PRODUCTION OF MILK OF LOW BACTERIAL CONTENT. Al aL 
Fig. 21.—Interior of barn at farm No, 178. 
the average counts. Figure 22 shows graphically the summarized 
and average results of the series of samples from each farm before 
and after the three essential factors were introduced. It will be noted 
that among the six farms some produced milk of a relatively low 
bacterial content. Milk produced from farms 20 and 48 under the 
ordinary conditions showed, respectively, average counts of 15,050 
and 34,861 bacteria per cubic centimeter, while after the introduction 
of the three essential factors the count was reduced to 4,656 and 
2,050, respectively. The greatest average decrease due to the intro- 
NIVEL? OF 
DAIAHLES, WERAGE WPI EES? OF SACTEARYVA FEF? C.C. 
¥ 4G5E8F 
LF OE £9 
_ RT 
NABER / << 
; 15,050 
FORE 13 
LAAT 
NUTBEP ZO FOSS 
AF TELO ZN \ 
z 5 ae 4 
o. RE NRE EE NST arm ew 2 Sa 
LPUYA 
NYIBE? EF) 60S 
z UTEP? OE" 
FZOSS- ; 
ee ae 
WMHTELS? ZI 496 
Sees a i BER DEVILS NOT STERILE 
PLECY OPEWV PAUL 
ye (eee aes a (igs STERILE 
MUTE GF 2/50 Ole PAAILLTOP PBL. 
Vater ON 
Fig. 22.—Average bacterial content of night’s milk, produced on farms near Grove City, 
Pa., before and after using the three most essential factors for the production of milk 
of low bacterial content. 
