In Ethiopia, Agricultural development is considered a priority by the government for stimulating overall economic growth, reducing poverty and achieving food security. The agricultural sector of  Ethiopia  accounts  for about 42% of gross deomestic product (GDP), more than 80% of export, and 85% of employment. The livestock sector contributes 45% of agricultural GDP and 16 to 19%  of  the  foreign  exchange  earnings  of  the  country (Behnke and Metaferia, 2011). Furthermore, the country’s foreign exchange from livestock product is increasing, with spiking trend for leather and meat products (MOA, 2009). Skins and hides are the most valuable export item for the country other than coffee. The leather industry is one of the fastest-growing economic sectors in Ethiopia (Abadi, 2000; Bayou, 2007).

Despite the availability of these physical resources, the leather sector contributes only marginally to the national economy so far. This could be mainly due to the presence of livestock disease and difficulties to meet international standards (CSA, 2011). Skin and hide quality is usually assessed by international standards of physico-chemical tests, which are intended to guarantee leather quality and uniformity (Tsegay et al., 2012). Hide and skins are known to have varying physical and chemical properties and thus used for different purposes. Commodity trade patterns have changed during recent years and practical methods for evaluation and classification of skin are necessary (FAO, 2010).

The current utilization of hides and skins in Ethiopia is estimated to be 48% for cattle, 75% for goat and 97% for sheep with expected off take rate of 33, 35 and 7% for sheep, goats and cattle, respectively (Mahmud, 2002). Basic information on the quality level is useful to decide for what purpose to use the hide or skin. However, such quality information is meager in Ethiopia. This calls for detailed information on the internationally required physical and chemical properties of hides and skins to identify potential market and earn from the attractive international leather market. Thus, this study aims to assess the quality and marketing of hide and skins in Adami Tulu and Bora district of Oromia Region through pre and post slaughter defect assessment and physico-chemical analysis.

 

Study area description

This study was conducted in Adami Tulu and Bora districts. Adami Tulu district is found in east Shewa zone of Oromia Region at about 168 km south of Addis Ababa, which is located in the central rift valley of Ethiopia with an elevation of 1636 m.a.s.l. The district is characterized by mixed livestock farming system. Cattle, goat, sheep and donkey are important livestock species reared in the area (ATJK District Livestock Development and Health, 2008). Bora district is also found in East Shewa zone of Oromia Region of Ethiopia. Hides and skins are important commodity in both study area. Sheep and goat skin comprises more than 85% of the marketed skin in the districts.

Study design

A cross-sectional study design was employed to study the hide  and skin market, defect and quality at the level of producers (homestead slaughter), middlemen, butchers and hide and skin collection centers. The two districts were Adami Tulu and Bora selected purposively based on hide and skin supply and accessibility. Two stage random sampling procedure was applied to select representative farmer household. For the homestead hide and skin suppliers, five peasant districts from each district were selected randomly from the list provided by district offices. The lists of households from each selected district were obtained from development agents. Systematic random sampling procedure was employed to obtain names of households to be interviewed.

Sample size determination for questionnaire survey

The sampling units were homestead hide and skin suppliers in the study area. The sample size required for the study was determined to be 200 respondents by the formula recommended by Arsham (2007) for survey studies. In addition to this, all hide and skin collection centers were also interviewed; the number of middlemen, butchers and tannery were unknown; those encountered during the study were included.

Sample size determination for hide and skin defect prevalence at the collection centers

There is no previous investigation or assessment about the defect of hide and skin in the study area. Hence, the average expected prevalence rate was assumed to be 50% for the area within 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) at ±5% desired accuracy. Subsequently, the number of study hide and skin was determined from the formula published in Thrusfield (2005). Using the aforementioned formula; the sample size is calculated to be 384 irrespective of the animal species (sheep, goats and cattle) per district. However, to increase the power of the study, 382 goat skins were sampled for physical defect assessment. Furthermore, 20 apparently healthy and 20 skins with generalized pre-slaughter defects were purposively selected, preserved and these materials have been sent to Leather Industry Development Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, for laboratory tests using the SANAS test methods (South Africa National Accreditations Standards). The test result of tensile strength, percentage elongation and tear load, thickness, moisture content on dry basis and fat content has been collected and then manipulated using descriptive statics.

Data collection

Questionnaire survey

The questionnaire was pre-tested and then modified on the basis of the information obtained in the pre-tests. Totally, 200 homesteads hide and skin suppliers were involved; they were interviewed on household herd composition and animal slaughter rate.

