—————

—ooo

—_--

ee SE ee ee eS a ae eee ae ee ee eee ae ee ee Se oe eee ee eee

SS

e ee'e
la od fat

ithe

Ge
AeA

ies

es aw

er rl cals
pana

ees
Pere

eee
ae

piiieiate esses
3 noes
=
Fe3

watesee
siezet

Sar — te
Sees =
=
Sareea eee
=:
ms

> ay nag
= aera

i iH i
ee oe ne
4 A Peo EHS,
fvhbtenh
} ital a4 i
ae tale

a) aad
eee itt ny, I
7

uh iti oS
- i o
a oo

it at
$ Ht r ¢
a Hy

nt
a i {i

; He
a

- _
ae

vit Nye

ie

: . : iS ae
neti At tH) i ae wy x) AEM
oe a

ae st

Ky

i

i i

EE EE Se” Ce te es i. | — -e = see ee

"
A nt)

. i

ne
Nae
MH)

vie
44;

iN
ha
ue

‘
iv

iH

{ ih re Whi

a iW ee eit iN

is ACH) i Vays Hie H ;

ae ik " hi NN
\ ‘

yah)

;
ints 4

if aint
hy ihe iN

; nth uw

iM i? ri

ii Hb “ Hil ia yh
ibe i (hit
vil ei

wall,

Gass OF 95
Book aaa

ry

NW oaeeaa g

vty
Ay be

hy 7 q .
Be a

Hy

4 re
ry
f ay) a

oth >=

+

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE OF THE
COMMITTEES ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SIXTY-FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

FOOD PRODUCTION ACT, 1919, H. R. 11945

SEPTEMBER 16 AND 17, 1918

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry

WASTINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICD
1918

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY.

TIIOMAS P. GORE, Oklahoma, Chairman.

GEORGE BE. CHAMBERLAIN, Oregon. FRANCIS E. WARREN, Wyoming.
ELLISON D. SMITH, South Carolina. CARROLL 8S. PAGE, Vermont.

HOKE SMITH, Georgia. ASLE J. GRONNA, Nogth Dakota.
MORRIS SHEPPARD, Texas. GEORGE W. NORRIS, Nebraska.
JOSEPH FE. RANSDELL, Louisiana. WILLIAM S. KENYON, Iowa.

WILLIAM H. THOMPSON, Kansas. JAMES W. WADSWORTH. Jr., New York.
EDWIN S. JOHNSON, South Dakota. JOSEPH I. FRANCE Maryland.

JOHN B. KENDRICK, Wyoming.
H. M, Kay, Olerk.

2

D...0f.. 206
JAN 30 1990

ze A Y4/20

ADULTERATION:. OF MIXED FEEDS.

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1919.

Unirep States SENATE AND House or REPRESENTATIVES,
CoMMITTEES OF CONFERENCE OF THE
CoMMITTEES ON AGRICULTURE AND Forestry,
Washington, D.C.

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments to the bill, H. R. 11945, met in the
committee room of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and
Forestry at 10.30 o’clock a. m., Senator Thomas P. Gore presiding.

Present of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry:
Senators Gore (chairman), Smith of South Carolina, Smith of
Georgia, Kenyon, and Wadsworth.

Present of the House Committee on Agriculture: Representatives
Lever (chairman), Lee, Candler, Haugen, and Anderson.

There were present also other members of the Senate and House
of Representatives. °

The Cuarrman. The conference will come to order. Gentlemen,
this meeting was agreed upon by Congressman Lever, chairman of
the House committee, and myself. We arranged to have a hearing
this morning on amendment 30 to the so-called food-production bill,
which relates to the interstate shipment of concentrated feeds and is

-designed to prohibit the alleged adulteration of such feeds.

There have been a number of requests to be heard in opposition to
the amendment, and we have agreed to hear this morning those who
are opposed to it, letting them state their reasons for their opposi-
tion, and then we will possibly hear some on the other side of the
question. I might say that Judge George W. Ward, of New York,
is here, and I have requested him, as he has made a study of the
matter, to assist us somewhat in the conduct of the proceedings.

Mr. Abbott, whom do you desire to have heard first ?

Mr. Axssotr. Do you wish, Senator, to hear the opponents first,
or the proponents?

The CHarrman. The opponents. The hearing was really called
at their instance, Mr. Abbott; otherwise there would not have been
any hearing.

I think first, Mr. Abbott, I will ask to have printed at this point
a copy of the amendment, so it will appear in the record of the
hearing just preceding your statement.

(The amendment is here printed in full, as follows :)

Sec. 26. That it shall be unlawful, except as herein otherwise provided, for
any person, firm, or corporation knowingly to ship, offer for shipment, or trans-

port in commerce among the several States or for commerce with foreign
countries any concentrated commercial feeding stuffs containing any damaged

3

4 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

feed, mill, elevator, or other sweepings or dust, buckwheat hulls, cottonseed
hulls, peanut hulls, peanut shells, rice hulls, oat hulls, cornecobs (g ground),
cocoa shells, clipped oat by-product, ground or unground hulls, screenings,
chaff, or other cleanings derived from the preparation, cleaning, or milling of
any seed or grain when separated from the standard product as an offal or
by-product, or such preparation, cleaning, or milling, humus, peat, spagnum
moss, ivory-nut turnings, ground cornstalks, flax-plant refuse, sorghum pulp,
ground or shredded straw or hay, sawdust, cellulose, or dirt, or any other for-
eign material.

The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to issue a written permit for the
shipment of concentrated commercial feeding stuffs @ontaining a mixture of
foreign material which, in his judgment, is inseparable from such prepared
feeds or which does not detract materially from its feeding value: Provided,
That such feeding stuffs in packages or bales be so labeled as to show to pur-
chasers and users thereof specifically the percentage of each ingredient enter-
ing into the composition of same; or if such feed stuffs are shipped in bulk in
carload lots, then the bill of lading and the bill from manufacturer to pur-
chaser of same shall both show such analysis. The agency distributing to
users of such feeds in less-than-carload lots shall deliver to the purchaser of
each lot, regardless of quantity sold, a bill showing cost and a correct analysis
of such feeding stuffs.

Any person or corporation who shall be convicted for violating the provisions
of this section shall be liable to pay a fine of not less than $500 and not more
than $5,000; or, in case of a natural person, to be imprisoned for a period
pot exceeding one year, in the discretion of the court, or by both such fine and
imprisonment.

The Secretary of Agriculture, with the approval of the Director General of
Transportation, is authorized to prescribe suitable rules and regulations for
carrying into effect the provisions of this section.

STATEMENT OF MR. HAROLD A. ABBOTT, PRESIDENT AMERICAN
FEED MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, MANAGER OF FEED DE-
PARTMENT OF THE ALBERT DICKINSON C0O., CHICAGO, ILL.

The Cuairman. Mr. Abbott, be kind enough to state your name,
your post-office address, your present business, and your connection
with any organization that is interested in this proposition.

Mr. Agporr. Harold A. Abbctt, manager of the feed department
of the Albert Dickinson Co., Chicago.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as we feed manu-
facturers understand the spirit and intent of the Gore amendment,
so called, it is in effect an attempt to prevent the interstate shipment
of fraudulent feeds and does not purport to interfere with the inter-
state shipment of feeding stuff of real intrinsic value.

The Cuarrman. That is the idea.

Mr. Assorr. This viewpoint we think, in general, was made rea-
sonably clear on the floor of the Senate by Senator Gore, and with
this viewpoint we feed manufacturers at the very outset wish to go
on record as being heartily in accord.

May we say in passing that there are now feeding-stuffs laws in
49, of the several States, rather comprehensively covering the subject
of feed regulation, and that we not only comply with these laws
willingly but also eladly, inasmuch as they in general accomplish the
very purpose w hich the Senator had in his mind in the introduction
of his amendment, namely, the elimination of fraudulent feeds. As
a matter of fact, the feed manufacturers cooperated with the asso-
ciation of feed-control officials of the United States in securing the
enactment of many of these State laws.

But we respectfully point out that the language employed in the
second paragraph of section 26 appeals to us as really frustrating

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 5

the purpose of the amendment, whereas in reality, of course, it was
intended to be the savior of the desirable feeds. We say this, of
course, with all due deference and will proceed to discuss the second
paragraph of section 26 as we have come to understand it.

In the first place, section 26 makes it unlawful, “except as therein
otherwise provided,” to ship in commerce among the several States
any concentrated commercial feeding stuffs containing any one of a
number of different ingredients therein mentioned specifically or any
other foreign material.

Now, the list of the named prohibited ingredients in section 26 is
so long and so comprehensive that. as a matter of fact, almost every
mixed feed made and shipped would be found to contain one or more
of these prchibited ingredients in its admixture. This fact was so
obvious that in the carrying out of the purpose of the bill to prevent
an alleged evil the Senator who introduced the same natura!ly and
necessarily added the second paragraph of section 26 to cover the
point of permission to ship in interstate commerce the desirable
mixed feeds. ;

The second paragraph of section 26 authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture “ to issue a written permit for the shipment of concen-
trated commercial feeding stuffs containing a mixture of foreign
materials which in his judgment is inseparable from such prepared
feeds or which does not detract materially from its feeding value:
Provided, That such feeding stuffs in packages or bales be so labeled
as to show the purchasers and users thereof spec'fically the percent-
age of each ingredient entering into the composition of the same; or
if such feedstuffs are shipped in bulk in carload lots, then the bill
of lading and the bill from manufacturer to purchaser of same shall
both show such analysis. The agency distributing to users of such
feeds in less than carload lots shall deliver to the purchaser of each
lot, regardless of quantity sold, a bill showing cost and a correct
analysis of such -feeding stuffs.”

May we take up this paragraph in detail ?

The Cuarrman. I would like to interject right there that I think
that clause ought to be changed. It requires the percentage to be
stated, and it probably would not always be possible to state the exact
percentage in a mixed feed of this character, so there ought to be a
latitude, allowing a maximum, or a minimum and maximum within
which the statement should be true. I realize that is too rigid the
way it is drawn, and there ought to be some flexibility provided.

Mr. Axvzorr. It is primary, of course, that a mixed feed is a prod-
uct. made up of two or more separate and distinec ingredients, usually
a number.

Now, then, the Secretary of Agriculture may issue a permit to ship
in interstate commerce any mixed feed which contains, among other
things, any one of the ingredients prohibited by the first paragraph
of section 26; provided, first, that in his judgment such prohibited
material is inseparable from such prepared feed. But “ inseparable ”
when? And how? Prior to the mixing of the feed, it is respect-
fully pointed out, every ingredient which is intended to be used there-
in is separable, of course, because it does not have to be mixed.

The Cuarrman. Mr. Abbott, will you let me explain? . I have an
idea that there would. be some dust and perhaps some grit in these
fed stuffs that could not possibly be separated, and I think where a

6 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

man willfully puts dust or dirt in his feed it ought to be prohibited,
but the way the manufacture and shipment of feed is carried on
there will be more or less dust in it. Of course, it ought not to be
interdicted because of that. That is what I had in mind.

Mr. Axeorr. I understand, Senator.

After mixing, it is a well-known practical fact and a well-known
scientific fact that no one of the ingredients is separable. Therefore,
if the Secretary of Agriculture views the matter of separability or
inseparability from the view point of “ before mixing” he will not be
entitled to issue a single permit, and if he views the question of
separability or inseparability from the standpoint of the finished
product he may be obliged to issue a permit in every instance. This
would seem to be, in this particular, at least, a defeating of the very
purpose of the bill. Second, the Secretary of Aoriculture may issue
a permit for the interstate shipment of any m} ixed feed containing
one or more of the prohibited ingredients, when in his judgment the
presence of the prohibited ingredient or ingredients does not “ de-
tract materially from its feeding value.”

Now, the feeding value of a mixed feed is its feeding value as a
completed product and, of course, that resultant is determined en-
tirely by the very admixture itself; so that we urge this feature upon
your careful consideration, for if the Secretary views the feeding

value of a given mixed feed as a completed whole, as it would seem
necessary for him so to do, then rather of necessity he will be obliged
to find that no ingredient therein detracts from its feeding value,
and if he does not take this view, we do not know what view he
can possibly take.

The Cuatrrman. Now, Mr. Abbott. I have here a reference to an
analysis made by Dr. Kellogg, of the Pennsylvania Experiment Sta-
tion. It is an actual instance, as I understand it. The farmer or-
dered a carload of feed, containing 20 tons, and it turned out there
were 3 tons of water in the carload. He paid $60 for that water.
That is one of the evils that this amendment is directed against. I
do not think the water would have any feeding value; certainly it
would not be worth $180 for the 3 tons.

Mr. Axzporr. I quite agree with you there.

The Cuarrman. You see what I am getting at. We want all the
help we can get to get at the evil and do not want to do anybody any
harm that is in a legitimate business. I should be glad to have your
assistance along that line, because we want to protect legitimate and
honest business.

Mr. Azvorr. So that there again the licensing power will find itself
in the position of denying license to all or granting license to all,
which, again, we respectfully submit is contrary to the whole purpose
of the Gore amendment, as we understand the Senator himself to have
explained it—that is, that worthless feeds are to go under the ban.

Thirdly, in the event that the Secretary of Apriculture sees his
way clear to grant a license to any mixed feed which contains a mix-
ture of foreign material—that is to say, some one or more of the pro-
hibited articles enumerated in the first paragraph of section 26—the
receiver of that permission is obliged to see to it “that such feeding
stuffs in packages or bales be so labeled as to show to purchasers and
users thereof specifically the percentage of each ingredient entering

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. : 7

into the composition of same, or if such stuffs are shipped in bulk in
carload lots, then the bill of lading and the bill from the manufac-
turer to the purchaser of same shall both show such analysis. The
agency distributing to users of such feeds in less than carload lots
shall deliver to the purchaser of each lot regardless of quantity sold
a bill showing cost and a correct analysis of such feeding stuffs.”

This proviso we feed manufacturers feel can not be complied with
as a practical matter in the first place, and, in the second place, that
if it were necessary to attempt to comply with it, it would open the
doors to possible dishonesty that might lead to greater evil than any
which may now appear to be existent in the industry.

It would compel the manufacturer to conform to two incompatible
standards; one a chemical-composition guaranty required of him by
the State laws; the other a percentage-ingredient guaranty required
by this Federal law. Under present manufacturing conditions he
can not comply with both of these requirements. The raw materials
from which he makes his feeds vary materially in chemical composi-
tion. If, for example, the manufacturer is producing a feed guaran-
teed to contain a specified percentage of protein and is obtaining the
protein from cottonseed meal, linseed meal, gluten feed, alfalfa, corn,
and oats, he will find that his cottonseed meal varies from 382 to 38
per cent in protein, that his linseed meal varies from 31 to 386 per
cent, the gluten feed from 20 to 27 per cent, and even the corn, oats,
and alfalfa will show material variations in protein content from
day to day and from shipment to shipment. In order to maintain his
protein at approximately the guaranteed percentage, he must have all
these ingredients analyzed by a chemist and must vary their per cent
in his mixture in accordance with the chemist’s report. If he were
required to guarantee the percentage of ingredients and maintain
that guaranty continuously, the chemical composition of his feed
would necessarily fluctuate with the fluctuations in the composition
in ingredients, and the chemical-composition guaranty would become
absolutely inoperative—a veritable dead letter.

The second objection to this provision is that it is absolutely non-
enforceable. Neither chemists nor microscopists, nor the two working
conjointly, can determine with any degree of accuracy the percentage
of ingredients in a mixed feed of ordinary composition; and when
I say that I mean that they can not determine it closely enough to
give such a law any force whatever. This provision will depend for
its value entirely on the honesty and good will of the manufacturer
and will, consequently, operate to place a premium on dishonesty
and a penalty on honesty.

We trust that-we have pointed out the objections to the second
paragraph of section 26 in a clear and succinct manner,.and if we
have done so we think that it will appear rather conclusively that if
the Gore amendment were to be passed as it now reads it would have
the highly undesirable effect, especially in these times of stress, of
preventing the interstate shipment of virtually all mixed feeds as
they are now manufactured, and have been for a long time past.
Yor again may we call your attention to the fact that practically
everyone of them contains one or more of the ingredients prohibited
in the first paragraph of section 26.

8 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

For the above reasons, therefore, we seriously object to the Gore
amendment, although we again reiterate that we have no contention
whatsoever with those who desire that fraudulent feeds be prohibited
from interstate shipment or even intrastate sale. |

We feed manufacturers are not opposed to Federal legislation for
the control and regulation of our industry; but we feel from our
knowledge of our own industry and from our experience with the
practical operation of the laws of the several States, that such legis-
lation should be comprehensive. We are happy to say that we stand
ready and willing to give all the aid possible in the preparation of a
Federal feeding-stuffs law whenever that aid may be desired by any
Member or committee of the Congress of the: United States. |

The Cuairman. In order to set this matter clearly before the com-
mittee and to get it in the record, I want to ask Mr. Abbott a few
questions. I would like to say, first, that the enumeration of articles
contained in this amendment is not just and ad captandum enumera-
tion; it is based upon analyses of actual feedstuffs which were being
sold to farmers, and these materials were found in the feedstuffs.
This amendment was taken from a report based on these experiment
station analyses. :

As I understand, Mr. Abbott, you do not contend, of course, that
stuff like sawdust and other dust and dirt, ground cornecobs, cocoa
shells, and ivory-nut turnings, whatever they are, ought to be mixed
with these concentrated feeds and sold to the farmers?

Mr. Axsrorr. We quite agree with you, Senator, that such things
as sawdust and dirt are very undesirable.

The CHarrman. I am glad to hear you say that, and I knew you
would. But your objections go to this entire amendment; you are
opposed to the prohibition of interstate shipment of fraudulent feeds.
You allege that this amendment is unworkable and impracticable,
although in large measure you seem to favor the end sought.

I will ask you at this point to prepare amendments to this pro-
posed amendment that will cut out the fraud and will not interfere ~
with legitimate business. You say this amendment is not workable,
and yet that the end is desirable. I have no pride in this matter at
all, and shall be glad to have any suggestions from you or your or-
ganization, or from any other quarter, that will meet this s.tuation
and avoid the evils that you suggest.

You are president of what association ?

Mr. Azzorr. The American Feed Manufacturers’ Association.

The Cuarrman. How old an organization is that?

Mr. Assorr. Ten years old.

The Cuarirman. How many members has it?

Mr. Assorr. Approximately 175.

The Cuarrman. Did you send out a number of telegrams, Mr.
Abbott, to have telegrams sent in concerning this amendment ?

Mr. Asgorr. We requested our membership to get in touch with
the proper parties, so that we might be heard before the conference
committee before the matter proceeded any further. Unfortunately,
we had not had the opportunity of appearing previously.

The CuarrmMan. Will you be kind enough to attach to your state- |
ment a sample copy of your telegram to these organizations ?

Mr. Axsszorr. I will, sir. I have not the telegram with me, but the
secretary of our organization undoubtedly can furnish it to you.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 9

(The telegram referred to was subsequently furnished and is here
printed in full, as follows:)

Gore amendment to House bill 11949 makes it unlawful to ship or transport
in interstate commerce any concentrated commercial feeding stuffs containing
mill, elevator, or other sweepings or dust, buckwheat, ccttonseed, oats, or other
hulls, clippings, screenings, chaff, or offal from any seed or grain when sepa-
rated from standard product or from cleaning or milling, peat, flax, straw, hay,
etc., passed Senate committee yesterday, likely pass Senate to-day, and House
Saturday morning. This infamous measure will practically prohibit the ship-
ment ‘of every commercial mixed feed. Wire your Senators and Congressmen
immediately to stop this bill.

The Cuarrman. Who is the secretary of your organization, Mr.
Abbott?

Mr. Aszort. Mr. L. F. Brown, with headquarters at Milwaukee.

The Cuarrman. How long has he been with vou?

Mr. Axsorr. About five years, I think, if my Sunaeui| serves ime.

The Cuamrman. Have his services been satisfactory

Mr. Axsport. Very.

The Cuarrman. What was his official position before he became
secretary of this Feed Manufacturers Association ?

Mr. Aggorr. I can not attempt at this time to give you his exact
status. My understanding was that he was working with the De-
partment of Agriculture in the State of New York.

The Cuarman. And had to do with the law prohibiting adulter-
ated foods?

Mr. Assotr. Personally I am not in a position to enlighten you
as to his definite duties at that time.

Representative Lever. You mean the State Department of Agri-
culture of New York?

Mr. Asgorr. The State Department of Agriculture of New York.

The CHarrman. You are not aware then that Mr. Brown, prior
to his connection with vour organization, was connected with the
New York Department of Agriculture and had charge of the speci-
mens that were to be analyzed for the detection of fraudulent
- mixtures?

Mr. Azsorr. Speaking from a definite standpoint, I can not say
that I do know exactly. I have, of course, come in contact with
him.. I have had occasion to come in contact with him in the de-
partment of agriculture at Albany, but, as I stated a minute ago,
just what anthority he had in that depart ment I am not prepared
to say.

The Cuatrman. If I do not find it soon I will put in the record
later at this place the official status of Mr. Brown in the New York
Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Axpsorr. Speaking further on your suggestion of amending
your present proposed regulations, we as feed manufacturers would
like at this time to recommend to your committee a proposed uni-
form feed law which in 1913 was indorsed by the Department of
Agriculture of the United States, by the feed-control officials of
the various States, by delegates from the Millers’ National Federa-
tion, the Interstate Cottonseed Crushers’ Association, and the Amer-
ican Feed Manufacturers’ Association.

Abe CuarrMaAn. Will you attach a copy of that bill to your dee
ment ¢

10 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Mr. Axzsortt. I will, sir.
(The bill referred to was subsequently furnished, and is here
printed in full, as follows:)

PROPOSED FEDERAL FEED LAW.

The proposed new Federal feedstuffs act is the work of five delegates ap-
pointed from four associations interested in this subject and which are as
follows: Association of Feed Control Officials of the United States, Millers’
National Federation, Interstate Cottonseed Crushers’ Association, and the
American Feed Manufacturers’ Association. This proposed new bill was given
the unanimous indorsement of the five men attending the conference at Chi-
cago on May 22. These men were Dr. C. D. Woods, director of the agricul-
tural experiment station, State of Maine, and who is also chairman of the
executive committee of the Association of Feed Control Officials of the United
States; J. D. Turner, head of the feed division, agriculture experiment sta-
tion, State of Kentucky, and president of the Association of Feed Control
Officals of the United States; W. G. Crocker, Washburn-Crosby Co., Minne-
apolis, Minn., chairman of the legislative and uniform feed law committee
of the Millers’ National Federation; Julien E. Brode, Memphis, Tenn., repre-
senting the Interstate Cottonseed Crushers’ Association; G. A. Chapman,
Quaker Oats Co., Chicago. Ill., president of the American Feed Manufacturers’
Association. The proposed new law was unanimously indorsed by the Amer-
ican Feed Manufacturers’ Association at its meeting in Chicago, May 23 and
24, and as the members of the executive committee of the Association of Feed
Control Officials of the United States, the appointed delegates from the Millers’
National Federation, and Mr. Brode, representing the Interstate Cottonseed
Crushers’ Association, gave unanimous indorsement to the bill there is little
doubt but what it will have the most careful attention of the Interstate Com-
merce Committee of the United States Senate.

AN ACT For preventing the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated or mis-
' branded or poisonous or deleterious commercial feeding stuffs, and for regulating traffic
therein, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled:

Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture within any

*Territory or the District of Columbia any commercial feeding stuffs which is
adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act; and any person
who shall violate any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $500
for the first offense, and upon conviction for each subsequent offense be fined
not to exceed $1,000, or sentenced to imprisonment for not to exceed one year,
or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

Sec. 2. That the introduction into any State or Territory or the District of
Columbia from any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia, or
from any foreign country, or shipment to any foreign country. of any com-
mercial feeding stulfs which is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning
of this act is hereby prohibited: and any person who shall ship or deliver for
shipment from any State or Territory or the District of Columbia to any
other State or Territory or the District of Columbia, or to any foreign country,
or who shall receive in any State or Territory or the Distict of Columbia
from any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia, or foreign coun-
try, and having so received shall deliver, in original unbroken packages, for
pay or otherwise, or offer to deliver, to any other person, any such article
so adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act, or any person
who shall sell or offer for sale in the District of Columbia or any Territory of
the United States any such adulterated or misbranded commercial feeding
stuffs, or export or offer to export the same to any foreign country, shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor, and for such offense be fined not exceeding $200 for
the first offense, and, upon conviction for each subsequent offense not exceeding
$300, or be imprisoned not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of
the court: Provided, That no article shall be deemed misbranded or adulterated
within the provisions of this act when intended for export to any foreign coun-
try and prepared or packed according to the specifications or directions of the

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. LY

foreign purchaser, when no substance is used in the preparation or packing
thereof in conflict with the laws of the foreign country to which said article
is intended to be shipped; but if said articles shall be in fact sold or offered
for sale for domestic use or consumption, then this proviso shall not exempt
said article from the operation of any of the other provisins of this act.

sec. 3. That the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Agriculture, and
the Secretary of Commerce and Labor shall make uniform rules and regulations
for carrying out the provisions of this act, including the coliection and exami-
nation of specimens of commercial feeding stuffs manufactured or offered for
sale in the District of Columbia or in any Territory of the United States, or
which shall be offered for sale in unbroken packages in any State other than
that in which they shall have been respectively manufactured or produced, or
which shall be received from any foreign country or intended for shipment
to any foreign country, or which may be submitted for examination by the
chief feed control official of any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia,
or by the director of the experiment station of any State, Territory, or the
District of Columbia, or at any domestic or foreign port through which such
product is offered for interstate commerce, or for export or. import between
the United States and any foreign port or country.

Sec. 4. That the examination of specimens of commercial feeding stuffs shall
be made in the Bureau of Chemistry of the Department cf Agriculture, or
under the direction and supervision of such bureau, for the purpose of deter-
mining from such examination whether such articles are adulterated or mis-
branded within the meaning of this act; and if it shall appear from any such
examination that any of such specimens are adulterated or misbranded within
the meaning of this act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall cause notice thereof
to be given to the party from whom such sample was obtained. Any party so
notified shall be given an opportunity to be heard, under such rules and regula-
tions as may be prescribed as aforesaid, and if it appears that any of the
provisions of this act have been violated by such party, then the Secretary of
Agriculture shall at once certify the facts to the proper United States district
attorney, with a copy of the resuls of the analysis or the examination of such
article, duly authenticated by the analyst or officer making such examination,
under the oath of such officer. After judgment of the court, notice shall be
given by publication in such manner as may be prescribed by the rules and
regulations aforesaid.

Sec. 5. That it shall be the duty of each district attorney to whom the Secre-
tary of Agriculture shall report any violation of this act, or to whom any
director of experiment station or chief feed-control official of any State, Terri-
tory, or the District of Columbia shall present satisfactory evidences of any
such violation, to cause appropriate proceedings to be commenced and prose-
cuted in the proper courts of the United States, without delay, for the enforce-
ment of the penalties as in such cases herein provided.

Sec. 6. That the term “ commercial feeding stuffs” os used in this act shall
include all feeding stuffs used for feeding live stock and poultry.

Src. 7. That for the purposes of this act a commercial feeding stuffs shall be
deemed to be adulterated:

First. If its strength, composition, or purity falls below the professed stand-
ard or quality under which it is sold.

Second. If any substance has been mixed and packed with it so as to reduce
or lower or injuriously affect its quality or strength.

Third. If any substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article.

Fourth. If it be mixed, colored, powdered, coated, or stained in a manner
whereby damage or inferiority is concealed.

Fifth. If it contains any substance or substances which may be rs ernest to
the health of live stock or poultry.

Sixth. If it consists in whole or in part of a filthy, decomposed, mouldy, or
putrid animal or vegetable substance.

Sec. 8. That for the purposes of this act a commercial feeding stuff shall he
deemed to be misbranded:

First. If it be an imitation of or offered for sale under the name of another
article.

Second. If it be labeled or branded so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser.

Third. If the package containing it or its label or any advertising matter
accompanying the package or any advertising matter intended to be used in
connection with the sale of the article shall bear any statement, design, or de-
vice regarding the article or the ingredients or substances contained therein, or

te ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

regarding the physiological or therapeutic action of such article or ingredients
or substances contained therein, which statement, design, or device shall be false
or misleading in any particular.

Fourth. If every lot or package of commercial feeding stuffs does not have
affixed in a conspicuous place on the outside thereof a plainly printed statement
in the English language clearly and truly giving the number of net pounds in
the package; the name, brand, or trade-mark under which the article is sold;
the name and principal address of the manufacturer or person responsible for
placing the feeding stuffs on the market; a chemical analysis stating the maxi-
mum percentage of crude fiber, the minimum percentage of crude fat, and the
minimum percentage of crude protein (allowing one per cent of nitrogen to
equal six and one-fourth per cent, of protein) which it contains, all three con-
stituents to be determined by the methods adopted at the time by the associa-
tion of official agricultural chemists of North America; if the feeding stuffs is a
compound feed, the name of each ingredient contained therein; and if artifi-
cially colored, the’name of the material used for that purpose: Provided, how-
ever, that the: provisions of the foregoing paragraph of the law designated
section eight, fourth paragraph, do not apply to the whole seeds or grains sold
as such and the unmixed meals made directly from the entire grains of corn,
wheat, rye, barley, oats, buckwheat, flaxseed, kafir and milo, whole hay, whole
straws, cottonseed hulls, and corn stover when unmixed with other materials.

Sec. 9. That no dealer shall be prosecuted under the provisions of this act
when he can establish a guaranty signed by the wholesaler, jobber, manufae-
turer, or other party residing in the United States, from whom he purchased
such article, to the effect that the same is not adulterated or misbranded within
the meaning of this act, designating it. Said guaranty, to afford protection,
shall contain the name and address of the party or parties making the sale of
such articles to such dealer, and in such case said party-or parties shall be
amenable to the prosecutions, fines, and other penalties which would attach in
due course to the dealer under the provisions of this act.

Sec. 10. That any commercial feeding stuffs that is adulterated or misbranded
within the meaning of this act and is being transported from one State, Terri-
tory, district, or insular possession to another for sale, or, haying been trans-
ported, remains unloaded, unsold, or in original unbroken packages, or if it be
sold or offered for sale in the District of Columbia or any Territory of the
United States, or any insular possession of the United States, or if it be
imported from a foreign country for sale, or if it is intended for export to a
foreign country, shall be liable to be proceeded against in any district court
of the United States within the district wherein the same is found and seized
for confiscation by a process of libel for condemnation. And if such article is
condemned as heing adulterated or misbranded, within the meaning of this act,
the same shall be disposed of by destruction or sale as the said court may direct.
and the proceeds thereof, if sold, less the legal costs and charges, shall be paid
into the Treasury of the United States, but such goods shall not be sold in any
jurisdiction contrary to the provisions of this act or the laws of that jurisdie-
tion :Provided, however, That upon the payment of the costs of such libel pro-
ceedings and the execution and delivery of a good and sufficient bond to the
effect that such articles shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of contrary to
the provisions of this act or the laws of any State, Territory, or district the
court may by order direct that such articles be delivered to the owner thereof.
The proceedings of such libel cases shall conform, as near as may be, to the
proceedings in admiralty, except their either party may demand trial by jury
of any issue of fact joined in any such case, and all such proceedings shall be
at the suit of and in the name of the United States.

Sec. 11. That the Secretary of the Treasury shall deliver to the Secretary of
Agriculture, upon his request, from time to time, samples of commercial feeding
stuffs which are being imported into the United States or offered for import,
giving notice thereof to the owner or consignee, who may appear before the
Secretary of Agriculture and have the right to introduce testimony; and if it
appear from the examination of such samples that any commercial feeding
stuffs offered to be imported into the United States is adultered or misbranded
within the meaning of this act, or is otherwise dangerous to the health of the
live stock or poultry of the United States, or is of a kind forbidden entry into
or forbidden to be sold or restricted in sale in the country in which it is made
or from which it. is exported, or is otherwise falsely labeled in any respect, the
said article shall be refused admission, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall
refuse delivery to the ‘consignee and shall cause the destruction of any

ADULTERATION. OF MIXED FEEDS. ih!

goods refused delivery which shall not be exported by the consignee within
three months from the date of notice of such refusal under such regu-
lations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe: Provided, That
the Secretary of the Treasury may deliver to the consignee such goods
pending examination and decision in the matter on execution of a penal bond
for the amount of the full invoice value of such goods, together with the duty
thereon, and on refusal to return such goods for any cause, to the custody of
the Secretary of the Treasury, when demanded, for the purpose of excluding
them from the country, or for any other purposes, said consignée shall forfeit
the full amount of the bond: And provided further, That all charges for storage,
cartage, and labor on goods which are refused admission or delivery shall be
paid by the owner or consignee, and in default of such payment shall constitute
a lien against any future importation made by such owner or consignee.

Sec. 12. That the term “Territory,” as used in this act shall include the
District of Alaska and the insular possessions of the United States. The word
“person” as used in this act, shall be construed to import both the plural and
the singular, as the case demands, and shall inelude corporations, companies,
societies, and associations. When construing and enforcing the provisions of
this act, the act, omissicn, or failure of any officer, agent, or other person act-
ing for or employed by any corporation, company, society, or association, within
the scope of this employment or office, shall in every case be also deemed to
be the act, omission, or failure of such corporation, company, society, or associa-
tion, as well as that of the other person.

Sec. 18. That this act shall be in force and effect from and after the
day of

The Cuatrman. Do you happen to remember what officials of the
Department of Agriculture had to do with the preparation of this
bill or its indorsement ?

Mr. Axsgort. I can not tell you. I was not as intimately associ-
ated with our association at that time as I am to-day.

Senator Smiru of South Carolina. Mr. Abbott, what Federal regu-
lation is there now in reference to protecting the public against the
adulteration of feed stuffs, such as 1s contemplated in this amend-
ment ?

Mr. Assorr. The present Federal pure-food law of 1906, I under-
stand, very amply covers that point of adulteration, of misbranding,
of allowing any putrid foodstuffs or matter of that kind to enter
into feeds in interstate commerce.

Senator SmirH of South Carolina. Is there any provision in the
existing law that would protect the consumer or the purchaser from
the adulteration contemplated in this proposed amendment? In
other words, could a manufacturer of concentrated feed adulterate it
with foreign matters enumerated in the Gore amendment and not be
liable under the law ?

Mr. Axssorr. Understand, Senator, some of the foreign matter
that you speak of in the Gore amendment we can not acknowledge
to be foreign matter, or at least undesirable feed stuffs. In fact, it
would rather appear to us from the Senator’s own statement that it
was not his intention that they should all be barred.

Senator Smiru of South Carolina. Well, as far as concerns any-
thing in this enumeration that should be barred, is there any law
that would penalize one for the use of them?

Mr. Axsevortr. If a representative of the Bureau of Chemistry were
present, he no doubt could give you quite a comprehensive answer to
your question. I think that the law does cover the question of will-
ful adulteration with such things as are harmful or deleterious.
That is specifically mentioned in the pure-food law, as it refers to -
food both for human beings as well as for animals.

14 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Senator Smits of South Carolina. I am not familiar with the
law, and I am trying to get at whether or not there is any law that
would protect the purchaser of concentrated foods from harmful
adulteration, which is sought to be done by the Gore amendment.

Mr. Axssorr. In addition to the restrictions of the Federal pure-
food act, as stated in our brief, there are 42 States that have some
regulations covering thé matter.

Representative Lever. Answering Senator Smith’s question, let us
see if this, in Mr. Abbott’s judgment, covers the matter he has in
mind. Section 6 of the pure food and drugs act defines drugs, and
then defines food in this language [reading]:

The term food as used herein shall include all articles used for food, drink,
confectionery, or condiment by men or other animals, whether simple, mixed,
or compound.

Mr. Avsorr. It does cover all deleterious substances.

Representative Lever. Does it cover the proposition of sawdust,
for instance? Is that deleterious?

Mr. Azzorr. In my judgment, I should consider that it is, when
mixed:

Senator Smiru of Georgia. There is not any doubt about it. Cer-
tainly sawdust is not a good food for animals.

Mr. Azsotr. Unless you can obtain testimony which will prove my
statements wrong. In my judgment it is not a good food. Of
course, animals are known to nibble trees and their stalls and things
of that kind, but I am not in favor of sawdust.

' Senator Smiru of Georgia. But it does not help them to nibble on
their stalls, does it?

Mr. Assorr. Understand, Senator, I am not trying to uphold any
such item as that.

Senator Smiru of Georgia. I have not any patience with any
doubt about its being objectionable. ~

Representative Lever. I think there is some doubt about it. Water
is not deleterious to animals, is it?

Mr. Axszotr. No, sir.

Representative Lever. Senator Gore brings to the attention of the
committee here a proposition—what was that statement ?

The Cuarrman. A farmer bought a carload of 20 tons of mixed
feeds, and the analysis made by Dr. Kellogg, of the Pennsylvania
Experiment Station, developed that there were 3 tons of water in
those 20 tons of alleged feeds. Now, I do not think that water is
either harmful or deleterious.

Representative Lever. Mr. Abbott, is there anything in the Fed-
eral law anywhere that could cover a case of that kind?

Mr. Assorr. In the first place, Congressman Lever, all feedstuffs
of a desirable character and in a condition to be properly trans-
ported and used as articles of feed must necessarily have a certain
moisture content.

Representative Lever. Undoubtedly.

Mr. Azssotr. That moisture content runs from 11 to 15 or 16 per
cent in what you would ordinarily term a dry and desirable feed- |
stuff. In the matter of corn, unfortunately, this last year the Lord
did not see to it that our corn crop was cured as well as it might
have been, and there was transported in interstate commerce many
millions of bushels of corn which contained vast amounts of water.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. — 15

That was discounted, however, and the price of corn undoubtedly
was fixed to comply with that condition.

Representative Lever. Mr. Haugen, there is a Federal statute
which fixes the moisture content of butter, is there not?

Representative Haucrn. Yes, sir.

Representative Lever. But there is no Federal law which would
fix the moisture content of mixed feeds? Is there any that you
know of?

Mr. Azssott. No, sir.

Representative Lever. What have you to say as to your State laws
on that proposition, our State laws which fix the maximum moisture
content of mixed feeds?

Mr. Asszorr. The requirements of the acts I do not know, but
there can not safely be more than a certain moisture content in any
feedstuff without its deteriorating and getting out of condition in
very short order. ;

Representative Lever. Is there 2 commercial standard fixing the
moisture content ?

Mr. Axsporr. Through the judgment that all mixed-feed manufac-
turers have formed as a result of their experience.

Representative Lever. Take the illustration that Senator Gore
gave ve here. Would that be possible as a general custom in the
trade?

Mr. Asgorr. I think not. Furthermore, if this carload of feed
that the Senator speaks of contained 40,000 pounds of feed stuffs
and had 10 per cent of natural moisture content, that would be
4,000 pounds. If it had 15 per cent natural moisture content, which
would be desirable in the feed business, that would be 6,000 pounds,

or three tons of water. Fifteen per cent moisture content is not out
of the way, although many mixed feeds run materially under that.
Our wheat crop invariably will average early in the season as much
as 15 per cent moisture content.

Representative Lever. Do you happen to know what the Govern-
ment standard for corn allows in the way of moisture content ?

Mr. Azsorr. I have a copy of the Government regulation with ref-
erence to shelled corn. It provides that a bushel of No. 2 corn must
not contain more than 154 per cent of moisture. No. 1 and No. 2
corn are recognized by the trade and are so graded as the highest
type of corn obtainable. Other grades of corn, such as No. 38,
must not contain more than 174 per cent of moisture. Bear in
mind, of course, that other features of the inspection regulations
provide it shall not contain over a certain given percentage of
cracked material or damaged grains.

Representative Lever. What is the moisture content for wheat in
the Government standards? Do you happen to recall?

Mr. Avsort. The moisture content of wheat varies according to its
class. For hard red spring and durum wheat, grading No. 1, it
is not over 14 per cent moisture; grading No. 2, not over 14.5; grad-
ing No. 3, not over 15; grading No. 4, not over 16; grading No. 5,
not over 16.5. per cent of moisture. ;

Representative Lever. What about northern No. 1?

Mr. Assorr. Northern No. 1 would be included in the hard spring
variety. ‘

16 ~ ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Mr. Warp. May I ask, at what time is that percentage of moisture
allowed? Is it in the grain, or is it allowed in the flour?

Mr. Aszorr. These are the inspection regulations of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture as they refer to the grading of grain in the
terminal markets.

Representative Lrver. What is the ordinary moisture content of
cottonseed meal ?

Mr. Asporr. I will have that looked up, and while that is being
done I want to add, for the information of the committee, that in
speaking of the moisture content of wheat and corn, I refer to what
is known as the natural moisture content. There has been no moisture
added; that is not permissable. It is merely as it is found in its
original state.

Representative Haugen. May I ask the Chairman a question? Is
it the contention that the three tons of moisture was added, or did
that represent the ordinary moisture content ?

The CuarrMan. I could not say as to that.

Senator Smiru of Georgia. What was the character of the ma-
terial ?

The CuarrMan. It just said “ mixed feed,” Senator.

Senator Smiru of Georgia. What percentage of water was there
in it in the case you refer to?

Mr. Warp. I have that statement here, and I will give it to you.
Of the 600 or more samples received and analyzed, 50 were molasses
feeds, which were found to contain water in quantities of 18 per cent
or more, to as high as 20.24 per cent. An average of the samples gave
15.16 per cent of water. In one carload, or 20 tons of this class of
feeds, the water shipped to consumers amounted to about 3 tons, and
3 tons of water at the rate of $20 to $25 per ton is an item of expense
which should be seriously considered in these times of high-priced »
feeds.

If I may be permitted the suggestion, the important inquiry 15,
What would the percentage of water be in corn meals or wheat brans
shipped as these were; not the percentage of water in green grains
before they were milled ?

Senator Smiru of Georgia. To determine whether the water was
intentionally added?

Mr. Warp. Yes.

Representative Lever. What is the moisture content of corn meal?

Mr. Axsorr. The moisture content of Southern natural ground
corn meal, made directly from the whole kernel of corn, would be, of
course, the moisture content of the corn from which it was made, and
that would vary according to the grade of corn used. As indicated
by the regulations, it might be 15.5 per cent, or possibly a trifle more,
although I do not believe, as a matter of commercial practice, that
even natural ground corn meal is shipped in interstate commerce
when it contains more than 15.5 per cent of moisture, because it is
not a safe proposition; it gets out of condition. I understand, fur-
thermore, that there is a Government regulation, through the Food
Administration, which prohibits the movement in interstate com-
merce of corn meal of more than 14.5 per cent moisture content.

Representative Lever. Do you happen to know the moisture con-
tent of flour?

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. LT

Mr. Agsort. I can not speak as to flour, unless some one enlightens
me.

Going back to cottonseed meal, to answer your first question, re-
ports indicate that cottonseed meal contains from 7.5 to 11 per cent
of moisture. JI wish further to state that the standard mixed feeds
offered and sold in the markets to-day, of what is known as a dry
character, will average from 10 to 12 per cent of moisture. Of course,
where those feeds are blended with molasses, which naturally in itself
must contain a larger percentage of moisture, the feed will be some-
what increased in moisture content.

All experience has shown that no feed carrying an excess of mois-
ture is safe for transportation in interstate commerce. It means so
great a loss to the manufacturer and shipper that they would not, for
one moment dare, nor does he dare, to place that in interstate ship-
ments.

The CHairman. Then you would like to see that stopped? You
would like to have stopped the interstate shipment of feeds contain-
ing an excessive quantity of water?

Mr. Axszorr. Yes, sir. As far as I know, it is not being done; it
is not a common practice. We do not know of any instances our-
selves. We do not indulge in it and I have not had it brought to
my attention.

The CuHarrman. Mr. Abbott, you state that, according to the au-
thority you have there, No, 1 northern wheat contains 14 per cent of
moisture, according to the Government standard grades?

Mr. Aspott. Yes, sir.

The Cuarrman. So that when the miller buys No. 1 northern
wheat he knows exactly how much water he is buying and how
much water he is paying for, does he not? i

Mr. Azsorr. As a rule they have tests made.

The Cuarrman. I am not speaking of that; I mean he knows how
much he is paying for?

Mr. Axszott. He knows the limit of moisture.

The CuarrmMan. He knows the limit of moisture, because Con-
gress and the Government had thought it of sufficient importance
to protect the millers against excess water or misgrading of wheat.
Now, whenever a miller or farmer buys No. 1 corn he knows how
much water he is getting; he knows the percentage, according to the
standard of the United States prescribed in pursuance of law. Do
you thing that is a wise provision ?

Mr. Asport. I do, sir.

The Cuarrman. Is there any reason why the farmer should not
have the same protection in regard to mixed feeds?

Mr. Axsort. No, sir; provided it is arrived at by a reasonable
limitation which is workable.

Representative Lever. Do buckwheat hulls have any feeding value,
Mr. Abbott ?

Mr. Assott. I would prefer to have that question answered by
some one that is perhaps more familiar with it. I would like to call
on Mr. Chapin, if it is agreeable to you.

Representative Lever. In a general way, what is the reason for
using buckwheat hulls, cottonseed hulls, peanut hulls, nut shells,

81413—18——2

18 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

rice hulls, oat hulls, corn cobs ground, cocoa shells, ete., when mix-
ing feeds? We all know that practice is carried on.

Mr. Axsorr. I would like the privilege of referring all those ques-
tions to Mr. Chapin, if you please.

Representative Lever. That is satisfactory to me.

The Cuarrman. I would like to interject into the record at this
point the statement that I think in all probability. the United States
pure food law does prohibit the interstate shipment of harmful or
deleterious feeds. Whether it would apply to worthless feeds or not
I am not so certain, and this has more particular reference to worth-
less feeds—stuff that is covered up with blackstrap molasses and
palmed off on the farmer.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK B. KELLOGG, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.

Senator Ketioge. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say one word to
the committee, if I may do so. I have received protests from cham-
bers of commerce, country elevators, and terminal elevators in my
State, with the request that I present them to the committee, which
I will do if the committee desires.

The CuartrmMan. We shall be glad to have you file them with the
committee.

Senator Krrioce. I was also requested to make a statement to
this effect. Of course, I am familiar with this personally. You all
know that in my State the farmers do not clean their grain; they
have no facilities for doing it now. In the old days they used to
clean it with the fanning mill. Now it is cleaned in the country or
terminal elevators—very largely in the terminal elevators because
the country elevators have not the machinery. The screenings are »
taken out and sold, of course, for feed. As I understand this bill,
it would prohibit anybody selling concentrated feed containing
screenings without a permit from the Secretary of Agriculture.
Screenings are a very large product in my State, and the revenue
from them pays the farmer a great deal.

The Crramman. Yes; there is a great deal of force in that, Sen-
ator, and it ought to be taken care of.

Senator Krtxioce. It ought to be taken care of.

I do not wish to take the time of the committee arguing a fact
with which I presume this committee is entirely familiar, but I will

say that Mr. Jenks, president of the Chamber of Commerce of
Duluth, is here. He is familiar with the subject, and if the com-
mittee will hear him at a proper time I shall be glad.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. REED, A UNITED STATES SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI.

Senator Rerp. Mr. Chairman, may I interject here—because I have
another committee to go to—something along the line suggested by
Senator Kellogg? I have protests from very responsible people in
my State who say that this bill, if it is enacted in its present form,
will result in the destruction or nonuse of a vast quantity of ma-
terial that now makes good feed. They say further that this is
poor time to be refusing to use for animal food materials which i in

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 19

some other countries they are very glad to use for human food to-
day, and that it is a poor time to be restricting the use of flesh-
producing and Jife-preserving foods for animals when we are re-
quiring, even in America, people to use for foods articles that they
have not hitherto desired to use.

I do not know who drew this bill, but I think whoever did draw
it never saw a fanning mill, never thrashed any wheat, and probably
never worked in an elevator, or he would not have put into the bill
a provision against screenings.

Now, I happen to have grown up on a farm, and I have turned an
old-fashioned fanning mill many times. When we got our wheat
from the separator, in the old days before they were quite as good
as they are now, the wheat had mixed with it certain seeds of certain
weeds that were heavy enough so that they were not carried out by
the draft of the fan in the separator, and they fell in with the wheat.
Also there fell in with the wheat the lighter particles of grain,
broken grain, grain that had been blighted, and various other ma-
terials, including almost invariably some oats and perhaps some rye
and some barley that had become mixed with the wheat.

All those things, even including the weed seeds that I referred to,
had a feed value. We ran the wheat through the fanning mill in
order to separate the good sound wheat from these other articles, and
then when our wheat was taken to the mill we got flour of a better
quality than we would have gotten if we had ground everything up
together. But these screenings had a very high value. They were,
in fact, so rich that we could not feed them to our horses, because
everybody knows you can not feed a horse much wheat without dan-
ger to the horse. They were most excellent feed for cattle, in small
quantities, for hogs, and for chickens; and, I think, with modern
milling, perhaps some of them are saved and put into flour at the
present time. So when you propose to condemn screenings you
simply propose by law to force a waste of good food substances.

You have in the amendment the phrase “damaged feed.” What
do you mean by “damaged feed”? I undertake to say that if you
are going to throw out all feed that is damaged to any extent you
will throw out about half the feed there is in the country. Mr.
Chairman, I suppose it is perfectly safe to say that on the average
33 per cent of the timothy hay and clover in this country is more o1
less damaged when it is being put up. A farmer goes out and cuts
10 or 20 acres, and there comes along a rain, and the minute it is
rained on it is damaged. He is obliged sometimes to throw it up in
the shock before it is just in prime condition, and it gets somewhat
damaged. Sometimes he puts it in the stack a little bit damp, and
it is somewhat damaged. I do not believe you can find 10 per cent
of the timothy hay and clover in this country that comes out in the
spring of the year that is not to some extent damaged.

The same thing can be said of possibly all our grains, our feeds.
Very little of them comes through in absolutely prime condition.
Grains may be very greatly damaged. They may be damaged so that
their food value is reduced 50 per cent, but still there is 50 per cent
of food value left. You can take wheat that has been so musted and
spoiled in the bin that it is absolutely unfit for food, and yet it will
be perfectly good for hogs and have a tremendous food value.

20 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

These are just practical questions that men who have fed hogs and
cattle and sheep and chickens and that have raised grain know. I
happen to know them, and IJ think, after a reading of this bill, that
it needs some very careful revamping. In fact, J think it has been
drawn in reference to grains about as I might draw a bill with ref-
erence to cotton. Being wholly ignorant of cotton, I would be very
likely to mix up the cotton situation. I am inclined to think a
cotton man drew this bill.

Representative Haucen. Is it not a fact, Senator, that the question
of the use of screenings really is left entirely to the discretion of the
Secretary of Agriculture in the bill?

Senator Renp. W ell, I have just read this part of it carefully.
You may have put some discretion in the Secretary of Agriculture.

The Cratrman. I would lke to say that in my judgment screen-
ings ought to be excepted from this provision.

Representative Haucren. Mr. Chairman, there are undesirable
screenings; there is no question about that.

The CrarrmMan. Just one moment. Here is the point I want to get
at, though: There is a very widespread misapprehension as to what
this amendment proposes to do. This does not propose to prohibit
the interstate shipment of damaged grains or timothy hay or cotton-
seed hulls. But those things are roughage, they are not concentrated
feedstuffs, and they ought not to be covered up with black-strap mo-
lasses and palmed off on the farmer as concentrated feedstuffs. That
is what this amendment undertakes to prohibit. Sell what you are
actually selling and let the farmer know what he is buying. There
is no disposition to prohibit the sale of any feedstuff that has any
feeding value.

Senator Reep. Is that what the bill says?

The Cuarrman. Yes, sir; that is what it says.

Senator Reep (reading) :

That it shall be unlawful, except as herein otherwise provided, for any per-
son, firm, or corporation knowingly to ship, offer for shipment, or transport in
commerce among the several States or for commerce with foreign countries any
concentrated commercial feeding stuffs containing any damaged feed, mill, ele-
vator, or other sweepings or dust—

Containing any of that.

The Cuarrman. Yes; sold as concentrated feedstuffs; not sold as
timothy hay or cotton hulls.

Senator Resp. Ali right. I was using timothy hay merely to illus-
trate; I was not using it as being completely within the bill. [Read-
ing: |
any concentrated commercial feeding stuffs containing any damaged feed, mill,
elevator. or other sweepings— °

And yet there are mill, elevator, and other sweepings that are un-
questionably of food value. The bill mentions buckwheat hulls,
cottonseed hulls, peanut hulls, and peanut shells; I know nothing
about their food value, whether they have any or not. Rice hulls,
oat hulls—I undertake to say that oat hulls have a food value.

The Cuarrman. There is no doubt of that

Senator Rrep. I have bought them as such and fed them as such.
[| Reading: ]

Corneebs ground, cecon shells. clipped oat by-product, ground or unground
hulls, screenings, chaff, or other cleanings derived from the preparation, clean-

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 2)

ing, or milling of any seed or grain when separated from the standard product
as an offal or by-product, or such preparation, cleaning, or milling, humus, peat,
spagnum moss, ivory-nut turnings, ground cornstalks, flax-plant refuse, sorghum
pulp, ground or shredded straw or hay, sawdust, cellulose, or dirt, or any other
foreign material.

That 1s all prohibited up to that point.

Now, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to issue a written
permit for the shipment of concentrated commercial feeding stuffs
containing a mixture of foreign material which in his judgment is
inseparable from such prepared feeds or which does not detract
materially from its feeding value. You have prohibited it, and then
you allow him to permit it under this limitation. Read that. I do
not want to argue this with you gentlemen, who are very patient
with me, but read that and ask yourselves whether it does not in
fact prohibit even the Secretary of Agriculture from permitting
anything to come in except that which ‘he considers is inseparable
from such prepared feeds and that which does not detract materially
from their feeding value.

Everybody knows that a damaged article has subtracted from it a
part of its food value, and yet it has a food value. It may have a
food value of 90 per cent or it may have a food value of 25 per cent,
but whatever it is it ought not to be lost at a time like this.
(Reading :)

Provided, That such feeding stuffs in packages or bales be so labeled as to
show to purchasers and users thereof specifically the percentage of each
ingredient entering into the composition of same, or if such feed stuffs are
shipped in bulk in carload lots then the bill of lading and the bill from manu-
facturer to purchaser of same shall both show such analysis.

Now, I think it is entirely proper to require any animal food that
is sold to be honestly labeled, to tell just what it is; there is no reason
why that should not be true of everything we use. But if it has
been, honestly labeled then can not the farmer and others be trusted
to protect themselves?

Senator Keriioce. Will the chairman allow me to add one thing?

The CuHatrman. Certainly.

Senator Kertioce. I should have said to the committee that in
Minnesota the amount of screenings that are taken out, the sale of
them, and the whole subject is under regulation by the Minnesota
Railroad and Warehouse Commission, under which every elevator
in Minnesota is operated. I have never heard of any complaint of
any fraud in the sale of screenings, which is a matter of very large
commercial importance.

The Cuarrman. I would lke to say in that connection that any
Member of the Senate or House who has telegrams that he desires
to file may do so.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. SHAFROTH, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO.

Senator SuarrotH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have 3 or 4
minutes. I will state that the parties from whom I have received
telegrams are very much interested in alfalfa meal, That is an
industry that has grown up in our State and is attaining large pro-
portions. We ship 210,000 tons. It is mixed with nothing; there

23 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

is no adulteration contained in it at all. Our interest in this matter
is not from the standpoint of anything deleterious being placed in
the meal but in the fact that it might destroy the market so far as
the meal is concerned by hindering the sale of the mixed feeds in
which our alfalfa meal adds so much to the general feeding quality
of the mixtures.

We have 44 mills out in Colorado, and it is an industry that has
grown up very recently. It is evident from the discussion that has
been going on here that this is a matter that requires a great deal
of close investigation and technical learning. J have great confi- °
dence in the chairman of this committee, and J know he wants
nothing but what is fair and right. His desire is to prevent adul-
teration if it is bad. I am satisfied this bill will be amended by this
committee, if it wants to report a measure, but inasmuch as this is
an amendment that has never been reported nor investigated by a
committee, at least in the Senate, and as it comes as a rider upon an
appropriation bill, which often is productive of hasty legislation,
I would like to suggest that this be deferred in some way until you
get a bill of your own, a bill that is separate.

The Agricultural Committee of the Senate is a great committee,
and it can put before the Senate at any time a measure of this kind,
after thorough investigation upon your part, and it seems to me that
would be better than to take a measure that is introduced upon the
floor of the House without a committee report.

These are very serious matters—serious matters to my State, I
know, as to whether our alfalfa market is going to be destroyed.

There is one item in this measure which relates to the question
of hay. Alfalfa is hay, and it may be that that is one of the things
that is prohibited in this mixture. I know it was not the intention
of the chairman to include that, because alfalfa is one of the finest
ingredients in the make-up of this mixed food, and on that account
1 want to suggest the question whether or not the word “ hay ” there
would not have a tendency to prevent the putting into the com-
pound of one of the very best ingredients. Inasmuch as this measure
has not had that deliberation which this committee always gives, and
as this very hearing will aid very materially in forming an opinion
as to what should go into it, I suggest the question whether it would
not be wise to introduce a separate bill, or Jet it go over until the
next general appropriation bill this winter.

Senator Smira of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I may be a little
mixed in my definitions, my terminology. Senator Reed has inter-
jected here the question of hay. What is the recognized difference in
the trade, if any, between what you are denominating here concen-
trated feeds and the ordinary feeds that are sold?

The Cuamman. I will try to bring that out in the course of the
hearing, the distinction between roughage and concentrated feeds.
Hay is, of course, specified as roughage, and so are cottonseed hulls,
both of which have a very high feeding value but are not concen-
trated feeds.

Senator Smrra of South Carolina. I can not follow this discus-
sion intelligently until I get some clear understanding as to what is
meant by concentrated feed. Do you mean by “ concentrated feed ”
-a compound of elements which, singly and alone are concentrated ?
Is that what you mean?

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 23

The Cuarrman. I do not think it would mean that entirely. It
would mean the exclusion of anything that had no feeding value
or very low feeding value.

Mr. Azgorr. May I interject a suggestion at this time?

The CHarrMan. Yes, sir; go ahead.

Mr. Apporr. You have sent for a representative of the Department
of Agriculture, from the Bureau of Chemistry. I understand Dr.
Haywood is in the room, and undoubtedly he is in a position to
answer these technical questions such as Senator Smith has just
brought up. I should appreciate it if you would call upon him at
this time.

The Cuarrman. We will hear Dr. Haywood next.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN K. HAYWOOD, CHIEF OF MISCELLANE-
OUS DIVISION, BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRI-
CULTURE, AND CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE AND
FUNGICIDE BOARD.

The CHamrman. How long have you been connected with the de-
partment, Dr. Haywood?

Dr. Haywoop. Twenty-two vears.

The Cuatrman. Doctor, you may go ahead and state whatever
occurs to you in connection with this amendment. You might first
discuss concentrated feeding stuffs.

Senator Sairn of South Carolina. I should like to hear that,
Doctor. I should like to know the distinction in the trade between
a concentrated feed and the feed that is ordinarily sold.

Dr. Haywoop. Senator Smith, there is one trouble with this
amendment according to my view, and that is that there is no fixed
definition for a concentrated commercial feeding stuff. The term

“concentrated commercial feeding stuff” has a ‘different definition
in nearly e every State. Each State law gives a definition of what is
meant by “concentrated commercial feeding stuff ” in that particular
State, and in any one State the definition differs from what it is in
another State. In general they mean by “concentrated feeds” those
that have high digestibility and low crude fiber; they usually have
a high protein value and have a narrow nutritive ratio. That, in
general, is what is meant by “concentrated feeding stuff.” But
there is no fixed definition in this country that I know of.

Senator Smiru of South Carolina. So that in producing a con-
centrated feeding stuff they just use whatever in their judgment has
a high protein content, no matter whether it is alfalfa, corn, or wheat,
or a combination of all of them?

Dr. Haywoop. Yes, sir; they use many things that have a high
protein content in making these commercial concentrated feeding
stuffs, and they are recognized as concentrated commercial feeding
stuffs by the laws of the different States.

The Cuatruan. In that you would not include sawdust, would
you, doctor ?

Dr. Hayweop. No, sir; that has no feeding value.

The Cuarrman. What are ivory-nut turnings?

Dr. Haywoop. I believe they make buttons from ivory nuts, and
they get turnings from these, which are very hard and woody and
very low in protein and fat, but they have carbohydrates in them.
There is considerable feeding value in ivory-nut turnings.

24 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

The Crarrman. Then would you regard it as a concentrated feed?

Dr. Haywoop. I would not call it a concentrated feed by itself;
no, sir.

Representative Haucen. Has it any food value whatever?

Dr. Haywoop. It certainly has, sir. The Department of Agricul-
ture has published a bulletin on that.

Representative Haucren. How about the buckwheat hulls? Let us
take them in the order they occur in the amendment.

Dr. Haywoop. Buckwheat hulls have some feeding value.

Representative Haucen. How much ?

Dr. Haywoop. Small; I can not tell you how much.

Representative Haucen. How about cottonseed hulls?

Dr. Haywoop. They have some feeding value.

Representative Haucen. How much?

Dr. Haywoop. Small; probably 4 to 5 per cent of protein.

Representative Haucen. How do they compare with corn or oats,
for example?

Dr. Haywoop. A good deal less; I can not give you the exact
figures.

Representative Haucen. How about peanut hulls?

Dr. Haywoop. Peanut hulls—making a distinction between them
and peanut shells—have quite a little feeding value, because there
is a good deal of fat in them.

Representative Haucen. Can you give it in percentage in com-
parison with other feeds?

Dr. Haywoop. Perhaps I can find it.

The Cuatrman. What is the difference between peanut hulls and
peanut shells?

Dr. Haywoop. The peanut shell is the outside white part of the
peanut that is taken off. The peanut hull is that little red part ae
1s around the nut itself.

Representative Haucen. How about rice hulls?

Dr. Haywoop. They have practically no feeding value.

Representative Haucen. And oat hulls?

Dr. Haywoop. They have some feeding value, but low.

Representative Haugen. Can.you give it in percentage?

Dr. Haywoop. I would say they contain in the neighborhood of
from 4 to 5 per cent protein.

Representative Haucen. And how about corncobs?

Dr. Harywoop. Corncobs have a low feeding value; I would
say probably—I am guessing now—about 3 to 4 per cent protein.
It is low.

Representative Haucen. Well, is it worth paying the freight?

Dr. Haywoop. I do not know whether it is or not; it should not
be thrown away.

Representative Havucen. It should not be thrown away; of course
not; but is it worth manufacturing?

Dr. Haywoop. I think so.

Representative Havcen. It is worth the price of manufacture?

Dr. Haywoop. I think it is.

Representative Havcrn. And paying the freight?

Mr. Warp. If you sell it in these foods, it is well worth it.

Representative Haucen. How about cocoa shells?

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 25

Dr. Haywoop. They have quite a little food value.

The Cuatrrman. What are they ?

Dr. Haywoop. In the making of chocolate and cocoa, these dark-
brown shells that are taken off from the outside of the bean are quite
woody, but they have a considerable amount of protein.

Representative Haucen. Will you put in the record the percentage
and give us some comparisons ?

Dr. Haywoop. Yes, sir.

Representative Haugen. How about the screenings?

Dr. Haywoop. Some screenings have a high feeding value?

Representative Haucren. And others have not?

Dr. Haywoop. Some have a low feeding value.

Representative Haucen. And some have very little or none?

Dr. Haywoop. I do not know of any that have none; but some are
quite low.

Representative Haucen. Some of them are very undesirable: as
feed, or otherwise ?

Dr. Haywoop. I should say that some should not be used as feed.

Representative Haucren. Screenings containing quack grass seed,
for instance?

Dr. Haywoop. I do not know that it makes so much difference
about the seeds they contain, because in manufacturing these feeds
they are ground up so as to destroy the viability of the seeds. It
is feeding value that we are after, and many of the weed seeds have
a high feeding value.

Representative Haucren. But by the use of the seed in feed or
otherwise is there not danger of spreading the quack grass? We
were buying seed wheat in our country last year, and we got our
farms covered with quack grass and other objectionable weeds.

Dr. Harywoop. There is danger. If weed seeds are not ground
up there is a ‘danger of their passing right through the animal and
putting noxious weed seeds all over the land; but if the seeds are
ground up so as to destroy their sprouting capacity, as they are in
most of the mills, there is little danger of that.

Representative Haucen. There is no way of grinding the quack
grass seed and preventing its germination. You can grind it and
burn it and burn the ashes, and it will grow then. [Laughter.]

Dr. Haywoop. I have been in a good many of these mills where
the grinding is carried on, and they grind these seeds and then bolt
them through bolting cloth, and I do not believe you would get any
seed that would go through the bolting cloth that would grow.

Representative Hauern. I have been combatting the quack grass
and Canadian thistle, and I have no use for them.

Dr. Haywoop. I am with you there.

Representative Haucen. You have read this bill. Does this leave
it to the discretion of the Secretary as to the regulation of the mix-
ture and the shipment?

Dr. Haywoop. I do not think so; no, sir. There are a good many
things I do not understand about the bill. I think it is very am-
biguous in places.

Representative Haucen. Would not the language in sections 20
and 21 leave that to the discretion of the Secretary as to what screen-
ings might be used and as to the use of these hulls?

26 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Dr. Haywoop. Personally I do not think it does.

Representative Ler. How about the feeding value of black mo-
lasses? Some reference has been made to it.

Dr. Haxwoop. It has quite a high carbohydrate feeding value.

Under the food and drugs act there is an item which says that
feed is adulterated if it contains a deleterious ingredient which may
render the same injurious to health. So if a feed contains enough of
a seed that is sufficiently poisonous to hurt the cattle, I should think
we could rule it out under the food and drugs act.

Mr. Warp. You have now ruled it out, have you ¢

Dr. Haywoop. Yes, sir; we have. We have ruled out some things
that we knew to be poisonous. I can not remember the names of all
of them.

The CuHarrman. Could you furnish a list of those things in con-
nection with your statement?

Dr. Haywoop. I shall be very glad to do that.

Representative Haucen. To what extent has the Federal law re-
ferred to here been enforced ?

Dr. Haywoop. The Federal law is being vigorously enforced

Representative Haugen. I mean in reference to feeds.

Dr. Haywoop. It is being vigorously enforced. There is an or-
ganization here in the department which is at the head of it, and
then the various branch laboratories of the Bureau of Chemistry
throughout the country are engaged in the collection of cattle-feed
samples and the examination of the same for the purpose of deter-
mining whether they are adulterated or misbranded under the act.

I would say that feeds have been more largely attended to than
they should be as compared with foods and drugs, which are more
important.

The Cuarrman. Do you know Mr. Brown, the secretary of the
Manufacturers’ Association ?

Dr. Haywoop. Yes; I have known him for many years.

The Cuatrman. Do you know he was formerly connected with the
New York State department of agriculture?

Dr. Haywoop. Yes, sir.

The CHarrman. And had to do with the division that dealt with
the fraudulent practices ?

Dr. Haywoop. Yes, sir.

The CuarrmMan. Did he not suppress a good deal of that while
he was in that office ?

Dr. Haywoop. Yes, sir.

The CuHarrman. I did not mean that he suppressed the use of it;
but did he not suppress the analysis of the samples and cover up
these practices so as to protect those people?

Dr. Haywoop. No, sir. I never heard of him doing any such
thing, and I would not have believed it if I had.

The CuHatrman. Do you know why, after that service, he was
transferred to the secretaryship of the Feed Manufacturers’ Asso-
ciation, which he had been attempting to control?

Dr. Harywoop. No, sir; I do not. :

Representative Haucrn. To what extent does the department
regulate the manufacture and sale of feeds at the present time?
nee is required of the manufacturers? Are they required to label
them ¢

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. OF

Dr. Haywoop. Under the food and drugs act, which applies to
feeds just the same as it does to foods and drugs; every item in the
food and drugs act that applies to feeds declaring them adulterated
or misbranded applies also to feeds.

That act requires, among other things, that every statement on the
label be true; that no statement that is false or misleading in any
particular shall be made; that nothing shall be substituted for the
article labeled; and nothing added to it which injuriously affects its
quality or strength; that the article shall not be sold if it is partly
or wholly composed of putrid materials; that the article shall be
declared to be adulterated if it contains an injurious ingredient
which renders it injurious to health.

Now, with that item in the food and drugs act, saying that every-
thing on the label must be true, and the State feed laws, we have
been able to control feeds quite well. I do not mean we have every-
thing we want, but we have been able to control feeds quite well.
There are some thirty odd States that have feed laws. Most of
those States require that an analysis be given on the label of the
feed sold in the State and that all the ingredients be given on the
label of the feed sold in the State. Now, those feeds, practically all
of them, or at least most of them, are shipped in interstate commerce.

Therefore if a feed is shipped in interstate commerce and goes to a
certain State it has on it a statement of the analysis and of the in-
eredients. If this statement of the analysis is not true, or if the
statement of the ingredients is not true, then the product is mis-
branded under the food and drugs act.

So, with the two together, we are able to control feeds—not en-
tirely to our satisfaction, but very acceptably.

Representative Haucen. What State laws require an analysis in
the statement ?

Dr. Haywoap. I should say between 30 and 40; it is nearer 40.

Representative Haucen. Is there any objection to that?

Representative CanpLtEeR. Somebody has suggested that the number
is 42.

Dr. Haywoop. Yes; I believe it is in the neighborhood of 42.

Mr. Assorr. Our records show that it is 42.

Mr. Warp. When you spoke of being satisfactory, satisfactory to
whom did you mean—to the feed manufacturers, to your depart-
ment, or to the dairymen ?

The Cuairman. I should like to suggest to those present that if
they will wait until the members of the conference committee inter-
rogate the witness, it will be in the interest of order.

Senator Kenyon. I thought of asking that same question that the
gentleman has just propounded: Satisfactory to whom ?

Dr. Haywoop. My answer to that question is that I can not speak
for the whole Department of Agriculture. I do not know the views
of the Secretary on this matter. I have not heard what his views are
relative to this matter. I can only say asa man who has aided in the
enforcement of the food and drugs act since it went into effect, so
far as it applies to feeds, that with the food and drugs act as it is and
with the State laws as they are, we have been able to contro] feeds
quite acceptably, but not entirely satisfactorily; there are some things
that still ought to be controlled that we can not control.

98 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Representative Lever. What, for instance?

Dr. Haywoop. Well, I think there ought to be an item actually
ruling out things that are of no feeding value. I would say that if
sand, or if soil, or if sphagnum moss, or peat, or rice hulls, or saw-
dust were in a feed—they should certainly be ruled out.

Representative Lever. Can you not rule them out now?

Dr. Haywoop. There is some little doubt about it, Mr. Lever; I
believe we can.

Representative Lever. All you have got to do is to publish the
name of the firm doing that, and you will rule them out quicker than
lightning.

Dr. Haywoop. In the case of sand, we have cases against people
putting sand in their feeds. We had one case, if I remember cor-
rectly, of a man putting sawdust in his feed. We have had no cases
of sphagnum moss or of peat, because we have not the basis on which
we can absolutely declare that those have no feeding value, although
it is my opinion that they have no feeding value.

Representative Haucen. 'The peat has been ruled out somewhere; I
do not know whether by the Department of Agriculture or by a
State. I know a firm that has been proceeded against for doing that.

Dr. Haywoop. We have never had a case on peat, so far as I re-
member. : And, as I say, that is only because we have not the in-
formation before us that we could put in court that peat is abso-
lutely without feeding value.

Representative Lever. Do you mean to'say that you can not rule
out sawdust under your present law?

Dr. Haywoop. Yes; we can.

Representative Lever. And you can rule out sand under the present
law ?

Dr. Haywoop. Yes, sir.

Representative Lever. You can rule out anything that is dele-
terious to health?

Dr. Haywoop. Anything that is deleterious to health.

Representative Lever. Or that has no feeding value?

Dr. Haywoop. I believe we could rule out things without feeding
value; but I believe it would make it plainer if it stated those actual
things in the law. ~-

Representative Lever. That may be true.

Representative Haucren. Are you certain as to the ruling out of
sawdust, or anything that has no feeding value? Does the law
vrovide for that?

Dr. Haywoop. I feel pretty certain of that.

Representative Lever. Let me ask you this: Have you ever done it?

Dr. Haywoop. There has only been one case that I ever ran across
in my life where there was any sawdust.

Representative Lever. And you ran that out of business?

Dr. Haywoop. Yes, sir.

Representative Lever. I have been a little surprised at hearing you
say that you had the machinery for doing this kind of work. Have
you a force of men inspecting feeds throughout the country to ascer-
tain if they are complying with the food and drugs act?

Dr. Haywoop. Yes, sir; the food and drugs act inspectors, among
their other duties, are told to collect feed samples just as much as
food and drugs samples.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 29

Representative Lever. So that if we were to amend the food and
drugs act to give you just what you want, what amendment would
you propose in general ?

Dr. Haywoop. In general, I would ask so as to have it specific
in. our law that the analysis be given on the bag of the feed; I would
ask that each and every ingredient be named upon the bag.

Senator Smiru of Georgia. And the proportion of each?

Dr. Haywoop. I would not ask that the proportion of each be
given; no, sir; for reasons which I will give you later on if you wish.
I would ask that certain things that I felt sure did not have a feed-
ing value be ruled out, such things as I have spoken of before.

Representative Lever. Would you fix a moisture content ?

Dr. Haywoop. No, sir. Personally, that is as far as I would go.
But I can not speak for the Department of Agriculture there. The
Secretary might feel that there should be come control over things
of low feeding value. Personally, I feel that things of low feed
value should not be thrown away, because I think it is bad economy,
but I am only presenting my personal opinion now..

Representative Lever. Would you have this proposed amendment
to the act make definitions for various feeds, what is a proper feed
and what is an improper feed, and so on, as definitions are given in
the pure food act?

Dr. Haywoop. Will you please give an example?

Representative Lever. For instance, we had a discussion here, be-
tween Senator Smith and the chairman of the Senate committee,
about definitions

Dr. Haywoop (interposing). I believe without definitions you
could not enforce the act.

Representative Lever. You would have to have a basis on which
to determine your action ?

Dr. Haywoop. We would have to have a basis; and there is not
any fixed standard or definition for commercial feed at the present
time; you would have to work that out.

Representative Lever. Would it be practicable to work out ma-
chinery by which you could have the contents of a carload lot
shown—show the ingredients in it: So much cotton seed; so much
chaff; so much dirt; so much sawdust, ete.? .

Dr. Haywoop. The name and percentage of each ingredient ?

Representative Lever. Yes; and, of course, it would have to go on
the bill of lading?

Dr. Haywoop. I do not think it would be practicable for a man
to have to tell the name and percentage of the amount of each and
every ingredient in it. I think it would be perfectly practicable for
him to have to tell the name of the ingredients, but as to the per-
centage of the amount, I doubt it.

Representative Lever. Would you not require him, as most of the
State laws do require him, to give the percentage of protein?

Dr. Haywoop. I would require him to give the percentage of
protein, the fat, and the erude fiber. Those are the three main
things.

Representative Lever. Would you require him to give the per-
centages of those?

Dr. Haywoop. The actual percentage, because that could be de-
termined, and the manufacturer can keep to that. But if he does

30 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

give the actual percentage, and his list consists of 8 or 10 ingredi-
ents, these ingredients vary in composition from time to time; one
day he is using screenings with 16 per cent of protein in it, the next
day he is using screenings with 7 per cent of protein.

Now, in order to keep to his protein figure that he has to put on
his label, one day he would have to use more cottonseed meal to
bring up his protein figure to what he states on his label, and less,
we will say, of screenings. The next day his screenings being higher,
he does not have to use so much cottonseed meal.

Therefore, 2 manufacturer would constantly have to vary his pro-
portions according to the things he is working with.

Therefore I do not think it is feasible to ask him to give the per-
centage amount of each one of these ingredients.

And, further than that, if he did give the percentage amount I
think that the chemists and the microscopists could not tell after-
wards, when he says, “I have 15 per cent of oat hulls in here,” or,
“T have 15 per cent of cottonseed hulls in here ”—we could not tell
whether that man was correct in his statements or not, because our
science has not advanced to that extent.

The CuHarrman. May I usggest that we can have Dr. Haywood
before us at any time; and there are several gentlemen here who have
come quite a distance. I wonder if we could not abbreviate this
hearing just a little by hearing those gentlemen now ?

Dr. Haywood has given quite an elaborate answer, and I do not
mean to cut off Members of the House in their questions now.

Representative Lever. We can question Dr. Haywood later.

The Cuatrman. Yes. Are there any other Members of the House,
or of this committee, who desire to ask Dr. Haywood any questions
now ?

Mr. Assorr. Mr. Chairman, if it meets with your approval, we
would like to have you consider at. this time further testimony from
the feed manufacturers.

The CuatrmMan. Just a moment. I was asking if any Senator or
Member of the House desired to ask any further questions of Dr.
Haywood at this time? If not, I believe Judge Ward wanted to ask
him a few questions.

Mr. Warp. With the permission of the chairman, I will ask you,
Dr. Haywood, have you made any investigation of the sulphuric
seep water from the gluten factories?

Dr. Haywoop. I have not made any study of the actual amount of
water, but this is what I think you mean: During the manufacture of
starch and glucose from corn the corn has to soak in a sulphurous
acid solution, if I am not mistaken, and that takes out quite a little
of the food constituents from the corn, and later on that is evaporated
to a sirupy consistency and added to the bran of the corn and the
fine cornstarch particles that have been separated from the corn, and
also the germ of the corn—that is, added to it again—and the whole
thing is sold as a feed.

Mr. Warp. As a feed. Now, are you familiar with the effect of
sulphur treatment on the protein?

Dr. Haywoop. No, sir; I can not say that I am.

Mr. Warp. I understand that your department has put out a bul-
letin that that sulphuric seep water is unavailable in the grain as a

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. al

tissue-feeding factor; that is, that it has not any food value, although
it has a high protein content ?

Dr. Haywoop. I could not answer that question.

Mr. Warp. I get that from one of the bulletins of your department.

Representative Lever. That would come under the Bureau of
Chemistry, would it not?

Dr. Haywoop. I am connected with the Bureau of Chemistry, but
I think the Bureau of Animal Industry could answer that question
better than I can. Dr. Alsberg himself could give a good answer to
that question, because he has studied that subject.

Mr. Warp. The natural effect of the sulphur on the protein would
be to destroy the food value of the protein, would it not?

Dr. Haywoop. I could not say that is true; no, sir.

Mr. Warp. That is all.

The Cuarrman. | undestood you to say a-few moments ago that
you could stop the use of sawdust and sand and that you had brought
some suits against the use of sawdust. Do you bring suits against
persons who offend under your rules?

Dr. Haywoop. Yes, sir.

The CuHarrman. Now, you have to rule these things out, do you
not ?

Dr. Haywoop. No, sir; we do not have to rule them out. If we
find something that has no food value, like sawdust and sand, the de-
partment lets the man know, by a citation, that he is breaking the
law; and if he violates the law we put the case in the hands of our
solicitor; he puts it in the hands of the Department of Justice and
the Department of Justice puts it in the hands of the United States
District Attorney in the district from which shipment was made.

The Cuarrman. Then you go to court with the case?

Dr. Haywoop. Yes, sir.

The CuatrmMan. How long since you have been to court with one
of these cases?

Dr. Haywoop. With any of these feed cases?

The CrarrmMan. Yes.

Dr. Haywoop. Personally, I have not been in court for several
vears, but men under me, other men in the Bureau of Chemistry, I
suppose I could say that they are constantly going into court.

The CuatrmMan. Could you furnish the committee a list of some of
the suits brought in the last four or five years?

Dr. Haywoop. Yes, sir.

The CHarrman. I wish you would do so.

(The list referred to was subsequently submitted by Dr. Haywood,
and is here printed in full, as follows:)

The CHarrman. You are reported, Dr. Haywood, on page 60 of
“Flour and Feed” for December, 1913, as saying to the manufac-
turers that it was no longer necessary to go into court for these
offenses.

Dr. Haywoop. Will you please read exactly what I said—because
it has been a long time since I said that ?

The CuatrmMan. The Clerk will read the article in question.

(The Clerk thereupon read the article referred to, as follows:)

Dr. Haywood, of the United States Department of Agriculture, assured the
meeting that it was no longer necessary to go to court to settle differences.

392 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS,

Dr. Haywoop. I never made such a remark es that. J have said
before the Feed Manufacturers Association that the cooperation that
was taking place between the feed manufacturers and the feed-con-
trol officials was such that the number of cases against. them ought
to be greatly reduced from what it was in the beginning, because
they were doing much better than they used to do.

The Cuairman. When you said awhile ago tpat the law was ac-
ceptable, did you mean acceptable to the feed wsnufacturers? -

Dr. Haywoop. No; it is the feed-control officials that I am talking
about. I do not know what the feed-control manufacturers feel.

The Crarrman. I will have the Clerk read you another extract
from “ Flour and Feed.”

(The Clerk thereupon read the following extract :)

Dr. Haywood, of the United States Department of Agriculture, sitting with
the feed manufacturers, moved the adoption of the phrase “ Corn gluten feed ”
to cover the stuff known as “ cornstarch’ by-products with corn bran,” urging
that the word ‘‘ refuse” be dropped in describing the chaff, empty hulls, im-
mature oats, and dust.

Dr. Haywoop. I would like to look at that article.

Senator Kenyon. Was this a speech that you made at a banquet?
(Laughter. )

Dr. Haywoop. I know that those speeches are not always quoted
correctly.

The CuarrMan. That was before Washington went dry. (Laugh-
ter.) But this does not seem to be a speech at all; it seems to be a
motion.

Representative CanpLer. That seems to be a motion submitted by
you.

Dr. Haywoop (examining paper). I should say this: My opinion
is that the words “ refuse” and “ offal” are not as good as the phrase
“by-product.” I think “by-product” is the better word to de-
scribe it.

The CuatrMan. Better than “ refuse ”?

Dr. Haywoop. I think “ by-products” is usually a better term to
describe the by-products of the food industry .than “refuse” or
“offal” because “refuse” and “ offal” give the idea to the mind of
the general public of not having any feed value at all I think.

Mr. Warp. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one more question ?

The CuHatrMan. Yes; certainly.

Mr. Warp. I show you this label, Dr. Haywood, which contains
the term “corn gluten feed.” Now, that is the same feed that you
gave the definition for, composed largely of refuse?

Dr. Haywoop. Well, corn gluten feed

Mr. Warp (interposing). Just answer this question: Is that term
“corn gluten feed” the same term referred to at this meeting in
your resolution—that that definition be used in the place of “ refuse ”
and “ offal”?

Dr. Haywoop. I think it is.

Mr. Warp. And consisted of oat hulls, corn hulls, and such other
articles as that resolution named ?

Dr. Haywoop. And corn proteids—which give it quite a high
feeding value. Corn gluten consists of corn hulls, some cornstarch,
corn proteids, and usually solubles.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 33

Representative Lrver. May I inquire who the gentleman is who
asked the last question ?

The Cuairman. That is Judge Ward, from New York, who has
been assisting the State department of agriculture to eradicate the
shipment and use of fraudulent feed.

Representative Lever. Mr. Chairman, I should like to make this
suggestion: It seems to me that our whole proceeding in this matter
this morning has been backward. Why should we not hear the wit-
ness for the prosecution, so that the House Members of the Confer-
ence Committee, at least, may know just exactly what is the situa-
tion? We see the amendment in the bill, of course; but we know of
no charges being made, except the charges that have been read here,
and we are at a loss to know how to cross-examine these witnesses—
certainly I am.

It seems to me that the case of the Government in this matter
ought to be uncovered, so that we can all see where we are. We are
all trying to arrive at the best conclusion possible, of course.

The Cuarrman. Well, of course, the Senate has passed this amend-
ment.

Representative Lever. Yes; it has passed the Senate.

The Cuarrman. And I had supposed that those who were attack-:
ing the amendment were representing the prosecution.

Representative Lever. My own theory is that the House conferees
will be in much better position to get information, both from the one
side and from the other, if they know just what is the genuine pur-
pose of this proposition, and what abuses have existed in the trade.

The CHarrMan. Yes.

Representative Lever. Now, I looked at this amendment for the
first time when the bill came over to the House from the Senate.
We have been given an example here this morning of a certain
amount of water being used in certain concentrated feeds. I would
like to hear some more examples of abuses, so that we will know just
where we are. Do you not think so, Senator Kenyon ?

Senator Kenyon. I should not think so. I should think that when
an amendment was passed by the Senate, and we were having a
conference on the amendment, we ought to hear the objections first.
I do not know anything about the amendment, of course.

Representative Lever. But how can that be, without our knowing
just what abuses there are in the trade—and we can get that infor-
mation very well from the trade?

The CHarrMan. You do not appear for the prosecution, you see.

Representative Lever. Of course not, but we appear here to act in
fairness and justness, having in view the whole situation.

The Cuarrman. And those who are attacking the amendment and
asking you to reject it ought to tell you why.

Representative Lever. Well, I confess, as far as the conference has
gone this morning, I have heard no example of abuse.

Representative Havcen. We have heard the other side.

Representative Lrver. Yes; we have been hearing the other side.
Would you not like to hear those who favor the amendment?

Representative Haucrn. I think it is simply a question of which
side shall be heard first. I think we ought to accommodate those
who come from a distance.

$1413—18——3

34 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS,

The CuHarrman. Yes; I think'so; I shall be very glad, to accom-
modate them as far as we. can.

Representative Lever. What do you think, Mr. Candler?”

Representative Canpier. It seems to me that we are proceeding
backward. When we hear the reasons for the amendment we can
better hear the objections to it.

Representative Lever. I agree with you as to that.

Representative Havcen. Ts’ it, not possible for the representa-
tives of the two sides to reach an agreement as to how they, shall
proceed ?

The CuHairman. We will take a recess until 2.30 0 ‘clock this after-
noon.

(Thereupon, at 12.35 p. m., the conference committee took a recess
until 2.30 o’clock p. m.)

AFTER RECESS.

The conference committee reassembled at 2.30/0’elock, p..m., pur-
suant to a recess taken.

The Cuarrman. Mr. Miller, is.the party whom you wish to, have
heard present ?

Representative, Miumr., Yes, sir; Mr. Jenks, is present, but L think
it would be well if Mr. Abbott was allowed to continue.

The Cuatrman. J thought he had finished.. Mr. Abbott, did you
wish to say anything further?

STATEMENT OF MR. HAROLD A. ABBOTT—Resumed.

Mr. Assort. Yes, sir; if.it is agreeable to you, I) would have these
gentlemen brought in in due course,

In reference to the hearing, Mr..Chairman, we understand that
their position, is that the agriculturists and experiment. station men
from New England who, have had much to do with the feeding-
stock laws of those States and of practical, dairymen, and.breeders,
some of them would lke to get away this evening, and before putting
on. further, testimony from our side, of, the case, I, would. like,Mr.
Chapin to be heard; but I would first ask if, these other gentlemen
could not be given an opportunity to make a statement.

The CHarrmMan, Well, of course, we will have somebody represent
ing the dairymen testify before the committee.

ie AxgsottT. These gentlemen are not, connected, with ,us jin any
respect. whatever. y ;

The CuarrMan, Yes; 1 undarstand.

Mr. Aneorr, But I think their, statement ate be interesting.

The CuarrMan. Of course, if they speak for the dairymen, we, will
be glad.to‘hear from them; and I, would like, to ,have you ask them
to present different phases of the question so, as|not, to pileup on,a
certain point. }Your.statement,, for instance, exhausted. certain,
points. this morning; there|is no use to keep,on discussing those
points, for example. I wish you gentlemen. would, bear that, inj mind,
and {we will.try to speed the hearing up. I hope| the gentlemen will
limit: their remarks to,a few minutes each.

Mr. Assorrt. I dare say the gentlemen in veil have all, Hee
your comments on this matter, Mr. Chairman, and_will undoubtedly

ADULTERATION, OF. MIXED, FEEDS. 35

govern themselves accordingly—Prof. Smith, Prof, Story, Mr, Hepp-
ler, and Mr, Hicks.

Representative Lever. Mr, Chairman, I would like to insist that I
should like to know what the proposition involved here is, from the
other side of it.

The CuarrMan. That)is my plan, and what Representative Miller
has requested.

Representative Lever. I am perfectly willing for Mr. Miller’s
statement to be heard for a few minutes, but it does seem to me that
we ought. to. know what we are driving. at.on this whole proposition.

Representative Miuuuer, Then, if there is no, objection, Mr. Jenks
might be heard briefly, and then the other parties can present their
statements.

The CuarrMan, We will be very glad to hear Mr. Jenks now.

‘Representative Mirier. All right. Whe Jenks, will you make
your statement?

The CuarrMan. Will you state your name, residence, and business
connections ?

STATEMENT OF MR. M. L. JENKS, PRESIDENT DULUTH BOARD OF
TRADE, DULUTH, MINN.

Ir. Jenxs. My name is M. L. Jenks, of Duluth, Minn., I am
president of the Duluth Board of Trade.

We object to the amendment as proposed, as we) believe it will be
very injurious to the grain trade, and especially to the farmers of
the Northwest. At present they are being paid to quite an extent
for the amount of screenings that are contained in the grain.

For instance, on wheat they are paid at the rate of one-fourth of
1,cent a bushel on each 1 per cent over 5 per cent of dockage in the
wheat. This dockage is determined by the Minnesota Warehouse
and Railroad Commission.

On flax they are paid one-fourth of a cent per bushel on all dockage
over 9 per cent. This is in accordance with.an agreement to facil

tate business between the buyer and the seller.

On. barley, it is a matter of adjustment, on price. The value is
determined according to the amount of dockage on the barley, which
is not specified by the inspector.

We feel that our market. for screenings will be narrowed down to
the stock feed people alone, instead of having it, as now, the market
of pips food manufacturers.

T do not know that there is anything more, that I want to say, Mr.
Chairman, ’

Representative Mimuer. Mr. Chairman, it may be somewhat in-
formal, but is there any ela a to my asking Mr. Jenks a few
questions? i

The Cratrman. No. .

Representative Mirrer. I think.it would be advisable if you would
state to the committee, Mr. Jenks, the exact, business your concern is
earrying on—not the "Duluth Board of Trade, but your own con-
cern—and the relationship you bear to the farmers who are actually
producing the grain, of the Nor thwest.

Mr. Jenxs. My concern is represented in different markets—Kan-
sas City, Omaha, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Duluth, New

36 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

York, and Boston. In Kansas City, Omaha, Chicago, Milwaukee,
and Minneapolis, it is a commission business, to a large extent, sell-
ing grain on commission consigned to them by farmers and farmers’
organizations. At Duluth, at which place I am the manager, we
do strictly an elevator business.

In Iowa and Nebraska we have something like two hundred
country houses. In our New York office, when it was profitable, we
did an export business.

Representative Mitter. As I understand from you, the screenings,
so-called, are considered a commercial by- -product, and compensa-
tion for them is given to the farmers or the producers of the grain.
Is that correct ?

Mr. Jenxs. Yes, sir; and they are paid to a very large extent on
all the value beyond the cost of removing the screenings from the
grain.

Representative Miniter. Does that apply to all of that material
called screenings ?

Mr. Jenxs. Yes, sir.

Representative Mruter. Have you any market for those s screenings
aside from the feed manufacturers?

Mr. Jenxs. And stock feeders.

Representative Mirtier. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The Cuarrman. Your objection, Mr. Jenks, seems to go principally
to screenings. There are good screenings and bad screenings ?

Mr. Jenks. I did not quite understand your question.

The CuatrMan. I say your objection seems to refer particularly to
screenings, to including screenings in this amendment. Now, there
are good screenings and bad screenings, are there not?

Mr. Jenxs. Yes, sir.

The Cuarrman. Now, good screenings do not detract materially
from the feed with which they are mixed, do they ?

Mr. Jenks. Except in this case, as I understand it, our market
would be confined entirely to the stock feeders, and would not apply
to the stock feed manufacturers.

The Cuamman. Well, I do not understand it so, Mr. Jenks. You
notice a certain sentence of the amendment will permit the mixing of
good screenings with the feed. That is what I want to call your
attention to.

Now. there are commodities enumerated to-day that you think
ought to be excluded from the feed, are there?

Mr, JENKS. Anything that is injurious certainly should be excluded.

The CHairMan. Well, do you not think there are some things
enumerated in the amendment that would not be really merchantable
feedstuffs ?

Mr. Jenxs. I think so.

The CuairMAN. Do you not think we ought to divide the good from
the bad and work it out on that basis.

Mr. Jenxs. That would be satisfactory to us.

The CuarrMan. That is all.

Mr. Warp. At what prices do you sell these screenings to feed
manufacturers ?

Mr. Jenxs. It depends entirely on the market;,at different times
there are different prices.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 37

Mr. Warp. Well, will you illustrate by giving the lowest and the
highest.

“Mr. Jenks. I should think about $2 a ton is the lowest I remember
in the last 10 years; from that up to $40 a ton.

Mr. Warp. What is the present price?

Mr. Jenxs. Around $20 or $25.

Mr. Warp. And you pay the farmer one cent a bushel over a certain

rice? .
: Mr. JenxKs. We pay the farmer a quarter of a cent a bushel on each
1 per cent over 5 per cent of wheat. If it was 9 per cent at their end,
we would pay them one cent a bushel premium over their regular

rice,
The Cuarrman. I suggest that at this pot we have Dr. Jordan
give us a definition and description of these things. “Please state for
the record your name, your post-office address, and your present
official connection.

STATEMENT OF DR. WHITMAN H. JORDAN, GENEVA, N. Y., DIREC-
TOR NEW YORK AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

Dr. Jorpan. My name is Whitman H. Jordan, Geneva, N. Y.
IT am director of the New York Agricultural Experiment Station.

The Cuarrman. Dr. Jordan, I would like to hear you comment on
concentrated feed and roughage and compound feed, and’ particu-
larly I want you to discuss the tendency as to whether the mixture
of adulterants is increasing or decreasing.

Dr. Jorpan. Permit me to say, as showing the extent of observa- .
tion which I have had, that our institution has examined something
over 10,000 samples of feeds since 1899.

At first we simply required a guaranteed chemical analysis. It was
discovered that that did not meet the situation. Then, in order to
secure more or less control over the inferior ingredients, which as
a rule contain a large percentage of fiber, we required a statement
of the maximum percentage of fiber. I refer to crude fiber, which
is illustrated by cotton or the chief constituent of wood.

That was not all we desired. We next required a statement of the
ingredients—the kinds, not the quantities.

Now, as to the tendencies, I can make some statements based upon
the facts as to the developments in the sale of compounded feeds; and
I might suggest right here that I think if you were to change the
word “ concentrated ” in that proposed amendment to * compounded ”
it would more nearly meet the situation.

The Cuarrman. And that would mean what, then?

Dr. Jorpan. That would mean feeds that are made up by mixing
several kinds together—two or more kinds.

The Cuarrman. What do you mean by a standard feed ?

Dr. Jorpan. That is a term that I have been personally using.
T mean by it feeds that have a fairly definite composition and digesti-
bility, which may be illustrated by cottonseed meal, linseed meal,
hominy feed, brewers’ grains, malt sprouts, and feeds of that type—
the offals from wheat, etc.

The Cuatrman. That run straight ?

Dr. Jorpan. That run straight. In the figures which I shall give
you I should like to have that definition of standard feeds apply.

38 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS:

In 1902 we examined 118 brands; 64 of those were standard and
54 compounded. In 1906 we examined 295 brands, and 153 were
standard, according to the definition I have given, and 142 com-
pounded.

The CHarrmMan. Did you make an examination in 1902 or 1906 as
to the kinds of feeds that had inferior materials in them ?’

Dr. Jorpon. No, sir; I can not give you any information for those
years, because we did not make any examinations ina definite way
until 1909.

The CuarrMan. I see. ;

Dr. Jorpan. But in 1909 we examined 368 brands, and 195 were
standard and 173 compounded. You will notice a tendency to in-
crease of the compounded feeds. In that year every molasses feed
contained oat hulls or screenings, and 34 out of the 49 feeds which
were apparently cereal grains, like corn and oats, contained some
adulterant.

In 1912, out of 480 samples, 172 were standard. and, 318. com-
pounded; and 41 per cent of the compounded contained what we
would class as inferior ingredients; I would not use the term
“ worthless,” but “ inferior,”

I had time lately to go over 568 brands that have been collected
since we reported; I could not go over the 1,200 or more. But out, of
those 568 there were 215 standard and 353° compounded; and out
of the compounded, 59.7 per cent contained inferior ingredients.

That shows the tendency in the way of the increase of compounded
feeds.

Now, if I may be permitted, I should like to make some observa-
tions, Mr. Chairman.

The CuHarrMan. Yes; certainly.

Dr. Jorpan. I think there is a fundamental question in here: That
every purchaser or consumer is entitled to know what he purchases;
and I think our New York law, which requires the chemical compo-
sition, the maximum percentage of fiber and a statement of the kinds
of ingredients, is a help.

But, if there is no fair and reasonable way of so regulating the
sale of these materials so that the purchaser shall know the amounts
he buys would you think that fair in your dealing if you were buying
a mixture of copper and gold? Whether that can be done is the
question.

The sale of these inferior ingredients is not a new thing; it has
been going on since—well, we enacted our law in 1899, and it had
been going on for quite a while then. But it has increased.

T would like to make some comments also on this question of the
basis of value of feeding stuffs.

Our friends, the manufacturers—and I certainly do not want to
say anything that does them any injustice—tell us that these things
are not worthless, but have value. That is true of screenings and
oat hulls, because both screenings and oat hulls contain a certain
amount of material that is of fair nutritive value.

But values for the farmer rest, not upon commercial values, but
upon nutritive efficiency. It is what the material is worth to the
animal as a source of nutrition. Now, the inferior thing about most
of these materials is that their percentage of digestibility is very low.

To illustrate: peanut shells—and we have found some of those

ADULTERATION. OF MIXED. FEEDS. 39

this year—have a digestibility, of. less than, 15 per cent of. the total
dry matter; and it is only the digestible material that serves the
animal. And peanut feed, 25.6 per cent; oat feed, when it is mostly
hulls—and oat feed varies—31 per cent; corncobs, 43.3 per cent.

I ought to say that the use of corn cobs has, diminished. greatly
since our friends in Kentucky ceased to send us wheat bran mixed
with ground corn cobs.. I could mention the names of some dealers
who manufactured this mixture, and some of the gentlemen present
would recognize them. We are not finding those. much now.

But the chief things used to-day of a somewhat inferior character
as shown by our examinations are oat hulls and screenings... Our
objection to the use of screenings, without. its being thoroughly under-
stood as to the amount. the farmer. is buying is this: They are.a varia-
ble thing; the screenings of one year are not the,same as the screen-
ings of another year; there are more weed seeds some years and less
other years; more refuse and grit some years and less other, years;
and I wish, for the sake of the trade as well as for the sake of the
consumer, that. a farmer could know whether he was buying 10 per
cent of screenings or 15 per cent or 20 per cent. And if that can be
accomplished, I think the object of these hearings and this proposed
legislation will be accomplished.

- Mr. Asporr. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Dr, Jordan a question ?

The Cuarrman. I want to ask this question first: About, concen-
trated feed and roughage, does not the trade take some notice of the
difference between concentrated feeds and roughage? I, suppose the
definition is not really generic.

Dr. Jorpan. Well, that is a matter somewhat in discussion, The
term “concentrates” and the term “roughage” originated with
Prof. Henry, of Wisconsin, in his first book; and as he understood it,
concentrates referred to materials that have concentrated nutrition,
and, broadly speaking, the grains and certain of the by-products
from the grains; roughage referred to hays and cornstalks, straw,
and materials of that kind.

The Cuatrman. As a rule, good farming would furnish the rough-
age on the farm, would it not, or in the vicinity of the farm?

Dr. Jorpan. Many farmers waste enough roughage to cover all of
the inferior materials they buy in feeding stuffs.

The Cuatrman, And some of the ingredients enumerated in this
amendment would be classified as roughage, would they not?

Dr. Jorpan. I should classify oat hulls as roughage—that is, of the
same class nutritively.

The CuarrMan, That is, some of the articles enumerated in that
section of the bill would hardly be worth the freight, would they ?

Dr. Jorpan. That would be my judgment. Take peanut shells, for
instance. I knew ofa case of a carload of peanut shells standing on a
sidetrack in the city of Buffalo, and they were used.

Now, it is not that all of the feed manufacturers do these things;
but enough of them do these things to attract our attention occasion-
ally; and I suspect that our legislation is aimed at these abuses.

Representative Lever. How will the nutritive value of peanut hulls
compare with ordinary fodder?

Dr. Jorpan. It is very much less.

Representative Lever. How much less?

40 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Dr. Jorvan. If you were to judge by the digestibility—I have the
figures somewhere here.

Representative Lever. Well, I mean roughly speaking.

Dr. Jorpan. Only about 15 per cent of peanut shells is digestible;
a fairly good mixed hay would have a digestibility of between
50 and 60 per cent.

Representative Lever. That is the fodder pulled from the corn-
stalk, not the ordinary Timothy hay or clover; I mean the fodder
pulled from cornstalks.

Dr. Jorpon. Well cured cornstalks would have practically as high
a digestibility as good hay.

Representative Lever. How about corncobs?

Dr. Jorpan. The average digestibility of corncobs is 43 per cent.

The Cuartrman. Would that be worth the freight ?

Dr. Jorpan. Well, if I were feeding dairy cattle, I would not con-
sider it so.

Representative Lever. Let me ask you this question: All animals,
Beas and quadrupeds, need a certain amount of roughage, do they
not ‘ ;

Dr. Jorpan. Certainly.

Representative Lever. If you feed a cow wholly on cottonseed meal,
or peanut meal, for a week or 10 days, or several months, you would
not have much of a cow left, probably, would you ?

Dr. Jorpon. She would go to the fertilizer factory, probably, if so
fed for months.

Representative Lever. The proposition seems to arise that the
farmers themselves should raise all the roughage they need; and I
agree to that proposition.

Dr. Jorpan. That is true.

Representative Lever. But there are lots of people who feed ani-
mals that are not farmers; men in the livery business, for instance.
Would you advocate the proposition of not allowing the peanut hulls,
or cottonseed hulls, screenings and the like, to be used in feeds?

Dr. Jorpan. I would advocate the proposition that if the city
stableman wants to buy peanut hulls, let him do it, but let him know
he is buying them. :

Representative Lever. What is your State law on the subject?

Dr. Jorpan. Our State law requires that all packages of feeding
stuffs be labeled, with the name of the manufacturer or jobber; with
the guaranteed chemical composition, and with the ingredients con-
tained in the feed, if it is a compounded feed—or, indeed, if it is any
feed—and the Commissioner of Agriculture is required to take sam-
ples. Those samples are sent to the experiment station for analysis;
they are sent by number, by the way, so that we know nothing about
the name of the brand. We make a report to the Commissioner of
Agriculture, and the results are later published.

Representative Lever. You have a way of protecting yourselves in
this mater under your own law?

Dr. Jorpan. I do not feel that the law as it stands fully protects
the farmer, because under the law the sale of these inferior materials
has increased, without any question, and the proportion of inferior
materials is not known

Representative Lever. Do you enforce your own law very strictly ?

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 4]

Dr. Jorpan. I think we do.

Representative Luver. What have you to say about the enforce-
ment of the Federal law, as described this morning by Dr. Haywood ?

Dr. Jorvan. If the Federal Government were to depend upon the
services of the chemists and microscopists in enforcing that law it
would be a failure, because, whatever may be said, no living chemist
or microscopist can pick those materials out after they are mixed. It
is not a question of chemical composition ; it is a question of physical
separation. Of course, we can identify them by the starch grains
and by the forms of tissues, and sometimes wifh the naked eye. But
that is another matter from separating them and telling what per-
centage exists.

Representative Luver. What would be the machinery that you
would set up to do that?

Dr. Jorpan. That is a hard question to answer. I think this would
accomplish it if it can be done: An inspection of the factories—by
the Federal Government of those doing an interstate trade, and by
the States of those which do only an intrastate trade; or it might
be a combination of the two. I do not know that that is feasible.

Another thing that has come to my mind; I am not saying it is
wise, and that is this: To require that these materials shall be sold
separately for what they are.

Representative Lever. In other words, you would not allow any
mixture at all?

Dr. Jorpan. I would not allow those inferior things to be put
in, unless some way can be arranged whereby the amount shall be
known—the proportion.

Representative Lever. After all, your conclusion is that this
amendment is a pretty serious proposition, and we had better give it
very serious thought, is it not?

Dr. Jorpan. I think so.

The CuarrMaAn. I would not state the witness’s opinion for him,
Mr. Lever. [ Laughter. |

Representative Lrver. Well, Dr. Jordan, and I are old friends,
and I am merely trying to get his viewpoint.

The CHatrMANn. His mind seems to run with yours on that point.

Representative Lever. What would be your concrete proposal to
put in the bill, Dr. Jordan? Are you satisfied with this amend-
ment as it is drawn?

Dr. Jorpan. No, sir.

Representative Lever. You are not?

Dr. Jorpan. No, sir.

Representative Luver. How would you amend it?

Dr. Jorpan. It seems to me—well, I would not pretend to draw
this amendment standing on my feet.

The Cuairman. I hope you will take the lberty of stating any
amendments that may occur to you.

Dr. Jorpan. But I would like to comment on this language:

That it shall be unlawful, except as herein otherwise provided, for any per-
son, firm, or corporation knowingly to ship, offer for shipment, or transport in
commerce among the several States or for commerce with foreign countries any
concentrated Commercial feeding stuffs containing any damaged feed, mill, ele-
vator, or other sweepings or dust, buckwheat hulls, cottonseed hulls, peanut

hulls, peanut shells, rice hulls, oat hulls, corncobs ground, cocoa shells, clipped
oat by-product, ground or unground hulls.

42 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

It seems to me that the term “ ground or unground hulls” in. there
would more or less place a hardship upon’ the oil Mp a Then the
provision goes on as follows:

Screenings, chaff, or other cleanings derived from the meen Cleaning,
or milling of any seed or grain when separated from the standard ‘product: as an
offal or by-product.

Now, the words, “ when separated froma the standard product as
an offal or by-product ” are likely to draw ‘into the net materials
that we do not intend to exclude.’ I may be loose in my interpretation
of that, but there I would certainly make a change.

Then I think the law should ‘define what concentrated feeds are.
In the New York State law we name the things that are concentrated
feed, so that when litigation occurs there is avery definite thing
before the court.

The Cuarrman. Will you attach that to your statement?

Dr. Jorpan. The New York law?

The CuarrMan. Yes.

Dr. Jorpan. I have not one with me, but I will be very glad to send
the committee a copy.

The Cuarrman. I wish you would do so.

(The material referred to was) subsequently submitted by ae
Jordan, and is here printed in full, as follows:)

STATE OF NEW YorRK, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, CHARLES §. Witson, Come
MISSIONER—CIRCULAR 142, PROVISIONS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAW RELATING
TO THE SALE AND ANALYSIS OF CONCENTRATED COMMERCIAL FEEDING STUFFS,
1916.

ARTICLE 7.—SALE AND ANALYSIS OF CONCENTRATED COMMERCIAL FEEDING STUFFS.

SEecTIon 160. Term ‘“ concentrated commercial feeding stuffs ” defined.

161. Statements to be attached to packages; contents; analysis.

162. Statements to be filed with commissioner of agriculture; to be accompanied
by sample and affidavit when requested.

1638. License fee,

164. Commissioner of agriculture to take samples for analysis; analysis to be
made by director of experiment station.

165. Sale of adulterated meal or ground grains.

Sec. 160. Term ‘“ concentrated commercial feeding stuffs” defined.—The term
“ concentrated commercial feeding stuffs,’ as used in this article, shall include
linseed meals, cottonseed meals, pea meals, bean meals, peanut meals, cocoanut
meals, gluten meals, gluten feeds, maize feeds, starch feeds, sugar feeds, dried
distiller’s grains, dried brewer’s grains, malt sprouts, except as hereinafter
provided, hominy feeds, cerealine feeds, rice meals, dried beet refuse, oat feeds,
corn and oat chops, corn and cob meal, ground beef or fish scraps, meat meals,
meat and bone meals mixed, dried blood, mixed feeds, clover meals, alfalfa
feeds and meals, compounded feeds, condimental stock and poultry foods, pro-
prietary or trade-marked stock and poultry foods, and all other materials of a
similar nature; but shall not include hays and straws, the whole seeds nor the
unmixed meals, made directly from the entire grains of wheat, rye, barley,
oats, corn, buckwheat, and broom corn. Neither shall it include wheat, rye,
and buckwheat brans or middlings, not mixed with other substances, but sold
separately as distinct articles of commerce, nor pure grains ground together,
nor corn meal and wheat bran mixed together, when sold as such by the manu-
facturer at retail, nor malt sprouts, when sold as such by the maltster at retail,
nor wheat bran and middlings mixed together not mixed with any other sub-
stances and known in the trade as “ mixed feed,” nor ground or cracked bone
not mixed with any other substance, nor shall it include poultry foods consist-
ing of whole or whole and cracked grains mixed together, with or without
grit, when all the ingredients may be identified by the naked eye. (As amended
by chapter 135 of the laws of 1916.)

This act to take effect January 1, 1917.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED. FEEDS. 43

Sec. 161. Statements to be attached to packages; contents; analysis.—No
manufacturer, firm, association, corporation, or person, shall. sell, offer, or
expose for sale or for distribution in this State, any concentrated commercial
feeding stuffs used for feeding live stock unless such concentrated commercial
feeding stuffs shall be accompanied by or shall have affixed to. each and every
package in a conspicuous place on the outside thereof, a plainly printed state-
ment which shall certify as follows:

1. The net weight of the contents of the package, except in the case of malt
sprouts sold in packages containing uneven weights,

2. The name, brand, or trade-mark.

8. The name and principal address of the manufacturer or person responsible
for the placing of the commodity upon the market.

4, Its composition expressed in the following terms:

a. The minimum per cent of crude protein.

b. The minimum per cent of crude fat.

ec. The minimum per cent of crude fiber, provided that the per cent of crude
fiber may be omitted if it does not exceed 5 per cent.

d. If a compounded feed, the name of each ingredient contained therein.

e. If artificially colored, the name of the material used for. such; purpose.

f. In the case of meat products, the maximum per cent.of phosphorie¢ acid.

If any such concentrated commercial feeding stuffs be sold, offered, .or
exposed for sale in bulk, such printed statement ‘shall accompany, every. ¢ar.or
lot. Any such feeding stuffs purchased in bulk and later sacked or bagged: for
purposes of sale shall have tags attached giving the information as. provided
herein before being sold, offered, or exposed for sale. ‘Whenever any feeding
stuffs are sold at retail in bulk or in packages belonging to the purchaser,.the
seller upon request of the purchaser shall furnish the said. purchaser the in-
formation contained in the certified statement provided herein... That portion
of the statement required by this section relating to the quality of feeding
stuffs shall be known and recognized as the guaranteed analysis. . (As amended
by chapter 185 of the laws of 1916.)

This act to take effect January 1, 1917.

Sec. 162. Statements to be filed with commissioner of agriculture; to be ac-
companied by sample and affidavit when requested.—Before any manufacturer,
firm, association, corporation, or person shall sell, offer or expose for sale in
this State any concentrated commercial feeding stuffs he or they shall for each
and every brand of concentrated commercial feeding stuff file annually prior
to January 1 of the calendar year in which such commodity is to be sold, offered
or exposed for sale with the commissioner of agriculture a certified copy of
the statement, with the exception of the net weight of the contents of the
package, specified in section 161, said certified copy to be accompanied, when
the said commissioner shall so request, by a sealed glass jar or bottle contain-
ing at least 1 pound of the feeding stuff to be sold or offered for sale, and the
company or person furnishing said sample shall thereupon make affidavit that
said sample corresponds to the feeding stuff which it represents in the per
centum of crude protein, crude fat, crude fiber. name of each ingredient con-
tained therein, if a compounded feed, and the name of any artificial coloring
material used. (As amended by chap. 314 of the Laws of 1911.)

Sec. 163. License fee.—Hvery manufacturer, importer, agent, or seller of any
concentrated commercial feeding stuffs shall pay annually prior to January 1
of the calendar year in which such commodity is to be sold, offered, or exposed
for sale to the treasurer of the State of New York a license fee of $25 for each
and every brand to be sold or offered or exposed for sale. Whenever a manufac-
turer, importer, agent, or seller of any concentrated commercial feeding stuffs
desires at any time to sell such material and has not complied with the
requirements of the statute he shall before selling, offering or exposing the
same for sale, comply with the requirements as herein provided. Said treas-
urer shall in each case at once certify to the commissioner of agriculture the
payment of such license fee. Each manufacturer, importer, or person who has
complied with the provisions of this article shall be entitled to receive a cer-
tificate from the commissioner of agriculture setting forth said facts. Such
certificate shall expire on the 31st day of December of the calendar year in
which it was issued, but no such certificate shall be issued for the sale of a
brand of concentrated commercial feeding stuff under a brand or trade name
which is misleading or deceptive or which tends to mislead or deceive as to
the constituents or materials of which it is composed. Any such certificate so
issued may be cancelled by the commissioner of agriculture when it is shown

44 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

that any statement upon which it was issued is false or misleading. When-
ever the manufacturer, importer, or shipper of concentrated commercial feeding
stuffs shall have filed the statement required by section 161 of this article
and paid the license fee as prescribed in this section, no agent or seller
of such manufacturer, importer, or shipper shall be required to file such
statement or pay such fee. (As amended by chap. 317 of the Laws of 1909. )

Sec. 164. Commissioner of agriculture to take samples for analysis; analysis
to be made by director of experiment station.—The commissioner of agriculture
shall at least once in each year transmit to the New York Agricultural Experi-
ment Station for analysis at least one sample, to be taken in the manner herein-
after prescribed, of the different concentrated commercial feeding stuffs sold
or offered for sale under the provisions of this article. The said commis-
sioner of agriculture or his duly authorized representative in taking samples
shall take them in duplicate in the presence of at least one witness, and in
the presence of such witness shall seal such samples and shall at the time of
taking tender and if accepted deliver to the person apparently in charge one of
such samples; the other sample the commissioner of agriculture shall cause
to be analyzed. The director of said experiment station shall continue to analyze
or cause to be analyzed such samples of concentrated commercial feeding stuffs
taken under the provisions of this article as shall be submitted to him for
that purpose by the commissioner of agriculture, and shall report such
analyses to the commissioner of agriculture, and for this purpose the New York
Agricultural Experiment Station may continue to employ chemists and ineur
such expenses as may be necessary to comply with the requirements of this
article. The result of the analysis of the sample or samples so procured,
together with such additional information as circumstances advise, shall be
published in reports or bulletins from time to time.

Sec. 165. Sale of adulterated meal or ground grains.—No person shall adul-
terate any kind of meal or ground grain or other cattle food with milling or
manufacturing offals, or any substance whatever, for the purpose of sale, unless
the true composition, mixture, or adulteration thereof is plainly marked or
indicated upon the package containing the same or in which it is offered for
sale. No person shall sell or offer for sale any meal or ground grain or other
eattle food which has been so adulterated unless the true composition, mix-
ture, or adulteration is plainly marked or indicated upon the package contain-
ing the same, or in which it is offered for sale. (As amended by chap. 817 of
the Laws of 1909.)

Representative Lever. What further amendment do you propose to
this section ?

Dr. Jorpan. I have nothing further to suggest, so far as I have
examined the law.

The Cuarrman. Under the provision in the second sentence, per-
mitting the Secretary of Agriculture to authorize the interstate ship-
ment of these feed stuffs where the foreign material did not detract
from the value of the feed, would not that permit them to ship by-
products or offal? I agree with you that those things having any
substantial feeding value ought not to be excluded. But that second
paragraph is a saving clause, so that no injury would result.

Dr. Jorpan. Well, of course, you would be placing upon the Sec-
retary of Agriculture a very great responsibility as to what has
nutritive value. He would need the services of a biological chemist
and a man very expert in nutrition to determine that fact. And the
variable nature of some of these inferior products may make it quite
difficult for the Secretary to carry out that provision.

The CuarrmMan. But it would not be difficult in the case of those
that have high nutritive value.

Dr. Jorpan. No, sir.

The Cuarrman. So that if he erred it would be in the exclusion
of stuff that had very low feeding value; it would not be in the ex-
clusion of stuff with high feeding value. |

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 45

Dr. Jorpan. I will call your attention to the fact.that you practi-
cally give the Secretary of Agriculture legislative power.

The CuatrMan. Well, that has become the custom here. [Laugh-
ter.]| We recognize that in the bill as it is drawn.

Dr. Jorpan. Well, of course, that is not my business.

Senator Kenyon. This legislation, Dr. Jordan, as you understand
it, is to prevent fraud upon the farmer in buying these compounded
products, is it not?

Dr. Jorpan. May I change the phraseology and add: “And enable
the farmer to know what he is buying.”

Senator Kenyon. To know what he is buying. If he does not
know what he is buying and buys something that is injurious a
fraud has been practiced upon him; so that it amounts to the same
thing. Now, that kind of legislation you think is desirable?

Dr. Jorpan. Yes, sir; I do, to prevent fraud.

Senator Kenyon. And the question in your mind is whether this
«mendment directly works that out?

Dr. Jorpan. Yes, sir.

Senator Kenyon. In other words, if the farmer wants to buy
peanut shells, or elephant’s teeth for feeding material, it is up to
him, but he should know it ?

Dr. Jorpan. He should simply know it. And I doubt whether you
could eXactly call a compounded feed a fraud upon the farmer when
the ingredients are named; not in the fullest sense.

Senator Kenyon. Well, if he is paying for something that is use-
less it is a fraud, is it not?

Dr. Jorpan. But the feeds sold in New York are sold to the
farmer—if he wishes to find out—with a full knowledge of the kinds
of things the feed contains.

Senator Kenyon. Regardless of whether that is an interstate
shipment or not?

Dr. Jorpan. Yes, sir.

Senator Kenyon. Why do you need an interstate law, then?

Dr. Jorpan. He does not know the amounts, but he knows the
kinds. And we find very few violations of the law. The feeding- -
stuff trade has very fully stated the kinds of things that go into
their feeding stuffs. Once in a while there is a slip; sometimes it
might be intentional

Senator Kenyon (interposing). So in your State he can know the
kinds but not the amounts?

Dr. Jorpan. Not the amounts.

Senator Kenyon. Your law does not cover that?

Dr. Jorpan. Our law does not cover that.

Senator Kenyon. If your law did cover that, you think the farmer
would be amply protected, do you?

Dr. Jorpan. No, sir.

Senator Kenyon. He would not be?

Dr. Jorpan. Unless they put inspectors in the mills; because if
they should send a feed to the experiment station and should ask
me and the chemists and microscopists to tell the proportions we
would decline to do so, unless it happened to be a wheat bran, with
corncobs, or something like that; but in the case of a molasses feed,
for instance, it would a simply out of the question.

46 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Senator Kenyon. So that, if they placed on the package a ‘label
showing just exactly the amount and what, it, was, you think the
farmer would know exactly what he was getting?

Dr. Jorpan. Yes, sir.

Senator Kenyon. W hy did not your law go that far?

Dr. Jorpan. Because we did not think it wise to. put into the law
and regulations something that we could not enforce.

Senator Kenyon. If you can not enforce it in the State law, how
could it be enforced under Federal law?

“a Jorpan. I said it could be enforced only by inspection in ee
mills

The ‘Crarrman. And your State can not handle that, so far as
cai traffic is concerned ?

va . Jorvan. It could in intrastate business, but not in interstate
traiiic.

Senator Kenyon. That is all I have to ask.” ‘i

The Cuarrman. Are you aware of the fact that the farmers have
had some trouble in buying from the mills in New York at any time?

Dr. Jorpan. At'the time of the so-called Wicks committee inyesti-
tigation in the State of New York there were certain facts developed
which indicated to that committee—I do not pretend to judge the
facts—that there was'a combination in the feeding-stuff trade which
prevented ‘such sales, for instance, ‘as a farmer buying from the
manufacturer a carload of feed on a cash basis.

The CuatrmMan. Well, are you familiar with the alleged fact that
the Feed Dealers’ Association of New York blacklisted mills that
sold by-products direct to’ farmers?

Dr. Jorvan. Tam not familiar with that fact.

The CuHarrman. And you are not familiar with the fact that that
organization dissolved on account of a threatened prosecution, and
then reorganized with the same officers and the same offices under
another name?

Dr. Jorpan. I could not assert anything in regard to that, sir.
I have troubles of my own.

Representative Lever. When was this. investigation that you
speak of ?

Dr. Jorpan. The Wicks committee investigation was in 1916,

Representative Lever. Two years ago?

Dr. JordAN. ‘Yes; and they published’ a very full report, which
could be had, I suppose, of the secretary of state of New York.

_Repr esentative Havcen. Your protection, then, is in the publicity
given of the findings of your department? —

Dr. Jorpan.. Yes, sir; we send out about 45,000 copies of our feed-
ing-stuff ‘bulletins.

Representative Haucren. And that gives’ a list’ of the manufac-
ee and dealers, does it?

JorpDan, Yes, sir; and the names of the brands and, the in-
settians of the respective brands.

Representative HAvern. “And ‘that ‘has given gis consider able
protection against the adulteration and the deception ? ©

Dr. Jorpan. Tt, hag etiabled the farmer to'know the kind of thing
he is buying. Many farmers pay no attention: to it; many do pay
attention.

ADULTERATION (OF MIXED FEEDS. 47

. The Caairman:. The point that I wanted to bring out; but failed,
is this: The effect: of blacklisting mills 'to which I have referred was
to force ‘the farmers, through this dealers’ association, to buy the
compounded feeds rather than: to purchase from the mills! and ‘mix
the stuff themselves. » I.think Idid not make that clear before.

Dr. Jorpan. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that the Dairymen’s
League, instituted an effort to have the manufacturers of feeding
stuffs sell to league members only brands made up entirely of what T
would call standard feeds with no inferior material.

The CHarrman. What: league was that?

Dr. Jorpan. It was! the Dairymen’s League through its grain pur-
chasing agency.’ And the grains were recommended ‘by Prof. Savage,
of Cornell, and the mixtures were also recommended by him.

The, CuHarrman:) Thatwas°on the theory that the foods could be
mixed without the use of those worthless materials, was it not?

Dr. Jorpan. Yes, sirjiand some ofthe manufacturers are mixing
feeds without) a particle: of inferior material. TI told the committee
that.41, per cent of the feeds examined in 1912 had inferior mate-
rials, and 59 per cent did not.

The CuarrMan. Yes.

Dr Jorpan: And about 410per cent of the 568 samples received
ie year and: so far examined did not have any. ‘I'see men here in
the committee room to-day who are mixing feeds which have no in-
ferior ingredients in'them:

~The CuatrMan. So that that'isia practicable thing?

Dr. Jorpan. That is a practicable thing.

Representative Haucen. Tunderstood you to say, Dr. Jordan, that
these hulls enumerated in the amendment have no feeding value?

Dr. Jorpan. I did not mean to say that.

Representative Havuecren. T understood you to say that they were
not. worth ‘the freight?

Dr. Jorpan. Why, as long as I had good wheat straw, I would
not buy pure oat hulls;:I would feed the straw.
o|Representative Havuern. You compare the feed value, then, with
that of straw; they are of more value than straw, are they not?

/ Dr: Jorpan. Not when pure; that is'as good a comparison as I could
make.

Mr. Cuarin. MrioChairman, may'I ask Dr. Jordan a few quies-
tions?

The CHarrMAN. What i is your name, residence, and’ business con-
nection 4°:

Mr. CuHarin. Robert: W. Chapin, of Chicago.

Dr. Jorpan. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. CHa - came
downoto:New York in:1899 ‘to: defeat our efforts to have enacted a
feeding-stuff law, and after he got there he turned around and helped
us to get it through, and he has been helping me ever since.

The Cuamman. Whom did he go there to represent ? :

Mr. Cuaptn! Myself ‘only.There was' no association of, manu-
facturers in existence'then’’ I was afraid the feeding: “stuff law would
be' too rigorous; but T' found that it was not. |

The Carman. It was a personal eccentricity of your own, then ?
io MrioOnapr.: Yes, sirs I was asmiall dealer in’ New York.

Dr. Jorpan. I think he paid his own expenses.

48 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Mr. Cuaprn. May I ask you this question, Dr. Jordan: Since you
passed your feeding-stuff law in 1899, has not the number of live
stock, and consequently, the sale of feeds, greatly increased ?

Dr. Jorpan. To answer that in a roundabout way, there has not
ee an increase in live stock at all proportionate to the increased sale
of feeds.

Mr. Cuarry. Of all kinds? Is it not very difficult for you to de-
termine the total tonnage of feed stuffs sold ?

Dr. Jorpan. Well, we do not know that; I ought to modify my
answer: the number of brands sold has greatly increased.

Mr. Cuapry. Would that not lead you to believe that the farmers
buy these mixed feed stuffs because they find them to be all right?

Dr. Jorpan. It leads. me to believe that the farmers have been
buying them because they are a little cheaper than the standard
brands.

Mr. Cuarin. I might call your attention to the fact, in answering
the question, that you know that we have had very little wheat mill
feeds made in the last few months, and the country has been forced
to go on a substitute basis.

Dr. Jorpan. Yes.

Mr. Cuarrn. And that means a large production of oatmeal, and
a consequent large proportion of oat hulls. I estimate that there
were 300,000 or 400,000 tons of oat hulls produced in the last year.

Dr. Jorpan. You have got me there; I do not know.

Mr. Cuapin. What would you suggest that we do with those oat
hulls?

Dr. Jorpan. Sell them for what they are.

Mr. Cuarrn. Does the farmer know how to buy them?

Dr. Jorpan. That is up to him.

Mr. Cuartn. Does he know how to use them?

Dr. Jorpan. He knows how to use them as well as he does any
roughage.

Mr. Cuarin. It has been my experience that a dairy feed must be
lightened up; and that the farmers could not get the stuff to do
that without these mixed feed manufacturers.

Dr. Jorpan. I will have to differ with you there. If a dairy cow
is eating straw and hay and silage, it may be fed concentrated
feeds without any lightening—and I will take you to the experiment
station farm, where they have been fed that way, with nothing to
lighten the grain ratio.

Mr. Cuaprin. Well, Dr. Jordan, as you know, this immense pro-
duction of oat feed has got to be disposed of somewhere?

Dr. Jorpan. Yes.

Mr. Cuaprin. And I think you will agree—as I took it from one of
your textbooks—that oat hulls have approximately the same nutritive
value as timothy hay?

Dr. Jorpan. Yes; as sold.

Mr. Cuarry. Would you consider them worth as much?

Dr. Jorpan. Timothy hay has about the same digestibility as oat
hulls; and timothy hay I consider has as low a nutritive value as any
roughage.

Mr. Cuapin. How about alfalfa? Is that not about identical
with oat feed?

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 49

Dr. Jorpan. No; although alfalfa hay is somewhat overestimated ;
good clover hay is just as good.

Mr. Cuarrn. You are thinking of the net value in that respect?

Dr. Jorvon. Yes.

Mr. Cuarryn. Would you consider the value of oat hulls anywhere
near the value of timothy hay?

Dr. Jorpan. Approximately, if you mean this by-product as sold.

Mr. Cuarin. Are you aware that in Chicago we are paying $31
per ton for timothy hay, whereas the oat hulls are selling for a good
deal less? Would you not think that oat hulls are cheap feed in that
part of the country ?

Dr. Jorpan. I will have to return, Mr. Chapin, to my basic propo-
sition—and you must not try to get me away from it—that the
farmer has a right to know what he is buying. If he wants to buy
oat hulls, he has a right to buy them.

The CHatrman. I would like to ask you about the milk production
of New York, Dr. Jordan. Has the milk production from cows in
New York increased in the last few years?

Dr. Jorpan. It probably has. But if we should say that that is
due to the sale of inferior feeds, we would make a mistake. We
have been trying to educate the dairymen of New York to better
methods, through the college of agriculture, through the experiment
stations, and through better breeding.

The Cuatrman. You think that accounts for the increased pro-
duction, do you?

Dr. Jorpan. I think that. accounts for the increased production,
very largely.

Mr. Cuarrn. I want to ask you as a scientist—there has been so
much talk about ivory-nut. turnings; I suppose you have read the
reports of the tests by the experts showing that ivory nut turnings
had a high feeding value. Will you agree with me on that proposi-
tion ?

Dr. Jorpan. I do.

Mr. Cuartn. Then it is not an adulterant in any sense of the word ?

Dr. Jorpan. No.

Mr. Cuapin. Anything having the value of oats in total nutritive
value, or total energy value, would not be an adulterant, would it?

Dr. Jorpan. That depends on how you define it. If ivory nut
turnings were put in cottonseed meal, or were passed for cottonseed
meal, I would call it an adulterant.

Mr. Cuarin. So would I.

Dr. Jorpan. So that your question can not be answered in single
terms.

Mr. Cuaptn. The point I want to make is that some of these feeds
you would not consider worthless or of no value?

Dr. Jorpan. I have said so, explicitly.

Mr. Cuarrtn. Have you ever found any sawdust in the feed in
your State?

Dr. Jorpan. No.

Mr. Cuaptn. You have found peanut shells?
Dr. Jorpan. Yes.

Mr. Cuarrn. In what form?

Dr. Jorpan. Ground peanut shells.

81413—18—4

50 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Mr. Cuarry. Was that in peanut meal?

Dr. Jorpan. No.

Mr. Cuarrn. I will ask you whether, about 10 years ago, before we
had a pure food law, I asked you to help in getting a law passed, and
you agreed with me——

Dr. Jorpan (interposing). We have even found the thin paper
covering the coffee kernel in bran.

r. CHaprn. That is a gross adulteration, is it not?

Dr. Jorpan. Yes.

_Mr. Cuaprn. I think so; but I have never seen such an adultera-
Sey 1 commerce; and I believe the pure food law forbids it, does
1t not‘

Dr. Jorpan. This was made in New Jersey. [Laughter.]

Mr. Cuarrin. Have you any objection in your own mind to the
use of alfalfa meal in feeds?

Dr. Jorpan. I have no objection to the use of alfalfa meal by the
farmer. Of course,*my judgment is—some of you who know the
financial side of the matter will disagree with me—that alfalfa meal
is sold for more than it ought to be, when put into compound feeds.
My judgment is that that is true in general, that the inferior ma-
terials finally come to bring a larger price than they should, when
mixed with good materials. My mind is open on that question, but
that is my present judgment. ;

Mr. Cuarrn. Taking some of these offals named in the amend-
ment on a purely energy basis—we are dealing with calories, say—I
will read a list of them, with the production of each:

The annual production in this country of oat feeds is 400,000 tons;
the production of screenings is 300,000 tons; alfalfa meal, 300,000 to
400,000 tons; molasses, 300,000 tons; clipped oat by-prduct, 200 tons;
cottonseed hulls, 968,000 tons. Those are the government figures.
That makes a total of 2,468,000 tons of by-products.

Now, will you not agree with me that practically all of those ma-
terials have the same value as timothy hay, about 50 per cent of
digestible nutrients—that is, the oat screenings and the alfalfa meal ?

Dr. Jorpan. Those things have a value, and it ought to be con-
served.

Mr. Cuarry. And would not that 2,500,000 tons of this material
represent in nutritive value approximately 1,000,000 tons of corn,
just as a matter of calculation, and thereby save that amount of
corn being used as feed ?

Dr. Jorpan. Were you ever a lawyer?

Mr. Cuaptn. No; I am only a feed dealer. And would not that
1,000,000 tons of corn be worth $50,000,000? Corn is worth $50 a
ton. And what should we do with all these by-products?

Dr. Jorpan. Sell them to those who will use them.

Mr. Cuarrn. Do you think we can get the farmer to buy them?

Dr. Jorpan. I do not know.

Mr. Carin. They are buying these mixed feeds now; are they
satisfied with them ? yaa

Dr. Jorpan. I do not know. But that does not justify selling
them in the way in which they aresold.

Mr. Cxarrn. Well, do you believe that if we could not sell them
to the farmer they would not come on the market, and we would
have a consequent shortage of feedstuffs?

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 51

Dr. Jorpan. I believe, if you go into the economics of the situa-
tion, that the farmers of the State of New York can take care of the
roughage question themselves.

The Cuatrman. Mr. Chapin, do you mean to say that you could
not sell those things to farmers ?

Mr. Cuarry. Any more than I can sell the soles of shoes to farmers ;
they need the soles of shoes
The Crairman (interposing). They will not buy those things?

Mr. Cuarry. No; because they are not chemists; they have not
read Dr. Jordan’s textbook.

The Cuarrman. Do you know anything about the organization
of the New York Feed Dealers’ Association ?

Mr. Cuarin. I do not know anything about it.

The Cuarrman. If the farmers could buy that; if the farmers
should buy those things themselves, they could not mix them?

Mr. Carin. They do buy it—from me. I sold three carloads at
the State fair last week, and some of them bought feeds containing
oat hulls; I made very little out of it; but I gave them just what
they wanted—hominy feed and other feed lightened up with oat
hulls—and they said it was the finest they ever had. One of them
was Paul T. Brady, who has the finest sort of cows.

The CuArrman. Whai sort did you give him?

Mr. Cuapin. Oat hulls from oat feed.

The Cuarrman. Where did you get it?

Mr. Cuarrn. From the oat mills.

The Cuarrman. Where?

Mr. Cuapin. In the West; various centers.

The Cuatrman. Do you have them shipped from the West to New
York?

Mr. Crarry. No: I live in Chicago; my plant is in Hammond, Ind.

The Cuarrman. I thought it was in New York. You do not han-
dle hulls in New York, do you?

Mr. Cuarrn. I sell a large amount of feeds in New York.

The CuarMan. J mean, you do not buy them there?

Mr. Carin. No; the movement is from the West to the East.

The CuHarrmMAn. I see. oy

Mr. Cuapin. I was going to ask Dr. Jordan what the farmers do,
with the lack of labor and the lack of materials? Would you say
that every feed dealer should carry on hand 30 carloads, which is the
Government minimum? Each car is worth $2,000 a carload. Can
every feed dealer carry $20,000 or $30,000 worth of various feeds in
stock, so as to supply the man who wants to do his own mixing?

Dr. Jorpan. I do not see what that has to do with the inferior
ingredients; you are mixing the questions. A lot of manufacturers
are mixing good things. If you think the farmer must mix, let him
mix that kind.

Mr. Cuarin. Now, you know what I am interested in. The amount
of things I can get are limited—distillers’ grains and all of those
things are short crops this year. Now, if the farmers call for more
feed, how am I going to give it to them?

The Cuairman. Do you mind telling the farmer just what ‘the is
buying?

Mr. Cuaptn. I do so now.

52 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

The Cuarrman. Then, what objection have you to this? The
Secretary of Agriculture would permit you to ship stuff if it is not
injurious or worthless.

Mr. Cnarin. I will tell you. In the first place, the form would
have to be changed. I have a transcript of Dr. Jordan’s report for
1913, showing the variations in all feeds

The CrarMan (interposing). When they vary and become worth-
less, do you not think they ought to be excluded?

Mr. Cuaprn. No; this variation is perfectly normal, and Dr.
Jordan will bear me out in that.

The CHarrMan. You do not understand my question. I am re-
ferring to worthless stuff, the stuff that the farmer either has or does
not want.

Mr. Cuarrin. I do not know of any worthless stuff raised on the
farm, or any worthless stuff used in the feed business.

The Cuarrman. Then, this amendment would not interfere with
you at all?

Mr. Cuaprn. I will tell you why it will. Because, according to
the way the amendment is worded now, I can not use anything;
everything I use is derived from grain. That provision does not say
anything about the stuff being worthless or valueless. It says if I
use these things I am violating the law; if I mix oats and corn I
am violating the law; the standard of corn is so many units of
protein. Now, from another point of view, oats has a higher pro-
tein value than corn. Now, which is right?

The CHarrman. I think you are putting up scarecrows.

Mr. Cuarin. We have good reason to be afraid of laws that we
can not understand. We do not know where they lead us to, or
what effect they will have. I know what will happen to my business
if all of these products are put off the market, or if the sale or manu-
facture of them is restricted. It will put the price of things I have
to buy up to a point where I can not use them. That is where I am
concerned.

Because these things are the only things that have held down the
price of feeds. I saw in the Dairymen’s News an article stating that
there was a shortage or shrinkage of 1,000,000 tons of hay in New
York. And here are 600,000 tons of oat feeds that will not begin to
make up the shortage in New York State. And every other feed
crop in New York was reported to be inferior. Now, do not say
that the farmer has enough roughage; I can not believe it. The
farmer is not going to chop up hay to mix with his feed.

Dr. JorDAN. It is not necessary.

Mr. Cuarrn. I can not sell the farmer heavy materials; he always
insists on having a bulky and light feed; that has been my experience
for many years.

Dr. Jorpan. Let me interrupt you there. I am a Maine man
originally. There are comparatively few of these things sold in the
State of Maine. Largely all that are sold there are the heavy feeds.
They buy them and use them, and have done it for years.

Mr. Cuarrn. I beg to differ with you, because I sell a great deal
of feed in the State of Maine. And I know the kinds I buy are
very bulky; and they are what the farmers buy. But there is a
ereat deal of feed sold there—of the stock feed that is sold for
growing stock, a combination of hominy and oat feed.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 53

Dr. Jorpan. As I say, there is a very small proportion of oat feed
sold in the State of Maine. The farmers are buying very much less
than in the State of New York; and they are not coming to grief by
it either.

The Cuarrman. Are there any other questions?

Mr. Cuaprn. I want to ask Dr. Jordan one more question: He
said that oat hulls were about 31 per cent digestible.

Dr. Jorpan. I said mostly hulls.

Mr. Cuapin. Well, this bulletin of Cornell University, which is'a
copy of Dr. Henry’s report, shows that oat hulls have total nutritives
of 50.1 per cent. Now, as they only carry 1.3 per cent digestible fat,
which would be about 3 per cent of the nutrients, that would mean
that the sum total of digestible nutrients in oat hulls was 48 per
cent, excluding fat, multiplied by 24.

Dr. Jorpan. Yes.

Mr. Cuarin. Now, that is more than 31 per cent.

Dr. Jorpan. When I gave that figure, I said mostly hulls.

Mr. Cuarin. This says “ oat hulls.”

Dr. Jorpan. But hulls means the general mixture of offal, includ-
ing oat bran.

Mr. Cuapin. Now, you are aware that there is no such thing as
bran in it; so that there are about 50 nutrients in oat hulls, as com-
pared with 80 in corn?

Dr. Jorpan. I stated to the committee that they are used for ma-
terial

Mr. Cuarrn (interposing). Would you say that oat feed, or oat
hulls, has a total nutritive value of 50 to one of 70 for oats—that that
somewhere nearly expresses the ratio of their values?

Dr. Jorpan. No.

Mr. Cuapin. Would you place them on a net energy value?

Dr. Jorpan. I would place them on a net energy value.

Mr. Cuarryn. Would you say that they were worth half on a net
energy value? ;

Dr. Jorpan. Perhaps so.

Mr. Cuarrn. In other words, if oats are worth $41 a ton in
Chicago, would oat hulls be worth $24?

Dr. Jorpan. Not for me if I had a farm.

Mr. Cuarin. Could they not be used in that way ?

Dr. Jorpan. Not on a farm, if they used their own roughage. I
disagree with you in the statement that the farmers in the State of
New York producing milk have to buy so much hay. Most of them
are using their own roughage.

Mr. Cuaprrn. Do you consider oat hulls injurious when they are
oats themselves? That is an economic question with me. I do not
care about my personal interest. I am thinking about the effect on
the whole country. And I do not want to see all of this food ma-
terial

Dr. Jorpan. Neither do I.

Mr. Cuarin. I do not want to see anything done that will throw
the whole industry into confusion in the dead of winter, when we
can not get any feed.

Dr. Jorpan. I agree with you there. I stated that.

Mr. Starr. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question ?

The Cuarrman. What is your name and business connectior:

54 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Mr. Srarr. My name is Charles Staff, and I represent the Lar-
rowe Milling Co., of Detroit, Mich.

The Cuatrman. All right; you may ask him a question.

Mr. Starr. I want to ask you, Dr. Jordan, whether you consider
it necessary, in protecting the farmer against the use of these low-
grade feeds, to require the percentage of all the constituents in
that compounded feed to be given, or do you think it is sufficient to re-
quire only the percentage of such feeds as are labeled as inferior?
This law or amendment provides that if any ingredients of inferior
quality are mixed in a shipment of feed, the percentage of all of the
ingredients shall be stated. Therefore, if 10 per cent of the inferior
qualities are used in a feed, the percentage of the other 90 per cent
of the feed must be declared. Do you think that at all necessary ?

Dr. Jorpan. It seems to me that if the percentage of inferior ma-
terial is stated that would answer all purposes.

Mr. Cuapin. That is a point that had not been brought out.

Representative Lever. Let me ask you just one question. As chair-
man of the House Committee on Agriculture I have received quite
a number of protests on the proposition of selling mixed feed, and
I was just wondering if there is any great protest on the part of the
farmers of New York on that kind of stuff that they are buying?

Dr. Jorpan. IT am not aware whether there is much protest or
commendation. J don’t think the farmers of New York understand
the situation very well now, considering the short time it has been up.

The Cuairman. In that connection I will file in the hearing be-
fore it is finished a letter which I have received from Mr. Campbell,
of the National Milk Producers Federation, comprising 200,000 mem-
bers. He has very strongly indorsed this amendment and is very
anxious for it to pass. I also have a telegram from the National
State Grange of New York, signed by other agricultural associations,
very strongly indorsing the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chapin, these oatmeal factories, turning out all these oat
hulls that you have so much in mind, who owns those oatmeal fac-
tories ?

Mr. Cuarin. They are owned by various companies, all in competi-
tion with each other. We buy from all of them.

The Cuatrman. Now, the one at Buffalo, who owns that?

Mr. Cuarin. The H-O Co.

The Cuamrman. Who is that?

Mr. Cuarrn. That is an independent corporation owned by people
that I know in Buffalo.

The Cuarrman. The Armour people don’t control that?

Mr. Cuarrn. They do not.

The Cuairman. Do they control any of these?

Mr. Cuarrn. I think they have a mill of their own at Milwaukee,
and I think they own one at Buffalo.

The CuarrMan. Does Swift & Co. own any?

Mr. Cuarty. They do not; not to my knowledge.

The Cuarrman. Are you a member of the American Feed Manu-
facturers’ Association ?

Mr. Cuaprin. I am. '

The CuarrMAn. Could you furnish us with a list of the directors of
that association ?

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 55

Mr. Cuartn. I will ask the secretary to do that. I know he will be
pleased to comply.
(The list referred to follows:)

AMERICAN FEED MANUFACTURERS’ ASSOCIATION.
OFFICERS.

Harold A. Abbott, president, The Albert Dickinson Co., Chicago, Ill.

F. A. McLellan, first vice president, The H-O Co., Buffalo, N. Y.

Charles A. Krause, second vice president, Chas. A. Krause Milling Co., Mil-
waukee, Wis.

J. B. Edgar, third vice president, Edgar-Morgan Co., Memphis, Tenn.

L. F. Brown, secretary, Milwaukee, Wis.

W. R. Anderson, treasurer, Flour & Feed, Milwaukee, Wis.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,

G. A. Chapman, chairman, formerly of The Quaker Oats Co., Chicago, IIl.
H. G. Atwood, American Milling Co., Peoria, Ill.

R. W. Chapin, Chapin & Co., Chicago, Ill.

Sherman T. Edwards, Hales & Edwards Co., Chicago, Il.

O. E. M. Keller, Arcady Farms Milling Co., Chicago, Ill.

F. A. McLellan, The H-O Co., Buffalo, N. Y.

The president, ex officio.

NATIONAL COUNCILLOR, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
James H. Genung, American Hominy Co., Indianapolis, Ind.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

John ©, Reid, chairman, The Corno Mills Co., St. Louis, Mo.

M. C. Peters, vice chairman, M. C. Peters Mill Co., Omaha, Nebr.
J. W. Anderson, Kornfalfa Feed Milling Co., Kansas City, Mo.
Dwight E. Hamlin,*Dwight E. Hamlin, Pittsburgh, Pa.

H. C. Joehnk, Champion Feed Milling Co., Lyons, Iowa.

F. J. Ludwig, Chas. M. Cox Co., Boston, Mass.

Maxwell M. Nowak, Nowak Milling Corporation, Buffalo, N. Y.
P. R. Park, The Park & Pollard Co., Boston, Mass.

W. A. Reynolds, The Southern Cotton Oil Co., Charlotte, N. C.
A, F. Seay, Ralston Purina Co., St. Louis, Mo.

F. R. Slauson, American Linseed Co., New York, N. Y.

Cc. U. Snyder, C. U. Snyder & Co., Chicago, Til.

R. P. Walden, Corn Products Refining Co., New York, N. Y.

H. Wehman, International Sugar Feed Co., Minneapolis, Minn.
F. M. Wilson, The Denver Alfalfa Milling & Products Co., Lamar, Colo.
The president, ex officio.

The Cuarrman. Now, the Armour Co. has a member on the board,
hasn’t it, the board of directors?

Mr. Carty. I don’t know whether they have or not. They have
only joined lately.

The Cuarrman. Mr. Ferguson, representing the Swift people?

Mr. Cuarrn. I have never seen anybody attending our member-
ship representing Swift & Co., but they have no representation on
our board or executive committee or anything else. They have no
control over it.

Dr. Jorpan. Is that all, Senator ?

The Cuarrman. Yes; that is all.

- Representative Havucen. Just one question. Doctor, do you con-
sider clover and alfalfa the same class of feed ?

56 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Dr. Jorpan. Practically so; yes.

Representative Haucen. How does that compare with corn, for
instance, for feeding cattle, either clover or alfalfa? .

Dr. Jorpan. With corn grain?

Representative Haucen. Yes.

Dr. Jorpan. Oh, about as 51 or 52 per cent is to 85 to 87 per
cent.

Representative Haucen. Does the grinding of alfalfa or clover add
anything to its value?

Dr. Jorpan. Not in my opinion.
T

Representative Haucen. What is the object of grinding it?

Dr. Jorpan. I was told by a commercial man that it is ground
partly because they like it for mixing in the compounded feed, and
partly because they can transport so much more in a car that it
lowers the freight rate. I have been told that but I do not know that
from my own knowledge.

Representative Haucrn. It is compressed by grinding?

Dr. Jorpan. Yes; they get more room in that way.

The Cuatrman. I think I will have the letter of Mr. Campbell
read at this time.

(The clerk read the letter as follows :)

THE NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS’ FEDERATION.

Washington, September 15, 1918.
Hon. THomas P. GORE,
Washington, D. C.

Dear SENATOR: I am writing to express the sentiment of the directors, the
executive committee, and other representatives of the Naional Milk Producers’
Federation present and holding a meeting of the federation in this city yester-
day, upon the amendment offered by you to the agricultural bill now pend-
ing.
The mixed-feed problem is one that has sorely afflicted the milk producers
of the country for some years as evidenced by the attempts to regulate the
same in the States.

These attempts have proven abortive because of the immunity afforded by
State lines, and the ease by which the contents could be put over upon the un-
wary farmer unable to make an analysis.

The entire membership officially represented yesterday expressed the hope
that the bill would become a law. It is quite possible that the bill may not be
perfect, but we are satisfied that enough good and wholesome feed can be had
under the terms of the bill to offset a hundred items over any waste of good
food sacrificed.

Nor need there be any sacrifice under the terms of the law of any useful
feed or material.

The frauds and deception that have been practiced under the existing rules
and State laws have afforded the farmer but little protection.

This has not come from lack of purpose, but from the immunity of State lines:
and the ease by which the manufacturer could cover his worthless material and
sell it at fabulous prices.

Very truly, yours,
Mito D. CAMPBELL,
President National Milk Producers’ Federation.

P. S—The National Milk Producers’ Federation is the only association of its
kind in the United States. It has about 200,000 members, and is rapidly grow-
ing.

It comprises the local and State associations of New England, New York,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, and on to the coast, with California,
Oregon, and Washington.

The Cuarrman. Now, we will hear Mr. White. State your name
and post-office address, Mr. White. .

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 57

STATEMENT OF C. R. WHITE, DEPARTMENT OF FARMS AND
| MANAGEMENT, ALBANY, N. Y.

Mr. Wuirsr. My name is C. R. White, and I represent the depart-
ment of farms and management, Albany, N. Y

The Cuatrman. Now, Mr. White, you have been present at the
hearing this morning, and I wish you would go ahead and state any-
thing that occurs to you touching the necessity of this amendment, or
the evils intended to be cured, and whether or not it is adapted to
that end. Make any suggestions that you see fit.

Mr. Wuirr. It is our position that this amendment should be
passed substantially as it stands. I think Dr. Jordan pointed out
one or two places where it could be improved. It is our contention
in New York, and the contention of the State food commission there,
that the farmers should have the right, and do have the right, to
know what they are buying.

The statement has been made here that there were large amounts
of screenings and offal, and so forth, from the mills and elevators of
the West which receive a market. We have no objection to that, but
we do claim that they have no right to unload those articles of low
value on to the farmers of our State without their knowing what it
is. The statement was made here, and practically correctly, I think,
that those were variable qualities—which is probably true—that
when those screenings were introduced into these products we don’t
know what the fault is. We do know that we have taken samples
from the State of New York—and I suppose they will be here to-
day—of screenings from cars—in fact, broke the seal to get them,
because they were full carloads of screenings—that are practically
worthless, or very inferior.

The CuarrMan. You have got those samples here?

‘Mr. Wurre. No; I suppose they will be here. Mr. Loomis, of the
State food commission, whom I expected to be here, will have those
samples of feeds, or the low-grade materials. I will say this, that
in mill-run bran, which we allow to come into the State of New
York—that is, bran containing mill-run screenings—I have seen
bran which had screenings of such a low character that the taste
and smell were such that the animals would not eat the bran at all.
It had to be incorporated in small quantities in mixed feeds before
the stock will use it.

I will say this, that for the last eight years I have worked with
the farmers over the entire State of New York. I have held insti-
tutes and have conducted institutes for them and worked with the
college of agriculture in extension school work, and I never yet have
heard a single case where a farmer desired to buy hulls or anything
of the kind. I have heard repeated protests to the fact that they
were obliged to buy them and didn’t want them.

Representative Lever. Why did they buy them ?

Mr. Wuirr. Why did they buy them? They can’t help them-
selves. They buy them in mixed feeds. The greater profit on mixed
feed enters into it. There is a little history that might be brought
out here on that. In many cases where the Dairy Men’s League
asked or made arrangements with local feed dealers to handle dairy-
men’s feed and the dairymen went there to get it; it was impossi-
ble to get it and they had to take the feed offered them. That is a

58 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

begins fact, and any of the Dairy Men’s League people will tell
you that.

Representative Lever. Mr. Chapin brought out a point there that
I think is of value to this committee. Why don’t these farmers mix
their own feed ?

Mr. Wurre. The farmers do; a great many of them mix their feed.

Representative Lever. Why don’t they all do it?

Mr. Wuire. Because in many cases they can’t get the material.
There are sections of the State where the different materials which
should enter into stock feeds are not available as separate materials.

Representative Lever. Which makes it necessary for the sale of
mixed feeds?

Mr. Wuirs. Yes; in those particular instances. Not all over the
State, however. There are sections of the State where the several
constituents, such as cottonseed meal, linseed meal, and so forth, can
Le bought.

The CuarrMan. Aren’t the grange organizations of New York
making an effort to distribute standard feeds or mixed feeds that
have really feeding ingredients ?

Mr. Wuirer. There is such an institution, and I think Prof. Wing
can answer that question. He is president of it and I should prefer
that he answer any questions in relation to that. :

The CuHarrMan. That is an effort to escape from the adulterated
feeds. !

Mr. Wuire. That is true.

The CuarrMan. Have you got a law in New York against the sale
of adulterated feeds?

Mr. Wuire. We have.

The CuarrMan. Have you changed it several times?

Mr. Wurre. There has been no change made since I have been con-
nected with the department.

The CuarrmMan. Did you have to pass a law prohibiting the adul-
terating of feed ?

Mr. Wuirte. It seems so.

The CrarrMan. Couldn’t you trust the feed manufacturers to sell
pure feeds?

Mr. Wuire. I should hardly think so.

The Cuarrman. How many States have laws prohibiting the sale
of adulterated feeds?

Mr. Wuire. I am not prepared to answer that question. I don’t
know how many. .

The CHarrmMan. It seems to me there are 42 or more. Of course
you don’t know why that was, whether the feed manufacturer was
trying to sell too high value food or not, but it is true that in a great
many States State legislatures have passed laws to try to prohibit the
adulterating of feed.

Mr. Wuirte. Yes, sir.

The Cuarrman. Do you know of any reason for that, any theory
upon which this legislation was enacted, except that the feed manu-
facturers couldn’t be trusted unregulated by law to sell pure feed?

Mr. Wurrr. It is the natural assumption that where a measure
was enacted there must have been some need for the measure or 1t
would not have been enacted.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 59

Representative Lever. Each State has a statute against murder,
too, on the same theory I guess.

Mr. Wurre. I would like to say this, Mr. Chairman, that the ques-
tion has been raised of the unenforcibility of any measure that
might be passed. I think it is hardly conceivable that such an ob-
jection could be raised; that if we had any crime that was being
committed, such as burglary or counterfeiting or anything, that if
we couldn't get all of those that were engaged in it we shouldn’t
enact a law prohibiting it.

Representative Lever. Senator Gore’s reasoning was so seductive
that I felt I ought to throw a wrench into the machinery—that we
can’t trust people not to commit murder and we ought to prohibit
the adulteration of feed — we can’t trust the feed manufac-
turers.

But I don’t think there is any difference between the House con-
ferees and the Senate conferees on the proposition of trying to get
a law here which will work. What we want is for you to tell us
first, is there a reason for any additional legislation; second, is this
pr oposition a workable proposition, and if not, third, have we got a
workable proposition that we can pass at this time? I think that
sizes up the situation.

Mr. Warp. Senator, may we ask the witness a question ?

The Cuamman. Yes.

Mr. Warp. Mr. White, have you made any study or observation
as to the increasing death rate for the past two years among dairy
herds in the State of New York?

Mr. Wuirr. I have not directly. I have heard a number of state-
ments made within the last few weeks that there was an increasing
death rate in the cattle of the State.

Mr. Warp. And in the spring particularly, after the winter period ?

Mr. Wuirr. Yes, sir.

Mr. Warp. And that is the period when oe mixed grains have
been very largely fed?

Mr. Wurre. Yes, sir.

Mr. Warp. And have you given any study to the fact that Cockrell
bran and other screening brans containing poisonous alkaloids and
oils have been sold?

Mr. Wurrr. I have not. I am not a scientist.

Representative Lever. Mr. Ward, wouldn’t they be prohibited
under the pure-food law from shipping i in interstate commerce such
feeds as you mentioned last?

Mr. Warp. So far there is no law that has tended to decrease the
feeding of these stuffs, or the selling of them to the farmers. Every
law is evaded in one way or another.

Representative Lever. I am asking for information. This is all a
brand new field to me. You say you have been connected with the
department of agriculture of New York for eight years?

Mr. Wuire. Yes.

ns Lever. And you have been holding institutes over
the country ?

Mr. Wuirs. Over the State; yes, sir.

Representative Lever. And the farmers have been complaining
about this mixed-feed proposition ?

60 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Mr. Wuirr. Yes, sir.

Representative Lever. For how many years?

Mr. Wurre. Ever since I have been in the field.

Representative Lever. Have you made any protest down here to
Washington before this time?

Mr. Wuire. No, sir.

Representative Lever. Why not? :

Mr. Wutre. Because I was connected with the State department.
It wasn’t particularly my duty.

Representative Lever. Wouldn’t that be the very reason why you
should do it?

Mr. Wurre. I presume it would.

Representative Haucren. This is the first opportunity you have
had, isn’t it?

Mr. Wuirte. The first opportunity; yes, sir.

Representative Havern. What is your official position ?

Mr. Wurre. I am here representing Dr. Porter, of the department
of foods and markets, who has charge of the seed investigation of the
State food commission.

Mr. Cuarin. May I ask Mr. White a question ?

The Cuartrman. Yes.

Mr. Cuapin. Mr. White, do you know of any specific case where a
cow died because of something she was fed ?

Mr. Wuirr. No; I said I didn’t know specifically. That has been
the report that I have heard.

Mr. Cuarin. Do you know that when cows are fed improperly
any kind of feed, too large an amount or too concentrated, it is lable
to make them sick and cause them to die?

Mr. Wuirte. Yes, sir.

Mr. Cuarin. It can be done with cottonseed meal, can’t it?

Mr. Wuirte. Yes.

Mr. Cuapin. And gluten feed?

Mr. Wuirer. Yes, sir.

Mr. Cuarrn. Do you know that a large number of cattle in New
York—you must know it in your work and in your study—are fed
‘nothing but gluten feed or cotton seed ?

Mr. Wutre. That is very unfair, Mr. Chapin. You musn’t assume
that the farmers don’t know anything about feeding. There may be
rare cases where that is so.

Mr. Cuaptn. I happen to know of my own knowledge of such
cases, having lived in the State 25 years.

Mr. Wuire. Such cases are very rare indeed.

Mr. Cuaprin. Now, what you said about farmers buying mixed
feed because they had to—you think that is actually so, that they
could buy nothing but mixed feed ?

Mr. Wuirr. Yes, sir.

Mr. Cuarin. What would that indicate ?

Mr. Wuirr. An inadequate supply of concentrates; that the sup-
ply of concentrates in some sections of the State was inadequate;
that they couldn’t get these concentrates to make up their feeds.

Mr. Cuarin. Do you know what concentrates were particularly
lacking—bran ?

Mr. Wuirr. No; I have known times when they didn’t carry cot-
tonseed meal. ;

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 61

Mr. Currin. Was it that this last winter particularly ¢

Mr. Wurire. It has been for several years.

Mr. Cuarrn. Don’t you know that this last winter we had a terri-
ble blockade, and hardly anything could get through into New York
State?

Mr. Wuire. That is a common condition that exists at some points
all the time. .

Mr. Carin. Wasn't it better for them to get mixed feeds than to
have the cattle starve?

Mr. Wuire. Yes; there is no doubt about that.

Mr. Cuarry. Did they complain about that? Did these same
farmers go on buying mixed feeds? Are they buying them now 4

Mr. Wuire. Very likely.

Mr. Cuarry. Then they must like them, don’t they ?

Mr. Wurre. They may or may not. Ifa nian went to the station
to inquire for Dairy Men’s League feed which was formulated by Dr.
Savage, and he couldn’t get anything else he would have to take what
he could get, and that was the case last winter.

Mr. Cuapry. Do you think that all the cows in New York State
can be fed on the Dairy Men’s League feed ?

Mr. Wurre. I don’t know about that. I think they ought to be
fed on an equally good formula.

Mr. Carry. Do you know that there are a million and a half
cows in New York State that don’t eat approximately a ton a year
of Dairy Men’s feed ?

Mr. Wuire. Yes.

Mr. Carry. Do you know that the whole production of brewers
grain of Dairy Men’s feed for farmers—I don’t know whether it
calls for distillers’ grain, but it calls for malt. products—do you know
that there is not a sufficient supply of concentrates to provide a
million and a half tons of dairy feed to the Dairy Men’s League?

Mr. Wuirsr. That may be so.

The Cuatrman. I think he made one pertinent statement, Mr.
Chapin, that if they couldn’t feed in accordance with that formula
they ought to feed in accordance with some other good formula.
That is what we are driving at.

Mr. Wuirs. We are not particular as to the exact formula, just
so it is a good formula.

The CuarrMan., Still there is no justification for the sale of worth-
less stuff.

Mr. Cuarrn. Don’t you know that at the present time there is
practically no bran at all in the country ?

Mr. Wuire. We are aware of the fact that in New York we can’t
get it.

Mr. Cuaptyn. Don’t you know that for the past six months we have
been selling substitutes and have had no wheat bran?

ee CuatrMAN. Right there, what substitutes have you been
using ?

Mr. Cuarryn. Oatmeal and cornmeal. They have been milling
very little wheat relatively in the last six months. Many mills have
had to shut down for two months. Bran is one of the staple feeds
in this country, and by the milling regulations has been cut down
500,000 tons.

62 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

The Cuarman, Mr. Chapin, are you trying to make the point that
there isn’t enough feedstuffs to feed the cattle in the country ?

Mr. Cuapin. I mean not enough to provide the kind of rations
they want. There is a particular shortage in bran.

The Cuatrman. Do you mean that in order to maintain cattle and
live stock we have got to feed stuff that is no account in order to
keep them up?

Mr. Cuapin. We have got to feed everything we have got.

The Cuarrman. Whether it is worthless or not ?

Mr. Cuapin. Whether it is worthless or not—I wouldn’t say
‘“ worthless,” because you can’t feed anything that is worthless. You
might as well feed air. .

The Cuartrman. That is just the point I am making. There are
a great many feeds that have more or less feeding value and ought
to be sold on their merits, but that they are not is what we are driv-
ing at. Your position would seem to lead to the conclusion that
there is not enough nutritious food to feed the stock in the country,
and therefore we have got to feed unnutritious stuff to them in order
to maintain them, and that manufacturers of feed ought to have the
right. to sell unnutritious foods to farmers because this manufacturer
can’t furnish nutritious stuff. Your reasoning is aside from the
mark.

Mr. Cuapin. The point I wanted to make was that a certain
amount of substitutes is necessary, just as in war bread we have to
incorporate a certain amount of cattle feed. That is where it is
going to. We have to eat cattle feed because it is used in flour, and
in our dairy ration we have got to incorporate a certain amount of
roughage. We may feed a little more grain or we may feed a little
less, just so we get the same production of milk. The production of
milk is only the question of giving the cow a certain amount of food
pounds per day. .

The CuarrmMan. Will you admit that nothing ought to be put into
food that detracts materially from its value?

Mr. Cuarrn. Why, we can’t make the ration without detracting
from the value. Bran detracts from the value of cottonseed meal
and corn meal. Bran has only about five-eighths the value of corn
meal.

The CuHarrMan. Is it your contention that the poorest possible
feedstuffs should be allowed to be sold at the high feed value merely
because there isn’t enough of the high feed value to go around?

Mr. Cuarrn. Feeding animals is just a question of calories. The
German Nation has figured out that a man must have 1,500 calories
a day or die, and a cow must have so many calories of feed, and
it doesn’t make any difference where they originate, if they are not
obnoxious or repulsive or deleterious. It is all the same to the cow
whether she gets a certain amount of calories out of oat hulls or
whether she gets it out of corn meal, but the ration must be so that
she will like it and eat it.

The Cuarrman. Is it all the same to the feed manufacturer if he
sells to the farmer so that the farmer knows what he buys?

Mr. Cuapry. I think the farmer knows what he buys, or he
wouldn’t buy it. The farmer don’t have to buy any feeds unless he
wants them. He can try them first and if he likes them he will buy
them or otherwise discard them forever.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 63

The Cuarrman. Of course, they don’t have to buy anything. They
can let the cattle die.

Mr. Cuarry. They buy of their own free will.

Representative Haugen. You say that there is a shortage of bran.
Can you give the figures on that ?

Mr. Cuarry. There is a shortage on the milling schedule, a short-
age of bran of over 500,000 tons, due to the fact that the factories
have not been able to get any bran for about six months.

i Peau EME Havucren. Why haven't they been able to get any
ran ?

Mr. Cuarrn. Because the farm mills can’t sell their flour to-day
because nobody will buy their flour, because the price is fixed just
like the price of a street car ticket, and why should they buy those
things ahead? The mills are losing money hand over fist. They have
got their warehouses full of flour and nobody will buy their flour.

Representative Havucren. The Federal Trade Commission reports the
grinding of 550,000,000 barrels of flour in the last three years; that
they are operating at a profit of 175 per cent, an increase of 100 per
cent on their capital stock, and why make the statement that they are
losing money ?

Mr. Cuarrn. Because I know what I say is true. They will lose
this year what they made last year. I am not a flour miller myself.

Representative Haucen. I don’t think such a misleading statement
as that should go into the record. I am quoting figures from the
Federal Trade Commission’s report.

The CuatrmMan. Have you got the figures there?

Representative Haucrn. I gave the figures. The increase in profits
over operating expense was 175 per cent, 100 per cent on the capital.
’ Mr. Cuarry. May I call your attention to the fact that there is
no connection between the profits and prices and the available supply
of materials? Unless the flour mill runs they don’t produce any feed.
The profits don’t have anything to do with that, and they are ex-
porting wheat now instead of milling it.

Representative Haucen. We are now grinding more flour than ever
before, and we have more bran than ever before. Now, the question
is: Is there a shortage of bran or is there a monopoly in this country ?

Mr. Carin. There is no monopoly of bran. I can’t find it if
there is.

Representative Haucen. Are the mills selling bran or aie they
monopolizing it?

Mr. Crapin. I went up to Buffalo and interrogated the millers up
there about this situation, and one of them said he couldn’t run
because he had a warehouse full of flour. Another said he could
hardly sell any flour, but could sell all the feed as fast as it was made.
He only sold in the ordinary channels of trade, a little at a time, so
as to make it go as far as possible. I know they are not milling flour.

The Cuarrman. Not doing what?

Mr. Cnarrn. Not milling flour, because they can’t sell the flour.

Representative Haugen. They have been commandeering wheat,
going out to the farmers and bringing the wheat into the market and
sending it to the mill and grinding it all the time.

Mr. Cuarrn. Well, I believe I know the situation, and have plenty
of gentlemen here that know that that is correct. At the present

64 - ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

time there is very little feed being produced, not half as much as
should be. I know I can’t buy any.

The Cuarrman. I would like to ask a question about the Federal
Trade Commission and its report on the flour situation. I was
reading a report yesterday, and I think in 1911, 1912, and 1918 their
average earnings per barrel were 13 cents; in 1917 52 cents, and
this year a large percentage of them were earning from 25 to 40
cents a barrel. In 1914, I think it was, the net earnings on capital
invested was 8.9 per cent on the part of the millers, and that this
last year it was as high as 37 and 388 per cent, an increase of over
300 per cent; and they stated that even this year the earnings of the
mills, speaking by and large, were fabulous, much more than during
peace times.

Representative Haucen. Mr. Chairman, I was quoting from the
report of last April, made by the Federal Trade Commission.

Mr. Warp. Senator, may I be permitted to suggest that all these
analyses of these feeds, showing the inferior and poor material, were
made in the prewar period, upon which these gentlemen from the
agricultural colleges have made their reports, so that there was no
absence of bran then that required the combination of these feeds
with all this worthless stuff.

Representative Haucrn. May I ask another question? I inferred
from what you said that the pure, unadulterated products are not

available; that there is a monopoly of them. Can any pure cotton-

seed meal be purchased ?
Mr. Wuirte. Yes, sir.
Representative Haucen. Is that available to all manufacturers?
Mr. Wuirr. I don’t know. So far as I know it is.

Representative Haven. I understood you a short time ago that

the pure meal could not be had.

Mr. Wuirr. In some sections it can not be procured. The dealers
don’t carry it.

Representative Haucen. Why don’t they carry it?

Mr. Wuire. That I can not tell. I presume because they prefer
to handle mixed feed, just as they refuse to carry, or did not carry in
quantities sufficient, Dairy Men’s League feed when it could have
been gotten.

Representative Haucen. Have you made any investigation as to
who owns and operates the manufacture of these mixed-food prod-
ucts? Do they have a monopoly on cotton seed ?

Mr. Wuirtet. Why, no, sir.

Representative Haucnn. Have the packers any connection with
the manufacture of cottonseed meal ?

Mr. Wuire. I don’t know about that.

Representative Haucren. I understand that the packers own these
cottonseed crushers that manufacture cottonseed meal, and that they
own it and control it and have a monopoly on cottonseed meal.

Mr. Wurre. That is the rumor, but I know nothing about it my-
self. JI have no personal knowledge of it. Our main contention is
exactly as Dr. Jordan has stated, that we believe the farmers in our
State have a right to know what they are buying.

The statement was made here that we have no scientific men among
our farmers who are capable of mixing feed. We have simply hun-
dreds and hundreds of college gr aduates scattered over the State of

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 65

New York connected with the dairy establishments who can com-
pound a feed as well as any man here. They are not ignorant of the
compounding of feed. Our institutions there have been turning out
men by the hundreds and they are capable of doing it, and they are
living on farms. It has been brought out through our agricultural
schools, our extension work, until it isn’t necessary that they should
have this stuff mixed. I want to emphasize two things here: First,
that the farmer knows enough to know what he is buying; and then
I want to contradict the statement made that he isn’t capable of
deciding beween different kinds of feed and compounding them.

Representative Haucrn. Then you say that the pure feeds are
more desirable, but they can’t be obtained ?

Mr. Wuirer. Either pure feeds or mixed feeds which are made up
from pure materials. Oat hulls, which have practically the same
value as straw, are not needed in very much of the State of New
York, because we have hundreds of thousands of tons of oats and
barley and wheat straw.

Representative Haucen. But I understood you to say that that is
not the effect that is desirable?

Mr. Wurre. No, sir.

Representative Haucren. That the other is more desirable. Now,
why are they not getting more desirable feed?

Mr. Wuire. That we cannot tell, because we can not get it. I do
know this, that millers in the West are asking the feed dealers when-
ever they try to buy bran or any other wheat feed to take anywhere
from 40 to 60 per cent gross weight of the car in hulls. Whether
there is a combination or whether it is because there is so much
flour I am not prepared to say. I know it is the condition.

Mr. Apsporr. May I ask Mr. White a question ?

The CHarrMANn. Yes.

Mr. Asgsorr. You spoke a minute ago of the fact that pure cotton-
seed meal could be secured ?

Mr. Wurre. Standard cottonseed meal.

Mr. Axssotr. Do you know what pure cottonseed meal is?

Mr. Wuirre. I would say standard cottonseed meal.

Mr. Assotr. You used the term “ pure cottonseed meal.” Do you
know, as a matter of fact, whether cottonseed meal contains the hull
in some form of the cotton seed ?

Mr. Wuirtr. I suppose it does; ves; as do all processes of milling
get some of the product of the offal in them, the same as middlings
would have, as buckwheat would have, but a very slight amount:
But that is a purely technical question.

The CuarrmMan. That would not detract materially from the feed
value?

Mr. Wuire. Not materially.

Mr. Assorr. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of you before
Mr. White proceeds?

The CuarrMan. You want to ask me a question ?

Mr. Assorr. Yes, sir. It strikes me that there would be more
clarity in the minds of all of us if you would tell us what is meant
by waste material and worthless material, as frequently used in
statements that have been made in this hearing.

81413—18——_5

66 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

The Cuarrman. Well, the definition that .I would give would be
that waste material—it is pretty hard to define waste. It carries
its own definition about as well as anything else. It is stuff that
is of no value. Worthless material is stuff that is not worth—that
has no feed value and ought not to be mixed with the feed. And I
will go further than that. I wouldn’t be as strict as that. The
farmers, as Mr. White stated, all have a great deal of this rough-
age—or the farmers of New York have—and I don’t think they
want to buy from you, Mr. Abbott, stuff that they have alr eady got,
anl I don’t think the stuff ought to be mixed so that they can’t get
what they want without buying what they don’t want and without
buying what they don’t need and without buying what they have got
on their farms. That is what I mean.

Mr. Assort. Do you realize, Senator, that there are some parts of
this country, at this time particularly, where roughage does not
exist? Have you in mind your own State of Oklahoma ? Al

The CuarrMan. I am aware of that.

Mr. Assorr. And the State of Texas, where they have been
drought stricken for the last four years.

The Cuarrman. I will say this, a friend of mine undertook the
other day to ship wheat straw into west Texas for feed, where the
dought has been so severe and so destructive, but he was going to
sell it as wheat straw, which was a perfectly legitimate transaction.
Now, if he had doped it up and sugar-coated it with molasses, and
undertook to sell it as some concentrated feed, I think he would have
been guilty of a villainous practice.

Mr. Apporr. If roughage does not exist in Texas or perhaps other
isolated spots of this country, and timothy hay or other forage of
desirable character can only be obtained at long distances and is
worth in Chicago $31 a ton; and roughage in the form of cottonseed
hulls ean be purchased i in Alabama and Mississippi and other South-
ern States at $20 a ton—points near home with less freight rates—
would you not consider it advisable for a farmer to at least consider
the fact that he might be able to draw to his door, his barn, the sup-
ply of material he needs at a less cost?

The Cuairman. By all means. JI am for that, but I want him to
know when he is getting cottonseed hulls, however. I don’t want
him to buy stuff from you as concentrated feed that is, the majority
of the time, cottonseed hulls, and pay $50 or $60 a ton for it.

Mr. Apport. Senator, we are heart and soul with you as regards
the adulteration or as regards the question of deceiving anyone. We
are not in that kind of business. I don’t know a single manufacturer
in my knowledge that is doing that sort of thing.

The Caiman. Are you from [linois?

Mr. Azsort. I am from Chicago.

The Cuarrman. Have you got a fed law in that State?

Mr. Appgorr. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Was there any necessity for passing it?

Mr. Axspvorr. Just the same necessity that there has been in all
other States.

The Cuairman. What was that necessity ?

Mr. Asvorr. The necessity, I presume, grew out of the need of
knowing a little more fully the chemical analysis, particularly of the
feeds.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 67

The CuarrMan. Is the law pretty well enforced in your State?

Mr. Apsotr. It is, sir. Now, further more, the question comes
into our minds as to how you wish to measure the value of a food.

The Cuarrman. I don’t know that that would be material, Mr.
Abbott.

Mr. Azsorr. It is material to this extent, sir, that you ask that
the percentage of ingredients be placed upon the bag, irrespective
of the fact that the chemical analysis, which has been recognized for
many years by the ablest of chemists, has been one of the means by
which the agricultural interests, the agricu!tural colleges, the ex-
periment stations, have based their values of feeding ingredients.
Are you going to pretend that the naked eye can tell by a question
of percentage weight as to whether that is of ‘greater value to the
feeding public than the chemical feeding constituents will show ?

The CuatrmMan. That is the reason I want them to be protected.
IT think the farmers can’t tell.

Mr. Apzorr. The present laws of the various States are very rigid.
They are branded in a:way which makes it impossible for a decep-
tion. We contend that the State laws, together with the Federal
laws, are ample in this respect.

The CuHatrMan. You say they make deception impossible?

Mr. Anporr. Yes, sir.

The CuHarrMan. If that is true, there is certainly no occasion for
this legislation.

Mr. Assorr. There is noc, if your laws are enforced.

Dr. Jorpan. Will Mr. Abbott permit Mr. Jordan to ask him a
question ?

The CuarrMan. I think so.

Dr. Jorpan. You stated that the value of these cattle foods was
based upon the chemical analysis.

Mr. Assorr. I merely stated, Mr. Jordan, that the question as it
was brought out here in the interrogation was whether or not we
should be forced to base our mixing formulas upon certain stated
mechanical processes of percentage bases. Now, may I ask you while
IT am on my feet-

Dr. Jorpan (interposing). I wish you would answer my question
first. Then I will answer one from you. You state that the chemical
analysis shows the value of feed ?

Mr. Assorr. No, sir; I said it was a measure of value which has
been recognized.

Dr. Jorpan. Yes; but it is recognized as entirely inefficient.

Mr. Aggorr. Then that has to do with the manner of enforcing
that part of the regulations. If your chemists or those that are
expert on that line prefer to draw up your laws so that you have a
different working basis, of course, we are willing to abide by them.
But may I ask you, Dr. Jordan, if we are to be bound to the question
of percentage of materials in a mixture, and at the same time comply
with the protein contents and the fat contents and the fibre contents
of feeds, as required by the State laws, will you tell me how it can
be done? :

Dr. Jorpan. I suppose there are some difficulties there, where you
have a variable material. but in that statement you confess to the var-
lable value of the various things you are selling.

68 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

I would like to comment on my friend Chapin. I don’t recognize
him in the réle he is playing to-day, because formerly he fur nished
me with some very severe condemnation of the inferior materials in
feeding stuffs, years ago, and, I declare, I don’t recognize him now.
{ Laughter. |

Another thing I wish to say, Brother Chapin is always a little off
on his nutritious facts. He said it didn’t make any difference where
an animal gets its feed. Now, you know that an animal can’t get
energy enough from roughage ‘alone. It has got to have something
else.

Mr. Cuarrn. I know that.

Dr. Jorpan. Well, I wanted to correct that statement. that is all.

Representative Lever. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest, if we go on
at the rate we have started to-day we will be here until next July on
this proposition, and I suggest that we let the witnesses proceed, and
if Mr. Abbott, representing one side of this proposition, and Mr.
Ward, representing the other side, wants to ask questions, it can be
done after the witness finishes his general statement.

Dr. Jorpan. Mr. Chairman, may Mr. Jordan break in for just one
moment? I want to be fair to these people. I don’t like the implica-
tion that the death rate in the State of New York on cattle has been
increased because of anything that has been sold in the feeds, because
nobody has any proof of that, and that isn’t fair to the feeding-stuff
trade.

Representative Lever. I don’t think the taplication made any
impression on the committee. i

The Cuarrman. Mr. Abbott, will you furnish a list of the Feed
Manufacturers Association ?

Mr. Azsorr. Yes.

(The list referred to was subsequently furnished by Mr. Abbott
and is here printed in full, as follows:)

MEMBERS OF AMERICAN FEED MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION.
AUGUST 1, 1918. ACTIVE MEMBERS.

Abingdon Milling & Cattle Feeding Co., Abingdon, Ii.
Akron Feed & Milling Co., The, Akron, Ohio.
Albers Bros. Milling Co., Seattle, Wash.
American Hominy Co., Indianapolis, Ind.
American Linseed Co., New York, N. Y.
American Milling Co., Peoria, Ill.

American Sugar Refining Co., Chicago, Il.
Ames-Burns Co., Jamestown. N. Y.

Aready Farms Milling Co., Chicago, IGIE
Armour Fertilizer Works, Chicago, Il.
Atlas Feed & Milling Co., Peoria, 1.
Badenoch Co., J. J., Chicago, M1.

Bailey, E. L., Cleveland, Ohio.

Baltimore Pearl Hominy Co., Baltimore, Md.
Brode & Co., F. W., Memphis, Tenn.

Brooks Elevator Co., Minneapolis, Minn.
Buckeye Cotton Oil Co., The, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Buffalo Cereal Co., Buffalo, N. Y.

Butler & Co., Edw. J., Chicago, Ill.

Byrnes & Co., W. J., Chicago, Ill.

Carlisle Commission Co., Kansas City, Mo.
Central Mills Co., Dixon, Il.

Cereal Byproducts Co., St. Louis, Mo.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Chamberlain Co., F. B., St. Louis, Mo.
Champion Feed Milling Co., Lyons, Iowa.
Chapin & Co., Chicago, Ill.

Chicago Heights Oil Mfg. Co., Chicago, Il.
Clinton Alfalfa Mill Co., Clinton, Okla.

Clover Leaf Milling Co., Buffalo, N. Y.
Colorado Alfalfa Milling Co., The, Boulder, Colo.
Conkey Co., The G. E., Cleveland, Ohio.

Corno Mills Co., The, St. Louis, Mo.

Corn Products Refining Co., New York, N. Y.
Cox Co., Chas. M., Boston, Mass.

Crabbs, Reynolds, Taylor Co., La Fayette, Ind.
Darling & Co., Chicago, I].

Delany, Frank J., Chicago, Ill.

Denver Alfalfa Milling & Products Co., The, Lamar, Colo.

Devereux Co., W. P., Minneapolis, Minn.
Dickinson Co., The Albert, Chicago, III.

Dixie Mills Co., East St. Louis, Ill.
Dodge-Hooker Mills, Wausau, Wis.

Dold Packing Co., Jacob, Buffalo, N. Y.

Douglas Co., Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Dreyer Commission Co., St. Louis, Mo.

East St. Louis Cotton Oil Co., National Stock Yards, Ill.
Edgar-Morgan Co., Memphis, Tenn.
Hikenberry-Fitzgerald Co., The, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Elmore Milling Co., Onconta, N. Y.

Emison & Co., J. & S., Vincennes, Ind.

Emmert Co., The F. L., Cincinnati, Ohio.

Empire Grain & Hlevator Co., Binghamton, N. Y.
Eshelman, John W., Lancaster, Pa.

Eureka Mills Co., St. Louis, Mo.

Farmers Cotton Oil Co., Wilson, N. C.

Farmers Equity Cooperative Co., Lamar, Colo.
Feeders Supply Co., Kansas City, Mo.

Fisher Flouring Mills Co., Seattle, Wash.
Garden City Milling Co., Garden City, Kans.
Globe Elevator Co., Buffalo, N. Y.

Golden Grain Milling Co., East St. Louis, Ill.
Goldsboro Milling & Grain Storage Co., Goldsboro, N. C.
Gould Grain Co., Minneapolis, Minn.

Grain Belt Mills Co., St. Joseph, Mo.

Grandin Milling Co., D. H., Jamestown, N. Y.
Great Western Alfalfa Milling Co., Denver, Colo.
sulfport Grocery Co., Gulfport, Miss.

Hailey Co., John H., Houston, Tex.

Hales & Edwards Co., Chicago, Ill.

Hamlin, Dwight E., Pittsburgh, Pa.

Haskell & Co., W. H., Toledo, Ohio.

Haywood Alfalfa Warehouse Co., The, Kansas City, Mo.
H-O Co., The, Buffalo, N. Y.

Hord Alfalfa Meal Co., T. B., Central City, Nebr.
Howell Grain & Feed Co., Union City, Tenn.
Humphreys-Godwin Co., Memphis, Tenn.

Imperial Grain & Milling Co., Toledo, Ohio.
International Sugar Feed Co., Minneapolis, Minn.
Kasco Mills, Waverly, N. Y.

Kellogg & Sons (Inc.), Spencer, Buffalo, N. Y.
Kennedy, Morris, Rochelle, Ill.

Kornfalfa Feed Milling Co., Kansas City, Mo.
Krause Milling Co., Chas. A., Milwaukee, Wis.
Lake Shore Elevator Co., The, Cleveland, Ohio.
Lamar Alfalfa Milling Co., Lamar, Colo.
Lancaster Commission Co., St. Louis, Mo.
Larrowe Milling Co., The, Detroit, Mich.

Lederer & Dickson Co., Chicago, Ill.

Liddy & Co., Frank T., Chicago, Il.

Louisiana State Rice Milling Co., New Orleans, La.

69

70 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Lovitt & Co., L. B., Memphis, Tenn.

Manire Brokerage Co., Memphis, Tenn.

Marco Mills, Pine Bluff, Ark.

Marcus, Julius, New York, N. Y.

Matthews & Co. (Inc.), F. B., Kingston, N. Y.
Meader-Atlas Co., The, New York, N. Y.
Meinrath Brokerage Co., Chicago, Ill.

Milligan Co., GC. J., Sioux City, Iowa.
Milwaukee Grains & Feed Co., Milwaukee, Wis.
Miner-Hillard Milling Co., Wilkes-Barrie, Pa.
Moon-Taylor Co., Lynchburg, Va.

North Bros., Kansas City, Mo.

Northern Illinois Cereal Co., Chicago, Ill.
Nowak Milling Corporation, Buffalo, N. Y.
Omaha Alfalfa Milling Co., Omaha, Nebr.
Osage Cotton Oil Co., Kansas City, Mo.

Park & Pollard Co., The, Boston, Mass.

Park & Pollard Co. of INinois, The, Chicago, Ill.
Pattersen & Co., G. E., Memphis, Tenn.

Penick & Ford sleet ), New Orleans, La.
Peters Mill Co., M. C., Omaha, Nebr.

Pierce Co., Frank A., Minneapolis, Minn.
Pincofts Co., Maurice, Chicago, Ill.

Prairie State Milling Co., Chicago, I.

Purity Oats Co., Davenport, Iowa.

Quaker Oats Co., The, Chicago, Il.

Ralston Purina Co., St. Louis, Mo.

Rapier Sugar Feed Co., Owensboro, Ky.
Richardson Bros., Philadelphia, Pa.

Riley Feed Mfg. Co., Pine Bluff, Ark.

Royal Feed & Milling Co., Memphis, Tenn.
Smith, Parry & Co., Milwaukee, Wis.

Smith & Wallace Co., J. C., Newark, N. J.
Snyder & Co., C. U., Chicago, Il.

Soper Co., J. E., Boston, Mass.

Southern Cotton Oil Co., The. Charlotte, N. C.
Sperry Flour Co., Stockton, Cal.

Spratt’s Patent (America) (Ltd.), Newark, N. J.
Stratton-Ladish Milling Co., Milwaukee, Wis.
Superior Feed Co., The, Memphis, Tenn.

Swift & Co., Chicago, Il.

Syracuse Milling Co., Syracuse, N. Y.

Tarkio Molasses Feed Co., Kansas City, Mo.
Tennessee Fibre Co., Memphis, Tenn.

Texas Cake & Linter Co., Dallas; 'Tex.

Tioga Mill & Elevator Co., Waverly, N. Y.
Ubiko Milling Co., The, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Union Seed & Fertilizer Co., New York, N. Y.
United States Stock Food Co., The, Kansas City, Mo.
Valley Milling Co., The, St. Louis, Mo.
Viehman Grain Go. Minneapolis, Minn.
Virginia Meed & Milling Corporation, Alexandria, Va.
Wade, John & Sons, Memphis, Tenn.

Weiss Milling Co., The Otto, Wichita, Kans.
Westbrook Grain & Milling Co., Pine Bluff, Ark.
Western Alfalfa Milling Co., The, Denver, Colo.
Western Grain Products Co., Hammond, Ind.

West India Sugar & Molasses Corporation, New Orleans, La.

Wilson & Redus, Meridian, Miss.
Wood & Sons, T. W., Richmond, Va.

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS.

Bauer Bros. Co., The, Springfield, Ohio.
Semis Bros. Bag Co.. St. Louis, Mo.
Bosworth Bag Co., Memphis, Tenn.
Central Bag Mfg. Co., Chicago, Il.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. |

Eastern Federation of Feed Merchants, Ff. C. Jones, Secretary, Bullville, N. Y.

Gump Co., B. F., Chicago, Ill.

Mente & Co., New Orleans, La.

Miner Laboratories, Chicago, Il.

Mutual Millers & Feed Dealers’ Association, Roy Mulkie, secretary, Union
City, Pa.

Sprout, Waldron & Co., Muncy, Pa.

[Extract from constitution of American Feed Manufacturers’ Association, showing pur-
poses of organization. ]

ARTICLE II.—Purposes.

The purposes of this association shall be: To assist in the enactment and en-
forcement of uniform laws and regulations which in their operation shall deal
justly with the rights of feeding stuffs, manufacturers, dealers, and consumers.
By concert of action with each other and with administrative officers of State
and Federal laws, either individually or in their organized capacity, endeavor
to correct any abuses, dishonest practices, or any evils in any way pertaining
to the feeding stuffs industry.

To foster and promote such relations and intimacies between its members as
shall tend to firmer business relations in which all can stand together in efforts
to improve and perfect a standard of business integrity which shall include
honesty of representation, carefulness of obligations, and promptness of execu-
tion. .

The CuarrmMan. Is the Armour packing house represented on that
board ?

Mr. Axsport. I have before me, Senator

The CuairMAn (interposing). Answer that question, Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Axsporr. They have not.

The CuatrMan. Nor Swift & Co.?

Mr. Assgortr. No, sir.

The Cuatrman. Nor Morris?

Mr. Azgzotr. No, sir.

The CuatrmMan. Mr. Ferguson is not with Armour & Co.?

Mr. Axssorr. He was, so far as I know, at one time. I am not
familiar with that now. He was with Swift at one time, I should
have said, but I am not acquainted with his present position. I
haven’t had occasion to investigate it.

Mr. Wuire. There is one thing I would like to say, Mr. Chairman,
before retiring, and that is, that I did not mean to convey anything
more than that I had heard a rumor—heard a statement—that cattle
diseases might be due to feed. However, I had no authority for the
positive statement. I will say this, however, the position of the State
of New York is plainly shown, I think, by the resolutions which have
been passed by the Dairy Men’s League, representing nearly 60,000
members. |

The Cuatrman. Have you got that resolution ?

Mr. Wuire. No; I think they have been forwarded.

The Cuarrman. I wish you would furnish that.

Mr. Wurre. I will do so. The resolutions were also passed by the
New York Grange, of 10,000 members; the Farms and Markets Coun-
cil of the State of New York, which is at the head of our board of
agriculture. All of these passed resolutions asking for the passage
of this act. That is, practically all of the farmers of the State of
New York.

Representative Lever. Senator Gore, may I make another sugges-
tion? We ought to get down to the brass tacks of this proposition
before finishing this testimony, as to absolutely what vou have in

72 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

mind or what this conference has to deal with. Now, it seems to me
that if we boil this thing down to its essence we have got several
propositions. First, we have got this proposition: Is there machinery
in existence, State and Federal, which will protect the farmers
against the sale of fraudulent feed? Is that proposition No. 1 stated
broadly enough, you think, Senator ?

The Cuamman. That question enters into it; yes.

Representative Lever. That is the one thing that énters into it.
Now let’s see if we can’t amend it so we can get down to the basis.

The Cuarman. Here is one point on that. The existing amend-
ment is different, perhaps, in this regard. It proceeds to make the
interstate shipment of these feeds and other feeds a crime. It
permits the Secretary of Agriculture to issue permits for the ship-
ment of feed where it complies with certain feeding value. Now
it makes the act of the interstate shipment of adulterated feed a
crime. Something affirmative has got to be done to prevent the
man who would violate that law from violating it—to make him
conform to it, and that is the object. of this legislation—to define the
law and then make the people conform to it. It takes some aflirma-
tive action for them to make shipment after that, and that will be
done under rules and regulations of the department which will
guarantee that the shipment complies with the law. That. is the
theory of it.

Representative Lever. Well, now, I disagree with the Senator on
that to some extent. I don’t disagree with the burden of the proposi-
tion, but I still insist that the testimony before the conference tends .
to show that we have State and Federal laws which now protect the
consumer against fraudulent feeds.

The CuatrmMan. Designed to protect them.

Representative Lever. Now, first of all, let us determine if that
is true or not, whether we have sufficient laws, and in connection
with that call some witness who can testify as to what the State
laws are first, and then we will have the Solicitor of the Department
of Agriculture here to testify as to what the Federal law is. Now
that is a concrete basic proposition that we ought to follow.

Now, the other proposition is, granting that you do have State
and Federal laws which give protection—should give protection—
let. us ascertain if these laws are being enforced for the protection
of the consumers of these feed stuffs. If we don’t have the machinery,
Federal or State, combined or separately, then let us take testimony
as to what kind of law we want. Now that seems to me to be what
we are driving at, but if we scatter our shot we will be here until
next July.

