_1786253141 20260809052541000 Rovedar Daryoushbabazadeh@gmail.com Rovedar Farm Animal Health and Nutrition Farm Anim. Health Nutr. 2980-7905 06 28 2026 5 2 Hanan A. Bashir https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6680-3259 Ibtisam E. M. El Zubeir https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8173-7693 Introduction: In Sudan, sheep are predominantly raised under nomadic production systems for live animals and meat export, whereas their potential for milk production remains largely overlooked. This study aimed to characterize the production performance and milk composition of sheep in Khartoum State, Sudan. Methods and materials: A cross-sectional design was employed, utilizing closed-ended questionnaires and direct interviews with 20 sheep owners to document husbandry practices and ewe production performance. Additionally, colostrum (n=20) and milk (n=80) samples collected from 20 ewes were analyzed for solids-not-fat (SNF), fat, protein, lactose, and density. Results: The Shugor sheep breed was predominant (95%) among surveyed farmers, only 5% of farms-maintained production records. Sheep were primarily reared for meat (50%), meat and milk (25%), and investment/savings (20%), with only 5% dedicated solely to milk production. Water was mainly sourced from wells (70%), and ewes had ad libitum access (85%). Mating was occurred more in winter (60%) and autumn (35%). Natural parturition was reported in 85% of farms, with a 10% abortion rate. Produced milk was mainly used for roub (traditional product, 69.2%). Summer was the preferred season for milk production and sales (81.8%). Colostrum from Shugor ewes showed significantly higher mean SNF (15.28 ± 1.30%), protein (6.17 ± 0.50%), and lactose (8.03 ± 0.72%) compared to normal milk (10.68 ± 0.43%, 4.22 ± 0.17%, and 5.55 ± 0.22%, respectively). No significant difference was observed in fat content between colostrum (6.11 ± 0.43%) and normal milk (6.72 ± 0.62%). Conclusion: The Shugor breed was the most common sheep type in the study area, raised primarily for meat production. Sheep milk is rich in total solids, fat, and protein. 06 28 2026 17 23 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 10.58803/fahn.v5i2.130 https://fahn.rovedar.com/index.php/FAHN/article/view/130 https://fahn.rovedar.com/index.php/FAHN/article/download/130/140 https://fahn.rovedar.com/index.php/FAHN/article/download/130/140 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2019.10.002 10.46492/IJAI/2021.6.1.1 Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2019 FAO crop and food supply assessment mission (CFSAM) to the Sudan: Special report. Rome, Italy: FAO; 2020. Available at: https://www.fao.org/in-action/kore/publications/publications-details/en/c/1287576/ Mohamed SEI, Omer RM, Musa LMA, Jawasreh KI, and Ahmed MKA. Phenotypic and production system characterization of Sudanese Watish Desert sheep in Sinnar State, Sudan. U Khartoum J Vet Med Anim Prod. 2018; 9(2): 140-153. Available at: https://onlinejournals.uofk.edu/vet/en/article/view/61/48 10.1039/D5FO02936H 10.1111/1541-4337.12250 Karami M. Investigation of physicochemical, microbiological, and rheological properties and volatile compounds of ewe and cow milk yoghurt. J Agric Sci Technol. 2018; 20(6): 1149-1160. Available at: http://jast.modares.ac.ir/article-23-20120-en.pdf Saad MSA, El Zubeir IEM, and Fadel Elseed AMA. Effect of lactoperoxidase enzyme system and storage temperature on the keeping quality of sheep milk. Livest Res Rural Dev. 2013; 25(6): Article 102. Available at: https://www.lrrd.org/lrrd25/6/saad25102.htm 10.17265/2159-5828/2016.04.004 Statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS). Social package for statistical system for windows version 16. Chicago, USA: SPSS, Inc.; 2008. 10.58803/fahn.v3i1.34 10.3844/ajavsp.2020.291.299 10.1007/978-3-031-92076-9_6 Sulieman HM, and Ahmed AGM. Monitoring changes in pastoral resources in eastern Sudan: A synthesis of remote sensing and local 10.1186/2041-7136-3-22 10.31559/VMPH2022.3.3.3 Idris AO, Kijora C, El-Hag FM, and Salih AM. Effect of dietary supplementation on reproductive performance of Sudanese Desert sheep. Development. 2010; 22(8): Article 140. Available at: https://www.lrrd.org/lrrd22/8/idri22140.htm 10.22259/2637-5354.0304002 10.5194/aab-65-407-2022 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2015.12.016 10.15761/AHDVS.1000142 10.3389/fvets.2021.615310 10.3390/ani13030349 10.17221/254/2019-CJAS 10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.01.045 10.9775/kvfd.2011.5498 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2006.09.013 El Zubeir IEM, Basher MAE, Alameen MH, Mohammed MAS, and Shuiep ES. The processing properties, chemical characteristics and acceptability of yoghurt made from non bovine milks. Livest Res Rural Dev. 2012; 24(3): Article 50. Available at: https://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/3/zube24050.htm 10.14202/vetworld.2019.12-33 10.12944/CRNFSJ.14.1.3 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2008.07.009 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2016.01.014 10.3923/ijds.2016.35.40 10.31797/vetbio.1000968 10.17265/2328-2150/2021.01.002 10.1080/10408398.2021.1915241 10.1016/j.fbio.2021.101320 10.15567/mljekarstvo.2018.0302 10.1016/j.jprot.2010.11.005