The study was conducted in Jarar Administrative Zone of Somali Regional State, specifically in Degahbour district. The district is located at 8˚13'N latitude and 43˚34'E longitude at 777 km east of Addis Ababa. The altitude of the district ranges from 1044 meters above sea level (m.a.s.l.). It has mean annual minimum and maximum temperature of 5˚C and 38.5˚C, respectively. The mean annual rainfall the area ranges from 300 - 400 mm. The two prevailing agricultural production systems in the district are pastoral and agro-pastoral production systems [10]. According to [11] the district has a total population of 115,555; out which about 65,081 and 50,474 are men and women, respectively. Of the total human population of the district, about 74.015% and 25.98% are rural and urban dwellers, respectively. The average family size for rural and urban areas is 6.7 and 6.8 persons, respectively.

This research was conducted survey work to collect relevant information on hygienic production and post-harvest handling practices of raw camel milk in the study area.

Degahbur district was selected for this study due to its potential of camel milk production. The district was stratified into pastoral and agro-pastoral production systems. Each production system was further stratified into kebeles. Thus, a total of four kebeles (2 from pastoral and 2 from agro-pastoral production systems) with high camel milk production potential were purposively selected for this study. The lists of camel milk producer households were taken from their respective administration. Eventually, 30 milk producer households from each rural kebele (RK) were selected randomly. Thus, the total number of milk producers selected to study hygienic camel milk production and postharvest handling practices in Deghabur district was 120 (2 production systems * 2RK* 30 households).

After stratification and identification of camel milk producer households, focused group discussions were held with key informants (such as milk producers having good experience on the subject under study, community leaders and experts) in each production system to generate information on hygienic camel milk production practices and milk postharvest-handling practices of producers in Degahbour district. The resulting information was then used for the development of a survey questionnaire which was pre-tested before administration, and this was followed by questionnaire survey. Moreover, field observations were made to collect some data which were not properly described during the questionnaire survey.

The data collected using questionnaire survey and field observations were analyzed using SPSS (version, 20). Descriptive statistics were used to quantitatively express the responses of the study participants with respect to their demographic characteristics as well as the factors responsible for raw camel milk contamination with harmful microorganisms during production and postharvest handling in the study area. Chi-square test was employed to examine the differences among categorical variables and Fisher’s exact test was employed to examine if the cells less than five digits. The differences were considered to be significant at the level P < 0.05.

Majority of the respondents in pastoral (85%) and agro-pastoral (88%) production systems were male headed households (Table 1). Across all the sampled households in the respective rural kebeles, it was observed that the number of males exceeds that of females. Most of the respondents in pastoral (68.3%) and agro-pastoral (16.7%) production systems belonged to the age group of 46 - 60 years; this indicates that the strongest and active age groups were carrying out camel herding activities in the study area.

The result of this study indicated that majority of the respondents in pastoral (93.3%) and agro-pastoral (76.6%) production systems were illiterate (Table 1). Moreover, none of the respondents in both production systems didn’t get any training on hygienic milk production practices. The finding is in agreement with

Means in the same column are significantly different at (P < 0.05), N = Number of respondents, SE = Standard Error.

the result reported in many pastoral areas of Ethiopia [12]. Similarly; Wendimu [13] reported a higher proportion of illiteracy and religious schools education for Gode and Adadile districts of Somali region. Lack of education and training on hygienic milk production practices exacerbates the risk of milk contamination with spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms at farm level.

The result of the study indicated that farmers in the study area keep camel mostly for milk (ranked 1^st), meat (ranked 2^nd), social and cultural (ranked 3^nd) income (ranked 4^rd) by selling live animals and their products and/or both, ritual ceremony (marriage) (ranked 5^nd) (Table 2). This finding is in line with Chabeda [14] who stated that majority of pastoralist in Kenya keep camel mostly for milk production followed by meat production and social and cultural.

Pastoralists keep camel due to its higher volume of milk which is six times higher than that of indigenous cattle kept in the dry areas [15]. On the other hand, the Somali region has been considered to have one of the largest camel herds, and people living there strongly rely on camel milk and meat [16].

All respondents in the study area indicated that calves and mature camels were housed separately. Mature camels were housed in the open field around their

Index = [(5 for rank 1) + (4 for rank 2) + (3 for rank 3) + (2 for rank 4) + (1 for rank 5)] divided by the sum of all weighed purposes of camel keeping mentioned by the respondents, R = Rank.

home. Camel calves were housed in well-protected enclosures inside their home which was constructed from wood (like Acacia Abyssinica) and fenced by available piece of thorn wood (like Prosopis julifora) and different bush plants.

The result of the study revealed that the majority of respondents in pastoral (53.3%) and agro-pastoral (75%) production system clean the barn once per week (Table 3). Moreover, none of the observed “kraals” were provided with bedding material. This is in lined with Debela [17] who reported that, the farmers in Yabello district of Borena zone do not use bedding material for their animals and 56.7% of them clean the barn once a week.

According to Tassew [18] maintaining the sanitary condition of barn is critically important for the production of good hygienic quality of milk; for example, properly cleaning the barn as well as providing clean dry and comfortable bedding materials to barn minimize the contamination of milk with harmful microorganisms. Moreover, proper and clean housing environment is a prerequisite to produce milk and milk products of acceptable quality [18].

All respondents in the study area camels are milked in the kraals where there is no roof and wall (Table 4). This is in line with Tamirat et al. [19] who reported that milking in different parts of Ethiopia was done in the open air in grazing field and in front of homestead, which were unclean for clean milk production.

