Food and Life
Korean Society for Food Science of Animal Resources
Research Article

Risk analysis of aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) occurrence in milchers of Jammu region, India

Mageshwar Singh Slathia1,https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6708-5780, Harsh Kumar Sharma1,https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7646-9962, Jasbir Singh Bedi2https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2022-8955, Faieza Arwa3https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8270-3683, Arvind Kumar4,*https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8353-5198
1Division of Veterinary Public Health and Epidemiology, SKUAST-Jammu, Jammu 180009, India
2Centre for One Health, GADVASU, Ludhiana 141012, India
3Division of Veterinary Physiology, SKUAST-Jammu, Jammu 180009, India
4Division of Livestock Products Technology, SKUAST-Jammu, Jammu 180009, India

† These authors contributed equally to this work

*Corresponding author : Arvind Kumar. Division of Livestock Products Technology, SKUAST-Jammu, Jammu 180009, India. Tel: +91-8492896259, E-mail: drarvindlpt@gmail.com

© Copyright 2023 Korean Society for Food Science of Animal Resources. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: May 22, 2023; Revised: Jul 06, 2023; Accepted: Jul 09, 2023

Published Online: Nov 30, 2023

Abstract

Aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) is a threatening risk to the safety of milk and can be potent health hazard. Being it is known for its zoonotic traits as well, it has a binding affinity for casein in milk and is relatively stable during cold storage. The purpose of the study to estimate the prevalence of AFM1 in bulk milk tank representative samples of commercial and household dairy establishments across four tehsils of Jammu and associated risk factors. A total of 620 bulk milk tank samples (6,620 individuals) were analysed using a commercial enzyme linked immuno-sorbent assay (ELISA) kit, out of which 47 samples (75.8%) were above European Union-Maximum Permissible Limit. However, all samples were detected below Food Safety Standard Authority of India-Maximum Permissible Limit. The risk analysis of associated factors with AFM1 concentration found that large farms (100%), higher milk yield (81%; odds ratio of 2.29), intensive farming (78%; odds ratio of 2.1), left-over fruits and vegetables incorporated in animal feed (86%; odds ratio of 3.53), cleanliness status at the farm (86%; odds ratio of 2.71) and feed storage status (91%; odds ratio of 4.81) to be at greater risk for occurrence of AFM1 in raw milk.

Keywords: aflatoxin M1; bovines; bulk milk tank sample; enzyme linked immuno-sorbent assay (ELISA); Jammu; risk factors

Introduction

Due to its human teratogenic and carcinogenic properties, aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) poses a significant concern to the safety of milk. Among 450 different kinds of mycotoxins and their metabolites known (Akbar et al., 2020), most usually encountered mycotoxins that pose a significant health hazard to humans and animals involve aflatoxins, zearalenone, fumonisins, ochratoxin A, patulin and nivalenol (Chen et al., 2023). Aflatoxins are the most toxic among mycotoxins and are produced by the fungi belonging to the genus Aspergillus, mainly by Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus, but also by Aspergillus nomius, Aspergillus bombycis, Aspergillus orchraceoroseus, Aspergillus australis, and Aspergillus pseudotamarii and by genus Emericella (Emericella astellata and Emericella venezuelensis) (Picinin et al., 2013). The climate of tropical countries favours the extension of aflatoxigenic fungi.

The four common aflatoxins in food and agricultural commodities are aflatoxin B1 (AFB1), B2, G1, and G2. AFB1 has been known as a potent natural carcinogen in mammals, and its presence is predominant in food and feed. The order of toxicity of these naturally occurring aflatoxins is AFB1> aflatoxin G1>aflatoxin B2>aflatoxin G2 (Toteja et al., 2006). The occurrence of aflatoxins depends on various climatic factors; therefore, the degree to which contamination occurs varies with location, farming and agrarian practices and the extent to which things are susceptible to fungal annexation before harvesting or post-harvest processing times. Aflatoxins M1 and M2 are the hydroxylate metabolic products of AFB1 and B2, respectively. When cattle or other ruminants ingest aflatoxin-contaminated feed, cytochrome P450-associated enzymes convert aflatoxins AFB1 and AFB2 to AFM1 and AFM2 in the liver, and then these are excreted in dairy (Prandini et al., 2009). The agglomeration of AFM1 in milk is directly proportinal to the concentration of AFB1 present in fodders of milking animals and has been reported that 0.3%–596.2% of AFB1 which, when consumed by a dairy cow, is metabolized and transformed to AFM1, which is excreted in its milk (Tajkarimi et al., 2008). AFM1 regulatory limits in dairy and dairy products have been confirmed in numerous countries, with regulatory limits varying as per country commandment. The specific regulations limits depend upon the risk analysis studies. The European Union has the highest permissible limits for AFM1 in dairy for human consumption at 0.05 μg/L (Chen et al., 2023). The United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) and Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) had standardized the maximum acceptable limit for AFM1 analysis and dairy product at 0.5 μg/kg (Akbar et al., 2020). In view of the mentioned rationale, the present study designed a comprehensive assessment of AFM1 in raw milk.

Materials and Methods

Study design and sample collection
Sample size calculation

A total of sixty hundred twenty (620) bulk tank milk samples were collected. The sampling of the milk was done proportionately to the population of bovines from these areas from milching animal irrespective of their breed and age group. As per the EpiInfoTM7 (CDC) software, by taking the total bovine population of the study area (Jammu) as 2,973,450 and the prevalence of AFM1 as 50%, taking 95% confidence level and 5% as a confidence limit the size of the sampling found to be “3,840”. However, 620 pooled milk samples cover around 6,620 individual milch animals.

Collection of samples

200 mL of BTM sample was collected and marked properly with the sample ID.

Chemicals and reagents

The chemicals used for conducting competitive enzyme linked immuno-sorbent assay (ELISA) in this study were of analytical grade.

Assessment of aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) in milk
Enzyme linked immuno-sorbent assay (ELISA)-based analysis of aflatoxin M1 (AFM1)

A microtiter plate-based competitive ELISA was used for the analysis of AFM1 in dairy samples. The AFM1 ELISA kit was procured from R-Biopharm Netherlands BV (Arnhem, Netherlands; Catalog No. 5121AFM). The limit of detection (LOD) of the kit for milk was 0.005 μg/L and the cross- reactivity of the antibody for AFM1 and aflatoxin M2 was 100% and <20%, respectively.

Contents of the enzyme linked immuno-sorbent assay (ELISA) kit

The ELISA kit contained a sealed microtiter plate (96 wells) pre-coated with antibodies against AFM1, sample dilution buffer (40 mL), rinsing buffer (30 mL, 20× concentrated), conjugate solution (150 μL, 100× concentrated), dilution buffer (15 mL), substrate solution (12 mL), stop solution (15 mL) and standard AFM1 solutions (0,6.25, 12.50, 25, 50, 100, 200, and 1,000 pg/mL).

The OD was taken at 450 nm wavelength from Bio-Rad Model 680 ELISA reader (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA). The OD and AFM1 concentration in milk samples had an inverse proportion relationship. A total of 620 BTM samples were analyzed for AFM1 using ELISA.

Preparation of competitive-enzyme linked immuno-sorbent assay (ELISA)

The technique c-ELISA was executed as per the protocol standardized by the manufacturer. The test kit uses a microtiter plate of 96 wells with precoated antibodies against AFM1.

Principle of the aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) enzyme linked immuno-sorbent assay (ELISA) technique

The AFM1 ELISA kit contains of one precoated microtiter plate. AFM1 standards and samples are filled into the wells. Free AFM1 from standard solutions and samples binds to specific binding sites of antibodies pre-coated on the plate. After incubation for one hour, the wells are washed, and horseradish peroxidase labelled AFM1 is poured to the wells. After an incubation of half an hour, the non-bound conjugate is washed away. The amount of bound AFM1–HRP conjugate is seen by adding substrate/chromogen solution (H2O2/TMB). The conjugate bound to the plate changes the colourless chromogen entity into the coloured product. The substrate reaction is paused with the combination of a stop solution (sulfuric acid). The OD is taken at 450 nm wavelength.

Preparation of samples

The pooled milk samples kept at –20°C were brought at room temperature using a water bath, and then these samples were processed in the refrigerated centrifuge at 2,000×g for 10 min at 4°C. Fat layer formed at the top was removed with the help of a spatula, and 100 μL of defatted samples were taken for ELISA analysis.

Procedure

The samples were analysed for ELISA testing as per the kit manual, as follows:

100 μL of each of the AFM1 standard solutions were pipetted (i.e., 0, 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50, 100, and 200 pg/mL) in duplicate into the wells of a microtiter plate.

100 μL of each sample solution (defatted milk) were pipetted into the remaining microtiter plate wells.

Microtiter plate were sealed with aluminum foil and shake the container for five seconds.

Microtiter plate were incubated for an hour in the dark at room at temperature (20°C to 25°C).

Microtiter plate were washed three times with 300 μL rinsing buffer per well and dry on a paper tower.

100 μL of conjugate (AFM1–HRP) pipetted to all the wells, except wells H1 and H2.

Microtiter plate were sealed with aluminum foil and shake the container for five seconds 130.

Microtiter plate were incubated for 30 minutes in the dark at room temperature (20°C to 25°C).

The solution from the microtiter plate were discarded and wash three times with 300 μL rinsing buffer per. well and dry on a paper towel.

100 μL of substrate solution (TMB) were pipetted into each well.

The plate were sealed and incubated for half an hour at room temperature (20°C to 25°C) in dark.

100 μL of stop solution were added to each well.

Absorbance values immediately at 450 nm.

AFM1 calculation

The mean OD of the microtiter plate wells H1 and H2 was subtracted from the individual OD of the wells, which contained the AFM1 standards and the samples. A standard calibration curve is plotted between the % maximal absorbance of the standard solutions on the Y-axis and the respective concentration (pg/mL) on a logarithmic X-axis. The maximal percentage absorbance was calculated with the following formula:

% max i m a l   a b s o r b a n c e =       O D   o f   s tan d a r d   o r   s a m p l e O D   o f   z e r o   s tan d a r d   ( m e a n   O D   o f   w e l l s   A 1   and  A 2 ) × 100

The agglomeration of AFM1 in bulk tank milk samples was calculated with the help of a regression equation derived from the calibration curve.

Statistical analysis

All the data analysis were performed with the help of MS Excel and SPSS (21.0) for windows. Descriptive statistics such as the number and frequencies of samples positive for AFM1, mean, lowest and highest values and SE of AFM1 levels were calculated according to the sample type and permissible limits. Further analysis of variance with post hoc Duncan’s test at 95% mean confidence interval was performed to analyze the data obtained.

Questionnaire for analysis of associated risk factors and aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) excretion in milk

A structured questionnaire of close-end questions was prepared to study the relationship between various risk parameters on the excretion of AFM1 in milk using reference to previous studies (Malissiova et al., 2013; Michlig et al., 2016; Patyal et al., 2020; Thukral, 2020).

Questionnaire filling procedure

A face-to-face interview was conducted, and questions were asked of dairy farmers. Questions related to animal-related and feed-related characteristics were asked, and information was recorded.

Analysis of risk parameters with aflatoxin M1 concentration in milk using odds ratio (OR)

For the assessment of risk parameters associated with AFM1 in milk, the odds ratio (OR) was calculated based on the questionnaire prepared. Various risk factors were considered related to animal and feed characteristics. Considering the defined factors, a two-by-two frequency table was prepared. The following formula was used to determine the degree of association between the risk factors and AFM1 contamination.

Formula:

OR= ( a×d ) ÷ ( b×c )

OR=1 Risk parameter does not affect the odds of the outcome

OR>1 Risk parameter associated with higher odds of the outcome

OR<1 Risk parameter associated with lower odds of the outcome

Results and Discussion

The bulk milk tank samples (620) of cattle and buffalo collected from the dairy farms of four regions were evaluated using a competitive ELISA for the detection and quantification of AFM1. The assessment of associated risk parameters with the AFM1 concentration in raw milk was also statistically analyzed. AFM1 is one metabolite of aflatoxin excreted in milk and therefore, human exposure can happen via the consumption of contaminated milk. Aflatoxins are well-established carcinogenic, hepatotoxic, genotoxic, immuno-modulating, teratogenic and mutagenic compounds in human beings. Therefore, considering the facts, the study was designed to estimate the occurrence and concentration of AFM1 in pooled milk samples.

Analysis and quantification of aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) in milk samples

