• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 About the author
 Introduction to Florida's meat...
 Marketing channels for goat meat...
 Consumer perceptions of goat...
 Goat marketing opportunities on...
 Marketing strategies for goat...
 The North Florida meat goat...
 Goat breeds and production...
 Composition and quality of goat...
 Economic analysis of meat goat...
 Appendix














Group Title: Circular
Title: Florida's meat goat industry
CITATION DOWNLOADS THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00008556/00001
 Material Information
Title: Florida's meat goat industry
Series Title: Circular
Physical Description: 49 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Simpson, James R
Florida Cooperative Extension Service
Publisher: Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1995
 Subjects
Subject: Goat meat industry -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Goats -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: James R. Simpson, editor.
General Note: Cover title.
General Note: Includes bibliographical references.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00008556
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltqf - AAA6820
ltuf - AKL0350
oclc - 32877503
alephbibnum - 002022837

Downloads
Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents 1
        Table of Contents 2
    About the author
        Page i
        Page ii
    Introduction to Florida's meat goat industry
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Marketing channels for goat meat in Florida
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
    Consumer perceptions of goat meat
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
    Goat marketing opportunities on the East Coast
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
    Marketing strategies for goat meat
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
    The North Florida meat goat association
        Page 27
        Page 28
    Goat breeds and production techniques
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
    Composition and quality of goat meat produced
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
    Economic analysis of meat goat production in Florida
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
    Appendix
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
Full Text



/,Z3 # UNIVERSITY OF DOCUMENT

FLORIDA

Cooperative Extension Service
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences



Florida's Meat Goat Industry1


Circular 1153


James R. Simpson, Editor2


o r


I4


i 1,


'1
..
i c ,i-
i: e -;---
~L~.FPb ~
1;


WP -


a 4


3 5-


4 -4 .,f"


1. This document is Circular 1153, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
Publication date: April 1995.
2. James R. Simpson, Professor of Livestock Economics, Food and Resource Economics Department; Cooperative Extension Service, Institute
of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville FL 32611.

The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer authorized to provide research,
educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function without regard to race, color, sex, age, handicap,
or national origin. For information on obtaining other extension publications, contact your county Cooperative Extension Service office.
Florida Cooperative Extension Service / Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences / University of Florida / John T. Woeste, Dean

..,..:TY OF -FLA L:'


L01
F636c
1153


- -


1~ -~~i C


C. i


e-


-
i ...
~









TABLE OF CONTENTS


1. Introduction to Florida's Meat Goat Industry .......................... 1
James Simpson

2. Marketing Channels for Goat Meat in Florida ......................... 7
Robert Degner, Jordan Lin and James Simpson

3. Consumer Perceptions of Goat Meat ............................... 11
Robert Degner

4. Goat Marketing Opportunities on the East Coast ...................... 15
Lynn Harwell

5. Marketing Strategies for Goat Meat ................................ 22
Pat Miller

6. The North Florida Meat Goat Association ........................... 27
Ken Kenyon

7. Goat Breeds and Production Techniques .......................... 29
Claude McGowan

8. Composition and Quality of Goat Meat Produced in Florida .............. 39
Dwain Johnson

9. Economic Analysis of Meat Goat Production in Florida ................. 42
Bea Covington and James Simpson

10. A ppendix .................................................... 46









ABOUT THE AUTHORS


James Simpson is a Professor of Livestock Economics, Food and Resource Economics
Department, University of Florida.

Robert Degner is a Professor and Director of the Florida Agricultural Market Research
Center, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida.

Jordan Lin obtained his PhD in the Food and Resource Economics Department at the
University of Florida. He is an Agricultural Economist in the Economics Research Service
of USDA in Washington, D.C.

Lynn Harwell is retired from the Cooperative Extension Service, Clemson University. He
now raises meat goats.

Pat Miller obtained her MS degree in the Animal Science Department at the University of
Florida. She is now Assistant Director of the FAMU Rural Economics and Community
Development Project at Florida A&M University.

Ken Kenyon, President of the North Florida Goat Meat Association at the time this
document was published, works with ABC Research in Gainesville, Florida.

Claude McGowan is an Associate Professor and Cooperative Extension Livestock Specialist
at Florida A&M University.

Dwain Johnson is a Professor of Meat Science, Animal Science Department, University of
Florida.

Bea Covington received her MS degree in the Food an Resource Economics Department
at the University of Florida. She is a PhD student in the department.









Chapter 1: Introduction to Florida's Meat Goat Industry

James Simpson


NUMBER OF GOAT FARMS AND GOATS

Florida had 1,111 farms with goats in 1992 (Table
1.1). Of these, 975 or 88 percent did not include milk
or angora goats. Virtually all of these farms, called
"other" in this chapter, consisted of meat goats.
There are, however, some farms in this category
which raise specialized animals such as pygmies. In
terms of inventory, eighty six percent of Florida's
goats are in the "other" category and thus are almost
all meat goats. In contrast, only 24 percent of goats
in the United States are meat type. The
preponderance are Angoras.

Florida had 2.79 percent of United States' farms
with meat goats in 1992 (Table 1.1). The state
accounted for 2.42 percent of meat goat inventory.
Also, Florida had 2.95 percent of meat goat farms
with sales. Quite interesting is that 39 percent of
meat goat farms, 379, sold goats. This means that
about 6 out of 10 producers reportedly kept goats
only for their own use.

Florida is part of the southern goat industry.
Evaluation of data from the 1992 Census of
Agriculture indicates that 78 percent of farms with
goats in the 11 southeastern states were in the "other"
category (Table 1.2). In contrast, 88 percent of
Florida's industry is made up of meat type goats.
Texas and Oklahoma, which are the primary states
with Angoras, had the lowest percentages in the
"other" category. The southeastern states had 45
percent of the United States meat goats in 1992.

Although the southeastern region only had 23
percent of milk goat inventory in 1992, these states
had 87 percent of the Angoras and 76 percent of the
"other" category (Table 1.3). There were 2.5 million
goats in the United States of which 24 percent were
meat goats. Florida had nearly 17 thousand goats of
which 86 percent were meat goats.

The average number of meat goats per farm
ranged from 10 to 16 for the Southeastern states with
the exception of Texas, which had an average of 55
goats (Table 1.4). Florida had an average of 15 meat
goats per farm.

The number of farms with meat goats in the
United States increased 19 percent between 1987 and


1992 (Table 1.5). The national inventory of meat
goats increased 42 percent. Farms with meat goat
sales grew 25 percent while the number of meat goats
sold increased 31 percent. There was a slight increase
in the number of farms with sales of goats, from 36 to
38 percent of all farms with goats.

Hillsborough county had 81 farms with goats in
1992 making it first in Florida (Appendix 1.1).
Second was Marion county with 68 farms while
Alachua county ranked third with 58 farms. The
ranking remains the same when milk and angora
goats are excluded (Appendix 1.2). Hillsborough
county is first, with 76 farms.

The largest number of goats, 1,691 head was
found in Alachua county in 1992 followed by Madison
county and then Hillsborough county (Appendix 1.1).
The ranking remains the same when Angora and milk
goats are excluded (Appendix 1.2).

FLORIDA MEAT GOAT INDUSTRY
EVOLUTION

Florida's meat goat industry has evolved over the
past few decades from one in which goats were kept
as a minor part of subsistence level small farm
systems, into a more structured industry oriented
approach. Although most meat goat producers still
consider their animals as a sideline operation, others
seriously view meat goats as a business.

The evolution of Florida's meat goat industry is
an interesting and instructive story of interplay
between demand and supply forces. On the demand
side, rapid growth in ethnic populations, which have
traditionally desired goat meat, has led to increased
consumption. Simultaneously, development of the
interstate highway system and improvement in
refrigeration has provided the means by which meat
from cull animals derived from the extensive Angora
goat industry in Texas could be inexpensively
delivered to Florida. Relatively cheap ocean freight
rates have led to goat meat from Australia being
imported with increasing frequency. An important
aspect, found in a study by Degner, Lin and Simpson,
reported on in Chapter 2, indicates that supplies have
been adequate to meet the needs of the traditional
market.






Chapter 1: Introduction to Florida's Meat Goat Industry

Growth in Florida's human population and desire
by many to live in rural areas, yet work in urban
areas, led to the growth of "ranchettes." Owners,
wanting a way to qualify for the so-called "green belt
exemption", (i.e. to be taxed at agricultural rates) have
turned to goats because they have been perceived as
a low labor, low input option. Although there have
been producers who use goats as a brush control
mechanism for larger scale agricultural operations, it
is fair to say that the "ranchette type" owner deserves
much credit for the majority of Florida's meat goat
industry as we know it in the mid 1990s.

Expanded interest in meat goats, especially by
"ranchette" owners, resulted in formation of The
Florida Meat Goat Association in the Spring of 1986,
as described in Chapter 6 by Ken Kenyon. At this
time there was a fairly strong milk goat industry, one
which received considerable encouragement and
assistance by Dr. Barney Harris of the Dairy Science
Department at the University of Florida. Naturally,
recent meat goat producers turned to the "veterans"
for guidance. But, while the strategy in milk goats is
to feed large amounts of grain as a means to
stimulate milk production, this practice is
questionable for meat goats where nannies are only
used to produce kids and relatively little difference
exists between grain fed and forage fed animals for
slaughter. In addition, a demand developed for a
meat type breed well adapted to humid Florida
conditions. This aspect has been met by effort at
Florida A&M University, principally under the
direction of Dr. Claude McGowan. Results of his
work are partially reported in Chapter 7.

Growth in the number of meat goat producers,
most of whom have been interested in development
of a "quality" animal, led to calls for expanded outlets
for these animals. In 1987, a project was carried out
on consumer perceptions of goat meat. Research
findings, reported in Chapter 3 by Robert Degner,
showed that a major market niche existed among
middle and upper income Floridians in addition to the
traditional ethnic populations. As a result, further
grants from the Center for Cooperative Projects
(CCP), a project agency jointly administered between
Florida A&M University and the University of


Page 2


Florida, led to the support of efforts by Pat Miller in
taste testing and market development. Much of the
knowledge gained is reported on in Chapter 5,
"Marketing Strategies for Goat Meat." The
conclusion is that non-traditional consumers like the
product, and retail grocery stores and restaurants are
willing to sell it providing certain conditions are met.
Lynn Harwell, in Chapter 4, concludes that the East
Coast market is substantial and growing.

A shift from only serving traditional outlets to
also targeting mainstream consumers means that goat
meat must be presented and delivered in a form
comparable to other meats. This sounds easy, but is
a gigantic step forward for it means that a processor
must invest in expensive equipment such as vacuum
packaging machinery and, in addition, in market
development efforts. Retailers want a consistent,
homogeneous supply of readily identifiable cuts. A
problem is that while the Florida meat goat industry
has developed, supply has not been large enough to
meet potential demand. In effect, a classic chicken
and egg situation has prevailed. Development of
processors has been a source of frustration to public
officials, Florida Meat Goat Association members and
others. The big leap is indeed a difficult step.

By the early 1990s meat goat owners and others
had become aware that careful attention had to be
given to calculating and evaluating production costs.
Another CCAP grant allowed for development of a
computer program by Simpson, and training
producers and country agricultural extension agents in
the use of it. Bea Covington used the program in her
master thesis. The result of this thesis, in which she
identified types of production systems, and costs of
them, is provided in the last chapter of this
publication, Chapter 9.

All-in-all, as the second half of the 1990's begins,
there is reason for optimism by the myriad of people
involved in Florida's expanding meat goat industry.
Demand for a quality product exists, much has been
learned about production of meat goats, and it
appears that processing and market development
problems can be solved.








Chapter 1: Introduction to Florida's Meat Goat Industry


Table 1.1. Farms with goats, goat numbers and sales, Florida and the United States, 1992(a)

Florida United States Florida of US
Item Number Percent Number Percent Percent
Farms
Milk 183 16.5 11,559 24.5 1.58
Angora 27 2.4 6,150 13.0 0.44
Other 975 87.8 34,901 74.0 2.79
Total 1,111 100.0 47,164 100.0 2.36
Goats
Milk 2,253 13.5 124,718 5.0 1.81
Angora 130 0.8 1,799.280 71.5 0.01
Other 14,298 85.7 591,543 23.5 2.42
Total 16,681 100.0 2,515,541 100.0 0.66
Farms with sales
Milk 58 13.5 3,657 20.6 1.59
Angora 4 0.9 2,416 13.6 0.17
Other 379 88.3 12,856 72.5 2.95
Total 429 100.0 17,738 100.0 2.42
Goats sold
Milk (b) 46,284 6.6
Angora (b) 396,698 56.5
Other 6,606 89.1 259,454 36.9 2.55
Total 7,416 100.0 702,436 100.0 1.06
Sales (1,000 dollars)
Milk (c) 365 20,570 1.77
Angora (d) (b) 32,316
Other 293 9,631 3.04
Total (e)
Farms with sales as a percent of
total farms
Milk 31.7 31.6
Angora 14.8 39.3
Other 38.9 36.8
Total 38.6 37.6
(a) Totals may not add due to rounding errors.
(b) Not disclosed due to small number of farms.
(c) Goats and milk.
(d) Goats and mohair.
(e) Not available due to mixing goats and their products.

SOURCE: Census of Agriculture, 1992.


Page 3







Chapter 1: Introduction to Florida's Meat Goat Industry


Table 1.2. Farms with goats in the United States and in the Southern United States, 1992

Type and # of production sites
Geographic Area Milk Angora Other Total Other of Total (%)
Southern States
Alabama 144 42 1,002 1,139 88
Arkansas 183 75 560 755 74
Florida 183 27 975 1.111 88
Georgia 132 38 1,366 1,482 92
Louisiana 51 5 356 400 89
Mississippi 80 15 533 593 90
North Carolina 180 56 1,194 1,360 88
Oklahoma 401 252 976 1,462 67
South Carolina 108 8 817 904 90
Tennessee 383 64 2,282 2,582 88
Texas 902 2,791 5,770 8,624 67
Total 2,747 3,374 15,831 20,412 78
Other States 8,812 2,776 19,070 26,752 71
United States 11,559 6,150 34,901 47,164 74
Southern of Total (%) 24 55 45 43
SOURCE: Census of Agriculture, 1992.




Table 1.3. Goat inventory in the United States and in the Southern United States, 1992

Type and # of productions sites
Geographic Area Milk Angora Other Total Other of Total (%)
Southern States
Alabama 1,393 2,371 13,133 16,397 80
Arkansas 2,273 7,342 8,745 18,360 48
Florida 2,253 130 14,298 16,681 86
Georgia 1,201 676 22,352 24,228 92
Louisiana (1) (1) 3,733 4,456 84
Mississippi 474 472 6,202 7,148 87
North Carolina 1.170 1.190 13,236 15,596 85
Oklahoma 3,393 46,796 10,595 60,784 17
South Carolina 1,141 128 11,025 12,294 90
Tennessee 3,154 396 30,057 33,607 89
Texas 11,727 1,498,037 314,948 1,824,712 17
Total 28,179 1,557,538 448,324 2,034,263 22
Other States 96,539 241,742 143,219 481,278 30
United States 124,718 1,799,280 591,543 2,515,541 24
Southern of Total (%) 23 87 76 81 -
SOURCE: Census of Agriculture, 1992


Page 4








Chapter 1: Introduction to Florida's Meat Goat Industry


Table 1.4. Average number of goats per farm in the United States and Southern United States, 1992

Type and # of production sites
Geographic Area Milk Angora Other Total
Southern States
Alabama 10 56 13 14
Arkansas 12 98 16 24
Florida 12 5 15 15
Georgia 9 17 16 16
Louisiana 0 0 10 11
Mississippi 6 31 12 12
North Carolina 7 21 11 11
Oklahoma 8 186 11 42
South Carolina 11 16 13 14
Tennessee 8 6 13 13
Texas 13 537 55 212
Total 10 462 28 100
Other States 11 87 8 18
United States 11 293 17 53
SOURCE: Derived from Tables 1.2 and 1.3.



Table 1.5. Farms with goats, goat numbers and sales, United States, 1987 and 1992(a)
Item 1987 1992 Change from 1987 to 1992
Farms
Milk 15,443 11,559 -25
Angora 5.352 6,150 15
Other 29,354 34,901 19
Total 45,032 47,164 5
Goats
Milk 120,225 124,718 4
Angora 1,702,166 1,799,280 6
Other 415,196 591,543 42
Total 2,246,587 2,515,541 12
Farms with sales
Milk 4,770 3,657 -23
Angora 2,158 2,416 12
Other 10,251 12,856 25
Total 16,022 17,738 11
Goats sold
Milk 48,795 46,284 -5
Angora 328.219 396.698 21
Other 198,475 259,454 31
Total 576,689 702,436 22


Sales (1,000 dollars)
Milk (c)
Angora (d)


12,845
45,882


20,570
32,316


Page 5






Chapter 1: Introduction to Florida's Meat Goat Industry


Page 6


Table 1.5. Farms with goats, goat numbers and sales, United States, 1987 and 1992(a)
Item 1987 1992 Change from 1987 to 1992
Other 5,720 9,631 68
Total (e)
Farms with sales (% of total farms)
Milk 31 32
Angora 40 39
Other 35 37
Total 36 38
(a) Sums may not add to totals due to rounding errors.
(b) Not disclosed due to small number of farms.
(c) Goats and milk.
(d) Goats and mohair.
(e) Not available due to mixing goats and their products.
SOURCE: Census of Agriculture, 1992.









Chapter 2: Marketing Channels for Goat Meat in Florida

Robert Degner, Jordan Lin and James Simpson


INTRODUCTION

There is increasing interest in goat production
and more production is likely. Thus, it is important
to understand the current marketing channels of goat
meat beyond the farm gate, and consumers'
preferences for goat meat in order to identify
marketing niches to reach more consumers and
increase demand for the product. A comprehensive
study that assessed the marketing environment for
goat meat in Florida was conducted in the latter
1980s. Additional observational research has been
conducted. These studies have investigated the
behavior and attitudes of livestock auction managers,
livestock dealers, meat wholesalers, food retailers
(supermarket chains), and restaurants towards goat
meat as well as consumers' responses to the product.
The objective of this report is to highlight the
research findings on current marketing channels of
goat meat and suggest potential channel strategy.

FINDINGS

Livestock Auctions and Dealers

Initial research examined marketing activities at
the first level beyond the farm gate. Managers of all
livestock auctions in north and central Florida were
interviewed, along with independent livestock dealers
that were identified as handling significant numbers of
meat goats.

Auction managers reported that many goats were
sold directly to individuals, presumably for slaughter;
they reported that such sales were particularly brisk
around major holidays. Several independent livestock
dealers handling goats were found to be buying goats
from local auctions, transporting them to the Tampa,
Orlando and Miami areas, and feeding them until they
could be sold on-the-hoof to individuals. Dealers also
reported that most sales occurred near holidays.
According to dealers, most sales were to ethnic
customers, primarily American blacks, Hispanics, and
Haitians.

Based upon the survey of auction managers and
independent dealers in north and central Florida it
was concluded that few, if any, locally produced goats
were entering traditional commercial marketing
channels. The next surveys sought to learn more


about goat meat sales in the commercial market, i.e.,
sales by traditional meat wholesalers, food retailers,
and restaurants.

Meat Wholesalers

Of the 164 meat wholesalers interviewed, only 24
firms or 15 percent, were found to be currently selling
goat meat. Seven percent had previously sold goat
meat but were no longer selling it, and 78 percent had
never sold goat meat. Firms that had discontinued
selling goat meat mentioned insufficient demand and
supply problems as the primary reason for quitting.
Managers of one-third of the firms that had
discontinued goat meat sales said that cheaper
substitutes, primarily mutton, had reduced the
demand for goat meat.

Combined goat meat sales by all wholesalers was
approximately 842,000 pounds for 1986. Based upon
personal observations, it is likely that wholesale goat
meat movement in Florida has remained under 1
million pounds during the early 1990s. In the late
1980s, goat meat sales in Florida were concentrated
in the hands of very few major firms. Further, most
of the large firms were, and continue to be, located in
the Miami area. On a volume basis, about 95 percent
of the goat meat received was from out of state, with
about 4 percent being obtained within Florida.
Slightly less than two percent was imported from
foreign countries. Texas and Iowa were the most
frequently mentioned out-of-state sources. Three
foreign sources, New Zealand, Australia and Jamaica,
were also mentioned.

Estimated goat carcass weights handled by the
meat wholesalers in the study areas ranged from 25 to
45 pounds and averaged 36.4 pounds, and most was
purchased in whole carcass form. Over half of the
total volume was cut into primals before resale.
Forty-one percent of the volume was resold in the
whole carcass form. Ninety-three percent of the
wholesalers' sales were comprised of frozen meat.

Approximately 52 percent of the goat meat
volume went to retail grocers. About one-third was
sold to restaurants, and six percent to individuals, with
the remaining ten percent going to varied foodservice
operations such as ships, labor camps, and jobbers
that also serve the foodservice trade.






Chapter 2: Marketing Channels for Goat Meat in Florida

The weighted average purchase for all firms was
slightly under $0.95 per pound. The weighted average
sale price was just under $1.09 per pound. Thus, the
weighted average mark-up was 15 percent for all
wholesale firms. It was found that small- and
medium-size firms received higher prices for small
quantities sold directly to consumers.

The wholesalers were asked for their opinions as
to the ethnic origin of goat meat consumers. Haitians
were mentioned by nearly 60 percent of the current
goat meat wholesalers as being important consumers
of goat meat. Jamaicans, other Caribbean, and Asian
Indians were also thought to be significant consumers
of goat meat. Contrary to popular opinion, Cubans
were not viewed as a major ethnic market for goat
meat.

Nearly four-fifths of all wholesalers carrying goat
meat sell it throughout the year. However, the period
from November through March was the period which
most wholesalers identified as the peak demand
season for goat meat. This period encompasses
several important holidays, and also the peak period
for seasonal farm labor. Limited supply was the most
frequently mentioned marketing problem and came
exclusively from large- and medium-size firms.

Food Retailers

To understand how goat meat is distributed
beyond the wholesale level, a survey of meat
merchandisers of chain supermarkets was conducted.
The survey targeted food retailers in areas with
relatively high concentrations of ethnic populations.
The areas selected were Miami (Dade County), Fort
Lauderdale (Broward County), and Tampa
(Hillsborough County).

Seventeen retail food chains operating 622 stores
in the study region were surveyed. Six small chains,
comprised of 168 stores, sold goat meat. However,
goat was being sold in only 28 of these 168 stores.
Chains selling goat meat tended to cater to specific
groups of ethnic consumers. Although the city of
Belle Glade is located outside the immediate study
area, it was mentioned by two chains as being an
important market for goat meat. Belle Glade is the
winter home of a large agricultural migrant labor
force, which is comprised largely of Mexicans and is
at its peak from November through February.

Total annual volume sold by the six chains in 1986
was approximately 58,450 pounds. Two chains sold 84


Page 8


percent of the total survey volume. The 28 individual
stores selling goat meat sold an average of 2,088
pounds per year or about 40 pounds per week.
Ninety-nine percent of the survey volume was
purchased in frozen product form. Five of the six
chains purchase whole carcasses. Most of the meat
was resold in sub-primal chunks containing no specific
body part.

The wholesale purchase price (per pound, whole
carcasses) ranged from $1.10 to $1.20, and averaged
$1.16. The retail price ranged from $1.50 to $1.69,
and averaged $1.58. Overall mark-up on purchase
price averaged 26 percent. Three of the four low-
volume chains indicated that there is seasonality of
demand with peaks during Christmas, Easter, and
during the influx of migrant workers.

Half of the six chain store representatives selling
goat meat said they encountered no marketing
problems, but two mentioned lack of demand as a
problem. Only one, a chain representative with the
largest goat meat sales, mentioned supply as a
problem. Indications are that one chain store
purchased Australian mutton and sold it as goat meat
at a relatively low price. This practice, coupled with
the lack of obvious differences between mutton and
goat carcasses, could be a problem to wholesale
buyers and consumer alike.

Goat meat was promoted to a significant degree
by only one chain store which ran specials at a
reduced price and mailed fliers to its customers.
Another chain periodically included goat meat
advertisements in weekly fliers.

Representatives of chain stores presently selling
goat meat see little growth in sales. They feel that
goat meat, in general, appeals only to a small ethnic
segment of the population, predominantly older
Latins and Haitians. Furthermore, they said that goat
meat was not more profitable than other meat items,
indicating lack of incentive for promotion. However,
their reactions were generally positive in terms of
customer acceptance, supply, meat quality, and
compatibility of goat meat with other meat items.

The attitudes of representatives of chain stores
not selling goat meat are important in understanding
why goat meat is not sold more widely, and in
determining barriers that exist towards future market
expansion. Most of the representatives of eleven
chains not selling goat meat that responded to the
interview felt there was insufficient ethnic trade to







Chapter 2: Marketing Channels for Goat Meat in Florida

support selling goat meat. Also, they felt that
demand among non-ethnic consumers was virtually
non-existent. None of the chain store representatives
had ever been presented with any sales materials
related to selling goat meat.

Chain store representatives said they would not
carry goat meat for novelty's sake and believed goat
meat would be less profitable than other meats. They
were also concerned about their present customers'
reactions to having goat meat in displays, as well as
the dependability of supply. Additionally, non-sellers
had relatively little knowledge about the quality of
goat meat, its taste, or product forms customers
would like.

Restaurants

Restaurants represent a major marketing channel
where goat meat can be presented in a favorable
manner to consumers. To explore this option, a mail
survey of restaurants in Florida was conducted to
determine the current level of market penetration of
goat meat in the food service sector, the level of
knowledge about goat meat among restaurant
operators, and the likelihood of additional goat meat
sales in these outlets. A total of 1,260 restaurants,
half identified as serving barbecue and half randomly
selected independent full-service restaurants, were
mailed the questionnaire.

Of the 157 restaurants that responded to the mail
questionnaire, only five were found to be selling goat
meat. Five other restaurants had sold goat meat
within the previous two-year period, but had
discontinued. Inadequate, unreliable supplies and
variable quality were major reasons given for quitting.
There were no statistically significant differences
between the barbecue restaurants and the randomly
selected restaurants with respect to proportions
offering or discontinuing goat meat.

The survey indicated that most restaurant
managers know little about goat meat. Most were
uncertain about preparation and cooking methods, the
availability of supplies, quality, or potential impacts of
goat meat sales on total sales and profitability.
Despite the managers' lack of knowledge and
uncertainty, there was considerable interest in adding
goat to their menus. Fifty-five percent expressed
some interest in serving goat meat.

Restaurant managers were also asked which of
several product names would have the greatest appeal


Page 9


to their customers. "Cabrito" and "chevon" were each
preferred by 40 percent of the respondents,
respectively; and "goat meat" by only 18 percent.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Our research has shown that few Florida-
produced goats are entering commercial marketing
channels. Most sales by livestock dealers went
directly to individual ethnic customers, primarily
American blacks, Hispanics, and Haitians. Based
upon the total number of wholesalers selling goat
meat in the three market areas studied, it is obvious
that distribution of goat meat is very limited. The
total quantity of goat meat handled by wholesalers
also indicates that consumption is limited, even
among ethnic populations.

Presently, the volume of goat meat sold through
Florida chain supermarkets is low and the number of
chains that carry goat meat is also small. The chain
stores selling goat meat were small in size and catered
to specific ethnic segments of the general population.
In addition, very few commercial foodservice
establishments serve goat meat.

The meager presence of Florida-produced goat
meat in commercial marketing channels could be
attributable to various reasons. Undoubtedly, limited
commercial supplies and variable product quality are
major difficulties. Further, it is also important to
realize that there is tremendous resistance in
conventional channels to expanded distribution of
goat meat.

Price mark-up received by handlers at each
market level was relatively low; these low margins,
coupled with low volume, resulted in the general
perception that goat meat sales would not be as
profitable as other meat items. Hence, there appears
to be limited economic incentive for meat wholesalers
and retailers to carry goat meat.

Negative attitudes and perceptions of food
retailers are a second problem which hinder the
market development for goat meat. Retailers were
uncertain about how their customers would react to
the sales of goat meat. But more importantly, many
of the representatives of retailers and restaurants not
selling goat meat exhibited a lack of knowledge
concerning goat meat. Many retailers did not believe
goat meat would sell in the meat department; they
felt goat meat would not appreciably affect total meat
department sales. Furthermore, they had little idea of






Page 10


Chapter 2: Marketing Channels for Goat Meat in Florida

the quality and taste of goat meat or how to prepare
and cook the meat. Thus, the prospects for enlisting
enthusiastic support from food retailers appear dim.

On a more positive note, results from a consumer
taste panel discussed in the next chapter combined
with the restaurant survey give reason for optimism
about increased sales of goat meat through the
foodservice industry. Because the mainstream
consumer is basically unfamiliar with goat meat,
foodservice outlets, particularly restaurants, can
prepare the product properly and offer a tasty
alternative to conventional meat products. Indeed, a
significant proportion of restaurants are willing to
offer goat meat on their menus, given adequate
demand, stable supply and preparation knowledge.

It is recommended that goat meat be presented
through upscale restaurants as an exotic, novelty meat
item to more affluent consumers. The intent of
product distribution via this channel is to put goat
meat in a market setting that appeals to the market
segments with favorable images of goat meat, but are
not particularly price-sensitive. Once consumers are
introduced to properly prepared goat meat in
restaurants, they may wish to buy goat meat through
retail food stores. As consumer demand increases,
food retailers may be persuaded to carry the product.

In conclusion, goat producers must face the reality
of the current distribution system for goat meat. The
present volume sold through the conventional
marketing channel, especially retail food outlets, is
small, and most marketers' attitudes towards selling
goat meat are very negative. However, the
foodservice industry should provide the best potential
for introducing goat meat to the mainstream
consumers.









Chapter 3: Consumer Perceptions of Goat Meat

Robert Degner


Market research in the late 1980s, indicated that
ethnic consumers were the "backbone" of the goat
meat market in Florida. As goat production grew,
producers feared that larger supplies of goat meat in
the absence of increased consumer demand would
result in drastically lower farm-level prices for goats.
Ways of reaching new customers had to be found.

The first step in formulating a viable, long-term
market development program was to ascertain
consumers' existing perceptions of goat meat, both
"real" and "imagined." "Real" perceptions, based upon
objective product evaluations, allow the industry to
actively pursue ways to improve product quality
through grades and standards or alternative cooking
recommendations if negative product attributes are
identified. Similarly, knowledge "imagined"
perceptions or consumer attitudes allow the industry
to exploit positive images and counteract negative
images through various educational and promotional
programs.

A review of literature revealed little about
consumers' attitudes toward goat meat. The literature
search found several palatability studies which
compared goat with beef, pork, lamb and even horse.
However, the palatability studies had used
standardized laboratory cooking methods that
appeared to put goat meat at a disadvantage.

Because of the limited information available on
goat meat, several studies were conducted by the
Florida Agricultural Market Research Center. One
study explored consumer attitudes towards goat meat
while the other obtained more appropriate product
evaluations by having consumers evaluate goat meat
barbecued, a cooking method commonly used by
consumers and many foodservice establishments.

CONSUMER ATTITUDES

Consumer attitudes toward goat meat were
explored in focus group interviews conducted in
Tampa and Jacksonville, and also during a survey of
600 consumers. Several negative factors were
identified that could impair market development
efforts for the product, but there were some positive
findings as well.


There is a pervasive perception among consumers
that red meat is "bad" for health; this perception has
manifested itself in dramatically reduced beef
consumption in recent years. This continuing
downward trend could negatively affect goat as well,
unless there is documentation that the nutritional
composition of goat meat is superior to other red
meats such as beef and pork. Another commonplace
perception is that goats are cute little animals that
belong on idyllic farms, in nursery rhymes or in
petting zoos, rather than on the dinner table. Some
focus group participants expressed their disgust with
the idea of eating goat, saying "It's like eating a
pet...like a dog or cat." Another relatively common
negative perception is that goats will eat anything
from tin cans to tires, and trash consumption results
in inedible or poor quality meat. Still another
negative image of goat meat persists among older
men that served in World War II. These ex-
servicemen say they were fed strong-smelling, foul-
tasting "goat" (probably mutton) during the war when
shortages of beef, pork and poultry were common.

Fortunately, there are many positive images of
goat meat as well. Many consumers have a
perception that goat's milk is especially nutritious and,
therefore, goat meat should be healthful as well.
Another positive finding was that, when asked to
describe possible outlets, they indicated that "trendy,"
"upscale" restaurants would likely serve goat. Of the
600 taste panel consumers, the majority described
restaurants selling goat meat in positive terms, such as
"clean," "well maintained," "moderately priced,"
"tastefully decorated, and "in a nice part of town."
Negative restaurant associations were expressed by a
minority of respondents.

Names commonly used in the industry for goat
meat were also examined. Using a psychological word
association technique, the 600 consumers in Tampa
and Jacksonville were asked for first impressions of
"chevon," "cabrito" and "goat." Additionally, each
respondent was asked to indicate the social class of
people that would consume each of the items. In
general, "chevon" and "cabrito" received more
favorable association than did "goat." Additionally,
"chevon" and "cabrito" were usually associated with
higher social classes than "goat". The implications of
these associations are clear for the goat industry:
"chevon" and "cabrito" project a better image than






Chapter 3: Consumer Perceptions of Goat Meat

"goat," and these or other fanciful names should be
encouraged on menus and in promotional activities
whenever possible. A lesson can be learned from
other livestock groups; meat from "baby calves" is
known as veal, from pigs, "pork," not "pig meat."

PRODUCT EVALUATIONS

Product evaluations were conducted in Tampa and
Jacksonville. Samples of 300 consumers were
obtained in major shopping malls in each city. The
600 participants were screened to include those over
18 years of age, those that had eaten some type of
barbecue within the past year, and those that had
patronized a full-service restaurant at least once in
the previous month. After respondents were qualified
in the malls, they were taken to the market research
firms' mall headquarters, where they were given
product samples and interviewed by trained,
professional interviewers in a privacy booth.

Barbecued beef was used as a control or
benchmark against which the goat meat was
compared. Both the goat and the beef were prepared
under commercial conditions by a restaurant which
specializes in barbecued meats. The beef samples,
taken directly from the stock of the restaurant, were
from whole bottom rounds which had been cooked at
225'F for ten hours. The goat meat, obtained from
ten Spanish breed goat carcasses ranging from 17 to
39 pounds, was cooked for two to eight hours,
depending on the thickness of cut. The entire goat
carcass was used. After cooking, all samples were de-
boned, trimmed of exterior gristle and fat, and cut
into half-inch cubes. All samples were then stored at
38"F until needed, from two to four days. According


Page 12


to the manager of the restaurant that prepared the
samples, this refrigerated storage period is well within
the norm for storage of cooked beef barbecue by
many restaurants.

Each person was asked to evaluate one-ounce
samples of both the goat and the beef. Samples were
identified only by the letters "L" and "T," and the
order in which they were presented to participants
was rotated to minimize order bias. Respondents
were not told what types of meat were being
evaluated. Only three respondents insisted upon
knowing the types of meat; the remaining 99 percent
did not know. The samples were heated to serving
temperature in a microwave oven in individual plastic
serving cups prior to evaluation. No sauce was used
during preparation or serving, but salt was available
for respondents' use if desired.

Consumers were asked to rate the goat and beef
samples with respect to tenderness, smoked flavor,
meat flavor, and juiciness on a five-point semantic
differential scale where 3 represented the ideal and 1
and 5 represented defined extremes (Table 3.1).
Although both goat and beef were both judged to be
slightly too tough and slightly too dry, the mean
ratings for tenderness and juiciness for beef were
nearer the ideal, and the differences between goat
and beef were statistically significant. With respect to
smoked flavor, mean ratings indicated that both
products needed additional flavor. However, the
ratings for goat and beef were statistically different,
and the rating for goat was nearer the ideal. Ratings
for meat flavor were very similar for both products;
mean ratings were very near the ideal, but both were
judged to be slightly bland (Table 3.1).


Table 3.1. Consumer ratings of selected organoleptic attributes of goat and beef
Mean Ratingsa
Attribute Goat Beef
Tenderness 2.29 2.45b
Smoked flavor 3.34b 3.71
Meat flavor 3.30 3.26
Juiciness 2.44 259b
aRatings were made on the basis of a five-point semantic differential scale where 3 represented "just right" and the extremes were
defined as follows:
Tenderness: 1 = much too tough; 5 = needs to be tougher
Smoked flavor: 1 = much too smoky; 5 = needs much more smoke flavor
Meat flavor: 1 = much too strong;5 = needs much more meat flavor
Juiciness: 1 = much too dry; 5 = much too juicy
bPaired t-tests were used to compare mean ratings for goat and beef. Superscripts are placed on mean values nearest the ideal
rating of 3 where the differences between ratings for goat and beef were statistically significant at the 0.05 probability level.







Chapter 3: Consumer Perceptions of Goat Meat


Table 3.2. Consumer ratings of selected characteristics of goat and beef.
Mean ratings
Characteristic Goat Beef
Smell 6.120 5.72
Overall taste 5.94 5.80
Overall appeal 5.69 5.67
aRatings are based upon a numeric scale where 10 is excellent and 0 is extremely poor.
paired t-tests were used to compare mean ratings for goat and beef. Superscripts are placed on mean values nearest the ideal
rating of 3 where the differences between ratings for goat and beef were statistically significant at the 0.05 level.


Table 3.3. Suitability of goat and beef barbeque for selected types of meats
I :1


Mean ratlngsa


Occasional family meal, at home 5.18
SSpecial meal for friends 4.63
Restaurant meal 4.60


Beef
5.28
4.60
4.55


"Ratings are based upon a numeric scale where 10 is excellent and 0 is extremely poor. Paired t-tests were used to compare goat
and beef ratings for each type of meal. None were statistically significant at the 0.05 probability level.


Respondents were also asked to rate the
suitability of the two products for an occasional family
meal served at home, as a special meal for friends,
and as a restaurant meal. Ratings for goat and beef
were very similar for all three types of meals. It
appears that both products were viewed as being
more acceptable for family at-home meals than for
special entertaining or as restaurant meals (Table
3.3).

Prior to being told what two types of meat they
had evaluated, respondents were asked whether or
not they would buy products similar to the samples in
a restaurant or in a retail food store. Slightly over
half said they would buy the goat barbecue in a
restaurant, 46 percent said they would not, and three
percent were undecided. Fewer respondents were
willing to buy the beef. Forty-seven percent indicated
a willingness to buy the beef, virtually the same
percentage was unwilling, with nearly six percent
undecided (Table 3.4). Nearly two-thirds of all
respondents were willing to buy both the goat and the
beef for an at-home meal, while approximately one-
third were unwilling (Table 3.4).

After the blind (unidentified) product evaluations
had been completed, respondents were told that one
product was goat and one was beef. Only 51 percent
correctly identified goat, 41 percent incorrectly


identified the beef as goat, and 8 percent were
unsure. Only 25 percent of all respondents had
previously eaten goat meat. The product evaluations
tended to confirm our initial hypothesis: that goat
meat, properly prepared, would compare very
favorably with beef.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Our research indicated that goat meat, when
barbecued under commercial foodservice conditions
and evaluated by consumers under "blind" conditions,
compares very favorably to beef. However, in the
real world, few people eat "mystery meat." Identifying
the barbecued product as "goat meat" would likely
have mixed effects on consumers. Because of
negative images of goats or goat meat, some
consumers would be totally repulsed; others would
probably be favorably predisposed toward the product
because of positive associations with goat's milk.
Based upon consumers' reaction to the terms "goat
meat," "cabrito" and "chevron," "goat meat" is viewed
much more negatively than the other two terms. As
a consequence, leaders in the goat industry should
strive to use "cabrito," "chevon," or some other
fanciful name in lieu of "goat." Additionally,
educational and public relations programs should also
portray goats as clean, useful producers of healthful
meat and milk products instead of cute, cuddly pets.


Page 13


Meal type


Goat







Chapter 3: Consumer Perceptions of Goat Meat


Table 3.4. Consumer's willingness to buy goat and beef barbeque in food stores and restaurants
Goat Beef
Type of outlet and response Number Percent Number Percent
Restaurant
Yes, would buy 307 51.2. 282 47.1
No, would not buy 274 45.7 283 47.2
Unsure 18 3.0 34 5.7
TotWle 599 ldO.sO 599 100.0

Food store
Yes, would buy 382 63.8 374 62.4
No, would not buy 201 33.6 198 33.0
Unsure 16 2.7 27 4.5
Totals 599 100.0 599 100.0
percentage does not sum to 100.00 due to rounding.


Page 14










Chapter 4: Goat Marketing Opportunities on the East Coast

Lynn Harwell


This chapter is basically an examination of market
potential but it will also touch on supply capability.
A conclusion is that if producers in Florida and
neighboring states in the Southeast are to reap
benefits from these markets, major changes must
occur rather quickly. Three points should be made at
the outset: 1) Existing demand forces for goat meat
reflect mostly ethnic desires, a marketing research
area not widely researched or understood by
professionals in this country. 2) The existing goat
meat industry, in strictly a "functional" sense,
performs its transporting, processing, and
distributional tasks rather well; admittedly, it is
unconventional, and perhaps inequitable. 3) Latent
demand components (one almost wants to say
"unsatisfied" demand) await recognition and
exploitation, rather than traditional market
development.

SUPPLY-DEMAND RELATIONSHIPS
IN GOATS

Economics teaches that, contrary to what one
hears from television newscasters and newspaper
analysts, demand is always equal to supply. If supply
exceeded demand, excess supplies of goat meat would
be dumped (e.g. in the ocean), and demand greater
than supply would result in "goat riots" in the streets.
Price is the equalizer. Supply pressures cause prices
to fall, and demand pressures cause just the opposite.

Supply of Goat Meat

In economic parlance, supply is more than simply
an amount. Rather, it is a schedule of corresponding
quantities offered and prices paid over a period of
time. It is thus a reflection of the "production
personality" of an industry. The concept of economic
supply can be used to predict how a change in goat
prices, for instance, would cause adjustments over
time in the number of goats being produced.

Figure 4.1 shows the current ranking of southern
meat goat producing states. The actual numbers are
thought by industry players to be considerably higher.
There are apparent discrepancies between goat
inventories, auction runs, and slaughter numbers
reported.


Because the meat goat industry is rapidly
developing, and because useful price data are as yet
largely unreported, any definitive estimate of
economic supply would necessarily be poorly
documented. Currently, the supply of goats seems to
be expanding, mainly in response to an increase in
goat meat consumption and to improved potential for
producer profits. Figure 4.2 provides evidence of this
expanding supply in federally inspected slaughter
numbers. However, there is also evidence that
demand for both slaughter and breeding stock has
reduced farm inventories in certain production areas,
particularly in Texas.

Supply response is often triggered by changes in
farm policy programs. The serial demise of the
Wool and Mohair Act, announced in mid- October,
1993, has encouraged some fiber goat producers to
shift to meat goats. According to Agricultural Census
numbers, about four times as many fiber goats exist as
do meat goats. Moreover, better conditioning of
surplus Angora goats prior to sale could lead to
increased acceptability in the slaughter trade and thus
influence aggregate supply.

The economic concept of "elasticity" relates to
both supply and demand, measuring the sensitivity
between changes in production and price. A product
with an elastic supply function would respond more
dramatically to changes in price than a supply
calculated to be inelastic.

The supply of meat goats seems rather elastic,
meaning that improvements in prices offered would
result in substantial increases over time in the
production of meat goats. However, many producers
and prospective producers of goats face resource
limitations. These limitations may be mostly financial,
but they may also refer to insufficient knowledge,
time, or land area and suitability.

In any case, resource limitations can delay
response time for increasing goat numbers even when
favorable prices are encountered. Beyond stating that
the supply function for meat goats is shifting outward
and appears to be elastic, it is best at present to
obtain additional information on how many and what
kind of meat goats there are, and how and where they
are being produced.






Chapter 4: Goat Marketing Opportunities on the East Coast


Demand for Goat Meat

The economic concept of demand holds just as it
does with supply; that is, demand represents a
schedule of amounts and prices over time, and the
sensitivity between price and quantity can be
expressed in terms of elasticity. Demand is thus a
reflection of the "consumption personality" of an
industry.

There are indications that consumption has
increased substantially since the mid-1980s, at more
or less stable prices. Figure 4.2 shows that total goats
slaughtered at federally inspected plants has more
than doubled since 1980 from a base of less than
100,000 head. This apparently reflects the continuing
satiation of demand, a phenomenon strengthened by
significant levels of immigration. With supply and
demand both shifting outward, indications of a
growing industry are in place. Figure 4.2 also reveals
that, in spite of increasing slaughter, the number of
goat slaughter plants in operation has declined by
more than half since 1984, probably reflecting
development of a more mature, solidified industry.

Because of persistence among immigrants in
maintaining ethnic practices, whether related to habit,
tradition, or religious beliefs, the demand for goat
meat is thought to be relatively inelastic. This means
that the demand for a certain volume of goat meat
will hold in the face of strengthening prices. It also
means that a decrease in price will not do much to
create additional goat meat sales.

Further increases in demand will come largely
with increases in ethnic populations and
improvements in their purchasing power. However,
one caveat should be noted. Ethnic income, on a per
capital basis, largely comes from employment in the
blue collar and service industries, and is, therefore,
more subject to economic aberration than salaried
employment. The recent economic recession had an
impact on goat meat consumption, particularly in and
around New York City. This impact came in terms of
prices processors were willing to pay and in terms of
quality taken. (Drinkwater, 1993)

Additional sources of demand are coming from
the health food sector and from the yuppie
community now beginning to consume goat meat as
a gourmet item. To date, these are relatively minor
forces, but this niche market seems open to
development. Breakthroughs in utilization of goat
meat (chevon) in gourmet restaurants may be easier


to achieve than earlier thought. Only 15 to 20
specialty meat purveyors move the bulk of such
products in the U.S. (Dunn, 1994). Relationships
with such a small number of firms can be
strengthened rather easily.

Goat meat is a relatively "high ticket" item. While
this may seem incongruous with low income economic
consumption, it is not for at least three reasons: 1)
ethnic households have a higher proportion of wage
earners than households of other consuming groups,
2) immigrants are accustomed to paying more of their
discretionary income for food, and 3) goat meat is
regularly featured as holiday fare, particularly at
religious celebrations; at such times, costs are of
lesser concern.

THE CURRENT MARKETING SYSTEM

Marketing Channels

A marketing channel describes the movement of
a product or commodity from the site of production
to the place of consumption. It may include
transportation, handling and storage, ownership
transfers, processing, and distribution. Principal flows
of meat goats originate in the inland areas, mainly the
Southwest, and terminate in the major metropolitan
areas in the Northeast, and in Florida, Texas and
California. Increasing quantities of goats originate in
the southeastern and midwestern states.

Traditionally, principal players in goat marketing
channels were entrepreneurs who carved out a
portion of the trade through shrewdness,
determination, and economic or political leverage.
Because the industry is now rapidly developing,
market channels are becoming discernible, points of
origin are better defined, and new processing plants
and marketing techniques designed to better meet
consumer needs are coming into play.

Figure 4.3 presents a flow chart of goat and goat
meat movement. The chart depicts a relatively
complex industry structure involving middlemen who
function as traders, brokers and purveyors. The lines
indicate the major paths that goats take from
producer to consumer, but there are regional
differences in these pathways (Gudahl, 1987).

The nation's largest Angora and meat goat
auction is at Junction, TX; nearby San Angelo, TX
handles mostly meat goats. Other high volume
auctions are located at Goldthwaite, TX,


Page 16







Chapter 4: Goat Marketing Opportunities on the East Coast


Hackettstown, NJ, and Lancaster, PA, with lesser
auctions in Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama. The
largest processors are located in Texas, New Jersey,
and Connecticut; privacy laws preclude publication of
more detailed information (Pinkerton,1992).

Many goats move into the marketing channel as
"trader" animals, frequently changing hands several
times prior to slaughter. The overall marketing system
is in place and operating; however, consumers are
sometimes forced to accept alternative products or do
without. In a functional sense the system performs
well, although in certain urban centers security
problems abound and difficulties in collection
necessitate informal, but specific arrangements. Most
goat meat movement is on a strictly cash basis with
only minimal transactions by check or on credit.

Higher quality goats are available in lesser
numbers, but they do find a significantly better market
than the more plentiful lower quality animals. Even
for goats of superior quality, producers should
attempt to access markets only through established
channels and with reputable firms. To do otherwise
could lead to frustration and financial loss.
Processors and brokers marketing other animals could
possibly expand into goat marketing with requisite
planning and execution. In any case, there seems little
question that the demand for both high and lesser
quality goats is such that many more animals could be
taken.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR FLORIDIANS

Opportunities abound. However, to be properly
exercised, opportunity almost always requires an
improvement in management. The discussion up to
this point describes an industry that probably presents
an opportunity for Florida producers, processors, and
marketers.

Opportunity for Producers

Shrewd management practices call for an
admonition to goat owners everywhere, one seldom
heeded:

"If you 'love' your goats and that love affects
decisions about selling and retention, you are
in the goat business for a hobby. If you are
in the goat business for a hobby, you are very
likely not in the goat business for a profit."


To be sure, some goat owners strive to run an
efficient operation, though it may swim in a pool of
red ink created by excessive investment in champion
breeding stock, massive barns, and gleaming white
fences. Further, the farm manager may be overpaid,
the feed bill too high, and health care charges greater
than that required to squelch an epidemic.

Growers often do not realize that when they
make a production decision, they have also made a
marketing decision. It may be a poor decision, but the
very act of production causes something to be placed
on the market.

When enterprise analysis is mentioned to many
goat producers, they think in terms such as yield per
acre, percent kid crop, weight of weanling kids, kids
produced per doe, feed consumed per head, and so
on which apply to the goat world. If production
efficiency is the only goal, one can stop with such
measures, all related to physical performance.
Devotion only to physical performance makes good
coffee shop talk, may win a ribbon at the county fair,
and requires only that substantial financial assistance
come from outside sources. However, in contrast to
the hobby producer, a successful manager looks at an
enterprise in terms of costs and revenues, their
difference being profits or losses. Enterprise analysis
is used to examine all factors leading to the "bottom
line." Many of the numbers do indeed come from
physical performance measures, but with dollar values
attached. Enterprise analysis is discussed thoroughly
in another chapter of this publication. Suffice to say
that if goat owners are to take advantages of market
opportunities, they must be both efficient and
profitable.

Opportunities for Processors and Marketers

The goat meat industry is in its infancy, and
heretofore very little has been attempted in product
development and innovative marketing. The list
below suggests several opportunities already
technologically feasible which should be done with
processors:

* Evaluate carcass processing, such as electrical
stimulation, blade processing, vacuum packaging,
and freezing whole carcasses and components.

Test market primal and retail cuts and fabricated
products such as sausages and jerky.


Page 17







Chapter 4: Goat Marketing Opportunities on the East Coast


* Measure response to novel goat meat products,
especially those designed for upscale restaurants,
health food outlets, and ethnic eating
establishments.

Explore contract growing of meat goats, in
conjunction with forward contracting of products
to wholesale and retail outlets.

Elucidate bio-chemical properties of goat meat
with emphasis on human dietary concerns.


Other opportunities will arise as further research
makes them available. Some research needs include:

* Evaluation of Boer goats under southeastern
conditions, including crosses with meatier types
currently found in the U.S.

Exploration of out-of-season breeding, including
estrus initiation and synchronization.

Economic assessment of improved management
practices, including feed supplementation,
rotational grazing, multi-species grazing, parasite
control, and predator control.

Evaluation of post-mortem carcass treatments,
with an eye toward improving tenderness.

Development of live and carcass grading
standards for slaughter kids, yearlings, and older
goats.

Study of fabrication and consumer acceptance of
processed goat products.


* Improved quantification of supplies and needs
among goat meat producers and consumers
throughout the year, but especially at periods of
peak demand.

Correlation of on-farm goat inventories with
auction and slaughter numbers, both official and
unofficial.

CONCLUSIONS

There is little doubt that the consumption of goat
meat will continue to increase. Production potential
among states in the Southeast, including Florida, is
high, because of greater and more dependable
rainfall, and an abundance of browse plants favored
by goats. As added incentive, Florida lies nearer
major metropolitan centers than production areas
farther west. The remaining factor lies within the
hearts of Floridians. They bring a work ethic, an
awareness of ethnic traditions, a relatively good
education, and an abundance of small farming
operations well suited to the production of meat
goats. Whether they seize the opportunity, will
depend on both leadership and the incentive to act.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I wish to thank my colleague, Dr. Frank
Pinkerton, Goat Extension Specialist, recently retired
from Langston University, for his valuable
contributions in the preparation of this chapter.


Page 18







Chapter 4: Goat Marketing Opportunities on the East Coast


Figure 4.1. Meat goats in U.S. southern states. Data is plotted from the "other" column of Table 1.3. Source: 1992 Census
of Agriculture.


250,00 780



200,00- -
Slaughter Plants -- 680 u
4-

150,00- -

S--580
0 CD
100,00 Goats

C/
480
50,00 --



0 380
'A Cob
^G~C N> >


Figure 4.2.
1991.


Number of goats slaughtered in USDA inspected plants and number of slaughter plants reported in the U.S. 1980-


350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000


Page 19







Chapter 4: Goat Marketing Opportunities on the East Coast


Figure 4.3. Existing channels for meat goat sales.

References

Barmash, Isadore, The Drive to Promote Kosher Food,
New York Times, April 11, 1989.

Dealaman, George. Personal interview with George
Dealaman, goat processor, Dealaman Enterprises,
Warren, NJ, December 12, 1992.

Degner, R.L. Expanding Markets for Florida Meat
Goats. In: Meat Goat Production Challenges,
Prospects, and Opportunities; Conference
Proceedings, Florida A&M University,
Tallahassee, FL, November 4, 1989.

Drinkwater, William. Personal interview with
William Drinkwater, Marketing and Sales
Representative, Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, Commonwealth of Virginia,
Richmond, VA. June 11, 1993.


Dunn, W. Personal interview with Bill Dunn, owner
of Dunn's Specialty Meats, Jupiter, FL. February
16, 1993.

Gebremedhin, T.G., and Gebrelul. Economics of
Meat Goat Production for Small Scale Producers of
Louisiana. Southern Rural Development Center,
M.S.U., Mississippi State University, MS. July,
1990.

Gudahl, D.J. Potentials for Improved Marketing of
Excess Goats, Part I, Dairy Goat Journal,
December, 1987.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. Religious Affiliation and
Consumption Processes: An Initial Paradigm.
Research and Marketing, JAI Press, Greenwich,
CT. 1983.


Page 20







Page 21


Chapter 4: Goat Marketing Opportunities on the East Coast

Kern, Richard. The Asian Market: Too Good to be
True. Sales and Marketing Management, May,
1988.

LaFranchi, H. Media and Marketers Discover Hispanic
Boom. The Christian Science Monitor, April,
1988.

Ney, Gordon. Personal interview with Gordon Ney,
proprietor of farm slaughter facility, North
Brunswick, NJ. December 14, 1992.

Pinkerton, F., Harwell, and Drinkwater. Marketing
Channels and Margins for Slaughter Goats of
Southern Origin, Southern Rural Development
Center, Mississippi State University, MI, 1994.

Schwartz, Joe. Hispanics in the Eighties. American
Demographics, January, 1988.

Solomon, M.R. Consumer Behavior. Allyn and
Bacon, Boston, MA. 1992.

Zelinsky, Wilbur. You Are What You Eat, American
Demographics, July, 1987.









Chapter 5: Marketing Strategies for Goat Meat

Pat Miller


Dr. Frank Pinkerton, the famed "Goat Man" who
recently retired from Langston University in
Oklahoma, once said:


"A farm-raised goat may be marketed many
ways -- the simplest is on-farm slaughter and
consumption. Note that this procedure
eliminates all middlemen -- the bane of
efficient, economical marketing.
Alternatively, the goat may be sold to a
second owner who then slaughters it and
consumes the carcass and perhaps selected
offal. If this owner elects to have the goat
custom slaughtered a second intermediate
step is introduced. Moving beyond these
simple transactions, one encounters the
complexities of the modern food marketing
chain which appreciably increases the cost-
spread between primary producers and
ultimate consumers." (Pinkerton, 1993)


A better understanding of the connection that
exists between the primary producer and the ultimate
consumer, and how the producer can influence and
benefit from this link is what this chapter is all about.

The diagram, "Existing Channels for Goat Meat
Sales," set forth in the previous chapter (Figure 4.3)
serves as a basic orientation to meat goat marketing
channels. Developed by the aforementioned Dr.
Pinkerton and Dr. Lynn Harwell, the diagram clearly
indicates where the producer is in relation to the
ultimate commercial consumers of the product --
meat retailers (butchers) and restaurants. However,
despite of their respective positions within the
channels, producers can employ a number of
marketing strategies that will enhance consumer
acceptance and affect product sales.

NICHE MARKET THINKING

Not long ago an article in Progressive Farmer
entitled, "Filling Niches," featured stories of a number
of farmers growing or raising specialty products
(Deterling, 1989). A "niche market" is best defined by
describing one Ohio farmer's experiences marketing
lamb.


Tom Wonderling worked as an employee of the
Ohio State University Agricultural Research and
Development Center in Wooster, and also raised
feeder lambs to finish on his 78-acre farm nearby. An
executive of Buehler Brothers, a nine-store
supermarket chain located in the northeastern part of
the state, told him about a supply problem they were
having. The store's president wanted to buy local
lamb, but since he couldn't get it on a weekly basis
year round, he was purchasing lamb from out of state.
Wonderling convinced the president to try his lamb.
The president was so pleased with Wonderling's lamb
that an agreement was made with the producer to
provide lambs for the chain.

Tom Wonderling has since retired, and feeds out
about 2,500 lambs a year. About two-thirds of them
are slaughtered by a nearby packer who also delivers
them to Buehler Brothers; the rest are sold to
another packer, and to individual customers who pay
the costs for slaughter and processing. According to
Tom Wonderling, he has never lost money on lambs
since initiating the agreement.

Certainly this example describes the components
for any market -- a product or service, a buyer and a
seller; however, the niche market has an added
proactive dimension -- determining a need and
meeting it. The following attributes describe products
that qualify:

* unique, different or hard-to-find
* fresh and often locally produced

* quality-assured

* available on a consistent basis

* priced competitively

The challenge to the motivated producer is, "Find
that need and fill it!"

It's Better If It's Fresh From
(Insert the Name of Your State)

There is current evidence that increasing
consumer awareness of agricultural products grown or
raised in one's home state can increase product sales.






Chapter 5: Marketing Strategies for Goat Meat

The example is, again, from Ohio, and reported in an
article in the Journal of Extension. In 1987, the Ohio
State University Cooperative Extension Service
initiated a program called "It's Fresher From Ohio"
(Drake, et al., 1990). The main focus of a pilot
project in six counties was to increase the marketing
of fresh northeast Ohio agricultural products such as
fruits and vegetables, maple syrup, meats, herbs, wine,
and dairy products in the Cleveland area.

By 1989, nearly 40 buyers had been matched up
with over 50 producers. Most of the interest came
from gourmet restaurants, specialty stores, and
independent grocers and supermarket chains with 20
or less stores. Later, interviews conducted as part of
project evaluation showed that of 75 project
participants (40 percent were producers, 39 percent
were buyers and 21 percent were both), 88 percent of
the buyers indicated an increased awareness of Ohio
agricultural products, and what is more important, 65
percent had increased their purchases of these
products.

The Ohio project continues to provide a unique
opportunity for producers, and wholesale and retail
buyers to get to know each other. Conferences and
trade shows allow the producers to exhibit their
products and Cleveland's best known chefs to prepare
them. During product tasting, chefs and specialty
foods buyers learn more about how the products are
grown, processed, and marketed. Producer meetings
cover topics such as post-harvest handling and
packaging. The project is promoted through a
monthly newsletter, and news releases are used to
reach consumers with product information. A
copyrighted logo identifies and helps to promote fresh
Ohio products.

Other states are working on similar programs to
match producers with buyers. The Texas Department
of Agriculture's Direct Marketing Program has
identified nearly two dozen buyers for restaurants,
supermarkets, and specialty stores that will purchase
directly from farmers (Deterling, 1989). The current
"Fresh from Florida" marketing campaign which now
promotes Florida-grown fruits and vegetables has
plans to expand.

ADVERTISE TO CREATE THE DEMAND

When members of the Florida Meat Goat
Association decided to expand marketing efforts, they
started by "going local." The first annual Meat Goat
Cook-Off was held in the fall of 1989. Invited guests


Page 23


included food writers, other members of the media,
chefs, and university meat goat research project
personnel. Dishes featuring chevon (goat meat) were
prepared by members of the association and judged
by a panel. The Gainesville Sun newspaper featured
a story about the event and included the winning
recipes.

The above example testifies that food editors for
local and regional newspapers are interested in
presenting new products and ideas to their readers,
and welcome contact. Many like to follow the
progress of local products and may do several articles
over time. Media coverage takes product
information to a wide audience. It also provides third
party endorsement to add to a promotional materials
packet. Certainly television coverage is excellent, but
the printed word in the food section or business
section of the newspaper can adequately serve the
purpose.

Cook-offs and tasting are both good public
forums for introducing goat meat. They provide
excellent visibility and an opportunity to generate
product interest. Both, however, require good
organization and planning and are really a group
effort. The Florida example shows that cook-offs can
be sponsored by a producer organization and be open
to the public. They are generally more informal and
can be held in conjunction with a public event such as
a fair or an arts festival with great success.

Tastings are slightly more formal because they
focus on getting the attention of chefs, restauranteurs,
purveyors and specialty foods retailers. Local area
restaurants are often willing to support events that
allow fellow food professionals to sample a new
product in a familiar setting and interact with
producers. Producers in turn have an opportunity to
meet and talk with future clients in a relaxed and
friendly atmosphere. Benefits from a tasting held by
the Florida Meat Goat Association included
development of a mailing list of potential clients, two
articles in The Tampa Tribune, and valuable feedback
from chefs and restaurant managers that included
quality ratings of the dishes featured and preferences
for specific cuts of meat.

THE PRODUCER/PROCESSOR/DISTRIBUTOR
CONNECTION

Processors are the key to connecting producers
with distributors. Producers and processors must be
able to work together to build and maintain a





Chapter 5: Marketing Strategies for Goat Meat

reputation for quality, timeliness and a commitment
to service. Finding the right processor is critical; this
means one who is willing to play an active role in the
marketing process, shows that he or she recognizes an
opportunity and is eager to do business.

The Florida Department of Agriculture (Division
of Meat Plant Inspection), like other state
Departments of Agriculture, has information available
about slaughter and processing facilities state-wide.
After a review of facilities, contacts can be made
based on where the product is going to be marketed.
Meat plants are identified as follows:

* USDA Federal inspection. Meat and meat
products processed can be shipped out of state
and overseas.

Talmadge-Aiken Federal inspection carried out
by state employees. Meats processed can be
shipped to adjacent states.

State State inspection. Meats processed can be
shipped intrastate.


Before doing business with a plant it is a good
idea to prepare for a meeting with some general
information. Producers should attempt to become
familiar with regulations, whether they are state or
federal. Copies of regulations are available through
the U.S. Government printing office and state
department of agriculture.

The producer or representative from the producer
organization should visit the plants under
consideration and talk with owners about capacity,
storage, packaging and delivery. It is important to
look at the holding facilities for livestock and
determine familiarity with the animals -- in this case,
goats. Ask about current customers; there should be
a willingness to discuss satisfied clients. Be clear
about specifications and needs, and get an estimate of
what costs are going to be. Ask about the per head
slaughter fee, deboning, cutting and wrapping, and
any further processing such as smoking or curing.
After the visit, stay in touch with the plants you want
to work with and keep owner/managers apprised of
your progress so that they will be ready when you are.

The meats purveyor or distributor helps to get the
product to the right customers -- chefs, restaurant
managers and meat retailers who will present the
product to the general public. The relationship


Page 24


between producer and distributor is mutually
beneficial. The key question to ask is the one the
best purveyors ask their customers: What do you
want that you are unable to find?

Taking an active role in contacting distributors
can make a difference in sales volume. Area
purveyors and distributors are a good starting point,
and are listed in the Yellow Pages under "Meat,
Wholesale." Restaurants can also be helpful in
furnishing the names of suppliers. After contact is
made, a meeting can be arranged with a sales
representative or purchasing agent to discuss the
products being offered. Questions to ask include: Do
they already carry your product? Is it fresh or frozen,
and how is it packaged and delivered? Must they
import it? Is the pricing competitive? Distributors
will be interested in discussing this information
because they want to remain competitive in their
business.

Be prepared to say what makes goat meat unique,
better or different, and to supply supporting
information. Discuss the way it needs to be packaged,
labeled and delivered, and what kind of shelf-life is
expected. Solicit advice from the person who will be
selling what you produce, about ways to improve it.
Dr. Robert Deegan's book, How to Succeed in Fallow
Deer Farmnning, deals with the maxim all specialty and
alternative meat producers must live with:
"Customers expect a high quality product. They
expect the quality to be consistent and uniform. They
expect to pay a premium price, but they also expect to
get what they pay for" (Deegan, 1991).

PRESENTATION IS IMPORTANT

Providing good information about goat meat and
its attributes will make a difference in sales. An
appealing logo, brochure, label and package all help
to sell the product. It is not necessary to have a
design staff or large advertising budget to achieve
good results.

Logos are meant to establish product identity with
the customer and to be a form of instant recognition.
Ideally, the logo should combine the name or initials
of the producer or producer organization with an
image. It should not be abstract or obscure. Strong
visual images are important. Many times a silhouette
or a simple drawing works very effectively. The logo
can then be used on business cards, incorporated into
a label, or placed on tee-shirts, hats, aprons, and
other items to advertise the product.






Chapter 5: Marketing Strategies for Goat Meat

A brochure serves as the take-home version of
the facts about goat meat and how it is produced. It
needs to be concise, truthful, easy-to-read, and
attractive to the eye. It has to do several things well,
including:

* Say what the product is

* Say why it is different or better

* Back up what is being claimed with factual data

* Tell the customer where to get it

This does not require many words, but rather the
right words, and if possible, an illustration or photo.
It doesn't have to be expensive if it is printed on both
sides in one color ink on 8 1/2" by 11" colored paper.
Focus on clearly stating what distinguishes goat meat
from the meat of other species. Say that it is farm-
raised, fresh not frozen, lower in total fat -- whatever
qualities set it apart. You must be able to
substantiate nutritional claims; information about the
nutritional characteristics of goat meat can be found
in USDA Handbook 8, available through the U.S.
Government Printing Office. When comparing goat
meat with other meats, it is important to compare the
same retail cut or serving size.

Recipes to be included should be written with
clear directions and previously tested. When
introducing a new product such as chevon, it is
important to assist the customer with information
about how to handle and serve it. Even professional
chefs will appreciate these suggestions. Recipes
should be limited to two per brochure. The method
of cooking is especially important, because lean meats
such as chevon are easily overcooked and will dry out.

A good example of the type of recipe to include
appears below. This one appeared in a feature article
on goat meat in The Tampa Tribune (Scourtes, 1990):


Page 25


into 4 slivers and insert a piece into each gash. Rub
meat with ginger, season with salt and pepper. Place
in a roaster, fat side up and roast, uncovered, in slow
oven (300 degrees) until tender. Allow 30 to 35
minutes per pound roasting time. When meat
thermometer registers 180, chevon is done. Remove
garlic before serving. Allow 1/2 to 3/4 pounds per
person.

Background information about "who" is raising the
meat goats can enhance product sales. Customers
appreciate this information and the indication of
personal involvement in delivering a quality product.
Third party endorsements, such as quotes from a
favorable newspaper article, are also helpful. These
can be drawn from a product information file -- this
means a clipping file compiled from newspaper and
magazine articles that generally and specifically
endorse goat meat. An excellent example appeared
in a Kiplinger Agricultural Letter which reported on a,
"Coming low-fat food trend...chevon, gourmet's name
for goat meat. Roasted or broiled, it's 50-60% leaner
than beef, 42-59% less than lamb. Similar taste, but
drier than beef' (Kiplinger, 1992).

Articles from professional journals can also be
helpful. The area county extension agent can access
current meat goat research results that may be
helpful. All of this information will contribute to
establishing a prospectus that will not only support
goat meat, but attract future producers.

PLANNING MAKES THE DIFFERENCE IN
MARKETING, SO SET SOME GOALS

Author Robert Deegan has additional good advice
for producers. He proposes that the key to marketing
success is planning, and that in order to plan
effectively, the producer must learn to set goals and
objectives (Deegan, 1991). He outlines four major
stages of goal setting that have been adapted here for
a meat goat enterprise:


Develop a mission statement. What do you want
Roast Leg of Chevon to accomplish in the next year? In five years?


1 leg of chevon (about 5 pounds)
2 clove of garlic
1 teaspoon ginger
Salt and pepper to taste

Wipe meat with a damp cloth. Do not remove
fell (the paper-like covering over the meat). With a
sharp knife, make 4 gashes in the roast. Cut garlic


Example: My farm will profitably provide the
highest quality meat goats in Florida.

* Consider the objectives that will support your
overall goal; then, write them down.

Example: This year my farm will market
number of goats 80 to 90 pounds and






Chapter 5: Marketing Strategies for Goat Meat

under one year of age, and receive $_
per pound as the farmgate price.

Consider the tactics and strategy you need to
make the objectives happen.

Example: Breed to have kids available for
the cabrito market that exists from October
through March; or, contact ten more retail
outlets about buying goat meat.

Anticipate obstacles to your progress; then
determine how you will solve them.

Example: Delivery of animals to the
slaughter facility on my own will not be cost
effective. How can I coordinate this part of
the operation with other producers? Should
I leave this problem to another producer to
solve, or solve it myself? Do I have the time
to take on this responsibility for myself and
others in the producer group?

Dr. Deegan has a few more suggestions for setting
goals:

* Write down the goal this makes it real and
forces you to put it in concrete terms.

Make it a goal that you want not one which
someone else has determined for you.

Make it specific. Set a date by which you want to
achieve it.

State the goal in positive terms: I will plant
protein banks in one pasture to supplement
browse, or I will try strip grazing to improve
pasture use.

Make the goal realistic and believable.

Make the goal measurable: I will get a return of
$ per pound on my cabrito kid crop this year.

Set both short-term and long-term goals. Short-
term goals are those which can be attained in 90
days and up to one year; long term goals relate to
what you want to happen in your business in the
next five or ten years.


Page 26


* Build flexibility into your goals. Be prepared to
change as your enterprise changes.


Think about your meat goat enterprise in the
future tense. The natural extension of initial planning
means thinking in terms of where you want to be in
five or ten years. If you have already been in business
for a year or more, this track record will provide
valuable information about where you want to go.
You will be able to identify seasonal trends, compare
actual with anticipated costs, and identify areas where
you did not anticipate a problem and it occurred, at
an additional cost to you. Remember that a primary
goal is to increase revenues with a minimum increase
in expenses.

REFERENCES


Deegan, Robert. How to Succeed in
Farming. Heartland Venison
Cooperative, 1991.


Fallow Deer
Producers


Deterling, Del. Filling Niches. Progressive Farmer,
Feb. 1989.

Drake, Barbara H., and Randall E. James. It's
Fresher from Ohio. Journal of Extension, Fall,
1990.

Kiplinger Agriculture Letter. The Kiplinger
Washington Editors, Inc., Washington, D.C., Oct.
30, 1992.

Pinkerton, Frank. Marketing of Goats and Goat Meat.
Proceedings of Meat Goat Marketing Seminar,
Raleigh, NC, 1993.

Scourtes, Mary D. Getting Your Goat Gets Easier.
The Tampa Tribune, June 21, 1990.








Chapter 6: The History of The Florida Meat
Goat Association

Ken Kenyon

The Florida Meat Goat Association was started
in the Spring of 1986 by Tom and Helen Hill. Tom
and Helen had been raising registered dairy goats for
a number of years, and realized that many people
were interested in goats as pets, field "cleaner-
uppers," pack or cart animals, and for meat. Helen
decided to send out a couple of hundred letters to
survey people's interest in starting a Meat Goat
Association. The response was good so plans were
made for the first meeting.

Eight people attended that first meeting held at
Tom and Helen's farm. Those in attendance were MARCH APRIL 1991 \ /
Tom and Helen Hill, Ed and Ann Davis, Frank
Harvey, Diane Singley, Isabel Shider, and Helen's
sister, Shirley. Frank and Diane are still (1994) active
members of the Association. The second meeting was
held at Frank Harvey's farm and a few more
interested people attended. One of those in Figure 6.1. Logo used by the FMGA until November 1991.
attendance at this second meeting was Laura Pierson,
who served as the Association's Secretary for many
years. The third meeting was held at Jerry and Laura
Pierson's farm. Among those in attendance were
Roger and Ruth Jansen. Ruth was elected the
Association's President in 1990 and again in 1992.

The Association developed Articles of
Incorporation and submitted them to the State of
Florida for incorporation on October 16, 1989, with
its objective being "to promote the goat industry with
its various products and markets (meat, skins, milk, ]
cheese, etc.) with a primary interest in the production
and marketing of meat. In addition, the group tries .
to participate in educational and promotional A
programs to benefit producers and processors." ae.

Initially, the logo used by the Association was the
one shown in Figure 6.1. In September 1991, a
contest was held to select the Association's official
logo. Five were submitted for consideration and, in
November 1991, the membership selected the entry
submitted by Helen Hill as the official logo (Figure
6.2). Figure 6.2. The current logo used by the FMGA.

In an effort to better acquaint people with the Grounds. The day was a hugh success, thanks to the
advantages of raising goats plus giving them a chance superb organizational efforts of Georgia White. The
to sample goat meat, a "Goat Day" was held in author spent most of the day introducing people to
September, 1991 at the Alachua County Fair the exceptional flavor of goat meat and listening to





Chapter 6: The History of The Florida Meat Goat Association

their many comments about their surprise as to how
good goat meat tasted. The Association's "Goat Day"
corrected many misconceptions about the goat.

The Association continues to prosper and recruit
new members. By 1993 the Association had grown to
85 members reaching across the state from Miami to
Pensacola. Members have also joined from Georgia,
Alabama, and North Carolina.

Challenges still lie ahead for the Association. An
early goal to establish a USDA processing plant
continues to be the most difficult task facing the
Association in its quest for improved markets for goat
meat. The meat, also known as cabrito or chevon, is
primarily an ethnic food in the United States,
although Association members are working toward
expanding its acceptance by a larger portion of the
population.


Page 28









Chapter 7: Goat Breeds and Production Techniques

Claude McGowan


GOAT BREEDS

There are no well-established breeds of goats for
meat production in the United States. The Swiss
dairy breeds (Alpine, Saanen, Toggenburg) are not
very popular for meat production under range and
forest conditions, possibly due to their leggy
conformation producing poor meat cuts and large
udders which are prone to damage on range or in
brush. The Nubian (Anglo Nubian) breed was
originally considered to be a dual-purpose goat for
milk and meat production, but in the U. S. it has been
primarily used as a dairy animal. However, many
farmers view this breed as a meat-type animal rather
than a dairy type, and many flocks show evidence of
the breed in recent generations. Some selective
breeding efforts have been conducted in Texas using
the "Spanish" or brush goats and in Florida using the
"native goats." Crossing of these "meat types or brush
or native" goats with each other and with Nubians is
a common practice. Table 7.1 shows the Effect of
Breeding Season and Breed of Sire on the
Reproductive Performance of Florida Native Does.
There is currently a great interest in the introduction
of the Boer Goat.

The South African Boer Goat is regarded by
many throughout the world as the leading meat breed
because of its uniform large frame, good yield grades
meatinesss) and consistent coloration (white body
with a red, black or brown head), the three things
lacking in any meat type in North America. The Boer
goat has been selected and bred over time for its
outstanding characteristics as a meat animal and has
been successfully used in many countries to upgrade
native goat stock. Research has determined the Boer
goat to be a good sire breed, contributing significantly
in terms of additive effects on body weight gain at
critical stages of growth and to pre-weaning absolute
growth rates. This translates into improved carcass
size and yield, increased muscle-to-bone ratio, and
more weight gained by an earlier age. These traits
are important in terms of improved marketability of
the goat carcass. The Boer goat has also been shown
to adapt well in a number of environments, to use
poor quality pasture efficiently, and to exhibit
hardiness and parasite resistance.


FEEDSTUFFS FOR MEAT GOATS

Feeding Behavior of Goats

The nutritive strategy of goats appears to be to
select grasses when their protein content and
digestibility are high, but to switch to browse (if
available) when its overall nutritive value may be
higher. The ability to utilize browse species, which
often have thorns, small leaves tucked among woody
stems and an upright growth habit, is a unique
characteristic of the goat compared to heavier, less
agile ruminants. Goats are very active foragers, able
to cover a wide area in search of scarce plant
materials. Their small mouths and prehensile lips are
able to pick off small leaves, flowers, fruits and other
plant parts enabling them to choose only the most
nutritious of the material available. Goats have been
observed to stand on their hind legs and stretch up to
browse tree leaves, throw their bodies against saplings
to bring the tops within reach and even climb trees on
occasion.

Feed affects total profit and herd productivity. It
accounts for a large percentage (approximately 70-
75%) of the total cost of keeping goats, and it exerts
a powerful influence on herd fertility, kid weaning and
market weights -- the three biggest success factors in
the meat goat business. However, different systems
of management greatly affect the percentage of the
cost which is feed. The amount of feed available on
farms is directly dependent upon the production of
plant biomass, both in grazing and crop/livestock
systems. It is an absolute requisite that must be
treated in the broadest context, including native and
improved pastures, forage crops, feed crops, crop
residues, crop by-products, forbs and browse plants.
Feed supply has both quantitative and qualitative
dimensions. Quantity can be increased by the proper
stocking of pastures, the planting of forage crops and
the utilization of crop residues, crop by-products,
browse and forbs. Quality relates to the overall
nutrient adequacy of pastures, forages, and other
feeds consumed, as well as any other means to correct
any deficiencies through improved pasture
management and/or supplementation.





Chapter 7: Goat Breeds and Production Techniques


Table 7.1. The effects of breeding season and breed of sire on the reproductive performance of native does
Effect # of Does Exposed Kidding Rate1 Kidding %2 Prolificacy3 Twinning Rate4
A. Overall # % % % %
120 86.7 167.7 192.2 81.5
B. Breeding Season
1. Fall 1987 38 89.5 181.6 202.9 88.2
2. Summer 1988 39 92.3 179.5 194.4 86.1
3. Spring 1989 43 79.1 141.9 179.4 70.2
C. Breed of Sire
1. Natve 1987 13 92.3 207.7 225.0 91.7
2. Nubian 1987 12 91.6 158.3 172.7 72.7
3. Spanish 1987 13 846 1769 209.1 100.0
1. Native 1988 19 94.7 184.2 194.4 88.8
2. Nubian 1988 20 90.0 175.0 194.0 83.3
3. Spanish 1988 -- -
1. Native- 1989 14 786 150.0 190.0 81.8
2. Nubian 1989 14 78.6 121.4 154.0 45.5
3. Spanish 1989 15 80.0 160.0 200.0 83.3
Kidding Rate = No. of does kidding/does exposed.
2Kidding Percentage = No. of kids born/does exposed.
3prolificacy = No. of kids born/does kidding.
4Twinning Rate = No. of multiple births/total no. of kidding.
SOURCE: Florida A&M University Meat Goat Research Project.


The progressive meat goat producer should want
optimal performance from his or her animals, and the
input of nutrients must be ample to bring this about.
Therefore, quality forage, hay, grains, and the
utilization of forbs and browse plants, crop residues
and crop by-products can provide a balanced feed
program for goats raised for meat.

Pastures

Pastures are usually the cheapest source of
essential nutrients for grazing livestock. Good
permanent pastures containing a mixture of cool
season perennials or reseeding legumes, warm season
perennial grasses and temporary forages should
provide grazing for a normal year. Some of the best
pastures for goats raised for meat in Florida are
bahiagrass, millet, sorghum, sudan grass, and a
mixture of a grain, grass and clover (rye, ryegrass and
crimson clover).


Forbs and Browse Plants

Forbs refer to any herbaceous broad leaf plants
without regard to family classification. Browse plants
include plants other than grasses and forbs but are
usually taller plants such as trees, shrubs, and vines
having woody stems.
Goats are natural browsers and weed eaters.
Forbs and browse plants can contribute to an overall
feeding program for goats. The nutritive strategy of
goats appears to be to select grasses when their
protein content and digestibility are high, but to
switch to forbs and browse plants when their overall
nutritive value may be higher. Leguminous forbs and
browse plants, for example, commonly contain more
than 25% crude protein, whereas perennial grasses
seldom exceed 15% in crude protein content. The
energy contents for fruits, seeds and nuts of forbs and
browse can exceed 1.6 megacalories (MCal) digestible
energy per pound of dry matter. In grass foliage, 1.2
MCal per pound of dry matter is considered high
quality.


Page 30







Chapter 7: Goat Breeds and Production Techniques

Pastures, forbs and browse plants should be
utilized on a rotational basis, remembering that goats
prefer to browse rather than graze in mixed plant
populations. Therefore, it is advisable to limit
acreage of pastures and browse to what the goat can
use during periods of lush growth; e.g., during spring.
Utilizing grazing and browsing areas on a weekly basis
should prevent over-grazing and allow for quality over
quantity.
The usefulness of pastures, browse and forbs in a
meat goat enterprise will depend on knowing their
average annual yields per acre in addition to their
protein and TDN values (Pinkerton et al. 1992).
Therefore, it is difficult to answer such basic
management questions concerning grazing density
(head/acre), optimal grazing patterns (frequency and
duration, and needs for supplemental feeding
(protein, energy and minerals) (Pinkerton et al. 1992).
Several rules of thumb for grazing can be typically
applied; e.g., 8-10 mature goats on improved pastures
or 12-15 goats on pasture, forbs and browse on a
rotational basis.

Forage Supplementation

In situations where the available forage (pastures,
forbs and browse) is insufficient in nutrients (protein,
energy and minerals) to support desirable levels of
goat performance, it would be advisable to offer
supplements. However, supplementation will depend
on the cost/benefit to be derived from such a practice.
Adequate protein must be offered to maintain
adequate goat performance. Feeding hay of a
sufficient protein level (a pound or so of 20% crude
protein cubes or 0.5 lbs of 40% CP supplement or 0.5
-1.0 lb of whole cottonseed) may be economically
sound and nutritionally adequate (Pinkerton et al
1992).

Phosphorous is necessary for reproduction and
milk production. Therefore, supplementation is
usually an economical practice. Many meat goat
producers provide minerals on a year round basis.
The minerals offered may be in the form of trace
mineralized salt, calcium and/or phosphorous as
individual sources or in combination with salt, or
commercial mineral mixtures.

Energy is needed for adequate conception rates,
milk flow and kid growth rates. When existing
forages are low in energy, many meat goat producers
offer 0.5 to 1 lb of cracked corn or whole cottonseed.


Page 31


The utilization of forages (pasture, forbs and
browse) and supplements in a meat goat enterprise
will largely depend on the cost/benefit of such a
practice. The progressive meat goat producer should
want optimal performance from his animals, and the
input of nutrients must be ample to bring this about.
Cash income from a meat goat enterprise is derived
from the sale of kids and culled adults. Therefore,
the norm should be the utilization of forages on a
year round, rotational basis with only mineral
supplementation. All other practices may increase
cost but would likely be economically wise.

Pasture Management

Many of the pasture establishment and
management practices will vary from area to area,
depending on soil types, elevation, growing season,
rainfall and drainage. Also, many factors influence
the choice of grasses, grains, legumes and a
combination of the three. Some of these factors are:

* Natural adaptation of the plants (do they grow
well in your area and on your soil?)


Managerial ability or capability of the meat goat
producer (some varieties of pasture crops need
more intense care, fertilization, clipping and
controlled grazing than others).

Available money to invest in pasture
establishment.

How will the crop be used? (For pastures alone,
for pasture and hay, for hay alone, to be grazed
heavily and continuously or rotationally grazed).

Some management tips for goats on pasture are to
provide:

* Adequate water and shade.

* Mineral mix and trace mineral salt. Do not mix
salt and minerals together. Salt, being quite tasty,
may encourage the animals to eat greater
amounts of the mineral mix than is desirable or
needed.

Ready access to hay, especially when pastures are
making little or no growth. Also, the quality of
pastures changes each day resulting in low energy
levels.






Chapter 7: Goat Breeds and Production Techniques


Ample pasture areas for rotating animals.
Moving animals among pasture areas at least
every 7 days permits pasture rejuvenation, and
helps to break the cycle of internal parasites.

USE OF CROP RESIDUES AND
CROP BY-PRODUCTS

Goats provide an excellent means to utilize crop
residues and crop by-products to add to total farm
production. Vines, stems, leaves and other plant
residues that have not been treated with harmful
pesticides may be used for feed. For example, plant
residues from most vegetable crops, tuberous crops
and green stover of corn, sorghum and millet are
excellent feeds when fed green. Also, the meal or
cake from extraction of oil from oil seeds (cottonseed,
peanuts, etc.) is high protein feed of excellent
nutritive quality. The greatest value of these
feedstuffs is their utilization in summer months when
perennial forage plantings are making little or no
growth.

Figures 7.1 and 7.2 show a small-scale diversified
farm model using goats as the livestock component.
Each field is a rotation site that can be divided into
six blocks, as shown in Figure 7.1. The size of each
block will depend on the size of each local site
chosen. The first two blocks in each field can be
planted to a mixture of perennial grasses and legumes
that is adapted to the environmental conditions of the
area. Well-adapted perennial forage legumes will
contribute 100 to 200 pounds of nitrogen per acre to
the soil for each year of growth. The planting of the
first two blocks to grasses and legumes will allow for
the following:

* Control of soil erosion on crop lands and
improvement in soil structure and permeability to
rainfall.
Production of highly nutritious feed for goats in
the form of pasture, or feed cut and fed green, or
grass silage or hay, especially during the winter
season, to support satisfactory reproduction and
growth of meat animals.
Animal manures for enhancing soil productivity.
Improved control of plant pests.
Effective use of non-arable lands associated with
cropped lands.
Animal products for human foods.


Page 32


Figure 7.1. Small-scale diversified farm model for years 1
and 2.


(Goats)
Block PERMANENT FORAGE GRASSES
1 AND LEGUMES
(One Acre)
(Goats)
Block PERMANENT FORAGE GRASSES
2 AND LEGUMES
(One Acre)
SPRING AND FALL
Block VEGETABLES
3 (One Acre)

(Goats)
Block TEMPORARY SUMMER PASTURES
4 AND COOL SEASON FORAGES
(One Acre)

Block BLUEBERRIES
6 (1/4 Acre)

CHRISTMAS TREES
Block OR ORNAMENTALS
a (1/4 Acre)


Figure 7.2. Small-scale diversified farm model for years 3
and 4.


Block
1


Block
2


Block
3


Block
4


Block
5


Block
a


(Goats)
PERMANENT FORAGE GRASSES
AND LEGUMES
(One Acre)
(Goats)
PERMANENT FORAGE GRASSES
AND LEGUMES
(One Acre)
(Goats)
TEMPORARY SUMMER PASTURES
AND COOL SEASON FORAGES
(One Acre)
SPRING AND FALL
VEGETABLES
(One Acre)


BLUEBERRIES
(1/4 Acre)

CHRISTMAS TREES
OR ORNAMENTALS
(1/4 Acre)






Chapter 7: Goat Breeds and Production Techniques

The third block in each field can be planted with
temporary summer pastures, and cool season forages
for the first two years. During the third and fourth
years, forages planted in block three the first two
years will be planted in block four (Figure 7.2). The
block designed for cropping the first two years will be
planted in block three during the third and fourth
years. Blocks designed for cropping can be planted to
selected and alternative green and yellow vegetables.
This system should allow for:

* An excellent means of utilizing crop residues and
by-products to add to total farm production.

A means of maintaining soil fertility by returning
these products to the soil as manure after being
fed.

Improved control of plant pests.

Block five can be planted to new or selected
traditional small fruits that are adapted to the
environmental conditions of the area (Figure 7.1).
This block can be planted to Christmas trees or
ornamentals (Figure 7.2). Strategies for the
successful implementation of cropping alternatives
will involve orderly scheduling of crops to guarantee
continuity in the supply. Implementation
considerations will be processing facilities,
transportation and marketing, production resources
available, and plant characteristics.

USE OF MEAT GOATS IN
MULTISPECIES GRAZING

Good pasture management is not possible without
cash inputs. Regular use of fertilizer, pesticides,
genetically improved forages, and mechanical
manipulation are recommended to develop the land's
potential to produce maximum yields of high quality
forage. Without frequent inputs, pasture production
declines both in terms of forage quantity and quality.
A mixture of native grasses, forbs, shrubs and trees
soon begins to invade the less intensively-managed
pasture. When production costs decline, so does
animal output. The bottom line of this shift in
pasture composition is that the differences between
improved pasture and native range become less
obvious, and such range management practices as
multispecies grazing become more relevant.

Using goats within a multispecies grazing system
or within another production system (such as agro-
forestry) is an alternative to increase the efficiency of


Page 33


the production system simply because previously
unused resources are being marketed. For example,
goats eat forage that would not normally be used
under land management systems that do not involve
livestock or that contain only a simple species.
Marketing products from goats (meat) is an indirect
way of harvesting and marketing forage.

The use of meat goats has for a long time been
considered as a good range management tool. They
can be used not only to produce saleable animals but
also to control brush. The suppression or near
elimination of brushy species, weeds and other
undesirable plants by goats will reduce competition
for scare soil nutrients and moisture, and over time,
improve carrying capacity of pastures. But, using
goats in pasture improvement programs will likely
result in reduced kidding rates and/or kid weaning
weights. Also, the methodology and cost-benefit
ratios of using goats to control competing plant
species in pine plantations, and also in naturally
regenerating pine and hard wood forests are
inadequately known.

Technical and economic coefficients need to be
developed before any set of recommendations can be
formulated for meat goats for brush control.
Research needs on the economics of multispecies
grazing that can be suggested in a related area of
production are the following: a) impact of stocking
rates in different kinds of pasture; b) offtake rates
under multispecies grazing systems; c) alternative
methods of multispecies grazing, particularly labor-
saving technologies; d) technological barriers to effi-
cient production of goats under multispecies grazing
systems; e) and comparative cost of using goats versus
herbicides versus mechanics versus fire for understory
control. These factors can be evaluated by using the
cost and returns program developed by Simpson
(1992).

REPRODUCTION AND BREEDING
MANAGEMENT

Many meat goat owners run their bucks with the
does more or less on a continuous basis during the
year. While this may be convenient and result in the
maximum number of kids born during the year, it may
also produce kids at different times of the year. Year
round breeding makes it difficult to target certain
specialty markets, avoid seasonal bad weather, or take
maximum advantage of seasonal feed supplies. Also,
it may lead to premature mating of kids which may





Chapter 7: Goat Breeds and Production Techniques

produce stunted growth of females or problems at
kidding.

Meat goat production in North Florida can
benefit from the ability of the local native goat to
exhibit estrus all year round. Animals can therefore
be bred at different times in the course of a calendar
year, yielding shorter kidding intervals than the
seasonal dairy breeds (8 months vs 12 months).
Three kid crops in two years is a realistic goal or
objective for meat goat producers. Examples of
proving basic guidelines for reducing kidding interval
(period between two successive kidding) thereby
increasing kid crop per unit of time. Therefore, the
dates you decide to breed goats in your area will
depend on the following:

* available markets and the season of the year when
there is a market demand

feed supply

quality and quantity of available forage

available labor

climate

facilities and equipment.

Accelerated Kidding Schedule

The suggested breeding time for a herd of wood
goats in North Florida to achieve 3 successive kid
crops in two years, begins with Fall/October breeding
in year 1, July breeding in year 2 and March breeding
in year 3 (Table 7.2).

Always ensure that, with such a breeding/kidding
schedule, females are adequately fed and receive
excellent health care. In the absence of these
management inputs there could be reduced
conception rates in the older does, and shorter
lifetime performance/reduced longevity in the younger
females.

The Effect of Breeding Season on the
Reproductive Performance of Wood Does in
North Florida

The effect of breeding season on the reproductive
performance of female wood does not appear to be
significantly different for the summer and fall
breeding seasons (Table 7.3). However, the kidding


Page 34


percent for the late winter 1989 breeding is relatively
low (141.7%) and should be viewed with some
caution. Probable causes for this are: 1) the
advancing age of the breeding does (>7 years), and 2)
the increasing demands on their reproductive tracts
caused by a reduced kidding interval of 8 months;
non-productive animals were subsequently culled
prior to the following breeding season (Table 7.3).

Fall breeding seems to have a slight advantage
over the others; however, a breeding policy can
include summer and late winter breeding. Available
forage for the lactating does/suckling kids and
weaners will also influence time of breeding.

FACILITIES AND HOUSING

Fencing and Protection

Good fences are very important if you are to
succeed in raising goats. Goats can often go over or
under fences that are perfectly good for keeping cattle
or other livestock in. If your goats get out, they can
quickly destroy your or your neighbors' vegetable
gardens, young fruit trees, or ornamental plants. In
addition to keeping your goats in, the fence should
also keep the goat's natural enemies, dogs, out. One
large dog, such as a German Shepherd, can kill or
seriously injure several goats in a very short time.
Strands of barbed wire at both the top and bottom of
woven wire fences help keep goats in and dogs out.
One problem with barbed wire at the bottom of a
fence is that young kids may try to get under it and
become caught, cutting themselves badly or losing an
eye.

One way to lessen the danger of barbed wire is to
staple the woven wire to the inside of the posts, with
the bottom strand at ground level, and staple the
barbed wire to the outside of the post just off the
ground. This way, the barbed wire protects against
dogs digging in under the fence, but the kids are not
likely to be injured by the barbs.

Board fences are good, especially around the
kidding area, but the boards must be spaced close
enough to keep young goats (kids) in and dogs out.
Electric fences have been used for perimeter as well
as cross fences. However, it is advisable to use net
wire for the perimeter and electric wire for internal
fences. Gates for goats do not need to be more than
18 inches wide, but you should have a wide gate to
get a tractor into the pasture for disking, fertilizing or
other purposes.






Chapter 7: Goat Breeds and Production Techniques


Table 7.2. Accelerated kidding schedule
Month
Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.
1 Breeding
2 Kidding Breeding Kidding
3 Breeding Kidding Breeding




Table 7.3. The effect of breeding season in the reproductive performance of wood does in North Florida
North Florida Season of Breeding
Parameters Measured Fall '86-87 (October) Summer '88 (July) Late Winter '89 (March)
Kidding Percent (%) 185.3 182.2 141.7
Proflficacy Rate (%) 195.9 186.4 181.7
Twinning Rate (%) 77.5 77.3 72.3
Kidding Percent = No. of kids born/No, of does exposed x 100
Prolificacy Rate = No. of kids born/No, of does kidding x 100
Twinning Rate = No. of multiple births/Total no. of births x 100


Doe Housing

The choice of goat housing is often confusing, but
a good manager can make any housing system work.
It is not the most expensive facilities that give the best
returns, but it is how they are managed that really
counts. Goat houses, to some extent, should be a
compromise between that which is most comfortable
and healthy for the goat and that which is most
convenient and economical from the point of view of
your management skills. It is advisable to use all
available resources at hand to construct goat housing,
and for proving the necessary facilities.

The basic requirement is a dry, draft-free house.
If possible, it should be open to the south to get the
most winter sun. The arrangement of the building
depends on its size and construction, and what it will
be used for -- will it contain an area where hay, water
and concentrates are fed as well as serve as housing
for the goats, or will it simply house them?

If the house will simply house your goats, you
need a floor area of about 12 to 15 square feet per
goat. If the house will provide for controlled feeding
of concentrates and uncontrolled feeding of other
food (hay and water) under the same roof, the floor
area per goat should be about 20 to 30 square feet.


Goats should also be provided with a sleeping
bench. This, in its simplest form, consists of 5/8 inch
boarding, 4 feet long and 2 feet wide for a single goat,
set on legs or propped up on what you have, some 9
inches to 2 feet above the ground. This should be set
a foot or more away from the walls of the house to
avoid wall drafts. When down drafts are a problem,
the sleeping bench can be made of a box, 3 to 4 feet
long, 2 to 4 feet deep, set on its side and off the
raised floor. Wooden wire spools are good for raising
platforms and boxes.

Buck Housing

Housing for the buck may be simple, yet it must
be strong and safe. A three-sided shed 10 by 12 feet
opening to the south (or away from prevailing winds),
is a practical shelter for a buck. Provide a strong
stanchion manger in one corner of the shed to allow
feeding without entering the pen and to permit
fastening and treating in case the veterinarian is
needed.

HERD HEALTH PRACTICES

The saying that "An ounce of prevention is better
than a pound of cure" should always be in the minds
of a meat goat producer, regardless of the size of his
operation. It is generally cheaper to prevent a
particular disease from developing in your herd than


Page 35





Chapter 7: Goat Breeds and Production Techniques

to treat it, particularly if the entire herd is affected.
Diseases can cause severe animal weight loss, delayed
marketing of surplus males, and can also lead to
reduced fertility of your does, resulting in smaller kid
crops. See Table 7.4.

Internal Parasites

Internal parasites can cause a reduction in feed
intake and decreased efficiency of feed utilization. A
severe parasitic load can result in weight loss, slow
growth rates of animals, and ultimately a loss in
potential profits. In extreme conditions heavy
parasite infestation can lead to death.


Page 36


Parasitism can become a primary constraint to
animal production particularly when pastures are
overstocked and land is limited for rotational grazing.
Farms with a high concentration of animals per acre
will require more frequent dewormings than farms
with a low concentration. The practice of rotational
grazing (relative to fixed or set stocking) and
adequate resting of pastures can facilitate a reduced
parasite load.

The most common effect of parasites is to
increase the animal's need for protein. Farmers
should also remember that weak and underfed
animals lack the correct balance of essential nutrients.


Table 7.4. Calendar of herd health and related activities

Category State of Development/Age Health and Related Practices


Adult Breeding Female


















Adult Breeding Buck


Birth


Day 30


Day 60

Weaning

Prior to Breeding



Early to Mid Pregnancy


Last 6 weeks of Pregnancy


At Kidding







1 Year and Older


Dip navel with iodine; record birth
weight, ensure early colostrum intake,
tag animal for I.D.
Deworm, vaccinate; dehorning and
castration optional record live
weight
Deworm, vaccinate, record live
weight.
Administer coccidlostat, record
weaning weight and ages.
Vaccinate-clostridium types C+D,
tetanus. Deworm, Vit E/Se optional;
check feet; flush animals and record
breeding weight.
Vit E/Se optional, reduce or stop
supplementation if forage availability
is good.
Observe animals closely for abortion
signs, increase supplement as young
developing fetus is growing rapidly.
Record kidding weight of mothers
and ensure adequate grazing and
supplementation. At FAMU, animals
with a history of multiple births and
witn very large abdomens are given
oxygen to ensure complete
evacuation of uterus, particularly if
single births are recorded.
Deworm quarterly or as directed by
the results of routine fecal samples.
Vaccinate once per year with
Clostridium perfringens C+D tetanus;
check for hoof trimming. Increase
supplement 1 month prior to
breeding.






Chapter 7: Goat Breeds and Production Techniques

The approach to the problem of parasitism is to
deworm strategically and frequently enough as advised
by your local veterinarian. Work in close
collaboration with your veterinarian to develop your
individual deworming program. The regular provision
of fecal samples can be a useful practice in the
determination of the optimal time to deworm animals.
This can improve farm cost effectiveness as the
laboratory results will indicate whether there is need
to deworm or not.

Remember that haphazard, ad hoc deworming
practices with non-veterinary advice, and using broad
spectrum drenches indiscriminately, can lead to
problems of drug resistance, reduced livestock
performance and ultimately loss in revenue and cash
flow. As a general rule of thumb, aim to deworm at
least twice per year. However, remember that season,
concentration of animals and other factors must be
considered. At Florida A&M University (FAMU),
adult animals are dewormed approximately every 3
months. Pregnant animals are also dewormed half-
way through gestation to prevent the transfer of
parasites to the new born. Kids should be dewormed
for the first time at 30 days of age, and a second
treatment administered at day 60. Two of the best
goat dewormers are Panacur and Ivomec, with the
latter being generally preferred due to cost and ease
of administration. Ivomec is a cattle product and
therefore an adjusted does is required; the dosage for
goats is Icc per 75 lb body weight. Other health
practices can be found in McGowan and Nurse
(1991).

REFERENCES

Child, Dennis R., Evert K. B. and Hannah H.
Hansen. 1985. Goats in Mixed Hardwoods of the
Southeastern United States. Proceedings of a
Conference on Multispecies Grazing. Winrock
International, Mowilton, Arkansas. pp 149-158.

Devendra, C. 1986. Small Ruminant Production
Systems. Proceedings of a workshop held in Bogor,
Indonesia. International Development Research
Centre, Canada. pp 29-49.

Huston, J. E. 1984. Grasses, Forbs and Browse.
Extension Service United States Department of
Agriculture Publication. Washington, D.C.

McGowan, C. H., G. A. Nurse and J. N. Issos. 1990.
Production Characteristics of a Group of Native
Wood or Brush Goats in northern Florida.


Page 37


Proceedings of the International Goat Production
Symposium. Florida A&M University,
Tallahassee, Florida. pp 135-138.

McGowan, C. H. 1986. Raising a Small Flock of
Goats for Meat and Milk. Selection, Breeding
Practices and Feeding the Herd Goat. Florida
Cooperative Extension Services. Circular 643.

McGowan, C. H., and G. A. Nurse. 1991. Meat Goat
Production for Small Scale Farmers Breeding
Management for Optimum Kid Crop and Health
Practices. Division of Agricultural Research.
Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, Florida.

McGowan, C. H., and G. A. Nurse. 1991. Meat Goat
Production for Small Scale Farmers Feeding the
Goat Herd. Division of Agricultural Research.
Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, Florida.

McGowan, C. H. 1986. Raising a Small Flock of
Goats for Meat and Milk Management Practices,
Housing and Facilities. Florida Cooperative
Extension Services Bulletin. Circular 644.

Merrill, L. B., C. A. Taylor and T. Brooks. 1980.
Combination of Livestock on Rangeland -In
Rangeland Resources Research. Consolidated
Progress Report. 3665. Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station. pg 21.

Pinkerton, F. 1991. Using Goats to Control
Understory Competition in Forests and Woodlands.
Using Goats to Manage Forest Vegetation. A
Regional Inquiry. Tuskegee University
Agricultural Experiment Station, Tuskegee,
Alabama. pp 74-77.

Pinkerton, F., D. Scarfe and B. Pinkerton. 1992.
Meat Goat Production and Marketing. Proceedings
of the 14th Florida Dairy Goat Production
Conference. University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida. pp 42-53.

Provenza, F. D., and James E. Bowns. 1985. Use of
Goats to Improve Blackbrush Ranges for Cattle.
Proceedings of a Conference on Multispecies
Grazing. Winrock International, Mowilton,
Arkansas. pp 188-203.

Shelton, J. M. 1984. Meat Goat Production.
Extension Service United States Department of
Agriculture Publication, Washington, D.C.





Chapter 7: Goat Breeds and Production Techniques Page 38

Simpson, James R. Goat Cost: A Computer Program
to Determine Production Cost of Meat Goats.
Florida Cooperative Extension Service Circular
1116, June 1993.








Chapter 8: Composition and Quality of Goat Meat Produced
in Florida

Dwain Johnson


INTRODUCTION

The demand for meat from goats has increased in
some markets of the southeastern United States due
to several factors, which has led to new marketing
opportunities for the small farmer/rancher. There
continues to be an influx of ethnic groups from areas
of the world where goat meat comprises a more
significant portion of their diet than would typically be
encountered by most consumers in the United States.
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 utilized by certain groups in
specialty dishes centered around festival or holiday
events. Many consumers, in search of low-fat, low-
calorie, healthful meat sources, are willing to try new
types of meats in an effort to control fat/calorie
consumption. Warmington and Kirton (1990) stated
that compared to sheep and cattle, knowledge of
factors affecting yield and quality of goat meat is
limited. These researchers concluded that there is a
large number of goat breeds in the world, but few
objective, comparative data exist to explore the factors
that influence the yield and quality of goat meat
produced. The University of Florida, in conjunction
with Florida A&M University, has embarked on an
extended evaluation of meat goat production in
Florida. This chapter highlights and summarizes the
findings of those studies.

SLAUGHTER YIELDS

Research to date has focused on meat production
utilizing young goats (6 to 8 months) of either Florida
native, or F,, crosses of Florida natives and Spanish,
or Nubian goats (Johnson et al., 1994b). Animals in
the studies were reared on a predominantly forage
based diet and then slaughtered under normal
procedures. Young males, females and castrates
ranged in slaughter weight from 32 to 64 pounds with
an average of about 44 pounds. At this young age
(less than 8 months) sex class did not have a
significant influence on slaughter or carcass weights.
Nubian x Florida native F1 crosses were slightly
heavier at slaughter than were the Florida native or
Florida native x Spanish F1 crosses. On the average,


goats in the studies yielded about 51 percent of their
slaughter weight as carcass. This is about what would
be expected for dressing percentages of small
ruminants, although dressing percent ranged from 45
to 59 percent. Neither breed type nor sex class
appeared to greatly influence dressed carcass yield.
The major dress-off (non-carcass) items included
viscera (30%), pelt (9%) and head (6%). Breed type
had no effect on yield of dress-off items although it
appears that sex class did have some minor effects on
components removed during slaughter. For instance,
intact males had heavier head weights than did the
other sex classes. Also, female goats produced lower
yields of pelt, liver, heart, and kidney than did intact
or castrate males.

CARCASS QUALITY

Carcass quality characteristics are usually
indicated by lean color, texture and firmness in
combination with depositions of fat in various depot
sites. These depot sites can include flank streaking
(fat deposition on muscles of the flank), feathering
(fat deposition between the ribs) or marbling (fat
deposits within muscle tissue). Neither breed type
nor sex class appeared to greatly influence these
indicators of carcass quality. Female carcasses did
have slightly greater deposits of marbling, feathering
and flank streaking. In general, fat deposition on
young goats is considerably less than that encountered
on sheep carcasses of similar ages. Therefore,
deposition of flank streaking, feathering and marbling
is lower than levels found on sheep produced under
similar management schemes. This suggests lower
meat quality or tenderness scores than found for
sheep.

CARCASS YIELD

Yields of wholesale cuts can very greatly
depending on fabrication style. However, when goat
carcasses are fabricated in a fashion similar to lamb
carcasses, yields are comparable (Table 8.1). The
long-cut leg (which includes the sirloin) comprises the
greatest percentage of the major wholesale cuts,
followed by the shoulder. The thin cuts (neck, breast,
flank and foreshanks) did make up a slightly higher





Chapter 8: Composition and Quality of Goat Meat Produced in Florida


Table 8.1. Percentages of untrimmed wholesale cuts from
crossbred goat carcasses.
Cut Percent of Carcass
Leg 27
Loin 7
Rack 10
Shoulder 22
Neck, breast, flank, 34
foreshanks



proportion of carcass weight than has been reported
for lamb.

Table 8.2 illustrates edible product yield of
between 77% and 78% of carcass weight. Carcasses
from goats that are less than 8 months of age have
almost no trimmable fat (fat greater than 0.1 in) on
any of the wholesale cuts which contribute to the high
edible yield found in our studies. Neither breed type
nor sex class had significant effect on edible product
yield in these young goats. Percentage bone was
slightly lower in carcasses from Florida native goats
than the other breed types. Also, female carcasses
had lower percentage bone than did intact male or
castrate goat carcasses.

Table 8.2. Edible and compositional yields of goat
carcasses.
Percent of Carcass
Edible yield
Edible product 77.4
Kidney fat 1.5
Bone 21.1
Compositional yield
Fat-free lean 68.4
Fat 10.5
Bone 21.1


Compositional analysis of goat carcasses revealed
that they were high (69.4%) in fat-free muscle mass
and relatively low in chemical fat percentage (10.5%).
Breed type had no effect on fat-free lean yield. In
contrast, sex class did appear to influence fat-free lean
deposition in that intact male carcass had about 3
percent greater yield of fat-free muscle mass than did
the castrated males or female goat carcasses. Breed
type and sex class both had some effect on total fat
deposition of the carcass. Florida natives had the


highest fat content. In contrast, Nubian x Florida
natives had the least percentage carcass fat. Spanish
x Florida natives were intermediate in fat content to
the two other breed types. As would be expected
from fat deposition patterns of other meat animal
species, intact males had the least carcass fat, females
had the highest fat content, and castrates were
intermediate to the other two sex classes. In general,
young goats were significantly lower in carcass fat
than would be encountered in beef, sheep or pork
carcasses from market weight animals.

MEAT TENDERNESS

Shear tests (an objective test for meat tenderness)
conducted in the studies generally averaged about 12
pounds (force required to shear a 1/2" cooked core of
meat) for muscles of the leg and loin. Most literature
reports values of 10 pounds or less for meat in the
slightly tender or better range, which would indicate
that goat meat can be somewhat tough, especially
when cooked by a dry cooking method under rapid
heating. Most cooking recommendations for goat
suggest a low temperature/long time or moist heat
cooking method to assure acceptable meat tenderness.



Breed type did not appear to influence tenderness
values from muscles of the leg or loin. In contrast,
meat tenderness was greater (lower shear values) for
muscle from the leg and loin cuts from female
carcasses than were noted from castrate or intact
male carcasses.

NUTRIENT PROFILE

Table 8.3 presents a partial nutrient analysis of a
85 g (3 oz) cooked portion of carcass composite meat
from goat, beef and chicken. Data from this table
suggest that goat meat (carcass composite) was similar
to chicken in total grams of fat, percent of calories
from fat, and cholesterol. In addition, broiled goat
meat was similar to beef in iron content. Other
nutrients for goat meat were similar to that reported
for beef or chicken (USDA, 1990: USDA, 1979,
respectively). Data from other studies by the author
revealed that breed type and sex class had no
significant effect on vitamin or mineral content of
broiled goat meat (Johnson et al., 1994a). Research
by the author also suggests that although there were
small differences between the nutrient profile of goat
meat and similar samples reported for beef or


Page 40






Chapter 8: Composition and Quality of Goat Meat Produced in Florida


Table 8.3. Comparison of nutrient analysis of a 85 g cooked
portion of carcass composite meat from goat, beef and
chicken.
Nutrients Goata Beeft Chickenc
Calories 187.0 259.0 203.0
Protein. g 220 220 23.0
Carbohydrates 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fat, g 11.0 18.0 12.0
Calories from fat 99.0 144.0 108.0
Saturated fat. g 5.1 7.3 3.2
Cholesterol, mg 85.0 75.0 88.0
Motsture, g 500 440 51.0
Ash, g 1.1 0.9 0.8
Sodum, mg 93.0 52.0 70.0
Calcium, mg 28.0 8.0 13.0
ron, mg 2.2 2.2 1.1
aJohnson et al. (1994a).
bUSDA (1990).
CUSDA (1979).



chicken, goat meat appears to be a comparable
alternative to other muscle protein sources.

REFERENCES

Johnson, D.D., J.S. Eastridge, D.R. Neubauer and
C.H. McGowan. 1994a. Effect of sex class on
nutrient content of meat from young goat. J. Anim.
Sci. (In Press).

Johnson, D.D., C.H. McGowan, G. Nurse and M.R.
Anous. 1994b. Genetic effects on carcass traits,
composition and tenderness of young goats. Small
Rumin. Res. (Submitted).

USDA. 1979. Composition of Foods. Poultry
Products; Raw, Processed, Prepared. USDA
Handbook 8-5. USDA. Washington, D.C.

USDA. 1990. Composition of Foods. Beef Products;
Raw, Processed, Prepared. USDA Handbook 8-13.
USDA, Washington, D.C.

Warmington, B.C. and A. H. Kirton, 1990. Genetic
and non-genetic influences on growth and carcass
traits of goats. Small Rumin. Res. 3:147.


