Microbiological quality of raw milk attributable to prolonged refrigeration conditions

Refrigerated storage of raw milk is a prerequisite in dairy industry. However, temperature abused conditions in the farming and processing environments can significantly affect the microbiological quality of raw milk. Thus, the present study investigated the effect of different refrigeration conditions such as 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 °C on microbiological quality of raw milk from three different dairy farms with significantly different initial microbial counts. The bacterial counts (BC), protease activity (PA), proteolysis (PL) and microbial diversity in raw milk were determined during storage. The effect of combined heating (75 ± 0·5 °C for 15 s) and refrigeration on controlling those contaminating microorganisms was also investigated. Results of the present study indicated that all of the samples showed increasing BC, PA and PL as a function of temperature, time and initial BC with a significant increase in those criteria ≥6 °C. Similar trends in BC, PA and PL were observed during the extended storage of raw milk at 4 °C. Both PA and PL showed strong correlation with the psychrotrophic proteolytic count (PPrBC: at ≥4 °C) and thermoduric psychrotrophic count (TDPC: at ≥8 °C) compared to total plate count (TPC) and psychrotrophic bacterial count (PBC), that are often used as the industry standard. Significant increases in PA and PL were observed when PPrBC and TDPC reached 5 × 104cfu/ml and 1 × 104cfu/ml, and were defined as storage life for quality (SLQ), and storage life for safety (SLS) aspects, respectively. The storage conditions also significantly affected the microbial diversity, wherePseudomonas fluorescensandBacillus cereuswere found to be the most predominant isolates. However, deep cooling (2 °C) and combination of heating and refrigeration (≤4 °C) significantly extended theSLQandSLsof raw milk.</jats:p

Factors associated with treatment of women with osteoporosis or osteopenia from a national survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health outcomes could be improved if women at high risk for osteoporotic fracture were matched to effective treatment. This study determined the extent to which treatment for osteoporosis/osteopenia corresponded to the presence of specific risk factors for osteoporotic fracture.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This retrospective analysis of the United States 2007 National Health and Wellness Survey included women age ≥ 40 years who reported having a diagnosis of osteoporosis (69% of 3276) or osteopenia (31% of 3276). Patients were stratified by whether they were or were not taking prescription treatment for osteoporosis/osteopenia. Using 34 patient characteristics as covariates, logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with treatment.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Current prescription treatment was reported by 1800 of 3276 (54.9%) women with osteoporosis/osteopenia. The following factors were associated with receiving prescription treatment: patient-reported diagnosis of osteoporosis (versus osteopenia); previous bone mineral density test; ≥ 2 fractures since age 50; older age; lower body mass index; better physical functioning; postmenopausal status; family history of osteoporosis; fewer comorbidities; prescription insurance coverage; higher total prescription count; higher ratio of prescription costs to monthly income; higher income; single status; previous visit to a rheumatologist or gynecologist; and 1 or 2 outpatient visits to healthcare provider (vs. none) in the prior 6 months. Glucocorticoid, tobacco, and daily alcohol use were risk factors for fracture that were not associated with treatment.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>There is a mismatch between those women who could benefit from treatment for osteoporosis and those who are actually treated. For example, self-reported use of glucocorticoids, tobacco, and alcohol were not associated with prescription treatment of osteoporosis. Other clinical and socioeconomic factors were associated with treatment (e.g. prescription drug coverage and higher income) or not (e.g. comorbid osteoarthritis and anxiety) and could be opportunities to improve care.</p