[Report 1938] / Medical Officer of Health, Warrington County Borough.

  • Warrington (England). County Borough Council.
Date:
1938
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Credit: [Report 1938] / Medical Officer of Health, Warrington County Borough. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    77/134 (page 75)
    No. 77. The sample was deficient in solids-not-fat to the extent of 3.5 per cent. After full investigation, it was concluded that the deficiency was due to natural causes, and no action was recommended. Nos. These two samples were both taken from one vendor in the 99 and 100. Borough, and were found to be deficient in solids-not-fat to the extent it 3.5 per cent, and 1.2 per cent, respectively. The samples were taken on a Sunday morning in August and, unfortunately, were slightly sour by the time they reached the laboratory the following morning. In consequence, certain tests could not be applied to the samples and no positive proof was obtained that the deficiencies were due to the presence of extraneous water. The milks had been pasteurised in bulk, and the variations from the average composition that are known to occur sometimes in the milk from individual cows or small herds are unlikely to be apparent in the mixed milk from a number of different sources. Probably, therefore, the samples were not genuine. Inquiry was made by the Inspector, and, two days later, six further samples from the same supply were received for analysis. Four of these samples, representing pasteurised milk as sold, and corresponding with samples Nos. 99 and 100, were genuine and of average composition. The remaining two samples, Nos. 477 and 478, were taken on delivery from one of the suppliers to the pasteurising firm. No. 477 was deficient in solids-not-fat to the extent of 2.3 per cent, and deficient in fat to the extent of 6.6 per cent. No. 478 was deficient in solids-not-fat to the extent of 2.3 per cent., but had a normal content of fat. In both cases, the analyses indicated that the deficiencies were due to natural causes. Whilst the examination of these samples demonstrated that one of the sources of supply to the pasteurising firm was of inferior quality, this would account for the deficiency in the original samples only if the individual supply had been passed through the pasteurising plant as a unit and without admixture with any other milk. This procedure would be contrary to normal commercial practice and does not appear to be a satisfactory explanation. It was recom¬ mended, therefore, that further samples of milk from this firm should be taken periodically. Nos. 101, 102 and 103. These were deficient in fat to the extent of the following amounts :— No. 101. No. 102. No. 103. Extent of deficiency in fat . 6.6% 10.0% 16.6% The samples were taken from three shops selling milk “over the counter” and, in each case, the churn or other vessel from which the milk was taken contained only a small quantity at the time of sampling. It is very probable, therefore, that the deficiencies in fat were the consequence of insufficient stirring of the milk, so that progressive impoverishment of the bulk occurred each time a portion was withdrawn. Recommendation was made that these vendors should be warned of the serious consequences that might follow carelessness in regard to stirring milk before sale. Nos. 481 and 484. Both samples were deficient in solids-not-fat to the extent of 2.3 per cent. In each case the deficiency was due to natural causes and no further action was taken. The above account concludes the review of individual samples of milk that failed to conform to the requirements of the Sale of Milk Regulations. Mention must be made, however, of a series of eight samples of milk, Nos. 31—38, received in February, 1938. The samples were taken on delivery