1

Effect of Aflatoxin and Toxin Binders on Milk Composition of Buffalo Milk

-SAILEE GURAVMSC.BIOCHEMISTRY

PROJECT CO - GUIDEDR. SHAILESH . D. INGOLE

DISSERTATION DONE AT BOMBAY VETERINARY

COLLEGE,PAREL,MUMBAI

2

Introduction Review of Literature Aims and Objective Signification of Research problems Plan of work Material and Methods Result and Discussion Conclusion Bibliography

CONTENT

3

AFLATOXIN

INTRODUCTION

4

AFLATOXIN CONTAMINATION PATHWAY

5

TOXIN BINDERS

BentoniteActivated charcoalZeolite

6

Aflatoxin

Toxin Binder

HOW DOES TOXIN BINDER BINDS AFLATOXIN?

7

CRITERIA FOR SELECTING THE”BEST“ TOXIN BINDER

Toxin binders

8

Michal Hulik et al.,(2014) studied effect of mycotoxin sequestering agents added into feed on health, reproduction and milk yield of dairy cattle.

R. Dokovic et al.,(2011) studied effect of zeolite on the chemical composition of milk from Serbian spotted dairy cattle.

Battacone et al., (2009) studied the transfer of aflatoxin M1 in milk of ewes fed diet naturally contaminated by aflatoxins and effect of inclusion of dried yeast culture in the diet.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

9

AIM: To evaluate proteins, lactose, fat, SNF in milk of buffalo and milk yield up to 45 days in control and treatment groups fed with and without Toxin Binders.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the levels of fat,lactose,SNF,proteins

in milk of buffaloes and milk yield between control and treatment groups.

AIM AND OBJECTIVES

10

Aflatoxins a major concern

Hepatocellular carcinoma, is the third-leading cause of death

SIGNIFICATION OF RESEARCH PROBLEMS SELECTED

11

In addition to health problems aflatoxins affects nutritional value of milk

Role of toxin binders

Aflatoxins cannot be removed through pasteurization

PLAN OF WORK

MATERIALS

13

48 Murrah Buffaloes

Napier Grass Dry

fodder

CONTROL GROUP

T1Exal + Bentonite

T2Talc

T3Chinal clay

TEST GROUPT1,T2,T3

Collection of Buffalo Milk

samples

Toxin Binders

14

METHODOLOGYLACTOSCAN MILK ANALYZER

15

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Days C T1 T2 T30 8.97 10.03 7.83 8.767 8.33 8.72 8.56 8.588 9.15 9.4 8.3 8.59 8.97 10.03 7.83 8.76

10 8.58 10.35 8.8 8.5511 8.33 8.72 8.56 8.5812 8.45 8.03 8.22 8.4113 8.56 8.39 7.51 7.9814 8.52 8.63 8.24 8.0315 8.31 8.22 8.12 8.4721 9.5 9.12 9.02 9.5728 11.15 9.76 9.54 9.9635 9.69 9.9 8.6 9.4145 8.52 8.63 8.1 8.03

Means 8.93ª 9.13ª 8.37b 8.68ab

AVERAGE MILK FAT %

a- Sameb-Difference

17

7.8

8

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8

9

9.2

8.93

9.13

8.37

8.68CONTROLT1T2T3

DAYS

MIL

K FA

T %

T1 T2 T3

GRAPH OF AVERAGE MILK FAT %

CONTROL

AVERAGE MILK PROTEIN %Days C T1 T2 T3

0 4.75 4.75 4.45 4.47 4.55 4.55 4.5 4.48 4.5 4.4 4.65 4.459 3.63 4.09 3.97 3.6

10 3.73 4.35 4.45 4.411 4.05 4.04 4.06 4.0812 4.05 4.08 3.95 3.9713 3.94 4.07 3.97 4.0614 3.88 3.97 4.02 3.9915 3.87 3.51 3.87 3.921 4.1 3.97 3.93 3.9228 4 3.96 3.98 4.1135 3.88 3.99 3.79 3.8145 3.78 3.94 3.68 3.95

Means 4.05 4.11 4.09 4.07

19

4

4.02

4.04

4.06

4.08

4.1

4.12

4.05

4.11

4.09

4.07 CONTROLT1T2T3

DAYS

MIL

K PR

OTE

IN %

GRAPH OF AVERAGE MILK PROTEINS %

CONTROL T1 T2 T3

AVERAGE MILK SNFDays C T1 T2 T3

0 9.82 11.2 10.55 9.817 10.7 10.65 10.7 10.758 10.1 10.3 9.5 10.59 9.82 11.2 9.55 9.76

10 10.15 10.7 10.1 11.211 10.7 10.65 10.7 10.7512 10.7 10.75 10.55 10.5513 11.1 10.7 10.55 10.7514 10.85 10.55 10.65 10.615 10.4 10.65 10.55 10.421 10.55 9.99 10.5 10.7528 11.75 10.5 10.11 11.0835 10.58 10.4 10.01 10.9545 10.35 10.55 10.65 10.23

Means 10.54 10.62 10.33 10.57

21

10.1510.2

10.2510.3

10.3510.4

10.4510.5

10.5510.6

10.65

10.54

10.62

10.33

10.57

CONTROLT1T2T3

DAYS

MIL

K S

NF

% GRAPH OF AVERAGE MILK SNF %

CONTROL

T1 T2 T3

Days C T1 T2 T3

0 6.2 6.6 6.35 6.17 5.7 6.55 6.45 5.758 4.5 5.3 5.7 5.29 4.45 4.5 4.7 5.05

10 4.8 4.5 4.45 5.4511 4.45 4.45 4.35 4.3512 4.45 4.7 4.65 4.413 5.85 5.65 5.6 5.6514 5.75 5.2 5.25 5.3515 5.3 5.9 5.5 5.221 4.2 4.65 4.9 4.9528 4.9 5.75 4.95 4.9535 4.35 4.2 4.45 4.445 4.7 4.55 4.95 4.75

Means 4.97 5.17 5.16 5.11

AVERAGE MILK LACTOSE

23

4.85

4.9

4.95

5

5.05

5.1

5.15

5.2

4.97

5.17 5.16

5.11

CONTROLT1T2T3

DAYS

MIL

K L

ACTO

SE %

GRAPH OF AVERAGE LACTOSE %

CONTROL T1 T3T2

AVERAGE MILK YIELD OF BUFFALOES

25

Day T1 T2 T3 C

AVERAGE MILK YIELD OF BUFFALOES

26

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

8.359.47

11.41

8.62

CONTROLT1T2T3

DAYS

MIL

K YI

ELD

IN

LIT

ERS

AVERAGE MILK YIELD

CONTROL T1 T2 T3

27

CONCLUSION

Lower milk yield in C & T3 groups and higher in T2 & T1groups

Talc and exal + bentonite proved to be best toxin binders

Protein, SNF and lactose concentration did not vary with the treatments

28

BIBLOGRAPHY

E Smith, T D Phillips, J A Ellis, R B Harvey, L F Kubena, J Thompson and G Newton (1994) Dietary Hydrated Sodium Calcium Aluminosilicate Reduction of Aflatoxin M, Residue in Dairy Goat Milk and Effects on Milk Production and Components. J ANIM SCI 1994, 72:677-682.

Battacone, G., A. Nudda, A. Cannas, A. Cappio Borlino, G. Bomboi and G. Pulina (2003) Excretion of aflatoxin M1 in milk of dairy ewes treated with different doses of aflatoxin B1. J. Dairy Sci. 86:2667–2675.

G. Battacone, A. Nudda, M. Palomba, M. Pascale, P. Nicolussi, and G. Pulina (2005).Transfer of Aflatoxin B1 from Feed to Milk and from Milk to Curd and Whey in Dairy Sheep Fed Artificially Contaminated Concentrates. J. Dairy Sci. 88:3063–3069

Razzagh Mahmoudi (2014).Seasonal pattern of aflatoxin M1 contamination in buffalo Milk. Journal of Agroalimentary Processes and Technologies 2014, 20(1), 9-13.

Melkamu Bezabih Yitbarek and Birhan Tamir (2014).Mycotoxines and/or aflatoxines in milk and milk products: Review. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences ISSN 2167-0447 Vol. 4 (10), pp. 294-311.

THANK YOU