OUR MEMPHIS MILK SUPPLY.* 
By WM. KRAUSS, M.D., Ph.G., 
MEMPHIS, TENN. 
There is no article of diet the purity of which is of so 
much importance as that of milk. Other foodstuffs, though 
subject to adulteration, are rarely given to invalids and never 
to infants, while it is just they who consume milk almost 
exclusively, and in whose food supply purity and quality are 
of first importance. Moreover, milk is an animal secretion, 
and its quality depends on the health and condition of the 
animal yielding it. Physicians should acquaint themselves 
with the quality of milk their patients are using, and with 
this object in view I made a series of analyses. 
The milk supply of large cities necessarily comes from a 
distance. It requires time to collect and distribute this milk, 
a circumstance which in itself materially influences its qual- 
ity. In Memphis most of the milk reaches the consumer by 
wagon from the dairies in the suburbs. It is collected about 
twelve to twenty-four hours before it reaches the consumer, 
and during the time of delivery is exposed to a great extent 
to the influence of temperature, atmosphere, and dust. Fi- 
nally, it may be adulterated before it leaves the dairy. 
If we wish to examine the kind of milk most consumers 
get. it is necessary to choose what we may call “ commercial 
milk,” i. e., a milk which is essentially a mixture of products 
of a number of cows, subject to adulteration, exposure, and 
the influence of time. 
I collected twenty-six specimens of this kind in all ; they 
constitute a fair average of our whole supply. It was pur- 
chased directly from the dairy wagon during early delivery 
hours, and at once placed in clean, sterilized glass bottles. 
• Reprint from Memphis Journal of the Medical Sciences, June, 1890. 2 
Method of Examination. An analysis of this kind has no 
value for statistical and comparative purposes unless the pro- 
cess is known. The literature on the subject shows that a 
great deal of ingenuity has been wasted on the so-called ex- 
peditious, simple, and easy methods. On the other hand, 
when a large number of analyses are made, and with a view 
to comparative value, some expedition is necessary. In my 
preliminary experiments I obtained the most constant results 
by following the plan given below. The preliminary exam- 
ination, such as appearance, reaction, pioskop, creamometer, 
and specific gravity, was made rather to test the value of 
such examinations, and because they require no time and 
skill for execution. 
1. Appearance; deceived me very often; a little excess of 
coloring matter may cause the milk to look very rich. 
2. Reaction; was naturally always acid, except one which 
was alkaline. 
3. Pioskop (pioscope); consists of a black rubber disc with 
marginal ring; a few drops of milk are placed upon it and 
covered by a round glass plate having six radial divisions 
painted various shades of gray, the center being left trans- 
parent. The milk will assume one of the shades of gray 
(or nearly so) painted on margin, and thus its richness may 
be read off. A reference to table following will show that it 
requires quite a difference in proportion of fat to show a dif- 
ferent degree, hence intermediate grades were designated by 
a + or— behind grade of pioscope readings. This is one of 
the best of preliminary examinations. 
4. Creamometer, is a glass tube about a foot long, of £ inch 
caliber, graduated into 100 parts, and closed at one end; this 
is filled to 100 with milk and allowed to stand in an upright 
position for 12 hours, when the per cent, of cream may be 
read off. The objections to this are 1st, in warm weather the 
KRAUSS, OUR MEMPHIS MILK SUPPLY. OUR MEMPHIS MILK SUPPLY. 
3 
milk will “ turn ” before separation is complete; 2d, cream 
is not a d< finite proportion of fat and casein ; 3d, cream rises 
more slowly in rich milk. 
5. Specific Gravity; per sc reveals absolutely nothing. If a 
rich milk has a specific gravity of 1.029, skimming it will 
bring it to about 1.034 (as butter is lighter) and all the intel- 
ligent dairyman has to do is to add water to bring it back to 
1.029. In table l omitted specific gravity readings ; they 
varied from 1.020 to 1.034. I urn surprised to find that some 
inspectors do nothing but take the specific gravity. 
6. Analysis; total solids were obtained by evaporating 20 
gm. ou water bath to constant weight, and result in gms. 
X5=% ; residue is total solids, the difference or loss represents 
w'ater and gases. Fat was extracted with petroleum benzin. 
Suyar; by standardized Fehling’s solution, to which potass, 
f Trocyanide was added, according to Causse ;* this increases 
uccuracy wonderfully. Salts, and casein; the residue remain- 
ing after extraction of fat was ignited in covered crucible, 
the residue representing the salts (and carbon) or ash. The 
loss is sugar, casein, albumin, and extractives; the first, hav- 
ing been estimated, is subtracted. 
7. Adulterations. In looking over a lurge amount of liter- 
ature I find that the only adulterant found was water. Insol- 
uble substance would be detected under the microscope, and 
at bottom of creumometer. Fat could not be mechanically 
added. Finally, skimming and diluting is the simplest way 
and answers all purposes. As will he seen in table, the average 
of total solids did not come up to the standard in the speci- 
mens analyzed. 
8. Microscopic Examination. This is an easy rough means 
of judging richness, purity, i. e., presence or absence of dirt 
and insoluble matter. If milk is rich there will be a prepon- 
derance of large globules, and vice versa. 
• Proc. Am. Phar. Ass., vol. 37, p. 661. 4 
KRAUSS, OUR MEMPHIS MILK SUPPLY. 
9. Bacteriological Examination. As a hygienic procedure 
it is of more service in examining milk direct from the indi- 
vidual cow than the “commercial” article. In the latter, 
microbes usually found in the air, and in milk in the stages 
of change short of curdling, are found. A special examina- 
tion for tubercle was made, but none found, nor was this 
likely in “ mixed ” milk. Bacteriological literature on this 
subject is very scant. Some exchanges simply mention that 
milk has been found infectious. Textbooks on bacteriological 
technology have no special plan to offer. Tubercle cultures 
are notoriously hard to grow, especially from a fluid full of 
other microbes. Fliigge1 says: “Occasionally tuberculous 
animals are the source of infection ; but contagion from milk of 
tuberculous cows seems to take place only where tubercular 
affection of the milk glands exists.” Per contra, Bollinger2 
found milk taken from healthy glands of tuberculous cows 
to be infectious ; but when diluted to 1:40—1:100, it no longer 
affected guinea pigs, and he therefore considers mixed milk 
from large dairies preferable to that from single animals. 
Karl Ilirschberger (under Bollinger’s direction) found milk 
infectious in 55 per cent, of tuberculous cows, “ even in slight 
cases of localized tuberculosis.” It would thus seem that the 
physiological test would be the best. Adam Gibson3 traced 
an epidemic of typhoid fever in a small town in England to 
a dairy. On examination of the water supplying it, it was 
found contaminated with decomposing animal matter. Wm. 
Brown of Carlisle4 traced a typhoid epidemic to a dairy in 
which cows were affected with afebrile disorder. Satisfactory 
evidence of diphtheria and scarlet fever being traced to dairies 
also exist. Dairy hygiene will no doubt become a subject of 
vital importance, if such instances multiply. 
The following table gives result of my examinations: 
1 Die Mikroorganismen, p. 219. 
2 Munchener Med. Wochenschrift, 1889, No. 43. 
3 Druggists’ Circular, March, 1889. 
4 Brit. Med. Jour., Aug., 1888. OUR MEMPHIS MILK SUPPLY. 
5 
No. of 
Specimen 
Appear- 
ance 
Reaction 
Milk 
Tester 
(Pioskop.) 
|j. 
gif 
f s.- 
— 
! Constituents in 100.00 Parts by Weight 
Appe’ranee 
of Milk 
Microscopical 
Bacteriological Examination 
' £££ 1 i "*• 
Soiid* 
Carbo- 
hydrate 
(Milk- 
Sugar) 
CaoHn. 
Albumin 
and 
extract- 
ive* 
8alu 
(A*h) j 
1 
Rich 
ac. 
Normal 
15 
88.00 12.00 4.80 
3.40 
4.15 
.65 
Very fat 
2 
Poor 
ac. 
Less fat 
10 
90.70 9.30 3.20 
2-45 
3.15 
.50 
Less fat 
Streptococci. 
3 
Fair 
ac. 
Normal 
12 
88.25 11.75 3.75 
3.55 
4.10 
.40 
Med. fat. 
Diplococcus Ros. and others. 
4 
Rich 
ac. 
Normal -|- 
16 
87.60 12.40 5.15 
3.35 
3.50 
.35 
Fat 
Unclassified. 
5 
Fair 
alk. 
Normal -j- 
13 
85.95 14.05 4.65 
4.20 
4.25 
.90 
Med fat 
Unclassified. 
6 
Rich 
ac. 
Normal -j- 
10 
87.35 12.65 3.60 
4.10 
4.23 
.82 
Medium 
Unclassified 
7 
Fair 
ac. 
Normal 
10 
87.55 12.45 3.15 
4.30 
4.20 
.60 
Medium 
Unclassified. 
8 
Ordinary 
ac. 
Less fat 
11 
86.60 13.40 4.00 
4.40 
3.15 
.95 
Less fat 
Unclassified. 
9 
Fair 
ac. 
Normal 
10 
88.15 11.85 3.40 
3.85 
4.20 
.40 
Medium 
Diplococci and Staphylococci. 
10 
Fair 
ac. 
Normal -(- 
10 
87 35 12.65 3.70 
3. IK) 
4.10 
.95 
Medium 
11 
Rich 
ac. 
Normal -j- 
13 
85.55 14.45 5.20 
4.45 
4.25 
.70 
1 Fat 
12 
Fair 
v.ac 
Less fat 
11 
86.06 13.95 4.25 
4.30 
4.55 
.90 
Medium 
Zoogloea. 
13 
Very rich 
ac. 
Normal 
15 
85 85 14.15 ; 5.10 
4.07 
4.15 
.83 
Very fat 
14 
Rich 
ac. 
Normal -f- 
16 
84.35 15.65 6.05 
4.95 
4.25 
.45 
Very fat 
15 
Poor 
ac. 
Less fat — 
8 
*90.25 9.75 2.45 
3.30 
3.55 
.35 
Less fat 
Dip. Roseus. 
16 
Ordinary 
ac. 
Less fat 
8.5 
88.55 11.45 3.70 
3.80 
3.55 
.40 
Less fat 
17 
Ordinary 
s.ac. 
Less fat 
11 
80.40 10.60 3.10 
3.25 
3.60 
.65 
Less fat 
Dip. and Staphyl. 
18 
Ordinary 
s.ac. 
Poor 
8 
90.70 9.30 2.55 
3.54 
2.25 
.95 
Less fat 
Oidium Albic. 
19 
Fair 
ac. 
Normal 
10.5 
89.05 10.95 3.15 
4.04 
3.02 
.72 
Less fat 
20 
Fair 
s.ac. 
Normal 
13 
88.45 11.55 3.55 
3.78 
3.20 
.90 
Medium 
Staphylococci, Bac. ac. Lactic 
21 
Fair 
s.ac. 
Less fat 
10 
88.40 11.60 3.35 
2.80 
4.50 
.92 
Medium 
[Diploc. 
22 
Very rich 
ac. 
Very rich— 
20 
85.35 14.65 5.45 
4.18 
4.05 
.95 
Very fat 
Oidium Albic. 
23 
Fair 
s.ac 
Normal 
8.5 
88.60 11.40 3 25 
3.97 
3.21 
.97 
Less fat 
Teti ageni. 
24 
Fair 
s.ac. 
Normal 
7.5 
87.35 12.65 2.70 
4.15 
5.18 
.62 
Medium 
Staphyloc. 
25 
Rich 
ac. 
Less fat 
11 
89.75 10.25 3.07 
3.17 
3.14 
.87 
Less fat 
Diploc. Roseus, Bac. ac. Lact. 
26 
Very rich 
s ac. 
Normal -f- 
25 
88.20 11.80 3.90 
2.85 
4.48 
.67 
Very fat 
Diplococci. 
Highest of each 
Very rich— 
25 
90.70 15.65 6.05 
4.95 
5.18 
.97 
Lowest of each.. 
Poor 
7.5 
84.35 9.30 2.45 
2.45 
2.25 
.35 
Average constituents. 
12. Hi 3.85 
3.78 
3.84 
.70 6 
KRAUSS, OUR MEMPHIS MILK SUPPLY. 
The question now comes up : What is the standard of nor- 
mal milk? Authorities difler, and below I give a table of 
such as were accessible to me: 
Name 
Literature 
| Water 
1 
Total 
Solids 
Fat 
Other 
Solids 
Sugar 
Casein 
& Alb. 
Salts 
Foster 
Physiology 
85.70 
14.29 
4.3Q 
4.03 
5.39 
.54 
Brubaker 
Physiology 
89.0 
11.0 
2.5 
4.8 
3.5 
.2 
C. A.Cameron 
Chem. News, Feb. 5, 1875.. 
87.0 
18.0 
4.0 
4.20 
4.10 
Manual of Chemistry 
86.95 
13.05 
3.65 
4.25 
4.40 
.75 
Lehmann 
Phys. Chemistry 
87.0 
13.0 
4.0 
4.2 
4.1 
.7 
A.j.Lynch.Pr.A.P. A.N0.37 
it t< 
2.70 
8.80 
2.50 
9. 
New York 
it it 
3. 
9. 
it it 
9.35 
New Jersey 
a a 
3. 
9. 
12.43 
3.36 
4.3 
4.3 
A. J. Lynch.. 
Mean of 8 analyses 
3.64 
10.13 
Lynch analyzed Philadelphia dairy milk, one being from 
an Alderney cow yielding 5.21 of fat, and 15.60 of other solids. 
Other unofficial analyses give results similar to those given 
above. The figures on my table show the average of fat to 
be rather above that of these figures, and total solids below 
the average. Thus we see that only 13 out of the 26 came 
up to the New York standard for total solids, and only 3 
below it for fat. No. 26, though containing nearly 4 per cent, 
fat and 25 per cent, cream, cannot be considered extra good, 
the other solids being only 8 per cent, and the sp. gr. 1.020. 
Dr. T. M. Rotch,1 in speaking of the value of chemical 
examination of milk, urges that more analyses be made, and 
all reliable analyses be published (particularly of mother’s 
milk), in order to enable us to better comprehend the causes 
of inanition. 
Thus, if artificial mother’s milk were to be made according 
to the formula given, results would vary considerably if No. 
24 were used in one case, and No. 26 or No. 14 in the other. 
I Keating; Cyclopedia of Diseases of Children, vol. I, p. 288. OUR MEMPHIS MILK SUPPLY. 
7 
The bacteriological examination shows that, next to getting 
fresh milk direct from the healthy cow, sterilization, at the 
expense of digestibility and payability, is the best protection 
against infection. Where milk is ordered to be taken direct 
from the cow, the animal’s condition of healtli should be 
carefully looked into. 
Finally, health authorities should make it their duty to 
regulate and control the supply of milk, and see that no 
adulterated or infected article reaches the market.