NOT CLEAN.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 208, 3 September 1925, Page 12

NOT CLEAN.

REPORT ON AUCKLAND MILK. I ADVICE TO CITY COUNCIL. EDUCATION AND CONTROL OF DAIRYMEN. ' (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this day. Much, of the milk supplied to Auckland citizens is not clean. This is the conclusion of Dr. McKibbin, Director of Public Hygiene, upon a report of the milk supply of Auckland city by Dr. Hughes, Medical Officer of Health, and Mr. F. G. Armitage, Government bacteriologist. Dr. McKibbin remarks: "While it is admitted the American standards used as a basis for comparison with Auckland supplies aim at an ideal milk, and are not uniformly enforced in America, the report evidences, as one would expect, that much of the milk supplied to Auckland citizens is not ! clean. No time should be lost in improving sterilisation and the drying of milk cans at the milk depots, and in ensuring delivery of clean and cool milk from farm to depot and from depot to consumer. I believe the surest way of getting this would be for the Auckland City Council to apply for regulations to be "gazetted under section 204 of the Municipal Corporations Act. and to itself license and control all depots and dairies supplying Auckland. Both the education and control of dairymen are essential for health, and I have no doubt the Agricultural Departments will do their utmost to help the city council, particularly with farm dairies, but neither has. power to license the dairyman." The report by Dr. Hughes and Mr. Armitage states that the result of tests of Auckland milk were as follow: Taking American standard 7 per cent of the samples examined during the last twelve months would come within class A of the American classification certified milk; '.'0 per cent of the samples come ■within class B and may be sold without pasteurisation;. 41 per cent of the samples would be suitable for pasteurisation ' only in class C; "while some 22 per cent would not be regarded as suitable for drinking purposes, but would be allowed to be sold for cooking and industrial purposes after pasteurisation. Taking pasteurised milk 40 per cent r>f the samples examined would satisfy Ihe American standard for milk allowed to be sold as pns-teurised milk. The New Zealand regulation concerning pasteurised milk is that it shall not contain any living colon bacilli. Examination showed that of samples examined for bacillus coli 33 per cent, contained bacillus coli in the first class of milk. Taking English regulations (optional) 14 per cent of the samples examined during the twelve months would come tinder classification 1 (i.e.. certified milk>: 38 per cent would come within graxle A (raw) and 25 per cent would come within grade A (pasteurised). Investigation was made of temperatures during delivery, and it was found during summer months, only 43 per cent of raw milk samples were below 70 degrees on delivery. Sterilisation of Milk Cans. The cans arc not properly cleaned- at depots, are not sterilised, and are not dried. The result of leaving them in such condition is that, especially in summer, there is un enormous increase in the bacteria present. Examination of the cans at the depot after washing and steaming, also on their return to the farm bear out the above. Cans steamed and dried on the farm, for experimental purposes, gave infinitely better results than those obtained from cans dealt with in the usual -way at the depots. The methods at farms are matters in the hands of the agricultural department, but no doubt this is a.point at which clean milk should be obtained for a start, as otherwise 1 hold that it is useless, stated the report. If iniik is dirty to start with, subsequent care in transport, handling, and storage cannot transform it into clean milk, whatever may be the extent to which further contamination is limited. The question oi low temperature is a difficult one in this climate, especially in summer months, but it ie important in preventing increase in the number of bacteria present in the milk. The Main Faults. • Sources of the greater part of contamination in milk samples are as follows:— 1. —Dirty farm milking, owing to dirty utensils and methods. 2.—lndiscriminate mixture of,- various grades of milk at depots etc., with the result that comparatively clean milks are depreciated by dirty ones. 3.—Use of improperly cleaned cans. Farmers rely on the factories for washing and steaming, and tliis latter is carried on very inefficiently, contamination, arising from improperly cleaned cans toeing frequently sufficient to make tho-xnilk-of high bacterial content and difficult, or impossible to pasteurise, without injuring the milk or interfering with the cream line. 4.—Failure to cool the milk to a sufficiently low temperature, particularly in summer, and to maintain a sufficiently low temperature in many cases during storage and transit. The report adds that farmers supplying milk to depots see no reason for additional cure or precautions, because they are aware that the milk will be there steamed and pasteurised and because the price they obtain for the milk is the same whether it be good, indifferent, bud, or quite unfit for consumption. Milk factories are competing with one another, any attempt on the part of one of them to impose restrictions or limitn of cleanliness would reeult in loss of suppliers, who would simply go to another company. As regards cleanliness on farms, such as of clews, milk pails, strainers, etc., the responsibility for this rests with the Department of Agriculture, and no doubt there is difficulty in enforcing regulations. Here education in the benefits of improved methods of cleanliness, confirmed by payments based on quality, should result in great improvement, concludes the report.