26 



"BULLETIN 642 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



ized utensils. The results appear graphically in figure 16, which 

 shows the remarkable difference between the bacterial content of milk 

 from sterilized and unsterilized utensils. The highest bacterial count 

 of all the samples from sterilized utensils was 21,500 and from un- 

 sterilized utensils 284,000 bacteria per cubic centimeter. 



Table 9. 



-Bacteria per cubic centimeter in dual samples of fresh milk when 

 sterilized and unsterilized utensils were used. 





Sam- ' 

 p'e 



No. 



Small-top pail. 



Date. 



Sam- 

 ple 



No. 



Small-top pail. 



Date. 



Steril- 

 ized. 



Unster- 

 ilized. 



Steril- 

 ized. 



Unster- 

 ilized. 



1916. 

 Jan. 19, p. m 



1 

 2 

 3 



4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 

 26 

 27 

 28 

 29 

 30 

 31 



3 700 



5,800 

 6,900 



12,500 

 4,900 

 8,100 

 3,300 

 6,900 

 3,800 

 4,200 

 6,800 

 6, COO 



21,500 

 4,500 

 4,900 

 3,700 

 7,800 

 3,400 



17,500 

 2, COO 



15,800 

 9,300 

 3,500 

 5,100 

 3,000 

 9,900 

 2,700 



19,300 

 2,600 

 5,300 

 2,900 



17,500 



112,000 

 47, 600 

 38,200 

 18, 400 



126, 000 

 68,000 

 9,700 

 66,000 

 16, £00 

 85,000 

 18,600 

 27,900 

 5,100 

 48,500 



141,000 

 54,000 



203,000 

 98,000 



102, 000 

 64, 700 

 92,000 

 97, 000 

 32, 200 

 28, 200 

 7,400 

 37, 500 

 11,800 



284,000 

 54,000 

 08,000 



1916. 



Feb. 8, a. m 



Feb. 8, p. m 



32 

 33 



34 

 35 

 36 

 37 

 38 

 39 

 40 

 41 

 42 

 43 

 44 

 45 

 46 

 47 

 48 

 49 

 50 

 51 

 52 

 53 

 54 

 55 

 56 

 57 

 58 

 59 

 60 



16,700 

 2,900 

 6,800 

 1,200 

 3,100 

 1,500 

 5,400 

 2,900 

 6,300 

 2,500 

 4,200 



12,500 

 7,500 

 4,500 

 1,500 

 6,300 

 3,100 

 6,900 

 8,900 

 8,500 

 5,800 

 2,500 

 6,200 

 6,200 

 8,900 

 5,100 

 3,900 

 4,600 

 3,200 



56,000 

 37 000 



Jan. 20, a.m 



Jan. 20, p. m 





18 300 





Feb. 9, p. m 



Feb. 10, a.m 



Feb. 10, p. m 



Feb. 11, a.m 



149,000 

 42,000 

 42 500 





Jan. 23, p. m 







Jan. 24, p. m 



94' 000 



Jan. 25, a. m 



Feb. 12, a.m . 



33 900 





Feb. 13, p. m 



2l' 200 



Jan. 20, a. m 



19' 800 





Feb. 15, a.m 



Feb. 15, p. m 



Feb. 16, a.m 



Feb. 16, p. m 



55 200 





68 000 



Jan. 27, p. m 







117 000 



Jan. 28, p. m 



195' 000 







65 000 





Feb. 18, a.m 



Feb. IS, p. m 



152' 000 





103,000 

 106,000 

 62,000 

 83, 000 





Feb. 19, a. m 



Feb. 20, p. m .... 



Feb. 1, a. m 



Feb. 1, p. m 



Feb. 22, p. m 



Feb. 23, a.m. . 



Feb. 2, p. m 



39, 700 



Feb. 3, a.m 



Feb. 23, p. m 



97, 000 



Feb. 3, p. m 



Feb. 24, a. m 



97, 000 



Feb. 4, a. m 



Feb. 24, p. m 



133, 000 





Feb. 25, a. m 



Feb. 25, p. m 



Feb. 26, a. m 



130,000 



Feb. 5, a. m 



131,000 



Feb. 6, p. m 



134, 000 









Feb. 7, p. m 





. 6,306 



73, 308 











The diagram shows that in two cases, numbers 26 and 28, the milk 

 from the sterilized utensils was slightly higher in bacterial content 

 than that from the unsterilized. In both cases the counts were rela- 

 tively low, which indicates that the unsterilized utensils in these par- 

 ticular cases were thoroughly washed in very hot water. Throughout 

 the series, as soon as the samples were taken the pails and cans were 

 washed in hot water — 54.4° C. (130° F.) — in which washing powder 

 had been dissolved. The insides of the cans and pails were scrubbed 

 with a brush. After washing, the cans were inverted and remained 

 uncovered until the next milking. It is evident that they were washed 

 better than they would have been on the average farm. By this 

 method of handling it is apparent that the number of bacteria in the 

 unsterilized cans would be smaller than in those in which milk had 

 stood for a considerable time, for in the latter case there is an oppor- 

 tunity for a great multiplication of bacteria. The higher the bac- 