Observation

The market condition was observed in the collection center wholesalers focused on the price determination of raw hide and  skin. The observation was also utilized to assess the status of hides and skins defect. For this purpose, a systematic random sampling technique was employed where every other hide/skin was considered to assess hid and skin defects at the collection centers.

Physical and chemical examinations

For physical defect assessment, at the collection centers, randomly selected 382 goat, 220 sheep skin and 76 cattle for defects such as cockle, scratch, fly cut, pox, brand, scar and putrefaction were searched for and examined using protocol described on parasitology text book. Furthermore, 40 raw goat skin was selected randomly and classified into generalized defect (grade two and three) and apparently normal (with grade four and five) to test physico-chemical characteristics like skin by appearance/defect, tensile strength, percentage elongation, tear load, thickness, fat content and moisture content. The skin was preserved by wet salted and kept in the collection center for one month. Then, the preserved skin was transported to Addis Ababa Leather Industry Development Institute for further analysis of physico-chemical test skin quality. The skin samples taken from the defected and normal goat skins were tested for physical characteristics like, tensile strength and percentage elongation were determined using test method of International Organization for Standardization (ISO-3376, 2002). Average tear load mean was determined using test method of International Organization for Standardization (ISO-3377, 2002) and sampling method and sampling location for these characteristics were according to ISO-2418 (2005). Thickness was in accordance with ISO-2589 (2002). In the other hand, chemical testing like moisture and fat content were determined according to SLC4 (1996) test method.

Procedure for skin laboratory test

First goat skin was pre-soaked by using 200 L water for 5 min and washed three times followed by the soaking process using 150 L water, 0.2 kg sodium silico fluoride and 0.3 kg soda ash; then it was left overnight (~16 h) to run for every 2 h, drain next morning, press and pile for 4 h, checked (pH 9-9.5) → Painting which was used for hair shaving by using 100 L water with 1 kg sodium sulfate for about 30 min. The fourth process→ Liming by using 100 L water, 1 kg sodium sulfate and 1 kg sodium sulfhydrate for 30 min and leave overnight and 3 times stop at 27 min, then → Deliming process using 250 L water, 1 kg ammonium sulfate and 0.5 kg sodium bicarbonate for 45 min and check (pH 8-9) followed →Bating process using 100 L water and 0.5 kg bating enzyme for 30 min and drain and wash.

Then, → Degreasing using 80 L water for 20 min then drains and wash. The next was pickling using 80 L brine (water+salt) for 10 min, 1 kg formic acid for 20 min and 0.8 kg sulfuric acid for 30 min and dilution check Be° (2.8-3) → Tanning using 3 kg basic chromium sulfate, 1 kg sodium formite and 0.8 kg sodium bicarbonate for 30 min and check (pH 3.6-3.8). Within this process at wet blue stage defect assessment, grading was done. Then → Acid wash using 200 L water, 0.3 kg formic acid and 0.2 kg non-ionic detergent agent were left for 1 h and then checks wet back drain→ neutralization using 100 L water and 0.1 kg sodium formite, then was left for 30 min check (pH 4.2-5) and drain→ Re tanning using 150 L water, 4 kg retinal LSF, 3 kg genetan Lx, mimosa and 2 kg net fill powder then left for 60 min drop by drop. → Fat liquoring using 50 L water, 3 gene soft Fc 3 gene soft Sc, 2 nexopolnt and Fosfol 36-k after that check (pH 3.5-3.6) and drain→ Fixation using 2 kg formic acid left for 45 min after that drain, wash, pile, hanging up, hanging dry, conditioning, milling and toggling.

Data management and statistical analysis

Data on hide and skin quality including visual defect observation and physico-chemical test results were stored in Microsoft excel spread sheet and transferred to SPSS version 20.0 for analysis. Market condition and associated constraints of hide and skins was determined by using frequency distribution. Similarly, the occurrence of defects and grading of skin at wet blue stage also was determined by using frequency distribution. On the other hand, independent sample T test was performed using SPSS version 20.0 to compare the mean of physico-chemical characteristics of crust goat skin with the standard. P value ≤0.05, was considered statically significant.

