the slaughtered goats was 30 kg (range 11.2 to 48.1 kg) and mean age 2.5 years. Prior to slaughter, goats were removed from feed and water for 24 hours. Following slaughter the components of the bodies were carefully weighed, cleaned where appropriate, and carcasses were minced and sampled for chemical analyses. Blood was not measured but gut contents were collected. Statistical analyses allowed me to relate the weight of the components to the live weight of the goats. These relationships or equations are used to estimate or predict the components of animals of known live weight. There is always variation due to differences in gut fill and fleece weight, and individual variation between animals. Table 1 shows a list of the predicted components of an Angora wether goat with a fasted live weight of 30 kg. Table 1. The body components of an Angora wether goat with a fasted live weight of 30 kg Component Weight kg % of live weight Carcass 13.4 44.6 (fat in carcass 2.83 9.4) Skin 2.55 8.5 Head 2.10 7.0 Feet 0.73 2.4 Liver 0.44 1.4 Lungs 0.38 1.2

Heart 0.15 0.5 Rumen/reticulum 0.68 2.2 Intestines 1.23 4.1 Gut contents 5.92 19.7 Omental fat 0.64 2.1 Mesenteric fat 0.59 2.0 Peri-renal fat 0.28 0.9 Kidneys 0.09 0.3 Pancreas 0.05 0.2 Spleen 0.06 0.2 Gall bladder 0.02 0.1 Diaphragm 0.12 0.4 Pizzle and bladder 0.11 0.4 Other 0.14 0.5 Total measured 29.4 98.0 The major component in the body of goats is water. Water usually makes up 60 to 70% of the body with fat and minerals making up most of the remainder. Gut contents, from the rumen, other stomachs and the intestines comprise nearly 20% or one fifth of the weight of a fasted 30 kg goat. If goats are fasted for 24 hours they commonly lose 1 to 2 kg of weight. If this weight is added to measured gut contents it indicates that gut contents represent 7 to 8 kg of the weight or almost one quarter of the live weight of 31 to 32 kg grazing goats. It is not surprising that if goats are deprived from feed and water for periods during yarding, shedding and transport that their weight, as measured on scales, declines. Short term fasting of 24 to 48 hours (in cool weather) does not result in significant changes in carcass weight. The portion of the 30 kg goat normally regarded as edible in Australia, the carcass, liver, heart, intestines, spleen, brains, omental and peri-renal fat amounted to about 16.4 kg or 54.7%. The head and skin together represent 15% of the animal. (In this study some mohair was present on the skins, amounting to about 350 g.) Fat deposits are easily measured around the kidneys (peri-renal fat), the rumen (omental fat) and the intestines (mesenteric fat) and when added to all the fat from the carcass deposits totalled 4.34 kg or 14.5%. This is not the total fat in the goat as I did not chemically extract fat from the other organs and tissues. Probably the total amount of fat in the 30 kg goat would be approximately 20% of the live animal. The carcass of the 30 kg Angora wether contained 21.1% fat (2.83 kg fat /13.4 kg carcass). This compares with earlier studies with grazing Saanen wether goats whose 14 kg carcasses contained 17.1% fat. Extensive studies with Australian meat type lambs showed that 15 kg lamb carcasses contain 22.7% fat. At these carcass weights grazing Angora goats have similar levels of carcass fat to lambs but Saanen goats had lower fat levels and consequently 7% more lean meat than lambs.

How much saleable meat is on that goat? Producers of goats for meat are really in the business of growing saleable carcasses. As goats grow they deposit more fat in their carcass, reducing the percentage lean and increasing the

percentage fat. The main influences on carcass weight and composition are live weight, breed, sex and nutrition.

Live weight Studies with goats have indicated that as goats grow, carcass weight increases by 0.43 to 0.54 kg for every 1 kg increase in live weight. As live weight increases goats also tend to deposit more fat in their carcass. Figure 1 shows the relationship between the live weight and carcass weight for Angora wether goats grazed on pasture. Figure 1 also shows the carcass fat content of these Angora goats.

Figure 1. The relationship between the live weight of Angora wether goats grazed on pasture and their carcass weight and the weight of fat in their carcass. During growth from birth to maturity, fat deposits develop twice as fast as the empty body (body weight less the gut fill), while bone develops slower than the empty body. Muscles and the carcass develop at a slightly faster rate than the empty body. For example, data from a group of 16 week old cashmere kids showed an increase of 0.450 kg of carcass for every 1 kg increase in carcass weight. At 30 weeks of age, when the kids had grown a further 7 kg to approximately 21 kg, the data indicate that for each 1 kg increase in live weight carcass weight increased 0.515 kg. Generally as goats grow, the proportion of the body that is the carcass, increases. This proportion is often called the dressing percentage. Dressing percentage can vary a lot depending on the management of the animal, whether it has been fasted, shorn and the diet which affects gut fill. For example, with Angora goats at 10 kg live weight the carcass represents about 35% of live weight but at 50 kg live weight the carcass may represent 48% of live weight.

