Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tzmfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-24T20:37:35.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

412. Coliform bacteria in New Zealand butter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

G. I. Thomson
G. I. Thomson
Affiliation:
Dairy Division's Laboratory, Wallaceville, New Zealand Department of Agriculture
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The limitations have been explored of a simplified form of Grimes's litmus milk method, as used for a presumptive test for coliform organisms in butter.

2. To improve on this test, the merits and demerits of renneted litmus milk and litmus milk agar have been investigated, and the latter found preferable.

3. Of 719 samples of export salted butter tested for coliform contamination, only 19·1% gave confirmed positive results using MacConkey broth as the presumptive medium, 21·9% were positive using a litmus milk agar medium, and 30·2% (on 434 samples only) were positive using renneted milk.

4. The coliform organisms isolated were classified into the usual types and a seasonal variation in the coli to aerogenes ratio noted.

5. An observation is made on what appears to be the inhibitory effect of bile salt on the gas production of several strains of the aerogenes-cloacae group isolated in this investigation.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , February 1950 , pp. 72 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1950

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

(1)Pont, E. G. (1935). J. Dairy Res. 6, 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Wilson, G. S. (1935). Spec. Rep. Ser. med. Res. Coun., Lond., no. 206.Google Scholar
(3)Grimes, M. (1934). J. Dairy Sci. 17, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Hammer, B. W. & Yale, M. W. (1932). J. Dairy Sci. 15, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)Moir, G. M. & Russell, R. R. (1939). J. Dairy Res. 10, 310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Hiscox, E. R. (1934). J. Dairy Res. 5, 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Oxley, C. D. (1938). Proc. Soc. agric. Bact.Google Scholar
(8)Borke-Gaffney, O. D. (1932). J. Hyg., Camb., 32, 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Hassouna, M. M. & Allen, L. A. (1939). J. Dairy Res. 10, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Orla-Jensen, S. (1931). Dairy Bacteriology, p. 181. London: J. & A. Churchill.Google Scholar
(11)Huttig, C. (1933). Milchw. Ztg., 38, nr. 58.Google Scholar
(12)Minster, J. T. (1932). Analyst, 57, 615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Crossley, E. L. (1946). J. Dairy Res. 14, 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(14)Rice, E. B. (1937). Proc. Soc. agric. Bact.Google Scholar
(15)Parfitt, E. H. (1936). J. Dairy Sci. 19, 496.Google Scholar
(16)Malcolm, J. F. (1939). J. Dairy Res. 10, 410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(17)Barkworth, H. & Irwin, J. O. (1943). J. Hyg., Camb., 43, 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(18)Mallmann, W. L. & Darby, C. W. (1941). Amer. J. Publ. Hlth, 31, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar