Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Westminster]
This page requires JavaScript
MILK, "No, 53." Analytical Findings from the same
Portion of Sample sent to:- | Date of Analysis. 1897. | Percentages by Weight. | Standard of Comparison as stated in Certificate for the calculation of Added Water. | Standard of Comparison actually used. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total Milk Solids. | Milk Fat. | Milk Solids not Fat. | Additions made for estimated loss of Non-fatty Solids by decomposition during storage. | Added Water as certified. | ||||
Dr. Edmunds on Sept. 24th | Sept. 25th | 10.94 (Fractions rounded off in favour of Vendor and taken at 11.00) | 2.69 (Coil Process) | 8.25 | None | 12.00 | A good average Milk. containing 12.5 % of Milk Solids | A good average Milk. containing 12.5 % of Milk Solids. |
Vendor's Analyst on Oct. 17 th | Oct. 22nd | 10.86 | 3.14 (Schmid Process) | 7.72 | None | "Not less than 900" | Standard not stated | The poorest Milk that escapes condemnation— containing 8.5 % of Solids. not-Fat |
Government Laboratory on Oct. 28th | Nov. 5th | 1087 | 2.67 (Maceration Process) | 8.20 | None1 | "Not less than 300 " | Standard not stated | The same Standard as above -8.5 % of Solids. not-Fat |
*Mr. Bannister certified at first that addition had been made (Nov. 6), vide page 13.
Mr. Bannister subsequently wrote:—"Practically no addition" (Nov. 16 and Dec. 24), vide
pages 16 and 24.
In further reply to Dr. Edmunds, Mr. Bannister wrote:—''No addition" (Jan. 5), vide page 26.
These discrepancies seem irreconcilable.—[J.E.]