Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:31:08.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

91. A Statistical Examination of the Interrelationship and Variability of Plate Count, Presumptive Coliform Content and Keeping Quality of Raw Milk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

H. Barkworth
H. Barkworth
Affiliation:
South-Eastern Agricultural College, Wye, Kent.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The writer seeks to establish the interrelationship and variability of the three tests used for gauging the hygienic quality of milk, plate count, coliform content and keeping quality. Keeping quality is denned, and after discussing previous work and source of material, and noting the technique followed, the method of classification is described. Plate count and coliform content are treated logarithmically. Treatment of keeping-quality results presents especial difficulties, and the test is described in detail to disclose these, and reasons given for tabulating by half-days. The relationship between plate count and keeping quality is linear, but non-linearity occurs in those relationships which concern coliform content. This is because the first group “absent from 1 ml.” is not truly a definite class, but contains samples of superior quality. It is shown that an increase of one “stage” of coliform contamination reduces the average keeping quality as much as an increase of 0–54 in the logarithm of the plate count (approximately seven times). Variability of each term is discussed. The standard deviation of keeping quality is of the order of 1 half-day, that of logarithm of plate count is 0·77 and that of logarithm of coliform content in excess of unity. These variabilities are too great to permit of reasonable forecast of one term from the other two.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , January 1935 , pp. 26 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1935

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) HOY, (1922). Private correspondence.Google Scholar
(2) Barkworth, , Mattick, , Taylor, and Williams, (1927). J. Minist. Agric. 33, 997–1001.Google Scholar
(3) Hoy, and Newland, (1931). Proc. Soc. agric. Bad., Rep. Ann. Conf.Google Scholar
(4) Robertson, and Frayer, (1930). Vt agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. Nos. 314–18.Google Scholar
(5) Barkworth, (1930). J. Minist. Agric. 37, 803–6.Google Scholar
(6) Thomas, and Jones, (1931). Welsh J. Agric. 7, 304–10.Google Scholar
(7) Barkworth, (1931). J. S.-E. agric. Coll. Wye, 28, 270–2.Google Scholar
(8) Barkworth, (1931). J. Hyg. 31, 373–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9) Barkworth, (1931). J. S.-E. agric. Coll. Wye, 28, 273–7.Google Scholar
(10) Misc. Publ. Minist. Agric. No. 43, 1st ed. 1924, 2nd ed. 1926, 3rd ed. 1928.Google Scholar
(11) Barkworth, (1929). Sanit. (Insp.) J. 34, 9, N.S. 270–1.Google Scholar
(12) (1933). J. S.-E. agric. CoU. Wye, 32, 189–93.Google Scholar
(13) Fisher, (1932). Statistical Methods for Research Workers. 4th ed. pp. 229–35.Google Scholar
(14) Mattick, (1930). J. Dairy Res. 1, 111–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(15) Mattick, , Hiscox, and Christian, (1933). J. Dairy Res. 4, 285–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(16) Chalmers, (1928). J. Hyg. 27, 295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(17) Edmunds, (1932). Minist. Agric. Ann. Meeting Dairy Bacteriologists.Google Scholar
(18) Kon, (1933). J. Dairy Res. 4, 206–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(19) Malcolm, (1933). J. Dairy Res. 5, 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(20) Hammer, (1928). Dairy Bacteriology, p. 41.Google Scholar
(21) Hammer, and Yale, (1932). J. Dairy Sci. 15, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(22) Grimes, and Hennerty, (1931). Sci. Proc. R. Dublin Soc. 20, 89–97.Google Scholar
(23) Hiscox, (1932). Min. Agric. Ann. Meeting Dairy Bacteriologists.Google Scholar
(24) Hiscox, , Hoy, , Lomax, and Mattick, (1932). J. Dairy Res. 4, 105–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar