Book_lLb___ 
 
 nii 
 
 d- 
 
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 
 
 I*riii(e(l for the use of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry 
 
 '^ 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 r.OVERNMENT TRINTING OFFICE 
 
 1918 
 

 COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY. 
 THOMAS P. GORE, Oklahoma, Chairman. 
 
 GEORGE E. CHAMBERLAIN, Oregon. 
 ELLISON D. SMITH, South Carolina. 
 HOKE SMITH, Georgia. 
 MORRIS SHErPARD, Texas. 
 JOSEPH E. RANSDELL, Louisiana. 
 WILLIAM H. THOMPSON. Kansas. 
 EDWIN S. JOHNSON, South Dakota. 
 JOHN B. KENDRICK, Wyoming. 
 
 H. M. Kay, OlerJt. 
 2 
 
 FRANCIS E. WARREN, Wyoming. 
 
 CARROLL S. PAGE, Vermont. 
 
 ASLE J. GRONNA. Noyth Dakota. 
 
 GEORGE W. NORRIS, Nebraska. 
 
 WILLIAM S. KENYON, Iowa. 
 
 JAMES W. WADSWORTH. Jr., New York. 
 
 JOSEPH I. FRANCE Maryland. 
 
 0. 01 ... 
 JAN 30 2920 
 

 ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1919. 
 
 United States Senate and Hotdse of Representatives, 
 
 Committees of Conference of the 
 Committees on Agriculture and Forestry, 
 
 Washington^ D. C. 
 
 The committee of conference on the disagreeing Aotes of the two 
 Houses on the amendments to the bill, IT. E. 11945, met in the 
 committee room of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and 
 Forestry at 10.30 o'clock a. m.. Senator Thom.as P. Gore presiding. 
 
 Present of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestiy: 
 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 Chairman. 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 shipnient 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 ojDposed 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 
 npatter, to assist us somewhat in the conduct of the proceedings, 
 
 Mr. Abbott, whom do you desire to have heard first ? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. Do you wish. Senator, to hear the opponents first, 
 or the proponents ? 
 
 The Chairman. 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 
 
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, corncobs (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 
 shipn ent of concentrated commercial feeding stuffs containing a mixture of 
 foreign material vv-hich. 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 stuff's 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 siich 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 
 not 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 aud 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 CO., CHICAGO, ILL. 
 
 The Chairman. 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. Abbott. Harold A. Abbrtt, 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 Chairman. That is the idea. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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 
 42 of the several States, rather comprehensively covering the subject 
 of feed regulation, and that we not only comply with these laws 
 willingly but also gladly, inasmuch as they in general accomplish the 
 very purpose which the Senator had in his mind m 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 prohibited 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 naturally 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'ficallv the percent- 
 age of each ingredient entering into the composition of the snme; or 
 if such feedstuffs are shipped in bulk in carload lots, then the bill 
 of lading and tlie 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 Chairmax. I would like to interject right there that I think 
 that clause ought to be changed. It requires I he 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 nuixinnnn, or a minimum and maximum within 
 which the statement should be true. I realize that is too rigid the 
 wav it is drawn, and there ought to be some flexibilitv provided. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. It is primary, of course, that a mixed feed is a prod- 
 uct made up of two or more separate and distinct 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 Chairman. 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. Abbott. I understand. Senator. 
 
 After mixing, it is a well-knoAvn 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 viewpoint 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 Agriculture may issue 
 a permit for the interstate shipment of any mixed 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 Ave urge this feature upon 
 your careful consideration, for if the Secretary views the feeding 
 Aalue 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, Ave do not knoAV what vieAv he 
 can possibly take. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 
 Avere 3 tons of water in the carload. He paid $GQ for that water. 
 That is one of the evils that this amendment is directed against. I 
 do not think the AAater would have any feeding value; certainly it 
 Avould not be Avorth $180 for the 3 tons. ^ 
 
 Mr. Abbott. I quite agree with you there. 
 
 The Chairmak. You see what I am getting at. We want all the 
 help Ave can get to get at the evil and do not Avant to do anybody any 
 harm that is in a legitimate business. I should be glad to have your 
 assistance along that line, because Ave want to protect legitimate and 
 honest business. 
 
 Mr. Abi50tt. So that there again the licensing power will find itself 
 in the position of denying license to all or granting license to all, 
 Avhich, again, Ave 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 Avorthless feeds are to go under the ban. 
 
 Thirdly, in the event that the Secretary of Agriculture 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 
 receiA^'er 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 
 
ADULTEEATION 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 analj^sis. 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 
 hj 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 32 to 38 
 per cent in protein, that his linseed meal varies from 31 to 36 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 analj^zed 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. 
 For again may we call your attention to the fact that practically 
 ever3^one 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 Avilling 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 Chairman. 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 corncobs, cocoa 
 shells, and ivory-nut turnings, whatever they are, ought to be mixed 
 with these concentrated feeds and sold to the farmers? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. We quite agree with you, Senator, that such things 
 as sawdust and dirt are very undesirable. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 jet 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. Abbott. The American Feed Manufacturers' Association. 
 
 The Chairman. How old an organization is that? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. Ten years old. 
 
 The Chairman. How many members has it? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. Approximately 175. 
 
 The Chairman. Did you send out a number of telegrams, Mr. 
 Abbott, to have telegrams sent in concerning this amendment? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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 Chairman. Will you be kind enough to attach to your state- 
 ment a sample copy of your telegram to these organizations? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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 iVeJing stuffs containing 
 mill, elevator, or other sweepings or dust, buckwheat, cottonseed, oats, or other 
 hulls, clippings, screenings, chal'f, 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 S }nate to-day, and House 
 Saturday morning. This infamous measure will practlcnlly prohibit the ship- 
 ment ' of' every commercial mixed feed. Wire your Senators and Congressmen 
 immediately to stop this bill. 
 
 The Chairman. Who is the secretary of your organization, Mr. 
 Abbott ? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. Mr. L. F. Brown, with headquarters at Milwaukee. 
 
 The Chairman. How long has he been with you ? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. About five years, I think, if my memory serves me. 
 
 The Chairman. Have his services been satisfactory? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. Very. 
 
 The Chairman. What was his official position before he became 
 secretaiT of this Feed Manufacturers Association? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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 Chairman. And had to do with the law prohibiting adulter- 
 ated foods? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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. Abbott. The State Department of Aginculture of New York. 
 
 The Chairjian. You are not aware then that Mr. Brown, prior 
 to his connection with your 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. Abbott. 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 authority he had in that department I am not prepared 
 to say. 
 
 The Chairman. 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. Abbott. 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. 
 
 The Chairman. Will you attach a copy of that bill to your state- 
 ment? 
 
10 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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 tbe 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 nlso chairmnn of the 
 executive committee of the Association of Feed Control Oflicials 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 connnlttee 
 of the Millers' National Federation; Julien E. Erode, Memphis, Tenn., repre- 
 senting the Interstate Cottonseed Crushers' Association ; G. A. Chaj)man, 
 Quaker Oats Co., Chicago. 111., 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. Erode, representing the Interstate Cottonseed 
 Crushers' A.ssociation, gave unanimous indorsement to the bill there is little 
 doubt but what it will have the most careful attention of the Interstate Com- 
 merce Connnittee of the United States Senate. 
 
 • 
 AN ACT For preventing the manufactui-e, sale, or transportation of adulterated or mls- 
 ' 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 nnsbranded 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, l)e 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 Territorv or the I")istrict of Columbia, or 
 from any foreign country, or shipment to ariy foreign country, of any com- 
 mercial feedin'jc stuffs whir-h is adulterated or mjsbranded withiii the meaning 
 of this act is hereby prohibited: and any person who shall ship or deliver for 
 shipment froiu 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 Colmnbia 
 from any other State or Tei-ritory 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. 11 
 
 foreign purchaser, when no substance is used in the preparation or packing 
 thereof in conflict with the laws of tlie 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, ihtn 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 collection 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 shi]nnent 
 to any foreign country, or which may be submitted for examination by the 
 chief feed control ofiicial 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 connuerce, or for export or. import between 
 the United States and any foreign port or country. 
 
 Sec. 4. That the e:^amination of specimens of commercial feeding stuffs shall 
 be made in the Bureau of Chemistry of the Department of 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 disti-ict attorney to whom the Secre- 
 tary of Agriculture shall report any violation of this act. or to whOi'n any 
 director of experiment station or chief feed-control official of any State, Terri- 
 tory, or. the District of Columbia shall pref^cnt satisfactory evidences of any 
 such violation, to cause appropriate proceedings to be commenced and prose- 
 cuted in the proper courts of the United States, wiflmut delay, for the euforce- 
 ment of the penalties as in such cases herein provided. 
 
 Sec. 6. That the term " commercial feeding stuffs " as used in this act shall 
 include all feeding stuffs used for feeding live stock and jioultry. 
 
 Sec. 7. That for the inirposes of this act a commercial feeding stuffs shall be 
 deemed to be adulterated : 
 
 First. If its strength, comnosition, 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 strenirth. 
 
 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 injurious 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 be 
 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 
 
12 ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 regarding the physiological or therapeutic action of such article or ingredients 
 or substances contained therein, which statement, design, or device sliall 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 liber, 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 tlae 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: Providcil, hotc- 
 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 mnterials. 
 
 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, manufac- 
 turer, or other party residing in the United States, from whom he i)\irchased 
 such article, to the effect tliat the same is not adulterated or misbranded within 
 the meaning of this act, designating it. Said guaranty, to afford iiroteetion, 
 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 pos.session to another for sale, or, having 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 being adulterated or misbranded, within the meaning of this act. 
 the same shall be dispo.sed 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 
 .iurisdiction contrary to the provisions of this act or the laws of that .iurisdic- 
 t\on -.Provided, horvevcr, 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 ]>roceedings of such libel cases shall conform, as near as may be. to the 
 proceedings iu 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 ma.v appear before the 
 Secretary of Agriculture and have the right to introduce "testimony ; and if it 
 appear from the exiunination 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 
 
ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 13 
 
 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 tiie country, or for any other purposes, said consignee 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. i2. 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 include corporations, companies, 
 societies, and associations. When construing and enforcing the provisicms of 
 this act, the act, omission, 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 oflice, shall in every rase 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. 13. That this act shall be in force and effect from and after the 
 day of 
 
 The Chairman. 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. Abbott. I can not tell you. I was not as intimately associ- 
 ated with our association at that time as I am to-day. 
 
 Senator Smith 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 is contemplated in this amend- 
 ment? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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 Smith 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. Abbott. 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 Smith 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. Abbott. 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 Smith of South Carolina. I am not familiar Avith 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. Abbott. 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 the 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. Abbott. It does cover all deleterious substances. 
 
 Representative Lever. Does it cover the proposition of sawdust, 
 for instance? Is that deleterious? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. In my judgment, I should consider that it is, when 
 mixed. 
 
 Senator Smith of Georgia. There is not any doubt about it. Cer- 
 tainly sawdust is not a good food for animals. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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 Smith of Georgia. But it does not help them to nibble on 
 their stalls, does it? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. Understand, Senator, I am not trying to uphold any 
 such item as that. 
 
 Senator Smith 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. Abbott. No. sir. 
 
 Representative Lever. Senator Gore brings to the attention of the 
 committee here a proposition — what was that statement ? 
 
 The Chairman. 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. Abbott. 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. Abbott. That moisture content runs from 11 to 15 or IG per 
 cent in what you would ordinarily term a dry and desirable feed- 
 stutf. 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. 
 
ADULTEKATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 15 
 
 That was discounted, hoAvever, and the price of corn undoubtedly 
 was fixed to comply with that condition. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. Mr. Haugen, there is a Federal statute 
 which fixes the moisture content of butter, is there not? 
 
 Eepresentative Haugen. 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. Abbott. 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. Abbott. The I'equirements 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 a commercial standard fixing the 
 moisture content? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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 us here. Would that be possible as a general custom in the 
 trade ? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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. Abbott. 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 15| 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. 3, 
 must not contain more than 17^ 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. Abbott. 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. Abbott. Northern No. 1 would be included in the hard spring 
 variety. . 
 
16 • ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 Mr. Ward. 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. Abbott. These are the inspection regulations of the Depart- 
 ment of Agriculture as they refer to the grading of grain in the 
 terminal markets. 
 
 Representative Lever. What is the ordinary moisture content of 
 cottonseed meal? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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 Chairman. I could not say as to that. 
 
 Senator Smith of Georgia. What was the character of the ma- 
 terial? 
 
 The Chairman. It just said " mixed feed," Senator. 
 
 Senator Smith of Georgia. What percentage of water was there 
 in it in the case you refer to? 
 
 Mr. Ward. 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 13 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 ife. 
 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 Smith of Georgia. To determine whether the water was 
 intentionally added? 
 
 Mr. Ward. Yes. 
 
 Representative Lever. What is the moisture content of corn meal? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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. 17 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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. I 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. Abbott. Yes. sir. As far as I know, it is not being done; it 
 is not a common ])ra< tice. 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 Chairman. 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. Abbott. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 ? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. As a rule they have tests made. 
 
 The Chairman. I am not speaking of that ; I mean he knows how 
 much he is paying for? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. He knows the limit of moisture. 
 
 The Chairman. 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. Abbott. I do, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there any reason why the farmer should not 
 have the same protection in regard to mixed feeds? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. No, sir; provicled it is arrived at by a reasonable 
 limitation which is workable. 
 
 Representative Lever. Do buckwheat hulls have any feeding value, 
 Mr. Abbott? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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, etc., when mix- 
 ins: feeds? We all know that practice is carried on. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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 Chairman. 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 proliibit 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 Kellogg. 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 Chairman. We shall be glad to have you file them with the 
 committee. 
 
 Senator Kellogg. I was also requested to make a statement to 
 this effect. Of course, I am familiar Avith 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 anybodj^ 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 Ciiairjian. Yes: there is a great deal of force in that, Sen- 
 ator, and it ought to be taken care of. 
 
 Senator Kellogg. 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 Reed. 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 a 
 poor time to be refusing to use for animal food materials which in 
 
ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 19 
 
 some other countries tliej^ 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 groAvn 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 w-ere quite as good 
 as they are now, the wheat had mixed Avith 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, Jbecause 
 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 ]:)erfectly safe to say that on the average 
 33 per cent of the timothy hay ancl clover in this country is more oi 
 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 he 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 perfectl}^ 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 I think, after a reading of this bill, that 
 it needs some very careful revamping. In fact, I 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. 
 
 Eepresentative Haugen. 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 I\ei;d. Well, I have just read this part of it carefully. 
 You may have put some discretion in the Secretary of Agriculture. 
 
 The Chairman. I would like to say that in my judgment screen- 
 ings ought to be excepted from this provision. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Mr. Chairman, there are undesirable 
 screenings ; there is no question about that. 
 
 The Chairman. Just one moment. Here is the point I want to get 
 at, though : There is a very wides])read misapprehension as to what 
 this amendment proposes to do. This doe-; not propose to prohibit 
 the interstate shipment of damaged grains or timothy hay or cotton- 
 seed hulls. But those things are rougliage, they are not concentrated 
 feedstuffs. and they ought not to be covered up with l)lack-strap mo- 
 lasses and palmed off on the farmer as concentrated feedstuffs. That 
 is what this amendment undertakes to prohibit. Sell Avhat 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 Reed. Is that what the bill says? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes, sir; that is what it says. 
 
 Senator Reed (reading) : 
 
 Tliat it shall be unlawful, except as herein otherwise provifled, for any per- 
 son, tinn, or corporation knowinjrly to ship, ofl'cr tor shipment, or transport in 
 commerce anionic the several Stites or for commerce with foreij^n coimtries any 
 concentrated CDnimercial feedina; stuffs containing? any damasrcd feed, mill, ele- 
 vator, or other sweepings or dust — 
 
 Containing any of that. 
 
 The Chairman. Yes; sold as concentrated feedstuff's; not sohl as 
 timothy hay or cotton hulls. 
 
 Senator Reed. All right. I was using timothy hay merely to illus- 
 trate; I was not using it as being completely within the bill. [Ri-ad- 
 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 im- 
 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 Chairman. There is no doubt of that 
 
 Senator Reed. I have bought them as such and fed them as such. 
 [Reading:] 
 
 Corncobs ground, cocoa shells, clipped oat by-product, ground or ungmund 
 hulls, screenings, chalT, or other cleanings derived from the preparation, clean- 
 
ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 21 
 
 ing, or milling of any seed or grain wlien 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 is 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 stuffy; 
 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 alloAv 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, 
 Tbut whatever it is it ought not to be lost at a time like this. 
 (Eeading:) 
 
 Prov-idcd. 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 Kellogg. Will the chairman allow me to add one thing? 
 
 The Chairman. Certainly. 
 
 Senator Kellogg. 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 Chairman. I Avould like 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. SHAFKOTH, A UNITED STATES 
 SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO. 
 
 Senator Shafroth. 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 
 
22 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 
 Avhich 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 
 gro\\'n 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. I have great confi- 
 dence in the chairman of this committee, and I 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 j^our 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 nicl 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 let it go over until the 
 next general appropriation bill this winter. 
 
 Senator Smith 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 
 ithe trade, if any, between what you are denominating here concen- 
 trated feeds and the ordinary feeds that are sold 'i 
 
 The Chairman. 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 wliich have a very high feeding value but are not concen- 
 trated feeds. 
 
 Senator Smith 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 Avhat a'ou mean? 
 
ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 23 
 
 The Chairman. 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. Abbott. May I interject a suggestion at this time? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes, sir; go ahead. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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 Chairman. 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 CifAiRMAN. How long have you been connected with the de- 
 partment. Dr. Haywood? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. Twenty-two years. 
 
 The Chairman. Doctor, you may go ahead and state whatever 
 occui's to you in connection with this amendment. You might first 
 discuss concentrated feeding stuffs. 
 
 Senator Smith 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. Haywood. Senator Smith, there is one trouble with this 
 amendment according to my view, and that is ^hat there is no fixed 
 definition for a concentrated commercial feeding stuff. The term 
 "concentrated commercial feeding stuff" has a different definition 
 in nearly 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 Smith 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 luatter whether it is alfalfa, corn, or wheat, 
 or a combination of all of them? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. Yes, sir; they use many things that have a high 
 protein content in making these commercial concentrated feeding 
 stuffs, and thej are recognized as concentrated commercial feeding 
 stuffs by the laAvs of the different States. 
 
 The Chairman. In that you would not include sawdust, would 
 you, doctor? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. No. sir; that has no feeding value. 
 
 The Chairman. What are ivory-nut turnings? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. 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 Chairman. Then would 3'ou regard it as a concentrated feed? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. I would not call it a concentrated feed bj^ itself; 
 no, sir. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Has it any food value whatever? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. It certainly has, sir. The Department of Agricul- 
 ture has published a bulletin on that. 
 
 Representative IIaugex. Hoav about the buckwheat hulls? Let us 
 take them in the order they occur in the amendment. 
 
 Dr. Haysvood. Buckwheat hulls have some feeding value. 
 
 Representative Haugen. How much? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. Small ; I can not tell you how much. 
 
 Representative Haugen. How about cottonseed hulls? 
 
 Dr. Hayavood. They have some feeding value. 
 
 Representative Haugen. How much? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. Small; probably 4 to 5 per cent of protein. 
 
 Representative Haugen. How do they compare with corn or oats, 
 for example ? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. A good deal less; I can not give you the exact 
 figures. 
 
 Representative Haugen. How about peanut hulls? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. 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 Haugen. Can you give it in percentage in com- 
 parison with other feeds? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. Perhaps I can find it. 
 
 The Chairman. What is the difference between peanut hulls and 
 peanut shells? 
 
 Dr. Hayavood. The peanut shell is the outside white part of the 
 peanut that is taken off. The peanut hull is that little red part that 
 is around the nut itself. 
 
 Representative Haugen. How about rice hulls? 
 
 Dr. Hayavood. They liaA^e practically no feeding value. 
 
 Representative Haugen. And oat hulls ? 
 
 Dr. Hayavood. Thej^ have some feeding value, but Ioav. 
 
 RepresentatiA'e Haugen. Can. you giA^e it in percentage? 
 
 Dr. Hayavood. I would say they contain in the neighborhood of 
 from 4 to 5 per cent protein. 
 
 RepresentatiA^e Haugen. And how about corncobs? 
 
 Dr. Hayavood. Corncobs have a low feeding value; I would 
 say jDrobably — I am guessing now — about 3 to 4 per cent protein. 
 It is low. 
 
 Representative Haugen. "Well, is it worth paying the freight ? 
 
 Dr. Hayavood. I do not know whether it is or not; it should not 
 be thrown away. 
 
 Representative Haugen. It should not be thrown away ; of course 
 not; but is it Avorth manufacturing? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. I think so. 
 
 RepresentatiA'e Haugen. It is worth the price of manufacture? 
 
 Dr. Hayavood. I think it is. 
 
 Representative Haugen. And paying the freight? 
 
 Mr. Ward. If you sell it in these foods, it is well worth it. 
 
 Representative Haugen. How about cocoa shells? 
 
ADULTEEATION" OF MIXED FEEDS. 25 
 
 Dr. Hayavood. They have quite a little food value. 
 
 The Chairman. What are they? 
 
 Dr. Hayavood. 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 Haugen. Will you put in the record the percentage 
 and give us some comparisons? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. Yes, sir. 
 
 Representative Haugen. How about the screenings? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. Some screenings have a high feeding value? 
 
 Representative Haugen. And others have not? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. Some have a low feeding value. 
 
 Representative Haugen. And some have very little or none? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. I do not know of any that have none ; but some are 
 quite low. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Some of them are very undesirable as 
 feed, or otherwise? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. I should say that some should not be used as feed. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Screenings containing quack grass seed, 
 for instance? 
 
 Dr. Hay^vood. 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 Haugen. 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. Haywood. 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 m 
 most of the mills, there is little danger of that. 
 
 Representative Haugen. 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. Haywood. 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 Haugen. I have been combatting the quack grass 
 and Canadian thistle, and I have no use for them. 
 
 Dr. Hay^vood. I am with you there. 
 
