View report page

154
On the 27th December a sample of oysters from the Mumbles (No. 3), and
on the 29th a sample from Bosham (No. 4), were forwarded by the
Fishmongers' Company. On these Professor Klein reports as follows:—
St. Bartholomew's Hospital.
Oyster Sample No. 3.
Preliminary Note.
Mumbles Oysters* received December 29th, 1902.—Half of the
oysters examined contained bacillus coli communis fairly numerous, one
out of six contained spores of bacillus enteritidis; therefore there is sewage
pollution, but limited.
Oyster Sample No. 4.
Bosham Oysters* received December 30th, 1902.—Eight out of ten
oysters contained bacillus coli communis (plentiful). All those oysters that
were examined for spores of bacillus enteritidis sporogenes contained
positive evidence of this microbe; therefore sewage pollution extensive.
* In these oysters the question that presented itself for answer was chiefly whether or not they are
sewage polluted. The examination was carried out thus: Of the interior, i.e., of the shell liquor, of each
of six oysters 1/5—1/6 cc was added to one MacConkey tube and to one lactose peptone tube; three drops of the
liquor of each of two further oysters was used for two litmus glycose Agar plates; and finally ½ cc of the
liquor of each of four further oysters was added to milk incubated anaerobically.
A second sample of oysters (No. 5) of Bosham relays, from Bosham
Dredgerman's Co-operative Company's layings, was found polluted to the
extent of 40 per cent.
The supply of oysters from these two sources to London was thereupon
prohibited by the Fishmongers' Company, and further samples taken from
the Mumbles, Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9.
These, with the exception of No. 6, taken from beds far out in the bay in
deep water, were polluted.
The prohibition was therefore continued, except so far as the deep-water
beds are concerned.
Some amount of dissatisfaction has been expressed by the owners of these
beds, but on the face of Professor Klein's report it is clear that no other
course but prohibition could have been justified.
On the 9th January, two samples of oysters (Nos. 13 and 14) taken from
the pits and beds respectively at Southwick were found to be polluted.
On the 9th, three samples were taken from the Whitstable grounds,
Nos. 10, 11 and 12, and these were all reported to be uncontaminated.
Of two samples of water taken from the pits and layings respectively of
the Whitstable Oyster Company, the former (Sample No. 15) was found to be
polluted with sewage, and the latter (No. 16) unpolluted.
Although, therefore, the Whitstable oysters are clearly proved to be
uncontaminated, there is still the possibility of danger in the polluted water
of the pits.