Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-thh2z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-14T14:51:47.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

333. The coliform flora of milk and dairy products

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

E. L. Crossley
E. L. Crossley
Affiliation:
Aplin and Barrett Ltd., Yeovil, Somerset
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The sources of error and general significance of the presumptive coliform test have been studied, with special reference to manufactured dairy products.

2. Eosine methylene blue agar has been found reasonably satisfactory for isolation of cultures but unsatisfactory as a direct plating medium.

3. A wide survey of the coliform flora of raw milk and milk products has been made over a period of 11 years. The data were collected from 24,952 samples and include the incidence of presumptive positive tests at each stage of manufacturing processes, the occurrence of ‘false-positive’ tests, the detailed distribution of coliform types in individual dairy products, and some preliminary observations on ‘heat-resistant’ coliform strains.

4. Material examined included raw milk, pasteurized milk, ice cream, milk powder, condensed milk, pasteurized cream, clotted cream, butter, soft cheese, Cheddar cheese, processed cheese, swabs of dairy plant, churn rinses, and the atmosphere of dairy factories.

5. Detailed confirmatory tests were performed on 2490 presumptive positives, from which 2508 coliform cultures were isolated and classified.

6. A general ecological survey of the frequency of individual coliform types in dairying operations as a whole has been attempted.

7. Particular factors which may affect the distribution of coliform types in specific products or situations have been shown to include heat resistance, resistance to drying, chemical composition of the substrate, the effect of storage, and conditions prevailing on plant surfaces. It is suggested that the coliform flora may be partly the result of adaptation to conditions associated with each individual product.

8. The value of the presumptive coliform test has been discussed in respect of public health requirements, as a plant-control method, and in relation to economic aspects. The test is believed to be of great utility in the plant-control laboratory but of little value for public health purposes.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , June 1946 , pp. 233 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1946

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)Wilson, G. S. (1935). Spec. Rep. Ser. med. Res. Coun., Lond., no. 206.Google Scholar
(2)Hall, I. C. & Ellefson, L. J. (1918). J. Bact. 3, 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Salle, A. J. (1930). J. Bact. 20, 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Stark, C. N. & England, C. W. (1933). J. Bact. 25, 439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)Poe, C. F. (1930). J. Bact. 19, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Parr, L. W. (1939). Bact. Rev. 3, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Malcolm, J. F. (1935). J. Dairy Res. 6, 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Malcolm, J. F. (1939). J. Dairy Res. 10, 410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9) (1934). Rep. publ. Hlth med. Subj., Lond., no. 71.Google Scholar
(10)Tonney, F. O. & Noble, R. E. (1931). J. Bact. 22, 433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(11)Werkman, C. H. & Gillen, G. F. (1932). J. Bact. 23, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(12)Tittsler, R. P. & Sandholzer, L. A. (1935). J. Bact. 29, 349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Parr, L. W. (1938). J. Bact. 36, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(14)Griffin, A. M. & Stuart, C. A. (1940). J. Bact. 40, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(15)Yale, M. W. (1933). J. Dairy Sci. 16, 481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(16)Grimes, M. (1934). J. Dairy Sci. 17, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(17)Hiscox, E. R. (1934). J. Dairy Res. 5, 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(18)Allen, L. A. & Harrison, J. (1934). Proc. Soc. agric. Bact.Google Scholar
(19)Oxley, C. D. (1938). Proc. Soc. agric. Bact.Google Scholar
(20)Ayers, E. H. & Johnson, W. T. (1915). J. agric. Res. 3, 401.Google Scholar
(21)Tanner, F. W. & Windsor, M. F. (1929). J. Dairy Sci. 12, 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(22)Vernon, T. R. & Walker, L. J. (1936). Proc. Soc. agric. Bact.Google Scholar
(23)Hammer, B. W. & Hussong, R. V. (1931). J. Dairy Sci. 14, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(24)Nelson, F. E., Diamond, B. F. & Caulfield, W. J. (1938). J. Bact. 36, 568.Google Scholar
(25)Paley, C. & Isaacs, M. L. (1941). J. Dairy Sci. 24, 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(26)Elliker, P. R. & Frazier, W. C. (1938). J. Bact. 36, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(27)Standard Methods of Water Analysis (1925), 6th ed. New York: Amer. Publ. Health Ass.Google Scholar
(28)Ruchhoft, C. C., Kallas, J. G., Chinn, B. & Coulter, E. W. (1931). J. Bact. 21, 407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(29)Crossley, E. L. (1941). J. Soc. chem. Ind., Lond., 60, 131T.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(30)Crossley, E. L. & Johnson, W. A. (1942). J. Dairy Res. 13, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(31)McKenzie, D. A., Morgan, G. F. V. & Parker, E. M. (1943). Proc. Soc. agric. Bact. 34.Google Scholar
(32)Cunningham, A. & Glathe, G. (1933). Proc. Soc. agric. Bact.Google Scholar
(33)Kon, P. M. (1933). J. Dairy Res. 4, 206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(34)Malcolm, J. F. (1933). J. Dairy Res. 5, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(35)Crossley, E. L. (1944). Proc. Soc. agric. Bact. 16.Google Scholar
(36)Kline, E. K. (1930). Ann. Rep. Int. Ass. Dairy & Milk Inspectors, 19th, p. 68.Google Scholar
(37)Oeser, H. (1937). Zbl. Bakt. II, 96, 287.Google Scholar
(38)Bartram, M. T. & Black, L. A. (1940). Food Res. (U.S.A.), 2, 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(39)Messner, E. & Canessa, R. (1939). Dairy Sci. Abstr. 1, 340.Google Scholar
(40)Hiscox, E. R. (1944). J. Soc. chem. Ind., Lond., 63, 298T.Google Scholar
(41)Nelson, F. E., Caulfield, W. J. & Martin, W. H. (1939). J. Dairy Sci. 22, 535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(42)Mattick, A. T. R., Hiscox, E. R., Crossley, E. L., Lea, C. H., Findlay, J. D., Smith, J. A. B., Thompson, S. Y., Kon, S. K. & Egdell, J. W. (1945). J. Dairy Res. 14, 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(43)Crossley, E. L. (1945). J. Dairy Res. 14, 160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(44)Allen, L. A. (1932). Bull. Hannah Dairy Res. Inst. no. 3.Google Scholar
(45)James, L. H. (1930). J. Bact. 19, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(46)Pont, E. G. (1935). J. Dairy Res. 6, 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(47)Crosslby, E. L. (1939). Agric. Progr. 16, 38.Google Scholar
(48)Hammer, B. W. & Yale, M. W. (1932). J. Dairy Sci. 15, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(49)Rice, E. B. (1937). Proc. Soc. agric. Bact.Google Scholar
(50)Crossley, E. L. (1942). Proc. Soc. agric. Bact. 16.Google Scholar
(51)Kelly, C. D. (1939). J. Dairy Sci. 22, 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar