https://doi.org/10.33698/NRF0225-Ekta, Kavita, Amarjeet Singh, Sandhya ghai
Abstract : Introduction : Milk is rich in vitamins and minerals and serves as a good medium for growth of microorganisms and transmission of various disease agents. Almost everyone consumes milk in one or the other forms. Contamination of milk can occur at any level and it is affected by the milk hygiene practices of the dairy workers. In this regards a study was conducted. Objective : To assess the current milk hygiene practice of dairy workers in Milk Colony, Dhanas, Chandigarh.
Methodology:
All the dairies (37) in the selected area and the dairy workers (80) of these dairies were included in the study.Milk hygiene practices were observed using observational checklist in various domains like animal and dairy worker’s health, their hygiene, milking practices and dairy’s environment. Results: The study revealed that milking practices of dairy workers were poor especially in the areas of personal hygiene, cleanliness of dairy milking area.There was need to improve the milk hygiene practices of dairy workers.
Keywords
Milk, Milk hygiene practices, Dairy workers
Correspondence at
Kavita
Lecturer, National Institute of Nursing Education, PGIMER,
Chandigarh
Introduction
Milk is consumed by almost everyone in one or the other form.1The milk which is used by a large proportion of individuals should be safe and of good quality so that it should not affect the health of general public.Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has reported 3.1 % increase in world milk production from 765 million tons in 2013 to 789 million tons in 2014.India ranks first in milk production, accounting for 18.5% of world milk production. The per capita availability of milk in India has increased from 176 grams per day in 1990- 91 to 322 grams per day by 2014-15.
Milk can be contaminated at any level in the process of production, storage and transportation. The key sources of contamination are: Fecal contamination from soiled animals, especially teats, udders and tails. Bacterial contamination from poor milking practices, soiled hands, soiled equipment and failure to clean and disinfect teats prior to milking, inadequate cleaning and disinfection of milking equipment and bulk milk tanks. Physical contamination, especially from perished components in bulk milk tanks, dust, bedding materials, dung, insects and animal hair can occur. Veterinary product residues, cleaning chemicals and use of non food- grade equipment can lead to chemical contamination.2 Milk is the most frequently adulterated foodstuff in developing countries. Possible adulterants includes Water, Reconstituted milk/Recombined milk/Dried milk, Whey, Mixing of milk of one species with other.10 Contamination of milk can cause milk borne diseases such as typhoid, food poisoning (salmonellosis), diarrheal diseases, brucellosis, diphtheria, anthrax, Q fever and enteric fever.3 The results obtained from a study conducted in Morocco suggest that the raw milk tested was of poor hygienic quality.4 The similar is reported in a survey by the Food Safety and Standards Authority (India) that 68 per cent of the milk was contaminated.3
If the dairy workers do not practice hygienic milking practices it can lead to contamination henceforth the milk borne diseases (typhoid, food poisoning salmonellosis, diarrheal diseases, and brucellosis). So it was important to assess their milking practices. Even during clinical experience of the researcher it was observed that the dairy workers lack milk hygiene practices. Moreover there is very less data available on the practices of dairy workers. Keeping all this in view a study was conducted to assess the milk hygiene practices of dairy workers of Milk colony, Dhanas, Chandigarh.
Material and Methods
A cross sectional study was conducted in Milk Colony, Dhanas, Chandigarh. The research setting of the study was milk colony as this is the only urban area where keeping milch cattle are allowed legally in Chandigarh as per the scheme Chandigarh Milk Colony Allotment of Sites Rules which was notified by the Administration in 1975, to relocate the persons keeping milch cattle. The dairy workers of milk colony are the main producer of milk supply in and around the Chandigarh. Total enumeration sampling technique was used to enroll the samples. All the dairies (37) and the dairy workers (80) of these dairies were included in the study.
In this study the dairy was defined as a place which contains at least 12 or more than 12 milch animals (cows/buffaloes or both). An observation checklist was prepared and validated by the experts from the field of Nursing, community medicine and Veterinary. The tool was further modified under the guidance of experts and as per the pilot study results, which was conducted on four dairies and six dairy workers at khuda lahora Village. After this a final tool was prepared for data collection. The reliability of the Observation checklist was 0.96 as per split half coefficient.
The observation checklist was used to observe the practices of dairy workers regarding different domains of milk hygiene like animal and dairy worker’s health, their hygiene, milking practices and dairy’s environment and it consists of total 86 items and one mark was given for each correct practice. The maximum possible scores for the checklist were 100. Which was further divided into four categories such as very poor (0-25), poor (26-50), good (51-75) and very good (75-100).
