Improving Quality and Safety of Dairy Products: A Supply Chain Approach
Andreia Bianchini
Author
02/09/2021
Added
15
Plays
Description
Presentation given at WADPFR Winter Conference describing research related to dairy conducted at UNL.
Searchable Transcript
Toggle between list and paragraph view.
- [00:00:01.121]Hello, everyone.
- [00:00:02.670]First of all, I would like to thank Jeff
- [00:00:05.020]for inviting me to share our research
- [00:00:08.340]during this field rep conference.
- [00:00:10.593]It is a great pleasure to be here
- [00:00:13.294]and share with you all the research that we've done
- [00:00:16.620]at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
- [00:00:18.230]that is related to the quality and safety of dairy
- [00:00:21.210]in the milk production and processing chain.
- [00:00:24.170]Over the years, we have looked at production farms
- [00:00:27.150]and processing facilities,
- [00:00:28.827]and the combining formation has led us to believe
- [00:00:31.670]that there are some interventions
- [00:00:33.130]that could be applied at farm levels
- [00:00:35.850]that would be beneficial
- [00:00:36.918]in reducing spore formers associated with milk.
- [00:00:40.630]And also, that improved cleaning and sanitation protocols
- [00:00:44.530]can be extremely beneficial to the safety of dairy products.
- [00:00:49.600]Our research group at UNL,
- [00:00:52.120]has done over the years research that may contribute
- [00:00:55.325]to improved quality and safety of dairy products
- [00:00:59.470]throughout the dairy processing chain
- [00:01:01.340]that we have represented here.
- [00:01:03.660]We have investigated agricultural practices and strategies
- [00:01:08.320]to reduce mycotoxin in grains,
- [00:01:10.440]which in turn leads to improved safety in dairy products,
- [00:01:14.150]specifically related to aflatoxins.
- [00:01:17.100]Also, we have looked at practices
- [00:01:19.150]and protocols at farm level
- [00:01:21.192]that may lead to reduction of spore formers
- [00:01:23.920]associated with dairy products.
- [00:01:26.460]And while we're investigating the processing chain
- [00:01:28.890]and how spore formers are associated with it,
- [00:01:32.460]we have conducted a systematic review
- [00:01:34.960]followed by a meta-analysis of information
- [00:01:37.870]that we could find available in the literature
- [00:01:40.200]to better understand the distribution of spore formers
- [00:01:42.896]throughout the chain.
- [00:01:44.690]Also, we have looked into processing facilities
- [00:01:48.130]in regards to improving dairy quality
- [00:01:50.660]related to spore formers,
- [00:01:52.320]and also safety of dairy products related to Listeria.
- [00:01:57.290]Today, I will focus in a few of this projects
- [00:02:01.430]to share in more details with you all.
- [00:02:03.890]Starting with improving quality
- [00:02:05.930]in the dairy processing chain,
- [00:02:07.920]let's first establish why spore formers
- [00:02:11.579]are of concern in this processing chain.
- [00:02:15.778]Spore formers are heat resistant,
- [00:02:18.860]so they survive pasteurization processes,
- [00:02:22.400]and may cause issues during the shelf life of dairy products
- [00:02:26.440]by producing enzymes that can cause quality defects
- [00:02:30.690]and also spoilage.
- [00:02:32.330]The two main genus that are associated with this problems
- [00:02:36.960]are Bacillus and Paenibacillus.
- [00:02:39.030]And among these organisms,
- [00:02:41.270]we can find psychrotrophic, mesophilic
- [00:02:44.520]and thermophilic strains,
- [00:02:46.130]which means that they can grow at refrigeration,
- [00:02:49.400]ambient or higher temperatures.
- [00:02:52.507]In general, the psychrotrophic spore formers
- [00:02:56.460]limit the shelf life of fluid milk,
- [00:02:59.940]because of their ability to grow
- [00:03:01.500]under refrigeration conditions,
- [00:03:03.440]even though they're usually found in milk at very low levels
- [00:03:07.240]at the beginning of the shelf life.
- [00:03:09.340]And the mesophilic and thermophilic spore formers
- [00:03:12.342]are usually found at higher levels in fluid milk,
- [00:03:16.350]and then may affect the quality of powdered products.
- [00:03:20.420]For in these products, limits on spore former counts
- [00:03:24.220]are applied nationally and internationally,
- [00:03:27.310]and in order to produce powders
- [00:03:29.540]that are acceptable to these markets,
- [00:03:33.080]the level of spores in milk must be as low
- [00:03:36.100]as 10 to 50 colony forming units
- [00:03:39.780]per mil of the raw fluid milk.
- [00:03:43.760]And from research and literature,
- [00:03:46.430]we know that these microorganisms have been associated
- [00:03:49.460]with every aspect of the farm.
- [00:03:52.540]The feed that is used, the fecal material,
- [00:03:55.177]raw milk, teats, soil and bedding,
- [00:03:57.730]everywhere in the farm, we can find these organisms.
- [00:04:00.890]And indeed, in Nebraska,
- [00:04:02.720]we were able to verify the occurrence of these spore formers
- [00:04:06.370]in association with all the different areas of the farm,
- [00:04:10.060]as we can see here in this chart.
- [00:04:12.000]The levels that were found initially in raw milk,
- [00:04:15.770]and also in milk that had been pasteurized
- [00:04:18.300]and stored for 21 days.
- [00:04:23.040]We also can see in this chart,
- [00:04:25.100]that some areas of the farm, like the pens, for example,
- [00:04:30.260]have higher levels of spore formers
- [00:04:33.202]when compared to the parlor,
- [00:04:35.850]which is usually a cleaner environment,
- [00:04:38.360]but nonetheless, not free of spore formers.
- [00:04:41.800]If environmental samples are taken
- [00:04:44.320]from processing facilities, dairy processing facilities,
- [00:04:47.830]we still can find spore formers.
- [00:04:49.890]And most importantly,
- [00:04:51.250]these spore formers are able to survive pasteurization,
- [00:04:55.662]and can be found on pasteurized samples
- [00:04:59.270]after 21 days of storage.
- [00:05:01.650]So, by isolating those microorganisms
- [00:05:04.690]that were found in pasteurized milk
- [00:05:08.440]and looking at their genetic profile,
- [00:05:10.900]we were able to find their sources.
- [00:05:13.870]and we matched those,
- [00:05:16.340]we found the source by matching the sequence
- [00:05:18.448]of a specific gene.
- [00:05:21.190]In this case, we were studying the rpoB gene.
- [00:05:24.510]So, isolates that were obtained from fluid pasteurized milk
- [00:05:28.802]were then matched to those collected
- [00:05:30.980]throughout the fluid milk chain,
- [00:05:33.260]helping us identify the source.
- [00:05:35.000]And here, in this slide,
- [00:05:36.500]we can see all the different spore formers
- [00:05:39.210]that were tied back all the way to the farm environment,
- [00:05:42.870]the ones that were tied back to the raw milk
- [00:05:45.810]that had been supplied to a processing facility,
- [00:05:49.610]and those organisms that were tied back
- [00:05:54.340]to the different areas of that processing facility,
- [00:05:58.555]like tanks and the bottling machine.
- [00:06:02.113]So we know that the issue persists throughout the chain.
- [00:06:05.900]Let's look now further,
- [00:06:07.710]by taking a backwards approach to the processing chain,
- [00:06:11.410]starting at the processing facilities.
