View report page

72
"stains have been invented which render differential enumer"ations
perfectly simply and easy, and the whole method,
"which depends upon the ratio, is infinitely more accurate
" than one that depends upon bulk enumerations"
The difference between your Bacteriologist and those employed
by others is, after all, not a very great one, and in my
opinion it might easily be adjusted by a conference between
them. The first difference of opinion is as to the value of a
differential count of leucocytes in cases where the total number
of leucocytes present is a small one. Your Bacteriologist, I
believe, applies his ratio to all cases, whereas those who differ
from him admit its justification, if at all, only in cases where the
leucocytes are relatively large in number. The other point of
difference lies in the fact that some bacteriologists estimate the
total number of cells as so many per cubic millimetre, and rely
entirely upon an enumeration of the total cells for evidence of
pus, disregarding altogether the differentiation between the
various kinds of cells.
The action instituted last year should, in my opinion, be
persevered with ; for there is no doubt that whilst the large
milk companies spend a great deal of money in securing skilled
medical, bacteriological, chemical and veterinary supervision of
their cows, cowsheds and everything which has to do with the
production, storage and distribution of milk, competition is so
keen that unless some independent authority also tests the
efficiency of that supervision from time to time, it may be
allowed to slacken.
I may remark before passing away from the question of the
supervision of milk, it is obviously a thing which may be either
well or badly carried out. Further than this, all the precautions
taken by the farmer and by the Dairy Company's advisers may
be upset by the carelessness of the distributor or the general
public. It is not unknown, for example, for milkmen to take a
dirty bottle from the house of a customer, and to fill it up in the
road amongst all the dust and dirt, with milk from a churn or can,
and deliver it perhaps a street further off as genuine bottled milk
—bottled under strict regulations. It is instances of this kind
which I believe to be very rare, which have damaged the sale of
bottled milk. A short time ago, I had handed to me a circular
pointing out many so-called dangers from bottled milk. These
dangers are based principally upon the possibility of the bottles
being improperly cleansed. It is pointed out, for example, in
the circular referred to, that owing to the heat required for
sterilisation of the glass bottles, and owing to the fact that in
sterilising them a number are broken, sterilisation is apt to be
done imperfectly, and the milk contained in the bottles is
therefore liable to contain a number of putrefactive bacteria.