Sustained forests; sustained profits
Sustained forests; sustained profits
| [ HOME | Lasting Forests Home | Table of Contents | The Finder | Glossary ] |
By Robert H. Giles, Jr
This paper was written in 1983 when the author's interest in goats was very high. His interest was inspired by his mentor and father-figure, Dr. Samuel B. Guss, formerly a Veterinarian in Lynchburg and extension specialist, Penn State. Dr. Guss wrote a textbook on the diseases of dairy goats and lectured and visited many areas of the world advocating improved goat herd management. I shall be pleased if this paper assists in any way with that quest. The paper was also seen as a means for analyzing, thinking through, and perhaps recommending a dairy goat system for the people of the coal field counties of southwestern Virginia and similar areas.
Thinking of goats as " brush" animals or as cartoon characters eating tin cans is an affront to everyone who knows these animals or to those who realize their potential. I do not know why goats have the public image that they do. Perhaps the reasons need to be analyzed so that marketing of goat systems can proceed.
Subsystems are the topic of most of my writing and thought, They are the pieces of a larger system for people and their lands and resources. The topic here is a goat-centered system. I do not know where the appropriate limits should be drawn, the context specified. Let us simply radiate out from a simple interest in goats and see where it might go. The individual or group can draw its own limits based on available resources and interest.
There are hundreds of thousands of goats in developing countries where their history is recorded on vases 5000 years old (Rathore 1979). They are in most cases not reaching their potential individually or as a system because of genetically imposed potentials, poor or overused ranges, lack of a production-management system, faulty marketing, limited medical care, and limited experienced workers. There seems to be at least a little room for improvements. Even in developed countries there exist major opportunities for improvement, even in the management and care of a few animals. The potentials in larger systems can be impressive. Dairy goats are not just " small cows." There are many reasons for creating goat systems as well as cattle systems. Some people just like goats! That is reason enough, for the rationale is like that of some people preferring certain models of automobiles, etc. Goats are more efficient than cows in forage energy use for milk production (Rathore 1978), survive bad range or forage years better than cows (thus reducing entrepreneurial risks and boom-or-bust situations, can improve the range, and have more stable benefits than cows. They do require more manual labor than cows, but this is appropriate in some areas where there is surplus or low-cost labor and where an active life outdoor life is viewed as one having high quality.
I start an analysis with profits for they are fairly easily understood. The objective of such a system must be seen not as producing goats or milk, but as being a vital part of a profitable agricultural or total system. There may be other objectives such as
Profits need to be defined precisely as present-discounted net returns. Present discounting is discussed elsewhere but relates to adjusting investments based on equivalent returns that might be made if an alternative investment was made. A fundamental question is simply: what is the difference between this investment in a good subsystem and putting the same money in the bank? If I do not get the same or greater return, perhaps bank savings would be a more rational action.
Profits are net values, gains minus losses. Gains are not just products but price per unit of product and the total production. The products that a goat system manager might envision, and the associated gains will be the sum of the product items times their price times their expected sale. The potential products include all of these listed in Table 1. Each has its own price, expected production, expected sales, and limitations.
| Table 1. Potential products or sale units from a dairy goat-centered system. The system brings high technology and sophisticated management to ancient pastoral animal care. Retaining deep concern for and humane care of the animals, the new industry skillfully produces needed and healthful products for the people of a region. Together, skillfully mixed, the products form a diverse, stable, source of income for people, and, through sensitively controlled grazing, contribute to improved land management. |
|
The objective for the goat system can be formulated as
K = 
aiBi/ diCi
where the performance, K, is expressed as the total expected benefits (B) to the system owners or stock holders per unit of expected total costs. This is a modified benefit-to-cost expression which the wise manager seeks to maximize (subject to a set of constraints). The coefficients, a and d, are expressions of the probabilities of each benefit or cost over a planning period (say until owner's life expectancy or 50 years).
The benefits are to be (might be) gained from sales and activities associated with the items in Table 1 . This may be too inclusive for any one enterprise (but not for one for an entire county or region). The needs, however, are for many activities and products (diversification)to stabilize the enterprise through periods in which styles, preferences, and buying patterns - - as well as production - - change.
An advanced objective becomes one of maximizing the sum of the expected, net, present-discounted product sale value over the period of the owner's life expectancy plus the expected estate liquidation value. Producing milk profitably is a real challenge. The megachallenge, however, now approachable because we are armed with a computer, is the above objective that deals with all of the commodities in Table 1 as well as the complex locally-specific details of estate planning. In this chapter only some of the details are sketched and hopefully a pathway cleared to a bright destination.
A goat-related enterprise can be viewed as a complex profit-oriented business or as an ingredient of a comprehensive land use system for problem areas of the world such as the coal region of Virginia, Indian reservations in Arizona, or regions of developing countries. As I see the future of the coal-mining region and similar problem areas, their main hope is for achieving great diversification in economic units. There have to be created many key industries and enterprises. No one will be as big, powerful, or significant (e.g., as the coal industry). That seems to be pretty clear. The needs are for some big enterprises and I believe a goat industry may be one.