- [00:06:15.290]In Nebraska, we conducted a study
- [00:06:17.280]involving a facility that produces evaporated milk.
- [00:06:22.363]This facility receives milk from several farms in Nebraska,
- [00:06:27.600]and in this particular project,
- [00:06:29.660]we were interested in understanding
- [00:06:31.630]the fact of the processing steps
- [00:06:34.359]on the levels of spore formers.
- [00:06:38.190]Based on the data that we collected,
- [00:06:40.610]the amount of spores associated with the product
- [00:06:42.924]increased with each step,
- [00:06:45.640]with average contamination going from less than 1 log CFUs,
- [00:06:52.050]colony forming units, per mil of raw milk at the farm,
- [00:06:55.745]to about 2 log CFU per mil after condensation of the milk.
- [00:07:02.580]Now, if we compare those values
- [00:07:04.500]with the expectations of the market,
- [00:07:06.690]we need to take into account the condensation step
- [00:07:10.080]going from condensed milk to dry powder milk.
- [00:07:14.560]So if we look at the market expectations from dry powder,
- [00:07:18.995]we have values of 2.7 log CFU per grams.
- [00:07:24.550]And if we consider the amount of water
- [00:07:26.940]that is removed from condensed milk to dry powder milk,
- [00:07:30.520]the levels that we would expect in that condensed milk
- [00:07:33.280]should be 2.1 log CFU.
- [00:07:36.870]And then in the pasteurized milk, 1.7 log CFU.
- [00:07:42.690]As we can see here in the chart,
- [00:07:45.920]for the most part, the levels that we found in the products
- [00:07:49.370]were below that market expectation.
- [00:07:52.080]But the issue is that those were the average values.
- [00:07:56.320]If we consider the standard deviation,
- [00:07:58.980]we have plenty of product
- [00:08:00.810]that would not meet market expectations.
- [00:08:04.030]So, in looking for other factors
- [00:08:06.970]that may also be contributing to the problem,
- [00:08:10.080]we did a systematic review and meta analysis of data
- [00:08:14.030]that was available in the literature
- [00:08:15.510]associated with spore formers
- [00:08:17.350]at different stages of that dairy chain.
- [00:08:20.258]And from all the papers
- [00:08:22.130]that met the criteria for inclusion in this research,
- [00:08:25.540]we were able to create plots, like this one shown here,
- [00:08:29.490]that tell us the prevalence of spore formers
- [00:08:34.720]throughout the milk chain.
- [00:08:36.139]And we can see here,
- [00:08:38.650]the information goes from milking machines at the farm,
- [00:08:43.008]raw milk tanks at the farm,
- [00:08:45.400]and then transportation, so raw milk at a tank,
- [00:08:51.690]and then transportation,
- [00:08:53.131]silos at a processing facility,
- [00:08:55.593]then pasteurized milk at a processing facility,
- [00:08:58.820]and packaged milk at processing facilities.
- [00:09:02.440]So, the red dark line here
- [00:09:07.320]summarizes the means that were found
- [00:09:11.580]based on the random effects of the meta analysis.
- [00:09:15.410]And the dots sizes that we have in each of this points
- [00:09:19.620]represent the number of data points that we have
- [00:09:21.837]that were associated with those.
- [00:09:23.870]And as we can see, on average,
- [00:09:26.538]the prevalence of spore formers,
- [00:09:29.130]in other words, the percentage of samples
- [00:09:31.510]that are contaminated with spore formers
- [00:09:33.730]increases as that milk travels
- [00:09:36.361]throughout that processing chain.
- [00:09:40.120]Another chart that was generated based on that research
- [00:09:46.510]is the one that I'm showing here.
- [00:09:48.200]This one now demonstrates or show us
- [00:09:51.270]the concentration of spore former bacteria
- [00:09:54.072]through out that very same milk processing chain.
- [00:09:57.830]So, the red dark line, again,
- [00:10:01.510]shows the average values for the concentration,
- [00:10:06.060]colony forming units per mil of milk
- [00:10:10.950]as the milk moves throughout that chain.
- [00:10:14.920]Another thing that we were able to calculate
- [00:10:16.930]based on this data,
- [00:10:18.160]was the percentage of contribution
- [00:10:21.070]from each of those different steps,
- [00:10:23.320]to the final amount of spore formers that we had
- [00:10:26.820]in the pasteurized milk that was coming out
- [00:10:29.940]of the packaging or the bottling machines.
- [00:10:33.050]So if we look at those contributions,
- [00:10:36.590]about 25% were added to the product during processing.
- [00:10:43.360]About 37.5 were added to the product during transportation,
- [00:10:48.960]and 37.5 were already there to start with,
- [00:10:53.580]from the farm environment.
- [00:10:55.430]So, because a significant proportion of the spores
- [00:10:58.420]are coming from the farm environment,
- [00:11:00.600]we have also focused some efforts
- [00:11:02.800]in evaluating the problem at farm level.
- [00:11:05.828]And that brings us to this step in the processing chain,
- [00:11:11.480]the dairy farm.
- [00:11:13.690]In Nebraska, specifically,
- [00:11:15.430]we have done some research over the period of one year
- [00:11:18.170]to understand the types of spore formers
- [00:11:20.970]that could be found at farm level,
- [00:11:22.800]and their distribution with the seasons,
- [00:11:25.181]to see if there was any correlation.
- [00:11:27.724]We visited four farms
- [00:11:30.530]and collected two independent milk samples
- [00:11:33.270]every month of that year.
- [00:11:35.140]This was the first of this kind of study in Nebraska.
- [00:11:39.330]So from those samples that were collected
- [00:11:41.320]throughout that year,
- [00:11:42.690]according to our results,
- [00:11:44.560]there was not necessarily a correlation
- [00:11:46.465]between spore formers found at the farms
- [00:11:49.350]and the seasons of the year.
- [00:11:51.080]As you can see, we didn't see any pattern
- [00:11:53.975]associated with the months of the year.
- [00:11:57.730]Their distribution was variable throughout that year,
- [00:12:01.170]without any evident patterns that we could identify.
- [00:12:04.435]Also, as we can see in the chart,
- [00:12:06.830]the levels of psychrotrophic spore formers,
- [00:12:09.240]which is the lightest blue,
- [00:12:12.400]were very very low in the pasteurized milk.
- [00:12:16.370]We can barely see them on the chart here.
- [00:12:19.240]There's a little bit showing in the month of March,
- [00:12:21.530]but the levels were quite low.
- [00:12:24.420]But non-negligible is we're gonna see in our next slide.
- [00:12:27.770]The majority of the spore formers
- [00:12:29.290]associated with the pasteurized milk
- [00:12:31.180]were either mesophilic or thermophilic spore formers.
- [00:12:38.280]So, after we determine the number of spore formers
- [00:12:41.340]in the lab, pasteurized milk,
- [00:12:42.870]we stored those samples under refrigeration,
- [00:12:45.370]and then we then evaluated every week
- [00:12:48.240]to see if any of those surviving spores
- [00:12:50.383]could grow under refrigeration.
- [00:12:53.190]And what we were trying to look for here
- [00:12:55.470]is for those psychrotrophic spore formers,
- [00:12:58.220]and to see if they were present,
- [00:13:00.030]and if they would start to grow
- [00:13:02.528]to the point of spoiling those pasteurized milk,
- [00:13:06.750]limiting their shelf life.
