View report page

84
4.—Suspiciously dirty, that is to say, containing sufficient dirt to
suggest at least the possibility of carelessness, or neglect, at some stage in
the handling or storage of the milk.
5.—Distinctly dirty.
6.—Excessively dirty.
Short of actually weighing the amount of dirt present in the milk, a process
which because of technical difficulties in some cases would, however, be open to
objection as an accurate standard of comparison, some such comparative scale
as the above furnishes the best criterion of cleanliness that is available. And,
in my opinion, milks which would be classified under "5" or "6" of this scale
might, as a general rule, be described as being either unsound or unwholesome
or unfit for the food of man. The dirtiest sample of all those examined was
sample 9, which contained one part of "foreign" dirt in about 750 parts of the
milk by bulk; this sample, it may be remarked, was particularly rich in cream.

Thus it will be seen that 60 per cent. of the samples were satisfactorily clean,
that 20 per cent. contained an amount of dirt which suggested carelessness in
the handling of the milk, and that 20 per cent. were so dirty that from this
cause alone they were unfit, in my opinion, for the food of man.
II. The Results of The Examination For Bacillus Tuberculosis.
Twenty-four only out of the twenty-five samples were adequately tested by
the biological test for the presence of B. Tuberculosis, the test failing in the case
of sample 25 from accidental causes.
Four samples proved to be infected with the tubercle bacillus. Thus out of
twenty-four samples which were tested for the presence of B. Tuberculosis, 16 6
per cent, proved to be infected by that organism.
So far the quality of the samples has been considered only with reference to
general cleanliness and the presence of B. Tuberculosis, with the result that eight
out of twenty-five samples must be condemned as unfit for use as food.