in Dairy R

es Gashaw and Gebrehiwot, J Adv Dairy Res 2018,

es
Advanc

6:3

earc h
DOI: 10.4172/2329-888X.1000213

ISSN: 2329-888X
Advances in Dairy Research
Research Article Open Access

Study on Milk Hygiene, Quality Control in the Market Chain in Jimma

Abebaw Gashaw1* and Ephrem Gebrehiwot2
1Tropical animal health, College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia
2Ministry of Agriculture, Bonga Zone, Bonga, Ethiopia
*Corresponding author: Abebaw Gashaw, Professor, Tropical animal health, College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Jimma University, P.o. Box 307, Jimma,
Ethiopia, Tel: +251917793300; E-mail: Abebaw.gashaw@ju.edu.et
Received date: September 19, 2018; Accepted date: September 29, 2018; Published date: October 05, 2018
Copyright: ©2018 Gashaw A, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Abstract

Raw milk quality and hygienic status of dairy farms study were conducted from October 2013-March 2014 in
Jimma town with the objectives to assess hygienic milking and handling practices and quality of raw milk at different
critical points throughout the milk value chain, in Jimma zone, south western Ethiopia. The study was performed by
questionnaire survey, personal observation and milk sample testing in the laboratory. For the survey a total of 54
purposively selected milk producing households who sell raw milk to the town were interviewed to assess the
hygienic milking and handling practices.

A total of 162 bulk raw milk samples were collected aseptically from selected farms, milk cooperative and
cafeterias for raw milk quality testing and tested with different test. Clot-on-boiling test positive results for farm,
cooperative and cafeterias were 7.78%, 55.56% and 58.7%, respectively. Positive cases recorded for alcohol test
were 48.89% in farm milk whereas 77.78% in cooperatives milk and 87.43% in cafeterias milk. In this study average
mean pH for three sources was 6.68, 6.646 and 6.614, respectively.

The mean titratable acidity of samples was 0.191, 0.226 and 0.261, respectively. The mean specific gravity of the
milk samples were 1.0297, 1.028 and 1.0126 g/ml, respectively. Analysis of variance for pH, titratable acidity and
specific gravity shows the mean values to be significant. For MBRT only 3.33% of samples from farms reduced the
dye above 4½ an hour and about 41.11%, 33.33% and 26.98% decolorized the dye within 2-4½ hours; about
38.89%, 44.44% and 34.92% reduced within 1-2 hours; about 14.44%, 11.11% and 30.15% reduced in ½-1 hour;
and 2.22%, 11.11% and 7.9% of samples reduced the dye below ½ an hour, respectively. Methylene blue reduction
test shows bacterial load increased as level increased up to consumer.

The test result indicated that milk quality deterioration increased from farms to cafeterias. In addition at all level
adulteration with water was observed, however it is highest at cafeterias. However, as compared to other sources
farm milk had better quality. Reduced quality is related to public health risks and these calls for improvement of
quality by awareness creation on hygienic milking and handling of milk and educating milk sellers to avoid
adulteration of milk. It is also important to apply appropriate quality control system before receiving the milk to
assure quality.

Keywords: Raw milk; Quality; Hygiene; Jimma town; Ethopia points in milk value chain; and milk quality either at farm level (milk
already infected with pathogenic agents or contaminated because of
unhygienic handling), milk distributing centers or at market level.
Introduction As milk can under certain conditions, pose a potential health
Milk is the most perishable of all farm produce. It is a highly hazard, particularly when consumed raw, it is not only the quantity of
nutritious food, ideal for microbial growth and the fresh milk easily milk but also its quality and safety that needs to be investigated in
deteriorates to become unsuitable for processing and human order to both improve the nutritional base of an increasing population
consumption. Unless properly handled, milk can be contaminated by in urban and peri-urban areas and the marketing of milk and derived
microorganisms at any point from production to consumption and can products. Understanding these gaps that affect the milk quality and
harbor a variety of microorganisms and can be important sources of assessing quality of milk is critical to success of development and
food borne pathogens [1]. implementation of policies and programs in dairy industry in the study
area. Therefore, this study was aimed to fulfil this gap with the
In Ethiopia, the current trend of rapidly increasing human following objectives;
population together with growing urbanization creates even greater
markets and increased the demand for milk and its products [2]. In To know the status of hygienic milking practices and sees the entire
this country milk is produced in urban and rural areas mostly in non- milk-chain from milking through transporting and marketing of milk
organized way and usually supplied to the consumers in raw form. and its impact on quality. To assess the quality of raw whole milk from
However, the quality of milk remained poor. On the other hand there different sources in milk value chain using milk quality tests such as
is little information about the hygienic practices done at different

J Adv Dairy Res, an open access journal Volume 6 • Issue 3 • 1000213

ISSN: 2329-888X
Citation: Gashaw A, Gebrehiwot E (2018) Study on Milk Hygiene, Quality Control in the Market Chain in Jimma. J Adv Dairy Res 6: 213. doi:
10.4172/2329-888X.1000213

