The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Microbiological Quality of Raw Goat's and Ewe's Bulk-Tank Milk in Switzerland
Open accessAbstract
A total of 407 samples of bulk-tank milk (344 of goat's milk and 63 of ewe's milk) collected from 403 different farms throughout Switzerland, was examined. The number of farms investigated in this study represents 8% of the country's dairy-goat and 15% of its dairy-sheep farms. Standard plate counts and Enterobacteriaceae counts were performed on each sample. Furthermore, the prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus, Campylobacter spp., Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., and Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis was studied. The median standard plate count for bulk-tank milk from small ruminants was 4.70 log cfu/ml (4.69 log cfu/ml for goat's milk and 4.78 log cfu/ml for ewe's milk), with a minimum of 2.00 log cfu/ml and a maximum of 8.64 log cfu/ml. Enterobacteriaceae were detected in 212 (61.6%) goat's milk and 45 (71.4%) ewe's milk samples, whereas S. aureus was detected in 109 (31.7%) samples of goat's milk and 21 (33.3%) samples of ewe's milk. Campylobacter spp. and Salmonella spp. were not isolated from any of the samples. However, 16.3% of the goat's milk and 12.7% of the ewe's milk samples were polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive for Shiga toxin-producing E. coli. Seventy-nine (23.0%) goat's tank-milk and 15 (23.8%) ewe's tank-milk samples were PCR-positive for insertion sequence 900, providing presumptive evidence for the presence of M. avium ssp. paratuberculosis. These results form the basis for determining the microbiological quality standards for goat's and ewe's milk. Moreover, the data presented form part of the risk assessment program for raw milk from small ruminants in Switzerland.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Traditional Cheeses: Rich and Diverse Microbiota with Associated Benefits
Montel, M.-C., Buchin, S., Mallet, A., Delbes-Paus, C., Vuitton, D. A., Desmasures, N., & Berthier, F. (2014) · International Journal of Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2014.02.019 · Cited by 665
Recent advances in exploiting goat's milk: Quality, safety and production aspects
Silanikove, N., Leitner, G., Merin, U., & Prosser, C. G. (2010) · Small Ruminant Research · doi:10.1016/j.smallrumres.2009.12.033 · Cited by 432
A review of prevalences of paratuberculosis in farmed animals in Europe
Nielsen, S. S., & Toft, N. (2009) · Preventive Veterinary Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2008.07.003 · Cited by 342
Chemical composition and microbiological quality of ewe and goat milk of native Greek breeds
Kondyli, E., Svarnas, C., Samelis, J., & Katsiari, M. C. (2012) · Small Ruminant Research · doi:10.1016/j.smallrumres.2011.09.043 · Cited by 89
Metadata
- Authors
- Muehlherr, J. E., Zweifel, C., Corti, S., Blanco, J. E., & Stephan, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Dairy Science
- Publisher
- American Dairy Science Association
- Published
- 2003-12
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 3849-3856
- ISSN
- 0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1994188951
- Cited by
- 186
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Microbiological Quality of Raw Goat's and Ewe's Bulk-Tank Milk in Switzerland. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(03)73992-7
- The paper
- Muehlherr, J. E., Zweifel, C., Corti, S., Blanco, J. E., & Stephan, R. (2003). Microbiological Quality of Raw Goat's and Ewe's Bulk-Tank Milk in Switzerland. Journal of Dairy Science. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(03)73992-7
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.