BACTERIAL COUNT OF MILK AND DIET TEST. 5 



This table, like the others, shows considerable variations; No. 1, 

 which had a bacterial count of 768,000, tested ''fair" by the sediment 

 test, and No. 8, which has a count of 7,200, tested "bad." These 

 disks are shown in Plate II (lower). 



COMPARISONS WITH FILTERED MILK. 



After comparing the bacterial count with the various sediment tests 

 of unfiltered market milk, it was decided to make a comparison after 

 the milk was filtered through such substances as are frequently used 

 as strainers by farmers to remove dirt. Twenty samples were filtered 

 through 4-ply cheesecloth and the Lorenz disks compared with the 

 bacterial count. 



The table below shows the results obtained from 10 average samples 

 out of 20, filtering through cheesecloth. 



Table 4. ^Comparison of bacterial count ivith Lorenz sediment test {milk filtered through 



cheesecloth). 



Sample No. 



Bacteria 

 per cubic 

 centimeter. 



Character 

 of sediment. 



Sample No. 



Bacteria 

 per cubic 

 centimeter. 



Cli<>racter 

 of sediment. 



1 



109,000 

 67,000 

 46,000 

 24,000 



639,000 



Good. 

 Do. 

 Do. 

 Do. 

 Do. 



6 



33,000 

 84,000 

 93, 000 

 54,000 

 316,000 



Good. 



o 





Do. 



3 



8 



Do. 



4 



9 



Do. 



5 



10 



Do. 









Twenty samples were filtered through one ply of Canton flannel 

 and the bacterial count compared with the Lorenz disks. Table 5 

 shows the results obtained from 10 average samples out of 20. 



Table 5. — Comparison of bacterial count with Lorenz sediment test {milk filtered through 



1-ply Canton flannel) . 



Sample No. 



Bacteria 

 per cubic 

 centimeter. 



Character 

 of sediment. 



Sample No. 



Bacteria 

 per cubic 

 centimeter. 



Character 

 of sediment. 



1 



78,000 

 31,000 

 41, 000 

 108, 000 

 18,000 



Good. 

 Do. 

 Do. 

 Do. 

 Do. 



6 



19,400 

 316,000 

 129, 000 

 149,000 

 119,000 



Good. 



2 





Do. 



3. 



8 



Do. 



4 



9 



Do. 



5. 



10 



Do. 









Twenty samples were filtered tlu'ough 1-ply ordinary absorbent 

 cotton, covered above and below with 1-ply cheesecloth. The Lorenz 

 disks were compared with the bacterial count, as in the preceding 

 table. Table 6 shows the results obtained from 10 average samples 

 out of 20. 