The CuatrMan. We have had some testimony here that the exist-
ing laws were not. effective.

Representative Lever. Conflicting testimony.

The Cuatrman. Yes. The feed manufacturers so far have testi-
fied that they were ample.

Representative Haucren. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Jordan testified, I
think, that about half of them are adulterated and don’t come up to
standard according to actual analvsis under existing laws. Others
have testified to that effect. and I think we ought to have some testi-
mony of some farmers on that point.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. Hs)

The Cuairman. We will have Dr. Mumford now, who can prob.
ably shed some light on that. )

Mr. Axssorr. May I ask for the Chicago Board of Trade that
their representative be heard for just about five minutes ?

The Cuarrman. Yes; we will hear him for five minutes.

Mr. Asgotr. Their representative is here from Chicago and wishes
to get away to-night.

The CHarrmMan. Certainly we will hear him for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF A. STAMFORD WHITE, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD
' OF TRADE, CHICAGO, ILL.

Mr. Wuirs. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the
Chicago Board of Trade and other grain exchanges, which are the
principal agencies for marketing the crops of the country, are par-
ticularly interested in marketing the same, so as to attain the best
results for the producer and at the same time, by eliminating all
waste or loss of valuable material, which loss would lessen the
supply, serve the interests of the consumer.

Our ownership not only handles grain in the condition in which it
is received from the farm, but also represents the enormous capital
investments in elevators equipped for the economical handling and
cleaning of grain, also mills and manufacturing plants.

Most grain as received from the producer requires treatment in the
form of cleaning, removal of foreign matter, separating a percentage
of other grains, and sometimes drying. Elevators are equipped
with machinery for such purposes, and a market is found for the
by-product through mills properly equipped to make available the
feeding value which they contain. —

Tt is an established fact that these by-products can not be easily
_ distributed or made use of in their raw state, so feed grinding and
mixing plants have been equipped with modern machinery for the
purpose of securing the full feeding value.

It is apparent, therefore, that the by-products have a value which
is made available by the means referred to, resulting in a higher
value to the grain and a better return to the producer than would be
the case if the by-products were burnt under the boilers, as in the
days before suitable machinery existed for their conservation.

The quantity of screenings cleaned from the grain in the larger
centers of the American Northwest is estimated at upward of 300,000
tons annually, and this quantity forms the basis for 1,000,000 tons
of stock feed of proven value.

The Cuatrrman. What was the 300,000 tons? I didn’t understand
that. Was that screenings?

Mr. Wuirr. Screenings; yes, sir. Except in the case of sheep
feeding the feed value of screenings is largely lost unless they be
finely ground, for when fed to stock a large proportion passes
through undigested. In addition to this loss many of the seeds pass
through the animal without losing their fertility and produce weeds
on the farm. In addition to the screenage, the oat clippings from
the Chicago elevators alone amount to 5,000 tons annually, and the
corn offal from cleaning and drying plants, 2,500 tons, giving some
ideas as to what the loss would amount to in the entire country.

74 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Fifty years ago, when the population was smaller and the urban
and the industrial population was smaller in relation to the rural,
when there was a surplus of land, there was no problem connected
with the food supply for man nor animal, so extravagance and waste
naturally obtained. With the increase of wealth extravagance and
waste became the habit of the people. With a rapidly growing
population and higher prices scientific methods have gradually been
applied to production, and to the thinking mind it has become appar-
ent that more attention must be paid to the method of living and
economy.

The necessities forced by war conditions and the work of the Food
Administration, under the wise direction of Mr. Hoover, have
brought the attention of the people to the subject earlier than would
otherwise have been the case, and it may result in permanent benefit
to the country.

Tt is with all respect and deference that I suggest that it would be
most unwise, and particularly so during the present crisis to enact
any legislation which would curtail the “available supply of feed or
lessen the facility of its distribution.

In entering this plea it should be remembered that the board of
trade refers only to those grain products, or extracts from grain, as
are of known and tried feeding and commercial value, and which
should not be confused with sawdust, dirt, nut trimmings, corn
cobs, or other worthless or injurious matter mentioned in the bill.
Those found guilty of using such worthless or deleterious matter
should be severely dealt w ith under the provisions of the pure food
law. And if that law does not provide the means of taking such
proceedings I should think that it should be strengthened.

The adoption of the amendment as written would result, first, in
lessening the return obtained by the producer for his grain; second,
in reducing the supply of feed; third, in enhancing the cost of feed
to the feeders, and consequently the cost of food products to the
consumer.

In a general way, Mr. Chairman, this represents the concensus of
opinion on the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago.

The C . AIRMAN. Well, I agree with your reasoning, Mr. White,
in everything except the conclusions. T think most anybody would
agree with the first part of your statement, but I am not so sure that
the results will follow that’ you depict. I don’t see why the incor-
poration of a provision against the interstate shipment of low-feed
value stuffs as high-feed v ‘alue stuffs would hurt the producer or the
consumer, either one. Now, I am certain that you don’t think that
low-value stuff ought to be sold as high-value stuff, and what we and
what you want to ‘oet is to enable each to be sold on its merits so eh
one can not be sold under the camouflage of the other. Now,
will be glad to have any suggestion you have to make on that.

Mr. Wutre. It occurs to me, sir, in that connection that in making
a compound feed that the present preference of the articles of greater
bulk or lower value would counterbalance those of more concentrated

value and average the price. It is true that it would enhance the
price of the lower, but it would also reduce the cost of the higher in
the average price.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 15

STATEMENT OF A.B. CHILLUM, REPRESENTING THE FOOD ADMIN-
ISTRATION OF MASSACHUSETTS.

Mr. Curttum. Mr. Chairman, if I might say a word right there.
The Cuarrman. Do you desire to catch a train, Mr. Chillum?
Mr. Cuttium. Yes, sir.

The CHairmMan. We have been proceeding rather informally, let-
ting everybody do about as they please here, but if you are obliged
to leave to-night we will hear you now.

Mr. Cuinium. The situation in Massachusetts and, in fact,
throughout New England, is very serious in the matter of this feed
situation. It was last winter. It is true now and we are looking
forward to a very serious situation next year. Now, if the law, or
this amendment as now written, goes into effect there is going to be
very serious trouble. In fact, we will have an entire upsetting of
the feed situation in Massachusetts, making it much worse than it
is now.

The Cuairman. Will you point out how that will happen? That
is What we want.

Mr. Cumtum. Now, we don’t have any objections. of course, to
telling the farmer exactly what he is getting. We want him to have
that. In going into this thing we asked the experiment station down
at the agricultural college regarding it, and Mr. Smith, of the agri-
cultural station, is here, and since he is a technical man and under-
stands this thing, I would like to have him speak on that subject,
because that is where we got our information, and he has also to
eatch a train, and I hope you will be willing to hear him.

The Cuairman. All of these trains seem to be leaving about the
same time.

Representative Havcen. The gentleman didn’t state how it would
affect the situation in Massachusetts. I think we ought to call on
him to explain that.

Representative Lever. Mr. Smith is going to state that.

STATEMENT OF MR. PHILLIP H. SMITH, OF THE MASSACHUSETTS
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, CHEMIST IN CHARGE
OF THE FEED-CONTROL WORK OF MASSACHUSETTS.

The CrairmMan. Under whose auspices do you appear, Mr. Smith?

Mr. Smirn. Under the auspices of the Director of Experiment
Stations.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in Massachusetts those in charge
of feeding stuffs legislation have always taken the attitude that it is
allowable to sell any product having a food value, providing it is
not injurious. We assume that the amendment would allow the inter-
state shipment of articles mentioned, provided they were unmixed
with other materials. This, in our estimation, would not materially
improve the situation, and it is our belief that it would be much
better for the continued sale of such products blended in such a
manner as to allow their use to the best advantage. It has repeatediy
come to our attention that low-grade products sold by themselves are
used by uninformed people in the place of better material, especially
where—I am speaking, gentlemen, from my own experience—

76 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

especially where a low price is an incentive to purchase, The low-
grade material in the mixtures offered must be kept at a minimum on
account of the competition with high-grade material.

The adoption of the amendment would simply help to confuse an
already perplexing situation, especially from the northeastern section
of the country, where a sufficient quantity of feeding stuffs is to be
the problem during the duration of the war. We would like to know
what is to be done with these residues left at the place of manufac-
ture, and what will be the effect on the price of human foods from
which most of the products are derived. We believe that the im-
jurious effects of such an amendment at the present time are much
broader than its context would indicate.

The assertion has been made that there has been a constant de-
terioration in mixed feeds during the past two years. My experience
as feedstuff inspector over a period of 18 years leads me to question
the accuracy of this statement. The only two products that I know
of that have really deteriorated certainly are products which prob-
ably, if a strong plea were put up to the Secretary of Agriculture,
would be exempted under the provision in the second section, and
those are peanut cakes mixed with peanut hulls, and cottonseed cakes
mixed with cottonseed hulls, if the manufacturers could demonstrate
that in their process of manufacture those materials—that it is
necessary to press those materials together.

Tn conclusion, we believe that the preservation and utilization of
any product having feed value is a vital question in conservation and
that the blending of all such products so that they can be utilized to
the best advantage is a legitimate business.

Now, I have heard it said here several times that it is largely a
question of relative values. To my mind there is one side of the
question which has not been brought out, and that is that if it is a
question of relative values, the feeding-stuff manufacturers on the
one side claiming that their products are sold for a price which does
not give them an excessive profit, the opposition on the other hand
claiming that these feeds are sold at an exceedingly high price—I
believe the Food Administration has ample authority 4 to investigate
that point, and at this time when we enter another complication into
the utilization of every product which is absolutely necessary, it is a
bad procedure to have legislation along that line, and that with the

ample power of the Food Administration to investigate this matter
they can regulate the matter so that these feed stuffs will not be sold,
when sold.in combination as mixed feeds, at excessive profits, if that
is the case.

The CHarrman. You think the Food Administration has that
power ?

Mr. Smuiru. I believe they do. They have power to do most any-
thing but take a man out and shoot him.at sunrise.

The CHatrman. Is Mr. Chapman, of the Food Administration,
here ?

Mr. SmiruH. He is a member of it, and I think he can interpret the
rules and powers under which they work.

The Cuatrman. Have you made your statement in full?

Mr. Suir. I might add that probably about 35 per cent of feed-
ing stuffs of this character are used in Massachusetts. The Massa-
chusetts Agricultural College uses them and they get mighty good

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. ger

results. Lots of farmers use them and get good results, and they
come back and buy- again.

The Cuarrman. What are you speaking of now ?

Mr. Surrn. The mixed products containing oat hulls and various
other things.

The Crairman. What do you mean by “various other things” ?
Of ate farmers are buying mixed feeds all over the countr y:

+ Smiru. Oat hulls, screenings, material which you have desig-
saa as having a low feeding v value.

The Cuatrman. Now, do you think that anything ought to be sold
to a farmer as highly concentrated feed, or any other sort of feed,
that is mixed with those things that detract materially from its feed-
ing value?

Mr. Suiri. Why, Mr. Chapin has made the contention here—and
others—that you can not mix two feeds without bringing that about.

The Cuairman. That is splitting hairs. That is an evasion of the
question. There have been a good many things enumerated here that
obviously detract from the feeding value. You take cottonseed hulls:
and mix them with cottonseed meal, and the mixture is not as good
as cottonseed meal, of course. It is not as high, I mean, in certain
values. But there are mixtures here referred to that detract mate-
rially from the feeding value. Now, you say they do not?

Mr. Smiru. They may detract to a certain extent, but they are
used in a very small volume that forms an outlet for that kind of
material.

The Cuairman. If they don’t detract materially from the value
they won’t be prohibited under this law, will they ?

Mr. Smrru. I don’t know.

The CHatrMAn. Well, it says only those that detract from the
value, and where they don’t detract materially from the value the
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized under this rule to permit this
interstate shipment. Now, if they don’t detract materially from the
feeding value. they wouldn’t be prohibited; that is, I think, certain.
Now, if it w ould, it ought to be prohibited, ought. it not?

Mr. Surru. Well, they are sold for what they are, under a guar-
anty and a stutement of the ingredients.
The Cuarrman. Is that your law?

Mr. Smiru. Yes, sir.

The Cuarrman. And that relates to stuff shipped in from the
outside ?

Mr. Smiru. For local manufactured stuff and interstate material.

The CuHairman. Now, you hear no complaints, then, from dairymen
of your State about inferior feeds?

Mr. Smirn. We hear occasional complaints. We had a complaint
from a man the other day because he bought oat hulls or oat feed in
place of some other feed, and he said that he wanted to have me go
out and arrest the man, but the man had sold him stuff for just what
it was and he had used that material in place of something of a
rather high feeding value.

The CHarrman. So the man sold it to him for what it was?

Mr. Smirn. Yes.

The CuarrmMan. Then that can be done, can it not?

Mr. Smirn. You can sell anything having a feeding value.

/

73 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

The CHatrMan. There is no reason why a man should not sell
stuff for what it is, but I understand it is not your contention that
the stuff ought to be sold to farmers for something else than what
it is.

Mr. Smita. No; I don’t think it is. I think we agree on that
point.

The Cuatrman. How old is your feedstuffs law ?

Mr. Sauarn. It was, as originally passed, one of the first feedstuffs
inspection laws in the United States, that, and the State of Maine,
and the State of New York, and Connecticut, came in, I think, about
the same time.

- The Cuarrman. Has it been amended?

Mr. Suirn. It has been amended twice. .

The CuHatrman. Was its enactment based upon some sort of neces-
sity to protect the consumers of feeds against adulteration ?

Mr. Smiru. We felt that it was.

The Cuatrman. Now, you speak generally. Have you made a
‘chemical analysis of these specimens of foodstuffs to see that they
contain enly valuable ingredients ?

Mr. Smiru. We have.

The CuHatrMan. Have you got some of those with you?

Mr. Smiru. The bulletins?

The CratrmMan. Have you found stuff in 1 the specimens that was
not of value?

Mr. Smiru. Why, we found material in it; we have found ma-.
terial in feeding stuffs, material of dae feeding values, different
feeding values.

The Crammayn. Oh, well, of course. that is true.

Does anyone wish to ask Mr. Smith any questions? If not, you
ean catch your train now.

Mr. Suiru. On this matter of catching trains, Senator, there is
another man in the party. Mr. Hepburn, who is a practical farmer,
T haven’t heard any practical farmer here today.

Representative Haucren. Just one question. A gentleman preced-
ing you made a statement to the effect that it was necessary to
adulierate foods in order to save the food situation What is your
explanation of that? Do you believe it is necessary to permit the
adulteration of foods to save the present food situation ?

Mr. Smiru. I do not believe, sir, that the feeding stuffs are gen-
erally adulterated.

Representative Haucen. But I, was asking you the question. That
is a question involved in this amendment, and if effected, will the
prevention of the adulteration ef food, or deception in the sale of
it, affect the food situation? Is it necessary to adulterate and de-
ceive in order to save the food situation ?

Mr. Smiru. I understand, sir, it is not adulteration as long as they
state what they are selling.

Representative Havucen. Have you listened to the evidence before
you came on, the evidence here to show that there is deception?
T thirk the statement made by Dr. Jordan proves that there is
deception in the sale of feed, and you couldn’t expect anything else.
The action of one dealer is not indicting all of them, and I assume
there are just as many honest people engaged in the production of

,

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FREDS. 79

feed as there are in any other line of activity, but there are those
possibly that may be dishonest, and the purpose of this bill, as I
understand it, is to overcome this very thing. Now, do you seriously
contend that it is necessary to deceive in order to save the present
feed situation ?

Mr. Sauiru. I don’t think it is necessary to deceive, sir.

Representative Hauermn. Then what is your reason for the state-
ment made by the gentleman who preceded you? How will it affect
the feed situation in your State? .

Mr. Suiru. In the first place it will throw a large quantity of low-
grade by-products unmixed onto the market.

Representative Havucen. No; I don’t think it will do any such
thing.

Mr. Surri. Then you are going to create a feed shortage.

Representative Havcen. I don’t think you would question the in-
tegrity or judgment of the Secretary of ‘Agriculture. I think it is
safe to leave it to him, and it isn’t fair. I think, for anybody to ap-
pear before this committee questioning the integrity of the Secretary.
It is left to his discretion. and we simply assume that he will do the
right thing by all, and that all will have a square deal under this
law as under every other law. Of course, if you take the position
that we are not going to have an honest administration by the Sec-
retary, why I presume we will have to yield to your contention. I
would like to have you explain—you have been called upen here to
explain why it would effect a different situation.

Mr. Suirru. I think because, in a way, we have had a certain line
of mixed food coming into the State. We have had these mixed
rations and mixed feeds in a proportion of possibly 30 to 35 per
cent—an old established business. A large proportion of the men
that are buying those feeds are satisfied. In selling other kinds of
feeds, bringing a large amount of feed into the State in different
forms, you are certainly going to create an element of confusion.

Representative Haucen. Assuming that the Secretary would not
permit the use of these feeds of lawer value

Mr. Smirn. He would permit the use of them; I know he would.

Representative Haueen. Then it will not affect you. It is left to
the discretion of the Secretary, is it not?

Mr. Suirn. We are going to have it in another form.

Representative Havcen. How do you know it will be in another
form? Do you assume that an honest product would not be per-
mitted to be shipped into the State under the permit issued by the
cae. Do vou assume he is going to take advantage of vou?

Smiru. No. I confess I do not quite see your point, but I
Pena that the feedstuff shipped into the State containing oat
hulls

Representative Havcen. You think it is necessary to deceive them
in order to sell it? The contention here is that everything should be
labeled, that every man should know exactly what he buys. We have
had the same thing to contend with all these years; as to oleo-

margarine, for instance. The manufacturers contended that they
should be permitted to sell it for what it was not. That seems to be
the contention here, that you should be permitted to sell something,
not for what it is but for what it is not. Now, is it necessary to

80 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

deceive the people in oder to save the feed situation? That is the
contention made in here by the gentleman who preceded you.

Mr. Smirn. They are selling these products in conformity with all
the laws under which vat are sold.

Representative Hauvern. What about this law ’

Mr. Smitu. I do not chink it 1s necessary.

Representative Haucen. The gentleman who preceded you said it
was going to embarrass you people; that it was going to practically
destroy the feed situation in your State.

Mr. Smrru. I believe it is.

Representative Haucen. Then I presume you have some proof for
it, based upon some facts of some kind. ‘To allege a thing is ‘one
thing, and believe a thing is another thing.

Mr. Suirn. It is going to multiply the number of brands of feeds
sold to a certain extent. You are coing to have a lot of new products
which very few of the farmers understand. They Ganeetan how
to feed these old products.

Representative Haucrn. I can not see that it either adds or de-
tracts in the least. If you are selling an honest product, now, I as-
sume the Secretary would say, “ Go ahead, here is you permit.”
But, in my opinion, if you are selling corncobs or pure cottonseed
meal, I think he would say, “I believe you need a little regulation.”

Mr. Assorr. Mr. Chairman, may I interject a remark at this time?

The CuarrmMan. There are a number of other witnesses to be heard.
Suppose you wait until they have finished.

Representative Haucen. I am simply asking you the question.

Mr. Smiru. I contend that he is not selling corncobs.

Representative Haucen. That is all I wish to ask.

Mr. Warp. The gentlemen whom I represent—the National Milk
Producers’ Association and the National Live Stock Association—
for their information, would like to know by whose invitation you
attend and present this argument at this hearing.

Mr. Surrx. I was called up last Friday afternoon by Mr. John
Willard, who is a member of the Massachusetts Food Administra-
tion.

Mr. Warp. And under Mr. Chapman. Is he the Mr. Chapman in
Food Administration circles here?

Mr. Smiru. I do not know. He is connected with the Food Ad-
ministration office in Boston.

Mr. Warp. Has he charge of the administration of dairy foods in
that State?

Mr. Smiru. To a certain extent I believe he has.

Mr. Warp. Hues: is there an arrangement about paying your fares
and expenses here?

Mr. Smirn. I do not know. I was asked by the president of the
college to come down here.

Representative Lever. Mr. Ward, that suggests the question, Who
brings you here?

Mr. Warn. The National Dairymen’s Association and the National
Milk Producers’ Association.

Representative Lever. Who pays your expenses?

Mr. Warp. They do.

Representative Lrver. I do not ask that in a contentious spirit,
but it seems to me these little personalities should not be interjected

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 81

into this discussion. The whole conference here is for the purpose
of trying to work out a big problem, and I think it makes no differ-
ence who brought the gentleman here.

Mr. Warp. The gentleman wanted to know. I have no personal
interest in these associations. I asked the question at the suggestion
of the president of the National Live Stock Association.

Mr. Axssorr. Who is he?

Mr. Lasater. I asked Mr. Ward to put that question.

The Cuatrman. Let us not get into that sort of thing. We will
hear the other gentleman who wants to catch the train—Mr. Hepburn,
I believe.

STATEMENT OF MR. W. K. HEPBURN, MANAGER UPLAND FARMS,
IPSWICH, MASS.

The Cuamman. Mr. Hepburn, I understand you are a farmer?

Mr. Hepsurn. Yes, sir. I came down here on my own. resources.
I have a few thoughts that I would like to bring to the attention of
the meeting. We have gone over this thing in a somewhat more
technical way than I am prepared to speak on it.

It has been my real good fortune for the past 10 years to have had
under my personal charge as a usual thing never less than 150 tcows—
the herd which was and is to-day the greatest herd of Guernseys in
the United States, probably.’ In that herd we have had the benefit
of the best of breeding selection. It has been our effort to try to in-
crease the milk production, and to that end we have devoted our
thought and time and the use of the best and most nutritious feeds
that would give us the best results over a long period of time. Years
ago we were able to buy the so-called straight dairy ration; we were
able to get it at any of our New England stores. The dealer was
then enabled to carry it; he had capital to carry it on. Those feeds
gave us very good satisfaction.

But as the years went by my own personal experience has been, and
that of all the breeders and milk producers all over New England, as
I have mingled with them, that these feeds that we were using weré
‘ perhaps a little bit heavy, and we had to lighten them for the life of
our cows, for a continuation year after year of high milk production.
To-day we are able to go out and buy in our section of Massachusetts
the so-called straight grains and mix them, but from a commercial
standpoint we can not do this, as we find the dealer can not sell them
at a price at which we can buy many of the so-called mixed rations,
which to my own personal knowledge for the last several years have
been used in the largest herds where world’s records have been made.
In many herds they are using straight rations and in many herds
they are having lots of trouble, which perhaps will not interest you
gentlemen here, as you are not cattle breeders.

Prebably the greatest difficulty that is staring the dairy industry
in the face to-day, particularly in regard to the pure-bred industry,
is the nonbreeding of cattle. That is a serious question, gentlemen.
It.is one that has got to be considered. In many instances veterina-
‘rians have been devoting their time to the problem, the best in the
country, with, to my own knowledge, very little relief.

81413—18——6

82 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Now, there must be a reason for that, and that reason to my mind
is this—and JI am giving you not only my own ideas, but what I
have collected from the leading breeders of New England. A large
part of the difficulty is due to the way the cattle are fed, and our own
herd at the present time has been put on a broader ration. J am
willing to acknowledge that I am not adverse to the use of oat hulls
and various by-products when they are properly blended, because I
have learned that in a great many instances each of the individual '
articles in that prepared feed make the other articles more palatable.
With cattle, as at the human table, we want a variation of food;
we must have palatability, and in a great many instances I believe
that the qualities of the feed that make a cow reproduce, that make
_a good healthy calf and make the cow breed again the following year,

are things that the wide ration gives.

Take cotton seed. In New England we have a large number of
small farmers who run dairies with six or eight cows. Invariably if
they buy straight grains they also buy some cotton seed and one or two
other feeds and mix them, but they do not get it broad enough. Con-
sequently, as some of the men J see sitting around here now, you
can see the ribs of the cows as far as you can see the cows,

The /rmer is not to blame. He is doing the best he can. He
can not buy a dozen different things and mix them; he can not do it.
Tam no\an advocate of the ready-mixed feed, but I have used a good
many of \hem, and I do not see where they have been violating the
laws of Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, or Rhode
Island to any large extent.

The CuarrmMan. Well, what knowledge have you as to whether or
not they have violated the law? Have you been an inspector of
feeds? I mean you are a farmer, are you not?

Mr. Heprsurn. I am a farmer; yes, sir.

The Cuatrman. And you buy for your own use?

Mr. Hersurn. Yes, sir.

The CuartrMan. Have you acted in any capacity that would bring
you in contact with the mills?

Mr. Hersurn. In many cases J have come in very close touch with |
the grain dealers and the leading dairymen throughout New Eng-
land, as we attend all dairy shows, and we naturally talk over the
things that are essential to the welfare of the dairymen in New
England. ;

‘The Cuarrman. Then your conclusion is that as far as Massachu-
setts and Maine and all the New England States are concerned these
adulterations are not a serious evil?

Mr. Heppurn. [ have not been aware within the last few years or
at any particular time that there was adulteration.

The CuairMan. If that prevails in New England and other parts
of the country, the dairymen would not have any objection to its
being stopped, would they?

Mr. Hersurn. Personally I would not. I am only talking from
my own point of view. This having been brought to my attention I
thought I would like to say a word, because my experience along the
line of pure-bred stock

The Cuarrman. As to that phase of it, we appreciate the im-
portance of having cattle fertile and reproductive, and undoubtedly

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 383

good feed tends to that result, but I am not quite sure that that goes
just to the point at issue.

Now, do you not think the sale of peanut hulls and sawdust pre-
vails in your State?

Mr. Hepsurn. No, sir; I do not. I would not say that peanut hulls
are not sold. It may possibly be done.

The Cuairman. You do not think that sawdust would contribute
to the reproductivity of.cattle in a breeding way?

Mr. Hersurn. It would if they were bedded with it. If it were
used for bedding instead of for feed it might help the production
of milk.

The CuarrMan. You would object to it for feed, and not for bed-
ding?

Mr. Herpurn. Yes, sir.

The CuHatrMan.I am glad that you have come here, because you
say you are a farmer, but I would like to know who suggested your
coming?

Mr. Hersurn. Why, the matter was brought to my attention
through the food commissioner in Boston.

The Cuatrman. Who is he?

Mr. Hersurn. Mr. Chillum.

The Crarrman. Is that the gentleman that was here a minute ago?

Mr. Heppurn. The second last man that spoke.

The Cuarrman. Who is this food administrator? Is he appointed
by some one here in Washington, or is that a State organization ?

Mr. Hersurn. I presume he is appointed by somebody in Wash-
ington.

Mr. Cuiitum. Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement ?

The Cuarrman. Yes, sir; I would like to know, because we have so
many organizations that we can not identify them. ;

Mr. CuittumM. I am simply a member of the office force, as an
agricultural expert, with the Board of Food Administration in the
State of Massachusetts.

The Cuatrman. Is that board appointed by the governor?

Mr. Cuittum. The board was originally appointed by the gov-
ernor. I am not a member of the board.

The Cuarrman. Is it a local State organization ?

Mr. CumuumM. It is a local State organization, but it has been
made a part of the United States Food Administration.

While I am on my feet, I might state in answer to this gentle-
man’s question that the disrupting of the feed situation in Massa-
chusetts by taking off the market the sale of mixed products is
simply a practical question. We know that the farmer can not buy
a lot of these different things and mix them; we know that he can
not get the mill feeds at the present time.

Representative Havucen. That question is not involved in this bill.

Mr. Cumium. We understand that if the bill passes as it now
stands mixed feeds will practically be eliminated. That is our
understanding.

Representative Haucren. Evidently you have not read the second
section of the bill.

Mr. Cutivum. I have read it.

84 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Representative Hauern. I think if you will read that you will
reach some other conclusion. I think you will find it is left to the
discretion of the secretary.

Mr. Asporr. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on this very point
that Congressman Haugen brings up.

The Cuarrman. I think we shall have to ask you to wait, Mr. Ab-
bott. We have a good many witnesses here.

STATEMENT OF MR. REESE B. HICKS, BROWNSVILLE, N. Y., PRESI-
DENT OF THE NATIONAL WAR EMERGENCY POULTRY ASSOCIA-
TION.

Mr. Hicxs. Mr. Chairman, may I have just a word?

The CuarrmMan,. Yes, sir.

Mr. Hicks. There are three things in this amendment that I want
to protest against: First, damaged grain; second, screenings; and
third, hay. ,That eliminates alfalfa and clover. .

As poultry feeders we can not use wheat, and of damaged wheat
and screenings we can use only 10 per cent or 15 per cent. We are
limited. If damaged grains are entirely eliminated from our mixed
feeds there is danger that our egg production and the reproductivity
of our fowls will be very materially lessened. As to screenings—one
of the basic features of our mash feeds—it must replace wheat, be-
“ause under our Food Administration ruling we can not use milling
wheat. As to hay, alfalfa is very largely replacing bran. In fact,
many poultry breeders say they would rather have alfalfa meal
than bran.

Then I want to say something as to waste. As poultry. breeders
we have had to revise our feeding calendar. Within two years what
used to be waste has come to be a valuable feed. Those of us who
have lived in the West, in Kansas, know that hogs almost live on
alfalfa. While that is not considered a concentrate, yet to-day we
are having to revise our textbooks on account of the value of alfalfa
as a feed. As poultrymen we would be very seriously affected if we
were cut off from feeding alfalfa in a mixed feed. We realize there
are damaged grains—

The Cuamman. What do you do with them?

Mr. Hicks. They can be fed to hogs with some safety, but to
poultry they can not be fed as readily. I own a large farm, and we
have our own mixing machines, we have our own system, and we
have our own grinding machines and cracking machines.

There are three reasons why the average farmer can not do that.
It does not pay us really. We buy these ready mixed feeds, and we
find them all practically as good as our own mixed feeds. Of course
they should be honest mixtures. Some of these things like peanut
hulls should be eliminated from feeds. .

Now, there are three reasons why the average farmer can not mix
his own feed. First, he can not afford to own the machinery. The
second reason is the cost of labor to-day, because it requires skilled
labor, and labor is very high, especially along the eastern seaboard.
The third reason is the cost of less-than-carload shipments. He can
not afford to buy cottonseed meal and gluten meal and many of
these other products that we have to use in large enough quantities,

Bie _

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 85

and the freight rates are too high. We do buy in large quantities;
we even buy. in car lots on a cooperative plan, and distribute them.

We are afraid that if this amendment passes as it is now worded
it will have a serious effect on the poultry industry of New Jersey
and many other eastern States.

The CHairman. You assume the Secretary of Agriculture would
not permit the shipment of the stuff ?

Mr. Hicxs. That opens up the question of damaged grain. If it
is ground it is a physical impossibility, in our judgment, to sepa-
rate it.

The CuarrmMan. I would hke to say in this connection that one
are Senator called my attention to a communication from
a Mr. Nash, I think it was, of the Pennsylvania Poultrymen’s Asso-
ciation, favoring this amendment.

I also have a letter here from a feed manufacturer located in the
East, which I would like to have read to the committee. I ought to
say that he asked that his name be withheld. If there is no’ objec-
tion I will ask to have the letter read.

(The clerk to the committee thereupon read the letter referred to,

which is here printed in full, as follows:)
SEPTEMBER 14, 1918.
Senator Gore,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir: You have an amendment to House bill 11945, which amendment
was acted upon favorably by the United States Senate on Friday last. The
feed trade seems to be somewhat upset because of this action, but there are
some very good points to the amendment in question, and undoubtedly in the
long run it would be of great benefit to the feeders in the country, although it
might put out of business some manufacturers of mixed feed who use more or
less junk in the preparation of their goods.

We are not attempting to defend either the amendment or the manufacturers
of live-stock feed who might be interfered with in their present activities, but
we are sending to you for your perusal a sample of ground screenings, which
we received to-day from a concern in the West. These goods are offered at $31
per ton in bulk f. o. b. an eastern point. If you will examine this sample and
smell it you will find that it has every evidence of being off grade, and it was
undoubtedly your purpose in asking for the amendment in question to avoid
the use of just such material.

Some years ago we received from a western elevator concern a sample of
what looked to us to be dirt taken out of a carpet sweeper. This was-all
brand new to us. We had never seen nor heard of anything like it and we
wrote to these very estimable people and asked them what it could be used
for. They very.promptly answered and said that it was elevator sweepings and
secourings and that they had sold it to mixed-feed manufacturers and that they
would like to sell some of it to go into the western territory. This again is
another one of the commodities that you are trying to eliminate from mixed
feed, and so far as we can see there are many reasons why such stuff as this
should be absolutely legislated out of business. There are many good feeds on
the market—lots of mixed feeds that are above criticism in every way, and,
of course, your amendment or any other legislation of a similar nature could
not at any time atfect a legitimate mixing proposition, particularly as the
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to issue written permits for the ship-
ment of concentrated commercial feeding stuffs containing foreign material
which, in his judgment, is inseparable from such prepared feeds.

We send you the sample herewith inclosed and the information in regard
to the other material because we believe that it is well that you should be ad-
vised of these things. As we have stated above we are not attempting to argue
that the amendment is either good or bad, neither are we attempting to set
forth either the merits or the demerits of the mixed-feed industry. We merely
give two interesting pieces of information and a sample which we think will
prove of interest to you and perhaps help as well.

86 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

We should like to ask that you grant us one favor, and that is that if you
discuss this matter at ali either publicly or privately and use the information
which we have given that you kindly refrain from quoting us. You see we
occupy 2 rather uafortunate position. A great many manufacturers in the
West might absolutely blacklist us if they thought we had done anything that
might in any way interfere with their present activities. We might suffer
the entire loss of our business because we have given you this information. Of
course, we know that this would be un-American and undemocratic, that we
should be so censured. but these things are done, as you undoubtedly know, so
we ask you in ull kindness not to divulge the source of this particular’ informa-
tion. Ww e are doing this in order that we may be protected, and we are send-
ing you the information because we think it is our patriotic duty to do so. May
we ask you to be good enough to acknowledge this letter and to assure us that
you wil! not quote us at any time, although we want you to be free to use the
information for your own purpose.

Respectfully, yours,

The CuatrmMan. Now, we have had two practical farmers. Mr.
Lasater, we would like to hear you for about five minutes.

Mr. Lasater. On what particular phase of the matter, Senator?

The Cuarrman. I believe you are a cattleman, to a certain extent.
We would like to hear you as to desirability of permitting the inter-

state shipment of adulterated feedstuffs.

STATEMENT OF MR. E. C. LASATER, STOCKRAISER, FALFURRIAS,
TEX.

Mr. Lasarer. Mr. Chairman, I think the point these gentlemen
make here is that they are putting out a commodity that w vill enable
the producer to cheapen his products. J think that is your point,
is it not?

The Cuatrman. I suggest that you go ahead and make your state-
ment.

Mr. Lasatrrr. I would state this: In my opinion, under present
conditions, the cost of production of dairy products by the use of
compound feeds has materially increased. That has come about in
this way: As Prof. Jordan stated here, there is no use in the farmer
buying feed which he has on his own farm in superabundance. As
it now stands, it is practically impossible for him to get his con-
centrates without buying the stuff with which he is already loaded
down.

IT ranch and farm in southern Texas

The Cuarrman. How many head of cattle do you have?

Mr. Lasarer. From 15,000 to 20,000 cattle, about 2,000 of them
dairy animals. I will say this: I have one of the good Jersey herds
of the United States. In answer to the eentleman who just pre-
ceded me, the farmer who argued that he had to use mixed feeds in
order to keep his cattle breeding and reproducing, I will state that
T have shown on the northern circuit from my ranch for two years
at the National Dairy Show—two years ago at Springfield, Mass.,
and last year at Columbus, Ohio. The year before last I took back
to Texas what they term the breeder’s diploma—that is, I won more
ribbons with cattle bred by myself than any other exhibitor. Last
year I took back both diplomas—the breeder’s diploma and the ex-
hibitor’s diploma. © That means I showed a herd of 27 animals, 22
bred on the ranch. That would indicate, at least, that I understand

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 87

feeding so as to get reproduction coupled with quality and develop-
ment.

Up to last year in Texas—I will confine myself to cottonseed prod-
ucts Just now—I always bought the highest protein content I could,
because I produced my own roughness. I was able to buy 51 per
cent protein content until last year. Last year it was cut down by
an understanding with the millers, so that I had to buy 43 per cent
protein, and my understanding is now that the protein content
of cottonseed cake is reduced to 36 per cent.

That simply means to the ranch or farm that has its own rough-
ness that it is buying and paying a high freight rate for something
it does not need. Take the ranchman in the northwest who is buy-
ing cottonseed cake to feed on his range; he has to pay for the rough-
ness that the meal contains, and the freight bill is more than its
feeding value. The same would apply to the dairyman in New Eng-
land who buys cottonseed products. On the low protein content he
pays for the roughage in freight more than it is worth to him.
The same thing applies to everything these gentlemen put out, that
they have it loaded down with this low feed value stuff. In the
majority of instances they are simply forcing men to pay for that
which they have in superabundance.

Representative Lever. Let us see if I get your theory. Your theory
is that you are in favor of this proposition because it would force
off the market practically all these compounded feeds and therefore
force the farmer to raise his own roughage?

Mr. Lasater. No, sir. Not in every instance. You can not find
dairying in any section that is prosperous where a good deal of
roughage is not produced on the farm. That is one of the essentials
that go with economic production. Now, if you permit a condi-
tion—and it is practically the situation to-day—such that the dairy-
man can not buy straight feeds, straight grains, he has to be content
to buy these compound feeds. If we permit that condition to
crystallize, to become any more a fact than it is to-day, then we
unquestionably fasten upon the country something that is bound to
increase the cost of production of all dairy products.

Representative Lever. Suppose you stop it immediately, what
would be the effect? '

Mr. Lasatrer. This amendment would not stop it immediately; it
would have a tendency to check the manufacture of these compound
feeds of low feeding value. It would have a tendency to put back the
straight grains into the trade, and in time J think that would be the
effect of this amendment.

Representative Lever. In other words, your proposition is that
you will force the farmer, by the big stick

Mr. Lasater. No, sir; I would forée the feed manufacturer, by a
just law, to do business right and to sell to the farmer what the
farmer supposes he is buying from him. That is what I think that
amendment would do.

Representative Lever. Your proposition, then, would be to pro-
hibit the interstate shipment of all low-feeding-value stuff?

Mr. Lasarer. Still not that. The amendment does not prohibit
it; it permits the shipment, provided he states what it is. For
instance, he would have tags something like this. I can not see that
it would do any harm to any honest manufacturer. The tag would

88 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

say: “ Oat hulls, 20 pounds; sand, 5 pounds; wheat straw, 20 pounds;
cottonseed meal, 20 pounds: blackstrap, 20 pounds; wheat screen-
ings, 15 pounds; total, 100 pounds.” Then, it would give the chem-
ical analysis, and the farmer would know what he was buying.

Representative Lever. We have a South Carolina law on_that
agi that practically does that, and I think there is a Texas

aw

Mr. Lasater. I want to say this: I ls not understand how it is
that we could not buy meal last year with more than 48 per cent of
protein. My understanding was that our law protected us against
that. But the Food Administration is practically in charge of the
mills of the country; it has supervision of things, at least. At any
rate, I know of nobody else that bought a higher protein content last
year than 48 per cent.

Here in Washington last week there was a meeting of the cotton:
seed producers with the mill men, and the understanding was that.
the protein content would be this year 36 per cent. That is a seven
point reduction from last year.

The Cuarrman. What was the price last year ?

Mr. Lasater. Last year it was $53.50. As a matter of fact, it is
equivalent to raising the cost to the feeder about $7.50 a ton this year.

In closing, the manufacturers claim that their cost of manufacture
is higher—about $6 a ton higher than last year. I may be incor-
rect as to the exact figures, but I think it was something like $138 a
ton margin they were “allowed last year. All that increased cost has
been put on the cottonseed hulls and meal; no, part of it has been
absorbed by either the oil or the linters, is my understanding. A man
who does not go into it and study it would not understand that he
is paying $7. 50 per ton more for his meal this year than last year.

Representative Lever. What does your Texas law say about these
compound feeds?

Mr. Lasater. I do not know, sir, that we have any law on com-
pound feeds. I am not sure about that. For instance, take the >
Quaker Oats people. That feed is shipped into Texas, and I have
never heard of any interference.

Representative Lever. Is it labeled “ Quaker Oats ”?

Mr. Lasater. It is labeled “Schumacher Feed.” That is the par-
ticular brand of compounded feed put out by Quaker Oats Co. that
T have used.

Representative Lever. Does it give the percentage of protein in it?

Mr. Lasater. It gives the proteins and fats, but I do not know
that it gives all the ingredients. These gentlemen would be better
posted on that. It would give the chemical analysis, but not the
ingredients that compose it.

Mr. Cxapry. Mr. Lasater, don’t you know that Texas has an in-
gredients law compelling the marking of feed, and has had for the
last seven years, and that nobody can ship feed in there without
stating every ingredient ?

Mr. Lasater, I have not seen the law.

Mr. Cuarry. Don’t you know the Quaker Oats people give the
correct names and analysis?

Mr. Lasater. No, sir.

Mr. Cuarrn. I would like to ask you a question. Did you say you.
can not buy 51 per cent cottonseed meal in the State of Texas?

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS, 89

Mr. Lasatrr. I will say I was not able to buy it last year.

Mr. Carin. Was that on account of the drought that the supply
had been all used up?

Mr. Lasarter. No, sir. I bought probably as much as 1,000 tons,
and I got 43 per cent. I alw: ays prefer to buy a high protein
content, but last year I was unable to buy it.

Mr. Cuaprin. I was able to buy it, and I can buy it now for a
proper price. All I have to do is to pay $7 per ammonia unit.

Mr. Lasatrrr. That means $1 per point of protein content.

Mr. Cuarin. Somewhere around there., You see, you can get any-
thing you want there if you pay the price for it. The 51 per cent
cottonseed meal is as high as ammonia is selling on a fertilizer basis.

Mr. Lasater. I have filed with the chairman telegrams and letters
to that effect from something over 250,000 feeders and dairymen. We
know we can not get what we want. Just the reason w hy these feeds
can not be obtained I am not prepared to tell you.

Mr. Cuarin. This is wholly within the State of Texas, is it not?

Mr. Lasater. No, sir.

Mr. Cuarrin. You buy your meal in the State a Texas?

Mr. Lasatrr. I buy my meal in the State of Texas; yes.

The CrHamman. Mr. Chapin, I do not believe you stated your
initials and address.

Mr. CHarin. Robert W. Chapin, Chicago, Ill. I am a manufac-
turer of dairy feeds at Hammond, Ind.

The Cuairman. Are you connected with the food administration
of Illinois?

' Mr. Cuarrn. I am not. J am called down here in an advisory
capacity once in a while, and they call upon all members of the
trade occasionally and osk their opinions.

The CHairman. Who does?

Mr. Cuapry. The Food Administration.

The CuHarrman. They call in the food manufacturers, do they?

Mr. Cuapin. They have done so; they have had conferences.
They are going to have one to-morrow, I believe.

Mr. Lasarer. I would like to make this statement before we leave
this subject. I believe that if you will go into the cost of these
mixed feeds and ascertain the cost of the straight ingredients that
go into them, you will find that the farmer can buy the straight
ingredients and mix them at a less cost than the cost of these feeds.

Representative Lever. You do not contend that this amendment
gives anybody any authority to do that?

Mr. Lasarer. No; but it will enable him to do it. It is going to
have the effect of bringing the straight grain feeds back on the mar-
ket. These gentlemen ean buy them; but if we had a thousand
producers, you would probably find that 800 of those producers
could not buy them. They are buying mixed feeds because they can
not get anything else on the market.

Representative Lrver. And they can not get roughage?

Mr. Lasater. A great many of them have their own roughage.
Of course I only count for one, but in my locality I have the rough-
age; I want the proteins and fats.

Representative Lxver. You are one out of a thousand, are you not?

Mr. Lasarer. By no means. Of course it varies with the seasons.
This year New York may be short on roughage; next year it may

9G ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

have a surplus. They ought to be in a position to buy what they
need. As it is they have to buy the roughage in order to get the
concentrates, and that adds to the cost of living.

Representative Lever. Were you ever connected with the Food
Administration ?

Mr. Lasatrer. I was; yes, sir.

STATEMENT OF DR. HERBERT W. MUMFORD, PROFESSOR OF ANI-
MAL HUSBANDRY, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS.

Dr. Mumrorp. Mr. Chairman, we find that there is an increasing
sale of these mixed feeds. I wish to call attention to three or four
questions which have been raised here, and which I think have not
been directly answered. The extent to which there is an increase in
the sale of these mixed feeds can best be answered by the gentlemen
who represent the American Feed Dealers’ Association. Those sta-
tistics are in the possession of these gentlemen. It has been repeat-
edly stated here, I believe, that in the State laws and in the pure-
food law there is ample protection for the producer.

The CuarrmMaAn. You mean the consumer ?

Dr. Mumrorp. I mean the producer of live stock. Notwithstand-
ing that fact, we find that it was stated at the convention of the
American Feed Manufacturers’ Association at Buffalo, June 7 and 8,
that there was considerable dissatisfaction.

The Cuarrman. That is, June 7 and 8, this year?

Dr. Mumrorp. Yes, sir.

The CyartrMan. The convention of the Feed Manufacturers’ As-
sociation ?

Dr. Mumrorp. Yes, sir. It was stated that there was a good deal
of dissatisfaction among the manufacturers with these laws. As I
understand it to-day they are quite well satisfied with these laws.
Notwithstanding the fact that they tell us that these laws have been
working very satisfactorily, Mr. Chapman, representing the Food
Administration, stated at this same meeting—

Reports now in the hands of the Food Administration show many instances
of profits ranging from $10 to $23 per ton on these mixed feeds.

He also states that these profits are out of reason and will not be
tolerated.

Representative Lever. That has absolutely nothing to do with this
proposition; this is not a price-fixing bill.

The CHairman. It is this selling of this worthless stuff for feed.

Mr. Cuarprn. I was at that meeting; may I correct that statement ?
T heard those remarks, and they referred solely to retail profits on
bran, not on mixed feeds.

Representative Lever. Let me say this: I am afraid my attitude
may be misunderstood here. I am trying to help in this matter, but
I do not see the use of clogging this record with a lot of explaining
things, and I tried to lay down a formula here that would be helpful
to us. If they are going to bring in a lot of extraneous matters we
can not clean up these hearing in three or four days.

Dr. Mumrorp. I shall undertake to show, Mr. Chairman, exactly
what the increased sale and manufacture of mixed feeds does to the
producer.

Je)
—

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Representative Lever. That is all right.

Dr. Mumrorp. And J think it is competent to know that there are
abuses where profits ranging from $10 to $48 per ton obtain.

When I first read the reports of this amendment as it came out I
said to myself: “ Now, there is a proposition upon which all honest
feed manufacturers and the producers of livestock can join.” I find
there is very great opposition on the part of feed manufacturers to
this amendment. I believe that the increased sale of mixed fee
will say adulterated mixed feeds—is a menace to the live-stock inter-
ests for this reason: The live-stock producers of this country have
come to look upon the experiment stations of this country for their
guidance and their help. I ask you what these experiment-station
men can do to help the live-stock producers of this country when they
are asked to pass upon the merits or demerits of some 4,500 brands of
mixed feeds. You will find, if you care to look it wp, in a bulletin
published by the Indiana Experiment Station May 1, 1918, that there
are listed there something between 4,500 and 5,000 mixed feeds.

Representative Lever. “That is an interesting point. Let me ask
you this on that point, as a practical matter : “You say it is a very
hard matter for you experiment-station people to pass upon these
various mixed feeds. and yet here you are asking the Secretary of
Agriculture to pass upon four or five thousand of them before this
law can become operative.

Dr. Mumrorp. No; my motion is this, Mr. Chairman: If this
amendment goes into ‘effect it will cut down by about 75 per cent the
number of these brands that are offered on the market.

