"85d4d732-cd12-427a-965b-46dab1e18eb2"@en . "CONTENTdm"@en . "REPORT ON MILK."@en . "http://resolve.library.ubc.ca/cgi-bin/catsearch?bid=1198198"@en . "Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia"@en . "British Columbia. Legislative Assembly"@en . "2014-12-10"@en . "[1909]"@en . "https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/bcsessional/items/1.0064319/source.json"@en . "application/pdf"@en . " 9 Ed. 7 Report on Milk. G 1\nREPORT ON MILK SUPPLY\nProvincial Board of Health,\nVictoria, B. O, January 13th, 1909.\nThe Honourable 11. E. Young,\nProvincial Secretary,\nVictoria, B. C.\nSir,\u00E2\u0080\u0094In accordance with your instructions, I visited many centres in Eastern Canada\nand the United States, in order to examine into and study the methods in vogue in the business of the \" milk supply \" for the public.\nEvery city visited had its milk problem, and although good work has been done and great\nadvances made, yet the solution of the difficulty has not yet been reached.\nThe problem of securing clean milk, i. e., milk as near as possible to the condition as it\nexists in the udder, is the problem of dairy sanitation. To put it another way, it is the\nproblem of reducing contamination from all outside sources to the least possible factor.\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Composition of Milk.\nMilk consists of water in which are dissolved and suspended various solids, the relative\nproportions of which depend upon certain factors, such as the kind of animal, its age, health,\ncondition, the character of food used, as well as the time of the year and day when it is\nmilked. The average composition of cow's milk is 87 per cent, of water and 13 per cent, of\nsolids. The solids being :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nFat 4.00 per cent.\nSugar 4.95 n\nProteid matter 3.30 n\nMineral matter 0.75 n\nTotal 13.00 \u00E2\u0080\u009E\nFat.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Milk-fat is formed of the glycerides of about ten fatty acids, oleic acids forming\nabout 50 per cent, of the whole. The fat is in the form of minute globules distributed\nthroughout the milk. Being lighter than water, they rise to the surface, forming cream. A\ngood milk gives, on standing for about 24 hours, an average of 12 to 14 per cent, of cream.\nSugar.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The sugar found in milk is lactose. It is faintly sweet, and is less liable to\nfermentation in the stomach than cane sugar.\nProteids.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The proteid matter in milk consists of about 80 per cent, casein and 20 per\ncent, albumen. This is the part that forms \" curd.\"\nMineral Matter.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The mineral constituents of milk are phosphates and chlorides of\npotassium, sodium, calcium, magnesium, and traces of iron.\nDeterioration of Milk.\nMilk, being an animal secretion, is very readily affected by the state of health of the\nanimal from which it is taken, and also by extraneous influences. Thus, the state of health\nof the cow, any specific disease from which she suffers, as well as the ingestion by the animal\nof certain poisonous foods, etc., will affect the milk. G 2 Report on Milk. 1909\nMilk standing for some time becomes acid. This acidity is brought about by the action\nof certain micro-organisms on the milk sugar, which is changed into lactic acid. If the\nacidity is further developed, the milk turns sour, and the casein is precipitated as curd.\nMilk exposed to the air readily absorbs all odours of objects near it.\nBacteria.\nIn an endeavour to get at the root of any problem, the first principle to be followed is to\nbring all possible facts to light. Bacteria in the milk problem play a prominent part, and,\nalthough I know many will ridicule the statement presented, yet it must be remembered that\nthe presence of bacteria in milk is a fact, and the question to be considered is, how is this fact\nto be handled to the best advantage and least injury to the community?\nMany persons think the term \" bacteria \" relates to disease ; they fail to appreciate that,\namong these micro-organisms, man has friends as well as enemies. Bacteria are great scavengers, and they play a most important part in connection with agricultural processes; in the\nmanufacture of certain products, their action is depended upon almost entirely; they are\nnecessary to the ripening of cream and the flavouring of butter, and are useful in giving\nvariety to cheese.\nBacteria are so small that it is difficult to form a conception of their size. They are not\nvisible to the naked eye, and some species require special handling and a powerful microscope\nin order to be seen. In a single drop of badly infected milk, bacteria may be counted by the\nmillion. .\nBacteria are composed of a single cell, and the most common way by which they reproduce\nthemselves is by division into two smaller cells. Under favourable conditions, these cells grow\nand divide again, and multiplication takes place with great rapidity. Another method of\nreproduction is by spore formation. Spores require a very high degree of temperature for their\ndestruction.\nThree things are necessary for the growth and development of bacteria ; they are food,\nwarmth, and moisture. Milk contains all the food elements required. It is evident, then,\nthat when warmth is present the bacterial growth must be great. The degree of heat has an\nimportant effect on the rate of growth of bacteria. At about 90 deg. F. most forms grow\nrapidly, the rate of their multiplication decreasing with the decrease of temperature.\nAuthorities have shown that, at 93 deg. F., many species of germs will, in four hours,\nincrease more than two hundred-fold, while, at 55 deg. F. their increase is only about eightfold. I know of an experiment in which a difference of 18 degs. in the temperature of two\nsamples equal in quantity, and taken from the same source, caused in 15 hours a difference of\n75,000,000 bacteria. This shows very plainly how much the rate of growth of bacteria depends\nupon the temperature.\nAt 50 deg. F. most bacteria are quite inactive, but at this and lower temperatures they\nretain life. Freezing, even, does not kill them. At low temperatures they do not multiply,\nbut with the return of suitable conditions they commence to grow.\nUp to a certain point, the higher temperatures have the same effect as cold, i. e., the germs\nare rendered inactive. But when the heat is raised to about 125 deg. F., some are killed;\nothers, not harmed by this temperature, are destroyed by a greater heat. A sufficient\ntemperature to kill, or render harmless, almost all of the growing forms found in milk is 150\ndeg. F. Spores require still more heat for killing purposes.\nIn classifying the bacteria of milk, it is usual to divide them into groups according to\nto their action. Practically all the changes occurring in milk, subsequent to milking, are due\nto the action of bacteria. This is proved by the fact that milk, kept free from bacteria, may 9 Ed. 7 Report on Milk. G 3\nbe preserved for an almost indefinite period with very little change. Certain kinds of bacteria\nfound in milk are useful and, indeed, necessary ; other kinds have no particular function, so\nfar as is at present known. While, again, certain other kinds are distinctly vicious, and, if\nallowed free and uncontrolled action, serious consequences may result. From this it would\nappear that the number of bacteria present in any milk does not necessarily mean that that\nmilk is dangerous. By universal consent, however, milk containing excessive numbers of\nbacteria is unfit for infant feeding. The tender lining membrane in the stomach and intestines\nof infants is very susceptible to bacteria and their products, and a large proportion of the\nsummer complaints of infants has been traced to the use of bacteria-laden milk.\nAs has been already stated, some varieties of bacteria are harmful, others are not, and\nwhen it is remembered that we have no way of restricting the kinds that will fall into milk,\nexcept by enforcing cleanliness, it will, I think, be seen what need there is to keep the number\nat the lowest point possible.\nLegal Standards.\nThe first attempt to make a standard for the bacteriological content of milk was made in\nNew York in the year 1900. It was fixed at 1,000,000 per cubic centimetre (equal to \\nteaspoonful). Even with such a high standard it was found impracticable to enforce it, on\naccount of the complexity and enormous volume of the milk trade of that city. The principal\ndifficulty was to place the responsibility when milk was found to contain an excessive number\nof bacteria, as the milk passed through so many hands before it was delivered to the consumer.\nBoston, on the other hand, made a strict standard of 500,000 bacteria per cubic centimetre. This is still the law in Boston, and it is enforced. A similar standard has been\nadopted by other municipalities. Personally, I know of about twenty cities, conducting\ninvestigations, having the above standard as a basis.\nThe City of Rochester (New York State) has a standard of 100,000 per cubic centimetre.\nMany authorities believe that no milk should be sold containing more than 50,000\nbacteria per cubic centimetre.\nWilliam H. Park, who is a recognised authority, states that any intelligent farmer can\nuse sufficient cleanliness and keep milk sufficiently cool with very little increase in expense,\nto supply milk twenty-four to thirty-six hours old, which will not contain over 50,000 to\n100,000 bacteria per cubic centimetre, and that no milk containing more bacteria than this\nshould be used.\nThe above figures apply to standards set on market milk. So far as milk for infant\nfeeding and hospital purposes is concerned, the standard of 10,000 bacteria per cubic centimetre should be demanded.\nMilk Preservation.\nFor practical purposes, it may be assumed that the only cause of deterioration of milk is\ndue to micro-organisms or bacteria which come from the outside. It is clear, then, that the\nbest means of preserving milk for short periods is to insist on absolute cleanliness in all the\nprocesses of milking, straining, cooling, storing, transporting, and distributing. To do this\nperfectly is, in ordinary practice, impossible; therefore, the next best method of preservation\nis by cold.\nWhen milk is kept at a low temperature (not above 50 deg. F.) the action of bacteria is\ninhibited. They are not destroyed by low temperatures, but decomposition is stopped for a\ncertain time. The advantage, then, of cold as a means of preservation is that the composition\nof the milk is not altered. The only absolute method of preserving milk from decomposition is by killing the bacteria\nby heat. This is called \" sterilizing.\" A temperature above boiling point, under steam\npressure, is commonly sufficient for the purpose. Sterilization of milk alters the composition,\nthe lactose being changed and the casein and fats being made less digestible.\nPasteurization, too, preserves milk, but only for a short period. It consists in subjecting\nmilk to a temperature of 156 deg. F. for twenty minutes and then rapidly cooling it. Only\npart of the bacteria are destroyed, but the disease producing organisms are rendered harmless\nand the composition of the milk is not materially altered.\nThe preservation of milk by chemicals is universally condemned, and, under all circumstances, should be contrary to law.\nHow Milk is Contaminated.\nIt is now recognised that milk is liable to many sources of contamination before it reaches\nthe consumer. It is also established that milk furnishes an excellent food for many bacteria,\nwhich, under certain conditions, are capable of growing and multiplying rapidly. While\ngrowing and multiplying, these bacteria produce certain chemical changes, which may be very\ninimical to human health, especially among children,\nWhatever the condition of the milk may be at the moment it is secreted, it is always\ncontaminated with bacteria by the time it reaches the vessel. Certain species of these bacteria\nare harmless, others are distinctly harmful; and while it is not necessary or advisable in this\nshort report to explain bacterial action, yet it must be pointed out that they sometimes poison\nmilk, or may produce certain specific diseases in human beings.\nSources of Bacterial Contamination of Milk.\nThe sources from which bacteria are derived are many, viz.:\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n(a.) Cow Sheds.\u00E2\u0080\u0094There can be little question that much of the polluted milk finding its\nway to the market is due to the bad housing of cows, lack of ventilation and light, uncleanli-\nness, over-crowding, bad drainage and bad floors. Sweeping the floors or brushing down cows,\nimmediately before milking, fills the air with bacteria.\n(b.) Water Supply.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The water supply is one of the most important factors in relation to\nthe healthfulness of milk. Instances are now numerous of typhoid fever being distributed\nthrough milk, the source of which is sometimes traced directly to the water supply. This\ndoes not apply to the water the cows drink, but to the water used in the dairy for washing.\nRinsing vessels with cold water, obtained from doubtful sources, is particularly dangerous.\n(c.) The Cow.\u00E2\u0080\u0094When the milk leaves the ducts it is subject to numerous sources of\ncontamination. Probably the most important of these is the cow herself. If all kinds of filth\nare allowed to accumulate and dry on the cow's body, it can be easily understood how\nthe milker's movements and the cow's movements, especially the switching of the tail,\nshower dust particles around. These dust particles are loaded with bacteria of all varieties.\nThus the air around is filled and the milk contaminated. The milk ducts may, and do,\nbecome infected because of the surrounding filth.\n(d.) The Milker.\u00E2\u0080\u0094A source of contamination that is liable to be one of serious importance\nis the milker. Excepting tuberculosis, the pathogenic bacteria which are capable of producing\ndiseases in man are more liable to be found associated with the milker than they are with the\ncow. Contamination of the milk by bacteria from the milker's hands or clothing is therefore,\nmore likely to affect the wholesomeness of the milk than the bacteria from other sources. In\nthis connection it might be well to refer to the too frequent practice of \" wet-milking.\" It is\na dirty and a dangerous habit and cannot be too strongly condemned. 9 Ed. 7 Report on Milk. G 5\n(e.) The Milk Vessels.\u00E2\u0080\u0094A further source of contamination is the vessel into which the milk\nis drawn. Under ordinary conditions, the carelessness displayed under this head is painfully\nevident. Every honest milker must adopt the most perfect methods available. The more\nthorough the washing, the less the chance of contamination from this source.\n(f) The Air.