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Institute Ethics Committee, PGIMER, Chandigarh. A survey was done by the researcher to identify the location of the dairies. Written informed consent was taken from owner of the dairies and also from the dairy workers working in the dairies. They were explained about the purpose of the study based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Out of 38 dairies one of dairy owners refused to give consent and participate in the study as they find it time consuming process. Workers were interviewed to record their socio- demographic profile and owner was interviewed for dairy profile. Using observation checklist assessment of the practices of dairy workers regarding milk hygiene was done. Milking practices were observed during evening hours (2-6pm) as this was the milking time. Approximately it took half an hour to assess the practices of dairy workers in each visit and two-three visits were made in each dairy. Data was analyzed in accordance with the objectives laid down for the study using descriptive statistics in SPSS software version 20.0.
Results
Socio-demographic profile of dairy workers is shown in table 1. Many (41.25%) of the dairy workers were between the age group 26-36 years. More than three fourth (81.25%) of the dairy workers were males. As regard to type of family three fourth of dairy workers lived in joint family. One third (33.75%) of the dairy workers were living in a large family having more than seven members in their families. Approximately thirty six percent of the dairy workers were educationally qualified to secondary level. One third of the dairy workers had 22-32 years of working experience as dairy workers.
Table 1: Socio-demographic profile of dairy workers of milk colony Dhanas, U.T, Chandigarh
Socio-demographic profile of dairy workers | N=80 f (%) |
Age (years)* | |
15-25 | 15(18.75) |
26-36 | 33(41.25) |
37-47 | 19(23.75) |
48-58 | 07(8.75) |
59-69 | 06(7.50) |
Gender | |
Male | 65(81.25) |
Female | 17(21.25) |
Educational status | |
Illiterate | 17(21.25) |
Primary | 28(35.0) |
Secondary | 29(36.25) |
Graduate | 06(7.50) |
Year of working as dairy worker# | |
<1-10 | 22(27.5) |
11-21 | 22(27.5) |
22-32 | 24(30.0) |
33-43 | 07(8.75) |
44-54 | 04(5.0) |
55-65 | 01(1.25) |
Type of family | |
Nuclear | 17(21.25) |
Joint | 63(78.75) |
Number of family members** | |
2-6 | 27(33.75) |
7-11 | 34(42.50) |
12-16 | 15(18.75) |
17-21 | 04(5.0) |
*Age – Mean±SD (Range)-36.35±12(15-68) years # Year of working as dairy worker- Mean±SD (Range)- 20.61±13.09(02 months-58years) years
**Mode-8
Table 2 depicts that almost all the dairies were having 1-4 dairy workers. One third of the dairies had 12-16 animals in their dairies. One third of the dairies had income ranged between Rs. 20,000 to 60,000 per month.
Table 2: Profile of dairies of Milk Colony Dhanas, U.T, Chandigarh
Dairy profile | N=37 f (%) |
Total number of dairy workers | |
per dairy* | |
1-4 | 36(97.2) |
5-8 | 01(2.7) |
Total number of dairy | |
animals/cattle per dairy ** | |
12-16 | 14(37.8) |
17-21 | 07(18.9) |
22-26 | 08(21.6) |
27-31 | 08(21.6) |
Monthly Dairy income (Rs)# | |
20,000-40,000 | 13(35.1) |
41000-60,000 | 13(35.1) |
61000-80,000 | 08(21.6) |
81000-100000 | 02(2.5) |
101000-1,20,000 | 01(1.2) |
* Dairy workers per dairy-Mean±SD (Range)- 2.10±0.97 (1-8)
**Number of animals per dairy- Mean±SD (Range)-20.88±6.11(12-31)
# Monthly dairy income- Mean±SD (Range)- Rs. 53603.79±22141.95(20000-120000)
Personal hygiene practices of dairy workers are shown in table 3. Very few (3.7%) dairy workers washed hands before milking and none of them used soap for washing their hands. Neither of the dairy workers dried their hands after washing nor did they wash them again after contamination. About three fourth (73.7%) of the dairy workers had clean and trimmed nails.Most of the dairy workers (81.2%) wore clean garments.
Table 3: Practices of dairy workers regarding personal hygiene
Personal Hygiene | N=80 f (%) |
Washed hands before milking | 03(3.7) |
Washed hands with soap and water before milking | 00 |
Dried hand after washing | 00 |
Washes hands again, if contaminated | 00 |
Nails were clean and trimmed | 59(73.7) |
Worn clean garments/ clothes | 65(81.2) |
None of the dairies had dust free ceilings and very few had clean and litter free dairy area.Majority (67.6%) of the dairies had adequate natural/artificial light but one third had well distributed light. Less than half (37.8%)of the dairies had central passage in their dairies and none of them had it of appropriate size. Three fourth (75.7%) of the dairies had fans in working condition. Very few dairies (5.4%) had adequate space for animals. Most of the dairies had hand washing and toilet facility at their dairy and had no human waste nearby the dairy area (table 4). In most of dairies (91.9%) the toilets were located at convenient place.
Table 4: Assessment of Dairy’s environment
Dairy environment | N=37 f(%) |
Floors smooth | 04(10.8) |
Floors non-slippery | 06(16.2) |
Smooth, painted walls & ceilings | 09(24.3) |
Dust free Ceiling | 00 |
Clean and litter free area | 02(5.4) |
Presence of central passage | 14(37.8) |
Central passage of 1.8m width | 00 |
Natural/artificial light (newspaper easily readable without strain). | 25(67.6) |
Natural/artificial light well distributed over full length of the shed | 14(37.8) |
Fans in working condition | 28(75.7) |
Presence of air inlets from side walls, and outlets at or as near as possible to, the highest part of the roof. | 15(40.5) |
No overcrowding of cattle (1.5-1.7m Length & 1-1.2m width) | 02(5.4) |
Hand washing facility available | 34(91.9) |
Toilet facility available | 36(97.3) |
Toilet located at convenient place | 34(91.9) |
No human wastes in the nearby areas | 36(97.3) |
Table 5 shows depicts that most of the dairies had feed and water trough and it was made up of concrete but out of all the water troughs only 2.7% were algae and dirt free. In one third of the dairies drains were present and there was no pooling of water. Only 2.7% of the dairies had appropriate space/ animal as per recommendations. Only 5.4% of the dairy’s yard was free from the rodents, harborages and breeding areas.
Table 5: Assessment of Dairy’s milking area
Milking area | N=37 f(%) |
Feed troughs made up of concrete | 35(94.6) |
Water trough present | 32(86.5) |
Water trough free from algae & dirt | 01(2.7) |
Presence of small pipe outlet for draining out water. | 30(81.1) |
All the corners of trough are well rounded-off | 09(24.3) |
Space per animal as per recommendation (cow -14 m2/12 feet) (buffalo-15 m2/12.5feet) | 01(2.7) |
Milk house free from insects and rodents | 01(2.7) |
Utensils not contaminated by pesticides | 36(97.3) |
Milking area free from harborages & breeding areas | 02(5.4) |
Drains present | 12(32.4) |
No pooling of water/wastes | 13(35.1) |
Yard free from cow dung and urine | 02(5.4) |
Dairy’s feed storage area is shown in Table 6.Nearly in one third of the dairies ration room was present but only 10.8% dairies had it of appropriate size. More than one third of the dairies had smooth, easily cleanable and mold free feed storage area. Most of the dairies (94.1%) had water available but only 16.2% had availability of fresh water.
Table 6: Assessment of dairy’s feed storage area
Feed storage area | N=37 f(%) |
Ration room present | 12(32.4) |
Ration room of recommended (3X4m) size | 04(10.8) |
Ration room damp and rodent proof | 03(8.1) |
Feed storage area smooth & easily cleanable | 04(10.8) |
Feed not in direct contact of floor | 08(21.6) |
Feed free from molds and other contaminated material | 14(37.8) |
Feed stored away from milking area | 14(37.8) |
Fresh and clean water supplied to the animals | 06(16.2) |
Water available for animal feeding | 35(94.1) |
Practices of dairy workers regarding milking are shown in table 7. Most (86.25%) of the dairy workers performed milking in the milking areas using full hand technique (71.25%). More than half of the dairy workers cleaned the teats before milking but only 2.5% dried the teats and few (15%) of them practiced the clipping of tails. Most of the dairy workers used smooth (95%), non- absorbent (93.7%) and easily cleanable (97.5%) utensils. All the dairy workers used impervious utensils. Nearly 3/4th of the dairy workers used utensils free from rough edges, clean and free from visible dirt and stored them at dry place. Approximately forty three percent of the dairy workers used utensils made up of steel/aluminum. Nearly half (53.7%) of the dairy workers used rust free utensils and 67.5% workers stared the utensils at dry place. Thirty percent participants stored the utensils in a way to drain excessive water from the utensils. Most of dairy workers (81.25%) used clean water supply for washing utensils.
Table 7: Practices of dairy workers regarding milking
Milking practices | N=80 f (%) |
Milking performed in the milking area | 69(86.25) |
a) Teats cleaned | 51(63.75) |
b) Tail clipped | 12(15) |
c) Teats dried prior to milking | 02(2.5) |
Discarded first few strips of milk | 08(10) |
Full hand technique of milking used | 57(71.25) |
Utensils | |
a) Smooth | 76 (95) |
b) Impervious/not allowing the fluid to pass through | 80(100) |
c) Non-absorbent | 75(93.75) |
d) Steel/aluminum | 35(43.75) |
e) easily cleanable | 78(97.5) |
f) Free from rough edges and cracked walls | 60(75) |
g) Free from rust | 43(53.75) |
h) Clean and free from visible dirt/cleaning agent/milk residues/milk deposits. | 57(71.25) |
i) Stored at a dry place. | 54 (67.5) |
j) Are stored in a way to drain excessive water from the utensils | 24(30) |
Clean water supply available for washing utensils | 65(81.25) |
Clean utensils used for milking | 64(80) |
Milking practices of dairy workers regarding milk storage, cooling and transportation is shown in table 8. Only 11.25% had a practice of storing milk at a cool and separate place. Most of the dairy workers had a practice of transporting milk
in insulator/ covered cans and not mixing it with other dairy’s milk. Very few had the practice of labeling the drugs and storing in a way to prevent contamination (7.3%) and handling/storing the equipment properly (7.3%).
Table 8: Milking practices of dairy workers regarding milk storage, cooling and transportation
Milk storage and transportation | N=80 f (%) |
Milk | |
a) Stored at a cool and separate place | 09(11.25) |
b) Cooled after milking | 10(12.50) |
c) Transported in insulated cans/covered cans | 67(83.75) |
d) Not mixed from other dairies while transporting | 66(82.5) |
Drugs like pesticides and insecticides used were labeled and stored to prevent contamination. | 03(3.75) |
Equipment used for drug administration were properly handled and stored. | 03(3.75) |
Discussion
Milk is Nature’s ideal and perfect single food both for new born and mature human beings. Almost everyone in the community is consuming milk in one or the other form. In India, milk and milk products are part of our daily diets. So dairy farms are integral part of feeding line of any city. Every city has its own system of milk supply. These are differed bye laws to ensure their upkeep. Hygiene of the dairy farms has a stake on maintaining or compromising our health status. But because of its high nutritive value and high moisture content, it also serves as a good medium for the growth of microorganisms which poses a risk for milk borne diseases to the community.
To achieve quality milk, good hygiene practices should be applied throughout the dairy chain. Milk needs to be protected from all types of contamination and various types of disease organisms. The present study showed that there is lack of infrastructure in the dairies which is leading to the poor practices of the dairy workers but if the infrastructure was there still some practices were not followed by the dairy workers like washing hands with soap, it was found that (95%) most of the dairy workers had provision of hand washing facility near to the milking area. As the study was conducted in the milk colony, Dhanas where dairies are the part of the residential area so hand washing facility was there in almost all the dairies. The findings of another study emphasized on the availability of adequate hand washing facilities close to the milking area.6
A study conducted by Duguma reported that good housing promotes livestock health and allows their normal behavior patterns.7 Good infrastructure like presence of concrete troughs, hand washing facility and toilet facility was available in the dairies of milk colony, which was used as research setting in the present study. As the dairies are the part of the residential area, majority of the dairies lacked adequate space per animal which leads to improper dairy management practices. Overcrowding of the animals in the dairy may cause injury to the animals, if they are injured especially injury to the udders and teats, can serve as a portal of entry for the microorganisms and resulting in the contamination of the milk. It also affects the health of the animals as they need proper ventilation, cooling, space and light.
Most of the dairy workers (85%) in the present study had water trough in their dairies, but only 2.5% of the dairies had clean and algae free water trough. It was due to the fact that dairy workers were unaware that drinking contaminated water by the animal can affect the quality of milk. Another factor for not cleaning the water trough because dairy workers found it to be time consuming. As reported by another study, most of the dairy workers (90.7%) had both, feed and water trough in animal shelter, but more than half of the farmer cleaned cattle shed only and do not give much importance to the water trough cleanliness.8
None of the dairies in the present study had recommended(75 cm as per Indian cattle housing recommendation) height of the water and feed trough, which is necessary for the maintenance of cattle health. It is because with adequate height of feed and water trough, animal consumes adequate and frequent amount of feed and water. Similarly, a study conducted by Filhoet al showed that cows consumed more water and took more sips from higher and larger trough.9
In the present study, only 2.5% of the dairies had insect and rodent free milking area. As the environment cleanliness of the dairy was not maintained it attracts the more and more insects and rodents which further can cause physical contamination of the milk. In a similar study it was found that insects, rodents, dirt and manure were the most important and extraneous source of infection on the dairy farm.10
The present study showed some good practices like performing milking in the milking area and use of clean utensils during milking but there were poor practices of dairy workers related to the use of hand washing facility, washing hands with soap and water, clean and trimmed nails, drying of hands, wearing of clean garments, cleaning of udder and teats of animals and clipping of tail. In the same way a study showed milker’s hand, udder of animal, milking pail and milking can act as potential source of contamination of milk.11
The data of the current study revealed that most of the dairies (82.5%) feed were in direct contact with the floor and in only one third of the dairies feed was free from mold. Similarly, a study conducted by El-kest conveys that feed contaminated with molds influence the quality of milk. As feed contaminated with mold can alter the character and flavor of the milk and can lead to the ill effects on the health of the human beings.12
In the current study very few dairy workers (7.5%) followed the manual drying of teats, because rest of them were unaware of the fact that wet teats can contaminate the milk and rest were not doing it, to save their time. Milking wet and/or dirty teats increases the risk of high bacteria counts in the milk and increases the rate of new cases of mastitis. Likewise, a study by Ellis et al highlighted the importance of drying of teats as wet udder/teats without thorough drying results in dirty and contaminated water drops to fall into the milk container.13
The results of the study showed that the practices of all the dairy workers were poor especially in the areas of personal hygiene, dairy and milking area cleanliness. There were some good practices like transporting the milk in covered cans and not mixing it with the other dairies. In the light of the findings of the present study, there is need for improving the practices of dairy workers and community health nurses and other health care professionals working in community can help in this and prevent milk borne diseases by creating awareness about milk hygiene practices among dairy workers and consumers.
References
- Pande A, Boese G, Patil A. Entire dairy industry under one roof. The economic times. 2017 Feb07 Available at-epaperbeta.timesofindia.com. Accessed on 2016 April
- Jennings M. Milk hygiene on the dairy farm – a practical guide for milk producers (FSA). University of 2014; 1:1-7 Available at- http://adlib.everysite.co.uk. Cited on 2016 April 24.
- Zadoks Streptococcus uberis – Environmental or Contagious pathogen? Natl Mast Coun. Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting of National M a s t i t i s C o u n c i l ; 2 0 0 3 ; 1 : 6 1 – 67.www.milkquality.wisc.edu.Cited on 2016 April 24.
- Barbuddhe SB, Swain BK. Hygienic production of Animal sciences section 11.
- Griffiths MW, Phillips LD, Muir DD.Effect of low- temperature storage on the bacteriological quality of raw Food Microbiol.1987;4:285–91.
- Chanam R. Milk hygiene practice in India. E- paomanipur 2017 Nov Available at- https://socialfeed.info/milk-hygiene-practice-in- india-by-rubyta-chanam.Accessed on 2016 April 26.
- Duguma B, Janssens GPJ. Assessment of dairy farmers’ hygienic milking practices and awareness of cattle and milk borne zoonoses in jimma, Ethiopia. Food science and quality management. 2015;45:114-21
- Mureda E, Zeleke Characteristics and constraints of crossbred dairy cattle production in lowland areas of Eastern Ethiopia Livestock Research for Rural Development 2008;20(4).
- Filho LC, Teixeira DL, Weary DM, Keyserlingk MAG, Hotzel MJ. Designing better water troughs: dairy cows prefer and drink more from larger troughs. ApplAniBehav sci. 2009;89(3-4):185-93.
- Abdussalam M, Anquez M, Barber F, Berg JCT, Bijlenga G, Blodgett RO et milk hygiene:hygiene in milk production, processing and distribution. WHO 1962;7-770
- Zadoks Streptococcus uberis – Environmental or Contagious pathogen? Natl Mast Coun. Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting of National M a s t i t i s C o u n c i l ; 2 0 0 3 ; 1 : 6 1 – 67.www.milkquality.wisc.edu. Cited on 2016 March 21 .
- El-kest M, Elhariri M, Khafaga N, Refai Studies on contamination of dairy products by aflatoxin M1 and its control by probiotics. J. Global Biosci.2016;4(1):1294-1312.
- Ellis KA, Innocent GT, Mihm M, Cripps P, McLean WG, Howard CV et al. Dairy cow cleanliness and milk quality on organic and conventional J. dairy res.2007; 74(3):302-10.