Breed The is increasing evidence that at any given live weight animals of larger mature size are leaner than animals of smaller mature size. Breeds of goats with larger mature size also tend to grow faster than breeds with a smaller mature size provided adequate nutrition is available and internal parasites are at low levels. The estimated mature size of some goat breeds are given in Table 2. Table 2. The estimated mature size of some goat breeds Breed Mature weight kg Boer 100-110 Saanen 90-100 Anglo-Nubian 80-90 Angora 60-80 Feral 45-80

Barbari Dwarf African

35-45 20-25

Sex Generally at any particular live weight entire males are leaner than castrates which are leaner than females. These generalisations can be distorted by management, lactation, seasonal conditions etc. Sexual maturity also influences development of the body. For example at the same live weight mature New Zealand feral does compared to mature bucks had heavier legs and loins but bucks had heavier shoulders and necks compared to the does (Table 3). Table 3. The effect of sex on the proportion of a carcass in different carcass components of feral goats % of Carcass carcass in Component Does Bucks Leg 31.3 29.8 Loin 11.5 10.2 Ribs 9.0 8.7 Shoulder 20.6 20.8 Neck 7.3 9.7

Nutrition Nutrition can influence carcass fatness with grain feeding often resulting in fatter carcasses than carcasses from animals of similar live weight that have grazed. Droughts and periods of live weight loss result in carcasses leaner than normally grown carcasses of similar weight. For example carcasses from drought affected Angora goats weighed 6.6 kg with 8.9% fat compared to normally grown carcasses with approximately 14.2% fat. During lactation, does usually use their fat reserves resulting in leaner carcasses but well fed does can actually lay down fat reserves during the latter part of lactation. Angora type goats can become very fat if fed on cereal grain based diets. In another study Angora x feral goats were slaughtered after grain feeding for 18 weeks. Fasted live weights were 26.9 kg and carcass weights 13.3 kg. The carcasses of the wether goats had a fat content of 29.7% and doe carcasses contained 37.6% fat. The total of carcass, omental, peri-renal, and mesenteric fat was 6.33 and 8.05 kg for wethers and does, representing 23.4% and 30.1% of the fasted live weight. Total chemical fat measured would probably have been nearly 5% higher.

Carcass Meat Yield The direct method of measuring the actual meat yield of a carcass is to take the carcasses to a commercial boning room where the butchers remove the meat from the bones. Using cashmere wether goats aged between 2.5 and 4.5 years with live weights ranging from 27 to 79 kg the following meat yields were measured: • The carcass weights ranged from 12 to 33 kg • Averaged over the entire kill, for every 1 kg increase in live weight, boneless meat increased 0.307 kg (Figure 2) • Goats weighing more than 44 kg live weight, with body condition scores of more than 2, produced carcasses weighing more than 20 kg with a boneless meat yield of 64.2% • Boneless meat yield declined to 61.1% at 13.8 kg carcass weight (Figure 3)

•

live weight and body condition scoring, when used together, were the best methods of estimating carcass weight and meat production from goats

Figure 2 The relationship between the boneless meat content of cashmere wether goats as live weight increased.

Figure 3 The relationship between the boneless meat content of wether goats as carcass weight increased. The conclusions are that: 1. Live weight is the best single indicator for farmers to estimate carcass weight and boneless meat yield of goats kept for meat production. 2. Farmers should use body condition scoring to ensure satisfactory nutritional management and commercial acceptance of goats for slaughter. References Kirton,A.H. (1970) New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 13:167. McGregor,B.A.(1982) Animal Production in Australia 14:487-90. McGregor,B.A.(1990) Small Ruminant Research 3:465-473. McGregor B.A. (1992) Proc Vth International Conference on Goats pp 1497-1500. McGregor B.A. (1992) Animal Production in Australia 19: 273 - 276. McGregor,B.A., Wolde-Michael,T., and Holmes,J.H.G. (1988) Animal Production in Australia 17:234-237. © 2000 B.A.McGregor

How I Learned to Love Goat Meat YOU never know where goat will take you. When I asked the smiley butcher at Jefferson Market, the grocery store near my apartment in the West Village, whether he had any goat meat, he told me: “No. I got a leg of lamb, though — I could trim it nice and thin to make it look like goat.” I politely declined. We fell into conversation.

NOT LAMB, NOT BEEF... Goat meat is a staple in many cuisines around the world but only recently has become a novelty at restaurants in Manhattan and elsewhere.

I found myself telling him: “Koreans think eating goat soup increases virility. It can lead to better sexytime.” My new friend responded: “My lamb does that a little. You won’t want to every night, but maybe every other night.” Reaching toward his counter to pick up a mound of hamburger, he paused to ask, “It’s for you, the goat?”

Mine is the tale of the recent convert. Admittedly, I’m late to the party: goat is the most widely consumed meat in the world, a staple of, among others, Mexican, Indian, Greek and southern Italian cuisines. Moreover, it’s been edging its way into yuppier climes for a year or so now, click-clacking its cloven hooves up and down the coasts and to places like Houston and Des Moines. (When New York magazine proclaimed eating goat a “trendlet” last summer, one reader wrote on the magazine’s Web site, “Here are white people again!!!! Acting like they invented goat meat.”) A famed beef and pork rancher, Bill Niman, returned from retirement to raise goats in Bolinas, Calif.; New York City has a chef (Scott Conant) who’s made kid his signature dish. By HENRY ALFORD Published: March 31, 2009

Novelty and great flavor aren’t the only draws here — the meat is lower in fat than chicken but higher in protein than beef. There’s even an adorable neologism (“chevon”) for those who want their meat to sound like a miniature Chevrolet or a member of a 1960’s girl group. I’d partaken of the bearded ruminant before, most memorably in a Jamaican curry in Brooklyn. I’d liked the flavor of the meat, equidistant as it was from lamb and beef. But when my teeth wrangled a particularly tough piece of meat that was shield-shaped and curved and slightly rubbery, I had the distinct impression that I had bitten into the cup of a tiny bra. Indeed, goats have long held a lowly reputation. Scavengers, they are falsely accused of eating tin cans. Their unappetizing visage is simultaneously dopey and satanic, like a Disney character with a terrible secret. Their chin hair is sometimes prodigious enough to carpet Montana. Chaucer said they “stinken.” My conversion moment came this February when I went to the West Village restaurant Cabrito and had the goat tacos. This hip taquería-style restaurant — which is named after the baby goat that is pit-barbecued in Texas and Mexico — marinates its meat for 24 hours before wet-roasting it over pineapple, chilies, onion and garlic. The resultant delicious pulled meat is tender throughout and slightly crisp and caramelized around the edges. Think lamb, but with a tang of earthy darkness. Think lamb, but with a rustle in the bushes. Think ... jungle lamb.

Suddenly I was go go goat. I wanted to order goat in as many restaurants as possible. Shortly into this process, a friend asked me, “Is it gay meat?” Confused, I said, “There’s nothing gay about it at all.” She explained, “No, I said is it gamey?” Oh, that. Only very slightly, and depending on how it’s prepared. Two of my favorite goat dishes in New York are the least gamey. At Scarpetta, Mr. Conant’s signature dish, capretto, consists of slices of moistroasted kid floating on top of a column of peas and cubed fingerlings. Convivio serves baked cavatelli in a tomato-braised goat ragù. In both dishes, the meat is as tender as a Jennifer Aniston movie. Once I’d tasted a wide variety of goat — from a spicy curry at Dera in Jackson Heights, to a goat paratha at the Indian takeout place Lassi, two blocks from my apartment — it was time to make some of my own. Three butchers in my neighborhood told me that, with three days’ or a week’s notice, they could get me frozen goat meat. “You have elk and wild boar, but not goat?” I harangued a butcher at Citarella, invoking Norma Rae; he countered, “That’s how life is,” suddenly Montaigne. I had better luck at the Union Square greenmarket, where two farms, Patches of Stars and Lynnhaven, sell frozen meat for about $13 to $18 a pound on Saturdays (and Lynnhaven on Wednesdays, too), as well as at Esposito Meats at 900 Ninth Avenue, which has it daily ($4.98 a pound). I found fresh goat meat available daily at $4.50 a pound at Atlantic Halal on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn. Two things quickly became clear once I started cooking. First, because it’s so lean, goat is particularly good when braised or cooked with moist heat so it won’t dry out. While my mantis, or mini Turkish ravioli, filled with goat and parsley and onion, were pretty good and my goat and pork polpettine, or tiny meatballs, slightly better, the two winners so far have been goat ragù and chèvre à cinq heures. The former, an adaptation of the chef Andrew Carmellini’s lamb ragù, adds cumin and lots of fresh herbs (thyme, rosemary and mint) to a tomato ragù, yielding a dish that evokes the saturated greenness of a meadow in springtime. In the latter, an Anthony Bourdain recipe, you cook a garlic-clove-studded leg of lamb — or, in this case, goat — in a Dutch oven so it can have all the benefit of sitting for five hours in a pool of white wine and 20 more cloves of garlic. My second realization was that goat, like lamb, has a lot of the fatty membrane known as caul. Though a sharp knife is your friend here, I have, on two occasions, resorted to using scissors, and, while doing so, been reminded of how the chef Fergus Henderson uses a Bic razor to depilate pig. This is the only part of cooking goat that I don’t love — however, I will confess that I think the single most terrifying passage in all of literature is from a lamb recipe in Madame Guinaudeau’s 1958 book “Traditional Moroccan Cooking”: “Make a hole with the point of the knife just above the knee joint of one of the legs between flesh and skin. Blow through the opening until the air gets to the fore legs and makes them stick up.” It is the hallmark of the true enthusiast that he is wont to proselytize. Indeed, I recently threw a dinner party at which I served goat at every course — the polpettine among the appetizers, the ragù as our entrée, and a cheesecake interlarded with nearly a pound of Coach Farm’s chèvre for dessert. At evening’s end, as my wine-fueled guests prepared to scramble down the stairs of my four-flight walk-up, it was all I could do not to tie tiny bells around their necks. More recently, in an effort at romantic overture, I mail-ordered some of Mr. Niman’s wonderfully flavorsome loin chops ($45 for 3 pounds from www.preferredmeats.com); marinated them in red wine, garlic and rosemary before broiling them; and ate them with my boyfriend amid candlelight and fresh flowers. Did the goat yield the desired end? Let a veil of decorous restraint fall over the proceedings forthwith, the better to mask a small storm of bleats and four cloven hooves, gently twitching.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/dining/01goat.html?pagewanted=all

MARKETING Nicole L’Huillier Fenton and Steve Redmond, co-founders of Skillet Design & Marketing, a Burlington-based firm, will lead the Marketing discussion. The pair will focus on the use of branding principles to dissect the strength of a chevon-industry concept and its introduction to the consumer. Although goat meat is the most widely-consumed meat in the world, it has not yet caught on in the United States. The challenge facing goat-meat producers is how to brand and market chevon as a high-quality, high-value product. Please see the reference documents in this section of your binder for information related to this discussion topic.

MARKETING

http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2011/07/26/55-five-reasons-to-consider-the-goat/

5@5 - Five reasons to consider the goat 5@5 is a daily, food-related list from chefs, writers, political pundits, musicians, actors, and all manner of opinionated people from around the globe. There is a newer, more popular kid on the block - and he can grow a beard. When Andrew Knowlton, the Restaurant and Drinks editor of Bon Appétit magazine, was recently asked if goat meat was the next darling of the culinary world, this is what he had to say: July 26th, 2011 05:00 PM ET

While goat sits somewhere near the bottom on the list of America’s favorite proteins, it’s the most widely consumed meat on the planet. Goat has found a place on a few high-end restaurant menus thanks to chefs who know it’s healthy, sustainable, and delicious in a lamby sort of way.

And Jessica Wilson, who is the executive chef of the appropriately named Goat Town restaurant, might be bleating with joy to hear that. Five Reasons to Consider the Goat: Jessica Wilson 1. They’re, well, delicious! “For it being a game meat, it’s definitely much sweeter. The fat in it is very flavorful and tender, and that releases a lot of aromatic tastes. It’s flavorful in a different way than traditional meats. And as with any meat, wherever you source from – and how much the goat is being worked - is going to factor into the taste. If they’re not out there running around and constantly grazing, if it’s brought up in a way that’s not right, that body of meat is going to be tougher. It’s got to be relaxed and able to do its own natural processes.” 2. Take advantage of it - it’s there! “Nowadays, it’s easier to access - just because people want to know where their food is coming from. Usually it was a whole goat, just because the demand was lower, but now at the farmers market, you can get goat meat. If you haven’t cooked it before, I would recommend definitely curing it, even just short a cure of sugar, salt and aromatics - something to seal in the juices before you cook. I would also recommend putting it on the grill to get a char before you braise it, instead of browning it in a sauté pan.” 3. Nutritious and delicious “Goat meat is leaner and has a lot of nutritional qualities. It’s much lower in calories and fat. It does have fat on it, but it’s leaner. The saturated fat is very, very low compared to beef. The cholesterol levels in it are also very low for traditional meat. It’s very high in iron, and for someone like myself who is slightly anemic and needs that extra iron, you get high amounts of iron in goat. There’s a lot of calcium in it; there are lower sodium levels as well. There are lots of health benefits! It’s leaner than chicken, lamb, pork, beef – it doesn’t need a lot of seasoning either because there is a lot of natural flavor. And then you have the milk, which is a whole other thing.” 4. Go(a)t milk? “I grew up with goat milk on a farm in Vermont so that’s what I always drank - I didn’t have cow milk growing up. Your body can break it down better - for people who are lactose intolerant, it’s better for you. Your body recognizes it’s a little better; it’s easier to digest. The calcium level is a little bit purer - there’s not as much processing to it. And goat milk, as with cow milk, definitely aids in strengthening bones.” 5. It’s always been around “For many cultures, they’ve been celebrating it for a very long time. It’s a religious statement - a beautiful animal that should really be celebrated. Sure, goat might be kind of an unfamiliar place to go or maybe you had goat meat before when it was really tough, but the flavor in it is amazing. As with anything, even if you had it once before, you should at least revisit it one more time.”

Demand For Goat Cheese Spurs Growth Of Goat Dairies

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/31/demand-goat-chees...

November 16, 2012

Demand For Goat Cheese Spurs Growth Of Goat Dairies By LISA RATHKE 05/30/11 03:36 AM ET BRANDON, Vt. -- Fluctuating milk prices have long made dairy farming a risky business, and when milk prices crashed in 2002, Chris Lekberg gave up. He sold his cows and bought goats. It turned out to be a wise decision. He now has more than 50 goats, and with growing demand for goat cheese, he gets a steady price for their milk from a nearby cheesemaker. While the big dairy states of Wisconsin and California have the most dairy goats, according to the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service, the industry is growing in New England as well. Some feel it makes sense in Vermont, which has a long history of dairy farming but has seen hundreds of cow dairies go under amid low milk prices and high feed costs. While Vermont remains New England's largest fluid milk producer, it has lost 1,380 dairy farms in the past 20 years. Nationwide, the number of dairy goats has been slowly but steadily increasing, from nearly 335,000 in 2007 to 360,000 in 2011, according to the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service. The growth reflects increases in goat cheese production seen by the American Cheese Society. Last year, fresh goat cheese was the largest category at its annual competition with 139 entries, compared to 2009 when cheddars (from any milk) were king. Lekberg, 48, still drives a school bus, and his wife works to make ends meet, but he said he's making a profit with the goats, which he wasn't with his cows. "It's typical farming," he said. "You're not getting rich at it. The margins are real close. You're always counting your pennies each time you do something. But we're keeping our head above water." By selling directly to a cheesemaker in a simpler system than in regular dairy farming, he says he gets a steady price for his goat milk, about 45 cents a pound or $45 per hundred pounds. In comparison, he was getting roughly $11 per hundred pounds for his cows' milk when he bowed out in 2002, and dairy farmers now get $21 per hundred pounds. Dairy goats produce less milk than cows, up to 3,000 pounds a year compared to 27,000 pounds from the best Holsteins, agriculture officials said. But, the feed for one cow equals the feed for seven to eight goats, making the costs a wash. "The thing that's definitely better about this than the cows is the price stays the same so you know what you're getting per pound of milk all the time," Lekberg said. While goats may be easier to manage than cows because of their size, they present their own challenges. Lekberg said his Alpine goats chew everything in sight, even gnawing through aluminum sheets on the walls in his barn. But, he enjoys their personality. "They're curious," he said. "If you go in the field to try and do something while they're out there you can't do it. They're going to be sticking noses in, right there having fun." Lekberg sells his milk to Blue Ledge Farm, an 85-goat dairy and cheesemaker in Salisbury. The 10-year-old farm has had its best years in the past two to three, said co-owner Greg Bernhardt, 34. The farm, which is on an old cow dairy farm, produces 40,000 pounds per year of chevres, Gouda-style and aged cheeses that it sells in New England and New York. "The cheese industry is always pushing you (to produce) more and more because the market is strong," Bernhardt said. The owners of the larger Vermont Butter & Cheese Creamery in Websterville said they only get a third of their goats' milk from Vermont dairies now, but they'd like to get more so they could have more of an influence over the quality and freshness of the milk. "We don't see long-term the sustainability of transporting milk long distances. We think it's an industry that's appropriate for Vermont and our landscape, and you know, we just see this as a great opportunity," co-owner Allison Hooper, 51, said. The creamery could support five to 10 large dairies milking 500 goats each if the state had them, Hooper said. Vermont is now home to 26 goat dairies, including four large ones and smaller farmstead cheese operations. It also has built up an artisanal cheese industry – some of it made from goat's milk – with about 42 cheesemakers – the most per person in the country, according to the Vermont Institute for Artisan cheese. But switching to dairy goats doesn't make sense for every farm. Trucking costs prevent some smaller operations from selling to Vermont Butter & Cheese. And, only a few Vermont cheesemakers buy milk from other goat dairies so the demand for goats' milk right now remains low compared to cows' milk. To help goat farmers and want-to-be farmers in northeastern Vermont, a development association has hired a part-time person with a USDA grant. The goal is to increase profits by improving milk quality, reduce feed costs by having farms buy it together and encourage farmers to share information. "You could characterize the dairy goat industry in this country as fairly undeveloped," Hooper said. "And we look to Europe, France and Holland for expertise. They have many, many more goats in Europe, much more developed industry there."

×

people have highlighted this!

1 of 2

11/16/12 10:53 PM

A hard lesson in sustainability: Goat dairies have little use for male kids http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20110515/ GREEN01/105150306/A-hard-lesson-sustainabilityGoat-dairies-little-Page

11:53 AM, May 15, 2011

A group of Vermont students recently traveled to New York to sell goats from their dairy herd for meat. The Sterling College excursion taught sustainability — economically and environmentally — by bringing into stark relief this hard truth: Goat dairies have little use for male kids. The seven live goats stayed outside in the trailer while Louise Calderwood and her students peered through a glass-windowed door into the meat-cutting room at Vermont Livestock Slaughter in Ferrisburgh. The group was there on a recent Tuesday morning to pick up five processed goats that had made the same trip down from Sterling College in Craftsbury the preceding week. As slaughterhouse staff wrapped them in plastic, the slender, roughly 20-pound goat carcasses contrasted sharply with the huge hunks of beef on the cutting table. Together, the 12 live and processed goats accounted for half the small herd that Calderwood’s spring semester Animal Science II class had bought from a dairy goat farm in Westfield shortly after they were born and then raised during a two-month period. It was the second year that the goat-raising class project concluded with a trip to New York City to try to sell the meat to customers including chefs and butchers. New this year, at the suggestion of a student, Calderwood also had lined up a potential live market in the Bronx where animals are slaughtered to order, often following halal procedure to meet Islamic dietary guidelines. “If you raise an animal, you have to focus on the finances,” said Calderwood, 49, a former University of Vermont extension dairy specialist, dairy farmer and Vermont deputy secretary of agriculture who has taught at the small, hands-on, environmentally oriented Northeast Kingdom college for five years. And by finances, Calderwood meant not only cost inputs, but also what money could be recouped from that investment. Sterling’s mission statement promises, in part, “to build responsible problem-solvers who become stewards of the environment” — and the field trip was designed to contribute to that goal. During the course of the semester, Calderwood’s students also had raised pigs, poultry and rabbits, but the goat project went beyond the science to address a significant problem facing Vermont’s thriving goat dairy farms: the male kids born to milking herds every spring. Calderwood hoped to teach not only the hands-on realities of building the kind of small agricultural business that contributes to Vermont’s working landscape, but also to run a test case for turning what is essentially a byproduct of the goat dairy business into a sustainable source of revenue.