At first appearance, it is not such a good idea. . . but let me explain. I have already presented some ideas on a cattle system- - reclaimed lands to quality eastern rangeland (not pastures), genetically selected stock, computer aided management of grazing and rangeland seeding, fertilization, fencing and watering, feed supplements, feedlots, butchering, waste collection and returns to the land, special meat processing and packaging, and marketing to make the region re-live. I'm convinced that such systems can be created and it makes sense if done with care, over large areas, and with sophisticated management. A goat enterprise can be a part of, in addition to, or replace that system for a region.
First, there are a bunch of problems to be overcome, but that can be by an enterprise with a bit of front-end investment in clearing up the problems - especially the legal ones. After that, the region might achieve the personality and character of a Swiss community with those tending the goats wearing a specially-designed, functional garb. The goat herds might forage over scientifically managed pastures and rangelands. Goats do not produce abundant milk when eating only brush. I am discussing only quality animals, bred with artificial insemination, with semen from computer-selected sires that are chosen on the basis of butterfat and total volume of milk produced per dollar invested. "Not purebreds - but profits" becomes a slogan of the enterprise as a milk production is scientifically monitored, breeding highly managed situations including using light to time milking periods, supplying protein supplements cost effectively, processing milk (even stored in refrigerated areas or dried), and making sales to maximize profits.
Goat meats are sold as specialty meat and special products created that make the region famous. Hides are used in unique ways and all waste products are returned to improve the rangelands or to improve other enterprises discussed in other chapters.
This text is not about goats, but about people--about jobs, tied to the land, jobs that are profitable and that restore the land. It allows people to remain in their areas. It does not guarantee fantastic salaries but it allows people to stay, to develop happy families and communities. It does not copy a good idea from elsewhere but creates a unique, viable, complete industry - a system for a region for now and later. It allows the land to retain or grow in value. It will surely decrease the erosion and water problems because there is money in good rangeland. It is not easy or a "sure thing." It acknowledges that it, like any successful enterprise, requires tremendous investments of time, money, energy, and learning. Any enterprise can fail. The successes increases with good leadership and planning, a good initial design, a genuine love of goats by the handlers, creativity, and "flexibility" which we can now see is feedback that allows adaptations and corrections to new or changing conditions.
Others have said: Why goats? Why not cattle? Why not both ... or more? The goat is extremely adaptable and it will do very well on some poor pastures that will result in the drought years that are sure to occur. Goat milk prices do not fluctuate as do those for cows milk. A goat enterprise can help stabilize the livestock system. There may be justification in efforts to improve regional human health by use of goats' milk, keeping it as a means of barter for other services and materials in the region. There are goat and cow milk mixes. It is the basis for a regional cheese enterprise that could become internationally famous with proper marketing. The goat enterprise can produce a variety of jobs from reclamation specialists, grass seed, fertilizer suppliers, fencing companies, herds-people (including the very young and very old), milking crews, and equipment sales and repair people, veterinarians, computer specialists, printing (to aid in marketing), refrigeration experts, slaughtering and butchering, and home economists exploring the multi-dimensions of clothing, health, new recipes, and marketing potentials. It is not an enterprise that is likely to grow and survive on its own. It, alone, will not save an undeveloped region. It can however, become part of a much needed system.
I visited Senegal in 1990 and, based on observations, in my "instant expert" audacity I suggested reforestation could be increased or enhanced by getting goats off of the areas recently planted to trees. (I failed: I needed a way to "market" my suggestion. I suggested a program of improved genetic stock, cared for near the villages in managed pastures tended by women. The results would diversify the economy, reduce infant mortality, provide nitrogen to the soil and crops there, and simultaneously improve forest-wildlife conditions in the less-abused range land. Perhaps that was only wishful thinking. The thinking came from a forestry subsystem. The problem: how to reduce tree loss to goats? The solution to the problem was outside of the forestry subsystem. It was one of using an integrated system, one larger than agroforestry. It was not to destroy goats but to improve the goat subsystem.
More local than Senegal, possibilities shift from "raising goats" to "managing a goat system." The first step in the pattern in doing so is as expected: Define the objectives. They are usually multiple but include maximize profit over a set period (say 20 years) subject to some constraints. One such constraint is aesthetic (some goats are ugly to some people, beautiful to others). The system may be constrained so that only breed A or B can be used. The major types of dairy goats are given in Table 2. The other constraints may be "subject to X hours of labor of Y people," and "subject to a minimum of a 2% return on investment." Other objectives include creating and passing on an inheritable resource.
| Table 2. Breed standards for minimum weights (Owen 1977 and Braur 1980) with metabolic weights (Wkg0.75) and metabolic weight ratios. | ||||||
| Breed | Minimum Weight Standard | Metabolic | ||||
| Pounds | Kilograms | Weights | Ratios | |||
| Does | Bucks | Does | Bucks | Does | ||
| Saanen | 135 | 170 | 61.2 | 77.1 | 21.9 | 1.0 |
| Toggenburg | 120 | 150 | 54.4 | 68.0 | 20.0 | 0.91 |
| Nubian | 135 | 172 | 61.2 | 78.0 | 21.9 | 1.0 |
| Alpine | 135 | 170 | 61.2 | 77.1 | 21.9 | 1.0 |
| Oberhasli | 120 | 150 | 54.4 | 68.0 | 20.0 | 0.91 |
| Lamancha | 130 | 160 | 59.0 | 72.6 | 21.3 | 0.97 |
In analyzing a system, there is no best place to start. The design must start at the end and so the inheritance objective is tackled first although it seems very far removed from the generally-more-interesting topics of cheese production and forages. The mental pattern of humans is said to be that of the economically rational person. This translates for some into: the benefits from a act must at least equal the costs. For some that means make a profit. For others, the "benefits" are translated loosely and include more than money. Being greeted by a beautiful herd of hungry, ready-to-be-milked Toggenburg on a frosty morning can be a great pleasure. Out competing a neighbor can also be so rewarding that profits can be allowed to slip. As long as benefits are translated very broadly and costs are defined broadly but not all counted, then the theory of rational people works pretty well. Nevertheless, it fails consistently in that people are unable or reluctant to deal well with gains and losses over the long run (say 20 or more years).
For example, few people automatically or naturally think of depreciation. Of course it can be taught as a pattern of thought. You buy a $200 item. It is good for only 3 years (out of style or worn out). It costs you $66.66 every year to use it or just to have it! (i.e., straight line depreciation as $200/ 3) So you get $20 for it at a yard sale. It only cost $60 a year to use the item (i.e., straight-line depreciation is (200 - 20)/3 - 60).
To develop a goat industry will require creativity, hard work, and investment (which might have been made in other ways). The industry might be like a sand castle but plenty of people build them for fun, beauty, exercise, praise, success -- a whole set of personal benefits. Perhaps like a sand castle, it will disappear quickly. Most people will want the enterprise to persist. At least they will want to gain maximum returns when the industry is liquidated. This requires an unusual, long-term planning concept, one that includes within the objective the lesson of life itself. Over the eons, the message of evolution has been that organism must:
The concepts of longterm farming are not new. Johnson said in 1945
at the outset it is well or visualize as well as we can the income possibilities of the farm when it is fully developed under a stabilized system of farming. This would be a system in which the soil resources are being maintained or improved, in which crop yields and livestock production are sustained or increased, and which provides for continuing the farm as an income producer. Once this desirable long-time goal has been established, the year-by-year planning can be aimed at (1) the largest possible current farm income (compatible with a stabilized system of farming) and (2) the steps to be taken annually in the direction of the long-time goal to develop the farm as a stabilized income producer.
Starting at the End...
One strategy in developing lasting systems is to start at the end. One solution is in estate planning. Expert advice is needed. Personal wills are not sufficient. Laws change rapidly and regularly so it is not possible to present a scheme here. In addition, it is beyond the scope of this chapter. It is important, I believe, to encourage in all systems design, the "end gambit." What happens at retirement or death? Can an organization be formed that reduces the loss to the system of a leader? Can an expected liquidation or transfer value be estimated that can be included in the objective function for the industry? If so, maximizing the inheritance or transfer value over time seems like a reasonable idea.
Advice in estate planning is needed and it should be responsive to:
When these concepts are fully extended, it may be that the enterprise objective is to create a system that maximizes the allowable transferable assets (the after-taxes assets) for the next generation of worthy people. The results is that annual maximization of profits is achieved in order to achieve the distant objective. Such enterprise investments would include savings, investments in land and low maintenance facilities, educational programs, genetic stock improvement programs, diversification, and in basic research. Perhaps this objective is appropriate for many more systems than that of the dairy goat.
Selecting a Breed
 |
There are people who have been given a particular breed of goat, who follow in a family or regional tradition in retaining a certain breed, and even those who "fall in love" with a breed. I can understand all of these reasons and, probably some others, for having adopted and continued with a breed. I believe, however, that when developing a dairy goat products industry there are other more suitable reasons.
A modern goat products system may hold great promise. One question, however, is "what is the optimal breed of goats?" The question has been asked many times in The Dairy Goat Journal and introductory texts (e.g., Leach 1974, Mackenzie 1970), but nowhere could I find a definitive answer. As I searched, the less strong or meaningful became the answers that had been provided. It turns out that the question is difficult and has many parts. Some of the key parts will be discussed along with a pathway to the answer.
"What is the best goat breed?" is the question that only properly follows, "How would you know when you had selected the best breed?" The attempt is to ask a more fundamental question and is perceived as establishing the epistemological basis for an answer. There are many "bases" for knowing anything and the strong ones are a composite of induction, deduction, probability, and context. Together they can be skillfully merged and a scheme of continually improving knowledge developed. The concept is one of multiple bases converging on the truthfulness of an answer. The way to know is to establish criteria of goodness and test how well different breeds or groups of animals match these criteria.
If the only criterion is "It looks like a LaMancha," then there is only one group of goats that will satisfy that criterion. This is a satisfactory, singular base for a large group of LaMancha breeders. Different people and groups of people have different criteria and when they have several, they usually assign different levels of importance to each.
Most likely, not just one but a set of criteria will be stated, such as excellent milk producers, high butterfat producers, long-term producers, good disposition, efficient, etc. Several premises operate in this decision-making framework but one is that the chief product of the goat system is milk. (If meat or hides are major products, then tradeoffs of a variety of types are highly likely. The optimal milk herd is not likely to be the optimal milk and meat and hides herd.)
Another premise is that there is enough flexibility in capital to secure the animal selected. Another is that goats in general are pleasing and that any breed or grade-mix will be tolerable. (It would be inappropriate for a decision-maker to care for aesthetically unpleasing or otherwise intolerable animals.)
I have a bias toward a name "breed" for reasons other than the extra income potentials from shows, sales, and marketing; nevertheless, it seems appropriate to consider optimal animals for the purpose stated, returns from milk-related products. Leach (1974) said that breeds are much alike and that each breed has superior milkers as well as inferior ones. My view is that these animals as a group, when very carefully analyzed, will have differences in their average production and in the distribution of milkers (one breed having a higher percentage of "good" milkers than another). I think a developing industry would be wise to play the odds of having animals that perform well. I want to be sure the genetic potential is as great as possible so that when a superior feeding and environmental program is developed for the goats, the "genetics" will not get in the way of highest possible profits. If it is true that about 75 percent of milk production is environmental, 25 percent genetic, I want the essence of that 25 percent to be accounted adequately in starting the goat industry.
I began to evaluate six major breeds, for with them the most data are available in a useable form. Insufficient data were found on oberhasli to include them. Grade goats, by definition, are of often unknown mixed breeds such that future selection to assure equal or better milk production performance is not possible. It may, however, be greater than production by the purebred animals and so I am reluctant to discount their potential for achieving limited objectives. It may be that the most milk possible can be produced from a herd of ugly, friendly, healthy grade goats. It is unlikely that the enterprise profits will be maximized from such a herd.
Four criteria were studied. Each will be discussed.
Breed Minimum Weights
Braur (1980) reported minimum breed standard weights as in Table 1. Weights appear to me to be critical for, in addition to being related to milk production potential, they especially relate to cost of production, i.e., the energy and protein required to maintain the animal prior to and while in milk production.
Weight data were difficult to find and perhaps are so variable (due to handling, equipment, time of day and age) and related to unique breeding-feeding conditions that any statistics would be of only very limited usefulness. Jeffrey (1975:10) reported that at one British show, the average of all animals shown was 174 pounds (79 kilograms) with maximum being 250 pounds (114 kilograms) and the minimum 133 pounds (60 kilograms) an average range. He suggested these were show animals and that the pedigreed, hand-reared doe would weigh about 140 pounds (64 kilograms).
Energy is required for goats and is related to the animals' weight in kilograms raised to the 0.75 power. Maintenance energy is 101.38 kca1/Wkg0.75, light activity about 25% more than that, pregnancy 177.27 kcal/Wkg0.75 (NRC 1981). Thus, the key measure of the efficiency of an animal is its metabolic weight. These are shown in Table 3.
| Table 3. Approximate weights of the five breeds of goats (Eberhardt 1975:19 a; French 1970: 98 b; and Jeffrey 1975 c) with metabolic weights Wkg 0.75) and relative metabolic weights. | |||||||
| Breed | Pounds | Kilograms | Estimated Weight (kg) |
Metabolic weight of doe |
Relative Weight | ||
| Doe | Buck | Doe | Buck | ||||
| Saanen | c 150 | 200 | 68.2 | 90.9 | 63.5 | 22.5 | 0.95 |
| b 110 | 161 | 50.0 | 73.0 | ||||
| Toggenburg | c 115 | 150 | 52.2 | 68.2 | 54.4 | 20.0 | 0.84 |
| a 125 - 200 | 57- 90 | * | |||||
| b 99 | 139 | 45 | 63.0 | ||||
| Nubian | c 160 | 210 | 72.7 | 95.5 | 68.0 | 23.7 | 1.00 |
| a 140 | * | 64.0 | * | ||||
| Alpine | c 160 | 210 | 72.7 | 95.5 | 63.5 | 22.5 | 0.95 |
| a 125 | 56.8 | * | |||||
| Lamancha | 59.0 | 21.3 | 0.90 | ||||
The differences are not great as can be seen. My view is that any known consistent difference, no matter how small, is going to make a large significant difference for an industry of over 1000 animals for over 100 years. The economic margin now and in the future can be and often is a matter of a part of a percent. Being very attentive to that margin and to decisions that keep an operation on the positive side seems like a pretty good idea, especially when a few percentage points can be gained just in the decision about the breed.
Milk Production
A scant literature on total goat milk production exists. The information needed for making the kind of objective, precise, profit-maximizing decisions appropriate for launching an entire regional industry into the twentieth century is just not available. From my primitive knowledge of white-tailed deer ecology and comparable fundamental nutritional and energetic considerations (Rayburn and Giles 1975, Walls 1974, Hoecker 1976, and Moen 1973, 1983), I discovered there were no data available for allowing objective comparisons. I desired a large number of records, each record, in addition to the breed name, containing:
Each factor can produce variation in the results of milking. Making useful comparisons in such a variable (and data-poor) environment is difficult and hazardous. Grossman and Wiggans (1980:4) reported average milk yields of 1930.9 pounds (877.7 kg) and fat yields of 72.6 pounds (33 kg). They observed the maximum production of 6000 pounds (2698 kg) of milk in the period was by an Alpine, almost 270 pounds (122 kg) of butterfat by another Alpine. There was essentially no change in either milk or fat production from 1974 to 1978.
