B. S. LrpRAiiY. Cop. a. P^^A CONNECTICUT y^o.\1^ AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION NEW HAVEN, CONN. BULLETIN 172, JULY, 1912. The Net Weight or Volume of Food Products Which are Sold in Packages. • Bv John Phillips Street. CONTENTS. Page Introduction 4 Variation in Weight of Foods Packed at the Same Time 6 Significance of Can Sizes 7 Accurac)' of Claimed Weight 23 Changes in Weight of Dried Fruits 26 The Bulletins of this Station are mailed free to citizens of Con- necticut who apply for them, and to others as far as the limited editions permit. CONNECTICUT AdRICHLTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. BOARD OF CONTROL. His Excellency, Simeon E. Baldwin, ex officio, President. Prof. H. W. Conn, Vice President Middletown George A. Hopson, Secretary Wallingford E. H. Jenkins, Director and Treasurer New Haven Joseph W. Alsop Avon Wilson H. Lee Orange Frank H. Stadtmueller Elmwood James H. Webb Hamden Administration. Chemistry. Analytical Laboratory. station staff. E. H. Jenkins, Ph.D., Director and Treasurer. Miss V. E. Cole, Librarian and Stenographer. Miss L. M. Brautlecht, Bookkeeper and Stenographer. William Veitch, In Charge of Buildings and G7-cunds. John Phillips Street, M.S., Chemist in Charge. E. Monroe Bailey, Ph.D., C. B. Morrison, B.S., R. B. Roe, B.A., C. E. Shepard, /Assistants. Hugo L.-\nge, Laboratory Helper. V. L. Churchill, Sampling Agent. Proteid Research. T. B. Osborne, Ph.D., Chemist in Charge. Miss E. L. Ferry, A.B., Assistant. Miss Luva Francis, Stenographer. G. P. Clinton, S.D., Botanist. E. M. Stoddard, B.S., Assistant. Miss M. H. Jagger, Seed Analyst. Miss E. B. Whittlesey, Herbarium Assistant. Entomology. W. E. Britton, Ph.D., Entomologist : also State Entomologist. B. H. Walden, B.Agr., D. J. Caffrey, B.S., H. B. Kirk, Assistants. Miss E. B. Whittlesey, Stenographer. Forestry. Samuel N. Spring, M.F., Foresters also State Forester and State Forest Fire Warden. W. O. Filley, Assistant State Forester. Miss E. L. Avery, Stenographer. Plant Breeding. H. K. Hayes, B.S., Plant Breeder. C. D. HuBBELL, Assistant. THE NET WEIGHT OR VOLUME OF FOOD PRODUCTS WHICH ARE SOLD IN PACKAGES. By John Phillips Street. ' At the January session of 1911 the General Assembly passed the following [Chapter 134] : An Act concerning the Sale of Food in Package Form. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: Sec. I. Any person who shall sell or offer for sale, food in package form, unless the net quantity of the contents be plainly and conspicuously marked on the outside of the package in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count; provided, that reasonable variations shall be permitted, and that allowances shall be established by rules and regulations made from time to time by the dairy and food commissioner and the director of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, shall be subject to the penalties provided in chapter 255 of the public acts of 1907. Sec. 2. The terms "person" and "food" as defined in chapter 255 of the public acts of 1907, shall apply to the provisions of this act, provided, the term "food" as used herein shall not include confectionery and shelled nuts when offered for sale in packages at a price not exfceeding ten cents each. Sec. 3. This act shall take effect from its passage, but no penalty shall be enforced for any violation of the provisions of section one arising from the sale of food prepared and enclosed in package form prior to eighteen months after the passage of this act. Approved, July 11, 191 1. The following- work was undertaken by the writer, at the joint request of Mr. H. F. Potter, the Dairy and Food Commissioner, and the Director of this Station, to provide a basis for making the "rules and regulations" required of them by this statute. The samples referred to were mostly bought by the Commissioner and the examinations were made in the laboratory of this Station. CONNECTICUT EXPERIMENT STATION^ BULLETIN NO. I72. Introduction. All beverag-es and all ver}^ moist or liquid foods, as well as all food products which are preserved for transport and storage by "processing-" or sterilizing, are necessarily enclosed in "packages" of some sort. Other sorts of food products, for which closed retail packages are not so necessary, are coming to be sold quite commonly in this way. This practice has certain advantages. The most obvious of these is the protection from contamination by flies, animals and human manipulation and by the dust and dirt of shop and street. A sealed package gives the buyer a reasonable assurance that he gets the food just as it left the factory and this is -particularly important for manufacturers who claim specially clean factories and sanitary methods. Sealed packages also protect from sub- stitution and dishonest manipulation or false weights and meas- ures of a retail dealer. They save the dealer time, trouble and sometimes loss of material, and by their attractive appearance tempt customers. The use of packages also has its disadvantages. As a rule it increases the cost of food to the consumer. He pays for the attractive and somewhat expensive containers either by increase of price per unit of quantity or by decreased quantity at the standard price. In sealed cartons the purchaser cannot see the food before buying' — a serious objection in the case of such things' as breakfast foods and dried fruits, which he sometimes finds, on breaking the package, to be infested with insects. This causes trouble if not loss. The size of the container often deceives the buyer as to the amount of material he is buying. Bottles with deeply concave bottoms or panelled sides, and breakfast food cartons, especially of flaked foods, are likely to be quite deceptive. The tables on the following pages show that many foods are sold in packages containing net weights of odd amounts. For instance, potted ham, 6.5 and 10.5 oz. ; peanut butter, 7 oz. ; condensed milk, 6 and 14.5 oz. ; biscuits, 5.25, 6.25, 12 and 14 oz. ; corn flakes, 10.5 oz. ; rolled oats, 22 oz. ; mince meat, 10 oz. It hardly seems likely that trade exigencies demand these fractional weights, but the size of the package often leads the INTRODUCTION. 5 consumer to believe that he is receiving more of the food than is actually the case, that is, an even pound or fraction of a pound, whereas the package generally contains less than the near- est even fraction of a pound. Rolled oats, for instance, used to be sold in two pound packages ; at the present time it is generally in 22 oz. packages, but with a price no lower, if not higher, than when ten ounces more were delivered. Furthermore, it must be remembered that a No. i or No. 2 can of corned beef, for instance, does not mean one or two pounds of the meat, but 12 or 24 oz. The weight of the package is also frequently included in the alleged weight of the product. This is quite general with dried fruits such as raisins, currants and prunes, of which "pound packages" contain 14 or 15 net ounces. The law above cited was passed to remedy, in part, these con- ditions and make it. possible for the purchaser, if he reads the label, to know just how much food he is obtaining in any par- ticular package. For instance, he will know that the small box of cocoa containing one-fifth of a pound of cocoa and offered to him for ten cents is actually more expensive than one con- taining one-fourth of a pound and costing twelve cents. He will be informed just how much more of a flavoring extract he is getting in a twent3^-five cent bottle than in a ten cent bottle, and will learn that he is obtaining- more than 2.5 times as much of the same brand. He will learn that the dried fruits he buys, thinking they weigh a pound, usually weigh only 14 or 15 oz. at