94 THE ANALYST. ON THE INCONGRUITY OF THE MODE GENERALLY ADOPTED IIT STATIXG THE RESULTS OF MILK ANALYSES. BY WILLIAM THONSON, F.R.S.E. Read before the Xociety of P u b l i c Ay$alysts, at Plymouth, 17th August, 1877. FOR some time past it has occurred t o me that the general mode of stating the results of milk analyses is illogical, and at all times places the analyst in a false position. From the general mode adopted for making analyses of milk, analysts cannot, and have no right to say, that a sample is or is not adulterated with water, and they are equally unable to say whether cream has or has not been abstracted from the genuine milk.It has been proved by many different analyses of genuine milk that the variation in its composition is so great, both as regards the fat and solids not fat, that no standard can be taken as representing the composition of genuine milk.Up to the present time analysts have used standards, and have calculated from these standards the proportions of water added, and on this basis they say,-‘L This sample has been adulterated with so much water,’’ and ‘‘ That sample is free from adulteration.” What is the law in these matters ? I s it that it is illegal for any one to adulterate genuine milk with water; or is i t that any one rnGy adulterate his milk, provided he does not add too much water, i.5.that he does not dilute it below a certain standard? Imagine the position of an analyst versus an inspector under two different and very possible circumstances. I n the first, suppose the latter sees a cow milked dry into a clean and dry vessel, and he takes a sample from it and sends it to the analyst, who finds it to be adulterated with water.I n the second, suppose the inspector goes to a shop, and asks the vendor to sell him some milk; and presuming the latter, knowing that his milk is rich, says to the inspector, Sir ! I adulterate my milk ; and he forthwith takes three pints of his milk and one pint of water and mixes them together and sells part of the mixture t o the inspector, who on sending it t o the analyst receives a report to the effect that it is free from adulter- ation.What can be the inspector’s opinion of the analyst? and yet, under the present state of affairs, such things may easily happen, but these only shew how the analyst may fall into public disrepute. If an honest man in a small town sell genuine milk, which is pronounced by the analyst to be Tho total solids in genuine milk vary from 104 to 15 or more, per cent.The question I propose t o bring before you is this. Here the effects of this objectionable mode of stating results do not end.TTlE ANALYST. 95 adulterated with water, the statement is published in the local newspapers, and the vendor suffers both pecuniarily and morally to a very marked degree. I f adulteration of milk with water be an offence against the law, and the public be supposed to be injured by it, then the analyst, by his decided mode of expressing results, is constantly acting unjustly towards them, by passing adulterated samples ; and if the ‘( standard I’ method be recognized, then every milk seller ought clearly to understand that if he sell genuine milk, which should at any time happen to fall under the standard, he will be liable to be fined 5s.and costs, or possibly sent to prison for repeated offences against the Act. standard ” method be used, it would well pay a milk seller, who vends from 50 to 100 gallons of milk per day, t o employ an analyst to analyse his milk two or three times a week, and from the results to add sufficient water to dilute the genuine milk to the standard, which necessarily must be low, and thus the public mill have the satisfaction of learning that analysts, whom they have employed t o protect them from adulteration, have secured t o them an uniform supply of milk of low quality.” I t seems t o me, first, that adulteration of genuine milk with water, no matter t o what extent, should be considered illegal, and secondly, that the seller should be prevented from vending abnormally poor genuine mi1k.t In the first, it is easily within the power of the inspector and analyst to find whether or no water has been added to milk, independent of any standard, becaufie if, after buying a sampl’e of milk, the retailer be required t o declare from what farm the milk was bought, the inspector of the district in which mch farm is situated, may be communicated with and requested to see the cows milked and to take a sample of the mixture, which should be sent t o the analyst side by side with the sample originally bought. The actual amount of added water could thus be calculated from the difference in the results, and magistrates could then have no hesitation in convicting, and there would, in such instances, be little chance