The pooled milk samples were considered positive when the concentration of AFM1 was detected higher than the LOD of the ELISA kit used (0.005 μg/L). Among the positive samples, the milk samples having AFM1 concentration above 0.05 μg/L were categorized as incompliant with regard to European Commission maximum permissible limit (EC-MPL) of AFM1 in milk. The milk samples where the AFM1 concentration was detected higher than 0.5 μg/L were categorized as incompliant with regard to Food Safety Standards Authority of India MPL (FSSAI-MPL) (Chen et al., 2023). The 87% of samples were positive i.e., having AFM1 concentration higher than the detection limit of the commercial ELISA kit used while 75.8% of pooled milk samples were having AFM1 concentration above the EC-MPL i.e., 0.05 μg/L. As per the FSSAI-MPL, none of the samples was found above 0.5 μg/L. The average level of AFM1 in positive samples was 0.142 μg/L. The minimum concentration was 0.0051 μg/L whereas the maximum level of AFM1 was 0.428 μg/L. 76% of the milk samples were having AFM1 level within a range of 0.05–0.49 μg/L. 11% of milk samples were within the range of 0.005–0.05 μg/L whereas 13% of milk samples were having AFM1 concentrations below 0.005 μg/L (Fig. 1). Factors such as local environment conditions, poor storage conditions of animal feed and inadequate ventilation of the feed storage room, which are ideal for the development of aflatoxigenic fungi, could also be accountable for the appearance of AFM1 in milk (Asi et al., 2012; Nile et al., 2016). The levels of AFM1 discovered in our study’s raw milk samples were found to be 208 greater than the levels seen (Nakajima et al., 2003), with a 0.001–0.029 μg/L range and a mean AFM1 concentration of 0.009 μg/L, Rastogi et al. (2004) who reported AFM1 contamination within range of 0.028–0.164 μg/L, Picinin et al. (2013) who observed mean emergence of 0.0195 μg/L with 0.0002–0.1057 μg/L range. The range and mean of AFM1 emergence in our study were found below the levels observed by Siddappa et al. (2012), who observed 0.1–3.8 μg/L of AFM1 levels in milk, Kanungo and Bhand (2014), who reported AFM1 levels within 0.511–0.809 μg/L, Kos et al. (2014) observed levels within 0.01–1.2 μg/L, Asghar et al. (2018) said AFM1 levels of 0.020–3.09 μg/L, Patyal et al. (2020) who reported 0.007–13.1 μg/L with the mean agglomeration of 0.917 μg/L and Kaur et al. (2021) who observed the AFM1 levels within of 0.005–1.735 μg/L with the mean emergence value of 0.314±0.35 μg/L.

fl-2023-3-85-g1
Fig. 1. Quantification aflatoxin M1 concentration (μg/L) in milk samples.
Download Original Figure
Comparison of occurrence of aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) (μg/L) milk samples based on farm type

The prevalence of AFM1 in pooled milk samples obtained from large farms was 100% with an average concentration of 0.206 μg/L, whereas the majority of AFM1 was 77% and 66% in small and medium dairy farms, respectively with respect to EC-MPL. The mean concentration of AFM1 in pooled milk samples was 0.125 μg/L and 0.149 μg/L from small and medium dairy farms, respectively (Fig. 2). The results of the current study could be due to intensive feeding practices in large dairy farms, which is reported as one of the possible risk factors for high AFM1 occurrence in milk (Michlig et al., 2016). These large commercial farms have the majority of milking bovines with milk yield above the average milk yield per day, which could lead to higher AFM1 contamination in milk compared to small and medium dairy farms. Large dairy farms focus on increased milk production. To fulfil that, they introduce high-energy concentrated feeds in the animal’s ration. These full feeds are prone to AFB1 contamination, which is appeared in milk as AFM1 (Nile et al., 2016).

fl-2023-3-85-g2
Fig. 2. Association of the size of farm (no. of animals) and aflatoxin M1 concentration (μg/L). EC-MPL, European Commission maximum permissible limit.
Download Original Figure
Species-wise prevalence of aflatoxin M1 (μg/L) in milk samples

The prevalence of AFM1 in both species was compared concerning EC-MPL (0.05 μg/L). The majority of AFM1 contamination was slightly above in cow milk samples (77%) compared to buffalo milk samples (71%). The mean concentration of AFM1 detected in cow milk samples was 0.138 μg/L, less than that in buffalo milk samples (0.175 μg/L). In mixed milk samples (both cow and buffalo), the prevalence of AFM1 was similar to that of cow, and the mean agglomeration of AFM1 in composite milk samples was 0.126 μg/L (Fig. 3). The prevalence of AFM1 in the milk of cow and buffalo species in our study was found in harmony with the earlier studies by Nile et al. (2016), who reported a high prevalence of AFM1 in cow samples. Still, the average appearance of AFM1 was greater in buffalo than in the cow. However, this study’s findings differed from the earlier reported studies of Hedpara et al. (2022). They observed a higher presence of AFM1 occurrence in buffalo samples than in cattle. The higher mean level of AFM1 in the buffalo milk samples could be due to the greater feed intake in buffalo than in cows which results in higher ingestion of aflatoxin per gram of feed in buffalo, and a high concentration of AFM1 is emerged in milk.

fl-2023-3-85-g3
Fig. 3. Association of type of species of animals and aflatoxin M1 concentration (μg/L). EC-MPL, European Commission maximum permissible limit.
Download Original Figure
Analysis of associated risk factors and the aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) concentration (μg/L) in milk

The analysis of risk factors linked with the AFM1 appearance in milk has been analyzed of animal-related parameters (total no. of animals, milk yield of dairy animals, etc.) and feed-related parameters (silage feeding, concentrate feeding, cleaning of feed storage space, etc.) following a 2×2 cross-classification table was drawn for each risk factor against the contamination extent of AFM1 in milk above EC-MPL. The OR was calculated to measure the linkage of risk factors with AFM1 contamination in milk. The regulation limit of the European Commission for AFM1 in milk (0.05 μg/L) was assumed as break- off value for the analysis.

Milk yield

In the milk yield sub-category, 81% of milk samples were reported with AFM1 concentration greater than the EC-MPL level and 19% of milk samples were below the EC-MPL level.

The dairy farms with animals with milk yields above the average milk yield per day were found to have 2.29 higher odds of AFM1 contamination higher the EC-MPL than those with below-average milk yield per day (Fig. 4). The studies found the findings congruent with British et al. (2013).

fl-2023-3-85-g4
Fig. 4. Risk associated of type of feeding practice and occurrence of aflatoxin M1. EC-MPL, European Commission maximum permissible limit.
Download Original Figure

They observed that milk yield had a significant effect in contributing to the excretion of AFM1 in milk and observed that the high milk-yielding bovines are linked with the higher contamination levels of AFM1 in their milk. However, in a previous study by Van der Fels-Klerx and Camenzuli (2016), milk yield was found to have a minimum effect on AFM1 agglomeration levels in milk due to the potential dilution effect in high milk-yielding animals. The milk yield also depends upon intensive farming practices and highly concentrated feeds to animals which are possible risk factors for AFM1 contamination in milk in past studies (Michlig et al., 2016). The somatic cell count, which depends on the integrity of the plasma udder permeability, also had a role in the carry-over of AFB1 into AFM1 in milk but only during the early stage of the increase of AFM1 plateau Asi et al. (2012).

Feeding system

The dairy farms were divided into two sub-categories under the feeding system, mainly stall-fed feeding (intensive farming) and both stall-fed and grazing feeding (semi-intensive). In dairy farms where stall feeding was adopted, 78% of samples were found to be AFM1contaminated above the EC-MPL level, and 22% of samples were below the EC-MPL level. The dairy farms where stall feeding was adopted had twice times higher chances for AFM1 concentration above the EC-MPL level than dairy farms where both stall feeding and grazing were adopted (Fig. 4). The outcomes of our study were in agreement with the previous studies by Michlig et al. (2016) and Thukral (2020), who also concluded a high prevalence of AFM1 in farms where the intensive type of farming was observed. The high majority of AFM1 could be due to free stall feeding in the intensive type of farms (Asi et al., 2012) where concentrated feeds composed of marketed feed, corn, cottonseed, etc. may be given which are reported risk factors. Furthermore, the duration for which the concentrated feed is stored in dairy farms and the conditions at which it is stored are also observed as risk factors for the contamination of AFM1 in our study and a previous study (Patyal et al., 2020).

Source of feed

Under the source of feed category, dairy farms were divided into two groups readymade feed used as animal feed (readymade market feed) and self-formulated feed (the feed ingredients either grown or acquired from local markets and then mixed). About 77% of milk samples (readymade feed sub-category) were having AFM1 concentration above the EC-MPL and 23% of samples were below the EC-MPL. The dairy farms where the readymade feed was given to animals were found to have 1.65 higher odds of having AFM1 contamination in milk above the EC-MPL than the farms with self-formulated feed (Fig. 5). The observations of our study were found in alignment with the earlier research studies (Michlig et al., 2016; Patyal et al., 2020; Thukral, 2020) which reported a higher prevalence of AFM1 levels with respect to EC-MPL in farms where readymade feed was used. The appearance of AFM1 in milk from the farms where readymade feeds are given to animals could be due to the storage of readymade feed whereas self-formulated feed is mixed and given freshly to animals so the chances of growth of aflatoxigenic fungi are less but the ingredients could be susceptible to the fungi. The readymade market feeds could be contaminated with aflatoxins as these feeds are susceptible to aflatoxigenic fungi which are reported in previous studies throughout the country (Patyal et al., 2020). Also, the practice of buying feed having aflatoxin binders is not prevalent in dairy farms in the study area which could significantly decrease the AFM1 presence in milk as concluded in past studies (Aslam et al., 2015; Ullah et al., 2016).

fl-2023-3-85-g5
Fig. 5. Risk associated of management practice and occurrence of aflatoxin M1. EC-MPL, European Commission maximum permissible limit.
Download Original Figure
Silage feeding