The available data are sparse, variously reported, and there is no way currently to determine precisely the breed most likely to produce the highest amounts of milk.
Recognizing the above limitations and sensing the need to proceed with the risks associated with the uncertainties, I constructed Table 4. I assumed that butterfat weight was approximately equivalent to 3-4 pounds of fluid milk so sought to develop an index as
I = Total weight + 3 (Total weight x Percent butterfat).
The results are shown in Table 4.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I weighted the representative factors and obtained relative indices in Table 5. There seemed to be very little difference.
| Table 5. Relative milk production by breeds based on weighted indices from Table 4. | |
| Breed | Relative Production |
| Saanen | 1.000 |
| Toggenburg | 0.944 |
| Nubian | 0.788 |
| Alpine | 0.879 |
| Lamancha | 0.772 |
Production-Weight Relations Since milk production and weights are a function of breed, an alternative index to breed performance, a type of production per unit weight, is believed to be the results of observing average adjusted milk production by average metabolic weights of the breeds (the product of Table 5 and Table 3), adjusted pounds of milk produced by the estimated metabolic weight of each breed. Table 6 shows the results, again adjusted to a ratio of the maximum. In this analysis, the Toggenburg breed seems the best.
| Table 6. Ratios of breeds by an index of milk production to metabolic body weights. | |||
| Breed | Milk Production Ratio (M) | Metabolic Weight Ratio (W) | M/W Ratio |
| Saanen | 1.000 | 0.95 | 1.05 |
| Toggenburg | 0.944 | 0.84 | 1.12 |
| Nubian | 0.788 | 1.00 | 0.78 |
| Alpine | 0.879 | 0.95 | 0.93 |
| Lamancha | 0.772 | 0.90 | 0.86 |
| Table 7. Relative solids-not-fat content of milk among goat breeds in the 1962 London dairy show (French 1970:100). | ||
| Ratio to Maximum | ||
| Nubian | 9.00 | 1.0 |
| Toggenburg | 8.68 | 0.96 |
| 8.16 | 0.91 | |
| Alpine | 8.13 | 0.90 |
| Saanen | 7.91 | 0.88 |
| 7.80 | 0.87 | |
Solids Not Fat
Only one set of records on milk solids-not-fat for goats was observed (Table 7). A ratio to the maximum was computed. Golding (1964) recommended solids-not-fat be included so that milk true value could be more appropriately reflected in its price. He noted that while related to fat production, there are wide exceptions, that inheritance of fat and solids-not-fat were not closely related, that management could change the amount significantly, that fat yields are more variable than solids, and that since fat can be removed and solids added, composition of milk should not be judged by the fat-test alone.
Integrated Index and Conclusion Churchman et al. (1957) used a procedure called objective weighing to select one best option from a list based on multiple-weighted objectives. Table 8 shows the weights assigned by me for the four objectives for which data were available. Similar weights can be assigned these criteria. They can be considered objectives to be achieved and importance relative to the most important objective or criterion can be assigned. The relative ratios (normalized performance in each category) are used and a combined index obtained for each breed.
| Table 8. Total relative weights for breeds showing weights assigned indices from previous tables. | |||||
| Milk Weight Index |
Solids-not-fat Index |
Metabolic Body Index (W) | M/W Index | Total Relative Weight Index |
|
| Weights | 10 | 2 | 5 | 8 | |
| Breed | |||||
| Saanen | 1.000 | 0.88 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 1.00 |
| Toggenburg | 0.944 | 0.96 | 0.84 | 1.00 | 0.98 |
| Nubian | 0.788 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.70 | 0.85 |
| Alpine | 0.879 | 0.90 | 0.95 | 0.82 | 0.91 |
| Lamancha | 0.772 | 0.90 | 0.76 | 0.83 | |
The selection is based on the maximum score obtained. Based on the available data and the assigned weights, the breed most likely to satisfy all of the criteria is the Saanen. Evidently, different data and different weights may change the index as can the addition or deletion of other criteria such as appearance, milk quality, meat, and number of lactations. As close as are the top two breeds, it suggests that a rational person may chose between them with a coin toss. However, a small difference (here two percent), if it is not due to chance (and that seems unlikely), can pay large returns over long periods with many animals.
It appears that the approach (if not the results) may be useful for consideration in other related decision making, that data to support such decisions should be carefully collected and centrally maintained, and similar methods may hasten the development of a viable goat products industry.
Breeding
Most goats in the U.S. are seasonal breeders. They have estrus of 18 to 48 hour cycles, usually in Fall (September-December), rarely in Spring, every 17 to 22 days. Use of light and hormones (prostaglandin) may allow estrus to be regulated for improved management. Progesterone assays are now available, giving the owner much more satisfactory knowledge (and control) over their herd's breeding status. Gestation is 145 to 155 days (5 months). Skillful control of the reproductive system for the herd can lead to increased milk production.
Purebred goat lines seem a reasonable way to begin an understanding of a goat system but records suggest "grade" goats outproduce purebred stock. The data are confounded by many factors but before even discussing genetic improvements, it is necessary to emphasize that if objectives are for milk or milk products only, then the "purebred" status may not be essential. If the objective is to produce profit from sale of show animals or artificial insemination then the purebred status is essential. The enterprise suggested favors use of purebred animals, combining milk production with other profit-producing aspects of herd management.
To obtain a superior buck, Munsil (1979) recommended selecting an outstanding young linebred doe whose close relatives had good production records. She is bred to a closely-related buck proven to sire good milkers. Next year she is breed her to her son having resulted from this selected buck. The next year, breed her to her son or grandson of the preceding breeding until a buck kid results having 31/32 (five years) of the genetic character of the linebred doe. If a poor individual results, it should be culled, but such inbreeding has been done for centuries. A high performance buck, one that provides the greatest possible genetic potential for milking is desired. The genetic potential pales in importance to management and nutrition but a simultaneous assault on the enterprise is needed.
Optimal breeding involves selecting quality females (defined by the evidence of their form and milk production quantity and components) and sires (with little or no evidence except breed records). Fortunately records for males are now kept and some lines are known. In the past, breeders have seemed to have been more concerned with producing animals that conform to breed standards than to those with high milk production. Production has probably suffered. In the proposed system, one with a milk profit objective as well as other profits, it is important to analyze the returns on superior show animals as well as super producers. It is unlikely the same animals can meet both objectives.
It has been shown that people prefer certain colors and configurations of animals and will select for them over production, no matter how irrational this may seem. The results are clearly indicative of differences in weights assigned to well articulated objectives.
It becomes increasingly important to select for productive bucks because of their high initial price as well as maintenance costs. Selecting for good looks can degrade a herd. Increasingly, artificial insemination is used in the goat industry. A simple conclusion for the breeder to make is that if the ratio of the production of milk and butterfat equivalents by a daughter goat to that of a dam is greater than 1.0, the buck has contributed to the improvement. Controlling or adjusting for the environmental differences during the period will always be a problem.
Only in 1983 was the first national genetic evaluation of dairy bucks released. Complete, accurate records were sparse. Records typically include the buck's daughters, herds in which they are located, lactation records, and a repeatability index that ranges from 15 to 99 percent. The index suggests the confidence that an observer can have in the milk production index. This second index, predicted difference or PD, is the amount of milk that daughters of the buck will out produce daughters of other bucks. The breeder needs to look for high PD and a high repeatability index. Similar indexes are available for butterfat.
In 1979, Time magazine described how cows (since the 1970's) are given hormones causing multiple ovulations. They are artificially inseminated, then the small multiple live embryos are withdrawn through the cervix by means of a catheter. Each is placed in the uterus of a low-value host cow that carries the superior calf to full term. This method may allow large number of genetically superior does to be produced rapidly to enable a goat system to emerge. There are 250 goat genotypes creating a vast gene poo1 from which selection may be made and new genotypes developed (Nelson et al. 1979:81).
There is no point in attempting to breed hornless goats. The polled condition is related to infertile genetic traits (Guss 1979:83).
 |
| Elementary relations in a goat system can be graphed. Outputs or production is shown as line P, costs or investments are line C. See the text. |
Producing Milk
There is a need to emphasize again that producing milk is not the objective of the system but profit is. Of course they are related. Production is essential to profit. The success criterion is to achieve just the right amount of production. The elementary curve to be studied and kept in mind is in the figure to the right. Increasing investments in food, medicine, etc., can allow some increase in milk, animals, or meats but the returns typically slow down. The high production point at A seems attractive, but the rational systems person will usually work for an input of exactly k that will produce the maximum gains per unit invested. Maximizing B the distance between the 2 curves is the manager's quest.
Goat milk is a complex substance and commodity. It has at least two major parts that can be separated. These are usually priced differently. Milk is 85-87 percent water. (This suggests a need, but it also shows that a "processor" the goat, can take a typically low-valued product and convert it to a very high-valued product.) The other parts are butter fat and total pounds (and in some areas milk solids). Typically a doe's record would appear as: Age, number of days tested (e.g., 305); pounds of milk produced (e.g., 3950); pounds of butterfat (e.g., 150); and percent butterfat (e.g., 3.8). Since butterfat varies in price (as does total milk but differently) and the proportion can be influenced, then management decisions can influence milk price and thus, net returns.
The following are varied suggestions to improve milk production in small herds. Personal attention to does in a 1 to 6 goat herd can add 400-1100 kg (880-2400 pounds) of milk to the total produced by a herd. Animal production is discussed in terms of production such as 5000 pounds of milk and 200 pounds of butterfat in a 305 day period for a grade Saanen goat. World records are over 3175 kg (7000 pounds) per year.
Butterfat is stored energy. All comes from foods consumed but the final amount is the result of metabolism. The metabolic process includes the outside environment. Animals in cold environments require more food than those in warm ones. The animal is an energy budgeter. The manager can influence this budget by providing food and housing. Costs of food can be reduced by providing quality housing environments. The costs of buildings discounted over long periods can be compared to costs of foods not fed because of the savings provided the buildings (Esmay 1978, Thompson 1977). Larger animals are energetically more efficient (better at energy budgeting) than the smaller ones.
Suggestions at the micro-scale of systems management are as follows:
The milking process and techniques can significantly influence the milk actually obtained or "harvested" from that produced. This includes milkers, their techniques, milking order, speed, machinery used, care of animals, and care of the milk.
Selecting productive animals is fundamental to milk production. This includes selecting does with superior udder quality, size, and form; those clearly healthy; and those of a productive breed. Nutrition and management remain dominant influential factors but all of these pale in relation to marketing discussed later. There, in fact, is no factor more important than others. Many "work," many are conditional upon the presence or influence of others.
Goats do eat rough vegetation but high milk production is produced by animals on quality pastures equivalent to those of cattle. During dry periods they may be fed on lower quality forages. Optimum range and pasture management can lead to desired vegetation mixes of grasses and legumes optimum for the site, soil, ... and the goats. Goats give maximum milk when fed on green forages and hay pellets. Daily dry matter intake is from 2.5 to 4.5 percent of the goats' live weight. The greater milk production is gained by feeding forages with low crude fiber, high net energy, and high dry-matter content of green forages. Crude protein has only a small effect. Quantity of forage consumed is a fundamental determinant of milk production.
Meat Goat meat is known as chevon. It is popular throughout the world. In the U.S. it is often used in feasts by Greek, Italian, and middle Eastern people. While there have been some efforts to breed a meat-type goat, most meat is supplied by goat kids, usually during the Christmas and Easter seasons. Excessive production of males has been a persistent problem in economical dairy goat production. Sale of kids for meat has been one answer. Male kids are raised to 6-12 kg live weight (4- to 12-weeks old) and slaughtered. Some are castrated, then slaughtered later as yearlings at 40 kg (88 pounds). Castration is recommended early (up to 5 months of age) to derive the best carcasses. These animals dress out at about 50 percent body weight. A doe is capable of producing about 30 kg of meat per year. Sustained production for the market (with holiday peaks) must be a target in a system with joint production of milk and meat. The best carcasses are said to be those of Nubian goats. Summer sausage is said to be a desirable product.
Advertising and Marketing
When a long list of potential helpful actions is presented, it seems useful to realize that (1) some will probably work very well, (2) all may work individually, (3) some may fail, not due to their intrinsic "badness," but due to the timing and conditions under which they were applied. Other awareness is that if many are tried and are successful, then major improvement may be possible (thus the present system is suboptimal). Another, often painful awareness is that after 2 or 3 changes are made, investments in others may not be "worth it." The costs may exceed the benefits gained. The ideas need not be viewed as bad or rejected by those presenting them, just not having the expected payoff needed given (1) the sequence in which the other suggestions were incorporated with system processes, (2) the current state of the system (perhaps "close enough"), and (3) the change likely may exceed that needed. A long list of ways to improve milk sales (based largely on Elsler 1978) include:
Disease and Parasites
In a large system, especially one with 300 animals, perhaps dispersed in small herds of from 5 to 30, a veterinarian can provide complex services ranging from animal treatment to design of an epidemiological system. Such a system would include:
None of the above is likely or really feasible with the small herd. When adequate scale is reached within a county or region, all of them, evidently useful, can be had for very low cost per animal and at great risk reduction.
Disease such as dysentary, foot rot, pink eye, internal parasites, lice, mites, mange, ticks, etc., (Guss 19 77) are continual problems among goats. Prevention, high nutrition, and quality management can minimize these in an animal health subsystem.
Waste Management
New procedures in milk processing have resulted in reducing water use and costs of its disposal by 50 percent. Solar energy has cut costs of heating water used in milking parlors. Reducing the surface-area-to-be-cleaned per animal is a way to reduce water and energy use. Even in built structures (compared to forests or natural environments) the variation is so great that measures of such spaces are more difficult and costly than the results warrant.
By knowing that conventional "waste" will be a commodity, a system can be designed for efficient collection, preparation, packaging, and marketing of feces and urine. Available nitrogen in so many natural systems is in such shortage (and will become more so as prices increase for commercial fertilizers) that all possible efforts need to be directed to collecting and caring for this substance. In some systems it may become more valuable than milk production.
Again, I do not suggest that marketing "waste" will be easy but notable grand successes have already been achieved with composted materials. Dried manure is now sold in many garden centers. Potentials seem to exist with garden centers, nurseries, and specialized growers. Waste-impregnated erosion control and lawn netting seems a likely sale item. Minimum studies can produce very convincing marketing information about the virtues of the goat system products.
Rachel Gray, who raised goats, prepared a class assignment on the potential uses of goats in natural resource management in 1997.
Gamma-Goat: A Game There are international chess matches. Some sports have an international appeal. There are few places in which there is widespread personal or team competition in a meaningful activity, one of direct likely longterm social consequences. While chess and football have physical as well as mental dimensions and while I do not disparage recreational time, I suggest that there may be ways that humans could spend human time for notably positive ends. If study of the game, per se, is fun (as in chess) then perhaps study could be diverted from a board and players to a more complex, equally satisfying, and potentially more beneficial end. The suggested end is to play and win the Gamma game.
It has not yet been created. It probably will be. The concept is presented here as a view of the future, as a suggestion for how to convert the energies of a society toward improving itself.
In the Gamma game, players play against a computer. A player might become the local champion in playing Gamma-Corn, maybe the state champion. Eventually a national or international championship would be held. The game is a comprehensive corn system -- with stochastic elements. The players play 3 times in competition. The winner has the highest 3-year (computer simulated) computed profitability. Other players work on Gamma-Wheat, Gamma-Milk, Gamma-Beef, etc. Advanced players work up to include combined production systems of hay, grain, and beef. Eventually at state, national, and international levels, the play of Gamma-Farm may be engaged. Payoff would probably exceed those of chess competition. Winners would be as much sought as sport heroes. The potential may be to cast national heroes not only as athletic figures but as those working for and with the health and well-being of the natural resource system and people dependent on it. Gamma-Goat would be one game. The limits would only be the scope of agriculture as it might be practiced in most (but not all) areas of the world. Very localized crops (e.g., bananas) would not normally be included. The games all potentially build toward Gamma-Farm, the total system. The final play in a championship would typically take 3 days with winners known at the end of such a period.
Gamma-Goat, as an example, would include decisions about subsystems of:
with profit maximization subject to the characteristics (selected by the computer) of a farm or specific goat enterprise and constraints. One such constraint would include fossil energy availability. A score on each subunit would be produced. If a passing score was obtained, then the player would be allowed to move to one of 2 units. These would be for beginners or advanced players. An educational or beginner unit would have feedback to hasten good scores. There would reasonably be opportunities for sales of publications about the game and playing aids. The rationale for much U.S. Extension Service work could be directed to increased successes in Gamma.
A national roster of players could be developed. An award (e.g., a jacket emblem) could be sent after a score or number of plays had been reached. There may be a limit set on the number of plays one might make of a particular game before encouragement is extended to go to a pairs game (e.g., beef-corn) or to a triplet game (e.g., soil-pasture-goat). There would be required payments for plays (as in golf, arcade games, etc.), but with knowledge that the investments are being made in a constructive sport, in creating computer units with human relevance, in fostering investment in gaining meaningful knowledge (not trivia), as well as in the pleasure of competition, reasonable pay off for personal investment, and expansive potential social interactions, world wide -- then the costs may not seem excessive. Gamma-Goat and its sister games, all leading to Gamma-Farm, may not be a bad idea.
References
Grossman, M., and G. R. Wiggans. 1980. USDA Summary of goat herd averages 1979-1980. Dairy Goat J. 58(l1):890-891.
Guss, S. B. 1977. Management and diseases of dairy goats. Dairy Goat J. Pub. Co., Scottsdale, Arizona. xvi + 222 pp.
Harris, B., Jr. 1980. Providing balanced nutrition for dairy goats. Dairy goat J. 58(6):20-25.
Hoecker, S. W. 1976. NATAL: a computer based educational unit on white-tailed deer bioenergetics. M.S. Thesis. VPI & SU, Blacksburg, Va. ii + vi. 163 pp.
Jeffrey, H. E. 1975. Goats. Cassel and Co., Ltd., London. 112 pp. Leach, C. A. 1974. Aids to goatkeeping. Dairy Goat J. Scottsdale, Ariz. viii + 277 pp.
Logan, I. R., D. V. Aranstrong, R. A. Selley. 1978. Three times a day milking. Western Regional Extension Publ, Univ. Arizona, WREP-4, Tucson. 9 pp.
Mackenzie, D. 1970. Goat husbandry (3rd Ed.), Faber and Faber Ltd. London. Moen, A. N. 1973. Wildlife ecology: an analytical approach. W. H. Freeman Co., San Francisco, Calif. 458 pp.
Moen, A. N. 1983. Agriculture and wildlife management. (1st Ed.), Cornerbrook Press, Lansing, N.Y. viii + 367 pp.
National Research Council. 1981. Nutrient requirements of goats. Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals No. 15, Natl. Academy Press, Washington. 91 pp.
Owen, N. L. 1977. The illustrated standard of the dairy goat. Dairy Goat J. Pub. Corp., Scottsdale, Arizona. vi + 131 pp.
Rayburn, E. B., and R. H. Giles, Jr. 1975. Energy balance as a criterion for acquiring deer management areas. Proc. S.E. Assoc. of Game and Fish Commi ssi oners 29:481-492. Walls, M. L. 1974. A dynamic white-tailed deer population simulator and lessons from its use. M.S. Thesis, VPI & SU, Blacksburg, Va. viii + 167 pp.
Walsh, H. 1977. Starting right with milk goats. Garden Way Pub., Charlotte, Vermont. ix + 138 pp. 42
Return to the top.
| Quick Access to the Contents of LastingForests.com |
|---|
This Web site is maintained by R. H.
Giles, Jr.
Last revision February 10, 2002.