Log cfu/ml . Hongfei he, Yong Li, Alfred L., et al. 23 10.0 M n=5 8.0 6.0 4.0 L n=9 a* a a a a a a a a a a b FDA regulatory limit (4.3) 2.0 0.0 -5 0 3 -5 0 3 Time (days ) *Means with no common superscripts are significantly different (P
24 <strong>Microbiological</strong> <strong>Quality</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Pasteurized</strong> <strong>Milk</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Hawai`i</strong> one way to determ<strong>in</strong>e the sites <strong>of</strong> contam<strong>in</strong>ation. On the other hand, organic (O) milk samples <strong>in</strong> this study demonstrated high quality performance <strong>in</strong> microbial test<strong>in</strong>g. It may be possible that the different milk handl<strong>in</strong>g strategies designed for O milk production and handl<strong>in</strong>g may contribute to its quality; the chilled distribution system <strong>of</strong> O milk is the probably primary factor that contributed to product safety and extended shelf-life. Direct airfreight with shorter transportation time may be a major contribut<strong>in</strong>g factor for the superior microbiological quality <strong>of</strong> O milk. It must also be noted that <strong>in</strong> some rare occasions, O milk samples did exceed the legal limits set by the FDA. This is probably due to poor handl<strong>in</strong>g e.g. transportation from air cargo site to the retail stores is not performed by refrigerated trucks as has been observed <strong>in</strong> a few occasions when one walked passed the stores. Bulk tank milk imported <strong>in</strong>to the state without refrigeration generally requires 5-7 days <strong>of</strong> transit. The volatile temperatures dur<strong>in</strong>g transportation may have a direct effect on the shelf-life, quality and potential safety <strong>of</strong> the milk products. Increased temperatures have been shown to encourage growth <strong>of</strong> microorganisms and <strong>in</strong>crease the activity <strong>of</strong> degradative enzymes (Cromie, 1991, Hantsis-Zacharov and Halpern, 2007, Sorhaug and Stepaniak, 1997). Excessive high bacterial level may challenge the efficacy <strong>of</strong> re-pasteurization, result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al products with higher bacterial counts thus affect<strong>in</strong>g their subsequent shelf-life. The heat-stable enzymes produced by bacteria may cause serious quality defects <strong>of</strong> re-pasteurized milk (Sorhaug and Stepaniak, 1997). For example, prote<strong>in</strong>s present <strong>in</strong> milk can be digested by proteases, result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> production <strong>of</strong> bitter-tast<strong>in</strong>g peptides and curdl<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the milk; Lipases are able to degrade lipids and cause rancidity <strong>of</strong> milk (Hantsis- Zacharov and Halpern, 2007). Unlike Honolulu where the majority (>65%) <strong>of</strong> milk is imported, the majority <strong>of</strong> the milk supply on the Big Island was produced locally (>70%). This circumstance may be a possible explanation for the differences <strong>in</strong> the rate <strong>of</strong> spoilage <strong>in</strong> between the two counties (>80% vs 11%). It must be noted that the <strong>Pasteurized</strong> <strong>Milk</strong> Ord<strong>in</strong>ance (PMO) allows the bulk shipp<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> pasteurized milk without refrigeration. The guidel<strong>in</strong>e recommends the temperature <strong>of</strong> 7.2ºC (45ºF) as the <strong>in</strong>dicator for reject<strong>in</strong>g milk. Hence, as long as the temperature is met, the milk can be reprocessed for fluid milk use. The current standards do not set a legal microbial count. In addition, there is no data on the bacterial level after 7 days <strong>in</strong> transit without refrigeration. The state <strong>of</strong> California however prohibits the re-pasteurization <strong>of</strong> milk for fluid milk market but allows it for other utilization (CA FAC # 35832). Such regulation does not exist <strong>in</strong> Hawai'i and as such no law is violated or challenged. The PMO, when drafted and revised, probably, did not consider the situation where milk is be<strong>in</strong>g transported and held for more than five days without refrigeration. There is also a need for future studies to determ<strong>in</strong>e the microbial population <strong>of</strong> milk follow<strong>in</strong>g such mode <strong>of</strong> transportation and handl<strong>in</strong>g. Sampl<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the bulk tanks milk prior to repasteurization would be required if the current PMO standards is to be validated. Any such sampl<strong>in</strong>g would need the cooperation <strong>of</strong> the processor and the regulatory agency. In a study conducted 15 months later, results showed storage temperatures affected the f<strong>in</strong>al microbial numbers <strong>in</strong> milk (Table 1). When this was compared to the microbial level <strong>in</strong> the earlier studies, only 8% <strong>of</strong> the samples at 4ºC and 25% <strong>of</strong> the samples at 7ºC storage had bacterial counts higher than the regulatory limit at 5 days prior to expiration date. These results <strong>in</strong>dicate that: a) the milk products from the same process<strong>in</strong>g plant had different quality dur<strong>in</strong>g the two different sampl<strong>in</strong>g periods and b) postpasteurization contam<strong>in</strong>ation was still the likely culprit. Previous report suggests the differences are probably due to multiple factors exist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the process<strong>in</strong>g environment, such as pasteurization and storage conditions, packag<strong>in</strong>g equipment, and personal hygiene (Gruetzmacher and Bradley, 1999). Nevertheless, 25% <strong>in</strong>cidence <strong>of</strong> high bacteria counts should raise concerns given the fact that the major consumers <strong>of</strong> milk are <strong>in</strong>fants, toddlers and young children. It must also be noted that shelf-life <strong>of</strong> milk <strong>in</strong> the retail space is not governed by any regulations <strong>in</strong> any state. The duration a product is on the shelf space is primarily a product quality control set by the respective creamery. In summary, these studies validate the <strong>in</strong>creased compla<strong>in</strong>ts from the consumers on milk spoilage prior to the expiration date <strong>in</strong> Hawaii. We did not resolve where the contam<strong>in</strong>ation occurs or identify the source <strong>of</strong> the bacteria. These spoilage-related organisms can be present <strong>in</strong> raw milk, but they also may enter milk products dur<strong>in</strong>g production and process<strong>in</strong>g. Identify<strong>in</strong>g the spoilage organisms and their reservoirs are critical for extend<strong>in</strong>g fluid milk shelf-life. In the present study, our f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs suggest that psychrotrophic bacteria were the predom<strong>in</strong>ant organisms caus<strong>in</strong>g spoilage <strong>in</strong> Hawaii locally processed milk and this is confirmed by the subsequent study us<strong>in</strong>g molecular techniques to identify the spoilage-related bacteria <strong>in</strong> pasteurized milk (He et al. 2009). S<strong>in</strong>ce these bacteria are heat sensitive, the contam<strong>in</strong>ants could be attributed to postpasteurization contam<strong>in</strong>ation. Our f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs provide important <strong>in</strong>formation on the quality status <strong>of</strong> locally available pasteurized milk <strong>in</strong> retail stores and stress the need for further studies to determ<strong>in</strong>e the source <strong>of</strong> the spoilage organisms. Acknowledgement This study was supported via a grant provided by Hawaii Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture and the Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation ORS# 2006 1665-4. Pac. Agric. Nat. Resour. Vol. 2: 20-25, 2010