THE MILK SITUATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 177 



Not without expensive equipment of a laboratory and an expert investigator. 

 The time necessary would defeat the object of the investigation, as the milk 

 would have been already used. (Dr. Henry L. Coit, Newark, N. J.) 



It is easy to ascertain whether it is as sterile as it should be after pasteuri- 

 zation. (Dr. R. G. Freeman, New York, N. Y.) 



No. (Dr. M. P. Ravenel, Madison, Wis.) 



Yes. (Dr. C. E. A. Winslow, New York, N. Y.) 



I think so. (Health officer Baltimore, Md.) 



Yes. (Health officer Birmingham, Ala.) 



No. (Health officer Bismarck, N. Dak.) 



Yes. (Health officer Cleveland, Ohio.) 



Not unless heated to 180 and determined by Storch's method. (Health 

 officer Columbus, Ohio.) 



Yes. (Health officer Detroit, Mich.) 



Yes ; test for enzymes. ( Health officer Jacksonville, Fla. ) 



Yes, if the relation of the component parts of milk stand as normal before 

 pasteurization. (Health officer, Kansas City, Mo.) 



Only with great difficulty, if at all. Impracticable. Bacteria count would 

 be lowered by pasteurization. Storch's test shows when heated to 176 F. 

 (Health officer Lynchburg, Va.) 



Only by microscopical or bacterial examination. (Health officer Montclair, 

 N. J.) 



Time would tell, but this would not be practical. (Health officer Portland, 

 Oreg. ) 



Yes. (Health officer Providence, R. I.) 



No absolute means so far as I know. If it is known that a given sample 

 has been pasteurized and if the sample contains very few bacteria, it may be 

 assumed that the pasteurization has been efficient. The best test is to com- 

 pare bacterial counts before and after pasteurization. This would, of course, 

 be impossible of application to a single sample. (Health officer Richmond, Va.) 



I do not know. Several schemes have been proven failures. Dr. Evans of 

 Chicago can give you data on this point if anybody can. He is the commissioner 

 of health. (Health officer Seattle, Wash.) 



Yes. (Health officer Syracuse, N. Y.) 



Yes. (Health officer Topeka, Kans.) 



I know of no way except the bacterial count. (Straus Laboratory, Washing- 

 ton, D. C.) 



Not to my knowledge. (Sharon Dairy, District of Columbia.) 



Yes. (Borden's Condensed Milk Co., New York, N. Y.) 



It is possible, but the results could not be known in time to be of practical 

 value as to any given shipment of milk. (Walker-Gordon Laboratory, Wash- 

 ington, D. C.) 



Yes. (Dr. V. C. Vaughan, Ann Arbor, Mich.) 



Yes. (Dr. S. C. Prescott, Boston, Mass.) 



Yes. (Health officer Los Angeles, Cal.) 



Yes. ( J. M. Houston, White Cross Milk Co., Washington, D. C.) 



Not absolutely. (Health officer San Francisco, Cal.) 



It is possible, but not very practical on a large scale. (Health officer St. 

 Joseph, Mo.) 



Yes. (Health officer Wheeling, W. Va.) 



Opinions differ as to this point. We know of no reliable method. (Dr. Samuel 

 McC. Hamill, Philadelphia, Pa.) 



QUESTION 11. Would pasteurization, if generally insisted upon, dispense with 

 the necessity of the tuberculin testf 



ANSWERS. 



While pasteurization is an efficient means of guarding against infection of 

 milk, it should not be regarded as a substitute for other measures to eliminate 

 disease. The tuberculin test has an important function in eradicating tuber- 

 culosis of animals for the economic benefit of the live-stock industry and for 

 the conservation of the supply of milk. Tuberculosis reduces the yield of milk, 

 and the unrestricted spread of this disease would in time seriously curtail pro- 

 duction. It is important, therefore, in the interest of a plentiful supply of milk, 



82444 S. Doc. 863. 61-3 12 



