314 



These samples were taken from themilk as it was ready to be . 

 delivered to the consumer and, with the one exception of Geo. 

 Wond, must be considered dirty milk. Of the two samples taken 

 from T. F. Farm, No. 4 represents milk from his own herd and 

 No. 6 Uiixcd milk from Chas. Lucas, Joe (iouviera and T. Mc- 

 Guire dairies, which he retails in bottles. The count was made 

 alter 120 hrs. incubation at 27° C. 



Sample 11— S. de Nobriga 2,820,000 bact. per cc. 



12— Frank Valph 3,020,000 



13_}^1. Kawamura 1,120,000 " " " 



14__Kichard Kapena 945,000 " " " 



1 5_.v. Souza 3,224,300 " " " 



The cotmt was made after 96 hrs. incubation at 27° C. 

 That such counts should be possible shows that something is 

 radically wrong in the handling of the milk ; either the product is 

 contaminated when being drawn from the cow or when it is being 

 cooled and put into containers ; probably it is a combination of 

 the two. 



Extreme care should be used in the production of such an im- 

 portant food as milk. The opportunities for its contamination are 

 many and the overlooking of a single point will result in the pro- 

 duction of an inferior article. To obtain a clean product clean 

 methods mu.st be employed. It avails nothing to milk into a sterile 

 pail through a small o])ening if the flanks and udder of the cow 

 are dirty, the floor a foot deep with manure and the animal switch- 

 ing its tail continually. 



Taking for granted that the milk is drawn under ideal condi- 

 tions, i. e.. clean stable; clean animal with tail confined; clean 

 milker with clean, properly constructed pail, the milk will become 

 contaminated and show a high bacterial count if poured over a 

 cooler which is exposed to the dust and dirt which can blow into 

 the milk room from the street or barn yards and then put into im- 

 ]M-o])erly cleaned bottles or cans. 



These are points to be closely watched l)y the milk inspector in 

 his daily round of inspection. j\Iilk can and should be produced 

 here with a count of 100,000 bact. i^er cc. or less and nothing over 

 that amount should be allowed. If the count is higher, it shows 

 conclusively that some point in the routine of production is being 

 overlooked or slighted. This should be rectified and proper 

 methods enforced by the inspector. 



Jiispcction Scn'icc. 



One tri]) was taken to Schoficld llarracks on September 5th for 

 tlic purpo.se of giving the dogs quarantined there a final ins]x>cti(Mi 

 and to release theiu, as the 120 days expired on that date. ;\s far 

 as could be ob.<5erved, they were in fine condili-m and uotbing 

 further has developed since their release. It is to be hoped that 



