|
|
||||||||


* Department of Health and Safety, and
Department of Processing, NIZO Food Research, PO Box 20, 6710 BA Ede, The Netherlands
Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 8129, 6700 EV Wageningen, The Netherlands
1 Corresponding author: marc.vissers{at}nizo.nl
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Key Words: modeling butyric acid bacteria farm management
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
To prevent late blowing, cheese manufacturers have 3 options: 1) encourage farmers to reduce the contamination level in farm tank milk (FTM), 2) add nitrate and lysozyme to cheese milk to prevent growth of BAB, and 3) remove 95 to 99% of the spores during cheese production via bactofugation (Stadhouders, 1990; Waes et al., 1990). In the Netherlands, farmers are encouraged to control FTM contamination with BAB via a penalty system. In this system, farmers receive a deduction on milk price when the contamination level of BAB spores in FTM at the point of delivery results in 2 BAB-positive samples of 0.1 mL FTM (Berg et al., 1989). After introduction of this penalty system, the fraction of penalized samples declined from approximately 7% in the 1980s to 2% in the mid-1990s. Since then, the fraction of penalized samples has remained more or less constant (MCS, 2001).
Butyric acid bacteria spores present in FTM originate from the farm environment. The spores are naturally present in soil but during daily practice, silage and other feeds such as brewers grain and hay also act as sources of contamination. Butyric acid bacteria are transmitted from these sources to the FTM via a number of steps. Feces are considered the main carrier in the contamination pathway (Bergere et al., 1968). Along the contamination pathway, microbial transmission, growth, and inactivation take place. A farmer can reduce the contamination level of FTM via 1) minimization of the introduction of BAB to the farm environment, 2) minimization of transmission, 3) minimization of growth, and 4) maximization of inactivation. However, a farmer has to take into account that the achieved FTM contamination level also depends on factors the farmer cannot control, such as the contamination level of soil.
Numerous studies have been performed to identify measures to control the contamination of FTM with BAB (Bergere et al., 1968; Stadhouders and Jørgensen, 1990). Identified measures relate to feed quality, cattlehouse hygiene, and milking practices. The recommendation is to take various measures in all steps of the contamination pathway. However, practice shows that farmers are not able to take measures in all steps and tend to focus on specific steps, do not agree on which measures are most efficient, and interpret good hygiene guidelines differently. Consequently, high concentrations of BAB in FTM still occur. The Dutch dairy industry wants to ensure a contamination level in FTM of less than 1 BAB spore/mL in all cases. To achieve this, farmers need practical definitions of control measures and quantitative insight into the effectiveness of these measures.
Food safety risk assessment (Cassin et al., 1998) and industrial processing (De Jong et al., 2002) frequently apply mathematical modeling to quantitatively identify control strategies. This paper is an attempt to apply a similar modeling approach to the contamination of FTM with BAB. The objective was to quantitatively identify an effective control strategy in practical and measurable terms.
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In this translation, the 3 sources of contamination (soil, silage, and other feeds) correspond to raw materials. Silage comprises grass and corn silage; other feeds comprise all possible feeds fed to the cows other than silage, such as concentrates, brewers grain, and hay. Silage and the other feeds are mixed (unit operation 1) and placed in front of the cows. The period between the mixing of the feed ration and consumption of the ration by a cow is a storage (unit operation 2) period. During storage, growth of BAB can occur when conditions such as temperature, pH, and availability of nutrients are favorable. In the digestive tract of the cows, the larger part of the feed is consumed but BAB spores survive and are excreted in the feces. This means that spores are concentrated (unit operation 3) during transmission from feed to feces. During excretion and lying down, contaminated feces and soil attach to the surface of the udder teats. In this paper, the mixture of attached soil and feces is referred to as dirt. The contamination of teats with dirt then relates to 2 unit operations, mixing (unit operation 4) of soil and feces into dirt and cross-contamination (unit operation 5) between dirt and teats. Before milking, a farmer can pretreat the teats to remove (unit operation 6) spores. The remaining spores are diluted (unit operation 7) in the raw milk during milking. Via the milkline, contaminated milk is transferred to the farm tank, where the milk of all cows from a number of milkings is mixed (unit operation 8) before transportation to the dairy plant.
The Simulation Model.
For model development, translation of the contamination pathway into a chain of unit operations has the advantage that predictive microbial models are available to describe the effect of unit operations on microbial behavior. All variables in these predictive models can be related to processing parameters or product characteristics. This makes it possible to evaluate different control strategies in practical and measurable terms.
In the Netherlands, the FTM transported to the dairy plant is a collection of milk yields of individual cows from 6 successive milkings over 3 d. Therefore, the model developed simulates the FTM contamination level after 6 milkings. Predictive microbial models used to calculate the FTM contamination level (CFTM) are listed in Table 1
. The simulation model first calculates the number of BAB transmitted to the FTM of each cow during each milking (Ni,k; unit operations 1 to 6). Then, the FTM contamination level after 6 milkings (CFTM) is calculated based on Ni,k and the milk yield (Vmilk,i,k) of the different cows during the different milkings.
|
), which could be relevant for the growth in the feed ration. With the gamma concept of Zwietering et al. (1996), the growth rate µ was estimated. The gamma concept was chosen because the effects of temperature and pH can be separated, and parameter values (Tmin, Topt, pHmin, pHopt, pHmax, and µmax) are available in the literature. Table 2
|
Model Variables.
The model distinguishes between controllable and uncontrollable variables. A variable was considered controllable when a farmer can directly influence the value via management or can measure the variable easily, and respond to the results of this measurement. Worst, optimal, and average values currently applicable to common farm practices in the Netherlands were retrieved from published data and opinions from experts in the Dutch dairy industry. Table 3
shows these values. In this respect, worst and optimal refer to the direction of the effect of the variable on the FTM contamination level (worst settings result in higher contamination levels; optimal settings result in lower contamination levels).
|
|
Model Simulations
The simulation model was programmed in Microsoft Excel (2002 version, Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA). The Excel plug-in @Risk (2002 version, Palisade Corp., Newfield, NY) was used to implement the distributions of the uncontrollable variables. Simulations were performed using Latin hypercube sampling. Each simulation comprised 2,500 iterations.
The following assumptions apply to the programmed model and performed simulations:
) was assumed to be 8 log10 BAB/g. | RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
To validate observed trends, the simulation results were discussed with experts from the field. In qualitative terms, the observed trends corresponded with the experience of the experts and did not conflict with practice. The quantitative validation of the predicted contamination levels and qualitative validation of observed trends showed the reliability of the developed simulation model.
Identification of Important Controllable Variables
To identify the most important controllable variables, the mean FTM contamination level was first simulated with the value of all controllable variables fixed on their average values (Table 3
). Then, for each controllable variable, 2 additional simulations were performed. In the first simulation, the mean FTM contamination level was calculated with the value of the specific controllable variable fixed on its worst value, and the other controllable variables fixed on their average value. In the second simulation, the same procedure was repeated but with the value of the controllable variable fixed on its optimal value.
Figure 1
shows the calculated mean FTM contaminations levels for all controllable variables. Controllable variables are represented in order of decreasing contamination level for the worst-case scenario. For the effect of the variation of the average silage contamination level, a separate y-scale was used because the impact of this controllable factor exceeded, by far, the impact of the other factors.
|
For the pretreatment strategy, the calculated FTM contamination level for the average and optimal scenarios are almost equal. This implies that little can be gained from pretreatment of slightly contaminated cows. Compared with the average situation, it is most effective to remove highly contaminated cows from the herd and to apply a more severe pretreatment method (~90% removal).
Identification of Important Uncontrollable Variables
To determine the most important uncontrollable variables, the values of all controllable variables were fixed at their average value and the values of all uncontrollable variables, except the one under investigation, were fixed on their most likely value. The mean, and 5 and 95% values of the FTM contamination level were then calculated. For comparison, an additional simulation was performed with all uncontrollable variables varying according to their distribution.
Figure 2
shows the results, with error bars representing the difference between the mean and percentile values. The variables are presented in order of decreasing difference between the 5 and 95% percentile values. The larger this difference, the more important the specific uncontrollable variable is for the achieved FTM contamination level. Figure 2
shows the natural variation of the silage contamination level (NV-C-Silage) to be the most important uncontrollable variable.
|
The results were plotted in a graph with the average silage contamination on the x-axis and the FTM contamination on the y-axis; error bars represent the 5 and 95% percentile values (Figure 3
). This graph also shows the desired FTM contamination level (1 BAB/mL). The 95% percentile value is important because the industry wants to assure that FTM contamination is below the desired level at all times. Figure 3
shows that feeding silage with an average contamination level above 5 log10 BAB/g should be avoided. Average management is sufficient when the mean silage contamination is 3 log10 BAB/g or lower. Between 3 and 5 log10 BAB/g, additional measures compared with average management are needed; for example, removal of highly contaminated cows or another pretreatment method (see Figure 1
).
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
For a number of variables in the developed model, expert opinion was needed to obtain variable values. Inclusion of expert opinion often increases uncertainty of model predictions. Figure 1
and 2
show that, although large differences for worst and optimal values were applied, only pretreatment strategy and fraction of highly contaminated cows had moderate effects on the predicted FTM contamination level. However, the impact of these 2 variables (~0.5 log10 difference between highest and lowest value) is much less than the impact of the silage concentration (~5 log10 difference between highest and lowest value).
Empirical results of Bergere et al. (1968) showed that feeding silage could result in increased contamination of FTM with BAB. They concluded that feeding high quality silage is most important in controlling the contamination level, but that measures at other steps in the contamination pathway are also necessary. Dasgupta and Hull (1989) confirmed the importance of the microbial quality silage experimentally. Our simulation results correspond with these findings; the added value of the simulation model is the quantification of the importance of silage quality compared with other relevant factors.
The simulation confirmed that the first objective of a farmer should be to control the contamination level of the silage. Additional control measures are ineffective when the silage contains more than 5 log10 BAB/g on average. Dry matter content and pH of the silage during storage have been identified as important factors for the control of contamination of silage with BAB (Pahlow et al., 2003). Grass silage with high DM can be achieved via wilting of the grass before ensiling (Pauly et al., 1999). A rapid decrease of the pH can be achieved via addition of formic acid early in the fermentation process (Beaudouin, 1985).
Figure 2
indicates the importance of natural variation of the silage contamination level to the final FTM contamination level. Variation of the silage contamination level is related to the heterogeneous nature of silage (Spoelstra, 1990; Pauly, 1999). Harvesting and ensiling practices influence the heterogeneity of the silage and therefore offer a possibility to further control the contamination of the FTM with BAB. In practice, other risk factors mentioned with respect to high levels of BAB in silage are the initial contamination of silage with soil and the deterioration of silage during the feed-out phase. Currently, further research is being performed to identify which of these factors (pH, DM, heterogeneity, initial contamination, and deterioration) impose the highest risk for the contamination of silage fed, and which factors or combinations of factors are the most practical indicators for the silage contamination level.
Bergere et al. (1968) and Stadhouders and Jørgensen (1990) emphasized the importance of hygienic milking practice for the control of the FTM contamination. Hygienic milking practice relates to the contamination of teats with dirt and the removal of the dirt during pretreatment. In this respect, cows should be prevented from lying down on dirty patches (this results in highly contaminated teats before milking); and a pretreatment method with an average efficiency of at least 75% should be applied. Moderately contaminated cows (a small amount of visible dirt) have far less impact on the contamination level of FTM. Herlin and Christiansson (1993) found no relationship between the housing system and the contamination of FTM with anaerobic spores. It can therefore be expected that the proportions of heavily and moderately contaminated cows are independent of the housing system.
Contrary to common belief in practice, soil and feeds other than silage are unimportant sources of BAB. The maximum contamination levels in these sources (3 and 4 log10 BAB/g, respectively) are generally negligible compared with the levels in silage (up to 7 log10 BAB/g). Even when only highly contaminated feeds are fed in the absence of silage feeding, average management would be sufficient to achieve the desired FTM quality.
Using data presented in Figures 1
and 3
, a general strategy to control the contamination of the FTM below 1 BAB/mL can be defined. When the average contamination level of silage is below 3 log10 BAB/g, it is sufficient to pretreat the udder teats using a method with an average efficiency of 75%. At average silage contamination levels between 3 and 5 log10 BAB/g additional measures are necessary. The most efficient additional measures are removing highly contaminated cows from the herd and improving the efficiency of the applied pretreatment method, although Stadhouders and Jørgensen, (1990) consider the most efficient pretreatment method too time-consuming. Silage with more than 105 BAB/g on average should not be fed, because at these contamination levels even optimal control of all other factors will not be sufficient to assure a contamination level below 1 BAB/mL.
| CONCLUSIONS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
There are other spore-forming microorganisms, such as Bacillus cereus, that impose problems for the dairy industry besides BAB (Te Giffel et al., 1995). When the contamination pathways for these microorganisms are known, the described approach would be beneficial for decreasing the contamination level of FTM with these microorganisms.
Received for publication May 17, 2005. Accepted for publication November 1, 2005.
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
M.-C. Julien, P. Dion, C. Lafreniere, H. Antoun, and P. Drouin Sources of Clostridia in Raw Milk on Farms Appl. Envir. Microbiol., October 15, 2008; 74(20): 6348 - 6357. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. Borreani, D. Giaccone, A. Mimosi, and E. Tabacco Comparison of Hay and Haylage from Permanent Alpine Meadows in Winter Dairy Cow Diets J Dairy Sci, December 1, 2007; 90(12): 5643 - 5650. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. M. M. Vissers, F. Driehuis, M. C. Te Giffel, P. De Jong, and J. M. G. Lankveld Short Communication: Quantification of the Transmission of Microorganisms to Milk via Dirt Attached to the Exterior of Teats J Dairy Sci, August 1, 2007; 90(8): 3579 - 3582. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. M. M. Vissers, F. Driehuis, M. C. Te Giffel, P. De Jong, and J. M. G. Lankveld Minimizing the Level of Butyric Acid Bacteria Spores in Farm Tank Milk J Dairy Sci, July 1, 2007; 90(7): 3278 - 3285. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. M. M. Vissers, F. Driehuis, M. C. Te Giffel, P. De Jong, and J. M. G. Lankveld Concentrations of Butyric Acid Bacteria Spores in Silage and Relationships with Aerobic Deterioration J Dairy Sci, February 1, 2007; 90(2): 928 - 936. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. M. M. Vissers, M. C. Te Giffel, F. Driehuis, P. De Jong, and J. M. G. Lankveld Predictive Modeling of Bacillus cereus Spores in Farm Tank Milk During Grazing and Housing Periods J Dairy Sci, January 1, 2007; 90(1): 281 - 292. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |