Oysters and other shell fish / Report of the Fishmongers' Company, London, December, 1902, to June, 1909.

  • Worshipful Company of Fishmongers
Date:
[1909?]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Oysters and other shell fish / Report of the Fishmongers' Company, London, December, 1902, to June, 1909. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    36/164 (page 32)
    Nos.^272^to^ 28t]i July, 1906, samples of mud, water, and cockles 279. were taken from the Maplins and Leigh-on-Sea, as under No. 272. Mud taken from the Maplins at a point ofE Black Tail Spit, immediately below the surface where the cockles are embedded. No. 273. Mud taken within the same area as pi’evious sample, but at a depth of about a foot. No. 274. Water taken at a distance of about 100 yards whence the mud was taken, and from near the surface. The tide had been flowing for about an hour. No. 275. Leigh drinking water taken from a barrel in Med die’s hut at Leigh. This water was put in the barrel for the purpose of washing cockles after they had been cooked. No. 276. Cockles taken from the Maplins at a distance of about 300 yards from where mud (No. 273) and water (No. 274) were obtained, thence taken to Leigh, where they were cooked by steam in an oven for five minutes at a pressure of about 25 lb. No. 277. Cockles taken from near the bed of Leigh Creek and within 200 yards of Leigh Sewage Works outfall. The cockles had been relaid in the Creek for about ten days. The cockles were steamed in an oven for five minutes at a pressure of about 25 lb. No. 278. Cockles taken from the same parcel as those con- stituting sample No. 276, but were subjected to five and a half minutes’ steaming at a pressure of about 25 lb. No. 279. Cockles taken from the same parcel as those con- stituting sample No. 277, and were steamed for six minutes iu an oven at a pressure of about 25 lb. The whole of the above samples were submitted to Professor Klein for analysis, who found that the water. No. 274, was very good, and that the water. No. 275, was not good. With reference to the mud. No. 272, he found that it had spirilla (sewage ?) per c.c., and that the mud. No. 273, contained no spirilla. On the whole neither sample of mud was bad, although sample No. 272 miglit, on account of the spirilla