take out a license. Another farmer who has six cows peddles butter from house to house at Essex and Burlington. It seems to me the laws should be changed so as to reach these people in some way.

Dr. E. R. Clark, Castleton, Vt.

I suppose all human nature is somewhat alike. We find in our section there are two classes of people, those that do and those that don't. We have two classes of producers of milk in our town. When this subject was first agitated, the producers did not understand the necessity of the case. They did not realize certain things that were not necessary in former conditions of handling dairy products. They did not understand or realize the necessities that arise for strictly clean utensils, where milk must be kept 108 hours before it reaches the consumer. It is necessary to treat milk in a different way where it is drawn this morning and made into butter the next day. I find this to be the case that as soon as the better farmers, the men who are interested in getting the most they can out of their products, are educated up to the requirements they are going to do everything they can to better the conditions of production and a great many of them are now taking a great deal of pride and pains in fixing up their places. Stephen N. Nutting, Westminster, Vt.

When this question came up about having buttermilk and skim milk pasteurized, I knew it was going to put creameries to a good deal of expense and I did not know what the quality of the product returned would be, after it went through the required process. So I went to the State's Attorney and asked him this question-Does buttermilk or skim milk sold to one farmer who does not feed the product to calves or cows, but to hogs, have to be pasteurized? He said: "No. If you will take notice, the law says: where buttermilk or skim milk is returned to the patron it must be pasteurized, but where it is not returned to him it does not need to be."

My attention has been called several times to the condition of the milk cans returned from Boston. They are returned with a terrible odor. It seems to me there should be a law to compel an inspection of these milk cans before they are returned to the farmer. Massachusetts officials will say they won't buy milk from Vermont or New Hampshire unless it is pasteurized. These farmers are sending into Boston pure milk, but the Massachusetts people are not looking after the milk cans which they return to the farmer. The cans are washed by machinery, stoppers replaced while cans are warm. I don't think there is a man in this audience who could stand the smell from those cans for five minutes without an ill effect.

With regard to the prevailing conditions which Dr. Ferrin spoke of I think after the thing has got to work and the farmer finds out it is better for his cows to have clean stables, they will be exceedingly glad that these laws have been enacted.

Dr. E. S. Albee, Bellows Falls, Vt.

I don't think that we can quite say that we have certified milk. I don't think we will get it up to that standard this year nor in two or three years. The upward road has been rather slow. We must be lenient in scoring the dairies. I have sent up forty odd samples of milk to the State Laboratory and I think only five were reported dirty. I don't know whether that is a fair average or not, but that was the number reported dirty from Bellows Falls.

Stephen N. Nutting.

Dr. Albee and I worked on the same territory and these matters have been talked over a great many times together. In coming up here and talking them over with Mr. Stillson of Bennington, he tells me how he does in his town, in regard to licensing. However, I would like a little further information. The Doctor and I have only taken a license from the peddler and not the farmer. Mr. Stillson tells us he takes a license from the farmer as well as the peddler. I feel as though all matters of this nature should be alike throughout the state and I would like to have an opinion which I could work upon. Dr. C. S. Caverly.

As perhaps most of you know, the State Board of Health, together with the Cattle Commissioner, have taken up the subject of pasteurization of skim milk and buttermilk of creameries. There has been considerable criticism of the rulings of the State Board and the Cattle Commissioner. They are jointly required by the law to formulate rules for the pasteurization of this milk. There has been considerable criticism in the newspapers in regard to the effect of the product upon calves and pigs to which it has been fed. The State Board, and I presume the Cattle Commissioner, have had the impression that it was more or less newspaper talk or was at least considerably exaggerated. This, by the way, is not a measure which comes directly under the control of the State Board of Health It is an adjunct of the Cattle Commission law. The Cattle Commissioner is the one who really has the authority over these creameries and is given enforcement of this law. I wrote him some time ago asking him to give me a statement of the matter which could be read here at this school and I have two letters from him. The first tells me that he, the cattle commissioner, is very ill and has not been able to give his personal attention to this work for several months, but he has one or more men on the road who are looking after this with other details of his work. He says that the man he has had on the road for the last three months visited the creameries in six counties of the state and he has never known of any animal fed with sterilized skim milk or buttermilk, which has been killed by its consumption. I wrote and asked him if any were injured and if pasteurization would injure the nutritive properties of the milk. The man on the road replied that he has talked with a great many farmers and almost invariably they find no fault with the sterilized milk returned to them. The objection comes from those who have not used it. Those who have used the product, say they see no difference. Seventenths of the users say it is all right. He also reports that he has yet to find a single instance of its causing a death of any animal or an authentic case of one being injured. I have given you the information that you may distribute it as you see fit in your own towns. It is a question which has caused considerable discussion and one which perhaps is not as yet thoroughly settled.

Dr. B. H. Stone, Burlington, Vt.

When Mr. Canfield first started on the road and commenced to send in samples, we found some of the samples did not show the effect of pasteurization, but I think within the last four or five weeks all the creameries which he has visited have pasteurized their products satisfactorily. Some of the trouble, which may have started some of these stories, may have been on account of boiling the milk, through faulty methods of pasteurization. They failed at first to install satisfactory apparatus and in order to insure themselves against possible underheating they brought the milk up to the boiling point. Milk brought to the boiling point would probably be injured in its nutritive properties and perhaps injure the calves to which it was fed. Dr. Henry D. Holton, Brattleboro, Vt.

Did you have any trouble in breaking up the curds?

Dr. B. H. Stone, Burlington, Vt.

No. That was one of the arguments made; that it would be practically impossible to break up buttermilk. Experimentally, it is not so. J. O. Jordan, Ph. G., Boston, Mass.

I think one of the speakers has summed the matter up correctly. Farmers have been producing milk after the manner of their grandfathers. Some, however, are improving; and others, as the gentleman said, are going on in the old way.

The question was asked, What should be done with milk when there is a case of scarlet fever or diphtheria in the household ? Such milk should not be taken from the place of production. Contractors are willing to pay farmers for the milk, where cases of infections diseases, exist, rather than have it shipped to them, and present contracts contain a provision to this effect. If they are not living up to these contracts,

I desire to be informed of the fact. It is the part of wisdom not to use such milk.

The necessity of pasteurizing skim milk and buttermilk emphasizes the need of cleanliness. Why is it necessary to pasteurize these products? Milk is oftentimes contaminated with the feces from the cow, cows excrete tubercle bacilli with their feces, and this dirt falling into the milk pail contaminates the milk.

Now there is a slight absurdity in a law like that of your state, which requires the heating of skim milk or buttermilk. You admit, when the skim milk and buttermilk are pasteurized, that the danger from feeding these products to calves and pigs is past, but how about the use of the whole milk for human beings? Are you looking after them as well as you are for dumb animals? Skim milk and buttermilk from out of the state must be pasteurized before it is admitted into your state. Of course you do not need to have much whole milk brought in, but the question seems to be, Is your concern for individuals equal to that for your live stock? Boston has been buying milk from Vermont, but not all of the milk which is shipped from this state is sent to Boston. However, the major portion is bought by Boston contractors, but they also do business in other states. Some of this milk is sent to Old Orchard, Lynn, and Salem; and there are many dairies, the milk from which has been excluded from Boston, which are now shipping to other cities in Massachusetts, and to cities in other states. We plan to have all of the cans that go out of the city of Boston clean,

as clean as is possible to make them. It requires about forty thousand cans to bring milk into the city, to say nothing of the number used for city trade. This necessitates rapid washing.

The question is raised, Why does Massachusetts not exclude contaminated milk? We can do this, but we must have some milk. I hope to see conditions such that we can eliminate all bad milk. I don't believe our people are quite ready for this at the present time, and there is no doubt that such a step would seriously influence the price of this commodity. A great trouble is that farmers are not careful to guard the production of milk. In Massachusetts an attempt was made to pass a law giving the State Board of Health the right to frame rulings governing the production of milk, but this progressive measure met with defeat.

As to the condition of the cans, noted at railroad depots, that is likely to follow from rapid handling, but Boston must not be blamed for dirty cans which come here from other cities, and from which cans may be sent regularly in the unwashed state. Farmers ought not to put milk into cans, however, unless they are in proper condition for its reception. Washed cans have to be stoppered when quite warm, and some no doubt bear an odor. If there are any cans which are not in a proper condition, they should be made so by the producer before milk is placed in them. Instances have been noted where cans have come from the country


with a full pint of railroad gravel in them. We have forty thousand cans of milk a day, and it is not possible to look at each can; but if an example is made, a wholesome influence is gained.

Q. Could you not hold the contractor responsible for the cleanliness of those cans?

If the contractor is doing his best, that condition should be given consideration, but they are held responsible for the cleanliness of cans. No dealer is allowed to sell milk where it was found that it was contained in a dirty can.

Q. Lawrence. Suppose the contractor gets a can of milk, which is obviously unclean, and it gets by your inspector and he sells it. Isn't he liable?

Any man who handles for sale impure milk may be fined or imprisoned. We have a law which prohibits any foreign substance, including dirt, in milk, and when foreign substances are found, the dealer is prosecuted.

Lawrence. Every man has seen this same condition, who has been at the railroad trains, and we all know the conditions are vile. They are so filthy that even without any health laws, if the conditions became universally known, the milk could not be sold. In fact no one would purchase the milk, if they knew under what conditions it was produced. Our view is, the contractor is after every dollar there is in it. If pressure is not put on and an inspection made, and the contractor held responsible, nothing is to be gained. You cannot put the pressure on the farmer here. We have not the means to make an efficient inspection. The cans for milk shipped from this state are properly cleaned, but the railroad employees open them, and all sorts of contamination are allowed to enter. The only way in which you can bring the consumer and the farmer together is by holding the contractor liable for selling impure milk. Unless the man who offers it for sale in Boston is held, he won't be strict with his patrons up here.



It is a great pleasure to be present and participate again in the work of this School. Under the laws as they stand to-day, no officers in our towns have it in their power directly and immediately to do so much good to their fellow citizens, their neighbors and friends, as the health officers. And a great responsibility rests upon them. They are the outposts in the fight against disease, they are the guardians of the food and the water that every man must have.

More and more the community, in the town, the state and the nation, is turning its attention to the prevention of disease, rather than cure

« ForrigeFortsett »