Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T12:36:41.366Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

362. Studies in the bacteriology of milk: I. The streptococci of milk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

Y. Abd-El-Malek
Affiliation:
Bacteriology Department, College of Agriculture, Edinburgh
T. Gibson
Affiliation:
Bacteriology Department, College of Agriculture, Edinburgh

Extract

The streptococci occurring in raw and pasteurized milks of varying purity have been investigated. The organisms were placed in five main groups by testing for the hydrolysis of arginine, growth at 45 and at 8–12° C, survival in milk at 63° C. for 30 min. (measured by a semi-quantitative plating method), action on litmus milk, and the ability to form CO2 from glucose (tested by a cultural method). The groups thus distinguished are:

(1) Organisms of bovine mastitis.

(2) Str. bovis and Str. thermophilus. A clear-cut separation of these species was not obtained by tests for growth at 50° C, the hydrolysis of aesculin, or the fermentation of maltose or salicin; but, with suitable precautions, action on both maltose and salicin provides a differentiation. Certain strains of Str. bovis differ from the typical form of that species in their ability to proliferate over a wider range of temperature and in higher concentrations of salt and methylene blue and in their failure to split aesculin.

(3) Str. lactis and Str. cremoris, which were differentiated by tests for the hydrolysis of arginine and ability to grow at 40° C.

(4) Str.faecalis and its varieties. Many of the strains are non-haemolytic but otherwise indistinguishable from Str. durans. The formation of acetoin from citrate and from glucose are common but not universal properties in the enterococcus group.

(5) Heterofermentative streptococci. The majority of the strains were identified as Str. kefir. Str. citrovorus, which was isolated only occasionally, was distinguished by its low maximum temperature (under 37° C), weak resistance to heat and by fermentation reactions.

Raw milk was found to contain Str. kefir, Str. lactis and the mastitis organisms more frequently than the other species. Str. thermophilus and Str. bovis were the dominant forms in freshly pasteurized milk. Pasteurized milk held at 10–22° C. until it became tainted yielded Str. kefir and Str. faecalis and, at the higher temperatures, Str. bovis and Str. thermophilus.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1948

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

(1)Sherman, J. M. (1937). Bact. Rev. 1, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Hobbs, B. C. (1939). J. Dairy Res. 10, 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Nichols, A. A. (1939). J. Dairy Res. 10, 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)Shattock, P. M. F. & Mattick, A. T. R. (1943). J. Hyg., Camb., 43, 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)Shattock, P. M. F. (1945). Proc. Soc. agric. Bact. p. 18.Google Scholar
(6)Gibson, T. & Abd-El-Malek, Y. (1945). J. Dairy Res. 14, 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Niven, C. F., Smiley, K. L. & Sherman, J. M. (1942). J. Bact. 43, 651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Orla-Jensen, S. (1919). The Lactic Acid Bacteria. Copenhagen: Høst.Google Scholar
(9)Foster, E. M., Garey, J. C. & Frazier, W. C. (1942). J. Dairy Sci. 25, 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(10)Sherman, J. M. (1938). J. Bact. 35, 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(11)Wright, H. D. (1936). J. Path. Bact. 43, 487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(12)Sherman, J. M. & Stark, P. (1931). J. Bact. 22, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Hucker, G. J. (1928). Tech. Bull. N.Y. St. agric. Exp. Sta. no. 134.Google Scholar
(14)Burri, R. (1941). Ber. schweiz. bot. Ges. 51, 96.Google Scholar
(15)Burri, R. & Elser, E. (1941). Landw. Jb. Schweiz, p. 176.Google Scholar
(16)Yawger, E. S. & Sherman, J. M. (1937). J. Dairy Sci. 20, 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(17)Barritt, M. M. (1936). J. Path. Bact. 42, 441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(18)Gunsalus, I. C. & Campbell, J. J. R. (1944). J. Bact. 48, 455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(19)Campbell, J. J. R. & Gunsalus, I. C. (1944). J. Bact. 48, 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(20)Hammer, B. W. (1920). Res. Bull. la. agric. Exp. Sta. no. 63.Google Scholar
(21)Boekhout, F. W. J. & Ott de Vries, J. J. (1919). Zbl. Bakt. II, 49, 373.Google Scholar
(22)Ayers, S. H. & Mudge, C. S. (1921). J. Dairy Sci. 4, 240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(23)Orla-Jensen, S., Orla-Jensen, A. D. & Spur, B. (1926). J. Bact. 12, 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(24)Knudsen, S. & Sörensen, A. (1929). Zbl. Bakt. II, 79, 75.Google Scholar
(25)Hucker, G. J. & Pederson, C. S. (1931). Zbl. Bakt. II, 85, 65.Google Scholar
(26)Evans, A. (1918). J. agric. Res. 13, 235.Google Scholar
(27)Ayers, S. H., Johnson, W. T. & Mudge, C. S. (1924). J. infect. Dis. 34, 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(28)Beijerinck, M. W. (1912). Folia microbiol., Delft, 1, 377.Google Scholar
(29)Hammer, B. W. & Baker, M. P. (1923). Res. Bull. la. agric. Exp. Sta. no. 81.Google Scholar