Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:22:47.537Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

313. Bacteriological studies of roller-dried milk powders, roller-dried buttermilk and of roller- and spray-dried whey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

Constance Higginbottom
Constance Higginbottom
Affiliation:
The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Kirkhill, Ayr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Bacteriological studies have been made of some 400 samples of dried milk products comprising roller-dried separated milk, roller-dried full-cream milk, roller-dried buttermilk, roller-dried whey and spray-dried whey. The samples were derived from a total of plants operating throughout Great Britain.

2. The mean values for the plate counts at 37 and 55°C. of the roller-dried products were all below 1000 per g· as against ½–2½ million at 37°C. and 10,000–30,000 at 55°C. for the spray-dried products. The spray-dried products also gave three times as many positive presumptive coliform tests at all dilutions as did the roller-dried products.

3. The roller-dried whey and the roller-dried buttermilk both gave more variable counts at 37°C. and higher counts at 55°C. than the roller-dried separated milk and the roller-dried full-cream milk. The spray-dried whey gave higher and more variable counts at both 37 and 55°. than the spray-dried milk.

4. Marked differences were observed in the plate counts of samples derived from different plants, some plants giving consistently low counts and others giving higher and more variable figures. Differences were also observed in the counts at different stages of handling.

5. Evidence was obtained which indicates that mould counts do not provide a reliable indication of recontamination subsequent to drying.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , March 1944 , pp. 308 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1944

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)Nichols, A. A. (1939). J. Dairy Res. 10, 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Ministry of Health Memo. 139'Foods (01. 1937).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Prickett, P. S. & Miller, N. J. (1933). Milk Pl. Mon. 22, 241.Google Scholar
(4)Robertson, A. H. & Frayer, J. M. (1930). Bull. Vt agrie. Exp. Sta. nos. 314–18.Google Scholar
(5)Mattick, A. T. R., McClemont, J. & Irwin, J. O. (1935). J. Dairy Res. 6, 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Waite, R. (1941). J. Dairy Res. 12, 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Higginbottom, C. (1944). J. Dairy Res. 13, 324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Gibson, T. & Topping, L. E. (1938). Abstr. Proc. Soc. Agric. Bact. p. 43.Google Scholar
(9)Bernstein, A. & Morton, H. E. (1934). J. Bact. 27, 625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)American Dry Milk Institute (1936). The Grading of Dry Milk Solids.Google Scholar
(11)Crossley, E. L. (1939). Dairy Ind. 4, 338.Google Scholar