403 
ij of 452, or 53.5 per cent of all the samples examined, contained 0.07 
j per cent, or more, of dirt by volume of the milk. Many more of 
,1 the samples contained traces of dirt, and comparatively few were 
i absolutely clean. During the summer of 1906, of 172 samples of 
1 milk examined in the Division of Pathology and Bacteriology of 
i the Hygienic Laboratory, 98 samples were found to contain a very 
1 small amount of dirt. Eight contained much dirt, and 1 contained 
[ (mouse?) feces. (See Bulletin 35, Hygienic Laboratory, United 
States Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service, p. 71.) All 
^ sanitarians are agreed that milk should contain no dirt, and by the 
use of the Gurler milk pail in milking, and by taking a few simple 
ji precautions in the handling and preservation of milk it can certainly 
i; be kept out, and a good clean milk delivered to the consumer. 
,| The presence of dirt in such a large percentage of the samples 
i: examined indicates an alarming neglect of even the simplest precau- 
tions, and probably accounts for the large number of bacteria found 
in the greater number of milks on sale in the city of Washington 
; during the summer months. According to Benk (quoted by Ott (5) ) , 
! cow’s milk should be put on the market in such a state of purity that 
after two hours’ standing a liter of the milk should show no appre- 
ciable deposit. Very few of the milks offered for sale in this city 
i would conform to this requirement. 
It should be observed in this connection, however, that dirty milk 
is by no means confined to this locality. Nearly every city through- 
out the world has to contend with this problem. According to some 
authorities, the citizens of Berlin consume 300 pounds of cow dung 
in their milk daily, and the citizens of New York consume 10 tons of 
filth and refuse in the same manner; and many medical authorities, 
among them Winslow (16), assert that the question of dirt and the 
bacterial contamination of milk is of infinitely greater importance 
from the standpoint of health than a high chemical standard gov- 
erning the composition of milk, for the reason that very poor milk, 
viz, that which is low in proteids, fat, and milk sugar, is still very 
valuable as a food and contains a great deal of nutriment, provided 
that it is sufficiently clean to be consumed with safety. On the other 
hand, it is now perfectly well understood that dirty milk and milk 
bacterially contaminated is not only responsible for the high death 
rate prevailing among young children from cholera infantum, but 
that polluted milk is also responsible to a large degree for the spread 
of such infections as diphtheria, scarlet fever, typhoid fever, and 
tuberculosis, and for acute cases of milk poisoning, which are by no 
means uncommon. 
