[Report 1971] / Medical Officer of Health, Counties of Perth & Kinross.

  • Perthshire (Scotland). County Council.
Date:
1971
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Credit: [Report 1971] / Medical Officer of Health, Counties of Perth & Kinross. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    42/84 (page 14)
    Whirlcools A number of whirlcools were installed during the year and these, in common with many of the other whirlcools in use frequently produced milk with coliform present and a high bacterial count. Although some of the milk was unsatisfactory before it was ever put into the whirlcools due to poor production methods or to inadequate sterilisation of the cans in which the milk was transported, the main reason for the unsatisfactory samples was the failure, through inability or lack of knowledge on the part of the operators, to have the machines properly cleaned and sterilised. As many of the machines are only used during the summer months and there are frequent changes of staff in the premises, the difficulty of training staff to clean whirlcools is a constant problem. As milk sold from whirlcools is considered to come within the term “catering sale” the bacteriological standards for designated milk cannot be applied to it. Unsatisfactory samples must therefore be dealt with under the Food Hygiene Regulations or the Milk and Dairies Act. This is not considered satisfactory and is a matter which requires the attention of the legislators in the near future. Transport of Milk The quality of milk is greatly dependent on the means used to transport it and only milk produced under ideal conditions with the greatest care can stand up to a long journey on a hot day unless it is kept in an insulated container. Due to the cost of providing these containers this is not a matter which will receive the attention of milk transporters unless it is required by a change of legislation. To keep in step with modern trends, and to meet the demands of customers, legislation which will require all milk to be transported in insulated containers or in vehicles with some form of temperature control is therefore necessary. Revocation of Designated Licences The revocation or suspension of 26 designated licences was considered during the year. In each case either 3 consecutive unsatisfactory samples had been taken within a period of 21 to 28 days or the milk sample results, in general, were unsatisfactory. After hearing the Licenceholders and considering the action taken by them to improve the quality of their milk it was decided to revoke 1 producer’s “Standard” Licence, and to suspend 1 Producer’s “Premium” Licence and 2 Dealer’s Premium” Licences. In 5 other cases the licences were surrendered and no further action was therefore necessary. The following table shown the types and numbers of licences considered for revocation or suspension. (a) Producer’s “Premium” Licences 4 (b) Producer’s “Standard” Licences 7 (c) Dealer’s “Premium” Licences 11 (d) Dealer’s “Standard” Licences 2 (e) Dealer’s “Pasteurised” Licences 2 One application for a Dealer’s Supplementary “Standard” Licence was refused. Brucellosis During 1971 milk from 43 farms in the County was sold for consumption raw. Of these farms 31 were accredited and 7 were in process of being accredited. All samples of raw milk taken under the Milk (Special Designations)(Scotland) Order were subjected to the Brucella Ring Test. A screening test was also carried out on other milks known to be going for pasteurisation but where farm workers or others were being supplied with the milk. Of the 992 samples subjected in this way to the Ring