99 BULLETIN 642, U. §. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
raise the average greatly. The figures are of interest because with 
similar barn conditions, dirty cows, and the manure removed 
weekly, practically the same average number of bacteria were intro- 
duced at periods of time which were about six months apart. The 
results again show that the number of bacteria introduced through 
manure was not so large as had been expected. 
An examination of Table 6 shows the value of the small-top pail, 
which is most strikingly shown in graphic form in figure 13. 
: SEEN \ Wy Ny ey Q 
pepe bepaPeaaa Peg es 
8 8 
PAA ANT a = = a 2s == 4 — = =o = 
KAA Y == — | ) 
a | 
auuar = = — 2 NAY 
ET 
rh AASN = | NJ 
newer == ao 
Bes aaa: =z) SSS as — 
—— a 
Me Da BeEwBat = = = == = = = 
a. Se MBs BBaee aaa aS =a = mee 
ie SS SSS 
Fic. 13.—Bacterial content of milk from sterilized small-top and open pails during 
Experiment No, 5. 
EXPERIMENT NO. 6. (COWS AND FLOORS DIRTY, MANURE REMOVED WEEKLY, 
UTENSILS NOT STERILIZED.) 
The conditions of this experiment were similar to those of Ex- 
periment No. 1. Table 7, covering the period from May 8 to 31, 
1916, shows the average count of 36 samples of milk from the 
small-top pail to be 114,497, compared with 153,905 bacteria per 
cubic centimeter for the open pail. A comparison of the averages 
with those in Experiment No. 1, results of which are given in Table 
1, shows that the counts in the latter experiment were considerably 
higher, which may. be explained by the variable bacterial content 
of unsterilized utensils. 