Page 2 of 8

organoleptic test, COBT, pH test, alcohol test, lactometer test, titratable The study area receives a mean annual rainfall of about 1530
acidity and methylene blue reduction test and, millimeters which comes from the long and short rainy seasons. The
annual means of minimum and maximum temperature during the
Raw milk quality has several aspects, the most important being
study period were 14.4 and 26.7 degree Celsius, respectively. Jimma
gross composition and hygienic quality. Compositional quality refers
zone has a total cattle population of 2,214,385 out of which 1163915
to the levels of total solids, milk fat and solids-non-fat or SNF (which
are female cattle’s [9].
include protein, lactose and minerals) in the milk. Milk hygienic
quality, on the other hand, refers to the levels of various contaminants
in milk, whether bacterial, chemical or any other adulterants those are Data collection
detected [3]. Questionnaire survey: For the questionnaire survey, dairy farmers
Good milk hygiene produces dairy products that are safe for human who sell raw milk to the town were purposively selected for the
consumption, and that have good keeping quality. On the other hand, interview. The survey was performed in order to determine the
poor milk hygiene leads to spoiled products, product recalls (hence following aspects which might affect the hygienic quality of milk
adverse publicity), food-borne diseases and unsatisfactory or declining including; milking technique, cow hygiene and health management,
product image. This all leads to reduced consumer confidence in the feed and housing, hygienic milking practices (before, during and after
integrity of the dairy value chain [4]. milking), milk equipment’s used, milk handling hygiene and storage
were assessed.
A quality control system will test milk and milk products for quality,
and ensure that milk collectors, processors and marketing agencies Personal observation: Personal observation was performed during
follow the correct methods. Having such a system will cost a lot of questionnaire survey, the type of construction and cleanliness of cow’s
money. But it is important to have a good system, because it will house, type of feed and way of storage, cleanliness of cow, hygienic
provide benefits to everyone involved in the dairy industry such as milking practices during and after milking, cleanliness and type of
milk producers, milk processors, consumers, government agencies [5]. equipment’s used at farm level was observed. Way of milk transport to
In Ethiopia, around 97% of the annual milk production is accounted by cooperative, hygienic practices and quality control tests done at milk
the traditional milk production system, which is likewise dominated by cooperatives
indigenous breeds. Cows contribute to about 95% of the total annual Collection of raw milk sample for quality testing: Raw milk samples
milk produced by cows and camels at national level [6]. were collected from three critical control points in milk value chain
Dairy production, among the sector of livestock production (dairy farms, milk cooperatives and cafeterias). Dairy farms were
systems, is a critical issue in Ethiopia where livestock and its products purposively selected those having two or more lactating cows and who
are important sources of food and income, and dairying has not been sells milk to milk cooperative. Milk cooperative who receive milk from
fully exploited and promoted in the country. Milk and milk products these dairy farms was also included. Seven cafeterias in the town that
are economically important farm commodities and dairy farming is an purchase raw milk from milk cooperative were randomly selected.
investment option for many peoples. Then fresh milk sample was taken from selected dairy farms from bulk
tank milk before delivery to milk cooperative. On the same day of
Currently the trend of rapidly increasing human population sampling milk sample was then taken from milk cooperatives from
together with growing urbanization creates even greater markets and bulk tank. Again the same day milk sample was taken from selected
increased of demand for milk and its products. Ethiopia’s raw milk cafeterias from milk canister after taking milk from the cooperative.
quality is poor for several reasons. The milking and cleaning is often Raw milk samples from these three sources were collected every two
done in unhygienic conditions. Also, as a consequence of lack of weeks interval for continues four months period.
resources, the milk is often transported in plastic containers and
without the necessary cooling facilities. Hence, there exists the Accordingly a total of 162 milk samples were collected separately
possibility of consuming milk, which has been contaminated with and aseptically from three critical control points in milk value chain
disease causing organisms [7]. and from which 90 samples from farms, nine samples from milk
cooperative and 63 samples from cafeterias. Samples of bulk canister
Product temperature is a major factor influencing shelf life. Product fresh whole milk were collected aseptically. After through mixing, milk
temperature must be between 4°C-5°C for maximum shelf life. As a samples of about 100 ml were taken in sterile glass sample bottles. The
general rule, for every 2.8°C rise in temperature, shelf life is reduced by samples were transported to Jimma University College of agriculture
about 50%. In Ethiopia, smallholder milk processing is based on sour and veterinary medicine dairy laboratory in an icebox and
milk mainly due to high ambient temperatures, consumer’s preferences immediately tested for quality.
and increasing keeping quality of sour milk [8].
Milk quality testing procedures
Materials and Methods
Organoleptic test: On arrival the appearance of the milk and of the
cork of the milk canister or container was observed and inspected
Description of the study area and study period instantly after the cork was removed. The milk was smelled, the
The study was conducted in Jimma town, Southwestern part of appearance observed, s the canister was checked for cleanliness, looked
Ethiopia in Jimma zone from October to March 2013/2014. Jimma for sediment, flies, and tasted if necessary.
town, the capital of Jimma zone is located in Oromia Regional Clot on boiling test: This test was performed by heating a small
Administration, 346 km Southwest of Addis Ababa at latitude of about amount (2 ml) of milk in a test tube over a flame. If there was clotting,
7013'-8056' N and longitude of about 35052'-37037' E and at an coagulation or precipitation, the result was reported as positive
elevation ranging from 880 m to 3360 m above sea level. otherwise negative.

J Adv Dairy Res, an open access journal Volume 6 • Issue 3 • 1000213

ISSN: 2329-888X
Citation: Gashaw A, Gebrehiwot E (2018) Study on Milk Hygiene, Quality Control in the Market Chain in Jimma. J Adv Dairy Res 6: 213. doi:
10.4172/2329-888X.1000213

Page 3 of 8

Alcohol test: In this test equal volumes of milk and 68% alcohol in a Data analysis
test tube (2 ml of milk in 2 ml of 68% alcohol) waken. Then the test
tube was inverted several times, keeping thumb pressed tightly over the Survey data collected were analysed using descriptive and
open end of the tube. Finally, the tube was examined to see whether the inferential statistics such as means, frequency distribution and
milk has coagulated, clotted or precipitated and reported as positive percentage using SPSS software (version 16). Milk sample result was
(formation of precipitation) or negative (no clotting or precipitation). analysed using, mean, percentage, and one-way ANOVA using the
software.
pH test: This test was done by using digital pH meter. it is
performed by dipping an electrode of a digital pH meter into milk Results and Discussion
sample after the pH meter was calibrated against standard buffer
solutions at pH 4.0 and 7.0 [10]. Then the value was read from the
screen and recorded. Questionnaire survey and personal observation

Lactometer test: This test was done to measure specific gravity of Hygiene and health management of cows: In the study area majority
milk for adulteration using lactometer. First, the temperature of the of farmers do not wash their cow’s body (35.59%) followed by non-
milk was measured. The temperature of the milk was made to be in regular washing (30.5), twice a week (5.08%) and once a week (28.81%)
between 15°C and 20°C. Hot milk was left to cool at room temperature washing. Those farms washing in irregular interval may wash their
for at least 30 minutes. The milk sample was mixed well and gently cows once or twice per month or even per three month. This result
poured into 200 ml measuring cylinder. Then the lactometer was indicates only few farms (5.08% +28.81) practice proper cleaning of
slowly dipped into the milk and left for some moment until it stop their cows’ body. No washing at all and irregular washing (65%) results
sinking. Finally the lactometer reading was taken just above the surface dirt on the cows’ body which will enter in the milk during milking
of the milk and specific gravity was calculated using the formula; operation and finally results in lower quality milk (Table 1).

No Variables Total Percentage

�������� ������� = 1 + (%)
��������� ����������� ������� + ���������� �������
1000 1 Washing Cows once a week 17 28.81
Body
Titratable acidity test: In this test about 10 ml of milk and an equal Twice a week 3 5.08
volume of distilled water was added in 25 ml flask. Then about 1.0 ml
Not regular 18 30.5
of the phenolphthalein indicator solution was added into the sample.
The content in the flask was then rapidly titrated one against the No wash 21 35.59
standard (0.1N NaOH) by stirring the contents with a glass rod until
the first definite change to a pink colour, which remains for 10-15 2 Udder disease Not Encountered 25 42.37
seconds and the titration was completed within 20 seconds. Finally the
Encountered 34 57.63
volume of sodium hydroxide solution consumed was read from the
burette and lactic acid% (titratable acidity) was calculated using the Taking to veterinary 18 53
following formula; clinic

9.�1.� No intervention at all 16 47

������ ����(%) = �2
Milk immediately after 34 100
V1=volume in ml of the standard sodium hydroxide required for treatment from other
titration; normal quarter

N=normality of the standard sodium hydroxide solution, and

Table 1: Cow hygiene and health management practices in Jimma
V2=volume in ml of milk taken for the test town.
Methylene blue reduction test: First sterile test tube was filled with
Besides other factors, clinical and subclinical mastitis, are the most
10 ml of sampled raw milk. Then 1 ml of the Methylene Blue solution
important reasons for a reduced raw milk quality [11]. In the study
was added in it using pipette taking care that the pipette did not came
area about 34 (57.63%) farms encountered udder diseases and out of
into contact with any of the milk in the tube or with the wetted side of
this, 47% of them take no action and 53% of them managed the
the interior of the tube.
problem by taking to veterinary clinic. None of them take the milk
The tube was closed with a sterile rubber stopper and slowly from affected quarter but all of them were not refrained from milking
inverted twice for mixing so that the whole column of contained air from other quarters. This indicates the milk produced in the study area
rises above the level of the milk. Within 5 minutes the tube was placed may contain drug residues.
in water bath at 37°C and the time was noted.
Feed and water for the cows: The source of feed for the cows in the
The tube was examined after every 30 minutes and completely study area varies in which majority of farms use cut and carry grass
decolorized sample or decolorized sample up to 5 mm of the surface and concentrate (37.8%) followed by pasture grazing and concentrate
was removed. The time at which decolourization observed was (32.2%), pasture only (29.11%) and cut and carry+concentrate+silage
recorded and the milk quality was reported as very good, good, fair or (3.38%). Majority of the farms who use cut and carry system store their
bad depending on the length of decolourization time. cows feed outside a shed (55.93%) and 11.86% of them store their
animal feed inside a shed. Regarding source of water about 52.54%,

J Adv Dairy Res, an open access journal Volume 6 • Issue 3 • 1000213

ISSN: 2329-888X
Citation: Gashaw A, Gebrehiwot E (2018) Study on Milk Hygiene, Quality Control in the Market Chain in Jimma. J Adv Dairy Res 6: 213. doi:
10.4172/2329-888X.1000213

Page 4 of 8

20.34%, 18.64%, 8.47% of them drink their cow from pipe water, Clean, dry and comfortable bedding condition is important to
borehole, river and pond, respectively. minimize the growth of pathogenic microorganisms. As observed in
the present study 18.64% of the respondents used hay and straw as
The amount, the composition and quality of the forages, as well as
bedding material for their animals. The remaining households
their continued availability, have a decisive influence on the quality of
(81.36%) did not use any bedding material at all (Table 3) and the
the cow’s raw milk. Beside the milk yield, especially the fat and protein
floors are moist and muddy when observed.
content of milk can be influenced with feeding. A well-fed and watered
animal will produce high quantities of milk of good composition [12]. S.no. Variables Total Percentage (%)
However in this study adequate amount of feed is not provided due to
shortage of grazing land and inadequate supply and high price of Separate house 43 72.88
concentrate feeds. In addition to this quality of feed is not as required.
1 Housing Common house 16 27.12
A good balance of forage and concentrates is important to produce
quality raw milk [13]. Hay, straw 11 18.64
Bedding
Percentage 2 material No bedding material 48 81.36
S.No Variables Total (%)
Once per day 17 28.81
Pasture and concentrate 19 32.2
Three times per week 12 20.34
Cut and carry and
concentrate 22 37.28 Frequency of Anytime when it looks
3 cleaning dirty 30 50.85
Cut and carry+concentrate
+ silage 2 3.38
Source of feed Table 3: Cow housing and its hygiene.
1 for cows Pasture only 16 29.11
Teats and udders of cows inevitably become soiled while they are
Inside shed 7 11.86 laying in stalls or when they are allowed to stay in muddy barn yard.
Outside shed 33 55.93 Hay or straw bedding material has been shown to harbor large
Place where numbers of microorganisms. During this observation majority of the
2 feeds stored Not stored 19 32.21 floor of houses were moist and improperly drained.
Pipe water 31 52.54 The teat ends of the cows are then exposed to organic bedding
sources and wet and muddy pens increase the risk of occurrence of
River water 11 18.64
mastitis and milk contamination [15]. About 50.85% of the
pond 5 8.47 respondents clean the barn once per day, while 28.81% clean three
Source of times per week and 20.34% of them reported to clean any times when
3 water for cows Borehole 12 20.34 it looks dirty (Table 3).
This practice is somewhat worse than that of Zelalem’s report of the
Table 2: Feed and water for cows.
Ethiopian highlands where about 87% of the respondents cleaned their
barn on daily basis and few (9%) of them cleaned only once or twice a
Although in this study they do not provide correct balance of this
week.
feeds. Improper procurement, manufacturing and handling of animal
feed can result in the introduction of pathogens and spoilage Hygienic practices followed during milking: In this study all of the
organisms to milking animals and the introduction of chemical interviewed farm owners practiced hand milking. Cleaning the udder
hazards such as pesticide residues, mycotoxins and of other of cows before milking is important since it could have direct contact
contaminants which can affect the safety and suitability of milk or milk with the ground, urine, dung and feed refusals while resting. In this
products. In this study majority of animal feed are improperly stored study, about 74.57% of respondents wash their hands and cows’ teat
outside a shed. This expose feeds to rain (moisture) resulting in and udder before milking and 27. 43% of respondent do not wash
development of mycotoxins in the feed which finally affect safety of (Table 4).
raw milk. Regarding clean water supply only 52.54% of respondents
Lack of washing udder before milking can impart possible
drink their cow clean water and the rest uses water from unsafe
contaminants into the milk. The current study agrees with the reports
sources (Table 2). This will easily affect the health of the cow and some
of Haile et al. who reported that majority of the small size farm owning
water borne bacteria are dangerous and can easily enter the milk [14].
households in Hawassa city are practicing pre milking udder washing.
Cow housing and cleaning practices in Jimma town: According to Pre-dipping, fore-stripping, and post-milking teat disinfection are
the current study the majority of the interviewed farm owners used essential components of hygienic milking operations [16].
separate house for their cows (72.88%) and about 27.12% of farm
However, in this study none of respondents practiced pre-dipping,
owner share the same house with their animals (Table 3). This finding
only 10.17% of them practiced fore-stripping and 5.08% of them
disagrees with Bereda et al, in Ezha district of the Gurage zone,
practiced post-milking teat disinfection (Table 4). This indicates that
Southern Ethiopia and Asaminew, 2007 in Bahir Dar Milk Shed
there is increased contamination of raw milk in the study area resulting
reports where majority respondents shared the same house with their
in poor milk quality. Cows are usually milked twice a day except few
animals.
(10.17%) farms that milk once daily (Table 4).

J Adv Dairy Res, an open access journal Volume 6 • Issue 3 • 1000213

ISSN: 2329-888X
Citation: Gashaw A, Gebrehiwot E (2018) Study on Milk Hygiene, Quality Control in the Market Chain in Jimma. J Adv Dairy Res 6: 213. doi:
10.4172/2329-888X.1000213

Page 5 of 8

S.No. Variables Total Percentage (%) To prevent or retard growth of bacteria in milk and to maintain its
quality for domestic consumption or during transport to the
Washing hand before milking 44 74.57 distributing or processing plant, it is essential to cool the fresh milk as
quickly as possible [18]. However present study showed that only one
1 Not washing hand before milking 15 25.43
farm has cooling facility. This indicates that almost all of the milk
Wash udder and teat 44 74.57 produced was exposed to high temperature until it arrive to milk
distributing centre this in turn facilitate proliferation of milk spoiling
2 Not wash udder and teat 15 25.43 bacteria in the milk.
3 Dipping teats before milking 0 0 The sources of water available to farmers used for different purposes
Fore stripping 6 10.17
(to clean milk equipment, cows udder and milker hands) varied in the
study area. The majority of the respondents (52.54%) had access to
4 No fore stripping 53 89.83 pipe water followed by borehole water (20.34), river water (18.64%)
and pond water (8.47%) (Figure 1). However, the quality of river,
Dipping teats after milking 3 5.08
borehole and pond waters used for cleaning may not be of the required
5 No dipping 56 94.92 standard thus be able to contribute to the poor quality of milk in this
study area. When water from no tap sources is used for cleaning
Frequency of milking once per day 6 10.17 purpose, it is important that producers should at least filter and heat
treat it before use.
6 Frequency of milking twice per day 53 89.83

Table 4: Hygienic practices during milking.

Milk utensils and source of water for milking operation: Equipment

used for milking, storage and transportation determine the quality of
milk and milk products. In this study about 88.13% of respondents
used plastic utensils and only 11.87% of respondents used metallic
utensils as milking, storing and transporting utensil (Table 5). The use
of plastic containers can be a potential source for the contamination of
milk by bacteria, because it allows the multiplication of bacteria on
milk contact surfaces during the interval between milking.
Figure 1: Source of water for dairy operation.
S.No. Variables Total Percentage (%)

Plastic 52 88.13

1 Milk utensils Metallic 7 11.87 Results of milk quality tests

Once per day 16 27.11

Clot on boiling test: Clot-on-boiling positive results for farm,
cooperative and cafeterias were 7.78%, 55.56% and 58.7%, respectively
Twice per day 4 6.79 (Table 6). Great variation was observed in these three points and
Frequency of variations in COBT values are the main reasons of quality
milk utensil Every time before and
2 cleaning after using 39 66.1 deterioration of milk. Higher difference in COBT values for farm milk
and cooperative milk might be due to the unhygienic management
immediately without practices during the handling of raw milk. It was obvious from the
drying 46 77.96 results that farm milk was in better condition as compared to other
Using utensils
3 after washing Using after it is dried 13 22.04 sources. Furthermore it is revealed that deterioration increases as the
steps increase towards marketing. This result is in line with reports of
Cooling facility Have refrigerator 1 1.69 [19].
for milk to cool
4 until sell No refrigerator 59 98.31 Clot-on-boiling test
Number of
Milk source samples(N=162) Positive (%) Negative (%)
Table 5: Milk utensils and source of water for dairy operation in Jimma
town. Farms 90 7.78 92.22

Plastic is not advisable as after some time the surface will contain Cooperatives 9 55.56 44.44
scratches, which can hardly be seen but are nearly impossible to clean.
Cafeterias 63 58.7 41.3
Metal containers such as aluminium and stainless steel cans are
recommended under the code of hygienic practices [17]. In this study,
all of the respondents practiced washing of their milk utensils in which Table 6: Values for clot-on-boiling test of milk samples from different
27.11% of them wash once per day, 6.79% wash twice per day and sources.
66.1% of them wash every time before and after use. However, cleaning
is not efficient and majority of the respondents (77.96%) use Alcohol test (AT): The results of test are shown in Table 7. The result
immediately after washing without proper drying (Table 5). of the alcohol test shows the significant differences among all three

