DIGESTIBILITY 213 
Stutzert who conducted experiments of artificial digestion 
reports in favor of boiled milk, while similar investigations made 
by Ellenberger and Hofmeister? showed no difference in the 
digestibility between raw and cooked milk. 
Rodet* who experimented with dogs noticed a shght dif- 
ference in favor of boiled milk. Bruning? fed dogs, pigs, rabbits, 
and guinea pigs with raw and sterilized milk and reports that 
all results were in faver of the sterilized milk. Bruckler’s® ex- 
periments with dogs showed that the animals gained more in 
weight on sterilized milk than on raw milk, but that their general 
health, vigor and vitality was better when fed raw milk. Variot" 
observed no difference in the effect on infants between raw and 
boiled milk. 
The foregoing citations suggest that our knowledge of the 
digestibility of heated or boiled milk is exceedingly limited and 
that the results obtained and conclusions drawn by the various 
investigators are at variance. In experiments with the living 
organism, and confined to so few specimens as seems to have been 
the case in the work reported, the factors of individuality and 
environment are a constant stumbling block, magniiying the 
limit of experimental error and weakening the conclusiveness of 
the results. On the basis of our present knowledge it seems 
reasonable to conclude that, as far as the digestibility of its 
inherent ingredients is concerned, condensed milk, when con- 
sumed in properly diluted form, varies but little, if anv, from 
raw milk. The absence in condensed milk of ferments, such as 
enzymes, which are destroyed in the process and which may 
assist digestion, may be considered the most important defect 
of condensed milk from the point of view of digestibility. 
_ In the case of sweetened condensed milk, however, the nutri- 
tive ratio of the normal milk is decisively disturbed by the pres- 
ence of large quantities of sucrose. Even when diluted to far 
beyond the composition of normal and original fluid milk, the 
1Stutzer, Landw. Versuchs-Stationen, 40, p. 307. 
*ENenberger & Hofmeister, Bericht ueber das Veterinarwesen Koenig- 
reich Sachsen, 1890. 
3 Rodet, Compt. rend. soc. biol., 48, p. 555. 
4 Bruning, Muenchner Mediz., Wochenschrift, No. 8, 1905. 
4 Bruning, Zeitschrift fuer Tiermed, 10, p. 110, 1906. 
6 Bruckler, Jahrbuch fuer Kinderheilk, 66, p. 343, 1907. 
6 Variot, Comp. rend., 139, p. 1002, 1904. 