most, that the attractively cartoned crackers which look like a half-pound weigh only 6^ ounces, that the bottle of vinegar, cider, or whisky often sold as a quart, actually contains only one-fifth of a gallon. The consumer, however, must clearly understand the limits to the information afforded by a statement of net weight or measure. Many foods, like canned vegetables and fruits, are ajud must be packed with more or less water, which is either natural to the product or is directly added. The weight of a can of vegetables, therefore, gives no information either as to the quality of the vegetable or the relative amounts of solid and liquid contained in the can. One can may show a greater net weight than another and yet contain actually less of the vegetable or fruit in question. The statement of weight, therefore, conveys no further informa- tion than the amount of material, both solid and liquid, in the 6 CONNECTICUT EXPERIMENT STATION, BULLETIN NO. 1^2. can. The following table of some results of our tests illustrates the matter. Thus one of two brands of canned peas, both of which had about the same net contents, contained i6 ounces of drained peas, and the other only 10.9 ounces, or, in other words, a little more than one-quarter of the contents of one was water and almost one-half the contents of the other. Total Weight of Per Cent . , Net Drained Weight of Weight of ^Veight. Solids. Liquor. Liquor, oz. oz. oz. oz. Canned Peas 21.9 16.0 5.9 27.0 " " 21.7 10.9 10.8 49.7 String Beans 20.6 12.8 7.8 37.9 19.0 8.0 ii.o 57.9 Peaches 30.5 19.5 ii.o 36.1 32.2 16.8 15.4 47.8 Pears 30.8 20.6 10.2 33.1 •■•• 20.3 11.9 8.4 41.4 VARIATIONS IN WEIGHT OF FOODS PACKED AT THE SAME TIME BY TliE SAME MANUFACTURER. The method of procedure in collecting necessary data was as follows : Through the courtesy of their owners, the writer was given access to the warehouses of two leading wholesale grocers in New Haven and of one prominent retail grocer and oppor- tunity to open and examine any packages of food products. Cases of canned goods, containing- from one to three dozen cans, were opened and the gross weight of each individual can deter- mined in grams on an accurate balance. The lightest and heav- iest samples of each lot were bought by the dairy and food commissioner, numbered and sent to the laboratory, where the contents were removed and the can or container cleaned, dried and weighed. . In this way the net weights ' of the contents of the lightes* and heaviest packages of each food were obtained : likewise the weights of the empty containers, sliowing their variation in weight, if any. While of course it would have been preferable actually to determine tlie net weight of every package weighed, this was impracticable from the standpoint of time and expense, but it is believed that the data secured show with reasonable accuracy how uniformly any one manufacturer can and does pack his product as regards weight. In certain cases, for various reasons, less than twelve packages of a brand were ^SIGNIFICANCE OF CAN SIZE. 7 weighed, but such are exceptional. About 2,000 packages in all were weighed, representing 150 brands of about 75 kinds of foods. It was impossible to cover the whole field at this time, either as regards kind of food or size of package. For instance, with vegetables and fruits we limited ourselves to the sizes most commonly used, Nos. 2 and 3, and the data are quite complete for these particular sizes. The Avork here described is, of course, only a beginning of what needs to be done and is but a single contribution to it. The State law, however, calls for immediate action in the matter without waiting" for a complete survey of all the trade conditions and practice. The results given in this bulletin show what degree of uniformity in quantity is at present actually secured by packers of standard brands. It may be that greater uni- formity is practicable and desirable, but in any case as great accuracy as is now obtained without specific legal requirement by some, should be demanded of all. Significance of Can Size. Frequently consumers, and even dealers, are confused as to the meaning of No. i, No. 2, No. 3, etc., when applied to canned vegetables, fruits, etc. In the past when the consumer purchased a can of peas or corn marked 2, he believed he was getting two pounds of the vegetable, whereas in fact he received only 20 to 22 ounces. Tliis statement is confirmed by the fol- lowing extract from a letter recently received by the writer from a prominent can manufacturer : "The sizes designated as No. i, No. 2, No. 2^/2 and No. 3 were formerly known to the trade as l lb., 2 lb., 2^ lb. and 3 lb. However, these latter names were misleading for the reason that none of the sizes holds the weight which these terms would indicate, hence the change to the terms now in use." The writer inquired of two prominent can manufacturers as to the dimensions of the various sizes of standard cans, and the following is a summary of their statements. The cans are of two general classes, the hole and cap or soldered cans, and the "sanitary" cans in which no solder is used, except on the side seam. The dimensions of the two styles of can vary slightl}^, but the capacities of the respective sizes are the same. 8 CONNECTICUT EXPERIMENT STATION, BULLETIN NO. \'J2. Table I. — ^Dimensions of Standard Cans. Sanitary. Hole and Cap. Size. Height. Diameter. Height. Diameter, in. im. in. in. No. I 4 2y% 4 ^.W No. 2 4^ zYz 4i% ZV% No. 2^ 4-li 4 4^4 4 No. 3 4/8 4^ 4?^ 41^^ No. 3, 5 in. Jersey 5 4^4 5 414 No. 3, 5 >'3 in. Jersey 5H 4^ 5^ 4^ No. 10 7 6^ 6^ ^Ya All outside measurements. Weight of Cans. It is important to determine what degree of uniformity of weight the cans of the same make and size show, for if the weight of cans is nearly uniform the net weight of the con- tents may be determined with reasonable accuracy without open- ing the cans. The following table gives the data which we have obtained from our own weighings : Table TI. — Weight of Cans. Size. Height, in. 1 3^ — zY% — 4^ 2 aYa 2 "C" 41*5 "2 "C" 41% 2 sanitary 45^ 2 miscellaneous 41% "'2 " 4tk — AY2 2Y2 sanitary 4ii- 2,Y2 miscellaneous . . . 4^4 3 "C" 4% 3 miscellaneous 4% 3 sanitary 5 Number Weight of Cans. Diameter, in. Weighed. Lowest, oz. Highest. Avera; 02. 2Ya 2 2.1 2.1 2.1 3/2 3.6 3-9 3.8 2% 4 2.8 3-1 3-0 3^ 2 3.2 3.6 3-4 iY^ 16 3-3 4.0 <3.6 M 30 3-4 4.0 z.(> sYs 4 3.6 3-9 3.8 3Ys 24 3-4 3.8 2.6 3H 36 3-4 3-9 3.6 3Y2 2 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 2 4.8 4-9 4-9 4 6 4-3 5.1 4.8 4fff 4 4.6 5-4 5.1 4^s 8 4-7 5-3 50 aYa 2 S.6 5-7 5-7 Data obtained from examination of canned peas in 1909. VEGETABLES. 9 The limited number of No. i and odd sized cans weighed show great uniformity in weight. One set of cans marked No. 2, and containing imported red peppers, was slightly smaller than standard American No. 2 cans, and also weighed slightly less. One hundred and ten standard No. 2 cans ranged from 3.3 to 4.0 oz., average, 3.6 oz. ; forty-six of these cans, stamped "C," ranged from 3.3 to 4.0 oz., average, 3.6 oz. ; four stamped "sanitary" ranged from 3.6 to 3.9 oz., average, 3.8 oz. ; the remaining sixty of miscellaneous makes ranged from 3.4 to 3.9 oz., average, 3.6 oz. Ninety- one of the one hundred and ten No. 2 cans ranged between 3.5 and 3.8 oz., showing great uniformity, and indicating that an assumed weight of 3.6 oz. for this size of can is approximately correct. The eight No. 2^ cans ranged from 4.3 to 5.1 oz., average, 4.8 oz., showing a slightly greater vari- ation. The twelve No. 3 cans, 4% x 4^, ranged from 4.6 to 5.3 oz., average, 5.0 oz., while the two No. 3 cans, 5x4^, weighed 5.6 and 5.7 oz. From the above the following average weights may be assumed for standard cans of the sizes named: oz. No. 2 3.6 No. 214 4.8 No. 3 (4% X 4i^ff) 5-0 No. 3 (5x4^) ••• 5-7 Vegetables. Six hundred and twenty-three cans of vegetables were weighed, as shown in the following table: lO CONNECTICUT EXPERIMENT STATION, BULLETIN NO. 1 72. Table III. — Vegetables. Asparagus Asparagus Tips Artichokes Beans, Red Kidney " Ripe Lima " Standard String " String Fancy Refugee " Refugee " Yellow Wax Golden Wax Pork and Beans, A " " " B Beets, Cherry Corn, Sweet " Sweet Sugar ' ' Maine Fancy Mushrooms, Selected Choice " Pieces and Stems Peas, Sweet Wrinkled " Sifted Red Peppers Pumpkin, Golden, starch added Pumpkin, Golden, ist quality Spinach, Fancy quality Succotash, Green Lima, Fancy " 1st quality Tomatoes, Hand Packed, Fancy Tomatoes, Hand Packed " Maryland Special. . Solid " Peeled, Italian. . . . e> 24 24 12 24 24 24 12 24 24 24 24 18 12 24 24 24 24 12 12 24 .24 x8 12 12 12 12 24 23 24- Gross weight. • 7 42.5 37-7 38 23.0 23.2 21 38.9 37 36.3 iq.6 Weight of Can. 37-3 20.4 27.7 25.0 25.0 22.5 23.0 24.0 24.3 24-3 24.4 25.6 25-9 25.0 24.9 24.5 24-3 18.3 17.9 25.2 24.8 20.1 10.5 10. 1 43-2 38.6 39-1 25.1 25-1 42.8 38.2 38.5 24.6 24.4 24-8|23.3 42.0J40.3 38.1 37-4 38.5137-7 22.2121 .3 5.7 3-9 4.0 3.7 3.6 3-4 3.6 3-7 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-5 3-4 3-8 3-5 3-5 3-5 2.8 2.9 3-3 3-6 3-2 2.1 5.0 4.6 5.1 3-7 3.6 3.8 5.6 4-7 4.9 3.6 Net weight. 8 5.7 4.0 .1 4.1 •7 3-7 .8 3.7 5 3-5 6 3.6 .7 3.7 9 3.6 •7 3-5 .0 3.7 .6 3-5 ■7 3-5 .8 3-8 • 5 3-5 • 7 3-7 6 3.6 .1 2.9 .1 3-0 .5 3-5 •9 3.8 .b 3.5 .1 2.1 •3 5-2 .4 5.0 .1 5-1 .8 3.8 .6 3.6 .8 3-8 .7 5-7 ■9 4-7 .2 5-1 •9 3-8 30.7 16.0 22.3 20.7 20.7 18.6 18.5 19.9 20.5 20.5 20.6 21.8 22.0 20.3 21. 1 20.6 20.4 15.0 14.6 21.5 21.0 14.4 7.6 37.5 33-1 32.9 19-3 19.6 32.2 16.8 24.4 22.0 21.6 19-3 20.0 20. 8 20.8 21.0 20.8 22.5 22.8 21.6 21.8 20.9 20.9 15.7 15.2 21.9 21. 1 17.4 8.4 31.6 16.4 23.6 21.3 21.3 19.0 ^19.4 20.3 20.7 20.8 20.7 f22.I t22.4 21.2 21.4 20.8 20.7 1:15.4 14.9 21.7 21.0 II16.6 S 8.0 1.5 0.8 2.1 1-3 0.9 0.7 1-5 0,9 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.8 1.3 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.1 3-0 0.8 37.9 37.6! 0.4 33-2' 33-2 0.1 34.0: 33.4 I.I 21 .31 20.8' 2.0 21.6 20.8 2.0 17.8J21.0 19.5 3.2 33.2I36.4I 34.61 3.2 32. 3133. 2J 32.7: 0.9 3i-i!33-7i 32.6' 2.6 15.9l18.3i 17.5: 2.4 18 oz. or over. f 22 oz. .]: 15 oz. 15.5 oz. § 7 oz. claimed weights. Weights of Contents. Asparagus. 24 samples ranged from 30.7 to 32.2 oz., average, 31.6 oz., 21 of the samples weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Asparagus Tips. 24 samples ranged from 16.0 to 16.8 oz., average, 16.4 oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Artichokes. 12 samples ranged from 22.3 to 24.4 oz., average, 23.6, S weighing within 0.5 oz. and 10 within i oz. of the average. VEGETABLES. 1 1 Beans. 24 samples of red kidney beans ranged from 20.7 to 22.0 oz., average, 21.3 oz., 22 weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. 24 samples of lima beans ranged from 20.7 to 21.6 oz., average, 21.3 oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. 36 samples of string beans of two brands ranged from 18.5 to 20.0 oz., average, 19.1 oz., 34 weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. 48 samples of refugee beans of two brands ranged from 19.9 to 20.8 oz., average, 20.5, 47 weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average, 48 samples of wax beans of two brands ranged from 20.5 to 21.0 oz., average, 20.8 oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Pork and Beans. 30 samples of two brands ranged from 21.8 to 22.8 oz., average, 22.2 oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Cherry Beets. 24 samples ranged from 20.3 to 21.6 oz., average, 21.2 oz., 22 weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Corn. 72 samples of three brands ranged from 20.4 to 21.8 oz., average, 21.0 oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Mushrooms. 24 samples of two brands ranged from 14.6 to 15.7 oz., average, 15.2 oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Peas. 48 samples of two brands ranged from 21.0 to 21.9 oz., average, 21.4 oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Red Peppers. 18 samples in No. 2 cans ranged from 14.4 to 17.4 oz., average 16.6 oz., 9 weighing within 0.5 oz., and 16 within i oz. of the average. 12 samples in No. i cans ranged from 7.6 to 8.4 oz., average, 8.0 oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Puntp*kin. 12 samples, containiiig added starch, ranged from 37.5 to 37.9 oz., average, 37.6 oz. 12 other samples ranged from 33.1 to 33.2 oz., average, 33.2 oz. All 24 samples weighed within 0.5 oz. of the averages. Spinach. 12 samples ranged from 32.9 to 34.0 oz., average, 33.4 oz., 10 weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Succotash. 47 samples of two brands ranged from 19.3 to 21.6 oz., average, 20.8 oz., 39 weighing within 0.5 oz. and 45 within i oz. of the average. Tomatoes. 24 samples of "hand packed" in No. 2 cans ranged from 17.8 to 21.0 oz., average, 19.5 oz., 13 weighing within 0.5 oz. and 17 within I oz. of the average. 12 samples in No. 3 cans (4^x4^) ranged from 31. 1 to 22-7 oz., average, 32.6 oz., 10 weighing within 0.5 oz. and 11 within I oz. of the average. 12 samples in No. 3 cans (5x4^4) ranged from 22i-2 to 36.4 oz., average, 34.6 oz., 4 weighing within 0.5 oz. and 7 within I oz. of the average. 12 samples of "Maryland" tomatoes in No. 3 cans (4^x4>^) ranged from z^-^i to 33.2 oz., average, 32.7 oz., 11 weighing within 0.5 oz. and all within i oz. of the average. 12 samples of imported stock in odd-sized cans ranged from 15.9 to 18.3 oz., average, 17.5 oz., 7 weighing within 0.5 oz. and 11 within I oz. of the average. Summary. The uniformity in Aveight of the contents of indi- vidual cans of the same brand of vegetables, excepting artichokes, peppers, succotash and tomatoes, is very striking, and it appears 12 CONNECTICUT EXPERIMENT STATION, BULLETIN NO. I72. that, in general, the manufacturer at present packs a fairly uni- form amount of the vegetable in cans of the same size. Of the 354 samples of beans (various kinds), pork and beans, beets, corn, peas and peppers, in No. 2 cans, 347 weighed within 0.5 oz. of the respective averages. Pumpkin and spinach in No. 3 cans showed similar uniformity. On the other hand, artichokes, peppers (No. i cans), succotash, and "hand packed" or "solid" tomatoes showed wider variations, especially the tomatoes. The "Maryland" tomatoes, which are of inferior quality and contain more water and less pulp, show much greater uniformity in weight than the higher grade tomatoes. From the above data it would seem fair to make the following allowances of variation in quantity for canned vegetables : Suggested Allowances of Variations for Vegetables. Kind. Size. Asparagus -. 2>4 " Tips I Artichokes ? Beans, Kidney 2 " Lima 2 " String 2 " Refugee 2 " Wax 2 Pork and Beans 2 Beets 2 Corn ■ 2 Mushrooms - Peas 2 Peppers i ** o Pumpkin 3 Spinach 3 Succotash 2 Tomatoes 2 " high grade 3 " low grade 3 Fruits. One hundred and sixty-four cans of fruits were weighed as shown in the table. llowance. oz. Per cent. . 0.5 1.6 0.5 3-0 I.O 4.0 0.5 2.4 0.5 2.4 0.5 2.6 0.5 2.4 0.5 2.4 0.5 2.2 0.5 2.4 0.5 2.4 0.5 3-3 0.5 2.3 0.5 6.0 i.o 6.0 0.5 1-4 0.5 1-5 1.0 4.8 1.0 5.4 1.0 3-0 0.5 1-5 FRUITS. 13 Table IV. — Fruits. Gross weight. Weight of can. „. -. q "til oz. or. 4.8 4 9 3-4 3 5 23-9 23 9 4.8 5 I 4.8 4 9 4-7 5 I 3.8 3 9 4-3 4 9 4.0 4 3-6 3 8 Gross weight. Cherries, Extra Standard ... . " White, Extra Quality " Maraschino Peaches, Pie " Yellow Free " Sliced Lemon Cling. Pears, Extra Banlett Bartlett Pineapple, Hawaiian Plums, Extra Lombard 2 jar. 3 12 24 S 12 24 12 24 24 oz. 35-7 23.2 oz. 37.0 24.9 54.9i55.4 36.4J38.2 34-5j3b-i 35-036o 23.1 25.3 34.436-3 25.7 27.6 24.4I25.1 30.8 19.8 31.0 31-3 29.7 32.2 21.4 31.6 33-1 31 30.3 31 19.4 30.1 21.8 20.9 21.3 31-5 23.6 21.3 31-4 20.7 31-3 32.4 30.5 31.0 21.0 30.5 22.9 21 .1 1.4 1.6 0.6 1.8 1.6 I.I 1.9 1-4 1.8 0.4 * 30 oz. claimed weight. The variation in weight of the containers has ah"eady been discussed under vegetables. Weights of Contents. Cherries. 