Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T17:06:28.313Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

583. The effect of steam, hypochlorite and caustic soda used for treating direct-to-can milking equipment, on the bacteriological quality and flora of milk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

D. F. C. Carreira ,
L. F. L. Clegg ,
P. A. Clough ,
C. C. Thiel ,
D. N. Akam ,
Marie Gruber  and
Elizabeth Hirons
D. N. Akam
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
Marie Gruber
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, University of Reading
Elizabeth Hirons
Affiliation:
National Agricultural Advisory Service, Aylesbury, Bucks
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Two farms, using direct-to-can milking, were used to compare utensil cleaning with hot detergent solution followed by hypochlorite on one farm and steam on the other, with immersion of the complete milking equipment in 5% caustic soda between milkings. Control and caustic treatments were used alternately for periods of 8 weeks for a total of 8 months.

Bacteriological tests made at weekly intervals on fresh milk and milk aged for 24 hr. at 22° C. showed little difference between the control methods, which involved brushing the milk contact surfaces, and the caustic soda method where there is no brushing.

The majority of micro-organisms in the bulk milk came from the udder and the utensils contributed little to the milk. It appeared that where utensils are satisfactorily cleaned, milking technique will be the factor which mainly affects keeping quality.

A study of the predominant flora revealed that milk from equipment cleaned by immersion in caustic soda had a simpler flora (mainly micrococci) than the control treatments.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 1955 , pp. 166 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

(1)Gardner, E. R. & Berridge, N. J. (1952). J. Dairy Res. 19, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Johns, C. K. (1933). Sci. Agric. 13, 460.Google Scholar
(3) Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (1954). Advisory Leaflet, no. 422. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
(4)Hoy, W. A. (1951). N.I.R.D. Annual Report, p. 51.Google Scholar
(5)Hobbs, B. C. & Wilson, G. S. (1942). J. Hyg., Camb., 42, 436.Google Scholar
(6)Thiel, C. C.Clough, P. A. & Clegg, L. F. L. (1955). J. Dairy Res. 22, 156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Harrison, J. (1938). Proc. Soc. agric. Bact. no. 12.Google Scholar
(8)Garvie, E. I. & Rowlands, A. (1952). J. Dairy Res. 19, 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar