685
Views & Citations10
Likes & Shares
Milk safety is a challenging problem of human
health and economics concern. The milk quality is directly related with milk
production practices executed at farm. Lack of knowledge regarding good
practices is a potential high risk for occurrence of milk borne illnesses in
consumers. Present study was undertaken to evaluate these parameters. Farmers engaged
in dairy practices were enrolled in this study and requested to answer a
structured questionnaire (n=485) having close ended questions. In addition,
opinion of dairy farmer motivators engaged in field survey was also evaluated.
Out of total, 416 (82.07%), 274 (70.90%), 289
(75.06%), 462 (94.04%) and 224(57.92%) respondents has positive opinion for
cleanliness of farm environment, surroundings, animal body, health and hygiene
of milker, respectively. But only 112 (29.09%), 74 (18.96%), 96 (24.94%), 50 (12.99%)
and 45 (9.09%) participants were aware of cleanliness of milker’s clothing,
teat sanitization, dry milking, discarding foremilk and cooler milk storage.
For attitude and awareness level, 449 (88.05%), 441 (85.97%) and 416 (82.08%)
farmers milked their animal even under antibiotic, acaridae and anti-helminthic
treatment, respectively. Only 58 (15.06%) dairy farmers know about presence of
chemical residues and their potential health impacts. Out of the 485
participants, 250 (64.94%) knows that proper boiling of milk prevents diseases
like TB/brucellosis, while 250 (64.94%) and 400 (77.92%) attendants not knows
about any causative agents and its correct mode of transmission. Comparative appraisal of
the dairy farmer motivator’s opinion regarding interference of implementation
of safety related practices at farm revealed highest overall rank with respect
to response rate, is found to be dairy farmer have no interest followed by
dairy farmer cannot afford to invest.
The finding suggests need of specific
education for dairy men particularly those with low level of knowledge. It will
directly contribute in uplifting farmer’s socio-economic status, development,
consumer health and prosperity as a whole.
Keywords: Dairy farmer, Milk, Safety,
Opinion, Attitude, Awareness, Training
INTRODUCTION
Dairy
farming plays a crucial role in shaping the rural economics. It converts
cheaper quality, nutritionally low feed material into higher quality, costly,
nutritionally rich food material and provides biologically excellent animal
protein in the form of milk not only for household consumption but also for commercial
purposes. It sustains the livelihood of millions of farmer by providing
continuous and additional source of income and prosperity as a whole.
India is the largest producer of milk in the world with estimated
production of 155.5 million tons during 2015-2016 (NDDB, 2017). The Madhya Pradesh state, in spite
of having second position in adult milch animal population in India, it shares
only about 6.67% of total milk production with 6th position in the
country (NDDB, 2015). The dairy farmers of the state have a great potential to
improve not only the production but also the quality of the milk and may become
a leader of organic-white revolution.
The milk
food safety is a challenging global problem of human health concern. It comprises the safety of milk and its products from
physical, chemical and microbiological contaminations at all levels of
production, processing to consumption, i.e., it starts from farm and concludes
at fork [2]. The milk quality is directly related with milk production
practices executed at farm. Lack of knowledge regarding good
practices is a potential high risk for occurrence of milk borne illnesses in
consumers.
Keeping in view the above facts and points, the present study was
undertaken to determine the opinion regarding milk production practices, with
respect to the safety of milk; attitude, awareness level of dairy farmer
regarding chemical residues, contaminants and disease transmission and to
evaluate the interviewer/dairy farmer motivator’s opinion regarding
implementation of safety related practices at farm level. Such information is
necessary for the planning of interventional strategies and effective skill
development and training programs for dairy farmers.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
A cross sectional study design was applied to collect the data from
dairy farmers with respect to available dairy farms in Malwa region of the
Madhya Pradesh (India). The probability sampling (systemic random sampling)
method was employed.
Sample size: Sample size required for the study was determined
according to Thrusfield [3] at 95% confidence interval, 5% margin of error and
with expected frequency distribution of 50%. The formula for infinite/unknown
population was taken as follows:
n=1.962 Pexp (1 - Pexp)
/ d2
Where,
n=Estimated sample size
Z=t value for an expected
confidence level at 95%=1.96
Pexp=expected frequency
distribution of 50.0%=0.50
d=Desired margin of error or
precision of +5%=0.05
n=485, i.e., A total 485 dairy
farmers/respondent from study area will be questioned for performing cross
sectional survey
Study instrument
Data was collected using a
pre-validated, food safety based structured questionnaire consisting of closed
ended questions, which were administered orally to all respondents, willing to
participate in the study. The inclusion criterions of a respondent include an
informed oral consent, a person engaged in dairy practices and more than 18
years of age. The respondents under 18 years of age were excluded from the
study.
The first portion of the
questionnaire included general information about the owner or respondent such
as name of the owner, type of ownership, number of animal and breed details.
The second portion focused on the description of the practices towards clean,
hygienic, safe milk production and milk handling. The last portion included
human attitude and awareness regarding residue, contaminants and disease
transmission.
Questions were designed so that
the majority of responses could either be circled, choose, ticked or answered
in only a few words in order to minimize any misunderstandings during translation.
After the questionnaire was completed, information regarding the good milk
safety practices and potential disease transmission to humans were given to the
participants. On an average each sampling takes thirty minutes. The data were
also collected from various interviewers/dairy farmer motivators to judge their
views regarding implementation of food safety related practices at farm level.
The data so collected were subjected to descriptive statistical analysis to
find out the meaningful inferences.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Dairy farmer’s practices towards clean, hygienic, safe
milk production and milk handling
Opinion
regarding milk safety related practices, most of the respondents, 82.07% knew that milking should be done in
clean, hygienic and peaceful environment (Table
1). A high level of knowledge in comparison to present study was reported
by Aparna et al. [4] to be 100% in
Roopnagar district of Punjab (India), who conducted a study to assess the
extent of awareness about clean milk production among dairy farmers. This
practice might be used due to the perception that it not only improves
the quality and quantity but also health of the milch animals.
Majority of
respondents, 91.95% use bore well/tube well as a source of water (Table 1). It may be ascribed by the
fact that the farmer believe, well water is usually free from pathogenic
microbes and other harmful impurities and may regard as best source of fresh
water supply.
About 68.05%
of respondent milked their animals in barn and around 25.97% in milking room (Table 1). The results of our study are
comparable with the report from Jaipur, Rajasthan (India). An investigation
conducted by Manohar et al. [5] to
assess milking management practices of buffaloes and observed barn milking to
be 59.47% and room milking to be 40.64%. Milking at the same place, i.e.,
in barn may contaminate the milk while, milking at separate clean and dry place,
i.e., in milking room, lower the chances of milk contamination.
On an
average 51.95% of respondent clean milking place once a day, while 44.90% twice
a day. When questioned on whether they clean
the dung, debris or dust from animal body before milking, 75.06% of respondent
said yes (Table 1). From surrounding
cleanliness point of view, most of the respondents about 70.90% kept it clean.
A low level of cleanliness in comparison to present study was reported earlier
by Aparna et al. [4] to be 58.40% in
Punjab (India), who was agreed with the importance of cleanliness of
surrounding as well as the premises too.
Mass of the
respondents, 94.04% use hand milking method to milk their animals. 48.96% of
respondents did not wash their hands with soap before milking. 40.14% did not
wash udder and teats of animal with clean water before milking (Table 1). The results of present study
were similar with the earlier findings of Millogo et al. [6] as there was also
lack of teat cleaning before milking in 14 farms out of 22 investigated in
Burkina Faso (West Africa). A much higher percentage of pre-milking hygiene in
comparison to present finding was reported by Aparna et al. [4] to be 100% in Punjab (India), where all
the respondents cleaned udder, teats and washed their hands before milking.
In present study, 80% of respondents did not
used clean towel wipe, teat dips or sanitizer and teat seal after milking which
is close to the study of Hundal et al. [1] with 68.7% response (Table
1). A high level of ignorance in this regard was observed by Manohar et al.
[5], where none of the
respondent wiped the udder and teats just after milking. Use of post-milking
dip with suitable antiseptic is an important aspect in clean, hygienic and safe
milk production. Post-milking dip will not only protect animal from infection
of udder like mastitis but end user will also receive safe milk with lower
bacterial and somatic cell counts. Most of respondents were lacking knowledge on
this aspect and there is need to educate them. When asked regarding cleaning of
milk containers and other utensils, 24.90%
was aware that Luke warm water along with detergents and sanitizers
would be used as a good hygienic practices (Table
1). The low level of awareness in this regard was reported by Aparna et al.
[4], where none of the
respondents was found to use cleaning agent and water for cleaning purposes.
The high level of awareness in comparison to present study was reported by Aparna
et al. [4] in Punjab (India), where
100% of respondent uses clean water along with detergent for washing of
milk containers.
Majority of
the respondents about 62.08% wear dirty cloths during the act of milking, while
29.09% have clean cloths. Most of the respondents about 94.04% agreed that
milking practices should be performed by a healthy milker (Table 1). In comparison to the present study, a high level of
awareness in this regard is reported by Aparna et al. [4], where 100% respondent agreed that milker should be clean and
healthy.
During the
present investigation it was observed that 60.00% of the respondents answered
positively for the milker’s personal cleanliness viz. haircut/securing the
hair, trimming of beard and cutting the nail regularly (Table 1). Earlier Aparna et al. [4] reported a higher percentage of awareness in this regard as 100% in
Punjab (India).
In present study, 70.90% of respondents did
not knew about correct method of milking as they routinely performed wet
milking (Table 1). A high level of unawareness in this
regard was reported by Manohar et al. [5] in Rajasthan (India) where none of respondent follows dry hand
milking practice. The bad practice of wet hand milking may be ascribed by the
fact that lubrication role of milk fat during the act of milking make the task
easy to perform, but it degraded that quality of milk by imparting a high total
bacterial count.
When asked
about production hygiene, majority 58.96% mixed all the milk in the same pot
from different animals (Table 1). A
high level of ignorance in this regard is reported by Millogo et al. [6] as all
milk was mixed in same bucket without discarding milk from animals with poor
udder health. Very few respondents, 12.99% discard the fore-milk before
collection. The result of present study was comparable with the finding of Aparna
et al. [4], where 26.70%
respondents knew about the fact that it will avoid the spread of microorganism
found in the teat canal and lowers the microbial load of milk.
The present
investigation indicated that 76.10% of respondents sieved the milk immediately
after milking (Table 1). An almost
similar pattern of awareness was reported by Hundal et al. [1] to be 74.00% among dairy farmers in Punjab
(India). The act of sieving was ascribed by the fact that it discards
the physical extraneous material from the milk and improves its quality.
According to the present study, the storing of milk in cooling system or cooler
place was observed in 9.09% respondents (Table
1). Earlier Hundal et al. [1] reported a higher level of awareness
in this regard as 96.00% in Punjab
(India). Cooling of milk just after milking is an essential step to
reduces the multiplication and growth of milk microbes [7] and it will also
increases the keeping quality of milk.
Attitude and awareness level of dairy farmers regarding
residue, contaminants and disease transmission
In present
study, 56.10% respondent knew that clean
milk cannot be produced from ill animals. On the other hand, results revealed
that 85.97%, 88.05%, 82.08% and 52.99% respondents milked their animal even
under treatment of acaridae, antibiotic, anti-helminthic and chemotherapeutic
agent, respectively (Table 2). A
high level of awareness in this regard particularly for acaridae was reported
by Kennedy et al. [8] in Ghana (West
Africa), where only 5% respondents milked their animals during such
treatment. When questioned that do they know about the presence of the drug
residues and their human health impact, most of respondents 64.94% answered no (Table 2).
Majority,
52.99% of respondent not use pesticide and insecticide treated pasture for
feeding of their animal (Table 2). A
high level of awareness in this regard is reported by Aparna et al. [4], where
100% of respondents avoid fodder/feed sprayed with insecticide for animal
feeding. When asked about the presence of the chemical residues and their
health effect on consumption of milk, most of 72.99% answered no (Table 2). Only 47.92% respondents
answered correctly when questioned about whether they knew that milk from such
animal under various treatments is not fit for human consumption (Table 2). Earlier study conducted by
Aparna et al. [4] reported a reasonably higher level of knowingness as 66.7% of
respondent knows that milk procured from animals under treatment is not fit for
human consumption.
Any milk borne disease (TB, Brucelllosis, etc.) and its causative
agent was known by only 22.08% respondents (Table 2). None of awareness in this
regard was reported by Bonsu et al. [9] in Ghana (West
Africa), where 0% respondent knew about the milk borne diseases like tuberculosis and its
causative agent. About 45.29% of
respondents were aware about human transmission of milk borne organisms (Table 2). [9] Also reported lack of awareness in this regard too.
The results of present
investigation revealed that 76.10% respondents knew symptoms of tuberculosis in man, while only 24.90%
respondents knew the symptoms
of brucellosis in human (Table 2). A
low level of awareness in this regard was observed by Kennedy et al. [8] in Ghana (West Africa), where symptoms
of tuberculosis in man was known by 54% and symptoms of brucellosis in man was knew only by 4.50%.
On
the other hand, study revealed that 42.90% and 44.04% respondents knew the
symptoms of tuberculosis and brucellosis in milch animals, respectively (Table 2). A high level of positive
response in this regard was reported by Kennedy et al. [8] in Ghana (West Africa) to be 76.80%
and 68.80% for symptoms of tuberculosis and brucellosis in animals,
respectively. It may be attributed to the fact that knowledge and past exposure
of respondent, i.e., dairy man was more involved with tuberculosis and least
with brucellosis. The finding suggestive of awareness program in this regard.
Very few owners, 10.14% has adequate knowledge about
correct mode of transmission of diseases (Table 2). The results of present study are comparable with the
earlier reports of Kennedy et al. [8]
in Ghana (West Africa), where only 12.90% of respondent knew the correct
mode of transmission of disease (brucellosis) from animal to human.
When asked do they know that proper boiling of milk
prevents the diseases 64.94% respondents answered correctly (Table 2). A very low level
of awareness in this regard was reported by Bonsu et al. [9] in
Ghana (West Africa), where only 0% respondent knew that the boiling of
milk prevents diseases such as tuberculosis.
In present study, 68.05% respondents avoided the pet animal like dog, cat, etc., near milch
animals (Table 2). A high level of
awareness in this regard was reported by Hundal et al. [1] in Punjab (India) to
be 97.40%. When questioned about
the frequency of owner for veterinary assistance, 4.12%, 62.08% and 42.98%
respondents stated that they never sought veterinary assistance, sought only in
case of disease or vaccination and regularly sought veterinary assistance for
their animals, respectively (Table
2).
Opinion of interviewers/dairy farmer
motivators regarding implementation of milk safety related practices at farm
level
In
present study, most of the interviewer 58.97% suggested that the dairy farmer
apply the new innovation, techniques or procedures at farm, if they got
financial benefits from them. 40.77% observed that they implement if it promote
health of milch animals. 24.08% of motivator told that they follow the safe
practises if it hindered diseases being introduced on their farm. Only 7.69% of
interviewer thought that they follows these practises if it promotes health of
milk consumers and least 2.56% agreed with the fact that they follows only if
mandatory by law or policy.
When
analysed the reasons why interviewers or Dairy Farmer Motivators (DFMs) has not
been able to innovate dairy farmers about promoting milk safety related
practices. The values 1.79, 2.84, 4.10, 4.18, 4.64 and 5.05 were found for
reasons as dairy farmer have no interest, dairy farmer cannot afford to invest,
dairy farmer do not have the time, dairy farmer can afford but not willing to
invest, DFMs do not have the time and DFMs do not believe it is beneficial for
farmer, respectively for each priority order (Table 3). This
finding indicates the need of specific training or education programme for
dairy farmers so the mind set of farmers will turn toward the benefits of
clean, hygienic and safe milk production. It not only increases the
socio-economic status of the dairy farmer but also boost up the economy of
state by supplying a quality food product to importing nations.
CONCLUSION
Milk
production practices followed by dairy farmers in this investigation were found
to be substandard. This was attributed to lack of knowledge and exposure to
innovative ideas, absence of skill based training programme in the studied
area. Hence, there is a necessity to instruct dairy farmers about various
aspects of clean, hygienic and safe milk production practices and the specific
interventional strategy should be made by higher authorities involved in animal
husbandry and dairy extension services. So that state might not be lagging
behind in the national and international markets.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors are thankful to all the active participants for the views
provided. We also acknowledged the enormous help acquired from research
scholars whose articles are mentioned and covered in this manuscript.
1) Hundal
JS, Chandrahas, Kaur K, Singh J, Verma HK (2014) Clean milk production
awareness among women dairy farmers of Punjab. Vet Pract 14: 494-497.
2) Kumar
V (2018) Study on milk safety status: Assessment of common adulterants in
market milk of Punjab. Ph.D. dissertation submitted to Guru Angad Dev
Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana – 141 004, Punjab (India).
3) Thrusfield
M (2005) Veterinary epidemiology. 3rd Edn. Blackwell Science Ltd.:
United Kingdom.
4) Aparna,
Saini SP, Hundal JS (2014) Milking management for control of mastitis:
Awareness among dairy farmers of Punjab. Vet Pract 14: 574-575.
5) Manohar
DS, Bais B, Kachhwah RN, Choudhary VK, Goswami SC (2014) Study on milking management
practices of buffaloes in relationship with selected traits of respondents in
Jaipur district of Rajasthan. Vet Pract 14: 445-447.
6) Millogo
V, Ouédraogo GA, Agenäs S, Svennersten-Sjaunja K (2008) Survey on dairy cattle
milk production and milk quality problems in peri-urban areas in Burkina Faso,
Afr J Agric Res 4: 215-224.
7) Sraïri
MT, Alaoui IH, Hamama A, Faye B (2005) Relations entre pratiques d’élevage et
qualité globale du lait de vache en étables suburbaines au Maroc. Revue Méd Vét
(In French, English Abstract) 156: 155-162.
8) Kennedy
KA, Gloria IM, Naomi N, George KN, David M, et al. (2011) Knowledge, attitudes
and practices (KAP) of herdsmen in Ghana with respect to milk-borne zoonotic
diseases and the safe handling of milk. J Basic Appl Sci Res 1: 1556-1562.
9) Bonsu
OA, Laing E, Akanmori BD (2000) Prevalence of tuberculosis in cattle in the
Dangme-West district of Ghana: Public health implication. Acta Tropica 76:
9-14.
QUICK LINKS
- SUBMIT MANUSCRIPT
- RECOMMEND THE JOURNAL
-
SUBSCRIBE FOR ALERTS
RELATED JOURNALS
- Advances in Nanomedicine and Nanotechnology Research (ISSN: 2688-5476)
- Proteomics and Bioinformatics (ISSN:2641-7561)
- Journal of Womens Health and Safety Research (ISSN:2577-1388)
- Journal of Microbiology and Microbial Infections (ISSN: 2689-7660)
- Food and Nutrition-Current Research (ISSN:2638-1095)
- Journal of Astronomy and Space Research
- Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine (ISSN:2641-6948)