Representative Lever. Before any of this stuff can go into inter-
state commerce the Secretary of Agriculture, under this amendment,
must issue a license or permit showing certain things to be facts.
Now, the Secretary of Agriculture, if he is the kind of Secretary I
think he is, is not going to issue these permits without the facts, and
he can not get the facts without an investigation. How long will it
take him to make such an investigation?

Dr. Mumrorp. That is a matter of detail of administration which
T am not supposed to pass upon.

Representative Lever. I think it is very important.

The CuHarrmMan. As J understood you, it is very hard for you to
pass on these samples. After they have passed through interstate
commerce and come into the hands of the farmers it is difficult for
them to examine them.

Dr. Mumrorp. Yes, sir.

The CuarrmMan. Now, there are a million farmers needing these
things, and don’t you think it would be easier for the Secretary to
stabilize the industry and issue the rules and regulations in accord:
ance with which the business should be carried on and take hold of it
in its incipiency instead of at the end.

Dr. Mumrorp. I most certainly do.

Representative Havern. It would result in the standardizing of
the business, would it not?

Dr. Mumrorp. Yes, sir.

Representative Haucen. And instead of having 4.000 or 5,000 dif-
ferent standards you will have it reduced to only 50 or 100.

Dr. Mumrorp. Another fact which is not generally known, but
which experiment stations come in contact with, is the fact that two

92 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

different brands of feed have absolutely and exactly the same chemi-
cal composition, while they are sold under two different brands. The
amusing part of it is, as some of you gentlemen know, that both these
feeds can be sold in the same community under two different trade
names, although they might have come out of the same bin so far as
anybody can tell and the farmer will drop the use of one of those
feeds and take up the other and swear that it is better than the first
one.

Representative Lever. As a practical proposition, Dr. Mumford,
how would you handle that? Would you prohibit the use of trade
names in commerce?

Dr. Mumrorp. No, sir. ;

tepresentative Lever. How would you get at it?

Dr. Mumrorp. I do not believe any manufacturer ought to be
allowed to sell the same product under two different brand names.

Representative Luver. How about two different manufacturers sell-
ing cottonseed meal, 43 per cent, one calling it “ Mississippi Red ”
and the other “ South Carolina Blue”? Do you believe in that?

Dr. Mumrorp. That would not be the same proposition.

Representative Lever. That is the same article sold under a dif-
ferent trade name.

Dr. Mumrorp. It is the helplessness of the farmer and the pro-
ducer that I want to bring out. I believe it is a fact that the com-
mercial feedstuff business in this country depends solely upon you
gentlemen being able to produce a straightforward product, all wool
and a yard wide, and every one of you sticking to it and helping to
put these men out of business who are trying to do a crooked busi-
ness—and you know there are plenty of them.

The CHarrmMan. Have you a State law in Illinois against the
adulteration of feeds?

Dr. Mumrorp. I understand there is. I understand also it is the
general feeling among the manufacturers that it is more or less of a
joke. Is there anybody here that has had very much trouble with
the administration of the food law in the State of Illinois. (No
response. ) |

The Cuarrman. Are there any further questions? If not, I would
like to hear Dr. Wing, of Cornell.

STATEMENT OF DR. HENRY H. WING, CORNELL UNIVERSITY,.
ITHACA, N. Y., PRESIDENT OF THE NEW YORK GRANGE
EXCHANGE.

Dr. Wine. Mr. Chairman, I am here at the request of Mr. S. J.
Lowell, master of the New York State Grange, who, I believe, had
an invitation from yourself.

The Cuatrman. Yes, sir. Now, Doctor, I would like to hear you
discuss this amendment from the standpoint of the farmer and the
consumer of grain.

Dr. Wine. I would say, first, that I indorse everything that Dr.
Jordan had to say in regard to the law in his remarks this afternoon,
and that the Grange would fully indorse those statements.

T do not know that at this late hour I have very much further to
add, except to give some impressions with respect to the statements
that have been made in regard to some of these feeds that are said

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 93

to have and probably do have some feeding valuc. We have to take
into consideration not only the composition of the food but the con-
dition in which it comes to us and the way the animal takes it.

A good deal has been said about the cottonseed hulls. I feed ani-
mals myself, some 150 a year, not a great number, but I have pur-
chased the feeds for them for the last 20 or 25 years. Some cotton-
seed hulls came into my hands, straight hulls, about ae years ago,
with the request that I see if they were available for feed in New
York State. The animals would not eat them alone.’ Ye ou could not
put enough butter on them or sugar to make them go down, as you
could on a small boy’s bread. :

Now, I have been conversant with the mixed feed situation for
about the same length of time. My experience and the experience of

many others has led us to believe that the chief object in making
these patented feeds, to use Dr. Jordan’s term, is to make a feed that
otherwise would be rejected, or nearly completely rejected by ani-
mals—to make them eat it. The object is to sell a feed in combina-
tion that would not sell on the market on its own merits at anywhere
near the price that is asked for it in a mixed feed.

Some statements have been made here with respect to the possi-
bility or impossibility of consumers getting straight, good feeds, so-
called, in the markets at the present time. The conditions in New
York State are quite different from what they are in the Central
West and producing States. The retailing of commercial feeds is
almost wholly in the hands of small retail dealers in small towns,
where the dairymen and other consumers drive wp to the store and
take away a few hundred pounds or a few tons of it at atime. Those
men do not like to handle but one kind of feed, and they will natu-
rally take the brand thet they can make the most money out of and
that they can recommend or that they can get the farmers to use.

In the last 5 or 10 years while, as Dr. Jordan says, we have no fig-
ures on the tonnage basis, common observation shows an increase in
the use of these feeds. The percentage Dr. Jordan gave; 69 per cent
or something like that. Sometimes they all contain more or less of
these worthless or semi-worthless articles, or articles of low value, to
use the best term, which has been identified by the inspection in New
York.

The law in New York undoubtedly has afforded some protection,
but under the operation of the law in the State of New York Dr. Jor-
dan showed you conclusively that the number of brands and the pro-
portion of mixed feeds, as compared with straight goods, has been
constantly increasing in the nearly 20 years of the operation of that
law.

Representative Lever. To what do you attribute that increase,
Dr. Wing?

Dr. Wine. To the reason I just pointed out a few moments ago.
Particularly in these last years since prices of feed have risen the
retail dealers do not want to handle more than one kind of feed.
They can take the agency for a mixed feed and do not have to put so
much capital into it as they would if they kept a stock of four or five
or a dozen different kinds of straight feeds. In the larger markets
you can buy cottonseed meal or straight oluten, distillers’ grains—
until they were shut out—and things of that sort; but 1 in the small

94 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

markets, the towns that have only 1,000 or 2,000 inhabitants, where
there is only one feed dealer, or only two or three, you can not do
that.

Representative Lever. What would be the effect on the retail deal-
ers all over the country if we pass a pRoResition like this which would
esa the sale of the straight goods?

. Wine. They would sell str aight goods.

st chucaleen Lever. In other words, they would rather go out
and get some cottonseed meal

Dr. Wine (interposing). Or they could make a mixture of straight
goods that would not contain these things. You can make a mixture
that does not contain these objectionable things. You can make a
mixture of wheat bran and cotton seed or lin seed in v arying propor-
tions, and it will not contain any one of these objectionable articles.

The Carman. Is the grange organization in New York under-
taking to put into operation some cooperative system of doing that?

Dr. Wrxc. Yes: they just have it in process of or ganization at the
_ present time. They expect to open offices in Syracuse the Ist of
October.

The Cuairman. I hope you will report to us how it fares.

Dr. Wine. That will depend very largely on the amount of busi-
ness we can get and the amount of money.

Mr. Srory. Mr. Chairman, have you considered what disposition

the manufacturers will make of their stock on hand?

The Cuarrman. I will say, Mr. Story, that it was an oversight that
there was not a time limit written into this bill. They ought 1 to have
the time of their ordinary turnover written into the bill.

Mr. Srory. I was asking for information, because many of our
dairymen and poultrymen- in Massachusetts are interested in the
amendment, inasmuch as practically all of the poultry feeders are
using damaged feeds—damaged wheat and mill run of screenings—
and as they. understand the bill it would bar most of the so-called
standard feeds.

The Cuarrman. Do they object to damaged grains mixed up with
other feeds?

Mr. Story. Yes. They are small operators—both of our herds are
smi it is di ials and to mix
them for the small herds. They do not like to bother with it, and it
is a serious matter at this stage of the season, which they will have to
do if those feeds are all barred or held up subject to thorough investi-
gation by the secretary. It was with that in mind that I asked the
question.

The Cuatrman. You are right about that, and that will be allowed,
if agreed upon.

STATEMENT OF MR. HARRY CASADAY, ALFALFA MILLER,
DENVER, COLO.

Mr. CasapAy. Mr. Chairman, I am of Senator Shafroth’s con-
stituency, and represent the National Alfalfa Millers’ Association.
We are largely farmers as well as manufacturers of alfalfa meal. In
fact, I had the privilege of practically building the first alfalfa mill.

The CuHairman. You do not want alfalfa meal included in the in-
hibited stuff?

—

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 95

Mr. Casapay. No. sir. I want to say that not more than 2 per cent
of the alfalfa meal is marketed by these gentlemen who represent
the American Mixed-Feed Association. JT might also reply to the gen-
{leman from Texas who spoke here a few monrents ago relative to
prices. Prior to the war we paid an average of $7 a ton at the mill
for alfalfa. To-day the alfalfa mills are paying the farmers $22 ¢
ton. ;
I might also reply to Mr. Jordan along that line. He suggested that
it was hardly practicable to feed alfalfa meal. Now, the cost of
alfalfa meal to the farmer has gone up by the amount of the freight
to New York to-day, which is $12 a ton, plus $7 a ton which we have
to pay to the manufacturer of bags, which come from Calcutta, and
plus to-day the difference between $2 and $10 paid for labor in
Colorado. That.is what makes the relative difference between the
cost of alfalfa four years ago and the cost of alfalfa to the gentle-
man from Texas to-day.

The Cuarman. You say you pay the farmer $22 a ton for alfalfa?

Mr. Casapay. Yes, sir.

The Cuarrman. What do you get for the meal?

Mr. Casapay. The hay to-day brings $34 a ton at Kansas City, and
T think the meal is bringing $38 a ton at Kansas City, in bags.

The Cuarrman. What do you get?

Mr. Casapay. $38 a ton at Kansas City, plus the price of bags,
plus the manufacturing costs, and the freight from Kansas City,
Senator.

Our season is right on; this is the busy season of the year, and it
is impossible for us to contract with the American feed manufac-
turers if they do not know what is going to become of this amend-
inent at this time.

The Cuairman. Mr. Ward, how long do you want?

Representative Haucen. There are a number of gentlemen here
who desire to be heard.

The Cuarman. I understand. Judge Ward wanted to appear on
a different phase of the subject.

Mr. Assotr. Mr. Chairman, we gave up our time cn account of the
testimony of the proponents, and also to let in outside interests. We
only had one speaker this morning, and this afternoon have only had
the privilege of cross-examining.

The Caairman. Oh, you had four this afternoon.

Mr. Assorr. We have nct had a single speaker this afternoon. We
have not, as manufacturers, had an opportunity to be heard. These
other gentlemen are independent interests.

The Cuarrman. I think two have been heard this afternoon—more
than have been heard in favor of the bill.

Mr. Agssotr. They did not represent the manufacturing interests,
Senator.

The CuatrmMaAn. Well, as I understand it, you and Mr. Chapin did.

Mr. Assorr. Mr. Chapin has not up to this time had an oppor-
tunity to give your committee the digest of what he has to deliver.

The CuatrrMAn. We will be very glad to have you file that with the
committee. I do not want to continue this hearing to-morrow, as I
have another hearing in the morning.

Mr. Asporr. We certainly would like to have a little more time to
consider this to-morrow. We have not had ample time on our part.

96 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

The CuarrmMan. I can not possibly be with you to-morrow. It
seems to me you could file briefs as to the rest of it. Mr. Abbott
appeared this morning, and Senator Shafroth, and Senator Reed,
and Senator Kellogg; this afternoon there have been three men from
Massachusetts, one man from New Jersey, and Mr. Chapin has inter-
jected more than anybody else has said in the whole time, excepting
Mr. Abbott, and, it seems to me, the different phases have been gone
over pretty well. I do not care to hear a dozen millers myself.

Mr. Asporr. That is just the point, Senator. You fail to grasp the
fact that this is an industry of very far-reaching importance and is
a vital thing to this country. We have come here from a great
distance, and we most respectfully ask the privilege of coming back
here to-morrow or the day following with an opportunity of pre-
senting the arguments that we have not had time to present to-day.

The Cuairman. You know I told you the other day, Mr. Abbott,
I wanted to limit this to one or two men on the different phases of the
question. Now, three men have appeared on the manufacturers’
point of view.

Representative Haucen. All seem to be agreed that there should be
legislation. It ‘seems that everybody is determined that it shall be
disposed of and that there shall be legislation along those lines. They
are all in favor of the legislation. Now then, they ought to suggest
amendments. If they are not in favor of it as presented here but in
favor of it in some different form, they ought to propose amendments
or to give suggestions, so that we may have something to work on.
If this amendment does not meet the views of some of them, let
them indicate what is desired.

STATEMENT OF MR. R. W. CHAPIN, PRESIDENT, CHAPIN & CO.,
HAMMOND, IND.

Mr. Chairman, as far as possible all parts of cereal plants suitable
for human use should be extracted and the residues left for cattle.
To obtain the highest economy and efficiency necessity requires that
food materials be used, first, for human food; second, for: animal
food; third, for fertilizer.

Fundamentally this is correct, for we can get the most value out
of the feed stuff if we feed it directly to human beings. Such ma-
terials as can not be used for human food, as, for example, those that
are coarse and fibrous, eaa be fed to animals to produce man’s food,
such as meat, milk, and eggs. Milling and manufacturing processes
divide grain into two parts, the one suitable for man, the other
suitable for farm animals. For example, oats yield oatmeal, 80
per cent of which is digestible by man, and oat feed, which is about
50 per cent digestible by animals and not at all by man. This oat
feed, far from being worthless, is thus converted into food for man
by the cow, steer. or sheep. It happens that the cereal mills, the oil
mills, the sugar factories, produce very large quantities of by-prod-
ucts, which are not themselves digestible by the human organism,
but which may be transformed into human food by being fed to live
stock. Most of these by-products are not in such physical condition
as to be readily fed to live stock. They require milling, mixing, or
processing of some sort. Molasses is difficult to transport or handle,
because it is liquid and sticky. Oat feed cr oat hulls is dry, dusty,

/

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 97

and unpalatable when fed alone. It is, therefore, mixed with grain
or molasses.

Screenings, which are largely shrunken grains and hard seeds, re-
quire difficult grinding, but become a useful animal food when
ground into meal. They are nearly equal in value to any of the
coarse grains. Cottonseed meal is too concentrated to feed alone
without the risk of injury. Consequently, there has grown up a
tremendous industry, whose business is the milling, processing, and
mixing of these by-product materials in such a fashion as to make
the greatest possible amount of them available for the production
of human food by way of the animal organism. Several millions
of tons of these mixed feeds are produced and sold annually in this
country, and a corresponding amount of human food in the form of
corn, wheat, oats, and barley is thus saved for use directly by human
beings. Molasses can not be used satisfactorily, except when mixed
with some absorbent material, such as oat feed or clipped oat by-
product. Oat feeds and screenings can not be used without addin
either some grain product or molasses to make them palatable. The
farmer can not, as a rule, do this preparation himself, because it
requires either elaborate mechanical equipment or a large amount of
hand labor. Considerably more than 600,000 tons of molasses feed
are produced annually. Probably half of the products used in these
feeds would have to be wasted just us they were in the past, except for
the facilities of the numerous large centralized mixing plants that
new conserve them. We are not here to argue for the use of any
worthless material. The present Federal law makes it possible to
prevent their use. We are here to urge that you do not forbid the
use of any material which has feeding value—that has such value
that when fed to animals it can be converted by them into human
food.

We do not want to be understood as basing this appeal on the
present exigent food conditions. It is an appeal against a waste of
food, an appeal which we have violated at no time.

The present Federal law absolutely prohibits the use of deleterious
substances or products having little or no feeding value. Practically
all States have stringent feed-inspection laws, conferring full police
powers to the food-control officials, so that the laws may be enforced.
Every State law expressly commands the manufacturer or seller to
place a legible brand on the package, with a statement of the chemical
analysis and a list of every ingredient contained therein. The Fed-
eral law provides a heavy punishment for misbranding, so that any
statements made in complhance with State laws are carefully scruti-
nized by the Federal authorities. Thus no shipment of feed can
escape either Federal or State control, or in most cases both of them.
It has been frequently charged that the manufacturer of mixed feeds
puts together high-priced materials with low-priced, and for the mix-
ture charges the highest price. This is not true. To illustrate: A
manufacturer making a stock feed composed of 80 per cent corn meal
and 20 per cent oat feed figures his cost as follows, using arbitrary
prices: |

AU IUCIACEM in Oat LECH ati eO neal sess oe a $4
SU peuECenimCOLl neal zat Hoy COUAl Sie a ee y eet ae gees Poe a 52
Fame INO ret lies COS La at ee ee ee A 9) Sana See Ra a epee LMR eee a ae Pe aT 56

814138—18——7

98 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

To this must be added the cost of sacks, mixing, selling, and profit.
By this you can see that the farmer pays for each ingredient its mar-
ket value, plus a fair charge for service rendered.

In order that you may have in mind not generalities but figures,
I want to give you the percentages of digestible nutrients in a num-
ber of feed materials. These figures are taken from Henry & Morri-
son’s Feeds and Feedings, which is a recognized authoritative work
on the subject. The figures of percentages of digestible nutrients
represent not laboratory tests, but the results of actual feeding ex-
periments performed by various State experiment stations, and in
most cases are averages of a large number of such tests:

Per cent,
Corn yet Ss) 8 ee Jie Be ere Tae eee epee ANE TUE EeIC oe EL) ES eee 83
Wihe@atye) <1 ee Oh sek ee bees bees eee be oe ee aye ot ne ee 80
OBS oo eR ape ha ee ae a Se Se hk ee ee) ee ee 70
Tey ee a ee ars cee el De IR EGS 8 79
CO FeT mei evscy PU is. OOF 8 ot SIP ES TOD 8 le BRD La i Dd ae AP Be nn dle huh bs ba) pany pn oo eh) aylbeal
Oottonseéd mhuills. jasete leh ty) seh ae LEE a 37
AM Ga fay tf ne ok ng el oy ey Zod eae ay ie ly Pepe phen Fel pees re eee 51.6
HD stores) 0 (2 = eae A AOR TEE i CS PT ee Se ees Oe 37.8
| F2 SHRIST Fz ised eee eh ha ae, hid roe aria Uaioe inary Deak nh Veen tg doe Mats Oates ta ee 45.6
SOPS UTA DA Asses HS PPR ENT PRIA 2 eee RE ae re ee ee 54. 2

The oat feed given in this list is the oatmeal mill by-product,
the form in which oat hulls occur as a result of the oat milling
process. Oat hulls alone, as far as I am aware, are never sold. Oat
feed is a mixture of oat hulls, with other by-products of the oat mill-
ing process—oat shorts, oat middlings, ete. The flax shives shown in
the above list are substantially the same as the flax by-product men-
tioned in the Gore amendment.

From these figures you will see that oat feed has five-sevenths as
much digestible nutrient as oats and five-eighths as much corn. Are
you gentlemen going to forbid the use of such 2 product? But per-
haps you feel that you should prohibit the use ef flax shives and cot-
tonseed hulls, which contain only 37 per cent of digestible nutriment ?

The distillers, who feed large numbers of cattle on distillery wet
grains, have for years past purchased thousands of tons of these two
alleged worthless materials to feed to cattle in connection with their
distillery by-product. Does this indicate that these materials are
worthless? Can you believe that the Peoria distillers ship cottonseed
hulls from Louisinana and flax shives from Minnesota for any other
reason than because the feeding of them to their cattle proves profit-
able? In the face of these facts, is it possible to justify a law pro-
hibiting the use of these products or of any other material of proved
feeding value ?

A careful estimate by competent authorities of the annual produc-
tion of some of the feedstuffs named in this bill, which have an es-
timated value determinéd and recognized by all agricultural colleges,
shows as follows:

Tons
OBE ECCUS Foe eee De eS 400, 000
Sereenimes 2s {liver ! oth St Sha) ko 2 ben Ne AS Pena eee ee A ee ees 300, 000
AA Fafa: frmedi) is Me ly Pe i AEN ae ee ee ee ee 300, 000—400, 000
IMolaSS@S) hess ee i eo eee 300, 000
Clipped: oat: by=products 2 ee ee ee 200, 000
Cottonseed sn wllS 119M sic S)) eee ae rare ee ea ee 968, 000

2,246, 000

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 99

We have considered these products only because accurate figures
were available and to show the enormous tonnage involved, namely,
2,468,000 tons, having a feeding value conservatively equal to 1,000,-
000 tons of corn, and very likely more. This amount of corn would
be worth $50,000,000 to-day. Who would advocate losing this im-
mense amount of animal food by forcing it out of the market?

The oat feeds alone are worth many millions of dollars, and were
they not used this heavy loss would have to be added either to the
price of oatmeal or deducted from the price paid to the farmer for
his oats. The New York State College of Agriculture has announced
that the hay crop of that State shows a shrinkage of about 1,000,000
tons from previous estimates. All of the oat feeds produced in this
country (and they certainly have value equal to hay), would not
suffice to replace this loss of hay.

The bulkiness and fibrous character of these feeds, instead of being
something to condemn, is a virtue that is essential to a. properly pre-
pared dairy or horse feed. Oats contain 30 to 40 per cent oat hulls,
which is one of the reasons they make such an ideal, safe food for
the horse. This is one of the reasons that these light, bulky food
materials are used so universally to lighten up heavy concentrated
feeds, which are not safe to feed alone.

In the past bran has been one of the chief feeds-m the dairy in-
dustry and was considered absolutely necessary to lighten up corn-
meal and similar heavy feeds. It is now so scarce we are obliged to
use these other substitutes or have very disastrous results when we
attempt to feed our cows without them.

The war-time milling regulations have so reduced the production
of wheat mill feed that there will be 514,000 tons less of this product
produced within the present milling year. There is practically no
wheat feed in store anywhere or available at the present time.

In former years the production of distillers’ grains averaged 200,-
000 tons per annum. The production of brewers’ grains formerly
was 600,000 tons per annum. These dairy feeds are practically elim-
inated. The Government estimate on the flax crop is 15,000,000
bushels, which means a shortage of linseed oil meal of about 200,000
tons. Last year’s crop of cottonseed meal was 2,000,000 tons; this
year’s crop will be 10 per cent short, or 200,000 tons less.

To recapitulate, we are facing a shortage for the coming year of
600,000 tons of brewers’ grains, 200,000 tons of distillers’ grains,
514,000 tons of mill feeds, 200,000 tons of oil meal, and 200,000 tons
of cottonseed meal; making a total shortage of 1,714,000 tons of com-
mercial concentrates.

Last year there was no carry over on any of these commodities.
All that was produced was consumed, so that we stand with a certain
knowledge that in some way or other we must make up this enormous
shortage in these commodities if we are to maintain last year’s fig-
ures on milk, butter, and beef production. The Gore amendment is
not aimed at these commodities. Making up this shortage can only
be done by the most careful conservation of every last pound of
every by-product produced in this country that has any feeding value
whatever.

The mixed-feed industry submits that it is not engaged in debas-
ing feeds, but is engaged in conserving and making useful and avail-

100 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

able valuable food products that have hitherto been wasted. That
the Gore amendment is aimed at certain alleged abuses and its enact-
ment will mean the prohibition of practically all mixed feeds, which
would destroy the mixed-feed industry. That our mixed feeds are
bought by the farmers of their own free will and choice, and these
farmers would be greatly handicapped if they were forced to mix
their own feeds, which by reason of the scarcity of labor and other
good reasons they do not desire to do.

(Mr. Chapin subsequently submitted additional data, which are
here printed in full, as follows:)

STATEMENT INTENDED TO SHOW THE FEEDING VALUE OF A FEW OF THE MORE
CoMMON By-Propucts FEEDS, BY H. J. PATTERSON, DIREBTOR, MARYLAND
EXPERIMENT STATION, AND H. J. WHITE.

{Extracts from Bulletin No. 168 of the Maryland Agriculture Experiment Station. ]

BY-PRODUCT FEEDS.

PAGE 1:

The price and scarcity of whole grain and standard cattle foods has neces-
sitated the seeking of other sources and the availing of every kind of material
that animals could utilize. This condition has brought upon the market many
by-products which previously were considered waste products.

Some of these by-products are found on the market in their natural condi-
tion, but many of them are finely ground and are used in the mixed feeds. In
many mixed feeds it is impossible to determine the kind or nature of the ma-
terial which has been used to make them.

Some people have taken the position that many of the by-products on the
market were nearly worthless as a cattle food and that the placing of them in
mixed foods should be regarded with suspicion, or even as a fraud. While
there is a very limited amount of data available which gives definite knowledge
as to the real value of these by-products feeds, yet on the other hand there is
no doubt but that many of them have a food value which should be utilized.
Many plants and seeds which are commonly considered as worthless weeds
show hy analysis a high food value, and it is well known that some animals eat
them in preference to cultivated plants and thrive on them.

The making of mixed feeds or rations is a legitimate business, which is
really backed by more substantial arguments than the making of mixed fer-
tilizers. The feeding of a given kind of animals for a specific purpose is a
more constant factor than the feeding of crops which are to be grown on a
great variety of soils and under many conditions. The object sought in making
a mixed feed should be not only for the purpose of procuring a proper “ bal-
ance” or relation of the food components, but the aim should also be to
improve the palatibility of the ration. The palatability of a food is probably
as essential for animals as for man.

The real value of a food or ration depends upon what the animals get out
of it. What the animals get out of a food or ration depends chiefly upon its
palatibility, composition, digestibility, and assimilation. It is possible for some
plant constituents to stimulate uad others to retard both digestion and assimi-
lation. These facts make a greater knowledge of the effect of plant alkaloids
very desirable, and especially important in considering many by-product feeds.

GRAIN SCREENINGS.

Page 2: There are vast quantities of screenings derived from the cleaning
of grains for use in making human food products. These screenings will vary
greatly, according to their source. They vary according to the kind of grain,
the farm, and the season. Probably no two lots would ever be just the same,
but yet, the pooling of large lots of grains in the mills has a tendency to make
the screenings more uniform than they would be otherwise. The screenings
used in this experiment came from Western mills and represented material
which enters largely into some kinds of mixed feeds which are extensively
sold in Kastern markets.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 101

Summary showing the average coefficients of digestibility obtained in the
experiments, together with those of some other common feeds for com-
parison.

Crude Crude
protein. fiber.

Per cent. Per cent.
48,

i laxa plant DVsHlOGMC Us cas ee fete cise ce n= ae natin la ain aln Saha Sas a aie aioe ait 63. 43

Blaxap lant by-PLowucy aa WitlOlLASSeS seem clasice acacie ma a(saino me alnele sterols seni == = ela 62, 50 31. 84
GrounG=Prain sereenin es sess saeee ie da oe lcicis ss ise sais + vice we sleisiapin 10 nleislalejaleinselelne conlalcies 65. 47 17. 48
BiuGleawheat mid dlings=se em aac eke oe Some Se ne ae vaca Ceci ames cine mnelarelsiaatets 90. 76 30. 89
DSU era Ste ai S eae te este sete stare teisteinis nisve eiciclovois wists wielajajaic ciel aatetetatn elaieisia aietalel= tiaie mits 43.19 22. 26
Oa MUM Sea. ce semeaciek ewsaecicieiiesia’s 50.1 59.9
Wheat bran (average of all tests) .-- 77.0 41.0
Brewer’s grains (average of all tests). wo] 79.0 53.0
CopnunerlCaverare Ol AlUGOstS) sje cem cece se seen nace cmicie seine eines seins eee | GOO Mil alacacie cess

From the above tuble it will be seen that ground-grain screenings is more
digestible than distiller’s grains, but not quite as digestible as wheat bran.

Result maintenance test—bull.

Oat
Date. Weight. | hulls | Hay.

fed.
Pounds.|Pounds.
ASI Kop GAT ee Bil sl in, sa a A a Lea AN <a peets Ree Pe ZOD ees eto eees | Soa eens
ASL PER Ne he SIRE ee ee See Se MR ee Py Sener Se REE tts 681 | 10.0 7.5
ASU A ARLE 2s Ae Oe De ae Bs 1 ee ee ae UR <8 a Se ery SS ee 10.0 6.2
Mtly 242 oslo s en pees See CE See. Paes ae ete ee «oe are tere ee ess. oe 710 ; 10.0 8.7
iy, Qone Se ye A 2 ee RATS! SS RED, |. ER ORES REACTS Ds 22 AIS Se Se 10.0 8.7
ATL Var Mee eER Re a enc Gor wine oer canon oanios cab tecamarermsecasaepeaciatese <[seaecceecs 10.0 10.8
ENTE VCP eras erat rata aa aks ails Se cer ane Ten nic wre eat eI nee wiare heise clomeee 690 | 10.0 10.2
Dulys28 Ges ee ve eee ad Case sey yae sO. FR ema te ge S She Ge Memes oe a4 Sen) Pa eb ee 10.0 9.8
‘Ubi Dg). 0 eS RN he ee RS CG COC ARE OO ane aie] Generar 10.0 9.6
Uy eS AA ame eee OE Be es MEU a Sea Rom coca etcatis oebtnedalh wee ee 10.0 10.4

At the end of the 41 days’ period the bull had gained 29 pounds in weight.

During the first 9 days, however, he received hay in addition to oat hulls,
and when hay was discontinued he had up to this lost apparently 15 pounds.
This was an error, probably due to his having been watered shortly before the
initial weighing. For the remainder of the time he gradually improved on
an exclusive oat-hull diet, and at the end of the period was in excellent con-
dition in every respect.

102 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

STATEMENT INTENDED TO SHOW THE BRANDING REQUIRED ON PACKAGES OF FEEDING
STUFFS SOLD, OFFERED, OR EXPOSED FOR SALE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRO-
VISIONS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAW OF NEW YORK STATE RELATIVE TO THE SALE
AND INSPECTION OF FEEDING STUFFS, AND WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME
REQUIREMENTS EFFECTIVE IN MOST OF THE 42 STATES NOW HAVING FEED-
INSPECTION LAWS.

{Hxtract from p. 614 of New York Agricultural Hxperiment Station Bulletin No. 441,
entitled ‘“‘ Inspection of Feeding Stuffs.’”’ Information required to and appearing on
packages from which sample No. 01818 was drawn for purposes of analysis. |

The Quaker Oats Co., Chicago, Tl. :

Schumacher feed— 2 Per cent,
Prugde PLObSMM Gs oe! = Se Sr ee ped) As, ee 10.0
Gre: HEB Gees et a tees Nohara oth Bea alpen 2 Ke nee LCL REIT Se ieee ate

Ingredients.—Ground corn, ground barley, hominy feed, wheat flour, cotton-
seed meal, ground puffed rice, ground puffed wheat, wheat middlings with
ground screenings not exceeding mill run, oatmeal mill by-products (oat
middlings, oat hulls, oat shorts), and one-half of 1 per cent salt.

The result of analysis as shown by bulletin above mentioned was as follows:

, Per cent..
Wrage HPTO CALM ee bee AEA PES SPU AEE ee gee Ra eee er alas:
LOR TAG eR SZ byt aig Milne gl iii? Eig a give aha les hh eaht Se ee oMiadeeatee sie 2 de By)
CGF th Ci ey fal a7) ii SRE eR LR GRA eal Pieler i Ailes wien aed Beith ledge yo Medel nmin nh eg 9.7

Ingredients.—As certified.

STATEMENT OF DR. C. CASSIUS WAY, CHIEF VETERINARIAN,
BORDEN CONDENSED MILK CO., NEW YORK.

Dr. Way. Mr. Chairman, I hope you wibl consider me as a farmer.
I am a graduate of the Connecticut Agricultural College, of Cornell
University, and of the New York State Veterinary College at Cor-
nell] University. For six years I was an assistant to Prof. V. A.
Moore, now dean of the college, in the department of bacteriology
and pathology. In 1908 I associated myself with the Borden Con-
densed Milk Co., and at the present time am chief veterinarian, hav-
ing supervision over the sanitary control of their milk supply and
production of certified milk on these large dairy farms, the herds
of which aggregate approximately 1,200 head of milch cows and
heifers. In addition to this, I have general supervision over the
health and care of some 3,000 to 3,500 head of horses.

Mixed feeds have been fed to the stock owned by our company in
improper proportions with deleterious effect. When these animals
were returned to a balanced ration of straight feeds their health
and efficiency increased and improved to normal. Our reason for
using only straight feeds of known feeding value is to eliminate
from the rations of these animals substances that are found in cer-
tain feeds that have very little feeding value and to us appear worth-
less.

It seems to me the conference is agreed that the substances enter-
ing into the package of feed should be placed on the label. It seems
to me that is fair to the consumer of the product. As a buyer of
feeds, I hold no brief against the feed manufacturers, but we do buy
feeds of known composition and of recognized feeding value.

(Thereupon, at 6 o’clock p. m., the conference committee adjourned
until. 2.30 o’clock p. m. to-morrow, Tuesday, September 17, 1918.)

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1918.

Unirep States SENATE AND House or REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEES OF CONFERENCE OF THE
CoMMITTEES ON AGRICULTURE AND Forestry,
. Washington, D. C.

The committee of conference on the bill H. R. 11945 met, pur-
suant to adjournment, in the committee room of the House Com-
mittee on Indian Affairs, Capitol, at 2.30 o’clock p. m., Senator
Thomas P. Gore presiding.

President of the Senate committee: Senator Gore.

Present of the House committee: Representatives Lever (chair-
man), Lee, Candler, and Haugen.

The Cuatrman. Mr. Abbott, whom would you like to hear first ?

Mr. Assorr. We would like to have you gentlemen hear Mr. Gray.

«

STATEMENT OF MR. J. M. GRAY, GENERAL COUNSEL, QUAKER
OATS CO., CHICAGO, ILL.

Mr. Gray. Mr. Chairman, my name is J. M. Gray, and I am gen-.
eral counsel of the Quaker Oats Co., 1600 Railway Exchange Build-
ing, Chicago, Ill. The Quaker Oats Co., Mr. Chairman, is a member
of the American Feed Manufacturers’ Association. Now, the Ameri-
can Feed Manufacturers’ Association comprises, roughly, some 175
manufacturers of compounded feeds. There are other manufacturers
of the same kind of feeding stuff who do not belong to the associa-
tion. However, of course, every member of that association acts in
his business independently according to his own dictates, and there
is, therefore, an immense amount of competition in the business.

It is an industry which has grown for 25 to 30 years, and perhaps
in the aggregate now assumes the proportions of some several millions
of tons of feeding stuff annually. You can readily see what a vast
amount of capital must be invested in this industry. I do not pre-
tend to say how much—it would run into many, many millions. The
association has no figures on invested capital, the association has
no figures on exact tonnage produced and sold, the association has no
figures of any kind on any branch or end of the business of any one
of its members.

The American Feed Manufacturers’ Association feels most keenly
that the proposed amendment by Senator Gore is of such vast im-
portance to its industry and to the country at large that it ought to
have the utmost consideration. The entire subject of the production
of the feeding stuff and the distribution of feeding stuff is so large
and is so complicated and has so many angles that in a short hearing

103

104 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

we feel that we can not possibly do what we ought to do for the
members of the committee.

Yesterday’s session—if I may say so, and, first, it is entirely with-
out any criticism; it is merely a statement of fact as I saw it—was
begun by the feed manufacturers with an opening statement. Those
in favor of the bill were then heard; some outsiders were then heard;
and there was a good deal of mere statement which got into the
hearing—there was no way to prevent that that I know of, in the
world. A good deal of it was derogatory to the industry. But we
do not feel that we can or ought to meet those statements simply by
other statements. We would like to have this bill considered or some
bill of a general character that might perhaps be a little more com-
prehensive—we would like to have it considered at considerable
length in order that we might have an opportunity to afford the
committee a chance to see the constructive side of this whole subject.

Now, some things were said yesterday about there being plenty of
roughage, and so there was not any need of roughage in the feed,
or not much need, or something like that. The feed manufacturers
know something about that. But what is the use, Mr. Chairman
and gentlemen, of their simply coming up and stating that they
know in this section and that section and the other section there is
a shortage of roughage. They are met already by statements to the
contrary; they may be met by other statements. They can produce,
if they have the opportunity and the time to do so—positive testi-
mony to that effect, which I think will be entirely convincing.

The Cuatrman. To what effect? I did not quite get your point.

Mr. Gray. To the effect that there is a shortage of roughages in
various parts of the country which, of course, is a most material need.

Then, there was another subject somewhat touched upon yester-
day—the question of the shortage of mill feed. You understand
we are not mill-feed manufacturers. We are compound-feed manu-
facturers. There was, as I say, something said about that yesterday
to the effect that there was a great shortage in bran and other mill
feeds. Statements were made to the contrary, and there you are
again. We feel, with all confidence, that we can bring in testimony
and facts if we are allowed the time, to show that there is probably
a million tons shortage in these mill feeds.

Then, again, while we spent some time on the second paragraph
of section 26, to try to point out certain features of that, which
were quite, we thought, impossible to comply with, there seemed to
be some doubt in the minds of some of the committee and, of course,
of some of those in favor of the bill, as to our position in regard
to those points and our fairness, etc. That takes a good deal of
time to explain, because it requires a considerable study of what
is a mixed feed, how it comes about, what it is for, what is it in-
tended to do, why the manufacturer puts out a particular kind of
mixed feed for a particular feeding purpose, etc., and so on.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we respectfully urge upon you that
you defer this matter until some subsequent time when it can be
taken up in as full a hearing as is necessary properly to handle the
subject. We realize—and, indeed, that is what we are most in-
terested in—that you gentlemen of the committee must have all the
information that there is to be obtained on this whole subject, and
we can not do it, we can not begin to do it, in an hour nor in a few’

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 105

hours. That is precisely our position and our request. We think it
is too vast a matter for the Congress of the United States to pass
upon without all the information that there is to be brought to bear
on the whole subject.

The Cuarrman. Mr. Gray, you say there is a scarcity both of
roughage and mill by-products?

Mr. Gray. Of mill feeds?

The Crarrman. Yes, sir. That naturally makes the price high,
does it not?

Mr. Gray. I said that the American Feed Manufacturers’ Asso-
ciation had no. doubt whatsoever that they could bring forward the
facts to demonstrate that; yes, sir.

The CuairmMan. I might say, Mr. Gray, I do not think it is neces-
sary to demonstrate that. I think everybody would admit the fact.
However, that had no reference to the object of this bill. What I
was asking was as to your statement that there is a scarcity not only
of mill feed but of roughage as well?

Mr. Gray. Yes, sir. ;

The CuarrMan. That naturally makes the, price high, does it not?

Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.

The Cuarrman. Do you not think it is all the more important,
then, that the farmer or consumer should get his money’s worth for
whatever he does buy ?

Mr. Gray. Of course that is always important.

The Cuairman. You have no objection to that, have you?

Mr. Gray. No, sir.

The Cuarrman. And you have no objection to this amendment if
it is limited to the accomplishment of that purpose?

Mr. Gray. Most assuredly not.

The Cuarrman. How many tons of compounded food does the
Quaker Oats Co. turn out?

Mr. Gray. I do not know.

The CuatrMAn. Do you know what the net earnings of the Quaker
Oats Co. was last year?

Mr. Gray. Not with accuracy.

The Cuarrman. Could you give it approximately ?

Mr. Gray. Yes; I think approximately $5,000,000.

The CuarrmMan. And what percentage was that on its capital
investment ?

Mr. Gray. I should say that was about 18 per cent.

The CuHarrman. Of course they have a very large output of oat
hulls, do they not?

Mr. Gray., We do not call them, Senator, oat hulls.

That brings me to another point. There is a great deal of diver-
sity of opinion on the side of the opposition and in the minds of the
members of the committee on the terms even in this bill. You could
fea hour or more, and I think more, just explaining the terms of
the bill.

The Cuarrman. What do you call the materials if you do not
call them according to the terms of the bill?

Mr. Gray. It is oat feed, or oatmeal by-product.

The CuarrMan. Do you call that a concentrated feed ?

Mr. Gray. I do not know what a concentrated feed is, sir.

106 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

The CuarrMan. What is the protein and fat value of oats?

Mr. Gray. I do not bear it in mind, Senator.

Representative Lever. What do you think about a legislative sit-
uation of this kind, where a bill passes a body unanimously, and
then as soon as a thing gets into controversy the members of that
unanimous body promptly appear before the committee to protest
against their own action, as they did yesterday? Do you think that
indicates a very wise proposition ?

Mr. Gray. You place me, sir, in an embarrassing position. I do
not know how far I can go.

Representative Lever. You are not much more embarrassed than
the House conferees are.

The Cuarrman. Maybe I can help you out of your embarrass-
ment. It shows that some constituents engaged in the business to
be on their back.

Mr. Gray. The feed manufacturers’ association is not on its back.

Representative Haucen. How do you account for the scarcity of
feed ?

Mr. Gray. The scarcity of mill feeds?

Representative Haucen. What we are discussing now.

Mr. Gray. Mill feeds. There are three explanations, if I under-
stand it. Mark you, Mr. Haugen, I do not pose as an expert in this,
but as I understand it, there are three reasons for the condition. One
is the unusual amount of export shipment of the whole grains.

Representative Havcen. Have you the figures on that? Could you
give the figures? .

Mr. Gray. No; I could not. That is another phase with which I
am not entirely familiar.

Representative Hauern. The export of what grain ?

Mr. Gray. The wheat.

Representative Haueen. Is that largely in excess of previous ex-
ports?

Mr. Gray. I so understand it. I do not make the statement un-
reservedly. That is one of the very things that requires a good deal
of study.

Representative Haucen. My understanding is that there was just
as much flour ground last year as was ground in any other year—
350,000,000 bushels being ground last year.

Mr. Gray. The second reason for it is that, as I understand—also
subject to proof—that there is a vast quantity of that being taken
directly by the Government.

Representative Haucen. The Government did not take the feed; it
took the flour.

Mr. Gray. No; the feed—the bran.

Representative Haucen. By increasing the percentage of bran in
flour ¢ )

Mr. Gray. No; actually taking it from the mills for its own use.
T understand in the neighborhood of 100,000 tons. I do not make
that as a positive statement. I am simply a lawyer.

And a third reason is that, as I understand it also, they do not pro-
duce as much bran in their milling now under the new rules as they
used to. ‘

Representative Haucen. That is true. A good deal of it goes into
the flour, but that is only a small percentage.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 107

Mr. Gray. I understand; but it is 11 pounds to a barrel, and there
are about 100,000,000 or 150,000,000 barrels produced, as I recall it.

Representative Haucen. No; it is 118,000,000.

Mr. Gray. Times 11. I understand it is 11 pounds to the barrel.
All those questions, Mr. Haugen, enter vitally into this thing.

Mr. Axssorr. It would amount to 600,000 tons.

The CHatrman. Who is the present president of the Quaker Oats
Co. ?

Mr. Gray. Henry P. Crowell. :

The Crarrman. Mr. Chapman used to be?

Mr. Gray. No; Mr. Chapman was never president of the Quaker
Oats Co.

The CuarrMan. He was connected with it. -

Mr. Gray. A Mr, Chapman was; perhaps it is the same one you
have reference to.

Representative Haucrn. Mr. Chairman, I would like to get this
cleared up about the shortage. I have not got that clear in my mind
as to why there is a scarcity of feeds. My understanding is that
there was as much wheat ground last year and that we had just
as much bran as we ever had, with the exception of the small percent-
age going into the flour.

Mr. Gray. How small a percentage does that make ?

Mr. Axszorr. One hundred and eighteen million barrels is equiv~
alent to 649,000 tons on a shortage basis of 11 pounds per barrel

Representative Haucen. I dare say it is a very small percentage.
T had not figured that out.

Mr. Gray. Then, again, as I understand, the Government is taking
somewhere around 75,000 tons for its own use in the Army.
Representative Haueren. They purchased it, of course.

. Mr. Gray. Yes.

Representative Haucen. That does not reduce the supply, does it?
Mr. Gray. It does reduce the supply to other users.

Representative Haucen. It does not reduce the production?

Mr. Gray. No; I am only talking about the supply.

Representative Haucen. The fact is that as much was produced
last year as was any other year?

Mr. Gray. Production ?

Representative Haucrn. Yes.

Mr. Gray. I do not know about that. I really can not answer that.
I was talking of supply for use, not production of flour.

Representative Haucen. I take it, there has not been as much bran
available for manufacturers of food as we had in the past, since the
Government fixed the price of bran at $36.60, and that instead of
selling the bran to millers they did not sell the bran but mixed it
with a cheaper product and reduced its quality and sold it at double
the price. —

Mr. Gray. On that point, again, that would be a statement that
might be good. The feed manufacturers might make a statement
to the contrary. but if they were to say, no; what is the use of stand-
ing up and saying no when the subject is one subject -to proof.

Representative Haucen. Have you been able to buy any bran from
the mills?

“Mr. Gray. Have we?

108 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Representative Haucren. Yes.

Mr. Gray. I do not know. We make flour. I do not know whether
we buy any bran or not. The feed manufacturers are complaining
that.they can not but it. bi

Representative Haucen. That they can not buy the bran?

Mr. Gray. Yes. ;

Representative Haucen. But that does not reduce the quantities.
The millers are mixing it instead of the manufacturers.

Mr. Gray. That may be. I can not answer that.

Representative Haucen. What I was trying to geat cleared up was
about the supply. It has been alleged here by several that there is a
great scarcity of feed.

Mr. Gray. Yes, exactly, and that is a very important point, Mr.
Haugen.

Representative Haucen. It is, yes.

Mr. Gray. And I think that it is one of the main points in the
whole thing—at least, it is a very important point.

Representative Haucren. The statement was made by several par-
ties here, but no one explained it.

Mr. Gray. I do not know how to explain it. I am perfectly frank
to say that, but at the same time if it is attempted to be explained
somebody else is very likely to refute it, which will mean, Where do
we get? We can come in and show it to be a fact in the way that
such things ought to be shown before this committee which is trying
to do something in a constructive fashion.

Representative Haucren. It is also to be expected that when a
certain thing is alleged it can be proven also.

Mr. Gray. That is it. There were statements made yesterday, and
you know how it went—statement after statement; and what can
you do about it?

Representative Haugen. But you have no explanation as to why
the shortage exists?

Mr. Assotr. Would you like to have that one question straightened
out in your mind, Mr. Haugen? If you would, we would like the
privilege of having Mr. Chapin explain it to you for that purpose.

Mr. Cuapin. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in answering Mr.
Haugen’s question I will say that I am a manufacturer of mixed
feeds, and I do not use any of the products named in this bill, so far
as I know. I use simply high-grade materials, and bran is an essen-
tial part of that. I have been in this business for about 20 years,
and for the past six months we have been practically unable to get
any bran. It has really injured the manufacture of our feed in many
ways. So I made a careful investigation, and I find that the bran is
so cheap that there is a tremendous demand for it in the West, and
that it does not come East. It is sold in the West. The western
farmers are getting it, but the eastern farmers do not get it. The
farmer in Kansas comes to the mill and says, “I am selling you my
wheat at a very reasonable price, and I must have my bran back at
the Government price,” and he gets that cheap bran in the West, and
it is not coming Kast.

Then, there has also been a drought in the Southwest, which is
taking a large part of it. I have not seen any bran come from
Kansas to Chicago in a long time. We have been compelled to cut

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 109

the percentage down to 75 per cent, and I see other manufacturers in
the room who are in the same boat we are. I think that accounts for
the shortage of bran.

But there is another thing that is going on right at the present
time. The flour millers tell me that they can not sell their flour.
Some of them have been milling and putting it into warehouses;
and the farmers got the bran, and the feed dealer has it. They are
at the end of their rope. They have got to sell more flour, and the
public will not buy it. I have talked with prominent millers of
Buffalo and Syracuse and have inquired of some little millers in
New York State. Some of them said they would have to stop buy-
ing wheat from the farmers.

The CuHarrmMan. What explanation of that?

Mr. Cuarin. Why should the baker buy flour when the price is
fixed? Last year flour was scarce; this year it seems to be plentiful.
A man will not buy street-car tickets nor postage stamps because
the price is fixed. They do not want to stock up with it. Somebody
has to carry the wheat or the flour.

Representative Haucen. That has been going on the whole year?

Mr Cuarin. I might say, for your information

Representative Haucren. The Government has been commandeer-
ing flour, except a sack or two for each family.

Mr. Cuapin. Last year we had to export flour. I am not a miller
or a flour man. I do not know more about it than comes to my
knowledge in trading. Last year, toward the end of the crop,
wheat was all exhausted, and we went on substitutes, and during
March, April, May, and June very little wheat was ground. But we
have come into the fall with no wheat feeds.

Representative Haucren. We are trying to clear up the shortage
of feed.

Mr. Cuarin. One thing is the small grinding to the present time.
There have been no accumulations from the summer. In the sum-
mer we always lay in a supply of feed—the country does—the feed
dealer and farmer. There is not much demand for dairy feeds in
May and June, and then is when we get our surplus for fall use.
We are now in the fall and there is no surplus because this summer
it was not being produced.

Representative Haucen. We must assume that the people are
going to consume as much flour this year as last year.

Mr. Cuarryn. They will after awhile.

Representative Haucrn. Then this scarcity is temporary ?

Mr. Cuaprn. It is going to come in the winter, when we need it,
and in the spring, when we do not need it, the demand for flour will
come in again, and in the meantime the mills feel very badly because
they can not grind enough to pay expenses. You have got to run
a mill full time to make it pay. So they are going to lose money,
but they are not producing bran.

The CuairmMaAn. Who else have you to speak, Mr. Abbott?

Mr. Assottr. Mr. Chairman, along the lines that Mr. Gray has
just talked to you, in reference to the feed business, I can only add
my reiteration of his statement. The problem is entirely too large
for us in a limited time to attempt to cover in a comprehensive man-
ner, and I feel satisfied that we can not do the subject justice and

110 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

can not present sufficient facts and evidence for proper consideration
to your committee; and, further, we do not feel that under the cir-
cumstances and at short notice we can add anything to what has
already been said.

Representative Lever. That closes your side, Mr. Abbott?

Mr. Apporr. Yes.

Mr. Lasarer. If it please the committee, I would like to address
you for 10 or 15 minutes.

The CuarrMan. We will hear you for that length of time.

STATEMENT OF MR. E. C. LASATER, FALFURRIAS DAIRY CO., FAL-
FURRIAS, TEX.—Resumed.

Mr. Lasarer. Mr. Lever, I would like to revert to the question you
asked several times yesterday, and that is this: You seemed to be
convinced that the statement that these gentlemen had made that
mixed-feed business enables the country as a whole to economize
on feed and to utilize large quantities of feed that otherwise would
be wasted. I think that is a mistake.

Representative Lever. I did not state that asa fact. It was a ques-
tion in my own mind.

Mr. Lasater. I would like for you to hear me just one moment on
that point. You take these low-grade feeds that these gentlemen
mix with feeds of good value and the only way they can enter into
economic consumption is near the point of origin.

You take the oat hulls in Ilinois—and I want to call your atten-
tion to the fact that Illinois has a large excess quantity of grain pro-
duced in that State and the adjoining States—and it is economic and
cheap and practical to use that feed in Illinois to finish cattle rather
than to ship this feed to drouth-stricken ranges in Texas. The only
man who would ship and who could afford to ship would be the
man who had a high-priced herd and who was willing to sacrifice a
part of its value to carry it through. But to make dairy products
or to make meat that can be sold on the market he can not afford
to ship that stuff from Illinois to New York and Massachusetts or
from [linois to Texas.

Representative Lever. The point I had in mind was this, Mr. Lasa-
ter: You have a very severe drouth in Texas, now have you not?

Mr. Lasater. Yes, sir. )

Representative Lever. You had one this year?

Mr. LasaTer. Yes, sit.

Representative Lever. You had a bill pending before the Commit-
tee on Agriculture of the House asking a very large appropriation
for the purpose of buying feed with which to carry over the cattle
of Texas. The point in my mind was whether or not you desired to
ship this stuff in bulk—raw cottonseed hulls or raw alfalfa—or
whether you would rather have it in this concentrated mixture ?

Mr. Lasarer. There are a variety of angles from which to look at
that. We prefer and can only buy to good advantage where we-have
the roughage. You take the ranges where they are feeding to sustain
life, and they would not buy any one of these mixed feeds; they
would buy a maximum of roughage and just enough cottonseed meal
to enable the cattle to digest the roughage. These gentlemen do not

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. cr ita

ship their products to drouth-stricken Texas to feed beef cattle that
may be suffering for lack of feed. This mixed feed is too high priced.
Those ranchmen would buy rice, wheat, and oats straw, and then feed
with that the minimum amount of cottonseed products. That is
the economic way to pull a herd through, and that is what we have
been doing where it has been possible.

I do not care to take up any more time on that, but I would like to
answer any questions and give fuller information if desired. But
I believe if you go into it you will find that a correct statement of
facts as far as economic use of these mixed feeds is concerned. —

Representative Lever. Mr. Lasater, as I understand your testi-
mony yesterday afternoon, you were not complaining so much about
the carriage of stuff which these gentlemen ship as you were com-
plaining about the economics of the whole situation; is that your
view ¢

Mr. Lasarer. I am complaining chiefly on being forced to buy the
stuff in this shape—I speak for the dairy interests.

Representative Lever. You do not complain of the stuff. You
simply complain of their forcing you through the economics of the
matter to buy this mixed feed when you ought to buy your feed
cheaper ? ;

Mr. Lasarer. And then, also, much of this stuff is absolutely in-
jurious.

Representative Lever. What, for instance?

Mr. Lasarer. Recently, within the last month, I have made an au-
tomobile trip through Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New York.
T have seen many herds of dairy cattle. I have talked to some dairy-
men and to the heads of these various organizations, and without
exception they told me that they had wintered worse than they have
ever had. They expressed the opinion that mixed feed is one of
the causes. Dairy herds of the country are in bad shape to-day,
worse than I ever saw them at this season. They told me that they
had wintered poorly. I think much of the ingredients these gentle-
men are putting into this feed is absolutely loading the animal with
stuff it can not use.

Representative Lever. How long since you have been to your ranch
in Texas, Mr. Lasater ?

Mr. Lasarer. Forty-five days.

Representative Lever. How is the cattle situation is Texas?

Mr. Lasarer. Genererally, it is bad. There are spots where there
is some alleviation. Luckily, I happen to be in one of the better
spots. I do not mean to say my situation is good; it is not. I am
in such shape that if we get winter rains I will get through, but
many people can not get through.

Representative Lever. Is there demand for Federal aid in that
section ?

Mr. Lasarer. My community has made no request for aid. We
are taking care of ourselves. But, generally speaking, something
has got to be done or those areas will be abandoned. The people
have gone to the end of their rope in many localities.

Representative Lever. Your argument is that inasmuch as the
cattle of the country have come through the winter worse than ever
before, therefore it is due to the mixed feeds?

ih ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Mr. Lasarter. I can not prove that, and I have not come in contact
with a man who could prove it. But they say that is a fact, and that
my observation shows them to be in worse condition at this time of
the year than ever before—I am speaking of dairy cattle through
these various States.

Representative Lever. Do most of the dairymen use this mixed
feed ¢

Mr. Lasarer. I would say the bulk of them do, because it is easier
to get. Some men who can buy in larger quantities, and insist on
getting what they want

Representative Lever (interposing). Is there any class of cattle
growers who are any more intelligent than the dairy cattle growers?

Mr. Lasater. No; I would say that upon the whole the dairy in-
terests—of course, the large ranch interests of the country possibly
have had better advantages and better opportunities for gathering
information.

Representative Lever. But, as an average ?

Mr. Lasater. As an average, I think there is no higher intelli-
gence on the farm than the dairy interests.

Representative Lever. I was just wondering why they were buying
those feeds.

Mr. Lasater. If you w ill permit us, we will show why they are
buying it. Mr. Smith and Judge Ward will show that as far as
New York State is concerned.

Another thing, there was a desire expressed here yesterday to find
out who demanded or requested, rather, the passage of such a bill
as Senator Gore has introduced. On the 27th of last month there
was an organization of farmers, called the National Board of Farm
Organizations, which met in Washington. I have here three resolu-
tions which they passed. I would like to have permission to read
them into the record.

Representative Lever. Before you do that, will you give the names
of that organization ?

Mr. Lasater. Mr. Creasy. could you call them offhand?

Representative Lever. Who is the president and so on?

Mr. Lasarer. Mr. Barrett, Union City, Ga., is the president; Mr.
W. T. Creasy is chairman of the board; and I suppose a good many
of the farm organizations of the country were represented at that
meeting. The American National Live Stock Association was one
of those represented.

The Cuarrman. Mr. Creasy, do you know how many farm organi-
zations were represented there?

Mr. Creasy. I think there were about 17 farm organizations rep-
resented. We can give you the list.

(The list refer réd to was subsequently furnished by Mr. Creasy
and is here printed in full, as follows:)

FARMERS’ ORGANIZATIONS WHICH PARTICIPATED IN CONFERENCE HELD IN
WASHINGTON, D. C., AUGUST 27, 28,:'29, 1918.

1. National Farmers’ Union, representatives of 17 State farmers’ unions and
many local unions. .

2. National Grange, representatives of seven State granges and many local
granges.

3. Nationa) Dairy Union.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 113

. Farmers’ National Congress.

. American National Live-Stock Association.

. Texas Cattle Raisers’ Association.

. Corn Belt Meat Producers’ Association. \

. Cotton States Official Advisory Marketing Board and Association of
Farmers.

9, National Milk Producers’ Federation and representatives from member
organizations, including United Dairy Association, Dairymen’s League, Inter-
state Milk Producers’ Association, Michigan Milk Producers’ Association, Ohio
Milk Producers’ Association, Queen City Milk Producers’ Association, Milwau-
kee Milk Producers’ Association, Association of Dairymen of California, Oregon
Dairymen’s League.

10. National Conference on Marketing and Farm Credits.

11. Pennsylvania Rural Progress Association.

12. National Agricultural Organization Society.

13. American Society of Equity.

14. Equity Cooperative Exchange.

15, Farmers’ Equity Union.

16. The American Devon Cattte Club.

17. Percheron Society of America.

18. American Poultry Society.

19. Cooperative Wholesale Society of America.

20. Cooperative League of America.

21. California Bean Growers’ Association.

22. Wisconsin Cheese Producers’ Federation.

23. Agricultural Committee of Southern Commercial Congress.

24. New York Federation of Farm Bureaus.

25. Cecilton Community Club of Maryland.

26. West Nottingham Community Club of Maryland.

27. Progressive Farmers’ Club of Price, Queen Anne’s County, Md.

28. Louisiana Farmers’ Association.

Mr. Lasatrer. With your permission I will read these resolutions
[reading]:

We favor the enactment of a Jaw that will prohibit interstate shipment of
any feed that does not have tag attached showing all the contents, by weight, of
each sack.

Inasmuch as it is evident that there is an active effort on the part of the
feed mixers and miilers of the country to take the standard feeds such as bran
and middlings, and by mixing them with useless and even deleterious fillers
and adulterations get for them a price much in excess of the market value;
therefore be it

Resolved, That we instruct the National Board of Farm Organizations, if they
find this pernicious practice still in effect, to initiate a nation-wide campaign
against using all mixed feeds.

Representative Lever. Your proposition seems to be one to pro-
hibit interstate shipment of all mixed feeds.

Mr. Lasatrer. Unless it can be done and conducted fairly and hon-
estly. There are many mixed feeds that can be of great advantage
to the live-stock producer and the milk producer, but as the business
is handled to-day, it is a leach upon the producers of the country
and not a benefit to either the producers or consumers.

Another resolution reads:

We favor such an administration and extension of power in the pure food
law as shall provide that all foods, mixed feeds, and fertilizers sold in inter-
state commerce either in packages or in bulk shall be labeled so that the exact
contents shall be known, and that adequate penalties be provided for any in-
vasion of such regulations; and that the legislative committee of this organiza-
tion be requested to urge upon Congress prompt action in this matter.

Representative Haucen. Now, the contention is that that has been
provided for in the various State laws, the labeling of the packages?

81413—18——8

OAD

114 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Mr. Lasarer. I did not quite catch your question.

Representative Haucen. The contention that that has been pro-
vided for by the State legislatures of the various States?

Mr. Lasarer. We know that-if any law does provide for it, it is
not enforced. I have talked to various men from various States, and
I find nowhere that there is any real protection so far as the users
of these feeds are concerned. Some of the reasons will be given by
those who follow me. I am not as well posted as these other gen-
tlemen, who have the facts and who have made a study of the subject.

Representative Haugen. Certain amendments have been suggested
to this bill. Have you any amendments to suggest ?

Mr. Lasartrr. I would suggest, in order not to make two bites of a
cherry, that there ought to be added to feeds, “ foodstuff and fer-
tilizers,” because when you go into it that will be found necessary.
I have made a study of the situation in.New York State, and it will
be found that the same situations obtains in respect of foods and
fertilizers as does with regard to mixed feeds.

Representative Haucen. Speaking for the consumers, are you sat-
isfied with the amendment as drawn ?

Mr. Lasarer. I would add in the same bill both “ foods and fer-
tilizers,” if I was permitted to draw it. Otherwise, I think that bill
will in time correct the evil as it is drawn.

Representative Lever. I do not think you would say that when
you take into consideration that this whole act expires at the con-
clusion of peace.

Mr. Lasarrr. If that is the case you would unquestionably have
to have additional legislation.

Representative Lever. Which goes to show that it is a very hostile
piece of legislation. I do not know who drew it or proposed it, but
whoever proposed it did not look very carefully into it.

Representative Haucen. It has been suggested that you cut out the
enumeration in the first section, and then enact the second para-
graph. Would that cover the situation?

Mr. Lasater. I haven’t it well in mind, but I do not think that
would cover the situation.

The Cuarrman. As I understand it, then, the farmers are imposed
upon with worthless fertilizers?

Mr. Lasater. There is no question about it.

The Cuarrman. Do you think that ought to be stopped?

Mr. Lasarer. I do thing it ought to be stopped. I think it is
most material to the Nation that it must be stopped because we must
encourage the use of fertilizers.

The Cuarrman. Do you not think that if the utmost yield of the
farms of the country is to be had it must be by the use of the most
modern and efficient farm machinery and the best fertilizers?

Mr. Lasater. I do not think there ever was a time when it was
more essential that we use more fertilizers than under the present
conditions of labr, because we ought to make every acre produce as
much as possible. It is the only way out.

Gentlemen, I desire to use here a telegram forwarded to me from
our office at Falfurrias. It says [reading]:

Quaker Oats Co. wires as follows: “ Senator Gore’s amendment House bill

11945 passed Senate Friday provides interstate commerce in certain grain
by-products feeds which are used enormously supplementing grains such

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 115

valuable and economie feeds as Schumaker feed would be prohibited from inter-
state commerce. The elimination of many of the by-products affected means
immense economic loss and higher values on grains and feeds for dairy cows
and other live stock. This would unfavorably and seriously affect all farmers
and live-stock men. Important this amendment be killed in conference with
House with Representatives. Suggest you start action immediately.”
FALFURRIAS JERSEY DArrRy Co.

The Cuatrman. Who sent that?

Mr. Lasater. The Quaker Oats Co. to the Falfurrias Jersey Dairy
Co., which is the dairy end of my business.

The Cuatrman. Do you think that telegram states the fact as to
this amendment?

Mr. Lasarter. I do not think it states the fact, and they did not
expect the facts to be known 2,000 miles away, probably, at this time.

The Cuamman. This may explain the flood of telegrams which
have been coming in.

The following letter and copy of telegram were directed by the
chairman to be inserted at this point, and are here printed in full:

QUAKER Oats Co.,
f Chicago, October 1, 1918.
Hon. THos. P. Gore,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

Sir: In response to your request, we are handing you herewith list of those
to whom we sent telegrams from our Chicago office regarding the Gore amend-
ment to H. R. 11945.

May I say that the somewhat tardy response to your request is due to the
fact that I was confined to my home for a few days directly after my arrival
from Washington, and that upon my return to business I found that two of the
gentlemen who had had a hand in sending out some of the telegrams were
absent from the city, and it was necessary to await their return before the
names of those to whom they sent wires could be ascertained ?

We are inclosing herewith also copy of a telegram which was sent out, and
which differs, I think, somewhat from the telegram read into the record by Mr.
Lasater. This copy we are inclosing, pursuant to your further request that we
send in copy of any telegram sent out differing from that addressed to Mr.
Lasater.

The list follows:

BH. C. Lasater, Falfurrias, Tex.

J. B. Watson, secretary Ayrshire Breeders’ Association, Brandon, Vt.

Charles L. Hill; Rosendale, Wis.

EB. T. Gill, Haddonfield, N. J.

Louis E. P. Merriman, Cockeysville, Md.

Hugh G. Van Pelt, Waterloo, Iowa.

Frank Hoard, Fort Atkinson, Wis.

Walter P. Bliss, Bernardsville, N. J.

H. W. Gossard, Martinsville, Ind.

Dean C. F. Curtis, Ames, Iowa.

Dr. J. A. Armstrong, East Providence, R. I.

Thomas De Witt Cuyler, Philadelphia, Pa.

Stephen Canady, Hillsboro, IIl.

John F. Irwin, Minneapolis, Minn.

F¥. E. Ransom Hay & Grain Co., Kansas City, Mo.

Cutter & Dickerson, Adrian, Mich.

E. L. Wellman, Grand Rapids, Mich.

Charles A. Krause Milling Co., Milwaukee, Wis.

H. C. Lockabaugh, Watonga, Okla. ;

HE. H. Taylor, jr., Frankfort, Ky.

Frank S. Hastings, Stamford, Tex.

Day & Rothrock, Sprague, Wash.

Tulley T. J. Brooke, Peoples Street, Atlanta, Ga.

H. H. Bradley, Savannah, Ga.

John EK. Talmadge, jr., Athens, Ga.

Paul Mustin, Augusta, Ga.

116 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

D. D. Adams, Macon, Ga.
Frank D. Jackson, Tampa, Fla.
Henry Winer, Chattanooga, Tenn.
Walter L. Lafew, Richmond, Va.
Wilson W. Mallory, Memphis, Tenn.
Caughey E. Hayes, Little Rock, Ark.
Charles A. Burthe, care of H. T. Cottam, New Orleans, La.
W. D. Hanna, care of Hanna Distributing Co., Jackson, Miss.
Sam Meyer, Meridian, Miss.
W.S. Rogers, Atlanta, Ga.
Yours, very respectfully,

-

JAMES MarTIN GRAy, Counsel.
[Copy of telegram.]

Senator Gore amendment House bill 11945, prohibiting from interstate com-
merce certain by-product feeds, means serious crisis for dairy and live-stock
industry if accepted in conference and passed by the House. Immediate action
necessary to get conference postponed to permit prominent milling and agricul-
tural men to be heard. With present feed shortage, imperative: all sources of
animal nutrition be conserved and that nothing be stopped from interstate
traffic; otherwise there will be a feed famine, as several million tons, possibly,
of good nutritious feeds will be stopped. Will you use all influences at your
command, wiring your Representatives at Washington to-day, so that they will
insist that this conference be delayed until milling and agricultural men can
be given hearing. To-day flour mills are largely selling their entire feed out-
put in local territories. This amendment will stop everything of reasonable
price that can be used as a substitute and will cut off supply of mixed feeds so
necessary in your territory. Kindly wire your Representative at Washington
to insist on postponement of conference on House bill 11945. Kindly wire
me, collect, Chicago, what action you take.

Mr. Lasater. I would like to read into the record a part of the
letter from Mr. W. E. Skinner, Secretary of the National Dairy Coun-
cil, to Mr. W. T. Creasy, who is here present [reading]:

My pear Mr. Creasy: I very much appreciate your sending me a copy of
House bill 11945 showing the Gore amendment on dairy feeds. The way this
bill reads it looks like the only fellow that would object to it would be some
feed man that was trying to put over some counterfeit goods.

Gentlemen, I have bought for the dairy part of my business feeds
from the Quaker Oats Co. As is well known, the dairy interests for
the past four years have been fighting to live. We have no margins
of profit. I would like to read some correspondence with the Quaker
Oats Co. Their representative is here, and you have heard him to-
day. Under date of March 30, they wrote [reading]:

Answering your letter of the 26th, would say——

The CuairMan (interposing). That is this year?

Mr. Lasater. That is this year—March 30, 1918 [reading]:
that, subject to your immediate acceptance and our confirmation, we will offer
you one 700-sack car of Schumacher feed at $64.70 per ton, freight and war

tax paid to Falfurrias, shipment April 15; 1 duplicate car at same price for
shipment April 25.

Trusting we may have your wire acceptance of this order, we remain.

Representative Lever. Is that read into the record to show the
exhorbitant price they charged?

Mr. Lasater. If you will just permit me, I will run right through
this and you will see why.

This is under date of March 30 [reading]:

We have yours of March 30, quoting us price of $64.70 per ton f. o. b Fal-

furrias, on Schumacher feed, for shipment April 15. We have just wired you
accepting offer on one car.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. RE?

It seems to us as though your price was getting out of reach for us. While
we have had very good results from feeding Schumacher, still we are afraid
that we will have to look for something cheaper that we can substitute.

[| Laughter. |

Just one moment. I am glad I got the laugh out of you, because
later the laugh will be the other way. It is your only chance.

Under date of May 24 the Quaker Oats Co. wired us [reading]:

Letter received. Anxious to keep you supplied Schumacher subject wire
acceptance. Will book three cars fifty-three twenty. Wire quick, so can protect.

We placed no more orders at that price, so on May 24 they offered
three cars at $53.20. We still did not do business, and they wired
June 15, 1918 [reading]:

Subject quick wire acceptance and to being unsold, offer three cars Schu-
macher immediate shipment fifty-fifty. Wire answer.

On same date we wired the Quaker Oats Co. [reading]:

Subject to immediate acceptance, can use two cars Schumacher, immediate
shipment, fifty dollars delivered here.

On June 15, same date, they wired us:

Your offer away low, but confirm two cars fifty per ton, Falfurrias, to equalize
cost earlier cars.

The reason I read that is this: It shows the margin the gentlemen
had. There was no difference in the character of the grain market
during this time.

Mr. Asporr. We object to that.

Mr. Lasater. It shows it by your quotation. 1 make the statement
that there was no material difference in grain market during this
time.

Representative Lever. Is there anything in this emendment which
would give Congress the right to regulate the prices?

Mr. Lasater. No, sir.

Representative Lever. If so, what you have read into the record
is pertinent; if not, is absolutely not pertinent.

Mr. Lasater. No, sir. I would say this

Representative Lever (interposing). In other words, you are will-
ing to buy this very injurious, unfair, dangerous, poisonous stuff if
you can get it at your price?

Mr. Lasater. No, sir. Wait a moment. If you will take Schu-
macher feed, which is one of the best feeds they put out—TI have never
attempted to handle any low-grade feeds.

Representative Lever. What is the purpose of reading that into
the record ? .

Mr. Lasater. The purpose of reading that into the record was
to show the way these people have of doing business. As you know,
our country was pressed for feeds last spring. These gentlemen, with
no material change in the grain market, pushed it up to the limit to
see how long we would continue to buy. When they got up to $64.70
we quit buying, and then they put it to $53.20, and then $50.70, which
I do not think can be the average they make.

The Cuarrman. According to their claim, the price of their mate-
rial had advanced in the meantime?

Mr. Lasarer. There was no change in grain prices during period
under consideration to justify the difference of $14.70 per ton.

118 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Representative Lever. And your remedy is that because they
charged you more than you think they ought to charge that you
would prohibit interstate shipment?

Mr. Lasatrer. No, gentlemen, that is not whst I claim here. I
claim that this group of feed manufacturers, the American Feed
Manufacturers Association, instead of being a benefit to the pro-
ducers of the country are a leech upon the producing interests of the
country.

Representative Lever. You think they were a benefit when they
allowed you to buy this feed at $50 a ton?

Mr. Lasarer. That was something like the market price, sir. But
wait a moment. If we did not have this American Feed Manufac-
turers Association in control of things, it would be nothing like as
difficult to buy. We would buy through brokers as we have always
bought prior to this organization.

Representative Lever. Your proposition is that they constitute a
monopoly controlling this business?

Mr. Lasater. Absolutely.

Representative Lever. Then we ought to have an amendment to
cover that proposition.

Mr. Lasater. These gentlemen demanded this hearing. Senator
Gore later asked me if we desired to be heard. You know the farm
organizations have no such organization as the American Feed Man-
ufacturers Association. I told him we would like to be heard. So,
within the week we made the best showing we could. We have not
been able to cover the continent, but we will show the efforts of these
gentlemen in a near-by State that has something like 11,000,000 of
the 100,000,000 of American people in the United States. When you
gentlemen become familiar with their practices I think you will see
somewhat of the reason that they wanted to stop this hearing at this
stage of the game.

Mr. Gray, T think it was, of the Quaker Oats Co., was questioned
a few moments ago in regard to the profits of ihe Quaker Oats Co.
The letter I read is pertinent to that extent, along those lines. I have
here the Standard Corporation records by the Standard Statistics
Co., incorporated, 49 West Street, New York City. That shows the
earned dividends of the Quaker Oats Co. for 1917 on preterred stock
of 52.29 per cent, and on common stock of 52.65 per cent.

The CHartrman. Is that the Quaker Oats Co. ?

Mr. Lasater. That is the Quaker Oats Co. For 1916 it was 40.95
on preferred stock and 40.94 on common stock; for 1915 it was 38.12.
on preferred stock and 38.54 on common stock.

When you go back to 1908 their earnings were 11.37 on preferred
stock and 10.28 on the common stock.

If that is not profiteering, I do not know what would be under this
situation.

The Cuarrman. Those are the profits of the Quaker Oats Co. ?

Mr. Lasater. I gave you the authority, sir. Here it is. [Ex-
hibiting paper to the committee. |

The CuHarrmMan. Was it the Quaker Oats Co. that sent out that
telegram you read here?

Mr. Lasater. Yes; it was the Quaker Oats Co. that sent that
en to and I read the correspondence also I had with the Quaker

ats Co.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 119

The Cuarrman. Up to this time the Quaker Oats Co. have mani-
fested a great deal of interest in the hearing. Of course they had a
right to do that.

Mr. Lasarer. I had understood that Mr. Chapman, who is con-
nected with the Quaker Oats Co. and who for many years was presi-
dent of this organization that is here

The CuarrmMan (interposing). The Feed Manufacturers’ Asso-
ciation ? :

Mr. Lasarer. Yes, sir—and he had been president. I believe Mr.
Gray stated he had not been president.

Mr. Gray. I did so state.

Mr. Lasater. What was his position? Would you object to so
stating ?

Mr. Gray. No; of course I would not. He was the manager of the
feed department of the Quaker Oats Co.

The Cuarrman. Mr. Lasater, did you mean what position he held
with the American Feed Manufacturers’ Association ?

Mr. Lasatrr. My understanding is that he was president of that,
and I think we will show that very conclusively.

The Cuarrman. Representative Carlin, of Virginia, has a gentle-
man whom he would like us to hear, and if there is no objection we
will proceed to hear him.

STATEMENT OF MR. S. C. CROPLEY, MANAGER VIRGINIA FEED
& MILLING CORPORATION, ALEXANDRIA, VA.

The Cuarrman. Please state your name, the business you are en-
gaged in, and address.

Mr. Cropitey. My name is S. C. Cropley, and I am manager of
the Virginia Feed & Milling Corporation, millers of concentrated
feeds, and our plant is situated at Alexandria, Va.

Before I proceed, gentlemen, I would like to say to the whole com-
mittee, or committee appointed by the committee, that our plant is
within a few miles of the Capitol. We would be very glad to cor-
dially invite you down there at any time that you might want to
come. We will show you the raw material that we use. We will
carry you through and show you exactly how it is blended. We will
take you to the finished product, and we will give you, if you desire,
the samples of our feeds and let them be examined by the Department
of Agriculture.

We have been through the West. I have visited a great many con-
centrate mills. They have always cordially invited me to go through
their mills. Naturally I accepted, because we all want to learn as
much as we possibly can. During that time I state truthfully that
I did not see any ingredients going into concentrate feeds that have
beeen a disadvantage to the cattle.

‘Senator Gore, I was at the meeting yesterday morning-at 10.30,
where you asked the question regarding molasses. Why do we put
water into flour? To be able to knead it, to keep down the dust, and
to produce a bread that will not be injurious to us. It is not dust
that goes into our feeds; it is the flour from alfalfa especially. When
you take alfalfa and grind it as we do and as the western men do—in
its natural state—it contains 14 per cent of protein. That dust con-
tains 24 per cent. We use alfalfa flour in some of our ingredients.

120 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

While the molasses that is placed in our alfalfa feeds has no feeding
value, it is made use of deliberately for the good of the cattle. It is
used to bind the flour of the grain and the ground hay, and it is the
most important ingredient in the feeds. It also adds to the fats.
It also produces heat in the body of the cattle. Without heat we can
not exist.

Regarding the proteins of wheat middlings, if you would like to
have them it is possible I may be able to answer you intelligently
why there is a shortage in mill feeds if you would like me to try to
enlighten you to the extent of my ability.

The concentrated feeds are a balance, naturally.

The carbohydrates are necessary, which are to a certain extent sugar
and starches and minerals. We endeavor to the utmost of our ability
to blend those things in such a way that it will be advantageous to the
feeding of that stuff. If the farmer would sell his corn to-day he
would ‘get $66 a ton for it. He can buy our dairy feeds at $61. He

can sell his corn and buy his feeds back and he is the gainer, and he
will get more, because he can not blend, I think, as well as mills
which have the delicate machinery in them for blending purposes.
Our mill is a quality mill, and I cordially invite you all to come down
and make an examination of it.

The CHarrmMan. You say it is true of your own mill, and I assume
of the other mills you have visited, that they are conducted in a
perfectly proper ‘way ?

Mr. Crortey. As far as I know, Senator, the mills I have visited
have all turned out quality feeds. Of course, some of us use different
ingredients from others.

The CuHairMAN. You would not have any objection to the enact-
ment of a law that would prevent mills which are not conducting
their business in a perfectly proper way from going on, or requiring
them to conduct their business like you conduct yours?

Mr. Croprtey. I would like to see a Federal bill, Senator, intro-
duced to cover the entire feeding stuffs of the United States, and I
believe if this was given due consideration—and I am willing at any
time to have you call on me for any service I may be able to be to
you in regard to any question that you might like to ask me in regard
to the feeding situation.

The Cuatrman. A great many States have laws now, have they
not ?

Mr. Croptey. Forty-two. You take the State of Georgia, we ship
into, and South Carolina and North Carolina—we are shipping to
those States our products showing analyses facts and the ingredients.

The Cuarrman. What did you say there?

Mr. Croptey. Showing the analysis facts.

The Cuarrman. And the ingredients?

Mr. Crortey. And the ingredients, but not the percentage of the
ingredients. That you can not determine after it has been mixed.
T was talking to Mr. Purcell, the deputy commissioner of the Com-
monwealth of Virginia, and he said that at the present time science
had not developed so far as to determine, after feeds have been mixed,
the percentage of each ingredient, and all they could find out in their
determination was the protein content.

When the State of Virginia started to raise alfalfa, hay. only
brought about $3 a ton. That part of the State of Virginia which

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 121

is agricultural to-day is raising considerable alfalfa hay, and more
acres are being planted in it every day, and that hay is worth $30
per ton, and why? Because the alfalfa millers have used it as a
foundation.

I am perfectly willing to answer any questions.

The Cuarrman. Will you go ahead with different ingredients—
taking a typical example of this mixed feed you turn out and state
how many pounds of the different stuffs you put in it, and state what
it would be worth?

Mr. Croptry. I have not those formule just in my head, but any
time to-morrow I will be glad to give it to you.

The CuarrmMan. Will you prepare that formula and attach it to
your statement ?

Mr. Crortey. I will be very glad to do so.

The Cuarrman. Showing the ingredients in a ton of mixed feed
and what each ingredient cost per ton?

Mr. Crorpiey. Yes, sir; I will be very glad to do it.

Mr. Lasatrer. Do you know what your butter fat would cost on
alfalfa that you pay $34? Could you give this committee the cost
of butter fats?

Mr. Cropirey. No, sir; because we use other ingredients to produce
the fat.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, if this amendment should be passed
it will absolutely ruin our business.

The Cuarrman. Why would that interfere with you? What of
those enumerated articles do you put into your feed ?

Mr. Croprry. Alfalfa hay, oats, corn, molasses, bran.

The Cuarrman. Read that [handing copy of H. R. 19945 to the
witness], and state which ones you put in and which ones you do not.

Mr. Crorprtry. Damaged feed, as Senator Reed said yesterday, con-
tains a certain amount of feeding value.

The Cuarrman. And you put that in your mixture?

Mr. Cropiey. No, sir. Screenings we do use, because there is a
feeding value to screenings so far as we know.

The Cuarrman. You select your screenings, do you not?

Mr. Cropitry. Yes, sir; but wheat hulls we do not use. We bought
cottonseed hulls and refused to use them after we bought them.

The CHatrman. Why?

Mr. Cropitey. Because we did not think that they were good
enough to produce the quality of feed that we manufactured, and we
are after quality.

The Cuarrman. You think that so far as cottonseed hulls are con-
cerned it would be a good idea to keep that in?

Mr. Croritry. No, sir; because we refused to continue to use them.

The Cuairman. But does everybody else?

Mr. Croriry. That I can not state, because I did not examine
every feed. .

Representative Lever. Some refused to use them.

Mr. Croriry. They are sold very largely. Peanut hulls we do not
use; peanut shells we do not use; rice hulls we do not use.

The Cuarrman. You do not object to any of those things staying
in the amendment ?

Mr. Croritey. No, sir; we do not. But still at the same time—I
do not object to them staying in the amendment.

122 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Representative Lever. Do they have any feed value?

Mr. Croptey. Yes, sir; they have a feed value.

Representative Lever. Do you object to anybody using them?

Mr. Crortey. No, sir; I do not. .

The CuarrMan. But you object to people selling them for some-
thing different from what they are?

Mr. Croptey. I certainly think so, if misbranded, but they have
a feeding value.

Representative Haucen. How much? How does it compare with
timothy hay or alfalfa hay?

Mr. Crortery. I can not just answer that. You take oat hulls and
they have 50.1 digestibility.

Representative Haucen. How much has alfalfa?

Mr. Croptey. Alfalfa has about 14 per cent of protein; when it is
reduced to flour it has about 24 per cent protein.

Corn products have about 50 per cent carbohydrates.

The Cuarrman. Do you use those?

Mr. Cropiey. No, sir; we do not. But corncobs I do not believe
are injurious, because of the carbohydrates they contain. .
The Cuatrman. You dot regard corncobs as concentrated feed ?

Mr. Croptey. No, sir; I do not.

Representative Haucen. What would you consider the value of
corncobs as a feed?

Mr. Croptey. When you buy a barrel of corn you buy 350 pounds
in the East, and that 1s supposed to run 5 bushels of grain. The
value of that, I imagine, alone would be in the neighborhood of $10
or $12 a ton, although that I do not know, because I do not sell it.

Representative Haucren. The fact is that when you sell the corn
on the cob you give away the cob? j

Mr. Cropiey. No, sir; we do not. We use it for fuel purposes.

Representative Haucrn. When you sell it on the cob you give that
many more pounds?

Mr. Crorrery. No, sir.

Representative Haucen. In my section of the country it is gen-
erally 75 to 85 pounds on the cob.

Mr. Cropiey. In the East you buy by the barrel, 350 pounds being
equivalent to the barrel, and that sells about 5 bushels to the barrel.

Representative Haucren. And 70 pounds on the cob?

Mr. Crortey. I do not know; I never measured it.

Representative Haucen. How many pounds of shelled corn?

Mr. Croptey. Shelled corn runs 56 pounds to the measured bushel,
and you multiply 5 by 56,.which is 280, and the differential between
them would be 7.

Representative Haucen. The value of the cob is not taken into con- —
sideration. If you sell the corn on the cob you have to give that
many more pounds to make up for the weight of the cob?

Mr. Croptey. You see the standard in the east is 56 pounds to the
bushel.

Representative Haucen. Of shelled corn?

Mr. Croptey. Yes, sir.

Representative Haucen. And 70 peunds in the cob?

Mr. Crorrey. Yes, sir.

Representative Haucen. And on the cob 75 to 80 pounds, and in the
last two years 100 pounds?

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. rs

Mr. Crortry. On account of the moisture. Nature has provided
us with moisture. The atmosphere surrounding us contains 124 per
cent of moisture, and without it we could not exist.

The Cuatrman. You say you burn the cobs?

Mr. Crortry. Yes, sir; we burn most of our cobs.

The Carman. Why do you not mix them with the feed ?

Mr. Cropiey. The reason we do not mix them with the feed is be-
cause I do not cater to anything unless it is high-grade goods.

The CuairMan. There is the point.

Mr. Croptry. But this is going to put me out of business.

POO ac Ler. You get more money for your goods that you
mix?

Mr. Crorrtey. I do not know about that.

Representative Haucen. Seriously considering, what would you
consider the value of the corncobs as a feeder?

Mr. Cropiey. I would have to get the chemical analyses of that
to tell you. I do not know the feeding value of that outside of the
carbohydrates.

Representative Haucen. You do not contend that cobs have any
teeding value?

Mr. Crortey. They have some value in the carbohydrates. I
probably may have the figures here. I will see if I have it. [Ex-
amining papers.| Corncobs contain one-half of 1 per cent protein,
0.3 fat, and 54.1 carbohydrates. That is a feeding value.

Representative Haucrn. Would the feeding value be equal to the
freight from one State to another ?

Mr. Crortey. If, while I do not use them, they were used in the
proper proportions and sold on that basis, showing on the tag that
this ingredient contained corncobs, I think so; yes, sir.

Representative Haucen. It is a fact, is it not, that the Depart-
ment of Agriculture, looking after the interests of 6,000,000 farm-
ers, have overlooked the value of corncobs, and nobody has raised
the question yet that they had any feed value?

Mr. Crortry. That is my contention, that they do contain feed
value; oat hulls contain a feed value.

Representative Haucren. I was trying to get at the value.

Mr. Cropiry. The only way to get at that value would be, in my
judgment, to take it to the Department of Agriculture and let them
decide the feed value.

The CuarrMan. That is what this amendment proposes to do.

Mr. Crortey. But if this amendment goes through, as I tell you,
it is going to ruin my plant absolutely.

The Cuarrman. Do you not think the Secretary of Agriculture
would give you permission to ship your stuff, as good as it is?

Mr. Croptey. The bill states that while an interstate shipment, as
I understand it, has to show the percentage of the ingredients, that
is a trade secret, gentlemen, and you know as a rule the courts up-
hold a trade secret.

The Cuarrman. Then that is your objection to this amendment?

Mr. Croriey. My objection is not that. My objection is this:
That the millers of cencentrated feeds in this country, in my judg-
ment, are absolutely honorable and try to produce goods that will
be economical when it is fed, to produce production in the way of
eggs and milk for the human system.

124 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

The CuHarrman. Do you think the passage of the pure-food laws
and these various feed laws was just a matter of idle exercise?

Mr. Croptey. No, sir; at the present time the State laws cover
that thoroughly. They have their inspectors going around all the
time inspecting feed and taking samples?

The Cuairman. Why do they do that?

Mr. Croptey. Because a law was passed by the State legislatures.
I would like to see this amendment changed. I would like more
time and deliberation given to it. I would like a Federal law passed
to cover all these things, so that we would know, as Mr. Watson
said on the floor of the House some years ago when interrupted by
half a dozen Members: “ Mr. Speaker, do you know where I am at?”
[ Laughter. |

The Cuatrman. I believe we are going to have to ask you to con-
clude your statement, as we have allowed you more than five minutes.

Representative Haucen. Can not his time be extended ?

Representative Canpier. His time was taken up by questions.
asked him by members of the conference.

The Cuarrman. If the committee desire, we will allow him to go
ahead.

Representative Haucren. Just one question. Would it be a hard-
ship or any inconvenience to the manufacturers of food to label
their goods to give approximately the quantity of each ingredient?

Mr. Croptey. Yes, sir; it would, especially at the present time
when it is almost impossible to obtain labor to operate our plants
even on a 50 basis.

Representative Haucren. Would that require any .extra labor?
You have to mix it anyway ?

Mr. Cropitey. Oh, yes. But, still, every little action of the hand
takes up time, how much I do not know.

Representative Haugen. I take it you have some rule to go by
as to the mixture.

Mr. Croptey. We probably could install machinery for that pur-
pose; yes, sir; I do not doubt that.

Representative Haucen. At the present time there must be some
rule for the mixture to go by?

Mr. Croptey. Oh, yes; we have weighing machines that every bit
of the ingredients go through that are as accurate as a clock.

Representative Haucen. Then you know the amount that goes in?

Mr. Croritey. Oh, absolutely so. Of course machinery is like
human nature, it is liable to fall down.

The Cuarrman. Do a great many States require a statement of the
ingredients ? :

Mr. Croptey. Why, 42 States, I think.

The Cuairman. Yet you do not do that yourself.

Mr. Croriry. They require it, and while each State we sell into
we put a new formula for brand on the market we have to register
that with the State. That is done under oath, showing the analysis,
minimum protein, minimum fat, and the maximum fiber.

The Cuairman. But it does not state the ingredients?

Mr. Cropiey. It does state the ingredients, absolutely so.

Representative Haucren. But not the percentage?

Mr. Croptey. But not the percentage.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 125

Representative Havcen. Then it does not amount to anything.

Mr. Croptry. Then it would not show up protein or its fat. To
get your protein you have got to have good goods in them, otherwise
it will not analyze them as we represent them to be.

The CuarrMan. You say you have got to have good feed to have
protein ?.

Mr. Croptey. No; I say if those ingredients that were put in our
mixture of feeds do not contain the necessary protein, fat, and fiber
when they are blended together it would not come out in its final
analysis.

The Cuarrman. We are very much obliged to you and also to
Judge Carlin for having you come here. We will now hear Mr.

White.

STATEMENT OF MR. C. R. WHITE, DEPARTMENT OF FARM AND
MARKETS, ALBANY, N. Y.

Mr. Wuirtr. The testimony here yesterday showed that as a rule in
nearly every State the members of the Manufacturers’ Feed Associa-
tion had complied with the law. If that is the case, when they com-
ply with the law when enacted, I do not see why anybody should be
so exercised. If those people are not willing to comply, that is up to
the Federal and State authorities. The question comes up about the
State of New York in regard to the production of milk. We think
that we can not produce milk in New York State economically if we
are to be forced to use low grade materials that we do not need. We
have in the State a surplus of hay carried over from last year. I
can go to a number of counties and find you baled hay in the barns.
We are producing a very considerable quantity of alfalfa in some
parts of the State, and it is being sold to go outside of-the State in
some parts to the Quartermaster’s Department. We have an ex-
tremely large crop of oats and barley. We have all of that kind of
material we want.

Representative Lever. Why do you not use it?

Mr. Wurrts. We do.

Representative Lever. Why do you propose that we adopt this
thing?

Mr. Wurrr. We do not propose to do so, if we can avoid it. They
come in the high grade feeds, and we can not get the high grade con-
stituents without buying them.

Representative Lever. You require this here inferior stuff to mix
with your own hay and materials?

Mr. Wuire. No, sir.

Representative Lever. Why was that?

Mr. Wuirte. Because they are not offered for sale in our part of
the State. The stock feeds are sold mainly by small dealers, and they
can not carry the large number of constituents which should enter
into a stock feed. We do not object to buying mixed feeds and prefer
to use mixed feeds. A gentleman was here yesterday testifying that
he has never, outside of seven or eight cars a year, bought for his
herds any mixed feeds, but that he would buy mixed feeds and be
willing to pay more at the present time if he could get it entirely
‘free from objectionable material.

126 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Representative Lever. Do you think this amendment cures that ?

Mr. Wuirte. Yes, sir.

Representative Lever. How?

Mr. Wurrer. Because it shows what is in them.

Representative Lever. Suppose they do not sell it to you.

Mr. Wuire. If they do not sell it to us, we will get along with-
out it.

Representative Lever. That is the trouble now, they do not sell it
to you?

Mr. Wuite. Yes, sir.

Representative Lever. Does this cure that trouble?

Mr. Wurre. If they sell mixed feeds.

Representative Lever. Well, you say you don’t want this mixed
stuff sold.

Mr. Wurre. I didn’t say I didn’t want mixed feed. We do want
mixed feed, but we want to know what is in it. We want to know the
amount of ingredients in it.

Representative Luver. I thought your proposition was somewhat
like Mr. Lasater’s, that the farmers there in New York had plenty
of roughage.

Mr. Wuirr. Yes, sir; and we say that we prefer them not to ship |
that stuff into this State. It is an economical loss to us, and I think
I can show you

Representative Lever (interposing). I agree with you. But how
are you going to remedy the proposition? Will this amendment do
that ?

Mr. Wuire. If it is prohibited from being shipped in the mixed
feeds, it will be.

Representative Lever. Your proposition is Mr. Lasater’s, to pro-
hibit the shipment of all this stuff in interstate commerce ?

Mr. Wuire. In mixed feeds; yes. And another thing we wish to
bring in is the economic loss in the transportation of these materials.
Oat hulls contain 3.4 per cent of protein and 0.6 of 1 per cent of fat.
Digestible fat protein is only 1.3, or 26 pounds to the ton. Cotton-
seed meal contains 37.6—I am taking this from Henry’s works on
Feed and Feeding—37.6 per cent of protein and 9.6 per cent of fat,
or 47 per cent, 47 pounds to the hundred of digestible nutrients.
Now, I want to call our attention to this fact, that it will require
36 cars of oat hulls to contain the same nutrition that is contained
in one carload of cottonseed meal; that the transportation charges on
a $5 freight rate costs $1.92 per pound for digestible nutrients,
while in cottonseed meal it costs 0.53 of 1 cent a pound.’

In gluten feed there are 21.3 per cent of digestible protein and
2.9 of fat, and the freight rate is 1.06 cents per pound. It would
require 19 carloads of oat hulls to equal one carload of gluten feed,
of feed that is claimed by some is no better than oat hulls, as wheat
bran, which contains 12 per cent of digestible protein and 3 per cent
of fat, or 300 pounds to the ton. Taking the cost of transportation
at $5 per ton, on that rate it would be 1.66 cents freight rate per
pound. It would require 11 carloads of oat hulls to equal 1 ton of
wheat bran.

We claim that it is an economic loss. It means thousands and
thousands of car's are used—I am not speaking of what may be in
Texas or some other drouth-stricken region where those oat hulls_

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 127

may be shipped as roughage economically, but to transport them into
the State of New York where we have roughage that will go down
in the barnyards, and thousands of tons in the shape of good straw,
enormous quantities of hay—the largest hay-producing State in the
Union—with alfalfa, too, that the farmers don’t want it. They have
no use for it. It is simply coals to New Castle, bringing material
that we already have.

Representative Lever. Your proposition is, Mr. White, as I under-
stand it—and you make a very fair witness and a very intelligent
statement—your position is that because the buying of these mixed
feeds by the farmers of New York is uneconomical, that therefore we
ought to pass this legislation to prohibit the interstate shipment of
mixed feeds at all. .

