MICROBIOLOGICAL QUALITY OF RAW MILK AND ITS PUBLIC HEALTH SIGNIFICANCE

Article Id: ARCC1448 | Page : 15 - 18
Citation :- MICROBIOLOGICAL QUALITY OF RAW MILK AND ITS PUBLIC HEALTH SIGNIFICANCE.Asian Journal Of Dairy and Food Research.2010.(29):15 - 18
Chandra Shekhar, E. Motina and Sunil Kumar
Address : College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Faizabad-224 229, India.

Abstract

A total of 60 milk samples collected from different milk vendors of different areas of the
Faizabad district were subjected to different microbial counts and antibiotic sensitivity of bacterial
isolates. Range (Mean ± SE) of different microbial counts viz., coliform, E. coli, faecal streptococci,
Staphylococcus aureus, yeast and mould, and total viable counts were found as 0.00 - 4.50 (3.00
± 1.15), 0.00 - 1.20 (0.70 ± 0.46), 1.00 - 2.80 (1.80 ± 0.64), 0.00 - 3.00 (2.10 ± 1.14), 0.00 -
2.40 (1.00 ± 0.78), and 3.80 - 7.20 (5.50 ± 0.99) log10 cfu/ml, respectively. On the basis of
different microbial counts viz., coliform, E. coli, faecal streptococci, Staphylococcus aureus,
yeast and mould, and total viable count, the milk samples of rejected category were found as
58.33%, 50%, 51.67%, 56.67%, 41.60%, and 53.33%, respectively. E. coli; Salmonella spp.;
Klebsiella pneumoniae; Proteus ammoniae; Campylobacter jejuni; Staphylococcus aureus and
Bacillus cereus isolated in this study showed highest sensitivity against norfloxacin and ofloxacin
(93.33% each); amikacin, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin and chloramphenicol (100% each); ofloxacin
(100%); gentamicin (100%); ofloxacin (75%); enrofloxacin (91.43%) and amikacin (100%),
respectively. Moreover, some isolates of E. coli, Salmonella spp. and Campylobacter jejuni showed
multiple resistance against some antibiotics.

Keywords

Milk Microbial counts Bacterial isolates Antibiotic sensitivity

References

  1. APHA (1984). In: Compendium of Methods for the Microbiological Examination of Foods, 2nd Ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C.
  2. Bauer, M.R. et al. (1966). Amer. J. Clin. Pathol. 45:493-496.
  3. Chandra Shekhar and Sunil Kumar. (2008). Indian Vet. J. 85:633-635.
  4. Collee, J.G. et al. (1996). Mackie and McCartney Practical Medical Microbiology, 14th Ed. Churchil Livingstone, New York.
  5. Hussain, S.A. et al. (2005). J. Vet. Pub. Hlth., 3:75-77.
  6. Kumar, A. et al. (2004). J. Vet. Pub. Hlth., 2:23-28.
  7. Kumari, A. and Kalimuddin, Md. (2003). J. Vet. Pub. Hlth., 1:129-133.
  8. Mishra, G. et al. (2006). J. Vet. Pub. Hlth., 4:59-71.
  9. Prejit, E. et al. (2006). J. Vet. Pub. Hlth., 4:97-102.
  10. Rajorhia, G.S. (2006). Indian Dairyman 58:19- 25.
  11. Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran W.G. (1994). Statistical Methods. 8th Ed. Iowa State University Press, USA.
  12. Yadav, J.S., Grover, S. and Batish, V.K. (1993). In: A Comprehensive Dairy Microbiology, Ist Ed. Metropolitan,New Delhi, India, pp. 699.

Global Footprints