Feed and feed storage factors in relation to aflatoxin M1 contamination in bulk milk of smallholder dairy farms

Mycotoxins Pub Date : 2017-07-31 DOI:10.2520/MYCO.67_2_3
W. Chaisri, W. Mongkon, Y. Sugita‐Konishi, D. V. Dam, Ingrid Huntley, W. Suriyasathaporn
{"title":"Feed and feed storage factors in relation to aflatoxin M1 contamination in bulk milk of smallholder dairy farms","authors":"W. Chaisri, W. Mongkon, Y. Sugita‐Konishi, D. V. Dam, Ingrid Huntley, W. Suriyasathaporn","doi":"10.2520/MYCO.67_2_3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of the study was to determine feed and feed storage factors associated with aflatoxin M 1 (AFM 1 ) contamination in bulk milk of dairy farms. The study was conducted from May to July 2016, at all smallholder farms in Mae Wang dairy cooperative, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Data on feed and feed storage factors were collected from the farmers using interviews and observations. For feed, we included type of roughage and physical appearance of concentrated feed, and for feed storage factor, we included storage method of roughages. AFM 1 concentration was measured using the Charm ® ROSA ® MRLAFMQ (afla-toxin M 1 ) Test. Fisher’s exact chi-square test was used to determine the association of feed and feed management factors with AFM 1 contamination. From a total of 67 farms, 50 farms were included in the analysis. AFM 1 contamination was observed in 46% of the samples. Farms using factory-corn silage had a significantly higher percentage of AFM 1 contamination (62.5%) than farms that did not use factory-corn silage (30.8%). AFM 1 contamination in farms that used concentrates with cracked pellets was significantly higher (64.3%) than in those that did not (22.7%). For feed storage, roughage stored in piles within the barn was associated with significantly higher AFM 1 contamination than that stored outside (61.5% and 29.2%, respectively). In addition, AFM 1 contamination for roughage piles with mold on the surface was higher (60%) than that for roughage piles without mold (25%). Our results indicate that type of feed and feed storage factors are associated with AFM 1 contamination in bulk milk.","PeriodicalId":19069,"journal":{"name":"Mycotoxins","volume":"51 1","pages":"85-88"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mycotoxins","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2520/MYCO.67_2_3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The aim of the study was to determine feed and feed storage factors associated with aflatoxin M 1 (AFM 1 ) contamination in bulk milk of dairy farms. The study was conducted from May to July 2016, at all smallholder farms in Mae Wang dairy cooperative, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Data on feed and feed storage factors were collected from the farmers using interviews and observations. For feed, we included type of roughage and physical appearance of concentrated feed, and for feed storage factor, we included storage method of roughages. AFM 1 concentration was measured using the Charm ® ROSA ® MRLAFMQ (afla-toxin M 1 ) Test. Fisher’s exact chi-square test was used to determine the association of feed and feed management factors with AFM 1 contamination. From a total of 67 farms, 50 farms were included in the analysis. AFM 1 contamination was observed in 46% of the samples. Farms using factory-corn silage had a significantly higher percentage of AFM 1 contamination (62.5%) than farms that did not use factory-corn silage (30.8%). AFM 1 contamination in farms that used concentrates with cracked pellets was significantly higher (64.3%) than in those that did not (22.7%). For feed storage, roughage stored in piles within the barn was associated with significantly higher AFM 1 contamination than that stored outside (61.5% and 29.2%, respectively). In addition, AFM 1 contamination for roughage piles with mold on the surface was higher (60%) than that for roughage piles without mold (25%). Our results indicate that type of feed and feed storage factors are associated with AFM 1 contamination in bulk milk.
与小农奶牛场散装牛奶中黄曲霉毒素M1污染有关的饲料和饲料储存因素
本研究的目的是确定与奶牛场散装牛奶中黄曲霉毒素m1 (afm1)污染有关的饲料和饲料储存因素。该研究于2016年5月至7月在泰国清迈Mae Wang乳品合作社的所有小农农场进行。通过访谈和观察,从农民那里收集饲料和饲料储存因素的数据。对于饲料,我们包括了粗饲料的种类和浓缩饲料的物理外观,对于饲料储存因素,我们包括了粗饲料的储存方法。afm1浓度采用Charm®ROSA®MRLAFMQ(黄曲霉毒素m1)检测。采用Fisher精确卡方检验来确定饲料和饲料管理因素与afm1污染的关系。从总共67个农场中,有50个农场被纳入分析。在46%的样品中观察到afm1污染。使用工厂化玉米青贮饲料的养殖场afm1污染比例(62.5%)显著高于未使用工厂化玉米青贮饲料的养殖场(30.8%)。使用破碎颗粒浓缩物的养殖场的afm1污染显著高于未使用的养殖场(22.7%)(64.3%)。在饲料储存方面,仓内堆放粗饲料的afm1污染显著高于仓外储存粗饲料(分别为61.5%和29.2%)。此外,表面有霉菌的粗桩的afm1污染(60%)高于表面没有霉菌的粗桩(25%)。我们的研究结果表明,饲料类型和饲料储存因素与散装牛奶中afm1污染有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信