View report page

33
The risk also of contamination of milk by admixture of
water taken from the brook that forms one of the boundaries
of the farm was next considered. That danger should be
apprehended from such admixture follows as the result of an
investigation into the nature of the stream. It appears
that water passing in this channel is the effluent from land
under sewage cultivation, and sewage-polluted water lying
in the vicinity of a dairy farm must always be regarded as
constituting an element of danger. As evidence of the
harmless character of the water in question, it was asserted
by the proprietor that further down the channel the stream
flowed through beds of watercress, and that people eating
this greenmeat do not suffer from any unpleasant consequences.
The proprietor was directed to cause the complete
enclosure of the watercourse in that part of the
channel adjacent to the dairy premises with a fence, so that
any approach by employees of the farm should be effectually
prevented.
To ascertain whether milk coming from the proprietary
farm was adulterated, samples were taken from churns in
transit. When the van carrying them was about to unload
at the Depot sixteen samples in all were procured and
afterwards submitted to Dr. Muter for analysis. On
ooking down the list on the last column of the table it will be
noticed that with one exception every sample is declared by
the analyst to contain added water. The extent of adulteration
ranges from 2.5 per cent. to 16.5 per cent. As the
standard employed by the public analyst is that of Somerset
House, representing the poorest possible milk, the estimates
of the quantity of added water is lower than the facts of the
case warrant. Cows kept at the proprietary farm are
exceptionally fine and extremely healthy in appearance, and
it is unreasonable to suppose that they yield milk as poor
d *