Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:24:15.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Contribution to the Bacteriology of Milk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Alfered Macconkey
Alfered Macconkey
Affiliation:
Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

With ordinary care and cleanliness it is possible to obtain milk which, when freshly drawn, contains less than 1500 organisms per cubic centimetre.

Freshly drawn milk should not contain gas-forming organisms in at least 50 c.c.

Gas-forming organisms are present in milk owing to contamination with faecal material. Of these organisms the B. oxytocus perniciosus, the B. neapolitanus and the B. coli communis occur in greatest number in fresh milk, while the B. cloacae and B. lactis aerogenes appear at a later stage.

Out of 107 non-chromogenic lactose fermenters isolated from milk only one bacillus gave the reactions of the B. acidi lactici (Hüppe); while the B. Grünthal, B. pneumoniae (Friedländer), and the B. coscoroba have not been met with once.

Finally, I desire to enter a plea for the substitution of certain fermentation reactions in the place of some of the tests now usually employed, in the routine examination of water and food-stuffs, to identify these organisms. At present bacteriologists make use of some, or all, of the following tests:

1. Morphology.

2. Motility.

3. Staining by Gram's method.

4. Character of the growth on nutrient gelatin.

5. Liquefaction of gelatin.

6. Action on milk.

7. Foemation of indol.

8. Fermentation of glucose.

9. Fermentation of lactose.

10. Fermentation of cane sugar.

11. Action on neutral-red.

All the organisms mentioned in Tables I and II produced clotting in milk, fermented glucose, gave the neutral-red reaction, had much the same morphology, and the growths on agar and gelatin did not afford any assistance towards differentaniting between them.

I would therefore suggest that instead of five of the tests, Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, and 11, we should substitute the following:

Fermentation of dulcit,

Fermentation of adonit,

Fermentation of inulin,

Vodes and Proskauer's reaction, as by so doing we should get a finer differentiation without increase in work and we should not be classing as B. coli organisms which may have little in common with, and have a distribution entirely different from that of the B. coli communis.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , July 1906 , pp. 385 - 407
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1906

References

Boekhout, and de Vries, (1904), Centralbl. J. Bakteriol., Abt. II. Bd. XII. pp. 89–93.Google Scholar
Burr, Rollin H.. (1902), Centralbl. J. Bakteriol., Bd. VIII. pp. 236–241.Google Scholar
Conn, H. W. (1902), Ref. Centralbl. J. Bakteriol., p. 442.Google Scholar
Conn, H. W. and Esten, W. M. (1904), Reprints of Studies from Rockefeller Institute for Med. Research, 1904.Google Scholar
Delépine, S. (1903), Journ. of Hygiene, vol. III. p. 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freudenreich, Ed. von, (1902), Centralbl. f. Bakteriol., Abt. II. Bd. VIII. pp. 674–681.Google Scholar
Freudenreich, and Thoni, (1903), Centralbl. f. Bakteriol., Bd. X. p. 305.Google Scholar
Freudenreich, (1903), Centralbl. f. Bakteriol., pp. 401–423.Google Scholar
Freudenreich, (1904), Centralbl. f. Bakteriol., Bd. XIII. pp. 281–407.Google Scholar
Harden, A. (1906), Proc. of the Royal Society., B. vol. LXXVII. p. 424.Google Scholar
Harrison, F. C. (1905), Centralbl. f. Bakteriol., Abt. II. Bd. XIV. p. 359.Google Scholar
Harris, N Macl. (1905), Ref. Bull. de l' Inst. Pasteur, vol. IV. p. 249.Google Scholar
Heinemann, , (1905), Ref. Ref. Bull. de l' Inst. Pasteur, p. 246.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. (1904), Journ. of the Royal Sanitary Institute, vol. XXV. p. 563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliger, W. (1902), Centralbl. f. Bakteriol., Abt. II. Bd. IX. p. 305.Google Scholar
Jensen, C. O. (1903), “Grundriss der Milchkunde und Milchhygiene.” Ref Centralbl. f. Bakteriol., Abt. II. Bd. XIV. 1905, p. 228.Google Scholar
Koning, (1905), Ref. Centralbl. f. Bakteriol., Abt. II. Bd. XIV. p. 424.Google Scholar
Lux, A. (1904), Ref. Centralbl. f. Bakteriol., Bd. XI. pp. 195–201.Google Scholar
MacConkey, A. T. (1905), Journ. of. Hygiene, vol. V. p. 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, C. and Petit, P. (1903), Revue Méd. de Normand., 25 12. 1903. Ref. Bulletin de l' Inst. Pasteur, vol. II. p. 552.Google Scholar
Park, W. H. (1901), Journ. of Hygiene, vol. I. p. 391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, W. G. (1906), Journ. of Hygiene, vol. VI. p. 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Severin, S. and Budinoff, L. (1905), Centralbl. f. Bakteriol., Abt. II. Bd. XIV. p. 463.Google Scholar
Severin, S. (1905), Centralbl. f. Bakteriol., p. 605.Google Scholar
Willem, and Miele, (30 vi. 1905), Revue Générale du Lait, p. 409. Ref. Bull. de l' Inst. Pasteur, vol. III. p. 725.Google Scholar