Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RAW MILK HYGIENE-
”Influence of hygiene on raw milkquality”
National Dairynet SeminarReykjavik, 9th September 2004
Jens Petter Homleid, TINE R&D Oslo
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 2
CONTENT
BackgroundProject descriptionResultsRecommendationsOther activities
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 3
Indicators of raw milk quality: Total Plate Count – farm – tanker - silo Sensoric – farm – tanker – siloAntibiotics – tanker (Snap) –silo (Delvotest)
Bactoscan – farm – (tanker from 2004?)Spores - farmCell count - farmFree fatty acids - farmFreezing point - farmChemical composition (fat, protein) – farm
Payment according to results on theseparamentres …
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 4
Total Plate Count at farm, tanker and siloRaw milk at farm with very high microbial quality:
99 % of samples 1. class milk (TPC < 30.000/Bactocatch<175.000)
Reduced quality at reception and on silo before use(TPC pr. ml, 2003 figures):
2,8%7,3%Tanker
6,0%12,6%Silo
>300.000101-300.000
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 5
Regulatory demandsTemperature and age≤ 6oC in milk cooling tank
≤ 10oC at reception
≤ 6oC until 36 before processing
≤ 4oC until 48 hours before processing
Microbiological≤100.000 TPC in milk cooling tank
≤300.000 TPC before processing - fresh milk (TINE internaldemand (norm) ≤100.000)
From 2006 new EU hygiene
regulations
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 6
Factors influencing raw milk quality
Health and animal hygiene
Mechanical influence (milking, pumping, transport)
Temperature (from farm to silo)
Age at processing
HYGIENE – on farm, tanker and dairy
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 7
How clean is clean enough?AGE and TEMPERATURE is easy to controlHYGIENE is difficult to measure:
methods?
where to take samples (at critical sites)
Hygiene on raw milk side is more difficult to measurethan on pasteurized side:
no product samples as indirect indicator of hygiene
Possible to reduce costs on cleaning!What is ”clean enough”???
Less risk on raw milk side
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 8
Aim of the projectAchiev more knowledge and experience on raw milkhygiene and hygiene controlBenchmarking of hygienic conditionsIs there any ”general hygienic problems”?Is there any differences in hygiene (and raw milkquality) between dairies with traditional CIP and withone-phase alkaline with chemical disinfection?Is there any correlations between raw milk quality and product quality?
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 9
Project descriptionCooperation with MATFORSK (Solveig Langsrud)Visit 5 dairies (Verdal, Byrkjelo, Bergen, Vikeså and Fosheim)Activities:
Visual control with uv-lamp (Lambino)
Svab samples of equipment (and Hygicult in one dairy)
Micb. analyses of raw milk and past.milk
TPC and identification of microorganisms
Visual inspection of CIP-station, micb. analysis
Control of journales and systems
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 10
TermalMozarella, Cheddar46TMS Vikeså
TermalFresh milk standard* 105 mill fra 2003
13*TMV Byrkjelo
TermalFresh milk standard28TMØ Fosheim
ChemicalFresh milk, juice, yoghurt
46TMV Bergen
ChemicalJarlsberg, Norvegia, Gräddost, whey cheese, WPC
106TMN Verdal
Des.-methode
ProductsMill.litres
Dairy
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 11
Adjustments microbiological analysis
Dairy 1: Isolation and identification of bacteria from PCA colonies with different morphology + Hygicult
Dairy 2: Swabs in pepton water, inoculation in UHT and incuabtion → no growthDairy 3,4 and 5:
Selection for psycrotrophes (swabs in UHT-milk, incubation at 6oC)Selection for spore forming (swabs in UHT-milk, incubation 6oC, heating 63oC/30 min., incubation)
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 12
Microbiological resultsPseudomonas, Staphylococcus, Bacillus, LAB and Enterobacteriacae isolated from dairy 1Microbes mainly detected on gaskets and on visually not clean surfacesMicrobes (and dirt) in chemical disinfection soultionsCharacterization of spore forming bacetria isolated in the project (3 B. cereus and 2 B. pumilis):
all psycrotrophs, two B.cereus growth at 4oC
B.cereus most adhesive
resistant to heat and chemical disinfection
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 13
More results and recommendationsSwabbing is more efficient than contact agarPoor cleaning/fouling was detected in many differentparts of the equipment – but generally GOOD hygieneCleaning with thermal disinfection had better resultsthan cleaning with chemical disinfectionUV-lamp is a necessary and useful tool for visualinspection. Experience is required, it is laborious and a physical challengeResults from internal control should be more efficientused to detect hygienical problems
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 14
FindingsThere was no clear correlation between observedhygienic conditions and raw milk quality in silo No dairy could demonstrate correlation between TPC in milk tanker and TPC in corresponding milk in siloNo dairy had registrations showing correlation betweenTPC in milk at silo and corresponding product quality
Explanations:a) Not enough results or sufficient use of results? or
b) The hygienic quality is satisfactory to product qualitydemands?
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 15
Other resent activities to improve raw milkhygiene
BenchmarkingTechical auditsTechnical measuresFocus on internal control
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 16
BenchmarkingRegional (5 regions) and national (53 TINE Dairies)Improved raw milk quality by:
focus
comparing and competition
improved control (methods and frequence)
improved use of results
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 17
Technical auditsTechnical audits from TINE R&D
one technolgist and one technical expert1-2 days visit
ActivitiesInterviewsHygiene inspection with UV-lamp and endoscopControl of CIP-stations and CIP-reportsControl of internal quality control (follow up and results)
ResultsReport to dairyDeviations in quality system – improved ingration!!
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 18
Edge of air remover
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 19
Inlet/outlet tanker
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 20
Technical measuresStandard equipment in tankers (connections, valves, tube dimensions, pumps etc.)Improved equipment (registration of flow, pressure and temperature in MTC, air bubble detector, use of cleaninglid on all pumps, air outlet during cleaning in all air removers etc.)Focus on cleaning of pipes for inlet/outlet, air remover, tubes and filters (critical points/poor hygienic design)Focus on CIP-station (CIP-program optimized accordingto most diffcult tanker, enough flow (1 kg on eachnozzle or 24.000 l/h, CIP-methode etc)
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 21
Focus on internal control - tankersChallenges
tankers owned by external companies
control means lost time
poor standardisation of equipment
competence and understanding; drivers and technicalpersonnel
communication dairy staff - transport
knowledge and acceptance of recommendations
etc.
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 22
Focus on internal control - tankersPrevious recommendations:
TINE IKD: general hygiene inspection: 4 times a year on specifiedpoints
Insufficient and with no planned link to maintenance
Local and regional variations and initiativs
New recommendations:daily inspection/routines for driver
3rd, 6th, 12th and 36th month hygiene inspection and maintenanceby technical department
tankers included in dairy hygiene inspection rounds
TPC in condensed water from tankers (and other equipment) as trouble shooting activity
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 23
Focus on internal control - generalAvailability and knowledge of system
”Notes” for sharing recommendations, documents/routines
HACCP and prerequisits = increased focus
Registration and availability of results”Wilab” in all dairies – ONE place for registration
Access to results from TINE R&D and regional QM
Systematic use of results and follow upTrends from Wilab
Presentations from Wilab
Benchmarking more easy
Raw milk hygiene 09/09/2004 24
Is there a conclusion?No ”hot spots”No ”hokus pokus”Just focus and hard work……
…… systematic and hard work