Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T05:37:23.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experiments on the Pasteurisation of Milk, with reference to the Efficiency of Commercial Pasteurisation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Hermima Jenkins
Hermima Jenkins
Affiliation:
(From the Bacteriology Department, Edinburgh University.)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Pasteurisation at 62.8° C. (145° F.) for 30 minutes leads to a marked reduction in the total bacterial content of milk, varying for different specimens from 94 to 99·8 per cent., when the process is carried out under the most exact conditions. At lower temperatures, e.g. 60° C., the percentage reduction may vary widely—from 51·6 to 97·4 per cent. The percentage reduction has been found to be slightly less when the same specimens of milk are pasteurised in a large scale apparatus than when treated in small quantities under laboratory conditions, the average reduction being 91·2 per cent, in the former case and 98·4 per cent, in the latter. The reasons for this are discussed.

An effectively pasteurised milk should not contain lactose-fermenting bacilli in 1 c.c, and the B. coli content is a valuable index of the efficiency of a pasteurising process.

Milk containing B. tuberculosis, when pasteurised at 62·8° C. for 30 minutes (1) in tubes in a water bath in the laboratory, and (2) on a large scale by a commercial plant, is rendered non-infective to guinea-pigs. By laboratory pasteurisation, even at 60° C. for 30 minutes, milk containing tubercle bacilli is rendered non-infective.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , August 1926 , pp. 273 - 284
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1926

References

REFERENCES

Allen, P. W. (1916). J. Infect. Diseases, Chicago, XIX. 721–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, P. W. (1917). J. Infect. Diseases XXI. 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Public Health Bulletin (1925), No. 147, U.S. Public Health Service, Washington.Google Scholar
Anderson, A. K. and Finkelstein, R. (1919). J. Dairy Sci. II. 374–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayers, S. H. (1920). U.S. Dept. of Agric. Bull. No. 342.Google Scholar
Ayers, S. H. and Johnson, W. T. (1910). U.S. Dept. of Agric. Bur. Animal Indus. Bull. No. 126.Google Scholar
Ayers, S. H. and Johnson, W. T. (1913). U.S. Dept. of Agric. Bur. Animal Indus. Bull. No. 161.Google Scholar
Ayers, S. H. and Johnson, W. T. (1914). U.S. Dept. Agric. J. Agr. Research, II. 321–330.Google Scholar
Ayers, S. H. and Johnson, W. T. (1914). Centralbl. f. Bakt. (Abt. 2), XL. 109 and 434.Google Scholar
Ayers, S. H. and Johnson, W. T. (1915). U.S. Dept. Agric. J. Agr. Research, III. 401–410.Google Scholar
Ayers, S. H. and Johnson, W. T. (1924). J. Baeteriol. IX. 279 and 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayers, S. H., Johnson, W. T. and Davis, B. J. (1918). J. Infect. Diseases, XXIII. 290–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayers, and Rupp, (1923). J. Soc. Chem. Industry, XLII. 166.Google Scholar
Barthel, Chr. (1921). Svenska Mejiritidningen Akarp, XIII. 399–400.Google Scholar
Barthel, Chr. (1917). Zeitschr. f. Gärungsphysiol. Berlin, VI. 65–109.Google Scholar
Barthel, Chr. and Stenstrom, O. (1917). Zeitschr. f. Gärungsphysiol. 110–124.Google Scholar
Beattie, J. M. (1916). J. State Med. London, XXIV. 97–113.Google Scholar
Beattie, J. M. (1925). J. Hygiene, XXIV. 124–137.Google Scholar
Beattie, J. M. and Lewis, F. C. (1914). Rep. City Bacteriologist, on the Electrical Treatment of Milk.Google Scholar
Beattie, J. M. (1920). Medical Research Committee, City of Liverpool.Google Scholar
Brown, F. W. Campbell (1923). Lancet, London, 205–207, 317–321.Google Scholar
Coolidge, L. H. (1924). Abstracts Bacteriology. Author's Abstracts.Google Scholar
Cunningham, A. (1920). Milk Supply of City of Edinburgh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, (1920). U.S. Hyg. Lab. Bull. 56, 501–526.Google Scholar
Dearstyne, R. S. (1919). J. Dairy Sci. Baltimore, II. 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, R. (1919). J. Dairy Sci. 460–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobsen, Geo J. (1918). Milk Dealer, Milwaukee, VII. 18–20.Google Scholar
Jensen, Orla (1921). Lait, Lyon, I.Google Scholar
Jensen, Orla (1920). Milchw. Zentralbl. Hanover, XLIX. 45–53.Google Scholar
Jensen, Orla (1921). Dairy Bacteriology. Translation P. S. Arup (London).Google Scholar
Krumwiede, C. and Nobel, W. C. (1921). J. Infect. Diseases, XXIX. 310–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuffenath, H. (1921). Ann. de Gembloux, Brussels, XXVII. Internat. Rev. Sc. and Proc. Agric. XII. 1336.Google Scholar
Lodge, and Leith, (1914). See Beattie and Lewis (1914).Google Scholar
Pease, and Heulings, (1920). See Ayers, U.S. Dept. of Agric. Bull. 342.Google Scholar
Ragsdaile, (1923). Colostrum Milk. J. Dairy Sci. VI. 137.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. H. (1924). New York State Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. No. 105.Google Scholar
Salter, Raymond C. (1921). Am. J. Hygiene, I. 154–183.Google Scholar
Traum, J. and Hart, G. H. (1916). J. Am. Vet. Ass. LXXIX. 678–698.Google Scholar
Twiss, (1920). J. Infect. Diseases, Chicago, XXVI. 165–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanderleck, (1917). Agric. Gaz. of Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Weigmann, , Wolff, , Trensch, , Steffen, (1914). Centralbl. f. Bakt. XLV. 63.Google Scholar