- [00:13:08.580]And as we can see, by 21 days here,
- [00:13:13.160]we had about 65% of our samples
- [00:13:16.643]showed growth that was higher than 4.3 log CFU per mil,
- [00:13:22.676]which is the limit for the PMO standards
- [00:13:26.610]for lab pasteurized milk.
- [00:13:28.020]So that indicates that the majority of the samples
- [00:13:31.010]would not comply with the PMO standards for pasteurized milk
- [00:13:35.760]by 21 days.
- [00:13:37.670]Additionally, 46% of those samples
- [00:13:41.010]had such bacteria growth that they showed visual defects.
- [00:13:45.490]So this finds indicate
- [00:13:47.180]that even though the levels of psychrotrophic spore formers
- [00:13:50.290]in the lab pasteurized milk was very low,
- [00:13:53.069]over time they multiplied under refrigeration
- [00:13:56.390]and limited the shelf life of the product.
- [00:14:00.180]So when we further evaluated the data,
- [00:14:03.150]we saw a clear pattern emerging.
- [00:14:06.730]A group of samples that did not show spoilage issues.
- [00:14:09.870]They were low from beginning to end of those 21 days,
- [00:14:14.900]and then we had another group that did show growth
- [00:14:17.505]by 21 days of storage.
- [00:14:19.973]In attempting to find the reason behind this split,
- [00:14:24.470]we decided to look at the source of those samples
- [00:14:27.096]that were falling into those two groups.
- [00:14:30.460]And we noticed that certain farms
- [00:14:32.710]had higher incidence of samples with issues,
- [00:14:37.450]while others had less of a problem.
- [00:14:40.710]For example, Farm 1 had more samples
- [00:14:44.120]that fell into the high spore counts than low spore counts,
- [00:14:49.090]while Farm 4 had more samples on the low spore counts
- [00:14:55.035]than on the high spore counts.
- [00:14:57.330]So it seems that the pattern could be associated more
- [00:15:00.730]with the practices at the farms
- [00:15:02.830]than with weather, for example,
- [00:15:04.980]as we did not see that correlation
- [00:15:06.890]throughout the year with the different seasons.
- [00:15:09.415]So with the information in mind about the farms,
- [00:15:14.170]we moved the research further,
- [00:15:16.920]and we decided to start evaluating simple interventions
- [00:15:20.690]that could be implemented at the farm level
- [00:15:22.740]that would have an impact on milk quality in general,
- [00:15:26.180]and more specifically in regards to spore formers.
- [00:15:30.593]But we still needed to consider one more factor,
- [00:15:33.780]the farmers' willingness to make changes around the farm,
- [00:15:36.657]and more importantly, their parlor.
- [00:15:39.360]So to better understand the practices used in Nebraska,
- [00:15:42.950]and what farmers would be willing to change,
- [00:15:45.448]an online survey was created
- [00:15:47.770]and distributed to farms in Nebraska
- [00:15:49.980]through the Midwest Dairy Association.
- [00:15:52.310]This survey contained questions
- [00:15:54.350]covering five areas of the dairy farm business.
- [00:15:58.580]General management of the herd, milking routine,
- [00:16:02.040]environmental conditions at the farm,
- [00:16:03.840]sanitation, and their records.
- [00:16:06.300]Even though we received
- [00:16:07.450]a limited number of replies on this survey,
- [00:16:10.420]the results were still helpful to understand the practices
- [00:16:13.668]and willingness of farmers to make changes.
- [00:16:18.173]What we learned was that farmers
- [00:16:21.920]would be willing to change things that were associated,
- [00:16:26.927]for example, with their CIP protocols and sanitizers,
- [00:16:32.530]and 71% of the respondents would participate in a study,
- [00:16:36.392]in 81% would share some records
- [00:16:39.470]of somatic cell counts, total plate counts
- [00:16:44.820]and lab pasteurized counts,
- [00:16:46.460]with researchers on their confidentiality,
- [00:16:49.120]so we could better understand what was going on.
- [00:16:52.256]Specifically about practices
- [00:16:55.080]that they would not be willing to change,
- [00:16:58.812]it was highlighted to us
- [00:17:01.090]that 80% would not change their bedding,
- [00:17:04.240]and 65% would not change their towel method,
- [00:17:08.500]which is understandable as these two last areas here
- [00:17:12.480]are much related to the management system
- [00:17:14.850]that is already implemented in the farm,
- [00:17:17.320]and changing them would require
- [00:17:19.919]a high capital investment by the farmers.
- [00:17:24.870]So with that in mind,
- [00:17:26.440]we thought about simple interventions that would be in line
- [00:17:32.151]with what farmers would be willing to change.
- [00:17:35.360]And we designed an experiment or a project around it.
- [00:17:39.470]And that consisted of selecting farms
- [00:17:42.350]that were willing to participate in the study,
- [00:17:44.910]and then establishing a microbiological baseline
- [00:17:48.950]for the raw milk samples coming out of that farm,
- [00:17:52.107]and any other relevant environmental samples.
- [00:17:55.420]So we would be looking at microbial counts
- [00:17:59.140]in raw milk samples
- [00:18:00.450]and the environmental samples coming out of that farm
- [00:18:03.820]to better understand what was going on
- [00:18:06.250]with current practices.
- [00:18:08.010]Then we would propose a change,
- [00:18:10.120]and we would implement that change,
- [00:18:12.257]and let it acclimate for a while
- [00:18:15.700]so the employees would be familiar with the practices,
- [00:18:20.610]and things would fall in place once again,
- [00:18:23.500]and then we would return to the farm
- [00:18:25.250]and collect data once again,
- [00:18:27.540]and then compare the two sets
- [00:18:29.290]to see if a change in those practices
- [00:18:32.500]would indeed improve the quality of the milk.
- [00:18:39.780]So in the interest of our time here,
- [00:18:42.270]I will detail one of the interventions that we implemented,
- [00:18:46.190]so you can all understand what went into each of them,
- [00:18:50.610]and then I'm gonna share a general result table
- [00:18:53.655]that summarizes the results
- [00:18:56.110]from all the different interventions at the different farms.
- [00:18:59.690]So the first intervention
- [00:19:01.190]that we're gonna be looking in detail here
- [00:19:04.010]is the one associated with the method used
- [00:19:06.310]for cleaning the towels
- [00:19:08.090]used for wiping the cow's teat prior to milking.
- [00:19:11.690]So for the first eight days that we visited that farm,
- [00:19:15.720]we collected samples, for example, clean towels,
- [00:19:20.870]used towels, and swabs of the cow's teats,
- [00:19:23.990]and then we evaluated them
- [00:19:26.270]for the baseline levels of spore formers.
- [00:19:29.538]And during this period,
- [00:19:31.590]the towels were washed as usual by the farm employees.
- [00:19:35.030]Then for about two weeks, the new protocol was implemented
- [00:19:38.590]Where bleach was added to their protocol of washing.
- [00:19:44.018]After the acclimation period, we then went back to the farm
- [00:19:48.122]and samples were collected once again for evaluation
- [00:19:52.620]for another period of 8 to 10 days.
