Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:20:36.060Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

19. The Influence of other Bacteria on the Production of Acid by Lactic Streptococci in Milk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

G. A. Cox  and
H. R. Whitehead
G. A. Cox
Affiliation:
Dairy Research Institute (N. Z.), Massey Agricultural College, University of New Zealand
H. R. Whitehead
Affiliation:
Dairy Research Institute (N. Z.), Massey Agricultural College, University of New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Four organisms commonly found in contaminated milk (B. coli, B. subtilis, a staphylococcus, and B. faecalis alkaligenes) were grown in milk in association with lactic streptococci, and the acidity produced in a given time was determined. B. subtilis appeared to stimulate the production of acid. B. coli caused a decrease in acid production in some experiments, and an increase in others. The staphylococcus had a slight stimulative effect. B. faecalis alkaligenes had only a slight effect which was barely beyond experimental error. There was no indication that any of the organisms are responsible for the cessation of acidity production which sometimes occurs in milk during cheese manufacture. However, the results were not conclusive in this connection, since the experimental conditions did not simulate those obtaining in a cheese vat.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , May 1931 , pp. 164 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1931

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

(1) Castellani, (1925). Brit. Med. J. 2, 734.Google Scholar
(2) Gratia, and Rhodes, (1924). Compt. Rend. Soc. Biol. 90, 640.Google Scholar
(3) Nenoki, (1892). Cent.f. Bakt. I. Orig. 11, 225.Google Scholar
(4) Marshall, (1920). J. Dairy Science, 3, 406.Google Scholar
(5) Morgan, and Curle, (1928). New Zealand J. Agric. 37, 305.Google Scholar
(6) Rogers, (1928). J. Batik. 16, 287.Google Scholar
(7) Schiller, (1914). Cent. f. Bakt. I. Orig. 73, 123.Google Scholar
(8) Smith, and Smith, (1920). J. Gen. Physiol. 3, 21.Google Scholar