184 THE MILK SITUATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 



Yes. (Health officer Bismarck, N. Dak.) 



Perhaps of value, even if not enforceable. (Health officer Burlington, Vt.) 



Not in my judgment. (Health officer Cleveland, Ohio.) 



Yes. (Health officer Columbus, Ohio.) 



Depending on legal backing. (Plealth officer Detroit, Mich.) 



Yes. '(State board of health, Florida.) 



Yes. (Health officer Jacksonville, Fla.) 



Yes. (Health officer Kansas City. Mo.) 



I believe so. (Health officer Lynchburg, Va.) 



Yes. (Health officer Montclair, N. J.) 



I think a standard should be established and maintained. (Health officer 

 Portland, Oreg.) 



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



Yes. (See rules, pages 6 and 7, marked " B.") [Appendix G.] (Health 

 officer Richmond, Va.) 



Not unless the law is really enforced; cleanliness and icing compulsory. 

 (Health officer Rochester, N. Y.) 



No. Because a low count may contain both pathological and harmless bac- 

 teria. In other words, a low count does not necessarily mean that the milk is 

 not dangerous. (Health officer Seattle, Wash.) 



No. (Health officer TOpeka, Kans.) 



Yes ; when an average of counts are taken, but it would not be fair to prose- 

 cute for one count that went above the maximum fixed. (Straus Laboratory, 

 Washington. D. C.) 



No. (Sharon Dairy, District of Columbia.) 



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



It is certainly so in certified milk, and I believe could be practically applied 

 to the milk of commerce. (Walker-Gordon Laboratory, Washington, 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.) 



Yes. (Health officer San Francisco, Cal.) 



I think it is. (Health officer St. Joseph, Mo.) 



We have found it feasible. (Health officer Wheeling, W. Va.) 



The difficulty rests in the fact that it is extremely difficult to know where 

 to place the responsibility for high counts, inasmuch as a large percentage of 

 the milk coming into our cities goes through the hands of the producer, the 

 creamery, the transportation companies, and finally the dealer. (Dr. Samuel 

 McC. Hamill, Philadelphia, Pa.) 



I think it is feasible to put a limit as to the number of bacteria allowable, 

 but before disbarring a dealer enough examination should be made to show 

 that he is practically always over the count. (Health officer Scranton, Pa.) 



QUESTION 4. What number, in your judgment, should ~be specified in this 



connection? 



ANSWERS. 



In the recommendations of the conference appointed by the Commissioners of 

 the District of Columbia in 1907 100,000 bacteria per cubic centimeter was given 

 as a standard for inspected milk. This might be found too low a standard for 

 raw milk under present conditions, but the maximum standard should not in 

 any event be set higher than 500,000. (Chief Bureau of Animal Industry.) 



I regard the classification of milk in Circular No. 114, August 14, 1910, 

 Bureau of Animal Industry, as a fair scientific standard. [NOTE. Ten thou- 

 sand for "certified" milk and 100,000 for "inspected" milk.] (Surgeon Gen- 

 eral U. S. Army.) 



One hundred thousand. (Surgeon General U. S. Navy.) 



For certified milk, 10,000; for inspected milk, 100,000; for pasteurized milk 

 a standard of 10,000 to 20,000 would appear to be reasonable. ( Surgeon General 

 Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service.) 



This depends on the size of the town or city, for the longer the haul the 

 poorer the bacterial quality of the milk. Certified milk should average under 

 10,000. Pasteurized under 50,000. In cities in winter the common milk under 

 100,000 and in summer under 500,000. (Dr. William H. Park, New York, N. Y.) 