“And if you like goat’s milk cheese,” she said, “you gotta like goat sausage, too.”

Where the boys are

Male animals have a limited role in the dairy business, of course, and figuring out what to do with the boys born each year is a challenge for all dairy farmers. It is especially tough for goat farmers, because America’s appetite for goat meat is far less developed that its appetite for lamb or beef. In addition, market-ready goats are relatively small, so fixed costs are harder to recoup. Allison Hooper, the co-founder of Vermont Butter and Cheese Creamery in Websterville, has been involved with the state’s goat dairy industry for 27 years and said there are about 30 commercial goat dairies in Vermont. Each one faces the annual challenge of what to do with male kids. A newborn male fetches $10 at best, but most Vermont goat dairies consider themselves lucky if they can find people to take these bucklings off their hands free before they cost too much time and money. “They have to get rid of them,” said Chet Parsons, livestock specialist for the University of Vermont Extension, “and really, if you’re looking at it strictly from an economic point of view, putting them down is probably the best option. There are ethnic markets and some others, but it often costs more to process them than it’s worth to raise them to market weight.” With these realities in mind, Calderwood not only tasks her students with learning how to take care of the goats, but also with building a scalable business model for raising and selling them. And then — because Sterling emphasizes experiential learning — they hit the road to sell some goats and hear firsthand what customers in a large market with the potential to pay higher prices than in Vermont had to say about their animals.

Learning the full life cycle

After the five processed goats were stowed safely in the van and the seven live goats carefully latched into the trailer with plenty of fresh hay, Calderwood pulled away from Ferrisburgh on schedule for the first leg of the trip to Albany, N.Y., to meet up with a second van of students. It was “the trip of a thousand details,” she said. “We should have stayed home and read out of the textbook,” Calderwood joked to the students. “Wouldn’t that have been easier?” Balancing the needs of 12 students and 12 goats (not to mention a reporter along for the ride) would have tested the calmest person, but Calderwood, with help from Sterling’s director of advancement, Tim Patterson, kept everything moving along with a firm but understanding hand and a sense of humor. Concessions had been made. Having cared for the animals almost since they were born, some students had formed attachments, and Calderwood had given them some choice as to which of the goats came on the trip, although all likely would have to go to market sometime. “I had to save one today,” said Jade Martin, 20, explaining that she got to pick one goat to leave behind. Martin, originally from Burlington, was one of two Vermonters among the diverse group. Age 20 to 28, they had come to Sterling from as far away as Oregon and Chicago and included a former competitive cyclist, a classical

oboist and a trained chef who also had served in the Israeli army. They hope to pursue careers in agriculture, culinary arts, butchery, international development and zookeeping. Not one student had grown up on a farm, but many were drawn to Sterling through an appreciation for the land. Clark Gaudry, 20, came from Bucks County, Penn. “When I moved there I was 7, and there were a lot of farms,” he said. “Then slowly, they disappeared, which I think is kind of why I came here.” Calderwood kept up a running commentary on the drive to New York, pointing out farms and other locations of interest, including the location of a small slaughterhouse going through some financial problems. She reminded her students of issues facing the state’s dwindling number of slaughterhouses, including extreme seasonal business flow and slim margins. Calderwood does not believe the answer is more slaughterhouses, as some argue. She prompted the students to remember some solutions they had discussed while visiting another Vermont slaughterhouse. “They need to process faster?” suggested Gaudry. “You hit the nail on the head,” his professor replied. The students spoke knowledgeably about goat feeding and disease, saying they lost only one goat this year and discussing how they learned to use formic acid to improve the digestibility and shelf-life of the cow’s milk they fed the kids. They also had learned larger lessons. “Last year they named all of them,” said Colin Taliaferro, 20, as he watered the goats during a rest stop. “This year we didn’t.” Jon Belcher, 23, said he was vegetarian when he first came to Sterling, but now he eats meat: “I love cheese so much, but animals die for that, too. I’ve learned how dairy works.” ‘Take care of our goats’ After about 350 miles and eight hours on the road, the van approached New York City at 4:30 p.m. Calderwood gently warned her students, “I know nothing about the live-animal market. I know no more than you do. I’m guessing it’s going to be rough.” Navigating carefully through narrow neighborhood streets in the Bronx, the van pulled over across from a bright red-and-yellow sign proclaiming, “Halal Live Poultry, Pollo Vivero.” An advance team ventured through the door past a few goats and lamb in a front pen to ask for the manager with whom Calderwood had spoken over the phone. “Mr. Saleh is praying,” a man said, explaining he’d be available in a few minutes. The students poked around while waiting, checking out the pen where their kids would go and the crates of live chickens, ducks and guinea hens. There was a tip container on the counter and a box for donations for the Harlem Islamic Cultural Center nailed to the wall. “It’s a little better than I thought it would be,” Martin said, noting that the goats and lambs at the market seemed content and had space to move around. “I’ll be OK as long as I don’t see anyone manhandle them,” Sara Turnbull, 21, agreed.

Saeed Saleh returned and instructed the group to bring the goats through a door onto a scale, where they were weighed. Without much further inspection, a wad of bills changed hands for the previously agreed upon $2.40 a pound. “Would you buy more?” Calderwood asked. “Got to see what happens,” Saleh replied. Saleh moved on, weighing a live duck for Jairan Dass of Mount Vernon, N.Y., who said he was originally from Guyana. He came to the live market, he said, mostly to buy poultry. “It’s more live, you know. It’s more fresh,” he said. The students hung around the fenced pen where their goats had easily settled in. A worker explained that the market’s customers come “from everywhere: Jamaican, African.” Asked if the Vermont goats compared well to others and how fast they would sell, the man shrugged. “The customers, they choose. Some like fat and some not.” The whole transaction had gone smoothly and taken less than 20 minutes; it was almost anticlimactic. As the group filed out, Jessica Palin, 22, said, “Take care of our goats.” “We may have left money on the table,” Calderwood said later, explaining that perhaps she had been expected to haggle. She hadn’t wanted to push it, she said, because the animals were on the small side, and the class was unsure their castration process had been entirely successful, something they’d been told was necessary for goats sold live.

What’s for dinner?

With the five remaining goats on ice, the Sterling van pulled away from the live market and headed toward Manhattan. Plans for a goat taco barbecue in Soho had been nixed due to timing. A few phone calls to find an alternate venue revealed that public barbecue grills are hard to find in New York City. But just a few blocks from the live market on White Plains Road under the elevated subway tracks, the smoky scent of charcoal filled everyone’s nostrils, and a stoplight halted the van conveniently beside a large barbecue rig parked just off the corner of 234th Street. Someone jokingly suggested asking the guy at the grill if he’d barbecue a goat. Within seconds, Patterson and a few students had jumped out with one of the goat carcasses. Apparently a bunch of out-of-staters emerging from a van with a whole goat carcass did not shock barbecue owner Ewan “Nick” Hylton, who readily agreed to throw the goat on the grill that he had welded himself. The Vermont group hung out between the barbecue and an abandoned building for the next two hours or so, during which the students cut the carcass into smaller pieces, soaked it in vinegar and rubbed it with salt, chili powder and Jamaican jerk paste Hylton offered up. Along with a steady stream of customers for his chicken, a number of curious onlookers stopped to see what was going on; the goat was less surprising in this Jamaican-rooted neighborhood than the huddle of white people. New York Fire Department Ladder Co. 51 even dropped by on the way back from a call to check out Hylton’s barbecue rig because, they explained, they hoped to build one for their firehouse. After about 90 minutes on the grill, Hylton pulled off some shreds for a taste-test and received an enthusiastic thumbs up. The students presented him with a Sterling College mug and a jar of maple syrup they had boiled themselves. (Calderwood also paid him for his time.)

The sun was setting as the group dug into the goat rolled up in tortillas. It was delicious: moist, tender shreds of meat kissed with fire and soft, spicy heat.

Running the numbers

The next morning, everyone gathered at the upscale Chelsea Market on the lower West Side of Manhattan for the first appointment of the day at Dickson’s Farmstand Meats. For a few minutes before the meeting, the students explained the spreadsheet they had developed for their goatmeat business. The bottom line was not encouraging so far. Calderwood insisted the students include paying the farmer a decent $15 a hour wage in the model. “I see so many people go into this kind of thing and get a lot of buzzy press,” she said, “and in three years they’re gone, because they don’t value themselves, and they can’t even replace the light bulbs.” The live market had not proven as lucrative as they’d hoped, partly because the goats had made it only to about 40 pounds on the cow’s milk purchased to feed them. The remaining 11 goats back at Sterling were about to move over to grass, which would reduce costs significantly as the goats gained weight on pasture. “Cheaper feed is good,” said student Zach Hartlyn, 28. Most of the students, however, will not be around to analyze that part of the project. “These animals need to fit into our semester system,” Calderwood said.

Cutting to the bone

At the back of Dickson’s Farmstead Meats, the shop’s two head butchers and two part-time meat clerks worked efficiently, while owner Jake Dickson spent a generous hour talking with the students. He described his 18-month-old storefront as a “new-style butcher shop.” He works almost exclusively with New York state farmers within 400 miles of Manhattan and buys live animals that the farmers deliver to his contracted slaughterhouse near Albany. Although he does push the local angle, he said, it’s not so much about food miles: “It’s about traceability. It’s about scrutiny and transparency.” Dickson has worked on farms and started at the farmers market. He said it was a great way to get consumers used to buying farm-raised meat, but he believes it’s rarely the most efficient way to build a profitable business “You might get $17 per pound for pork chops, and it looks like you’re making a killing, but with all those costs to get there,” he said. “And if you actually pay yourself ... “ Calderwood nodded emphatically as Dickson spoke. During an average week, his store receives four quartered steers, seven to eight pigs cut in half, and five to seven whole lambs or goats. The animals are all broken down on site, much of it in full view of the customers. “We bring in 6,000 pounds of meat a week,” he said. To support small and mid-size regional farms and slaughterhouses, Dickson said, “We just need more butcher shops like me. ... more people like us who take whole carcasses and do the cutting ourselves, which makes it more efficient for the slaughterhouses.” He does not regularly carry goat, he told the students, but will swap it in for lamb, which he is always short on.

“In my experience, lamb wins,” Dickson said. “As much as has been written about goat as the next meat, I don’t think we’re there yet.” There are challenges with smaller animals from both a farmer and a butcher perspective, he said. The younger animals have a shorter shelf life, because they lack fat cover and, repeating what the students knew only too well, their smaller size and lower selling price make the economics more challenging. Dickson said smaller-scale farms might do well to consider sizing up for better consistency, scale and availability. “The problem is, there are huge fixed costs,” he said. “You still need a tractor whether you’re raising 50 or 150 animals.” A meat clerk brought out the two Sterling goat carcasses that Dickson had agreed to purchase, and he gave them a thorough examination before providing feedback on size (he’d have liked them a little bigger), how long they’d been hung after slaughter (too long), how they’d been wrapped (not as well as they might have been), and how they’d been butchered (pretty well). “Overall,” Dickson concluded, “I would say, ‘pretty good.’” He had agreed to pay $4 a pound and said he’d go as high as $4.20, and he normally pays the slaughter fee. “But then I’m the exception to the rule,” he said. While he was talking, his head butcher quickly broke down the two goats with swift, sure cuts, laying beautiful small racks of chops on the butcher block. Dickson closed by encouraging the students to email him with questions and, he added, “If anyone wants to raise rabbits.” “That guy was rad,” Jon Kreindel, 21, said as the group left the shop. “He just made so many useful, productive comments.”

How to cook a goat

The final stop on the field trip involved heading out to Brooklyn to a kitchen shared by a pair of unrelated food businesses: a Montreal-style Jewish deli called Mile End and Brooklyn Brine, a pickle maker. The two remaining goat carcasses made the subway portion of the trip on the backs of two students, turning just a few heads. Squeezed into a corner of the busy kitchen where cooks from the deli prepped ingredients while the pickle crew chopped cabbage, Michael Stokes, director of food production and development for Mile End, explained that the restaurant makes literally tons of Montreal-style smoked meat. Although there is interest in sourcing meat locally, he said, “We’re trying to move forward in ways that are economically feasible for both us and the farms. It’s a tricky thing to balance.” The restaurant’s charcuterie guy was off that day, Stokes said, but he would call him and let him know there was goat waiting for him in the cooler. Stokes admitted he was not too familiar with goat and suspected he was not the only chef in that situation. He suggested donating goat meat to culinary schools to give chefs-in-training hands-on experience with the ingredient and, hopefully, make them more open to using it. The group also discussed the challenge of finding the right markets and figuring out price points that work for seller and buyer. In a follow-up email, Stokes gave a preliminary report on how the chef had fared with the goat. “He was very excited by the prospect of the goat,” Stokes wrote, and started with a trial batch of longaniza sausage, “a non-spicy chorizo.” Unfortunately, Stokes wrote, “The sausages came out mediocre,” possibly because the chef “did not take into account that the meat was so lean.”

Stokes’ major conclusion was that, for restaurant use, “the goat needs to be larger to have any cuts usable for anything besides sausage or being roasted whole.” There is also a learning curve to dealing with an unfamiliar ingredient.

Lessons learned

The students headed back to the van for the long drive home. In the dust on the van door, one of the students had scrawled, “Eat goat please!” Calderwood said she was glad her class had experienced the live market and received solid feedback and a glimmer of a possible break-even model at Dickson’s. “They heard that you’ve got to balance the price point with the effort,” she said. The group was fairly quiet, tired and busy digesting all they’d absorbed both during the past 24 hours, and over the course of the semester. “I really learned that the value of your time goes up the busier you are,” Kreindel said. “I learned that, because I was juggling raising goats, and other students were going out in the middle of the night while I was waiting for milk at the Strongs.’” “I also learned,” he added, “that people kind of don’t mind if you walk down the street in New York with a goat carcass on your back.” Contact Melissa Pasanen at [email protected].