- [00:19:56.508]When we brought those samples to the laboratory,
- [00:19:59.274]we had raw milk samples that were then pasteurized,
- [00:20:04.100]either at 80 Celsius degree for 12 minutes,
- [00:20:07.860]or 160 Celsius degree for 30 minutes.
- [00:20:11.770]After lab pasteurization,
- [00:20:13.520]samples were then plated in general media,
- [00:20:16.750]followed by incubation for two days
- [00:20:19.150]at 32 Celsius degree for mesophilic spore counts,
- [00:20:22.640]and 55 Celsius degree for thermophilic spore counts.
- [00:20:26.800]The samples that had been lab pasteurized
- [00:20:29.110]at a higher temperature
- [00:20:30.520]were incubated at 55 Celsius degree
- [00:20:33.900]for quantifying the thermoresistant spore counts.
- [00:20:38.970]We also treated environmental samples very similarly,
- [00:20:42.640]accepted that at the very beginning here,
- [00:20:45.140]we had a dilution step.
- [00:20:47.760]And like I said, we collected samples
- [00:20:50.380]before and after implementing interventions,
- [00:20:53.230]and we ran all those samples
- [00:20:55.670]through this microbiological analysis,
- [00:20:59.370]and then all the data was used for understanding
- [00:21:03.245]if the intervention was efficient
- [00:21:08.000]in reducing the number of spore formers or not,
- [00:21:10.540]through statistical analysis.
- [00:21:13.310]So when we look at the results for mesophilic spore counts,
- [00:21:18.030]before we have the solid blue bar,
- [00:21:21.510]and after we have the striped bars.
- [00:21:25.730]We have the results for our intervention
- [00:21:28.240]where the sanitizer was used during washing of the towels.
- [00:21:33.933]When we look at the bars,
- [00:21:36.230]the number of mesophilic spore formers
- [00:21:38.380]either remained the same,
- [00:21:40.565]and the same letters here means same results,
- [00:21:45.030]or they were reduced in some of those environmental samples.
- [00:21:48.820]And including the milk as well, they were reduced.
- [00:21:52.729]So we could conclude that the mesophilic spore formers
- [00:21:57.840]either remained the same
- [00:21:59.440]or were reduced in the environmental samples,
- [00:22:02.650]and the results that we saw in the milk were quite positive
- [00:22:07.396]because they were statistically reduced.
- [00:22:12.710]So let's look now at the thermophilic spore counts
- [00:22:15.730]and thermoresistant spore counts
- [00:22:17.530]associated with this intervention.
- [00:22:19.680]If we look at the environmental samples first,
- [00:22:22.400]for the most part, those values were significantly reduced.
- [00:22:27.380]However, when we look at the milk samples,
- [00:22:31.230]we don't quite see that difference.
- [00:22:33.180]Like no statistical difference
- [00:22:34.541]was observed for those samples.
- [00:22:38.750]When we consider the raw milk quality
- [00:22:41.790]under this new protocol,
- [00:22:44.160]no differences were noted
- [00:22:46.020]in any of the major bacterial groups of interest
- [00:22:48.950]that we were following along.
- [00:22:51.440]We didn't see any changes on total plate count,
- [00:22:54.011]Enterobacteriaceae, Coliforms or E-coli.
- [00:22:58.700]So the milk quality in general was not affected.
- [00:23:02.210]When the shelf life of the product was evaluated,
- [00:23:07.040]results showed that it was also not affected
- [00:23:10.910]in any way detrimentally,
- [00:23:12.950]indicating that the numbers of psychrotrophic spore formers
- [00:23:16.380]had also not been necessarily affected by the intervention.
- [00:23:23.010]Very similarly, an intervention
- [00:23:25.130]associated with the teat sanitizer was implemented.
- [00:23:28.900]In this intervention, the teat sanitizer
- [00:23:31.170]that originally was an iodine-based dip
- [00:23:34.440]was replaced by one that was chlorine-based.
- [00:23:37.920]The Neal dip was composed of two parts
- [00:23:40.800]that had to be mixed prior to use.
- [00:23:43.730]The reason why we proposed the use of a chlorine-based dip
- [00:23:47.310]was because information received from our contacts
- [00:23:50.520]in the milk powder industry
- [00:23:52.185]indicated that milk powder with less iodine levels
- [00:23:55.880]was more desirable in international markets.
- [00:23:58.530]So we were interested in knowing how a switch
- [00:24:01.850]from an iodine-based to a chlorine-based dip
- [00:24:05.030]would affect milk quality in general,
- [00:24:07.570]and the levels of spore formers.
- [00:24:09.565]For this type of intervention,
- [00:24:11.377]three brands of chlorine-based sanitizers
- [00:24:15.180]were independently test at different farms.
- [00:24:18.030]And the same regimen of collecting baseline data,
- [00:24:23.710]changing into the intervention,
- [00:24:25.570]and then collecting data once again,
- [00:24:27.630]was followed for this particular study as well.
- [00:24:33.580]We also had an intervention
- [00:24:35.110]associated with the clean-in-place system
- [00:24:37.250]used in the farm parlor.
- [00:24:39.470]In this intervention, the acid and base chemicals
- [00:24:43.456]used in CIP system
- [00:24:45.450]to clean the milking equipment and pipelines
- [00:24:47.980]were complimented by an oxidizer.
- [00:24:50.792]This program has been developed by Ecolab
- [00:24:54.170]for management of spore formers
- [00:24:55.940]in food processing facilities,
- [00:24:57.760]and we wanted to see if it would be useful
- [00:24:59.910]in a farm environment.
- [00:25:01.580]The implementation required an addition of a pump
- [00:25:04.650]to the existing system at the farm
- [00:25:06.730]where the tests were being done,
- [00:25:08.710]and it also required the use of hot water
- [00:25:11.240]which was already available.
- [00:25:13.340]However, all those requirements
- [00:25:15.310]limited the number of farms
- [00:25:17.000]where we could try this intervention.
- [00:25:21.650]Another intervention associated with the milking parlor
- [00:25:24.620]included the replacement of regular microfiber towels
- [00:25:28.240]with a different brand described by the manufacturer
- [00:25:31.410]as a proton microfiber towel.
- [00:25:34.170]According to the manufacturer of the proton towels,
- [00:25:36.868]they had been designed to be of higher performance
- [00:25:40.280]for cleaning and sanitation of surfaces
- [00:25:42.650]in the biomedical industry.
- [00:25:44.670]Therefore, the expectation was that perhaps,
- [00:25:48.730]they could also help with additional physical removal
- [00:25:51.940]of spore formers from cows teats.
- [00:25:56.900]And the last intervention that we evaluated
- [00:25:59.320]was associated with the bedding material used in the pens.
- [00:26:02.900]At the farm where the intervention was applied,
- [00:26:05.470]the original protocol for the bedding
- [00:26:08.040]consisted of cleaning the sand twice a week.
- [00:26:11.710]The top sand was removed from the pens and washed with water
- [00:26:16.280]while separating from the solids,
- [00:26:18.250]rocks and other materials like feces,
- [00:26:21.150]and then it finally was sun dried.
- [00:26:22.940]After the sand was dry, it was added to the pens
- [00:26:27.110]to refill them as needed.
- [00:26:29.232]The new management practice that we evaluated
- [00:26:32.283]consisted in removing that top portion
- [00:26:35.220]of the used sand as usual,
- [00:26:37.640]but completely replacing it
- [00:26:39.410]with new clean sand twice a week.
