View report page

16
3. The methods of standardising under different kinds
of deficiency, with a view to determine the percentage of
added water in the sample:—
a. The fats being deficient and:—
1. The non-fatty solids being also deficient ?
2. The non-fatty solids being full ?
3. The non-fatty solids being in excess ?
b. The non-fatty solids being deficient and:—
1. The fats being also deficient ?
2. The fats being full ?
3. The fats being in excess ?
I remain, dear Sir,
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) JAMES EDMUNDS.
Richard Bannister, Esq., F.C.S., &c., &c., &c.,
Government Laboratory."
Mr. Bannister replied as follows:—
[Copy.]
" Government Laboratory,
Clement's Inn Passage,
Strand, London, W.C.,
November 16 th, 1897.
Re Milk Reference iNo. 53.
Dear Sir,
The sample of milk in question was in such good condition
when received that practically no addition to the
non-fatty solids had to be made to cover the loss by keeping.
The percentage of added water was worked on an 8.5%
"solids not fat."
The questions put under head 3 in your letter are I think
not exactly what you mean. It is evident that the assumption
of watering in a 2 and a 3 could not apply, because the
non-fatty solids are in 2 "full" and therefore satisfactory,
and in 3 they are in excess. Such milk would be wrong
because of deficiency of fat, and not for dilution with water.
In a 1 and b 1 the offence would be the same, viz.:—
addition of water and deficiency in fat.
Usually we should make 8.5 as the basis for estimating
dilution with water, and 2.75 for fat deficiency; but if the