12 samples ranged from 30.8 to 32.2 oz., average, 31.4 oz., 9 weighing within 0.5 and all within i oz. of the average. 24 samples in No. 2 cans ranged from 19.8 to 21.4 oz., average, 20.7 oz., 20 weighing within 0.5 oz. and all within i oz. of the average. 8 samples of Maraschino cherries in glass jars ranged from 31.0 to 31.6 oz., average, 31.3 oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Peaches. 12 samples in No. 3 cans ranged from 31.3 to 33.1 oz., average, 32.4 oz., 9 weighing within 0.5 oz. and all within i oz. of the average. 24 samples in cans, 4^x4, ranged from 29.7 to 31.4 oz., average, 30.8 oz., 14 weighing within 0.5 oz. and all within i oz. of the average. Pears. 24 samples in No. 2 cans ranged from 19.4 to 21.3 oz., average, 21.0 oz., 23 weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. 12 samples in cans, 4^x4, ranged from 30.1 to 31. S oz., average, 30.5 oz., 9 weighing within 0.5 oz. and 11 within i oz. of the average. Pineapple. 24 samples in Nq. 2 cans ranged from 21.8 to 23.6 oz., average, 22.9 oz., 18 weighing within 0.5 oz. and 22 within i oz. of the average. Plums. 24 samples in No. 2 cans ranged from 20.9 to 21.3 oz., average, 21. 1 oz., all weighing within i oz. of the average. Summary. The uniformity in weight is not as great in pack- ages of fruit as in those of vegetables, but is reasonably satisfactory. On account of the larger size of the fruits a some- what larger allowance in weight should be made. The following allowances seem to be fair: 14 CONNECTICUT EXPERIMENT STATION, BULLETIN NO. I72. Suggested Allowances of Variation of Weight for Fruits. Kind. Size. Allowance. Per cent. Cherries 2 0.5 2.4 3 10 3.2 Peaches 3 i.o 3.2 Pears 2 0.5 2.4 3 i-o 3-3 Pineapple 2 i.o 4.4 Plums 2 0.5 2.4 Fish, Meats and Soup. One hundred and twenty cans of fish, nine brands, one hundred and two of meats, six brands, and forty-two of soups, three brands, were weighed. The cans were of varying shapes and sizes and the size has quite a different significance from that in the case of vegetables. Table V.— Fish, Meats and Soups. Clams, Underwood's Maine Crab, Extra Fanc}' Japan . . . Fish Flakes, Cod and Had- dock Herrings in Tomato Sauce. . . " Kippered Salmon, Alaska " Columbia river, fancy Shrimp, Barataria Bacon, Beech-Nut Sliced. . . Beef, " " " Corned Beef Chicken Boned, extra quality Potted Meat, Ham Flavor . . Tongue, Cooked Lunch . . . . Soup, Mock Turtle " Tomato " Puree of Tomato Tall I Large Large I 2 I ■ I Pint I % Pt. Gross weight. Weight of Can. Net wei ght. r. s be „. u! M , -J S) M s > < OZ. ►3 J3 > < 5 "5) 5 > oz. oz. oz. oz. OZ. oz. oz. oz. 18.7 19-5 19.2 2.8 3-1 3.0 I.S.6 16.4 16.2 18.419.2 18.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 14.9 16.3 16. 1 19.8 20.6 20.3 3-6 4.2 3-9 16.2 16.4 16.4 9.412.2 10.6 2.1 2.2 2.1 7.2 10. 1 8.5 22.9 24.6 23.8 5.4 5.7 5.5 17.6 18.8 18.3 22.4 23. 1 22.7 6.0 6.2 6.1 16.2 17. I 16.6 20.1 21. I 20.8 3-3 3.6 3o 16.9 17-5 17.3 i7.7|i9-3 18. b 3-3 3-3 3-3 14.4 15.9 15.3 lo.o 10.7 10.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 7.6 8.1 7-9 12.713.3 13.0 2.3 2.4 2.3 10.3 10.9 10.7 20.3 21. 5 21. 1 II. 4 II. 4 II. 4 8.9 10. 1 * 9-7 19. I 20.3 19.6 II. I II-5 II. 3 8.0 8.8 t-8.3 15-3 15.9 15-7 3.6 3.b 3.6 II. 7 12.3 tl2.I 28.830.3 29.7 5-5 5.5 5.5 23.4 24.8 24.2 16.0 17.3 ifa.8 3-2 3-2 3-2 12.8 14. 1 13.6 5.0 5.3 5 2 1.4 1.4 1-4 3-0 3-9 § 3-8 7.9 8.3 8.1 2.7 2.7 2.7 5.1 5.5 T5.4 16.2 17. I 16.8 4.2 4-3 4.2 II. 9 13.2 12.6 20.7 21.6 21. 1 3.« 3.8 3.8 16.9 17.7 17.3 13-614.3 13.8 2.3 2.4 2.3 11-3 II. 9 **ii.5 10.2 10.7 10.5 2.0 2.1 2.0 8.2 8.6 8.5 oz. 0.8 1-4 0.2 2.9 1.2 0.9 0.6 1-5 0.5 0.6 1 .2 0.6 1.4 1-3 0-3 0.4 1.3 0.8 0.6 0.4 9 oz. f 8 oz. :}:i2 0Z. §3.5 oz. ^[6.502. **io.5oz.; claimed weights. FISH, MEATS AND SOUPS. 1 5 Weights of Contents. Clams. 24 samples of two brands ranged from 14.9 to 16.4 oz., average, 16.2 oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Crab. 12 samples ranged from 16.2 to 16.4 oz., average, 16.4 oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Fish Flakes. 12 samples ranged from 7.2 to 10. i oz., average, 8.5 oz., 6 weighing within 0.5 oz. and 10 within i oz. of the average. Herring. 12 samples in tomato sauce ranged from 17.6 to 18.8 oz., average, 18.3 oz., 8 weighing within 0.5 oz. and all within i oz. of the average. 12 samples of kippered ranged from 16.2 to 17. i oz., average, 16.6 oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Salmon. 12 samples in No', i tall cans ranged from 16.9 to 17.5 oz., average, 17.3 oz., 11 weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. 12 samples in No. I fiat cans ranged from 14.4 to 15.9 oz., average, 15.3 oz., 10 weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. 12 samples in flat halves ranged from 7.6 to 8.1 oz., average, 7.9 oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Shrimp. 12 samples ranged from 10.3 to 10.9 oz., average, 10.7 oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Bacon. 12 samples ranged from 8.9 to lo.i oz., average 9.7 oz., 9 weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Sliced Beef. 12 samples ranged from 8.0 to 8.8 oz., average, 8.3 oz., 10 weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Corned Beef. 12 samples in No. i cans ranged from 11.7 to 12.3 oz., average, 12. i oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. 12 samples in No. 2 cans ranged from 23.4 to 24.8 oz., average, 24.2 oz., 9 weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Boned Chicken. 12 samples ranged from 12.8 to 14.1 oz., average, 13.6 oz., II weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Potted "Ham." 18 samples in % tins ranged from 3.6 to 3.9 oz., average, 3.8 oz., 12 samples in J4 tins ranged from 5.1 to 5.5 oz., average, 5.4 oz. All of the 30 samples weighed within 0.5 oz. of the average. Lunch Tongue. 12 samples in No. i tins ranged from 11.9 to 13.2 oz., average, 12.6 oz., 8 weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Soup. 12 samples in pint cans ranged from 16.9 to 17.7 oz., average, 17.3 oz. 18 samples in No. i cans ranged from 11. 3 to 11.9 oz., average, 1 1.5 oz. 12 samples in half-pint cans ranged from 8.2 to 8.6 oz., average, 8.5 oz. All of the 42 samples weighed within 0.5 oz. of the averages. With the exceptions of Fish Flakes, which showed much irregularity in packing, and of Herring, which naturally varied because of the size of the fish, these materials showed considerable uniformity in weight. The following allowances seem reasonable : l6 CONNECTICUT EXPERIMENT STATION, BULLETIN NO. 1^2. Suggested Allowances for Variation of Weight for Fish, Meats and Soups. Allowance. Kind. Size. oz. Per cent. Clams — 0.5 3.1 Crab — 0.5 3-0 Fish Flakes — 0.5 5.9 Herrings in Tomato — i.o 5.5 " Kippered — 0.5 3-0 Salmon Yi 0.5 6.3 " I 1.0 6.1 Shrimp ■ — 0.5 4.7 Bacon large 0.5 5.2 Sliced Beef " 0.5 6.0 Corned Beef i 0.5 4.1 " " 2 1.0 4.1 Boned Chicken i 0.5 2-7 Potted Ham 34 0.25 6.6 " 1/2 0.25 4.6 Lunch Tongue i 0.75 6.0 Soup Yi pint 0.25 2.9 pint 0.5 2.9 " I 0.5 4.3 Preserves, Jelly, Syrups, Molasses, Honey, Pickles, Ketchups and Condensed Milk. Two hundred and fifty-seven packages of these products were weighed. All of the tin cans and most of the glass bottles of the same size showed fairly uniform weights. The glass bottles and jars containing peanut butter, maple syrup and ketchup, however, showed wide weight variations, and therefore with these products their gross weight is not a safe indication of the uniformity of the pack. PRESERVES, JELLY, SYRUPS, ETC. 17 Table VI. — Preserves, Jelly, Syrups, Molasses, Honey, Pickles, Ketchups, and Condensed Milk. Peanut Butter Preserves, Pineapple. Plum " Raspberry. . " Strawberry Strawberries, Canned. , Jell)'^, Currant-Apple. , Maple S3aup, Choicest Fancy Sj'rup. Cane and Maple Molasses, New Orleans Karo Honey, Compound... Chili Sauce Chow Chow Pickles. . 03'Ster Cocktail Sauce Tomato Ketchup, Blue Label Sweet Gherkin Pickles Sweet Fancy Mixed Pickles. . Sweet Relish Pickles. Salad Dressing, Durkee Condensed Milk, Magnolia. . " " Van Camp's " " Skimmed. 32 3X 6 16 12 4 4 8 8 12 12 12 12 12 12 6 12 II 12 12 \2 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Gross weight. 15.3 23.1 22.6 6 22.9 14. 1 17.6 33.1 18.0 35-2 36.3 13-3 17.8 17.5 17.8 32.3 17.8 17.8 21.0 9.1 17.0 7-7 19.9 14.5 o I 9 22 6 5 5 5 7 8 7 7 8 o 5 I 8 o 9 7 9 6 5 14.8 22.6 22.5 22.2 22.2 13.8 17. 1 31.8 17.8 34.3 35-9 13.0 17.3 17-3 17.7 32.0 17-4 17.4 20.6 8.9 17.0 7.6 19.7 14.4 Wt. of cortainer. 6.8 8.7 8.9 2.2 0.9 11. 7-4 3-9 3-9 5.5 8.5 8.6 8.0 14. 1 8.7 9-3 9-5 5.1 2.2 1.5 2.8 2.0 8 6 7 8 8 8 9 8 8 9 8 2 4 2 7 7 7 15 b 13 8 3 7 3 9 3 4 3 5 7 5 8 5 8 8 7 8 8 8 15 2 14 8 7 8. 9 7 9 to 2 9 5 5 5 2 3 2. I i I. 2 9 2 2 I 2 Net weight. 6.7 13.2 13-3 13.2 12.7 II. 4 9.6 17-5 9.8 29.9 31-9 7.0 8.3 8.4 9-5 17.0 0.5 I .1 0.6 0.5 1-3 0.3 0.3 1.9 0.5 1-4 0.3 0.8 i.o 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.4 O. I 0.2 0.0 0.4 O. I Weights of Contents. Peanut Butter. 12 samples ranged from 6.7 to 7.2 oz., average, 7.1 oz., all weighing within i oz. of the average. Preserves. 24 samples of four varieties ranged from 12.7 to 14.3 oz., average, 13.6 oz., 22 weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Canned Strawberries. 12 samples ranged from 11. 4 to 11. 7 oz., average, II. 5 oz., all weighing within 0.5 of the average. Jelly. 12 samples ranged from 9.6 to 9.9 oz., average, 9.8 oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Maple Syrup. 12 samples ranged from 17.5 to 19.4 oz., average, 18.5 oz. These variations are- probably quite as much due to variations in the weight of the bottles as of the contents. Fancy Syrup. 12 samples ranged from 9.8 to 10.3 oz., average, lo.o oz.,. all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Molasses. 12 samples ranged from 29.9 to 31.3 oz., average, 30.4 oz.,, all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. 1 8 CONNECTICUT EXPERIMENT STATION, BULLETIN NO. I72. Kara. 12 samples ranged from 31.9 to 32.2, average, 32.0 oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Honey. 6 samples ranged from 7.0 to 7.8 oz., average, 7.4 oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Pickles, Relishes, Ketchups. 59 samples ranged from 7.6 to 9.8 oz,, average, 8.7 oz., all weighing within 0.5 of the average. 12 samples of ketchup ranged from 17.0 to 17.4 oz., average, 17.3 oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. 12 samples of sweet relish ranged from 10.4 to 10.8 oz., average, 10.7 oz., all but one weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Salad Dressing. 12 samples ranged from 3.5 to 3.6 oz., average, 2>-^ oz., all exceedingly uniform. Condensed Milk. 48 samples showed scarcelj^ any variation in weight in packages of the same brand, all weighing within 0.25 oz. of the respective averages. Suggested Allowances for Variation in Weight. Allowance. Material. Size. oz. Per cent. Peanut Butter — 0.5 7.0 Preserves — 0.5 Z-7 Jelly — 0.25 2.6 Maple Syrup ^f^m i-O , 54 Fancy Syrup — 0.5 5.0 Molasses 2 i.o 3.3 Karo 2 1.0 3.1 Honey — 0.5 6.8 Chili Sauce — 0.5 5.7 Chow Chow Pickles ^ — 0.5 5.8 Ketchup J^ 0.25 2.6 I 0.5 2.9 Sweet Pickles — 0.5 6.0 " Relish — 0.5 4.7 Salad Dressing — 0.25 7.0 Condensed Milk baby 0.25 4.1 " " family 0.25 1.8 " " tall 0.50 3.0 Crackers and Biscuits. Two hundred and thirty-five packages were weighed, repre- senting eig-ht manufacturers and twenty-seven brands. All but one of the samples from the National Biscuit Co. and two of the three samples from the Johnson Educator Food Co. guaranteed both the number of biscuits and their weight on the package. The deviations from guaranteed weight were exceedingly small, CRACKERS AND BISCUITS. 19 53U JO aSuB'jj ; 00 CO u^ O S d d d w 0> cnomt-^corJ-i-iT)-or^Ti-Moor^coOC>t^»nMcnt^ d d d d d M d w m w d d « d w d w w d d w d d •js3t)3jH •p3mre[D ■aSBJSAv o o CO c^ M CO ir)rt*OcOM O cnO iriO -^O r-^coiJ"! O^co m -^ r- o i-h O cnco-^cnirio incnOvOoo inoo ^00 '^co rncM cm r-~ o r^ CO O N O M r^cncOM tooo r^i'^co i-< ir>LOM o ^ coc\w O w ^cnvnrt-uTOO cooooovo wo u^o vnco xnca en C4 r^ r^ CO o O (N CO O r^fi MO inco ThOO O coi>-mco (N w i-i t^co r^c^cn •a3Bj3Av . m r^ c> O H M W O inCT'r^M OnOO^O w Ti-'*>-< coinco u~)tj-o Tj-r^Tt-r-- CO CO ci Tt o d w CO N Th w w CJ CO M u-> w i-i vd en cJ ci i-i :% ?! •JsaqSiji O 0^0 . tn Ti- h-, XT) . CO O ^ H CO m' ■ w m m" CO ■ in 1-1 1-1 o • ^^ ■ O ■ M CO ci • M 1-1 (N CO ■ in I-I I-I 'aSejSAy IN CO O M o CO Tf- O r^ m 1* O COO O c^^^vOO oco r^ooo co- C^ W CO'CO O CO •jsaqSjH ir, CO M c» oco 10 M CO O^ 0*0 O^ ' CM 'rj-oo Oco CM CM COO CooiTiincocoO CM •jsaAvcj t^ COvO CO o f^ '^ O O covc 1-1 cor^co co'^CM Mco CM coo r^oooo a\ i-r \0 r^ ■paqSiaiw jsquinjij •* O M CM vn mOr^cocOTtcooJcoi-< •pauiiEio jq3pA\ }3j4 Tj-\0 iTiWOvOco in lO i-i CO rl- .CL,i-> rtcy 6 en •- K ir;0 uJO .do z ^• tad :=: t4 s • rC K^ ^ -S • U3 !r; ' •- S3 3 2 2 o ^ «z o cm *: H Hm u o -= O '-1 03 CO Pi-( cAi +^ K* rt ij c J5 .be c ?>. S 2 CONNECTICUT EXPERIMENT STATION^ BULLETIN NO. 1 72. and in general the number of crackers present was accurately stated. Two hundred and eleven samples weighed within 0.5 oz. and all within i.o oz. of their respective averages. Suggested Allowances for Variation in Weight. Allowance. oz. Percent. 2 OZ. and less 0.125 6.3 Over 2 oz. and up to 4 oz 0.25 6.3 Over 4 oz. and up to 8 oz 0.25 3.1 Over 8 oz. and up to i lb 0.5 3.1 Table VIII. — Pastes, Prepared Flour, Breakfast Foods, Baking Powder and Miscellaneous. ■■ \'..--.j Alimentary Paste, JMezzani . . . . Macaroni, Medium Egg " Egg Elbow " Anger's Golden Seal Noodles, Fine Egg " Medium Egg Spaghetti, Egg Elbow " Italian St}-le Vermicelli, Superior White . . . . Flour, Self-Raising Prepared . . " Pancake Corn Flakes, Kellogg's " " Quaker *Oats, Rolled, Bufceco " Quaker Farina, Hecker's Cream- Baking Powder, Roj^al Cocoanut, Shred Mince Meat Crisco Ice Cream Powder, Jell-O. . Tr3'phosa Split Peas . u oz. t6 16 16 16 No. 2 24 32 22 32 8 4 4 8 7 16 Gross weight. 916.7 2;i6.8 7| 7-1 oj 9.7 4 10. 1 3'i6.8 5 25.1 9 16.6 1,25.0 9 33 9 12 3!i2 832 9 24.6 635.1 5 10.3 51 5-4 7 6 6 7 5-5 7.q 8 5 4 4 10 8 9 II 711 29 l'28 5 7 5 8 I 7 17 116 W'g't of Contain'r Net weight. ' 1 , ^ ho ^ i 1 > <; o h-1 X > < oz. oz. oz. oz. oz. oz. 0.9 0.9 0.9 15.6 16.8 16.2 1.6 1.6 1.6 13.4 16.3 15. 1 1.2 1.3 1.2 14.7 15-9 15-6 1.0 r . I 1.0 5.5 6.7 6.1 2.2 2.3 2.2 7.2 7.« 7.5 1.8 2.0 1.9 7.9 B.5 8.2 1-3 1-4 1.4 14.6 16.0 15-4 3-5 3.b 3-6 21.0 21.9 21.5 2.1 2.2 2.1 14.3 14.8 14-5 1 .2 1.2 1.2 23-7 23-9 23.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 31. « 32.1 31-9 2.6 2.8 2.6 B.7 II. I 10. 1 2.8 2.9 2.9 9.0 9-5 9.2 7.3 9.6 8.5 23-4 23.9 24.1 2.0 2.1 2.1 22.0 22.8 22.5 2.6 2.9 2.7 32.3 32.7 32.4 2.2 2.3 2.3 7.9 8.4 8.0 1-4 1.5 1.4 3.8 4.0 4.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 3.b 4-7 4.0 ' 0.9 1.0 0.9 7-9 9.8 8.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 10.9 II. 10.9 4-4 4.8 4.6 24 I 24.2 24.1 0.6 0.7 0.6 4.8 5.0 4.9 .0.7 0.7 0.7 6.6 7.4 7.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 15-9 16.4 16.0 I .2 2.9 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.6 1.4 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.3 2.4 0.5 5 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.2 I . I 1.9 o. I 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.5 * Each package contained glass-ware of varying size and weight. PASTE^ FLOUR^ BREAKFAST FOODS, ETC. 21 Macaroni, s^ one pound packages of three brands ranged from 13.4 to 16.8 oz., average, 15.6, two brands showing a decided tendency towards short weight; 28 weighed within 0.5 oz. and 34 within i.o oz. of the averages. 12 samples of smaller size ranged from 5.5 to 6.7 oz., average, 6.1 oz., II weighing Avithin 0.5 of the average. Noodles. 24 samples of two brands ranged from 7.2 to 8.5 oz., average, 7.9 oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Spaghetti. 12 one pound samples ranged from 14.6 to 16.0 oz., average, 15.4 oz., II weighing within o.S oz. of the average, but with a tendency toward short weight. 36 samples of cooked spaghetti in No. 2 cans ranged from 21.0 to 21.9 oz., average, 21.5 oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Vermicelli. 12 samples ranged from 14.3 to 14.8 oz., average, 14.5 oz., all weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. Prepared Flour. 24 samples of two brands showed very slight varia- tions in weight, all weighing within 0.25 oz. of the average. Breakfast Foods. 12 samples of one brand of corn flakes showed considerable variation, ranging from 8.7 to 11. i oz., average lo.i oz., 9, however, weighing within 0.5 of the average. 12 samples of another brand of corn flakes all weighed within 0.25 oz. of the average. 24 samples of two brands of rolled oats ranged from 22.0 to 23.9 oz., average, 22,.Z oz. The wide variations in gross weight of one brand were due to the varying kinds of glass ware packed with it. 12 samples of farina weighed within 0.25 oz. of the average. Baking Powder. 24 samples of two sizes all weighed within 0.25 oz. of the respective averages. Shred Cocoanut. 12 samples, 4 oz. size, ranged from 2-^ to 4.7 oz., average, 4.0 oz., 11 weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. 12 samples, 8 oz. size, ranged from 7.9 to 9.8 oz., average, 8.7 oz., 5 weighing within 0.5 oz. and 11 within i.o oz. of the average. Mince Meat. 12 samples were practically identical in net weight. Crisco. 12 samples showed almost identical weights, averaging 24.1 oz., with a range of o.i oz. Ice Cream Powder. 12 samples showed a variation of only 0.2 oz. Tryphosa. 12 samples ranged from 6.6 to 7.4 oz., average, 7.2 oz., 11 weighing within 0.5 oz. of the average. SpUt Peas. 12 samples showed a variation of less than 0.25 oz. Olives. 48 samples of varying sizes and grades were weighed. 12 samples of Mammoth Queen showed a net weight from 18.0 to 18.4 oz., average, 18.1 oz. ; these contained from 31 to 32 olives, weighing 10.4 oz. 12 samples of Selected Queen weighed from 17.8 to 18.1 oz., average, 17.6 oz. ; these contained 47 olives, weighing 10.6 oz. 12 samples of Selected Queen, smaller bottle, weighed from 9.8 to 10.4 oz., average, lo.i oz. ; these con- tained 18 olives, weighing 5.1 oz. 12 samples of Stuffed Olives weighed from 4.8 to 5.1 oz., average, 4.9 oz. ; these contained from 20 to 26 olives, weighing 2.4 oz. 2 2 CONNECTICUT EXPERIMENT STATION, BULLETIN NO. 1/2. Suggested Allowances for Variation Material. Size. Macaroni ; i lb. i/^ lb. Noodles J^ lb. Spaghetti, dry lib. " cooked No. 2 Prepared Flour i^ lbs. " " 2 lbs. Corn Flakes standard Rolled Oats small Farina 2 lbs. Baking Powder ■ /4 lb. ^ lb. Shred Cocoanut ^4 lb. V2 lb. Mince Meat — Crisco iVo lbs. Ice Cream Powder — Tryphosa — Split Peas i lb. Olives, Mammoth large " Selected large small " Stuffed small * Or 2 olives. IN WeIG HT. Allowance. oz. Per cent I.O 6.3 0.5 6.3 0.5 6.3 1.0 6.3 0.5 2.3 0.25 1.0 0.2s 0.8 0.5 5-2 0.5 2.2 0.5 1-5 0.125 3-1 0.25 3-1 0.5 12.5 I.O 12.5 0.25 . 2.3 0.25 .1.0 0.25 5.1 0.5 7.0 0.5 3-1 0.5* 2.8 0.5* 2.8 0.5* 5.0 0.25* 5-1 Table IX. — Dried Fruits. *Apples.. . f Currants, f Dates . . . f Prunes . . ^Raisins . . Gross weight. Weight of Container. 1.2 0.8 15.2 16.0 15.6 14.7 I5.7I15.4 13.3 iS.iJH.o I.I I2.9|i4.i 13.5, 1. 1 i5.6|i6.o|i5.8 0.7 1.3 o.S 1.2 1. 1 0.7 oz. 1-3 0.8 1. 1 I.I 0.7 14.0 13-9 12.2 II. 9 14.7 14.9 13.9 I3-0 14.9115.2 14-3 14.6 12.9 12.4 15. 1 0.7 I.O 1.7 I.I 0.3 In stock one week. f In stock four weeks. % In stock three weeks. dried fruits. 23 Dried Fruits. Sixty packages of five kinds of dried fruits were weighed. The apples, currants and raisins showed only small variations, 35 of the 36 samples weighing within 0.5 oz. of the averages. With the dates and prunes somewhat larger variations were found, yet 19 of the 24 samples weighed within 0.5 oz. of the averages. For the allowances suggested for dried fruits and a study of the losses in weight they sustain on keeping, see page 26. Accuracy of Claimed Weight. A definite weight was claimed on 594 of the packages exam- ined. Data on this subject are given in the following table. Five hundred and seventeen of the samples either exceed the claimed weight or are deficient by less than 0.25 oz. Of the yy deficient samples the deficiency in 20 samples appears to be exceptional, 102 other samples of the same brands fully satis- fying their claims. The remaining 57 samples, however, have a general tendency towards short weight. The larger size potted ham (6^ oz.), two brands of domestic macaroni, spa- ghetti, one brand of crackers (12 oz.) and corn flakes are the chief offenders. The table shows that manufacturers have little difficulty in satisfying the weights they claim for their products, and the tables on preceding pages show that nearly all the products exam- ined are packed with reasonably uniform weight. In addition to the samples already enumerated, a considerable number have been accurately weighed or measured during the past few years to determine the conformity of the actual weight or measure with that claimed. The results obtained with 478 of these samples are given in the following table. Most of the materials show quite satisfactory agreement of claimed and actual weight. Flavoring extracts and meat extracts showed a slight tendency towards short weight; this was very marked with two samples of gelatin, where less than half of the claimed weight was furnished, and to a less degree with beef, wine and iron, which is very commonly sold short measure. 24 CONNECTICUT EXPERIMENT STATION, BULLETIN NO. I72. < o < U O X pa <■ H "5° d ~' TJ £ to ° •oSSo OOOOOc'^COOOOi-iOOi-iOwO'OOOO CJ (J t/i O . ^ lU u rt " U l_ O "> f^ ''^ - rt rt (J X s o O ipo££ . . o _ s s Cu O O d _; Uh IJH -0 C3 rt o. y cuDh ACTUAL AND CLAIMED WEIGHT OR VOLUME. 25 o G w Pi < p^ o O hJ <; m < be M o^ en 1— i ^ C> " M in >- ^ l~~ in M « « a^ w hH HI •* w i-H cn H N Cl ^CO 1- r^ in > cn ■a c 3 < ^ >2 u ■^ -^O 00 N in N cn Tj-o cn CO cn CJ in "o "to OOP) l-H M Tj- H (N ■* w N in o^ cn CO •^ cn rH > s CO r^ 00 OO^inoo^r^ nr^Min n cn S in 1-1 M •* « cn d « M cn r-- VO HI hH cn HI ^ II ^iO f M N ^ M -^ W M (N ■ri-co CO ri hH cn '-' >u — 2 — vC ^ M !N Nt-inOOm riMOTt Z ffl C4 M cn M ^ d cn CO »! C (J , _; n ^ - "a a S l--fi. T3 rt i: : : x 03 >^ « >< W C W c ^i fe 5. ^. (U n :; Vani Other (U - - - .,- c 5§ * * m V CO hu . <^ M cn ci w 1-' Tf in in o^ ^ s in Tj-co cn ":l-co M ri f) Ti- " C] -0 HI > Hi i-t i-H rs <; 3 ^ ■— S . '^ M M3 cn • • ■ cn • in o^ o^co ji; - en ^00 cn '^ c^ • ■ ■ Ti- • M " .y KH rH HI ^ ^ i M OD w M cn • • ■ • ^ r-- ©SCO t c tn en CO cn Tt r^ • ■ • cn • ^ -'0 ^ tn Q. IN ►- u- 1 cn in cn w w 1- Hi M H CJ cn M " ° £ HI l-H 2:« C/} rt ^ '^ 77^ - ^ rt S' " T3 cj lU (U H 1 =1 r-^ COCO IT) ■.* ^'^i vOr^Tj-cocDcovo-^. | r^ " ocot-OOO^Oi-iOOi-i ^0 ir> rt- 01 1 . * a, MMMMMMI-ICIW-H HH .