MICROBIOLOGICAL EXAMINATION FOR THE GERM REDUCTION OF THE HT250 – PASTEUR FOR CALF MILK, OCT. 2017
Safe feeding of pasteurized transition milk
Current research and testing show that the steam-based pasteurization technology of the current HT250 Calf Milk Pasteurizer is the most efficient germ elimination on the market today.
The latest microbiological examination and testing of the pasteurization performance of the HT250 calf milk pasteurizer according to the strict DLG test guidelines at the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen yielded the following results:
The raw milk was inoculated with the following pathogenic germs: Escherichia coli – Staphylococcus aureus – Streptococcus agalactiae – Enterococcus faecalis – Campylobacter jejuni – Bacillus cereus. The vaccine concentrations were between 5000 and 75600 cfu/ml.
After pasteurization with the HT250 calf milk pasteurizer all germs were below the detection limit. Only with Bacillus cereus (<1.60x101) and the total aerobic bacterial count (1.07x102 or 1.18x102 respectively) smallest numbers of germs were measurable. Colony-Forming Unit (CFU)
USE OF PASTEURIZED MILK IN CALF REARING – DGFZ SERIES ISSUE 76 (2018)
Feeding colostrum from the first hour of life and the transition milk until the 5th day p.p. within the first two to three weeks of life is highly desirable from an immunological, nutritional-physiological and economic point of view, which pays off in higher weight increases, better calf health and cost savings of around € 45 per calf (savings on milk replacers). However, starting from the second colostrum milking, the feed milk should be pasteurized to prevent the transmission of udder pathogens and relieve stress to the calf's immune system. The “All In One COLOSTRUM FEEDER" as a new development offers for the first time the possibility of an uncomplicated, fast and hygienic colostrum management including the possibility of pasteurization.
Even after the second week of life, a certain proportion of whole milk in the feed offers nutritional and economic advantages. However, the use of pasteurized whole milk must be questioned critically in terms of which technology is used and how whole milk management is structured on the farm. Short-term pasteurization and a closed system with acidification should be preferred. With regard to the practical application and the effectiveness of pasteurization, the test results speak in favor of the fully automatic HT 250 pasteurizer from the company Martin Förster GmbH. In view of the high economic losses of calf diseases and mastitis, the costs of pasteurization with this device are already worthwhile if there are only 20 fewer cases of mastitis per year in the herd. If then the calf diarrhea cases, which currently affect on average approx. 50% of all calves, can be halved, a 300 dairy farm saves an additional € 4,500 / year, which alone covers almost half of the total cost of pasteurization. The milk replacement savings and weight gains are added proven benefits.
The recommendation for the fully automatic HT 250 pasteurizer resulting from the direct comparison of equipment is based on the reliable elimination of pathogens without the risk of recontamination, the lower workload, the practicability and the significantly lower overall process costs despite higher investment costs, which are less than half compared to the Milk Taxi system. This advantage is also due to the possible and intended integration of the HT 250 into a computer-controlled calf rearing system. It is also coupled with the possibility of using colostrum effectively with the aid of the so-called steam lance and thus offers a labor-saving complete solution for whole milk management in the calf nutrition.
Dr. Matthias Platen, Viktoria Paul (LAB GmbH), Nicole Tall (AHB GmbH); 2018: Use of pasteurized milk in calf rearing (German) Einsatz von pasteurisierter Milch in der Kälberaufzucht – DGfZ (German Society for Breeding) – Series of Publications, Issue 76 (2018)
Comparision LTLT pasteurizer and HTST pasteurizer
On a dairy cattle farm in Brandenburg, the high quality of the Sperrmilch milk produced is reduced by on-farm pasteurisation and then impregnated into the calves reared on the farm. The long-term (LTLT) and short-term pasteurisation methods (HTST) used there for mastitis-induced barrier milk were compared over several days. The respective effectiveness of the pasteurisers with regard to germ reduction as well as the process-specific consumption of the resources required for pasteurisation – electricity, water and time – and the resulting costs were compared. In six rounds, 200 l of barrier milk were pasteurised.
A mobile LTLT pasteurizer was used, which heats Sperrmilch in a 200 l boiler as well as the HTST pasteurizer “MaxiSteam III" of the company Förster-Technik® (the predecessor model of the Pasteur HT 250 of the company Martin Förster GmbH), which heats Sperrmilch in the flow-through procedure with incoming steam. To determine the respective pasteurizer effectiveness, milk samples were taken before and after pasteurization and analyzed in the laboratory using the Koch plate method and the BactoScan FC method. The respective resource consumption was measured with a power meter, a water meter and a clock. The results of previous research were largely confirmed in this study. The HTST pasteurizer was able to reduce all cow and environmentally associated mastitis pathogens by more than 99 %. Total germ counts were also reliably reduced. In the LTLT pasteurizer, however, there was an increase in the total bacterial count after pasteurization. Even some mastitis pathogens could not be eliminated sufficiently despite a low initial germ load. Furthermore, an increased risk of recontamination of the milk through the lid opening for the LTLT pasteuriser is to be expected.
The HTST pasteurizer required approx. 50 % less time, 18 – 30 % less electricity and 80 % less fresh water for the pasteurization of 200 l barrier milk compared to the LTLT pasteurizer. This results in additional costs per operating year for resources between 1073 – 1219 € and an additional time requirement between 876 – 1241 h for the LTLT pasteuriser compared to the HTST pasteuriser. In summary, the HTST pasteuriser eliminates germs contained in barrier milk more effectively and consumes less resources than the LTLT pasteuriser".
Niemeyer, P.; 2015:
Investigation of various pasteurisation processes for the processing of barrier milk (German) Untersuchung verschiedener Pasteurisationsverfahren zur Aufbereitung von Sperrmilch; Master's thesis, Department of Animal Husbandry and Process Engineering, Humboldt-Universität of Berlin.
Conclusion and development of comparision with our HT250 calf milk pasteurizer
“In an older study (2008) with the short-term pasteurizer Maxi Steam, small quantities of pathogens were detected after pasteurization (KNAPPSTEIN ET AL. 2013). However, this device was a technically hardly comparable prototype of today's HT 250. In addition, the holding time of only 12 seconds (today's HT 250: 30 sec.) was below the temperature prescribed by law for HTST pasteurization (15 sec.) and the temperature was only 72°C (today's HT 250: 73.5°C). Accordingly, current studies show that this new device is capable of extensively killing pathogens (CZERNY 2018; see also Übers. 10).
Platen M.; same as above, 2018
Further studies and excerpts on request