QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF MARKET MILK. Vise 
COMMENTS ON THE FOLLOWING TABLE. 
3. March. Good milk, doubtless fresh. 
No. 4. March. Good milk, doubtless fresh. 
5. March. Good milk, doubtless fresh. 
No. 6. March. Numbers rather high, but percentage of 
different species normal. Probably fresh, but badly contami- 
nated with bacteria. 
No. 7. February. Numbers high, and percentage of Group 
I. too high for fresh milk. 
No.-7. June. Not fresh, or too warm. 
No. 8. February. Milk undoubtedly old. Percentage of 
Group I. is very high. 
No. 8. April. Probably not strictly fresh. Compare with 
same dealer above. 
No. 8. June. Doubtless fresh. 17 distinguishable species 
of bacteria in this sample. 
No. ga. April. Results unreliable because of the interfer- 
ence of liquefiers. The milk was doubtless badly contami- 
nated and was not very fresh. 
No. 9b. April. Contained large numbers of a species not 
present in milk from the same source two days before, given . 
in the last column. 
No. to. April. Excellent quality. 
No. 10. June. Excellent quality. Compare with milk of | 
same dealer above. 
No. 11. April. Probably not fresh, since the percentage of 
Group I. is too high. 
No. 11. May. Doubtless an old lot of milk, as shown by 
numbers and percentage of Group I. 
No. 12. May. Cows fed upon silage and grass. Large 
numbers of liquefiers rendered the determination of acid col- 
umns uncertain. 
No. 14. June. Milk is old, as proved especially by percent- 
_age of Group II. 
No. 16. June. Not fresh, or too warm, as shown by Groups 
I. and II. 
6 