of miscarriage of justice. I was led t o write this paper at the present time owing to the following circumstance :-A man waited on me and stated that the inspector had taken a sample of milk which he sold to him.I t had beon sent t9 Dr. J. Campbell Brown, who reported it to be adulterated with 8 per cent. of water. The man said he was certain no water had been added and that the analyst had made a mistake, and requested me to analyse a sample which had been left in his possession by the inspector. The milk was decomposed, and on analysis I found the total solids, and solids not fat t o be exceptionally low, and wrote to him to that effect, stating that the analyst was justified in pronouncing it t o be adulterated. I said, however, he had one mode of defence left to him, and that was, that I should see the COW or cows milked dry into a clean vessel and take a sample of the genuine milk for analysis, and if it coincided in poorness with the suspected sample, it could be stated in court that the milk was genuine.I went to his house at 6.30 one morning, which was the general time of milking, he explained to me that one cow yielded four gallons of milk, which was sufficient for his custoni, and only that cow’s milk was sold. I went to the shippon with him and there saw a light roan colored cow, apparently in g o d condition.He assured me it was perfectly healthy. 1 saw it milked dry into a tin, and a t once mixed the contents and filled two bottles from it, the one was sealed in presence of the owner of the corn, and immediately If, again, the I did so. * This process has been carried on for a long time. (Eds. Alzalyst.) t This is precisely what the law as at present administered does.(E&. AlzaZpt.)96 THE ANALYST. afterwards I took both samples away, the sealed one I sent to Dr. Campbell Brown, who analyscd and reported on the original sample, explaining the circumstances of the case ; the other sample I submitted to analysis; both our analyses agreed in shewing that the genuine milk was of exceptionally low quality. Dr. Campbell Brown very properly agreed to go further into the matter, and requested the inspector to see a sample taken from the cow and sent to him, this was done, and as it coincided with the sample originally analysed, the prosecution was withdrawn.The farmer a week afterwards forwarded to me the sample which had been left with him by the inspector, which I submitted to analysis, and the following are the results of these three samples obtained respectively by Dr.Campbell Brown and by myself, both our results coincide and serve to shew an exceptionally poor genuine milk, Br. Canybell Brown’s re8uh- Fat . . . . . . . . . . . . Solids not Fat.., . . . . . . Total Solids . . . . . . . . . Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . Cream . . . . . . . . . . . . Specific Gravity . . . . . . Xy own results of t l ~ e same sarnph- Fat .. . . . . . . . . . . Solids not Fat. . . . . . . . . Total Solids. . . . . . . . . Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . Specific Gravity . . . . . . Cream, percentage by volume ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 28th April, 1877. First Sample bought by Inspector. Fresh. 2.680 8.297 10.977 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... May 9, 1877.Decomposed. 2.980 7-331 10.301 * 1 . ... ... Decomposed. Mayl5,1877. 3.017 7.612 10,629 0.614 ... ... May14,1877~ Sample taken by Thomson. Fresh. 2,210 8.190 10.400 -682 leu30 ... Fresh. 2.1 21 8.347 10,468 $58 1.026 7.000 second Sam- ple takenby nspector from the cow. Fresh. 2.690 8.503 11.193 -730 ... Decomposed. 2.953 8.050 11.033 -712 ..* ... I n the discusfiion which followed, Dr.Muter pointed out the necessity, which he had frequently urged in The Analyst, of considering the amount and constitution of the ash of any sample of milk which might be submitted for analysis, in addition to the usual examinations for solids not fat. He urged that an analyst should not take any single point in the constitution of a milk as an absolute standard, but should make a thoroughly full analysis and apply common sense in considering the whole of the results. He had himself, on five or six occasions, met with milks containing so low an amount of (‘ solids not fat,” that had he not taken pains to examine the amount and nature of the ash, he might have been led to condemn unjustly. Mr. Allen considered that the addition of water to milk was not only objectionable, owing t o the fraud practised, but also from the danger of spreading zymotic diseases by the employment of impure water. The President, in summing up the discussion, remarked that what was wanted was the fixing by Parliament of definite qualities, below which, it would be illegal t o sell both milk and spirituous liquors.