Page 41







Chapter 9: Economics of Meat Goat Production in Florida

Bea Covington and James Simpson


The purpose of this chapter is to describe Florida
meat goat production systems and to provide
information about production costs and net income.
The information is from Bea Covington's masters
thesis (1994) in which she used a computer program
developed by Simpson (1993). The basic data for the
thesis was derived from interviews with 25 producers
of which 12 were members of the Florida Meat Goat
Association. The participating producers were
interviewed between March 1 and August 15, 1991.
All are in north Florida with the exception of one
very large producer in Okeechobee county. The
objective of the thesis was to quantify information by
type of system and to determine the impact of size
and management on operations. Thus, while the
costs of production and net income are representative
and "typical" of Florida operations, no attempt was
made to develop statistically significant production
costs by size and system.

PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

Classification and analysis of Florida meat goat
farming systems was done based on observed feeding
practices. This variable was chosen because it was
hypothesized that it had the greatest impact on the
production and cost functions of the farm. The
feeding practice criteria was chosen based on the
hypothesis that feed costs were the primary source of
producer expenditure. Each of the farms was
evaluated based on the amount of purchased
concentrate fed to the animals and the length of time
of the feeding period. Using this criteria three
feeding categories were identified:

* Extensive Systems: those feeding less than 0.2 lbs
of purchased grain per head per day for less than
three months a year with unmanaged forage and
wild brush as a primary feed source. Seven of 25
farms were surveyed.

Mixed Forage System: those feeding a
combination of purchased grain or concentrate
and forage, with grain supplements between 0.2
and 0.5 lbs per head per day for fewer than 100
days a year. Ten of 25 farms were surveyed.

Intensive Systems: those feeding more than 0.5
lbs of purchased grain per head per day for more
than six months. Eight of 25 farms were surveyed.


A fourth system, one which relies exclusively on
managed forages (leucaena, gliricidia, kudzu, etc.) has
been observed in other states and reported in Florida,
but not observed during the course of the study.

There are three animal systems; (1) does kept for
production of kids, (2) fattening to slaughter weight
and (3) a combination of does and fattening.

Each production system was further divided into
breeding or meat production and then into phases.
There are two phases after kids are weaned; phase 1
which is growing, and phase 2 which is fattening.
There is no specific time or weight at which an animal
shifts from growing to fattening just as there is no one
time or weight at which kids are weaned. The main
distinction is when the feeding method changes.

PRODUCTION COST

Cost per pound is reported in Table 9.1 for 5
sizes of farms. The sizes, which are averages based
on information derived from the interviews, range
from 10 acres to 500 acres. Because the objective in
the thesis was to determine costs by size, and because
there was insufficient data to develop costs for all 15
units (3 systems by 5 sizes) data were evaluated and
interpolation was made as necessary.

The costs are reported in 3 ways; (1) direct, (2)
all costs and (3) all costs except a charge for land.
The term direct costs is equivalent to cash costs or
out of pocket expenses except for taxes, which are
considered an ownership cost. Addition of "other"
costs yields total costs.

The category "other costs" is divided into 2 parts,
ownership costs and capital costs. Ownership costs
include depreciation, taxes and a charge for family
labor. Capital costs are calculated by multiplying
investment costs and part of direct costs by a
percentage which is equivalent to a combination of
interest which could be earned if the producers
money were invested in some alternative (opportunity
cost) and/or interest payments on money borrowed
for the operation (debt amortization).

There is no consensus about the appropriate cost
of production. Rather, it largely depends on the
individual. Some producers believe they should only






Chapter 9: Economics of Meat Goat Production in Florida


Table 9.1. Cost per pound of live animal sold, all system models, North Florida, 1991
Production system Farm size (in acres)
Extensive 10 50 150 200 350 500
Mixed 10 30 130 180 330 480
Intensive 10 30 130 180 330 480
Direct cost per pound of live animal sold
(in dollars)
Extensive .89 .64 .58 .59 .59 .63
Mixed: .76 .60 .47 .46 .46 .60
Intensive .77 .73 .67 .68 .67 .63
Cost per pound of live animal sold when all costs are included
(in dollars)
Extensive 4.41 2.91 2.62 2.71 2.61 2.66
Mixed 2.11 1.65 1.35 1.30 1.31 1.35
Intensive 1.87 1.64 1.28 1.24 1.18 1.15
Cost per pound of live animal sold when all costs except land are included
Extensive 2.15 1.25 1.04 1.07 1.03 1.08
Mixed 1.42 1.00 .66 .67 .67 .71
Intensive 1.62 1.39 1.03 .99 .94 .90


make a charge for out-of-pocket expenses. Others
want to cover depreciation in recognition that at some
point buildings, fences and equipment have to be
replaced. Others think that taxes and a charge for
family labor should be included. The above items
constitute ownership costs.

The third cost category is capital costs. Generally,
about 75-80 percent of this charge is for land. Many
producers argue that their land value will increase. If
it increases enough, capital costs are covered
(although no "profit" would then be realized if the
land were sold). In any event, very few agricultural
operations anywhere in the world cover all costs.

Direct, i.e. cash costs except for taxes, were
highest in the extensive system; $0.89 cents per pound
of live weight animal sold for a 10 acre operation,
compared with $0.46 for a 200 or 350 acre mixed farm
(Table 9.1). Cost increased slightly on the largest
extensive and mixed operations because additional
labor was required.

The cost per pound of live animal sold was about
double in the extensive system compared with the
other two when all costs were included. This is
because the opportunity cost (or debt amortization)
on land makes up such a large component of all costs.
When land was excluded from the calculations the
extensive system costs in the extensive system became


much closer to those of the other systems (Table 9.1).
Overall, evaluation of Figure 9.1, in which cost per
pound of live animal sold is plotted against land size,
clearly shows the dramatic decline in costs from 10 to
50 acres, and the significant decline to 100 acres.
After that, there was no additional benefit of scale
economies.

SALE PRICES

The market system for goats is quite complex,
with animals sold for a variety of uses at a range of
prices. Thus, there is no one price of goats.
Furthermore, many producers sell kids, a procedure
which renders price per pound as meaningless. Kids,
at the time of the study, were reported as being sold
at $24, $23 and $31 per head for the extensive, mixed
and intensive systems, respectively. The higher price
for the intensive system is mainly due to orientation
at sales of breeding rather than meat oriented
animals.

The producer estimated sale price of animals by
type of system, shown in Table 9.2, demonstrates the
differences in prices received. For example, average
cull animal prices ranged from $0.40 to $0.73, while
sales from phase 1 breeding ranged from $0.80 to
$1.28. Phase 2 meat (i.e. fattened animals going to
slaughter), averaged $0.70 to $0.83 depending on the


Page 43






Chapter 9: Economics of Meat Goat Production in Florida


Table 9.2. Producer estimated sale price per pound of live animal sold, meat goat production system models, North Florida,
1991.
Cost of system (by animal type)
System Cull Phase 1 Breeding Phase 1 Meat Phase 2 Breeding Phase 2 Meat
Extensive .40 .80 .85 .90 .70
Mixed .62 1.28 .92 1.15 .83
Intensive .73 1.28 .92 1.15 .83



Table 9.3. Net income, all system models, North Florida, 1991.
Production system Farm size (in acres)
Extensive 10 50 150 200 350 500
Mixed 10 30 130 180 330 480
Intensive 10 30 130 180 330 480
Net income after direct costs have been covered (in dollars)
Extensive 57 779 2,862 3,696 6,509 8,365
Mixed 133 1,018 6.633 9.291 17,036 22,705
Intensive 438 1,646 9,212 12,495 23,436 39,839
S1i /i,', 4 i:'. -s-s-po ound of i, ni m... when all costs are included (in dollars)
Extensive (1,340) (5,056) (11,338) (14,804) (24,220) (36,810)
Mixed (2,773) (10,612) (23,667) (25,839) (34,633) (38,455)
Intensive (12,833) (12,456) (24,665) (27,765) (35,935) (54,085)
t Ig C A R! 0 a when all costs except land are included
Extensive (361) (432) (49) (155) 68 (875)
Mixed (682) (544) 3,250 4.210 7,806 8.783
Intensive (1,945) (4,026) (4,293) (3,972) (1,883) (1,708)
Items in parentheses 0 show losses, where costs are greater than income.


system. In all cases, except for culls, the prices were
the same for the mixed and intensive systems.

NET INCOME

The cost information is quite valuable for
identifying the impact of size. But, from a producers
viewpoint net income is more significant. These
figures, provided in Table 9.3, have losses (i.e. costs
are greater than income) shown in parentheses.

It is interesting that despite significantly higher
costs for the smallest sizes, net income was positive.
This is one reason why there are a myriad of smaller
meat goat farms. Another is a belief that revenue
from goats is compensated for by the green belt
exemption. But, the study by Covington indicates that
net income is negative for the smallest two sizes when
all costs except a charge for land are considered. The
problem for these smallest size operators then is


whether tax benefits and other considerations are
sufficient to cover charges which, in the longer term,
must be covered.

Review of Table 9.3 and Figure 9.2 show that
while the intensive system provides the greatest net
income when only direct costs are considered, the
mixed system provides the greatest net income when
all charges except land are taken into account.
Furthermore, net income in the mixed system grows
to significant proportions in larger sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost data provided in this chapter clearly indicate
benefits to be derived from increasing scale to 100
acres. In the case of a mixed system in which the
stocking rate was determined to average the
equivalent of one doe per acre, it means caring for
the equivalent of about 100 mature animals (the


Page 44







Chapter 9: Economics of Meat Goat Production in Florida

rI


2 -





.a 1.5 -


0
o
CO
. 1-




0.5 -





0


III.......II.IIIII.......I............III|W|..
100 200 300 400 500
resm

Bde ~sm Uold &Vd V h, fm -


Figure 9.1. Cost per pound of live animal sold after all costs
are covered, All System Models, north Florida, 1991.


comparable stocking rates are one goat per two acres
in the extensive system, and two goats per acre in the
intensive system). Not all producers will want to, or
will be able to increase their operations to their size.
The analyses presented does provide sufficient
information on types of systems and sizes that
decisions can be made about entry into the business
and whether size should be increased. Overall, it can
be concluded that meat goats can be rewarding and
profitable in Florida. But, careful attention must be
given to evaluation of costs and returns, and to the
type system most appropriate for local conditions and
personal interests.


Page 45


8,000 -


,000 -


. . . .. ... . ....


(2,000)


(4,000)


100 200 300
acres


400 500


Exnsieh system Mixed system Intenslve system


Figure 9.2. Net income above all cost except land, Meat
Goat Production System Models, north Florida, 1991.


REFERENCES

Covington, Bea. An Analysis of Meat Goat Production
Systems in North Florida. Unpublished MS
Thesis, University of Florida, 1994.

Simpson, James R. Goatcost: A Computer Program
to Determine Production Cost of Meat Goats.
Florida Cooperative Extension Service Circular
1116, June 1993.


c 4.000


r 2,000

Z
0








Appendix


Appendix 1.1. Farms with goats, goat numbers and sales by county, Florida, 1992.

Geographic Area Farms Goats Sales

Farms Goats Sold Sales ($1,000)

Florida, Total 1,111 16,681 429 7,416 NA

Counties, 1992
Alachua 58 1.691 27 950 NA
Baker 8 77 5 35 NA

Bay 5 20 NA
Bradford 7 113 1 D NA
Brevard 18 166 11 77 NA
Broward 10 103 2 D NA
Cathoun 5 38 NA
Citrus 19 777 5 D NA
Clay 14 115 7 38 NA
Collier 2 D 3 6 NA

Columbia 31 492 12 193 NA
Dade 22 264 5 34 NA
De Soto 12 128 5 104 NA
Dixie 3 D 3 17 NA
Duvat 20 323 11 432 NA
Escambia 32 625 13 233 NA
Flagler 4 43 1 D NA
Gadsden 12 202 5 33 NA
Gllchrist 18 273 7 D NA
Hamilton 7 50 4 D NA
Hardee 8 62 4 D NA
Hendry 4 135 4 D NA
Hernando 20 463 8 181 NA

Highlands 10 172 2 D NA
Hillsborough 81 1.020 36 606 NA
Holmes 15 96 2 D NA
Jackson 15 173 7 104 NA
Jefferson 8 105 2 D NA

Lafayette 8 76 1 D NA
Lake 44 428 18 173 NA







Appendix


Appendix 1.1. Farms with goats, goat numbers and sales by county, Florida, 1992.

Geographic Area Farms Goats Sales

Farms Goats Sold Sales ($1,000)

Lee 17 246 6 126 NA

Leon 15 260 10 74 NA

Levy 17 156 3 10 NA
Madison 31 1,160 8 242 NA

Manatee 11 74 2 D NA

Marion 68 554 25 284 NA

Martin 6 68 NA
Nassau 30 362 12 164 NA

Okaloosa 22 207 4 18 NA

Okeechobee 11 94 2 D NA

Orange 20 103 NA
Osceola 14 607 7 70 NA

Palm Beach 35 565 14 137 NA
Pasco 34 354 10 96 NA

Pinellas 4 104 3 135 NA

Polk 41 791 15 243 NA

Putnam 10 179 5 43 NA

St. Johns 3 15 NA
St. Lucle 6 36 1 D NA
Santa Rosa 13 146 6 74 NA

Sarasota 15 120 4 11 NA
Seminole 11 99 5 77 NA

Sumter 22 162 10 55 NA
Suwannee 42 657 17 202 NA
Taylor 5 11 3 6 NA

Union 10 203 6 100 NA

Volusla 30 346 17 167 NA
Walton 24 388 6 66 NA
Washington 15 248 12 252 NA
All other counties 9 93 5 44 NA

NA denotes not available.
D denotes number withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual operations.
SOURCE: Census of Agriculture, 1992.


Page 47






Appendix


Appendix 1.2. Farms and goats in Florida, excluding Angora and milk, by county, 1992

Geographic area Farms Goats Sales

Farms Goats sold Sales ($1,000)

Florida, total 975 14,298 379 6,606 293

Counties, 1992

Alachua 51 1,547 26 D 59

Baker 8 77 5 35 1

Bay 3 D
Bradford 7 D 1 D D

Brevard 18 154 11 D 3
Broward 10 103 2 D D

Calhoun 5 38

Citrus 17 0 4 D 2

Clay 14 D 7 38 1

Columbia 30 D 12 193 7

Dade 19 226 5 D 1

De Soto 12 128 5 104 5

Dixie 3 D 3 17 D

Duval 16 306 10 D 14

Escambia 28 464 12 D 6

Flagler 4 43 1 D D

Gadsden 11 D 5 33 1
Gilchrlst 16 247 7 D D

Hamilton 7 50 4 D 1

Hardee 6 43 4 209 D
Hendry 3 D 3 D D
Hernando 16 443 8 181 10

Highlands 9 D 1 D D

Hi[lsborough 76 956 35 D 20

Holmes 13 65
Jackson 15 173 6 D 3

Jefferson 5 99 2 D D

Lafayette 7 D 1 D D

Lake 34 340 12 114 5

Lee 14 133 5 D 4

Leon 11 187 10 74 3


Page 48







Appendix


Appendix 1.2. Farms and goats in Florida, excluding Angora and milk, by county, 1992

Geographic area Farms Goats Sales

Farms Goats sold Sales ($1,000)

Levy 13 118 2 D D
Madison 28 1,132 7 D 6

Manatee 8 68 2 D D

Marion 63 530 24 272 12

Martin 4 D -

Nassau 27 323 10 D 4

Okaloosa 19 188 4 18 1

Okeechobee 11 94 2 D D

Orange 17 75

Osceola 11 563 5 62 2

Palm Beacn 27 271 10 93 5

Pasco 28 273 8 D 4

Pinellas 3 D 2 D D

Polk 40 700 14 D 10

Putnam 9 D 4 D D
St. Johns 3 D -

St. Lucie 4 19 -

Santa Rosa 13 146 6 74 2

Sarasota 13 112 4 11 1
Seminole 8 D 3 D 1

Sumter 17 112 6 41 1

Suwannee 39 648 16 D 7

Taylor 5 11 3 6 Z
Union 8 83 4 20 D

Vofusfa 27 292 14 D 6

Walton 21 352 6 66 2

Washington 12 223 11 D 16
All other counties 9 66 5 24 1

D denotes number withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual operations.
SOURCE: Census of Agriculture, 1992.


Page 49




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs