180 THE MILK SITUATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 



bandied in a sanitary manner. (Samples should be collected at the plant 

 before pasteurization to determine this.) If the milk is not handled in an 

 acceptable manner, which includes quick and efficient cooling and the main- 

 taining of a low temperature, even though the pasteurization may be thor- 

 ough and no bacteria found on examination taken from the discharge of the 

 machine, it does not destroy the spore which will subsequently develop. 

 (Health officer Birmingham, Ala.) 



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



No ; as no check upon the efficiency of the pasteurization could be made with- 

 out bacterial checks. (Health officer Cleveland, Ohio.) 



No. (Health officer Columbus, Ohio.) 



Yes. (Health officer Detroit, Mich.) 



Yes; unless it should be resorted to as a method of checking the pasteuriza- 

 tion. (State board of health, Florida.) 



No. (Health officer Jacksonville, Fla.) 



No. (Health officer Kansas City, Mo.) 



Pasteurization would destroy about 90 per cent of germs. (Health officer 

 Lynchburg, Va.) 



No. (Health officer Montclair, N. J.) 



Yes; except for scientific purposes. (Health officer Portland, Oreg.) 



No. (Health officer Providence, R. I.) 



It would necessitate an entirely different bacterial standard. The necessity 

 for bacterial standard would, however, in my opinion be all the greater. 

 (Health officer Richmond, Va.) 



No. (Health officer Rochester, N. Y.) 



No. (Health officer Seattle, Wash.) 



No. (Health officer Syracuse, N. Y.) 



Yes. (Health officer Topeka, Kans.) 



Think the bacterial count would still be necessary to make sure of proper 

 pasteurization. (Straus Laboratory, Washington, D. C.) 



No. (Sharon Dairy, District of Columbia.) 



It would be far more necessary for a low bacterial count in pasteurized milk 

 than in raw milk, arid the presence beyond a prescribed bacterial count in pas- 

 teurized milk would be the best evidence of imperfect pasteurization. (Bor- 

 den's Condensed Milk Co., New York, N. Y.) 



Compulsory pasteurization would, in my judgment, greatly increase the neces- 

 sity for careful supervision of the bacterial content, so as to insure against the 

 more dangerous organisms that might survive the pasteurization. (Walker- 

 Gordon Laboratory, Washington, D. C.) 



No. (Dr. V. C. Vaughan, Ann Arbor, Mich.) 



It would not ; but would make it possible to establish it at a lower level 

 say, 50,000 per cubic centimeter. (Dr. S. C. Prescott, Boston, Mass.) 



No. (Health officer Los Angeles, Cal.) 



Bacterial count should go with the pasteurization. (J. M. Houston, White 

 Cross Milk Co., Washington, D. C.) 



Not to much extent. (Health officer San Francisco, Cal.) 



No; unless there is a distinction between pasteurized dirt and raw dirt. If 

 the dirt is to be present anyway, it would probably be better to have it pas- 

 teurized. (Health officer St. Joseph, Mo.) 



By no means; pasteurized milk may contain bacteria by the millions. 

 (Health officer Wheeling, W. Va.) 



No ; we are of the opinion that the determination of a bacterial standard for 

 pasteurized milk is extremely important, as well as a standard for the same 

 milk before pasteurization. (Dr. Samuel McC. Hamill, Philadelphia, Pa.) 



No. (Health officer Scranton, Pa.) 



BACTERIAL COUNT. 



QUESTION 1. Is the bacterial count reliable and an indication of unsatisfactory 



conditions f 



ANSWERS. 



The bacterial count is believed to be reliable. When the bacterial count of 

 milk from a certain herd is habitually high, this is a reliable indication that 

 the milk is being produced under insanitary conditions or handled in an insani- 



