Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:38:35.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A preliminary study on the quality and safety of milk in donkeys positive for Toxoplasma gondii

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 August 2014

M. Martini ,
I. Altomonte ,
F. Mancianti ,
S. Nardoni ,
L. Mugnaini  and
F. Salari
M. Martini*
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Science, University of Pisa, viale delle Piagge, 2-56100 Pisa, Italy
I. Altomonte
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Science, University of Pisa, viale delle Piagge, 2-56100 Pisa, Italy
F. Mancianti
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Science, University of Pisa, viale delle Piagge, 2-56100 Pisa, Italy
S. Nardoni
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Science, University of Pisa, viale delle Piagge, 2-56100 Pisa, Italy
L. Mugnaini
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Science, University of Pisa, viale delle Piagge, 2-56100 Pisa, Italy
F. Salari
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Science, University of Pisa, viale delle Piagge, 2-56100 Pisa, Italy
*
† E-mail: mina.martini@unipi.it
Get access

Abstract

Toxoplasmosis is one of the five parasitic diseases considered as a priority for public health action. The consumption of raw milk products represents a possible risk, in particular for certain categories of people. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possible effects of Toxoplasma gondii on milk yield and quality in sero-positive animals with parasitemia. Eighteen healthy lactating Amiata jennies, between 90 and 180 days were included in the study. Four donkeys scored positive for immunofluorescent antibody test (IFAT), and each IFAT positive donkey presented parasitic DNA both in the blood and milk. No significant differences were found between milk yield in PCR-positive donkeys compared with the negative cases, however the former tended to have a greater production. Milk quality in the positive donkeys showed a significantly lower percentage of casein (0.72% v. 0.81%) and ash (0.32% v. 0.37%). Positive cases had a highly significant larger average diameter of globules (2.35 µm) and fewer globules/ml (2.39×108). Somatic cell and bacterial counts were normal and in agreement with the literature. Toxoplasma gondii did not seem to present clinical forms in lactating jennies. Further in vivo studies are needed to further assess the risk of T. gondii transmission through donkey milk, together with the impact of different stages of infection on milk quality.

Keywords

food safetymilk qualitydonkeystoxoplasmosis
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 8 , Issue 12 , December 2014 , pp. 1996 - 1998
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1995. Official methods of analysis, 16th edition. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Bendixen, E, Danielsen, M, Hollung, K, Gianazza, E and Miller, I 2011. Farm animal proteomics – a review. Journal of Proteomics 74, 282–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Camossi, LG, Greca-Júnior, H, Corrêa, APFL, Richini-Pereira, VB, Silva, RC, Da Silva, AV and Langoni, H 2011. Detection of Toxoplasma gondii DNA in the milk of naturally infected ewes. Veterinary Parasitology 177, 256–261.Google Scholar
Chardès, T, Bourguin, I, Mevelec, MN, Dubremetz, JF and Bout, D 1990. Antibody responses to Toxoplasma gondii in sera, intestinal secretions, and milk from orally infected mice and characterization of target antigens. Infection and Immunity 58, 1240–1246.Google Scholar
Dehkordi, FS, Rahimi, E and Abdizadeh, R 2013. Detection of Toxoplasma gondii in raw caprine, ovine, buffalo, bovine, and camel milk using cell cultivation, cat bioassay, capture ELISA, and PCR methods in Iran. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 10, 120–125.Google Scholar
Dubey, JP 2010. Toxoplasmosis of animals and humans, 2nd edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
Evers, JM 2004. The milk fat globule membrane – compositional and structural changes post secretion by the mammary secretory cell. International Dairy Journal 14, 661–674.Google Scholar
Faye, B and Konuspayeva, G 2012. The sustainability challenge to the dairy sector – the growing importance of non-cattle milk production worldwide. International Dairy Journal 24, 50–56.Google Scholar
JMP 2002. User’s guide (version 5.0). SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Jones, CD, Okhravi, N, Adamson, P, Tasker, S and Lightman, S 2000. Comparison of PCR detection methods for B1, P30, and 18S rDNA genes of T. gondii in aqueous humor. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 41, 634–644.Google ScholarPubMed
Mancianti, F, Nardoni, S, D’Ascenzi, C, Pedonese, F, Mugnaini, L, Franco, F and Papini, R 2013. Seroprevalence, detection of DNA in blood and milk, and genotyping of Toxoplasma gondii in a goat population in Italy. Biomed Research International 2013, 1–6.Google Scholar
Mancianti, F, Nardoni, S, Papini, R, Mugnaini, L, Martini, M, Altomonte, I, Salari, F, D’Ascenzi, C and Dubey, JP 2014. Detection and genotyping of Toxoplasma gondii DNA in the blood and milk of naturally infected donkeys (Equus asinus). Parasites & Vectors 7, 165.Google Scholar
Martini, M, Salari, F and Altomonte, I 2013. The macrostructure of milk lipids: the fat globules. Critical Review in Food Science and Nutrition (doi:10.1080/10408398.2012.758626. Published online by Taylor & Francis 14 June 2013.Google Scholar
Montoya, JG and Liesenfeld, O 2004. Toxoplasmosis. Lancet 363, 1965–1976.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pilla, R, Daprà, V, Zecconi, A and Piccinini, R 2010. Hygienic and health characteristics of donkey milk during a follow-up study. Journal of Dairy Research 77, 1–6.Google Scholar
Polidori, P, Beghelli, D, Mariani, P and Vincenzetti, S 2009. Donkey milk production: state of the art. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8, 677–683.Google Scholar