View report page

155
Two further samples of Whitstable natives taken from the Ham and
Pollard layings, and one of Princess oysters from the Pollard layings on the
10th January (Nos. 17, 18 and 19) were found to be unpolluted.
On the other hand, samples of water (Nos. 20 and 21) taken from the
Ham layings and pits respectively of the Seasalter and Ham Oyster Fishery
Company, Whitstable, were both found to be polluted.
Here again, as the water is sewage contaminated, the possibility of the
oysters becoming foul must always be borne in mind.
On the 22nd January, the following samples of water and oysters from
Whitstable (Nos. 31 to 34), collected on the 21st, were sent to Professor
Klein by the Clerk to the Fishmongers' Company:—
No. 31. Water from Whitstable Oyster Company's Pit.
„ 32. Oysters do. do.
The water was admitted into the pits on the morning of
the 20th January, and the oysters had been in the pits about
48 hours.
No. 33. Water from Ham and Seasalter Pit.
„ 34. Oysters (called "Princesses") from Ham and Seasalter
Layings (Pollard).
The Ham and Seasalter Pit water was only admitted to
the pit on the evening of the 20th January.
Of the above, Professor Klein reports as under:—
January 24th, 1903.
Water. No. 31. Polluted; abundant bacillus coli communis.
„ No. 33. do. do. do.
Oysters. No. 32. One out of ten has coli-like bacilli, but no bacillus
coli communis.
„ No. 34. One of ten has bacillus coli communis and bacillus
enteritidis sporogenes.
E. KLEIN.
Thus far, out of 18 samples of oysters, representing five places, viz. :—

This is at any rate ample justification for the strongly expressed desire of
the Trade for legislation, and for the prompt and energetic action of the
Fishmongers' Company.