- [00:26:42.300]Due to the cost associated with this intervention,
- [00:26:44.740]and the fact that its implementation
- [00:26:46.296]is dependent upon the availability of sand at the farm,
- [00:26:49.760]this was also an intervention limited to just a single farm.
- [00:26:55.047]So, this slide gives us an idea of all the interventions
- [00:26:59.050]that were applied at the different farms
- [00:27:01.590]during the last two to three years here.
- [00:27:04.460]And as we can observe,
- [00:27:05.924]not all farms allowed us
- [00:27:07.991]to apply interventions in all areas,
- [00:27:13.311]because of their original management practices.
- [00:27:16.430]So for example, if the farm used originally,
- [00:27:21.920]disposable towels,
- [00:27:23.390]we couldn't test a washing protocol, right?
- [00:27:28.360]Similarly, if the bedding of that particular facility
- [00:27:33.520]was not sand,
- [00:27:34.910]we couldn't test that particular protocol.
- [00:27:38.130]So we worked with each farm individually
- [00:27:40.809]to maximize which protocols we could apply at their facility
- [00:27:48.622]while minimizing disruption of their work
- [00:27:53.350]during our interventions.
- [00:27:55.061]And we cannot thank enough the farmers
- [00:27:58.560]that did embarked with us in this journey.
- [00:28:01.300]Without their commitment,
- [00:28:02.610]this research would not be possible.
- [00:28:04.850]The two interventions that we see here
- [00:28:07.270]that are marked in red,
- [00:28:08.954]those that I'm pointing out on the slides,
- [00:28:11.630]they still need to be carried out,
- [00:28:13.460]since our trials were suspended
- [00:28:17.010]because of the pandemic that we're living in.
- [00:28:20.430]So we still need to go back to the farms
- [00:28:22.750]when things hopefully get a little better,
- [00:28:25.461]to finalize this research.
- [00:28:28.500]So this table summarizes all the results obtained
- [00:28:31.640]with all the interventions at the different farms.
- [00:28:34.132]The way we can look at this
- [00:28:35.790]is that the more green we see,
- [00:28:37.680]the more positive outcome that intervention provided,
- [00:28:41.370]either by reducing levels of certain types of spore formers,
- [00:28:45.370]or reducing total plate count in the raw milk,
- [00:28:49.870]or by reducing levels of spore formers in the environment,
- [00:28:53.543]or even increasing the shelf life
- [00:28:56.160]of the lab pasteurized milk.
- [00:28:58.650]So, we still have some interventions to go through,
- [00:29:02.790]like I mentioned,
- [00:29:04.040]and we still have a lot of work to do
- [00:29:06.110]to evaluate the data for all the different interventions.
- [00:29:09.670]Our goal was to use the data generated in this research
- [00:29:13.770]and combine that with a risk assessment approach
- [00:29:20.350]to evaluate how the interventions may affect
- [00:29:24.640]the quality of dairy products
- [00:29:26.530]that are made with the raw milk represented here.
- [00:29:30.210]So the idea is the facts that we're seeing on this table,
- [00:29:35.150]if we use that raw milk, then,
- [00:29:37.650]to process into dairy products and dry milk powder,
- [00:29:43.266]how much can we improve the quality of those products
- [00:29:48.260]and tie back to the interventions
- [00:29:50.190]that were done at the farm?
- [00:29:51.210]So that's a part yet of our future goals
- [00:29:54.931]with this research,
- [00:29:57.540]to make sure that we can get the most
- [00:29:59.926]out of the interventions
- [00:30:01.720]that would be applied in the farm level.
- [00:30:07.240]So based on the data that we have so far
- [00:30:09.890]and the statistical evaluation that we've done so far,
- [00:30:13.010]we could say that a towel sanitizing protocol,
- [00:30:16.524]the new CIP system, and the sand protocol,
- [00:30:22.300]all showed encouraging results.
- [00:30:24.741]The data collected using the chlorine-based teat dip
- [00:30:29.824]indicated that a replacement of iodine dip
- [00:30:34.680]could be made without detrimental consequences
- [00:30:37.410]to the milk quality in general,
- [00:30:39.640]and related to spore formers.
- [00:30:41.280]So if the farmer has a desire
- [00:30:43.820]to move from iodine into chlorine,
- [00:30:47.440]they may not prove the quality related to spore formers,
- [00:30:51.010]but they also will not detrimentally cause
- [00:30:54.250]any other issues to their raw milk.
- [00:30:56.270]So it's a switch that is feasible.
- [00:31:00.040]However, there was one brand that we tested
- [00:31:02.510]that didn't quite match up with the previous results.
- [00:31:06.890]So once again, those are not conclusive,
- [00:31:09.230]because we still need to replicate
- [00:31:10.870]some of those interventions at two of the farms.
- [00:31:14.450]Much work it's still required
- [00:31:16.070]to bring all the data together.
- [00:31:17.660]Like I said, we're hoping to use a risk assessment,
- [00:31:20.940]a quantitative risk assessment approach
- [00:31:23.020]to then make our final conclusions.
- [00:31:25.360]And so the next steps that we intend
- [00:31:28.830]in following this research
- [00:31:30.350]is to finish the interventions
- [00:31:32.330]that were missing to confirm those results,
- [00:31:34.770]and then apply the data collected
- [00:31:36.430]to that quantitative microbial risk assessment
- [00:31:39.360]to evaluate the impact of the interventions,
- [00:31:43.200]all the way to products
- [00:31:45.270]that might be made with the raw milk,
- [00:31:47.173]and then create educational tools and other materials
- [00:31:51.005]so we can transfer those information to stakeholders
- [00:31:55.590]in the form of either videos, flyers, or NebGuides
- [00:32:01.620]that we can put it all the information together
- [00:32:03.870]to inform farmers and extension educators
- [00:32:07.440]of all that we've learned.
- [00:32:10.360]So, in addition to the work we've done
- [00:32:12.580]to improve the quality throughout the processing chain,
- [00:32:15.060]we have also looked at improving
- [00:32:17.140]the safety of dairy products.
- [00:32:19.430]And under this umbrella
- [00:32:21.020]would be the work we've done at farm level
- [00:32:23.020]to prevent issues with mycotoxins,
- [00:32:25.490]and also the research related
- [00:32:27.480]to sanitation of food processing facilities.
- [00:32:31.010]At processing facilities, our projects have included
- [00:32:33.900]evaluation of cleaning and sanitation procedures
- [00:32:37.180]for cleaning tools and PPE,
- [00:32:39.722]strategies to reduce condensation issues,
- [00:32:42.710]and also evaluation of transmission of Listeria
- [00:32:47.780]within the facility.
- [00:32:49.109]Today, I will focus more specifically
- [00:32:53.130]in the cleaning and sanitation
- [00:32:54.850]of personal protective equipment,
- [00:32:56.930]and also Listeria transmission within facilities.
- [00:33:00.090]And I'll show some of that research here to you.
- [00:33:05.220]So, all of our research
- [00:33:07.690]related to sanitation and environmental cross-contamination
- [00:33:11.030]is focused on Listeria monocytogenes.
- [00:33:14.250]This is a ubiquitous foodborne pathogen
- [00:33:16.980]that has been implicated in the past decades
- [00:33:19.590]as the cause of several foodborne outbreaks.
- [00:33:22.220]And this is in some ways,
- [00:33:25.090]a result of Listeria monocytogenes
- [00:33:27.036]being able to tolerate harsh conditions,
- [00:33:31.600]as well as its ability to survive and grow
- [00:33:33.880]in different types of foods.
- [00:33:36.210]Some of those conditions are listed here.
- [00:33:38.330]For example, the organism can grow at low temperatures,
- [00:33:41.810]which becomes an issue in refrigerated products
- [00:33:44.590]like milk and other dairy novelties.
- [00:33:47.500]It can also survive a wide pH range.
- [00:33:52.880]It can grow in environments that are anaerobic or aerobic,
- [00:33:58.780]can survived in dry foods
- [00:34:00.720]with water activity as low as 0.85,
- [00:34:04.090]and can tolerate salt concentrations of up to 14%.
- [00:34:09.540]So this gives Listeria an upper hand
- [00:34:12.490]in causing issues associated with food products.
- [00:34:17.820]So no doubt, with all these survival tools,
- [00:34:20.607]Listeria has been associated with foodborne outbreaks,
- [00:34:24.540]including those associated with dairy products.
- [00:34:30.700]So, we've had outbreaks throughout history
- [00:34:34.962]since the 1985 Listeriosis outbreak
- [00:34:38.110]associated with queso fresco,
- [00:34:40.420]all the way to 2019,
- [00:34:42.550]there has been 40 confirmed major outbreaks
- [00:34:46.024]associated with Listeria monocytogenes
- [00:34:48.640]in pasteurized dairy products.
- [00:34:50.680]Examples that I wanna bring out here
- [00:34:53.128]that has been highlighted in this slide
- [00:34:55.890]would be the outbreak in 2010 to 2015,
- [00:35:00.140]which was a multi-state outbreak
- [00:35:02.430]from Blue Bell ice cream
- [00:35:04.320]that caused 10 illnesses and 3 deaths.
- [00:35:07.210]Another example that I'm gonna highlight
- [00:35:09.430]is a outbreak in Canada in 2016,
- [00:35:12.920]where pasteurized chocolate milk
- [00:35:15.464]was contaminated in the processing facility,
- [00:35:18.370]and then temperature abused,
- [00:35:20.004]and this allowed Listeria monocytogenes populations
- [00:35:23.550]to reach high levels,
- [00:35:24.810]causing 34 illnesses.
- [00:35:27.560]When these outbreaks were investigated,
- [00:35:30.560]the conclusions were quite similar.
- [00:35:32.800]Because pasteurization temperatures
- [00:35:34.940]inactivate Listeria monocytogenes,
- [00:35:37.470]the pathogen sources were usually cross-contamination,
- [00:35:40.997]unsanitary manufacturing conditions,
- [00:35:43.910]and poor hygiene practices in the processing environment.
- [00:35:47.297]Indeed, the FDA investigations
- [00:35:49.810]have used environmental sampling,
- [00:35:52.180]any it has confirmed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes
- [00:35:56.172]in association with these outbreaks
- [00:35:58.210]and equipment present in those facilities.
- [00:36:04.240]Historically, Listeria species in Listeria monocytogenes
- [00:36:07.999]have been both isolated from a variety of sites
- [00:36:11.810]in dairy manufacturing plants.
- [00:36:13.810]These bacteria are most frequently found
- [00:36:17.250]in moist environment areas
- [00:36:18.735]where condensation and water are available.
- [00:36:24.507]So this would include food contact surfaces
- [00:36:28.000]like cheese forms, working benches and conveyors,
- [00:36:32.030]brushes that are used to wash cheese, and gloves.
- [00:36:35.303]It can also be found in non-food contact surfaces,
- [00:36:39.250]such as drains, floors and coolers.
- [00:36:41.950]It's ubiquitous presence
- [00:36:44.103]leads to the potential for contamination
- [00:36:47.430]of the food processing environment
- [00:36:49.610]where occurrence and persistence of Listeria monocytogenes
- [00:36:53.150]is frequent.
- [00:36:55.092]Once the pathogen has been established
- [00:36:57.800]in the processing facility,
- [00:36:58.730]it can be easily carried out
- [00:37:00.550]through all the environment by personnel,
- [00:37:02.910]and quite often, personal protective equipment
- [00:37:05.306]may be a vehicle for this.
- [00:37:07.627]PPE, such as gloves, aprons and boots
- [00:37:10.690]are essential in the food industry.
- [00:37:12.720]When they're used properly,
- [00:37:14.700]in addition to protect the workers,
- [00:37:17.320]it has also been proven to be crucial for product safety.
- [00:37:22.015]Generally, workers are well-informed about PPE
- [00:37:26.150]and the need to wear gloves
- [00:37:27.660]when handling hazardous chemicals or agents
- [00:37:30.720]to protect their own hands.
- [00:37:32.580]However, they may not be so well informed
- [00:37:35.030]about the issues concerning glove use
- [00:37:37.510]to avoid cross-contamination.
- [00:37:39.880]Even though the FDA advocates
- [00:37:42.050]for an appropriate glove, apron and footwear usage
- [00:37:45.630]to prevent cross-contamination during processing,
- [00:37:48.840]lack of appropriate PPE use
- [00:37:52.120]was among inspectors' main observations
- [00:37:55.240]in recent Listeria monocytogenes outbreaks.
- [00:37:59.430]As a result, we have decided
- [00:38:02.120]to evaluate Listeria innocua transmission
- [00:38:04.300]from PPE to different surfaces and food products.
- [00:38:07.900]Our goal was for the results to then be used
- [00:38:10.700]to better inform the dairy industry
- [00:38:13.020]to improve training materials,
- [00:38:14.880]and to provide quantitative data
- [00:38:16.790]for future risk assessment research around this topic.
- [00:38:20.660]So to get us there, PPE,
- [00:38:22.700]in this case gloves, aprons and boots
- [00:38:25.870]were contaminated with Listeria innocua,
- [00:38:28.260]either by a spray or an immersion type of inoculation.
- [00:38:32.651]Listeria innocua was used as a surrogate
- [00:38:35.470]for Listeria monocytogenes
- [00:38:37.191]due to biosafety considerations.
- [00:38:40.260]The inoculation procedure was done
- [00:38:43.890]to achieve a bacterial population of 7 logs CFU
- [00:38:48.530]per square inch of that PPE.
- [00:38:50.759]And then after inoculation, the PPE was allowed to dry.
- [00:38:55.833]The objective of the experiment was to assess
- [00:38:58.800]consecutive transfer from that contaminated PPE,
- [00:39:03.750]to food contact and non-food contact surfaces.
- [00:39:08.090]So we had consecutive touches that were done,
- [00:39:11.090]and then the information was collected.
- [00:39:14.987]Depending upon the PPE,
- [00:39:18.080]different cross-contamination patterns were evaluated.
- [00:39:21.489]So we had gloves to food contact surfaces,
- [00:39:26.320]apron to food contact surfaces,
- [00:39:28.440]and boots to non-food contact surfaces.
- [00:39:32.960]So this slide now shows the summary of results,
- [00:39:36.252]and they are a average quantification of those transfers
- [00:39:40.920]after 50 consecutive touches.
- [00:39:43.605]So, we have the transfer of Listeria from the PPE
- [00:39:47.065]to all those different surfaces that we were evaluating.
- [00:39:52.180]Results indicated that listeria transfer was different
- [00:39:55.840]depending upon the PPE and the surface combination.
- [00:40:00.010]Higher transfer values were observed
- [00:40:02.210]in glove-mediated transfer,
- [00:40:05.930]and the levels were over 5 log CFU per square inch
- [00:40:10.190]in queso fresco,
- [00:40:11.500]and more than 4 logs in cheddar cheese.
- [00:40:14.810]The high levels of transfer
- [00:40:16.560]observed from gloves to queso fresco
- [00:40:18.700]could classify this combination of PPE and surface
- [00:40:22.850]as a high risk for cross-contamination
- [00:40:25.390]in a dairy environment.
- [00:40:27.496]The risk associated with the transfer
- [00:40:30.040]from gloves to fresh cheeses
- [00:40:32.500]would then justify the need
- [00:40:34.427]for more stringent food handling practices
- [00:40:37.400]when producing high moisture soft cheeses,
- [00:40:40.300]followed then by other low moisture cheeses.
- [00:40:43.640]Gloves also mediated transfer of Listeria to cutting boards,
- [00:40:48.690]and those were quantified at about
- [00:40:50.680]4 log CFU per square inch.
- [00:40:53.250]This combination of PPE and surface is also worrisome,
- [00:40:57.230]since seeing those cutting boards are food contact surfaces,
- [00:41:00.800]and their contamination could lead
- [00:41:02.710]to finished product contamination.
- [00:41:05.290]When we look at the non-food contact surfaces
- [00:41:08.202]and PPE combinations,
- [00:41:10.610]a 2.66 log was observed from aprons
- [00:41:15.360]to stainless steel coupons,
- [00:41:18.100]and 2.621 from boots to dairy tiles.
- [00:41:23.319]Based on this results,
- [00:41:24.991]these combinations could be classified
- [00:41:27.073]as medium to low risk,
- [00:41:29.070]since it involves the contact
- [00:41:30.740]of two non-food contact surfaces,
- [00:41:33.550]and lower bacterial transference.
- [00:41:37.820]Since our transmission studies confirmed Listeria transfer
- [00:41:41.440]from PPE to product and plant surfaces,
- [00:41:45.070]we saw the need to evaluate
- [00:41:46.645]effective sanitizing and cleaning procedures
- [00:41:49.800]in order to remove Listeria
- [00:41:51.453]from personal protective equipment.
- [00:41:55.141]For this research, once again,
- [00:41:57.600]gloves, aprons and boots were used,
- [00:42:00.090]and inoculated either by spray or immersion inoculation,
- [00:42:04.450]with a 7 log Listeria innocua population.
- [00:42:08.460]The PPE was inoculated using both
- [00:42:11.347]a phosphate buffer inoculum, and also a skim milk inoculum
- [00:42:16.776]to a study the impact of higher organic matter concentration
- [00:42:21.010]on the inactivation of microbial cells
- [00:42:23.260]by the chemicals that were under evaluation.
- [00:42:26.360]After this, the inoculated PPE was let to dry,
- [00:42:30.270]and multiple sanitizing and detergent agents were evaluated.
- [00:42:34.810]Three types of sanitizers commonly used in the food industry
- [00:42:37.940]were used in this study.
- [00:42:39.900]A chlorine-based sanitizer,
- [00:42:42.590]a mixture of quaternary ammonia compounds,
- [00:42:45.970]and a peroxy acid based agent.
- [00:42:50.430]The concentration of the solutions used were determined
- [00:42:53.380]depending upon the type of PPE that was treated.
- [00:42:56.390]Gloves and aprons had direct contact with food,
- [00:42:59.183]so to meet regulatory requirements,
- [00:43:01.235]the levels of quaternary ammonia and chlorine
- [00:43:06.402]did not exceed 200 PPM.
- [00:43:09.970]According to manufacturer instructions,
- [00:43:11.774]the level for the peroxyacetic acid
- [00:43:14.350]was set at 0.2% for those personal protective equipment.
- [00:43:19.340]For the boots,
- [00:43:20.173]the concentrations that were used were higher,
- [00:43:22.759]because they are notorious for having much organic matter
- [00:43:25.940]from processing plant floors associated with them,
- [00:43:29.010]which then require a higher concentration of the chemicals
- [00:43:32.120]to be effective.
- [00:43:33.400]Therefore, quaternary ammonia and chlorine based sanitizer
- [00:43:36.930]were used at 400 parts per million.
- [00:43:40.670]And the peroxyacetic acid was once again,
- [00:43:43.390]the percentage indicated by the manufacturer.
- [00:43:49.320]A water rinse was then used as a control
- [00:43:52.950]to see the effectiveness
- [00:43:54.210]of each of those different chemicals.
- [00:43:56.560]A one minute contact time was allowed
- [00:43:58.716]for each of those treatments.
- [00:44:01.600]In the interest of time,
- [00:44:02.900]I'm gonna detail the results for just one PPE,
- [00:44:06.110]and then summarize the results for all the other ones.
- [00:44:09.030]In this figure, we can observe
- [00:44:10.900]a general view of our results.
- [00:44:13.148]And when PBS was used as a carrier for listeria,
- [00:44:18.630]the peroxyacetic acid was definitely the best sanitizer,
- [00:44:23.880]achieving a 4.6 log CFU per square inch reduction.
- [00:44:28.464]However, with the same chemical,
- [00:44:30.710]only 8.88 log CFU reduction
- [00:44:33.760]was observed in the presence of skim milk,
- [00:44:36.692]indicating that the organic matter
- [00:44:39.510]greatly influenced the ability of that chemical
- [00:44:42.650]to eliminate Listeria.
- [00:44:44.650]The same trend was observed with gloves and boots,
- [00:44:47.940]where the presence of skim milk,
- [00:44:49.424]representing the organic matter,
- [00:44:51.490]diminished the anti-microbial activity
- [00:44:53.580]of the different sanitizers.
- [00:44:55.930]It is typically suggested that a 3 log reduction is needed
- [00:44:59.510]to target effect inactivation of bacteria.
- [00:45:02.496]Since the sanitizers here
- [00:45:04.187]could not reduce Listeria by that much
- [00:45:06.750]in the presence of skim milk,
- [00:45:08.420]we decided that we needed to have
- [00:45:11.830]a extensive cleaning protocol
- [00:45:13.660]in order to reduce microbial populations
- [00:45:16.136]to levels that were acceptable
- [00:45:18.781]in the presence of organic matter.
- [00:45:21.593]So we pretty much repeated the whole experiment,
- [00:45:26.040]but this time we added a cleaner and mechanical action
- [00:45:30.800]in hopes to achieve the desired 3 log reduction.
- [00:45:34.210]So we inoculated the PPE with Listeria,
- [00:45:37.750]and then we added a cleaning protocol
- [00:45:40.520]that consisted of a detergent
- [00:45:42.915]followed by a water rinse and then a sanitizer.
- [00:45:49.173]The cleaning protocol Number 2,
- [00:45:51.510]consisted in further improving that one,
- [00:45:54.350]by adding a scrubbing step
- [00:45:56.387]between the cleaning and the water rinse.
- [00:45:59.930]So protocol Number 1
- [00:46:01.440]was cleaner, water rinse and then sanitizer,
- [00:46:05.070]protocol Number 2 was detergent, scrubbing,
- [00:46:09.290]water rinse and sanitizer.
- [00:46:12.790]Cleaner Number 1 was a neutral general purpose product
- [00:46:17.960]that was used in the experiments,
- [00:46:20.090]and we also tested a cleaner Number 2,
- [00:46:23.040]which was a chlorinated alkaline cleaner
- [00:46:26.460]that helps with soil removal,
- [00:46:28.770]and was described by the manufacturer
- [00:46:30.820]as a free rinsing cleaner.
- [00:46:33.190]As a result, we had four separate combinations of treatments
- [00:46:37.375]that were evaluated at this point.
- [00:46:39.450]And the efficacy of each was evaluated by quantifying then,
- [00:46:43.830]the amount of Listeria by spread plating,
- [00:46:46.950]with an overlay that was selective
- [00:46:49.060]for our organism of interest
- [00:46:51.500]in all of those personal protective equipment.
- [00:46:58.000]So here, I'm gonna detail the results for the aprons,
- [00:47:02.370]and then we're gonna summarize for all the other PPEs.
- [00:47:05.930]In this figure we can observe
- [00:47:07.750]that the average Listeria innocua reduction in the aprons
- [00:47:12.991]using the four different treatments,
- [00:47:16.350]two cleaners with and without scrubbing,
- [00:47:20.150]shows that the higher reduction in Listeria
- [00:47:24.030]was achieved using the alkaline detergent,
- [00:47:28.090]which is the first two bars.
- [00:47:30.680]And when the scrubbing step was added,
- [00:47:33.730]even the chlorinated detergent
- [00:47:35.920]then increase its effect or efficacy.
- [00:47:40.754]This results highlight the need
- [00:47:42.700]for definitely removing soil prior to sanitizing,
- [00:47:46.810]because that's what the cleaner did here.
- [00:47:49.610]And also highlight that dependent upon the cleaner
- [00:47:53.000]that you choose to use,
- [00:47:54.521]a scrubbing step may be necessary as well
- [00:47:59.410]to achieve the reductions that are desired.
- [00:48:02.409]So one needs to be careful
- [00:48:04.250]while establishing their cleaning and sanitizing protocols,
- [00:48:07.010]as it may vary with the products that are chosen
- [00:48:09.940]for that particular job.
- [00:48:11.849]So this table now summarizes all the results obtained
- [00:48:15.700]with all the cleaning and sanitizing protocols
- [00:48:18.220]that were evaluated
- [00:48:19.750]in all the different types of PPEs
- [00:48:24.110]when organic matter was present.
- [00:48:26.450]The red color that we see
- [00:48:28.342]represents a Listeria innocua reduction
- [00:48:31.640]of less than 1 log CFU per square inch,
- [00:48:34.540]which is an indication that the sanitizer was not effective
- [00:48:38.170]in reducing the organisms of interest.
- [00:48:40.870]The orange color shows reductions
- [00:48:44.209]between 1 and 3 logs,
- [00:48:46.910]which again, indicates that using just that sanitizer,
- [00:48:51.260]which is the situation described
- [00:48:53.180]on the top of the table here,
- [00:48:55.090]is not enough to reduce
- [00:48:56.920]and inactivate Listeria to safe levels.
- [00:49:00.002]Only when the testing protocols
- [00:49:02.317]included the alkaline detergent,
- [00:49:06.950]or a chlorinated detergent and scrubbing,
- [00:49:09.530]it's when we started seeing green on our table here.
- [00:49:15.070]And the green indicates a log reduction
- [00:49:17.960]that is above 3 logs.
- [00:49:22.750]The light green indicates 3 to 5,
- [00:49:25.470]and the dark green indicates beyond 5 log reduction.
- [00:49:30.010]And it's clear that only those protocols
- [00:49:33.380]where scrubbing was included,
- [00:49:35.430]we had the highest level,
- [00:49:37.180]regardless of the type of PPE
- [00:49:39.558]that we were trying to clean and sanitize.
- [00:49:43.502]So, when we are trying to choose the protocol
- [00:49:47.137]to be used at a facility,
- [00:49:49.130]we need to make sure that we have a choice of detergent
- [00:49:55.500]and protocols that may include scrubbing
- [00:50:00.070]to maximize the reduction of Listeria,
- [00:50:03.366]and therefore ensure the safety of that PPE.
- [00:50:08.873]From all the studies that we have,
- [00:50:12.202]associated with environmental contamination
- [00:50:14.630]in dairy facilities,
- [00:50:15.930]we demonstrated that Listeria
- [00:50:18.165]can be transmitted from PPE to dairy products and surfaces,
- [00:50:22.970]even after 50 consecutive touches.
- [00:50:26.540]It also highlights the ineffectiveness
- [00:50:29.530]of different sanitizers in the presence of organic matter.
- [00:50:33.421]The transmission data also showed that
- [00:50:36.210]Listeria innocua transfer was different,
- [00:50:38.610]depending upon the combination of PPE and surface
- [00:50:42.610]that we were evaluating.
- [00:50:44.470]Bacterial transfer from PPE
- [00:50:46.665]to food contact surfaces and food products
- [00:50:50.150]were higher than those observed
- [00:50:52.937]between PPE and non-food contact surfaces,
- [00:50:57.600]emphasizing the risk associated
- [00:50:59.640]with potential cross-contamination in final products.
- [00:51:03.486]And lastly, we did observe encouraging results
- [00:51:07.091]with an extensive cleaning protocol,
- [00:51:10.080]emphasizing the need of scrubbing in cleaning steps
- [00:51:13.500]for effective Listeria control and reduction from PPE
- [00:51:18.080]in the presence of organic matter.
- [00:51:20.909]And before concluding this presentation,
- [00:51:23.520]I would like to thank once again, our farmers,
- [00:51:25.850]for their commitment and support.
- [00:51:27.570]And also we're very thankful for our funders.
- [00:51:30.160]The Agricultural Research Division
- [00:51:32.100]at University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
- [00:51:34.639]DMI and Midwest Dairy Association for grant supports,
- [00:51:38.766]and also our appreciation goes
- [00:51:42.260]to all the graduate students that over the years
- [00:51:45.290]have contributed to the accumulation of this data
- [00:51:48.170]and knowledge that I shared here today.
- [00:51:50.460]And finally, I thank the organizers of this webinar
- [00:51:53.450]for inviting me to participate
- [00:51:55.240]and share with you all our findings.
- [00:51:57.797]Thank you for your attention,
- [00:51:59.830]and if you have any questions about this presentation,
- [00:52:02.640]I would be happy to answer them now,
- [00:52:05.030]or via email later.
The screen size you are trying to search captions on is too small!
You can always jump over to MediaHub and check it out there.
Log in to post comments
Embed
Copy the following code into your page
HTML
<div style="padding-top: 56.25%; overflow: hidden; position:relative; -webkit-box-flex: 1; flex-grow: 1;"> <iframe style="bottom: 0; left: 0; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; border: 0; height: 100%; width: 100%;" src="https://mediahub.unl.edu/media/15599?format=iframe&autoplay=0" title="Video Player: Improving Quality and Safety of Dairy Products: A Supply Chain Approach" allowfullscreen ></iframe> </div>
Comments
0 Comments