Yoghurt Risk Assessment (ISO 22000, 7.3 - 7.4.4)

hi to everyone....
i just read the whole subject about yogurt and for the control measures i have to add the following (not detailed) for each step

-milk reception at the farm : checking of pH (6,55-6,7), b-lactams (negative) and temperature and storage time (below 6C, below 48 hours)
-milk reception at the factory: checking of pH, acidity, antibiotics (delvotest), temperature (EU law limit below 10C, target below 8C)
-milk cooling and storage: checking of cooling temperature (below 4C), and checking storage temperature and time before separation and pasteurization of the milk (below 6C, below 48hours)
-skimmed milk pasteurization and cooling (control points for pasteurization, eg. pasteurization and cooling temp. set points, recirclulation system check, etc)
-storage of skimmed milk (below 6C, below 72 hours just before use in the mixing)
-pasteurization of cream and cooling (control points for pasteurization.......)
-storage of cream ( below 6C, below 72 hours just before use in the mixing)
-mixing of powders, skimmed milk and milk cream (quantity of "dangerous" ingredients (eg. vitamins or additives if the have limitations), expiry date)
-pasteurization of the mixture and cooling down to fermentation temprature (same as milk pasteurization only with different limits)
-addition of cultures (ex. date of cultures)
-fermenation (pH about 4,6)
-filling (checks related to filling machine, eg. sterilization of cups and lids, sealing of the cups, printing of ex. date, weight, etc)
-packaging in sleeves and trays (just ex. date)
-metal detector
cooling down (either rapidly in a coolind tunnel or in the cool warehouse)

This is a short description of the main control measures. For example in the filling machine the main hazard (yeast and moulds) comes from the packaging materials and the enviromental and procesing air. The control measures depend on the automization of the fillling machine and the alarms that it has....

to be continued....

hi to everyone....
i just read the whole subject about yogurt and for the control measures i have to add the following (not detailed) for each step

-milk reception at the farm : checking of pH (6,55-6,7), b-lactams (negative) and temperature and storage time (below 6C, below 48 hours)
-milk reception at the factory: checking of pH, acidity, antibiotics (delvotest), temperature (EU law limit below 10C, target below 8C)
-milk cooling and storage: checking of cooling temperature (below 4C), and checking storage temperature and time before separation and pasteurization of the milk (below 6C, below 48hours)
-skimmed milk pasteurization and cooling (control points for pasteurization, eg. pasteurization and cooling temp. set points, recirclulation system check, etc)
-storage of skimmed milk (below 6C, below 72 hours just before use in the mixing)
-pasteurization of cream and cooling (control points for pasteurization.......)
-storage of cream ( below 6C, below 72 hours just before use in the mixing)
-mixing of powders, skimmed milk and milk cream (quantity of "dangerous" ingredients (eg. vitamins or additives if the have limitations), expiry date)
-pasteurization of the mixture and cooling down to fermentation temprature (same as milk pasteurization only with different limits)
-addition of cultures (ex. date of cultures)
-fermenation (pH about 4,6)
-filling (checks related to filling machine, eg. sterilization of cups and lids, sealing of the cups, printing of ex. date, weight, etc)
-packaging in sleeves and trays (just ex. date)
-metal detector
cooling down (either rapidly in a coolind tunnel or in the cool warehouse)

This is a short description of the main control measures. For example in the filling machine the main hazard (yeast and moulds) comes from the packaging materials and the enviromental and procesing air. The control measures depend on the automization of the fillling machine and the alarms that it has....

to be continued....

Thank you Nikiforos for your contribution, much appreciated.

Kind regards,

Tony

Dear TonyC,

I'm sure everybody appreciates your persevering to maintain this mini-project.

Was the last contribution (Nikiforos) what you meant when you previously referred to waiting for (appropriate?)input for 3.5.2 or are you looking for a more detailed exposition of the process before proceeding to the next area which seems to be the hazard analysis et seq. (HOORAY!)

I am particularly interested in the following stages so will try and inject a bit more process detail if that is what is currently missing. (Not my product area at all but I don’t mind doing a bit of browsing and I am hoping that a lot of, hitherto lurkers, may (suddenly) get more invigorated at the proximity of HACCP-type input.

Rgds / Charles.C

Dear TonyC,

I'm sure everybody appreciates your persevering to maintain this mini-project.

Was the last contribution (Nikiforos) what you meant when you previously referred to waiting for (appropriate?)input for 3.5.2 or are you looking for a more detailed exposition of the process before proceeding to the next area which seems to be the hazard analysis et seq. (HOORAY!)

I am particularly interested in the following stages so will try and inject a bit more process detail if that is what is currently missing. (Not my product area at all but I don’t mind doing a bit of browsing and I am hoping that a lot of, hitherto lurkers, may (suddenly) get more invigorated at the proximity of HACCP-type input.

Rgds / Charles.C

Thanks Charles

Sorry been pretty busy in the last few months, getting married amongst other things.

Yes we have stalled on 7.3.5.2 Description of process steps and control measures - Describe the existing control measures, process parameters and/or the rigorousness with which they are applied, or procedures that may influence food safety

It was intended that I would faciltate contributions along the way and summarise rather than write the whole project myself.

And yes - mental note to myself "Start Hazard Analysis Soon"

Regards,

Tony

Dear Tony,

My Congratulations to Both.



Maybe yr interests list was slightly conservative.

Thks for response. I will do a little recapping.

Of course, any other posters are totally welcome to pre-empt me.

Rgds / Charles.C

Dear Tony-C,

There is no substitute for practical experience IMO (eg see the introductory “exception” to the process section) and I hv very little for milk/yoghurt (now slightly more) . However the material below will hopefully re-energise the yoghurt project a little.

Initially the basic concepts of manufacturing yoghurt seemed attractively simple however the scientific underpinning is IMO quite complex, not to mention the considerable permutations of (large scale) manufacturing techniques possible. I suspect a lot of other posters unfamiliar with this manufacturing area will hv met the same problem hence the limited responses.

Most of the accessible detailed info. on this topic seems to be in textbooks / official/ internal guideline however I can suggest the 2 websites below (repeat of prev.post) for basic stuff. In adddition the attachments previously posted by Inesa are extremely useful. Any other legitimate web sources are welcome to be submitted of course.

http://www.foodscien...ryedu/home.html

http://www.milkfacts...essing Page.htm


I also hv no direct experience of ISO 22000 procedure expectations (as per 7.3.5.2) and I found the ISO text rather ambiguous. Accordingly, I hv interpreted the requirements as a basic outline similar to my experience for traditional haccp, ie to facilitate understanding of the concepts / manipulations given in the flow diagram.

I hv included some (probably ISO unwanted) pictorial backups / semi-explanations of the phyisicochemical concepts involved in the process to hopefully assist / attract comments from other yoghurt non-practitioners like myself. This has probably at least tripled the basic ISO “length” requirements. To illustrate the degree of “expansion” I hv also included a (very) “stripped-down” example (b04) focussing on the practical content of fig b01 in order to seek opinions from the ISO users / experts here on whether this condensed format is in fact acceptable from an audit point of view (my experience in traditional haccp plans is that ingeniously short / microscopic font size / tabulated presentations can often be quite acceptable to auditors although less so to myself).

I chose to not include (rightly or wrongly ?) any ISO type “hypothesised” /cross-referenced / procedures / work instructions. (I hv previously encountered differing HACCP interpretations of the slightly analogous “Process SOP”, eg some people viewed it as a simple manufacturing description, others as a compendium to also contain reference to all the related QA procedures >> mini-encyclopaedia ).

A brief overview of the relationship between this process and likely microbiological safety hazards could hv been included however I thought it would be more logical, if indeed required at all, to position this within the following 7.4 ISO 22000 section. If considered otherwise, can be done.

A few introductory comments regarding already posted thread material -

(a) The existing project flow chart seemed (slightly) mis-matched to the (rare) process descriptions I could find for “Greek” high fat yoghurt (10% apparently beloved in the UK!), particularly regarding “concentration” steps post-fermentation. Accordingly I hv initially simply used data given for more “normal” fat yoghurts, eg 1-3% fat levels. My knowledge deficit unfortunately, text probably easily modified if required.
(b) The terminology “striking” seems to have vanished from modern texts (and usage?), could only find (2) references in older books. I deduce this term is specific to “in-tank” agitation (as compared to heat exchanger based processes [or perhaps combinations thereof?]). There appear to be 2 basic options for cooling after fermentation, ie “in-tank” or “continuous” ( external heat exchanger ). I hv assumed an “in-tank” option in view of the “striking” (and it happens to match my picture!) although in practice, a heat –exchanger looks like a faster choice to me. It also seemed (to me) that in-tank cooling will necessitate further (undesirable?) fluid agitation for a reasonable time to completion, in addition to the planned “striking”, but I could not find any decisive published comments on that.
© For simplicity / lack of data, I hv assumed all the probiotic culture components included in the product specification are addded at same time / location as a traditional “bulk” culture pair of LB/ST and that the operational data typically given for the latter is not significantly changed. There may be significant errors here but my knowledge lacking again, eg hv seen these comments in different works - high pasteurisation temperatures (min.95degC/1hr) are mandatory for some probiotics, levels of starter culture around 10-20% v/v are necessary, probiotic additional components best added after (traditional) fermentation. May simply be that all these variations are (randomly) employed.
(d) Virtually all the model processes I found seemed to use more severe pasteurisation conditions at the prior-to-fermentation step (ie No.21) compared to the project suggested HTST values (I note you inc. some > signs). Conversely, the (very limited) data I found for “pasteurisation” steps Nos.15,16 used milder (thermisation) options. I “compromised” and hv quoted a typical range of options for “21” however no problem to re-specify HTST everywhere if preferred (there may again be a good reason for the lower temp. end which is outside my knowledge base ).
(e) I found a lack of consensus regarding the order of steps 21 and 22 (pasteurisation/homogenation). The reverse order to this presumably has bacteriological advantages however several recent texts did seem to prefer the projects’s existing format, perhaps for high fat items(?) and assuming an “aseptic” homogeniser after pasteurisation. Just curious, AFAIK, no particular flow problem either way.
(f) I added step numbers to yr Part II flow chart (b05). Unfortunately my graphic package is much less capable than yours. Feel free to issue a prettier version as pe PtI. One item ( my No.24A) seemed to be a duplicate (?).
(g) I hv omitted any treatment of the waste disposal elements. Burnout risk. Can be added eventually.

 b06a - process description stirred yoghurt.doc   281KB   141 downloads
Rgds / Charles.C

PS I hv no doubt that there are a number of typos in the text. And probably some blunders also. Sorry in advance.
PPS I realise there is no nice list of control measures to match the ISO requested text. It seemed to me that these would logically come from the hazard analysis which we haven't got to yet so i ignored it. I wait for enlightenment. I love ISO.

Thank you Charles

(a) The existing project flow chart seemed (slightly) mis-matched to the (rare) process descriptions I could find for “Greek” high fat yoghurt particularly regarding “concentration” steps post-fermentation.

That is right – it is a UK version ‘Greek Style’ not the same as traditional greek yoghurt which is more like soft cheese

(b) The terminology “striking” seems to have vanished from modern texts (and usage?), could only find (2) references in older books. I deduce this term is specific to “in-tank” agitation (as compared to heat exchanger based processes [or perhaps combinations thereof?]). There appear to be 2 basic options for cooling after fermentation, ie “in-tank” or “continuous” ( external heat exchanger).

Striking refers to strike cooling. This can be done either way but through a heat exchanger provides better control

© For simplicity / lack of data, I hv assumed all the probiotic culture components included in the product specification are addded at same time / location as a traditional “bulk” culture pair of LB/ST and that the operational data typically given for the latter is not significantly changed.

Yes that is correct

High pasteurisation temperatures - 95 deg C are required to denature proteins and is not related to probiotics

(e) I found a lack of consensus regarding the order of steps 21 and 22 (pasteurisation/homogenation).

Downstream may be used for higher fat products

(f) I added step numbers to yr Part II flow chart (b05). Unfortunately my graphic package is much less capable than yours. Feel free to issue a prettier version

Here you go then

 Yoghurt Process Flow Diagram Part 2.pdf   134.71KB   168 downloads

Regards,

Tony

Dear Tony,

many thks yr reply.

I will follow up yr comments asap and revert.

However the most important query in my post (maybe i under-emphasised it ) is whether the format of the 7.3.5.2 submission matches the standards's requirements, eg is a separate compilation of all(?) the control measures necessary or not and if so, some idea for the styling would be appreciated. For example, some simple listing as per Nikiforos is OK ? If so i will append to the existing document or whatever option is preferred assuming it is within my ISO knowledge base. I do prefer a minimalist approach as long as it's meaningful to the other posters here (despite the (boringly?) long existing description.)
It seemed to make sense (after hopefully laying the foundations) to delay revising the 7.3.5.2 content further until confirming an acceptable format.

Of course above queries are equally posed to, and possible solutions (examples!) only too welcome from, any other ISO 22000 familiar readers here. Not trying to load it all on the project boss

Rgds / Charles

Dear Tony,

many thks yr reply.

I will follow up yr comments asap and revert.

However the most important query in my post (maybe i under-emphasised it ) is whether the format of the 7.3.5.2 submission matches the standards's requirements, eg is a separate compilation of all(?) the control measures necessary or not and if so, some idea for the styling would be appreciated. For example, some simple listing as per Nikiforos is OK ? If so i will append to the existing document or whatever option is preferred assuming it is within my ISO knowledge base. I do prefer a minimalist approach as long as it's meaningful to the other posters here (despite the (boringly?) long existing description.)
It seemed to make sense (after hopefully laying the foundations) to delay revising the 7.3.5.2 content further until confirming an acceptable format.

Of course above queries are equally posed to, and possible solutions (examples!) only too welcome from, any other ISO 22000 familiar readers here. Not trying to load it all on the project boss

Rgds / Charles

My intention is to start a table of all process steps, then add columns for control measures and degree of application/parameters.

Regards,

Tony

Dear Tony,

Thks reply.

My intention is to start a table of all process steps, then add columns for control measures and degree of application/parameters.

(a) I think you are saying that the style/format/content-type of my previous attachment b04 is basically acceptable provided that the steps are more detailed as per the flow chart and the relevant "process parameters" are split out into an additional column.

In fact, it seems to me that, other than some debatable items such as the implication that yeast/mould( ) are safety hazards , Nikiforos's submission showed the way-to-go if in a table format.( )

(b) I also note that 7.3.5.2 states "described to the extent needed to conduct the hazard analysis". I accordingly assume that details of "non-safety" related operations are not relevant. Similarly i also assume that numerical "process parameters" for an operation such as "mixing" can be "safety" generalised to "GMP".[and, foreseeing, ie updating as per the standard defined 7.7, the hazard analysis, presumably cooling also, but I suppose if one were to be too visionary, there would be very few hazard-related parameters left!)

To put it (far) more simply, only specific/GMP information which will/might be needed for the hazard analysis to follow is essential.
(for example the comment about mixing/risk of excess vitamins in Nikiforos's post is interesting/maybe valid but IMO superfluous in the present context [I assume this is not an allergenic risk ], and similarly "date of cultures")

I understand that it's easier to hv an actual example to cogitate over but appreciate yr opinion / clarification if there is an (obvious) basic misinterpretation in the above. You never know, at this rate, might even be completed before the anniversary.

I also deduce that the lengthy exposition of the process which I previously posted was, from ISO's viewpoint, simply redundant (as i initially suspected ).

Rgds / Charles.C

Dear Tony,

As per my interpretation of recent posts, a response to para. 7.3.5.2 is attached. (added - the attachment has been moved to end of post #66 of this thread for convenience)

I congratulate you on the clarity of yr flow chart since it is now obvious (IMO anyway) that this process is by no means “simple”. I realise that in many details, you were probably obliged to considerably simplify the real thing.

Some of my material / layout has been borrowed from Caz’s excellent earlier post (grateful acknowledgements ) however any of the (many) errors now existing are undoubtedly all mine.

I find it truly strange / illogical that as per this paragraph 7.3.5.2, the standard apparently requires an exposition of relevant control measures (CMs) in advance of the hazard analysis (the cart before the horse !).

In particular, I felt that the probable value to a 3rd person of the CMs presented here would in many cases be more or less negligible without, at least, indicating their specific relevance . Accordingly, I hv included a column (F) to include such “tips”. If this causes the overall presentation to be out of compliance, it is simple to delete the column without disrupting the remaining balance [added - hv now removed this column in later revision.]

I hypothesised that the stabiliser / starter culture would be stored in “cool” conditions as per the skimmed milk powder. No idea actually . IMEX it is sometimes “safer” to store such “interesting” food ingredients at sub-zero levels (degC) however there may well be a good reason not to do it here.

I hv (temporarily) omitted consideration of waste disposal aspects for same reasons as previous.

I am not familiar with any of the 22000 series subsequent to the original or up-to-date versions of PAS 220 so I hv had to guess some of the possible options here and there. (I noted one peculiarity in that the specific topic “chemical contamination” seems to no longer exist in later PAS versions, very odd).

Anyway, yr comments would be appreciated. (And any other interested ISO 22000 people of course )

Rgds / Charles.C

PS - BTW, Congratulations on reaching 1000 Posts

Dear Tony, - As per my interpretation of recent posts, a response to para. 7.3.5.2 is attached.

Thank you will spend some time looking through and revert

I find it truly strange / illogical that as per this paragraph 7.3.5.2, the standard apparently requires an exposition of relevant control measures (CMs) in advance of the hazard analysis (the cart before the horse !).

It may be interpreted this way and more difficult starting from scratch but this way controls are taken into consideration and will more than likely simplify the Hazard Analysis

I hypothesised that the stabiliser / starter culture would be stored in “cool” conditions as per the skimmed milk powder.

Starters are usually stored under frozen conditions. SMP stored in cool/ambient but not cold.

I am not familiar with any of the 22000 series subsequent to the original or up-to-date versions of PAS 220 so I hv had to guess some of the possible options here and there. (I noted one peculiarity in that the specific topic “chemical contamination” seems to no longer exist in later PAS versions, very odd).

I have to agree with this point, I would expect to see it in PAS 220 section 10 Measures for prevention of cross contamination, perhaps they considered chemical control to be covered off in other sections for example:
5.7 Storage of food, packaging materials, ingredients and non food chemicals
6.3 Boiler chemicals
11.2 Cleaning and sanitizing agents and tools
16.2 Warehousing requirements

PS - BTW, Congratulations on reaching 1000 Posts

Thank you - don't post as much as I like as I have too many balls to juggle at the moment

Regards,

Tony

Dear Tony,

Thks for reply and the (forthcoming) comments.

I realised while doing the excel sheet that so far, (I think), only one specification for any of the (utilised) ingredients has been developed, namely the skimmed milk powder by yourself. I did previously submit some “characteristics” of various items but I would not claim that any of them approach “specifications”.
Accordingly I hv been attempting to search a bit for specs relating to (a) milk, (b) stabiliser, and © (probiotic) starter culture (I am guessing that the starter type for this product would logically be Direct Vat Inoculation [DVI] [?])(not that it really matters for the present purposes of course.)

Since the end product is sort of UK based I assumed UK/EC regulations would be logical where legally relevant. I also guess that legally, only the input raw milk spec./ initial handling requirements / subsequent minimum heating requirements are involved, ie the specifics of the fermentation onwards are optional (excluding distribution etc).

Some comments / queries for (a,b,c)-

(a) Is there a composite spec. somewhere which collects together the current UK + EC requirements (as implemented by UK). I am thinking of something like the (very easily accessible) USA – PMO treatise. (I found the uk dairy hygiene regs 1995 and noted various EC regs in their jumbo micro.specs ca. 2005-06 but no idea of current combined result re.UK – maybe as per the unofficial (undated) raw milk spec as attached below?

 sample raw_milk_specification.pdf   262.95KB   181 downloads

© Sadly I can find no fully integrated specs. for “starter culture”, only separately offered chunks, eg

Commercial starter culture suppliers provide microbiological specifications in terms of contaminant tolerances for their products. Accordingly, microbiological specifications of commercial cultures are outlined - in general, counts of mesophilic lactics, yeasts and molds, coliforms, anaerobic spore-formers, and salt-tolerant micrococci should not exceed 10 CFU/g. Escherichi coli, Enterococcus faecium, and coagulase positive staphylococci should be <1 CFU/g. The culture must be free of salmonella, listeria, and other pathogenic contaminants.

And these 2 attachments -

 starter culture micro.spec.png   42.25KB   36 downloads
 starter culture shelf life.png   198.02KB   37 downloads

(I realise some of the quoted terminologies/units are a bit "off" but the overall idea is semi-intelligible i think )
(Predictably, the data in quoted text and the 1st attachment are not always in agreement .)

(b) Hv so far failed to find anything at all useful for “stabiliser” but not (quite) given up this one yet .

Rgds / Charles.C


Added - Apologies that i forgot to add the, hopefully obvious, comment that above material is initially submitted for (anyone's) comments.

No problem to combine/edit/reissue any of the material under a neutral heading however I anticipate that as yet the information shown is probably a mixture of the incorrect and incomplete. For example, regarding ©, would seem logical to include some quantitative measure of "guaranteed" efficiency regarding acid production.?? In contrast (a) seems quite numerically comprehensive but may be simply out-of-date (somewhere).

I think the remaining potential items for specification aspects are the plastic PET pot and the packaging components (eg cardboard sleeving / shrink film / outer carton / palletising material).
I wondered if, based on the standard's text like 7.3.3.2, it is sufficient to only give a detailed response for direct food-contact items, ie the pot, with the remainder being covered by a generic "food grade" (or otherwise) statement as is typical IMEX of traditional haccp.

And, process-wise, a metal detector (prior to lidding seems impractical?) Or an alternative system solution?

Dear Tony,

Would appreciate a little fundamental clarification.

AFAIK, the current product specification for this project is a Natural Greek Style Bio yoghurt.

I hv just noticed in textbooks that “natural” yoghurts seem to be conventionally defined as not containing stabilisers. This is as per the current project / product description (ie stabiliser unmentioned) but unlike the current flow chart of course.

I don’t mind either way but no point in searching for a redundant specification.

Maybe i missed a posted change in the chosen product description somewhere.

Pls confirm.

Thks & Rgds / Charles.C

PS It might be worthwhile to consider enlarging the original thread title slightly as, IMO, the details which we are currently assembling are not really a component of the risk assessment. I suspect para. 7.3.5.2 is primarily inserted as a primer for the auditor so as to enable an understanding of a system which is outside his/her experience ?? )

Dear Tony,

Would appreciate a little fundamental clarification.

AFAIK, the current product specification for this project is a Natural Greek Style Bio yoghurt.

I hv just noticed in textbooks that “natural” yoghurts seem to be conventionally defined as not containing stabilisers. This is as per the current project / product description (ie stabiliser unmentioned) but unlike the current flow chart of course.

I don’t mind either way but no point in searching for a redundant specification.

Maybe i missed a posted change in the chosen product description somewhere.

Pls confirm.

Thks & Rgds / Charles.C

Hi Charles

Agree with your comments, the intention is to use a natural 'stabiliser' - milk/whey protein based

I think it is a good idea to summarise existing control measures and process parameters prior to hazard analysis - especially if it means you are looking after your auditor

Regards,

Tony

Dear Tony,

Thks comments.

milk/whey protein based

Yes, I had noticed this mysterious spec. but I thought the protein level was too low to be relevant (textbooks mentioned that stabilisers' usual range was 40-80% ??)(maybe with all this lovely fat, no need for a stabiliser anyway?). I already unearthed these examples -

 aa1 - milk protein concentrate MPC - G5IngredientSpecMPC.pdf   82.79KB   173 downloads
 aa2 - milk protein concentrate 70pct - mpc_70-1.pdf   129.3KB   108 downloads
 aa3 - whey protein concentrate 80 pct WPC - WPC8007H-0103.pdf   80.33KB   107 downloads

(not that the above are free of other criticisms )

Re – Starter Culture Spec.

Elusive.

Few quite nice specs but not quite matched to current product, eg –

(i) ST/LB only

 aa4 - starter LB-ST pair - M91LB80UK0.pdf   60.27KB   94 downloads

(ii) ST + Lactobacillus acidophilus + Bifido bacterium animalis, ssp lactis

 aa5 - starter ST+ probiotic Lac.acido. & Bifido.animalis - M91SAB440B0UK0-1.pdf   82.75KB   93 downloads

I also noticed a quite useful, recent (2010) ISO standard for starter culture identity, some extracts–

 aa6 - Bacterial starter cultures - ISO Standard of identity.doc   180KB   115 downloads

Re – PET Yoghurt Pot

So far no luck with this. Probably too specialised to be locatable.

Anyway, maybe one of the starter cultures is sufficiently close to the contemplated situation to either be used directly / with an emendation / with a comment attached. Of course, if you hv the real McCoy on file somewhere, no problem to insert.

Pls advise.

Rgds / Charles.C

PS don’t forget to dwl the revised excel sheet.(You may well be the only one !). Attached below for convenience.

 ISO 22000, para 7.3.5.2 .ver4.xls   51KB   328 downloads

PPS I eventually located the source of the (sample) raw milk specification posted previously and it appears to be an authentic, up-to-date example.

Dear Tony,

I took the liberty of slightly expanding the topic title. Hopefully to attract Google / a little more active interest. Feel free to adjust again of course.

Rgds / Charles

Sorry GMO missed your post:

Get some milk
Fortify it/adjust the fat level
Pasteurise/Homogenise
Cool to 40 C for Incubation
Add a nice bacteria
Let it grow and generate lactic acid so increasing the acidity/ reducing the pH and coagulating the proteins
Stop the incubation at the right pH say < 4.6 by cooling it. At the same time filtering which will also texturise
Pack it
Cool some more
Send off to customer

Regards,

Tony

Dear Tony

Just coming to the top on my head quickly,my concerns would be:

- raw material: I mean, free of harmful bacteria such as salmonella and listeria monocytogenes
- additing of bacteria: I would make sure than no other harmful bacteria contaminate the room where this operation is done

Have you came to any other conclusion?

Regards
Esther

Dear Esther,

The approach presented is basically following the iso layout. Although the aspect you refer to has not yet been specifically reached (ie 7.4) the answers to yr question can be mainly deduced from the excel chart and the raw milk spec. which i hv included in previous posts.

Rgds / Charles.C

Dear Esther,

The approach presented is basically following the iso layout. Although the aspect you refer to has not yet been specifically reached (ie 7.4) the answers to yr question can be mainly deduced from the excel chart and the raw milk spec. which i hv included in previous posts.

Rgds / Charles.C

Dear Charles

Thank you for your explanation. I must confess that I did only read the comments that came out on the first window of my laptop.I did not realized that there was lots of comments already written.

I quess I did not come out witn anything new to Tony-C.

Regards
Esther

Dear Esther,

No problem. It wasn't a bad starting guess anyway.

Hopefully an expanded answer to yr query will be presented in near future.

Rgds / Charles.C

This project has been running for almost 12 months; 8 pages of comments and lot's of input...it would be a real shame for it not to be completed.

What further needs to be done to bring this case study to a conclusion?

Regards,
Simon

Thank you very much. Benefited greatly from this important topic. Please make me a brother and a friend. I hope more of these important files.

Ahmed Al_husaki - Egypt
vice labs maneger
Modern Sciences and Arts University

Dear Tony,

Thks comments.

Rgds / Charles.C

PS don’t forget to dwl the revised excel sheet.(You may well be the only one !). Attached below for convenience.

Hi Charles

Attached is the format I suggest we progress which contains (I think) all the contributions to the forum so far including the information from your sheet.

 Control Measure Summary Sheets Hazards Sample.xlsx   32.52KB   534 downloads

It is formatted with drop down lists for ease of completion.

Regards,

Tony

Hi Charles

Attached is the format I suggest we progress which contains (I think) all the contributions to the forum so far including the information from your sheet.

 Control Measure Summary Sheets Hazards Sample.xlsx   32.52KB   534 downloads

It is formatted with drop down lists for ease of completion.

Regards,

Tony

.xls ??

Rgds / Charles.C