 

Characteristics of hide and skin producers and marketers

The characteristics of the household respondents are described in Table 1. The average household male respondents were 77% and the mean numbers of females were 23%. About 54% of the house hold respondents were found in age group between 25 and 44 years, 43% of the households were between 45 and 64 years and the remaining 3% of the house hold respondents were above 65 years old. In the study area, moreover, 50% respondents were illiterate, 24% only read and write, 18% completed primary school, 6% joined secondary school and 2% had diploma. On the other hand, all butchers (20) available for interview were males in the study area. In general 45% of butchers were in the age group between 25 and 44 years and the remaining 55% butchers were in the age group between 45 and 64 years old. All the ten middlemen encountered were males of which 50% were in the age group between 25 and 44 years and the remaining 40% in the age group between 45 and 64 years old and 10% had above 64 years of age. On the other hand, all collection centers (2) or traders available for the study were males and all respondents were of the age group between 45 and 64 years old in the study area.

 

 

Livestock herd composition and annual slaughter at household

All interviewed household respondents keep mixed species livestock farming system where cattle, sheep and goats are the widely prevalent species in both study district (Table 2). In the study area, for all the three species, the mean annual slaughter at the household level ranges between two and three animals (Table 3).

 

 

Household respondents ascertained that majority of them use hides and skins for cash income whereas significant number of them keep raw materials for making household utensils (Table 4).

 

 

Defects of skin and hide observed at collection centers

Defects identified on goat skin after processing

Visual examination of 768 of raw cattle hides and skins of goat and sheep revealed at least two defects in 97.8% of them. As a result, the common defects attributed to quality deterioration were cockle, flay defect, scratch  and scar, putrefaction, brand and pox (Table 5). Example of flay cut, scratch and putrefaction is as shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

 

 

 

Both defective and apparently normal goat skins after tanning to wet blue stage have shown different types of defects. Prevalence of cockle, scratch, putrefaction and pox lesion was increased after processing defective skins. None of the skins considered normal were free of defects.  However,  the  appearance  of  defects  such  as cockle, scratch, putrefaction and pox lesion was higher in defective than in those considered normal (P, 0.05) (Table 6).

 

 

Grades given to goat skin grouped as defective and normal

Goat skin grading done at wet  blue  stage  revealed  that most skins lie in the category of grades three to six for defective skins, whereas most skins previously considered normal fall in grades four and five. More rejected skins were found in the group labeled defective. Details are shown in Table 7.

 

 

Physico-chemical characteristics of goat skin

In the laboratory, physical quality analysis of goat skin labeled defective and normal in their fresh state was done at crust stage of processing. The findings revealed that both groups of skins had higher tensile strength and thickness than the standard. On the other hand, elongation capacity was within the standard range for both. On the contrary, the moisture content was lower than the standard range whereas the undesirable fat content was higher than the maximum preferred in both cases. When values between defective and normal skins were compared and there was no significant variation for most of the measurements except a borderline significance for average tear load in Newton (P=0.051), and it is higher in skins considered normal than those taken as defective (Table 8).

 

 

Hide and skin marketing

Market flow and selling price

Majority of farmers sell their raw hide and skins to middlemen followed by collection centers. On the other hand, most butchers and middlemen sell their raw materials to collection centers (Table 9). Selling price increases as it goes from producers to tannery (Table 10). Producers earn better price when they sell hide and skins to collection centers  than  when  they  sell  them  to middlemen.

 

 

Factors affecting marketing of hides and skin

The survey result revealed that hides and skins market price was commonly determined by the buyer followed by negotiation based on quality of the product (Table 11).

 

 

Access to market information is one of the determining factors in hide and skin marketing. Results from the survey also showed that majority of the hide and skin producers do not get proper information on the price of the products prior to selling (Table 12). 

 

 

Skin diseases and lack of competitive market were also among the major problems hampering hide and skin marketing. Other constrains were flay defects and injury as well as fluctuating prices (Table 13).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Several reasons may contribute to low quality output. According to Jabbar and Benin (2002), poor animal husbandry (including inadequate and poor quality feeds, inadequate parasite and disease management) and inappropriate slaughtering, flaying, collection and initial processing methods used. Through visual inspection at collection centers in the study area, the most common Hide and skin defect were defects cockle, flay defect, scratch, scar and putrefaction. Similarly, Jabbar and Benin (2002) reported that poor animal husbandry (including disease management) and inappropriate slaughtering, flaying, storage downgrade quality of skin and hide. Nationally, poor pattern, dirt and knife cut were reported as the main defects of sheep and goat skin (CSA, 2004). Berhe (2009)  in  Tigray  also  reported  that  

diseases and fly cut were the main defects of the hide and skin. On the contrary, Bezabih (2014) has shown that filthiness, gauge marks and flay cut or poor pattern are the most important defects of sheep and goat skin and cattle hide in East Gojam Zone of the Amhara Regional State. In a similar way, our findings disagree with the report of Kiruthu et al. (2000) that poor pattern, dirt and corduroying were the chief defects of wet sheep and goat skin in Bahrdar town. This suggests that differences in the perception and practices of hide and skin management by the producers in different regions of the country. However, comparative to other studies and species, high proportions of scratches in goat skins were reported. This could be because of the browser feeding behavior of goats, such that they are vulnerable to spine abrasions, thorny bushes on grazing and the thin layer of hair coat that cannot protect the skin from injury during rubbing against an object. As a result, goats are more likely to acquire scratches on their life-spans than of sheep. Cockle was also the major defect observed in all the three species. This is in line with the report of Kassa (2006) that cockle, mange mite and pox are the main treats to the leather industry in Ethiopia. The defect assessment undergone at wet blue stage of processing magnified some of the defects suggesting that visual inspection is inefficient to detect all the defective skins. Also, those skins considered free of defects in the fresh/wet state were found having one or more defects. At this stage most defects are easily visible as the hairs are removed. Similarly, the appearance of defects such as cockle, scratch, putrefaction and pox lesion was higher in skins designated defective than in those considered normal in a fresh state indicative of the relative importance of visual inspection. It was shown that majority of goat skins identified as defective in a fresh state were categorized under grades 3 to 5, whereas most of the skins considered normal were grouped under grades 4 to 5 supporting the fact that apparently health skin does not always mean that they earn a better grade. Animals with skin diseases previously treated may remain with a permanent damage which is not visible with the necked eye. Producers may attempt to hide flay defects of various types by covering them with flesh, etc., so that such defects may be missed during inspection. An example to support this assumption is the detection of fly cuts in 50% of those skins labeled normal before processing. It could also be attributed to the experience of the inspector to identify and detect the different types of defects. Goat skin grades reported by Bezabih (2014) significantly varied from our report. He indicated that about 85% of the skins fall in grades 1 and 2. This variation could be the result of the grading technique. Grading in the present study was at wet blue stage of tanning, whereas Bezabih graded the skins at wet salted stage before processing. The present finding is in line with the conclusion that large amount of money is lost due to direct rejection or costs incurred for defective  skin processing (Sertse and Wossene, 2007).