In the silage feeding category, farms were divided into two sub-categories silage given in animal feed and silage not given in animal feed. 80% of milk samples were reported with AFM1 contamination above the EC-MPL (silage feeding), and 20% of milk samples were registered below the EC-MPL level. The dairy farms with silage feeding were found at 1.33 odds of having AFM1 concentration higher for EC-MPL than the farms where silage feeding was not practiced (Fig. 5). The outcomes of our study were found in harmony with the prior studies by Michlig et al. (2016) and Patyal et al. (2020). They observed almost the exact prevalence of AFM1 in samples under the silage risk factor category. However, the aflatoxigenic fungi and their mycotoxins have been isolated from the wheat silage for dairy cattle (del Palacio et al., 2016) and from maize and grass silage by González-Jartín et al. (2022). The hay produced from the grains with the least feasible moisture content ranging from 14% or less is less susceptible to AFB1 contamination, as (Chen et al., 2023) reported.

Feeding of left-over household fruits and vegetables

In left-over fruits and vegetables given in the animal feed sub-category, 86% of pooled milk samples were reported with AFM1 concentration above the EC-MPL, and 14% of pooled milk samples were below the EC-MPL level. The dairy farms where the feeding of left-over household fruits and vegetables was fed were found to have 3.53 higher odds of having AFM1 concentration above the EC-MPL than those where left-over fruits and vegetables were not provided to the animals (Fig. 5). The findings of our work were in line with the observations of a previous study by Patyal et al. (2020). They reported a high prevalence of AFM1 concerning EC-MPL in dairy farms where left-over fruits and vegetables were fed to animals. Due to their high moisture content, the leftover fruits and vegetables may act as a favourable environment for the growth of aflatoxigenic fungi, which, when fed by cows, may cause them to excrete AFM1 in their milk. AFM1 contamination has been reported in fruits like tomatoes, pumpkin, coriander, persimmon, peaches, and cucumber (Sahar et al., 2009).

Feeding of left-over household cereals

In left-over household cereals given in the animal feed sub-category, 77% of milk samples contained AFM1 concentration greater the EC-MPL, and 23% of milk samples were below the EC-MPL level. The farms where left-over household cereals were fed to animals had 1.24 higher odds of AFM1 contamination in milk higher the EC-MPL than the farms where feeding left-over household cereals was not practiced (Fig. 5). The outcomes of this study were in harmony with the research findings by Patyal et al. (2020) reported a high frequency of AFM1 contamination in milk concerning EC-MPL in farms where left-over household cereals were fed to dairy animals.

Duration of feed storage

The 15 days interval period was taken as this period is ideal for aflatoxigenic fungi to grow and produce toxins in focused feed. In farms where concentrated feed was stored for more than 15 days, 83% of milk samples were analysed with AFM1 concentration above the EC-MPL, and 17% of milk samples were reported below the EC-MPL level. The farms with longer feed storage duration were found to have 2.04 higher odds of AFM1 contamination level above EC-MPL than those with shorter feed storage duration (Fig. 5). Patyal et al. (2020), who reported a high prevalence of AFM1 above the EC-MPL from the farms which stored concentrated feed for more than 15 days. The high prevalence of aflatoxins could be due to poor conditions of the stored, focused feed (Kaur et al., 2021).

Cleaning of feed storage space

The cleaning practice of feed storage space was recorded, and the farms were divided into two sub-categories: farms where cleaning was carried out once per month and farms where cleaning was done twice or more than twice per month. In dairy farms where feed storage space was cleaned once per month, 86% of milk samples contained AFM1 concentration higher the EC-MPL, and 14% of milk samples were below the EC-MPL level. The dairy farms where cleaning was performed once per month were found to have 2.71 odds of AFM1 above EC-MPL than those where cleaning was practised twice or more per month (Fig. 5). This study’s findings were same to the result concluded by Patyal et al. (2020). They also wrote about a high prevalence of AFM1 contamination above EC-MPL in dairy farms where the feed storage space was cleaned once per month. Cleaning the feed storage space could lower the presence of aflatoxigenic fungi in feed and may lower the AFM1 level in milk as sanitation reduce the microbial load and result in hygienic premises, which helps prevent other diseases (Chen et al., 2023).

Feed storage quality

The feed storage space was also visited during the collection of milk samples. Depending upon the conditions, like temperature, humidity, ventilation, etc., of the feed storage room, the dairy farms were divided into two categories: good feed storage quality and poor feed storage quality. The excellent feed storage quality had better feed storage practices than the poor feed storage quality. Asi et al. (2012) and Nile et al. (2016) reported that the conditions like high humidity, lack of ventilation, etc., favour the development of aflatoxin-producing fungi in animal feed. When the bovines consume this feed, AFM1 is excreted in their milk. In the poor feed storage quality sub-category, 67% of milk samples were reported with AFM1 contamination above the EC-MPL and 33% of milk samples were reported with AFM1 contamination below the EC-MPL.

The dairy farms with poor feed storage quality had 4.81 odds of having higher contamination of AFM1 than those with good feed storage quality (Fig. 5). The observations in the current study for the feed storage conditions concur with an earlier analysis by Patyal et al. (2020). They observed a higher prevalence of AFM1 above the EC-MPL in farms with poor feed storage quality. The frequency of AFM1 in milk could be result of the improper storage condition of the feed, which is also reported as a risk factor by an earlier study by Akbar et al. (2020). Lower contamination of AFM1 in milk could be attained by reducing the AFB1 in animal feed by adopting good manufacturing practices and good feed storage practices, as reported by Nile et al. (2016).

Conclusion

Three fourth of the raw milk sample was found greater the maximum permissible level as per European standards, however, as per Indian standards, none of sample was found higher the maximum permissible level. The larger farms, high milk yielders, and intensive farming were found at greater risk for the occurrence of AFM1 levels. The feed storage and cleanliness status were also found to be determinants of AFM1 occurrence risk analysis. The risk associated with AFM1 contamination was of large farms (100%), higher milk yield (81%; OR of 2.29), intensive farming (78%; OR of 2.1), left-over household fruits and vegetables incorporated in animal feed (86%; OR of 3.53), cleanliness status at the farm (86%; OR of 2.71) and feed storage status (91%; OR of 4.81) to be at higher risk. The AFM1 level in raw milk was found in the range of 0.116 μg/L to 0.196 μg/L.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

Not applicable.

Ethics Approval

This article does not require IRB/IACUC approval because there are no human and animal participants.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Sharma HK.

Data curation: Slathia MS.

Formal analysis: Bedi JS.

Validation: Kumar A.

Investigation: Slathia MS.

Writing - original draft: Slathia MS, Arwa F.

Writing – review & editing: Slathia MS, Sharma HK, Bedi JS, Arwa F, Kumar A.

References

1.

Akbar N, Nasir M, Naeem N, Ahmad MD, Saeed F, Anjum FM, Iqbal S, Imran M, Tufail T, Shah FH, Atif M. 2020. Assessment of aflatoxin in milk and feed samples and impact of seasonal variations in the Punjab, Pakistan. Food Sci Nutr 8:2699-2709.

2.

Asghar MA, Ahmed A, Asghar MA. 2018. Aflatoxin M1 in fresh milk collected from local markets of Karachi, Pakistan. Food Addit Contam B 11:167-174.

3.

Asi MR, Iqbal SZ, Ariño A, Hussain A. 2012. Effect of seasonal variations and lactation times on aflatoxin M1 contamination in milk of different species from Punjab, Pakistan. Food Control 25:34-38.

4.

Aslam N, Rodrigues I, McGill DM, Warriach HM, Cowling A, Haque A, Wynn PC. 2015. Transfer of aflatoxins from naturally contaminated feed to milk of Nili-Ravi buffaloes fed a mycotoxin binder. Anim Prod Sci 56:1637-1642.

5.

Britzi M, Friedman S, Miron J, Solomon R, Cuneah O, Shimshoni JA, Shlosberg A. 2013. Carry-over of aflatoxin B1 to aflatoxin M1 in high yielding Israeli cows in mid-and late-lactation. Toxins 5:173-183.

6.

Chen Q, Meng M, Li W, Xiong Y, Fang Y, Lin Q. 2023. Emerging biosensors to detect aflatoxin M1 in milk and dairy products. Food Chem 398:133848.

7.

del Palacio A, Bettucci L, Pan D. 2016. Fusarium and Aspergillus mycotoxins contaminating wheat silage for dairy cattle feeding in Uruguay. Braz J Microbiol 47: 1000-1005.

8.

González-Jartín JM, Ferreiroa V, Rodríguez-Cañás I, Alfonso A, Sainz MJ, Aguín O, Vieytes MR, Gomes A, Ramos I, Botana LM. 2022. Occurrence of mycotoxins and mycotoxigenic fungi in silage from the north of Portugal at feed-out. Int J Food Microbiol 365:109556.

9.

Hedpara JR, Sindhi SH, Ghodasara SN, Kumar B, Bhedi KR. 2022. Prevalence of aflatoxin M1 in milk of bovine in and around Junagadh, Gujarat state of India. Indian J Vet Sci Biotechnol 18:104-107.

10.

Kanungo L, Bhand S. 2014. A survey of aflatoxin M1 in some commercial milk samples and infant formula milk samples in Goa, India. Food Agric Immunol 25:467-476.

11.

Kaur S, Bedi JS, Dhaka P, Vijay D, Aulakh RS. 2021. Exposure assessment and risk characterization of aflatoxin M1 through consumption of market milk and milk products in Ludhiana, Punjab. Food Control 126:107991.

12.

Kos J, Lević J, Ðuragić O, Kokić B, Miladinović I. 2014. Occurrence and estimation of aflatoxin M1 exposure in milk in Serbia. Food Control 38:41-46.

13.

Malissiova E, Tsakalof A, Arvanitoyannis IS, Katsafliaka A, Katsioulis A, Tserkezou P, Koureas M, Govaris A, Hadjichristodoulou C. 2013. Monitoring aflatoxin M1 levels in ewe’s and goat’s milk in Thessaly, Greece; potential risk factors under organic and conventional production schemes. Food Control 34:241-248.

14.

Michlig N, Signorini M, Gaggiotti M, Chiericatti C, Basilico JC, Repetti MR, Beldomenico HR. 2016. Risk factors associated with the presence of aflatoxin M1 in raw bulk milk from Argentina. Food Control 64:151-156.

15.

Nakajima M, Tabata S, Akiyama H, Itoh Y, Tanaka T, Sunagawa H, Tyonan T, Yoshizawa T, Kumagai S. 2003. Aflatoxin M1 in milk and its risk in Japan. JSM Mycotoxins 2003:199-208.

16.

Nile SH, Park SW, Khobragade CN. 2016. Occurrence and analysis of aflatoxin M1 in milk produced by Indian dairy species. Food Agric Immunol 27:358-366.

17.

Patyal A, Gill JPS, Bedi JS, Aulakh RS. 2020. Potential risk factors associated with the occurrence of aflatoxin M1 in raw milk produced under different farm conditions. J Environ Sci Health B 55:827-834.

18.

Picinin LCA, Cerqueira MMOP, Vargas EA, Lana AMQ, Toaldo IM, Bordignon-Luiz MT. 2013. Influence of climate conditions on aflatoxin M1 contamination in raw milk from Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Food Control 31:419-424.

19.

Prandini A, Tansini G, Sigolo S, Filippi L, Laporta M, Piva G. 2009. On the occurrence of aflatoxin M1 in milk and dairy products. Food Chem Toxicol 47:984-991.

20.

Rastogi S, Dwivedi PD, Khanna SK, Das M. 2004. Detection of Aflatoxin M1 contamination in milk and infant milk products from Indian markets by ELISA. Food Control 15:287-448.

21.

Sahar N, Ahmed M, Parveen Z, Ilyas A, Bhutto A. 2009. Screening of mycotoxins in wheat, fruits and vegetables grown in Sindh, Pakistan. Pak J Bot 41:337-341.

22.

Siddappa V, Nanjegowda DK, Viswanath P. 2012. Occurrence of aflatoxin M1 in some samples of UHT, raw & pasteurized milk from Indian states of Karnataka and Tamilnadu. Food Chem Toxicol 50:4158-4162.

23.

Tajkarimi M, Aliabadi-Sh F, Salah Nejad A, Poursoltani H, Motallebi AA, Mahdavi H. 2008. Aflatoxin M1 contamination in winter and summer milk in 14 states in Iran. Food Control 19:1033-1036.

24.

Thukral H. 2020. Epidemiological Study on Aflatoxin M1 in Bovine Milk Samples from Punjab and its Possible Association with Rumen Liquor Parameters. Ph.D. dissertation, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, India.

25.

Toteja GS, Mukherjee A, Diwakar S, Singh P, Saxena BN, Sinha KK, Sinha AK, Kumar N, Nagaraja KV, Bai G, Krishna Prasad CA, Vanchinathan S, Roy R, Parkar S. 2006. Aflatoxin B1 contamination in wheat grain samples collected from different geographical regions of India: A multicenter study. J Food Prot 69:1463-1467.

26.

Ullah HA, Durrani AZ, Ijaz M, Javeed A, Sadique U, Hassan ZU, Rahman AU, Shah M, Khattak I. 2016. Dietary mycotoxins binders: A strategy to reduce aflatoxin m1 residues and improve milk quality of lactating Beetal goats. J Verbrauch Lebensm 11:305-309.

27.

Van der Fels-Klerx HJ, Camenzuli L. 2016. Effects of milk yield, feed composition, and feed contamination with aflatoxin B1 on the aflatoxin M1 concentration in dairy cows’ milk investigated using Monte Carlo simulation modelling. Toxins 8:290.