0531 Hauling and receiving practices at dairy processing facilities. (1st October 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kuhn, E.; Waite-Cusic, J.; Goddik, L.
• Is Part Of: Journal of animal science. Volume 94(2016)Supplement 5
• Page Start: 254
• Page End: 254
• Publication Date: 2016-10-01
• Subjects: raw milk -- quality; Livestock -- Periodicals; Livestock; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 636.005
• DOI: 10.2527/jam2016-0531
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0021-8812

Abstract

Abstract: Milk hauling is an overlooked portion of the dairy industry and its impact on raw milk quality is not well characterized. Practices are mandated by the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance; however, gaps exist in the specifics of practices that could impact downstream milk and milk product quality. Description and classification of hauling and receiving practices and their relative impact could allow for the prioritization of improved practices that could improve quality throughout the dairy industry. The objective of this study was to identify current practices that could negatively impact the microbiological quality of raw milk during hauling and receiving. This objective was approached from two angles: (1) An industry survey was conducted to characterize milk hauling and receiving practices, and (2) a database that represented 2-yr of differences in raw (IBC) and PI (PIC) counts between receivers and producers (n = 23, 285 tanker loads) was analyzed to identify and quantify hauling situations that have a negative impact on milk quality. Dairy processing facilities (n = 14) were asked to participate in the survey, of which 10 responded (78% response rate). The majority of facilities (10/14) utilized repeated tanker use per 24 h; however, facilities that only receive a few tankers a day washed after each load (n = 4). Frequency of CIP system validation greatly varied among facilities (daily to annually). This suggests that facilities that do not frequently validate could potentially have underlying CIP issues that could have a negative impact on tanker cleaning efficacy. For the database analysis, negative impact was defined as the top 2.5% of instances (n = 583) where the tanker and producer load average difference was ³ 7.67 IBC/mL and ³ 61.5 PIC/mL. Negative impact was more pronounced in PI counts. There was not an identifiable trend in seasonality. The analysis demonstrated that in instances of negative impact, the load typically included milk from a producer with historically high counts. This study suggests that CIP validation frequency and route management may need increased attention to minimize the impact hauling and receiving practices have on raw and downstream product quality.