 Representative Haugen. 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. Haywood. 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 Haugen. 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. Haywood. Personally I do not think it does. 
 Representative Lee. How about the feeding value of black mo- 
 lasses? Some reference has been made to it. 
 
 Dr. Haywood. 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. Ward. You have now ruled it out, have you ? 
 Dr. Hay^vood. 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 Chairman. Could you furnish a list of those things in con- 
 nection with your statement? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. I shall be very glad to do that. 
 Representative Haugen. To what extent has the Federal law re- 
 ferred to here been enforced? 
 
 Dr. Hayavood. The Federal law is being vigorously enforced 
 
 Representative Haugen. I mean in reference to feeds. 
 Dr. Haywood, 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 misbrandect 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 Chairman. Do you know Mr. Brown, the secretary of the 
 Manufacturers' Association ? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. Yes ; I have known him for many years. 
 The Chairman. Do you know he was formerly connected with the 
 New York State department of agriculture? 
 Dr. PIayavood. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. And had to do with the division that dealt with 
 the fraudulent practices? 
 Dr. Haywood. Yes. sir. 
 
 The Ch-airman. Did he not suppress a good deal of that while 
 he was in that office? 
 Dr. Haywood. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. I did not mean that he suppressed the use of it; 
 but did he not suppress the analysis of the samples and cover up 
 those practices so as to protect those people? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. No, sir. I never heard of him doing any such 
 thing, and I vroulcl not have believed it if I had. 
 
 The Chairman. 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. Haywood. No, sir; I do not. 
 
 Representative Haugen. To what extent does the department 
 regulate the manufacture and sale of feeds at the present time? 
 What is required of the manufacturers? Are they required to label 
 them? 
 
ADULTEEATIOK OF MIXED FEEDS. 27 
 
 Dr. Haymood. 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 St^te 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 analj^sis and of the in- 
 gredients. 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 Haugen. What State law3 require an analysis in 
 the statement? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. I should say between 30 and 40 ; it is nearer 40. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Is there any objection to that? 
 
 Representative Cakdler. Somebody has suggested that the number 
 is 42. 
 
 Dr. Hay^vood. Yes ; I believe it is in the neighborhood of 42. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. Our records show that it is 42. 
 
 Mr. Ward. 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 Chairman. I should like to suggest to those present that if 
 they Avill wait until the members of the conference connnittee inter- 
 rogate the witness, it will be in the interest of order. 
 
 Senator Kexyox. I thought of asking that same question that the 
 gentleman has just propounded: Satisfactory to whom? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. 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 as a 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 control feeds 
 quite acceptably, but not entirely satisfactorily ; there are some things 
 that still ought to be controlled that we can not control. 
 
28 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 Representative Lever. What, for instance? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. 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. Haywood. 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. Haysvood. Tn 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 Haugen. 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. Haywood. 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. Haywood. Yes; we can. 
 
 Representative Lever. And vou can rule out sand under the present 
 law? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. Yes, sir. 
 
 Representative Lever. You can rule out anything that is dele- 
 terious to health? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. Anything that is deleterious to health. 
 
 Representative Lever. Or that has no feeding value? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. 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 Haugen. Are you certain as to the ruling out of 
 sawdust, or anything that has no feeding value? Does the law 
 l)rovide for that? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. I feel pretty certain of that. 
 
 Representative Lever. Let me ask you this : Have you ever done it? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. There has only been one case that I ever ran across 
 m my life where there was any sawdust. 
 
 Representative Lever. And you ran that out of business? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. 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 Avith the food and dru^s act? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. 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. 
 
ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 29 
 
 JReprtseiitative 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. Haywood. 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 Smith of Georgia. And the proportion of eath? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. 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, 
 
 Kepresentative Lever. Would you fix a moisture content? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. 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. Haywood. 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. Haywood (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. Haywood. 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 LevI:r. Would it be practicable to work out ma- 
 chinery by Avhich 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, etc.? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. The name and percentage of each ingredient? 
 
 Representative Lever. Yes ; and, of course, it would have to go on 
 tlje bill of lading? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. 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. Haywood. I would require him to give the percentage of 
 protein, the fat, and the crude fiber. Those are the three main 
 things. 
 
 Representative Lever. Would you require him to give the per- 
 centages of those? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. 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 Mill say, of screenings. The next day his screenings being higher, 
 he does not have to use so much cottonseed meal. 
 
 Therefore, a manufacturer would constantly have to varj' 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, 
 " I 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 Chairman. 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 Chairman. Yes. Are there any other Members of the House, 
 or of this committee, who desire to ask Dr. Haywood any questions 
 now? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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 Chairman. 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. Ward. 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. HayW'OOd. I have not made any study of the actual amount of 
 water, but this is w^hat 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. Ward. As a feed. Now, are you familiar with the effect of 
 sulphur treatment on the protein? 
 
 Dr. Hayavood. No, sir; I can not say that I am. 
 
 Mr. Ward. I understand that your department has put out a bul- 
 letin that that sulphuric seep water is unavailable in the grain as a 
 
ADULTERATION OP MIXED FEEDS. 31 
 
 tissue-feeding factor ; that is, that it has not any food value, although 
 it has a high protein content? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. I could not answer that question. 
 
 Mr. Ward. 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. Haywood. 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. Ward. The natural effect of the sulphur on the protein would 
 be to destroj^ the food value of the protein, would it not? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. I could not sav that is true; no. sir. 
 
 Mr. Ward. That is all. 
 
 The Chairman. I 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. Haywood. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, you have to rule these things out, do you 
 not? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. No. sir; we do not have to rile 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 Chairman. Then you go to court with the case? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. How long since you have been to court with one 
 of these cases? 
 
 Dr. Hayavood. With any of these feed cases? 
 
 The Chair:man. Yes. 
 
 Dr. Haywood. Personally, I have not been in court for several 
 years, but men under me, other men in the Bureau of Chemistry, I 
 suppose I could say that they are constantly going into court. 
 
 The Chairman. Could you furnish the commitree a lis!" of some of 
 the suits brought in the last four or five years? 
 
 Dr. Hayavood. Yes. sir. 
 
 The Chairman. I wish you Avould do so. 
 
 (The list referred to was subsequently submitted by Dr. HayAVood, 
 and is here printed in full, as follows:) 
 
 The Chairman. 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. Hayaa'OOd. Will you pleiise read exactly Avhat I said — because 
 it has been a long time since I said that? 
 
 The Chairman. 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. 
 
32 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 Dr. Haywood. I never made such a remark r,s that. I have said 
 before the Feed Manufacturers Association that the cooperation that 
 was taking place between the feed manufactur')rs 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 Chairjuax. When you said awhile ago that the law was ac- 
 ceptable, did you mean acceptable to the feed m:uiufacturers? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. No; it is the feed-control officials that I am talking 
 about. I do not know what the feed-control manufacturers feel. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 Agricultui*e, sitting with 
 ttie feed manufacturers, moved the adoption of the phrase " Corn gluten feed " 
 to cover the stuff Ivuown as " cornstarch by-products witli corn bran," urging 
 that the word " refuse " be dropped in describing the chaff, empty liulls, im- 
 mature oats, and dust. 
 
 Dr. Hay^vood. I would like to look at that article. 
 
 Senator Kenyox. Was this a speech that you made at a banquet? 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Dr. Haywood. I know that those speeches are not always quoted 
 correctly. 
 
 The Chairmax. 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 Caxdler. That seems to be a motion submitted by 
 
 Dr. Hayavood (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 Chairman. Better than " refuse " ? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. 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. Ward. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one more question ? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes; certainly. 
 
 Mr. Ward. I show jou 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. Haywood. Well, corn gluten feed 
 
 Mr. Ward (interposing). Just answer this question: Is that term 
 " corn gluten feed " the same term referred to at thib meeting in 
 your resolution — that that definition be used in the place of " refuse" 
 and "offal"? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. I think it is. 
 
 Mr. Ward. And consisted of oat hulls, corn hulls, and such other 
 articles as that resolution named ? 
 
 Dr. Haywood. And corn proteids — which give it quite a high 
 feeding value. Corn gluten consists of corn hulls, some cornstarch, 
 corn proteids, and usually solubles. 
 
ADULTEEATIOlSr OF MIXED FEEDS. 3,3 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. May I inquire who the gentleman is who 
 asked the last question ? 
 
 The Chairman. 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 Chairman. Well, of course, the Senate has passed this amend- 
 ment. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. Yes ; it has passed the Senate. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 Chairman. 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 Chairman. 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 Chairman. 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 Haugen. We have heard the other side. 
 
 Representative Lever. Yes; we have been hearing the other side. 
 Would you not like to hear those who favor the amendment? 
 
 Representative Haugen. 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. 
 
 81413—18 3 
 
84 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 ''The Chairman. Yes; I think so; I shall be very gl0!^p^iK^c(m^ 
 moclate them as far as we can. , ■'. ' !'-. j.,, ^' 
 
 Representative Lever. What do you think, Mr. Candler f ^' ' 
 Representative Candler. It seems to me that we are proceeding 
 backward. When we hear the reasons for the amendment we ^aii 
 better hear the objections to it. '*'■ /''.',, 
 
 Representative Lever. I agree with you as to that. ' ' i"'''^ 
 
 Representative Haugen. Is it not possible for the representa- 
 tives of the tAvo sides to reach ah agreement asioliqW 'they shall 
 proceed? \, \ ''V / ' '' *" ■'''^^'^-^j;;-^ ' ' 
 
 The Chairman. We will tkke ^(feesl'lihtil 2.30 o'cloclt tliis after- 
 noon. :,.-.■'' '^ ^'z' ■ :'■ • ^ -^ .'.I 
 
 (Thereupon, at 12.35 p. m., the conference committee took a recess 
 until 2.30 o'clock p. m.) ,. 
 
 -. rifiv^ y'.)r, AFTER R^qES^tij oy ,w,, :,:, ,,.,,, .,.-.,.. 
 
 rjiio') I'.s .'jfdia.riocf uoi-;jj!')i(0') J-;')c{ oHi ii; ^rf ivid o) ^a'vni Uj; 
 
 The conference committee reassembled at 2.30 o'clock p. m., pur- 
 suant to a recess taken. 
 
 The Chairinean. Mr. Miller, is the party whom you wish to have 
 .heard present ? " , , 
 
 Representative Miller. Yes, sir; Mr. Jenks is present, but I think 
 it would be well if Mr. Abbott was allowed to continue. 
 
 The Chairman. I thought he had finished. Mr. Abbott, did you 
 wish to say anything further? .,.,,; ,,^i.. ./ 
 
 .' lii.i :<i'i'{ I'.ilf) 'to 080q 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. HAROLD A. ABBOTT— r^l^sumed. ^ "V 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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 like 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 Chairman. Well, of course, we will have somebody represen,^: 
 ing the dairymen testify before the committee. f, ,,( 
 
 Mr. Abbott. These gentlemen are not connected with us in,i^ny 
 respect whatever. - ')vr.1x{tn989iq'j>I 
 
 The Chairman. Yes ; I understand. i->.; r..,,, ,-.,.r,..:..> 
 
 j Mr. Abbott. But I think their statement would be interesting. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 pile up on a 
 certain point. Your statement, for Instance, lexhausted certain, 
 points this morning; there is no use to keep on discussing those 
 points, for example. I wish you gentlemen would bear that in mind, 
 and we will try to speed the hearing up. I hope the gentlemen will 
 limit their remarks to a few minutes each. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. I dare say the gentlemen in question have all heard 
 your comments on this matter, Mr. Chairman, and wiU.undpubtedly 
 
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 prioposition involved here is, from the 
 other side of it. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 Miller. Then, if there is no objection, Mr. Jenks 
 might be heard briefly, and then the other parties can present their 
 statements. 
 
 The Chairman. We will be very glad to hear Mr. Jenks now. 
 
 Representative Miller. All right. Mr. Jenks, will you make 
 your statement? ■ ; : , i 
 
 The Chairman. Will you state your name, residence, ,an.d business 
 connections ? .^i?. .^^ Y .821 /taT, .'il ' 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. M. L. JENKS, PRESIDENT DULUTH BOARD OF 
 TRADE, DTJLTJTH, MINN. ^^^,,i^ . 
 
 Mr. Jenks. My name is M. L. Jenks, of Duliitli, 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 facili- 
 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 stock food manufacturers. 
 
 I do not know that there is anything more that I want to say, Mr. 
 Chairman. ' 
 
 Representative Miller. Mr. Chairman, it may be somewhat in- 
 formal, but is there any objection to my asking Mr. Jenks a few 
 questions? , , 
 
 ^ - The Chairman. No. ^ \ 'C-d\^}\v'^ uu 1.; 'ir''v;'l:u!l M '■■ 
 
 Representative Miller. I think it would "fee a^visalile if you would 
 state to the committee, Mr. Jenks, the exact business your coijcern is 
 carrying 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 Northwest. , , , 
 
 Mr. Jenks. My concern is re]:)resented in diffei;eii^ j^arfets- — Kan- 
 sas City, Omaha, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, t)iiluth, New 
 
33 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. 
 
 Eepresentative Miller. As I understand from ^^ou, 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. Jenks. 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 Miller. Does that apply to all of that material 
 called screenings? 
 
 Mr. Jenks. Yes, sir. 
 
 Representative Miller. Have you any market for those screenings 
 aside from the feed manufacturers? 
 
 Mr. Jenks. And stock feeders. 
 
 Representative Miller. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 Chairman. 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. Jenks. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 
 Avould be confined entirely to the stock feeders, and would not apply 
 to the stock feed manufacturers. 
 
 The Chairman. 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. Jenks. I think so. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you not think we ought to divide the good from 
 the bad and work it out on that basis. 
 
 Mr. Jenks. That would be satisfactory to us. 
 
 The Chairman. That is all. 
 
 Mr. Ward. At what prices do you sell these screenings to feed 
 manufacturers ? 
 
 Mr. Jenks. It depends entirely on the market;. at different times 
 there are different prices. 
 
ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 37 
 
 Mr, Ward. 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. Ward. What is the present price? 
 
 Mr. Jenks. Around $20 or $25. 
 
 Mr. Ward. And you pay the farmer one cent a bushel over a certain 
 price ? 
 
 Mr. Jenks. 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 
 price. 
 
 The Chairman. I suggest that at this point 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. JOED AN, GENEVA, N. Y., DIREC- 
 TOR NEW YORK AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 Dr. Jordan. My name is Whitman H. Jordan, Geneva, N. Y. 
 I am director of the New York Agricultural Experiment Station. 
 
 The Chairman. 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. Jordan. Permit Piie to say, as showing the extent of observa- 
 tion which I have had, thnt our institution has examined something 
 over 10,000 samples of feeds since 1899. 
 
 At first we simply required a giuiranteed 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 of 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 Chairman. And that would mean what, then ? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. That would mean feeds that are made up by mixing 
 several kinds together — two or more kinds. 
 
 The Chairman. What do j^ou mean by a standard feed? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. That is a term that I have been personally using, 
 I 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' gi-ains, malt sprouts, and feeds of that type — 
 the offals from wheat, etc. 
 
 The Chairman. That run straight? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. That run straight. In the figures which I shall give 
 you I should like to have that definition of standard feeds apply. 
 
§S ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 In 1902 we examined 118 brands; G4 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- 
 IDOunded. 
 
 The Chairman. Did you make an examination in 1902 or 1906 as 
 to the kinds of feeds that had inferior materials in them ? 
 
 Dr. JoRDON. No, sir ; I can not give you any information for those 
 years, because we did not make any examinations in a definite way 
 until 1909. 
 
 The Chairmax. I see. 
 
 Dr. Jordan. But in 1909 we examined 368 brands, and 195 were 
 standard and 173 compounded. You will notice a tendencj' 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 
 w^ere 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 Avould not use the term 
 " wortliless," 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 w^ere 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 Chairman. Yes : certainly. 
 
 Dr. Jordan. 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. 
 
 I 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 wdiat 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 
 Jiulls — 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. Abbott. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Dr. Jordan a question ? 
 
 The Chairman. 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. Jordan. 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 haj's and cornstalks, straw, 
 and materials of that kind. 
 
 The Chairman. As a rule, good fanning would furnish the rough- 
 age on the farm, would it not, or in the A'icinity of the farm? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Many farmers waste enough roughage to cover all of 
 the inferior materials they buy in feeding stuflfs. 
 
 The Chairman. And some of the ingredients enumerated in this 
 amendment would be classified as roughage, would they not ? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. I should classify oat hulls as roughage — that is, of the 
 same class nutritively. 
 
 The Chairman. That is, some of the articles enumerated in that 
 section of the bill would hardly be worth the freight, would they? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. That would be my judgment. Take peanut shells, for 
 instance. I knew of a 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. Jordan. It is very much less. 
 
 Representative Lea'er. How much less ? 
 
40 ADULTEEATIOlSr OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 Dr. Jordan. If you were to judge by the digestibility — I have the 
 figures somewliere here. 
 
 Representative Lever. Well, I mean roughly speaking. 
 
 Dr. Jordan. 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. JoRDON. Well cured cornstalks would have practically as high 
 a digestibility as good hay. 
 
 Representative Lever. How about corncobs? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. The average digestibility of corncobs is 43 per cent. 
 
 The Chairman. Would that be worth the freight? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Well, if I were feeding dairy cattle, I would not con- 
 sider it so. 
 
 Representative Lever. Let me ask you this question: All animals, 
 bipeds and quadrupeds, need a certain amount of roughage, do they 
 not? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. 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. JoRDON. 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. Jordan. That is true. 
 
 Representative Le\T!;r. 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. Jordan. 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 Le\ter. What is your State law on the subject? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Our State law requires that all packages of feeding 
 stuffs be labeled, with the name of the manufacturer or jobber; Avith 
 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. Jordan. 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 ? 
 
ADULTEEATIOlSr OF MIXED FEEDS. 41 
 
 Dr. Jordan. I think we do. 
 
 Representative Lever. What have you to say about the enforce- 
 ment of the Federal law, as described this morning by Dr. Haywood ? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. 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 wi^h the naked eye. But 
 that is another matter from separating them and telling what per- 
 centage exists. 
 
 Representative Lever. What would be the machinery that you 
 would set up to do that? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. 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. Jordan. 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. Jordan. I think so. 
 
 The Chairman. I would not state the witness's opinion for him, 
 Mr. Lever. [Laughter.] 
 
 Representative Leaer. Well, Dr. Jordan, and I are old friends, 
 and I am merely trying to get his viewpoint. 
 
 The Chairman. His mind seems to run with yours on that point. 
 
 Representative Lever. AVhat would be your concrete proposal to 
 put in the bill. Dr. Jordan^ Are you satisfied with this amend- 
 ment as it is drawn? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. No, sir. 
 
 Representative Lever. You are not? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. No, sir. 
 
 Representative Lever. How would you amend it ? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. It seems to me — well, I would not pretend to draw 
 this amendment standing on my feet. 
 
 The Chairman. I hope you will take the liberty of stating any 
 amendments that may occur to 3^ou. 
 
 Dr. Jordan. 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, ^'ottonseed 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 imground hulls " in there 
 would more or less place a hardship upon the oil people. Then the 
 provision goes on as follows: Dsd 9ib to Juyju 
 
 ' T fT 
 
 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. 
 
 Now, the words, "when separated from 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 ai^el 
 In the New York State law we name the things that are concentrated 
 feed, so that when litigation occurs there is a very definite ^thing 
 before the court. iiul) ob oi qi/ f'j;- lAiurir 
 
 The Chairman. Will you attach that to your' sta{4me'nt? ' ' 
 
 Dr. Jordan. The New York law? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. 
 
 Dr. Jordan. I have not one with me, but I will be very glad to send 
 the committee a copy. 
 
 The Chairman. I wish you would do so. 
 
 (The material referred to was subsequently submitted by Dr. 
 Jordan, and is here printed in full, as follows:) i 
 
 •I J o-/.(1(i]n')<'VK{9>' 
 State of New York, Department of Agricultltre, Charles S; Wilson,' Oom- 
 
 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. 
 
 Section 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 afl3davit when requested. 
 
 163. 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 " conccnirnted covimercinl fcaUng stuffs" defined. — Tlie term 
 " concentrated commercial feeding stuffs," as used in this article, shall inclutle 
 linseed meals, cottonseed meals, pea meals, bean meals, peanut meals, cocoanut 
 meals, gluten meals, gluten fee<ls, maize feeds, starch feeds, sugar feeds, dried 
 distiller's grains, dried brewer's grains, malt sprouts, except as hereinafter 
 provided, hominy feeds, cereal ine 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 fi'om 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. 4S 
 
 Sec. ,161. State»ients to he attached to packages; contents; analysis. — No 
 manufacturer, firm, association, C(u-i)oration, or person sliall 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 connnercial 
 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. 
 
 3. 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. 
 
 c. 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. , ,, ir ; , , 
 
 d. If a compounded feed, the name of each ingredient iContained 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 phosphoric acid. ;i 
 If any such concentrated commercial feeding stuffs be sold, offered, or 
 
 exposed for sale in bulk, such printed statement shall accompany every car 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 jirovided 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 ^alysi^, ..(As, axneuded 
 t>y chapter 13.5 of the laws of 1916. ) ,',..-m''.! n,,iVi.,„Ti<r,,., Mint xll 
 
 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 per.son shall sell, offer or expose for sale in 
 this State any concentrated connnercial feeding stuffs he or they shall for each 
 and every brand of concentrated conniiercial 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. — Every manufacturer, importer, agent, or seller of any 
 concentrated commercial feeding stuff's 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 .$2.5 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 
 stufes 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; anali/sis 
 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 conmiissioner of agriculture, and for this purpose the New York 
 Agricultural Experiment Station may continue to employ chemists and incur 
 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 adnlterated 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 offerefl for 
 sale. No person shall sell or offer for sale any meal or ground grain or other 
 cattle 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. 317 of 
 the Laws of 1909.) 
 
 RepresentatiA'e Lever. What further amendment do you propose to 
 this section? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. I have nothing further to suggest, so far as I have 
 examined the law. 
 
 The Chairman. Under the provision in the i-econd 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 v?oald result. 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Well, of course, you would be placing upon the Sec- 
 retary of Agriculture a very great responsibility as to what has 
 nutritive value. He Avould 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 Chairman. But it would not be difficult in the case of those 
 that have high nutritive value. 
 
 Dr. Jordan. No, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 v\'ith hisfh feedino; value. 
 
ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 45 
 
 Dr. Jordan. I will call your attention to the fact, that you practi- 
 cally give the Secretary of Agriculture legislative power. 
 
 The Chairman. Well, that has become the custom here. [Laugh- 
 ter.] We recognize that in the bill as it is drawn. 
 
 Dr. Jordan. 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. Jordan. May I change the phraseology and add : "And enable 
 the farmer to know what he is buying." 
 
 Senator Kenton. 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 practiceclupon him; so that it amounts to the same 
 thing. Now, that kind of legislation you think is desirable? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Yes, sir ; I do, to prevent fraud. 
 
 Senator Kenyon. And the question in your mind is whether this 
 umendment directly works that out ? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. 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. Jordan. He should simply know it. And I doubt whether you 
 could e-^actly 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. Jordan. 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. Jordan. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Kenton. Why do you need an interstate law, then? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. He does not Iniow 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. Jordan. Not the amounts. 
 
 Senator Kenyon. Your law does not cover that? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. 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. Jordan. No, sir. 
 
 Senator Kenton. He would not be? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. 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 be 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 exactlj^ what he was getting? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Yes, sir. 
 
 Senator Kenton. Why did not your law go that far? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Because we did not think it wise to put int^ 1^][ie lay^ 
 and regulations something that we could not enforce. '.■' U -.!,,,!. -V,. 
 
 Senator Kenton. If you can not enforce it in the State law, how 
 could it be enforced under Federal law ? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. I said it could be enforced only by inspection in the 
 mills. 
 
 The Chairman. And your State , can not handle thatj so far as 
 interstate traffic is concerned? " ""'^■' 
 
 Dr. Jordan. It could in intrastate business, but not in interstate 
 
 traffic. ':::'• •/•)- -'■■i>l 'lo'jii)< 
 
 ' Senator Kenton. That is all I have to ask. ' \ \^t.^ '^-r ^ !, " r/rfMin 
 The Chairman. Are you aware of the fact t^a't tlie farmers iiave 
 had some trouble in buying from the mills in New York at an}' time ? 
 Dr. Jordan. At the time of the so-called Wicks committee investi- 
 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 froni tiies 
 manufacturer a carload of feed on a cash basis. 
 
 The Chairman. 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. Jordan. I am not familiar with that fact. ' ' ■ 
 
 The Chairman. 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? \ r - r/i i »/■!•-• 
 
 Dr. Jordan. I could not assert anything in.l'fes'si.ra to inati-sir. 
 
 I have troubles of my own. . . •>..,. ^ i,,,-; ., > y Au\v\ 
 
 Representative L^ver. Wh^ii ' ' Ws ^tms '; it^ve^l^atioii' ' ^ that ' .fvpu 
 
 speak of? ''' ^2,niflt t<> 3!.nr>l 'A\ Vy)M\\r. yllin tt# -cu Mpc'ry ii^T- 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Tke Wicks committee irivesti^atioh "^gis \ 
 
 Representative Lever. Two j-ears ago? , . .T:^ 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Yes; and they published a very full report, which 
 could be had, I suppose, of the secretary of state of New York. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Your protection, then, is in the publicity 
 given of the findings of j'our department? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Yes, sir ; we send out about 45,000 copies of our feed- 
 ing-stuff bulletins. ; 
 
 Representative Haugen. And thiatgiveS a li'^t' o^'tHfe'' manufac- 
 turers and dealers, does it? ' . 'vi ., , , 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Yes, sir; and the iia,iIieS of the brands ;anHVthe in- 
 gredients of the respective brands. 1 ' J / ' r .' ' r ' 
 
 Representative Haugen. And that 'h^s '^iHreri y^' doilsiderable 
 protection against the adulteration and the deception? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. It has enabled the farmer to know, the kind of thing 
 he is buyiiig. M any f armerS pay nd attehtioiti;i;l6'itj mahy do pa^^ 
 
 attention. .^"•■v-,.uy.i\\ y-.-. IIK« /1m:m = .- -. InUU/. .I/.-..;.:,;:: ■!;.,. 
 
ADULTERATION OP MIXED FEEDS. 47 
 
 The Chairman. 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 I did not make that clear before. 
 
 Dr. Jordan. 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 I 
 would call standard feeds with no inferior material. >^A(iaoU :i<i 
 
 The Chairman. What league was that? '• '"' ' ' " 
 
 Dr. Jordan. 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 Chairman. That was on the theory that the feeds could be 
 mixed without the use of those worthless materials, was it not? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Yes, sir; and some of the manufacturers are mixing 
 feeds without a particle of inferior material. I told the committee 
 that 41 per cent of the feeds examined in 1912 had inferior mate- 
 rials, and 59 per cent did not. ■ • - -: 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. <»f^|' -i^J^ 
 
 Dr. Jordan. And about 41 per cent of the 568 samples "received 
 this 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 Chairman. So that that is a practicable thing? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. That is a practicable thing. 
 
 Representative Haugen. I understood you to say. Dr. Jordan, that 
 these hulls enumerated in the amendment have no feeding value? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. I did not mean to say that. 
 
 Representative Haugen. I understood you to say that they were 
 not worth the freight? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Why. as long as I had good wheat straw, I would 
 not buy pure oat hulls ; I would feed the straw. 
 
 Representative Haugen. You compare the feed value, then, with 
 that of straw ; they are of more value than straw, are they not ? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Not when pure ; that is as good a comparison as I could 
 toaike. 
 
 ffiMnsCpEiAPiN. Mr: Chaiirman, may I ask Dr. Jordan a few ques- 
 tions?'.'' '-•■' ' ' ■ 
 
 The Chairman. What is your name, residence, and business con- 
 nection? .:x!<'- ^^'^ A^'jiL /.ruALJ .-iiL 
 
 Mr. Chai^in. Robert W. Chapin, of Chicag(i:'f'' ^'^^^ ^^-'^ ^'^ rtorjorrb 
 
 Dr. Jordan. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Chapin came 
 down to 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 Chairman. Whom did he go there to represent? "^^<^'' -'^^^ 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Myself only. There was no association of m'anu- 
 facturers in existence then. I was afraiel the feeding-stuff law would 
 be too rigorous ; but I found that it was not. ' ■ ' ' , " ' 
 
 The Chairman. It was a personal eccentricity of your owiiV'tHeSni?' 
 
 Mr. Chapin.' Yes, sir; I was a small dealer in New York. 
 
 Dr. Jordan. I think he paid his own expenses. 
 
48 ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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. Jordan. To answer that in a roundabout way, there has not 
 been an increase in live stock at all proportionate to the increased sale 
 of feeds. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Of all kinds? Is it not very difficult for you to de- 
 termine the total tonnage of feed stuffs sold ? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Well, we do not know that; I ought to modify my 
 answer: the number of brands sold has greatly increased. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Would that not lead you to believe that the farmers 
 buy these mixed feed stuffs because they find them to be all right? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. It leads me to believe that the farmers have been 
 buying them because they are a little cheaper than the standard 
 brands. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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. Jordan. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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. Jordan. You have got me there: I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. What would you suggest that we do with those oat 
 hulls? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Sell them for what they are. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Does the farmer know how to buy them? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. That is up to him. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Does he know how to use them? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. He knows how to use them as well as he does any 
 roughage. 
 
 ]\Ir. Chapin. 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. Jordan. 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. Chapin. Well, Dr. Jordan, as you know, this immense pro- 
 duction of oat feed has got to be disposed of somewhere? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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. Jordan. Yes; as sold. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Would you consider them worth as much? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. 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. Chapin. How about alfalfa? Is that not about identical 
 with oat feed? 
 
ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 49 
 
 Dr. Jordan. No ; although alfalfa hay is somewhat overestimated ; 
 good clover hay is just as good. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. You are thinking of the net value in that respect? 
 
 Dr. JoRDON. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Would you consider the value of oat hulls anywhere 
 near the value of timothy hay ? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Approximately, if you mean this by-product as sold. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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. Jordan. I will have to return, Mr. Chapin, to my basic propo- 
 sition — and 3^ou 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 Chairman. 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. Jordan. 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 Chairman. You think that accounts for the increased pro- 
 duction, do you? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. I think that accounts for the increased production^ 
 very largely. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. I w^ant 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. Jordan. I do. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Then it is not an adulterant in any sense of the word? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. No, 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Anything having the value of oats in total nutritive 
 value, or total energy value, would not be an adulterant, would it? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. 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. Chapin. So would I. 
 
 Dr. Jordan. So that your question can not be answered in single 
 terms. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. The point I want to make is that some of these feeds 
 you would not consider worthless or of no value ? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. I have said so, explicitly. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Have you ever found any sawdust in the feed in 
 your State? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. No. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. You have found peanut shells? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. In what form ? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Ground peanut shells. 
 
 81413—18 4 
 
50 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Was that in peanut meal ? 
 Dr. Jordan. No. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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. Jordan (interposing). We have even found the thin paper 
 covering the coffee kernel in bran. 
 
 Mr, Chapin. That is a gross adulteration, is it not ? 
 Dr. Jordan. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. I think so ; but I have never seen such an adultera- 
 tion in commerce; and I believe the pure food law forbids it, does 
 it not? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. This was made in New Jersey. [Laughter.] 
 Mr. Chapin. Have you any objection in your own mind to the 
 use of alfalfa meal in feeds ? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. 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. Chapin. 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 3'ou 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. Jordan. Those things have a value, and it ought to be con- 
 served. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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. Jordan. Were you ever a lawyer? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. No; 1 am onlv 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. Jordan. Sell them to those who will use them. 
 Mr. Chapin. Do you think we can get the farmer to buy them ? 
 Dr. Jordan. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. They are buying these mixed feeds now; are they 
 satisfied with them ? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. I do not know. But that does not justify selling 
 them in the way in which thev are sold. 
 
 Mr. Chapin.' 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. Jordan. 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 Chairman. Mr. Chapin, do you mean to say that you could 
 not sell those things to farmers ? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Any more than I can sell the soles of shoes to farmers ; 
 thev need the soles of shoes 
 
 The Chairman (interposing). They will not buy those things? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. No; because they are not chemists; they have not 
 read Dr. Jordan's textbook. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you know anything about the organization 
 of the NeAV York Feed Dealers' Association ? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. I do not know anything about it. 
 
 The Chairman. If the farmers could buy that; if the farmers 
 should buy those things themselves, they could not mix them ? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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 
 hnils — 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 Chairman. What sort did you give him? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Oat hulls from oat feed. 
 
 The Chairman. Where did you get it? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. From the oat mills. 
 
 The Chairman. Where? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. In the West; various centers. 
 
 The Chairman. Do vou have them shipped from the Wc^t to New 
 York? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. No; I live in Chicago; my plant is in Hammond, Ind. 
 
 The Chair^ian. I thought it was in New York. You do not han- 
 dle hulls in New York, do you ? 
 
 INIr. Chapin. I sell a large amount of feeds in New York. 
 
 The Chairman. I mean, you do not buy them there? 
 
 IMr. Chapin. No; the movement is from the West to the East. 
 
 The Chairman. I see. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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 su]iply the man who wants to do his own mixing ? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. 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. Chapin. 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 Chairman. Do you mind telling the farmer just what -he is 
 buying ? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. I do so now. 
 
52 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 Tlae Chairman. Then, what objection have you to this? The 
 Secretary of Agriculture would permit you to sliip stuff if it is not 
 injurious or worthless. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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 Chairman (interposing). When they vary and become worth- 
 less, do you not think they ought to be excluded ? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. No; this variation is perfectly normal, and Dr. 
 Jordan will bear me out in that. 
 
 The Chairman. 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. Chapin. I do not know of any worthless stuff raised on the 
 farm, or any worthless stuff used in the feed business. 
 
 The Chairman. Then, this amendment would not interfere with 
 you at all ? 
 
 Mr, Chapin. I will tell you why it will. Because, according to 
 the Avay the amendment is Avorded now, I can not use anything: 
 everything I use is derived from grain. That provision does not saj^ 
 anything about the stuff being worthless or valueless. It sa3^s 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 Chairman. I think you are putting up scarecrows. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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 000,000 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. Chapin, 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. Jordan. 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. Chapin. 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 
 great deal of feed sold there — of the stock feed that is sold for 
 growing stock, a combination of hominy and oat feed. 
 
ADULTEEATION OP MIXED FEEDS. 53 
 
 Dr. Jordan. 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 Chairman. Are there an}^ other questions? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. I want to ask Dr. Jordan one more question: He 
 said that oat hulls were about 31 per cent digestible. 
 
 Dr. Jordan. I said mostly hulls. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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. Xow, 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 2|. 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Now, that is more than 31 per cent. 
 
 Dr. Jordan. When I gave that figure, I said mostly hulls. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. This says " oat hulls." 
 
 Dr. Jordan. But hulls means the general mixture of offal, includ- 
 ing oat bran. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Noav. 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. Jordan. I stated to the committee that the}^ are used for ma- 
 terial ■ 
 
 Mr. Chapin (interposing). Would you say that oat feed, or oat 
 hulls, has a total nutritive value of 50 to one of TO for oats — that that 
 somewhere nearly expresses the ratio of their values? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. No. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Would you place them on a net energy value ? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. I would place them on a net energy value. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Would you say that they were worth half on a net 
 energy value? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Perhaps so. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. In other words, if oats are worth $41 a ton in 
 Chicago, would oat hulls be worth $24? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Not for me if I had a farm. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Could they not be used in that way ? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. 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. Chapin. 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. Jordan. Neither do I. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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. Jordan. I agree with you there. I stated that. 
 
 Mr. Staff. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question ? 
 
 The Chairman. What is vour name and business connection? 
 
64 ADULTERATION OP MIX^D FEEDS. 
 
 Mr. Staff. My name is Charles Staff, and I represent the Lar- 
 roAve Milling Co., of Detroit, Mich. 
 
 The Chairman. All right ; you may ask him a question. 
 
 Mr. Staff. I want to ask you. Dr. Jordan, whether you consider 
 it necessary, in protecting the farmer against the use of these low- 
 grade feecls, 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. Jordan. It seems to me that if the percentage of inferior ma- 
 terial is stated that would answer all purposes. 
 
 Mr. Chapix. 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. Jordan. I am not aware whether there is much protest or 
 commendation. I don't think the farmers of New York understand 
 the situation very well now, considering the short time it has been up. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 jpass. 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. Chapin. They are oAvned by various companies, all in competi- 
 tion with each other. We buy from all of them. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, the one at Buffalo, who owns that? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. The H-0 Co. 
 
 The Chairman. Who is that? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. That is an independent corporation owned by people 
 that I know in Buffalo. 
 
 The Chairman. The Armour people don't control that? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. They do not. 
 
 The Chairman. Do they control any of these? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. I think tliey have a mill of their own at Milwaukee, 
 and I think they own one at Buffalo, 
 
 The Chairman. Does Swift & Co. own any? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. They do not; not to my knowledge. 
 
 The Chairman. Are you a member of the American Feed Manu- 
 facturers' Association ? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. I am. 
 
 The Chairman. Could you furnish us with a list of the directors of 
 that association? 
 
ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 55 
 
 Mr. Chapin. I will ask the secretary to do that. I know he will be 
 pleased to comply. 
 
 (The list referred to follows:) 
 
 American Feed Manufacturees' Association. 
 
 officers. 
 
 Harold A. Abbott, president, The Albert Dickinson Co., Chicago, 111. 
 
 F. A. McLellan, first vice president. The H-0 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. 
 
 li. 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, 111. 
 H. G. Atwood, American Milling Co., Peoria, 111. 
 
 R. W. Chapin, Chapin & Co., Chicago, 111. 
 
 Sherman T. Edwards, Hales & Edwards Co., Chicago, 111. 
 
 O. E. M. Keller, Arcady Farms Milling Co., Chicago, 111. 
 
 F. A. McLellan, The H-0 Co., Buffalo, N. Y. 
 
 The president, ex officio. 
 
 NATIONAL COUNCILLOR, CHAMBER OF COAIMERf E OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
 
 James H. Genung, American Hominy Co., Indianapolis, Ind. 
 
 BOARD OF DIRECTORS. 
 
 John C. 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. 
 
 C. U. Snyder, C. U. Snyder & Co., Chicago, 111. 
 
 R. P. AValden, Corn Products Refining Co., New York, N. Y. 
 
 II. Wehman, International Sugar Feed Co., Minneapolis, Minn. 
 
 F. M. Wilson, The Denver Alfalfa Milling & Products Co., Lamar, Colo. 
 
 The president, ex officio. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, the Armour Co. has a member on the board, 
 hasn't it, the board of directors ? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. I don't know whether they have or not. They have 
 only joined lately. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Ferguson, representing the Swift people? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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. Jordan. Is that all, Senator? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes; that is all. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Just one question. Doctor, do you con- 
 sider clover and alfalfa the same class of feed ? 
 
56 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 Dr. Jordan, Practically so; yes. 
 
 Representative Haugen. How does that compare with corn, for 
 instance, for feeding cattle, either clover or alfalfa? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. With corn grain? 
 
 Representative Haugen. Yes. 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Oh, about as 51 or 52 per cent is to 85 to 87 per 
 cent. 
 
 RepresentatiA^e Haugen. Does the grinding of alfalfa or clover add 
 anything to its value? 
 
 i3r. Jordan. Not in my opinion. 
 
 Representative Haugen. What is the object of grinding it? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. 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 Haugen. It is compressed by grinding? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Yes ; they get more room in that way. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 Milli 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 enougli 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 tliere 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, 
 
 MiLO 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 Chairman. Now, we will hear Mr. White. State your name 
 and post-office address, Mr. White. 
 
ADULTERATTOlSr OF MIXED FEEDS. 57 
 
 STATEMENT OF C. R. WHITE, DEPARTMENT OF FARMS AND 
 MANAGEMENT, ALBANY, N. Y. 
 
 Mr. White. My name is C. E. White, and I represent the depart- 
 ment of farms and management, Albany, N. Y. 
 
 The Chairman. 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. White. 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 Chairman. You have got those samples here? 
 
 Mr. White. 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 w^ill say this, that 
 in mill-run bran, which we allow tp 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. White. 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. 
 
 well-known 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. White. The farmers do ; a great many of them mix their feed. 
 
 Representative Lever. Why don't they all do it ? 
 
 Mr. White. 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. White, 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 
 be bought. 
 
 The Chairman. Aren't the grange organizations of New York 
 making an effort to distribute standard feeds or mixed feeds that 
 have really feeding ingredients ? 
 
 Mr. White. 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 Chairman. That is an effort to escape from the adulterated 
 feeds. 
 
 Mr. White. That is true. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you got a law in New York against the sale 
 of adulterated feeds? 
 
 Mr, AVhite, We have. 
 
 The Chairman, Have you changed it several times? 
 
 Mr. White. There has been no change made since I have been con- 
 nected with the department. 
 
 The Chairman, Did you have to pass a law prohibiting the adul- 
 terating of feed? 
 
 Mr. White. It seems so. 
 
 The Chairman. Couldn't you trust the feed manufacturers to sell 
 pure feeds? 
 
 Mr. White. I should hardly think so. 
 
 The Chairman, How many States have laws prohibiting the sale 
 of adulterated feeds? 
 
 Mr. White. I am not prepared to answer that question. I don't 
 know how many. 
 
 The Chairman, 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. White. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. 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. White. It is the natural assumption that where a measure 
 was enacted there must have been some need for the measure or it 
 would not have been enacted. 
 
ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 59 
 
 Kepresentative Lever. Each State has a statute against murder, 
 too. on the same theory I guess. 
 
 Mr. White. 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 because 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 
 proposition 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. Ward. Senator, may we ask the witness a question? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Ward. 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. White. 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. Ward. And in the spring particularly, after the winter period ? 
 
 Mr. White. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Ward. And that is the period when these mixed grains have 
 been very largely fed? 
 
 Mr. White. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Ward. 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. White. I have not. I am not a scientist. 
 
 Representative Lever. Mr. Ward, wouldn't they be prohibited 
 under the pure-food law from shipping in interstate commerce such 
 feeds as you mentioned last? 
 
 Mr. Ward. 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. White. Yes. 
 
 Representative Lever. And you have been holding institutes over 
 the country? 
 
 Mr. White. Over the State; yes, sir. 
 
 Representative Lever. And the farmers have been complaining 
 about this mixed-feed proposition ? 
 
60 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 Mr. White. Yes, sir. 
 
 Representative Lever. For how many years? 
 
 Mr. White. Ever since I have been in the field. 
 
 Representative Lever. Have you made any protest down here to 
 Washington before this time? 
 
 Mr. White. No, sir. 
 
 Representative Lever. Why not? 
 
 Mr. White. Because I was connected with the State department. 
 It -vyasn't particularly my duty. 
 
 Representative Lever. Wouldn't that be the very reason why you 
 should do it? 
 
 Mr. White. I presume it would. 
 
 Representative Haugen. This is the first opportunity you have 
 had, isn't it? 
 
 Mr. White. The first opportunity ; yes, sir. 
 
 Representative Haugen. What is your official position? 
 
 Mr. White. 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. Chapix. May I ask Mr. White a question? 
 
 The Chairman. Yps. 
 
 Mr. Chapix. Mr. White, do you know of any specific case where a 
 cow died because of something she was fed ? 
 
 Mr. White. No ; I said I didn't know specifically. That has been 
 the report that I have heard. 
 
 Mr. Chapix. Do you know that when cows are fed improperly 
 any kind of feed, too large an amount or too concentrated, it is liable 
 to make them sick and cause them to die? 
 
 Mr. White. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Chapix. It can be done with cottonseed meal, can't it ? 
 
 Mr. White. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Chapix. And gluten feed? 
 
 Mr. White. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Chapix. 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. White. That is very unfair, Mr. Chapin. You musn't assume 
 that the farmers don't know anything about feeding. There may be 
 rare cases Avhere that is so. 
 
 Mr. Chapix. I happen to know of my OAvn knowledge of such 
 cases, having lived in the State 25 years. 
 
 Mr. White. Such cases are very rare indeed. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Now, what you said about farmers buying mixed 
 feed because they had to — you think that is actuallj^ so. tliat they 
 could buy nothing but mixed feed? 
 