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The air has always been regarded as one of the sources of bacterial contamination of milk. The ordinary out-of-door air on a farm does not contain bacteria in large\nnumbers, and if milking were done in the open, the air would not be a very important source\nof contamination. The case is different in the stable commonly used. The presence in such\na place of many cows, which are constantly giving off particles of dust and dirt from their\nskin, fills the air with bacteria-laden dust. Hay is crowded with bacteria, and its dry dust\nscatters itself readily and abundantly through the air of the cow-shed. From the above, it\nwill be evident that the longer the milk is exposed to the air, the greater will be the amount\nof contamination.\n(g.) Milk-Houses.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Milk should be removed at once from the barn to the milk-house.\nThis house may be a source of contamination if it is used for any other purpose than the\nstorage of milk. Want of ventilation, dirty surroundings, bad floors, etc., often cause trouble.\nAs it is here that the cooling process is carried out, the presence of flies is especially dangerous.\nAll that has been said regarding sources of milk contamination on the dairy farm, apply,\nin certain particulars, to the transportation and distribution of milk. The consumer's duty,\ntoo, as to cleanliness, surroundings, care in handling, etc., apply with equal force.\nI fear the impression prevails that dirt, being removable, need not be given much consideration. If the presence of particles of dirt were the only damage wrought, the question would\nresolve itself into the simple operation of straining. Its presence is, however, an indication of\nmuch more serious conditions. Bacteriology teaches that every particle of dirt carries with it\ngreat numbers of bacteria. Neither straining nor clarifying will remove the bacteria, hence\nthe necessity of keeping the dirt out.\nWhile looking into milk conditions in a certain city in the Eastern States, I was present\nat some laboratory milk examinations. Some samples were found to be almost pure, showing\nbacterial counts to be as low as 2,000 to the cubic centimetre, while others ran as high as\n21,000,000. Truly, this is a great object lesson, for it conclusively proves the possibility of\nobtaining reasonable pure milk.\nWhen, then, it is possible to protect milk so that but 2,000 bacteria are present in a given\nquantity, and when it is known that in carelessly handled milk such enormous numbers as\ntwenty-one or more millions are found, it must be admitted that authorities are not only\njustified, but compelled, to adopt certain lines of action for the public protection.\nThe only question, then, needing further consideration is, how to control the milk supply.\nThe right to regulate this question in British Columbia appears to be vested primarily in the\nDominion Government. To what extent, if any, the Dominion Government can delegate its\nauthority to the Local Government, I do not know, but a clear distinction must be recognised\nbetween the right to enact a law and the right to enforce it. I trust this question will be\nclearly defined at an early date.\nFor the efficient regulation of the milk supply of a community so as best to conserve the\npublic health, it is necessary to deal with several separate groups of individuals. In many\ncases, the same person may belong to one or more groups, but, nevertheless, there is the same\nmore or less clearly defined differentiation of function. The groups may be distinguished as\nfollows:\u00E2\u0080\u0094 A.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Producers.\nB.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Transportation agents.\nC.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Dealers in milk.\nD.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Distributors of milk, other than dealers.\nE.\u00E2\u0080\u0094Consumers.\nI will now take up groups A and C (producers and dealers), While in Washington, D. C,\nI had a conversation with Dr. Woodward, the Health Officer of that city. He told me of an\nadmirable proposition once made to him by a prominent milk dealer. \" Why,\" said the milk\ndealer, \" do you not require every person who desires to engage in the production of milk\nfor sale, or the selling of it, to show, by means of testimonials as to training and experience,\nand by means of an examination, that he knows how to produce and handle milk in a proper\nmanner ? In many States you examine embalmers, who come in only after the milkman's\nnegligence. You examine plumbers, whose work is such that its character is readily determined\nby inspection,\" etc., etc.\nThe reasonableness of this proposition cannot be disputed. Just as children or fools must\nnot play with edged tools, so must producers and dealers in milk be guided by knowledge as to\ndangers. If every would-be milkman was required to submit evidence as to training, experience\nand knowledge of the milk business in all its bearings, and to provide a plant for producing\nmilk or for selling it, a long step would then be taken towards the procuring of a satisfactory\nmilk supply.\nThe transportation agents, too, play an important part. The acceptance and delivery of\nsealed cans, the facilities for keeping the milk cool, the storage, etc., are matters of great importance, and should be under strict regulations and constant supervision.\nBy the distributors of milk, other than dealers, I mean manufacturers of certain food\nproducts, such as ice cream and butter, the heads of public or quasi-public institutions. Such\npersons should have a knowledge of the dangers ever present and be under control as to the\ncarrying out of reasonable regulations.\nWe now come to the last group, namely, the consumers. Of course, the heads of households are free to do as they choose; but they must remember that milk may be contaminated\nin the home just as readily as in the dairyman's hands, and it is a weak demand for pure milk\nwhen made through words, while actions point to a contrary direction. Clean, covered vessels\nplaced in cool (with ice, when possible), dry, clean and well-aired places, are essential.\nA source of contamination, too frequently seen in households, is the fly. All possible\nefforts should be made to keep the fly from lighting on milk. The habits of flies are filthy, and\nthey frequently carry virulent infections.\nDiseases Conveyed Through Milk.\nDuring the last fifty years it has been conclusively shown that milk may receive and carry\nthe specific organisms of certain infectious diseases. Many epidemics have been reported in\nmedical literature as being spread in this way. The principal diseases spread through the\nagency of milk are :\u00E2\u0080\u0094Typhoid fever, scarlet fever, diphtheria, cholera, diarrhoea, anthrax,\ntuberculosis, etc. All these diseases are preventable. Great, then, is the responsibility of\nmilk dealers to see that all possible sources of infection are avoided.\nContamination from attendants may easily be avoided. A dairyman should know the\ncondition of health of every employee connected with his dairy, and of all members of his\nheusehold. If at any time an infectious disease appears, the patient should be excluded from\nthe dairy premises, and all communication between the house and dairy should cease. Persons\nworking in a dairy should not enter a house where there has been an infectious disease until\nit has been properly disinfected. 9 Ed. 7 Report on Milk. G 7\nDiarrhoea.\u00E2\u0080\u0094It is now accepted that there is an intimate relationship between the epidemic\ndiarrhoea, which so frequently occurs in the summer months, and chiefly affects children under\ntwo years, and the milk supply. There seems to be a difference of opinion among scientists as\nto the exact cause of this trouble, but there is no doubt that it is a living organism which, in\nthe summer months, infects foods, especially milk. That the infection is conveyed through\nmilk, is established by :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1st. That when the mother's milk is used, the death rate from diarrhoea is insignificant\n(one-tenth, according to Newsholme).\n2nd. That during the last three years, the better handling of milk in the City of New\nYork has reduced the children's death rate from 95 per 1,000 to 64 per 1,000.\nIt is evident, then, that milk under certain conditions is responsible for the deaths of\nmany children, and since it is shewn that these conditions are largely preventable, the\nresponsibility of health authorities becomes correspondingly heavy.\nTuberculosis.\u00E2\u0080\u0094The most important disease of cows, from the standpoint of public health,\nis tuberculosis. When Koch first discovered the cause of this disease, and combined the\nannouncement of his discovery with the statement that the affection was identical in man and\ncattle, it was generally accepted. His subsequent announcement in 1901, that the disease was\ndifferent in man and in cattle and could not pass from one to the other, caused a groat sensation.\nThe consequences of the announcement were unfortunate, for many were only too glad to be\nfreed from restrictions, and there is no doubt that herds suffered and human lives were\nsacrificed because of Koch's mistake. That it was a mistake is now universally accepted.\nAs a result of Koch's statement, several Government Commissions were appointed in\ndifferent countries, and many public and private scientists started to investigate. The results\nof all of the investigations established three most important points ; 1st, that the bovine\nbacillus had certain characteristics which differed from the human ; 2nd, that the human\ndisease could pass on to cattle; and, 3rd, that bovine tuberculosis could be passed on to man.\nWhile attending the International Tuberculosis Convention, held in Washington, D. C,\nlast September, I had the good fortune to hear a discussion on the subject. Dr. Koch was\npresent, as were some of the highest scientific experts from England, Germany, France,\nDenmark, America, and other countries. Ravenal, of Philadelphia, in a powerful and\nconvincing paper, gave his experience of three years' work, Calmette, of Lille, took a strong\nstand, as did Bang, of Stockholm, and numerous other men of world-wide fame. All advanced\nconvincing proof that Koch's statement was incorrect. Dr. Koch's answer was painfully\nweak. He tried to maintain his position, but admitted that, under certain unusual conditions,\nthe disease might sometimes pass on from cattle to man. A motion that it was proved, by\nexperiments and experience, that bovine tuberculosis was capable of being transmitted to man,\nwas carried.\nThe two principal sources of tuberculosis infection from cattle are the meat and milk of\ninfected animals.\nThere appear to be various opinions, as to the stage of tuberculosis in cows at which the\nbacilli appear in the milk. Schroeder and Cotton have recently shewn that cows, so slightly\naffected with tuberculosis as only to be discovered by the the tuberculin reaction, pass virulent\nbacilli in their manure (Bulletin of Bureau of Animal Industry, Washington). This fact is\nof the very greatest importance, and shows more than ever the great necessity of guarding\nmilk from contamination by dust or filth.\nIt has been frequently advanced that milk from cows reacting to tuberculin, but with, to\nordinary examination, unaffected udders, is safe. This statement is not correct, for, in the\nfirst place, the udder may be so affected that no lesion can be detected, and yet can transmit the bacilli to the milk. Again, careful investigators have demonstrated beyond reasonable\ndoubt that tubercle bacilli, at certain times, may be present in the milk of cows affected with\ntuberculosis to a degree that can be detected only by the tuberculin test.\nPrevalence of Tuberculosis in Cattle.\nAs to the extent of the presence of tuberculosis among the cattle in British Columbia, I\ndo not know. Reports from other countries show that it runs high among dairy herds. I do\nnot think that the percentage of tuberculosis present in dairy herds in British Columbia is high,\nbut that it is present there is no doubt.\nNeed of Preventive Measures.\nThere are two reasons why energetic action should be adopted. 1st, the health of the\npublic should be guarded, and, 2nd, dairymen should be protected against their own want of\ntrue economy. As to the first reason, there is no argument needed. As to the second, we all\nknow of the great opposition met in all efforts to weed out diseased from healthy cows.\nThe business of dairy farming depends for its success upon certain fundamental conditions.\nOne, and, indeed, the foremost of these conditions, is to establish beyond doubt that each\nparticular cow is producing milk sufficient to pay interest on money invested. In order to\nobtain this knowledge, the characteristics of every cow must be studied, and the amount of\nthe milk yield and its quality should be ascertained. I have heard it stated that more than\none-fourth of the cows kept for their milk production do not pay for their cost of keeping, and\nthat nearly a fourth more fail to yield annual profits.\nWhether the above is true I cannot say, but when we remember the first principle demanded,\nin order to obtain the best returns from any living animal, is good health, and when we also\nremember the high percentage of dairy herds suffering from tuberculosis, we must be inclined\nto accept the statement. It appears to me to be unreasonable to expect a sick cow to pay.\nIf the trouble is something transient, that will soon be over, she should be kept till she\nrecovers. But if the disease is one from which she will not recover, then she will never pay.\nIn tuberculosis the advance of the disease is gradual and the loss will not be apparent at once,\nbut it is there and is continuous with a steady increase.\nThere is another point the dairyman must remember, and it is of much more importance\nthan the \" producing \" loss. Tuberculosis is a communicable disease, and when one affected\nanimal is present in a herd, it is certain the disease will pass to others.\nTuberculin Test.\nThe recognition of tuberculosis among a herd, at least in its early stages, was a problem\nuntil the tuberculin test was discovered. Now, all that is needed is a competent veterinarian, by whom freedom from, or the presence of, the disease can be definitely established.\nTuberculin was first produced by Koch in the year 1890 and was used in treating tuberculosis in man. It fell into disrepute because the reaction was too great. There is now\nproduced a modified form, and it is again being extensively used on man, both as a diagnostic\nand curative agent.\nExperience has shewn that the injection of tuberculin is followed by a rise in temperature\nin man or animals suffering from tuberculosis. In cases in which there is no tuberculosis,\nthere is no rise in temperature. This effect is now almost universally made use of, and except\nin a small percentage of certain conditions, is accepted as a reliable diagnostic agency.\nTuberculin is the sterilised and filtered glycerine extract obtained from cultures of\ntubercule bacilli. It contains the cooked product of the growth of these bacilli, but not the\nbacilli themselves. Consequently, when this substance is injected into man or animal, it is 9 Ed. 7 Report on Milk G 9\nabsolutely unable to produce the disease. I know that many stock-owners and dairymen have\nan objection to its use. They are not justified in their opposition, for earnest and honest\ninvestigations, and, indeed, lengthened experience, has proved that its proper use is harmless\nto healthy animals and only inflicts temporary trouble to the tuberculous.\nNochard and Leclainche state :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n\" Direct experiments and observations collected by thousands shew that tuberculin\ninjections have no unfavourable effect. With healthy animals, the system is indifferent to\nthe inoculation; with tuberculous animals, it only causes slight changes, which are not at all\nserious.\"\nNeed anything further be said. It certainly is to the public advantage, and, I have tried\nto show that it is to the dairyman's advantage to be rid of tuberculous cows. If the dairyman refuses to see it in this light, I think the time has arrived when he should be compelled to\nact on facts that are accepted all the world over.\nAs to how tubercular cattle should be handled, does not come within the scope of this\nreport, but it is nevertheless a subject which should be dealt with in such a way that dairymen\nmay be encouraged to take action.\nIn this report I have made an endeavour to touch on the more important aspects of the\nmilk question. The subject is as extensive as it is important, and cannot be handled in a\nsingle report. Each phase of the problem should be taken up separately and dealt with comprehensively in pamphlet form for general distribution, This, I am satisfied, is necessary, for\nmost of the evils so painfully evident are the results of gross ignorance. Popular Lectures,\nillustrated by practical demonstration, would materially assist. A model dairy, too, would\nstimulate dairymen to better efforts, by showing how, and and to what degree, reasonable\nperfection may be attained.\nI have not touched on the chemical aspect of milk, beyond giving the average composition. Adding water or, indeed, any substance whatever, or removing cream, will not be\nprevented by knowledge of injury done. A word from a clergyman or a magistrate is what\nis needed.\nSuggestions.\nThe following twenty-one suggestions were recommended to me while visiting the Bureau\nof Public Health at Washington. They are concise, yet comprehensive, and I beg to recommend that they be printed and sent to every dairyman in the Province :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\nThe Cows.\n1. Have the herd examined frequently by a skilled veterinarian. Promptly remove any\nanimals suspected of being in bad health. Never add an animal to the herd until certain it\nis free from disease, especially tuberculosis.\n2. Never allow a cow to be excited by hard driving, abuse, loud talking, or unnecessary\ndisturbances ; do not unduly expose her to cold or storms.\n3. Clean the entire body of the cow daily. Hair in the region of the udder should be\nkept short. Wipe the udder and surrounding parts with a clean, damp cloth before milking.\n4. Do not allow any strong flavoured feed, such as garlic, cabbage, or turnips, to be\neaten, except immediately after milking.\n5. Salt should always be accessible.\n6. Radical changes in feed should be made gradually.\n7. Have fresh, pure water in abundance, easy of access, and not too cold. G 10 Report on Milk. 1909\nThe Stables.\n8. Dairy cattle should be kept in a stable where no other animals are housed, preferably\nwithout cellar or storage loft. Stable should be light (four square feet of glass per cow) and\ndry, with at least 500 cubic feet of air to each animal. It should have air inlets and outlets,\nso arranged as to give good ventilation without draughts of air on cows. The presence of\nflies may be reduced by darkening the stable and removing the manure as directed below.\n9. The floor, walls and ceilings of the stable should be tight, walls and ceilings being\nkept free of cobwebs and whitewashed twice a year. There should be as few dust-catching\nledges and projections as possible.\n10. Allow no musty or dirty litter or strong-smelling material in the stable. Store\nmanure under cover at least 40 feet from the stable in a dark place. Use land plaster daily\nin gutter and on floor.\nMilk House.\n11. Cans should not remain in the stable while being filled. Remove the milk of each\ncow at once from the stable to a clean room; strain immediately through cotton flannel or\nabsorbent cotton ; cool to 50 deg. F. as soon as strained; store at 50 deg. F. or lower. All\nmilk-houses should be screened.\n12. Milk utensils should be made of metal, with all joints smoothly soldered, or, when\npossible, should be made of stamped mecal. Never allow utensils to become rusty or rough\ninside. Use milk utensils for nothing but handling, storing, or delivering milk.\n13. To clean dairy utensils, use pure water only. First rinse the utensils in warm water ;\nthen wash inside and out in hot water in which a cleansing material has been dissolved ; rinse\nagain ; sterilise with boiling water or steam; then keep inverted in pure air that may have\nready access, and sun if possible, until ready for use.\nMilking and Handling Milk.\n14. The milker should wash his hands immediately before milking and should milk with\ndry hands. He should wear a clean outer garment, which should be kept in a clean place when\nnot in use. Tobacco should not be used while milking.\n15. In milking be quiet, quick, clean and thorough. Commence milking at the same\nhour every morning and evening, and milk the cows in the same order.\n16. If any part of the milk is bloody, stringy, or unnatural in appearance, or if by\naccident dirt gets into the milk pail, the whole mess should be rejected.\n17. Weigh and record the milk given by each cow.\n18. Never mix warm milk with that which has been cooled, and do not allow milk to\nfreeze.\n19. Feed no dry, dusty feed just previous to milking.\n20. Persons suffering from any disease, or who have been exposed to a contagious disease,\nmust remain away from the cows and the milk.\n21. It is needless to say that the shorter the time between the production of milk and its\ndelivery, and between delivery and use, the better will be the quality of the milk.\nAll of these suggestions are practical and within the possibility of all without undue\nexpense. There are two suggestions I would like to add, namely :\u00E2\u0080\u0094\n1st. The need of keeping milk, after aeration and cooling, covered.\n2nd. The providing of cans for milking purposes with small tops. (See plate.)\nTo many these may appear as being small matters, but they are not. It is\nabundantly clear that, in dealing with an article which is so easily contaminated as milk, 9 Ed 7\nReport on Milk.\nG 11\ndetails, which are commonly regarded as trifling, are really of the greatest importance, and it\nis evident that painstaking care at every point, with scrupulous cleanliness in person and\nhabit, are absolutely essential.\nI feel it would not be wise, at the present juncture, to offer suggestions as to what action\nshould be taken by the authorities. The public are interested, but, so far, have taken no\nmeans of expressing their views. The milkmen will feel aggrieved if drastic regulations are\nproposed. The points of view of these various parties must be considered. Every\nmeans should be taken to find what the public want and are prepared to pay for ; and what\nthe milk producers and dealers can, and ought to, deliver for the prices paid.\nI know that many medical men keenly feel the need of protection of their patients from\ncontaminated milk. This is reasonable and should be given every consideration. It must,\nhowever, be remembered that authorities move deliberately and slowly, for one step too far\nretards progress more than delay in action.\nIn the year 1892, Dr. Henry L. Coit, of Newark, N. J., formulated a plan for the\nproduction of pure milk for clinical purposes and for distribution to the infants of the poor.\nThis idea has been taken up by many medical societies. These societies have formulated a set\nof requirements, which must be strictly adhered to in order to obtain a certificate. The\nmethods adopted have had an influence in creating a demand for improved conditions in the\nproduction of market milk.\nI have a copy of the requirements demanded by the society and will be glad to place them\nat the service of any of our Provincial Medical Associations.\nAppended please find copies of regulations in force in the various cities which I visited.\nThe Small-top Milking Pail.\nAbout the most common-sense way of protecting milk from contamination, after reasonable\nprecautions have been taken to have the surroundings clean, is to use a small-top milking pail.\nThe ordinary milking pail is commonly 14 inches wide across the top, and it is necessarily held\nin a position to catch most of the dirt and dust that is unavoidably jarred from the cow's\nudder and flanks during milking. It receives also countless particles of dust, which are\nalways floating in the air of a cow stable. If the diameter of the opening is reduced to 7\ninches, then the opening is just one-fourth as large as before and the advantage is obvious.\nThe ordinary and small-top milk pails.\nMany object that it is not convenient to use a small-top pail, but they would soon find\nthat its difficulties are over-estimated. No milker could consistently object to having the\nopening of his pail only 8 or 10 inches in diameter. Such a pail would be a great improvement over the ordinary one. The size should be governed by the desire to produce clean milk\nand the patience of the milkers. In some dairies openings of the milking pails are only 5\ninches in diameter.\n\" I have, etc.,\nC. J. PAGAN, Secretary.\nVICTORIA, B. C:\nPrinted by Richard Wolfknden, I.S.O., V.D., Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty. "@en . "Legislative proceedings"@en . "J110.L5 S7"@en . "1909_09_G1_G11"@en . "10.14288/1.0064319"@en . "English"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "Victoria, BC : Government Printer"@en . "Images provided for research and reference use only. For permission to publish, copy or otherwise distribute these images please contact the Legislative Library of British Columbia"@en . "Original Format: Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Library. Sessional Papers of the Province of British Columbia"@en . "REPORT ON MILK SUPPLY"@en . "Text"@en . ""@en .