The result of the current study indicated that all respondents in both production systems were not washing udder before milking (Table 4). The finding agrees with Muli et al. [20] who also reported that not cleaning of udder of lactating animals as well as hands of milkers before milking were the major problem of pastoralists in Isiolo district in Kenya. The finding also agrees with Yagil [21] who reported that udder of milking camel was not washed prior to milking. Failure to wash udder before milking undoubtedly expose milk for microbial contamination [22].

The study showed that the majority of pastoralists (93.3%) and agro-pastoralists (75%) in the study area did not wash their hands before milking (Table 4). The

N = Number of respondents.

Means within a row are significantly different at (P < 0.05), N = Number of respondents.

finding is comparable with Bashir and Ahmed [23] who reported that half (50%) of the respondents in Afar zone didn’t wash their hand before milking.‎ [8] and [24] indicated that milk producers should properly wash udders and their hand before start milking as such practices highly minimizes milk contamination with harmful microorganisms.

All respondents in pastoral and agro-pastoral production system were using plastic containers for raw milk handling. Similar findings were reported by Lumadede et al. [25] as the use of plastic containers dominated the milk market in Dollo, Somali region of Ethiopia especially for milk transportation and storage purpose. Moreover, the finding also agrees with Mattias [26] who reported that the majority of milk producers used plastic jerry-cans for milk handling in Kiambu County in Kenya. The use of plastic container for milk handling is not advisable as such practice highly contributes raw milk for microbial contamination [27] Stainless steel equipment is mostly preferred [28].

The result of the study indicated that all respondents in both production systems were fumigatingwith smoke from burning stems of specific plant species such as Maygaag (Bosciaminimifolia), Sogsog (Acacia ethaica) and Kadi (Blanitesgalabra) (Table 5). The finding agreed with Eyassu [29] who reported that

Means within a row are significantly different at (P < 0.05), N = Number of respondents.

woods of tree species of Kadi (Blanitesgalabra), Sogsog (Acacia ethaica) and Wigir (Olea africana), used for smoking milk containers by nomadic pastoralists in Shinile and Jigjiga zones of Somali region.

Majority of the respondents in pastoral (73.6%) and agro-pastoral (72.2%) production system were using smoking to improve taste and flavor as well as to increase shelf life of milk (Table 5). This agrees with the finding of Abebe et al. [30] who reported that the purpose of smoking was to improve the taste and flavor of milk products, as well as to increase the shelf life of the product in Ezha district of Guragezone. Moreover, the finding also in line with the finding of Fikireneh et al. [31] who reported that about 93.3% of respondents smoked their milk handling equipment to improve flavor and aroma of milk and milk products in mid rift valley of Ethiopia. Other studies have also reported on the use of smoke fumigation in the pastoral system [32] [33].

The result of the study revealed that the majority of respondents in pastoral (45%) and agro pastoral (81.6%) production system were regularly cleaning milk vessels with cold water without soap (Table 5). The finding is contradictory with the finding of Haile et al. [34] who reported about 85.6% of respondents in Hawassa City were using hot water to clean milk handling equipment. This variation may be due to lack of any training given to pastoralist and agro-pastoralist on hygienic milk production and post-harvest handling practices in the study area. However, it is highly recommended to use detergents and good quality water for cleaning the equipment as such practices can remove milk remains, including microorganisms, and thereby improve the microbiological quality of the milk [35].

Most losses of dairy products occur because of a combination of poor production and handling practices and lack of technical knowledge. Among others, lack of knowledge on clean milk production, use of unclean milking equipment coupled with lack of potable water for cleaning purpose probably contributed to the poor hygienic quality of dairy products produced in Ethiopia [36].

The majority of the respondents in pastoral (55%) and agro-pastoral (36.6%) production systems were using water from wells and ponds, respectively for hygienic practices (Table 6). This finding agrees with Bereda et al. [37] who reported majority (64.4%) of respondent in Ezha district, Ethiopia were using water from non-tap sources for hygienic practices.

Using water obtained from non-tap sources for hygienic practices during milk production and postharvest handling may leads to milk contamination with spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms [38]. If it is difficult to get potable (safe to drink) water for cleaning practices, water obtained from river, stream, spring and hand dug well should be treated prior to use [28] [39]. However, none of the respondent in the study area was treating water from non-tap sources prior to use for hygienic practices. Thus, it is highly important to heat or chemically treat water from non-tap sources prior to use for hygienic practice.

The majority of respondents in pastoral (with an index value of 0.24) and agro-pastoral (with an index value of 0.22) production system ranked poor barn hygiene as the 1^st most important problem contributing for contamination of milk in the study areas (Table 7). This is in line with Ruegg [40] who reported that practices that expose teat end to wet and muddy pens increase the risk of occurrence of mastitis, and hence milk contamination with microorganisms.

N = Number of respondents.

Index = [(5 for rank 1) + (4 for rank 2) + (3 for rank 3) + (2 for rank 4) + (1 for rank 5)] divided by the sum of all constraints of camel production mentioned by the farmers, R = Rank.

Poor hygienic production of milk (unclean udder due to lack of washing the udder before milking, unclean hands, poor personal hygiene and health status, unclean milking containers due to lack of clean water, unclean milking sites) is more likely to cause milk-borne diseases and the natural antimicrobial factors can only provide a limited protection against specific pathogens for a short period. This is in line with Mohammed et al. [22] who reported milk-borne disease is higher when the milk is consumed in its raw state as commonly practiced by the local producers.

Poor hygienic was also ranked one of the major constraints of camel production in the study area (Table 7). The finding is comparable with that of Worku et al. [41] who reported poor handling practices for instance unclean milking equipment as one of the major constraints of camel milk commercialization in Ethiopia.