_ day to day so that the group from which the fore-milk was re- 
___ jected on one day had the entire milk drawn on the following 
Re day. In this way any abnormal variations due to. peculiar 
ay germ content of individual udders was obviated. 
TABLE 25. 
_ Bacterial content of milk as affected by rejection of the fore-milk. 



NUMBER OF 
EXPERIMENT Treatment of Cows. 
Total 
Bacteria. 
Acid 
Bacteria. 
Liquefying 
Bacteria 



| 
| 

Fore-milk not rejected | 321 | 154 
Fore-milk rejected 366 25 
Fore-milk not rejected | 304 | 138 
iore-milk rejected’) (1921 4200 
Fore-milk not rejected | 567 | 133 
Fore-milk rejected 317 67 
Fore-milk not rejected | 575 | 350 
Fore-milk rejected 850.1. 242 
Fore-milk not rejected | 550 67 
- Fore-milk rejected 471 63 
Fore-milk not rejected | 883 | 221 
Fore-milk rejected 450°) 121 
Fore-milk not rejected | 233 I 
Fore-milk rejected 363 ni} 38 
Fore-milk not rejected | 746 | 375 O 
Fore-milk rejected 246 58 46 
- 
- 

~ 
~ 
- 
~ 
- 

+ 
- 
~ 

act 
I 
2, 
2 
3 
S 
4. 
4 
Bs 
5 
6 
6 
Zs 
o| 
8 
8 
SmAverages, * - Fore-milk not rejected | 522 | 189 oe" 
Averages, - 3 : _ Fore-milk rejected 499 | 99! 933 
Difference due to rejec- 
tion of fore-milk, rs — —93 |—90 |+24 



Diagram showing the above averages for the total bacteria. 
Fore-milk not rejected, 
Fore-milk resected; 
Decrease due to 
rejection of fore-milk, 
a It may be seen by a study of Table No. 2 5 that the total num- 
bers of bacteria in all of the tests ran very low asa result of the © 
oy general care and cleanly condition existing about the stable. 
It will, however, be seen that in four of the experiments the 

