DAIRY SCORE CARD 381 
its origin in 1904 when Doctor W. C. Woodward prepared one for use 
in Washington A year later Pearson at Cornell University devised a 
similar card. The score card received such approbation by sanitarians 
that the National Association of Dairy Instructors appointed a com- 
mittee which had much to do with the present official score card. Much 
has been written in favor of and against the card. Itis regarded by some 
milk hygienists as one of the most important factors in the production 
of clean milk. Others, even though they represent large cities do not 
regard the card as of any great help in milk control. It must be empha- 
sized that the score card was not devised to give information with regard 
to bacteria in milk but merely to rate the production plants. It has 
been established, generally speaking, that a high scoring dairy will have 
a low number of bacteria in its milk. This isto be expected. Some of 
the recent work in dairy hygiene has emphasized the fact that the 
present score card lays too much stress on factors which are not directly 
concerned with the production of milk with few bacteria. Brew (1915) 
made a comparative study of the bacteria in the milk and the scores of 
thirty-four commercial dairies. He found no correlation between these 
two factors. The apparent reason for this was that a large number ol 
items called for on the score card have little or no effect on the bacteria 
in the milk. Too much emphasis is placed on procedures which do not 
affect the milk. This study indicates that the score card needs revision 
if it is to be an index of the bacteria in milk. As indicated by recent 
studies, within certain limits, the environment of the cow does not seem 
to exert much influence on the milk. Prucha, Harding and Weeter 
(1915) also confirm the contention of Brew that the score card needs 
revision. They found that utensils were important in relation to the 
number of bacteria in milk. These are not given an important place 
on the card. Ayers, Cook and Clemmer (1918) reach the same con- 
clusion. Brainerd and Mallory (1914) in studying the Richmond, 
Virginia, milk supply by means of the bacterial count and score card 
found the count to be cumbersome—a high count not always being char- 
acteristic of a dangerous milk. For some reason which was not deter- 
mined, they found that the highest scoring dairy showed a larger count 
than the lowest scoring dairy. North (1917) believes that the life of 
the present score card is threatened if it is not changed to give a reason- 
ably close indication of the character of the product of dairies. North 
has presented a revised score card on which he has tried to place 
emphasis on factors which are concerned in keeping the number of 
bacteria in milk low. This to a certain extent may change the purpose 
of the card. 
