68 BULLETIN 846, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
5,000,000 bacteria, with a penalty of more than unity if more than 
5,000,000 bacteria were present and vice versa. In the chart (fig. 4) 
there are 8 dots above the 5,000,000 line and 3 crosses below it. 
The penalty imposed in the case of samples with dots above this line 
is not sufficiently great to cause any of them to have a formula value 
greater than zero. The choice of 5,000,000 is further vindicated 
by the extensive experiences of three members of the Bureau of Chem- 
istry In examiming commercial frozen egg products and by the 
narrated experiences of a bacteriologist in a commercial ege-breaking 
plant who stated that in his opinion no frozen egg product should 
contain more than 5,000,000 bac- 
& ape iee 
N teria at any season of the year. 
Y 7 
S wily te 
Q The divisor in 500,000 “2s de- 
(S,000000 Se termined in a similar manner ~ 
Ase eee TA TM a 
000,000 
N oie mae en The values assigned to Y. and 
x fax | | | | | Z are in conformity with what 
§ 4008000 aan ; 
q 2000000 —— | a juries and judges have been found 
¢ 
q 2000000 eee to tolerate or condemn in the 
8000000 ae d Seas aa 
N 7000000 etl ibe x ath: BE] eas tea past, ana are aiso mM accord Wilt 
S Eooao0d fee Res | the 5 per cent bad-egg ruling of 
eee ek pitt | 6the Department of Agriculture. 
Se eae Sees For sugared yolk, which may 
\ sacacee | |__| be recognized by the fact that 
Aas oid [ ¥* | the solids not fat will be almost 
K 0000002 bo 
oi titlli tl Ui) | double the ether extract, as com- 
pared with approximately equal 
amounts of these two constituents 
in the case of unsugared yolk, this formula must be modified to © 
the following form, based upon the plots: 
Fic. 4.—Total bacterial counts. 
10.0 (R—0.205Q —0.5) +10.0 (S—0.008Q — 1.158) — 25.0 (U+0.029 T 
f W x 
— 0.798) + V+ 59 o00 + 500,000 +Y+Z=0 
500,000 
It is important to see how these formulas actually work out in 
practice. At the bottom of Tables 1 to 23 will be found the formula 
values for the samples, the formula being calculated in each ease for 
the average of the results of the dividual analysts. In Tables 1, 
2, and 3 the formula values are negative, and of a very appreciable 
magnitude. In Table 4 the formula value is small, as would be 
expected in all samples of egg white. In Table 5 all the values are 
negative, and decrease in magnitude with the length of time the eggs 
were held in storage. It will be noted that in the first three formula 
values there are terminal plus signs. These indicate that it probably 
