BACTERIAL COUNTS 389 
which happens to fall into the milk from the cow’s body and this has 
a bacteria content which is far different from fresh cow dung. In this 
connection, Taylor (1918) has shown that 85 per cent of fresh cow dung 
will dissolve in milk. His studies were carried out with the fresh (wet) 
cow feces and it required a little restriction to apply his results directly 
to dirt in milk. Fresh cow dung contains about 85 per cent of moisture 
and this water ought not to be considered as cow feces. Prucha, 
Weeter and Chambers (1918) carried out a series of investigations on 
this subject using dried feces. In discussing this question of bacterial 
counts in milk Pease (19138, 1916) claims that “‘ none of the bacteria 
found on our counting plates are even recognized by bacteriologists as 
belonging to the groups of those microorganisms which produce the well- 
known specific diseases.”” His general opinion seems to be that the 
dairy score card representing sanitary inspection of the dairy should 
come before the bacterial count and that any attempt to make it 
of secondary importance to the count is a decided step backwards. 
North (1918, 1916) has stated that confusion exists over the question 
of dirt and disease and that this has caused some misunderstanding. 
North (1917) has presented a revised score card and has tried to obviate 
some of the discrepancies inherent in the present one. In his earlier 
papers North states that there has been an undercurrent of competition 
between dairy inspection and bacterial testing and suggests that a 
system of cooperation be worked out between these two factors. One 
cannot help but be impressed with the fair-minded stand of this inves- 
tigator. 
Rogers (1915) claims that, how much a high bacterial count is due 
to contamination and how much is due to multiplication is uncertain. 
He suggests that it may become necessary to distinguish between 
measures to reduce the bacterial count and measures in the interest of 
decency and cleanliness. Conn (1917) has well stated the question. 
“The bacteriological analysis of milk is not to be taken as indicating in 
itself either a condition of safety or a condition of danger, but only as a 
warning. Good, clean, fresh milk will have a low bacterial count, and a 
high bacterial count means dirt, age, disease or temperature. A high 
bacterial count is, therefore, a danger signal and justifies the health 
officer in putting a source with a persistently high bacterial count among 
the class of unwholesome milk.’’ Rosenau (1912) makes the following 
statement on this subject: 
The enumeration of bacteria in milk is, therefore, one of the readiest and 
cheapest methods at the disposal of the health officer to determine the general 
sanitary quality of the market milk supply. The laboratory results serve not 
