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