THE MILK SITUATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 183 



If honest, they do. (Health officer Portland, Oreg.) 



Yes ; if they employ standard methods of analysis and counts. ( Health officer 

 Providence, R. I.) 



Yes; by use of standard methods. (Health officer Richmond, Va.) 



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



No. Those working for the State or city more nearly the same. Those work- 

 ing for a dairyman generally find lower counts than we. (Health officer Seattle, 

 Wash.) 



Probably not. (Health officer Syracuse, N. Y.) 



No. (Health officer Topeka, Kans.) 



Fairly so. At least, working on the same bottle, they will agree that the milk 

 is good because of a low count, though the counts do not tally exactly. ( Straus 

 Laboratory, Washington, D. C.) 



I am not prepared to answer. (Sharon Dairy, District of Columbia.) 



The results of bacteriologists working with given methods are approximately 

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



In a general way; yes. It is unfortunate that a standard method of making 

 bacteriological counts has not been established. (Walker-Gordon Laboratory, 

 Washington, D. C.) 



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



If they use standard methods ; yes. If each has his own method, results are 

 likely to vary quite widely. (Dr. S. C. Prescott, Boston, Mass.) 



Yes; when technique is identical. (Health officer Los Angeles, Cal.) 



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



Yes. (Health officer San Francisco, Cal.) 



I do not know from experience, but know of no reason why they should not, 

 if proper precautions are used. (Health officer St. Joseph, Mo.) 



I have no personal knowledge of this. (Health officer Wheeling, W. Va.) 



Generally, yes; always provided the milk is carefully prepared and exactly 

 the same methods pursued. Milk from the same milking, part of which is 

 placed into a clean can and another into a dirty can, will naturally give differ- 

 ent bacterial counts at the end of a few hours. (Dr. Samuel McC. Hamill, 

 Philadelphia, Pa.) 



I have never checked this up with another man. (Health officer Scran- 

 ton, Pa.) 



QUESTION 3. Is it feasible to indicate the maximum number of bacteria 



allowable? 



ANSWERS. 



Yes; provided the number is not made unreasonably low. (Chief Bureau of 

 Animal Industry.) 



Approximately; yes. (Surgeon General U. S. Army.) 



It is, under given fixed conditions. (Surgeon General U. S. Navy.) 



For pasteurized milk a maximum bacterial standard is indispensable, and 

 probably more important than inspection. For other classes of milk a bacterial 

 standard is only supplementary to other requirements, such as competent veteri- 

 nary inspection and medical inspection of employees. The bacterial count is 

 an index of the efficiency of the methods used for the production of a safe milk 

 and is a check upon the efficiency of the inspection service. (Surgeon General 

 Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service.) 



It is as to an average, but not for an individual excess. Almost every one 

 of the certified farms has at some time had a high count. (Dr. William H. 

 Park, New York, N. Y.) 



Perfectly so. The American Association of Medical Milk Commissions, at 

 my suggestion, fixed the standard at 10,000 per cubic centimeter. (Dr. Henry 

 L. Coit, Newark, N. J.) 



Yes; but not always advisable. (Dr. R. G. Freeman, New York, N. Y.) 



Yes. Discretion should be allowed to the bacteriologist, however. (Dr. M. P. 

 Ravenel, Madison, Wis.) 



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



Yes. (Health officer Ann Arbor, Mich.) 



We think so. (Health officer Atlanta, Ga.) 



No; I should use such information for our guidance of our inspectors only. 

 (Health officer Baltimore, Md.) 



Yes. (Health officer Birmingham, Ala.) 



