Microbial Quality of Milk Available in Kathmandu Valley

Arjyal, Charu; Dahal, B N; Khadka, Bed Bahadur

doi:10.31729/jnma.475

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The coliform was present in 50% of the pasteurized milk samples, which was in harmony with the research conducted by Silva et al (2010) from Brazil. In contrary to this result, in similar research carried out in Kathmandu valley by Arjyal et al (2004), out of 140 samples of 14 different brands, coliforms were detected in all sample except one.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 81%

Bacterial Analysis of Different Types of Milk (Pasteurized, Unpasteurized and Raw Milk) Consumed in Kathmandu Valley

Acharya¹,

Bimali²,

Shrestha³

et al. 2018

TU J. Microbiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The presence of pathogenic bacteria in milk is the major public health concern resulting in food borne illness. The aim of this study is to determine the microbial quality of three different types of milk consumed in Kathmandu Valley with respect to the acceptable standard guideline and measure the antibiotic susceptibility pattern of the Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus isolates.Methods: A total of 66 samples (16 pasteurized, 25 unpasteurized and 25 raw milk) were collected from various sites of Kathmandu Valley. Those samples were subjected for total plate count and total coliform count by pour plate method. Furthermore, identification was made for the presence of E. coli and S. aureus with biochemical tests.Results: The mean total plate count (TPC) of pasteurized, unpasteurized and raw milk was 1.2X106 cfu/ml, 2.3 X 107 cfu/ml and 2.0 X 107 cfu/ml respectively. And, the mean total coliform count (TCC) of pasteurized, unpasteurized and raw milk was 2.9 X 104cfu/ml, 6.3 X 105 cfu/ml and 1.6 X 105 cfu/ ml respectively. Coliforms were detected in 50%, 84% and 56% of the pasteurized, unpasteurized and raw milk sample respectively. E. coli and S. aureus were isolated from 18.8% and 12.5% of pasteurized, 40% and 16% of unpasteurized and 20% and 24% of the raw milk samples respectively. Among total E. coli isolates (n=18), 16.7% were susceptible to ampicillin whereas 100% isolates were susceptible to other tested antibiotics. Similarly, 33.3% and 66.7% of the isolated S. aureus were susceptible to penicillin and cefoxitin respectively, whereas all S. aureus isolates were sensitive to all other antibiotics.Conclusion: The mean value of TPC and TCC of pasteurized and raw milk exceed the standard guideline by FDA. Higher total plate count and presence of coliforms (also E. coli) and S. aureus in this study necessitates the close monitoring of the pasteurization process and post pasteurization process (packaging, transportation, storage etc.).

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 81%

Bacterial Analysis of Different Types of Milk (Pasteurized, Unpasteurized and Raw Milk) Consumed in Kathmandu Valley

Acharya¹,

Bimali²,

Shrestha³

et al. 2018

TU J. Microbiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported that only about 10% of milk is estimated to be used by the recognized dairy sectors and rest (90%) goes to the informal sector, milk vendor and small dairy cooperatives out of the total milk production in Nepal (FAO, 2010). It was reported that the marketed milk in Kathmandu valley by various dairy industries were contaminated with pathogenic microorganisms (Arjyal et al, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Presence of S. aureus and an intestinal commensal E. coli indicates the alarming public health concern. To minimize the risk of milk-borne diseases, an intense study should be done to determine the microbiological quality of milk and other chemical adulterants and their public health impact (Arjyal et al, 2004). Thus, objectives of this study were to determine the bacterial contaminants as well as an admixture of adulterants in both raw and pasteurized milk marketed in Dharan.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbiological Quality and Adulteration of Pasteurized and Raw Milk Marketed in Dharan, Nepal

Limbu

Bantawa

Limbu

et al. 2020

Himalayan J. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was aimed to evaluate the quality of raw and pasteurized milk marketed in Dharan. Milk may be contaminated with pathogenic microorganisms and a mixture of several adulterants and such milk pose a risk to consumers. The study was carried out from September 2019 to January 2020. Collected samples were tested for adulterants (starch, formalin, neutralizer and table sugar) as well as microbial quality (Total Coliform count, Total Viable Count, Thermoduric Count, Escherichia. coli and Staphylococcus aureus) as per standard guideline. The adulterants starch, formalin and neutralizer were not detected in both raw and pasteurized milk. However, table sugar was present in 45% (9 out of 20) raw milk and 90% (18 out of 20) pasteurized milk. The average Total Viable Count, Total Coliform Count and Thermoduric Count of raw milk were, 59×105 CFU/ml, 14×104 CFU/ml and 5×103 CFU/ml respectively. Similarly, the average Total Viable Count, Total Coliform Count and Thermoduric Count of pasteurized milk were found to be 15×104 CFU/ml, 14×103CFU/ml and 4×103 CFU/ml respectively. E. coli was detected in 30% pasteurized milk whereas S. aureus was isolated from only 20%. Likewise, E.coli and S. aureus were found in 55% and 45% of raw milk respectively. The results of the study indicated that routine monitoring of dairy industries and raw milk vendors, awareness campaign and good hygienic practice should be promoted to upgrade the quality of raw and pasteurized milk.

show abstract

“…There are a total of 510 forage species including 50 exotic. Regmi 1982, Banwart 1989, Paudel and Tiwari 1992, Upadhyay et al 1995, Smith et al 1996, Thapa 1997, Wilson 1997, Shrestha 1999, Yami et al 2003, Upadhyay and Joshi 2003, Arjyal et al 2004, MoAC 2004, Takeda et al 2004, Sharma 2007, Christensen et al 2008, Niroula and Sing 2011, Acharya and Atreaya 2012, van Huis et al 2013, MoFSC 2014, Raut 2014, Gotame et al 2014, Aryal et al 2015, Bhattarai et al 2015, Shimada and Basnet 2015, Paudel 2017, Subba et al 2017, Gurung 2017, Wilson 2017, Husen 2019, Limbu et al 2019, FAO 2019, Suresh Wagle, Personal Comm. 2019, Ajaya Chaudhary, Personal Comm.…”

Section: Agrobiodiversity In Nepalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agrobiodiversity and its Conservation in Nepal

Joshi

Gorkhali²,

Pradhan³

et al. 2020

J. Nep. Agric. Res. Counc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nepal is a part of the world's biodiversity hotspot and ranks the 49 th in the world for biodiversity. Agrobiodiversity and its conservation status were studied through literature review, field survey, key informant survey and focus group discussion. Results of field implementation of some good practices and action research were also documented. Among 24,300 total species in the country, 28% are agricultural genetic resources (AGRs), termed as agrobiodiversity. Agrobiodiversity has six components (crops, forages, livestock, aquatic, insects and microorganisms) and four sub-components (domesticated, semi-domesticated, wild relatives and wild edible) in Nepal. Agrobiodiversity on each component exists at agroecosystem, species, variety/breed/biotype/race/strain, genotype and allele levels, within an altitude range from 60 to 5,000 masl. There are 12 agroecosystems supporting 1026 species under crop component, 510 under forage, 35 under livestock, 250 under the aquatic animal, 17 under aquatic plant, 3,500 under insect and 800 under microorganism. An estimated loss of agrobiodiversity is 40%, however, farmers have reported up to 100% loss of AGRs in some areas for a particular species. Conservation of agrobiodiversity has been initiated since 1986. Four strategies namely ex-situ, on-farm, in-situ and breeding have been adopted for conservation and sustainable utilization of AGRs. Eighty good practices including process, methods and actions for managing agrobiodiversity have been in practice and these practices come under five conservation components (sensitization, method and approach, accelerator, value and enabling environment). Within the country, 18,765 accessions of AGRs have been conserved in different kinds of banks. A total of 24,683 accessions of Nepalese crops, forages and microbes have been conserved in different international and foreign genebanks. Some collections are conserved as safety duplication and safety backup in different CGIARs' banks and World Seed Vault, Korea. Two global databases (GENESYS and EURISCO) have maintained 19,200 Nepalese accessions. Geographical Information System, Climate Analog Tool and biotechnological tools have been applied for better managing AGRs. Many stakeholders need to further concentrate on the conservation and utilization of AGRs. Global marketing of some native AGRs is necessary for sustaining agriculture and attracting young generations as well as conserving them through use.

show abstract

Microbial Quality of Milk Available in Kathmandu Valley

Cited by 9 publications

References 1 publication

Bacterial Analysis of Different Types of Milk (Pasteurized, Unpasteurized and Raw Milk) Consumed in Kathmandu Valley

Bacterial Analysis of Different Types of Milk (Pasteurized, Unpasteurized and Raw Milk) Consumed in Kathmandu Valley

Microbiological Quality and Adulteration of Pasteurized and Raw Milk Marketed in Dharan, Nepal

Agrobiodiversity and its Conservation in Nepal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About