Assessment of the application of an automated electronic milk analyzer for the enumeration of total bacteria in raw goat milk.

Automated electronic milk analyzers for rapid enumeration of total bacteria counts (TBC) are widely used for raw milk testing by many analytical laboratories worldwide. In Ontario, Canada, Bactoscan flow cytometry (BsnFC; Foss Electric, Hillerød, Denmark) is the official anchor method for TBC in raw cow milk. Penalties are levied at the BsnFC equivalent level of 50,000 cfu/mL, the standard plate count (SPC) regulatory limit. This study was conducted to assess the BsnFC for TBC in raw goat milk, to determine the mathematical relationship between the SPC and BsnFC methods, and to identify probable reasons for the difference in the SPC:BsnFC equivalents for goat and cow milks. Test procedures were conducted according to International Dairy Federation Bulletin guidelines. Approximately 115 farm bulk tank milk samples per month were tested for inhibitor residues, SPC, BsnFC, psychrotrophic bacteria count, composition (fat, protein, lactose, lactose and other solids, and freezing point), and somatic cell count from March 2009 to February 2010. Data analysis of the results for the samples tested indicated that the BsnFC method would be a good alternative to the SPC method, providing accurate and more precise results with a faster turnaround time. Although a linear regression model showed good correlation and prediction, tests for linearity indicated that the relationship was linear only beyond log 4.1 SPC. The logistic growth curve best modeled the relationship between the SPC and BsnFC for the entire sample population. The BsnFC equivalent to the SPC 50,000 cfu/mL regulatory limit was estimated to be 321,000 individual bacteria count (ibc)/mL. This estimate differs considerably from the BsnFC equivalent for cow milk (121,000 ibc/mL). Because of the low frequency of bulk tank milk pickups at goat farms, 78.5% of the samples had their oldest milking in the tank to be 6.5 to 9.0 d old when tested, compared with the cow milk samples, which had their oldest milking at 4 d old when tested. This may be one of the major factors contributing to the larger goat milk BsnFC equivalence. Correlations and interactions between various test results were also discussed to further understand differences between the 2 methods for goat and cow milks.

[1]  Gerson Barreto Mourão,et al.  The relationship of flow cytometry results with classical measures of bacterial counts in raw refrigerated milk , 2010 .

[2]  G. LaPointe,et al.  Molecular analysis of bacterial population structure and dynamics during cold storage of untreated and treated milk. , 2010, International journal of food microbiology.

[3]  Barbaros Özer,et al.  Functional milks and dairy beverages , 2010 .

[4]  M. Nielen,et al.  Bulk milk somatic cell counts are related to bulk milk total bacterial counts and several herd-level risk factors in dairy goats. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[5]  C. Gonzalo,et al.  Somatic cells of goat and sheep milk: Analytical, sanitary, productive and technological aspects ☆ , 2007 .

[6]  P. F. Machado,et al.  Correlation study between standard plate count and flow cytometry for determination of raw milk total bacterial count , 2007 .

[7]  G. Kumaresan,et al.  Psychrotrophic Spoilage of Raw Milk at Different Temperatures of Storage , 2007 .

[8]  R. Rocha,et al.  Genetic diversity of Gram-negative, proteolytic, psychrotrophic bacteria isolated from refrigerated raw milk. , 2006, International journal of food microbiology.

[9]  M. Tomáška,et al.  The application of flow cytometry in determining the bacteriological quality of raw sheep’s milk in Slovakia , 2006 .

[10]  D M Barbano,et al.  Influence of raw milk quality on fluid milk shelf life. , 2006, Journal of dairy science.

[11]  C. Holm,et al.  A flow cytometric technique for quantification and differentiation of bacteria in bulk tank milk , 2004, Journal of applied microbiology.

[12]  J. Blanco,et al.  Microbiological quality of raw goat's and ewe's bulk-tank milk in Switzerland. , 2003, Journal of dairy science.

[13]  B. Jayarao,et al.  Bulk-tank milk analysis. A useful tool for improving milk quality and herd udder health. , 2003, The Veterinary clinics of North America. Food animal practice.

[14]  G. Suhren,et al.  Interpretation of quantitative microbiological results. , 2000 .

[15]  A. Marcolini,et al.  Evaluation of the Bactoscan FC. 1. Accuracy, comparison with the Bactoscan 8000 and somatic cells effect. , 2000 .

[16]  T. Popham,et al.  SEASONAL VARIATION OF SOMATIC CELL COUNT AND CHEMICAL COMPOSITION IN BULK TANK GOAT MILK , 1999 .

[17]  G. Suhren,et al.  First experiences with automatic flow cytometric determination of total bacterial count in raw milk. , 1998 .

[18]  I. Klinger,et al.  Public health and the safety of milk and milk products from sheep and goats. , 1997, Revue scientifique et technique.

[19]  W. Mcnab,et al.  A comparison of the Bactoscan 8000S to three cultural methods for enumeration of bacteria in raw milk , 1997 .

[20]  B. Rohrbach,et al.  Prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes , Campylobacter jejuni , Yersinia enterocolitica , and Salmonella in Bulk Tank Milk: Risk Factors and Risk of Human Exposure. , 1992, Journal of food protection.

[21]  J. Hoolwerf,et al.  Suitability of Bactoscan for the estimation of the bacteriological quality of raw milk , 1988 .

[22]  Y. W. Park,et al.  Bacterial cell counts in goat milk and their correlations with somatic cell counts, percent fat, and protein. , 1986, Journal of dairy science.

[23]  P. Favennec,et al.  Numération automatique et rapide des bactéries du lait cru à l'aide du Bacto-Scan , 1985 .