- ' ° c • M • CO • • M • CC HI M CO 00 1- OcOCO-s^OMOOMCOvi; r^co in CO CO vC r-^iol-^r^^vnoo inu- It-'* ^+0 vO ft^ ■a a ■3 ° r~ CO ri- -rj- coco h CO M 00 cr'S -^ \risO w o»oo r^co rhco CO r^ r- J ° >H 1— 1 M Cu Sg OM-^j-Ol-iOOCOCOwy: N Ti-co Th ^'S O^^p^u^"^co^^^^cl<^ll- r^vD CO CO « OMI-ll-l^^ MMMl- * a, ^ ^ MW •MflC^NC^C^IMM a • -MM ■ 55 1 X 1 s 1 -H s 2 w^ to 0^ c ^ C-O ^ OJ T3 re (U .5 ^• ^ be X >- ii en -t: u C 5? ~ . C f- ■a.5 3 7i 1 0: n t cj " .E 6 2 ^^ C«C« £ • .a in 2-^- « a -s rt ^ rt - 1 tn )-,(u------- < < Jp: 5 ff r^ a 2 8 CONNECTICUT EXPERIMENT STATION, BULLETIN NO. 1 72. a series of packages will show relatively uniform weights at the start. To determine the„ shrinkage of various dried fruits under trade conditions a series of experiments was carried out of a two-fold nature. The first set of tests was made wath packages of currants, raisins and prunes, known to be fresh stock and purchased very soon after coming into the hands of the wholesaler. These were weighed immediately on their receipt in the laboratory, and again at intervals of one, two, three, four and six months, being kept all the time in a closet with a front of wire netting and exposed to slight air currents, but no direct draught, at a temperature ranging from 55° to 75° F. This is believed to approximate quite accurately the usual store conditions. The second set of tests was made with a much larger number of packages of apples, apricots, currants, dates, figs, prunes and raisins bought in the open market, but with no knowledge as to the age of the samples, although presumably they represented the current season's pack. These were weighed on receipt and again at the time of analysis. In the meantime they were kept in a closet with solid front, although it was open more or less every day. The temperature was not recorded, but probably ranged from 50° to 70° F., averaging about five degrees less than in the first series. The intervals between the two weighings ranged from 63 to 150 days. Fruits from Fresh Stock. While no weight was claimed for any of these samples, they were presumably sold for one pound packages. The seventeen samples ranged from 15.2 to 16.3 oz., gross, and from 14.1 to 15.4 oz., net weight. Only four packages w^eighed one .pound, gross weight, and none of them one pound, net. There was, therefore, apparently a shortage in weight in most of the samples at the start. Currants. Eight samples, four each of two brands, were tested. The samples of each brand showed a satisfactory uniformity in weight. Start- ing with an average net weight of 14.9 oz., one brand lost 0.3, i.3> i-3, i-2 and 1.4 oz., respectively, after i, 2, 3, 4 and 6 months, or a percentage loss of 2.7, 8.7, 8.7, 8.5 and 9.4, respectively. The other brand of currants, starting with an average net weight of 14.8 oz., lost 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.0 and 2.2 oz. for the same respective periods, or percentage losses of 9.5, 14.2, 14.9, 13.5 and 14.9 respectively. CHANGES IN WEIGHT OF DRIED FRUITS. 29 Table XIII. — Changes in Weight of Dried Fruits. From fresh stock. Currants, Butter-Nut. A veras:e Currants, Chariot. Ai'erao-e. 5a Raisins, Butter-Nut... 5b 5c^ Average. 6a Raisins, Ideal. 6b " " . 6C: " " . i A verap-e 7ai Prunes, Gold Medal. yb! 7c| A verap-e oz. I5-S I5-0 15.3I14.6 i5-7|i5.o i5-5|i4- 1^.6 i4.g 15.8:14.8 I5.8;i4.8 15.8114.8 15.9I14.0 i5.8\i4.8 16.3 15.6 16.3 15.6 15-3 14-5 76.0 1^.2 16.2 15-4 16.0 15-2 15-3 14-5 15-8 15-0 15.6 14-5 15-2 14. 1 15.6 14-5 15-5 14.4 Net weight after Per cent. loss after O O I O I J ^1 I 14. 61 . . J14.1I13.7 I3.5i2.7: 13.4113.3 .. 13.3;... 14.6 13.6 13.813.6 .6 13.5 13- i.6: i.5l . . 6.0, 8.2 8.9' 8.0 9.3! 8.1 8.8 13 -7' 13 -5 2. 7\ 8.7 8.7 8 4 . . 12.9 I2.8|I2.8 12.7 12.5' . . iI2.5 .. 'I2.8iI2.5 .. 112. 5 . . :i2.6[i2. 5I . . I12.5 ij .4 i2.7\i2 .6 12.8 12.6 14.6 14.3 14.6 ii3.3 14.2 14.5 14-3 12.9 13.8 14.4 I4.4ji4.3 13.7 13-6 'i4.2\i4.i 10.6 10.4 10.7 10.3 10.2 10.3 TO. 6 10.3 14. 1 14. 1 12.7 14.4 14.3 13.6 14. J 10.2 10. 1 10.2 10.2 9.5 .. I2.S|I3 . ..|I4.2 15.5 ...13.5,15.5 . . .|i5.4'i6.i g.S 14.2 14-9 13 5.8 5.3 5-5 5-3 8.3 8.3! 11 .0! g.2 6.5I 5.9 6.2 6.o\ 26.g'29.o| 26.2|27.7i 26.2 29.0! 26.428.3 9.9 8.9 9-3 8.8 9-4 13-5 15.5 15.5 16. 1 5 14-9 9.6 : 9-6 12.4 10.3 \ 6.5 ; 5.9 6.2 \ 6.0 29.7 128.4 129.7 \2g.2 All in pasteboard cartons and paraffined paper, except 6a, 6b, 6c, with which no paper was used. Raisins. Six samples, three each of two brands, were tested. One sample showed i.i oz. less net weight than the other two of the same brand. One brand of an average net weight of 15.2 oz. lost i.o, 1.4 and 1.6 oz., respectively, after 2, 3 and 6 months, or percentage losses of 6.6, 9.2 and 10.5, respectively. The other brand, which unlike all the other samples, was not wrapped in paraffined paper inside the carton, with an average net weight of 15.0 oz., lost 0.8, 0.9 and 0.9 oz., respectively, after 2, 3 and 6 months, or percentage losses of 5.3, 6.0 and 6.0, respectively. Prunes. Three samples of one brand with an average net weight of 14.4 oz. lost 3.8, 4.1 and 4.2 oz., after 2, 3 and 6 months, or percentage losses of 26.4, 28.5 and 29.2, respectively. so CONNECTICUT EXPERIMENT STATION, BULLETIN NO. I72. Summary. All of the samples practically ceased to lose moisture after three months, and the loss between the second and third months was in general very slight. In three months' time one sample of currants lost 8.7 per cent., the other, 14.9 per cent. ; one sample of raisins, 9.2 per cent., the other, 6.0 per cent. ; the sample of prunes, 28.5 per cent. Fruits from Stock of Unknoivn Age. Ninety-five samples were tested, including- 12 brands of apples, 2 of apricots, 18 of currants, 8 of dates, 21 of figs, 2 of prunes and 32 of raisins. The intervals between the two weighings ranged from 63 to 150 days, but since, as has already been shown in the other series, dried fruits lose but little less after two months than after three, or even six, months, all the samples may be considered to have sustained their maximum loss under normal trade conditions, and are therefore fairly comparable. Apples. All of the samples came in cartons, nine with the fruit wrapped in paraffined paper, and three without paper. The use of the paper apparently had little effect in preventing drying. The original net weights ranged from ii.o to 15.3 oz., average, 13.4 oz. ; after from two to three months the losses ranged from 0.4 to 3.0 oz., average, 1.6 oz., showing percentage losses from 3.5 to 22.3, average, 11.9 per cent. Four samples lost from 0.4 to l.o oz., four from 1.2 to 2.0 oz., and four over 2.0 oz. Two samples claimed a net weight of one pound when packed ; these weighed 15.3 and 14.0 oz. when received by us, the latter showing a marked short-weight. Apricots. Both of the samples came in cartons with the fruit wrapped in paraffined paper. The original net weights were 13.9 and 15.1 oz., average, 14.5 oz. ; after from two to two and one-half months they lost 1.2 and 1.5 oz., average, 1.3 oz., or percentage losses of 8.6 and lo.o, average, 9.3 per cent. Currants. All of the samples came in cartons with the fruit wrapped in paraffined' paper. The original net weights ranged from ii.o to 16.2 oz., average, 14.4 oz. ; after from two to three months the losses ranged from 0.2 to 1.3 oz., average, 0.9 oz., or percentage losses from 1.4 to 10.8, average, 6.2 per cent. One sample claimed one pound weight, and it weighed 16.2 at time of purchase. Dates. All the samples came in paraffine paper in cartons, except two which were wrapped in several thicknesses of paper. The original net weights ranged from 9.2 to 16.1 oz., average, 11.9 oz. ; after six months the losses ranged from 0.4 to 1.9 oz., average, i.o oz., or percentage losses from 2.5 to 20.7, average, 8.4 per cent. The greatest loss, 20.7, was exceptional and was probably due to the fact that the dates were in a CHANGES IN WEIGHT OF DRIED FRUITS. Table XIV. — Changes in Weight of Dried Fruits. From stock of unknown age. c Net weight. s It Fruit. H c c otS ISt. 2d. ■"■ 11 q J o (1. oz. oz. oz. APPLES. In carton and paraffined paper 91 79 13-4 13-4 10 . 