Mr. Wuire. Containing certain ingredients.

Representative Lrvrer. Containing certain ingredients which in
themselves are not deleterious to health or dangerous, and which in
themselves contain somewhat of a feeding value?

Mr. Waite. Yes, sir.

Representative Lever. You would inhibit the shipment of these in-
gredients in interstate commerce because you have a situation in New
York where your farmers with plenty of hay on hand for some rea-
son or other prefer to buy these mixed feed. Is that your proposi-
tion ?

Mr. Wurrte. They do lke to buy mixed feeds; yes, sir.

Representative Lever. Now, then, to educate the farmers of New
York you would prohibit the farmers of Oklahoma from selling their
alfalfa meal as a mixture.

Mr. Wuire. No, sir. It was in the State of New York where this
measure originated, and it was not the purpose of the State food
commission to include alfalfa meal. It was not the intention that
it should include hay.

Representative Lever. Did I understand you to say that this
amendment originated in New York State?

Mr. Wurre. The amendment did not, but I think some of the ma-
terial did before the New York Food Commission after an investiga-
tion of some two months in which we took 115 samples of feed.

Representative Lever. Now, just what do you mean? Your
farmers in New York, you say, have plenty of hay, plenty of straw,
plenty of oat chaff or whatever you call it, that you could burn it and
still have plenty of it left, and you object to the shipment of these
mixed feeds into New York, because you think your farmers ought
to consume their own roughage in connection with these unmixed
ingredients ?

Mr. Wuire. We certainly do. ;

Representative Lever. Is that your position?

Mr. Wurre. I think as a war measure it is exactly what ought to
be done.

Representative Lever. I think you are exactly right, and for that
reason you would prohibit the farmer of Mississippi or Texas or
Kansas, who has corn cobs or cottonseed hulls to sell that your
farmer in New York wants—you would prohibit your farmer from
buying and the Mississippi and Kansas farmer from selling it?

Mr. Wurrte. No; we have no objection to his selling stuff for
exactly what it is.

128 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Representative Lever. So you come to the Federal Government
and ask the Federal Government to take a big stick and knock some
ordinary common economic, sense into the heads of the farmers in
New York. Is that your proposition?

Mr. Wuire. No, sir; we do not.

Representative Lever. Well, I can’t get your point.

Mr. Wuirr. There is no reason why products that we have in the
State of New York should be shipped into the State of New York
In a condition where we can’t detect it.

The Cuarrman. Do you object to the farmer in Mississippi and
Oklahoma selling anything he has got to anybody who wants to buy
it, representing it as just what it is? ;

Mr. Wuire. No, sir.

The Cuarrman. Do you object to the farmer in New York or any-
where else buying anything he wants to buy from anybody on earth
if he knows what he is buying?

Mr. Wuire. No, sir.

Representative Lever. Yes; the gentleman does.

Mr. Wuire. The point right here, Mr. Lever, is that the gentlemen
who oppose this measure are taking the ground and have taken it in
in the State of New York before a hearing, that if the order of the
State’s food commission was made which compelled them to put the
amount of these so-termed adulterants upon their bags it would
absolutely exclude their products from the market. In other words, ©
they admitted that the farmers wouldn’t buy the feed if they knew
it contained these materials.

Representative Liver. Have you got authority to do that in your
State law now?

Mr. Wnitr. That measure is pending. Hearings are to be held on
it the 5th of October. J will say this that when the State’s food com-
mission adjourned that meeting, or deferred the action of that.order
it was done temporarily, awaiting what might be done here in Con-
gress, and the statement was sent out that it was postponed in-
definitely, but I think I can assure the gentleman that it was post-
poned very indefinitely and for very definite purposes.

The Cuarrman. Mr. White, if you will pardone me, I will remind
you that there is an hour allotted to your side. I don’t know what
your arrangements are. Someone told me your were to talk 5 min-
utes and J think your have been talking 15. Of course you can use
the whole time, so far as the committee is concerned.

Mr. Wuire. I answered the question, Senator Gore, that was all.

Representative Haucen. Just let me ask you one question. My
understanding is that your objection is to the corncob masquesrading
under false colors?

Mr. Wurre. Absolutely.

Representative Haucen. So that if the Secretary should find that
corncobs or whatever it may be—these shells and these different
things that have been enumerated here—have no value as feed, he
would prohibit the use of mixing or mixing of these worthless and
useless articles.

Mr. Wuirtr. Yes, sir. We have full confidence in the Secretary
of Agriculture as being capable of determining those things as the
authority.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 129

The Cuarrman. Now, whom will you have next?

Mr. Warp. I think we will close with a few remarks that I have
been asked to make upon this matter.

Now, in behalf of these dairy and milk producers’ organizations,
Senators and gentlemen, I desire to say that we don’t think, and
we don’t want any antagonism long drawn out, and to exist between
the feed manufacturers and the milk producers. There isn’t any
necessity for it. It isn’t in the nature of the business as legitimately
and rightfully conducted. We went along for a great many years
growing milk and dairy products in the State of New York, supply-
ing them with the foodstuffs and grain and by-products produced in
the West and South, and there was no trouble. There was no mis-
trust and there was no wholesale frauds perpetrated upon our people
who bought these products. Then came in this mixed-feed—com-
pounded-feed—proposition... Now, I know—and I have had con-
siderable experience with it—that 50 per cent of the men who manu-
facture compounded feeds manufacture a good staple article that
can have its name posted on every package of it with perfect freedom
and confidence. Gradually the percentage has crept up so that the
other 50 per cent has got to be mistrusted. There isn’t any ques-
tion—and we don’t complain that the Quaker Oats people sold for
dairy food 300,000 tons of oat hulls. We are glad they sold them.
We don’t ask the Federal Government to do a thing that will pro-
hibit their being sold in New York or anywhere else. All we ask of
the Federal Government is that they be labelel “oat hulls.” Now,
that is all we ask, that when a farmer drives up to the feed store
and the dairyman says to him, “ Here is a fine brand that will pro-
duce a lot of milk, and it is made so and so,” that if there is 10
pounds or 20 pounds or 30 pounds or 50 pounds of straw in that
package the label shall so appear on it.

It seems that the discussion has gone along on other subjects here,
something else than the real point contained in this measure. We
don’t care how much money the Quaker Oats people make. I want
to call the attention of the committee to the fact that if this 300,000
tons of oat hulls were sold to the dairymen in this country who were
producing milk at $50 or $60 a ton, that the consumer ultimately pays
that price. And that wasn’t right. Milk that the consumers use
and that is necessary for them to live on should not be produced on
a straw material which costs the dairymen, becase of the negligence
of the lawmaking power, the cost of high-value feeds.

Now, this is not a new subject. In 1913 Senator Owen introduced
in this Congress the exact bill that you have got there now—Senate
bill 8177. Section 5 treats of the interstate transportation of adul-
terated foodstuffs. Section 6 reads:

For the purposes of this act the feeding stuffs shall be deemed to be adul-
terated if it contains any sawdust, dirt, damaged feed, rice hulls, chaff, peanut
hulls, crushed corncobs, oat hulls, oat clippings, or any foreign matter whatever.

There is the same thing. That bill died in the Senate committee.
Now can it be said that it was not widely known and has not been
in all these years, when the dairymen were seeking relief—can it be
claimed that these things were not widely known that this was a
fraudulent thing, an, imposition upon not only the farmers of this

81413—18——9

130 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

country but the dwellers and workers in the cities who have to ulti-
mately pay the 52 per cent of the profits which the Quaker Oats got
lats year for selling oat hulls as high-grade food ?

Representative Lever. Mr. Ward, were there any hearings on that
bill of Senator Owen’s?

Mr. Warp. I don’t know.

Representative Lever. I ask that purely for information.

Mr. Warp. I don’t know. I know that the Department of Agri-
culture year after year has pounded away on this subject. Every
State department has called attention to the fraud, the continued
fraud, the constant fraud practiced, not by the sale of the stuff

Renresentative Lever (interposing). Now let’s see about that.
Have you any document issued by the Department of Agriculture
calling attention to this fraud?

Mr. Warp. I wouldn’t say the department. I have a document
issued

Representative Lrver (interposing). That is what you did say,
though.

Mr. Warp. I have a document issued by Dr. Brown, of the Bureau
of Plant Industry—I believe he is connected with the Agricultural
Department—on ‘the use of darnall, cockrell, and wild mustard as
brans in wheat screenings, in which he says:

There is evidently too little information as to the poisonous character of
many of our weed seeds. Darnell and cockrell bran contain a dangerous alka-
loid, which if long continued seriously injures the health of domestic animals.

Representative Lever. When was that issued ?

Mr. Warp. That was issued and published in Flour and Feed in
December, 1911, volume 12 of the Congressional Library, page 32.

Representative Lever. Mr. Ward, is this the first time that you
gentlemen came down here on this proposition ?

Mr. Warp. The first time I have had the pleasure of being down
here. These farmers can’t come down here. ‘They haven’t the
capital to come. They can’t come until they get an association such
as these gentlemen represent. And I want to call your attention to
that. The agricultural departments of the various States—in our
St
the fraudulent feeds have been sold to our faa They con.
ceived the idea that because these mysterious hieroglyphics and
brands were on the bag that in some way the State is guaranteeing
that product and protecting them. Now, just the contrary is the
fact. All the State does in our State—here are four volumes, pub-
lished year by year, showing the amount of fraudulent feeds that
were bought “by the dairymen in our State two years previous.
That is all our agricultural department does. The shipment of a
carload or 20 carloads or 20,000 bags of a given feed comes into the
State, and one sample is taken. Two years afterwards the State
experiment station says that that feed that was brought in in 1915—
they say in 1917—that that carload of feed or that sample of feed
had 50-per cent of worthless material in it.

Representative Lever. Don’t you think:you had better get a new
State department of agriculture?

Mr. Warp. Now, wait a moment. There is something further than
that, and we have got the best laws in the United States on that

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. LB

subject. There is something further than that. Our agricultural
department, as I understand it, up till the present time had this
arrangement: If the feed dealer was found with inferior and un.
lawful material in the sample, even the feed dealer wasn’t warned
that the feed he was selling was oat hulls and straw instead of being
a valuable food grain, but the letter fixing the penalty for the sale
was, by an arrangement with this association which is represented
here, instead of going to the feed dealer was sent to this association,
or to the mantifacturer, who paid the penalty on that one bag,.and
the 50,000 bags passed along. And that accounts for these numerous
samples.

After one of these feeds has been convicted, notoriously convicted
in the neighborhood of being fraudulent and inferior, the same feed
appears 30 days afterwards under a new license number and a
new name. That is the reason that these brands have crept up
from 300 to 4,000. You throw them out the back door and they come
- in the front door under a new name, the same old stuff.

Now, the statement was made here yesterday—and I don’t want
it to go unchallenged—that our dairy cows and dairy industry and
milk and dairy production was increasing under this diet. It is not
so. The Federal census report of 1910 gave 1,500,000 dairy cows.
The State enumeration of 1915 gave 1,300,000 dairy cows, a decrease
of nearly 200,000. This year and last year we fed more of these feeds
than ever before, and the thing is so arranged by organizations cf
these feed dealers, organized from the bottom up—and it is spread
on the records of our courts and in the reports of our legislative
bodies, the evidence which has been taken—that there is no way
under the sun to-day, no practical way, that our farmers can get a
-arload of cottonseed meal to feed their stock.

Representative Luver. Now, Mr. Ward, do you attribute this de-
-rease to the selling of these mixed feeds, or what?

Mr. Warp. That is the only change in our dairy situation, the
mereasing consumption of these mixed feeds. This death rate is
unexplained—I am not a veterinary surgeon. They can’t lay their
hands on the difficulty, but every year those dairies come through
weaker and weaker.

Representative Lrver. Let me ask you this: Can you state to this
committee here the percentage of decrease in your dairy cattle due
to death and the percentage of decrease due to the fact that dairy-
men are selling their dairy cattle? .

Mr. Warp. No, I can’t do that.

Representative Lever. For beef purposes? .

Mr. Warp. I can give you these statistics which may answer. The
record of milk distributmg cost shows that the average production
of their patron’s herds in 1902 was 270 pounds of milk per dav per
herd. That is, per day per herd. In 1916 this average production
was 204 pounds about per day, a decrease of 18.7 per cent. Now. I
don’t say—I don’t know about these things. I am taking the state-
ment of Mr. Halligan, the head of the Department of Chemistry in
the Louisiana Experiment Station, and the statement of Dr. Brown,
of the Bureau of Plant Industry, that it is possible to mix a dviry
food that injures and destroys cattle. Spoiled corn, fermented corn,
under certain conditions, he says—and they say—cause death or in-

132 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

jury to the health of cattle. Rice hulls, they tell us—and Dr. Halli-
gan states it—no southern stock raiser will let his stock have access
to rice hulls because he has learned by experience that rice hulls are
injurious to the animals. Yet our people buy them without being
branded or without being named, day after day, and year after year.
Now, is it anything that we ask here after five years since a com-
mittee of this Senate, a committee of the United States Senate, pro-
nounced these things fraudulent and injurious

Representative Lever (interposing). Well, did a committee of the
Senate do that very thing?

Mr. Warp. I say that when a Senator from his committee brings
in a bill

Representative Lever (interposing). Well, did he bring in his
bill? Did he bring in this bill you speak of five years ago?

Mr. Warp. He did. It was introduced into the Senate by Senator
Owen, of Oklahoma, in 1911.

Representative Lever. Yes; and there are 30,000 bills introduced
every year in Congress. Was it reported from any committee 4

Mr. Warp. That I can’t tell you.

Representative Lever. But you said it was reported, just a moment
ago.

Mr. Warp. Well, if I did, I misspoke myself. I am not exactly
precise on your terms here, because I am not familiar with them. I
don’t know when it is reported or when it is out. It was in the public
press as having been introduced by Senator Owen. .

Representative Lever. There are lots of things introduced here,
Mr. Ward, that never see the ight of day. —

Mr. Warp. That isn’t important to us and to these men that I rep-
resent. I say this, that when the Senator has introduced that bill,
and it in its terms condemned those materials as fraudulent and as
an adulteration, after five years it is scarcely open to discussion that
this is a new thing.

Representative Lever. Now, let’s see about this situation, and then
IT will have to go, because I have another engagement on another
matter.

The Senate passed this proposition known as the Gore amendment,
without debate, practically, without roll call, without discussion,
unanimously, without a dissenting voice, yet yesterday morning three
of these same Senators who presumably voted for it came here pro-
testing vigorously against it.

The CuarrMan. I want to say in that connection myself

Representative Lever (interposing). That is the record.

The Cuatrman. I know it is the record, and there are in the record
misleading and false telegrams sent out by the Quaker Oats Co.,
which were not the truth.

Representative Lever. I don’t know about that, but that shows
what I am trying to get at, that you can’t tell from the introduction
of these things.

The Cuarrman. The point I am trying to make is that this tele-
gram was sent out to mills all over the country, calculated to inspire
fear and alarm on their part—well founded fear if the telegram had
been true—and Senators acting upon those representations, of course,
made protests against such legislation.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. ‘ £33

Representative Hauern. Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can get one
matter cleared up here. ;

I understood you to say that some certain organization—you didn’t
name the organization—that some organization maintained funds
and paid the fines of the dealers who were violating the law?

Mr. Warp. The manufacturer—this association.

Representative HauGcen. What association /

Mr. Warp. The Feed Dealers’ Association.

Representative Haucen. The association that is appearing here in
opposition to this bill? |

Mr. Warp. This is what I am informed by an agent of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture, who has been many years in our department,
that when John Doe, the feed dealer, is found with a sample of
fraudulent food and it goes to the department and is found bad, the
Department of Agr iculture communicates in no way whatsoever with
John Doe, the feed dealer. Instead of that he sends the letter as-
sessing the penalty to the American Feed Dealers’ Association, who
transmit it to the manufacturer, who pays the penalty, and John Doe,
the feed dealer, is never even informed that the feed he was selling
to the farmers was bad.

Representative Haucen. Then the fine for violating the law is paid
by the association ?

Mr. Warp. Oh, yes; it is paid by the manufacturer. I don’t know
who pays it.

Representative Haucen. I can’t imagine that we could have such
an association in this country.

Mr. Warp. I don’t know who pays it, but the check comes to the
Agricultural Department.

Representative Haucen. If we have an association in this country
that maintains a fund to pay the fines of anybody violating the law,
that is quite a serious matter.

Mr. Warp. I don’t know where it comes from. The check comes
to the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Axssorr. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt at this point?

Mr. Warp. We have a witness here who can testify as to that.

Mr. Axssorr. We wish to refute this statement and brand it un-
qualifiedly a lie. I am president of the American Feed Manufac-
turers’ Association.

The Cuatrrman. You had better use parliamentary language, I
think.

Mr. Apssorr. I will withdraw that from the record, if you wish,
and say as unqualifiedly false.

The Cuarrman. All right.

Mr. Warp. In answer to your question, don’t misunderstand me.
We don’t know who pays it. The check comes to the Agricultural
Department, and the feed dealer—the point I want to “nake—we
don’t care about that—that the feed dealer isn’t even informed of the
facts.

Representative Haucrn. I don’t care what you feel about it, what
I want to get at is the facts. If the facts are—you still Seeart that
these fines are not paid by the man who violates the law ?

Mr. Warp. Absolutely; that they are paid by some association.

The CuatrmMan. Mr. Abbott, your disclaimer relates to the Feed
Manufacturers’ Association ?

134 ° ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Mr. Axsorr. Yes, sir.

The Cramman. And you don’t undertake to say that this practice
is not carried on by some other organization ?

Mr. Assotr. We have no knowledge whatsoever of other organi-
zations’ affairs. '

The CuHarrman. Well, that is what I wanted to make clear. |

Representative Haucen. Did you refer to this organization @

Mr. Warp. My information is from the department that the letter
is transmitted, or was up until very recently, to the American Feed
Dealers’ Association.

Representative Haucen. What is your association ?

Mr. Axssotr. The American Feed Manufacturers’ Association is
the trade name of our association.

Representative Haucen. Is he referring to your association ?

Mr. Axsrorr. I should judge from the character of his remarks he
undoubtedly was.

Representative Haucen. Are the names the same?

The CuarrmMan. There seems to be a feed dealers’ association and
a feed manufacturers’ association.

Mr. Azzotr. His definition of names does not seem to be the same.
He, however, addressed his remarks to this association, irrespective
of names.

Representative Haucren. I want to make that clear.

Mr. Raymonp Smiru. Senator Gore, inasmuch as I supplied the
information to Judge Ward for the statement that he is now making
J will give the basis for his making that statement and where I
obtained it.

The CHarrman. That would be better. Is that satisfactory to you,
judge?
| Mr. Warp. Yes, sir.

Representative Haucen. Referring to this organization ?

Mr. Smiru. Referring to this organization here, the American
Feed Manufacturers’ Association of the United States, of which
L. F. Brown is secretary, located at Milwaukee, Wis.

‘While in the department of agriculture at ‘Albany in 1915, after
the resignation of Calvin J. Houston as commissioner of agr iculture,
I made an investigation of that department to ascertain conditions
in that department. I had not proceeded with my investigation very
far when I developed that the enforcement of law as affecting the
prosecution of samples of commercial feeding stuffs that had been
reported from the experiment station as below standard had not
been prosecuted. Under those instructions I went into that building
one night at 1 o’clock with another agent—under the instructions
from the governor’s office of that State—and I discovered corre-
spondence ‘which showed a list of samples that had been reported
from the Geneva Experiment Station as far back as 1906 that had
failed of prosecution, although they had been reported from the
Geneva Experiment Station as being below standard.

The CHatrMan. You say they had not been prosecuted ?

Mr. Surrx. They had not been prosecuted. I found there a letter
from the bureau of dairy products, written by Mr. Burke, who is
here to-day, directed to the legal bureau, calling for these statements
from Mr. Jordan that his teats was filled with samples which =e

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. b Ws)

had received no report on from the legal bureau of the department of
agriculture, and asking him whether he could destroy those or not;
that they were getting short of cans. That correspondence I have.

I also discovered there a payment of money in a check from Swift
& Co., which is a member of this association, and of which Mr. Fer-
guson was third vice president, and the letterhead which I found
there with his name on it, and I checked up that list with the mem-
bership of this association and I found that a very small percentage
of the samples of feed which had been reported below standard had
been paid by this association, but that a large part of the violations
that had come from the Geneva Experiment Station had been
marked “ No case,” or “ Discontinued.” Now, that correspondence I
still have, together with the official receipt and the letters from
Swift & Co. to the deputy commissioner inclosing a check to him.

Now, of course I'am not going to take up the time to go into the
other food and entangling alliances between the packers and this asso-
ciation and the close alignments there, and especially with the attor-
neys of this association and the chamber of commerce, Mr. Butler,
but I found a letter there that is not in my possession now, because it
is in the hands of another party, in which Mr. Brown requested that
all penalties for feed below the standard of the association be taken
up with the manufacturer, and that was done. And I afterwards
found in looking over one case, especially in the county in which I
lived—a man whom you gentlemen present know—I asked Mr.
Lefevre, for whom I knew there was a case pending, a feed dealer
in the town of New Paltz, for feed which he had bought of the Met-
ropolitan Mills, also located in our State—the majority of our mills
in this association are located outside; they have another association
which operates within the State—I asked him about the case. I
found that a year after the case had been reported and the violation
had been reported they had been allowed to come in and take out a
license of $25 and avoid a penalty of $50. I checked that up and J
found that that practice of non pro tuncing was very prevalent.

Now, the enforcement there is on the increase. With a few more
men like Mr. White there New York will be a different State and a
different department from what it has been.

There was no dispute on this point. I can not go into the question
in detail; I am only stating what I discovered while in the employ of
that department, for the simple reason that for a short space of time
I was connected with the Federal Trade Commission, and as an
examiner there under section 6 I am absolutely prohibited from dis-
closing anything that was discovered or the nature of any of the
evidence developed while in the employ of that commission. I am
stating now evidence that came in my possession and evidence which
T had before I was associated with the Federal Trade Commission.

Mr. McLaveuran. When you made that investigation and found °
that check, by whom were you employed?

Mr. Suir. The New York State Department of Agriculture.

Mr. McLaveuurn. You spoke of the Department of Agriculture.
I thought you meant this Federal Department.

Mr. Smiru. No; not at all.

Mr. McLavcuirn. How many such checks did you find?

Mr. Smirnu. I found a very bad condition there. I found that
licenses had been sent in

136 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Mr. McLavucuirn (interposing). How many fines or how many
penalties did you find had been paid by the association instead of
by the offending dealer ¢ U

Mr. Surry. That is a ver y hard question to answer directly.
There was no dispute in the department—there was no dispute by tne
legal adviser, Mr. Flanders, that he took up the cases of the manu-
facturers direct. with them, and I found that they found their way
into Mr. Brown’s office, and that there they were in fact adjusted by
him with the department.

Mr. McLavenum. I was trying to have you say with some defi-
niteness how many of these penalties were settled by checks from
headquarters.

Mr. Smirn. Why that would necessitate my becoming lable to
prosecution under section 6 of the Federal trade act, because I did
not ascertain that fact while in the department.

Mr. McLaueuiix. While you were in the department and gained
knowledge that you are free to speak about without subjecting your-
self to a penalty, how many payments of that kind did you find had
been made?

Mr. Surru. You mean of the checks of the deputy commissioner ¢

Mr. McLaueurr. The checks in payment of fines, or taking care
of the fines or penalties, coming from some source other than the
offending dealer who sold the eoods.

Mr. Smiru. Why, I will tell you, when it was admitted—I will
answer your question briefly. When it was admitted by Mr.
Flanders that he took up these cases with the manufacturer, there
was really no reason—it. wasn’t necessary to go any further into the
question as to just who paid those penalties. But T will say this, that
in a number of cases that I found, especially the Ralston people, that
previous to their membership in this associ iation they were given the
limit of the law, the maximum, but after they became members of
this association they received friendly offices.

Mr. McLavueutix. What do you mean by “given the limit? ”

Mr. Smiru. I mean they paid the maximum penalty under the
law.

Mr. Apssorr. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

The CuarrMan. Yes.

Mr. Apssorr. Your statement a minute ago was to the effect that
the American Feed Manufacturers’ Association had tendered a
check. |

Mr. Suiru. I did not say that. I said Swift & Co., a member of
this association.

Mr. Axssorr. Your statement a few minutes ago, unqualifiedly
made, stated that. the American Feed Manufacturers’ Association
paid the fine of some one who was prosecuted.

Mr. Warp. I think you had better refer to the minutes. The wit-
ness made no such statement.

T said Swift & Co., a member of this association, sent. the check.

Mr. Apsporr. You made the statement and Mr. Smith confirmed
the statement, if I may interject.

Mr. Warp. No; I did not make any such statement.

Mr. Arnorr. You made the statement that the American Feed
Manufacturers’ Association

Mr. Warp (interposing). No, sir.

The Cuatrman. He said the American Feed Dealers’ Association.

r

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. Mey f

Mr. Asporr. Will you please have the record read, Mr. Chairman ?

Mr. Smiru. I know that in the case of the local people there

Mr. Axssorr (interposing). Will you have the record read, Mr.
Chairman ?

The Cuarrman. Find that statement of Mr. Ward’s and read it.

(The reporter read the record beginning:)

Representative HauGEN. Mr. Chairman, just let me see if I can get one matter
cleared up here. I understood you to say that some certain organi i
didn’t name the organization—that some organization maintained funds and
paid the fines of the dealers who were violating the law, and ending with the
statement of Mr. Smith.

Now, that correspondence I still have, together with the official receipt and
the letters from Swift & Co. to the deputy commissioner inclosing a check
to him. 4

Mr. Agssorr. There is just one question, Mr. Chairman, may I ask
Mr. Smith?

Mr. Warp. Now, you found that Mr. Smith was correct in his
statement and that you were misquoting his evidence, and I think you
ought to say something.

Mr. Apeorr. I will bee your pardon, Judge Ward.

The Cuamman. I don’t think that is material.

Mr. Axvgorr. I merely confirmed—may I ask Mr. Smith one ques-
tion ¢

Mr. SmirnH. You can.

Mr. Asporr. Have you found one instance in which the American
Feed Manufacturers’ Association has paid anyone’s fine ?

Mr. Smirn. I have.

‘ Mr. Asporr. Please state it.

Mr. Smiru. In talking with ex-Assemblyman Abraham Lefevre,
of New Paltz, Ulster County, N. Y., formerly a member of the ways
and means committee of the legislature of the State of New York,
he told me that he had had three cases against himself personally. He
said, “Of course, I don’t pay any money on them, but they are down
there and that makes me an offender under the law.” And he said,
“1 don’t like it and intend if I get back to the legislature another
vear to remedy that condition.”

Now, that statement can be verified by Mr. Lefevre. I am giving
you his address and the facts in relation to it. T can’t see where there
should be any great hullabaloo about whether you do pay them or
not. because it has been a known practice that the oleo trade has done
the same thing. It is a practice among these people, but the question
1s——

Mr. Assorr (interposing). Mr. Chairman, T must ask the privi-
lege to ask Mr. Smith a question again. He didn’t answer my ques-
tion and I want to ask it again.

Have you, Mr. Smith, any direct evidence in the way of having
seen checks or correspondence yourself that would prove the fact
that the American Feed Manufacturers’ Association as an organiza-
tion had paid Mr. Lefevre’s fine?

Mr. Suitrn. Well, I would prefer that Mr. Lefevre himself sub-
stantiate that, which he has offered to do in an affidavit.

Mr. Asporr. You have not seen this evidence?

Mr. Smiru. I am stating here to-day my experience while in that
department.

Mr. Axsporr. Will you please answer my question ?

138 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

Mr. Smiru. I prefer to rest on the answer that I made to your
question, the first one you made, which I think answered it by giving
you the name and address of the man, who is known to several of you
men sitting out there.

Mr. Asporr. Mr. Lefevre is a dealer or manufacturer?

Mr. Smirx. He is a dealer in feed, located at New Paltz, Ulster
County, N. Y.

Mr. Avsorr. Is he a member of the American Feed Manufacturers’
Association ?

Mr. Smirn. I don’t think he is. I think he is a member of this new
association that you formed about—well, you held a meeting in
Albany in May of this year, and he attended that meeting, of the
Eastern federation.

Mr. Apgorr. Is there any reason, Mr. Chairman, why Mr. Smith
should not answer my question with the answer of either yes or no?

Mr. Warp. It is not material to the inquiry. We don’t care who
pays it.

The Cratrman. I think this is an important point, Mr. Abbott,
and I think it is important that Mr. Smith ought not to make an
imputation against the American Feed Manufacturers’ Association
unless he is certain of his facts, and he ought to be certain that it is
the association that is guilty of the conduct which he is now alleging.
There ought not to be any—if it is some other organization, that
ought to be made plain, because there ought not to be anv reflection
undeservedly cast on this or any other organization, for that matter.

I would like to say this, that according to my understanding the
American Feed Dealers’ Association, operating in New York, is a
concern of blacklisted millers that sold feed stuffs direct to.the farm-
ers. It was under Federal prosecution and was dissolved, the same
parties reorganizing under the name of the Eastern Feed Dealers’
Association. It may be that that is confused with this. I don’t
know myself. I am only concerned that no injustice should be done
the American Feed Manufacturers’ Association: I have no dispo-
sition to shield them against just charges. .

Mr. Warp. We don’t want any confusion on the subject, and I
would like to ask Mr. Abbott if there is any question but what it is
common trade custom for the manufacturer who sold the feed to pay
these penalties? Now, my understanding is—I may be wrong, but
my understanding of the matter is that the manufacturer does stand
back of his goods and pays the penalty. Isn’t that a fact?

Mr. Assorr. You are speaking, then, of the manufacturer of the
particular product in question ? :

Mr. Warp. I am asking for information from you who know.
Tsn’t it a common practice for the manufacturer who makes these
feeds to pay any penalty assessed against the dealer ?

Mr. Axsporr. I will answer that, Judge Ward, by saying that it
might easily happen that the manufacturer as an individual might
pay the fine of the dealer as far as his goods were concerned.

Don’t you think it is better, Judge Ward, that the implication be
not passed upon the American Feed Manufacturers’ Association ?

Mr. Warp. I have been very careful not to do that. I told the
Congressman that I made no statement as to who paid it. Mr.
Brown’s letter asked that penalties be taken up with the association.
Mr. Brown’s letter is where it can be found. Mr. Brown is your -
secretary.

~

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 139

Mr. Warp. Mr. Brown’s letter; you have it.

Mr. Smiru. JI will tell you, I expect to file here with you, Senator,
copies of cases, with their number, the name, the correspondence,
letters from Swift & Co. to the deputy commissioner, and other facts
pertaining to commercial feed in relation to the department of agri-
culture in New York. I will file those with the committee so that
they will be open to the gentlemen on the other side.

Mr. Warp. Now, I w ‘ll continue and close, Senator, if you will
permit.

The Crairman. Let me say at this point, lest I forget it, Mr. Gray,
I want to request that you file with your statement a list of all indi-
viduals, firms, and corporations to whom or for which the Quaker
Oats Co. sent the telegram read into the record by Mr. Lasater, or
any similar telegrams; and if there was any telegram substantially
different, see that I have copies of those.

Mr. Gray. We will be glad to comply with your request.

Mr. Warp. Now, the dairymen have no interest in who pays this
penalty. The law makers may, and we don’t want that section to
interfere with the proposition that I wish to make in closing.

We are perfectly willing that the bill shall permit, as it does, for
these gentlemen to ship bulk. wheat hulls, corncobs, oat hulls, every-
thing they can get—ground coconut shells—into the State of New
York or all over the United States. All we ask is that they brand it
for just what it is.

Mr. McLavueuiin. Some of these gentlemen have said that it is
impossible for the manufacturers to put the formula on the con-
tainer, the formula stating the percentage of the contents. What do
you say about that ?

Mr. Warp. Well, I say this, Congressman, that several States have
that requirement, and in those States that law is to a greater or less
extent complied with by all the manufacturers of sound dairy foods.
The manufacturer of unsound dairy foods probably will not comply
with that law, and therefore will not ship his unsound goods into
that State, because the people won’t buy them, and he would lose the
freight. The man who makes a wholesome food that can stand being
named by its proper title—and there are a great many of them;
there are a great many of them members of this association—who
make a sound, wholesome food, that they can name its contents at
any spot or place, and that is the kind of food we want favored in
interstate shipment, and we don’t want sold in competition with that,
side by side with it and for practically the same price—it will be
shaded a dollar or two a ton—something that hasn’t a food value
approximating 25 per cent of the other article—and the farmer can’t
tell the difference—the average farmer—and he can’t know it through
the action of any State agricultural institution in our State under a
year or two.

The Cuarrman. I have a call that requires me to leave in a very
few minutes, Mr. Ward.

Mr. Warp. I will close with one more sentence. As far as the food
and drug act is concerned, it is absolutely valueless in this question
of compounded feeds. The decision of the United States court in
the Corno-Oat Feed Case, Federal Reporter, volume 188, page 453,
took away from the compounded feeds any practical value that the

140 : ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

food and drugs act might have, and as Flour and Feed said, “ Here-
after a good name and the right legal name for any food is the name
the manufacturer puts on it if it is a dairy food.”

J am very much obhged to you gentlemen. There ought not to be
any contest between the farmers and you gentlemen on this subject.

The Cuarrman. We are very much obliged to you for your patience
and for your uniform courtesy. We will now adjourn.

(The following testimony of Mr. Butler was taken during the hear-
ings before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, rela-
tive to the protest of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States
against the report of the Federal Trade Commission concerning the
meat packers of the country, but was directed by the chairman of said
committee to be inserted in these hearings) :

STATEMENT OF MR. RUSH C. BUTLER, CHAIRMAN FEDERAL
TRADE COMMITTEE, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED
STATES AND ATTORNEY FOR AMERICAN FEED MANUFACTUR-
ERS’ ASSOCIATION.

The Cuairman. I would like the stenographer to have these ques-
tions which I am about to ask printed in connection with the other
questions on the same subject; they are a little aside from the present
issue:

The American Feed Manufacturers’ Association—you are their at-
torney and brought several suits for them in connection with the Vir-
ginia statutes, did you not?

Mr. Burier. Yes, sir.

The Cuatrman. And those suits resulted in the statute being an-
nulled in the Supreme Court of the United States, did they not ?

Mr. Butter. The Virginia statute was annulled by the circuit court
of appeals, and the State was unable to get into the Supreme Court of
the United States.

The Mississippi statute fell down before we got to the circuit court
of appeals.

The CuatrmMan. That is what I wanted to know—‘is it the practice
of the American Feed Manufacturers’ Association to challenge these
State laws and have them tested out in the courts?

Mr. Burier. We have done that in those two instances only; and
both of those suits were instituted, I think, in 1911 or 1912.

The CHatrman. And you have one pending now, you say?

Mr. Butier. Well, we have been consulted about one.

The CHatrMan. What State did it relate to?

Mr. Butter. Texas.

The CuatrmMan. That is all.

(The following telegrams were subsequently directed by the chair-

man to be inserted in the record :)
Sr. Louts, Mo., September 11, 1918.
Hon. THomMAS P. Gore,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.:

Your telegram received. The directors of the Merchants’ Exchange feel you
are correct in your position when it applies to corncobs, ground cocoa shells,
ivory-nut turnings, ground cornstalks, sawdust, and dirt which have no feed
value, but your amendment is too broad, especially when it applies to ground
hay, screenings, chaff, or offal fron: any seed or grain; likewise cotton seed or
oat hulls, oat clippings, ete., all of which have good feed values. Your amend-
ment would also exclude ground alfalfa hay, which is known to be one of the
best possible feeds. The*passage of your amendment would mean disaster to

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. E+?

legitimate industries, such as flour mills, feed mills throughout the United
States, and untold damage to hog, cattle, and dairy interests, particularly at
this time of shortage of feeds throughout the country. :
JOHN ©. BALLARD,
President.

New York, N. Y., September 16, 1918.
Ep. C. LASATER,
918 Evans Building, Washington, D. C.

National Milk Producers’ Association and Dairymen’s League—57,000 mem-
bers—favor the feeding stuffs amendment to the general agricultural bill.
Almost impossible to have our representative at hearing to-morrow. Will you
represent these two organizations in support of Gore amendment?

R. D. Cooper.

New York, N. Y., September 20, 1918.

Hon..T. P. Gorn,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

At a meeting of conference New York farm organizations representing New
York State grange, the Dairymen’s League, New York State Federation Farm
Bureaus, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: ‘‘ Resolved, That
the conference of New York farm organizations indorse the principle of the
feed-control legislation proposed in H. R. 11945.”

R. D. Cooper, Chairman.

(The following affidavits were subsequently directed by the chair-
man to be inserted in the record :)

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county
of New York, at the building for criminal courts in the borough of Manhattan,
in said city, on Monday, the 1st day of December, in the year of our Lord 1913:

Present: Hons. Joseph F. Moss, John Mleming, George J. O'Keefe, justices

_of the court of special,sessions of the city of New York.

The People of the State of New York v. Swift & Co., Corporation, on a charge
of violation of section 42, sanitary code.

Dated September 23, 1918.

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office
that Swift & Co., corporation, the above-named defendant, was convicted and
fined $250 by the court of special sessions of the city of New York on the 1st
day of December, 1913:

A true extract from the minutes.

[ SEAL. ] JouN P. Hitry, Clerk of Court.

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county of
New York, at the building for criminal courts in the borough of Manhattan, in
said city, on Friday, the 12th day of December, in the year of our Lord 1913:

Present: Hons. Joseph F.-Moss, George J. O'Keefe, John Fleming, justices
of the court of special sessions of the city of New York,

The People of the State.of New York v. 2 corporation called Swift & Co., on
a charge of violation of section 339b, public-health law, cold storage.

Dated September 23, 1918.

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office
that a corporation called Swift & Co., the above-named defendant, was con-
victed and fined $500 by the court of special sessions of the city of New York
on the 12th day of December, 1913.

A true extract from the minutes.

[ SEAL. | JOHN P. Hitiy, Clerk of Court.

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county of
of New York, at the building for criminal courts in the Borough of Manhattan
in said city, on Monday, the 15th day of December. in the year of our Lord 1913:

Present : Hons. Cornelius F. Collins, George J. O’Keefe, John Fleming, justices
of the court of special sessions of the city of New York.

The People of the State of New York v. Swift & Co., corporation, on a charge
of violation of section 42, sanitary code. .

Dated September 23, 1918.

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office
that Swift & Co., corporation, the above-named defendant, was convicted anc

142 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS.

fined $300 by the court of special sessions of the city of New York on the
15th day of December, 1913.

A true extract from the minutes.

[SEAL. ] JoHN P. Hitty, Clerk of Court.

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county of
of New York, at the bui.ding for criminal courts in the Borough of Manhattan
ir said city, on Monday, the 15th day of December in the year of our Lord 1918:

Present: Hons. Cornelius F. Collins, George J. O'Keefe, John Fleming, justices
of the court of special sessions of the city of New York.

The People of the State of New York v. Swift & Co., corporation, on a charge
of violation of section 42, sanitary code.

Dated September 23, 1918.

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office
that Swift & Co., corporation, the above-named defendant, was convicted and
fined $800 by the court of special sessions of the city of New York on the
15th day of December, 1913.

A true extract from the minutes.

[SEAL. ] JoHN P. Hitty, Clerk of Court.

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county of
New York, at the building for criminal courts in the borough of Manhattan in
said city, on Monday, the 15th day of December, in the year of our Lord, 1913:

Present: Hons. Cornelius F. Collins, George J. O’Keefe, John Fleming, justices
of the court of special sessions of the city of New York.

The people of the State of New York v. Swift & Co., corporation, on a
charge of vioraton of section 42, sanitary code.

Dated September 23, 1918.

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office
that Sw ft & Co., corporation, the above-named defendant was convicted and
fined $300 by the court of special sessions of the city of New York, on the pegs
day of December, 1913.

A true extract ‘from the minutes.

[ SEAL. ] JOHN P. Hitty, Clerk of Court.

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county of
New York, at the building for criminal courts in the borough of Manhattan in
said city, on Monday, the 29th day of December, in the year of our Lord, 1913:

Present: Hons. James J. McInerney, Cornelius F. Collins, Lorenz Zeller, jus-
tices of the court of special sessions of the ec ty of New York.

The people of the State of New York v. Swift & Co, (Inc.), on a charge of
violation of section 42, sanitary code.

Dated September 23, 1918.

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office
that Swift & Co. (Ine.), the above-named defendant was convicted and fined
$100 by the court of special sessions of the city of New York, on the 29th day
of December, 1913.

A true extract from the minutes.

[ SEAL. ] JoHN P. Hitry, Clerk of Court.

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, ineld in the county of
New York, at the building for criminal courts in the borough of Manhattan in
said city, on Monday, the 19th day of January, in the year of our Lord, 1914:

Present: Hons. Moses Herrman, James J. McInerney, Lorenz Zeller, justices
of the court of special sessions of the city of New York.

The people of the State of New York v. Swift & Co., corporation, on a charge
of violation of section 42, sanitary code.

_ Dated September 23, 1918.

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office
that Swift & Co., corporation, the above-named defendant, was convicted and
fined $500 by the court of special sessions of the city of New York, on the 19th
day of January, 1914. ,

A true extract from the minutes.

[ SEAL. ] JOHN P. Hitry, Clerk of Court.

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county of
New York, at the building for criminal courts in the borough of Manhattan in
said city, on Monday, the 17th day of August, in the year of our Lord, 1914:

charge of violation section 42, sanitary code.

ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 143

Present: Hons. Cornelius F. Collins, George J. O’Keefe, James J. McInerney,
justices of the court of special sessions of the city of. New York.
The people of the State of New York v. Swift & Co., corporation, on a charge
of violation of section 42, sanitary code.
Dated September 23, 1918.

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office
that Swift & Co., corporation, the above-named defendant, was convicted and
fined $500 by the court of special sessions of the city of New York, on the 17th
day of August, 1914.

A true extract from the minutes.

[SEAL. ] JOHN P. Hitty, Clerk of Court.

At a court of special sessions of the City of New York, held in the county of
New York, at the building for criminal courts in the Borough of Manhattan in
said city, on Monday, the 2d day of November, in the year of our Lord 1914:

Present: Hons. Isaac Franklin Russell, Joseph F. Moss, Cornelius F. Collins,
justices of the court of special sessions of the city of New York.

The People of the State of New York v. Armour & Co., corporation, on a

Dated September 28, 1918.
-I do certify that it appears-from an examination of the records of this office
that Armour & Co., corporation, the above-named defendant, was convicted
and fined $300 by the court of special sessions of the city of New York, on the
2d day of November, 1914.

A true extract from the minutes.

[SEAL. ] ; 'JoHN P. Hitty, Clerk of Court.

At a court of special sessions of the City of New York, held in the county of
New York, at the building for criminal courts in the Borough of Manhattan in
said city, on Monday, the 11th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1915:

Present: Hons. Jsaac Franklin Russell, Joseph F. Moss, Moses Herrman,
justices of the court of special sessions of the city of New York.

The Peop’e of the State of New York v. Swift & Co., on a charge of violation
of section 3836 of the public-health law, cold storage.

Dated September 28, 1918.

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office
that Swirt & Co., the above-named defendant, was convicted and fined $500 by
the ccurt of special sessions of the city of New York on the 1ith day of Janu-
uary,. 1915. \

A true extract from the minutes.

[SEAL. ] JOHN P. Hitty, Clerk of Court.

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county of
New York, at the building for criminal courts in the Borough of Manhattan in
said city, on Monday, the 25th cay of January, in the year of our Lord, 1915:

Present: Hons. Isaac Franklin Russell, Cornelius F. Collins, Joseph EF’. Moss,
justices of the court of special sessions of the city of New York.

The People of the State of New York v. Swift & Co., on a charge of violation
of public-health law, cold storage.

Dated September 23, 1918.

I co certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office
that Swift & Co., the above-named defendant, was convicted, and judgment sus-
pended, by the court of special sessions of the city of New York, on the 25th
day of January, 1915.

A true extract from the minutes.

[SEAL. ] JOHN P. Hitty, Clerk of Court.

.At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county of
Nev: York, at the building for criminal courts in the Borough of Manhattan in
said ety, on Monday, the 25th day of January, in the year of our Lord, 1915:

Present: Hons. Isaac Franklin Russell, Cornelius F. Collins, Joseph ¥. Moss,
justices of the court of special sessions of the city of New York.

The People of the State of New York v. Swift & Co., on a charge of violation
of public-health law, ’cold storage.

, Dated September 23, 1918.

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office
that Swift & Co., the above-named defendant, was convicted and fined $500 by-

—

144 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. Be
€ >

the court of special sessions of the city of New York, on the 25th day of Janae Ne
1915 7

A true extract from the minutes.

[ SEAL. ] JOHN P. Hitty, Clerk of Court.

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county of
New York, at the building for criminal courts in the Borough of Manhattan in
said city, on the 15th day of March, in the year of our Lord 1915:

Present: Hons. Frederic Kernochan, James J. McInerney, John J. Freschi,
justices of the court of special sessions of the city of New York.

The People of the State of New York v. Armour & Co., on a charge of violation
of public-health law, cold storage.

Dated September 23, 1918.

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office
that Armour & Co., the above-named defendant, plead guilty and was fined $500
by the court of special sessions of the city of New York on the 15th day of
March, 1915.

A true extract from the minutes.

[ SEAL. ] JOHN P. Hitty, Clerk of Court.

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county of
New York, at the building for criminal courts in the Borough of Manhattan in
said city, on Monday, the 11th day of September, in the year of our Lord 1916:

Present: Hons. Edwin L. Garvin, Frederic Kernochan, Cornelius IF. Collins,
justices of the court of special sessions of the city of New York.

The People of the State of New York v. Swift & Co. (Inc.), on a charge of
violation section 163, sanitary code.

Dated September 23, 1918.

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office
that Swift & Co. (Inc.), the above-named defendant, was convicted and fined
$100 by the court of special sessions of the city of New York on the 11th day of
September, 1916.

A true extract from the minutes.
[SEAL.] JoHN P. Hitiy, Clerk of Court.

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county
of New York, at the building for criminal courts in the Borough of Manhattan
in said city, on Monday, the 11th day of September, in the year of our Lord
1916:

Present: Hons. Edwin L. Garvin, Frederic Kernochan, Cornelius TF, Collins,
justices of the court of special sessions of the city of New York.

The People of the State of New York v. Swift & Co. (Inc.), on a charge of
violation of section 163, sanitary code.

Dated September 23, 1918.

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office
that Swift & Co. (Inc.), the above-named defendant, pleaded guilty, and was
fined $100 by the court of special sessions of the city of New York on the 11th
day of September, 1916.

A true extract from the minutes.
[ SEAL. } JOHN P. Hitiy, Clerk of Court.

At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county
of New York, at the building for criminal courts in the Borough of Manhattan
in said city, on Friday, the 22d of January, in the year of our Lord 1915:

Present: Hons. Arthur C. Salmon, James J. McInerney, Moses Herrman,
justices of the court of special sessions of the city of New York.

The People of the State of New York v. Swift & Co., corporation, on a charge
of violation section 42, sanitary code.

Dated September 23, 1918.

I do certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office
that Swift & Co., corporation, the above-named defendant, was convicted and
fined $500 by the court of special sessions of the city of New York on the 22d day
of January, 1918. \

A true extract from the minutes.

[ SEAL. ] JoHN P. Hitty, Clerk of Court.
(Thereupon, at 5 o’clock, the Conference Committee adjourned.)
x

a,

Pe at
és

, . % in os

San
{

os
‘i

i

pt
ae, i

p

ot
On
i, ta

Rate ae) iG?
Vp ae | CS era ek Lin Pig Was
ay i BN ; fay fy Ne \, if _ Wy ‘tf i
af wor. vy a ve

(.%
aa i 4 af ,

LIBRARY OF CONGRES:

HNN

OOO0S8944b4?