 Mr. White. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Chapix. What would that indicate? 
 
 Mr. White. 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. Chapix. Do you know what concentrates were particularly 
 lacking — bran ? 
 
 Mr. White. No ; I have known times when they didn't carry cot- 
 tonseed meal. 
 
ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 61 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Was it that this last winter particularly ? 
 
 Mr. White. It has been for several years. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Don't you know that this last winter we had a terri- 
 l>le blockade, and hard'ly anything could get through into New York 
 State? 
 
 Mr. White. That is a connnon condition that exists at some ponits 
 
 all the time. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Wasn't it better for them to get mixed feeds than to 
 have the cattle starve? 
 
 Mr. White. Yes ; there is no doubt about that. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Did they complain about that? Did these same 
 farmers go on buying mixed feeds? Are they buying them now ? 
 
 Mr. White. Very likely. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Then they must like them, don't they? 
 
 Mr. White. They may or may not. If a nian went to the station 
 10 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 whai 
 he could get. and that was the case last winter. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Do you think that all the cows in New York State 
 <.'an be fed on the Dairy Men's League feed? 
 
 Mr. White. I don't know about that. I think they ought to be 
 fed on an equally good formula. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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. White. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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. White. That may be so. 
 
 The Chair;man. 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. White. We are not particular as to the exact formula, just 
 so it is a good formula. 
 
 The Chairman. Still there is no justification for the sale of worth- 
 less stuff. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Don't you know that at the present time there is 
 practically no bran at all in the country ? 
 
 Mr. White. We are aware of the fact that in New York we can't 
 get it. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Don't you know that for the past six months we have 
 been selling substitutes and have had no wheat bran? 
 
 The Chairman. Right there, what substitutes have 3^011 been 
 using ? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Oatmeal and cornmeal. They have been milling 
 very little wheat relatively in the last six months. Many mills have 
 had to shut doAvn 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 ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Chapin, are you trying to make the point that 
 there isn't enough f eeclstuffs to feed the cattle in the country ? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. I mean not enough to provide the kind of rations 
 they want. There is a particular shortage in bran. 
 
 The Chairman. 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. Chapin. We have got to feed everything we have got. 
 
 The Chairman. Whether it is worthless or not ? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Whether it is worthless or not — I wouldn't say 
 " Avorthless," because you can't feed anything that is worthless. You 
 might as well feed air. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 thom 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. Chapin. The point I wanted to make was that a certain 
 amount of substitutes is necessary, just as in war bread Ave 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 Ave haA^e got to incorporate a certain amount of 
 roughage. We may feed a little more grain or Ave may feed a little 
 less, just so Ave 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 Chairman. Will you admit that nothing ought to be put into 
 food that detracts materially from its value? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Why, Ave 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 fiA'e-eighths the value of corn 
 meal. 
 
 The Chairman. Is it your contention that the poorest possible 
 feedstuffs should be alloAved to be sold at the high feed value merely 
 because there isn't enough of the high feed value to go around? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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 haA^e 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 coav 
 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 Avill like it and eat it. 
 
 The Chairman. Is it all the same to the feed manufacturer if he 
 sells to the farmer so that the farmer knows what he buys? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. I think the farmer knows what he buys, or he 
 Avouldn'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 Avill buy 
 them or otherAvise discard them forever. 
 
ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 63 
 
 The Chairman. Of course, they don't have to buy anything. They 
 can let the cattle die. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. They buy of their own free will. 
 
 Eepresentative Haugen. You say that there is a shortage of bran. 
 Can you give the figures on that ? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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. 
 
 Eej^resentative Haugen. Why haven't they been able to get any 
 bran ? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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 Haugen. 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. Chapin. 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. 
 
 Eepresentative Haugen. 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 Chairman. Have you got the figures there? 
 
 Eepresentative Haugen. I gave the figures. The increase in profits 
 over operating expense was 175 per cent, 100 per cent on the capital. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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. 
 
 Eepresentative Haugen. 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. Chapin. There is no monopoly of bran. I can't find it if 
 there is. 
 
 Eepresentative Haugen. Are the mills selling bran or are they 
 monopolizing it ? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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 Chairman. Not doing what ? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. Not milling flour, because they can't sell the flour. 
 
 Eepresentative 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. Chapin. 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 Chairman. 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 1913 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 3'ear it was as high as 37 and 38 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, Avere fabulous, much more than during 
 peace times. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Mr. Chairman, I was quoting from the 
 report of last April, made by the Federal Trade Commission. 
 
 Mr. Ward. 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 Haugen. 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. White. Yes, sir. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Is that available to all manufacturers? 
 
 Mr. White. I don't know. So far as I know it is. 
 
 Representative Haugen. I understood you a short time ago that 
 the pure meal could not be had. 
 
 Mr. White. In some sections it can not be procured. The dealers 
 don't carry it. 
 
 Representative Haugen, Why don't they carry it? 
 
 Mr. White. That I can not tell. I presume because thej^ 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 Haugen. Have you made any investigation as to 
 who owns and operates the manufacture of these mixecl-food prod- 
 ucts? Do they have a monopoly on cotton seed? 
 
 Mr. White. Why, no, sir. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Have the packers any connection with 
 /he manufacture of cottonseed meal? 
 
 Mr. White. I don't know about that. 
 
 Representative Haugen. 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. White, That is the rumor, but I know nothing about it my- 
 self. I have no personal laiowledge 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 find hundreds of college graduates 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 Haugen. Then you say that the pure feeds are 
 more desirable, but they can't be obtained? 
 
 Mr. White. 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 Haugen. But I understood you to say that that is 
 not the effect that is desirable? 
 
 Mr. White. No, sir. 
 
 Representative Haugen. That the other is more desirable. Now, 
 why are they not getting more desirable feed? 
 
 Mr. White. 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. Abbott. May I ask Mr. White a question ? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. You spoke a minute ago of the fact that pure cotton- 
 seed meal could be secured ? 
 
 Mr. White. Standard cottonseed meal. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. Do you know what pure cottonseed meal is ? 
 
 Mr. White. I would say standard cottonseed meal. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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. White. I suppose it does; yes; 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 Chairman. That would not detract materially from the feed 
 value ? 
 
 Mr. White. Not materially. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of you before 
 Mr. White proceeds ? 
 
 The Chairman. You want to ask me a question ? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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 Chairmax. Well, the definition that J 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 ^fjTew York have — and I don't think they 
 want to buy from you, Mr. Ablxott, stuff that they have already got, 
 anl I don't think the stuff ought to be mixed so that they can't get 
 what they Avant 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. Abbott. Do you realize, Senator, that there are some parts of 
 this country, at this time particularly, where roughage does not 
 exist ? Have j^ou in mind your OAvn State of Oklahoma ? 
 
 The Chairman. I am aware of that. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. And the State of Texas, where they have been 
 drought stricken for the last four years. 
 
 The Chairman. I will say this, a friend of mine undertook the 
 other day to ship Avheat straAV into west Texas for feed, w^here the 
 dought lias been so severe and so destructive, but he was going to 
 sell it as wheat straAv, which was a perfectly leg timate 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 guilt}^ of a villainous practice. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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 can be purchased 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 draAv to his door, his barn, the sup- 
 ply of material he needs at a less cost? 
 
 The Chairman. By all means. I am for that, but I want him to 
 know when he is getting cottonseed hulls, hov\'ever. 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 $00 a ton for it. 
 
 Mr. Abbort. 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 Chairman. Are you from Illinois? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. I am from Chicago. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you got a fed law in that State? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Was there any necessity for passing it? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. Just the same necessity that there has been in all 
 other States. 
 
 The Chairman. What was that necessity ? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. The necessity, I presume, grew out of the need of 
 knowing a little more fully the chemical analysis, particularly of thp 
 feeds. 
 
ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 6'7 
 
 The Chairman. Is the hiw pretty well enforced in your State? 
 ]Mr. Abkott. 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 Chairman. I don't know that that would he material, Mr. 
 Abbott. 
 
 Mr. Ap.bott. It is material to this extent, sir. that you ask that 
 the pei'centage of ingredients be placed upon the bag, irrespective 
 of the fact that the chemical analysis, which has l)een recognized for 
 many years by the ablest of chemists, has been one of the means by 
 which the agricultural interests, the agricultural 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 tliat is of greater value to the 
 feeding public than the chemical feeding constituents will show? 
 
 The Chairman. That is the reason I want them to be protected. 
 I think the farmers can't tell. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. The present laws of the various States are very rigid.. 
 They are branded in a Avay which makes it impossible for a decep- 
 tion. We contend that the State laws, together Avith the Federal 
 laws, are ample in this respect. 
 
 The Chairman. You say they make deception impossible? 
 Mr. Abbott. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. If that is true, there is certainly no occasion for 
 this legislation. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. There is not, if your laws are enforced. 
 Dr. Jordan. Will Mr. Abbott permit Mr. Jordan to ask him a 
 question ? 
 
 The Chairman. I think so. 
 
 Dr. Jordan. You stated that the value of these cattle foods was 
 based upon the chemical analysis. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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 
 
 I am on my feet- 
 
 Dr. Jordan (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. Abbott. No, sir; I said it was a measure of value which has 
 been recognized. 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Yes; but it is recognized as entirely inefficient. 
 Mr. Abbott. 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, wall you tell me how it can 
 be done? 
 
 Dr. Jordan. I suppose there are some difficulties there, where you 
 have a variable material, but in that statement you confess to the var- 
 iable 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 recojpiize 
 him in the role he is playing to-day, because formerly he furnished 
 ine 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 Chai)in is ahvavs a little off 
 on his nutritious facts. He said it didn't make any difference Avhere 
 an animal gets its feed. Now, you know that an animal can't get 
 energy enough from roughage alone. It has got to have sometliing 
 0-1 se. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. I know that. 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Well, I wanted to correct that statement, that is all. 
 
 Representative Levek. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest, if we go on 
 at the rate we have started to-day we will be liei-e 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 wntness finishes his general statement. 
 
 Dr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman, may JVIr. Jordan break in for just one 
 moment? I want to be fair to these people. I c'on'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 th;it, and that isn't f-aiT- to the feeding-stuff 
 trade. 
 
 Representative Lever. I don't think the i-u))lication made any 
 impression on the committee. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Abbott, will you furnish a list of the Feed 
 Manufacturers Association ? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. Yes. 
 
 (The list referred to was subsequently furnished by Mr. Abbott 
 and is here printed in full, as follows:) 
 
 Memreks of Amekican Feed Manufacturers Association. 
 
 ax: GUST 1, 191'!. ACTIVE MEMBERS. 
 
 Abingdon Milling & Cattle Feeding Co., Abingdon, lil. 
 
 Akron Feed & Milling Co., The, Akron, Ohio. 
 
 Albers Bros. Milling Co., Seattle, AVash. 
 
 American Hominy Co., Indianapolis, Ind. 
 
 American Linseed Co., New York, N. Y. 
 
 American Milling Co., Peoria, 111. 
 
 American Sugar Refining Co., Chicago, 111. 
 
 Ames-Burns Co., .lamestown. N. Y. 
 
 Arcady Farms Milling Co., Chicago, 111. 
 
 Armour Fertilizer Works, Chicago, 111. 
 
 Atlas Feed & Milling Co., Peoria, 111. 
 
 Badenoch Co., J. .1., Chicago, 111. 
 
 Bailey, E. I., 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. 
 
 BulTalo Cereal Co., Buffalo, N. Y. 
 
 Butler & Co., Edw. J., Chicago, 111. 
 
 Byrnes & Co., W. J., Chicago, 111. 
 
 Carlisle Commission Co., Kansas City, Mo. 
 
 Central Mills Co., Dixon, 111. 
 
 Cereal Byproducts Co., St. Louis, Mo. 
 
ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 69 
 
 Chamberlain Co., F. B., St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 Champion Feed Milling Co., Lyons, Iowa. 
 
 Chapin & Co., Chicago, 111. 
 
 Chicago Heights Oil Mfg. Co., Chicago, 111. 
 
 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, 111. 
 
 Delany, Frank J., Chicago, 111. 
 
 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, 111. 
 
 Dodge-Hooker Mills, Wausau, Wis. 
 
 Dold Packing Co., Jacob, Buffalo, N. Y. 
 
 Douglas Co., Cedar Rapids, Iowa. 
 
 Dreyer Conunission Co., St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 East St. Louis Cotton Oil Co., National Stock Yards, ill. 
 
 Edgar-Morgan Co., Memphis, Tenn. 
 
 Eikenberry-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 & Elevator Co., Binghamton, N. Y. 
 
 Eshelman. .John W., Lancaster, Pa. 
 
 Eureka IMills Co., St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 Farmers Cotton Oil Co., Wilson, N. C. 
 
 Farmers Equity Cooperative Co., Lamar, Colo. 
 
 Feeders Supply Co., Kansas City, Mo. 
 
 Fisher P'louring Mills Co.. Seattle, Wash. 
 
 Garden City Milling Co., Garden City, Kans. 
 
 Globe Elevator Co., Buffalo, N. Y. 
 
 Golden Grain Milling Co., East St. Louis, 111. 
 
 Goldsboro Milling & Grain Storage Co., Goldsboro, N. C. 
 
 Gould Grain Co., Minneapolis, Minn. 
 
 Grain Belt IMills Co., St. Joseph, Mo. 
 
 Grandin Milling Co., D. H., Jamestown. N. Y. 
 
 Great Western Alfalfa Jlllling Co., Denver, Colo. 
 
 Gulfport Grocei-y Co., Gulfport. IMiss. 
 
 Hailev Co., John H.. Houston. Tex. 
 
 Hales & Edwards Co.. Chicago, 111. 
 
 Hamlin, Dwight E.. Pittsburgh. Pa. 
 
 Ha.skell & Co., W. H., Toledo, Ohio. 
 
 Havwood 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 & I^Iilling Co., ToleOo, Ohio. 
 
 International Sugar Feed Co., Minneapolis, Minn. 
 
 Kasco Mills, Waverly, N. Y. 
 
 Kellogg & Sons (Inc.), Spencer, Buffalo. N. Y. 
 
 Kennedy, Morris, Rochelle, 111. 
 
 Kornfalfa Feed Milling Co., Kansns 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, 111. 
 
 Liddy & Co., Frank T., Chicago, 111. 
 
 Louisiana State Rice Milling Co., New Orleans, La. 
 
70 ADULTEEATIOX OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 I.ovitt & Co., L. B., IMemphis, Tenn. 
 
 Mauire Brokerage Co., Memphis. Teixn. 
 
 Marco Mills, Pine Bluff, Ark. 
 
 Marcus, Julius, New York. N. Y. 
 
 IVIatthews & Co. (Inc.), F. B., Kinjiston. N. Y. 
 
 Meader-Atlns Co.. The. New York, N. Y. 
 
 Meinrath Brokeriij^e Co., Chicago, 111. 
 
 Milligan Co., C. J.. Sioux City, Iowa. 
 
 Milwaukee Grains ic Feeil Co.. ISIilwaukee. Wis. 
 
 Miner-Hillard Milling Co., V,'ilkes-Barrie, Pa. 
 
 Moon-Taylor Co., Lynchburg. Va. 
 
 North Bros., Kansas City, Mo. 
 
 Northern Illinois Cereal Co., Chicago, 111. 
 
 Nowak I\Iilling (]oi-poration, Buffalo, N. Y. 
 
 Omaha Alfalfa Milling Co., Omaha, Nehr. 
 
 Osage Cotton Oil Co., Kansas City. Mo. 
 
 Park & PoUaril Co., The. Boston, Mass. 
 
 Park &. Pollard Co. of Illinois. Tho, Chicago, 111. 
 
 Patterson t-: Co.. C K., Jilemphis, Tenn. 
 
 Penick & Ford (Ltd.). New Orleans, La. 
 
 Peters Mill Co., M. C, Omaha, Nebr. 
 
 Piert^e Co., Frank A., Minneapolis, Minn. 
 
 Pincoffs Co., JMaurice, Chicago, 111. 
 
 Prairie State Milling Co., Chicago. 111. 
 
 Purity Oats Co., Davenport. Iowa. 
 
 Quaker Oats Co.. The. Chicago, 111. 
 
 Ralston Purina Co., St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 Rapier Sugar P'eed Co., Owensboro. Ky. 
 
 Richardson Bros., Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Riley Feed ^Vlfg. Co.. Pine Bluff, Ark. 
 
 Royal Feed & Milling Co.. Memphis, Tenn. 
 
 Smith, Parry «S: Co., Milwaukee, Wis. 
 
 Smith & Wallace Co., J. C. Newark. N. J. 
 
 Snvder & Co., C. U., Chicago, 111. 
 
 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 IMilling Co., Milwaukee, Wis. 
 
 Superior Feed Co.. The. Memphis, Tenn. 
 
 Swift & Co., Chicago, 111. 
 
 Syracuse Milling Co.. Syracuse. N. Y. 
 
 Tarkio IMolasses Feed Co., Kansas City, Mo. 
 
 Tennessee Fibre Co., Memphis, Tenn. 
 
 Texas Cake I'c Linter Co., Dallas, Tex. 
 
 Tioga ISIill & 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 60.. IVIinneapolis, ]\Iinn. 
 
 Virginia Feed & Milling Corporation, Alexandria. Va. 
 
 Wade, John & Sons, Memphis. Tenn. 
 
 Weiss IMilling Co.. The Otto, Wichita, Kans. 
 
 Westbrook Grain & IMilling Co., Pine Bluff. Ark. 
 
 Western Alfalfa Milling Co., The, Denver. Colo. 
 
 Western Gr.'iin Products Co., Hammond, Ind. 
 
 West India Sugar & Molasses Corporation, New Orleans, La. 
 
 Wil.son & Redus. Meridian, Miss. 
 
 Wood & Sons, T. W., Riclnnond. A^a. 
 
 ASSOCIATE MEMRKUS. 
 
 Bauer P.ros. Co.. Tlie, Springfield, Ohio. 
 Remis Bros. Bag Co.. St. Louis, Mo. 
 Bosworth But: Co., Memphis. Tenn. 
 Central Bag Mfg. Co., Chicago, 111. 
 
ADULrBRATlON OF MIXED FEEDS, 71 
 
 Eastern Federation of Feed Merchants, F. C. Jones, Secretary, Bnllville, N. Y. 
 Gump Co., B. F., Chicago, 111. 
 Mente & Co., New Orleans, La. 
 Miner Laboratories, Chicago, 111. 
 
 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 organiaation.] 
 
 Article II. — I'urijoscs. 
 
 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 stulfs, 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 tirmer business relations in which all can stand together in efforts 
 to impi'ove and perfect a standard of business integrity which shall include 
 honesty of representation, carefulness of obligations, and promptness of execu- 
 tion. 
 
 The Chairman. Is tlie Armour packing house represented on that 
 board? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. I have before me. Senator 
 
 The Chairman (interposing). Answer that question, Mr. Abbott. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. They have not. 
 
 The Chairman. Nor Swift & Co. ? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. No, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Nor Morris? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. No, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Ferguson is not with Armour & Co.? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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. Whitt:. 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 — ^lieard 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 Chairman. Have you got that resolution? 
 
 Mr. White. No ; I think they have been forwarded. 
 
 The Chairman. I wish you would furnish that. 
 
 Mr. White. 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 you have in 
 
72 ADULTEEATION 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 Chairman. That question enters into it; yes. 
 
 Kepresentative Lever. That is the one thing that enters into it. 
 Now let's see if we can't ame'nd it so we can get down to the basis. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 affirma- 
 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. 
 
 Eepfesentative 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 Chairman. 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 separatel5% then let us take testimony 
 as to what kind of law we want. Now that seems to me to be Avhat 
 we are driving at, but if we scatter oiu' shot we will be here until 
 next July. 
 
 The Chairman. We have had some testimony here that the exist- 
 ing laws were not effective. 
 
 Representative Lever. Conflicting testimony. 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. The feed manufacturers so far have testi- 
 fied that they were ample. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Jordan testified, I 
 think, that about half of them are adulterated and don't come ud 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. 
 
ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 73 
 
 The Chairman. We will liine Dr. Miimford now, who can prob- 
 ably shed some light on that. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. May I ask for the Chicago Board of Trade that 
 their representative be heard for just about five minutes? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes; we will hear him for five minutes. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. Their representative is here from Chicago and wishes 
 to get away to-night. 
 
 The Chairman. Certainly we will hear him for five minutes. 
 
 STATEMENT OF A. STAMFORD WHITE, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD 
 OF TRADE, CHICAGO, ILL, 
 
 Mr. White. 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 onh'^ handles grain in the condition in which it 
 is received from the farm, but also represents the enormous capital 
 investments in elevatoi's 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. 
 
 It 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 Avere burnt under the boilers, as in the 
 days before suitable machinery existed for their conservation. 
 
 The quantity of ?-creenin.q-s 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 Chairman. What was the 300,000 tons? I didn't understand 
 that. Was that screenings? 
 
 Mr. White. 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 Avas 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 P^ood 
 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. 
 
 It 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 with under the provisions of the pure food 
 law. And if that law does not provide the means of taking such 
 proceedings I should rhink that it should be strengthened. 
 
 The adoption of the amendment as written woidd result, first, in 
 lessening the retui-n obtained l^y 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 "Jrade of the City of Chicago. 
 
 The Chairman. Well, I agree with your reasoning, Mr. White, 
 in everything except the conclusions. I think most anybody would 
 agree with the first j>art of your statement, but I am not so sure that 
 the results will follow that you dei)ict. I don't see why the incor- 
 poration of a provision against the interstate shipment of low-feed 
 value stuffs as high-feed value stuffs would hurt the producer or the 
 consumer, either one. Now, I am certain that you don't think that 
 low-value stufl' ought to be sold as high-vahie stuff, and what we and 
 what 3'ou want to get is to enable each to be sold on its merits so that 
 one can not be sold under the camouflage of the other. Now, we 
 will be glad to have any suggestion you have to make on that. 
 
 Mr. White. It occurs to me, sir, in that connection that in making 
 a compound feed that the present preference of the articles of greater 
 bu.lk 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 highei- in 
 the average price. 
 
ADULTf:KATION OP" MIXED FEEDS. 75 
 
 STATEMENT OE A. B. CHILLUM. REPRESENTING THE EOOD ADMIN- 
 ISTRATION OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 Mr. CniLLu^Nr. Mr. (Miaii-Miaii. if I inio-ht say a word right there. 
 
 The (^HAiR^iAx. Do yoii desire to catch a train. Mr. Chillinvi? 
 
 Mr. CiiiLLUM. Yes. sir. 
 
 The Chairman. We have been proceedinji; ratlier iiiforxiaily, let- 
 ting everybody do about as they please here, but if yon are obliged 
 to leave to-night we will hear yon now. 
 
 Mr. CiiiLLUM. The situation in Mass;;chusetts and. in fact, 
 throughout New England, is very serious in tlie matter of this feed 
 situation. It was last winter. It is true now and we are looking 
 forward to a very serious situation next j^esir. Now, if the law, or 
 this amend]uent as now written, goes into effect there is going to be 
 very serious trouble. In fact, we vrill have an entire upsetting of 
 the feed situation in Massachusetts, making if much worse than it 
 is now. 
 
 Tlie (^HAiKMAN. A^'ill yon point out hoAV that will h;i])pen? That 
 is what we want. 
 
 Mr. CninLUM. 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 
 catch a train, and I ho|:>e you will be willing to hear him. 
 
 The Chairman. All of tliese trains seem to be leaving about the 
 same time. 
 
 Representative Haugen. The gentleman didn't state how it would 
 affect the situation in Ma^-sachnsetts. I think we ought to call on 
 him to explain that. 
 
 Kepresentative Lkaek. Mr. Smitli is going to state that. 
 
 STATEMENT OF ME. PHILLIP H. SMITH, OF THE MASS^.CHTJSETTS 
 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, CHEMIST IN CHARGE 
 OF THE FEED-CONTROL WORK OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 The Chairman. Tender whose auspices do you appear, Mr. Smith '^ 
 Mr. Smith. 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 ]n-oduct 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 w^ould 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 repeatedly 
 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 
 AThich most of the products are derived. We believe that the in- 
 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. 
 
 Til conclusion, we believe that the ])reservation 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 to investigate 
 that point, and at this time when we ent^^r 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, 
 wdien sold in combination as mixed feeds, at excessive profits,'if that 
 is the case. 
 
 The CiiAiR]\rAx. You think the Food Administration has that 
 power ? 
 
 Mr. vSjiith. I believe they do. They have power to do most any- 
 thing but take a man out and shoot him at sunrise. 
 
 The Chairman. Is Mr. Chapman, of the Food Administration, 
 here ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. He is a member of it, and I think he can interpret the 
 rules and powers under which they work. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you made your statement in full ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I might acid 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. 77 
 
 results. Lots of farmers use them and get good results, and they 
 come back and buy- again. 
 
 The Chairman. What are you speaking of now ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. The mixed products containing oat hulls and various 
 other things. 
 
 The Chairman. What do you mean by "various other things" ? 
 Of course, farmers are buying mixed feeds all over the country. 
 
 Mr. Smith. Oat hulls, screenings, material which you have* desig- 
 nated as having a low feeding value. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 Avith those things that detract materially from its feed- 
 ing value? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Why, Mr. Chapin has made the contention here — and 
 others — that you can not mix two feeds without bringing that about. 
 
 The Chairman. That is splitting hairs. That is an cAasion 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 coin-se. 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. Smith. They may detract to a certain extent, but they are 
 used in a very small volume that form^ an outlet foi- that kind of 
 material. 
 
 The Chairman. If they don't detract materially from the value 
 they won't be prohibited under this law, will they? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I don't know. 
 
 The Chairman. Well, it says only those that detract from the 
 value, and wdiere 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 would, it ought to be prohibited, ought it not? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Well, they are sold for wdiat they are. under a guar- 
 anty and a statement of the ingredients. 
 
 The Chairman. Is that your law? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. And that relates to stuif shipped in fi-om the 
 outside ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. For local manufactured stuff and interstate material. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, you hear no complaints, then, from dairymen 
 of your State about inferior feeds? 
 
 Mr. Smith. 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 Chairman. So the man sold it to him for wdiat it was? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. Then that can be done, can it not? 
 
 Mr. Smith. You can sell anvthins: having a feeding value. 
 
78 ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 The CHAiuMAiSf. There is no reason why a nuin should not sell 
 stuff for AThat it is, but I understand it is not your contention that 
 the stuff ouoht to be sold to farmers for honiethino- else than what 
 it is. 
 
 Mr. Smith. No; I don't think it is. I think we aoreo on that 
 point. 
 
 The Chairma>;. How old is your feedstuffs law ^ 
 
 Mr. Smith. 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 Chairman. Has it been amended? 
 
 Mr. Smith. It has been amended tw^ice. 
 
 The Chairman. Was its enactment based upon some sort of neces- 
 sity to protect the consumers of feeds against adulteration? 
 
 Mr. Smith. We felt that it Avas. 
 
 The Chairman, Now, you speak generally. Have you made a 
 'chemical analysis of these specimens of foodstuffs to see that they 
 contain ©nl}'^ valuable ingredients? 
 
 Mr. SariTH. We have. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you got some of those with you? 
 
 Mr. Smith. The bulletins? 
 
 The Chairman. Have you found stuff in the specimens that was 
 not of value ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Why, we found material in it; we have found ma- 
 terial in feeding stuffs, material of unequal feeding values, different 
 feeding values. 
 
 The Chairman. Oh, well, of course, that is true. 
 
 Does anyone wish to ask Mr. Smith any questions? If not, you 
 can catch your train now. 
 
 Mr. Smith. On this matter of catching trains. Senator, there is 
 another man in the party. Mr. Hepburn, who is a practical farmer, 
 I haven't heard any practical farmer here today. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Just one question. A gentleman preced- 
 ing you made a statement to the effect that it was necessary to 
 adulterate 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. S:mith. I do not believe, sir, that the feeding stuffs are gen- 
 erally adulterated. 
 
 Representative Haugen. But I. was asking you the question. That 
 is a question involved in this amendment, and if effected, will the 
 prevention of the adulteration of 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. Smith. I understand, sir, it is not adulteration as long as they 
 state what they are selling. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Have you listened to the evidence before 
 you came on, the evidence here to show that there is deception? 
 I 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 
 
/.Dur.Tr.KATTOx OF ?.rrxr.D Fr.ED=. 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. S:mith. I don't think it is necessary to deceive, sir. 
 
 Representative Haltoen. Then what is your reason for the state- 
 ment made by the gentleman who preceded you? How will it alfect 
 the feed situation in your State? 
 
 Mr. Smith. In the first place it will throw a large quantity of low- 
 grade by-products unuiixed onto the market. 
 
 Representative Haugex. No: I don't think it will do any such 
 thing. 
 
 Mr. Smith. Then you are going to create a feed shortage. 
 
 Representative Haugen. I don't think you would question the in- 
 tegrity or judgment of the vSecretary of Agriculture. I think it is 
 safe to leave it to him, and it isn't fair. I think, for anvbody to ap- 
 pear before this committee qiiestioning the integrity of the Secretary. 
 Tt is left to his discretion, and we simply assuuie that he will do the 
 right thing by all, and that all will have a square deal under this 
 law as imder 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 upon here to 
 explain why it would effect a different situation. 
 
 Mr. Smith. 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 Hauoex. Assuming that the Secretary would not 
 permit the use of these feeds of lawer value 
 
 Mr. Smith. He would permit the use of them ; I know he would. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Then it will not affect you. It is left to 
 the discretion of the Secretary, is it not? 
 
 Mr. Smith. We are going to have it in another form. 
 
 Representative Haugen. How do you know it Avill be in another 
 form? Do you assume that an honei^t product would not be per- 
 mitted to be '^hipped into the State under the permit issued by the 
 Secretary? Do you assume he is going to take advantage of you? 
 
 Mr. Smith. No. I confess I do not quite see your point, but I 
 contend that the feedstuff shipped into the State containing oat 
 hulls 
 
 Representative Haugen. 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 shoidd 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 Avhat 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 Avho preceded you. 
 
 Mr. Smith. They are selling these products in conformity with all 
 the laws under which they are sold. 
 
 Eepresentative Haugen. What about this law ? 
 Mr. Smith. I do not think it is necessaiy. 
 
 Representative Hauoex. 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. Smith. I believe it is. 
 
 Representative Haugex. 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. Smith. It is going to multiply the number of brands of feeds 
 sold to a certain extent. You are going to have a lot of new products 
 which very few of the farmers understand. They understand how 
 to feed these old products. 
 
 Representative Haugex. 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 Avould 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. Abbott. Mr. Chairman, may I interject a remark at this time? 
 The Chairmax. There are a number of other witnesses to be heard. 
 Suppose you wait until they have finished. 
 
 Representative Haugex. I am simply asking you the question. 
 Mr. Smith. I contend that he is not selling corncobs. 
 Representative Haugex. That is all I wish to ask. 
 Mr. Ward. 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. Smith. I was called up last Friday afternoon by Mr. John 
 Willard, who is a member of the Massachusetts Food Administra- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Ward. And under Mr. Chapman. Is he the Mr. Chapman in 
 Food Administration circles here? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I do not know. He is connected with the Food Ad- 
 ministration office in Boston. 
 
 Mr. Ward. Has he charge of the administration of dairy foods in 
 that State? 
 
 Mr. Smith. To a certain extent I believe he has. 
 Mr. Ward. And is there an arrangement about paying your fares 
 and expenses here*? 
 
 Mr. Smith. 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, Wlio 
 brings you here? 
 
 Mr. Ward. The National Dairymen's Association and the National 
 Milk Producers' Association. 
 
 Representative Lever. Who pays your expenses? 
 Mr. Ward. They do. 
 
 Representative Lever. 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. Ward. 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. Abbott. Who is he ? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. I asked Mr. Ward to put that question. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 ME. W. K. HEPBURN, MANAGER UPLAND FARMS, 
 
 IPSWICH, MASS. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Hepburn, I understand you are a farmer? 
 
 Mr. Hepburn. 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 m}^ personal charge as a usual thing never less than 150 cows — 
 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 witli them, that these feeds that we were using were 
 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 Ave can buy many of the so-called mixed rations, 
 which to my own personal knoAvledge for the last several years have 
 been used in the largest herds Avhere 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 Avill not interest you 
 gentlemen here, as you are not cattle breeders. 
 
 Prrbably the greatest difficulty that is staring the dairy industry 
 in tlie 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, AAith, to my oAvn knoAvledge, very little relief. 
 81413—18 6 
 
82 ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 Now, there must be a reason for that, and that reason to my mind 
 is this — and I 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. I 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 I see sitting around here now, you 
 can see tlie ribs of the cows as far as you can see the cows. 
 
 The )<'unj)i»r is not to blame. He is doing the best he can. He 
 can no( buy a dozen different things and mix them ; he can not do it. 
 I am noK 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 Chairman. Well, what knowledge have you as to Avhether or 
 not they have violated the law? Have you been an inspector of 
 feeds? I mean you are a farmer, are you not? 
 
 Mr. Hepburn. I am a farmer; yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. And you buy for your own use? 
 
 Mr. Hepburn. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you acted in any capacity that would bring 
 you in contact with the mills? 
 
 Mr. Hepburn. In many cases I 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 Chairman. 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. Hepburn. I have not been aware within the last few j^ears or 
 at any particular time that there was adulteration. 
 
 The Chairman. 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. Hepburn. 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 Chairman. As to that phase of it, we appreciate the im- 
 portance of having cattle fertile and reproductive, and undoubtedly 
 
ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 83 
 
 goocl 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. Hepburn. No, sir ; I do not. I would not say that peanut hulls 
 are not sold. It may possibly be done. 
 
 The Chairman. You do not think that sawdust would contribute 
 to the reproductivity of cattle in a breeding way? 
 
 Mr. Hepburn. It would if they were bedded w^ith it. If it were 
 used for bedding instead of for feed it might help the production 
 lof milk. 
 
 The Chairman. You would object to it for feed, and not for bed- 
 ding? 
 
 Mr. Hepburn. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. 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. Hepburn. Why, the matter was brought to my attention 
 through the food commissioner in Boston. 
 
 The Chairman. Who is he ? 
 
 Mr. Hepburn. Mr, Chillum. 
 
 The Chairman. Is that the gentleman that was here a minute ago? 
 
 Mr. Hepburn. The second last man that spoke. 
 
 The Chairman. Who is this food administrator? Is he appointed 
 by some one here in AVashington, or is that a State organization ? 
 
 Mr. Hepburn. I presume he is appointed by somebody in Wash- 
 ington. 
 
 Mr. Chillum. Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes, sir : I would like to know, because w^e have so 
 many organizations that we can not identify them. 
 
 Mr. Chillum. 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 Chairman. Is that board appointed by the governor? 
 
 Mr. Chillum. The board was originally api)ointed by the gov- 
 ernor. I am not a member of the board. 
 
 The Chairman. Is it a local State organization? 
 
 Mr. Chillum. 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 Haugen. That question is not involved in this bill. 
 
 Mr. Chillum. We understand that if the bill passes as it now 
 stands mixed feeds will practically be eliminated. That is our 
 understanding. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Evidently you have not read the second 
 section of the bill. 
 
 Mr. Chh^lum. I have read it. 
 
84 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 Representative Haugen. I think if you will read that you will 
 reach s,ome other conclusion. I think you will find it is left to the 
 discretion of the secretary. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on this very point 
 that Congressman Haugen brings up. 
 
 The Chairman. 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. Hicks. Mr. Chairman, may I have just a word? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Hicks. There are three things in this amendment that I want 
 to protest ag;iinst : First, damaged gra:n; second, screenings; and 
 third, liay. That eliminates alfalfa and clover. 
 
 As poultry feeders we can not use wheat, and of damaged Avheat 
 and screenings Ave 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- 
 cause under our Food Administration ruling Ave can not use milling 
 wheat. As to hay, alfalfa is very largely replacing bran. In fact, 
 many poultry breeders say they Avonid rather have alfalfa meal 
 than bran. 
 
 Then I Avant to say something as to waste. As poultry breeders 
 Ave have had to revise our feeding calendar. Within tAvo years Avliat 
 used to be Avaste has come to be a valuable feed. Those of us Avho 
 have lived in the West, in Kansas, knoAV that hogs almost live on 
 alfalfa. While that is not considered a concentrate, yet to-day Ave 
 are having to revise our textbooks on account of the value of alfalfa 
 as a feed. As poultrymen Ave Avould be very seriously^ affected if Ave 
 were cut off from feeding alfalfa in a mixed feed. Wo realize there 
 are damaged grains — 
 
 The Chairman. What do you do Avith them ? 
 
 Mr. Hicks. They can be fed to hogs Avith some safety, but to 
 poultry they can not be fed as readily. I oAvn a large farm; and we 
 have our oAvn mixing machines, Ave have our OAvn system, and Ave 
 have our oAvn grinding machines and cracking machines. 
 
 There are three reasons Avhy 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 oAvn 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 Avhy the average farmer can not mix 
 his own feed. First, he can not afford to OAvn 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, 
 
ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 86 
 
 and the freight rates are too high. We do buy in hirge quantities; 
 Ave even buy in car lots on a cooperative pLan, and distribute them. 
 We are afraid tliat if this amendment passes as it is now worded 
 it will have a serious effect on the poultry industrj' 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. Hicks. 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 Chaikman. I would like to say in this connection that one 
 Pennsylvania Senator called my attention to a communication from 
 a Mr. Xash, 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 withlicld. If there is no' objec- 
 tion I will ask to have the letter read. 
 
 (The clerk to the committee thereupon read the letter referreel to, 
 which is here printed in full, as folloAvs:) 
 
 September 14, 1918. 
 Senator Goke, 
 
 United States Senate, W a. shi in/ton, I). C. 
 
 Deak Snj : You have .-in amendment to House bill 11945, vvhich 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 vei-y good points to the amendment in question, and undoubtedly in the 
 long run it would be of great benefit to tlie feeders in tlie country, although it 
 might put out of business some manufacturers of mixed feed who use more or 
 less junlv in the preparation of their goods. 
 
 We are not attempting to defend either the amendment or the manufacturers 
 of live-.«tock feed who might be interfered with in their present acfivities, but 
 we are sending to you for your perusal a sample of ground screenings, which 
 we received to-dny from a concern in the West. These goods are offered at $31 
 per ton in bullv 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 i)ui-pose 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 looketl , 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 
 scourings 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 stuif as this 
 should be absolutely legislated out of business. There are many good feeds on 
 the niarket — 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 alfect 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 fmm such prepared feeds. 
 
 We send you the sample herewitli inclosed and the information in regard 
 to the other" material because we lielieve 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. 
 
 V\'e should like to ask that you ?;rant us one favoi*, and that is that if you 
 discuss this matter at ali either publicly or privately and use the information 
 which we liave given that you kindly refrain from quoting us. You see we 
 occupy a rather unfortunate position. A great many manufacturers in the 
 West might absolutelj' blacklist us if they thought we had done anythimi- that 
 might in any way interfere with their present activities. We might suffer 
 the entire loss of our Imsiness 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 ai'e done, as you undoubtedly know, so 
 we ask you in all kindness not to divulge the source of this particular' informa- 
 tion. We 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 wdl not quote us at any time, although we want yon to be free to use the 
 information for your own purpose. 
 Respectfully, yours. 
 
 The Chairman. Now, we liave had two practical fanners. Mr. 
 Lasater, we would like to hear yoii for about five minutes. 
 
 Mr. Lasater. On what particular phase of the matter. Senator if 
 The Chairman. 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. Lasater. Mr. Chairnuin. I think the point these gentlemen 
 make here is that they are putting out a connnodity that will enable 
 the producer to cheapen his procUicts. I think that is your i)oint, 
 is it not ? 
 
 The Chairman. I suggest that you go ahead and make your state- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Lasater. 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 hie own farm in superabundance. As 
 it now stands, it is practically impossible for him to get his con- 
 centrates Avithout buying the stuff with which he is already loaded 
 down. 
 
 I ranch and farm in southern Texas 
 
 The Chairman. How manv head of cattle do you have? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. From 15,000 to 20,000 cattle, about 2,000 of them 
 dair}' animals. I w^ill say this: I have one of the good Jersey herds 
 of the LTnited States. In answer to the gentleman who jiist 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 
 I have shown on the northern circuit from my ranch for two years 
 at the National Dairy Show— tw'o 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 sho^ved 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 witii 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 clown by 
 an understanding with the millers, so that I had to buy 43 per cent 
 protein, and my understanding is noAv 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 buj^s 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. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. Suppose you stop it immediately, what 
 would be the effect? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. 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 I think that would be the 
 effect of this amendment. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. In other words, your proposition is that 
 you will force the farmer, by the big stick 
 
 Mr. Lasater. No, sir; I would force 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. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. Your proposition, then, would be to pro- 
 hibit the interstate shipment of all low-feeding- value stuff? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. 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 Avould know what he was buying. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. We have a South Carolina law on that 
 proposition that practically does that, and I think there is a Texass 
 law. 
 
 Mr. Lasatek. I want to say tliis: I do not understand how it is 
 that we could not buy meal last year with more than 43 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 43 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 Chairman. 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 $13 a 
 ton margin the}'^ were alloAved 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 
 I 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. Chapin. 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. Chapin. Don't you know the Quaker Oats people give the 
 correct names and analysis? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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? 
 
ADTJLTEBATION OP MIXED FEEDS, 89 
 
 Mr. Lasatek. I will say I was not able to buy it last year. 
 
 Mr. CiTAPix. Was that on account of the drought that the supply 
 had been all used up'^ 
 
 Mr. Lasater. No, sir. I bouo-ht probnbly as inuch as 1,000 tons, 
 and I got 43 per cent. I always prefer to buy a high protein 
 content, but last year I was unable to buy it. 
 
 Mr. Chapix. 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. Lasater. That means $1 per point of protein content. 
 
 Mr. Ciiapix. 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 annnonia 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. AVe 
 know we can not get what we want. Just the reason wlw these feeds 
 can not be obtained I am not prepared to tell you. 
 
 Mr. CiiApiN. This is wholly within the State of Texas, is it not? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. No. sir. 
 
 Mr. Ciiapix. You buy your meal in the State of Texas? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. I buy my meal in the State of Texas: yes. 
 
 The Chair:\iax. Mr. C'lnipin, I do not believe you stated your 
 initials and address. 
 
 Mr. C'hapix. Robert W. Chapin, Chicago, 111. T am a manufac- 
 turer of dairy feeds at Hammond, Ind. 
 
 The Chairmax. Are ^^^ou connected with the food administration 
 of Illinois? 
 
 Mr. Ciiapix. I aiii not. I am called down here in an advisory 
 capacity once in a v>hile, and they call upon all members of the 
 trade occasionally and ask their opinions. 
 
 The Chairmax. Who does ? 
 
 Mr. Ciiapix. The Food Administration. 
 
 The Chairmax. They call in the food manufacturers, do they? 
 
 Mr. Chapix. They have done so; they have had conferences. 
 They are going to have one to-morrow, I believe. 
 
 Mr. Lasater. 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. Lasater. 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 can 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 Lever. 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 Lever. You are one out of a thousand, are 3-011 not? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. By no means. Of course it varies with the seasons. 
 This year New York may be short on roughage; next year it may 
 
90 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. Lasater. I was; yes, sir. 
 
 STATEMENT OF DR. HERBEET W. MUMFORD, PROFESSOR OF ANI- 
 MAL HUSBANDRY, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS. 
 
 Dr. MuMFORD. 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 Chairman, You mean the consumer? 
 
 Dr. MuMFORD. 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 Chairman. That is, June 7 and 8, this year? 
 
 Dr. MuMFORD. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. The convention of the Feed Manufacturers' As- 
 sociation ? 
 
 Dr. MuMFORD. Yes, sir. It was stated that there was a good deal 
 of dissatisfaction among the manu.factnrers with these laws. As I 
 understand it to-day they are quite Avell 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 — 
 
 I'eports now in tlie liaiuls of the Food Administration show many instances 
 of profits ransinc; from .$10 t<» !';23 por ton on these mixed feeds. 
 
 He also states that these profits are out of reason and Avill 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. Chapin. I wns at that meeting; may I correct that statement? 
 I heard those remarks, and they referred solely to retail profits on 
 bran, not on mixed feeds. 
 
 Representative Lever. Let me say this: 1 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 Avith 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. MuMFORD. I shall undertake to show, Mr. Chairman, exactly 
 what the increased sale and manufacture of mixed feeds does to the 
 producer. 
 
ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 91 
 
 Representative Lever. That is all right. 
 
 Dr. MuMFORD. And I think it is competent to know that there are 
 abuses where profits ranging from $10 to $43 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 manufaeturei's 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 feeds — we 
 wnll 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 up, in a bulletin 
 published by the Indiana Experiment Station Mav 1. 1918, that there 
 are listed th'Cre 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 ]iass 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. Mumford. No; my mf)tion 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. 
 
 Rejjresentative 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. 
 NoAv, 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. Mfmford. That is a matter of detail of administration which 
 I am not supposed to pass upon. 
 
 Representative Lever. I think it is very important. 
 
 The Chairman. As I 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. Mumford. Yes. sir. 
 
 The Chairiman. 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. Mumford. I most certainly do. 
 
 Representative Haugen. It would result in the standardizing of 
 the business, would it not? 
 
 Dr. Mumford. Yes, sir. 
 
 Representative Haugen. And instead of having 4.000 or 5,000 dif- 
 ferent standards you will have it reduced to only 50 or 100. 
 
 Dr. Mumford. 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 al3solntely and exactly the same chemi- 
 cal composition, while they are sold under two diiferent brands. The 
 amusing part of it is, as some of you gentlemen know, that both these 
 feeds can be sold in the same commnnity 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 dro]) the use of one of those 
 feeds aiid take U]) 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 m commerce 
 
 Dr. Mumford. Xo, sir. 
 
 Representative Lever. How would you get at it? 
 
 Dr. Mumford. I do not believe anv manufacturer ought to be 
 allowed to sell the same product under two different brand names. 
 
 Representative Lever. 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. Mi :mford. That would not be the same proposition. 
 
 Representative Lever. That is the same article sold under a dif- 
 ferent trade name. 
 
 Dr. Mumford, 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 Chairman. Have you a State law in Illinois against the 
 adulteration of feeds? 
 
 Dr. Mumford. 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 Chairman. 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 OE THE NEW YORK GRANGE 
 EXCHANGE. 
 
 Dr. Wing. 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 Chairman. 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. Wing. 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. 
 
 I do not know that at this late hour I have very much further to 
 add, except to give sonie impressions with respect to the statements 
 that have been made in regard to some of these feeds that are said 
 
ADULT KRATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 93 
 
 to have and probably do have some feeding vahic. "\\'e have to take 
 into consideration not only the composition of the food but the con- 
 dition in which it coiites to iis and the way tiie aninuil 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 two years ago, 
 with the request that I see if they were available for feed in Xew 
 York State. The animals would not eat them alone, ' You could not 
 put enough butter on them or sugar to make them go d(»wn, as you 
 could on a sn^.all boy's ])read. 
 
 Now, I have been conversant with the uiixed feed situation for 
 about the same length of time. My experience and the exj^erience of 
 many others has led us to believe that the chief object in n)aking 
 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 Avholly in the hands of small retail dealers in small towns, 
 where the dairymen and other consumers drive up to the store and 
 take away a few hundred pounds or a few tons of it at a time. Those 
 men do not like to handle but one kind of feed, and they will natu- 
 rally take the brand tlu't they can make the r-ost ron^y out of and 
 that they can recomuiend or that thev can g'-i't the farmers vo use. 
 
 In the last 5 or 10 years while, as Dr. Jordan says, we have no fiar- 
 ures on the tonnage basis, connnon observation shows an increase in 
 the use of these fpeds. The percentage Dr. Jordan gave : 09 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 Levkr. To what do you attribute that increase. 
 Dr. Wing? 
 
 Dr. WiNO. 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. 
 Thev 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 gluten, distillers' grains — 
 until they were shut out — and things of that sort ; but in the small 
 
94 ADULTEEATTON 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. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. What would be the effect on the retail deal- 
 ers all over the country if we pass a proposition like this which would 
 compel the sale of the straight goods? 
 
 Dr. WixG. They would sell straight goods. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. In other words, they would rather go out 
 and get some cottonseed meal 
 
 Dr. Wing (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 varying propor- 
 tions, and it will not contain any one of these objectionable articles. 
 
 The Chairman. Is the grange organization in New York under- 
 taking to put into operation some cooperative system of doing that? 
 
 Dr. Wing. Yes; they just have it in process of organization at the 
 present time. They expect to open offices in Syracuse the 1st of 
 October. 
 
 The Chairman. I hope you will report to us how it fares. 
 
 Dr. Wing. That will depend very largely on the amount of busi- 
 ness we can get and the amount of money. 
 
 Mr. Story. Mr. Chairman, have you considered what disposition 
 the manufacturers will make of their stock on hand? 
 
 The Chairman. I will say, Mr. Story, that it was an oversight that 
 there was not a time limit written into this bill. They ought to have 
 the time of their ordinary turnover written into the bill. 
 
 Mr. Story. I was asking for information, because many of our 
 dairymen and poultry men in Massachusetts are interested in the 
 amendment, inasmuch as practically all of the poidtrv 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 Chairman. Do they object to damaged grains mixed up with 
 other feeds? 
 
 Mr. Story. Yes. They are small operators — both of our herds are 
 small — and it is difficult for them to secure the materials 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 Chairman. You are right about that, and that will be allowed, 
 if agreed upon. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. HARRY CASADAY, ALFALFA MILLER, 
 DENVER, COLO. 
 
 Mr. Casaday. Mr. Chairman, I am of Senator Shafroth's coji- 
 stituency, and represent the National Alfalfa Millers' Association. 
 We are largely farmers as well as manufacturers of alfalfa meal. In 
 fact, I liad the privilege of practically building the first alfalfa mill. 
 
 The Chairman. You do not want alfalfa meal included in the in- 
 hibited stuff? 
 
ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 95 
 
 ]Mr. Casadav. No. sir. I wiint to say that not more than 2 per cent 
 <,f the alfalfa meal is marketed by these gentlemen who represent 
 the American ISfixed-Feed Association. T might also ueply to the gen- 
 tleman from Texas Avho spoke here a few monRMits 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 ])aying the farmers $-2-2 a 
 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-daA', which is $1"2 a ton, i)lus $7 a ton which we have 
 to pay to the maniifacturer of bags, which come from Calcutta, and 
 plus to-day the ditference between $2 and $10 paid for labor in 
 Colorado. " That is what makes th.e relative ditference between the 
 cost of alfalfa four yeai-s ago and the cost of alfalfa to the gentle- 
 man from Texas to-day. 
 
 The Chairman; Ycni say you pr.y the farmer $-22 a ton for alfalfa? 
 
 Mr. Casaday. Yes. sir. 
 
 The Chairman. What do vou get for the meal? 
 
 Mr. Casaday. The hay to-day brings $31 a ton at Kansas City, and 
 J think the meal is bringing $38 a ton at Kansas City, in bags. 
 
 The Chairman. What do you get? 
 
 Mr. Casaday. $38 a ton at Kansas City, plus the pnce 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 conti-act witli the American feed manufac- 
 turers if they do not know what is going to become of this amend- 
 ment at this time. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Ward, how long do you want? 
 
 Kepresentative HAr(.KN. There are a number of gentlemen here 
 who desire to be heard. 
 
 The Chairman. I understand. Judge Ward wanted to appear on 
 a different phase of the subject. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. Mr. Chairman, we gave up our time < n accou.nt 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 h^ad 
 the privilege of cross-examining. 
 
 The Chairman. Oh, you had four tliis afternoon. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. We have not bud a single speaker this aftei-noon. We 
 have not, as manufacturers, had an oj)portunity to be heai'd. These 
 other gentlemen are independent interests. 
 
 The Chairman. I think two have been heard this afternoon — more 
 than have been heard in favor of the bill. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. They did not represent the manufacturing interests, 
 Senator. 
 
 The Chairman. Well, as I understand it, you and Mr. Chapin did. 
 
 Mr. i^BBOTT. Mr. Chapni has not up to this time had an oppor- 
 tunity to give your committee the digest of what he has to deliver. 
 
 The Chairman. We will be very glad to have you file that Avith the 
 committee. I do not want to continue this hearing to-morrow, as I 
 have another hearing in the morning. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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 Chairman. 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 mornin":, 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 Avell. I do not care to hear a dozen millers myself. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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 Chairman. 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 Haugen. 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 proi^ose 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 ME. R. W. CHAPIN, PEESIDENT, CHAPIN & CO., 
 HAMMOND, INB. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, as far as possible all parts of cereal plants suitable 
 for human use should be extracted a^nl the residues left for cattle. 
 To obtain the highest economy and efficiency necessity requires that 
 food materials be u'^ed, first, for human food: second, for animal 
 food ; third, for fertilizer. 
 
 Fundamentally tliis is correct, for we can got the most value out 
 of the feed stuff if avo food it directly to hui^ an beings. Such ma- 
 terials as can not be u-ed for human food, as. for example, those that 
 are coarse aiul fibrous, ea i be f^d to animals to produce man's food, 
 such as meat, milk, and eggs. Milling and manufacturing processes 
 divide grain into two parts, the o}ie 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 
 ."iO 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 tliat the cereal mills, the oil 
 mills, (he sugar factories, produce very large quantities of by-prod- 
 ucts, which are not themselves digestible bv the human organi'^^m, 
 but wh^ch 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, 
 becau; e it is liquid and sticky. Oat feed or 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 adding 
 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 as they were in the past, except for 
 the facilities of the numerous large centralized mixing plants that 
 now conserve them. We are not liere 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. 
 
 Wc 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 hnvs may be enforced. 
 Every State law expressly commands the masiufacturer 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- 
 ertil law provides a heavy punishment for misbranding, so that any 
 statements made in compliance 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: 
 
 20 per cent oat feed at $20 equals ,$4 
 
 SO per cent corn meal at $65 equals 52 
 
 Total cost 56 
 
 81413—18 7 
 
98 ADULTEKATTON 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 83 
 
 Wheat 80 
 
 Oats 70 
 
 Barlev 79 
 
 Oat feed 51. 1 
 
 Cottonseed hulls 37 
 
 Alfalfa 51. 6 
 
 Flax shives ." 37. 8 
 
 Oats straw 45. 6 
 
 Sorghum bagasse 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, etc. 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 a product? But per- 
 haps you feel that you should prohibit the use of 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 determined and recognized by all agricultural colleges, 
 shows as follows: 
 
 Tons. 
 
 Oat feeds 400, 000 
 
 Screenings 300,000 
 
 Alfalfa meal 300, 000-400. 000 
 
 Molasses 300, 000 
 
 Clipped oat bv-product 200, 000 
 
 Cottonseed hulls (1916 figures) 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. Wlio 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 Avould 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- in 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 ADULTTERATION 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 b}^ 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-Pkoducts 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 amoimt 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 by 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 anin\als 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 iuid 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 .iust 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 Eastern markets. 
 
ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 101 
 
 Sutnmaji/ shou-in<j the average cocfficioit.s nf (liacxtihilifii obtained hi the 
 experiments, together with those of some oflier comiiuiu feeds for com- 
 parison. 
 
 Crude 
 protein. 
 
 Crude 
 fiber. 
 
 Flax plant by-product 
 
 Flax plant by-product and molasses 
 
 Ground-grain screenings 
 
 Buck vheat middlings 
 
 Distiller's grains 
 
 Oat hulls 
 
 Wheat bran (average of all tests) — 
 Brewer's grains (average of all tests) 
 Corn meal (average of all tests) 
 
 Per cent. 
 a3.43 
 62.50 
 65. 47 
 90.76 
 43.19 
 .50. 1 
 77.0 
 79.0 
 60.0 
 
 Per cent. 
 48.32 
 31.84 
 17.48 
 30.89 
 22.26 
 59.9 
 41.0 
 53.0 
 
 Prom the above table it will be seen that tironnd-srain screenings is more 
 digestible than distiller's grains, but not quite as digesti))le as wlieat bran. 
 
 Result maintenance test — bull. 
 
 Date. 
 
 July 
 July 
 July 
 July 
 July 
 July 
 July 
 July 
 Julv 
 July 
 July 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug, 
 Aug. 
 Aug, 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug. 
 Aug, 
 
 21 
 
 705 
 
 22 
 
 681 
 
 23 
 
 
 24 
 
 7i6 
 
 25 
 
 
 26 
 
 
 27 
 
 690 
 
 28 A... 
 
 
 29 
 
 
 30 . .. . .. 
 
 
 31 
 
 690 
 
 1 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 3 : 
 
 702 
 
 4 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 11 
 
 720 
 
 12 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 17 
 
 
 18 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 20 
 
 746 
 
 21 
 
 
 22 . 
 
 
 23 
 
 
 24 . .. 
 
 • 752 
 
 25 
 
 
 26 
 
 
 27 
 
 
 28 
 
 752 
 
 29 
 
 
 30 
 
 
 31 
 
 734 
 
 Weight. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Oat 
 hulls 
 fed. 
 
 10.0 
 10.0 
 10.0 
 10.0 
 10.0 
 10.0 
 10.0 
 10.0 
 10.0 
 12.0 
 16.0 
 
 5.0 
 10.22 
 10.0 
 10.0 
 10.0 
 10.0 
 10.0 
 10.0 
 10.0 
 
 6.0 
 12.0 
 13.3 
 19.0 
 
 6.0 
 10.0 
 10.0 
 15.0 
 16.0 
 10.0 
 
 5.0 
 
 5.0 
 10.5 
 10.0 
 10.0 
 15.0 
 15.0 
 10.0 
 11.0 
 10.0 
 10.0 
 
 Hay. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 7.5 
 6.2 
 8.7 
 8.7 
 10.8 
 10.2 
 
 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 BKANDING KEQUIRED 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 4 2 STATES NOW HAVING FEED- 
 INSPECTION LAWS. 
 
 [Extract from p. 614 of New York Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 441, 
 entitled " Inspection of Feeding Stuffs." Information requinid to and appearing on 
 packages from which sample No. 01S18 was drawn for purposes of analysis. 1 
 
 The Quaker Oats Co., Chicago, 111. : 
 
 Schumacher feed — . per cent. 
 
 Crude protein 10. 
 
 Crude fat 3.2 
 
 Crude fiber 10. 
 
 Ingredients. — Ground corn, ground barley, liominy 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 liulls, oat shorts), and one-half of 1 per cent salt. 
 
 Tlie result of analysis as slio\\n l)y bulletin above mentioned was as follows: 
 
 Per cent.. 
 
 Crude protein . 11. 3 
 
 Crude fat 3. S 
 
 Crude fiber 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 AviU consider nie as a fanner. 
 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 adclition 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.) 
 
adulteeatiojs^ of mixed feeds. 
 
 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1918. 
 
 United States Senate and House of 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 Aifairs, 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 Chairman. Mr. Abbott, whom would you like to hear first? 
 Mr. Abbott. 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, 111. 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 ovight 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. 
 
 NoAv. 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 nuu'h 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 Chairman. 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 w^e 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 C'ongress of the TJnited States to pass 
 upon without all the information that there is to be brought to bear 
 on the whole subject. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Gray, you say there is a scarcity both of 
 roughage and mill bv-products ? 
 
 Mr. Gray. Of mill feeds? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes, sir. That naturally uiakes 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 Chairman. 1 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 Chairman. That naturally makes the. price high, does it not? 
 
 Mr. Gray. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 Chairman. You have no objection to that, have you? 
 
 Mr. Gray. No, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. And you have no objection to this amendment if 
 it is limited to the accomplishment of that purpose? 
 
 Mr. Gray. Most assuredly not. 
 
 The Chairman. How many tons of compounded food does the 
 Quaker Oats Co. turn out? 
 
 Mr. Gray. I do not know. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you know what the net earnings of the Quaker 
 Oats Co. was last year? 
 
 Mr. Gray. Not with accuracy. 
 
 The Chairman. Could you give it approximately? 
 
 Mr. Gray. Yes; I think approximately $5,000,000. 
 
 The Chairman. And w^hat percentage was that on its capital 
 investment ? 
 
 Mr. Gray. I should say that was about 18 per cent. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 
 take an hour or more, and I think more, just explaining the terms of 
 the bill. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 Chairman. Do you call that a concentrated feed ? 
 
 Mr. Gray. I do not know what a concentrated feed is, sir. 
 
106 ADULTEBATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 Chairman. 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 HauGen. How do you account for the scarcitv of 
 feedf 
 
 Mr. Gray. The scarcity of mill feeds? 
 
 Representative Haugen. 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 Haugen. Have you the figures on that? Could 3^du 
 give the figures? . 
 
 Mr. Gray. No; I could not. That is another phase Avith which I 
 am not entirely familiar. 
 
 Representative Haugen. The export of what grain? 
 
 Mr. Gray. The wheat. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Is that largely in excess of pvevious 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. 
 
 Represfentative Haugen. 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 Haugen. The Government did not take the feed ; it 
 took the flour. 
 
 Mr. Gray. Xo ; the feed — the bran. 
 
 Representative Haugen. By increasing the percentage of bran in 
 flour? 
 
 Mr. Gray. No; actually taking it from the mills for its own use. 
 I 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 Haugen. 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 imderstrtiid ; 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. 
 
 Eepresentative Haugen. 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. Abbott. It would amount to 600,000 tons. 
 
 The Chairman. Who is the present president of the Quaker Oats 
 Co.? 
 
 Mr. Gray. Henry P. Crowell. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Chapman used to be? 
 
 Mr. Gray. No; Mr. Chapman was never president of the Quaker 
 Oats Co. 
 
 The Chairman. He was connected with it. 
 
 Mr. Gray. A Mr. Chapman was; perhaps it is the same one you 
 have reference to. 
 
 Representative Haugen. 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. Abbott. One hundred and eighteen million barrels is equiv- 
 alent to 649,000 tons on a shortage basis of 11 pounds per barrel 
 
 Eepresentative Haugen. I dare say it is a very small percentage. 
 I 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 Haugen. They purchased it, of course. 
 - Mr. Gray. Yes. 
 
 Representative Haugen. That does not reduce the supply, does it? 
 
 Mr. Gray. It does reduce the supply to other users. 
 
 Representative Haugen. It does not reduce the production? 
 
 Mr. Gray. No ; I am only talking about the supply. 
 
 Representative Haugen. The fact is that as much was produced 
 last year as was any other year? 
 
 Mr. Gray. Production? 
 
 Representative Haugen. 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 Haugen. 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 wiien the subject is one subject to proof. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Have you been able to buy any bran from 
 the mills ? 
 
 Mr. Gray. Have we? 
 
108 ADULTERATION OF MIXED BEEDS. 
 
 Representative Haugen. 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. 
 
 Representative Haugen. That they can not buy the bran? 
 
 Mr. Gray. Yes. 
 
 Representative Haugen. 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 Haugen. 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 Haugen. 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 Haugen. 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 connnittee which is trying 
 to do something in a constructive fashion. 
 
 Representative Haugen. 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 yesterdaj^, 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. Abbott. 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. Chapin. 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 East. 
 
 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. 
 
 Rut 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 oi 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, anci 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 Chairman. What explanation of that? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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 Haugen. That has been going on the whole year? 
 
 Mr Chapin. I might say, for your information 
 
 Representative Haugen. The Government has been commandeer- 
 ing flour, except a sack or two for each family. 
 
 Mr, Chapin. Last year w^e 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 Haugen. We are trying to clear up the shortage 
 of feed. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. 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 wdien 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 Haugen. We must assume that the people are 
 going to consume as much flour this year as last year. 
 
 Mr. Chapin. They will after awhile. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Then this scarcity is temporary? 
 
 Mr. Chapin. It is going to come in the winter, wiien w'e need it, 
 and in the spring, when wq do not need it, the demand for flour w-ill 
 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 Chairman. Who else have you to speak, Mr. Abbott? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 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 ADULTEEATION 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 
 ah'eady been said. 
 
 Kepresentative Lever. That closes your side, Mr. Abbott ? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Lasater. If it please the committee, I Avould like to address 
 you for 10 or 15 minutes. 
 
 The Chairman. We will hear you for that length of time. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. E. C. LASATER, FALFURRIAS DAIRY CO., FAL- 
 FTJRRIAS, TEX.— Resumed. 
 
 Mr. Lasater. Mr. Lever, I would like to revert to the question j^ou 
 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 as a 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 Illinois — 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 Illinois 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 Leat:r. You had one this year? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. Yes, sir. 
 
 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. Lasater. 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 
 
ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS, 111 
 
 ship their products to drouth-stricken Texas to feed beef cattle that 
 ]nay 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 stuif which these gentlemen ship as you were com- 
 plaining about the economics of the whole situation ; is that your 
 view ? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. 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. Lasater. And then, also, much of this stuff is absolutely in- 
 jurious. 
 
 Representative Lever, What, for instance? 
 
 Mr, Lasater. Recently, within the last month, I have made an au- 
 tomobile trip through Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New York. 
 I 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 Avintered 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. Lasater. Forty-five days. 
 
 Representative Lever. How is the cattle situation is Texas ? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. Genererally, it is bad. There are spots where there 
 is some alleviation. Luckily, I happen to be in one of the better 
 spots. 1 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. Lasater. 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 ? 
 
112 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 Mr. Lasater. 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 Levek. Do most of the dairymen use this mixed 
 feed? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. I would say the bulk of them tlo, 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 w^ould say that upon the whole the dairy in- 
 terests — of course, tJie 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 wliy they were buying 
 those feeds. 
 
 Mr. Lasater. If you will j^ermit 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 Inst 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? 
 
 My. Lasater. Mr. Creasy, could you call them offliand? 
 
 Representative Lever. Who is the president and so on? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. 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 Chairman. 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 referred to w^as 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, 191s. 
 
 1. National Farmers' Union, representatives of 17 State farmers' unions and 
 many local unions. •• 
 
 2. National Oran.iie, representatives of seven State granges and many local 
 granges. 
 
 3. National Dairy Union. 
 
ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 113 
 
 4. Farmers' National Congress. 
 
 5. American National Live-Stock Association. 
 
 6. Texas Cattle Raisei's' Association. 
 
 7. Corn Belt Meat Producers' Association. 
 
 8. 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 IMilk Producers' Association, Michigan Milk Producers' Association, Oliio 
 Milk Producers' Association, Queen City Jlilk 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' Eqiiity Union. 
 
 16. The American Devon Cattle 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 Connniuiit.v Club of Maryland. 
 
 27. Progressive Farmers' Club of Price, Queen Anne's County, Md. 
 
 28. Louisiana Farmers' Association. 
 
 Mr. Lasatek. With your permission I will read these resolutions 
 [reading] : 
 
 We favor the enactment of a law 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 millers of the country to take the standard feeds such as bran 
 and middlings, and by mixing tliem 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. Lasater. 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 Haugen. Now, the contention is that that has been 
 provided for in the various State laws, the labeling of the packages ? 
 
 81413—18 8 
 
114 ADULTERATION OP MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 Mr. Lasater. I did not quite catch your question. 
 
 Eepresentative Haugen. The contention that that has been pro- 
 vided for by the State legislatures of the various States? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. 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 folloAv me. I am not as well posted as these other gen- 
 tlemen, Avho have the facts and who have made a study of the subject. 
 
 Eepresentative Haugen. Certain amendments have been suggested 
 to this bill. Have you any amendments to suggest? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. 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 Haugen. Speaking for the consumers, are you sat- 
 isfied with the amendment as drawn? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. 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. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. I do not think you would say that when 
 j^ou take into consideration that this whole act expires at the con- 
 clusion of peace. 
 
 Mr. Lasater. If that is the case you would unquestionably have 
 to have additional legislation. 
 
 Eepresentative 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. 
 
 Eepresentative Haugen. 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 Chairman. As I understand it, then, the farmers are imposed 
 upon with worthless fertilizers? 
 
 Mr, Lasater. There is no question about it. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you think that ought to be stopped? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. 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 Chairman. 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 
 
ADULTEKATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 115 
 
 valuable and economic feeds as Schuniaker 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." 
 
 Palfurkias Jersey Dairy Co. 
 
 The Chairman. Who sent that? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. The Quaker Oats Co. to the Falfurrias Jersey Dairy 
 Co., which is the dairy end of my business. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you think that telegram states the fact as to 
 this amendment? 
 
 .Mr. Lasater. 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 Chairman. This may explain the flood of telegrams which 
 have been coming in. 
 
 The following letter and copy of telegram Avere directed by the 
 chairman to be inserted at this point, and are here printed in full : 
 
 Quaker Oats Co.. 
 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 thnt 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: 
 
 E. C. Lasater, Falfurrias, Tex. 
 
 J. B. Watson, secretary Ayrshire Breeders' Association, Brandon, Vt. 
 
 Charles L. Hill, Rosendale, Wis. 
 
 E. 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, 111. 
 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. 
 
 E. 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 E. Talmadge, jr., Atlijens, Ga. 
 
 Paul Mustin, Augusta, Ga. 
 
116 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 D. D. Adams, Macon, Ga. 
 Frank D. Jackson, Tampa, Fla. 
 Henry Winer, Chattanooga, Tenu. 
 Walter L. Lafew, Richmond, Va. 
 Wilson W. Mallory, Memphis, Tenn. 
 Caughey B. 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 Maetin Grat, 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 ofC 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. T 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.^V. T. Creasy, who is here present [reading] : 
 
 My dear Mrv. 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 Chairman (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 rim 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 son 
 accepting offer on one car. 
 
ADULTEBATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 117 
 
 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 i7iiirgin the gentlemen 
 had. There was no difference in the character of the grain market 
 during this time. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. We object' to that. 
 
 Mr. Lasater. It shoAvs it hj your quotation. I make the statement 
 that there was no material difference in grain market during this 
 time. 
 
 Representative Lever. Is there anything in this amendment 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 Lea'er (interposing). In other n-ords, 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 — I 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 Chairman. According to their claim, the price of their mate- 
 rial had advanced in the meantime? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. 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 tliey ought to charge that you 
 would prohibit interstate shipment? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. No, gentlemen, that is not wlnit I claim here. I 
 claim that this group of feed manufacturers, the American Feed 
 Manufacturers Association, instead of being p. lienefit to the pro- 
 ducers of the country are a leech upon the producing interests of the 
 countr}'. 
 
 Representative Lever. You think they were a benefit when they 
 allowed you to buy this feed at $50 a ton ? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. That Avas 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 tkac 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 
 Oore 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 Avanted to stop this hearing at this 
 stage of the game, 
 
 Mr. Gray, I think it was, of the Quaker Oats Co., was questioned 
 a few moments ago in regard to the profits of the 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 preferred stock 
 of 52,29 per cent, and on common stock of 52.65 i;er cent. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 Chairman, 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 Chairman. 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 
 telegram, and I read the correspondence also I had with the Quaker 
 Oats Co, 
 
ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 119 
 
 The Chairman. Up to this time the Quaker Oats Co. have mani- 
 fested a ^reat deal of interest in the hearing. Of course they had a 
 right to do that. 
 
 Mr. Lasater. 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 Chairman (interposing). The Feed Manufacturers' Asso- 
 ciation ? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. 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 Chairman. Mr. Lasater, did you mean what position he held 
 with the American Feed Manufacturers' Association ? 
 
 Mr. Lasater. My understanding is that he was president of that, 
 and I think we will show that very conclusively. 
 
 The Chairman. Kepresentative 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 Chairman. Please state your name, the business you are en- 
 gaged in, and address. 
 
 Mr. Cropley. 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 OP MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 Wliile 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 Chairman. 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. Cropley. 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 Chairman. 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. Cropley. I would like to see a Federal bill. Senator, intro- 
 duced to cover the entire feeding stuffs of the United States, and 1 
 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 Chairman. A great many States have laws now, have they 
 not? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. 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 Chairman. What did you say there? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. Showing the analysis facts. 
 
 The Chairman. And the ingredients? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. And the ingredients, but not the percentage of the 
 ingredients. That you can not determine after it has been mixed. 
 I 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 
 
ADULTEBATTON 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 Chairman, 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. Ceopley. I have not those formulae just in my head, but any 
 time to-morrow I will be glad to give it to you. 
 
 The Chairman. Will you prepare that formula and attach it to 
 your statement? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. I will be very glad to do so. 
 
 The Chairman. Showing the ingredients in a ton of mixed feed 
 and what each ingredient cost per ton? 
 
 Mr. Ceopley. Yes, sir ; I will be very glad to do it. 
 
 Mr. Lasater. 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. Cropley. 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 Chairman. Why would that interfere with you? What of 
 those enumerated articles do 3'ou put into your feed ? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. Alfalfa hay, oats, corn, molasses, bran. 
 
 The Chairman. 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. Cropley. Damaged feed, as Senator Reed said yesterday, con- 
 tains a certain amount of feeding value. 
 
 The Chairman. And you put that in your mixture? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. No, sir. Screenings we do use. because there is a 
 feeding value to screenings so far as we know. 
 
 The Chairman. You select your screenings, do you not? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. Yes, sir ; but wheat hulls we do not use. We bought 
 cottonseed hulls and refused to use them after we bought them. 
 
 The Chairman. Why? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. 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 Chairman. You think that so far as cottonseed hulls are con- 
 cerned it would be a good idea to keep that in ? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. No, sir ; because we refused to continue to use them. 
 
 The Chairman. But does everybody else? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. That I can not state, because I did not examine 
 every feed. 
 
 Representative Lever. Some refused to use them. 
 
 Mr. Cropley. They are sold xery largely. Peanut hulls we do not 
 use ; peanut shells we do not use : rice hulls we do not use. 
 
 The Chairman. You do not object to any of those things staying 
 in the amendment? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. No, sir; we do not. But still at the same time — I 
 do not object to them staying in the amendment. 
 
122 ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 Representative Lever. Do they have any feed value? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. Yes, sir ; they have a feed value. 
 
 Representative Lever. Do you object to anybody using them? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. No, sir; I do not. 
 
 The Chairman. But you object to people selling them for some- 
 thing different from what they are? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. I certainly think so, if misbranded, but they have 
 a feeding value. 
 
 Representative Haugen. How much? How does it compare with 
 timothy hay or alfalfa hay? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. I can not just answer that. You take oat hulls and 
 they have 50.1 digestibility. 
 
 Representative Haugen. How much has alfalfa? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. 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 Chairman. Do you use those? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. No, sir; we do not. But corncobs I do not believe 
 are injurious, because of the carbohydrates they contain. 
 
 The Chairman. You dot regard corncobs as concentrated feed? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. No, sir; I do not. 
 
 Representative Haugen. What would you consider the value of 
 corncobs as a feed? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. When you buy a barrel of corn you buy 350 pounds 
 in the East, and that is supposed to run 5 bushels of grain. The 
 A'alue of that, I imagine, alone would be in the neighborhood of $10 
 or $12 a ton, although that I do not Iniow, because I do not sell it. 
 
 Representative Haugen, The fact is that when you sell the corn 
 on the cob you give away the cob? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. No, sir ; we do not. We use it for fuel purposes. 
 
 Representative Haugen. "Wlien you sell it on the cob you give that 
 many more pounds? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. No, sir. 
 
 Representative Haugen. In my section of the country it is gen- 
 erally 75 to 85 pounds on the cob. 
 
 Mr. Cropley. 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 Haugen. And 70 pounds on the cob? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. I do not know ; I never measured it. 
 
 Representative Haugen. How many pounds of shelled corn? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. Shelled corn runs 56 pounds to the measured bushel, 
 and you multiply 5 by 56, w^hich is 280, and the differential between 
 them would be 7. 
 
 Representative Haugen. 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. Cropley. You see the standard in the east is 56 pounds to the 
 bushel. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Of shelled corn? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. Yes, sir. 
 
 Representative Haugen. And 70 pounds in the cob? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. Yes, sir. 
 
 Representative Haugen. And on the cob 75 to 80 pounds, and in the 
 last two years 100 pounds? 
 
ADULTEKATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 123 
 
 Mr. Cropley. On account of the moisture. Nature lias provided 
 us Avith moisture. The atmosphere surrounding us contains 12| per 
 cent of moisture, and without it we could not exist. 
 
 The Chairman. You say you bum the cobs ? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. Yes, sir ; we burn most of our cobs. 
 
 The Chairman. Why do you not mix them with the feed? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. 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 Chairman. There is the point. 
 
 Mr. Cropley. But this is going to put me out of business. 
 
 Representative Lee. You get more money for your goods that you 
 mix? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. I do not know about that. 
 
 Eepresentative Haugen. Seriously considering, what Avould you 
 consider the value of the corncobs as a feeder? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. 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 Haugen. You do not contend that cobs have any 
 feeding value? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. 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. 
 
 Eepresentative Haugen. Would the feeding value be equal to the 
 freight from one State to another? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. 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 Haugen, 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 3='et that they had any feed value ? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. That is my contention, that they do contain feed 
 value ; oat hulls contain a feed value. 
 
 Representative Haugen. I was trying to get at the value. 
 
 Mr. Cropley. 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 Chairman. That is what this amendment proposes to do. 
 
 Mr. Cropley. But if this amendment goes through, as I tell you, 
 it is going to ruin my plant absolutely. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you not think the Secretary of Agriculture 
 would give you permission to ship your stuff, as good as it is? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. 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 Chairman. Then that is your objection to this amendment? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. 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 Chairman. Do you think the passage of the pure-food laws 
 and these various feed hiws was just a matter of idle exercise? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. 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 Chairman. Why do the}' do that? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. 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 Chairman. I believe we are going to have to ask you to con- 
 clude 3'our statement, as we have allowed you more than five minutes. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Can not his time be extended? 
 
 Eepresentative Candler. His time was taken up by questions 
 asked him by members of the conference. 
 
 The Chairman. If the committee desire, we will allow him to go 
 ahead. 
 
 Eepresentative Haugen. Just one (juestion. 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. Cropley. 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. 
 
 Eepresentative Haugen. Would that require any extra labor? 
 You have to mix it anyway ? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. Oh. yes. But, still, e^■ery little action of the hand 
 takes up time, how much I do not know. 
 
 Eepresentative Haugen. I take it you have some rule to go by 
 as to the mixture. 
 
 Mr. Cropley. We probably could install machinery for that pur- 
 pose; yes, sir; I do not doubt that. 
 
 Eepresentative Haugen. At the present time there must be some 
 rule for the mixture to go by ? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. Oh, yes; we have weighing machines that every bit 
 of the ingredients go through that are as accurate as a clock. 
 
 Eepresentative Haugen. Then you know the amount that goes in? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. Oh, absolutely so. Of course machinery is like 
 human nature, it is liable to fall down. 
 
 The Chairman. Do a great many States require a statement of the 
 ingredients ? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. Why, 42 States, I think. 
 
 The Chairman. Yet you do not do that yourself. 
 
 Mr. Cropley. They require it, and while each State we sell into 
 we put a new formula for brancl 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 Chairman. But it does not state the ingredients? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. It does state the ingredients, absolutely so. 
 
 Eepresentative Haugen. But not the percentage ? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. But not the percentage. 
 
ADULTEBATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 125 
 
 Representative Haugek. Then it does not amount to anything. 
 
 Mr. Cropley. 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 Chairman. You say you have got to have good feed to have 
 protein ? 
 
 Mr. Cropley. 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 
 anah'sis. 
 
 The Chairman, 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. White. The testimony here yesterday show.ed 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, White. We do. 
 
 Representative Lever. Why do vou propose that we adopt this 
 thing? 
 
 Mr. White, 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. White. No, sir. 
 
 Representative Lever. Why was that? 
 
 Mr. White. 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 bo 
 willing to pay more at the present time if he could get it entirely 
 free from objectionable material. 
 
126 ADULTEEATTON OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. Do jovl think this amendment cures that ? 
 
 Mr. White. Yes, sir. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. How ? 
 
 Mr. White. Because it shows what is in them. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. Suppose they do not sell it to you. 
 
 Mr. White. If they do not sell it to us, we will get along with- 
 out it. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. That is the trouble now, they do not sell it 
 to you? 
 
 Mr. White. Yes, sir. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. Does this cure that trouble? 
 
 Mr. White. If they sell mixed feeds. 
 
 Eepresentative Lea-er. Well, you say you don't want this mixed 
 stuff sold. 
 
 Mr. White. 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. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. I thought your proposition was somewhat 
 like Mr. Lasater's,' that the farmers there in New York had plenty 
 of roughage. 
 
 Mr. White. 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 
 
 Eepresentative Lever (interposing). I agree with you. But how 
 are you going to remedy the proposition? Will this amendment do 
 that? 
 
 Mr. White. If it is prohibited from being shipped in the mixed 
 feeds, it will be. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. Your proposition is Mr. Lasater's, to pro- 
 hibit the shipment of all this stuff in interstate commerce ? 
 
 Mr. White. 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 cars 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 Xew Castle, bringing material 
 that we already have. 
 
 Representative Le\tir. 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. White. Containing certain ingredients. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. Containing certain ingredients which in 
 themselves are not deleterious to health or dangerous, and which in 
 themselves contain somewhat of a feeding value? 
 
 Mr. White. Yes, sir. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. You would inhibit the shipment of these in- 
 gredients in interstate commerce because you have a situation in New 
 York where your farmers Avith plenty of hay on hand for some rea- 
 son or other prefer to buv these mixed feed. Is that vour proposi- 
 tion ? 
 
 Mr. White. They do like 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. White. 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. White. 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 Avhatever 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. White. We certainly do. 
 
 Representative Lever. Is that your position ? 
 
 Mr. White. 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. White. No; we have no objection to his selling stuff for 
 exactly what it is. 
 
128 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 Eepresentative 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. White. No, sir; we do not. 
 
 Representative Lever. Well, I can't get your point. 
 
 Mr. White. 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 Chairman. Do you object to the farmer in Mississippi and 
 Oklahonja selling anything he has got to anybody who wants to buy 
 it, representing it as just what it is? 
 
 Mr. White. No, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. 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. White. No, sir. 
 
 Representative Lever. Yes; the gentleman does. 
 
 Mr. White. The point right here. jNIr. 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 Lever. Have you got authority to do that in your 
 State law now? 
 
 Mr. White. That measure is pending. Hearings are to be held on 
 it the 5th of October. I 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 w^as postponed in- 
 definitely, but I think I can assure the gentleman that it was post- 
 poned very indefinitely and for very definite purposes. 
 
 The Chairman. 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 I think your have been talking 15. Of course you can use 
 the whole time, so far as the committee is concerned. 
 
 Mr. White. I answered the question. Senator Gore, that was all. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Just let me ask you one question. My 
 understanding is that your objection is to the corncob masquesrading 
 under false colors? 
 
 Mr. White. Absolutely. 
 
 Representative Haugen. 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. White. Yes, sir. We have full confidence in the Secretary 
 of Agriculture as being capable of determining those things as the 
 authority. 
 
ADULTEKATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 129 
 
 The Chaiumax. Now, avIiomi will you have next? 
 
 Mr. Ward. 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 Avent along for a great many years 
 growing milk and dairy products in the State of New York, supply- 
 ing them with the foodstutfs and grain and by-products produced in 
 the West and South, and there w^as 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 dri\'es 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 nmch 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. 
 
 N'ow% 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 pui-posfs of this act the feeding stuffs- shall he deemed to he adul- 
 terated if it contains any sawdust, dirt, damaged feed, rice liuUs, chaff, peanut 
 liulls, crushed coriunihs, 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 w^as not wndely know^n and has not been 
 in all these years, when thfe dairymen w^ere 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? 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. Mr. Ward, were there any hearings on that 
 bill of Senator Owen's? 
 
 Mr. Ward. I don't know. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. I ask that purely for information. 
 
 Mr. Ward. 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 
 
 Representative Lever (interposing). Now let's see about that. 
 Have you any document issued by the Department of Agriculture 
 calling attention to this fraud? 
 
 Mr. Ward. I wouldn't say the department. I have a document 
 issued 
 
 Eepresentative Lever (interposing). That is what you did say, 
 thougli. 
 
 Mr. Ward. 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. 
 
 Eepresentative Le\t:r. When was that issued ? 
 
 INIr. Ward. That was issued and published in Flour and Feed in 
 December, 1911, volume 12 of the Congressional Library, page 32. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. Mr. Ward, is this the first time that you 
 gentlemen came down here on this proposition ? 
 
 Mr. Ward. 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 
 State in particular — are largely responsible for the extent to which 
 the fraudulent feeds have been sold to our farmers. 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 th.e contrary is tlie 
 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. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. Don't you think you had better get a new 
 State department of agriculture? 
 
 Mr. Ward. 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. 131 
 
 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 manufacturer, 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 dair}^ production was increasing under tliis 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 decroasb 
 of nearly 2^00.000. This year and last year we fed more of these feeds 
 than ever before, and the thing is so arranged by organizations of 
 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 
 jarlcad of cottonseed meal to feed their stock. 
 
 Eepresentative Lever. Now. Mr. Ward, do you attribute this de- 
 .Tease to the selling of these mixed feeds, or what? 
 
 Mr. Ward. That is the only change in our dairy situation, the 
 increasing 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 Lever. 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- 
 mer! are celling their dairy cattle? 
 
 Mr. Ward. No, I can't do that. 
 
 liepresentative Lever. For beef purposes? 
 
 Mr. Ward. I can give you these statistics which may answer. The 
 record of milk distributing 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 pro'^luctio'i 
 was 204 pounds about per day, a decrease of 18.7 per cent. Now. I 
 don't sa}^ — I don't know about the'^e things, I am taki^ g the state- 
 ment of Mr. Halligan, the head of the Department of Chemi'^^^ry in 
 the Louisiana Experiment Station, and the statement of Dr. Brown, 
 of the Bureau of Plant Industry, that it is possible to mix a d-iiry 
 food that injures and destroj-s cattle. Spoiled corn, fermen<"ed corn, 
 r.nder 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. AVard. 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. Ward. He did. It w^as 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 connnittee? 
 
 Mr. Ward. That I can't tell you. 
 
 Representative Lever. But you said it was reported, just a moment 
 ago. 
 
 Mr. Ward. 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 knoAv 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 light of day. 
 
 Mr. Ward. 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 
 I 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 Chairman. I want to say in that connection myself 
 
 Representative Lever (interposing). That is the record. 
 
 The Chairman. I know it is the record, and there are in the record 
 misleading and false telegrams sent out by the Quaker Oats Co., 
 wdiich were not the truth. 
 
 Representative Lever. I don't Imow about that, but that shows 
 what I am trying to get at, that you can't tell from the introduction 
 of these things. 
 
 The Chairman. 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. • 133 
 
 Representative PIauoen. jNIr. Chairman, let me see if I can get one 
 matter cleared np liere. 
 
 I understood you to say that some certain oroanizalion — you didn't 
 name the organizatiorj — that some organization maintained funds 
 and paid the fines of the dealers who were violating the law? 
 
 Mr. Ward. The manufacturer — this association. 
 
 Representative Hauoen. What association? 
 
 Mr. Ward. The Feed Dealers' Association. 
 
 Representative Halkjex. The association that is appearing here in 
 opposition to this bill? 
 
 Mr. Ward. 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 Agriculture 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 Haugen. Then the fine for violating the law is paid 
 by the association? 
 
 Mr. Ward. Oh, yes; it is paid by the manufacturer. I don't know 
 who pays it. 
 
 Representative Haugen. I can't imagine that we could have such 
 an association in this country. 
 
 Mr. Ward. I don't know who pays it, but the check comes to the 
 Agricultural Department. 
 
 Representative Haugen. 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. Ward. I don't know where it comes from. The check comes 
 to the Department of Agriculture. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt at this point? 
 
 Mr. Ward. We have a witness here who can testify as to that. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. We wish to refute this statement and brand it un- 
 qualifiedly a lie. I am president of the American Feed Manufac- 
 turers' Association. 
 
 The Chairman. You had better use parliamentary language, I 
 think. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. I will withdraw that from the record, if you wish, 
 and say as unqualifiedly false. 
 
 The Chairman. All right. 
 
 Mr. Ward. 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 make — we 
 don't care about that — that the feed dealer isn't even informed of the 
 facts. 
 
 Representative Haugen. I don't care what you feel about it. what 
 I want to get at is the facts. If the facts are — you still assert that 
 these fines are not paid by the man who violates the law ? 
 
 Mr. Ward. Absolutely ; that they are paid by some association. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Abbott, your disclaimer relates to the Feed 
 Manufacturers' Association ? 
 
134 • ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 ]\Ir. Abbott. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. And yon don't nndertake to say that this practice 
 is not carried on by some other organization? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. We have no knowledge whatsoever of other organi- 
 zations' affairs. . 
 
 The Chairman. Well, that is what I wanted to make clear. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Did yon refer to this organization ? 
 
 Mr. Ward. My information is from the department that the letter 
 is transmitted, or was up until very recenth', to the American Feed 
 Dealers' Association. 
 
 Representative Haugen. What is your association? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. The American Feed Manufacturers' Association is 
 the trade name of our association. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Is he referring to your association? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. I should judge from the character of his remarks he 
 undoubtedly was. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Are the names the same? 
 
 The Chairman. There seems to be a feed dealers' association and 
 a feed manufacturers' association. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. His definition of names does not seem to be the same. 
 He, however, addressed his remarks to this association, irrespective 
 of names. 
 
 Representative Haugen. I want to make that clear. 
 
 Mr. Raymond Smith. Senator Gore, inasmuch as I supplied the 
 information to Judge Ward for the statement that he is now making 
 1 will give the basis for his making that statement and where I 
 obtained it. 
 
 The Chairman. That would be better. Is that satisfactory to you, 
 judge? 
 
 Mr. Ward. Yes, sir. 
 
 Representative Haugen. Referring to this organization? 
 
 Mr. Smith. 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 agriculture, 
 I made an investigation of that department to ascertain conditions 
 in that department. I had not proceeded with niy 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 Chairman. You say they had not been prosecuted? 
 
 Mr. Smith. 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 building was filled with samples which he 
 
ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 135 
 
 fiad 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 towm 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 I 
 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 w^ith the Federal Trade Commission. 
 
 Mr. McLaughtjn. When you made that investigation and found 
 that check, by w^hom were you employed? 
 
 Mr. Smith. The New York State Department of Agriculture. 
 
 Mr. McLaughlin. You spoke of the Department of Agriculture. 
 I thought you meant this Federal Department. 
 
 Mr. Smith. No ; not at all. 
 
 Mr. McLaughlin. How many such checks did you find? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I found a very bad condition there. I found that 
 licenses had been sent in 
 
136 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 ^Ir. McLaughlin (interposing). How many fines or how many 
 penalties did you find had been paid b}^ the association instead of 
 by the offending dealer? 
 
 Mr. Smith. That is a very hard question to answer directly. 
 There was no dispute in the defpartment — there was no dispute b\^ tne 
 legal adviser. Mr. Inlanders, that he took up the cases of the manu- 
 facturers direct, with them, and I foimd that they found their way 
 into Mr. Brown's oftice, and that there they were in fact adjusted by 
 him with the department. 
 
 Mr. McLaughlin. I was trying to have you say with some defi- 
 niteness how many of these penalties Avere settled by checks from 
 headquarters. 
 
 Mr. Smith. AVhy that would necessitate my becoming liable to 
 prosecution under section G of the Federal trade act, because I did 
 not ascertain that fact while in the department. 
 
 Mr. McLaughlin. AVhile 3^ou were in the <lepartment and gitined 
 knowledge that you are free to ^peak about without subjecting your- 
 self to a penalty, how many payments of that kind did you find had 
 been made? 
 
 ]Mr. Smith. You mean of the checks of the deputy couunissioner? 
 
 Mr. McLaughlin. The checks in pa3^ment of fines, or taking care 
 of the fines or penalties, coming from souie source other than the 
 offending dealer who sold the goods. 
 
 Mr. Smith. Why, I will tell you, when it w^as 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 Avho paid those penalties. But I will say this, that 
 in a number of cases tluit I found, especially the Ealston peo])le, that 
 previous to their membership in this association they wei-e given the 
 limit of the law, the maximum, but after they became members of 
 this association they received friendly offices. 
 
 Mr. McLaughlin. What do you mean by "given the limit? " 
 
 Mr. S:mith. I mean they paid the maximum penalty under the 
 laW'. 
 
 Mr. AiiBOTT. Mr. C'liairman, nuiy I ask a question? 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. Your statement a minute ago was to the effect that 
 the American Feed Manufacturers' Association had tendered a 
 check. 
 
 Mr. Smith. I did not say that. I said Swift & Co., a member of 
 this association. 
 
 ]Mr. Abbott. Your statement a few minutes ago, unqualifiedly 
 made, stated that the xVmerican Feed Manufacturers' Association 
 paid the fine of some one who was prosecuted. 
 
 Mr. Ward. I think you had better refer to the minutes. The wit- 
 ness made no such statement. 
 
 I said Swift & Co., a member of this association, sent the check. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. You made the statement and Mr, Smith confirmed 
 the statement, if I may interject. 
 
 Mr. Ward. No ; I did not make any such statement. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. You made the statement that the American Feed 
 Msinufncturers' Association- 
 
 Mr. Ward (interposing). No, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. He said the American Feed Dealers' x\ssociation. 
 
ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 137 
 
 Mr. Abboti'. Will you please have the record read, Mr. Chairman? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I know that in the case of the local people there 
 
 Mr. Abbott (interj^osing). Will yon have the record read, Mr. 
 Chairman? 
 
 The CHAIRMA^^ Find that statement of Mr. Ward's and read it. 
 (The reporter read the record beginning:) 
 
 Ilepi-esentative Haugkn. Mr. Cliainiian, just let me see if I can iiet one matter 
 cleared up here. I understood you to say that some certain orpuiization — you 
 didn't name the organization — that some organization maintained funds and 
 paid the tines of the dealers who were violating the law, and ending with the 
 statement of Mr. Smith. 
 
 Now. that correspondence I still have, together wilh the olHcial receipt and 
 the letters from Swift ».**: Co. to the deputy connnissionei- inclosing a check 
 to him. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. There is just one question, Mr. Chairman, may I asJf 
 Mr. Smith? 
 
 Mr. Waiu). Now, you found that Mr. Smith was correct in his 
 statement and that you were misquoting his evidence, and I think yon 
 ought to say something. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. I will beg your pardon. Judge Ward. 
 
 The Chairman. I don't think that is material. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. I merely confirmed — may I ask Mr. Smith one ques- 
 tion ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Yon can. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. Have you found one instance in which the American 
 Feed Manufacturer's"' Association has paid anyone's fine? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I have. 
 ' Mr. Abbott. Please state it. 
 
 Mr. Smith. In talking with ex- Assembly man 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 hiuiself 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, 
 "" I don't like it and intend if I get back to the legislature another 
 year to remedy that condition.*' 
 
 Now, that statement can be verified by Mr. Lefevre. I am giving 
 yon 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 
 is 
 
 Mr. Abbott (interposing). Mr. Chairman, I 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 Mannfactnrers' Association as an organiza- 
 tion had paid Mr. Lefevre's fine? 
 
 Mr. Smith. Well, I would prefer that Mr. Lefevre himself sub- 
 stantiate that, which he has offered to do in an affidavit. 
 
 Mr. Abbott. You have not seen this evidence? 
 
 Mr. Smith. I am stating here to-day my experience while in that 
 department. 
 
 Mr. Abbot'J'. Will yon please answer my qnestion? 
 
138 ADULTEEATION OP MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 Mr. Smith. I prefer to rest on the answer that I made to your 
 question, the first one yon made, which I think answered it by wiving 
 you the name and address of the man, who is known to several of you 
 men sitting out there. 
 
 Mr, Abbott. Mr. Lefevre is a dealer or manufacturer? 
 
 Mr. Smith. He is a dealer in feed, located at New Paltz, Ulster 
 County, N. Y. " 
 
 Mr. Abbott. Is he a member of the American Feed Manufacturers' 
 Association ? 
 
 Mr. Smith. 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. 
 
 JNIr. Abbott. Is there any reason, Mr. Chairman, why Mr, Smith 
 should not answer my question with the answer of either yes or no? 
 
 ]\Ir. Ward. It is not material to the inquiry. We don't care who 
 pays it. 
 
 The Chaikmax. 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 l)e 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 sav 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 w^as 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 onh?^ concerned that no injustice should be done 
 the American Feed Manufacturers' Association. I have no dispo- 
 sition to shield them against just charges. 
 
 Mr. Ward. 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. Abbott. You are speaking, then, of the manufacturer of the 
 particular product in question? 
 
 Mr. Ward. I am asking for information from you who know. 
 Isn't it a common practice for the manufacturer who makes these 
 feeds to pay any penalty assessed against the dealer? 
 
 Mr. Abbott. 1 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. Ward. 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. Ward. Mr. Brown's letter; you have it. 
 
 Mr. Smith. I 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. Waed. Now, I will continue and close. Senator, if you will 
 permit. 
 
 The CiTAiRiMAN. 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 substantiall}^ 
 different, see that I have copies of those. 
 
 Mr. Graf. We will be glad to comply with your request. 
 
 Mr. Ward. Now, the dairymen have no interest in who pays this 
 penalty. The lawmakers 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. McLaughlin. 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. Ward. 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 Chairman. I have a call that requires me to leave in a very 
 few minutes, Mr. Ward. 
 
 Mr. Ward. I will close wath one more sentence. As far as the food 
 and drug act is concerned, it is absolutelv valueless in this question 
 of compounded feeds. The decision of the United States court in 
 the Corno-Oat Feed Case, Federal Eeporter, 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 tlie right legal name for any food is the name 
 the manufacturer puts on it if it is a dairy food.'' 
 
 I am very much obliged to you gentlemen. There ought not to be 
 any contest between the farmers and you gentlemen on this subject. 
 
 The Chairman. We are very much obliged to you for your patience 
 and for your uniform courtesy. We will now adjourn. 
 
 (The jfollowing 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. KUSH C. BUTLEE, CHAIRMAN FEDERAL 
 TRADE COMMITTEE, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED 
 STATES AND ATTORNEY FOR AMERICAN FEED MANUFACTUR- 
 ERS' ASSOCIATION. 
 
 The Chairman. I would like the stenogra})her 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 t]ie 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 j^ou not? 
 
 Mr. Butler. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. And those suits resulted in the statute being an- 
 nulled in the Suj^reme Court of the Ignited States, did they not ? 
 
 Mr. Butler. The Virginia statute was annulled by the circuit court 
 of appeals, and the State was unable to get into the Supreme Coui't of 
 the United States. 
 
 The Mississippi statute fell down before we got to the circuit court 
 of appeals. 
 
 The Chairman. 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. Butler. We have done that in those tAvo instances only; and 
 both of those suits were instituted, I think, in 1911 or 1912. 
 
 The Chairman. And you have one pending now, you say? 
 
 Mr. Butler. W^ell, we have been consulted about one. 
 
 The Chairman. What State did it relate to? 
 
 Mr. Butler. Texas. 
 
 The Chairman. That is all. 
 
 (The following telegrams were subsequently directed by the chair- 
 man to be inserted in the record:) 
 
 St. Louis, Mo., ^cptctnhcr 11, 1918. 
 Hon. Thomas P. Gore, 
 
 United States Setiate, Washington, D. C: 
 
 Your telesvam received. The directors of tlie Merchants' Exchange feel you 
 are correct in your position when it applies to corncol)s, ground cocoa shells, 
 ivory-nut tui'ninfi;s, ground cornstallvs, sawdust, and dirt whicli have no feed 
 value, but your amendment is too liroad, especially when it applies to ground 
 hay. screenings, chaff, or offal from- any seed or grain ; likewise cotton seed or 
 oat huU.s, oat clijipings, etc., 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. 141 
 
 legitimate industries, sucli as lioui- mills, feed mills throujilioiit the United 
 States, and untold damage to hofi', cattle, and dairy intes-ests, i)articularly at 
 this time of shortage of feeds thnnmliout the country. 
 
 John (). Ballard, 
 
 Presideitt. 
 
 New York, N. Y., Scptcinber 16, 191<^. 
 Ed. C. Lasater, 
 
 918 Erans BuUduKj. WiDilthiyton, I). C. 
 National Milk Producers" Association and Dairymen's League — 57,000 mem- 
 hers — favor the feeding stuffs amendment to the general agricultural bill. 
 Almost impossible to have our repi-esentative at hearing to-morrow. Will you 
 rejn-esent these two organizations in support of Gore amendment? 
 
 II. D. Cooper. 
 
 New York, N. \'.. Scptcriiber 20, 1918. 
 Hon. T. P. Gore, 
 
 United Stdtcfi SciKite, \V(tHhin<iton, D. C. 
 At a meeting of conference New York farm organizations representing New 
 Yoi'k State grange, the Dairymen's League, New York .State Federation Farm 
 Bureaus, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: ''Resolved, That 
 the conference of New Yoi'k 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 Fleming, George J. O'Keefe, justices 
 of the court of special, sessions of the city of New York. 
 
 The I'eople of the State of New York r. Swift & Co., coriinration, on a charge 
 of violation of section 41'. sanitary code. 
 
 Dated September 28. 1918. 
 
 I do certify that it api)ears from an examination of the records of this office 
 that Swift & Co., corporation, the above-named defendant, was convicted and 
 tinetl $250 by the court of special sessions of the city of New York on the 1st 
 da.v of December, 1913; 
 
 A true extract from the minutes. 
 
 [SEAL.] Joiix P. Hilly. Clerk of Court. 
 
 At a court of speciid 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 r>ecember, in the year of our Lord 1913: 
 
 Present: Hons. Joseph F. -Moss, (ieorge J. G'Keefe, John Flendng, justices 
 of the court of si)ecial sessions of the city of New York. 
 
 The People of the State, of New York r. -a corporation called Swift & Co.. on 
 a charge of violation of section 339/*, public-health law., cold storage. 
 
 Dated September 23, 1918. 
 
 I do cei'tify that it .-ipjiears from an examination of the records of this oflice 
 that a cori)oration (ailed .Swift & Co., the above-named defendant, was con- 
 victed and lined .*t;.50() by the court of special sessions of the city of New York 
 on the 12th daj^ of December, 1913. 
 
 A true extract froni the minutes. 
 
 [seal.] John P. Hilly, Clerk of Court. 
 
 At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county of 
 of New Y^ork. 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 sjiecial sessions of the city of New Y'^ork. 
 
 The People of the State of New York r. 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., coi-poration, the above-named defen<lant. was convicted and 
 
142 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 fined $300 by the court of special sessions of the city of New York on the 
 15th (lay of December, 1913. 
 
 A true extract from the minutes. 
 
 [SEAL.] John P. Hilly, 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 IMonday, the 15th day of December in the year of our liord 1913 : 
 
 Present: Hons. Cornelius F. Collins, Georjie 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 cliarge 
 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 $300 by the court of special sessions of the citv of New York on the 
 15th day of December, 1913. 
 
 A true extract from the minutes. 
 
 [seal.] John P. Hilly, 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 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 Sw ft & Co., corporation, the al)Ove-uamed defendant was convicttMl and 
 fined .$300 by the court of special sessions of the city of New York, on the 15th 
 day of Decendjer, 1913. 
 
 A true extract froiu the minutes. 
 
 [seal.] John P. Hilly, 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. Mclnei'ney, Cornelius F. Collins, Lorenz Zeller, jus- 
 tices of the court of special sessions of the c 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. (Inc.), 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. Hilly, Clerk of Court. 
 
 At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, iield 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 ftur Lord, 1914: 
 
 Present: Hons. Moses Herrman, .James J. Mclnerney, Lorenz Zeller. justices 
 of the court of special sessions of the city of New York. 
 
 The people of the State of New Yor]<: 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 Nev.- York, on the 19th 
 day of January, 1914. 
 
 A true extract from the minutes. 
 
 [seal.] John P. Hilly, Clerk of Court. 
 
 At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the coimty 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: 
 
ADULTEEATION OF MIXED FEEDS, 143 
 
 Present: Hons. Cornelius F. Collins, George J. O'Keefe, Jiimes J. Mclnerney, 
 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 tl e court of special sessions of the city of Ne\\- York, on the 17th 
 day of August, 1914. 
 
 A true extract from the minutes. 
 
 [seal.] John P. Hilly, C7e?-/c of Court. 
 
 At a court of special sessions of the City of New Y^ork, held in tlie county of 
 New York, at the building for criminal courts in the Bol'ough 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. IMoss, Cornelius F. Collins, 
 justices of the court of .special sessions of the city of New Y''ork. 
 
 The People of the State of New York v. Armour & Co., corporation, on a 
 charge of violation section 42, sanitary code. 
 
 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. Hilly, G?e/7i 0/ C'o!/rf. 
 
 At a court of special sessions of the City of New Y'ork, held in the county of 
 New York, at the building for criminal courts in the Borough of Manhattan in 
 said city, on IMonday, the 11th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1915: 
 
 Present : Hons. Jsnac Franklin Russell, .Joseph F. IMoss, 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 336 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 Svift & Co., the above-named defendant, was convicted and fined $590 by 
 the c(mrt of special sessions of the city of New York on the 11th dav of Janu- 
 uary. 1915. ^ 
 
 A true extract from the minutes. 
 
 [seal.] John P. Hilly, 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 foi- criminal courts in the Borough of Manhattan in 
 said c-ty, on Monday, the 25tb (\ay of .January, in the year of our Lord, 1915: 
 
 Pre.sent : Hons. Isaac Franklin Russell, Cornelius F. Coliins, .Joseph F. Moss, 
 justices of the court of special sessions of th.e 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 ('o certify that it appears from an examination of the records of this office 
 that Swift f: Co., the above-named defendant, was convicted, and judgment sus- 
 peiK^.ed, by the c<niit 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. Hilly, CJerk of Court. 
 
 At a C( urt of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county of 
 No'- York, at the bui'ding for criminal courts in the Borough of Manhattan in 
 sa'd c t;-. on ISIonday, the 25th day of January, in the yeaf of our Lord, 1915 : 
 
 Present: Hons. Isaac Franklin Russell, Cornelius F. Collins, Joseph F. Mo.ss, 
 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 
 tbat Swift & Co., the above-named defendant, was convicted and fined $.500 by- 
 
144 ADULTERATION OF MIXED FEEDS. 
 
 ^^ 
 
 the court of spor-ial sessions of the citv of New York, on tlie 2oth (hiv of Jaminrv 
 1915. ' ■ 
 
 A true extract from the minutes. 
 
 [SEAL.] .ToHN p. Hilly. Clrrk of (Joui't. 
 
 At a court of si»ecial sessions of the city <tf New York, held in tlie county of 
 New York, at the huil(lin,i>- for crinnmil courts in the Boroufih of Manhattan in 
 said city, on the 15th (hiy of JMarch, in tlie year of our Lord 1915: 
 
 Present: Hous. Frederic Kernochau. .lames ,1. ilclnerney, .John .1. Freschi, 
 justices of the court of special sessions of the city of New York. 
 
 The I'eople of tlie State of New I'ork /". Ai-mour & Co., on a charge of violation 
 of iiuhlic-health law. cold storage. 
 
 Dated September 23, 1918. 
 
 I do ceitify that it ai)pears from an examination of the records of this ottice 
 tliat Armour & Co., the above-named defendant, plead guilty and was tined .$.500 
 h.v the court of special sessions of the cit.v of New York on the 15th day of 
 March, 1915. 
 
 A true extract from the minutes. 
 
 [seal.] John P. Hilly, Clerk of Court. 
 
 At a court of special sessions of the city of New York, held in the county of 
 New Y'ork, 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 Ijord 1916: 
 
 Present: Hons. P^dwin L. Garvin, Frederic Kernoclian. Cornelius V. Collins, 
 .iustices of tlie court of special sessions of the city of New York. 
 
 The People of the State of New York r. Swift iV: Co. (Inc.), on a charge of 
 violation section 163. sanitary code. 
 
 Dated Septenibei- 23, 1918. 
 
 I do certify that it ajipears from an examination of the records of tliis office 
 that Swift & Co. (Inc.), the aliove-named defendant, was convicted and tiued 
 .$100 by tlie court of special sessions of the city of New York on the 11th day of 
 September, 1916. 
 
 A ti'ue extract from the minutes. 
 
 [seal.] .Iohn p. Hilly, Clrrk of Court. 
 
 At a court of special sessions of tlie city of New York, held in the county 
 of New Y'ork, at the building for criminal courts in the P>orougli of ;\Ianhattan 
 in said city, on Monday, the 11th day of September, in the year of our Ijord 
 1916: 
 
 Present: Hons. Edwin L. Garvin, Frederic Iveriiochan. Cornelius F. Collins, 
 .justices of the court of special sessions of the city of New York. 
 
 Tlie I'eople of the State of New York r. 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 tliis office 
 that Swift & Co. (Inc.). the above-named defendant, pleaded guilty, and was 
 tined $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.] .Iohn 1'. Hilly, Clerk of Court. 
 
 At a court of special sessions of the city of New Y'ork. held in the county 
 of New Y^ork, at the building for criminal courts in the Borough of Manhattan 
 in said city, on Friday, tlie 22d of .January, in the year of our Lord 1915: 
 
 Present : Hons. Arthur C. Salmon, .James .T. Mclnerney, Moses Hernnan, 
 .justices of the court of special sessions of the city of New Y'oiiv. 
 
 The People of the State of New York v. Swift & Co., corp(n-ation, on a charge 
 of violation .section 42, sanitary code. 
 
 Dated September 23. 1918. 
 
 I do certify tliat it appears from an examination of the records of tliis office 
 that Swift & Co., corporation, the. above-named defendant, was convicted and 
 fined $5(X) by the court of special sessions of the cit.v of New York on the 22fl (\;\y 
 of .January, 1918. 
 
 A true extract from the minutes. 
 
 I seal.] .John P. Hilly, Clerk of Court. 
 
 (Thereupon, at 5 o'clock, the Conference Committee adjourned.') 
 
 <C X 
 
 % 
 
 <'o