QUANTITATIVE BACTERIAL ANALYSIS 247 



"has existed. A logical application of the temperature test would 

 require a. test at each dairy, another at each receiving and shipping- 

 station, and another at the wagon, besides information as to con- 

 ditions en route and in storage. Slack's method, while applicable 

 to comparatively lenient standards, such as 500,000 per c.c, is not 

 sufficiently accurate for more severe standards, such as those re- 

 quired for inspected (100,000 per c.c.) and certified (10,000 per 

 c.c. ) milk. 



Since the very object of the test is, not to determine the 

 harmfulness of a particular sample, but how well the dairy it came 

 from is supervising every step in the production of good milk, 

 the objections on these scores are entirely misplaced. 



2. The condemning of clean milk kept too long at too high a 

 temperature, as against the passing of dirty milk, shrewdly cooled 

 at once to a low point. 



This objection would have some weight, if it were true. How- 

 ever, the dirty milk can be detected despite the cooling, since neg- 

 lect of this one factor will raise the count; while the clean milk, 

 poorly iced and long delayed, should be condemned, since its vir- 

 tues in one direction are offset by neglect in another. It has been 

 demonstrated again and again, even by the objectors, that dirty 

 methods result in an immediate and enormous rise in the count, 

 and while subsequent development may be restrained by cooling, 

 the initial rise cannot be concealed. 



3. That the numerical count cannot ensure the wholesome- 

 riess of milk. This is perfectly true. A milk containing a count of 

 500,000 lactic acid bacilli and hence barely passable as " market 

 milk " by the most lenient standards, may be absolutely harmless; 

 while a milk of 5,000 count, hence well under the highest standards 

 for certified milk, may cause infinite harm should all or even one- 

 tenth of these be typhoid bacilli. 



Such an argument, however, is beside the point. No one ob- 

 jects to inspection for adulteration, watering, etc., although admit- 