6 2.8 20.9 15-5 II. 4 2.0 76 12.6 II. 2 1-4 11. 1 75 13-3 10.3 3-0 22.3 71 14-5 13-7 0.8 5.8 71 13-9 13.0 0.9 6.1 70 *I5.3 13.2 2. 1 14.0 68 12.6 II. 9 0.7 5.6 64 13.7 12.4 1-3 9.6 Average ... 74 13.6 12.0 1.6 12.3 In carton ; no paper 8^ "14.0 II .0 12.8 1 . 2 8.2 71 10.6 0.4 3.5 71 13.6 II. I 2.5 18.6 Average .... 76 12.9 II.5 1.4 lo.S APRICOTS. In carton and paraffined paper "6 15-1 13-9 13.6 12.7 1.5 1.2 10. 8.6 64 Average. . 70 14-5 13-2 1.3 9-3 CURRANTS. In carton and paraffined paper 87 15-1 T /I P 0.6 3-9 i4 D 87 14.4 13 3 1. 1 7.6 87 I5-0 14 7 0.3 2.0 • 86 16.0 14 7 1-3 8.1 86 14.9 14 4 0.5 3-4 . . 85 14.4 12 9 1-5 10.4 85 II. 10 4 0.6 5.5 84 15-5 14 6 O.Q 5.8 80 14-3 13 5 0.8 5.6 77 15.7 14 5 1.2 7 . 7 76 15-2 13 9 1.3 8.6 72 14-5 13 4 I.I 7. -6 72 15.3 14 I 1.2 7.8 71 II. 4 10 3 I.I 9.6 70 14.4 14 2 0.2 1-4 70 14.6 14 4 0.2 1.4 69 fl6.2 15 1.2 7-4 65 II .1 9 9 1.2 lo.S Average. . . . 78 14.4 13 5 0.9 6.2 * Claimed i lb. net when packed, f Claimed i lb. 32 CONNECTICUT EXPERIMENT STATION, BULLETIN NO. I72. Table XIV. — Changes in Weight of Dried Fruits — Confd. From stock of unknown age. B Net weight. 1 ^ u * M « ^Si _o V, = ^ Fruit. .s c M ibt. 2d. Q (£ DATES. oz. oz. In carton and paraffined paper 144 13-3 12.5 0.8 6.0 144 * 1-6.1 15.7 0.4 2.5 143 II. 5 10.8 0.7 6.1 143 12.0 II. 2 o.S 6.7 142 10. 1 9-3 0.8 7.9 135 X 9-2 7-3 1.9 20.7 134 10.4 9-4 I.O 9.6 133 §12.5 10.8 1-7 13.6 Average .... 140 II.9 10.9 1.0 8.4 FIGS. In wooden boxes 88 4. 7 4-4 5-0 0-3 6.4 86 5.6 0.6 10.7 85 I3-I II. 8 1-3 9-9 81 5-5 5-0 0.5 9,1 81 14.6 13.8 0.8 5-5 79 II. 9 10.5 1-4 11. 8 79 5.8 5-1 0.7 12. 1 77 5.5 ■ 5.0 0.5 9.1 73 4.9 4.0 0.9 18.4 Average .... 81 8.0 7.2 0.8 lO.O In wicker baskets 86 II. 7 II. 0.7 6.0 81 13.2 12. 1 I.I 8.4 79^ 14.7 13-4 1-3 8.8 78 1'i4.3 12.9 1-4 9.8 .77 **I3.8 12.2 1.6 II. 6 72 9.9 8.9 1.0 10. 1 71 10.6 9-7 0.9 8.5 70 13.0 12.0 I.O' 7-7 60 12.0 II. 2 0.8 6.7 Average .... 76 12.6 ii-S I.I 8.7 In p£^i*glffined paper 79 78 3.5 3-0 0.5 14-3 9.2 8.1 I.I 12.0 77 10.9 9-7 1.2 II. Average .... 78 7-9 6.7 I.O 12.7 PRUNES. In carton and paraffined paper 150 13-5 II-3 2.2 16.3 133 15-4 I3-I 2.3 14.9 Average .... 142 14-5 12.2 2.3 15-9 * Claimed i lb. net when packed. X In pasteboard box with loose cover. § Claimed 12 oz. net when packed. ^ Claimed i lb. net. ** Claimed 13^^ oz. net when packed. CHANGES IN WEIGHT OF DRIED FRUITS. 33 Table XIV.— Changes in Weight of Dried Fruits— CWr/'^/. From stock of unknown age. RAISINS. In carton and paraffined paper In carton ; no paper Average . Average . 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 83 82 78 76 75 74 74 74 74 70 70 70 68 67 67 63 63 77 83 75 67 63 72 Net weight. oz. oz. 15.5 14. g 15.7, 15.3: 15.9, 14-31 16.0 ^5-3 14.2 fflS.Q 10.6 tti5.5 16.3 15.8^ 13. 7l 16.6 15. 7J 15. 4I II. 4J 16.0 14-5 16.0 16. 1 16.3 14-7 fi4.6 14-9: 15.5' I5-I I5-4| 15. 4I 15-5^ 13-91 15.1! 15.0 14.4 15-5 15.0 15-5 13.4 15.7 14-5 13-7 15.0 9.2 15. 1 15.7 15.3 13-2 15.8 15.0 14.7 II. I 15.6 14.0 15.2 15-2 15.6 14-5 14.4 14. 1 14.8 14.5 14.6 15.0 14.9 12.5 14-3 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.3 o.S 0.5 0.9 1-4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 o.S 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.4] 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.2 o.S 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.6 1-4 0.8 2 .0 2 • 5 6 • 3 I •9 5 .2 3 •5 5 •7 13 2 2 6 3 7 3 2 3 6 4 8 4 5 4 5 2 b 2 5 3 4 5 5 6 4 3 I 4 I 4 5 4 4 5 4- 5 2 2 6 3 9 10. I 5-3 H Claimed i lb. gross when packed. |:j: Claimed 15-16 oz. gross when packed. f Claimed i lb. 34 CONNECTICUT EXPERIMENT STATION, BULLETIN NO. I72. pasteboard box with a loose-fitting cover. Omitting this sample the average loss was only 7.3 per cent. Figs. Nine of the samples were in wooden boxes, nine in wicker baskets, with paper between the layers of fruit, and three simply wrapped in paraffined paper. The original net weights of the boxed samples ranged from 4.7 to 14.6 oz., average, 8 oz. ; after from two and one-half to three months the losses ranged from 0.3 to 1.3 oz., average, 0.8 oz., or percentage losses from 5.5 to 18.4, average, lo.o per cent. The original net weights of the basket samples ranged from 9.9 to 14.7 oz., average, 12.6 oz. ; after from two to three months the losses ranged from 0.7 to 1.6 oz., average, i.i oz., or percentage losses from 6.0 to 11.6, average, 8.7 per cent. The original net weights of the samples in paper ranged from 3.5 to 10.9 oz., average, 7.9 oz. ; after two and one-half months the losses ranged from 0.5 to 1.2 oz., average, i.o oz., or percentage losses from ii.o to 4.3, average, 12.7 per cent. The average percentage losses were least in the basket samples and greatest in those wrapped in paper. The average loss in the 21 samples regardless of method of packing was lo.o per cent. Prunes. The two samples came in paraffined paper in cartons. Their original net weights were 13.5 and 15.4 oz., average, 14.5 oz. ; after six months the losses were 2.2 and 2.3 oz., average, 2.3 oz., or 16.3 and 14.9, average, 15.9 per cent. These losses were but little, more than half those found in the first series; one sample of the same brand as that used in the first series showed 0.9 oz. less net weight at the time of purchase, indicating that possibly it had been somewhat longer in stock. Assuming an original net weight of 14.4 oz., as in the first series, the loss would have been 3.1 oz., or 21.5 per cent. Raisins. Twenty-eight samples came in cartons with paraffined paper, and four in cartons without paper. The original net weights of the former ranged from 10.6 to 16.3 oz., average, 15,1 oz. ; after from two to three months the losses ranged from 0.2 to 1.4 oz., average, 0.6 oz., or from 1.3 to 13.2, average, 4.0 per cent. The original net weights of samples without paper ranged from 13.9 to 15.4 oz., average, 15. i oz.; after from two to three months the losses ranged from 0.4 to 1.4 oz., average, 0.8 oz., or from 2.6 to lo.i, average, 5.3 per cent. The average loss on the whole thirty-two samples was 3.9 per cent. One sample claimed i lb. gross when packed, another 15-16 oz. gross when packed, and a third i lb. The first weighed, when received, 16.6 oz. gross and 15.9 oz. net, the second 16.1 oz. gross and 15.5 oz. net, and the third 15.6 oz. gross and 14.6 oz. net. Summary. On the average apples showed a loss of 11.9 per cent. ; apricots, 9.3 per cent. ; currants, 6.2 per cent. ; dates, y.T, per cent.; figs, lo.o per cent.; prunes, 15.9 per cent.; and raisins, 3.9 per cent. The losses were about half of those shown in the first series, namely, currants, 11.8 per cent.; prunes, 28.5 SUMMARY. 35 per cent. ; and raisins, 7.6 per cent. The differences are possibly due in part to different storage conditions and in part to the fact that the samples of the second series had probably been in stock some time before their purchase and had dried out partially. With the above data in mind, showing that dried fruits natur- ally shrink from 4 to 28 per cent., depending upon the kind of fruit, it is not reasonable to expect that a manufacturer can so label his package as to net weight as to cover all natural conditions liable to occur between the time it is packed and when the consumer buys it. On the other hand, the packer can control the weight of the fruit at time of packing. It seems reasonable and just, therefore, to require the packer to state on the label the net weight of the fruit when packed. University of Connecticut Libraries 39153029221209