INSPECTION. Ill 



protect the public or educate the dairymen. Unles.s bacterial 

 counts. are made carefully by competent person.s from samples 

 properly collected and cared for, they had best not be made at 

 all. This is equally true in cases where the inspecting staff 

 is too small or too inefficient to accomplish the work thor- 

 oughly. 



In cities like Boston (10), Rochester (7) and Washington 

 (15), bacterial counts in connection with inspection work have 

 been made on a scale that has been regarded as productive of 

 good results. The average bacterial • count of the milk of 

 Rochester declined in three years to one-fourth of the numbers 

 prevailing before such work was undertaken (6). 



The results of two years' work with a bacterial standard in 

 Boston have been summarized as follows by Jordan (10): 



TABLE VI. 

 NUMBER OF BACTERIA IN THE BO.STON MILK .SUPPLY. 



1905. 19(16. 



Samples showing under 500,000 bacteria per cc. 87.60% 89.98% 



Samples showing above 500,000 bacteria per cc 12.40% lOA)2'/r 



Samples showing under 50,000 bacteria per cc 59.80% 62. 3.^;^ 



Samples showing under 100,000 bacteria per cc. 74.90% 7 2.67 'r 



As is usually the case, the determination of standards has 

 been a matter of difficulty. They have been set on the basis 

 of the justifiable assumption that germ free milk is the ideal 

 milk. Then, after a survey of the conditions as regards num- 

 bers in the ordinary supply, a standard has been set low 

 enough to interfere only with the worst producers. Boston set 

 a limit of 500,000 per cc. for ordinary city supply, and has 

 been pretty generally followed. Various finer grades of milk 

 elsewhere have had higher standards, for instance, inspected 

 milk, 100,000 per cc. Certified milk almost uniformly has a 

 standard of 10,000 per cc. A bacterial standard need not be 

 the subject of legislation, and the work may be merely carried 

 on as a guide to inspection work. 



Digitized by Microsoft® 