J Adv Dairy Res, an open access journal Volume 6 • Issue 3 • 1000213

ISSN: 2329-888X
Citation: Gashaw A, Gebrehiwot E (2018) Study on Milk Hygiene, Quality Control in the Market Chain in Jimma. J Adv Dairy Res 6: 213. doi:
10.4172/2329-888X.1000213

Page 6 of 8

sources of milk. Positive cases recorded were 48.89% in farm milk Development of acidity was from unhygienic milking practices;
whereas 77.78% in cooperatives milk and 87.43% in cafeterias milk dirty milk equipment’s; and high temperatures and delayed transport
(Table 6). The result shows high level of acid and excess of salt until arrival to selling centres which facilitated the growth of lactose
concentration in the milk samples that indicate low quality milk. Milk fermenting bacteria. This bacteria breakdown the lactose content of the
coagulated only when the acidity of milk reached 0.21%-0.23%. milk and increases acidity of milk.
According to the results all the sources showed higher acidity with a Source SS Df MS F P-value
big difference observed in between farms and cooperative milk. This
big difference is due to mixing of different milk from different farms Between groups 0.182 2 0.091 31.06 0.00
where some of these milks were already acidic causing whole milk
Within groups 0.466 159 0.00293
become acidic. High positive result for cafeterias was high risk of
contamination from farm to cafeterias and long-time delay as
compared to farms and cooperative. The increase in acidity for all Table 10: Analysis of variance for titratable acidity.
sources was due to unhygienic milking practices, dirty plastic utensils,
non-potable water and also adulteration of the milk. This finding In addition to these, in milk cooperatives the raw milk is collected
agrees with the report of [20]. in big utensil/container in which milk of different sources was mixed,
and this kind of mixing may increase the acidity of milk because some
Alcohol test of them are already acidic and can be the source of high acidity in
Number of whole milk container.
Milk source samples(N=162) Positive (%) Negative (%)
Results of milk adulteration test: The present study shows mean
Farms 90 48.89 51.11 specific gravity of the milk from farms; cooperatives and cafeterias
were 1.0297, 1.0288 and 1.0126 g/ml, respectively (Table 11).
Cooperatives 9 77.78 22.22

Cafeterias 63 87.43 12.57 Specific gravity

Source of milk (g/ml)

Table 7: Result of alcohol test for milk from three different points. <1.028 (%) 1.028 -1.034 (%) >1.034 (%)

Farms (n=90) 20 80 0
Acidity test-pH and titratable acidity: Milk acidity is an important
indicator of milk quality. In this study average mean pH for three Cooperative
sources was 6.68, 6.646 and 6.614, respectively. The mean titratable (n=9) 11.11 90.89 0
acidity of samples from farm, cooperatives and cafeterias were 0.191,
Cafeterias
0.226 and 0.261, respectively (Table 8). The mean values are significant. (n=63) 49.2 39.69 11.11
Analysis of variance shows pH and titratable acidity found to be
significant (Tables 9 and 10 respectively). n= number of sample

Titratable No. of
S.No. Milk source Ph acidity samples
Table 11: The proportion (percentage) of adulterated samples in
different sampling sources.
Mean Sd.dev Mean Sd.dev
The analysis of variance shows that the mean values for specific
1 Farm 6.681 0.1435 0.191 0.0424 90 gravity were found to be significant (Table 12). The proportion of
2 Milk cooperatives 6.642 0.0554 0.226 0.046 9 samples with specific gravity less than 1.028 for these three sources
were 20%, 11.11% and 49.2%, respectively. From three sources only
3 Cafeterias 6.614 0.1755 0.261 0.0688 63 11.11% of the samples of cafeteria has specific gravity more than 1.034
(Figure 2).
Table 8: Mean pH and titratable acidity for different milk sources. The present study shows mean specific gravity of the milk from
farms; cooperatives and cafeterias were 1.0297, 1.0288 and 1.0126
The pH of normal raw cow milk is 6.7-6.8 and the natural
g/ml, respectively (Table 11).
(titratable) acidity is 0.16% - 0.18%, and samples with higher figures
indicate developed acidity. The result indicates acidity increased from The analysis of variance shows that the mean values for specific
farm to cafeteria that is freshness of the milk was decreased. It is gravity were found to be significant (Table 12). The proportion of
obvious that milk from farms is slightly fresh as compared to other samples with specific gravity less than 1.028 for these three sources
sources. The finding of present study was lower than 0.26% at farm were 20%, 11.11% and 49.2%, respectively.
reported by [21] in Kersa district of Jimma zone.
From three sources only 11.11% of the samples of cafeteria have
P-
specific gravity more than 1.034 (Figure 2).
Source SS Df MS F value

Between groups 0.1656 2 0.828 3.49 0.0327

Within groups 3.769 159 0.0237

Table 9: Analysis of variance for pH.

