View report page

111
" When, however, one considers the bacterial contents per cubic centimetre
" as the test of cleanliness, the 1908 samples (owing no doubt to the higher
" atmospheric temperature of the month of July, 1908, as compared with the
" corresponding month of the previous year) were distinctly inferior to those
" of 1907, as will be seen from the following Table :-

" and it is of interest to note that those samples which chemically showed
" evidence of the addition of water or the abstraction of cream were bacterio"
logically dirty milks.
" When we compare the results of the microscopical examination of the
" centrifugalised deposit with those reported last year it will be found that pus
" cells were present in much smaller numbers than previously; streptococci
" were observed four times, but acid fast bacilli (including tubercle bacilli)
" were apparently absent.
" One specimen only gave rise to the suspicion that a tuberculous lesion
" was responsible for the appearance of pus in the milk, but as no animal
" inoculation was performed in this case confirmatory evidence is lacking."
With regard to the chemical examinations in Tables " C " and " D) "
it will be observed that at the first examination the result of the chemical
analysis of No. 5 sample was reported as " deficiency in milk solids other
than milk fats corresponds to the presence of six per cent. added water,"
and upon a subsequent sample taken from the same vendor the result of the
chemical examination was reported as " deficiency in milk solids other than
milk fats corresponds to the presence of seven per cent. added water," and in
this case it was decided to prosecute. The case was heard, the defendant
pleaded a warranty, and the magistrate dismissed the case.