The tensile strength of both defective and the apparently normal goat skin in the present study was higher than the minimum value recommended by standards. Salehi et al. (2014) in goats from sub humid hilly areas of Iran have also demonstrated that goat skin had tensile strength of 26 N/mm² which is equivalent to the present finding. Similarly, percentage elongations of both defective and normal skin in the present study were higher than the minimum value recommended by standards. This high performance in percentage elongation emphasized that the skin has enough elasticity that provides good adaptation to users’ size to the movements derived from the use of footwear. Percentage elongation in this study was lower than the value (56%) reported by Salehi et al. (2014) which indicates existence of breed difference in the elongation capacity of goat skin. The current result shows that both defective and normal skin tear load was below the minimum requirement recommended by Ethiopian standards. It is also lower than values reported by some other researchers such as Salehi et al. (2014) in Iran who reported tear load of around 23.5 N/mm. The thickness of the present study in both defective and normal skin was above the minimum. This result demonstrates that skin had better quality which makes it more suitable for making boots and garments. The present result was similar to Salehi et al. (2014) in their measurement of physical properties of Iranian Lori goat breeds. Similarly, other finding supported the present study (Oliveira et al., 2007) that goat leathers are thicker than leathers obtained from sheep. On the other hand, the chemical test indicated moisture content of both defective and normal skin was lower than the minimum value recommended suggesting again the good natural quality of the products. This result was similar with Sudha et al. (2009), Salehi et al. (2014) and Passman and Sumner (1983) and their estimation for moisture content was around 11% on crust tanned sheep leather. Different from the aforementioned fact, the fat content of our goat skins was higher than the maximum recommended, probably due to the fact that most goats are slaughtered at old age where the probability of fat deposition is high. Similar findings (5.8%) were also reported for goats in Sudan (Musa and Gasmelseed, 2013). The present result indicated that most household producers sell skin or hide in the form of fresh to middlemen (brokers). Even though brokers have not license they are easily accessible to household producers and collect directly going door to door in case of urban area and by setting temporary collection point at most accessible spot in case of rural areas. This finding is line with Hadush et al. (2013) who reported that 21% of respondents sell hide and skin to middlemen. However, selling to middlemen than collection centers makes them lose better price offer since collection centers buy the products at the same price  from  both middlemen and household producers. In the study area, marketing flow of hide and skin starts from producers (farmers, butchers) and agents could be middlemen and collection centers with final destination to tanners, this is in agreement with Ahmed (2000) who reported that the market chain for raw hide and skin consists of the primary producers/consumers, who were the initial sources (individual meat consumers, rural slaughter slabs, municipal slaughter houses, abattoirs, meat processing plants), agents of traders, collectors, local tanners, regional medium/small traders, regional/ Addis Ababa big traders and tanneries. In the study area producers (farmers, butchers), the average selling price of sheepskin, goat skin, and cattle hide was 32±0.24 birr/pieces, 7±0.24 birr/pieces, 3±0.48 birr/kg, respectively to middlemen. Price offer increases as it goes from producers to tannery. However, it should also be noted that costs of storage, preservation and transportation would increase the cost of supply especially at collection centers and tanneries. The average price of the current finding disagree with the finding of Hadush et al. (2013) who reported that the average selling price of raw sheepskins was 41.43 birr. In the study area, there was lack of real price setting available for producers, even though the price of hides and skins was a reflection of world market price and the behavior of traders in pricing, an attempt was made to examine discriminating or competitive pricing strategy for hide and skin traders. For most of the household hide and skin producers, price is determined (set) by buyers. Similarly, traders have the leading role to determine skin and hide price at butchers’ level. The present finding is similar with Berhe (2009) who reported that hides and skins prices were determined by buyers in 62.8% of the cases. Scarborough and Kydd (1992) said that accurate and timely market information enhances market performance by improving the knowledge of buyers and sellers concerning prices, production, supply movements, stocks, and demand conditions at each level of the market. Market access and lack of price information as well as absence of competitive market are among the major constraints in hide and skin marketing in our study areas. The current finding is similar with ILCA (1990) and who stated that absence of market information system minimizes the share of the total value that producers receive. Tschirley et al. (1995) stated that the existence of information barriers results in unexploited market opportunities, seasonal gluts and produces inadequate quality specification and control, inequitable returns to producers and fundamentally poor returns to production and marketing system as a whole. The present study confirmed that hides and skins brought to markets have quality problems due to disease, flay defect and injury. Livestock diseases, as revealed by farmer respondents were found to be the major cause of hide and skin defect which resulted due to poor husbandry practices. This finding is similar to Zewdu (1998) and Ahmed (2000) who states defects including flay    defect,    improper    shape,   injury,  diseases   and parasites, as well as storage and transport conditions down-grade the quality of the raw material. In addition, the current result is similar to other finding (Mulat, 1999; Girma, 2002) revealed that the main defects attributed to quality deterioration were flaying defect, injury, and putrefaction (due to delayed care). Such major problem may arise from lack of awareness on the management and handling of the raw materials. It may also be the result of poor live animal handling and inadequate veterinary care.

 

Concusively, it was observed that there are a number of pre- and post-slaughter defects affecting the quality of the raw materials. The grades given to at least goat skin at wet blue stage were low ranging between 3 and 5 for most of them and no skin was in grade one and rejects were prevalent. On the other hand, physico-chemical parameters indicative of natural characteristics of the skins have revealed that despite the defects observed earlier, the goat skins tested performed well on most of the measurements. This suggests that if those defects caused by management problems are minimized, the skin will have a better quality. There were some problems related to marketing of hide and skins that need the attention of all stakeholders. Easy access to market and market information and better price offer are essential to improve the transaction.

Therefore, based on the aforementioned conclusion, the following points are recommended:

(1) Since most of the defects observed can be minimized or avoided through careful management of the animals, the hides and skin derived from them, continuous awareness creation and trainings must be given to livestock holders and development agents.

(2) Installation of differential price offered based on defined quality criteria will encourage producers to give due attention to quality.

(3) Encourage and incentivize legal hide and skin traders to get closer to the source so that fresh products are collected and farmers get better price information and offer.

(4) Since it has been shown that apparently normal goat skins were found to have a number of defects at wet blue stage of processing, visual inspection alone does not guarantee selection of raw materials for quality. Hence, better techniques should be developed if differential price offer based on quality should be installed.

 

The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.

 

This study was conducted under financial support of Addis Ababa University thematic research projects.