Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T12:30:41.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

639. Some bacteriological aspects of commercially sterilized milk: I. Incidence and nature of spoilage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

Agnes A. Nichols  and
M. R. Candy
Agnes A. Nichols
Affiliation:
National Agricultural Advisory Service, Woodthorne, Wolverhampton
M. R. Candy
Affiliation:
National Agricultural Advisory Service, Woodthorne, Wolverhampton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Samples of sterilized milk from fifteen dairies in the Midlands have been examined, and seasonal variations were detected in the incidence of mesophilic and thermophilic sporeformer contamination. Seasonal variation in the rate of spoilage at 30° C. was also apparent.

The lower incidence of contamination in summer was considered to be due to (a) less sporeformer contamination during milk production at the farm in the period when the cattle are not housed, and (b) increased processing times and temperatures in warm weather.

Cleansed milk bottles were examined and found to be an important source of contamination by mesophilic sporeformers, but the incidence of thermophiles of the type commonly found in sterilized milk was low.

Methods of reducing contamination in sterilized milk were discussed.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , October 1956 , pp. 319 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1956

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)Hiscox, E. R. & Christian, M. I. (1931). J. Dairy Res. 3, 106.Google Scholar
(2)Morgan, G. F. V. (1943). Abstr. Proc. Soc. agric. Bact. p. 31.Google Scholar
(3)Clegg, L. F. L. (1950). J. Soc. Dairy Tech. 3, 238.Google Scholar
(4)Burton, H., Akam, D. N., Thiel, C. C., Grinsted, E. & Clegg, L. F. L. (1953). J. Soc. Dairy Tech. 6, 98.Google Scholar
(5)Ridgway, J. D. (1954). J. appl. Bact. 17, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Ridgway, J. D. (1955). J. appl. Bact. 18, 374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Min. Hlth. (1939). Rep. publ. Hlth med. Subj., Lond., no. 71.Google Scholar
(8)Mossel, D. A. A. & Drion, E. F. (1954). Neth. Milk & Dairy J. 8, 106.Google Scholar
(9)Smith, N. R., Gordon, R. E. &Clark, F. E. (1952). U.S. Dep. Agric., Wash. D.C., Agric. Monograph, no. 16.Google Scholar
(10)Evans, F. R. & Curran, H. R. (1943). J. Bact. 46, 513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Candy, M. R. & Nichols, A. A. (195 ). J. Dairy Res. 23, 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(12)Hobbs, B. C. & Wilson, G. S. (1943). J. Hyg., Camb., 43, 96.Google Scholar
(13)Vindal, E. (1949). Xllth Int. Dairy Congr. 4, 249.Google Scholar
(14)Cuttell, J. R. (1954). Dairy Ind. 19, 917.Google Scholar