Evaluation of Microbiological and Compositional Quality of Raw Cow’s Milk (Household and Bulk) in Lankapura, Polonnaruwa, Sri Lanka



Abstract Views
1040

Downloads
643

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Feb 15, 2021
Published Feb 25, 2021
10.24018/ejfood.2021.3.1.249

Abstract viewed = 1040 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Purpose: At present, in Lankapura, there is a tremendous development in dairy sector. But milk quality issues were raised by the milk consumers and producers who collected milk from Lankapura. Although, measures have been taken to increase the milk production, the quality of milk has not been thoroughly evaluated in area.

Research methodology: This study was carried out to evaluate the microbiological, compositional quality of cow’s milk collected from small scale farmers (25) and bulk milk tanks (25 samples) in the study area and to collect data about knowledge of farmers on clean milk production practices.

Findings: According to the study, acidity, and average level of bacterial count of household milk production were 0.229±0.029%, 6.193±0.311 log10 CFU/ml respectively and for bulk milk production were 0.294± 0.020%, 6.6427±0.322 log10 CFU/ml respectively. The mean percentage of specific gravity, protein, fat, lactose and SNF for bulk milk samples were 1.029g/ml, 2.740%±0.0866, 4.120%±0.8065, 4.040%±0.1581, 7.6476%±0.34219 respectively and for household’s milk samples were 1.028g/ml, 2.792% ±0.1706, 4.360%±0.7314, 4.032%±0.1973, 7.5716%±0.33726 respectively. When considering management practices of farmers, only 38% farmers cleaned the milking place. Only 28% of farmers maintained proper records. The results indicated that microbiological and compositional quality (except milk fat) were not in acceptable level for both household and bulk milk samples. For microbiological quality, there was a high statistical significance of bulk milk samples than the households.

Limitations: The quality of the milk was poor due to unhygienic practices and poor knowledge. Sample numbers were limited in this study, due to limited time period for this study. Larger individual coliform count could not be conducted due to limited manpower and laboratory resources.

Originality/ value: As long term solutions such as farmer education programmes, incentive based milk quality systems can be recommended.

Keywords: compositional quality, cow’s raw milk, hygienic practices microbiological quality

References

  1. Perera B and Jayasuriya M (2008) The Dairy industry in Sri Lanka, Current status and Future directions for a greater role in national development. Journal of National Science Foundation, Sri Lanka 36 115-126.
     Google Scholar
  2. Monthly production data, Veterinary surgeon’s office, Lankapura, 2018.
     Google Scholar
  3. Makokha, S. and Fadiga, M.L. (2009): Exploiting markets for dairy and meat products’ quality and safety: A Kenyan case study. Research report 24 on Demand for livestock products in developing countries with a focus on quality and safety attributes: Evidence from Asia and Africa.
     Google Scholar
  4. Cousin MA. Presence and activity of psychrotrophic microorganisms in milk and dairy products. J Food Prot. 1982; 45:172-207.
     Google Scholar
  5. Orregård, M. 2013a. Quality analysis of raw milk along the value chain of the informal milk market in Kiambu County, Kenya. Swedish. Masters Thesis University of Agricultural sciences.
     Google Scholar
  6. Tassew, A., & Seifu, E. (2010). Microbial quality of raw cow‟s milk collected from farmers and dairy cooperatives in Bahir Dar Zuria and Mecha district, Ethiopia. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America, 29 to 31.
     Google Scholar
  7. Yuen, S. K., C. F. Yee, and F. H. Yin. 2012. ISSN 2249-8516 Original Article Microbiological Quality and the Impact of Hygienic Practices on the Raw Milk Obtained from the Small-scale Dairy Farmers in Sabah, Malaysia. Int. J. Agric. Food Sci. 2:55–59.
     Google Scholar
  8. Street, A., and D. Bogor. 2013. Prevalence and Sources of Contamination of Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. In Cow Milk Dangke, Indonesian Fresh Soft Cheese Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Bogor Agriculture University, Glob. Vet. 11:352–356.
     Google Scholar
  9. O’Connor C B 1994 Rural Dairy Technology. ILRI training manual No. 1. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 133p.
     Google Scholar
  10. WHO and FAO, 2002.
     Google Scholar
  11. http://www.lankapura.ds.gov.lk/index.php/en/about-us/overview.html.
     Google Scholar
  12. Marth E H (Ed.) (1978) Standard Methods for the Examinations of Dairy Products. P. 416. American Public Health Association, Washington DC.
     Google Scholar
  13. International Dairy Federation (IDF) (1990) Milk Collection in warm developing countries, pp. 57-59. SqureVergote, Brussels, Belgium.
     Google Scholar
  14. Ramsdell, A, Johnson, W.M.T and Evans, F.R. 1935, Investigation of Resazurin as an Indicator of the Sanitary Condition of Milk, Dairy sciences, volume 18, Issue 11, Pages 705–717.
     Google Scholar
  15. O’Mahoney, F. (1988). Rural dairy technology-Experiences in Ethiopia. ILCA Manual No. 4. Dairy Technology Unit. ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp. 64.
     Google Scholar
  16. Prejit, N., Nanu, E., & Latha, C. (2011). Microbial quality assurance of milk during production, processing and marketing, American Journal of food Technology, 2(3):136-144.
     Google Scholar
  17. Nanu, E., Latha, C., Sunil, B., Prejit, N., Thomas, M., & Menon,K.V.(2007). Quality Assurance and Public Health Safety of Raw Milk at the production point, American Journal of Food Technology, 2: 145-152.
     Google Scholar
  18. Welearegay, H., Yilma, Z. & Giorgis, Y.T. (2012). Hygienic practices and microbial quality of raw milk produced under different farm size in Hawassa, Southern Ethiopia, Agricultural Research and Reviews Vol. 1(4):132 – 142.
     Google Scholar
  19. Donkor E S, Aning K G, Omore A, Nurah G K, Osafo E L K and Staal S (2007) Risk factors in the Hygienic quality of milk in Ghana. The Open Food Science Journal 1 6-9.
     Google Scholar
  20. Kuma A, Abdisa M and Tolossa D (2015) Evaluation of hygienic status and marketing system of raw cow milk in different critical points of Oromia special zone. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research 15 21-30.
     Google Scholar
  21. O‟Connor, C. B. (1995). Rural Dairy Technology. ILRI Training Manual 1. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: International Livestock Research Institute.
     Google Scholar
  22. Milk testing and payment system, Resource book, FAO, 2009.
     Google Scholar
  23. Kurwijila, R. L., Hansen, K. K., Macha, I. E., Abdallah, K. and Kadigi, H. J. S. (1992): The bacteriological quality of milk from hand and machine milked dairy herds in Morogoro, Tanzania. African Livestock Research. 2: 59-67.
     Google Scholar
  24. Godefay, B., and Molla, B., (2000): Bacteriological quality of raw milk from four dairy farms and milk collection centres in and around Addis Ababa. Berl. Münch. Tierärztl.Wschr. 113:1-3.
     Google Scholar
  25. Abeygunawardana DI, Ranasinghe RMSBK and Deshapriya RMC, 2017, Hygienic practices and quality of raw milk produced in a small scale dairy farming area in Sri Lanka, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 7, July 2017 72 ISSN 2250-3153.
     Google Scholar
  26. Vairamuthu S, Sinai J and Agalingam K (2010) Factors Influencing production of Hygienic raw milk by small scale dairy producers in selected areas of Jaffna district. Tropical Animal Health Production 42 357-362.
     Google Scholar
  27. Senarath H.M. I. G. A. M. K. and Adikari A. M. J. B., 2017, Microbiological Quality of Raw Milk at Selected Chilling Centers in Anuradhapura District of Sri Lanka, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 11, November 2017 328 ISSN 2250-3153.
     Google Scholar
  28. Moon, J. S., YiSeok, J., SukKyung, I., BokGyeong, K., HyunMi, K., GumChan, J., JongMan, K., and OkKyung, K., (2000): Effects on improvement of milk quality after application of payment system by hygienic quality of raw milk from dairy cow in Korea. Korean Journal of Veterinary Public Health. 24(3): 223-229.
     Google Scholar
  29. Wallace, R. L., (2009): Bacteria count in raw milk. Accessed on 19th June 2012 athttp://www.livestocktrail.illinois.edu/uploads/dairynet/papers/Bacteria%20Counts%20in%20Raw%20Milk%20DD%202008.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  30. Abdalla, M.O.M., and Elhagaz, F.M.M., (2011): The impact of applying some hygiene practices on raw milk quality in Khartoum state, Sudan. Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences. 7 (2):169-173.
     Google Scholar
  31. Islam T B M M, Summy M, Mandal M N A and Uddin G M N (2013) Rapid estimation of quality of raw milk for its suitability for further processing in dairy industries of Bangladesh. International Journal of Dairy Science 8 111.
     Google Scholar
  32. Milk training guide for small scale informal traders in Kenya (2004): Improve the quality of your milk and please your customers-.accessed at http://www.ilri.org/Link/Publications/Publications/MilkHygieneGuide-Trader.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  33. Food and Agricultural Organization, (1979): Manuals of Food Quality Control. 4. Microbiological Analysis. FAO, Rome.
     Google Scholar
  34. Dahal, L.R., Dainik, B., Nepali, K., and Ramashish, S., (2010): Total bacterial counts of raw milk in Eastern Terai of Nepal. The Journal of Agriculture and Environment.11:46-50.
     Google Scholar
  35. Tammy (2009), milk processing and quality management, society of dairy technology, United Kingdom.
     Google Scholar
  36. O’Connor, C. B. (1993). Traditional cheese making manual ILCA (Internatinal livestock center for Africa) Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 43pp
     Google Scholar
  37. http://www.iftbu.org/milk.htm
     Google Scholar
  38. Young, C. W., J. K. Hillers, and A. E. Freeman. 1986. Production, consumption, and pricing of milk and its components. J. Dairy Sci. 69:272.
     Google Scholar
  39. Wedholm, A., Larsen, L.B., Lindmark Månsson, H., Karlsson, A.H. & Andrén, A. (2006). Effect of Protein Composition in the Cheese-Making Properties of Milk from Individual Dairy Cows. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 3296-3305.
     Google Scholar
  40. Walstra et. al., Dairy science and technology. 2nd ed. 2006.
     Google Scholar
  41. Tancin, V., Uhrincat, M., Macuhova, L. & Bruckmaier, R.M. (2007). Effect of pre-stimulation on milk flow pattern and distribution of milk constituents at a quarter level. Czech Journal of Animal Science 52(5), 117-121.
     Google Scholar
  42. Goff, H.D. and W, A.R. 1993. Chemistry and physics. In Hui, Y.H. (ed.), "Daky Science and Technology Handbook. Volume Y, Chapter 1. VCH Publishers,Inc., New York.
     Google Scholar
  43. Zinash, S. Seyoum, B. Michalak, B.W. and Teshome, K. (1988). Observations on the fat and protein contents of the milk of crossbred and local cows. In: Proceedings of the second National Livestock Improvement Conference, 24-26 February, Addis Ababa Ethiopia. Pp. 124-126.
     Google Scholar
  44. Vanden Berg, J. C. T. (1988). Dairy Technology in the tropic and subtropics. Center for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation (Pudoc). Wagneningen, the Netherlands, 290pp.
     Google Scholar
  45. Suman CL,Sexana MM, Pandy HS, Dubey PC,Rajendra s,Sanyal MK(1998), Some factors affecting milk constituents yield of murah buffalo. Indian vet. J 75(2). 176- 177.
     Google Scholar
  46. https://www.quora.com.
     Google Scholar