J Adv Dairy Res, an open access journal Volume 6 • Issue 3 • 1000213

ISSN: 2329-888X
Citation: Gashaw A, Gebrehiwot E (2018) Study on Milk Hygiene, Quality Control in the Market Chain in Jimma. J Adv Dairy Res 6: 213. doi:
10.4172/2329-888X.1000213

Page 7 of 8

Source of milk
MB reduction time
in hours Cooperatives Cafeterias (%),
Farms (%), n=90 (%), n=9 n=63

>4:30 3.33 0 0

2:00-4:30 41.11 33.33 26.98

1:00-2:00 38.89 44.44 34.92

0:30-1:00 14.44 11.11 30.15

<30 min 2.22 11.11 7.9

Table 13: Methylene blue reduction test result for three sources.

In this study most of milk sample showed very short discoloration

time of the dye and the reduction time decreased from farm to
Figure 2: Mean values for specific gravity (g/ml) of different cafeterias. The shorter time required for the disappearance of the blue
sampling sources. colour is indicative of a higher microbial load. This may be due to poor
milk handling practices during milking and transporting, poor animal
health services, unclean utensils, exposure to high temperature and use
Addition solids will increase specific gravity beyond normal (i.e. of poor potable water which were linked to markedly high TBC
more than 1.034 g/ml). From the three sources only cafeteria sample [23-25].
has smaller proportion (11.1%) with specific gravity above normal
range. S. No. Methylene blue reduction time Quality of milk

This is due to some cafeterias adding some cheap products such as 1 >4:30 Excellent
powder milk into the milk after they have diluted the milk with water
in order to make it thicker. 2 2:00-4:30 Good

Source SS Df MS F Prob>F 3 1:00-2:00 Fair

Between Groups 0.0103 2 0.00518 0.082 4 0:30-1:00 Bad

Within Groups 1 159 0.00629 5 <30 min Very bad

Table 12: One-way ANOVA table for specific gravity. Table 14: Grading of milk on the basis of (MBRT) in different milk
sources.
Results of methylene blue reduction test: In this study only 3.33% of
samples from farms reduced methylene blue above 4½ an hour and Conclusion and Recommendations
about 41.11%, 33.33% and 26.98% of milk samples from farms,
cooperatives and cafeterias decolorized the dye within 2:00-4:30 hours, Data from questionnaire and personal observation revealed that
respectively. About 38.89%, 44.44% and 34.92 % of samples from good hygienic milking practices is not well practiced and this finally
farms, cooperatives and cafeterias, respectively reduced the dye within resulted in production of less quality milk in Jimma town. The quality
1-2 hours. About 14.44%, 11.11% and 30.15% of samples of farms, of milk samples collected from three different critical points in milk
cooperative and cafeterias decolorized in 0:30-1:00 hour time, value chain was generally below standards. This is mainly due to lack
respectively and 2.22%, 11.11% and 7.9% of cooperatives and cafeterias following strict hygienic practices during milk production and
samples, respectively reduced the dye below half an hour (Table 13). subsequent handling.
The results obtained from the three different sources are found Moreover, majority the respondents reportedly used plastic
significant. materials as milk container while milking, storing and transporting
The longer the time of dye reduction show the lower the number of which can be a potential source for the contamination of milk by
bacteria in the milk and then the higher the quality of the milk. The bacteria. There is also adulteration of milk at all levels; however, milk is
above result showed that majority of the samples from different highly adulterated at cafeterias. The majority of milk sample was also
sources reduced the dye below two hour. Only 3.33% of samples from found with high microbial load.
farms have very good quality and about 41.11%, 33.33% and 26.98% of Therefore, based on the above conclusion, the following
farms, cooperatives and cafeterias’ samples, respectively have good recommendations can be forwarded;
quality.
Since, deterioration of raw milk quality starts at farm, dairy farmers
About 38.89%, 44.44% and 34.92% of samples from farms, should be aware about hygienic milking practices before, during and
cooperative and cafeterias respectively have fair quality and about after milking:
14.44%, 11.11% and 30.15% of farms, cooperative and cafeterias
samples respectively have bad quality. The rest proportions have very About keeping the health of their dairy cows,
bad quality (Tables 13 and 14). Providing proper house,

J Adv Dairy Res, an open access journal Volume 6 • Issue 3 • 1000213

ISSN: 2329-888X
Citation: Gashaw A, Gebrehiwot E (2018) Study on Milk Hygiene, Quality Control in the Market Chain in Jimma. J Adv Dairy Res 6: 213. doi:
10.4172/2329-888X.1000213

Page 8 of 8

Washing hand and disinfecting of udder and teat before milking, 8. Zelalem Yilma (2012) Microbial properties of ethiopian marketed milk
and milk products and associated critical points of contamination. Epid
Proper cleaning and drying of milk utensils made of metals and Insigh 7: 396.
Immediate cooling of milk until arrival to milk cooperative. 9. Central Statistics Agency (CSA) 2014 National statistics abstract section-
D agriculture report on livestock and livestock characteristics.
Milk quality control system in every point is very important to 10. Ong LA, Henrikssonb, Shaha NP (2007) Chemical analysis and sensory
assure milk quality. But in the study area appropriate quality tests are evaluation of Cheddar cheese produced with Lactobacillus acidophilus,
not done at milk cooperative. Therefore, milk cooperatives should have Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus paracasei or Bifidobacterium sp. Int
to conduct required quality tests in order to approve the quality of milk Dairy J 17: 937-945.
received from farmers. 11. Abebe T, Markos T (2009) Milk quality control. Tech bullet 2: 5-11.
12. Kurwijila LR (2006) Hygienic milk handling, processing and marketing:
Milk adulteration remained a big problem in every point and is Reference guide for training and certification of small-scale milk traders
directly related to public health risks. Therefore, the concerned bodies in Eastern Africa: ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute). Regal
should be aware about the bad effects of adulteration to the health and Press Kenya Limited Nairobi Kenya. 2-29.
made them to stop such practices. 13. Kleinschmit M, Gompert T (2007) Raw milk use and safety fact sheet:
Center for rural affairs, northeast Nebraska RC&D. Plainview Nebraska.
Acknowledgements 1-6.
14. Gerrit Smit (2006) Dairy processing improving quality. Cambridge
The Authors would like to acknowledge Jimma University college of England 1: 45-55.
Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine for financial support and 15. Ruegg PL (2006) Role of hygiene in efficient milking: WCDS. Adv in
provision of laboratory desk to do the research. We would like to thank Dairy Tech 18:285-293.
also all the dairy farmers, milk cooperatives and cafeterias willingly 16. Vissers MM, Driehuis F (2009) On-farm hygienic milk production, in
provided the milk samples. milk processing and quality management (eds A.Y. Tamime): Oxford,
United Kingdom, Wiley-Blackwell 9:1-15.

Competing Interests 17. Pandey GS, Voskuil GCJ (2011) Manual on milk safety, quality and
hygiene: Lusaka, Zambia. GART 1: 1-52.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 18. O’Connor CB (1995) ILRI training manual rural dairy technology int
Livestock Res Inst 1: 1-123.

Statement of Authorship 19. Saiqa B, Muhammad SA, Shahzad AK, Habib AR, Muhammad AQ, et al.
(2013) An evaluation of milk quality in and around Rawalakot Azad
We hereby declared that we are the only Authors participated on the Kashmir. African J food sci 7: 421-427
research and preparation of the manuscript. 20. Grimaud P, Serunjogi ML, Grillet N (2004) An evaluation of milk quality
in Uganda. Afr J Food Agric Nutr Dev 7: 1-16.
21. Tadesse T, Bacha K (2014) Microbiological quality and safety of raw milk
References collected from Kersa District, Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia. J Biol
Chem Res 311: 546-561.
1. Bereda A, ZelalemY, Ajebu N (2012) Hygienic and microbial quality of
raw whole cow’s milk produced in Ezha district of the Gurage zone, 22. Asaminew T (2007) Production, handling, traditional processing
Southern Ethiopia. Wudpecker J Agri Res 1: 459-465. practicesand quality of milk in Bahir Dar milk shed. Agri Sci 8: 7.
2. Haile RG, Wells, Swanson R (2010) An outbreak of enteropathogenic E. 23. Nandy SK, Bapat P, Venkatesh KV (2007) Sporulating bacteria prefers
coli food born disease traced to imported French cheese. J Diary Sci 83: predation to cannibalism in mixed cultures. FEBS Lett 581: 151-156.
264-274. 24. Khan TG, Zinnah MA, Siddique MP, Rashid MH, Islam MA, et al. (2008)
3. Howard DT, Ensminger ME (2006) Dairy cattle science. Pearson Prentice Physiology and microbiological qualities of raw milk collected from
Hall. 4: 231-234. Bangladesh Agriculture University dairy farms and its surrounding
villages. Faculty of Veterinary Science Bangladesh. J Vet Med 6: 217-221.
4. John M (2012) Managing high grade dairy cows in the tropics. CSIRO
Publishing Cllingwood Australia. 162-171. 25. Tolosa T, Refera M, Deneke Y, Gashaw A, Supre K, et al. (2010) Milk
production and marketing system in Jimma Town. South Western
5. Abebe T, Markos T (2009) Hygienic milk processing; clean environment,
clean utensils. Tech Bullet 1:7-21. Ethiopia, Jimma, Ethiopia. Intern J Appl Res Vet Med 9:1.
6. Central Statistics Agency (CSA) (2010) National statistics Abstract:
Ethiopian Agricultural sample survey.
7. Ministry of Agriculture MOE (2013) Training programme for small scale
dairy sector and dairy training institute-Naivasha. Milk Testing and
Quality Control 2: 1.

J Adv Dairy Res, an open access journal Volume 6 • Issue 3 • 1000213

ISSN: 2329-888X