Aim: The present study was carried out to explore the potential source of contamination and the efficacy of different washing practices towards quality milk production.Materials and Methods: Probable sources of contamination viz. stored water, potable water, milker's hands, milking pail, udder of individual buffalo and milk cans were subjected to different types of bacterial counts before the actual experiment to start. Twenty milch buffaloes thereafter were divided randomly into four treatment groups where washing was performed in each step viz. milker hands, udder of individual buffalo, milking pail and milk cans before milking either with water (T 0 : stored water, T 1 : potable water) or sanitizers (T 2 : 200 ppm chlorine solution, T 3 : 50 ppm iodophore solution) for 60 days. Bacterial counts again were performed for last 5 alternate days for all the sources involved along with the microbial load of raw milk. Data obtained were subjected to standard statistical analysis.Results: It was found that for all bacterial count stored water contributed significantly higher as compared to the potable water. Among the other potential sources of contamination (log/6 cm 2 ), standard plate count (SPC) and coliform count were significantly highest for milking pail (6.73±0.02) and udder of milch buffaloes (3.77±0.12), respectively, while for Staphylococci count both milking pail (3.24±0.02) and milking can (3.22±0.04) were contributed maximally (p<0.05) than others. Washing with stored water contributed significantly (p<0.05) more microbial load from all possible sources of contamination and too reflected on milk quality (SPC: 7.87±0.04, coliform: 4.06±0.46 and Staphylococci: 3.41±0.01) than the other washing treatments, which are followed by washing with potable water. Both the sanitizers were significantly better than the washing with the water but remained statistically similar (p>0.05) for most of the parameters, even for the raw milk quality. Conclusion:Study revealed that milker hands, milking pails, udder of animals, milk cans and stored water used for washing of equipment are the potential source of contamination in raw milk. These were counted as critical point which needs attention for the production of high-quality milk. Potable water was found to be better than stored water. The use of either chlorine 200 ppm and iodophor 50 ppm is highly effective in reducing the bacterial population for quality milk production.
Aim:The present study was conducted to investigate the effect of species, breed and age on bacterial load in fresh and frozen semen of Cattle and Buffalo bull.Materials and Methods:Present study covered 56 cow and 10 buffalo bulls stationed at Central Semen Station Anjora, Durg (Chhattisgarh). Impact of breeds on bacterial load in semen was assessed using six breeds of cattle viz. Sahiwal, Gir, Red Sindhi, Tharparkar, Jersey and Holstein Friesian (HF) cross. Cow bulls were categorized into four different groups based on their age (<4 years, 4-5 years, 5-6 years and > 6 years) to study variation among age groups. Bacterial load was measured in fresh and frozen semen samples from these bulls using the standard plate count (SPC) method and count was expressed as colony forming unit (CFU) per ml of semen.Results:Higher bacterial load was reported in fresh (2.36 × 104 ± 1943 CFU/ml) and frozen (1.00 × 10 ± 90 CFU/ml) semen of cow bulls as compared to buffalo bulls (1.95 × 104 ± 2882 and 7.75 × 102 ± 160 CFU/ml in fresh and frozen semen, respectively). Jersey bull showed significantly higher bacterial count (p < 0.05) both in fresh (4.07 × 104 ± 13927 CFU/ml) and frozen (1.92 × 103 ± 178 CFU/ml) semen followed by HF cross, Sahiwal, Gir, Red Sindhi and Tharparkar bull. Bulls aged < 4 years and more than 6 years yielded increased bacterial load in their semen. Although a minor variation was reported between species and among age groups, no significant differences were measured.Conclusion:Bacterial load in semen did not differ significantly between species and age groups; however significant variation was reported among different breeds. Bulls of Jersey breed showed significantly higher bacterial load in semen as compared to the crossbred and indigenous bull.
Aim:The present investigation was conducted to locate the critical sources of bacterial contamination and to evaluate the standard sanitation protocol so as to improve the hygienic conditions during collection, evaluation, and processing of bull semen in the Semen Station.Materials and Methods:The study compared two different hygienic procedures during the collection, evaluation and processing of semen in Central Semen Station, Anjora, Durg. Routinely used materials including artificial vagina (AV) inner liner, cone, semen collection tube, buffer, extender/diluter, straws; and the laboratory environment like processing lab, pass box and laminar air flow (LAF) cabinet of extender preparation lab, processing lab, sealing filling machine, and bacteriological lab were subjected to bacteriological examination in two phases of study using two different sanitary protocols. Bacterial load in above items/environment was measured using standard plate count method and expressed as colony forming unit (CFU).Results:Bacterial load in a laboratory environment and AV equipments during two different sanitary protocol in present investigation differed highly significantly (p<0.001). Potential sources of bacterial contamination during semen collection and processing included laboratory environment like processing lab, pass box, and LAF cabinets; AV equipments, including AV Liner and cone. Bacterial load was reduced highly significantly (p<0.001) in AV liner (from 2.33±0.67 to 0.50±0.52), cone (from 4.16±1.20 to 1.91±0.55), and extender (from 1.33±0.38 to 0) after application of improved practices of packaging, handling, and sterilization in Phase II of study. Glasswares, buffers, and straws showed nil bacterial contamination in both the phases of study. With slight modification in fumigation protocol (formalin @600 ml/1000 ft3), bacterial load was significantly decreased (p<0.001) up to 0-6 CFU in processing lab (from 6.43±1.34 to 2.86±0.59), pass box (from 12.13±2.53 to 3.78±0.79), and nil bacterial load was reported in LAFs.Conclusion:Appropriate and careful management considering critical points step by step starting right from collection of semen to their processing can significantly minimize bacterial contamination.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.